The City of Buena Park has successfully defended a lawsuit against city ordinances that prohibit long-term occupancy of motel rooms. The Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled that the ordinances were not unconstitutional takings and did not deprive the motel owners of equal protection. In August 1996, the city adopted ordinance No. 1340, which prohibited motel owners from renting a room to the same guest for 30 or more consecutive days. The city adopted the ordinance after a neighborhood improvement task force found unsanitary conditions and vermin in motel rooms rented to long-term guests. Under the ordinance, hotels and motels with at least 75 rooms and a restaurant on or abutting the premises may apply for a conditional use permit allowing stays longer than the 29-day limit. But the city found that motel owners were circumventing the 29-day limit by renting rooms to people for 29 days and then allowing them to check out for one day while leaving their belongings behind. Some motels also allowed multiple people staying in the same room to register under different names. So the health and safety issues persisted In late 1999, the city attempted to close the loopholes by adopting ordinance No. 1399. The new law prohibited motel owners from renting a room to the same guest for more than 60 days within a 180-day period. In March 2000, the Buena Park Motel Association and 12 of its members — ethnic minorities who own and operate small to medium-sized motels — sued the city. They argued that the ordinances were an irrational and unreasonable exercise of the city's police power. The ordinances were an unlawful taking of private property without just compensation and a violation of the motel owners' right to equal protection under the law, they argued. Orange County Superior Court Judge Thomas Thrasher ruled for the city, finding that the lawsuit against the 1996 ordinance was too late, and that the second ordinance constituted a valid exercise of the city's policy power. The motel owners appealed, but they got no further with the Fourth District. Although the statute of limitations for challenging zoning regulations is 90 days, the motel owners argued that they could still challenge the 1996 ordinance state laws permitting the city to levy transient occupancy taxes preempted the local ordinance. The Fourth District rejected the argument, saying it would apply only if the state law fully occupied the area of law, which was not the case. The motel owners also pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, (2001) 533 U.S. 606 (see CP&DR Legal Digest, August 2001). In Palazzolo, the court held that there was no expiration date on the constitution's takings clause and that a property owner could seek compensation for a pre-existing regulation. But the Fourth District said no. "[E]ven if we construe Palazzolo as permitting a recent purchaser of private property to circumvent the statute of limitations to challenge a pre-existing zoning ordinance, the case does not apply to the facts at issue here," Justice William Rylaarsdam wrote. "There simply is no evidence in the record that any of the plaintiffs purchased their property after ordnance No. 1340 took effect." The hotel owners' challenge to the ordinance adopted in 1999 was not too late, but the court upheld the validity of the measure. The court ruled that the ordinance was not arbitrary and unreasonable, and, importantly, that it would not deprive them motel owners of all economically viable use of their properties. The motel owners had testified that 35% to 70% of their guests stayed for fewer than 30 days. The motel owners have some flexibility under ordinance 1399 to allow extended stays over the course of 180 days, the court noted. Some of the motels could be modified to meet the criteria — more rooms and a restaurant — for a conditional use permit. And some guests "may elect to remain in the city and move from motel to motel," Rylaarsdam wrote. "[T]he city balanced plaintiffs' right to use their property for extended stays with the public's interest in having all motel rooms regularly cleaned. Thus, we conclude the restrictions imposed by ordinance No. 1399 substantially advanced the city's interest in maintaining sanitary, pest-free conditions at the motels," the court ruled. The court quickly dismissed the argument that the city was discriminating against the motel owners because of their ethnicity. The motel owners conceded during oral argument they had no evidence of this, according to the court. Plus, the ordinance was "appropriately directed at the use of motel rooms" and not at the owners or users. The Case: Buena Park Motel Association v. City of Buena Park, No. G029819, 03 C.D.O.S. 4531, 2003 DJDAR 5775. Filed May 9, 2003. Ordered published May 29, 2003. The Lawyers: For the motel association: Frank Weiser, (213) 384-6964. For the city: Quinn Barrow, Richards, Watson & Gershon, (213) 626-8484.