My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Correspondence - Item #15
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2024
>
12/03/2024
>
Correspondence - Item #15
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/3/2024 3:06:38 PM
Creation date
12/2/2024 3:22:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Agency
Planning & Building
Item #
15
Date
12/3/2024
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
220
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
iCAJA Environmental Services, LLC <br /> 9410 Topanga Canyon Blvd.,Suite 101 <br /> Chatsworth,CA 91311 <br /> Phone 310-469-6700 Fax 310-806-9801 <br /> 260: Recreational Home, which is defined as either (1) a second home used by its owner periodically for <br /> recreation or (2) a home rented on a seasonal basis. No additional trip generation data or studies were <br /> available from other sources that would be more applicable to an STR ban. Thus, the recreational <br /> homeland use (Land Use 260)from the ITE Trip Generation Manual is the most appropriate representative <br /> land use for the purposes of analyzing trip generation for STRs. Recreational homes generate less trips <br /> than hotels.48 <br /> Given the evidence that hotels generate more traffic than STRs, which due to STR ban may result in a <br /> significant increase in VMT, the City should evaluate these potential impacts in an EIR. Further, because <br /> California state and local policymakers and agencies are sensitive to transportation system and VMT <br /> impacts, an expert study should be conducted by a recognized transportation specialist using established <br /> travel demand and VMT methodologies to include in the EIR. This analysis should estimate the individual <br /> vehicle trips and average trip lengths associated with STRs in Santa Ana, compared with those associated <br /> with hotel stays in Santa Ana, to evaluate the increase in VMT from eliminating STRs in the City. This <br /> would use the ITE model to quantify the VMT associated with the current baseline conditions where STRs <br /> are permitted, with regional travel demand based on residential use and proximity to tourist areas. This <br /> should be compared against a scenario where STR uses have been eliminated and there is an increased <br /> demand for hotels further from tourist areas. <br /> If the increase in VMT from an STR ban exceeds the applicable threshold, transportation impacts could be <br /> significant and mitigation measures would need to be provided to reduce impacts to less than significant. <br /> Absent any feasible mitigation, impacts to transportation (VMT) could be significant. <br /> Increased VMT— New Hotels <br /> Based on the locations identified in the City's General Plan, Specific Plan, and Zoning Code as locations <br /> for development of new hotels, depending on the availability of land suitable for hotel development in these <br /> areas, there is a reasonable possibility these new hotels would be constructed farther from a city center or <br /> tourist destination, resulting in greater urban sprawl and VMT, which could result increased traffic. Thus, <br /> for the reasons discussed above regarding existing hotels, the City must analyze potential VMT impacts <br /> associated with potential new hotels. <br /> Tribal Cultural Resources <br /> Overview <br /> An STR ban may significantly impact tribal cultural resources from the reasonably foreseeable construction <br /> and operation of new hotels to accommodate patrons who would have previously utilized STRs. Santa <br /> Ana has extensive tribal cultural resources which heighten the risk of impacts from new construction. The <br /> Addendum fails to address any of these potential impacts, concluding without supporting evidence that the <br /> Proposed Ordinance would "only affect existing structures" and therefore, there would be no change in <br /> 48 ITE 2021. <br /> 32 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.