Flores, Dora
From: JenniferLeiva <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March
To: eComment
Subject: AgainsttheSTRBanbyZoning & Planning
Attention: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsideofCityofSantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.
Hello
MynameisJenniferLeiva, IliveinWard3andhavebeenanSTRoperatorinthecityofSantaAnaforthepast4years.
OutrightbanningSTRsinthecitywouldbecuttingoffrevenuethatcangobackintothecityandcommunity.
Pleasedonotgeneralizealloperatorsbecauseofacoupleofbadapples. Forthemostpart, themajorityofushostsare forcomplyingwithregulationsandzoningbutyourzoningandplanningdepartmentmustbewillingtosetreasonable regulations. Iknowit’saddedworktoanalreadybusydepartmentbuttherevenuethatcanbereceivedfromsetting intoplacecertainregulationsandpermitswillbenefitsomany.
Utilizeusoperatorsif youhaveanyquestions, mostofusarewillingandabletohelpworkwiththecityforinsight. Ifor onehaveworkedwithnumerouszoningandplanningdepartmentsandwouldbehappytoalsoworkwithyour departmentsoseewhatyourconcernsareandhowwecaneasethoseconcernssettingsomecodesthat’ll benefitall.
ApartfromoperatingSTRsIprovidealotofworktoseverallocalsmallbusinessesfromACtechs, plumbing, to handymen, etc. BybanningSTRsyouareselfishlystoppingafamiliesincomeandstatetaxesfromgoingbackintothe stateandcommunity; weallpaytaxes.
ThemajorityofthoseIemployarepaidgreatandtheworkscheduleworkswellwiththeirchildren’sschedulesothat theyareabletoprovideandstillspendtimewiththeirfamily.
AgainpleasethinkofthedominoeffectbanningSTRswillcauseamongstthecommunity. AllourhiresarelocalandIas wellamaresidentofthecity.
Pleasereachouttomeif youneedanythingorhaveanyquestions.
Thankyou!
JenniferLeiva
2 Flores, Dora
From: DanielNehrbass <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March
To: eComment
Subject: item21, emergencyprohibitingShorttermrentals
Attention: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsideofCityofSantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.
DearCityofSantaAna,
Wearelow-incomeresidentsofcolorwholiveinSantaAna.
Wearenotabletoaffordourmortgagewithoutsupplementalincome.
OnewaywehavebeenabletoweatherthestormsinceCOVIDistorentoutoneroomofourhouseonAirBNB.
Wehavehadawonderfulexperienceandhaveneverhadadisrespectfulguest.
Wearenotrentingoutourwholehouseforparties…werentoneroomofthehomeourmulti-generationalfamilylives in.
Weaskthatyouconsiderpeoplelikeuswhenyouvoteonthisdecision.
DanielNehrbass
4 Flores, Dora
From: CatherineManzano <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March28,
To: eComment
Subject: Item21 - EmergencyProhibitingShort-TermRentals Attention: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsideofCityofSantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.
Towhomit mayconcern,
Iamwritingwithregardstotheabove-mentioneditemandwouldliketovoicemyoppositiontotheprohibition:
Sincebecominganoperatorof4short-termrentalsinthedowntowncityofSantaAnain2021, therehasbeenaninflux oftravelersstayingintheareawhichhasbeenahugeincomegeneratorforthemanylocalbusinesses. DowntownSanta Anaisthriving. Withtheadditiontothetrolleycurrentlybeingconstructed, theareaofdowntownSantaAnawillsee evenmoretouristswhichmeansbusinessrevenueandthiscreatemoreforjobsforthecity.
Additionally, withthecitythrivingandgrowing, thisallowscityrestoration, withmanynewhousingprojectsand retailersopeningupwhichisalwaysapositive.
Iftherewouldbeanyordinancesonshort-termrentals, Iwouldsupportanimplementshorttermrentalzoningareas andplacealimit/capofthenumberofrentalsperSTRoperator/ownerandaffidavittooperatefornon-owner operators. Thiswouldhelpalleviatejustanyoneand/orinexperiencedoperatorsfromopeningupaSTRandhelp preventissuesthatmayaffectlongtermnonSTRresidentslivinginthecommunity.
Thankyouforyourconsideration.
BestRegards,
CatherineManzano
SentfrommyiPhone
5 Flores, Dora
From: Aminguyen <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday,
To: eComment
Subject: ShortTermRentalHost
Attention: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsideofCityofSantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.
Towhomthismayconcern,
Unfortunately, Iwon’t beallowedtoattendthemeeting, butIwouldliketosharemyvoice. Pleaseallowustocontinue hostingourhouseonAirbnbforshorttermrental. Myfamilyof8isdependingonthisincometomakealiving. Ihave4 kidsandmyparentsareintheir80sandonehasdementia.
Wepayourtaxeseveryyear. Wemaintainverycleanandcomfortableroomsfortheguesttolivein. Myemployeesalso dependonthismoneytosupporttheirfamilysincetheydon’t speakEnglishandit’shardtofindanotherjob. Ifthisis takenfrommeIwouldhavetoapplyforlowincome. Idon’t wanttobeaburdentomycountry. Pleaseallowusto continuehostingourhousetosupportsourfamily.
AmiNguyen
1 Flores, Dora
From: SheriMenke <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March
To: eComment
Subject: VoteNOonagendaitem #21forTuesdayApril2, 2024
Attention: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsideofCityofSantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.
DearCityCouncilMembers,
Thankyoufor allthatyoudofor ourcommunity! PleasevoteNOonagendaitem #21for theCityCouncil meetingscheduledTuesdayApril2, 2024. I amappalledbythestaffrecommendationto prohibitshortterm rentalsinSantaAna. Theproposalwasbroughtforthwithoutinputfromlocalresidentsandisnowbeing rushedthroughthecouncil. Myselfandothershavebeenworkingfor overayearonasensibletaxedand regulatedprogramfor shorttermrentals. Pleaserejectthisproposalandworkwithusforthebestinterestof SantaAna!
Anurgentordinancebanningshorttermrentalswouldnotbeaneffectiveor appropriateresponseto whatthe peopleof SantaAnawant/need. A citywidebanwouldalsobeahugelossof potentialrevenuefor thecity. In Septemberof 2022theissuewasplacedontheplanningcommissionagenda. Notoneresidentof SantaAnaat thatmeetingsupportedaban, ratherthey/wesupportataxedandregulatedSTRprogram. Theitemwasmoved off theagendathateveningandweweretoldbyBaoPham, underthedirectionof MinhThai, thatwhenthe itemwasbackontheagendawewouldbenotified. Thathasnothappened. Thisisoneof thereasonsyou shouldvoteNOonitem #21. Weasoperators/smallbusinessownersshouldhaveanopportunityto speak, meet withstaffandshareourexperiencesbeforeasignificantordinanceisvotedonbythecitycouncil.
In Decemberof 2023theissuewasbackontheagendaasatopicfor astudysession. Weasowners/operators werenotableto speakduringthesession, whichisagainwhyyoushouldvoteNOonitem #21atthistime.
Noneof thecommissionersthateveningwereinfavorof abanandtherewerenopubliccommentsspeaking againstSTR’satthebeginningof themeeting. It againisnotanurgentissueinthecityandshouldbe consideredwithclearandaccurateresearchandinformation.
I haveownedandoperatedanSTRinthecityfor thepast7 yearsandhavehadabusinesslicenseissuedbythe citythisentiretime. I haveadocumentin supportof mySTRthatissignedbyeveryhomeownerwhoshares mypropertyline. I amhappyto sharethatdocumentwithyou. ThisisevidencethatSTR’sarenotanuisance andcanbeahugeassetto anycommunity! I employandpayafairwageto atleast4 residentsof SantaAnaon aregularbasis. I myselfwasemployedbya neighborwhowasoperatinganAirbnbfor afewyears. I wasthe motherof 5 veryyoungchildrenatthetimeandtheincomewasmonumentalasit isdifficultfor awomanwith childrento findemployment. I lovedlivingnextto aSTR, it broughtsomuchto mylifehearingpeople’s stories, providingabeautifulandsafeplacefor themto stayastheyexploredOrangeCountyor wentto aworld renownedmedicalcenter.
I personallyhavespentthepasttwoyearsresearchingandmeetingwithleadersinthecitiesof Orange, HuntingtonBeachandLongBeach. All of thesecitieshavesuccessfulprogramsfor shortterm rentals. Owners/operatorshaveworkedwiththecityto enforceregulationsandthesecitiesaremovingto expandtheirprogramsandevenloosensomerestrictionsbecauseof thesuccesses. Thisismyhopefor Santa Ana! Theseprogramshavecreatedmuchneededrevenueto helpwiththecity’sbudgets, theyhavehelpedto eliminateproblemswithirresponsibleownersandtheyhavehelpedcreatejobsfor localresidentsthrough 2 tourism, cleaningservicesandmore. Therearemanysensibleoptionsfor shorttermrentalsotherthana citywideban, pleasevoteNOonitem #21andworkwithus!
Thereisnoneedfor anurgentordinancebasedonthesafetyof communities. Shorttermrentalshavebeen allowedinSantaAnafor over10years. I haveafamilyof 7 with5 beingchildren. I ampassionateaboutshort termrentalsbecauseit isthemostaffordableandrationalwayfor myfamilyto travelfor bothpleasureandfor necessity. Peopleneedoptionswhentheytravelaswelivein adiverseworldwithdiversefamiliesand situations! WhenI foundoutthatmyneighborwasrunningaSTRI wasn’t thrilled, buttheexperiencewaslife changing! SharingSantaAnawithothersandhelpingthemexperienceandlearnabouttheamazingcitythat SantaAnaiscanonlybedonewithyourhelp!
BelowisarecentreviewfromaguestwhostayedatmySTR. In thereviewyouwill clearlyseethatataxedand regulatedprogramiswhatSantaAnaneedsratherthanaban! Wehavetheairport, Disneyland, beaches, culture andsomuchmorethattravelerswantto experience! Youhavetheopportunityto votedownthisurgent ordinanceandhelpto createanordinancethatwouldbemuchmoreeffectiveandbeneficialfor everyone!! I hopeto beoneof theleadersthatcanworkwithyouandothersto makethathappen! Thankyoufor yourtimeandconsiderationto voteNOonagendaitem #21! I will seeyouTuesday! Best,
Sheri
Reviewfromarecentguest…
Thiswasmyfirsttimestayingin SantaAnaandwow, whatagamechanger. WeusuallystayinAnaheimfor Disneyland, butwe'reextremelyhappyweoptedfor SantaAnathistimearound. Sheri, thepropertymanager, wasabsolutelyamazingfromstartto finish. Shewasquickto respondto anycommunicationswehadandwas veryeasyto workwith. Theneighborhoodthishouseissituatedin isGORGEOUS. Youcantelleveryoneinin theareatrulytakesprideintheirhomesandproperties. Thehouseitselfwasevenbetterthanthepictures advertised. Thebackyardwasgorgeous, thekitchenwaslarge, theroomsandbathroomswerespacious. Not onlywerethebasicnecessitiesincluded, butSheritookit astepfurtherandhadaBritawaterpitcherinthe fridge, icecubes, creamerpods, K-cuppods, snacks, etc. It'slittlethingslikethat, thatreallygoalongwayand issoveryappreciated. Woulddefinitelyloveto stayhereinagaininthefuture. Thankyousomuchfor sucha wonderfulstay!
Dateof arrival - March3, 2024
I’maSantaAnaresidentwhosharesmyhometo supplementmyincome. I relyonhomesharingto makeendsmeetandsupportthecity’stourismeconomy.
I amappalledbythePlanningDirector’srecommendationto prohibithomesharingin SantaAna Thisproposalwasbroughtforthwithoutinputfromlocalresidents, andisnowbeingrushedthroughthe council
Weneedmoretimeto considerreasonablealternativesthatwill allowHostslikemeto continuehosting.
Pleaserejecttheproposalandworkwiththelocalcommunityonasensibleplan 3 Flores, Dora
From: ThuTran <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday,
To: Lopez, Jessie; eComment
Subject: Fwd: STRLegalcorrespondenceregarding2108AlonaSt Attachments: CeaseandDesistletter.pdf; STRDocstoSantaAna.pdf Attention: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsideofCityofSantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.
Hi Mr. Lopez,
I'velearnedthattheplanningcommissionisgoingto try againto banshort-termrentalattheApril2meetingon Tuesday. PleasevoteNOonitem #21onthemeetingagenda.
ThuTran
Forwardedmessage ---------
From: Thu Tran <
Date: Thu, Feb22, 2024at6:17PM
Subject: Re: STRLegalcorrespondenceregarding2108AlonaSt To: <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, schampion@santa- ana.org <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: ScottJamesStreet <[email protected]>
DearMr. Carvalho,
I justreceivedanotherCeaseandDesistletterregardingmy2108Alonaproperty. In caseyou'renotaware, we justwentthroughthisafewmonthsagoandmyhearinggotcanceledatlast. Seebelow.
I'veattachedthelegalcorrespondencethatmylawyersentto theCityin Octoberfor yourreference. Iwould appreciateyouforwardingit totheCity’slawyer, too. Onceagain, I havesecuredalegalcounselshouldtheDept chooseto finemeaftersendingmeaceaseanddesistletter. We'll filealawsuitto enjointheCity'sunlawful practicesandseekto recoverlegalfeesanddamages.
ThuTran
OnTue, Oct24, 2023at3:05PMDiaz, Jorge < wrote:
Helloeveryone,
thTheappealhearingforOctober26 hasbeentakenoffcalendaruntilfurthernotice, beadvised. 1 Thankyou,
JorgeDiaz
SeniorOfficeAssistant
CityofSantaAna | PlanningandBuildingAgency
20CivicCenterPlaza | SantaAna, CA92702
714) 667-2783 | [email protected]
www.santa-ana.org/pb
ThemySantaAnamobileappputsthepoweroftheSantaAnacitygovernmentinthepalmofyourhand! ThefreeappallowsresidentstoquicklyandeasilyreportissuestotheCity, accessCityservices, andfindnewsandevents.
DownloadtheApp:
From: ScottJamesStreet <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October20, 202312:48PM
To: Verino, Sergio <[email protected]>
Cc: Adminhearing <[email protected]>
Subject: Legalcorrespondenceregarding2108NAlonaSt
Importance: High
DearMr. Verino -- Pleaseseetheattachedcorrespondenceregardingthismatter. Iwouldappreciateyouforwardingit totheCity’slawyer, too.
Best,
ScottStreet 2
ScottJ. Street
JWHowardAttorneysLtd.
201SouthLakeAvenue, Suite303
Pasadena, CA91101
213) 205-2800
[email protected]
3 MAYOR
Valerie Amezcua
MAYOR PRO TEM
Thai Viet Phan
COUNCILMEMBERS
Phil Bacerra
Johnathan Ryan Hernandez
Jessie Lopez
David Penaloza
Benjamin Vazquez
February 12, 2024
CITY OF SANTA ANA
PLANNING AND BUILDING AGENCY
20 Civic Center Plaza • P. O. Box 1988
Santa Ana, California 92702
Www. santa- arta. ora
Thu Vu Luc Tran & Tam Xuan Nguyen
San Diego, CA 92126- 8000
Re: Short -Term Rental Property- CEASEAND DESISTNotification Dear Thu Vu Luc Tran & Tam Xuan Nguyen,
INTERIM CITY MANAGER
Tom Hatch
CITY ATTORNEY
Sonia R. Carvalho
CITY CLERK
Jennifer L. Hall
It has come to our attention that your property located at 2108 Alona St., is advertised asan unpermitted short- term rental in the City of Santa Ana.
This letter is to advise you that short- term rentals are not allowed in the City of Santa Ana. The City' s Zoning Code, outlined in Chapter 41 is permissive, meaning usesthat are not explicitly enumerated as permitted are prohibited. ( SAMC 41- 190{ a) - General restrictions) Short-term rentals are not identified in the City's zoning code as a permitted use and are therefore prohibited.
Please consider this letter written notice that the City prohibits these types of uses. The zoning ordinance places limits on the use of properties in order to promote the welfare and preserve the property values of all the residents in the City of SantaAna. In as much, as you may have been unaware of our municipal and zoning codes, this letter is to request that you discontinue and remove the advertisement of the unpermitted short- term rental and cease and desist within fifteen days ( 15) calendar days from the transmittal date of this notification.
Your prompt attention to this matter will prevent the City from taking any further enforcement action.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Code Enforcement Officer Toni Carvalho at ( 714) 667- 2795 or mcarvalho@santa- ana. org.
Sincerely,"-fl!
RI
Alvafo Pfunez Assistant Director
Planning and Building Agency
SANTA ANA CITY COUNCIL
Valerie Amezcua Thai Viet Phan Benjamin Vazquez Jens# LWL Phil Bacetra Johnathan Ryan Hen dez David Penaloza Mayor Mayor Pro Tern Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4 Ward 5 Ward Y2CC6Ji R7ir^lJ rdPM Wi; n* 5artdon; QM tYl} F kri3i3.sarparavrolassb. 00azn7sarr.aria. aruWV~ llftftla HOWARD
AT T O RN E Y S
JOHN W. HOWARD*
SCOTT J. STREET
ANDREW G. NAGURNEY
MICHELLE D. VOLK
KRISTIN J. WRIGHT
Chief Operating Officer
Also Admitted:
Colorado*
Nevada**
October 20, 2023
Sergio Verino
Code Enforcement Principal
City of SantaAna
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92702
Sverino@santa- ana.org
Re: Administrative citation for 2108 North Alona Street Dear Mr. Verino:
MAIN OFFICE:
ONE AMERICA PLAZA
600 WEST BROADWAY, SUITE 1400
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
TEL ( 619) 234- 2842
LOS ANGELES OFFICE:
201 S. LAKE AVENUE, SUITE 303
PASADENA, CA 91101
TEL ( 213) 205- 2800
OF COUNSEL:
ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR.
FREDERIC L. GORDON
MITCHELL B. STEIN
BY ELECTRONIC MAIL
As you know, our firm represents Thu Tran, the owner of the real property located at 2108 North Alona Streetin SantaAna (the "Property"). The City issueda citation to Ms. Tran, accusingher of violating the SantaAna Municipal Code by renting the Property to short-term renters.
According to its citation letter of May 18, 2023, the City contendsthat " short-term rentals arenot allowed in the City of SantaAna." Exhibit A. The City' s sole legal support for this argument is that its zoning code "is permissive, meaning usesthat arenot explicitly enumerated aspermitted areprohibited." Id. The City contendsthat, because "[s] hort- term rentals are not identified in the City' s zoning code asapermitted use" they are "therefore prohibited." ( Id.) This position is wrong as a matter of law. In fact, the Court of Appeal addressedthe same argument in People v. VeniceSuites, LLC, 71 Cal. App. 5th 715, 732-34 (2021) (" Venice Suites"). Like here, the City of Los Angeles arguedthat, becauseits municipal code did not expressly authorize short-term rentals, they must be prohibited. The court rejected that argument, in part because "no length of occupancyrequirement is expressed" in the city' s code. Thus, applying the "permissive zoning" argument to ban rentals of somelength (short-term) would 1 require banning rentals of all lengths. Id. at 733. The court refused to acceptsuch an absurd result.
Keen v. City of Manhattan Beach, 77 Cal. App. 5th 142 (2022), is evenmore on point. In 2015, Manhattan Beachpassedan ordinance banning short-term rentals. In 2019, it adoptedan enforcement mechanism for those ordinances. That led the city to cite a property owner ( Keen) for violating the short-term rental ban. Keen suedbecausethe City had not gotten the California Coastal Commission to sign off on the ban, rendering it invalid. The trial court agreed and enjoined enforcement of the short-term rental ban. On appeal, the City arguedthat the short-term rental ban was irrelevant becauseshort-term rentals were not expressly authorized by the city' s zoning code, so, under permissive zoning principles, they had always beenbannedasa matter of law.
The Court of Appeal rejected Manhattan Beach' s arguments. It noted that " it is legal to build a residential houseor an apartmentbuilding in the City' s zoning code. Once it is built, you can reside there. Anyone can. This all makes sense. It would be surprising if it were otherwise." Id. at 149. The court asked: " Why ... are renters allowed in? Because residential renters are common in cities, aseveryoneknows, and nothing in the ordinancetakesthe unusual step of banning all renting in the residential areasof the City." Id. " 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 doesnot regulate how long your stay canbe." Id. at 150.
Keen ridiculed Manhattan Beach' s "proposed distinction between long- and short- term rentals — the former always allowed, and the latter always forbidden" ashaving " no textual or logical basis." Id. And it dispatchedthe city' s "permissive zoning" argument in oneparagraph.
Id.
The samereasoningapplies here. Indeed, SantaAna' s code is materially identical to Manhattan Beach' s code. It allows people to rent homes. It does not regulate the length of occupancy. And renting a property for a short period of time doesnot alter its use. SeeCoastal Protection Alliance Inc. v. Airbnb, Inc., 95 Cal. App. 5th 207, 270 (" Applying the reasoning in Keen, where residential zoning code is silent regarding STRs, using a residenceasan STR is a residential use, not a change in use, and thus not a development.").
Moreover, Keen recognized an inherent flaw in Manhattan Beach' s argument: if short- term rentals had always beenbanned, why did the city needto adopt an ordinance in 2015 banning them? The same flaw exists here, as the City imposed a 45- day moratorium on short- term rentals in September2015. Exhibit B. The City Council voted againstextending the moratorium and tabled the matter indefinitely, with several council members expressing support for short-term rentals. Exhibit C (pages 21-22).
I have attached the opinions in Keen and Venice Suites to this letter as Exhibits D and E.
They are dispositive. They preclude the City from taking further action against Ms. Tran related to the Property.
2 I know the City hasscheduledan administrative hearing for October 26. But it should not be necessary. Under Keen and VeniceSuites, the City is legally precluded from enforcing any short-term rental citations against property owners. Given this binding legal authority, I expect the City to cancelthe October 26 hearing and rescind any short-term rental citations regarding the Property. Pleaselet me know by noon on October 25 if that hashappened. if not, we will file a lawsuit to overturn the citations and to enjoin the City' s unlawful practices. We will also seek to recover my costs and legal fees.
Pleaselet me know if you would like to discussthis matter further. You may also forward this letter to the City' s lawyer, who I would be happyto talk to. All rights and remediesare expressly reserved.
Very truly yours,
Scott J. Stree
JW HOWARDIATTORNEYS, LTD.
3 EXHIBIT A
MAYOR
Valerie Amezcua
MAYOR PRO TEM
Jessie Lopez
COUNCILIME NA. BERSPhil
BacerraJohnathan
Ryan HernandezDavid
PenalozaThai
Viet Phan Benjamin
Vazquez CITY
OF SANTAANA Planning
and BuildingAgency 20
CivicCenter Plaza • P. O. Box1988 Santa
Ana, California92702 www.
santa- ana. ora May
18, 2023Thu
Vu Lac Tran & Tam Xuan Nguyen 11561
Prairie Shadow Pt. San
Diego, CA 92126Re:
Short -Term RentalProperty- CEASE AND DESISTNOTIFICATIONDear PropertyOwners, It
hascometo ourattentionthat yourpropertylocated at 2108N. AlonaSt. is advertisedas anunpermitted short- term rental in theCity of SantaAna. CITY
MANAGERKristine
Ridge CITY
ATTORNEYSonia
R. CarvalhoCITY
CLERKJennifer
L. HallThis
letteris toadviseyou that short-term rentalsare not allowedin theCityof SantaAna. The City's Zoning Code, outlinedin Chapter41 is permissive, meaning uses that are not explicitlyenumeratedas permitted are prohibited. (SAMC 41- 190(a) - Generalrestrictions) Short- term rentals are not identifiedin theCity's zoningcode as a permitteduse andare thereforeprohibited. Please considerthis letterwrittennotice that the City prohibitsthese types of uses. The zoningordinance places limits on theuse of propertiesin orderto promotethe welfareand preservethe property values of all theresidentsin theCityof SantaAna. In asmuch, as youmayhavebeen unawareof ourmunicipaland zoningcodes, this letteris torequestthat you discontinueand removethe advertisement of theunpermittedshort- term rental and ceaseand desistwithin thirty days ( 30) calendar days from the transmittaldate of thisnotification. Your promptattentionto thismatterwill preventthe City from! takingany furtherenforcementaction. If youhaveany questionsor concerns, please contact Code EnforcementSupervisor Jerry Navarroat 714) 667- 2773 and/ or jnavarro@santa-ana. or>?. Sincerely,
varounez
I AssistantD rectorPlanning
and BuildingAgency SANTA
ANA CITY COUNCILValene
Amezcua Jessie Lopez Thai Viet Phan Benjamin Vazquez Phil BaeerraJohnathan Ryan HemandezDavid PenalozaMayor Mayor Pro Tem, Ward 3 Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 4 Ward S Ward 6 vamezcuatasanta- ana. ora iessielooez( rJlsanta ana. oro tohan@santa- ana. ora bvazouez santa- ana. ora obace raCo2santa-ana. oro jyanhemandezfdsantaana.om doenaloza santa ana. oro City of Santa Ana
10 Code Enforcement Division
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701 ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION
AC a
OBS SWP ASGND
An inspection of the following premises revealed violations of the Santa Ana Municipal Code:
Address/Location: SantaAna, CA, Zip
Business Name:
Responsible
Person ( s):
Address: /
City/ State/Zip: 4AJ D/) r d
Customer #
CDL/ ID#:
ZONE CDBG# r
APN#
WARNING NOTICE
As of at am / pm, you are in violation of SantaAna Municipa_1Code Section(s):
SAMC Code Section Description of Violation( s) Corrections Required T IAJ a
k3
Vehicle Yr: Make: Model: is# NIN:
CORRECTIONS REQUIRED: ( ) Refer to " Violation Sheet" ( ) Reflp6 attached " Continuation of Violations" IMPORTANT! Corrections must be completed within how' s / days. Comply by (date) The inspector may conduct a drive -by compliance inspection. will benotifiedin writingwiththeNoticeof AdministrativeFine if you are not in compliance ( seesection below). You en be liable for a fine in the amount of $ 100, $ 200, $ 500 and/ or 1000, $ 2500, $ 5000. ( Thesefines are subject to ge pursuant to California Government Code Section 36900. 1 In addition to the fine, you may be cited each that the violation exists beyond the correction date. Other enforcement action and penalties may also result if compliance iwilbotachieved by the correction date.
Received by: Phone#:
INSPECTOR: r CP# PHONE #: ( 714) Monday through Friday
Date Warning Mailed: CP# Date Complied: CP#
NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE FINE
As of {' d at
Ai %pm, youareinviolationofSantaAnaMunicipalCodeSection(s):
SAMC Code Section Description of Violation( s)
c
E-7QU 01A Pr< TrL/ ! r-! 6 - T ,
See Attached Addendum Report
I sTCITATION $ -'" IS NOW DUE AND PAYABLE.
2" CITATION $ IS NOW DUE AND PAYABLE.
3RDCITATION $ IS NOW DUE AND PAYABLE.
4" CITATION $ IS NOW DUE AND PAYABLE
Pursuant to SantaAna Municipal Code Section 1-21.8, you have 15 days from the date of this administrative fine to file an appeal.
Seethe reverseside of this Notice for payment and appeal information relating to a Requestfor Administrative Hearing.) Received by: Print Name:
Refu§ed.to sign. Served via personal service. r / ( CP# V 1 Served Certifi d d First Class mail Date: ! L # t
I CP# 1
Signature ( O ) cer ^ Print Name
Phone # 714 l Monday through Friday
Case# l FZ:3
1 076 1V ED# is
0- U UNITEDSTATES
POSTAL SERVICE
July 27, 2023
Dear Thu Tran:
The following is in response to your request for proof of delivery on your item with the tracking number:
9589 0710 5270 0616 7912 90.
Status:
Status Date / Time:
Location:
Postal Product:
Extra Services:
Weight:
Delivered, PO Box
July 25, 2023, 8:27 am
SANTA ANA, CA 92702
First - Class Mail°
Certified MaiITM
Return Receipt Electronic
1. 0oz
Signature of Recipient:
r
Address of Recipient. ql d I
Note: Scanned image may reflect a different destination address due to Intended Recipient' s delivery instructions on file.
Thank you for selecting the United States Postal Service° for your mailing needs. If you require additional assistance, please contact your local Post Office TMor a Postal representative at 1-800- 222- 1811.
Sincerely,
United States Postal Service°
Washington, D. C. 20260- 0004
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Finance & Management Services Agency M-87
20 Civic Center Plaza
P. O. Box 1964
Santa Ana, CA 92702
Ph: ( 714) 647- 6543
Email: accountsreceivables@santa- ana. orq
INVOICE
Customer: --
THU V L TRAN
SAN DIEGO CA 92126- 8000
Date: 07/ 26/ 2023
Customer No. 31897
Invoice No. AC18978
Due Date: 08/ 25/ 2023
Description: I BalanceForward:
CODE ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION INVOICE If you have any questions concerning this invoice, please contact ( 714) 667- 2780.
100. 00
AC233333A 7,16/ 23
Total Due: $ 100. 00
Pleaseremitpaymentwithin 30daysto the addressreferencedbelow. Pastdueaccountsarereferredto a collectionagency.
CHECKPOLICY: It is understoodby allpersons who wish to writechecks to the Citythat acceptance of checks is conditional upon the satisfactory collection of the check. If a check is dishonored or returned forany reason. the customerwillbe responsibleforpaying the full amountof the check that was returnedplus the state's maximumallowableprocessingfee.
PLEASE DETACH AND RETURN THIS PORTION WITH REMITTANCE
MAIL PAYMENT TO: -,
CITY OF SANTA ANA M- 13
Customer: 31897
20 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA
THU V L TRAINPO BOX 1964
SANTA ANA CA 92702
Invoice #: AC18978
Due Date: 08/ 25/ 2023
Amount Due: 100. 00
AC00018978000031897000000100009AC000189780000318970000001000098
EXHIBIT B
REQUEST FOR
p
COUNCIL ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
SEPTEMBER 16, 2016
TITLE;
EMERGENCY ORDINANCE ADOPTING
A 46 DAY MORATORIUM ON THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF ANY SHORT-
TERM RESIDENTIAL RENTAL, USE
STIR TEGIC P N NO. 5, 4)
CITY MANAGER
RECOMMENDED ACTION
CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY:
s w :22% ..
lJ As Recommended
As Amended
Ordinanceon 1" Reading
OrdinanceonOdReading
ImplementingResolution
171SetPublicHearingFor
CONTINUED TO
FILE NUMBER
Approvean emergencyordinance adoptinga 45-day temporarymoratoriumon the establishment or expansion of any short terns residential rental use, In recent years, there has been an increasedpopularity of "home -sharing" ,and other short -terra vacation rentals through the use of web -based companiessuch as Alrbnb, placation Rentalsby Owner ( VRBO), and Homeaway. These sites allow property owners to rent their homes or apartments as an alternative travel accommodation while providing homeowners or renters with additional income. Homes or rooms are typically listed by location and pay a percentage of their income to the host company.
Current provisions of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) do not clearly define or identify short-term rentals as a permitted use in a residential zone, Further, staff has received numerous complaints from residents and neighborhood representatives related to impacts from snort -term. rentalusessuchas noise, on -streetparkingsupply, increasedtrafficandotherimpactsaffecting the duality of life in the community, Short-term rentals have resulted in increased Code Enforcementcomplaints and frustration for both the nearby residents and property owners who wish to offer them types of short- term rentals,
As such, staff needs time to analyzethe SantaAna MunicipalCode to review, steadyand revise the existing Code in order to respond to recent concerns relating to the impacts of short-term residentialrentals In the City, The proposed interim ordinancewill prohibit the establishmentof any short-term residential rentalfor a 45-daytime period, During the 4 - day interim ordinance period, a zoning study will be performedwhich will assist in the preparationof a permanentordinancefor this use, An update canfurther study of this issue and a pudic hearing to consider a permanentordinancewill be scheduled for the October20, 2015 City 0ouneil meeting.
5OB- 1
Short - Term Residential Rental Moratorium
September 15, 2015
STRA,TE011C PLAID ALIGNMENT
Approvalof this item supportsthe City's effortsto meet Caul No. 5, Community.Health, Livabliity, Engagement ,and Sustainability, Objective No 4 (support neighborhood vitality and livability).
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action,
Hassan Hajh nl, AlUPExecutive
Director Planning
and BuildingAgency VC;
rb vGk
p rGslhpit7rmR ld® ntiafFdsntia, 46M'r torlu n 5O
B- 2
LS 9. 8. 16
ORDINANCE NO. NS- XXX
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA
ANA ADOPTING A 45- DAY TEMPORARY MORATORIUM
ON SHORT- TERM RESIDENTIAL RENTAL USES
THE CITY COUNCIL. OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows:
A. The growing popularity of " home -sharing" and other short- term vacation rentals, through the use of internst- based companies such as Airbnb, Vacation Rentals by Owner (° VRBO°) and Homeaway, allow individual homeowners, landlords, and tenants to list homes, apartments, and rooms for rent.
B. The current provisions of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (" SAMC") do not clearly identify short-term residential rental uses or take into account the potential impacts associated with the establishment of short- term rentals within existing residential zones. As such, provisions of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (" the Code") require review, study, and possible revision in order to respond to recent concerns relating to the impacts of these short- term rental uses in the City.
C. Given these concerns, the City Council hereby requests that a study be undertaken of the current provisions of Chapter 41 of the Municipal Code to address short-term residential rentals and determine whether such uses should be permitted in the City, and if so, where such uses should be permitted and under what conditions.
D. Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that issuing permits, business licenses, or other applicable entitlements to individuals wishing to use their property for the purposes of a short-term residential rental, prior to the City's completion of its study of the potential impact of such short-term residential rentals, would pose a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare, and that a temporary moratorium on the issuance of such permits, licenses, and entitlements is thus necessary.
E. If a short-term residential rental use is permitted in the City without further review and potential regulation, it will pose a serious threat to the public interest, health, safety and welfare for the following reasons:
1. Residents living near unregulated short -terra residential rentals are impacted by such uses' excessive noise, which affects the quality of life for surrounding residents, on -street parking impacts, nuisance conditions and traffic in and around these uses.
Ordinance No. NS -
5o B- 3
F. Prevention of detrimental impacts to residents, the public interest, health, safety and welfare requires the immediate enactment of this ordinance.. The absence of this ordinance will create a serious threat to the orderly and effective implementation of any code amendments, general plan amendments or specific plan amendments which may be adopted by the City; short-term residential rental uses may be in conflict with or frustrate the contemplated updates and revisions to the Code.
Moreover, permitting such uses during said studies and implementation would create impacts on the public health, safety and welfare that the city council, in adopting this ordinance, has found to be unacceptable.
G. The Request for Council Action for this ordinance dated September 15, 2015 and duly signed by the Executive Director of the Planning and Building Agency shall, by this reference, be incorporated herein, and together with this ordinance, any amendments or supplements, and oral testimony constitute the necessary findings for this ordinance.
H. The city council finds, determines and declares that the current and immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare of the city and its citizens necessitates the immediate enactment of the ordinance. The facts constituting such urgency are set forth in paragraphs A-H of this ordinance.
Section_..2. No short-term residential rental is permitted in a residential zone as defined in Article I of Chapter 41 of the Code.
Section 3. Any ordinance declared by the City Council to be necessary as an emergency measure for preserving the public peace, health and safety, and containing a statement of the reasons for its urgency, may be introduced and adopted at one and the same meeting if passed by the affirmative votes of at least two-thirds ( 2/3) vote of the City Council members pursuant to Section 415 of the City Charter and shall be immediately effective pursuant to Section 417 of the City Charter, Further, California Government Code Section 65858 authorizes the City Council to adopt an interim urgency ordinance, without following the procedures otherwise required for the adoption of an ordinance, to protect the public safety, health, and welfare, prohibiting any uses that may be in conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the City Council, Planning Commission or the planning division is considering or studying or intends to study within a reasonable time.
Section 4, This ordinance shall have no further force and effect forty-five ( 45) days from the date of its adoption; unless, however, after public hearing the City Council members, by two-thirds ( 2/3) vote, extend this ordinance for an initial period of ten ( 10) months and fifteen ( 15) days and thereafter, after public hearing, the City Council members, by two-thirds (2/3) vote, extend this ordinance one more year.
Ordinance No. NS -
5o B- 4
Section 5. It shall be unlawful and a misdemeanor for any person to violate or fail to comply with any provision of the ordinance. The violation of any provision of this ordinance shall be punished as provided in Section 1-8 of the Code.
Section 6. If any section, subsection, phrase, or clause of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each section, subsection, phrase or clause thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, phrases, or clauses be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 7. The Clerk of the Council shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause the same to be published in the manner prescribed by law.
Section 8. This ordinance is introduced, passed and adopted at one and the same meeting and is thereafter immediately effective. The city council finds that this ordinance is necessary to protect the public safety, health and welfare. The reasons for the emergency are set forth in Section 1, paragraphs A-H, inclusive of this ordinance.
ADOPTED this 15'" day of September 2015.
APPROVED AS TO. FORM:
Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney
C. ' , . . . , - -, -
By: Lisa Storck, Assistant City Attorney
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers:
Miguel A. Pulido
Mayor
Ordinance No. INS -
5OB- 5
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, Maria D. Huizar, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Ordinance No. NS-XXX to be the original ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on September 15, 2015,
Date:
Ordinance No. NS -
Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana
5OB- 6
EXHIBIT C
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA
OCTOBER 20, 2015
CLOSED SESSION MEETING
CALLED TO ORDER COUNCIL CHAMBER
22 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA
5: 27 P. M.
ATTENDANCE COUNCILMEMBERS Present:
MIGUEL A. PULIDO, Mayor
VINCENT F. SARMIENTO, Mayor Pro Tern
P. DAVID BENAVIDES ( 5:45 p.m.)
MICHELE MARTINEZ
ROMAN A. REYNA ( 5:31 p.m.)
SAL TINAJERO
COUNCILMEMBERS Absent:
ANGELICA AMEZCUA
STAFF Present:
DAVID CAVAZOS, City Manager
SONIA R. CARVALHO, City Attorney
MARIA D. HUIZAR, Clerk of the Council
PUBLIC COMMENTS — None
COUNCIL RECESSED to Room 147 for Closed Session discussion at 5:27 p.m.
CLOSED SESSION ITEMS - The Brown Act permits legislative bodies to discuss certain matters without members of the public present. The City Council finds, based on advice from the City Attorney, that discussion in open session of the following matters will prejudice the position of the City in existing and anticipated litigation:
1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION
pursuant to Paragraph ( 1) of subdivision ( d) of Section 54956. 9 of the Government Code:
Brian Booker v. City of Santa Ana, Case No. SACV15- 00431- DOC DFMx)
CITY COUNCIL. MINUTES 1 OCTOBER 20, 2015
2. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR pursuant to Government Code Section 54957. 6( a):
Agency Negotiators: Personnel Services Executive Director, Ed Raya
Employee Organizations: Service Employees' International Union ( SEIU) Full - Time Employees
Service Employees' International Union ( SEIU)
Park - Time Employees
Agency Negotiator: City Manager, David Cavazos
Employee Organizations: Executive Management ( EM)
3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL e ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph ( 2) or ( 3) of subdivision ( d) of Section 54956. 9 of the Government Code: - One Case
4. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE - PERFORMANCE EVALUATION pursuant to Section 54957( b)( 1) of the Government Code:
Title: Clerk of the Council
CLOSED SESSION REPORT - See Item 19A for any reportable actions.
ADJOURNED THE CLOSED SESSION MEETING AT 6: 02 P. M. AND CONVENED TO THE REGULAR OPEN MEETING.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2 OCTOBER 20, 2015
CALLED TO ORDER
ATTENDANCE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INVOCATION
PRESENTATION
REGULAR OPEN MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBER
22 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA
SANTA ANA, CA
6: 03 P. M.
COUNCILMEMBERS Present:
MIGUEL A. PULIDO, Mayor
VINCENT F. SARMIENTO, Mayor Pro Tern
ANGELICA AMEZCUA ( 6:44 p.m.)
P. DAVID BENAVIDES
MICHELE MARTINEZ
ROMAN A. REYNA
SAL TINAJERO
COUNCILMEMBERS Absent:
NONE
STAFF Present:
DAVID CAVAZOS, City Manager
SONIA R. CARVALHO, City Attorney
MARIA D. HUIZAR, Clerk of the Council
LESLIE TELLEZ, MacARTHUR
FUNDAMENTAL INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL
JACK ABEELEN, POLICE CHAPLAIN
PROCLAMATION presented by MAYOR PRO TEM SARMIENTO to Bolivian Consul General Marco Antonio Valverde Carrasco in recognition of Latin American Day.
CLOSED SESSION REPORT — No reportable action.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Alfredo Rubalcava Chief External Officer for Magnolia Science Academy, spoke on Agenda Item 19F, expressed appreciation for moving forward with Promise Zone designation.
Laura Schlottman, Principal at Magnolia Science Academy, echoed comments by Mr. Rubalcava, would like to partner with City on Promise Zone efforts; also, indicated that they would be opening up a new school in Santa Ana in the coming school year.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 3 OCTOBER 20, 2015
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS
MOTION: Approve staff recommendations on Consent Calendar Items 10A through 31A, with the following modifications:
Councilmember Martinez pulled Agenda Items 19E, 25G and 25H for separate discussion; and
Councilmember Reyna pulled Agenda Items 19F and 20B for separate discussion.
MOTION: Sarmiento SECOND: Tinajero
VOTE: AYES: Benavides, Pulido, Martinez, Reyna,
Sarmiento, Tinajero ( 6)
NOES: None ( 0)
ABSTAIN: None ( 0)
ABSENT: Amezcua ( 1)
Items removed for separate action, or modified are highlighted. Separate actions show the actual vote Itemswithoutvotes are adoptedas partof theconsentremotion.
ADMINISTRATIVE
MATTERS MINUTES
10A.
MINUTES FROM THE REGULARMEETING OF OCTOBER6, 2015STRATEGIC PLAN NO. 5, 11 - Clerkof theCouncilOffice MOTION:
Approve Minutes. BOARDS
1 COMMISSIONS / COMMITTEES 13A.
COUNCIL COMMITTEES — AGENDA AND MINUTES {STRATEGIC PLAN NO. 5, 1) - Clerkof theCouncilOffice MOTION:
Receive and file. NAME
MEETING DATE Special
Meeting of Codeof Conduct & Ethics 10/ 01/ 2015Special
Meetingof Development & Transportation 10/ 14/ 2015CITY COUNCILMINUTES 4 OCTOBER 20, 2015
13B. NOMINATED BY COUNCILMEMBER TINAJERO AS THE WARD 6
REPRESENTATIVE TO THE PERSONNEL BOARD FOR PARTIAL
TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 11, 2018 { STRATEGIC PLAN NO. 5, 1) - Clerk of the Council Office
MOTION: Appoint Maricela Vallejo, Ward 6 resident, to the Personnel Board for a partial term expiring December 11, 2018 ( replacing S.
Tuchler).
MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATION
19A. CONFIRMATION OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION( S) — None
19B. EXCUSED ABSENCES — None
19C. STRATEGIC PLAN MONTHLY REPORT FOR SEPTEMBER 2015
STRATEGIC PLAN NO. 5, 1} - City Manager' s Office
MOTION: Receive and file.
19D. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE
STRATEGIC PLAN NO. 6, 11) - City Manager' s Office
MOTION: Receive and file.
19E. POLICE OFFICER REI RUITING. AND `HIRING UPDATE ( STRATEGIC PLAN NO 1, 11) - Police Department
City Council thanked staff and Police Chief Rojas for recruitment efforts and moving forward with community policing body cameras, transparency, and accountability.
City Manager Cavazos indicated that the City has added 37 new positions plus 10 with COPS grants in the past year.
MOTION; Receive and file.
MOTION: Martinez
VOTE: AYES
SECOND: Reyna
Benavides, Pulido, Martinez, Reyna,
Sarmiento, Tinajero ( 6)
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 5 OCTOEER 20, 2015
NOES: None ( 0)
ABSTAIN: None ( 0)
ABSENT: Amezcua ( 1)
Councilmember Benavides, reported a conflict of interest due to proximity of residence to area and abstained on matter.
19F. STRATEGY TO SECURE.. FEDERAL PROMISE ZONE DESIGNATION FOR SANTAANA {STRATEGICPLAN NO. , 5, 4D) - CommunityDevelopment Agency Councilmember
Reyna, asked to be engagedin programsince it wasin his
Ward. Designation
advantages would include: 1) theawardingof preferencesfor certain competitivefederal grant programs; and 2) proposedhiring tax credits and enhanceddepreciation ( tax) benefitsto investors (subject to Congressional approval). Broad objectivesassociated with Santa Ana' s strategy include the creationof jobs, growingthe local economy, improving education opportunities, and reducingcrime. LOTION.
Receive and file. MOTION:
Reyna SECOND: Martinez VOTE:
AYES: Pulido, Martinez, Reyna, Sarmiento, Tinajero 5)
NOES:
None ( 0) ABSTAIN:
Benavides ( 1) ABSENT:
Amezcua ( 1) BUDGETARY
MATTERS APPROPRIATION
ADJUSTMENTS 20A.
APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENT AND PURCHASEAND SALE AGREEMENT FOR THE SALE OF CITY -OWNEDREAL PROPERTYAT 1232
AND 1244 SOUTHBRISTOL STREET, APN 109- 421- 21 AND22 STRATEGIC PLAN NO. 6, 1 G; 3, 2C} - CommunityDevelopmentAgency CITY COUNCILMINUTES 6 OCTOBER 20, 20' 15
MOTION:
1. AGMT NO. 2015- 225 - Authorize the City Manager and Clerk of the Council to execute a purchase and sale agreement with Spyglass Investment Group, in an amount of $ 2, 000, 000, subject to non - substantive changes approved by the City Manager and City Attorney.
2. Approve an appropriation adjustment. ( Requires five affirmative votes)
APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENT NO. 2016- 048 - Recognizing
2, 000, 000 in Community Development Block Grant program income for fiscal year 2015- 16 from sale of City -owned property located at 1232 and 1244 South Bristol Street and appropriate same to expenditure account
0`B A.PPROPRIATlC71V AD ] USTNIENT AND AGREEMENT BICYCLE SAFETY ED_UCATION' AND OUTREACH PROGRAM GRANT FUNDING
PROJECT" 16.6866) { STRATEGIC PLAN NO 1, : 3B) - Public Works Agency
Councilmember Reyna asked that Santa Ana Unified School District be engaged in the education and outreach efforts.
MOTION:
1. Approve an appropriation adjustment. ( Requires five affirmative votes)
APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENT NO. 2016- 040 - Recognize Office of Traffic Safety Public Education on Bicycle Safety grant funds in an amount of $ 100,000 in the OTS- PWA Traffic Safety Grants revenue account, and appropriate the same to the OTS- Bicycle Safety PWA expenditure account.
2. AGMT NO. 2015- 226 - Authorize the City Manager and Clerk of the Council to execute an agreement with the State of California Office of Traffic Safety, subject to non - substantive changes approved by the City Manager and City Attorney, in an amount not to exceed $ 100, 000, for a one- year period from October 1, 2015, through September 30, 2016.
MOTION: Reyna SECOND: Benavides
VOTE: AYES: Benavides, Pulido, Martinez, Reyna,
Sarmiento, Tinajero ( 6)
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 7 OCTOBER 20, 2015
NOES: None ( 0)
ABSTAIN: None ( 0)
ABSENT: Amezcua ( 1)
AGREEMENTS
25A. SPECIAL LEGAL COUNSEL SERVICES ( STRATEGIC PLAN NO. 7, 3B) City Attorney' s Office
MOTION.
1. AGMT NO. 2015- 227 - Authorize the City Manager and the Clerk of the Council to execute an agreement with Alvarez- Giasman & Colvin, subject to non -substantive changes approved by the City Manager and City Attorney, for legal services at the specified rates in contract;
2. AGMT NO. 2015- 223 - Authorize the City Manager and the Clerk of the Council to execute an agreement with Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP, subject to non -substantive changes approved by the City Manager and City Attorney, for legal services at the specified rates in contract, for a three year period beginning October 20, 2015;
3. AGMT NO. 2015- 229 - Authorize the City Manager and the Clerk of Council to execute an agreement with Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo, APLC, subject to non - substantive changes approved by the City Manager and City Attorney, for legal services at the specified rates in contract, for a three year period beginning October 20, 2015; and
4. AGMT NO. 2015- 230 - Authorize the City Manager and the Clerk of Council to execute an agreement with Ferguson, Praet &
Sherman, APLC, subject to non -substantive changes approved by the City Manager and the City Attorney, for legal services at the specified rates in contract, for a three year period beginning October 20, 2015.
25B. AGMT NO. 2015- 231 - SALES TAX REBATE WITH VOLVO OF ORANGE COUNTY { STRATEGIC PLAN NO. 3, 3C} - Community Development Agency
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 8 OCTOBER 20, 2015
MOTION: Authorize the City Manager and Clerk of the Council to execute a safes tax rebate agreement with SSF, INC., doing business as Volvo of Orange County for a 50 percent rebate of the increase in new sales tax generated by the deafer above a base year up to total maximum amount of $ 1,000, 000 over a 10-year period, subject to non -substantive changes approved by the City Manager and City Attorney..
25C. ACCEPTING 2015 RECOVERY
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT
Police Department
MOTION:
ACT EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL
FUNDS { STRATEGIC PLAN NO. 1, 313}
1. Accept the 2015 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant funding in the amount of $ 88, 392 into the Byrne Justice Assistance revenue account and appropriate same to expenditure account in the respective fiscal years.
2. AGMT NO. 2015- 232- Authorize the City Manager, Chief of Police, and the Clerk of the Council to execute a three- year agreement with the County of Orange, Sheriff' s Department ( DJ- BX- 0226) to transfer the 2015 Recovery Act Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program funds in the amount of $ 88, 392. 25D. AGMT NO. 2015- 233
e
APPROVE AN EXTENSION TO THE
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR FUNDING ENVIRONMENTAL AND
TOXICS PROGRAMS FOR THE NEWPORT BAY WATERSHED
STRATEGIC PLAN NO. 5, 21 - Public Works Agency
MOTION: Authorize the City Manager and the Clerk of the Council to approve Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. Dll- 066 to extend multijurisdictional Cooperative Agreement Dll- 066 for three years, through June 30, 2018, to fund the Environmental and Toxics Total Maximum Daily Load programs in the Newport Bay Watershed, and commit to the same annual fair share percentage of 10.77 percent with an annual amount not - to - exceed of $ 150, 000.
25E. AGMT NO. 2015- 234 - PRESSURE WASHING SERVICES IN THE CIVIC CENTER AREA { STRATEGIC PLAN NO. 6, 1 B} - Parks, Recreation & Community Services Agency
MOTION: Authorize the City Manager and Clerk of the Council to execute an amendment with Superior Property Services, increasing the contingency by $ 8, 250 for a total annual amount of $ 105, 100, for CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 9 OCTOBER 20, 2015
the third year period of the five- year agreement, subject to non - substantive changes approved by the City Manager and the City Attorney.
25F. ENGINEERING, TECHNICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
SERVICES { STRATEGIC PLAN NO. 6, ' IC) - Public Works Agency MOTION: Authorize the City Manager and the Clerk of the Council to execute agreements with following, subject to non - substantive changes approved by the City Manager and City Attorney, for a three- year period expiring October 20, 2018, with provisions for one 2-year renewal option exercisable by the City Manager and City Attorney, in an amount not to exceed $ 500, 000 for each firm over the entire term of the agreement, including any renewal:
AGMT NO. 2015- 235- With Project Partners, Inc.,
AGMT NO. 2015- 236 — With PENCO Engineering, Inc., and
AGMT NO. 2015- 237 — With CivilSource, Inc.
25G. AGMT NO. 2015- 238 CITYWIDE SPEEDLIMITSTUDY (PROJECT 16- 6861) ( NOWGENERALFUND) ( STRATEGICPLAN NO:. 6, 1. B) - PublicWorks AgencyCouncilmember
Martinez, requested update on crashthat occurredat the corner of MyrtleStreet and FlowerStreet on October19, 2015. MOTION:
Authorize the City Managerand the Clerkof theCouncilto execute an agreementwith Albert Grover & Associates, subject to non - substantivechanges approved by the City Managerand City Attorney, to conductengineeringand trafficsurvey studies in orderto updateposted speed limits, as wellas followup speedsurveys, in a totalamount not to exceed $75, 812, which includes a 10% contingency, for a three-year periodfrom October21, 2015throughOctober 20, 2018. MOTION:
Martinez VOTE:
AYES: NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
CITY
COUNCIL. MINUTES SECOND:
Sarmiento Benavides,
Pulido, Martinez, Reyna, Sarmiento,
Tinajero ( 6) None (
0) None (
0) Amezcua (
1) 10
OCTOBER 20, 2015
25H, AGMT ` NO. 2015- 239- .. GRAFFITI STREET CLEANING SERVICES NON -GENERALFUND) {STRATEGIC PLAN NOS. 6, 1 B and 7, 5E) - P"ub lic.0orks Agency and Parks, Recreation & Community Services Agency.
Councilmember Martinez, requested report on full cost analysis of police and graffiti enforcement, including return on investment.
MOTION: Authorize the City Manager and Clerk of the Council to execute an agreement with Graffiti Protective Coatings, Inc., subject to non -substantive changes approved by the City Manager and City Attorney, to perform graffiti street cleaning services in areas that are visible from the right- of- way in the amount of $ 1,820, 000 and in City park areas not visible from the right- of- way in the amount of 324, 000 for a total contract amount not to exceed $ 2, 144, 000 in the two- year period; contract expires October 31, 2017 and allows for three 1-year renewal options, exercisable by the City Manager and City Attorney.
MOTION: Martinez
VOTE: AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
SECOND: Tinajero
Benavides, Pulido, Martinez, Reyna,
Sarmiento, Tinajero ( 6)
None ( 0)
None ( 0)
Amezcua ( 1)
251. MANAGED PRINT SERVICES AND LEASE OBLIGATIONS FOR
COPIERS ( STRATEGIC PLAN NO. 7, 5) - Finance & Management Services
MOTION:
1. AGMT NO. 2015- 240 - Authorize the City Manager and Clerk of the Council to execute an agreement with C3 Office Solutions, subject to non - substantive changes approved by the City Manager and City Attorney, for Managed Print Services along with contract contingency of ten percent for one year ( November 1, 2015 through October 31, 2016), for an amount not to exceed 177, 670.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 11 OCTOBER 20, 2015
2. AGMT NO. 2015- 241 - Authorize the City Manager and Clerk of the Council to amend the existing agreement with C3 Office Solutions for the period November 1, 2012 through October 31, 2015, subject to non - substantive changes approved by the City Manager and City Attorney, for Managed Print Services related to invoices to close- out existing account balance for an amount not to exceed $ 39, 000.
3. AGMT NO. 2015- 242 - Authorize the City Manager and Clerk of the Council to execute a lease agreement with C3 Office Solutions which is anticipated to be assigned to GE Capital, LLC for the purpose of consolidating all leases with GE Capital, LLC, subject to non -substantive changes approved by the City Manager and City Attorney, for the consolidation of approved and existing Capital Leases, along with two additional Capital Leases of City Multi - Function Printers for a three- year term beginning November 1, 2015 through October 31, 2018, for an amount not to exceed 470, 330.
LAND USE MATTERS
CONDITIONAL. USE PERMITIVARIANCES
31 A. VARIANCE NO. 2015- 06
PLANET FITNESS AT
VILLAFANA, APPLICANT
Building Agency
TO ALLOW A REDUCTION IN PARKING FOR
1760 EAST EDINGER AVENUE - CHASE
STRATEGIC PLAN NO. 3, 21 - Planning and
Planning Commission approved recommended action on September 28, 2015, by a vote of 6-0 (Alderete absent).
MOTION: Receive and file the staff report approving Variance No. 2015- 06 as conditioned.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR**
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 12 OCTOBER 20, 2015
BUSINESS CALENDAR ITEMS
RESOLUTIONS
55A. RECREATIONAL TRAILS PROGRAM GRANT APPLICATION
STRATEGIC PLAN NO. 5, 4A) - Parks, Recreation & Community Services Agency
MOTION: Adopt a resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 2015- 058 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR
GRANT FUNDS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECREATIONAL
TRAILS PROGRAM FOR A BIKE TRAIL PROJECT ALONG THE
GREENVILLEIBANNING FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL AND
CENTENNIAL PARK
MOTION: Martinez SECOND: Tinajero
VOTE: AYES: Benavides, Martinez, Pulido, Reyna, Tinajero, Sarmiento ( 6)
NOES: None ( 0)
ABSTAIN: None ( 0)
ABSENT: Amezcua ( 1)
55B. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO FISCAL YEAR 2015- 16 BUDGET TO
ADD ONE POLICE SERGEANT AND FOUR POLICE OFFICERS
POSITIONS { STRATEGIC PLAN NO. 1,1 and 5,13 - Personnel Services Agency and Police Department
MOTION:
1. Adopt a resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 2015- 059 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA TO AMEND THE
CURRENT ANNUAL BUDGET TO ADD FIVE FULL TIME
POSITIONS IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT
2. Approve an appropriation adjustment. ( Requires five affirmative votes)
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 13 OCTOBER 20, 2015
APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENT NO. 2016- 050 - Approve an
appropriation adjustment in an amount of $ 725, 869 from recognized prior year revenue and appropriating $ 725, 869 into the Downtown Enhancements account,
NOTION: Sarmiento SECOND: Tinajero
VOTE: AYES: Benavides, Martinez, Pulido, Reyna, Tinajero, Sarmiento ( 6)
NOES: None ( 0)
ABSTAIN: None ( 0)
ABSENT: Amezcua ( 1)
Councilmember Amezcua arrived at 6:44 p.m.
REPORTS
65A. REVIEW AND ADOPT THE FISCAL YEAR 2014- 15 SURPLUS
ALLOCATION PLAN, AND APPROVE APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENT
STRATEGIC PLAN NO. 4, 1; 6, 1, 2) - City Manager' s Office The following spoke on the matter:
Rick Neidermeyer, supports synthetic turf at Dan Young Soccer Field.
Victoria Perez, support funding for internship program in the amount of 150,000 that could to benefit as many as 3,000 families in our community.
Luis Sarmiento, congratulated staff for having surplus; pleased with proposal for homeless program in addition to joint use agreements; requested consideration for proposal presented by community groups.
America Bracho, representing Latino Health Access, requested funding in the amount of $ 1 million for building maintenance.
Staff presentation by City Manager Cavazos
CITY CHARTER REQUIREMENTS ( Santa Ana City Charter)
Sec. 609 — Budget Appropriations ( Year - End Balance). From the effective date of the budget, the several amounts stated therein as proposed expenditures shall be and become appropriated to the several offices, agencies, and departments for the respective objectives and purposes therein specified as stated in an appropriation ordinance. All appropriations shall lapse at the end of the fiscal year to the extent that they shall not have been expended or lawfully encumbered.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 14 OCTOBER 20, 2015
Sec. 609 — Budget Appropriations ( Voting Requirements). At any meeting after the adoption of the budget, the City Council may amend or supplement the budget by motion adopted by the affirmative votes of at least two- thirds ( 2/ 3) of the members so as to authorize the transfer of unused balances appropriated for one purpose to another purpose, or to appropriate available revenue not included in the budget.
FY 14- 15 PROJECTED YEAR- END SURPLUS TOTAL GENERAL FUND Total Revenues $ 208, 918, 360 $ 219, 599, 548 $ 10, 681, 188 t 5. 1% Total Expenditures $ 208, 918, 360 $ 208, 343, 008 $ ( 575, 352) I- - 0. 3% Current estimates for the year- end balance/ surplus is approximately:
11, 256, 540
Total of approximately $ 25M over two years
ALLOCATION SCHEDULE
August 2015:
Discussions with Mayor and Council
Mayor and Council Retreat: August 18, 2015
Discussions with Mayor and Council
September 2015:
Final determination of accrued expenses
Discussions with Mayor and Council
Also, preliminary surplus amount determined $ 11, 250, 000 Work Study Session: September 15, 2015
Discussions with Mayor and Council
October 2015:
Discussions with Mayor and Council
Final Council Approval of Surplus Funds: October 20, 2015 Discussions with Mayor and Council
Total funding
THE PLAN — ONE TIME MONEY F, aws ,, gin.=,,
Parks
Safety/ Security
y
vrn! earo
Technology
Investment
Faciiities/ Assets'°°
SURPLUS ALLOCATION— NEXT STEPS
1. Review projects and adopt a Fiscal Year 2014- 15 Surplus Allocation List of Projects" for consensus approval by Mayor and City Council:
OR
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 15 OCTOBER 20, 2015
1. Review options and direct staff to make adjustments to the Fiscal Year 2014- 2015 Surplus Allocation Plan at the discretion of the Mayor and City Council. Approve a combination of surplus eligible projects from the ' List of Projects" and direct staff to appropriate funds in the amounts identified by the Mayor and Council.
2. Approve the establishment of the Council Special Projects Fund ( fund 50) and the appropriation adjustment recognizing up to $ 11, 250, 000 from the Fiscal Year 2014- 15 General Fund Balance and appropriating the same to the Council Special Projects Fund expenditure and reserve accounts as outlined in the Surplus Allocation Plan.
BRISTOL PROPERTY SALE ( CDBG) ECONOMIC INVESTMENT FUNDS
SARTC) NEXT STEPS
Review projects that are CDBG eligible according to the discretion of the Mayor and City Council funded by the sale of Bristol Street Remnant Parcels up to an amount of $2,000, 000.
Review and approve Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center' s maintenance and improvements' in the amount of $ 3,800,000 pending completion of city-wide credit analysis indicating the use of the Economic Investment funds would have no adverse impact on the City' s credit rating.
Council discussion ensued.
Mayor Pulido, asked why Cabrillo Park Clay Tennis Court project was moved to Community Development Block Grant ( CDBG) List B eligibible projects.
Mayor Pro Tern Sarmiento, supports approval of items listed on item a) and continue consider of item b) to a later date; requested consideration of funding for Civic Engagement, Building Healthy Communities and Latino Health Access proposal, also, include Sandpointe Park security lighting as an identified project, and recommended that some of the proposed joint - use agreement funding be reallocated to homelessness.
Councilmember Martinez, asked that civic engagement be a priority and institutionalized; State allocated $ 25 million for statewide efforts; City to focus on core services and sustainable government; need to make sure that funds are reallocated to future budgets in the event that projects are not completed in current fiscal year; also, proceeds of Bristol Street property acquisition funds to return to council for consideration.
City Manager Cavazos, indicated that allocation will be for a 3 year period to make sure projects are completed.
Councilmember Amezcua, opined that consensus reached on approve projects on List A.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 16 OCTOBER 20, 2015
Mayor Pulido, asked if possible for more additional funding available in the near future.
City Manager noted that finances would be appraised and return to City Council with revised figures.
Councilmember Tinajero, thanked staff for progress made to date.
Councilmember Benavides, recommended consideration of skate park in the downtown area.
MOTION:
1. Adopt a Fiscal Year 2014- 15 Surplus Allocation " List of Projects":
a) Direct staff to make adjustments to the Fiscal Year 2014- 2015 Surplus Allocation Plan in the total amount of $ 11, 250, 000, as follow:
Total
Project/ Community Funding
Dept Benefit Ward Category Requested
Parks and Angel Restroom
Recreation Renovations 5 Parks 50, 000
Riverview Basketball
Parks and Court and Parking Lot
Recreation Renovation 3 Parks 97, 400
Parks and Santiago Bike Trail
Recreation Resurfacing Project 3 Parks 70, 000
Santiago Playground
Parks and Equipment
Recreation Replacement 3 Parks 230, 000
Bomo Koral
Parks and Sidewalk/ Walkway
Recreation Renovations 4 Parks 150, 000
Dan Young Soccer
Parks and Court Field # 2 Syn
Recreation Turf 6 Parks 640, 000
Parks and Cabrillo Park Tennis
Recreation Court Renovations 1 Parks 75, 000
Parks and
Recreation Windsor Tennis Courts 6 Parks 140, 000
Civic Center Joint
Parks and Powers Authority -
Recreation Renovations City -Wide Parks 419, 000
Body Cameras- 200 SafetySAPD Cameras for use by City -Wide Security 350, 000
Police Department
Parks and Security Lights: 6 50, 000
Recreation Windsor Park Parks
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 17 OCTOBER 20, 2015
Total
Project/ Community Funding
Dept Benefit Ward Category Requested
Parks and Security Lights: Santa 6 50, 000
Recreation Anita Park Parks
Parks and Security Lights: Lillie 1 50, 000Recreation Kin Park Parks Parks and Security Lights: 3 50, 000
Recreation Santia o Park Parks
Parks and Security Lights: Bomo 4 170, 000Recreation Koral Park Parks Parks and Security Lights: 6 50, 000
Recreation Heritage Park Parks
Parks and Security Lights: 1 50, 000Recreation Madison Park Parks Parks and Security Lights: Fisher 3 70, 000
Recreation Park Parks
Safety
CMO Homeless City -Wide Security 400, 000
Public Works GIS System
City -Wide Tech. 125, 000
Agency Development
Network, Data Centers
Technology
and Servers/ Software,
City -Wide Tech. 1, 065, 000Communications
Upgrade
IT Equipment
Upgrades -
Technology Computers/ laptops, City -Wide Tech. 273, 600 mobile technology,
phones
Financial Budgeting
Technology Application City -Wide Tech. 400, 000
Planning & Building
Technology Permitting Application City -Wide Tech. 300, 000 Communications -
Equipment,
Translation Services,
CMO On - Call
Communication & City -Wide Tech. 190, 000
Public Relations
Services, Marketing
and Advertising
Public Works CIP,
Asset Management,
Technology and Project City -Wide Tech. 300, 000
Management
Application
Santa Ana City -Wide
CDA Branding Study City -Wide Investment 200, 000
Planning and
Building General Plan Update City -Wide Investment 1, 000, 000 Planning and Metro East Zone 1 Investment 100, 000
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 18 OCTOBER 20, 2015
Total
Project/ Community Funding
Dept Benefit Ward Category Requested
Building Expansion
Finance Pension Stability Fund City -Wide Investment 500, 000 Placemaking City-
CDA Wide City -Wide Investment 100, 000
SARTC Deferred
Public Works Maintenance- HVAC
Agency Replacement 2 investment 650, 000
Corbin Center
Improvements-
Facilities/ Finance Restroom Renovation 4
Assets
50, 000
Facility
Improvements
Corporate Yard: Roof
Facilities/ Finance Restoration & Facility City -Wide Assets 650, 000
Renovations
Grand Central: Chiller
Finance
Replacement- Cal
City -Wide
Facilities/
450, 000
State Fullerton 2nd St. Assets
Promenade
Police Department
Facilities/ Finance Jail: Facility City -Wide Assets
150, 000
Renovations
Finance City Hall Facility and City -Wide
Facilities)
155, 000
Safety Renovations Assets
Finance Newhope Library- 3
Facilities/
40, 000
HVAC Project Assets
Jerome Center Gym &
Finance
Southwest Senior
4 Facilities!
50, 000
Center- Facility Assets
Renovations
El Salvador Center -
Finance Upgrade Exterior 5 Facilities/ 15, 000
HVAC Security Assets
Enclosures
Fleet Replacement -
Police, Public Works,
Finance Finance, Planning and City -Wide
Facilities/
1 300, 000
Building, Parks & Assets
Recreation- 44
Vehicles
Calle Cuatro Street
Facilities/
CMO Signs and Plaza Calle 2
Assets
25, 000
Cuatro Si na e
TOTAL 11, 250, 000
b) Continue consideration of items identified as Community Development Block Grant ( CDBG) eligible to a future date.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 19 OCTOBER 20, 2015
MOTION: Sarmiento
VOTE: AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
SECOND: Reyna
Amezcua, Benavides, Martinez, Pulido, Reyna,
Tinajero, Sarmiento ( 7)
None ( 0)
None ( 0)
None ( 0)
c) Approve Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center' s
maintenance and improvements ( Maintenance, Safety/ Liability, Tenant space, signage) in the amount of 3,800,000 pending completion of city- wide credit analysis indicating the use of the Economic Investment funds would have no adverse impact on the City' s credit rating.
Motion by Tinajero. Item approved by unanimous consent.
On November 3, 2015, Councilmember Martinez requested Agenda item 65A( c) be re - voted since it was not seconded.
2. APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENT NO. 2016- 051 - Approve the establishment of the Council Special Projects Fund ( fund 50) and the appropriation adjustment recognizing $ 11, 250, 000 from the Fiscal Year 2014- 15 General Fund Balance and appropriating the same to the Council Special Projects Fund expenditure and reserve accounts.
Motion by Martinez, seconded by Reyna. Item approved by unanimous consent.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 20 OCTOBER 20, 2015
PUBLIC HEARING
75A. EMERGENCY ORDINANCE EXTENDING MORATORIUM ON THE
ESTABLISHMENT OR EXPANSION OF ANY SHORT- TERM
RESIDENTIAL RENTAL USE FOR AN ADDITIONAL 10 MONTHS AND
15 DAYS { STRATEGIC PLAN NO. 5, 4). - Planning and Building Agency Legal Notice published in the Orange County Reporter on October 9, 2015.
Mayor Pulido opened the Hearing. The following spoke on the matter:
Douglas McLeith, spoke against proposed ordinance; restrictive and not warranted; suggested restrictions for short term rental for full house and for more than 2 people and when owner is not present.
Julie Herrick, has had favorable experience while renting room at her house; opined that proposed ordinance was overreaching and would negatively impact those that are not a problem; suggest 45 day review period, if needed; also, short term rentals allow travelers to experience Santa Ana.
Mayor closed the Hearing.
Council discussion ensued.
Councilmember Martinez, supports shared economy.
Planning and Building Executive Director Haghani, noted that staff reviewing various models; will bring options for consideration; could exempt the properties where property owners are on site or hold off enforcement unless evidence of complaint, if so desired by the City Council; also, intention is to come back to City Council before moratorium expires.
Mayor Pro Tern Sarmiento, noted that issue brought forward because of complaint; need to pause and support concept of shared economy; should consider deferring ordinance.
City Manager Cavazos, reported that the home in question that brought forth this issue is now listed for sale, thus not aware of other neighborhood complaints on short term rentals.
Councilmember Martinez, proposed that matter be tabled and bring to the Development and Transportation Committee.
Planning and Building Executive Director Haghani, stated that matter will include in the upcoming zoning code update.
CITY COUNCIL. MINUTES 21 OCTOBER 20, 2015
City Attorney Carvalho, reported for the record that once the City Council does not extend a moratorium, the City Council will not be able to agendize matter as a moratorium in the future.
MOTION: Table matter indefinitely and agendize on the Development and Transportation Advisory Committee for review.
MOTION: Martinez
VOTE: AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
WORK STUDY SESSION
SECOND: Amezcua
Amezcua, Benavides, Martinez, Pulido, Reyna,
Tinajero, Sarmiento ( 7)
None ( 0)
None ( 0)
None ( 0)
WS. OPTIONS FOR ADDRESSING MOBILE VENDING TRUCKS - Planning and Building Agency
Staff report presentation by Interim Code Enforcement Manager, Alvaro Nunez
Propose Modifications to the Ordinance
Rescind Ordinance based on Federal. Court Injunction
Update regulations to reflect current industry practices Eliminate outdated provisions
Distinguish between commercial and residential districts Public Considerations
Colocation of multiple mobile vendors
Compare with similar cities
Meetings with Stakeholders
Planning & Building Agency
Santa Ana Police Department ( Traffic Division)
Orange County Health
Latino Health Access
Mobile Vending representative — produce
Mobile Vending representative — catering
South Santa Ana Merchants Association
Downtown Restaurant Association
Neighborhood Association/ Comm Link representative
Public Works Agency
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 22 OCTOBER 20, 2015
Survey of successful models from other jurisdictions
San Jose, San Francisco, LA County Santa Monica, Long Beach, West Hollywood, Anaheim, Phoenix, Portland, Palm Desert, and San Luis Obispo
What we heard -- Mobile Vending Positives
Provides access to food and other convenience items in dense neighborhoods
Easily accessible to those without transportation
Can act as "eyes on the street" due to their continual presence Already part of the Community.
What we heard -- Public Safety Concerns
Parking too close to intersections and driveways — blocks visibility at crosswalks and sidewalks
Mid -block pedestrian crossings to reach trucks
Can become targets for graffiti and gang identification What we heard -- Neighborhood Quality of Life concerns
Concentration of vending vehicles on neighborhood streets Loud noise
Damage to parkways
Trash and litter accumulation
Tables and chairs blocking sidewalks or set up in the road Public urination
What we heard -- Public Health concerns
Failure to comply with Orange County Health standards
Overnight parking in residential zones
Vehicles not returning to commissaries
Vehicles not adhering to the 2 hour limitation when not providing a bathroom within 200 feet.
Vendors taking up limited parking spaces
Late night operation
Proposed Modifications to Ordinance
Rescind Ordinance based on Federal Court Injunction
Eliminate outdated provisions
Distinguish between commercial and residential districts Public Considerations
Colocation of multiple mobile vendors
Public Health Concerns— recommendations
Commissary
Sanitation/ Bathroom Requirements
Daily Reporting
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 23 OCTOBER 20, 2015
Public Safety --- recommendations Separation Requirements Distance 500 ft. from any school, park, community center or playground facility.
Distance within 50 feet of a crosswalk.
Maximum six feet in height
No blocking of driveways or movement of other vehicles upon any sidewalks, and public or private streets.
Quality of Life— recommendations Public Right of Way—
Prohibit items in the public right of way
Refuse containers -- maintain 50- foot radius of the vehicle Prohibit the use of amplified sound
Establish hours of operation in residential zones and uses Commercial Zones - Establish Mobile food vending courts ( districts) Allowed on private/ public property -- special event permit.
Enhance/ enliven an area
Increase business activity
generate traffic for existing businesses
Commercial Zones - Considerations
Hours of operation
Traffic/ road closures
Proximity to similar brick -and -mortar businesses
Duration and regularity of events.
Councilmember Martinez, asked that City work with school district in addressing mobile vending trucks on school grounds; recommended land use permit and possibility of establishing districts; suggest that any proposed ordinance not interfere with special events and school fundraisers.
City Attorney Carvalho, said that draft ordinance can include special event provisions, not apply to special agency or neighborhood event if given notice in advance, and may include regulations for schools by balancing the brick and motor establishments.
Councilmember Amezcua, concerned with health, safety, and sanitation of food trucks.
Councilmember Reyna, need to address light pollution; need to regulate according to vehicle code
Mayor Pro Tern Sarmiento, noted that City has tried to regulate in the past, with little success -- place, time, management are difficult and have issues with public safety and other secondary impacts, business industry CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 24 OCTOBER 20, 20' 15
has matured, need to create economic development opportunities and balance brick and motor establishments.
Motion by Councilmember, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Sarmiento to direct staff to rescind current ordinance and return to City Council with options within the next 90 days with new option; motion carried unanimously.
COMMENTS
PUBLIC COMMENTS ( Non- Agendized Items)
Michael Klubuski, concerned with County of Orange' s Ethics Committee ordinance.
Venacio Chavez, spoke of various neighborhood issues including increased alcohol consumption, drugs and other illegal activity; request assistance with proposed alcohol license for a business on Minter Street.
Steve Rocco, provided update on recall efforts underway and other personal issues.
Edgar Sebastian Vasquez, representing InterAmerican Agency Sports concerned with proposed closure of Eddie West stadium for a 6 month renovation and closure of fields at Centennial # 2; asked that City Council consider impacts to teams when making such decisions.
Rick Neidermeyer, asked that CDBG funding be available for less projects and programs requesting less than $ 30,000; also asked City to regulate drones.
Victor Payan, invited all to upcoming Film Festival event this weekend at Frida Theater.
Madeline Spencer, commented on need to hold police officers accountable. 90A. CITY MANAGER' S COMMENTS
Announced that Community Emergency Response Team " CERT" program will be returning.
90B. CITY COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
Councilmember Martinez:
Expressed concerned that she was not aware that Eddie West Stadium would be closed for 4- 6 months; venue has high usage; Reminded all that each Ward can spend up to $ 10,000 a year for neighborhood events; encouraged all to apply;
Invited all to 2"
d
annual SOMOS event on November 8t"; asked staff to
promote event regionally; and
Asked that City Council be kept abreast of community events and changes at City Hall that effect the community.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 25 OCTOBER 20, 2015
Councilmember Tinajero:
Announced that Santa Ana High school has undefeated record; upcoming homecoming game v. Segerstrom coming up;
Pleased that City Council able to allocate extra funds; and Thanked efforts by police officers and Police Chief.
Mayor Pro Tern Sarmiento:
Thanked the City Manager for winding down negotiations labor groups; Asked that Communications Manager send out alert on upcoming movie screening on October 24, 2015 at 7:00 PM at the Frida Theater; Noted that surplus funds should be retitled unallocated funds — deferred maintenance and one- time projects;
Thanked police rank and file for service and living up to high standards; and
Wished all a happy Halloween and asked all to be safe.
Councilmember Amezcua:
Thanked staff for efforts in bringing forth surplus funds; Thanked Police Chief for leadership and continue to hold staff to high standards;
Reported that Orange County Fire Authority has decreased response times; and
Wished son a happy birthday.
Councilmember Reyna:
Asked all to continue to conserve water;
Encouraged all to attend Santa Ana High School v. Segerstrom football game;
Held successful Youth Leadership conference; thanked presenters; Hosted community meeting to inform area of grants available for neighborhood events; and
Urged all to shop Santa Ana.
Councilmember Benavides:
Asked all to be safe on Halloween;
Commented on need for deferred maintenance, need to address maintenance on a regular basis;
City Council committed to " Community Engagement" efforts; access and accessible;
Participated in Love Santa Ana Initiative; graffiti removal app has been effective in eradicating;
Encouraged residents to visit City website and register to receive regular updates through Nixel alerts; need to make option visible on site; and
Support local economy — Shop Santa Ana.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 26 OCTOBER 20, 2015
Mayor Pulido:
Requested memo on status of Eddie West Stadium closure and proposed next steps;
Announced that Bowers Museum in negotiation with Vatican to bring exhibit to Santa Ana; and
Adjourned in memory of Yolanda Hernandez who worked for Dr.
Nogales and to Christopher Joseph Ruiz who served our country in the Marine Corp.
ADJOURNED - 9:02 p.m. — The next meeting of the City Council is scheduled for Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 5: 00 p. m. for the Closed Session Meeting immediately followed by the Regular Open Business Meeting at 5:45 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California.
Adjourn in Memory of
Christopher Joseph Ruiz
and
Yolanda Hernandez
1xv--
Wria Huizar,
Clerk of the Council
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Mater Dei High School Parking Structure Project
Community Engagement Plan
General Plan Update
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 27 OCTOBER 20, 20' 15
EXHIBIT D
Keen v. City of Manhattan Beach, 77 Cal. App. 5th 142 ( 2022) 292 Cal. Rptr. 3d 366, 22 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3511, 2022 Daily Journal D.A. R. 3377 77 Cal. App. 5th 142
Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8, California.
Darby T. KEEN, as Trustee,
etc., Plaintiff and Respondent,
V.
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
et al., Defendants and Appellants.
B307538
Filed 4/ 6/ 2022
Synopsis
Background: Owner of property rented on short-term
basis petitioned for writ of mandate to enjoin city
from enforcing zoning ordinances prohibiting short-term rentals. The Superior Court, Los Angeles County, No.
19STCP02984, James C. Chalfant, J., enjoined ban on short- term rentals pending approval of zoning ordinances by
Coastal Commission. City appealed.
Holdings: The Court of Appeal, Wiley, J., held that:
1] city' s residential zoning ordinances always permitted short- and long-term rentals, and thus ban on short-term rentals was amendment to local coastal program requiring approval by Coastal Commission;
2] short- term residential rentals did not fall within definition of " hotels, motels, and time- share facilities"; and
3] Court of Appeal would not takejudicial notice of decades - old definition of " hotel."
Affirmed.
Procedural Posture( s): On Appeal; Petition for Writ of Mandate; Request for Judicial Notice.
West Headnotes ( 4)
1] Environmental Law .— Construction
Court of Appeal liberally construes the
California Coastal Act of 1976 to achieve the
ends of protecting the coast and maximizing
public access to it. Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§
30001. 5, 30330.
2 Cases that cite this headnote
2] Environmental Law Coastal areas, bays,
and shorelines
Zoning and Planning Hotels, lodging, and
short- term rentals
City residential zoning ordinances in local
coastal program, which defined single- family
residential and multi -family residential uses,
always permitted short-term, as well as long-
term, residential rentals, and thus city' s ban on
short- term rentals was amendment to program
requiring approval by Coastal Commission;
ordinances defined single-family and multi-
family residential uses as containing one
dwelling unit on a site or two or more units on
a site, respectively, city permitted both uses in
residential areas, ordinances provided no textual
basis for temporal distinction about duration of
rentals, and use of word " residence" did not
imply some minimum length of occupancy. Cal.
Pub. Res. Code § 30514.
1 Case that cites this headnote
3] Environmental Law @-- Coastal areas, bays,
and shorelines
Zoning and Planning Q--- Hotels, lodging, and
short- term rentals
Short- term residential rentals did not fall under
definition of " hotels, motels, and time- share
facilities" in city' s zoning ordinances in local
coastal program, for purposes of determining
whether city' s ban on short- term rentals was
amendment of program requiring approval by
Coastal Commission; ordinances defined such
facilities as establishments offering lodging on
weekly or less than weekly basis, and having
kitchens in no more than 60% of guest units,
short- term rentals city was trying to prohibit
were of single- and multi - family residences
in residential neighborhoods, and houses and
apartments conventionally had kitchens. Cal.
Pub. Res. Code § 30514.
WESTLAW © 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U. S. Government Works. 1 Keen v. City of Manhattan Beach, 77 Cal. App. 5th 142 ( 2022) 292 Cal. Rptr. 3d 366, 22 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3511, 2022 Daily Journal D.A. R. 3377 3 Cases that cite this headnote
141 Evidence ;-.— Local laws and ordinances
Court of Appeal would not take judicial notice
of almost 60-year-old ordinance that defined
hotel a particular way, and import that definition
into ordinance in local coastal program, in
determining whether city' s ban on short-term
rentals was amendment of program requiring
approval by Coastal Commission; different
definition from decadesbefore could not prevail
over definition enacted by city and certified by
Commission in existing ordinance at issue. Cal.
Pub. Res. Code § 30514.
367 APPEAL from ajudgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, James C. Chalfant, Judge. Affirmed.
Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19STCP02984
Attorneys and Law Firms
Richards, Watson & Gershon, Quinn M. Barrow, Ginetta
L. Giovinco and Marvin E. Bonilla, for Defendants and
Appellants.
Angel Law, Frank P. Angel and Talia E. Nimmer, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Opinion
WILEY, J.
144 This caseis about getting a room near the beach. By law, public accessto the beach is a California priority. The California Coastal * 145 Commission enforces this priority by reviewing amendments beach towns make in municipal
laws affecting coastal areas. Amendments require approval.
The legal question here is whether there was an amendment.
In 1994, the City of Manhattan Beach enacted zoning
ordinances, which the Coastal Commission then certified. Did these old ordinances permit rentals of a residential property for fewer than 30 days? The popularity of Airbnb and similar platforms has made the question acute.
The trial court rightly ruled the City' s old ordinances did permit short-term rentals. This means the City' s recent laws against platforms like Airbnb indeed are amendments requiring Commission approval, which the City never got. We affirm. Our statutory references are to the Public Resources Code.
I
We begin with legal, factual, and procedural background.
This section recaps the California Coastal Act, describes local battles over short- term rentals, and recounts the case' s posture.
A
1] The California Coastal Act of 1976 defined the Coastal Commission' s mission to protect the coast and to maximize public accessto it. (§§ 30001.5, 30330.) We liberally construe the Act to achieve these ends. ( Greenfield v Mandalay
Shores Community Assn. ( 2018) 21 Cal. App. 5th 896, 898, 230 Cal. Rptr. 3d 827 ( Greenfield).)
The Commission works with local governments to ensure
they take adequateaccount of stateinterests. (§ 30004, subds. a) & ( b); FMCityof Dana Point a California Coastal Com. 2013) 217 Cal. AppAth 170, 186, 158 Cal. Rptr. 3d 409.) In this endeavor, the Act' s main tool is the local coastal program. (§ 30500 et seq.; City of Chula Vista v Superior Court ( 1982) 133 Cal.App. 3d 472, 489, 183 Cal.Rptr. 909.) Each coastal government must develop one. (§ 30500,
subd. ( a).) Local coastal programs have two parts: the land use plan and the local implementing program. The
latter consists of zoning ordinances, zoning maps, and other possible actions. (§§ 30512, subd. ( a), 30513, subd. ( a).) The Commission reviews the local coastal program. (§§ 30200, 30512, 30512.2, 30513.) If it conforms to the Act' s policies, the Commission certifies the program. (§§ 30512, subd. ( a), 30513, subd. ( b).)
146 In accord with these provisions, the City submitted its local coastal program to the Commission years ago. The Commission ** 368 certified the City' s land use plan in 1981 and its local implementing program in 1994. This local implementing program included zoning ordinances.
WESTLAW © 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U. S. Government Works. 2 Keen v. City of Manhattan Beach, 77 Cal. App. 5th 142 ( 2022) 292 Cal. Rptr. 3d 366, 22 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3511, 2022 Daily Journal D.A. R. 3377 Once the local program is approved, it can be amended,
but the local government must submit amendments to the
Commission for approval. Absent approval, amendments
have no force. (§ 30514, subd. ( a).)
Throughout this case, the City has not disputed it would need Commission approval to enact a new prohibition on
short- term rentals within the coastal zone. That would be an " amendment." But the City has stoutly maintained there has been no amendment, because its old ordinances always prohibited short-term rentals. Keen disagrees, andthat frames the issue in this case: whether the City amendedits program when it clamped down on short- term rentals, or whether the prohibition was not an amendment because it merely
continued the legal statusquo.
L
We now recount how the City banned short-term rentals.
For quite some time, people rented residential units in Manhattan Beach on both long- and short- term bases. The City knew about the practice and occasionally got complaints about a rental property, including about one "party house" in 2005.
Things changed leading up to 2015. Online platforms like Airbnb became popular, which increased short- term rentals.
The City had not received a " tremendous" number of
complaints, but it sought an active stance on the issue.
After hearing from the public, the Council passed two
ordinances " reiterating" the City' s supposedly existing ban on short-term rentals. The Council claimed its existing ordinances, including those enacted with the local coastal program, already prohibited short-term rentals implicitly.
We call these the 2015 ordinances.
When the City Council enacted the 2015 ordinances, it
resolved to submit the one about the coastal zone for
Commission certification.
City staff met with Commission staff. The Commission staff, however, recommended the City allow at least some short- term rentals to facilitate * 147 visitor access to the coastal zone. Then, in 2016, the Commission wrote to all coastal cities, saying municipal regulation of short- term rentals would have to be in cooperation with the Commission. The Commission emphasized that " vacation rentals provide an important source of visitor accommodations in the coastal zone" and that blanket bans would rarely be appropriate.
After the Commission made clear its support for some level of short-term renting, the City withdrew its 2015 request for Commission approval. The City tells us its withdrawal was because the 2015 ordinance worked no change in the law and hence never required Commission certification.
The City Council continued to grapple with how to regulate short- term rentals.
In 2019, the Council adopted an ordinance creating an
enforcement mechanism for its short- term rental ban. This required platforms like Airbnb to tell the City who was renting out what. The ordinance also prohibited platforms from collecting fees for booking transactions.
We call this the 2019 ordinance.
The 2019 ordinance had a pronounced effect: by June 2019, short- term rentals dropped, in round numbers, from 250 to 50.
The ban was markedly, although not completely, effective. 369 In July 2019, the City hired Host Compliance, a
company specializing in helping cities enforce short- term rental regulation.
Bewilderingly, the City tells us there is no evidence its ordinances reduced the number of short- term rentals in the City. The record contradicts this.
C
Darby Keen owns property in the City' s coastal zone. He rented it on a short-term basis. The City sent Keen a Notice of Violation on July 16, 2019. Keen petitioned for a writ of mandateto enjoin the City from enforcing the 2015 and 2019 ordinances.
The trial court issued a 19-page single-spaced tentative decision: a model of careful analysis. The court noted what the City did not dispute: the City would have to obtain Commission approval if it were to enact a new prohibition on short-term rentals. The City' s position, however, was the prohibition was not new but rather was to be found in its old WESTLAW © 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U. S. Government Works. 3 Keen v. City of Manhattan Beach, 77 Cal. App. 5th 142 ( 2022) 292 Cal. Rptr. 3d 366, 22 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3511, 2022 Daily Journal D.A. R. 3377 zoning laws that the Commission had approved years before.
The court disagreed, ruling the * 148 City had not identified any zoning provision to support its conclusion that rentals for fewer than 30 days were barred but longer rentals were permitted. The court concluded the City was wrong to say it had always banned short- term rentals. Rather, the court ruled the ban was new, it was an amendment, and it thus required Commission approval, which it did not have. The court therefore enjoined enforcement of the ban on short- term rentals pending Commission approval.
The City appealed.
II
The City' s argument boils down to this: the trial court was wrong to think the City hasalways allowed short-term rentals.
The trial court was right, however, and the plain language of the City' s ordinances proves it.
Our review is independent. ( Berkeley Hills Watershed
Coalition v City of Berkeley ( 2019) 31 Cal. App. 5th 880, 896, 243 Cal. Rptr. 3d 236.)
A
2] The trial court correctly interpreted the City' sordinances:
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. Sothe 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 andthe 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 sameas short-term rentals. If long-term rentals are legal, so too are short- term rentals. The ordinances offer no textual ** 370 basis for a temporal * 149 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 reasonableinterpretation 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 takesthe unusual stepof banning all renting in the residential areasof the City.
Use of the word " residence" does not imply some minimum length of occupancy. ( Cf. People a Venice Suites, LLC
2021) 71 Cal.App. 5th 715, 726, 286 Cal.Rptr.3d 598 (Venice Suites) [" A `residential building' is usedfor 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].)
WESTLAW © 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U. S. Government Works. 4 Keen v. City of Manhattan Beach, 77 Cal. App. 5th 142 ( 2022) 292 Cal. Rptr. 3d 366, 22 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3511, 2022 Daily Journal D.A. R. 3377 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 housedo 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.
150 The City' szoning thuspermits you to rent ahouseor an apartment in Manhattan Beach, which accords with common experience. The City' szoning doesnot regulate how long your stay can be.
The City' sproposed 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.
3] 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.
371 [ 4] 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 decadesbefore 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. The City' snew ban on short- term rentals was an amendment requiring Commission approval. 1:3
The City' s other argumentsare invalid.
1 The City relies heavily on the principle of permissive zoning. It arguesCalifornia has adopted this doctrine: zoning ordinances prohibit any usethey 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.
2 The City argues we should defer to its reasonable
interpretation of its own ordinances because it is the local agency with responsibility for * 151 implementing them.
Our analysis does not involve or require deference. We give simple words their obvious meaning. Contrary interpretations are unreasonable.
3 The City notes recent California statutes, in 2019,
characterized short-term rentals ascommercial uses. The City says this shows that short- term rentals are inappropriate in residential zones. These state statutes, however, deal with different issues than the municipal ordinances here. The 2019 statutes are not germane.
4 The City arguesthetrial court erred in interpreting the Coastal Act to require it to provide short-term rentals in residential areas. This is incorrect. The key provision is the onerequiring Commission approval of amended laws. The Commission
has not required the City to allow short- term rentals. The Commission hasnot reviewed the City' sban becausethe City, incorrectly, hasbeenmaintaining its ban isnothing new. There was no erroneous interpretation of the Coastal Act.
WESTLAW © 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U. S. Government Works.
Keen v. City of Manhattan Beach, 77 Cal. App. 5th 142 ( 2022) 292 Cal. Rptr. 3d 366, 22 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3511, 2022 Daily Journal D.A. R. 3377 The City argues Keen' s reliance on FAKrackev CityofSanta Barbara ( 2021) 63 Cal.App. 5th 1089, 278 Cal.Rptr.3d 370 is misplaced. Our analysis does not involve FMKracke.
DISPOSITION
We affirm the judgment and award costs to Keen.
We concur:
STRATTON, Acting P. J.
HARUTUNIAN, J.
All Citations
77 Cal.App.5th 142, 292 Cal.Rptr.3d 366, 22 Cal. Daily Op.
Serv. 3511, 2022 Daily Journal D.A. R. 3377
Footnotes
Judge of the San Diego Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
End of Document 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U. S. Government Works.
WESTLAW © 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U. S. Government Works. 6
EXHIBIT E
People v. Venice Suites, LLC, 71 Cal. App. 5th 715 ( 2021) 286 Cal. Rptr. 3d 598, 21 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,565, 2021 Daily Journal D.A. R. 11,835 71 Cal. App. 5th 715
Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8, California.
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant,
V.
VENICE SUITES, LLC et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
B300960
I
Filed 11/ 15/ 2021
Synopsis
Background: State of California brought action against
apartmenthouseowner andoperator, alleging violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code ( LAMC), public nuisance, unfair businesspractices, and false advertising. The Superior Court, Los Angeles County, No. BC624350, Teresa A. Beaudet,
J., granted summary adjudication in part for owner and
operator, and government voluntarily dismissed remaining claims. Government appealed.
Holdings: The Court of Appeal Ohta, Judge of the Los
Angeles Superior Court, assignedby the Chief Justice, held that:
1] Court of Appeal could exercise its discretion to consider government's legal argument on uncontroverted facts, raised for first time on appeal, that short- term rentals were impliedly prohibited under permissive zoning scheme;
Affirmed.
Procedural Posture( s): On Appeal; Motion for Summary
Judgment.
West Headnotes ( 24)
1] Municipal Corporations 0- Proceedings
concerning construction and validity of
ordinances
A city' s interpretation of an ambiguous portion
of its own code is entitled to deference, but
the court independently reviews the meaning or
application of the law.
21 Appeal and Error .— Review using standard
applied below
Appeal and Error i— All or Part of Evidence
Appeal and Error rv— Excluded or stricken
evidence
On appeal from grant of summary judgment,
Court of Appeal employs same standards as
trial court did and reviews record de novo,
considering all evidence set forth in moving and
opposing papers except that to which objections
were made and sustained. FMCal. Civ. Proc.
Code § 437c( c).
2] residential zone not specifying length of occupancy did [ 31 Summary Judgment 4-- Purpose
not implicitly prevent apartment house from being used for Summary judgment is a particularly suitable short- term occupancies of 30 days or less; means to test the sufficiency of the plaintiffs or defendant' s case. FMCal. Civ. Proc. Code §
3] long- term occupancy requirement for apartment house 437c( c). could not be inferred from definition limiting transient occupancy residential structure (TORS) to occupancies of 30 days or less; and [ 41 Appeal and Error 4— Nature or Subject - Matter of Issues or Questions
4] zoning code expressly authorizing use of apartment
Zoning and Planning 0=- Preservation below
house in zone for human habitation without length of
of grounds of review
occupancy restriction could not be read in conjunction with rent stabilization ordinance ( RSO) or transient occupancy tax Court of Appeal could exercise its discretion
ordinance (TOT) to require long-term occupancy. to consider government's legal argument on uncontroverted facts, raised for first time on
appeal, that short-term rentals were impliedly
WESTLAW © 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U. S. Government Works. 1 People v. Venice Suites, LLC, 71 Cal. App. Sth 715 ( 2021) 286 Cal. Rptr. 3d 598, 21 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,565, 2021 Daily Journal D.A. R. 11,835 prohibited under permissive zoning scheme, in
action brought by State of California against
house owner and operator alleging violation of
municipal code and public nuisance; although
discovery on municipality' s interpretation of
code under permissive zoning theory may have
been conducted, that did not convert question
from legal one to factual one.
1 Case that cites this headnote
5] Appeal and Error W-- Summary Judgment
Generally, the rules relating to the scope of
appellate review apply to appellate review of
summary judgments.
6] Appeal and Error W-- Necessity of
presentation in general
Appeal and Error 0- In general; adhering to
theory pursued below
An argument or theory will not be considered if
it is raised for the first time on appeal.
1 Case that cites this headnote
7] Appeal and Error Q--- In general; adhering to
theory pursued below
Appeal and Error W-- Evidence or Other
Material Not Considered Below
Appeal and Error 4- Summary judgment
When reviewing a summary judgment, the
appellate court must consider only those facts
before the trial court, disregarding any new
allegations on appeal; thus, possible theories that
were not fully developed or factually presented
to the trial court cannot create a " triable issue" on
appeal. FaCal. Civ. Proc. Code § 437c( c)
1 Case that cites this headnote
8] Appeal and Error @- In general; adhering to
theory pursued below
A party is not permitted to change his position
and adopt a new and different theory on appeal;
to permit him to do so would not only be unfair
to the trial court, but manifestly unjust to the
opposing litigant.
9] Appeal and Error 4-- Necessity of
presentation in general
Reviewing court may exercise its discretion to
reach merits of newly raised issue in certain
circumstances.
1 Case that cites this headnote
10] Appeal and Error #- In general; adhering to
theory pursued below
An appellant may be permitted to change his
or her theory when a question of law alone is
presentedon the facts appearing in the record; in
that case, the opposing party is not required to
defend for the first time on appeal against a new
theory that contemplates a controverted factual
situation.
1 Case that cites this headnote
11] Appeal and Error ti Local law; ordinances
The interpretation of municipal code is question
of law that is decided de novo on appeal.
12] Statutes 4- Questions of law or fact
Ascertainment of legislative intent is legal
question, not factual one.
13] Zoning and Planning W-- Apartment house
districts
Zoning and Planning Q--- Hotels, lodging, and
short- term rentals
Residential zone not specifying length of
occupancy did not implicitly prevent apartment
house from being used for short- term
occupancies of 30 days or less, since term
apartment house in common usage did not
indicate only long- term occupancy. Cal. Civ.
Code §§ 13, 1645.
2 Cases that cite this headnote
WESTLAW © 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U. S. Government Works. 2 People v. Venice Suites, LLC, 71 Cal. App. Sth 715 ( 2021) 286 Cal. Rptr. 3d 598, 21 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,565, 2021 Daily Journal D.A. R. 11,835 14] Appeal and Error W-- Statutory or legislative
law
The proper interpretation of astatuteis aquestion
of law reviewed de novo.
15] Municipal Corporations @— Applicability of
statutory construction rules
Courts interpret municipal ordinances in the
same manner and pursuant to the same rules
applicable to the interpretation of statutes.
16] Statutes 0— Purpose and intent
The fundamental task in a case involving
statutory interpretation is to determine the
Legislature' s intent so as to effectuate the law' s
purpose.
17] Statutes 0— Plain Language; Plain, Ordinary,
or Common Meaning
A court begins a task of interpreting a statute
by examining the statute' s words, giving them a
plain and commonsensemeaning.
18] Statutes Q- Language and intent, will,
purpose, or policy
Statutes Q--- Context
When interpreting a statute, a court looks to
the entire substance of the statute in order
to determine the scope and purpose of the
provision; that is, it construes the words in
question in context, keeping in mind the nature
and obvious purpose of the statute.
19] Statutes 4. Extrinsic Aids to Construction
Statutes 0 Plain, literal, or clear meaning;
ambiguity
If statutory language is susceptible of
more than one reasonable interpretation, a
court looks to extrinsic aids, including
ostensible objects to be achieved, evils to
be remedied, legislative history, public policy,
contemporaneous administrative construction,
and statutory schemeof which statute is part.
20] Statutes 4-- Reason, reasonableness, and
rationality
Statutes #— Wisdom, practicality, and
common sense
Court interprets statuteusing reason, practicality,
and common sense to language at hand.
21] Statutes #— Reason, reasonableness, and
rationality
Statutes #— Construction in View of Effects,
Consequences, or Results
Court must give words of statute workable
and reasonable interpretation keeping in
mind consequences that will flow from its
interpretation.
22] Zoning and Planning ` v Apartment house
districts
Zoning and Planning o• Hotels, lodging, and
short- term rentals
Long- term occupancy requirement for apartment
house could not be inferred from definition
limiting transient occupancy residential structure
TORS) to occupancies of 30 days or less;
although physical characteristics of both were
almost identical, definition for apartment house
had been in existence for 65 years.
2 Cases that cite this headnote
23] Statutes 4— Absent terms; silence; omissions
Courts are reluctant to accept that legislatures
enactimportant or fundamental changesby silent
indirection.
24] Zoning and Planning Q— Apartment house
districts
Zoning and Planning 0- Hotels, lodging, and
short- term rentals
WESTLAW © 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U. S. Government Works. 3 People v. Venice Suites, LLC, 71 Cal. App. 5th 715 ( 2021) 286 Cal. Rptr. 3d 598, 21 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,565, 2021 Daily Journal D.A. R. 11,835 Zoning code expressly authorizing use of
apartment house in zone for human habitation
without length of occupancy restriction could
not be read in conjunction with rent stabilization
ordinance ( RSO) or transient occupancy
tax ordinance ( TOT) to require long-term
occupancy; RSO's application only to monthly,
and not weekly or daily, rent did not compel
conclusion that apartment house was limited to
long- term occupancy, definition of tenant did not
have length of occupancy requirement, and TOT
expressly contemplated that apartment houses
could be occupied by transients, who exercised
occupancy for 30 days or less.
2 Cases that cite this headnote
600 APPEAL from ajudgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County. Teresa A. Beaudet, Judge. Affirmed.
Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC624350)
Attorneys and Law Firms
Michael N. Feuer, City Attorney, Kathleen A. Kenealy, Chief Assistant City Attorney, Scott Marcus, Chief Senior Assistant City Attorney, Blithe S. Bock and Michael M. Walsh, Deputy City Attorneys for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, Benjamin M. Reznik,
Matthew D. Hinks and Lara Leitner, Los Angeles, for
Defendants and Respondents.
Opinion
OHTA, J.
601 * 719 The People of the State of California
brought suit against Venice Suites, LLC and Carl Lambert collectively, Venice Suites) for * 720 violation of the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) and for public nuisance,
among other causes of action. Venice Suites owns and
operates an " Apartment House" as defined under LAMC
section12.03. 1 ThePeopleallegeVeniceSuitesillegally
operates a hotel or transient occupancy residential structure TORS), defined below, in a building only permitted to
operateasan Apartment House for long-term tenants and not overnight guests or transient renters. Further, the Apartment House is located in a R3 Multiple Dwelling residential zone, which disallows short-term occupancy. The trial court granted summary adjudication for Venice Suites on the two causesof action described above, finding the LAMC did not prohibit short- term occupancy of Apartment Houses in an R3 zone.
The People appealed after they voluntarily dismissed the remaining claims. We affirm.
FACTS
The material facts of this case are undisputed. The subject property, a 32- unit building, is located at 417 Ocean Front Walk ( 417 OFW) in an area zoned for R3 Multiple Dwellings.
The building was developed in 1921 in the City of Venice, which was later consolidated with the City of Los Angeles City). The City issued a certificate of occupancy on June 10, 1966, permitting use of 417 OFW as a " Thirty Two — Unit Apartment House. H Occupancy." In 1966, " H- Occupancy" uses were associated with the following subgroups: subgroup H- 2 was for " Apartment House" use, H- 3 was for " Hotel" use, and H- 4 was for " Apartment/ hotel" use.
Lambert is the owner and corporate manager of Venice Suites, LLC. Venice Suites, LLC purchased417 OFW on September
14, 1999, when it housed a mixture of short- term occupants thosestaying 30 daysor less) andlong-term occupants (those staying more than 30 days). The 32 units in 417 OFW are subject to the City' s Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO) and Venice Suites annually pays the RSO' s registration renewal fee. Additionally, Venice Suites has obtained annual Los Angeles tax registration certificates and has paid business taxes for " Hotel, apartment, etc." for 417 OFW.
After its purchase, Venice Suites began to renovate the property and paid relocation feesin compliance with the RSO to long- term tenants who wished to move. There have been no evictions from 417 OFW by Venice Suites. Since 2012, Venice Suites has rented the units at 417 OFW to members of the public on a short-term basis with no minimum stay requirement.
721 In 2014 and 2015, the City underwent a change of
policy with regard to the regulation of short- term rentals; it did not change the law applicable to short- term rentals at that time, however. On several ** 602 occasions in
mid —to —late 2014, the City moved to develop and adopt an ordinance to regulate short- term rentals and convened working groups to assist in establishing such an ordinance.
In 2018, after the summary judgment proceedings in this WESTLAW © 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U. S. Government Works. 4 People v. Venice Suites, LLC, 71 Cal. App. 5th 715 ( 2021) 286 Cal. Rptr. 3d 598, 21 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,565, 2021 Daily Journal D.A. R. 11,835 case were concluded, the City enacted the Home Sharing
Ordinance, which addresses short-term rentals in private homes. There is no contention the Home Sharing Ordinance applies to 417 OFW.
In 2014, Lambert approachedthe City' s planning department about entitlements to specifically permit short- term rentals at 417 OFW. He was instructed to proceed with the
planning department and California Coastal Commission
for such entitlements. As a result, Lambert submitted a Mello Act Determinationof AffordableUnits Application2
for 417 OFW, stating he sought " conversion to transient occupancy residential." The planning department accepted the application to change 417 OFW " from an ( E) 32-
Unit Apartment Building to a 32- room transient occupancy residential bldg. in the Venice specific plan area and dual jurisdiction coastal zone." That application was ultimately denied.
On January 26, 2015, the City issued a notice and order to comply, which asserted Venice Suites effected an "[ i] llegal change of occupancy from ` R- 2 Occupancy' residential
occupancies primarily permanent in nature ( apartments) to R- 1 Occupancy' residential occupancies primarily transient in nature ( hotel/ motel) ...." The notice ordered Venice Suites to correct all violations by March 4, 2015.
On June 17, 2016, the Los Angeles City Attorney' s Office filed a civil law enforcement action on behalf of the People against Venice Suites, seeking injunctive relief, equitable relief, and civil penalties for the use of 417 OFW as an illegal hotel or illegal TORS. The People alleged four causes of action: 1) violation of the LAMC, 2) public nuisance, 3) unfair competition under FABusinessand Professions Code section 17200, et seq., and 4) false advertising practices under Business and Professions Code section 17500, et seq.
722 As to the first cause of action, the People alleged a violation of LAMC section 11.00, which provides: " In addition to any other remedy or penalty provided by this [ Los Angeles Municipal] Code, any violation of any provision of this Code is declared to be a public nuisance and may be abated by the City or by the City Attorney on behalf of the people of the State of California as a nuisance by means of a restraining order, injunction or any other order or judgment in law or equity issuedby a court of competentjurisdiction." Specifically, the People alleged Venice Suites violated the following LAMC sectionsby operating 417 OFW asanillegal hotel or TORS: 12. 10( A), which specifies the allowable uses in a R3 zone; 12. 21( A)( 1), which only allows the uses permitted in the applicable zone and after securing the requisite permits; 12.26(E) and 91.109.1, which require a certificate of occupancy to be issued before a building may be occupied; 91.8105.1, which requires a building permit be issued; and 91.8204, which prohibits changesto the use of a 603 building unless it is made to comply with the LAMC.
The People further alleged Venice Suites failed to comply with an order issuedpursuant to LAMC section 91.103.3. The secondcauseof action for public nuisancein violation of Civil Code sections 3479 and 3480 was predicated on the same
violations of the LAMC as the first cause of action.
The parties filed cross -motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication, disputing whether Venice Suites
violated the LAMC. The primary dispute involved whether short-term occupancy of an Apartment House located in
an R3 zone is prohibited under the LAMC. The People
interpreted the LAMC to exclude short-term occupancy of Apartment Houses, relying on provisions of the Zoning Code LAMC, § 11.00, et seq.), the RSO (LAMC, § 151.00, et seq.), and the Transient Occupancy Tax Ordinance (TOT; LAMC,
21.7.1, et seq.).
1] Venice Suites argued the Zoning Code controlled and
did not regulate the length of occupancy in an Apartment House. Short-term rentals were permitted because none of the provisions relating to an Apartment House in the Zoning Code specified a length of occupancy. Neither did the
relevant land use plans regulate length of occupancy for an Apartment House. Venice Suites cited to testimony to that effect from the persons designated by the People to be the most knowledgeable on the subject. Venice Suites also relied 723 on a report issued by the City that concluded short- termrentalswerenotprohibitedundertheRSO.3
The trial court granted Venice Suites's motion for summary adjudication as to the first and second causes of action for violation of theLAMC andpublic nuisance, andit deniedboth motions as to the third and fourth causes of action for unfair businesspractices and false advertising.
The People subsequently dismissed their third and fourth causesof action without prejudice and appealedthe resulting judgment.
WESTLAW © 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U. S. Government Works. 5 People v. Venice Suites, LLC, 71 Cal. App. 5th 715 ( 2021) 286 Cal. Rptr. 3d 598, 21 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,565, 2021 Daily Journal D.A. R. 11,835
DISCUSSION
I. Standard of Review
2] Summary judgment is appropriate where " all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." ( Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. ( c).) A defendant moving for summary judgment or summary
adjudication must show " that one or more elements of the cause of action ... cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action." ( Id. at subd. ( p)( 2).) On appealfrom a grant of summary judgment, we employ the same standards as the trial court did and review the record de novo, considering all the evidence set forth in the moving and opposing papers except that to which objections were made and sustained. ( Guz a Bechtel National, Inc. ( 2000) 24 CalAth 317, 334, 100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 352, 8 P. 3d 1089.)
3] Our SupremeCourt hasmade clearthat the purpose of the 1992 and 1993 amendments to the summary judgment statute was " ` to liberalize the granting of [ summary judgment] motions.' " ( ** 604 Perry a Bakewell Hawthorne, LLC
2017) 2 Cal. 5th 536, 542, 213 Cal. Rptr. 3d 764, 389 P. 3d 1 ( Perry); FMAguilara Atlantic Richfield Co. ( 2001) 25 CalAth 826, 854, 107 Cal. Rptr. 2d 841, 24 P.3d 493.) It is no longer called a "disfavored" remedy. Rather, it is " now seen as `a particularly suitable means to test the sufficiency' of the plaintiffs or defendant' s case." ( Perry, at p. 542, 213 Cal. Rptr. 3d 764, 389 P. 3d 1.)
court must consider only those facts before the trial court, disregarding any new allegations on appeal. [Citation.] Thus, possible theories that were not fully developed or factually presented to the trial court cannot create a ` triable issue' on appeal." ( American Continental Ins. Co. v C & Z Timber Co. ( 1987) 195 Cal. App. 3d 1271, 1281, 241 Cal. Rptr. 466.) A party is not permitted to change his position and adopt a new and different theory on appeal. To permit him to do so would not only be unfair to the trial court, but manifestly unjust to the opposing litigant." ( Ernst a Searle ( 1933) 218 Cal. 233, 240- 241, 22 P. 2d 715; G & W Warren' s, Inc. u Dabney (2017) 11 Cal.App. 5th 565, 571, 218 Cal.Rptr.3d 75 [ where case was tried on theory that defendant was liable as surety under guaranty agreement, plaintiff was precluded from contending on appeal that defendant was liable as
principal under purchase agreement].)
9] [ 10] Nevertheless, a reviewing court may exercise its discretion to reach the merits of a newly raised issue in certain circumstances. ( People v Superior Court ( Zamudio)
2000) 23 CalAth 183, 195, 96 Cal. Rptr. 2d 463, 999 P.2d 686; FMFortBraggUnified School Dist. a ColonialAmerican Casualty & Surety Co. ( 2011) 194 Cal.AppAth 891, 914,
124 Cal. Rptr. 3d 144; 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure ( 5th ed. 2020) Appeal § 414.) For example, an appellant may be permitted to change his or her theory when a question of law alone is presentedon the facts appearingin the record. In that case, the opposing party is not required to defend for the first time on appeal against a new theory that contemplates a controverted factual situation. ( Renee J. a Superior Court ( 2002) 96 Cal. AppAth 1450, 1459, 118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 118; 9 Witkin, Cal.
Procedure ( 5th ed. 2020) Appeal § 415 [ cases cited].) 724 II. The Issue Is Not Forfeited
4] As a threshold matter, Venice Suites urges this court to Here, the trial court characterized the People' s argument decline to reach the merits of the People' s argument on appeal on summary judgment as follows: " In order to reach the because the People' s argument below was that the LAMC conclusion that apartment houses cannot include short- term expressly prohibited short-term rentals of Apartment Houses, rentals, Plaintiff ties together the following defined * 725 not that short- term rentals were impliedly prohibited under a terms from the [ Los Angeles Municipal] Code thusly: i) an permissive zoning scheme. We agreethe People did not raise apartment house [ as defined in the Zoning Code] consists the issue of permissive zoning in their briefing below but we of rental units [ as defined in the RSO], ii) rental units in exercise our discretion to consider the issue on its merits. an apartment house may only be occupied by tenants [ as defined in the RSO but not in the Zoning Code], iii) transients 5] [ 6] [ 7] [ 8] " Generally, therulesrelatingtothescopiasdefinedin theTOT] aredifferentfromtenants, and of appellate review apply to appellate review of summary accordingly, iv) transients may not occupy ** 605 rental judgments. [ Citation.] An argument or theory will ... not be units in apartment houses." After the trial court issued its considered if it is raised for the first time on appeal. [ Citation.] ruling, the People did not seek reconsideration or otherwise Specifically, in reviewing a summary judgment, the appellate advise the court its characterization of their argument was wrong. Our own review of the People' s summary judgment WESTLAW © 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U. S. Government Works. 6 People v. Venice Suites, LLC, 71 Cal. App. 5th 715 ( 2021) 286 Cal. Rptr. 3d 598, 21 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,565, 2021 Daily Journal D.A. R. 11,835 motion reveals the trial court accurately set out the People's argument.
111 By contrast, the People set forth several arguments on appeal. They first argue an R3 zone is residential in nature, and the common usageof the term apartment houseprovides context to the incomplete definition in the Zoning Code.
They also contend the City operates under a permissive
zoning scheme, where only expressly authorized uses are permitted while all other uses are prohibited. According to the People, the Zoning Code only expressly permits short- term occupancy in a TORS. An Apartment House contains
the same physical characteristics as a TORS and becomes a TORS if it is occupied on a short- term basis. Because a TORS is not permitted for use in an R3 zone, an Apartment House may not be occupied on a short-term basis in an
R3 zone. These arguments were not presented to the trial court. The People argue, however, the issues raised on appeal present pure questions of law which do not implicate any factual disputes. We agree the interpretation of the LAMC is a question of law which we decide de novo.
12] We arenot persuadedby Venice Suites's contention that the People's permissive zoning argument raisesfactual issues not addressedbelow. In particular, Venice Suites contendsthe record was not developed asto the City Council' s intent when it adopted the TORS definition in 1992. ( Ord. No 167, 689, Eff. 5/ 9/ 92.) The ascertainment of legislative intent is a legal question, not a factual one. (Roussos v Roussos (2021) 60 Cal.App. 5th 962, 973, 275 Cal.Rptr.3d 196.) Venice Suites also asserts it was not provided the opportunity to argue whether it retained vested rights to continue the use of 417 OFW for short- term rentals because that argument was not implicated by the briefing below. Not so. In their combined cross -motion for summary judgment and opposition to the People's summary judgment motion, Venice Suites asserted their "vestedrights to offer [ short-term rentals] at the Property survived consolidation of Venice with Los Angeles." Venice Suites does not explain whether and how its vested rights argument would be different under a permissive zoning
theory. Additionally, Venice Suites contends it was prevented from exploring the permissive zoning theory in discovery because the City did not take this position below. That discovery on the City' s interpretation of the LAMC under a permissive zoning * 726 theory may have been conducted
does not convert the question from a legal one to a factual one. None of Venice Suites' s arguments prevent us from exercising our discretion to consider alegal question that does not involve controverted facts.
III. The LAMC Does Not Regulate the Length of
Occupancy in An Apartment House in a R3 Zone
13] To prevail on its cross -motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, Venice Suites was required to show that one or more elements of the causes of action at issue could not be established. The People alleged Venice Suites converted 417 OFW into a de facto hotel or TORS despite its location in a R3 residential zone that does not authorize short- term rentals. This allegation forms the basis for the first and second causes of action. The trial court found " 417 OFW is an apartment house, and that renting units at 417 OFW on a short-term basis is not prohibited by the [LAMC], nor doesit change the use of 417 ** 606 OFW such that it is instead a hotel or a TORS [ footnote omitted]."
We agree with the trial court that the LAMC does not regulate the length of occupancy in Apartment Houses in R3 zones.
The material facts in this case are undisputed: 417 OFW is permitted to operate as an Apartment House and it is located within anR3 Multiple Dwelling zone. The parties' disputelies in whether an Apartment House in an R3 zone may be used for short- term occupancies of 30 days or less. We must look to the Zoning Code to determine what usesare authorized for an Apartment House in an R3 zone because the Zoning Code sets forth a " comprehensive plan" for the use of buildings in the City for residential purposes. As we have setout in footnote 1, the Zoning Codedefines anApartment House asa "residential building" that contains a certain combination of dwelling units, guestrooms or suitesof rooms. A " residential building" is used for human habitation without regard to length of occupancy and describes every type of building at issue, including an apartment hotel, an Apartment House, a TORS, and ahotel. In short, none of the relevant definitions specify a length of occupancy. ( LAMC, § 12. 03.) Neither does the list of permitted uses in an R3 zone, which includes Apartment Houses, specify a length of occupancy. (LAMC, § 12. 10.) The plain language of the Zoning Code tells us an Apartment House is permitted to operate in an R3 zone so long as it meetsthe physical characteristics of anApartment House and it is used for human habitation. There is no dispute 417 OFW meets both of those requirements. The People cannot show Venice Suiteshasviolated the LAMC by renting it on a short- term basis because the LAMC does * 727 not regulate the length of occupancy for an Apartment House in an R3 zone.
The trial court properly granted summary adjudication as to the first and second causes of action.
WESTLAW © 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U. S. Government Works.
People v. Venice Suites, LLC, 71 Cal. App. 5th 715 ( 2021) 286 Cal. Rptr. 3d 598, 21 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,565, 2021 Daily Journal D.A. R. 11,835 The People challenge this conclusion on several grounds.
First, they contend the common use of the term apartment house informs the definition provided by the Zoning Code, which is incomplete because it only sets forth a physical description. Second, the People apply a permissive zoning scheme to argue an Apartment House is converted to a TORS when it is rented on a short- term basis and a TORS is not an allowable use in an R3 zone. Third, the People repeat their argumentbelow, relying on disparateprovisions of theZoning Code, RSO, and TOT to contend transients may not occupy Apartment Houses. We are not persuaded.
Cal.Rptr.3d 340.) We must give the words of the statute a workable and reasonable interpretation keeping in mind the consequences that will flow from our interpretation. ( Watkins u County of Alameda ( 2009) 177 Cal. AppAth 320, 336, 98 Cal. Rptr. 3d 847.)
728 B. Relevant Provisions of the LAMC
The ordinances relevant to the parties' arguments are as follows:
1. The Zoning Code
A. Principles of Statutory Interpretation " The purpose of [ the Zoning Code] is to consolidate and 14] [ 15] [ 16] [ 17] [ 18] TheproperinterpretatidWordinateallexistingzoningregulationsandprovisionsinto of a statute is a question of law we review de novo. one comprehensivezoning plan in order to designate, regulate and restrict the location and use of buildings, structures and CaYY12Sl2imba, supra, 215 Cal.AppAth at p. 1081, 156 land, for agriculture, residence, commerce, trade, industry or Cal. Rptr. 3d 1.) " Courts interpret municipal ordinances in other purposes ...... ( LAMC, § 12. 02.)
the same manner and pursuant to the same rules applicable to the interpretation of statutes." ( FMId. at p. 1087, 156 The Zoning Code provides the following definitions under Cal. Rptr. 3d 1.) " ` " ` As in any case involving statutory LAMC section 12. 03:
interpretation, our fundamental task here is to determine the Legislature' s intent so as to effectuate the law' s purpose. APARTMENT. Same as dwelling unit. ( Added by Ord.
Citation.] We begin by examining the statute' s words, giving No. 107, 884, Eff. 9/ 23/ 56.)
them aplain and commonsensemeaning.'" ' " ( FMPeoplev APARTMENT HOTEL. A residential building designed Gonzalez ( 2017) 2 Cal. 5th 1138, 1141, 218 Cal. Rptr. 3d 150, or usedfor both two or more dwelling units and six or more 394 P. 3d 1074.) " `[ W] e look to " the entire substance of the guest rooms or suites of rooms. ( Amended by Ord. No. statute ... in order to determine the scope and purpose of the 107, 884, Eff. 9/ 23/ 56.) provision .... [ Citation.]" [ Citation.] That is, we construe the words in question " ` in context, keeping in mind the nature APARTMENT HOUSE. A residential building designed and obvious purpose of the statute ....' [ Citation.]" [ Citation.] or usedfor three or more dwelling units or acombination of We must harmonize " the various parts of a ** 607 statutory three or more dwelling units and not more than five guest enactment ... by considering the particular clauseor section in rooms or suites of rooms. ( Amended by Ord. No. 107, 884, the context of the statutory framework asawhole." ' " ( People Eff. 9/ 23/ 56.)
u Arroyo ( 2016) 62 CalAth 589, 595, 197 Cal. Rptr. 3d 122, DWELLING UNIT. A group of two or more rooms, one
364 P.3d 168.) f h' h' k' t h d 4 df b f ' 1
19] [ 20] [ 21] If the statutory language is susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation, the courts look to " extrinsic aids, including the ostensible objects to be achieved, the evils to be remedied, the legislative history, public policy, contemporaneous administrative construction, and the statutory scheme of which the statute is a part.
Citations.]" ( People v Woodhead ( 1987) 43 Cal. 3d 1002, 1008, 239 Cal. Rptr. 656, 741 P. 2d 154.) We interpret the statute using " ` reason, practicality, and common senseto the language at hand.' [ Citation.]" ( lllllwAilantoProperties, Inc. v City of Half Moon Bay (2006) 142 Cal.AppAth 572, 583, 48 o w is is a i c en, esigne or occupancy y one ami y
for living and sleeping purposes. ( Amended by Ord. No. 107, 884, Eff. 9/ 23/ 56.)
GUEST ROOM. Any habitable room except a kitchen,
designedor usedfor occupancyby one or more personsand
not in a dwelling unit. ( Added by Ord. No. 107,884, Eff. 9/ 23/ 56.)
HOTEL. A residential building designated or used for or containing six or more guest rooms, or suites of rooms, which may also contain not more than one dwelling unit, but not including any institution in which human beings are WESTLAW © 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U. S. Government Works. 8 People v. Venice Suites, LLC, 71 Cal. App. 5th 715 ( 2021) 286 Cal. Rptr. 3d 598, 21 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,565, 2021 Daily Journal D.A. R. 11,835 housed or detained under legal restraint. ( Amended by Ord.
No. 138, 685, Eff. 7/ 10/ 69.)
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. A building or portion
thereof designed or used for human habitation. (Added by Ord. No. 107, 884, Eff. 9/ 23/ 56.)
729 SUITE. A group of habitable rooms designed as a
unit, and occupied by only one family, but not including a kitchen or other facilities for the preparation of food, with entrances and exits which are common to all rooms
comprising the ** 608 suite. (Added by Ord. No. 138,685, Eff. 7/ 10/ 69.)
TENANT. A person who rents, leases or sub -leases,
through either a written or oral agreement, residential real property from another. ( Added by Ord. No. 151,432, Eff. 10/ 12/ 78.)
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY RESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURE [ TORS]. A residential building designedor
used for one or more dwelling units or a combination of three or more dwelling units and not more than five guest rooms or suitesof rooms wherein occupancy, by any person by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement is for a period of 30 consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar daysasfull days.
Added by Ord. No 167,689, Eff. 5/9/92.)
LAMC section 12.10 lists the uses permitted in a R3
Multiple Dwelling Zone, including Apartment Houses, any use permitted in the "R2" two— family zone, group dwellings, multiple dwellings, boarding houses, rooming houses or light housekeepinghouses, child carefacilities for not more than 20 children, senior independenthousing, and assistedliving care housing. (LAMC, § 12. 10( A).) LAMC section 12. 10 further specifies that all usesnot expressly permitted areprohibited.
2. The RSO
The RSO was enacted " to regulate rents so as to safeguard tenants from excessive rent increases, while at the same time providing landlords with just and reasonable returns from their rental units." ( LAMC, § 151. 01.) The RSO specifies that if a term is not defined within the RSO, the term " shall be construed as defined in Sections 12.03 [in the Zoning Code] and 152. 02 of this Code ...... ( LAMC, § 151. 02.)
Rental Units. ( Amended by Ord. No. 157,385, Eff.
1/ 24/ 83.) All dwelling units, efficiency dwelling units, guest rooms, and suites, as defined in Section 12.03 of this Code, and all housing accommodations ... in the City of Los Angeles, rented or offered for rent for living or dwelling purposes, the land and buildings appurtenant
thereto, and all housing services, privileges, furnishings and facilities supplied in connection with the use or
occupancy thereof, including garage and parking facilities.
Sentence Amended by Ord. No. 170,445, Eff. 5/6/95,
Oper. 7/ 5/ 95.) ... The term shall not include:
IT]
730 2. (Amended by Ord. No. 176,472, Eff. 3/26/05.)
Housing accommodations in hotels, motels, inns, tourist homes and boarding and rooming houses, provided that
at such time as an accommodation has been occupied as
the primary residenceof one or more of the sametenants
for any period more than 30 days such accommodation
shall become a rental unit subject to the provisions of this chapter.
Tenant. A tenant, subtenant, lessee, sublessee or any
other person entitled to use or occupancy of a rental unit.
LAMC, § 151. 02.)
3. The TOT
The Uniform Transient Occupancy Tax Ordinance of The
City of Los Angeles ( TOT) sets forth the tax rate imposed on a " transient" for occupancy of a hotel room. ( See LAMC,
21. 7. 3.) It provides the following pertinent definitions in LAMC section 21. 7. 2:
b) Hotel. " Hotel" means any structure, or any portion of any structure, which is occupied or intended or designedfor occupancy by transients for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes, ** 609 and includes any hotel, inn, tourist
home or house, ... apartment house, dormitory, public or private club, or other similar structure or portion thereof, ... are occupied or intended or designed for occupancy by
transients for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes.
Amended by Ord. No. 185,931, Eff. 7/l/ 19.)
d) Transient. ( Amended by Ord. No. 164,961, Eff.
7/ 24/ 89, Oper. 8/ l/ 89.) " Transient" means: [¶] ... [¶] 2.
Any individual who personally exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit,
right of access, license or other agreement, for a period of 30 consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days. Any such individual so
occupying spacein ahotel shall be deemedto be atransient until the period of 30 days has expired unless there is WESTLAW © 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U. S. Government Works. 9 People v. Venice Suites, LLC, 71 Cal. App. 5th 715 ( 2021) 286 Cal. Rptr. 3d 598, 21 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,565, 2021 Daily Journal D.A. R. 11,835 an agreement in writing between the operator and the technology/ apartment-house> [as of Nov. 15, 2021]; Creedon occupant providing for a longer period of occupancy. v Lunde (W.D. Wash. 1947) 90 F.Supp. 119, 120-121.) C. The Zoning Code' s Definition of Apartment House
Controls Over the Dictionary Definition
Because the definition of Apartment House does not contain a length of occupancy requirement, the People argue the definition provided in LAMC section 12.03 is incomplete and the common usage of the term apartment house provides the necessarycontext to show an Apartment House is intended for long- term occupancy.
We may not read a minimum length of occupancy into the
definition of Apartment House where one is not specified, however. * 731 LAMC section 11.01(b) provides, " Words
and phrases used in this Code and not specifically defined shall be construed according to the context and approved usage of the language. [ Italics added.]" Further, LAMC section 11. 01( c) adopts "[ t]he provisions of Sections 13 and 1645 of the Civil Code of the State of California ... in the interpretation of words and phrases, unless otherwise provided herein." 4 Civil Codesection 13advises, "Words and phrases are construed according to the context and the approved usage of the language; but technical words and phrases, and such others asmay have acquired apeculiar and appropriate meaning in law, or are defined in the succeeding section, are to be construed according to such peculiar and appropriate meaning or definition. [ Italics added.]"
Theseprovisions of the LAMC and the Civil Code constrain our ability to extend the definition of Apartment House beyond what is set forth in the Zoning Code. The court' s function " 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...." ( Code Civ.
Proc., § 1858; Busker v Wabtec Corp ( 2021) 11 Cal. 5th 1147, 282 Cal.Rptr.3d 333, 492 P.3d 963; Guardianship of Elan E. 2000) 85Cal.App.4th998, 1001, 102Cal.Rptr.2d528.) 5
610 Even if we were free to adopt the common
usage of the term, as the People urge us to do, we are
not convinced an Apartment House is restricted to long- term occupancy. The People rely on dictionary definitions and federal caselaw discussing the term to support their argument. (Random House Unabridged Dictionary < https:// www. dictionary.com/browse/apartment-house> [ as of Nov. 15, 2021]; Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica, " Apartment house" ( Aug. 21, 2014) < https:// www. britannica. com/ However, our own research shows the definition of apartment house around the time the ordinance was enacted did not restrict it to only long- term * 732 occupancy. In FAEdwards u City of Los Angeles ( 1941) 48 Cal.App. 2d 62, 69, 119 P.2d 370, for example, the court discusseda provision in the Civil Code which classified a " furnished apartment house keeper" in a category that included " innkeeper" and " hotel — keeper." ( See also FoVillage of Euclid a Ambler Realty Co. 1926) 272 U.S. 365, 47 S.Ct. 114,71 L.Ed. 303 [categorizing hotels and apartment houses together].)
Likewise, the dictionary definitions for apartment house do not indicate a required length of occupancy. For
example, the 1961 edition of Webster' s Third New
International Dictionary defined " apartment building or apartment house" as " a building containing a number of separate residential units and usu. having conveniences as heat and elevators) in common" without reference to
a length of occupancy while an " apartment hotel" was
defined as "an apartment house containing suites equipped for housekeeping purposes and in addition furnished
rooms and dining service for transient and permanent
guests[.]" ( Webster' s Third New International Dictionary 1961) p. 98.) Merriam- Webster's present-day definitions for apartment house and apartment hotel remain unchanged from 1961. ( Merriam- Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, https:// unabridged. merriamwebster. com/ unabridged/ apartment
20building [ as of Nov. 15, 2021]; Merriam- Webster' s
Unabridged Dictionary, https:// unabridged. merriam-
webster. coin/ unabridged/ apartment% 20hotel [ as of Nov. 15, 2021]; seealso Dictionary of Architecture and Construction 1975) p. 20 [ an apartment hotel is "[ an] apartment house which supplies living quarters suitable for light housekeeping and has public dining facilities."].) It is evident the term apartment house in common usage does not indicate only
long- term occupancy, whether in 1956 or in the present day.
The People' s argument fails.
D. The Permissive Zoning Scheme Does Not Apply to
Length of Occupancy
22] The People further rely on the principle that " the expression of certain things in a statute necessarily involves exclusion of other things not expressed" to argue the
City Council' s express limitation of a TORS occupancy
to 30 days or less means that an Apartment House is
WESTLAW © 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U. S. Government Works. 10 People v. Venice Suites, LLC, 71 Cal. App. 5th 715 ( 2021) 286 Cal. Rptr. 3d 598, 21 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,565, 2021 Daily Journal D.A. R. 11,835 limited to occupancies of more than 30 days. ( City of
Corona a Naulls ( 2008) 166 Cal. AppAth 418, 420- 421,
83 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 ( FMNaulls); Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. u Superior Court ( 1997) 54 Cal.App. 4th 337, 345, 62
Cal.Rptr.2d 713.) The People'spermissive zoning argument is as follows: An Apartment House is a subset of a TORS. The physical characteristics of both are almost identical except a TORS may include " one or more dwelling units" while
an Apartment House may include " three or more ** 611
dwelling units." ( LAMC, § 12. 03, italics added.) In all cases, an Apartment House that provides occupancy for 30 days or less fits the definition of a TORS. A TORS is not authorized for use in an * 733 R3 zone. Thus, an Apartment House may only provide rentals for 31 days or more to be authorized to operate in an R3 zone.
23] We are not persuaded a long-term occupancy
requirement for an Apartment House may be inferred from the definition limiting TORS to occupancies of 30 days or less. The TORS provision was added by ordinance number
167,689 and became effective May 9, 1992. ( LAMC, §
12. 03.) The definition for an Apartment House, added to the Zoning Code on September 23, 1956, had existed for
approximately 36 years prior to the ordinance which created the TORS category. There is nothing in the record to show the City Council intended to add a length of occupancy to the long- established definition of an Apartment House when it passedthe TORS -related ordinance. " Courts are reluctant to accept that legislatures enact important or fundamental changesby silent indirection." ( Bunzl Distribution USA, Inc. u Franchise Tax Bd. ( 2018) 27 Cal.App. 5th 986, 997, 238 Cal.Rptr.3d 645; see, e.g., California Cannabis Coalition u City of Upland ( 2017) 3 Cal.5th 924, 940, 222 Cal.Rptr.3d 210, 401 P. 3d 49; FaCaliforniaRedevelopment Assn. v
Matosantos ( 2011) 53 CalAth 231, 260- 261, 135 Cal. Rptr. 3d 683, 267 P.3d 580.) If the City Council intended to add a length of occupancy requirement to the definition of
Apartment House, it could have done so at any time. Instead, the definition hasremained the samefor 65 years and is silent on the issue, indicating the City Council did not intend to regulate the length of occupancy in anApartment Housewhen it enactedthe ordinance defining the term in 1956 and when it enactedthe TORS provision in 1992.
Additionally, we observe a flaw in the People's logic. Venice Suites' use is expressly authorized under apermissive zoning scheme: It operates 417 OFW as an Apartment House, a
structure that meets the definition under LAMC 12. 03 and a land use that is specifically permitted in an R3 zone.
The permissive zoning argument, on the other hand, does not apply in the manner suggested by the People because the Zoning Code does not contain " the expression of
certain things" ( i.e., long-term occupancy in an apartment house) which " necessarily involves exclusion of other things not expressed" ( i.e., short-term occupancy in an apartment house). Instead, no length of occupancy requirement is
expressed in the definitions for Apartment House, apartment hotel, hotel, or residential building. Only the TORS definition expressly authorizes short-term occupancy. Application of the permissive zoning scheme in the manner urged by the People would lead to an absurd result where neither short- term nor long-term occupancies would be allowed for an Apartment House, apartment hotel, hotel, or residential building because a length of occupancy is "not expressed." ( * 734 Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance a Superior Court ( 2014) 59 Cal. 4th 1029, 1037, 175 Cal. Rptr. 3d 601, 330 P.3d 912 statutory interpretations that lead to absurd results are to be avoided].)
The marijuana dispensary cases that rely on a permissive zoning scheme are distinguishable because, in each of those cases, marijuana dispensaries either did not fall within the city' s list of allowable uses or were expressly prohibited.
Carrnshimba, supra, 215 Cal. AppAth at p. 1073, 156
Cal. Rptr. 3d 1; FMNaulls, supra, 166 Cal.AppAth at pp. 420- 421, 83 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1; FM **612 City of Dana Point u
New Method Wellness, Inc. ( 2019) 39 Cal. App. 5th 985, 989- 990, 252 Cal. Rptr. 3d 541; Urgent Care Medical Services v City of Pasadena (2018) 21 Cal.App. 5th 1086, 1094, 230 Cal. Rptr. 3d 892.) That is not the case here.
E. The RSO and TOT Do Not Regulate the Use of an
Apartment House
24] Neither are we persuadedby the People's argument the Zoning Code must be read in conjunction with the RSO and TOT to conclude only tenants and not transients may occupy Apartment Houses. This argument was rejected by the trial court below and we agree it requires a selective reading of disparateportions of theZoning Code, RSO, and TOT without regard to the intent behind each of these ordinances.
The People argue 417 OFW is subject to the requirements of the RSO, which extends to all rental units. ( LAMC, § 151. 00, WESTLAW © 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U. S. Government Works. 11 People v. Venice Suites, LLC, 71 Cal. App. 5th 715 ( 2021) 286 Cal. Rptr. 3d 598, 21 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,565, 2021 Daily Journal D.A. R. 11,835 et seq.) " Rental units" include "[ a]ll dwelling units, efficiency dwelling units, guest rooms, and suites, as defined in Section
12.03 [ of the Zoning Code]" but exclude, among other things, h] ousing accommodations in hotels, motels, inns, tourist homes and boarding and rooming houses, provided that
at such time as an accommodation has been occupied as
the primary residence of one or more of the same tenants for any period more than 30 days such accommodation
shall become a rental unit subject to the provisions of this chapter." ( LAMC, § 151. 02.) A tenant under the RSO is defined as a "person entitled to use or occupancy of a rental unit." ( Ibid.) According to the People, a rental unit, by definition, is limited to occupancies lasting longer than 30 days. Thus, a tenant under the RSO is someone who occupies a rental unit for more than 30 days.
By contrast, a transient is defined by the TOT, in
pertinent part, as "[ a]ny individual who personally exercises occupancy ... for a period of 30 consecutive calendar days or less[.]" Relying on the definitions for rental units and tenant found in the RSO and transient in the TOT, the People argue that only a tenant is entitled to use or occupy rental units.
Transients, on the other hand, may not occupy rental units because occupancies of 30 days or less are * 735 not included within the definition of rental units. Because the dwelling units, guest rooms, or suites in an apartment house constitute rental units subject to the RSO and transients may not occupy rental units, the People reason that transients also may not occupy apartment houses.
We are not persuaded. As we discussed above, the City
Council enacted the Zoning Code to " consolidate and
coordinate all existing zoning regulations andprovisions into one comprehensive zoning plan in order to designate, regulate and restrict the location and use of buildings, structures and land, for agriculture, residence, commerce, trade, industry or other purposes." ( LAMC, § 12.02.) In short, the Zoning Code is intended to regulate all uses of buildings for residential purposes.
The RSO, on the other hand, regulates rents, in pertinent part, to safeguard tenants from excessive rent increases due to the lack of " decent, safe and sanitary housing at affordable rent levels." ( LAMC, § 151.01.) It is clear the City Council enacted the RSO to address a shortage of affordable housing.
Its statedpurpose is not to resolve a general housing shortage by regulating short-term rentals. Neither does the RSO state an intent to regulate the occupancy of residential buildings, as asserted by the People. It merely denies the benefit of rent control to those individuals who rent accommodations at hotels, motels, inns, tourist homes and boarding ** 613 and rooming houses for 30 days or less. ( LAMC, § 151. 02.) The rules of statutory construction dictate we rely on the Zoning Code rather than the RSO and TOT to effectuate
the City Council' s purpose. ( People v Gonzalez, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 1141, 218 Cal.Rptr.3d 150, 394 P.3d 1074.) Here, we are required to decide what is an allowable use of a residential building located in an R3 zone. The Zoning Code addressesprecisely this issue becauseit regulates all uses of buildings for residential purposes.
As discussed above, the Zoning Code expressly authorizes the use of an Apartment House in an R3 zone for human
habitation with no length of occupancy restriction. The Zoning Code does not limit the occupancy of Apartment
Houses to only tenants. Even if it did, however, the Zoning Code defines a tenant as "[ a] person who rents, leases or sub - leases, through either a written or oral agreement, residential real property from another," with no length of occupancy restriction. We decline to disregard the Zoning Code' s definition of tenant and adopt the RSO definition of tenant to impose a length of occupancy restriction that is not there.
In any case, the Zoning Code, the RSO, and the TOT do
not conflict with the concept of an Apartment House that encompasses both short-term and long-term occupancies.
Indeed, the TOT expressly contemplates that Apartment
Houses may be occupied by transients, who exercise
occupancy for 30 * 736 days or less. Under the TOT, a hotel is defined as "any structure, or any portion of any structure, which is occupied or intended or designed for occupancy by transients for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes, and includes any ... apartment house, dormitory, public or private club, or other similar structure or portion thereof ..." ( LAMC,
21. 7. 2( b) [ italics added].)
By its plain language, the RSO extends the benefits of rent control to the dwelling units, guest rooms, and suites that make up Apartment Housesif the occupancy lasts longer than 30 days because a landlord may not demand more than the permitted maximum monthly rent, which is adjusted from
time to time. ( LAMC, § 151. 04.) That the RSO applies only to monthly, and not weekly or daily, rent does not compel the conclusion that an Apartment House is limited to long- term occupancy in the Zoning Code. If an Apartment House is occupied for 30 days or less, it simply doesnot benefit from WESTLAW © 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U. S. Government Works. 12 People v. Venice Suites, LLC, 71 Cal. App. 5th 715 ( 2021) 286 Cal. Rptr. 3d 598, 21 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,565, 2021 Daily Journal D.A. R. 11,835 the provisions of the RSO. Our conclusion that an Apartment House may include short- term or long- term occupancies does We Concur:
not conflict with the RSO or the TOT.
DISPOSITION
GRIMES, Acting P. J.
WILEY, J.
All Citations
The judgment is affirmed. Venice Suites is entitled to costs on appeal. 71 Cal.App. 5th 715, 286 Cal.Rptr.3d 598, 21 Cal. Daily Op.
Serv. 11,565, 2021 Daily Journal D. A. R. 11,835
Footnotes
Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
LAMC section 12.03 defines an Apartment House as " A residential building designed or used for three or more dwelling units or a combination of three or more dwelling units and not more than five guest rooms or suites of rooms."
2 Under the Mello Act, "[ t]he conversion or demolition of existing residential dwelling units occupied by persons and families of low or moderate income ... shall not be authorized unless provision has been made for the replacement of those dwelling units with units for persons and families of low or moderate income." ( Gov.
Code, § 65590, subd. ( b).) The City must first determine " that replacement of all or any portion of the converted or demolished dwelling units is feasible ...." ( Gov. Code, § 65590, subd. ( b).) Once the City makes such a determination, then replacing dwelling units occupied by persons and families of low or moderate income is required. ( Gov. Code, § 65590, subd. ( b).)
Venice Suites does not argue the deposition testimony or the City' s report are dispositive of the issue. The parties acknowledge a city' s interpretation of an ambiguous portion of its own code " is entitled to deference," but the court independently reviews the meaning or application of the law. (PCityof Monterey v. Carrnshimba 2013) 215 Cal. AppAth 1068, 1091, 156 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (_] Carrnshimba).) For purposes of this opinion, we conclude we need not rely on the City' s interpretations of the LAMC. 4 Civil Code section 1645 provides "[ t]echnical words are to be interpreted as usually understood by persons in the profession or business to which they relate, unless clearly used in a different sense." It does not apply here.
In further support of their argument that an Apartment House is intended for long- term occupancy, the People indicate in their reply brief that the definition of apartment house contained in the California Building Code includes " primarily permanent" occupants. ( 24 Cal. Code of Reg., § 310. 3.) This definition is adopted by the Los Angeles Building Code ( LAMC, § 91. 101. 1, et seq.). We find the argument irrelevant to the issue at hand.
As shown above, the Zoning Code provides a definition for Apartment House and we may not disregard it to adopt a definition provided in a different section of the LAMC or in a state regulation. Accordingly, we deny the People' s supplemental request for judicial notice of LAMC sections 91.201 and 91.202, filed April 26, 2021.
WESTLAW © 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U. S. Government Works.
People v. Venice Suites, LLC, 71 Cal. App. Sth 715 ( 2021) 286 Cal. Rptr. 3d 598, 21 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,565, 2021 Daily Journal D.A. R. 11,835 End of Document 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U. S. Government Works.
WESTLAW © 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U. S. Government Works. 14 Flores, Dora
From: KathrynLevassiur <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March29,
To: eComment
Cc: Home
Subject: InOppositionofItem21STRs
Attention: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsideofCityofSantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.
DearMayorAmezcuaandSantaAnaCityCouncilMembers,
My nameisKathrynLevassiur, aresidentof HuntingtonBeachandthefounderof HBSTRA (Huntington BeachShort-TermRentalAlliance). I havebeenavolunteerAirbnbCommunityLeaderfor allof Orange CountyandtheInlandEmpire, rentingoutmypropertyfor shortandmid-termrentalssince2015. I am currentlyinmy4thyearasapermittedandlicensedSTRholder, withawealthof personalanecdotalexperience inoperatingunderapermittedandregulatedprogram.
Onbehalfof HBSTRAandAirbnbhostsinOrangeCounty (includingSantaAna) andtheInlandEmpire, we stronglyurgethecouncilto opposeagendaitem #21regardingSTRs.
SantaAnahasnumerousreasonsto embracevisitorsseekingto stayinbeautiful, furnishedhomesfor business, vacation, or both. Thecityisconvenientlylocatednearamajorairport, stunningbeaches, Disneyland, amajor leaguebaseballteam, worldrenownuniversitiesandhospitals, plustheuniquecharmandhistoryof theCityof SantaAnaitselfto peoplewantingto experienceabeautifulsouthernCaliforniacity. AdoptingSTRregulations wouldnotonlycreateahealthyrevenuestreamfromvisitor-generatedlodgingtaxrevenuebutalsoincrease salestaxrevenueandsupportlocalbusinessesin SantaAna. STRsaregoodfor localbusinesses.
Orange, yourneighboringcityto thenorth, servesasapositiveexampleof howadoptingfairandreasonable regulationscanbenefitthecommunity. Pleaserejectagendaitem #21andworkwiththelocalcommunityona sensibleplan.
Sincerely,
KathrynLevassiur
HuntingtonBeachShort-TermRentalAlliance
Cell:
Email: Website:
1 Flores, Dora
From: LorenaAvonce <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March29,
To: eComment
Subject: Item21, emergencyprohibitingShortTermRentals
Attention: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsideofCityofSantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.
DearMembersoftheCityCouncil,
Iamwritingtoyouasaconcernedcitizenandownerofashort-termrentalpropertyintheCityofSantaAna.
Asanactivememberofthiscommunity, Iunderstandtheimportanceofupholdinglocalregulationsand ensuringthesafetyandwell-beingofourresidents.
Myshort-termrentalpropertyisowner-occupiedwhichallowsmetopersonallyoverseeallgueststays. This arrangementallowsmetomaintainastrongpresenceonthepremisesandpromptlyaddressanyconcerns thatmayarise. Iwanttoemphasizethatit hasnotcausedanydisruptiontothepeaceorsafetyofourcity. I amcommittedtobeingaresponsiblehostandhaveimplementedmeasurestoensurethatmyguestsrespect thelocalcommunityandadheretoallapplicablelawsandregulations.
It'simportanttonotethatshort-termrentals, suchasmine, contributetothelocaleconomybyattracting visitorsfromoutofstate. Theseguestsoftenpatronizelocalbusinesses, restaurants, andattractions, thereby supportingourcommunity'sgrowthandvitality.
Additionally, myshort-termrentalservesasasourceofincomeformyfamily. Duetomychild'ssevere disabilities, Irecentlyhadtostopworkingtoprovidefull-timecare. Rentingoutourpropertyallowsmeto contributefinanciallytomyfamily'sneedswhilebalancingthedemandsofcaregiving.
Ibelievethatshort-termrentals, whenmanagedresponsibly, cancontributepositivelytoourcity'seconomy andprovidevisitorswithuniqueaccommodationswhilerespectingtherightsandwell-beingofourresidents. I amdedicatedtocontinuingtooperatemyrentalpropertyinamannerthatreflectstheseprinciples.
Iappreciatetheopportunitytocommunicatewithyouonthismatterandamopentoanyquestionsor concernsyoumayhave. Thankyouforyourattentiontothisissue, andIlookforwardtoyourcontinued supportinfosteringasafeandthrivingcommunity.
Sincerely,
LorenaCastaneda
2 Flores, Dora
From: VuHoang <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday,
To: eComment
Subject: Item21, emergencyprohibitingShorttermrentals
Attention: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsideofCityofSantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.
From: Vu Hoang
March30, 2024
To: SantaAnaCityCouncil
DearHonorableCouncilMembers,
I amwritingto expressmydeepconcernsregardingtheproposedbanonshort-termrentals (STRs) inourcity.
Asamemberof thecommunitywhoactivelyparticipatesin hostingshort-termrentals, I believeit iscrucialto highlightthenumerousbenefitsthattheserentalsbringto ourcityanditsresidents.
Firstandforemost, STRsprovideinvaluablesupplementalincomefor manyfamiliesinourcommunity, includingmyself. In anincreasinglychallengingeconomicclimate, theabilityto utilizeourpropertiesfor short- termrentalshasbeenalifelinefor manyindividualsandfamilies, helpinguscoverexpensesandmakeends meet. BanningSTRswoulddirectlythreatenthelivelihoodsof countlesshostsandtheirfamilies.
Furthermore, short-termrentalsplayasignificantroleinsupportingourlocaleconomy. Theyattractvisitors whocontributeto ourcity'stourismindustrybypatronizinglocalbusinesses, restaurants, andattractions. This influxof tourismnotonlygeneratesrevenuefor localentrepreneursbutalsocreatesjobopportunitiesand stimulateseconomicgrowthin ourcommunity.
Additionally, STRsoffertravelersauniqueandpersonalizedexperiencethathotelsoftencannotreplicate.
Manyvisitorsseekoutshort-termrentalsfor theirconvenience, affordability, andtheopportunityto immerse themselvesinthelocalculture. Byprovidingalternativeaccommodations, STRscontributeto amorediverse andinclusivetourismlandscape, attractingawiderrangeof visitorsto ourcity.
Moreover, short-termrentalspromotecommunityengagementandinteraction. Ashosts, wetakepridein welcomingguestsfromallovertheworldandsharingourlocalknowledgeandhospitalitywiththem. This exchangefostersculturalunderstandingandstrengthensthebondswithinourcommunity, ultimatelyenhancing thequalityof lifefor residentsandvisitorsalike.
In lightof thesebenefits, I urgeyouto reconsidertheproposedbanonshort-termrentalsandinsteadexplore alternativesolutionsthataddressanyconcernswhilepreservingtherightsof hostsandtheinterestsof our community. Collaborationanddialogueareessentialin findingabalancedapproachthatsupportsthediverse needsof ourcityanditspeople.
Thankyoufor consideringmyperspectiveonthisimportantissue. I trustthatyouwill takeintoaccountthe voicesof allstakeholdersasyoudeliberateonthefutureof short-termrentalsinourcity. 3 Sincerely,
Vu Hoang
4 Flores, Dora
From: AnaGomez <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March
To: eComment
Subject: AgendaItem #21- OrdinanceProhibitingShortTermRentals Attachments: LettertoCityCouncilmemberApril2nd2024meeting.docx Attention: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsideofCityofSantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.
Pleaseseeattached
5 AsaresidentofSantaAna, over22years, andahomeowner, Iwouldliketoask citycouncilmembersto voteNOonAgendaitem#21 -ProhibitingShortTerm RentalsintheCityofSantaAna.
Asashort-termrentalhomeowner, (werentaroominourhome), I findthe statementsmadeinthecitystaffreportinaccurate.
1. Excessivenoise, parkingproblemsanddegradation: Thisisfalseasmost, if notall, shorttermrentalsplatformsdonotallowpartiesorlargeevents. I daresaythatweexperiencemorenoise, trashandpollutionfromfireworks thduringthe4 ofJulyeachyear (thisincludeslegalandillegalfireworks).
Theparkingproblemscreatedbyshorttermrentalsarenonexistent. Inour situation, ourunitaccommodatesforamaximumoftwopeople (1car) and insomecasesourguest(s) donothaveacarandrelyonUberandorLyftfor transportation. Again, IseemoreparkingproblemsinWashingtonSquare, especiallythestreetsclosesttoBristol/CivicCenterDrive, thathomeowners hadtorequestpermitparkingonly. Homesrentedtonumerousindividuals canhave5-6carsand/orhomeownersthathaveconvertedthegaragesto dwellingunits (legalorillegal) thustakingawaytheabilitytoparkingarage and/ordriveway. Shorttermrentalsarenotthecauseofparkingproblems.
Shorttermrentalsdonotleadtodegradationofaneighborhoodsresidential character. I seemorelongtermand/or owner-occupiedhomesthat contributemoretothedegradationofaneighborhoodthanshortterm rentals. Christmaslightontheexteriorofahomeyear-round, trashand/or trashbinsvisiblefromthestreet, largecommercialtrucksparkedon residentialneighborhoods, overgrownneglectedyards.
2. Shorttermrentalsreduceavailablehousing. TheCityofSantaAnaRegional HousingAllocationfor2021 -2029is3,137permanenthousingunits. TheCity of SantaAnaPlanningDivision, MajorPlanningProjectsandmonthly development, reports that there are, so far, a total of 10,434 residential/multifamilyunitscompletedandor intheworks. Inan announcementpostedNovember13, 2023, thecitystates “\[i\]nthecurrent RHNAcyclefrom2021to2029, SantaAnahasalreadymetoverhalfofour housinggoals, andweareontracktoexceedthemwellbefore2029.” Short termrentalsdonotreducethecity’shousingneeds.
3. FiscalImpactofBanningShortTermRentalscouldpossiblybemillionsasthe citywillloseoutoncollectingTOT’s (transientoccupancytax). WithMeasure Xsoontoexpirein2029, thecitywillloseoutrevenueitreliedontosupport emergencyresponseservices, homelessness, maintainingseniorcitizen programsandafterschoolprograms. Banningshorttermsrentalsissimilar to “Throwingthebabyoutwiththebathwater.”
Wehavemetwiththeplanningcommissionbackin2022, tostartdiscussionon implementingareasonableandfairshort-termrentalprogramthatbalancesthe needsof thecityandshort-termrentalhomeownerresidents. Justthispast thDecember (December11 2023) theplanningcommission, underaworkstudy session, addressedhavingashort-termrentalprograminplace. Amajorityof appointedplanningcommissionerswereinfavorofhavingaprograminplace (see thplanningcommissionmeetingvideodatedDecember11 2023) andsomehave admittedtoutilizingshorttermrentalfortheirownpersonaluseand/orbusiness use. Shortlythereafter, theplanningcommissionreachedouttosomeofusshort termrentalownersforourinput, suggestionsetc. Itwasasurpriseanddisappoint tohearabouttheproposedordinancebanningshorttermrentals.
Westronglybelieveinworkingwiththecityingettingaprograminplaceisthe bestfor allpartiesinvolved. Havingaprograminplacewillhelpwiththe proliferationofshort-termrentals, thebadactorsandabsenteeowners.
VoteNOontheproposedordinancetoProhibitShortTermRentals.
Thankyou,
AnaGomez
SantaAnaResident
Flores, Dora
From: Flores, Gaston
Sent: Tuesday, April2, 20249:06AM
To: eComment
Subject: FW: ContacttheCityCouncilSubmission
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April1, 202410:09AM
To: Flores, Gaston <[email protected]>
Subject: ContacttheCityCouncilSubmission
Attention: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsideofCityofSantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.
Name
DavidDelancellotti
Email
Address
SantaAna, California92706
UnitedStates
MapIt
Phone
714) 614-0840
Whois this messagefor?
MayorValerieAmezcua
MayorProTemThaiVietPhan
CouncilmemberBenjaminVazquez
CouncilmemberJessieLopez
CouncilmemberPhilBacerra
CouncilmemberJohnathanRyanHernandez
CouncilmemberDavidPenaloza
Commentsor questions
Ourfamilyhaslivedin SantaAnaover20yearsmovingherefromCostaMesain late2001. Wehaveneighborsandfriendsas wellof ourselveswhoinfrequentlyutilizeutilizethebenefitsof Airbnbto offsetourlivelihood. Weabsolutelybelievethatthere canbea compromisewhenit comesto shorttermrentalsin SantaAna. Takingthisprivilegecompletelyawaywithno amendmentsandnoexceptionsshowsnocompromiseandputsfamilieslikeoursat risk. I'm askingsimplyfora simple resolutionto a criticalneedforourfamily. I alsoknowI havea fewfriendswholivein ourneighborhoodwhosharethesame request. I amaskingfor yoursupportnotto proposea banonshorttermrentals. Wearealwaysavailableto talkliveor on the phoneandappreciateyoursupportas always.
ThankYou
DaviddeLancellotti
6 Flores, Dora
From: Michele <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday,
To: eComment
Subject: ShortTermRental
Attention: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsideofCityofSantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.
Hello:
I owna propertythatI usefor a shorttermrentalin OCandas an extremelyresponsiblehost, I providea homefor familieswhoare displacedbecauseof damageto theirhome, relocatingto OrangeCountyandsometimesfor peoplewhowantan extendedvacationso thattheycanlearn aboutour beautifulareaas a potentialplaceto moveoneday. I haveevenhostedclergyrelocating to OCto leada newcongregationas wellan elderlygentlemenwhoneededto safelyescapethe harshwintersof the Sierra's withhis elderlydog.
Myneighborsare alwayswarmandwelcomingto guests, collaborativewithme, andhavenot had onecomplaintaboutthe situation.
Youmayconsiderexploringsolutionsthattheyhaveemployedin Scottsdale, Arizonato makethe situationmorepalatablefor everyone.
PleasereconsideryourchoicesandknowthatShortTermRentalsprovidea criticaloptionfor families whomaybe in a challengingsituation.
Thankyoufor consideration,
MicheleNorban
7 Flores, Dora
From: SheriMenke <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April
To: Amezcua, Valerie; Lopez, Jessie; Phan, Thai; Vazquez, Benjamin; Bacerra, Phil; Hernandez, Johnathan; Penaloza, David; eComment
Subject: CoalitionLettertoSantaAnaCityCouncil
Attachments: CoalitionLettertoSantaAnaCityCouncilreProposedSTRBan.docx.pdf Attention: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsideofCityofSantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.
DearMayor & CityCouncilPersons,
PleasevoteNOonagendaitem #21tonightandworkwithusto designeffectiveregulationsforshortterm rentalsin SantaAna!
SantaAnaCityShortTermRentalAlliance
1 Mayor Valerie Amezcua
Mayor Pro Tem Thai Viet Phan
Councilmember Benjamin Vazquez
Councilmember Jessie Lopez
Councilmember Phil Bacerra
Councilmember Johnathan Ryan Hernandez
Councilmember David Penaloza
City Council Chamber
20 Civic Center Plaza M- 30
SantaAna, CA 92701
Re: April 2, 2024, City Council Meeting – Item 21 – Urgency Ordinance and Ordinance Prohibiting STRs
Dear Mayor Amezcua and Honorable City Councilmembers,
We understand that during the April 2, 2024 meeting, the City Council plans to consider an Urgency Ordinance, and conduct a first reading of an Ordinance (together,“ the Ordinances”), that would have the effect of completely prohibiting short- term rentals (“ STRs”) in the City of Santa Ana. This extreme approach is largely unprecedented in California. As a coalition of homeowners who have been legally operating our homes as STRs in the City for several years, we strongly opposethe Ordinances.
Staff is bringing this issue before you immediately following the Easter holiday without any meaningful stakeholder engagementand without any evidence that STRs in the City are causing the harms that purportedly justify the prohibition. While we recognize that local regulation of STRs is an emerging area of the law that is being considered and debatedby cities and courts throughout the country, we fervently disagreewith the City’s approachunder consideration. It is not just that the proposed prohibition is harmful policy— although it certainly is. It is that the proposed prohibition violates state and federal law. Should the City move forward with adopting the Ordinances, we will fight for our property rights, our constitutional rights, and the accessrights of our guests.
As we detail in this letter:
Courts across the country and in California have confirmed that STRs are, by default, existing, lawful residential usesof property.
The proposed prohibition would illegally terminate existing, lawful residential uses of property that offer STRs.
The proposedprohibition would severely infringe on constitutional rights.
The City has failed to conduct the necessary analysis of the potential environmental impacts of an STR prohibition under the California Environmental Quality Act.
There has been no evidence put forward that existing STRs constitute a nuisance or are impacting housing availability in Santa Ana.
The City has no basis to adopt an urgency ordinance given the complete lack of evidence that STRs are in any way adversely impacting public peace, health, or safety in the City.
STRs provide significant benefits to the City, its residents, and its visitors, and these benefits are being completely ignored in the one-sided proposal now before the City Council.
The decision to bring the prohibition forward immediately following the Easter holiday without engaging in meaningful outreach to hosts raises significant concerns that require additional understandingprior to any decision on the proposal.
For all of these reasons, we respectfully request that you decline advancing the Ordinances at your April 2 City Council hearing and instead direct Staff to work with all stakeholders to develop an ordinance that authorizes STRs to continue operating subject to reasonable regulations.
STRs are an Existing, Lawful Use of Residential Property in Santa Ana The Ordinances are flawed from the start becausethey rest on a false assumption: that because Santa Ana’s current Municipal Code does not expressly, and specifically, list STRs as a permitted use, STRs are therefore prohibited. That assumption is demonstrably wrong. Case law from California and state supreme courts across the country hold that STRs are a lawful, residential use of property under zoning ordinances like the City’s. Accordingly, far from “ reaffirm[ ing] existing law,” as Staff incorrectly states ( Staff Report at 2), the proposed Ordinances would upend longstanding and settled law and now make an existing, lawful residential use of one’s property illegal.
California
Staff ’s position that STRs are currently unlawful under the City’s current zoning ordinance is refuted by the California Court of Appeal’s decision in Keen v. City of Manhattan Beach.( 77 Cal. App. 5th 142 ( Cal. Ct. App. 2022).) There, the court considered a permissive zoning ordinance from Manhattan Beach that is very similar to Santa Ana’s current zoning ordinance.
Manhattan Beach’s ordinance permitted “ single- family residential” and “ multi- family residential” uses, but did not say anything about STRs.( Id. at 149.) As a result, people in Manhattan Beach had “[ f] or quite some time,... rented residential units in Manhattan Beach on both long- and short-term bases,”and “[t]he City knew about that practice and occasionally got complaints about a rental property[.]”( Id. at 146.) Then, in 2015, Manhattan Beach passed an ordinance banning STRs and claimed— much like Staff has done here— that it was merely reiterating” the City’s supposedly existing “ implicit” ban on STRs.( Ibid.) 2 But the court squarely disagreed, finding that Manhattan Beach’s zoning code “always permitted short-term, as well as long-term, residential rentals.”( Id. at 148 ( emphasis added).) The court explained that once the house or apartment building was built, anyone – renter or owner – could reside there for periods long or short, since the code “offer[ s] no textual basis for a temporal distinction about the duration of rentals”, and the term “‘ residence’ does not imply some minimum length of occupancy”( Id. at 148-149.) In short,“[ a]‘ residential building’ is used for human habitation without regard to length of occupancy,” and “[ i] t is possible to reside somewherefor a night, a week, or a lifetime.”( Id. at 149.) As in Keen, the Santa Ana Municipal Code authorizes “ single- family residence” and “multiple family residence” uses, and these classifications place no minimum length of occupancy restriction on these residential uses.( Santa Ana Mun. Code,§ 41- 184 et seq.) And, just as in Keen, long-term rental of residential property is permitted under the existing Santa Ana code.
And so, just in Keen, without any durational requirement for rentals in the code, there is no justification for the unfounded claim that STRs are currently forbidden.
National Landscape
The California Court of Appeal’s decision in Keen is not an outlier in holding that STRs are a lawful residential use under existing zoning regulations. At least three state supreme courts have reached the same conclusions, holding that local zoning ordinances limiting the use of property in certain districts to “ residential uses” permit STRs.( See Town of Conway v. Kudrick, 175 N. H. 714 ( N.H. 2023); In re Toor, 192 Vt. 259 (Vt. 2012); Landing Development Corp. v. City of Myrtle Beach, 285 S.C. 216 ( S.C. 1985).) These courts have correctly observed that the structures being used as STRs were indisputably “single units that include ‘provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation,’” and that requirements for residents to be “living as a household” or the like “refer[] to a group of individuals who live together under the sameroof, regardless of duration.”( Kudrick, 175 N. H. at 719; see also Toor, 192 Vt. at 265 ( similar quote).) More broadly, nearly two dozen state supreme courts have addressedwhether homeowners association covenants and zoning ordinances like Santa Ana’s that do not specifically address STRs can nonethelessbe read to prohibit or limit them. The majority of thesecourts have come to the sameconclusion: STRs are permitted residential uses.
The Proposed Prohibition Would Illegally Terminate the Existing Ability to Lawfully Use One’s Property for STR
The proposed prohibition would immediately disallow all STRs within the City, including those already lawfully operating. The proposed prohibition would, in effect, convert currently legal STRs into immediately illegal nonconforming uses.But terminating theselegal nonconforming usesin this way would violate longstanding California law.
California courts have long held that a party may continue to usetheir property even though such use is nonconforming.( Hill v. Manhattan Beach, 6 Cal.3d 279, 285-86 (Cal. 1971); Livingston Rock & Gravel Co. v. Los Angeles County, 43 Cal. 2d 121, 127 ( Cal. 1954); Edmonds v. Los Angeles County, 40 Cal.2d 642, 651 (Cal. 1953); E.B. Jonesv. City of Los Angeles,211 Cal.304, 310- 311 ( Cal. 1930).) The reason is simple: immediate termination of previously lawful ( and now non-conforming) uses would be of doubtful constitutionality.( Livingston Rock & Gravel 3 Co., 43 Cal. 2d at 127; Edmonds, 40 Cal. 2d at 651.) This follows from “ vested rights” principles, which provide that when a zoning ordinance changes,a property owner may have a vested right” to continue the existing use, notwithstanding the newer zoning restriction.( City of Ukiah v. County of Mendocino, 196 Cal.App. 3d 47, 56-57 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987).) The California Supreme Court’s decision in Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Regional Comm’n, 17 Cal.3d 785 ( Cal. 1976) is one example of this constitutional principle. There, the California Supreme Court recognized that a property owner that has incurred substantial liabilities establishing a lawful use of property has a right to continue that use despite a subsequent change in zoning law.( Id. at 791.)
Santa Ana’s proposedOrdinanceswould violate theseprinciples. We hostshave made significant investments in our homes to offer them as STRs and thus have obtained the right to continue our STR use.The City’s proposedOrdinances cannot legally withdraw thoserights.
The Proposed Prohibition Raises Numerous Additional Constitutional Concerns As set forth below, the proposedprohibition implicates our constitutional rights to Due Process and the Right to Contract, and affects a Taking. On these or similar grounds, as explained below, a Dallas trial court recently enjoined a near-total ban on STRs much like the one Staff has advanced here.( Dallas Short- Term Rental Alliance v. City of Dallas, DC- 23- 16845, at 1 (Dallas Dist. Ct. Dec. 6, 2023, Temporary Injunction Order).
Due Process
Just as terminating our preexisting, legal nonconforming uses of private property infringes on rights under state law, discussed above, it likewise infringes our federal Due Process rights. The immediate termination of a vested, nonconforming use (which the Ordinanceswould cause)is a deprivation of property without due process of law.( Santa Barbara Patients’ Collective Health Co-op v. City of Santa Barbara, 911 F.Supp.2d 884, 893-894 ( C.D. Cal. 2012); McCaslin v.
Monterey Park, 163 Cal. App. 2d 339, 346- 348 ( Cal. Ct. App. 1958).) Relying on similar principles, the Dallas district court found the STR ban at issue to was likely not “rationally related to” any legitimate state interest— becauseit did not “deter[] nuisances”or “increase[e] affordability of housing in Dallas.”( Dallas Short-TermRental Alliance Order at 5).
Takings
In addition to violating our Due Processrights, the immediate termination of STRs also amounts to a regulatory taking of private property without just compensation, in violation of the California and U.S. Constitutions’ Takings clauses.( U.S. Const., amend. V; Cal. Const. Art. I,§ 19; see,e.g., Castner v. City of Oakland, 129 Cal.App.3d 94 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982).) Under Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 ( 1978), courts determine whether a taking has occurred basedon the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant, the extent to which the regulation interferes with distinct investment-back expectations, and the nature of the governmental action.( Id. at 124.)
Here, each of these factors weighs in favor of finding a taking. First, the blanket prohibition on STRs in the City would have a drastic economic impact on STR owners becauseall income earned from STRs would be immediately eliminated, and property owners could lose their homes 4 if unable to operate STRs. Second, many homeowners in the City purchased homes in the City with the reasonableexpectation that they would operatethem asSTRs, becausethe City’s current ordinances permit that use, as discussed above. Given this, the proposed prohibition represents a significant interference with hosts’ investment-backed expectations. Third, the government action in this case is an arbitrary and capricious prohibition on STRs in the entire City, which, as described throughout this letter, violates state law and infringes on our constitutional rights.
Given these factors, the proposed prohibition would threaten to subject the City to numerous compensationclaims from impacted hosts.
Once again, the Dallas district court reached a similar conclusion as to the STR restriction there, holding that Dallas ordinance “likely constitute[d] a taking of Plaintiffs property, particularly those properties that were acquired and improved upon for the purpose of operating an STR.” Dallas Short-Term Rental Alliance Order at 5). A California court would likely reach the same conclusion.
Right to Contract
The proposed prohibition could also violate our Right to Contract under the federal and state constitutions, which prohibit laws impairing the obligation of contracts.( U.S. Const., Art. I,§ 10; Cal. Const., Art I,§ 9.) We hosts have already agreed to rent our property on a short term basis to guestsin upcoming months. An immediate prohibition on STRs would invalidate those contractual obligations of STR owners in violation of this constitutional right.
The City Must Conduct Additional Analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (“ CEQA”), a local agency must prepare an Environmental Impact Report whenever a project “ may have a significant effect on the environment.”( Pub. Res. Code,§ 21151). The Ordinances include a City Council finding that they are exempt from CEQA because “ the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably indirect physical change in the environment and … becausethe activity is not a project [ under CEQA]… because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly ...”( Urgency Ordinance,§ 5.) This conclusion, without any further comment or explanation, is not supported by the evidence and is inconsistent with the goals and purposeof CEQA.( Davidon Homesv. City of SanJose,54 Cal. App. 4th 106 (1997).) If the City prohibits STRs, guestswill be forced to find transient accommodationsoutside of City limits. Removing all existing STR accommodations from the centrally located City will almost certainly change traffic patterns. This shifting of traffic from within the City to other locations could have significant environmental impacts, including increasedvehicle emissionsfrom people traveling further distances to their vacation destinations or temporary/transitory places of employment and residence.This could result in air quality impacts to residentsof SantaAna and potential traffic impacts at new locations.
Although it is uncertain whether the total impact will be significant enough in the end to require a full Environmental Impact Report, courts have concluded that such potential impacts are sufficient to require at least an Initial Study regarding the need for such a report. For example, in 5 Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 7 Cal. 5th 1171, 1198 ( Cal. 2019), the California Supreme Court held that San Diego’s medical marijuana ordinance was a CEQA project because it was capable of causing indirect physical changes in the environment, including changed traffic patterns. The court explained that “ restrictions on the siting of dispensaries would require thousands of patients to drive across the City to obtain medical marijuana.”( Id. at 1182.) Potential changes to traffic and circulation were enough to require CEQA review.( Id. at 1200- 01.) 1
The City must also analyze the potential increasedgreenhousegas emissions resulting from the additional vehicle trips, the potential land use impacts from increased construction of alternative overnight accommodations ( hotels and motels) to make up for the loss in overnight accommodations that STRs currently provide, and the potential urban decay if the prohibition ultimately makes it impossible for homeowners to afford their homes and causesbusiness to shutter given decline in revenue.
The City must find to a certainty that the STR prohibition will result in no possibility of significant environmental impacts prior to determining the Ordinances are exempt from CEQA.
Davidon Homes, 54 Cal. App. 4th at 119-120.) Here the City has provided no evidence or evening reasoning to support its exemption determination. If the City Council were to move forward with adopting the Ordinances without this support, it would constitute an abuse of discretion.
There is No Evidence Before the City Council That STRs Cause Nuisance Impacts or Affect Housing Availability
The extreme approach of prohibiting STRs is also unsupported by the record before the City Council. The staff report of less than three pages claims without support that the Ordinances are necessaryfor preserving the public peace, health, safety, and welfare ... and to declare such uses as a public nuisance.”( See, e.g., Urgency Ordinance at 2.) This conclusory approach does not meet the standard for informed, rational decision making. Because the City lacks any justification for adopting the Ordinances,such an action would be arbitrary and capricious.
Nuisance
There is nothing in the record before the City Council that STRs in SantaAna constitute a public nuisance. The staff report notes that STRs “are often associatedwith excessive noise, parking problems, trash, and degradation of a neighborhood’s character.”(Staff Report at 2). Yet, the only alleged negative impacts the City points to are “112 confirmed active casesof STRs that have received enforcement notices and citations,” noting that 36 involve owners residing on-site, and 84 involve properties that are not owner-occupied.( Staff Report at 2). The City does not 1 Fullerton Joint Union High School District v. State Board of Education, 32 Cal. 3d 779 ( 1982) provides another example. There, the court found a school district secessionplan “will change bus routes and schedules, and affect traffic patterns. Although it is uncertain whether the total impact will be significant enoughto require an environmental impact report, it is clear that it is sufficient to require at least an initial study to inquire into the need for such a report.”( Id. at 794.)
6 provide any further detail on these active cases or what the complaints entail. 2 We believe that many of these enforcement notices have nothing to do with excessivenoise, parking problems, trash, and degradation of a neighborhood’ s character, and instead are based on the City’s incorrect position that the Municipal Code prohibits STRs. In any event, the City Council does not have the evidentiary basis to adopt the draconian prohibition on STRs given the complete lack of record currently before it, so adoption of the prohibition would be arbitrary and capricious.
Housing Availability
The City also lacks any evidence of the effect of STRs on housing availability in the City. The staff report merely statesthat according to datafrom STR platforms, there are 1,100 active STRs in the City, and the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“ RHNA”) for 2021- 2029 is 3,137 permanent housing units, implying that banning STRs would add 1,100 homes to the long-term housing market.( Staff Report at 2). This implication is wrong. In reality, many STRs in the City are either owner-occupied, meaning that the host is on site while guestsare presentbecausethey live there full- time and have an extra room/ rooms, or are entire home STRs which are rented on a short-term basis becausethe owner travels or is only in the City on a seasonalbasis and so cannot rent the property on a long- term basis ( e.g., six- month or one-year lease). Further, as discussedin a recent study conducted by the Milken Institute on STRs in California,“ the notion that decreasing STR supply will mitigate California’ s extreme housing shortage is not supported by the evidence. The only solution to California’s housing crisis is to provide more housing:
specifically denser, more affordable multifamily housing units.” 3 A review of the Housing Element reveals that the City does not appear to mention STRs anywhere in that document.( See City of Santa Ana General Plan Housing Element). In the section of the Housing Element discussing “Housing Constraints,” the City notes that various factors influencing the City’s ability to meet its housing goals include market factors ( land costs, construction and rehabilitation costs, availability of financing, and recent trends in foreclosures), governmental factors ( land use regulations, development standards, building codes, permit procedures, and other local policies), and environmental factors ( adequacy of infrastructure, public services, and water supply to support new development).( Id. at A- 47). Further, and as discussed in the Milken Institute study, California’s decades-long housing shortage is primarily caused by failure to build enough housing due to rising construction costs, lengthy permitting times, and community opposition, which disincentivize construction of affordable housing.
Dubetz, p. 4.)
3 Alissa Dubetz, Matt Horton, and Charlotte Kesteven, Staying Power: The Effects of Short-Term Rentals on California’ s Tourism Economy and Housing Affordability, MILKEN INSTITUTE (May 2022), https://milkeninstitute. org/sites/default/files/2022-05/Short_Term_Rentals_California. pdf. 2 Moreover, the City conveniently ignores Chapter 17 of its own municipal code, which provides several existing enforcement mechanisms to mitigate public nuisances. See Dallas Short- Term Rental Alliance Order at 5 (rejecting city’s assertedinterest in deterring nuisancesbecausecity already maintained nuisance ordinances that it could have enforced). 7 We are concerned STRs are being used as a scapegoat for the much larger challenges faced by Santa Ana and California as a whole when it comes to developing affordable housing. At a minimum, the City should study the relationship between STRs and long- term housing availability in SantaAna before taking any action to restrict STRs.
There Is No Basis for the Adoption of an Urgency Ordinance The City seeks to make the proposed STR prohibition effective immediately by using the Urgency Ordinance, pursuant to Sections 415 and 417 of the City Charter.( Urgency Ordinance at 2.) Section 415 of the City Charter provides that the City Council can adopt an ordinance that it declares to be “necessary as an emergency measure for preserving the public peace, health, or safety, and containing a statement of the reasonsfor its urgency” by a two-thirds vote of the members of City Council.( Santa Ana Mun. Code,§ 415.)
Here, the City has not, and cannot, make the required findings to passthe Urgency Ordinance because STRs do not represent a “current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare.” As discussedabove, there is no evidence in the record that STRs are a nuisance.Recent guidance from the California Attorney General on urgency ordinances notes that “the immediacy requirement is satisfied in ‘situations where local agencieswere faced with immediate threatsof development[]’ and that an urgency ordinance’s findings must document the nature of the threat to the public health safety or welfare.”( July 17, 2023, Letter from California Office of the Attorney General to all Cities and Counties in California, pp. 2-3; see also San Francisco Fire Fighters Local 798 v. City and County of SanFrancisco, 38 Cal.4th 653, 668 (Cal. 2006)( noting that a court “ will not investigate the truth of the facts declared by the city council,” however, it may review if “ a city council’s determination [ that] the declaration of facts is sufficient to constitute an urgency” and “[ t] he mere declaration of the council that the ordinance is passed for the immediate preservation of public health,” absentfindings of fact the reasonablysupport that finding,“ is neither conclusive nor sufficient.”).) The Urgency Ordinance fails in this regard.
There is no “immediate threat of development” becauseSTRs are currently legally operating in the City. Further, the declaration in the Urgency Ordinance is completely devoid of any factual support that existing STRs are harming public health, safety,or welfare, and thus fails asa matter of law.
STRs Provide Countless Benefits to the City, its Residents, and its Visitors Staff appearsintent on using STRs asa scapegoatfor the challengesthe City faces when it comes to housing availability and other issues. The complete lack of evidence in the staff report supporting this ban makes that clear. The City Council should reject the one-sided proposal advanced by Staff and give weight to the substantial benefits provided by STRs prior to taking action.
As hosts, we open our homes to guestsand allow them to experienceSantaAna in unique ways.
Santa Ana becomestheir home when they stay at our houses,even if it is for a short period. We expand opportunities to learn about and experience our community and the rest of Southern California. Importantly:
8 STRs help to make housing affordable for those of us homeowners who are able to home share”and earn money by renting portions of our houses,or the entire house,for a period of time. This helps make homeownership possible for many Santa Ana residents who otherwise could not afford the high cost of housing and would be pushedout of the market.
Prohibiting STRs will significantly reduce the City’s available overnight accommodations, which will almost certainly result in an overall increase in the prices of motel and hotel rooms, making it more expensive for families to stay in the City overnight.
Not only will this impact the ability of low- and moderate-income families to visit Santa Ana and Orange County for vacation, these increased costs and lack of availability of short term housing would disproportionately impact the individuals and families most needing flexible housing options such as residents facing life transitions, students, traveling nurses and other essential workers, families of patients in healthcare facilities, and other transient residents who are often shut out of the long- term residential housing market.
Higher STR prices will have ripple effects on the City’s economy. STRs and their hosts, guests, and transitional residents support a number of local small businesses;everything from housekeeping, pool service, and air conditioning repair to restaurants and merchants benefit from a robust tourism and STR market. A prohibition on STRs will terminate growth opportunities for these small businesses and threaten their ongoing viability.
STRs also provide families visiting Orange County a central and affordable homebase when visiting places like the Bowers Museum, the Santa Ana Zoo, Disneyland, Knotts Berry Farm, the beaches,and other Southern California tourist destinations. They offer overnight accommodations suited to larger families or groups, with kitchens and communal spacesthat are not simply available at hotels and motels.
The Staff Report completely ignores all of this in its 11th hour attempt to prohibit STRs citywide. There is no discussionof how a prohibition on all STRs would reducethesebenefits or the potential for significant unintended consequenceson the community. We strongly urge the City Council to investigate and fully understand these issues before regulating or restricting STRs in an arbitrary and capricious manner, and would, as described above, violate our rights under statelaw and the stateand federal constitutions.
We Need to Understand the Reasoning Behind the Proposed Ban Finally, we are concerned with the intent behind the proposed prohibition now before the City Council. As discussedabove, the staff report allegesnuisanceimpacts but doesnot specify these impacts or substantiate them in any way to justify such an extreme approach. The staff report also alleges that STRs “divert[] a significant portion of available housing away from permanent residents” without any evidence supporting this assertion. Further, the City scheduled the consideration of the Ordinances directly following the Easter holiday in what feels like an attempt to limit public opportunity to debate this important issue. Given these facts, we are 9 concerned that a motive of the prohibition is to regulate economic competition in violation of the law.
We will be filing a California Public Records Act request with the City in an effort to understand what drove the City to pursue the proposed prohibition in this manner. We strongly urge the Council to refrain from taking any action on the proposed STR prohibition until the City has respondedto our Public RecordsAct request.
Conclusion and Request
Thank you for taking our comments and concernsinto consideration. It will be in all parties’best interest to debate and collaborate on these issues rather than fight through them in the courts.
This is why we respectfully request that the City Council to decline to take action on the Ordinances and direct Staff to hold stakeholder meetings over the next several months before returning with a more thoughtful approach that appropriately acknowledges that STRs are a lawful residential use under the City’s Municipal Code and allows STRs to continue operating subject to reasonableregulations going forward.
Sincerely,
Santa Ana Short Term Rental Alliance ( SASTRA)
Cc: Tom Hatch, Interim City Manager
10 Flores, Dora
From: RebeccaAyala <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April2,
To: eComment
Cc: [email protected]; ChristineMiller
Subject: BetterNeighborsLA + UniteHERELocal11CommentLetter-AgendaItem21- OrdinancesProhibitingShort-TermRentals - SUPPORT
Attachments: BetterNeighborsLA + UniteHERELocal11CommentLetter - AgendaItem21 - OrdinancesProhibitingShort-TermRentals - SUPPORT.pdf
Attention: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsideofCityofSantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.
Hello,
Pleaseseeacommentletterfor AgendaItem #21ontoday’sCityCouncilagendaattached.
Best,
Rebecca “Becca” Ayala
PolicyandAdvocacyDirector
BetterNeighborsLA
1 250 East1st Street, Suite1201; LosAngeles, California 90012 213.336.5900 betterneighborsla.org
April 2, 2024
City Council
City of SantaAna
22 Civic CenterPlaza
SantaAna, CA 92701
[email protected]
Via Electronic Mail
Re: Better NeighborsLA & Unite HERE Local 11CommentLetter – April 2, 2024Hearing AgendaItem #21: OrdinancesProhibiting Short-Term Rentals – SUPPORT DearCouncilmembers,
BetterNeighborsLA andUniteHereLocal11write to youin supportof bothproposed ordinancesprohibitingshort-termrentalswith no amendmentsnorcarveouts. As residentsacross SouthernCaliforniacontinueto facea housingaffordabilityandhomelessnesscrisis, precautions mustbetakento protecthousingstockfor long-termresidents. Both proposedordinanceswill furthercodify theCity of SantaAna’s currentprohibitionon short-termrentals, andin the process, safeguardhousingfor long-termresidentsandfamilies.
BetterNeighborsLA is a coalitionof hosts, tenants, housingactivists, hotelworkers, and communitymembersworkingto curbillegal short-termrentalactivity with theintentto protect long-termhousing.1 BetterNeighborsLA conductsdataanalysisandresearchon theshort-term rentalindustryandits impactonaffordablehousingandhasseenfirsthandtheimpactsof the short-termrentalindustryin theCity of LosAngeles. Accordingto ProfessorDavidWachsmuth of McGill University, since2015short-termrentalshaveincreasedrentsby $810peryearon averageandtaken2,500homesoff thelong-termmarketin theCity of LosAngeles.2 In addition, thestudyfoundthatshort-termrentalscontributedto anadditional5,000peopleexperiencing homelessnesseachnightin theCity of LosAngeles.3 Similar impactsarelikely takingplacein theCity of SantaAnadueto thecontinuedgrowthof theshort-termrentalmarket.
Accordingto BetterNeighborLA’s analysisof AirDNA data, thevastmajority of short- termrentalsin theCity of SantaAna areunhosted, meaningtheyarewholehomerentals, and thereforelikely notbeingprimarily usedfor long-termhousing.4 Since2019, thenumberof unhostedshort-termrentalshasincreasedby almost300% andgrownto over500units (294%, 509units). Hostedunits, on theotherhand, haverisenby 169units (134%). As of March2023, themostrecentavailabledata, therewere991activeSTRsin SantaAna, makingup1.27% of 1 https://www.betterneighborsla.org/
2 https://upgo.lab.mcgill.ca/publication/strs-in-los-angeles-2022/Wachsmuth_LA_2022.pdf 3 https://upgo.lab.mcgill.ca/publication/strs-in-los-angeles-2022/Wachsmuth_LA_2022.pdf 4 AirDNA dataonfile with BetterNeighborsincludesVRBO andAirbnb listingswithin theCity of SantaAna throughMarch2023: https://www.airdna.co/
SantaAna’s housingstock.5 It is clearthatthenumberof short-termrentalshasgrown significantlyoverthelastfew years, andin theprocesslikely removedhousingunitsoff the marketthatmayhaveotherwisebeenavailableto long-termtenantsor potentialhomeowners.
Meanwhile, astheSantaAna short-termrentalmarketcontinuedto growoverthelast decade, othercitieswithin OrangeCountytook stepsto regulateshort-termrentalsandpreserve long-termhousing. At least11citieswithin OrangeCountyprohibit short-termrentalsin some form. ThesecitiesincludetheCity of Aliso Viejo, City of Brea, City of CostaMesa, City of FountainValley, City of GardenGrove, City of Irvine, City of LagunaHills, City of Laguna Nigel, City of Villa Park, City of Westminster, andtheCity of YorbaLinda.6 Theseprohibitions 5 Profile of theCity of SantaAna, SouthernCaliforniaAssociationof Governments, https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/santaana_localprofile.pdf?1606012682. 6 City of Aliso Viejo: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/AlisoViejo/html/AlisoViejo15/AlisoViejo1514.html; City of Brea: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/brea/latest/brea_ca/0-0-0-70791; City of CostaMesa:
https://weblink.costamesaca.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=233471&dbid=0&repo=CityofCostaMesa; City of FountainValley: https://www.fountainvalley.gov/DocumentCenter/View/16275/Ordinance-No-1591; City of Garden Grove: https://ecode360.com/42535001; City of Irvine:
https://library.municode.com/ca/irvine/codes/zoning?nodeId=ZOOR_DIV3GEDESTLAUSRE_CH3- 25SHTERE_S3-25-
5VIMIIN#:~: text=3%2D25%2D3.,of%20short%2Dterm%20rentals%20prohibited.&text=section%20Compare%20 versions-,A.,zoning%20district%20within%20the%20City; City of LagunaHills:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/LagunaHills/#!/LagunaHills06/LagunaHills0640.html , City of LagunaNigel:
areindicativeof a regionaleffort by localgovernmentsto preservehousingfor long-term residents. If approved, theproposedordinancesprohibitingshort-termrentalsin theCity of Santa Ana will not only furthercodify currentpracticebut will alsobringSantaAna into alignment with neighboringjurisdictions.
Theproposedordinanceswill supportSantaAna’s long-termresidentsastheycontinueto facehigh housingcosts. Accordingto theCity of SantaAna GeneralPlanHousingElement 2021-2029, amajority of householdsarerenteroccupied, andalmosthalf (48%) of all householdsspendmorethan30% of theirincomeon housingscostsandthusareconsideredrent burdened.7 In addition, accordingto theNationalLow IncomeHousingCoalition, thefair market rentfor atwo-bedroomhomeis $2,100, meaninga householdwouldhaveto earnmorethan 40/hourto affordto housetheirfamily.8 Recentresearchindicatestheproposedordinancescan helpdecreaserentalcosts. Accordingto a2023studyin theRealEstateEconomicsJournal, Irvine’s rentalpricesdecreased3% aftertheCity prohibitedshort-termrentals.9 Thisstudy illustrateshow short-termrentalregulationscanhelpaddresstheaffordabilityof housingin OrangeCountycities, includingtheCity of SantaAna.
For thesereasons, BetterNeighborsLA andUnite HERELocal11recommendtheCity Councilapprovebothordinanceswith no amendmentsor carveoutsto safeguardagainsthomes beingturnedinto short-termrentals. Shouldyouhaveanyquestions, pleasecontactBeccaAyala at [email protected].
Sincerely,
BetterNeighborsLA & UniteHERELocal11
https://library.municode.com/ca/laguna_niguel/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT9PLZO_DIV1PL_ART2CO ZOCO_SUBARTICLE_3REDI_S9-1-38GRHO; City of Villa Park:
https://library.municode.com/ca/villa_park/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CHXXIIIZO_ART23- 3EFZORE_S23-3.5SHRMRE; City of Westminster:
https://library.qcode.us/lib/westminster_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_9-chapter_9_74-9_74_020; City of Yorba Linda: https://library.qcode.us/lib/yorba_linda_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_5-chapter_5_50-5_50_030. 7Accordingto theCity of SantaAna GeneralPlanHousingElement, in 201853.8% of householdswererenter occupied, while 46.1% wereowneroccupied,
https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/santaanaca/uploads/2022/09 Housing_Element_-Complete-9.16.22_Compressed.pdf
8 Datafor zip code92701, https://nlihc.org/oor/zip?code=92701. 9 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1540-6229.12440 Alcala, Abigail
From: SheriMenke (viaGoogleDocs) <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April2, 202412:04PM
To: eComment
Subject: VoteNOonagendaitem #21tonightandaskthestaffforamoresensibleand collaborativeapproachtotheissueofshorttermrentals
Attention: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsideofCityofSantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.
SheriMenkeattachedadocument
SheriMenke ( hasattachedthefollowing
document:
VoteNOonagendaitem #21tonightandaskthestaffforamoresensibleandcollaborative approachtotheissueof shorttermrentals
Snapshotof theitembelow:
SheriMenke
SantaAna, CA92706
April2, 2024
I ama homeownerandshort-termrentalhostin SantaAnaandhavebeenfor 10 years. On behalfof thelocalshort-termrentalhostcommunity, I askthatyouvoteNO on agendaItem #21 in favorof sensible, collaborativeregulationsthatprotectthemany benefitsshort-termrentalsbringto ourcommunity.
As themotherof five, beingableto sharemyhomehelpsmeearnincometo support myfamily. Short-termrentalsalsooffermuch-neededaffordabletraveloptionsforlarge familieslikeminewhichtraditionalhotelroomsor suitescannotaccommodate. That’s oneof the reasonsI’m so passionateaboutshort-termrentals.
Shorttermrentalshavebeenallowedin thisCityfor over10 yearswherehome-sharing is a lawful, validresidentialuseundertheCity’s existinglaw. By introducinga rushed ordinanceto restrictshort-termrentals, the Cityis actingcontraryto well-established caselawin Californiaandignoringdueprocessandcommunityinput. If the Council movesforwardwithtonight’s recommendation, theywouldbe invitinglegalchallenges ratherthanworkingwithresidentsto ensureshort-termrentalscontinueto benefitour City. Takefor examplea recentreviewthatI receivedfroma familywhostayedat my home. “We usuallystayin Anaheimfor ourDisneyvacations, butthistimewe optedfor SantaAnaandWOWwhata gamechanger.” Thereviewgoeson to talkaboutthe beautyof ourneighborhoodandthe city.
1 Thisrecommendationwasmadewithoutpublicinputandin spiteof callsfromHosts whohavespentthepastyearurgingtheCityto workwithus on a reasonable regulatoryframeworkfor short-termrentals. TheCitynotifiedmeof thishearing late Thursdayafternoon – rightbeforea religiousholidayweekendwhenSantaAnaCity Officeswouldbe closedfor the nexttwodays. Thisrushedordinancedoesn’t give residentsanytimeto providefeedbackandviolatesthe principlesof thedemocratic process. In fact, I hadto rearrangetravelplanswithmyfamilyto be heretonight.
Short-termrentalhostslikemewantto workwithyouon a solutionthatbestservesthe Cityandlocalresidents. We areconstituentsandresponsiblecommunitymembers whohavein goodfaithengagedwithCitystafffor thepast18 monthsto worktowards a reasonabletaxandpermitprogramthatwouldsupportSantaAna’s tourismeconomy andbenefitus all!
VoteNOon agendaitem #21 tonightandaskthe stafffor a moresensibleand collaborativeapproachtowardregulatingshort-termrentals.
Thankyoufor yourtimeandconsideration,
SheriMenke
GoogleLLC, 1600AmphitheatreParkway, MountainView, CA 94043, USA Youhavereceivedthisemailbecausesherimenke@gmail.comsharedadocumentwith youfromGoogleDocs.
2 Alcala, Abigail
From: BulmaroVicente <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April2,
To: eComment
Subject: 04/2CCMeetingPublicComment - AgendaItem #21ChispaSupportLetter Attachments: ChispaCommentLetter - AgendaItem #21 - Support.docx.pdf Attention: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsideofCityofSantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.
Hello,
PleasefindChispa'sLetterof Supportto Item21.
In Solidarity,
Boomer
PolicyandPoliticalDirector | Chispa
e:
SantaAna, CA92705
Chispais building apolitical homefor youngLatinxsin OrangeCounty! Pleaseconsidermakinga donationto helpusbuild our casita. Chispais aprojectof TidesAdvocacy, a501c4non-profit organization.
1 Alcala, Abigail
From: eduardojimenez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April2,
To: eComment
Subject: item21, emergencyprohibitingShorttermrentals
Attention: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsideofCityofSantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.
Hello, My nameisEduardo. I wasbornandraisedinSantaAna. I wentto MendezandGodinezfundamental. I wouldliketo voicemyconcernonthispossibleshorttermrentalban.
I askedthatyoudonotbanshort-termrentalsin SantaAna, please Plainandsimpleinthisevergrowingcompetitiveeconomy, opportunityislimited. It wouldbean understatementto sayhowdrasticallylifehaschangedsinceCovidof 2020. Weasacommunityhaveallfaced thesamedevaluationof ourhardearnedincomedotooinflation. Weearnthesamewhilepricesacrossall spectrumshaveincreased. It isnosecretthatthecostof livingtomorrowismoreexpensivethantheprevious day.
Tobanshorttermrentalswoulddirectlylimittheopportunitythousandsof ussawduringtimesof uncertainty asCovidplayedoutitsaffectsontheglobalandlocaleconomy. Covidisover, butthehighpricesremain. No oneislookingoutafterourwages. Thereisnoactionbeingtakenfor theindividualto lessentheamountof worktheyhaveto putinto buythesametomatotheydidjustafewyearsago. Tomakemypointclearwehave to workmoreto buythesameamountof things.
Airbnbhostsaroseoutof desperation. Whointherightmindwouldwillinglywantto sharepartof their propertyunlessit wasn’t essential. I wouldloveto havemyownspace. Theopportunityandincomethat hostingbringsisnotpocketchange. TheincomethattheserentalsBringisanessentialaspectof locals livelihood.
Thisistrue, andI haveseenfirsthandthroughmyparentsthatwithoutrentingaportionof theirhouse, they wouldnotbeableto covertheirmortgagedueto theexponentialincreasedof cost-of-living. Myfatherretired lastyearandhe’sexpressedhowlittlehispensiontakeshimeverymonth. Withoutthisincome, myfather wouldhaveto gooutof retirementandre-enteredtheworkforce.
I hopethatthiscommitteehearsthelocalsinSantaAna. Becausealot of usdependontheserentalincomesto keepgettingthroughto coverThecostof livingin2024. 2025isjustaroundthecornerandwhoknowswhat dilemmaslifewill throwatus, butonethingiscertainpricesallaroundwill onlygoUP.
I believetheremaybeconsto hostinghowever, I thinktheprosof allowingshorttermrentalsoutweighthe cons. Thecitybenefitsfromtaxableincome. Wethepeoplebenefitfromincomewespendthatmoneyinthe citywelivetakethisopportunityaway. Youtakethecirculationof fundsinyourcity. Youalsogettourist attractions. It putsSantaAnaonthemap.
A mainconcernI hearaboutAirbnb‘s: Parties. SureMaybeduringCovidwhentherewasnofun, butthefunis opensopartiesshouldn’t beaconcern.
1 Rentgoingup: Rentgoesupregardless. Lookatahistoricalpricechartandyou’ll see. Airbnbwasn’t around before2010. Pricesof rentstill wentupregardless. Nooneisanexpert, butit isn’t hardtotellthatAirbnbisnot thedriverin ourglobaleconomyor localeconomy. It’sdoesn’t takeanexperttoseethat.
I askedthatyoudonotbanshort-termrentals
Thankyou
A SantaAnanative
2 Alcala, Abigail
From: MileHighHosts <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April2,
To: eComment
Subject: AgendaItem #21: Tonight'sMeeting
Attachments: DenverSantaAna - Testimony.pdf
Attention: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsideofCityofSantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.
Hello,
Pleaseseethetestimonyonbehalfof Denver'sSTRalliancebelowfor tonight'smeeting.
Thankyou,
Dana
Mile HighHosts
Homefor ResponsibleHosting
site: www.MileHighHosts.org
Neverdoubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizenscan changethe world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that everhas.” Margaret Mead
1