Laserfiche WebLink
1 76. The City's adoption of the STR Ban without providing an exemption for existing <br /> 2 lawfully operating STRs violates California common law protection for nonconforming uses. <br /> 3 77. An actual controversy exists between Petitioner and the City over whether <br /> 4 Ordinance NS-3061 prohibits hosts who had offered STRs prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. <br /> 5 NS-3061 from continuing to offer STRs. <br /> 6 78. Rentals—whether short-term or long-term—were permitted uses under the City's <br /> 7 zoning code prior to adoption of Ordinance No. NS-3061. If adoption of the STR Ban was <br /> 8 procedurally proper (and it was not), hosts' use of their properties as STRs became a legal <br /> 9 nonconforming use as soon as the ban goes into effect. See Code § 41-679 et seq. (governing <br /> 10 "[n]onconfon-ring buildings and uses"). Immediate termination of such a previously lawful use <br /> 11 violates California law. See City of L.A. v. Gage, 127 Cal.App.2d 442, 460 (1954). <br /> 12 79. The City failed to include a provision exempting existing nonconforming uses from <br /> 13 Ordinance No. NS-3061. See Hansen Bros. Enters., Inc. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 12 Cal. 4th 533, <br /> 14 551-52 (1996) (explaining that "a provision which exempts existing nonconforming uses is <br /> 15 ordinarily included in zoning ordinances because of the hardship and doubtful constitutionality of <br /> 16 compelling the immediate discontinuance of nonconforming uses"). It further failed to provide <br /> 17 any amortization period or just compensation, in clear violation of established California law. <br /> 18 Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 26 Cal.3d 848, 881 (1980), rev. on other grounds <br /> 19 Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (1981); Tahoe Reg'1 Planning Agency v. King, 233 <br /> 20 Cal.App.3d 1365, 1394 (1991). <br /> 21 80. The City improperly determined that since the Code "does not list STRs as an <br /> 22 approved use in any zoning district," they are "prohibited and unauthorized under the current <br /> 23 enforcement practice afforded by Section 41-190(a)." <br /> 24 81. The City also completely failed to consider all relevant factors and failed to <br /> 25 demonstrate that the banning of STRs is necessary to preserve public peace, health, safety, or <br /> 26 welfare. <br /> 27 <br /> 28 <br /> VERTFTED PETTTTON FOR WRTT OF MANDATE <br /> 21 AND COMPLATNT <br />