Response to Late Comments Item No.15

Home Browse Search

182.Petitioner requires a declaration establishing that,prior to the adoption of 2 Ordinance No. NS-3061, STRs were Municipal Code and following 3 adoption of Ordinance No. NS-301 are a legal nonconforming use, and thus, may continue to be 4 offered in the City. Petitioner also requires an injunction prohibiting the City from enforcing 5 Ordinance No. NS-3061 against any property owner that had offered a STR prior to the adoption 6 the STR Ban. 7 8 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Code of Civil Procedure § 1060 et seq. 9 (Due Process)) 10 83. Petitioner incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though set forth 11 fully herein. 12 84. An actual controversy exists between Petitioner and the City over whether 13 Ordinance NS-3061 prohibits hosts who had offered STRs prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 14 NS-3061 from continuing to offer STRs. 15 85. The immediate termination of a nonconforming use (which Ordinance No. NS- 16 3061 causes) not only violates California common law but also constitutes a deprivation of 17 property without due process of law under the California Constitution. See Santa Barbara 18 -op v. City of Santa Barbara, 911 F.Supp.2d 884, 893-894 (C.D. 19 Cal. 2012); McCaslin v. Monterey Park, 163 Cal.App.2d 339, 346-348 (1958). For the same 20 reasons that Ordinance No. NS- 21 process rights under the California Constitution. 22 86. Petitioner requires a declaration establishing that, prior to the adoption of 23 Ordinance No. NS- 24 adoption of Ordinance No. NS-301 are a legal nonconforming use 25 provide any reasonable amortization period or just compensation deprives petitioner of property 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT 22