HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - Item 25Flores, Dora
From:Moana Dherlin <mdherlin@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, April
To:eComment
Subject:Concerned over STR ban
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Dear City Counsel members,
Hello my name is Moana Bertin-Hugault, I am a mother, a wife, a high school choir teacher, a
strong community member and a STR airbnb owner. When we first move into Santa Ana,
Riverview west neighborhood with our family we wanted to reinvigorate our neighborhood, we
started by renovating our home from from the top to bottom, putting in lots of sweet, love and long
hours. We hired local professions whenever we couldn’t do the work our selves and bought
building materials from the Home Depot down the street. What we saw next was almost magical.
The neighbors next door re-painted their house, then across the street they did the same, then
another re-did their yard, then a roof and so on and so on. Two years later the pride of ownership
gleamed on our small cul-de-sac. Forward to 4 years later the whole neighborhood has transformed
to a safer and more beautiful place for the many families living here. After our renovation we were
able to tap into the sweat equity in our home to take out just enough to convert our garage into a
JADU (one that we payed hefty permit fees on). Being able to short term rent this ADU has been a
dream for our family. Not only has it been a joy to host travels and professionals alike but most
importantly building a short term rental on our property has allowed us to provid a strong future for
our girls! You see with a ban on STR you are not supporting the community but hurting it and in
turn hurting so many small business owners like myself who are supporting our families and
communities. As a teacher for the past 16 year, I have wonderful career that I love, however the
modest salary means it is often tight to provide for my family. Our STR means things like I will be
able to pay for our daughters to attend college or take them on family vacations. We are here to
grow and support the community.
I was in utter disbelief at the lack of care and respect shown to your citizens at last nights meeting.
We too are citizens and residence of Santa Ana and by voting for the immediate ban you hurt your
citizen. We pay taxes, fix up neighborhoods and are community members trying to support our
families. By passing ordinance 21 you gave us no action plan, no time frame to switch our business
model. So that you could go after 84 “out of town” owners you hurt all the other 1000 STR Santa
owners. We moved here because Santa Ana was a city of opportunity that celebrated diversity. I
think targeting STR but not targeting fireworks, and houses with 7 cars in front, is a huge disservice
to our coumminty. We are here because we love Santa Ana and want it to reach its full potential. I
am here to stop this potential ban on STR in Santa Ana because it’s not what’s best for the
community. It’s what best for hotels and developers but not for the families of Santa Ana. Please
consider permits and tax so that we can regulate and provided STR providers with legal pathway.
2
As a side note, most airbnb STR rentals will not switch to long term rentals. They will switch to 31
plus stays. Therefore I doubt it will help in any significant way to the housing crisis. It is naive to
believe that the housing crisis is caused by STR market, when all the data has shown that we are in
a housing crisis nationwide do to infrastructure. Why not let the STR tax help with building more
affordable government housing.
I see and understand the frustration of the renters, just 4 years ago I was one of them. Having to
save every penny in order to purchase a property. The rental crisis of all Southern California is a
huge problem, however villainizing the STR owners as the culprit is unfair and inaccurate. Taking
away income from small local business like myself and benefitting Disneyland hotels! I
ask you how strongly the hotel lobbyist are pushing for this?
Thank you for your time,
Moana Bertin-Hugault
3
Flores, Dora
From:Sheri Menke <sherimenke@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, April
To:eComment
Subject:Vote NO on item #25
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Dear Mayor & Council Persons,
Reject Item #25 and ask the staff to study the issue and present a more detailed and accurate study on short term
rentals! This is what the city council asked the staff to do in 2015 and to this date it has not happened publicly.
The urgent ordinance that would prohibit short term rentals failed twice on April 2nd. All three votes had a
different outcome. This shows it is a complicated issue, that should take research, conversations and
negotiations! Instead of a citywide ban please tax and regulate short term rentals for the best interest of the city
and residents. Thousands of residents in Santa Ana will be affected by your vote this Tuesday! I have been
involved with short term rentals for ten years now in Santa Ana and have a wealth of knowledge to share with
you!
I heard three criticisms about STR’s on April 2nd. The first being that they are a nuisance creating parking
issues, trash and noise. While these things are a concern, the problem isn’t short term rentals, but rather
irresponsible landlords. These things could happen and do happen with long term rentals as well. This could be
solved with regulations.
Another concern was quality of life. Vacation rentals do add to the quality of life for both the owner, the
traveler and even the neighbors/neighborhoods! I was the neighbor of a short term rental and it changed my life
for the better! I became more aware and understanding of the world through speaking to the travelers and
learning more about their cultures, languages and traditions. My employees have a better quality of life because
I am able to pay them a fair and livable wage. Those who have homes where mortgages are high and they rent
out a room have a better quality of life because they can afford to live. There was one time woman in 2016 who
lived in a four bedroom home in West Foral Park who rented rooms in her home periodically as STR’s. Her
kids were grown, her husband had passed and she didn’t need the money, but rather needed the companionship.
She was lonely and loved hosting folks to talk and learn their stories. STR’s contributed greatly to her quality of
life! There are a lot of circumstances to consider when it comes to quality of life.
Lastly, the concern about short term rentals was housing shortages. Again, one cannot blame housing shortages
on STR’s as there has always been housing shortages. Those who use their income to pay their mortgages will
lose their homes which will only contribute to the housing shortage. Again, if there were permits and
regulations there would be a “cap” on how many are allowed in the city.
There was a study on short term rentals presented to the planning commission in December of 2022. However,
the public couldn’t speak during the study. The commissioners of the building and planning department were
overwhelmingly supportive of a taxed and regulated program, NOT a ban. This urgent ordinance did not get
passed through the planning commission before being presented to you. The process is not being done fairly or
accurately!
2
If this ordinance gets passed, the city is criminalizing home sharing. As Mr. Thai said on April 2nd, a violation
of this proposed ordinance would result in six months of jail or a $5,000 fine.
Both in my opinion are too harsh of punishments for wanting/needing to share your home.
Your vote affects hundreds of residents who not only operate short term rentals, but also residents that work for
short term rentals and those who rely on the tourism economy to keep their businesses afloat, like restaurants.
Again, please understand how complicated this issue is.
The staff kept saying that Short Term Rentals have always been illegal based on permissive code. This
statement is NOT true. The codes they are referring to haven’t been updated since 1960 as far as my research
shows. Home sharing has always existed, but has become more popular since VRBO launched in 2004 and
Airbnb in 2008. This is a newer trend and needs to be considered as the way people live and travel in 2024. In
2015 when the Santa Ana City Council lifted a moratorium placed on STR’s the permissive codes were the
same as they are now. It was public knowledge in 2015 that STR’s were allowed at that time in the city. In 2017
when I wanted to start sharing my home, I also wanted to follow the city’s rules. I went to City Hall and asked
what I needed to do to start a short term rental. I was told by staff that I needed a residential rental business
license. I applied, received one and have been renewing it each year. My home is a residential rental, it is not a
hotel! I rent to one family at a time, not multiple people. In September of 2022 the staff presented a proposed
ban on STR’s much like the one presented to you. However, the staff moved it off the agenda before they voted
on it because of the overwhelming opposition to it that night. Again, this has NOT been a fair process!! It was
determined again in 2022 that STR’s were not illegal.
I recently read a study that 80% of short term rental owners/operators/employees are women. Of these women a
lot of them are mothers like me working hard to pay our mortgages/rents and support our families! It was
disheartening on April 2nd to hear all the things that Santa Ana city staff is proposing/implementing that
doesn’t support children, youth and families! Which always seemed to be a priority for Santa Ana.
On Tuesday April 2nd at the council meeting, we heard youth commenting that their fees for sports in the city
were being raised beyond what they could afford. Then there was talk about the fees for the zoo being raised
during the budget part of the meeting. Lastly, the urgent ordinance passed on the third vote prohibiting short
term rentals. Which a lot of these STR’s are run by women for women who are trying to support their families.
Now city wants to take these businesses away, no longer inviting large families like mine into the city. The
majority of people we host are large families who want/need to stay in a home in a residential neighborhood.
My home is occupied 98% of the year with large families! There is a need for my business! Only allowing short
term rentals in downtown or only owner occupied takes options for families away, which are the ones who can
not stay in traditional hotels because of our size. There is middle ground here, but we need YOUR help! The
money that the city can make from TOT taxes can help fund programs for youth and children. Santa Ana can
continue to welcome in families, we can work with you to regulate the irresponsible owners.
Reject item #25 on Tuesday April 16th and let’s work on this together for the good of Santa Ana and its
residents!
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Sheri Menke
3
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: April 16, 2024, City Council Meeting – Item 25 – Ordinance Amending the
Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) to add Article XXI to Chapter 8 of the SAMC
Prohibiting Short-Term Rentals (Second Reading)
I believe if councilmembers had all the facts pertaining to short term rentals, we
would have had a different outcome. Based on that, I respectfully ask city council
to:
nd
1) Repeal the Urgency Ordinance passed on April 2, 2024
2) Take Agenda Item#25 off calendar
3) Request the planning commission to resume their work study/research on short
term rentals (STR).
Let’s start with the history between the city and short-term rentals. Back in
September 2015, short term rentals came to the attention of the city due to a “party
house,” rental in the West Floral Park Neighborhood. During the September 1, 2015
city council meeting (Agenda Item #85A), the city council heard from the public
about the issues with “party house” rental in the neighborhood. City council
members sympathized with the neighbors being subjected to the non-stop noise and
partying from this particular home but also expressed support for the growing shared
economy. The city council moved to bring forward a proposed emergency ordinance
adopting a 45-day moratorium on the of short-term residential rental at the next
scheduled meeting. At the September 15, 2015 city council meeting, the discussion
continued on short term rentals (Agenda Item #50B - The Emergency Ordinance
1
Adopting a 45-day moratorium on short term rentals.). Public comments from
residents expressed their positive experiences with short terms rentals and how the
income derived for short term rentals provided them with financial stability. The
city staff report (planning commission), noted the current provisions of the Santa
Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) do not clearly define or identify short term rentals
as permitted use in a residential zone. The purpose of the moratorium would allow
staff (planning commission) time to analyze the Santa Ana Municipal code to
review, study and revise the existing code in order to respond to recent concerns
relating the impacts of short-term rentals in the city. Agenda item # 50B - The
Emergency Ordinance Adopting a 45-day moratorium on short term rentals was
passed. However, a study on short term rentals was requested by city council with
the planning commission being directed to come back with options and/or code
changes (be specific on short-term rentals) on October 20, 2015. Not once during
stth
the Sept 1 or Sept. 15 city council meetings was the code ever referred to a
permissive or prescriptive code.
During the October 20, 2015 city council meeting, planning commission requested
an extension of the moratorium, Agenda Item #75A. Councilmembers reiterated
their support for the shared economy, they did not want to be “’prohibitive,
restrictive or overreach.” As one councilmember stated “… we do need to address
the shared economy, our ordinances and resolutions that are in place right now are
very archaic, they’re not into the 21st century there's lots of changes that we need
to make and you're nodding in your head Mr. Director.”
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5D-7arCZQc&t=6217s, 1:50:03). City
councilmember agreed to allow the moratorium to expire.
What has changed since October 2015? Nothing. The study requested by city council
in October 2015 never materialized. The city municipal zoning codes has not been
updated to address short term rentals. Somehow between 2015 and now, the code is
now being referred to as a permissive code. But the problem remains the same; the
code still lacks clarity as it pertains to short term rentals.
Seven years later, September 26, 2022, the planning commission agenda included
zoning code amendments (Agenda Item#4). Items listed in the zoning code
amendments included short term rental prohibition, (Zoning Ordinance Amendment
2
No. 2022-03). Agenda item#4 was taken off calendar prior to the start of the planning
th
commission meeting. After the September 26 meeting, we met with the planning
commission and proposed a STR program with regulations for the city of Santa Ana.
We discussed tax revenue the city would gain among other economic benefits and
supplied copies of STR guidelines from other cities. A year later, in December 11,
2023, the planning commission did a short-term rental work study session power
point presentation. Most planning commissioners were open to having a program in
place and collecting TOT’s (transient occupancy tax). Shortly thereafter, some of us
received an email from the planning commission requesting suggestions and/or
comments on a proposed STR program in Santa Ana. We all responded within the
allotted time frame for comments and/or suggestions. We felt we were finally
moving forward.
So, it was a surprise to all of us that over the next couple of months some the of STR
owners started receiving cease and desist letters. Then in April 2024, we were taken
aback by the proposed and ultimate passage of the Urgency Ordinance and the first
reading of an Ordinance Amending the SAMC adding Article XXI to Chapter 8 of
the SAMC Prohibiting Short Term Rentals.
The Urgency Ordinance contained faulty or incomplete data that may have resulted
in a different outcome on April 2, 2024.
Both the Urgency Ordinance and the Ordinance state that short term rentals remove
housing stock that could be otherwise available for long term rental or sale. The
number of STR reported in Santa Ana is 1100. The power point presentation made
in December of 2023 shows suspected 1120 rental units in Santa Ana as reported by
Granicus (software solutions and information on STRs). The numbers were collected
from various STR platforms. What wasn’t disclosed is that one STR can be listed on
2 or more platforms, so instead of counting just 1 STR, the STR was counted twice
or more. Granicus states on their website (https://support.granicus.com/s/article/Address-
Identification-FAQ?language=en_US), under Host Compliance FAQ that “\[i\]t is very
common for a single rental unit to be advertised across multiple listings, and as a
result you will always see a higher number of listings in your jurisdiction compared
to the number of rental units.” Did the 1100 STR units reported by Granicus remove
3
duplicate listings? Complicating the numbers even more, 1 STR home renting one
or more private room will be counted as two units versus one unit.
The breakdown of types of STR would have been useful as it would have given city
council a better picture of the number and types of STR in Santa Ana. Over 45% of
STR rentals in Santa Ana are 1bd/1ba unit (private rooms, guesthouses, guest suites).
These types of STRs would have no impact on available housing stock (RHNA).
Furthermore, these types of STR have no effect on increasing rents, affordability and
does not divert a significant portion of available housing away from permanent
resident.
Banning short term rentals will not work. Granicus talks about short term rentals
bans gone wrong (https://granicus.com/blog/short-term-vacation-rental-bans-gone-
wrong/). Some of the items discussed in the blog are: legality of a ban, lawsuits, and
loss of tax revenues. The City of Irvine has a prohibition of short-term rentals that
has been in place for several years now. Today the city of Irvine has more STRs
units than the city of Santa Ana (based on the numbers supplied by city staff).
I ask city council to reconsider the Urgency Ordinance & second reading of
Ordinance. Appeal or suspend both and let’s bring stakeholders back to the table to
discuss a reasonable STR program regulation for the city of Santa Ana.
Thank you—
Ana Gomez
4
Flores, Dora
From:Maria Manjarrez <maria.manjarrez@airbnb.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 16,
To:eComment
Cc:Amezcua, Valerie; Lopez, Jessie; Phan, Thai; Vazquez, Benjamin; Bacerra, Phil;
Hernandez, Johnathan; Penaloza, David; Nunez, Alvaro
Subject:Submission of Comments for Item 25
Attachments:Letter to Santa Ana City Council (1).pdf
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Hello,
Please find attached our comments regarding Item 25 - Ordinance Amending the Santa Ana Municipal Code
(SAMC) to add Article XXI to Chapter 8 of the SAMC Prohibiting Short-Term Rentals.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide our input on this matter.
Thank you,
Maria
--
Maria Fernanda Manjarrez
Public Policy, US West
Newsroom
5
April 16,2024
The Honorable Valerie Amezcua
Santa Ana City Council
Santa Ana City Hall
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana,CA 92701
Dear Santa Ana City Council and Staff,
In Santa Ana,hosting provides an economic lifeline for many residents.To this end,we
understand local hosts have been proactive in engaging with the city to support reasonable
regulations that meet the community’s needs.
Airbnb is also committed to working with city staff and councilmembers to develop effective
solutions for short-term rental accommodations (STRA)that allow residents to supplement their
income,protect local jobs,and support the region’s economy.
In Santa Ana:
●Approximately 75%of Hosts have only one entire home listing.
●Many Santa Ana Hosts share their home fewer than 5 nights per month.
●Last year,nearly half of all guests who stayed with Hosts in Santa Ana originated from
California.
●1 in 10 Hosts are over the age of 60.
To help the City preserve the benefits short-term rentals provide to the local economy and
residents who rely on home sharing to make ends meet or supplement their income to afford to
stay in their home,we want to share some best-practices that can help meet the unique needs of
the City of Santa Ana:.
●Registration Permit for Hosts:Allow City of Santa Ana residents to register their short-term
rentals to support compliance and enforcement of City short-term rental rules.This
process can involve a streamlined,online registration system via a single application
process where hosts provide basic contact information,permits are automatically
renewed,reasonable permit fees are issued to support City administration and
implementation,and hosts have sufficient time to get registered.
●Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT):Require all short-term rental hosts to collect and remit
transient occupancy taxes to the City.Hosting provides cities with significant TOT revenue
and helps fund critical public services,with many jurisdictions choosing to direct their TOT
revenue to support affordable housing,tourism promotion,and economic development.
●“Grandfathering”/Legacy units:allow existing short-term rental hosts to continue
operating subject to obtaining a City registration permit,staying current on TOT
remittance,and otherwise staying compliant with existing City noise and nuisance laws.
(See e.g.,San Antonio,Seattle.)
●Tiered Permit Systems:explore tiered registration permits for hosts depending on the
type of short-term rental listing,where the listings are located,or the nights hosted.(See.
e.g,San Diego).Permits can be issued based on a percentage of housing stock or
issuance of residential development permits,and the City can allow for the growth of
hosting in key areas -e.g.,public transit corridors,new mixed-use development,or other
residential areas in need of redevelopment and benefiting from investment from hosts -
that benefit the City,its residents,and the broader public.
●Hosting Regulation:ensure that regulations governing host operating conditions,such as
safety standards,noise regulations,and occupancy limits,are consistent with those
applied to other residential units and promote safety,security,and neighborhood
compatibility.
●Stakeholder Consultation:engage with local residents,community organizations,and
other stakeholders to solicit feedback and develop regulations that strike a balance
between supporting the sharing economy and preserving the quality of life in residential
neighborhoods.
Lastly,Airbnb can help support smart regulation (and save taxpayer money)by onboarding the
City to Airbnb’s City Portal.The City Portal is a first-of-its-kind resource to help local governments
and tourism organizations better understand the Airbnb landscape and tourism trends in their
community,as well as offer tools to help cities enforce their short-term rental laws.In addition,we
can work with the City on a compliance campaign,leveraging host outreach.
Not only will the ecosystem of the short-term rental economy benefit,including operators,local
businesses,guests,and maintenance staff that are paid a living wage,but the entire Santa Ana
community will benefit through the collection of Transient Occupancy Taxes.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment and share our learnings on behalf of Santa Ana's host
community and our shared goals.
Sincerely,
Justin Wesson
Public Policy Manager,US West
Airbnb
CC:Honorable Valerie Amezcua,City Council,
Minh Thai,Executive Director of Planning and Building,
Alvaro Nuñez,Acting City Manager
Flores, Dora
From:Sheri Menke <santaanacitystr@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 16, 2024 12:52 PM
To:eComment
Cc:Amezcua, Valerie; Vazquez, Benjamin; Lopez, Jessie; Phan, Thai; Bacerra, Phil; Penaloza,
David
Subject:Please reject item #25 prohibiting short term rentals
Attachments:Santa Ana Letter - CEQA - Final.docx (2).pdf
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
Please vote NO on item #25 and as the staff to study the issue and work with residents to establish a fair taxed
and regulated program that would benefit the city and the residents.
Thank you for your service,
The Alliance Group for taxed and regulated STR's
1
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
City Council Chamber
20 Civic Center Plaza M-30
Santa Ana,CA 92701
Re:April 15,2024,City Council Meeting –Ordinance Prohibiting STRs
Dear Mayor Amezcua and Honorable City Councilmembers,
Adoption of the Ordinance Would Violate the California Environmental Quality Act
If the City adopts the Ordinance without conducting any environmental analysis,as it is
positioned to do on April 16,this would violate the California Environmental Quality Act
(“CEQA”).Staff recommended that the City find the STR prohibition “is not subject to the
requirements of [CEQA]...pursuant to (Guidelines)Section 15060(c)(2)because the activity
will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment
and 15060(c)(3)because the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA
Guidelines ...because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment,
directly or indirectly and so is not a project.”(Staff Report,p.1 [emphasis added].)This
conclusion,without any further comment or explanation,is not supported any evidence or
reasoning in the record and is inconsistent with the goals and purpose of CEQA.(Davidon Homes
v.City of San Jose,54 Cal.App.4th 106 (1997).)California Supreme Court case law makes clear
that this type of ordinance is a “project”under CEQA requiring the City to conduct further
environmental review.(Union of Medical Marijuana Patients,Inc.v.City of San Diego,7 Cal.5th
1171,1197 (2019).)
The Ordinance is a “Project”Under CEQA
CEQA requires a local agency acting as the CEQA “lead agency”to engage in a three tier
analysis as to a proposed activity.(CEQA Guidelines §15060.)First,the lead agency determines
whether a proposed activity is subject to CEQA at all –whether it is a “project.”Under CEQA,a
“project”is an activity undertaken or funded by,or subject to the approval of,a public agency
that may cause “either a direct physical change in the environment,or a reasonably foreseeable
indirect physical change in the environment.”(Pub.Res.Code §21065;CEQA Guidelines §
15378.)“‘Project’is given a broad interpretation ...to maximize protection of the environment .
..Thus,‘[w]here it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in
question may have a significant effect on the environment,the activity is not subject to CEQA.’”
(Ctr.for Sierra Nevada Conservation v.Cnty.of El Dorado,202 Cal.App.4th 1156,1170 (2012).)
The determination of whether an activity is a project “is made without considering whether,
under the specific circumstances in which the proposed activity will be carried out,these
potential effects will actually occur.”(Union of Medical Marijuana Patients,Inc.,7 Cal.5th at
1197.)
Here,the Ordinance will result in direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes to
the environment.If the City bans STRs,guests will be forced to find transient accommodations
outside of City limits.By the City’s own count,there are approximately 1,000 STRs in Santa
Ana.(Staff Report,p.2.)Removing all of these existing STR accommodations from the centrally
located City will almost certainly change traffic patterns,as visitors to Santa Ana and the
surrounding areas will have to seek overnight accommodations elsewhere.This shifting of traffic
from within the City to other locations could have significant environmental impacts,including
increased vehicle emissions from people traveling further distances across Orange County to their
vacation destinations or temporary/transitory places of employment and residence.This could
result in air quality impacts to residents of Santa Ana and potential traffic impacts at new
locations.Other reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts include,but are not limited to,
increased greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the additional vehicle miles traveled,impacts
from increased construction of alternative overnight accommodations (hotels and motels)to
make up for the loss in overnight accommodations that STRs currently provide,and urban decay
if the ban ultimately results in homeowners being unable afford their homes and causes
businesses to shutter from the decline in tourism and transitory resident revenue.
A Recent California Supreme Court Case Confirms that the Ordinance’s Potential Impacts
Require Environmental Review
In Union of Medical Marijuana Patients,Inc.v.City of San Diego,7 Cal.5th 1171 (2019),the
California Supreme Court held that San Diego’s medical marijuana ordinance was a project under
CEQA because it was capable of causing indirect physical changes in the environment,including
changed traffic patterns.(Id.,at 1199.)The court noted that “restrictions on the siting of
dispensaries would require thousands of patients to drive across the City to obtain medical
marijuana.”(Id.,at 1182.)Potential changes to traffic and circulation were enough to require
CEQA review.(Id.,at 1200-01.)1 The court concluded that “[a]t this initial tier in the CEQA
process,the potential of the Ordinance to cause an environmental change requires the City to treat
it as a project and proceed to the next steps of the CEQA analysis.”(Id.,at 1200.)
As set forth above,the STR ban has the potential to result in several environmental impacts
(including changes in traffic circulation),but the City has to even consider those potential
impacts,rushing to conclude that the Ordinance simply is not a “project.”At the very least,the
City must proceed to step two of the CEQA decision making tree to determine whether an
exemption applies to the Ordinance,though we do not believe that an exemption applies gives
1 Fullerton Joint Union High School District v.State Bd.of Education,32 Cal.3d 779 (1982)provides another
example.There,the court found a school district secession plan “will change bus routes and schedules,and affect
traffic patterns.Although it is uncertain whether the total impact will be significant enough to require an
environmental impact report,it is clear that it is sufficient to require at least an initial study to inquire into the need
for such a report.”(Id.,at 794.);see also Rosenthal v.Bd.of Supervisors,44 Cal.App.3d 815,824 (1975)[“[T]he
adoption of each rezoning ordinance in the present case was a project within the meaning of [CEQA]...the trial
court herein erred in ruling to the effect that the adoption of each rezoning ordinance was proper and lawful,without
prior consideration and resolution of the environmental issue.”].)
2
the host of potentially significant environmental impacts described above.Given the impacts,we
think it is clear the City is required to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration or Environmental
Impact Report.
The City Cannot Adopt the Ordinance without Undertaking the Required Environmental Review
Once an activity is determined to be a “project,”the agency must decide whether the activity
qualifies for one of the exemptions that excuse otherwise covered activities from CEQA’s
environmental review.(Muzzy Ranch Co.v.Solano Cnty.Airport Land Use Com.,41 Cal.4th
372,380-381 (2007).)Then,assuming no exemption applies,the agency must undertake
environmental review of the activity.2(Ibid.)
Here,the City is incorrectly stopping environmental review of the Ordinance at the first step in
the CEQA decision making tree,finding without any supporting evidence that the Ordinance is
not a “project”because it “will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical
change in the environment”under Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2),and is not a “project”under
Guidelines Section 15378 because it “has no potential for resulting in physical change to the
environment,directly or indirectly.”(Staff Report,p.1.)This is not how CEQA works.The City
must find to a certainty that the ban will result in no possibility of significant environmental
impacts prior to determining the Ordinance is not a “project”under CEQA.(Davidon Homes,54
Cal.App.4th at 119-120.)Here,the City has failed to provide any evidence or reasoning in the
record to support its determination that the STR prohibition is not a project.
Although it is uncertain whether the Ordinance’s potential impacts will ultimately be significant
enough to require a full Environmental Impact Report (though,again,we think they will be),the
California Supreme Court has made it clear that the potential impacts of the Ordinance described
above require the City to conduct further environmental review to comply with CEQA.
Sincerely,
Santa Ana Short Term Rental Alliance (SASTRA)
Cc:Alvaro Nuñez,Acting City Manager
2 A lead agency must undertake in initial study to determine whether the project “may have a significant effect on
the environment.”(CEQA Guidelines,§15063(a).)If the initial study finds no substantial evidence of a significant
environmental effect,the lead agency must prepare a negative declaration and the environmental review ends,but if
the initial study identifies potentially significant environmental effects,but those effects can be fully mitigated by
changes in the project which the applicant agrees to,then the agency must prepare a mitigated negative declaration,
ending CEQA review.(Pub.Res.Code §21080(c)(1),(2);Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v.San Mateo
Cnty.Community College Dist.,1 Cal.5th 937,945 (2016).)If the initial study finds substantial evidence that the
project may have a significant environmental impact and a MND is inappropriate,the lead agency must prepare and
certify an Environmental Impact Report before approving or proceeding with the project.(Pub.Res.Code §
21080(b).)
3
Alcala, Abigail
From:Ginelle Hardy <ginelleann@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April
To:eComment
Cc:Vazquez, Benjamin; Valerie Amezcua; Penaloza, David; Phil Bacerra; Phan, Thai; Lopez,
Jessie; Nunez, Alvaro; Thai, Minh
Subject:Agenda item #25
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
I am in support of
agenda item # 25.
Ordinance Amending
the Santa Ana
Municipal Code
(SAMC) to add Article
XXI to Chapter 8 of the
SAMC Prohibiting
Short-Term Rentals
(Second Reading)
Ginelle Hardy
Heninger Park,
President
1
th
Santa Ana. Apil 12, 2024
From: Residence in Santa Ana City
Residence in Santa Ana city
To: City of Santa Ana Council
Subject: Complain about the ban on Short Term Rental business
Dear ladies and gentlemen,
_ Please allow me to briefly explain my situa?on. I am a single mother and have a 5-year-old daughter. I
used to work as a nail technician and went to work every day from 8 a.m. to 8 or 9 p.m. before returning
home to my child. My child was born prematurely (more than 6 weeks early). She is o?en weak, has a poor
appe?te, and has difficulty sleeping. Because I had to give up making a living all the ?me, I no longer had
?me to take care of my child, spend ?me with her, take her to school, go to the doctor, etc.
_ I had to find a way to live, and I decided to borrow money to build and renovate the house where I was
living, build a two-room unit, buy all the furniture and ameni?es, and rent it out on Short Term Rental.
These two rooms were right on the land, in my house's garden. This unit has a private yard, private garden,
and private path, surrounded by high walls, surveillance cameras everywhere, and a private parking lot.
_ I live in the same house for convenient monitoring and direct management 24 hours a day.
On the rental adver?sing network, I clearly state the rules:
1. The number of people coming to stay is no more than 5 people with one car. The car must be le? in the
private yard of the house (not taking up parking space in the residen?al area).
2. No guests other than those reported on the original booking, no large gatherings, no par?es, no music,
no noise.
3. Set arrival and departure ?mes.
The result is:
_ I can work at home and take care of my children. I directly manage it; there is no unfortunate incident
caused by the tenant. I received 5 stars from most of the votes and guests, with many compliments and
promises to come back in the future.
_ My house is located between Disneyland and the sea, near malls, markets, and parks, making it very
convenient for people from far away to travel here.
_ People traveling abroad and to other states o?en come to California more than other places. Our
business also plays a part in helping ci?es and residents grow economically and develop tourism while the
economy is generally in recession today.
_ At the end of the year, I filed a full tax return, and there was never any incident that disturbed local order.
_ In some other places, if there are complaints from neighboring residents in just a few isolated cases, we
should research some rules to prohibit or restrict them in places where there is no direct manager. 24/7,
and there is no owner at that address.
_ During the first mee?ng of the council on prohibi?ng this type of business, there was an opinion that
"there is currently a shortage of housing, these businesses should be used for housing," which is
completely wrong and very unfair. Two completely different fields. The government has its housing plans,
and in turn, there are buildings with many rooms to supply housing. We are self-reliant on development
despite countless difficul?es and are not a burden for the government to worry about. Then why is it
banned and why does it not permit us to con?nue to self-develop?
Dear ladies and gentlemen,
_ We have lived and strived seriously and successfully, with no unfortunate incidents occurring in the
process. Without disturbing local orders, I managed the business unit directly day and night, receiving
praise and sa?sfac?on from most customers, and giving them the highest scores.
_ We beg you to open your hearts and save honest, hard-working people, allowing me to con?nue doing
business, stabilize my life, gradually pay off my debt, and have ?me to raise my children. contribute to the
development of the tourism economy.
I pledge to tell the truth. We appreciate your ?me for listening and understanding our problems and
hopefully, you can reconsider the decisions.
Sincerely thank you.