BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 192
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 17, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
K.H. "Katcho" Achadjian, Chair
AB 192 (Hagman) - As Introduced: January 28, 2013
SUBJECT : Zoning violation: hotel operation.
SUMMARY : Creates a misdemeanor for any person who violates a
zoning ordinance that prohibits the operation of a hotel in an
area zoned for residences. Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that, in spite of existing law, any person who
violates the zoning ordinance of a city, county, or city and
county by operating a hotel in an area zoned for residences is
guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be punished
by a fine of not less than $500, and not more than $5000, or
by imprisonment of not less than 30 days nor exceeding six
months, or by both fine and imprisonment.
2)Defines "hotel" to mean "a building containing six or more
guest rooms offering transient lodging accommodations to the
general public."
3)States that no reimbursement is required because the only
costs incurred by a local agency will be incurred because the
bill's provisions create a new crime or infraction.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Authorizes the legislative body of a city or county to adopt
ordinances to regulate the use
of buildings, structures, and other lands through the use of
zoning ordinances and regulations.
2)Specifies, for cities and counties, the maximum penalties for
violation of ordinances, as follows:
a) Cities:
i) Violation of a city ordinance is a misdemeanor
unless by ordinance it is made an infraction. The
violation of a city ordinance may be prosecuted by city
authorities in the name of the people of the State of
California, or redressed by civil action.
AB 192
Page 2
ii) Every violation determined to be an infraction is
punishable by (1) a fine not exceeding one hundred
dollars ($100) for a first violation; (2) a fine not
exceeding two hundred dollars ($200) for a second
violation of the same ordinance within one year; (3) a
fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500) for each
additional violation of the same ordinance within one
year.
iii) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a
violation of local building and safety codes determined
to be an infraction is punishable by (1) a fine not
exceeding one hundred dollars ($100) for a first
violation; (2) a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars
($500) for a second violation of the same ordinance
within one year; (3) a fine not exceeding one thousand
dollars ($1,000) for each additional violation of the
same ordinance within one year of the first violation.
b) Counties:
i) Violation of a county ordinance is a misdemeanor
unless by ordinance it is made an infraction. The
violation of a county ordinance may be prosecuted by
county authorities in the name of the people of the State
of California, or redressed by civil action.
ii) Every violation determined to be an infraction is
punishable by (1) a fine not exceeding one hundred
dollars ($100) for a first violation; (2) a fine not
exceeding two hundred dollars ($200) for a second
violation of the same ordinance within one year; (3) a
fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500) for each
additional violation of the same ordinance within one
year.
iii) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a
violation of local building and safety codes determined
to be an infraction is punishable by (1) a fine not
exceeding one hundred dollars ($100) for a first
violation; (2) a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars
($500) for a second violation of the same ordinance
within one year; (3) a fine not exceeding one thousand
dollars ($1,000) for each additional violation of the
same ordinance within one year of the first violation.
AB 192
Page 3
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)This bill creates a misdemeanor for a person who violates a
zoning ordinance by operating a hotel in an area zoned for
residences. For purposes of the bill, 'hotel' is defined to
mean "a building containing six or more guest rooms offering
transient lodging accommodations to the general public." The
bill is author-sponsored.
2)According to the author, recently the instances of illegal
hotel activity have been arising in regard to illegal
"maternity hotels." Homes in residential areas are being
manufactured into makeshift hotels for additional profit to
operators, and according to local news articles are being used
to create a sort of 'birthing tourism' - rooms where women pay
to sleep in anticipation of giving birth, sometimes to gain
citizenship for the child.
For example, there was an incident in Chino Hills in which a
single-family home had been turned into a maternity hotel, and
was illegally subdivided into 17 bedrooms and 17 bathrooms for
that purpose. In that particular instance neighbors noted
that the hotel caused traffic problems, and the home spilled
an estimated 2,000 gallons of sewage. Los Angeles County sued
the owners and shut down the house.
The author argues that "illegal hotels cut into legitimate
hotel business and evade taxes, disrupt nearby residents and
cause a public nuisance. They also pose serious health and
public safety hazards since they do not follow basic health,
fire, and safety regulations, placing both occupants and
neighbors in danger."
3)On January 14, 2013, the Los Angeles County Department of
Regional Planning released a status report in response to an
action taken by the Board in December 2012 that asked the
Director of Planning to take several actions: first, to
collaborate with County Counsel, the Department of Public
Works/Building and Safety, Health Department, Fire Department,
and other State agencies with regulatory authority to
investigate complaints regarding postpartum recovery homes,
and second, to review the proliferation of postpartum recovery
AB 192
Page 4
homes within the unincorporated area and to report back to the
Board of Supervisors with a status report containing findings,
recommendations and actions.
That status report noted that "in many cities across the San
Gabriel Valley, once the existence of such maternity boarding
houses are known, city officials have sought to shut down such
establishments for zoning and building code violations, if
they find that the houses had unpermitted remodeling or were
being used as boarding houses without proper zoning permits.
This has been the case in the cities of Walnut, Alhambra,
Temple City and Monterey Park. These jurisdictions recognize
that it is not illegal to have pregnant women living together,
but the operation of a boarding house within a residentially
zoned area without proper permits, or the installation of
additional walls or other structures to the residence without
proper permits serves as the basis for the enforcement."
The status report notes that Zoning Enforcement staff are
sometimes unable to gain consent to access these facilities -
occupants do not answer the door or when they do answer the
door they often state that they do not speak English. When
inspectors do not gain access to the home, they conduct a
"plain view" inspection of the exterior of the home from the
public right-of-way. The report notes that in almost all of
the previous cases, no zoning violations were observed from
the plain view inspection and nuisances such as traffic
congestion, overflow parking, or noise pollution are not
observed or detected at the time of inspection.
In cases where access is granted and zoning violations are
observed, a notice of violation is mailed to the property
owner of record.
4)The provisions of the California Constitution, Article XI,
Section 7, provide that "a county or city may make and enforce
within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other
ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws."
For cities and counties, the maximum penalties for ordinance
violations are governed by Government Code 36900 and 36901
(for cities) and Government Code 25132 and Penal Code 19 (for
counties).
These statutes specify, for cities and counties, that the
violation of a city or county ordinance is a misdemeanor
unless by ordinance it is made an infraction. Also for
AB 192
Page 5
misdemeanor ordinance violations, the code allows a fine not
exceeding $1,000, imprisonment for a term not exceeding six
months, or any combination thereof. For every violation
determined to be an infraction, the statute specifies a fine
not exceeding $100 for a first violation, $200 for the second
violation of the same ordinance within one year, and a fine
not exceeding $500 for each additional violation of the same
ordinance within one year. Additionally the statute specifies
that a violation of local building and safety codes determined
to be an infraction is punishable by a fine not exceeding $100
for a first violation, $500 for the second violation of the
same ordinance within one year, and a fine not exceeding $500
for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one
year.
This bill makes it a crime (a misdemeanor) for any person who
violates the zoning ordinance of a city or county by operating
a hotel in an area zoned for residences, and specifies that
"upon conviction, [the person operating the hotel] shall be
punished by a fine of not less than $500 and not more than
$5,000, or by imprisonment of not less than 30 days, nor
exceeding six months, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
Since there are already penalties established in code for
ordinance violations for both cities and counties, the
Committee may wish to consider the following:
a) How many cities and counties have already adopted
ordinances dealing with the zoning issue of maternity
hotels? Do these ordinances specify that maternity hotels
in violation of a zoning ordinance create a misdemeanor or
infraction?
b) Are the penalties established in current law not strong
enough to deter the instances the author is trying to
prevent?
c) Should the issues of maternity hotels and relation to
zoning ordinance violations be made explicit in statute,
per the language in the bill?
d) Will the increased monetary penalty (range of $500 -
$5,000) contained in the bill be an effective deterrent?
Are there other ways for cities and counties to regulate
their land uses to avoid the illegal placement of maternity
hotels in areas zoned for single-family homes?
AB 192
Page 6
5)Support arguments : Los Angeles County Supervisor Don Knabe,
in support, argues that
"this bill will give our communities another tool to penalize
these unlawful maternity hotel activities before they spread
any further?we must be able to crack down effectively on
offenders to protect our residents and lawful businesses."
Opposition arguments : The Committee may wish to consider
whether the punishment contained in the bill matches the crime
and whether potential imprisonment will deter these sorts of
birthing centers from occurring in local communities,
especially given that ordinance violation penalties are
already established in current law.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
County of Los Angeles
Supervisor Don Knabe, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958