Short Term Rentals - Zoning & Ordinances

Useful Rulings on Restrictions on Short Term Rentals

Recent Rulings on Restrictions on Short Term Rentals

PRICE VS THE CITY OF ANAHEIM

DISCUSSION Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction enjoining implementation of two ordinances (Nos. 6374 and 6375) adopted by the City of Anaheim pertaining to short term rentals. With the possible exception of the provisions relating to immediate access to the STR units, Plaintiffs have failed to show irreparable injury to support their request for preliminary injunction. “‘To qualify for preliminary injunctive relief plaintiffs must show irreparable injury, either existing or threatened.’” (Cohen v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2030

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS CHARLES PETERS

Plaintiffs allege Defendant regularly rents the subject property on a short-term basis to transients in violation of the BHMC beyond the two permitted instances per calendar year, and he has persisted in his refusal to discontinue doing so. (Compl. ¶¶ 13-14.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

JANICE KROK VS CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD

Respondent’s Evidence[2] The City has been plagued by the proliferation of unpermitted short-term vacation rentals. Mick Decl. ¶9. It is difficult for City staff to check websites for unpermitted short-term rentals, investigate them, and issue a citation. Id. Short-term rentals create issues of loud noise, parking constraints, and degredation of neighborhoods. Id.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

YAN LI VS APRIL LI

Lim Jui Yuan Cheng (“Cheng”) and Moon Management Consulting, LLC (“Moon”) failed to disclose their intent to operate short-term rentals and use the subject property to operate businesses for a profit, including social events such as parties and weddings. Yan alleges that the subject property was severely damaged during a March 25, 2017 social event. On December 12, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants A. Lin, Han, S.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

AIMCO VENEZIA LLC VS ANGEL ZAPATA

Plaintiff alleges the agreement prohibited short-term rentals, the tenant was required to use the unit as a residence and not for any business purpose, use of the facilities was permitted only by Plaintiff, and a 2016 addendum prohibited subletting. (Compl. ¶¶ 12-20.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

DARBY T. KEEN VS CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH, ET AL.

The Commission staff report stated that the LCP amendment proposed by Ordinance 15–0010 “would amend the Implementing Ordinances (LIP) portion of the certified LCP in order to prohibit commercial and transient uses in residential zones (e.g., ‘short-term rentals’ or ‘vacation rentals’ would be prohibited in residential zones).” AR 550 (emphasis added).

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

MILLENNIUM-DIAMOND ROAD PARTNERS VS DIAMOND BAR COUNTRY

Carson (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 761 (holding that the homeowners association was the prevailing party in action against unit owners regarding ability to impose fines and fees for illegal short-term vacation rentals and thus was entitled to attorney’s fees under CCP § 5675, even though the homeowners association recovered only a fraction of the damages sought).) Fees, if recoverable at all either by statute or the parties’ agreement, are available for services by an attorney at trial and on appeal.

  • Hearing

    Jun 18, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

LUMINA V. UMINA

The maximum occupancy limit in Measure T only applies to commercial short term transient vacation rentals of homes and not generally to all tenancies and it does not limit occupancy to a familial relationship or caregiver status.

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

LUMINA V. UMINA

The maximum occupancy limit in Measure T only applies to commercial short term transient vacation rentals of homes and not generally to all tenancies and it does not limit occupancy to a familial relationship or caregiver status.

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

HUYNH VS. LOCKHART

Here, accepting all allegations as true they do not rise to the standard of conscious disregard and/or despicable conduct in continuing to utilize their property for short-term rentals.

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2020

JANICE KROK VS CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD

The City’s Code Compliance Division issued an administrative citation (“Citation”) to Krok alleging that on January 4, 2018 she committed a short-term rentals violation at the property located at 8752 Rangely Avenue, West Hollywood, CA 90048 (“Property”). The Citation fine is $44,200, and the administrative fee is $50. The Citation ordered Krok to pay the total $44,250 fee by February 15, 2018 or late fees will be added to the base fine.

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2020

THE CITY OF DEL MAR VS THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

The Motion (ROA # 38) of Respondent California Coastal Commission ("Respondent" or "Commission") to dismiss the Petition of Petitioner City of Del Mar ("Petitioner" or "City") for writ of mandamus to challenge the Commission's June 7, 2018 decision to reject and then certify with suggested modifications the City's Local Coastal Program Amendment ("LCP amendment") addressing short-term rentals ("STRs"), is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Feb 05, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

THE CITY OF DEL MAR VS THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

The Motion (ROA # 38) of Respondent California Coastal Commission ("Respondent" or "Commission") to dismiss the Petition of Petitioner City of Del Mar ("Petitioner" or "City") for writ of mandamus to challenge the Commission's June 7, 2018 decision to reject and then certify with suggested modifications the City's Local Coastal Program Amendment ("LCP amendment") addressing short-term rentals ("STRs"), is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Feb 05, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

HAWK VS HULETT

The Court therefore strikes the following allegations of protected activity which support the above stricken claims: (i) the allegation in paragraph 5 that "Defendant has filed multiple formal complaints with the city of Encinitas alleging Plaintiffs conducted unpermitted construction on the Residence, Plaintiffs falsely advertised the Residence on rental websites, and Plaintiffs were engaged in short-term rentals on the Residence without permits"; (ii) the allegation in paragraph 30 that "[a]fter viewing Plaintiffs

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HAWK VS HULETT

The Court therefore strikes the following allegations of protected activity which support the above stricken claims: (i) the allegation in paragraph 5 that "Defendant has filed multiple formal complaints with the city of Encinitas alleging Plaintiffs conducted unpermitted construction on the Residence, Plaintiffs falsely advertised the Residence on rental websites, and Plaintiffs were engaged in short-term rentals on the Residence without permits"; (ii) the allegation in paragraph 30 that "[a]fter viewing Plaintiffs

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HAWK VS HULETT

The Court therefore strikes the following allegations of protected activity which support the above stricken claims: (i) the allegation in paragraph 5 that "Defendant has filed multiple formal complaints with the city of Encinitas alleging Plaintiffs conducted unpermitted construction on the Residence, Plaintiffs falsely advertised the Residence on rental websites, and Plaintiffs were engaged in short-term rentals on the Residence without permits"; (ii) the allegation in paragraph 30 that "[a]fter viewing Plaintiffs

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

1516 HOBART INVESTMENTS, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL. VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Both properties were legally allowed to accommodate short-term rentals because through June 30, 2019 the City did not prohibit short-term rentals in apartment houses. On December 11, 2018, the City passed Ordinance 185931, (the “Ordinance”). The Ordinance prohibits all short-term rentals (rentals for 30 consecutive days or less) of residential units in the City, except for very limited home sharing. The Ordinance went into effect on July 1, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

DEL MAR ALLIANCE FOR THE PRESERVATION OF BEACH ACCESS AND VILLAGE VS CITY OF DEL MAR [E-FILE]

In February 2017, the City's Planning Commission held a public hearing to determine whether short-term rentals ("STRs") are an allowed use under the Zoning Code. AR 1137-1139. The Planning Commission concluded it could not make an interpretation because nothing in the Muni. Code specifically references or defines STRs. AR 3081-3082. The Alliance appealed that determination to the City Council. AR 1479-1482.

  • Hearing

    Dec 19, 2019

DEL MAR ALLIANCE FOR THE PRESERVATION OF BEACH ACCESS AND VILLAGE VS CITY OF DEL MAR [E-FILE]

In February 2017, the City's Planning Commission held a public hearing to determine whether short-term rentals ("STRs") are an allowed use under the Zoning Code. AR 1137-1139. The Planning Commission concluded it could not make an interpretation because nothing in the Muni. Code specifically references or defines STRs. AR 3081-3082. The Alliance appealed that determination to the City Council. AR 1479-1482.

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2019

SANTA BARBARA INLAND & COASTAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ASSOCIATION V. CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

Fenkner has not asked the City for a zoning clearance to operate either of his properties as a short-term rental. (PSS, undisputed fact 21.) Prior to June 2015, the City Finance Department would issue business licenses for the operation of short term rentals. (PSS, undisputed fact 32.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 26, 2019

STAMATIS STAMATOPOULOS VS ALEX YAMINI, ET AL.

According to Plaintiff, “the records related to other residential real properties in Los Angeles listed as short-term rentals by Defendants will demonstrate whether they had other vacant units available at the time of the eviction and whether they have a custom and practice of purchasing rent-stabilized properties and taking them off of the rental market to more lucratively rent them as short-term rental properties.” (Opp. at 9 (emphasis added).) Plaintiff’s argument is unpersuasive.

  • Hearing

    Nov 22, 2019

STAMATIS STAMATOPOULOS VS ALEX YAMINI, ET AL.

According to Plaintiff, “the records related to other residential real properties in Los Angeles listed as short-term rentals by Defendants will demonstrate whether they had other vacant units available at the time of the eviction and whether they have a custom and practice of purchasing rent-stabilized properties and taking them off of the rental market to more lucratively rent them as short-term rental properties.” (Opp. at 9 (emphasis added).) Plaintiff’s argument is unpersuasive.

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2019

KRACKE VS CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

The general effect of the writ is to limit, at least temporarily, the City's then-ongoing effort to restrict the availability of short-term vacation rentals in the Coastal Zone of the city of Santa Barbara. Kracke seeks an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.

  • Hearing

    Nov 14, 2019

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

LUIS ZULETA ET AL VS HOUSING AND COMMUNITY INVESTMENT DEPART

As a result, HCID staff presented and updated staff report which noted that a motion to augment the record on appeal, received May 29, 2018, raised concerns for additional income for short-term rental via Airbnb that was not taken into consideration in the general manager hearing. AR 567-69. The revised staff report noted that Kim stated that she began the short-term rental of the Property in March 2017. AR 568.

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

LEO PERRY VS. CITY OF SAN DIEGO

The City's generalized policies with respect to refuse collection for short term rentals in the Mission Beach neighborhood has little, if any, bearing on the specific denial of the City provided refuse collection services at issue in this action. The Court is not persuaded that its interpretation of the applicable ordinances and regulations was in error. The Court is not persuaded that its determination that the City did not act arbitrarily or capriciously was in error.

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

1 2 3     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.