My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Correspondence - PH #35
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2024
>
11/19/2024
>
Correspondence - PH #35
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/19/2024 7:22:08 PM
Creation date
11/13/2024 2:37:20 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
211
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Santa Ana City Council <br />November 18, 2024 <br />Page 8 <br /> <br />-. (See Santa Ana Mun. Code <br />-only. No non-residential use is permitted on any lot created by urban <br />-2115(l)(2) \[same\].) If STRs were not a residential property use, the separate <br />prohibition would be superfluous. <br /> <br />prohibited by omission throughout the entire City. After all, why would the City prohibit them <br />explicitly in one place if they were already impliedly prohibited everywhere? If they are prohibited <br />in the entire City, sections 41-2109 and 41-2115 would be superfluousin violation of California <br />law. (In re C.H., 53 Cal.4th 94, 102-03 (2011) \[California courts strive to give meaning to every <br />word in a statute and avoid constructions that render words, phrases, or clauses superfluous.\]; <br />Escamilla v. Vannucci, 97 Cal.App.5th 175, 187-88 (2023).) Homeowners cannot understand what <br />is and is not prohibited if the City adopts such nonsensical readings of its own zoning provisions. <br /> <br />foreclosed Keen v. City of Manhattan Beach. (77 <br />Cal. App. 5th 142 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022).) There, the court considered a permissive zoning ordinance <br />-- <br />did not say anything about STRs. (Id. <br />quite some time, . . . rented residential units in Manhattan Beach on both long- and short-term <br />mplaints about a rental <br />Id. at 146.) Then, in 2015, Manhattan Beach passed an ordinance banning STRs and <br />claimedmuch like Staff has done here <br />Ibid.) <br /> <br />The Court of Appeal squarely disagreed, holding always <br />permitted short-term, as well as long-Id. at 148 (emphasis added).) The <br />court explained that once the house or apartment building was built, anyone renter or owner <br />distinction about the dura <br />Id. at 148- <br />Id. at 149.) <br /> <br />As in Keen- <br />on these residential uses. (Santa Ana Mun. Code, § 41-184 et seq.) And, just as in Keen, long-term <br />rental of residential property is permitted under the existing Santa Ana code. And so, just as in <br />Keen, without any durational requirement for rentals in the code, there is no justification for the <br />unfounded claim that STRs are currently forbidden. <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.