Correspondence - Item #15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2024 Page 5 GP PEIR does not discuss, analyze, or inform the public of the environmental effects associated with the Amended Ordinance. Therefore, even if the City were to assess the Amended Ordinance under the GP PEIR, the environmental impacts of the STR ban were adequately assessed by the scope of the GP PEIR and therefore the STR ban must be fully analyzed with a project-specific EIR. The evidence is clear—and far exceeds the "fair argument" standard—that an EIR is needed because the STR ban is likely to cause potentially significant impacts to the environment that were not covered by the GP PEIR. (Id. at 845 ["The Supreme Court explained `when a program EIR is employed, if a later proposal is not either the same as or within the scope of the project ... described in the program EIR,' then review of the proposal is not governed by section 21166s deferential substantial evidence standard."] [emphasis added].) In addition, even if the GP PEIR were relied upon, the high-level, programmatic nature of the GP PEIR translates to a lack of detail that requires much more than a short addendum to correct. Rather, a supplemental or subsequent EIR is needed because the STR ban cannot be addressed with "minor" changes to the GP PEIR. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an addendum is only permitted where minor changes are needed to the prior analysis. As detailed herein, the complete absence of prior analysis of STRs,let alone the STR ban,requires changes to many topic areas covered by CEQA and raises new potentially significant impacts that cannot be addressed with minor clarifications. For these reasons, the City's approval of the Amended Ordinance based on an addendum or any other subsequent, supplemental, or tiered analysis based on the GP PEIR would violate CEQA. 2. The potentially significant environmental impacts of an STR ban require the Cit.. t�pare a new EIR. Even if an addendum were appropriate, the 51-page Addendum falls far short of appropriately analyzing and disclosing impacts under CEQA. The GP PEIR is silent on STRs and the Addendum contains only a cursory, superficial, and unsupported analysis of the STR ban. As detailed in Attachment A to this letter (CAJA Environmental Services, Potential Significant Environmental Effects of Banning Short-Term Rentals in the City of Santa and Requirement Require Additional Environmental Analysis Under CEQA, November 14, 2024 ["CAJA Report"]), there are several potentially significant direct environmental impacts that could result from a STR ban in the City, including but not limited to: • Air quality. The STR ban would result in an increase in daily mobile emissions of approximately 443 percent of NOx and 444 percent of PM2.5 from guests of STRs transitioning to using hotels. (CAJA Report, pp. 2-3.) NOx causes adverse health consequences including breathing difficulties and increased risk of chronic pulmonary fibrosis as well as bronchitis in children.PM2.5 can damage the respiratory tract, increasing the number and severity of asthma attacks, and aggravating bronchitis and other lung diseases, and reducing the body's ability to fight infections. (Ramboll Memo re Environmental Analysis of Short-Term Rental Regulation dated November 14, 2024,p. 3.) 5