Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1The Citydid not have factual support that existing STRs wereharming public <br /> <br />2 health, safety, or welfare; <br /> <br />3 Banning STRs would <br /> <br />4 accommodations, which would result in an overall increase in the prices of motel <br /> <br />5 and hotel rooms, making it more expensive for families to stay in the City <br /> <br />6 overnight; and <br /> <br />7 The lack of availability of short-term housing would disproportionately impact the <br /> <br />8 individuals and families most in need of flexible housing options. <br /> <br />9 The City Adopted Ordinance No. NS-3061 on Second Reading without Any Council Debate <br /> <br />10 49. Further stifling public debate on this important issue, the City agendized the second <br /> <br />11 reading of Ordinance No. NS-3061 on its By placing it on the Consent <br /> <br />12 Calendar, the City Council considered Ordinance No. NS-3061 with 18 other items and waived <br /> <br />13 the reading of the resolution and ordinance. It did not debate the STR Ban, nor did it discuss the <br /> <br />14 potential environmental, economic, or social impacts the Ordinance could have on Santa Ana and <br /> <br />15 the broader community. The City did this despite receiving significant correspondence in advance <br /> <br />16 of the April 16 City Council meeting opposing the STR Ban and advising the City of the need to <br /> <br />17 conduct environmental review under CEQA. <br /> <br />18 50. Commenters again informed the City that removing all existing STR <br /> <br />19 accommodations from the centrally located City would almost certainly change traffic patterns, as <br /> <br />20 visitors to Santa Ana and surrounding areas would have to seek overnight accommodations <br /> <br />21 elsewhere, and that the shifting of traffic from within the City to other locations could have <br /> <br />22 significant environmental impacts, including air quality impact resulting from increased vehicle <br /> <br />23 emissions from people traveling further distances across Orange County to their vacation <br /> <br />24 destinations or temporary/transitory places of employment and residence. It was also raised that <br /> <br />25 changing traffic could result in air quality impacts to residents of Santa Ana and potential traffic <br /> <br />26 impacts at new locations. Other reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts raised again <br /> <br />27 included increased greenhouse gas emissions resulting from additional vehicle miles traveled, <br /> <br />28 impacts from increased construction of alternative overnight accommodations (hotels and motels) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE <br />AND COMPLAINT <br />14 <br /> <br /> <br />