Laserfiche WebLink
I without due process of law. Petitioner also requires an injunction prohibiting the City from <br /> 2 enforcing Ordinance No. NS-3061 against any property owner that had offered a STR prior to the <br /> 3 adoption of the STR Ban. <br /> 4 <br /> 5 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF <br /> 6 (Writ of Mandate Due to Abuse of Discretion— Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1085, <br /> 1094.5) <br /> 7 87. Petitioner incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though set forth <br /> 8 fully herein. <br /> 9 88. An actual and justiciable controversy has also arisen and now exists between <br /> 10 petitioner and the City, concerning whether the City's adoption of Ordinance No. NS-3061 was <br /> 11 an unwarranted interference with hosts' property rights amounting to an abuse of discretion in the <br /> 12 City's exercise of its police power. <br /> 13 89. A trial court may grant a writ of mandate if"the decision was arbitrary, capricious, <br /> 14 entirely lacking in evidentiary support, or unlawfully or procedurally unfair." Endangered <br /> 15 Habitats League, Inc. v. Cnty. of Orange, 131 Cal. App. 4th 777, 782 (2005). In applying this test, <br /> 16 "a court `must ensure that an agency has adequately considered all relevant factors, and has <br /> 17 demonstrated a rational connection between those factors, the choice made, and the purposes of <br /> 18 enabling the statute."' Western States Petroleum Ass'n v. Superior Court, 9 Cal.4th 559, 577 <br /> 19 (1995). In California, a"public agency"is any city, county, district, other local authority or public <br /> 20 body of or within the state, including a city council. Gov. Code § 20056. <br /> 21 90. The City completely failed to consider all relevant factors and failed to demonstrate <br /> 22 a rational connection between its stated objectives and the complete ban of STRs when adopting <br /> 23 the STR Ban. In particular, the City adopted the ban based on an error of law. As detailed above, <br /> 24 the City staff and the City Attorney both mistakenly informed the City Council that existing STRs <br /> 25 were prohibited in the City at the time of the adoption of the STR Ban. This was a clear error and <br /> 26 calls into question the validity of the entire ordinance. <br /> 27 <br /> 28 <br /> VERTFTED PETTTTON FOR WRTT OF MANDATE <br /> 23 AND COMPLATNT <br />