Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - Item #15 Ibarra, Evelyn From:Ana Gomez <agomezjune@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December To:eComment Subject:City Council Meeting December 3rd 2024, Item #15 Attachments:Letter to City Council member Dec 3 2024 meeting.docx Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. 1 Mayor Valerie Amezcua Mayor Pro Tem Thai Viet Pham Councilmember Benjamin Vazquez Councilmember Jessie Lopez Councilmember Phil Bacerra Councilmember Johnathan Ryan Hernandez Councilmember David Penaloza City Council Chamber 20 Civic Center Plaza M-30 Santa Ana, California 92701 Re: Dec 3, 2024, City Council Meeting – Item 15 – Second Reading of 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) I ask city council members to set a time frame to bring stakeholders and city staff to back to the table and work in getting a short-term rental program & regulations that benefit both the city and stakeholders. th As I stated in the November 19 city council meeting, we have had meetings/conversations (via Zoom, face to face conversations and email correspondence) with most of the city councilmembers and I thank the mayor for her support in voting against the ordinance. A complete ban of short-term rentals is not the answer and will not solve the housing affordability issue many cities face. In the last city council meeting, we heard from a number of Unite 11 union members asking city council to ban short-term rentals due to the lack of affordable housing nd opportunities within the city. During the April 2 city council public comment section, the City of Irvine was quoted as one city who banned short term rentals in 2018 and as a result saw a decrease in rent by three percent over the next two years. However, this decrease was short lived. In 2022, Irvine rents have increased to 27.2% (Hwang, J. Opinion: A Yes To The General Plan Housing Update Is A Yes to The Future Of Irvine, Irvine WatchDog, Retrieved Dec 1, 2024, from https://irvinewatchdog.org/city-hall/opinion-a-yes-to-the-future-of-irvine). Furthermore, a CNN Business online article dated October 28, 2024, on housing affordability, shows there has not been a consensus as to whether or not short-term 1 rentals have an impact on affordability. As stated in the article, “\[i\]ts a complex problem, and one characterized by high prices for both rentals and sales, elevated mortgage rates and a historic undersupply of homes,” (Delouya, S. As the housing affordability crisis deepens, Airbnb and Vrbo face backlash, CNN.com, Retrieved Dec 1, 2024, from https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/28/economy/housing- affordability-airbnb-vrbo-backlash/index.html). Further research conducted by Harvard Business Review Government Policy and Regulation, dated February 15, 2024, showed banning short-term rentals, “is not an effective tool for solving the housing-affordability problems in many U.S. cities,” (Calder-Wang, S., Farronato, C., and Fradkin, A. What Does Banning Short Term Rentals Really Accomplish? Harvard Business Review Government Policy and Regulations, Retrieved Dec 1, 2024, from https://hbr.org/2024/02/what-does- banning-short-term-rentals-really-accomplish). It is well known that the city is facing a 30 million short fall in their budget due to Measure X (sales tax increase of 9.25%) due to expire in 2029. This shortfall will no doubt impact a lot of city programs that have benefitted from Measure X. The city also faces another shortfall if HR 8753 bill passes. HR 8753 will assign a unique zip code to North Tustin, an area that currently has a 92705-zip code. The area which covers Cowan Heights, Lemon Heights, North Tustin and Panoramic Heights, with a population of over 25,000 residents, and a median income of $174,000.00 into an unincorporated area of Orange County. Santa Ana would lose sales tax income from this area and a portion of property taxes (10-12%). The bill has passed the first phase in the House of Representatives. Does the city of Santa Ana know what the impact would be if this bill passes? Finding sources of revenue to help offset the losses of both of these items is not something that should be “kick the can down the road”. Don’t leave money on the table by placing a complete ban on short term rentals. 2 We urge the city to reconsider a complete ban and work with stakeholders & on-site home sharing STRs homeowners. Sincerely, Ana Gomez Richard Austin Santa Ana Residentsdec Ward 3 3 Arevalo, Evelyn From: Tiffany Perry < Sent: Monday, December 2, 2024 3:44 PM To: eComment Cc: 'Sonia Carvalho'; Amy Hoyt; Hannah Park; Quintana, David; Nunez, Alvaro; Alicia Bartley Subject: Santa Ana City Council Hearing on December 3, 2024, Agenda Item 15 Attachments: SASTRA Letter to Santa Ana City Council dated 12-02-24.pdf Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana.Use caution when opening attachments or links. Dear Mayor Amezcua, Mayor Pro Tern Phan, and Honorable City Councilmembers, Attached please find a letter to you of today's date regarding the upcoming City Council meeting on December 3, 2024 (Agenda Item 15). If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Tiffany Perry Legal Assistant Gaines & Stacey LLP 5820 Canoga Avenue, Suite 300 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Fax- 818-933-0222 website This message and any attached documents are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed,and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED,CONFIDENTIAL and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.If you have received this communication in error,please notify us immediately by telephone or return e-mail,and return the original to us without making a copy.Thank you. 1 SANTA ANA TR December 2, 2024 ALLIANCE EC�EME VIA EMAIL ecommentnsanta-ana.org Mayor Valerie Amezcua Mayor Pro Tem Thai Viet Phan Councilmember Benjamin Vazquez Councilmember Jessie Lopez Councilmember Phil Bacerra Councilmember Johnathan Ryan Hernandez Councilmember David Penaloza Santa Ana City Council City Council Chamber 20 Civic Center Plaza M-30 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Re: December 3, 2024, City Council Meeting—Item 15: Second Reading of Ordinance Amendment No. 2024-04 Prohibiting Short-Term Rentals Dear Mayor Amezcua, Mayor Pro Tem Phan, and Honorable City Councilmembers, On behalf of the Santa Ana Short-Term Rental Alliance, I am writing to respectfully request that you reconsider proceeding with the second reading of the proposed ordinance to reenact a ban on short-term rentals at your meeting on December 3. We at SASTRA fully support the reasonable regulation of STRs in Santa Ana. Unfortunately, the City's plan to readopt a legally flawed STR ban—based on clear misinterpretation of the law and without any meaningful engagement with either hosts or residents that rely on STRs for transitory housing—highlights a failure in the legislative process. At the November 19 hearing, Councilmember Bacerra and Mayor Amezcua both raised concerns with the STR ban and encouraged Staff to return with more nuanced regulations for STRs in the future. That did not occur—the current proposal merely readopts the flawed ban with no meaningful changes. Indeed, Councilmember Lopez specifically asked Staff if the Council should consider any new information in light of public comments. Staff responded"no" and did not even mention our attorneys' 171-page letter with detailed technical analysis by experts demonstrating the ban's potentially significant health, transportation, and environmental impacts. The City Council must pause before its December 3 meeting to correct missteps that began in April to enact a law that: (1) severely infringes on constitutional rights and California law, (2)results in significant environmental impacts, (3) creates economic hardship, and (4) disproportionately affects those most in need of flexible housing options. A brief recap of the events is summarized here for your awareness: • In April of this year, staff presented a ban for City Council consideration during spring break, immediately following the Easter holiday, and without conducting meaningful stakeholder engagement. In connection with this last-minute effort, there was also a misrepresentation of the current legal status of STRs in the City to the Council and a failure to conduct any environmental review of the ban's potentially significant environmental impacts. Consequently, we were compelled to file a lawsuit challenging that ordinance. A copy of our complaint that lays out the extent of legal infirmities with the April ban is attached for your reference. • While we appreciate the acknowledgment of the illegality of the April ordinance by the consideration of the prior ban's recession, the other legal arguments raised in our lawsuit were ignored when this new ban was introduced. Once again, the current legal status of STRs has been misrepresented to Council, the appropriate environmental analysis required under CEQA has not been conducted, and the public has been deprived of meaningful participation given the decision to advance this process during the holiday season without any public engagement. • We submitted substantial legal and environmental analysis' on the new ban in advance of the November 19 City Council meeting(reattached here). That analysis determined the ban would: o Result in significant environmental impacts; o Violate state and federal law; and o Unconstitutionally infringe on the rights of hosts and their guests. • The City refused to engage in our analysis during the November 19 hearing. In response to Councilmember Lopez's inquiry for any new or clarifying information presented by the public, Staff responded they were"not sure what the audience [wa]s referring to,"and did not mention our extensive analysis. Now, despite having over two weeks to review our letter and consider the evidence, Staff ignored it in the report for the second reading. In fact, staff did not even acknowledge our letter and agendized the second reading on the consent calendar. • The City also appears to be withholding information from the public in violation of the California Public Records Act. In April 2024, we understand a Public Records Act request was filed seeking information related to the City's efforts to regulate STRs. While the City has responded to nearly 2,000 different requests and made those results available on its website since this filing, the results from the STR PRA request remain unavailable online. We strongly urge you decline to move forward with the second reading on December 3 and instead direct Staff to collaborate with all stakeholders to develop a new ordinance that allows STRs to continue operating under reasonable regulations. We are ready and willing to work with the Council and staff to find a better path forward. And while SASTRA does not want to litigate further with the City, for the reasons summarized above 1 We are also attaching an additional memorandum prepared by a traffic consultant that confirms the ban will increase traffic and vehicle miles traveled in and around the City. 2 and in our attorneys' November 18 letter, should the City Council proceed with adopting the ordinance on December 3, we will again be forced challenge this action in court to protect our rights and the rights of the public. Thank you for your attention to this critical matter. Sincerely, SASTRA Members cc: Alvaro Nunez, City Manager Sonia Carvalho, City Attorney Amy Hoyt, City Attorney Hannah Park, City Attorney David Quintana Attachments - Attachment A - Complaint filed in Santa Ana Short-Term Rental Alliance v. City of Santa Ana,No. TC24-5449 - Attachment B—November 18, 2024 Letter from Gaines Stacey to Santa Ana City Council and attachments - Attachment C—Translutions Traffic Analysis 3 Attachment A Complaint filed in Santa Ana Short-Term Rental Alliance v. City of Santa Ana, No. TC24-5449 Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 06/07/2024 12:19:37 PM. 30-2024-0140 861-CU-WM-WJC- ROA#2- DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By H. Mitchell, Deputy Clerk. I FRED GAINES, ESQ. (State Bar No. 125472) ALICIA B. BARTLEY, ESQ. (State Bar No. 229039) 2 GAINES & STACEY LLP 3 5820 Canoga Avenue, Ste. 300 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 4 Telephone: (818) 933-0200 Facsimile: (818) 933-0222 5 Emails: fi4aines(.r gaine slaw.com 6 abartleykgaineslaw.com 7 Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff 8 SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL ALLIANCE 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE 12 SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM RENTAL Case No. 30-2024-01404$61-CU-WM-WJC 13 ALLIANCE, a California unincorporated Assigned for All Purposes J u d g e Ri c h a rd Le e association, 14 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF Petitioner and Plaintiff, MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR 15 DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE vs. RELIEF 16 THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, [CCP § 10851 17 Defendant. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 VERTFTED PETTTTON FOR WRTT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT 1 I Petitioner and Plaintiff, Santa Ana Short-Term Rental Alliance (the "Rental Alliance" or 2 "Petitioner"), hereby petitions for a writ of mandate and brings a complaint for injunctive and 3 declaratory relief and for attorneys' fees against Respondents and Defendants the City of Santa 4 Ana (the "City" or "Santa Ana"), and alleges as follows. 5 INTRODUCTION 6 1. The Rental Alliance is an unincorporated community association made up of hard- 7 working residents of both the City of Santa Ana and Southern California that own and or manage 8 homes located within City limits rented on a short-term basis. The members of the Rental Alliance 9 come from diverse backgrounds and call California home. However, the City unlawfully enacted 10 an ordinance banning short-term rentals ("STRs") in the City with almost no public notice and 11 without undertaking the environmental review required by the California Environmental Quality 12 Act ("CEQA"). The STR Ban is extreme. It not only completely prohibits any STR throughout 13 the entire city, it also exceeds the boundaries and fundamental tenets of what is reasonable and 14 permissible government regulation under common law and the California and United States 15 Constitutions. 16 2. The Rental Alliance brings this action on behalf of its members and others who rent 17 homes they own, or work with other homeowners to manage, on a short -term basis, meaning for 18 terms of less than 31 days. The Rental Alliance hosts renters in need of housing accommodations 19 for less than the typical twelve month lease term sought by traditional landlords. Until adoption 20 of the STR Ban at issue in this Petition, hosts rented homes on a short-term basis to obtain critical 21 income for themselves and their families. 22 3. Abruptly, and initially on an emergency basis with virtually no public notice or 23 environmental review, and in contravention of the longstanding practice and economic 24 expectations of these hosts, the City enacted the STR Ban, thereby preventing hosts from 25 continuing to earn income from STRs. 26 3. In particular, the City has enacted unsupported, unlawful, and unconstitutional 27 ordinances which immediately criminalizes hosts from renting homes on a short-term basis. This 28 action challenges this decision. VERTFTED PETTTTON FOR WRTT OF MANDATE AND COMPLATNT 2 1 4. Typically,hosts list their homes for rent on websites like airbnb.com and vrbo.com. 2 Sometimes the rental periods are for less than 30 days. These STRs provide vital income to 3 property owners like hosts, making housing affordable for homeowners who choose to "home 4 share" through STR platforms. It is likewise well-established that STRs drive tourism to 5 localities—like Santa Ana and Orange County) They also provide a cost-conscious alternative to 6 expensive hotels for lower-income families seeking to visit Santa Ana and nearby attractions like 7 Disneyland. And it is not just tourism: STRs offer essential accommodations for individuals and 8 families that need flexible housing—including residents facing life transitions, students, traveling 9 nurses and other essential workers, and families of patients in healthcare facilities. STRs also 10 provide rooms in homes, offering a familial environment for those needing lower-cost 11 accommodations. 12 5. Home-sharing has made communities throughout California accessible to more and 13 more families—even if only for a weekend. It fosters more vibrant and diverse communities and 14 a more robust tourism economy statewide. Without STRs, many desirable vacation destinations, 15 such as Orange County would likely be less accessible for a wide variety of families. 16 6. Home sharing also meets a critical unmet need in California's ongoing housing 17 crisis. Aspiring full-time residents who are unable to pay steep residential move-in costs, which 18 typically include advance payment of first and last month's rent as well as a sizeable security 19 deposit, can immediately occupy an STR without this substantial up-front fee and thereby 20 immediately supply housing and fill a critical gap in the housing crisis. STRs also play an 21 important role for aspiring residents seeking to sample, and then select, the type and location of 22 their preferred long-term rental housing and/or purchase of housing. 23 7. STRs have long served these purposes in Santa Ana. With the exception of a brief 24 2015 moratorium that expired on its own terms, STRs have been a recognized activity in Santa 25 Ana. Consistent with California case law recognizing that STRs are a"residential use"of property, 26 Milken Institute analysis of Alissa Dubetz,Matt Horton,and Charlotte Kesteven, The Effects of Short-Term 27 Rentals on California, at 3-4. 28 2 Dr.Philip G.King and Sarah Jenkins, Unequal Access: Protecting Affordable Accommodations Along the California Coast,at 6-7, 33. VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 3 AND COMPLAINT I many hosts have STRs in Santa Ana residential zones. Indeed, many Rental Alliance members 2 have acquired a business license for each rental unit that they own or manage. And, in addition to 3 paying fees to Santa Ana, hosts have invested other considerable resources to make their homes 4 suitable for STRs. 5 8. The City turned this all on its head when on April 2, 2024, it adopted an urgency 6 ordinance banning all STRs "effective immediately" (the "Urgency Ordinance"). Thereafter, on 7 April 16, 2024, City Council adopted an ordinance permanently banning all STRs in the City 8 ("Ordinance No. NS-3061" or the "STR Ban"). The Urgency Ordinance and the STR Ban 9 prohibited both"home-sharing rentals" (rental of a dwelling unit for a period of less than 30 days 10 while one of the dwelling unit's owners lives onsite through the visitors' stay) and "short-term or 11 vacation rentals" (rental of dwelling unit for a period of less than 30 days without concurrently 12 being occupied by the property owner). Neither provided an exception from these prohibitions for 13 existing operating STRs. The Urgency Ordinance became immediately effective on April 2, 2024. 14 Ordinance No. NS-3061 specified it would become "effective thirty (30) days after its adoption," 15 which was on April 16, 2024. In adopting both the Urgency Ordinance and STR Ban, the City 16 Council's did no real due diligence and conducted no meaningful analysis to determine whether 17 the STR Ban (1) could result in impacts to the environment or (2) would, in any way, aid the City 18 in remedying the issues the ban was purportedly adopted to address. 19 9. What is obvious from a review of the stunningly sparse administrative record for 20 these ordinances is that the ultimate ban was the result of a rushed and ill-informed effort by the 21 City Council to push through STR regulation. Councilmembers gave no meaningful consideration 22 whatsoever to whether the ban would actually address the issues purportedly facing Santa Ana, 23 much less whether the ban complies with state and federal law. 24 10. In adopting Ordinance No. NS-3061 on April 16, 2024, the City failed to conduct 25 necessary environmental review, made unsupported determinations about the impacts of STRs, 26 mischaracterized the lawfulness of existing STRs, and disregarded established California law 27 protecting nonconforming uses. 28 VERTFTED PETTTTON FOR WRTT OF MANDATE 4 AND COMPLATNT 1 11. First, the City improperly determined that the adoption of Ordinance No. NS-3061 2 was not a"project"under the California Environmental Quality Act or"CEQA." The fundamental 3 goal of CEQA is to ensure that decisionmakers and the public have complete information about 4 the environmental impacts of a proposed project before its approval. It does this by requiring public 5 agencies to undertake environmental review of activities,like adoption of land use ordinances, that 6 have the potential to result in"either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably 7 foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment[.]" But the City disregarded this duty and 8 completely failed to conduct any environmental review, despite the fact that the STR Ban would 9 have significant impacts. The City relied on a"common sense" conclusion that the STR Ban was 10 not a"project" subject to CEQA because it would not have any potential direct or indirect physical 11 effect on the environment. As Mark Twain reminds us, the problem with common sense is that 12 it's not common at all. By way of example, removing all existing STR accommodations from the 13 centrally located Santa Ana would almost certainly change traffic patterns, and the shifting of 14 traffic from within the City to other locations could have significant environmental impacts, 15 including air quality impacts resulting from increased vehicle emissions from people traveling 16 farther distances to their vacation destinations or temporary/transitory places of employment and 17 residence. The STR Ban provided scant opportunity for public or expert commentary on this issue, 18 but Petitioner and others did comment on the need for an environmental analysis of the STR Ban 19 as required by CEQA. 20 12. Second, the City made unsupported determinations that banning STRs was 21 necessary to preserve public health and safety. But the Staff Report supporting the sweeping 22 prohibitions imposed by the STR Ban did not provide a single specific example of any STR 23 impacting public health or safety in any way. Instead, it relied on less than one page of 24 "discussion" offering only general statements and unsupported characterizations, such as 25 discussing that there were STRs that had received enforcement notice and citations but not 26 providing any detail why those notices were issued or if they had anything to do with public health 27 of safety. 28 VERTFTED PETTTTON FOR WRTT OF MANDATE 5 AND COMPLATNT 1 13. Third, the City disregarded clear case law from the Court of Appeal to determine 2 that existing STRs in the City were prohibited based on the City's "permissive [zoning] 3 ordinance." 4 14. In one fell swoop, on April 16, 2024, the City destroyed livelihoods and threatened 5 housing security, closed the door to Santa Ana for countless would-be visitors, and 6 disproportionately affected the individuals and families most in need of flexible housing options 7 and who are often shut out of the long-term residential housing market. 8 15. The City's actions here are not just bad government and bad policy, they are 9 contrary to law, and for the reasons set forth below, the STR Ban must be rescinded. 10 PARTIES 11 16. Petitioner Santa Ana Short-Term Rental Alliance (the "Rental Alliance") is an 12 unincorporated association whose members include individuals and entities who owned and/or 13 operated STRs in Santa Ana prior to the adoption of the Emergency Ordinance and Ordinance No. 14 NS-3061 and who are concerned with the environmental impacts of the STR Ban at issue in this 15 petition upon their properties and the surrounding community. 16 17. The City of Santa Ana is a charter city formed under the laws of the State of 17 California. 18 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 19 18. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to California Constitution Art. 20 6, section 10; sections 1085, 1060 and 187 of the California Code of Civil Procedure; and sections 21 21167, 21167.5, and 21168.5 of the California Public Resources Code. 22 19. Venue is proper in Orange County Superior Court. Ordinance No. NS-3061 23 regulates land use regarding STRs within the City of Santa Ana. Section 392 of the Code of Civil 24 Procedure makes venue in this Court proper because the case involves interests in, and injuries to, 25 real property that is in Orange County. The City of Santa Ana is located in Orange County. An 26 action or proceeding against a city may be tried in the county in which the city is situated. Cal. 27 Code Civ. Proc. § 394(a). 28 VERTFTED PETTTTON FOR WRTT OF MANDATE 6 AND COMPLATNT 1 20. Code of Civil Procedure section 1060 allows an ordinance to be challenged in an 2 action for declaratory relief. See Alameda Cnty. Land Use Ass'n v. City of Hayward, 38 Cal. App. 3 4th 1716, 1723 (1995). The parties have a dispute regarding the validity of Ordinance No. NS- 4 3061, and Petitioner is entitled to a judicial declaration setting forth its members' rights as related 5 to their property. 6 EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES 7 21. Petitioner has satisfied all remedies necessary to bring this proceeding and 8 exhausted all legally required efforts to convey their objections to the City's illegal acts. Cal.Pub. 9 Res. Code § 21177. 10 22. Petitioner raised the issues pleaded in the following causes of action in a letter 11 transmitted to the City Council on or about April 2, 2024. Other members of the public transmitted 12 letters and spoke in opposition to Ordinance No. NS-3061 at the City Council Meetings on April 13 2, 2024 and April 16, 2024. All of this correspondence will be part of the proceeding in this action. 14 23. Ordinance No. NS-3061 does not provide a mechanism for an administrative 15 challenge. Even if it did, any challenge by hosts to the categorical ban on STRs would be futile, 16 as the City has determined (without sufficient evidence) that STRs constitute a nuisance and a 17 public health and safety hazard and specifically implemented the ordinance to ban STRs. Under 18 such circumstances, hosts are not required to try to convince the City otherwise before seeking 19 relief from this Court. See Monks v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 167 Cal. App. 4th 263, 304 20 (2008) (plaintiffs should not be required to attempt to prove what the city would not believe); Ogo 21 Assocs. v. City of Torrance, 37 Cal. App. 3d 830, 834 (1974) ("It is inconceivable that the City 22 Council would grant a variance for the very project whose prospective existence brought about the 23 enactment of rezoning."). 24 24. Petitioner has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law, and seeks a writ of 25 mandate from this Court. Without the remedy of a writ of mandate, the Rental Alliance and/or its 26 members would be required to litigate individual infractions or misdemeanors resulting from the 27 operation of STRs in piecemeal fashion, leading to the possibility of inconsistent rulings by 28 different trial court judges. Such litigation would delay final determination of the Rental VERTFTED PETTTTON FOR WRTT OF MANDATE 7 AND COMPLATNT I Alliance's and/or its members' rights, resulting in significant prejudice to the Rental Alliance 2 and/or its members and to the public's interest in a speedy determination of this important issue. 3 Writ relief is thus appropriate. See Johnson v. City and Cnty. of San Francisco, 137 Cal. App. 4th 4 7, 19 (2006) ("Relief by writ of mandate is appropriate to prevent a city from enforcing an 5 [unlawful] ordinance."); City of Oakland v. Superior Court, 45 Cal. App. 4th 740, 751 (1996) (the 6 public's interest in a speedy determination of the validity of a public agency's action makes a writ 7 of mandate appropriate). 8 25. Petitioner has complied with the requirements of Public Resources Code section 9 21167.5 by mailing a written notice of commencement of this action to Respondents. 10 26. Petitioner will comply with Public Resources Code section 21167.7 by filing a copy 11 of the petition with the California Attorney General. 12 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 13 27. As described in its General Plan, "Santa Ana is home to a range of cultural 14 amenities, community attractions, and public facilities, including the Downtown, Bowers 15 Museum, Discovery Science Center, and the Santa Ana Zoo." And it is "a unique, historic, urban 16 city with significant opportunities to capitalize on its many assets: a diverse and multicultural 17 community; a great location to live, work, and do business; and high quality public facilities and 18 services." 19 28. Prior to the introduction of the Urgency Ordinance and Ordinance No. NS-3061, 20 the City reported that there were several hundred residential properties offering STRs. STRs 21 facilitate access to the City's cultural amenities, community attractions, and public facilities and 22 provide families visiting Orange County a central and affordable homebase to other area attractions 23 like Disneyland, Knotts Berry Farm, the beaches, and other Southern California tourist 24 destinations. 25 29. STRs have provided short-term housing for individuals and families in Santa Ana 26 most in need of flexible housing options, such as residents facing life transitions, students, 27 traveling nurses and essential workers, families of patients in healthcare facilities, and other 28 transient residents who are often shut out of the long-term residential housing market. VERTFTED PETTTTON FOR WRTT OF MANDATE 8 AND COMPLATNT 1 30. STRs have further helped make housing affordable for those who are able to"house 2 hack"and earn money by renting portions of their houses, or the entire house, for a period of time. 3 They have made homeownership possible for many who otherwise could not afford the high cost 4 of housing and would be pushed out of the market. 5 STRs Have Long Legally Operated in Santa Ana 6 31. STRs have operated legally in the City for decades. The City acknowledged the 7 operation of STRs within its boundaries for years. For instance, on September 15, 2015, the City 8 Council implemented "an emergency ordinance adopting a 45-day temporary moratorium on the 9 establishment or expansion of any short term residential rental use." Ordinance No. NS-2886. 10 This ordinance acknowledged that "[t]he current provisions of the Santa Ana Municipal Code [] 11 do not clearly identify short-term residential rental uses or take into account the potential impacts 12 associated with the establishment of STRs within existing residential zones. As such, provisions 13 of . . . the Code . . . require review, study, and possible revision in order to respond to recent 14 concerns relating to the impacts of these short-term rental uses in the City." Id., Section LB 15 (emphasis added). Importantly, the emergency ordinance specially provided: "No short-term 16 residential rental is permitted in a residential zone as defined in Article I of Chapter 41 of the 17 Code." Id., Section 2. This new prohibition would not have been necessary had STRs not been 18 an existing lawful use in the City. 19 32. On October 20, 2015, the City Council considered a recommendation to extend the 20 moratorium adopted on September 15, 2015, but it declined to do so. 21 33. On information and belief, the review and study contemplated in the adoption of 22 the September 15, 2015, emergency ordinance never materialized. And, following expiration of 23 the emergency ordinance in 2015 the City issued ministerial business licenses for STRs including 24 specifically to many of the Rental Alliance's members. 25 34. In December 2021, the City adopted an ordinance that specifically regulated STRs 26 on a very small category of properties in the City referred to as "urban lot splits." Specifically, 27 Ordinance No. NS-3013 amended the Municipal Code to include the following language: "No 28 short-term vacation rentals (STRs). No dwelling unit on a lot that is created by an urban lot split VERTFTED PETTTTON FOR WRTT OF MANDATE 9 AND COMPLATNT I may be rented for a period of less than 30 days." Municipal Code 41-2115(h). Under the 2 Municipal Code, an individual property owner can apply to split an existing lot into two. 3 Ordinance No. NS-3013 essentially said if a property owner splits their lot, they may not rent 4 dwellings on that lot for less than 30 days. The Staff Report associated with the adoption of this 5 Ordinance No. NS-3013 made no mention of the legality of STRs in other parts of the City or on 6 non-urban split lots. 7 35. On information and belief, after continuously issuing ministerial business licenses 8 for hosts renting their property on a short-term basis and long after the temporary moratorium 9 expired, the City changed its position. Around early 2022, the City suddenly claimed that STRs 10 were prohibited based on the City's "permissive"zoning ordinance through the commencement of 11 enforcement actions against existing hosts. 12 36. The City's new position contradicted decisions by the Courts of Appeal holding 13 that permissive zoning ordinances silent on STRs, such as the City's, do not prohibit STRs. More 14 specifically, in June 2022, the California Court of Appeal considered a permissive zoning 15 ordinance from Manhattan Beach that is very similar to Santa Ana's code prior to the adoption of 16 Ordinance No. NS-3061. Manhattan Beach's ordinance permitted"single-family residential" and 17 "multi-family residential" uses, but said nothing about STRs. Keen v. City of Manhattan Beach, 18 77 Cal. App. 5th 142, 149 (2022), review den'd(June 29, 2022). As a result,people in Manhattan 19 Beach had "[f]or quite some time. . . . rented residential units in Manhattan Beach on both long- 20 and short-term bases," and "[t]he City knew about that practice[.]" Id. at 146. Then, in 2015, 21 Manhattan Beach passed an ordinance banning STRs and claimed it was merely"reiterating" the 22 City's supposedly existing "implicit" ban on STRs. Ibid. The court disagreed, finding that 23 Manhattan Beach's zoning code "always permitted short-term, as well as long-term, residential 24 rentals." Id. at 148 (emphasis added). 25 37. The Court of Appeal explained that once the house or apartment building was built, 26 anyone—renter or owner—could reside there for periods long or short, since the code "offer[s] no 27 textual basis for a temporal distinction about the duration of rentals," and the term "`residence' 28 does not imply some minimum length of occupancy." Id. at 148-149. Short-term rentals are VERTFTED PETTTTON FOR WRTT OF MANDATE 10 AND COMPLATNT I rentals; they are a quintessential residential use. In short, "[a] `residential building' is used for 2 human habitation without regard to length of occupancy,"and"[i]t is possible to reside somewhere 3 for a night, a week, or a lifetime." Id. at 149. The Court of Appeal had previously reached a 4 similar conclusion in People v. Venice Suites, LLC, 71 Cal. App. 5th 715, 732- 34 (2021), where 5 it rejected an argument proffered by the City of Los Angeles that, because its municipal code did 6 not expressly authorize STRs, they must be prohibited. The court rejected that argument, in part, 7 because "no length of occupancy requirement is expressed" in the city's code. 8 38. On information and belief, the City never explained how the apparently new 9 position it began taking in or around 2022 that existing STRs were prohibited by the Municipal 10 Code could be squared with the California Court of Appeal's decisions or with its prior actions. 11 The Citv Council Adopts the Emergency Ordinance and First Reading of Ordinance No. 12 NS-3061 in April 2024 13 39. On December 11, 2023, the Santa Ana City Planning Commission presented a 14 "Work Study Session"on the regulation of STRs in the City. On information and belief,following 15 that meeting, the Planning Commission reached out to certain hosts requesting suggestions and/or 16 comments on a proposed STR program in Santa Ana. 17 40. Without further discussion or outreach, in late-March 2024—on Thursday, March 18 28 (just three days before Easter)—the City posted an agenda that it would consider at its April 2, 19 2024, meeting (a) an Urgency Ordinance banning all STRs "effective immediately" and (b) 20 Ordinance No.NS-3061 banning all STRs in the City 30 days after the effective date. The hearing 21 was scheduled for the Tuesday after Easter while many families would be on spring break. 22 41. The City claimed authority to adopt the Urgency Ordinance, pursuant to Sections 23 415 and 417 of the City Charter. Section 415 of the City Charter provides that the City Council 24 can adopt an ordinance that it declares to be "necessary as an emergency measure for preserving 25 the public peace, health, or safety, and containing a statement of the reasons for its urgency" by a 26 two-thirds vote of the members of City Council. Santa Ana Mun. Code, § 415. Despite having 27 allowed the September 2015 emergency ordinance to expire 45-days later, and despite, on 28 information and belief, never having never undertaken the review and analysis that the September VERTFTED PETTTTON FOR WRTT OF MANDATE 11 AND COMPLATNT 1 2015 ordinance directed, the City suddenly deemed an emergency measure banning STRs 2 necessary to preserve the public peace, health, and safety of the community. The Staff Report 3 supporting such extraordinary actions included less than one page of"discussion." 4 42. At the April 2, 2024, hearing, approximately 20 persons spoke in opposition to the 5 Urgency Ordinance and the STR Ban. 6 43. During deliberations the City Attorney claimed that STRs were already prohibited. 7 Specifically, Councilman Phil Bacerra said to the City Attorney, Sonia Carvalho, and one of her 8 deputies: 9 10 "It's not that you don't have the ability to enforce short term rentals. It's just that this exercise is a clarifying exercise. So,we're not operating outside the law. We're 11 not just, Wild Wild West, picking a position and running with it. Our code is prescriptive. And because this use is not listed in our code, that means it is not 12 allowed. Because I know some folks here, they said `well it's been allowed, it's been permitted.' So just to clarify, it is not allowed, correct?" 13 14 The assistant city attorney responded: "That is correct." 15 The City Attorney, Ms. Carvalho, concurred, saying: "the status quo is they are illegal. They are not permitted." 16 44. The City Attorney went on to tell the Council that the permissive zoning argument 17 was "confusing" to some judges and had been undermining the City's position in some legal 18 proceedings. This was purportedly why it was important to "clarify"the law to confirm that STRs 19 have always been illegal in Santa Ana. 20 45. With the less than one page of "discussion" in the Staff Report, and this clear 21 misstatement of the law on the record, the City Council went on to pass the Urgency Ordinance 22 and the first reading of Ordinance No. NS-3061. 23 46. This was despite correspondence provided by the Rental Alliance and others to the 24 City Council informing it that the blanket ban on STRs in the City had the potential to cause 25 significant environmental impacts that require review under CEQA. Specifically, the Rental 26 Alliance explained that removing all existing STR accommodations from the centrally located 27 Santa Ana would almost certainly change traffic patterns, and the shifting of traffic from within 28 VERTFTED PETTTTON FOR WRTT OF MANDATE 12 AND COMPLATNT I the City to other locations could have significant environmental impacts, including air quality 2 impacts resulting from increased vehicle emissions from people traveling farther distances to their 3 vacation destinations or temporary/transitory places of employment and residence. The Rental 4 Alliance further pointed out that the City must also analyze the potential increased greenhouse gas 5 emissions resulting from the additional vehicle trips, the potential land use impacts from increased 6 construction of alternative overnight accommodations (hotels and motels) to make up for the loss 7 in overnight accommodations that STRs currently provide, and the potential urban decay if the ban 8 ultimately makes it impossible for homeowners to afford their homes and causes business to 9 shutter given decline in revenue. 10 47. The City Council also ignored correspondence from the Rental Alliance explaining 11 the ban would have a drastic economic impact on STR owners because all income earned from 12 STRs would be immediately eliminated, and that property owners could lose their homes if they 13 are unable to operate STRs. It also ignored statements that many homeowners purchased homes 14 in the City with the reasonable expectation that they would operate them as STRs, because the 15 City's then-current ordinances permitted such use. 16 48. And the City Council further failed to address correspondence explaining, among 17 other things: 18 • The proposed ban would, in effect, convert currently legal STRs into immediately 19 illegal nonconforming uses, and that terminating these legal nonconforming uses 20 in this way would violate longstanding California law; 21 • Hosts had already agreed to rent their property on a short-term basis to guests in 22 upcoming months, and that an immediate ban on STRs would invalidate those 23 contractual obligations of STR owners in violation of their constitutional rights. 24 • Nothing in the staff reports presented to the City Council demonstrated that STRs 25 in Santa Ana constituted a public nuisance; 26 • The City lacked any evidence of the negative effect of STRs on housing availability 27 in the City; 28 VERTFTED PETTTTON FOR WRTT OF MANDATE 13 AND COMPLATNT 1 • The City did not have factual support that existing STRs were harming public 2 health, safety, or welfare; 3 • Banning STRs would significantly reduce the City's available overnight 4 accommodations, which would result in an overall increase in the prices of motel 5 and hotel rooms, making it more expensive for families to stay in the City 6 overnight; and 7 • The lack of availability of short-term housing would disproportionately impact the 8 individuals and families most in need of flexible housing options. 9 The City Adopted Ordinance No. NS-3061 on Second Reading without Any Council Debate 10 49. Further stifling public debate on this important issue,the City agendized the second 11 reading of Ordinance No. NS-3061 on its "Consent Calendar." By placing it on the Consent 12 Calendar, the City Council considered Ordinance No. NS-3061 with 18 other items and waived 13 the reading of the resolution and ordinance. It did not debate the STR Ban, nor did it discuss the 14 potential environmental, economic, or social impacts the Ordinance could have on Santa Ana and 15 the broader community. The City did this despite receiving significant correspondence in advance 16 of the April 16 City Council meeting opposing the STR Ban and advising the City of the need to 17 conduct environmental review under CEQA. 18 50. Commenters again informed the City that removing all existing STR 19 accommodations from the centrally located City would almost certainly change traffic patterns, as 20 visitors to Santa Ana and surrounding areas would have to seek overnight accommodations 21 elsewhere, and that the shifting of traffic from within the City to other locations could have 22 significant environmental impacts, including air quality impact resulting from increased vehicle 23 emissions from people traveling further distances across Orange County to their vacation 24 destinations or temporary/transitory places of employment and residence. It was also raised that 25 changing traffic could result in air quality impacts to residents of Santa Ana and potential traffic 26 impacts at new locations. Other reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts raised again 27 included increased greenhouse gas emissions resulting from additional vehicle miles traveled, 28 impacts from increased construction of alternative overnight accommodations (hotels and motels) VERTFTED PETTTTON FOR WRTT OF MANDATE 14 AND COMPLATNT I to make up for the loss in overnight accommodations STRs currently provide, and urban decay if 2 the ban ultimately results in homeowners being unable to afford their homes and causing 3 businesses to shutter from the decline in tourism and transitory resident revenue. 4 51. On April 16, 2024, the City Council ultimately approved the STR Ban "on 5 consent," meaning it engaged in no deliberation on the topic. In doing so, the City Council 6 concluded that the STR Ban was not a"project"under CEQA. The City did not address the letters 7 arguing otherwise. And having concluded the STR Ban was not a "project," the City failed to 8 conduct any environmental review. 9 Ordinance No. NS-3061 Did Not Exempt Existing Lawful STRs from the Ban 10 52. The STR Ban completely prohibits STRs throughout the City and did not provide 11 any grandfathering, amortization, or just compensation for existing, lawfully operating STRs. As 12 explained above, the City took this action despite correspondence provided to the City Council 13 informing it that the blanket ban on STRs in the City would have a drastic economic impact on 14 STR owners. Rental Alliance members will face these drastic impacts. The City has placed STR 15 owners and operators in an untenable economic position. Not only will the properties face 16 decreasing value, owners could also be forced to sell their homes due to the immediate loss of STR 17 income and the inability to maintain mortgages, and operators will immediately lose their 18 established business and livelihood. 19 20 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 21 (Writ of Mandate Due to Failure to Comply with CEQA— Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1085, 1094.5 and Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.) 22 53. Petitioner incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though set forth 23 fully herein. 24 54. An actual and justiciable controversy has arisen and now exists between Petitioner 25 and the City,concerning whether the City's environmental determination complies with California 26 27 28 VERTFTED PETTTTON FOR WRTT OF MANDATE 15 AND COMPLATNT I Public Resources Code sections 21002, 21002.1, and 21084, regarding the requirements for 2 conducting environmental review, and determining that a project is exempt from CEQA. 3 55. CEQA requires public agencies to undertake environmental review of"projects", 4 like adoption of land use ordinances, that have the potential to result in "either a direct physical 5 change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the 6 environment[.]" 7 56. The City improperly concluded that Ordinance No. NS-3061 was not a "project" 8 under Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines. 9 57. CEQA has two primary goals. First,it is intended to allow decision makers,via the 10 preparation of an Environmental hnpact Report("EIR"),and the public to understand the potential, 11 significant environmental effects ofaproject. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 15002, subd. (a)(1); Citizens 12 of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors, 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564(1990)("[CEQA's]purpose is to inform 13 the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before 14 they are made.") (citation omitted). "[The EIR's] purpose is to inform the public and its 15 responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. 16 Thus, the EIR `protects not only the environment but also informed self-government."' Citizens 17 of Goleta Valley, 52 Cal. 3d at 564. The EIR has been described as"an environmental `alarm bell' 18 whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before 19 they have reached ecological points of no return." Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd of Port 20 Comrs., 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354 (2001). 21 58. Second, CEQA requires that public entities avoid or reduce environmental impacts 22 when "feasible" by requiring "environmentally superior" alternatives and all feasible mitigation 23 measures. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 15002, subds. (a)(2) and (3); Citizens of Goleta Valley, 52 Cal. 24 3d at 564. The EIR provides agencies and the public with information about the environmental 25 impacts of a proposed project and identifies "ways that environmental damage can be avoided or 26 significantly reduced." Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 15002, subd. (a)(2). 27 28 VERTFTED PETTTTON FOR WRTT OF MANDATE 16 AND COMPLATNT 1 59. Failure to carry out the full CEQA procedures so that complete information as to a 2 project's impacts is developed and publicly disclosed constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion 3 that requires invalidation of the public agency action,regardless of whether full compliance would 4 have produced a different result. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21005. 5 60. In Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 7 Cal. 5th 1171, 6 1197(2019),the California Supreme Court reaffirmed the longstanding understanding that passing 7 a generally applicable zoning ordinance constitutes a "project" under CEQA and requires the 8 relevant public agency to "undertake an initial study to determine whether the project `may have 9 a significant effect on the environment."' Id. at 1186. Such study is a critical step in furthering 10 CEQA's core purposes of (1) informing the public about a proposed activity's potential 11 environmental impacts; (2) identifying ways to reduce, or avoid, environmental damage; 12 (3)preventing environmental damage; and (4) disclosing to the public the rationale for approval 13 of a project that may significantly impact the environment. Id. at 1184. 14 61. In Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc., the California Supreme Court held 15 that San Diego's medical marijuana ordinance was a project under CEQA because it was capable 16 of causing indirect physical changes in the environment, including changed traffic patterns. Id. at 17 1199. The court noted that "restrictions on the siting of dispensaries would require thousands of 18 patients to drive across the City to obtain medical marijuana." Id. at 1182. Potential changes to 19 traffic and circulation were alone enough to require CEQA review. Id. at 1200-01. The court 20 concluded that "[a]t this initial tier in the CEQA process, the potential of the Ordinance to cause 21 an environmental change requires the City to treat it as a project and proceed to the next steps of 22 the CEQA analysis." Id. at 1200. 23 62. Despite these clear requirements under CEQA, the City disregarded California's 24 seminal environmental protection law and clear direction from the California Supreme Court. It 25 concluded Ordinance No. NS-3061 was not a project under CEQA, stating: "The proposed 26 ordinances are not subject to the requirements of [CEQA], pursuant to the Guidelines section 27 15060(c)(2) because the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect 28 physical change in the environment and 15060(c)(3)because the activity is not aproject as defined VERTFTED PETTTTON FOR WRTT OF MANDATE 17 AND COMPLATNT I in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 2 because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment,directly or indirectly 3 and so is not a project." 4 63. To the contrary, Ordinance No. NS-3061 could result in direct or reasonably 5 foreseeable indirect physical changes to the environment. With a ban on STRs, guests could be 6 forced to find transient accommodations outside the City limits. The City indicated there are 1,100 7 active STRs in Santa Ana. Removing all of these existing STR accommodations from the centrally 8 located City could almost certainly change traffic patterns, as visitors to Santa Ana and the 9 surrounding areas could have to seek overnight accommodations elsewhere. This shifting of traffic 10 from within the City to other locations could have significant environmental impacts, including 11 increased vehicle emissions from people traveling further distances across Orange County to their 12 vacation destinations or temporary/transitory places of employment and residence. This could 13 result in air quality impacts to residents of Santa Ana and potential traffic impacts at new locations. 14 Other reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts include, but are not limited to, increased 15 greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the additional vehicle miles traveled, impacts from 16 increased construction of alternative overnight accommodations (hotels and motels) to make up 17 for the loss in overnight accommodations that STRs currently provide, and urban decay if the ban 18 ultimately results in homeowners being unable to afford their homes and causes businesses to 19 shutter from the decline in tourism and transitory resident revenue. 20 64. The City did not evaluate nor disclose to the public these potential significant 21 environmental impacts before adopting Ordinance No.NS-3061 as required by CEQA. Instead, it 22 stopped environmental review of Ordinance No. NS-3061 at the first step in the CEQA decision- 23 making tree, finding without any supporting evidence that the ordinance is not a"project"because 24 it"will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment" 25 under Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2), and is not a "project" under Guidelines Section 15378 26 because it "has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or 27 indirectly." This is not how CEQA works. The City must find to a certainty that the ban will 28 VERTFTED PETTTTON FOR WRTT OF MANDATE 18 AND COMPLATNT I result in no possibility of significant environmental impacts prior to determining that Ordinance 2 No. NS-3061 is not a"project"under CEQA. Davidon Homes v. Cty. of San Joe, 54 Cal.AppAth 3 106, 119-120 (1997). 4 65. The City failed to satisfy its burden to prove, to a certainty, that Ordinance No.NS- 5 3061 will result in no possibility of significant environmental impacts and is therefore not a 6 "project" subject to CEQA. No other exemption applies to the Project. Therefore, the City had a 7 mandatory obligation to complete an initial study, and based on the results of such study, a duty to 8 prepare an environmental impact report, analyze all areas of potential significant environmental 9 impact, analyze a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project, and mitigate the Project's impacts 10 to the maximum extent feasible, all as required by law. 11 66. The City's errors were prejudicial because the failure to comply with the law 12 resulted in a critical deprivation of the benefits of the public information and public participation 13 purposes of CEQA. The conclusion that Ordinance No. NS-3061 was not a project deprived the 14 City of the information needed to produce reasoned decision-making and public participation. 15 67. A 180-day statute of limitations applies to Petitioner's CEQA claim under Public 16 Resources Code Section 21167(d) due to the City's failure to file a proper notice of exemption. 17 Specifically, the City filed a notice of exemption for Ordinance No. NS-3061 on April 5, 2024, 18 before the ordinance was finally approve by the City on April 16, 2024. A notice of exemption 19 filed before project approval does not trigger the CEQA limitations period. Coalition for Clean 20 Air v. City of Visalia (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 408, 423. 21 68. Petitioner has caused a Notice of Commencement of Action to be served on 22 Respondents, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21167.5. 23 69. Petitioner will have caused a copy of this pleading to be served on the Attorney 24 General not more than 10 days after the commencement of this proceeding, as required by Public 25 Resources Code Section 21167.7 and Code of Civil Procedure Section 388. 26 27 28 VERTFTED PETTTTON FOR WRTT OF MANDATE 19 AND COMPLATNT 1 70. Petitioner respectfully requests that the Court issue a writ of mandate directing the 2 City to rescind and set aside its approval of Ordinance No. NS-3061 and an injunction restraining 3 the City and its agents, servants, and employees, and all others acting in concert with the City, 4 from taking any action to implement Ordinance No. NS-3061 pending full compliance with the 5 requirements of CEQA, the Guidelines, and all other applicable laws and regulations. 6 7 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 8 (Declaratory Relief—Code of Civil Procedure § 1060 et seq. (Violation of CEQA)) 9 71. Petitioner incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though set forth 10 fully herein. 11 72. A present and actual controversy exists between Petitioner and the City concerning 12 the City's non-compliance with CEQA. And unless declaratory or injunctive relief issues,the City 13 will continue to violate CEQA. Specifically, Petitioner contends that the City incorrectly 14 determined that Ordinance No. NS-3061 is not a"project"in determining that Ordinance No. NS- 15 3061 is not subject to CEQA review. 16 73. The City, in Ordinance No. NS-3061, disputes this contention and asserts that no 17 CEQA review of Ordinance No. NS-3061 is necessary due to the fact it is not a qualifying 18 "projects." 19 74. Given this clear dispute, Petitioner requires and is entitled to a declaration 20 establishing that the City has violated CEQA by foregoing environmental review of Ordinance No. 21 NS-3061 based upon the determination Ordinance No. NS-3061 was not a project. 22 23 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 24 (Declaratory and Injunctive Relief—Code of Civil Procedure § 1060 et seq. (Common Law Nonconforming Use)) 25 75. Petitioner incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though set forth 26 fully herein. 27 28 VERTFTED PETTTTON FOR WRTT OF MANDATE 20 AND COMPLATNT 1 76. The City's adoption of the STR Ban without providing an exemption for existing 2 lawfully operating STRs violates California common law protection for nonconforming uses. 3 77. An actual controversy exists between Petitioner and the City over whether 4 Ordinance NS-3061 prohibits hosts who had offered STRs prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 5 NS-3061 from continuing to offer STRs. 6 78. Rentals—whether short-term or long-term—were permitted uses under the City's 7 zoning code prior to adoption of Ordinance No. NS-3061. If adoption of the STR Ban was 8 procedurally proper (and it was not), hosts' use of their properties as STRs became a legal 9 nonconforming use as soon as the ban goes into effect. See Code § 41-679 et seq. (governing 10 "[n]onconfon-ring buildings and uses"). Immediate termination of such a previously lawful use 11 violates California law. See City of L.A. v. Gage, 127 Cal.App.2d 442, 460 (1954). 12 79. The City failed to include a provision exempting existing nonconforming uses from 13 Ordinance No. NS-3061. See Hansen Bros. Enters., Inc. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 12 Cal. 4th 533, 14 551-52 (1996) (explaining that "a provision which exempts existing nonconforming uses is 15 ordinarily included in zoning ordinances because of the hardship and doubtful constitutionality of 16 compelling the immediate discontinuance of nonconforming uses"). It further failed to provide 17 any amortization period or just compensation, in clear violation of established California law. 18 Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 26 Cal.3d 848, 881 (1980), rev. on other grounds 19 Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (1981); Tahoe Reg'1 Planning Agency v. King, 233 20 Cal.App.3d 1365, 1394 (1991). 21 80. The City improperly determined that since the Code "does not list STRs as an 22 approved use in any zoning district," they are "prohibited and unauthorized under the current 23 enforcement practice afforded by Section 41-190(a)." 24 81. The City also completely failed to consider all relevant factors and failed to 25 demonstrate that the banning of STRs is necessary to preserve public peace, health, safety, or 26 welfare. 27 28 VERTFTED PETTTTON FOR WRTT OF MANDATE 21 AND COMPLATNT 1 82. Petitioner requires a declaration establishing that, prior to the adoption of 2 Ordinance No. NS-3061, STRs were permitted under the City's Municipal Code and following 3 adoption of Ordinance No. NS-301 are a legal nonconforming use, and thus, may continue to be 4 offered in the City. Petitioner also requires an injunction prohibiting the City from enforcing 5 Ordinance No. NS-3061 against any property owner that had offered a STR prior to the adoption 6 the STR Ban. 7 8 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 9 (Declaratory and Injunctive Relief—Code of Civil Procedure§ 1060 et seq. (Due Process)) 10 83. Petitioner incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though set forth 11 fully herein. 12 84. An actual controversy exists between Petitioner and the City over whether 13 Ordinance NS-3061 prohibits hosts who had offered STRs prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 14 NS-3061 from continuing to offer STRs. 15 85. The immediate termination of a nonconforming use (which Ordinance No. NS- 16 3061 causes) not only violates California common law but also constitutes a deprivation of 17 property without due process of law under the California Constitution. See Santa Barbara 18 Patients' Collective Health Co-op v. City of Santa Barbara, 911 F.Supp.2d 884, 893-894 (C.D. 19 Cal. 2012); McCaslin v. Monterey Park, 163 Cal.App.2d 339, 346-348 (1958). For the same 20 reasons that Ordinance No. NS-3061 violates California common law, it violates Petitioner's due 21 process rights under the California Constitution. 22 86. Petitioner requires a declaration establishing that, prior to the adoption of 23 Ordinance No. NS-3061, STRs were permitted under the City's Municipal Code and following 24 adoption of Ordinance No. NS-301 are a legal nonconforming use, and thus, the City's failure to 25 provide any reasonable amortization period or just compensation deprives petitioner of property 26 27 28 VERTFTED PETTTTON FOR WRTT OF MANDATE 22 AND COMPLATNT I without due process of law. Petitioner also requires an injunction prohibiting the City from 2 enforcing Ordinance No. NS-3061 against any property owner that had offered a STR prior to the 3 adoption of the STR Ban. 4 5 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 6 (Writ of Mandate Due to Abuse of Discretion— Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1085, 1094.5) 7 87. Petitioner incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though set forth 8 fully herein. 9 88. An actual and justiciable controversy has also arisen and now exists between 10 petitioner and the City, concerning whether the City's adoption of Ordinance No. NS-3061 was 11 an unwarranted interference with hosts' property rights amounting to an abuse of discretion in the 12 City's exercise of its police power. 13 89. A trial court may grant a writ of mandate if"the decision was arbitrary, capricious, 14 entirely lacking in evidentiary support, or unlawfully or procedurally unfair." Endangered 15 Habitats League, Inc. v. Cnty. of Orange, 131 Cal. App. 4th 777, 782 (2005). In applying this test, 16 "a court `must ensure that an agency has adequately considered all relevant factors, and has 17 demonstrated a rational connection between those factors, the choice made, and the purposes of 18 enabling the statute."' Western States Petroleum Ass'n v. Superior Court, 9 Cal.4th 559, 577 19 (1995). In California, a"public agency"is any city, county, district, other local authority or public 20 body of or within the state, including a city council. Gov. Code § 20056. 21 90. The City completely failed to consider all relevant factors and failed to demonstrate 22 a rational connection between its stated objectives and the complete ban of STRs when adopting 23 the STR Ban. In particular, the City adopted the ban based on an error of law. As detailed above, 24 the City staff and the City Attorney both mistakenly informed the City Council that existing STRs 25 were prohibited in the City at the time of the adoption of the STR Ban. This was a clear error and 26 calls into question the validity of the entire ordinance. 27 28 VERTFTED PETTTTON FOR WRTT OF MANDATE 23 AND COMPLATNT 1 91. Beyond its legally flawed premise, the City Council's extreme approach of banning 2 STRs was also unsupported by the record before the City Council. In the less than three-page staff 3 report with one page of"discussion" supporting both the Urgency Ordinance and the STR Ban, 4 the City stated that STRs "are often associated with excessive noise, parking problems, trash, and 5 degradation of a neighborhood's character." Yet, the only alleged negative impacts the report 6 identified were "112 confirmed active cases of STRs that have received enforcement notices and 7 citations," noting that 36 involve owners residing on-site, and 84 involve properties that are not 8 owner-occupied. 9 92. The City did not provide any further detail on these active cases or what the 10 complaints entail. On information and belief, many of these enforcement notices have nothing to 11 do with excessive noise, parking problems, trash, or degradation of a neighborhood's character, 12 and, instead, were based on the City's incorrect position that the Municipal Code prohibits STRs. 13 In any event, the City Council did not have the evidentiary basis to adopt its draconian ban given 14 the complete lack of a record before it. Moreover, the City ignored Chapter 17 of its own Code, 15 which provides several existing enforcement mechanisms to mitigate public nuisances. See Santa 16 Ana Mun. Code, Ch. 17. 17 93. The City also lacked sufficient evidence of the effect of STRs on housing 18 availability in the City to support the ban. The Staff Report for the April 2, 2024, City Council 19 meeting stated that, according to data from STR platforms,there are 1,100 active STRs in the City, 20 and the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation for 2021-2029 is 3,137 permanent housing 21 units, implying that banning STRs would add 1,100 homes to the long-term housing market. This 22 implication is wrong. A review of the City's Housing Element reveals that the City does not 23 mention STRs anywhere in that document. In the section of the Housing Element discussing 24 "Housing Constraints," the City notes that various factors influence the City's ability to meet its 25 housing goals including market factors (land costs, construction and rehabilitation costs, 26 availability of financing, and recent trends in foreclosures), governmental factors (land use 27 28 VERTFTED PETTTTON FOR WRTT OF MANDATE 24 AND COMPLATNT I regulations, development standards, building codes, permit procedures, and other local policies), 2 and environmental factors(adequacy of infrastructure,public services, and water supply to support 3 new development). 4 94. On top of all of this, the City failed to follow CEQA requirements when it hastily 5 approved this extreme measure. 6 95. In short, the City adopted the STR Ban without studying the relationships between 7 STRs and public health and safety or long-term housing availability. That, combined with the 8 error of law and complete disregard for CEQA and existing law governing treatment of existing 9 nonconforming uses, render the City's action arbitrary, capricious, entirely lacking in evidentiary 10 support, or unlawfully or procedurally unfair. 11 96. This approach does not meet the standard for informed, rational decision making 12 required, and the City therefore abused its discretion as a matter of law. 13 97. Petitioner respectfully requests that the Court set aside the adoption of Ordinance 14 No.NS-3061 as an abuse of discretion, and remand the matter to the City to undertake the required 15 review of the relevant law and evidence. 16 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 17 Wherefore, Petitioner prays for relief as follows. 18 1. For the First Cause of Action for Writ of Mandate due to Failure to Comply 19 with CEQA: 20 i. A writ of mandate directing the City to rescind and set aside its approval 21 of Ordinance No. NS-3061; 22 ii. An injunction restraining the City and its agents, servants, and 23 employees, and all others acting in concert with the City, from taping 24 any action to implement Ordinance No. NS-3061 pending full 25 compliance with the requirements of CEQA, the Guidelines, and all 26 other applicable laws and regulations; 27 28 VERTFTED PETTTTON FOR WRTT OF MANDATE 25 AND COMPLATNT I iii. An award of costs of suit and litigation expenses, including, without 2 limitation, attorneys' fees incurred herein as permitted or required by 3 law; and/or 4 iv. An award of such other and further relief as the court deems just and 5 proper. 6 2. For the Second Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief for Violation of CEQA: 7 i. A declaration finding that Ordinance No. NS-3061 is a"project" under 8 CEQA and that the City violated CEQA by failing to perform 9 environmental review prior to passing Ordinance No. NS-3061; 10 ii. An award of costs of suit and litigation expenses, including, without 11 limitation, attorneys' fees incurred herein as permitted or required by 12 law; and/or 13 iii. An award of such other and further relief as the court deems just and 14 proper. 15 3. For the Third Cause of Action for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief for 16 Violation of California Common Law Regarding Nonconforming Use: 17 i. A declaration finding that STRs were permitted under the Santa Ana 18 zoning code as it existed prior to adoption of Ordinance No. NS-3061, 19 and thus, that STRs are a legal nonconforming use under the Santa Ana 20 zoning code as amended by Ordinance No. NS-3061; 21 ii. An injunction restraining the City and its agents, servants, and 22 employees, and all others acting in concert with the City, from taping 23 any action to implement Ordinance No. NS-306 and a permanent 24 injunction setting aside Ordinance No. NS-3061 and holding unlawful 25 Ordinance No. NS-3061; 26 iii. An award of costs of suit and litigation expenses, including, without 27 limitation, attorneys' fees incurred herein as permitted or required by 28 law; and/or VERTFTED PETTTTON FOR WRTT OF MANDATE 26 AND COMPLATNT I iv. An award of such other and further relief as the court deems just and 2 proper. 3 4. For the Fourth Cause of Action for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief for 4 Violation of Due Process: 5 i. A declaration finding that STRs were permitted under the Santa Ana 6 zoning code as it existed prior to adoption of Ordinance No. NS-3061, 7 and thus, that STRs are a legal nonconforming use under the Santa Ana 8 zoning code as amended by Ordinance No. NS-3061; 9 ii. An injunction restraining the City and its agents, servants, and 10 employees, and all others acting in concert with the City, from taking 11 any action to implement Ordinance No. NS-306 and a permanent 12 injunction setting aside Ordinance No. NS-3061 and holding unlawful 13 Ordinance No. NS-3061; 14 iii. An award of costs of suit and litigation expenses, including, without 15 limitation, attorneys' fees incurred herein as permitted or required by 16 law; and/or 17 iv. An award of such other and further relief as the court deems just and 18 proper. 19 5. For the Fifth Cause of Action for a Writ of Mandate Due to Abuse of Discretion: 20 i. A writ of mandate directing the City to rescind and set aside its approval 21 of Ordinance No. NS-3061 and to undertake the required review of the 22 relevant law and evidence; 23 ii. An injunction restraining the City and its agents, servants, and 24 employees, and all others acting in concert with the City, from taking 25 any action to implement the Ordinance No. NS-3061 pending a review 26 of all applicable law and facts; 27 28 VERTFTED PETTTTON FOR WRTT OF MANDATE 27 AND COMPLATNT I iii. An award of costs of suit and litigation expenses, including, without 2 limitation, attorneys' fees incurred herein as permitted or required by 3 law; and/or 4 iv. An award of such other and further relief as the court deems just and 5 proper. 6 6. For costs and legal fees as authorized by law. 7 7. For such other relief as the Court deems proper. 8 9 DATED: June 7, 2024 GAINES & STACEY, LLP 10 11 By: W ici D. J3a4t&# 12 ALICIA B. BARTLEY 13 Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff SANTA ANA SHORT-TERM 14 RENTAL ALLIANCE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 VERTFTED PETTTTON FOR WRTT OF MANDATE 28 AND COMPLATNT ii DocuSign Envelope ID:05B274A1-86D5-4C47-8A03-9D951616DB1C 1 VERIFICATION 2 I, David Suarez, certify and declare that I have read the foregoing VERIFIED PETITION 3 FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF and know its contents. The statement following the box checked is applicable. 4 [ ] I am a party to this action. The matters stated in the document described above are 5 true of my own knowledge and belief except as to those matters stated on information and belief, and 6 as to those matters I believe them to be true. 7 [X] I am [ ] an officer [ ] a partner [X] a member of Santa Ana Short Term Rental Alliance, and am authorized to make this verification for and on its behalf, and I make this 8 verification for that reason. I am informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters 9 stated in the document described above are true. 10 [ ] I am the attorney, or one of the attorneys for , a party to this action. 11 Such party is absent from the county where I or such attorneys have their offices and is unable 12 to verify the document described above. For that reason, I am making this verification for and on behalf of that party. I am informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in 13 said document are true. 14 15 Executed on June 7th , 2024, at santa Ana CA (City) (State) 16 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing l 7 is true and correct. 18 19 DocuSigned by: 20 By taw/ Saa t� 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 29 AND COMPLAINT Attachment B November 18, 2024 Letter from Gaines Stacey to Santa Ana City Council and attachments C, 5820 Canoga Avenue, Suite 300 AINESWoodland Hills, CA 91367 T (818) 933-0200 STACEYLLP F (818) 933-0222 www.gaineslaw.com November 18, 2024 VIA EMAIL eComment(&santa-ana.org Mayor Valerie Amezcua Mayor Pro Tern Thai Viet Phan Councilmember Benjamin Vazquez Councilmember Jessie Lopez Councilmember Phil Bacerra Councilmember Johnathan Ryan Hernandez Councilmember David Penaloza Santa Ana City Council City Council Chamber 20 Civic Center Plaza M-30 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Re: November 19, 2024, City Council Meeting—Item 35: Ordinance Amendment No. 2024- 04 Repealing and Reenacting in its Entirety Article XXI to Chapter 8 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code Prohibiting Short-Term Rentals, and Adopt Enhanced Fines for Violations of the Short-Term Rentals Ordinance Dear Mayor Amezcua and Honorable City Councilmembers, This law office represents the Santa Ana Short-Term Rental Alliance ("Rental Alliance"), whose members own and operate STRs within the City. Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments on behalf of the Rental Alliance on the City's proposed Ordinance Amendment No. 2024-04, amending the Santa Ana Municipal Code ("SAMC") to repeal and reenact a prohibition on short-term rentals ("STRs") (the "Amended Ordinance"). As we detail below, consistent with many of our prior comments, the City's proposed prohibition of STRs would (a) result in significant environmental impacts, (b) violate state and federal law, and (c) unconstitutionally infringe on the rights of hosts and their guests. We also present new evidence by technical experts demonstrating the STR ban will adversely impact the physical environment by causing reasonably foreseeable increases in vehicle miles traveled ("VMT"), air pollutants (and related adverse health consequences), greenhouse gas emissions, and fossil fuel consumption. As just one example from the attached technical reports: when comparing visitors staying at a hotel compared to an STR, mobile emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides("NOx"),and micro particulates("PM 2.5")—all scientifically proven to contribute to smog and increase risks of cancer,asthma,lung damage, and other health impairments—were calculated Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2024 Page 2 to increase by over 400%. These impacts risk harming sensitive receptors and environmental justice communities contrary to state, regional, and local policies. The City's cursory addendum is woefully inadequate in analyzing and disclosing these impacts to the community. We respectfully request that you repeal the existing Article XXI to Chapter 8 of the SMC (which was adopted illegally in April 2024) and direct Staff to work with stakeholders to develop a new ordinance that underscores that STRs may continue operating, subject to reasonable regulations, including an enforcement and transient occupancy tax ("TOT") regime for STRs. Background on the Santa Ana Short-Term Rental Alliance and Challenge to the April 2024 STR Ordinance The Santa Ana Short-Teim Rental Alliance ("Rental Alliance") is an unincorporated community association made up of hardworking residents of both the City of Santa Ana and Southern California that own and/or manage homes located within City limits rented on a short-term basis. They come from diverse backgrounds and call California home. In April 2024,the City unlawfully enacted an ordinance banning STRs in the City with almost no public notice and without undertaking the environmental review required by the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). That action threatened to destroy Rental Alliance members' livelihoods and housing security, closed the door to Santa Ana for countless would-be visitors, and disproportionately affected the individuals and families most in need of flexible housing options and who are often shut out of the long-term residential housing market. In response to that illegal action, this office filed a challenge on behalf of the Rental Alliance in Orange County Superior Court (Santa Ana Short-Term Rental Alliance v. City of Santa Ana, No. TC24-5449 (Orange County Superior Court). While we are pleased that Staff has brought forward a proposal to rescind the illegally adopted ordinance, the Amended Ordinance proposes to adopt the exact same ban on STRs as adopted in April. As summarized herein, the Amended Ordinance is legally flawed, and should the City move forward with readopting the ban, the Rental Alliance intends to challenge the Amended Ordinance. History and Importance of STRs in Santa Ana STRs have always been lawful, residential uses in Santa Ana. Hosts have opened and shared their homes to transient renters for decades, providing important visitor-serving accommodations and offering guests authentic cultural experiences in all corners of the City. These rentals provide an opportunity for visitors to Orange County to meet and interact with locals who graciously share their homes. And with the exception of a brief 2015 moratorium that expired on its own terms, STRs have long been a recognized activity in Santa Ana. Indeed, many of the Rental Alliance members have acquired a business license from the City for each rental unit that they own or manage. 2 Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2024 Page 3 STRs help to make housing affordable for those homeowners who are able to "home share" and earn money by renting portions of their houses, or the entire house,for a period of time. This helps make homeownership possible for many Santa Ana residents who otherwise could not afford the high cost of housing. Home sharing has made communities throughout California accessible to more and more families—even if only for a weekend. It fosters vibrant and diverse communities and supports a robust tourism economy statewide. Without STRs, many desirable vacation destinations, such as Orange County, would likely be less accessible for a wide variety of families. Home sharing also addresses a critical unmet need in California's ongoing housing crisis. Aspiring full-time residents who are unable to pay steep residential move-in costs, which typically include advance payment of first and last months' rent and a sizeable security deposit, can immediately occupy an STR without the substantial up-front cost. In this way, STRs can immediately supply housing to fill a critical gap in availability facing California cities. STRs also play an important role for aspiring residents seeking to sample, and then select, the type and location of their preferred long-term rental home or home purchase. The City's complete failure to recognize the history of STRs in the City and their extensive benefits is particularly troubling. The Prohibition of STRs Will Have Significant Environmental Impacts That Have Not Been Evaluated under CEQA The Amended Ordinance will have significant environmental impacts, and the City has failed to appropriately evaluate these impacts under CEQA. As summarized next, the evidence is clear that the STR ban will impact the physical environment, resulting in reasonably foreseeable direct increases in vehicle miles traveled, air pollutants (with adverse health consequences), greenhouse gas emissions, energy use (including fossil fuels), and more. The City has fallen far short of analyzing these direct impacts in conformance with CEQA.What is more,the City patently ignores reasonably foreseeable indirect effects spurred by the STR ban, such as new construction to account for increased hotel demand, and cumulative impacts resulting from cascading regional impacts from similar STR bans. Despite our strenuous requests during the April 2024 hearings and the subsequent litigation, the City continues to shirk its responsibilities under CEQA to analyze and disclose the true consequences of its actions. 1. The City inappropriately relies on an addendum to an EIR for a completely different, unrelated project. First, the City's reliance on an addendum to the General Plan Programmatic EIR ("GP PEIR") is impermissible under CEQA because the Amended Ordinance constitutes a new project that has not been previously reviewed, and the changes it introduces are substantial, requiring new environmental review. 3 Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2024 Page 4 CEQA provides that a changed project may only undergo a streamlined subsequent environmental review under certain circumstances that trigger either a subsequent EIR, a supplemental EIR, or an addendum to a previously certified EIR. (See CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162-64.) An addendum to a previously certified EIR is appropriate only when the necessary changes or additions do not trigger a subsequent or supplemental EIR, meaning the changes or additions are minor and do not involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162 and 15164.) In all cases, though, CEQA's "subsequent review provisions apply only to a previously approved project that has been subject to environmental review; the provisions do not apply if the agency has proposed a new project not previously analyzed in the original environmental document." (Martis Camp Community Association v. County of Placer (2020) 53 Ca1.App.5th 569, 606 n.26 [emphasis added]; see also Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 950 [CEQA's "subsequent review provisions . . . have no application if the agency has proposed a new project that has not previously been subject to review."].) The Staff Report asks the City to certify an addendum based on the GP PEIR that did not review the environmental impacts of the Amended Ordinance or even acknowledge the existence of STRs in the City. The Amended Ordinance therefore "has not previously been subject to review" under CEQA and the use of an addendum or any other subsequent environmental review pathway is insufficient to comply with CEQA. Further,Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens held that in order for a lead agency to rely on a previously certified CEQA document, that document must "retain informational value" as to the new project. (Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 596, 605.) Here, because the GP PEIR does not analyze the impacts of banning short term rentals or even mention short term rentals at all, it retains no informational value as to the Amended Ordinance. Indeed, the GP PEIR offers no informational value on the reasonably foreseeable direct,indirect and cumulative impacts from the STR ban because the GP PEIR analysis completely ignores STRs. The Proposed Ordinance is a new project constituting a substantial change from the conditions contemplated in the GP PEIR. In a case with similar facts as this one, a court rejected the argument that a city's zoning code had always prohibited STRs and instead held that an ordinance expressly banning STRs was an amendment to the city's local coastal plan requiring Coastal Commission approval. (Keen v. City of Manhattan Beach (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 142, 148-49.) Here, like in Keen, the Amended Ordinance does not maintain the "legal status quo" and therefore is a new project and the City cannot rely on previously approved documents that did not contemplate the impacts of the Amended Ordinance. Moreover,the environmental document prepared for the General Plan was a program EIR. "When a program EIR is employed, if a later proposal is not either the same as or within the scope of the project described in the program EIR . . . it is treated as a new project and must be fully analyzed." (Save Our Access v. City of San Diego (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 819, 845.) [internal quotations and citations omitted].) A program EIR that does not include any discussion or analysis of a later proposed activity is not adequate to inform the public of the environmental effects of that later activity such that the later activity is outside the scope of the program EIR. (Id. at 852-53.) The 4 Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2024 Page 5 GP PEIR does not discuss, analyze, or inform the public of the environmental effects associated with the Amended Ordinance. Therefore, even if the City were to assess the Amended Ordinance under the GP PEIR, the environmental impacts of the STR ban were adequately assessed by the scope of the GP PEIR and therefore the STR ban must be fully analyzed with a project-specific EIR. The evidence is clear—and far exceeds the "fair argument" standard—that an EIR is needed because the STR ban is likely to cause potentially significant impacts to the environment that were not covered by the GP PEIR. (Id. at 845 ["The Supreme Court explained `when a program EIR is employed, if a later proposal is not either the same as or within the scope of the project ... described in the program EIR,' then review of the proposal is not governed by section 21166s deferential substantial evidence standard."] [emphasis added].) In addition, even if the GP PEIR were relied upon, the high-level, programmatic nature of the GP PEIR translates to a lack of detail that requires much more than a short addendum to correct. Rather, a supplemental or subsequent EIR is needed because the STR ban cannot be addressed with "minor" changes to the GP PEIR. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an addendum is only permitted where minor changes are needed to the prior analysis. As detailed herein, the complete absence of prior analysis of STRs,let alone the STR ban,requires changes to many topic areas covered by CEQA and raises new potentially significant impacts that cannot be addressed with minor clarifications. For these reasons, the City's approval of the Amended Ordinance based on an addendum or any other subsequent, supplemental, or tiered analysis based on the GP PEIR would violate CEQA. 2. The potentially significant environmental impacts of an STR ban require the Cit.. t�pare a new EIR. Even if an addendum were appropriate, the 51-page Addendum falls far short of appropriately analyzing and disclosing impacts under CEQA. The GP PEIR is silent on STRs and the Addendum contains only a cursory, superficial, and unsupported analysis of the STR ban. As detailed in Attachment A to this letter (CAJA Environmental Services, Potential Significant Environmental Effects of Banning Short-Term Rentals in the City of Santa and Requirement Require Additional Environmental Analysis Under CEQA, November 14, 2024 ["CAJA Report"]), there are several potentially significant direct environmental impacts that could result from a STR ban in the City, including but not limited to: • Air quality. The STR ban would result in an increase in daily mobile emissions of approximately 443 percent of NOx and 444 percent of PM2.5 from guests of STRs transitioning to using hotels. (CAJA Report, pp. 2-3.) NOx causes adverse health consequences including breathing difficulties and increased risk of chronic pulmonary fibrosis as well as bronchitis in children.PM2.5 can damage the respiratory tract, increasing the number and severity of asthma attacks, and aggravating bronchitis and other lung diseases, and reducing the body's ability to fight infections. (Ramboll Memo re Environmental Analysis of Short-Term Rental Regulation dated November 14, 2024,p. 3.) 5 Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2024 Page 6 Construction of new hotels without emissions mitigation would result in an excess cancer risk of 48 in a million for the maximum exposed individual— exceeding by more than 4 times SCAQMD's threshold of 10 in a million. (CAJA Report, p. 2.) • Environmental Justice Community impacts. The STR ban would disproportionately burden environmental justice communities because the City's communities most burdened by regional pollution and localized traffic exposure are located near the existing hotel stock and would be directly impacted by increased hotel usage in response to the STR ban, increasing the known pollution contributors to respiratory and cardiovascular health risks in these communities. (CAJA Report,p. 3.) • Traffic concentration and health impacts. The STR ban could increase traffic concentrated on roadways going to the hotels in the City by 7,560 vehicles per day, resulting in health impacts that would exceed the SCAQMD CEQA threshold of significance for cancer risk. (CAJA Report,p. 3.) • Energy. The STR ban would increase energy demand because hotels use more energy per person than STRs(more than 5x more electricity,more than 2x more natural gas).(CAJA Report,p. 3.)By increasing VMT,the STR ban would also increase reliance on fossil fuels to power vehicle trips—the daily mobile fuel consumption for hotels is more than five times greater for hotels compared to STRs for both gasoline and diesel—inconsistent with regional and state climate goals. (CAJA Report, p. 3.) • GHG emissions. The STR ban would result in an increase of daily mobile emissions of GHG by 443 percent,contributing to a significant increase in emissions in the area in direct conflict with regional and state goals to reduce VMT and GHG emissions from vehicle trips. (CAJA Report, p. 3.) Further, Ramboll concluded that the increased energy demand associated with hotels compared to STRs would result in a 179 percent increase in GHG emissions per person. (CAJA Report, p. 3.) • Noise.The STR ban could concentrate traffic on roadways going to hotels in the area, since many hotels in the City are located in one concentrated area of the City, resulting in noise impacts above the City's General Plan Noise Element standard of 65 dBA CNEL, potentially exacerbating existing noise impacts or creating a new significant noise impact. (CAJA, p. 4.) There are also potential indirect impacts stemming from the ban's reasonably foreseeable result of new hotel space construction. The STR ban will cause potentially significant new impacts related to hotel construction including air quality and health impacts from construction emissions including diesel particulate matter, and noise impacts exceeding the City's General Plan Noise Element standard and the City's noise ordinance. (CAJA Report p. 4.) These and the other potentially significant environmental impacts summarized in Attachment A to this letter also mean the Amended Ordinance is not eligible for a Class 1 exemption and that the City must prepare a full EIR. 6 Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2024 Page 7 If the City Council were to ignore the substantial evidence in the record of potential impacts and proceed with adopting the Amended Ordinance without first preparing an EIR to analyze these potentially significant impacts, alternatives to the STR ban that may result in lesser impacts, and mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts, such an action would constitute an abuse of discretion. Prohibiting STRs in Santa Ana Violates State and Federal Law The prohibition of STRs in the City violates state and federal laws in numerous ways. Specifically: 1. STRs have legally operated in Santa Ana, with the City's knowledge and acceptance, for decades. STRs have operated legally in the City for decades and the City has acknowledged the operation of STRs within its boundaries for years. For instance, on September 15, 2015, the City Council implemented "an emergency ordinance adopting a 45-day temporary moratorium on the establishment or expansion of any short term residential rental use." (Ordinance No. NS-2886.) This ordinance acknowledged that "[t]he current provisions of the Santa Ana Municipal Code [] do not clearly identify short-term residential rental uses or take into account the potential impacts associated with the establishment of STRs within existing residential zones. As such, provisions of . . . the Code . . . require review, study, and possible revision in order to respond to recent concerns relating to the impacts of these short-term rental uses in the City." (Id., Section 1.13 (emphasis added).) Importantly, the 2015 emergency ordinance for the moratorium specially provided: "No short-term residential rental is permitted in a residential zone as defined in Article I of Chapter 41 of the Code." (Id., Section 2.) Of course,this new prohibition would not have been necessary had STRs not been an existing lawful use in the City. On October 20, 2015, the City Council considered a recommendation to extend the moratorium adopted on September 15, 2015, but it declined to do so. The result was that STRs continued operating as lawful residential uses throughout the City. Then, after continuously issuing ministerial business licenses for hosts renting their property on a short-term basis and long after the temporary moratorium expired, the City changed its position. Around early 2022, the City suddenly claimed that STRs were prohibited based on the City's "permissive" zoning ordinance and commenced enforcement actions against existing hosts. And now, the City states in the Staff Report that "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." (November 19, 2024, Staff Report, p. 3.) This position is directly contradicted by the Municipal Code itself. "Short-Term Rentals" are mentioned in the Municipal Code in the context of urban lot splits. The Municipal Code specifically states that"Short-term vacation rentals (STRs)"are not permitted in dwelling units on lots created by an urban lot split. (Santa Ana Mun. Code § 41.2109(1)(2); see also id. § 41- 2115(l)(2) [same prohibition for dwelling units on lot for Two-Unit Projects].)Notably, in both of these code provisions, the prohibition on STRs on these types of lots is in a separate subpart 7 Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2024 Page 8 from a prohibition on "non-residential uses"on these types of lots. (See Santa Ana Mun. Code § 41.2109(1)(1) ["Residential-only.No non-residential use is permitted on any lot created by urban lot split."]; § 41-2115(1)(2) [same].) If STRs were not a residential property use, the separate prohibition would be superfluous. The City's express prohibition of STRs on certain lots refutes the City's argument that they are prohibited by omission throughout the entire City. After all, why would the City prohibit them explicitly in one place if they were already impliedly prohibited everywhere?If they are prohibited in the entire City, sections 41-2109 and 41-2115 would be superfluous—in violation of California law. (In re C.H., 53 CalAth 94, 102-03 (2011) [California courts strive to give meaning to every word in a statute and avoid constructions that render words, phrases, or clauses superfluous.]; Escamilla v. Vannucci,97 Cal.App.5th 175, 187-88 (2023).)Homeowners cannot understand what is and is not prohibited if the City adopts such nonsensical readings of its own zoning provisions. Staff s position that STRs are currently unlawful under the City's current zoning ordinance is also foreclosed by the California Court of Appeal's decision in Keen v. City of Manhattan Beach. (77 Cal.App. 5th 142(Cal. Ct.App.2022).)There,the court considered a permissive zoning ordinance from Manhattan Beach that is very similar to Santa Ana's current zoning ordinance. Manhattan Beach's ordinance permitted "single-family residential" and "multi-family residential" uses but did not say anything about STRs. (Id. at 149.) As a result, people in Manhattan Beach had "[f]or quite some time. . . . rented residential units in Manhattan Beach on both long- and short-term bases," and "[t]he City knew about that practice and occasionally got complaints about a rental property[.]" (Id. at 146.) Then, in 2015, Manhattan Beach passed an ordinance banning STRs and claimed—much like Staff has done here—that it was merely "reiterating" the City's supposedly existing "implicit"ban on STRs. (Ibid.) The Court of Appeal squarely disagreed, holding that Manhattan Beach's zoning code "always permitted short-term, as well as long-term,residential rentals." (Id. at 148 (emphasis added).) The court explained that once the house or apartment building was built, anyone — renter or owner— could reside there for periods long or short, since the code "offer[s] no textual basis for a temporal distinction about the duration of rentals", and the term"`residence' does not imply some minimum length of occupancy" (Id. at 148-149.) In short, "[a] `residential building' is used for human habitation without regard to length of occupancy," and"[i]t is possible to reside somewhere for a night, a week, or a lifetime." (Id. at 149.) As in Keen, the Santa Ana Municipal Code authorizes "single-family residence" and "multiple family residence"uses,and these classifications place no minimum length of occupancy restriction on these residential uses. (Santa Ana Mun. Code, § 41-184 et seq.)And,just as in Keen, long-term rental of residential property is permitted under the existing Santa Ana code. And so, just as in Keen, without any durational requirement for rentals in the code, there is no justification for the unfounded claim that STRs are currently forbidden. 8 Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2024 Page 9 2. The Amended Ordinance would unlawfully terminate existing,lawful nonconforming uses in violation of rights protected by California law and the City's Municipal Code. A lawful nonconforming use is "one that existed lawfully before a zoning restriction became effective and that is not in conformity with the ordinance when it continues thereafter." Hansen Bros. Enters., Inc. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 907 P.2d 1324, 1327 n.l (Cal. 1996) (citing cases). The nature and extent of the use at the time the use is rendered nonconforming"determines the right to continue the use." Id. California courts have long held that a party may continue to use their property even though such use is nonconforming. (Hill v. Manhattan Beach, 6 Cal.3d 279, 285-86 (Cal. 1971);Livingston Rock& Gravel Co. v. Los Angeles County,43 Cal.2d 121, 127(Cal. 1954); Edmonds v.Los Angeles County,40 Cal.2d 642, 651 (Cal. 1953);E.B.Jones v. City ofLos Angeles, 211 Cal.304, 310-311 (Cal. 1930).) The reason is simple: immediate termination of previously lawful(and now non-conforming)uses would be of doubtful constitutionality. (Livingston Rock& Gravel Co., 43 Cal. 2d at 127; Edmonds, 40 Cal. 2d at 651.) This follows from "vested rights" principles, which provide that when a zoning ordinance changes, a property owner may have a "vested right" to continue the existing use, notwithstanding the newer zoning restriction. (City of Ukiah v. County of Mendocino, 196 Cal.App. 3d 47, 56-57 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987).) Santa Ana's proposed Ordinances would violate these principles. Hosts are making lawful uses of their property, and they have made significant investments in their homes to offer them as STRs. Settled California law affords them nonconforming use rights to continue their STR use. The Amended Ordinance cannot legally withdraw those rights. Prohibiting existing STRs also directly conflicts with the City's Municipal Code, which provides that legal nonconforming land uses may continue subject to limitations on expansion or enlargement of the use, or abandonment of use. (See Santa Ana Mun. Code § 41-683 —41-689.) 3. Recent United States Supreme Court cases establish that the Amended Ordinance would result in a taking, entitling all hosts of the 700+ existing STRs in the City to compensation. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment safeguards rights deeply rooted in United States history. Property rights, traditionally viewed as a "bundle of sticks," are crucial to liberty, with constitutional framers emphasizing private property as bulwark against unlawful exercises of state power. The right to lease one's property is a critical aspect of these rights, protected by the Takings Clause of the U.S. and California constitutions, which requires just compensation for property taken or damaged for public use. The Supreme Court recently expanded physical takings law to encompass temporary and intermittent physical invasions similar to deprivations of the right to lease. In Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, the Court held that a regulation requiring agricultural employers to allow union organizers to have periodic and temporary access to farm workers on the property constituted a physical (and not aregulatory)taking. (594 U.S.at 143.)Simply put,the"regulation appropriate[d] for the enjoyment of third parties the owners' right to exclude," which, again, the Court hailed as "`one of the most treasured' rights of property ownership." (Id. at 149.) The ordinance here not only impedes on the corollary right to include, it also effectively requires hosts to allow renters 9 Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2024 Page 10 on their property for longer, and that longer term use amounts to a physical incursion on hosts' right to exclude. Importantly, the Federal District Court of Hawaii recently considered an ordinance similar to that proposed by Santa Ana that barred certain STRs. (Hawai'i Legal Short-Term Rental All. v. City & Cn(y. of Honolulu,2022 WL 7471692,at*2-3 (D. Haw. Oct. 13,2022).)In resolving the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, the court held that the plaintiff would likely succeed on the merits of a takings claim under the Federal and Hawaii Constitutions. (Id. at*5.) Because the Ordinance impacts both the right to include and the right to exclude from one's property, all existing STR hosts would be entitled to compensation if the City Council were to adopt the Amended Ordinance. 4. The adoption of the Amended Ordinance would constitute arbitrary and capricious decision-making. There is no evidence in the record that STRs in the City cause a nuisance, and the City's extreme approach of banning STRs and infringing on homeowners' legal rights is unsupported by the record. STRs play an important and environmentally sustainable role in the City, and provide significant benefits to the City, its residents, and its visitors, and these benefits are being completely ignored. The Staff Report provides no evidence that any STRs in the City contribute to nuisance-type conditions such as "excessive noise, parking problems, and trash," nor does it acknowledge that the SAMC already has several existing enforcement mechanisms to mitigate public nuisances. (SAMC, Chapter 17.) In reality, many STRs in the City are either owner-occupied, meaning that the host is on site while guests are present because they live there full-time and have an extra room/rooms, or are entire home STRs which are rented on a short-term basis because the owner travels or is in the City only on a seasonal basis and so cannot rent the property on a long-term basis (e.g., six-month or one- year lease). Further, as discussed in a recent study conducted by the Milken Institute on STRs in California, "the notion that decreasing SIR supply will mitigate California's extreme housing shortage is not supported by the evidence. The only solution to California's housing crisis is to provide more housing: specifically denser, more affordable multifamily housing units." 1 A review of the Housing Element reveals that the City does not appear to mention STRs anywhere in that document. (See City of Santa Ana General Plan Housing Element). In the section of the Housing Element discussing"Housing Constraints,"the City notes that various factors influencing the City's ability to meet its housing goals include market factors (land costs, construction and rehabilitation costs, availability of financing, and recent trends in foreclosures), governmental factors (land use regulations, development standards,building codes,permit procedures, and other local policies), and environmental factors (adequacy of infrastructure, public services, and water i Alissa Dubetz, Matt Horton, and Charlotte Kesteven, Staying Power: The Effects of Short-Term Rentals on California's Tourism Economy and Housing Affordability, MILKEN TNSTTTUTE (May 2022), https://milkeninstitute.or�z/sites/default/files/2022-05/Short Term_Rentals_California.pdf. 10 Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2024 Page 11 supply to support new development). (Id. at A-47).Further,and as discussed in the Milken Institute study, California's decades-long housing shortage is primarily caused by failure to build enough housing due to rising construction costs, lengthy permitting times, and community opposition, which disincentivize construction of affordable housing. (Dubetz, p. 4.) As Professor Betsy Stevenson, the former Chief Economist at the U.S. Department of Labor and member of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, has written, banning STRs in fact undermines efforts to "make [housing] more affordable." (Betsey Stevenson, Banning Airbnb Won't Solve the Housing Crisis, BLOOMBERG NEWS (July 8, 2024), https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-07- 08/banning-airbnb-will-not-make-housing-more-affordable.) To the contrary, "[a]llowing residents to rent out their homes can help them recoup some of their investment and make city living more affordable." (Ibid.) The City's conclusory approach to regulation does not meet the standard for informed, rational decision-making. Because the City lacks any justification for adopting the Amended Ordinance, such an action would be arbitrary and capricious. (Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn., 11 Cal.3d 28, 34 (1974);Avenida San Juan Partnership v. City of San Clemente, 201 Cal.AppAth 1256, 1268 (2011).) 5. The adoption of the Amended Ordinance would illegally impede on hosts' rightprivacy. The STR ban also implicates the "inalienable" right to privacy under the California Constitution (Hill v. NCAA, 7 Cal. 4th 1, 20 (1994)) by taking away homeowners' ability to choose who can stay in their homes. (Coalition Advocating Legal Housing Options v. City of Santa Monica, 88 Cal. App. 4th 451,459 (2001) [explaining the"right to privacy"includes "the right to be left alone in our homes."].) These constitutional privacy protections the protect the property owner's right to host STRs and invite guests into their home. In Coalition Advocating Legal Housing Options, supra, 88 Cal.AppAth at 454, 459, the Court of Appeal invalidated a local ordinance that limited occupants of ADUs in residential zones to the property owner,property owner's dependent,or their caregiver, finding the privacy right "to choose with whom to live in the main residence...must apply to the right to decide who may live in the second unit [which]...is still part of the home." Many hosts invite guests into their homes while they are present during the stay, and the City's ban on all STRs would infringe on hosts' constitutional right to privacy, which includes the right to choose who can stay in homes. The City fails to provide any substantial justification to pass the heightened scrutiny applied to laws or regulations that infringe on the right to privacy and cannot do so because STRs have no demonstrable negative impact on the City compared to other residential uses, including long-term rentals. 11 Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2024 Page 12 6. The adoption of the Amended Ordinance would illegally infringe the right to contract. The Ordinance also violates hosts' right to contract under the California constitution, which prohibits laws impairing the obligation of contracts. (Cal. Const., Art I, § 9.) The "threshold question" is "whether the state law has, in fact, operated as a substantial impairment of a contractual relationship." (Alameda Cnty. Sheriff's Assn v. Alameda Cnty. Emps. 'Ret. Assn, 9 Cal. 5th 1032, 1075 (2020).) "If the state law is found to create a `substantial' impairment, the inquiry turns to the means and ends of the legislation," with the state required to demonstrate a "significant and legitimate public purpose" for the law and the court required to evaluate whether the adjustment of the rights and responsibilities of the contracting parties is "reasonable" and "appropriate to th[at] public purpose." (Id. (citations omitted); see also Calfarm Ins. Co. v. Deukm(iian, 48 Cal. 3d 805, 831 (1989).) Rental Alliance hosts have already agreed to rent their property on a short-term basis to guests in upcoming months. An immediate ban on STRs would invalidate those contractual obligations of STR owners in violation of this constitutional right. 7. The adoption of the Amended Ordinance would deprive hosts of their substantive due process rights. Termination of a lawful nonconforming use effects a deprivation of property without due process of law, and banning the ability of homeowners to rent their home to visitors more broadly violates their substantive due process rights under the California and U.S. constitutions by infringing on their property rights, including the "right to lease," one of the many property rights within the "bundle of sticks" of property rights. (United States v. Craft, 535 U.S. 274, 278 (2002).) 8. The proposed fines violate the United States Constitution. The administrative fines proposed by the Resolution are also so excessive as to raise federal constitutional concerns. The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution forbids the City from imposing excessive fines. The United States Supreme Court has held that "[t]he touchstone of the constitutional inquiry under the Excessive Fines Clause is the principle of proportionality: the amount of the forfeiture must bear some relationship to the gravity of the offense that it is designed to punish." (United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 334 (1998).) Here the Amended Ordinance's proposed fines of $1,500 for a first violation, $3,000 for a second violation, and $5,000 for a third violation fail to meet the principle of proportionality. (See, e.g., Kalthoff v. Douglas Cnty., 2021 WL 3010006, at *6 (D. Nev. July 15, 2021) (finding "it troubling that many of these fines [for violations of short-term rental ordinance] [we]re for several thousands of dollars without any authority to lower the fines for particular violators' circumstances" and enjoining enforcement of fines on constitutional grounds).) 12 Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2024 Page 13 The City Has Refused To Provide Evidence Surrounding its Treatment of STRs and the Basis for Banning STRs in Violation of the California Public Records Act In April 2024, a Public Records Act request was filed with the City in an effort to understand what motivated the City's pursuit of a total ban on STRs. Over six months later, the City has still not produced a response to the PRA. (See PRA 24-715.) The City has responded to over 1,000 PRA requests filed after the PRA seeking information about the City's treatment of STRs. As such, the City appears to be concealing the true motivations for seeking to ban all STRs in the City. To date, the City has not provided any evidence to support its claim that STRs in the City have a negative impact on public health, safety, and welfare, if any even exists. We strongly urge the Council to refrain from taking any action on the proposed STR prohibition until the City has responded to the Public Records Act request. Proposed Path Forward We urge the City Council to rescind the currently effective and illegally adopted Ordinance,reject the Amended Ordinance, and direct Staff to work with all stakeholders to develop a new ordinance that authorizes STRs to continue operating subject to reasonable regulations. Specifically, we recommend establishing an enforcement and transient occupancy tax ("TOT") regime for STRs. This type of regulation strikes the appropriate balance while maintaining the ability of STR owners to operate in the City. While the Rental Alliance is ready and willing to work with the City, for the reasons summarized above, should the City Council move forward with adopting the Amended Ordinance we will challenge this action in court to protect our client's rights. Sincerely, GAINES & STACEY LLP atkia ic% Xm#&# By ALICIA B. BARTLEY cc: Jose Montoya (Via Email - jmontoyaksanta-ana.org) Amy Hoyt(Via Email - Amy.Hoytgbbklaw.com) Hannah Park (Via Email - Hannah.Parkkbbklaw.com) Attachments Attachment A — CAJA Environmental Services, Potential Significant Environmental Effects of Banning Short-Term Rentals in the City of Santa and Requirement Require Additional Environmental Analysis Under CEQA, November 14, 2024. 13 Attachment A CAJA Environmental Services, Potential Significant Environmental Effects of Banning Short-Term Rentals in the City of Santa and Requirement Require Additional Environmental Analysis Under CEQA, November 14, 2024. dFCAJA Environmental Services, LLC 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd.,Suite 101 Chatsworth,CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700 Fax 310-806-9801 To: Santa Ana Short-Term Rental Alliance From: Stacie Henderson, Vice President CAJA Environmental Services, LLC Date: November 14, 2024 Re: Potential Significant Environmental Effects of Banning Short-Term Rentals in the City of Santa Ana and Requirement for Additional Environmental Analysis Under CEQA Firm Background and Qualifications CAJA Environmental Services, LLC (CAJA) is an environmental consulting firm that specializes in environmental planning, research, and documentation for public and private sector clients. For over 35 years, CAJA and its predecessor company Christopher A. Joseph & Associates have offered a broad range of environmental consulting services focusing primarily on CEQA documentation for private development projects throughout California. CAJA's project experience includes environmental clearance documentation and third-party review for all types of projects including industrial, commercial, institutional, residential, mixed-use, entertainment/events, public sector, subdivisions, coastal development, and urban infill projects. Stacie Henderson is CAJA's Vice President, with 20 years of professional experience in environmental writing, planning, and research. She has contributed substantially to the preparation and management of multiple types of environmental documents pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs), Mitigated Negative Declarations (MNDs), Categorical Exemptions (CEs), Sustainable Communities Project Exemptions (SCPEs), and Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessments (SCEAs). Ms. Henderson's experience comprises a variety of multi-faceted developments including single- and multi-family residential, mixed-use, entertainment, retail, institutional, commercial, industrial, and recreational developments. Ms. Henderson received a B.A. in Political Science from the University of California, Berkeley, and a law degree from Loyola Law School. Overview We understand that at its November 19th regular meeting, the City Council will consider the first reading of an ordinance to prohibit STRs in the City (the Proposed Ordinance). We further understand that the City will consider whether, based on the Addendum to the City's General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report ("GP PEIR"), the Proposed Ordinance requires further environmental analysis or, in the alternative, whether its adoption is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to a Class 1 categorical exemption for existing facilities. (CEQA Guidelines § 15301.) For the reasons summarized herein, the City's environmental analysis of the Proposed Ordinance banning all STRs in the City is inadequate. 1 iCAJA Environmental Services, LLC 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd.,Suite 101 Chatsworth,CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700 Fax 310-806-9801 Reliance on an Addendum to the GP PER is Inappropriate The Proposed Ordinance is a new project, completely unrelated to the City's adoption of its General Plan, so the City's reliance on an addendum or any other subsequent, supplemental, or tiered analysis based on the GP PEIR would violate CEQA. The General Plan makes no reference to STRs, does not in any way evaluate existing operations of STRs, or indicate that STRs will be prohibited in the City. As a new, distinct project, it is not appropriate to prepare an addendum to an existing environmental impact report ("EIR") when that prior EIR did not previously review or even contemplate the scope of the current project or related environmental concerns, and the new project introduces changes that are substantial, requiring new environmental review. (Martis Camp Community Association v. County of Placer (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 569, 606 n.26 [emphasis added]; see also Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 950 [CEQA's "subsequent review provisions . . . have no application if the agency has proposed a new project that has not previously been subject to review."].) Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens held that in order for a lead agency to rely on a previously certified CEQA document, that document must"retain informational value"as to the new project. (Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 596, 605.) Here, because the GP PER did not mention let alone analyze STRs in any way, and certainly did not analyze the impact of banning STRs it retains no informational value as to the Proposed Ordinance. Specifically, there is no substantial evidence that the GP PER retains informational value to analyzing the Proposed Ordinance because: (1) the GP PER traffic analysis did not consider STRs and therefore provides no informational value on the STIR ban's reasonably foreseeable increases to VMT or congestion as visitors are forced to travel greater distances to regional commercial centers to find available or affordable hotels or allowed STRs; (2) the GP PER air quality and GHG analysis did not consider STRs and therefore provides no informational value on the STIR ban's reasonably foreseeable increases of air pollutants caused by the increase in VMT (and the corresponding health impacts from those pollutant increases) and increasing GHG emissions caused by the increase in VMT (and related inconsistencies with local, regional, and state climate plans); (3) the GP PER noise analysis did consider STRs and therefore provides no informational value on the STIR ban's reasonably foreseeable noise impacts caused by increased traffic congestion and construction that is reasonably foreseeable from the STIR ban; and (4) other topic areas, as documented in this letter, where the record is bereft of information pertaining to the important environmental issues that must be analyzed under CEQA to asses and disclose the environmental consequences of this action. In contrast to the GP PEIR's prior lack of analysis, our analysis below, and the technical environmental and economics reports from Ramboll Americas Engineering Solutions, Inc. ("Ramboll"), submitted concurrently with and relied upon in this report, demonstrate that there are numerous reasonably foreseeable impacts, including: • Direct impacts from the STIR ban caused by increases in VMT, air pollutants, energy use, GHG emissions, and noise: o Air Quality. Ramboll concluded that the STIR ban would result in an increase in daily mobile emissions of approximately 443 percent of NOx and 444 percent of PM2.5 from 2 iCAJA Environmental Services, LLC 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd.,Suite 101 Chatsworth,CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700 Fax 310-806-9801 guests of STRs transitioning to using hotels. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, p. 4.) NOx causes adverse health consequences including breathing difficulties and increased risk of chronic pulmonary fibrosis as well as bronchitis in children. PM2.5 can damage the respiratory tract, increasing the number and severity of asthma attacks, and aggravating bronchitis and other lung diseases, and reducing the body's ability to fight infections. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, p. 3.) Ramboll further concluded that the STIR ban would disproportionately burden environmental justice communities because the City's communities most burdened by regional pollution and localized traffic exposure are located near the existing hotel stock and would be directly impacted by increased hotel usage in response to the STIR ban, increasing the known pollution contributors to respiratory and cardiovascular health risks in these communities. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, pp. 5- 7.) Ramboll concluded that the STIR ban could increase traffic concentrated on roadways going to the hotels in the City by 7,560 vehicles per day, resulting in health impacts that would exceed the SCAQMD CEQA threshold of significance for cancerrisk. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, pp. 8-9.) Further, Ramboll concluded the construction of new hotels without emissions mitigation would result in an excess cancer risk of 48 in a million for the maximum exposed individual — exceeding by more than 4 times SCAQMD's threshold of 10 in a million. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, p. 11.) o GHG Emissions. Ramboll concluded that the STIR ban would result in an increase of daily mobile emissions of GHG by 443 percent, contributing to a significant increase in emissions in the area in direct conflict with regional and state goals to reduce VMT and GHG emissions from vehicle trips. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, p. 4.) Further, Ramboll concluded that the increased energy demand associated with hotels compared to STRs would result in a 179 percent increase in GHG emissions per person. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, p. 8.) o Energy. Ramboll concluded the STIR ban would increase energy demand because hotels use more energy per person than STRs (more than 5x more electricity, more than 2x more natural gas). (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, pp. 7-8.) By increasing VMT, the STIR ban would also increase reliance on fossil fuels to power vehicle trips — the daily mobile fuel consumption for hotels is more than five times greater for hotels compared to STRs for both gasoline and diesel — inconsistent with regional and state climate goals. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, p. 8.) o Transportation. Ramboll concluded that the STIR ban would increase the number of trips taken by guests to and from hotels, more than doubling the trips per day compared to STRs. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, p. 4.) As discussed herein, this increase in trips would result in air quality and health risk, GHG emissions, energy, and noise impacts. Further, Ramboll concluded the STIR ban would concentrate traffic by increasing traffic by 7,560 vehicles per day on road to the City's hotels, resulting in health risks exceeding SCAQMD's CEQA threshold of significance for cancer risk. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, p. 9.) 3 iCAJA Environmental Services, LLC 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd.,Suite 101 Chatsworth,CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700 Fax 310-806-9801 o Noise. Ramboll concluded the STR ban could concentrate traffic on roadways going to hotels in the area, since many hotels in the City are located in one concentrated area of the City, resulting in noise impacts above the City's General Plan Noise Element standard of 65 dBA CNEL, potentially exacerbating existing noise impacts or creating a new significant noise impact. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, pp. 9-10, 13-14.) • Indirect impacts stemming from the ban's reasonably foreseeable result of new hotel space construction. Ramboll estimates the STR ban will cause potentially significant new impacts related to hotel construction including air quality and health impacts from construction emissions including diesel particulate matter, and noise impacts exceeding the City's General Plan Noise Element standard and the City's noise ordinance. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, pp. 11-12.) • Cumulative impacts resulting from regional trends related to STR regulations that may result in potentially significant environmental impacts. These trends have potential to increase hotel occupancy rates in Orange County and the Southern California region and driveup room rates, which is particularly concerning with the upcoming 2028 Olympics. Thus, the Proposed Ordinance is a new project with new, potentially significant environmental impacts, that constitutes a substantial change from the conditions contemplated in the GP PEIR and must be subject to new environmental review under CEQA. This letter details a number of fair arguments that the STR ban may cause significant environmental impacts, requiring a new EIR. Moreover, the environmental document prepared for the General Plan was a program EIR. "When a program EIR is employed, if a later proposal is not either the same as or within the scope of the project described in the program EIR . . . it is treated as a new project and must be fully analyzed." (Save Our Access v. City of San Diego (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 819, 845.) [internal quotations and citations omitted].) A program EIR that does not include any discussion or analysis of a later proposed activity is not adequate to inform the public of the environmental effects of that later activity such that the later activity is outside the scope of the program EIR. (Id. at 852-53.)The GP PEIR does not discuss, analyze, or inform the public of the environmental effects associated with the Proposed Ordinance. Therefore, even if the City were to assess the Proposed Ordinance under the GP PEIR, it is not within the scope of the GP PEIR and must be fully analyzed as a new project under CEQA. (Id. at 845 ["The Supreme Court explained `when a program EIR is employed, if a later proposal is not either the same as or within the scope of the project ... described in the program EIR,' then review of the proposal is not governed by section 21166's deferential substantial evidence standard."]) In addition, even if the GP PEIR were relied upon, the high-level, programmatic nature of the GP PEIR translates to a lack of detail that requires much more than a 51-page addendum to correct. Rather, a supplemental or subsequent EIR would be needed because the STR ban cannot be addressed with "minor" changes to the GP PEIR. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an addendum is only permitted where minor changes are needed to the prior analysis. As detailed herein, the complete absence of prior analysis of STRs, let alone the STR ban, requires changes to many topic areas covered by CEQA and raises new potentially significant impacts that cannot be addressed with minor clarifications. 4 iCAJA Environmental Services, LLC 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd.,Suite 101 Chatsworth,CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700 Fax 310-806-9801 The Environmental Analysis in the Addendum is Deficient Even if an addendum were appropriate, the 51-page Addendum falls far short of appropriately analyzing and disclosing impacts under CEQA. The GP PEIR is silent on STRs and the Addendum contains only a cursory, superficial, and unsupported analysis of the STR ban. The analysis below and the technical environmental and economic analysis provided in the reports from Ramboll, submitted concurrently with this report demonstrate that there are numerous potentially significant environmental impacts that would result from an STR ban in the Proposed Ordinance. These potentially significant environmental impacts also mean the Proposed Ordinance is not eligible for a Class 1 exemption and that the City must prepare a full EIR. This is further clarified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15002(f)(1)which states: (f) Environmental Impact Reports and Negative Declarations. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is the public document used by the governmental agency to analyze the significant environmental effects of a proposed project, to identify alternatives, and to disclose possible ways to reduce or avoid the possible environmental damage. (1) An EIR is prepared when the public agency finds substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. (See: Section 15064(a)(1).) Other California jurisdictions have recognized the need to prepare an EIR when proposing STR restrictions. Earlier this year,for example, Monterey County completed an EIR fora proposed set of County regulations for STRs that restricted but did not ban STR uses in the County.An EIR is even more warranted for an ordinance proposing to ban STRs entirely. For the reasons noted below, there is substantial evidence that the City's STR ban will reasonably foreseeably result in direct and adverse changes to the physical environment—including increases in VMT, air pollutants, health consequences, GHGs, and energy use—as well as reasonably foreseeable indirect and cumulative impacts that may result in significant environmental effects. The City cannot rely on the GP PEIR and must prepare a new EIR. In any instance, the Addendum's superficial and conclusory analysis falls short of analyzing, disclosing, and proposing ways to mitigate these impacts and cannot be relied upon to satisfy the City's CEQA obligations. The City must prepare a new EIR, or a new Supplemental EIR to the GP PEIR, to properly analyze all areas of potential significant environmental impact, a reasonable range of alternatives to the Proposed Ordinance, and mitigation of impacts to the maximum extent feasible. 5 drCAJA Environmental Services, LLC 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd.,Suite 101 Chatsworth,CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700 Fax 310-806-9801 Factors Contributing to Potentially Significant Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Environmental Effects from an STIR Ban Santa Ana is the largest city in Orange County'and its central location in Orange County has long attracted tourism. As described in a leading travel advisory: Rich in authentic heritage and can't-miss gems, Santa Ana is a cultural, entertainment and culinary center of large and diverse Orange County. The city's convenient location provides easy access to all things Southern California — day trips to Los Angeles, stops at numerous nearby theme parks and stunning Pacific Ocean sunsets only found on the golden coast. But stay a while and you'll be surprised by all the art, culture and attractions only found in historic Santa Ana.' Tourism is a cornerstone of Santa Ana's economy, driving substantial revenue and job creation for the community. As discussed in the concurrently submitted economics analysis from Ramboll, visitor spending in 2023 contributed $414.7 million to the local economy, and this spending supports local businesses and fuels sectors like food service, accommodations, retail, arts, and transportation and provides essential funding for city services like public safety, parks, and neighborhood improvements, while also alleviating the tax burden for residents. (Ramboll Economics Analysis, p. 2.) Without tourism-related tax revenue, each household would pay an additional $195 annually in local taxes. (Ramboll Economics Analysis, p. 2.) Tourism's impact on employment is equally significant, supporting nearly 3,000 jobs in Santa Ana and contributing around $137 million in wages to the local workforce. With continued growth in overnight visits and local attractions, tourism remains a vital industry that helps sustain the community's economic well- being and enhance residents' quality of life. (Ramboll Economics Analysis, p. 2.) Tourists need a place to stay. Banning STRs will force tourists to find other accommodations. The market success of STRs demonstrates that traditional hotel and motel facilities in Santa Ana are insufficient to meet the diverse needs of STIR guests, including for example families for whom access to multiple bedrooms and a kitchen is the best vacation option. The reasonably foreseeable consequence of banning STRs is for tourists to find other accommodations that are less centrally located in Orange County and would thereby change tourist traffic patterns and increase VMT—or result in the impactful construction of new hotels and motels, which would result in both construction and operational impacts to the physical environment that must be evaluated under CEQA. It is reasonably foreseeable that eliminating all STRs in the City will cause the following direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts: • A shift in traffic patterns resulting in increased vehicle miles traveled (VMT) due to people traveling farther distances to their vacation destinations and their temporary/transitory places of employment and residence. Both could result in significant direct environmental effects, including increased vehicle emissions, increased greenhouse gas emissions, and increased traffic congestion. https://www.orangecounty.net/cities/SantaAna.html 2 Visit the USA, https://www.visittheusa.com/destination/santa-ana 6 drCAJA Environmental Services, LLC 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd.,Suite 101 Chatsworth,CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700 Fax 310-806-9801 • More visitors and residents in need of temporary accommodations will rely on hotels3 which are more resource intensive than STRs by generating more energy and using more water than STRs. This has the potential to result in numerous potentially significant indirect environmental effects stemming from the increased demand for water, electricity, and natural gas, and the increased generation of wastewater and solid waste. This also has potential to impact room rates in the City, because occupancy rates in hotels are already nearly 80 percent, so room rates which are already quite high in Orange County ($209.14 average daily rate) will almost certainly increase, potentially pushing them beyond the reach of budget-conscious travelers. (Ramboll Economics Analysis, p. 4.) • Development of new hotels in the City due to occupancy restrictions, causing additional shifts in existing traffic patterns, and a wide range of other potential impacts related to hotel construction and operation. • An STIR ban in the City has potential to cause a ripple effect across the region if other localities follow suit, resulting in cumulative environmental impacts from rapid elimination of STIR uses, compounding issues described above including shifting traffic patterns and increased VMT, increased use of resource-intensive hotels, and development of new hotels to make up for the loss of overnight accommodations. Each of these driving factors and the potential impacts are summarized below. An STR Ban Will Result in Changed Traffic Patterns Given the already limited availability of existing hotel room nights in the City, the elimination of all STRs in the City will force visitors to and residents of the City to find transient accommodations outside of City limits. Santa Ana is a centrally located hub in Orange County with more affordable accommodations than other cities such as Laguna Beach or Newport Beach. STRs in Santa Ana facilitate affordable access to the City's cultural amenities, community attractions, and public facilities. Removing all existing STIR accommodations from the City would, with certainty, change visitor traffic patterns in and around the City, as removal of STRs drives hotel rate increases,4 and visitors will either need to find accommodations farther away from Santa Ana due to the lack of availability or affordability of the limited remaining accommodations with the City. And, as further detailed below and in the reports from Ramboll, this shifting of traffic can result in a wide range of potentially significant environmental effects to air quality, GHG emissions, and transportation. 3 For simplicity, this report refers to all traditional commercial overnight accommodations, such as hotels, motels, bed and breakfasts, as "hotels." 4 For example, in NYC, one year after regulations severely restricting STRs took effect, that city's hotel rates increased 7.4 percent annually compared to a 2.1 percent nationwide average increase during the same period. PhocusWire, Airbnb takes aim at NYC a year after"failed" STIR regulations, available here: https://www.phocuswire.com/Airbn b-year-after-New-York-City-short-term-rental- regulations#:-:text=Citing%20figures%20from%20commercial%20real,even%20as%20they%20cooled%20nationw ide. (last visited Oct. 7, 2024). 7 CAJA Environmental Services, LLC 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd.,Suite 101 Chatsworth,CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700 Fax 310-806-9801 An STR Ban Will Increase Reliance on More Environmentally Impactful Hotels and Thereby Increase the Environmental Impacts of Tourism An STR ban will also cause more visitors and residents in need of temporary overnight accommodations to rely on hotels for those accommodations. STRs are operated out of existing homes and do not require the same intensive use of water, energy, and other environmental resources that hotels require. Ramboll concluded that the STR ban will result in increased criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions and associated health risks, increased noise impacts, increased traffic congestion, and other potentially significant environmental impacts. (See Ramboll Environmental Analysis.) Ramboll's City-specific findings are consistent with a variety of recent studies and models concerning the environmental and economic benefits of STRs. A 2018 analysis using a "Cleantech" model found that when guests stay at an STR, significantly less energy and water is used, GHG emissions are lower, and waste is reduced compared to hotel stays.'The 2018 analysis shows that in 2017, Airbnb guests in Europe who stayed at an STR instead of a hotel achieved energy savings equal to that of 826,000 homes and reduced water usage equal to 13,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools.'Airbnb guest stays in North America resulted in lower GHG emissions equal to that of over 354,000 cars and waste reduction of 64,000 tons compared to hotel stays.' An article published in the Small Business Institute Journal also proposed that sharing economy based accommodations are likely to consume less energy and water, and produce fewer GHG emissions and less waste, than traditional accommodations.$ Further, the "Trip Generation Model" prepared by International Transportation Engineers (ITE),9 confirms that a residential home generates less traffic than a hotel. In addition, a 2020 report regarding STRs along the California coast found that "The sharing economy can compete with hotels by offering a different sort of service with a unique structure. STRs pop up throughout cities where there is demand for lodging. They do not require centralization or maintaining inventory, which helps lower costs . . . Rentals offer a more sustainable option that requires fewer resources and helps increase access with more diverse accommodation options and better value."" For all these reasons, the transition of STR guests to hotel guests has the potential to result in increased demand for water, electricity, and natural gas, and the increased generation of GHG emissions, wastewater and solid waste, and increased traffic. And, as further detailed below, this can result in a wide range of potentially significant environmental effects to air quality, energy, GHG emissions, land use and planning, noise, public services, transportation, and utilities. 5 Airbnb, How the Airbnb Community Supports Environmentally-Friendly Travel Worldwide (Apr. 2018), https://news.airbnb.com/how-the-airbnb-community-supports-environmentally-friendly-travel-worldwide. 6 Ibid. ' Ibid. 8 Midgett et al., The Sharing Economy and Sustainability:A Case for Airbnb, 13 SMALL BUSINESS INST.J. 2, pp. 61- 63 (2017). 9 ITE, Trip Generation Manual, 11th Ed. (TripGenl1), available for purchase here: https://www.ite.org/technical- resources/topics/trip-and-parking- generation/#:-:text=The%201TE%20Trip%20Generation%20Manual%20presents%20a%20summary%20of%20the ,to%20the%20Trip%20Generation%20Manual. 10 King and Jenkins, Unequal Access: Protecting Affordable Accommodations Along the California Coast(2020). 8 iCAJA Environmental Services, LLC 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd.,Suite 101 Chatsworth,CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700 Fax 310-806-9801 It is Reasonably Foreseeable an STR Ban Will Spur New Hotel Development and the City Must Analyze Associated Impacts The City has reported there are over 700 existing STRs in the City (Staff Report, p. 2). Ramboll has determined there are approximately 1,000. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, p. 1.) Banning all of these overnight accommodations would translate to the loss of a significant number of overnight accommodation nights in the City. The City's existing commercial overnight accommodation market (hotel/motel/bed and breakfast, etc.)simply cannot absorb the loss of overnight accommodation nights caused by the elimination of the STR market, given the already high occupancy rate of Orange County overnight accommodations. (See Ramboll Economics Analysis, pp. 2-4.) Yet the Addendum makes no mention of the foreseeable development of new hotels that would result from eliminating all existing STRs in the City, a fatal flaw in that analysis which discredits every impact conclusion that the Addendum reaches. As reported by Matthews Real Estate Investment Services in 2023: Hotel occupancy in Orange County is above the national average. Demand for O.C. rooms is still high despite rising rates, as the region is a hot spot for tourism, leisure travel, and business. An increase in business travel demand was generated by tech, financial, BioMed, and medical supply companies implementing large group visiting over the last few quarters." Hotel Valuation Index also reported in 2023: The Anaheim-Santa Ana hotel market spans the entirety of Orange County, which supports a diverse base of economic industries and sectors, including technology, finance, manufacturing, education, and healthcare, among others. Orange County's hotel submarkets include Orange, Garden Grove, Anaheim (which features the Disney theme parks), Buena Park (home of Knott's Berry Farm), Irvine (home to University of California Irvine's campus and numerous corporate headquarters), and the affluent coastal communities of Dana Point, Huntington Beach, Laguna Beach, and Newport Beach. In 2023, occupancy for this market surpassed 70.0%. Major factors driving the 2023 performance level included the rebound of amusement park attendance, the return of major conventions, and the gradual recovery of corporate travel.12 Given the robust Orange County overnight accommodations market, it is reasonably foreseeable that the City's ban on STRs will drive the development of new hotels, the impact of which the City must analyze in an EIR. (See Ramboll Economics Analysis, pp. 2-4.) 11 Matthews Real Estate Investment Services, Hospitality Market Report I Southern California (Feb. 2023)available here: https://www.matthews.com/hospitality-market-report-socal (last visited Oct. 7, 2024). 12 HVS, Hotel Valuation Index—United States—Anaheim-Santa Ana, available here: https://hvi.hvs.com/market/united-states/Anaheim - Santa Ana (last visited Oct. 7, 2024). 9 drCAJA Environmental Services, LLC 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd.,Suite 101 Chatsworth,CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700 Fax 310-806-9801 The City already has a plan in place to accommodate new hotel development. In 2016, the City adopted a hotel incentive program aimed at attracting new hotel development,13 spurred by an increase in tourism in Orange County, and Santa Ana's proximity to hubs of tourism including Anaheim's resort district, the John Wayne Airport, and local amenities including the Discovery Cube Orange County and the Bowers Museum.14 The City's General Plan has identified certain locations appropriate for the development of hotels including in the land use designations District Center— Medium and Industrial/Flex (at Brookhollow Specific Development (SD) Plan No. 8), specifically at 55 Freeway and Dyer Road." The City's Harbor Mix Use Transit Corridor Plan notes it could lead to the addition of new hotels.16 In addition, the City's Midtown Specific Plan and Metro East Mixed-Use Overlay District Expansion and Elan Development Projects each specifically contemplates new hotels." Further, hotel and motels are also permitted to be constructed and operated in C-1, C1-MD, C2, C4, C5, CR, and CSM Zoning Districts. As the City has identified specific areas where hotels could be developed, the City is capable of conducting meaningful and informational environmental review of the hotels' construction now. In 2016, the City noted that the average occupancy of Orange County hotels was at 78 percent, spurring the need for new hotel development in the area.18 As discussed in the Ramboll report, hotel occupancy rates in Orange County as of September 2024 are 77 percent. (Ramboll Economics Analysis, p. 2.) Evidence from Ramboll shows that removal of all existing STRs which are a "significant portion of the lodging market" would leave a "considerable gap in available accommodations, which the existing hotel infrastructure is unlikely to be able to fully absorb." (Ramboll Economics Analysis, pp. 3-4.) The City must evaluate this evidence to understand the current demand for hotels and STRs, and project the demand that would result from a ban on all STRs in the City. In the absence of all STRs, it is reasonably foreseeable that market forces will drive new hotel development to replace the loss of nights from the STR market. It is also reasonably foreseeable that the construction of new hotels in the City will result in a wide range of potential environmental effects to air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, energy, GHG emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, noise and vibration, public services, transportation, and utilities. The City Must Consider Cumulative Regional Impacts of STIR Bans An STIR ban in the City has potential to cause a ripple effect across the region if other localities follow suit, resulting in cumulative environmental impacts from rapid elimination of STIR uses, compounding issues described above including shifting traffic patterns and increased VMT, increased use of resource-intensive 13 City of Santa Ana, Hotel Incentive Program, available here: https://www.santa-ana.org/hotel-incentive-program (last visited Oct. 7, 2024). 14 City Council Staff Report, June 7, 2016, Hotel Development Incentive Program, available here: https://publicdocs.santa-ana.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?dbid=1&id=88417&page=1&cr=1. 15 Santa Ana General Plan, Land Use Element, LU 56-58. 16 City of Santa Ana, Harbor Mixed Use Transit Corridor Specific Plan, pp. 1-2 (Oct. 2014). 17 City of Santa Ana, Midtown Specific Plan, pp. 29, 38 (Dec. 1996); Metro East Mixed-Use Overlay District Expansion and Elan Development Projects Subsequent EIR, p. 3-39 (June 2018). 11 City Council Staff Report, June 7, 2016, Hotel Development Incentive Program, available here: https://publicdocs.santa-ana.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?dbid=1&id=88417&page=1&cr=1. 10 iCAJA Environmental Services, LLC 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd.,Suite 101 Chatsworth,CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700 Fax 310-806-9801 hotels, and development of new hotels to make up for the loss of overnight accommodations. The City must evaluate these potential cumulative impacts. Impact Analysis The below describes and evaluates several potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that will or are reasonably likely to occur as a result of a ban of STRs in the City. This analysis is supplemented by technical reports prepared by Ramboll which provide further analysis related to air quality, energy, greenhouse gas, land use and planning, noise and vibration, and transportation impacts. The Addendum fails to account for any of these potential impacts, entirely ignoring the foreseeable impacts resulting from elimination of all STRs in the City discussed above. This is a fatal flaw, and the City must prepare an Environmental Impact Report to evaluate the STR ban. Project Description The description of the STR ban in the Addendum does not meet CEQA's requirements for an adequate project description. Under CEQA, "[a]n accurate and complete project description is necessary for an intelligent evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of the agency's action. (City of Redlands v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 398, 405.) "If the description is inadequate because it fails to discuss the complete project, the environmental analysis will probably reflect the same mistake." (Dry Creek Citizens Coalition v. County of Tulare (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 20, 31, 32.) The Addendum describes the "project' as an ordinance "to expressly prohibit short-term rentals within the city", claiming that the existing Municipal Code "does not and has never listed short-term rentals as a permissible use in any zoning district. As such STRs are prohibited and unauthorized..." (Staff Report, Attachment 3, p. 13.) The City fails to accurately describe the project. As discussed in greater detail in the legal analysis submitted by the Santa Ana Short-Term Rental Alliance, the City's position that STRs are illegal and have never been permitted in the City is incorrect. STRs are existing, lawful residential uses of property that have been operating in the City for decades. The ordinance, therefore, is not reaffirming existing law, but imposing a new prohibition on short-term rentals and eliminating all existing, legal short-term rentals. Mitigation Measures As discussed above, reliance on an Addendum to the GP PEIR is inappropriate because the Proposed Ordinance is a different project from the City's General Plan and environmental analysis of the Proposed Ordinance thus cannot be accomplished through an addendum. It follows that the City would be unable to rely on the mitigation measures from the GP PEIR to mitigate the potentially significant environmental impacts described herein to less than significant. Instead, the City must prepare an EIR for the Proposed Ordinance with mitigation measures designed to address any significant impacts. 11 iCAJA Environmental Services, LLC 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd.,Suite 101 Chatsworth,CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700 Fax 310-806-9801 Air Quality Overview As discussed in greater detail in the technical environmental report from Ramboll, an STR ban is reasonably likely to significantly impact air quality in several ways, including adverse impacts due to increased VMT of visitors traveling longer distances to reach travel destinations, and from the reasonably foreseeable construction and operation of new hotels to accommodate patrons who would have previously utilized STRs. The Addendum fails to address any of these potential impacts, concluding without supporting evidence that the Proposed Ordinance "would not result in any physical impacts on the environment or impacts associated with air quality," and that there would be no change in air quality impacts beyond those identified in the GP PEIR. (Staff Report, Exhibit 3, p. 21.) This is inadequate. The Analysis in the Addendum Fails to Address Potentially Significant Impacts The Addendum's analysis of air quality impacts is insufficient, finding that that increases in air quality impacts "are based on construction of new structures generating new vehicle trips or population growth." Since the Proposed Ordinance "would only affect existing structures [and] would not induce population growth," there would be no change in air quality impacts beyond those identified in the GP PEIR, and therefore no impacts would occur with respect to air quality. (Staff Report, Exhibit 3, p. 21.) This analysis is entirely superficial, lacking any consideration of the reasonably foreseeable impacts of an STR ban including increased VMT, increased criteria air emissions from hotels within and outside of the City, and construction of new hotels. Air quality impacts are a significant concern for local and state policymakers and agencies. The Conservation Element of the City's General Plan provides that the City should "[p]rotect air resources, improve regional and local air quality, and minimize the impacts of climate change."19 Further, as detailed in the technical environmental report from Ramboll, the STR ban will disproportionately burden environmental justice communities given the City's existing pollution burdens from regional pollution and localized traffic exposure near existing hotel stock, and the potential for increased hotel usage in response to the STR ban. Increased VMT An STR ban is likely to displace a substantial number of existing travelers from overnight accommodations located in closer proximity to travel destinations and residents staying in temporary overnight accommodations located in closer proximity to schools and places of employment. Many families who seek overnight accommodations prefer to stay in STRs for a variety of reasons, since STRs can meet more specialized accommodation needs compared to hotels. Visitors and residents who choose to stay in STRs in other, less regulated areas of Southern California will then have to drive greater distances, consume more energy, and increase criteria air emissions. 19 Santa Ana General Plan, Conservation Element, CN-05. 12 iCAJA Environmental Services, LLC 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd.,Suite 101 Chatsworth,CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700 Fax 310-806-9801 Ramboll's analysis concluded that increased travel to and from hotels and STRs in the region because of the unavailability of STR in Santa Ana could "considerably increase" mobile emissions in the area relative to South Coast AQMD (SCAQMD) thresholds for criteria air pollutants, with the potential to cause short- term and long-term health impacts to sensitive receptors, exceedances of appliable air quality standards, and inconsistencies with applicable air quality and climate plans, all of which create a fair argument of environmental impacts that need to be studied further under CEQA. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, p. 4.) Specifically, Ramboll concluded that the STR ban would result in an increase in daily mobile emissions of approximately 443 percent of NOx and 444 percent of PM2.5 from guests of STRs transitioning to using hotels. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, p. 4.) NOx causes adverse health consequences including breathing difficulties and increased risk of chronic pulmonary fibrosis as well as bronchitis in children. PM2.5 can damage the respiratory tract, increasing the number and severity of asthma attacks, and aggravating bronchitis and other lung diseases, and reducing the body's ability to fight infections. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, p. 3.) Ramboll further concluded that the STR ban would disproportionately burden environmental justice communities because the City's communities most burdened by regional pollution and localized traffic exposure are located near the existing hotel stock and would be directly impacted by increased hotel usage in response to the STR ban, increasing the known pollution contributors to respiratory and cardiovascular health risks in these communities. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, pp. 5-7.) In addition, Ramboll concluded that the STR ban could increase traffic concentrated on roadways going to the hotels in the City, increasing traffic by 7,560 vehicles per day, resulting in health impacts that would exceed the SCAQMD CEQA threshold of significance for cancer risk. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, pp. 8-9.) The City's further analysis of air quality impacts from the STR ban should be supported with a technical study prepared by a qualified air emission expert with significant air quality impact model experience because the analysis of criteria pollutant generation relative to applicable health, safety, and emission regulations is highly technical and relies on specialized models. The City must also find that the STR ban is consistent with local air quality plans and the Regional Air Quality Strategy and, if not, provide mitigation. Increased Criteria Air Emissions from Hotels in City and Outside City When guests stay at an STR, significantly less energy is used, and GHG emissions are lower compared to hotel stays.20 As discussed above, Ramboll concluded that the STR ban would increase reliance on hotels, resulting in an increase in mobile emissions of criteria air pollutants up to 444 percent compared to STRs, increasing health risks and cancer risk. (See Ramboll Environmental Analysis, pp. 3-9.) Increased criteria air emissions will also disproportionately burden environmental justice communities. (See Ramboll Environmental Analysis, pp. 5-7.) The CalEnviroScreen tool identifies the City and particularly the freeway-adjacent tracts as highly burdened, being classified into the 80th percentile and above. Communities adjacent to freeways ranked in the 90`h percentile and above, facing an extreme burden from air pollution associated with vehicle traffic emissions and direct traffic exposure. 21 Airbnb,Airbnb:Helping travel grow greener, p. 3 (Mar. 2017); Midgett et al., The Sharing Economy and Sustainability:A Case for Airbnb, 2017 SMALL BUSINESS INST.J. 13.2, pp. 61-63. 13 drCAJA Environmental Services, LLC 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd.,Suite 101 Chatsworth,CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700 Fax 310-806-9801 (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, pp. 5-7.) The map below from Ramboll's environmental analysis shows the CalEnviroScreen map of Santa Ana's overall percentile of exposure and burden. �so bo Elko The STIR ban could shift visitor accommodations from lower-burdened, dispersed residential areas to concentrated hotel zones in southeast Santa Ana, where pollution and traffic emission levels are already elevated, leading to an increase in emissions in these communities. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, pp. 6-7.) Construction of new hotels could further increase emissions in these areas, furthering the known pollution contributors to respiratory and cardiovascular health risks in these already overburdened communities. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, p. 7.) The City should quantify operational impacts using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod) and compared against applicable operational thresholds to determine whether the operational activities would have the potential to result in exceedances of applicable daily thresholds that could subsequently cause cumulatively considerable increases in emissions of pollutants for which the region is designated as non-attainment. If operational emissions exceed the applicable daily thresholds for any criteria pollutants, mitigation measures, if feasible, would need to be provided to reduce impacts to less than significant. If feasible mitigation is not available, impacts could be significant. Construction and Operation of New Hotels Ramboll estimated the STIR ban will cause potentially significant new impacts related to hotel construction, including air quality and health impacts from construction emissions. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, p. 11.) Ramboll concluded that construction of a hotel without emissions mitigation would result in an excess cancer risk of 48 in a million for the maximum exposed individual, exceeding by more than four times SCAQMD's threshold of 10 in a million. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, p. 11.) The EIR must quantify the emissions generated from reasonably foreseeable construction of new hotels/motels resulting from the elimination of all STRs in the City. This analysis should be prepared using CaIEEMod and based on specific parameters for the proposed new uses being constructed (including size of the new use as well as construction schedule, construction equipment, amount of grading, amount of 14 iCAJA Environmental Services, LLC 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd.,Suite 101 Chatsworth,CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700 Fax 310-806-9801 hauling, etc.). The results should then be compared to the applicable regional and localized significance thresholds to determine whether the construction activities would have the potential to result in exceedances of applicable daily thresholds that could subsequently cause cumulatively considerable increases in emissions of pollutants for which the region is designated as non-attainment. If regional or localized construction emissions exceed the applicable daily thresholds for any criteria pollutants, mitigation measures, if feasible, would need to be provided to reduce impacts to less than significant. If feasible mitigation is not available, impacts could be significant. As described above, the City's General Plan, various Specific Plans, and Zoning Code have identified certain locations in the City appropriate for hotels. Depending on the availability of land to construct these new hotels in these identified areas, it is possible that they would be constructed farther from a city center or tourist destinations, resulting in greater urban sprawl and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The City failed to analyze whether the reasonably foreseeable construction of new hotels as a result of an STR ban may be inconsistent with growth projections in the applicable regional air quality plan or result in emissions that exceed thresholds. The City also failed to study whether construction of new hotels in the areas identified in the General Plan may have adverse impacts on environmental justice areas, where pursuant to Policy CN-1.5 of the Conservation Element of the General Plan, the City should "[s]tudy the impacts of stationary and non-stationary emission sources on existing and proposed sensitive uses and opportunities to minimize health and safety risks" and "[d]evelop and adopt new regulations avoiding the siting of facilities that potentially emit increased pollution near sensitive receptors within environmental justice area boundaries.,21 The City must conduct this analysis in an EIR to understand all potential air quality impacts of an STR ban. Air Quality Mitigation Measures from the GP PEIR are Inadequate The City cannot rely on the air quality mitigation measures from the GP PEIR to address these potentially significant air quality impacts because, as discussed above, the Proposed Ordinance is a separate project and cannot be addressed through an Addendum to the GP PEIR and, therefore, the mitigation measures from the GP PEIR cannot be applied to this new project. Moreover, the air quality mitigation measures from the GP PEIR would not provide adequate mitigation for the impacts described above, such as increased VMT from elimination of STRs, since the air quality mitigation measures are primarily aimed at construction impacts and site-specific developments. (See Staff Report, Exhibit 3, pp. 18-19.) Biological Resources Overview An STR ban may significantly impact biological resources from the reasonably foreseeable construction of new hotels to accommodate patrons who would have previously utilized STRs. The Addendum fails to address any of these potential impacts, concluding without supporting evidence that the Proposed Ordinance would "only affect existing structures" and therefore, there would be no change in biological z1 Santa Ana General Plan, Conservation Element, CN-05. 15 iCAJA Environmental Services, LLC 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd.,Suite 101 Chatsworth,CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700 Fax 310-806-9801 resources impacts beyond those identified in the GP PEIR. (Staff Report, Exhibit 3, p. 23.) This is inadequate. The Analysis in the Addendum Fails to Address Potentially Significant Impacts The Addendum's analysis of biological resources impacts is insufficient, finding that the STR ban would "only affect existing structures," and "is not anticipated to result in physical impacts to the environment." (Staff Report, Exhibit 3, p. 23.) This analysis lacks any consideration of the reasonably foreseeable construction of new hotels from an STR ban, which could result in potentially significant impacts to biological resources. Construction of New Hotels Direct impacts to biological resources may occur if new hotels are constructed on land that contains protected species, wetlands, jurisdictional waters, special status plant or animal communities, species migration corridors (including migratory birds), and habitat conservation areas. As discussed above, the City's General Plan, various Specific Plans, and Zoning Code have identified certain locations in the City appropriate for hotels. The City has not evaluated the potential for these areas to have protected habitat, so it is unknown whether development in these areas would fragment key habitat,for example, or otherwise interfere with special status plant or animal communities. This needs to be evaluated in a full EIR. The Conservation Element of the City's General Plan identifies as Goal CN-2: Natural resources, the goal of preserving and enhancing "Santa Ana's natural and environmental resources while maintaining a balance between recreation, habitat, restoration and scenic resources.,22 Policy CN-2.1 is aimed at preservation of biodiversity and provides for collaboration "with State and County agencies to promote biodiversity and protect sensitive biological resources."23 Failure to analyze the potential impacts to biodiversity from construction of new hotels is inconsistent with the City's General Plan. The construction and operation of new hotels in locations that physically and directly affect these resources by, for example, removing habitat such as trees, or that have substantial indirect effects, such as dust, noise and vibration, light, trash, vehicle use, and other anthropogenic activities in close proximity with high- value habitats or migration routes, would have significant impacts and require the imposition of all feasible mitigation under CEQA. The City failed to analyze whether development of new hotels may occur on any such lands, and if so, what mitigation measures, if feasible, would need to be provided to reduce impacts to less than significant. Absent any feasible mitigation, impacts to biological resources could be significant. Cultural Resources Overview An STR ban may significantly impact cultural resources from the reasonably foreseeable construction and operation of new hotels to accommodate patrons who would have previously utilized STRs. Cultural resources including historical resources, archaeological resources, and human remains, could be 22 Santa Ana General Plan, Conservation Element, CN-09. 23 Ibid. 16 CAJA Environmental Services, LLC 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd.,Suite 101 Chatsworth,CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700 Fax 310-806-9801 damaged by construction and operations. Santa Ana has extensive historical and archaeological resources which heighten the risk of impacts from new construction. The Addendum fails to address any of these potential impacts, concluding without supporting evidence that the Proposed Ordinance "only affects existing structures" and therefore, there would be no change in cultural resources impacts beyond those identified in the GP PEIR. (Staff Report, Exhibit 3, p. 27.) This is inadequate. The Analysis in the Addendum Fails to Address Potentially Significant Impacts The Addendum's analysis of cultural resources impacts is insufficient, finding that the STR ban would only "affect existing structures" and "construction activities would not occur." (Staff Report, Exhibit 3, p. 27.) This analysis lacks any consideration of the reasonably foreseeable construction of new hotels from an STR ban, which could result in potentially significant impacts to cultural resources, as discussed below. Construction and Operation of New Hotels The construction and operation of new hotels has the potential to result in significant environmental impacts with respect to cultural resources. Cultural resources, including historical resources, archaeological resources, and human remains, could be damaged by construction and operations. Hotels currently exist near, or may be a component of, existing designated cultural resources in urban locations in the City. As discussed above, the City has identified certain locations in its General Plan, various Specific Plans, and Zoning Code appropriate for hotels. The expansion or construction of hotels in these locations could have potential to significantly and adversely harm historically important cultural resources and undetected cultural resources covered by topsoil and require mitigation. This is particularly true given the extensive cultural and historical resources within Santa Ana.As discussed in the Addendum's discussion of the GP PEIR, "there are eight archaeological resources" recorded in the City, including four prehistoric sites, one multicomponent site, and three historic isolates, and that development involving ground disturbance in the City has potential to impact known and unknown archaeological resources. (Staff Report, Exhibit 3, p. 24.) According to the GP PEIR, "Existing Conditions Database reveals approximately 2,511 historical resources have been recorded in Santa Ana."24 Further, "the California Historical Resources Information System records search indicates that 23 archaeological resources were previously recorded within 0.5 mile (0.8 km) of the [General Plan] area.25 And, importantly: While the review of ethnographic and historical maps does not indicate the presence of any specific Native American archaeological resources, the proximity of mapped locations of settlements in the vicinity of the plan area indicate a high sensitivity. The presence of the Santa Ana River, a permanent water source that connects the closest mapped Native American villages, and numerous springs mapped throughout the area on the rancho plat maps indicate that there is likely a high sensitivity for Native American archaeological resources throughout the 24 City of Santa Ana, GP EIR, p. 5.4-26 (Dec. 2023), available here. 25 Id., p. 5.4-18. 17 iCAJA Environmental Services, LLC 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd.,Suite 101 Chatsworth,CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700 Fax 310-806-9801 plan area. This is supported by the identification of several prehistoric sites composed of habitation debris and lithic materials. Furthermore, consultation with the Gabrielino Tribe indicated that portions of the City are located within cultural and historical sensitive areas.26 As recently reported in the City of Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR (the "Transit Zoning Code EIR"): Santa Ana is most directly associated with the Gabrielino (Tongva) whose tribal territory extended north from Aliso Creek to just beyond Topanga Canyon along the Pacific Coast, and inland to the City of San Bernardino (Bean and Smith 1978). However, it should be noted that tribal boundaries were likely fluid, allowing for contact, trade and diffusion of ideas among immediately neighboring groups, such as the Juaneno and Luiseno.21 Further, as discussed in the Tribal Cultural Resources Identification Memorandum for the South Coast Technology Center Project in the City: [Santa Ana is] a region traditionally important to multiple Native American groups. In particular, these include the Gabrielino (including the Tongva and Kizh), the Juaneno orAcjachemen, and the Luiseno.28 Historical Resources State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 defines a historical resource as: 1) a resource listed in or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources; 2) a resource listed in a local register of historical resources or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting certain state guidelines; or 3) an object, building, structure, site, area, place, record or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California, provided that the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Demolition or alteration of a historic resource could result in a significant impact to that resource. Mitigation measures, if feasible, would need to be provided. However, it is likely that even with the implementation of mitigation measures, demolition or alteration of a historic resource would result in a significant impact. Indirect impacts to historical resources could occur even if a construction site itself does not contain historical resources. These impacts would be to a nearby historical resource and could be temporary(such as damage to a historical resource from construction vibration) or permanent (such as from the new development altering the setting of the adjacent historical resource such that it no longer conveys 21 Id., p. 5.4-19. 2'Transit Zoning Code EIR, p. 4.4-1. 28 Michael Baker International, Tribal Cultural Resources Identification Memorandum for the South Coast Technology Center Project, City of Santa Ana, Orange County, California, p. 6 (Apr. 2024). 18 iCAJA Environmental Services, LLC 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd.,Suite 101 Chatsworth,CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700 Fax 310-806-9801 significance). Mitigation measures, if feasible, could be needed to reduce indirect impacts to less than significant. Absent any feasible mitigation, impacts to historical resources could be significant. Archaeological Resources With respect to archaeological resources including human remains, there is always the possibility that such resources are uncovered during construction activities for hotel construction. The City's General Plan includes Objective 3.1 to "[m]inimize loss of natural aesthetic, historic, archeological, and paleontological resources as land is developed." The likelihood of discovering such resources depends on a number of factors, including: 1) whether a site has previously been developed; 2) the extent of excavation for any prior development; 3) the extent of excavation for the current construction (such as whether any subterranean levels would be included); 4)the types of soils at a site; and 5)whether the site is in a location of known archaeological sensitivity. Depending on the specific conditions of a site, mitigation measures may be necessary to reduce impacts with respect to archaeological resources to less than significant. Given the reasonable foreseeability of new hotel development resulting from an STR ban, the City must study whether there are cultural resources present in locations where it is reasonably foreseeable these new hotels will be built. Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures from the GP PEIR are Inapplicable The City cannot rely on the cultural resources mitigation measures from the GP PEIR to address these potentially significant impacts because, as discussed above, the Proposed Ordinance is a separate project and cannot be addressed through an Addendum to the GP PEIR and, therefore, the mitigation measures from the GP PEIR cannot be applied to this new project. Energ Overview As discussed in detail in the technical environmental analysis prepared by Ramboll, an STR ban can reasonably be expected to cause significant energy impacts for several reasons including: (1) relocating existing STR guests to less efficient hotels and other replacement facilities that recent reports indicate use more energy per guest; and (2) stimulating replacement accommodation construction and expansion that will increase energy demand related to new material manufacturing, transportation and installation, heavy equipment use, and maintenance, which use electricity and transportation fuels (primarily gas and diesel). Ramboll concluded that the STR ban would increase energy demand because hotels use more energy per person than STRs and would also increase demand for fossil fuels due to increased VMT, inconsistent with regional and state climate policy. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, pp. 7-8.) The Addendum fails to address any of these potential impacts, concluding without supporting evidence that the STR ban would not result in any "construction-related energy consumption" or "any physical impacts to the environment" and that there would be no new or more severe significant energy impacts beyond any identified in the GP PEIR. (Staff Report, Exhibit 3, p. 28.) This is inadequate. 19 dFCAJA Environmental Services, LLC 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd.,Suite 101 Chatsworth,CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700 Fax 310-806-9801 The Analysis in the Addendum Fails to Address Potentially Significant Impacts The Addendum's analysis of energy impacts is insufficient, finding that that the STIR ban would not result in any "construction-related energy consumption" or "any physical impacts to the environment" and that there would be no new or more severe significant energy impacts beyond any identified in the GP PEIR. (Staff Report, Exhibit 3, p. 28.) This analysis is entirely superficial, lacking any consideration of the reasonably foreseeable impacts of an STR ban, including increased energy use from hotels within and outside of the City, and construction and operation of new hotels. Energy impacts are a significant concern for local and state policymakers and agencies. For example, the Conservation Element of the City's General Plan provides that the City should "[p]rotect air resources, improve regional and local air quality, and minimize the impacts of climate change."29 Reducing energy use is critical to helping improve air resources and minimize the impacts of climate change. The analysis of energy use relative to applicable health, safety, and emission regulations is highly technical and relies on specialized models. The City's further analysis of energy impacts from an STIR ban should be supported with a technical study prepared by a qualified expert with significant energy impact model experience. Increased Energy Use from Hotels in City and Outside City Ramboll concluded the STIR ban would increase energy demands because hotels use more energy per person than STRs, using more than five times more electricity per person and more than two times more natural gas per person. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, pp. 7-8.) This is consistent with the 2018 Cleantech analysis conclusion that significantly less energy is used when guests stay in an STIR compared to a hotel.30 Further, an article published in the Small Business Institute Journal proposed that sharing economy-based accommodations are likely to consume less energy than traditional accommodations because the sharing economy takes advantage of "slack" resources which already exist, rather than creating new facilities.3' In other words, STRs use structures that already exist to provide overnight accommodations and help to alleviate demand for new hotels. By increasing VMT, the STIR ban would also increase reliance on fossil fuels to power vehicle trips — the daily mobile fuel consumption for hotels is more than five times greater for hotels compared to STRs for both gasoline and diesel. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, p. 8.) By eliminating all STIRS from the City, an STIR ban will cause visitors to stay in existing hotels in the City, increase the electrical demand from existing hotels, increase fossil fuel consumption from vehicles, and foreseeably result in significant impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy resources. This directly conflicts with state and local renewable energy and energy efficiency plans. These impacts may be significant and cumulatively substantial and require the imposition of all feasible mitigation. If feasible mitigation is not available, impacts could be significant. The City must analyze these potential impacts. 29 General Plan, Conservation Element, CN-05. 31 Airbnb, How the Airbnb Community Supports Environmentally-Friendly Travel Worldwide (Apr. 2018), https://news.airbnb.com/how-the-airbnb-community-supports-environmentally-friendly-travel-worldwide. 31 Midgett et al., The Sharing Economy and Sustainability:A Case for Airbnb, 13 SMALL BUSINESS INST.J. 2, pp. 60- 61 (2017). 20 iCAJA Environmental Services, LLC 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd.,Suite 101 Chatsworth,CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700 Fax 310-806-9801 Construction and Operation of New Hotels The construction and operation of new hotels has the potential to result in significant environmental impacts with respect to energy. The City must also evaluate whether there is adequate infrastructure to handle the peak load from new hotels. To do so, it must request an assessment from its utility as to infrastructure needed to support these new hotels. It must also examine whether the new hotels require upgrades to utility infrastructure, requiring additional offsite construction activities, and whether the new hotels put residents and businesses at risk for localized failures due to local infrastructure limitations. In addition, the City's General Plan includes various goals and policies to promote energy conservation, including promoting "energy-efficient development patterns by clustering mixed use developments and compatible uses adjacent to public transportation."An STR ban may conflict with these goals and policies by encouraging development of hotels, which are less energy-efficient compared to STRs.32 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Overview All issues associated with the City's failure to adequately analyze air quality and energy impacts in the Addendum carry over to the City's failure to calculate GHG emissions. As discussed in the technical environmental report prepared by Ramboll, the STR ban would result in an increase of daily mobile emissions of GHG by 443 percent, contributing to a significant increase in emissions in the area in direct conflict with regional and state goals to reduce VMT and GHG emissions from vehicle trips. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, p. 4.) Further, Ramboll concluded that the increased energy demand associated with hotels compared to STRs would result in a 179 percent increase in GHG emissions per person. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis p. 8.)The Addendum fails to address any of the potential GHG emissions impacts, concluding without supporting evidence that the STR ban would not result in a substantial increase in GHG emissions from new construction or increased occupancy levels compared to the GP EIRGP PEIR. (Staff Report, Exhibit 3, p. 33.) This is unsupported by the evidence in the record and inadequate. The Analysis in the Addendum Fails to Address Potentially Significant Impacts The Addendum's analysis of GHG emissions impacts is insufficient, finding that the STR ban would "only affect existing structures," that "GHG emissions due to construction activities would not occur," and that the STR ban is "not anticipated to result in a substantial increase in GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly." (Staff Report, Exhibit 3, p. 33.) The Addendum also concludes that the STR ban "would not result in any increase in occupancy levels analyzed in the GP PEIR and does not involve construction of any new units that might lead to an increase in GHG emissions." (Ibid.) This analysis is entirely superficial, lacking any consideration of the reasonably foreseeable impacts of an STR ban, including increased VMT, sz General Plan, Conservation Element, CN-10. 21 dFCAJA Environmental Services, LLC 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd.,Suite 101 Chatsworth,CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700 Fax 310-806-9801 increased GHG emissions from the construction and operation of new hotels, and construction and operation of new hotels. Increased VMT Eliminating all STIRS in the City will foreseeably increase GHG emissions by displacing existing STIR guests to less regulated areas farther from their travel destinations, which will increase VMT and GHG emissions. Ramboll concluded that the STIR ban would result in an increase of daily mobile emissions of GHG by 443 percent, contributing to a significant increase in emissions in the area in direct conflict with regional and state goals to reduce VMT and GHG emissions from vehicle trips. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, p. 4.) Increased Criteria Air Emissions from Hotels in City and Outside City Eliminating all STIRS in the City will relocate existing STIR guests to less efficient hotels and other replacement facilities likely to result in greater GHG emissions than STIRS. When guests stay at an STIR, significantly less energy is used, and GHG emissions are lower compared to hotel stays.33 Ramboll concluded that the increased energy demand associated with hotels compared to STIRS would result in a 179 percent increase in GHG emissions per person. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis p. 8.) This is consistent with the 2018 Cleantech analysis, which found that significantly lower GHG emissions result from a stay in an STIRcompared to hotel stays,34 and the Small Business Institute Journal article, which proposed that sharing economy-based accommodations are likely to produce fewer GHG emissions than traditional accommodations because the sharing economy takes advantage of "slack" resources which already exist, rather than creating new facilities that emit additional GHGs.35 As such, GHG emission increases reasonably related to the imposition of an STIR ban will result in significant impacts to the environment and adversely affect the achievement of plans and policies adopted by state and local governments to reduce GHG emissions. Construction and Operation of New Hotels Eliminating all STRs in the City will foreseeably increase GHG emissions by stimulating replacement accommodation construction and expansion that will increase GHG emissions related to new material manufacturing, transportation and installation, heavy equipment use, and maintenance, as well as operation of these new hotels further contributing to GHG emissions increases that Ramboll projected from increased reliance on hotels. Specifically, the construction and operation of new hotels would result in the increased GHG emissions from a number of sources, including: • Construction: emissions associated with construction-related equipment and vehicle use. • Area Sources: emissions associated with the on-site use of powered equipment. ss Airbnb,Airbnb:Helping travel grow greener, p. 3 (Mar. 2017); Midgett et al., The Sharing Economy and Sustainability:A Case for Airbnb, 2017 SMALL BUSINESS INST.J. 13.2, pp. 61-63. sn Airbnb, How the Airbnb Community Supports Environmentally-Friendly Travel Worldwide (Apr. 2018), https://news.airbnb.com/how-the-airbnb-community-supports-environmentally-friendly-travel-worldwide 31 Midgett et al., The Sharing Economy and Sustainability:A Case for Airbnb, 13 SMALL BUSINESS INST.J. 2, p. 61 (2017). 22 iCAJA Environmental Services, LLC 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd.,Suite 101 Chatsworth,CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700 Fax 310-806-9801 • Energy Sources: emissions associated with electricity and natural gas use for space heating and cooling, water heating, energy consumption, and lighting. • Mobile Sources: emissions associated with associated vehicle travel. It is possible new hotels would be constructed farther from a city center or tourist destination, resulting in greater urban sprawl and VMT. • Water/Wastewater: emissions associated with energy used to pump, convey, deliver, and treat water. The GHG Mitigation Measure from the GP PEIR is Inadequate The City cannot rely on the GHG mitigation measure from the GP PEIR to address these potentially significant impacts because, as discussed above, the Proposed Ordinance is a separate project and cannot be addressed through an Addendum to the GP PEIR and, therefore, the mitigation measure from the GP PEIR cannot be applied to this new project. Moreover, the GHG mitigation measure from the GP PEI R would not provide adequate mitigation for the impacts described above, such as increased VMT from elimination of STRs, since the GHG mitigation measure merely requires tracking and monitoring GHG emissions for the Climate Action Plan, which do not help to reduce project specific GHG emissions. (See Staff Report, Exhibit 3, p. 32.) The City is Shirking its Duty to Meet State Climate Goals The City should not discount the importance of evaluating potential GHG impacts from its actions. Curtailing GHG emissions to reduce future climate impacts is one of the highest priority objectives of state and local policymakers and agencies. California has legislatively determined that GHG emissions of any kind contribute to a global climate crisis. The State's 2022 Scoping Plan includes various recommendations that local governments can implement to align their planning and development review processes with the state's climate goals. Because an STR ban promotes new land use for development of hotels, this promotes a growth in permanent emissions sources, which are less efficient than existing STRs. The City must analyze whether an STR ban would conflict with the 2022 Scoping Plan. At the local level, the Conservation Element of the City's General Plan provides that the City should "[p]rotect air resources, improve regional and local air quality, and minimize the impacts of climate change.,36 An STR ban may also conflict with General Plan policies to reduce GHG emissions in the City such as "coordinate[ing] air quality planning with local and regional agencies to meet or exceed State or Federal ambient air quality standards" and achieving "[c]onsistency with emission reduction goals highlighted in the Climate Action Plan ... in all major decisions on land use and investments in public infrastructure.,37 The City must analyze whether an STR ban is inconsistent with its General Plan policies. In addition, a project must demonstrate compliance with applicable GHG reduction plans. Therefore, the City's analysis should address consistency of hotel replacement facilities with relevant GHG plans and 36 Santa Ana General Plan, Conservation Element, CN-05. 37 Ibid. 23 iCAJA Environmental Services, LLC 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd.,Suite 101 Chatsworth,CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700 Fax 310-806-9801 policies, such as the Climate Change Scoping Plan, SCAG's Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), and any other local plans and/or policies. Reducing GHG emissions is critical to helping improve air resources and minimize the impacts of climate change. Due to the significance of this issue and the complexity of GHG emissions calculations, which require complex technical expertise and knowledge of existing and potential sources, an expert study conducted by recognized climate and emissions specialist using established emission methodologies should be prepared to support the City's GHG emissions impact analysis. The City should also prepare an analysis to quantify the GHG emissions generated from constructing these new facilities. This analysis should be prepared using CalEEMod and based on specific parameters for the proposed new uses being constructed (including size of the new use as well construction schedule, construction equipment, amount of grading, amount of hauling, etc.). Likewise, operational emissions of GHGs should be quantified using CalEEMod. The City has used a screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e for GHG emissions. Therefore, the results from CalEEMod should then be compared to this significance threshold to determine whether impacts would be significant. Hazards & Hazardous Materials Overview An STR ban may significantly impact related to hazards and hazardous materials from the reasonably foreseeable construction of new hotels to accommodate patrons who would have previously utilized STRs. The Addendum fails to address any of these potential impacts, concluding without supporting evidence that the Proposed Ordinance would "only affect existing structures" and therefore, there would be no change in hazards and hazardous materials impacts beyond those identified in the GP PEIR. (Staff Report, Exhibit 3, p. 35.) This is inadequate. The Analysis in the Addendum Fails to Address Potentially Significant Impacts The Addendum's analysis of hazards and hazardous materials impacts is insufficient, finding that the STR ban would only affect existing structures, and "is not anticipated to result in physical impacts to the environment." (Staff Report, Exhibit 3, p. 35.) This analysis lacks any consideration of the reasonably foreseeable construction of new hotels from an STR ban which could result in potentially significant impacts to hazards and hazardous materials. Construction of New Hotels Development of new hotels has potential to result in impacts from hazards and hazardous materials present in the locations identified in the General Plan for new hotel accommodations. As discussed in the Addendum, the City includes 555 hazardous materials sites, with 63 active or open sites. (Staff Report, Exhibit 3, p. 34.) The City has not established a baseline condition for hazards and hazardous materials and should explain what hazardous materials are present at the locations for potential hotel development. The City should then explain how hazardous materials will be managed during construction and operation of new hotels. The City also has not explained the baseline condition of contamination at the locations for new hotel development, so the current condition of site soil, soil gas, and groundwater is not clear. The 24 drCAJA Environmental Services, LLC 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd.,Suite 101 Chatsworth,CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700 Fax 310-806-9801 City must evaluate and disclose whether new hotel construction would release contaminants and whether that can be mitigated to understand if construction of these hotel facilities is possible. Santa Ana has extensive groundwater contamination from volatile organic compounds (VOCs) related to historic manufacturing uses in the City.38 The City has identified certain locations for new hotels but has not evaluated potential impacts from hazardous or hazardous materials in those locations, such as potential for construction to release hazardous materials into the environment. The City must evaluate this potential given that new hotel development is reasonably foreseeable. Land Use / Planning Overview The STR ban is reasonably likely to have significant land use and planning impacts by eliminating all STRs in the City, and from the reasonably foreseeable construction of new hotels to accommodate patrons who would have previously utilized STRs. The STR ban also has potential to result in significant land use impacts due to urban decay. The Addendum fails to address any of these potential impacts, concluding without supporting evidence that the Proposed Ordinance would "only affect existing structures" and therefore, there would be no change in land use and planning impacts beyond those identified in the GP PEIR. (Staff Report, Exhibit 3, p. 37.) This is inadequate. The Analysis in the Addendum Fails to Address Potentially Significant Impacts The Addendum's analysis of land use and planning impacts is insufficient, finding that the STR ban would only affect existing structures, and "is not anticipated to result in physical impacts to the environment." (Staff Report, Exhibit 3, p. 37.) The Addendum notes that the STR ban 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." (Id., p. 38.) The analysis in the Addendum lacks any consideration of the reasonably foreseeable land use impacts resulting from eliminating all STRs, construction of new hotels, and urban decay from the STR ban. Inconsistency with General Plan The City failed to adequately analyze the consistency of the STR ban with its General Plan, narrowly focusing only on the goal of preserving the character or residential neighborhoods. (Staff Report, Exhibit 3, pp. 37-38 [citing to Land Use Element Goal 3].) The STR ban's elimination of all existing STRs in the City is inconsistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Element when viewed holistically and in the context of the entire General , which contemplates efficient use of City land and maximizing efficient use of City resources, including a variety of goals and policies for responsible development in the City.39 For example, Land Use Element Goal LU-2 is aimed at providing a balance of land uses to meet the City's 31 City of Santa Ana, Delhi Groundwater, available here: https://www.santa-ana.orci/delhi- groundwater/#:—:text=This%20groundwater%20is%20contaminated%20near,of%20Santa%20Ana%27s%20drinkin q%20water(last visited Oct. 7, 2024). 31 See Santa Ana General Plan, Land Use Element. 25 dFCAJA Environmental Services, LLC 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd.,Suite 101 Chatsworth,CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700 Fax 310-806-9801 diverse needs.40 Policy LU-4.3 "encourage[s] land uses and strategies that reduce energy and water consumption, waste and noise generation, soil contamination, air quality impact, and light pollution.',4' As discussed above, a 2018 Cleantech analysis found that when guests stay at an STIR, significantly less energy and water is used, greenhouse gas emissions are lower, and waste is reduced, compared to hotel stays42 and an article published in the Small Business Institute Journal also proposed that sharing economy based accommodations are likely to consume less energy and water, and produce fewer GHG emissions and less waste, than traditional accommodations.43 By removing the ability of hosts to operate STRs from existing residences, the City is acting in a manner inconsistent with its Land Use Element policy to encourage resources efficient land uses. The City is inappropriately relying entirely on the Land Use Element goal of preserving the character of residential neighborhoods, without any substantial evidence to demonstrate that STRs in the City are having a negative impact on the character of residential neighborhoods and ignoring the other goals and policies of the Land Use Element. Construction of New Hotels It is reasonably foreseeable that an STIR ban will disperse existing STIR users to other locations that permit STRs and induce hotel development. These changes from existing conditions could foreseeably conflict with the City's General Plan plans, policies, and regulations, requiring analysis under CEQA as to whether there would be a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with a land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The City's General Plan Land Use Element, Policy LU-4.5 aims to "[c]oncentrate development along high quality transit corridors to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and transportation-related carbon emissions.,44 As discussed above, the City has identified in its General Plan, Specific Plans, and Zoning Code certain locations for hotel development. Many of these locations identified for potential development of new hotels may not be centrally located to promote sustainable development, an STIR ban may be inconsistent with the City's General Plan. Urban Decay An STIR ban also has potential to result in urban decay, which the City must analyze. Loss of business revenue from tourists unable to secure alternative lodging and unwilling to travel from neighboring areas to the City could cause distressing effects in the business community, potentially leading to business closures and urban decay. The STIR market contributes to the local economy by employing many people, including those working pool service, drycleaning, upholstery, catering, bike rentals, yoga studios, transportation, restaurants, wineries, tasting rooms, groceries, home repair and improvement, nurseries and landscaping, and 41 General Plan, Land Use Element, LU-5. 41 Ibid. 41 Airbnb, How the Airbnb Community Supports Environmentally-Friendly Travel Worldwide (Apr. 2018), https://news.airbnb.com/how-the-airbnb-community-supports-environmentally-friendly-travel-worldwide. 43 Midgett et al., The Sharing Economy and Sustainability:A Case for Airbnb, 13 SMALL BUSINESS INST.J. 2, pp. 61- 63 (2017). 44 Santa Ana General Plan, Land Use Element, LU-08. 26 iCAJA Environmental Services, LLC 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd.,Suite 101 Chatsworth,CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700 Fax 310-806-9801 household supplies. As discussed above, STRs compete with hotels by offering a different sort of service with a unique structure, and STRs "pop up throughout cities where there is demand for lodging. They do not require centralization. . . Rentals offer a more sustainable option that requires fewer resources and helps increase access with more diverse accommodation options and better value."45 Further, STRs "are critical to regional economies, offering unique and affordable experiences to visitors, generating significant tax revenue to support local governments, and providing hosts significant income."as An STR ban could have devastating effects on local businesses, including restaurants and small businesses,that are not in the areas where hotels exist or would be developed.As set forth in the Economic Prosperity Element of the City's General Plan, the City has established goals of attracting businesses to "strengthen and expand citywide business attraction efforts in order to achieve the city's full employment potential,"and "stimulate the local economy through tourism.,,47 The City did not analyze any of the potential impacts of an STR ban to this sector of the economy and how this could contribute to urban decay and conflict with the City's General Plan. Potential for lost revenue from tourism is discussed in greater detail in the economic analysis prepared by Ramboll. The City must evaluate this evidence in an EIR. Noise and Vibration Overview Ramboll concluded that there are a number of potentially significant noise impacts that could result from an STR ban and require further analysis by the City. Increased use of existing hotels due to loss of all STRs in the City is reasonably likely to lead to increased operational and traffic noise impacts, which may be significant. Further, it is reasonably foreseeable that additional hotels or other similar facilities would need to be constructed to accommodate patrons who would have previously utilized STRs, and this construction has the potential to result in significant noise and vibration impacts. The Addendum fails to address any of these potential impacts, concluding without supporting evidence that the Proposed Ordinance would "only affect existing structures"and therefore, there would be no change in noise impacts beyond those identified in the GP PEIR. (Staff Report, Exhibit 3, p. 41.) The Addendum does not even discuss potential vibration impacts in its evaluation of the STR ban. (See Id., p. 41.) This is inadequate. The Analysis in the Addendum Fails to Address Potentially Significant Impacts The Addendum's analysis of noise impacts is insufficient, finding that the STR ban would only affect existing structures, "[n]o impacts related to construction-related noise level increases would occur," and no increases in transportation noise are anticipated. (Staff Report, Exhibit 3, p. 41.) The Addendum does not even address potential vibration impacts from construction of new hotels. The analysis in the Addendum lacks any consideration of the reasonably foreseeable noise impacts resulting from construction and operation of new hotels. 4s King and Jenkins, Unequal Access: Protecting Affordable Accommodations Along the California Coast(2020). 4s Dubetz et al, Staying Power: The Effects on Short-Term Rentals on California's Tourism Economy and Housing Affordability, Milken Institute, p. 1 (2022). 47 Santa Ana General Plan, Economic Prosperity Element, EP 04. 27 iCAJA Environmental Services, LLC 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd.,Suite 101 Chatsworth,CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700 Fax 310-806-9801 Operation of Existing Hotels The elimination of all STRs in the City is reasonably likely to cause increased demand for existing hotel accommodations in the City. Ramboll concluded the STIR ban could concentrate traffic on roadways going to hotels in the area, since more than half of the hotels in the City are located in one concentrated area of the City, resulting in noise impacts above the City's General Plan Noise Element standard of 65 dBA CNEL, potentially exacerbating existing noise impacts or creating a new noise impact. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, pp. 9-10.) The City failed to evaluate how the potential noise and nuisance complaints associated with hotels may be greater than those associated with STRs. To understand the potential impacts from increased use of existing hotels, the City should calculate the total noise complaints associated with STRs it has received, and the total noise complaints associated with hotels, to understand if there is any appreciable difference between the noise complaints received from these accommodations. The City also failed to analyze how this increased demand could lead to potentially significant operational noise impacts from visitors using the facilities, including outdoors areas of hotels such as pools and recreation areas. The City must analyze these potential impacts from the increased use of existing hotels. In addition, it is likely that restricting the use of STRs would require patrons to stay at a hotel or other facility that is further from their intended destination, again resulting in increased VMT, and potentially higher noise levels from increased traffic. As discussed in the technical environmental analysis prepared by Ramboll, shifting traffic to residential or other noise-sensitive areas within the City that are currently below the City's noise threshold could result in a significant impact. The City must evaluate this potential impact. Construction of New Hotels Ramboll estimates the STIR ban will potentially cause significant noise impacts related to hotel construction, exceeding the City's General Plan Noise Element standard and the City's noise ordinance. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, pp. 11-12.) Construction equipment including heavy machinery can result in significant noise impacts, with sound levels ranging from approximately 75 to 90 dBA (typical suburban/urban background sound levels are commonly on the order of 45 to 55 dBA during daytime hours and lower during nighttime hours) assuming typical receptor distances of 500 ft to 50 ft, and construction may sometimes need to occur at night due to various limitations or time constraints, which may be particularly prevalent over the next few years as hotel construction in Southern California increases to meet hotel demand for the 2028 Olympics. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, p. 13.) Because sound pressure levels from construction of new hotels, which will be needed due to the STIR ban, have the potential to cause a temporary increase above the noise level threshold, the City must conduct further analysis to evaluate potentially significant impacts and any necessary mitigation. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, pp. 13-14.) The City should prepare an analysis to quantify projected noise levels from construction of the new hotels in the designated areas identified in the General Plan, Specific Plans, and Zoning Code for hotel development. This analysis should be based on specific parameters for the proposed new uses being 28 iCAJA Environmental Services, LLC 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd.,Suite 101 Chatsworth,CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700 Fax 310-806-9801 constructed (including size and placement of the new use as well construction schedule, construction equipment, amount of grading, amount of hauling, etc.). The increase in noise from construction should then be compared against the threshold to determine whether the increase in noise is greater than the threshold, in which case there would be a potentially significant impact. The likelihood of significant impacts increases where there are sensitive uses (such as residences) in close proximity to construction. If potentially significant impacts have been identified, mitigation measures, if feasible, would need to be provided to reduce impacts to less than significant. If feasible mitigation is not available (which for noise, it often is not feasible), impacts could be significant. Regarding construction vibration impacts, depending on the proximity of adjacent sensitive receptors, an analysis should be prepared to quantify projected vibration levels from construction of new replacement facilities. For example, if a new hotel is constructed in an area adjacent to a historical or archaeological resource, the City must evaluate whether there could be building damage caused to those resources. The increase in vibration from construction should be compared against the applicable thresholds for both building damage and human annoyance to determine whether the increase in vibration is greater than the threshold, in which case there would be a potentially significant impact. The likelihood of significant impacts increases where there are sensitive uses (such as residences) in close proximity to construction. If potentially significant impacts have been identified, mitigation measures, if feasible, would need to be provided to reduce impacts to less than significant. It is likely that there would be feasible mitigation for building damage impacts (such as monitoring a building during vibration-producing activities). Conversely, it is difficult to mitigate human annoyance impacts beyond increasing the distance from the construction activity to the sensitive receptor. Therefore, if you have a sensitive receptor adjacent to vibration-producing construction activity, you could have a significant impact with respect to human annoyance. Operation of New Hotels All issues associated with the potential operational noise impacts from existing hotels apply to the City's failure to calculate potential noise impacts from operation of new hotels. Adding more hotels to the City's existing hotel stock would further concentrate traffic on roadways going to hotels in the area resulting in noise impacts above the City's General Plan Noise Element standard of 65 dBA CNEL, potentially exacerbating existing noise impacts or creating a new noise impact. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, p. 9.) Further, it is possible that to avoid the potentially significant impacts associated with adding more hotels to the areas of the City that already have several hotels, new hotels would be constructed farther from a city center or tourist destination, resulting in greater urban sprawl and VMT, which could result in higher noise levels from increased traffic in these areas. These new hotels would also produce noise from mechanical equipment, parking facilities, loading docks, and amenity spaces. The City must evaluate the potential for noise complaints associated with operation of new hotels to determine whether there would be a significant impact. 29 iCAJA Environmental Services, LLC 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd.,Suite 101 Chatsworth,CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700 Fax 310-806-9801 Public Services Overview There are a number of potentially significant impacts with respect to public services that could result from an STR ban and require further analysis by the City. Increased utilization of existing hotels as a result of eliminating all STRs in the City is reasonably likely to lead to increased demand for public services, which may be significant. Further, as mentioned above, it is reasonably foreseeable that additional hotels would need to be constructed to accommodate patrons who would have previously utilized STRs. The operation of new hotels has the potential to result in significant environmental impacts with respect to public services. The Addendum fails to address any of these potential impacts, concluding without supporting evidence that the Proposed Ordinance would "only affect existing structures" and therefore, there would be no change in public services impacts beyond those identified in the GP PEIR. (Staff Report, Exhibit 3, p. 44.) This is inadequate. The Analysis in the Addendum Fails to Address Potentially Significant Impacts The Addendum's analysis of impacts to public services from the STR ban is insufficient, finding that the STR ban would only affect existing structures, and that the STR ban would not "introduce new residential units to the city" and that the "residential units illegally operating as STRs were adequately analyzed in the GP PEIR" as part of the GP buildout. (Staff Report, Exhibit 3, p. 44.) The analysis in the Addendum lacks any consideration of the reasonably foreseeable impacts to public services resulting from operation of existing and new hotels. Operation of Existing Hotels As discussed above in the Noise and Vibration section, the City failed to evaluate how the potential for noise and nuisance complaints associated with hotels may be greater than those associated with STRs. The City must evaluate the potential for increased demand for public services due to those complaints, which may be significant. Operation of New Hotels With respect to impacts to fire and police facilities, STR restrictions that could result in the construction of new replacement hotels or other facilities would result in increased demand for fire and police protection facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. The City should provide a calculation of the number of calls to police complaining about hotels compared to the number of calls to police regarding STRs, to analyze whether eliminating all STRs and increasing hotel use would increase demand for police services. Mitigation measures may need to be provided to reduce impacts to less than significant. Absent any feasible mitigation, impacts to public services (specifically fire and police) could be significant. 30 iCAJA Environmental Services, LLC 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd.,Suite 101 Chatsworth,CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700 Fax 310-806-9801 Transportation Overview As discussed in the air quality, energy, and GHG emissions sections above, it is reasonably foreseeable that an STR ban will increase total and peak period transportation demand, trip counts, and VMT in several ways, including (1) by displacing existing STR guests to STRs and hotels located farther away from travel destinations; and (2) stimulating STR replacement accommodation construction and expansion that will increase construction period and operational period material, service supplier, maintenance and traveler vehicle trips and VMT. The Addendum fails to address any of these potential impacts, concluding without supporting evidence that the Proposed Ordinance would "only affect existing structures,"would not conflict with regional or local circulation system planning, and that the operational traffic associated with long-term rentals or permanent residences (which the Addendum assumes all STRs would be converted to) was already evaluated in the GP PEIR. Therefore, the Addendum concludes there would be no change to transportation impacts beyond those identified in the GP PEIR. (Staff Report, Exhibit 3, p. 46.) This is inadequate. The impacts described above would significantly conflict with plans, ordinances and polices addressing circulation systems, including transportation system congestion reduction, energy conservation, and criteria and GHG emission reduction goals. Additional VMT generation will significantly conflict with CEQA guidelines Section 15064.3(b), which requires that a CEQA analysis consider and reduce VMT. These impacts would require the imposition of all feasible mitigation under CEQA. The City failed to conduct any analysis of these potential impacts. The Analysis in the Addendum Fails to Address Potentially Significant Impacts The Addendum's analysis of transportation impacts from the STR ban is insufficient, finding that the STR ban would only affect existing structures, and that the STR ban would not conflict with regional or local circulation system planning, and that the operational traffic associated with long-term rentals or permanent residences (which the Addendum assumes all STRs would be converted to)was already evaluated in the GP PEIR. (Staff Report, Exhibit 3, p. 46.) The analysis in the Addendum lacks any consideration of the reasonably foreseeable transportation impacts from increased VMT related to existing and new hotels which will result from eliminating all STRs in the City. Increased VMT— Existing Hotels It is likely that restricting the use of STRs would require patrons to stay at a location (hotel or other facility) that is further from their intended destination, resulting in increased VMT. Guests staying in STRs have more flexibility to stay closer to their destinations, by eliminating STRs in the City, these travelers will need to travel further to reach their destinations. This increase in VMT will additionally lead to an increase in other potentially significant environmental impacts, including GHG emissions and air quality, as discussed above. The ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th edition, does not provide average trip rates specifically for STRs. The land use category in the ITE Trip Generation Manual that most closely matches at STR is Land Use 31 iCAJA Environmental Services, LLC 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd.,Suite 101 Chatsworth,CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700 Fax 310-806-9801 260: Recreational Home, which is defined as either (1) a second home used by its owner periodically for recreation or (2) a home rented on a seasonal basis. No additional trip generation data or studies were available from other sources that would be more applicable to an STR ban. Thus, the recreational homeland use (Land Use 260)from the ITE Trip Generation Manual is the most appropriate representative land use for the purposes of analyzing trip generation for STRs. Recreational homes generate less trips than hotels.48 Given the evidence that hotels generate more traffic than STRs, which due to STR ban may result in a significant increase in VMT, the City should evaluate these potential impacts in an EIR. Further, because California state and local policymakers and agencies are sensitive to transportation system and VMT impacts, an expert study should be conducted by a recognized transportation specialist using established travel demand and VMT methodologies to include in the EIR. This analysis should estimate the individual vehicle trips and average trip lengths associated with STRs in Santa Ana, compared with those associated with hotel stays in Santa Ana, to evaluate the increase in VMT from eliminating STRs in the City. This would use the ITE model to quantify the VMT associated with the current baseline conditions where STRs are permitted, with regional travel demand based on residential use and proximity to tourist areas. This should be compared against a scenario where STR uses have been eliminated and there is an increased demand for hotels further from tourist areas. If the increase in VMT from an STR ban exceeds the applicable threshold, transportation impacts could be significant and mitigation measures would need to be provided to reduce impacts to less than significant. Absent any feasible mitigation, impacts to transportation (VMT) could be significant. Increased VMT— New Hotels Based on the locations identified in the City's General Plan, Specific Plan, and Zoning Code as locations for development of new hotels, depending on the availability of land suitable for hotel development in these areas, there is a reasonable possibility these new hotels would be constructed farther from a city center or tourist destination, resulting in greater urban sprawl and VMT, which could result increased traffic. Thus, for the reasons discussed above regarding existing hotels, the City must analyze potential VMT impacts associated with potential new hotels. Tribal Cultural Resources Overview An STR ban may significantly impact tribal cultural resources from the reasonably foreseeable construction and operation of new hotels to accommodate patrons who would have previously utilized STRs. Santa Ana has extensive tribal cultural resources which heighten the risk of impacts from new construction. The Addendum fails to address any of these potential impacts, concluding without supporting evidence that the Proposed Ordinance would "only affect existing structures" and therefore, there would be no change in 48 ITE 2021. 32 drCAJA Environmental Services, LLC 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd.,Suite 101 Chatsworth,CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700 Fax 310-806-9801 impacts to tribal cultural resources beyond those identified in the GP PEIR. (Staff Report, Exhibit 3, p. 47.) This is inadequate. The Analysis in the Addendum Fails to Address Potentially Significant Impacts The Addendum's analysis of tribal cultural resources impacts is insufficient, finding that the STR ban would only affect existing structures and there would be "no earthwork or ground-disturbing activities." (Staff Report, Exhibit 3, p. 47.)This analysis lacks any consideration of the reasonably foreseeable construction of new hotels from an STR ban which could result in potentially significant impacts to tribal cultural resources, as discussed below. Construction and Operation of New Hotels The presence of tribal cultural resources in Santa Ana are discussed above in the Cultural Resources section. The same issues applicable to the potential for disturbance of cultural resources as a result of construction of new hotels apply to tribal cultural resources. As discussed above in the Cultural Resources section, tribal cultural resources that could be present in Santa Ana include Native American burial sites, village or occupation sites, and traditional resource- gathering locations. For example, the Gabrielino (or Tongva and Kizh), Juaneno (or Acjachemen), Luiseno peoples inhabited the region and there may be tribal cultural resources present in the sites for new hotel development that must be surveyed.49 In addition, AB 52 establishes a formal consultation process for California Native American Tribes to identify potential significant impacts to tribal cultural resources. Depending on the specific conditions of a site, as well as the results of tribal consultation conducted pursuant to AB 52, mitigation measures may be necessary to reduce impacts with respect to tribal cultural resources to less than significant. The City must conduct tribal consultation in compliance with SB 18 and AB 52. Utilities/ Service Systems Overview The prohibition of STRs is reasonably likely to significantly impact utilities and services systems by increasing demand for water, electricity, natural gas, and increased generation of wastewater and solid waste.As discussed above, a 2018 Cleantech analysis found that when guests stay at an STR, significantly less energy and water is used, greenhouse gas emissions are lower, and waste is reduced, compared to hotel stays50 and an article published in the Small Business Institute Journal also proposed that sharing economy based accommodations are likely to consume less energy and water, and produce fewer GHG emissions and less waste, than traditional accommodations.51By increasing demand for these services 49 Michael Baker International, Tribal Cultural Resources Identification Memorandum for the South Coast Technology Center Project, City of Santa Ana, Orange County, California, p. 6 (Apr. 2024). so Airbnb, How the Airbnb Community Supports Environmentally-Friendly Travel Worldwide (Apr. 2018), https://news.airbnb.com/how-the-airbnb-community-supports-environmentally-friendly-travel-worldwide. 51 Midgett et al., The Sharing Economy and Sustainability:A Case for Airbnb, 13 SMALL BUSINESS INST.J. 2, pp. 61- 63 (2017). 33 dFCAJA Environmental Services, LLC 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd.,Suite 101 Chatsworth,CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700 Fax 310-806-9801 both from existing hotels, and from potential new hotels, an STR ban could result in significant impacts to utilities and services systems. The Addendum fails to address any of these potential impacts, concluding without supporting evidence that the Proposed Ordinance would "only affect existing structures" and therefore, there would be no change in utilities and service systems impacts beyond those identified in the GP PEIR. (Staff Report, Exhibit 3, p. 48.) This is inadequate. The Analysis in the Addendum Fails to Address Potentially Significant Impacts The Addendum's analysis of impacts to utilities and service systems from the STR ban is insufficient, finding that the STR ban would only affect existing structures, and that the ban "would not require development of any kind" so there would be no increase in demands to utilities and service systems. (Staff Report, Exhibit 3, p. 48.) The analysis in the Addendum lacks any consideration of the reasonably foreseeable impacts to utilities and service systems resulting from operation of existing and new hotels. Operation of Existing Hotels - Water By increasing visitor demand for existing hotels, an STR ban has potential to result in increased demand for water, electricity, and natural gas, and the increased generation of wastewater and solid waste, which could result in the need for the construction or expansion of water or wastewater treatment facilities, landfills, storm water drainage facilities, electric power facilities, natural gas facilities, or telecommunications facilities. STR guests use the typical amount of water used in a residential home, which is substantially less water than hotel guests.52 According to the 2018 Cleantech analysis, by staying in Airbnb listings rather than hotels in 2017, Airbnb guests in Europe reduced water usage equal to 13,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools. Because an STR ban will eliminate all STRs in the City, it is reasonably foreseeable that the number of guests staying in higher water use facilities like hotels will increase resulting in a greater demand for water. Water efficiency is a key issue for state policymakers that the City should not discount. California's potable and higher quality, potentially potable irrigation water supplies have been substantially reduced by state and local surface groundwater regulatory constraints and during multiple year droughts notwithstanding the most recent two years of higher-than-normal precipitation. Almost all urban areas of the state do not have sufficient water supplies to meet current and projected future demands over time, and eliminating lower-demand STR uses from the City's overnight accommodations market will place an even greater strain on the City's water supply. In addition, the Conservation Element of the City's General Plan provides that the City should "collaborate with Orange County Water District and Metropolitan Water District to ensure reliable, adequate, and high-quality sources of water supply at a reasonable cost."53 Due to the 52 Airbnb, How the Airbnb Community Supports Environmentally-Friendly Travel Worldwide (Apr. 2018), https://news.airbnb.com/how-the-airbnb-community-supports-environmentally-friendly-travel-worldwide; Midgett et al., The Sharing Economy and Sustainability:A Case for Airbnb, 13 SMALL BUSINESS INST.J. 2, pp. 61-63 (2017). ss Santa Ana General Plan, Conservation Element, CN 12. 34 iCAJA Environmental Services, LLC 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd.,Suite 101 Chatsworth,CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700 Fax 310-806-9801 significance of these concerns, the City should prepare a Water Supply Assessment prior to moving forward with an STR ban.54 Operation of Existing Hotels— Solid Waste Regarding solid waste, local, regional, state, and federal statutes and regulations require that the volume of solid waste generation and disposal be reduced overtime, including through use of solid waste reduction programs such as recycling and composting. According to the 2018 Cleantech analysis, Airbnb guests in North America achieved a waste reduction of 64,000 tons.55 An STR ban would increase hotel accommodation solid waste volumes and significantly and cumulatively impact the achievement of solid waste reduction goals and compliance with local and state solid waste statutes and regulations. The City must conduct a study of solid waste generation rates in STRs compared to hotels and calculate the reasonably foreseeable solid waste volume increases that would result from a ban on STRs. Given the sensitivity of California state and local policymakers to solid waste reduction programs, an expert study should be prepared by a qualified waste management expert to support this analysis. Operation of New Hotels All potential impacts to utilities and services systems discussed above regarding operation of existing hotels apply to the operation of potential new hotels. In addition, operation of new hotels will also result in a demand for landscaping, cleaning, and maintenance services. These impacts may be significant in areas of the City where STRs are more prevalent and hotel options are limited or nonexistent. Construction of new hotels would also increase demand for utility services generally. The City's analysis of impacts to utilities in an EIR should also calculate the demand for utilities from the new hotel facilities and determine whether the applicable facilities can accommodate the increase in demand. If existing facilities cannot accommodate the increased utility demand resulting from an STR ban and subsequent addition of new hotel facilities, new or expanded facilities could be required to accommodate this demand (e.g., for water and electricity), the construction of which could be a significant environmental impact. Mitigation measures may need to be provided to reduce impacts to less than significant. Absent any feasible mitigation, impacts to utilities and service systems could be significant. sn The California Water Code (§10910 et. seq.), based on Senate Bill 610 of 2001 (SB 610), requires a project proponent to assess the reliability of a project's water supply as part of the CEQA process. ss Airbnb, How the Airbnb Community Supports Environmentally-Friendly Travel Worldwide (Apr. 2018), https://news.airbnb.com/how-the-airbnb-community-supports-environmentally-friendly-travel-worldwide. 35 Ramboll Environmental Analysis ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH MEMO To File From Eric C. Lu, Sarah Manzano, and Brent Ferren Subject ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF SHORT-TERM RENTAL REGULATION Ramboll Americas Engineering Solutions, Inc. (Ramboll) evaluated potential air Date: November 14, 2024 quality, greenhouse gas (GHG), energy and noise environmental impacts of a potential ban on short-term rentals (STR) in Santa Ana, California. As discussed throughout this memo, Ramboll found that the ban of STRs in Santa Ana has the potential to increase emissions and noise that should be evaluated further. The increase in emissions and noise have the potential to cause a significant impact in relation to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Ramboll's analysis was informed by the economic analysis performed by Ramboll's Stefanie O'Gorman Ramboll (See Exhibit A). 250 Montgomery St., Suite 1200 San Francisco, CA 94104 US USA T+1 510 655 7400 As a result of the proposed STR ban, individuals would be unable to enjoy the F+1 510 655 9517 benefits of STRs within Santa Ana, which will increase demand for local hotels as https://ramboll.com the only option for short term stays within Santa Ana. As a result, individuals will be forced to travel greater distances to other commercials centers in the region to find available STRs and available/affordable hotels, introducing additional vehicle miles traveled (VMT). In particular, increased travel to and from hotels and STRs in the region because of the unavailability of STR in Santa Ana could increase emissions relative to South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds for criteria air pollutants (CAPS), with the potential to cause short-term and long-term health impacts to sensitive receptors, exceedances of appliable air quality standards, and inconsistencies with applicable air quality and climate plans, all of which create a fair argument of environmental impacts that need to be studied further under CEQA. The ban of STRs will also likely result in increased traffic congestion and noise impacts that require further study under CEQA.1, 2 1 Airbtics reports approximately 1,000 short-term rentals in Santa Ana, which is referenced throughout this analysis. However, conclusions herein are largely based on comparative impacts to the elimination of short-term rentals and are not dependent on the actual number of short term rentals in Santa Ana today. Z https://app.airbtics.com/airbnb-data/united-states/CA/santa%20ana 1/14 2 Health Impacts from Criteria Pollutants Criteria air pollutants (CAPS) are defined as pollutants for which the federal and state governments have established ambient air quality standards, or criteria, for outdoor concentrations to protect public health. The federal and state standards have been set, with an adequate margin of safety, at levels above which concentrations could be harmful to human health and welfare. These standards are designed to protect the most sensitive people from illness or discomfort. Pollutants of concern include ozone (03), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOX), particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PMio), and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). The STR ban has the potential to increase emissions of these pollutants and their health impacts are discussed in the following paragraphs. Ozone 03 is a colorless gas that is formed in the atmosphere when volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sometimes referred to as reactive organic gases (ROG), and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) react in the presence of ultraviolet sunlight. 03 is not a primary pollutant; it is a secondary pollutant formed by complex interactions of two pollutants directly emitted into the atmosphere. The primary sources of VOCs and NOx, the precursors of 03, are automobile exhaust and industrial sources. Meteorology and terrain play major roles in 03 formation, and ideal conditions occur during summer and early autumn on days with low wind speeds or stagnant air, warm temperatures, and cloudless skies. Short-term exposures (lasting for a few hours) to 03 at levels typically observed in Southern California can result in breathing pattern changes, reduction of breathing capacity, increased susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, and some immunological changes. Nitrogen Oxides Most NO2, like 03, is not directly emitted into the atmosphere but is formed by an atmospheric chemical reaction between nitric oxide (NO) and atmospheric oxygen. NO and NO2 are collectively referred to as NOx and are major contributors to 03 formation. The primary sources of NO, the precursor to NO2, include automobile exhaust and industrial sources. High concentrations of NO2 can cause breathing difficulties and result in a brownish-red cast to the atmosphere, causing reduced visibility. There is some indication of a relationship between NO2 and chronic pulmonary fibrosis, and some increase in bronchitis in children (2 and 3 years old) has also been observed at concentrations below 0.3 parts per million by volume (ppm). Carbon Monoxide Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless and odorless gas formed by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. CO is emitted almost exclusively from motor vehicles, power plants, refineries, industrial boilers, ships, aircraft, and trains. In urban areas, such as Santa Ana, automobile exhaust accounts for the majority of CO emissions. CO is a non-reactive air pollutant that dissipates relatively quickly; therefore, ambient CO concentrations generally follow the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. CO concentrations are influenced by local meteorological conditions, primarily wind speed, topography, and atmospheric stability. CO from motor vehicle exhaust can become locally concentrated when surface- based temperature inversions are combined with calm atmospheric conditions, a typical situation at dusk in urban areas between November and February. The highest levels of CO typically occur during the colder months of the year when inversion conditions, where a layer of warm air sits atop cool air, 2/14 are more frequent and can trap pollutants close to the ground. In terms of health, CO competes with oxygen, often replacing it in the blood, thus reducing the blood's ability to transport oxygen to vital organs. The results of excess CO exposure can be dizziness, fatigue, and impairment of central nervous system functions. Sulfur Oxides Sulfur Dioxide (S02) is a colorless, pungent gas formed primarily by the combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels. The main sources of S02 are coal and oil used in power plants and industries; as such, the highest levels of S02 are generally found near large industrial complexes. In recent years, S02 concentrations have been reduced by the increasingly stringent controls placed on stationary source emissions of S02 and limits placed on the sulfur content of fuels. S02 is an irritant gas that attacks the throat and lungs and can cause acute respiratory symptoms and diminished ventilator function in children. S02 can also yellow plant leaves and erode iron and steel. Particulate Matter Particulate matter (PM) pollution consists of very small liquid and solid particles floating in the air, which can include smoke, soot, dust, salts, acids, and metals. Particulate matter can form when gases emitted from industries and motor vehicles undergo chemical reactions in the atmosphere. PM2.5 and PM10 represent fractions of particulate matter. Fine particulate matter, or PM2.5, is roughly 1/28 the diameter of a human hair. PM2.5 results from fuel combustion (e.g., motor vehicles, power generation, and industrial facilities), residential fireplaces, and woodstoves. In addition, PM2.5 can be formed in the atmosphere from gases such as sulfur oxides (SOx), NOx, and VOCs. Inhalable or coarse particulate matter, or PM1o, is about one- seventh the thickness of a human hair. Major sources of PM10 include dust stirred up by vehicles traveling on roads; crushing or grinding operations; wood-burning stoves and fireplaces; dust from construction, landfills, and agriculture; wildfires and brush/waste burning; industrial sources; windblown dust from open lands; and atmospheric chemical and photochemical reactions. PM2.5 and PM10 pose a greater health risk than larger-size particles. When inhaled, these tiny particles can penetrate the human respiratory system's natural defenses and damage the respiratory tract. PM2.5 and PMio can increase the number and severity of asthma attacks, cause or aggravate bronchitis and other lung diseases, and reduce the body's ability to fight infections. Very small particles of substances such as lead, sulfates, and nitrates can cause lung damage directly or be absorbed into the bloodstream, causing damage elsewhere in the body. Additionally, these substances can transport absorbed gases, such as chlorides or ammonium, into the lungs, also causing injury. Whereas PMio tends to collect in the upper portion of the respiratory system, PM2.5 is so tiny that it can penetrate deeper into the lungs and damage lung tissues. Suspended particulates also damage and discolor surfaces on which they settle, as well as produce haze and reduce regional visibility. An STR Ban Will Increase Air Pollutant Emissions and Greenhouse Gas Emissions There are approximately 1,000 active Airbnb listings in Santa Ana. Elimination of these Airbnb rentals and other short-term rentals in Santa Ana and the corresponding increase in guests at Santa Ana hotels 3/14 would result in an increased trip length, as potential guests would have fewer options to stay as close as possible to daily destinations during their stay in Santa Ana. In addition, the number of trips taken by guests to and from their site of accommodation would be higher for hotels than for short-term rentals, as evidenced by Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), introducing additional vehicle miles traveled. Recreational Homes (ITE Land Use Code 260) have an average weekday trip generation rate of 3.55 trips per day while the Hotel land use (ITE Land Use 310) has 7.99 trips per day. This increase in trips may be due to the need to leave the hotel for amenities, such as food, and increased worker trips. The increase in mobile emissions associated with short-term rentals compared to hotels is presented below in Table 1. Based on publicly available statistics on the current Airbnb listings in Santa Ana, the average capacity per STR is 5.6 people and there are approximately 1,000 active Airbnb listings.3 This results in a service population of 5,600 people. As a result of the potential STR ban, this would require 1,867 hotel rooms to accommodate this same service population assuming one hotel room has a capacity of 3 people. The number of peak daily trips was estimated using the ITE trip rates for STRs and hotel rooms and the number of STRs and hotel rooms required to serve the same population. The number of daily miles traveled was estimated assuming a single trip to a hotel is 2 miles longer than a single trip to a STR since guests might have to stay farther from daily destinations if they stay at a hotel. These assumptions were used to determine daily mobile emissions. Mobile emissions from visitors staying at a hotel would generate up to 444 percent more criteria air pollutant emissions and GHGs than from visitors staying at an STR.4 Therefore, the ban has the potential to considerably increase emissions in the area. The increase in VMT and greenhouse gas emissions is directly inconsistent with regional and state goals to reduce VMT and greenhouse gas emissions from vehicle trips. Additional calculation details can be found in Appendix A. Table 1. Emissions Increase due to Additional VMT Percent Increase in daily mobile Criteria Air Pollutant emissions from STR to hotel to serve the same population VOC 442% N Ox 443% CO 443% Sox 444% PM10 444% P M i.s 444% GHG (COZe) 443% 3 https://app.airbtics.com/airbnb-data/united-states/CA/santa%20ana 4 This percent increase is independent of the number of short-term rentals in Santa Ana. The number of short-term rentals and population are provided for illustrative purposes only. 4/14 4 An STR Ban Will Disproportionally Burden Environmental Justice Communities The proposed STR ban in Santa Ana, CA, raises critical environmental justice concerns, particularly given the City's existing pollution burdens from regional pollution and localized traffic exposure near the existing hotel stock, and the potential for increased hotel usage in response to restrictions on STRs. The existing hotels are predominately located near the I-5 and 55 freeways on the southeastern boundary of the City. This area shows elevated burden according to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) CalEnviroScreen (CalEnviroScreen 4.0) data.5 CalEnviroScreen was developed as a mapping tool that identifies California communities most impacted by pollution and other environmental risks to identify vulnerability to adverse health effects from those sources. CalEnviroScreen takes into account environmental and socioeconomic factors to develop a percentile of burden across the State of California. Factors include indicators of pollution burden (including ozone, traffic, pesticides, drinking water) and population characteristics (including asthma, cardiovascular disease, education, poverty), which are each scored and weighted to derive a pollution burden score, population characteristic score, and the final CalEnviroScreen score. The Santa Ana tracts that border the I-5 and 55 freeways near the Southeastern boundaries of the city are identified as vulnerable tracts are also the current locations for the greatest density of hotels in Santa Ana. As shown in Figure 1, the CalEnviroScreen tool identifies Santa Ana, and particularly the freeway- adjacent tracts, as highly burdened, being classified into the 80th percentile and above for the CalEnviroScreen overall percentile, with tracts above the 90th percentile (Tract 6059074406 93rd percentile as the maximum). This significant elevation in burden is driven by the pollution and exposure burden; these freeway-adjacent tracts are ranked in the 90t" percentile and above for pollution burden (Tract 6059074003 99t" percentile for pollution burden) and face extreme burden from air pollution associated with vehicle traffic emissions, and direct traffic exposure (Tract 6059074406 99t" percentile for traffic). Conversely, while central Santa Ana tracts still register as overburdened and pollution-impacted, tracts in the center of the City are comparatively lower burdened and near the 70t" percentile for overall burden. Further screening tools, the Council on Environmental Quality's Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST),6 the US EPA's Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool (EJScreen, Version 2.3),7 and the Public Health Alliance of Southern California's California Health Places Index (HPI 3.0),8 each highlight significant environmental and health concerns for Santa Ana in almost all tracts, with traffic proximity and the associated vehicle traffic-generated air pollution as the driving metrics of those disadvantage and burden ratings. 5 OEHHA. CalEnviroScreen 4.0. May 2023. Available at: htti)s://oehha.ca.ciov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40. 6 Council on Environmental Quality. Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool. Available at: https://screeningtool.geoplatform.gov/en/. US EPA. Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool. Available at: htti)s://www.ei)a.gov/eiscreen. $ Public Health Alliance of Southern California. Healthy Places Index (HPI) 3.0. 2022. Available at: htti)s://www.healthyplacesindex.org/. 5/14 s1ad�m '`_ f Anahei N Overall Percentile om m I; E z m I A,, g` I �..�' x z CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Results _ \ ■ Chr k.0.. — Menl��1yv j hapm.n Ave 90 100(High Orange --..E_ > est Scores) 'Ar Ahna id Ave - ■ >80 90 y I1umscn Ave nnmstmm ■>70 BO Rex `.o�i�. clan Grove X Garden Grove 22—.+_c '60 70 a — lden.Grove'FwY ❑ >50 60 F.aiiha m — rolemornl >40 SO P. Trask Av L e tea— m �anl.l Cl.�r�Are .mGaFdemcrove,Ewy z ■>30 40 N x ansbl _ 3 ■>20 30 `.Vee lm^sir Are rrla Melpla 17th S: LL c sans An S�0 ■>10 20 � c"veae q f m` - " i nJ'Ny a ■0.10(Lowest Scores) b'a HazaM Ave G fC,,arn4 z' cv�ceHer n 1� U, _In St W S-6 A H.J Santa Ana B.amsc 4ve -W-1s st _ 551 TO >F FI I — c+E!:hr.Ana['7{VC �. o SA 'N Ivt FaJ den Ave — N 'S' Santa An ud raau"r Ld r1jer Aue- m ', �n •>TusN�n F Go if c— Ailla Square Vv[Jiryui.,rt. EEdI J _er Ave e Req.-I Earl W.Sgaa ;I All.,w PI Regenal Park Cwlt Ceurra � I e�4i -Wnrner-Ave - -- 1 u' ydWarnerAve--N—r— 3� qn F;uu of ain _ _ x > .. r v. '" ✓. E Dyerfttl 'k I,Altcr Ave � Q'� � _V neo v tnsr tinI 1•c mouth Lega aJ'01v-r A, j - Plaet Anton Jiro y Gsler Ma �� 1-'405•MOWLn m4 e �a Irvine I�sa Verde lyelr 2O P k 9nt Baker St ab _range Figure 1. OEHHA CalEnviroScreen 4.0, Santa Ana, CA. Overall Percentile of Exposure and Burden. In Figure 2, the EJScreen-measured traffic proximity is expressed as the counts of vehicles per day divided by the distance between the vehicle(s) and tract, providing a percentile rank for total exposure. The data included demonstrates the extreme disparity for these near-freeway Santa Ana tracts, the same tracts in the Northeast and Southeast of Santa Ana where hotels are primarily located, as these tracts already experience among the most extreme traffic exposures in the state and country (Figure 2, the traffic proximity expressed as traffic volume and distance and displayed as state percentile by tract). These already traffic-exposure overburdened tracts risk further concentration of traffic from increased hotel use and potential new hotels (further discussed in Section 7). Therefore, the congestion and traffic density increases may be more impactful to this already overburdened area. 6/14 - ,/(�IEnvironmental Burden liarik..0® Ynrt>a Linda Traffic Proximity(State Percentiles) kh 95-100 percentile er FuOr-rte 90-95 Pe cam,le t 80-90 Percentile _ 50-80 Percentile Le than 50 percentile Data not available What does this mean &L Garden 'f.rF.',tlllih 5 t=r a n 'F• I, Ffl l n tJlri Valley Hunhnj �IVIIIe E—rh -cst.i Llc'n Rancho L,nk Boni: f�r;vprrt forest h.lnri rn . Boarh L a.iur_;+�IIS Figure 2. US EPA Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool, Santa Ana, CA, environmental burden indicator of traffic proximity. The proposed STR could shift visitor accommodations in STRs from lower-burdened, dispersed residential areas to concentrated hotel zones in southeast Santa Ana, where pollution and traffic emission levels are already elevated. This shift in accommodation location could lead to increase vehicular traffic and hotel-generated emissions in an already-concentrated area facing significant air pollution exposure levels and health risks. Furthermore, the construction of more hotels in this area to meet the demands for visitors due to the STR ban could increase emissions from construction and additional operation to an area with higher burden. The relocation of accommodations could further the known pollution contributors to respiratory and cardiovascular health risks in these already overburdened communities. An STR Ban Would Increase Energy Demands Because Hotels Use More Energy Per Person Than STRs The proposed STR ban could cause visitors who would have otherwise stayed in STRs to stay in hotels, which consume more energy per person than STRs. Using CalEEMod, Ramboll modeled the operational GHG emissions of hotels and STRs for comparison. The single-family home CalEEMod land use type was used a surrogate for STR. Assuming an occupancy rate of 3 people per hotel room and 5.6 people per STR, hotels have much higher associated GHG emissions per person. It was found that hotels consume 7/14 more electricity and natural gas per person than STRs, as shown in Table 2 and in the CalEEMod output in Appendix B.9 Table 2. Operational Energy Use per Person Land Use Electricity Natural Gas kWh/yr/person kBTU/yr/person Hotel 6,773 13,974 Short Term Rentals 1,231 6,846 As a result of the increase in energy consumption when staying in a hotel instead of an STR, GHG emissions from energy consumption per person would increase by 179 percent. 6 An STR ban Will Increase Fossil Fuei Usag In addition, increased VMT would require greater reliance on fossil fuels to power vehicle trips. Even with California's policies to shift the vehicle fleet towards cleaner cars and trucks, vehicle usage will continue to rely on gasoline for car and truck trips for years to come. The STR ban therefore results in greater reliance on fossil fuels, inconsistent with regional and state climate policy. The estimated fuel use is summarized in Table 3 and utilizes the same assumptions from Table 1. Additional calculation details can be found in Appendix A. 10 Table 3. Daily Mobile Fuel Consumption Gasoline Diesel Land Use Gallons per day Gallons per day Hotels 6,916 197 Short Term Rentals 1,272 36 Percent Increase with Hotel Use 444% 447% 7 An STR Ban Could Concentrate Traffic Resulting in Potential Noise and Health Impacts The potential ban of short-term rentals in Santa Ana could result in concentrated traffic on roadways going to hotels in the area, which could have noise and health impacts to the surrounding land uses. As described above, removing short term rentals as a means for lodging in Santa Ana would result in visitors needing to rely on hotels for their stay. Currently, there are over 20 hotels in the city limits of Santa Ana and over half of them are located in one concentrated area in the southeastern part of the City along Highway 55. It can be assumed that if more people will need stay in hotels instead of STRs, then the traffic to this part of town would increase significantly as it is likely all of this traffic would be concentrated to the roadways surrounding the hotel zone area. In comparison, traffic caused from 9 The CalEEMod analysis is based on 134 dwelling units, which is the amount of STRs that would accommodate the same number of people as a 250 room hotel. However, the energy use per person and percent increase in GHG emission is independent of the absolute number of short-term rentals in Santa Ana. io The fuel usage is based on 1,000 STRs in Santa Ana. However, the percent increase is independent of the number of short-term rentals in Santa Ana. 8/14 visitors traveling to and from various STRs located throughout the City would result in more diversified traffic patterns as all visitors are not driving to one area. Furthermore, a potential new hotel constructed to meet the demand as a result of the STRs ban would likely be constructed in the area of Santa Ana with the majority of hotels, further concentrating traffic in this area. Health Risk Impacts from Traffic Ramboll performed a preliminary analysis that quantified the health risks from traffic emissions in order to assess the impact that increased hotel use in Santa Ana due to a ban on STRs could cause. A typical roadway with approximately 30,000 average annual daily trips (AADT) results in an excess cancer risk of 40 in a million at a nearby residential receptor.11,12,13 According to ITE, hotels generate 7.99 trips per day per hotel room.14 There are currently approximately 1,000 Airbnbs in Santa Ana, with other STRs also available.15 Assuming this ban contributes to 950 more hotel rooms being used, traffic would increase by 7,560 vehicles per day, which results in health impacts that would exceed 10 in a million, which is the SCAQMD CEQA threshold of significance for cancer risk. This scaling approach also does not take into account increased truck traffic associated with deliveries to a hotel that would not occur to an STR. Therefore, banning STRs in Santa Ana could result in an increase in traffic on certain roadways that could be considered significant. If additional truck trips were taken into account, the number of hotel rooms that could cause an exceedance of the threshold of significance for cancer risk could be lower than 950 hotel rooms. It could be assumed that similar trends to cancer risk based on near-roadway traffic exposure would be true for particulate matter and toxic air contaminant emissions. Noise Impacts from Traffic Ramboll evaluated whether a potential traffic volume increase could cause a traffic noise increase that is considered either substantial (per CEQA guidelines) or increases the ambient conditions to a level above the Santa Ana General Plan Noise Element standard (65 dBA CNEL). Traffic noise analyses require specific knowledge of existing and future traffic volumes and vehicle mixes as well as project-related traffic volumes and mixes. In this case, this information is currently unknown. However, the following figure shows the current (2022) exterior levels of noise created by cars, trucks, or trains traveling along roadways and rail lines in the City. The City's noise and land use compatibility standards (see Table N-1) consider exterior levels above 65 dBA (CNEL) to be generally incompatible for residential and other noise-sensitive land uses. If residential or other noise-sensitive areas within the City that are currently below the 65 dBA CNEL level experienced traffic volume increases, specifically due to an increased hotel demand resulting from 11 Health impacts obtained from highway 152 from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Mobile Source Screening tool at a distance of 100 feet from the roadway. This was used as a surrogate to estimate general health risks from only traffic. The traffic volume along this road was obtained from CalTrans. 1z Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2022. CEQA Roadway Screening Tool - Cancer Risk. Available at: https://data.bayareametro.ciov/Environment/CEQA-Roadway-Screening-Tool-Cancer-Risk/kz4a-ueki 1s CalTrans,Traffic Census Program. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/census. 14 ITE. Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition. 15 https://app.airbtics.com/airbnb-data/united-states/CA/santa%20ana?payment-plan=pro&payment- duration=yearly 9/14 the proposed STR ban, and the traffic volume increase caused the CNEL level to now exceed 65 dBA, the STR ban could be considered to have caused a significant impact. The magnitude of a traffic noise increase is dependent on several factors including the traffic volume increase, the vehicle mix, and the local site conditions. Based on standard methodologies prescribed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and considering a vehicle mix typical of suburban/urban areas, traffic volume increases would be expected to result in the following traffic noise increases. Project-specific detailed analysis, including a traffic analysis, would be required to further evaluate. Nonetheless, the volume increases listed below suggest the traffic increases likely necessary to increase the existing traffic noise conditions would need to be significant. As shown in the Figure below, the existing hotel stock is in the area near Highway 55 that is either already above the noise standard of 65 dBA or near the standard. Therefore, adding additional traffic to this area due to the shift to hotels as a result of the STR ban or the addition of new hotels to the area has the potential to exacerbate the existing noise impacts or create a new noise impact. Therefore, this should be studied in more detail. ANOUt ME MAP.This map sr,p the—rene Menor levels of no,se created bycan,trucks.or trans traveling along roadways and rail Imes in the my The OrYs noise and land Use companbhty standards— N-II tpnsder a h.,levels above 66 decibels(dBA CNEL)to be geneNllymcompahble la—lenhal aM other—e—h—land Uses. GARDEN CROVE � ORANGE III. T. El ............. el m............... l \ COSTA MESA s,,....w.e..,amorrnw..e saris wshnL fl s Cwt- 10+dBA CNEL - Railway Coll MY Rwsa Larrawat lanl OIL)tN aror0-a 4p w N SWN lends a10 8neh!1 1050e to 00,Edellto ar Tpn 1,l.1.P00 65 den cvEL am rm to�mare oo.to m aR.m,m am rN eaueda art nr„--.ha n 60 dBA CNEL hurMs mxms as rxnmea W;M tuna+ray Mrna ro asAvrtismaa amxn leeU FIGURE N-1 EXISTING NOISE CONTOUR IVTA ANA GENERAL PLAN Mail.. Figure 3. Contours from the Noise Element. Source: Noise Element, Santa Ana General Plan, Final, April 2022. 10/14 Table 4. Noise Impact from Traffic Increase Traffic Volume Increase Potential Traffic Noise Increase 25% 1 dB 50% 2 dB 100% 3 dB 8 Elimination of Short-Term Rentals Could Cause the Construction of New Hotels to Meet Demand; the Construction of New Hotels Would Result in Numerous Environmental Impacts That Require Studying As detailed in the Ramboll memorandum "ECONOMICS ANALYSIS OF SHORT-TERM RENTAL REGULATION", the prohibition of STRs, including those currently operating within the City, could compel tourists to seek alternative accommodations, increasing demand for hotels and potentially leading to the development of additional hotels as a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the STR ban. The construction of hotels has impacts on the environment that have not been studied. In particular, construction of hotels has potential noise and air quality impacts as discussed below. Potential Hotel Construction Air Quality and Health Impacts Resulting from STR Ban Ramboll performed a screening health risk assessment to determine the potential cancer risk resulting from construction activity of a hypothetical new hotel. The emissions associated with the construction of these hotels encompass on-site, off-road heavy equipment, off-site, on-road vehicle travel, architectural coating, paving, and fugitive dust. Ramboll utilized CalEEMod to estimate construction emissions from a 250-room hotel as shown in Appendix B, which is an average mid-size hotel. Ramboll used an existing hotel project site to model emissions in AERMOD as a surrogate for the space of hotel construction. Concentrations resulting from diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions from off- road construction equipment in CalEEMod were modeled on receptors in a grid of 20 meters. The health risk assessment used default exposure assumptions for residents as outlined by OEHHA.16 As indicated in Table 5, the construction of a hotel without emissions mitigation results in an excess cancer risk of 48 in a million for the maximum exposed individual (MEI), which exceeds the SCAQMD's threshold of 10 in a million. Cancer risks continue to exceed the threshold until a distance of 450 feet from the construction area. Table 5. Cancer Risk from Hotel Construction Source Cancer Risk (in a million) Construction of a 250 room Hotel 48 SCAQMD Threshold of Significance 10 Potential Hotel Construction Noise Impacts Resulting from STR Ban Construction of structures generates noise, which is regulated by the City of Santa Ana. is OEHHA. 2015. Air"1 oxics Hot Spots Program. Risk Assessment Guidelines. Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. February. 11/14 City of Santa Ana Noise Element California Government Code encourages each local government entity to implement a noise element as part of its general plan. In addition, the California Governor's Office of Planning and Research has developed guidelines for preparing noise elements, which include recommendations for evaluating the compatibility of various land uses as a function of community noise exposure. The City of Santa Ana has established a Noise Element as part of the Santa Ana General Plan.17 The Noise Element works to ensure that the City limits the exposure of the community to excessive noise levels in noise-sensitive areas and at noise-sensitive times of day. Specifically, the City has established standards for noise levels (Community Noise Equivalent Level [CNEL], dBA) for land uses as displayed in Table N-1. Additionally, all residential uses should be protected with sound insulation over and above that provided by normal building construction when constructed in areas exposed to greater than 60 dBA CNEL. Sound levels resulting from a project that exceed the standards listed in Table N-1 or that cause the existing conditions to increase above these standards would typically be considered to be impacting the surrounding community. TABLE N-1. INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS Categories Land Use Categories interior' Exterior' 5irigl -family duplex,multi- a Icanca°:aI family 45dBCNEL 6ians�C`,E_ Hospital,school classroomi 45 dB CNEL 65 dB CNEL playground Institutional Religious faci I ity,library 45 dB CNEL - Open Space ftk$ 65 dO CNEL Notr s 1.Interior areas,to inrl4de but not limited to bedrooms,bathrooms,kitchens,living rooms,dining rooms,,.arivate offices,and conference rooms. 2.Exteriorareas shall mean,private yardsof single family homes,park picnic areas,school playgrounds,common areas_Private open space,such as 0lri.4MA on baloonies,shall be excluded from exterior noise requirements provided svfticient common area is included within the project. 3_Interior noise level requirements assume a closed-window condition_Mechanical ventilation system or other means of natural ventilation shall be prrni led per Chapter 12®f the Uniform Builcirg Cade,as necessary. Figure 4. Noise Standards from the Noise Element. Source: Noise Element, Santa Ana General Plan, Final, April 2022. City of Santa Ana Noise Ordinance The City of Santa Ana regulates noise emissions via the Santa Ana Municipal Code, specifically Chapter 18, Article 6 (Noise Control).18 The noise ordinance establishes that it is unlawful for any person at any location within the City of Santa Ana to create any noise, or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied, or otherwise controlled by such person, which creates a sound level 1' htti)s://www.santa-ana.org/documents/ai)ril-2022-general-plan-noise-element/ is https://library.municode.com/ca/santa_ana/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIITHCO_CH18HESA_ARTVINOC O 12/14 at a residential property that exceeds the following exterior noise standards. The noise levels are based on a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour. Table 6. Santa Ana Noise Ordinance Noise Zone Noise Level Time Period 1 55 dB(A) 7:00 a.m.-1D:00 p.m. 50 dB(A) 10:00 p.m.— 7:00 a.m. Source: Santa Ana Municipal Code, §18-312. Noise emissions from one property that propagate onto an adjacent or nearby residential property and exceed these limits are deemed to be noncompliant with the Santa Ana Municipal Code. Noise emissions related to construction activities are exempt from the limits, provided the construction activities do not occur place between 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. Analysis of New Hotel Construction The effect of construction noise impacts on nearby noise-sensitive neighbors is dependent on the location and nature of the construction activities. Depending on the construction activities and neighboring land uses, there is a potential for possible significance threshold exceedances related to the resulting construction activities, particularly in relation to residential communities. While noise from construction activities is exempt from the Santa Ana Municipal Code during daytime hours, noise from construction activities occurring during the nighttime hours (as detailed in the previous section) must comply with the established limits. Additionally, the potential for substantial temporary increases to the existing ambient conditions could be considered relative to CEQA guidelines. Construction typically involves the use of heavy machinery that can be a significant source of noise and, while often temporary, can result in significant impacts. Construction equipment commonly includes air compressors, backhoes, concrete trucks, cranes, dump trucks, excavators, graders, pavers, tractors/dozers, vibratory rollers, portable generators, and water trucks. Depending on the phase of construction, project construction typically involves a combination of these types of off-road and portable construction equipment. Assuming a typical construction plan, common types of construction equipment, and typical construction equipment sound levels published by resources such as the U.S. Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, and manufacturers, potential overall sound levels can be estimated. Accordingly, construction sound levels could range from approximately 75 to 90 dBA assuming typical receptor distances of 500 ft to 50 ft. Construction activities also may need to occur at night due to various limitations. Examples include concrete pours that need to occur when other construction is not happening or would impede traffic, accelerated construction needs to meet hotel demand that may come with the Olympics in 2028, roadway construction work that needs to occur at nighttime. The table below outlines general construction phasing and equipment assumptions employed to estimate approximate sound pressure levels (SPQ for common construction phases for a hotel use as generated in CalEEMod.19 It is anticipated that these sound pressure levels are above typical .1 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod®1 Version 2022.1. Available online at htti)s://www.caleemod.com/ . 13/14 suburban/urban ambient sound levels and therefore could cause a temporary increase above the threshold discussed above. For reference, typical suburban/urban background sound levels are commonly on the order of 45 to 55 dBA during daytime hours and lower during nighttime hours.20 Because sound pressure levels from construction of a new hotel, which was needed due to a STR ban, have the potential to cause a temporary increase above the noise level threshold, more analysis is needed to evaluate specific impacts and potential mitigation. While construction may be exempt from the noise ordinance during daytime hours, the table below shows that the construction could have a significant noise impact on the community. Furthermore, if any nighttime construction activity is needed for the hotel, the noise levels below show that threshold for nighttime work in the noise ordinance would be exceeded. Table 7. Noise Impacts from Construction Activit Avg. Equip Equip Total Total Total Usage Lmax Acoustical Construction Size, SPL @ SPL @ SPL @ SPL @ Equipment Type Qty Hours SPL @ Use Phase Hp 50 ft 50 ft 50 ft 500 ft per 50 ft Factor dBA dBA dBA dBA Day dBA Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 367 85 40% 81 86 Site Tractors/Loaders/Bac 89 79 Preparation 4 8 84 84 40% 80 86 khoes Excavators 2 8 36 85 1 40% 81 84 Graders 1 8 148 85 40% 81 81 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 85 40% 81 81 Grading 90 80 Scrapers 2 8 423 85 40% 81 84 Tractors/Loaders/Bac 2 8 84 84 40% 80 83 khoes Cranes 1 7 367 83 16% 75 75 Forklifts 3 8 82 75 40% 71 76 Building Generator Sets 1 8 14 82 50% 79 79 87 77 Construction Tractors/Loaders/Bac 3 7 84 84 40% 80 85 khoes Welders 1 8 46 1 74 40% 70 1 70 Pavers 2 8 81 85 50% 82 85 Paving Paving Equipment 2 6 89 85 50% 82 85 89 79 Rollers 2 6 36 85 20% 78 81 20 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Community Noise, December 31, 1971. 14/14 APPENDIX A VMT ANALYSIS Confidential 0 O R N a+ O m m N U v c v o E F 0 — W C E � o � o N N O O. Q • w c S a v M E U � c x > u a .� v w p ,p C m m o m a IL o L C L m V w m y m E v N 0 6 C N y 0 v E E N N to E E v o m o v o ° $ ° a o CL o O f a v m E v N O y U � � a) o�_ — o > E p v E 3 N m ° c m m E c 'F R ti c C O m i7 m N O QN 4) C r x O M u m o f E O E > M Z ._ lL y O a)IQ C C m o N a O N L C O N O u 41 O N N > m � i i i N a > It E ° 3 'o c, O m y m o cn > > y O N N i R r, ,o a E o .X o G F 11 0 o o o o o a a m > d r� m N v rn E o a 'E N Ln o > L C o a E !I L v o c- m rn ai yT L U o v E o f E v 2 > oo o m � 4 m E a 3 m Y G C , ,N m U N N r T c -o a m vy 9 Ncm H y ~ O O C G N Q O +' O. N O� V o 2 m m u C � _� i 0 Z V 7 v m m m + � E E O 41 m O N OD O N H N "O O d N Z C O1 m a._ m N o E T N m N o Y U C m O M C C U N N G7 ~ Q m m N T 0 o C N O uNi 'O m O 4J N C E O a °y` a U H m m m C E m m ° a 3 ++ yEoo of m w m o 0 p E+T+ F -4) V L X O N N C D_ 4) O LA U OU C N m C O 7 X L N m C a, N E Oi a0 V O C m O O ,�.. o N = y m N u o m CR 'U O c) C '6 CO .O 01 N N D_ 'i C N In fl_ R 3 '� E n E m O c N E H v rj O m L Q N U — N i E L N T O_+� U O ^ '- m E o rn E v� U c = F o o E o o v Q Ih = N C C V O ( i w m yo a J 'E o n w oL w m g o Qj W tLn O ~ N N > O n > N m E 2 O O a 9 E - p m o v E -o E E ,°', ~ �' m m f 3 m � -0 2 3 ,-+ w N w is w a o D v � a r o a a O w C 41 N N O C ,--i C m 9 — F c 0 , m ' 'm o m0 0 m O y v ° m ° E v o' 'Fa E m N l0 O m 9 E m Y Y N O w N C O Q O. GI M X a..� N N O U 'E .- -o N p C N p G o m m - ° o_ o- u a) o H u ._ o O N m Q) O O C C = o -p o m ) F (O a cm u a) a) C O C U C 0 N m C K H L m E o E E u g o -2 a) a (D N m N N a+ 7 7 N 2 i6 p u N V m O_ m C .p C o 2 m -O y T C C O_ in > 2: V ti \ C C C O �' = L > a�+ m L L L O L W i N N Q ~ �O D. J L H 6 H Cu) H H � m 0 0 w o w Fu Q. .+ N ri N m I w Q U U U i~i L ti U Appendix Table A2: VMT and Fuel Consumption Comparison of Short Term Rentals and Hotels Fuel Percent of Fleetl,Z Fuel Consuption2 (gallons per mile) Gasoline 95% 0.055 Diesel 5% 0.031 Land Use Peak Daily VMT3 Gasoline Consumption Diesel Consumption (miles/day) (gal)4 (gal)4 Short Term Rental 24,101 1,272 36 Hotel 131,086 6,916 197 1 Gasoline includes gasoline fueled vehicles and plug-in hybrids. Natural gas is excluded from this analysis due to the negligible VMT from natural gas vehicles. 2 The fleet mix and fuel consumption per mile is determined using EMFAC2021 for Santa Ana in 2027. The fuel consumption rate is weighted based on fleet type. 3 The number of peak daily VMT were determined in Appendix Table Al. 4 Gasoline and diesel consumption are calculated by multiplying the VMT by the fuel-specific percentage and then by the weighted fuel consumption factor (gal/VMT) derived from EMFAC output. Abbreviations: STR - short term rental VMT - vehicle miles traveled gal - gallon References: California Air Resources Board (ARB) 2021. EMFAC2021. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/mobile-source-emissions-inventory/msei-modeling-tools APPENDIX B CALEEMOD REPORTS Confidential It N O N M T T T L O ryNW a] W ^) W y-/ TO 1 T O QL ry `^0 3 L �•co ° T 4-0 U W a) C _O cn U _70 E O �_ O W U ° ° —17 a) m V' m co Q cu E cm Q _o c L � _� U m L 0- N 0 E _0 E �- a- a) c CD >+ E cn 0 D N N a) U o O >, m O O o cn cn U mo �' _ a) O) N cn O O N E C O E L to O O cn O c O O E .� cLa W W E E o � ' 40- a) ��' E o o u E c� O o o N U U N Q O a) n a) C L L O O O a) 07 07 0)U m U (6 a C C C c c a) a) U O m u cn U m m � � O O O- CL6 >U_, U U O O 0 m N cM E O T M 6 fl O m T T T W N N N N U C6 C6 M M M FT T N M It N O N M T T T L O ryNW W ^) W y-/ TO 1 N c C w-= C a) 70 Q) N N J D J O N 70 O Q No � m N _0 - W m W O) J O O J coJ cn m -0 (nEn >+ O m O C � w �_ cn UO o _0 W cn cn -a � 70 c 7 -a O � m C O O E cn o n m i _m LU W W Lu m E W E m cn o c >• m W c W c c _0 C c — W Z m o o O - L Q M O M m m T m L T W N N Q M Ln Cfl O (n T Q r CV c'7 06 M 0 It N O N M T T r L O ryNW (] a) ^) W y-/ TO 1 ^0 W cc 0) a--� E CL 9� _0 � _O (D cn co M O) - E C: c c J Q 0 0 c6 (- a c (D �>. O En >, cc U cn a) O 0) Q p 0) (n c L (6 W o Q O _0 a) CD W 00 .- c L c c� (D ° m o Z) O U U O L a) W co E co O U Er O N � +� U) _0 c ° co c m C ELLI � ° j m cm - Oj O w 0) O L Ca L U cA Q Q co (}n ° c}n c°i U U o T ni cyi C, c c can Cf) r O r O T i r o 0 0 U O U > Q •> N 4 Gi 4 4 4 ) r CV L6 C,j LO 6 Q L6 6 6 L6 It N O N M T T T L O NW I.J_ W ^) W y-/ TO 1 U) L 0 U O m U- Q U C � c p W O cn Q E c W 0 U o U o � L U 0 Q O L O Q Q N 0 cn N (0 O O a) U v c o L 0 Q U O Z3 (6 j N a) CD WO aLJ Q m m m mU L L O O 70- c •"'' O O E O E O E O E o E "_ a) T c y y= c y= c U cn cn ��♦ a) = T Q J a a ( a C C W Q T O N co 0- T 0- T 0- T Q T O O a- N T T U U O O o L6 o o O T O nj O M O o N CO It T T T T T T T Lf) 06 Gi LC) Lf) L6 L6 Lf) L6L6 Ll) L6 LC) 6 6 LO Lf) L6 6 It N O N M T T T L O ryNW W ^Q W y-/ TO 1 Q E ^n W L y U N � L E � Q i N OU W CO N >, O >, p C H70 Q L U 1 O U ( — L (6 > O O Y O U) N � j E a)_ 1 C co C O y= 0- L Q (u T T T W � AL` J M� m 1M U) CN � U C Q T m T N (WIJ \ T w T w N w C O r CO 6 � D / °T° L6 °T° Ln � LO m U Q U Lfi CD 00 Lfi LO L6 _- N M It LO LO LO LO U CO CO C4 (j6 It N O N M T T T L O ryNW W ^) W y-/ TO 1 W L L cu O O O (U L U O O � N C/) U) p X D � �. co CT N m c W m U L (D O Q U C) O CB 0- +� W O d = W O W O Cu W f6 N (6 N m L m U 20 2 W 2 L a) T N co ';I- LO CD (n = I` ti ti ti ti ti D ti Cb 't N 0 N q o � - m ry _0 T .e 7 - r-) � I 0 . I . - I § cn r < w (D / i / / ¥ / / / c g © 7 7 k k 0') o * / co co m? § / / \ \ 0 2 � _ = 3 E 3 £ £ o \ \ \ o = _ \ \ \ I \ \ \ / / \ \ \ / w \ \ \ $ ; g \ . 9 \ 2 - w C: O � \ E \ } O � C \ U � � ( 3 CL � \ O k 3 ) $ _\ co a) & g o b i » E 5 x U) @ 2 / s R m ) _ / J » 0 2 _ - z \ = c = _ \ S . r @ 5 � \ < / f \ k / \ g _ � ® 3 £ 2 \ \ 5 » 6 0 N } \ \ � s . . _ \ o 5 5 < % E 1 / \ k $ / w w / a } N co O co N co co o_ m cn I I r l I • T T T O N M O 0 �I I I I I • a) ry • LO O CO M • T I o l I C) f o m a) 0 I o f c I o f o o I o = o 0 0 co • I M I I o f • ti 0 • _o 0 0 • u I M I I c I u ti ti I � .■ I I I I I I I I � .• c� c� L L _Q N O o I I ca I I o • o L o ° +� co (D co co co _0 Lo L L � M M C? 00 o >, I o I N I o I o >, o cn cn E rn o oLU - cn co M I I I �o • m co U - j I ri I � I I ~o 70 • (n C co o � _ COY) _ m � f O M O o N o o m � m � O N L L Ln co >, • o ° C: o �, o co L >; I I I I o >; • N M M C: U ° -0 ° _0 cn o 0 o 00 N U) o W E I I `� I I N E o ++ 0 0o rn N ° . �. a� U U m 5 .0 0 0 o u1 aa) W a) > E x �_ X �_ x X a) ctj E E M C a) — � m E N C L a5 C M C N C C C L w 3 z° N N U 0 U) Z) 0 Z a in Z) a � � N U N O0 O Cl) � (D 0 � N N ' co LO cM I ti l I c0 I M N I a I 0 I T T Q I I LO o l CD I o I L I L I NW I.J_ LO M O co (D O CO N • O O Q 1 CD CD1 O 1 O O 1 O O 1 O 1 O 1 Q 1 CD CD1 00 CD1 O CD CD O O 1 O 1 0 1 O o O co O 't 0 fl M N 0CD c0 � 0M • (C I I I I- r I N I 0o l 00 1 0 O M 00 It O • 00 M N (Cl~ 0M a co (co I I I T I N I M I M I � • a, 0, I I I I I I I I I I I I .• I c I c I c� L o cy o o (D m (n _p O I O O L I Cc; I O I 00 00 CD 00 CD 00 co co G CD CD O O 1 O 1 r CDI O O • I O I O 1 Ln L � t` M 0 co 't 00 (D N Q M M (n M M I? I? I? I O I O 1 0 O O I N O I O O I O O • M M 1 U) M 1 �t 0 1 0 o O p 1 0 1 0 1 ai = - a rn c! rn 0000 � r` 0 0 1 c6 C,i 1 0 co 1 ri o 1 0 o H 1 0 1 0 1 co C � M (0D M C? O O O .CQ N N O O I N O I O CDI O 0 Q • 1 O 1 O 1 m o L O Q O O 00 O O O O O • O NO O O I O O I O O I O V co L I O I O Q \ E 0 NI: � Cfl M CD co O p � CO I N N I 00 N I I M U = I N I N I (n _0 L 6) M c V 00 �_ N f� 0 0o N M I N O (_) m I N I N I \ W 1 1 v 1 0 1 0 1 1 00 1 O _m L I co 0 M I N I �° M l o Q I r l m I N p m �, T X (D (D f� T (D I` (D r- Q) >+ X T � X 2 >+ X M Z o o o o > co o o � o oIZI- :M Zcc c Co c :� ❑ (n .� N N ❑ .� N N Q 0 N N Q N N N U 0 (n .� ❑ 0 .� ❑ Q ❑ .� N O N 0 (fl o (O LO N ;1- o o - (O M CO 0 (o Cl) coL o Ln 0O ti bo � o Ln CO r` � I I C) co o m N LO m I C) co co N 0 I T T cy� C) C) `o LO I m I o f I I I m U I o f I I I LO LO I Q N Ln r o O N • O r-- M O O O I- M O O N O I C) C) O O O O O O O O I C) V O O O I O I CDI CD CD C) C) C) I LO Q O Q N (O O O Lo f— N O O 0 f-- 6> I ICD v 6ti I m I o l o - P- I I O N ti O co CO M CD w In coI • I CDONO 00 LO L- I coI O I o Ln rl- I o I Ln o • ti I` co N N O 00 N m CDLn CD N O CD (O 00 1 I o co co LQ c o l 0o I o l co 'IT o l 0 l O) CV (6 • (V 00 O) N o O) LO I C: .• I I I I ti lLOOO l I I I m ICLOO I co M Q O co No l 0o I OO OO NO I I I No l 0o I No l I I No l 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) l C) —>' I o l I I I l o l o l I I I l cc), l LO L � co O .0— CD N N O N N O CDl C) >, I o 0 0 l I l o l o l o l I l o l N No I o cn I o 0 o I I I o I o I No I I I No I C� 2 • 0 0 o 0 0 CDf CDI o l l l l l o l o l l l l l C,:)co l O> � o f o I o 0 o I l l o l o l o l l l o l LO Z) cu Ln C) L 0 O ` O O I CD `Q~ • O O O O O I U O O� O v 0 1 I I O I o l o l I l o l N � (n Q `° I N '' I o N l I I C I C) I N l I I N I .0 M M 0 O r— N 00 Cl N N N I C) cn � I o O N l I I N I O I I I I I E \ M w .� o o Ln N o Lr> r` I N o n o I I I � I o o� o I l l o l O C6 O coCO CDN r l Q a- I 0o r Mo l I I I 00 co o l I I m I O T N N 0Q n ` w ¢' o N O (D N OD O N 00 0') (0 co 00 I- It Lr� O c I` rn CO • M o n w m N � rn I o of r M I I I T T O O O O Lo o f l l l L° L° l o l l l l rnC06) I I I Q ry o Cl 0 O O r co O O O O O O N • O O O O O r O O O O O O I I I N O v O O O I O I O v O v O I O LO Q O O O Lf') f- N O O m r N (0 O CD r-- N co V O CDN N lf) N o v 0 r I m I 0 v o o r I r I I I O t` _ N_ N O � N CO CD O N � O Ln r r- O M I" ` • o In 0o � I 0 l CDm r CO r l r I I I t` Ln N 00 • O t` N O O N O 6) 00 O N O 6 Ln O O (D O In V � O ■■ In 00 � o l 0 l CDm r CO o l r I I I (V 00 � N CV (� • I I I � - I 0-0I I I I � � I .• I I I O LO (� L O 10- 0 o No I I I No l '0? CVD o I l t o I I I 0 0 0 0 o l l l l l o l o l l l l l o I I I LO o 0 0 0 o I l l o l o vv o I l t o � • I I I _0 LO o -0 - O N O O � It 0 o No I I I No I o vv Cc; I I I o 0 • I I I U 2 • O o o o U - o l l l l l o l o l l l l l oo I I I LO ca g It cn - C o o l I l o l o v o l I t o rem LO L() LO LO A `Y O O N N O O O O Q Q O I I I O I O o o I I Iv L C 0 LO O o N I I I C° I O N O I I I N �� • I I I N _0 • O L O 0 0 N I I I N I o 0 ClI I l CDw I I I C: O o o f I I r l o 0 0 l I I N U Q I I I L � � 0o r Mo l I I r l 00 0 00 l I I N �° I I I m T _� m C6 Ccc U • � T Lx6 T C Cx6 a w < 2 a` w w C'7 c� U 0 0 U) 0 N O (D N o 0 0 o cn I o I I o I N I o I I T T T O O O `o I I o I I I o I I I o I I Q N m LO o O o CD I o I v I o I v I o I I LO N o r) -C\j o 0 0 0 a) o I CDI o I o I ov I o I I O = co rn o m 0 0 0 Lc) I CDI I CDI N I o I I co m CD m CD CD 0 LA I O I I CD N I O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I N O M CO O LO O O O O N O O O O CDI O O O I O O O I I I O I I O O I I O O I I LO I O I O I O I O I O I I Cl) O M (D O O_ O ON O I O O O I O O O I I M CD CD O O CD I o CDI I CD I I O O I I O M O O I O I O I O I O I O I I LO LO O O O O O I a I v I O I v I O I I CO O O O O N I O I O I O I O I O I I N O O O r O N I o I O I O I O I o I I O O O N O M I o I o I o l o I O I I O O O N O M I O I o I O t o I O I I a E� m .n xE m i o O � cU co� o o ao 2 O 22 ¢O � w Ow2 Oaw m ow :E :E O O ocn � N N O o o N m o w o o M o o rl- Cli CY I N O I co O M I O O LO • I I I N T T � T � N O O O O O Ln p I o o Ln I o O N I �v o o • I I I I a N LO Lr, O co q o O q O c • N N I o o 0 o I v o I ov o o I I I o LO LO In N Q O O O O co O I OV O 00 I LO OV O O I CN OV O O I I I O Q Ln M O O � N O co CD CD (O I N O S I � o m l o LO I I I N Ln • CD O N O co O O r co o m l o Ln I I I N I I I I I I I I I I I I � .• I I I I LO LO co o O 0 O O o O O N O O O O I I LO I O O O m I V O O I V O O • m Ln O O C LO O q O co O O � G I 0 0 00 1 v o o l v o o I I I I _0 LO L � O O LO O O O O O O LOn O O I O O O I O O O >> • I I I O LO _0 Lo CD O O M I O O O I OV O O nI I I I O CD� rn M O ti O O O Ln V O O N I O O O I v O O • O O Ln O O O O O O O � I O O O I O O O � • Ln � O i O _Q O O f� O O O O O O 5- • I I I O O O O I O O O I co O O V Q OO O O O (4 O O O >; I I I O O (o I O O I V O O +� ' LO LO E 76 O O m O O co O O r- O • O O I V O M I V O O 1 I I I O O CC N) O _ O O LLq O O O CDO O • I I I CO I O O I V O O I V O O N • LO0 CD In a CD O O O O O M O O O _0Q • 6) I o o - l V O O I V O O p a I I I L N O N O m O� N O � _ Co O c M = o 0 � > = ❑ ?0: = Q = M 0 0 n — 0 0 1 waQ ac N O cn I o I N I o I v I o T T T O O O N `0 I C) I I I o I I I o I I I Q a) LO LO ry CD0 CDo O T I C) I v I CD o I v I C) I I I LO LO a) 0 0 0 I CD o I o I o I v I o I I I 0 O co O co O O I O I N I O I I O I I I O m O M O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I co I CD O O I O O O I I I O co O I I O O I I O O I I I O LO I O I O I O I O I O I I I oO I O O O I O O O I I I O O I I O O I I O O I I I O O U') O O O I O I O I O I O I O I I I O LO U') O O O O O C� O O I O I v I O I v I O I I I O NI I O I I O I O I O I I I O I O I I CD1 0 I O I I I O O O N O I CDI CDI O 1 0 I O I I I O O CO O co O U") I O I O I O 1 0 I O I I I O a) co c O ca.caC TO E 73 Ea 0 m E a, ) Fm x aa) ) a Em > o cL) o m ) mo m o a o o as c inLL22 O _0w ai LL22 0 .:; Q O -0w a) 0LL22 0 O 0U 0 N O LO LO N o o r- o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M CD O I - CD CDI N O CD • I I N O I N T � T LO T o O O N O O O O O Q O O I O O O I v O O I I I O I I Q Ld_ O O O O O O O O O O • N O N O O O CD CD0 O CDI CD q I O O I O Q O O v v I O O I O O LOa) 0 U( Q O O a) O O I Ov O O I CD CD Ov o O I I O O I o 0 f� f� O O In O O o O o m O O O CDI - CD CDI N o CD • I I N O I N • r` ti O O In O o c0 O O m O O O O I CD CDI N O O I I N O I N I I I I I I I I I I � .• I I I I I I �n cu 0 0 L 0 CC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o I 0 I o 0 I o I v o o I v o o L • o LO LO 0 0 0 0 0 o o a o o o 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 —>' I I I 0 I I Lo L � O O O O O O O O Q Lo o m O O O O O o O o m CDCh CD CDI O O O I O O O I I O O I O L 0 O 0 0 O O O O O o O O I I O O I O O ClI O O O I v O O ,� V O O O N O 0 O O O V O O O I O O O I Ov O O I I I O I I cu A.- n_ O O O O O o O o c cu 00 0 00 O O O O O o O Cl I O CDI O O I O I O O O I o o o ' E c r_ L- C) O O O o o O o Z N O CV O O O O O o o O CD O L • I I o I I O O o I o 0 0 1 O O C N 0 0 o c4 0 0 0 o p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >; • o 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 cu I I 0 I LO LO C: 70 0 o O L- C) 0 o o o o 0 m o Uo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • I I of 0 I of 0 0 1 v 0 0 1 v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O • o 0 0 0 o I v o o I v o o () I I o I r �n LO O O O O O O O O _� Q • N O I N O O I v O O I v O O I I o O N O � • O N f6 O C CM (1) O C co N_lz O C L (1) � O E 0 N O Q > = Q > > = Q > > = M U ' 0 0 (n 0 '6 w N 0 L 0 '6 w N N O LO rn rn co Sri r- Cl) N o (O C) C) CD co o m co C) 0) C)Oo I o I O (O " O 't ' o � r C) N O I I N N O I N N O T T T y--' C., O O 00 O N O O m (O p o I I o I I o I I w co O I o 0 0 I N r a a� r O O O O v O O It O (D O O O O O O O m O O m O O N N CDI CD C) I v C; I I C) C) o I o C) CDI o C) N Q O (O O O m N O m N O N I- C) O O O O O r O O r O O O O I CD CDI CD O I I CD C) O I O O O I O O O O N O O I� O CD Ln CD CD Cl) CD r— O I coO �CD CO O I N O I I N N O I N N O O N O O I-_ O O I O O O (mA M O M O V V O I N O I I N N O I N N O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O O O O O O O O O (o N O N O O O (O N O p N O C? r O I O O I O O I I O O O I O O O I O O O O O O co O O co O (O _ O I I O I I O I I O O O I O O O I O O LO O O O O (V O O N O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O I O O I I O O O I O O O I O O O m O O It ti O f- O N O O N O O O (O .q O CO O LO O I O O I O O I I N O O I N O O I — O O O O q1t LO O It Ln O N O O O O (n c9 O U? cD O (n m CDI I O I I O I I N O O I N O O I O O m O O O N O O N O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O I O O I I O O O I O O O I O O O O O O O N O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O C? O O I O C) I v O I I O O O I O O O I O O O O m O N O � qt O (O I °° CD -CD I N o l 00 r C) I U') C) O (o O m O O N O co N O V I Of C) I O O (O � O (O Lq O NI: � CD LO I C) N O I C) N C) I C) O U) O N O (O (O O co (f') O O m O (O O 7 O (O O O p O O V I?O I CD CDI C) CDI I C:) C) CDI O O O I O O CD CD O h O 7 O (O 7 O (O CD pl- � O r O I O O I O O I I O O O I O O O I O O Q> C6 O Q 0 cc O Q a) 0 � O O C � O O C 0 N O 0 .:; Q ❑ O w m O : Q 0 -o w a) 0 - 0 ❑ cn > _ 0 > = Q 0 > N O LO U') N o w m o o 0 0 0 N M O I N N O • I I CV O I N O I LO T T T C) C) C) 0 CD I CD CD CD I I I CD I I I I Q N LO r o O M o • N O N o N O I CD CD CD C) O O O O I I O O I O O I v Q O Q O a) O I Ov O O I I O O I O O I O Q f� ti O I N co CD • I I N O I N O I LO • ti I- O I N N O •, C6 • I I I I I � .• I I I I I I I I I c� L o I o Cl 0 I I Mo 0 I Mo C, I Oo O CO N O c O CD o CD CDO—>' I I I 0 I I CCD) I I o o _ _ O O O O 0 M O M O O O I O v O I I O O I O O I o O I O O O r� I I O O I O O I o V O w I� O r1 O O 00 l CD CD oo I I I 0 I I oo I I N o A.- ^ o CB o I CD ov o I I CD o I o CD I o LO E cD 0 � L O CD q Q O I C) Ov O • I I O O I O O I O N 0 C) I O C) C) N • I I N C) I N O I N c _0 p L O C? ONO O 0 • M O M C) O C) I O O O L I I O I O I N 4 C? C? O O O •o O O O O I Ci I CD Ci (� I I CD I r Ci CD 0 C O O O O _� Q • N CD N CD CD I CD CD CDI I O) M W • O CCS E N E NE C C6 O O C L .0. O Q .O-� O O Q _ C6 O Q > O n U m O O= Q _ coC 0c - 0 L a) O - 0 � O - 0w m N O (D O OC) LO N O LO O N v O rn Cl) O O LO (o O M O I 00 O I I N N O I N N O I LOLOO I 00 00 O T T T O O O m O O N O N O O O O CO Lq O N O L() O 7 O O O O I I O I I 1- LO O I O O O I O O O I O O O Q Q) Lf) LO O O O O) N O O N O N I- O O O O O O M O O (h O O O O CD CD CD N O I V O I I O O O I O O O I O O O I V O O � Lf) � LO Q O O O M N O co N O CO O O O O O O O O - O O 7 O O O O O CD O O I V O I I CD CD CDI O O O I O O C. I V V O O O (O O 1` O N O O co O CO M O N O O V O O O CD O I 00 O I I N N CDI N N CDI LO In CDI co CC) O O (O O N` O N O m M O co co O N co O V O O O I 00 O I I N N O I N N O I LOU') O I co c O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O O O O O O O O co O N O O O O (O N O (R N O O O O O O O I O O I I O O O I O O O I O O Cl I O Cl O O O O 00 O O 00 O M Nt O N O O O (O -: O (fl 7 O O O O O O O I I O I I O O O I O O O I O O O I O O O O O LO O O O N O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O I I O O O I O O O I O V O I O V O O O It 1` O It 1` O LO It O O M O O O O Lq (O O LO (O O Lq r O O O O I O O I I N O O I N O O I O O O I O O O O O 't LO O 't LO O LO O O M O O O Lq (O O Ln (O O O O O O I I O I I N O O I N O O I O O O I O O O LO LO O O O O O N O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O I I O O O I O O O I O V O I O V O LLB LO LC) O O O O O O O N O O CV O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I V O I I O O O I O O O I O V O I Cl V O O O N (O O 1- co O 1l- Lc) O LO O O Li7 O (q O N O 00 N O (`) O O O I O O I I M O I CO r O I O O I O O O O 1- O 00 M O O Cl) O LO co O co O O O M O Lq M O (O "�t O r L() O O 7 O O I O O I I O N O I O N O I O O O I O O O LO O O V O (O U) O LO LO O N O N O O O O O Lf) O O Lf) O O O O O O O O I O O I I O O O I O O O I O O O I O V O O LO O LC) 00 O 0 00 O V V O co O O O O (O 7 O (O 7 O O O O O O O I CD CDI I CD CD CDI O O O I O O O I O O O (6 N O i m 10) " 10) 4? La O Q 4? .O-r O O C N O C N O C (6 O O C i c a c :@ O o O m m > .� 8 m c m N O LO N LO o c4 o co o M I I r l o I I � l ClI l o T T T C> a) C) `0 I I I l o I I I l o I I l o Q LO r 0 0 • o o o 0 l 0 I I v l 0 I v l 0 LO .O N r) LO C) o 0 I o I CDI I ov I CDI ov I o O = 0 LO o 0 o CO o • I I l CD I I l o I l o • 0 In O O O Cl) O ■� I I I O I I ti I O I r l a � .• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I c� LO o _p N CD 0 0 0 I I o 1 0 I I o 1 0 I v l o o 0 0 —>' I I I 1 0 I I I l o I I l o LO 0 N 04 O O O CD 0 I I o l o I v l o m m \ CD 0 I I o l o I I o l Cl I v l o 2 • U o 0 0 I I I t o I I I t o I I t o ca _ LO 0 0 0 0 0 I I oCD 1 00 I I 00 1 00 I v 1 00 m LO 0 0 O 0 p O 0 I I t o I v t o }' O co 0 co 0 M 0 0) • I I 0 l o I I o l o l o l o E C m 0 m 0 co 0 ON I I l 0 I I 0 q Cl? l 0 l 0 l 0 i _0 ti 0 N .� co 0 o v cN o o I o 0 o I I o 0 o I o 0v o LO o — o p • roi o 0 0 0 0 0 0 > I I o 0 o I I o 0 o I o v o cu M U c m Ee > > 'Q o ° m c a?� � a ca a O O O OO 0 0 -0 w m a- 0 w - Q Y w m 0- 0 N O cM I I N CD CD I O CD N O O • I I co T T LO T O O O N O O O O O CD CD p I I O O O I I O CD CDI O 6 6 I I I Q Ld_ O O O O O O O O O O O • O O O O O O O O O Q I I O I I O O O v I I O O v I O O Lf7 a) lC) li7 Q O O O O CCD CDDCDO CDCD CD CD I 6 6 1 I v 0 6 1 v O O I I o O CD CD LO C, CD lzr CD CD co N CD CDI I r O O I N O OCD CD Ln CD CD It CD CD • I I M • co Ci N O O I I O O I N O O ,• I I M 7 • I I I I I I I I I I I I I I � .• I I I c LO 1.0 c� O O L O O coO O CD CD O O O O O O O O O v O Q I I O I I O v O O I L LO LO O O C w O O O O G I I O O O I I v O O O CDO O I CD o O O I I I L � O O O O O O O O OCD Q O O O N O O O O O O O O O I I O ON I I CD CD O I O O O LO _0(0 O O CD O O O O N CD CD O O O I I O Cl CDI Ov O O '� I I O V O 'n — (0 O O O O O 0 O CD I I CD CD CD 0 0 1 I 0 0 0 1 vO O I I I A.— cu m O O O O O O O O O +_ :3 O O O I I O I I O CD CD CD O O � m Z L _Q O O O O O O O O O L • I I Ov O O O I I O O O I Cl Cl Cl �� N p O rn o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N ; • I I `2 O O O I I o 0 o I o 0 0 O 0 0 70 L O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 `� • I I 00 o I o 0 o I I v o o I v o o U cu 70 0 0 (0 O O O O O O O O L I o 0 o I I �v o o I �v o o ULO cu I I o 0 0 I- CD CD o CD q CD CD CD C) L — v CD CD CD I Ov O O I Ov O O L • I I O O N O O m (D o c m 0 0 c L a? E 0 a v> c6 c c m m - 0 c c c cn m 0 ocmn > = o � Qo > IT, a > = M U 0 0cn2i 0 -0w (3) N O N o cc? o N o `) o c� I o I I I o I r I o I I LO o T T T O O O 00 O `o l C) I I I I o I I I o I I Q N LO m O o O o O N O T I o I I v I o I v I o I I o 0 LO Uo N r) C> CD 0 I CDI I �v I CoI �v I o I I o 0 O O N O O 00 O I O I I I O I I O I I o O N O O co O I I I I I CDCDI O I I a I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LO LO O O O O O q O N O I O I I v I CDI v I O I I CD O O O N O I O O I I I I I I I O I I O O O O LO O O O O O O O _� CDI I �v I O I �v I O I I O O N LO Ln O O Co O OCD 9 O OCD 9 O I 0 I I v I 0 I v I 0 I I 0 0 CD CD 0 0 I 0 I I I I 0 I I I 0 I I 0 0 LO LO 0 CD q CDq CD 0 0 I 0 I I v I 0 I v I 0 I I CD q 0 0 LO m O O O Cl O O O I 0 v I I I 0 I v I 0 I I 0 0 I 0 I I 0 I 0 l 0 I 0 0 10 I l 0 I 0 l 0 I 0 I I o 0 0 0 I l 0 0 0 I v 0 I I CD0 0 0 _ oCD r O O M O O f� 00 CO O (D I I O O O I v O I I O O U a) m U O N U O) a) L O a C .O-� a3 O OL C :) a) E a) O c L � > .� 0 c i c � c o c L M � Q � O — off .. ¢ o O70w m Q � U O .. Q 0 -0w a) Q 5U U) 0 .r 0 0U) > N O �p N 0 r-- 0 0 0 0 M O I I N O O I 'T CD O • T T T O � O O O O O O I I 0 0 o I o 0 0 I I ^0- W U') U') o 0 0 0 q o o • c0 N o I I ov o o I vv 0 o I o N o 0 Cl N o I I 0v o o I vv 0 o I o O = ao o m o o c0 0 0 O I I N CD CDI ;I- CD O • I zT • O O co CD CD (o CD CD O I I N CD CD O O I I I I I I I I I I � .• I I LO c� 0 O cu o I I 0 0 0 I vv 0 0 I I Lo (a H o 0 0 0 q o oCD w 0 1 I 0 0 1 0 0 >'0 I I E _0 LO O O I I O O O I O O O I I N O _0 O I I O O O I O O O -0 U) I I O m O O O O a) V O I I O O O I O O O I I U m O I I O O O I O O O cn I I a--0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o f I 0 0 0 l 0 0 0 N a) V) (A o 0 ' CD I I o0 00 0o I 00 00 0o O � •`� I I >1 fl m o — O 0 1 I 0 0 0v 0 0 .E o I I W o o cn U) o fn 0 1 10 0 0 1 v 0 0 E mI I o ^w^'' E >+ V � W L aOO O O O V O O ^O a)U O I I CL j a� tm O 2 W W E C Y O C ) 0 C T N T L • T X c�a c > o c CV N m Z 0 N O 0 0 co co N N rn It 04rn ci 0 0 M coLL7 I m L6 I co LO 00 • I M O T T o I I I I I I I I I I I I I Q ry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • o -� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o v I 0 N 0 I o v o I o v o o N N 0 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 0 O = 00 0 co m 0 cfl 0 cfl 0 0 0 LA CD L o0 Lo m 00 V • M O co LA I v co Ln I r- LO 00 I co O 00 00 co • m O co O (fl co O CD m O Lf) O U) m 00 U') ■■ M O co LO I co LA I I- LO 00 I co O m • I I I I I I I I I I :3 .• I I I c� L I I I I I I I I I I I o 0 H - I I I I I I I I I I —>' Lo co L � "' M I I I I I I I I I I � . I o 0 2 • U — I co c� I I I I I I I I I I ? m � L Q N 0 I I I I I I I I I I > >, • I o 0 � O m cc 0 I I I I I I I I I I m m I N o L Q 0 N O I I I I I I I I I I I C o w -0 -- Ln o I I I I I I I I I I I o 0 c� 0 I I I I I I I I I I co a° I o 0 c p � o ac Yx > Q m -ca c o c c W ❑ 5. I W _0 d 3: W Q I W a U ❑ (n I W on3- § o W N O co w co CV cD cD o cD co o w cM coI M o coI LLB o LO I I T T o I I I I I I I I I I I Q ry 0 0 0 0 • N o I o 0 o I vv o �v I I N o f o 0 0 l o 0 o I I O = rn rn rn M I M O M I V) O LO • I I m m O • coI M O M I LO O LO •• I I I I I I I I I I I � .• I I c� L O O _Q O I O O O I O O O I I G m _0 LO L � O 't O _Q O I O O O I O O O I I N O � O O I O O CDI Cl Cl CDr� I I V `_ V ca o Nt o m o I o 0 CD I o 0 0 C: • LO LO m O O L O O _Q O I O O O I vv O OV L • C N O M co C`q O M Iq O i >+ • N I N CD I CD CD CD •m 'O -O V) L _Q CO I N O ONO I Cl CD O � • 7 LO O LO O O CDN co O I CD CD CDI O O O N • I I- LU M M O M O O O m E Q • O I CD CD CDI CD O O a I L. a) zm O a) m O Q U rn c6 E O c6 T L E � 0 (6 C_ co O 0 Y L_ N C U Y L_ > co yQ+ co C H 0 = W _0 � W H Q I W _0 0- � W H U • 0 U) U N 0- rn N O N N N cn I co � I I I I I I I m T T o I I I I I I I I I I I I Q ry 0 0 0 0 O O O O a�i I 0v � I I I I I I I 0 0 LO Un 0 Un N o 0 0 0 I o CDI I I I I I I o 0 O ao O� m m I co � I I I I I I I 0 0 CR O rn m I Ci co � I I I I I I I 0 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I LO LO O O co co O O I O CDI I I I I I I O v I I I I I I I I I I I I O O LO co Cl) O O I LO O CDI I I I I I I v N LO m O o I a l I I I I I I 0 0 o I I I I I I I I I I I I LO LO O o I o f I I I I I I 0 o Lo V) O Cl O O O O O O I 0 � I I I I I I I 0 0 N N I o � I I I I I I I N Lx� N f� N N I O O I I I I I I I O O M co N � f� O O M I f-- O OJ I O O N co Lq M O O co I II- O 07 I � O O N y E U O) (6 C EU C U U (6 U a y _C T _0 Qs c (6a3 N n3 O O O O O O On n N Q5 U W -j CD-W , HO 0 ` 0- cn Q5 U cn Q U d W a) H N O N M O co co O M ;I- O It CY) I d7 O I a7 O 6> I O T T o I I Q N LO LO • M Cl M co O M O O O N I O O O I O CD CDI OV O OV a) Q LO O L(') m O LO O N O N N O N N O N I O I O I O O O O O O O O O • I LO O V) I LA O Ln I 00 O co • O O O O O O co O co ■■ ICD CD zT o v I v o v I co O Co M • N O N N CDN CDT O C T O O O O �� I O I O I N O N CO L H • I I I I I I I I I I I I L � ca cn I I I I I I I I I I I I c� c� — � � I I I I I I I I I I I I cum m L 0 0 O _0 >; • J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o U V' _0 cn • I I I I I I I I I I I I w m T Q� • �+ X Y m �; X O c6 � O s c6 o c cZ � a�i o m o c _ a�i o c o c U o (n = W _0 EL � W H � = W _0 � W H Q = W � W H N O N 00 O w w O w r- O r-- M I N O N I N O N I O T T o I I Q N ry • O Cl O O O O O O O N I o 0 o I o 0 o I o 0 0 N o O co O co co O co N O N • I I- CDIl I I— O I r O • O O O O O Co O O O ,• I O CD O I O O O I O O O (� • co O co co O co N O N � .• I ti 0 � I � O r CO L H • I I I I I I I I I I I I Lo L � ca cn I I I I I I I I I I I I c� c� — � � I I I I I I I I I I I I cum m L 0 Z O J •� I I I I I I I I I I I I L 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I O � U 0E 2) • � C6 W � c}a U) 8 o o a T Q� • �+ X Y m �; N X O c6 O s c6 ca U L > 6 C (6 U L_ > 6 c U L_ 6 In L m e o c ca o p m o c co o p c o c o 0 Uo (n = W W H = W � W H Q = W � W H N O N ti ti ti ti rn rn co L �M ° L 0) I I T T T y..i co o I LO L I LO L 10)CD co 0) I I ^0- W N I.J_ I I I I I I I I I I I a) O I I I I I I I I I I I m • � .• I I I I I I I I I � .• I I L L • I I I I I I I I I 10- I I • I I I I I I I I I = I I LO _0 _0L L N ca ca _0 _0 cn I I I I I I I I I I I c� c� 0 I I I I I I I I I a I I c� cumI I L L O O I I J O O = NI I I I I I I I I LU = Mcu I I N _ m 70 C 0 0 0 I I I I I I I I I o coI I W /vi a a c �m c I I co . o c �° I I ry ? `� O ? `� T W co E co Cfl L o p o p c o p i p cn H 4 C.) o cn = o � = H Q = � U N O N M I I I I I I I I I I • T T o Q N ry T I I I I I I I I I I • N z I III I I I I I I O I I I I mi 11 1 1 1 m 10- 40- I I I I � .• I I I I I I � .• c � c� c� L L I I I I � ' I I I I I I � • I I I I � ' I I I I I I � • _0 LO L L c� ca _0 -o m - - c� c� Qc� c� c I I I I ~� � I I I I I I m w L L O O I I I I W O m O I I I I m •� I I I I I I � •� • o L U L 0 I I I I I I I I I I LL _� w -- m `- I I I I i I I I I I I c� c� � c �° I I I I I I � c a° • U) @ L c 2 (6 L T C @ @ C co00 T �' (x6 @ T C @ @ C @ T y0+00 • � c � o � o c o O •L 0 H Q H 'i 4 U� . .�O (A H O H Q H U N O T T o I I I I I I I I I I I I Q N ry T N O co • co • I I I I I I � .• I I I I I I � .• m co -(OD � • I I I I I I � I I I I I I � � • .0 LO I I I I I I � I I I I I I �a- 102 I I I I I I � � I I I I I I � � • � - I 0 o � _ ° _ co `u I I I I I I o C: I I I I I I E • N ca > o Q o C � O m o ca o I I I I I I o I I I I I I ca O o O I I I I I I U I I I I I I m Q 0 - -a Q m I I I I I I 0 0 c6 U U > O I I I I I I CO a° I I I I I I Q T (B `m N Lu > > ca c m O > cxa > �jc cxo �p c� O 9 44 U U N O N M I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I T T o I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Q a) ry • a) r) O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • f0 • I I I I I I � .• I I I I I I I I I I I c� L _0 LO L � 0 co ca � 2 • U � a) Q � c L 10- cnLn E w � a) _0 U) L o I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Q T E X T X N - E X O O O O T N X O E co c ca c _O E O a E c o o cn o Q � U 0 U) ¢' cn U) a��i cn co I o Q' Un N O N M I I I I I I I I I I I I I o I I I I I I I I I I I I I Q ' ry N r) O • I I I I I I I I I I I I I • o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co coN N I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o 0 0 Cl Cl LO LO LO LO U') I I I I I I I I I I I I I LO N I I I I I I I I I I I I I N N N N N M 0 0 0 0 0 • � In � � CO _ N N I I I I I I I I I I I I I r N I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I N o 0 0 0 O N N CV N N (D N O N N N N 't LO I I I I I I I I I I I I I O � U co I I I I I I I I I I I I I � � U m U a--+ Q U V) 0) co � � � co Q 4-j I I I I I I I I I I I I ILU 0 0\ o ^ :3 U co :"' � o U O I I I I I I I I I I I I I o 1 O cu Q U m in m m V (� Ln m 0) o O o 0 0 � o � 0 0 o Q c - _ -a � . N 5 a) c o a) = a) iT c.� m Of ¢co w � cn I a a U) U) a) U) � _0 � I Lfj I N O N M T T • T L O fl- 00 O f— O O I- LO N (D 00 (D fl- 00 Q • M co M N N M � � M M L() Cl) It N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O re a) r Q� • O • (D It (D NT O ItT O N V V O O O O 'IT � M 00 M — M M M M r M IT 00 00 M — M M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O • O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 M m 00 00 00 I- 00 00 I- 00 00 (0 CO Lfl 00 (D • O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Ln M ITM M M N N N M Cl) ' O O 4) 4) O 6) 0 N N (1) O 4) 4) N N O O 01 01 O O Q) 01 O O O O O) O O) O O) O O) (L6 (6 2 2 2 2 (L6 (L (L (0 (6 (6 (0 (0 2 (L (L L L L L L L L L L L L Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q (A (n N N W N (n (A W (n (n (n (n N to (A (n N 0) N N N _N N N N N N N N N N O _) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ i U i U U U • co (6 (0 L m Om O m m tt m O O L L N (E N (a (n f0 -6 m L O L L O L 0 C O (� H cr � O H - 0 - w DC_ L L (D L0 a) L L U) _� (O L L L C • -00 M a -00 C y N (� 'O N N 41 O U) • �L.L/ r > cc U :3 � 0 (D O 2- LU ''V 02 L _or_ U LL ''nn -C of C) L / G L Q O N C C C C C A.-i N m O O O O O 0 � U U U U U = L L L L L O L 0 U CC ( C C C C C C C U U U U U O O 0) cm 0) O O O O O U U _ EL L C C C C C C C C C 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) _ N m m m m 70 m c c c ( co L) CM (rj �, U U U (7 m m m m m m m m d EL Q L6 L6 �• 't N 0 N q 0 m ry / e / e / e / e / e � = 2 2 2 2 I I I I I o k Cl k o R Cl k o ¥ @ = e e e = e e e = e e e = e e e = e e e 7 I q ƒ ƒ ƒ I q ƒ ƒ ƒ I q ƒ ƒ ƒ I q ƒ ƒ ƒ I q ƒ ƒ ƒ � 2 I R a g @ a g R@ R g a g @@ g § \ r U o o # c CD CD CD o I / I / I I / I \ I I % / / I CD I \ I / I I \ I / I \ \ \ \ \ b » 2 \ ¥ » 2 \ ¥ » E \ ¥ » E \ ¥ » E \ « 7 % 5 ± 7 / 7 « 2 a ± g e @ 2 5 I / ƒ i / I / ƒ co / I / ƒ = / I / ƒ ƒ / I / § { / / / / 2 2§ § § § § \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ c t t « % « Q Q O Q Q \ \ \ \ \ § § § § § 3 3 3 3 # E E E E E o 0 0 o Q e e e e e = _ = c c e e = _ = t t t t e _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = J J J J J \ \ \ \ \ \ k k k \ & & & % \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ƒ ƒ ƒ / / / 0 $ o O O o 0 2 2 2 2 I E E E E E < < < < < L6 N O N M L O N ry O N o M I I N LS) ca O a) o CD o , o o o 0 0 00 0 0 0 o r • co O , O • • O O O O O O 1.- LO U M LL C • O , U M (n Ln • E co ti LU _0 M ' O ' r O O O O O r O O U ' O M CDO O Q) O N cu O O N Q O w fA � U O -0 O `� 1 o Q U U L L o C 4— CB o U LL N 0 o o 0 0 •� (�j O o O L L (� U) _U U m C U ° o � � LU Co(� O LU OO m O o � o V a A.- U +J 0 U U U o U 6 o Z N o - co L) L U U L O O U Q U L a Q a�i M m o' o a U (2) V co T-- a N CIO c Lf7 L CD C� m CD � I-- o c 00 N 0 0 Ln Q LO Lf) in C� a Ln z° Ln = LU N N O N M o " � o • Q o N • ry N N o }' o o 0 r) v 0 � o O o 0 0 0 • Lo O O N • TO ' O M N O • • M O • O , O • O • ^ LO � L � D M • 0 m O • � 00 U) ' O !!�n M • • m V � L i y-+ CB ' T T z • 0 ` T T 7C) O • co co o C: m O • O z • — _0 E m U o U U o i o O U o Z) o � o O O • o m (n w N m N a O Q U L U -0 C� -0 o C: m Q � a) �+ C 0)O m ) v j U cn T a) O j cu 0 a) Q J mco O J N Ln ~ Ln 6 Ln In ' o Ln Lf) LO W N O N M T I T T L O C) C) C)Q- � C) 00 O ' r r N ry O � O O O r O a) r O O O Ln i O O O O CD • O O • O O O O O O • O O O CO O LQ • Ln O O O M co O O O O O O OR O Ln O O O r V N M Q C O w O co N � Cl) 00 N E � Cl) • '� O O � O O r N M ,It 't O • M O tM O co Cl) U CD O r O Q L V Q c Q Q a� � C)co O � � r c0 C: 0 a 0 co C I"� V EL c� N t6 O L _� _� to E :3 Olt") M O —O E ` O N O O N • VOi 0) N L Y N > > LL • O W -� .T (� 2 m O to co C C C O (6 O m O m -I.- CY) � ap 0 � ''7— O 0) m CY) m 0) m co Q C to Q C cu Q C O 4 O O o > N N a� ° M M m ° m m m O C 2 � T O C T O C T O O O I w Lu LO LOI LU I LU I I I L _T cm cG G O O O- U U � 1 ■ J J � • O 1 O C � Q 1 1 � U • m _Q LO 00 C O O O L L O O — 2 Z N O U 2 Q � LL T � c6 L L L L CO 2 = LL LL L r _ O — O N Q � N O' �C L C 7 O Z 2 M Q NcnN O O • (� O � O O ■ N • / N > • • co • o ► HT • cn • 1 1 1 • ► • 1 1 d • / • 1 co m InLP • 1 • HT • • • ► 1 1 Q ► T ► • • 1 H 1 • _ _ _ _ O m s s w w w w > m N o O 0 -p 0 N U o me mH 0) M ) 00 E o C C O r CO 0 U O Cl N o L w Q E E c a) oo a) m (U T T a I .L E o o U r No E -0 E w > C) Nm E E _ U a) L = _o ' IL O s cn D 0 0 o E a) L o U � co 0 0 N E C E N o Loa n v Q Q Q E a o m z z z a) O M o Qtem E ) = a Eo C6 > U T Y - Q0 p � O E S ZC U ) � cu O 0) U) 70 C C cn to C O M cc u) > O_ a) T T U — E > O - O C6 C • a) _0 _0 O L C 0 Q _6 m O O- C6 C6 C6 U U) L O 0) C O a)U m m a) C) E U U I co a) O- N —co C O O — aE 0 � N C 0 n Q Q3 nCD Z) O E O ~ C >_ w O i " U tiCO w U c+-j co U O E a7 i U 70 (n _ T Q 0') -p Y p -0 U 0M O Z O N , C CD !� OLu .-. o) a) >,TO m O.— (0 N CO O 0 - -0 .LO E :Eui U U p a) W m Q- a E N N -o I- U -0 N Y a) L U 0 =M 0 0 co E m p 0 0 co E N O_ U 0 E E � a) C .U C O LO Cp p i O O > �O "O E E fE i Y 0,N p 0 0 0 .0 _ ❑ O E (0 Cam') pC • O O W O O O C E m O OM) U (6 ~ ` -OU O0 C N L L .O 0 Q E p U O N O Q O n3 O a W O_ a) '- .o a) a) O C N E O D U O_Y O I a) U 't o OC - L) m 'p T a) O Q a) '6 rz a) O a) O 0 -0 M co O O N m a) +L-' O N C a) O O Ln M Q a 0 U L U N LL7 O co I r U O ~ O -0 0N }� ON O Q 'p Q a) m > C O L N Q-O n7 m O m U O 0 7 U U o U m p 'a c0 ��••••�� p E O 'p N '0 O a) W /ll p T Q OL c N W cn CL (6 L , U N L (Oj n Q U LL 0 c a) Z > o CO a) a) a) O U o U E 3 0 >' a5 2 -0) C0� W .� 0 O U >i i 0 (C6 C .a) () Q • co fB O -O N O U _U .O U Z E > E o U Q L c E 0 a) C '� "O o to >' 70 U) O je lU) C T p U) O oU m E —O > O 0 (6 — CO ns N m c `1 (n N —_ a) a) 6 cq m m � a) c) c6 _ O O Y v °) a) m L `o o a) n a) a`) a) `a) t a co E CN o aEi a 0 a� D 0 n p E .U) w 0 C0 m o oY W o T w o _ C o — m - — — O N m E _0 5 ca O > — m E 0 U _0 (� to c6 O •2- co 0 E m 0) c m m 0 vo_) L d o .� O _� f6 In -0d N N U m 0 m a) a>i 0 a) -0 > 0 m E a>i 00 o0 U Q E p m J m L aEi .> J a E m a J r m x a0i — E con L o c °) `m CV aEi x a0i Ise LO C� CD U � w cn 0 w - u ° aa)i � o o CD w co 't b f F f � 3 \ � \ © r \ LO 0 _ » _ 0 ) e @ 2 e \ = o c = o @ @ ¥ # e ¥ ° r ° Er ° / y = t 0 _ \ ry @ 0 E _ 0 0 0 3 E (D = & # to 2 » C f f f f f ) ( f f f f r) z z z z z 3 5 a a z a a z z z a 3 5 \ 2 U E 0 ¥ E 2 = c m E z 0 0 5 0 0 ƒ \ / � -E 7 Q @ \ Q @ \ _ @ § ± 2 - 0 ± z 2 mca- § 2 m 2 \ 7 = g§ CO ! 0 ® m k m 2 k = \ \ E \ cc \ \ y / \ « « LU / \ o z z z o \ n c z z z £ / n = E % \ E 2 \ f \ : f \ � k E E m E E E » m E » g s = c s = _ \ � \ 0 (a @ E 0 § _ _ \ Lo _ � \ CD0 \ 0 } # x ° ° \ \ 2 \ ) \ = e k = e # 2 2 -0 2 2 7 f f f / 2 / f f f f k 2 / o z z z o % _ § - z z z z % _ § * > m > \ m \ m 0- \ m k _0 7 E _0 7 E 2 = k 7 = k -0 % c = m 2 0 \ 2 0 ƒ CL co \ / m / 0) \ ® { \ ® { E 0 0 f c _= J ) ? ± 2 q co \ \ O / -0 \ \ \ y \ \ . \ \ \ \ y \ \ \ 2 z z z o e ± / z z z z E ± / O \ $ \ 7 m D $ 7 \ ' \ 0 e \ 7 @ t , ¢ _ \ - Co / ƒ @ / £ 7 $ LLI _ =a@ E I n Q-Z \ \ n U •- / \ _ ° ) m ) g y > » ] 3 x 0 o / ± \ 3 0 z 7 @ s e § E 3 7 E 0 cc \ @ 0 2 Co @ . = k \ @ S 2 E + ¥ 0 0 ¥ 0 / z $ G % 7 2 q 0 / z = 7 E / e ; e e § ± ° 0 e ; E 0 ƒ e a) a E I ) $ } J / e E 2 = s § - / = m 2 0 > e R 2 ° s § - m _ ( _ - 5 = _ $ _ $ & 0- 2 - e = _ » ® _ ° \ - _ O = _ = 0 0 e = ® O ; J = m o 3 S e@ = g o \ c o E x § S e c » = 0 a) CZ % E E m 4 / & / e / / & E m % E = m 4 / \ / // E C.6 N O N M T T T L O NW I.J_ W r W U) TO U m U) 7 U) C 0 U a) L O O a) L m O U C � a) -O • L 7 � Q C • O O Ln M Ln rl- O Ln N 0 O V O fl- Ln 00 O m L- m 00 0 O I LO � r V P- O co V I m O 000 O (cc I LO V 0 LO 00 I m co 00) � V � L � U m a) O C m L a) m a) a) O U V) L L Q '^� 0 V) V) q a) O U LL N O O m U L U a) V U) c C U) O a) 0 C i U O O w O O O U m c m L.L U U L U) L (� .0 m 0) U 0 m W m = coU N a) C)i > O E U m c cm �' °� m n 3 in-0 M a) M � o o 0 o to co m x 6 6 6 m m o m � � m o m in m O O -0 O c O c ti w Q Q Q o _, w L) c� _ cn U) Q c) 3 cn w = Of Z) N O N M T T T L. O NW I.J_ w� W a r N U O On 7 to C a) U a) L O O m (6 O U On C O C O U • T 00 rl- N O I` O LO N V N O9 N 00 O 0) O M O9 I- I- co I` I` LO') LO 't N M _ O M 00 � 0') O � Na) O O 00 N N co M_ m N O E • O.O 0') ('') 00 O.O LO 0') O LO) O.O 00 CN LO r- O Cl) Q0 Cl) N 00 O I- N �t rl- P- O O LOB N O O Cl) M M LO) 00 O 00 00 I� O U') co 00 M � O.0 f- LOB LO') O O9 r- r- U 00 M O O 00 (O 00 O N CD M N Lf7 O LO O L LO(A' 00 O O (9 co, O LO') (6 V O 00 Lq L6 M Lo °' I LO I I N m I 4- I M m m N I U) N a) � L to U m a) O lf) C O L m m a) a) L O U U L U) < � a L O N p O UD D) � c o N ° U c � aa)i in 0 'O 7 U C O U > ° (6 -C� a) d L O c cn rn a) E m ro Y c > > a) a_> o z3' o U a) c � OL t� L C C O U m co L O ° E ° w a a� E c o U o o N E o 2 �' 0 0 c°i o > a) c O c - _ x E d > c C) ° o U U c ° U -0 E co c' U U co 0 0 o m co am v> CD- a ° m c — U c c c c n a - rn c ° >_ co E cm O � 3 3 N m o -0 E 0 a m o' m ca 0 o C- o F U m m = 0 0 0 w a w 2 w m = m a s 0 N > z Q IL U) - � N O N M T T T L O NW I.J_ W ^) W y-/ TO 1 U') co (D CD L C> CD O O 00 CD M ;I- O tD 00 LO M M I-- � LO M O M co O LO V LO M - N 6> M V � r V O M r ~ I LO O co I O O M O U N �+ U > 0 — i Q U U O C U N O VOi 3 .� O (n O L O N m O (0 ( O CO U U m a (� a) o a�i C U U :3 Q > U N "O U Q' o co Q U U '> Y. Oi WZ U Q U U O N c O a , p ' U 0 m co O _0 X ( a) c O O O U '(D � c n C) 'Si Co LU m co m L) p c ��— m Q = m O a> E m U E c .c c W � U +� C •� U Y _ N N C U (6 C .�-. C `O O` 0 O 07 >, c OL N -O T O (6 J E D I c Q Q I U Q U U 0 � U 0- I 2 0 0 d- IL cn I m U z 0 cn 't N 0 N q 0 � m ry ® \ ( / e � 7 a .R ) \ 0 » § f ( f / g / ( \ / \ \ 0 2 \ \ .0 0 \ / S f E E / 0 = o e e@ — e R @ g o ? ¥ \ $ / g & I \ S g I $ I \ 0) \ / / k /\ / k/ # \ n # m2 \_ ) \ �S � � } L \in \ \ m \ / \ / / : » = E 0 .E CO C) 0 / m E 0 E $ 0 0 c 7< a F k 0 cn ° 2 < \ k _ < � \ \ \ : \ % E \ / a § \ e E § E o / S d s \ \ \ 0 0 / n ) \ E � \ \ 0 co / \ 0 / G § = 0 0 O 2 m \ > E 0 m •� \ O / $ ƒ S 0 a i E / a _ 0 / \ m CU / \ 3 2 / ± £ W $ E \ 7 E J ® _0 \ / / / } 06 ± ' ƒ o t ± \ _ 2 \ > e \ k $ 7 \ \ % \ Lu q » E 5 \ / ( \ \ \ : > $ / co 5 co ® ® e 4 @ 0 0 0 2 2 2 Cl) k § 0 \ C) ® -E 2 \ O @ E E = $ £ U ± & > E E 2 W \ 2 % k \ 3 / \ / f G ® 3 \ \ \ \ / / ƒ — _ _ � / 7 7 / 3 3 2 0 S E / / 3 f 3 \ / I E E E ® ® o / � e3 _ I N O N M T T T L O NW I.J_ W ^) W y-/ TO 1 U Q ca O C J Q cu C C Q (co f6 0 C O co Q U) > cl O N � > N N U O • 'O N � N N O N N NO OLO LO 4-0 p Z) tj U) m CW m .� W _� C U N to O o }� O U U) >1 a) N o o C E W CQ i o U LL 06 U 0 o C L W ,�^ o O 2 U En U U i i _ , O ca O I` z° 0c) 0 -1 0 N p N M T T T i O Q a) W' a) a) r) (1) U a) � � O a) ^ � l�L >+ N ry LL a) 70 O7 O _ U) W *) W CU ^r N LO W O 70 U r •^v,, W O O cn E O � N � � � N a) Cu co cm m m �_ _ co co^, Q E O "O p LM W cm C Q O _O N � � C C } i N 4— D D Q N 0 � i i -� E cv a) CD � O >+ E C D m N N U o o 0 o cn cn U E -� ccq +� O O C O C p c m cnn O O c � N E c c O E Ln � O O cn p O O O C14.� D cn W E E Ln Ln o c.0 c o m W W E E u`ni o o m E O O E m O O O +� +J c c W N U U O O L 4) � i i O O O O O7 p m (6 �O O d C C C p c (n a) a) � E a) cu O m J n to O O 0- 0- i a) _) U U O O cn cq 0 m m N c"M E O T M 6 m T T T W N N N N U C6 C6 M M M If T N M N O N M T T T i O Q N r' N N r) N U N O 21 N LL O O U) N LO N a) co a 0) m + 0 C C C _0 _0 � aU+ i (� (6 N E E E _0 a) D D J ) 00 OD N N N >' m J O O (0 O m N _O N cn O O O E O J O U) O J J to U U +� � E O ca w -00 C v v .0 O O O O O O N L cn c6 c6 c� cn ca w mU U O v in cm cn 0 0 cm N �. E E cn C w w E C E E w E w E `�° c C cn w c L W c c — W Z m m a Q � T M w N N Q M > > 6 cD T f r Q C j Crj m co co M 0 N O N M T T T i O Q N r' N N r) N U c N O E N LL CC1 O7 N m O7 E N H� LO O c6 co D - E J D Q O N ~� U) A Q �>+ O cn >, C�6 U cn N Q O CU Q 0O U) (B HT O L E LU E (� -� O m LU m LU m O O i U w cn E � a� m c :3 m c Fncn E U O N 0 � a) N U) p cn D Q E c c0 co co c m c m c m U C) L U 0) O C) O U O p L1J p i W E Ca E i E cz o - ° cm E E cn c c c c c U Cn Q c O cn T _UCU UTO D D cn O M T O A O O O O cn 06 D67 � U O CV U C6 I` 4 c6 4 6 4 4 4 4 j CV L6 C'7 6 Lf) ui N O N M T T T i O Q N W' N a) r) N U C N O (a LL O O1 U) N lf) L O U (a LL C to O N � Q E E } W (n O > O L U O } C Q U E c Q N C U) C: (n ca O O O U N cm0) �j N E U L o a >, ca Q- U cmU Cn U) a) >, W W C O U w N U — N -O _0 fn U O O W p 0) Q Q w Ca L L O O O L (6 (6 (a O u v O ? O O O U C C � O m (a� cLa cn C N Q T O N M Q T Q T Q T N /0 O � T O O T O O O f O nj O Q (9 (� U U O O T N CO 6 Cfl � � I� a0 6 Lf) T LS') lS� LC) T Lf) T LS') T Lf) Lf) m LSD Lf) Lf) Lf) U') LO N O N M T T T i 0 Q a) r' a) a) Q a) U C a) a) N LL a) O7 U) N lf) a_- C C� C Q LU C � C Q 0 E a-_ O a) U L L U- Q _0 a� m cu O a) O LU Q a) �+ O 7 70 _0 Q- L a) cc 2 co > cu 0 m "O � 7 -0 >, O U 0) O 07 0 0) _0 E a> aD a> a) _ U a) U m m m E Y 4) o Q Q m Q Q a) cA E cl 0 E 0 ca O o a) S L Q (6 r 0 r N r Q Q Q O w Q L a) J m U) N cn a ca Q Q N cn a) 00 00 N 00 E_ cM 0 0 L6 U) (6 Cfl Q > 00 Ln 00 Ln 00 �j O U r r r r r r r r Lri Lf; LO Lti � Lfi Lfi �` 00 LO LO LO E r r r r r — r LO LO LO LO LO U N p N M T T T i O Q N r' N N r) N U C N O N LL O p U) N lf) (3) (2) m U) D U) U � U) � (� O O N N OU 2: O O (n N p CO E I p w U) >' m fA O LJJ 2 N U +� N 06 N fn O Q U w c w U c :3 E m w co aD m m -r— Q U U 2 O 2 LU 2 U c6 � N CM 4 N T N C`M 14 6 CD to ti 06 N O N M Q � I N N N • O N r • E N U- a) a) I U) c 0 0 U U N c W U ' � a U) 0 m m N 0 � � E E L w � Q d o o � _1 U 0 co co co m U U N �i Q V c c o o E E N :�:) a 0 a U U 0 0 0 NO N C m 0) co L t O L L N • O CO fn CD N O � O n3 O O O O NO N U N CO O CO CO U) h Cn CO N �' Ln • O � O . M O N • Lq • M C O co E T E L 1 U — � N }' CL Q co m a) O o o _ 'N w L � VJ � VJ C � T U ; �, • 1 V M z co L O 07 U) fn a) Co O N U _ m W U a 0 0 _ 0 J m o co N _ > 0 p 0 0 co c co c U � > m N LL 0 U) Q C M m .� 0 N c : 0- L) o J co a a s w w 0 a � Un = N O Ln co Ln CN co co Ln ,n M I coI Ln l M I Ln I T T T _ O M LLB L I M I O I O I o I Q I N� N I o I o I o I o I N Q ti N m N v I I o l o l o l o I C N m L co N —'' • m Ln Lfl Ln M N I ' I Ln l M I I � I 5 E . � .• I I I I I I I I � .• I co L L o o L o N C9 O c Mo —>' I -0 _ N L L LLB o 0 CD 02 co CD � CD �_ _0 -0 _0 o o � O - E G � G � I N I N I U rn co N o C� 70 I co N co � Q LO � I N I N C: I o W L L L U I O I O I O I o co I O O O O N 0 O �+ O (n a--• O a--• o coI N I N I I N I � o _0 _0 • • Oo •� 0- W • IE co w w -0 n4-1 O C ° � � I I U C CD I C ` ) a vL cn C N N O c cn c p • I oM I oM I Lo I o C: a • I cm CU CU co W U _ _ _ _ U cc d z° N N U oink Z) 0 � ¢' o � Z) Q � � CV U 0U) N C) Ln N Ln M (0 O O co Ln co O Cl) N w m co M co 'IT Ln fl- r r 1 co 00 � � Ln " � M ' M Ln CD m rl-N • I cl M (0 co co co I Ln M M M I co N N Ln r I v It T T co T NT O O m 00 fl- (D CO co � co O 0 (fl � i M O f- V O O O O Ln O N M O r r O I 00 Q M co N N I O O O O I O O O O I O O O O r Q NQ L L_ O CO CO O O O Lf') f— ti 00 r r O O r r r r O O O O O O O O O N CD CD CD CDI CD CDO CDI O O O O I O O O O I O Q Q I- co M co N co M M co O O Ln N N I� N r r r N r r r r O O O O O O O N CD CD CD CDI CD CDO CDI O O O O I O O O O I U C Q O (D Ln co Ln O co ;I- O co Ln Ln 0o0 V V V Ln v M co v co LO Lo O O N • I O Q co co co co I Ln M M M I M N N r I Ln � N ry 6� (D Ln _M Ln (D CO � CO M Ln • M In In M N CDM M Ln O 00 V V Ln z `:t M M `* M O O N ■■ m (D M co co I Ln M M M I co N N r I Ln 't � N I Ln U- Q � � • N I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I � .• I r ca co O O co O O ti Ln M M O O O M Q O r M M r O O O LQ I r O CD CDI r O O O I N O O O I O O O O O T C�C � N 00 00 00 N 00 00 00 CD M_ Cl) f— O N N G O C) C) C) I Or O O O I O O O I O O O O I O N L Ln 00 O 00 (D N O N m N Q O M N N M N N Ln N N O O O O 0— Ln O r CD C) C) I r O O O I O O O O I O O O O >% I I m M 6) O O O I M r r p I O N r r r N C)r r r I O O O I O O O � n rl=IJ� . O Ln Ln Ln m Ln Ln Ln N M m w O O O Ln L l_! O oi f� ti ti ti ti CO In In N f� r r CD I O CD CD CDI O O O I M O O O I O O O O A.- (6 O w O m (fl 't N co O �t 'It N Fu ti N M M N N Cl? Cl? N Ln N N r r O CDO .C6 CD r O O O I r O O O I O O O O I O O O O I O Ln Ln Ln m L (0 co co co Ln M m m co N N O O q 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C:) C:) O L • C7 C7 C7 C) I O O 0 O I C) C) O O I O V V V O Q E 0 Q f� Ln � N CO N r C) d7 O O 00 m O M N I N I O O ( I (p — — - /1 � • I I\ _0 i O N 00 f� _ N O M N (fl N N V M Ln (N O O O I N O O I r f-- (D M I N r r O E C) CO M C) 00 CO r M V O O Ln 0 w � 00 N r N Ln O M O N r r O • M r r OM I M r r OM I r O O Ln I O O O O C: O (6 O M I-- N O co fl- N � N co O It O 00 M I� 00 � M 00 Nt Cl? CO O O r M r r 0 • LO M r r CO I M r r OM I r r O Ln I O O O O Q a I p co I` 00 O T X (D f— CO O T co f` oo D) 5 (D f- 07 O X 0 0 0 0 CU >� o 0 0 0 > m o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 M Z rz N N N N 0 N N N N Q 0 N N N N Q N N N N N U 0 U) ;� 0 N O v Ln co v co rl-M I O I co I � • I CD co N CVO M M CO I C) co N T � T T C) C) °° cq M I o l I I I cq c I o `o I I I C) I I N N I o I o I o • o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I o 0 0 0 o I o I o 0 0 N ~ N O co C? N O O � N O N I O co O � I I O co O U C In c0 In co Co CD Ic!a� I q IQ (o I co I I CD co N IQ `° I (� I O co N ry 21+ N N _O w co 00 w T CDO CD M CDCDO co C6 I I I 00 �� O V LQ O O Cl In N I O N N O I � I O N N LL ti M CD (B L r In I I I co .• I I I m I I I r l co o cn _p CD C) 0 0 m CD I m I o I o I o a; o I I I a; I o 0 0 H � 0 0 0 o 0 0 I o l o l o —>' I o l I I I l C-) l o l I _0 N L � Lq 0 O co —O O OT O I m I O I o I o rn C) I I I I 0 0 0 m f� w O r- O O r- O I m I O I O '�n I C) m CDI I I I O7 9 CD O V O O O V O O O I o I o I 00 .- I o I I I I I o I o f l r` co �_ 0 ti _o r` C) rl- o_ I I o I o I o w o I I I o I o of o Z) m 0 o L O I o I o I j, I o 0 o I I I o I o 0 0 (D U) O I co � I o n n o C � 00 00 C) LO 0 LO 0 co 0 I v l I C) cn � � I o � � l I I v l O N r 00 v W .� o r` 00 co o 00 I v I C5 I I C) v CDI I I v I CD v CD O o v CDCDco L C) m LO I v I m I Q I CDv C) I I I v I CDv o 0 ca , T X T Xm X Q� T X T X C: co E E c m E co m m m m a� o � � a' o � � Q � Z) CN U 0U) a we o � a w N O v 0 LO _ _ _ N 0 � W O O r- iS 0 F- cq 't CN O L6 N M N M CD • M CV M — (D I O N N N CO M I O V M CO O LO T T T r- r- C) r- r- C) I o l I I I `° c l o l I I I o o I Q 0 0 0 0 M O co O M 0 �T O O O O O • O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O Q CD CDI CDI CDV O O O I CDI C) V V V O I O Q I- O (o co 0 h N O NT � r- � N O 0 L6 O N N O O O O r- CD U I I O CD r I I CDO O O I N C Q O LO m O Nt (fl � O O 1l- Lo � 00 o N N `° I co I o � "t N l In I 21+ N (D N • E co O N C) coCDO CD LOLo = CDO O 00 Ln Ln O :, N N O O 00 o u (� O I In I CD N = O I N I CD O U- Q _ r- ti O V M (V O 00 (D (� • m I I 10 I m I N I I I r l � .• I co 0 0 Ln 0 In 0 CN N _O I I l 0 1 0 0 0 1 I I O I 0 0 0 I I 1 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 I I l 0 1 0 1 I I I l 0 1 0 1 I I I l 0 —>' I N L � O O Cn 0 Cn O N NLq _Q I I 10 I o 0 (6 70 f- o C0 O (O o � N I I I C I o 0 0 l I l o l o 0 0 l I l o cn I c� I l l o l o l l l l l o l o l l l l l o I c� I` O (O O (c O N N V! I I l 0 1 0 0 0 1 I l 0 1 0 0 4-00 c� 0 M Al 0 0 o W L 0 0 0 0 O I I l o l o 0 0 l I l o l 00 0v 0v l I I vco O H0 E ° I I ICC06 I o 0) 0 l I I t o o f I I U) E I o I I I I o o l I I I o 0 o I I t o w N I O N :2 I I I I o co 0 I I I c t o = o I I I 0 o 1 I I I I I o m 0 l I I t o = o l I I C: E a° I m U o ED m o o m m o o o ao 2 a w a :2 a w M M U ° N O co N co O O O O cn I I coI o I I o I I o I I T CD CD CD T T o I I I I o I I I o I I I o I I Q N U') LO co O o O q O I I o I o I v I o I v I o I I O o CD o I o I o I �v I o I I U C N � N O O O O co o I I o I I o I I >+ ti N O O O f� O c�a I I coI o I I o I I o I I LL I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 00 O O O O N CD O O O O I O CD I O O O I I I I I O O I I O O I I O O I I N l[7 I I O I O I O I O I O I O I I O O O I O O O I Cl O O I I I I I O O I I O O I I O O I I O N O N O I I O I O I CDI O I O I O I I Lo LO O O m O O O O O I I O I O Iv O Iv O I I O O O O 00 O O I N I O I O I O I I f� O M O N O I I CD q N I O I I O I O I O I I I I N I O I O I O I O I O I I I I N I o I o I O l o I o I I — E N ` of cEco � E ) = E U) L) c E U �co on � _ w U onO O_0 m in o O � o O -0w a) o o O Q O _0w m 0 o O - N O M I O O I N O O I CD CD • I I LO T T T N O O O O O O i O O O O O O O I? O I I I I p I O O CDI CD O I O O O Q Q LO O O O O O O • O O O O O O 0 O O I I O I N I O O O I v O O I v O O LO LO 0 Q Q O O O O O O Q I Ov O O I Ov O O I Ov O O I I O I U C N co m CD o LO o o I o o • I I Ln I Q I CD CDI N O CD >' • co co O O O O I O O •• I I C\m I I CD CD N O CD U- Q co • I I I I I I I I I I I I .• I I I I LO c0 O LO 0 0 0 0 O O 0 _Q I 0 0 o I 0 0 0 I o o I I \ Ln o Ln 0 0 0 0 O o o I 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1v 0 0 N L � O O O O O O O O O Q O O O O O O o O O O O O I O O O I O O O I I I L O O O O O I O O O I ov O O n I I r Ln = . O rr��1 O O O M O O O O O V ti I O O O I CD O I Ov O O I I I O O O O O O O O O co A.-, p O O O O O O O O O • I I O I O O O I O O O I O O O 0 _ 1 N O O O I O O O I O O O '� • I I co I LO N 70 o_ LO O O O O O O O �o • I I N I O O O I O O O I v O O O A.-I _ O O O O O O O O O O L • I O O O I O O O I v O O co I I M I LSD O O O O O O I..L O O O O O O O O O Q • !- I O O O I O O O I v O O a I I M I Co O m co o m m = M o m c 0 m o 0 > 1 a o � > = a > co U 0 0 U) o _0 w a) 0 N O co N O O o M o cM o I LO I CDI v I CD r I o T T T O O O O o I I I o I I I o Q N Cn 0 O v O o O o 0 N o I o I o I �v I CDI �v I o LO O o N o I CDI o I CDI CDI �v I o U C N co OIL q CDI LO I o I I CDI ti I o >+ co o m o o o q CD o I In I o I I o I ti I o LL I I I I I I I I I I I I I O O O co CD N LO CD O O O OR O O 7 O O I O I O O O I O O O I I O I I O O I I O O N Lf CD O O O O O O I I O I O I O I OCD 0 I O O N O 7O C N 9 O O N O O I O I O O I O O O CD O I I O I I O O O O O O N O 17 I I O I O I O I O I O LO LO O O O LO O O O O O I O I O I v I O I v I O O 00 O fl- O M O O I °N° I O I N I O I O I o O N O O O � O O I N I O I N I O I O I O O O (fl O LO O O I M I O I O I O I O I O O I M I O I O I O I O I O a) Ncc a) cu a) y o c m > o o in > c in > C c L Co � s c Z5 o m o c L > m Z5 o m a c L c � � c o m o c O .. � � O _0w I � w2m2 0iz O -0w 2 O .. Q 0 _0w m oLL 2 0 : N O M I I N CD O I N O O I W CD CDI OM CD CD • T � T LO T O O O O N O O co O O q O O i O O O O O O O O O O O I I p I I O O O I O CD O I O O O I V O O Q Q LO LO O O O O q O O C? O O • O O O O O O O O O O O O I I Q I I O O O I CD O O I v O O I V O O Q O O O O O O O O O O O O Q I I v O O I V O O I v O O I V O O I I U C N Q I I co CD CDI N C� C� I - O O I N O O • >' • C6 I I N CD CDI N CD CDI - O O I N O O •• U- Q � I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I � .• I I i� ❑ L� Ln cu 0 o L Ln o o LO o o C� o o C� o o p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 0 o I v o o I v o o LO LO 0 0 LO O O LO O O O O O O o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o I I 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 v 0 0 1 v 0 0 >' N L � O O O O O O O O O CD O Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O C� CD O O O I O O O I I L O M O O M O O N O O O O O N O O N O O O O O CD O O O O I O Cl C� I CD CD CDI V O O n CD _ . `n M O O M CD O N CD CDO O O V N O O N O O O O O O O O I I O O O I O O CDI CD CD CDI V O O O O O O O O O O O O CDO CD O CD CD CD I I I C� I O O O I O O O C m L O O O O O Cl Cl Cl Cl O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O • O O O I O O O I O Cl Cl I O O O I I +� p a , N O O O O O f� O O O O 0) O O C� O O O O O O O O � • I I O O O I CD CD CDI O O O I O O O +� 'cu E O � L LO O O CD O O O O O O Z) 0 O O O I O O O O O O CD Cl • I I I CD O O I O O O I O O O I V O O 1 u O O N CO O O CD O O 9 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I I I I O O O I O O O I v O O I V O O N LO LO cu -- O O O O _ O CD O (0 CD O CDO O O O O Q • I I CD CD CDI CD CD C� I V O O I V O O (a I I O o°N: ❑m> x Y`m `aci > oO > Ym70 o 0) ai CMo c c c co ) o cm ox m L • a> > co C', c ca> �co _ ❑ = ❑ N O N N o co o ,n o cn co I CDI I I o I N I (D I T T T 0 CD C) o I I I I o I I I o I Q N � � o o o o N o I o I I o I o I ov I o I N p r� o 0 0 0 a� o I o I I o I o l o I o I U C N m o co I CDI I I o I N I o I rn o U� o 0 E LO LL I I I I I I I I I I I I I co LO O LO O O oco O I I O O O I O O O LO O LO O O I co o I I I o o I I o o I N Lf) r I O I I o I o l o I o I N O o M O o LO o O O I I O - O I O o o I O O O o Ln O I m CDI I I �° O I I O O I O Cl) O O I O I I O I O I O I O I LO O co O o o O I O I I o I O I vv I O I (D O Il- O M O N I o I I LOI CDI I o I N O O O N O N I o I I I o I I o I I o I I o I o t o I o I N O O O M I O I I O I O t o I O I o `� E m zm o E a) m o E E m a) o L off > >j U U o ZIo0 c L 022 0 O oU O �O � 0 0 U- 2 2 0 .. 0 N O N co co o o C' o o cC°o 0 0 • o M I N O O I I LO O O I QO O O I I N O T T T O O co O O O O O rn o 0 0 0 0 0 0 I? I I I o Q I O O O I I o 0 o I o 0 0 C) o O O O O O O O O • N O O O O Cl CD CD CD CD CDI I O O Q I O O O I I v O O I v O O LO LC) LO Q Q O O O O O O O O O O O Q I Ov O O I I vv O O I Ov O O I I O O U C N Q I N CD CDI I LO CD CDI 00 CD CD • I I N O ti O m CD O O co O O LL( O O N I I N O C6 I CD CD I I O O I DO O O LL Q I I I I I I I I I I I I I � .• I I I I ❑ LO (� o L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I om CD 0 I 0 0 o I I 0 0 o I v o o L • \ 0 LO (o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 I I 0 0 o Iv o o I I I 0 � N L � O O O O O O O O O Q Ln 0 O O O O O O O O O co CD I O O O I O o I I O CD CD O O o (o O O Ln O O O o 0o 0 N O O O O O O O Oco 0 O O O O I O o I I O ClClI CD CD CDr� V r=��1 � (o O O LO O O CD CDV o I O O O I I O O O I O O O I I I O CD CD O CD O O O O 00 O O O O O O O O CDO I I O O O O O I I O O CDI O O O = L 0 0 o O O O Cl Cl Cl Z N o O O O O O O O O O L • I I O O O I I O O O O I O O O O N 0 0 0 °' o 0 0 0 0 " • o I 0 0 1 I 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 a I I 0 LO _0 o O L (o O O O O O O 0 LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o U • Co 0 I 0 0 0 I I 0 0 0 1 v 0 0 i I I 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O • o 0 I 0 0 0 1 I 0 0 0 1 v 0 0 0 LO o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p • N o I 0 0 0 I I 0 0 0 1 v 0 0 — I I 0 m 0) m m a3 E `m `o c @ a`) o c co o c i °? o a a? m a�i Z3 co > .@ 0 a�i c a�i � ~ c m Z5 2 a c c � ❑ cn > _ ❑ Q ❑ > = Q > = C rj U 0 0 cn 0 -0 w m 0 N O LO N O o m o co o O o M I N o 1 co 0 1 o I 1 co v o 1 m T T T co O O O o I I o I I o I I o I I N o l o Q N LO O N O O O O N (O O N O O O O O O O O O O N I O O 1 O CD1 V O 1 1 CD CD CD1 O O Q O N I CD CD1 O CD1 OV O 1 1 CD CD CD1 O U C N ti a� I N CDI (o CDI CDI I cc o l LO ca I N I co o I o I I n o f m m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 l 0 0 l 0 0 I I 0 0 0 I 0 O O O � co O LO O O I I I I I I O I I O O O I O LO N O O O O I O O I O O I I O O O I O co O O O O (MO � O co O O I O Cl I O O I I O O O I O O O O M N O M I I CDI I CDI I O I I O O O I o O co O O N O O O O O O O I O CDI CD I I O OV O I O LO V) O O N O O O O O O O O O I O O I OV O I I O O O 1 O O I I OI I NO 0)O co O (Q Lq I O M CD O CD N O O N LO O O O O LO (O O pl- O O I N O I O O I I O O O I O O O M O O O O O O O 1 O 1 O O 1 O O 1 1 O O O 1 O N O Cl? O O O 7 O O CD 7 1 CD1 CD O 1 CD CD1 1 CD CD CD1 O co E 0 co E E O O O .O-� O .O-� (6 O a T x of > a Of o > X Y > x Y ❑ � O � w m 0 — Q ❑ 0 W m 0 .. Q 0 � w am 0 : O ❑ cf) > _ ❑ � � N O Ln Ln N O I O I N N CD I I N O I N M T T T M O r V O N O O Q O O I O O O I O O O I I I O I I Q O O CO O N O O • N O N O O O O O O O O I I O CD q O I O N CD CDI O O O I V V O Ln Ln LO Q Q O O O Q CD CDI Ov O O I CD CD OV OV O I I O O I O U C O O N co O In CDm O m Q 't CDI CDI N N CD • I I N O I N 21+ • ti ti E CD O N 00 O In CD O m O O O ■■ Cl O Cl (� O I CD N N O I I N O I N LL Q cm i� I I I I I I I I I I .• I I I I I I c� O L 0 � � C) � � I I o o 0 o I o I 0 0 0 I 0 v o \ 0 CC CO O O O G O O CDI O O O I O OV O I I I O I I Ln Ln mCV O O O L CD CD O CD CD O O O C7 O Ch V O I O v O I O V O I I O O I O O O O O O O Cl) CD Cl) O Cl I O O O I O O O V N_ O co M O M O 70 V O O O I O O O I O O O I I I O I I cu O O c co cu CD O CD CDO O O O I Im CD I O V O I O v O I O v O O O' In Ln Ln E � O O O r_ L O O O CDO O O 0 O • I I O O I O v O I O v O I O V O N m o Ln rl- o CN o p rn o CD N o cq o 0 0 0 >; • o 0 o I o 0 o I o 0 0CN cu I I - o I C: 70 O L CO O Ln NT O N O �--� 0- CA O O o O O o 0 0 • I I w 0 I 0 o I CD 0 CDI 0 0 0 co Ln LO � 0 0 0 C) O o 0 0 0 0 O • o 0 0 0 o I o v o I 0 v o I r o � � _ _ o _ O O O O O O O O _� Q • N o I N O O CD CD CD I I O V I I O C cm N O C co N_lzO C L .O-� O E .O-� N O Q > = a' 0 > = < > = c� U o 0Cn � 0 � w 0) o L o � o � w N O ap N O I O I N CD I ( O I LO � CD V co M co N T T T O O O (O Ln O LO co O O N i O O O O) O O O O O (O In C) I I O I I O I I r r O I O O O I O O Q LO O O O O N (O O N (O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O I O O I V O I I O CDO I O O CDI O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N CD O O I O O I I O O O I O O O I O O U C � N O O O O co O r10 LO O I CD N CDI I (.0CDI In O co q I M � N O CDCDO O 00 � N — C6 O I O I N O I I cc CD I U'') O I 't co LL a) cm I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O N CD CD LO O LO O CD CO O I O CDI O O I I O O O I O O O I O O O (D O LO Cl) O LO co O O N O I I O I I O I I O O O I O O O I O O Ln LO LO N O O O N O O OO O OO O OOO O CD O O O I O O I O O I I O V O I O V O I O V O O O co Cl) O Cl) Cl) O LO m O N O O O (O 7 O (O 7 O ;� O O I O O I O O I I O O O I O O O I O O O O O M CIA O M N O U') O) CD O I I O I I O I I O O O I O O O I O O LO LO V) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O I O O I I O V O I O V O I O V LO LO LO U') O O O O O CV O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O I V O I I O V O I O V O I O V O O O O O N O In N O Cl) (O O I O) p I (p O M N O O N O T CDI I N CD I N O O I O O O N O �_ V O Lf) (O O N_ Cl) cl O I (O O I O I I O O O I O O O I O O O O M O O O V O O O O O I O O I O O I I O O O I O O O I O O O 00 O co CD O co m CD O O O O O m CD O O I CD CDI CD CDI I CD CDI O O O I O O N co Eco E i O CM Q> 0 O Q 0 cc O Q CD 0 E O O C � O O C 0 N O 0 .. Q 0 0 w m O : Q O -o w a) O .. O ❑ cn > _ ❑ > = Q 0 > N O co co m N 0 v v 0 0 0 0 0 N M O I L'o C) • I I LV C) I N O T T T O O LO O O O Lo o l o 0 0 I I I o I I o I I Q N LO 0 O O • N O N O N C O I O O O O O O O I I O O I O O I O Lf) LO Q O O Q CDI Ov Ov O I I O O I O O I O U C ti O LO N O O O 6) O Q O I O� LO O • I I N O I N O 21+ • r— I— I-- m CD m CD (� O I O� If) O I I N O I N O U— Q I I I I I .• I I I I I I I I I LO c0 O L 0 o I o 0v o I I o o I o o I o \ LO O G o N q o G O O o t o o —>' I I I o I I o I I LO _0 N O L O O I O Ov O I I O O I O O I O N O O O O co O co O N O I O O O r� I I O O I O O I O V O w N CDr1 O O o I o 0 0 � I I I I ICD _ I I Ln m CD C) o CB o I CDCD q �v o E I I o o I o o I o LO � m L O Q O I O Ov CD • I I O O I O O I 0 00 N � O 0 CDI CD CD CD " • I I N CD N O I O O 4--+ L O N (.0O V 0 N O N O 6) I O CD CD CD co> • a? O O O M 4- I I co O I co O I U) _0 \ O O O I CDOv CD • I I O O I O O I O LO _ O N O O — 00 O co O LO oq O I CD O O M CD 0 • I I O I O I O OJ O L.I.J m • O � m E O O E C C6 O O C L .0. E O Q .) O O CL .O-� C6 O OL = Q = n O � wm Oo oc � w ' o w CM U OaO - 0 - om N O M O I N O I I (D � CDI LO V CDI co O I � LO O T T T O O LO LO O LO N O O O (A LO CD i C., O fl O� O O O O Lq N O O O O O I I O I I O O I O O CDI CD CD CDI O O O Q l(') LO LO O O O q (O O N (O O N IZT O (? = O O O O O O O O O O O O O CD CD CD N O I V O I I V O O I O (D O I O O O I V O O Lf) l(7 Q _ _ _ _ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O UO I O O I I O O O I O O O I O O C. I V V O C O Zt O O O` CDO O CD V CD O I °N° CDI I (fl ;I- CDI LO CDI � O I co LO O N 0 O I I (0 O I LO I M O O I co LO O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LO O O O U') O LOB It O (D co O N O (DO O O � O O 7 O O � O O O (D O O I O O I I O O O I O O O I O O O I O V O LO O O O LO) M O LO co O O N O N O O O O O O O O O O O CD CD O I I O I I O O O I O O O I O O O I O VLO LO LO LO C\j O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O I O O I I O V O I O V O I O V O I O V O O 't O M M O M M O Ln O O 00 N O O O O (D r O (A 7 O O O O O O O I O O I I O O O I O O O I O Cl O I O O O O O M � O M � O LO O CD co N CDO CO O (O 7 O O O O O O O I I O I I O O O I O O O I O O O I O O O LO LO LO LO O O O O O O O O O O (? O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O I I O V O I O V O I O V O I O V O LO U) LO U') L() O q O O q O O O O O (? O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I V O I I O V O I O V O I O V O I Cl V O O O O LL7 O M N O Lf) � O (.O M (DO I (R O N N O (� N O O N O O O I I N O O I O O I O O I O O O O O` O N N O L() V O O N O N (O O O 7 CD 7 � O 7 � O r M O O O O O I I (D O O I O O O I O O O I O O O Lf) O O Cl) O M O M O O O N 9 O O 17 O O O O O 1 O O O O O O I O O I I O O O I O O O I O O O I O V O LO O O LO O (D co O (O co O N O N (? O O 7 O — O O 7 O O O O O CD O O I CD CDI I CD CD CDI O O O I O O O I O V O (6 N O i m a 0) O 4? C6 0 Q 4? .O-r O O C N 0 C (D 0 C (6 0 0 C N O LO LO N 0 0 0 0 co 0 LO "Zt04 M I I N o I N a I o I T T T C> CD C) o I I o I I o I I Q a) LO 0 • N O N O O q Q) I I CD O I O O I O CDI OV Q O O O O co O CD Q) I I CD O I CD O I O O I O U C ti ti m o m O LO CD LO • I I N o I N CDI ti O I >+ • ti rn o m o LO o � Cli mI I N o I N a ILOo I U- a) cm .• I I I I I I I I I I I I c� _p �n o �n CD co 0 I o o I o CDI o o t o o 0 0 ->' I I I o I I o I I o I I '0 N L � N O N CD co CDO N O O I O O I O O I O CO O CO O M O N O I O O I O V v 'OD I I I 0o I I o I I 0o I I A.— (6 co o co 0 0 o N E � I I o o I o o I o o I o C: cB 0 p N O CV 0 O i� • I I O O I O O I O O I O N O I I N CD N CD q o l a c m o V W 0 co O 0 O 6) • I I 00 CDI co o I N o t o U) _0 C 0 o o 0 0 UrnI I o o I o o I o o t o — �n o U.) CD CD r� m a_ I I o I - o I o o t o ca C7 D T X � y � T � X � � � � � f6 � � � N � � c L m c) c_ co c� c> c � c m c � c c L m � a c c > c � � c c L c a c CY) U 0 0co — O -0w am O .r 0 § .. O w m 0 0 _0w am 0 .r Q 0 -0w a) N O N o I I Lot') v o I Li v o I w o I m N o I M T T T O CO LO 1 O NT N O N O 1:T N O i O Lq a0 O O O O N 7 O O O O p O I I r CD CDI CD CD CDI CD CD CDI O O O LO O O O O Cfl O N CO O N O O • O O O O O O O O O O O O O N CDI I v O O I CD CD CDI O O O I v v O Lf) LO LO a) 0 Q N OI I _ I _ O O _ O O O O O O O CD O O O O O O O O O O O Co I v O O I v v O U C N a� o I I CD ) � o I � o Im N o I >, O O m O co O O N O O m O � O 0 O ■■ L!) CDI Ln Nt O I O I M N O I LL c • � I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I � .• I i� c LO cu O L o LO It o LO o LO o 0 o o O o 0 o O o 0 0 0 0102 o I I 0 0 o I o 0 o I 0 0 0 I 0 v o o O LO co O LO M O LO O O LO O r O O I? O O O O O O O O I I O O O I CD CD O I O O O I O v O >' LO LO LO LO _0N O O O O L O O O O O O CD CD O CD CD O CD CD O CD CD 0 N O I I O v O I O v O I O v O I O v O >� I O Cl) Cl) O M co O O Nt O Nt O CD O 7 O CO O N O O O O O O I I O O O I O O O I O O O I O O O ,tA V O Cl) N O M N O O Nt O It O V O CD 7 O CD - O N O O O O O O I I O O CDI CDCD CDI O O O I O O O C cu O O O O O CD O O O (o O O CD CDO CD CDO CDO O O O O I I O v O I O v O I O v O I O v O L() LO LO U') co O O O O L O O O O p O O O O O CD O O O O O O O L • O I I O v O I O v O I O v O I O v O +� p a OCN N O ONO. N O (q O O r O O _� >> • O I I N O O I O O I O O O I O O O +� 'cu E L O r O O r N O m O N O L° O � O O O O O O O • O I I O O O I CD CD O I O O CDI O O O 1 co lfl LO O _ _ O _ O� O O � O O O O O O O O CD � • I O I I O O O I O O O I O v O I O v O N LO O C _ _ O _ O LO O O O O O O O O O O •> O . O I I O O O I O O O I O O O I O v Oco i 0) - m 0— cu .O- .0. E a) O c () O c m a) O c m a) O C L a? c L m e O aa)) m m e O m :� a a3 c O c O z; O 0 U) > = 0 > = Q o > = Q �: > = L M U O N O cc N o co o ao o m cn I `�' I C) I I N I CD I I C) I I T T T C) C) C) co o I I I C) I I I I (D I I I C) I I C) Q N LO LO LO o 0 0 0 0 0 I o t o I I v I C) I v I C) I I v LO LO (0 CD CDN o 0 N I CD I CD I I CD I <D I 0v I C) I I 0v U C N o co o r— o O I I N I O I M I O21, I I T O co O f— o I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I No I C) I I o l o l o l o I I o 0 0 0 LO I I I C) I I I t o I I t o I I o N LO I o l C) I I o t o t o l C) I I o N O O O O I o l a I I o l 0 t o t o I I o O O CD I I l 0 I I I t o I I t o I I o C) C) o C) I o t o I I o t o t o t o I I o LO Lo O 0 O O O O O I o l a I I v l 0 I v t o I I o I t o I I l at o t o I I oM (O O fl- 0 co O I t o I I o t o t o t o I I o 0 h co O O O N O V I O O O I I O O O I O v O I I O LC) O O (O O N O N O O LC) I O O O I I O O O I O v O I I O O co co E O) Q) O E Q) (0 O E T X Y >+ X T �' O- C - 7 Q' O- c Y T X M 7 > N U c m a) .7 j N U C i 7 9 fA U (n E m co c � s c ns c m ca s c a3 c L c a c co c L m e O ocn � O -0w m a O : o � Qo O � w a) O .. Q O aw m m 0 2 0 ocn � � N O M O O I I N O O I O O I I I O T T T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I I I o O O O I I CD o 0 I o 0 0 0- O O O O O O O O O O O O O O • I I CDI O N O O v O I I O v I O O LO 0 Q CD O N CD CDI I Ov O O I Ov O O I I O I O U C N O O I I N O O I O O • I I r I O >' • (6 O O I I N O O I ;1- O O •• I I M I O U U) I I I I I I I I I I I .• I I I I I LO co O 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I o I o 0 o I I 0 0 0 I vLO o o \ 0 0 0 0 0 q o o 2 o 0 0 1 I 0 0 0 1 0 0 —>' I I I I 0 _0 N L � O O O O O O O O 0 O O N O O I I O O O I O O 0 I I O I O CD CD q 9 CD O O I I O 0 O I O O O f(n I I O I O V O O M O O O 0 l_J O O O I I O CD I O O 0 I I I I O A.-, m CD CD O O CD O O CDO CD O CDI I I I O O O I CD 0 O O m O OO OOOOOO o 1 • I I O I O O I I O O O I O O O �� CD N � O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N >, • I I I o 0 o I I 0 00 I 0 0 0 0 70 o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • I I o I o 0 o I I o 00 I v o o U \ o � � O O O O O O L =1 O O O O O O O O O O O � (n • I I O O6 CD 0 I 10 0 0 I v 0 0 A.— • LO N m 0 }' 0 0 0 0 0 0 L — cy o 0 O O I I CD CD I Ov O O L 0- 1 I I O Oo O O N i O O m • O @ U O O c a) O c m a) O C L :) E -- Oco Q C N m ca c o ca c o r c mzi 0- o c :3 N O N o N o v o M I I o I No I o I co I o I T T T O O O o I I I o I I I o I Q N LO LO U') o o q o 0 0 I v I o I v I o I v I o I LO LO N o 0 0 0 0 N I CDI o I ov I CDI ov I o I U C N O o co O O I o I O I co I O I 21, o I o I a I co I O I U- a) I I I I I I I I I I I I I LO LO 0 0 0 0 0 q o I o I o I v I o I v I o I o O O I I I o I I I o I I I o I LO LO N o (D Lf) O O O O O I o I o I CD v I o I v I o I N LO 0 0 I o I o I I a I I o I o a o I I I o I I I a I I I o I LO 1.0 0 O O O O O I o I o I I o I I o I O CDO 0 0 o a o 0 I I o I I a I v I o I O 7 O M O I I o I o I o t o I o I 6) O N O N O I O I O I O I O t o I (D I lf) O O O O N N O M O I O OM o I co 0 O CDI O O I LO O N O o N N O M O I O OM O I O CDI O O I O N a) O N a) a5 O C) a) a) co s c i o c L co c o c o c O c L 0 � � � O -ow a) Q cU rn 0 .r Q0 0 _0u1 m Q cU cn O Q 0 -0w a) Q cU w 0 .z 0 N O N CD C) CDn C) C) m C) CDrn CD 0 M I O O I r O O I O O I N O O T T LO T O O O O O N O O q O O i M O O O O O O O O O O O 0 I O O O I O O O I O O O I v O O Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N I v O O I v O O I v O O I v O O LO LO LO LO O O O O O O O O O O O O N I v O O I v O O I v O O I v O O U C N 7 O CD CD CD O co O CD I- O O (n O O O O � O O 00 O O a) I CD CDI CD O I O O I N O O O CD CDCDM O O 1l- CD CD m I r O O I CD CDI r O O I N O O U- a) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LO LO 0 0 ai 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 o I 0 0 o I v o o I v o o `m LO LO m 0 0 M O O co O O . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O I v O C) I v C) O in (n E U') O O O O O CDO C) C) C) C) O - 00 O O O O O I? I? I? I? C? O O O N O O O I O O O I O O O I O O O C 3 LO O C) _0 0 0 � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 o I 0 0 Cl I o 0 o I v o o o cz M_ O O M O O N O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O 0 "O I O O O I O O O I O O O I v O 0 L _7 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O I O O O I O O O V! • U) 41 C O O O O O O Cl Cl CD CD CD ^' O O O C? O O O O O O C? C? O W O O O I O O CD, I O O O I O O O Q (n N Z N O O CO O O CO O O O O C: C O O Cl? O O O O O O O O I o 0 0 1 0 0 0 l o 0 0 l o 0 0 OLO J .� L N O O N O O O O O O O ' O O O O O O C) C) O O O O I C) C) C) I C) C) C) I v O C; I v O O O C) '/^^ (n N M O O co O O O O O O O VJ (n O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O I O O O I v O O I v O O O E O LO LO Win co O O co O O O O O O O O N ^� i I O O O I O O C) v O O Iv O O S.i OO O N O O) O O cmO G U) W E N O C N O C c O O C co 0) 0 C N >+ X Y -0 >.— X 1 -0 >, Y � Y 7 T _ .co Z N O M .m C C6 O .� 6 C O r T -EN N O N rn rn LO co N M M I c m I co � ILO T T o I I I I I I I I I I I I Q 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 N I o o o v o I o v o I o 0 v U� LO U') N 0 o m 0 o m o N I o ov o I o ov o I o ov o U (.0 C N 0 (0 Co CO M 21, (O O O (o O O LO N N LL co U) f I I I I I I I I I I I I m co L L • I I I I I I I I I I I I • I I I I I I I I I I I I N L L � co ca .0— (Doi c� c� c� � (D ca ca m LM m m I I I I I I I I I I I I c c� co L � L o cn Q > >, -0 O � O I I I I I I I I I I I I m ca M� -0 O 0 0 o cuI I I I I I I I I I I I co Fn - -0 W -0 w cn tn ca � cv L a� a° I I I I I I I I I I I I �° cu W .� T.� T.S, ZT Z N L :m � m O m o o m 2 m o m o o m O m o o N U 0 CO (n L.L I EL J H 0 > A , I LL J H Q (n L.L I 0- J H � U N O CN M • I � O � I � O � I N O N • T T o I I I I I I I I I I I I Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 • o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • NI 0v o 0v I 0 Cv o I Cv o Cv N Q Lf') CD LO CDLO N O N N I O O O I O O O I O O O U C N (D co (c co v o v v o v CD� • (o o (o (o o (o coo m • O I r O I N O N 21+ • O (D (O co • O zT 'IT O V O ■■ (O O (D (fl O (O � O u C6 I O I r O I N O N U- • c • .� I I I I I I I I I I I I � .• cu L O O O O O O N O N _ O O O I O O O I O O 0 G • I I I I I I I I I I I I � • N L � O 00 O O 00 CO NO 00 O O O O O I O O O I O O O c'') O O O O O O N O N O O 0 I O O 0 I O O O `(A V I I I I I I I I I I I I � • c� O O O O O O N O N C6 O O O I O O O I O O O c LO L O O L Q • O O O O O O O O O L • O O O I O O O I V O V C a) 0 O O O I O O O I O O O .cu ''O^ -0 VJ L O O O O O O O V 0- • I O r I O I O O O • co CD 00 co (D co _ _ 0 • O O O O O O O O O U) • I CD CD CD CDI CD CD CDI CD CD O N LU Ln O LO LO O LO M O co • I O O O I O O O I O O O • L �, � 75 T �, O L � C ( T M � S o m o o C6 M o m o o m o co 0 o M M L • ocn ALL = � � o � ALL = a � ¢ ins = � � � U N O N (0 v ao co co m cM I M I I N co I M I I M I I T T o I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Q N � � Ln o Ln Ln Ln o I o f I v o f o f I o lcv) l � o � o a� I M I I v M I M I I M I o l U C M M M Ln M fl- Ln Ln 11, a� I co I I M I M I I M I I 21+ O O O 00 m M m m N ca I N I I oN N I N I I N I N I U- a) LO ILO Ln Ln cN I I I I I I I I I Ln 0 O O O O O N_ I m I I v a I m I I m 1 0 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ln N O Lf) m O O O O N_ I rn I Iv am I m I I m I O Lo 0 f-- O r- r- ti N I m I I v � I m I I m I O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CD O 1� O ti ti ti N_ I m I I v G I m I I m I O I LO U') O O r O r O O I I ov o f O I I O I ov I a0 7 U') co LO co co I (0 I I r I (0 I I (o I O I I N I I o N I C I I N I o l I CD CD o M U) O O V I M LSD O I O cq CD 0 CD 0 CD (O a0 CCD LO O LO O m O I co LO CD O I m LO O zTI O U) U cn U _ U) T co ca C N T C Lx6 n3 C M m C m C co Z a) o ° i o m a) a c o ® m U o ° o o c a) o 0 cn I U `m a (n Q5 U U) J a w N H — I N 0- w Q U co H Q I 0 m d y N O cM I N v I No O oN I No O 04 I T T Q N �n LO OO • M O M M O M N I Ov Ov I O O O I O O O I � O Q O N I o O I CDO 0 I o O 0 I U C N aI o M I � q `� I `� q ( I N � CDO >+ • N N O O LL CV co • v O O U) I I I a O C� I O I L O L O I 04 10- o o I I I I I I I I I H LO _0 N O O CD 10- I v o >, • I I I I I I I I I c� LO _0 o - I CD v o Enm I I I I I I I I I 2 • CU ' I I I _0 I I I I I I I I I co I o o I I I I I I I I I O O L O O O Iv v a) >, • I I I I I I I I I O I o O >;= m I I I I I I I I I co _0 O I o o � I I I I I I I I I O U CD 0 0 Qq • I I I I I I I I I m wco M co L 0 0 `° a I I I I I I I I I U m co O _ T (/l cz (n 7 m m c o c m o `m o o g Co o `m o o c Q c -j aw am U ocn inLL = 0- -j o � inLL = 0- -j Q N O CY) M 0 co I co CDM I M O m T T o I I I I I I I I I I I I Q N LO 0q CD • o 0 0 0 0 0 N 0v o 0v I o 0 o I o 0 o I N p r 0 rl- r` o r` rl- o r- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v Cl 0 CDI o I o I c a� <� 0 r_ • 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O N I O I O 21' • O O O 0 O O O O O O •• I O O O I O O CDI N N O N LL O � I CD C O CDl CD O CDI U u C L H � N L � ca I I I rn I I I I I I I I I c� c� — I ca �a - I M%m I I I I I I I I I O J � _ L 0 O � c c� w O, m c �° • I I I I I I I I I � T.� O T O _ C T L _ C _ C co co m o m o o U') U� :cu S cz a m o o m m o co 0 0 (z LL tl J H U 0 U) cA � = tl J H Cn LL = 0- J H a N O N cM co 0 co I I I o 0 cq T T 0 l o a a a� 0 0 0 o 0 o I I I I I I I I I a� o I I I I I I I I I N o U C N co 0 0o r 0 I I I I I I I I I >+ o 0 0 •• I I I I I I I I I N o 0 0 LL O co 0 0o U o r •• I I I I I I I I I c c� L H N L � ca I I I � I I I I I I I I I c� c� — I co �a - I L 1 (� c J O I I I � •� � I I I I I I I I I L O W - o ca T.� C L E �_ :3 c m S m o co 0 o Cfl cD cu S M o o ca S M O o c m o 0 CoLL _ 0- - 4 U ocn wLL _ inLL = ¢ iOLL = N O N M I I I I I I I I I I T T Q N N U C N a I I I I I I I I I I 21+ • • LL � .• I I I I I I � .• I I I I CO (� L L 2 2 '0 '0 N Lf7 Lo L L ca ca _0 _0 c� c� c� }� L L � �O 10 E >, I I I I I I •M ;, I I I I 0 w 0 LU mm I I I I I I m • I I I I 00 _0 U) _0 L � L U) O 0 o I I I I I I (n I I I I � �_ E LU w _0 cn I I I I I I � _0 o — jc0-�a I I I I O U 4 4 U N O N M I I I I I I I I I I T T Q N N r) U C N a I I I I I I I I I I 21+ • • LL (o • co • I I .■ I I I I I I .■ I I co m L L _0 N Lf� L L co co I I H� co o n co - 4- - co I I I I I I I I o � � I I E CU a� co m o o I I w >. • I I I I I I m o o m o I I I I I I I I o I I o _0 = _0 UL E L I I E m • I I I I I 1 0 0 mc I I W -a Q U _0 Q I I co co co I I a U) I I p T T L E m L E = L M (6 (6 O .(6 � (6 N O N T T Q N N U C N a I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 21+ • • LL O � I I I I � ■■ I I I I I I � .■ I I I I td (� L L "co I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 _0 CN L L � � N _0 _0 cn cou) J = _ I I I I I I I I I I _0 I I I I O (a U m (6 N Q • I I I I E m I I I I I I U m Q O 0 O � O W O I I I I � •� I I I I I I � •� I I I I _0 N _0 O L L L O 1.O a) m a) cz > _ I I I I Q �° I I I I I I Q N m M ai T x p N >: E x > X p O > E x a o Q U o in o Q o U U) N O N M I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 21, T T o I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Q N N C N a I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LL I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I N Lf� co I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I M I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -0 m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I > Q0 0 0 `m o o 0 0 o o 0 0 c 0 2 � 2 E c p f � f E N O N M Q ' M M O O r— 00 O M I- O O 1 • f— co M M zT zT zT M N N I- O O O O O O O O O O O O O a 1 U 1 . 1 • M O O (D 'IT co V (O N V co N � • M co co co 00 M r M V M M 00 • O O O O O O O O V U') M fl- r— Lo 0 E U- a) O O O O O O O O O O O O O • O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 w 00 W m 00 00 00 00 00 Il- 00 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O U') Lo Lo LO m Lo 1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N co N co zT N N N co r Lo O O M 1 N N (O N N O O O N O O N N N O N_ N M • N N � O N M co (O M 1 a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) ' O> 07 O) 0) m 01 01 O O) 07 07 07 07 16 aL 02 L 2 2 @ 2 2 @ L • a) CD m a) a) a) a) a) Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q N N N O O N O O O N (V O N N C! m �6 (V N_ 2 N CO "t 00 (O 00 • m a) a) a) a) m m a) 75 75 a) a) a) 1 W (n (n (n co N 0 0 0 (n N (n N a) a) a) a) _N N N a) a) a) a) a) a) O � c i O U) U) U)U) co O N U 5 N N m N m N c 1I= ❑O ❑O i O U) a i p @ ) ❑ a) Y • O Q U 7 C -p -p -p a) — a) a) O O 1 O H H � O H w -j O U a) +' (6 D co i (D N N L (6 L a) a (n c (0 • _ ❑ U) C� m a Q 3 c0i � � � m C)) m � m � .� • O 03 X � � m O K L c U m p L p a) U U) w of of -r- W (9 of U) H � U LL C7 o LU U U U I O L O o � O O L L L (n — in U — — (n !n U] ' (6 c ' C6 m c c c c m O 12 ; c c c (o (6 U U U o a U U o o O a a o c c o -o o a c c c c c c c c m m 70 > N N m m m m m m m m �' 0 (n U m Q �1 ❑ ❑ ❑ (n (n (7 C7 U` U` U` 00 00 00 N O N M T T T L. Q M M co M 00 a) O O O O O O ry � J ❑ J ❑ J ❑ J Q Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q _ _ = I I _ _ = a) I o U C N o 0 0 0 0 0 v co M co I-- • 00 V 00 00 M CO E N L- a) cm O O O O O O O O O O O O I� 00 00 W 00 (O CO O O I I aJ O O I I CO O O I I aJ N N N O O O O O O N co N N N LO � O Q a Q Q Q Q N N d N Y Y Y O 0 c N 0 c O OCU O N Q Q 0 � I > = O I > = o I > = O I (D U_ J S co i w 0 N L O L O N -0 a> U > > > 0 Q � O � � +� a) c c 0 0 0 U U U m P U U L O .— C C C C C L L (� N O O O O O O O C6 C6 f6 C6 C6 0 0 ❑ c c c c c m m co m m U U U U Z) O o 0 0 0 o a 0 0 0 0 c c 0 p p o 0 0 D- m m m c c c c c c 0 > > > T E E E E E m m m m m 70 > > > L �vj a� a� a� m m m m m m m N O N M T • T T � • L. W 04 75; p p •� C I F- J J F a) ry U C , N E , ' U- o � o N O � N O � N O • O O I I 00 O O I I 00 O O I , • O O • O O N O (DLO • co O O O Lo O o l I I O I I G l o l • co ' M ' O • O U) co� N � Y Y Y (n • y= U U U L- C: C • > • L � L L L L -6 U • O c Y O c Y O O O Q • C C U L C C � L C C � A— CD > = o I > = o I > = o a U) Cl) U m 0) o • N O U 0) LO O C) cu _ LLJ OL �--i C0 C0 C L CY) CY) CY) QO O) vo U }' U C Q 0 @ ❑ o U ❑ i o 0 0 0 0 yL. z N o 0 0 o m cLo F F F ❑ a-) U U U c c c c U i c (� a 0 0 0 u 0 0 0 Q Q U c c c o 0 0 0 o a> a> a> a> a o 75 m m m m m - - - - - c CO m m m a a a Q Q Q Q Q Ln vi zo Ln ' Q Ln Sri ' ❑ N O N M T T i T L � O o NW I.J_ 00 N O O O O O O O O Q O O O O V V V V � ! O 21, U � o N O � o N o 0 0 o LL 0 0 0 0 00 0 O o 0 0 0 o U) 0 Cl Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO 0 L6 N O L � V N O O _ a.- N U m LL o 0 U) o C O (n co co LO LO E • W 0 0o _0 0 I o v c o o O C6 o C O O Cn E T C: O O N`� (� o U Cll O i 0 U >, U o 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 o O O o O � _U U) 0 AL I I o >co 0 w a W U) Q U o C C: W o N O o O CDC o C: U U L) uj O L z L O o A.- 2 +� � � � I N >, U) O � E o C (U m O CL co co o m > C I` �_ L OO > N N N N r (n (7 Lfi Z ui (n Ln Y N N N N Ln Ln ~ Ln N O N M O Q N ' r' N 'o N a) (h U C N 1, LL o 0 � O N LO • � O O • ' N r f— O O O I-- O LO� _ • O • • O O ' T T A > • co co • O E co cn • "' O C N E co O_ N O C: _0 U W W o CD cn a U) O cc E o w aNi °o U) O > to N a� � U � N O U co () 2 r E a u- m o cT °o Q J O N Q -� co.0 f6 Q Q M O y Q U LL > (6 N Q Q r � O f6 00 a) O O (6 O N �� C (D w z 8 0 z � U') U-) Cl) w Sri N O N M T � T T L O o 0 y co M O C 1 LO O '. a) r U C ' � o (n N O �+ LO O E O O • N O O co ' U- o o � O O • N • O O LQ CO • N O • LO CD CD M M O M M CD N_ O O O N L O O V O LO C m Q U O w A.- Q � C co CD co co yam+ �� O (6 : M O N z cn C co • N O O _0 • O o o o co coU Ln O n O O U Z A.- co L A.- C O O C U O O 06 U Ua o rn C a co c N m o L N � o +-� O :2 Q a L _ _ _ • j a'"' O — N O (D O W O O C O (a O (6 O ca C O C6 ' O O O O _ N _ N _ � `-� 1 , y-+ ' (6 J O O J O O J O (6 co U LL LL LL LL LL o � o (1) C ^' T N C M T a) C_ T U CMY (N N cm �C co M � 5 � � � cm 0) Q) C T7 T C 7 T C r T C C I in a LO LO Un EL LO Lj cn 0- Lr) Lfi in in L _T cm cG G O O O- U U � CN 1 ■ • O 1 O C � Q 1 f6 N 1 U CO Q 21, LL LO LO • O O �_ 11 O_ Q ■ O O � 2 2 N C6 � O U 2 Q � T � c • T � c6 L L L L CO 2 = LL LL L r _ O Q > m LL — O N � Q � N O' �C L C 7 O Z 2 M Q NcnN O C • (� O � O O ■ N • / N • • co • o ► HT • • 1 1 1 • ► • 1 1 d • / • 1 co m In • 1 • HT • • • ► 1 1 Q ► T ► • • 1 H 1 • _ _ _ _ O m co • • • Q 00 •• •• .• •• � w w w w > m CV 0 O p -p a) N U o m c � m H 0) M n (uC 00 E o C O r c0 U ClE @ N o L > w E a) O ° a) (U > E Ta Lo .L E o oU r No E -0 E w > C) Nm E E _ U a) L = _o ' IL O s cn CD LO 0 o m E a) L o U � co 0 0 a) E C E N o Loa n v Q Q Q E a o m z z z N a) Q x co � � � m N ° 0 � c E E � � Y � p � � Q U °- _o TY ° m(if Z ° g N � E o 3 o a a) o U C • • a) a a O L C Q � i s a3 O- C6 70 � 70 U cn L (7 0) C CDLO O)U N m � � m � ro a) E U S, " �i co O m m as E as L E M = a a) C C a) • U O E p O v , C v � C O � � ti Q in a) N 5 Z) M f6 L Q a) a) E , _ (6 : W O i " OU ~ > O ti N — Co O u) f6 Q O U co co c0) O E a7 L U 70 � • Q L 0') a Y p '6 U 0m O Z O o) a) T T; O.c— m N E CO O 0 - 0 .LO E ui ui u) U.0 a O O m O O .0 p a) w m — Q-a) a E N N a) _M L N a m I� U N Y a) L U 0 =CO o to °0 E m a p a) co E N a Cp U of Eo > C .T) C ° N o ° > o -0 E cn E fE i Y 0,N p 0 ° O .0 a ❑ o E 0 pC • WWWO O O C6 E g O a) U C O L L .O 0 Q O 7 U O N O Q C N V) E U U Q Y a) I a) U � o OC - L) M 'p T a) O Q a5 '6 a) O a m O a M co O O N m a) +L-' O N C a) O O Ln M Q a 0 U L U N a O co I r Ca U O a) ~ O E CO N }� ON O Q 'p Q a) m > C O L (4 Q-O n7 m O m m U UoQ L C O p = -OO p 0O a) cu w ll E O 'O a) O c a cn )n n QUOU (j ' • LL c m Z > o CO a) a) a) O U o U E 3 0 >' a5 o P C0� W .� Q O U i 0 (C6 C .a) en Q • a U U .00 N O co coE cE > U E 0 a N U) O je U aN T70U) l ° a m m m EO U Z O O Y v 0a) m L `o o a) n a) a`) a) `a) t a c�6 NN o aa) 0 a °, 2 � � a) o--o E � .�' w C 0 m o o t E W o T w o _ o — CD -0 — — CU (U mE a 5mo > — mE = U _0 N N U m o 0 ° a>i 0 a) a > L m In a E a>i r x Jai Qi > J .a E E00 co E � ° c ° Q Jm U)E x ai w c 0 ° a) aw cnse LO CD U ' w - ai o o -6 (6 It b f F f C 3 \ \ © r \ LO 0 _ » _ 0 ) e @ 2 e \ = o c = o @ @ ¥ # e ¥ 0 r ° Er ° / y = t 0 _ \ ry @ 0 E _ 0 0 0 3 E m = 0 # to 2 » \ 7 / \ C f f f f f o ( f f f f o ® r) z z z z z 3 5 a a z a a z z z a 3 5 \ E / § ) J0 0 _00 0 ƒ / E / � a) 7 ® Q @ \ Q @ \ _ @ § Z, ¥ § E 2 k § 2 - a)f 3 S f E S % CO \ m \ k u \ k m 3 \ \ \ \ cc \ \ y / \ « « LU / \ o z z z o \ n c z z z £ / n = E % \ E 2 \ f \ : f \ � k E k k \ \ E » m E » g s = c s = _ \ � \ 0 (a04 @ E 0 \ _ _ \ _ � \ w 0 \ 0 } # x ° ° \ \ 2 \ ) \ = e k = e # 2 2 -0 2 2 7 f f f / 2 / f f f f k 2 / o z z z o % _ § - z z z z % _ § * > m > \ m \ \ 0- \ \ k _0 7 E _0 7 E 2 = k 7 = k _ % # = G m 0 \ 2 0 ƒ \ / \ /CL \ ® { ) ® { E 7 0 f 0 = _= J ) ? ± 2 q co \ \ O / -0 \ \ \ y \ \ . \ \ \ \ y \ \ \ 2 z z z o e ± / z z z z E ± / O \ $ \ 7 m D $ 7 \ ' \ 0 e \ 7 @ t , ¢ _ \ - Co / ƒ LLI _ =a@ E I n Q-Z \ \ n U •- / \ _ ° ) m ) g y > » ] 3 x 0 o / ± \ 3 0 z 7 @ s e § E 3 7 E 0 cc \ @ 0 2 Co @ . = k \ @ S 2 E + ¥ 0 0 ¥ 0 / z $ G % 7 2 q 0 / z = 7 E / e ; e e § ± ° 0 e ; E 0 ƒ e a) a E I ) $ } J / e E 2 = s § - / = m 2 0 > e § - 5 = _ $ _ $ & 0- 2 - e = _ » ® _ ° \ - _ O = _ = 0 0 e = ® O ; J = m o 3 S e@ = g o \ c o E x § S e c » = 0 e = _ % E E m 4 / & / e / / & E m % E = m 4 / \ / // / C.6 N O N M T T T L O NW I.J_ W W ) W U U) C � N N� U _� U) 7 C N U LL a) 0) O � O U a) L m E O U C � a) -O • L 7 � Q C • O O Ln M Ln rl- O Ln N 0 O V O fl- Ln 0 O m L- 6) 00 O O I � r- � V r- O 000 V I m O 000 O (cc I LO V 0 LO 00 I m co 00) 0 V Ln L a) 00 LO m a) O C m cy a) m a) a) O U V) L L Q '^� O V) V) a) O U LL N O O m U L U a) a) 0 C w O O) O O U m c m 76 it L.L U U L U) L (� .0 m 0) U a) a) 0 (0 W : m = co N a) a) u 0 L)i > O E Um c cm U) a) a) o o n 3 in-0 M o a) x 6 6 6 m m o m � � mcu to co o m in m O O -0 O c O c ti w Q Q Q o _, w L) c� _ cn U) Q U 3 cn w = Of Z) N O N M T T T L. O NW I.J_ W w�+ W a ) W U � C N U) � c •<n c U >+ L O N LL � � (0 0 � O U) U U C O C O U • T 00 Il- N O I` O LO N V N (0 N 00 O O O Cl) co I- I- co I` I` LO LO "t N M _ M M 00 't 0') O Il_ N _O O O 00 N N co M_ 0) N O E • (O O Cl) 00 (O LO O O Lf) O 00 � LO I- O co O M N 00 O 1� N Il- r- O O LSD N O O Cl) M M Lf) CO O 00 00 I� O LO co 00 O O LSD LS7 O (O I-- r-- U 00 co CO C) 00 (O 00 O N 00 M N LO O LO CD O LO L ' 00 O O O co, (D Lf') (6 V O 00 Lq � M °) N I U') U') I I N m I I M m m N I U) LO U m a) O ll7 C n5 L m m a) a) L 0 U U L a L O a) p O U D c o N U c aa)) in o 'O 7 U C O U > o (6 -C� a) d L 0) c cn rn a) E m a) Y c > _ cm o o U a� cOL t� L C OL C O U m co L o (0 o o N E o 2 �' 0 0 c�i o m a) c O c x d > c (�i O o U U c a (�i E co U U co o 0 o co m U) Q m c n a co cn c o >_ co � cm O � � 3 3 N a) OU -0 E a) a m O' 2 co C U O O, o 'N U Lp a) 5 4 0 0 o T T � w ¢ w w m = 0 Q Q U) N > z Q IL U) _ _ _ N O N M T T T L O NW I.J_ W W ) ^ W 21, C N N LL U) U') co cD cD I,- LO rn � rn � CDO OD CD M ;I- O (D 00 LO M M I-- I-- LO 00 0) m co O LOV LO O0 N M M V � � Cn M � ~ I LO M co I O O LO O 41 U N �+ U > i Q U U O C U N O O <Oil O L O N O co U O +� 'U i CO U U U c0 'O (� a) O OX- a) C U U Q > U N 0 Q U U '> YO Lm m a� Q U U O N c O a , p ' U LU o co 0 O ' X .0 ( a)O i U O = Dco m L p .-- m L O E E c c c , U — m E� ic •� U Y _ N N C U (6 C .�-. C m co4) T c N -O T O (6 0) " J E 0 I c Q Q I U Q 0 0 0 -:j 0 m I 2 0 0 m - W— = m 0 z 0 cn � q 0 CN q 0 � ¢ ry ® \ 5 � 7 a .R ) \ § / f / .2 m \ � \ \ m o ./ \ \ LL / \ @ \ E — 0 \ cn 0 _ .- 0 \ / S f E E / 0 = o e e @ — e R @ g o ? ¥ \ $ / g & I \ S g I $ I \ 0) \ / / k /\ \ / n Q m2 � \_ \ \ �S LO } � \in \ \ m \ / \ E / : » = E 0 .E CO C) 0 / m E E $ 0 0 c 7< a F k 0 cn ° 2 < \ k _ � \ \ \ : \ % E \ 0 « § \ e E § E o / 0 d s \ \ \ 0 0 / n \ \ E \ \ 0 co / \ 0 / G § = 0 0 O 2 m \ > E 0 m •� \ O / $ ƒ S 0 a i E / a _ 0 /CU \ m / \ 3 -i / ± £ W $ E \ 7 E J ® _0 \ / / / } � ± ' ƒ o t ± \ _ 2 \ > e \ k $ 7 \ \ % \ Lu q » E 5 \ / (n ( \ \ L / $ / co 5 co ® ® e 4 @ 0 0 0 2 2 2 Cl) k § 0 .- C) ® -E 2 \ O @ E E E $ £ U ± & > E E 2 W \ 2 % k \ 3 / \ / f G ® 3 \ \ \ \ / / ƒ — _ _ / 7 7 0 3 3 2 0 S E / / 3 f 3 \ / ƒ E E E ® ® I o / � e3 I-- _ � I N O N M T T T L O ryNW W W ) ^ W 21, C N N LL U U) U _T (9 C (0 C Q N Q tp N Q LO N LO 4-0 C Q Z) N W E O U /1 CT O C w 7 W L (.0 m ti Z cc) J Ramboll Economic Analysis MEMO To File From Stefanie O'Gorman Subject ECONOMICS ANALYSIS OF SHORT-TERM RENTAL REGULATION Ramboll Americas Engineering Solutions, Inc. (Ramboll) evaluated possible Date November 14, 2024 consequences of a potential ban on short-term rentals in Santa Ana, California. This report was completed Stefanie O'Gorman, an environmental economist with 23 years experience in her field. Stefanie specializes in the integration of costs and benefits within decision making and has worked across the spectrum from policy design and development to project and infrastructure delivery. She has acted as an expert witness in a number of planning related enquiries in the UK and Ireland relating to water regulation, marine infrastructure planning and Ramboll transport related projects, focusing on the economic and socio-economic impacts 250 Montgomery St., of these developments. Suite 1200 San Francisco, CA 94104 US USA MSc Ecological Economics, University of Edinburgh, 2001 T+1 510 655 7400 BA (Mod) Natural Science, Trinity College Dublin, 1999 F+1 510 655 9517 https://ramboll.com Based on professional experience and judgment, this analysis assumes a reasonably foreseeable potential that: 1. A ban on STR will spur new hotel development and, as a result of increased demand on local hotels, local hotel availability will go down and room rates will go up. 2. Result of (1), people will be forced to travel further to find available or affordable hotel rooms. Theses assumptions are found to be sufficiently supported by evidence or that insufficient evidence is available to reject them, as outlined here. Introduction Santa Ana, the largest city in Orange County at 27.2 square miles and home to nearly 328,000 residents', is a rich cultural, culinary, and entertainment hub with deep historical roots. As the county seat, it 1 httos://www.oranaecounty.net/cities/SantaAna.htmi 1/5 blends vibrant city life with a preserved historic core. Visitors can explore a variety of attractions, from the art-filled streets of the Downtown Santa Ana Artwalk to the Bowers Museum's global collections and the Discovery Cube's interactive science exhibits2. The city's distinctive neighborhoods offer everything from historic architecture to innovative food markets, and the popular Frida Cinema and Yost Theatre. Tourism is a cornerstone of Santa Ana's economy, driving substantial revenue and job creation for the community. In 2023, visitor spending alone contributed an impressive $414.7 million to the local economy3, an increase of over 9% compared to the previous year. This spending supports local businesses and fuels sectors like food service, accommodations, retail, arts, and transportation. Food service alone saw $109 million from visitor spending, with accommodations adding another $107 million, and arts, entertainment, and recreation generating $81.5 million. These visitor expenditures provide essential funding for city services like public safety, parks, and neighborhood improvements, while also alleviating the tax burden for residents—without tourism-related tax revenue, each household would pay an additional $195 annually in local taxes. Tourism's impact on employment is equally significant, supporting nearly 3,000 jobs in Santa Ana and contributing around $137 million in wages to the local workforce. With continued growth in overnight visits and local attractions, tourism remains a vital industry that helps sustain the community's economic well-being and enhance residents' quality of life. 1. How a ban on STR could spur new hotel development and impact demand and room rates Orange County's STR occupancy was 72% on a year-to-date basis and RevPAR was $151 and its hotels also maintain a high 77% occupancy rate and an ADR of $196.59, which underscores the region's strong demand. High occupancy figures are seen in all months - with only January falling below 70%. Orange County's hotel room demand showed a 5% year-over-year growth, highlighting its popularity within the state. Based on AirDna data, Santa Ana's appears to have or had up to approximately 2,180 STR listings (approximately 79% of which are Airbnb listings), with a current occupancy rate of 53%. This is approximately 73% for Airbnb rentals, for which there appear to be approximately 1,1004 active STR listings.5 STRs generate substantial revenue for hosts (estimated at $43,000 annually per host for Airbnb rentals)6 with an Average Daily Rate (ADR) of $237.37. z https://www.visitcaIifornia.com/places-to-visit/santa-ana/ 3 httos://www.travelsantaana.com/about-travel-santa-ana/economic-impact-of- tourism/#:-:text=In%202023%2C%20traveler%20exi)enditures%20from,in%20locaI%20and%20state%20tax es. 4 httr)s://www.santa-ana.or(i/short-term-rentals-ban/ 5 We note that even if the exact amounts of STRs in the City are slightly higher or lower than the approximate values shown here, the conclusions of this report remain consistent regarding the impact of the STR ban on spurring hotel demand and forcing individuals to forced to travel further to find available or affordable hotel rooms. 6 https://airbtics.com/annual-airbnb-revenue-in-santa-ana-california-usa/ htti3s://www.airdna.co/vacation-rental-data/apn/us/california/santa-ana/overview 2/s Accurate data on the size of the whole lodgings market in Santa Ana is not readily available for review, however the number of listings for hotels and motels on www.bookinci.com and Expedia is not significant, at less than 100. The majority of these properties are 3 star or less. If we assume that the rate of hotel /motels to STRs in Santa Ana is representative of that of Orange Country where the hotel room supply is 61,937 (see table below) and the number of STRs is 10,8418, then STRs would represent 15% of the lodging supply in Santa Ana. However, given the <100 hotels found online, is it considered likely that STRs contribution a significantly higher percentage of the lodging market locally. Forecast summary: Annual,Orange County Hotel supply9" Hotel . . (daily) demand Occupancy ADR RevPAR Room revenue Levels 2019 58,282 45,141 77.5% $161.94 $125.42 $2,668,166,801 2020 50,463 22,479 44.5% $136.03 $60.59 $1,116,070,720 2021 56,897 32,999 58.0% $167.45 $97.12 $2,016,885,289 2022 60,995 42,663 69.9% $177.02 $123.82 $2,756,556,935 2023 61,590 45,366 73.7% $185.82 $136.87 $3,076,862,904 2024 61,937 47,723 77.1% $196.59 $151.48 $3,424,409,154 Growth 2020 -13.4% -50.2% -42.5% -16.0% -51.7% -58.2% 2021 12.7% 46.8% 30.2% 23.1% 60.3% 80.7% 2022 7.2% 29.3% 20.6% 5.7% 27.5% 36.7% 2023 1.0% 6.3% 5.3% 5.0% 10.5% 11.6% 2024 0.6% 5.2% 4.6% 5.8% 10.7% 11.3% Relative to 2019 2020 87% 50% 58% 84% 48% 42% 2021 98% 73% 75% 103% 77% 76% 2022 105% 95% 90% 109% 99% 103% 2023 106% 100% 95% 115% 109% 115% 2024 106% 106% 990/0 12111/b 121% 128% Source: STR; Tourism Economics The minimum stay durations data for short-term rentals in Santa Ana varies. AirDna data suggests that half of the stock has a minimum stay of under 30 days. This data appears to be 2023 data and to relate to their estimate of 2,000+ STR listing in that data source. Therefore, it is not possible at this stage to tell how many of the City Council estimated 8 httos://www.keydatadashboard.com/en-cib/markets/orange-county-california 3/5 1,100 listings would be impacted by designated for shorter stays, but it could be as high as 100%. STR Listings by Minimum Stay in Santa Ana 0.00/0 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% ■30+ Nights ■7-29 Nights ■4-6 Nights 3 Nights ■2 Nights ■1 Night Source: https://www.airdna.co/vacation-rental-data/app/us/california/santa-ana/overview With STRs accommodating a significant portion of the lodging market, their removal would leave a considerable gap in available accommodations, which the existing hotel infrastructure is unlikely to be able to fully absorb given Orange County's occupancy rates were already at 77% in September 2024 (California Travel Forecast - October 2024). Effects of a Ban on STR on Local Hotel Demand, Room Rates, and Availability Eliminating STRs is likely to intensify demand for hotel accommodations, which would reduce availability and drive up average daily rates (ADR). Orange County's ADR is already high, at $209.14 (see table below) (192$ in Santa Ana9), and Santa Ana's hotel market is part of this broader region where occupancy and room rates reflect high demand, particularly near attractions. With STRs contributing substantial capacity, the ban would further stress local hotels, as noted above likely leading to increased ADR due to scarcity. The 7.1% year-on-year increase in Revenue Per Available Room (RevPAR) in Orange County indicates a strong market with limited room for new capacity; hence, shifting demand from STRs to hotels would almost certainly lead to higher room rates, potentially pushing them beyond the reach of budget-conscious travelers. Short Term Rentals Year to Date-September 2024 vs September 2023 occ % ADR RevPAR 2024 2023 2024 2023 2024 2023 California 68.0 68.4 190.57 192.15 129.60 131.41 Orange County 72.1 72.0 209.14 210.91 150.74 151.91 9 https://rabbu.com/airbnb-data/santa-ana-ca * httr)s://www.airdna.co/vacation-rental-data/app/us/california/santa-ana/overview 4/5 2. Travel Displacement and Need to Seek Affordable Lodging Elsewhere: Rising hotel rates and limited availability could push some visitors to look for more affordable accommodations in nearby cities. With the increased demand and rising prices in Santa Ana's hotel sector, neighboring areas like Anaheim or Irvine may absorb some of the overflow but would also likely experience upward rate pressure, creating a ripple effect across Orange County. Given that Orange County's occupancy was 72% on a year-to-date basis and RevPAR was $151 and shows high occupancy figures in all months - with only January falling below 70%, hotels in adjacent areas to Santa Ana are likely to be at full capacity during peak seasons, especially July1), or major events. As a result, tourists may find themselves traveling farther for budget-friendly lodging, potentially discouraging some visitors from choosing Santa Ana altogether. In addition, group room demand in California was up a robust 7% relative to September 2023. Orange County saw this increase by 35% year on year for the month of September 202411. This strong local growth in demand is reflected by the fact that approximately 650 of the AirBNB listing in Santa Ana are for 2+bedrooms, so suitable for groups12. The loss of this accommodation type may not be easily substituted within the existing local supply, which could, as a result, spurn additional local development. The available evidence and analysis allows a reasonable conclusion to be drawn that in the short term visitors will be pushed away from Santa Ana due to occupancy restrictions and increased rates, and in the longer term these constraints could result in new hotel capacity development. 11 httns://rabbu.com/airbnb-data/santa-ana-ca 11 https://industry.visitcalifornia.com/research/report/monthly-travel-indicators-summary 12 Santa Ana, Airbnb Market Statistics & Data, United States s/s Attachment C Translutions Traffic Analysis translutions, inc. 17632 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 200, Tustin, California 92780 Phone (949)656-3131 Fax (949)445-3131 solutions@translutions.com November 29, 2024 File Subject: Santa Ana Ordinance—Transportation Analyses Support Translutions, Inc. (Translutions)is pleased to present this memorandum evaluating potential issues with the proposed Short-Term Rental (STR) Ban in the City of Santa Ana, in Orange County, California. It is our understanding that the ordinance would affect approximately 700- 1000 currently active units. This memorandum focuses on the potential for the STR Ban to increase Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)and trip generation. VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED VMT analysis is a requirement under CEQA due to the passage of Senate Bill 743 (SB-743).SB-743 was codified in Public Resources Code section 21099,was signed by the Governor in 2013 and directed the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR)to identify alternative metrics for evaluating transportation impacts under CEQA. Pursuant to Section 21099,the criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts must"promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions,the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses."This resulted in changes to the CEQA guidelines in response to Section 21099 including a new section (15064.3) that specifies that Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. A separate Technical Advisory issued by OPR provides additional technical details on calculating VMT and assessing transportation impacts for various types of projects. The City adopted thresholds of significance and screening thresholds under VMT in February 2019. An increase in VMT is a reasonably foreseeable result of the STR ban for several reasons. First, the increased trips directly correlate to greater vehicle travel and VMT compared to the baseline. Second, the STR ban would likely incentivize increased VMT from individuals that seek available or more affordable hotels in neighboring or regional communities, thereby increasing VMT to/from the non-local hotel compared to VMT to/from a local hotel. Third, the STR ban would force any user that prefers STRs to hotels to travel to neighboring or regional communities because STRs are no longer allowed in the City, thereby directly causing increase in VMT traveling to/from the non-local STR compared to the baseline where STRs are available in the City. TRIP GENERATION Trip generation is generally based on the ITE Trip Generation, 11th Edition.The ITE Trip Generation does not have rates for STRs. Therefore, the trip generation of STRs are based on rates for All Suites Hotels and using rates from Recreational Homes, which are the closet uses with published rates. It should be noted that the trip generation of All Suites Hotel is likely to be higher than those of STRs since STRs typically don't have staff trips every day.The trip generation for STRs was compared to those of hotels since it is likely that if STIRS are disallowed, guests would potentially stay in hotels. Based on publicly available statistics on the current Airbnb listings in Santa Ana, the average capacity per STR is 5.6 people, which has been converted to equivalent hotel rooms, assuming one hotel room has a capacity of 3 people. Further, two trip generations have been calculated, one using the numbers included in the staff report (700 units) and the other based on the number of SRTs under operation in Santa Ana obtained from online data analytics (1,000 units). Applying the STR to "Hotel Room"conversion ratio of 1.867 (5.6 people per room/3 people per room), 700 STRs would require 1,307 replacement hotel rooms while 1,000 STRs would require 1,867 replacement hotel rooms. Table A shows the trip generation of 700 STRs using the two rates and 1,307 replacement hotel rooms,while Table B shows the trip generation of 700 STIRS using the two rates and 1,867 replacement hotel rooms. Table A- rip Generation 700 Units A.M.Peak Hour P.M.Peak Hour Land Use Units In Out Total In Out Total Dail Short Term Rentals(Using All Suites Hotel) Trip Generation Rates' 0.18 0.16 0.34 0.18 0.18 0.36 4.4 Trip Generation 700 DU 126 112 238 123 129 252 3,080 Short Term Rentals(Using Recreational Homes) Trip Generation Rates 2 0.12 0.10 0.22 0.13 0.16 0.29 3.55 Trip Generation 700 DU 85 69 154 93 110 203 2,485 Hotel Trip Generation Rates 3 0.26 0.20 0.46 0.30 0.29 0.59 7.99 Trip Generation 1,307 Room 337 264 601 393 378 771 10,443 Notes:DU=Dwelling Unit 1 Trip generation based on rates for Land Use 311-"All Suites Hotel"from Institute of Transportation Engineers'(ITE)Trip Generation(11th Edition). 2 Trip generation based on rates for Land Use 260-"Recreational Homes"from Institute of Transportation Engineers'(ITE)Trip Generation(11th Edition). 3 Trip generation based on rates for Land Use 310-"Hotel"from Institute of Transportation Engineers'(ITE)Trip Generation(11th Edition). As seen on Table B,the 700 STRs currently in operation are calculated to generate between 2,485p to 3,080 daily trips,depending on the rates used, which is significantly lower than hotel uses. Therefore, removing the STRs and forcing guests to hotels will result in over 7,363 to 7,958 additional daily trips. Table C-Trip Generation 1,000 Units A.M.Peak Hour P.M.Peak Hour Land Use Units In Out Total In Out Total Dail Short Term Rentals(Using All Suites Hotel) Trip Generation Rates' 0.18 0.16 0.34 0.18 0.18 0.36 4.4 Trip Generation 1,000 DU 180 160 340 176 184 360 4,400 Short Term Rentals(Using Recreational Homes) Trip Generation Rates 2 0.12 0.10 0.22 0.13 0.16 0.29 3.55 Trip Generation 1,000 DU 121 99 220 133 157 290 3,550 Hotel Trip Generation Rates 3 0.26 0.20 0.46 0.30 0.29 0.59 7.99 Trip Generation 1,867 Room 481 378 859 562 540 1,102 14,917 Notes:DU=Dwelling Unit Trip generation based on rates for Land Use 311-"All Suites Hotel"from Institute of Transportation Engineers'(ITE)Trip Generation(11th Edition). 2 Trip generation based on rates for Land Use 260-"Recreational Homes"from Institute of Transportation Engineers'(ITE)Trip Generation(11th Edition). 3 Trip generation based on rates for Land Use 310-"Hotel"from Institute of Transportation Engineers'(ITE)Trip Generation(11th Edition). As seen on Table C, if 1,000 STRs are currently in operation,they are generating between 3,550 and 4,400 daily trips,depending on the rates used, which is significantly lower than hotel uses. Therefore, removing the STRs and forcing guests to hotels will result in over 10,517 to 11,367 additional daily trips. An additional benefit of STRs is that since the units are spread out over a larger area,the additional traffic generated by STRs is more spread out throughout the City. As such, the additional delay caused by the vehicles would be minimal. If the STRs are replaced by new hotels in the City of Santa Ana,concentrated traffic would be added to roadways and intersections near the new hotels, potentially resulting in substantially more additional delays. SUMMARY Based on the above evaluation, disallowing STRs in the City of Santa Ana is likely to increase regional VMT. Disallowing STRs is also likely to increase traffic within the City of Santa Ana. 11/29/2024(C:\Users\kjohnst2\AppData\Roaming\iManage\Work\Recent\063437-0026(Airbnb_Inc._Project Lockeffranslutions_Santa Ana Ordinance_Memo(155519529.7).docx) 2 Sincerely, tra sou i ns, inc. Sandipan Bhattacharjee, P.E., T.E., AICP, ENV SP Principal 11/29/2024(C:\Users\kjohnst2\AppData\Roaming\iManage\Work\Recent\063437-0026(Airbnb_Inc._Project Lockeffranslutions_Santa Ana Ordinance_Memo(155519529.7).docx) 3 Flores, Dora From:Maura O'Neill <maura@betterneighborsla.org> Sent:Tuesday, December To:eComment Subject:Public Comment Letter on Agenda Item #15 Attachments:Better Neighbors LA Comment Letter - Agenda Item 15 Santa Ana- Support.pdf Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. Attached, please find my comment for the written record on agenda item #15, Second Reading of 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). This is in support of the adoption of the ordinance to prohibit short-term rentals and adopt enhanced violations for fines. Thanks, Maura O’Neill she/her Policy Analyst and Advocate Better Neighbors LA ( 1 250 East 1st Street, Suite 1201; Los Angeles, California 90012 213.336.5900  betterneighborsla.org December 3, 2024 City Council City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 eComment@santa-ana.org Via Electronic Mail Re: Better Neighbors LA Comment Letter –Agenda Item #15 Second Reading of 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– SUPPORT Dear Councilmembers, Better Neighbors LA writes to you in support of adopting the Ordinance Amendment (OA) No. 2024-04 that will repeal and re-enact in its entirety Article XXI to Chapter 8 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) prohibiting Short-Term Rentals (STRs) and adopting enhanced fines for violations of the Short-Term Rental Ordinance. As residents across Southern California continue to face a housing affordability and homelessness crisis, precautions must be taken to protect housing stock for long-term residents. It is crucial to codify Santa Ana’s prohibition on short-term rentals within the City, and in the process, further safeguard housing for long-term residents. Better Neighbors LA is a coalition of hosts, tenants, housing activists, hotel workers, and community members working to curb illegal short-term rental activity with the intent to protect housing and neighborhoods impacted by the short-term rental industry.1 We conduct data analysis and research on the short-term rental industry and its impact on affordable housing. According to our analysis of AirDNA data, the vast majority of short-term rentals in the City of Santa Ana are unhosted, meaning they are whole home rentals that are not primarily used for long-term housing, unlike hosted rentals.2 Since 2019, the number of unhosted short-term rental listings has increased by 294% and grown to over 509 units. Hosted units, on the other hand, have risen by 169 listings, or 134%. The number of unhosted STRs aligns with the staff report findings on enforcement notices and citations. Staff identified that the majority of properties with 1 https://www.betterneighborsla.org/ 2 AirDNA data on file with Better Neighbors includes VRBO and Airbnb listings within the City of Santa Ana through March 2023. https://www.airdna.co/ Better Neighbors Comment Letter Agenda Item 15: Repeal and Re-enact Short Term Rental Prohibition Page 2 of 4 250 East 1st Street, Suite 1201; Los Angeles, California 90012 213.336.5900  betterneighborsla.org confirmed active STR enforcement cases involved properties owned by an LLC, managed by a property management company, or owned by absentee owners. Below please find the growth in short-term rentals from 2014 to 2023. As of March 2023, the most recent data we have available, there were 991 active STR listings in Santa Ana, making up 1.27% of Santa Ana’s housing stock.3 Short-term rentals have grown significantly over the last few years, and in the process have taken housing units off the long-term market that may have otherwise been available to long-term tenants or potential homeowners. According to the staff report, there are more than 700 STRs currently operating in Santa Ana. These 700 STRs account for 22% of the 3,137 permanent housing units that the City has identified as required by the 2021-2029 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Ensuring that the prohibition of short-term rentals remains in place in the City of Santa Ana will safeguard this milestone in meeting the 2021-2029 RHNA goals. Santa Ana is not alone in their push to ban short-term rentals. Within Orange County, at least twelve cities have taken steps to prohibit short-term rentals in some form. These cities include the Aliso Viejo, Brea, Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Irvine, Laguna Hills, Laguna Nigel, Villa Park, Westminster, Yorba Linda, and La Habra.4 In Los Angeles County, the 3 Profile of the City of Santa Ana, Southern California Association of Governments, https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/santaana_localprofile.pdf?1606012682. 4 City of Aliso Viejo: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/AlisoViejo/html/AlisoViejo15/AlisoViejo1514.html; City of Brea: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/brea/latest/brea_ca/0-0-0-70791; City of Costa Mesa: https://weblink.costamesaca.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=233471&dbid=0&repo=CityofCostaMesa; City of Fountain Valley: https://www.fountainvalley.gov/DocumentCenter/View/16275/Ordinance-No-1591; City of Garden Grove: https://ecode360.com/42535001; City of Irvine: https://library.municode.com/ca/irvine/codes/zoning?nodeId=ZOOR_DIV3GEDESTLAUSRE_CH3-25SHTERE_S3-25- 5VIMIIN#:~:text=3%2D25%2D3.,of%20short%2Dterm%20rentals%20prohibited.&text=section%20Compare%20versions- ,A.,zoning%20district%20within%20the%20City; City of Laguna Hills: 23 30 38 68 117 173 201 251 510 682 21 33 54 78 105 126 133 140 201 295 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 AVERAGE ACTIVE SHORT-TERM RENTAL LISTINGS IN SANTA ANA Unhosted Units Hosted Units Better Neighbors Comment Letter Agenda Item 15: Repeal and Re-enact Short Term Rental Prohibition Page 3 of 4 250 East 1st Street, Suite 1201; Los Angeles, California 90012 213.336.5900  betterneighborsla.org City Councils of Calabasas, Diamond Bar, Rosemead, Culver City, West Hollywood, San Gabriel, La Mirada, Lakewood, Rolling Hills, Redondo, and Lawndale all have short-term rentals bans in place.5According to a study published in the Real Estate Economics Journal in 2023, in the City of Irvine rental prices decreased 3% on average following two years after the enforcement of their ordinance prohibiting short-term rentals in all residential zones.6 This study illustrates the positive impacts a prohibition on short-term rentals can have on addressing the affordability of housing in cities within Orange County. Given that a majority of housing units within Santa Ana are renter occupied, it is likely that a similar prohibition on short-term rentals will protect further protect tenant households.7 A ban on short-term rentals is only as valuable as the enforcement that backs it. To see positive effects on the housing and rental market, Santa Ana should adopt the resolution to enhance administrative fines for violation of the ordinance and implement a centralized enforcement system to administer them. In Los Angeles, high administrative burden and a decentralized system of the Home-Sharing Ordinance enforcement has led to rampant abuse of the short-term rental market. For example, in July of 2024, Los Angeles has over 6,000 listings that are noncompliant with the Home-Sharing Ordinance.8 Between January and August of 2024, the City only issued 97 citations despite the high number of noncompliant listing.9 With a prohibition in place and enhanced administrative fines for violating the ordinance, Santa Ana can ensure that the City has strong, easily enforceable rules in order to issue citations and maintain the ordinance’s effectiveness. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/LagunaHills/#!/LagunaHills06/LagunaHills0640.html , City of Laguna Nigel: https://library.municode.com/ca/laguna_niguel/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT9PLZO_DIV1PL_ART2COZOCO_SUB ARTICLE_3REDI_S9-1-38GRHO; City of Villa Park: https://library.municode.com/ca/villa_park/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CHXXIIIZO_ART23-3EFZORE_S23- 3.5SHRMRE; City of Westminster: https://library.qcode.us/lib/westminster_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_9-chapter_9_74- 9_74_020; City of Yorba Linda: https://library.qcode.us/lib/yorba_linda_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_5-chapter_5_50- 5_50_030. City of La Habra: https://www.lhhcity.org/325/Short-Term-Rentals 5 Calabasas: https://library.municode.com/ca/city_of_calabasas/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT17LAUSDE_ARTIIZODIALLAUS_C H17.12STSPLAUS_17.12.175SHRMREOCPRPREXLAAPHOMOBEBRIN; Diamond Bar: https://www.diamondbarca.gov/Faq.aspx?QID=314; Rosemead: https://library.municode.com/ca/rosemead/ordinances/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=900458; Culver City: https://www.culvercity.org/Have-Your-Say/Short-Term-Rentals; West Hollywood: https://ecode360.com/43916115?highlight=rental,rentals&searchId=1904165411732459#43916115; San Gabriel: https://www.sangabrielcity.com/1341/Frequently-Asked-Questions#:~:text=Short- term%20rentals%20(anything%20less,term%20rental%20or%; La Mirada: https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/2692#:~:text=Short%2Dterm%20rentals%20in%20residential,not%20permitted%20in%20L a%20Mirada; Lakewood: https://www.lakewoodcity.org/Business/Short-term-rentals Rolling Hills: https://library.municode.com/ca/rolling_hills_estates/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT17ZO_CH17.47SHRMRERE_17.47 .020PU; Redondo Beach: https://www.redondobeachtourism.com/news/airbnb; Lawndale: https://ecode360.com/LA4957 6 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1540-6229.12440 7 According to the City of Santa Ana General Plan Housing Element, in 2018 53.8% of households were renter occupied, while 46.1% were owner occupied, https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/santaanaca/uploads/2022/09/Housing_El ement_-Complete-9.16.22_Compressed.pdf 8 Data on file with BNLA from Los Angeles City Granicus data. https://granicus.com/ 9 Data on file with BNLA from Los Angeles City Planning Department. Better Neighbors Comment Letter Agenda Item 15: Repeal and Re-enact Short Term Rental Prohibition Page 4 of 4 250 East 1st Street, Suite 1201; Los Angeles, California 90012 213.336.5900  betterneighborsla.org The proposed ordinance will further codify the prohibition and continue protecting long- term residents. According to the City of Santa Ana General Plan Housing Element, almost half (48%) of all households spend more than 30% of their income on housings costs and thus are considered cost burdened. In addition, the National Low Income Housing Coalition, the fair market rent for a two-bedroom home is $2,100, meaning a household would have to earn more than $40/hour to afford to house their family.10 As residents in the City of Santa Ana continue to bear the impacts of high housing costs, it is imperative the City protect and preserve housing for long-term residents. For these reasons, Better Neighbors requests the City Council uphold the short-term rental ordinance passed in April of this year by repealing and re-enacting the Short-Term Rental Ordinance and adopting enhanced fines for violations. Should you have any questions, please contact Maura O’Neill at maura@betterneighborsla.org. Sincerely, Better Neighbors LA & Unite HERE Local 11 10 Data for zip code 92701, https://nlihc.org/oor/zip?code=92701. Flores, Dora From:Sheri Menke <sherimenke@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, December To:eComment Subject:Vote NO on agenda item #15! Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links. Dear Council Members, Thank you again for your service to our community! Vote NO on agenda item #15 and ask the staff to work with stakeholders on this issue, rather than introducing a ban. This is a complicated issue and the outcome affects thousands of people in this city. The staff did present a study to the planning commission in December of 2023. The outcome of that study was positive and the commission was supportive of a taxed and regulated program for STR's NOT a ban. How did we go from that study to a ban being introduced and why didn't this ordinance first go through the planning commission? Thank you to those of you who mentioned that you are in support of the staff working with stakeholders like myself on this issue. Thank you also to the mayor for voting NO on November 19th and also in April. I do hope that the staff will meet with us in a timely manner and create regulations that will be presented to you sooner then later, as your vote tonight matters to us and so many stake holders in this city! I have worked hard for 7 years to get great reviews and shutting down my business temporarily will be devastating for myself, my employees, one of who spoke at the last meeting, and many other hosts like myself. Please vote NO on agenda item #15 as there is a better way forward for us all! Best, Sheri Menke 2