Placentia commission upholds revocation of two short‑term rental permits over unpaid transient‑occupancy tax

The Placentia Planning Commission on March 14 voted to deny an appeal by the owners of two short‑term rental permits and to uphold staff’s decision to revoke those permits based on documented violations and delinquent transient‑occupancy tax (TOT) payments.

Staff told commissioners the appeal concerned two permits referenced in the staff report (transcribed as STR 2030 and "20 twenty‑eleven," and later referenced in the motion as STR 20 twenty‑ten and STR 20 twenty‑eleven). The planning staff presentation summarized the city’s short‑term rental program (Placentia Municipal Code chapter 6.45), said the city had received about 101 STR applications with 71 active as of Dec. 31, 2025, and recounted an enforcement history beginning in 2020. Finance staff reported an outstanding TOT balance of approximately $17,797.83 and said that a 2024 city audit showed 14 quarters with no filings for the subject units dating back to 2021 in some quarters.

Staff recommended denial of the appeal and revocation of the permits, citing multiple violations within applicable 12‑month windows and unsuccessful attempts to secure a payment plan. Dan Pivaroff, the code enforcement supervisor, clarified that code enforcement does not issue parking tickets (parking enforcement is PD responsibility) and that the city’s enforcement record, not parking citations, formed part of the revocation basis. Finance Director Jerry Greggs told the commission staff had made multiple attempts to create a payment plan and that owners had made some payments (about $8,000) but an outstanding balance remained.

The permit holders, identified in the hearing as the Perez family, disputed aspects of staff’s timeline and calculations. In remarks to the commission, Selenia Perez stated the family had been Placentia residents for nearly 30 years and that, while they acknowledged some missing filings, they had paid $8,000 and said earlier staff guidance led them to file returns using certain deductions. Perez said the city later told them deductions were not allowed and that the retroactive recalculation created the larger balance; she said the owners wanted to negotiate a reasonable payment plan rather than have their permits revoked.

During the hearing staff and finance discussed remedies and collection mechanisms. Finance explained that the city itself does not garnish bank accounts directly but third‑party collection or franchise processes (DataTicket/Franchise Tax Board) can result in funds applying to outstanding balances. Staff said they were willing to work toward a payment arrangement that staff would consider meaningful and suggested a maximum two‑year payment plan with the first payment due within 30–45 days; staff said such an arrangement, if finalized, could prevent revocation but that the Planning Commission does not have authority to waive TOT amounts — only Council can reduce assessed TOT.

Commissioners debated whether to give more time for a negotiated agreement or to act on staff’s recommendation. One commissioner said the commission's core role was to apply the code and that financial adjustments are a Council prerogative. Ultimately a motion to accept staff's recommendation to deny the appeal and uphold the revocation passed on roll call with Commissioner Smith Yes, Commissioner Guerrero Yes, Commissioner Navarro Yes, Commissioner Evans Yes, Vice Chair Rock absent and Chair Perez Yes. Staff told the applicants they could appeal to City Council within the posted appeal period and offered to put any agreement in writing.

What this means: the revocation will stand unless the applicants successfully appeal to City Council or staff and the appellants reach a binding payment agreement acceptable to staff and — if necessary — to Council. Finance signaled a willingness to negotiate a 24‑month plan with an initial payment within 30–45 days, but staff and commissioners made clear that failure to meet agreed terms could trigger automatic revocation.

Key figures and claims: staff reported an outstanding TOT balance of about $17,797.83; the appellant family reported paying about $8,000 and disputed the retroactive calculation method they said the city later changed. Code enforcement and finance said the record shows many quarters with missing filings and that staff had attempted to work with the owners before moving to revoke the permits.