|
People v. Venice Suites, LLC, 71 Cal.App.5th 715 (2021)
<br />286 Cal.Rptr.3d 598, 21 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,565, 2021 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,835
<br />limited to occupancies of more than 30 days. (City of
<br />Corona a Naulls (2008) 166 Cal.AppAth 418, 420-421,
<br />83 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 (FMNaulls); Federal Deposit Ins. Corp.
<br />u Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 337, 345, 62
<br />Cal.Rptr.2d 713.) The People's permissive zoning argument is
<br />as follows: An Apartment House is a subset of a TORS. The
<br />physical characteristics of both are almost identical except
<br />a TORS may include "one or more dwelling units" while
<br />an Apartment House may include "three or more **611
<br />dwelling units." (LAMC, § 12.03, italics added.) In all cases,
<br />an Apartment House that provides occupancy for 30 days or
<br />less fits the definition of a TORS. A TORS is not authorized
<br />for use in an *733 R3 zone. Thus, an Apartment House may
<br />only provide rentals for 31 days or more to be authorized to
<br />operate in an R3 zone.
<br />[23] We are not persuaded a long-term occupancy
<br />requirement for an Apartment House may be inferred from
<br />the definition limiting TORS to occupancies of 30 days or
<br />less. The TORS provision was added by ordinance number
<br />167,689 and became effective May 9, 1992. (LAMC, §
<br />12.03.) The definition for an Apartment House, added to
<br />the Zoning Code on September 23, 1956, had existed for
<br />approximately 36 years prior to the ordinance which created
<br />the TORS category. There is nothing in the record to show
<br />the City Council intended to add a length of occupancy to
<br />the long-established definition of an Apartment House when
<br />it passed the TORS -related ordinance. "Courts are reluctant
<br />to accept that legislatures enact important or fundamental
<br />changes by silent indirection." (Bunzl Distribution USA, Inc.
<br />u Franchise Tax Bd. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 986, 997, 238
<br />Cal.Rptr.3d 645; see, e.g., California Cannabis Coalition
<br />u City of Upland (2017) 3 Cal.5th 924, 940, 222 Cal.Rptr.3d
<br />210, 401 P.3d 49; FaCalifornia Redevelopment Assn. v
<br />Matosantos (2011) 53 CalAth 231, 260-261, 135 Cal.Rptr.3d
<br />683, 267 P.3d 580.) If the City Council intended to add
<br />a length of occupancy requirement to the definition of
<br />Apartment House, it could have done so at any time. Instead,
<br />the definition has remained the same for 65 years and is silent
<br />on the issue, indicating the City Council did not intend to
<br />regulate the length of occupancy in an Apartment House when
<br />it enacted the ordinance defining the term in 1956 and when
<br />it enacted the TORS provision in 1992.
<br />Additionally, we observe a flaw in the People's logic. Venice
<br />Suites' use is expressly authorized under a permissive zoning
<br />scheme: It operates 417 OFW as an Apartment House, a
<br />structure that meets the definition under LAMC 12.03 and a
<br />land use that is specifically permitted in an R3 zone.
<br />The permissive zoning argument, on the other hand, does
<br />not apply in the manner suggested by the People because
<br />the Zoning Code does not contain "the expression of
<br />certain things" (i.e., long-term occupancy in an apartment
<br />house) which "necessarily involves exclusion of other things
<br />not expressed" (i.e., short-term occupancy in an apartment
<br />house). Instead, no length of occupancy requirement is
<br />expressed in the definitions for Apartment House, apartment
<br />hotel, hotel, or residential building. Only the TORS definition
<br />expressly authorizes short-term occupancy. Application of the
<br />permissive zoning scheme in the manner urged by the People
<br />would lead to an absurd result where neither short-term nor
<br />long-term occupancies would be allowed for an Apartment
<br />House, apartment hotel, hotel, or residential building because
<br />a length of occupancy is "not expressed." ( *734 Tuolumne
<br />Jobs & Small Business Alliance a Superior Court (2014)
<br />59 Cal.4th 1029, 1037, 175 Cal.Rptr.3d 601, 330 P.3d 912
<br />[statutory interpretations that lead to absurd results are to be
<br />avoided].)
<br />The marijuana dispensary cases that rely on a permissive
<br />zoning scheme are distinguishable because, in each of those
<br />cases, marijuana dispensaries either did not fall within the
<br />city's list of allowable uses or were expressly prohibited.
<br />(Carrnshimba, supra, 215 Cal.AppAth at p. 1073, 156
<br />Cal.Rptr.3d 1; FMNaulls, supra, 166 Cal.AppAth at pp. 420-
<br />421, 83 Cal.Rptr.3d 1; FM **612 City of Dana Point u
<br />New Method Wellness, Inc. (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 985, 989-
<br />990, 252 Cal.Rptr.3d 541; Urgent Care Medical Services
<br />v City of Pasadena (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 1086, 1094, 230
<br />Cal.Rptr.3d 892.) That is not the case here.
<br />E. The RSO and TOT Do Not Regulate the Use of an
<br />Apartment House
<br />[24] Neither are we persuaded by the People's argument the
<br />Zoning Code must be read in conjunction with the RSO and
<br />TOT to conclude only tenants and not transients may occupy
<br />Apartment Houses. This argument was rejected by the trial
<br />court below and we agree it requires a selective reading of
<br />disparate portions of the Zoning Code, RSO, and TOT without
<br />regard to the intent behind each of these ordinances.
<br />The People argue 417 OFW is subject to the requirements of
<br />the RSO, which extends to all rental units. (LAMC, § 151.00,
<br />WESTLAW © 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 11
<br />
|