My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Response to Late Comments Item No.15
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2024
>
12/03/2024
>
Response to Late Comments Item No.15
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/4/2024 1:04:25 PM
Creation date
12/3/2024 5:11:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
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.
/
408
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
<br />1-2115(h). Under the <br /> <br />2 Municipal Code, an individual property owner can apply to split an existing lot into two. <br /> <br />3 Ordinance No. NS-3013 essentially said if a property owner splits their lot, they may not rent <br /> <br />4 dwellings on that lot for less than 30 days. The Staff Report associated with the adoption of this <br /> <br />5 Ordinance No. NS-3013 made no mention of the legality of STRs in other parts of the City or on <br /> <br />6 non-urban split lots. <br /> <br />7 35. On information and belief, after continuously issuing ministerial business licenses <br /> <br />8 for hosts renting their property on a short-term basis and long after the temporary moratorium <br /> <br />9 expired, the City changed its position. Around early 2022, the City suddenly claimed that STRs <br /> <br />10 were prohibited through the commencement of <br /> <br />11 enforcement actions against existing hosts. <br /> <br />12 36. The City decisions by the Courts of Appeal holding <br /> <br />13 that permissive zoning ordinances silent on STRs, , do not prohibit STRs. More <br /> <br />14 specifically, in June 2022, the California Court of Appeal considered a permissive zoning <br /> <br />15 code prior to the adoption of <br /> <br />16 Ordinance No. NS-3061. - <br /> <br />17 -said nothing about STRs. Keen v. City of Manhattan Beach, <br /> <br />18 77 Cal. App. 5th 142, 149 (2022), review dend (June 29, 2022). As a result, people in Manhattan <br /> <br />19 - <br /> <br />20 and short- Id. at 146. Then, in 2015, <br /> <br />21 <br /> <br />22 Ibid. The court disagreed, finding that <br /> <br />23 always permitted short-term, as well as long-term, residential <br /> <br />24 Id. at 148 (emphasis added). <br /> <br />25 37. The Court of Appeal explained that once the house or apartment building was built, <br /> <br />26 anyonerenter or ownercould reside there for periods long or short, since the code <br /> <br />27 textual basis for a temporal distinction about the duration of rentals, and the term residence <br /> <br />28 does not imply some minimum length of occupancy. Id. at 148-149. Short-term rentals are <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE <br />AND COMPLAINT <br />10 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.