Kracke v. City of Santa Barbara CA2/6

Filed 1/12/23 Kracke v. City of Santa Barbara CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THEODORE P. KRACKE, 2d Civ. No. B316993 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 56-2016- 00490376-CU-MC-VTA) v. (Ventura County)

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA, Defendant and Respondent.

Theodore P. Kracke sued the City of Santa Barbara (City), claiming it had unlawfully banned short-term vacation rentals (STVRs) within the California coastal zone. Kracke prevailed in that action, and we affirmed the trial court’s order granting his petition for writ of mandate and enjoining the City’s enforcement of the STVR ban in the coastal zone unless it satisfies certain conditions. (Kracke v. City of Santa Barbara (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 1089, 1098 (Kracke).) Kracke appeals the trial court’s denial of his second motion for attorney fees under the private attorney general statute, Code

of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.1 (See Conservatorship of Whitley (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1206, 1217 (Whitley).) Kracke contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion, but he failed to meet his burden of producing substantial evidence of his personal financial stake in the litigation. In the absence of such evidence, we affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Since 2007, Kracke has been “the proprietor of Paradise Retreats World Class Vacation Rentals (‘Paradise Retreats’), a local business engaged in operating, managing and servicing vacation rentals in and around the [City].” Kracke markets his business as “the leader in luxury vacation rental management.” The rental rates for the properties he manages range from $400 to $5,984 per night, plus taxes and fees. “Prior to 2015, the City . . . encouraged the operation of [STVRs] along its coast by treating them as permissible residential uses. In June 2015, the City began regulating STVRs as ‘hotels’ under its municipal code, which effectively banned STVRs in the coastal zone. The City did not seek a coastal development permit (CDP) or an amendment to its certified local coastal program (LCP) prior to instituting the ban.” (Kracke, supra, 63 Cal.App.5th at p. 1092.) In November 2016, Kracke petitioned for a writ of mandate enjoining the City’s enforcement of the STVR ban in the coastal zone unless it obtains a CDP or LCP amendment. During discovery, Kracke declined to produce evidence of the rental rates and fees his business charged to overnight guests prior to 2015. Kracke stipulated he would not introduce during trial any evidence referencing his business.