Correspondence - Item #15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 20. Code of Civil Procedure section 1060 allows an ordinance to be challenged in an 2 action for declaratory relief. See Alameda Cnty. Land Use Ass'n v. City of Hayward, 38 Cal. App. 3 4th 1716, 1723 (1995). The parties have a dispute regarding the validity of Ordinance No. NS- 4 3061, and Petitioner is entitled to a judicial declaration setting forth its members' rights as related 5 to their property. 6 EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES 7 21. Petitioner has satisfied all remedies necessary to bring this proceeding and 8 exhausted all legally required efforts to convey their objections to the City's illegal acts. Cal.Pub. 9 Res. Code § 21177. 10 22. Petitioner raised the issues pleaded in the following causes of action in a letter 11 transmitted to the City Council on or about April 2, 2024. Other members of the public transmitted 12 letters and spoke in opposition to Ordinance No. NS-3061 at the City Council Meetings on April 13 2, 2024 and April 16, 2024. All of this correspondence will be part of the proceeding in this action. 14 23. Ordinance No. NS-3061 does not provide a mechanism for an administrative 15 challenge. Even if it did, any challenge by hosts to the categorical ban on STRs would be futile, 16 as the City has determined (without sufficient evidence) that STRs constitute a nuisance and a 17 public health and safety hazard and specifically implemented the ordinance to ban STRs. Under 18 such circumstances, hosts are not required to try to convince the City otherwise before seeking 19 relief from this Court. See Monks v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 167 Cal. App. 4th 263, 304 20 (2008) (plaintiffs should not be required to attempt to prove what the city would not believe); Ogo 21 Assocs. v. City of Torrance, 37 Cal. App. 3d 830, 834 (1974) ("It is inconceivable that the City 22 Council would grant a variance for the very project whose prospective existence brought about the 23 enactment of rezoning."). 24 24. Petitioner has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law, and seeks a writ of 25 mandate from this Court. Without the remedy of a writ of mandate, the Rental Alliance and/or its 26 members would be required to litigate individual infractions or misdemeanors resulting from the 27 operation of STRs in piecemeal fashion, leading to the possibility of inconsistent rulings by 28 different trial court judges. Such litigation would delay final determination of the Rental VERTFTED PETTTTON FOR WRTT OF MANDATE 7 AND COMPLATNT