Laserfiche WebLink
1 2015 ordinance directed, the City suddenly deemed an emergency measure banning STRs <br /> 2 necessary to preserve the public peace, health, and safety of the community. The Staff Report <br /> 3 supporting such extraordinary actions included less than one page of"discussion." <br /> 4 42. At the April 2, 2024, hearing, approximately 20 persons spoke in opposition to the <br /> 5 Urgency Ordinance and the STR Ban. <br /> 6 43. During deliberations the City Attorney claimed that STRs were already prohibited. <br /> 7 Specifically, Councilman Phil Bacerra said to the City Attorney, Sonia Carvalho, and one of her <br /> 8 deputies: <br /> 9 <br /> 10 "It's not that you don't have the ability to enforce short term rentals. It's just that <br /> this exercise is a clarifying exercise. So,we're not operating outside the law. We're <br /> 11 not just, Wild Wild West, picking a position and running with it. Our code is <br /> prescriptive. And because this use is not listed in our code, that means it is not <br /> 12 allowed. Because I know some folks here, they said `well it's been allowed, it's <br /> been permitted.' So just to clarify, it is not allowed, correct?" <br /> 13 <br /> 14 The assistant city attorney responded: "That is correct." <br /> 15 The City Attorney, Ms. Carvalho, concurred, saying: "the status quo is they are <br /> illegal. They are not permitted." <br /> 16 <br /> 44. The City Attorney went on to tell the Council that the permissive zoning argument <br /> 17 <br /> was "confusing" to some judges and had been undermining the City's position in some legal <br /> 18 <br /> proceedings. This was purportedly why it was important to "clarify"the law to confirm that STRs <br /> 19 <br /> have always been illegal in Santa Ana. <br /> 20 <br /> 45. With the less than one page of "discussion" in the Staff Report, and this clear <br /> 21 <br /> misstatement of the law on the record, the City Council went on to pass the Urgency Ordinance <br /> 22 <br /> and the first reading of Ordinance No. NS-3061. <br /> 23 <br /> 46. This was despite correspondence provided by the Rental Alliance and others to the <br /> 24 <br /> City Council informing it that the blanket ban on STRs in the City had the potential to cause <br /> 25 <br /> significant environmental impacts that require review under CEQA. Specifically, the Rental <br /> 26 <br /> Alliance explained that removing all existing STR accommodations from the centrally located <br /> 27 <br /> Santa Ana would almost certainly change traffic patterns, and the shifting of traffic from within <br /> 28 <br /> VERTFTED PETTTTON FOR WRTT OF MANDATE <br /> 12 AND COMPLATNT <br />