Santa Ana City Council
November 19, 2024

Appeal Application No. 2024-01
Pursuant to Section 41-645 of the SAMC, the appellant is requesting that: (1) the City Council overturn the Planning Commission’s decision approving CUP No. 2022-06; (2) require all new and/or outstanding City of Santa Ana building permit deficiencies be resolved before further consideration of the proposed pavilion; and (3) that the HRC review all landmark/historical/mills act compliance deficiencies and identify actions required to bring the property back to original standard. Specifically, the appellant states that:

1. The structure will significantly exceed the existing six-foot high fence and it will be clearly visible from Santa Clara Avenue, despite existing planting and required plantings;

2. The approval of the CUP provides a dangerous precedent providing “tacit” permission to other residents (both within Floral Park and in other neighborhood within Santa Ana) to erect structures that may clearly fall outside the architectural compatibility of the historic neighborhood;

3. The existing accessory structures on the site and the proposed pavilion are not consistent with the Art Moderne style and detract from the historical designation of the home and the neighborhood as a whole;

4. The property owners have shown a proclivity to violate the statutory requirements of designation as an historical landmark as well as violating the SAMC;

5. The property owner’s use of the site as a cultural center (e.g., seasonal cultural gatherings, festivals, and tours) that bring high volume of cars and school buses; and

6. Questions whether the Planning Commission visited the site prior to approving CUP No. 2022-06 to view the property and surrounding homes and whether the Planning Commission gave any consideration of the recent designation of Floral Park as a National Historic District. Moreover, the appellant provides further questions about whether the owners will be held accountable for obtaining retroactive building permits for an ADU, as well as maintenance/upkeep of the “historically important home,” and how the City will monitor the site to ensure it is not being used as a cultural center.

The appellant does not provide any evidence to substantiate that the proposed project would adversely impact the community, pursuant to Section 41-638 of the SAMC.

Specifically, the appellant does not provide evidence that the project will be a detriment to the general wellbeing of the neighborhood or the community; detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity; would adversely affect the present economic stability or future economic development of property in the surrounding area; does not comply with the regulations and conditions specified in this chapter for such use; and would adversely affect the general plan of the city or any City Council 34 – 226 11/19/2024
Exhibit 6 - Response to Appeal Comments
Appeal Application No. 2024-01 for Maharajah House Moon Pavilion (2221 N.

Heliotrope Drive)
2 specific plan applicable to the area of the proposed use. Nevertheless, a comprehensive response on the appeal items previously outlined has been prepared.

Analysis of Appeal

1. Appellant Request: On behalf of ourselves and the many neighbors who communicated via writing and verbally at the hearing, we respectfully request that the approval on August 26, 2024 of CUP No. 2024-06 be rescinded.

Analysis of Issue: The appellant requests a rescission of the Planning Commission’s approval of the project with modified conditions on August 26, 2024.

A rescission of the Planning Commission’s approval on August 26, 2024, may be made by the City Council, subject to a majority vote in the affirmative to do so by Resolution of the City Council, following a public hearing.

2. Appellant Request: We request that all new and/or outstanding City of Santa Ana building permit deficiencies be resolved before further consideration of any additional projects are permitted on the property.

Analysis of Issue: The appellant’s request and the land use decision considered by the Planning Commission for the proposed structure are unrelated topics.

Moreover, new and/or outstanding projects requiring a building permit are subject to all City of Santa Ana municipal code requirements, including the zoning code requirements.

As noted in the staff report, the only “outstanding” building permit application is the property’s owner request to legalize previously unpermitted alterations to a onestory pool house/cabana in order to establish an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) on the property. The owner has taken necessary actions to complete the ADU process with the City. Specifically, the owner’s architects diligently worked with Planning staff to ensure that the preliminary building plans meet all of the City’s ADU ordinance requirements, prior to the plan check submittal. Moreover, the required building plans were formally submitted to the Planning and Building Agency (PBA) in May 2024, and all required application and plan check fees were paid. Building plan check corrections were issued to the property owner on July 2, 2024. The property owner’s ADU project remains in plan check and has not been approved for permit issuance.

City Council 34 – 227 11/19/2024
Exhibit 6 - Response to Appeal Comments
Appeal Application No. 2024-01 for Maharajah House Moon Pavilion (2221 N.

Heliotrope Drive)
3 To ensure that all required building permits are obtained in a timely manner for the development of the ADU, the Planning staff recommended a condition of approval as part of the Planning Commission resolution of approval stating the following:

Prior to any City building permits issued for the pavilion, the property owner shall obtain final City approval for any and all required building permits related to the conversion of an unpermitted structure into an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU).

Approval of the CUP shall become null and void if the required building permits for the ADU are not finalized pursuant to all City requirements within two calendar years.

The above-recommended condition ensures that the property owner obtains the necessary approvals for the construction of the ADU. If for some reason the ADU permit does not get issued, then the PBA would not issue a building permit for the proposed pavilion and the CUP would become null and void. Moreover, the matter would be referred to the City’s Code Enforcement Division to address the unpermitted alterations to the pool house/cabana. The property owner would be required to remove the unpermitted work and return the structure back to the original conditions.

3. Appellant Request: We request that The Historical Commission review all Landmark/Historical/Mills Act Compliance deficiencies and identify actions required to bring the property back to original standard.

Analysis of Issue: The property is listed as a Landmark historic property, Number 354 on Santa Ana Register of Historic Properties (“Register”). Pursuant to Chapter 30 (Places Of Historical and Architectural Significance) of the SAMC, listed historic structures (e.g., primary structure and/or accessory structures identified as contributing to historic nature) are protected from physical exterior alterations or modifications. The SAMC defines modification as, “Any change, alteration, restoration, remodeling, rehabilitation, construction, or relocation of the physical exterior of a historic structure.” Moreover, Section 30-6 (a) of the SAMC states that, “No exterior physical modifications, other than those identified by the historic resources commission for administrative approval by city staff, shall be permitted with respect to an historic structure until the historic resources commission approves such request at a duly noticed public hearing and issues a certificate of appropriateness.”
Recognizing the need to preserve and protect these listed historic structures, the SAMC also permits modifications (i.e., exterior alterations) that do not substantially City Council 34 – 228 11/19/2024
Exhibit 6 - Response to Appeal Comments
Appeal Application No. 2024-01 for Maharajah House Moon Pavilion (2221 N.

Heliotrope Drive)
4 change the character and integrity of the historic property. These are alterations that follow the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (“SOIS”) for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, & Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer, revised 2017). Moreover, Historic Resources Commission (HRC) Resolution No. 2006-01 outlines limited exterior physical modifications to historic properties that can be reviewed administratively by City staff. Examples include, but are not limited to, like-for-like repairs or replacements using the same material and style as the original; restoration of architectural features that are documented through pictorial evidence; on-site accessory structures (e.g., new detached garage, a shed, or a playhouse); etc.

In this case, the proposed structure is not physically altering or changing the exterior of the Maharajah House. Therefore, the proposed project is not considered a modification, as defined by Chapter 30 of the SAMC, and no additional review by the HRC is required for this project. Moreover, pursuant to the SAMC Sections 2-350.2 and 41-630, the proposed CUP is a land use application within the purview and review authority of the Planning Commission, not the HRC. a. Appellant Statement – Historical Compatibility: 2221 North Heliotrope Drive, “The Maharaja House.” Is historically significant due to its Art Moderne architecture as well as provenance – listed on the Register of Historical Properties, designated as a Landmark, associated with a foreign ruling family, and given a Mill’s Act Contract. Its Art Modern style fits in well with the varied styles that comprise the neighborhood and its style is multiple other Floral Park homes.

Analysis of Issue: Appellant did not provide a specific reason for an appeal in this subsection. Rather, the appellant stated a known fact about the historic significance of the subject property. Statement noted. b. Appellant Statement – Variance for Project Height: The 23’-4” height of the proposed new structure exceeds the City’s code for accessory height limits of 20’-0”. Because the structure will significantly exceed the approximate six-foot-high fence surrounding the property, it will be clearly visible from Santa Clara Avenue. Despite the fact that existing planting and added required plantings may hide the structure, nothing prevents future pruning of trees or re-landscaping at the sole discretion of the owners.

Of Significant Importance, the approval of the CUP provides a dangerous precedent providing tacit permission to other residents (both within Floral City Council 34 – 229 11/19/2024
Exhibit 6 - Response to Appeal Comments
Appeal Application No. 2024-01 for Maharajah House Moon Pavilion (2221 N.

Heliotrope Drive)
5 Park and in any other neighborhood within Santa Ana) to erect structures that may clearly fall outside the architectural compatibility of the historic neighborhood.

Analysis of Issue: Pursuant to Section 41-232.5 of the SAMC, accessory buildings more than fifteen feet in height, or more than one story, require approval of a CUP. The property owners are proposing an accessory structure with a total height of 23’-4”, triggering discretionary review and approval of a CUP by the Planning Commission. The purpose of regulating the height of accessory structures within single-family residential zones is to minimize impacts to surrounding areas and ensure the structures will provide a positive contribution to neighborhood character and identity. The height does not need a variance, as the height is permissible subject to approval of a CUP.

The proposed structure has been designed to be located away from adjacent properties to minimize the privacy concerns and visual impacts. By locating the structure towards the northeast end of the property, the design limits the potential impacts to the single-family properties along all elevations due the proposed setbacks (twelve and fifteen feet), the existing six foot high stucco wall, and existing mature landscaping ranging in height from twelve feet to 25-foot tall (e.g., mature tree and mature bamboo). In addition, the public right-of-way parkways are improved with mature oak trees along Santa Clara Avenue, which further help to minimize the privacy concerns and visual impacts of the proposed structure.

The existing landscaping and mature trees are not proposed to be removed or altered. To ensure that the existing landscaping conditions are maintained, the Planning Division recommends a condition of approval requiring that the trees be preserved and protected in place. Also included is a condition of approval requiring that the applicant plant additional bamboo behind the existing six-foot high stucco wall, to help screen any deficient areas. It's noted that the site will be required to maintain the existing and added landscaping while the pavilion remains on the site. If the property owner fails to abide by all conditions of approval, the CUP may be subject to revocation as outlined in Section 41-651 of the SAMC.

Lastly, the approval of the proposed structure is not a “dangerous precedent.” Future requests for similar structures will continued to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by the appropriate review authority, City Council 34 – 230 11/19/2024
Exhibit 6 - Response to Appeal Comments
Appeal Application No. 2024-01 for Maharajah House Moon Pavilion (2221 N.

Heliotrope Drive)
6 subject to the requirements outlined in Section 41-638 of the SAMC.

Moreover, any accessory structure, whether administrative or discretionary (i.e., requiring review and approval of the Planning Commission and/or City Council) is reviewed against the relevant development standards, City design guidelines, and historic compatibility (as appropriate). c. Appellant Statement – Architectural Compatibility: After several years of energy and expense, Floral Park was recently designated a National Historic District. Residents of this special neighborhood were drawn here because of the historic integrity of the homes and strive to maintain that integrity. With its historic status and storied history, The Maharaja House played a key role in obtaining the National Historic District status. The structure added in the past and the addition of this 23’-4” structure are not consistent with the Art Modern style and detract from the historical designation of the home and the neighborhood as a whole.

Analysis of Issue: The installation of the pavilion would not result in any physical alterations to the historic structure. As such, the historic Maharajah House will continue to retain all of its character-defining features. Moreover, the proposed structure would not impact any of the view sheds to the Maharajah House, along any public perspectives. The pavilion would be located approximately thirty feet to the east of the house, and approximately fifteen feet from the rear (east) property line, behind an existing six foot high stucco wall and behind existing mature landscaping (e.g., 25-foot tall mature tree and mature bamboo). Therefore, all views of the historic structure along Heliotrope Drive and Santa Clara Avenue would remain unimpaired.

A review of the developmental history of the Maharajah House’s back yard shows the area has continually evolved since the property’s original construction in 1938 and 1939. Available sources, including building permit records and historical aerial photographs, show there were no notable changes to the backyard until the late 1980s or early 1990s. In 1989, a permit was issued for the construction of a new six-foot-tall wall. While the location of the wall is not indicated in building permit information, a 1991 aerial photograph suggests the wall was then erected at its current location, tracing the north property line, approximately 10 to 20 feet north of the wall’s apparent historical location. By the time the current owners acquired the property in 2000, the back yard had already undergone substantial alterations to its plan and design. Since around 2003, when the property’s current owners received a permit to demolish the swimming pool, there City Council 34 – 231 11/19/2024
Exhibit 6 - Response to Appeal Comments
Appeal Application No. 2024-01 for Maharajah House Moon Pavilion (2221 N.

Heliotrope Drive)
7 began a program of major alterations to the backyard that included a general remodeling of the area and the installation of a handful of buildings and structures of historical and cultural interest imported from Vietnam.

Structures relocated from Vietnam to the back yard include a roughly 20- foot-tall wood pavilion with intricately carved details and a tile-clad roof system; a nineteenth-century, traditional residence with an iron wood structural system; and multiple additional smaller structures of a traditional Vietnamese character. The series of changes to the backyard described above, especially the introduction of the imported buildings and structures from Vietnam, have introduced new architectural and landscape elements with no apparent relevance to the original architecture of the property or to its significant historical associations with the Maharajah. As such, in its current condition, the backyard would be highly unlikely to contribute to the significance of the property, and the addition of a new pavilion would not affect the property’s continued eligibility as a Santa Ana Landmark or a contributor to the National Register-listed Floral Park Historic District.

Proposed changes, which would be confined to the back yard, also would not affect the historical integrity of the Floral Park Historic District as a whole. As proposed, bamboo would be planted near the north property line to obscure the proposed pavilion from view from the public rights-of-way on Santa Clara Avenue and Heliotrope Drive. While the new bamboo would be clearly visible from the rights-of-way, its appearance alongside the existing wall would be consistent with the internal setting of the Floral Park Historic District, which is characterized in part by its variety of landscaping. As stated in the National Register nomination form for the historic district, “Landscaping varies from building to building, but as this is a point of pride within the neighborhood, landscaping is of high caliber. The majority of properties feature shallow lawns, mature shrubs and flower gardens.

Perimeter fences, low walls, and hedges are usually present, and some are original to the property.” In addition, the pavilion and bamboo would be confined to an area corresponding to a very limited portion of the property’s northern frontage, approximately 100 linear feet. Because of the limited physical scale of the changes, the project would be partially visible only from very few public vantage points, further reducing its visual effects to the internal setting of the historic district.
d. Appellant Statement – Current Owner’s Intent and Actions: In addition, the owners of the Maharaja House have shown a proclivity to City Council 34 – 232 11/19/2024
Exhibit 6 - Response to Appeal Comments
Appeal Application No. 2024-01 for Maharajah House Moon Pavilion (2221 N.

Heliotrope Drive)
8 violate the statutory requirements of the designation as an historical Landmark property as well as violating Santa Ana Municipal Codes. These include:
i. The unauthorized replacement of the roof on the swim house in the backyard;
ii. The use of termite tenting to conceal the unauthorized removal and replacement of the iron casement windows original to the property; iii. Public voicing at large gatherings that their intent is that the property be designated a Vietnamese Cultural Site/Museum in the future.

Analysis of Issues:

Subsection “i”: A previously permitted one-story pool house/cabana (built in 1955) was significantly altered circa 2021. On May 4, 2022, Planning and Building Agency staff conducted a site visit/inspection of the structure after receiving a public complaint and confirmed the existent of unpermitted work.

Since then, the property owner has taken necessary actions to rectify the unpermitted work and come into compliance with all PBA building permitting requirements. These steps include meeting with the Building Office and senior planning staff to identify building and site deficiencies, submitting the required planning applications, plans, and fees, and officially submitting through the plan check process for permit issuance.

In May 2024, the property owners submitted required building plans to the Planning and Building Agency to legalize the unpermitted work, and convert the structure into an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) for a separate living space and storage. Building plan check corrections were issued to the property owner on July 2, 2024. At the time this report was printed, the property owner has yet to re-submit the building plans. The property owner’s ADU project is still in building plan check and it has not been approved for permit issuance.

Subsection “ii”: There is currently no authorized work on the site that has not already been addressed and there are no current open code enforcement cases for the subject property. Moreover, staff is unaware of any attempts by the property owner to replace iron casements windows in the manner that was suggested by the appellant.

On July 15, 2024, Planning staff conducted a follow-up site visit/inspection in order to ensure that no additional work had been constructed without the necessary City permits, and in order to provide more recent site photos to the Planning Commission. While staff did notice construction of two City Council 34 – 233 11/19/2024
Exhibit 6 - Response to Appeal Comments
Appeal Application No. 2024-01 for Maharajah House Moon Pavilion (2221 N.

Heliotrope Drive)
9 additional structures, these structures did not exceed 120 square feet in size (10 ft. by 12 ft.), and therefore did not require a building permit.

Subsection “iii”: Cultural and/or museum uses are not a permitted use in the single-family residential (R1) zone. Moreover, the use is not consistent with the underlying general plan land use designation of Low-Density Residential (LR-7).

To ensure that the proposed pavilion will not negatively affect the neighborhood character or identity, a condition of approval has been included prohibiting the use of the structure and the site for any commercial purposes, including but not limited to, tours, museum use, festivals, etc. The site will be required to remain and operate as a single-family residential site, or the conditional use permit may be subject to revocation as outlined in Section 41-651 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC).
e. Appellant Statement – Property Use and Traffic: As indication of the owner’s furtherance of the objective towards the re-characterization of this property as a cultural center – hence the continued addition of accessory structures to their property – they hold frequent/seasonal cultural gatherings/festivals and tours, often times with film and sound crews. On more than one occasion, multiple school buses from as far away as Huntington Beach have parked in front of the property as groups disembark for tours (see attached photos taken on March 14, 2024). As well, the several annual event/festivals (such as the Moon Festival on September 10, 2022) have brought a high volume of cars that line Heliotrope and Santa Clara, often times with no consideration for driveways of other homeowners.

Analysis of Issue: The PBA has no record of any registered complaints related to land use violations such as what the appellant has described.

Furthermore, cultural and/or museum uses are not a permitted use in the single-family residential (R1) zone. Moreover, the use is not consistent with the underlying general plan land use designation of Low-Density Residential (LR-7). Any use of the property in violation of the SAMC or the City’s General Plan would be subject to code enforcement action.

As it relates to the proposed CUP, and for added clarity, a condition of approval was added prohibiting the use of the structure and the site for any commercial purposes, including but not limited to, tours, museum use, festivals, etc., that the Planning Commission approved on August 26, 2024.

The recommended condition of approval reads as follows:

City Council 34 – 234 11/19/2024
Exhibit 6 - Response to Appeal Comments
Appeal Application No. 2024-01 for Maharajah House Moon Pavilion (2221 N.

Heliotrope Drive)
10 The pavilion shall remain a structure for private use and enjoyment by the private property owners, thereby preserving the community character. The pavilion shall not be designed or be intended for public access or viewing, or use by members of the general public. The use of the structure and the subject property shall be prohibited from use for commercial purposes, including but not limited to, tours, museum use, festivals, etc. The site will be required to remain and operate as a single-family residential site, or the conditional use permit may be subject to revocation as outlined in Section 41-651 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC).
f. Appellant Statement – City of Santa Ana Oversight: Did the Planning Commission visit the site prior to approving CUP No. 2022-06 to view the property and surrounding homes? Did the Planning Commission give any consideration to the recent designation of Floral Park as a National historic District? As stipulated below in the approval documents of CUP No. 2022- 06, will the owners be held accountable for obtaining retroactive building permits for the unpermitted ADU and changes made thereto, as well as for the appropriate maintenance/upkeep of the historically important home? This task is still incomplete and, therefore, this project should not be approved. As stipulated below in the approval documents of CUP No. 2022- 06, will the City monitor and ensure the home is not used for tours or as a functioning museum/cultural center where festivals for the public occur and what steps before the fact will be taken? What happens when there is an increase in traffic? A very similar situation is happening on Lampson Avenue in Garden Grove. Please contact your colleagues there as their residents have been battling this for five years.

Analysis of Issue: The public hearing and decision-making process require that the Planning Commission be provided with a complete public hearing agenda that includes, but is not limited to, a staff report and staff recommendation, including any relevant exhibits, a resolution of approval or denial, site photos, building plans, and any public hearing comments. The Planning Commission members are not required to visit or inspect a site prior to the public hearing. Planning Division staff provided a complete packet of materials as described above, including all relevant materials/information, including site photos, extensive background, project description, etc., for the Planning Commission to make an informed decision on the public hearing item.

Although the proposed CUP is a land use application within the purview and review authority of the Planning Commission, Planning Division staff did provide an extensive historical analysis, including a review of compatibility with the Floral Park National Historic District, which is included in Exhibit 3 of the staff report. Therefore, the Planning Commission did consider the recent national district designation, as it relates to their land use review authority.

City Council 34 – 235 11/19/2024
Exhibit 6 - Response to Appeal Comments
Appeal Application No. 2024-01 for Maharajah House Moon Pavilion (2221 N.

Heliotrope Drive)
11 The property owner has taken the necessary actions to rectify the unpermitted alterations and come into compliance with all PBA building permitting requirements. Building plan check corrections were issued to the property owner on July 2, 2024. At the time this report was printed, the property owner has yet to re-submit the building plans. The property owner’s ADU project is still in building plan check and it has not been approved for permit issuance.

Lastly, cultural and/or museum uses are not a permitted use in the singlefamily residential (R1) zone. Moreover, the use is not consistent with the underlying general plan land use designation of Low-Density Residential (LR-7). Any use of the property in violation of the SAMC or the City’s General Plan would be subject to the code enforcement action. A condition has been added to the approval prohibiting the use of the structure and the site for any commercial purposes, including but not limited to, tours, museum use, festivals, etc.

Remaining comments in Appeal Application No. 2024-01 are excerpts from the August 26, 2024, Planning Commission staff report. Therefore, this analysis acknowledges the included informational excerpts and concludes the appeal analysis with no further responses.

City Council 34 – 236 11/19/2024
Planning and Building Agency
www.santa-ana.org/planning-and-building
Item # 35
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Staff Report
November 19, 2024
TOPIC: Short-Term Rentals

AGENDA TITLE
Public Hearing – Conduct a First Reading and Adopt 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), and Adopt Enhanced Fines for Violations of the Short-Term Rentals Ordinance Published in the OC Reporter on November 8, 2024.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

1. Introduce for first reading an ordinance (OA No. 2024-04) amending the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) to repeal and reenact in its entirety Article XXI to Chapter 8 of the SAMC prohibiting Short-Term Rentals.

ORDINANCE NO. NS-XXXX entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING AND REENACTING IN ITS ENTIRETY ARTICLE XXI TO CHAPTER 8 OF THE SANTA ANA

MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITING SHORT-TERM RENTALS

2. Adopt a resolution setting administrative fines for violating provisions of the Santa Ana Municipal Code.

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XXX entitled A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA SETTING ADMINISTRATIVE FINES FOR

VIOLATING PROVISIONS OF THE SANTA ANA MUNICIPAL CODE

3. Find that, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), based on the substantial evidence set forth in the record, including but not limited to the General Plan Update Final Program Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2020029087) and the Addendum prepared for adoption of the proposed Ordinance and Resolution, the project is exempt from further environmental analysis. In the alternative, the adoption of the Ordinance and Resolution is categorically exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15301 – Class 1, Existing Facilities.

City Council 35 – 1 11/19/2024
Short-Term Rentals
November 19, 2024

GOVERNMENT CODE §84308 APPLIES: No

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
The recommended actions in this staff report will repeal and reenact in its entirety Article XXI to Chapter 8 of the SAMC prohibiting Short-Term Rentals (STRs) and establish enhanced fines for violations of the local short-term rentals ordinance.

On April 2, 2024, the City Council, at a regularly scheduled meeting, adopted an urgency ordinance (Ordinance No. NS-3060) and approved the first reading of a regular ordinance (Ordinance No. NS-3061) prohibiting STRs. On April 16, 2024, the City Council approved the second reading of the regular ordinance prohibiting STRs.

On June 17, 2024, the City was served with a petition for Writ of Mandate by the Santa Ana Short-Term Rental Alliance challenging the City’s STR ordinances on grounds including relating to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Case No. 30- 2024-01404861-CU-WM-WJC. (“Writ action.”)
To address deficiencies identified by the Writ action, it is recommended that the City Council adopt the draft Ordinance as presented in Exhibit 1 of this report.

Analysis
The proliferation of online vacation rental websites such as Airbnb.com and vrbo.com have encouraged and enabled property owners, tenants, and occupants to rent their local, residential properties on a short-term basis to travelers or transients. These STRs, generally numbering less than 30 days, are often associated with excessive noise, parking problems, trash, and degradation of a neighborhood’s residential character.

Data collected from various STR platforms reveals that there are more than 700 STRs currently operating in Santa Ana. These 700 STRs are advertised in 1,760 listings across multiple platforms. Areas like Downtown and its nearby neighborhoods, along with the Hutton Center area, have a higher concentration of these rentals. To put this in perspective, the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for 2021-2029 is 3,137 permanent housing units. The 700 short-term rental units represent about 22% of the City's housing needs, diverting a significant portion of available housing away from permanent residents. As a result of the reduction in available housing for permanent residents, the negative secondary effects including, but not limited to, excessive noise, parking problems, and trash, the ordinance is necessary as an emergency measure to preserve the public peace, health, safety, and welfare.

Presently, there are 227 confirmed active cases of STRs that have received enforcement notices and citations. Among these cases, 92 involve owners residing at the same address, while 131 involve properties owned by an LLC, managed by a property management company, or owned by absentee owners. Enforcement efforts in City Council 35 – 2 11/19/2024
Short-Term Rentals
November 19, 2024

the City have primarily relied on complaints and proactive notifications to major STR platforms.

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. However, in response to recent legal developments, this ordinance seeks to amend the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) to repeal and reenact ordinances prohibiting short-term rentals and expressly prohibit short-term rentals in alignment with the City’s current practice.

Resolution Setting Administrative Fines
As part of the recommended actions, staff is also recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution setting administrative fines for violating Santa Ana’s Short-Term Rental Ordinance. California Government Code Section 36900 enables local jurisdictions to increase the maximum fines for violations of local short-term rental laws.

The proposed resolution would establish fines for violations of local short-term rental laws ranging from:
• $1,500 for a first violation;
• $3,000 for a second violation within one year of the first violation; and • $5,000 for each additional violation within one year of the first violation.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the proposed action.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an addendum to the General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2020029087) (GPU EIR) has been prepared for the Repeal and Reenactment of the Short-Term Rental Prohibition Ordinance. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an addendum to a previously certified EIR shall be prepared when a lead agency is asked to approve modifications to an existing project for which an EIR has already been certified. The addendum (See Exhibit 1) evaluates the proposed project within the context of the GPU EIR and determined that no subsequent environmental review was required. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines, an addendum to the previously certified GPU EIR will be filed upon adoption of this ordinance.

In the alternative, the adoption of this Ordinance is categorically exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 – Class 1, Existing Facilities. Class 1 consists of the “operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, including negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.” The Ordinance reaffirms existing policy and practice, prohibiting short-term rentals within the City and the Ordinance would not result in a significant expansion of existing uses or former uses. The operational activities associated with the Ordinance would be City Council 35 – 3 11/19/2024
Short-Term Rentals
November 19, 2024

typical of residential development. No development, redevelopment, or change to existing development type in the City is proposed or required to implement the Ordinance.

Further, none of the exceptions to the exemptions set forth under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. There will be no significant cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time, as this is the only Ordinance prohibiting short-term rentals. There is no reasonable possibility that the Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances because it is reaffirming the existing prohibition on short-term rentals.

The Ordinance will not result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway, because the Ordinance does not propose any ground-breaking activity or construction, but instead continues the existing ban on short-term rentals. The Ordinance addresses a project type that is not located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The Ordinance will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Thus, the Ordinance also falls under the Class 1 categorical exemption, and no further environmental review is required.

EXHIBITS

1. Ordinance for First Reading

2. Resolution

3. Environmental Analysis Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Submitted By: Minh Thai, Executive Director of Planning and Building Agency Approved By: Alvaro Nuñez, City Manager
City Council 35 – 4 11/19/2024
Ordinance No. NS-XXX

ORDINANCE NO. NS-XXX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA,

CALIFORNIA, REPEALING AND REENACTING IN ITS ENTIRETY
ARTICLE XXI TO CHAPTER 8 OF THE SANTA ANA MUNICIPAL CODE

PROHIBITING SHORT-TERM RENTALS
WHEREAS, Article XXI of Chapter 8 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (“SAMC”), entitled “SHORT-TERM RENTALS” was adopted to preserve public peace, health, safety, and welfare by expressly prohibiting short-term rentals in the City of Santa Ana and to declare such uses as a public nuisance punishable under the SAMC; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to repeal and reenact Article XXI of Chapter 8 of the SAMC and make additional findings for its short-term rental prohibition; and WHEREAS, the proliferation of online vacation rental websites such as Airbnb.com and vrbo.com have encouraged and enabled City of Santa Ana (“City”) property owners, tenants, and occupants to rent their local, residential properties on a short-term rental (“STR”) basis to travelers or transients; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the SAMC to expressly prohibit STRs within the City, to reaffirm existing policy and practice, and to preserve the residential character of City neighborhoods and stem the negative, secondary effects caused by those uses; and WHEREAS, during the period beginning June 1, 2023 to the present, the Santa Ana Police Department (“SAPD”) has received more than 250 calls for service and approximately 80 complaints related to the negative secondary effects of STRs in Santa Ana residential neighborhoods including but not limited to excessive noise, excessive alcohol use, parking problems, and fighting. These conditions constitute a public nuisance, threatening public health and safety and degrading the residential character of homes and neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the City has limited police and staff resources, and these limited resources have been inordinately taxed by the need to respond to the calls for services and complaints related to the nuisance conditions created by STRs across the City; and WHEREAS, STRs also remove housing stock that could otherwise be available for longterm rental or for sale. Data collected from various STR platforms reveals that there are more than 700 STRs currently operating in Santa Ana. These 700 STRs are advertised in 1,760 listings across multiple platforms. The City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for 2021- 2029 is 3,137 permanent housing units. The 700 STRs represent about 22 percent of the City’s RHNA housing needs, diverting a significant portion of available housing away from permanent residents; and,
WHEREAS, historically, the City has prohibited STRs under a permissive zoning theory, meaning that those uses expressly listed in SAMC Section 41-190 of the Zoning Code (Chapter City Council 35 – 5 11/19/2024
Ordinance No. NS-XXX

41) are permissible and those not listed (including STRs) are prohibited, and this ordinance seeks to amend the SAMC to explicitly prohibit STRs in alignment with the City’s current practice and expectation, as well as compliance with recent court decisions that brought into question the City’s ability to rely on the aforementioned section of the Zoning Code in specifically addressing STRs through the Code Enforcement process; and
WHEREAS, failure to amend the SAMC to address aforementioned negative impacts will threaten the health and safety of Santa Ana neighborhoods and residents, and leave City staff powerless to uphold and maintain the quality of life in the City; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the City’s police power, as granted broadly under Article XI, section 7 of the California Constitution, and Santa Ana Charter section 200, the Santa Ana City Council has the authority to enact and enforce ordinances and regulations for the public peace, health, and welfare of the City and its residents; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is necessary for preserving the public peace, health, safety, and welfare to expressly prohibit short-term rentals within the City and to declare such uses as a public nuisance punishable under the SAMC; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing on November 19, 2024 to consider the first reading of this Ordinance.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Recitals. The recitals above are true, correct and each incorporated herein by reference and adopted as findings by the Santa Ana City Council (“City Council”) SECTION 2. Repeal. Article XXI (Sections 8-3400 – 8.3402) of Chapter 8 of the SAMC is hereby repealed in its entirety.

SECTION 3. Reenactment. Article XXI (Sections 8-3400 – 8-3402) of Chapter 8 of the SAMC is hereby reenacted in its entirety as follows:

ARTICLE XXI. – SHORT-TERM RENTALS
Sec. 8-3400. – Definitions.

The definitions set forth in this Section shall govern the application and interpretation of this Article:
(a) Home-sharing rental means the rental of a dwelling unit, or portion thereof, to a person or group of persons, for compensation whether monetary or otherwise, for lodging or sleeping purposes for a period of less than thirty (30) consecutive calendar days while at least one of the dwelling unit’s owners lives on-site, in the dwelling unit, throughout the visitors’ stay.

City Council 35 – 6 11/19/2024
Ordinance No. NS-XXX

(b) Short-term or vacation rental means the rental to a person or group of persons of a dwelling unit, or portion thereof, for compensation whether monetary or otherwise, for lodging or sleeping purposes for a period of less than thirty (30) consecutive calendar days without concurrently being occupied by the property owner.

Sec. 8-3401. -Prohibited.

It shall be unlawful for any person or entity to: offer or make available for rent (via advertisement on a short-term or vacation rental website or otherwise) or to rent (by way of a rental agreement, lease, sublease, license, via a short-term or vacation rental website, or any other means, whether oral or written) for compensation or consideration a home-sharing rental, short-term or vacation rental for less than 30 days, pursuant to a rental agreement, lease, sublease, license, via a shortterm or vacation rental website, or any other means, whether oral or written, for compensation or consideration, or maintain any advertisement of a home-sharing rental, short-term or vacation rental for less than 30 consecutive days.

Sec. 8-3402. -Violation; nuisance.

Any violation of this Article is unlawful, is hereby declared a public nuisance, and constitutes a misdemeanor punishable as set forth in Chapter 1 of the SAMC section 1-8. At the discretion of the City Attorney, a violation of this Article may be prosecuted as an infraction or misdemeanor.

In any civil action brought pursuant to this Article, a court of competent jurisdiction may award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 1-21, the City may issue an administrative citation for any violation of this Article. Such administrative remedy may be exercised in place of, or in addition to, any administrative, criminal, civil, or equitable remedy allowed by law.

SECTION 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions might subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 5. CEQA Determination. State CEQA Guidelines section 15164 requires lead agencies to prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions to the project are necessary, but none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR are present. The City Council has reviewed and considered the General Plan Update EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2020029087) (“GPU EIR”), the Addendum to the GPU EIR, and finds that these documents taken together contain a complete and accurate reporting of all the potential environmental impacts associated with this Ordinance. The City Council finds that the Addendum has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council further finds and determines that the Addendum reflects the City’s independent judgment.

City Council 35 – 7 11/19/2024
Ordinance No. NS-XXX

Based on the substantial evidence set forth in the record, including but not limited to the GPU EIR and the Addendum, the City Council finds that an addendum is the appropriate document for disclosing the changes to the GPU, and that none of the conditions identified in Public Resources Code section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15162 requiring subsequent environmental review have occurred, because the Ordinance does not change or alter in any way the existing land use designations City-wide set forth in the General Plan Update and analyzed in the GP EIR. No development, redevelopment, or change to existing development type in the City is proposed or required to implement the Ordinance. The buildout of housing had previously been analyzed within the scope of the GPU EIR, and the Ordinance would not result in additional development of housing within the City. Based on these findings, the City Council makes the following findings:
a) The Ordinance does not constitute a substantial change that would require major revisions of the GPU EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects.
b) There is not a substantial change with respect to the circumstances under which the Ordinance will be implemented that would require major revisions of the GPU due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects.

New information of substantial importance has not been presented that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the GPU was certified or adopted, showing any of the following: (i) that the modifications would have one or more significant effects not discussed in the earlier environmental documentation; (ii) that significant effects previously examined would be substantially more severe than shown in the earlier environmental documentation; (iii) that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects, but the applicant declined to adopt such measures; or (iv) that mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed previously would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but which the applicant declined to adopt.

The City Council approves and adopts the Addendum, attached hereto as Exhibit A.

The GPU EIR, the Addendum, and any other documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which these findings have been based are on file and available for public review at the Planning Division public counter located at 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701. The custodian of these records is the City Clerk of the City of Santa Ana.

In the alternative, the adoption of this Ordinance is categorically exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15301 – Class 1, Existing Facilities. Class 1 consists of the “operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, including negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.” Here, the Ordinance reaffirms existing policy and practice, prohibiting short-term rentals within the City and the Ordinance would not result in a significant City Council 35 – 8 11/19/2024
Ordinance No. NS-XXX

expansion of existing uses or former uses. The operational activities associated with the Ordinance would be typical of residential development. No development, redevelopment, or change to existing development type in the City is proposed or required to implement the Ordinance. Further, none of the exceptions to the exemptions set forth under State CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply. There will be no significant cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time, as this is the only Ordinance prohibiting short-term rentals. There is no reasonable possibility that the Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances because it is reaffirming the existing prohibition on short-term rentals. The Ordinance will not result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway, because the Ordinance does not propose any ground-breaking activity or construction, but instead continues the existing ban on short-term rentals. The Ordinance is not located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The Ordinance will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Thus, the Ordinance falls under the Class 1 categorical exemption, and no further environmental review is required.

A Notice of Determination and Notice of Exemption will be filed and posted with State Clearinghouse and the County Clerk within five working days of the adoption of this Ordinance.

SECTION 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after its adoption.

SECTION 7. Publication. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law.

ADOPTED this ___ day of __________________, 2024.
_______________________
Valerie Amezcua
Mayor
City Council 35 – 9 11/19/2024
Ordinance No. NS-XXX

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney
_______________________________
Brandon Salvatierra
Deputy City Attorney

AYES: Councilmembers: ________________________________________ NOES: Councilmembers: ________________________________________ ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: ________________________________________ NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers: ________________________________________ City Council 35 – 10 11/19/2024
Ordinance No. NS-XXX

CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, Jennifer L. Hall, City Clerk, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Ordinance No. NSXXXX to be the original ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on _________________, 2024.

Date: ________________ ____________________________________ City Clerk
City of Santa Ana
City Council 35 – 11 11/19/2024
Resolution No. 2024-XXX

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XXX

A RESOLUTON OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF SANTA ANA SETTING ADMINSTRATIVE

FINES FOR VIOLATING PROVISIONS OF THE

SANTA ANA MUNICIPAL CODE

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows:

A. California Government Code Section 53069.4 authorizes the City to make violations of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) subject to an administrative fine and penalty.

B. On September 21, 2021, Governor Newsom signed into law State Senate Bill 60 which amended California Government Code Section 36900 to increase the maximum fines for violations of local building codes and short-term rental laws.

C. SAMC Sections 1-21 through 1-21.9 set forth the administrative citation process, which provides for notice of the violation and the opportunity to contest the citation.

If the citation is continuing and pertains to building, plumbing, electrical, or other similar structural or zoning issues, and does not create an immediate danger to health and safety, the responsible person is provided sufficient time to correct the violation before a fine is imposed.

D. SAMC Section 1-21.3(a) authorizes the City Council to establish by resolution the amounts of fines associated with administrative citations.

E. The City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing on November 19, 2024 to consider this Resolution and the first reading of the accompanying Ordinance.

Section 2. The City Council hereby establishes the following fine amounts for administrative citations for violations of the SAMC:

The amounts of administrative fines shall be assessed as listed below:

A. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 36900(d)(1)&(2), and notwithstanding any other law, a violation of Article XXI of the SAMC related to short-term rentals determined to be an infraction that poses a threat to public health or safety is punishable by the following:

1. A fine not exceeding one thousand, five hundred dollars ($1,500) for a first violation.

City Council 35 – 12 11/19/2024
Resolution No. 2024-XXX

2. A fine not exceeding three thousand dollars ($3,000) for a second violation of the same ordinance within one (1) year of the first violation.

3. A fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000) for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one (1) year of the first violation.

B. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 36900(e), the citation recipient of a fine may request a hardship waiver pursuant to the process established by the Director of the City’s Planning and Building Agency.

Section 3. State CEQA Guidelines section 15164 requires lead agencies to prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions to the project are necessary, but none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR are present. The City Council has reviewed and considered the General Plan Update EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2020029087) (“GPU EIR”), the Addendum to the GPU EIR, and finds that these documents taken together contain a complete and accurate reporting of all the potential environmental impacts associated with this Resolution. The City Council finds that the Addendum has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council further finds and determines that the Addendum reflects the City’s independent judgment.

Based on the substantial evidence set forth in the record, including but not limited to the GPU EIR and the Addendum, the City Council finds that an addendum is the appropriate document for disclosing the changes to the GPU, and that none of the conditions identified in Public Resources Code section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15162 requiring subsequent environmental review have occurred, because the Resolution does not change or alter in any way the existing land use designations City-wide set forth in the General Plan Update and analyzed in the GP EIR. No development, redevelopment, or change to existing development type in the City is proposed or required to implement the Resolution. The buildout of housing had previously been analyzed within the scope of the GPU EIR, and the Resolution would not result in additional development of housing within the City. Based on these findings, the City Council makes the following findings:
a) The Resolution does not constitute a substantial change that would require major revisions of the GPU EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects.
b) There is not a substantial change with respect to the circumstances under which the Resolution will be implemented that would require major revisions of the GPU due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects. c) New information of substantial importance has not been presented that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the GPU was certified or adopted, showing any of the following: (i) that the modifications would have one or more significant effects not discussed in the earlier environmental documentation; (ii) that significant effects previously City Council 35 – 13 11/19/2024
Resolution No. 2024-XXX

examined would be substantially more severe than shown in the earlier environmental documentation; (iii) that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects, but the applicant declined to adopt such measures; or (iv) that mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed previously would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but which the applicant declined to adopt.

The City Council approves and adopts the Addendum, attached hereto as Exhibit A.

The GPU EIR, the Addendum, and any other documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which these findings have been based are on file and available for public review at the Planning Division public counter located at 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701. The custodian of these records is the City Clerk of the City of Santa Ana.

In the alternative, the adoption of this Resolution is categorically exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15301 – Class 1, Existing Facilities. Class 1 consists of the “operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, including negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.” Here, the Resolution is adopted in conjunction with existing policy and practice, prohibiting short-term rentals within the City and the Resolution would not result in a significant expansion of existing uses or former uses. The operational activities associated with the Resolution would be typical of enforcement of municipal ordinances. No development, redevelopment, or change to existing development type in the City is proposed or required to implement the Resolution. Further, none of the exceptions to the exemptions set forth under State CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply. There will be no significant cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time, as this is the only Resolution establishing the fines for short-term rentals. There is no reasonable possibility that the Resolution will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances because it is reaffirming the existing prohibition on short-term rentals.

The Resolution will not result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway, because the Resolution does not propose any ground-breaking activity or construction, but instead continues the existing ban on short-term rentals. The Resolution is not located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The Resolution will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Thus, the Resolution falls under the Class 1 categorical exemption, and no further environmental review is required.

A Notice of Determination and Notice of Exemption will be filed and posted with State Clearinghouse and the County Clerk within five working days of the adoption of this Resolution.

Section 4. This Resolution shall take effect on the effective date of Ordinance No.

NS-XXX, and the City Clerk shall attest to and certify the vote adopting this Resolution.

City Council 35 – 14 11/19/2024
Resolution No. 2024-XXX

ADOPTED this ____day of November, 2024
_______________________
Valerie Amezcua
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney
By:_________________________
Brandon Salvatierra
Deputy City Attorney
AYES: Councilmembers ________________________________________ NOES: Councilmembers _______________________________________ ABSTAIN: Councilmembers _______________________________________ NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers _______________________________________ City Council 35 – 15 11/19/2024
Resolution No. 2024-XXX

CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, Jennifer L. Hall, City Clerk, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2024- ______ to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on November ___, 2024.

Date: ________________ ____________________________________ City Clerk
City of Santa Ana
City Council 35 – 16 11/19/2024
Addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report for the Santa Ana General Plan
State Clearinghouse No. 2020029087
City of Santa Ana Short-Term Rental
Prohibition Ordinance
City of Santa Ana
Prepared for:

City of Santa Ana
Contact: Ali Pezeshkpour, AICP
20 Civic Center Plaza, M-20
Santa Ana, California 92701
Tel: 714.667.2793
Prepared by:

PlaceWorks
Contact: Malia Durand, Associate Principal
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Santa Ana, California 92707
714.966.9220
[email protected]
www.placeworks.com
City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
35 – 17 11/19/2024
City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
35 – 18 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA
Table of Contents
Page i
Section Page

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ......................................................................................... 1

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION ....................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING....................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION.......................................................................... 1

1.3.1 Environmental Analysis Findings........................................................................................................ 2

1.4 ADDENDUM FORMAT .................................................................................................................................... 5

2. CEQA REQUIREMENTS................................................................................................................. 7

2.1 CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15301 EXEMPTION ............................................................................ 7

2.1.1 Basis for CEQA Addendum ................................................................................................................ 9

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................. 13

3.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................................... 13

4. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS......................................................................... 15

4.1 AESTHETICS ...................................................................................................................................................... 15

4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ................................................................................... 16

4.3 AIR QUALITY ..................................................................................................................................................... 17

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................................................... 22

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................... 23

4.6 ENERGY ............................................................................................................................................................... 28

4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS.................................................................................................................................. 29

4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS............................................................................................................... 31

4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS......................................................................................... 33

4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................................................................................................... 35

4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING ...................................................................................................................... 37

4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES.................................................................................................................................. 38

4.13 NOISE.................................................................................................................................................................... 39

4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING .................................................................................................................. 42

4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES............................................................................................................................................ 43

4.16 RECREATION .................................................................................................................................................... 44

4.17 TRANSPORTATION......................................................................................................................................... 45

4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................................. 46

4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................ 47

4.20 WILDFIRE............................................................................................................................................................ 49

4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .................................................................................... 49

5. FINDINGS...................................................................................................................................... 51

6. LIST OF PREPARERS .................................................................................................................. 53 CITY OF SANTA ANA...................................................................................................................................................... 53 PLACEWORKS .................................................................................................................................................................... 53

7. REFERENCES............................................................................................................................... 55 City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
35 – 19 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA
Table of Contents
Page ii PlaceWorks
Figure Page
Figure 1 Regional Map......................................................................................................................................... 3

APPENDICES
Appendix A Proposed City of Santa Ana Short-Term Rental Prohibition Ordinance City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental Analysis
35 – 20 11/19/2024

1. Introduction and Background

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The City of Santa Ana (City) is in the western central portion of Orange County, approximately 30 miles southeast of the city of Los Angeles and 10 miles northeast of the city of Newport Beach. Santa Ana is bordered by the city of Orange and unincorporated areas of Orange County to the north, the city of Tustin to the east, the cities of Irvine and Costa Mesa to the south, and the cities of Fountain Valley and Garden Grove to the west (refer to Figure 1, Regional Map). In November 2019, the City annexed the 17th Street Island, a

24.78-acre area in the northeast portion of the city. The 17th Street Island is bounded by State Route 55 to the east, 17th Street to the south, and North Tustin Avenue to the west. The City also includes a portion of the Santa Ana River Drainage Channel within its sphere of influence (SOI).

1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City of Santa Ana is a 27.4-square-mile area developed with a variety of urban land uses. The Civic Center in Santa Ana is Orange County's main center of government. The Santa Ana River runs north to south through the northwestern part of the city. The city is a 99 percent built-out community in urbanized Orange County, bordered by a mix of land uses. The surrounding cities of Orange, Garden Grove, Fountain Valley, Costa Mesa, and Irvine all contain a variety of residential, commercial, industrial, and open space uses.

1.3 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
This Addendum relies on the environmental analysis in the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Santa Ana General Plan (GP). The original Program EIR for the GP was circulated for public review from August 3, 2020, through September 27, 2020, then extended for an additional 20 days through October 6, 2020.

A Final EIR was prepared and a Planning Commission Public Hearing held on November 9, 2020. The Planning Commission directed extended public outreach and modifications to the GP. A Recirculated Draft EIR (REIR) was prepared and circulated for public review mid-August 2021 to September 2021. A Final EIR was prepared and the 2021 Final EIR certified on April 20, 2022. The certified Final EIR for the GP is a consolidation of the original Draft EIR, the update Recirculated Draft EIR, and the Final EIR including Response to Comments and revisions to the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIRs to address public and agency comments and incorporate other updates. The REIR, the original Draft EIR, and the Final EIR are collectively referred to as “GP EIR.” These environmental documents are available on the City of Santa Ana website. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15148 and 15150, this Addendum incorporates the GP EIR (and its constituent parts) by reference.

City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
21 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

1. Introduction and Background

The GP EIR analyzed the comprehensive update of the Santa Ana General Plan (Approved Project). The GP EIR addressed the entire territory within the plan area’s boundary and the full spectrum of issues associated with management of the plan area. The General Plan also included forecasts of long-term conditions and outlined development goals and policies; exhibits and diagrams; and the objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals throughout its various elements. Specifically, the General Plan identified policies related to promoting compatible land uses, preserving neighborhood character, promoting healthy neighborhoods, and promoting the enforcement of standards.

1.3.1 Environmental Analysis Findings
The GP EIR addressed the potential impacts of the GP and provided mitigation measures, as necessary, for impacts determined to be potentially significant.

Two environmental categories were found to have no impacts:
 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
 Wildfire
The following environmental categories were found to have less than significant impacts upon implementation of General Plan policies, existing regulations, and standard conditions of approval: No CEQA mitigation was required for:
 Aesthetics
 Energy
 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
 Hydrology and Water Quality
 Land Use and Planning
 Mineral Resources
 Public Services
 Transportation
 Utilities and Service Systems
The following impacts were determined to be less than significant upon implementation General Plan policies, existing regulations, standard conditions of approval, and recommended CEQA Mitigation Measures:
 Biological Resources
 Geology and Soils
 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
 Tribal Cultural Resources
City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
22 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

1. Introduction and Background

Figure 1 Regional Map
City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
23 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

1. Introduction and Background

This page intentionally left blank.

City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
24 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

1. Introduction and Background

Implementation of the General Plan was determined to result in significant, unavoidable impacts, even with feasible mitigation, for the following categories:
 Air Quality
 Cultural Resources
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 Noise
 Population and Housing
 Recreation

1.4 ADDENDUM FORMAT
The Addendum is structured as follows:

Section 1. Introduction and Background. Summarizes the background and scope of analysis of the Addendum, previous environmental EIR incorporated by reference, and the format of the Addendum.

Section 2. CEQA Requirements. Describes the purpose of an Addendum per CEQA and associated environmental procedures.

Section 3. Project Description: Includes a description of the City of Santa Ana Short-Term Rental Prohibition Ordinance and further discusses the purpose of the Addendum to the EIR.

Section 4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts. Includes the analysis addressing each environmental issue analyzed in the certified EIR as compared to the potential changes in environmental impacts due to the proposed Ordinance
Section 5. Findings. Summarizes the findings of the environmental review and substantiates the preparation of an Addendum for the EIR.

City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
25 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

1. Introduction and Background

This page intentionally left blank.

City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
26 11/19/2024

2. CEQA Requirements

2.1 CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15301 EXEMPTION
This section is provided for informational purposes and provides a discussion of the Modified Project’s qualification for an exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1, Existing Facilities). The Class 1 Exemption consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of use.

Pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) Section 41-190(a), the Zoning Code (Chapter 41 of the SAMC) is a permissive ordinance, meaning that those uses expressly listed in the Zoning Code are permissible, and those not listed are prohibited. The SAMC does not and has never listed short-term rentals (STR) as a permissible use in any zoning district, making them prohibited and unauthorized under the enforcement practice afforded by Section 41-190(a). The City proposes an amendment to the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) to expressly prohibit short-term rentals within the city, to reaffirm existing law (SAMC Section 41-190[a]), and to preserve the residential character of city neighborhoods and stem the negative, secondary effects caused by those uses. Specifically, the City proposes the readoption of the Short-Term Rental Prohibition Ordinance that adds Article XXI (Section 8-3400 through 8-34002) to Chapter 8 of the SAMC to provide definitions related to short-term rentals, identify prohibited uses, and identify violations (herein “Modified Project”). The Modified Project qualifies for the Class 1 exemption as the Modified Project would not result in a significant expansion of existing uses or former uses. The Modified Project is reaffirming existing law. The operational activities associated with the Modified Project would be typical of residential development.

No development, redevelopment, or change to existing development type in the City is proposed or required to implement the Modified Project.

The Modified Project has been reviewed under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2, Exceptions, for any characteristics or circumstances that might invalidate the project’s qualification for an exemption from CEQA.

Each exception is listed below followed by a brief assessment of whether that exception applies to the Modified Project.
(a) Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6 and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project would be located—a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies.

City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
27 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

2. CEQA Requirements

This exception applies to the Class 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 exemptions. The project fits the Class 1 exemption, which is not location-dependent. Further the use can only occur within a dwelling that is already constructed, which means the requisite CEQA analysis has been completed and the project approved. Therefore, the location exception does not apply to the Class 1 exemption and further analysis is not required. (b) Cumulative Impacts. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.

No development, redevelopment, or change in existing development type is proposed or required within the City to implement the Modified Project. Therefore, the Modified Project would not combine with similar projects to create a cumulative impact during construction or operation. This exception does not apply to the Modified Project.
(c) Significant Effects. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.

The determination whether this exception applies involves two distinct questions: (1) whether the project presents unusual circumstances, and (2) whether there is a reasonable possibility that a significant environmental impact will result from the unusual circumstances. The lead agency considers the second prong of this test only if it finds that some circumstance of the project is unusual. Berkeley Hillside Preservation v City of Berkeley (2015) 60 C4th 1086, 1104.

Because the Modified Project is not dependent upon location, it presents no unusual circumstances or special environmental constraints that might lead to a significant impact. Additionally, there are no unusual circumstances because this Modified Project is implementing ongoing City practice and there are no new changes, physical or otherwise, that would occur as a result of the Modified Project. The city is urbanized. No construction, redevelopment, or change in existing development type is required to implement the Modified Project. Additionally, activities associated with the operation of the long-term rental uses under the Modified Project would not differ from the activities that occur under owner-occupied dwelling units within the city and would be consistent with the GP. Since no unusual circumstances would arise because of the Modified Project, there is no potential for a significant environmental impact to occur. This exception does not apply to the Modified Project.
(d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage in scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway.

There are no State designed scenic highways within the City. Additionally, no development, redevelopment, or change in existing development type is required to implement the Modified Project. Therefore, this exception does not apply to the Modified Project.

City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
28 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

2. CEQA Requirements

(e) Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.

As identified in Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the GP EIR, 425 hazardous materials sites were identified in the city but only 63 of the sites are open, meaning that assessment, remediation, and/or verification of remediation is required. Any development or redevelopment on or next to any of the 63 sites would require environmental site assessment by a qualified environmental professional (GP EIR p. 5.8-27). The Modified Project encompasses the city; no development, redevelopment, or change in existing development type is required to implement the Modified Project. The Modified Project would add Article XXI to Chapter 8 of the SAMC that would clarify the uses permitted and prohibited to reaffirm existing law identified in Section 41-190(a) of the SAMC. The Modified Project would apply to existing residential units and would not relocate uses nor locate new uses on a site identified on any list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. This exception does not apply to the Modified Project. (f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of historical resources. Under Public Resource Code Section 21084.1, a historical resource is a resource listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. Additionally, historical resources included in a local register of historical resources are presumed to be historically or culturally significant, and a lead agency can determine whether the resource may be an historical resource.

The Modified Project encompasses the city; no development, redevelopment, or change in existing development type is required to implement the Modified Project. The Modified Project would add Article XXI to Chapter 8 of the SAMC that would clarify the uses permitted and prohibited to reaffirm existing law in Section 41-190(a) of the SAMC. The Modified Project is not anticipated to result is a substantial adverse change in the significance of historical resources. This exception does not apply to the Modified Project.

2.1.1 Basis for CEQA Addendum
In addition to the Class 1 exemption, the City has also prepared this Addendum to the GP EIR. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15162 through 15164 set forth criteria for determining the required additional environmental documentation when a previously adopted Negative Declaration (ND) or a previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for a project for which a subsequent discretionary action is necessary.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) and 15163 state that when an ND has been adopted or an EIR certified for a project, no Subsequent or Supplemental EIR or Subsequent ND shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole public record, one or more of the following:

City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
29 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

2. CEQA Requirements

A. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or ND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

The Modified Project proposes to amend the SAMC to add Article XXI to Chapter 8 to clarify the uses permitted and prohibited to reaffirm existing law identified in Section 41-190(a) of the SAMC. No physical changes are required to implement the Modified Project. As discussed under Section 4, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts, of this EIR Addendum, the Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR. This criterion does not apply to the Modified Project.

B. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or ND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

No substantial changes have occurred in the City with respect to the circumstances under which the Approved Project was undertaken that requires major revisions to the GP EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effect or substantial increase in the severity of impacts previously identified in the GP EIR. This criterion does not apply to the Modified Project.

C. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the ND was adopted, shows any of the following:
i. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or ND; or
As discussed in Section 4 of this EIR Addendum, the Modified Project would not result in any new significant impacts not discussed in the GP EIR. This criterion does not apply to the Modified Project. ii. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previously adopted ND or previously certified EIR; or As discussed in Section 4 of this EIR Addendum, the Modified Project would not result in more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR. This criterion does not apply to the Modified Project. iii. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
As discussed in Section 4 of this EIR Addendum, the Modified Project would not require new mitigation measures and does not identify alternatives previously found not feasible to be feasible. Additionally, the Modified Project would not substantially reduce the significant impacts identified in the GP EIR. This criterion does not apply to the Modified Project.

City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
30 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

2. CEQA Requirements

iv. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous ND or EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

As discussed in Section 4 of this EIR Addendum, the Modified Project does not identify any mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerable different than those identified and analyzed in the GP EIR that would substantially reduce one or more of the significant impact identified in the GP EIR. This criterion does not apply to the Modified Project.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a) states that an addendum to a previously certified EIR may be prepared if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR have occurred. CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(b) states that an addendum to a previously adopted ND may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary.

The proposed Ordinance does not change or alter in any way the existing land use designations citywide set forth in the General Plan and analyzed in the GP EIR. No development, redevelopment, or change to existing development type in the city is proposed or required to implement the Modified Project. The Modified Project is consistent with the GP as analyzed in the GP EIR. As concluded in Impact 5.13.2 of the GP EIR, the GP “would provide more housing opportunities than currently exist” and the GP would not displace people and/or housing (GP EIR p. 5.13-14–5.13-15). The Modified Project would not construct new housing but would prevent the loss of existing housing stock for city residents. Congruently, the Modified Project would not displace people and/or housing, and would be consistent with GP Policy 2.3, Rental housing, and Policy 2.4, Diverse types of housing, as discussed within the GP EIR. Additionally, buildout of housing (including existing homes being utilized as STRs) had previously been analyzed within the scope of the GP EIR, and the Modified Project would not result in additional development of housing within the city. The anticipated environmental impacts of the Modified Project, as explained in this Addendum, have therefore been analyzed and mitigated in the GP EIR, and no new circumstances or significant changes since that time would result in new or more severe significant environmental impacts. As evaluated in the Addendum, mitigation measures in the GP EIR would continue to ensure that impacts are reduced to less than significant levels.

As such, CEQA does not require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. Further, the Addendum includes an Environmental Review Update Checklist Form (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines) that has been prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15164(e) to explain the rationale for determining that no further environmental review is required. Per State CEQA Guidelines section 15164(c), an Addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the certified EIR.

City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
31 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

2. CEQA Requirements

This page intentionally left blank.

City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
32 11/19/2024

3. Project Description

3.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Section 41-190(a) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code is a permissive ordinance, meaning that those uses expressly listed in the Zoning Code are permissible, and those not listed are prohibited. The SAMC does not and has never listed short-term rentals as a permissible use in any zoning district. As such STRs are prohibited and unauthorized under the enforcement practice afforded by Section 41-190(a).

The Santa Ana City Council is proposing to readopt an amendment to add Article XXI (Sections 8-3400 to 8-3402) to SAMC to expressly prohibit short-term rentals within the city (Modified Project). This would nullify and replace the terms of the urgency ordinance No. NS-3060 and standard ordinance No. NS-3061, adopted on April 2, 2024 and April 16, 2024.

Modified Project Components
The Modified Project would add Article XXI (Short-Term-Rentals) (Sections 8-3400–8-3402) to Chapter 8, Building and Standards, of the SAMC. Specifically, Article XXI would include Sections 8-3400 through 8-3402 to provide definitions, identify prohibited uses, and identify violations of the Article. A description of each new section of Article XXI is provided in Attachment A of this EIR Addendum. Concurrently, the City Council is proposing to adopt a resolution to set administrative fines for violations of local building codes and shortterm rental laws, pursuant to Government Code Section 36900 and Santa Ana Municipal Code Sections 1-21 through 1-21.9.

City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
33 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

3. Project Description

This page intentionally left blank.

City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
34 11/19/2024

4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, the following analysis addresses each of the environmental issues analyzed in the GP EIR as compared to the potential changes in environmental impacts due to the Modified Project.

4.1 AESTHETICS
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:

AE-1 Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? AE-2 Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
AE-3 In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? AE-4 Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR
As discussed in Section 5.1, Aesthetics, of the GP EIR, the city is highly urbanized, and views of the city are characterized by an urban landscape. The Approved Project would alter the visual appearance of the existing conditions to a visually denser urban setting and alter Santa Ana’s skyline. However, it would not create a substantially adverse impact on scenic vistas nor degrade the city’s visual character or quality. Adherence with existing State and local regulations and the GP policies would ensure that future development in Santa Ana would not degrade the views and visual character of the city and would not conflict with zoning and other regulations that govern scenic quality. The GP EIR concluded impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR p. 5.1-30).

No state scenic highways, eligible or officially designated, traverse the city nor are located near the city. The GP EIR concluded that no impacts to scenic resources within state scenic highways would occur (GP EIR p.

5.1-31).

Additionally, the Approved Project will generate new and intensify sources of light and glare. With adherence to the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24, City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
35 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations) as amended by the Santa Ana Municipal Code Chapter 8, Article II, impacts would be minimized and impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR p. 5.1-32).

Analysis of the Modified Project
The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs. The Modified Project would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city. Additionally, the existing conditions for aesthetics and aesthetics resources have not changed since the certification of the GP EIR; the city is considered highly urbanized with views characterized by an urban landscape; and no state scenic highways, eligible or officially designated, traverse the city nor are located near the city (GP EIR p.5.1-20–5.1-32; Caltrans 2024).

The Modified Project is not anticipated to result in any physical impacts on the environment. The Modified Project would not result in any new sources of artificial light or glare. No impact would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR.

The GP EIR Regulatory Requirement (RR) AE-1 through AE-3 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project is not a development project. Additionally, the Modified Project would not obstruct the City’s ability to implement applicable GP policies.

4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:

AG-1 Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? AG-2 Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? AG-3 Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
AG-4 Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? AG-5 Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR
As discussed in Section 8.1, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, of the GP EIR the Approved Project would allow for the development of a mix of uses within highly urbanized areas of the city. Additionally, the city is nearly built out and does not contain any significant agricultural resources, nor does the city contain any land City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
36 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

subject to the Williamson Act Contract. Furthermore, the city does not contain any land zoned for forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland production. Therefore, the GP would have no impact on agricultural and forest resources (GP EIR p. 8-1–8.2).

Analysis of the Modified Project
The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. The Modified Project would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the City. The Modified Project is not anticipated to result in any physical impacts on the environment. Additionally, the existing conditions for agriculture and forest resources have not changed since the certification of the GP EIR.

No impacts would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR.

4.3 AIR QUALITY
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:

AQ-1 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? AQ-2 Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? AQ-3 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? AQ-4 Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR
As discussed in detail in Section 5.2, Air Quality, of the GP EIR, the Approved Project would exceed population estimates used in the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), and emissions associated with the additional population were not included in the regional emissions inventory for the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB).

Additionally, air pollutant emissions associated with the buildout of the Approved Project would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations in the SoCAB (GP EIR p. 5.2-30). The GP EIR identified mitigation measures (MM) AQ-1 and AQ-2 to reduce impacts related to construction and operational emissions. The GP EIR determined that with the implementation of mitigation measures, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

The Approved Project would result in construction emissions that would exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) thresholds (GP EIR p. 5.2-31). The buildout of the Approved Project could exceed the South Coast AQMD regional emissions threshold under operational conditions (GP EIR p. 5.2-34).

The GP EIR determined that with the implementation of MMs AQ-1 and AQ-2, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
37 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

The Approved Project would result in new land uses that could generate new sources of toxic air contaminants (TAC) in the City from area/stationary sources and mobile sources. The GP EIR identified that the new land uses consistent with the Approved Project would generate new sources of TACs from area/stationary sources and mobile sources (GP EIR p. 5.2-37). The GP EIR identified MMs AQ-1 through AQ-3 to reduce impacts to sensitive receptors due to construction and operational activities (MM AQ-1 and AQ-2) and specifically industrial development project operation activities (MM AQ-3). The GP EIR determined that with the implementation of mitigation measures impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

The Approved Project could generate potentially significant odor impacts for a substantial number of people generated from industrial land uses associated with the Approved Project. The GP EIR concluded that potential odors generated from residential and other non-residential land uses associated with the Approved Project would not result in potential significant odors (GP EIR p. 5.2-28). The GP EIR identified mitigation measure MM AQ-4 to reduce impacts related to operational odors due to industrial development. The GP EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation.

The GP EIR Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ -4 are reproduced below. Modifications to the GP EIR Mitigation Measures associated with the recirculation of the GP EIR are represented in underline for additions and strikeout for deletions.

AQ-1 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., non-exempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology for assessing air quality impacts. If constructionrelated criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD’s adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Santa Ana shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities. These identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City. Mitigation measures to reduce construction-related emissions could include, but are not limited to:
 Require fugitive-dust control measures that exceed South Coast AQMD’s Rule 403, such as:
• Use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion. • Apply water every four hours to active soil-disturbing activities. • Tarp and/or maintain a minimum of 24 inches of freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials.

City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
38 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

 Use construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 3 (model year 2006 or newer) or Tier 4 (model year 2008 or newer) emission limits, applicable for engines between 50 and 750 horsepower.  Ensure that construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards.
 Limit nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five consecutive minutes.
 Limit on-site vehicle travel speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.  Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the project area.
 Use Super-Compliant VOC paints for coating of architectural surfaces whenever possible.

A list of Super-Compliant architectural coating manufactures can be found on the South Coast AQMD’s website.

AQ-2 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., non-exempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operation phase-related air quality impacts to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval.

The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If operationrelated air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD’s adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Santa Ana shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions could include, but are not limited to the following:
 For site-specific development that requires refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service connections at loading docks for plug-in of the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce idling time and emissions.
 Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy storage and combined heat and power in appropriate applications to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use.
 Site-specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and truck parking spaces shall include signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked for loading/unloading in accordance with California Air Resources Board Rule 2845 (13 CCR Chapter 10 § 2485).

City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
39 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

 Provide changing/shower facilities as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 of the CALGreen Code (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures).
 Provide bicycle parking facilities per Section A4.106.9 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code and Sec. 41-1307.1 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code.  Provide preferential parking spaces for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles per Section A5.106.5.1 of the CALGreen Code (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures).
 Provide facilities to support electric charging stations per Section A5.106.5.3 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) and Section A5.106.8.2 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code.
 Applicant-provided appliances (e.g., dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers) shall be Energy Star–certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency. Installation of Energy Star–certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by Building & Safety during plan check.
 Applicants for future development projects along existing and planned transit routes shall coordinate with the City of Santa Ana and Orange County Transit Authority to ensure that bus pad and shelter improvements are incorporated, as appropriate.

AQ-3 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana, project applicants for new industrial or warehousing development projects that 1) have the potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel-powered transport refrigeration units, and 2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, or nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of Santa Ana for review and approval. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk and/or noncancer hazard index exceed the respective thresholds, as established by the South Coast AQMD at the time a project is considered, the project applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that best available control technologies for toxics (T-BACTs), including appropriate enforcement mechanisms, are capable of reducing potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable level. T-BACTs may include, but are not limited to, restricting idling on-site, electrifying warehousing docks to reduce diesel particulate matter, or requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles. T BACTs identified in the HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or incorporated into the site plan.

AQ-4 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Santa Ana, if it is determined that a development project has the potential to emit nuisance odors beyond the property line, an odor management plan shall be prepared by the project applicant and submitted to the City of Santa City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
40 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Ana for review and approval. Facilities that have the potential to generate nuisance odors include, but are not limited to:
 Wastewater treatment plants
 Composting, green waste, or recycling facilities
 Fiberglass manufacturing facilities
 Painting/coating operations
 Large-capacity coffee roasters
 Food-processing facilities
The odor management plan shall demonstrate compliance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 402 for nuisance odors. The Odor Management Plan shall identify the best available control technologies for toxics (T-BACTs) that will be utilized to reduce potential odors to acceptable levels, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. T-BACTs may include but are not limited to scrubbers (i.e., air pollution control devices) at the industrial facility. T-BACTs identified in the odor management plan shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document prepared for the development project and/or incorporated into the project’s site plan.

Analysis of the Modified Project
The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. The Modified Project would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the City. The existing conditions related to air quality have not changed since the certification of the GP EIR.

Operational activities associated with long-term rentals and permanent residences would be consistent with the operational activities analyzed in the GP EIR for residential uses. Increases in impacts to air quality, are based on construction of new structures generating new vehicle trips or population growth. The Modified Project would only affect existing structures, would not induce population growth, and therefore there would be no change in air quality impacts beyond those identified the GP EIR, which analyzed impacts from buildout of the GP. The Modified Project would not result in any physical impacts on the environment or impacts associated with air quality. No impacts would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR.

GP EIR RR AQ-1 through RR AQ-3 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project does not require construction. The Modified Project would not obstruct the City’s ability to implement applicable GP policies.

GP EIR MMs AQ-1, AQ-2, and AQ-4 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project is not a development project. MM AQ-3 is not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project does not propose new industrial or warehousing development.

City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
41 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:

BIO-1 Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
BIO-2 Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
BIO-3 Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
BIO-4 Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
BIO-5 Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
BIO-6 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR
As discussed in Section 5.3, Biological Resources, of the GP EIR the Approved Project would allow development within the City’s SOI, and five special status species have the potential to exist in the region (GP EIR p. 5.3-17–20). The Approved Project would change the land use designation on certain parcels for development, however, none of the parcels currently have sensitive vegetation. Future development sitespecific analysis would be required for development and could reveal unknown biological resources (GP EIR p. 5.3-20). The GP EIR determined that with implementation of MM BIO-1 and applicable GP policies and compliance with RR B-1 through RR B-5, a less than significant impact on riparian or other sensitive natural communities would occur.

The Approved Project would not impact wetlands and jurisdictional waters because the GP would not change land use designations of the Santa Ana River, Santiago Creek, and channels; thus, a less than significant impact would occur (GP EIR p. 5.3-20).

The GP EIR determined that the Approved Project would intensify development within the city, which could impact wildlife movement (GP EIR p. 5.3-20–5.3-21). Buildout of the Approved Project could affect wildlife City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
42 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

movement, nesting sites, and migratory birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as state law.

However, with the implementation of MM BIO-1 and applicable GP policies and compliance with RR B-2, the GP EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant.

The city is not within a Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) or Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) (GP EIR p. 5.3-21). Future development would be required to adhere to local, State, and federal laws and regulations governing the protection and preservation of wildlife, plants, and habitat. With adherence to local, State, and federal laws and regulations and because the city is not within an adopted NCCP/HCP area, impacts would be less than significant.

GP EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is reproduced here.

BIO-1 For development or redevelopment projects that would disturb vegetated land or major stream and are subject to CEQA, a qualified biologist shall conduct an initial screening to determine whether a site-specific biological resource report is warranted. If needed, a qualified biologist shall conduct a field survey for the site and prepare a biological resource assessment for the project, including an assessment of potential impacts to sensitive species, habitats, and jurisdictional waters. The report shall recommend mitigation measures, as appropriate, to avoid or limit potential biological resource impacts to less than significant.

Analysis of the Modified Project
The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. The Modified Project would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city.

Additionally, the existing conditions related to biological resources have not changed since the certification of the GP EIR. The Modified Project is not anticipated to result in physical impacts on the environment. No impacts would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR.

GP EIR RR B-1 through RR B-5 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project does not require construction. The Modified Project would not obstruct the City’s ability to implement applicable GP policies.

It should be noted that GP EIR MM BIO-1 is not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project is not a development project

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:

CUL-1 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
43 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

CUL-2 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
CUL-3 Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR
As discussed in detail in Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, of the GP EIR, the city contains historical resources since its building stock is at least 45 years old. Implementation of development projects under the Approved Project have the potential to impact historical resources in the city. The GP EIR identified MMs CUL-1 through CUL-3 to reduce impacts related to historic resources. With compliance with RRs CUL-1 through CUL-6 and implementation of applicable GP policies and MM CUL-1 through CUL-3, the GP EIR determined that impacts would remain significant and unavoidable (GP EIR p. 5.4-26).

The GP EIR determined that eight archeological resources were recorded in the city, including four prehistoric sites, one multicomponent site, and three historic isolates. The GP EIR determined that development involving ground disturbance within the city has the potential to impact known and unknown archaeological resources.

The GP EIR identified MMs CUL-4 through CUL-6 to reduce impacts due to ground disturbance activities on cultural resources. With compliance with RR CUL-1 and implementation of applicable GP policies and MM CUL-4 through CUL-7, the GP EIR determined that impacts would remain significant and unavoidable (GP EIR p. 5.4-27).

The GP EIR determined that development in accordance with the Approved Project would be limited to infill files and previously disturbed land within an urban development; however, there is low potential for implementing development projects to encounter human remains. The Approved Project would be required to comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. With compliance with RR CUL-1, the GP EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR p. 5.4-27–5.4- 28).

The GP EIR Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-7 are reproduced below. Modifications to the GP EIR Mitigation Measures associated with the recirculation of the GP EIR are represented in underline for additions and strikeout for deletions.

CUL-1 Identification of Historical Resources and Potential Project Impacts. For structures 45 years or older, a Historical Resources Assessment (HRA) shall be prepared by an architectural historian or historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards. The HRA shall include: definition of a study area or area of potential effect, which will encompass the affected property and may include surrounding properties or historic district(s); an intensive level survey of the study area to identify and evaluate under federal, State, and local criteria significance historical resources that might be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed project; and an assessment of project impacts. The HRA shall satisfy federal and State guidelines for the identification, evaluation, and recordation of historical resources. An HRA is not required if an existing historic resources survey and evaluation of City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
44 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

the property is available; however, if the existing survey and evaluation is more than five years old, it shall be updated.

CUL-2 Use of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties shall be used to the maximum extent practicable to ensure that projects involving the relocation, conversion, rehabilitation, or alteration of a historical resource and its setting or related new construction will not impair the significance of the historical resource. Use of the Standards shall be overseen by an architectural historian or historic architect meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards. Evidence of compliance with the Standards shall be provided to the City in the form of a report identifying and photographing character-defining features and spaces and specifying how the proposed treatment of character-defining features and spaces and related construction activities will conform to the Standards. The Qualified Professional shall monitor the construction and provide a report to the City at the conclusion of the project. Use of the Secretary’s Standards shall reduce the project impacts on historical resources to less than significant.

CUL-3 Documentation, Education, and Memorialization. If the City determines that significant impacts to historical resources cannot be avoided, the City shall require, at a minimum, that the affected historical resources be thoroughly documented before issuance of any permits and may also require additional public education efforts and/or memorialization of the historical resource. Though demolition or alteration of a historical resource such that its significance is materially impaired cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, recordation of the resource will reduce significant adverse impacts to historical resources to the maximum extent feasible. Such recordation should be prepared under the supervision of an architectural historian, historian, or historic architect meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards and should take the form of Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) documentation. At a minimum, this recordation should include an architectural and historical narrative; archival photographic documentation; and supplementary information, such as building plans and elevations and/or historic photographs. The documentation package should be reproduced on archival paper and should be made available to researchers and the public through accession by appropriate institutions such as the Santa Ana Library History Room, the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton, and/or the HABS collection housed in the Library of Congress. Depending on the significance of the adversely affected historical resource, the City, at its discretion, may also require public education about the historical resource in the form of an exhibit, web page, brochure, or other format and/or memorialization of the historical resource on or near the proposed project site. If memorialized, such memorialization shall be a permanent installation, such as a mural, display, or other vehicle that recalls the location, appearance, and historical significance of the affected historical resource, and shall be designed in conjunction with a qualified architectural historian, historian, or historic architect.

City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
45 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

CUL-4 For projects with ground disturbance—e.g., grading, excavation, trenching, boring, or demolition that extend below the current grade—prior to issuance of any permits required to conduct ground-disturbing activities, the City shall require an Archaeological Resources Assessment be conducted under the supervision of an archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professionally Qualified Standards in either prehistoric or historic archaeology.

Assessments shall include a California Historical Resources Information System records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center and of the Sacred Land Files maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission. The records searches will determine if the proposed project area has been previously surveyed for archaeological resources, identify and characterize the results of previous cultural resource surveys, and disclose any cultural resources that have been recorded and/or evaluated. If unpaved surfaces are present within the project area, and the entire project area has not been previously surveyed within the past 10 years, a Phase I pedestrian survey shall be undertaken in proposed project areas to locate any surface cultural materials that may be present.

CUL-5 If potentially significant archaeological resources are identified, and impacts cannot be avoided, a Phase II Testing and Evaluation investigation shall be performed by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to determine significance prior to any ground-disturbing activities. If resources are determined significant or unique through Phase II testing, and site avoidance is not possible, appropriate site-specific mitigation measures shall be undertaken. These might include a Phase III data recovery program implemented by a qualified archaeologist and performed in accordance with the Office of Historical Preservation’s “Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR):

Recommended Contents and Format” (OHP 1990) and “Guidelines for Archaeological Research Designs” (OHP 1991).

CUL-6 If the archaeological assessment did not identify archaeological resources but found the area to be highly sensitive for archaeological resources, and a Native American monitor approved by a California Native American Tribe identified by the Native American Heritage Commission as culturally affiliated with the project area shall monitor all ground-disturbing construction and pre-construction activities in areas of high sensitivity. The archaeologist shall inform all construction personnel prior to construction activities of the proper procedures in the event of an archaeological discovery. The training shall be held in conjunction with the project’s initial on-site safety meeting and shall explain the importance and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. The Native American monitor shall be invited to participate in this training. In the event that archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are exposed during ground-disturbing activities, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be halted while the resources are evaluated for significance by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary’s Standards. This will include tribal consultation and coordination with the Native American monitor in the case of a prehistoric archaeological resource or tribal resource. If the discovery proves to be significant, the longCity Council Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
46 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

term disposition of any collected materials should be determined in consultation with the affiliated tribe(s), where relevant; this could include curation with a recognized scientific or educational repository, transfer to the tribe, or respectful reinternment in an area designated by the tribe. a qualified archaeologist shall monitor all ground-disturbing construction and preconstruction activities in areas with previously undisturbed soil. The archaeologist shall inform all construction personnel prior to construction activities of the proper procedures in the event of an archaeological discovery. The training shall be held in conjunction with the project’s initial on-site safety meeting and shall explain the importance and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. In the event that archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are exposed during ground-disturbing activities, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be halted while the resources are evaluated for significance by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary’s Standards, and tribal consultation shall be conducted in the case of a tribal resource. If the discovery proves to be significant, the long-term disposition of any collected materials should be determined in consultation with the affiliated tribe(s), where relevant; this could include curation with a recognized scientific or educational repository, transfer to the tribe, or respectful reinternment in an area designated by the tribe.

CUL-7 If an Archaeological Resources Assessment does not identify potentially significant archaeological resources but the site has moderate sensitivity for archaeological resources (Mitigation Measure CUL-4), an archaeologist who meets the Secretary’s Standards shall be retained on call. The archaeologist shall inform all construction personnel prior to construction activities about the proper procedures in the event of an archaeological discovery.

The pre-construction training shall be held in conjunction with the project’s initial on-site safety meeting and shall explain the importance and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. In the event that archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are exposed during ground-disturbing activities, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be halted while the on-call archaeologist is contacted. The resource shall be evaluated for significance and tribal consultation shall be conducted, in the case of a tribal resource. If the discovery proves to be significant, the long-term disposition of any collected materials should be determined in consultation with the affiliated tribe(s), where relevant.

Analysis of the Modified Project
The Modified Project expressly prohibits STRs and only affects existing structures. The Modified Project would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city; construction activities would not occur under the Modified Project. Additionally, the existing conditions related to cultural resources have not changed since the certification of the GP EIR. The Modified Project is not anticipated to result in any physical impacts on the environment. Thus, the Modified Project would not impact historical resources or archeological resources or disturb human remains. No impacts would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR.

City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
47 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

The GP EIR RRs CUL-1 through CUL-6 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project does not include any construction activities which have the potential to impact historical resources, archeological resources, and human remains. The Modified Project would not obstruct the City’s ability to implement applicable GP policies.

The GP EIR MMs CUL-1 though CUL-7 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project is not a development project.

4.6 ENERGY
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:

EN-1 Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? EN-2 Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR
As discussed in detail in Section 5.5, Energy, of the GP EIR, the Approved Project, with compliance with RR E-1 through RR E-4, RR E-6, and RR E-7 and the implementation of applicable GP policies related to energy, impacts related to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy consumption during construction and operation would be less than significant (GP EIR p. 5.5-19). The GP EIR determined that, with compliance with RR E-5 and implementation of applicable GP policies related to energy, impacts of the Approved Project related to a conflict or obstruction of a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency would be less than significant (GP EIR p. 5.5-20).

Analysis of the Modified Project
The Modified Project expressly prohibits STRs in the City. The Modified Project would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city; construction-related energy consumption would not occur under the Modified Project. The Modified Project is not anticipated to result in physical impacts on the environment. The operational activities associated with long-term rentals or permanent residences would be consistent with the operational activities analyzed in the GP EIR for residential uses. No impact would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR. The Modified Project would not obstruct the City’s ability to implement applicable GP policies.

The GP EIR RR E-1 through RR E-7 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project is not a development project.

City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
48 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:

GEO-1 Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42?
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction? iv. Landslides
GEO-2 Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? GEO-3 Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
GEO-4 Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? GEO-5 Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? GEO-6 Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR
As discussed in Section 5.6, Geology and Soils, the city’s location and underlying geology make it likely to experience seismic hazards, including strong seismic ground shaking, and secondary hazards, like liquefaction.

No active surface faults exist within the plan area. The city is subject to seismic ground shaking; however, future developments adherence to California Building Code and implementation of RR G-1 would reduce impacts to less than significant. Similarly, impacts from seismic-related ground failure which include liquefaction, lateral spreading, seismically induced landslides, and ground lurching would also be reduced to less than significant with adherence to the California Building Code (CBC), RR G-1, RR GH-2, and GP policies.

Future development would comply with existing regulations, which includes preparation and submittal of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and a soil engineering evaluation and would reduce impacts to a less than significant level regarding soil erosion (GP EIR p 5.6-21). The city contains alluvial materials that have the potential for expansive soils and settlement and collapse of soils throughout the city, posing a hazard to City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
49 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

structures and people (GP EIR p 5.6-22). Implementation of RR G-1, RR GH-2, GP policies, CBC design code, and other methods, such as recompaction of engineered fill, would reduce the impact of expansive soils to less than significant.

Although the potential for subsidence is low, the city has historically been affected by subsidence (GP EIR p. 5.6-22). With the continued groundwater storage and statutory commitments to sustainable groundwater management practices by Orange County Water District, impacts related to subsidence would be less than significant.

The GP EIR concluded that the City has implemented RR G-3, which does not allow for installation of septic tanks, and future development would connect to the existing City sewer system (GP EIR p. 5.6-22–5.6-23).

Therefore, with implementation of RR G-3 and GP policies, impacts would be less than significant.

The Approved Project would result in future development that would include ground-disturbing activities which could potentially disturb unknown sensitive paleontological resources (GP EIR pp. 5.6-23). However, with implementation of RR G-1, RR G-2, and RR G-3 and MMs GEO-1 through GEO-3, significant impacts were reduced to less than significant.

GP EIR Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-3 are reproduced below.

GEO-1 High Sensitivity. Projects involving ground disturbances in previously undisturbed areas mapped as having “high” paleontological sensitivity shall be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor on a full-time basis. Monitoring shall include inspection of exposed sedimentary units during active excavations within sensitive geologic sediments. The monitor shall have authority to temporarily divert activity away from exposed fossils to evaluate the significance of the find and, if the fossils are determined to be significant, professionally and efficiently recover the fossil specimens and collect associated data. The paleontological monitor shall use field data forms to record pertinent location and geologic data, measure stratigraphic sections (if applicable), and collect appropriate sediment samples from any fossil localities.

GEO-2 Low-to-High Sensitivity. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for projects involving ground disturbance in previously undisturbed areas mapped with “low-to-high” paleontological sensitivity (see Figure 5.6-3), the project applicant shall consult with a geologist or paleontologist to confirm whether the grading would occur at depths that could encounter highly sensitive sediments for paleontological resources. If confirmed that underlying sediments may have high sensitivity, construction activity shall be monitored by a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist shall have the authority to halt construction during construction activity as outlined in Mitigation Measure GEO-3.

GEO-3 All Projects. In the event of any fossil discovery, regardless of depth or geologic formation, construction work shall halt within a 50-foot radius of the find until its significance can be determined by a qualified paleontologist. Significant fossils shall be recovered, prepared to the point of curation, identified by qualified experts, listed in a database to facilitate analysis, and City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
50 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

deposited in a designated paleontological curation facility in accordance with the standards of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010). The most likely repository is the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. The repository shall be identified and a curatorial arrangement shall be signed prior to collection of the fossils.

Analysis of the Modified Project
The Modified Project expressly prohibits STRs and only affects existing structures. The Modified Project would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city. Additionally, the existing geological and soils conditions have not changed since the certification of the GP EIR. The Modified Project would not require development of any kind; therefore, no earthwork or ground-disturbing activities would occur. No impacts would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR.

GP EIR RR G-1 and RR G-3 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project does not require construction to be implemented. The Modified Project would not obstruct the City’s ability to implement applicable GP policies.

It should be noted that GP EIR MMs GEO-1 though GEO-3 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project is not a development project

4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:

GHG-1 Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
GHG-2 Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR
As discussed in Section 5.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the GP EIR the Approved Project would contribute to global climate change through direct and indirect emissions of GHG from land uses consistent with the GP within the city. The Approved Project would implement MM GHG-1, comply with RRs GHG-1 through GHG-7, and implement GPU policies related to reducing GHG emissions to reduce impacts related to GHG emissions (GP EIR p. 5.7-34). The GP EIR determined that with the implementation of mitigation impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

The GP EIR determined that the Approved Project would not conflict with plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The Approved Project would comply with RR GHG-1 through RR GHG-7 and GP policies related to GHG emissions to reduce impacts (GP EIR p. 5.7-38). The GP EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant.

City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
51 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

The GP EIR Mitigation Measure GHG-1 is reproduced below. Modifications to the GP EIR Mitigation Measures associated with the recirculation of the GP EIR are represented in underline for additions and strikeout for deletions.

GHG-1 The City of Santa Ana shall update the Climate Action Plan (CAP) every five years to ensure the City is monitoring the plan’s progress toward achieving the City’s greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving the specified level. The update shall consider a trajectory consistent with the GHG emissions reduction goal established under Executive Order S-03-05 for year 2050 and the latest applicable statewide legislative GHG emission reduction that may be in effect at the time of the CAP update (e.g., Senate Bill 32 for year 2030). The CAP update shall include the following:
 GHG inventories of existing and forecast year GHG levels.  Tools and strategies for reducing GHG emissions to ensure a trajectory with the longterm GHG reduction goal of Executive Order S-03-05.  Plan implementation guidance that includes, at minimum, the following components consistent with the proposed CAP:
 Administration and Staffing
 Finance and Budgeting
 Timelines for Measure Implementation
 Community Outreach and Education
 Monitoring, Reporting, and Adaptive Management
 Tracking Tools
Furthermore, the following measures will be considered when the City updates the Climate Action Plan:
 Measures to protect the most vulnerable populations
 Measure to increase carbon sinks
 Standards for electric vehicle parking
 Standards for construction projects
Analysis of the Modified Project
The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. The Modified Project would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city.

Additionally, the existing conditions related to GHG have not changed since the certification of the GP EIR.

GHG emissions due to construction activities would not occur. The operational activities associated with longterm rentals or permanent residences would be consistent with the operational activities analyzed in the GP EIR City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
52 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

for residential uses. The Modified Project is not anticipated to result in a substantial increase in GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, or result in a conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation. The GP EIR analyzed impacts related to GHG emissions from full occupancy of units in the city, assuming full buildout under the General Plan. The Modified Project would not result in any increase in the occupancy levels analyzed in the GP EIR. Further, the Modified Project does not involve construction of any new units that that might lead to in an increase in GHG emissions. The Modified Project would not change the significance conclusions in the GP EIR. No impacts would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR.

The GP EIR RRs GHG-1 through GHG-3 and RR GHG-7 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project is not a development project. The GP EIR RR GHG-3 is not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project is not a utility project. The GP EIR RRs GHG-4 through GHG-6 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project is not a transportation project. The Modified Project would only affect existing structures already developed in adherence with GP policies, and, as described in Section 2.1, the Modified Project is reaffirming existing law within the city. Therefore, the Modified Project would not obstruct the City’s ability to implement applicable GP policies.

The GP EIR MM GHG-1 is not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project does not include a use that requires the tracking and monitoring of the City’s GHG emissions.

4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:

HAZ-1 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
HAZ-2 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
HAZ-3 Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? HAZ-4 Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
HAZ-5 For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? HAZ-6 Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
53 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

HAZ-7 Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR
As discussed in Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the GP EIR, residences within the city are exposed to levels of toxic releases from industrial facilities waste sites (GP EIR p. 5.8-36). The Approved Project would change land use designations so some industrial areas would be designated as industrial flex to allow cleaner industrial uses and a mix of other nonindustrial uses, and no expansion of industrial uses would occur. However, the Approved Project would introduce new residences near existing industrial uses in environmental justice (EJ) communities, but adherence to local, State, and federal policies regarding the storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials as well as GP policies would reduce impacts to less than significant.

The City contains elevated lead constructions in EJ communities, and the Approved Project would introduce new sensitive receptors to industrial uses (GP EIR p. 5.8-41–5.8-42). Implementation of GP policies would reduce impacts to less than significant. Buildings within the city contain asbestos-containing materials and leadbased paint that may accidentally be released; however, with compliance with RR HAZ-4 and implementation of applicable GP policies, impacts would be reduced to less than significant (GP EIR p. 5.8-41–5.8-42).

The Approved Project would induce future development that would involve the use of potentially hazardous materials; however, these substances would be used in such small quantities and stored in a manner that would not pose a significant safety hazard (GP EIR p. 5.8-42–5.8-43). Adherence to existing local, state, and federal laws, emergency response plan requirements set by the Orange County Fire Authority, RRs HAZ-1 through HAZ-5, and GP policies would reduce impacts to less than significant.

The city includes 555 hazardous materials sites, with only 63 active or open sites (GP EIR p. 5.8-27). Any future development would require environmental site assessment to ensure the project would not disturb hazardous materials. With implementation of RRs HAZ-1 through HAZ-5 and GP policies, impacts would be less than significant
Part of the city is within John Wayne Airport (JWA) safety compatibility Zone 6 of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP), and parts of the city contain areas where heights are limited pursuant to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations (GP EIR p. 5.8-29–5.8-30). Projects approved under the proposed GP that fall within an identified AELUP and FAA zone would be required to comply with FAA airspace protection regulations using the AELUP consistency determination process. Thus, impacts are considered less than significant. With adherence to FAA, AELUP, GP policies, and RR HAZ-7, impacts would be less than significant.

The Approved Project would induce population growth and traffic; the increases in traffic could adversely affect accident or natural disaster evacuation plans and routes (GP EIR p.5.8-45–5.8-46). However, the Approved Project would not result in substantial changes to circulation patterns, emergency access routes, or otherwise interfere with use of evacuation routes. Within implementation of General Plan policies, the City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
54 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Approved Project would not interfere with emergency response, services, and evacuation plans and therefore impacts would be less than significant.

The city is not within a fire hazard severity zone (FHSZ), and buildout of the Approved Project will not expose structures and/or residence to wildfire danger; thus, impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR p. 5.8-29–

5.8-30).

Analysis of the Modified Project
The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. The Modified Project would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city; thus, no new sensitive receptors would be exposed to hazards or hazardous waste. Additionally, the existing conditions related to hazards and hazardous materials have not changed since the certification of the GP EIR. The Modified Project is not anticipated to result in any physical impacts on the environment. No impacts would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR.

GP EIR RR HAZ-1 and RR HAZ-7 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project does not require construction to be implemented. The Modified Project would not obstruct the City’s ability to implement applicable GP policies.

4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:

HYD-1 Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
HYD-2 Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? HYD-3 Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
HYD-4 In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
55 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

HYD-5 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR
As discussed in detail in Section 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the GP EIR, the Approved Project would involve disturbance, construction, and operation of land uses that could generate pollutants affecting stormwater. However, the Approved Project would comply with RRs HYD-1 through HYD-5 and implement GP policies (Policy 1.7 of the Safety Element, Policy 3.5 of the Public Services Element, and Policy 4.6 of the Conservation Element) to reduce impacts on water quality (GP EIR p. 5.9-29–5.9-32). The GP EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant.

The GP EIR determined that the Approved Project would increase the demand on groundwater use but not interfere with groundwater recharge or management (GP EIR p. 5.9-33). The GP EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant.

The GP EIR identified that portions of the City are within inundation areas for the Santiago Creek Dam and Prado Dam; however, impacts due to inundation by the Santiago Creek Dam and Prado Dam were determined to be less than significant. (GP EIR p. 5.9-35–5.9-36). Additionally, the GP EIR identified that impacts due to seiche would be less than significant for dam inundation areas, and impacts of a tsunami would be negligible. (GP EIR p. 5.9-36). The GP EIR determined that with compliance with RR HYD-6 and GP policies, impacts would be less than significant.

The GP EIR determined that the Approved Project would maintain the existing drainage pattern and utilize existing drainage facilities within the public rights-of-way. Additionally, the GP EIR identified that the city is mostly built out apart from a small number of lots that will be developed under Approved Project conditions (GP EIR 5.9-32). The GP EIR determined that impacts related to alteration of existing drainage patterns or streams would be less than significant.

The GP EIR determined that the Approved Project would comply with applicable regulatory requirements that would ensure surface and groundwater quality are not adversely impacted. Additionally, the GP EIR identified that new development under the Approved Project would connect to the City’s public water supply, and there would be no use of on-site wells for groundwater. The GP EIR determined that the increase in water demand due to development pursuant to the GP would not adversely impact the management of the basin (GP EIR p.

5.9-37). The GP EIR determined that with compliance with RRs HYD-1 through HYD-5 and implementation of GP policies, impacts would be less than significant.

Analysis of the Modified Project
The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. It would not result in development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city. The existing conditions related to hydrology and water quality have not changed since the certification of the GP EIR. The Modified Project is not anticipated to result in any physical impacts on the environment. The operational water demand under the Modified Project would be consistent with the water demand analyzed in the GP EIR for residential City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
56 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

uses. No impacts would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR.

The GP EIR RRs HYD-1 through HYD-5 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project is not a development project. The Modified Project would not obstruct the City’s ability to implement applicable GP policies.

4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:

LU-1 Physically divide an established community?
LU-2 Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR
As discussed in Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning, of the GP EIR, the Approved Project is intended to guide growth and development (e.g., infill development, redevelopment, and revitalization/restoration) in the plan area through the year 2045 and beyond. The changes in the land use designations that would occur with implementation of the Approved Project would not result in the physical division of an established community (GP EIR p. 5.10-17–5.10-19). The Approved Project would enhance the character of the city for existing residents because no new roadways would bisect existing communities, associated street improvements would serve the existing neighborhoods, the Approved Project encourages infill development, and established General Plan policies. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant.

A portion of the city is within the JWA’s safety compatibility Zone 6 and within the 60 dBA CNEL aircraft operation noise contours, and a larger portion of the southeastern portion of the city is within Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77 Obstruction Notification Area of JWA (GP EIR p. 5.10-19–5.10-20). Areas within an AELUP and FAA Zones land use designations would remain, and no new or more intense development is intended. Any project within an identified AELUP and FAA Zone would be required to comply with filing a project for a consistency determination with the ALUC, FAA airspace protection regulations, and local regulations. Furthermore, the Approved project would be consistent with goals of the Southern California Association of Governments’ RTP/SCS, and the Orange County Transportation Authority Congestion Management Plan (GP EIR p. 5.10-20–26). The GP EIR concluded that the approved project would not significantly conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation, and with implementation of GP policies and RR LU-1, RR LU-2, and RR HAZ-7, impacts would be less than significant.

Analysis of the Modified Project
The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. The Modified Project would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city.

Additionally, the existing conditions related to land use and planning have not changed since the certification City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
57 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

of the GP EIR. The Modified Project is not anticipated to result in any physical impacts on the environment.

The Modified Project would only affect existing structures and, as described in Section 2.1, is reaffirming existing law within the city. It should be noted that the Modified Project 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.

No impact would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR.

GP EIR RR LU-1, RR LU-2, and RR HAZ-7 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project does not require construction. The Modified Project would not obstruct the City’s ability to implement applicable GP policies.

4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:

MIN-1 Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state?
MIN-2 Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR
As discussed in Section 5.11, Mineral Resources, of the GP EIR, most of the plan area is mapped Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) 3, areas where the significance of mineral deposits cannot be determined from available data. MRZ-1, areas where no significant mineral resources are present, are in the southeast of the city, and in the northeast of the City are MRZ-2, areas where significant mineral resources are known or very likely to occur (GP EIR 5.11-6–5.11-7). However, no mineral resource sectors and active or inactive mines are in the plan area. Additionally, the Approved Project would increase the demand for aggregate, and especially PCCgrade aggregate, in the Orange County-Temescal Valley P-C Region but would not decrease availability of mineral resources. Therefore, with adherence to GP policies, the Approved Project would result in a less than significant impact on mineral resources.

Analysis of the Modified Project
The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. The Modified Project would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city.

Additionally, the existing conditions related to mineral resources have not changed; the City’s MRZs are consistent with the GP EIR and the City does not contain any active or inactive mines or mineral resource sectors (CDC 2024a, 2024b). The Modified Project would not change the significance conclusions in the City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
58 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

GP EIR. No impacts would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR.

The Modified Project would not obstruct the City’s ability to implement applicable GP policies.

4.13 NOISE
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:

NOI-1 Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
NOI-2 Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? NOI-3 For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR
As discussed in detail in Section 5.12, Noise, of the GP EIR, the Approved Project would result in an increase in development intensity to accommodate population and employment growth. Construction activities associated with the Approved Project would temporarily increase the ambient noise levels in the vicinity of individual development projects that could affect sensitive receptors (GP EIR p. 5.12-30). The Approved Project would comply with RR NOI-2 and implement GP EIR MM NOI-1 and GP policies to minimize effects of construction-noise. The GP EIR determined that with the implementation of mitigation, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

The GP EIR identified that buildout of the Approved Project would result in substantial traffic noise level increases on local roadway and could locate sensitive receptors in areas that exceed established noise standards.

The GP EIR determined that there are no feasible mitigation measures available to reduce impacts and impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

The Approved Project could place future noise sensitive land uses within areas that exceed the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour for John Wayne Airport. The GP EIR determined that with implementation of GP Noise Element policies, which would require new development within the airport’s noise contours to be mitigated, impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR p. 5.12-47).

The GP EIR Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-4 are reproduced below.

N-1 Construction contractors shall implement the following measures for construction activities conducted in the City of Santa Ana. Construction plans submitted to the City shall identify City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
59 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

these measures on demolition, grading, and construction plans submitted to the City: The City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency shall verify that grading, demolition, and/or construction plans submitted to the City include these notations prior to issuance of demolition, grading and/or building permits.
 Construction activity is limited to the hours: Between 7 AM to 8 PM Monday through Saturday, as prescribed in Municipal Code Section 18-314(e). Construction is prohibited on Sundays.
 During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best-available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment re-design, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds), wherever feasible.
 Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers and hoe rams) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible. Where the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used along with external noise jackets on the tools.
 Stationary equipment such as generators and air compressors shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive uses.
 Stockpiling shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors.  Construction traffic shall be limited—to the extent feasible—to approved haul routes established by the City Planning and Building Agency.
 At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, that includes permitted construction days and hours, as well as the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint.

If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, he/she shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City.  Signs shall be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on-site construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling.

All other equipment shall be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes.  During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noiseproducing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only. The construction manager shall use smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level, or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and laws.
 Erect temporary noise barriers (at least as high as the exhaust of equipment and breaking line-of-sight between noise sources and sensitive receptors), as necessary and feasible, to City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
60 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

maintain construction noise levels at or below the performance standard of 80 dBA Leq.

Barriers shall be constructed with a solid material that has a density of at least 4 pounds per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier.

N-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit for a project requiring pile driving during construction within 135 feet of fragile structures, such as historical resources, 100 feet of non-engineered timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential buildings), or within 75 feet of engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster); or a vibratory roller within 25 feet of any structure, the project applicant shall prepare a noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities. This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer. The vibration levels shall not exceed Federal Transit Administration (FTA) architectural damage thresholds (e.g., 0.12 inches per second [in/sec] peak particle velocity [PPV] for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). If vibration levels would exceed this threshold, alternative uses such as drilling piles as opposed to pile driving and static rollers as opposed to vibratory rollers shall be used. If necessary, construction vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure vibration thresholds are not exceeded.

N-3 New residential projects (or other noise sensitive uses) located within 200 feet of existing railroad lines shall be required to conduct a groundborne vibration and noise evaluation consistent with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) approved methodologies.

N-4 During the project-level California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process for industrial developments under the General Plan or other projects that could generate substantial vibration levels near sensitive uses, a noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to the operations of that individual development. This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer and shall follow the latest CEQA guidelines, practices, and precedents.

Analysis of the Modified Project
The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. No development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city are required to implement the Modified Project. No impacts related to construction-related noise level increases would occur. As with the Approved Project, the Modified Project would comply with RR NOI-3, which requires stationary noise sources to comply with the standards established in Section 18.312 of the SAMC. The Modified Project is not anticipated to result in an increase in transportation noise. Operational noise levels associated with long-term rentals or permanent residences would be consistent with the operational noise levels analyzed in the GP EIR for residential uses.

The Modified Project would not place new residential development within the 60 dBA CNEL contour for John Wayne Airport. The Modified Project would not change the significance conclusions identified in the GP EIR.

No impacts would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR.

City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
61 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

GP EIR RRs NOI-1 and NOI-2 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project does not include any construction activities. The Modified Project would not obstruct the City’s ability to implement applicable GPU policies.

GP EIR MMs N-1 and N-2 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project does not require any construction activities to be implemented. GP EIR MM N-3 is not applicable to the Modified Project as the Modified Project does not include new residential uses and does not propose new residential uses along railroad lines. GP EIR MM N-4 is not applicable to the Modified Project as the Modified Project does not include industrial development and does not include construction activities.

4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:

POP-1 Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
POP-2 Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR
As discussed in Section 5.13, Population and Housing, of the GP EIR the Approved Project would increase the population within the plan area by 96,855 residence and would result in an increase of 36,490 residential units by 2045 (GP EIR p. 5.13-12–5.13-15). The City’s projected population and residential units would exceed the Orange County COG’s 2045 projection by 20 percent and 38 percent, respectively, and impacts are considered potentially significant. Additionally, the Approved Project would change land use designations of existing nonresidential land to residential uses, increasing the residential opportunities in selected areas. The Approved Project would provide more housing opportunities than currently exist and would not displace people and/or housing; no impact would occur.

Buildout of the GP would exceed the Orange County COG’s 2045 projects and no feasible mitigation measures exist to mitigate the population and housing growth. Therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Analysis of the Modified Project
The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. It should be noted that STRs take homes out of the housing stock for full-time city residents, which forces development of housing elsewhere, leading to construction of unpermitted or “informal” housing (such as improper residential occupancy of garages, unpermitted additions to residential structures, etc.) or exacerbates existing residential overcrowding. The Modified Project would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city. The operational activities associated with long-term rentals or permanent residences would be consistent with the operational activities analyzed in the GP EIR for residential uses. The City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
62 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

prohibition of STRs would allow approximately 1,100 residential units to be available to full-time city residents that have otherwise been documented to presently be utilized for unpermitted STRs. The Modified Project would not change the significance conclusions in the GP EIR. No impacts would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GPU EIR.

The Modified Project would not obstruct the City’s ability to implement applicable GP policies.

4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:

PS-1 Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR
As discussed in Section 5.14, Public Services, of the GP EIR, buildout of the Approved Project would develop 36,261 housing units, result in a total of 360,077 residents and 170,416 jobs, and increase the demand for fire, police, school, and library services (GP EIR p. 5.14-28–5.14-47).The Approved Project concluded there are adequate funding sources for fire, police, school, and library services to meet the projected increase in public services demands.

Development would require approval of a Building Plan Check, a Fire Master Plan, and would comply with the California Fire and Building Codes, California Health and Safety Code, City ordinances, and applicable national standards. Additionally, compliance with General plan policies and RR FP-1 would ensure adequate fire protection services to Santa Ana (GP EIR p. 5.14-28–5.14-47). Thus, impacts would be less than significant.

The Santa Ana police may require project design features to improve security as conditions of approval, and adherence with goals and policies within the general plan would result in a less than significant impact.

The Approved Project would lead to an increase in the student population within the city, though three of the four school districts within the city contain the capacity to accommodate the potential increase in students (GP EIR p. 5.14-41–5.14-43). Additionally, project-specific analysis with developmental fees and adherence to GP goals and policies and RR SS-1 would result in a less than significant impact.

City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
63 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

The increase in residents would increase the demand for library services; however, project-specific analysis with developmental fees and adherence to GP goals and policies and RR LS-1 would result in a less than significant impact (GP EIR p. 5.14-46–5.15-47).

Analysis of the Modified Project
The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. The Modified Project would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city. The Modified Project would not introduce new residential units to the city nor directly or indirectly increase the city’s population. The GP buildout, which includes the residential units illegally operating as STRs, and operation of the Approved Project were adequately analyzed in the GP EIR. The Modified Project would not change the significance conclusions in the GP EIR. No impacts would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR.

GP EIR RR FP-1, RR SS-1, and LS-1 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project does not require construction to be implemented.

The Modified Project would not obstruct the City’s ability to implement applicable GP policies.

4.16 RECREATION
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:

REC-1 Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
REC-2 Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR
As discussed in Section 5.15, Recreation, of the GP EIR, buildout of the Approved Project would lead to additional demands on parks and recreational facilities (GP EIR p. 5.15-11–5.15-30). The GP EIR concluded that although funding sources for new parks and equipment would be sufficient, there is a lack of available land to develop new parks or expand existing facilities, and thus the Approved Project would exacerbate an existing shortage of recreation facilities. After compliance with regulatory requirements and implementation of the GP policies, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Additionally, construction and/or expansion of new parks and recreation facilities could result in adverse physical effects on the environment. Therefore, the GP EIR concluded, with the incorporation of GP policies, the Approved Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact on recreation.

City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
64 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Analysis of the Modified Project
The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. The Modified Project would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city. The Modified Project would not result in greater conflicts to the City’s parkland standards and recreational resources.

The Modified Project would not change the significance conclusions in the GP EIR. No impacts would occur.

The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR.

GP EIR RR REC-1 and RR REC-2 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project does not require construction to be implemented.

The Modified Project would not obstruct the City’s ability to implement applicable GP policies.

4.17 TRANSPORTATION
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:

T-1 Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
T-2 Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? T-3 Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? T-4 Result in inadequate emergency access?
Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR
As discussed in detail in Section 5.16, Transportation, of the GP EIR, the Approved Project would result in the improvement and expansion of the City’s circulation system; these improvements would incorporate future networks and policies that would be consistent with the regional and local planning efforts. With the implementation of RR T-1 and applicable GP policies, the GP EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR p. 5.16-33–5.16-34).

The GP EIR determined that the City’s projected vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per service population (SP) would be less than the defined threshold of 15 percent below the existing county VMT/SP. With the implementation of applicable GP policies, the GP EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR p. 5.16-35).

The GP EIR determined that the Approved Project would involve the alteration, intensification, and redistribution of land uses in the City. Roadway improvements associated with the Approved Project would be made in accordance with the City’s circulation plan and roadway design guidelines and meet the guidelines of the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The Approved Project would not result in City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
65 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

hazardous conditions, create conflicting uses, or interfere with emergency vehicle access. With implementation of applicable GP policies, the GP EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR p.

5.16-35).

Analysis of the Modified Project
The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. The Modified Project would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city. The Modified Project is not anticipated to result in a conflict with regional or local circulation system planning. The operational traffic associated with long-term rentals or permanent residences would be consistent with the operational traffic analyzed in the GP EIR because buildout of long-term rentals and permanent residences and their impacts to the circulation system had been evaluated under the certified GP EIR. The Modified Project would not change the significance conclusions in the GP EIR. No impacts would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR.

GP EIR RRs T-1 and T-2 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project is not a development project. The Modified Project would not obstruct the City’s ability to implement applicable GP policies.

4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:

TCR-1 Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR
As discussed in Section 5.17, Tribal Cultural Resources, of the GP EIR, the Approved Project could cause substantial adverse change to tribal cultural resources (TCR) that are listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k). (GP EIR p. 5.17-10–5.17-12). A Sacred Lands File search yielded a positive result that City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
66 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

TCRs exist in the plan area, and a California Historical Resources Information System search identified 23 archaeological resources within 0.5 miles of the plan area. Furthermore, the City consulted with Native American Tribes, and sensitive areas with TCR were identified. The GP EIR determined that with implementation of RR CUL-1, RR TRC-1, and MMs CUL-4 through CUL-7, impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

Refer to Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, of this Addendum for reproduced GP EIR Mitigation Measures CUL-4 through CUL-7.

Analysis of the Modified Project
The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. The Modified Project would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city. Therefore, no earthwork or ground-disturbing activities would occur. The Modified Project would not change the significance conclusions in the GP EIR. No impacts would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR.

GP EIR RR TCR-1 and RR CUL-1 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project does not require construction to be implemented. Additionally, the Modified Project would not obstruct the City’s ability to implement applicable GP policies.

It should be noted that GP EIR MMs CUL-4 though CUL-7 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project is not a development project.

4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:

U-1 Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? U-2 Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
U-3 Result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
U-4 Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? U-5 Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
67 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR
As discussed in Section 5.18, Utilities and Service Systems, of the GP EIR, buildout of the Approved Project would increase wastewater treatment, however the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) has functioning and effective processes in place to ensure the regional sewer infrastructure will support future development; and implementation of RR U-1 and RR U-2 and GP policies would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Additionally, OCSD contains adequate capacity to serve wastewater collation and treatment in the city, and a less than significant impact would occur with implementation of RR U-3 and GP policies.

Buildout under the Approved Project would increase demand for water services, potentially creating deficiencies or necessitating the need for improvement projects (GP EIR p. 5.18-36–5.18-38). With planning, Capital Improvement Programs (CIP), RR U-5 through RR U-7, and GP policies, impacts would be less than significant. The GP EIR concluded under full buildout of the Approved Project, the City contains adequate water supplies during normal-dry and multiple-dry year scenarios, and with implementation of RR U-5 and RR U-7, impacts would be less than significant.

The city is largely built out; however, intensification of development could increase park-flow runoff (GP EIR p. 5.18-47). Improvements identified in the GP EIR and Orange County Public Works CIP ensures regional drainage improvements, and project-specific stormwater design features and implementation of RR HYD-4 and GP policies would reduce impacts to less than significant.

The GP EIR concluded the projected increase in solid waste would be accommodated by existing and/or proposed solid waste facilities, and future development would comply with local and state policies, and with implementation of RR U-7 and RR U-8 and GP policies, impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR p.

5.18-52–5.18-53).

The GP EIR concluded the forecast increase in electricity is within the forecasted demand in SoCal Edison’s service area and would not require additional electricity supplies and impacts would be less than significant (GP EIR p. 5.18-63–5.18-64). Additionally, the increase in natural gas demands are within the forecast demand in the SoCalGas service area, and impacts would be less than significant with implantation of RR U-10, RR U-11, and GP policies.

Analysis of the Modified Project
The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. The Modified Project would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city. Since the Modified Project would not require development of any kind and would not result in unplanned population growth (directly or indirectly), no increases in demands to utilities and service systems would occur. The Modified Project would not change the significance conclusions in the GP EIR. No impacts would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR.

City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
68 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

GP EIR RR U-1 through RR U-11, RR HYD-1, and RR HYD-4 are not applicable to the Modified Project because the Modified Project does not require construction to be implemented. The Modified Project would not obstruct the City’s ability to implement applicable GP policies.

4.20 WILDFIRE
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:

WF-1 Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? WF-2 Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
WF-3 Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? WF-4 Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR
As discussed in Section 8.2, Wildfire, of the GP EIR, the City of Santa Ana is not in or near a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zone (FHSZ), and no area within the city is in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) (GP EIR p. 8-2). The Approved Project would allow for development within the City; however, because the City is not within an SRA, very high FHSZ, or WUI, no impacts would occur. The GP EIR concluded the remaining wildfire questions in Appendix G are not relevant to the GP EIR.

Analysis of the Modified Project
The Modified Project would expressly prohibit STRs and only affect existing structures. The Modified Project would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city.

Additionally, the existing conditions for wildfire hazard indicators (SRA, FHSZ and WUI) have not changed; the city is within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) and does not contain any land with a very high FHSZ; and the City does not contain any areas in an WUI (CAL FIRE 2024; USDA 2024). The Modified Project would not change the significance conclusions in the GP EIR. No impacts would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR.

4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:

City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
69 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

4. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

M-1 Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? M-2 Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) M-3 Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Summary of Impacts in the GP EIR
This section was not included in the GP EIR.

Analysis of the Modified Project
Based on the analysis provided in this Addendum, it can be determined that there are no new circumstances that require major revisions to the GP EIR, and the Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those identified in the GP EIR.

As previously discussed, the Modified Project entails an amendment to the SAMC that would add Article XXI to Chapter 8 of the SAMC to provide definitions, identify prohibited uses, and identify violations of the Article.

The Modified Project would not require development, redevelopment, or changes to existing development types in the city. The Modified Project would continue the City’s practice of requiring residential units illegally operating as STRs to cease and revert to the permitted uses identified under the existing underlying land use designation and zoning through code enforcement. Operation of long-term rentals or permanent residences would be consistent with the operational activities analyzed in the GP EIR for residential uses. Because the Modified Project is not a development project, the Modified Project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment related to impacts to biological resources, to eliminate important examples of major California history or prehistory, or result in environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effect on human beings. Additionally, the Modified Project would not result in any new or more severe cumulatively significant impact as there are no new impacts beyond those identified in the GP EIR.

City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
70 11/19/2024

5. Findings
As indicated in this Addendum, the impacts of the Modified Project have already been adequately identified and addressed in the GP EIR, and no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that would require major revisions to the GP EIR. Impacts beyond those identified in the EIR would not be expected to occur as a result of the Modified Project, which would still be subject to all applicable, previously required mitigation measures from the GP EIR.

Based on the record as a whole, there is no substantial evidence that the Modified Project would result in significant environmental impacts not previously studied in the EIR, and accordingly, the project changes would not result in any conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162. Thus, a subsequent EIR is not required for the changes to the project, and the City adopts this Addendum to the City of Santa Ana GP Update EIR in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.

City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
71 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

5. Findings

This page intentionally left blank.

City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
72 11/19/2024

6. List of Preparers

CITY OF SANTA ANA
Ali Pezeshkpour, AICP, Planning Manager
Ricardo Soto, AICP, Principal Planner

PLACEWORKS
Mark Teague, Managing Principal
Malia Durand, Associate Principal
Christhi Mrosla, Associate
Emma Haines, Associate
Angel Castro, Project Planner
City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
73 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

6. List of Preparers

This page intentionally left blank.

City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
74 11/19/2024

7. References
California Department of Conservation (CDC). 2024a, July 10 (accessed). Mineral Land Classification. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc. ———. 2024b, July 10 (accessed). Mines Online. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.html.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CAL FIRE). 2024, April 1 (accessed). Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer.
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/03beab8511814e79a0e4eabf0d3e7247/.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). California State Scenic Highway System Map. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa.

Santa Ana, City of. 2024, July 9 (accessed). Zoning Map. https://www.santa-ana.org/documents/ zoning-map/.
———. 2021, August. Santa Ana General Plan Update: Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report.
———. 2020, August. Santa Ana General Plan Update: Draft Program Environmental Impact Report.

United States Forest Service (USFD). 2024, July 10 (accessed). Wildland Urban Interface: 2020. https://data -usfs.hub.arcgis.com/documents/7804d89ed1094ccb9aae753228e8d89a/explore.

City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
75 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANCE

CITY OF SANTA ANA

7. References

This page intentionally left blank.

City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
76 11/19/2024

CITY OF SANTA ANA SHORT - TERM RENTAL PROHIBITION ORDINANC E

CITY OF SANTA ANA
Appendices
Appendix A Proposed City of Santa Ana Short-Term
Rental Prohibition Ordinance
City Council
Exhibit 3 - Environmental
35 –
Analysis
77 11/19/2024

CITY ATTORNEY
Sonia R. Carvalho

CITY MANAGER
Alvaro Nuñez

CITY CLERK
Jennifer L. Hall
20 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA - P.O. BOX 1988, M-31 - SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 TELEPHONE (714) 647-6900 - FAX (714) 647-6954 - www.santa-ana.org Councilmember-Requested Item Report
DATE
November 19, 2024
TOPIC
City Apology to the Family of Edgar Vargas, a Santa Ana resident and victim of a crime committed by a Santa Ana Police Officer in 2014. This crime led to Vargas wrongfully being transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) after being falsely accused of assaulting a police officer.

COUNCILMEMBER-REQUESTED ITEM TITLE
Discussion and consideration of directing the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk to draft a resolution issuing a formal apology to the family of Edgar Vargas.

Vargas, an undocumented young man, was the victim of police misconduct in 2014, which resulted in his wrongful transfer to ICE.

DISCUSSION
On June 19, 2014, a now-retired Santa Ana Police Department (SAPD) officer, Brian Patric Booker, along with other officers, arrested then 27-year-old Edgar Vargas-Arzate.

Surveillance footage from the incident shows Vargas-Arzate complying with the officers' orders, raising his hands, kneeling, and lying prone. Despite his compliance, multiple officers can be seen repeatedly punching him, striking him with a baton, and using a Taser.

The footage, released to the public, attracted national attention, as it clearly showed Vargas cooperating before being subjected to excessive force. The police officers involved claimed that Vargas attacked them during their response to a burglary call in the central part of Santa Ana. As a result, the District Attorney's office charged Vargas with several felonies, including battery on a peace officer, resisting arrest, and other crimes.

In August of 2014, while on his way to defend himself in court, Vargas was arrested by ICE agents. He was later charged with attempted burglary. Vargas subsequently sued the City of Santa Ana and Officer Booker, with the case being settled in July 2016.

In 2018, Officer Booker retired after 19 years of service. He was later indicted by federal prosecutors for using unreasonable force during the 2014 arrest and for lying about his actions. Booker falsely claimed he punched Vargas in self-defense, alleging that he believed Vargas was about to tackle him and potentially seize his gun. The charges were the result of an FBI investigation, which determined that one or more Santa Ana City Council 36 – 1 11/19/2024
Proposal for Policy on Prohibiting Contracts with City Officials and Immediate Family Members
October 15, 2024

officers committed felony assault during the incident. The FBI’s certification of “Felonious Assault” on October 21, 2016, enabled Vargas to apply for a U-visa, reserved for crime victims who cooperate with law enforcement.

Photographs taken days after the incident revealed that Vargas suffered injuries to his head, arms, legs, and torso, including bruises, abrasions, and cuts. The FBI document affirmed the extent of Vargas’ injuries and labeled him a victim of criminal activity.

This case was pivotal for Santa Ana, reflecting longstanding concerns from residents regarding police brutality and collaboration between the SAPD and ICE. It was one of the catalysts that led city leaders to declare Santa Ana a sanctuary city and to advocate for stronger police accountability.

Sadly, Edgar Vargas passed away on the 18th of June of 2022, never fully recovering from the trauma inflicted upon him. His family endured six years of hardship as they sought justice for him. While the harm caused to Vargas and his family cannot be undone, the City can, at the very least, issue a formal apology for the injustice they suffered.

I propose that the City Council direct the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk to bring forth a resolution issuing a formal apology to the family of Edgar Vargas. This apology would acknowledge the city’s unjust treatment of its immigrant community and highlight the progress Santa Ana has made toward accountability and belonging for all residents.

SUBMITTED BY
Councilmember Benjamin Vazquez
City Council 36 – 2 11/19/2024

CITY ATTORNEY
Sonia R. Carvalho

CITY MANAGER
Alvaro Nuñez

CITY CLERK
Jennifer L. Hall
20 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA - P.O. BOX 1988, M-31 - SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 TELEPHONE (714) 647-6900 - FAX (714) 647-6954 - www.santa-ana.org Councilmember-Requested Item Report
DATE
November 19, 2024
TOPIC
Proposal for Policy on Prohibiting Contracts with City Officials and Immediate Family Members

COUNCILMEMBER-REQUESTED ITEM TITLE
Discuss and Consider Directing the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk to Prepare an Ordinance Prohibiting Contracts with City Officials and their Immediate Family Members

DISCUSSION
I am writing to propose a policy, to be prepared by staff as an ordinance for City Council consideration, that expressly prohibits the City of Santa Ana from awarding any agreement or contract to any City official, including councilmembers and members of boards and commissions, as well as to members of their immediate family. This policy recommendation is grounded in California Government Code Section 1090 and the California Political Reform Act, which aim to prevent conflicts of interest in public contracting. The proposed policy would also reinforce the ethical principles outlined in the City of Santa Ana's Code of Ethics and Conduct.

The City of Santa Ana is dedicated to promoting transparency, fairness, and ethical practices in its contracting processes. While the City already adheres to a high standard of ethics, additional safeguards are necessary to prevent any potential conflicts of interest that may arise from City officials or their immediate family members being financially interested in City contracts.

Relevant Legal Framework
The proposed policy to prohibit City officials and their immediate family members from engaging in contracts with the City is grounded in well-established legal frameworks aimed at ensuring ethical governance and preventing conflicts of interest. These laws provide a robust foundation for maintaining transparency, fairness, and accountability in public contracting processes. The following is an overview of the key legal provisions that support this policy.

City Council 37 – 1 11/19/2024
Proposal for Policy on Prohibiting Contracts with City Officials and Immediate Family Members
October 15, 2024

Government Code Section 1090
Prohibits public officials from being financially interested in contracts made by them in their official capacity. This law aims to prevent public officials from using their positions for personal financial gain and ensures the integrity of public contracting.

California Political Reform Act
Requires public officials to disclose their financial interests and prohibits them from making, participating in, or attempting to influence governmental decisions in which they have a financial interest.

City of Santa Ana Code of Ethics and Conduct
As outlined in the City's Code of Ethics and Conduct, public officials must maintain the highest standards of integrity and fairness. This includes excusing themselves from participating in decisions that may affect their financial interests or those of their immediate family members.

Proposed Policy Recommendations
To ensure the integrity of the City of Santa Ana's contracting processes and to prevent potential conflicts of interest, the following policy recommendations are proposed.

These measures are designed to prohibit City officials and their immediate family members from engaging in contracts with the City, while promoting transparency, fairness, and accountability.

Prohibition on Contracts with City Officials
City officials, including councilmembers and members of boards and commissions, shall be prohibited from entering into any contract or agreement with the City of Santa Ana, either directly or indirectly, during their term of service.

Immediate Family Prohibition
The policy should extend to immediate family members of City officials. This includes spouses, domestic partners, dependent children, and any other family members who may benefit from City contracts.

Mandatory Disclosure and Recusal
City officials must disclose any financial interest they or their immediate family members may have in a business or organization that seeks to enter into a contract with the City.

In such cases, the official must recuse themselves from any discussions, negotiations, or votes related to the contract.

Transparency and Public Reporting
All contracts awarded by the City shall be publicly disclosed, and any potential conflicts of interest should be reviewed by an independent ethics body. This ensures that the public remains informed about the City's contracting processes.

City Council 37 – 2 11/19/2024

CITY ATTORNEY
Sonia R. Carvalho

CITY MANAGER
Alvaro Nuñez

CITY CLERK
Jennifer L. Hall
20 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA - P.O. BOX 1988, M31 - SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 TELEPHONE (714) 647-6900 - FAX (714) 647-6954 - www.santa-ana.org Implementation Measures

1. Prepare the Ordinance
The City Attorney's Office should be tasked with drafting the ordinance that incorporates these prohibitions and safeguards. This will ensure that the policy aligns with existing state and local laws.

To assist the City Attorney’s Office with this task, attached are three similar policies from California cities, each of which prohibit awarding contracts to City officials:
• City of Los Angeles: The city has strict ethics rules under its Governmental Ethics Ordinance that prohibit city officials, including members of boards and commissions, from benefiting from city contracts. The Los Angeles City Charter (Section 371) prohibits city officers and employees from having any interest in contracts with the city. (Exhibit 1)
• City and County of San Francisco: The San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code also restricts city officers, including members of boards and commissions, from entering into contracts with the city. This is intended to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure transparency in government. (Exhibit 2)
• City of San Diego: The San Diego Municipal Code contains rules that restrict city officials, including commission members, from having a financial interest in city contracts. These restrictions align with California's broader conflict-of-interest laws. (Exhibit 3)

2. Create an Independent Ethics Review
An independent ethics committee/commission, whether a standing body or ad hoc committee, should be utilized to review any potential conflicts of interest and ensure compliance with the policy. This committee would have the authority to investigate and recommend actions in cases where violations are suspected.

Conclusion
Implementing this policy would further strengthen public confidence in the integrity of Santa Ana's contracting processes. By aligning with Government Code Section 1090, the Political Reform Act, and the City's Code of Ethics and Conduct, Santa Ana will continue to demonstrate its commitment to ethical governance and the responsible use of taxpayer dollars.

SUBMITTED BY
Councilmember Jessie Lopez
City Council 37 – 3 11/19/2024
Governmental Ethics Ordinance
Los Angeles Municipal Code §§ 49.5.1 et seq.

Effective January 23, 2020

200 North Spring Street, 24th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90012
(213) 978-1960
ethics.lacity.org
City Council 37 – 4 11/19/2024
i
Governmental Ethics Ordinance

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SEC. 49.5.1. TITLE, FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.......................................................... 1 SEC. 49.5.2. DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................... 2 Agency......................................................................................................................... 2 Bidder .......................................................................................................................... 2 City official ................................................................................................................... 2 Confidential information............................................................................................... 2 Contract ....................................................................................................................... 2 Elected City officer....................................................................................................... 2 Matter pending............................................................................................................. 2 Political activity ............................................................................................................ 2 Political Reform Act ..................................................................................................... 2 Restricted source......................................................................................................... 2 SEC. 49.5.3. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.............................................................. 4 SEC. 49.5.4. PROTECTION AGAINST RETALIATION ................................................. 4 SEC. 49.5.5. MISUSE OF CITY POSITION OR RESOURCES..................................... 4 SEC. 49.5.6. CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS................................................................... 5 SEC. 49.5.7. HONORARIA AND OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT......................................... 6 SEC. 49.5.8. GIFTS ....................................................................................................... 8 SEC. 49.5.9. DISCLOSURE OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS......................................... 10 SEC. 49.5.10. DISCLOSURE BY NOMINEES............................................................. 11 SEC. 49.5.11. CONTRACTS GENERALLY ................................................................. 11 SEC. 49.5.12. CONTRACTS AND MONEY LAUNDERING VIOLATIONS .................. 12 SEC. 49.5.13. LOBBYING ACTIVITIES OF CURRENT AND FORMER CITY OFFICIALS............................................................................................ 14 SEC. 49.5.14. FUTURE EMPLOYMENT ..................................................................... 15 SEC. 49.5.15. ETHICS AND FRAUD AWARENESS TRAINING ................................. 16 City Council 37 – 5 11/19/2024
ii
SEC. 49.5.16. ENFORCEMENT .................................................................................. 16 SEC. 49.5.17. LATE FILING PENALTIES.................................................................... 18 SEC. 49.5.18. AUTHORITY TO ENACT ...................................................................... 18 SEC. 49.5.19. RECORDKEEPING............................................................................... 18 SEC. 49.5.20. SEVERABILITY .................................................................................... 19 City Council 37 – 6 11/19/2024
1 of 19
Los Angeles Governmental Ethics Ordinance 1/23/20
Governmental Ethics Ordinance
Los Angeles Municipal Code Chapter IV, Article 9.5
Added by Ordinance No.165618, effective 4/21/90.

Amended in its entirety by Ordinance No.182842, effective 2/10/14.

SEC. 49.5.1. TITLE, FINDINGS AND
PURPOSE.

A. Title. This Article shall be known as the
City of Los Angeles Governmental
Ethics Ordinance.

B. Findings. The following findings are
adopted in conjunction with the
enactment of this Article:

1. As one of the great international
cities of the world, Los Angeles will
continue to confront great and
complex opportunities and problems
of both local and global significance.

2. One of the best ways to attract
talented people to public service is to
assure that the government is
respected for its honesty and
integrity; that its decisions are made
on the merits, untainted by any
consideration of private gain; and
that the rules governing their conduct
during and after leaving government
service are as clear and complete as
possible.

3. A governmental ethics ordinance
that is as clear, tough, fair,
comprehensive and effective as any
in the nation is therefore needed.

C. Purposes. This Article is adopted to
accomplish the following purposes:

1. To assure that individuals and
interest groups in our society have a
fair and equal opportunity to
participate in the governmental
process.

2. To assure that the governmental
process itself promotes fairness and
equity for all residents of the City
regardless of race, color, creed,
religion, national origin, age, sex,
marital status, sexual orientation or
disability.

3. To require elected City officers and
key City officials to disclose
investments, interests in real
property and income in order to
prevent conflicts of interests.

4. To prevent elected City officers and
key City officials from receiving
outside earned income that creates a
potential conflict of interests.

5. To prevent City officials from
lobbying the City for certain periods
of time after they leave City service.

6. To increase understanding of the
City Charter and ordinances, the
roles of elected City officers and
other public officials, the roles of City
agencies, and the City election
process.

7. To help restore public trust in
governmental and electoral
institutions.

City Council 37 – 7 11/19/2024
2 of 19
Los Angeles Governmental Ethics Ordinance 1/23/20

8. To assure that this Article is
vigorously enforced.

SEC. 49.5.2. DEFINITIONS.

The following terms have the meanings
identified below. Other terms used in this
Article have the meanings identified in the
state’s Political Reform Act.

A. “Agency” means the City of Los
Angeles or any City department, bureau,
office, board, commission, or entity
required to adopt a conflict of interests
code subject to City Council approval.

With respect to employees of a City
Council member's staff and employees
of the Chief Legislative Analyst's office,
"agency" means the City Council. The
term does not include a governmental
entity that is not within the City’s control,
even if the entity is required to adopt a
conflict of interests code subject to City
Council approval, unless the entity
elects to be subject to this Article.

B. “Bidder” means a person who bids on
or submits a proposal or other response
to a City contract solicitation including a
request for proposals, request for bids,
request for qualifications, or any other
request for purposes of entering into a
contract.

C. “City official” means an elected City
officer or an agency board member,
officer, employee, commissioner, or
consultant who, because of the
individual’s service to an agency, is
required to file a statement of economic
interests pursuant to the Political
Reform Act.

D. “Confidential information” means
information that, if it were contained in a
document, would not be subject to
disclosure under the state’s Public
Records Act.

E. “Contract” means an agreement,
lease, right of entry, franchise, or
concession, including but not limited to
an agreement for the performance of
work, the rendition of service, or the
provision of materials, equipment, or
supplies to the City or the public, which
is let, awarded, or entered into with or
on behalf of an agency.

F. “Elected City officer” means a person
who is a City Council member, City
Attorney, Controller, or Mayor, whether
appointed or elected.

G. “Matter pending” means a matter in
which a non-ministerial action is
required to proceed with or resolve the
matter but has not yet been taken.

H. “Political activity” means activity
directed at the success or failure of any
ballot measure or candidate for elective
office in a future election and includes
but is not limited to: endorsing a
candidate; engaging in fundraising;
developing, displaying, or distributing
campaign materials; conducting
research; or posting comments on social
media or other Internet sites.

I. “Political Reform Act” means the
California Political Reform Act of 1974
(California Government Code Sections
81000 et seq.) and the related
regulations of the California Fair Political
Practices Commission as amended from
time to time.

J. “Restricted source” means the
following:

1. For elected City officers, a restricted
source is the following:
a. A person who files as a lobbying
firm or lobbyist or is required to
file as a lobbying firm or lobbyist,
as defined in Section 48.02.

City Council 37 – 8 11/19/2024
3 of 19
Los Angeles Governmental Ethics Ordinance 1/23/20
b. A person who has entered into,
performs under, or seeks a
contract with the City. This does
not include the following:
i. An individual who has entered
into or performs under an
agreement with the City
regarding employment; or
ii. A person who receives or
pays for services normally
rendered by the City to
residents and businesses,
such as sewer service, water
and power service, or street
maintenance.
c. A person who, during the prior 12
months, attempted to influence
the elected City officer in any City
action that would have a material
financial effect on the person.

This does not include an
individual who attempted to
influence action regarding that
individual’s own City
compensation, benefits, or
retirement.
d. A person who is or in the prior 12
months was a party to a
proceeding involving a license,
permit, or other entitlement for
use that was pending before the
elected City officer, the City
Council, or a board, commission,
committee, or other similar body
of which the elected City officer is
a voting member.
e. A person who is an applicant,
owner, or principal under Section

49.7.37. 2. For all other City officials, a restricted
source is the following:
a. A person who seeks to influence
decisions of the City official’s
agency and files as a lobbying
firm or lobbyist, or is required to
file as a lobbying firm or lobbyist
as defined in Section 48.02;
b. A person who has entered into,
performs under, or seeks a
contract with the City official’s
agency. This does not include
the following:
i. An individual who has entered
into or performs under an
agreement with the City
official’s agency regarding
employment; or
ii. A person who receives or
pays for services normally
rendered by the City to
residents and businesses,
such as sewer service, water
and power service, or street
maintenance.
c. A person who, during the prior 12
months, attempted to influence
the official in any City action that
would have a material financial
effect on the person. This does
not include an individual who
attempted to influence action
regarding that individual’s own
City compensation, benefits, or
retirement.
d. A person who is or in the prior 12
months was a party to a
proceeding involving a license,
permit, or other entitlement for
use that was pending before the
official or before a board,
commission, committee, or other
similar body of which the official
is a voting member.

City Council 37 – 9 11/19/2024
4 of 19
Los Angeles Governmental Ethics Ordinance 1/23/20
History:

Amended by Ord. 167949, effective 7/5/92.

Amended by Ord. 168056, effective 8/8/92.

Amended by Ord. 170655, effective 9/21/95.

Amended by Ord. 172891, effective 12/11/99.

Amended by Ord. 173363, effective 7/29/00.

Amended by Ord. 176824, effective 8/27/05.

Amended by Ord. 182842, effective 2/10/14.

Amended by Ord. 186477, effective 1/23/20.

SEC. 49.5.3. CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION.

A current or former City official or agency
employee shall not misuse or disclose
confidential information acquired as a result
of City service.

History:

Amended by Ord. 182842, effective 2/10/14.

SEC. 49.5.4. PROTECTION AGAINST
RETALIATION.

A. City officials and agency employees
shall not use or threaten to use any
official authority or influence to
discourage, restrain, or interfere with
another person’s attempt to report
possible violations of law to the Ethics
Commission or another governmental
entity.

B. City officials and agency employees
shall not use or threaten to use any
official authority or influence to effect
any action as a reprisal against another
person who reports a possible violation
of law to the Ethics Commission or
another governmental entity.

C. A person who believes that he or she
has been subjected to an action
prohibited by this Section may file a
confidential complaint with the Ethics
Commission.

D. The Ethics Commission may refer
retaliation complaints to appropriate
agencies for disciplinary purposes.

History:

Amended by Ord. 168708, effective 5/13/93.

Amended by Ord. 182842, effective 2/10/14.

SEC. 49.5.5. MISUSE OF CITY POSITION
OR RESOURCES.

A. City officials, agency employees,
appointees awaiting confirmation by the
City Council, and candidates for elected
City office shall not misuse or attempt to
misuse their positions or prospective
positions to create or attempt to create a
private advantage or disadvantage,
financial or otherwise, for any person.

B. City officials and agency employees
shall not engage in political activity in
the following scenarios:

1. While on duty for the City.

2. In any manner that implies the City
official or agency employee is
speaking on behalf of the City or
communicating a City position. This
may include but is not limited to
engaging in political activity in the
following scenarios:
a. While wearing a uniform or
official City insignia; or
b. Using a City title or position.

3. In a room or building that is owned
by the City or primarily paid for or
used by the City and occupied by a
City official or agency employee in
the discharge of City duties. This
does not include a City room or
building that is available to the public
for organized campaign activities as
long as the City official or agency
employee does not use the room or
building during the official's or
employee's City working hours and
does not use other City resources for
the activity.

City Council 37 – 10 11/19/2024
5 of 19
Los Angeles Governmental Ethics Ordinance 1/23/20

4. Using City equipment, vehicle,
supplies, or resources, including but
not limited to mailing and distribution
lists, electronic mail, and electronic
data.

C. A person shall not induce or coerce or
attempt to induce or coerce another
person to engage in activity prohibited
by Subsections A or B.

D. This Section does not prohibit the use of
City resources to provide information to
the public about the possible effects of a
bond issue or ballot measure relating to
City activities, operations, or policies
when the use of public resources is
otherwise legally authorized.

History:

Amended by Ord. 172891, effective 12/11/99.

Amended by Ord. 182842, effective 2/10/14.

SEC. 49.5.6. CONFLICTS OF
INTERESTS.

A. City officials shall not make, participate
in making, or attempt to use their official
positions to influence City decisions in
which they know or have reason to
know they have a financial interest.

B. In the first 12 months of City service, a
City official or agency employee shall
not knowingly make, participate in
making, or attempt to use his or her
official position to influence a City
decision directly relating to a contract
when a party to the contract is a person
by whom the individual was employed in
the 12 months immediately prior to
entering City service.

C. Statements of City-Related Business.

1. An elected City officer, a candidate
for elected City office, a member of a
City board or commission, a general
manager or chief administrative
officer of an agency, and an
individual holding an appointive
office named in the Charter shall file
a statement of City-related business
with the Ethics Commission within
ten calendar days after a City action,
other than a ministerial action,
affects the individual’s personal
financial interests.

2. For purposes of the statement, a City
action affects an individual’s
personal financial interests if it
involves one or more of the following
held by, required of, or sought by the
individual, the individual’s spouse or
registered domestic partner, or a
business entity in which either the
individual or the individual’s spouse
or registered domestic partner holds
an ownership interest of five percent
or more:
a. The sale of real or personal
property; or
b. The performance of services
pursuant to a contract; or
c. A grant, loan, or forgiveness or
payment of indebtedness; or
d. An application for a license,
certificate, permit, franchise,
change of zone, variance,
credential, or other benefit or
relief.

3. The statement shall be in sufficient
detail as to dates, amounts,
identifying numbers or symbols,
locations, and subject matter to
make the action identifiable by
reference to City records.

City Council 37 – 11 11/19/2024
6 of 19
Los Angeles Governmental Ethics Ordinance 1/23/20

4. The statement shall be filed under
penalty of perjury in a method
prescribed by the Ethics
Commission.

5. The statement shall satisfy the
requirements of Section 304 of the
City Election Code.

D. Recusal Notification.

1. A member of a City board or
commission who is required to file a
statement of economic interests
pursuant to the Political Reform Act
shall file a recusal notification form
each time the member recuses
himself or herself in relation to an
actual or apparent conflict of
interests.
a. The member shall file a copy of
the completed form with the
executive secretary for the
commission or board (or the
person acting in that capacity) as
soon as possible after the posting
of the agenda containing the item
involving the member’s conflict of
interests.
b. The member shall file the original
form, along with a copy of the
meeting agenda containing the
item involving the conflict of
interests, with the Ethics
Commission within 15 calendar
days after the date of the meeting
at which the recusal occurred.
c. The member shall file the form
even if the member is not present
at the meeting.

2. The form shall be filed under penalty
of perjury in a method prescribed by
the Ethics Commission and shall
include, at a minimum, the following:
a. The member’s name;
b. The name of the member’s board
or commission;
c. The date of the meeting at which
the recusal occurred or would
have occurred;
d. The agenda item number, a brief
description of the matter, and a
statement of whether the matter
concerns the making of a
contract; and
e. The specific interest causing the
recusal and a statement of
whether the interest is financial.

E. Every agency shall make every effort to
avoid hiring or appointing City officials
who hold and are unwilling or unable to
sell assets that would present significant
and continuing conflicts of interests.

History:

Amended by Ord. 167949, effective 7/5/92.

Amended by Ord. 175344, effective 8/16/03.

Amended by Ord. 177190, effective 1/23/06.

Amended by Ord. 177853, effective 10/7/06.

Amended by Ord. 182842, effective 2/10/14.

SEC. 49.5.7. HONORARIA AND
OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT.

A. City officials and agency employees
shall not engage in outside employment
during any hours they are paid to
engage in City business. A person shall
not induce or coerce or attempt to
induce or coerce a City official or
agency employee to engage in such
outside employment.

City Council 37 – 12 11/19/2024
7 of 19
Los Angeles Governmental Ethics Ordinance 1/23/20
B. Elected City officers shall not receive
any payment, including honoraria, for
their services other than that provided
for by City Charter Section 218.

However, they may receive
compensation for serving on
governmental entities where payment is
authorized for other governmental
officers or employees serving in such
capacity.

C. City officials, other than elected City
officers and part-time board and
commission members, shall not accept
a payment for honoraria or other outside
earned income or employment without
prior written approval.

1. Prior written approval must first be
obtained from the general manager
or chief administrative officer of the
City official’s department.
a. General managers, chief
administrative officers, and
members of the Board of Public
Works must obtain prior written
approval from their appointing
authorities.
b. City Council staff members must
obtain prior written approval from
their City Council members.
c. A City official who does not have
an appointing authority must
obtain prior written approval from
the Ethics Commission.

2. If the general manager, chief
administrative officer, or appointing
authority approves the payment, the
City official must determine whether
the source is a restricted source for
the City official. If the source is a
restricted source, the City official
shall not accept the payment without
also obtaining prior written approval
from the Ethics Commission.

3. The approval required by
Subdivisions 1 and 2 shall be denied
if the general manager, chief
administrative officer, appointing
authority, or Ethics Commission
determines that receipt of the
payment would be inconsistent,
incompatible, in conflict with, or
inimical to the City official's official
duties, functions, or responsibilities.

Such a determination must be made
if one or more of the following factors
applies:
a. The payment or the services for
which the payment would be
received would involve any of the
following:
i. The actual use of or the
appearance of the use of
public office, employment,
time, facilities, equipment, or
supplies for private gain;
ii. The City official’s performance
of an act that could later be
subject to the control,
inspection, review, audit, or
enforcement of the City
official’s agency; or
iii. Such time demands that the
City official’s performance of
official City duties would be
rendered less efficient.
b. The City official would be
accepting payment from a person
other than the City official’s
agency for performing an act that
the City official would be required
or expected to render in the
regular course of performing City
duties.
c. The City official is in a position to
make, participate in making, or
influence a City decision that
City Council 37 – 13 11/19/2024
8 of 19
Los Angeles Governmental Ethics Ordinance 1/23/20
could foreseeably have a material
financial effect on the source of
the payment.

4. A request for approval from the
Ethics Commission shall be treated
as a request for written advice under
Charter Section 705(b).

History:

Amended by Ord. 168056, effective 8/8/92.

Amended by Ord. 172942, effective 1/21/00.

Amended by Ord. 182842, effective 2/10/14.

Renumbered by Ord. 182842, effective 2/10/14 (prev. 49.5.9).

SEC. 49.5.8. GIFTS.

A. A person shall not offer or make and a
City official shall not solicit or accept a
gift when it is reasonably foreseeable
that the City official could be influenced
by the gift in the performance of an
official act.

B. City officials shall comply with the gift
requirements and restrictions in the
Political Reform Act and California
Constitution. When the Political Reform
Act’s gift provisions, other than gift
limits, refer to a lobbying entity, the
reference shall include a City lobbying
firm and lobbyist.

C. In addition to the state requirements and
restrictions identified in Subsection B,
City officials shall also comply with the
following gift restrictions for restricted
sources.

1. A City official shall not solicit a gift
from a restricted source. A City
official shall not accept a gift that
exceeds the applicable gift limit from
a restricted source.

2. A person who is a restricted source
to a City official shall not offer or
make a gift that exceeds the
applicable gift limit to that City
official.

3. A restricted source shall not act as
an agent or intermediary in or
arrange for the making of a gift by
another person to a City official that
exceeds the applicable gift limit.

4. The applicable gift limits are as
follows:
a. For restricted sources identified
in Section 49.5.2(J)(1)(a) or
Section 49.5.2(J)(2)(a), the
applicable gift limit is zero.
b. For all other restricted sources,
the applicable gift limit is onehundred dollars ($100) per calendar year.

5. The applicable gift limits for
restricted sources do not apply to the
following:
a. Items received by a City official
from a union representing that
City official.
b. Food and beverages received by
a City official from a union
representing a bargaining unit of
City officials.
c. Items received by a City official
acting in an official City capacity
from an organization to which the
City, the City official, or the City
official’s agency belongs as a
member.
d. Nominal and routine office
courtesies received by a City
official in a restricted source’s
place of business, as long as the
courtesies are available to any
person who visits that place of
business.

City Council 37 – 14 11/19/2024
9 of 19
Los Angeles Governmental Ethics Ordinance 1/23/20
e. Payments for travel and meals
that are made by an organization
that is exempt from taxation
under Section 501(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code, a bona
fide educational institution as
defined by Section 203 of the
California Revenue and Taxation
Code, or a governmental entity
and where the payments are
exempt from the gift limits in the
Political Reform Act.

6. A City official has the duty to
determine whether a person is a
restricted source to him or her. A
person offering or making a gift to a
City official has the duty to determine
whether he or she is a restricted
source to that City official.
a. For restricted sources identified
in Sections 49.5.2(J)(1)(a) and

49.5.2(J)(2)(a), the following
apply:
i. A City official may presume
that a person is not a
restricted source to him or her
if the person is not identified
in the electronic filing system
for lobbying entities under
Section 48.06(B) on the date
the gift is offered or made, the
City official has conducted a
reasonable inquiry into
whether the person is a
restricted source between
database updates, and the
City official does not have
personal knowledge that the
person qualifies as a
restricted source.
ii. The electronic filing system
for lobbying entities is a
reference for compliance and
enforcement purposes for
gifts offered or made as of the
date the database was last
updated.
b. For restricted sources identified
in Sections 49.5.2(J)(1)(b) and

49.5.2(J)(2)(b), the following
apply:
i. A City official may presume
that a person is not a
restricted source to him or her
if the person is not identified
in the database in Section

49.5.11(B) on the date the gift
is offered or made, the City
official has conducted a
reasonable inquiry into
whether the person is a
restricted source between
database updates, and the
City official does not have
personal knowledge that the
person qualifies as a
restricted source.
ii. The restricted source gift limit
does not apply to sources that
are only identified in Section

49.5.2(J)(1)(b) or Section

49.5.2(J)(2)(b) until the Ethics
Commission and the City
Council initially certify that the
database in Section

49.5.11(B) provides enough
information for a City official to
determine whether a person is
a restricted source to him or
her under Section

49.5.2(J)(1)(b) or

49.5.2(J)(2)(b).

City Council 37 – 15 11/19/2024
10 of 19
Los Angeles Governmental Ethics Ordinance 1/23/20
iii. The database is a reference
for compliance and
enforcement purposes for
gifts offered or made from the
date the database is certified
through the date the database
was last updated.
c. For restricted sources identified
in Sections 49.5.2(J)(1)(c),

49.5.2(J)(1)(d), 49.5.2(J)(2)(c),
and 49.5.2(J)(2)(d), the following
apply:
i. A City official may presume
that a person is not a
restricted source to him or her
if the City official has
conducted a reasonable
inquiry into whether the
person is a restricted source
and does not have personal
knowledge that the person
qualifies as a restricted
source.
ii. The Ethics Commission will
not maintain a database.
d. A reasonable inquiry includes
asking the source, asking a
responsible employee in the
relevant agency, and reviewing
the City Clerk’s council file
management system.

D. A ticket or pass distributed by an agency
to a City official in accordance with
Chapter 5 of Los Angeles Administrative
Code Division 24 is not a gift to the City
official.

History:

Amended by Ord. 168056, effective 8/8/92.

Amended by Ord. 178064, effective 1/15/07.

Amended by Ord. 182842, effective 2/10/14.

Renumbered by Ord. 182842, effective 2/10/14 (prev. 49.5.10).

Amended by Ord. 183731, effective 8/4/15.

SEC. 49.5.9. DISCLOSURE OF
ECONOMIC INTERESTS.

A. A City official shall file a statement of
economic interests pursuant to the
Political Reform Act and this Section.

B. Whenever an elected City officer, a
member of a City board or commission,
or a general manager or chief
administrative officer of an agency is
required by the Political Reform Act to
file a statement of economic interests,
the individual also shall disclose
financial interests associated with
restricted sources.

1. The following financial interests shall
be disclosed:
a. Interests in real property that
were leased from or to, co-owned
by, purchased from, or sold to a
restricted source by the City
official or the City official’s
spouse, registered domestic
partner, or dependent child.
b. Investments that were co-owned
by, purchased from, or sold to a
restricted source by the City
official or the City official’s
spouse, registered domestic
partner, or dependent child.
c. Income other than gifts that was
valued at $500 or more and was
received from a restricted source
by the City official or the City
official’s spouse, registered
domestic partner, or dependent
child.
d. Gifts cumulatively valued at $50
or more and that were received
from a restricted source by the
City official or the City official’s
spouse, registered domestic
partner, or dependent child.

City Council 37 – 16 11/19/2024
11 of 19
Los Angeles Governmental Ethics Ordinance 1/23/20
e. Positions held on the board of a
restricted source by the City
official or the City official’s
spouse, registered domestic
partner, or dependent child.

2. The disclosure shall be verified
under penalty of perjury.

3. The disclosure shall be made in a
method prescribed by the Ethics
Commission and may include
additional information the Ethics
Commission deems necessary.

4. The disclosure shall be filed on the
same schedule and for the same
reporting period as the statement
required by the Political Reform Act.

5. A City official is not required to
disclose the name of a person who
paid fees or made payments to the
City official or to a business entity in
which the City official or the City
official’s spouse or registered
domestic partner holds an interest if
the executive director determines
that disclosing the person's name
would violate a legally recognized
privilege.

C. The Ethics Commission may, by
regulation, require the disclosure of
specific types of financial interests, in
addition to those interests required to be
disclosed pursuant to this Section, if it is
reasonably foreseeable that the interest
could be materially affected by the City
official’s exercise of official City duties.

History:

Amended by Ord. 167949, effective 7/5/92.

Amended by Ord. 173101, effective 3/27/00.

Amended by Ord. 173138, effective 4/24/00.

Amended by Ord. 173870, effective 5/14/01.

Amended by Ord. 177190, effective 1/23/06.

Amended by Ord. 177853, effective 10/7/06.

Amended by Ord. 182842, effective 2/10/14.

Renumbered by Ord.182842, effective 2/10/14 (prev.49.5.6(A-C)).

SEC. 49.5.10. DISCLOSURE BY
NOMINEES.

A. Each person nominated to a position in
an agency subject to a conflict of
interests code, where appointment is
subject to confirmation by the City
Council, shall file a financial disclosure
statement with the Ethics Commission in
the method prescribed by the Ethics
Commission. The financial disclosure
statement shall be filed within 21 days of
the appointing authority’s transmission
of the nominee's appointment to the City
Council.

B. Within five business days of receiving a
complete financial disclosure statement
from the appointee, the Ethics
Commission staff shall forward a copy of
the financial disclosure statement to the
appointing authority and the City Council
or its committee confirming the
appointment.

History:

Amended by Ord. 167949, effective 7/5/92.

Amended by Ord. 174613, effective 7/7/02.

Amended by Ord. 182842, effective 2/10/14.

Renumbered by Ord. 182842, effective 2/10/14 (prev. 49.5.7).

SEC. 49.5.11. CONTRACTS
GENERALLY.

A. Except at a public meeting, a member of
a City board or commission shall not
participate in the development, review,
evaluation, or negotiation of or the
recommendation process for bids,
proposals, or any other requests for the
award or termination of a contract,
amendment, or change order involving
that board, commission, or agency.

This does not preclude individual
members from reviewing documents
and other information provided by
agency staff when preparing for a public
meeting at which the matter will be
considered.

City Council 37 – 17 11/19/2024
12 of 19
Los Angeles Governmental Ethics Ordinance 1/23/20
B. The Ethics Commission shall provide an
official, electronic City database for
restricted sources that are identified in
Sections 49.5.2(J)(1)(b) and

49.5.2(J)(2)(b).

1. Each agency shall submit to the
Ethics Commission information
regarding every person who, during
the relevant time period, was a party
to an agency contract, was a bidder
on an agency contract, or responded
to a request for proposals for an
agency contract. Submitting the
information to the City Clerk or to
another City database shall not be
deemed compliance with this
Section.

2. Agency information must include the
name of the person, the date the bid
or response was submitted, the date
the contract was entered into, any
contract or proposal number, a brief
description of the contract, and any
other information deemed necessary
by the Ethics Commission.

3. Agency information must be
submitted in a method prescribed by
the Ethics Commission by the
following dates:
a. Every January 31, covering the
immediately preceding October 1
through December 31;
b. Every April 30, covering the
immediately preceding January 1
through March 31;
c. Every July 31, covering the
immediately preceding April 1
through June 30; and
d. Every October 31, covering the
immediately preceding July 1
through September 30.

4. For each agency, the Ethics
Commission shall update the
database within 45 days after a
quarterly filing deadline that is
specified in paragraph 3 or the date
the agency submits complete
quarterly information, whichever is
later. The database shall include a
disclaimer noting the date of the last
update for each agency.

5. If an agency fails to submit complete
quarterly information within five
business [days] after a quarterly
filing deadline specified in paragraph
3, the Ethics Commission staff shall
notify every elected City officer and
the agency’s general manager or
chief administrative officer of the
delinquency. Failure to comply
within 10 business days of the date
of the notice will subject the agency’s
general manager, chief
administrative officer, or responsible
elected City officer to liability under
Section 49.5.17.

6. For purposes of this Subsection, a
City Council district is a distinct
agency.

7. The City shall provide the Ethics
Commission with adequate staffing
and funding to create, maintain, and
update the database.

History:

Amended by Ord. 176824, effective 8/27/05.

Amended by Ord. 182842, effective 2/10/14.

Renumbered by Ord. 182842, effective 2/140/14 (prev. 49.5.17).

SEC. 49.5.12. CONTRACTS AND MONEY
LAUNDERING VIOLATIONS.

A. Competitively Bid Contracts.

1. An awarding authority shall not
award a contract to a bidder if it finds
the following:

City Council 37 – 18 11/19/2024
13 of 19
Los Angeles Governmental Ethics Ordinance 1/23/20
a. The Ethics Commission has
found that the bidder violated City
Charter Section 470(k) in the
previous four years; and
b. The bidder lacks integrity such
that it is unfit to perform the work
specified in the contract. The
awarding authority shall make
that finding unless there are
specific facts brought to its
attention in writing that indicate
otherwise.

2. If the findings in paragraph 1 are
made, the awarding authority shall
deem the bidder to be not
responsible.

3. Prior to making a finding that a
bidder is not responsible, the
awarding authority shall do the
following:
a. Notify the bidder of its intention to
consider making the finding.
b. Offer the bidder an opportunity to
present evidence and argue that,
despite the violation, the
awarding authority should not
have reason to question the
bidder’s integrity and fitness to
perform the contract.
c. Hold an informal hearing at which
the bidder and other interested
parties may make presentations.
d. Consider the presentations of the
bidder and other interested
parties and be satisfied that the
finding is merited.

B. Fee Waivers. A discretionary fee
waiver of more than $1,000 shall not be
granted for a person who has been
found by the Ethics Commission to have
violated City Charter Section 470(k)
within the previous four years.

C. Notice of Violations.

1. The Ethics Commission shall provide
a copy of every Commission
enforcement decision relating to a
violation of City Charter Section
470(k) to the general manager or
other head of each agency.

2. A person who submits a bid or
proposal or requests a fee waiver
shall include with the submission or
request a copy of the Ethics
Commission’s decision of violation.

3. A report that contains sufficient
information to allow a decisionmaking body to comply with this Section shall be submitted to the
decision-making body by the
following:
a. By the City Clerk, when the City
Council is the decision-making
body.
b. By agency staff when a City
board or commission is the
decision-making body.

D. Reduction of Time Period. The Ethics
Commission may reduce the time during
which this Section applies to not less
than one year if it finds that the
contracting party has done either of the
following:

1. Accepted responsibility for the
violation by entering into a stipulation
with the Ethics Commission in which
the party admits the violation or
otherwise exhibits evidence of
City Council 37 – 19 11/19/2024
14 of 19
Los Angeles Governmental Ethics Ordinance 1/23/20
having accepted responsibility; or

2. Mitigated the wrongdoing by taking
prompt remedial or corrective action.

E. Waiver of Provisions. The City
Council may waive any or all of the
requirements in this Section if it finds
that an overriding public policy
consideration justifies doing so.

1. The finding must be approved in
writing by a two-thirds vote of the
City Council’s entire membership.

2. The finding must identify the nature
of the overriding public policy
consideration and the reason why
that consideration justifies the
waiver. A waiver is justified if it
would result in a significant
community or financial benefit to the
City or if it is necessary to preserve
the health, safety, or welfare of the
public.

F. Exception. This Section, excluding
Subsection D(1), does not apply to the
following proprietary City departments:

Airports, City Employees Retirement
System, Harbor, Library, Pensions,
Recreation and Parks, and Water and
Power.

History:

Added by Ord. 171142, effective 8/3/96.

Amended by Ord. 172942, effective 1/21/00.

Amended by Ord. 182842, effective 2/10/14.

Renumbered by Ord. 182842, effective 2/10/14 (prev. 49.5.21).

SEC. 49.5.13. LOBBYING ACTIVITIES

OF CURRENT AND FORMER CITY
OFFICIALS.

A. A member of a City board or
commission who is required to file
statements of economic interests
pursuant to the Political Reform Act
shall not receive compensation to
communicate, either personally or
through an agent, with a City official for
the purpose of attempting to influence
action on a City matter on behalf of a
person other than an agency. This
Subsection does not prohibit a member
of a City board or commission from
appearing before an agency in the same
manner as any other member of the
general public solely to represent
himself or herself in a matter related to
his or her personal interests.

B. A former City official or agency
employee who personally and
substantially participated in a specific
matter during City service shall not
receive compensation to attempt to
influence City action on that matter,
either personally or through an agent,
on behalf of a person other than an
agency. Personal and substantial
participation includes but is not limited to
making or voting on a decision or
making a recommendation, rendering
advice, and conducting research or an
investigation.

1. A former City official or agency
employee shall not receive
compensation to counsel or assist a
person other than an agency
regarding activity that is prohibited
for the former City official or agency
employee pursuant to this
Subsection.

2. This prohibition applies as long as
the matter is still pending before an
agency or an agency is a party to the
matter.

3. This prohibition does not apply when
the former City official or agency
employee participated in the matter
in solely a ministerial capacity.

C. The following time-based restrictions on
lobbying activities apply to former City
officials.

City Council 37 – 20 11/19/2024
15 of 19
Los Angeles Governmental Ethics Ordinance 1/23/20

1. For one year after leaving City
service, a City official shall not
receive compensation to attempt to
influence, either personally or
through an agent, City action on any
matter pending before any agency
on behalf of a person other than an
agency if, during the 24 months
preceding the official’s departure
from City service, the official held
any of the following positions:
elected City officer; Board of Public
Works Commissioner; General
Manager; Chief Administrative
Officer; Mayor's Chief of Staff;
Deputy Mayor; Mayoral Aide VII;
Mayoral Aide VIII; Executive
Assistant City Attorney; Chief
Assistant City Attorney; Senior
Assistant City Attorney; City Attorney
Exempt Employee; Chief Deputy
Controller; Administrative Deputy
Controller; Principal Deputy
Controller; Council Aide VI; or
Council Aide VII.

2. For one year after leaving City
service, all other former City officials
shall not receive compensation to
attempt to influence, either
personally or through an agent, City
action on any matter pending before
an agency in which the City official
served during the 24 months
preceding the official’s departure
from City service on behalf of a
person other than an agency.

Serving an agency means being
directly employed by or being
assigned or on loan to that agency.

D. This Section does not apply to the
following:

1. Attempts to influence solely
ministerial action on City matters.

2. Attempts to influence made by
former City officials who are officers
or employees of a governmental
entity and are solely representing
that entity in an official capacity.

E. By July 31 of every year, the City
Controller shall submit to the Ethics
Commission the names of each
individual who held a position identified
in Subsection (C)(1) during the
preceding 24 months. By July 31 of
every year, the City Clerk shall submit to
the Ethics Commission the names of
each individual who held a City Attorney
Exempt position as provided in City
Charter Section 1050(d) during the
preceding 24 months.

F. Upon the petition of an interested party,
a court or presiding officer in a judicial,
quasi-judicial, or other proceeding may
exclude a person found to be in violation
of this Section from further participating
in or assisting another participant in a
proceeding pending before that court or
presiding officer. Notice and an
opportunity to be heard must be
provided.

History:

Amended by Ord. 168057, effective 8/8/92.

Amended by Ord. 172891, effective 12/11/99.

Amended by Ord. 176823, effective 8/27/05.

Amended by Ord. 178064, effective 1/15/07.

Amended by Ord. 182842, effective 2/10/14.

Renumbered by Ord. 182842, effective 2/10/14 (prev. 49.5.11).

SEC. 49.5.14. FUTURE EMPLOYMENT.

A. The following limits on future
employment apply to City officials.

1. The Mayor, the City Attorney, the
City Controller, a general manager,
and a chief administrative officer
shall not directly or indirectly,
knowingly or willfully negotiate the
possibility of future employment or
business opportunities with a person
other than a governmental entity if
the person has a matter that is
City Council 37 – 21 11/19/2024
16 of 19
Los Angeles Governmental Ethics Ordinance 1/23/20
currently pending before that City
official or the City official’s agency.

2. A member of the City Council, a City
board or commission, or another
voting body of an agency who is
required to file statements of
economic interests pursuant to the
Political Reform Act shall not directly
or indirectly, knowingly or willfully
negotiate the possibility of future
employment or business
opportunities with a person other
than a governmental entity if the
person has a matter that is currently
pending before that City official or a
body of which the City official is a
voting member.

3. A City official other than one
identified in Subsection 1 or 2 above
shall not directly or indirectly,
knowingly or willfully negotiate the
possibility of future employment or
business opportunities with a person
other than a governmental entity if
the person has a matter that is
currently pending before that City
official.

4. City officials shall not make,
participate in making, or use their
official City positions to influence a
decision involving the interests of a
person with whom they have an
agreement concerning future
employment or business
opportunities.

B. A person who has a matter pending
before a City official or a body of which
the City official is a voting member shall
not directly or indirectly, knowingly or
willfully negotiate the possibility of future
employment of or business opportunities
for that City official.

C. A person has a matter pending if the
person is a party to or is compensated
to represent a party to the matter.

History:

Amended by Ord. 168057, effective 8/8/92.

Amended by Ord. 182842, effective 2/10/14.

Renumbered by Ord. 182842, effective 2/10/14 (prev. 49.5.12).

SEC. 49.5.15. ETHICS AND FRAUD
AWARENESS TRAINING.

A. Ethics Training. All City officials are
required to complete ethics training at
the time of entering City service and
once every two years thereafter. The
training shall be developed by the Ethics
Commission, in partnership with the
Office of the City Attorney, and shall be
structured to ensure that participants
have knowledge to comply with all of the
relevant ethics laws governing their
service to the City.

B. Fraud Awareness Training. All fulltime City employees are required to complete on-line training for fraud
awareness at the time of entering City
service and once every two years
thereafter. The training shall be
developed by the City Controller's
Fraud, Waste and Abuse Unit and
provided by the Personnel Department
as described in the Los Angeles
Administrative Code.

History:

Repealed by Ord. 172891, effective 12/11/99.

Added by Ord. 178064, effective 01/15/07.

Amended by Ord. 182478, effective 04/17/13.

Amended by Ord. 182842, effective 2/10/14.

Renumbered by Ord. 182842, effective 2/10/14 (prev. 49.5.18).

SEC. 49.5.16. ENFORCEMENT.

A. Criminal Enforcement.

1. A person who does any of the
following is guilty of a misdemeanor:

City Council 37 – 22 11/19/2024
17 of 19
Los Angeles Governmental Ethics Ordinance 1/23/20
a. Knowingly or willfully violates a
provision of this Article;
b. Knowingly or willfully causes
another person to violate a
provision of this Article; or
c. Aids and abets another person in
violating a provision of this
Article.

2. Prosecution shall be commenced
within four years after the date of the
violation.

3. A person convicted of a
misdemeanor under this Article shall
not act as a City lobbyist or
contractor for four years following the
date of the conviction, unless the
court at the time of sentencing
specifically determines that this
provision shall not be applied.

4. For the purposes of this Section, a
plea of nolo contendere shall be
deemed a conviction.

B. Civil Actions.

1. A person who intentionally or
negligently violates a provision of
this Article shall be liable in a civil
action brought by the City Attorney,
the Ethics Commission, or a person
residing within the City for an amount
not more than the greater of $5,000
per violation or three times the
amount the person failed to report,
properly or unlawfully contributed,
expended, gave, or received.

2. If two or more persons are
responsible for any violation, they
shall be jointly and severally liable.

3. A person other than the City
Attorney, before filing a civil action
pursuant to this Subsection, shall
first file with the Ethics Commission
a written request for the Ethics
Commission to commence the
action. The request shall contain a
statement of the grounds for
believing a cause of action exists.

The Ethics Commission shall
respond within 40 days after receipt
of the request, indicating whether it
intends to file a civil action. If the
Ethics Commission indicates in the
affirmative and files an action within
40 days thereafter, no other action
may be brought unless the action
brought by the Ethics Commission is
dismissed without prejudice.

4. In determining the amount of liability,
the court may take into account the
seriousness of the violation and the
degree of culpability of the
defendant. If a judgment is entered
against the defendant or defendants
in an action, a private plaintiff shall
receive 50 percent of the amount
recovered. The remaining 50
percent shall be deposited into the
City's General Fund. In an action
brought by the City Attorney or the
Ethics Commission, the entire
amount shall be paid to the General
Fund.

5. An action alleging a violation of this
article may not be filed more than
four years after the date the violation
occurred.

6. The court may award to a party other
than an agency who prevails in a
civil action that party’s costs of
litigation, including reasonable
attorney fees. If the costs are
awarded against the City, the
payment of the award is the
City Council 37 – 23 11/19/2024
18 of 19
Los Angeles Governmental Ethics Ordinance 1/23/20
responsibility of the City, subject to
City Council approval.

C. Injunctive Relief. A person residing
within the City, including the City
Attorney, may sue for injunctive relief to
enjoin violations of or to compel
compliance with this Article.

D. Administrative Penalties. The
Commission may impose penalties and
issue orders for violations of this Article
pursuant to its authority under Charter
Section 706(c).

E. Discipline. An appointed City official or
agency employee who violates a
provision of this Article shall be subject
to administrative discipline by his or her
appointing authority. Such discipline
shall be administered in accordance
with procedures prescribed by law or
established by City policy. The
Commission shall notify an agency
when one of its City officials or
employees is found to be in violation of
this Article.

F. Other Governmental Entities. If a
governmental entity that is required to
adopt a conflict of interests code subject
to City Council approval but is not
otherwise within the City’s control
adopts governmental ethics regulations
governing the conduct of its current or
former officers or employees, violations
of those regulations are subject to civil
and administrative enforcement and
discipline under Subsections B through
E.

History:

Amended by Ord. 168229, effective 10/11/92.

Amended by Ord. 170538, effective 7/13/95.

Amended by Ord. 172942, effective 1/21/00.

Amended by Ord. 175877, effective 5/5/04.

Amended by Ord. 182842, effective 2/10/14.

Renumbered by Ord. 182842, effective 2/10/14 (prev. 49.5.19).

SEC. 49.5.17. LATE FILING PENALTIES.

In addition to any other penalties, a person
who files an original statement or report
after a deadline imposed by this Article is
liable to the Ethics Commission in the
amount of $25 per day after the deadline
until the statement or report is filed, up to a
maximum of $500. Liability need not be
enforced by the Ethics Commission if its
executive officer determines that the late
filing was not willful and that enforcement of
the liability will not further the purposes of
the Article. Liability may not be waived if a
statement or report is not filed within 30
days after receiving notice from the Ethics
Commission staff that the statement or
report is past due.

History:

Amended by Ord. 168229, effective 10/11/92.

Amended by Ord. 170538, effective 7/13/95.

Amended by Ord. 182842, effective 2/10/14.

Renumbered by Ord. 182842, effective 2/10/14 (prev. 49.5.20).

SEC. 49.5.18. AUTHORITY TO ENACT.

This article is enacted pursuant to and
under the authority of the City Charter,
California Government Code Sections 1125
et seq., California Government Code
Section 81013, and California Constitution,
Article XI, Section 5.

History:

Renumbered by Ord. 171142, effective 8/3/96 (prev. 49.5.21).

Amended by Ord. 182842, effective 2/10/14.

Renumbered by Ord. 182842, effective 2/10/14 (prev. 49.5.22).

SEC. 49.5.19. RECORDKEEPING.

Persons subject to this Article shall keep
records that demonstrate compliance with
this Article and the related provisions of the
Political Reform Act and the City Charter for
four years.

History:

Added by Ord. 182842, effective 2/10/14.

City Council 37 – 24 11/19/2024
19 of 19
Los Angeles Governmental Ethics Ordinance 1/23/20
SEC. 49.5.20. SEVERABILITY.

The provisions of this Article are severable.

If any provision of this Article or its
application to any person or circumstances
is held invalid by a court, the remainder of
this Article and the application of the
provision to other persons or circumstances
is not affected by that determination, to the
extent that the provision or its application
can be given effect.

History:

Renumbered by Ord. 171142, effective 8/3/96 (prev. 49.5.23).

Amended by Ord. 182842, effective 2/10/14.

Renumbered by Ord. 182842, effective 2/10/14 (prev. 49.5.24).

City Council 37 – 25 11/19/2024
Visit San Francisco’s new website, SF.gov
Civil Service Commission
San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct
Code
SEC. 3.200. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) The people of the City and County of San Francisco declare that public office is a public trust and all officers and employees of the City and County shall exercise their public duties in a manner consistent with this trust. To assure that the governmental processes of the City and County promote fairness and equity for all residents and to maintain public trust in governmental institutions, the people of the City and County declare that they have a compelling interest in creating laws regulating conflicts of interest and outside activities of City officers and employees. (b) The proper operation of the government of the City and County of San Francisco requires that public officers and employees be independent, impartial, and responsible to the people and that public office and employment not be used for personal gain. The public interest, therefore, requires that officers and employees of the City and County be prohibited from making, participating in making or otherwise seeking to influence governmental decisions in which they have a financial interest or accepting gifts and other things of value from regulated sources.
(c) In order to maintain the public's confidence in the integrity of governmental decisions related to the appointment and discipline of public officers and employees, public officers and employees must not give or receive anything of value in consideration of their appointment or accept anything of value from their subordinates, and must not participate in decisions related to their own character or conduct or that of their family members.
(d) City and County contracts should be, and should appear to be, awarded on a fair and impartial basis. The practice of members of Boards and Commissions of the City and County contracting with the City and County creates the potential for, and the appearance of, favoritism or preferential treatment by the City and County. Prohibiting members of Boards and Commissions of the City and County from contracting with the City and County will eliminate both actual and perceived favoritism or preferential treatment without creating unnecessary barriers to public service. (e) Government decisions of officers and employees of the City and County should be, and should appear to be, made on a fair and impartial basis. The practice of former officers and employees communicating with their former colleagues on behalf of private interests and the practice of current officers of the City and County communicating with other officers and employees on behalf of any other person for compensation creates the potential for, and the appearance of, undue influence, favoritism or preferential treatment. Prohibiting former officers and employees from communicating orally, in writing, or in any other manner with their former colleagues for specified periods of time and prohibiting current officers from communicating orally, in writing, or in any other manner with other officers and employees of the City and County on behalf of any other person for compensation will eliminate both actual and perceived undue influence, favoritism or preferential treatment without creating unnecessary barriers to public service.

City Council 37 – 26 11/19/2024
(Added by Proposition E, 11/4/2003) (Former Section 3.200 added by Ord. 71-00, File No. 000358, App. 4/28/2000; repealed by Proposition E, 11/4/2003. Derivation: Former Administrative Code Section 16.980; added by Ord. 374-96, App. 9/30/96) SEC. 3.202. CONSTRUCTION.

This Chapter shall be liberally construed in order to effectuate its purposes, provided that nothing in this Chapter shall be interpreted or applied to prohibit officers, members and representatives of employee organizations from engaging in organizational activities that are protected by the California Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or any other federal, state or local law. No error, irregularity, informality, neglect or omission of any officer in any procedure taken under this Chapter which does not directly affect the jurisdiction of the Board of Supervisors or the City and County to control the ethical conduct of its officers and employees shall avoid the effect of this Chapter. (Added by Proposition E, 11/4/2003)
SEC. 3.204. AMENDMENT OR REPEAL OF THIS CHAPTER.

The voters may amend or repeal this Chapter. The Board of Supervisors may amend this Chapter if all of the following conditions are met:
(a) The amendment furthers the purposes of this Chapter; (b) The Ethics Commission approves the proposed amendment by at least a four-fifths vote of all its members; (c) The proposed amendment is available for public review at least 30 days before the amendment is considered by the Board of Supervisors or any committee of the Board of Supervisors; and (d) The Board of Supervisors approves the proposed amendment by at least a two-thirds vote of all its members. (Added by Proposition E, 11/4/2003)
SEC. 3.206. FINANCIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
(a) Incorporation of the California Political Reform Act. No officer or employee of the City and County shall make, participate in making, or seek to influence a decision of the City and County in which the officer or employee has a financial interest within the meaning of California Government Code Section 87100 et seq. and any subsequent amendments to these Sections. (b) Incorporation of California Government Code 1090, et seq. No officer or employee of the City and County shall make a contract in which he or she has a financial interest within the meaning of California Government Code Section 1090 et seq. and any subsequent amendments to these Sections.
(c) Future Employment. No officer or employee of the City shall make, participate in making, or otherwise seek to influence a governmental decision, affecting a person or entity with whom the officer or employee is discussing or negotiating an agreement concerning future employment.
(Added by Proposition E, 11/4/2003)
SEC. 3.208. APPOINTMENTS AND NOMINATIONS.

No person shall give or promise, and no officer or employee of the City and County may solicit or accept, any money or other valuable thing in consideration for (i) the person's nomination or appointment to any City and County office or employment, or promotion or other favorable City and County employment action, or (ii) any other person's nomination or appointment to any City and County office or employment or promotion or other favorable City and County employment action. (Added by Proposition E, 11/4/2003)
SEC. 3.210. VOTING ON OWN CHARACTER OR CONDUCT.

City Council 37 – 27 11/19/2024
(a) Prohibition. No officer or employee of the City and County shall knowingly vote on or attempt to influence a governmental decision involving his or her own character or conduct, or his or her appointment to any office, position, or employment. (b) Exceptions. Nothing in this Section shall prohibit an officer or employee from (i) responding to allegations, applying for an office, position, or employment, or responding to inquiries; or (ii) participating in the decision of his or her board, commission, or committee to choose him or her as chair, vice chair, or other officer of the board, commission, or committee. (Added by Proposition E, 11/4/2003)
SEC. 3.212. DECISIONS INVOLVING FAMILY MEMBERS.
(a) Prohibition. No officer or employee of the City and County may make, participate in making, or otherwise seek to influence a decision of the City and County regarding an employment action involving a relative. Nothing in this Section shall prohibit an officer or employee from acting as a personal reference or providing a letter of reference for a relative who is seeking appointment to a position in any City department, board, commission or agency other than the officer or employee's department, board, commission or agency or under the control of any such department, board, commission or agency. (b) Delegation. A Department Head who is prohibited under Subsection (a) from participating in an employment action involving a relative shall delegate in writing to an employee within the department any decisions regarding such employment action. (c) Definitions. For purposes of this Section, the term "employment action" shall be limited to hiring, promotion, or discipline, and the term "relative" shall mean a spouse, domestic partner, parent, grandparent, child, sibling, parent-in-law, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, first cousin, and includes any similar step relationship or relationship created by adoption. (Added by Proposition E, 11/4/2003)
SEC. 3.214. DISCLOSURE OF PERSONAL, PROFESSIONAL AND BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS. (a) Disclosure. A City officer or employee shall disclose on the public record any personal, professional or business relationship with any individual who is the subject of or has an ownership or financial interest in the subject of a governmental decision being made by the officer or employee where as a result of the relationship, the ability of the officer or employee to act for the benefit of the public could reasonably be questioned. For the purposes of this Section, the minutes of a public meeting at which the governmental decision is being made, or if the governmental decision is not being made in a public meeting, a memorandum kept on file at the offices of the City officer or employee's department, board, commission or agency shall constitute the public record. (b) Penalties. A court may void any governmental decision made by a City officer or employee who fails to disclose a relationship as required by Subsection (a) if the court determines that: (1) the failure to disclose was willful; and (2) the City officer or employee failed to render his or her decision with disinterested skill, zeal, and diligence and primarily for the benefit of the City. No other penalties shall apply to a violation of this Section, provided that nothing in this Section shall prohibit an appointing authority from imposing discipline for a violation of this Section.
(c) Regulations. The Ethics Commission may adopt regulations setting forth the types of personal, professional and business relationships that must be disclosed pursuant to this Section. (Added by Proposition E, 11/4/2003)

CAMPAIGN AND GOVERNMENTAL CONDUCT CODE
ARTICLE III: CONDUCT OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES CHAPTER 2: CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND OTHER PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES SEC. 3.216. Gifts.

City Council 37 – 28 11/19/2024
SEC. 3.224. Prohibition on Representing Private Parties Before Other City Officers and Employees--Compensated Advocacy.

SEC. 3.218. INCOMPATIBLE ACTIVITIES.
(a) Prohibition. No officer or employee of the City and County may engage in any employment, activity, or enterprise that the department, board, commission, or agency of which he or she is a member or employee has identified as incompatible in a statement of incompatible activities adopted under this Section. No officer or employee may be subject to discipline or penalties under this Section unless he or she has been provided an opportunity to demonstrate that his or her activity is not in fact inconsistent, incompatible or in conflict with the duties of the officer or employee. (b) Statement of Incompatible Activities. Every department, board, commission, and agency of the City and County shall, by August 1 of the year after which this Section becomes effective, submit to the Ethics Commission a statement of incompatible activities. No statement of incompatible activities shall become effective until approved by the Ethics Commission after a finding that the activities are incompatible under the criteria set forth in Subsection (c). After initial approval by the Ethics Commission, a department, board, commission or agency of the City and County may, subject to the approval of the Ethics Commission, amend its statement of incompatible activities. The Ethics Commission may, at any time, amend the statement of incompatible activities of any department, board, commission or agency of the City and County.
(c) Required Language. Each statement of incompatible activities shall list those outside activities that are inconsistent, incompatible, or in conflict with the duties of the officers and employees of the department, board, commission, or agency of the City and County. This list shall include, but need not be limited to, activities that involve: (1) the use of the time, facilities, equipment and supplies of the City and County; or the badge, uniform, prestige, or influence of the City and County officer or employee's position for private gain or advantage; (2) the receipt or acceptance by an officer or employee of the City and County of any money or other thing of value from anyone other than the City and County for the performance of an act that the officer or employee would be required or expected to render in the regular course of his or her service or employment with the City and County; (3) the performance of an act in a capacity other than as an officer or employee of the City and County that may later be subject directly or indirectly to the control, inspection, review, audit or enforcement of the City and County officer or employee's department, board, commission or agency; and (4) time demands that would render performance of the City and County officer or employee's duties less efficient. The Ethics Commission may permit City boards and commissions to exclude any required language from their statement of incompatible activities if their members, by law, must be appointed in whole or in part to represent any profession, trade, business, union or association.
(d) Meet and Confer. No statement of incompatible activities or any amendment thereto shall become operative until the City and County has satisfied the meet and confer requirements of State law. (e) Notice. Every department, board, commission and agency of the City and County shall annually provide to its officers and employees a copy of its statement of incompatible activities. (f) Existing Civil Service Rules. Rules and Regulations relating to outside activities previously adopted or approved by the Civil Service Commission shall remain in effect until statements of incompatible activities are adopted pursuant to this Section. (Added by Proposition E, 11/4/2003)
SEC. 3.220. PROHIBITION ON DUAL OFFICE HOLDING.

Any person holding an office under the City and County with an annual salary in excess of $2,500, whether by election or by appointment, who shall, during his or her term of office, hold or retain any other office with such a salary under the government of the United States, the State of California, or the City and County shall be deemed to have thereby vacated the office held by him or her under the City and County. For the purposes of this Section, the term salary does not include: (1) a stipend, per diem, or other payment provided for attendance at meetings; or (2) health, dental or vision insurance, or other non-cash benefits. (Added by Proposition E, 11/4/2003)
City Council 37 – 29 11/19/2024
SEC. 3.222. PROHIBITING MEMBERS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS FROM CONTRACTING WITH THE CITY AND COUNTY.
(a) Definitions. For purposes of this Section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) Board or Commission. The term "board or commission" means an appointed board or commission created by Charter or ordinance of the City and County, but does not include advisory boards or commissions. (2) Business. The term "business" means any corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, firm, enterprise, franchise, association, organization, or other legal entity or undertaking organized for economic gain. (3) City and County. The term "City and County" includes any commission, board, department, agency, committee, or other organizational unit of the City and County of San Francisco. (4) Contract. The term "contract" means any agreement to which the City and County is a party, other than a grant funded in whole or in part by the City and County or an agreement for employment with the City and County in exchange for salary and benefits. (5) Subcontract. The term "subcontract" means a contract to perform any work that a primary contractor has an agreement with the City and County to perform.
(b) Prohibition. No member of a board or commission of the City and County shall, during his or her term of office, contract or subcontract with the City and County, the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, the San Francisco Housing Authority, the San Francisco Unified School District, or the San Francisco Community College District, where the amount of the contract or the subcontract exceeds $10,000.
(c) Exceptions. This Section shall not apply to the following contracts or subcontracts:
(1) A contract or subcontract with a nonprofit organization; (2) A contract or subcontract with a business with which a member of a board or commission is affiliated unless the member exercises management and control over the business. A member exercises management and control if he or she is:
(A) An officer or director of a corporation;
(B) A majority shareholder of a closely held corporation; (C) A shareholder with more than five percent beneficial interest in a publicly traded corporation; (D) A general partner or limited partner with more than 20 percent beneficial interest in the partnership; or (E) A general partner regardless of percentage of beneficial interest and who occupies a position of, or exercises management or control of the business;
(3) A contract or subcontract with the City and County entered into before a member of a board or commission commenced his or her service; or
(4) An agreement to provide property, goods or services to the City and County at substantially below fair market value. (d) Limitation. Failure of a member of a board or commission to comply with this Section shall not be grounds for invalidating any contract with the City and County.
(Added by Proposition E, 11/4/2003)
City Council 37 – 30 11/19/2024
SEC. 3.224. PROHIBITION ON REPRESENTING PRIVATE PARTIES BEFORE OTHER CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES-- COMPENSATED ADVOCACY.
(a) Prohibition. No officer of the City and County shall directly or indirectly receive any form of compensation to communicate orally, in writing, or in any other manner on behalf of any other person with any other officer or employee of the City and County with the intent to influence a government decision. (b) Exceptions. This section shall not apply to any communication by: (1) an officer of the City and County on behalf of the City and County; (2) an officer of the City and County on behalf of a business, union, or organization of which the officer is a member or full-time employee; (3) an associate, partner or employee of an officer of the City and County, unless it is clear from the totality of the circumstances that the associate, partner or employee is merely acting as an agent of the City and County officer; or (4) a City officer in his or her capacity as a licensed attorney engaged in the practice of law, which includes representing clients in communications with the City Attorney's Office, District Attorney's Office, Public Defender's Office, attorneys in the Tax Collector's Office or Sheriff's Office, outside legal counsel hired by the City, representatives of the City who are named in a pending litigation matter or witnesses or potential witnesses in a pending litigation matter. (c) Waiver. The Ethics Commission may waive the prohibitions in this section for any member of a City board or commission who, by law, must be appointed to represent any profession, trade, business, union or association. (Added by Proposition E, 11/4/2003; Ord. 97-06, File No. 051837, App. 5/19/2006) SEC. 3.226. REFERRALS.

No officer or employee of the City and County shall: (a) receive any money, gift or other thing of economic value from a person or entity other than the City and County for referring a member of the public to a person or entity for any advice, service or product related to the processes of the City and County; or (b) condition any governmental action on a member of the public hiring, employing, or contracting with any specific person or entity. The Ethics Commission may waive the restriction in Subsection (b) if the Commission determines that granting a waiver is necessary for the proper administration of a governmental program or action. (Added by Proposition E, 11/4/2003)
SEC. 3.228. DISCLOSURE OR USE OF CONFIDENTIAL CITY INFORMATION.

No current or former officer or employee of the City and County shall: (a) willfully or knowingly disclose any confidential or privileged information, unless authorized or required by law to do so; or (b) use any confidential or privileged information to advance the financial or other private interest of himself or herself or others. Confidential or privileged information is information that at the time of use or disclosure was not subject to disclosure under the Sunshine Ordinance or California Public Records Act. (Added by Proposition E, 11/4/2003)
SEC. 3.230. PROHIBITION ON POLITICAL ACTIVITY.
(a) Solicitation of Contributions. No City officer or employee shall knowingly, directly or indirectly, solicit political contributions from other City officers or employees or from persons on employment lists of the City. Nothing in this Section shall prohibit a City officer or employee from communicating through the mail or by other means requests for political contributions to a significant segment of the public which may include City officers or employees. (b) Political Activities in Uniform. No City officer or employee shall participate in political activities of any kind while in uniform. (c) Political Activities on City Time or Premises. No City officer or employee may engage in political activity during working hours or on City premises. For the purposes of this Subsection, the term "City premises" shall not include City owned property that is made available to the public and can be used for political purposes.

City Council 37 – 31 11/19/2024
(Added by Proposition E, 11/4/2003)
SEC. 3.232. PROHIBITION ON USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS FOR PRINTED GREETING CARDS. (a) Definitions. The term "greeting card" means any printed card that celebrates or recognizes a holiday. (b) Prohibition. No public funds may be used to design, produce, create, mail, send, or deliver any printed greeting card. The Controller of the City and County of San Francisco shall, in the Controller's sole discretion, determine whether a payment is prohibited under this Section.

The Controller's decision regarding whether a payment is prohibited under this Section is final. (Added by Proposition E, 11/4/2003)
SEC. 3.234. POST-EMPLOYMENT RESTRICTIONS.
(a) All Officers and Employees.
(1) General Post-Employment Restrictions.
(A) Permanent restriction on representation in particular matters. No former officer or employee of the City and County, after the termination of his or her service or employment with the City, shall, with the intent to influence, act as agent or attorney, or otherwise represent, any other person (except the City and County) before any court, or before any state, federal, or local agency, or any officer or employee thereof, by making any formal or informal appearance or by making any oral, written, or other communication in connection with a particular matter:
(i) in which the City and County is a party or has a direct and substantial interest; (ii) in which the former officer or employee participated personally and substantially as a City officer or employee; (iii) which involved a specific party or parties at the time of such participation; and (iv) which is the same matter in which the officer or employee participated as a City officer or employee. (B) Permanent restriction on assisting others in particular matters. No former officer or employee of the City and County, after the termination of his or her service or employment with the City, shall aid, advise, counsel, consult or assist another person (except the City and County) in any proceeding in which the officer or employee would be precluded under Subsection (A) from personally appearing.
(C) Exception for testimony. The prohibitions in Subsections A and B do not prohibit a former officer or employee of the City and County from testifying as a witness, based on the former officer's or employee's personal knowledge, provided that no compensation is received other than the fees regularly provided for by law or regulation of witnesses. (D) One year restriction on communicating with former department. No former officer or employee of the City and County, for one year after termination of his or her service or employment with the City, shall, with the intent to influence a government decision, communicate orally, in writing, or in any other manner on behalf of any other person (except the City and County) with any officer or employee of the department, board, commission, office or other unit of government, for which the officer or employee served. (E) Waiver.
(i) At the request of a former City officer or employee, the Ethics Commission may waive any of the restrictions in Subsections (a)(1) (A), (a)(1)(B) and (a)(1)(D) if the Commission determines that granting a waiver would not create the potential for undue influence or unfair advantage.

City Council 37 – 32 11/19/2024
The Ethics Commission shall adopt regulations implementing this provision. (ii) The Ethics Commission may waive any of the restrictions in Subsections (a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B) and (a)(1)(D) for members of City boards and commissions who, by law, must be appointed to represent any profession, trade, business, union or association. (2) Future Employment.
(A) Future Employment With Parties That Contract With The City. No officer or employee of the City shall, for a period of one year after termination of City service or employment, be employed by or otherwise receive compensation from a person or entity that entered into a contract with the City within the 12 months prior to the officer or employee leaving City service where the officer or employee personally and substantially participated in the award of the contract. (B) Waiver. At the request of a former City officer or employee, the Ethics Commission may waive the prohibition in Subsection (a) (2)(A) if the Commission determines that imposing the restriction would cause extreme hardship for the former City officer or employee. The Ethics Commission shall adopt regulations implementing this provision. (b) Mayor and Members of the Board of Supervisors.
(1) One year restriction on communicating with City departments. For purposes of the one-year restriction under Subsection (a)(1) (D), the "department" for which a former Mayor or member of the Board of Supervisors served shall be the City and County and the prohibition in Subsection (a)(1)(D) shall extend to communications with:
(A) a board, department, commission or agency of the City and County; (B) an officer or employee of the City and County;
(C) an appointee of a board, department, commission, agency, officer, or employee of the City and County; or (D) a representative of the City and County.
(2) City service. No former Mayor or member of the Board of Supervisors shall be eligible for a period of one year after the last day of service as Mayor or member of the Board of Supervisors, for appointment to any full time, compensated employment with the City and County. This restriction shall not apply to a former Mayor or Supervisor elected to an office of the City and County, appointed to fill a vacancy in an elective office of the City and County, or appointed to a board or commission in the executive branch.
(Added by Proposition E, 11/4/2003)
SEC. 3.236. AIDING AND ABETTING.

No person shall knowingly and intentionally provide assistance to or otherwise aid or abet any other person in violating any of the provisions of this Chapter.
(Added by Proposition E, 11/4/2003)
SEC. 3.238. FILING OF FALSE CHARGES.

No person shall knowingly and intentionally file with the Ethics Commission, the District Attorney or the City Attorney any false charge alleging a violation of this Chapter.
(Added by Proposition E, 11/4/2003)
SEC. 3.240. PROVISION OF FALSE OR MISLEADING INFORMATION; WITHHOLDING OF INFORMATION; AND DUTY TO COOPERATE AND ASSIST.

City Council 37 – 33 11/19/2024
(a) Prohibition. No person shall knowingly and intentionally furnish false or fraudulent evidence, documents, or information to the Ethics Commission, District Attorney or City Attorney, or knowingly and intentionally misrepresent any material fact, or conceal any evidence, documents, or information relevant to an investigation by the Ethics Commission, District Attorney or City Attorney of an alleged violation of this Chapter.
(b) Duty to Cooperate and Assist. The Ethics Commission, District Attorney or City Attorney may request and shall receive from every City officer and employee cooperation and assistance with an investigation into an alleged violation of this Chapter. (Added by Proposition E, 11/4/2003)
SEC. 3.242. PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Criminal Penalties. Any person who knowingly or willfully violates any of the City's conflict of interest and governmental ethics laws shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 for each violation or by imprisonment in the County jail for a period of not more than one year in jail or by both such fine and imprisonment. (b) Civil Penalties. Any person who intentionally or negligently violates any City conflict of interest or governmental ethics law shall be liable in a civil action brought by the City Attorney for an amount up to $5,000 for each violation. (c) Injunctive Relief. The City Attorney or any resident may bring a civil action on behalf of the people of San Francisco to enjoin violations of or compel compliance with a conflict of interest or governmental ethics law. No resident may commence a civil action under this Section without first notifying the City Attorney in writing of the intent to file a civil action under this Section. If the City Attorney fails to notify the resident within 120 days of receipt of the notice that the City Attorney has filed or will file a civil action, the complainant may file the action. No resident may file an action under this Section if the City Attorney responds within 120 days that the City Attorney intends to file an action or has already filed a civil action. No resident may bring an action under this Section if the Ethics Commission has issued a finding of probable cause arising out of the same facts, the District Attorney has commenced a criminal action arising out of the same facts, or another resident has filed a civil action underthis Section arising out of the same facts. A court may award reasonable attorney's fees and costs to any resident who obtains injunctive relief under this Section. (d) Administrative Penalties. Any person who violates any of the City's conflict of interest or governmental ethics laws shall be liable in an administrative proceeding before the Ethics Commission held pursuant to the Charter. In addition to the administrative penalties set forth in the Charter, the Ethics Commission may issue warning letters to City officers and employees. (e) Statute of Limitations. No person may bring a criminal, civil or administrative action under this Section against any other person more than four years after the date of the alleged violation. (Added by Proposition E, 11/4/2003)
SEC. 3.244. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Chapter, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of the Chapter and the applicability of such provisions to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected thereby. (Added by Proposition E, 11/4/2003)Ethics Commission
SEC. 4.100. FINDINGS.

The City and County of San Francisco has a paramount interest in protecting the integrity of its government institutions. To further this interest, individuals should be encouraged to report to the City's Ethics Commission, Controller, District Attorney, City Attorney and the complainant's department possible violations of laws, regulations and rules governing the conduct of City officers and employees.

This Chapter protects all City officers and employees from retaliation for filing a complaint with, or providing information to, the Ethics Commission, Controller, District Attorney, City Attorney or complainant's department about improper government activity by City officers and employees.

Finally, this Chapter ensures that complaints that do not allege a violation of law over which the Ethics Commission has jurisdiction are directed to the appropriate agency for investigation and possible disciplinary or enforcement action. (Added by Ord. 71-00, File No. 000358, App. 4/28/2000; amended by Ord. 29-02, File No. 020017, App. 3/15/2002) City Council 37 – 34 11/19/2024
SEC. 4.105. COMPLAINTS OF IMPROPER GOVERNMENT ACTIVITY; INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES; REFERRAL TO OTHER AGENCIES.
(a) COMPLAINTS. Any person may file a complaint with the Ethics Commission, Controller, District Attorney or City Attorney, or a written complaint with the complainant's department alleging that a City officer or employee has engaged in improper government activity by: violating local campaign finance, lobbying, conflicts of interest or governmental ethics laws, regulations or rules; violating the California Penal Code by misusing City resources; creating a specified and substantial danger to public health or safety by failing to perform duties required by the officer or employee's City position; or abusing his or her City position to advance a private interest.
(b) ETHICS COMMISSION COMPLAINT PROCEDURES. The Ethics Commission shall investigate complaints filed under this Section that allege violations of local campaign finance lobbying, conflicts of interest and governmental ethics laws pursuant to the procedures specified in Charter Section C3.699-13 and the regulations adopted thereunder. Nothing in this subsection shall preclude the Ethics Commission from referring any matter to any other City department, commission, board, officer or employee or to other government agencies for investigation and possible disciplinary or enforcement action. The Ethics Commission may require that any City department, commission, board, officer or employee report to the Ethics Commission on the referred matter. (c) REFERRAL. The Ethics Commission shall refer complaints that do not allege a violation of law, regulation or rule that is within the Ethics Commission's jurisdiction to the appropriate agency for investigation and possible disciplinary or enforcement action. The Commission may conduct preliminary investigations into such complaints to determine whether the complaint contains sufficient information to warrant referral. The Ethics Commission may require that any City department, commission, board, officer or employee report to the Ethics Commission on the referred matter. (Added by Ord. 71-00, File No. 000358, App. 4/28/2000; amended by Ord. 29-02, File No. 020017, App. 3/15/2002) SEC. 4.110. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings:
(a) The term "City" means the City and County of San Francisco, its departments, commissions and boards. (b) The term "complainant's department" includes the complainant's supervisor, the executive director or highest ranking officer in the complainant's department, and the board or commission overseeing the complainant's department. (c) The term "preliminary investigation" shall be limited to, but need not include: review of the complaint and any documentary evidence provided with the complaint; interview of the complainant; interview of the respondent, counsel to respondent and any witnesses who voluntarily agree to be interviewed for this purpose; review of any relevant public documents and documents provided voluntarily to the Commission. (Added by Ord. 71-00, File No. 000358, App. 4/28/2000; amended by Ord. 29-02, File No. 020017, App.3/15/2002)
SEC. 4.115.PROTECTION OF WHISTLEBLOWERS.
(a) RETALIATION PROHIBITED. No City officer or employee may terminate, demote, suspend or take other similar adverse employment action against any City officer or employee because the officer or employee has in good faith filed a complaint with the Ethics Commission, Controller, District Attorney or City Attorney, or a written complaint with the complainant's department, alleging that a City officer or employee engaged in improper government activity by: violating local campaign finance, lobbying, conflicts ofinterest or governmental ethics laws, regulations or rules; violating the California Penal Code by misusing City resources; creating a specified and substantial danger to public health or safety by failing to perform duties required by the officer or employee's City position; or abusing his or her City position to advance a private interest. (b) COMPLAINTS OF RETALIATION FOR HAVING FILED A COMPLAINT ALLEGING IMPROPER GOVERNMENT ACTIVITY. (i) Administrative Complaints. Any city officer or employee, or former city officer or employee, who believes he or she has been the subject of retaliation in violation of Subsection (a) of this Section may file a complaint with the Ethics Commission. The complaint must be filed no later than two years after the date of the retaliation.

City Council 37 – 35 11/19/2024
The Ethics Commission shall investigate com-plaints of violations of Subsection (a) of this Section pursuant to the procedures specified in San Francisco Charter Section C3.699-13 and the regulations adopted thereunder. The Ethics Commission may decline to investigate complaints alleging violations of Subsection (a) if it determines that the same or similar allegations are pending with or have been finally resolved by another administrative or judicial body. Nothing in this Subsection shall preclude the Ethics Commission from referring any matter to any other City department, commission, board, officer or employee, or to other government agencies for investigation and possible disciplinary or enforcement action. The Ethics Commission may refer matters to the Department of Human Resources with a recommendation. The Ethics Commission may require that any City department, commission, board, officer or employee report to the Ethics Commission on the referred matter. (ii) Civil Complaints. Any City officer or employee who believes he or she has been the subject of retaliation in violation of Subsection (a) of this Section may bring a civil action against the City officer or employee who committed the violation. Such action must be filed no later than two years after the date of the retaliation. (iii) Burden of Establishing Retaliation. In order to establish retaliation under this Section, a complainant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the complainant's engagement in activity protected under Subsection (a) was a substantial motivating factor for the adverse employment action. The employer may rebut this claim if it demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have taken the same employment action irrespective of the complainant's participation in protected activity.
(c) PENALTIES.
(i) Charter Penalties. Any City officer or employee who violates Subsection (a) of this Section may be subject to administrative penalties pursuant to Charter Section C3.699-13.
(ii) Discipline by Appointing Authority. Any City officer or employee who violates Subsection (a) of this Section shall be subject to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal by his or her appointing authority. If no disciplinary action is taken by the appointing authority, the Ethics Commission may refer the matter to the Civil Service Commission for action pursuant to Charter Section A8.341.
(iii) Civil Penalties. Any City officer or employee who violates Subsection (a) of this Section may be personally liable in a civil action authorized under Subsection (b)(ii) of this Section for a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000. (d) RESERVATION OF AUTHORITY.
(i) Civil Service Commission. Nothing in this Section shall interfere with the powers granted to the Civil Service Commission by the San Francisco Charter.
(ii) Appointing Authority. Nothing in this Section shall interfere with the power of an appointing officer, manager, or supervisor to take action with respect to any City officer or employee, provided that the appointing officer, manager, or supervisor reasonably believes that such action is justified on facts separate and apart from the fact that the officer or employee filed a complaint with, or cooperated with, an Ethics Commission investigation of such complaint; or filed a complaint with or provided information to the Controller, District Attorney, City Attorney or the complainant's department. (e) NOTICE OF WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS. The Ethics Commission shall prepare, and each City department shall post a notice of whistleblower protections. The notice shall be posted in a location that is conspicuous and accessible to all employees. (Added by Ord. 71-00, File No. 000358, App. 4/28/2000; amended by Ord. 29-02, File No. 020017, App. 3/15/2002) SEC. 4.120. CONFIDENTIALITY.
(a) WHISTLEBLOWER IDENTITY. Any individual who files a complaint under Section 4.105 of this Chapter may elect to have his or her identity kept confidential as provided by Charter Section C3.699-13(a). Such election must be made at the time the complaint is filed.
(b) COMPLAINTS AND INVESTIGATIONS. The Ethics Commission shall treat as confidential complaints made under Section 4.105 of this Chapter, and related information, including but not limited to materials gathered and prepared in the course of investigation of City Council 37 – 36 11/19/2024
such complaints, and deliberations regarding such complaints, as provided by Charter Section C3.699-13(a). (c) EXCEPTIONS.
(i) Conduct of Investigations. Nothing in this Section shall preclude the Ethics Commission from disclosing the identity of an individual or other information to the extent necessary to conduct its investigation. (ii) Referrals. Nothing in this Section shall preclude the Ethics Commission from referring any matter to any other City department, commission, board, officer or employee, or to other government agencies for investigation and possible disciplinary or enforcement action. (Added by Ord. 71-00, File No. 000358, App. 4/28/2000) SEC. 4.125. COOPERATION OF OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS.

All City departments, commissions, boards, officers and employees shall cooperate with and provide full and prompt assistance to the Ethics Commission in carrying out its duties under this Chapter. (Added by Ord. 71-00, File No. 000358, App. 4/28/2000) SEC. 4.130. REPORTS TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.

The Ethics Commission shall provide an annual report to the Board of Supervisors which shall include the following:
(1) The number of complaints received;
(2) The type of conduct complained about;
(3) The number of referrals to the Civil Service Commission, other City departments, or other government agencies; (4) The number of investigations the Ethics Commission conducted; (5) Findings or recommendations on policies or practices resulting from the Ethics Commission's investigations; (6) The number of disciplinary actions taken by the City as a result of complaints made to the Ethics Commission; and (7) The number and amount of administrative penalties imposed by the Ethics Commission as a result of complaints made to the Commission. (Added by Ord. 71-00, File No. 000358, App. 4/28/2000) SEC. 4.135. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.

In adopting and enforcing this Chapter, the City undertakes to promote the general welfare. The City is not assuming, nor is it imposing on its officers and employees, an obligation for breach of which it is liable in money damages. (Added by Ord. 71-00, File No. 000358, App. 4/28/2000)
City Council 37 – 37 11/19/2024
Ch. Art. Div.
2 7 35 1
San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 2: Government
(4-2019)
Article 7: Elections, Campaign Finance and Lobbying
Division 35: City of San Diego Ethics Ordinance
(“City of San Diego Ethics Ordinance”
added 4–29–2002 by O–19055 N.S.)
§27.3501 Purpose and Intent
It is the purpose and intent of the City Council of the City of San Diego in enacting this Division to assure that individuals and interest groups in our society have a fair and equal opportunity to participate in government; to embrace clear and unequivocal standards of disclosure and transparency in government so as to avoid conflicts of interest and the appearance of conflicts of interest; to increase understanding of the City Charter, ordinances, and the roles of City Officials; to help reinforce public trust in governmental institutions; and to assure that this Division is vigorously enforced. (“Purpose and Intent” added 4-29-2002 by O-19055 N.S.)
§27.3502 Citation
This Division shall be cited as the City of San Diego Ethics Ordinance. (“Citation” added 4-29-2002 by O-19055 N.S.)
§27.3503 Definitions
Each word or phrase that is defined in this Division appears in the text of this Division in italicized letters. Except as otherwise provided herein, the terms and provisions of this Division shall have the meanings and shall be interpreted in accordance with the applicable definitions and provisions of the Political Reform Act of 1974, as amended (California Government Code sections 81000 through 91014) and the regulations of the California Fair Political Practices Commission, as amended. For purposes of this Division, the following definitions shall apply:

Benefit means any honorarium, gift, travel expense , or loan made to, or in the interest of, an individual or a member of the individual’s immediate family.

Campaign Control Ordinance means the San Diego Municipal Election Campaign Control Ordinance, codified at Chapter 2, Article 7, Chapter 29 of the San Diego Municipal Code.

City means the City of San Diego or any of its organizational subdivisions, agencies, offices, or boards.

City Council 37 – 38 11/19/2024
Ch. Art. Div.
2 7 35 2
San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 2: Government
(4-2019)
City Board includes the boards of directors of all City agencies, and any board, commission, committee, or task force of the City established by action of the City Council under authority of the City Charter, Municipal Code, or Council resolution, whose members are required to file a statement of economic interests pursuant to the California Political Reform Act of 1974, as amended.

City Official includes:
(a) any elected or appointed City officeholder, including any City officeholder elected but not yet sworn in; and
(b) any City Board member; and
(c) any employee of the City, except for classified employees as that term is defined in San Diego Charter section 117, who is required to file a statement of economic interests pursuant to the California Political Reform Act of 1974, as amended; and
(d) City Council members acting in their capacity as Housing Authority and Redevelopment Agency officers; and
(e) any consultants of the City who are required to file a statement of economic interests pursuant to the California Political Reform Act of 1974, as amended.

Compensation means the receipt of any monetary or non-monetary payment, except a stipend paid to a board member of a public non-profit corporation to which the City is the sole member, for the services or time of a person. Compensation includes, but is not limited to, salary, wages, fees, and any discount or economic opportunity not made available in the regular course of business to members of the public.

Confidential information means information to which any of the following apply:
(a) At the time of the use or disclosure of the information, the disclosure is prohibited by a statute, regulation, or rule which applies to the City; or
(b) the information is not general public knowledge and will have, or could reasonably be expected to have, a material financial effect on any source of income, investment, or interest in the real property of a City Official; or
(c) the information pertains to pending contract, labor, or real property negotiations and disclosing the information could reasonably be expected to compromise the bargaining position of the City; or City Council 37 – 39 11/19/2024
Ch. Art. Div.
2 7 35 3
San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 2: Government
(4-2019)
(d) the information pertains to pending or anticipated litigation and disclosing the information could reasonably be expected to compromise the ability of the City to successfully defend, prevail in, or resolve the litigation.

Direct Communication means:
(a) talking to a person, either by telephone or in person; or (b) corresponding with a person, either in writing, by electronic transmission, or by facsimile machine.

Direct Communication does not include:
(a) solely responding to questions from any City Official; or (b) a direct response to an enforcement proceeding with the City.

Doing business with the City means entering into or performing pursuant to a contract with the City. Doing business with the City includes soliciting, entering into, or performing contracts for goods, equipment, services or financial assistance but does not include the receipt of or payment for services normally rendered by the City to residents and businesses such as sewer service, water service, street maintenance, and similar services.

Ethics Commission means the City of San Diego Ethics Commission created by City of San Diego Ordinance O-18945, codified in Chapter 2, Article 6, Division 4, of the San Diego Municipal Code.

Filer means a High Level Filer or a Local Code Filer.

Filing Officer means the Clerk of the City of San Diego charged with the duties and responsibilities prescribed in title 2, sections 18110 and 18115 of the California Code of Regulations.

Gift means any payment that confers a personal benefit on the recipient, to the extent that consideration of equal or greater value is not received and includes a rebate or discount in the price of anything of value unless the rebate or discount is made in the regular course of business to members of the public. Any person, other than a defendant in a criminal action, who claims that a payment is not a gift by reason of receipt of consideration has the burden of proving that the consideration received is of equal or greater value. The value of a gift shall be as determined by title 2, section 18946 of the California Code of Regulations.

City Council 37 – 40 11/19/2024
Ch. Art. Div.
2 7 35 4
San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 2: Government
(4-2019)
High Level Filer means the Mayor, the members of the City Council, the City Attorney, the City Manager (Chief Operating Officer), the City Treasurer, the City Comptroller, the Chief Financial Officer, the Chief Investment Officer, Investment Officers, members of the Planning Commission, members of the Funds Commission, members of the Retirement Board, members of the Defined Contribution Plan Board, any candidate for an elective office of the City, and any other individual whose position is specified in California Government Code section 87200.

Honorarium means any payment made in consideration for any speech given, article published, or attendance at any public or private conference, convention, meeting, social event, meal, or like gathering.
(a) A “speech given” means a public address, oration, or other form of oral presentation, including participation in a panel, seminar, or debate.
(b) An “article published” means a nonfictional written work:
(1) that is produced in connection with any activity other than the practice of a bona fide business, trade, or profession; and (2) that is published in a periodical, journal, newspaper, newsletter, magazine, pamphlet, or similar publication. (c) “Attendance” means being present during, making an appearance at, or serving as host or master of ceremonies for any public or private conference, convention, meeting, social event, meal, or like gathering.

Immediate family means an individual’s spouse and dependent children.

Influencing a municipal decision means affecting or attempting to affect any action by a City Official on one or more municipal decisions by any method, including promoting, supporting, opposing, participating in, or seeking to modify or delay such action. Influencing a municipal decision also includes providing information, statistics, analysis or studies to a City Official.

Loan means the temporary transfer of money or goods for the personal use of an individual with the expectation that the money or goods will be returned.

Lobbying means Direct Communication with a City Official for the purpose of influencing a municipal decision on behalf of any other person.

Lobbying firm means any entity defined as a “lobbying firm” in San Diego Municipal Code section 27.4002.

City Council 37 – 41 11/19/2024
Ch. Art. Div.
2 7 35 5
San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 2: Government
(4-2019)
Lobbyist means any individual defined as a “lobbyist” in San Diego Municipal Code section 27.4002.

Local Code Filer means any City Board member, any consultant, and any employee of the City, except for classified employees, who is required to file a statement of economic interests pursuant to a conflict of interest code adopted by the City Council.

Ministerial act means an act that does not require a City Official to exercise discretion concerning any outcome or course of action.

Municipal decision means any governmental decision that is not a ministerial act.

Organization lobbyist means any entity defined as an “organization lobbyist” in San Diego Municipal Code section 27.4002.

Party means any person who files an application for, or is the subject of, or participates in a municipal decision.

Payment means a distribution, transfer, loan, advance, deposit, or other rendering of money, property, services, or anything else of value, whether tangible or intangible.

Pecuniary Gain means any monetary benefit to a person or to a member of the person’s immediate family.

Person means any individual, business entity, trust, corporation, association, committee, or any other organization or group of persons acting in concert.

Private business means any organization, partnership, corporation, or entity that is not a Public Agency.

Public Agency means the United States or any of its agencies; the State of California; the City; any political subdivision of the State, including counties and districts; or any public corporation, agency, or commission.

Public Hearing means any meeting as defined by the Ralph M. Brown Act where a public record is kept of who spoke and who was represented by a Lobbyist testifying at that hearing.

Restricted source includes:
(a) a lobbyist, lobbying firm, or organization lobbyist, seeking to influence a municipal decision;
City Council 37 – 42 11/19/2024
Ch. Art. Div.
2 7 35 6
San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 2: Government
(4-2019)
(b) a person doing business with the City; and
(c) a person who, during the reporting period, directly communicated with a City Official pertaining to a municipal decision which would have a material financial effect on such person; or
(d) a person who is a party to a municipal decision which within the prior nine months was pending before the City Official, and for nine months following the date a final decision is rendered in the proceeding.

A restricted source does not include an individual (other than a lobbyist) who is employed by a restricted source.

Travel expenses means reasonable payments, advances, or reimbursements for travel, including actual transportation and related lodging, food, and beverages. (“Definitions” added 4-29-2002 by O-19055 N.S.)
(Amended 12-5-2005 by O-19448 N.S; effective 1-11-2006.) (Amended 9-19-2006 by O-19538 N.S.; effective 10-19-2006.) (Amended 8-3-2007 by O-19656 N.S. effective 1-1-2008)
(Amended 10-15-2013 by O-20302 N.S.; effective 11-14-2013.) §27.3510 Disclosure of Economic Interests
(a) All High Level Filers shall file a statement of economic interests with the Filing Officer of the City of San Diego pursuant to the Political Reform Act of 1974, as amended.
(b) All Local Code Filers shall file a statement of economic interests with the Filing Officer of the City of San Diego pursuant to the applicable Conflict of Interest Code adopted by the City Council.
(c) On or before April 1 of each calendar year, all individuals referred to in subsections (a) and (b) shall file a statement of economic interests covering a disclosure period of January 1 through December 31 of the previous calendar year, except that any such individual who assumed a City office between October 1 and December 31 of the previous year and files a statement of economic interests pursuant to subsection (e) need not file a statement of economic interests until the following year.

City Council 37 – 43 11/19/2024
Ch. Art. Div.
2 7 35 7
San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 2: Government
(4-2019)
(d) In addition to the requirements set forth in subsection (c), on or before July 31 of each calendar year, all High Level Filers elected to office by the electors of the City of San Diego shall, on a form provided by the Ethics Commission, either certify that they have not received any reportable gifts during the period of January 1 through June 30, or disclose any reportable gifts received during that period.
(e) Every Filer assuming office shall file a statement of economic interests within 30 calendar days after assuming office, unless the City Official is beginning a new term in the same office.
(f) Every Filer who leaves office shall file a statement of economic interests within 30 calendar days of leaving office, unless that City Official is assuming another office with the City.
(g) The information and amounts required to be disclosed with respect to each financial interest, and the manner of disclosing that information, shall be the same as required by Article 2 of Chapter 7 of the Political Reform Act of 1974, as amended, or by the Conflict of Interest Code adopted by the Council of the City of San Diego and applicable to the Filer.
(“Disclosure of Economic Interests” added 4-29-2002 by O-19055 N.S.) §27.3515 Disclosure of Behested Payments
(a) A City Official who is an elected High Level Filer shall file a Fair Political Practices Commission Form 803 Behested Payment Report if any person makes one or more payments totaling $5,000 or more for a legislative, governmental, or charitable purpose at the behest of the official. A payment is made at the behest of an official if it is requested, solicited, or suggested by the official, or otherwise made in cooperation, consultation, coordination with, or at the consent of, the official.
(b) The City Official shall file the Form 803 with the City Clerk within thirty calendar days following the date on which a payment causes the total payments made by that person at the behest of the official to reach or exceed $5,000 in the same calendar year.
(c) Once a person has reached the $5,000 threshold during a calendar year, each subsequent behested payment by that person in any amount during the same calendar year must be reported to the City Clerk on a Form 803 within thirty calendar days.

City Council 37 – 44 11/19/2024
Ch. Art. Div.
2 7 35 8
San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 2: Government
(4-2019)
(d) A payment behested by a City Official includes a payment behested by his or her agent or employee on behalf of the official.
(e) This section shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the provisions of California Government Code section 82015(b)(2)(B)(iii) and title 2, section 18215.3 of the California Code of Regulations.
(“Disclosure of Behested Payments” added 10-15-2013 by O-20302 N.S.; effective 11-14-2013.)
§27.3520 Restrictions on Benefits to Filers
For the purposes of this section, a benefit offered to, solicited by, or accepted by, a Filer includes any benefit offered to, solicited by, or accepted by any member of a Filer’s immediate family, except as provided in section 27.3525. Subject to the exceptions set forth in section 27.3525, Filers are subject to the following restrictions with regard to their acceptance of benefits:
(a) It is unlawful for a High Level Filer to accept gifts from a single source in any calendar year with a total value of more than $440. This gift threshold is subject to adjustment in accordance with the provisions of section 27.3521. (b) It is unlawful for a High Level Filer to accept an honorarium. (c) It is unlawful for a High Level Filer to accept a loan that exceeds $250 at any given time from a City Official or City employee.
(d) It is unlawful for a High Level Filer to accept a loan that exceeds $250 at any given time from a restricted source.
(e) It is unlawful for an elected High Level Filer to accept a loan that exceeds $500 unless:
(1) The loan is made in writing and clearly states the terms of the loan; and
(2) The loan document includes the names of the parties to the loan agreement, as well as the date, amount, interest rate, and term of the loan; and
(3) The loan document includes the date or dates when payments are due and the amount of the payments.
(f) It is unlawful for a Local Code Filer to accept gifts from any single source in any calendar year with a total value of more than $440 if the Local Code Filer would be required to report the receipt of the gift from that source on his or her statement of economic interests. This gift threshold is subject to adjustment in accordance with the provisions of section 27.3521.

City Council 37 – 45 11/19/2024
Ch. Art. Div.
2 7 35 9
San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 2: Government
(4-2019)
(g) It is unlawful for a Local Code Filer to accept an honorarium from any source if that individual would be required to report the receipt of income or gifts from the source of the honorarium on his or her statement of economic interests.
(h) It is unlawful for any person to offer, or for any Filer to solicit or accept, any benefit with the intent that the Filer will be influenced thereby in the performance of any official act.
(“Restrictions on Benefits to Filers” added 4-29-2002 by O-19055 N.S.) (Amended 10-15-2013 by O-20302 N.S.; effective 11-14-2013.) §27.3521 Adjustment of Gift Limitations
The gift limitation amounts set forth in section 27.3520(a) and (f) are intended to be consistent with the California gift limitation amount amended biannually by the California Fair Political Practices Commission. Notwithstanding the dollar amounts set forth in section 27.3520(a) and (f), the gift limitation amount for this Division shall be the same as set forth in title 2, section 18940.2 of the California Code of Regulations.
(“Adjustment of Gift Limitations” added 4-29-2002 by O-19055 N.S.) (Amended 10-15-2013 by O-20302 N.S.; effective 11-14-2013.) §27.3522 Acceptance of Benefits
(a) A benefit is “accepted” when the recipient knows that he or she has either actual possession of the benefit or takes any action exercising direction or control over the benefit.
(b) In the case of a rebate or discount, a benefit is “accepted” when the recipient knows that the rebate or discount is not made in the regular course of business to members of the public.
(c) Discarding a benefit does not negate receipt or acceptance of the benefit, except when the benefit is a pass or ticket that has not been used or transferred to another person.
(d) Turning a benefit over to another person does not negate receipt or acceptance of the benefit.
(“Acceptance of Benefits” added 4-29-2002 by O-19055 N.S.) (Amended 10-15-2013 by O-20302 N.S.; effective 11-14-2013.) City Council 37 – 46 11/19/2024
Ch. Art. Div.
2 7 35 10
San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 2: Government
(4-2019)
§27.3525 Exceptions to Restrictions on Benefits
(a) All exceptions relating to gifts, loans, honoraria, and travel expenses contained in the Political Reform Act of 1974, as amended, including but not limited to California Government Code sections 82028 and 89501 through 89506, and the regulations of the California Fair Political Practices Commission, as amended, including but not limited to Regulations 18930 through 18961, are hereby adopted by reference and incorporated into the City of San Diego Ethics Ordinance as if fully set forth herein. (b) For purposes of subsection (a), any exception not applicable to a gift, loan, honorarium, or travel expense from a lobbyist, lobbying firm, or lobbyist employer registered with the State of California shall also not apply to a gift, loan, honorarium, or travel expense from a lobbyist, lobbying firm, or organization lobbyist registered with the City.
(“Exceptions to Restrictions on Benefits” added 4-29-2002 by O-19055 N.S.) (Amended 10-15-2013 by O-20302 N.S.; effective 11-14-2013.) §27.3530 Loans as Gifts
(a) A loan received by a City Official may become a gift and subject to the gift reporting and limitations set forth in section 27.3520, as follows:
(1) If the loan has a defined date or dates for repayment and has not been repaid, the loan will become a gift when the statute of limitations for filing an action for default has expired; or
(2) If the loan has no defined date or dates for repayment, the loan will become a gift if it remains unpaid when one year has elapsed from the later of:

A. The date the loan was made; or
B. The date the last payment of $100 or more was made on the loan; or
C. The date upon which the City Official has made payments aggregating to less than $250 during the previous twelve months.

City Council 37 – 47 11/19/2024
Ch. Art. Div.
2 7 35 11
San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 2: Government
(4-2019)
(b) The following loans will not become gifts to a City Official:
(1) A loan described above on which the creditor has taken reasonable action to collect the balance due; and
(2) A loan described above on which the creditor, based on reasonable business considerations, has not undertaken collection action. (However, except in a criminal action, the creditor has the burden of proving that the decision not to take collection action was based on reasonable business considerations.)
(3) A loan made to a City Official who has filed for bankruptcy and the loan is ultimately discharged in bankruptcy.
(“Loans as Gifts” added 4-29-2002 by O-19055 N.S.)
§27.3550 Lobbying Activities of Former City Officials
(a) It is unlawful for any former City Official who received compensation from the City to work on a particular project during his or her City service to engage in direct communication with the City, for compensation, with regard to any pending application for discretionary funding or discretionary entitlements before the City relating to that particular project on behalf of any person for a one-year period immediately following termination of service with the City or for a two-year period if he or she is a former elected City Official.
(1) For purposes of this section, “work on a particular project” means to take part personally and substantially in the project by rendering a decision, approval, or disapproval; by making a formal written recommendation; by conducting an investigation; by rendering advice on a significant basis; or by using confidential information. (2) For purposes of this section, “project” means any matter where a private business has made an application to the City for discretionary funding or discretionary entitlements, or where the City exercises discretion to enter into a lease, agreement, or contract with a private business.

City Council 37 – 48 11/19/2024
Ch. Art. Div.
2 7 35 12
San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 2: Government
(4-2019)
(b) It is unlawful for any former City Official, for compensation, to knowingly counsel or assist any person in connection with an appearance or communication in which the former City Official is prohibited from engaging pursuant to subsection (a) for a one-year period immediately following termination of service with the City, or for a two-year period if he or she is a former elected City Official.
(c) As a means of facilitating compliance with subsections (a) and (b) in instances where long-term projects may change in character and scope over time and where large projects have discrete components or phases, any former City Official may seek a written determination from the Ethics Commission regarding whether prospective direct communication on a particular project would constitute a violation of this section.
(d) It is unlawful for any former City Official to engage in direct communication for the purpose of lobbying the City if all of the following circumstances apply:
(1) the former City Official served as a City Official within the previous year, or within the previous two years if he or she is a former elected City Official; and
(2) the former City Official received compensation from the City for his or her service as a City Official; and
(3) the former City Official is receiving compensation to engage in the direct communication with the City.
(e) Except as set forth in subsection (f), which governs former elected City Officials and former Chief Operating Officers, the prohibitions contained in subsections (a), (b), and (d) do not apply:
(1) to prevent a former City Official from making or providing a statement, based on the former City Official’s own special knowledge in the particular area that is the subject of the statement, provided that no compensation is thereby received other than that regularly provided for by law or regulation for witnesses;
(2) to prevent any former City Official from representing himself or herself, or any member of his or her immediate family, in their individual capacities, in connection with any matter pending before the City;
City Council 37 – 49 11/19/2024
Ch. Art. Div.
2 7 35 13
San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 2: Government
(4-2019)
(3) to the activities of any former City Official who is an officer, employee, or independent contractor of any Public Agency when that former City Official is solely representing that agency in his or her official capacity as an officer, employee, or independent contractor of the agency;
(4) to any ministerial act;
(5) to any individual appearing as a speaker at, or providing written statements that become part of the record of a Public Hearing; or (6) to any communication among attorneys representing a party or potential party to pending or actual litigation brought by or against the City or City agent, officer, or employee.
(f) Former elected City Officials and former Chief Operating Officers are subject to the provisions of California Government Code section 87406.3 and any amendments thereto, which is hereby adopted by reference and incorporated into the City of San Diego Ethics Ordinance as if fully set forth herein.

Accordingly:
(1) the exceptions in subsections (e)(1), (e)(5), and (e)(6) do not apply to a former elected City Official or to a former Chief Operating Officer; and
(2) the exception in subsection (e)(3) does not apply to a former elected City Official for a period of two years after leaving City service, or to a former Chief Operating Officer for a period of one year after leaving City service, when such individuals are communicating on behalf of a Public Agency as an independent contractor.
(“Lobbying Activities of Former City Officials” added 4-29-2002 by O-19055 N.S.) (Amended 9-19-2006 by O-19538 N.S.; effective 10-19-2006.) (Amended 10-15-2013 by O-20302 N.S.; effective 11-14-2013.) (Amended 3-7-2019 by O-21045 N.S.; effective 4-6-2019.) City Council 37 – 50 11/19/2024
Ch. Art. Div.
2 7 35 14
San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 2: Government
(4-2019)
§27.3551 Future Employment of City Officials
(a) It is unlawful for any City Official to make, participate in making, or use his or her official position to influence a decision involving the interests of a person with whom the City Official, or a member of the City Official’s immediate family, is seeking, negotiating, or securing an agreement concerning future employment.
(b) It is unlawful for any person who has a matter pending before the City to negotiate, directly or indirectly, knowingly or willfully, the possibility of future employment of a City Official, or a member of the City Official’s immediate family, if that City Official is making, participating in making, or using his or her official position to influence, a decision concerning that matter.
(c) The prohibitions set forth in subsections (a) and (b) do not apply to a City Official’s prospective employment with a public agency. (“Future Employment of City Officials” added 4-29-2002 by O-19055 N.S.) (Amended 4-23-2008 by O-19737 N.S; effective 5-23-2008.) (Amended 10-15-2013 by O-20302 N.S.; effective 11-14-2013.) §27.3560 Financial Interest in Contract
(a) It is unlawful for any City Official to be financially interested in any contract made by them in their official capacity.
(b) It is unlawful for any contract to be made by the City Council or any board or commission established by the City Council if any individual member of the body has a financial interest in the contract.
(c) Any City Official with a remote interest in a prospective contract of the City must disclose the existence of the remote interest to the body of the board which the City Official is a member if that board has any role in creating, negotiating, reviewing, or approving the contract; and the City Official must abstain from influencing or participating in the creation, negotiation, review, or approval of the contract.

City Council 37 – 51 11/19/2024
Ch. Art. Div.
2 7 35 15
San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 2: Government
(4-2019)
(d) This section shall be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with California Government Code sections 1090 through 1099. In this regard, these provisions of state law are hereby adopted by reference and incorporated into the City of San Diego Ethics Ordinance as if fully set forth herein. (“Financial Interest in Contract” added 4-29-2002 by O-19055 N.S.) (Amended 10-15-2013 by O-20302 N.S.; effective 11-14-2013.) §27.3561 Disqualification of City Officials in Municipal Decisions Affecting Economic Interests
(a) It is unlawful for a City Official to make, participate in making, or in any way use his or her official position to influence a municipal decision in which he or she knows or has reason to know he or she has a disqualifying financial interest.
(b) A City Official has a disqualifying financial interest in a municipal decision if that municipal decision will have a reasonably foreseeable material financial effect, distinguishable from the effect on the public generally, directly on the City Official or his or her immediate family, or on any of their economic interests in business entities, real property, sources of income, sources of gifts, or their own personal finances.
(c) This section shall be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the provisions of California Government Code sections 87100 though 87105 and title 2, sections 18700 through 18709 of the California Code of Regulations.

In this regard, these provisions of state law are hereby adopted by reference and incorporated into the City of San Diego Ethics Ordinance as if fully set forth herein.
(“Disqualification of City Officials in Municipal Decisions Affecting Economic Interests” added 4-29-2002 by O-19055 N.S.)
(Amended 10-15-2013 by O-20302 N.S.; effective 11-14-2013.) §27.3562 Disqualification of City Officials in Municipal Decisions Involving Benefactors (a) It is unlawful for any City Official to participate in any municipal decision where a party to the municipal decision has, within the previous twelve months, given the City Official, promised to give the City Official, or acted as an intermediary for the City Official to have, an opportunity for compensation.

City Council 37 – 52 11/19/2024
Ch. Art. Div.
2 7 35 16
San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 2: Government
(4-2019)
(b) For purposes of this section, opportunities for compensation provided to a City Official include opportunities for compensation provided to the City Official’s immediate family. When such an opportunity for compensation is provided to a member of the City Official’s immediate family, the City Official shall not participate in a municipal decision involving a party to the municipal decision unless the City Official had no knowledge or involvement in securing the opportunity for compensation.
(c) This section does not apply to opportunities for compensation provided by a public agency.
(“Disqualification of City Officials in Municipal Decisions Involving Benefactors” added 4-29-2002 by O-19055 N.S.)
(Amended 10-15-2013 by O-20302 N.S.; effective 11-14-2013.) §27.3563 Incompatible Activities
It is unlawful for any City Official who receives compensation from the City to engage in any employment, activity, or enterprise for compensation which is inconsistent with, incompatible with, in conflict with, or inimical to, his or her duties as a City Official. Specifically, it is unlawful for any City Official to receive compensation for performing any work, service, activity, or enterprise for private gain or advantage if it involves:
(a) the consumption of time for which the City Official is receiving compensation by the City; or
(b) the facilities, equipment, or supplies of the City; or (c) the City Official’s use of his or her badge, uniform, prestige, or the influence of his or her position with the City; or
(d) compensation received or accepted by the City Official from anyone other than the City for the performance of an act which the City Official would be required or expected to render in the regular course or hours of his or her City employment or as a part of his or her duties as a City Official; or (e) the performance of an act in other than his or her capacity as a City Official which act may later be subject directly or indirectly to the control, inspection, review, audit, or enforcement of any other City Official; or (f) a consumption of time that would render the performance of his or her duties as a City Official less efficient.
(“Incompatible Activities” added 4-29-2002 by O-19055 N.S.) City Council 37 – 53 11/19/2024
Ch. Art. Div.
2 7 35 17
San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 2: Government
(4-2019)
§27.3564 Misuse of City Position or Resources
(a) It is unlawful for any City Official to use his or her position or prospective position, or the power or authority of his or her office or position, in any manner intended to induce or coerce any person to provide, directly or indirectly, anything of value which shall accrue to the private advantage, benefit, or economic gain, of the City Official or his or her immediate family.

As used in this section, the term “private advantage, benefit, or economic gain” means any advantage, benefit, or economic gain, distinct from that enjoyed by members of the public without regard to official status or not resulting naturally from lawful and proper performance of duties. A City Official engages in a prohibited use of his or her official position or prospective position when he or she engages in activities other than in the lawful and proper performance of his or her City duties. (b) It is unlawful for any City Official to engage in campaign-related activities, such as fund-raising, the development of electronic or written materials, or research, for a campaign for any elective office using City facilities, equipment, supplies, or other City resources.
(c) It is unlawful for any City Official to induce or coerce, or attempt to induce or coerce any other person to engage in any activity prohibited by subsections (a) and (b).
(d) It is unlawful for any City Official to engage in outside employment during any hours he or she is receiving compensation to engage in City business. (e) It is unlawful for any current or former City Official to use or disclose to any person any confidential information he or she acquired in the course of his or her official duties, except as authorized by law.
(f) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the use of City resources to provide information to the public about the possible effects of any bond issue or other ballot measure relating to City activities, operations, or policies, provided that:
(1) the use of public resources is otherwise legally authorized; and (2) the information provided constitutes a fair and impartial presentation of relevant facts to aid the electorate in reaching an informed judgment regarding the bond issue or ballot measure.
(“Misuse of City Position or Resources” added 4-29-2002 by O-19055 N.S.) (Amended 10-15-2013 by O-20302 N.S.; effective 11-14-2013.) (Amended 12-10-2018 by O-21023 N.S.; effective 1-9-2019.) City Council 37 – 54 11/19/2024
Ch. Art. Div.
2 7 35 18
San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 2: Government
(4-2019)
§27.3570 Political Influence Prohibited
It is unlawful for any City Official to use or promise to use his influence or official authority to secure any appointment or prospective appointment, to any position in the service of the City as a reward or return for personal or partisan political service. (“Political Influence Prohibited” added 4-29-2002 by O-19055 N.S.) §27.3571 Solicitation of Political Campaign Contributions (a) It is unlawful for any City Official to solicit, directly or indirectly, a political campaign contribution from any City employee with knowledge that the person from whom the contribution is solicited is a City employee. (b) It is unlawful for any candidate for elective office of the City to solicit, directly or indirectly, a political campaign contribution from a City employee with knowledge that the person from whom the contribution is solicited is a City employee.
(c) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b), this section shall not prohibit a City Official or a candidate for elective office of the City from soliciting political campaign contributions from City employees if the solicitation is part of a solicitation made to a significant segment of the public which may include City employees, and the solicitation does not otherwise violate the provisions of the Campaign Control Ordinance.
(d) Nothing in this section prohibits a City employee from making a political campaign contribution to a City Official or candidate for elective office, and nothing in this section prohibits a City Official or candidate for elective office from accepting a political campaign contribution from a City employee. (“Solicitation of Political Campaign Contributions” added 4-29-2002 by O-19055 N.S.)
§27.3572 No Payment for Office
It is unlawful for any City Official to give or promise to give to any person any portion of his or her compensation or any money or thing of value in consideration of having been, or of being nominated, appointed, voted for, or elected to any office or employment.
(“No Payment for Office” added 4-29-2002 by O-19055 N.S.) City Council 37 – 55 11/19/2024
Ch. Art. Div.
2 7 35 19
San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 2: Government
(4-2019)
§27.3573 Protection of Employees Against Retaliation for Reporting Violations (a) It is unlawful for any City Official to use or threaten to use any official authority or influence to discourage, restrain, or interfere with any other person for the purpose of preventing such person from acting in good faith to report or otherwise bring to the attention of the Ethics Commission or other appropriate agency, office, or department any information which, if true, would constitute:
(1) a work-related violation by a City Official of any law or regulation; or (2) a gross waste of City funds; or
(3) a gross abuse of authority; or
(4) a conflict of interest of a City Official; or
(5) a specific and substantial danger to public health or safety due to an act or omission of a City Official, use of a City office or position, or use of City resources for personal gain.
(b) It is unlawful for any City Official to use or threaten to use any official authority or influence to effect any action as a reprisal against a City Official who reports or otherwise brings to the attention of the Ethics Commission or other appropriate agency, office, or department any information regarding the subjects described in subsection (a).
(c) Any person who believes that he or she has been subjected to any action prohibited by this section may file a complaint with the Ethics Commission.

The Ethics Commission shall thereupon investigate the complaint in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 2, Article 6, Division 4, of this Municipal Code. Upon the conclusion of its investigation, the Ethics Commission may take appropriate action as allowed under its enforcement authority.
(d) In the event the Ethics Commission determines that it has a conflict of interest in an investigation of a retaliation complaint, the Ethics Commission staff shall refer the investigation of the retaliation complaint to the City Attorney who shall take appropriate action as otherwise provided by law. (“Protection of Employees Against Retaliation for Reporting Violations” added 4-29-2002 by O-19055 N.S.)
City Council 37 – 56 11/19/2024
Ch. Art. Div.
2 7 35 20
San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 2: Government
(4-2019)
§27.3580 Ethics Commission Advice
Any City Official or Filer may request that the Ethics Commission provide written advice concerning the legality of accepting any specific benefit, or concerning the legality of any other activity discussed in this Division. Such request shall contain sufficient information to allow the Ethics Commission or its staff to properly consider the matter.
(“Ethics Commission Advice” added 4-29-2002 by O-19055 N.S.) §27.3581 Enforcement
(a) Any person who believes that a violation of any portion of this Division has occurred may file a complaint with the Ethics Commission. (b) The Ethics Commission may elect to enforce the provisions of this Division administratively pursuant to Chapter 2, Article 6, Division 4, or may otherwise recommend or refer enforcement actions to the City Attorney or other law enforcement agency with jurisdiction.
(c) Nothing in this Division limits the authority of the City Attorney, any law enforcement authority, or any prosecuting attorney to enforce the provisions of this Division under any circumstances where the City Attorney, law enforcement agency, or prosecuting attorney otherwise has lawful authority to do so.
(“Enforcement” added 4-29-2002 by O-19055 N.S.)
§ 27.3582 Application of Requirements
The requirements imposed by this Division on City Officials shall not apply to any City Official who terminated his or her City service or whose term of office expired prior to the effective date of this Division; provided, however, that a person who returns to City service on or after the effective date of this Division shall be subject to the requirements of this Division.
(“Application of Requirements” added 4-29-2002 by O-19055 N.S.) City Council 37 – 57 11/19/2024
Ch. Art. Div.
2 7 35 21
San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 2: Government
(4-2019)
§27.3583 Penalties
(a) Any person who violates any part of this Division, or who counsels, aids, abets, advises, or participates with another to commit any such violation, is guilty of a misdemeanor and is subject to the penalties set forth in Chapter 1 of this Municipal Code.
(b) Any person who violates any part of this Division, or who counsels, aids, abets, advises, or participates with another to commit any such violation is subject to the administrative enforcement process and penalties set forth in Chapter 2, Article 6, Division 4, of this Municipal Code. (c) Any person criminally convicted in a court of law of a violation of any provision of this Division shall be ineligible to hold a City elective office for a period of five years from and after the date of the conviction. (“Penalties” added 4-29-2002 by O-19055 N.S.)
§27.3588 Late Filing Penalties
If any Filer files a statement of economic interests after any deadline imposed by this Division, he or she shall, in addition to any other penalties or remedies established by the Division, be liable to the City in the amount of ten dollars ($10) per day after the deadline until the statement is filed. Liability need not be enforced by the City if the Filing Officer or the Ethics Commission determines, on an impartial basis, that the late filing was not willful and that enforcement of the liability will not further the purposes of this Division, except that no liability shall be waived if a statement or report is not filed within 30 calendar days after the Filing Officer has sent such Filer specific written notice of the filing requirement.
(“Late Filing Penalties” added 4-29-2002 by O-19055 N.S.) §27.3595 Applicability of Other Laws
Nothing in this Division shall exempt any person from complying with applicable provisions of any other laws.
(“Applicability of Other Laws” added 4-29-2002 by O-19055 N.S.) City Council 37 – 58 11/19/2024