My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Correspondence - Item 25
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2024
>
04/16/2024
>
Correspondence - Item 25
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/17/2024 7:51:51 AM
Creation date
4/11/2024 4:39:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mayor Valerie Amezcua <br />Mayor Pro Tem Thai Viet Phan <br />Councilmember Benjamin Vazquez <br />Councilmember Jessie Lopez <br />Councilmember Phil Bacerra <br />Councilmember Johnathan Ryan Hernandez <br />Councilmember David Penaloza <br />City Council Chamber <br />20 Civic Center Plaza M-30 <br />Santa Ana,CA 92701 <br />Re:April 15,2024,City Council Meeting –Ordinance Prohibiting STRs <br />Dear Mayor Amezcua and Honorable City Councilmembers, <br />Adoption of the Ordinance Would Violate the California Environmental Quality Act <br />If the City adopts the Ordinance without conducting any environmental analysis,as it is <br />positioned to do on April 16,this would violate the California Environmental Quality Act <br />(“CEQA”).Staff recommended that the City find the STR prohibition “is not subject to the <br />requirements of [CEQA]...pursuant to (Guidelines)Section 15060(c)(2)because the activity <br />will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment <br />and 15060(c)(3)because the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA <br />Guidelines ...because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, <br />directly or indirectly and so is not a project.”(Staff Report,p.1 [emphasis added].)This <br />conclusion,without any further comment or explanation,is not supported any evidence or <br />reasoning in the record and is inconsistent with the goals and purpose of CEQA.(Davidon Homes <br />v.City of San Jose,54 Cal.App.4th 106 (1997).)California Supreme Court case law makes clear <br />that this type of ordinance is a “project”under CEQA requiring the City to conduct further <br />environmental review.(Union of Medical Marijuana Patients,Inc.v.City of San Diego,7 Cal.5th <br />1171,1197 (2019).) <br />The Ordinance is a “Project”Under CEQA <br />CEQA requires a local agency acting as the CEQA “lead agency”to engage in a three tier <br />analysis as to a proposed activity.(CEQA Guidelines §15060.)First,the lead agency determines <br />whether a proposed activity is subject to CEQA at all –whether it is a “project.”Under CEQA,a <br />“project”is an activity undertaken or funded by,or subject to the approval of,a public agency <br />that may cause “either a direct physical change in the environment,or a reasonably foreseeable <br />indirect physical change in the environment.”(Pub.Res.Code §21065;CEQA Guidelines § <br />15378.)“‘Project’is given a broad interpretation ...to maximize protection of the environment . <br />..Thus,‘[w]here it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in <br />question may have a significant effect on the environment,the activity is not subject to CEQA.’” <br />(Ctr.for Sierra Nevada Conservation v.Cnty.of El Dorado,202 Cal.App.4th 1156,1170 (2012).) <br />The determination of whether an activity is a project “is made without considering whether,
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.