2017-077 - Approving an Addendum to the Final Environmental Imapact

Home Browse Search

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM Bristol Street and Memory Lane Intersection Improvements —Project No. 17-6883 3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS The previously approved 1990 FEIS/EIR did not include evaluation for Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, as such an analysis was not required in the CEQA guidelines at the time the 1990 FEIS/EIR was prepared. On September 6, 1990, the City of Santa Ana Public Works Agency certified the 1990 FEIS/EIR that analyzed the potential impacts associated with the Bristol Street Widening Project, which focused on improvements that would result in proposed widening of Bristol Street, from Warner Avenue to Memory Lane, in the City of Santa Ana. Although this previous environmental document did not include a GHG analysis, a supplemental environmental analysis of GHG impacts cannot be required absent new information on that front (Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development [CREED] v. City of San Diego, [2011] 196 Ca1.App.4th 515, 531.) Information on the effect of greenhouse gas emissions on climate was known long before the City approved the 1990 FEIS/EIR. (Id.) Thus, the effect of greenhouse gas emissions on climate could have been raised in 1990 when the City considered the FEIS/EIR. A challenge to a FEIS/EIR must be brought within 30 days of the lead agency's notice of approval. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21167[b].) Under Public Resources Code section 21166(c), an agency may not require a supplemental environmental review unless new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the FEIS/EIR was approved, becomes available After a project has been subjected to environmental review, the statutory presumption flips in favor of the project proponent and against further review. (Moss v. County of Humboldt [2008] 162 Ca1.App.4th 1041, 1049-1050.) "`[S]ectim 21166 comes into play precisely because in-depth review has already occurred [and] the time for challenging the sufficiency of the original EIR has long since expired."' (Id., 1050.) There is no competent evidence of new information of severe impact, and thus the City may rely on an addendum. Accordingly, the City fords that GHG impacts and climate change are not "new information" under Public Resources Code Section 21166. Would the project: a) Gemerate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a *nificamt impact on the environment? GHG were not evaluated in the 1990 FEIS/EIR Construction activities would consume fuel and result in the generation of GHG emissions. Construction of the Project is anticipated to occur over a one-year period. Construction -related GHG emissions would cease upon completion of the Project Due to the length of construction activities, GHG emissions associated with construction activities are anticipated to be minimal. Because construction emissions are not substantial and would cease atter completion of construction, GHG emissions would not be significant Furthermore, the Project proposes acquiring additional ROW from what was originally analyzed in the 1990 FEIS/EIR. The additional ROW would not change the roadway capacity or over all lane configuration from what was analyzed in the 1990 FEIS/EIR. As the Project involves roadway improvements and not a trip generating land use, only carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from mobile -sources are applicable Similar to the other criteria pollutants, the highest emissions would occur between 0 to 10 miles per hour (mph) and 50 mph and above The proposed Project would improve traffic flow and reduce idling. Because the Project would improve traffic flow within the Project area, the Project would result in reduced CO2 emissions. Modifications involving additional ROW would not result in a change to the road capacity, lane configuration, and impacts that were identified in the 1990 FEIS/EIR. GHG emissions would be nominal in relation to the global scale of GHG emissions, and there is no evidence that mitigation is necessary for the Project modifications to further demonstrate compliance with the GHG reduction targets of Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 32. Consequently, GHG emissions associated with the Project would be less than significant. Certifled 1990 FRIS/EIR Mitigation Measures: No 1990 FEIS/EIR mitigation measures are applicable Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Final I December 2017 3-12 Environmental Consequences