First Time to California
 

We are just in the beginning planning stages of a trip to California for three couples with teenagers. Tentatively planning to fly into LAX. Nobody in our group has ever been to California. Some of the things on our to do list: Hollywood, L.A., two days at Disneyland, and Santa Monica pier. We originally wanted to rent a large house for all of us, but have been a bit frustrated in what we are finding. We've got suggestions from a few people to search Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, and Santa Monica for houses but have not been very successful. Could anyone with experience and knowledge of those areas help me out or suggest an area to stay? We wanted to stay in the house for the entire week but I'm thinking that would not be the best choice. Any help would be appreciated :) Thanks in advance!

Most of the beach cities have banned short-term (less than a month) rentals. And one location for L.A. plus Disneyland would mean lots of driving, much of it in heavy traffic.

Marriott Residence Inn properties and other apartment-hotels would be an alternative. In Manhattan Beach, look at the Sea View Inn.

http://www.theseaviewinn.com/

You may do better finding family accommodation near Disneyland. And it's sort of central.

There has been a backlash against AirBnb type rentals, which may be why you are finding it difficult in beach communities.

I would start looking for hotels.

Go directly from LAX to Disneyland/Anaheim and book there for 3 nights/2 days. Then move to West Hollywood for the rest of your stay, unless it's July Aug Sept when you'll want to be even further west for the lower temps. Short term rentals in Santa Monica are illegal and Huntington/Newport can be 2 hrs in the car to Hollywood.

How big is the group in total? Sounds like 9, minimum?

I don't know if it will work for your families, but we once stayed at Marriott's Newport Coastal Villas--just south of Newport Beach. It's a beautiful place, and we booked way ahead for a great AAA rate.

HTtY

There is a new Marriott Residence Inn in the L.A. LIVE section of downtown Los Angeles. All rooms have full kitchens, you can request adjoining accommodations, and there's a pool. From this location, you could use public trans for some of your sightseeing, esp. Hollywood and downtown museums.

http://www.marriott.com/hotels/trave...geles-la-live/

Thank you everyone for your suggestions, I really appreciate it! I wasn't aware that short term beach rentals were banned in a lot of areas, obviously that's why we're not having much success finding a place. I will check out the properties you all suggested.

clarkgriswold, there are 11 in our travel party.

I would definitely split your stay with 3 nights in Anaheim and the remainder in the LA area. I would also split up into several hotels or condos (if you can find one with less than a week requirements), as 11 people in one place, might start to get on one another's nerves after awhile, to say nothing of trying to organize everyone (herding cats, anyone?).

Moving a group of 11 people isn't easy. Staying together as you explore Disneyland will be next to impossible. Each family should have their own rental car.

>>Staying together as you explore Disneyland will be next to impossible. Each family should have their own rental car.<<

Absolutely. Get separate cars and several rooms in the same hotels. You really can't do Disneyland/California Adventure as a group. So no need to be in the same unit or even under the same roof.

<i>So no need to be in the same unit or even under the same roof.</I>

Unless you are taking the trip for a bonding experience and to enjoy each other's company.

HTtY

>>Unless you are taking the trip for a bonding experience and to enjoy each other's company.<<

Fine - but they aren't going to find a place sleeping 11 close to Disneyland . . . therefore separate units w/i the same complex may be their only option.

Actually, janisj, they are far more likely to find a large rental house in Anaheim near Disneyland than in the other locations they are asking about (HB, Santa Monica, Newport Beach)/

https://www.flipkey.com/anaheim-vaca...?sleeps-min=10

Even if you could find some house for 11 adults (teens count as adults) in an expensive beach community, it would cost an absolute fortune. Hardly any houses are that big, anyway.

There is actually a 4 BR house in Santa Monica for rent on VRBO, however, have no idea what it costs, but I bet a bundle. http://www.vrbo.com/710126

or this one http://www.vrbo.com/212727

Don't know about the laws, though. It might be more realistic not to target some of the most expensive beach areas in LA (like Santa Monica). Like try El Segundo or something more modest, as well as inland places, that's a good idea. I still don't think there are very many houses that big.

Here's a 5 BR place in El Segundo for only about $740 a night, for example. http://www.vrbo.com/692271

Lynn412, in addition to the above suggestions also check Pacific Palisades and Malibu, e.g.

http://www.vrbo.com/vacation-rentals...ific-palisades

Not all beach towns have banned short-term rentals, and frankly I don't understand how these bans have survived legal challenges. Government does not have the right, regardless of what it might claim, to dictate minimum or maximum rental lengths on private property. So the point is, it doesn't take much searching to find listings that either sidestep the ban or ignore it altogether. If I was a property owner in one of these cities I'd definitely opt for the second of those choices.

fdecarlo, one word....zoning.

Have zoning laws always included mandated minimum or maximum lengths of stay for private rental property?

Zoning has long defined transient lodging (boarding or rooming house), hotel, B&B vs permanent residential, fdecarlo.

Your right to rent-out your property cannot infringe on your neighbor's right to quiet enjoyment. It's not as if they're banning this practice against the will of the majority of the neighborhood.

But then, this really is not the place for a legal discussion, it's rude to hijack a thread in such a manner.

Christina, lovely house but short term rentals of less than 30 days are illegal in Santa Monica, whether it is a house, condo or apartment.
Hope the OP finds something to suit them.

> But then, this really is not the place for a legal discussion, it's rude to hijack a thread in such a manner.

Would you care to compare OT posts, clown?

> Zoning has long defined transient lodging (boarding or rooming house), hotel, B&B vs permanent residential, fdecarlo.

I was aware of that, for commercial businesses. I'm asking about private residential property.

Obviously zoning can ban commercial uses, in residential zones, LOL>

I won't respond further to him since he's obviously got an agenda (or more than one).

> Obviously zoning can ban commercial uses, in residential zones, LOL>

Obviously. That wasn't my question.

> I won't respond further to him since he's obviously got an agenda (or more than one).

No need to, as I've answered my own question. These bans have been thrown out in, as far as I've read, every single case where they've been legally challenged, e.g.:

http://www.stradvocacy.org/another-s...-term-rentals/

http://miamibeachpropertyrights.blog...ental-ban.html

http://www.heraldtribune.com/assets/pdf/SH214941111.PDF

Etc. etc. etc. etc.

So far I'm up to 14 bans overturned, zero upheld.

According to your article the city paid off three lawsuits in order to proceed with their ban. If you wish to make a gentleman's wager, imo their new ordinance will be sued out of existence the first time it's challenged, like all the others.

Today a friend pointed out that some college cities in our country actually mandate that short-term rentals be an option in housing contracts, and to date nobody has ever challenged these ordinances legally. IMO there would be no practical reason to, because good tenants are good regardless of how long they stay at a property, and bad tenants are bad also regardless of how long they stay. That's why imo these bans are not only unconstitutional but practically pointless. Virtually all problems erroneously blamed on short-term rentals are in fact due to tenant quality and not length of stay.

I really don't know why I'm prolonging this (sorry OP), but legal bans on short-term rentals have nothing to do with quality of tenant and everything to do with taking rental housing stock off the market.

The Santa Monica Pier might be (no wait, it is) the most overrated thing to do in Los Angeles. The good thing...you'll only need about 15 minutes until you want to leave. Here's a list I've compiled of things to do...mostly inSouthern California and the Los Angeles area.

<B>http://travelswithmaitaitom.com/california-dreaming-1/</B>

((H))

> I really don't know why I'm prolonging this (sorry OP), but legal bans on short-term rentals have nothing to do with quality of tenant and everything to do with taking rental housing stock off the market.

It's not the government right or place to dictate rental inventories for privately owned residential property. It's precisely why the bans can't and won't survive legal challenges.

Ditto the comment about prolonging this. Simply watch and learn.

Why do you insist on dragging this thread off topic. Whether bans survive some future court appeals has NO bearing on the OP's vacation.

Go to the Lounge if you want to argue the issue -- not on Lynn's thread.

I agree, this thread has gone badly off track, we need to hear from Lynn (if she hasn't been scared off) to try and provide more helpful advice.
Take it to the Lounge, fdecarlo

Point noted, although I claim it as at least partially on-topic, since the issue of short-term rental bans was not raised by me.

>>although I claim it as at least partially on-topic, << . . . It ain't.

Whether you agree w/ short term rental bans is not relevant to where these travelers stay. One comment - fine. But you have posted eight times basically saying the same thing. That is pretty much hijacking a thread.

@Lynn412 - I'm sorry that you're not getting a lot of helpful answers to your question. I would say the link that @maitaitom suggested is really thorough and helpful. I would definitely consider the places they suggest. I would agree too that Santa Monica Pier is incredibly overrated. If you're still checking this thread, please let us know what your group is interested in doing, what you aren't interested in, and some food preferences. I can suggest some other places that locals like to visit and popular local eat/drink places. (Good coffee, bars, restaurants, etc). It all depends on what type of trip you guys want to have. :)

> That is pretty much hijacking a thread.

Agreed. That was the point noted part. :)

I third (or fourth) the advice to steer clear of the pier and head north not south. Maybe that last part is just me.

Zoning laws can include all sorts of things including:

Mandating single family residences only
Mandating the number of unrelated adults living in a property (often max of 3)
Mandating length of rentals
Mandating off-street parking only

Plus anyplace with a HOA can have any sort of rules they want.

I don't think Santa Monica Pier is overrated, especially if you've never seen the Pacific Ocean before. It's a good starting point for a walk on the boardwalk or bike ride to Venice Beach, lots of good dining nearby, shopping for souvenirs, a good introduction to California beach lifestyle. No way that I would remove it from an itinerary with teenagers. Maybe Tom & Leejoy assumed they were going to just walk the pier and then leave the area, that's it? I dunno.

Clarkgriswold makes a good point. It's a good starting point for a walk on the boardwalk. I would recommend just stopping by for a few minutes. Then make your way to a bike rental shop. There are many scattered along the coast. There's a great bike route along the coast. It's a fun and beautiful route. From there, I would stop by 3rd Street Promenade, which has many shops and restaurants.

I am mystified by Sarahava's comments all over these boards; a new member, just saying bizarre things about places she can't ever have visited.
Is there a reward for number of posts? The motive here is puzzling.