Wrightsman

Wrightsman v. City of Gardena CA2/2

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 12, 2025B344781California4,734 words

Opinion

Opinion

Richardson, J.

BACKGROUND

I. Facts

The City of Gardena is a general law city. The city’s policymaking and legislative authority are vested in a five- member city council. Wrightsman owns two different parcels of real property in Gardena. Each is designated “R-3 mixed-use,” or medium density multifamily residential, under the city’s zoning scheme. Wrightsman’s properties are improved by a total of six permanent residential units—two duplexes and two accessory dwelling units (ADU’s). On each of the properties, she also parked a furnished travel trailer. Wrightsman rented the residential units and trailers on a short-term basis—meaning less than a month at a time, generating hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual revenue. In 2023, the city council proposed Ordinance 1854 to “regulat[e] home-sharing rentals and ban[] [STR’s].” Wrightsman and two other STR proprietors objected. Wrightsman “rais[ed] objections during public hearings and submit[ted] written objections to the City at each public hearing.” Nevertheless, the city council adopted Ordinance 1854 on September 12, 2023. By its terms, the ordinance’s effective date was 31 days later— October 13, 2023. The city council also proposed…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.