Correspondence - #18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City of Santa Ana — Cabrillo Town Center Project Appeal October 3, 2023 Page 4of5 ii. Greenhouse Gas ("GHG') Impacts The Staff Report concedes that "[t]he topic of GHG emissions impacts was not... included in the [Metro] EIR's analysis" whatsoever. (Staff Report, Exh. 10 at p. 8.) Still, the City argues that no subsequent EIR is needed because "a detailed analysis of the Project's GHG emissions impacts is included in Exhibit 9 and 9D of [the Staff Report]". (Id.) As with the City's transportation argument, however, its assertion that no subsequent EIR is necessary to quantify and mitigate the Project's GHG impacts is unfounded and contrary to CEQA since the existence of GHG impacts and mitigation measures, which the Metro EIR failed to analyze, constitutes new information of substantial importance. Accordingly, the City must also prepare a subsequent EIR to study the Project's GHG impacts and feasible mitigation measures. iii. Noise Impacts As the Staff Report concedes, "the [Metro] EIR analyzed potential noise impacts at 15 sensitive receptors", none of which were the Lake Dianne Apartments. (Staff Report, Exh. 10 at p. 15 [referring to Metro EIR at 4.9-7].) Crucially, as noted by noise expert Steve Rogers, unlike the Lake Dianne Apartments, the sensitive receptors which the Metro EIR did analyze "are almost all on busy streets or close to freeways, and therefore do not represent quieter locations that are set back and/or shielded from major traffic routes". Qune 29, 2023 Letter from Steve Rogers to Talia Nimmer ("Rogers Letter") (attached hereto as Exhibit B) at p. 2.) Thus, the Staff Report's assertion that "the potential impacts to the Lake Dianne Apartments are within the scope of those analyzed by the [Metro] EIR" fails and a subsequent EIR must be prepared in light of the newly identified and dissimilar sensitive receptor. (Staff Report, Exh. 10 at p. 16.) Moreover, SWMSRCC pointed out that although the Project "would include a significant amount of active and passive open space and outdoor amenities, including a 7,500 square -foot roof terrace, which would accommodate uses such as outdoor dining, game terrace, and view deck", the Metro EIR did "not consider the potential for operational noise impacts associated with the type of outdoor amenities proposed for the [P]roject." (Rogers Letter at p. 5 [referring to Metro EIR at 4.9-1 — 4.9-28.) Yet, in response to such concern, the Staff Report, while simultaneously conceding that the Metro EIR did not analyze such aspect, implies that the lack of such analysis is harmless because "Table 9 in Exhibit 9F [of the Staff Report] demonstrates that Project operation, including noise associated with outdoor and recreational uses,