Correspondence - PH #35 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CAJA Environmental Services, LLC 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 101 Chatsworth, CA 91311 Phone 310-469-6700 Fax 310-806-9801 guests of STRs transitioning to using hotels. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, p. 4.) NOx causes adverse health consequences including breathing difficulties and increased risk of chronic pulmonary fibrosis as well as bronchitis in children. PM2.5 can damage the respiratory tract, increasing the number and severity of asthma attacks, and aggravating bronchitis and other lung diseases, and reducing the body's ability to fight infections. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, p. 3.) Ramboll further concluded that the STIR ban would disproportionately burden environmental justice communities because the City's communities most burdened by regional pollution and localized traffic exposure are located near the existing hotel stock and would be directly impacted by increased hotel usage in response to the STIR ban, increasing the known pollution contributors to respiratory and cardiovascular health risks in these communities. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, pp. 5- 7.) Ramboll concluded that the STIR ban could increase traffic concentrated on roadways going to the hotels in the City by 7,560 vehicles per day, resulting in health impacts that would exceed the SCAQMD CEQA threshold of significance for cancer risk. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, pp. 8-9.) Further, Ramboll concluded the construction of new hotels without emissions mitigation would result in an excess cancer risk of 48 in a million for the maximum exposed individual — exceeding by more than 4 times SCAQMD's threshold of 10 in a million. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, p. 11.) o GHG Emissions. Ramboll concluded that the STIR ban would result in an increase of daily mobile emissions of GHG by 443 percent, contributing to a significant increase in emissions in the area in direct conflict with regional and state goals to reduce VMT and GHG emissions from vehicle trips. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, p. 4.) Further, Ramboll concluded that the increased energy demand associated with hotels compared to STRs would result in a 179 percent increase in GHG emissions per person. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, p. 8.) o Energy. Ramboll concluded the STIR ban would increase energy demand because hotels use more energy per person than STRs (more than 5x more electricity, more than 2x more natural gas). (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, pp. 7-8.) By increasing VMT, the STIR ban would also increase reliance on fossil fuels to power vehicle trips —the daily mobile fuel consumption for hotels is more than five times greater for hotels compared to STRs for both gasoline and diesel —inconsistent with regional and state climate goals. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, p. 8.) o Transportation. Ramboll concluded that the STIR ban would increase the number of trips taken by guests to and from hotels, more than doubling the trips per day compared to STRs. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, p. 4.) As discussed herein, this increase in trips would result in air quality and health risk, GHG emissions, energy, and noise impacts. Further, Ramboll concluded the STIR ban would concentrate traffic by increasing traffic by 7,560 vehicles per day on road to the City's hotels, resulting in health risks exceeding SCAQMD3s CEQA threshold of significance for cancer risk. (Ramboll Environmental Analysis, p. 9.) 3