My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Correspondence - Item #15
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2024
>
12/03/2024
>
Correspondence - Item #15
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/3/2024 3:06:38 PM
Creation date
12/2/2024 3:22:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Agency
Planning & Building
Item #
15
Date
12/3/2024
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
220
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
I the City to other locations could have significant environmental impacts, including air quality <br /> 2 impacts resulting from increased vehicle emissions from people traveling farther distances to their <br /> 3 vacation destinations or temporary/transitory places of employment and residence. The Rental <br /> 4 Alliance further pointed out that the City must also analyze the potential increased greenhouse gas <br /> 5 emissions resulting from the additional vehicle trips, the potential land use impacts from increased <br /> 6 construction of alternative overnight accommodations (hotels and motels) to make up for the loss <br /> 7 in overnight accommodations that STRs currently provide, and the potential urban decay if the ban <br /> 8 ultimately makes it impossible for homeowners to afford their homes and causes business to <br /> 9 shutter given decline in revenue. <br /> 10 47. The City Council also ignored correspondence from the Rental Alliance explaining <br /> 11 the ban would have a drastic economic impact on STR owners because all income earned from <br /> 12 STRs would be immediately eliminated, and that property owners could lose their homes if they <br /> 13 are unable to operate STRs. It also ignored statements that many homeowners purchased homes <br /> 14 in the City with the reasonable expectation that they would operate them as STRs, because the <br /> 15 City's then-current ordinances permitted such use. <br /> 16 48. And the City Council further failed to address correspondence explaining, among <br /> 17 other things: <br /> 18 • The proposed ban would, in effect, convert currently legal STRs into immediately <br /> 19 illegal nonconforming uses, and that terminating these legal nonconforming uses <br /> 20 in this way would violate longstanding California law; <br /> 21 • Hosts had already agreed to rent their property on a short-term basis to guests in <br /> 22 upcoming months, and that an immediate ban on STRs would invalidate those <br /> 23 contractual obligations of STR owners in violation of their constitutional rights. <br /> 24 • Nothing in the staff reports presented to the City Council demonstrated that STRs <br /> 25 in Santa Ana constituted a public nuisance; <br /> 26 • The City lacked any evidence of the negative effect of STRs on housing availability <br /> 27 in the City; <br /> 28 <br /> VERTFTED PETTTTON FOR WRTT OF MANDATE <br /> 13 AND COMPLATNT <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.