My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Correspondence - Item #15
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2024
>
12/03/2024
>
Correspondence - Item #15
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/3/2024 3:06:38 PM
Creation date
12/2/2024 3:22:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Agency
Planning & Building
Item #
15
Date
12/3/2024
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.
/
220
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 /> from a prohibition on "non-residential uses"on these types of lots. (See Santa Ana Mun. Code <br /> § 41.2109(1)(1) ["Residential-only.No non-residential use is permitted on any lot created by urban <br /> lot split."]; § 41-2115(1)(2) [same].) If STRs were not a residential property use, the separate <br /> prohibition would be superfluous. <br /> The City's express prohibition of STRs on certain lots refutes the City's argument that they are <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 superfluous—in violation of California <br /> law. (In re C.H., 53 CalAth 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 /> Staff s position that STRs are currently unlawful under the City's current zoning ordinance is also <br /> foreclosed by the California Court of Appeal's decision in 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 /> from Manhattan Beach that is very similar to Santa Ana's current zoning ordinance. Manhattan <br /> Beach's ordinance permitted "single-family residential" and "multi-family residential" uses but <br /> did not say anything about STRs. (Id. at 149.) As a result, people in Manhattan Beach had "[f]or <br /> quite some time. . . . rented residential units in Manhattan Beach on both long- and short-term <br /> bases," and "[t]he City knew about that practice and occasionally got complaints about a rental <br /> property[.]" (Id. at 146.) Then, in 2015, Manhattan Beach passed an ordinance banning STRs and <br /> claimed—much like Staff has done here—that it was merely "reiterating" the City's supposedly <br /> existing "implicit"ban on STRs. (Ibid.) <br /> The Court of Appeal squarely disagreed, holding that Manhattan Beach's zoning code "always <br /> permitted short-term, as well as long-term,residential rentals." (Id. at 148 (emphasis added).) The <br /> court explained that once the house or apartment building was built, anyone — renter or owner— <br /> could reside there for periods long or short, since the code "offer[s] no textual basis for a temporal <br /> distinction about the duration of rentals", and the term"`residence' does not imply some minimum <br /> length of occupancy" (Id. at 148-149.) In short, "[a] `residential building' is used for human <br /> habitation without regard to length of occupancy," and"[i]t is possible to reside somewhere for a <br /> night, a week, or a lifetime." (Id. at 149.) <br /> As in Keen, the Santa Ana Municipal Code authorizes "single-family residence" and "multiple <br /> family residence"uses,and these classifications place no minimum length of occupancy restriction <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 /> 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.