Correspondence - Item #15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 82. Petitioner requires a declaration establishing that, prior to the adoption of 2 Ordinance No. NS-3061, STRs were permitted under the City's 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 9 (Declaratory and Injunctive Relief—Code of Civil Procedure§ 1060 et seq. (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 Patients' Collective Health Co-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-3061 violates California common law, it violates Petitioner's due 21 process rights under the California Constitution. 22 86. Petitioner requires a declaration establishing that, prior to the adoption of 23 Ordinance No. NS-3061, STRs were permitted under the City's Municipal Code and following 24 adoption of Ordinance No. NS-301 are a legal nonconforming use, and thus, the City's failure to 25 provide any reasonable amortization period or just compensation deprives petitioner of property 26 27 28 VERTFTED PETTTTON FOR WRTT OF MANDATE 22 AND COMPLATNT