Correspondence - PH #35 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2024 Page 7 If the City Council were to ignore the substantial evidence in the record of potential impacts and proceed with adopting the Amended Ordinance without first preparing an EIR to analyze these potentially significant impacts, alternatives to the STR ban that may result in lesser impacts, and mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts, such an action would constitute an abuse of discretion. Prohibiting STRs in Santa Ana Violates State and Federal Law The prohibition of STRs in the City violates state and federal laws in numerous ways. Specifically: 1. STRs have legally operated for decades. STRs have operated legally in the City for decades and the City has acknowledged the operation of STRs within its boundaries for years. For instance, on September 15, 2015, the City Council -day temporary moratorium on the establishment or expansion of any short term residen(Ordinance No. NS-2886.) do not clearly identify short-term residential rental uses or take into account the potential impacts associated with the establishment of STRs within existing residential zones. As such, provisions of . . . the Code . . . require review, study, and possible revision in order to respond to recent concerns relating to the impacts of these short-(Id., Section 1.B (emphasis added).) Importantly, the 2015 emergency ordinance for the moratorium specially -term residential rental is permitted in a residential zone as defined in Article (Id., Section 2.) Of course, this new prohibition would not have been necessary had STRs not been an existing lawful use in the City. On October 20, 2015, the City Council considered a recommendation to extend the moratorium adopted on September 15, 2015, but it declined to do so. The result was that STRs continued operating as lawful residential uses throughout the City. Then, after continuously issuing ministerial business licenses for hosts renting their property on a short-term basis and long after the temporary moratorium expired, the City changed its position. Around early 2022, the City suddenly claimed that STRs were pro and commenced enforcement actions against existing hosts. And now, the City states in the Staff Report that STRs are not, and have never been, a permitted use refore, STRs have always been prohibited by the City and this 4, Staff Report, p. 3.) - mentioned in the Municipal Code in the context of urban lot splits. The Municipal Code -tted in dwelling units on lots created by an urban lot split. (Santa Ana Mun. Code § 41.2109(l)(2); see also id. § 41- 2115(l)(2) \[same prohibition for dwelling units on lot for Two-Unit Projects\].) Notably, in both of these code provisions, the prohibition on STRs on these types of lots is in a separate subpart 7