Correspondence - PH #35 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2024 Page 8 from a prohibition on "non-residential uses" on these types of lots. (See Santa Ana Mun. Code § 41.2109(1)(1) ["Residential -only. No non-residential use is permitted on any lot created by urban lot split."]; § 41-2115(1)(2) [same].) If STRs were not a residential property use, the separate prohibition would be superfluous. The City's express prohibition of STRs on certain lots refutes the City's argument that they are prohibited by omission throughout the entire City. After all, why would the City prohibit them explicitly in one place if they were already impliedly prohibited everywhere? If they are prohibited in the entire City, sections 41-2109 and 41-2115 would be superfluous in violation of California law. (In re C.H., 53 Cal.4th 94, 102-03 (2011) [California courts strive to give meaning to every word in a statute and avoid constructions that render words, phrases, or clauses superfluous.]; Escamilla v. Vannucci, 97 Cal.App.5th 175, 187-88 (2023).) Homeowners cannot understand what is and is not prohibited if the City adopts such nonsensical readings of its own zoning provisions. Staff s position that STRs are currently unlawful under the City's current zoning ordinance is also foreclosed 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.) The Court of Appeal squarely disagreed, holding 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 somewhere for 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 as in Keen, without any durational requirement for rentals in the code, there is no justification for the unfounded claim that STRs are currently forbidden. N6