Correspondence - Item #15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• In April of this year, staff presented a ban for City Council consideration during spring break, immediately following the Easter holiday, and without conducting meaningful stakeholder engagement. In connection with this last-minute effort, there was also a misrepresentation of the current legal status of STRs in the City to the Council and a failure to conduct any environmental review of the ban's potentially significant environmental impacts. Consequently, we were compelled to file a lawsuit challenging that ordinance. A copy of our complaint that lays out the extent of legal infirmities with the April ban is attached for your reference. • While we appreciate the acknowledgment of the illegality of the April ordinance by the consideration of the prior ban's recession, the other legal arguments raised in our lawsuit were ignored when this new ban was introduced. Once again, the current legal status of STRs has been misrepresented to Council, the appropriate environmental analysis required under CEQA has not been conducted, and the public has been deprived of meaningful participation given the decision to advance this process during the holiday season without any public engagement. • We submitted substantial legal and environmental analysis' on the new ban in advance of the November 19 City Council meeting(reattached here). That analysis determined the ban would: o Result in significant environmental impacts; o Violate state and federal law; and o Unconstitutionally infringe on the rights of hosts and their guests. • The City refused to engage in our analysis during the November 19 hearing. In response to Councilmember Lopez's inquiry for any new or clarifying information presented by the public, Staff responded they were"not sure what the audience [wa]s referring to,"and did not mention our extensive analysis. Now, despite having over two weeks to review our letter and consider the evidence, Staff ignored it in the report for the second reading. In fact, staff did not even acknowledge our letter and agendized the second reading on the consent calendar. • The City also appears to be withholding information from the public in violation of the California Public Records Act. In April 2024, we understand a Public Records Act request was filed seeking information related to the City's efforts to regulate STRs. While the City has responded to nearly 2,000 different requests and made those results available on its website since this filing, the results from the STR PRA request remain unavailable online. We strongly urge you decline to move forward with the second reading on December 3 and instead direct Staff to collaborate with all stakeholders to develop a new ordinance that allows STRs to continue operating under reasonable regulations. We are ready and willing to work with the Council and staff to find a better path forward. And while SASTRA does not want to litigate further with the City, for the reasons summarized above 1 We are also attaching an additional memorandum prepared by a traffic consultant that confirms the ban will increase traffic and vehicle miles traveled in and around the City. 2