Laserfiche WebLink
Santa Ana City Council <br />November 18, 2024 <br />Page 3 <br />STRs help to make housing affordable for those homeowners who are able to home shareand <br />earn money by renting portions of their houses, or the entire house, for a period of time. This helps <br />make homeownership possible for many Santa Ana residents who otherwise could not afford the <br />high cost of housing. <br />Homesharing has made communities throughout California accessible to more and more <br />familieseven if only for a weekend. It fosters vibrant and diverse communities and supports a <br />robust tourism economy statewide. Without STRs, many desirable vacation destinations, such as <br />Orange County,would likely be less accessible for a wide variety of families. <br />Home sharing also addresses <br />full-time residents who are unable to pay steep residential move-in costs, which typically include <br />advance payment of first and last monthsrent anda sizeable security deposit, can immediately <br />occupy an STR without the substantial up-front cost. In this way, STRscan immediately supply <br />housing tofill a critical gap in availability facing California cities. STRs also play an important <br />role for aspiring residents seeking to sample, and then select, the type and location of their <br />preferred long-term rental homeorhome purchase. <br />extensive benefits <br />is particularly troubling. <br />The Prohibition of STRs Will Have Significant Environmental Impacts That Have Not Been <br />Evaluated under CEQA <br />The Amended Ordinance will have significant environmental impacts, and the City has failed to <br />appropriately evaluate these impacts under CEQA. As summarized next, the evidence is clear that <br />the STR ban will impact the physical environment, resulting in reasonably foreseeable direct <br />increases in vehicle miles traveled, air pollutants (with adverse health consequences), greenhouse <br />gasemissions, energy use (including fossil fuels), and more. The City has fallen far short of <br />analyzing these direct impacts in conformance with CEQA. What is more, the City patently ignores <br />reasonably foreseeable indirect effects spurred by the STR ban, such as new construction to <br />account for increased hotel demand, and cumulative impacts resulting from cascading regional <br />impacts from similar STR bans. Despite our strenuous requests during the April 2024 hearings and <br />the subsequent litigation, the City continues to shirk its responsibilities under CEQA to analyze <br />and disclose the true consequences of its actions. <br />1.The City inappropriately relies on an addendum to an EIR for a completely different, <br />unrelated project. <br />GP PEIR) is <br />impermissible under CEQA because the AmendedOrdinance constitutes a new project that has <br />not been previously reviewed, and the changes it introduces are substantial, requiring new <br />environmental review. <br />3 <br /> <br />