My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Response to Comments - Agenda Item No. 35
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2024
>
11/19/2024
>
Response to Comments - Agenda Item No. 35
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/19/2024 4:52:28 PM
Creation date
11/19/2024 4:52:15 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
179
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Santa Ana City Council <br />November 18, 2024 <br />Page 6 <br />Construction of new hotels without emissions mitigation would result in an excess cancer <br />risk of 48 in a million for the maximum exposed individual exceeding by more than 4 <br />. (CAJAReport, p. 2.) <br />Environmental Justice Community impacts. The STR ban would disproportionately <br />by regional pollution and localized traffic exposure are located near the existing hotel stock <br />and would be directly impacted by increased hotel usage in response to the STR ban, <br />increasing the known pollution contributors to respiratory and cardiovascular health risks <br />in these communities. (CAJAReport, p. 3.) <br />Traffic concentration and health impacts. The STR ban could increase traffic <br />concentrated on roadways going to the hotels in the City by 7,560 vehicles per day, <br />resulting in health impacts that would exceed the SCAQMD CEQA threshold of <br />significance for cancer risk. (CAJAReport, p. 3.) <br />Energy. The STR ban would increase energy demand because hotels use more energy per <br />person than STRs (more than 5x more electricity, more than 2x more natural gas). (CAJA <br />Report,p. 3.) By increasing VMT, the STR ban would also increase reliance on fossil fuels <br />to power vehicle tripsthe daily mobile fuel consumption for hotels is more than five times <br />greater for hotels compared to STRs for both gasoline and dieselinconsistent with regional <br />and state climate goals. (CAJAReport, p. 3.) <br />GHG emissions. The STR ban would result in an increase of daily mobile emissions of <br />GHG by 443 percent, contributing to a significant increase in emissions in the area in direct <br />conflict with regional and state goals to reduce VMT and GHG emissions from vehicle <br />trips. (CAJA Report, p. 3.)Further, Ramboll concluded that the increased energy demand <br />associated with hotels compared to STRs would result in a 179 percent increase in GHG <br />emissions per person. (CAJAReport, p. 3.) <br />Noise.The STR ban could concentrate traffic on roadways going to hotels in the area, since <br />many hotels in the City are located in one concentrated area of the City, resulting in noise <br />potentiallyexacerbating existing noise impacts or creating a new significant noise <br />impact. (CAJA, p. 4.) <br />There are also potential i <br />new hotel space construction. The STR ban will cause potentially significant new impacts related <br />to hotel construction including air quality and health impacts from construction emissions <br />Report p. 4.) <br />These and the other potentially significant environmental impacts summarized in Attachment A to <br />this letter also mean the AmendedOrdinance is not eligible for a Class 1 exemption and that the <br />City must prepare a full EIR. <br />6 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.