Gardena City Council
August 22, 2023

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: 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 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.

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®
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

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®
To the City of Gardena Planning Commission June 20, 2023 The Gardena City Council Minutes of May 23, 2023 state:
“10.C MAY 16, 2023
MEETING ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT #3-23
The Planning Commission considered a recommendation to the City Council on the adoption of an ordinance amending Title 18 and Title 5, Zoning, of the Gardena Municipal Code relating to regulations for short-term home sharing rentals in residential zoning districts throughout the city and direction to staff to file a Notice of Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) and 15308.

Commission Action: A motion was made to reopen the public hearing and continue it to the June 20, 2023 meeting, and direction to staff to make modifications to the draft ordinance relating to onsite parking space requirements, timeframe for compliance properties with existing listings, and to add a time extension process for compliance. The motion was passed by a vote of 4-0-0 page 6 of the City Council minutes of 5/23/23” pp. 4-5

From the June 20, 2023 Agenda Packet:
“The Planning Commission is being asked whether the extension of time and relief request should be applied to those existing listings within an Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), as highlighted in yellow in the attached Ordinance. All changes are shown in redline.” pp.1-2

“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 90 days after the effective date to cease all operations. This extension shall not apply to any property that has an accessory dwelling unit. This extension shall not apply to any vehicle or trailer which is being used as a short term rental.” pp.13-14

“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:
…
B. There are no appeal rights regarding accessory dwelling units, including junior accessory dwelling units, as the prohibition is a declaration of existing law.

C. There are no appeal rights regarding vehicles or trailers being used as short term rentals.” pp.14-15
The additional text included in this draft were not shown in red. No changes were shown in redline, because no changes were made. The blue highlight over the last sentence of every section was added language from the last hearing.

I very aptly noted at the last hearing when addressing this body in public, there is no reason to speak to those that will not listen. The staff then read aloud from my attorney’s letter noting that this course of conduct was void for want of power to enact these laws, yet made no changes despite the void nature.

While not in red, the staff did include: “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 90th day after effective date extension and relief.” Under the heading “Relief” p. 14 But the staff did prove that they were listening to me, by adding the language that was not noted in red, as the blue highlighted text on the previous page is language that is specific to only me. Despite the city’s claim that ADU’s are prohibited from short term rentals being a clear misreading of the state law that controls this subject and specifically my properties are exempted under state law, the city has arbitrarily and capriciously extended the reach to the entire property, not isolating the ADU. Yet, on the very next line noted that the appeal and extension rights were denied specific to the unit (vehicle), not the entire property, i.e., “not apply to any property”; “not apply to any vehicle”. Therefore, the adjournment can only be seen as an excuse to amend the laws in a manner that is specific to me, intended as punishment for speaking out.

The toll exacted from my rights,
has been targeted at me for exercising my constitutional right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (U.S. Const. Amendment I) It did not matter that under the California Constitution art. I sec. 3 that “(a) The people have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the common good.” Because it is clear by presenting punitive laws that directly apply to me alone, out of the entire group of hosts, animus is intended to silence me.

Nor does it matter that under the California Constitution art. I sec. 1 that “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.” Because in defending my inalienable property rights, the city has exacted a toll, to punish me for presenting the law that expressly put the city on notice that it was acting without a grant of authority. Thus, I have learned my lesson, exercising rights is dangerous to my rights.

Having left Ukraine over twenty years ago, but still raised as a child in the Soviet Union, I confess that I had forgotten this lesson. Thank you for reminding me comrades.

I am forced to cease enjoyment of my rights due to the cost that will be imposed on me for engaging in that which is guaranteed to all others in this county.

The theory of Communism may be summed up in the single sentence:

Abolition of private property.
- Karl Marx
I had forgotten the old party lines instilled in us soviet children:

Идеи Ленина живут и побеждают!
Lenin’s ideas live and win!
Слава великому Сталину!
Glory to the great Stalin!
Spaciba,
Mariya Wrightsman
Dear Planning Board Members, Mariya Wrightsman 7/18/23 Thank you for another opportunity to conduct legal research for the City of Gardena. This time, the City made the task far easier than previous times, all thanks to the new law firm hired specifically to draft this new version, which despite its many illegalities, was much cleaner and actually resembled legislation. Great and sincere gratitude is expressed to Ms. Acuna, for providing notice as required by law and personally emailing me the notice of the upcoming hearing. I have been pointing out this fundamental failure of notice for 11 months, and finally Ms. Acuna stepped up and served the constitution by providing notice of the hearing. Thank you Ms. Acuna. The new law firm, apparently is not that new. Never before was there reference to the law firm Jones & Mayer, where our very own “CARMEN V ASQUEZ, City Attorney” is listed as an associate. With her profile noting: “Ms. Vasquez serves as the Assistant City Attorney for the city of West Covina and as a deputy city attorney for the cities of Whittier, Fullerton and Costa Mesa.” But just because the position as City Attorney is not listed for Gardena, does not mean that Gardena was not listed with the other 131 government entities this 38 lawyer power house firm represents. I simply had no idea the citizens were up against such a well oiled machine. To think of all the time those 38 lawyers had to work on these ordinances and then the City gives the citizens only 4 days to review their work, each and every time this highly contested issue returns. Only because this is an Ordinance with findings on its face that are not true statements is the following noted: Draft Ord. 1854 N. 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. Minutes from said meeting at p.5: “A motion was made by Vice Chair Langley and seconded by Commissioner Wright-Scherr to approve Resolution No. PC 10-23, recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance 1854, with modifications to permit issuance, timeframes for compliance, and applicability to extension.” Draft Ord. 1854 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.

So if that is true, the decisions were after June 20, 2023, of course wiggle room was left by saying prior, but those changes were already noted. 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. It is confusing because the notice for this hearing and those changes was prepared “DATE: June 30, 2023” but the Memorandum from “Lisa Kranitz, Assistant City Attorney” is dated “July 7, 2023” and is on Jones & Mayer letterhead but Ms. Kranitz is not listed as one of their attorneys. “On June 20, 2023, the Planning Commission held a continued public hearing and recommended approval. 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.” Clarifying “decided and/or published after the prior Planning Commission”. Now those cases were never cited, but the City is clearly referring to the Jun. 20, 2023 opinion of S. Lake Tahoe Prop. Owners Grp. v. City of S. Lake Tahoe (June 20, 2023, C093603) After that memo, was “Order Filed Date 7/12/23” referring to amendments modifying the opinion. THE COURT: It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on June 20, 2023, be modified as follows: On page 22, the last sentence in the first paragraph beginning with “The City's argument is meritless” is replaced with the following: The City's argument is meritless, as it is not necessary to look beyond Measure T's text to determine the ordinance discriminates against interstate commerce where the text expressly distinguishes between residential homeowners who reside in their South Lake Tahoe homes and all other residential property owners, including out-of-state owners. (See Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison (1997) 520 U.S. 564, 575-576.) The complaint's undisputed allegations of Measure T's adoption and its terms were the only facts necessary to plead a facial dormant Commerce Clause violation. Id. at pp. 1-2 So that is not a good start for a case claimed to be favorable, but good news for the City, the order modifying on 7/12/23 means under Rules of Court, rule 8.366(b), that opinion becomes final 30 days after and per Rule 8.500(e)(1) an additional 10 days thereafter to petition for Supreme Court review, which usually is decided in a month, but assuming not granted then 60 days after that to Petition for United States Supreme Court review, meaning it is a long way from being any law, despite its many useful aspects to be addressed. Plus the Supreme Court has not approved its publication so it could just be non-citable authority. The City did not mean the district judge (trial court) opinion in Short Term Rental All. of San Diego v. City of San Diego (S.D. Cal., June 12, 2023, 22cv1831-L-BGS), did they? Because that is barely persuasive authority, its not like it’s a Circuit Court of Appeal case. San Diego is listed as one of the cities they represent but the attorney for defendant San Diego is “Tyler Louis Fischer Krentz San Diego City Attorney's Office”. But more good news, this time for the citizens, the good thing about the City willfully failing to cite the authority it was relying on, is that it caused a broader to search to ensue. The result was the uncovering of the most factually on point case to date. Thanks to that law firm’s swift work and recommendation to look at the dormant commerce clause, which had not even occurred to me, the result was a case the Fifth Circuit (court of appeals is stronger than trial court) on facts exactly as attempted now, held the commerce clause was violated per se, due to the exact constitutional violations occurring here, discrimination. In response to being called out for retaliating against exercising my constitutional rights, the city of Gardena opted for clear cut and well established discrimination against a population of 85% non-whites, as the City’s plan refers to minorities, despite the whites being the minority. “First , the City imposed a residency requirement for STRs in residential neighborhoods. Its new policy provided that no person could obtain a license to own such an STR unless the property was also ‘the owner's primary residence.’” (Hignell-Stark v. The City of New Orleans (5th Cir. 2022) 46 F.4th 317, 321) (Hignell-Stark) "[T]wo primary principles ... mark the boundaries of a [s]tate's authority to regulate interstate commerce": A state (1) "may not discriminate against interstate commerce" and (2) may not "impose undue burdens on interstate commerce." South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 2080, 2090, 201 L.Ed.2d 403 (2018). But those principles do not apply with equal force. If a law discriminates against interstate commerce, it is in big trouble because "[a] discriminatory law is virtually per se invalid." Dep't of Revenue v. Davis , , 553 U.S. 328, 338, 128 S.Ct. 1801, 170 L.Ed.2d 685 (2008) (quotation omitted). It may be upheld "only if it advances a legitimate local purpose that cannot be adequately served by reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives." Ibid. (quotation omitted). If there are "any available alternative methods for enforcing [the government's] legitimate policy goals," the law is unconstitutional. Dickerson v. Bailey , 336 F.3d 388, 402 (5th Cir. 2003) (emphasis added). Hignell-Stark at 325 When a federal circuit court is quoting the United States Supreme Court and follows it with “big trouble” that cannot be good. The City's residency requirement discriminates against interstate commerce. A law is discriminatory when it produces "differential treatment of in-state and out-of-state economic interests that benefits the former and burdens the latter." United Haulers , 550 U.S. at 338, 127 S.Ct. 1786 (quotation omitted). A law may discriminate on its face, in purpose, or in effect. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Tex. Alcoholic Beverage Comm'n , 945 F.3d 206, 213 (5th Cir. 2019) ; Allstate Ins. Co. v. Abbott , 495 F.3d 151, 160 (5th Cir. 2007). But the only form of discrimination that implicates the dormant Commerce Clause is discrimination between "substantially similar entities." Davis , 553 U.S. at 342, 128 S.Ct. 1801 (quotation omitted). Hignell-Stark at 326 Now the City really needs to pay attention here: “Indeed, the residency requirement even discriminates against other residents of the City —specifically, those who live in non-residential zones. But none of that matters. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly held, local ordinances that discriminate against interstate commerce are not valid simply because they also discriminate against intrastate commerce.(fn.17)” (Hignell-Stark at 327) ibid., fn. 17: C & A Carbone , 511 U.S. at 391, 114 S.Ct. 1677 ; Fort Gratiot Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Mich. Dep't of Nat. Res. , 504 U.S. 353, 361, 112 S.Ct. 2019, 119 L.Ed.2d 139 (1992) ; Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison , 340 U.S. 349, 354 n.4, 71 S.Ct. 295, 95 L.Ed. 329 (1951) ; cf. Brimmer v. Rebman , 138 U.S. 78, 82–83, 11 S.Ct. 213, 34 L.Ed. 862 (1891). Just look at all of those Supreme Court decisions that declare the City is discriminating against me, wow. Our conclusion that the residency requirement is discriminatory puts it on death's doorstep. Recall that "[a] discriminatory law is virtually per se invalid." Davis , 553 U.S. at 338, 128 S.Ct. 1801 (quotation omitted). This case is no exception. The residency requirement can "survive only if it advances a legitimate local purpose that cannot be adequately served by reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives." Id. (quotation omitted). Hignell-Stark at 328 To be certain, the City attorneys are no doubt saying out loud, that’s why we amended it! Great. But let’s see where this thing takes us. On appeal, the City offers three interests served by the residency requirement: preventing nuisances, promoting affordable housing, and protecting neighborhoods' residential character. There's no question that those are legitimate local purposes. But all those objectives can adequately be served by reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives, so none of them can justify the requirement. Hignell-Stark at 328 Well that didn’t take long. F. Short term rentals can create problems in residential areas due to such things as the potential for increased traffic, noise, parking issues, and can cause a change to the residential character of the community which can also lead to safety concerns. The City desires to alleviate these impacts to residential neighborhoods caused by short-term rentals. Despite not possessing any facts to back those legal conclusions, federal law says not enough anyway. But as written the Supreme Court of the United States holds as to all of these so called findings: “Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S. Ct. 2932, (on a motion to dismiss, courts ‘are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation’).” (Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly (2007) 550 U.S. 544, 555) I am so grateful that the law firm raised dormant commerce clause as that opened the door to commerce clause cases under the Supreme Court of the United States, on facts identical to ours, and that means the Ninth Circuit would have no reason to uphold discrimination attempted after retaliation. Because all issues I raise can be used by any one else later, some important legal principles will be laid out. Just about one year ago, the City drafted a memo and cited a case under the Second District, which means its findings are binding on them, and federal court will defer to state court interpretations. Well, the City appears to have forgotten all about that case because everything it is doing now, is in direct defiance of the holdings of, Keen v. City of Manhattan Beach (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 142, 148-50: The trial court correctly interpreted the City's ordinances: they always permitted short-term, as well as long-term, residential rentals. The City's ban on short-term rentals thus amended the status quo. This amendment required Commission approval, which the City never got. So the City's ban was not valid. The issue reduces to whether the City's old ordinances permitted short-term rentals. The following analysis demonstrates they did. The City always has allowed people to rent apartments and homes in the City on a long-term basis. In other words, it always has been legal to live in Manhattan Beach as a renter. No one disputes this. One would be rather surprised to discover a community anywhere that banned renting completely. Because rentals that are long -term have always been permissible under the City's ordinances, however, the City has been forced to distinguish between long -term residential rentals the City allows and short -term residential rentals the platforms promote and the City dislikes. Unfortunately for the City, its old residential zoning ordinances contain no long-term/short-term distinction.

Absent some distinction in the law, then, the law must treat long-term rentals the same as short-term rentals. If long-term rentals are legal, so too are short-term rentals. The ordinances offer no textual basis for a temporal distinction about the duration of rentals. The City could have enacted a distinction like that, but it never did. Because its ordinances say nothing about the duration of rentals, the City cannot credibly insist its ordinances permit long-term residential rentals but have always banned short-term rentals. That interpretation makes no sense. The crucial text is ordinance A.08, which defines "Use Classifications" for the City's zoning code. One use is "Single-Family Residential," defined as "[b]uildings containing one dwelling unit located on a single lot." A second use is "Multi-family Residential," which is defined as "[t]wo or more dwelling units on a site." This ordinance contains a chart that shows the City permits both uses in residential areas. In other words, it is legal to build a residential house or an apartment building in the City's residential zones. Once it is built, you can reside there. Anyone can. This all makes sense. It would be surprising if it were otherwise. The reasonable interpretation of permitting a "Single-Family Residential" building in a residential area is that people are allowed to reside in that building, whether they are owners or renters. Why, under the text of the ordinance, are renters allowed in? Because residential renters are common in cities, as everyone knows, and nothing in the ordinance takes the unusual step of banning all renting in the residential areas of the City. Use of the word "residence" does not imply some minimum length of occupancy. (Cf. People v. Venice Suites, LLC (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 715, 726, 286 Cal.Rptr.3d 598 ( Venice Suites ) ["A ‘residential building’ is used for human habitation without regard to length of occupancy ...."]; Greenfield , supra , 21 Cal.App.5th at p. 899, 230 Cal.Rptr.3d 827 [the city in question historically treated short term rentals as a "residential" activity].) It is possible to reside somewhere for a night, a week, or a lifetime. The City points to no legally precedented way to draw a line between the number of days that makes some place a "residence" and the number that shows it is not. (Cf. Venice Suites , supra , 71 Cal.App.5th at p. 732, 286 Cal.Rptr.3d 598 ["the dictionary definitions for apartment house do not indicate a required length of occupancy"].) The same analysis applies to "Multi-family Residential," where the common form of a multi-family building is an apartment building. Apartment dwellers commonly rent. The City's zoning thus permits you to rent a house or an apartment in Manhattan Beach, which accords with common experience. The City's zoning does not regulate how long your stay can be. The City's proposed distinction between long- and short-term rentals—the former always allowed, and the latter always forbidden—has no textual or logical basis. The City thus loses this appeal as a matter of textual interpretation. The City incorrectly argues short-term rentals are more similar to, and therefore fall under the definition of, "Hotels, Motels, and Time-Share Facilities." With our emphasis, the ordinances define these facilities as "[e]stablishments offering lodging on a weekly or less than weekly basis, and having kitchens in no more than 60 percent of guest units ." The short- term rentals the City is trying to prohibit are of single- and multi-family residences in residential neighborhoods. Houses and apartments conventionally have kitchens. This argument is untenable. The City asks us to take judicial notice of a 1964 ordinance that defines a hotel a particular way. The City argues we should import this definition into the ordinance in the local coastal program. This is illogical. The different definition from decades before cannot prevail over the definition enacted by the City and certified by the Commission in the ordinance at issue. The older document is not relevant. We deny this request. The zoning ordinances certified by the Commission thus allow rentals of single- and multi-family residences in residential zones for any duration, including short-term rentals of the Airbnb variety. That shuts down almost all of this purported draft ordinance. But also there is that golden oldie: The City relies heavily on the principle of permissive zoning. It argues California has adopted this doctrine: zoning ordinances prohibit any use they do not permit. But the City's ordinances do permit short-term rentals in residential zones. That is the only reasonable interpretation of the ordinances, as we have shown. This interpretation is not an affront to permissive zoning. Keen at 150 “We affirm the judgment and award costs to Keen.” (Keen at 151) Good times. Let’s take a stroll down memory lane and compare the present ordinance (blue). “Findings. The City Council does hereby find and declare as follows: A. Due to close proximity to entertainment venues such as SoFi Stadium, Los Angeles International airport, Fortune 500 companies, beaches, and other Southern California tourist destinations, the City of Gardena has become a popular location for alternative short-term lodging.” Has become means only in recent times has there been a boom in STRs. Yet, in my objection from last September, I noted: Another 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 development 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;” The City desperately wants to preserve, not the neighborhood’s character, but its relationship with the big business agenda that significantly changes the character of the City. As I have noted, the total number of available beds is around the size of a hotel, thus this agenda is for the purpose of promoting private enterprise, as written in public documents. B. The 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. Again from the same letter: 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 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.” The city has stated many times that STRs were never prohibited and permissive zoning was the only theory relied on. C. Recent case law calls into question whether the City’s prohibition on short-term rentals is valid without the use being specifically prohibited. Case law expressly declared the City never had a prohibition. If the City is going to make findings, then they should be based on fact. 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. Finally, an almost true statement. As it was specific under 18.13.040 “C. Neither the accessory dwelling unit nor the primary residence shall be rented out for less than thirty-one consecutive calendar days. A covenant shall be recorded to this effect in a form approved by the city attorney.” You know what else was specific? “This section only applies to accessory dwelling units built before January 28, 2020. (Ord. 1814 § 6 (part), 2020: Ord. 1778 § 5 (part), 2017. Formerly 18.13.030)” 18.13.070 “3. A restriction from renting either the junior accessory dwelling unit or the single-family dwelling for less than thirty-one consecutive, calendar days;” (Ord. 1814 § 6 (part), 2020) So that was a partial truth, while not defining what a short term rental was, the City did venture into preemption by regulating the state occupied field when no constitutional grant of authority authorized this enactment regulating “less than thirty-one consecutive calendar days” in the former that limited its application to pre-2020 builds and the latter was enacted in 2020 not 2017. Regardless, these declarations are void. “As we observed more than a century ago, ‘[e]very constitutional provision is self-executing to this extent, that everything done in violation of it is void.’ [Citation]” (Katzberg v. Regents of the University of California (2002) 29 Cal.4th 300, 307) The City was reminded of its constitutional limitations many times, yet insists on violating them. Cal. Const. art. VI, § 2 (a) “The Legislature shall prescribe uniform procedure for city formation and provide for city powers.” Cal. Const. art. VI, § 7 “A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” Moreover, the "general principles governing state statutory preemption of local land use regulation are well settled. 'The Legislature has specified certain minimum standards for local zoning regulations (Gov. Code, § 65850 et seq.)' even though it also 'has carefully expressed its intent to retain the maximum degree of local control (see, e.g., id., §§ 65800, 65802).' ( IT Corp. v. Solano County Bd. of Supervisors[, supra], 1 Cal.4th [at p.] 89.) (4) 'A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws." (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7, italics added.) '"Local legislation in conflict with general law is void. Conflicts exist if the ordinance duplicates [citations], contradicts [citation], or enters an area fully occupied by general law, either expressly or by legislative implication [citations]."'" ( Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara (1994) 7 Cal.4th 725, 747 [ 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 804, 872 P.2d 143].) Local legislation is "duplicative" of general law when it is coextensive therewith and "contradictory" to general law when it is inimical thereto. Local legislation enters an area "fully occupied" by general law when the Legislature has expressly manifested its intent to fully occupy the area or when it has impliedly done so in light of recognized indicia of intent. ( Great Western Shows, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 27 Cal.4th at pp. 860-861.) [Emphasis added.] Big Creek Lumber Co. v. County of Santa Cruz (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1139, 1150 Inimical means “tending to obstruct or harm” (Oxford) Coextensive means “extending over the same space or time; corresponding exactly in extent.” (Id.) State law expressly regulates rents, and authorizes less than 30 days. The ADU field is extensively covered by state law, and this City efforts to enact legislation that is coextensive with it is void.

In the absence of a statutory definition, we assume that the Legislature intended that "rent" would have its ordinary meaning, which is compensation for the use of land ( Shintaffer v. Bank of Italy etc. Assn. (1932) 216 Cal. 243, 246 [ 13 P.2d 668]) and the means by which landlords make a profit on their property ( Action Apartment Assn. v. SantaMonica Rent Control Bd. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 587, 598 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 412]). Cacho v. Boudreau (2007) 40 Cal.4th 341, 349 Civil Code Title 5, Chapter 2 Hiring of Real Property Civ. Code, § 1940 (“(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), this chapter shall apply to all persons who hire dwelling units located within this state including tenants, lessees, boarders, lodgers, and others, however denominated. (b) The term "persons who hire" shall not include a person who maintains either of the following:(1) Transient occupancy in a hotel, motel, residence club, or other facility when the transient occupancy is or would be subject to tax under Section 7280 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. The term "persons who hire" shall not include a person to whom this paragraph pertains if the person has not made valid payment for all room and other related charges owing as of the last day on which his or her occupancy is or would be subject to tax under Section 7280 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. (2) Occupancy at a hotel or motel where the innkeeper retains a right of access to and control of the dwelling unit and the hotel or motel provides or offers all of the following services to all of the residents:(A) Facilities for the safeguarding of personal property pursuant to Section 1860.(B) Central telephone service subject to tariffs covering the same filed with the California Public Utilities Commission.(C) Maid, mail, and room services.(D) Occupancy for periods of less than seven days.(E) Food service provided by a food establishment, as defined in Section 113780 of the Health and Safety Code, located on or adjacent to the premises of the hotel or motel and owned or operated by the innkeeper or owned or operated by a person or entity pursuant to a lease or similar relationship with the innkeeper or person or entity affiliated with the innkeeper. (c) "Dwelling unit" means a structure or the part of a structure that is used as a home, residence, or sleeping place by one person who maintains a household or by two or more persons who maintain a common household. (d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of any provision of this chapter to tenancy in a dwelling unit unless the provision is so limited by its specific terms.”) Civ. Code, § 1944 (“A hiring of lodgings or a dwelling house for an unspecified term is presumed to have been made for such length of time as the parties adopt for the estimation of the rent. Thus a hiring at a monthly rate of rent is presumed to be for one month. In the absence of any agreement respecting the length of time or the rent, the hiring is presumed to be monthly.”) Civ. Code, § 1946 (“A hiring of real property, for a term not specified by the parties, is deemed to be renewed as stated in Section 1945, at the end of the term implied by law unless one of the parties gives written notice to the other of that party's intention to terminate the same, at least as long before the expiration thereof as the term of the hiring itself, not exceeding 30 days;”) The claimed power to regulate who can rent and under what conditions, as set forth, was preempted by state law. Civ. Code, § 1946.5 (“(a) The hiring of a room by a lodger on a periodic basis within a dwelling unit occupied by the owner may be terminated by either party giving written notice to the other of his or her intention to terminate the hiring, at least as long before the expiration of the term of the hiring as specified in Section 1946. The notice shall be given in a manner prescribed in Section 1162 of the Code of Civil Procedure or by certified or registered mail, restricted delivery, to the other party, with a return receipt requested.(b) Upon expiration of the notice period provided in the notice of termination given pursuant to subdivision (a), any right of the lodger to remain in the dwelling unit or any part thereof is terminated by operation of law. The lodger's removal from the premises may thereafter be effected pursuant to the provisions of Section 602.3 of the Penal Code or other applicable provisions of law.(c) As used in this section, "lodger" means a person contracting with the owner of a dwelling unit for a room or room and board within the dwelling unit personally occupied by the owner, where the owner retains a right of access to all areas of the dwelling unit occupied by the lodger and has overall control of the dwelling unit.(d) This section applies only to owner-occupied dwellings where a single lodger resides. Nothing in this section shall be construed to determine or affect in any way the rights of persons residing as lodgers in an owner-occupied dwelling where more than one lodger resides.”) E. The 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. They certainly were not prohibited, thus Keen applies. The City is precluded by the constitutions from attempting to regulate rent while simultaneously discriminating. Civ. Code, § 1947 (“When there is no usage or contract to the contrary, rents are payable at the termination of the holding, when it does not exceed one year. If the holding is by the day, week, month, quarter, or year, rent is payable at the termination of the respective periods, as it successively becomes due.”) Your claimed finding under F, was destroyed by the U.S. Supreme Court above, and equally destroys below: R. Adoption of this Ordinance is for public necessity, convenience, and the general welfare as it provides protections to persons living in residential zones and protects the supply of housing in the City while taking into consideration constitutional requirements. Which ties into the next incredible aspect the City is trying to employ. G. According to the most recent Regional Housing Needs Allocation which was incorporated into the City’s 6th 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. To address that aspect, which the City really should have thought of sooner, again the Sept. letter addressed the most disingenuously claim of all: 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. 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.

Now that is a tough one, what in the world could anyone say to rebut such a contention. Well, of course, this body said plenty on this point. “MOTION: It was moved by Vice Chair Langley and seconded by Commissioner Kanhan to approve Resolution No. PC 9-23 approving Vesting Tentative Map #1-22 and directed staff to file a Notice of Exemption The motion was passed by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Langley, Kanhan, Wright-Scherr, Henderson Noes:” (Minutes 5-16-23 pp.2-3) (Approved 6-6-23 minutes p.1) The Commission knows where I am going with this one. “6.B VESTING TENTATIVE MAP #1-22 A request for a vesting tentative map per Chapter 17.08 of the Gardena Municipal Code, for the subdivision of airspace to create five condominium units for a property located in the Medium Residential Multiple-Family Residential Zone (R-3) zone and direct staff to file a Notice of Exemption pursuant to Guidelines section 15061(b)(3). Project Location: 1715 West 149th Street (APN: 6103-022-091)” (Id.) HOUSING STOCK 17.12.010 Purpose. G. The council finds that the conversion of existing apartment buildings into condominiums diminishes the supply of rental housing and displaces residents and will tend to require them to move outside the city when a housing shortage exists. The council finds and declares that when the number of vacant dwelling units in the city is equal to or less than three percent of the total number of dwelling units in the city, a housing shortage exists which is inconsistent with the purposes of this chapter and with the goals and policies set forth in the housing element of the general plan of the city; and If anyone on the Commission does not know where this is going, you should pay close attention. 17.12.020 A. To insure a reasonable balance of rental and ownership housing in the city and a variety of individual choices of tenure, type, price and location of housing and at the same time provide an additional mode of property ownership; B. To maintain the supply of rental housing for low and moderate-income persons and families and to provide an additional mode of property ownership; C. To reduce and avoid the displacement of long-term residents, particularly senior citizens and families with school-age children, who may be required to move from the community due to a shortage of replacement rental housing; G. A condominium project, as the same is defined in Section 1351 of the Civil Code of the state, which is divided into five or more condominium units shall be subject to the requirements and procedures applicable to subdivisions as generally set forth in Chapters 17.04 and 17.08 and to the additional requirements and procedures set forth in this chapter. L. “Vacancy deficiency” means the number of vacant apartment units needed to raise the vacancy rate to three percent. M. “Vacancy rate” means the number of apartments being offered for rent or lease in the city shown as a percentage of the total number of apartments offered for or under rental or lease agreement in the city. N. “Vacancy surplus” means the number of vacant apartments being offered for rent or lease in excess of a three percent vacancy rate. 17.12.030 Determination of vacancy rate and surplus. In December of each year, the community development director shall determine the vacancy rate and the vacancy surplus, if any, which shall apply for the entire year. A. No application for the approval of a tentative tract or parcel map for a condominium or stock cooperative conversion shall be filed unless there is a vacancy surplus. B. When there is a vacancy surplus as of the most recent determination, an application for the approval of a tentative tract or parcel map for a conversion may be filed with the community development department if the number of lots, parcels, units, or rights of exclusive occupancy proposed by all such filings does not exceed the vacancy surplus by more than ten percent. (Prior code § 10-2.22.1) “On November 28, 2022, the City received an application requesting the approval of a new vesting tentative map for the subdivision of the property at 1715 W. 149th Street to create five condominium units.” “lot located in the Medium Density Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) zoning district” “The applicant is requesting the approval of Vesting Tentative Map #1-22 for the subject parcel to create five condominium lots in accordance with Gardena Municipal Code (“GMC”) Chapter 17.08. Staff recommends the Planning and Environmental Quality Commission approve the vesting tentative map. The analysis supports the findings set forth in the accompanying resolution” CITY OF GARDENA PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VESTING TENTATIVE MAP #1-22 AGENDA ITEM #6.B DATE: May 16, 2023 According to the City’s own laws, the above proves as a matter of law, the claims of need to preserve housing stock is an outright lie. Intended to actually be communicated to a court. Drafted by attorneys no less, that is a disbarrable offense, and done in public record. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6068 (“It is the duty of an attorney to do all of the following: (a) To support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state. (c) To counsel or maintain those actions, proceedings, or defenses only as appear to him or her legal or just, except the defense of a person charged with a public offense. (d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him or her those means only as are consistent with truth, and never to seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law. (g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or proceeding from any corrupt motive of passion or interest. (h) Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself or herself, the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed.”) Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6106 (“The commission of any act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, whether the act is committed in the course of his relations as an attorney or otherwise, and whether the act is a felony or misdemeanor or not, constitutes a cause for disbarment or suspension.If the act constitutes a felony or misdemeanor, conviction thereof in a criminal proceeding is not a condition precedent to disbarment or suspension from practice therefor.”) This was pointed out, and yet the laws were ignored. Civil Code, § 827, the right to charge “rent” for “tenancies for less than one month” as to “a residential dwelling” is granted by the state. See also Civil Code, § 1946 “hiring of real property” “not exceeding 30 days” “the rent shall be due and payable”. The City of Gardena is preempted in this field by the state. Sections I through L and 18.06.020, 18.12.040, 18.18A.030, 18.19.050, 18.19A.050, 18.20.040, 18.28.040 and CHAPTER 5.76 Each and all violate Keen and Gov. Code, § 65852 (“All such regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of building or use of land throughout each zone, but the regulation in one type of zone may differ from those in other types of zones.”) Did the drafters of this ordinance really think that it would go unnoticed that the ordinance was constructed from various statutes, none of which apply, but the parts therein are the very aspects enacted. But the failure of a whole statute’s commands, does not grant partial. The City is failing to comply with: Gov. Code, § 65852.21, Gov. Code, § 65860, Gov. Code, § 65862, Gov. Code, § 7060, Gov. Code, § 7061, Gov. Code, § 65853, Gov. Code, § 65854, Gov. Code, § 65855 The entire scheme of this ordinance claimed as zoning, whereby the City claims power to create business, then regulate it, and regulate the affairs of persons not subject to its jurisdiction, while dictating how and when and what the business shall do, is completely foreign to capitalism and outside of the grant of authority provided by the legislature. Gov. Code, § 65850 (“The legislative body of any county or city may, pursuant to this chapter, adopt ordinances that do any of the following: (a) Regulate the use of buildings, structures, and land as between industry, business, residences, open space, including agriculture, recreation, enjoyment of scenic beauty, use of natural resources, and other purposes. (b) Regulate signs and billboards. (c) Regulate all of the following:(1) The location, height, bulk, number of stories, and size of buildings and structures.(2) The size and use of lots, yards, courts, and other open spaces.(3) The percentage of a lot which may be occupied by a building or structure.(4) The intensity of land use. (d) Establish requirements for offstreet parking and loading. (e) Establish and maintain building setback lines.(f) Create civic districts around civic centers, public parks, public buildings, or public grounds, and establish regulations for those civic districts.(g) Require, 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 specified in Sections 50079.5, 50093, 50105, and 50106 of the Health and Safety Code. The ordinance shall provide alternative means of compliance that may include, but are not limited to, in-lieu fees, land dedication, off-site construction, or acquisition and rehabilitation of existing units.”) The zoning laws most certainly grant local power, but what has been misunderstood is that the legislature used words that the City ignores, use of land as between residences. The principles of statutory construction dictate that we cannot read a word out of a statute nor construct it to make any words superfluous. Code Civ. Proc. § 1858 In the construction of a statute or instrument, the office of the Judge is simply to ascertain and declare what is in terms or in substance contained therein, not to insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted; and where there are several provisions or particulars, such a construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all. Code Civ. Proc. § 1866 When a statute or instrument is equally susceptible of two interpretations, one in favor of natural right, and the other against it, the former is to be adopted. Since our state believes that the use of land is a constitutional right, to interpret the zoning lands as a grant of plenary authority by disregard of the use of “between” and diminish a natural right as a liberty interest over property. In the statute, the word “between” is a preposition. It is used to show the relationship and distribution of various uses of buildings, structures, and land. The preposition “between” is used to indicate a connection or relationship between two or more things. In this case, it is used to indicate the relationship between different uses of buildings, structures, and land. In the statute, the preposition “between” is used to express the relationship or distribution between various uses of buildings, structures, and land. The statute lists different types of uses that are relevant for the regulation of buildings, structures, and land. These uses include industry, business, residences, open space, agriculture, recreation, enjoyment of scenic beauty, use of natural resources, and other purposes. The use of “between” suggests that these uses are related to each other and that there is a distribution or allocation of these uses across the available buildings, structures, and land. For example, the sentence implies that there should be a balance or proportionate distribution between different uses, such as industry and open space, or residential and recreational uses. The preposition “between” suggests that there is an interrelationship between these different uses, and that they need to be regulated and managed in a way that is fair and sustainable. The law did not grant power to create and dictate business. The rental units in this city are not all subjected to this enormous complex web that runs afoul of the authority that was granted. Gov. Code, § 65852.150 (“(b) It is the intent of the Legislature that an accessory dwelling unit ordinance adopted by a local agency has the effect of providing for the creation of accessory dwelling units and that provisions in this ordinance relating to matters including unit size, parking, fees, and other requirements, are not so arbitrary, excessive, or burdensome so as to unreasonably restrict the ability of homeowners to create accessory dwelling units in zones in which they are authorized by local ordinance.”) As to the laughable grievance procedure, the California Supreme Court says no way, after the complete disregard and repeated attempts without doing legal research and only in the face of opposition, the City ignores our right to be heard. “The fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard.” (Grannis v. Ordean (1914) 234 U.S. 385, 394) In any event, apart from the inadequacy of the notice, the… evaluation process itself does not fairly constitute an adequate "hearing." … procedures are intended only to evoke and record a public response… of a proposed project. … process does not guarantee an affected landowner a "meaningful" predeprivation hearing ( Bell v. Burson, supra, 402 U.S. 535, 541; Beaudreau v. Superior Court, supra, 14 Cal.3d 448, 458) at which his specific objections to the threatened interference with his property interests may be raised. Accordingly, the existence…[of] procedures neither satisfies the due process demands of plaintiff's claim nor constitutes a "remedy" which he was required to exhaust. (See Ramos v. County of Madera (1971) 4 Cal.3d 685, 691 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 421, 484 P.2d 93].) Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, 619 The hearing required by the Due Process Clause must be "meaningful," Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965), and "appropriate to the nature of the case." Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank Trust Co., supra, at 313. It is a proposition which hardly seems to need explication that a hearing which excludes consideration of an element essential to the decision whether licenses of the nature here involved shall be suspended does not meet this standard. Bell v. Burson (1971) 402 U.S. 535, 541-42 It was bad enough that the City sent a private company in to snoop around on us and collect information in violation of Cal. Const. art. I § 1, but now… the federal constitution too? G. The host shall keep records of the vehicle license plate numbers of guests, which shall be provided to the City upon request. 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. This was declared a specific violation of the Fourth Amendment. “Ferguson v. Charleston, 532 U.S. 67, 86, 121 S.Ct. 1281, 149 L.Ed.2d 205 (2001) (holding that a hospital policy authorizing "nonconsensual, warrantless, and suspicionless searches" contravened the Fourth Amendment); ” City of L. A. v. Patel (2015) 576 U.S. 409, 417 The Court has held that business owners cannot reasonably be put to this kind of choice. Camara,387 U.S., at 533, 87 S.Ct. 1727 (holding that "broad statutory safeguards are no substitute for individualized review, particularly when those safeguards may only be invoked at the risk of a criminal penalty"). Absent an opportunity for precompliance review, the ordinance creates an intolerable risk that searches authorized by it will exceed statutory limits, or be used as a pretext to harass hotel operators and their guests. Even if a hotel has been searched 10 times a day, every day, for three months, without any violation being found, the operator can only refuse to comply with an officer's demand to turn over the registry at his or her own peril. City of L. A. at 421 “Over the past 45 years, the Court has identified only four industries that "have such a history of government oversight that no reasonable expectation of privacy ... could exist for a proprietor over the stock of such an enterprise," Barlow's, Inc., 436 U.S., at 313, 98 S.Ct. 1816. ” (City of L. A. at 424) the Court rejected as a basis for deeming "the entirety of American interstate commerce" to be closely regulated in Barlow's, Inc.436 U.S., at 314, 98 S.Ct. 1816. If such general regulations were sufficient to invoke the closely regulated industry exception, it would be hard to imagine a type of business that would not qualify. See Brief for Google Inc. as Amicus Curiae 16–17; Brief for the Chamber of Commerce of United States of America as Amicus Curiae 12–13. City of L. A. at 425 The City wants to take on Google… good luck. Finally… The one aspect the City pretends it never heard, is the one thing the City is powerless over. “‘‘'If otherwise valid local legislation conflicts with state law, it is preempted by such law and is void.’’ (Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 4 Cal.4th 893, 897)” (Action v. City of Santa Monica (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1232, 1242) Civil Code § 1946 and § 1947 contemplate rents under 30 days, as noted compensation for any use of the land, which by Airbnb contract is a license grant to hosts. A subject the City is powerless to regulate. The interests which enjoy constitutional protection as "property" are generally defined by state law. (Civ. Code, § 755; Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992) 505 U.S. 1003, 1030 [112 S.Ct. 2886, 2901, 120 L.Ed.2d 798].) In California "[t]he right to acquire and possess property, guaranteed by the constitution, includes the right to dispose of it, or any part of it, and for that purpose to divide it in any possible manner, either by separating it into estates for successive periods or otherwise, and to dispose of one or more of such estates." ( Tennant v. John Tennant Memorial Home (1914) 167 Cal. 570, 575 [ 140 P. 242]; Gregory v. City of San Juan Capistrano (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 72, 88 [ 191 Cal.Rptr. 47].) Just as that right encompasses the power to grant a license to use a portion of the owner's property temporarily (see Ex Parte Quarg(1906) 149 Cal. 79 [ 84 P. 766] [theater ticket]), it includes the right to create a leasehold estate. Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 761, 794-95 The City is violating so many constitutional provisions it is not possible to count. After retaliating against me, the City opted for widespread discrimination, then continued its retaliation against me specifically. All prior objections submitted are incorporated by reference to establish the many violations. 5.76.130 Enforcement; penalties. SECTION 17. 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. SECTION 18. Relief. B. There are no appeal rights regarding vehicles or trailers being used as short-term rentals. There has never been a law regarding trailers, this is specific to only me as the only one with high-end Airstream trailers as options that people love. The retaliation for speaking out is shameful.

Controlling business by government enterprise, spying on citizens, punishing them for speaking out and petitioning for redress of grievances is the very essence of communism. I fled it over 25 years ago, only to run right to the City that is practicing it. Правители не заботятся о людях, которым они призваны служить, мы крестьяне, предназначенные только для того, чтобы служить интересам богатых, которым вы служите. Mariya Wrightsman Мария Райтсман THE ADU LAWS CANNOT APPLY TO MY PROPERTY Mariya Wrightsman 7/16/23 Planning Commission The City knows this is a contested issue, yet provides us little time to face its army of lawyers, reservation of right is made to raise any additional issues due to the time limitations imposed by throwing extensive and multiple laws directed at us and specifically me with only 4 days despite holding on to the ordinance for many days prior. All prior objections submitted are incorporated by reference to establish the many violations, only a few of which there was time to touch upon herein. The City has no authority to impose either the live in requirement or its false claim that my property cannot have an STR anywhere in the property because of the ADU. The law certainly does require the City under Gov. Code, § 65852.2 (e)(5) “A local agency shall require that a rental of the accessory dwelling unit created pursuant to this subdivision be for a term longer than 30 days.” That does not prohibit any location on the remainder of the premises from being used as an STR. But even to impose that limitation on the ADU only, such ADU must have been created pursuant to subdivision (e) Which given the specifics of my property it was not. I will explain in brackets why it cannot apply under the rule. (e)(1) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) to (d), inclusive, a local agency shall ministerially approve an application for a building permit within a residential or mixed-use zone to create any of the following: [First it was not ministerial, as the City demanded numerous follow up papers and took around 7 months to approve.] (A) One accessory dwelling unit and one junior accessory dwelling unit per lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling if all of the following apply: [My properties are duplexes, not single family.] (i) The accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit is within the proposed space of a single-family dwelling or existing space of a single-family dwelling or accessory structure and may include an expansion of not more than 150 square feet beyond the same physical dimensions as the existing accessory structure. An expansion beyond the physical dimensions of the existing accessory structure shall be limited to accommodating ingress and egress. (ii) The space has exterior access from the proposed or existing single-family dwelling. (iii) The side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire and safety. (iv) The junior accessory dwelling unit complies with the requirements of Section 65852.22. (B) One detached, new construction, accessory dwelling unit that does not exceed four-foot side and rear yard setbacks for a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling. The accessory dwelling unit may be combined with a junior accessory dwelling unit described in subparagraph (A). A local agency may impose the following conditions on the accessory dwelling unit: [My property was a remodel not new construction.] (i) A total floor area limitation of not more than 800 square feet. (ii) A height limitation as provided in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) as applicable, of subparagraph (D) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c). (C)(i) Multiple accessory dwelling units within the portions of existing multifamily dwelling structures that are not used as livable space, including, but not limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages, if each unit complies with state building standards for dwellings. [My ADU was a detached garage and not within the existing dwelling.] (ii) A local agency shall allow at least one accessory dwelling unit within an existing multifamily dwelling and shall allow up to 25 percent of the existing multifamily dwelling units. (D)(i) Not more than two accessory dwelling units that are located on a lot that has an existing or proposed multifamily dwelling, but are detached from that multifamily dwelling and are subject to a height limitation in clause (i), (ii), or (iii), as applicable, of subparagraph (D) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) and rear yard and side setbacks of no more than four feet. [I have two lots, one unit on each and expressly only subjected to (c)(D)(iv) because of 18.13.050.G. “the height of an attached or detached accessory dwelling unit shall not be any higher than the primary residence and in no event shall the height exceed twenty-five feet.”] (ii) If the existing multifamily dwelling has a rear or side setback of less than four feet, the local agency shall not require any modification of the existing multifamily dwelling as a condition of approving the application to construct an accessory dwelling unit that satisfies the requirements of this subparagraph. (2) A local agency shall not require, as a condition for ministerial approval of a permit application for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit, the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions. (3) The installation of fire sprinklers shall not be required in an accessory dwelling unit if sprinklers are not required for the primary residence. The construction of an accessory dwelling unit shall not trigger a requirement for fire sprinklers to be installed in the existing multifamily dwelling. (4) A local agency may require owner-occupancy for either the primary dwelling or the accessory dwelling unit on a single-family lot, subject to the requirements of paragraph (8) of subdivision (a). [Mine is multifamily.] (5) A local agency shall require that a rental of the accessory dwelling unit created pursuant to this subdivision be for a term longer than 30 days. [Mine was not created pursuant to (e) because of the Gardena ordinance above and as set forth herein, and not ministerially approved.] (6) A local agency may require, as part of the application for a permit to create an accessory dwelling unit connected to an onsite wastewater treatment system, a percolation test completed within the last five years, or, if the percolation test has been recertified, within the last 10 years. (7) Notwithstanding subdivision (c) and paragraph (1) a local agency that has adopted an ordinance by July 1, 2018, providing for the approval of accessory dwelling units in multifamily dwelling structures shall ministerially consider a permit application to construct an accessory dwelling unit that is described in paragraph (1), and may impose objective standards including, but not limited to, design, development, and historic standards on said accessory dwelling units. These standards shall not include requirements on minimum lot size.” And the attempt to force me to place a convent on my land is too late, Gov. Code, § 65852.2 (“(a)(1) A local agency may, by ordinance, provide for the creation of accessory dwelling units in areas zoned to allow single-family or multifamily dwelling residential use.”) Thus no authority to do so after the fact.

The City is violating so many constitutional provisions it is not possible to count. After retaliating against me, the City opted for widespread discrimination, then continued its retaliation against me specifically. All prior objections submitted are incorporated by reference to establish the many violations. 5.76.130 Enforcement; penalties. SECTION 17. 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. SECTION 18. Relief. B. There are no appeal rights regarding vehicles or trailers being used as short-term rentals. There has never been a law regarding trailers, this is specific to only me as the only one with high-end Airstream trailers as options that people love.

It appears that prior public comments were "inadvertently" omitted from the agenda as posted on the planning committee web page, that were posted on a different planning committee web page as directed to by the notice by publication sent out for Short Term Rentals.

Since they were clearly a part of the record on public comment, they should be so included in the record on public comment, and are hereby resubmitted to assist with this oversight.

For the Second time now:

To the City of Gardena Planning Commission June 20, 2023 The Gardena City Council Minutes of May 23, 2023 state:
“10.C MAY 16, 2023
MEETING ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT #3-23
The Planning Commission considered a recommendation to the City Council on the adoption of an ordinance amending Title 18 and Title 5, Zoning, of the Gardena Municipal Code relating to regulations for short-term home sharing rentals in residential zoning districts throughout the city and direction to staff to file a Notice of Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) and 15308.

Commission Action: A motion was made to reopen the public hearing and continue it to the June 20, 2023 meeting, and direction to staff to make modifications to the draft ordinance relating to onsite parking space requirements, timeframe for compliance properties with existing listings, and to add a time extension process for compliance. The motion was passed by a vote of 4-0-0 page 6 of the City Council minutes of 5/23/23” pp. 4-5

From the June 20, 2023 Agenda Packet:
“The Planning Commission is being asked whether the extension of time and relief request should be applied to those existing listings within an Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), as highlighted in yellow in the attached Ordinance. All changes are shown in redline.” pp.1-2

“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 90 days after the effective date to cease all operations. This extension shall not apply to any property that has an accessory dwelling unit. This extension shall not apply to any vehicle or trailer which is being used as a short term rental.” pp.13-14

“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:
…
B. There are no appeal rights regarding accessory dwelling units, including junior accessory dwelling units, as the prohibition is a declaration of existing law.

C. There are no appeal rights regarding vehicles or trailers being used as short term rentals.” pp.14-15
The additional text included in this draft were not shown in red. No changes were shown in redline, because no changes were made. The blue highlight over the last sentence of every section was added language from the last hearing.

I very aptly noted at the last hearing when addressing this body in public, there is no reason to speak to those that will not listen. The staff then read aloud from my attorney’s letter noting that this course of conduct was void for want of power to enact these laws, yet made no changes despite the void nature.

While not in red, the staff did include: “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 90th day after effective date extension and relief.” Under the heading “Relief” p. 14 But the staff did prove that they were listening to me, by adding the language that was not noted in red, as the blue highlighted text on the previous page is language that is specific to only me. Despite the city’s claim that ADU’s are prohibited from short term rentals being a clear misreading of the state law that controls this subject and specifically my properties are exempted under state law, the city has arbitrarily and capriciously extended the reach to the entire property, not isolating the ADU. Yet, on the very next line noted that the appeal and extension rights were denied specific to the unit (vehicle), not the entire property, i.e., “not apply to any property”; “not apply to any vehicle”. Therefore, the adjournment can only be seen as an excuse to amend the laws in a manner that is specific to me, intended as punishment for speaking out.

The toll exacted from my rights, has been targeted at me for exercising my constitutional right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (U.S. Const. Amendment I) It did not matter that under the California Constitution art. I sec. 3 that “(a) The people have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the common good.” Because it is clear by presenting punitive laws that directly apply to me alone, out of the entire group of hosts, animus is intended to silence me.

Nor does it matter that under the California Constitution art. I sec. 1 that “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.” Because in defending my inalienable property rights, the city has exacted a toll, to punish me for presenting the law that expressly put the city on notice that it was acting without a grant of authority. Thus, I have learned my lesson, exercising rights is dangerous to my rights.

Having left Ukraine over twenty years ago, but still raised as a child in the Soviet Union, I confess that I had forgotten this lesson. Thank you for reminding me comrades.

I am forced to cease enjoyment of my rights due to the cost that will be imposed on me for engaging in that which is guaranteed to all others in this county.

The theory of Communism may be summed up in the single sentence:

Abolition of private property.
- Karl Marx
I had forgotten the old party lines instilled in us children:

Идеи Ленина живут и побеждают!
Lenin’s ideas live and win!
Слава великому Сталину!
Glory to the great Stalin!
Spaciba,
Mariya Wrightsman
1 To the Lead Agency as May 19, 2023
The City of Gardena
RE: Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting for the City of Gardena Land Use Plan, Zoning Code & Zoning Amendment Environmental Impact Report PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD EXTENDED to May 19, 2023

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15044 (“Any person or entity other than a responsible agency may submit comments to a lead agency concerning any environmental effects of a project being considered by the lead agency.”)
First I would like to thank the Lead Agency for extending public comments for an additional week. As the Lead Agency knows, the hearing held on this matter was closed to the public so we were not able to participate which you will please note, since your report to the state must include public comments and Gov. Code, § 65583 (“( c)(9) Include a diligent effort by the local government to achieve public p articipation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort.”) It was not easy to find because the Lead Agency posted on their agenda page: “The City of Gardena Land Use Plan and Zoning Amendments Project proposes changes to the land use designation and zoning for parcels located throughout the City of Gardena.” But the title of the report we were to read was named: “Review project materials for the Revised 2021-2029 Housing Element on the Planning Projects Page ” Because a secret meeting
and mislabeled documents are the opposite of diligent efforts, it can be presumed that this was part of the intended consideration due the public. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15064 (“(c) In determining whether an effect will be adverse or beneficial, the lead agency shall consider the views held by members of the public in all areas affected as expressed in the whole record before the lead agency.

Before requiring the preparation of an EIR , the lead agency must still determine whether environmental change itself might be substantial.”) It seems the substantial impact on the environment was already determined.
“NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that as Lead Agency pursuant to California Public Resources Code §21165 and State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §15050, the City of Gardena (City) will prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)”

This interested person is concerned about specific issues that affect the physical environmental factors and admitted to harmful environmental factors that appear to be in disregard of multiple state laws as will be established by the facts as set forth below. It is understood and acknowledged that the scope of this inquiry is limited to the environmental issues and the merits 2 of the plan will be addressed later. Since the law requires mitigation and further requires that all concerns expressed must be supported by substantial evidence, a factual foundation based on the documented evidence must be set forth to demonstrate the concerns raised herein.

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15064 (“ (5) Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, or evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence that is not credible, shall not constitute substantial evidence. Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.”)

As far as “credible” evidence, it will be admissions made by the city itself.

Please understand and be patient while this record is made, which you will no doubt find very important by the end. But since we are shooting in the dark (4) “… A lead agency shall not circulate a draft EIR for public review before the time period for responses to the notice of preparation has expired.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15082) Yet were still able to hit a bull’s eye, I am sure this read will be of importance.

It will be known if these concerns were disregarded because Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15105 (“(a) The public review period for a draft EIR shall not be less than 30 days nor should it be longer than 60 days”) Which must be made available to the public tomorrow.

FACTUAL BASIS
“As indicated in Table 3, the proposed Project could result in the following when compared to existing conditions: • 154 fewer single- family dwelling units; • 12,167 additional m ultiple- family dwelling units; and • 7,544,381 fewer square feet of non-residential development.” (NOP – City of Gardena Plan Land Use & Zone Change EIR April 13, 2023, p.10) “Existing Land Uses to be Removed
Single-Family Residential -154
Multiple-Family Residential -961
Net New Development Potential
Single-Family Residential -154
Multiple-Family Residential 12,167

At first it was noted as odd, that n o mention was made of the level of income of the se family units, but it could not be that low income will be lost and only medium to high income gained because that would be illegal and violate the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
“As site-specific development proposals are not currently known, a programmatic analysis of the potential e nvironmental impacts associated with new residential development consistent with implementation of the proposed project was prepared in this EIR. 3 As discussed previously, the development potential is solely based on the new residential development that could occur with implementation of the new land use designations and the higher densities that would be associated with the proposed land use designations to resolve split-zoned parcels. The minor clean-up changes to the Gardena Zoning Map that are proposed as part of the Project would not result in new development or new development potential; rather the Zoning Map would be amended to rezone properties to match the existing uses, densities, or intensities that already occur on the property. (Id. at p.11) That is a bit confusing, the city announced that it “will prepare” an EIR, but the above noted it was already prepared, “was prepared in this EIR.” Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15082 (“(b) Response to Notice of Preparation. Within 30 days after receiving the notice of preparation under subdivision (a) , each responsible and trustee agency and the Office of Planning and Research shall provide the lead agency with specific detail about the scope and content of the environmental information related to the responsible or trustee agency's area of statutory responsibility that must be included in the draft EIR . (1) The response at a minimum shall identify : (A) The significant environmental issues and reasonable alternatives and mitigation measures that the responsible o r trustee agency, or the Office of Planning and Research will need to have explored in the draft EIR; and (B) Whether the agency will be a responsible agency or trustee agency for the project.”) (3) A generalized list of concerns not related to the specifi c project shall not meet the requirements of this section for a response.”

The “Environmental Factors Potentially Affected” and are the focus of this complaint were generalized by the city on its NOP at p.12 included Air Quality ; Energy; Greenhouse Gases Emissions; Land Use and Planning; Noise ; Population and Housing; Public Services ; Transportation and Traffic. Now, everybody knows that this compassionate Lead Agency cares deeply about noise, traffic increase, maintaining housing stock and overcrowding, w hich are all listed above, but what was not listed above was parking which the city is passionate about. Driving around looking for parking surely impacts the environment. Regardless, there are much larger issues that will be developed herein, because the city announced it is preparing an EIR, that means the Lead Agency determined there will be a negative impact on the environment.

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15081 (“The EIR process starts with the decision to prepare an EIR.

This decision will be made either during preliminary review under Section 15060 or at the conclusion of an initial study after applying the standards described in Section 15064.”)

Therefore, it is worthy of pointing out that the powers, are limited not plenary.

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15040 (“(a) CEQA is intended to be used in conjunction with discretionary powers granted to public agencies by other laws. (b) CEQA does not grant an agency new powers independent of the powers granted to the agency by other laws. (c) Where another law grants an agency discretionary powers, CEQA supplements those 4 discretionary powers by authorizing the agency to use the discretionary powers to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment when it is feasible to do so with respect to projects subject to the powers of the agency.”
Discretion was afforded to allow avoidance of environmental impact. Taking a review of the laws that are to considered and not ignored are the following relevant issues that arise from this plan that the Lead Agency has already determined are problematic.

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15064 (“(a) Determining whether a project may have a significant effect plays a critical role in the CEQA process.(1) If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before a lead agency, that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the agency shall prepare a draft EIR.”)1 (b
)(1) The determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data.”) (c) In determining whether an effect will be adverse or beneficial, the lead agency shall consider the views held by members of the public in all areas affected as expressed in the whole record before the lead agency. Before requiring the preparation of an EIR, the lead agency must still determine whether environmental change itself might be substantial.
(1) A direct physical change in the environment is a physical change in the environment which is caused by and immediately related to the project. Examples of direct physical changes in the environment are the dust, noise, and traffic of heavy equipment that would result from construction of a sewage treatment plant and possible odors from operation of the plant.
(2) An indirect physical change in the environment is a physical change in the environment which is not immediately related to the project, but which is caused indirectly by the project. … may lead to an increase in air pollution.” Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15064.3 (“(a) Purpose. This section describes specific considerations for evaluating a project's transportation impacts. (b)(4) Methodology. A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project's vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project's vehicle miles traveled, and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revisions to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the

1 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15050 (“(c) The determination of the lead agency of whether to prepare an EIR or a negative declaration shall be final and conclusive for all persons, including responsible agencies, ”)
“NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that as Lead Agency pursuant to California Public Resources Code §21165 and State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §15050, the City of Gardena (City) will prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)” 5 project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.”)
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15064.7 (“(a) A threshold of significance is an identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental effect, noncompliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be less than significant.
(b) Each public agency is encouraged to develop and publish thresholds of significance that the agency uses in the determination of the significance of environmental effects. Thresholds of significance to be adopted for general use as part of the lead agency's environmental review process must be adopted by ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulation, and developed through a public review process and be supported by substantial evidence. Lead agencies may also use thresholds on a case-by-case basis as provided in Section 15064(b)(2). (d) Using environmental standards as thresholds of significance promotes consistency in significance determinations and integrates environmental review with other environmental program planning and regulation. Any public agency may adopt or use an environmental standard as a threshold of significance. In adopting or using an environmental standard as a threshold of significance, a public agency shall explain how the particular requirements of that environmental standard reduce project impacts, including cumulative impacts, to a level that is less than significant, and why the environmental standard is relevant to the analysis of the project under consideration. For the purposes of this subdivision, an "environmental standard" is a rule of general application that is adopted by a public agency through a public review process and that is all of the following:
(1) a quantitative, qualitative or performance requirement found in an ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, order, plan or other environmental requirement; (2) adopted for the purpose of environmental protection; (3) addresses the environmental effect caused by the project; and, (4) applies to the project under review.”)
Earlier it was noted that the EIR was based on and this entire project to amend the housing element is “solely based on the new residential development ” it seems like a good place to look there for the environmental violations that are established herein. “The Housing Overlay rezone sites can accommodate a total of 6,586 units, including 2,636 lower income units (very low and low income) and 3,950 market -rate units (moderate and above moderate income) units.” (City of Gardena 2021-2029 Housing Element Readopted 2/15/23 p. 75; same in Revised 2021-2029 Housing Element p. 72 from July 2022) “Another way in which density may be increased in the City is through the Density Bonus Ordinance ” (id.) “The 429 lot consolidation parcels occupy 173.9 acres and could yield a net gain of 6,128 units.” (Id. at p. 76 earlier at p.73) “The 686 units from entitled or pending development projects, 160 ADUs, and the potential 6,586 units resulting from implementation of the Housing Overlay could result in 7,432 6 units, exceeding the total RHNA allocation for Gardena by 1,697 units or 30 percent.” (Id. at p.77 earlier at p.74)
That is amazing that the city has allocated so much of the potential land use to assist the poor and comply with state law.
“Table V-2 presents the Housing Element’s quantified housing objectives for the 2021-2029 planning period”
Category Extremely
Low
Income
Very Low
Income
Low
Income
Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
Total
New
Construction
743 742 761 894 2,595 5,735

Preservation 80 72 72 --- --- 224
Conservation
(Units at
Risk)
70 70 140 --- --- 280
Conservation
(Code
Enforcement)
0 50 50 100 50 250
“According to Government Code Section 65583(b), local governments’ housing elements are required to establish quantified objectives for the maximum number of housing units which can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over the planning period.” (Housing Element pp. 105-106; earlier at p. 99)
But instead, the law states that the maximum number of houses that can be built as new construction for the extremely low poor people are 13% of the total, the very low poor get 13%, the low poor get 13%, the median class get 16% and the upper middle class get 45% of the opportunities for home ownership over the next decade!
According to state law, the housing element is required to list the maximum nu mber of units that can be constructed. And it was listed under “5. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” as the policy of the city to maximize housing for the upper middle class as a way to be fair. Earlier, “7,432 units, exceeding the total RHNA allocation for Gardena by 1,697 units or 30 percent.” But lot 429, “could yield a net gain of 6,128 units.” Putting the city at 13,560 units! Very close to the report calling for new residential potential of 13,128. Very cool in deed, that is something like 42.293% complete surplus stock of housing left unused after taking care of all of the classes listed… except for one class, the upper class.

Thus the intense environmental impact about to be sustained by the city and suffered by the residents for years to come will be for the benefit of 6,239 upper middle class or upper class, which is more than the combined total allotted for above. A further review of the numbers shows 7 more than just changing the character of the city and adding 13,000 new cars to the traffic conditions in Gardena, forever.
“The Los Angeles -Long Beach -Glendale, CA HUD Metro FMR Area contains the following areas: Los Angeles County, CA;” the HUD calculator for median income level for all of Los Angeles is $98,200 and county wide extremely low income limits are by number of persons in household listed as 1) $26,500; 2) $30,300; 3) $34,100; 4) $37,850. And that is not good, because in Gardena those numbers are not just extremely low, they are normal.

According to the US Census Bureau as of July 1, 2022 there were an estimated 58,843 people in Gardena, CA. Which revealed a population decrease of -3.6%, down from 61,022 since just April 1, 2020, the population per square mile is 10,469.5; of which 38.8% are foreign born, just like I was when I moved from Ukraine and landed exactly in the City of Gardena. Owner occupied housing represents 48.3% of the housing stock, of the total 20,806 households of an average of 2.89 people per household, of which 91.3% had lived in the same location for over 1 year. The mean travel time to work 28.4 minutes, and the median household income was $68,413 with a per capita income of $29,939.

Another site, the combines the census and FBI and other entities, breaks down those stats and many others, that show Gardena ’s crime rate has been dropping, and shows the individual median income is just over $30,000 as up from $25,000 ten years ago. But of course, the city used the phrase “moderate income” not median income.

The California Department of Housing and Community Development advises :

Income Limits
State statutory limits are based on federal limits set and periodically revised by the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. HUD’s limits are based on surveys of local area median income (AMI). The commonly used income categories are approximately as follows, subject to variations for household size and other factors:
• Acutely low income: 0-15% of AMI
• Extremely low income: 15-30% of AMI
• Very low income: 30% to 50% of AMI
• Lower income: 50% to 80% of AMI; the term may also be used to mean 0% to 80% of AMI
• Moderate income: 80% to 120% of AMI
“Affordable housing cost” for lower-income households is defined in State law as not more than 30 percent of gross household income with variations (Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5). The comparable federal limit, more widely used, is 30 percent of gross 8 income, with variations. “Housing cost” commonly includes rent or mortgage payments, utilities (gas, electricity, water, sewer, garbage, recycling, green waste), and property taxes and insurance on owner-occupied housing.

The State’s Hold Harmless policy supports objectives to preserve and increase the supply of affordable rental housing. Availability of affordable rental housing benefits a broad public and households with different income levels served by affordable housing providers required to comply with Health and Safety Code (H&SC) income limits and affordable rent criteria [H&SC 50093(c)].

25 CCR § 11002 (l) “Persons and families of low or moderate income” includes any of the following:
(1) A “very low income family” is a family whose income does not exceed 50 percent of the median income for the area, as determined by HUD, with adjustments for smaller and larger families.
(2) A “low income family” is a family whose income does not exceed 80 percent of the median income for the area as determined by HUD with adjustments for smaller or larger families, except that income limits higher or lower than 80 percent may be establis hed on the basis of its findings that such variations are necessary because of the prevailing levels of construction costs, unusually high or low incomes, or other factors. (3) A “moderate income family” is a family whose income does not exceed 120 percent of the median income for the area, as determined by HUD, with adjustments for smaller and larger families.
(4) For purposes of this section, “family” includes an elderly, handicapped, disabled, or displaced person and the remaining member of a tenant family as defined in Section 201(a) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1437a).

The above regulation was obtained from the website
of the Office of Administrative Law,
which is significant for many reasons.

Gov. Code, § 65584 (“(4) Above moderate incomes are those exceeding the moderate - income level of Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code.”) Health & Saf. Code, § 50093 (“"Persons and families of low or moderate income" means persons and fam ilies whose income does not exceed 120 percent of area median income , adjusted for family size by the department in accordance with adjustment factors adopted and amended from time to time by [HUD]…”)
If any changes were intended to be declared then they would already be on file.

Health & Saf. Code, § 50093 (“For purposes of this section, the department shall file, with the Office of Administrative Law, any changes in area median income and income limits determined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, together with any consequent changes in other derivative income limits determined by the department pursuant to this section. These filings shall not be subject to Article 5 (commencing with Section 11346) or Article 6 (commencing with Section 11349) of Chapter 3.5 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code, but shall be effective upon filing with the Office of Administrative Law and shall be published as soon as possible in the California Regulatory Code Supplement and the California Code of Regulations.”)

9 For simplicity’s sake using the even number of $30,000 moderate income is $24,000 to $36,000 per year; lower income is $15,000 to $24,000; very low income is $9,000 to $15,000 and extremely low income is $4,500 to $9,000 per year. We can infer that above moderate income is therefore $36,000 and up. But HUD notes that county wide the extremely low income per number in household are 1) $26,500; 2) $30,300; 3) $34,100; 4) $37,850. Therefore, in Gardena the upper moderate income are the equivalent to an extremely low income family of 4.

This is where the environmental issues start to gel, because HUD places the median higher that means the city must provide an unrealistic number to its residents to even qualify for one of the 13% allotted to them.
“Of the 5.89 million renter households living in California, 1.97 million (or one in three of these households) come from the two lowest income groups—extremely low-income (ELI) and very low-income (VLI). Meanwhile, only 668,000 rental homes are affordable and available to households at these income levels, resulting in a shortfall of 1.30 million affordable rental homes (see Figure 1). In other words, 1.30 million—nearly two-thirds—of California’s lowest income households do not have access to affordable housing.” Rosenfeld, Lindsay. Demystifying California’s Affordable Homes Shortfall (4/7/20) California
Housing Partnership
The housing element woefully fails to comply with meeting the City Plan ’s dictate to remove local government interference with the housing, and more important for this objection fails state law, which by the laws terms means it fails the environment.

Gov. Code, § 65583 (“The housing element shall consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. The housing element shall identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, and emergency shelters, and shall make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community. The element shall contain all of the following:
(a) An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs. The assessment and inventory shall include all of the following:
(1) An analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of projections and a quantification of the locality's existing and projected housing needs for all income levels, including extremely low income households, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 50105 and Section 50106 of the Health and Safety Code. These existing and projected needs shall include the locality's share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584. Local agencies shall calculate the subset of very low income households allotted under Section 65584 that qualify as extremely low income households. The local agency may either use available census data to calculate the percentage of very low income households that qualify as extremely low income households or presume that 50 percent of the very low income households qualify as extremely low income households. The number of extremely low income households and 10 very low income households shall equal the jurisdiction's allocation of very low income households pursuant to Section 65584.
(2) An analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition.”)
The above is the very Code section cited by the city when limiting the number of houses to be made available to the very low income, which actually states the City was obligated to provide for all of their needs. Gov. Code, § 65583 (“(c)(2) Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low, very low, low-, and moderate-income households.”)

Gov. Code, § 65584 (“For purposes of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, the share of a city or county of the regional housing need shall include that share of the housing need of persons at all income levels within the area significantly affected by the general plan of the city or county.”)
(a)(2) “It is the intent of the Legislature that cities, counties, and cities and counties should undertake all necessary actions to encourage, promote, and facilitate the development of housing to accommodate the entire regional housing need, and reasonable actions should be taken by local and regional governments to ensure that future housing production meets, at a minimum, the regional housing need established for planning purposes. These actions shall include applicable reforms and incentives in Section 65582.1.”

CHECK MATE
The city has an obligation to reduce environmental impacts and the only exception allowed is if it can be proven with actual evidence that there was no way to avoid it.

Gov. Code, § 65584 (“ (3) The Legislature finds and declares that insufficient housing in job centers hinders the state's environmental quality and runs counter to the state's environmental goals. In particular, when Californians seeking affordable housing are forced to drive longer distances to work , an increased amount of greenhouse gases and other pollutants is released and puts in jeopardy the achievement of the state's climate goals, as established pursuant to Section 38566 of the Health and Safety Code, and clean air goals.”)
The city intends at best to create great environmental damage to benefit over 6,000 upper class, and another 2,500 above median class, which county wide is extremely low income, so in reality the entire 13,000 homes are intended for the upper class just like the recent project approved for high end apartments. This is a certain fact, simply because this EIR was requested.

Gov. Code, § 65584 (“(g) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, determinations made by the department, a council of governments, or a city or county pursuant to this section or Section 65584.01, 65584.02, 65584.03, 65584.04, 65584.05, 65584.06, 65584.07, or 65584.08 are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).”)

11 The decision was made to not provide housing to the poor as required by Gov. Code, § 65584 and Gov. Code, § 65583 which is why the EIR was ordered to be prepared.

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15021 (“(a) CEQA establishes a duty for public agencies to avoid or minimize environmental damage where feasible.”)
The duty was obfuscated, dereliction of office replaced it, and the report to the state oversight will be reviewed as well. Gov. Code, § 65583 (“( c)(9) Include a diligent effort by the local government to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort.”) What the Lead Agency should find most concerning is the intention behind these regulations.

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15003 (“(d) The EIR is to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action. (People ex rel. Department of Public Works v. Bosio, 47 Cal. App. 3d 495.) (e) The EIR process will enable the public to determine the environmental and economic values of their elected and appointed officials thus allowing for appropriate action come election day should a majority of the voters disagree. (People v. County of Kern, 39 Cal. App. 3d 830.)”) (j) CEQA requires that decisions be informed and balanced. It must not be subverted into an instrument for the oppression and delay of social, economic, or recreational development or advancement. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assoc. v. Regents of U.C.(1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112 and Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors(1990) 52 Cal.3d 553)”) The decision to add 13,000 new cars to the 20,000 currently on the roads is a massive increase in traffic, but it is the decision that will force the residents to move out and drive farther to work that has caused the otherwise avoidable damage, that the city chose to skirt, that will cause the residents to realize they elected a body who serves the interests of the rich and 12,000 upper middle class and upper class that are not the people of Gardena, and the time has come to replace their rulers with people who serve them.

Again, thank you for extending the time to respond.

Very truly,
Mariya Wrightsman
City of Gardena Planning Commission May 16, 2023 Here we are yet again, despite an outcry of opposition 8 months ago and only the city council’s endorsement of once made objections by two people that knew to appear the first time before announced to the city and have not shown since. Clearly the planning department has had months to prepare this ordinance, and despite knowing it was highly contested, released the text of the proposed ordinance 4 days prior to the hearing. In other words, the planning department has been working on this draft for 185 days and provided 4 days to the citizens to engage in the same work. With 46 days to every one day that we were afforded, the city failed to notice as mandated by law and prevented the ability to adequately respond, all rights are reserved and no waiver of any such rights may be or should be inferred. Generally, the city can be advised, and to which it already knows, that the city has failed to state any grant of authority to enact this ordinance 1854, the city was not afforded power to enact 1854 pursuant to Cal. Const. art. XI § 2 and the language of 1854 is void under preemption (Big Creek Lumber Co. v. County of Santa Cruz (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 952, 983-84) as it violates Cal. Const. art. XI § 7, per Gov. Code, § 65852.2 (expressly preempts), Gov. Code, § 65852 (violates uniformity requirement), occupied field under Civ. Code, §§ 827, 1946 (rents for less than 30 days), no authority to prohibit conduct authorized per Civil Code § 1945.5, and this is not a contemplated use of the zoning laws per Gov. Code, § 65850(a). Civ. Code, § 679 (“The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute dominion over it, and may use it or dispose of it according to his pleasure, subject only to general laws.”) The general laws authorize every aspect of my pre-engaged in uses of my real property as I pleased, the city has been unlawfully attempting to pass a law without authority to do so. This is arbitrary government action depriving vested liberty interests in violation of due process under both the federal and state constitutions, and all without a factual basis (People v. Ramirez (1979) 25 Cal.3d 260, 268, 276; Naidu v. Superior Court of Riverside Cnty. (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 300, 308, 312; Hipsher v. L.A. Cnty. Emps. Ret. Ass'n (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 671, 699-700 (2nd Dist. Div. 4)) Despite having six months to write something valid, returning with a proposed ordinance that violates this many fundamental aspects of the law is embarrassing for the city, and then to throw procedure at the citizens to attempt to deprive them of judicial remedy turned that embarrassment into shame. This body’s public notice issued ten days prior to this hearing included language that clearly intended to invoke Gov. Code, § 65009(b)(2) (‘“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.’”) But ignored the language that would allow such a limitation, Gov. Code, § 65009 (b)(1)(“decision of a public agency made pursuant to this title at a properly noticed public hearing,”) which instead was: “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 delivered to the Gardena Planning and Environmental Quality Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. For further information, please contact the Planning Division, at (310) 217-9524” Just as was pointed out prior, the city knew to replace the latter parenthesized text with relevant facts, but again failed to describe the nature of the proposed action in the language. The city has been engaged in surveillance and snooping on its citizens in violation of Cal. Const. art. I § 1 White v. Davis (1975) 13 Cal.3d 757, 774 (‘“The proliferation of government snooping and data collecting is threatening to destroy our traditional freedoms. Government agencies seem to be competing to compile the most extensive sets of dossiers of American citizens. Computerization of records makes it possible to create ‘cradle-to-grave’ profiles of every American. [¶] At present there are no effective restraints on the information activities of government and business. This amendment creates a legal and enforceable right of privacy for every Californian.’ (Italics in original.)”) The Council hired a private company to engage in this exact purpose and sent them to our properties under false guises to collect data and build dossiers on people engaged in the lawful business of renting, just as half of this city does. Despite the city being put on notice last September of 2022 of its obligation to cause notice to be given to each landowner that would be affected by the ordinance “shall be mailed or delivered at least 10 days prior to the hearing to the owner of the subject real property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll.” (Gov. Code, § 65091) And failed to perform even publication notice as it did not “plac[e] a display advertisement of at least one-eighth page ” (id.) The city believes that the language of Gov. Code, § 65093 permits them to disregard the use of “shall” in the notice statutes, but the forgiveness was on a claim of not receiving and had nothing to do with willful failure to send, thus is voidable on that ground too. “The failure of any person or entity to receive notice given pursuant to this title, or pursuant to the procedures established by a chartered city, shall not constitute grounds for any court to invalidate the actions of a local agency for which the notice was given.” (Gov. Code, § 65093) The MOST important failure of the notice, was the failure to give notice of the intention of the city to deprive the entire city of their rights because the notice was limited to a foreign topic, “relating to regulations for short term home sharing rentals in residential zoning districts throughout the city.” Since September the city has only been focused on short term rentals and defined it then as it does now, yet the city sent out notice for some foreign topic as its intended state created business model, and not noticing short term rentals nor its intention to disenfranchise the entire city of their state granted rights. Agenda Staff Report Aug. 9, 2022: “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 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) “Submitted by: Greg Tsujiuchi Date: August 4, 2022” (p.3) This exact failure of notice has been preserved at every prior meeting, but the city continues to disregard it. The planning department knew it was changing zoning city wide, Gov. Code, § 65853, then filed to provide notice as required Gov. Code, §§ 65853, 65854, 65091 which mandated “a general explanation of the matter to be considered,” Gov. Code, § 65094, this department was not short on words to describe what it repeatedly claimed was not applicable as to the CEQA but could not even muster a complete sentence as to an explanation of what was being considered, and have failed to provide notice to all. At these stages — indeed at "every level of the planning process" — the Legislature "recognizes the importance of public participation." (§ 65033.) To this end, the Planning and Zoning Law has declared "the policy of the state and the intent of the Legislature that each state, regional, and local agency concerned in the planning process involve the public through public hearings, informative meetings, publicity and other means available to them, and that at such hearings and other public forums, the public be afforded the opportunity to respond to clearly defined alternative objectives, policies, and actions." (§ 65033, italics added.) With this broader perspective in mind, we return to the statutory language at issue here. As stated, the notice of the legislative body's hearing must contain "a general explanation of the matter to be considered." (§ 65094.) This must be read in conjunction with the state's policy and Legislature's intent that the public be involved in the planning process and be given "the opportunity to respond to clearly defined alternative objectives, policies, and actions." (§ 65033.) Together, there can be little doubt that the purpose of notice in cases such as this one is to inform the public of the legislative body's hearing so they will have an opportunity to respond to the planning commission's recommendation and protect any interests they may have before the legislative body approves, modifies, or disapproves that recommendation. If notice could be given before the planning commission made its recommendation and, therefore, without inclusion of what that recommendation was, the purpose behind the notice provision would be ill served, as the notice would not inform the public to what "clearly defined alternative objectives, policies, and actions" they would be responding. Environmental Defense Project of Sierra County v. County of Sierra (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 877, 891-92 Given the outcry against this city action there is no lawful reason to continue to pursue it, and the fact that all purported regulations are aimed at characteristics particular to me demonstrates retaliatory animus because I have been the strongest force opposing this repeated unlawful effort, and for exercising my constitutional rights. Gov. Code, § 65008 (“(a) Any action pursuant to this title by any city, county, city and county, or other local governmental agency in this state is null and void if it denies to any individual or group of individuals the enjoyment of residence, landownership, tenancy, or any other land use in this state because of any of the following reasons: (A) The lawful occupation, age, or any characteristic of the individual or group of individuals listed in subdivision (a) or (d) of Section 12955, as those bases are defined in Sections 12926, 12926.1, subdivision (m) and paragraph (1) of subdivision (p) of Section 12955 and Section 12955.2.”) After dozens and dozens of papers were filed by person opposing this action, on the link from the news paper the planning department provides almost all of these comments, yet omitted my Feb. 15, 2023 opposition and then on the agenda omitted all of them except for my attorney’s letter succinctly advising the city its actions were void, which was the only public comment attached. Regarding the city’s effort to outlaw, in violation of state law, the rights and lawful business conducted by home owners. In total the city knowingly plans to prohibit 96% of current operators so that possibly three could operate, but could only do so by violating a plethora of laws and constitutional provisions, without any factual basis.

The scienter is present as is the imminent harm intended, all while failing notice and engaging in deception at a legislative level. Mariya Wrightsman 5/16/23 RE Feb. 15, 2023 Proposed Ordinances and Urgency Ordinances on Special Hearing To her honor, Mayor Cerda, and esteemed Members of the Gardena City Council, This letter sets forth the liability resulting from official action, with specific actual factual findings made, expresses the vulnerability the City has placed itself, and the positions needed to be taken to relieve any conflict. Else the current course is “not only detrimental to petitioners but to public trust in local government.” (Kieffer v. Spencer (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 954, 964) URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 1847 entirely focuses on zoning yet failed to make a statement of facts to support the improperly cited and relied upon general statute, Gov. Code, § 36937(b).

Not once was any mention made of fact relating to public peace, health or safety. The only aspect of a loss, was money, the proposed circumvention of statutory procedure is void. “WHEREAS, HCD has recently informed the City that the City must adopt it housing element and complete the required rezoning by February 15, 2023 in order to receive its 2019 PLHA grant in the amount of $329,877;”
Counsel for the City need no lecture on a cardinal principle of statutory construction, that the specific statute always applies over the general, part of the stated amendments was to prohibit uses in two zones, specifically targeting short-term rentals. Thus the specific law was ignored.

The haste in procrastinating and squandering time on assaulting the civil rights of a tiny minority of the population has cost the City. And the haste in attempting to enact a law that is void for failure to comply with mandatory procedure is the price to pay for this neglect of office.

Gov. Code, § 65858 is clearly the statute on point, expressly addressing every issue raised in these proposals and permits foregoing the mandatory zoning procedure in specific circumstances and only for a temporary purpose. The claimed actions are to thwart the possibility of business due to neglect by those charged with these very functions.

Recent history supported by ample evidence shows the actions by the City to have been dealing with its citizens in bad faith for months. The facts are in writing, and recorded on video.

There is no escaping it. Rather than follow the law, more disregard for the law and procedure is shown. Since no one has bothered to read the applicable statute, it is set forth at the end of this letter so that the City is on notice of the law it is disregarding, and the Ordinance is void as a result, which has no effect and the money gained will have to be returned regardless.

Despite disregard for requisite findings under Gov. Code, §§ 65858 or 36937(b), the City then claims these as its findings of fact:
“SECTION 1. Findings.

A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

B. The adoption of the Zoning Map and changes to Title 18 are consistent with the City’s General Plan. More specifically, these changes implement changes required by the Housing Element and the changes create consistency with the City’s Land Use Plan.

C. The changes set forth herein represent good land use practices which are required by the public necessity, convenience and the general welfare.

SECTION 2. Adoption of Zoning Map. The City Council hereby adopts the zoning map attached hereto as Exhibit A as the zoning map for the City.

SECTION 3. The term “multiple-family” is hereby replaced with the term “multi-family” throughout the Gardena Municipal Code.

After making no relevant findings whatsoever, the ordinance then launches into the very subject matter covered by the statute ignored.

The “findings” of “recitals are true and correct” state as the sum total of factual findings:
“represent good land use practices which are required by the public necessity, convenience and the general welfare”.
“public peace, health or safety”, (Gov. Code, §§ 65858 & 36937(b)) “public necessity, convenience and the general welfare” (no statute citable) Even in the conclusionary findings, there was not a single finding made relevant to the required basis to enact such urgent legislation.

The reason there can be no findings of fact was a finding of fact already made:

Community Development Meeting Date: February 15, 2023 Agenda Staff Report:
“Adoption of Resolution No. 6620 Updating the Land Use Plan, including changes to the Land Use Map and adoption of Urgency Ordinance No. 1847, amending the Zoning Code and revising the Zoning Map”
“While it is not likely that there would be many Builder’s Remedy projects used in Gardena, it is not impossible. Staff has had at least one inquiry regarding a 100 percent affordable development on El Segundo Boulevard. Without a compliant housing element and the adoption of development standards, staff would have had no authority to prevent the project from being built.” p.2
The stated purpose is to stop affordable housing, but 1847 states different facts:
“WHEREAS, projects under the Builder’s Remedy are likely to be submitted to the City prior to the certification of the EIR and adoption of the changes as the City has already received inquiry into projects on certain sites;”
“Under the Builder’s Remedy, if a city does not have a housing element that substantially complies with state law, then the city has only very limited grounds on which to deny an affordable housing project,” p.2
The true facts and urgency have nothing to do with the public. “Ordinance No. 1847 therefore adds a new chapter…” followed by the only reason for the urgency:
“Therefore, in order for the City to have access to needed grant funding as well as to be able to impose objective development standards, it is necessary to immediately rezone the Inventory Sites so that the City has a compliant Housing Element. In order to qualify for the PLHA grant, HCD recommended a program which was included in the Housing Element which required the City, by February 15, 2023, to amend the Land Use Plan and adopt an urgency ordinance which provided that any project with a minimum of 20 percent affordable housing would be ministerially approved. (Housing Program 4.1.)” p.3 That is the true reason for this urgency and has nothing to do with “public peace, health or safety”, unless of course one looks at the problem from the clear agenda of those involved. “100 percent affordable development” is bad, with “no authority to prevent”, but the desirable and pushed for agenda is “minimum of 20 percent affordable” which equally states, “maximum of 80 percent high end housing” just like the projects we have been approving to push the poor out. While attacking short-term rentals declaring us detrimental to the affordable housing supply.

It is rather interesting that the word “short” is not even present in that Staff Report, yet a necessity to single out short-term rental as the sole prohibited activity was made, without any supported findings whatsoever.
“18.21.040 Prohibited uses in housing overlays. The following uses shall be explicitly prohibited in the housing overlays: A. Short-term rentals.”
“18.18A.030 Uses prohibited. A. All uses not listed in Sections 18.18A.020 are deemed to be 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. Short-term rental of residential units.”
Out of all documents submitted in connection with the proposals, some version of a word with “short” in it appears 18 times, i.e., shortfalls (11), short (1), shortage (2), short-term rental (2), short-term bicycle parking (2). Not once is there a discussion to justify an outright ban, no reference to any findings, not even proposed in any reports leading up to the drafting. Yet an outright ban is implemented.

Given the inconsistent statements, that can only be characterized politely as deliberate misrepresentations, in the final product compared to the reports generated to create the ordinances, the bad faith referenced above must be presumed as the facts lend to such a finding.

As this is an unfounded assault on the short term rental community, it is taken to mean there is a desire to litigate this entire proposal, where it will be found void for failure to comply with jurisdictional authorizations, if that is not plain enough English, then the documents prove the passage of the enactment was ultra vires. In simple terms, it “means a want of authority to exercise in a particular manner a power” (Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal (1941) 17 Cal.2d 280, 290) and all money received will have to be returned, and start over.

If however, due to haste in preparing the documents, this language was merely included in an earlier draft and was intended to be removed yet overlooked when compiling, and now that it is brought to your attention it will be promptly excised prior to adoption, then it is forgiven and other projects will require my time rather than litigating and destroying this entire enactment and causing all monies to be returned as gained from a void passage. If short-term ban continues to find its way in the text, then my position on the matter is perfectly clear.

Very truly,
Mariya Wrightsman
Post script, case law says I have already won.

At no point in RPI's argument on appeal do they take issue with the material facts alleged by petitioners and alluded to at the hearing below by the trial court. RPI’s appellate presentation has been made with skill and is replete with highly technical arguments seeking to persuade us that City has followed the letter of the law in dealing with petitioners.

The legal argument made with respect to the moratorium ordinance is a case in point: RPI relies on both section 36937 of the Government Code (which authorizes emergency ordinances “ [f]or the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety . . .” ) and section 65858 of the Government Code (which provides for interim ordinances prohibiting certain kinds of land use when a study of broader implication is pending), as justification for RPI’ s enactment, on August 18, 1981, of the moratorium ordinance with which we are concerned in the case at bench.

RPI's argument misses the thrust of the trial court's ruling: the basic factual finding made below was that RPI had acted in bad faith insofar as the petitioners were concerned. There was substantial evidence supporting that finding. That being so, it matters very little whether Government Code sections exist authorizing emergency enactments and whether RPI did or did not follow them to the letter. The record inescapably establishes that RPI, instead of facing in the first instance the “ dilemma” which had arisen with respect to petitioners, and arriving at fair resolution of the situation, has exacerbated the situation by engaging in administrative, legislative and legal conduct calcula ted to avoid responsibility for the substantial damages incurred by petitioners.

Kieffer v. Spencer (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 954, 961
Presently, the City has been acting in bad faith and failed procedure. That is a very weak position to litigate from.

The law referenced is now provided, so that the City cannot claim ignorance on the matter, which is no defense, but being placed on express notice of its violations of law, before violating it, is an express aggravator.

Gov. Code, § 65858 (“(a) Without following the procedures otherwise required prior to the adoption of a zoning ordinance, the legislative body of a county, city, including a charter city, or city and county, 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.

That urgency measure shall require a four-fifths vote of the legislative body for adoption. The interim ordinance shall be of no further force and effect 45 days from its date of adoption. After notice pursuant to Section 65090 and public hearing, the legislative body may extend the interim ordinance for 10 months and 15 days and subsequently extend the interim ordinance for one year. Any extension shall also require a four-fifths vote for adoption. Not more than two extensions may be adopted.(b) Alternatively, an interim ordinance may be adopted by a four- fifths vote following notice pursuant to Section 65090 and public hearing, in which case it shall be of no further force and effect 45 days from its date of adoption. After notice pursuant to Section 65090 and public hearing, the legislative body may by a four-fifths vote extend the interim ordinance for 22 months and 15 days.(c) 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. In addition, any interim ordinance adopted pursuant to this section that has the effect of denying approvals needed for the development of projects with a significant component of multifamily housing may not be extended except upon written findings adopted by the legislative body, supported by substantial evidence on the record, that all of the following conditions exist:(1) The continued approval of the development of multifamily housing projects would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety. As used in this paragraph, a "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date that the ordinance is adopted by the legislative body.(2) The interim ordinance is necessary to mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1).(3) There is no feasible alternative to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1) as well or better, with a less burdensome or restrictive effect, than the adoption of the proposed interim ordinance.(d) Ten days prior to the expiration of that interim ordinance or any extension, the legislative body shall issue a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of the ordinance.(e) When an interim ordinance has been adopted, every subsequent ordinance adopted pursuant to this section, covering the whole or a part of the same property, shall automatically terminate and be of no further force or effect upon the termination of the first interim ordinance or any extension of the ordinance as provided in this section.(f) Notwithstanding subdivision (e), upon termination of a prior interim ordinance, the legislative body may adopt another interim ordinance pursuant to this section provided that the new interim ordinance is adopted to protect the public safety, health, and welfare from an event, occurrence, or set of circumstances different from the event, occurrence, or set of circumstances that led to the adoption of the prior interim ordinance.(g) For purposes of this section, "development of multifamily housing projects" does not include the demolition, conversion, redevelopment, or rehabilitation of multifamily housing that is affordable to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or that will result in an increase in the price or reduction of the number of affordable units in a multifamily housing project.(h) For purposes of this section, "projects with a significant component of multifamily housing" means projects in which multifamily housing consists of at least one-third of the total square footage of the project.”)

Thank you for affording us another opportunity to exercise and protect our rights, 1 I am Maryia Wrightsman speaking about my real property that is affected by the proposed directives. I had submitted documents showing the extensive factual and legal incorrectness of the city council’s actions, which were ignored in favor of pushing forward. Today’s directive is motivated by proposed Ord. 184 4, wherein the city council before commencing investigation alleged to have found “short -term rentals for lodging and other uses have deleterious impacts by increasing noise and traffic, creating parki ng problems, changing the character of a residential neighborhood, and with the case of housing - creating an impact on housing supply;” the stated concern leading to those findings was, “ the desire to operate short -term rentals is expected to increase due to the proximity of Gardena to SoFi Stadium.” On April 13, 2021, this city council adopted Ord. 1825, which found, “ Gardena is situated to be in a position to capitalize on a demand for new hotel spaces due to its proximity to SoFi Stadium” and found “during the past year, developers have indicated that the City's development standards have been an impediment to new hotel development”. Which means the city is blaming us for the very thing, the city wants to bring into our city.

The city was very concerned about the impact that STRs as 0.8% of the volume of rental locations will have on affordable housing in the city. But on May 11, 2021, the city council adopted 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 mean income of a resident in Gardena is $60,000.

Through official action, the only ones impacting affordable housing, traffic, nois e, and changing the character of our neighborhood is this council. So that you can capitalize on Sofi.

The report states “most” are non -owner occupied to create a negative appearance, in truth the report highlights that 62% are non -owner occupied, and ignores that all houses in the city are 50% non -owner occupied.

You persisting in seeking to remove short term rentals when there has been a public out cry against this proposed action. Each time you state you will listen to us, then proceed as if we said nothing at all. The company you hired is great at using a computer to provide data but that data was presented entirely slanted in favor of the predetermined agenda to ban STRs. Which is understandable since they advertise themselves as destroyers of STRs. Th e council hired a company that will work towards its agenda after knowing there was great resistance by the community.

According to the Supreme Court, Penn Central Transp. Co., 438 U.S. 104, page 12, the disingenuous claims by the council “frustrate distinct investment-backed expectations as to amount to a ‘taking ’” under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Gardena city council offered money to bill board owners when lifting the billboard ban to allow electronic billboards for a takings clause violation but now same Gardena city council is ignoring the same conduct when it comes to STRs home owners.

The city was put on express notice of the constitutional violations it was committing against its citizens and yet persist as if nothing was said at all.

Your concern for the affordable housing is now expressed in being given $500,000 a year for three years by the state, to patch up existing locations, while putting forth great effort towards chan ging our city to accommodate for the rich, and oppress the handful of citizens all in favor of corporate greed.

Mariya Wrightsman.

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: 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: 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: 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

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

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.

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 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 ques
tion 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 dedicated 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 li
fe 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 Ukr
ainian girl, owner of three homes in Southern California, now divorced with two children that we
re to be raised alone, yet they would go to college because of my income from my invest ment 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 human dignity and 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 r a ised, Ukrainian s ingle mother sees her cu bs in danger, 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:

A. Oral Communications. Any person may address the council on any matter concerning the city’s business or on any matter over which the city has control... There shall be a three minute limit on all speakers. This time limit shall not apply to public hearing items where the property interests of the speaker are affected.”
Consequent to sending out the documents three days prior and coupled with the 3 minute limitation on this contested issue affecting our property rights, we have not been afforded sufficient notice and an adequate opportunity to be heard in clear violation of the Council’s own rules and the Fourteenth Amendment, and have mandated a rapid response be thrown together. Without waiving any rights, that which was able to be worked up, will now be set forth, for one and all to join, “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)” (Gov.

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.

T

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
The Gardena Municipal Code (GMC) proscribes, from 7am to 10pm, the interior noise l
evel 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 Ext
erior 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 w
hat conduct to avoid. Putting the ordinance in English terms , a ccording 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 as
suming 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 onl
y by the obvious negligible increase of 0.098% per main road but by ordinances recently ena
cted 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.

And as to “changing the character of a residential neighborhood,” all who once enjoyed 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 But there were some affordable housing units built recently, e.g., “50 contemporary new t
ownhomes” 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.

Another stated finding of Ord. 1843 included, “WHEREAS, the desire to operate short - te
rm 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;”
The C ouncil 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.

A. E
xcept 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 to r etroactively 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.

N
ow, 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, Dire ctor 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 t yranny, 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 Thank you for your time, consideration, and for taking care of the men and women in the t
ransitional and group housing, that was very impressive. Let’s keep that spirit of community unity going, together.

Most sincerely,
Mariya Wrightsman September 27, 2022
Atta
ched: 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: 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 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.

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®
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

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®
/0/1/2/0/1/3/4/5/i255/2/3/7/8/4/i255/9/10/9 /11/12/13/12/13/14/15/i255/16/i255/17/11/11/18/i255/19/8/i255/20/21/22/23/23/i255/24/25/26/13/15/11/26/26/i255/27/28/15/11/29/26/i255/13/15/i255/30/22/29/31/11/15/22/5/i255/32/33/i255/34/29/14/21/i255/35/14/26/13/15/36/i255/37/38/11/13/29/i255/35/13/39/11/23/13/38/14/14/31/26/i255/16/i255/32/38/22/15/36/11/40/14/29/36 /38/12/12/18/26/7/1/1/28/28/28/40/41/38/22/15/36/11/40/14/29/36/1/18/1/42/11/11/18/43/19/8/43/26/21/22/23/23/43/44/25/26/13/15/11/26/26/43/14/28/15/11/29/26/43/13/15/43/36/22/29/31/11/15/22/43/41/22/43/34/29/14/21/43/23/14/26/13/15/36/43/12/38/11/13/29/43/23/13/39/11/23/13/38/14/14/31/26/45/29/11/41/29/25/13/12/11/29/46/47/8/48/2/2/8/49/3/48/50/29/11/41/29/25/13/12/11/31/51/44/52/51/13/31/46/4/31/53/34/49/49/54/2 /1/2/19 /55/56/56/57/i255/59/60/i255/61/62/63/64/64/i255/65/66/67/68/69/56/67/67/i255/70/71/69/56/72/67/i255/68/69/i255/73/63/72/74/56/69/63/75 /76/77/i255/78/72/79/62/i255/80/79/67/68/69/81/i255/82/83/56/68/72/i255/80/68/84/56/64/68/83/79/79/74/67 /85/86/87/88/86/89/90 /85/89/91/86/89/92/93/89/88/i255/95/96/97/i255/95/98/95/95 /99/60/59 /100/60/60
/85/101/102/103/87/86/104/88/89/105 /106/89/107/86/i255/108/109/87/110 /85/104/91/91/109/88/86/i255/103/109/111
/61/68/81/69/i255/112/83/68/67/i255/57/56/112/68/112/68/79/69 /113/83/114/i255/112/83/68/67/i255/57/56/112/68/112/68/79/69/i255/62/63/112/112/56/72/67 /85/86/87/88/86/89/90/i255/93/115/i255/61/112/63/117/56/114/i255/55/68/69/74/112 /118/119/120/85/121/i255/122/123/124/106/125/123/124/106/121/i255/126/124/121/119/121/119/127/106/i255/118/127/120/i255/120/124/125/120/124/85/85/i255/127/118/i255/108/120/119/124/128/122/106/129/124/85 /130/131/122/121/i255/119/85/i255/121/131/124/i255/120/124/122/132/i255/122/108/124/106/125/122/i255/127/118/i255/121/131/124/i255/129/119/121/133/i255/129/127/134/106/129/119/132/135 /121/136/89/88/89/i255/87/91/91/89/87/88/105/i255/86/109/i255/93/89/i255/101/103/137/109/103/105/101/105/86/89/103/86/i255/87/137/86/101/109/103/105/i255/93/115/i255/86/136/89/i255/137/101/86/115/i255/137/109/104/103/137/101/110/i255/87/103/90/i255/111/89/i255/111/87/103/86/i255/86/109/i255/138/103/109/111/i255/111/136/87/86/i255/101/105 /88/89/87/110/110/115/i255/102/109/101/103/102/i255/109/103/i255/101/103/i255/109/104/88/i255/137/101/86/115/139 /129/87/110/139/i255/129/109/103/105/86/139/i255/87/88/86/139/i255/119/i255/105/89/137/139/i255/140/141/87/142/i255/143/121/136/89/i255/91/89/109/91/110/89/i255/136/87/144/89/i255/86/136/89/i255/88/101/102/136/86/i255/86/109/i255/101/103/105/86/88/104/137/86/i255/86/136/89/101/88/i255/88/89/91/88/89/105/89/103/86/87/86/101/144/89/105/97/i255/91/89/86/101/86/101/109/103 /102/109/144/89/88/103/92/89/103/86/i255/145/109/88/i255/88/89/90/88/89/105/105/i255/109/145/i255/102/88/101/89/144/87/103/137/89/105/97/i255/87/103/90/i255/87/105/105/89/92/93/110/89/i255/145/88/89/89/110/115/i255/86/109/i255/137/109/103/105/104/110/86/i255/145/109/88/i255/86/136/89/i255/137/109/92/92/109/103/i255/102/109/109/90/139 /141/93/142/i255/141/96/142/i255/121/136/89/i255/91/89/109/91/110/89/i255/136/87/144/89/i255/86/136/89/i255/88/101/102/136/86/i255/109/145/i255/87/137/137/89/105/105/i255/86/109/i255/101/103/145/109/88/92/87/86/101/109/103/i255/137/109/103/137/89/88/103/101/103/102/i255/86/136/89/i255/137/109/103/90/104/137/86/i255/109/145/i255/86/136/89 /91/89/109/91/110/89/146/105/i255/93/104/105/101/103/89/105/105/97/i255/87/103/90/97/i255/86/136/89/88/89/145/109/88/89/97/i255/86/136/89/i255/92/89/89/86/101/103/102/105/i255/109/145/i255/91/104/93/110/101/137/i255/93/109/90/101/89/105/i255/87/103/90/i255/86/136/89/i255/111/88/101/86/101/103/102/105/i255/109/145/i255/91/104/93/110/101/137 /109/147/137/101/87/110/105/i255/87/103/90/i255/87/102/89/103/137/101/89/105/i255/105/136/87/110/110/i255/93/89/i255/109/91/89/103/i255/86/109/i255/91/104/93/110/101/137/i255/105/137/88/104/86/101/103/115/139/148 /119/103/i255/91/88/109/91/109/105/89/90/i255/127/88/90/139/i255/96/149/150/150/97/i255/86/136/89/i255/137/101/86/115/i255/137/109/104/103/137/101/110/i255/145/109/104/103/90/i255/143/105/136/109/88/86/151/86/89/88/92/i255/88/89/103/86/87/110/105/i255/145/109/88/i255/110/109/90/102/101/103/102/i255/87/103/90/i255/109/86/136/89/88/i255/104/105/89/105 /136/87/144/89/i255/90/89/110/89/86/89/88/101/109/104/105/i255/101/92/91/87/137/86/105/i255/93/115/i255/101/103/137/88/89/87/105/101/103/102/i255/103/109/101/105/89/i255/87/103/90/i255/86/88/87/147/137/97/i255/137/88/89/87/86/101/103/102/i255/91/87/88/138/101/103/102/i255/91/88/109/93/110/89/92/105/97/i255/137/136/87/103/102/101/103/102 /86/136/89/i255/137/136/87/88/87/137/86/89/88/i255/109/145/i255/87/i255/88/89/105/101/90/89/103/86/101/87/110/i255/103/89/101/102/136/93/109/88/136/109/109/90/97/i255/87/103/90/i255/111/101/86/136/i255/86/136/89/i255/137/87/105/89/i255/109/145/i255/136/109/104/105/101/103/102/i255/151/i255/137/88/89/87/86/101/103/102/i255/87/103/i255/101/92/91/87/137/86 /126/89/86/101/86/101/109/103/i255/90/89/86/87/101/110/105/129/109/92/92/89/103/86/105/134/91/90/87/86/89/105

/0/1/2/0/1/3/4/5/i255/2/3/7/8/4/i255/9/10/9 /11/12/13/12/13/14/15/i255/16/i255/17/11/11/18/i255/19/8/i255/20/21/22/23/23/i255/24/25/26/13/15/11/26/26/i255/27/28/15/11/29/26/i255/13/15/i255/30/22/29/31/11/15/22/5/i255/32/33/i255/34/29/14/21/i255/35/14/26/13/15/36/i255/37/38/11/13/29/i255/35/13/39/11/23/13/38/14/14/31/26/i255/16/i255/32/38/22/15/36/11/40/14/29/36 /38/12/12/18/26/7/1/1/28/28/28/40/41/38/22/15/36/11/40/14/29/36/1/18/1/42/11/11/18/43/19/8/43/26/21/22/23/23/43/44/25/26/13/15/11/26/26/43/14/28/15/11/29/26/43/13/15/43/36/22/29/31/11/15/22/43/41/22/43/34/29/14/21/43/23/14/26/13/15/36/43/12/38/11/13/29/43/23/13/39/11/23/13/38/14/14/31/26/45/29/11/41/29/25/13/12/11/29/46/47/8/48/2/2/8/49/3/48/50/29/11/41/29/25/13/12/11/31/51/44/52/51/13/31/46/4/31/53/34/49/49/54/3 /1/2/19 /55/56/i255/58/55/59/60/61/56/62/i255/60/59/63/63/64/65/66/67/i255/68/58/61/60/i255/69/70/60/i255/68/58/71/i255/60/68/70/68/71/72/i255/73/71/70/60/55/56/i255/68/55/i255/74/59/60/68/61/75/65/i255/76/58/70/56/62/71/60/i255/61/56/i255/77/55/56/61/56/62/i255/64/70/69/60/78 /79/80/71/56/56/60/65/64/81/70/56/61/70/i255/82/55/70/64/i255/82/55/83/i255/81/83/i255/84/70/58/55/56/78/i255/85/86/87/i255/88/83/89/83/i255/90/91/90/i255/92/93/91/85/85/94/78/i255/61/60/i255/68/58/71/i255/64/71/70/72/61/56/62/i255/76/70/60/71/i255/75/55/73/i255/68/58/71/i255/63/73/55/63/55/60/61/68/61/55/56 /68/58/70/68/i255/70/i255/60/68/70/68/71/i255/60/68/70/68/59/68/71/i255/68/58/70/68/i255/60/59/95/60/68/70/56/68/61/70/64/64/65/i255/75/59/73/68/58/71/73/60/i255/61/96/63/55/73/68/70/56/68/i255/63/59/95/64/61/76/i255/63/55/64/61/76/61/71/60/i255/96/70/65/i255/60/55/i255/75/73/59/60/68/73/70/68/71 /72/61/60/68/61/56/76/68/i255/61/56/81/71/60/68/96/71/56/68/97/95/70/76/98/71/72/i255/71/99/63/71/76/68/70/68/61/55/56/60/i255/70/60/i255/68/55/i255/70/96/55/59/56/68/i255/68/55/i255/70/i255/100/68/70/98/61/56/62/83/101/67/i255/92/80/71/56/56/i255/82/71/56/68/73/70/64/i255/102/73/70/56/60/63/83/i255/82/55/83 /81/83/i255/103/71/69/i255/104/55/73/98/i255/82/61/68/65/i255/92/93/91/105/106/94/i255/107/90/106/i255/88/83/89/83/i255/93/87/107/78/i255/93/85/105/94/i255/68/58/71/73/71/95/65/i255/96/70/98/61/56/62/i255/108/55/64/72/95/64/70/68/68/i255/81/83/i255/109/71/96/63/60/68/71/70/72/i255/92/93/91/86/85/94/i255/90/86/91 /88/83/89/83/i255/110/91/87/78/i255/110/91/107/97/91/110/i255/68/58/71/i255/70/63/63/64/61/76/70/95/64/71/i255/68/71/60/68/i255/75/55/73/i255/68/58/71/60/71/i255/74/59/60/68/61/111/76/70/68/61/55/56/60/i255/59/56/72/71/73/i255/68/58/71/i255/102/70/98/61/56/62/60/i255/82/64/70/59/60/71/i255/55/75/i255/68/58/71 /112/61/75/68/58/i255/113/96/71/56/72/96/71/56/68/114
/93/94/i255/115/55/i255/68/58/71/i255/61/56/68/71/73/71/60/68/60/i255/55/75/i255/68/58/71/i255/63/59/95/64/61/76/i255/73/71/116/59/61/73/71/i255/60/59/76/58/i255/61/56/68/71/73/75/71/73/71/56/76/71/117 /85/94/i255/113/73/71/i255/68/58/71/i255/96/71/70/56/60/i255/73/71/70/60/55/56/70/95/64/65/i255/56/71/76/71/60/60/70/73/65/i255/75/55/73/i255/68/58/71/i255/70/76/76/55/96/63/64/61/60/58/96/71/56/68/i255/55/75/i255/68/58/71/i255/63/59/73/63/55/60/71/78/i255/70/56/72/i255/56/55/68 /59/56/72/59/64/65/i255/55/63/63/73/71/60/60/61/81/71/i255/59/63/55/56/i255/61/56/72/61/81/61/72/59/70/64/60/117 /113/60/i255/72/71/64/71/68/71/73/61/55/59/60/i255/61/60/i255/72/71/111/56/71/72/i255/70/60/i255/79/76/70/59/60/61/56/62/i255/58/70/73/96/i255/55/73/i255/72/70/96/70/62/71/67/i255/92/118/99/75/55/73/72/i255/115/61/76/68/61/55/56/70/73/65/94/78/i255/69/58/61/76/58/i255/68/58/61/60/i255/76/55/59/56/76/61/64 /72/71/76/64/70/73/71/72/i255/79/68/73/59/71/i255/70/56/72/i255/76/55/73/73/71/76/68/67/78/i255/68/58/59/60/i255/70/56/i255/61/56/81/71/60/68/61/62/70/68/61/55/56/i255/61/60/i255/56/71/76/71/60/60/70/73/65/83/i255/112/55/73/i255/60/59/76/58/i255/58/70/73/96/60/i255/76/70/59/60/71/72/i255/95/65 /61/56/76/73/71/70/60/71/i255/61/56/i255/68/73/70/119/76/i255/70/56/72/i255/56/55/61/60/71/i255/70/56/72/i255/64/55/60/60/i255/55/75/i255/63/70/73/98/61/56/62/i255/69/55/59/64/72/i255/61/56/68/71/73/75/71/73/71/i255/69/61/68/58/i255/55/59/73/i255/73/61/62/58/68/60/i255/70/60/i255/63/73/55/63/71/73/68/65 /55/69/56/71/73/60/i255/68/55/i255/68/58/71/i255/59/60/71/i255/70/56/72/i255/71/56/74/55/65/96/71/56/68/i255/55/75/i255/55/59/73/i255/64/70/56/72/60/i255/70/56/72/i255/79/76/58/70/56/62/61/56/62/i255/68/58/71/i255/76/58/70/73/70/76/68/71/73/i255/55/75/i255/70/i255/73/71/60/61/72/71/56/68/61/70/64 /56/71/61/62/58/95/55/73/58/55/55/72/67/i255/61/60/i255/76/71/73/68/70/61/56/64/65/i255/79/72/71/64/71/68/71/73/61/55/59/60/67/83 /102/58/71/73/71/i255/70/73/71/i255/110/87/i255/60/58/55/73/68/i255/68/71/73/96/i255/58/55/60/68/60/i255/61/56/i255/68/58/71/i255/76/61/68/65/i255/55/75/i255/108/70/73/72/71/56/70/78/i255/69/61/68/58/i255/55/56/64/65/i255/70/i255/68/55/68/70/64/i255/96/70/99/61/96/59/96/i255/55/75/i255/93/86/87 /73/71/60/71/73/81/70/68/61/55/56/60/i255/68/58/70/68/i255/76/70/56/i255/95/71/i255/96/70/72/71/i255/75/55/73/i255/60/58/55/73/68/i255/68/71/73/96/i255/73/71/56/68/70/64/60/i255/61/56/i255/68/58/71/i255/76/61/68/65/i255/55/75/i255/108/70/73/72/71/56/70/i255/55/56/i255/70/56/65/i255/62/61/81/71/56/i255/72/70/65/83 /102/58/71/i255/111/81/71/i255/96/70/61/56/i255/76/61/68/65/i255/60/68/73/71/71/68/60/i255/69/61/68/58/i255/68/58/71/i255/64/70/73/62/71/60/68/i255/68/73/70/119/76/i255/64/55/70/72/60/78/i255/70/81/71/73/70/62/71/i255/90/90/78/85/105/86/i255/76/70/73/60/i255/63/71/73/i255/72/70/65/78/120/93/121 /70/60/60/59/96/61/56/62/i255/70/64/64/i255/93/86/87/i255/76/70/73/60/i255/75/73/55/96/i255/68/58/71/i255/60/58/55/73/68/i255/68/71/73/96/i255/59/56/61/68/60/i255/72/73/55/81/71/i255/55/56/i255/68/58/71/i255/60/70/96/71/i255/73/55/70/72/78/i255/68/58/70/68/i255/61/60/i255/70/i255/68/73/70/119/76 /61/56/76/73/71/70/60/71/i255/55/75/i255/87/83/107/106/122/i255/55/56/i255/70/56/65/i255/62/61/81/71/56/i255/96/70/61/56/i255/73/55/70/72/i255/61/56/i255/108/70/73/72/71/56/70/83/i255/89/61/56/76/71/i255/68/58/71/65/i255/55/95/81/61/55/59/60/64/65/i255/69/55/59/64/72/i255/56/55/68/i255/70/64/64/i255/95/71 /59/60/61/56/62/i255/68/58/71/i255/60/70/96/71/i255/73/55/70/72/78/i255/68/58/71/i255/61/96/63/70/76/68/i255/61/60/i255/71/81/71/56/i255/64/55/69/71/73/78/i255/68/58/71/i255/70/81/71/73/70/62/71/i255/61/56/76/73/71/70/60/71/i255/61/96/63/70/76/68/i255/55/56/i255/70/56/65/i255/55/75/i255/68/58/71/i255/96/70/61/56 /111/81/71/i255/60/68/73/71/71/68/60/i255/61/60/i255/87/83/87/91/86/122/i255/70/56/72/i255/75/70/64/64/60/i255/69/71/64/64/i255/60/58/55/73/68/i255/55/75/i255/58/70/73/96/75/59/64/83 /123/59/60/68/i255/75/73/55/96/i255/64/55/55/98/61/56/62/i255/70/68/i255/68/58/71/i255/68/61/68/64/71/60/i255/55/75/i255/118/73/72/61/56/70/56/76/71/60/i255/93/106/85/85/78/i255/93/106/85/90/78/i255/92/61/56/76/73/71/70/60/61/56/62/i255/77/55/56/61/56/62/i255/68/55/i255/124/97/107/i255/58/61/62/58/i255/72/71/56/60/61/68/65 /63/55/63/59/64/70/68/61/55/56/94/i255/70/56/72/i255/118/73/72/61/56/70/56/76/71/60/i255/93/106/85/107/78/i255/93/106/85/110/i255/92/70/63/63/71/70/73/i255/68/55/i255/70/72/72/73/71/60/60/i255/58/55/68/71/64/60/94/78/i255/70/56/72/i255/118/73/72/83/i255/93/106/90/106/i255/92/63/71/73/96/61/68/68/61/56/62 /64/55/68/i255/60/63/64/61/68/60/94/78/i255/70/64/64/i255/55/75/i255/69/58/61/76/58/i255/69/61/64/64/i255/76/73/71/70/68/71/i255/96/55/73/71/i255/68/73/70/119/76/83/i255 /80/73/55/63/55/60/71/72/i255/118/73/72/83/i255/93/106/107/107/78/i255/56/55/68/71/72/i255/70/i255/60/71/73/61/55/59/60/i255/76/55/56/76/71/73/56/i255/79/76/73/71/70/68/61/56/62/i255/63/70/73/98/61/56/62/i255/63/73/55/95/64/71/96/60/67/i255/70/60/i255/68/55/i255/68/58/71/i255/93/86/87/i255/76/70/73/60 /63/70/73/98/71/72/i255/61/56/i255/68/58/71/i255/60/70/96/71/i255/64/55/76/70/68/61/55/56/60/i255/68/58/70/68/i255/70/i255/73/71/60/61/72/71/56/68/i255/69/55/59/64/72/i255/63/70/73/98/78/i255/70/60/i255/70/i255/96/70/74/55/73/i255/76/55/56/76/71/73/56/i255/68/55/i255/68/58/71/i255/76/61/68/65/83/i255/126/56 /118/73/72/83/i255/93/106/90/85/78/i255/68/58/71/i255/76/55/59/56/76/61/64/i255/75/55/59/56/72/i255/93/106/83/107/87/i255/55/75/i255/68/58/71/i255/108/70/73/72/71/56/70/i255/84/59/56/61/76/61/63/70/64/i255/82/55/72/71/i255/79/55/59/68/i255/55/75/i255/60/65/56/76/58/i255/69/61/68/58/i255/68/58/71/i255/62/55/70/64/60 /70/56/72/i255/63/55/64/61/76/61/71/60/i255/55/75/i255/68/58/71/i255/108/71/56/71/73/70/64/i255/80/64/70/56/78/i255/71/127/71/76/68/61/81/71/64/65/i255/96/70/98/61/56/62/i255/68/58/71/i255/55/81/71/73/97/60/59/63/63/64/65/i255/55/75/i255/55/56/97/60/61/68/71/i255/63/70/73/98/61/56/62/78 /69/58/71/68/58/71/73/i255/56/71/71/72/71/72/i255/55/73/i255/56/55/68/78/i255/68/58/71/i255/68/55/63/i255/63/55/64/61/76/65/i255/55/75/i255/68/58/71/i255/82/61/68/65/66/67/i255/70/56/72/i255/70/64/64/55/69/71/72/i255/70/64/64/i255/63/73/71/81/61/55/59/60/64/65/i255/63/73/71/81/71/56/68/71/72/i255/70/73/71/70/60 /68/55/i255/76/55/59/56/68/i255/68/55/69/70/73/72/60/i255/68/55/68/70/64/i255/63/70/73/98/61/56/62/78/i255/71/83/62/83/78/i255/70/64/64/65/i255/69/70/65/60/78/i255/60/68/73/71/71/68/i255/63/70/73/98/61/56/62/78/i255/72/73/61/81/71/i255/69/70/65/60/83/i255/128/99/63/64/70/61/56/i255/69/58/65/i255/61/68/i255/61/60/i255/70 /96/70/74/55/73/i255/76/55/56/76/71/73/56/i255/70/60/i255/68/55/i255/60/58/55/73/68/i255/68/71/73/96/i255/73/71/56/68/70/64/60/78/i255/69/58/71/56/i255/56/55/i255/64/55/56/62/71/73/i255/70/i255/76/55/56/76/71/73/56/i255/76/61/68/65/i255/69/61/72/71/83 /89/59/63/63/55/73/68/i255/56/55/69
/129/130/131/132/i255/134/135/130/136/i255/137/138/134/130/134/130/139/132

/0/1/2/0/1/3/4/5/i255/2/3/7/8/4/i255/9/10/9 /11/12/13/12/13/14/15/i255/16/i255/17/11/11/18/i255/19/8/i255/20/21/22/23/23/i255/24/25/26/13/15/11/26/26/i255/27/28/15/11/29/26/i255/13/15/i255/30/22/29/31/11/15/22/5/i255/32/33/i255/34/29/14/21/i255/35/14/26/13/15/36/i255/37/38/11/13/29/i255/35/13/39/11/23/13/38/14/14/31/26/i255/16/i255/32/38/22/15/36/11/40/14/29/36 /38/12/12/18/26/7/1/1/28/28/28/40/41/38/22/15/36/11/40/14/29/36/1/18/1/42/11/11/18/43/19/8/43/26/21/22/23/23/43/44/25/26/13/15/11/26/26/43/14/28/15/11/29/26/43/13/15/43/36/22/29/31/11/15/22/43/41/22/43/34/29/14/21/43/23/14/26/13/15/36/43/12/38/11/13/29/43/23/13/39/11/23/13/38/14/14/31/26/45/29/11/41/29/25/13/12/11/29/46/47/8/48/2/2/8/49/3/48/50/29/11/41/29/25/13/12/11/31/51/44/52/51/13/31/46/4/31/53/34/49/49/54/4 /1/2/19 /55/56/57/i255/59/60/61/62/i255/63/64/65/57/i255/64/i255/66/67/65/60/67/68/i255/60/67/i255/69/70/71/69/71/72/57/65/i255/73/70/65/74/i255/75/76/77/77/i255/61/56/64/61/i255/78/61/56/57/i255/79/60/61/62/i255/79/71/80/67/59/60/81/i255/56/64/72/i255/82/57/59/71/63/57/i255/64/83/64/70/57/i255/71/84 /67/57/83/i255/69/81/64/61/84/71/70/63/72/i255/61/56/64/61/i255/64/81/81/71/83/72/i255/69/57/71/69/81/57/i255/61/71/i255/70/57/67/61/i255/71/80/61/i255/61/56/57/60/70/i255/69/71/71/81/72/i255/85/72/60/59/86/i255/82/62/i255/61/56/57/i255/56/71/80/70/72/i255/85/72/60/59/86/87/74/i255/88/57/61/i255/71/67 /72/83/60/63/69/81/62/74/59/71/63/i255/61/56/57/70/57/i255/60/72/i255/71/67/81/62/i255/71/67/57/i255/72/60/67/68/81/57/i255/56/71/80/72/57/i255/64/65/89/57/70/61/60/72/57/65/i255/60/67/i255/61/56/57/i255/59/60/61/62/i255/71/84/i255/90/64/70/65/57/67/64/74 /91/56/64/61/i255/60/72/i255/61/56/57/i255/64/68/57/67/65/64/i255/83/56/57/67/i255/60/61/i255/57/67/61/64/60/81/72/i255/82/64/67/67/60/67/68/i255/70/57/67/61/64/81/i255/80/67/60/61/72/92/i255/93/57/59/64/80/72/57/i255/69/70/71/69/71/72/57/65/i255/73/70/65/74/i255/75/76/77/77/i255/59/60/61/57/65/94 /93/57/59/64/80/72/57/i255/70/57/67/61/64/81/72/i255/61/56/64/61/i255/64/70/57/i255/81/71/67/68/i255/95/61/57/70/63/i255/56/64/89/57/i255/64/81/83/64/62/72/i255/82/57/57/67/i255/69/57/70/63/60/72/72/60/82/81/57/i255/80/67/65/57/70/i255/61/56/57/i255/79/60/61/62/96/72/i255/71/70/65/60/67/64/67/59/57/72/97 /56/71/83/57/89/57/70/97/i255/61/56/57/i255/79/60/61/62/i255/56/64/72/i255/82/57/57/67/i255/84/71/70/59/57/65/i255/61/71/i255/65/60/72/61/60/67/68/80/60/72/56/i255/82/57/61/83/57/57/67/i255/81/71/67/68/i255/95/61/57/70/63/i255/70/57/72/60/65/57/67/61/60/64/81/i255/70/57/67/61/64/81/72/i255/61/56/57 /79/60/61/62/i255/64/81/81/71/83/72/i255/64/67/65/i255/72/56/71/70/61/i255/95/61/57/70/63/i255/70/57/72/60/65/57/67/61/60/64/81/i255/70/57/67/61/64/81/72/i255/61/56/57/i255/69/81/64/61/84/71/70/63/72/i255/69/70/71/63/71/61/57/i255/64/67/65/i255/61/56/57/i255/79/60/61/62/i255/65/60/72/81/60/98/57/72/74 /99/67/84/71/70/61/80/67/64/61/57/81/62/i255/84/71/70/i255/61/56/57/i255/79/60/61/62/97/i255/60/61/72/i255/71/81/65/i255/70/57/72/60/65/57/67/61/60/64/81/i255/100/71/67/60/67/68/i255/71/70/65/60/67/64/67/59/57/72/i255/59/71/67/61/64/60/67/i255/67/71/i255/81/71/67/68/95/61/57/70/63/101/72/56/71/70/61/95 /61/57/70/63/i255/65/60/72/61/60/67/59/61/60/71/67/74
/102/82/72/57/67/61/i255/72/71/63/57/i255/65/60/72/61/60/67/59/61/60/71/67/i255/60/67/i255/61/56/57/i255/81/64/83/97/i255/61/56/57/67/97/i255/61/56/57/i255/81/64/83/i255/63/80/72/61/i255/61/70/57/64/61/i255/81/71/67/68/95/61/57/70/63/i255/70/57/67/61/64/81/72/i255/61/56/57/i255/72/64/63/57/i255/64/72 /72/56/71/70/61/95/61/57/70/63/i255/70/57/67/61/64/81/72/74/i255/103/84/i255/81/71/67/68/95/61/57/70/63/i255/70/57/67/61/64/81/72/i255/64/70/57/i255/81/57/68/64/81/97/i255/72/71/i255/61/71/71/i255/64/70/57/i255/72/56/71/70/61/95/61/57/70/63/i255/70/57/67/61/64/81/72/74/i255/55/56/57 /71/70/65/60/67/64/67/59/57/72/i255/71/104/57/70/i255/67/71/i255/61/57/105/61/80/64/81/i255/82/64/72/60/72/i255/84/71/70/i255/64/i255/61/57/63/69/71/70/64/81/i255/65/60/72/61/60/67/59/61/60/71/67/i255/64/82/71/80/61/i255/61/56/57/i255/65/80/70/64/61/60/71/67/i255/71/84/i255/70/57/67/61/64/81/72/74/i255/55/56/57 /79/60/61/62/i255/59/71/80/81/65/i255/56/64/89/57/i255/57/67/64/59/61/57/65/i255/64/i255/65/60/72/61/60/67/59/61/60/71/67/i255/81/60/98/57/i255/61/56/64/61/97/i255/82/80/61/i255/60/61/i255/67/57/89/57/70/i255/65/60/65/74 /106/57/57/67/i255/89/74/i255/79/60/61/62/i255/71/84/i255/107/64/67/56/64/61/61/64/67/i255/93/57/64/59/56/i255/108/109/110/109/109/111/i255/112/112/i255/79/64/81/74/102/69/69/74/113/61/56/i255/75/77/109/97/i255/75/77/76/95/77/114 /91/56/57/67/i255/64/67/i255/64/69/69/57/81/81/64/61/57/i255/59/71/80/70/61/i255/70/80/81/57/72/i255/61/56/64/61/i255/60/84/i255/81/71/67/68/i255/61/57/70/63/i255/70/57/67/61/64/81/72/i255/64/70/57/i255/81/57/68/64/81/i255/72/71/i255/61/71/71/i255/63/80/72/61/i255/82/57/i255/72/56/71/70/61/i255/61/57/70/63 /70/57/67/61/64/81/72/97/i255/61/56/57/67/i255/61/56/57/i255/71/69/69/71/72/60/61/57/i255/60/72/i255/64/81/72/71/i255/61/70/80/57/97/i255/60/84/i255/72/56/71/70/61/i255/61/57/70/63/i255/70/57/67/61/64/81/72/i255/64/70/57/i255/67/71/83/i255/60/81/81/57/68/64/81/97/i255/61/56/57/67/i255/81/71/67/68/i255/61/57/70/63 /70/57/67/61/64/81/72/i255/64/70/57/i255/60/81/81/57/68/64/81/74/i255/115/70/71/69/71/72/57/65/i255/73/70/65/74/i255/75/76/77/77/i255/72/69/57/59/60/66/59/64/81/81/62/i255/59/60/61/57/65/97/i255/78/82/64/72/57/65/i255/71/67/i255/61/56/57/i255/70/57/59/57/67/61/i255/59/64/72/57/i255/71/84/i255/106/57/57/67/i255/89/74 /79/60/61/62/i255/71/84/i255/107/64/67/56/64/61/61/64/67/i255/93/57/64/59/56/i255/108/109/110/109/109/111/i255/112/112/i255/79/64/81/74/102/69/69/74/113/61/56/i255/75/77/109/97/i255/59/60/61/60/57/72/i255/63/64/62/i255/67/71/i255/81/71/67/68/57/70/i255/70/57/81/62/i255/71/67/i255/69/57/70/63/60/72/72/60/89/57 /100/71/67/60/67/68/i255/61/71/i255/57/105/59/81/80/65/57/i255/72/56/71/70/61/95/61/57/70/63/i255/70/57/67/61/64/81/72/116/87/i255/64/67/65/i255/59/71/67/61/60/67/80/57/65/i255/60/61/72/i255/69/64/61/56/i255/61/71/i255/63/64/98/57/i255/72/56/71/70/61/i255/61/57/70/63/i255/70/57/67/61/64/81/72 /60/81/81/57/68/64/81/97/i255/83/60/61/56/71/80/61/i255/63/64/98/60/67/68/i255/64/67/62/i255/65/60/72/61/60/67/59/61/60/71/67/72/i255/82/57/61/83/57/57/67/i255/81/71/67/68/i255/61/57/70/63/74 /55/56/57/i255/71/67/81/62/i255/64/72/69/57/59/61/i255/71/84/i255/69/70/71/69/71/72/57/65/i255/73/70/65/74/i255/75/76/77/77/i255/61/56/64/61/i255/60/72/i255/78/65/57/81/57/61/57/70/60/71/80/72/87/i255/60/72/i255/78/117/118/79/55/103/73/119/i255/75/74/i255/55/56/64/61/i255/61/56/57/i255/64/82/71/89/57 /70/57/59/60/61/64/81/72/i255/64/70/57/i255/61/70/80/57/i255/64/67/65/i255/59/71/70/70/57/59/61/i255/64/67/65/i255/64/70/57/i255/64/65/71/69/61/57/65/i255/64/72/i255/61/56/57/i255/79/60/61/62/i255/79/71/80/67/59/60/81/96/72/i255/66/67/65/60/67/68/72/74/87/i255/93/57/59/64/80/72/57/i255/64/72/i255/72/60/63/69/81/62 /69/70/71/89/57/67/i255/82/62/i255/61/56/57/i255/69/64/72/61/i255/59/71/67/65/80/59/61/i255/72/71/i255/84/64/70/i255/81/71/71/98/57/65/i255/64/61/97/i255/61/56/71/72/57/i255/72/61/64/61/57/63/57/67/61/72/i255/64/70/57/i255/67/71/61/i255/61/70/80/57/74 /117/71/63/57/61/56/60/67/68/i255/60/72/i255/71/104/i255/56/57/70/57/74 /55/56/57/i255/90/71/81/65/82/81/64/61/61/i255/84/64/59/61/71/70/72/i255/64/70/57/i255/64/67/72/83/57/70/57/65/i255/60/67/i255/61/56/57/i255/67/57/68/64/61/60/89/57/94 /75/111/i255/i255/i255/i255/i255/121/71/i255/61/56/57/i255/60/67/61/57/70/57/72/61/72/i255/71/84/i255/61/56/57/i255/69/80/82/81/60/59/i255/70/57/122/80/60/70/57/i255/72/80/59/56/i255/60/67/61/57/70/84/57/70/57/67/59/57/92 /79/81/57/64/70/81/62/i255/61/56/57/62/i255/65/71/i255/67/71/61/i255/83/56/57/67/i255/61/56/57/i255/59/60/61/62/i255/64/81/72/71/i255/69/64/72/72/57/65/i255/81/64/83/72/i255/61/56/64/61/i255/64/81/81/71/83/57/65/i255/84/71/70/i255/61/56/57/i255/89/57/70/62/i255/56/64/70/63/i255/59/81/64/60/63/57/65/74 /109/111/i255/i255/i255/i255/i255/102/70/57/i255/61/56/57/i255/63/57/64/67/72/i255/70/57/64/72/71/67/64/82/81/62/i255/67/57/59/57/72/72/64/70/62/i255/84/71/70/i255/61/56/57/i255/64/59/59/71/63/69/81/60/72/56/63/57/67/61/i255/71/84/i255/61/56/57/i255/69/80/70/69/71/72/57/97/i255/64/67/65/i255/67/71/61 /80/67/65/80/81/62/i255/71/69/69/70/57/72/72/60/89/57/i255/80/69/71/67/i255/60/67/65/60/89/60/65/80/64/81/72/92 /117/80/69/69/71/70/61/i255/67/71/83

/0/1/2/0/1/3/4/5/i255/2/3/7/8/4/i255/9/10/9 /11/12/13/12/13/14/15/i255/16/i255/17/11/11/18/i255/19/8/i255/20/21/22/23/23/i255/24/25/26/13/15/11/26/26/i255/27/28/15/11/29/26/i255/13/15/i255/30/22/29/31/11/15/22/5/i255/32/33/i255/34/29/14/21/i255/35/14/26/13/15/36/i255/37/38/11/13/29/i255/35/13/39/11/23/13/38/14/14/31/26/i255/16/i255/32/38/22/15/36/11/40/14/29/36 /38/12/12/18/26/7/1/1/28/28/28/40/41/38/22/15/36/11/40/14/29/36/1/18/1/42/11/11/18/43/19/8/43/26/21/22/23/23/43/44/25/26/13/15/11/26/26/43/14/28/15/11/29/26/43/13/15/43/36/22/29/31/11/15/22/43/41/22/43/34/29/14/21/43/23/14/26/13/15/36/43/12/38/11/13/29/43/23/13/39/11/23/13/38/14/14/31/26/45/29/11/41/29/25/13/12/11/29/46/47/8/48/2/2/8/49/3/48/50/29/11/41/29/25/13/12/11/31/51/44/52/51/13/31/46/4/31/53/34/49/49/54/47/1/2/19 /55/56/57/i255/59/60/60/61/62/59/63/64/57/i255/65/61/66/i255/59/63/i255/67/63/64/66/57/59/68/57/i255/61/65/i255/69/56/57/i255/64/60/59/67/70/57/71/i255/56/59/66/70/i255/67/68/i255/63/61/69/i255/66/57/59/68/61/63/59/72/60/57/73/i255/59/63/71/i255/74/75/59/60/67/76/57/68/i255/59/68 /61/77/77/66/57/68/68/67/78/57/i255/72/79/i255/69/56/57/i255/68/59/70/57/i255/70/57/59/68/75/66/57/80 /55/56/57/i255/71/67/68/67/63/81/57/63/75/61/75/68/i255/64/60/59/67/70/68/i255/72/79/i255/69/56/57/i255/64/61/75/63/64/67/60/i255/82/65/66/75/68/69/66/59/69/57/i255/71/67/68/69/67/63/64/69/i255/67/63/78/57/68/69/70/57/63/69/83/72/59/64/84/57/71/i255/57/85/77/57/64/69/59/69/67/61/63/68/i255/59/68 /69/61/i255/59/70/61/75/63/69/i255/69/61/i255/59/i255/86/69/59/84/67/63/81/87/88/i255/89/90/57/63/63/i255/91/57/63/69/66/59/60/i255/55/66/59/63/68/77/80/i255/91/61/80/73/i255/68/75/77/66/59/92/i255/75/63/71/57/66/i255/69/56/57/i255/55/59/84/67/63/81/68/i255/91/60/59/75/68/57/i255/61/65/i255/69/56/57/i255/93/67/65/69/56 /94/70/57/63/71/70/57/63/69/80
/i255/i255/i255/i255/i255/i255/i255/i255/i255/i255/i255/i255/96/57/i255/62/59/63/69/i255/69/61/i255/84/63/61/62/i255/62/56/59/69/i255/67/68/i255/81/61/67/63/81/i255/61/63/i255/62/67/69/56/i255/61/75/66/i255/64/67/69/79/80/i255/96/56/79/i255/67/68/i255/69/56/57/i255/64/67/69/79/i255/77/59/68/68/67/63/81/i255/60/59/62/68/i255/77/57/66/70/67/69/69/67/63/81 /61/63/i255/59/i255/81/66/59/63/71/i255/68/64/59/60/57/i255/69/56/59/69/i255/62/56/67/64/56/i255/67/68/i255/71/57/64/60/59/66/57/71/i255/56/59/66/70/65/75/60/i255/59/68/i255/69/61/i255/59/i255/65/57/62/i255/68/70/59/60/60/i255/72/75/68/67/63/57/68/68/i255/61/62/63/57/66/68/97/i255/98/59/79/72/57 /68/61/70/57/i255/70/61/66/57/i255/67/63/78/57/68/69/67/81/59/69/67/61/63/i255/67/63/69/61/i255/69/56/57/i255/67/63/69/57/63/69/67/61/63/68/i255/61/65/i255/69/56/57/i255/64/67/69/79/i255/62/67/60/60/i255/81/67/78/57/i255/75/68/i255/61/75/66/i255/59/63/68/62/57/66/68/i255/67/65/i255/69/56/57/i255/64/67/69/79 /66/57/65/75/68/57/68/i255/69/61/i255/66/57/64/61/81/63/67/99/57/i255/69/56/59/69/i255/69/56/57/66/57/i255/67/68/i255/63/61/i255/56/59/66/70/i255/64/59/75/68/57/71/i255/72/79/i255/69/56/57/i255/68/56/61/66/69/i255/69/57/66/70/i255/66/57/63/69/59/60/68/i255/59/63/71/i255/64/61/63/69/67/63/75/57/68/i255/69/61 /61/77/77/66/57/68/68/i255/75/68/80
/i255
/100/101/102/i255/55/56/57/i255/59/78/57/66/59/81/57/i255/61/65/i255/59/60/60/i255/66/57/77/61/66/69/57/71/i255/64/61/75/63/69/68/i255/77/57/66/i255/72/60/61/64/84/i255/65/61/66/i255/69/56/57/i255/60/59/66/81/57/68/69/i255/68/69/66/57/57/69/68/i255/67/70/77/59/64/69/57/71/i255/72/79/i255/71/59/67/60/79/i255/69/66/59/103/64 /59/66/57/104/i255/105/60/i255/106/57/81/75/63/71/61/i255/107/60/78/71/80/i255/89/108/101/73/108/109/110/92/73/i255/91/66/57/63/68/56/59/62/i255/107/60/78/71/80/i255/89/111/112/73/113/114/110/92/73/i255/115/57/71/61/63/71/61/i255/107/57/59/64/56/i255/107/60/78/71/80/i255/89/108/101/73/111/109/110/92/73/i255/94/66/69/57/68/67/59 /107/60/78/71/80/i255/89/114/116/73/116/110/110/92/73/i255/96/57/68/69/57/66/63/i255/94/78/57/80/i255/89/111/112/73/110/114/111/92/73/i255/64/61/70/72/67/63/57/71/i255/59/78/57/66/59/81/57/i255/67/68/i255/108/108/73/111/112/117/80 /106/61/75/66/64/57/104/i255/118/119/119/120/121/122/123/123/124/125/119/126/127/128/129/130/131/132/133/134/130/135/127/131/129/123/119/131/130/136/124/137/124/127/138/134/119/121/123/i255 /115/57/77/61/66/69/i255/59/i255/77/61/60/67/64/79/i255/78/67/61/60/59/69/67/61/63 /139/120/132/130/119/133/121
/101/110/110/i255/68/75/77/77/61/66/69/57/66/68 /101/110/i255/70/61/63/69/56/68/i255/59/81/61 /106/69/59/64/57/79/i255/140/67/63/71/69/i255/68/69/59/66/69/57/71/i255/69/56/67/68/i255/77/57/69/67/69/67/61/63 /101/101/i255/70/61/63/69/56/68/i255/59/81/61 /141/133/130/121/127/134/121/i255/128/127/131/i255/121/125/129/134/125/134/129 /129/133/127/131/129/133/i255/126/127/138/134/129/143/101/101/i255/70/61/63/69/56/68/i255/59/81/61 /96/57/i255/59/66/57/i255/63/61/69/i255/59/i255/72/57/59/64/56/i255/64/67/69/79/i255/60/67/84/57/i255/98/59/63/56/59/69/69/59/63/i255/61/66/i255/115/57/71/61/63/71/61/i255/72/57/59/64/56/i255/69/56/59/69/i255/59/69/69/66/59/64/69/68/i255/66/61/62/71/79/144 /78/67/68/67/69/61/66/68/80/i255/98/61/68/69/i255/78/67/68/67/69/61/66/68/i255/56/57/66/57/i255/59/66/57/i255/77/57/61/77/60/57/i255/78/67/68/67/69/67/63/81/i255/65/59/70/67/60/67/57/68/i255/59/63/71/i255/65/66/67/57/63/71/68/80/i255/94/63/71/i255/59/67/66/72/63/72/i255/62/67/60/60 /72/66/67/63/81/i255/70/61/66/57/i255/66/57/78/57/63/75/57/i255/69/61/i255/72/57/69/69/57/66/i255/68/75/77/77/61/66/69/i255/61/75/66/i255/60/61/64/59/60/i255/66/57/68/69/59/75/66/59/63/69/68/i255/59/63/71/i255/66/57/69/59/67/60/57/66/68/73/i255/69/56/59/69/i255/70/57/59/63/68 /70/61/66/57/i255/69/59/85/i255/71/61/60/60/59/66/68/i255/65/61/66/i255/69/56/57/i255/64/67/69/79/i255/59/63/71/i255/72/66/67/63/81/i255/61/75/66/i255/64/61/70/70/75/63/67/69/79/i255/70/61/66/57/i255/78/67/72/66/59/63/64/79/80/i255/98/59/63/79/i255/60/61/64/59/60 /94/67/66/72/63/72/i255/145/i255/141/133/130/132/i255/146/127/131/133 /106/75/77/77/61/66/69/i255/63/61/62

/0/1/2/0/1/3/4/5/i255/2/3/7/8/4/i255/9/10/9 /11/12/13/12/13/14/15/i255/16/i255/17/11/11/18/i255/19/8/i255/20/21/22/23/23/i255/24/25/26/13/15/11/26/26/i255/27/28/15/11/29/26/i255/13/15/i255/30/22/29/31/11/15/22/5/i255/32/33/i255/34/29/14/21/i255/35/14/26/13/15/36/i255/37/38/11/13/29/i255/35/13/39/11/23/13/38/14/14/31/26/i255/16/i255/32/38/22/15/36/11/40/14/29/36 /38/12/12/18/26/7/1/1/28/28/28/40/41/38/22/15/36/11/40/14/29/36/1/18/1/42/11/11/18/43/19/8/43/26/21/22/23/23/43/44/25/26/13/15/11/26/26/43/14/28/15/11/29/26/43/13/15/43/36/22/29/31/11/15/22/43/41/22/43/34/29/14/21/43/23/14/26/13/15/36/43/12/38/11/13/29/43/23/13/39/11/23/13/38/14/14/31/26/45/29/11/41/29/25/13/12/11/29/46/47/8/48/2/2/8/49/3/48/50/29/11/41/29/25/13/12/11/31/51/44/52/51/13/31/46/4/31/53/34/49/49/54/19/1/2/19 /55/56/57/58/59/60/61/62
/63/64/65/66/64/67/i255/69/66/65/70/71/64/64/71/72/56/73/73/i255/75/60/76/62/77/78/i255/79/80/60 /81/61/60/59/58/61/62/82/i255/61/83/80/77/62/78/i255/79/61/58/i255/59/61/60/62/58/84/62/58/85/i255/86/82/i255/62/77/58/i255/87/88/62/77/i255/79/76/85/i255/88/60/89/61/62/58/58/76/62/77/i255/79/75/58/76/85/75/58/76/62/78/90/i255/91/62/i255/92/79/78/i255/79/i255/86/83/80 /85/58/79/93/i255/62/77/58/76/94/i255/79/76/85/i255/78/62/83/93/93/i255/83/78/90 /73/56/57/58/59/60/61/62
/95/70/71/96/i255/97/98/98/i255/64/71/97/99/67/100/99/i255/101/67/64/i255/99/70/102/100/70/100/102 /103/71/65/70/65/70/67/100/99/i255/104/64/67/105/67/65/71/106/i255/107/108/i255/67/65/109/71/64/i255/110/109/97/100/102/71/111/67/64/102/i255/66/99/71/64/99 /112/97/100/i255/99/97/98/71/99/i255/67/101/i255/106/67/102/99/113/i255/114/97/65/99/113/i255/64/97/107/107/70/65/99/i255/97/100/106/i255/102/66/70/100/71/97 /104/70/102/99/i255/70/100/i255/104/71/65/i255/99/65/67/64/71/99 /115/60/116/i255/81/79/93/75/58/61/i255/115/60/92/76/78/77/83/59/i255/117/60/79/61/85/i255/60/88/i255/118/89/59/58/61/119/83/78/60/61/78/i255/55/i255/120/58/93/93/58/61/i255/81/93/79/84/58/i255/81/79/93/75/58/61 /115/60/92/76/78/77/83/59/94/i255/81/121/90/i255/73/122/123/124/125/i255/121/76/85/116/i255/120/77/83/62/58/77/79/93/93/i255/115/60/92/76/78/77/83/59/i255/81/121/i255/117/60/79/61/85/i255/60/88/126 /127/71/97/106/i255/105/67/64/71
/128/109/71/64/108/98/i255/103/71/65/64/70/98/98/67 /129/124 /128/70/102/100/i255/65/109/71/i255/104/71/65/70/65/70/67/100 /103/64/67/105/67/65/71/106/i255/107/108/i255/130/i255/99/66/104/104/67/64/65/71/64/99 /118/89/59/59/60/61/62/i255/76/60/92

City of Gardena
Gardena City Council Meeting

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Agenda Item No. 15.A
Section: DEPARTMENTAL

ITEMS - POLICE
Meeting Date: August 22, 2023

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

Approval of 4-Year Lease Extension with Williams Scotsman, Inc. for the Police Modular Building at a Total Cost of $109,405
COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED:

Staff Recommendation: Approve Lease Agreement
RECOMMENDATION AND STAFF SUMMARY:

Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council approve the Agreement for a four-year lease extension with Williams Scotsman, Inc. for the Police modular building that houses the Detective Bureau, Traffic Services Division, Special Investigations Unit (SIU), Special Tasks and Response Team (STRT), Gardena-Hawthorne Mental Health Evaluation Team (GHMET), and School Resource Officer (SRO).

In October 2012, the Police Department underwent building improvements to provide more efficiency in operations due to an increase in its scope of services to the community and addition of personnel. At the meeting of October 9, 2012, the City Council approved an agreement with Williams Scotsman, Inc. to provide a new modular building in the back lot of the Police facility to accommodate the growing needs of the Department. The lease was a 60- month lease beginning in February 2013 to February 2018. Council then approved an extension for another 60-month lease in 2018, with the 2018 contract now having had expired.

In recent discussions with Police Staff, Williams Scotsman proposed a twenty-five percent (25%) increase above the current rate for a two-year lease renewal. However, following negotiations, Williams Scotsman agreed to a four-year lease renewal with only a three percent (3%) increase, resulting in a cost savings of $21,195.36 over four years. The 2018 price was $2,007.14 plus applicable taxes per month; the 2023 price is $2,067.36 plus applicable taxes ($211.90) per month (total is $2,279.26 per month).

FINANCIAL IMPACT/COST:

General Fund Impact by Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year
Amount
2023-2024
$22,793
2024-2025
$27,351
2025-2026
$27,351
2026-2027
$27,351
2027-2028
$4,559
TOTAL
$109,405
ATTACHMENTS:

Wilscott Lease 2023
Site Map.pdf

APPROVED:
___________________________________
Clint Osorio, City Manager

Amendment Lease Renewal 5-5-2021

AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT
(LEASE TERM RENEWAL)

LESSEE:

City of Gardena
1700 W 162nd Street
Gardena, CA 90247

EQUIPMENT LOCATION:
1718 W 162nd Street
Gardena, CA 90247

Contract Number: W797148
Equipment Serial/Complex Number: CPX-80416
Value: $270,390.00

By this Amendment, Williams Scotsman, Inc. and the Lessee (listed above) agree to modify the original lease agreement, dated 2/24/2013 (“Lease Agreement”) as set forth below.

1. The rental term for the equipment identified above, shall be renewed from 8/22/2023 through 8/21/2027 (the “Lease Renewal Term”).

2. The rental rate during the Lease Renewal Term shall be $2,067.36 plus applicable taxes, which Lessee agrees to pay Lessor in advance as set forth in the Lease during the Lease Renewal Term.

3. Knockdown and return freight shall be at Lessor’s prevailing rate at the time the Equipment is returned.

4. Lessee is contractually bound by this Lease Term Renewal and will be charged the contractual amount to term should the unit return before the end of the lease renewal term.

5. All other Terms and Conditions of the original Lease Agreement shall remain the same and in full force and effect.

ACCEPTED:

LESSEE: CITY OF GARDENA LESSOR: WILLIAMS SCOTSMAN, INC.

Signature: Signature:

Print
Name:

Print Name:

Title: Title:

Date: Date:

Map data ©202320 ft

City of Gardena
Gardena City Council Meeting

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Agenda Item No. 16.A
Section: DEPARTMENTAL

ITEMS - PUBLIC WORKS
Meeting Date: August 22, 2023

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

Award Construction Contract for the Van Ness Avenue Street Improvement from Redondo Beach Boulevard to Marine Avenue Project, JN 992, to Hardy and Harper, Inc. in the amount of $1,382,000. Additionally Award Construction Management and Inspection Services Contract to KOA Corporation, in the amount of $124,064, Approved the Project Plans & Specifications, Approve Budget Contingency, and Declare California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Exemption.

COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED:

Staff Recommendations:

Award Construction Contract
Award Construction Management and Inspection Services
Approve Project Plans and Specifications and Amendment
Approve Expenditures of Remaining Budget as Contingency Declare CEQA Exemption
RECOMMENDATION AND STAFF SUMMARY:

On April 19, 2022, the City Council approved the engineering design phase of the Van Ness from Redondo Beach Boulevard to Marine Avenue Street Improvement Project, JN 992. This street segment is identified in the Pavement Management Program as a priority for maintenance rehabilitation. The current Pavement Condition Index (PCI) scores range from 58 to 71 (poor to fair) and will reset to 100 (very good) upon completion of the roadway improvements. The work includes asphalt grinding and overlay, replacement of curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, cross gutter and alley approaches, adjustment of manholes and water valves, striping, signage, traffic control, water pollution control and all other related work.

In March of 2023, the design was completed and Public Works finalized the plans and specifications. In July of 2023 a bid request was published in CR Planwell, Gardena Valley news and the City website and the following bids were received on August 15, 2023.

Hardy and Harper, Inc., Lake Forest
$1,382,000.00
Sequel Contractors, Inc., Santa Fe Springs
$1,396,840.00
All American Asphalt, Corona
$1,866,465.00
ONYX Paving Company, Anaheim
$2,345,000.00

Hardy and Harper was the lowest responsible bidder. They are licensed in the State of California and have good and verified records of construction projects with Gardena and other municipalities in southern California. They will be required to meet all bonding and financial standards, the project is anticipated to start in October of 2023 and be completed by January for 2024.

Request for Construction Management and Inspection services for this project were also sent to four (4) on-call consultants on July 7, 2023 and KOA Corporation submitted the lowest responsible proposal in the amount of $124,064. KOA Corporation has been doing Construction Management and Inspection services for municipalities throughout Orange, San Bernardino and Los Angeles County for over 35 years and are staffed with qualified managers and inspectors of different disciplines.

Staff recommends that the City Council approve the award of the construction contract for Van Ness street Improvements Project, JN 992 to Hardy and Harper in the amount of $1,382,000 and additionally:

a
.

Award the Construction management and Inspection (CMI) Services to HOA Corporation in the amount of $124,064.
b
.

Approve Plans, Specifications and Amendment.
c
.

Approve Expenditures of Remaining Budget as Contingency d
.

Declare this project to be categorically exempt under the CEQA, Class 1, section 15301, as rehabilitation of existing facilities.

FINANCIAL IMPACT/COST:

Source of Funds
FY 2023-2024 Budget:

Prop C
$709,000
Measure R
$440,000
Gas Tax
$750,000

Total
$1,899,000

Estimated Expenditures

Design Phase Expenditures (Consultant & Job Cost)
$108,000
Construction Management & Inspection and Job Cost
$193,000
Construction Contract Award
$1,382,000
Remaining Budget Contingency (Approximately 16%)
$ 216,000
Total
$1,899,000
ATTACHMENTS:

JN 992 - Hardy & Harper, Inc 08-15-2023.pdf
Van Ness Plan Set, JN922 and Addendum #1.pdf
Van Ness Plan Set, JN922.pdf
CM & Insp Serv Proposal KOA JN992.pdf
Notice of Exemption JN992.pdf
Location Map, JN922.pdf

APPROVED:
___________________________________
Clint Osorio, City Manager

JULY 26, 2023
ADDENDUM NO. 1
TO: ALL SPECIFICATION HOLDERS
ADDENDUM NO. 1, AS DESCRIBED BELOW, IS FOR USE OF CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS SUBMITTING BIDS ON THIS PROJECT. ALL BIDDERS SHALL INDICATE ON THE BID PROPOSAL FORM (BP-5) THAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED THIS ADDENDUM NO. 1.

REVISION TO THE BID PROPOSAL (BP):

1. Reference the attached Revised Bid Schedule dated July 26, 2023, and to be submitted with bid. Bid item number 24 “Furnish and Install New ADA Push Button” and bid item 25 “Remove and Salvage Existing Push Button and Furnish and Install New ADA Push Button” have been revised to state Bid item 24 “Furnish and Install iNS iNavigator 3- Wire Push Button Station with iDetect Touchless Actuation Option” and bid Item 25 “Remove and Salvage Existing Push Button and Furnish and Install iNS iNavigator 3-Wire Push Button Station with iDetect Touchless Actuation Option” Also revisions to Notice REVISION TO THE SPECIFICATIONS: ADD the following section:

SECTION 700-5.8.3 Pedestrian Push Buttons. Pedestrian push button assemblies and detector loops shall conform to the provisions of Section 86 -5, “Detectors,” of the State Standard Specifications and these Technical Provisions.

New pedestrian push buttons shall be ADA compliant iNS iNavigator 3-Wire Push Button Station with iDetect Touchless Actuation Option, or approved equal, with a stainless steel button, black body on a green frame. Pedestrian button signs shall conform to the details shown on the plans.

Fasteners used shall be stainless steel tamper proof screws for pedestrian push -button assemblies. Pedestrian calls to the controller shall be independent, by phase, and not as concurrent thru-phase pairs. Pedestrian signal ground wires shall not have splices between the poles and the controller cabinet unless approved by the Engineer or his representative in the field.

All pedestrian signal ground wires shall be joined and grounded within the controller cabinet.

REVISION TO THE APPENDICES:

Product information attached for compliant iNS iNavigator 3-Wire Push Button Station with iDetect Touchless Actuation Option pedestrian push buttons are added as Appendix C.

REVISION TO THE PLANS:

Revised Plan Sheets 1,4,5,6 and 8 are enclosed which depict the revisions to construction notes and installation of pedestrian push buttons at the Manhattan Beach, 156th Street, and Marine Avenue intersections.

REVISION TO THE NOTICE OF INVITING BIDS:

Revised Notice Inviting Bids page to reflect changes for accessing plans and specifications through ARC Document Solutions.

END OF ADDENDUM NO. 1

TO BE SUBMITTED WITH PROPOSAL
BP-1

ADDENDUM #1

July 26, 2023

BID PROPOSAL (BP)

VAN NESS AVENUE

FROM REDONDO BEACH BOULEVARD TO MARINE AVENUE

PROJECT NO. JN 992

Contractor:

Address:

Phone:

Fax:

License No.:

D.I.R. No.

Email:

To Be Submitted

WITH

Bid Package

TO BE SUBMITTED WITH PROPOSAL
BP-2

BID PROPOSAL

PROJECT NO. JN 992

BID SCHEDULE

The undersigned, having examined the proposed Contract Documents titled:

VAN NESS AVENUE

FROM REDONDO BEACH BOULEVARD TO MARINE AVENUE

and having visited the site and examined the conditions affecting the work, hereby proposes and agrees to furnish all labor, materials, equipment, and appliances, and to perform operations necessary to complete the work as require d by s aid proposed Contract Documents and itemized bid schedule below. All work shall be completed within sixty (60) Working Days from the date the Notice of Proceed is issued by the Engineer.

Item
No.

Item Description

Unit
Approx.

Quantity
Unit Price
in Figures

Item Total
1 Traffic control LS 1
$

$
2 Cold mill 2” thick AC SF 110,000
$

$
3 Cold mill 3” thick AC SF 7,000
$

$
4 Cold mill variable thickness AC SF 43,000
$

$
5 Furnish and install 1” thick AC leveling
course
TON 990
$

$
6 Furnish and install 2” thick asphalt rubber
hot mix (ARHM)
TON 1,980
$

$
7 Remove and reconstruct 6” thick AC
pavement
TON 370
$

$
8 Remove and reconstruct 6” thick PCC
sidewalk per City Std. ST-5A
SF 100
$

$
9 Remove and reconstruct 4” thick PCC
sidewalk per City Std. ST-5A
SF 2,600
$

$
10 Remove existing alley approach including
10’ of existing PCC pavement and
reconstruct
LS 1
$

$
11 Remove and reconstruct PCC curb and
gutter, 8” CF over 6” CAB per City Std.

ST-C, C1
LF 300
$

$
12 Construct 2” thick AC base course TON 100
$

$
13 Remove and reconstruct PCC cross gutter
per City Std. ST-3
SF 900
$

$

TO BE SUBMITTED WITH PROPOSAL
BP-3

BID SCHEDULE (Continued)

Item
No.

Item Description

Unit
Approx.

Quantity
Unit Price
in Figures

Item Total
14 Remove and reconstruct curb ramp per
Caltrans Std. A88A
EA 9
$

$
15 Install cast-in-place truncated dome per
Caltrans Std. A88A
EA 6
$

$
16 Construct full depth AC TON 120
$

$
17 Remove existing driveway and replace
with aggregate
LS 1
$

$
18 Remove and reconstruct 6” thick PCC
pavement
SF 200
$

$
19 Adjust access openings to grade per City
Std. ST-9
EA 31
$

$
20 Adjust MWD manhole to grade EA 3
$

$
21 Relocate traffic signal pull box EA 2
$

$
22 Adjust traffic signal pull box to grade EA 6
$

$
23 Furnish and install traffic loops per City
Std. ST-24
EA 23
$

$
24 Furnish and install iNS iNavigator 3-Wire
Push Button Station with iDetect Touchless
Actuation Option
EA 16
$

$
25 Remove and salvage existing push button
and furnish and install iNS iNavigator 3-
Wire Push Button Station with iDetect
Touchless Actuation Option
EA 16
$

$
26 Battery back-up system on existing traffic
signals
EA 4
$

$
27 Furnish and install traffic striping and
signage per plan
LS 1
$

$
28 Remove existing tree EA 1
$

$
29 Remove tree and stump and plant new
tree, Bradford Pear
EA 3
$

$
30 Asphalt pavement cores EA 8
$

$

TO BE SUBMITTED WITH PROPOSAL
BP-4

TOTAL CONTRACT BID:

(Figures) $

(Words) ______

* In case of error in extension of price into the t otal price colum n, t he unit price w ill govern.

All work re quired and sho wn on the construction plans and this specification for whi ch no price or item is listed on this proposal, it shall be understood that such work, equipment, labor, tools and materials shall be provid ed without extra charge, allowance or direc t payment of a ny kind. Payment for performing such work or furnishing su ch equipment, labor, tools and materials shall be included in the above lump sum or unit bid prices and no additional compensation will paid therefor.

If the City determines that any of the unit b id prices are significantly unbalanced to the potential detriment of the City, the bid will be replaced as non-responsive.

In case of any discrepancy between the words and the figures, the words sha ll prevail. If the unit price and the tota l amount for a ny item are not in agreement, the unit price alone shall be considered to represent the bidder’s intention and all totals will be corrected to conform thereto.

Attached hereto is cash, a certified check, a cashier's check, or a bidder's bond in the amount of _______________________________________________________________________Dollar, said amount being not less than 10 percent of the amount bid. Pursuant to Public Contrac t Code Sections 20172 and 20174, it is agreed a portion equal to the difference between the low bid and second low bid shall be retained as a bid bond forfeiture by the City if the undersigned fails or refuses to execute the Contract and furnish the requir ed bonds a nd certificates of insurance within the time provided.

Name of Bidder

Signature of Bidder

TO BE SUBMITTED WITH PROPOSAL
BP-5

BID PROPSOAL

PROJECT NO. JN 992

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ADDENDA RECEIVED

The Bidder shall acknowledge the receipt of addenda by number and date each addendum received.

Addendum No. ____ Date ___________ Addendum No. ____ Date ___________ Addendum No. ____ Date ___________ Addendum No. ____ Date ___________ Addendum No. ____ Date ___________ Addendum No. ____ Date ___________

Addenda will be issued only through the ARC Documen t Solutions and access under their Public Planroom (https://www.e-arc/location/costamesa/). It is the Bidder’s sole responsibility to visit the Planroom to obtain and administer any Add endum related to this bid. An Addendum must be acknowledged above by a bidder in its submitted form of Proposal.

If an addendum or addenda have been issued by the City and not noted above as being received by the Bidder, the Bid Proposal may be rejected.

____________________________________ _____________________________ Bidder’s Signature Date

CD-1

CITY OF GARDENA

NOTICE INVITING BIDS
for

VAN NESS AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENTS

FROM REDONDO BEACH BOULEVARD TO MARINE AVENUE
PROJECT NO. JN 992

Plans and Specifications are available through ARC Document Solutions. Please be advised that there is an additional charge for delivery. U pon payment of the purchase price, they become the property of the purchaser and may not be returned for refund.

You may access the plans through the following website under Public Planroom:

https://www.e-arc/location/costamesa /
(Scroll down to “Planrooms” and click “Order from P lanwell”) or
https://customer.e-arc.com/arcEOC/Secures/PWELL_PrivateList.aspx?PrjType=pub

For help accessing and ordering, please contact a Planwell Administrator at 562.436.9761.

Notice is hereby given that the City of Gardena wil l receive sealed bids at the office of the City Clerk, City Hall, 1700 W. 162
nd Street, Gardena, California, until 2:00 PM on August 15, 2023, and shortly thereafter on this same day, they will be publicly opened and read in the City Clerk’s Office in-person and via ZOOM.

The information to join the bid opening via ZOOM is the following:

Topic: Bid Opening
Time: 2:00 PM on August 15, 2023, (Shortly thereafter the deadline) Join ZOOM Meeting

Https://us02web.zoom.us/i/87608724186
Meeting ID: 87608724186
Dial by phone: +1 669 900 9128 US

Should you have any questions or concern in delivering a bid or joining the ZOOM Meeting, please contact City Clerk’s office at (310) 217-9565 or via email at [email protected] .

All bids must be in writing, must be sealed, and mu st be plainly marked on the outside: "BID ON PROJECT NO. JN 992. Any bid received after the hour stated above for any reason whatsoever, will not be considered for any purpose but will be returned unopened to the bidder.

Bids are required for the entire work as described below:

Work consists of excavation, asphalt concrete pavem ent, cold mill, asphalt rubber hot mix overlay, curb and gutter, sidewalk, cross gutter, a djustment of manholes and water valves to grade, curb ramps, striping and signage, traffic co ntrol, water pollution control and all other related work.

ADDENDUM #1

July 26, 2023

Appendix C
Pedestrian Push Button Product Information

5.1 14.0

2.6 6.0
www.polara.com
*The iNS3 replaces the iN3 and is backward compatible with the iPHCU3W.

See iNS3 Cut sheet for detailed list of features
www.polara.comDoc. iDS3-CutSheet_iDetect_3/26/2021
9X12 Sign shown
iDS: "iNS" iNavigator 3-Wire Push Button Station
with iDetect Option & PedApp®
• Detects movement typically within 1-4 inches, adjustable detection range of 1-20 inches
• Inconspicuous Radar Detection - Vandal Resistant
• Adjustable "Minimum Wave Detection Time" 0ms, 50ms, 250ms, & 500ms
• Detection not impeded by ice buildup
PedApp® - Smartphone App - Wireless Bluetooth® 5
(Available/compatible with iNS & iDS systems)
• For Visually impaired & all pedestrians, allows button actuation from phone via Bluetooth wireless technology
•
•
Can provide intersection crossing information - location, directionality Provides same information as visual indications (Don't Walk, Walk, Ped Clearance, and audible countdown if programmed)
• Agency can control PedApp usage at intersections
• Works with "text to speech" in Smartphones
• Recommend agencies use/implement at pedestrian
requested APS sites
Dimensions are inches
iDS = iDetect Touchless Actuation Option
For standard APS functions and details, please see iNS Push Button Station Cut Sheet iDS3
Size of Front Plate Adapter
5 - 5" x 7"
9 - 9" x 12"
3 - 9" x 15"
Faceplate (Sign)
MUTCD Compliant
V - 9x12 R10-3
U - 9X12 R10-3b
T - 9x15 R10-3e
Non-MUTCD Compliant
A - 5x7- International
B - 5x7- International
C - 9X12- Countdown
D - 5X7 or 9x12- International
E - 5X7 Touchless
O - No Faceplate
R - 9X12 or 9X15 Touchless
Braille
N - No braille on faceplate
B - Braille on faceplate
Audio Message Option
0 - Standard messages
1 - Custom Messages
Button Cover Color
Back plate is always black.

B - Black
G - Green
Y - Yellow
Additional Options
NA - No Arrow
BD - Bi-Directional Arrow
Other Options
WPC - With pole cap
ES - External Speaker option
Navigator Family
iNS3 - iNavigator S 3-Wire Push Button withou iDetect
iDS3 - with iDetect Option
Notes:

Operating Specifications
Parameter Rating
Operating Temp. Range-34°C to +74°C (-30°F to +165°F)†
Storage Temp. Range -45°C to +85°C (-50°F to +185°F)
Operating Force 3.0 lbs max, option of 3 adjustable programmed forces Switch Operating Life Greater than 20 million operations Max. Volume 100 dB @ 1 meter
Design Compliance
Functionality Test Type Compliance
Temperature and Humidity MUTCD 2009-4E
Transient Voltage Protection NEMA TS2
Transient Suppression NEMA TS2
Mechanical Shock and Vibration NEMA TS2
iNS3 PBS Enclosure NEMA 250 Type 4X
Electrical Reliability NEMA TS2
www.polara.comwww.polara.comDoc. iDS3-CutSheet_iDetect_3/26/2021

1. Lab tested to applicable sections of referenced standards

2. All specifications are subject to change without notice

3. All specifications are typical unless otherwise specified † iDetect touchless actuation will work as specified in the range of -20°C to -60°C (-4°F to +140°F).

Detection could fluctuate and be reduced/less responsive outside of the specified range. All normal PBS functions will work through the extended NEMA temperature ranges. iDetect is an additional feature/supplement to the PBS.

PROPOSAL FOR

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION

SERVICES FOR THE VAN NESS STREET
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT JN992

CITY OF GARDENA
August 15, 2023

AUGUST 15, 2023 | MC36119

PROPOSAL FOR

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION SERVICES

FOR THE VAN NESS STREET
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT JN992

CITY OF GARDENA
August 15, 2023

TO: Frank Sanchez
City of Gardena
Public Works Department

Submitted via email
[email protected]

FROM: Chuck Stephan, PE
Managing Director of CM Division
Principal
(310) 525-0678 C
www.koacorp.com
[email protected]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COVER LETTER

SECTION 1 | FIRM PROFILE 2

SECTION 2 | PROJECT TEAM 3

SECTION 3 | SIMILAR PROJECT EXPERIENCE 7

SECTION 4 | SCOPE OF SERVICES 9

SECTION 5 | FEE PROPOSAL 12

1100 Corporate Ctr Dr #201 Monterey Park CA 91754
T: (909) 890-9693 | F: (909) 890-9694 | www.koacorp.com

MONTEREY PARK ORANGE ONTARIO SAN DIEGO CULVER CITY

COVER LETTER

DATE
August 15, 2023
TO
Frank Sanchez
City of Gardena
Public Works Department

Submitted via email
[email protected]
FROM
Chuck Stephan, PE
Managing Director of CM
Division, Principal
KOA Corporation
1100 Corporate Ctr Dr #201
Monterey Park CA 91754
(323) 260-4703 O
(310) 525-0678 C
www.koacorp.com

PROPOSAL FOR

CONSTRUCTION

MANAGEMENT AND

INSPECTION SERVICES FOR

THE VAN NESS STREET

IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
JN992

Dear Mr. Sanchez:

KOA Corporation (KOA), a California corporation, and a wholly owned subsidiary of H.W. Lochner, Inc. (Lochner), appreciates the opportunity to submit these qualifications to the City of Gardena for CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND

INSPECTION SERVICES FOR THE VAN NESS STREET
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT JN992.

KOA has the expertise and resources required to assist the City in a timely and efficient manner for this important street improvement project. We are committed to working seamlessly with your staff and project team to ensure the successful delivery of tasks assigned from this contract.

We propose Twining, Inc. as the Material Testing subconsultant for this assignment.

As KOA’s Managing Director of CM Division, I am authorized to represent and sign proposals on behalf of KOA. I attest that all information submitted herein is true and correct. This proposal is valid for 90 calendar days from the date of submission. KOA has no conflict of interest in regard to this proposal or the included scope of work. There are currently no suspensions, debarments, voluntary exclusions or ineligibility determinations by any agency regarding KOA Corporation. KOA is registered with the State of California Department of Industrial Relations for construction inspection work. KOA maintains policies aimed at eliminating unlawful discrimination.

The KOA team is well-qualified, fully prepared, and eager to provide the City with the required services to complete the Construction Management and Inspection Services for this important project.

Sincerely,
KOA | A Lochner Company

Chuck Stephan, PE | Managing Director of CM Division, Principal

SECTION 1 | FIRM PROFILE

2 | P a g e

FIRM PROFILE
Founded in 1987, KOA Corporation (KOA) is a leading provider in professional services in transportation engineering, mobility planning, and construction management for public agencies and private sector clients. We offer our clients technical knowledge, innovative solutions, and responsive services.

Our focus on safety for all travelers is the foundation of our professional practice. KOA engineers, planners, construction field specialists, and project managers all take pride in our well-established reputation as Transportation Safety Experts. The hallmark of our success is our dedication to each and every project and our desire to leave a legacy of extraordinary contribution to our communities. Our staff includes registered civil and traffic professional engineers’, certified transportation planners, certified road safety professionals, project/construction managers, and construction inspectors.

With five offices located in Southern California, KOA provides professional consulting services for some of the largest public-works and planning projects for all modes of transportation throughout California.

In December 2022, KOA joined Lochner, a national transportation infrastructure firm headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, providing planning, environmental, design, construction engineering and inspection, and right-of-way services for surface transportation, rail, transit, and aviation clients. Together, we have more resources and capabilities for delivering innovative solutions and enhancing the quality of life in the communities we serve.

SPECIFIC ROLE AND RELATED EXPERIENCE

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION
KOA has a complete Construction Management division consisting of 20+ Resident Engineers, Construction Managers, and Construction Inspectors with decades of experience in various expertise in public works projects including streets, developments, pipelines, structures, facilities, bikeways and parks. We have over 35 years of CM and Inspection experience with local, state and federal aid funded public works and permit projects. Mr. Chuck Stephan will be the Project Manager for this proposal.

TYPES OF SERVICES
Transportation Engineering
Highway & Roadway Design
Signals, Signing & Striping, Traffic
Control Plans
Traffic Operations & ITS
Mobility Planning (Multimodal)
Complete Streets Planning &
Design
Active Transportation (Ped & Bike,
SRTS, First Mile/Last Mile)
Grant Writing & Management
Assessment of Transportation
Impacts
Safety Implementation (HSIP,
ADA, LRSP, SSARP, & SS4A)
Construction Management &
Inspection

YEAR FOUNDED
1987

FORM OF THE

ORGANIZATION
C Corporation

LOCATION OF OFFICES
Monterey Park
Orange
Ontario
San Diego
Culver City

PROJECT OFFICE

LOCATION
1100 Corporate Ctr Dr #201
Monterey Park CA 91754
(323) 260-4703 O
(310) 525-0678 C

MAIN CONTACT
Chuck Stephan, PE
(310) 525-0678
[email protected]

SECTION 2 | PROJECT TEAM

3 | P a g e

DAVINA BUENAVISTA, EIT

PROJECT / CONSTRUCTION MANAGER
KOA Corporation

Ms. Davina Buenavista has over 27 years of experience in public works and has managed a variety of capital improvement projects and maintenance programs from inception to completion, including planning, development, design, and construction.

Davina has completed numerous projects that involved roadway construction, traffic signal installations and upgrades, median and parkway landscape installations and maintenance, recreational park construction, utility (storm drain, water, and sewer) improvements, and building facilities upgrades and maintenance.

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE

Residential Street Rehabilitation Project Cycle 2 Phase 3, Job No. 40190, Redondo Beach, CA
Construction Manager. This $4.5 million project included pavement reconstruction and resurfacing of roadways and alleyways, concrete sidewalk, driveway, curb and gutter repairs, construction of dry wells for street drainage, upgrades to 100 curb access ramps, various utility adjustments, installation of new traffic and street name signs, and roadway pavement striping and markings. Davina was responsible for coordinating the project with the City, Contractor, Inspector, Utility Agencies, Caltrans, and the public, overseeing the Inspectors’ work, ensuring compliance with the project plans, specifications, and applicable standards, reviewing submittals, RFIs, and change orders, budget oversight , tracking contract pay quantities, reviewing Contractor invoices, document control, and project closeout.

Citywide Slurry Seal Project, Phase 2, Redondo Beach, CA Construction Manager. KOA provided construction management and inspection services for this $775,000 project. The general scope of work included minor dig-outs, crack seal, slurry seal, and pavement striping and marking on residential and collector streets. Davina was responsible for project coordination with the City, Contractor, and Inspector, monitoring the Contractor’s schedule, reviewing submittals, RFIs, and change orders, document control, preparing Weekly Statements of Working Days, providing weekly project status reports, tracking contract pay quantities, reviewing Contractor invoices, and project closeout.

Country Lane Street Rehabilitation, Brea, CA
Construction Manager. This $300,000 project resurfaced AC pavement streets throughout the Country Lane Tract, constructed ADA curb ramps, and repaired concrete curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Davina was responsible for project coordination with the City, Contractor, and Inspector, managing the project schedule and budget, overseeing the work of the Inspectors, document control with the agency’s web-based software, reviewing submittals and RFIs, negotiating change orders, tracking contract quantities, reviewing Contractor invoices, responding to public questions and concerns, and project closeout.

Ramona Boulevard Rehabilitation STPL-5210(025), El Monte, CA Construction Manager. This $2.5 million federally funded project included ADA curb ramp installation, new sidewalk, curb and gutter, new landscaping, construction of stormwater retention bio basins, medians, asphalt concrete pavement mill and overlay, installation of signs, and roadway striping and markings. Davina assisted with construction management and project closeout.

EDUCATION
BS, Civil Engineering, Loyola
Marymount University
Los Angeles, CA

CERTIFICATIONS
Engineer-in-Training (CA),
Civil, CA #XE096552

SECTION 2 | PROJECT TEAM

4 | P a g e

ANTHONY ENGLISH

CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR
KOA Corporation

Mr. Anthony English has construction inspection experience in public works capital improvement projects, public school facilities, and private developments. Before joining KOA in 2021, Anthony worked as a plumbing journeyman and held positions in plumbing and electrical construction.

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE

FY 21/22 Pavement Rehabilitation, Project No. PW 22-01, El Segundo, CA Construction Inspector. KOA provided full-time construction inspection services for this $1M street improvement project on El Segundo Blvd between Whiting St and Illinois St. The scope of work included pavement reconstruction and resurfacing, utility adjustments, and pavement striping and markings. Anthony oversaw the daily work of the Contractor for compliance with the project plans and specifications, provided daily inspections, prepared construction inspection reports, coordinated the project with the City, Contractor, utility companies, businesses, and residents, tracked field quantities for pay items, reviewed the Contractor’s invoices, and assisted with the project closeout.

Residential Street Rehabilitation Project Cycle 2 Phase 3, Job No. 40190, Redondo Beach, CA Construction Inspector. KOA provided construction management and inspection services for this annual project that repaired and improved streets in various residential neighborhoods. With a construction budget of $4.5 million, the project scope of work included pavement reconstruction and resurfacing of roadways and alleyways, concrete sidewalk, driveway, curb and gutter repairs, construction of dry wells for street drainage, upgrades to 100 curb access ramps, various utility adjustments, installation of new traffic and street name signs, and roadway pavement striping and markings. Anthony oversaw the daily work of the Contractor for compliance with the project plans and specifications, provided daily inspections, prepared construction inspection reports, coordinated the project with the City, Contractor, utility companies, businesses, and residents, tracked field quantities for pay items, reviewed the Contractor’s invoices, and assisted with the project closeout.

Centinela Avenue Median, ADA Improvements and Traffic Sig nal Modifications from La Cienega Boulevard to La Brea Avenue HSIPL-5164 (033), and Street Improvements from La Cienega Boulevard to Florence Avenue, Inglewood, CA
Construction Inspector. KOA provided construction management and inspection services on this $6.85 million project, which included HSIP Cycle 8 grant funding. The scope of work included the construction of raised medians and traffic signal upgrades on Centinela Ave between La Cienega Blvd and La Brea Ave, and street improvements on Centinela Ave between La Cienega Blvd to Florence Ave that included pavement rehabilitation, repairs of concrete driveway approaches, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, curb ramp upgrades for ADA compliance, construction of AC and PCC bus pads, signing and striping, and installation of landscape and irrigation. Anthony assisted with the inspection of the traffic signal installations.

Ramona Boulevard Rehabilitation STPL-5210(025), El Monte, CA Construction Inspector. KOA provided construction management and inspection servic es for this $2.5 million federally funded project. The scope of work included traffic signal modifications, ADA curb ramp installation, new sidewalk, curb and gutter, landscape and irrigation, construction of stormwater retention bio basins, medians, asphalt concrete pavement milling, ARHM overlay, installation of signs, roadway striping and markings, and traffic signal loop detectors.

Anthony assisted with the inspection of pavement repairs and resurfacing and project closeout.

EDUCATION
Construction Work Certificate,
West Valley Occupational Center,
Woodland Hills, CA

CERTIFICATIONS
OSHA 10
Photovoltaic Technician
Pipe Fitting

SECTION 2 | PROJECT TEAM

5 | P a g e

Multi-Modal Signal Detection and Citywide Vision Zero Enhancement Projects, Santa Monica, CA Construction Inspector. KOA provided construction management and inspection services for this $2.6 million two- component project. The Multi-Modal Signal Detection portion replaced 15 traffic signal poles and foundations, installed vehicle and bicycle video detection at 9 intersections, and upgraded 3 curb access ramps. The Citywide Vision Zero Enhancement portion installed safety improvements along Wilshire Boulevard, Broadway, and Ocean Avenu e, including the installation of new signage, pavement markings, and rectangular rapid flashing beacons at 5 intersections, relocation of bus stops, video detection installation at 2 signalized intersections, rubber curb stop modifications, and installation of flexible delineators. Anthony oversaw the Contractor’s daily work, provided daily inspections, prepared construction inspection reports, coordinated the project with the Contractor, City Engineer, and various city departments, reviewed the project plans and specifications, scheduled material testing, maintained as-built plans, reviewed the Contractor’s invoices, and assisted with the project closeout.

Citywide Curb Ramp Improvements 2021 Project (Federal HUD B-20-MC-06-0528), Redondo Beach, CA Construction Inspector. KOA is provided full-time construction inspection services for this $600,000 federally funded project. The project scope included ADA upgrades to 34 curb ramps, concrete sidewalk and curb and gutter repairs, concrete cross gutter and spandrel repairs, localized asphalt concrete pavement repairs, street sign replacements, and traffic striping and pavement markings. Anthony oversaw the Contractor’s daily work and ensured compliance with the project plans and specifications, provided daily inspections, prepared construction inspection reports, coordinated the project with the Contractor, City Engineer, and various city departments, reviewed the Contractor’s invoices, and assisted with the project closeout.

Citywide Slurry Seal Project, Phase 2, Redondo Beach, CA Construction Inspector. KOA provided construction management and inspection services for this $800,000 project. The project provided general street preservation work including minor dig-outs, crack seal, slurry seal, and pavement striping and marking on residential and collector streets. Anthony worked with the Contractor to inspect the asphalt concrete pavement before slurry sealing and determined a 2-inch cold mill on most streets was a sufficient repair instead of dig-outs. This provided cost-effective pavement repairs throughout the project and saved the city money. As the Inspector on this project, Anthony was responsible for managing the Contractor’s daily work, preparing construction reports with a photo log, coordinating the project with the Contractor, City Engineer, and various city departments, measuring and tracking pay quantities, reviewing the Contractor’s invoices, responding to public inquires and complaints, and assisting with project closeout.

FY20/21 Rehabilitation Project, El Segundo, CA
Construction Inspector. Anthony provided inspections for the city’s street rehabilitation project that provided for the construction of new ADA ramps, concrete sidewalk and cross gutter repairs, asphalt concrete pavement grinding and paving, and the installation of striping and markings. Anthony coordinated the project with the City, Contractor, and residents, prepared daily inspection reports with photo logs, generated field memos, tracked field quantities, and reviewed the Contractor’s invoices for progress payments.

SECTION 2 | PROJECT TEAM

6 | P a g e

AMIR GHAVIBAZOO, PHD
REGIONAL MANAGER | SENIOR GEOLOGIST
Twining, Inc.

Dr. Amir Ghavibazoo is Twining’s Director of Asphalt Engineering and Pavement Design. He directs and works on pavement design, highway design, engineering specifications, and consulting services. He works closely with cities and government agencies to develop unique and specialized mix designs, pavement inspections, and pavement design solutions. He also serves on several technical committees in California helping to develop new specifications and update existing ones. Amir extensive research experience and in-depth understanding on many aspects of pavement materials. He has provided quality control and advanced performance testing of various asphalt binder. Amir studied pavement management systems (MicroPaver), pavement evaluation, and pavement rehabilitation strategies. He is expert in calculating the Pavement Condition Index (PCI), following the Army Corps of Engineers methodology, and conducting Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) for different pavement rehabilitation strategies.

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE

• City of El Monte, Ramona Boulevard Resurfacing Pavement Evaluation • City of Long Beach, MUST Project and Percolation Testing • City of Long Beach, Del Amo Boulevard Improvement
• City of Claremont, Foothill Boulevard Improvement
• City of South Pasadena, Street Improvement Projects

SUBCONSULTANT – TWINING, INC. - FIRM BACKGROUND

Twining, Inc. (Twining’s) legacy dates back more than 125 years. What started as a family business in 1898 has evolved into one of California’s largest service providers of geotechnical engineering desig n, materials testing, and construction inspection services. Highly regarded by state and local agencies, and other stakeholders for providing high-quality services that are reliable, timely, and compliant, Twining has been a central part of some of Califor nia’s most regionally significant construction projects. The expertise and capabilities of Twining in geotechnical and many civil engineering disciplines complement their services for the asphalt construction industry. Twining has developed a strong reputa tion by providing sound engineering, testing, and inspection services on every project Twining undertakes. They earned this reputation knowing that the true measure of their performance rests in the satisfaction of their clients. They approach each project with the understanding that they are evaluated on the safety and durability of the structures and pavements they test and inspect. They employ some of the industry’s most well-known construction experts, including asphalt and concrete experts who perform research as well as consult with regulatory agencies to shape the future of construction standard practices. Twining can provide construction material testing and inspection services. Their engineers offer routine training to their field soil technicians to continuously improve and reinforce their skills related to field testing. Experienced inspectors and laboratory technicians can provide field observation and testing to provide immediate compaction data to the Contractor, thus allowing for efficient and accelerated progress of the schedule.

EDUCATION
PhD, Civil and Environmental
Engineering, North Dakota State
University, Fargo, ND

MS, Railways Engineering, Iran
University of Science and
Technology, Tehran, Iran

BS, Industrial Engineering
Amirkabir University of
Technology, Tehran, Iran
SECTION 3 | SIMILAR PROJECT EXPERIENCE

7 | P a g e

CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, RESIDENTIAL STREET REHABILITATION, CYCLE 2 PHASE 3 REDONDO BEACH, CA | KOA
KOA provided construction management and inspection services for this annual project that repairs and improves streets in various residential neighborhoods. The project scope of work included pavement reconstruction and resurfacing of roadways and alleyways, concrete sidewalk, driveway, curb and gutter repairs, construction of dry wells for street drainage, upgrades to 100 curb access ramps, various utility adjustments, installation of new traffic and street name signs, installation of a Class II bike lane, and roadway pavement striping and markings.

REFERENCE: Mr. Javier Urista, Project Manager, City of Redondo Beach, 415 Diamond Street, Redondo Beach, CA 90277, (310) 318-0661, Javier.Urista@Redondo. KOA Staff: Davina Buenavista (CM) & Anthony English, Construction Inspector. Project Cost: $4.5M.

CITY OF INGLEWOOD, CENTINELA AVENUE MEDIANS & ADA IMPROVEMENTS AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATIONS FROM LA CIENEGA BLVD. TO LA BREA AVE. HSIP-5164(033) AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS FROM LA CIENEGA BLVD. TO FLORENCE AVE. PROJECT, FY 2020-21 INGLEWOOD, CA | KOA
KOA provided construction management and inspection services on this $6.85 million project, which included HSIP Cycle 8 grant funding. The scope of work included the construction of raised medians and traffic signal upgrades on Centinela Avenue between La Cienega Boulevard and La Brea Avenue, and street improvements on Centinela Avenue between La Cienega Boulevard to Florence Avenue that included pavement rehabilitation, repairs of concrete driveway approaches, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, curb ramp upgrades for ADA compliance, construction of AC and PCC bus pads, signing and striping, and installation of landscape and irrigation.

REFERENCE: Mr. Kenrick Sanderlin, Associate Engineer, City of Inglewood, 1 Manchester Boulevard, Inglewood, CA 90301, [email protected]. KOA Staff: Chuck Stephan (Principal), Davina Buenavista (CM) & Anthony English (Construction Inspector). Project Cost: $6.85M.

CITY OF BREA, COUNTRY LANE STREET REHABILITATION, CIP 7323 BREA, CA | KOA
KOA provided construction management and inspection services for residential street improvements in the Country Lane neighborhood. The project includes full width AC pavement cold mill and overlay; ADA curb ramps; curb, gutter, sidewalk, and driveway repairs; and pavement striping and markings.

REFERENCE: Mr. Raymond Contreras, Associate Engineer, City of Brea, 545 Berry Street, Brea, CA 92821, (714) 990-7691, [email protected].

KOA Staff: Davina Buenavista (CM). Project Cost: $300,000.

SECTION 3 | SIMILAR PROJECT EXPERIENCE

8 | P a g e

CITY OF EL MONTE, VARIOUS PROJECTS
EL MONTE, CA | Twining
Twining has been providing materials testing and inspection for multiple projects within the City of El Monte, as part of KOA’s team. The following are some of the projects we have been involved in:
• El Monte Sidewalk Project
• Gibson Mariposa Skate Park Improvements
• Ramona Blvd. Intersection
• Ramona Blvd. Rehabilitation Project

These projects typically included aggregate base and subgrade soil placement and compaction, Portland Cement Concrete pour and Asphalt concrete placement and compaction. Twining provided materials testing and inspection throughout these projects, to ensure the quality of workmanship and materials.

ROLE: Materials testing and inspection (as a subconsultant to KOA) FEE: Varies
REFERENCE: Mr. Leonardo Torres, City Engineer, City of El Monte, 11333 Valley Boulevard, El Monte, CA 91731, (626) 580-2055, [email protected].

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, ON-CALL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES SAN BERNARDINO, CA | Twining
Twining has been providing the County of San Bernardino with geotechnical professional engineering services on an on-call basis since 2010. In 2018, the firm was selected once again to provide on-call services to the County for the next five-year basis.

Typical projects include roadway reconstruction, road widening/realignment, pavement improvement, bridge replacement, pedestrian facility upgrade or new construction in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), drainage improvement, guardrail construction/replacement, and retaining wall repair/construction. Over the course of the last decade, our firm has worked on a total of 19 projects under this agreement .

ROLE: On-call geotechnical engineering, materials testing, and inspection consultant FEE: $36,905
REFERENCE: Mr. Medhat Matta, Supervising Engineer, County of San Bernardino, 825 East 3rd Street, Room 143, San Bernardino, CA 92415, (909) 387-8054, [email protected].

SECTION 4 | SCOPE OF SERVICES

9 | P a g e

UNDERSTANDING OF PROJECT
The City of Gardena plans to construct street improvements in accordance with the plans and specifications for the Van Ness Avenue from Redondo Beach Boulevard to Marine Avenue Street Improvement Project, JN992. The project includes asphalt pavement milling and ARHM overlay; PCC curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveway, and ADA ramps; Tree replacements; traffic signal upgrades with BBS and audio PPB; traffic signing, striping and markings, and other work.

SECTION 4 | SCOPE OF SERVICES

10 | P a g e

SCOPE OF SERVICES

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION
KOA will provide full-time Construction Inspection (CI) services (8 hours per day) and part-time Construction Management.

KOA has adequate alternate resources to provide additional and backup support services as needed. The designated CI will provide for the following efforts:
• Conduct Project Meetings and Coordination with City staff, Design Engineer, Contractor, residents, businesses, tenants, transit, schools, Dispatch, utilities and stakeholders as needed to manage and document the project construction and completion.
• Attend project-related meetings, including pre-construction meeting, weekly project meetings, and daily project meetings with contractor.
• Perform daily on-site observations of the progress and quality of construction • Ensure work by the contractor conforms with the contract documents • Be thoroughly familiar with the project Plans and Specifications, City standards, Standard Specifications, and Standard Plans.
• Check and approve materials, methodologies, traffic control plans, and BMPS/SWPPP submitted by Contractor. • Coordinate and conduct material testing services and monitor testing results. The California Kneading Compactor per California test 304 shall be performed for this project (Twining). • Monitor and verify survey monumentation compliance
• Monitor site for safety compliance.
• Review and provide recommendation for Progress Payment quantities and amounts. Represent the City to negotiate and validate potential contract change orders and RFI’s. • Provide Weekly Project summary reports
• Ensure contractor maintains updated as-built drawings • Immediately notify the City of any directives, recommendations, or notices from other agencies. • Exercise reasonable care and diligence to discover and promptly report to the City all defects or deficiencies in the materials or workmanship used in the Project.
• Coordinate with City staff and dispatch emergency services; residents; waste disposal, and other stakeholders. • Coordinate with utility agencies.
• Provide for Public Outreach.
• Provide for Labor Compliance monitoring.
• Prepare daily inspection reports with the following items and transmit them to the City:
o Labor (trade and classification)
o Hours worked
o Equipment used
o Description of activities
o Quantities constructed
o Problems, issues, accidents, disputes, claims
o Directives and field orders
o Resolution of issues
o Stormwater protection
o Materials delivered and/or incorporated into the work o Safety measures and issues
o Traffic control measures
o Weather
o Photographs
o Recommendations to the CM for non-performance or
other issues
• Provide Project Closeout documentation including project photographs, reports, material certificates, data sheets, test results, As Built plans, and all other project related documentation.

The services for construction management and inspection will implement controls in accordance with the project Contract Document, Plans, and Specifications, Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Greenbook Standard Specifications and Standard Plans for Public Works Construction, Caltrans Standard Plans and Specifications, and the Caltrans Local Procedures Manual.

KOA considers safety the most important issue on any construction project. KOA will recommend key safety provisions to require the contractor to have competent safety personnel and site specific safety programs employed on the projects at all SECTION 4 | SCOPE OF SERVICES

11 | P a g e

times. The Inspector will monitor the contractor’s operations for compliance with the project safety requirements.

KOA will coordinate laboratory, jobsite, and offsite testing of construction materials and required observations per construction documents, construction codes, and jurisdictional agencies. KOA with Twining will provide deputy inspection as required. KOA will implement established procedures for testing per the construction documents. We will monitor testing services, track documentation and record testing results in weekly construction progress meetings. When necessary, KOA will require and track that corrective measures are implemented and re-inspected for acceptable completion.

KOA will carefully record measurements for constructed work so that proper payment may be made. Quantities will be verified with the Contractor and reported to the City’s Project Manager. Quantities that appear to be significantly different from the bid amounts will be brought to the attention of the City PM.

KOA will compile daily observation reports documenting the contractor’s workforce, material and equipm ent used, a summary of construction activities, field problems, disputes or claims, resolutions of issues and directions given to the contractor.

Completed daily reports will be transmitted to the City on a weekly basis.

GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIAL TESTING
KOA has partnered with Twining, Inc. to provide the required material testing services for this project, including the California Kneading Compactor test. Anticipated testing may include asphalt concrete sampling and compaction testing, and PCC sampling and testing. We have proposed an allowance for material testing and will invoice only the actual time used for the project.

Provide Project Management Services and Final QA Documentation: Twining’s PM will coordinate all field and laboratory testing and will review all reports. Test results and daily reports will be sent to the City on daily basis. Upon completion of the project, a Final QA report will be prepared and provided to the City for its records.

POST-CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
KOA will assist the City in closing out the project, including:
• Development of the construction “punch list” and “punch list” schedule of remaining work • Verification that all work is complete and performance of final inspection • Final project photographs
• Verification of material testing compliance and remedial measures • Verification of survey monumentation compliance
• Submittal of As-Built plans
• Review final progress payment quantities
• Delivery of project files to the City.

SECTION 5 | FEE PROPOSAL

12 | P a g e

Construction
Manager
Construction
Inspector
Administrative
Assistant TOTALS
$200 $152 $100
Pre-Construction Services 16 8 4 28
Construction Inspection and Reporting 150 400 40 590
Project Closeout 24 24 8 56
TOTAL HOURS 190 432 52 674
SUB-TOTAL COST $ 38,000.00 $ 65,664.00 $ 5,200.00 $ 108,864.00 MATERIAL TESTING ALLOWANCE - $ 15,000.00
DIRECT PROJECT EXPENSES (MILEAGE) $ 200.00 TOTAL COST $ 38,000.00 $ 65,664.00 $ 5,200.00 $ 124,064.00 190 432 52 674
$ 38,000.00 $ 65,664.00 $ 5,200.00 $ 108,864.00 $ 15,200.00
124,064.00$
NOTE: Construction Inspector rate shown is for regular day-time hours. The State DIR requires adjustments for special shift, night, overtime and holiday hours.

Subconsultant fees will include a 10% insurance and administrative overhead adjustment.

TOTAL PROPOSAL FEE

TASK DESCRIPTION

BASE BID
Hourly Rate Schedule

DIRECT PROJECT EXPENSES

TOTAL LABOR COST

TOTAL HOURS
Assumptions for Construction Phase
50 Working Days
Full-Time Construction Inspection (8 hrs/day) (daytime) Part-Time Construction Management
Proposal Fee for

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION SERVICES FOR

THE VAN NESS STREET
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT JN992

SECTION 5 | FEE PROPOSAL

13 | P a g e

Position Hourly Rate
Construction Manager $200
Construction Inspector- Regular Shift $152
Construction Inspector- Special Shift/Multi-Shift $162
Construction Inspector- 1.5X Overtime $208
Construction Inspector- 2X OT $256
Construction Inspector- 4X OT $368
Subconsultant fees are subject to additional 10% overhead cost Sr Contruction Inspector - Add $4.00/hr to Inspector rate Building/Construction Inspector Regular/Special/Multi-Shift are as defined by the State of California DIR
Non-federal aid rates are shown. Rates are subject to a 5% annual increase * Project reimbursable expenses are billed at cost.
* Project expenses include: Non-commuter automobile mileage ($0.655 per mile) or current IRS rate, postage and special courier expenses, travel expenses, reproduction, subcontractor services and other direct project expenses as requested by the client. * Telephone, equipment, and fax are included in the above hourly costs. * Direct expenses including blacklining, commercial CAD plotting, issuance of specially endorsed insurance certificate, and direct costs are billed at cost plus 5% unless stated otherwise in the proposal.
*Building/Construction Inspectors on Public Works projects are subject to State mandated prevailing wage rates. Such rates are at the discretion of the State of California and subject to change at any time. Regular adjustments are anticipated by the State on a semi-annual basis.

SECTION 5 | FEE PROPOSAL

14 | P a g e

KOA HOURLY BILLING RATES

KOA Corporation
2023 Hourly Billing Rates
Professional Services 2023 Rates
Regional Manager $341
Principal II $320
Principal I $273
Senior Construction Manager $200
Construction Inspector- Regular Shift (days) $142
Construction Inspector- Special Shift
(nights/Sat)
$148
Construction Inspector- 1.5X Overtime $192
Construction Inspector- 2X OT $242
Construction Inspector- 4X OT $342
Administrative Assistant II $103
Administrative Assistant I $80
Intern $67

General Provisions:
* Project reimbursable expenses are billed at cost.
* Project expenses include: Non-commuter automobile mileage ($0.655 per mile) or current IRS rate, postage and special courier expenses, travel expenses, reproduction, subcontractor services and other direct project expenses as requested by the client.
* Telephone, equipment, and fax are included in the above hourly costs. * Direct expenses including blacklining, commercial CAD plotting, sub-consultant expense, issuance of specially endorsed insurance certificate, and direct costs are billed at cost plus 5% unless stated otherwise in the proposal.

SECTION 5 | FEE PROPOSAL

15 | P a g e

TWINING SCHEDULE OF FEES

SECTION 5 | FEE PROPOSAL

16 | P a g e

SECTION 5 | FEE PROPOSAL

17 | P a g e

SECTION 5 | FEE PROPOSAL

18 | P a g e

SECTION 5 | FEE PROPOSAL

19 | P a g e

www.koacorp.com

Van Ness Street Improvement Project, JN922