HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 35 - Public Hearing - Short Term Rentals Ordinance Planning and Building Agency
www.santa-ana.org/planning-and-building
Item # 35
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Staff Report
November 19, 2024
TOPIC: Short-Term Rentals
AGENDA TITLE
Public Hearing – Conduct a First Reading and Adopt Ordinance Amendment (OA) No.
2024-04 Repealing and Reenacting in its Entirety Article XXI to Chapter 8 of the Santa
Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) Prohibiting Short-Term Rentals (STRs), and Adopt
Enhanced Fines for Violations of the Short-Term Rentals Ordinance
Published in the OC Reporter on November 8, 2024.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
1. Introduce for first reading an ordinance (OA No. 2024-04) amending the Santa
Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) to repeal and reenact in its entirety Article XXI to
Chapter 8 of the SAMC prohibiting Short-Term Rentals.
ORDINANCE NO. NS-XXXX entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING AND REENACTING
IN ITS ENTIRETY ARTICLE XXI TO CHAPTER 8 OF THE SANTA ANA
MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITING SHORT-TERM RENTALS
2. Adopt a resolution setting administrative fines for violating provisions of the Santa
Ana Municipal Code.
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XXX entitled A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA SETTING ADMINISTRATIVE FINES FOR
VIOLATING PROVISIONS OF THE SANTA ANA MUNICIPAL CODE
3. Find that, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
based on the substantial evidence set forth in the record, including but not limited
to the General Plan Update Final Program Environmental Impact Report (State
Clearinghouse No. 2020029087) and the Addendum prepared for adoption of the
proposed Ordinance and Resolution, the project is exempt from further
environmental analysis. In the alternative, the adoption of the Ordinance and
Resolution is categorically exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section
15301 – Class 1, Existing Facilities.
Short-Term Rentals
November 19, 2024
Page 2
4
6
6
6
GOVERNMENT CODE §84308 APPLIES: No
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
The recommended actions in this staff report will repeal and reenact in its entirety
Article XXI to Chapter 8 of the SAMC prohibiting Short-Term Rentals (STRs) and
establish enhanced fines for violations of the local short-term rentals ordinance.
On April 2, 2024, the City Council, at a regularly scheduled meeting, adopted an
urgency ordinance (Ordinance No. NS-3060) and approved the first reading of a regular
ordinance (Ordinance No. NS-3061) prohibiting STRs. On April 16, 2024, the City
Council approved the second reading of the regular ordinance prohibiting STRs.
On June 17, 2024, the City was served with a petition for Writ of Mandate by the Santa
Ana Short-Term Rental Alliance challenging the City’s STR ordinances on grounds
including relating to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Case No. 30-
2024-01404861-CU-WM-WJC. (“Writ action.”)
To address deficiencies identified by the Writ action, it is recommended that the City
Council adopt the draft Ordinance as presented in Exhibit 1 of this report.
Analysis
The proliferation of online vacation rental websites such as Airbnb.com and vrbo.com
have encouraged and enabled property owners, tenants, and occupants to rent their
local, residential properties on a short-term basis to travelers or transients. These STRs,
generally numbering less than 30 days, are often associated with excessive noise,
parking problems, trash, and degradation of a neighborhood’s residential character.
Data collected from various STR platforms reveals that there are more than 700 STRs
currently operating in Santa Ana. These 700 STRs are advertised in 1,760 listings
across multiple platforms. Areas like Downtown and its nearby neighborhoods, along
with the Hutton Center area, have a higher concentration of these rentals. To put this in
perspective, the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for 2021-2029 is
3,137 permanent housing units. The 700 short-term rental units represent about 22% of
the City's housing needs, diverting a significant portion of available housing away from
permanent residents. As a result of the reduction in available housing for permanent
residents, the negative secondary effects including, but not limited to, excessive noise,
parking problems, and trash, the ordinance is necessary as an emergency measure to
preserve the public peace, health, safety, and welfare.
Presently, there are 227 confirmed active cases of STRs that have received
enforcement notices and citations. Among these cases, 92 involve owners residing at
the same address, while 131 involve properties owned by an LLC, managed by a
property management company, or owned by absentee owners. Enforcement efforts in
Short-Term Rentals
November 19, 2024
Page 3
4
6
6
6
the City have primarily relied on complaints and proactive notifications to major STR
platforms.
STRs are not, and have never been, a permitted use under the City’s zoning code.
Therefore, STRs have always been prohibited by the City and this ordinance is
reaffirming existing policy and practice. However, in response to recent legal
developments, this ordinance seeks to amend the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC)
to repeal and reenact ordinances prohibiting short-term rentals and expressly prohibit
short-term rentals in alignment with the City’s current practice.
Resolution Setting Administrative Fines
As part of the recommended actions, staff is also recommending that the City Council
adopt a resolution setting administrative fines for violating Santa Ana’s Short-Term
Rental Ordinance. California Government Code Section 36900 enables local
jurisdictions to increase the maximum fines for violations of local short-term rental laws.
The proposed resolution would establish fines for violations of local short-term rental
laws ranging from:
•$1,500 for a first violation;
•$3,000 for a second violation within one year of the first violation; and
•$5,000 for each additional violation within one year of the first violation.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the proposed action.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an addendum to
the General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No.
2020029087) (GPU EIR) has been prepared for the Repeal and Reenactment of the
Short-Term Rental Prohibition Ordinance. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an
addendum to a previously certified EIR shall be prepared when a lead agency is asked
to approve modifications to an existing project for which an EIR has already been
certified. The addendum (See Exhibit 1) evaluates the proposed project within the
context of the GPU EIR and determined that no subsequent environmental review was
required. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines, an addendum to the previously
certified GPU EIR will be filed upon adoption of this ordinance.
In the alternative, the adoption of this Ordinance is categorically exempt pursuant to
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 – Class 1, Existing Facilities. Class 1 consists of
the “operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of
existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical
features, including negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.”
The Ordinance reaffirms existing policy and practice, prohibiting short-term rentals
within the City and the Ordinance would not result in a significant expansion of existing
uses or former uses. The operational activities associated with the Ordinance would be
Short-Term Rentals
November 19, 2024
Page 4
4
6
6
6
typical of residential development. No development, redevelopment, or change to
existing development type in the City is proposed or required to implement the
Ordinance.
Further, none of the exceptions to the exemptions set forth under State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. There will be no significant cumulative impact of
successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time, as this is the only
Ordinance prohibiting short-term rentals. There is no reasonable possibility that the
Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual
circumstances because it is reaffirming the existing prohibition on short-term rentals.
The Ordinance will not result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to,
trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway
officially designated as a state scenic highway, because the Ordinance does not
propose any ground-breaking activity or construction, but instead continues the existing
ban on short-term rentals. The Ordinance addresses a project type that is not located
on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Government Code section
65962.5. The Ordinance will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource. Thus, the Ordinance also falls under the Class 1 categorical
exemption, and no further environmental review is required.
EXHIBITS
1. Ordinance for First Reading
2. Resolution
3. Environmental Analysis Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
Submitted By: Minh Thai, Executive Director of Planning and Building Agency
Approved By: Alvaro Nuñez, City Manager
Ordinance No. NS-XXX
Page 1 of 7
ORDINANCE NO. NS-XXX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA,
CALIFORNIA, REPEALING AND REENACTING IN ITS ENTIRETY
ARTICLE XXI TO CHAPTER 8 OF THE SANTA ANA MUNICIPAL CODE
PROHIBITING SHORT-TERM RENTALS
WHEREAS, Article XXI of Chapter 8 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (“SAMC”),
entitled “SHORT-TERM RENTALS” was adopted to preserve public peace, health, safety, and
welfare by expressly prohibiting short-term rentals in the City of Santa Ana and to declare such
uses as a public nuisance punishable under the SAMC; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to repeal and reenact Article XXI of Chapter 8 of
the SAMC and make additional findings for its short-term rental prohibition; and
WHEREAS, the proliferation of online vacation rental websites such as Airbnb.com and
vrbo.com have encouraged and enabled City of Santa Ana (“City”) property owners, tenants, and
occupants to rent their local, residential properties on a short-term rental (“STR”) basis to
travelers or transients; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the SAMC to expressly prohibit STRs
within the City, to reaffirm existing policy and practice, and to preserve the residential character
of City neighborhoods and stem the negative, secondary effects caused by those uses; and
WHEREAS, during the period beginning June 1, 2023 to the present, the Santa Ana
Police Department (“SAPD”) has received more than 250 calls for service and approximately 80
complaints related to the negative secondary effects of STRs in Santa Ana residential
neighborhoods including but not limited to excessive noise, excessive alcohol use, parking
problems, and fighting. These conditions constitute a public nuisance, threatening public health
and safety and degrading the residential character of homes and neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the City has limited police and staff resources, and these limited resources
have been inordinately taxed by the need to respond to the calls for services and complaints
related to the nuisance conditions created by STRs across the City; and
WHEREAS, STRs also remove housing stock that could otherwise be available for long-
term rental or for sale. Data collected from various STR platforms reveals that there are more
than 700 STRs currently operating in Santa Ana. These 700 STRs are advertised in 1,760 listings
across multiple platforms. The City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for 2021-
2029 is 3,137 permanent housing units. The 700 STRs represent about 22 percent of the City’s
RHNA housing needs, diverting a significant portion of available housing away from permanent
residents; and,
WHEREAS, historically, the City has prohibited STRs under a permissive zoning theory,
meaning that those uses expressly listed in SAMC Section 41-190 of the Zoning Code (Chapter
Ordinance No. NS-XXX
Page 2 of 7
41) are permissible and those not listed (including STRs) are prohibited, and this ordinance seeks
to amend the SAMC to explicitly prohibit STRs in alignment with the City’s current practice and
expectation, as well as compliance with recent court decisions that brought into question the
City’s ability to rely on the aforementioned section of the Zoning Code in specifically addressing
STRs through the Code Enforcement process; and
WHEREAS, failure to amend the SAMC to address aforementioned negative impacts
will threaten the health and safety of Santa Ana neighborhoods and residents, and leave City staff
powerless to uphold and maintain the quality of life in the City; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the City’s police power, as granted broadly under Article XI,
section 7 of the California Constitution, and Santa Ana Charter section 200, the Santa Ana City
Council has the authority to enact and enforce ordinances and regulations for the public peace,
health, and welfare of the City and its residents; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is necessary for preserving the
public peace, health, safety, and welfare to expressly prohibit short-term rentals within the City
and to declare such uses as a public nuisance punishable under the SAMC; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing on November 19, 2024
to consider the first reading of this Ordinance.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Recitals. The recitals above are true, correct and each incorporated herein
by reference and adopted as findings by the Santa Ana City Council (“City Council”)
SECTION 2. Repeal. Article XXI (Sections 8-3400 – 8.3402) of Chapter 8 of the
SAMC is hereby repealed in its entirety.
SECTION 3. Reenactment. Article XXI (Sections 8-3400 – 8-3402) of Chapter 8 of the
SAMC is hereby reenacted in its entirety as follows:
ARTICLE XXI. – SHORT-TERM RENTALS
Sec. 8-3400. – Definitions.
The definitions set forth in this Section shall govern the application and interpretation of this
Article:
(a) Home-sharing rental means the rental of a dwelling unit, or portion thereof, to a person
or group of persons, for compensation whether monetary or otherwise, for lodging or sleeping
purposes for a period of less than thirty (30) consecutive calendar days while at least one of the
dwelling unit’s owners lives on-site, in the dwelling unit, throughout the visitors’ stay.
Ordinance No. NS-XXX
Page 3 of 7
(b) Short-term or vacation rental means the rental to a person or group of persons of a
dwelling unit, or portion thereof, for compensation whether monetary or otherwise, for lodging or
sleeping purposes for a period of less than thirty (30) consecutive calendar days without
concurrently being occupied by the property owner.
Sec. 8-3401. -Prohibited.
It shall be unlawful for any person or entity to: offer or make available for rent (via advertisement
on a short-term or vacation rental website or otherwise) or to rent (by way of a rental agreement,
lease, sublease, license, via a short-term or vacation rental website, or any other means, whether
oral or written) for compensation or consideration a home-sharing rental, short-term or vacation
rental for less than 30 days, pursuant to a rental agreement, lease, sublease, license, via a short-
term or vacation rental website, or any other means, whether oral or written, for compensation or
consideration, or maintain any advertisement of a home-sharing rental, short-term or vacation
rental for less than 30 consecutive days.
Sec. 8-3402. -Violation; nuisance.
Any violation of this Article is unlawful, is hereby declared a public nuisance, and constitutes a
misdemeanor punishable as set forth in Chapter 1 of the SAMC section 1-8. At the discretion of
the City Attorney, a violation of this Article may be prosecuted as an infraction or misdemeanor.
In any civil action brought pursuant to this Article, a court of competent jurisdiction may award
reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section
1-21, the City may issue an administrative citation for any violation of this Article. Such
administrative remedy may be exercised in place of, or in addition to, any administrative,
criminal, civil, or equitable remedy allowed by law.
SECTION 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phase, or portion
of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any
court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this
Ordinance, and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof,
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences,
clauses, phrases or portions might subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 5. CEQA Determination. State CEQA Guidelines section 15164 requires
lead agencies to prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions
to the project are necessary, but none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or
supplemental EIR are present. The City Council has reviewed and considered the General Plan
Update EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2020029087) (“GPU EIR”), the Addendum to the GPU
EIR, and finds that these documents taken together contain a complete and accurate reporting of
all the potential environmental impacts associated with this Ordinance. The City Council finds
that the Addendum has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA
Guidelines. The City Council further finds and determines that the Addendum reflects the City’s
independent judgment.
Ordinance No. NS-XXX
Page 4 of 7
Based on the substantial evidence set forth in the record, including but not limited to the
GPU EIR and the Addendum, the City Council finds that an addendum is the appropriate
document for disclosing the changes to the GPU, and that none of the conditions identified in
Public Resources Code section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15162 requiring
subsequent environmental review have occurred, because the Ordinance does not change or alter
in any way the existing land use designations City-wide set forth in the General Plan Update and
analyzed in the GP EIR. No development, redevelopment, or change to existing development
type in the City is proposed or required to implement the Ordinance. The buildout of housing had
previously been analyzed within the scope of the GPU EIR, and the Ordinance would not result
in additional development of housing within the City. Based on these findings, the City Council
makes the following findings:
a) The Ordinance does not constitute a substantial change that would require major
revisions of the GPU EIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects.
b) There is not a substantial change with respect to the circumstances under which
the Ordinance will be implemented that would require major revisions of the GPU
due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects.
New information of substantial importance has not been presented that was not
known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence
at the time the GPU was certified or adopted, showing any of the following: (i)
that the modifications would have one or more significant effects not discussed in
the earlier environmental documentation; (ii) that significant effects previously
examined would be substantially more severe than shown in the earlier
environmental documentation; (iii) that mitigation measures or alternatives
previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would
substantially reduce one or more significant effects, but the applicant declined to
adopt such measures; or (iv) that mitigation measures or alternatives considerably
different from those analyzed previously would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects on the environment, but which the applicant declined to adopt.
The City Council approves and adopts the Addendum, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
The GPU EIR, the Addendum, and any other documents and materials that constitute the record
of proceedings upon which these findings have been based are on file and available for public
review at the Planning Division public counter located at 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA
92701. The custodian of these records is the City Clerk of the City of Santa Ana.
In the alternative, the adoption of this Ordinance is categorically exempt pursuant to State CEQA
Guidelines section 15301 – Class 1, Existing Facilities. Class 1 consists of the “operation, repair,
maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private
structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, including negligible or no
expansion of existing or former use.” Here, the Ordinance reaffirms existing policy and practice,
prohibiting short-term rentals within the City and the Ordinance would not result in a significant
Ordinance No. NS-XXX
Page 5 of 7
expansion of existing uses or former uses. The operational activities associated with the
Ordinance would be typical of residential development. No development, redevelopment, or
change to existing development type in the City is proposed or required to implement the
Ordinance. Further, none of the exceptions to the exemptions set forth under State CEQA
Guidelines section 15300.2 apply. There will be no significant cumulative impact of successive
projects of the same type in the same place, over time, as this is the only Ordinance prohibiting
short-term rentals. There is no reasonable possibility that the Ordinance will have a significant
effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances because it is reaffirming the existing
prohibition on short-term rentals. The Ordinance will not result in damage to scenic resources,
including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources,
within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway, because the Ordinance does not
propose any ground-breaking activity or construction, but instead continues the existing ban on
short-term rentals. The Ordinance is not located on a site which is included on any list compiled
pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The Ordinance will not cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Thus, the Ordinance falls under the
Class 1 categorical exemption, and no further environmental review is required.
A Notice of Determination and Notice of Exemption will be filed and posted with State
Clearinghouse and the County Clerk within five working days of the adoption of this Ordinance.
SECTION 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days
after its adoption.
SECTION 7. Publication. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Ordinance
and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law.
ADOPTED this ___ day of __________________, 2024.
_______________________
Valerie Amezcua
Mayor
Ordinance No. NS-XXX
Page 6 of 7
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney
_______________________________
Brandon Salvatierra
Deputy City Attorney
AYES: Councilmembers: ________________________________________
NOES: Councilmembers: ________________________________________
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: ________________________________________
NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers: ________________________________________
Ordinance No. NS-XXX
Page 7 of 7
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, Jennifer L. Hall, City Clerk, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Ordinance No. NS-
XXXX to be the original ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on
_________________, 2024.
Date: ________________ ____________________________________
City Clerk
City of Santa Ana
Resolution No. 2024-XXX
Page 1 of 5
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XXX
A RESOLUTON OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA ANA SETTING ADMINSTRATIVE
FINES FOR VIOLATING PROVISIONS OF THE
SANTA ANA MUNICIPAL CODE
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and
declares as follows:
A. California Government Code Section 53069.4 authorizes the City to make violations
of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) subject to an administrative fine and
penalty.
B. On September 21, 2021, Governor Newsom signed into law State Senate Bill 60
which amended California Government Code Section 36900 to increase the
maximum fines for violations of local building codes and short-term rental laws.
C. SAMC Sections 1-21 through 1-21.9 set forth the administrative citation process,
which provides for notice of the violation and the opportunity to contest the citation.
If the citation is continuing and pertains to building, plumbing, electrical, or other
similar structural or zoning issues, and does not create an immediate danger to health
and safety, the responsible person is provided sufficient time to correct the violation
before a fine is imposed.
D. SAMC Section 1-21.3(a) authorizes the City Council to establish by resolution the
amounts of fines associated with administrative citations.
E. The City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing on November 19, 2024 to
consider this Resolution and the first reading of the accompanying Ordinance.
Section 2. The City Council hereby establishes the following fine amounts for
administrative citations for violations of the SAMC:
The amounts of administrative fines shall be assessed as listed below:
A. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 36900(d)(1)&(2), and
notwithstanding any other law, a violation of Article XXI of the SAMC related to
short-term rentals determined to be an infraction that poses a threat to public health or
safety is punishable by the following:
1. A fine not exceeding one thousand, five hundred dollars ($1,500) for a first
violation.
Resolution No. 2024-XXX
Page 2 of 5
2. A fine not exceeding three thousand dollars ($3,000) for a second violation of
the same ordinance within one (1) year of the first violation.
3. A fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000) for each additional
violation of the same ordinance within one (1) year of the first violation.
B. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 36900(e), the citation recipient of a
fine may request a hardship waiver pursuant to the process established by the Director
of the City’s Planning and Building Agency.
Section 3. State CEQA Guidelines section 15164 requires lead agencies to prepare an
addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions to the project are necessary,
but none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR are
present. The City Council has reviewed and considered the General Plan Update EIR (State
Clearinghouse No. 2020029087) (“GPU EIR”), the Addendum to the GPU EIR, and finds that
these documents taken together contain a complete and accurate reporting of all the potential
environmental impacts associated with this Resolution. The City Council finds that the
Addendum has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The
City Council further finds and determines that the Addendum reflects the City’s independent
judgment.
Based on the substantial evidence set forth in the record, including but not limited to the
GPU EIR and the Addendum, the City Council finds that an addendum is the appropriate
document for disclosing the changes to the GPU, and that none of the conditions identified in
Public Resources Code section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15162 requiring
subsequent environmental review have occurred, because the Resolution does not change or alter
in any way the existing land use designations City-wide set forth in the General Plan Update and
analyzed in the GP EIR. No development, redevelopment, or change to existing development
type in the City is proposed or required to implement the Resolution. The buildout of housing
had previously been analyzed within the scope of the GPU EIR, and the Resolution would not
result in additional development of housing within the City. Based on these findings, the City
Council makes the following findings:
a) The Resolution does not constitute a substantial change that would require major
revisions of the GPU EIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects.
b) There is not a substantial change with respect to the circumstances under which
the Resolution will be implemented that would require major revisions of the
GPU due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects.
c) New information of substantial importance has not been presented that was not
known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence
at the time the GPU was certified or adopted, showing any of the following: (i)
that the modifications would have one or more significant effects not discussed in
the earlier environmental documentation; (ii) that significant effects previously
Resolution No. 2024-XXX
Page 3 of 5
examined would be substantially more severe than shown in the earlier
environmental documentation; (iii) that mitigation measures or alternatives
previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would
substantially reduce one or more significant effects, but the applicant declined to
adopt such measures; or (iv) that mitigation measures or alternatives considerably
different from those analyzed previously would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects on the environment, but which the applicant declined to adopt.
The City Council approves and adopts the Addendum, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
The GPU EIR, the Addendum, and any other documents and materials that constitute the
record of proceedings upon which these findings have been based are on file and available for
public review at the Planning Division public counter located at 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa
Ana, CA 92701. The custodian of these records is the City Clerk of the City of Santa Ana.
In the alternative, the adoption of this Resolution is categorically exempt pursuant to
State CEQA Guidelines section 15301 – Class 1, Existing Facilities. Class 1 consists of the
“operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing
public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, including
negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.” Here, the Resolution is adopted in
conjunction with existing policy and practice, prohibiting short-term rentals within the City and
the Resolution would not result in a significant expansion of existing uses or former uses. The
operational activities associated with the Resolution would be typical of enforcement of
municipal ordinances. No development, redevelopment, or change to existing development type
in the City is proposed or required to implement the Resolution. Further, none of the exceptions
to the exemptions set forth under State CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply. There will be
no significant cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over
time, as this is the only Resolution establishing the fines for short-term rentals. There is no
reasonable possibility that the Resolution will have a significant effect on the environment due to
unusual circumstances because it is reaffirming the existing prohibition on short-term rentals.
The Resolution will not result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees,
historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated
as a state scenic highway, because the Resolution does not propose any ground-breaking activity
or construction, but instead continues the existing ban on short-term rentals. The Resolution is
not located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Government Code
section 65962.5. The Resolution will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource. Thus, the Resolution falls under the Class 1 categorical exemption, and
no further environmental review is required.
A Notice of Determination and Notice of Exemption will be filed and posted with State
Clearinghouse and the County Clerk within five working days of the adoption of this Resolution.
Section 4. This Resolution shall take effect on the effective date of Ordinance No.
NS-XXX, and the City Clerk shall attest to and certify the vote adopting this Resolution.
Resolution No. 2024-XXX
Page 4 of 5
ADOPTED this ____day of November, 2024
_______________________
Valerie Amezcua
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney
By:_________________________
Brandon Salvatierra
Deputy City Attorney
AYES: Councilmembers ________________________________________
NOES: Councilmembers _______________________________________
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers _______________________________________
NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers _______________________________________
Resolution No. 2024-XXX
Page 5 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, Jennifer L. Hall, City Clerk, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2024-
______ to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on
November ___, 2024.
Date: ________________ ____________________________________
City Clerk
City of Santa Ana
Addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report
for the Santa Ana General Plan
State Clearinghouse No. 2020029087
City of Santa Ana Short-Term Rental
Prohibition Ordinance
City of Santa Ana
Prepared for:
City of Santa Ana
Contact: Ali Pezeshkpour, AICP
20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20
Santa Ana, California 92701
Tel: 714.667.2793
Prepared by:
PlaceWorks
Contact: Malia Durand, Associate Principal
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Santa Ana, California 92707
714.966.9220
info@placeworks.com
www.placeworks.com
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Table of Contents
Page i
Section Page
1.INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ......................................................................................... 1
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION ....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION.......................................................................... 1
1.3.1 Environmental Analysis Findings........................................................................................................ 2
1.4 ADDENDUM FORMAT .................................................................................................................................... 5
2.CEQA REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................................. 7
2.1 CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15301 EXEMPTION ............................................................................ 7
2.1.1 Basis for CEQA Addendum ................................................................................................................ 9
3.PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................. 13
3.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................... 13
4.EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ......................................................................... 15
4.1 AESTHETICS ...................................................................................................................................................... 15
4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ................................................................................... 16
4.3 AIR QUALITY ..................................................................................................................................................... 17
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................................................... 22
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................... 23
4.6 ENERGY ............................................................................................................................................................... 28
4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .................................................................................................................................. 29
4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................................................................................... 31
4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ......................................................................................... 33
4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................................................................................................... 35
4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING ...................................................................................................................... 37
4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................................................. 38
4.13 NOISE .................................................................................................................................................................... 39
4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING .................................................................................................................. 42
4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................................................................................ 43
4.16 RECREATION .................................................................................................................................................... 44
4.17 TRANSPORTATION ......................................................................................................................................... 45
4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................................. 46
4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................ 47
4.20 WILDFIRE ............................................................................................................................................................ 49
4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .................................................................................... 49
5.FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................................... 51
6.LIST OF PREPARERS .................................................................................................................. 53
CITY OF SANTA ANA ...................................................................................................................................................... 53
PLACEWORKS .................................................................................................................................................................... 53
7.REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 55
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Table of Contents
Page ii PlaceWorks
Figure Page
Figure 1 Regional Map ......................................................................................................................................... 3
APPENDICES
Appendix A Proposed City of Santa Ana Short-Term Rental Prohibition Ordinance
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
Page 1
1. Introduction and Background
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The City of Santa Ana (City) is in the western central portion of Orange County, approximately 30 miles
southeast of the city of Los Angeles and 10 miles northeast of the city of Newport Beach. Santa Ana is
bordered by the city of Orange and unincorporated areas of Orange County to the north, the city of Tustin to
the east, the cities of Irvine and Costa Mesa to the south, and the cities of Fountain Valley and Garden Grove
to the west (refer to Figure 1, Regional Map). In November 2019, the City annexed the 17th Street Island, a
24.78-acre area in the northeast portion of the city. The 17th Street Island is bounded by State Route 55 to the
east, 17th Street to the south, and North Tustin Avenue to the west. The City also includes a portion of the
Santa Ana River Drainage Channel within its sphere of influence (SOI).
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City of Santa Ana is a 27.4-square-mile area developed with a variety of urban land uses. The Civic Center
in Santa Ana is Orange County's main center of government. The Santa Ana River runs north to south through
the northwestern part of the city. The city is a 99 percent built-out community in urbanized Orange County,
bordered by a mix of land uses. The surrounding cities of Orange, Garden Grove, Fountain Valley, Costa Mesa,
and Irvine all contain a variety of residential, commercial, industrial, and open space uses.
1.3 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
This Addendum relies on the environmental analysis in the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for
the Santa Ana General Plan (GP). The original Program EIR for the GP was circulated for public review from
August 3, 2020, through September 27, 2020, then extended for an additional 20 days through October 6, 2020.
A Final EIR was prepared and a Planning Commission Public Hearing held on November 9, 2020. The
Planning Commission directed extended public outreach and modifications to the GP. A Recirculated Draft
EIR (REIR) was prepared and circulated for public review mid-August 2021 to September 2021. A Final EIR
was prepared and the 2021 Final EIR certified on April 20, 2022. The certified Final EIR for the GP is a
consolidation of the original Draft EIR, the update Recirculated Draft EIR, and the Final EIR including
Response to Comments and revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIRs to address public and agency
comments and incorporate other updates. The REIR, the original Draft EIR, and the Final EIR are collectively
referred to as “GP EIR.” These environmental documents are available on the City of Santa Ana website. In
accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15148 and 15150, this Addendum incorporates the GP EIR (and
its constituent parts) by reference.
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
1. Introduction and Background
Page 2 PlaceWorks
The GP EIR analyzed the comprehensive update of the Santa Ana General Plan (Approved Project). The
GP EIR addressed the entire territory within the plan area’s boundary and the full spectrum of issues associated
with management of the plan area. The General Plan also included forecasts of long-term conditions and
outlined development goals and policies; exhibits and diagrams; and the objectives, principles, standards, and
plan proposals throughout its various elements. Specifically, the General Plan identified policies related to
promoting compatible land uses, preserving neighborhood character, promoting healthy neighborhoods, and
promoting the enforcement of standards.
1.3.1 Environmental Analysis Findings
The GP EIR addressed the potential impacts of the GP and provided mitigation measures, as necessary, for
impacts determined to be potentially significant.
Two environmental categories were found to have no impacts:
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Wildfire
The following environmental categories were found to have less than significant impacts upon implementation
of General Plan policies, existing regulations, and standard conditions of approval: No CEQA mitigation was
required for:
Aesthetics
Energy
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Transportation
Utilities and Service Systems
The following impacts were determined to be less than significant upon implementation General Plan policies,
existing regulations, standard conditions of approval, and recommended CEQA Mitigation Measures:
Biological Resources
Geology and Soils
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Tribal Cultural Resources
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
1. Introduction and Background
Page 3
Figure 1 Regional Map
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
1. Introduction and Background
Page 4 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
1. Introduction and Background
Page 5
Implementation of the General Plan was determined to result in significant, unavoidable impacts, even with
feasible mitigation, for the following categories:
Air Quality
Cultural Resources
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Noise
Population and Housing
Recreation
1.4 ADDENDUM FORMAT
The Addendum is structured as follows:
Section 1. Introduction and Background. Summarizes the background and scope of analysis of the
Addendum, previous environmental EIR incorporated by reference, and the format of the Addendum.
Section 2. CEQA Requirements. Describes the purpose of an Addendum per CEQA and associated
environmental procedures.
Section 3. Project Description: Includes a description of the City of Santa Ana Short-Term Rental
Prohibition Ordinance and further discusses the purpose of the Addendum to the EIR.
Section 4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts. Includes the analysis addressing each environmental issue
analyzed in the certified EIR as compared to the potential changes in environmental impacts due to the
proposed Ordinance
Section 5. Findings. Summarizes the findings of the environmental review and substantiates the preparation
of an Addendum for the EIR.
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
1. Introduction and Background
Page 6 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
Page 7
2. CEQA Requirements
2.1 CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15301 EXEMPTION
This section is provided for informational purposes and provides a discussion of the Modified Project’s
qualification for an exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1, Existing Facilities). The Class 1
Exemption consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of
existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving
negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The key consideration is whether the project involves
negligible or no expansion of use.
Pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) Section 41-190(a), the Zoning Code (Chapter 41 of the SAMC)
is a permissive ordinance, meaning that those uses expressly listed in the Zoning Code are permissible, and
those not listed are prohibited. The SAMC does not and has never listed short-term rentals (STR) as a
permissible use in any zoning district, making them prohibited and unauthorized under the enforcement
practice afforded by Section 41-190(a). The City proposes an amendment to the Santa Ana Municipal Code
(SAMC) to expressly prohibit short-term rentals within the city, to reaffirm existing law (SAMC Section
41-190[a]), and to preserve the residential character of city neighborhoods and stem the negative, secondary
effects caused by those uses. Specifically, the City proposes the readoption of the Short-Term Rental
Prohibition Ordinance that adds Article XXI (Section 8-3400 through 8-34002) to Chapter 8 of the SAMC to
provide definitions related to short-term rentals, identify prohibited uses, and identify violations (herein
“Modified Project”). The Modified Project qualifies for the Class 1 exemption as the Modified Project would
not result in a significant expansion of existing uses or former uses. The Modified Project is reaffirming existing
law. The operational activities associated with the Modified Project would be typical of residential development.
No development, redevelopment, or change to existing development type in the City is proposed or required
to implement the Modified Project.
The Modified Project has been reviewed under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2, Exceptions, for any
characteristics or circumstances that might invalidate the project’s qualification for an exemption from CEQA.
Each exception is listed below followed by a brief assessment of whether that exception applies to the Modified
Project.
(a) Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6 and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project would
be located—a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a
particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply
in all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous
or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped and officially adopted pursuant to law by
federal, state, or local agencies.
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
2. CEQA Requirements
Page 8 PlaceWorks
This exception applies to the Class 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 exemptions. The project fits the Class 1 exemption, which
is not location-dependent. Further the use can only occur within a dwelling that is already constructed, which
means the requisite CEQA analysis has been completed and the project approved. Therefore, the location
exception does not apply to the Class 1 exemption and further analysis is not required.
(b) Cumulative Impacts. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative
impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.
No development, redevelopment, or change in existing development type is proposed or required within the
City to implement the Modified Project. Therefore, the Modified Project would not combine with similar
projects to create a cumulative impact during construction or operation. This exception does not apply to the
Modified Project.
(c) Significant Effects. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is
a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to
unusual circumstances.
The determination whether this exception applies involves two distinct questions: (1) whether the project
presents unusual circumstances, and (2) whether there is a reasonable possibility that a significant environmental
impact will result from the unusual circumstances. The lead agency considers the second prong of this test only
if it finds that some circumstance of the project is unusual. Berkeley Hillside Preservation v City of Berkeley (2015)
60 C4th 1086, 1104.
Because the Modified Project is not dependent upon location, it presents no unusual circumstances or special
environmental constraints that might lead to a significant impact. Additionally, there are no unusual
circumstances because this Modified Project is implementing ongoing City practice and there are no new
changes, physical or otherwise, that would occur as a result of the Modified Project. The city is urbanized. No
construction, redevelopment, or change in existing development type is required to implement the Modified
Project. Additionally, activities associated with the operation of the long-term rental uses under the Modified
Project would not differ from the activities that occur under owner-occupied dwelling units within the city and
would be consistent with the GP. Since no unusual circumstances would arise because of the Modified Project,
there is no potential for a significant environmental impact to occur. This exception does not apply to the
Modified Project.
(d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may
result in damage in scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock
outcroppings or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic
highway.
There are no State designed scenic highways within the City. Additionally, no development, redevelopment, or
change in existing development type is required to implement the Modified Project. Therefore, this exception
does not apply to the Modified Project.
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
2. CEQA Requirements
Page 9
(e) Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located
on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5.
As identified in Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the GP EIR, 425 hazardous materials sites
were identified in the city but only 63 of the sites are open, meaning that assessment, remediation, and/or
verification of remediation is required. Any development or redevelopment on or next to any of the 63 sites
would require environmental site assessment by a qualified environmental professional (GP EIR p. 5.8-27). The
Modified Project encompasses the city; no development, redevelopment, or change in existing development
type is required to implement the Modified Project. The Modified Project would add Article XXI to Chapter 8
of the SAMC that would clarify the uses permitted and prohibited to reaffirm existing law identified in Section
41-190(a) of the SAMC. The Modified Project would apply to existing residential units and would not relocate
uses nor locate new uses on a site identified on any list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5. This exception does not apply to the Modified Project.
(f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of historical resources. Under Public
Resource Code Section 21084.1, a historical resource is a resource listed in or determined to be
eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. Additionally, historical
resources included in a local register of historical resources are presumed to be historically or
culturally significant, and a lead agency can determine whether the resource may be an historical
resource.
The Modified Project encompasses the city; no development, redevelopment, or change in existing
development type is required to implement the Modified Project. The Modified Project would add Article XXI
to Chapter 8 of the SAMC that would clarify the uses permitted and prohibited to reaffirm existing law in
Section 41-190(a) of the SAMC. The Modified Project is not anticipated to result is a substantial adverse change
in the significance of historical resources. This exception does not apply to the Modified Project.
2.1.1 Basis for CEQA Addendum
In addition to the Class 1 exemption, the City has also prepared this Addendum to the GP EIR. The California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15162 through 15164 set forth criteria for determining
the required additional environmental documentation when a previously adopted Negative Declaration (ND)
or a previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for a project for which a
subsequent discretionary action is necessary.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) and 15163 state that when an ND has been adopted or an EIR certified
for a project, no Subsequent or Supplemental EIR or Subsequent ND shall be prepared for that project unless
the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole public record, one or
more of the following:
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
2. CEQA Requirements
Page 10 PlaceWorks
A. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the
previous EIR or ND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
The Modified Project proposes to amend the SAMC to add Article XXI to Chapter 8 to clarify the uses
permitted and prohibited to reaffirm existing law identified in Section 41-190(a) of the SAMC. No physical
changes are required to implement the Modified Project. As discussed under Section 4, Evaluation of
Environmental Impacts, of this EIR Addendum, the Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe
significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR. This criterion does not apply to the Modified Project.
B. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or ND due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity
of previously identified significant effects.
No substantial changes have occurred in the City with respect to the circumstances under which the Approved
Project was undertaken that requires major revisions to the GP EIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effect or substantial increase in the severity of impacts previously identified in the GP EIR. This
criterion does not apply to the Modified Project.
C. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as
complete or the ND was adopted, shows any of the following:
i. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous
EIR or ND; or
As discussed in Section 4 of this EIR Addendum, the Modified Project would not result in any new significant
impacts not discussed in the GP EIR. This criterion does not apply to the Modified Project.
ii. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than
shown in the previously adopted ND or previously certified EIR; or
As discussed in Section 4 of this EIR Addendum, the Modified Project would not result in more severe
significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR. This criterion does not apply to the Modified Project.
iii. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in
fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of
the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative; or
As discussed in Section 4 of this EIR Addendum, the Modified Project would not require new mitigation
measures and does not identify alternatives previously found not feasible to be feasible. Additionally, the
Modified Project would not substantially reduce the significant impacts identified in the GP EIR. This criterion
does not apply to the Modified Project.
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
2. CEQA Requirements
Page 11
iv. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those
analyzed in the previous ND or EIR would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt
the mitigation measure or alternative.
As discussed in Section 4 of this EIR Addendum, the Modified Project does not identify any mitigation
measures or alternatives that are considerable different than those identified and analyzed in the GP EIR that
would substantially reduce one or more of the significant impact identified in the GP EIR. This criterion does
not apply to the Modified Project.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a) states that an addendum to a previously certified EIR may be prepared if
some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for
preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR have occurred. CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(b) states
that an addendum to a previously adopted ND may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions
are necessary.
The proposed Ordinance does not change or alter in any way the existing land use designations citywide set
forth in the General Plan and analyzed in the GP EIR. No development, redevelopment, or change to existing
development type in the city is proposed or required to implement the Modified Project. The Modified Project
is consistent with the GP as analyzed in the GP EIR. As concluded in Impact 5.13.2 of the GP EIR, the GP
“would provide more housing opportunities than currently exist” and the GP would not displace people and/or
housing (GP EIR p. 5.13-14–5.13-15). The Modified Project would not construct new housing but would
prevent the loss of existing housing stock for city residents. Congruently, the Modified Project would not
displace people and/or housing, and would be consistent with GP Policy 2.3, Rental housing, and Policy 2.4,
Diverse types of housing, as discussed within the GP EIR. Additionally, buildout of housing (including existing
homes being utilized as STRs) had previously been analyzed within the scope of the GP EIR, and the Modified
Project would not result in additional development of housing within the city. The anticipated environmental
impacts of the Modified Project, as explained in this Addendum, have therefore been analyzed and mitigated
in the GP EIR, and no new circumstances or significant changes since that time would result in new or more
severe significant environmental impacts. As evaluated in the Addendum, mitigation measures in the GP EIR
would continue to ensure that impacts are reduced to less than significant levels.
As such, CEQA does not require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. Further, the Addendum
includes an Environmental Review Update Checklist Form (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines) that has
been prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15164(e) to explain the rationale for
determining that no further environmental review is required. Per State CEQA Guidelines section 15164(c), an
Addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the certified EIR.
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
2. CEQA Requirements
Page 12 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
Page 13
3. Project Description
3.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Section 41-190(a) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code is a permissive ordinance, meaning that those uses expressly
listed in the Zoning Code are permissible, and those not listed are prohibited. The SAMC does not and has
never listed short-term rentals as a permissible use in any zoning district. As such STRs are prohibited and
unauthorized under the enforcement practice afforded by Section 41-190(a).
The Santa Ana City Council is proposing to readopt an amendment to add Article XXI (Sections 8-3400 to
8-3402) to SAMC to expressly prohibit short-term rentals within the city (Modified Project). This would nullify
and replace the terms of the urgency ordinance No. NS-3060 and standard ordinance No. NS-3061, adopted
on April 2, 2024 and April 16, 2024.
Modified Project Components
The Modified Project would add Article XXI (Short-Term -Rentals) (Sections 8-3400–8-3402) to Chapter 8,
Building and Standards, of the SAMC. Specifically, Article XXI would include Sections 8-3400 through 8-3402
to provide definitions, identify prohibited uses, and identify violations of the Article. A description of each
new section of Article XXI is provided in Attachment A of this EIR Addendum. Concurrently, the City Council
is proposing to adopt a resolution to set administrative fines for violations of local building codes and short-
term rental laws, pursuant to Government Code Section 36900 and Santa Ana Municipal Code Sections 1-21
through 1-21.9.
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
3. Project Description
Page 14 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
Page 15
4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, the following analysis addresses each of the
environmental issues analyzed in the GP EIR as compared to the potential changes in environmental impacts
due to the Modified Project.
4.1 AESTHETICS
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
AE-1 Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
AE-2 Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,
and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
AE-3 In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings (Public views are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
AE-4 Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR
As discussed in Section 5.1, Aesthetics, of the GP EIR, the city is highly urbanized, and views of the city are
characterized by an urban landscape. The Approved Project would alter the visual appearance of the existing
conditions to a visually denser urban setting and alter Santa Ana’s skyline. However, it would not create a
substantially adverse impact on scenic vistas nor degrade the city’s visual character or quality. Adherence with
existing State and local regulations and the GP policies would ensure that future development in Santa Ana
would not degrade the views and visual character of the city and would not conflict with zoning and other
regulations that govern scenic quality. The GP EIR concluded impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR
p. 5.1-30).
No state scenic highways, eligible or officially designated, traverse the city nor are located near the city. The
GP EIR concluded that no impacts to scenic resources within state scenic highways would occur (GP EIR p.
5.1-31).
Additionally, the Approved Project will generate new and intensify sources of light and glare. With adherence
to the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24,
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Page 16 PlaceWorks
Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations) as amended by the Santa Ana Municipal Code Chapter 8, Article
II, impacts would be minimized and impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR p. 5.1-32).
Analysis of the Modified Project
The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs. The Modified Project would not require development,
redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city. Additionally, the existing conditions for
aesthetics and aesthetics resources have not changed since the certification of the GP EIR; the city is considered
highly urbanized with views characterized by an urban landscape; and no state scenic highways, eligible or
officially designated, traverse the city nor are located near the city (GP EIR p.5.1-20–5.1-32; Caltrans 2024).
The Modified Project is not anticipated to result in any physical impacts on the environment. The Modified
Project would not result in any new sources of artificial light or glare. No impact would occur. The Modified
Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR.
The GP EIR Regulatory Requirement (RR) AE-1 through AE-3 are not applicable to the Modified Project
because the Modified Project is not a development project. Additionally, the Modified Project would not
obstruct the City’s ability to implement applicable GP policies.
4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
AG-1 Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
AG-2 Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
AG-3 Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section
51104(g))?
AG -4 Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
AG -5 Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-
forest use?
Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR
As discussed in Section 8.1, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, of the GP EIR the Approved Project would
allow for the development of a mix of uses within highly urbanized areas of the city. Additionally, the city is
nearly built out and does not contain any significant agricultural resources, nor does the city contain any land
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Page 17
subject to the Williamson Act Contract. Furthermore, the city does not contain any land zoned for forestland,
timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland production. Therefore, the GP would have no impact on
agricultural and forest resources (GP EIR p. 8-1–8.2).
Analysis of the Modified Project
The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. The Modified Project
would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the City. The
Modified Project is not anticipated to result in any physical impacts on the environment. Additionally, the
existing conditions for agriculture and forest resources have not changed since the certification of the GP EIR.
No impacts would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts
than those identified in the GP EIR.
4.3 AIR QUALITY
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
AQ-1 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
AQ-2 Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
AQ-3 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
AQ-4 Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR
As discussed in detail in Section 5.2, Air Quality, of the GP EIR, the Approved Project would exceed population
estimates used in the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), and emissions associated with the additional
population were not included in the regional emissions inventory for the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB).
Additionally, air pollutant emissions associated with the buildout of the Approved Project would cumulatively
contribute to the nonattainment designations in the SoCAB (GP EIR p. 5.2-30). The GP EIR identified
mitigation measures (MM) AQ-1 and AQ-2 to reduce impacts related to construction and operational
emissions. The GP EIR determined that with the implementation of mitigation measures, impacts would
remain significant and unavoidable.
The Approved Project would result in construction emissions that would exceed South Coast Air Quality
Management District (AQMD) thresholds (GP EIR p. 5.2-31). The buildout of the Approved Project could
exceed the South Coast AQMD regional emissions threshold under operational conditions (GP EIR p. 5.2-34).
The GP EIR determined that with the implementation of MMs AQ -1 and AQ-2, impacts would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Page 18 PlaceWorks
The Approved Project would result in new land uses that could generate new sources of toxic air contaminants
(TAC) in the City from area/stationary sources and mobile sources. The GP EIR identified that the new land
uses consistent with the Approved Project would generate new sources of TACs from area/stationary sources
and mobile sources (GP EIR p. 5.2-37). The GP EIR identified MMs AQ-1 through AQ-3 to reduce impacts
to sensitive receptors due to construction and operational activities (MM AQ-1 and AQ-2) and specifically
industrial development project operation activities (MM AQ-3). The GP EIR determined that with the
implementation of mitigation measures impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
The Approved Project could generate potentially significant odor impacts for a substantial number of people
generated from industrial land uses associated with the Approved Project. The GP EIR concluded that potential
odors generated from residential and other non-residential land uses associated with the Approved Project
would not result in potential significant odors (GP EIR p. 5.2-28). The GP EIR identified mitigation measure
MM AQ-4 to reduce impacts related to operational odors due to industrial development. The GP EIR
determined that impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation.
The GP EIR Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ -4 are reproduced below. Modifications to the GP EIR
Mitigation Measures associated with the recirculation of the GP EIR are represented in underline for additions
and strikeout for deletions.
AQ-1 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana for development projects subject to
CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., non-exempt projects), project
applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project
construction-related air quality impacts to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval. The
evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management
District (South Coast AQMD) methodology for assessing air quality impacts. If construction-
related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast
AQMD’s adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Santa Ana shall require that
applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air
pollutant emissions during construction activities. These identified measures shall be
incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management
plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City. Mitigation measures to reduce
construction-related emissions could include, but are not limited to:
Require fugitive-dust control measures that exceed South Coast AQMD’s Rule 403, such
as:
• Use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion.
• Apply water every four hours to active soil-disturbing activities.
• Tarp and/or maintain a minimum of 24 inches of freeboard on trucks hauling dirt,
sand, soil, or other loose materials.
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Page 19
Use construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
as having Tier 3 (model year 2006 or newer) or Tier 4 (model year 2008 or newer) emission
limits, applicable for engines between 50 and 750 horsepower.
Ensure that construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the
manufacturer’s standards.
Limit nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five consecutive
minutes.
Limit on-site vehicle travel speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving
the project area.
Use Super-Compliant VOC paints for coating of architectural surfaces whenever possible.
A list of Super-Compliant architectural coating manufactures can be found on the South
Coast AQMD’s website.
AQ-2 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana for development projects subject to
CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., non-exempt projects), project
applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project
operation phase-related air quality impacts to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval.
The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management
District (South Coast AQMD) methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If operation-
related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD’s
adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Santa Ana shall require that applicants for new
development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions
during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the
conditions of approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions could
include, but are not limited to the following:
For site-specific development that requires refrigerated vehicles, the construction
documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service connections at
loading docks for plug-in of the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce
idling time and emissions.
Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy storage and
combined heat and power in appropriate applications to optimize renewable energy
generation systems and avoid peak energy use.
Site-specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and truck parking spaces
shall include signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked for
loading/unloading in accordance with California Air Resources Board Rule 2845 (13 CCR
Chapter 10 § 2485).
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Page 20 PlaceWorks
Provide changing/shower facilities as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 of the CALGreen
Code (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures).
Provide bicycle parking facilities per Section A4.106.9 (Residential Voluntary Measures)
of the CALGreen Code and Sec. 41-1307.1 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code.
Provide preferential parking spaces for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van
vehicles per Section A5.106.5.1 of the CALGreen Code (Nonresidential Voluntary
Measures).
Provide facilities to support electric charging stations per Section A5.106.5.3
(Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) and Section A5.106.8.2 (Residential Voluntary
Measures) of the CALGreen Code.
Applicant-provided appliances (e.g., dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and
dryers) shall be Energy Star–certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy
efficiency. Installation of Energy Star–certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified
by Building & Safety during plan check.
Applicants for future development projects along existing and planned transit routes shall
coordinate with the City of Santa Ana and Orange County Transit Authority to ensure
that bus pad and shelter improvements are incorporated, as appropriate.
AQ-3 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana, project applicants for new industrial
or warehousing development projects that 1) have the potential to generate 100 or more diesel
truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel-powered transport
refrigeration units, and 2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools,
hospitals, or nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the project to the property
line of the nearest sensitive use, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of
Santa Ana for review and approval. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies
and procedures of the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the
South Coast Air Quality Management District. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer
risk and/or noncancer hazard index exceed the respective thresholds, as established by the
South Coast AQMD at the time a project is considered, the project applicant will be required
to identify and demonstrate that best available control technologies for toxics (T-BACTs),
including appropriate enforcement mechanisms, are capable of reducing potential cancer and
noncancer risks to an acceptable level. T-BACTs may include, but are not limited to, restricting
idling on-site, electrifying warehousing docks to reduce diesel particulate matter, or requiring
use of newer equipment and/or vehicles. T BACTs identified in the HRA shall be identified
as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or incorporated into the site plan.
AQ-4 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana, if it is determined that a development
project has the potential to emit nuisance odors beyond the property line, an odor
management plan shall be prepared by the project applicant and submitted to the City of Santa
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Page 21
Ana for review and approval. Facilities that have the potential to generate nuisance odors
include, but are not limited to:
Wastewater treatment plants
Composting, green waste, or recycling facilities
Fiberglass manufacturing facilities
Painting/coating operations
Large-capacity coffee roasters
Food-processing facilities
The odor management plan shall demonstrate compliance with the South Coast Air Quality
Management District’s Rule 402 for nuisance odors. The Odor Management Plan shall identify
the best available control technologies for toxics (T-BACTs) that will be utilized to reduce
potential odors to acceptable levels, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. T-BACTs
may include but are not limited to scrubbers (i.e., air pollution control devices) at the industrial
facility. T-BACTs identified in the odor management plan shall be identified as mitigation
measures in the environmental document prepared for the development project and/or
incorporated into the project’s site plan.
Analysis of the Modified Project
The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. The Modified Project
would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the City. The
existing conditions related to air quality have not changed since the certification of the GP EIR.
Operational activities associated with long-term rentals and permanent residences would be consistent with the
operational activities analyzed in the GP EIR for residential uses. Increases in impacts to air quality, are based
on construction of new structures generating new vehicle trips or population growth. The Modified Project
would only affect existing structures, would not induce population growth, and therefore there would be no
change in air quality impacts beyond those identified the GP EIR, which analyzed impacts from buildout of
the GP. The Modified Project would not result in any physical impacts on the environment or impacts
associated with air quality. No impacts would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more
severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR.
GP EIR RR AQ-1 through RR AQ-3 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project
does not require construction. The Modified Project would not obstruct the City’s ability to implement
applicable GP policies.
GP EIR MMs AQ-1, AQ-2, and AQ-4 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project
is not a development project. MM AQ-3 is not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project
does not propose new industrial or warehousing development.
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Page 22 PlaceWorks
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
BIO-1 Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
BIO-2 Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
BIO-3 Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
BIO-4 Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
BIO-5 Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
BIO-6 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR
As discussed in Section 5.3, Biological Resources, of the GP EIR the Approved Project would allow
development within the City’s SOI, and five special status species have the potential to exist in the region
(GP EIR p. 5.3-17–20). The Approved Project would change the land use designation on certain parcels for
development, however, none of the parcels currently have sensitive vegetation. Future development site-
specific analysis would be required for development and could reveal unknown biological resources (GP EIR
p. 5.3-20). The GP EIR determined that with implementation of MM BIO-1 and applicable GP policies and
compliance with RR B-1 through RR B-5, a less than significant impact on riparian or other sensitive natural
communities would occur.
The Approved Project would not impact wetlands and jurisdictional waters because the GP would not change
land use designations of the Santa Ana River, Santiago Creek, and channels; thus, a less than significant impact
would occur (GP EIR p. 5.3-20).
The GP EIR determined that the Approved Project would intensify development within the city, which could
impact wildlife movement (GP EIR p. 5.3-20–5.3-21). Buildout of the Approved Project could affect wildlife
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Page 23
movement, nesting sites, and migratory birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as state law.
However, with the implementation of MM BIO-1 and applicable GP policies and compliance with RR B-2, the
GP EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant.
The city is not within a Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) or Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP) (GP EIR p. 5.3-21). Future development would be required to adhere to local, State, and federal laws
and regulations governing the protection and preservation of wildlife, plants, and habitat. With adherence to
local, State, and federal laws and regulations and because the city is not within an adopted NCCP/HCP area,
impacts would be less than significant.
GP EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is reproduced here.
BIO-1 For development or redevelopment projects that would disturb vegetated land or major stream
and are subject to CEQA, a qualified biologist shall conduct an initial screening to determine
whether a site-specific biological resource report is warranted. If needed, a qualified biologist
shall conduct a field survey for the site and prepare a biological resource assessment for the
project, including an assessment of potential impacts to sensitive species, habitats, and
jurisdictional waters. The report shall recommend mitigation measures, as appropriate, to
avoid or limit potential biological resource impacts to less than significant.
Analysis of the Modified Project
The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. The Modified Project
would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city.
Additionally, the existing conditions related to biological resources have not changed since the certification of
the GP EIR. The Modified Project is not anticipated to result in physical impacts on the environment. No
impacts would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than
those identified in the GP EIR.
GP EIR RR B-1 through RR B-5 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project does
not require construction. The Modified Project would not obstruct the City’s ability to implement applicable
GP policies.
It should be noted that GP EIR MM BIO-1 is not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified
Project is not a development project
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
CUL-1 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Page 24 PlaceWorks
CUL-2 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5?
CUL-3 Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR
As discussed in detail in Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, of the GP EIR, the city contains historical resources
since its building stock is at least 45 years old. Implementation of development projects under the Approved
Project have the potential to impact historical resources in the city. The GP EIR identified MMs CUL-1 through
CUL-3 to reduce impacts related to historic resources. With compliance with RRs CUL-1 through CUL-6 and
implementation of applicable GP policies and MM CUL-1 through CUL-3, the GP EIR determined that
impacts would remain significant and unavoidable (GP EIR p. 5.4-26).
The GP EIR determined that eight archeological resources were recorded in the city, including four prehistoric
sites, one multicomponent site, and three historic isolates. The GP EIR determined that development involving
ground disturbance within the city has the potential to impact known and unknown archaeological resources.
The GP EIR identified MMs CUL-4 through CUL-6 to reduce impacts due to ground disturbance activities on
cultural resources. With compliance with RR CUL-1 and implementation of applicable GP policies and MM
CUL-4 through CUL-7, the GP EIR determined that impacts would remain significant and unavoidable
(GP EIR p. 5.4-27).
The GP EIR determined that development in accordance with the Approved Project would be limited to infill
files and previously disturbed land within an urban development; however, there is low potential for
implementing development projects to encounter human remains. The Approved Project would be required to
comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, and Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98 to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. With compliance
with RR CUL-1, the GP EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR p. 5.4-27–5.4-
28).
The GP EIR Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-7 are reproduced below. Modifications to the GP EIR
Mitigation Measures associated with the recirculation of the GP EIR are represented in underline for additions
and strikeout for deletions.
CUL-1 Identification of Historical Resources and Potential Project Impacts. For structures 45 years
or older, a Historical Resources Assessment (HRA) shall be prepared by an architectural
historian or historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification
Standards. The HRA shall include: definition of a study area or area of potential effect, which
will encompass the affected property and may include surrounding properties or historic
district(s); an intensive level survey of the study area to identify and evaluate under federal,
State, and local criteria significance historical resources that might be directly or indirectly
affected by the proposed project; and an assessment of project impacts. The HRA shall satisfy
federal and State guidelines for the identification, evaluation, and recordation of historical
resources. An HRA is not required if an existing historic resources survey and evaluation of
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Page 25
the property is available; however, if the existing survey and evaluation is more than five years
old, it shall be updated.
CUL-2 Use of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
the Treatment of Historic Properties shall be used to the maximum extent practicable to
ensure that projects involving the relocation, conversion, rehabilitation, or alteration of a
historical resource and its setting or related new construction will not impair the significance
of the historical resource. Use of the Standards shall be overseen by an architectural historian
or historic architect meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification
Standards. Evidence of compliance with the Standards shall be provided to the City in the
form of a report identifying and photographing character-defining features and spaces and
specifying how the proposed treatment of character-defining features and spaces and related
construction activities will conform to the Standards. The Qualified Professional shall monitor
the construction and provide a report to the City at the conclusion of the project. Use of the
Secretary’s Standards shall reduce the project impacts on historical resources to less than
significant.
CUL-3 Documentation, Education, and Memorialization. If the City determines that significant
impacts to historical resources cannot be avoided, the City shall require, at a minimum, that
the affected historical resources be thoroughly documented before issuance of any permits
and may also require additional public education efforts and/or memorialization of the
historical resource. Though demolition or alteration of a historical resource such that its
significance is materially impaired cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level,
recordation of the resource will reduce significant adverse impacts to historical resources to
the maximum extent feasible. Such recordation should be prepared under the supervision of
an architectural historian, historian, or historic architect meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualification Standards and should take the form of Historic American Buildings
Survey (HABS) documentation. At a minimum, this recordation should include an
architectural and historical narrative; archival photographic documentation; and
supplementary information, such as building plans and elevations and/or historic
photographs. The documentation package should be reproduced on archival paper and should
be made available to researchers and the public through accession by appropriate institutions
such as the Santa Ana Library History Room, the South Central Coastal Information Center
at California State University, Fullerton, and/or the HABS collection housed in the Library of
Congress. Depending on the significance of the adversely affected historical resource, the City,
at its discretion, may also require public education about the historical resource in the form
of an exhibit, web page, brochure, or other format and/or memorialization of the historical
resource on or near the proposed project site. If memorialized, such memorialization shall be
a permanent installation, such as a mural, display, or other vehicle that recalls the location,
appearance, and historical significance of the affected historical resource, and shall be designed
in conjunction with a qualified architectural historian, historian, or historic architect.
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Page 26 PlaceWorks
CUL-4 For projects with ground disturbance—e.g., grading, excavation, trenching, boring, or
demolition that extend below the current grade—prior to issuance of any permits required to
conduct ground-disturbing activities, the City shall require an Archaeological Resources
Assessment be conducted under the supervision of an archaeologist that meets the Secretary
of the Interior’s Professionally Qualified Standards in either prehistoric or historic
archaeology.
Assessments shall include a California Historical Resources Information System records
search at the South Central Coastal Information Center and of the Sacred Land Files
maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission. The records searches will
determine if the proposed project area has been previously surveyed for archaeological
resources, identify and characterize the results of previous cultural resource surveys, and
disclose any cultural resources that have been recorded and/or evaluated. If unpaved surfaces
are present within the project area, and the entire project area has not been previously surveyed
within the past 10 years, a Phase I pedestrian survey shall be undertaken in proposed project
areas to locate any surface cultural materials that may be present.
CUL-5 If potentially significant archaeological resources are identified, and impacts cannot be
avoided, a Phase II Testing and Evaluation investigation shall be performed by an
archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to determine significance
prior to any ground-disturbing activities. If resources are determined significant or unique
through Phase II testing, and site avoidance is not possible, appropriate site-specific mitigation
measures shall be undertaken. These might include a Phase III data recovery program
implemented by a qualified archaeologist and performed in accordance with the Office of
Historical Preservation’s “Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR):
Recommended Contents and Format” (OHP 1990) and “Guidelines for Archaeological
Research Designs” (OHP 1991).
CUL-6 If the archaeological assessment did not identify archaeological resources but found the area
to be highly sensitive for archaeological resources, and a Native American monitor approved
by a California Native American Tribe identified by the Native American Heritage
Commission as culturally affiliated with the project area shall monitor all ground-disturbing
construction and pre-construction activities in areas of high sensitivity. The archaeologist shall
inform all construction personnel prior to construction activities of the proper procedures in
the event of an archaeological discovery. The training shall be held in conjunction with the
project’s initial on-site safety meeting and shall explain the importance and legal basis for the
protection of significant archaeological resources. The Native American monitor shall be
invited to participate in this training. In the event that archaeological resources (artifacts or
features) are exposed during ground-disturbing activities, construction activities in the
immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be halted while the resources are evaluated for
significance by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary’s Standards. This will include tribal
consultation and coordination with the Native American monitor in the case of a prehistoric
archaeological resource or tribal resource. If the discovery proves to be significant, the long-
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Page 27
term disposition of any collected materials should be determined in consultation with the
affiliated tribe(s), where relevant; this could include curation with a recognized scientific or
educational repository, transfer to the tribe, or respectful reinternment in an area designated
by the tribe. a qualified archaeologist shall monitor all ground-disturbing construction and pre-
construction activities in areas with previously undisturbed soil. The archaeologist shall inform
all construction personnel prior to construction activities of the proper procedures in the
event of an archaeological discovery. The training shall be held in conjunction with the
project’s initial on-site safety meeting and shall explain the importance and legal basis for the
protection of significant archaeological resources. In the event that archaeological resources
(artifacts or features) are exposed during ground-disturbing activities, construction activities
in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be halted while the resources are evaluated for
significance by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary’s Standards, and tribal consultation
shall be conducted in the case of a tribal resource. If the discovery proves to be significant,
the long-term disposition of any collected materials should be determined in consultation with
the affiliated tribe(s), where relevant; this could include curation with a recognized scientific
or educational repository, transfer to the tribe, or respectful reinternment in an area designated
by the tribe.
CUL-7 If an Archaeological Resources Assessment does not identify potentially significant
archaeological resources but the site has moderate sensitivity for archaeological resources
(Mitigation Measure CUL-4), an archaeologist who meets the Secretary’s Standards shall be
retained on call. The archaeologist shall inform all construction personnel prior to
construction activities about the proper procedures in the event of an archaeological discovery.
The pre-construction training shall be held in conjunction with the project’s initial on-site
safety meeting and shall explain the importance and legal basis for the protection of significant
archaeological resources. In the event that archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are
exposed during ground-disturbing activities, construction activities in the immediate vicinity
of the discovery shall be halted while the on-call archaeologist is contacted. The resource shall
be evaluated for significance and tribal consultation shall be conducted, in the case of a tribal
resource. If the discovery proves to be significant, the long-term disposition of any collected
materials should be determined in consultation with the affiliated tribe(s), where relevant.
Analysis of the Modified Project
The Modified Project expressly prohibits STRs and only affects existing structures. The Modified Project would
not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city; construction
activities would not occur under the Modified Project. Additionally, the existing conditions related to cultural
resources have not changed since the certification of the GP EIR. The Modified Project is not anticipated to
result in any physical impacts on the environment. Thus, the Modified Project would not impact historical
resources or archeological resources or disturb human remains. No impacts would occur. The Modified Project
would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR.
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Page 28 PlaceWorks
The GP EIR RRs CUL-1 through CUL-6 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified
Project does not include any construction activities which have the potential to impact historical resources,
archeological resources, and human remains. The Modified Project would not obstruct the City’s ability to
implement applicable GP policies.
The GP EIR MMs CUL-1 though CUL-7 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified
Project is not a development project.
4.6 ENERGY
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
EN-1 Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
EN-2 Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR
As discussed in detail in Section 5.5, Energy, of the GP EIR, the Approved Project, with compliance with
RR E-1 through RR E-4, RR E-6, and RR E-7 and the implementation of applicable GP policies related to
energy, impacts related to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy consumption during construction and
operation would be less than significant (GP EIR p. 5.5-19). The GP EIR determined that, with compliance
with RR E-5 and implementation of applicable GP policies related to energy, impacts of the Approved Project
related to a conflict or obstruction of a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency would be
less than significant (GP EIR p. 5.5-20).
Analysis of the Modified Project
The Modified Project expressly prohibits STRs in the City. The Modified Project would not require
development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city; construction-related energy
consumption would not occur under the Modified Project. The Modified Project is not anticipated to result in
physical impacts on the environment. The operational activities associated with long-term rentals or permanent
residences would be consistent with the operational activities analyzed in the GP EIR for residential uses. No
impact would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than
those identified in the GP EIR. The Modified Project would not obstruct the City’s ability to implement
applicable GP policies.
The GP EIR RR E-1 through RR E-7 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project
is not a development project.
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Page 29
4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
GEO-1 Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42?
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction?
iv. Landslides
GEO-2 Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
GEO-3 Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result
of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
GEO-4 Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
GEO-5 Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
GEO-6 Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR
As discussed in Section 5.6, Geology and Soils, the city’s location and underlying geology make it likely to
experience seismic hazards, including strong seismic ground shaking, and secondary hazards, like liquefaction.
No active surface faults exist within the plan area. The city is subject to seismic ground shaking; however, future
developments adherence to California Building Code and implementation of RR G-1 would reduce impacts to
less than significant. Similarly, impacts from seismic-related ground failure which include liquefaction, lateral
spreading, seismically induced landslides, and ground lurching would also be reduced to less than significant
with adherence to the California Building Code (CBC), RR G-1, RR GH-2, and GP policies.
Future development would comply with existing regulations, which includes preparation and submittal of a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and a soil engineering evaluation and would reduce impacts to a less than
significant level regarding soil erosion (GP EIR p 5.6-21). The city contains alluvial materials that have the
potential for expansive soils and settlement and collapse of soils throughout the city, posing a hazard to
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Page 30 PlaceWorks
structures and people (GP EIR p 5.6-22). Implementation of RR G-1, RR GH-2, GP policies, CBC design
code, and other methods, such as recompaction of engineered fill, would reduce the impact of expansive soils
to less than significant.
Although the potential for subsidence is low, the city has historically been affected by subsidence (GP EIR
p. 5.6-22). With the continued groundwater storage and statutory commitments to sustainable groundwater
management practices by Orange County Water District, impacts related to subsidence would be less than
significant.
The GP EIR concluded that the City has implemented RR G-3, which does not allow for installation of septic
tanks, and future development would connect to the existing City sewer system (GP EIR p. 5.6-22–5.6-23).
Therefore, with implementation of RR G-3 and GP policies, impacts would be less than significant.
The Approved Project would result in future development that would include ground-disturbing activities
which could potentially disturb unknown sensitive paleontological resources (GP EIR pp. 5.6-23). However,
with implementation of RR G-1, RR G-2, and RR G-3 and MMs GEO-1 through GEO-3, significant impacts
were reduced to less than significant.
GP EIR Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-3 are reproduced below.
GEO-1 High Sensitivity. Projects involving ground disturbances in previously undisturbed areas
mapped as having “high” paleontological sensitivity shall be monitored by a qualified
paleontological monitor on a full-time basis. Monitoring shall include inspection of exposed
sedimentary units during active excavations within sensitive geologic sediments. The monitor
shall have authority to temporarily divert activity away from exposed fossils to evaluate the
significance of the find and, if the fossils are determined to be significant, professionally and
efficiently recover the fossil specimens and collect associated data. The paleontological
monitor shall use field data forms to record pertinent location and geologic data, measure
stratigraphic sections (if applicable), and collect appropriate sediment samples from any fossil
localities.
GEO-2 Low-to-High Sensitivity. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for projects involving ground
disturbance in previously undisturbed areas mapped with “low-to-high” paleontological
sensitivity (see Figure 5.6-3), the project applicant shall consult with a geologist or
paleontologist to confirm whether the grading would occur at depths that could encounter
highly sensitive sediments for paleontological resources. If confirmed that underlying
sediments may have high sensitivity, construction activity shall be monitored by a qualified
paleontologist. The paleontologist shall have the authority to halt construction during
construction activity as outlined in Mitigation Measure GEO-3.
GEO-3 All Projects. In the event of any fossil discovery, regardless of depth or geologic formation,
construction work shall halt within a 50-foot radius of the find until its significance can be
determined by a qualified paleontologist. Significant fossils shall be recovered, prepared to the
point of curation, identified by qualified experts, listed in a database to facilitate analysis, and
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Page 31
deposited in a designated paleontological curation facility in accordance with the standards of
the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010). The most likely repository is the Natural
History Museum of Los Angeles County. The repository shall be identified and a curatorial
arrangement shall be signed prior to collection of the fossils.
Analysis of the Modified Project
The Modified Project expressly prohibits STRs and only affects existing structures. The Modified Project would
not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city. Additionally, the
existing geological and soils conditions have not changed since the certification of the GP EIR. The Modified
Project would not require development of any kind; therefore, no earthwork or ground-disturbing activities
would occur. No impacts would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe
significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR.
GP EIR RR G-1 and RR G-3 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project does not
require construction to be implemented. The Modified Project would not obstruct the City’s ability to
implement applicable GP policies.
It should be noted that GP EIR MMs GEO-1 though GEO-3 are not applicable to the Modified Project
because the Modified Project is not a development project
4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
GHG-1 Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
GHG-2 Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR
As discussed in Section 5.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the GP EIR the Approved Project would contribute
to global climate change through direct and indirect emissions of GHG from land uses consistent with the GP
within the city. The Approved Project would implement MM GHG-1, comply with RRs GHG-1 through
GHG-7, and implement GPU policies related to reducing GHG emissions to reduce impacts related to GHG
emissions (GP EIR p. 5.7-34). The GP EIR determined that with the implementation of mitigation impacts
would remain significant and unavoidable.
The GP EIR determined that the Approved Project would not conflict with plans adopted for the purpose of
reducing GHG emissions. The Approved Project would comply with RR GHG-1 through RR GHG-7 and GP
policies related to GHG emissions to reduce impacts (GP EIR p. 5.7-38). The GP EIR determined that impacts
would be less than significant.
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Page 32 PlaceWorks
The GP EIR Mitigation Measure GHG-1 is reproduced below. Modifications to the GP EIR Mitigation
Measures associated with the recirculation of the GP EIR are represented in underline for additions and
strikeout for deletions.
GHG-1 The City of Santa Ana shall update the Climate Action Plan (CAP) every five years to ensure
the City is monitoring the plan’s progress toward achieving the City’s greenhouse gas (GHG)
reduction target and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving the specified level. The
update shall consider a trajectory consistent with the GHG emissions reduction goal
established under Executive Order S-03-05 for year 2050 and the latest applicable statewide
legislative GHG emission reduction that may be in effect at the time of the CAP update (e.g.,
Senate Bill 32 for year 2030). The CAP update shall include the following:
GHG inventories of existing and forecast year GHG levels.
Tools and strategies for reducing GHG emissions to ensure a trajectory with the long-
term GHG reduction goal of Executive Order S-03-05.
Plan implementation guidance that includes, at minimum, the following components
consistent with the proposed CAP:
Administration and Staffing
Finance and Budgeting
Timelines for Measure Implementation
Community Outreach and Education
Monitoring, Reporting, and Adaptive Management
Tracking Tools
Furthermore, the following measures will be considered when the City updates the Climate
Action Plan:
Measures to protect the most vulnerable populations
Measure to increase carbon sinks
Standards for electric vehicle parking
Standards for construction projects
Analysis of the Modified Project
The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. The Modified Project
would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city.
Additionally, the existing conditions related to GHG have not changed since the certification of the GP EIR.
GHG emissions due to construction activities would not occur. The operational activities associated with long-
term rentals or permanent residences would be consistent with the operational activities analyzed in the GP EIR
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Page 33
for residential uses. The Modified Project is not anticipated to result in a substantial increase in GHG emissions,
either directly or indirectly, or result in a conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation. The GP EIR
analyzed impacts related to GHG emissions from full occupancy of units in the city, assuming full buildout
under the General Plan. The Modified Project would not result in any increase in the occupancy levels analyzed
in the GP EIR. Further, the Modified Project does not involve construction of any new units that that might
lead to in an increase in GHG emissions. The Modified Project would not change the significance conclusions
in the GP EIR. No impacts would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe
significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR.
The GP EIR RRs GHG-1 through GHG-3 and RR GHG-7 are not applicable to the Modified Project because
the Modified Project is not a development project. The GP EIR RR GHG-3 is not applicable to the Modified
Project because the Modified Project is not a utility project. The GP EIR RRs GHG-4 through GHG-6 are not
applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project is not a transportation project. The Modified
Project would only affect existing structures already developed in adherence with GP policies, and, as described
in Section 2.1, the Modified Project is reaffirming existing law within the city. Therefore, the Modified Project
would not obstruct the City’s ability to implement applicable GP policies.
The GP EIR MM GHG-1 is not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project does not
include a use that requires the tracking and monitoring of the City’s GHG emissions.
4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
HAZ-1 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
HAZ-2 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
HAZ-3 Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
HAZ-4 Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
HAZ-5 For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in
a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
HAZ-6 Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Page 34 PlaceWorks
HAZ-7 Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR
As discussed in Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the GP EIR, residences within the city are
exposed to levels of toxic releases from industrial facilities waste sites (GP EIR p. 5.8-36). The Approved
Project would change land use designations so some industrial areas would be designated as industrial flex to
allow cleaner industrial uses and a mix of other nonindustrial uses, and no expansion of industrial uses would
occur. However, the Approved Project would introduce new residences near existing industrial uses in
environmental justice (EJ) communities, but adherence to local, State, and federal policies regarding the storage,
transport, and disposal of hazardous materials as well as GP policies would reduce impacts to less than
significant.
The City contains elevated lead constructions in EJ communities, and the Approved Project would introduce
new sensitive receptors to industrial uses (GP EIR p. 5.8-41–5.8-42). Implementation of GP policies would
reduce impacts to less than significant. Buildings within the city contain asbestos-containing materials and lead-
based paint that may accidentally be released; however, with compliance with RR HAZ-4 and implementation
of applicable GP policies, impacts would be reduced to less than significant (GP EIR p. 5.8-41–5.8-42).
The Approved Project would induce future development that would involve the use of potentially hazardous
materials; however, these substances would be used in such small quantities and stored in a manner that would
not pose a significant safety hazard (GP EIR p. 5.8-42–5.8-43). Adherence to existing local, state, and federal
laws, emergency response plan requirements set by the Orange County Fire Authority, RRs HAZ-1 through
HAZ-5, and GP policies would reduce impacts to less than significant.
The city includes 555 hazardous materials sites, with only 63 active or open sites (GP EIR p. 5.8-27). Any future
development would require environmental site assessment to ensure the project would not disturb hazardous
materials. With implementation of RRs HAZ-1 through HAZ-5 and GP policies, impacts would be less than
significant
Part of the city is within John Wayne Airport (JWA) safety compatibility Zone 6 of the Airport Environs Land
Use Plan (AELUP), and parts of the city contain areas where heights are limited pursuant to Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) regulations (GP EIR p. 5.8-29–5.8-30). Projects approved under the proposed GP that
fall within an identified AELUP and FAA zone would be required to comply with FAA airspace protection
regulations using the AELUP consistency determination process. Thus, impacts are considered less than
significant. With adherence to FAA, AELUP, GP policies, and RR HAZ-7, impacts would be less than
significant.
The Approved Project would induce population growth and traffic; the increases in traffic could adversely
affect accident or natural disaster evacuation plans and routes (GP EIR p.5.8-45–5.8-46). However, the
Approved Project would not result in substantial changes to circulation patterns, emergency access routes, or
otherwise interfere with use of evacuation routes. Within implementation of General Plan policies, the
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Page 35
Approved Project would not interfere with emergency response, services, and evacuation plans and therefore
impacts would be less than significant.
The city is not within a fire hazard severity zone (FHSZ), and buildout of the Approved Project will not expose
structures and/or residence to wildfire danger; thus, impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR p. 5.8-29–
5.8-30).
Analysis of the Modified Project
The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. The Modified Project
would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city; thus, no
new sensitive receptors would be exposed to hazards or hazardous waste. Additionally, the existing conditions
related to hazards and hazardous materials have not changed since the certification of the GP EIR. The
Modified Project is not anticipated to result in any physical impacts on the environment. No impacts would
occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified
in the GP EIR.
GP EIR RR HAZ-1 and RR HAZ-7 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project
does not require construction to be implemented. The Modified Project would not obstruct the City’s ability
to implement applicable GP policies.
4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
HYD-1 Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
HYD-2 Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
HYD-3 Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces,
in a manner which would:
i. result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;
ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
HYD-4 In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Page 36 PlaceWorks
HYD-5 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR
As discussed in detail in Section 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the GP EIR, the Approved Project would
involve disturbance, construction, and operation of land uses that could generate pollutants affecting
stormwater. However, the Approved Project would comply with RRs HYD-1 through HYD-5 and implement
GP policies (Policy 1.7 of the Safety Element, Policy 3.5 of the Public Services Element, and Policy 4.6 of the
Conservation Element) to reduce impacts on water quality (GP EIR p. 5.9-29–5.9-32). The GP EIR determined
that impacts would be less than significant.
The GP EIR determined that the Approved Project would increase the demand on groundwater use but not
interfere with groundwater recharge or management (GP EIR p. 5.9-33). The GP EIR determined that impacts
would be less than significant.
The GP EIR identified that portions of the City are within inundation areas for the Santiago Creek Dam and
Prado Dam; however, impacts due to inundation by the Santiago Creek Dam and Prado Dam were determined
to be less than significant. (GP EIR p. 5.9-35–5.9-36). Additionally, the GP EIR identified that impacts due to
seiche would be less than significant for dam inundation areas, and impacts of a tsunami would be negligible.
(GP EIR p. 5.9-36). The GP EIR determined that with compliance with RR HYD-6 and GP policies, impacts
would be less than significant.
The GP EIR determined that the Approved Project would maintain the existing drainage pattern and utilize
existing drainage facilities within the public rights-of-way. Additionally, the GP EIR identified that the city is
mostly built out apart from a small number of lots that will be developed under Approved Project conditions
(GP EIR 5.9-32). The GP EIR determined that impacts related to alteration of existing drainage patterns or
streams would be less than significant.
The GP EIR determined that the Approved Project would comply with applicable regulatory requirements that
would ensure surface and groundwater quality are not adversely impacted. Additionally, the GP EIR identified
that new development under the Approved Project would connect to the City’s public water supply, and there
would be no use of on-site wells for groundwater. The GP EIR determined that the increase in water demand
due to development pursuant to the GP would not adversely impact the management of the basin (GP EIR p.
5.9-37). The GP EIR determined that with compliance with RRs HYD-1 through HYD-5 and implementation
of GP policies, impacts would be less than significant.
Analysis of the Modified Project
The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. It would not result in
development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city. The existing conditions
related to hydrology and water quality have not changed since the certification of the GP EIR. The Modified
Project is not anticipated to result in any physical impacts on the environment. The operational water demand
under the Modified Project would be consistent with the water demand analyzed in the GP EIR for residential
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Page 37
uses. No impacts would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant
impacts than those identified in the GP EIR.
The GP EIR RRs HYD-1 through HYD-5 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified
Project is not a development project. The Modified Project would not obstruct the City’s ability to implement
applicable GP policies.
4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
LU-1 Physically divide an established community?
LU-2 Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR
As discussed in Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning, of the GP EIR, the Approved Project is intended to guide
growth and development (e.g., infill development, redevelopment, and revitalization/restoration) in the plan
area through the year 2045 and beyond. The changes in the land use designations that would occur with
implementation of the Approved Project would not result in the physical division of an established community
(GP EIR p. 5.10-17–5.10-19). The Approved Project would enhance the character of the city for existing
residents because no new roadways would bisect existing communities, associated street improvements would
serve the existing neighborhoods, the Approved Project encourages infill development, and established General
Plan policies. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant.
A portion of the city is within the JWA’s safety compatibility Zone 6 and within the 60 dBA CNEL aircraft
operation noise contours, and a larger portion of the southeastern portion of the city is within Federal Aviation
Regulation Part 77 Obstruction Notification Area of JWA (GP EIR p. 5.10-19–5.10-20). Areas within an
AELUP and FAA Zones land use designations would remain, and no new or more intense development is
intended. Any project within an identified AELUP and FAA Zone would be required to comply with filing a
project for a consistency determination with the ALUC, FAA airspace protection regulations, and local
regulations. Furthermore, the Approved project would be consistent with goals of the Southern California
Association of Governments’ RTP/SCS, and the Orange County Transportation Authority Congestion
Management Plan (GP EIR p. 5.10-20–26). The GP EIR concluded that the approved project would not
significantly conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation, and with implementation of GP policies and
RR LU-1, RR LU-2, and RR HAZ-7, impacts would be less than significant.
Analysis of the Modified Project
The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. The Modified Project
would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city.
Additionally, the existing conditions related to land use and planning have not changed since the certification
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Page 38 PlaceWorks
of the GP EIR. The Modified Project is not anticipated to result in any physical impacts on the environment.
The Modified Project would only affect existing structures and, as described in Section 2.1, is reaffirming
existing law within the city. It should be noted that the Modified Project would improve the connectivity of
existing communities by improving the compatibility of existing uses and preserving the character and integrity
of existing neighborhoods (Land Use Element Goal 3) through the prohibition of STRs within long-term
residential neighborhoods.
No impact would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts
than those identified in the GP EIR.
GP EIR RR LU-1, RR LU-2, and RR HAZ-7 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified
Project does not require construction. The Modified Project would not obstruct the City’s ability to implement
applicable GP policies.
4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
MIN-1 Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the
region and the residents of the state?
MIN-2 Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR
As discussed in Section 5.11, Mineral Resources, of the GP EIR, most of the plan area is mapped Mineral
Resource Zone (MRZ) 3, areas where the significance of mineral deposits cannot be determined from available
data. MRZ-1, areas where no significant mineral resources are present, are in the southeast of the city, and in
the northeast of the City are MRZ-2, areas where significant mineral resources are known or very likely to
occur (GP EIR 5.11-6–5.11-7). However, no mineral resource sectors and active or inactive mines are in the
plan area. Additionally, the Approved Project would increase the demand for aggregate, and especially PCC-
grade aggregate, in the Orange County-Temescal Valley P-C Region but would not decrease availability of
mineral resources. Therefore, with adherence to GP policies, the Approved Project would result in a less than
significant impact on mineral resources.
Analysis of the Modified Project
The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. The Modified Project
would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city.
Additionally, the existing conditions related to mineral resources have not changed; the City’s MRZs are
consistent with the GP EIR and the City does not contain any active or inactive mines or mineral resource
sectors (CDC 2024a, 2024b). The Modified Project would not change the significance conclusions in the
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Page 39
GP EIR. No impacts would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant
impacts than those identified in the GP EIR.
The Modified Project would not obstruct the City’s ability to implement applicable GP policies.
4.13 NOISE
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
NOI-1 Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
NOI-2 Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
NOI-3 For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR
As discussed in detail in Section 5.12, Noise, of the GP EIR, the Approved Project would result in an increase
in development intensity to accommodate population and employment growth. Construction activities
associated with the Approved Project would temporarily increase the ambient noise levels in the vicinity of
individual development projects that could affect sensitive receptors (GP EIR p. 5.12-30). The Approved
Project would comply with RR NOI-2 and implement GP EIR MM NOI-1 and GP policies to minimize effects
of construction-noise. The GP EIR determined that with the implementation of mitigation, impacts would
remain significant and unavoidable.
The GP EIR identified that buildout of the Approved Project would result in substantial traffic noise level
increases on local roadway and could locate sensitive receptors in areas that exceed established noise standards.
The GP EIR determined that there are no feasible mitigation measures available to reduce impacts and impacts
would be significant and unavoidable.
The Approved Project could place future noise sensitive land uses within areas that exceed the 60 dBA CNEL
noise contour for John Wayne Airport. The GP EIR determined that with implementation of GP Noise
Element policies, which would require new development within the airport’s noise contours to be mitigated,
impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR p. 5.12-47).
The GP EIR Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-4 are reproduced below.
N-1 Construction contractors shall implement the following measures for construction activities
conducted in the City of Santa Ana. Construction plans submitted to the City shall identify
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Page 40 PlaceWorks
these measures on demolition, grading, and construction plans submitted to the City: The City
of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency shall verify that grading, demolition, and/or
construction plans submitted to the City include these notations prior to issuance of
demolition, grading and/or building permits.
Construction activity is limited to the hours: Between 7 AM to 8 PM Monday through
Saturday, as prescribed in Municipal Code Section 18-314(e). Construction is prohibited
on Sundays.
During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for project
construction shall use the best-available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers,
equipment re-design, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically
attenuating shields or shrouds), wherever feasible.
Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers and hoe rams) shall be hydraulically or electrically
powered wherever possible. Where the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust
muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used along with external noise jackets on
the tools.
Stationary equipment such as generators and air compressors shall be located as far as
feasible from nearby noise-sensitive uses.
Stockpiling shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors.
Construction traffic shall be limited—to the extent feasible—to approved haul routes
established by the City Planning and Building Agency.
At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign shall be posted at the
entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, that includes permitted construction
days and hours, as well as the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized
representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint.
If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, he/she shall investigate,
take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City.
Signs shall be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on-site construction zones, and
along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling.
All other equipment shall be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes.
During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noise-
producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning
purposes only. The construction manager shall use smart back-up alarms, which
automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level, or switch off
back-up alarms and replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety
requirements and laws.
Erect temporary noise barriers (at least as high as the exhaust of equipment and breaking
line-of-sight between noise sources and sensitive receptors), as necessary and feasible, to
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Page 41
maintain construction noise levels at or below the performance standard of 80 dBA Leq.
Barriers shall be constructed with a solid material that has a density of at least 4 pounds
per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier.
N-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit for a project requiring pile driving during construction
within 135 feet of fragile structures, such as historical resources, 100 feet of non-engineered
timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential buildings), or within 75 feet of engineered
concrete and masonry (no plaster); or a vibratory roller within 25 feet of any structure, the
project applicant shall prepare a noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential
noise and vibration impacts related to these activities. This noise and vibration analysis shall
be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer. The vibration
levels shall not exceed Federal Transit Administration (FTA) architectural damage thresholds
(e.g., 0.12 inches per second [in/sec] peak particle velocity [PPV] for fragile or historical
resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec
PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). If vibration levels would exceed this threshold,
alternative uses such as drilling piles as opposed to pile driving and static rollers as opposed to
vibratory rollers shall be used. If necessary, construction vibration monitoring shall be
conducted to ensure vibration thresholds are not exceeded.
N-3 New residential projects (or other noise sensitive uses) located within 200 feet of existing
railroad lines shall be required to conduct a groundborne vibration and noise evaluation
consistent with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) approved methodologies.
N-4 During the project-level California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process for industrial
developments under the General Plan or other projects that could generate substantial
vibration levels near sensitive uses, a noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted to assess
and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to the operations of that individual
development. This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and
experienced acoustical consultant or engineer and shall follow the latest CEQA guidelines,
practices, and precedents.
Analysis of the Modified Project
The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. No development,
redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city are required to implement the Modified
Project. No impacts related to construction-related noise level increases would occur. As with the Approved
Project, the Modified Project would comply with RR NOI-3, which requires stationary noise sources to comply
with the standards established in Section 18.312 of the SAMC. The Modified Project is not anticipated to result
in an increase in transportation noise. Operational noise levels associated with long-term rentals or permanent
residences would be consistent with the operational noise levels analyzed in the GP EIR for residential uses.
The Modified Project would not place new residential development within the 60 dBA CNEL contour for John
Wayne Airport. The Modified Project would not change the significance conclusions identified in the GP EIR.
No impacts would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts
than those identified in the GP EIR.
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Page 42 PlaceWorks
GP EIR RRs NOI-1 and NOI-2 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project does
not include any construction activities. The Modified Project would not obstruct the City’s ability to implement
applicable GPU policies.
GP EIR MMs N-1 and N-2 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project does not
require any construction activities to be implemented. GP EIR MM N-3 is not applicable to the Modified
Project as the Modified Project does not include new residential uses and does not propose new residential uses
along railroad lines. GP EIR MM N-4 is not applicable to the Modified Project as the Modified Project does
not include industrial development and does not include construction activities.
4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
POP-1 Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads
or other infrastructure)?
POP-2 Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR
As discussed in Section 5.13, Population and Housing, of the GP EIR the Approved Project would increase
the population within the plan area by 96,855 residence and would result in an increase of 36,490 residential
units by 2045 (GP EIR p. 5.13-12–5.13-15). The City’s projected population and residential units would exceed
the Orange County COG’s 2045 projection by 20 percent and 38 percent, respectively, and impacts are
considered potentially significant. Additionally, the Approved Project would change land use designations of
existing nonresidential land to residential uses, increasing the residential opportunities in selected areas. The
Approved Project would provide more housing opportunities than currently exist and would not displace
people and/or housing; no impact would occur.
Buildout of the GP would exceed the Orange County COG’s 2045 projects and no feasible mitigation measures
exist to mitigate the population and housing growth. Therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Analysis of the Modified Project
The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. It should be noted that
STRs take homes out of the housing stock for full-time city residents, which forces development of housing
elsewhere, leading to construction of unpermitted or “informal” housing (such as improper residential
occupancy of garages, unpermitted additions to residential structures, etc.) or exacerbates existing residential
overcrowding. The Modified Project would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing
development types in the city. The operational activities associated with long-term rentals or permanent
residences would be consistent with the operational activities analyzed in the GP EIR for residential uses. The
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Page 43
prohibition of STRs would allow approximately 1,100 residential units to be available to full-time city residents
that have otherwise been documented to presently be utilized for unpermitted STRs. The Modified Project
would not change the significance conclusions in the GP EIR. No impacts would occur. The Modified Project
would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GPU EIR.
The Modified Project would not obstruct the City’s ability to implement applicable GP policies.
4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
PS-1 Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of
the public services:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR
As discussed in Section 5.14, Public Services, of the GP EIR, buildout of the Approved Project would develop
36,261 housing units, result in a total of 360,077 residents and 170,416 jobs, and increase the demand for fire,
police, school, and library services (GP EIR p. 5.14-28–5.14-47).The Approved Project concluded there are
adequate funding sources for fire, police, school, and library services to meet the projected increase in public
services demands.
Development would require approval of a Building Plan Check, a Fire Master Plan, and would comply with the
California Fire and Building Codes, California Health and Safety Code, City ordinances, and applicable national
standards. Additionally, compliance with General plan policies and RR FP-1 would ensure adequate fire
protection services to Santa Ana (GP EIR p. 5.14-28–5.14-47). Thus, impacts would be less than significant.
The Santa Ana police may require project design features to improve security as conditions of approval, and
adherence with goals and policies within the general plan would result in a less than significant impact.
The Approved Project would lead to an increase in the student population within the city, though three of the
four school districts within the city contain the capacity to accommodate the potential increase in students
(GP EIR p. 5.14-41–5.14-43). Additionally, project-specific analysis with developmental fees and adherence to
GP goals and policies and RR SS-1 would result in a less than significant impact.
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Page 44 PlaceWorks
The increase in residents would increase the demand for library services; however, project-specific analysis with
developmental fees and adherence to GP goals and policies and RR LS-1 would result in a less than significant
impact (GP EIR p. 5.14-46–5.15-47).
Analysis of the Modified Project
The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. The Modified Project
would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city. The
Modified Project would not introduce new residential units to the city nor directly or indirectly increase the
city’s population. The GP buildout, which includes the residential units illegally operating as STRs, and
operation of the Approved Project were adequately analyzed in the GP EIR. The Modified Project would not
change the significance conclusions in the GP EIR. No impacts would occur. The Modified Project would not
result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR.
GP EIR RR FP-1, RR SS-1, and LS-1 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project
does not require construction to be implemented.
The Modified Project would not obstruct the City’s ability to implement applicable GP policies.
4.16 RECREATION
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
REC-1 Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
REC-2 Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR
As discussed in Section 5.15, Recreation, of the GP EIR, buildout of the Approved Project would lead to
additional demands on parks and recreational facilities (GP EIR p. 5.15-11–5.15-30). The GP EIR concluded
that although funding sources for new parks and equipment would be sufficient, there is a lack of available land
to develop new parks or expand existing facilities, and thus the Approved Project would exacerbate an existing
shortage of recreation facilities. After compliance with regulatory requirements and implementation of the GP
policies, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Additionally, construction and/or expansion of new parks and recreation facilities could result in adverse
physical effects on the environment. Therefore, the GP EIR concluded, with the incorporation of GP policies,
the Approved Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact on recreation.
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Page 45
Analysis of the Modified Project
The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. The Modified Project
would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city. The
Modified Project would not result in greater conflicts to the City’s parkland standards and recreational resources.
The Modified Project would not change the significance conclusions in the GP EIR. No impacts would occur.
The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in
the GP EIR.
GP EIR RR REC-1 and RR REC-2 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project
does not require construction to be implemented.
The Modified Project would not obstruct the City’s ability to implement applicable GP policies.
4.17 TRANSPORTATION
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
T-1 Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
T-2 Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
T-3 Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
T-4 Result in inadequate emergency access?
Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR
As discussed in detail in Section 5.16, Transportation, of the GP EIR, the Approved Project would result in
the improvement and expansion of the City’s circulation system; these improvements would incorporate future
networks and policies that would be consistent with the regional and local planning efforts. With the
implementation of RR T-1 and applicable GP policies, the GP EIR determined that impacts would be less than
significant (GP EIR p. 5.16-33–5.16-34).
The GP EIR determined that the City’s projected vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per service population (SP)
would be less than the defined threshold of 15 percent below the existing county VMT/SP. With the
implementation of applicable GP policies, the GP EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant
(GP EIR p. 5.16-35).
The GP EIR determined that the Approved Project would involve the alteration, intensification, and
redistribution of land uses in the City. Roadway improvements associated with the Approved Project would be
made in accordance with the City’s circulation plan and roadway design guidelines and meet the guidelines of
the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The Approved Project would not result in
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Page 46 PlaceWorks
hazardous conditions, create conflicting uses, or interfere with emergency vehicle access. With implementation
of applicable GP policies, the GP EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR p.
5.16-35).
Analysis of the Modified Project
The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. The Modified Project
would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city. The
Modified Project is not anticipated to result in a conflict with regional or local circulation system planning. The
operational traffic associated with long-term rentals or permanent residences would be consistent with the
operational traffic analyzed in the GP EIR because buildout of long-term rentals and permanent residences
and their impacts to the circulation system had been evaluated under the certified GP EIR. The Modified
Project would not change the significance conclusions in the GP EIR. No impacts would occur. The Modified
Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR.
GP EIR RRs T-1 and T-2 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project is not a
development project. The Modified Project would not obstruct the City’s ability to implement applicable GP
policies.
4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
TCR-1 Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe,
and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR
As discussed in Section 5.17, Tribal Cultural Resources, of the GP EIR, the Approved Project could cause
substantial adverse change to tribal cultural resources (TCR) that are listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Public Resources
Code Section 5020.1(k). (GP EIR p. 5.17-10–5.17-12). A Sacred Lands File search yielded a positive result that
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Page 47
TCRs exist in the plan area, and a California Historical Resources Information System search identified 23
archaeological resources within 0.5 miles of the plan area. Furthermore, the City consulted with Native
American Tribes, and sensitive areas with TCR were identified. The GP EIR determined that with
implementation of RR CUL-1, RR TRC-1, and MMs CUL-4 through CUL-7, impacts would be reduced to less
than significant.
Refer to Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, of this Addendum for reproduced GP EIR Mitigation Measures CUL-4
through CUL-7.
Analysis of the Modified Project
The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. The Modified Project
would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city. Therefore,
no earthwork or ground-disturbing activities would occur. The Modified Project would not change the
significance conclusions in the GP EIR. No impacts would occur. The Modified Project would not result in
any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR.
GP EIR RR TCR-1 and RR CUL-1 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project
does not require construction to be implemented. Additionally, the Modified Project would not obstruct the
City’s ability to implement applicable GP policies.
It should be noted that GP EIR MMs CUL-4 though CUL-7 are not applicable to the Modified Project because
the Modified Project is not a development project.
4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
U-1 Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater
treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities,
the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
U-2 Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
U-3 Result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments?
U-4 Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
U-5 Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Page 48 PlaceWorks
Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR
As discussed in Section 5.18, Utilities and Service Systems, of the GP EIR, buildout of the Approved Project
would increase wastewater treatment, however the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) has functioning
and effective processes in place to ensure the regional sewer infrastructure will support future development;
and implementation of RR U-1 and RR U-2 and GP policies would reduce impacts to less than significant.
Additionally, OCSD contains adequate capacity to serve wastewater collation and treatment in the city, and a
less than significant impact would occur with implementation of RR U-3 and GP policies.
Buildout under the Approved Project would increase demand for water services, potentially creating deficiencies
or necessitating the need for improvement projects (GP EIR p. 5.18-36–5.18-38). With planning, Capital
Improvement Programs (CIP), RR U-5 through RR U-7, and GP policies, impacts would be less than
significant. The GP EIR concluded under full buildout of the Approved Project, the City contains adequate
water supplies during normal-dry and multiple-dry year scenarios, and with implementation of RR U-5 and
RR U-7, impacts would be less than significant.
The city is largely built out; however, intensification of development could increase park-flow runoff (GP EIR
p. 5.18-47). Improvements identified in the GP EIR and Orange County Public Works CIP ensures regional
drainage improvements, and project-specific stormwater design features and implementation of RR HYD-4
and GP policies would reduce impacts to less than significant.
The GP EIR concluded the projected increase in solid waste would be accommodated by existing and/or
proposed solid waste facilities, and future development would comply with local and state policies, and with
implementation of RR U-7 and RR U-8 and GP policies, impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR p.
5.18-52–5.18-53).
The GP EIR concluded the forecast increase in electricity is within the forecasted demand in SoCal Edison’s
service area and would not require additional electricity supplies and impacts would be less than significant
(GP EIR p. 5.18-63–5.18-64). Additionally, the increase in natural gas demands are within the forecast demand
in the SoCalGas service area, and impacts would be less than significant with implantation of RR U-10,
RR U-11, and GP policies.
Analysis of the Modified Project
The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. The Modified Project
would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city. Since the
Modified Project would not require development of any kind and would not result in unplanned population
growth (directly or indirectly), no increases in demands to utilities and service systems would occur. The
Modified Project would not change the significance conclusions in the GP EIR. No impacts would occur. The
Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the
GP EIR.
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Page 49
GP EIR RR U-1 through RR U-11, RR HYD-1, and RR HYD-4 are not applicable to the Modified Project
because the Modified Project does not require construction to be implemented. The Modified Project would
not obstruct the City’s ability to implement applicable GP policies.
4.20 WILDFIRE
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
WF-1 Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
WF-2 Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
WF-3 Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
WF-4 Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding
or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR
As discussed in Section 8.2, Wildfire, of the GP EIR, the City of Santa Ana is not in or near a State
Responsibility Area (SRA) or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zone (FHSZ), and no area within
the city is in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) (GP EIR p. 8-2). The Approved Project would allow for
development within the City; however, because the City is not within an SRA, very high FHSZ, or WUI, no
impacts would occur. The GP EIR concluded the remaining wildfire questions in Appendix G are not relevant
to the GP EIR.
Analysis of the Modified Project
The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. The Modified Project
would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city.
Additionally, the existing conditions for wildfire hazard indicators (SRA, FHSZ and WUI) have not changed;
the city is within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) and does not contain any land with a very high FHSZ; and
the City does not contain any areas in an WUI (CAL FIRE 2024; USDA 2024). The Modified Project would
not change the significance conclusions in the GP EIR. No impacts would occur. The Modified Project would
not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR.
4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the
environment if the project would:
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Page 50 PlaceWorks
M-1 Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
M-2 Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
M-3 Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR
This section was not included in the GP EIR.
Analysis of the Modified Project
Based on the analysis provided in this Addendum, it can be determined that there are no new circumstances
that require major revisions to the GP EIR, and the Modified Project would not result in any new or more
severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR.
As previously discussed, the Modified Project entails an amendment to the SAMC that would add Article XXI
to Chapter 8 of the SAMC to provide definitions, identify prohibited uses, and identify violations of the Article.
The Modified Project would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development
types in the city. The Modified Project would continue the City’s practice of requiring residential units illegally
operating as STRs to cease and revert to the permitted uses identified under the existing underlying land use
designation and zoning through code enforcement. Operation of long-term rentals or permanent residences
would be consistent with the operational activities analyzed in the GP EIR for residential uses. Because the
Modified Project is not a development project, the Modified Project would not have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment related to impacts to biological resources, to eliminate important examples of
major California history or prehistory, or result in environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse
effect on human beings. Additionally, the Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe
cumulatively significant impact as there are no new impacts beyond those identified in the GP EIR.
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
Page 51
5. Findings
As indicated in this Addendum, the impacts of the Modified Project have already been adequately identified
and addressed in the GP EIR, and no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances
under which the project is undertaken that would require major revisions to the GP EIR. Impacts beyond those
identified in the EIR would not be expected to occur as a result of the Modified Project, which would still be
subject to all applicable, previously required mitigation measures from the GP EIR.
Based on the record as a whole, there is no substantial evidence that the Modified Project would result in
significant environmental impacts not previously studied in the EIR, and accordingly, the project changes would
not result in any conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162. Thus, a subsequent EIR is not
required for the changes to the project, and the City adopts this Addendum to the City of Santa Ana GP Update
EIR in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
5. Findings
Page 52 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
Page 53
6. List of Preparers
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Ali Pezeshkpour, AICP, Planning Manager
Ricardo Soto, AICP, Principal Planner
PLACEWORKS
Mark Teague, Managing Principal
Malia Durand, Associate Principal
Christhi Mrosla, Associate
Emma Haines, Associate
Angel Castro, Project Planner
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
6. List of Preparers
Page 54 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
Page 55
7. References
California Department of Conservation (CDC). 2024a, July 10 (accessed). Mineral Land Classification.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc.
———. 2024b, July 10 (accessed). Mines Online. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.html.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CAL FIRE). 2024, April 1 (accessed). Fire Hazard
Severity Zone Viewer.
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/03beab8511814e79a0e4eabf0d3e7247/.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). California State Scenic Highway System Map.
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa.
Santa Ana, City of. 2024, July 9 (accessed). Zoning Map. https://www.santa-ana.org/documents/
zoning-map/.
———. 2021, August. Santa Ana General Plan Update: Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact
Report.
———. 2020, August. Santa Ana General Plan Update: Draft Program Environmental Impact Report.
United States Forest Service (USFD). 2024, July 10 (accessed). Wildland Urban Interface: 2020. https://data
-usfs.hub.arcgis.com/documents/7804d89ed1094ccb9aae753228e8d89a/explore.
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
7. References
Page 56 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Appendices
Appendix A Proposed City of Santa Ana Short-Term
Rental Prohibition Ordinance
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis