Score: +14 (29/9/15)
Orange County Grand Jury • 2024-2025

Long-Term Solutions to Short-Term Rentals Grand Jury

Published: May 14, 2025 22 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 12 findings

F1
Despite the increasing media coverage of Online Booking Agencies (OBAs), STRs are not a new phenomenon in Orange County.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
The steady growth of STR usage in the last decade raises concerns of potential public nuisance.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Even with robust Code Enforcement, a city’s statutory ban on STRs is not enough to keep STRs from operating.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
Anaheim’s ordinance requires OBAs to report Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) directly to the city. This has led to the favorable consequence that unpermitted STR income is reported to the city.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
Cities should review and begin to update ordinances to keep up with the rapidly changing nature of court findings and legislation related to STRs, by December 31, 2025, and no less frequently than every three years thereafter. (F4, F12)
R3
Cities that allow STRs should evaluate the benefit of ordinances facilitating Voluntary Collection Agreements requiring OBAs to submit TOT directly, by June 30, 2026. (F4, F12)
F5
Proactive home inspections of new and renewing STRs, which have been implemented in some Orange County cities, improve code enforcement and STR compliance with city ordinances.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
Direct remittance of taxes by OBAs does not capture all TOT for an STR because of direct booking practices.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
Cities that allow STRs should consider random multi-year audits to confirm TOT by June 30,2026, and annually thereafter. (F6, F7, F8)
F7
Some cities in Orange County have outdated systems for tracking short-term rental TOT making the process less effective and more difficult for staff.
Related Recommendations (4)
R4
Cities that allow STRs should evaluate the benefit of collecting TOT on a monthly basis by individual property, by June 30, 2026. (F7, F8)
R5
Cities should require STRs to include the number of days rented per month per permit to facilitate short-term rental TOT desk audits by November 30, 2025. (F7, F8)
R7
Cities that allow STRs should consider allocating resources to update their short-term rental TOT tracking systems by September 30, 2026. (F7, F8, F10)
R8
Cities that allow STRs should consider random multi-year audits to confirm TOT by June 30,2026, and annually thereafter. (F6, F7, F8)
F8
In some cases, STRs are improperly recharacterized as long-term rentals to circumvent the collection of TOT and any applicable penalties.
Related Recommendations (4)
R4
Cities that allow STRs should evaluate the benefit of collecting TOT on a monthly basis by individual property, by June 30, 2026. (F7, F8)
R5
Cities should require STRs to include the number of days rented per month per permit to facilitate short-term rental TOT desk audits by November 30, 2025. (F7, F8)
R7
Cities that allow STRs should consider allocating resources to update their short-term rental TOT tracking systems by September 30, 2026. (F7, F8, F10)
R8
Cities that allow STRs should consider random multi-year audits to confirm TOT by June 30,2026, and annually thereafter. (F6, F7, F8)
F9
Online Booking Agencies in foreign languages are outside the current capabilities of Code Enforcement to monitor and track unpermitted STRs.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
Cities that fail to routinely review their STR waiting lists potentially lose TOT revenue and contribute to a greater prevalence of unpermitted STRs.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6
Cities with a permit waiting list should implement strategies to remove non-revenue- generating licenses to allow for fair access by December 31, 2025, and annually thereafter. (F7,
R7
Cities that allow STRs should consider allocating resources to update their short-term rental TOT tracking systems by September 30, 2026. (F7, F8, F10)
F11
Locations that have hosted major events have reported an outsized increase in demand and pricing of STRs, a situation Orange County is likely to experience with the upcoming 2026 Los Angeles World Cup and 2028 Los Angeles Olympics.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Cities should consider developing a plan for upcoming major events that are expected to create a surge in demand for STRs and its associated Transient Occupancy Tax, by December 31, 2025, and no less frequently than every two years thereafter. (F11)
F12
City leaders have no regular communication with each other concerning STR issues, limiting opportunities to develop strategies and expertise to improve service.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1
Cities should review and begin to update ordinances to keep up with the rapidly changing nature of court findings and legislation related to STRs, by December 31, 2025, and no less frequently than every three years thereafter. (F4, F12)
R3
Cities that allow STRs should evaluate the benefit of ordinances facilitating Voluntary Collection Agreements requiring OBAs to submit TOT directly, by June 30, 2026. (F4, F12)
R9
City leaders should have regular discussions with each other to share STR management strategies on a biannual basis commencing no later than January 1, 2026. (F12) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the Findings and Recommendations of this Grand Jury report: Penal Code Section 933: (c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years. Penal Code Section 933.05: (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. (d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release. (e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental. (f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report.

Agency Responses 23

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

Orange County County