Response to Late Comments Item No.15

Home Browse Search

191.Beyond its legally flawed premise, the City Council 2 STRs was also unsupported by the record before the City Council. In the less than three-page staff 3 report supporting both the Urgency Ordinance and the STR Ban, 4 the City stated that STRs associated with excessive noise, parking problems, trash, and 5 Yet, the only alleged negative impacts the report 6 identified of STRs that have received enforcement notices and 7 -site, and 84 involve properties that are not 8 owner-occupied. 9 92. The City did not provide any further detail on these active cases or what the 10 complaints entail. On information and belief, many of these enforcement notices have nothing to 11 do with excessive noise, parking problems, trash, or 12 and, instead, were 13 In any event, the City Council did not have the evidentiary basis to adopt its draconian ban given 14 the complete lack of a record before it. Moreover, the City ignored Chapter 17 of its own Code, 15 which provides several existing enforcement mechanisms to mitigate public nuisances. See Santa 16 Ana Mun. Code, Ch. 17. 17 93. The City also lacked sufficient evidence of the effect of STRs on housing 18 availability in the City to support the ban. The Staff Report for the April 2, 2024, City Council 19 meeting stated that, according to data from STR platforms, there are 1,100 active STRs in the City, 20 -2029 is 3,137 permanent housing 21 units, implying that banning STRs would add 1,100 homes to the long-term housing market. This 22 implication is wrong. A review of the Housing Element reveals that the City does not 23 mention STRs anywhere in that document. In the section of the Housing Element discussing 24 influence 25 housing goals including market factors (land costs, construction and rehabilitation costs, 26 availability of financing, and recent trends in foreclosures), governmental factors (land use 27 / / / 28 / / / VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT 24