Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1many hosts have STRs in Santa Ana residential zones. Indeed,many Rental Alliance members <br /> <br />2 have acquired a business license for each rental unit that they own or manage. And, in addition to <br /> <br />3 paying fees to Santa Ana, hosts have invested other considerable resources to make their homes <br /> <br />4 suitable for STRs. <br /> <br />5 8. The City turned this all on its head when on April 2, 2024, it adopted an urgency <br /> <br />6 Urgency Ordinanceon <br /> <br />7 April 16, 2024, City Council adopted an ordinance permanently banning all STRs in the City <br /> <br />8 Ordinance No. NS-3061 STR Ban). The Urgency Ordinance and the STR Ban <br /> <br />9 - (rental of a dwelling unit for a period of less than 30 days <br /> <br />10 -term or <br /> <br />11 vacation rentals <br /> <br />12 being occupied by the property owner). Neither provided an exception from these prohibitions for <br /> <br />13 existing operating STRs. The Urgency Ordinance became immediately effective on April 2, 2024. <br /> <br />14 Ordinance No. NS-3061 specified it would become , <br /> <br />15 which was on April 16, 2024. In adopting both the Urgency Ordinance and STR Ban, the City <br /> <br />16 <br /> <br />17 the STR Ban (1) could result in impacts to the environment or (2) would, in any way, aid the City <br /> <br />18 in remedying the issues the ban was purportedly adopted to address. <br /> <br />19 9. What is obvious from a review of the stunningly sparse administrative record for <br /> <br />20 these ordinances is that the ultimate ban was the result of a rushed and ill-informed effort by the <br /> <br />21 City Council to push through STR regulation. Councilmembers gave no meaningful consideration <br /> <br />22 whatsoever to whether the ban would actually address the issues purportedly facing Santa Ana, <br /> <br />23 much less whether the ban complies with state and federal law. <br /> <br />24 10. In adopting Ordinance No. NS-3061 on April 16, 2024, the City failed to conduct <br /> <br />25 necessary environmental review, made unsupported determinations about the impacts of STRs, <br /> <br />26 mischaracterized the lawfulness of existing STRs, and disregarded established California law <br /> <br />27 protecting nonconforming uses. <br /> <br />28 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE <br />AND COMPLAINT <br />4 <br /> <br /> <br />