Correspondence - PH #35 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2024 Page 11 supply to support new development). (Id. at A-47). Further, and as discussed in the Milken Institute study, California's decades -long housing shortage is primarily caused by failure to build enough housing due to rising construction costs, lengthy permitting times, and community opposition, which disincentivize construction of affordable housing. (Dubetz, p. 4.) As Professor Betsy Stevenson, the former Chief Economist at the U.S. Department of Labor and member of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, has written, banning STRs in fact undermines efforts to "make [housing] more affordable." (Betsey Stevenson, Banning Airbnb Won't Solve the Housing Crisis, BLOOMBERG NEWS (July 8, 2024), https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-07- 08/banning-airbnb-will-not-make-housing-more-affordable.) To the contrary, "[a]llowing residents to rent out their homes can help them recoup some of their investment and make city living more affordable." (Ibid.) The City's conclusory approach to regulation does not meet the standard for informed, rational decision -making. Because the City lacks any justification for adopting the Amended Ordinance, such an action would be arbitrary and capricious. (Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn., 11 Ca1.3d 28, 34 (1974); Avenida San Juan Partnership v. City ofSan Clemente, 201 Ca1.App.4th 1256, 1268 (2011).) 5. The adoption of the Amended Ordinance would illegally impede on hosts' right to privacy. The STR ban also implicates the "inalienable" right to privacy under the California Constitution (Hill v. NCAA, 7 Cal. 4th 1, 20 (1994)) by taking away homeowners' ability to choose who can stay in their homes. (Coalition Advocating Legal Housing Options v. City of Santa Monica, 88 Cal. App. 4th 451, 459 (2001) [explaining the "right to privacy" includes "the right to be left alone in our homes."].) These constitutional privacy protections the protect the property owner's right to host STRs and invite guests into their home. In Coalition Advocating Legal Housing Options, supra, 88 Ca1.App.4th at 454, 459, the Court of Appeal invalidated a local ordinance that limited occupants of ADUs in residential zones to the property owner, property owner's dependent, or their caregiver, finding the privacy right "to choose with whom to live in the main residence ... must apply to the right to decide who may live in the second unit [which] ... is still part of the home." Many hosts invite guests into their homes while they are present during the stay, and the City's ban on all STRs would infringe on hosts' constitutional right to privacy, which includes the right to choose who can stay In homes. The City fails to provide any substantial justification to pass the heightened scrutiny applied to laws or regulations that infringe on the right to privacy and cannot do so because STRs have no demonstrable negative impact on the City compared to other residential uses, including long-term rentals. 11