Agenda packet — Gardena City Council, August 22, 2023 (part 2 of 3)

Report No. P-2023-13

1 TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: PERSONNEL REPORT

1. Report the Promotion of the following individuals:
a. MICHIHIKO NAKAI to the position of Police Records Technician I, Schedule 38, ($4,270 - $5,450/month), with the Police Department, effective July 23, 2023. b. GABRIEL JIMENEZ to the position of Code Enforcement Supervisor, Schedule 58, ($6,999 - $8,932/month), with the Community Development Depart ment, effective July 24, 2023.
c. RENE LOPEZ to the position of Police Ser geant, Sc hedule 203, ($10,094 - $12,883/month), with the Police Department, effective August 3, 2023. d. MARVIN POZ to the position of Lead Mechanic, Schedule 51, ($5,887 - $7,514/month) in the Public Works Department, effective August 7, 2023. e. CRYSTAL CONTRE RAS to the position of Customer Service Clerk I, Schedule 29, ($3,419 - $4,365/month) in the City Clerk’s Office, effective August 14, 2023.

2. Report the Separation of DAMIAN COLE, Police Officer with the Police Department, effective August 9, 2023. Mr. Cole provided 10 months of service to the City.

3. Report the end of Full Time Appointment for ELFEGA RODRIGUEZ , Family Child Care Program Assistant II, of the Recreation and Human Services Department , effective August 8, 2023. Ms. Rodriguez has provided the City with 5.25 years of full time service to the City.

4. Report the medical leave of the following individuals:
a. Police Officer, MICHAEL NGUYEN, of the Police Department, effective May 21, 2023. b. Police Officer, MATTHEW PECH, of the Police Department, effective July 5, 2023. c. Administrative Coordinator, MELYSSA HUTAURUK, of the Transpo rtation Department, effective August 4, 2023.

5. Report the Recruitment for the Open/Competitive position of Geriatric Aide (Recreation and Human Services Department). This recruitment is open until filled.

6. Report the Recruitment for the Open/Competitive position of On-Demand (Micro/Paratransit) Operator (Transportation Department). This recruitment is scheduled to close August 29, 2023.

Report No. P-2023-13

2 7. Report the Recruitment for the Open/Competitive position of On-Demand Transit Dispatcher (Transportation Department). This recruitment is scheduled to close August 29, 2023.

8. Report the Recruitment for t he Open/Competitive position of Police Officer/Lateral (Police Department). This is a continuous recruitment.

9. Report the Recruitment for t he Open/Competitive position of Police Trainee (Police Department). This is a continuous recruitment.

10. Report the Recruitment for the Open/Competitive position of Recreation Leader I/II (Recreation and Human Services Department). This is a continuous recruitment.

11. Report the Recruitment for the Open/Competitive position of Transit Mechanic (Transportation Department). This recruitment is open until filled.

12. Report the Recruitment for t he Open/Competitive position of Transit Training and Safety Supervisor (Transportation Department). This recruitment is open until filled.

13. Report the Recruitment for the Open/Competitive position of Transit Transportation Operations Supervisor (Transportation Department). This recruitment is open until filled.

City of Gardena
Gardena City Council Meeting

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Agenda Item No. 8.H
Section: CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: August 22, 2023

TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE GARDENA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TITLE:

Ratification of Amendment to Blanket Purchase Order for Shige's Foreign Car Service, Inc. from $50,000 to $80,000 to Pay for Vehicle Maintenance Services for Fiscal Year 2022-2023
CONTACT: POLICE DEPARTMENT
COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED:

RECOMMENDATION AND STAFF SUMMARY:

On July 26, 2022, City Council approved a blanket purchase order for Shige's Foreign Car Service, Inc. in the amount of $50,000 to pay for vehicle maintenance services for the Police Department fleet for Fiscal Year 2022-2023.

With the rise in prices for vehicles parts and maintenance services the department is requesting additional funding for the vehicle maintenance cost allocation for the FY22-23 budget.

The department has exceeded the original blanket purchase order request by $30,000.

Therefore, we are requesting a ratification of the original blanket purchase order amount from $50,000 to $80,000 for Fiscal Year 2022-2023.

FINANCIAL IMPACT/COST:

General Fund - $30,000 for Fiscal Year 2022-2023
ATTACHMENTS:

APPROVED:
___________________________________
Clint Osorio, City Manager
City of Gardena
Gardena City Council Meeting

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Agenda Item No. 8.I
Section: CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: August 22, 2023

TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE GARDENA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TITLE:

Approve the revised Agreement for Streetlighting Maintenance between the City of Gardena and the City of Los Angeles related to the Traffic Signal Reconstruction Project on Vermont Avenue at Redondo Beach Boulevard and Rosecrans Avenue Project, JN 930.

CONTACT: PUBLIC WORKS
COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED:

RECOMMENDATION AND STAFF SUMMARY:

On April 11, 2023, the City Council of Gardena approved the original Agreement for Streetlighting Maintenance. This agreement was provided to the City of Gardena by City of Los Angeles
-Bureau of Street Lights personnel as a standard form they have been using.

However, when the signed agreement was given back to the Cit y of Los Angeles, their legal
department had further comments after City of Los Angeles staff had represented the agreement was ready for Gardena signature. The comments will result in changes that will remove the option to add or delete Street Lights to the agreement through attached exhibits.

The City of Gardena's scope and responsibilities on the revised agreement will remain the same regardless of the changes.

Staff recommends that the City Council approve the revised Agreement for Streetlighting Maintenance between the City of Gardena and the City of Los Angeles in a form approved by the City Attorney.

FINANCIAL IMPACT/COST:

There will be no financial impact on the City of Gardena's Traffic Signal Maintenance cost as the 50/50 cost-sharing arrangement with the City of Los Angeles remains.

ATTACHMENTS:

Original_Agreement_for_Streetlighting_Maintenance_between_COG___COLAsignedbyCA.pdf Revised Street Lighting Maintenance Agreement.pdf
Vermont Traffic Signal Project Exhibit.pdf

APPROVED:
___________________________________
Clint Osorio, City Manager

BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS

MEMBERS

AURA GARCIA

PRESIDENT
M. TERESA VILLEGAS

VICE PRESIDENT

DR. MICHAEL R. DAVIS

PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE

VAHID KHORSAND

COMMISSIONER

SUSANA REYES

COMMISSIONER

DR. FERNANDO CAMPOS

EXECUTIVE OFFICER

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF

PUBLIC WORKS

BUREAU OF

STREET LIGHTING

MIGUEL SANGALANG

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

1149 S. BROADWAY, SUITE 200
LOS ANGELES, CA 90015-2213

http://bsl.lacity.org

E-mail: [email protected]

KAREN BASS
MAYOR

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Recyclable and made from recycled waste. 1 AGREEMENT
FOR

STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE
The City of Gardena, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as “Gardena”, and the City of Los Angeles, a municipal corporation. Hereinafter referred to as “Los Angeles”, do enter into the following agreement:

WHEREAS, GARDENA and LOS ANGELES desire to provide for the maintenance of certain street lighting installations at locations which are partially or wholly under jurisdiction of one or both of the parties hereto, and to arrange herein for the particular maintenance functions to be performed and to specify the proportioning of the cost of such maintenance; WHEREAS, this agreement supersedes all previous agreements for operation and maintenance of street lighting; and
WHERAS, in order to effectively identify the equipment and services included under this agreement, the following definitions shall apply:

Equipment: Any lighting constructed or installed for the prime purpose of illuminating the roadway for traffic safety; including electroliers (whether supporting traffic signals or not), streetlights on traffic signal standards, streetlights on brackets installed on wooden power poles, and soffit lighting.

Service: Relamping, furnishing of electrical energy and painting of electroliers and luminaires as required, and the repair or replacement of roadway lighting equipment due to obsolescence, wear, inadequacy, or extensive damage from any cause. Service does not include any work on traffic signals.

Now, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed as follows:

1. Gardena will furnish all required service at all locations in APPENDIX “B”, Los Angeles will furnish all required service at all locations shown in APPENDIX “A”.

2. Gardena and Los Angeles will share the expense of such service rendered at each intersection in the same proportion as the number of legs or percentage of legs of an intersection of Gardena and Los Angeles jurisdiction respectively, bears to the total number of legs of each intersection.

3. Gardena and Los Angeles will share the expense of such service rendered along a street segment in the same proportion of dedicated roadway within each respective City or as mutually agreed upon between the City Engineer, City of Gardena, and Director, Bureau of Street Lighting, City of Los Angeles.

4. Bills for all services shall be rendered quarterly. Bills for service shall utility company charges and an itemization of all other costs, including labor, equipment and material

2 costs. Current percentages may be added to salaries and wages for department administration and overhead. These percentages, if added, shall be shown as separate items on the bill for services.

5. Changes in APPENDIX “A” or APPENDIX “B” may be initiated by either party hereto, and shall become valid upon written notice and concurrence between the City Engineer, City of Gardena, and the Director, Bureau of Street Lighting, City of Los Angeles.

6. In contemplation of the provisions of Section 895.2 of the Government Code of the State of California imposing certain tort liability jointly upon public entities solely by reason of such entities being parties to an agreement as defined in Section 895 of said Code, the parties hereto as between themselves, pursuant to the authorization contained in Sections 895.4 and 895.6 of said Code, will each assume the full liability imposed upon it, or any of its officers, agents or employees by law for injury caused by a negligent or wrongful act or omission occurring in the performance of this agreement the same extent that such a liability would be imposed in the absence of Section 895.2 of said Code. To achieve the above stated purpose, each party indemnifies and holds harmless the other party for any loss, cost or expense that may be imposed upon such other party solely by virtue of said Section 895.2 The rules set forth in Civil Code Section 2778 are hereby made a part of this agreement.

7. This agreement may be terminated upon thirty days written notice by either party.

8. This agreement shall become effective upon its execution by both parties hereto.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused their names to be subscribed by their officers duly authorized so to do the day and your first hereinabove written.

3 The City of Los Angeles,
Board of Public Works:

By_______________________________
President
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Michael N. Feuer, City Attorney
By_________________________________ By_______________________________ Ted Jordan
Deputy City Attorney
Commissioner
ATTEST:

Holly L. Wolcott, City Clerk
By_________________________________ The City of Gardena:

Deputy City Clerk
By_______________________________
Mayor
Approved as to Form:

By_______________________________
City Attorney
ABBREVIATIONS FOR APPENDIX “A” & “B”
Abbreviation
LED –Light Emitting Diode (in Watts)
HPS – High Pressure Sodium (in Watts)
WP – Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
E – Southern California Edison Company
LS-1 – Utility Owned Billing Rate
LS-2 – Customer Owned, Electrolier Billing Rate
LS-3 – Special Electrolier Billing Rates
Attest:

By_______________________________
City Clerk

AGREEMENT FOR STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE

APPENDIX A

CITY OF GARDENA - CITY OF LOS ANGELES

STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT

CITY OF LOS ANGELES MAINTAINED

APPENDIX B

CITY OF GARDENA - CITY OF LOS ANGELES

STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT

CITY OF GARDENA MAINTAINED
Luminaire Number
Lamp Size &
Type
Serv. Co. &
Billing Schedule
City of Gardena
Share L.A. Share
Luminaire
Lamp Size &
Type
Serv. Co. &
Billing Schedule
City of Gardena
Share
L.A. Share
250WLED 100% 0%
250WLED 100% 0%
250WLED 0% 0%
250WLED 0% 0%
250WLED 100% 0%
250WLED 100% 0%
Redondo Beach and Vermont Ave
(See drawing #1)
N/E corner
E/S Vermont Ave 1
S/O Redondo Blvd
N/S Rosecrans 1 W/O
Vermont
W/S Vermont Ave 1
S/O Rosecrans Ave
E/S Vermont AVe 1
N/O Rosecrans Ave
N/S Rosecrans Ave 1
E/O Vermont Ave
S/S Rosecrans Ave 1
E/O Vermont AVe
E/S Vermont AVe 1
S/O Rosecrans Ave
Rosecrans Ave and Vermont Ave
(See drawing #1)
(does not exist)
(does not exist)
250WLED 100% 0%
250WLED 100% 0%
Table left blank for Future Amendment
No. 729821700 Carnegie Avenue, Suite 100Santa Ana, CA 92705-5551Phone: (949)270-9480Fax: (949) 270-9481

CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS BUREAU OF STREET LIGHTING THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES OR ITS OFFICERS OR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF ELECTRONIC COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.BPERMIT2022 09.08.2022 REDONDO BEACHBLVD.ROSECRANSAVE.

VERMONTAVE.

EXISTING CONDUIT ONLYMAINTAINED BY CITY OF GARDENA

MAINTAINED BY CITY OF GARDENA

BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS

MEMBERS

AURA GARCIA

PRESIDENT
M. TERESA VILLEGAS

VICE PRESIDENT
DR. MICHAEL R. DAVIS

PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE

VAHID KHORSAND

COMMISSIONER

SUSANA REYES

COMMISSIONER
DR. FERNANDO CAMPOS

EXECUTIVE OFFICER

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF

PUBLIC WORKS

BUREAU OF

STREET LIGHTING

MIGUEL SANGALANG

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
1149 S. BROADWAY, SUITE 200
LOS ANGELES, CA 90015-2213
http://bsl.lacity.org
E-mail: [email protected] BASS
MAYOR
AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Recyclable and made from recycled waste. 1 AGREEMENT
FOR

WHEREAS, Gardena and Los Angeles desire to provide for the maintenance of certain street lighting installations at locations which are partially or wholly under jurisdiction of one or both of the parties hereto, and to arrange herein for the particular maintenance functions to be performed and to specify the proportioning of the cost of such maintenance; WHEREAS, this agreement supersedes all previous agreements for operation and maintenance of street lighting; and
WHERAS, in order to effectively identify the equipment and services included under this agreement, the following definitions shall apply:

Now, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed as follows:

1. Gardena will furnish all required Service at all locations in APPENDIX “B”, Los Angeles will furnish all required Service at all locations shown in APPENDIX “A”.

2. Gardena and Los Angeles will share the expense of such Service rendered at each intersection in the same proportion as the number of legs or percentage of legs of an intersection of Gardena and Los Angeles jurisdiction respectively, bears to the total number of legs of each intersection.

3. Gardena and Los Angeles will share the expense of such Service rendered along a street segment in the same proportion of dedicated roadway within each respective City or as mutually agreed upon between the City Engineer, City of Gardena, and Director, Bureau of Street Lighting, City of Los Angeles.

4. Bills for all services shall be rendered quarterly. Bills for service shall show utility company charges and an itemization of all other costs, including labor, equipment

2 and material costs. Current percentages may be added to salaries and wages for department administration and overhead. These percentages, if added, shall be shown as separate items on the bill for services.

5. Non-Material changes in APPENDIX “A” or APPENDIX “B” may be initiated by either party hereto, and shall become valid upon written notice and concurrence between the City Engineer, City of Gardena, and the Director, Bureau of Street Lighting, City of Los Angeles. Material changes, including streets and intersections, must be incorporated into this agreement by written amendment and properly executed by both parties.

7. This agreement may be terminated upon thirty days written notice by either party.

8. This agreement shall become effective upon its execution by both parties hereto.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused their names to be subscribed by their officers duly authorized so to do the day and your first hereinabove written.

3 The City of Los Angeles,
Board of Public Works:

By_______________________________
President

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Hydee Feldstein Soto, City Attorney

By_________________________________ By_______________________________ Tanea Ysaguirre
Deputy City Attorney
Commissioner

ATTEST:

Holly L. Wolcott, City Clerk

By_________________________________ The City of Gardena:

Deputy City Clerk
By_______________________________
Mayor

ATTEST:

Mina Semenza, Gardena City Clerk

By_______________________________
City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By_______________________________
Carmen Vasquez
Gardena City Attorney

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS TOTOTOTOTTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTTTTOTTTOTTTTOOOOOOOTOTOTOTOTTTTTTTTTOTOTTTOOTOOOOOOOOTOTOTOTOTTTTTOTTTTTOOOOOOOOOOTTTTTOTTOTOTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFORM _________________________ _____________________________________________________________ ____ CaCaCCCCaCaCaCCaCCCCaCCaCaCCaCCaCCCCaCCCCCCCCCCCCCCaCCCCCCaCaCCaCaCCCaCaCCCaCaCCCCCaCCCCCaCCCCaCCCCCCCCCCCCCaCCCCCCaCCCaaaCCaaaaaaaaaaaarmmmmmmeneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Vasq

4 ABBREVIATIONS FOR APPENDIX “A” & “B”

Abbreviation
LED –Light Emitting Diode (in Watts)
HPS – High Pressure Sodium (in Watts)
WP – Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
E – Southern California Edison Company
LS-1 – Utility Owned Billing Rate
LS-2 – Customer Owned, Electrolier Billing Rate
LS-3 – Special Electrolier Billing Rates

TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPGRADE PROJECT – JN 930
CITY OF GARDENA Eastern Intersection of W Redondo Beach Blvd & S Vermont Ave City of Gardena
City of Los Angeles City of Los Angeles
City of Gardena

VERMONT AVENUE

ROSECRANS AVENUE

VERMONT AVENUE

REDONDO BEACH BLVD
TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPGRADE PROJECT – ROSECRANS AVE & S VERMONT AVE CITY OF GARDENA Eastern Intersection of Rosecrans Ave & S Vermont Ave New Gardena Traffic Signal System w/ top lighting fixture are to replace existing City of Los Angeles streetlights. New curb ramps are to be installed along with signal lights. (Existing streetlight with traffic and pedestrian head.) (New traffic signal pole with lighting fixture installed) TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPGRADE PROJECT – W REDONDO BEACH BLVD & S VERMONT AVE CITY OF GARDENA Eastern Intersection of W Redondo Beach Blvd & S Vermont Ave New Gardena Traffic Signal System w/ top lighting fixture are to replace existing City of Los Angeles streetlights. New curb ramps are to be installed along with signal lights. (Existing streetlight with traffic and pedestrian head.) (New traffic signal pole with lighting fixture installed) City of Gardena
Gardena City Council Meeting

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Agenda Item No. 8.J
Section: CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: August 22, 2023

TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE GARDENA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TITLE:

Approval of Final Tract Map No. 82437
CONTACT: PUBLIC WORKS
COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED:

RECOMMENDATION AND STAFF SUMMARY:

Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council:
1 .

Find the final map complies with the Subdivision Map Act and the Subdivision Ordinance of the City.
2 .

Find the final map in compliance and consistent with the previously approved tentative map.
3 .

Approve the final tract map.

On May 22, 2022, the Planning and Environmental Quality Commission approved tentative Tract Map 82437. The approved tentative tract map incorporated all requirements of the City of Gardena, including the Planning and Environmental Quality Commission. The final map has been checked by the City Surveyor for compliance with the State Subdivision Map Act, the City of Gardena Public Works Department for compliance with local requirements, and Community Development Department for compliance with Land Use General plan Requirements, and the City Treasurer for outstanding assessments.

All departments have reviewed the map and did not find any violations. The map is acceptable and ready for recordation. This map can be found on file in Engineering.

FINANCIAL IMPACT/COST:

N/A
ATTACHMENTS:

Tract Map 82437.pdf

APPROVED:
___________________________________
Clint Osorio, City Manager

City of Gardena
Gardena City Council Meeting

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Agenda Item No. 8.K
Section: CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: August 22, 2023

TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE GARDENA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TITLE:

Acceptance and Notice of Completion for the Fire Station No. 158 Roof Replacement Project - Water Damaged Repair Phase, JN 509.

CONTACT: PUBLIC WORKS
COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED:

RECOMMENDATION AND STAFF SUMMARY:

Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council accept the work performed by Klassic Engineering & Construction, Inc. and order the recordation of the Notice of Completion for the Fire Station No. 158 Roof Replacement Project - Water Damaged Ceiling Repair Phase, JN 509.

This project repaired approximately 7,700 square feet of ceiling area, encompassing all three levels. The repairs included replacement of existing interior light fixtures with LED types, installation of new switches and occupancy sensors, replacement of existing ceiling grid system with new tiles, relocation of HVAC registers, replacement of existing exhaust fans, abatement of asbestos and/or lead and all related incidental work. Additional scope due to change orders included new HVAC insulation and drainage repairs.

Sufficient funds to complete this project were appropriated by the Council during the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Capital Improvement Budget.

FINANCIAL IMPACT/COST:

Amount of Expense: $838,989
Funding Source: Deferred Maintenance
ATTACHMENTS:

NOC_ FS#158 Roof Replacement_JN 509.pdf

APPROVED:
___________________________________
Clint Osorio, City Manager
RECORDING REQUEST BY AND MAIL TO:

Mina Semenza, City Clerk
City of Gardena
1700 W. 162nd Street
Gardena, CA 90247

SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE RESERVED FOR RECORDER'S USE

NOTICE OF COMPLETION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that:

1. The undersigned is the duly authorized representative of the City of Gardena, a Municipal Corporation of the State of California located within the County of Los Angeles in said State at 1700 West 162 Street, Gardena, California 90247.

2. That on the 25 day of October , 2022, the City Council of said City entered into contract with Klassic Engineering & Construction, Inc. whose address is 250 S. Tustin Street, Orange, CA 92866 for the improvement titled Fire Stat ion No. 158 Roof Replacement Project – Water Damaged Ceiling Repair Phase, JN 509 in accordance with City of Gardena Plans and Specifications.

3. That all of the work and improvement was located at 1650 W. 162nd Street in said City. The owner of the location is the City of Gardena.

4. That all of the work and improvement contemplated in and under said contract was substantially completed on July 24, 2023 .

5. That the City Council formally accepted this work and improvement on August 22, 2023 .

The undersigned, being first duly sworn, stat es: That he is the duly authorized representative of the City of Gardena, the political subdivision of the State of California which conducted the proceedings for the improvement titled Fire Station No. 158 Roof Replacement Project – Water Damaged Ceiling Repair Phase, JN 509 in said City, that he has read the foregoing "Notice of Completion" and knows the facts recited therein are true.

IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name as the duly authorized representative of said City this day of 2023.

City of Gardena

Matthew Au
City of Gardena
Gardena City Council Meeting

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Agenda Item No. 8.L
Section: CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: August 22, 2023

TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE GARDENA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TITLE:

Approve Purchase of Six Bus Mobile Validators (BMV) from Cubic Transportation Systems for a total of $32,376
CONTACT: TRANSPORTATION
COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED:

RECOMMENDATION AND STAFF SUMMARY:

In preparation for GTrans' new On-Demand, Microtransit service, GTrans plans to use the regional Transit Access Pass (TAP) program as one of the main methods of payment aboard the Microtransit service. TAP is a regional smart-card program serving as an electronic fare collection system. It was developed in the mid-2000s along with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) and participating transit operators like the City of Gardena’s GTrans. Its purpose was to unify fare media into TAP and allow agencies to charge their own fares using one card, making it easier for customers to seamlessly travel between transit systems. More recently, the regional program has evolved to include a phone application (Tap App) where riders can “tap and ride”, holding their device near the TAP validator upon boarding a bus and the fare is deducted immediately. Transit agencies participated in developing regional rules, like fund settlement, usage, and decision-making, and also continue to engage in joint marketing campaigns. Metro is responsible for managing the daily operations of TAP, including system configuration, testing, customer service, financial settlement, and operational oversight.

To integrate TAP as a payment option for the Microtransit service, Bus Mobile Validators will need to be installed on board the existing and proposed Microtransit fleet of two (2) gasoline- powered vans, two (2) battery-electric vans and one (1) cutaway. A Bus Mobile Validator (BVM), also known as a mobile ticketing or fare payment validator, is a device used particularly on smaller vehicles, to facilitate fare collection and passenger boarding.

In order to ensure the BVMs are connected to GTrans' current fare collection system, which in turn, connects with the regional fare system, Cubic Transportation Systems (Cubic) is the sole provider for Bus Mobile Validators in the Los Angeles region. Cubic also has provided many BVMs to transit agencies throughout LA County, and and currently partners with Metro to integrate and install devices on board its MetroMicro service, which is similar to that which GTrans is implementing. Cubic has provided pricing for six devices, shipping, installation, and sales tax for $32,376. GTrans has reviewed this pricing and determined that it is fair and reasonable.

Therefore, staff respectfully recommends that Council authorize the purchase of six Bus Mobile Validators from Cubic Transportation Systems for the cost of $32,376.

FINANCIAL IMPACT/COST:

GTrans has local capital funds available and designated for the purchase of this equipment, and included in FY24 capital budget previously approved by the City Council. There is no impact to the General Fund.

ATTACHMENTS:

Final Cubic Bus Mobile Validator Quote 8_14_2023.pdf
Examples of Bus Mobile Validators.pdf

APPROVED:
___________________________________
Clint Osorio, City Manager
Cubic Transportation Systems, Inc.
9233 Balboa Avenue
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-1515
USA
Quotation
Bill To Party

CITY OF GARDENA

GARDENA MUNICIPAL BUS LINES
13999 SOUTH WESTERN
GARDENA CA 90247
USA
Information
Quotation Number 10010464
Document Date 06/02/2023
Customer Reference TBD
Valid from 05/31/2023
Valid to 08/30/2023
Sales Person
Item Material / Description Quantity Price Price Unit Amount 10 5300-10009-1FS 6 EA 2,649.49 USD 1 EA 15,896.94 USD MOBILE VALIDATOR ACR312 LOS ANGELES
20 LOT 6 EA 752.00 USD 1 EA 4,512.00 USD

BMV INSTALL/LABOR
30 LOT 6 EA 387.00 USD 1 EA 2,322.00 USD
4G ROUTER INSTALL
40 LOT 1 EA 1,942.00 USD 1 EA 1,942.00 USD

TEST FIT/INSTALL
50 LOT 1 EA 1,130.50 USD 1 EA 1,130.50 USD
CAT5e Shielded LSZH, 1000ft Roll
60 80.01.0.240.0000 6 EA 150.46 USD 1 EA 902.76 USD TIME DELAY RELAY,SPDT 240V
70 5700-01024-1 6 EA 74.38 USD 1 EA 446.28 USD

LOAD DUMP MODULE
80 5300-37010-2X 6 EA 49.58 USD 1 EA 297.48 USD

MOUNT,MOBILE VALIDATOR
90 5700-06108 6 EA 259.39 USD 1 EA 1,556.34 USD

CA - PLENUM MV POWER
100 5500-01018 6 EA 59.87 USD 1 EA 359.22 USD

VEHICLE CONFIGURATION USB
Total Amount 32,375.49 USD
$150 Minimum Order is required for all purchase orders
All repairs are subject to Tennessee tax of 9.75%.

The quotation is based solely on the terms attached hereto. Any additional or different terms are objected to and may be rejected. Any additional term or condition stated in the sesuulting Purchase Order shall not become part of the Purchase Order unless specifically accepted in writing by Cubic.

NOTES: Lead time on mobile validators are dependent on SAM cards and factory commissioning units.

Your (“Buyer”) placing of an order from the Cubic Transportation Systems, Inc. (“Cubic”) website, http://parts.cubic.com
,
indicates Buyer’s acceptance of these terms and conditions. Buyer is responsible for all activity occurring under its account associated with this site and for maintaining the confidentiality of its account and password and restricting access to the same.

Cubic reserves the right to refuse service, terminate accounts, remove or edit content, or cancel orders at its sole discretion.

I. TERMS OF SALE
A. GENERAL
These Terms and Conditions apply to equipment purchases, spare parts, software licensing, services and repairs obtained from Cubic. These terms apply to electronic sales placed by Buyer through the Cubic website as well as orders placed by the issuance of a purchase agreement or purchase order via email, facsimile, courier or mail.

No understanding, promise or representation, and no waiver, alteration, addition to, or modification of any provision hereof, shall be binding upon Cubic unless agreed to in writing by an authorized representative of Cubic. Cubic’s acceptance of any order is subject to Buyer’s assent to all of the terms and conditions set forth herein. Buyer shall be deemed to have accepted these terms and conditions upon its receipt of Cubic’s order acknowledgment or from Buyer’s acceptance of all or any part of the services or products ordered.

The terms and conditions in: (i) Cubic’s form(s); (ii) acknowledgments; (iii) quotations; (iv) invoices; (v) websites; (vi) catalogs; and (vii) extension of credit are incorporated herein by reference, and constitute the entire and exclusive agreement between Buyer and Cubic and supersedes all other agreements, oral or written heretofore made between Buyer and Cubic relating to the subject matter contained herein.

B. ELECTRONIC DATA INTERCHANGE
If Cubic and Buyer mutually agree to use an Electronic Data Interchange (“EDI”) system to facilitate purchase and sale transactions, Buyer agrees that it will not contest: (i) any contract of sale resulting from an EDI transaction under the provisions of any law relating to whether agreements must be in writing or signed by the party to be bound thereby; or (ii) the admissibility of copies of EDI records under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, the best evidence rule or any other similar rule, on the basis that such records were not originated or maintained in documentary form. Cubic and Buyer will negotiate and agree on technical standards and methods to use in making EDI purchases, and will use reasonable security procedures to protect EDI records from improper access. In the event of a conflict, the business records maintained by Cubic regarding EDI purchases made by Buyer shall be deemed to be conclusive.

Cubic reserves the right to accept or reject any order.

C. PURCHASE ORDERS/PURCHASE AGREEMENTS
Acceptance is strictly limited to the terms and conditions included herein. Cubic expressly rejects any additional terms and conditions contained in any purchase agreement, order or other correspondence submitted by Buyer. Cubic’s fulfillment of any such order shall not be construed as assent to any of the terms and conditions proposed by Buyer, and will not constitute a waiver by Cubic of any of the terms and conditions contained herein or in Cubic’s order acknowledgment.

D. MINIMUM ORDER
The minimum value for any purchase agreement/purchase order is $150.00
U.S. dollars. Orders received for a lesser amount
will be billed at the minimum
$150.00
amount.

E. PRICING
All prices are in United States Dollars, exclusive of all applicable taxes and are subject to correction or change without notice.

Buyer agrees to pay and be solely responsible for the payment of any applicable taxes other than taxes payable based on Cubic’s net income.

Export orders may be subject to special pricing.

Market sensitive products will be priced according to current market conditions. Buyer should contact Cubic or check online at http://parts.cubic.com
for current pricing.

Despite our efforts, occasional pricing errors may occur in the Cubic catalogs and websites. Cubic reserves the right to cancel any and all orders resulting from such pricing errors, even if Buyer has received an order confirmation from Cubic.

Page 2 of 11 ends

Document: T-SVC-004 Rev. E Rev. Date: 18 Oct 2011
REQUEST for QUOTATION / PRICING

F. CHANGES
All changes in any term or condition hereof must be agreed to and accepted by Cubic. Any difference in price, delivery or other terms resulting from such change shall be equitably adjusted and the purchase agreement/purchase order modified accordingly.

G. CATALOG/WEBSITE INFORMATION
Product depictions in the catalogs and websites are for illustrative purposes only. Possession of, or access to, any Cubic catalog, literature or websites does not constitute the right to purchase such products. Cubic reserves the right to revise any publishing errors in its catalogs or any of its websites.

H. TERMINATION/CANCELLATION
In the event of a partial termination or if the entire purchase agreement/purchase order is terminated, the Buyer shall pay 100% of the actual costs incurred by Cubic relating to such termination.

I. DELAY IN SHIPMENT
If the Buyer fails to accept shipment in accordance with the agreed schedule, such failure may be considered by Cubic as a Breach entitling Cubic to terminate this purchase agreement/purchase order in whole or in part, as applicable, in accordance with Clause H hereof.

J. DELIVERY
Delivery date is the date stated in the purchase agreement/purchase order acknowledgment. Cubic may make partial shipments and Buyer agrees to make partial payments net thirty (30) days from date of invoice in connection with such partial shipments at the unit price(s) indicated in the purchase agreement.

K. SHIPMENT and RISK OF LOSS
Shipment will be F.O.B. Destination. Transportation method is at Cubic’s option and Cubic shall bear the responsibility for outbound transportation charges. The risk that the ordered goods may be lost, damaged or delayed in transit shall be borne by Cubic until receipt by Buyer in conformity with the terms of the purchase agreement/purchase order. However, in the event Buyer requests a special mode of transportation, all additional charges and risk of loss, damage or delay will pass to the Buyer upon Cubic’s timely delivery of the goods, properly packaged with suitable shipping documents, to an appropriate carrier for delivery to Buyer.

L. INVOICING AND PAYMENT TERMS
Invoicing shall take place at time of shipment. Payment terms are net thirty (30) days from date of invoice. Buyer agrees that these same terms will also apply to any partial shipments.

Cubic accepts cash, checks, money orders, Electronic Funds Transfer, Visa, MasterCard, and American Express. All credit extended by Cubic to Buyer and the limits of such credit, is at Cubic’s sole discretion, and may be reduced or revoked by Cubic at any time, for any reason.

If Buyer fails to make payment within thirty (30) days of invoice, or fails to comply with Cubic’s credit terms, or fails to supply adequate assurance of full performance to Cubic within a reasonable time after requested by Cubic (such time as specified in Cubic's request), Cubic may defer further shipments or interrupt services, if any, until such payment or compliance is made, require cash in advance for any further shipments, demand immediate payment of all amounts then owed, elect to pursue collection action (including without limitation, attorneys’ fees and any and all other associated costs of collection), and/or may, at its option, cancel all or any part of an unshipped order in accordance with Clause H hereof. Additionally, Buyer, and each of its subsidiaries and affiliates, agrees to provide to Cubic proper authorization necessary for Cubic to request any financial information from third parties.

Buyer agrees to assume responsibility for, and Buyer hereby unconditionally guarantees payment of, as provided herein, all purchases made by Buyer, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Each of Buyer’s subsidiaries and affiliates purchasing from Cubic are jointly and severally liable for purchases with Buyer, and Buyer is also acting as agent for such subsidiaries and affiliates.

Page 3 of 11 ends

REQUEST for QUOTATION / PRICING
M. SALES AND SIMILAR TAXES
The prices provided for in any purchase agreement/purchase order are exclusive of any present or future import duty, federal, state, provincial, county, municipal, or other sales, use, excise, gross receipts, value added or similar tax with respect to the products and services covered hereby, and of any inventory or property tax or other similar charges with respect to the products and services covered hereby, unless such taxes are provided in the applicable quotation.

If Cubic is assessed or is required by applicable law or regulation to pay or collect any such duty, tax, or charge on account of this purchase agreement/purchase order, then such amount of tax or taxes shall be paid by the Buyer to Cubic in addition to the prices otherwise provided in the purchase agreement/purchase order. If the Buyer is exempt from the payment of applicable duty, tax, or charge, the Buyer shall provide Cubic with a suitable copy of the tax exempt certificate or permit at the time the purchase agreement/purchase order is issued.

N. WARRANTY
Cubic warrants to the Buyer that the deliverables hereunder will be free from defects in material and workmanship, and that services will be the kind and quality designated or specified in the quotation. In particular:

See Appendix A, Software License Agreement, for the warranty terms applicable to software.

See Section II below for warranty applicable to services.

The warranty applicable to spare parts and repairs shall apply to defects in materials and workmanship appearing within ninety (90) days from the date of shipment by Cubic.

The warranty applicable to equipment shall be limited to defects appearing within one (1) year from the date of shipment by Cubic.

If any deliverables do not conform to the applicable warranty, and if the Buyer promptly notifies Cubic, Cubic shall thereupon, if it confirms the existence of the claimed defect, including non-conformance with the applicable specification, correct the defect by, at Cubic’s option, either repairing the defect at no charge to Buyer, or by making necessary replacement products available at the Buyer’s location.

THIS LIMITED WARRANTY DOES NOT COVER LOSS OR DAMAGE WHICH: (i) IS DUE TO IMPROPER INSTALLATION (OTHER THAN INSTALLATION BY CUBIC), MAINTENANCE, MISUSE, NEGLECT, OR ANY CAUSE OTHER THAN THE BUYER’S, OR ITS CUSTOMER’S OR CONTRACTOR’S, USE OF THE PRODUCT IN THE APPLICATION IT WAS INTENDED; (ii) IS DUE TO ADJUSTMENT, REPAIR OR MODIFICATION BY ANY PERSON OTHER THAN AS AUTHORIZED BY CUBIC; OR, (iii) IS DUE TO STORAGE OR USE IN AN IMPROPER ENVIRONMENT, EXCESSIVE OR

INADEQUATE HEATING OR AIR CONDITIONING, AND ELECTRICAL POWER FAILURES, SURGES OR OTHER IRREGULARITIES WHILE IN THE CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF BUYER OR ITS CUSTOMER OR CONTRACTORS.

CUBIC IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR PROBLEMS CAUSED BY HARDWARE OR COMPUTER OPERATING SYSTEMS WHICH ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS AS SET FORTH IN CUBIC’S TECHNICAL

DOCUMENTATION, OR FOR PROBLEMS IN THE INTERACTION WITH NON-CUBIC SUPPLIED SOFTWARE, THE USE OF WHICH IS NOT APPROVED BY CUBIC.

CUBIC SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY WITH RESPECT TO DELIVERABLES THAT WERE SUBJECTED TO ABUSE, VANDALISM OR MISUSE. THE WARRANTY SET FORTH HEREIN IS THE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE WARRANTY, IN LIEU

OF ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, AND NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND SHALL APPLY, WHETHER EXPRESS OR

IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND FREEDOM FROM THIRD PARTY INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS.

O. RETURN/RESTOCKING CHARGES
No returns, for any reason, will be accepted without Buyer obtaining a Return Material Authorization (RMA) Number in advance from Cubic. A 20% restocking fee based on the item price will be charged to the Buyer for all returns for reasons other than warranty. Freight charges will be the responsibility of the Buyer. Buyer must obtain a Return Material Authorization (RMA) Number from Cubic prior to return shipment of an item.

Before returning any product for any reason, Buyer must: (i) contact the Cubic facility from which the product was purchased; (ii) in the case of an internet order, contact Cubic by logging on to the website from where you purchased, http://parts.cubic.com, click on the contact page to obtain an RMA, or (iii) call Customer Care at 1-931-454-1500 to speak to your Customer Service Representative.

Page 4 of 11 ends

REQUEST for QUOTATION / PRICING
P. MAINTENANCE
Buyer shall be responsible for the maintenance of any deliverables provided. In the event Buyer elects to have Cubic perform maintenance, such maintenance will be provided at prevailing service rates.

Q. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

CUBIC SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, EXEMPLARY OR

PUNITIVE DAMAGES OR LOSSES WHICH MAY BE SUFFERED BY BUYER WITH RESPECT TO THIS PURCHASE

AGREEMENT/PURCHASE ORDER, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LOSS OF PRESENT OR PROSPECTIVE

PROFITS, LOSS OF INCOME OR REVENUE, EXPENDITURES, INVESTMENTS OR COMMITMENTS, OR LOSS OF

BUSINESS OR DATA, WHETHER IN AN ACTION IN CONTRACT, EQUITY, NEGLIGENCE, INTENDED CONDUCT, TORT,

OR OTHERWISE (INCLUDING BREACH OF WARRANTY, NEGLIGENCE, AND STRICT LIABILITY IN TORT), EVEN IF CUBIC HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. THE TOTAL AGGREGATE LIABILITY OF

CUBIC FOR CLAIMS ASSERTED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE PURCHASE PRICE PAID FOR THE PRODUCT THAT GIVES RISE TO ANY LIABILITY.

R. TITLE
The title and right of possession of Buyer’s equipment repaired or modified hereunder shall remain with the Buyer, subject to any applicable lien rights of Cubic. Cubic shall bear risk of loss for Buyer’s property while on Cubic’s premises. Reasonable access to this equipment shall be provided to Buyer. Cubic shall retain title for all shipped items until delivery F.O.B.

Destination.

S. CHOICE OF LAW / DISPUTES
The validity, interpretation and performance of the purchase agreement/purchase order shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of California, excluding its choice of law principles. Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to the purchase agreement/purchase order, transaction or the breach, termination, or invalidity thereof, shall be settled by binding arbitration in San Diego, California, USA, in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”). There shall be one arbitrator appointed by the AAA trained in the law who shall have experience in arbitration of similar disputes. The language of the arbitration shall be English. Judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. Each party shall be responsible for its respective costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in arbitration, except that costs and fees invoiced by the AAA for the services of the arbitrator(s) and its own fees and expenses shall be borne equally by the parties.

T. PROPRIETARY RIGHTS AND SOFTWARE
Title to all Cubic and third party software (including software embedded within hardware), proprietary data, intangible property, intellectual property, patents, patents pending, trade secrets, copyrights, trade dress, service and trademarks, service and trade names, designs, drawings, and the like, shall remain with Cubic or relevant third party, as applicable. All software usage hereunder shall be governed by the Cubic Software License Agreement, Appendix A.

Buyer shall have no right, title, or interest in the trade names, trademarks, trade dress, copyrights, patents, domain names, product names, catalogs or any other intellectual property rights reserved by Cubic, or any trademarks or service marks owned by suppliers to Cubic. All materials contained on the http://parts.cubic.com website are subject to the ownership rights of Cubic and its suppliers. Buyer shall have no right to copy or use any of the intellectual property of Cubic or its suppliers without Cubic's written permission.

U. FORCE MAJEURE
The parties shall not be liable to each other for any loss, damage or other claim whatsoever arising out of a delay, failure or inability to perform any obligation(s) contained in the purchase agreement/purchase order which is beyond a party’s reasonable control. Such causes may include, but are not limited to, any act of God, severe weather conditions, catastrophic events, fire, flood, lightning, earthquake, tornado, labor disputes, transportation delays, war, terrorism (actual or threatened), revolution, riot, sabotage, act of the public enemy, explosion, embargo, confiscation or act or failure to act of any government, agency, board or commission. Lack of finances shall in no event be deemed to be a cause beyond a party’s reasonable control.

V. CUSTOM PRODUCTS
Cubic may offer products manufactured or assembled to Buyer’s specifications (“Custom Product(s)”). Cubic is not responsible for verifying or confirming the accuracy of specifications provided by Buyer to Cubic for Custom Products. CUBIC'S LIMITED WARRANTY TERMS INCLUDED IN THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS DO NOT APPLY TO CUSTOM PRODUCTS.

CUSTOM PRODUCT WARRANTY PROVIDED BY CUBIC SHALL BE LIMITED TO DEFECTS IN MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP ARISING IN THE FIRST 90 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF SHIPMENT AND WILL BE BUYER'S SOLE REMEDY. ALL OTHER WARRANTIES ARE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMED. All Custom Products are sold on a “FINAL SALE” basis only, and no cancellations, returns, refunds or credits are allowed.

Page 5 of 11 ends

REQUEST for QUOTATION / PRICING
II. ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS RELATED TO THE PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES

IN ADDITION TO THE STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS IN SECTION I, PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES WILL BE GOVERNED BY THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS (“ADDITIONAL SERVICE TERMS”).

SERVICES MAY BE PERFORMED BY: (i) CUBIC, ITS EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS (“CUBIC PERSONNEL”); (ii) CUBIC SUBSIDIARIES OR AFFILIATES (“CUBIC SERVICE ENTITIES”); OR THIRD-PARTY SUBCONTRACTORS ("THIRD-PARTY PROVIDERS"). FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION II, CUBIC PERSONNEL, CUBIC SERVICE ENTITIES AND THIRD- PARTY PROVIDERS ARE EACH REFERRED TO AS A “SERVICE PROVIDER” AND EACH SERVICE PROVIDER, TOGETHER WITH ITS PERSONNEL, IS REFERRED TO AS “SERVICE PROVIDER PERSONNEL.”

THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION II ARE EXTENDED SOLELY BY THE SPECIFIC SERVICE PROVIDER PERFORMING SERVICES. DEPENDING UPON THE NATURE OF THE SERVICES PROVIDED,

THE APPLICABLE SERVICE PROVIDER MAY REQUIRE BUYER TO EXECUTE ADDITIONAL CONTRACTUAL DOCUMENTS PRIOR TO THE PERFORMANCE OF SUCH SERVICES.

IN THE EVENT OF A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS IN SECTION I AND THE

ADDITIONAL SERVICE TERMS IN SECTION II, THE ADDITIONAL SERVICE TERMS IN SECTION II SHALL PREVAIL FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES.

AA. LIMITED SERVICES WARRANTY
ALL SERVICES WILL (i) BE PERFORMED IN A WORKMANLIKE MANNER; (ii) CONFORM TO THE SPECIFICATIONS (IF ANY) PROVIDED BY THE SERVICE PROVIDER IN A STATEMENT OF WORK; AND (iii) IF SERVICES ARE IMPROPERLY

PERFORMED AND BUYER NOTIFIES THE SERVICE PROVIDER OF THE IMPROPERLY PERFORMED SERVICES WITHIN 90 DAYS AFTER PERFORMANCE OF SUCH SERVICES, THEN THE SERVICE PROVIDER WILL RE-PERFORM

THOSE SERVICES, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, AS NECESSARY TO CURE THE PARTICULAR BREACH, OR AT THE

SERVICE PROVIDER'S SOLE OPTION, REFUND THE AMOUNT PAID BY BUYER FOR THE SERVICES DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PARTICULAR BREACH. THE SERVICE PROVIDER'S RE-PERFORMANCE OR REFUND OF

AMOUNTS PAID BY BUYER FOR THE SERVICE DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PARTICULAR BREACH SHALL BE BUYER'S SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY.

BB. WARRANTY DISCLAIMER AND WAIVER FOR SERVICES

TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, THE EXPRESS WARRANTIES SET FORTH IN THIS

SECTION II FOR SERVICES ARE IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AND THE SERVICE

PROVIDER DISCLAIMS, AND BUYER WAIVES, ALL OTHER WARRANTIES FOR SERVICES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT

LIMITED TO, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF NON-INFRINGEMENT, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND MERCHANTABILITY. THE WARRANTIES SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION II ARE EXPRESSLY CONDITIONED UPON THE

USE OF THE SERVICES FOR THEIR INTENDED PURPOSE AND SHALL NOT APPLY TO SERVICES WHICH HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION BY BUYER OR ANY THIRD PARTY.

CC. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

THE SERVICE PROVIDER EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN THE PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES. THE SERVICE PROVIDER'S LIABILITY

IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES IS LIMITED TO, AND SHALL NOT EXCEED, THE PURCHASE PRICE FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THE PORTION OF SERVICES THAT GIVES RISE TO ANY PARTICULAR LIABILITY.

DD. PAYMENT AND CREDIT TERMS
Except as otherwise agreed to by the parties, Buyer will be invoiced upon completion of mutually agreed milestone(s) or completion of services. Payment terms are net thirty (30) days from the date of invoice. All other payment terms are as set forth in Section I.

EE. TERMINATION
Either party may terminate the service agreement at any time and for any reason upon sixty (60) days' written notice to the other party. If terminated by Buyer, Buyer shall, in addition to amounts previously paid, pay Service Provider an amount equal to the value of any work completed and not billed plus all reasonable wind-down costs to close out the service agreement the greater of (i) Ten percent (10%) of the total project cost quotation thereto (the “Total Project Cost”), or (ii) an amount equal to the Total Project Cost multiplied by the percentage completion for such project at the time the notice of termination is given, as determined by Service Provider.

Page 6 of 11 ends

REQUEST for QUOTATION / PRICING
FF. INDEMNITY
Buyer or Service Provider, as applicable (in the case of Service Provider, subject to the provisions of sections CC and Q herein) shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the other party and its respective officers, directors, employees, subcontractors and agents (each individually, an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all any claims, suits, liabilities,
damages, settlements, charges, taxes and any other losses or expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees) (collectively
“Liabilities”) for physical injury to, illness or death of, any third party regardless of status and damage to or destruction of any
tangible property which the third party may sustain or incur, to the extent such Liabilities relate to the services; except for such
Liabilities relating to or arising out of a final judgment of gross negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnified Party. In any
action, suit or proceeding brought against an Indemnified Party by reason of any such claim as specified above, the non-Indemnified Party shall
resist and defend such action, suit or proceeding by counsel of its choice with consent from the Indemnified Party, at the sole
expense of the non-Indemnified Party, provided that (i) the Indemnified Party notifies non-Indemnified Party promptly in writing of the claim; (ii) non-Indemnified Party’s counsel does not give rise to a conflict of interest with respect to the Indemnified Party; (iii) non-Indemnified Party has control of the defense and all
related settlement negotiation but shall keep the Indemnified Party reasonably informed of status, provided that non-Indemnified Party shall
only settle the legal action with consent from the Indemnified Party; and (iv) the Indemnified Party provides non- Indemnified Party with all
reasonably necessary assistance, information, and authority to perform the foregoing at non-Indemnified Party’s expense.

GG. ACCESS TO BUYER’S PREMISES
To the extent access to and/or office space within Buyer's premises is required; Buyer shall provide Service Provider personnel such access to and/or office space within Buyer's premises free of charge as necessary for performance of services supplied by Service Provider. Prior to starting any work at Buyer's premises, Buyer will: (i) provide documentation that identifies any existing hazardous materials or dangerous or potentially dangerous conditions on or about Buyer's premises; and (ii) allow Service Provider personnel, at its option, reasonable access to Buyer's premises to perform or have performed a visual site inspection. Service Provider will have no responsibility or liability for the actual existing conditions; or identifying, correcting or advising Buyer of existing conditions on Buyer's premises (“Pre-Existing Conditions”), and Buyer shall be responsible for and shall indemnify each Service Provider and each of the Service Provider personnel from and against any Liabilities arising out of or relating to any Pre-Existing Conditions, regardless of whether previously disclosed to any Service Provider or Service Provider personnel. Buyer shall not attempt to condition the right of Service Provider personnel to obtain free access to Buyer's premises upon the signing of any agreement, waiver, or release which in any way purports to affect the legal rights or obligations of Service Provider or Service Provider personnel. If any Service Provider personnel sign such an agreement, waiver, or release, it shall be of no force and effect.

HH. RIGHT TO SUBCONTRACT
Buyer agrees that the Service Provider may subcontract the performance of services to third parties. Buyer authorizes the Service Provider to disclose all information to the subcontractor, including confidential information necessary for such performance of services by the subcontractor.

Page 7 of 11 ends

REQUEST for QUOTATION / PRICING

APPENDIX A

SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT
THE SOFTWARE PROGRAMS AND/OR DOCUMENTATION (“SOFTWARE”) PROVIDED TO YOU ARE LICENSED, NOT SOLD. CUBIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, INC., (“CUBIC®”), OWNS ALL COPIES OF THE SOFTWARE, INCLUDING BACKUP AND ARCHIVAL COPIES. YOU (THE “LICENSEE”) ONLY HAVE THE LIMITED RIGHTS EXPRESSLY GRANTED TO YOU UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT (“SLA”). LICENSEE UNDERSTANDS AND

ACKNOWLEDGES THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND AGREES THAT INSTALLING, OPERATING OR USING THE SOFTWARE IN ANY WAY INDICATES LICENSEE’S ACCEPTANCE OF THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS. 1 .

Rights in Data.

Licensee acknowledges and agrees that all ownership rights, title and interest in the Software shall remain with Cubic, whether or not incorporated into or with other software, including, but not limited to, the right of copyright. Licensee acknowledges and agrees that the Software is the proprietary information of Cubic and that this Agreement grants Licensee no title or right of ownership in the Software.
2 .

License Grant.

In consideration of the payment of the license fee under separate agreement, Contract Number ____, dated and Licensee’s acceptance of the terms of this SLA, Cubic hereby grants to Licensee a royalty free, irrevocable, perpetual, nonexclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensable license to use the Software on a server (including, as appropriate, with multiple workstations) only in the Licensee’s fare collection system for which the Software is licensed. Any revision changes, updates, upgrades or enhancements to the Software that are provided to Licensee shall be subject to all terms of this SLA. Licensee may make one (
1 ) copy of the Software for back-up purposes only. The use, operation, or distribution of the Software at any site or for any purpose or application other than for which it is licensed is prohibited and shall require a separate license and fee unless expressly authorized in writing by Cubic. 3 .

Restrictions.

Licensee may not: (a) copy (other than the one copy for back-up purposes), distribute, rent, lease, assign, transfer, mortgage, or sell the Software or sublicense all or any portion of the Software; (b) reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the Software; or (c) modify, alter or make derivative works of the Software. Licensee agrees to keep confidential and implement reasonable measures to prevent and protect the Software and its contents from unauthorized disclosure or use. Licensee also agrees to include the copyright notice, trademark, or proprietary legends of Cubic associated with the Software on the back-up copy, and to verify the same has been affixed to any revision changes, updates, upgrades or enhancements that are provided to Licensee.
4 .

Media Warranty.

For ninety (
90 ) days from the date of delivery (the “Media Warranty Period”), Cubic warrants that the media on which the Software is contained will be free from defects in materials and workmanship. During the Media Warranty Period, Licensee may return the defective media to Cubic and it will be replaced without charge. Replacement of media is Licensee’s sole remedy in the event of a media defect in breach of this warranty. 5 .

Software Warranty.

Cubic warrants that the Software shall substantially perform as described in the Cubic design documentation, as it exists on the date of delivery, for ninety ( 90 ) days from the date of delivery. Cubic’s sole obligation under this warranty shall be limited to using reasonable efforts to correct reported defect(s) and to supply a corrected version as soon as is reasonable after Cubic is notified of such defect(s). 6 . THE LIMITED WARRANTIES CONTAINED HEREIN DO NOT INCLUDE LOSS OR DAMAGE WHICH: (i) IS DUE TO IMPROPER INSTALLATION (INSTALLATION BY ANYONE OTHER THAN CUBIC OR AS APPROVED BY CUBIC); (ii) IS

DUE TO MISUSE, NEGLECT, FAILURE TO PERFORM PROPER AND REQUIRED MAINTENANCE, OR ANY USE OTHER THAN A TRANSIT FARE COLLECTION APPLICATION BY LICENSEE OR ITS CUSTOMER OR CONTRACTORS; (iii) IS

DUE TO ADJUSTMENT, REPAIR OR MODIFICATION BY ANY PERSON OTHER THAN CUBIC OR AS AUTHORIZED BY CUBIC; OR, (iv) IS DUE TO STORAGE OR USE IN AN IMPROPER ENVIRONMENT, EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE

HEATING OR AIR CONDITIONING, AND ELECTRICAL POWER FAILURES, SURGES OR OTHER IRREGULARITIES WHILE IN THE CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF LICENSEE OR ITS CUSTOMER OR CONTRACTORS. IN ADDITION, CUBIC DOES NOT WARRANT THAT OPERATION OF THE SOFTWARE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR-FREE; THAT THE FUNCTIONS CONTAINED IN THE SOFTWARE SHALL OPERATE IN ALL COMBINATIONS OR SEQUENCE; THAT

ALL SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS FOR WHICH THERE IS A REASONABLE WORK-AROUND WILL BE CORRECTED; OR THAT THE SOFTWARE IS FREE FROM VIRUS AND ALL LATENT DEFECTS. CUBIC IS NOT

RESPONSIBLE FOR PROBLEMS CAUSED BY COMPUTER HARDWARE OR OTHER COMPUTER OPERATING

SYSTEMS WHICH ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS REQUIRED TO RUN THE SOFTWARE AS SET FORTH IN CUBIC’S TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION, OR FOR PROBLEMS IN THE INTERACTION OF THE SOFTWARE WITH NON-CUBIC SUPPLIED SOFTWARE, THE USE OF WHICH IS NOT APPROVED BY CUBIC. 7 . EXCEPT FOR THE EXPRESS WARRANTIES STATED ABOVE, CUBIC GRANTS NO OTHER WARRANTIES,

EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND FREEDOM FROM THIRD PARTY INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS.

Page 8 of 11 ends

Document: T-SVC-004 Rev. E Rev. Date: 18 Oct 2011
REQUEST for QUOTATION / PRICING

8 . CUBIC SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, EXEMPLARY OR

PUNITIVE DAMAGES OR LOSSES WHICH MAY BE EXPERIENCED BY LICENSEE WITH RESPECT TO THIS

SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT AND/OR USE OF THE SOFTWARE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LOSS OF

PROFITS, LOSS OF INCOME OR REVENUE, EXPENDITURES, INVESTMENTS OR COMMITMENTS, OR LOSS OF

BUSINESS OR DATA, WHETHER IN AN ACTION IN CONTRACT, EQUITY, NEGLIGENCE, INTENDED CONDUCT, TORT,

OR OTHERWISE (INCLUDING BREACH OF WARRANTY, NEGLIGENCE, AND STRICT LIABILITY IN TORT), EVEN IF CUBIC HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. THE TOTAL AGGREGATE LIABILITY OF

CUBIC FOR CLAIMS ASSERTED UNDER THIS SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE LICENSE FEE PAID FOR THE SOFTWARE GIVING RISE TO ANY SUCH LIABILITY. 9 .

INDEMNIFICATION.
(a) Cubic agrees to defend, or at its option settle, indemnify and hold Licensee harmless from any and all third party intellectual property infringement suits, claims, or proceedings brought against Licensee as a result of Licensee’s stand-alone use of the Software where Licensee has (i) given Cubic prompt notice of such suit, claim, or proceeding; (ii) allowed Cubic to have sole control of the defense or settlement of such suit, claim or proceeding; and (iii) given Cubic all necessary assistance to defend the same.
(b) Notwithstanding subparagraph (a) above, Cubic shall not be bound to defend, indemnify, or hold Licensee harmless where (i) such claim or action would have been avoided but for modifications of the Software, or portions thereof, made after delivery to the Licensee; (ii) such claim or action would have been avoided but for the combination or use of the Software, or portions thereof, with other products, processes or materials not supplied or specified in writing by Cubic; (iii) Licensee continues allegedly infringing activity after being notified thereof or after being informed of modifications that would have avoided the alleged infringement; or (iv) Licensee’s use of the Software is not strictly in accordance with the terms of this Software License Agreement. Licensee will be liable for all damages, costs, expenses, settlement and attorneys’ fees related to any claim of infringement arising as a result of
(i) – (iv) in the immediately preceding sentence.
(c) If a third party's claim endangers or disrupts Licensee's use of the Software, Cubic shall, at Cubic’s option and at no charge to Licensee, (i) obtain a license so Licensee may continue use of the Software; (ii) modify the Software to avoid the infringement; (iii) replace the Software with a compatible, functionally equivalent and non-infringing product; or (iv) refund to Licensee the amount paid for the Software as depreciated on a straight-line sixty ( 60 ) month basis; provided, however, Cubic
shall have no such obligation where any of subparagraphs (b)(i)-(iv) apply. (d) THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION STATE THE ENTIRE LIABILITY AND OBLIGATIONS OF CUBIC,

AND THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY OF LICENSEE, WITH RESPECT TO ANY ACTUAL OR ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF ANY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS BY THE SOFTWARE.
10 .

EXPORT REGULATIONS.

If the Software is for use outside of the United States, Licensee agrees to comply fully with all relevant regulations of the United States Department of Commerce and with the United States Export Administration Act to assure that the Software and media are not exported in violation of the United States Export Laws. 11 .

MAINTENANCE.

Licensee may obtain maintenance support for the Software by purchasing a software maintenance contract from Cubic at its then current applicable fees. 12 .

GOVERNING LAW.

This Software License Agreement shall be deemed to have been made in, and shall be construed pursuant to, the laws of the State of California, USA.
13 .

DISPUTE.

In the event of any unresolved dispute between the parties relating to this Software License Agreement, such unresolved dispute shall be submitted to binding arbitration under the Commercial Rules of Arbitration of the American Arbitration Association (AAA). The arbitration shall be held in San Diego, California, USA. There shall be a single arbitrator appointed by the AAA. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover actual attorney fees and costs, including expert witness fees and associated expenses.

Licensee acknowledges that, due to the unique nature of the Software, there may be no adequate remedy at law for the Licensee’s unauthorized use or disclosure of the Software in breach of this Software License Agreement and that such breach may cause immediate and irreparable harm to Cubic. Accordingly, notwithstanding the provisions of the paragraph above, upon any such breach or any threat thereof by the Licensee, Cubic shall be entitled to pursue appropriate equitable or injunctive relief from any court of competent jurisdiction. 14 .

NON-WAIVER.

Failure or neglect by Cubic to enforce at any time any of its rights or remedies shall not be deemed a waiver of its rights or remedies nor prejudice Cubic’s right to take subsequent action.

Page 9 of 11 ends

Document: T-SVC-004 Rev. E Rev. Date: 18 Oct 2011
REQUEST for QUOTATION / PRICING

15 .

SEVERABILITY.

In the event any of these terms are determined to be invalid or unenforceable to any extent such term shall be modified to the limited extent required to permit its enforcement in a manner most closely representing the intention of the Parties as expressed herein, and the remainder of this Software License Agreement shall continue to be valid to the fullest extent permitted by law.
16 .

ASSIGNMENT.

Licensee may not assign this Software License Agreement without the prior written consent of Cubic which shall not be unreasonably withheld.
17 .

TAXES.

Licensee is responsible for payment of all applicable taxes associated with this Software License Agreement. 18 .

ENTIRE AGREEMENT.

No change, waiver, or discharge hereof shall be valid unless in writing and signed by authorized representatives of both the Licensee and Cubic. This Software License Agreement is the exclusive statement of the understanding between the parties with respect to licensing the Software.

Page 10 of 11 ends

Document: T-SVC-004 Rev. E Rev. Date: 18 Oct 2011
REQUEST for QUOTATION / PRICING

Page 11 of 11 ends

Form Number T-CNT-005 Rev. A 13Mar2012

Bus Mobile Validators in
the LA Region
August 22, 2023

NOTICE OF CANCELLATION

City of Gardena

Planning & Environmental Quality Commission

Notice is hereby given that the regular meeting of the
Planning & Environmental Quality Commission
scheduled for August 1, 2023,
has been canceled.

The next regularly scheduled meeting will be held on
August 15, 2023, at 7 p.m.

Dated this 27th day of July 2023

/s/ MINA SEMENZA
City Clerk

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY COMMISSION
Regular PEQC Meeting Notice and Agenda
Website: www.cityofgardena.org
Tuesday, August 15, 2023 – 7:00 PM
1700 W. 162nd Street, Gardena, California

REPORT OF ACTIONS

6. OTHER MATTERS

6. A Discussion of Outdoor Dining Regulations
Consideration on design standards for outdoor seating areas for restaurants
PC Staff Report (Outdoor Dining) 08.15.2023.pdf

Commission Action: The Planning Commission provided Planning Staff with direction on design standards for outdoor seating areas for restaurants.

City of Gardena
Gardena City Council Meeting

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Agenda Item No. 12.A
Section: DEPARTMENTAL

ITEMS - ADMINISTRATIVE

SERVICES
Meeting Date: August 22, 2023

TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE GARDENA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TITLE:

Amendment to the Contract between the California Public Employees' Retirement System Board of Administration and the City of Gardena a. RESOLUTION NO. 6641, Adopting the Resolution of Intention to Approve an Amendment to the Contract between Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System and the City of Gardena
b. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. 1858, Authorizing an Amendment to the Contract Between the Board of Administration the California Public Employees' Retirement System and the City of Gardena
COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED:

Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 6641
Staff Recommendation: Introduce Ordinance No. 1858
RECOMMENDATION AND STAFF SUMMARY:

Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 6641 and Resolution of Intention to approve an amendment to the City's contract with the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System ("CalPERS") to allow cost sharing of the employer contribution pursuant to Government Code Section 20516 for members of the Gardena Municipal Employees Association ("GMEA"), Gardena Management Employees Organization ("GMEO"), and Unrepresented/Confidential Personnel ("Unrepresented").

These resolutions initiate the process to amend the City's contract with CalPERS to allow members of GMEA, GMEO, and Unrepresented to earn credit on the additional one percent (1.0%) paid towards the employer contribution rate, through cost sharing. GMEA agreed to a cost sharing arrangement through the Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU"), adopted by City Council October 12, 2021. GMEO agreed to a cost sharing arrangement through their MOU, adopted by City Council December 14, 2021. The Unrepresented personnel agreed to a cost sharing arrangement through Resolution No. 6565, adopted by City Council March 22, 2022.

There are several steps to amend the City's contract with CalPERS, including approval and certification of attachments included herein. This CalPERS contract-amendment process will be required each of the three (3) years in which the employee groups' cost-sharing contribution will increase each year by 1.0%. This request is the second year of the three-year employee cost-sharing arrangement.

Proposed Ordinance No. 1858 authorizes an amendment to the contract between CalPERS and the City. This is the first reading of the Ordinance, with a second reading and adoption scheduled for September 12, 2023.

FINANCIAL IMPACT/COST:

ATTACHMENTS:

A - City Resolution No. 6641.pdf
B - CalPERS Resolution of Intention.pdf
C - Ordinance No. 1858.pdf
D - CalPERS Amendment to Contract.pdf
E - PERS-CON-12A Cert of Compliance w Gov Code Section 7507.pdf F - PERS-CON12 Certification of Governing Body's Action.pdf G - PERS-CON-500 Cert of Compliance w Gov Code Section 20516.pdf

APPROVED:
___________________________________
Clint Osorio, City Manager
RESOLUTION NO. 6641

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

GARDENA, CALIFORNIA, ADPOTING THE RESOLUTION

OF INTENTION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE

CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION
OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT

SYSTEM AND THE CITY OF GARDENA

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GARDENA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS,
the Public Employees' Retirement Law permits the participation of public agencies and their employees in the Public Employees' Retirement System by the execution of a contract, and sets forth the procedure by which said public agencies may elect to subject themselves and their employees to amendments to said Law; and

WHEREAS, one of the steps in the procedures to amend this contract is the adoption by the governing body of the public agency of a resolution giving notice of its intention to approve an amendment to said contract, which resolution shall contain a summary of the change proposed in said contract; and

WHEREAS, the following is a statement of the proposed change:

To provide Section 20516 (Employees Sharing Additional
Cost) of 1% for local miscellaneous members in the
Gardena Municipal Employees Association, Gardena
Management Employees Organization and the
Unrepresented Confidential group.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GARDENA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE, AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.

RESOLUTION NO. 6641

2 SECTION 2. The City of Gardena does hereby give notice of intention to approve an amendment to the contract between said public agency and the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System, a copy of said amendment being attached hereto, as an "Exhibit" and by this reference made a part hereof.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall ce rtify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; shall cause the same to be entered among the original Resolutions of said City; and shall make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council of said City in the minutes of the meeting at which the same is passed and adopted.

Passed, approved and adopted this ________ day of _________________, 2023.

CITY OF GARDENA CITY COUNCIL

By:

Presiding Officer: TASHA CERDA
Title: Mayor
ATTEST:

________________________________
MINA SEMENZA, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

CARMEN VASQUEZ, City Attorney

(Amendment)
CON-302 (Rev. 3/9/2016 rc)

RESOLUTION OF INTENTION

TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT

BETWEEN THE

BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM

AND THE

CITY COUNCIL

CITY OF GARDENA

WHEREAS, the Public Employees' Retirement Law p ermits the partic ipation of public agencies and their employees in the Public Employees' Retirement System by the execution of a contract, and sets forth the procedure by which said public agencies may elect to subject themselves and their employees to ame ndments to said Law; and

WHEREAS, one of the steps in the procedures to amend this contract is the adoption by the governing body of the public agency of a resolution giving notice of its intention to approve an amendment to said contract, which resolutio n shall contain a summary of the change proposed in said contract; and

WHEREAS, the following is a statement of the proposed change:

To provide Section 20516 (Employees Sharing Additional Cost) of an additional 1% for local miscellaneous members in the Gardena Municipal Employees Association, Gardena Management
Employees Organization and the Unrepresented Confidential group.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the governing body of the above agency d oes hereby give notice of inte ntion to ap prove an amendment to the contract between said public agency and the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System, a copy of said amendment being attached hereto, as an "Exhibit" and by this reference made a part hereof.

By:_________________________________
Presiding Officer

_________________________________
Title
________________________________
Date adopted and approved
(Amendment)
CON-302 (Rev. 3/9/2016 rc)

California Public Employees’ Retirement System
Financial Office | Pension Contracts and Prefunding Programs Division P.O. Box 942703, Sacramento, CA 94229-2703
888 CalPERS (or 888-225-7377) | TTY: (877) 249-7442 | www.calpers.ca.gov

PERS-CON-12A (rev. 12/11/18)

Certification of Compliance with
Government Code Section 7507

I hereby certify that in accordance with Government Code section 7507, the future annual costs as determined by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System for the increase or change in retirement b enefit(s) have been made public at a public meeting of the _______________________________ of the _________________________________________ (governing body) (public agency)
on ________________ which is at least two weeks prior to the adoption of the Resolution / (date)
Ordinance. Adoption of the retirement benefit increase or change will not be placed on the consent calendar.

___________________________________
Clerk/Secretary

___________________________________
Title
Date ___________________

Certification of Governing Body’s Action

I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution adopted by the

____________________________________________________________________ of the (governing body)

_________________________________________________________________________ (public agency)

on ________________________.
(date)

_______________________________________
Clerk/Secretary

_______________________________________
Title

PERS-CON12 (rev. 1/22/19)

PERS-CON-500 (Rev. 1/22/19)

Certification of Compliance with
Government Code Section 20516

I hereby certify that in accordance with Government Code Section 20516 the City of Gardena and its local miscellaneous employees have agreed in writing to the following:

Section 20516 (Employees Sharing Additional Cost) of an additional 1% for local miscellaneous members in the Gardena Municipal Employees Association, Gardena Management Employees Organization and the Unrepresented Confidential group.

_____________________________________
Signature

_____________________________________
Title

_____________________________________
Witness

______________________
Date

City of Gardena
Gardena City Council Meeting

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Agenda Item No. 12.B
Section: DEPARTMENTAL

ITEMS - ADMINISTRATIVE

SERVICES
Meeting Date: August 22, 2023

TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE GARDENA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TITLE:

Approval of Blanket Purchase Orders for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED:

Staff Recommendation: Approve Blanket Purchase Orders for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 RECOMMENDATION AND STAFF SUMMARY:

A blanket purchase order authorizes the City to buy goods or services with predetermined terms or conditions. Since these vendors either have individual contracts, are piggybacking on State contracts, sole source vendors, or provide vital services the City is mandated to use, it is only necessary for the requisitioner to request one purchase order for the estimated amount of the expenditure for the fiscal year. The blanket purchase order is limited by a dollar amount, as approved by Council, and the Purchasing Officer can issue releases of goods or services until the pre-established dollar amount is reached.

Per the City's municipal code, Section 2.60.100 "Purchases greater than thirty thousand dollars shall be approved by the City Council". Therefore, as the estimated budgeted expenditure amount exceeds $30,000, it is requested that Council approve the following Blanket Purchase Orders for fiscal year 2023-2024 as specified in Exhibit A.

FINANCIAL IMPACT/COST:

General Fund
$3,537,744
GTrans
$1,873,215
Other Funds
$1,246,407
Total Blanket Purchase Orders
$6,657,366
ATTACHMENTS:

Exhibit A.pdf

APPROVED:
___________________________________
Clint Osorio, City Manager

VENDOR AMOUNTDESCRIPTION OF SERVICE FUNDING SOURCEDEPARTMENT AT&T FirstNet 73,035 $ Citywide Wireless Telecommunication General Fund Administrative Services Behrends, Kent 50,800 IT Network Support General Fund Administrative Services BPR Consulting Group LLC 1,156,391 Plan Check Services/Building Official/Inspection Services/Permit Technicians General Fund Community Development City of Hawthorne 95,000 Mark 43 (CAD/RMS) General Fund Police Data Gear, Inc 150,000 Video Policing Camera Maintenance General Fund Police Dell Marketing L.P. 129,573 Microsoft Licenses General Fund Administrative Services Department of Justice 40,000 Fingerprint Apps General Fund Police Dooley's Enterprises, Inc 75,000 Ammunition General Fund Police Enterprise FM Trust 169,741 Patrol & City Lease Fleet General Fund Citywide FM Thomas Air Conditioning Inc 78,142 HVAC Preventative Maintenace & Repair General Fund Public Works JL Group LLC 77,000 Investigative Services General Fund Police Jones & Mayer 131,140 City Attorney Services General Fund City Manager's Office Los Angeles County Department of
Public Works 145,000 Industrial Waste Services General Fund Public Works Los Angeles Superior Court 430,000 Parking Citation Fees General Fund Police Phoenix Group Information System 140,000 Citation Billing Services General Fund Police Prudential Overall Supply 62,500 Uniform, Towel & Misc Rental Services/Custodial Supplies General Fund Recreation/Public Works
Pun Group LLP 41,496 City Audit Services General Fund Administrative Services Ricoh USA, Inc 34,088 Copier Leases General Fund Administrative Services Shige's Foreign Car Service Inc 100,000 Vehicle Repairs General Fund Police SPCALA 112,225 Animal Sheltering Services General Fund Community Development Spicers Paper, Inc 35,000 Paper General Fund Administrative Services Townsend Public Affairs, Inc 56,000 Legislative Advocacy & Grant Writing Services General Fund Administrative Services Tyler Technologies, Inc 55,613 Annual Eden Software Renewal General Fund Administrative Services Western Collision Center, Inc 100,000 Vehicle Repairs General Fund Police Total General Fund3,537,744$

EXHIBIT A

VENDOR AMOUNTDESCRIPTION OF SERVICE FUNDING SOURCEDEPARTMENT AT&T FirstNet 18,792 $ Citywide Wireless Telecommunication Enterprise GTrans Aftermarket Parts Company LLC 150,000 Budget Bus Replacement Parts Enterprise GTrans Clean Energy 1,404,551 Fuel - Compressed Natural Gas Enterprise GTrans Copyland, Inc 50,000 Professional Copying and Printing Services Enterprise GTrans Dell Marketing L.P. 37,820 Microsoft Licenses Enterprise GTrans Inter-Con Security Services Inc 115,444 Security Guard Services Enterprise GTrans N/S Corporation 30,000 Bus Wash Equipment Parts Enterprise GTrans Prudential Overall Supply 22,500 Uniform, Towel & Misc Rental Services Enterprise GTrans Pun Group LLP 10,640 City Audit Services Enterprise GTrans Ricoh USA, Inc 3,468 Copier Leases Enterprise GTrans
Toms Truck Center 30,000 Budget Bus Vehicle Parts Enterprise GTrans Total GTrans 1,873,215$

VENDOR AMOUNTDESCRIPTION OF SERVICE FUNDING SOURCEDEPARTMENT Concentra 36,810 $ Medical/Drug Screenings/DOT Recertifications Various Administrative Services CPAC, Inc 226,983 Computer Replacement Internal Service Fund Administrative Services Dell Marketing L.P. 1,444 Microsoft Licenses Sewer Public Works Dell Marketing L.P. 108,182 Microsoft Licenses/Server Replacement Various Citywide Enterprise FM Trust 21,636 City Lease Fleet AQMD Citywide Lincoln National Life Insurance
Company 43,200 Employee Life Insurance Internal Service Fund Administrative Services Los Angeles County Department of
Public Works 30,000 Traffic Signal Maintenance Gas Tax Public Works LWP Claims Solutions Inc 255,460 Work Comp Coverage Internal Service Fund Administrative Services Mariposa Landscapes, Inc 115,724 Tree Trimming Maintenance Service Gas Tax Public Works Mariposa Landscapes, Inc 106,368 Landscape Maintenance Service Gas Tax Public Works Micro Electronics, Inc 60,000 Computer Replacement Parts Internal Service Fund Administrative Services Pinnacle Claims Management Inc 164,545 Health Insurance Coverage Internal Service Fund Administrative Services Pun Group LLP 8,572 City Audit Services Various Citywide Ricoh USA, Inc 2,483 Copier Leases Various Citywide
Swarco McCain, Inc 65,000 Traffic Equipment Supplier Gas Tax Public Works Total Other Funds 1,246,407$
GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS 6,657,366$
City of Gardena
Gardena City Council Meeting

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Agenda Item No. 13.A
Section: DEPARTMENTAL

ITEMS - COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT
Meeting Date: August 22, 2023

TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE GARDENA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TITLE:

PUBLIC HEARING
:

ORDINANCE NO. 1854
, An Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Gardena, California Amending Title 18 and Adding Chapter 5.76 to Title 5 Relating to Home Sharing Rentals
and finding the action exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act Pursuant to the Commonsense Exemption of CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(B)(3)
COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED:

Staff Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing, allow three (3) minutes for each speaker, and Introduce Ordinance No. 1854.

RECOMMENDATION AND STAFF SUMMARY:

Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council introduce Ordinance No. 1854, relating to regulations for short term home sharing rentals.

On November 8, 2022, the City Council directed staff to draft an ordinance that would allow for short-term home sharing rentals in certain residential zones.

Since then, staff has worked with the City Council and Planning Commission to draft an ordinance that would allow short term home sharing rentals.

On July 18, 2023, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC 13-23, recommending that the City Council
adopt Ordinance No. 1856.

Tonight, the City Council is being asked to considered the draft Ordinance for introduction.

This item is a public hearing and members of the public will have the opportunity to speak on the matter. Additionally, all previous public comments received on this item are attached for the City Council's consideration.

FINANCIAL IMPACT/COST:

ATTACHMENTS:

Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 13-23.pdf
Draft Ordinance No. 1854 (Home Sharing).pdf
Staff Report (Home Sharing).pdf
Attachment A - Staff Reports presented to Planning Commission.pdf Attachment B- All Public Comments.pdf

APPROVED:
___________________________________
Clint Osorio, City Manager

1 ORDINANCE NO. 1854

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GARDENA, CALIFORNIA AMENDING TITLE 18 AND ADDING CHAPTER 5.76 TO TITLE 5 RELATING TO HOME SHARING RENTALS

The City Council of the City of Gardena does hereby ordain as follows:

SECTION 1: Findings. The City Council does hereby find and declare as follows:

A. D ue to close proximity to entertainment venues such as SoFi Stadium, Los Angeles International airport, Fortune 500 companies, beaches, and other Southern California tourist d estinations, the City of Gardena has become a popular location for alternative short-term lodging.

B. T he City of Gardena has never specifically allowed short -term rental lodging as an allowed use and considers such uses to be prohibited in the City.

C. R ecent case law calls into question whether the City’s prohibition on short- term rentals is valid without the use being specifically prohibited.

D. Since 2017, the City has specifically prohibited short -term rentals on properties which have an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), regardless of whether the short- term rental was of the ADU or the main residential structure.

E. T he City Council wishes to make clear that short -terms rentals of an entire home are not permitted in the City . The adoption of this ordinance is not meant to indicate that short-term rentals were previously allowed in the City.

F. Short term rentals can create problems in residential areas due to such things as the potential for increased traffic, noise, parking i ssues, and can cause a change to the residential character of the community which can also lead to safety concerns. T he City desires to alleviate these impacts to residential neighborhoods caused by short-term rentals.

G. According to the most recent Regional Housing Needs Allocation which was incorporated into the City’s 6
th Cycle Housing Element, the City has a total need of 5,735 units, 55 percent of which are for very low, low and moderate income households.

H. Short term rentals impact the supply of long- term rental housing available in the City and increase the cost of housing. The City desires to preserve its available housing stock.
2 I. Home sharing, the renting of rooms in private homes by hosts for temporary occupancy while the host is present, can create a community benefit by expanding the number and type of lodging facilities available in the City , can assist homeowners and long-term tenants by providing additional income which may be used for living expenses as well as maintenance and upgrade of residential units, and can provide companionship for people living alone without taking rental units off of the market for long-term tenants.

J. Home sharing does not create the same adverse impacts as unsupervised short-term rentals when the home- shares are hosted by the owner or a qualifying resident who lives on site and is present to regulate guests’ behavior.

K. Imposing time requirements for owners and tenants to have owned and lived in the property helps ensure that those individuals who are home sharing have a long-term interest in the community.

L. While home sharing can be conducted in harmony with surrounding uses, those activities must still be regulated through a permitting process with restrictions and operational regulations to ensure that public health, safety and general welfare are protected.

M. On May 16, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Gardena held a duly noticed public hearing and considered all evidence presented, both written and oral, after which the Planning Commission provided further direction to staff for recommended changes and continued the public hearing to June 20, 2023.

N. On June 20, 2023, the Planning Commission held the continued public hearing and adopted Resolution No. 10-23 recommending that t he City Council adopt the draft of the Ordinance presented.

O. On July 18, 2023 staff returned the item to the Planning Commission for an additional duly, noticed public hearing due to state and federal cases that were decided and/or published after the prior Planning Commission which necessitated revisions to the Ordinance.

P. At the close of the public hearing the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the revised Ordinance amending Title 18 and adding Chapter 5.76 to Title 5.

Q. On August 22, 2023, the City Council of the City of Gardena held a duly noticed public hearing and considered all evidence presented, both written, after which it introduced this Ordinance.

3 R. Adoption of this Ordinance is for public necessity, convenience, and the general welfare as it provides protections t o persons living in residential zones and protects the supply of housing in the City while taking into consideration constitutional requirements.

SECTION 2. Chapter 18.04 of the Gardena Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding the following definitions:

18. 04.232 Home sharing rental.
“Home sharing rental” shall have the same meaning as that set forth in Section

5.76.020 of this Code.

18.04.417 Short term rental.
“Short term rental” shall have the same meaning as that set forth in Section

5.76.020 of this Code.

SECTION 3. Chapter 18.06 of the Gardena Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

Chapter 18.06

NEW AND EXISTING USES/SPECIFIC PLAN PROHIBITIONS

18.06.010 New construction and new uses.

All new construction, including buildings, improvements, alterations or enlargements, undertaken and all new uses or occupancy of premises within the city shall conform with the requirements, character and conditions as to use, height and area laid down for each of the several zones or districts as described in this title. No person shall erect, construct, establish, move into, alter, enlarge, or use or cause or permit to be erected, constructed, established, moved into, altered, enlarged or used, any building, structure, improvement or use of premises located in any zone described in this chapter contrary to the provisions of this title.

18.06.020 Specific Plans – uses prohibited.

A. Short term rentals and home sharing rentals are hereby prohibited in every Specific Plan zone in the city. This prohibition is in addition to the uses specifically identified as permitted or prohibited in each Specific Plan.

SECTION 4. Section 18.12.020 of the Gardena Municipal Code relating to uses allowed in the R-1 zone is hereby amended by adding a subsection J. to read as follows:

J. H ome shar ing rentals. Home sharing rentals shall be allowed in a single-family residence in accordance with Chapter 5.76 of this Code. No home shar ing 4 rental shall be allowed in any dwelling unit if there is an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit on the property.

SECTION 5. Section 18.12.040 of the Gardena Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

18.12.040 Uses prohibited.

A. All uses not listed in Sections 18.12.020 and 18.12.030 are deemed to be expressly prohibited in the R-1 zone, except those determined to be similar pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.42.040; and
B. Short term rentals.

SECTION 6. Section 18.14.020 of the Gardena Municipal Code relating to uses allowed in the R-2 zone is hereby amended by adding a subsection D to read as follows:

D. H ome sharing rentals. Home sharing rentals shall be allowed where there are no more than two units on the property in accordance with Chapter 5.76 of this Code.

No home shar ing rental shall be allowed in any dwelling unit if there is an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit on the property.

SECTION 7. Section 18.1 4.040 of the Gardena Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

18.14.040 Uses prohibited.

A. All uses not listed in Sections 18.14.020 and 18.14.030 are deemed to be expressly prohibited in the R-2 zone, except those determined to be similar pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.42.040;
B. Short term rentals; and
C. Home sharing rentals if there are more than two dwelling units on the property.

SECTION 8. Section 18.16.040 of the Gardena Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

18.16.040 Uses prohibited.

A. All uses not listed in Sections 18.16.020 and 18.16.030 are deemed to be expressly prohibited in the R-3 zone, except those determined to be similar pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.42.040;
B. Home sharing rentals; and
5 C. Short term rentals.

SECTION 9. Section 18.18A.030 of the Gardena Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

18.18A.030 Uses prohibited.

A. All uses not listed in Sections 18.18A.020 are deemed to be expressly prohibited in the R-6 zone, except those determined to be similar pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.42.040.

B. The following uses are expressly prohibited:

1. Home sharing rentals; and

2. Short term rentals.

SECTION 10. Section 18.19.050 of the Gardena Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

18.19.050 Uses prohibited.

A. All uses not listed in Sections 18.19.030 and 18.19.040 are deemed to be expressly prohibited in the MUO zone, except those determined to be similar pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.42.040;
B. Home sharing rentals; and
C. Short term rentals.

SECTION 11. The opening paragraph of Section 18.19 A.050 and subsection A of the Gardena Municipal Code are hereby amended to read as follows; all other sections remain the same:

18.19A.050 Uses prohibited.

All uses not listed in Sections 18. 19A.030 and 18.19A.040 are deemed to be expressly prohibited, except those determined to be similar pursuant to the provisions of Section

18.42.040. No similar use determination may be made for the following specific uses, which are deemed to be incompatible with the uses permitted in the C -3 zone and are therefore prohibited:

A. Residential:

1. Any residential units other than live-work north of Main Street; 6 2. Home sharing rentals; and

3. Short term rentals.

SECTION 12. Section 18.20.040 of the Gardena Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new subsection L and M to read as follows and relettering existing subsection L.

18.20.040 Uses prohibited.

L. Home sharing rentals;
M. Short term rentals; and
LN. A ny other use not listed in Section 18.20.020, 18.20.025, or 18.20.030, except those determined to be similar pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.42.040.

SECTION 13. Section 18.21.040 of the Gardena Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new subsection B.

The following uses shall be explicitly prohibited in the housing overlays:

A. Home sharing rentals; and
B. Short-term rentals.

SECTION 14. Section 18.28.040 of the Gardena Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new subsection L and M to read as follows and relettering existing subsection L.

18.28.040 Uses prohibited.

L. Home sharing rentals;
M. Short term rentals; and
LN. Uses other than those specifically set forth or provided for in Sections 18.28.020 and 18.28.030, except those determined to be similar pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.42.040.

7 SECTION 15. Chapter 5.76 is hereby added to the Gardena Municipal Code to read as follows:

CHAPTER 5.76

HOME SHARING RENTALS

5.76.010 Purpose.

The purpose of this Chapter is to alleviate nuisances, protect the character of the City’s residential communities and stabilize the housing market by protecting the City’s housing supply while at the same time allowing owners and residents to supplement their income, provide potentially more affordable accommodations, and providing the opportunity for companionship.

5.76.020 Definitions.

For the purpose of this Chapter, the following definitions apply:

ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES: Regulations approved by the City Manager that may include, but are not limited to, application requirements, interpretations, conditions, reporting requirements, hosting platform safe harbor requirements, enforcement procedures, and disclosure requirements to implement the provisions of this Chapter.

BEDROOM: Any habitable space in a dwelling unit other than a kitchen, bathroom or living room that is intended for or capable of being used for sleeping, is at least 70 square feet in area with no dimension less than seven feet , has a window to the outside, is separated from other rooms by a door, and is accessible to a bathroom without crossing another bedroom.

BOOKING: A reservation for home sharing.

BOOKING TRANSACTION: Any reservation or payment service provided by a person who facilitates a transaction for home sharing, between a prospective transient user and a host.

DIRECTOR: The Director of Community Development or his/her designee.

DWELLING UNIT: Any building or portion thereof that is used as a complete, independent living facility for one or more persons containing permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation, as required by the California Building Code.

GUEST: A natural person who rents a home sharing rental. 8 HOME SHARING: Renting, for a period of 30 consecutive days or less, of one or more bedrooms in a dwelling unit that is the primary residence of the host, while the host lives on site, in the dwelling unit, throughout the guest’s stay.

HOME SHARING PERMIT (HSP): A permit issued in accordance with this Chapter.

HOME SHARING RENTAL: A dwelling unit that is made available for home sharing. A home sharing rental is included in the definition of “hotel” for purposes of Chapter 3.16 of this Code
HOST: Any natural person who is an owner or a qualifying tenant of a residential dwelling unit offered for use as home sharing rental.

HOSTING PLATFORM: A person or entity that participates in the home sharing rental business by providing booking services through which a host may offer a home sharing rental. Hosting platforms usually, though not necessarily, provide booking services through an online platform that allows a host to advertise the home sharing rental through a website provided by the hosting platform and the hosting platform conducts a transaction by which potential renters arrange use and payment, whether the renter pays rent directly to the operator or to the hosting platform.

LISTING: A webpage or advertisement (online or otherwise) for a home sharing rental or other overnight rented stays located on a hosting Platform or other online platform(s), including the web URL, metadata and other attributes.

LIVES ON -SITE: Maintains a physical presence in the home sharing rental including, without limitation, all of the following: the storing of one’s clothes and other personal effects, sleeping overnight, preparing and eating meals, and engaging in other activities of the type typically engaged in by a person residing in a dwelling unit.

OWNER: Any person who, alone or with others, has legal or equitable title to a dwelling unit and has held such interest for a minimum of one year. A person whose interest in the property is solel y that of a tenant, subtenant, lessee, or sublessee under an oral or written rental housing agreement shall not be considered an owner.

PERMIT PERIOD: A five-year period of time commencing on April 15, 2024 and ending on April 14, 2029 and every five-years thereafter commencing on April 15 of that year.

PERSON: A natural person or any legal entity.

PRIMARY RESIDENCE: The residential unit where the host resides for at least 183 nights per year. A host can have only one primary residence.

QUALIFYING TENANT: A tenant who has lived at the home sharing rental for a minimum of one year.

SHORT-TERM RENTAL: Any rental of a dwelling unit or any portion thereof for occupancy, dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes for a period of 30 consecutive calendar days or less which does not qualify as a home sharing rental. 9 5.76.030 License, permits and taxes required.

A. No person may rent, offer to rent, or advertise a home sharing rental to another person without a valid business license. The business license must be renewed on a yearly basis.

B. No person may rent, offer to rent, or advertise a home sharing rental to another person without a valid home shar ing permit approved and issued in the manner set forth in this Chapter.

C. All home sharing hosts shall be subject to the provisions of Title 5 (Business Licenses and Regulations) and Chapter 3.16, including the requirement to pay the City’s Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) and the requirement to have a transient occupancy registration certificate. Unless the applicant has the hosting platform they use collect and remit all TOT on their behalf, the applicant must be registered to pay TOT with the City’s Business License Division. Regardless of whether a host utilizes a hosting platform that offers to collect and remit TOT on their behalf, the host is ultimately responsible for the collection and monthly remittance of TOT to the City.

5.76.040 Home Sharing Permit
The following persons are qualified to be a host of a Home Sharing Rental:

A. Home sharing permits shall only be granted to applicants who are the owners or qualifying tenant of the proposed home shar ing rental as specified in this Chapter. A host may be issued only one home sharing permit within the City.

B. The following persons are qualified to be a host of a Home Sharing Rental:

1. An owner who lives on the premises and has owned the residence for a minimum of one year prior to the date of the application.

2. An owner who has owned the residence for a minimum of one year prior to the date of the application and who does not live on the premises but has a qualifying tenant and whose lease with the tenant specifies that the owner may use a designated bedroom or bedrooms for home sharing.

3. A qualifying tenant whose lease with the owner specifies that the tenant may use a designated bedroom or bedrooms for home sharing and the owner has owned the residence for a minimum of one year prior to the date of the application.

4. Ownership, including the length of ownership, shall be established by providing a copy of at least one document that identifies the full name or names of the 10 applicant as owner and the address of the property. Examples of acceptable documents include recent copies of: a property tax bill, mortgage statement, and title report.

5. Primary residency for a host or qualifying tenant shall be established by providing two documents which associate the property as the place which is the base of their personal life activities. Examples of acceptable documents include the following when the name and address match that of the application and there is a date on at least one document establishing residency of one year: valid federal or state- issued photo identification card; passport or alien registration card; valid California voter regi stration card or status document; vehicle registration certificate; health insurance or vehicle insurance bills; pay stubs with name and address; original utility bills for water, gas or electric service.

C. Home sharing permits shall be valid for a five-year period commencing April 15 of one year and ending on April 14, five years later.

D. The City shall issue a maximum of 100 home sharing permits per five-year period. The application period shall be January 1 through February 15, commencing in calendar year 2024 and then every five years thereafter.

1. If there are more than 100 qualified applications submitted during this time, the City shall issue home sharing permits by way of a lottery.

2. If there are less than 100 qualified applicants submitted during this time and additional home sharing permit s are available, such permits may be issued on a first-come, first-served basis through the end rental permit period until 100 permits have been issued. Regardless of when a permit is issued during this time, it shall only be valid until the remainder of the rental permit period.

3. If a lottery is conducted and a qualified applicant is not selected, then the applicant’s permit fee shall be refunded.

E. No home sharing permit shall be issued to a host who has previously had a home sharing permit revoked.

F. No home sharing permit shall be issued for a dwelling unit with a pending enforcement action by the City for violations of this Chapter or any provision of the Municipal Code, unless the approval is required to resolve the enforcement action.

5.76.050 H ome Sharing Permit – Application and Renewal Procedures A. Only a proposed host may apply for a home sharing permit. 11 B. An application for a home sharing permit must meet the following requirements, be made on a form approved by the City , and must contain the following information:

1. The name, address , and telephone number of the host of the residence for which the permit is to be issued.

2. Whether the applicant is an owner or qualifying tenant.

3. Proof that the proposed home sharing rental is the primary residence of the owner, and if applicable, the qualifying tenant.

4. Proof that the owner has owned the proposed home share for at least a year and if applicable, that the qualifying tenant has resided in the proposed home share for at least a year.

5. An acknowledgment that the home sharing permit is only valid for the permit period of five years and subject to renewals which may be through a lottery system if there are more than the allowed number of users which apply.

6. An acknowledgment that the home sharing permit does not create a vested right, is non-transferable, does not run with the land and may not necessarily be renewed for successive five-year periods.

7. If the applicant is a property owner who will reside on site:
a. Proof that the proposed home share is the owner ’s primary residence;

b. Proof that the owner has owned the house for a minimum of 365 days prior to the date of the application.

8. If the applicant is an owner who will not reside on site but has a qualifying tenant:
a. Proof that the owner has owned the house for a minimum of 365 days prior to the date of the application;
c. Proof, other than a rental agreement, that the proposed home share is the qualifying tenant’s primary residence;

d. Proof that the qualifying tenant has resided at the resi dence for a minimum of 365 days;
e. A copy of the lease naming the qualifying tenant and specifying that the owner can use the residence for a home share rental and designating which rooms can be used for such purposes.

9. If the applicant is a qualified tenant:
12 a. Proof that the owner has owned the house for a minimum of 365 days prior to the date of the application;
b. Proof, other than a rental agreement, that the proposed home share is the qualifying tenant’s primary residence.
c. Proof that the qualifying tenant has resided at the residence for a minimum of 365 days;
d. A copy of the lease naming the qualifying tenant and specifying that the tenant can use the residence for a home share rental and designating which rooms can be used for such purposes;

10. An identification of the number of bedrooms to be home shared.

11. Such other information as required by the Administrative Guidelines or as the City Manager or his/her designee deems reasonably necessary to administer this Chapter.

12. All applications must be signed and notarized by the property owner and, if applicable, by the qualifying tenant.

C. An application for a home sharing permit and for each renewal must be accompanied by a fee established by resolution of the City Council.

D. Once an applicant has been notified that they will receive a home sharing permit for the following period, the applicant shall have 45 days to provide the City with the information listed below. Once the information is provided, the home sharing permit shall be issued.

1. Evidence that the host has applied for or obtained a business license for operating a home sharing rental.

2. Evidence that the host has applied for or obtained a transient occupancy registration certificate for the home sharing rental.

3. Proof of general liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit. Insurance must be kept up to date on a yearly basis and a copy of the policy must be provided to the City upon request in subsequent years of the rental period. The insurance requirement may be satisfied if the host lists only on host ing Platforms that provide the host with this level of insurance. In such a case, the host must provide the City with a copy of the agreement between the host and the hosting Platform that evidences the requisite insurance coverage.

E. Renewal applications shall be processed in the same manner as the original application and shall contain the same information.

F. It shall be the obligation of the host to notify the Community Development Department of any changes to the information provided in the applicatio n within 15 13 business days of such change.

5.76.060 Regulatory requirements.

Home sharing permits are subject to the following regulations and conditions:

A. The host must reside on-site in a bedroom, within the home sharing rental, during the time in which guests are present.

B. Home sharing is only allowed in the Single -Family (R-1) and Low-Density Multiple-Family (R-2) zones as further set forth in Title 18 and may not be located on any property on which there is an accessory dwelling unit.

C. At all times the home sharing rental must be used solely for residential purposes.

D. Only bedrooms may be rented and occupancy shall be limited to a maximum of 4 people per bedroom.

E. The host must take responsibility for and actively prevent any nuisance activities that may take place as a result of home-sharing.

F. There must be a minimum of two parking spaces on site per unit , which need not be in an enclosed garage. Parking must meet the requirements of Chapter

18.40 of this Code. At least one parking space per reservation must be made available to guests and such parking may include the required parking as well as driveway spaces.

Tandem parking spaces are acceptable provided each tandem space measures at least 9 feet by 20 feet and does not extend into any sidewalk or other public right-of-way. If any of the required parking is provided in a garage, each garage space must be kept clear of debris and able to accommodate a vehicle at all times.

G. The host shall keep records of the vehicle license plate numbers of guests, which shall be provided to the City upon request.

H. The host shall notify all residents within 75 feet of the property on which the home sharing rental is located that the host is operating a home sharing rental from that location.

I. The host shall post contact information on the property on a place that is visible and accessible to the public that provides the following information for the host:
name, phone number, e- mail address. The notice shall also include the home sharing permit number. The notice shall be in a minimum 1-inch size font.

14 J. The home shar e must at all times have operable basic health and safety features, including fire extinguishers, smoke detectors, and carbon monoxide detectors.

K. The property shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition. Trash and refuse shall not be left outdoors and shall not be left stored within public view, except in proper containers for the purpose of collection by the trash collectors.

L. The host must maintain a transient occupancy registration certificate and must ensure the timely remittance of all transient occupancy taxes due in accordance with 3.16 of this Code.

M. A home share is for overnight lodging accommodations only and may not be used for, or advertised for use for weddings, parties of any kind, conferences, or similar events.

N. The host must provide a Good Neighbor Policy notice to all guests that advises, at a minimum, the following:

1. The expectation that guests are expected to be respectful of neighbors and maintain the residential character of the neighborhood;

2. Parking requirements;

3. Rules for trash and recycling;

4. That the City noise provisions require noise levels to be reduced from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.;

5. That upon a failure to vacate by the expiration of the occupancy term, guests may be deemed trespassers and may be subject to removal by relevant authorities;

6. That pursuant to Chapter 9.68 of the Municipal Code, if the police are called to address public peace, health, safety, or general welfare issues, guests may be responsible for the cost of the police response; and

7. That the rental may only be used for residential purposes and may not be used for weddings, parties of any kind, conferences, or similar events.

O. If the re is a change to the information provided in the application which qualified the dwelling unit to be a home sharing rental, such change must be reported to the Community Development Department in accordance with Section 5.76.050F, the host must also remove all listings within 15 business days and cease operations of the home sharing rental.

15 P. The host shall keep and preserve, for a minimum period of three years, all records regarding each home sharing stay, including the length of stay for each booking and the corresponding rate charged, which shall be provided to the City upon request.

5.76.070 Advertising
A. The host is responsible for the content of all advertising with respect to the home sharing rental.

B. All advertising shall contain the following information:

1. The City-issued registration number

2. The applicable maximum occupancy per bedroom;

3. That the host will be present at all times during the rental.

C. In the event a home sharing permit is revoked, the host must remove all listings within 48 hours.

D. The Director may request a hosting platform to remove a listing for any unpermitted home sharing or short-term rental unit or for any home share unit that had its home sharing permit revoked pursuant to this Chapter.

5.76.080 Ban, termination, and revocation.

A. Ban.

1. If the Director determines that there is fraud on any application, the applicant shall be permanently banned from operating a home sharing rental within the City.

2. If there are three sustained complaints, whether criminal, civil, or administrative, within a 12 month period against a host, the host shall be permanently banned from operating a home sharing rental within the City.

B. Automatic Termination. A home sharing permit shall automatically terminate upon a change of circumstances that would have led to a denial of the home sharing permit in the first instance.

C. Revocation. A home sharing permit may be revoked for non- compliance with any provision of a home sharing permit or this Code after receiving a written Notice of Violation which has become final or for violations of this Code at the location of the home sharing rental. A written Notice of Violation is not required in cases where the violation causes an immediate threat to the health and safety of the guest s or other occupants of the home sharing rental or to any surrounding neighbors. 16 D. Any regulatory actions taken hereunder shall be in writing and issued by the Community Development Director. Such actions shall be appealable pursuant to Chapter

1.12 of the Gardena Municipal Code. This shall not apply to any administrative citation issued pursuant to chapter 1.20 of this Code.

5.76.090 Registry.

All hosts and their respective property permitted for home sharing pursuant to this Chapter shall be listed on a registry created by the City which list shall be periodically updated. This registry shall be a public record and made available to any person upon request.

5.76.100 Administrative Guidelines.

The City Manager or his /her designee may promulgate administrative guidelines, which may include, but are not limited to, application requirements, permit conditions, reporting requirements, inspection frequencies, enforcement procedures, advertising restrictions, disclosure requirements, to im plement the provisions of this Chapter. No person shall fail to comply with any such regulation once it is incorporated into the Administrative Guidelines.

5.76.110 Hosting Platform Responsibilities.

A. Unless an alternative arrangement is authorized by the Administrative Guidelines, a hosting platform shall be responsible for collecting all transient occupancy taxes applicable to bookings completed through the hosting platform and for remitting the same to the City. The hosting platform shall be considered an agent of the host for purposes of such transient occupancy tax collections and remittance responsibilities as set forth in Chapter 3.16 of this Code.

B. The hosting platform shall require the host to input the home share unit’s corresponding Short -term home sharing permit number, consistent with the City’s alphanumeric format, before the listing can be displayed. Any short-term rental unit listing that predates this ordinance and that does not have a corresponding Short -term home sharing permit number shall be removed by the hosting platform consistent with this Section.

C. A hosting platform shall not complete any booking transaction for any residential property or unit unless it is listed on the City’s registry created under Section

5.76.090 at the time the hosting platform receives a fee for booking the transaction. Upon request from the Director made in a manner specified in the Administrative Guidelines, 17 the hosting platform must remove a home share or short-term rental listing or take other action consistent with the Administrative Guidelines.

D. On a quarterly basis, the hosting platform shall provide the City with a report detailing the total number of nights all home shar ing rentals were rented through the platform during the applicable reporting period.

E. A hosting platform shall not collect or receive a fee or other financial benefit, directly or indirectly through an agent or intermediary, for facilitating or providing services ancillary to an unregistered home sharing rental , including, but not limited to, insurance, concierge services, catering, restaurant bookings, tours, guide services, entertainment, cleaning, property management, or maintenance of the residential property or unit.

F. Safe Harbor. A hosting platform shall be presumed to be in compliance with this Chapter if it does either of the following:

1. Operates in compliance with subsections A – E above, or

2. Complies with the Administrative Guidelines approved by the City Manager or his/her designee that describe how the hosting platform must satisfy the hosting platform responsibilities in this Chapter.

G. The provisions of this Section shall be interpreted in accordance with otherwise applicable State and Federal laws and will not apply if determined by the City to be in violation of, or preempted by, any such laws.

5.76.120 Prohibitions.

A. It is unlawful to offer, operate, maintain, authorize, aid, facilitate or advertise the home sharing of any portion of any residential dwelling unit in the city without a valid home sharing rental permit.

B. It is unlawful to offer, operate, maintain, authorize, aid, facilitate or advertise the home sharing rental of any portion of any residential dwelling unit in the city, other than for home sharing.

C. It is unlawful to operate or maintain a home shar ing unit in violation of the provisions of this Chapter.

D. Only a qualifying residential dwelling unit or portion thereof may be made available for home sharing subject to this Chapter and Title 18.

E. It is unlawful to offer, operate, maintain, authorize, aid, facilitate or advertise the short-term rental of any place or vehicle, other than a permitted home sharing rental, for purposes of overnight lodging (for example, a tree house, recreational vehicle, tent, etc.)

18 5.76.130 Enforcement; penalties.

A. Any person, including a guest, who violates any provision of this Chapter, or hosting platform that violates its obligations under this Chapter, shall be subject to administrative citations and penalties pursuant to Chapter 1.20 of this Code as well as criminal citations.

B. If the property upon which a home share unit is located is the subject or the site of three final violations of any of the provisions of this Chapter, or of Chapters 8.36 (Noise), 8.64 (Real Property Nuisance), or 9.68 (Unruly Gatherings), Title 15 relating to violation of building codes, or any combination thereof, the home sharing permit for the unit shall be automatically revoked. For purposes of this section, the automatic revocation shall become effective as of the date the third citation becomes final (i.e., the time for administrative and/or judicial review has passed or final judgment of a court has been entered upholding the citation).

C. The remedies provided in this Section are not exclusive, and nothing in this Section shall preclude the City’s use or application of any other remedies, penalties or procedures established by law.

5.76.140 Remedies not exclusive.

The remedies listed in this Chapter are not exclusive of any other remedies available to the City under any applicable federal, state or local law and it is within the discretion of the city to seek cumulative remedies.

SECTION 16. Effective Date.

A. This Ordinance shall take effect on the thirty-first day after passage.

B. Notwithstanding subsection A, short-term rentals that were in effect on the date of adoption of this Ordinance shall have until 180 days after the effective date to cease all operations. This extension shall not apply to any vehicle or trailer which is being used as a short-term rental.

C. For any short-term lodging rental remaining in operation n the effective date of this Ordinance, the host shall be required to obtain a business license from the City and pay the Transient Occupancy Tax in accordance with Chapter 3.16 of the Gardena Municipal Code.

SECTION 17. Relief.

A. The owner of any residence being used for a short-term lodging rental may appeal the termination of the use pursuant to the following administrative procedure:
19 1. No later than 45 days after the adoption date, the owner or other person with an interest in the property may file a written request for relief (“Request”) to the Community Development Director.

The Request shall state all reasons, including but not limited to alleged abridgements of the appellant’s constitutional rights, and why the prohibition should not be made effective as set forth in Section 16 of this Ordinance on the 90
th day after
effective date extension and relief.

2. Within 30 calendar days of filing the Request , the matter shall be set for hearing before a hearing officer.

3. Within 10 business days after the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing officer shall certify the findings and issue a written decision to the owner and the City. The decision of the hearing officer shall be final, subject to judicial review pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and further subject to the time limits for seeking such review pursuant to Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. The cost of the hearing officer shall be paid for by the owner.

The owner shall be required to submit a deposit in an amount determined by resolution of the City Council with the Request.

5. The City shall take no enforcement action toward requiring termination of the short-term lodging rental use pending the final decision of the hearing officer.

B. There are no appeal rights regarding vehicles or trailers being used as short-term rentals.

SECTION 18. General Plan Consistency. Adoption of this Ordinance is consistent with the City’s General Plan. Specifically, the Ordinance implements Land Use Goal 1 and policies 1.1 and 1.2 by preserving and protecting single- family and low/medium-density residential neighborhoods as it helps create safe neighborhoods and protects the neighborhoods from incompatible uses of areas becoming commercial districts. The Ordinance also promotes policy 1.10 by insuring there will be adequate off-street parking.

The Ordinance promotes Noise Goal 2 by incorporating noise considerations into land use planning decisions. By preventing entire homes from being rented as short term rentals, the Ordinance also promotes Housing Element Goal 1.0 by maintaining and enhancing the stability of the of the City’s housing stock. Lastly, adoption of the 20 Ordinance helps promote and retain the business community by increasing the customer base of people who will make use of City businesses.

SECTION 19. CEQA. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq. and the CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined that the Ordinance does not qualify as a project as defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15378, and there is no potential for the adoption of the Ordinance to result in a physical change in the environment and therefore is not subject to CEQA. Even if the Ordinance were subject to CEQA, it would be exempt under the common sense exemption of Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) as there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment. Adoption of the Ordinance is also exempt under Guidelines section 15308 as an action to creating a regulatory process to protect the environment. Staff is directed to file a Notice of Exemption.

SECTION 20.

Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance, or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase be declared unconstitutional.

SECTION 21.

Certification. The City Clerk shall certify the passage of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be entered in the book of original ordinances of said City; shall make a minute passage and adoption thereof in the records of the meeting at which time the same is passed and adopted; and shall, within fifteen (15) days after the passage and adoption thereof, cause the same to be published as required by law, in a publication of general circulation.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ____ day of ____________, 2023.

_____________________________
TASHA CERDA, Mayor

ATTEST:

MINA SEMENZA, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

CARMEN VASQUEZ, City Attorney

Page 1 of 3 ends

City of Gardena
City Council Meeting

AGENDA TITLE:

PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE NO. 1854 , An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gardena, California Amending Title 18 and Adding Chapter 5.76 to Title 5 Relating to Home Sharing Rentals and finding the action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act Pursuant to the Commonsense Exemption of CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(B)(3)

RECOMMENDATION:

Conduct a public hearing and introduce Ordinance No. 1854.

BACKGROUND:

After several hearings before the City Council, on November 8, 2022, the City Council directed staff to draft an ordinance that would allow for short -term home sharing rentals in limited residential zones.

A draft ordinance was presented to the Planning Commission in May 2023, revisions directed by the Planning Commission were brought back in June 2023. Right before the Ordinance was to be heard by the Planning Commission, the City Attorney’s office became aware of very recent case law that requires that o ut of state owners be allowed to do rentals in the same manner as in state owners, i.e., those who live on site, in order to be compliant with the Dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. A revised ordinance was then brought back to the Planning Commission in July 2023. The staff reports for these meetings, without attachments, are attached hereto (Attachment A).

All previous public comments that have been received on the issue of short term rentals are attached hereto as Attachment B.

ORDINANCE SUMMARY:

The Ordinance adds a new Chapter 5.76 to the Gardena Municipal Code relating to Home Sharing Rentals. There are a number of definitions that are added, including the following:

AGENDA STAFF REPORT

Page 2 of 3 ends

• Bedroom: Any habitable space in a dwelling unit other than a kitchen, bathroom or living room that is intended for or capable of being used for sleeping, is at least 70 square feet in area with no dimension less than seven feet, has a window to the outside, is separated from other rooms by a door, and is accessible to a bathroom without crossing another bedroom.

• Home Sharing: Renting, for a period of 30 consecutive days or less, of one or more bedrooms in a dwelling unit that is the primary residence of the host, while the host lives on site, in the dwelling unit, throughout the guest’s stay.

• Owner: Any person who, alone or with others, has legal or equitable title to a dwelling unit and has held such interest for a minimum of one year. A person whose interest in the property is solely that of a tenant, subtenant, lessee, or sublessee under an oral or written rental housi ng agreement shall not be considered an owner.

• Qualifying Tenant: A tenant who has lived at the home sharing rental for a minimum of one year.

The following summarizes the major provisions of the draft ordinance for Short -Term Rentals:
• Short-term rentals of entire units are completely prohibited in the City.

• Home sharing rentals are only allowed in the R-1 and R-2 zones where there are 2 units on the property and prohibited everywhere else in the City.

• Home sharing is not allowed if there is an ADU or JA DU on the property in either dwelling unit.

• Home sharing rentals will be required to obtain a permit which will be valid for 5 years.

• The following persons are qualified to be a host of Home Sharing Rental and obtain a permit:

o An owner who lives on the premises and has owned the house for a minimum of one year prior to the date of application;

o An owner who has owned the residence for a minimum of one year prior to the date of application and who does not live on the premises, but has a qualifying tenant and the lease specifies the owner may use a designated bedroom(s) for home sharing;

o A qualifying tenant whose lease with the owner specifies that the tenants may use a designated bedroom(s) for home sharing and the owner has

Page 3 of 3 ends

owned the r esidence for a minimum of one year prior to the date of the application.

• There will be a maximum of 100 permits that may be issued; if more than 100 apply there will be a lottery.

• Applicant will be required to have a $1,000,000 insurance policy. • Section 5.76.060 contains regulatory requirements including:

o Only 4 persons per bedroom may be allowed;

o There must be a minimum of two parking spaces on site per unit, but they do not need to be in an enclosed garage;

o Notification requirements to residents within 75 feet;

o Posting of contact information on the home; and

o Provision of a Good Neighbor Policy notice to all guests.

• Existing short-term rentals will have until 180 days after the effective date to cease all operations. This does not apply to vehicles or trailers which are being used as short-term rentals as opposed to dwelling units.

o These rentals will be required to obtain a business license from the City and pay the TOT.

• The ordinance provides for a procedure for owners to seek relief from the effective termination of their short term rentals in order to provide due process.

Attachments
A – Previous Staff Reports presented to the Planning Commission B – All previous Public Comments

CITY OF GARDENA

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT
RESOLUTION NO. PC 10-23
ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT #3-23
AGENDA ITEM #6.C
DATE: May 16, 2023
TO: Chair Henderson and Members of the Planning and Environmental Quality Commission
FROM: Greg Tsujiuchi, Community Development Director
PREPARED BY: Amanda Acuna, Senior Planner
APPLICANT: City of Gardena
LOCATION: Citywide
REQUEST: Recommendation to the City Council on adoption of an ordinance amending Title 18 and adding Chapter 5.76 to Title 5 of the Gardena Municipal Code relating to regulations for short term home sharing rentals.

BACKGROUND
In recent years t he Community Development Department has received numerous inquiries regarding the legality of short term rentals (STRs). An STR is any rental of a dwelling of thirty days or less. On August 9, 2022, the City Council discussed various policy options for short term rentals (STRs) and heard concerns from the public on potential loss of neighborhood character and challenges with enforcement. At the same meeting, the Council directed staff to draft an ordinance prohibiting all STRs within residential zones.

On September 6, 2022, the Planning Commission considered a draft ordinance and made a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the prohibition of short term rentals.

On September 13, 2022, the City Council considered this ordinance at a public hearing where there were more than a dozen speakers who spoke in opposition to a ban on STRs.

After hearing comments and discussion among the Council, a motion to adopt the ordinance failed.

On November 8, 2022, staff brought to the City Council further information on potential policies and data collected regarding STRs that currently exist in the City. At that time the RESO NO. PC 10-23
May 16, 2023

Page 2 of 5 ends

City Council directed staff to draft an ordinance that would allow for short -term home sharing rentals in certain residential zones.

What is being asked of the Planning Commission is to make a recommendation to the City Council on an ordinance allowing short-term home sharing rentals.

ANALYSIS
Short-term home sharing would allow the renting of one or more bedrooms in a residential dwelling unit where the property owner , or “host”, is present during the entirety of the renters’ stay, for periods of thirty consecutive days or less . This type of rental expands the number and type of lodging facilities available in the City while also providing assistance to homeowners by providing revenue which may be used for maintenance and upgrade of residential units.

Zoning Changes
The draft ordinance was written to allow for short -term home sharing rentals only in the R-1 (single-family residential homes) and R-2 (maximum of two dwelling units) zones, as home-sharing is intended for when the dwelling unit is the host’s primary residence. No home sharing rental shall be allowed in any dwelling unit if there is an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit on the property. Further, except as listed above, the ordinance would prohibit all types of short-term rentals in all residentials zones and areas zoned for specific plans. As the City’s current code is silent on these matters, proper definitions will be established for these types of rental uses.

If adopted by the City Council, the ordinance would not go into effect until approximately August 9, 2023. The ordinance includes a provision that would require all those properties with an existing short term rental to be able to continue renting until a certain time. Staff is asking the Planning Commission for direction on what would be considered sufficient time that will allow hosts the ability to cancel reservations and to find alternate locations for guests.

Addition of Chapter 5.76
An application procedure and permitting requirements will be established for short-term home sharing rental s. Aside from obtaining proper licensing and registration permits, each host would be required to comply with various provisions, such as the following:
• Only rooms original ly designed as bedrooms may be rented. Occupancy shall be limited to a maximum of 4 people per bedroom.
• The Host shall keep records of the vehicle license plate numbers of guests.

RESO NO. PC 10-23
May 16, 2023

Page 3 of 5 ends

• The Host shall notify all residents within 75 feet of the property on which the home sharing rental is located that the host is operating a home sharing rental from that location.
• The Host shall post contact information on the property on a place that is visible to the public that provides the following information for the host: name, phone number, e-mail address. The notice shall be in a minimum 1-inch size font. • The owner must maintain a transient occupancy registration certificate and must ensure the timely remittance of all transient occupancy taxes due in accordance with

3.16 of this Code.
• A home sharing rental is for overnight lodging accommodations only and may not be used for, or advertised for use for weddings, parties of any kind, conferences, or similar events.

Additionally, the owner must show that the property meets the minimum parking requirements of Gardena Municipal Code Chapter 18.40. For single -family homes in the R-1 zone, the minimum requirement is a two- car garage. In the R -2, the parking requirements is a two-car garage for each dwelling unit, plus ½ space per unit for guest parking. In addition to meeting the minimum parking requirements, the owner must show that the property can also accommodate at least one parking space per reservation that is made available to the renter. Such parking may include the required parking as well as driveway spaces (Figure 1 – Parking Diagram).

RESO NO. PC 10-23
May 16, 2023

Page 4 of 5 ends

Figure 1 – Parking Diagram

Administrative guidelines have been drafted to include application requirements, conditions, reporting requirements, hosting platform safe harbor requirements, enforcement procedures, and disclosure requirements to implement the provisions of the ordinance (Attachment B).

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Adoption of this ordinance is consistent with the City’s General Plan. Specifically, the ordinance implements Land Use Goal 1 and policies 1.1 and 1.2 by preserving and protecting single- family and low/medium -density residential neighborhoods as it helps create safe neighborhoods and protects the neighborhoods from incompatible uses of areas becoming commercial districts.

The ordinance also promotes policy 1.10 by insuring there will be adequate off -street parking. The o rdinance promotes Noise Goal 2 by incorporating noise considerations into land use planning decisions. By preventing entire homes from being rented as short term rentals, the ordinance also promotes Housing Element Goal 1.0 by maintaining and enhancing the stability of the City’s housing stock. Lastly, adoption of the ordinance helps

RESO NO. PC 10-23
May 16, 2023

Page 5 of 5 ends

promote and retain the business community by increasing the customer base of people who will make use of City businesses.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined that the o rdinance does not qualify as a project as there is no potential for the adoption of the ordinance to result in a physical change in the environment and therefore is not subject to CEQA.

Even if the ordinance were subject to CEQA, it would be exempt under the common sense exemption of Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) as there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment. Adoption of the o rdinance is also exempt under Guidelines section 15308 as an action to creating a regulatory process to protect the environment.

NOTICING
The public hearing notice for this zoning amendment was published in the Gardena Valley News on May 4, 2023. A copy of Proof of Publication and Affidavit of Mailing are on file in the office of the Community Development Department Room 101, City Hall and are considered part of the administrative record (Attachment C). Additionally, emails were sent to all individuals who previously spoke on this item who provided their email addresses to the City.

On May 11, 2023, a public comment was received regarding this matter and hereto attached as Attachment D.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning and Environmental Quality Commission to:
1) Open the public hearing;
2) Receive testimony from the public; and
3) Adopt Resolution No. PC 10-23 recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1854.

ATTACHMENT
A - Resolution No. PC 10-23 with exhibit
Exhibit A – Draft Ordinance 1854
B – Draft Administrative Guidelines
C – Public Noticing
D – Public Comment Received May 11, 2023

CITY OF GARDENA

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT
RESOLUTION NO. PC 10-23
ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT #3-23
AGENDA ITEM #6.A
DATE: June 20, 2023
TO: Chair Henderson and Members of the Planning and Environmental Quality Commission
FROM: Greg Tsujiuchi, Community Development Director
PREPARED BY: Amanda Acuna, Senior Planner
APPLICANT: City of Gardena
LOCATION: Citywide
REQUEST: Recommendation to the City Council on adoption of an ordinance amending Title 18 and adding Chapter 5.76 to Title 5 of the Gardena Municipal Code relating to regulations for short term home sharing rentals.

BACKGROUND
On May 16, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on consideration of an ordinance establishing regulations for short term home sharing rentals. At that time the Planning Commission provided further direction to staff for recommended changes and continued the public hearing to June 20, 2023.

What is being asked of the Planning Commission is to make a recommendation to the City Council on the Ordinance with the revised changes for allowing short-term home sharing rentals.

ANALYSIS
At the May 16th meeting the Commission asked that there be a requirement for properties requesting to have short-term home sharing rentals to have a minimum of two parking spaces on site per dwelling unit, which would not necessarily have to be in an enclosed garage. Additionally, the Commission requested that a 90 day timeframe be established for those properties with existing short-term rentals to be come into compliance with the new regulations. Lastly, the Commission recommended that a request for relief process be included in the Ordinance. The Planning Commission is being asked whether the extension of time and relief request should be applied to those existing listings within an RESO NO. PC 10-23
June 20, 2023

Page 2 of 2 ends

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), as highlighted in yellow in the attached Ordinance. All changes are shown in redline.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning and Environmental Quality Commission to:
1) Continue the public hearing;
2) Receive testimony from the public; and
3) Adopt Resolution No. PC 10-23 recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1854.

ATTACHMENT
A – Resolution No. PC 10-23 with exhibit
Exhibit A – Draft Ordinance 1854

CITY OF GARDENA

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT
RESOLUTION NO. PC 13-23
ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT #3-23
AGENDA ITEM #6.A
DATE: July 18, 2023
TO: Chair Henderson and Members of the Planning and Environmental Quality Commission
FROM: Greg Tsujiuchi, Community Development Director
PREPARED BY: Amanda Acuna, Senior Planner
APPLICANT: City of Gardena
LOCATION: Citywide
REQUEST: Reconsideration of a recommendation to the City Council on adoption of an ordinance amending Title 18 and adding Chapter 5.76 to Title 5 of the Gardena Municipal Code relating to regulations for short term home sharing rentals and finding the action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act Pursuant to the Commonsense Exemption of CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(B)(3)

On June 20, 2023, the Planning Commission held the continued public hearing and adopted Resolution No. 10-23 recommending that the City Council adopt the draft of the Ordinance presented.

As staff was preparing the item for the City Council’s July 11, 2023 meeting, the City Attorney’s office became aware of two new cases on short-term rentals in relation to the Dormant Commerce Clause. A memo has been prepared by the City Attorney’s office and attached hereto as Attachment A, with further information regarding the recent cases.

What is being asked of the Planning Commission is to reconsider the revised draft Ordinance and make a recommendation to the City Council.

RESO NO. PC 13-23
July 18, 2023

Page 2 of 2 ends

NOTICING
The public hearing notice was published in the Gardena Valley News on July 6 , 2023 (Attachment C). A copy of Proof of Publication and Affidavit of Mailing are on file in the office of the Community Development Department Room 101, City Hall and are considered part of the record.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning and Environmental Quality Commission to:
1) Open the public hearing;
2) Receive testimony from the public; and
3) Adopt Resolution No. PC 13-23 recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1854.

ATTACHMENT
A – City Attorney Memorandum
B – Resolution No. PC 13-23 with exhibit
Exhibit A – Draft Ordinance 1854
C – Public Hearing Notice

Date Name Pages
08/22/2022 Sherelle 2
09/06/2022 South Bay Associa Ɵon of Realtors 3-4
09/13/2022 Allen Duan 5
09/13/2022 Kims 6-7
09/13/2022 Kindt 8
09/13/2022 South Bay Associa Ɵon of Realtors 9-10
09/13/2022 Vera Pove Ɵna 11
09/27/2022 Vera Pove Ɵna 12-15
09/27/2022 Monique Johnson 16
09/27/2022 Gretl Young 17
09/27/2022 South Bay Associa Ɵon of Realtors 18-19
09/27/2022 Mariya Wrightsman 20-68
09/27/2022 George Young 69
09/27/2022 Clara Caetano T 70-71
09/27/2022 La Ma 72
09/30/2022 Paul Cass 73-121
09/30/2022 Paul Cass Second Le Ʃer 122-128
11/08/2022 Mariya Wrightsman 129
05/16/2023 Paul Cass 130-132
05/16/2023 Vera Pove Ɵna 133-136
05/16/2023 Mariya Wrightsman 137-221
06/20/2023 Mariya Wrightsman 222-224
07/18/2023 Mariya Wrightsman 225-351
PeƟƟon 352-356

Tuesday, September 6, 2022
Via Electronic Mail

City of Gardena
Planning and Environmental Quality Commission
1700 W. 162nd Street, Gardena, CA 90247

RE: Agenda Item 5 (A) – Zone Text Amendment #2-22 (Ordinance No. 1844) Prohibiting short-term rentals
Dear Hon. Members of Planning and Environmental Quality Commission:

The South Bay Association of Realtors® (SBAOR) urges the Commission to reject adoption of the proposed ordinance to prohibit short-term rentals (STR) at today’s September 6th Commission meeting.

We ask that you engage with SBAOR and other key community stakeholders to identify best practices and effective policy solutions that strike a balance between the increasing economic benefits of STRs and the potential impacts.

What SBAOR can offer:

Work with the Mayor and City Council to help identify effective and enforceable STR regulations that both benefit and protect the community.

City can benefit and community be protected:

We encourage the city to do a thorough examination of the benefits and various options related to STR.

Other local cities achieve this by some or all of the following: requiring a business license, an annual registry and/or permit (that can be revoked if a certain number of complaints are received on a property), and/or Transient Occupancy Tax (unincorporated Los Angeles County charges 12%). Cities can also institute a series of fines to ensure compliance with regulations.

Regulating STRs is reasonable and benefits everyone:

Rather than outright bans or heavy restrictions, regulating ensures property rights and the well-being of our community are in balance. For instance, we believe in preserving the ability of struggling residents to continue to afford their homes rather than sell to investors. Balancing the benefits to the city, local businesses, homeowners, and all residents are paramount.

Gardena is a growing city. Today, residents want to live, work, and play in cities that have thoughtful, reasonable, and progressive policies. A ban would overshadow this balance and take revenue out.

Stakeholders have not been engaged:

The proposed ordinance is too broad and overreaching. It was drafted without the input and considerations of groups representing the very Gardena residents that would be impacted. The issue of STRs are not new, and other cities have worked to craft workable solutions for all sides, together. We urge the City of Gardena to open dialogue with local stakeholders and implement a reasonable ordinance.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to working towards solutions. If you have any questions, please contact the SBAOR’s Government Affairs Director Julie Tomanpos at [email protected] or (310) 326-3010.

Sincerely,

Jaime Sutachan,
Government Affairs Committee Co-Chair
South Bay Association of REALTORS®
1 Amanda Acuna
From: Allen Duan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 3:47 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT for Today's Meeting
Categories: Completed
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.

Hello,

I own and operate a small business managing rental properties in the South Bay and other parts of Los Angeles. We specialize in flexible furnished rentals, some which are short term (less than 30 days), some which are more than 30 days (the industry calls this a mid-term rental). We provide value to our property owners with our management services as well as potentially increasing their rental income. This incentivizes owner's to buy properties in areas where we serve, which includes Gardena. An increase in demand for properties in a given city is a good thing, as I'm sure you know.

The common concerns with short term rentals, such as noise, trash, parking issues, are usually the cause of unprofessional hosts managing short term rentals as a side gig. Professional established businesses like ours have every reason to keep out bad guests who disrupt the neighborhood and are a nuisance to neighbors. We have years of experience screening our guests to avoid such bad guests.

I believe the best solution is something between a total ban and the current free for all situation. Such a solution would remove bad hosts while allowing professional hosts to continue operating and bringing revenue and opportunities to the city of Gardena. Striking the right balance is not an easy task, I'm well aware. I am fully willing and available to be a part of the discussion to help formulate this ordinance. I suggest looking into the city of Fullerton's approach as they created their ordinance in the past few years to allow limited and regulated short term rentals.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this conversation.

Allen Duan
President/Owner
Hospy Homes

Tuesday, September 13, 2022
Via Electronic Mail

Hon. Mayor Cerda
and the Members of the City Council
1700 W. 162nd Street, Gardena, CA 90247

RE: Agenda Item 10 (A) – Zone Text Amendment #2-22 (Ordinance No. 1844) Prohibiting Short-term Rentals
Dear Hon. Mayor Cerda and City Council:

The South Bay Association of Realtors® (SBAOR) urges the Council to reject adoption of the proposed ordinance to prohibit short-term rentals (STR) at the September 13th Council meeting. We ask that you engage with SBAOR and other key community stakeholders to identify best practices and effective policy solutions that strike a balance between the increasing economic benefits of STRs and the potential impacts.

What SBAOR can offer:

Work with the Mayor and City Council to help identify effective and enforceable STR regulations that both benefit and protect the community.

City can benefit and community be protected:

We encourage the city to do a thorough examination of the benefits and various options related to STR.

Regulating STRs is reasonable and benefits everyone:

Stakeholders have not been engaged:

Sincerely,

Jaime Sutachan,
Government Affairs Committee Co-Chair
South Bay Association of REALTORS®
From: Vera Povetina
To: CDD Planning and Zoning
Subject: Public Comment
Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 11:26:45 AM
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.

Dear City Council,
In lieu with discussion regarding Short Term Rentals I would like to address some questions to the City Council and expect detailed answers.

1. whereas in Resolution No. PC 11-22 mentioned that short-term rentals of residences for lodging purposes and short term rentals of residences for other commercial uses are not listed as allowed uses under the Gardena Municipal Code.

1.1. Do I understand correctly that they are also not listed as prohibited?

2. In the same document mentioned: short-term rentals for lodging and other uses have deleterious impacts by increasing noise and traffic, creating parking problems, changing the character of a residential neighborhood, and with the case of housing - creating an impact on housing supply.

2.1. Is there any evidence regarding this statement in the City of Gardena? Can it be disclosed to the public?

2.2. Where measurements made for noise level increase?

2.3. Changes in traffic? Would you be able to specify – how big is the change?

2.4. Parking issues complains increased by how many since establishing current amount of STR in the city? How were these complaints linked to STR?

2.5. What are the changes in character of residential neighborhood happened because of STR? How the housing supply impacted specifically by the factor of STR? It is about 160-170 rental properties listed in Gardena, not all of them are on the market constantly, but all of them is a source that provides food to the tables to families of our city.

Does City of Gardena have a lot to offer to its people to offset increased inflation? Growing costs for everything?
Why do you feel that it is ok to cut an opportunity to provide for families? To make our city more attractive for guests?
It is not only hosts who benefit. All local small businesses benefit. Additional jobs are created.

Shops, restaurants, beauty salons and other businesses get more customers. A lot of guests asking for local attractions and as a host – I recommend local places.

STR Income is taxed as any other. Current local property sales bring a lot of additional income to the city as Property Tax and let us face the truth – available APR influence market much more than STR perspective in Gardena.

The U.S. travel and tourism industry generated $1.9 trillion in economic output; supporting 9.5 million American jobs and accounted for 2.9% of U.S. GDP. That is huge. At 14.5% of international travel spending globally, international travelers spend more in the United States than any other country.

Tourism accelerated Los Angeles County's economic prosperity in 2018 as visitors pumped an all-time high $23.9 billion directly into the L.A. economy, generating a record $36.6 billion in total economic impact. Just nine LA neighborhoods account for 73 percent of the money Airbnb, and Gardena is not one of them, unfortunately.

Gardena should care to attract many more tourists, not to ban them. We need more events, we need pedestrian streets with restaurants, entertainment and parks. Tourist industry could bring

expansion along the Rosecrans Corridor.”
This serves as evidence that city is interested in tourists/guests coming to Gardena in general and discussions regarding changes of the "character of the city" are not a real concern. • How the housing supply impacted specifically by the factor of STR in the City of Gardena? In Agenda Staff report dated Aug 9, 2022, there is a mentioning of some studies regarding house supply and rent and housing price. Were these studies done in the City of Gardena with consideration of all other factors that are influencing housing supplies and prices? How it is different from neighbor cities where STR is not allowed? • With additional regulation and additional taxation in discussion, what will City of Gardena propose to people in exchange?
• Does City of Gardena have a lot to offer to its people to offset increased inflation? • Will city of Gardena offer new Eviction law to protect homeowners? Help to offset the costs of hosting non-paying renters long term? Will City of Gardena pay out our mortgage and compensate investments made?
It is 164 short rental properties listed in Gardena, not all of them are on the market constantly, but all of them is a source that provides food to the tables to families of our city. • Why do you feel that it is ok to cut an opportunity to provide for families? • During on-line meeting Councilmembers expressed concerns with safety. We would like to know: were similar concerns expressed during adopting HOPE program and converting Travelodge Inn and Suites on Normandie Avenue into a home for convicted criminals and homeless people? How were interests of citizens protected? During COVID pandemic a lot of us hosted travel nurses who were saving lives while city hosted criminals.

Let me continue with questions to the additional regulations proposals. • Regarding limitation of number of STRs one person can have. Can you please provide any precedent in the City of Gardena where you limiting any other business owner with similar rules? One cannot have more than one Hotel, Store, Car Wash and so on. Will this limitation be applied to all other businesses? If not - why?
Any additional limitations to types of properties or number of total STR will make harm to property owners and will set precedent of unreliability of the City of Gardena for any current or future small or big investors. Rules for business can be changed anytime without any evidential support by the city officials.
• What is the intent of all these limitations?
It is not only hosts who benefit. All local small businesses benefit. Shops, restaurants, beauty salons and so on. A lot of guests asking for local attractions and as hosts – we recommend local places. Business synergy is already in place and there are no reasons to the city to break it.

There should be no ban for STR out of no evidence of negative impact and City of Gardena should use an opportunity to let citizens use their property to their advantage.

Another thing to discuss is money.

STR Income is taxed as any other. Current local property sales bring a lot of additional income to the city as Property Tax. Average 7.2% annual growth FY19 to FY21 if we take FY18 was a base year and it is over half a million dollars per year and let us face the truth – available APR influence market much more than STR perspective in Gardena.

Application of additional taxation in a form of Transient Occupancy Tax is not viable for this type of business and should not be considered for the reasons below:

1. Excerpts from Title 3, Chapter 16 of the Gardena Municipal Code states:

Sec. 3.16.050 Tax Imposed
A. For the privilege of occupancy in any hotel, each transient shall be subject to and shall pay a tax in the amount of eleven percent (11%) of the rent charged by the operator. Such tax shall constitute a debt owed by the transient to the city, which shall be extinguished only by payment to the operator or to the city. The transient shall pay the tax to the operator of the hotel at the time the rent is paid. If the rent is paid in installments, a proportionate share of the tax shall be paid with each installment. The unpaid tax shall be due upon the transient’s ceasing to occupy space in the hotel. If for any reason the tax due is not paid to the operator of the hotel, the tax administrator may require such tax to be paid directly to the tax administrator.

B. For purposes of this Section, unless there is an agreement in writing entered into prior to commencing occupancy between the operator and occupant providing for a period of occupancy longer than thirty days, this tax shall be imposed upon, owed by and collected from the transient for the first thirty days of occupancy, regardless of whether the transient continues occupancy beyond thirty days.

By no means any of the properties can be considered a Hotel and thus cannot be taxed based on that.

Implementing additional taxation will be one more factor to push the inflation rate in Gardena even higher as we, as a business owners, will be forced to increase our rates to offset rising costs.

As a Financial Analyst by trade, I`ll go with some numbers sourced from available to the public online analytical tools and information published on the City of Gardena website.

Currently Gardena has 164 properties listed. 89 can be considered "entire home" and 75 are private or shared room.

Average price for STR is $153 per night and occupancy rate is 86%. (source - AirDNA) Out of about 21,472 residential properties in the City of Gardena (source - Wikipedia) we are discussing 0.8% of all properties.

Currently there are 21 hotels/motels in Gardena with 747 accommodations on the market and this number didn`t change a lot during recent years (source - City of Gardena website and propertyshark.com
).

I think it will be reasonable to consider fiscal year ended in 2019 for the below calculations regarding Transient Occupancy Tax collected by the City of Gardena as we can exclude influence of COVID to the hotel business.

Hotel accommodations 747
In FY2018-FY2019:

TOT collected by the City of Gardena $ 1,464,512.00
Average TOT collected per room $ 1,960.53
If the Hotels in Gardena would work with effectiveness of STR (av. occupancy 86% and av. rate $153) the actual % or revenues collected by the city would be 4.2% and this number shows that the demand in STR is high and there should be no restrictions, but the City of Gardena should benefit from it too.

City should provide opportunity to obtain business license with cost no more than $50 per STR and let people continue their business.

As a last resort the City may consider establishing a reasonable tax specifically for STR that should be significantly lower than for Hotels/Motels as our scale of business cannot be compared to them.

STR tax rate in amount of 4% seems to be reasonable and will provide city with about $304,064.86 ($1,854.1 per property) per year with just a minor cost to the City for administering new tax on quarterly or semi-annual basis.

The main platform used for STR booking is AirBnB – 96%. (82% - AirBnB, 4% - VRBO, 14% - both, source AirDNA)
AirBnB and VRBO automatically collect and pay occupancy taxes on behalf of the hosts whenever a guest pays for a booking in specific jurisdiction. Gardena can be included in the list of specific jurisdictions if needed. It will provide city with transparent data regarding hosts revenue collected and will help to keep new tax administration rate at lowest possible level.

Dear City Council, please accept our suggestion as it will benefit everyone, the City of Gardena and Citizens of Gardena.

With best regards,
Vera Povetina

From: Monique Johnson
To: Public Comment
Subject: Short Term Rentals
Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 12:20:11 PM
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.

I think a suspension of short term rentals is warranted until an ordinance in put into place. In my opinion, the individuals should have went down to City Hall and inquired about the requirements of a short term rental (common sense to me). Those people are getting free money because they don't have to pay for a business license or City of Gardena taxes. In addition, I'm sure that they are not including the additional income on their State and Federal taxes. The City of Gardena is rewarding bad behavior.

Until an ordinance is implemented, is the City of Gardena going to suspense or retroactively adjust the taxes and business license that current legitimate business owners have to pay? I had compassion for all the people who spoke last week especially the crying lady who uses the additional income for her children's extracurricular activities, and the other people who talked about supplementing their income because times are difficult now but we are all dealing with the economy situation (inflation). Attorney Vasquez stated that the City of Inglewood currently has an ordinance for short term rentals but it took a while to be written. How long is it going to take the City of Gardena to come up with an ordinance? In the meantime, those people who are currently making money off of short term rentals are making tax free money with no consequences.

I agree with Mayor Pro Tem Francis and Councilmember Henderson that a moratorium on short term rental should be enacted until the City of Gardena writes an ordinance.

From: G Young
To: Public Comment; Tasha Cerda; Paulette Francis; Mark Henderson; Rodney Tanaka; Wanda Love Subject: A letter regarding short term rental concern in Gardena Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 3:08:52 PM
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.

Dear Mayor and Gardena City Council members:

Gardena has a vibrant Airbnb community of responsible hosts, respectful guests and a longstanding short-term rental industry.

The Airbnb in Gardena is different from a beach city like Manhattan Beach or Redondo Beach that attracts rowdy visitors. Most visitors in Gardena are people visiting families and friends. Airbnb will bring more revenue to better support our local restaurants and retailers, which means more tax dollars for the Gardena city and also brings our community more vibrancy.

Many local Airbnb in Gardena are just room sharing which will not serve any significant impact to the local family rental market if the short term rental is taken away.

Short term rental provides more benefits to the city and residents. Please do not prohibit the short term rental in Gardena.

Sincerely,
Gretl Young

Tuesday, September 27, 2022
Via Electronic Mail

Hon. Mayor Cerda
and the Members of the City Council
1700 W. 162nd Street, Gardena, CA 90247

RE: Agenda Item 12 (A) – Ordinance No. 1844: Prohibiting Short-Term Rentals Dear Hon. Mayor Cerda and City Council:

The South Bay Association of Realtors® (SBAOR) urges the Council to reject adoption of the proposed ordinance to prohibit short-term rentals (STR) at the September 27th Council meeting. We ask that you REGULATE STRs. Please engage with SBAOR and other key community stakeholders to identify best practices and effective policy solutions that strike a balance between the increasing economic benefits of STRs and the potential impacts.

What SBAOR can offer:

Work with the Mayor and City Council to help identify effective and enforceable STR regulations that both benefit and protect the community.

City can benefit and community be protected:

We encourage the city to do a thorough examination of the benefits and various options related to STR.

Regulating STRs is reasonable and benefits everyone:

Stakeholders have not been engaged:

Sincerely,

Jaime Sutachan,
Government Affairs Committee Co-Chair
South Bay Association of REALTORS®
1 Her Honor, and to the honorable body of the city Council of the City of Gardena, this letter is addressed to each and all council members.

There will be two presentations in this letter. Both will demonstrate how our relationship can be from here forward, and particular attention is warranted as the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments are being violated.

The first , serves as legal notice, and must address how I have been forced into an unamicable relationship based on assumptions without so much as common decency to ask a que
stion and start a conversation, treated like a criminal, not even given the courtesy of respect to be spoken to, let alone listened to, the Council has necessarily required a showing of how our relationship has been so positioned.

The other showing, is what our relationship can also can be, a partnership, a team dedicat ed towards the same goal, peace of mind and friendship.

I may have a thick accent when speaking, but some background may give insight, I am a Ukrainian medical doctor, raised in the Soviet Union. I fled Ukraine, left a career amidst economic
turmoil which imagination is not capable of creating, a week or month’s work as a doctor in hopes of earning bread. The only currency we had was honesty, because we were raised
in a world of deep mistrust and amidst a solid accepted belief that government knows best, for we were just the simple ones, who could not think for ourselves. I know communism, I know totalitarianism, because I have lived it. They believed they were doing right, they knew better… they were only human. I t is hard to start a story more grim than this, no? To escape, I would dream, and there is only one dream for lives like mine, it is the American dream. Against no odds, I was miracle d to this country, and the home I made and the l
ife began, was here in Gardena. Saving every penny, because I know how precious they are.

Eventually they turned into a house, then two, and the dream that is America was mine. A little U
krainian girl, owner of three homes in Southern California, now divorced with two children that w
ere to be raised alone, yet they would go to college because of my income from my invest me nt houses.

To Councilmember Love, the conversation mentioned second, is all that you need to read, not the former half; for you showed deep respect for huma n dignity a nd I am humbled.

This will be a little intense, so it is hoped that you can make it to the friendship portion, but when a Russian raised, Ukrainian single mother sees her cu bs in da nger, things do get… well it

2 will be seen, but only necessarily as the Council introduced themselves to me in such fashion, and it serves to demonstrate why a friendship is desirable.

THE WRONG FOOT
A maxim of law is that everyone is presumed to know the law, this especially applies to a government of laws, not of humans.

Because this is a mandated “public hearing on the proposed zoning ordinance or amendment to a zoning ordinance” (Gov. Code, § 65804 (b)) and per subdivision (a) to “publish procedural rules for conduct of their hearings” which “shall incorporate the procedures in Section 65854” despite this, the Council has afforded each of us 3 minutes to voice our concerns and lay out a cause of action at the same time, as a result have provided an open opportunity to raise any additional matters, because “[t]he body conducting the public hearing prevented the issue from being raised at the public hearing.” (Gov. Code, § 65009 (b)(1)(B)) This is so because under Chapter 2.04 CITY COUNCIL, of the Garden Municipal Code (GMC) under 2.04.080 Meetings – Rules. “The following rules shall govern the meetings of the council and its transaction of business:

Code, § 65009 (b)(2)) and for each to follow.

Each property that was already permitted as to the use of said property for what is today attempting to be defined as a Short Term Rental, as for me I was expressly previously granted permission for this purpose. As was acknowledged by the assistant city attorney Kranitz on August 9th as a lawful use, “ So right now, yes, they're legal.” ( Exhibit C, p. 9 ln. 6) , all such properties were in lawful operation and are thus Grandfathered in, any proposed changes are ineffectual to 3 said properties. “‘Grandfathered’ businesses are nonconforming uses that are not required to seek permits under local zoning ordinances enacted after they were in business. (See Korean American Legal Advocacy Foundation v. City of Los Angeles (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 376, 397.)” ( City of Oakland v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 740, 747 fn. 1)1 The Council specifically had attempted to disenfranchise homeowner rights with the defective notice, as published:
“If you challenge the nature of the proposed action in court, you will be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raises at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence” then changes to either:
“delivered to the Gardena City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.” (9/15/22) (Exhibit A) “delivered to the Gardena Planning and Environmental Quality Commission at or prior to the public hearing.” (hereafter PEQC) (8/25/22) (Exhibit B) Because under Gov. Code, § 65009(b)(2) (“If a public agency desires the provisions of this subdivision to apply to a matter, it shall include in any public notice issued pursuant to this title a notice substantially stating all of the following: ‘If you challenge the (nature of the proposed action) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the (public entity conducting the hearing) at, or prior to, the public hearing.’”) The city knew to replace the latter parenthetical portion with the contact information as shown above, but as to the former, simply omitted the parentheses and left it vague, rather than comply with case law as shown below.

FOR WANT OF NOTICE
As said published rules do not “restrict or limit” (Gov. Code, § 65802) this assertion, as such, on behalf of all such concerned persons, this general object is lodged as to the failure to comply with mandatory notice which was required because “the proposed ordinance or amendment to a zoning ordinance affects the permitted uses of real property, notice shall also be given pursuant to Section 65091.” (Gov. Code, § 65854) Whereby Gov. Code, § 65091 provi des in subdivision (a ) “notice shall be given in all of the following ways: (1) Notice of the hearing shall be mailed or delivered at least 10 days prior to the hearing to the owner of the subject 1 See also, “‘A legal nonconforming use is one that existed lawfully before a zoning restriction became effective and that is not in conformity with the ordinance when it continues thereafter.’ (Hansen Brothers Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1996) 12 Cal.4th 533, 540, fn. 1.) ‘`Grandfathered' businesses are nonconforming uses that are not required to seek permits under local zoning ordinances enacted after they were in business. ’ ( City of Oakland v. Superior Court [cited as above].)” (Bauer v. City of San Diego (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1286 fn. 1) 4 real property” and under subdivision (b) “[t]he notice shall include the information specified in Section 65094.”
The Council further failed to provide a portion of notice under Gov. Code, § 65094 mandating “a general explanation of the matter to be considered, and a general description, in text or by diagram, of the location of the real property, if any, that is the subject of the hearing.” Furthermore, the published noticed hearing for 9/27/22 pertained only to “Ordinance No. 1844” (Exhibit A) stemming from a prior adoption of Resolution No. PC 11-22. But the documents provided on 9/23/22 for this hearing and are here today being discussed by the Council, contained the first ever appearance of the text of Ordinance2 No. 1843, as well as 1844. Wherein Ord. No. 1843 states, “the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. XXX, recommending that the City Council adopt the Ordinance;” not Resolution No. PC 11-22, as Ord. No. 1844 did. But no copy of this “adopted Resolution No. XXX” had been provided. Ord. No. 1843 contained entirely different proposed actions, noticed only in the Regular Meeting Notice and Agenda as “Urgency Moratorium Ordinance” as a document. For a ll relevant publication s and text of Agendas providing notice of actions here discussed see Exhibit D.

Gov. Code, § 65853 “A zoning ordinance or an amendment to a zoning ordinance, which amendment changes any property from one zone to another or imposes any regulation listed in Section 65850 not theretofore imposed or removes or modifies any such regulation theretofore imposed shall be adopted in the manner set forth in Sections 65854 to 65857, inclusive.” Which as just shown, there has been a failure to comply with Gov. Code § 65854 by failing to comply with Gov. Code § 65091 (mail notice and publish notice and description notice).

Furthermore, The Council has failed to provide required notice pursuant to Gov. Code, sections 65009(b)(2) “nature of the proposed action” “described in this notice”; 65090(b) “notice shall include the information specified in Section 65094” as quoted above. Easy so far right? On the merits, we hold that the court did not err in granting plaintiff's request for declaratory relief. Consistent with the Legislature's recognition of "the importance of public participation at every level of the planning process " and the policy of the state to give the public "the opportunity to respond to clearly defined alternative objectives, policies, and actions" (§ 65033), we hold that the 10-day notice of the legislative body's hearing must be given after the planning commission's recommendation has been received and must include the planning commission's recommendation as part of the "general explanation of the matter 2 Hereafter “Ord.”
5 to be considered" (§ 65094). We will therefore affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff.

Environmental Defense Project of Sierra County v. County of Sierra (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 877, 881 (Environmental Defense Project)
The 8/25/22 published notice for the PEQC meeting on 9/6/22 was to discuss “Ordinance No. 1844” (Exhibit B) but as to Ord. 1843 it was not even announced as on the agenda to be put up for a vote by the PEQC, as Director Tsujiuchi declared under penalty of perjury on 9/2/22. (See 9/6/22 PEQC Meeting Notice and Agenda) Therefore there was no findings by the PEQC and today’s consideration of Ord. No. 1843 is in direct violation of Environmental Defense Project. “At the same meeting Councilmember Francis made a directive to place a moratorium on all STRs within the City. The directive was seconded by Council Member Henderson and an urgency ordinance is scheduled to go before the City Council at the regularly scheduled meeting of September 13, 2022.” (PEQC Report 9/6/22, Tsujiuchi, pp. 1- 2) “Recommendation … Adopt Resolution No. PC 11- 22 recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1844 (Attachment D).” (Id. p.3) The only action was adopting Resolution No. PC 11-22 as to Ord. No. 1844, but other than mentioning that “an urgency ordinance [wa]s scheduled to go before the City Council” no documents were presented to the public before or after regarding the findings of urgency by the planning department.

On 9/13/22, without any published notice to the public and absent any findings by the PEQC, the urgency ordinance 1843 was attempted to be passed, but failed. “It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Francis, seconded by Council Member Henderson, and carried by the following roll call vote to Adopt Urgency Ordinance No. 1843 with the added appeal language, by way of a four -fifths vote: Ayes: Mayor Pro Tem Francis and Council Member Henderson Noes: Council Members Tanaka, Love and Mayor Cerda Absent: None Urgency Ordinance No. 1843 did not pass.” (9/13/22 Minutes p.12) Despite this failed motion, the matter appears to be presented again.

For a second time, the Council has disregarded Gov. Code, § 65804 (“publish procedural rules”) GMC 2.04.080 Meetings – Rules. “N. Robert’s Rules. Upon questions arising not covered by this section, Robert’s Rules of Order shall govern unless a majority of the council shall deem otherwise.” Under Robert’s Rules, “If the motion has been voted down, it can be made again after there has been some progress in the debate.” Yet no progress has been shown. That same majority to override Robert’s Rules is also required under Robert’s Rules to permit the second vote.

The Council attempted to deprive rights to their constituents but the stated reasons do not fall under the protections of Gov. Code, § 65009(a), for its purpose is “essential to reduce delays 6 and restraints upon expeditiously completing housing projects.” This effort had not to do with building projects, and only to do with a council member’s agenda.

And all of these failures to provide notice as required by law, began after a memorandum declaring these actions as lawful was written on Aug. 5, 2022 for the Aug. 9, 2022 meeting, placed on the agenda to educate the Council and seek direction, without published notice to the public.

Francis: Okay. So could we tonight declare moratorium until we have more time to discuss it and do some research and investigate what we can do? Can we do that? Can that be an option?
Cerda: Mayor Pro Tem. So tonight what we're doing is we're just discussing it for it to come back later on. As far as staff can do more research and so they just want to get some direction. We're not taking any action on this tonight, other than just, what are our feelings of this here? So it's going to come back and we will have more time to discuss it.

Francis: Until we take some time discussing all that we couldn't say until right now, we're just going to declare moratorium on all short-term rentals until we can figure out what it is we want to do.

Kranitz: We couldn't do it tonight because it's not on the agenda. And it would have to be added as an urgency item on the agenda. And I think since it's been going on, you couldn't make the findings to support that there was an immediate need to add it on. (Exhibit C p. 5 lns. 7-31) And there still have been no findings to support that there was an immediate need to add it on, to even qualify to start the process of “ the 10-day notice of the legislative body's hearing must be given after the planning commission's recommendation has been received and must include the planning commission's recommendation” ( Environmental Defense Project , supra.) Despite the only notice on both Agenda and Publication being for Ord. No. 1844, the minutes of 9/13/22 reflect only a conversation about Ord. No. 1843. “12.A URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 1843, An Urgency Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gardena, California, Establishing a Temporary Moratorium on Short-Term Rental.” (9/13/22 Minutes p. 9)
Ord. No. 1843 “a moratorium is hereby established prohibiting all short -term rentals as defined herein.” “SECTION 4. Prohibition. A. All short -term rentals are hereby immediately prohibited in the City.”
The failure to provide lawful notice has left a state of confusion as to what we are even doing today. Evidenced by the statements during the 9/13/22 meeting. Kranitz: “To be effective immediately, it has to be an urgency ordinance. Otherwise its first reading, second reading, thirty days.” Vasquez: “And that’s the method that would be done on September 27 th that process will
be commenced, the first reading.” Francis: “Yeah, so I think at least for that much, we ought to be 7 able to just kind of, you know, stop the action, just for a moment, just like I said, it’s temporary, there was supposed to have things in place, cause I heard a lot of people say they’re opposed to an out right ban. And that’s not what we’re talking about right now. We’re just talking about a temporary situation, where we can discuss it on the 27
th that’s all. So I’m for it. I call for it.”3
“All short-term rentals are hereby immediately prohibited in the City.” (Ord. No. 1843)

RECIPROCATE, NOT PLACATE
As further explained in Environmental Defense Project at 891-92, the “Legislature's intent [is] that the public be involved in the planning process” , and “there can be little doubt that the purpose of notice” “is to inform the public” “so they will have an opportunity to respond” “and protect any interests they may have”, such participation was reported as “On September 13, 2022 the City Council considered the moratorium ordinance. There were more than a dozen speakers, all of whom spoke in opposition to a ban on STRs.” (Agenda Staff Report 9/22/22) There were specifically fifteen speakers that spoke in opposition to the ban, none spoke in favor, two of which were not hosts but citizens in opposition of the ban, the remaining thirteen were people discussing the prejudicial harm and substantial damages that would result from the moratorium, and discussing the great care that they take to screen guests and protect the community. Yet promoted after nothing was offered to substantiate the purported findings based on speculation in Ord. No. 1843, without any notice it was to be heard, with disregard for those fifteen objections, absent any voice in favor, there was an immediate motion to pass this urgent matter.

This body has seen too often the complacency of the citizens, in not being involved in their local government, but along came an issue that inspired a memory - - that in this country we have a right to be involved and as Justice Ginsberg wrote, the “choice in exercising that right ‘must be honored out of ‘that respect for the individual which is the lifeblood of the law.’’ [Citations.]” (McCoy v. Louisiana (2018) 138 S.Ct. 1500, 1507- 08). It hardly seems worthy of being said, but apparently it must be reminded that the idea behind the se laws, is so “that the public be involved in the planning process” and if the citizens so served are displeased then she is required to consider their voices and not her own. For such is the nature of a public servant, as in, serves the public will, not the public serves her will. It was so written in the rules of conduct for these meetings. 3 https://youtu.be/6T1z77Zy5Z4?t=9303
8 The rules as stated note: Listen to others respectfully; Exercise self -control; Give open- minded consideration to all viewpoints; Focus on the issues; and Embrace democratic rights, inherent components of an inclusive public process, and tools for forging sound decisions. Yet after hearing such passionate opposition and receiving only letters opposing since, after fifteen voices petitioned their government with grievances, “a motion to adopt the moratorium ordinance” was made, which failed to lead by example, as it did not show impartial listening and that embracing of democratic rights.

HE GRAVE HARM PRESENTED
From the Approved Minutes of the 8/9/22 City Council meeting. “12. DEPARTMENTAL ITEMS - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

12.A Short Term Rentals for Lodging Discussion
City Manager Osorio presented the Staff Report.

Community Development Director, Greg Tsujiuchi gave the presentation. Assistant City Attorney, Lisa Kranitz and Senior Planner, Amanda Acuna were present and available for any questions.

Assistant City Attorney Kranitz explained the City’s position stating that the regulations relating to Short Term Rentals can either be totally permissive, completely p rohibitive, or somewhere in between. They also gave information of what our surrounding cities are doing in putting certain regulations in place when it comes to STRs.

Our Mayor and Council Members asked questions, expressed their opinions, and discussed all aspects if we were to allow short term rentals including hiring extra staff to monitor all the complaints. Director Tsujiuchi and Assistant City Attorney Kranitz provided answers, along with City Manager Osorio and City Attorney Vasquez. It was also asked if staff could come back with additional findings because having short term rentals could also be a positive experience.

Public Speakers:
1) Charisse, asked if Airbnb are legal to have in Gardena. 2) Raymond Dennis expressed his concerns and spoke in opposition to this item.

City Attorney Vasquez, then asked for direction clarification from Council: Direction is for staff to draft an Ordinance to Prohibit Short Term Rentals.” (pp.7-8) “19. COUNCIL DIRECTIVES
Mayor Pro Tem Francis
Asked If we could bring an Ordinance to establish a moratorium regarding Short Term Rentals to our September 13, 2022, Council Meeting. Council Member Henderson seconded it.” (p.11) Returning to the Agenda Staff Report again, after observing “more than a dozen speakers, all of whom spoke in opposition to a ban on STRs.

STR Discussion
As has been evidenced by public testimony, there are arguments both for and against STRs.

Arguments in favor of STRs include:
• Provides additional income to individuals
9 • Introduces new people to Gardena
• Provides additional customers who will utilize businesses in Gardena • Provides revenue to the City
Arguments against STRs include:
• Impacts the residential character of the neighborhood • Creates nuisances relating to parking and noise
• Reduces the supply of housing, including affordable housing, as these uses drive up housing prices” (p.1-2 of 3)
“On August 9, 2022, the City Council discussed various policy options for short term rentals (STRs) and heard concerns from the public on potential loss of neighborhood character and challenges with enforcement. The Council also had concerns on the adverse impacts to noise, trash, crime, traffic, and parking these uses would have to the residential neighborhoods.” (p.1) Because the staff report stated, at the 9/13/22 meeting the public voice, “all of whom spoke in opposition to a ban” but earlier on 8/9/22 the public voice was reported as limited to “loss of neighborhood character and challenges with enforcement”, yet the minutes reflect a query about legality to which the answer was, “So right now, yes, they're legal.” (Exhibit C, p. 9 ln. 6). But her statement actually was rather unusual, yet the Council missed it completely. That discussion was not noticed to the public yet two people knew to show up and voice concerns. The woman wanted to stress her question about legality, then made a materially false statement to the Council to send her point home, as she claimed just a few days prior in Gardena “an FBI raid on it. They had the dogs, the Secret Service. They had everybody because somebody was selling guns from the Airbnb on that street” (Exhibit C p. 8 lns. 26-28). That was a significant event to have a gun trafficker be investigated by Secret Service who handles treasury matters and not by ATF, but the FBI, yet not a single news report covered such a large scale operation as described investigated by anyone, not even a raid of any sort from any agency could be located to corroborate her claims.

Despite the minutes reflecting a nondescript expression of concerns from the second speaker, by the vague “spoke in opposition to this item” which could mean opposing the item being proposed to be banned or opposed to STRs; but his message was very poignant and made with an agenda, and successfully steered the Council’s minds as she had intended, then moved for a moratorium. But the real proof of the agenda as it relates to his statement will be revealed below.

The report is inac curate when it then declared, “ [a]rguments against STRs include: … Creates nuisances relating to parking and noise ; Reduces the supply of housing, including affordable housing, as these uses drive up housing prices” because those were not voiced by the “public testimony” those were only opinions from the “Council also had concerns on the adverse impacts to noise, trash, crime, traffic, and parking” , but have offered no evidence to substantiate 10 these claims. It was even stated “And I think since it's been going on, you couldn't make the findings to support that there was an immediate need to add it on”, yet ever since that time, the speculations from that non-noticed discussion have come to be the findings.

The city has brought this urgency ordinance on a vague number of complaints, since 8/9/22 but the last report written by Director Tsujiuchi on 9/22/22 provided some numbers:
“While the STRs in Gardena have generated complaints, it is difficult to determin e to what level.

Police were only able to identify 9 calls in the past 3 years that were identified as STR locations.

However, officers do not use terms in their police report that would identify a response as one that involves an STR, so officers have likely responded to things such as noise complaints without an identification that the site was an STR.”
It is more correct to say possibly responded, “likely” implies probabilistic, meaning greater than 51% chance, there is no data to conclude there is a probability of calls, when the calls come in at a rate of once every four months based on known data, 1 out of 120 days is 0.83%, falling far below probability, and hardly inspiring a need to hire “extra staff to monitor all the complaints.” “Additionally, Community Development has received approximately 8 calls in the last month relating to STRs that were not logged.”
For the past two months, this has been a hot issue, but no one on the staff thought to log a single one of these calls? But they remember them all being negative. Despite the calls coming in at a rate of once per four months, after a month of no calls, now the calls are once a week , which is consistent with an agenda being promoted.

Also on the claimed aspect of crime, during the past three years, there were 9 calls and 8 calls in a month, using the number of 17, it is odd to be found as urgent when also reported during a three year time period were 52 rapes, 14 murders, 23 arsons, 509 robberies, 468 assaults, 878 burglaries, 985 auto thefts, and 2,038 thefts and the city wants to scare away the outside money that is still willing to come here. By spending $4,000 on a KGB type company to study the money coming into the city, over 17 calls, as this was more correct than that money being spent on the 4,967 calls about serious criminal activity “to protect public health, safety, and welfare,” from the

0.34% of calls.
“In order to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the community and pursuant to the provisions of Government Code section 65858, a moratorium is hereby established prohibiting all short-term rentals as defined herein.” (Ord. 1843)
The Council has been tricked into believing we are covert criminals, and overlooked that we are exactly like all others who worked hard to buy a house and create a business from it, like 50% of all homeowners in this city have done.
11 THE REASONABLENESS INQUIRY
Despite being Grandfathered in, the city wants to effectuate a taking of an economic interest vested in real property, yet has made no mention of it in the process , “a state statute that substantially furthers important public policies may so frustrate distinct investment-backed expectations as to amount to a ‘taking.’” (Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City (1978) 438 U.S. 104, 127) The U.S. Supreme Court test for a Fifth A mendment taking under Goldblatt v.

Hempstead (1962) 369 U.S. 590, 594-95 asks us to look at:
1) Do the interests of the public require such interference? 2) Are the means reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of th e purpose, and not unduly oppressive upon individuals?
To answer these questions, the high court asks us to “evaluate its reasonableness” as to “the nature of the menace against which it will protect”.

In proposed Ord. 1843, the city council found “short -term rentals for lodging and other uses have deleterious impacts by increasing noise and traffic, creating parking problems, changing the character of a residential neighborhood, and with the case of housing - creating an impact on housing supply;” to justify changes in zoning laws, making Goldblatt the correct test.

Deleterious is a strong word, defined as “causing harm or damage” (Oxford Dictionary) that is a serious invocation by the honorable members of the city’s council. Thus an investigation of what the Council is being asked to declare as “true and correct” is necessary, for such harms caused by increase in traffic and noise and loss of parking would interfere with the rights as property owners to the use and enjoyment of ownership of lands and “changing the character of a residential neighborhood” is certainly “deleterious”.

Tanaka: And so Mr. Tsujiuchi, you said that there's some issues with code enforcement. What type of issues did we get? Were they like parties? Were they just loud people? What kind of issues?
Tsujiuchi: The ones that came on, I'd say at least three times, were noise. And it's usually some, it's not uncommon for short term rentals, people rent a larger house and then they host a party there. So several of the calls, or I would say three for Mayor Pro Tem, say two to three calls have come in for noise.

For sure, I'd say two came in because of parking being taken up in the neighborhood. And then there was one call where it was just a complaint that they said what Ms. Kranitz was saying, that it's taken away from our neighborhood. These are residential neighborhoods. They're not little hotels on our blocks that we want. So it was kind of just a general complaint. (Exhibit C p. 7 lns. 23-35)
12 Whereas, these stated reasons establish “the nature of the menace against which it will protect” so we must “evaluate its reasonableness” and “A careful examination of the record reveals a dearth of relevant evidence on these points.” (Goldblatt at 595) More than could be imaged.

THE ALLEGED ALLEGATIONS
The city made a finding in proposed Ord. 1843 that “the City Council has become aware of new platforms that allows people to rent out their pools [sic] by the hours [sic]”. Yet a Google search for “city of Gardena rent a pool party” resulted in all first page hits about how to rent a pool from the city of Gardena itself. And on 8/9/22, Director Tsujiuchi, reported, “Currently, there do not appear to be any pools for rent in Gardena.”
Starting then, with the first real issue, “adverse impacts to noise”, that weapon has met its demise because Chapter 8.36 Noise, of the Gardena Municipal Code, as set by policy, “8.36.010 Declaration of policy. In order to control unnecessary, excessive and annoying noise and vibration in the City of Gardena, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the City to prohibit such noise and vibration generated from or by all sources as specified in this chapter” violates void for vagueness and is overbroad thus no law at all under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, each “ordinance criminalizes a substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech” (Houston v. Hill, (1987) 482 U.S. 451, 466) as each ordinance “authorizes or even encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” (Hill v. Colorado (2000) 530 U.S. 703, 732) Which is exactly what was evidenced in writing, by the city, at this very event, by declaring a noise nuisance. “[T]he void -for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” ( Kolender v.

Lawson, (1987) 461 U.S. 352, 357)
“[I]n a facial challenge to the overbreadth and vagueness of a law, a court's first task is to determine whether the enactment reaches a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct." Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 494 (1982); Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 359, n. 8 (1983). Criminal statutes must be scrutinized with particular care, e. g., Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507, 515 (1948); those that make unlawful a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct may be held facially invalid even if they also have legitimate application. E. g., Kolender, supra, at 359, n. 8.

Houston v. Hill at 458-59
T he Gardena Municipal Code (GMC) proscribes, from 7am to 10pm, the interior noise level if sustained for over 15 minutes at “45 dB(A)” and the peak maximum is “65 dB(A) ” but if “speech conveying informational content,” the “noise standards shall be reduced by 5 dB.” (GMC 13 8.36.050 Interior noise standards). For the same events but outdoors it is, “55 dB(A) ” and “75 dB(A)”, respectively, and “speech conveying informational content, … reduced by 5 dB.” (GMC

8.36.040 Exterior noise standards ) a nd “shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor” (GMC

8.36.090 Enforcement) which permits incarceration upon arrest.

Such laws criminalize all speech, and provide no guidance to a reasonable person as to what conduct to avoid. Putting the ordinance in English terms, according to Yale University,4 “a household refrigerator” is 55 dB(A) which is 5dB over one’s outdoor speaking limit of 15 minutes, because “ normal conversation” is 60-70 dB(A); and qualifies for that 5dB reduction, meaning outside in Gardena the loudest anyone can be is equivalent to “a household refrigerator”. Thus this ordinance is perfect for declaring unwanted aspects in violation of and is now being used as an arbitrary weapon in violation of the federal Constitution.

Moving onto the dire issue of traffic congestion, there are 50 short term hosts in the city of Gardena, with a total maximum of 166 beds at 87 locations, given that we only drive one car if visiting with our family, the number is properly closer to 87, but to console the city’s fears we will analyze using 166 cars from the short term rentals in the city of Gardena on any given day.

Compare to the 21 hotels or motels in the city, with a total of 747 rooms, (and yes I counted them all).

The five main city streets with the largest traffic load, average 33,276 cars per day, 5 assuming all 166 cars from the short term units drove on the same road, that is a traffic increase of

0.49% on any given main road in Gardena, and at 87 cars it is 0.26%. Since they obviously would not all be using the same road, the impact is even lower, the average increased impact on any of the main five streets is 0.098% and 0.05%, which falls well short of harmful.

The claimed reasons of concern for the increase of traffic prove to be disingenuous , not only by the obvious negligible increase of 0.098% per main road but by ordinances recently enacted since March of 2020, see Ords. 1822 & 1823, both increasing zoning to R-4 high density population; Ord. 1824, changes from R-4 high density to General Commercial (C -3) with mixed use overlay (MUO) followed directly after by Ord. 1825 changes to zoning relating to Amenity 4 Available here: https://ehs.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/decibel-level-chart.pdf 5 The average of all reported counts per block for the largest streets impacted by daily traffic are:

El Segundo Blvd. (31,350), Crenshaw Blvd. (27,940), Redondo Beach Blvd. (31,250), Artesia Blvd. (48,800), Western Ave. (27,042), combined average is 33,276.

Source: https://cityofgardena.org/traffic-counts/

14 Hotels and other minor revisions. The former two were done to add housing, yet the city voiced concerns about loss of housing. More so , a ll significantly increas e traffic and noise and quite literally serve as “changing the character of a residential neighborhood”.

Further along the deleterious impacts of traffic and noise increases, the city also passed Ord. 1838, permitting lot splits, thereby doubling the traffic impact on the city. Maybe the city can explain how 0.49% increase is more “deleterious” than 200%.

Proposed Ord. 1843, noted a serious concern “creating parking problems” as to the 87 cars parked in the same locations that a resident would park, a s a major concern to the city. Which is why in Ord. 1832, the Council found 18.40 of the Gardena Municipal Code “out of synch with the goals and policies of the General Plan, effectively making the over -supply of on- site parking, whether needed or not, the top policy of the City;” the purpose of that ordinance was to allow for more commercial growth by permitting all previously excluded areas to count towards total parking, e.g., ally ways, street parking, drive ways, etc. Stated as a major concern as to the entities the Council are now declaring as commercial short term rentals, after the Council enacted ordinances creating parking concerns.

Returning to the final aspects of the r eport that could possibly still be characterized as substantiated by evidence, the alleged public argument in favor of the bans is limited to “loss of neighborhood character” because the trash argument is the same trash that would be created by renters. Which is why no proof of these allegations could be offered, and none can be found.

But looking at loss of character for a moment. The city zoning permits the following:

18.12.010 Single-family residential zone (R-1).
“The R-1 single-family residential zone is intended as a low density residential district of single-family homes with one dwelling per lot and customary accessory buildings considered harmonious with low density residential development.”

18.12.020 Uses permitted.
“The following uses shall be permitted in the R -1 zone and other such uses as the commission may deem to be similar to those listed and not detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare:

A. Single-family dwellings and accessory buildings customary to such uses located on the same lot or parcel of land;
D. Family day care homes
E. Mobile homes
G. Residential group facility;
H. Transitional housing, subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in this zone;
15 I. Supportive housing, subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in this zone.

Family day care consists of the beautiful sound of children with their laughter and screams filling the air… and violating the noise ordinance, which is a criminal violation… not by the kids though (see Pen. Code, § 26 (one)), but by the home owner, yet this is not enforced.

The Council is commended and applauded for offering to enact express protection for members of residential group homes, transitional housing, and supportive housing. Many communities reject them, but they are welcome here, sincerely… good job.

It is not intended as any sort of disparagement of these sorts of homes, but it is nonetheless necessary to point out that these homes include multiple unrelated persons, often living 2-4 people to a room, in 3- 5 bedroom houses, creating a single family residence that houses 6 -20 people.

Those are commercial enterprises operated in an R -1, but they are not subject to the same “restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in this zone” because other SFRs are being singled out, for having less people, taking up less parking, generating less trash and creating less noise.

With solemnity , the struggles these residents are under going is difficult. But the city accused residents of Air bnb and other platforms of being criminals without basis, yet the very definition of t ransitional housing is to provide for group support based housing during the transition back into normal society after prolonged prison sentences, and the function of a residential group facility is for those who wish to stop using drugs. Both groups are literally criminals, and turning their lives around, but the city accused law abiding guests as criminals to further a falsely inspired and steadily driven agenda.

At the same meeting to vote on an urgency ordinance “to protect public health, safety, and welfare,” “Marc Panetta: owns apartment property on 147th asked if the policy when obtaining a police report for having disruptive tenants or domestic violence for landlords could be modified;” (9/13/22 Minutes p.6) So the violence, noise, and unruly tenants at apartments is so common that the city has a procedural policy about this? When will those properties be up for an urgency vote? Proposed Ord. 1843 “short-term rentals of residences for lodging purposes… are not listed as allowed uses under the Gardena Municipal Code”
The Staff Report of 9/6/22, stated:
“An STR is any rental of a dwelling of thirty days or less. The City’s position has been that because STRs are not listed as an allowed use in the zoning code, they are prohibited. This is known as permissive zoning. The recent case of Keen v. City of Manhattan Beach decided 16 in April of this year renders this argument invalid. Due to this decision, the issue of regulating STRs was brought to the City Council for discussion and to provide direction to staff to draft an ordinance.”
Again, cutting the citizens right out of the conversation, because if involved we can ask questions that maybe the city can or cannot answer. One would be, what sort of use is involved when a person is eating, watching TV, relaxing and sleeping at a house? Because the city said this was “not listed as an allowed use. ” “The following uses shall be permitted… Single -family dwellings and accessory buildings customary to such uses located on the same lot or parcel of land”, it appears that sleeping and eating are customary uses of a house, or no? Proposed Ord. 1843 claimed it needed to study this new phenomena called short term rentals, that have been around since 2008. While simultaneously drafting an ordinance to prohibit short term rentals under Ord. 1844 with all of the same findings. Which sounds nothing like a desire to study.

Proposed Ord. 1843 concludes its “findings” with:
“WHEREAS, the City Council would like to immediately prohibit short -term residential rentals in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare from the impacts listed above on short -term lodging rentals and make clear that other short -term rentals of residential properties are prohibited until such time as it considers a permanent ordinance and if adopted, such ordinance takes effect;”
The impacts listed above, were proven to be false, unfounded and not supported by any evidence.
“NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Gardena does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. That the above recitals are true and correct and are adopted as the City Council's findings.”
That declaration is simply not true, and has so been proven.

The above major concerns and reasons for changing the laws to take away existing property rights have been proven as false, t he high court had already held the city will have to pay for our expected losses under the Fifth Amendment, yet the city persists anyway, even in situations where it actually does “substantially further[ any] important public policies may so frustrate distinct investment-backed expectations as to amount to a ‘taking’” (Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City (1978) 438 U.S. 104, 127) and the city will have to pay for our losses. 17 CHANGING THE CHARACTER OF A NEIGHBORHOOD
The Council answered this concern for all, as to the finding made by the Council, “changing the character of a residential neighborhood, and with the case of housing - creating an impact on housing supply;” (Proposed Ord. 1843) because the Council had already made another finding, on May 11, 2021, Ord. 1828, “The Zoning Changes will allow the development of a high- density, 265-unit, first-class apartment project in the north end of Gardena which will provide new and needed housing opportunities in the City.” The median income of a resident in Gardena is $55,000, that certainly does not seem like a salary that can afford a “first-class apartment”. Those 265 units adds more than 165% of the cars from all short term rentals to the intersection of El Segundo and Crenshaw, where 58,300 cars cross paths daily. Those 264 units create more trash, take up more parking, and most certainly will create an impact on the housing supply, for rich people.

The city was fully aware that it had the authority to “[r]equire, as a condition of the development of residential rental units, that the development include a certain percentage of residential rental units affordable to, and occupied by, households with incomes that do not exceed the limits for moderate -income, lower income, very low income, or extremely low income households” (Gov. Code, § 65850 (g)) but the city did not so require that. Instead the city authorized “265-unit, first-class apartment[s]” that will only cater to the upper class, and serve to increase the rental median price; then claimed that STRs will drive up the rental prices and serve to take away affordable housing.

A nd as to “changing the character of a residential neighborhood,” all who once enjoy ed the billboard ban in this beautiful city, will find the view changed because that same proposal also now amended and added other ordinances, amending Ord. 18.58.050 “Billboards, as defined herein; this does not apply to digital billboards.” And added Ord. 18.58.055 permitting digital bill boards, which are known to increase traffic. Not to mention the glaring light changing the character of any neighborhood it is placed in. But those were paramount concerns to justify outlawing rentals in the city. Also in those billboard laws, there was a citation to Bus. & Prof. Code, § 5412 “Eminent Domain Law” “‘Relocation,’ as used in this section, includes removal” but the city has simply tried to violate the Fifth Amendment with this ordinance but without advising the extending that offer or even acknowledgement of rights mentioned above by the U.S. Supreme Court cases Goldblatt and Penn Central Transp. Co.
18 B ut there were some affordable housing units built recently, e.g., “50 contemporary new townhomes” in a “ Gated community” at Azalea Walk 1335 W. 141st St . Gardena, CA 90247 “Payments starting as low as $2,508* a month.” * “$676,990 with a 20% down payment… 680+ fico credit score and 6 months PITI reserves required” meaning our median income families only have to come up with $135,000 + $18,000 reserves, for a total of $153,000 and that affordable $2,508 per month is within their reach.

A nother stated finding of Ord. 1843 included, “WHEREAS, the desire to operate short - term rentals is expected to increase due to the proximity of Gardena to SoFi Stadium;” In Ord. 1825 other findings were made:
“WHEREAS, Gardena is situated to be in a position to capitalize on a demand for new hotel spaces due to its proximity to SoFi Stadium , Hollywood Park, Dignity Health Sports Park (formerly "Stub Hub"), and other attractions; and
WHEREAS, during the past year, developers have indicated that the City's devel opment standards have been an impediment to new hotel development; and WHEREAS, at the City Council meeting on July 14, 2020, the City Council gave direction to staff to implement changes;”
Th e Council has been pushed by an agenda to ban STRs, steering t he city to blame STRs for traffic, forgetting they increased it themselves; blam ed for less parking, while causing less parking through Ordinances; declaring STRs will cause prices to go up and a shortage, yet forgetting about creating first class apartmen ts for the rich; declaring STRs will become more proliferent because of SoFi, while declaring that SoFi money is good for the city. Someone has been hiding an agenda.

The meeting that started all this, was not noticed to the public, yet two people showed up to speak in favor of the ban. Observe the words of the second person:

Raymond Dennis: I also think that with the proximity of SpaceX and proximity of Tesla, that they have many short term people that come into those organizations that instead of using hotels would be more inclined to bundle up in a Airbnb. … I understand if you can't do a moratorium right now, but you at least should investigate, investigate quickly because the world cup is coming. You have the Super Bowl. You have the BCS championship coming. You have the final four coming and you have in 2026 World Cup, all of that coming to SoFi, and people be looking for places to stay.
(Exhibit C p. 9 lns. 26-28, 34-37; p. 10 ln. 1)
Those are rather unusual concerns for a random citizen at a local city hall meeting to spontaneously show up and be focused on upper class workers desiring a short term place to stay and not using a hotel, that SoFi money will be coming in and needing a place to stay, in a couple 19 of years, just in time for a hotel to be approved and built. But he also planted fears in his speech , and what was a relatively quiet reception by the council, then turned into a fear fest. Spurned by people randomly present with focused messages to manipulate the Council.

STRS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN LAWFUL AND STILL ARE
The proposed zoning fails the uniformity requirement of Gov. Code, § 65852 because some houses are permitted to a use of their land for hire and are not treated as a business, but every year money is paid by me for a business license, “License Activity Residential Rental Property” one for each of my addresses (Account Numbers 2820, 2821; $56.75 x2; I am current see Transactions ID’s: 63482405363 and 63482409762). Her Honor declared on 9/13/22, “I’m sure none of these people are paying any type of business license tax or anything like that.” 6 The city has been approving of my short term rentals for years, because as it acknowledges, it was a lawful activity.

5.04.110 Separate business licenses/permits for each business and for each location.

Except as otherwise provided in this Title, a separa te license shall be obtained and a separate fee paid for each branch establishment or separate place of business, and for each separate type of business activity which shares a common location, even when conducted under the same ownership.

B. Each license shall authorize the licensee named therein to commence and conduct only that business described in such license and only at the location or place of business which is indicated therein.

5.04.010 Definitions.
“‘Business’ means and includes all kinds of … enterprises, establishments and all other kinds of activities and matters, … used or carried on for the purpose of earning in whole or in part a profit or livelihood … Business, … shall include, without being limited thereto, trades and occupations of all and every kind of calling carried on within the city; … the renting or supplying of living quarters or board, or both for guests, tenants or occupants.” “‘Established business’ means and includes only such persons in cases whereby the nature of their respective modes of operation would clearly be classifiable as a “permanent business.” In all other cases such fact shall be required to be proven … for a minimum period of six months or more.

During the slide show on 8/9/22, a word had to be defined for the city:
“What is a Short Term Rental (STR)?- Typically defined as a rental of a dwelling unit which is shared, in whole or in part, for periods of 30 days or less as a way of generating rental income.” That was an admission that the city had yet to define the term legally.

The August 9
th Agenda Staff Report
“An STR is any rental of a dwelling of thirty days or less. The City’s position has been that because STRs are not listed as an allowed use in the zoning code, they are prohibited. This is 6 https://youtu.be/6T1z77Zy5Z4?t=8971
20 known as permissive zoning. The recent case of Keen v. City of Manhattan Beach decided in April of this year renders this argument invalid.

According to the appellate court, Manhattan Beach’s ordinance did not regulate how long a person could stay in a dwelling and therefore rejected the city’s argument that the STRs were prohibited under the theory of permissive zoning. Based on this decision, if Gardena wishes to regulate or prohibit STRs, it will be required to enact a zoning ordinance to do so.” (p.1) “There are now websites that are devoted to hourly rentals of pools in single -family homes, the most popular of which is www.swimply.com. Additionally, owners are renting their homes for use as event spaces. Currently, there do not appear to be any pools for rent in Gardena. Community Development has received inquiries about using private homes for events such as weddings. Use of homes for these purposes turns a single-family home into a commercial enterprise and can cause neighborhood disruptions.

Unlike STRs for lodging , these uses are prohibited under the Gardena Municipal Code as they are not listed as an allowed use. However, staff believes that such uses should be specifically addressed in accordance with the City Council’s desires.” (p.3) “Submitted by: Greg Tsujiuchi Date: August 4, 2022” The above is a direct acknowledgment by the Community Development Department Director that STRs were not prohibited but rather are currently permitted, because an appellate court had determined their theory was legally invalid and acknowledged that the Gardena Code did not regulate how long a person could stay, therefore the use as a STR was just like the other 10,000 rentals in this city, exc ept that STRs comprised 0. 8% of the volume of rental units in the city, which by no means has ANY meaningful impact on the available housing supply.

As of 2018, there were 20,619 households, comprised of 32% nonfamilies, 68% families; the median income was $55,351 (City of Gardena 2021- 2029 Housing Element p.13) and as of 2020 there were 21,982 housing units with 52% as single family residents (SFR) and 43.6% multiple-family units (MFU), (id . p. 15) thus 11,431 SFRs and 9,584 MFUs, but near 50/50 on ownership (10,090) to renter (10,529) ratio (id. p. 36).

Under Public Resources Code § 21083.3 when a “parcel has been zoned to accommodate a particular density of development or has been designated in a community plan to accommodate a particular density” which all of our properties were, thus “consistent with the zoning or community plan” any inquiry “shall be limited to effects upon the environment which are peculiar to the parcel” but the city already declared “ with certainty that there is no possibility ” of an environmental issue under the commonsense exemption set forth in California Code of Regulations title 14, section 15061(b)(3), which the city planner forgot to cite, and further proves there are no concerns with trash, noise, or traffic.
21 This ordinance is not consistent with the General Plan, Policy 2.2 “Encourage provision of units of various sizes to accommodate the diverse needs of the community, including seniors, students and young workers, and large households.” Rentals of any duration accommo date any degree of temporary worker or visitor, how many will be available to rent to a visiting nurse here for three weeks or worker in for a project for 6 weeks? Or those Tesla or SpaceX workers? And directly violates Policy 5.2 “Provide a range of housing options, locational choices, and price points to accommodate the diverse needs in Gardena and to allow for housing mobility.” One of those public voices on 9/13/22 specifically advised that she uses STRs to house visiting family members when they come to town because they cannot afford the hotel rates.

And the only stated negative aspect is under Policy 2.5, “ Discourage the conversion of affordable rental units to condominium ownership.” Which not one of us has contemplated.

Is the Council aware that the General Plan only uses the word “short” one time in the entire plan? And it is under Permit and Processing Procedures. “ Development processing time is relatively short and expeditious due to a one-stop counter, streamlined procedures, and concurrent processing.” (City of Gardena 2021-2029 Housing Element, p. 49) Therefore, the proposed zoning is not compliant with Gov. Code, § 65862 as to any “inconsistency between the general plan and zoning arises as a result of adoption of or amendment to a general plan” and the moment the Council attempts to amend the General Plan to make STR’s inconsistent with it, the Council grants each of us standing to attack the General Plan under Gov.

Code, § 65860(c).

THE LEGISLATURE PRECLUDED THIS CURRENT ACTION
And that brings us to the stated reason for this urgency measure, as brought under Gov.

Code, § 65858 “to protect the public safety, health, and welfare, may adopt as an urgency measure an interim ordinance prohibiting any uses that may be in conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the legislative body, planning commission or the planning department is considering or studying or intends to study within a reasonable time.” The Legislative history clarifies that the intended use of this statute is not a contemplated use. From the (Senate Housing & Community Development Committee, Chair Senator Dunn, Analysis of SB No. 1098 (2001-2002 Regular Secession) as introduced May 3, 2001, p. 1):
“Existing law allows a local government to adopt an ‘interim ordinance’ - otherwise called a moratorium - prohibiting any new land use that may be in conflict with a change to the general plan, specific plan or zoning proposal that the jurisdiction is studying or considering. 22 The local government must first make legislative findings that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety or welfare and that the approval of additional permits would result in the realization of that threat. Upon a 4/5ths vote, the local legislative body can adopt such an ordinance for 45 days and ultimately extend it for as long as two years.”
7 The Senate disagrees with this council’s intended use t o retroactively apply the zoning law, as does our local Court of Appeal. “We conclude that the city council failed to make findings required under Government Code section 65858, subdivision (c) … therefore was contrary to law and invalid.” (Hoffman Street, LLC v. City of West Hollywood (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 754, 758).

Wherein the court also concluded their was no need to follow the administrative remedies because the ordinance was invalid.

Gov. Code, § 65858 subdivision (c) provides “The legislative body shall not adopt or extend any interim ordinance pursuant to this section unless the ordinance contains legislative findings that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and that the approval of additional subdivisions, use permits, variances, building permits, or any other applicable entitlement for use which is required in order to comply with a zoning ordinance would result in that threat to public health, safety, or welfare.” The Council has skipped right over the aspect of any additional future units would cause harm, and only declared then existing lawful uses were the cause of harm, but failed to substantiate it as required by statute and case law.

It is generally understood in this state , that the findings need supporting evidence, which as of now only consists of voices of the public submitting an objection to the unlawful ban.

Three quick points and then done.

The Council’s administrative process is designed to eliminate a cause of action under Gov.

Code, sections 65009(c); 65009; 65093 in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments pursuant to Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. (1982) 455 U.S. 422 as a cause of action is a property right that may not be so shortly limited.

Reservation of right is hereby made and no waiver of rights results as under local, state and federal laws, all possible applicable causes of action, and defenses are now raised, reserved and intended to be used.
7 Available here:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=200120020SB1098# 23 Finally, and very importantly, in a case where the citizens prevailed over the city regarding zoning issues, the “plaintiffs moved for attorney's fees pursuant to section 1021.5 for prevailing on their challenges to the SNAP variances. After full briefing and a hearing, the trial court granted La Mirada attorney's fees totaling $793,817.50 and Citizens attorney's fees of $180,320.” And was affirmed by our local Court of Appeal. (La Mirada Ave. Neighborhood Ass'n of Hollywood v. City of L. A. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1149, 1155) Money that could be spent on the homelessness issue.

WHERE DO WE REALLY WANT TO GO FROM HERE?
The above recommendations were made before investigation because the city only began an investigation after the urgency moratorium vote failed , and then a KGB poised company was procured to spy, as if we were hiding.
“After the last City Council meeting, the City Manager authorized entering into a $4,000 consultant agreement with Deckard Technologies/Rentalscape to provide important information regarding STRs that currently exist in the City. Generally, it takes several weeks for the system to populate the information for the City.”
But how will the city be making good use of that money when it cuts off the source of the data?
“Any modification to Ordinance No. 1844 would need to first go back to the Planning Commission. Given the complexity of drafting an ordinance that allowed STRs, it is unlikely that such an ordinance could be returned to the City Council before late November or early December.” And that few m onths is not enough time for the company to be running data to make an informed decision with, but better than no time. Additionally, this “would need to first go back to the Planning Commission” anyway, because 1843 was not voted on by the Planning Commission.

Now, if you do not want to shoot me, that part is all done and we can move on to where we need to be. Do you know that where I am from, this could never be said? After the second page, they would win the argument…
You have no idea the freedom you take for granted here. And how wonderful it is to be able to use it. But disagreement can lead to compromise. Let’s take a look at that now. 24 THE RIGHT FOOT.

Come, sit my friends. Let us try to do what rational people do, talk.

Your people, the proud homeowners of STRs are mostly all immigrants, who came here for the same reasons as I did, because this American dream belongs to the world. Those of us that win the lottery of life, get to live it, and we see so many born into it not even see it.

Each of us worked so hard to build and safe and invest and grow. Do you think for one second we want any harm to come to our property, our investments, our children’s futures? We are dedicated to our success.

I meet every single guest that comes to the property, after running background checks on them, I personally let them into the house; a very small reason is to be a good host, the very large reason is that I was raised to be suspicious and need to check them all out myself.

Her Honor made an interesting comment about the feeling of knowing your neighbors during the 8/9/22 meeting. To this there are two things : first, we do not get to pick them, and sometimes they are not at all what we want, and that feeling never leaves because they never leave.

Second, sometimes its nice to be curious about who is in there now for a little excitement, and find that same familiar comfort in knowing they are leaving in a day or two. Life is how we look at it.

I see an attack, and find a reason to make good for all of it.

One of your STR hosts, suffered the ultimate test of a mother, when her son was paralyzed and she had to stop working to become full time caretaker and to supplement the loss of income had to rent out part of the house. Night mare after nightmare , followed by even worst long term tenants kept arriving and not paying, she switched to Air bnb and has never had a single problem since, finally she is financially worry free.

Councilmember Henderson, you were concerned about 290 regi strants, Airbnb makes all members photograph their face and ID to register, then the computer verifies, and also checks against the federal data base made available to social media sites for this very purpose. If one signs up, within minutes the system closes their account permanently. So none can rent from us as hosts, unlike your normal landlord that may not know, we do; simply because they contacted us qualifies them as not.

City Manager Osorio, you were concerned about staffing and timing and costs of enforcement, yet you have the most dedicated staff imaginable, more ready and willing than your staff could ever be (no offense) because we are the owners. There is no reason why our phone 25 numbers cannot be distributed or connected to law enforcement and the city so if a noise complaint comes in, we are called first.

If there are noise complaints, then we want to know more than you do, because that is a rather large investment and only one of three things are occurring. The guest is unruly and we want them out; a neighbor is the cause of the noise and we want it to stop more than you do to protect our guest’s peace and relaxation; or the call is from a busy body with nothing better to do, and we all need to know that, and be able to recognize it when it becomes a pattern.

Which also goes to Councilmember Tanaka’s concern about a rave party at a house, which should be clear by now, is completely unacceptable, and the police will need to be called, but to protect them from me.

Which leads into Director Tsujiuchi, Counselor Vasquez, and Counselor Kranitz, there was concern about drafting an ordinance; you can be boring and copy one of the many you read from the other cities, or we can all create something to serve as model for them to copy, by combing your drafting and legal knowledge with the practical knowledge of the hosts’ who are happy to provide insight. There is no reason why we cannot work out a system that helps everyone, this is America still right? Two brilliant female attorneys and a can -do-attitude and we can make this happen quickly.

From the top of my head, m aybe just a simple point system, starting with 3 points , each call that is not resolved by the host that results in another call to address the unresolve complaint loses one point, but if no calls that month gains one point as a reward; then if all points are lost, then they lose; or something that involves punishment and reward. By the time a host gets seasoned enough, it should not be a problem, but maybe cap at 12 or 15 incase somebody spirals down there is still a way to hold them accountable . Putting together packets of preparedness and plans and methods can be symbiotic, and allow us to resolve problems together, rather than spending money.

We do not want bad hosts out there either, and we need your protection too. Rather coincidently, just this Sunday, I had what appeared to be a normal guest, with good reviews, then because I monitor the property which alerts me when movement occurs outside, I saw she had an unregistered and unverified person on the property, I immediately contacted Airbnb and notified them of the unauthorized person in violation of the agreement, as a result they cancelled the agreement with the guest and Airbnb notified her she must leave now, and notified her several more times but she refused to leave. Then I went over to tell her to leave in person, incredibly she 26 called the police to have me removed. I explained the law and the situation but the officer said this was civil and they do not do civil, when it was clearly a criminal trespass because she could not prove consent with a simple proof of payment as that would show it was cancelled for violating rules. The police left. She then shoved my friend and called the police a second time, luckily my place is fully captured on cameras and I also had my phone and showed the officer who finally, sternly spoke to her and they left. This break down of procedure when a citizen needs police help is not good for anyone, because in the end, the officer was rewarding the criminal.

Also, D irector Tsujiuchi, maybe you did not realize it, but many of those people that came to ask if it was legal, were would-be hosts; as I once did the same. Most of us want to do right, we are in business to live, not starve.

Does the city want to make money? Because we do too. Sales taxes and TOT are better than nothing, also Airbnb automatically takes out the TOT and sends it to the city directly on a hosts behalf, so that makes it streamlined. “ Asst City Attorney Kranitz gave the amount of STRs we currently have in our city which is about 130 rentals, and an estimation of TOT would be $125,000 a year but then we would be paying a company to check on them.” (9/13/22 Minutes p.10) As Director Tsujiuchi show ed, it will cost the city $4,000 to make $121,000, that is an investment that any of us hosts would die for, and you get it for the cost of bringing in more money to the city, because that which is even better than taxes is outside dollars brought into the city and spent here, building our economy. Who else is going to shop at your site specific plans? Mayor Pro Tem Francis, there is so much more that I could have said, but I would rather not fight as it is best if we leave each other be and we both will be happ ier in the long run in the end. But you are also right, that a cap should occur, because to be rather selfish, we do not want to see the area flooded with hosts either. The only lawful and constitutional way is to enact prospective laws. And for all of the big companies that are trying to be impressed to help the city grow, do you really think multi -hundred million dollar companies are really intimidated by 50 citizens?
Combined we are one hotel. That should scare no one, but rather excite that we bring in a hotel’s worth of business daily, without having to wait for it to be built.

When the hotels are finally built, we won’t matter then either.

Do you know what I love? K orovka milk caramel, I am hopelessly addicted, and I hate Skittles.
27 Which I am sure some one just shook their head reading that. But you do not need to convince me of what I don’t like, nor I you. Some people hate hotels and want a home feel, others love hotels, my closest friend is one of them. If a person wants an Airbnb, they will find one, even if it is not in Gardena, and that is money lost to local shops.

Options stimulate growth, not one sided un- thought out decisions, that result in enacting laws which will result in hundreds of thousands of dollars of attorney fees taken from the city fund, to only find out you have to start over.

And to what end? So outside money is not spent here?
Her Brilliance Councilmember Love saw it, true to her namesake, for she was accepting of the unknown and embraced the possibilities of hope. You inspired me to find the same middle ground.

Working together to solve the problems is where all this energy needs to be spent.

On this note, I will conclude with my favorite passage from a case.

The authentic majesty in our Constitution derives in large measure from the rule of law — principle and process instead of person. Conceived in the shadow of an abusive and unanswerable tyrant who rejected all authority save his own, our ancestors wisely birthed a government not of leaders, but of servants of the law. Nowhere in the Constitution or in the Declaration of Independence, nor for that matter in the Federalist or in any other writing of the Founding Fathers, can one find a single utterance that could justify a decision by any oath-beholden servant of the law to look the other way when confronted by the real possibility of being complicit in the wrongful [deprivation of another’s pursuit of happiness].

When the Preamble of the Constitution consecrates the mission of our Republic in part to the pursuit of Justice, it does not contemplate that the power of the state thereby created could be used improperly to abuse its citizens[.]
Northern Mariana Islands v. Bowie, (9
th Cir. 2001) 243 F.3d 1109, 1124
I grew up in tyranny, yes it sounds fun, but its not all its cracked up to be, living under a boot of those who mean well by thinking for you is not living. “It is a melancholy reflection that liberty should be equally exposed to danger whether the Government have too much or too little power, and that the line which defines these extremes should be so inaccurately defined by experience.” James Madison letter to Thomas Jefferson, October 17, 1788
Too little , and liberty is de stroyed by crime ; too much, and there is no liberty, only a dictatorship.
28 T hank you for your time, consideration, and for taking care of the men and women in the transitional and group housing, that was very impressive. Let’s keep that spirit of community unity going, together.

Most sincerely,
Mariya Wrightsman September 27, 2022
A
ttached: Exhibits A-D

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT C

City Hall Meeting – City of Gardena, California – County of Los Angeles August 9, 2022
Transcript by Rev.com Page 1 of 13

Tsujiuchi: Short presentation, if you'd like to hear that first? 1 Cerda: Let's go ahead and do that first, because we may have questions as it relates 2 to that. 3
Tsujiuchi: Okay we're going to share our screen here. Can everyone see the screen? 4 Cerda: Yes. 5
Tsujiuchi: Good evening members of the city council. Tonight's discussion is about 6 short-term rentals. We have a short presentation and we go to next slide 7 here. 8
So just a recap on what a short -term rental is. Typically, it's defined as a 9 renting of a dwelling unit, which is shared in whole or in part, meaning it 10 could be the whole dwelling unit or maybe just a bedroom or actually an 11 amenity that we recently seen for usually periods of 30 days or less as a way 12 of generating rental income. Most recently, we're starting to see not only the 13 dwelling unit being defined as a short -term rental, but we're starting to see 14 it kind of broadened in definition to include things like hourly and daily 15 rentals of swimming pools in people's backyards. And also as a daily special 16 event venue, like maybe hosting weddings. That could also be included in 17 this definition of a short-term rental. 18
So why we're bringing this to you for discussion, our Gardena Municipal 19 Code doesn't specifically prohibit short -term rentals. There's been a recent 20 case law known as Keen versus City of Manhattan Beach. And I'd actually 21 like Lisa to kind of brief you on that. 22
Kranitz: So generally Gardena and other cities use what's called permissive zoning. 23 If a use is not listed in the municipal code, then according to the city, it's 24 prohibited. That's how Gardena functions. That's theoretically how 25 Manhattan Beach functions. Manhattan Beach tried to argue that because 26 short-term rentals weren't listed as an allowed use, they were prohibited 27 under the city's code. The case involved the Coastal Commission, but that's 28 not relevant for how it impacts all other cities. What the court said was 29 because residential uses are allowed in residential zones and residential uses 30 don't specify how many days a person has to stay in a dwelling, short -term 31 rentals are not prohibited under permissive zoning. So therefore, if a city 32 wants to prohibit a short -term rental for lodging, they have to specifically 33 go in and amend their ordinance to provide such prohibition. 34 For the other types of things that Greg was talking about, people who are 35 now renting their backyards out for special event venues or renting their 36 swimming pools by the hour, those we can argue are prohibited under 37 permissive zoning because they're not residential use as far as lodging goes, 38 City Hall Meeting – City of Gardena, California – County of Los Angeles August 9, 2022
Transcript by Rev.com Page 2 of 13

but it would be better if the council wants to prohibit them to specifically 1 call it out. So it's quite clear in the code. 2
Tsujiuchi: So those first two go hand in hand. Gardena Municipal Code doesn't 3 specifically prohibit it, or it doesn't specifically prohibit short-term rentals. 4 And this new recent case says we ought to, if that's what we're going to do. 5 In addition to that, we are seeing an increase of inquiries on the ability to 6 have S TRs in the city. Our planning division has been taking numerous 7 calls, people wanting to do it more and more often. My code enforcement 8 here in community development, they've seen an increase of complaints 9 regarding short-term rentals, usually with noise or parking or the amount of 10 people that they're seeing next to residential homes. We've also done a little 11 research and there's been numerous listings found on different platforms on 12 the internet. Platforms or things such as Airbnb, VRBO, booking.com. 13 There's a few others. 14
And so staff is really looking for direction on two major - - or two options. 15 Either to prohibit the short -term rentals in Gardena, which is what we're 16 currently enforcing, or to permit short -term rentals. And so we kind of 17 looked around at our neighboring South Bay Cities. And so those who are 18 currently prohibiting, would be cities of Redondo Beach. Manhattan Beach, 19 for the most part, they are doing some amendments to it, I think to also 20 include their coastal areas. Inglewood, I think, saw a huge uptick with their 21 SoFi St adium and whatnot coming up and so they actually put up 22 moratorium on it. I think it became such a harm or nuisance to them. 23 Lawndale prohibits it. There's other cities who are permitting STRs. Lomita 24 is permitting it, but kind of like how Gardena would be, where they're not 25 really specifying it. So by this new case law, it would be permitted. 26 We believe Carson is the same way. We really couldn't find anything that 27 prohibited it, so we assume that they're allowing it because they don't 28 specifically prohibit it. Cities of El Segundo, Hermosa Beach, Torrance, and 29 Hawthorne, they have pretty strict regulations where it can be numbers, how 30 many can be rented or used as short -term rentals at any one time, specific 31 zones, whether or not the owner has to occupy the home or not. 32 And so there's a number of different ways that you could regulate it, but all 33 in all staff is just looking for a direction, whether or not you'd like to prohibit 34 it. And if so, then direct staff to draft a ordinance prohibiting short -term 35 rentals. If you're looking to permit short -term rentals, then direct staff to 36 draft an ordinance either to one allow it pretty much without any regulation, 37 just say get a business license, make sure you're paying your transient orient 38 tax- - ah - - transient occupancy tax, and let them do that, or permit S TRs 39 and have regulations. And these regulations can pretty intensive. And so we 40 would request that you direct staff to work with the planning commission, 41 City Hall Meeting – City of Gardena, California – County of Los Angeles August 9, 2022
Transcript by Rev.com Page 3 of 13

come up with a draft ordinance, and then we would come back to you for 1 more input. 2
So that's where we're at now. I could go more into different options if you 3 decide to permit STRs, but at this point in time of my presentation just 4 wanted to see whether or not you were interested in prohibiting or 5 permitting short-term rentals. 6
Cerda: Okay, thank you. Let's open up for questions. Customer Henderson had his 7 hand up first. Go ahead. 8
Henderson: Thank you Madam Mayor. Thanks for that presentation Greg in regards to 9 that. You brought up another question. In rega rds to those cities of El 10 Segundo, Hawthorne, Hermosa Beach, Torrance, that kind of have some 11 regulations drafted. What was their criterion in regards to selection, process 12 of properties that would do that? Did they spread them out throughout their 13 city, 20 per district? How did they do that? And then what did that add to 14 the staff administrative overhead as far as all that work now? 15 Tsujiuchi: Well, so I'll speak to a neighboring city that is real near Gardena. They did 16 a rental ordinance that put it in specific zones. It wasn't really in any 17 particular north, south, east, west part of the city, it was just in wherever 18 this type of a zone was located. They allowed it. They limited the number 19 of licenses that they would issue all the way down to, I think they limited it 20 to 10 at any one time. They limited it as far as what they call multiple 21 bookings, meaning that they're renting out multiple rooms only so many 22 could do it at one time. I think in our staff report we identified some 23 Torrance, I believe did they - - we're looking into that [inaudible 00:09:02] 24 Kranitz: A home share only. 25
Tsujiuchi: Oh, they did a home share only, meaning that the owner has to be present. 26 It can't be where they're either on a long -term vacation and while they're 27 gone, they're renting out their home or they own another primary residence 28 maybe in another city and they own this other property in Gardena and so 29 they want to short-term rental that house as a short -term rental, rather than 30 a long-term lease to someone. 31
Kranitz: I think generally what the neighboring city did of only 10 permits per year 32 is unusual. I think usually the cities do it by zones. Be it home share, or you 33 can do the short-term rentals. It could be just the R1 zones or just R2, R3, 34 R4 type zones. Those are all th e directions we're looking for if the council 35 wishes to allow short -term rentals. It's really, what is your imagination. 36 Homes which have an ADU or an SB9 unit cannot be used for short -term 37 rentals. That's by law. 38
City Hall Meeting – City of Gardena, California – County of Los Angeles August 9, 2022
Transcript by Rev.com Page 4 of 13

Tsujiuchi: Affordable housing units? 1
Kranitz: Affordable housing units, then they wouldn't qualify for a short-term rental 2 because you wouldn't be meeting the income qualifications. 3 Tsujiuchi: There's a whole host of options that we would go through depending on if 4 that's the council's direction. 5
Kranitz: As far as administrative costs, it would be like any other type of city service 6 where a permit fee would be established that would cover the city's 7 expenses. We'd figure out how much staff time was involved in it, and then 8 charge a fee along with business license. 9
Henderson: Okay. Thank you. Then my second question regards to, if we were to come 10 up with some sort of solution in the middle versus fully allowing it all over 11 the place or denying it all together, what about, would it be discriminatory 12 if we said in our regulations, if we permitted this, that if you live near a park 13 or a school zone, you cannot have such a facility because we want to control 14 the potentiality of predators coming into our community and everything. 15 Can that be put in the regulation? And if so, does that open us up to potential 16 liability, because now we're exercising discriminatory practice? 17 Kranitz: It's something we'll have to look at. 18
Henderson: Okay. 19
Tsujiuchi: I've not heard of any of the cities around here doing that, but we'll certainly 20 look into it if that's the council's desire or direction. Thank you. 21 Cerda: Mayor Pro Tem Paulette Francis. 22
Francis: Yes. I have a few questions. So you mentioned there were numerous calls. 23 How many is numerous? 24
Tsujiuchi: From planning for whether there's the ability to use a short -term rental? 25 Francis: No, no, no. You said you received numerous calls regarding short -term 26 rentals. I was just wondering how many is numerous. 27
Tsujiuchi: So the ones that came into planning, with the average two to three a week. 28 Kranitz: Yeah, we get numerous calls like Greg is saying and emails as well. 29 Tsujiuchi: So maybe two to three at a week. 30
Francis: Over a month? 31
City Hall Meeting – City of Gardena, California – County of Los Angeles August 9, 2022
Transcript by Rev.com Page 5 of 13

Tsujiuchi: Over the past few months. Over the past, maybe 12 months. 1 Kranitz: Gardena currently has, if you go on various platforms, there's probably at 2 least 20 rentals right now. 3
Francis: I saw that. Thank you. And you say you had numerous complaints with code 4 enforcement? 5
Tsujiuchi: Several complaints from code enforcement. I don't have a specific number, 6 but I would say that it's been enough to bring this up as part of the 7 discussion. So I would say we get, within the last couple of months, I would 8 say I've gotten four or five. 9
Francis: All right. Thank you. I'm not quite sure who to direct this question to. Now 10 you said that since we don't have anything in place, single short-term rentals 11 are not prohibited because of this Keen versus Manhattan Beach rule. Is that 12 correct? 13
Kranitz: Correct. 14
Francis: Okay. So could we tonight declare moratorium until we have more time to 15 discuss it and do some research and investigate what we can do? Can we do 16 that? Can that be an option? 17
Cerda: Mayor Pro Tem. So tonight what we're doing is we're just discussing it for 18 it to come back later on. As far as staff can do more research and so they 19 just want to get some direction. We're not taking any action on this tonight, 20 other than just, what are our feelings of this here? So it's going to come back 21 and we will have more time to discuss it. 22
Francis: Until we take some time discussing all that we couldn't say until right now, 23 we're just going to declare moratorium on all short-term rentals until we can 24 figure out what it is we want to do. 25
Kranitz: We couldn't do it tonight because it's not on the agenda. And it would have 26 to be added as an urgency item on the agenda. And I think since it's been 27 going on, you couldn't make the findings to support that there was an 28 immediate need to add it on. You can certainly come to the city council for 29 the 45-day moratorium at the city council's next meeting. And then after 45 30 days, that moratorium can be renewed up to a year and 11 months and 15 31 days for a total of, 10 months and 15 days for a total of a two- year 32 moratorium while you're working on it. 33
Francis: I was going to say, because we've had moratorium that were 145 days, but 34 since it's not on the agenda, we can't declare a moratorium because it's not 35 City Hall Meeting – City of Gardena, California – County of Los Angeles August 9, 2022
Transcript by Rev.com Page 6 of 13

on the agenda, but could we put it on the agenda for next meeting to have 1 moratorium in place until we can figure out exactly what is we should do? 2 Kranitz: If that's a council directive. 3
Francis: A majority, not a directive. Okay, so I need to wait until directives. Okay. 4 Thank you so much. I appreciate your response. 5
I just get a little confused if you say numerous. I mean, I like dealing hard 6 numbers and after the meeting, I'll tell you a story of why I don't play with 7 statistics and numerous because I've done some things just based on that 8 and gotten away with it based on numerous. So anyway. 9 Cerda: Any more questions or comments? 10
Oh, tonight we're just discussing it just so that staff can have some direction. 11 It will still go before planning. It would still come before us. And even if 12 we said we're in favor of it and we want limitations on it, we would still do 13 an official vote, but they just need somewhere to start with this. So that's 14 why it's up for some discussion. 15
Love: So I know there's three options: to moratorium, to say no, or to agree with 16 amendments or restrictions, right? 17
Cerda: I think on a permanent basis, it would be called a prohibition, not a 18 moratorium. I think what Inglewood did was essentially what Mayor Pro 19 Tem Francis just said is it became such a problem immediately because of 20 SoFi Stadium that they went in under the emergency regulations and put a 21 moratorium on while they figure out what to do. 22
Francis: They become Super Bowl. They rent out hotels and people rent out their 23 houses, and that's why they did it. It was everywhere. So that's why they did 24 it. 25
Love: Do we have any licensed units like this in the city now? 26 Tsujiuchi: No, we do not have any licensed units. We have people doing it in our city. 27 Love: Yeah, I know. 28
Tsujiuchi: But we don't issue a business license. 29
Love: Okay. So, well, do you need a motion? 30
Cerda: No, no, no. We're not there yet. I need to open it up to the public as well, 31 too. Any other council members have any questions or comments? 32 City Hall Meeting – City of Gardena, California – County of Los Angeles August 9, 2022
Transcript by Rev.com Page 7 of 13

Tanaka: So Ms. Kranitz home shares are not included in this, correct? 1 Kranitz: Well, that's what we're looking for direction on. So the home share is the 2 idea that you were at your house and maybe you're renting one bedroom out 3 for supplemental income, or to keep because you don't want to be lonely all 4 the time. 5
Tanaka: That's what I was going to say is that because the cog is actually promoting 6 home share it's long term. It's usually a person that has a home that lives by 7 themselves and they are looking for maybe somebody to come in and live 8 with them and help them with the bills, the groceries, the chores, that kind 9 of stuff. And it's actually long term it's not. 10
Kranitz: That wouldn't be included when we're talking in this term of home share, 11 it's still a short term rental for under 30 days. But under a home share, the 12 owner is required to be present in the home while they're renting it out. And 13 the idea there is that if the owner's present, then it's not being used for a 14 party house. So it's just one room, not the whole house. You don't get 15 15 people actually moving in. I mean, some of the rentals that I've looked at in 16 Garden and elsewhere, it's li ke, "Well, we've put in the two sets of bunk 17 beds that have the full on the bottom and the twin on the top. So you can get 18 six people in one room," and then it becomes you're changing the character 19 of the neighborhood. 20
Tanaka: And so Mr. Tsujiuchi, you sai d that there's some issues with code 21 enforcement. What type of issues did we get? Were they like parties? Were 22 they just loud people? What kind of issues? 23
Tsujiuchi: The ones that came on, I'd say at least three times, were noise. And it's 24 usually some, it's not uncommon for short term rentals, people rent a larger 25 house and then they host a party there. So several of the calls, or I would 26 say three for Mayor Pro Tem, say two to three calls have come in for noise. 27 For sure, I'd say two came in because of parking being taken up in the 28 neighborhood. And then there was one call where it was just a complaint 29 that they said what Ms. Kranitz was saying, that it's taken away from our 30 neighborhood. These are residential neighborhoods. They're not little hotels 31 on our blocks that we want. So it was kind of just a general complaint. 32 Tanaka: Okay. So the reason I ask that question is I'm kind of against this whole 33 issue because once you open Pandora's box, then all of a sudden you'll start 34 having home parties, just like they're doing in the commercial areas where 35 you'll all of a sudden, they'll take over a house and there'll be 200 people in 36 the house. And then we have a law enforcement issue. Police department 37 staffing is going to have to take that in effect. So that's why I asked. That's 38 why I appreciate that. Thank you. 39
City Hall Meeting – City of Gardena, California – County of Los Angeles August 9, 2022
Transcript by Rev.com Page 8 of 13

Cerda: Okay. Any more question? Excuse me, any more questions or comments? 1 Love: I have a comment. I know that there's some issues with some properties 2 already being used for Airbnb. I've gotten those calls at the Chamber Office 3 about this, but I would hate for us to deny responsible property owners, the 4 opportunity to make some extra money. I mean, we will always have those 5 that are not considerate of other residents or the fact that these are 6 neighborhoods, but I would really like for us to allow staff to come back 7 with some findings and some suggestions and consider approving with 8 restrictions instead of just a blanket moratorium and saying no to 9 everything. 10
Cerda: Any more questions or comments? Madam city, deputy clerk, do we have 11 anybody from the public speak on this item? 12
Romero: Yes we do, Mayor Cerda. We have two hands that are up. 13 Cerda: Okay, go ahead. 14
Cerda: Okay. I think it's Charisse? 15
Charisse: Hello? 16
Cerda: Hi, you can go ahead and begin. 17
Charisse: Okay. I'm sorry. Good evening. I'm listening to everybody speak about the 18 Airbnb. My question is right now are they legal to have in Gardena? Are 19 they permitted to use them as Airbnb? Because really on our side, I know 20 of three that are on our side. And I'm just wondering if it's just legal to have 21 them? I'm done. Those who wanted different traffic there. And one of the 22 houses, I don't know if you guys were aware of that they did an FBI raid on 23 it. They had the dogs, the Secret Service. They had eve rybody because 24 somebody was selling guns from the Airbnb on that street. So I don't know 25 if it's not legal for them to have it I would like to know that. And if it is legal 26 for them to have it right now, that I would like to know that too. Thank you. 27 Cerda: Okay, Mr. Tsujuchi, can you just relay again what was said? 28 Tsujiuchi: Yeah, I'm going to defer our, to our assistant city attorney. 29 Kranitz: So as we said, we used to believe we had the authority to say you can't have 30 them under the concept of permissive zoning. It wasn't allowed in our code. 31 Therefore, it's prohibited. The case that came out earlier this year, 32 Manhattan Beach destroyed that argument, which is why we're now 33 bringing it to the council. If the desire is to regulate or prohibit, we need 34 specific ordinance adopted to that effect. So right now, yes, they're legal. 35 City Hall Meeting – City of Gardena, California – County of Los Angeles August 9, 2022
Transcript by Rev.com Page 9 of 13

Cerda: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Clark, we had another speaker? 1 Romero: Yes, Raymond. Dennis. 2
Cerda: Okay. Go - - 3
Romero: I'm bringing him in. 4
Raymond Dennis: Hello? 5
Cerda: Hello. Mr. Dennis? Go ahead. 6
Raymond Dennis: Yes. Yes. Thank you for allowing me to speak on this topic. I just wanted 7 to go along with the council member Tanaka's comments, as it relates to the 8 activities that could take place to the Airbnb. My particular concern is one, 9 code enforcement. I think code enforcement will be a challenge. Two, the 10 fact that if you don't move quickly, now you're going to have a lot of 11 opportunities for other people to convert to Airbnbs. And then they're going 12 to come after the city saying that the ordinance went in effect after they had 13 been in business for X number of days or months or years. Personally, I 14 would be a proponent to prohibit them because I think the nature and the 15 culture of our neighborhoods and the community of Gardena is more 16 family-oriented. It's more residential oriented. And if you live on a cul -de-17 sac as I do, it could be problematic if you throw a rave party at the end of 18 the cul-de-sac. 19
I also think that with the proximity of SpaceX and proximity of Tesla , that 20 they have many short term people that come into those organizations that 21 instead of using hotels would be more inclined to bundle up in a Airbnb. 22 And it could present problems there in terms of traffic. Problems in terms 23 of not knowing who your people are. You might as well eliminate the 24 neighborhood watch because you couldn't watch everyone. And so it would 25 make more sense to me that the city get ahead of this thing and not drag its 26 feet to wait and see well how this all plays out. 27
I understand if you can't do a moratorium right now, but you at least should 28 investigate, investigate quickly because the world cup is coming. You have 29 the Super Bowl. You have the BCS championship coming. You have the 30 final four coming and you have in 2026 World Cup, all of that coming to 31 SoFi, and people be looking for places to stay. And I understand that people 32 want to cash out and make as much money off their home as they can, but 33 who's going to clean up the mess when those folks have rented their 34 properties out for $30, $40,000 and left the city in rambles? Thank you. 35 Cerda: Thank you. Deputy Clark, do we have anybody else? 36 City Hall Meeting – City of Gardena, California – County of Los Angeles August 9, 2022
Transcript by Rev.com Page 10 of 13

Romero: No, we do not Madam Mayor. 1
Cerda: Okay. Any more questions or comments? 2
Tanaka: Madam Mayor, Mr. Dennis just brought up a comment that I think maybe 3 the city manager could probably answer. So if this were allowed, even under 4 certain restrictions, how much more in code enforcement will we have to 5 hire and how much more staff time would this cost? 6
Osorio: I don't have a clear answer. As far as how many more code enforcement 7 officers we're going to need. I know we're going to need at least absolutely 8 one, if not more. Code enforcement is as really strapped already as it is. So 9 what we're doing, Greg can attest to that. And I think without knowing 10 exactly the case loads, we wouldn't be able to tell you if we need two or 11 three. 12
Tanaka: Okay. So would Chief Sobel be able to say how much it would affect his 13 department? 14
Osorio: Maybe. We can certainly ask him, but again, it's a matter of caseloads again. 15 Tanaka: Right? Calls for service. Those kind. 16
Osorio: We just don't have any data on. 17
Tanaka: Okay. Thank you 18
Cerda: Greg, I'm sorry. You were saying something. 19
Tsujiuchi: I was going to say we'd also have to probably with additional officers also 20 adjust schedules. A lot of this stuff happens in the evening hours, early 21 morning. So it would definitely be a challenge. 22
Cerda: So also Mr. Dennis said something else. He mentioned that if somebody 23 already has an Airbnb and then we put this in place, do they get 24 grandfathered in saying that they can have? So once we say this, no matter 25 what they've had, it's just not allowed. Okay, good. 26 Vasquez: That's correct, Madam mayor. They would not get grandfathered in. And I 27 also want to mention just for, so everyone's clear, with any type of 28 moratorium, it does require a four fifths vote. A simple majority is not 29 sufficient to pass a moratorium. So I just want to make sure you guys are 30 all clear in understanding of what's required for moratorium. 31 Cerda: Okay, got it. Go ahead. 32
City Hall Meeting – City of Gardena, California – County of Los Angeles August 9, 2022
Transcript by Rev.com Page 11 of 13

Love: Again. I hear everybody saying that they don't want it and they wouldn't 1 support it or they kind of leaning that way. There - - isn't there ways that we 2 can offset the cost for additional officers or additional code enforcement by 3 determining the permitting fees and the licensing fees and the taxes that we 4 can probably get as TOT if possible. Because we often hear about the 5 negative stories that always supersede the success stories. And I would 6 really hate to cut out an opportunity for some of our responsible residents 7 to be able to benefit from because of the no ordinance and the free for all 8 that's going on right now. So, I mean, I understand that there are some that 9 are out of control and they rent these spaces, but we can also hold the 10 property owners responsible to a certain degree. We can also set the 11 licensing and the permit fees and that type of stuff to offset the cost. So I 12 really wish we'd take these things into consideration and not just blanket the 13 whole city and consider the regulations. 14
Cerda: Any more questions or comments? 15
So my feelings on this here is I live on a cul-de-sac street and I think there's 16 13 houses on our street. And we have a house that from time to time, they 17 rent a, I guess they have an ADU or something like that, and they rent it out. 18 And about every three months, there's different people. There's four or five 19 different cars on our street. We don't recognize the people. And that's one 20 of the things that I love about our community is that we know our neighbors. 21 We know who should be there and who shouldn't. And when you see people 22 just sitting in their cars and then it takes a day or two to realize that, oh, 23 they're attached to that house. I mean, it can be a little unsettling and I don't 24 think it's fair for a person to choose to rent out their house. If they're renting 25 out their backyard for a wedding or Airbnb, because now we're dealing with 26 parking issues and we already have issues with parking as it stands now. 27 I mean, as neighbors, we don't mind if our neighbor has a party every now 28 and then, if the music's a little loud and they have their guests there. But 29 when you have people who are renting out their backyards for different 30 events, weddings, or banquets, that's not fair to everybody. When you're 31 renting out your house as an Airbnb and now you don't know who's staying 32 there. You're dealing with loud music, things of that sort. If you want to 33 operate a business, there are certain places it should be. I mean, when a 34 person lives in home or an apartment, I mean, unless they're living next to 35 a business area, you shouldn't have to deal with that. I mean, people have 36 quality of life issues. 37
And again, we're already dealing with the state requiring us to allow people 38 to build these ADU's. And I'm already concerned about how just the parking 39 of that's going to affect us. And then to allow people to use their home now, 40 to operate as a business. I understand everybody needs money, but all 41 money's not good money coming to our city like that. And I think for the 42 City Hall Meeting – City of Gardena, California – County of Los Angeles August 9, 2022
Transcript by Rev.com Page 12 of 13

purposes of people having a decent quality of life, I like to know when I go 1 home that I know all my neighbors. And even if somebody is renting in an 2 area they're usually renting for a longer period of time, long enough for me 3 to get to know their name, who they are, recognize the car, et cetera. So I'm 4 not in favor of this. That's my feeling on it. So Mayor Pro Tem? You're 5 muted. 6
Francis: So I guess I'm going echo your sentiments because I just want to say 7 everything that makes money, doesn't always make sense. And I'm 8 concerned that by allowing a commercial use in a residential neighborhood 9 will change the nature of our neighborhood, our res idents, where we live. 10 I'm also concerned as a council member Tanaka mentioned about the impact 11 on services. In terms of our police services, fire services, paramedics, and 12 there will be problems. These wild sorts, we heard about, perhaps they may 13 do abnormality, but we also have to take all those kinds of things to 14 consideration what are the negatives, as well as whatever positives they are. 15 And sometimes the cost doesn't always outweigh the benefit or the benefit 16 doesn't always outweigh the cost. So we have to be constant and do things 17 that are going to keep our residents family-oriented and safe. 18 There's just too much going on there's a world property owners are not going 19 to be able to control who comes in or who comes out. Things say, well, I'm 20 here to rent this for this particular reason. And there's all kind of human 21 trafficking, drugs, all kinds of stuff that's going on. And you say most 22 property owners are responsible, but your responsibility, unless you are 23 there controlling it, you have no clue who you just rented your house to. 24 And you have no clue what they could come out to. So you'll hear my 25 directive read that end, but anyway, thank you so much. 26 Cerda: Okay. So to Greg, do you kind have some inference as far as where we're 27 going with this or comment, do I need to be more exact as far as direction? 28 Vasquez: And what I'm taking is that the direction is that you would like staff to draft 29 an ordinance to prohibit it. That is the direction that we are interpreting from 30 the majority of the council tonight. That is, that will be prepared, taken to 31 the planning commission, depending the planning commission, what they 32 do with it. And it would come back to council. That's separate and aside 33 from any directives, if you guys choose to do that, a directive pe rtaining to 34 the topic of moratoriums. 35
Kranitz: The next city council meeting, as I understand it, is not until September 36 13th. So the council could also consider putting back the 23rd meeting or 37 maybe having a special meeting on the 30th, if there was a de sire to move 38 this up, because otherwise we're over a month away from the next meeting. 39 City Hall Meeting – City of Gardena, California – County of Los Angeles August 9, 2022
Transcript by Rev.com Page 13 of 13

Cerda: I'm sorry, you're speaking in terms of moratorium? Or as far as this coming 1 back? 2
Kranitz: Yes. 3
Vasquez: But Lisa, hold on. We're not at the directive 4 Kranitz: To consider when they get to. 5
Francis: We're still not here yet. 6
Vasquez: We're - - we're not there when we get to the directive, I'll bring up that 7 subject of okay, when you guys want to, if that's what you guys choose to 8 go, but for now, for purposes of the ordinance that staff is being asked to 9 draft to take back to the planning commission, the direction that we are 10 hearing from staff from the council is draft and ordinance to prohibit it. 11 Cerda: Correct. 12
Vasquez: Okay. All right. 13
Cerda: And there's no action. I mean there's no vote. 14 Vasquez: There is not Madame Mayor. 15
Cerda: Okay. Okay. So next we're going to move on. 16
17 EXHIBIT D

ALL RELEVANT EXCERPTS FROM THE MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA REPORTS PERTAINING TO THESE ISSUES;

LIST OF PUBLISHED NOTICES
(No Published Notice)
City Council Regular Meeting Notice and Agenda 8/9/22

12. DEPARTMENTAL ITEMS - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

12.A Short Term Rentals for Lodging Discussion
Staff Recommendation: Provide direction to staff to draft an ordinance Staff Report - Agenda Item 12.A.pdf
8/5/22 City Clerk Semenza

(Published notice for PEQC 8/25/22)
PEQC Regular Meeting Notice and Agenda 9/6/22

5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 5.A Zone Text Amendment #2-22 (Ordinance No. 1844) Consideration of an Ordinance amending Title 18, Zoning, of the Gardena Municipal Code to prohibit short-term rentals of residences for lodging purposes and short-term rentals of residences for other commercial uses not listed as allowed uses under the Gardena Municipal Code. The Ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to the commonsense exemption set forth in Guidelines section 15061(b)(3).

APPLICANT: City
LOCATION: Citywide
Staff Report.pdf

Attachment A - Council Agenda Staff Report.pdf
Attachment B - Council PowerPoint Presentation.pdf
Attachment C - Public Comment.pdf
Attachment D - Resolution No. PC 11-22_Draft Ordinance.pdf 9/2/22 Director Tsujiuchi

(No Published Notice)
City Council Regular Meeting Notice and Agenda 9/13/22

10.A September 6, 2022 MEETING
Zone Text Amendment #2-22 (Ordinance No. 1844)
The Planning Commission considered an Ordinance amending Title 18, Zoning, of the Gardena Municipal Code to prohibit short-term rentals of residences for lodging purposes and short-term rentals of residences and other commercial uses not listed as allowed uses under the Gardena Municipal Code. The Ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to the commonsense exemption set forth in Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).

APPLICANT: City
LOCATION: Citywide Commission
Action: The Planning Commission approved Resolution No. PC 11-22 by vote of 3-1, approving Zone Text Amendment #2-22 (Ordinance No. 1844).

City Council Action : Receive and File. This item will be brought forth to the Council for review at a future City Council meeting.

To view the complete Planning Commission packet CLICK HERE 2022_09_06 PCAX

9/9/22 City Clerk Semenza

(Published notice for City Council 9/15/22)
City Council Regular Meeting Notice and Agenda 9/27/22

12.A
PUBLIC HEARING : INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1844 - AN

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GARDENA, CALIFORNIA,

AMENDING THE ZONING CODE TO PROHIBIT SHORT-TERM RENTALS Staff Recommendation: Conduct Public Hearing; Allow three (3) minutes for each speaker; Introduce Ordinance No. 1844 or provide direction to staff to draft a revised Ordinance Agenda Staff Report - STR.pdf

City Council agenda staff report dated August 9, 2022.pdf Planning Commission staff report dated September 6, 2022.pdf Draft Ordinance No. 1844.pdf
City Council staff summary dated September 13, 2022.pdf Urgency Moratorium Ordinance.pdf
9/23/22 City Clerk Semenza

The first time a document pertaining to Ord. 1843 was made available, was the last linked item “Urgency Moratorium Ordinance”, yet has written above the signature line, “ at a regular meeting thereof held on September 13, 2022.”

LIST OF PUBLISHED NOTICES BY DATE
The dates when a public notice pertaining to these issues appeared as published:
9-22-22 No Published Notices
9-15-22 Published Notice for City Hall
9-8-22 No Notices published
9-1-22 No Notices published
8-25-22 Published Notice for Planning
8-18-22 No Notices published
8-11-22 No Notices published
8-4-22 No Notices published
7-28-22 No Notices published
7-21-22 No Notices published
Available here:
https://gardenavalleynews.org/public-notices/

From: George Young
To: Public Comment
Cc: Tasha Cerda; Paulette Francis; Mark Henderson; Rodney Tanaka; [email protected] Subject: Allow Gardena STR
Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 4:51:28 PM
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.

Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:

I am writing this letter in full support of short-term rental continuing to operate in Gardena, Ca. It is an invaluable and affordable option for our lower-income families to have access to short-term rentals as it has made visiting family members and friends in Gardena an easier and more enjoyable experience. In addition, STR brings revenue and tax dollars to our retail businesses and the city.

Unlike the beach communities where most of the visitors tend to be rowdier, visitors to Gardena are mostly family and friends visits, with the recent Airbnb’s strict policy of a global no party ban, the noise problem would be very Minuscule. STR truly will benefit our community and localized economy.

Thank you and please allow STR in our beautiful city.

George Young
From: Scarlet Sunlight
To: Public Comment
Subject: Fwd: Short Term Rental ordinance 1844 public comment Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 4:58:04 PM
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Scarlet Sunlight <[email protected]>
Subject: Short Term Rental ordinance 1844 public comment Date: September 27, 2022 at 4:56:23 PM PDT
To: [email protected]
, [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
Dear Gardena Councilmember,
...To provide leadership and resources that ensure the highest quality of life possible for residents, support business development, welcome visitors , and establish a positive work environment for City employees.

I am strongly opposed to the Short-Term Rental ban in
Gardena or any restrictions that will influence negatively any citizen’s opportunity to generate legally income, in the present or future.

I have been an Airbnb/VRBO guest for the past 27 years all around the US and world. This has allowed my family to travel on a budget, to experiment extraordinary and shared moments with my children and dear friends, to discover many cultures through historical monuments, food, sceneries and to meet wonderful people.

Sharing this experience with others is the main reason I choose to be a host in the STR business.

I have been operating a STR business from a single-family home since 2019. The beginning is hard as you must get 5 stars reviews for guests to trust your professionalism.

This first year I had a STR management company in charge. That was a disaster, they did not screen any guests, so the property was badly abused, and they did not take any responsibility. When the contract was cancelled, they refuse to give me back my access to the Airbnb account and I lost all my reviews on top of repairing the house. So, I had to start from scratch to rebuild my host reputation. It took one year and then …the COVID hit. Two very difficult years started.

I am an Airbnb Super host because of the hard, meticulous and continued work to maintain my property and its curve appeal, screen guests (I do not hesitate to refuse a booking if I suspect the guest will not follow the house rules), provide clean and comfortable accommodations, be available 24/7 in case of problem during the guests stay, etc.

My family bought this house in 2016 and lived very happily in this great neighborhood, I was a home maker and when the kids went to school, I had to find extra income with a flexible schedule. My husband and I decided to keep the house as an investment for retirement. I don’t have any 401K or Social Security benefits by myself.

The STR are 0.68% of the housing units in Gardena (STR 150/ Gardena housing units 22,000) it is an extremely small amount of housing why do you have to spend time and taxpayer money adding unnecessary ordinances? We already pay income taxes on the earnings, property taxes when our guest do not use the school or most of the other facilities, sales taxes to recommend local businesses and buying supplies or making repairs or maintenance.

We are mainly sole proprietorships and provide jobs locally linked to our business.

We are law-abiding citizen and a taxpayer not a hedge fund or trust baby, so everything my husband and I own comes from decades of labor, budgeting and leaving within our means.

At this point I don’t see any valuable arguments against STR business in Gardena, if you have them please enlighten us because what I witnessed in the Sept 13th zoom meeting was nothing short of abuse of power from elected officials.

Sincerely
Clara Caetano T
From: le ma
To: Public Comment; Tasha Cerda; Paulette Francis; Rodney Tanaka; Mark Henderson; Wanda Love Subject: Needing Short Term Rental agenda postponed
Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 7:05:45 PM
Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization.

Dear representatives!
My name is Le Ma. I own a house in Gardena. My spouse and I are in the military. When being deployed, we open our home to Airbnb guests. We survived, My mortgage rate will be increasing to 7.125% from 2.625% since Jan 10th 2023. If airbnb is banned now, I will be falling into big financial trouble immediately while no one is benefiting right away. I hope that agenda will be postponed.

Today we are in a turmoil age, facing war, highest inflation, highest food prices, high mortgage rates. Property taxes are higher and higher yearly. That is NOT a good timing for any big decisions. I want that banning postponed. That will save me.

We are part of the community, so we want Gardena to get better and better in every way.

Airbnb is allowed in the city of LA, Torrance, Santa Monica, and most cities in LA county.

That means airbnb is not too bad. Why can't Gardena allow it?! Gardena is open enough to allow 2 casinos. I hope all property rights are given back to the property owners. Again banning now, will not benefit anyone in the short run and put me into big trouble.

Banning is the easiest thing for any administration. But good politicians and administration teams are those who are willing and able to balance the interests of all groups of people. My sister cleaned my airbnb space for $16 an hour. She would lose her job. Then she would become a burden to the public. (she is disable, would not be easy to get hired by others) The economy is going down. Many companies are laying off. Small businesses are closing.

High inflation, no signs to show slowing. We are in a bad timing. Banning airbnb now will hurt more residents like me.

I hope you all can think about it carefully and thoroughly and come up with a better way to balance things.

Sincerely
Thank you
Le Ma
1 Her Honor, and to the honorable body of the city Council of the City of Gardena, this letter is addressed to each and all council members.