Response to Late Comments Item No.15

Home Browse Search

LetterO1–SantaAnaSTRAlliance(SASTRA)(209pages) O1.ResponsetoCommentstoSantaAnaSTRAlliance,datedDecember2,2024. O1-1This comment requests that the City reconsider proceeding with the second reading of the STR ban. The comment states that the City plans to readopt a legally flawed STR ban. The comment states that the concerns raised at previous hearings have not been addressed. The comment summarizes the history of the Modified Project. The comment also makes the following claims: •The April 2024 ordinance prohibiting STRs that was adopted by the City Council was done so “without conducting meaningful stakeholder engagement” and “there was 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.” These environmental impacts, as stated by SASTRA, include: oAir Quality oGreenhouse Gas Emissions oEnergy oTransportation oNoise oIndirect impacts, including that a ban on STRs would result in an increase in hotel construction oCumulative impacts, including that a ban on STRs would result in increases in hotel occupancy rates and increase room rates. •The current legal status of STRs in Santa Ana has been misrepresented to the City Council. •The City did not take into account analysis prepared by SASTRA during the November 19 first reading of Ordinance No. NS-3072. •The City appears to be withholding information from the public, in violation of the California Public Records Act. The comment identifies similar claims identified in the comment letter submitted by , 2024. The City prepared and entered a response to Gaines & Stacy LLP on November 18 these claims in the record. See attached written response dated November 19, 2024 previously provided as part of the record.It should be noted that hotel uses are subject to Conditional Use Permit approval, which is a discretionary process in the City that invokes CEQA. Therefore, the impacts of hotel construction would be required to be evaluated through CEQA. The commenter also asserts that the current legal status of STRs in Santa Ana has been misrepresented to the City Council. This is factually incorrect. The April 2 and November 19 staff reports on STRs from 2024 unequivocally state that STRs are not, and have never been, a permitted use under the City’s zoning code. A review of Chapter 41 (Zoning) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) reveals as such. STRs have never been, and remain, unlisted as a permissible use anywhere in the City’s zoning code. In fact, the April and November 2024 ordinances both seek to define and specify STRs as a use for the first time in the SAMC’s history. No misrepresentation took place. December 3,2024|Page 3