Laserfiche WebLink
NOP Comments RE.Related Bristol Specific Plan <br /> April 17,2023 <br /> Page 3 of 4 <br /> of being updated, such as: CARB's 2022 Scoping Plan;7 SCAG's 2024 RTP/SCS;8 SCAQMD's 2022 <br /> AQMP;9 and SCAQMD's updated"Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook" ("Handbook")to <br /> replace the 1993 Handbook.10 To the extent feasible,the SEIR's air/GHG impact analysis should be <br /> consistent with current methodologies discussed in these new documents. <br /> Fourth, the SEIR should consider all feasible mitigation measures for significant impacts and <br /> explain with substantial evidence why anv measures are not considered.The Final PEIR determined <br /> the Housing Element would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality, cultural <br /> resources, GHG emissions,noise,recreation,population and housing. (See Final PEIR,11 Tbl. 1-5.) <br /> The City should explore all feasible measures to minimize these impacts,as well as new impacts <br /> created by this Project. Local 11 urges the City to consider those measures and project design <br /> features that reduce mobile emissions and increase renewable energy sources,such as those urged <br /> by the State Office of Policy and Research ("OPR"),the California Air Pollution Control Officers <br /> Association ("CAPCOA"),SCAG, and CARB.12 The SEIR should explore all of these options and <br /> explain with substantial evidence why any specific measures were not considered for those impacts <br /> that remain significant and purportedly unavoidable. <br /> Fifth, the City should consider more than iust compliance with the Santa Ana Municipal Code <br /> C"SAMC"or"Code")for biological/tree impacts. For example,the PEIR relied on compliance with <br /> established tree removal regulations and focused solely on parcels designated as open space. <br /> (PEIR,13 pp. 5.3-3, 5.3-18 - 5.3-19; see also SAMC§ 33-181 et seq.) Neither the PEIR nor the Code <br /> address the loss of urban tree canopies—particularly as they relate to the general public (loss of <br /> shade) or bird populations (loss of habitat). Code compliance alone may not reduce impacts to less <br /> than significance.14 The SEIR should consider additional mitigation measures and alternatives that <br /> minimize tree removal (e.g., relocating/redesigning proposed structures, detailed construction <br /> plans that minimize the need for grading and clearing) and promote native landscaping(e.g., <br /> relocating existing trees,tree replacement rate greater than Code requirements). <br /> See SCAQMD 2022 Scoping Plan Documents,https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate- <br /> change-scop ing-plan/202 2-scoping-p Ian-documents. <br /> 8 See SCAG's 2020 RTP/SCS website,https://scag.ca.gov/connect-socal;see also adopted 2024 RTP/SCS <br /> Framework and Guidelines,https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/2024-subregional-scs- <br /> f ra me wo rk-gui d e 1 in e s.pd f. <br /> 9 SCAQMD's 2022 AQMP Website,http://www.agmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt- <br /> plan; <br /> 10 See SCAQMD Handbook Website,https://www.agmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality- <br /> analysis-handbook. <br /> 11 Supra fn.6. <br /> 12 See e.g.,CAPCOA(August 2010)Quantifying GHG Measures,http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- <br /> source/ceqa/handbook/capcoa-quantifying-greenhouse-gas-mitigation-measures.pdf,CAPCOA(Dec.2021) <br /> Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions,https://www.airquality.org/ClimateChange/Documents/ <br /> Final%20Handbook_AB434.pdf;OPR(Dec.2018)Technical Advisory,http://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122- <br /> 743_Technical_Advisory.pdf;CARB(Jan.2017) 2017 Scoping Plan,Appendix B-Local Action,pp.7-9, <br /> https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/app_b_local_action_final.pdf, 2022 Scoping Plan,Appendix B-Local <br /> Actions,https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/2022-sp-appendix-d-local-actions.pdf;2022 <br /> SCAG(2020) Final Program EIR,pp.2.0-18-2.0-71,https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- <br /> attachments/exhibit-a_connectsocal_peir.pdP 1606004156. <br /> 13 Supra fn.6. <br /> 14 See Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v.Department of Food and Agriculture (2005) 136 Cal.App.4th 1, <br /> 17 ("[c]ompliance with the law is not enough to support a finding of no significant impact under the CEQA."). <br />