Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 15 <br /> used in the hydrology analysis. (See Chapter 9 of the EIR, pp. 9-20 through 9-33). As <br /> more fully discussed above, the current Project is designed to address the most current <br /> sea level rise forecasts and City requirements. <br /> Even if sea level rise had not been considered in 2003, several Courts of Appeal have <br /> held that the environmental impacts of greenhouse gas emissions, including climate <br /> change and sea level rise, do not constitute new information requiring additional <br /> environmental review under Public Resources Code section 21166, subdivision (c). The <br /> potential environmental impacts of greenhouse gases on sea level rise were known or <br /> could have been known at the time the 2003 EIR was certified. (See Citizens for <br /> Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego (2011) 196 <br /> Cal.App.4th 515, 532; Concerned Citizens v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th <br /> 1301 .) For instance, the court in the Dublin case relied on the fact that "... information <br /> about the potential impacts of GHGs was widely known. The United Nations Framework <br /> Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992. The regulation of greenhouse <br /> gas emissions to reduce climate change impacts was extensively debated and analyzed <br /> throughout the early 1990s. The studies and analyses of this issue resulted in the <br /> adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. In the early and mid-2000s, GHGs and climate <br /> change were extensively discussed and analyzed in California. In 2000, SB 1771 <br /> established the California Climate Action Registry for the recordation of greenhouse gas <br /> emissions to provide information about potential environmental impacts." (Concerned <br /> Citizens v. City of Dublin, 214 Cal.App.4th 1301.) <br /> Finally, CEQA requires analysis of impacts of the proposed project on the existing <br /> environment, rather than analysis of the impacts of the environment on the proposed <br /> project. (See, e.g., Ballona Wetlands Land Trust, et al. v. City of Los Angeles (2011) <br /> 201 Cal.App.4th 455.) <br /> 6. The City has Properly Studied the Emergency Evacuation Plans, Traffic <br /> Impacts and Parking Plans <br /> Appellant's Position: Emergency evacuation routes are insufficient for such a "dense <br /> project", the "DU is dangerous past the One Marina Curve" and the parking plan "is <br /> dangerous and improvident." (Appeal, p. 6.) <br /> City's Response: Since the Appeal is unclear on the Appellant's exact concerns, the <br /> City's response assumes that the Appellant is referring to the following subjects, 1) <br /> emergency evacuation plans, 2) the parking plan and finally, 3) traffic impacts. These <br /> subjects are addressed below. <br /> Emergency Evacuation Plans <br /> The EIR (including Addenda No's. 1 and 2) properly studied the emergency evacuation <br /> issue. The EIR studied the emergency evacuation resources. (See EIR p. 7-61 through <br /> 7-63 (Section 7.3.9 Project Emergency Access Impacts)). The EIR concludes that <br /> based on the assumptions listed in Section 7.3.9 (EIR p. 7-61), "the existing roadway <br /> (Bair Island Road/Uccelli Boulevard) has the capacity to accommodate 750 new <br /> dwelling units before a secondary access would be needed (italics added) to <br />