Laserfiche WebLink
Santa Ana City Council <br />November 18, 2024 <br />Page 4 <br />CEQA provides that a changed project may only undergo a streamlined subsequent environmental <br />review under certain circumstances that trigger either a subsequent EIR, a supplemental EIR, or <br />an addendum to a previously certified EIR. (See CEQA Guidelines §§ 1516264.) An addendum <br />to a previously certified EIR is appropriate only when the necessary changes or additions do not <br />trigger a subsequent or supplementalEIR, meaning the changes or additions are minorand do not <br />involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously <br />identified significant effects. (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162 and 15164.) <br />project that has been subject to environmental review; the provisions do not apply if the agency <br />has proposed a new project not previously analyzed in the original environmental document <br />(Martis Camp Community Association v. County of Placer(2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 569, 606 n.26 <br />\[emphasis added\]; see also Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County <br />Community College Dist.(2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, <br />have no application if the agency has proposed a new project that has not previously been subject <br />The Staff Report asks the City to certify an addendum based on the GP PEIR that did not review <br />the environmental impacts of the AmendedOrdinance or even acknowledge the existence of STRs <br />in the City. The Amended <br />CEQA and the use of an addendum or any other subsequent environmental review pathway is <br />insufficient to comply with CEQA. Further, Friends of College of San Mateo Gardensheld that in <br />order for a lead agency to rely on a previously certified CEQA document, that document must <br />Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. <br />San Mateo County Community College Dist.(2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 596, 605.) Here, because the <br />GP PEIR does not analyze the impacts of banning short term rentals or even mention short term <br />rentals at all, it retains no informational value as to the AmendedOrdinance. Indeed, the GP PEIR <br />offers no informational value on the reasonably foreseeable direct, indirect and cumulative impacts <br />from the STR ban because the GP PEIR analysis completely ignores STRs. The Proposed <br />Ordinance is a new project constitutinga substantial change from the conditions contemplated in <br />zoning code had always prohibited STRs and instead held that an ordinance expressly banning <br />STRs wa <br />(Keen v. City of Manhattan Beach(2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 142,14849.) Here, like in Keen, the <br />Amended <br />the City cannot rely on previously approved documents that did not contemplate the impacts of <br />theAmendedOrdinance. <br />a program EIR is employed, if a later proposal is not either the same as or within the scope of the <br />project described in the program EIR . . . it is treated as a ne <br />(Save Our Access v. City of San Diego(2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 819, 845.) \[internal quotations and <br />citations omitted\].) A program EIR that does not include anydiscussion or analysis of a later <br />proposed activity is not adequate to inform the public of the environmental effects of that later <br />activity such that the later activity is outside the scope of the program EIR. (Id. at 852-53.) The <br />4 <br /> <br />