Laserfiche WebLink
<br />120.Code of Civil Procedure section 1060 allows an ordinance to be challenged in an <br /> <br />2 action for declaratory relief. See Alameda Cnty. Land Use Assn v. City of Hayward, 38 Cal. App. <br /> <br />3 4th 1716, 1723 (1995). The parties have a dispute regarding the validity of Ordinance No. NS- <br /> <br />4 3061, and Petitioner is entitled to a judicial declaration setting forth rights as related <br /> <br />5 to their property. <br /> <br />6 EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES <br /> <br />7 21. Petitioner has satisfied all remedies necessary to bring this proceeding and <br /> <br />8 . Cal. Pub. <br /> <br />9 Res. Code § 21177. <br /> <br />10 22. Petitioner raised the issues pleaded in the following causes of action in a letter <br /> <br />11 transmitted to the City Council on or about April 2, 2024. Other members of the public transmitted <br /> <br />12 letters and spoke in opposition to Ordinance No. NS-3061 at the City Council Meetings on April <br /> <br />13 2, 2024 and April 16, 2024. All of this correspondence will be part of the proceeding in this action. <br /> <br />14 23. Ordinance No. NS-3061 does not provide a mechanism for an administrative <br /> <br />15 challenge. Even if it did, any challenge by hosts to the categorical ban on STRs would be futile, <br /> <br />16 as the City has determined (without sufficient evidence) that STRs constitute a nuisance and a <br /> <br />17 public health and safety hazard and specifically implemented the ordinance to ban STRs. Under <br /> <br />18 such circumstances, hosts are not required to try to convince the City otherwise before seeking <br /> <br />19 relief from this Court. See Monks v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 167 Cal. App. 4th 263, 304 <br /> <br />20 (2008) (plaintiffs should not be required to attempt to prove what the city would not believe); Ogo <br /> <br />21 Assocs. v. City of Torrance <br /> <br />22 Council would grant a variance for the very project whose prospective existence brought about the <br /> <br />23 <br /> <br />24 24. Petitioner has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law, and seeks a writ of <br /> <br />25 mandate from this Court. Without the remedy of a writ of mandate, the Rental Alliance and/or its <br /> <br />26 members would be required to litigate individual infractions or misdemeanors resulting from the <br /> <br />27 operation of STRs in piecemeal fashion, leading to the possibility of inconsistent rulings by <br /> <br />28 different trial court judges. Such litigation would delay final determination of the Rental <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE <br />AND COMPLAINT <br />7 <br /> <br /> <br />