Laserfiche WebLink
The commenter goes on to assert that the City did not take into account analysis prepared <br />by SASTRA during the November 19 first reading of Ordinance No. NS-3072. This is <br />incorrect. The absence of a verbal discussion on the analysis during the City Council <br />meeting on November 19 cannot be construed lack of taking the analysis into account. <br />SASTRA’s analysis was presented to the City Council among all public comments received <br />on the topic for the City Council’s consideration of the item. The City Council hadample <br />time to review and consider SASTRA’s analysis and, like all other comments on the item, <br />was provided the opportunity to factor it in to its decision-making. Moreover, staff <br />prepared a written response to the comments made on the environmental analysis in <br />advance of the November 19, 2024 first reading. See attached written response dated <br />November 19, 2024 previously provided as part of the record. <br />The commenter finally asserts that the City appears to be withholding information from <br />the public, in violation of the California Public Records Act. SASTRA’s letter does not <br />identify the Public Records Act request (“PRR”) to which it is referring other than to state <br />it was made in April 2024. City staff assumes SASTRA is referring to the PRR that it made <br />on April 2, 2024 (PRR # 24-715). In response to PRR # 24-715, the City has released 485 <br />documents between April 30, 2024 and May 31, 2024. <br />This comment does not identify a specific deficiency in the EIR Addendum nor a new or <br />exacerbated potential significant environmental impact. No changes to the EIR Addendum <br />and no additional CEQA documentation are required. <br />O1-2This comment is the complaint filed. This comment does not identify a specific deficiency <br />in the EIR Addendum nor a new or exacerbated potential significant environmental impact. <br />No changes to the EIR Addendum and no additional CEQA documentation are required. <br />O1-3This comment is the Comment Letter submitted November 18, 2024. This comment was <br />previously addressed for the November 19, 2024 City Council meeting.See attached <br />written response dated November 19, 2024 previously provided as part of the record. <br />O1-4The comment states that the STR ban is expected to increase VMT due to displaced <br />travelers looking to seek accommodations in neighboring areas, which involves longer <br />travel distances. The comment states that the ban would increase VMT compared to the <br />baseline where STRs are available in the City. <br />The comment also states that the STR ban would increase daily trips in the City as STRs <br />generate fewer trips compared to hotels. The comment states that the STR would result in <br />traffic that is more concentrated and increase local delay. <br />The commentmakes erroneous assumptions that the Modified Project would force visitors <br />and residents to travel further and longer for transient accommodations and would <br />indirectly cause the construction of hotels. These claims are baseless, speculative and are <br />not backed by substantial evidence.Currently, STRs are not a permitted use and have never <br />been a permitted use; therefore, the claim that the ban would increase VMT compared to <br />the baseline is inaccurateas the baseline analyzed in the General Plan Update Final PEIR <br />did not accountfor the operation ofSTRs.The operation of STRs in the City deviates from <br />the project analyzed in the General Plan Update Final PEIR.If the STR ban were to be <br />rescinded, impacts associated with the legal operation of STRs would be required to be <br />analyzed under CEQA as these impacts would be considered a new use and would not be <br />covered by the certified EIR and would result in changes tothe approved General Plan. <br />December 3,2024|Page 4 <br /> <br />