Laserfiche WebLink
In April of this year, staff presented aban for City Councilconsiderationduring spring break, <br />immediately following the Easter holiday, and without conducting meaningful stakeholder <br />engagement. In connection with thislast-minute effort,there was also amisrepresentation of <br />the current legal status of STRs in the City to the Councilandafailureto conduct any <br />environmental review of thepotentially significantenvironmentalimpacts. <br />Consequently, we were compelled to file a lawsuit challenging that ordinance. A copy of our <br />complaintthat lays out the extent of legal infirmities with the April banis attached for your <br />reference. <br />While we appreciate theacknowledgment ofthe illegality of the April ordinancebythe <br />consideration of theprior ban,theother legal arguments raised in our lawsuit were <br />ignored when thisnew ban was introduced. Onceagain, thecurrent legal status of STRs has <br />beenmisrepresentedtoCouncil, theappropriate environmental analysisrequired under CEQA <br />has not been conducted, and the public has been deprived ofmeaningful participationgiven <br />the decision to advancethisprocessduring the holiday season without any public engagement. <br />1 <br />We submitted substantial legal and environmental analysison the new ban in advance of the <br />November 19City Council meeting (reattached here). That analysis determined the ban would: <br />o Resultin significant environmental impacts; <br />o Violatestate and federal law; and <br />O1-1 <br />o Unconstitutionally infringe on the rights of hosts and their guests. <br />Cont' <br />The Cityrefused toengage in our analysisduring the November 19 hearing.In response to <br />Councilmember Lopezinquiry for any new or clarifying information presented by the public, <br />Staff did not mention <br />ourextensive analysis.Now, despite having over two weeks to review ourletter and consider <br />the evidence, Staff ignored it in the report for the second reading.In fact, staffdid not even <br />acknowledge our letterand agendizedthe second reading on the consent calendar. <br />The Cityalsoappears to be withholding information from thepublicin violation of the <br />California Public Records Act. In April 2024, we understand aPublic Records Act request <br />was filed efforts to regulate STRs. While the City has <br />responded to nearly 2,000 different requests and made those results available on its website <br />since this filing, the results from the STR PRA request remain unavailableonline. <br />Westrongly urge you decline to move forward with the second reading on December 3 andinstead <br />direct Staff to collaborate with all stakeholders to develop a new ordinance that allows STRs to <br />continue operating under reasonable regulations. <br />We are ready and willing to work with the Council and staffto find a better path forward.And <br />while SASTRA does not want to litigate further with the City, for the reasons summarized above <br />1 <br />We are alsoattaching an additional memorandum prepared by a traffic consultant that confirms <br />the ban will increase traffic and vehicle miles traveled in and around the City. <br />2 <br /> <br />