In City of San Bernardino Hotel/Motel Assn. v. City of San Bernardino (1997) 59 Cal. App. 4th 237, the central problem was not just that the ordinance used the term "dwelling" in the definition of "occupancy." Rather, the ordinance was confusing because it described a transient as a person who occupied a hotel for a period of 90 days or less and one who occupied the hotel for more than 90 days without a written agreement for "permanent" occupancy. Both "agreement in writing" and "permanent occupancy" were vague, as it was not clear to the court what kind of writing could qualify as a written agreement and "permanent" meant "any definite period of time," except for the first 90 days in certain kinds of facilities. (City of San Bernardino Hotel/Motel Assn. v. City of San Bernardino, supra, 59 Cal. App. 4th at pp. 249-250.) The court also acknowledged the hotel/motel association's argument that the definitions of "hotel" and "transient" were "needlessly contradictory" because the former included occupancy for no more than 30 days, while the latter included occupancy for 90 days or (in some circumstances) more. (59 Cal. App. 4th at p. 249.)