Correspondence - Item 21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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.