Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - Item 21Flores, Dora From: Jennifer Leiva < Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 2:26 PM To: eComment Subject: Against the STR Ban by Zoning & Planning Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. Hello My name is Jennifer Leiva, I live in Ward 3 and have been an STIR operator in the city of Santa Ana for the past 4 years. Outright banning STRs in the city would be cutting off revenue that can go back into the city and community. Please do not generalize all operators because of a couple of bad apples. For the most part, the majority of us hosts are for complying with regulations and zoning but your zoning and planning department must be willing to set reasonable regulations. I know it's added work to an already busy department but the revenue that can be received from setting into place certain regulations and permits will benefit so many. Utilize us operators if you have any questions, most of us are willing and able to help work with the city for insight. I for one have worked with numerous zoning and planning departments and would be happy to also work with your department so see what your concerns are and how we can ease those concerns setting some codes that'll benefit all. Apart from operating STRs I provide a lot of work to several local small businesses from AC techs, plumbing, to handymen, etc. By banning STRs you are selfishly stopping a families income and state taxes from going back into the state and community; we all pay taxes. The majority of those I employ are paid great and the work schedule works well with their children's schedule so that they are able to provide and still spend time with their family. Again please think of the domino effect banning STRs will cause amongst the community. All our hires are local and I as well am a resident of the city. Please reach out to me if you need anything or have any questions. Thank you! Jennifer Leiva Flores, Dora From: Daniel Nehrbass < Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 3:23 PM To: eComment Subject: item 21, emergency prohibiting Short term rentals Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. Dear City of Santa Ana, We are low-income residents of color who live in Santa Ana. We are not able to afford our mortgage without supplemental income. One way we have been able to weather the storm since COVID is to rent out one room of our house on Air BNB. We have had a wonderful experience and have never had a disrespectful guest. We are not renting out our whole house for parties ... we rent one room of the home our multi -generational family lives in. We ask that you consider people like us when you vote on this decision. Daniel Nehrbass Flores, Dora From: Catherine Manzano < Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 3:43 PM To: eComment Subject: Item 21 - Emergency Prohibiting Short -Term Rentals Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. To whom it may concern, I am writing with regards to the above -mentioned item and would like to voice my opposition to the prohibition: Since becoming an operator of 4 short-term rentals in the downtown city of Santa Ana in 2021, there has been an influx of travelers staying in the area which has been a huge income generator for the many local businesses. Downtown Santa Ana is thriving. With the addition to the trolley currently being constructed, the area of downtown Santa Ana will see even more tourists which means business revenue and this create more for jobs for the city. Additionally, with the city thriving and growing, this allows city restoration, with many new housing projects and retailers opening up which is always a positive. If there would be any ordinances on short-term rentals, I would support an implement short term rental zoning areas and place a limit/cap of the number of rentals per STR operator/owner and affidavit to operate for non -owner operators. This would help alleviate just anyone and/or inexperienced operators from opening up a STR and help prevent issues that may affect long term non STR residents living in the community. Thank you for your consideration. Best Regards, Catherine Manzano Sent from my iPhone Flores, Dora From: Ami nguyen < Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 4:50 PM To: eComment Subject: Short Term Rental Host Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. To whom this may concern, Unfortunately, I won't be allowed to attend the meeting, but I would like to share my voice. Please allow us to continue hosting our house on Airbnb for short term rental. My family of 8 is depending on this income to make a living. I have 4 kids and my parents are in their 80s and one has dementia. We pay our taxes every year. We maintain very clean and comfortable rooms for the guest to live in. My employees also depend on this money to support their family since they don't speak English and it's hard to find another job. If this is taken from me I would have to apply for low income. I don't want to be a burden to my country. Please allow us to continue hosting our house to supports our family. Ami Nguyen Flores, Dora From: Sheri Menke < Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 5:23 PM To: eComment Subject: Vote NO on agenda item #21 for Tuesday April 2, 2024 Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. Dear City Council Members, Thank you for all that you do for our community! Please vote NO on agenda item 921 for the City Council meeting scheduled Tuesday April 2, 2024. I am appalled by the staff recommendation to prohibit short term rentals in Santa Ana. The proposal was brought forth without input from local residents and is now being rushed through the council. Myself and others have been working for over a year on a sensible taxed and regulated program for short term rentals. Please reject this proposal and work with us for the best interest of Santa Ana! An urgent ordinance banning short term rentals would not be an effective or appropriate response to what the people of Santa Ana want/need. A citywide ban would also be a huge loss of potential revenue for the city. In September of 2022 the issue was placed on the planning commission agenda. Not one resident of Santa Ana at that meeting supported a ban, rather they/we support a taxed and regulated STR program. The item was moved off the agenda that evening and we were told by Bao Pham, under the direction of Minh Thai, that when the item was back on the agenda we would be notified. That has not happened. This is one of the reasons you should vote NO on item 421. We as operators/small business owners should have an opportunity to speak, meet with staff and share our experiences before a significant ordinance is voted on by the city council. In December of 2023 the issue was back on the agenda as a topic for a study session. We as owners/operators were not able to speak during the session, which is again why you should vote NO on item 921 at this time. None of the commissioners that evening were in favor of a ban and there were no public comments speaking against STR's at the beginning of the meeting. It again is not an urgent issue in the city and should be considered with clear and accurate research and information. I have owned and operated an STR in the city for the past 7 years and have had a business license issued by the city this entire time. I have a document in support of my STR that is signed by every homeowner who shares my property line. I am happy to share that document with you. This is evidence that STR's are not a nuisance and can be a huge asset to any community! I employ and pay a fair wage to at least 4 residents of Santa Ana on a regular basis. I myself was employed by a neighbor who was operating an Airbnb for a few years. I was the mother of 5 very young children at the time and the income was monumental as it is difficult for a woman with children to find employment. I loved living next to a STR, it brought so much to my life hearing people's stories, providing a beautiful and safe place for them to stay as they explored Orange County or went to a world renowned medical center. I personally have spent the past two years researching and meeting with leaders in the cities of Orange, Huntington Beach and Long Beach. All of these cities have successful programs for short term rentals. Owners/operators have worked with the city to enforce regulations and these cities are moving to expand their programs and even loosen some restrictions because of the successes. This is my hope for Santa Ana! These programs have created much needed revenue to help with the city's budgets, they have helped to eliminate problems with irresponsible owners and they have helped create jobs for local residents through tourism, cleaning services and more. There are many sensible options for short term rentals other than a citywide ban, please vote NO on item 421 and work with us! There is no need for an urgent ordinance based on the safety of communities. Short term rentals have been allowed in Santa Ana for over 10 years. I have a family of 7 with 5 being children. I am passionate about short term rentals because it is the most affordable and rational way for my family to travel for both pleasure and for necessity. People need options when they travel as we live in a diverse world with diverse families and situations! When I found out that my neighbor was running a STR I wasn't thrilled, but the experience was life changing! Sharing Santa Ana with others and helping them experience and learn about the amazing city that Santa Ana is can only be done with your help! Below is a recent review from a guest who stayed at my STR. In the review you will clearly see that a taxed and regulated program is what Santa Ana needs rather than a ban! We have the airport, Disneyland, beaches, culture and so much more that travelers want to experience! You have the opportunity to vote down this urgent ordinance and help to create an ordinance that would be much more effective and beneficial for everyone!! I hope to be one of the leaders that can work with you and others to make that happen! Thank you for your time and consideration to vote NO on agenda item 921 ! I will see you Tuesday! Best, Sheri Review from a recent guest... This was my first time staying in Santa Ana and wow, what a game changer. We usually stay in Anaheim for Disneyland, but we're extremely happy we opted for Santa Ana this time around. Sheri, the property manager, was absolutely amazing from start to finish. She was quick to respond to any communications we had and was very easy to work with. The neighborhood this house is situated in is GORGEOUS. You can tell everyone in in the area truly takes pride in their homes and properties. The house itself was even better than the pictures advertised. The backyard was gorgeous, the kitchen was large, the rooms and bathrooms were spacious. Not only were the basic necessities included, but Sheri took it a step further and had a Brita water pitcher in the fridge, ice cubes, creamer pods, K-cup pods, snacks, etc. It's little things like that, that really go a long way and is so very appreciated. Would definitely love to stay here in again in the future. Thank you so much for such a wonderful stay! Date of arrival - March 3, 2024 • I'm a Santa Ana resident who shares my home to supplement my income. I rely on home sharing to make ends meet and support the city's tourism economy. • I am appalled by the Planning Director's recommendation to prohibit home sharing in Santa Ana • This proposal was brought forth without input from local residents, and is now being rushed through the council • We need more time to consider reasonable alternatives that will allow Hosts like me to continue hosting. • Please reject the proposal and work with the local community on a sensible plan Flores, Dora From: Thu Tran < Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 6:22 PM To: Lopez, Jessie; eComment Subject: Fwd: STR Legal correspondence regarding 2108 Alona St Attachments: Cease and Desist Ietter.pdf, STR Docs to Santa Ana.pdf Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. Hi Mr. Lopez, I've learned that the planning commission is going to try again to ban short-term rental at the April 2 meeting on Tuesday. Please vote NO on item 421 on the meeting agenda. Thu Tran ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Thu Tran < Date: Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 6:17 PM Subject: Re: STR Legal correspondence regarding 2108 Alona St To: <mcarvalho@santa-ana.org>, jessielopez@santa-ana.org <jessielopez@santa-ana.org>, schampion@santa- ana org <schampion(c�r�,santa-ana.org>, <vamezcua@santa-ana.org> Cc: Scott James Street <sstreet@whowardattornee s�> Dear Mr. Carvalho, I just received another Cease and Desist letter regarding my 2108 Alona property. In case you're not aware, we just went through this a few months ago and my hearing got canceled at last. See below. I've attached the legal correspondence that my lawyer sent to the City in October for your reference. I would appreciate you forwarding it to the City's lawyer, too. Once again, I have secured a legal counsel should the Dept choose to fine me after sending me a cease and desist letter. We'll file a lawsuit to enjoin the City's unlawful practices and seek to recover legal fees and damages. Thu Tran On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 3:05 PM Diaz, Jorge < Hello everyone, The appeal hearing for October 26t" has been taken off calendar until further notice, be advised. Thank you, Jorge Diaz Senior Office Assistant City of Santa Ana I Planning and Building Agency 20 Civic Center Plaza I Santa Ana, CA 92702 (714) 667-2783 1 1Diaz10@santa-ana.org The mySantaAna mobile app puts the power of the Santa Ana city government in the palm of your hand! The free app allows residents to quickly and easily report issues to the City, access City services, and find news and events. Download the App: From: Scott James Street <sstreet@iwhowardattorneys.com> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2023 12:48 PM To: Verino, Sergio <SVerino@santa-ana.org> Cc: Adminhearing <Adminhearing@santa-ana.org> Subject: Legal correspondence regarding 2108 N Alona St Importance: High Dear Mr. Verino -- Please see the attached correspondence regarding this matter. I would appreciate you forwarding it to the City's lawyer, too. Best, Scott Street Scott J. Street JWHoward Attorneys Ltd. 201 South Lake Avenue, Suite 303 Pasadena, CA 91101 (213) 205-2800 sstreet@iwhowardattorneys.com 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- CEASE AND DESIST Notification 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 as an 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 uses that 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 Santa Ana. 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.sarparavro lassb.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 Santa Ana 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 Street in Santa Ana (the "Property"). The City issued a citation to Ms. Tran, accusing her of violating the Santa Ana Municipal Code by renting the Property to short-term renters. According to its citation letter of May 18, 2023, the City contends that "short-term rentals are not allowed in the City of Santa Ana." Exhibit A. The City's sole legal support for this argument is that its zoning code "is permissive, meaning uses that are not explicitly enumerated as permitted are prohibited." Id. The City contends that, because "[s]hort-term rentals are not identified in the City's zoning code as a permitted use" they are "therefore prohibited." (Id.) This position is wrong as a matter of law. In fact, the Court of Appeal addressed the same argument in People v. Venice Suites, LLC, 71 Cal. App. 5th 715, 732-34 (2021) ("Venice Suites"). Like here, the City of Los Angeles argued that, because its municipal code did not expressly authorize short-term rentals, they must be prohibited. The court rejected that argument, in part because "no length of occupancy requirement is expressed" in the city's code. Thus, applying the "permissive zoning" argument to ban rentals of some length (short-term) would 1 require banning rentals of all lengths. Id. at 733. The court refused to accept such an absurd result. Keen v. City of Manhattan Beach, 77 Cal. App. 5th 142 (2022), is even more on point. In 2015, Manhattan Beach passed an ordinance banning short-term rentals. In 2019, it adopted an enforcement mechanism for those ordinances. That led the city to cite a property owner (Keen) for violating the short-term rental ban. Keen sued because the 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 argued that the short-term rental ban was irrelevant because short-term rentals were not expressly authorized by the city's zoning code, so, under permissive zoning principles, they had always been banned as a matter of law. The Court of Appeal rejected Manhattan Beach's arguments. It noted that "it is legal to build a residential house or an apartment building 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, as everyone knows, and nothing in the ordinance takes the unusual step of banning all renting in the residential areas of 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 does not regulate how long your stay can be." 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" as having "no textual or logical basis." Id. And it dispatched the city's "permissive zoning" argument in one paragraph. Id. The same reasoning applies here. Indeed, Santa Ana'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 does not alter its use. See Coastal 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 residence as an 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 been banned, why did the city need to 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 September 2015. Exhibit B. The City Council voted against extending 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 has scheduled an administrative hearing for October 26. But it should not be necessary. Under Keen and Venice Suites, 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 cancel the October 26 hearing and rescind any short-term rental citations regarding the Property. Please let me know by noon on October 25 if that has happened. 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. Please let me know if you would like to discuss this matter further. You may also forward this letter to the City's lawyer, who I would be happy to talk to. All rights and remedies are expressly reserved. Very truly yours, Scott J. Stree JW HOWARDIATTORNEYS, LTD. 3 EXHIBIT A MAYOR Valerie Amezcua MAYOR PRO TEM Jessie Lopez COUNCI LIME NA.BERS Phil Bacerra Johnathan Ryan Hernandez David Penaloza Thai Viet Phan Benjamin Vazquez CITY OF SANTA ANA Planning and Building Agency 20 Civic Center Plaza • P.O. Box 1988 Santa Ana, California 92702 www.santa-ana.ora May 18, 2023 Thu Vu Lac Tran & Tam Xuan Nguyen 11561 Prairie Shadow Pt. San Diego, CA 92126 Re: Short -Term Rental Property- CEASE AND DESIST NOTIFICATION Dear Property Owners, It has come to our attention that your property located at 2108 N. Alona St. is advertised as an unpermitted short-term rental in the City of Santa Ana. CITY MANAGER Kristine Ridge CITY ATTORNEY Sonia R. Carvalho CITY CLERK Jennifer L. Hall 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 uses that 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 Santa Ana. 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 thirty days (30) 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 Supervisor Jerry Navarro at (714) 667-2773 and/or jnavarro@santa-ana.or>?. Sincerely, /varounez I Assistant D rector Planning and Building Agency SANTA ANA CITY COUNCIL Valene Amezcua Jessie Lopez Thai Viet Phan Benjamin Vazquez Phil Baeerra Johnathan Ryan Hemandez David Penaloza Mayor 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: Santa Ana, 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 Santa Ana Municipa_1 Code 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 be notified in writing with the Notice of Administrative Fine if you are not in compliance (see section below). You en be liable for a fine in the amount of $100, $200, $500 and/or $1000, $2500, $5000. (These fines 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 iwilbot achieved 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, you are in violation of Santa Ana Municipal Code Section(s): SAMC Code Section Description of Violation(s) c E-7 QU 01A Pr< TrL/ ! r-! 6 - T ,� See Attached Addendum Report I sT CITATION $ -'" IS NOW DUE AND PAYABLE. ( ) 2" CITATION $ IS NOW DUE AND PAYABLE. 3RD CITATION $ IS NOW DUE AND PAYABLE. 4" CITATION $ IS NOW DUE AND PAYABLE Pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 1-21.8, you have 15 days from the date of this administrative fine to file an appeal. (See the reverse side of this Notice for payment and appeal information relating to a Request for 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 10-U UNITED STATES 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 TM or 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 Balance Forward: 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 Please remit payment within 30 days to the address referenced below. Past due accounts are referred to a collection agency. CHECK POLICY: It is understood by all persons who wish to write checks to the City that acceptance of checks is conditional upon the satisfactory collection of the check. If a check is dishonored or returned for any reason. the customer will be responsible for paying the full amount of the check that was returned plus the state's maximum allowable processing fee. 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 TRAIN PO 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 Ordinance on 1" Reading Ordinance on Od Reading Implementing Resolution 171 Set Public Hearing For CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER Approve an emergency ordinance adopting a 45-day temporary moratorium on the establishment or expansion of any short terns residential rental use, In recent years, there has been an increased popularity of "home -sharing" ,and other short -terra vacation rentals through the use of web -based companies such as Alrbnb, placation Rentals by 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. rental uses such as noise, on -street parking supply, increased traffic and other impacts affecting the duality of life in the community, Short-term rentals have resulted in increased Code Enforcement complaints 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 analyze the Santa Ana Municipal Code to review, steady and revise the existing Code in order to respond to recent concerns relating to the impacts of short-term residential rentals In the City, The proposed interim ordinance will prohibit the establishment of any short-term residential rental for a 45-daytime period, During the 4 -day interim ordinance period, a zoning study will be performed which will assist in the preparation of a permanent ordinance for this use, An update can further study of this issue and a pudic hearing to consider a permanent ordinance will be scheduled for the October 20, 2015 City 0ouneil meeting. 5OB-1 Short -Term Residential Rental Moratorium September 15, 2015 Page 2 STRA,TE011 C PLAID ALIGNMENT Approval of this item supports the City's efforts to 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, AlUP Executive Director Planning and Building Agency VC;rb vGk�p�rGsl�hpit7�rmR��ld®ntiaf Fdsnt�ia,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 - Page 1 of 4 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 - Page 2 of 4 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 - Page 3 of 4 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 - Page 4 of 4 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 Itemswithout votes are adopted as part of the consent remotion. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS MINUTES 10A. MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 6, 2015 {STRATEGIC PLAN NO. 5, 11 - Clerk of the Council Office MOTION: Approve Minutes. BOARDS 1 COMMISSIONS / COMMITTEES 13A. COUNCIL COMMITTEES — AGENDA AND MINUTES {STRATEGIC PLAN NO. 5, 1) - Clerk of the Council Office MOTION: Receive and file. NAME MEETING DATE Special Meeting of Code of Conduct & Ethics 10/01/2015 Special Meeting of Development & Transportation 10/14/2015 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 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 {STRATEGIC PLAN NO. ,5, 4D) - Community Development Agency Councilmember Reyna, asked to be engaged in program since it was in his Ward. Designation advantages would include: 1) the awarding of preferences for certain competitive federal grant programs; and 2) proposed hiring tax credits and enhanced depreciation (tax) benefits to investors (subject to Congressional approval). Broad objectives associated with Santa Ana's strategy include the creation of jobs, growing the local economy, improving education opportunities, and reducing crime. !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 PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT FOR THE SALE OF CITY -OWNED REAL PROPERTY AT 1232 AND 1244 SOUTH BRISTOL STREET, APN 109-421-21 AND 22 (STRATEGIC PLAN NO. 6, 1 G; 3, 2C} - Community Development Agency CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 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) (NOWGENERAL FUND) (STRATEGIC PLAN NO:. 6, 1.B) - Public Works Agency Councilmember Martinez, requested update on crash that occurred at the corner of Myrtle Street and Flower Street on October 19, 2015. MOTION: Authorize the City Manager and the Clerk of the Council to execute an agreement with Albert Grover & Associates, subject to non -substantive changes approved by the City Manager and City Attorney, to conduct engineering and traffic survey studies in order to update posted speed limits, as well as follow up speed surveys, in a total amount not to exceed $75,812, which includes a 10% contingency, for a three-year period from October 21, 2015 through October 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 -GENERAL FUND) {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 v rn!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 Safety SAPD 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 $50,000 Recreation Kin Park Parks Parks and Security Lights: 3 $50,000 Recreation Santia o Park Parks Parks and Security Lights: Bomo 4 $ 170,000 Recreation Koral Park Parks Parks and Security Lights: 6 $50,000 Recreation Heritage Park Parks Parks and Security Lights: 1 $50,000 Recreation 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. $1,065,000 Communications 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 take judicial 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 decades before 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 a judgment 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 case is about getting a room near the beach. By law, public access to 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 access to 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 adequate account of state interests. (§ 30004, subds. (a) & (b); FMCity of 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, and that frames the issue in this case: whether the City amended its program when it clamped down on short-term rentals, or whether the prohibition was not an amendment because it merely continued the legal status quo. 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 mandate to 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 has always 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's ordinances: they always permitted short-term, as well as long-term, residential rentals. The City's ban on short-term rentals thus amended the status quo. This amendment required Commission approval, which the City never got. So the City's ban was not valid. The issue reduces to whether the City's old ordinances permitted short-term rentals. The following analysis demonstrates they did. The City always has allowed people to rent apartments and homes in the City on a long-term basis. In other words, it always has been legal to live in Manhattan Beach as a renter. No one disputes this. One would be rather surprised to discover a community anywhere that banned renting completely. Because rentals that are long-term have always been permissible under the City's ordinances, however, the City has been forced to distinguish between long-term residential rentals the City allows and short-term residential rentals the platforms promote and the City dislikes. Unfortunately for the City, its old residential zoning ordinances contain no long- term/short-term distinction. Absent some distinction in the law, then, the law must treat long-term rentals the same as short-term rentals. If long-term rentals are legal, so too are short-term rentals. The ordinances offer no textual **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 reasonable interpretation of permitting a "Single -Family Residential" building in a residential area is that people are allowed to reside in that building, whether they are owners or renters. Why, under the text of the ordinance, are renters allowed in? Because residential renters are common in cities, as everyone knows, and nothing in the ordinance takes the unusual step of banning all renting in the residential areas of the City. Use of the word "residence" does not imply some minimum length of occupancy. (Cf. People a Venice Suites, LLC (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 715, 726,286 Cal.Rptr.3d 598 (Venice Suites) ["A `residential building' is used for human habitation without regard to length of occupancy ...."]; Greenfield, supra, 21 Cal.App.5th at p. 899, 230 Cal.Rptr.3d 827 [the city in question historically treated short term rentals as a "residential" activity].) 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 house do not indicate a required length of occupancy"].) The same analysis applies to "Multi -family Residential," where the common form of a multi -family building is an apartment building. Apartment dwellers commonly rent. * 150 The City's zoning thus permits you to rent a house or an apartment in Manhattan Beach, which accords with common experience. The City's zoning does not regulate how long your stay can be. The City's proposed distinction between long- and short-term rentals —the former always allowed, and the latter always forbidden —has no textual or logical basis. The City thus loses this appeal as a matter of textual interpretation. [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 decades before cannot prevail over the definition enacted by the City and certified by the Commission in the ordinance at issue. The older document is not relevant. We deny this request. The zoning ordinances certified by the Commission thus allow rentals of single- and multi -family residences in residential zones for any duration, including short-term rentals of the Airbnb variety. The City's new ban on short-term rentals was an amendment requiring Commission approval. 1:3 The City's other arguments are invalid. 1 The City relies heavily on the principle of permissive zoning. It argues California has adopted this doctrine: zoning ordinances prohibit any use they do not permit. But the City's ordinances do permit short-term rentals in residential zones. That is the only reasonable interpretation of the ordinances, as we have shown. This interpretation is not an affront to permissive zoning. 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 as commercial 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 argues the trial 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 one requiring Commission approval of amended laws. The Commission has not required the City to allow short-term rentals. The Commission has not reviewed the City's ban because the City, incorrectly, has been maintaining its ban is nothing 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 FAKracke v City of Santa 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 apartment house owner and operator, alleging violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC), public nuisance, unfair business practices, 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, assigned by 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 presented on 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 a statute is a question 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 commonsense meaning. [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 scheme of which statute is part. [20] Statutes 4-- Reason, reasonableness, and rationality Statutes #— Wisdom, practicality, and common sense Court interprets statute using 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 enact important or fundamental changes by 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 a judgment 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 section 12.03. 1 The People allege Venice Suites illegally operates a hotel or transient occupancy residential structure (TORS), defined below, in a building only permitted to operate as an 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 causes of 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 purchased 417 OFW on September 14, 1999, when it housed a mixture of short-term occupants (those staying 30 days or less) and long-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 fees in 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 approached the 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 Determination of Affordable Units Application 2 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 FABusiness and 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 issued by a court of competent jurisdiction." Specifically, the People alleged Venice Suites violated the following LAMC sections by operating 417 OFW as an illegal 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 changes to 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 issued pursuant to LAMC section 91.103.3. The second cause of action for public nuisance in 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- term rentals were not prohibited under the RSO.3 The trial court granted Venice Suites's motion for summary adjudication as to the first and second causes of action for violation of the LAMC and public nuisance, and it denied both motions as to the third and fourth causes of action for unfair business practices and false advertising. The People subsequently dismissed their third and fourth causes of action without prejudice and appealed the 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 appeal from 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 Supreme Court has made clear that 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); FMAguilar a 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; FMFortBragg Unified 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 presented on 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. (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 agree the 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, the rules relating to the scopias defined in the TOT] are different from tenants, 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 usage of the term apartment house provides 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 are not persuaded by Venice Suites's contention that the People's permissive zoning argument raises factual issues not addressed below. In particular, Venice Suites contends the record was not developed as to 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 "vested rights 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 a legal 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 does it 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 an R3 Multiple Dwelling zone. The parties' dispute lies 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 uses are 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 set out in footnote 1, the Zoning Code defines an Apartment House as a "residential building" that contains a certain combination of dwelling units, guest rooms or suites of 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 a hotel. 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 meets the physical characteristics of an Apartment House and it is used for human habitation. There is no dispute 417 OFW meets both of those requirements. The People cannot show Venice Suites has violated 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 argument below, relying on disparate provisions of the Zoning 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] The proper interpretatidWordinate all existing zoning regulations and provisions into of a statute is a question of law we review de novo. one comprehensive zoning 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 a plain and commonsense meaning.'" ' " (FMPeople v APARTMENT HOTEL. A residential building designed Gonzalez (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1138, 1141, 218 Cal.Rptr.3d 150, or used for 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 used for three or more dwelling units or a combination 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 clause or section in rooms or suites of rooms. (Amended by Ord. No. 107,884, the context of the statutory framework as a whole." ' " (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 sense to the language at hand.' [Citation.]" (lllllwAilanto Properties, 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, designed or used for occupancy by one or more persons and 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 designed or used for one or more dwelling units or a combination of three or more dwelling units and not more than five guest rooms or suites of 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 days as full 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 housekeeping houses, child care facilities for not more than 20 children, senior independent housing, and assisted living care housing. (LAMC, § 12.10(A).) LAMC section 12.10 further specifies that all uses not expressly permitted are prohibited. 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 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. 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 designed for 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 space in a hotel shall be deemed to be a transient 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 necessary context 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 Code section 13 advises, "Words and phrases are construed according to the context and the approved usage of the language; but technical words and phrases, and such others as may have acquired a peculiar 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.]" These provisions 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) 85 Cal.App.4th 998, 1001, 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 528.) 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 discussed a provision in the Civil Code which classified a "furnished apartment house keeper" in a category that included "innkeeper" and "hotel — keeper." (See also Fo Village 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]; see also 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's permissive 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 passed the TORS -related ordinance. "Courts are reluctant to accept that legislatures enact important or fundamental changes by 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; FaCalifornia Redevelopment 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 has remained the same for 65 years and is silent on the issue, indicating the City Council did not intend to regulate the length of occupancy in an Apartment House when it enacted the ordinance defining the term in 1956 and when it enacted the TORS provision in 1992. Additionally, we observe a flaw in the People's logic. Venice Suites' use is expressly authorized under a permissive 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 persuaded by 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 disparate portions of the Zoning 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 and provisions 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 stated purpose 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 addresses precisely this issue because it 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 Houses if 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 does not 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. (PCity of 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: Kathryn Levassiur < Sent: Friday, March 29, 2024 6:10 PM To: eComment Cc: Home Subject: In Opposition of Item 21 STRs Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. Dear Mayor Amezcua and Santa Ana City Council Members, My name is Kathryn Levassiur, a resident of Huntington Beach and the founder of HBSTRA (Huntington Beach Short -Term Rental Alliance). I have been a volunteer Airbnb Community Leader for all of Orange County and the Inland Empire, renting out my property for short and mid-term rentals since 2015. I am currently in my 4th year as a permitted and licensed STR holder, with a wealth of personal anecdotal experience in operating under a permitted and regulated program. On behalf of HBSTRA and Airbnb hosts in Orange County (including Santa Ana) and the Inland Empire, we strongly urge the council to oppose agenda item #21 regarding STRs. Santa Ana has numerous reasons to embrace visitors seeking to stay in beautiful, furnished homes for business, vacation, or both. The city is conveniently located near a major airport, stunning beaches, Disneyland, a major league baseball team, world renown universities and hospitals, plus the unique charm and history of the City of Santa Ana itself to people wanting to experience a beautiful southern California city. Adopting STR regulations would not only create a healthy revenue stream from visitor -generated lodging tax revenue but also increase sales tax revenue and support local businesses in Santa Ana. STRs are good for local businesses. Orange, your neighboring city to the north, serves as a positive example of how adopting fair and reasonable regulations can benefit the community. Please reject agenda item 421 and work with the local community on a sensible plan. Sincerely, Kathryn Levassiur Huntington Beach Short -Term Rental Alliance Cell: Email: lWebsite: Flores, Dora From: Lorena Avonce < Sent: Friday, March 29, 2024 9:07 AM To: eComment Subject: Item 21, emergency prohibiting Short Term Rentals Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. Dear Members of the City Council, I am writing to you as a concerned citizen and owner of a short-term rental property in the City of Santa Ana. As an active member of this community, I understand the importance of upholding local regulations and ensuring the safety and well-being of our residents. My short-term rental property is owner -occupied which allows me to personally oversee all guest stays. This arrangement allows me to maintain a strong presence on the premises and promptly address any concerns that may arise. I want to emphasize that it has not caused any disruption to the peace or safety of our city. I am committed to being a responsible host and have implemented measures to ensure that my guests respect the local community and adhere to all applicable laws and regulations. It's important to note that short-term rentals, such as mine, contribute to the local economy by attracting visitors from out of state. These guests often patronize local businesses, restaurants, and attractions, thereby supporting our community's growth and vitality. Additionally, my short-term rental serves as a source of income for my family. Due to my child's severe disabilities, I recently had to stop working to provide full-time care. Renting out our property allows me to contribute financially to my family's needs while balancing the demands of caregiving. I believe that short-term rentals, when managed responsibly, can contribute positively to our city's economy and provide visitors with unique accommodations while respecting the rights and well-being of our residents. I am dedicated to continuing to operate my rental property in a manner that reflects these principles. I appreciate the opportunity to communicate with you on this matter and am open to any questions or concerns you may have. Thank you for your attention to this issue, and I look forward to your continued support in fostering a safe and thriving community. Sincerely, Lorena Castaneda Flores, Dora From: Vu Hoang < Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2024 2:55 PM To: eComment Subject: Item 21, emergency prohibiting Short term rentals Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. From: Vu Hoang March 30, 2024 To: Santa Ana City Council Dear Honorable Council Members, I am writing to express my deep concerns regarding the proposed ban on short-term rentals (STRs) in our city. As a member of the community who actively participates in hosting short-term rentals, I believe it is crucial to highlight the numerous benefits that these rentals bring to our city and its residents. First and foremost, STRs provide invaluable supplemental income for many families in our community, including myself. In an increasingly challenging economic climate, the ability to utilize our properties for short- term rentals has been a lifeline for many individuals and families, helping us cover expenses and make ends meet. Banning STRs would directly threaten the livelihoods of countless hosts and their families. Furthermore, short-term rentals play a significant role in supporting our local economy. They attract visitors who contribute to our city's tourism industry by patronizing local businesses, restaurants, and attractions. This influx of tourism not only generates revenue for local entrepreneurs but also creates job opportunities and stimulates economic growth in our community. Additionally, STRs offer travelers a unique and personalized experience that hotels often cannot replicate. Many visitors seek out short-term rentals for their convenience, affordability, and the opportunity to immerse themselves in the local culture. By providing alternative accommodations, STRs contribute to a more diverse and inclusive tourism landscape, attracting a wider range of visitors to our city. Moreover, short-term rentals promote community engagement and interaction. As hosts, we take pride in welcoming guests from all over the world and sharing our local knowledge and hospitality with them. This exchange fosters cultural understanding and strengthens the bonds within our community, ultimately enhancing the quality of life for residents and visitors alike. In light of these benefits, I urge you to reconsider the proposed ban on short-term rentals and instead explore alternative solutions that address any concerns while preserving the rights of hosts and the interests of our community. Collaboration and dialogue are essential in finding a balanced approach that supports the diverse needs of our city and its people. Thank you for considering my perspective on this important issue. I trust that you will take into account the voices of all stakeholders as you deliberate on the future of short-term rentals in our city. Sincerely, Vu Hoang Flores, Dora From: Ana Gomez < Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2024 7:53 PM To: eComment Subject: Agenda Item #21- Ordinance Prohibiting Short Term Rentals Attachments: Letter to City Council member April 2nd 2024 meeting.docx Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. Please see attached As a resident of Santa Ana, over 22 years, and a homeowner, I would like to ask city council members to vote NO on Agenda item#21 -Prohibiting Short Term Rentals in the City of Santa Ana. As a short-term rental homeowner, (we rent a room in our home), I find the statements made in the city staff report inaccurate. 1. Excessive noise, parking problems and degradation: This is false as most, if not all, short term rentals platforms do not allow parties or large events. dare say that we experience more noise, trash and pollution from fireworks during the 4t" of July each year (this includes legal and illegal fireworks). The parking problems created by short term rentals are nonexistent. In our situation, our unit accommodates for a maximum of two people (1 car) and in some cases our guest(s) do not have a car and rely on Uber and or Lyft for transportation. Again, I see more parking problems in Washington Square, especially the streets closest to Bristol/Civic Center Drive, that homeowners had to request permit parking only. Homes rented to numerous individuals can have 5-6 cars and/or homeowners that have converted the garages to dwelling units (legal or illegal) thus taking away the ability to park in garage and/or driveway. Short term rentals are not the cause of parking problems. Short term rentals do not lead to degradation of a neighborhoods residential character. I see more long term and/or owner -occupied homes that contribute more to the degradation of a neighborhood than short term rentals. Christmas light on the exterior of a home year-round, trash and/or trash bins visible from the street, large commercial trucks parked on residential neighborhoods, overgrown neglected yards. 2. Short term rentals reduce available housing. The City of Santa Ana Regional Housing Allocation for 2021-2029 is 3,137 permanent housing units. The City of Santa Ana Planning Division, Major Planning Projects and monthly development, reports that there are, so far, a total of 10,434 residential/multi family units completed and or in the works. In an announcement posted November 13, 2023, the city states "[i]n the current RHNA cycle from 2021 to 2029, Santa Ana has already met over half of our housing goals, and we are on track to exceed them well before 2029." Short term rentals do not reduce the city's housing needs. 3. Fiscal Impact of Banning Short Term Rentals could possibly be millions as the city will lose out on collecting TOT's (transient occupancy tax). With Measure X soon to expire in 2029, the city will lose out revenue it relied on to support emergency response services, homelessness, maintaining senior citizen programs and after school programs. Banning short terms rentals is similar to "Throwing the baby out with the bath water." We have met with the planning commission back in 2022, to start discussion on implementing a reasonable and fair short-term rental program that balances the needs of the city and short-term rental homeowner residents. Just this past December (December 11t" 2023) the planning commission, under a work study session, addressed having a short-term rental program in place. A majority of appointed planning commissioners were in favor of having a program in place (see planning commission meeting video dated December 11t" 2023) and some have admitted to utilizing short term rental for their own personal use and/or business use. Shortly thereafter, the planning commission reached out to some of us short term rental owners for our input, suggestions etc. It was a surprise and disappoint to hear about the proposed ordinance banning short term rentals. We strongly believe in working with the city in getting a program in place is the best for all parties involved. Having a program in place will help with the proliferation of short-term rentals, the bad actors and absentee owners. Vote NO on the proposed ordinance to Prohibit Short Term Rentals. Thank you, Santa Ana Resident Flores, Dora From: Flores, Gaston Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 9:06 AM To: eComment Subject: FW: Contact the City Council Submission From: notify@proudcity.com <notify@proudcity.com> Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 10:09 AM To: Flores, Gaston <GFlores@santa-ana.org> Subject: Contact the City Council Submission Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. Name David Delancellotti Email Address Santa Ana, California 92706 United States Map It Phone (714)614-0840 Who is this message for? • Mayor Valerie Amezcua • Mayor Pro Tern Thai Viet Phan • Councilmember Benjamin Vazquez • Councilmember Jessie Lopez • Councilmember Phil Bacerra • Councilmember Johnathan Ryan Hernandez • Councilmember David Penaloza Comments or questions Our family has lived in Santa Ana over 20 years moving here from Costa Mesa in late 2001. We have neighbors and friends as well of ourselves who infrequently utilize utilize the benefits of Airbnb to offset our livelihood. We absolutely believe that there can be a compromise when it comes to short term rentals in Santa Ana. Taking this privilege completely away with no amendments and no exceptions shows no compromise and puts families like ours at risk. I'm asking simply for a simple resolution to a critical need for our family. I also know I have a few friends who live in our neighborhood who share the same request. I am asking for your support not to propose a ban on short term rentals. We are always available to talk live or on the phone and appreciate your support as always. Thank You David de Lancellotti 6 Flores, Dora From: Michele < Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 9:18 AM To: eComment Subject: Short Term Rental Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. Hello I own a property that I use for a short term rental in OC and as an extremely responsible host, I provide a home for families who are displaced because of damage to their home, relocating to Orange County and sometimes for people who want an extended vacation so that they can learn about our beautiful area as a potential place to move one day. I have even hosted clergy relocating to OC to lead a new congregation as well an elderly gentlemen who needed to safely escape the harsh winters of the Sierra's with his elderly dog. My neighbors are always warm and welcoming to guests, collaborative with me, and have not had one complaint about the situation. You may consider exploring solutions that they have employed in Scottsdale, Arizona to make the situation more palatable for everyone. Please reconsider your choices and know that Short Term Rentals provide a critical option for families who may be in a challenging situation. Thank you for consideration, Michele Norban Flores, Dora From: Sheri Menke < Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 11:41 AM To: Amezcua, Valerie; Lopez, Jessie; Phan, Thai; Vazquez, Benjamin; Bacerra, Phil; Hernandez, Johnathan; Penaloza, David; eComment Subject: Coalition Letter to Santa Ana City Council Attachments: Coalition Letter to Santa Ana City Council re Proposed STR Ban.docx.pdf Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. Dear Mayor & City Council Persons, Please vote NO on agenda item 421 tonight and work with us to design effective regulations for short term rentals in Santa Ana! Santa Ana City Short Term Rental Alliance 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 Santa Ana, 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 oppose the Ordinances. Staff is bringing this issue before you immediately following the Easter holiday without any meaningful stakeholder engagement and 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 debated by cities and courts throughout the country, we fervently disagree with the City's approach under 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 access rights 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 uses of property. • The proposed prohibition would illegally terminate existing, lawful residential uses of property that offer STRs. • The proposed prohibition 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 understanding prior 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 because they 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 a 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.) OA 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 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 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 a Kudrick, 175 N.H. 714 (N.H. 2023); In re Toor, 192 Vt. 259 (Vt. 2012); Landing Development Corp. a 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 same roof, 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 addressed whether homeowners association covenants and zoning ordinances like Santa Ana's that do not specifically address STRs can nonetheless be read to prohibit or limit them. The majority of these courts have come to the same conclusion: 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 these legal nonconforming uses in this way would violate longstanding California law. California courts have long held that a parry may continue to use their property even though such use is nonconforming. (Hill a Manhattan Beach, 6 Cal.3d 279, 285-86 (Cal. 1971); Livingston Rock & Gravel Co. a Los Angeles County, 43 Cal.2d 121, 127 (Cal. 1954); Edmonds a Los Angeles County, 40 Cal.2d 642, 651 (Cal. 1953); E.B. Jones a 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 a 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 proposed Ordinances would violate these principles. We hosts have 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 proposed Ordinances cannot legally withdraw those rights. The Proposed Prohibition Raises Numerous Additional Constitutional Concerns As set forth below, the proposed prohibition 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 a 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 Ordinances would cause) is a deprivation of property without due process of law. (Santa Barbara Patients' Collective Health Co-op a City of Santa Barbara, 911 F.Supp.2d 884, 893-894 (C.D. Cal. 2012); McCaslin u 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 —because it did not "deter[] nuisances" or "increase[e] affordability of housing in Dallas." (Dallas Short -Term Rental Alliance Order at 5). Takings In addition to violating our Due Process rights, 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 a 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 based on 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 because all income earned from STRs would be immediately eliminated, and property owners could lose their homes al if unable to operate STRs. Second, many homeowners in the City purchased homes in the City with the reasonable expectation that they would operate them as STRs, because the 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 compensation claims 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 guests in 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 ... because the 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 purpose of CEQA. (Davidon Homes a City of San Jose, 54 Cal. App. 4th 106 (1997).) If the City prohibits STRs, guests will be forced to find transient accommodations outside 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 increased vehicle emissions from people traveling further distances to their vacation destinations or temporary/transitory places of employment and residence. This could result in air quality impacts to residents of Santa Ana 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. a 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.)' The City must also analyze the potential increased greenhouse gas 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 causes business 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 AvailabilitX 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 "necessary for 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 Santa Ana constitute a public nuisance. The staff report notes that STRs "are often associated with 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 cases of 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 ' Fullerton Joint Union High School District a State Board of Education, 32 Cal.3d 779 (1982) provides another example. There, the court found a school district secession plan "will change bus routes and schedules, and affect traffic patterns. Although it is uncertain whether the total impact will be significant enough to 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.) C1 provide any further detail on these active cases or what the complaints entail.' We believe that many of these enforcement notices have nothing to do with excessive noise, 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. Housiniz Availabilit The City also lacks any evidence of the effect of STRs on housing availability in the City. The staff report merely states that according to data from 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 guests are present because they live there full-time and have an extra room/rooms, or are entire home STRs which are rented on a short-term basis because the owner travels or is only in the City on a seasonal basis and so cannot rent the property on a long-term basis (e.g., six-month or one-year lease). Further, as discussed in 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."' 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.) ' 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 asserted interest in deterring nuisances because city already maintained nuisance ordinances that it could have enforced). s 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/ShortTerm_Rentals_Califomig.pdf. 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 Santa Ana 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 reasons for 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 pass the Urgency Ordinance because STRs do not represent a "current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare." As discussed above, 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 agencies were faced with immediate threats of 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 a City and County of San Francisco, 38 CalAth 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," absent findings of fact the reasonably support that finding, "is neither conclusive nor sufficient.").) The Urgency Ordinance fails in this regard. There is no "immediate threat of development" because STRs 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 as a matter of law. STRs Provide Countless Benefits to the City, its Residents, and its Visitors Staff appears intent on using STRs as a scapegoat for the challenges the 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 guests and allow them to experience Santa Ana in unique ways. Santa Ana becomes their 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: - 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 pushed out 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 spaces that are not simply available at hotels and motels. The Staff Report completely ignores all of this in its 11 th hour attempt to prohibit STRs citywide. There is no discussion of how a prohibition on all STRs would reduce these benefits or the potential for significant unintended consequences on 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 state law and the state and 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 discussed above, the staff report alleges nuisance impacts but does not 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 responded to our Public Records Act request. Conclusion and Request Thank you for taking our comments and concerns into 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 reasonable regulations going forward. Sincerely, Santa Ana Short Term Rental Alliance (SASTRA) Cc: Tom Hatch, Interim City Manager 10 Flores, Dora From: Rebecca Ayala < Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 11:49 AM To: eComment Cc: jmunoz@uniteherel1.org; Christine Miller Subject: Better Neighbors LA + Unite HERE Local 11 Comment Letter -Agenda Item 21- Ordinances Prohibiting Short -Term Rentals - SUPPORT Attachments: Better Neighbors LA + Unite HERE Local 11 Comment Letter - Agenda Item 21 - Ordinances Prohibiting Short -Term Rentals - SUPPORT.pdf Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. Hello, Please see a comment letter for Agenda Item 921 on today's City Council agenda attached. Best, Rebecca `Becca" Ayala Policy and Advocacy Director Better Neighbors LA ( .. w.r .. ' i ice' 1 UNITE HERS! BETTER NEIGHBORS LA LOCAL 11 April 2, 2024 City Council City of Santa Ana 22 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 eC omment(c s anta-ana. org Via Electronic Mail Re: Better Neighbors LA & Unite HERE Local 11 Comment Letter —April 2, 2024 Hearing Agenda Item #21: Ordinances Prohibiting Short -Term Rentals — SUPPORT Dear Councilmembers, Better Neighbors LA and Unite Here Local 11 write to you in support of both proposed ordinances prohibiting short-term rentals with no amendments nor carveouts. As residents across Southern California continue to face a housing affordability and homelessness crisis, precautions must be taken to protect housing stock for long-term residents. Both proposed ordinances will further codify the City of Santa Ana's current prohibition on short-term rentals, and in the process, safeguard housing for long-term residents and families. Better Neighbors LA is a coalition of hosts, tenants, housing activists, hotel workers, and community members working to curb illegal short-term rental activity with the intent to protect long-term housing.' Better Neighbors LA conducts data analysis and research on the short-term rental industry and its impact on affordable housing and has seen firsthand the impacts of the short-term rental industry in the City of Los Angeles. According to Professor David Wachsmuth of McGill University, since 2015 short-term rentals have increased rents by $810 per year on average and taken 2,500 homes off the long-term market in the City of Los Angeles.2 In addition, the study found that short-term rentals contributed to an additional 5,000 people experiencing homelessness each night in the City of Los Angeles.3 Similar impacts are likely taking place in the City of Santa Ana due to the continued growth of the short-term rental market. According to Better Neighbor LA's analysis ofAirDNA data, the vast majority of short- term rentals in the City of Santa Ana are unhosted, meaning they are whole home rentals, and therefore likely not being primarily used for long-term housing.4 Since 2019, the number of unhosted short-term rentals has increased by almost 300% and grown to over 500 units (294%, 509 units). Hosted units, on the other hand, have risen by 169 units (134%). As of March 2023, the most recent available data, there were 991 active STRs in Santa Ana, making up 1.27% of 1 hops://www.bettemeighborsla.org/ 2 httt)s://uDeo.lab.mceill.ca/Dublication/strs-in-los-aneeles-2022/Wachsmuth LA 2022.ndf s https://upQo.lab.mc ilg 1ca/publication/strs-in-los-an,geles-2022/Wachsmuth LA_2022.pdf 4 AirDNA data on file with Better Neighbors includes VRBO and Airbnb listings within the City of Santa Ana through March 2023: https://www.airdna.co/ 250 East 1st Street, Suite 1201; Los Angeles, California 90012 213.336.5900 0 betterneighborsla.org Santa Ana's housing stock.' It is clear that the number of short-term rentals has grown significantly over the last few years, and in the process likely removed housing units off the market that may have otherwise been available to long-term tenants or potential homeowners. Average Active Short -Term Rentals in Sarnta Ana, A 1000 9d0 -DD0 700 600 500 _ IN 300 1 200 100 0 11 . ' 2014 2015 M16 2017 2013 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 ■ Unhasted Units ■ Hosted Units Meanwhile, as the Santa Ana short-term rental market continued to grow over the last decade, other cities within Orange County took steps to regulate short-term rentals and preserve long-term housing. At least I I cities within Orange County prohibit short-term rentals in some form. These cities include the City ofAliso Viejo, City of Brea, City of Costa Mesa, City of Fountain Valley, City of Garden Grove, City of Irvine, City of Laguna Hills, City of Laguna Nigel, City of Villa Park, City of Westminster, and the City of Yorba Linda.6 These prohibitions 5 Profile of the City of Santa Ana, Southern California Association of Governments, hLtps:Hscag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/filc-attachments/santaana localprofile.pdP1606012682. 6 City ofAliso Viejo: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/AlisoViejo/html/AlisoViejol5/AlisoViejol5l4.htm1; City of Brea: hLtps:HcodelibrM.amleizal.com/codes/brea/latest/brea ca/0-0-0-70791; City of Costa Mesa: https://weblink.costamesaca.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=233471&dbid=0&repo=CilyofCostaMesa; City of Fountain Valley: https://www.fountainvalley gov/DocumentCenterNiew/16275/Ordinance-No-1591; City of Garden Grove: h!Ws:Hecode360.com/42535001; City of Irvine: https://library.municode.com/ca/irvine/codes/zoning?nodeld=ZOOR DIV3GEDESTLAUSRE_CH3- 25SHTERE S3-25- 5 VIMIIN#:-:text=3%2D25%2D3.,oP'/o20short%2Dterm%20rentals%20prohibited.&text=section%20Compare%20 versions-,A.,zoning%20district%20within%20the%20City; City of Laguna Hills: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/LaaunaHills/#!/La,gunaHills06/LagunaHillsO64O.html , City of Laguna Nigel: are indicative of a regional effort by local governments to preserve housing for long-term residents. If approved, the proposed ordinances prohibiting short-term rentals in the City of Santa Ana will not only further codify current practice but will also bring Santa Ana into alignment with neighboring jurisdictions. The proposed ordinances will support Santa Ana's long-term residents as they continue to face high housing costs. According to the City of Santa Ana General Plan Housing Element 2021-2029, a majority of households are renter occupied, and almost half (48%) of all households spend more than 30% of their income on housings costs and thus are considered rent burdened.' In addition, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, the fair market rent for a two -bedroom home is $2,100, meaning a household would have to earn more than $40/hour to afford to house their family.8 Recent research indicates the proposed ordinances can help decrease rental costs. According to a 2023 study in the Real Estate Economics Journal, Irvine's rental prices decreased 3% after the City prohibited short-term rentals.9 This study illustrates how short-term rental regulations can help address the affordability of housing in Orange County cities, including the City of Santa Ana. For these reasons, Better Neighbors LA and Unite HERE Local 11 recommend the City Council approve both ordinances with no amendments or carveouts to safeguard against homes being turned into short-term rentals. Should you have any questions, please contact Becca Ayala at rebeccagbettemeighborsla.org. Sincerely, Better Neighbors LA & Unite HERE Local 11 hops://library.municode.com/ca/laguna_niguel/codes/code_of ordinances?nodeld=TIT9PLZ0_DIVIPL_ART2CO ZOCO_SUBARTICLE_3REDI_S9-1-38GRHO; City of Villa Park: hops://library.municode.com/ca/villa park/codes/code_of ordinances?nodeld=CHXXIIIZO_ART23- 3EFZORE S23-3.5SHRMRE; City of Westminster: https://library.gcode.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. 7 According to the City of Santa Ana General Plan Housing Element, in 2018 53.8% of households were renter occupied, while 46.1% were owner occupied, hllps:Hdocs. aooale.com/viewema/viewer?url=hllps://storage. aooaleapis.coM/proudcily/santaanaca/uploads/2022/09 /Housing_ Element _-Complete-9.16.22_Compressed.pdf $ Data for zip code 92701, hlWs://nlihc.or /og or/zip?code=92701. 9 hLtps:Honlinclibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/I0.1111/1540-6229.12440 Alla Abigail From: Sheri Menke (via Goog|eDocs) <shehmenke@gmai|zom> Sent: Tuesday, April 2'2O2412:O4PK4 To: e[omment Subject: Vote NO on agenda hem #21 tonight and ask the staff for a more sensible and collaborative approach to the issue ofshort term rentals � �� � �� ���l��K8 l�����11�/� ��tt�i���l���� �� &�\�c001Kent Sheri Menke (ahcrinlcnkc@gnlail.conl) the following document: NO on agenda item 421 tonight and ask the staff for a more sensible and collaborative approach tothe issue o[short term rentals Snapshot ofthe item below: Sheri Menke 1032VV. Park Lane Santa 2.2O24 |amahomeowner and short-term rental host inSanta Ana and have been for 1O years. On behalf ofthe local short-term rental host community, | ask that you vote NO onagenda Item #21 infavor ofsensible, collaborative regulations that protect the many benefits short-term rentals bring toour community. As the mother of five, being able to share my home helps me earn income to support my family. Short-term rentals also offer much -needed affordable travel options for large families like mine which traditional hotel rooms or suites cannot accommodate. That's one ofthe reasons I'm sopassionate about short-term rentals. Short term rentals have been allowed in this City for over 10 years where home -sharing is a |avvfu|, valid residential use under the City's existing law. By introducing a rushed ordinance to restrict short-term rentals, the City is acting contrary towell-established case |avv in California and ignoring due process and community input. If the Council moves forward with tonight's recommendation, they would be inviting legal challenges rather than working with residents to ensure short-term rentals continue to benefit our City. Take for example a recent review that | received from a family who stayed at my home. "We usually stay inAnaheim for our Disney vacations, but this time vveopted for Santa Ana and WOW what agame ohan0er." The review goes ontotalk about the beauty ofour neighborhood and the city. This recommendation was made without public input and in spite of calls from Hosts who have spent the past year urging the City to work with us on a reasonable regulatory framework for short-term rentals. The City notified me of this hearing late Thursday afternoon — right before a religious holiday weekend when Santa Ana City Offices would be closed for the next two days. This rushed ordinance doesn't give residents any time to provide feedback and violates the principles of the democratic process. In fact, I had to rearrange travel plans with my family to be here tonight. Short-term rental hosts like me want to work with you on a solution that best serves the City and local residents. We are constituents and responsible community members who have in good faith engaged with City staff for the past 18 months to work towards a reasonable tax and permit program that would support Santa Ana's tourism economy and benefit us all! Vote NO on agenda item #21 tonight and ask the staff for a more sensible and collaborative approach toward regulating short-term rentals. Thank you for your time and consideration, Sheri Menke Goofule. ➢ ll (, 1600 Amphilhealre Parkway, Mouuullaio View, CA 94043, P,A Your have received [his email because . a sherimenke mailcom shared a docu mem �witlu (g your from Gooj..Ae Docs. Alla Abigail From: 8u|maroVicente <boomer@chispaocorg> Sent: April 2'2O2412:S3PK4 To: e[omment Subject: O4/2[[Meeting Public Comment Agenda Item #21 [hispaSupport Letter Attachments: [hispaComment Letter Agenda Item #21 SupporLdocxpdf [fcUo, Please find Chispa's Letter of Support to Item 21. l300u}er Policy and Political Director |ChiSp8 e: C: donation to hel 501c4non-pn fit Omanizatione CEW April 2, 2024 Mayor Amezcua and City Councilmembers City of Santa Ana 22 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 eComment )sant t... to t.o g Via Electronic Mail Re: SUPPORT Item 921: Ordinances Prohibiting Short -Term Rentals Dear Mayor Amezcua and City Councilmembers, Chispa writes to you in strong SUPPORT of the proposed ordinances prohibiting short-term rentals and request the City Council approve the ordinances as drafted with no amendments or carveouts. Amidst the ongoing housing affordability and homelessness crisis, it is imperative that the City of Santa Ana take these important steps to continue protecting even more long-term housing from turning into short-term rentals. Chispa seeks to engage with excluded peoples to uproot systems of oppression and cultivate systems grounded in community accountability, solidarity, and self-determination for our communities to thrive. We are a membership based organization for young Latinxs advocating for systemic changes across Orange County. According to Better Neighbors LA, the short-term rental market has continued to grow in the City of Santa Ana. Since 2019, the number of unhosted short-term rentals has increased by almost 300% and grown to over 500 units (294%, 509 units). Meanwhile, hosted units have risen by 169 units (134%).i As of March 2023, there were 991 active STRs in Santa Ana, making up 1.27% of Santa Ana's housing stock. This is a significant amount of housing that is currently operating as short-term rentals and impacting local housing stock that should be available to long-term tenants and homeowners. A substantial body of research indicates that short-term rentals contribute to increased rent and home prices, and can often lead to displacement of residents and community members. For ' Data on file with Better Neighbors LA. 2 Profile of the City of Santa Ana, Southern California Association of Governments, ll",,"6G6()"I 2 61i'1• example, Professor David Wachsmuth at McGill University estimates that STRs have raised rents for the average renter by $810 per year in the City of Los Angeles.' Furthermore, an article by Luisa Godinez-Puig and Jorge Gonzalez-Hermoso highlights the clear equity concern associated with rising rents, as Black and Latinx residents are more likely to rent than own.4 According to the City of Santa Ana General Plan Housing Element 2021-2029, a majority of households are renter occupied, and almost half (48%) of all households spend more than 30% of their income on housings costs and thus are considered cost burdened.' In addition, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, the fair market rent for a two -bedroom home is $2,100, meaning a household would have to earn more than $40/hour to afford to house their family.' There is no doubt that residents in Santa Ana continue to face high housing costs. However, recent research indicates that regulating ordinances work and help decrease rental costs. According to the Real Estate Economics Journal, after the City of Irvine passed and enforced their STR regulations, rental prices decreased 3% across all residential zones.' A ban on short-term rentals can help address the affordability of Orange County housing, including the City of Santa Ana. For these reasons, Chispa requests the City Council approve both ordinances with no amendments or carveouts to safeguard even more homes from turning into short-term rentals. Should you have any questions, please contact Bulmaro Vicente at boomer@chispaoc.org Sincerely, Bulmaro Vicente Political and Policy Director ua/i;uu�r�u u6u„a�un/u6u a u;un �a� a u,u„n a ,022/��la„uc hs nuuf:6,;h L A 20 �,� spill' s According to the City of Santa Ana General Plan Housing Element, in 2018 53.8% of households were renter occupied, while 46.1% were owner occupied, nOfi . ....... � co nu/v a �� c u un1��:uc ��n a ?:u,pu"l �n00�.� a // u0anur,u,��n 3 a�a�i��n a �u:u �„da�unu/ �u"a�u,uni� ,t� u, uun0mu uun u, ahjuF2�i2ad a/, 022/0 /i➢9�Ur���uunm ;.1� anon unQ aIli1............�:a'inu��n 'Data for zip code 92701, 100 �p //nnI'l, llnn a�u � a�s�u/i n„`,?nod 92 01 ' 5 inlg,� 1111Z] 54062,2,9�12440 Alcala, Abigail From: eduardojimenez < Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 1:23 PM To: eComment Subject: item 21, emergency prohibiting Short term rentals Amteiinf.W�iu ll in eu uffl nror Ona1n°n9 fug-mnz mtsn de o, 'Cu y oro'S: nu a Anna. Use caBonn when n:pel inn aflac4gun enu s or finks. Hello, My name is Eduardo. I was born and raised in Santa Ana. I went to Mendez and Godinez fundamental. I would like to voice my concern on this possible short term rental ban. I asked that you do not ban short-term rentals in Santa Ana, please Plain and simple in this ever growing competitive economy, opportunity is limited. It would be an understatement to say how drastically life has changed since Covid of 2020. We as a community have all faced the same devaluation of our hard earned income do too inflation. We earn the same while prices across all spectrums have increased. It is no secret that the cost of living tomorrow is more expensive than the previous day. To ban short term rentals would directly limit the opportunity thousands of us saw during times of uncertainty as Covid played out its affects on the global and local economy. Covid is over, but the high prices remain. No one is looking out after our wages. There is no action being taken for the individual to lessen the amount of work they have to put in to buy the same tomato they did just a few years ago. To make my point clear we have to work more to buy the same amount of things. Airbnb hosts a rose out of desperation. Who in the right mind would willingly want to share part of their property unless it wasn't essential. I would love to have my own space. The opportunity and income that hosting brings is not pocket change. The income that these rentals Bring is an essential aspect of locals livelihood. This is true, and I have seen firsthand through my parents that without renting a portion of their house, they would not be able to cover their mortgage due to the exponential increased of cost -of -living. My father retired last year and he's expressed how little his pension takes him every month. Without this income, my father would have to go out of retirement and re-entered the workforce. I hope that this committee hears the locals in Santa Ana. Because a lot of us depend on these rental incomes to keep getting through to cover The cost of living in 2024. 2025 is just around the corner and who knows what dilemmas life will throw at us, but one thing is certain prices all around will only go UP. I believe there may be cons to hosting however, I think the pros of allowing short term rentals outweigh the cons. The city benefits from taxable income. We the people benefit from income we spend that money in the city we live take this opportunity away. You take the circulation of funds in your city. You also get tourist attractions. It puts Santa Ana on the map. A main concern I hear about Airbnb`s: Parties. Sure Maybe during Covid when there was no fun, but the fun is open so parties shouldn't be a concern. Rent going up: Rent goes up regardless. Look at a historical price chart and you'll see. Airbnb wasn't around before 2010. Prices of rent still went up regardless. No one is an expert, but it isn't hard to tell that Airbnb is not the driver in our global economy or local economy. It's doesn't take an expert to see that. I asked that you do not ban short-term rentals Thank you A Santa Ana native Alcala, Abigail From: Mile High Hosts < Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 1:37 PM To: eComment Subject: Agenda Item #21: Tonight's Meeting Attachments: Denver Santa Ana - Testimony.pdf Afteifl.Wiullfis eauffl orOnaW fug-mn onutsde o'Cu y o�'Sanm Ana. Use caion when opelfing aflachmenu s or finks. Hello, Please see the testimony on behalf of Denver's STR alliance below for tonight's meeting. Thank you, Dana # MILE HIG11111"11 Mile High Hosts Home for Responsible Hosting site: www.MileHighHosts.org "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. " Margaret Mead 1 MILE HIGH - HOSTS - UpN�fp Dear Mayor Amezcua and Honorable City Council Members, As the president of Denver's STR alliance, the Mile High Hosts, I'm reaching out to share our journey and the impactful strategies we've adopted in managing and regulating short-term rentals (STRs). Our city's experience highlights the power of collaboration among STR hosts, local government, and educational initiatives to address common concerns such as noise, trash, and parking. Our proactive approach has centered on education and fostering a strong sense of community engagement. This strategy has led to an impressive 90% compliance rate with our STR regulations, demonstrating the active role the STR community plays in addressing, and often preventing, issues typically associated with STR operations. Through educational efforts and promoting a culture of responsible hosting, we've not only mitigated these concerns but also supported a thriving STR ecosystem. As Santa Ana evaluates its stance on STR regulations, it's pertinent to consider that concerns like noise can be effectively managed through thoughtful regulation rather than restrictive bans. Denver, along with numerous cities across the nation, has found success by enforcing existing noise ordinances found within our municipal codes. By prioritizing education about these regulations and emphasizing the importance of compliance, we've seen notable improvements in addressing potential disturbances. This approach has been crucial in maintaining peace within neighborhoods and enhancing the perception of STRs as valuable contributors to the local economy and community fabric. We advocate for Santa Ana to adopt a similar strategy. -This method not only champions a proactive approach to responsible hosting but also highlights the effectiveness of utilizing existing legal frameworks to uphold community standards. It underscores the principle that effective regulation and responsible hosting are not mutually exclusive but are instead complementary components of a thriving urban ecosystem. Central to our success is the perception of the hosting community not as a source of problems, but as a key part of the solution. Initiatives, many of which are supported by platforms like Rent Responsibly, have equipped hosts with the necessary tools to manage their properties and guests more effectively, fostering a harmonious coexistence within our communities. We urge Santa Ana to consider a regulatory framework that encompasses: • Clear and enforceable regulations. • Active engagement and education for the STR hosting community. MILE HIGH - HOSTS - UpN�fp • A collaborative approach that involves all stakeholders in the policy development and implementation process. This balanced strategy promises a win -win outcome, preserving the city's residential quality of life while capitalizing on the economic and social benefits that STRs offer. In conclusion, we believe Santa Ana has a unique opportunity to devise STIR regulations that not only cater to the city's specific needs and values but also draw upon the rich lessons learned from other municipalities. Along with other cities where STRs are regulated in the County of Orange, Denver is also eager to support Santa Ana in navigating this complex issue, offering our insights and experiences as a resource for crafting a responsible and sustainable STIR framework. With gratitude and respect, Dana Lubner President of the Mile High Hosts Flores, Dora From: Sheri Menke (via Google Docs) <sherimenke@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 2:16 PM To: eComment Subject: Sheri Menke, Morrison Park, Santa Ana, CA 2024.04.02 Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. Sheri Menke attached a document Sheri Menke (sherimenke@gmail.com) has attached the following document: Sheri Menke, Morrison Park, Santa Ana, CA 2024.04.02 Snapshot of the item below: Sheri Menke, Morrison Park, Santa Ana, CA Re: Short Term Rentals in Santa Ana, CA Good evening and thank you for being here, please vote NO on agenda item #21 and ask the staff for sensible regulation of short term rentals. This rushed ordinance doesn't give time to provide feedback and violates the principles of the democratic process. Protect the many benefits short term rentals bring to our community! This is my story. My husband and I bought our home in the Morrison Park neighborhood in 2014 when my husband was called to be a pastor at St. Peter Lutheran Church in the Willard Neighborhood. After moving into our home we shortly learned that one of our neighbors was renting out two of her back rooms as short term rental units. I was less than thrilled, but decided to observe and see what it was like living next to an STIR. It was life changing! Travelers brought beauty, language, culture and diversity to our neighborhood and to my life. It also brought me much needed income! My neighbor and I became good friends and I was a young mom with 4 kids and one on the way, it was very difficult to find employment. My neighbor hired me to clean and help as her co host when she was away. It was because of these experiences and using STR's ourselves that when my husband was called to serve at a new church we wanted to make our home in Santa Ana a short term rental. We started our small business in 2017 and applied for a residential rental business license, which I renew each year. This is still the only home that our family owns and we stay there regularly. We support other local businesses in the city like housekeepers, gardners, plumbers, restaurants etc. In 2022 1 also created a petition that 13 of my neighbors signed including every person that shares our property line stating that they know our home is an STIR and they are supportive of us. I have done extensive research and met with leaders in the surrounding cities who were instrumental in creating programs for the city of Huntington beach, Long Beach and the city of Orange. All of these cities have successful taxed and regulated STIR programs. Short term rental hosts like me want to work with you on a solution that best serves the City and local residents. I want to end tonight by sharing a recent review from a family who stayed at my home recently (quote) "This was my first time staying in Santa Ana and wow, what a game changer. We usually stay in Anaheim for Disneyland, but we're extremely happy we opted for Santa Ana this time around. ...The neighborhood this house is situated in is GORGEOUS. You can tell everyone in the area truly takes pride in their homes and properties. The house itself was even better than the pictures advertised... ...Would definitely love to stay here again in the future." I hope that she can! Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA You have received this email because sherimenke@gmail.com shared a Google- document with you from Google Docs. Flores, Dora From: Angie Weeks < Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 3:21 PM To: eComment Subject: Item 21, emergency prohibiting Short term rentals Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. Hi, My name is Angie Weeks, thank you for taking the time to hold this meeting to discuss the various perspectives on Short Term Rentals in Santa Ana. I've been a resident of Santa Ana since 2016, when we bought a'flipped' Craftsman home in Henninger Park. At the time of purchase, it was one of the only detached homes in OC that we could afford. The fence was falling down, but we knew it was a yard for the dog once we fixed it, and no HOA dues. I accidentally happened upon Short Term Rentals when that same year, I had to go back to my home state of MI for an extended amount of time. Having just moved my life's belongings to Santa Ana, I decided to see if AirBnB could help pay the mortgage while I was away. I was shocked to find out it certainly did. This allowed me a new level of freedom to travel that I had never before experienced. Short term rentals don't just benefit the homeowner. They benefit our city in the following ways: 1. Awareness. People from other states know about'The Beach Cities', not SA. 2. Less parking issues, many of these people are taking public transport, or supporting your local resident Lyft & Uber drivers. 3. Think about the downtown restaurants & businesses who just had to deal with a dip in business while the trolley construction was going on. STR's are boosting their revenue, not taking from it. I enjoy sending AirBnB guests to local restaurants and offering a robust guidebook that brings tax dollars into our city. I love the services that Santa Ana offers. The app for graffiti removal is like literal magic, and we have some of the best water around. Since we are mostly made up of water, I care about that and other good decisions by this council as a homeowner and a consumer. As a closet artist, I also believe that art is therapy, & have my Therapeutic Art Life Coach certification. Our property is themed around art & wellness, and we love our murals and arts in the city that support the theme of our property. A truth that all Santa Ana residents seem to embrace is that we tend to be a city of 'anything goes'... where you will find chickens roaming, cars parked in front yards, various vendors on the streets, random unofficial firework displays, & celebrations with mariachi music until the wee hours of the morning. This is a city of hard workers, who have their fun on days off. We have NEVER been a city of NIMBY's, and we shouldn't start now. Just because some hotels bought land in an opportunity zone to build up and want more exclusivity doesn't mean that you should close out a normal homeowner's right to short term rent their home for the lifestyle they want. Right now it is about lifestyle. I can say with my real estate background that at some point in the future for your residents, it might be the difference between late mortgage payments, foreclosures, or forced out of state moves. Furthermore, please, let's not try to fit travel or how anyone lives their life into a predefined box. These are people flying out here with extra money to spend, or people who have moved away and are coming back to visit their family. They are people traveling with dogs. They are attorneys traveling for court cases. They are families with a member at CHOC, or in our jail. They are not looking for a hotel experience, so let's embrace & welcome them with the support of our city. Thank you for your time to read and consider one homeowner's views on our city & the value of STR. My best, Angie Weeks Broker -Associate, AHWD, CIPS, Green®, RCS-D (divorce specialist), RSPS, SFR Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices California Properties c. AngieLwAskAngie.com http://www.AsIcAngie.com,' BRE 401398537 Certified Delegate Spokeswoman - NAWRB Master Networker - Silver Badge holder LeTip International Facebook Twitter Linkedln Instagram I YouTube Please share the love - review me on: Zillow I Trulia I Yelp I Realtor.com I Facebook Did you know engaged couples can Register to Buy a Home ??? Foreclosure Prevention help I First Time Buyer Tips I Blog kill 4 Flores, Dora From: Ha Nhu Thanh Le < Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 3:25 PM To: eComment Subject: item 21, emergency prohibiting Short term rantals Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. To whom it may concern, My name is Holly and I am a resident in the city of Santa Ana. I currently share my home to supplement my income after my separation with my husband. As a single mom, working full time to support my 2 childrens, I rely on the home sharing program to ensure that my bills are paid during this difficult time period that our family is going through. For over a year, I have talked to other hosts around the city, and know that we have been engaging with the city in good faith to discuss a sensible regulatory framework for short-term rentals. I would like the city, especially the council to take the input from the local residents and work with the local community on a sensible plan. We would like short term rental to be legal and regulated, if at all possible. Best regards, Holly Le Executive Director Sylvan Learning Center - Huntington Beach G&L Investments Inc. 6xv4 'ACE THE NEXT REPORT CARD (HANGER WITH SYLVAN Flores, Dora From: Table2Garden < Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 4:04 PM To: eComment Subject: Item 21 emergency prohibiting Short Term Rentals Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. I've lived next door to an AirBnB for five years now. It has been a wonderful experience. I have met folks from all over the world. I've never experienced any of the down sides that you see advertised. I much prefer having a short term rental next door versus a long term renter. They often don't even have a car, so there is less traffic on the street, there is certainly far less trash, and the homeowner keeps the house so nice.The yard is always kept up with new flowers planted, house is regularly painted, etc. I have a long term renter across the road and this is far from the case. There are sometimes 3-4 cars in front, the house is not maintained or regularly refreshed and they do not show any interest in being kind or helpful to their neighbors. Parties, trash, and no way to get the phone number or contact info for the actual owners to complain. I believe that if the city truly has concerns they should provide a vehicle for neighborhood feedback. Possibly a phone number or email address? If there are noise issues they could be reported and the Host fined or their permit for taken away. There is money for the city to make on AirBnB rentals that could help to improve overall services. I do not think stopping AirBnB's will have any impact on the housing shortage. The homes being rented via AirBnB will not fill the void Santa Ana needs of low income housing. I've been an AirBnB renter for over 10 years now and I've found most of the hosts I interact with carefully screen their renters. Every rental I've ever rented has quiet hours, requires sorting of recyclables, cleaning deposits, etc. I don't believe a ban is the answer.