Response to Late Comments Item No.15

Home Browse Search

176.anexemption for existing 2 lawfully operating STRs violates California common law protection for nonconforming uses. 3 77. An actual controversy exists between Petitioner and the City over whether 4 Ordinance NS-3061 prohibits hosts who had offered STRs prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 5 NS-3061 from continuing to offer STRs. 6 78. Rentalswhether short-term or long-term 7 zoning code prior to adoption of Ordinance No. NS-3061. If adoption of the STR Ban was 8 procedurally proper (and it was not), host 9 nonconforming use as soon as the ban goes into effect. See Code § 41-679 et seq. (governing 10 11 violates California law. See City of L.A. v. Gage, 127 Cal.App.2d 442, 460 (1954). 12 79. The City failed to include a provision exempting existing nonconforming uses from 13 Ordinance No. NS-3061. See Hansen Bros. Enters., Inc. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 12 Cal. 4th 533, 14 551- 15 ordinarily included in zoning ordinances because of the hardship and doubtful constitutionality of 16 compelling the immediate discontinuance of nonconIt further failed to provide 17 any amortization period or just compensation, in clear violation of established California law. 18 Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 26 Cal.3d 848, 881 (1980), rev. on other grounds 19 Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (1981); , 233 20 Cal.App.3d 1365, 1394 (1991). 21 80. The City improperly determined that since the Code does not list STRs as an 22 approved use in any zoning district prohibited and unauthorized under the current 23 enforcement practice afforded by Section 41- 24 81. The City also completely failed to consider all relevant factors and failed to 25 demonstrate that the banning of STRs is necessary to preserve public peace, health, safety, or 26 welfare. 27 / / / 28 / / / VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT 21