2014-069 - Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2014-01

Home Browse Search

HARBOR BLVD. MIXED USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN FINAL FIR CITY OF SANTA ANA 5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Plan.9 For the purpose of this project, SCAQMD's project level thresholds are used because the plan level thresholds are more applicable at a General Plan level. If projects exceed these per capita efficiency targets, GHG emissions would be considered potentially significant in the absence of mitigation measures. 5.5.3 Environmental Impacts Methodology The analysis in this section is based on buildout of the proposed land use plan as modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod); trip generation provided by IBI Group (Appendix H of this EIR) as modeled using the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM) (see Appendix H to this EIR); waste generation based on waste generation rates provided by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle); and water and wastewater generation based on the Santa Ana Water Utility's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Life cycle emissions are not included in this analysis because not enough information is available for the proposed project, and therefore life cycle GHG emissions would be speculative. 10 GHG modeling is included in Appendix C. The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement. Impact 5.5 -1: Development of the proposed land uses within the Harbor Boulevard Mixed Use Transit Corridor Plan would not result in a substantial increase of GHG emissions that would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District's proposed efficiency target of 4.8 MTCO2e. [Threshold GHG -11 impact Analysis: A project does not generate enough GHG emissions on its own to influence global climate change; therefore, the GHG chapter measures a project's contribution to the cumulative environmental impact. The development contemplated by the proposed project would contribute to global climate change through direct emissions of GHG from onsite area sources and vehicle trips generated by the project, and indirectly through offsite energy production required for onsite activities, water use, and waste disposal. Annual GHG emissions were calculated for construction and operation of the project. Construction emissions were amortized into the operational phase in accordance with SCAQMD's proposed methodology. The total and net increases in GHG emissions associated with the proposed project are shown in Table 5.5 -4. 9 SCAQMD took the 2020 statewide GHG reduction target for land - use -only GHG emissions sectors and divided it by the 2020 statewide employment for the land use sectors to derive a per capita GHG efficiency metric that coincides with the GHG reduction targets of AB 32 for year 2020. 10 Life cycle emissions include indirect emissions associated with materials manufacture. However, these indirect emissions involve numerous parties, each of which is responsible for GHG emissions of their particular activity. The California Resources Agency, in adopting the CEQA Guidelines Amendments on GHG emissions found that lifecycie analyses was not warranted for project specific CEQA analysis in most situations, for a variety of reasons, including lack of control over some sources, and the possibility of double - counting emissions (see Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action, December 2009). Because the amount of materials consumed during the operation or construction of the proposed project is not known, the origin of the raw materials purchased is not known, and manufacturing information for those raw materials are also not known, calculation of life cycle emissions would be speculative. A life<ycie analysis is not warranted (OPR 2008). October 2014 Page 5.5 -13