Attachment A 5-Cities AllianceComment Letter & Technical Studies Technical Appendix 1: Transportation Technical Appendix 2: Noise and Vibration Technical Appendix 3: Geology, Seismic, Soils and Groundwater Technical Appendix 4: Air Quality SHUTE, MIHALYU- vEIN BERcER rrp396 HAYESSTREET,SAN FRANCISCO,CA 941 02T: (a15) ss2-7272 F: (a1s)ss2-s816www.smwlaw.comRachelB. HooperLaurelL. lmpettJuly 9,2015Garrett Damrath, Chief EnvironmentalPlannerDivisionof EnvironmentalPlanningDepartmentof Transportation,District7100 S. MainSt., MS-164LosAngeles,CA 90012Re:Draft Environmental ImpactReport/EnvironmentalImpactStatementSR 710 North StudyDear Mr. Damrath:This firm representsthe citiesof Glendale,La CaiadaFlintridge,Pasadena,SouthPasadenaandSierraMadre ("S-Cities Alliance")in connectionwith the StateRoute("SR")710 North Project("Project").tOnbehalf of 5-CitiesAlliance,werespectfullysubmitthesecommentsto helpensure that agencydecision-makersfullycomply with the CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act ("CEQA"),Public ResourcesCodesection 21000 et seq.,andthe NationalEnvironmental PolicyAct ("NEPA"),42U.S.C.section 4321 et seq. C)urclientis deeplyconcernedaboutthe far-rangingenvironmental impacts the Projectmay haveon their cities.After carefullyreviewingthe SR 710DraftEnvironmentalImpactReporstatement("DEIR/S") for the Project,we haveconcluded thatit fundamentallyfails to cornplywith the requirementsof CEQAandNEPA in numerous respects.Asdescribedbelow, the DEIR/Sviolatesthese laws becauseit: (1) failsto identifft For purposesof this letter, the "Project" referscollectivelyto the buildalternativesunlesswe indicateotherwise.The build alternativesinclude: TransportationSystemManagement/TransportationDemandManagernent ("TSM/TDM");Bus RapidTransit ("BRT");LightRailTransit ("LRT"); and single bore and dual borevariationsofthe FreewayTunnel alternative (collectively, 'oFreeway Tunnel").Garrett DamrathJuly 9,2015Page2thresholdsof signifcancefor the vastmajority of the environmentalimpactanalyses; (2)fails to provide significance determinationsfor numerous environmentalimpactcategories; (3) fails to properlydescribethe Project'senvironmental setting;(4) defersanalysis of critical environmental impactsand fails to adequatelyanalyze thoseimpacts itdoesaddress;(5) fails to support its conclusionswithsubstantialevidence; (6) fails topropose adequate mitigation measuros for the Project's numeroussignificantenvironmentalimpacts;and (7) fails to undertakea sufficientstudy of alternatives to theProject.Of critical importance,the DEIR/Sfails in its role as an informationaldocument.In order to fully understandthe analysesand conclusionsin the DEIR/S, thepublicmust wade through over 25,000 pages. While onewould expectthat the mainbodyof the EIR/S would containan accuratesumary of the informationcontained inthe technical appendices,this is not the case.In certaininstances,the DEIVS'sconclusionsare contradictedby analyzes in the technicalappendices.For example,theDEIR/Sconcludes the Projectwouldresultin a benefitto publichealth whilethetechnicalappendixshowsthat thatcertain of the Projectalternativeswouldharmpublichealth by increasingthe risk of cancerin certainlocations. Such fundamentalerrorsunderminetheintegrity of the EM.The EIR is "the heart of CEQA."LaurelHeightsImprovementAss'n v.Regentsof (Jnversity of Calrnia(1988)47 Ca1.3d376,392 ("Laurel Heights")(citations omitted),It is "an environmental 'alarm bell' whose purpose it is to alert thepublicand its responsibleofficials to environmentalchanges before they havereachedecologicalpoints of no return.The EIR is alsointended oto demonstrateto anapprehensivecitizenrythat the agencyhas, in fact, analyzed and consideredtheecologicalimplicationsof its action.'Becausethe EIRmust be certifiedor rejected bypublic offcials,it is a documentof accountability."Id. (citations omitted).Likewise,NEPArequires that federalagencies'oconsider everysignificantaspect of theenvironmentalimpact of a proposed action. . . [and] informthe publicthat fthey have]indeed considered environmental concernsin [their] decision-makingprocess[esf ." EarthIsland Institutev. U.S.Forest Servce(9th Cir. 2003)351F.3d1291,1300 (citationsomitted).CEQArequires the EIR not only to identify a project'ssignificanteffects,butalso to identiffways to avoid or minimizethem. Pub. Res. Code $ 21002.1.An EIRSHUTE.MIHALY(r-utetNBERGERLpGarrettDamrathJuly 9,2015Page 3generallymaynotdeferevaluationof mitigationto alater date.CEQAGuidelin"s' 15126.4(aX1XB).Rather,an EIR must assesseachmitigationproposalthat is not"facially infeasible,"evenif such measureswouldnotcompletely eliminate an impactorrender it lessthan significant.Los AngelesUnffiedSchoolDst. v. City of LosAngeles(1997) 58 Cal.App.4th1019, 1029-31.Furthermore,for every mitigationmeasureevaluated,the agencymust demonstratethat the mitigationmeasureeither:(1) will beeffectivein reducinga significantenvironmentalimpact; or (2) is ineffectiveor infeasibledue to speciflrc legalor "economic,environmental,socialandtechnological factors."Friendsof Oroville v. City of Oroville (2013) 219Cal.App.4th1352, 1359-61;Pub. Res.Code $$ 21002,21061.1;CEQA Guidelines $$ 15021(b),15364.NEPA's requirementsare similar. NEPArequiresan EIS to containadetaileddiscussionof all unavoidableenvironmentalimpacts.42 U.S.C. $ 4332(CXii).In its discussionof the proposed actions and alternatives,the EISmust "fi]ncludeappropriatemitigationmeasures" and discuss the "n]eans to mitigateadverseenvironmental irnpacts."40 CFR $$ 1502.14(,1502.16(h).The statuteoorequire[s]thatan EIS discuss mitigation measures, with 'sufficientdetailto ensure that environmentalconsequences havebeenfairly evaluated.' An essentialcomponentof a reasonablycompletemitigation discussionis an assessmentof whetherthe proposed mitigationmeasuroscan be effective." SouthForkBand Counclof W. Shoshoneof Nevada v. U.S.Dep't of Interor(9th Cir.2009) 588 F.3d 718,727(quotingRobertsonv.MethowValleyCtizens Councl (1989)490 U.S. 332,352).'Where, as here, the environmentalreview documentfails to fully andaccuratelyinform decision-makersandthe public of the environmental consequences ofproposed actions, or identify ways to mitigateor avoid those impacts,it does notsatisffthe basicgoals of eitherCEQAor NEPA.,See Pub.Res.Code $ 2 i 061 ("The purposeofan environmentalimpactreportis to provide public agenciesandthe publicin generalwith detailedinformationaboutthe effectthat a proposedproject is likelyto haveon theenvironment;to list ways in whichthe significanteffectsof such a project might beminimized;andto indicatealternativesto sucha project."); 40 C.F.R. $ 1500.1(b)("NEPA proceduresmustinsure that environmentalinformationis availableto publicofficialsand citizensbeforedecisions are madeandbeforeactions are taken.").As a' 14 California Code of Regulations $ 15000et seqSHUTE,MIHALY6-VfINBERGERLpGarrett DamrathJuly 9, 2015Page4resultof the SR 710 DEIR/S's numerous and seriousinadequacies,there canbe nomeaningful publicreviewof the Project.This letter, along with the reportby NelsonNygaard on transportation(Exhibit1),the reportby Landrum & Brown on air qualityand greenhousegas("GHG")(Exhibit 2),thereportby Landrum & Brown on noise (Exhibit 3), and the reportbyWilson GeosciencesInc.on geologyand groundwaterresources(Exhibit 4), constitutesS-Cities Alliance'scommentson the DEIR/S. We respectfully requestthat the FinalEIR/S respond separatelyto each of the pointsraised in the technical consultants'reportsas wellas to the points raised in this letter. In addition, eachof the5-CitiesAlliancemember citieswill be submittinglettersunderseparatecover.The Alliance joins in theCEQAandNEPA comments of all of its member cities.THEPROPOSED FREEWAYTUNNELALTERNATIVBIS FLAWEDANDUNNECESSARY.This letterfocusesprimarilyon the DEIR/S's failure to comply with CEQAandNEPA,Nevertheless,it is importantto emphasizeat the outsetthat the Project'sprimaryalternative,3the FreewayTunnel, is itself flawed andunnecessary.The DEIVShas positedan ill-defined Projectobjective and,consequently, the Freeway Tunnelalternativedoesnot addressthe region'stransportationneeds.Accordingto the DEIR/S,the Project's primaryobjective is to resolve the lack of continuousnorth-southtransportationfacilities in the SanGabrielValley.DEM at 3. The DEIR/Ssuggeststhat it is this lack of facilitiesthat results in congestion on freewaysand "cut-through"trafficthat affectslocal streets.Id. Yet, as the Nelson NygaardReport explains, theregion actually lacks east-westtransportationfacilities,notnorth-south.Moreover, verylittle - about14 percent - of current peakperiod traffic is cut-throughtraffic.Byproviding a newfreeway link, the Freeway Tunnel alternativewould reduce this cut-throughtraffic fromabout14 percent to betweenT percent and 11 percent.By reducing'The DEIR/Spurportsto analyzeProjectalternativeson equalfooting,without giving priorityto any singleone. However,the documentsubtlyrevealsanimplicitbias in favor of the FreewayTunnel alternativebased, for example, on itsselectionof Caltrans(notMetro) as leadagecy,and SCAG'sinclusionof the FreewayTunnel in the 2012 RegionalTransportationPlan/SustainableCommunities Strategy.,SeeSection I.B, below.SHUTE.MIHALY(r--uztNBERGERu-pGarrett DamrathJuly 9, 2015Page 5this cut-throughtraffic, approximat ely 7 percentto 13 percent of all motoriststhroughoutthe studyarea wouldreceivea nominal travel timesavings of 2.5 minutes.o Thismeansthat about 90 percent of motoristsin the study wouldreceive no significanttraveltirnesavings, or their travel time wouldworsen,as a resultof this alternative.Norwouldthe Freeway Tunnel actually improve regionaltraffic.Instead,it would shiftcongestionaround.Trafficwouldsignificantlyworsenon variousconnectingfreewaysas a resultof the tunnel,in part becausethe FreewayTunnel inducesextra driving.The FreewayTunnelwould alsoincreasetraffic congestion in parts ofAlhambra,Rosemead,San Marino,PasadenaandSouthPasadena.The FreewayTunnelwould also bypassmanyof the destinationspeoplewantto go. Accordingto the NewInitiativefor Mobilityand Community,the SanGabrielValley is a communityof diversepeople with widely varyingcommute patterns.See"New Initiativefor Mobilityand Community," preparedby NelsonNygaardforConnected Cities andCommunities, attachedas Exhibit5. Eighty-five percent ofcommutersexiting the 710 Freewayat Valley Boulevard are intent on reaching localdestinations.Employeesneedto make short commutesto Pasadena and longercommutes to Burbank (Metrohas found that70percent of study-areavehicletrips startand end withintheSanGabrielValley).StudentsattendingCal StateLA andEast LACollegeneedwaysto make short commutesto school. The FreewayTunnelAlternativesimplywouldnot serve these types of transportationneeds,In addition, the FreewayTunnel doesnot providea sustainalesolutiontothe region'stransportationneeds, and confers no supportfor active transportation.Everytrip starts by walking, and the people of San GabrielValley deserve to be able to walksafety and comfortably.The region should be strivingtoward a transportationsolutionthatwill make car ownershipan option rather than a necessity. Projectssuch as theFreeway Tunnel thatfacilitatethe automobileandpromoteincreasedvehicular speedsthreatenthe walkabilityof a community.Clearly, theremust be a better solutiontomeetingthe region'stransportationneeds, especiallygiventhe Freeway Tunnel'sheftya 2.5 minutesis the thresholdusedto count vehicle hourstravelled duringpeakperiods;somesavings may be greaterbut the DEIR/Sdoesnot contain this granularinformation.SeeDEIR/STransportationTechnicalReportat 4.3.SHUTE,MIHALY(r-vUNBERGERnpGarrett DamrathIy 9,2015Page 6$5.5billion pricetag-andthe fact thatit will not"payfor itself'throughtolls as sorrehaveasserted.Furthermore,the FreewayTunnel'sincreasein vehicular capacity willcausea substantialincreasein vehicle milestravelled ("VMT"), with resulting increasesin greenhousegas ("GHG") emissions and other air pollution.As explainedfurtherbelow, ample studiesdemonstratethat increasedhighwaycapacityincreases VMT andGHG emissions in the long-run.sConsequently,providing increasedroadwaycapacityisunlikely to relieve congestion.The DEIR/Sprovides a real-worldexample of this effect,as it acknowledgesthat the Freeway Tunnelwouldresultin a sizableincreaseinvehicular travel. Total VMTunder all freewaytunnel alternativeswouldincrease by asmanyas 460,000milesperday.This increasein VMT demonstratesthat adding highwaycapacityis a temporary solution, at best, to the complexproblemof traffic congestion.Becausethe Freeway Tunnel alternativewould increasecapacityandinduce travel, it wouldtake the region in a direction thatpreventsachievingtheState'spreeminentclimate goals. GovernorBrown's Executive Orderissuedon April29,2015directs the stateto cut its GHG emissions40 percentbelow 1990 levels by 2030; thisdirective reiterates Gvernor Schwarzenegger's2005 Executive Order, whichcalls forreducingstatewideGHGemissions 80 percentbelow 1990 levels by 2050. TheState willnot be able to meet thesegoals without a reduction in motor vehicletravel. Tellingly,Caltrans itself specificallyrecognizedthis fact whenit notedthat achievingthe State'sclimate changegoalsrequiresa "fundamental, holistictransformation of thetransportationsystems."SeeCalifornia's2040TransportationPlan, March2015 at4,attachedas Exhibit6 (statingthatone of the main strategiesto reduce future GHGemissions for the movementof people and freightis reducingvehicle milestraveledandincreasinga shiftto more sustainabletransportation).In addition, it is important to understandthat evenif a freeway tunnelwerethe appropriatesolution to meet the region's transportationneeds-whichit is not-theFreeway Tunnel designbeingconsideredhereis entirely unprecedented.Theproposed5 ^See S. Handy and M. Boarnet,CaliforniaAir ResourcesBoard(CARB),Polcy Bref n the Impactof HghwayCapacityand Induced Travel on PassengerVehicle (Jse andGreenhouseGasEmissions,September,30, 2014,at 4,5, attachedasExhibit7.SHUTE.MIHALY(r-UtUNBERGERLpGarrett DamrathJuly 9,2015Page760-footdiameter tunnelwouldbe the widest subsurfacetunnel attempted anywhere in theworld. In December2013,the tunnelboring machine("TBM") used to constructWashington State'sAlaskan Way Viaductreplacement project-thelargest such tunnelto date (57-footdiameter)-becamestuck after tunnelingonlyone thousandfeet of thetunnel's 1.7-milelength. Workershad to constructan accesspit 120feet deepand 80feet wide to lift the TBMout in order to repair it. Had it not failedso early,accessing themachinefor repairs wouldhavebeeneven moredifficult-orirnpossible-becausethetunnel's route takesit beneathdowntownSeattle. TheSeattle project is now at leasttwoyearsbehindscheduleand it is unclear whetherit can or will be successfullycompleted.That project serves as a cautionarytalefor the proposedFreeway Tunnel alternative,yetthe DEIR/Sfails to addressthe impacts that couldresultif a TBM were stuck alongtheSR 710routealignment,whichis located in a denselydeveloped area.In sum,selectionof the Freeway Tunnel alternativewouldresult in the lossof a critical opportunityto fundamentally,holistically transformthe region'stransportationsystem.Indeed,this alternativereflectsstrategiesfrom the 1960's, whenthe statepursuedroad-buildingprojectswithoutregardto global climate changeand otherenvironmentalthreats.The agenciesshould denythe proposedProjectand go backto thedrawing board,to design a project thatis capableof rneeting the region'stransportationneeds in a mannerthat is sustainableand environmentallyresponsible.In particular, asdiscussedmorefully below, the 5-CitiesAlliance urges the agenciesto consider its"Beyond the 710"alternative,a multimodaloptionthat combines masstransit,"greatstrsets,"and bikeways.THBDEIR/SFAILS TO COMPLY WITH CEQAAND NEPA.I.The DEIWS'sDescriptionof the ProjectViolates NEPAand CEQA.An accuratedescriptionof a proposedproject is "the heart of the EIRprocess"and necessaryfor an intelligentevaluationof the project'senvironmentaleffects. SacratnentoOldCity Ass'n. v. City Council(1991)229 Cal.App.3d 1011,1023;see also Rio VstaFarmBureauv.County of Solano(1992)5 Cal.App.4th35l,369-370(project descriptionis the 'osinequa non"of an informativeand legallysufficientEIR);see alsoWestlandsWaterDist. v. U.S. Dep'tof Interior (9thCir.2004)376 F.3d853,866-86S (the purpose and need statementof an EIS must "reasonablydefine[ ] theobjectivesof the project").Consequently,courts havefoundthat,even if an EIRisadequate in all other respects,the use of a "truncated project concept"violatesCEQAandmandatesthe conclusionthat the lead agencydid not proceed in a mannerrequired bySHUTE,MIHALY(r-UtltNBERGERu-pGarrett DamrathJuly 9,2015Page 8Iaw. SanJoaquinRaptor/WildlifeRescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994)27Cal.App.4th713,730. Furthermore,"[a]n accurate project descriptionis necessary for anintelligentevaluationof the potential environmentaleffectsof a proposedactivity." Id.(citationomitted).Thus, an inaccurateor incompleteproject descriptionrendersthe analysisof significantenvironmental impactsinherently unreliable.While extensive detailis notnecessary, the law mandatesthat EIRs shoulddescribeproposedprojectswithsufficientdetailand accuracyto permitinformed decision-making.SeeCEQAGuidelines $15124(requirementsof an EIR). NEPA similarly requires an accurateand consistentprojectdescriptionin order to fulfill its purpose of faciiitating inforrned decision-making.43u.s.c. s 4332(2)(c).The DEIR/S's descriptionof the Projectfails to fulfilltheserequirements.It lacks adequate detailregardingproject construction,obscures the alternativepreferredby CaltransandMetro,fails to identiffthe standards by which theagencies will select analternative,and lacks critical informationaboutProjectfunding.As a result, the DEIR/Sdoesnot come close to meetingthe basicthresholdsfor legal adequacy.A.The DEIR/S Fails to IdentifyPerformanceCriteria or ObjectiveStandardsby Which Caltransand MetroWill EvaluatetheAlternatives.The DEIR/Sprovidesno objectivesor standardsby whichthe leadagencymayevaluatethe various alternatives' comparativeperformance.This omissionunderminesthe publicprocess,leaving interestedparties without guidance as to howproject selection will transpire. Thedocument'slack of transparency violatesCEQA'sandNEPA'sfundamentalgoalsof ensuringthat,especiallyfor projectsinvolvingpotentiallysignificantenvironmental impacts,decisions are made with a maximum oftransparency andpublic input. See, e.g., Save Tarav. City of W.Hollywood(2008)45Cal. th 116, 136 ("CEQA's goal.. .[is] transparency in environmentaldecision-making.");SierraClubv.Gates(S.D. Ind.2007)499F.Supp.2d1101,1132 (lackoftransparency in decision-makingprocess was "troublingin light of the goal of NEPA toensurepublic input into the process").The DEIVS'somissionis surprising,giventhatsome objectivesandperformaneemeasures wereidentifiedin Metro's Alternatives Analysis Report. Thatreportincludedeight performanceobjectivesrelated to transportationsystemSHUTE,MIHALY(f--\EINBERGERu-pGarrett DamrathIuly 9,2015Page 9performance,environmental imp acts,planning considerations,and co st efficiency.AlternativesAnalysisReport(2012)ES-3 to -4. For each of these eightobjectives,thedocumentidentifiedoneor more performancemeasures.Id. at2-4.It alsodescribedthescreening criterionselection process Metrousedto select the alternativesit wouldconsider in the DEIR/S. Id. atES-4.Yet, such criteria are entirelylackingin theDEIR/S,where their presenceis evenmore crucial. The public is thus left in the dark asto whetherCaltrans and Metrowill be relying on these sameobjectivesandperformancemeasuresto selectfrom among the proposedproject alternatives,or whetherthe agencieswill be usinga differentset of objectivesandperformancemeasures.Of course,Caltrans commonly relieson performancemeasures and criteria.For example,Caltrans'Strategic ManagementPlan 2015-2020setsvery specifictargetsfor transportationmode shift and VMTreduction.Similarly, Caltrans'SmartMobilityCaltrans Report(2010)describesspecificperformancemeasuresto advance"smartmobility," SmartMobilityCaltrans Report(2010)at 8, 50, attachedas Exhibit8. Neitherdocumentis even mentionedin the DEIR/S,however. Readers need to knowif theagencies will be usingthese,or otherperformancemeasures, to assessthe alternatives.Equallytroubling,the DEIVS fails to clariff the respective roles ofCaltrans and Metro in rnakingthe ultimate selectionamongproject alternatives.TheDEIR/Sstatesthat"Caltrans, in consultationwith Metro,will identiff a PreferredAlternativeand makethefinal determinationof the project'seffecton the environment."DEIR/Sat2-107.But the documentdoesnotaddresshow the two agencies will shareresponsibilityfor the choiceamong alternatives,or how they will eachbring their distinctexpertiseto bearin thatdecision. This is especiallyconfusing,as the leadagencyfor theProjectwill differdependingon the alternativeeventuallychosen.,See DEIVS atpreface. As the City of SouthPasadena'scommentletterexplains,changing the leadagencydepending on the selectedalternativeis unlawful and improperlyskewstheanalysis in favor of the FreewayTunnel alternative.Letter from Rossmat &. Moore forCity of SouthPasadena,pp._.B.The DEIR/SDoes Not Acknowledge That the FreewayTunnelIs thePreferredAlternative.TheCEQ'sregulationsfor implementingNEPArequire the alternativessection of an EISto "identi$z the agency'spreferredalternativeif one or more exists,inthe draft statement,and identi$t such alternativein the final statement . . . ." 40 C.F.R. $1502.1a(e). Therefore,if the agenoy has a preferredalternativeat the draftEIS stage,SHUTE,MIHALY(--vetNBERCERr-L'Garrett DamrathJuly 9,2015Page10that alternativemust be labeled or identifiedas suchin the draftEIS. Se also CouncilonEnvironmental Quality, Mernorandumto Agencies:Forty Most Asked QuestionsConcerningCE,Q's NationalEnvironmental PolicyAct Regulations,46 Fed.Reg.18026,18028(March23,1981).Althoughthe DEIWSpurportsto evaluatethe alternatives without givingpriorityto any singleone, there are strong indications that the FreewayTunnel isCaltrans' and Metro's preferredalternative,and that the agencies have already rnadetheirdecision to selectit for project approval.For example, the DEIR/Sstates,whendiscussing the Projectgenerally:"Because theproposed project would adda new freewaytunnelto the project areaandlorwouldwidenexisting local roads,it would potentiallyworsenair quality." DEIR/Sat3.13-16 (emphasisadded).Tellingly,unlikethe other alternatives,the freewaytunnel is includedinSCAG's2015 Federal TransportationImprovementProgram("FTIP") and its 2012RegionalTransportationPlan/SustainableCommunities Strategy ("RTP/SCS").DEIR/Sat 1-51; 3.13-14. Accordingly, the DEIVS statesthat "[t]he forecastrevenuesin theRTP/SCSfinancialplan includetoll revenuesfrom the SR 710 freewaytunnel." Id. at l-51. This is revealing. By acknowledgingthat SCAG'stransportationplanincludes,andactuallyrelieson the toll revenuesfrom the freewaytunnel,the DEIVS suggeststhat thefreewaytunnel is a foregoneconclusionin the eyesof Metroand SCAG.Together,thesestatementsindicatethat despitethe DEIVS's ostensiblelack of a preferredalternative,Caltrans and Metrohavealready determined to approveand construct the FreewayTunnel alternative.The DEM must acknowledgethattheFreewayTunnel alternativeis in fact the preferredalternative.By failing to do so, thedocument rnisleadsreadersand obscures the institutionalmomenturnbehind the FreewayTunnel alternative.C. The DEIR/S Lacks an AdequateDescriptionof PotentialFundingSourcesfor Each Alternative.The DEIR/S'sdiscussion of funding for eachof the alternativesisaltogetheropaque,and the publicthereforehas no way to determine the Project's truecosts. The DEIR/Sshouldcontaina separate, detaileddescription (accompanied by asummaryin tableforrnat) of both: (1) the estirnatedcosts of each project component, and(2) the estimatedfundingsources for eachalternative.SHUTE.MIHALYd--vetNBERGERu-pGarrett DamrathIuly 9,201,5Page11Giventhe size and costof the proposedProject,the publichasa keeninterest in ready accessto cost and funding data for the variousalternatives.Indeed,theenvironmentalimpactsof project alternativescannotbe fully consideredwithout anunderstandingof this crucial information.As it stands, the DEIVS addressescostinforrnationonlysuperficially,in one shortparagraphat the end of the descriptionofeachproject alternative. This approachis entirely unhelpful.As for potential fundingsources,the DEIVS fails to discuss thistopic inanyfocused manner.Instead, it sprinklesreferencesto possiblefundingsourcesthroughoutthe document,but withinsufficientdetail. The most specific discussionoffundingfor the alternativesappears, of all places,in tworows of the Table3 .1.3 , whichaddressesthe Project'sconsistency withstate,regional, and localplans. DEIR/S at3.l-36; 3 .1-47 (Policy 4.2.3andPolicyL2l). But these explanationsmerely statethat "stateand local funding sourcesare anticipatedto be used"for all build alternatives,andthatthe TSM/TDM,LRT,and Freeway Tunnel alternatives wouldneed to be addedto theFTIP6to be eligible for federalfunding.Id. Again,this informationis too nebulousto beuseful.The DEIR/S's otherstatementsaboutProjectfunding are vague orinconsistent.For example, the DEIR/Sstates that"[t]he Project is proposedto be fundedentirelyor in part by MeasureR, a halcent salestax dedicatedto transportation projects inLos Angeles County."DEIR/Sat 1-1. Elsewhere,however,it explainsthatonly $780millionlnfundinghas been committedby MeasureR to the SR 710 improvements.T Id. at1-6;1-51. Thisis a smallfraction of the cost of the Project, which is estimatedto be $5.5billionfor the Freeway Tunnelalternative.Thereis little mentionof the othersourcesoflocalor regionalfunding, or how thosefunding sourcesmay differdependingon thealternativeselected.6 Confusingly,the documentelsewherestatesthat the Freeway TunnelAlternativeis already included in SCAG's2015 FTIP.DEIR/S at3.13-14.7 Althoughthe DEIR/Sstates that Measure R includesa "comrnitment"of$780 millionto the 710 Project,DEIR/Sat l-52,Metrohas previously takenthe positionthat Measure R doesnot constitutea bindingcommitmentto spend in a parlicularmanner.Exhibit9 al37 (OpeningBriefof RespondentLosAngelesCountyMetropolitanTransportationAuthority,City of South Pasadenav, Los AngelesCountyMetropolitnTransp.Authorty(Cal. Ct. App.,}i4:ar.22,2011,8221118)2011 WL 989553).SHUTE,MIHALY(l-''WEINBERCERLpGarrett DamrathJuly 9, 2015Page12Nordoes the DEIR/Sanalyze the revenues expectedfrom the toll version ofthe Freeway Tunnelalternativedespite earlier indicationsthat this analysis would beconductedat thisstage.Specifically, Metro's 2012AltemativesAnalysisReport stated that'oMetro. . . concludesthat freeway tunnelalternativescould be funded by future tollrevenues.However,no analysisof toll revenues has been conductedin this AlternativesAnalysis so this conclusionwill be verifiedin the PAD f"Project Approval&EnvironmentalDocumentation"] phase." AlternativesAnalysisReport Appx. X, Cost ofAlternativesTechnicalMemorandumat 5. Nevertheless,the DEIR/Sincludesonly asingle, offhandmentionof toll revenues, notingthat toll revenues from the freeway tunnelare includedin SCAG's2012RTP/SCS financial forecast. DEM at 1-51.TheDEIVS'sdiscussionof federal funding is similarlyincornplete. Itexplainsthat the Projectis classified as a "TypeI" projectbecausefederal aidis proposedfor constructionfor the Freeway Tunnel, BRT,andTSM/TDMalternatives.Id. at3.l4-7.But the documentnowhere explainswhat a "Type I project"is. Nordoesit explain in theproject description why federal aidis proposedfor all buildalternativesexcept the LRT,andwhether the (un)availabilityof federal fundingwill influenceselectionof the projectalternative.Sirnplystatingthat federalfunding is "proposed" provideslittleusefulinformation.Thereaderis left guessingas to: (1) the likelihoodthat such fundingwillactuallybe secured,(2) the expectedgrant amount,and (3) what portion of the Project'soverallcost would be coveredby that funding.sThe absenceof meaningfuldiscussionof projectfunding is surprising, sincethe issue is not new.In 2003,theFederalHighwayAdministration("FHWA")informedCaltransthat the FHWA was rescindingits 1998Record of Decision(the NEPAapprovaldocument) for a prior versionof the SR710 projectandrequiring Caltransto conductasupplementalEIS. The FHWA basedthisdecision, in part, on "fc]ontinueduncertaintyregarding the financing of this projectand the failureto developa comprehensivefinancialplan for its implementation."Exhibitl0 at7 (G. HambyLetterto J. Morales, Decembert7,2003).I As noted above, simply referringto appendicesor technicaldocumentsisnot sufficient.TheDEIVS'sinformationon costsand funding sourcesmustbe presentedto the reader in a straightforward,comprehensibleformat.SeeCaliforna Oak Found.v,City of Santa Clarta (2005)133 Cal. App.4th 1219,1239 (relevantinformation maynotbe "buried in an appendix").SHUTE,MIHALY(r--vetNBERGERLLpGarrettDamrathJuly 9, 2015Page13The DEIVS'somissionof any useful information as to Project cost andfunding is glaring.These monetary issuesare vital, as theydictatenotonly whether theProject'spurported benefit justifies the cost, but alsowhether the Projectwill ever becompleted.Othertunnel-boringprojects with lesserrisks haveencounteredseriousdifficulties,resultingin hugecost-overrunsandlongdelays. The Alaskan WayViaducttunnel,whosepre-project costestimatewas abouthalf that of the dual-boreFreewayTunnel alternative,again is illustrative.As notedpreviously, work has been stalled ontheSeattle project since 2013,when the tunnelboiing machine brokedownin situ.eAdditionalcosts are unknowr,l0 although the WashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportationhopes to hold the contractorliable for such costs. 1lThe Alaskan WayViaductreplacementproject is not the onlyexample ofan undergroundinfrastructureproject involving the use of tunnelboring machinesthat isafflictedby high costs and delays.Contractorsoperatinga tunnelboring machine for asimilarproject in Miami demandedan extra 5150 million threemonths before the startofexcavationbased on the results of new geotechnicalanalysis.l2Indeed, studieshaveshown thatfor large-scaletransportationinfrastructureprojectslike theSR 710 NorthProject,the likelihood of cost ovenuns correlateswith the lengthof the project'sn Galloway,P., et al., AlaskanWayViaduct ReplacementProgramExpertReviewPanelUpdatedReport,April 3,2075 at 4, attached as Exhibit 11.to The Washington StateDepartmentof Transportationcurrently estimatesthat additional costs could exceed$300 million.Alaskan Way ViaductReplacernentExpert Review PanelUpdateReportat28.rr SeeKovtoNEws, Transportation fficals; Newcracks on AlaskanWayVaduct (April7 ,2015), availableat:httlr://www .ccrm/newsll ocallTransoortation-offcials-Nerv- cracks-on-Alaskan-V/ay-Viaduct -298%A741.html" Snn CBS Mravrr,CompanyBuitdingPort of Mami TunnelSeeksMoreMoney (July 8, 2011),availableat httrt :I I miuni. cb sl ocal.coml 20 11 107l08lcoffnanv-hr ri I rli n o-nnrf-n-nr i nrn i-tunnel-seeks-more-mon see also TI-tp CoIUMBUSDtsPatcg,Project to bore tunnelunderColumbusfaces 829,5mllion costoverrun(Dec.6,2014),available at: htto :I I www.dispatch. com/content/stories/local/201 ll2lA6ldauntins-drill .html (Clevelandproject involving tunnelboring machinedelayedtwo years with$29.5 million costoverrun).SHUTE,MIHALY--UtEINBERGERnpGarrett DamrathJuly 9,2015Page14implementationphase;here, the dual-boreFreewayTunnel alternativeis expectedto takefiveyears to construct, threeyearslongerthan the initialtimeestimatefor the Seattleproject. In addition, tunnelprojectsare especiallylikelyto fall prey to higherlevelsofcostescalation. See generallyBentFlyvbjerg,et al. "What CausesCost OverruninTransportationInfrastructure Projects?" TronsportReviews (2004),attachedas Exhibitl2;BentFlyvbjerg,'oWhatYou Should Know AboutMegaprojectsand Why:AnOverview"ProjectManagementJournal(2014),attachedas Exhibit 13.D.The DEIR/S's Descriptionof the ProjectFails to IncludeAdequateDetailRegardingConstructionof the TunnelAlternatives.The descriptionof a Project'sconstructiondetailsshould be commensuratewith its size and scope.Giventhe irnmensecost,size,and scope of the alternativesproposed in the DEIR/S,the Projectdescriptionshould havesuppliedmore detailregardingtheirconstruction.Below are just three examplesof the waysin whichtheProjectdescription'sdiscussionof constructiondetails fallsshort.First, the DEIVS states that for the LRTand Freeway Tunnel alternatives,the tunnelwouldbe fabricatedfroma precastconcretesegmentalliningsystern.DEIVSat2-52;2-80. There is no explanationof how the precastconcretetunnelrings will betransported to, or fabricatedat, the Projectsite.The precastconcretetunnelringsrequiredto buildvery large diameter tunnelssuchas the dual bore are enormous: nearly60 feet in diameter.Giventhe 4.2 miles of tunnel,the FreewayTunnel alternativewouldrequire1056 tunnelrings if they are 20 feet long, or 2,112 rings if theyare 10 feetlong.Concrete structuresthat are 60 feet in diameter wouldcoveraboutfivetraffic lanes on afreewayand must be hauled to the tunnel entranceportal from the fabricationsite. Giventheir size, they likelywould be designedin severalpieces to be assembledon site.TheDEIR/Sprovidesno descriptionof thisprocess,despitethe obviousimpacts.Forexample, the possibility of unaccounted-fortruck trips implicatesthe transportation,airquality,noise, and GHGanalyses.Second, the DEIR/Sstates that the Projectwouldbe builtin phases.However, the DEIR/Saddressesconstructionphasing onlyin the most generalterms;itevenlacks factualdetail aboutwhen the phaseswould occur. ,See DEIR/Sat2-24(TSM/TDM);2-38 to -39(BRT); 2-57 to -60 (LRT);2-85 to -86 (FreewayTunnel).Constructionis estimatedto take up to fiveto six years,depending on the alternativeselected.Details of the timingof constructionare criticalto understanding Projectimpacts, yet the DEIR/S lacks any descriptionof this criticalProjectcomponent.SHUTE,MIHALY(r-tytp.tNBERGERLpGarrett DamrathJuly 9,20t5Page15Third,the DEIVS contains no descriptionof how repairswill be made tothe tunnelboring machines in the eventthat theymalfunctionduring Projectconstruction.The DEIVS must addressthis issue. As notedpreviously,the TBMfor the AlaskanWayViaductReplacement Projecttunnelmalfunctioned during the earlystagesof tunnelconstructionandbecamestuck, requiring workers to lift it out to perform repairs.Thisintensivework,which involvedthe useof heavyequipment to excavatean accesspit 120feet deep and80 feetwide, has delayedthatproject by at least twoyears.Given Seattle'sexperience, andthe fact that the Freeway Tunnel alternativeproposesto use up to urTBMs (therebyquadruplingthe risk of mechanicalfailure),the DEIR/Sshould haveaddressedhow repairs wouldbe madein the event of a TBM malfunction.Unfortunately,this flaw in the Projectdescriptionresultedin an incompleteanalysis ofthe tunnel alternatives' impactsin a numberof areas.For example, becausethe DEIVSdoesnotdescribe a TBM repair planor strategy, it doesnot analyze the potential impactsfromrepair-relatedexcavationand extendedtunnel construction. Such impacts mayincludegroundsettlementand additional noise,vibration,and air qualityimpacts.In aworst-casescenario,homesand businesses aboveor adjacentto the Projectsite wouldneed to be relocated in order to allowworkers access to a TBM from the surface.In sum,the DEIR/S's descriptionof the Project suffers from seriousflawsand omissions.Consequently,the DEIWS doesnot meet CE,QAandNEPA's basicrequirements.II.The DEIR/S's Analysisof and Mitigation for the Project's EnvironmentalImpacts Are Inadequate.The evaluationof a proposedproject'senvironmentalimpacts is the corepurpose of an EIR. ,Se CEQAGuidelines $ 15126.2(a)("[a]n EIR shall identify andfocuson the significantenvironmentaleffectsof the proposedproject").Likewise,NEPArequires thatfederalagencies"consider every significantaspect of theenvironmentalimpact of a proposed action. . . [and] informthe publicthat fthey have]indeed considered environmental concernsin its decision-makingprocess."Earth IslandInsttute,351 F.3dat i300(citations ornitted). Each statutealso requires that the EIR/Sidentify rneasuresthat would effectivelymitigate a proposedproject'ssignificanteffectson the environment.Pub. Res.Code $ 21002.l(a);Robertson,490U.S.at352-352.Asexplainedbelow, the DEIVS fails to analyze the Project's numerous environrnentalimpacts,includingthose affectingair quality,climatechange,traffic andtransportation,noise, geology,hydrologyand waterquality. It alsofails to identify effective mitigationmeasuresfor the Project'ssignificanteffects.SHUTE,MIHALY'-VeINBERCERLpGarrettDamrathJuly 9, 2015Page16A.The DEIR/S's Analysis of and Mitigation for Air Quality Impacts AreInadequate.The Projectis located withinthe SouthCoast Air Basin, whichhas theworst air quality - with the highestobservedozoneconcentrations - in the UnitedStates.SeeLetter to MichaelMiles, Caltransfrom USEPA,September28,2012regardingthe I-710ProjectfromOceanBoulevard to StateRoute 60,at pdf page6, attachedas Exhibit14. TheSouthCoast Air Basinalsohas the greatest numberof unhealthyair qualitydays.13 Directand indirectair pollutantemissions from transportation-relatedactivities isa major contributor to this poor air quality. ,See Exhibit 14 (J. Blurnenfeld Letterto M.Miles,September28, 2012).Giventhe severe air pollution in the Projectstudy area,and the Project'spotential to contributeto thatpollution(particularlyif the FreewayTunnelis selected),onewould expectthe DEIVS to provide a comprehensiveanalysis of the Project'sirnpactsand to thoroughlymitigatefor these impacts.Yet, the DEIR/Sfails to achieveCEQA's andNEPA'smost basicpurpose: informing governmentaldecision-makersandthe public aboutthe potential significantenvironmentaleffectsof a proposedactivity.CEQAGuidelines $ 15002(a) (1); 40 C.F.R. $ 1500.1(b).Becausethe attachedairqualityreportby Landrum& Brown discussesthe inadequaciesof the DEIR/S'sairqualityanalysis in detail,this letterwill highlight just a fewof these deficiencies.SeealsoLetterof the City of La CaiadaFlintridge (presentingdetaileddiscussion ofDEIVS's defectiveair qualityanalysis).1.TheDEIWSosAnalysis of Construction'RelatedAir QualityImpactsIs Flawed, and the Proposed Mitigation Insuffcient.Determiningwhethera project may resultin a significantadverseenvironmentaleffect is one of the key aspectsof CEQAandNEPA. CEQAGuidelines $15064(a)(determination of significanteffects"plays a critical role in the CEQAprocess");40 C.F.R. $ 1502.16(Discussionof environmentalconsequences "shallinclude discussionsof...[d]irecteffectsandtheirsignificance [and] fi]ndirect effects andtheirsignificance.").CEQAspecificallyanticipates that agencieswill use thresholds oftt Sur "Stateof the Air,"American Lung Association, availableathtto ://www. stateoft heair, or p,120 | 4 -fi ndinss/ozone-oollution.html.accessedon Mav26,2015SHUTE,MIHALYCr*\EINBERGERLLpGarrettDamrathJuly 9, 2015Pae 17significance as an analytical tool for judging the significance of a Project's impacts.1d. $15064.7.Becausethe requirementto provide mitigation is triggeredby the identificationof a significantimpact,an EIR'sfailure to identify a project'ssignificantimpactsalsoresults in a failure to mitigate these impacts.Here, the DEIR/Sfails to identi$rconstruction-relatedthresholdsof signif,rcance;as a result,it never coes to a conclusionregardingthe significance of the Project'sconstruction-relatedimpacts,or identifiesadequate mitigation for thoseimpacts.The DEIVS quantifiesthe increasein construction-relatedcriteria airpollutantemissions (Table3.t3.4af page3.13-11)and states that "short-termdegradationof air qualitymayoccurdueto the release of particulateemissions generatedbyexcavation,grading,hauling, and other constructionequipment." Id. at 4-6. The DEIR/Sthen fails to takethe next critical step in the analysis: to disclosewhetherthe Project'sincreasein ernissionsconstitutesa significantimpact.Accordingto the Landrum &BrownAir Quality Report,the Project'sconstructionemissionlevels before mitigationare wellabovethe regional significancethresholds recommended by the SouthCoast AirQuality ManagementDistrict("SCAQMD"). ,SeeSCAQMDAir Quality SignificanceThresholds,attachedas Exhibit 15. The LRTandFreewayTunnel alternatives wouldexceed relevantthresholdsfor reactiveorganicgasses ("ROGs"), and carbonmonoxide("CO") emissions. SeeLandrum& BrownAir Quality Report. All of the buildalternativesgreatly exceed the SCAQMDthresholdsfor particulatesandNO"emissions.Indeed, For the LRT and FreewayTunnel alternatives,particulateemissions are between3.8 and 9.7 timesgreaterthantheSCAQMDthresholds.NO*emissionsare22.4 timesgreaterthantheSCAQMDthresholdsfor the LRTalternative and 43.9 and49.3 timesgreaterfor the two FreewayTunnel alternatives.Id. The DEIVS doesnotdisclosetheseexceedances of regional air qualitystandards.Notwithstandingthe Proj ect' s clearly signifi cant construction-relatedemissions, the DEIVS errsfurther by failing to evaluatewhetherthese emissionsalsoviolatefederaland state ambientair qualitystandards.TheSCAQMDrecommendsusingan approachcalleda"localizedconstructionimpactassessment"to deterrninewhetherconstructionemissionswill create any exceedances of these ambientair qualitystandards,or worsenany existing exceedances. ^See SCAQMD's LocalizedSignificanceThreshold("LST")Methodology, attachedas Exhibit 16. LSTs,which are developedbasedon theambientconcentrationsof pollutants for eachsource receptor area,representthemaximumemissions from a project that will notcauseor contributeto an exceedance ofthe most stringentapplicablefederalor stateambientair qualitystandard.Projects largerSHUTE,MIHALY(r-rytetNBERGERLLpGarrett DamrathJuly 9,2015Page18than fve acrestypicallyare not exempt from this analysis but mustperform their owndispersion modeling to determine pollutantconcentrationsat nearby receptors. We canfind no indication that the DEIR/Sconducted the necessarydispersionmodeling toevaluatewhetherconstructionemissions from the FreewayTunnel alternativewouldviolatefederalor state air qualitystandardseven thoughthe proposed freeway tunnel(s)wouldbe rnuch larger than fveacresin size. The DEIR/Salsoshould haveanalyzed theconstruction-relatedemissions from the other Projectalternativesunderthis threshold.This omissionaloneconstitutesafatal flaw in the DEIVS.Althoughthe DEIR/Sfails to cometo a determinationregardingthesignificanceof the Project'sconstruction-relatedemissions, it nonethelessidentifies someair qualitymitigationmeasures.DEIR/Sat3.13-40 - 42. Yet, here too, the DEIR/Sfailsbecauseit doesnot provide any informationas to the expectedeffectiveness of thesemeasures.See Friendsof Oroville, 219Cal.App.4th1352, 1359-61.Consequently,itdoesnot provideany evidentiary support for the DEIR/S's conclusionthatthe Project'sconstruction-relatedair ernissionswouldbe less than significant.Nor, as the Landrum & BrownAir Quality Reportmakesclear, doestheDEIR/Sproposethe mosteffective measuresto control construction-relatedemissions,particularlyfor the FreewayTunnel alternative.For example, the DEIR/Sidentifies avery stringentrneasure (complyingwith Metro'sGreenConstructionPolicy)for theTSM/TDM,LRT,andBRT alternatives,but it doesnot requirethis sameprotectivemeasurefor the FreewayTunnel alternative. Id. aI3,13-42.Metro'sGreenConstructionPolicyrequires,among otherthings,all constructionequipmentgreaterthan 50horsepower to rneet Tier4 standardsandbe equipped withdieselparticulatefi.ltersafterJanuaryl,2015.raYet the sole mitigationmeasurefor reducingemissionsfromconstructionof the FreewayTunnel alternativerequires onlycompliancewith Tier3standards.Id. at3.13-41.The DEIR/Sprovidesno explanationas to whythe FreewayTunnel alternativeswouldnot be mitigated usingthe most stringentIeasures,especiallysincethey wouldhave greateremissionsthan the other alternatives.DEIVS at 3.13-I i .Indeed, accordingto Landrum& Brown,this less restrictivemeasuremeansthat the NO*emissionsunder the tunnel alternativewouldbe reducedonly by about33 percent, ascomparedto a 90 percent reductionif the tunnel alternativewere requiredto rneet Tier 4standards.Notably,the less restrictivemeasure wouldnot reduceparticulateemissionsatt* Ti.r 4 standardsare the most stringent.SHUTE,MIHALY(t*\Y{EINBERGERLpGarrett DamrathJuly 9, 2015Page19all. Thefailure to requirethe most effective mitigationmeasuresfor these signif,rcanteffects violates CEQA. Pub.Res. Code $$ 21002,21081.2.The DEIR/S's Analysis of Operation-RelatedAir QualityImpacts Is Flawed, and the Proposed Mitigation Insuffcient.(a)The DEIR/SUnderestimatesthe Project's Increase inOperation-RelatedRegionalEmissions.As discussedbelow, the DEIR/Sunderestimatespredictedtrafficvolumesbecauseit fails to take intoaccount all of the FreewayTunnel alternative's induced traveldemandbeyond thefirst 10 yearsof operation.It also grealyunderstatesincreaseddelaywhere the FreewayTunnel would create new bottlenecksor make existingbottlenecksworse. Inasmuchas the Project'sair qualityemissions are dependenton thetransportationassumptions, anyunderestimationof vehicular trips andlorvehicle delaynecessarily results in an underestimationof vehicular emissions. Moreover, as theLandrum & BrownAir Quality Reportexplains,the DEIVS alsounderestimatesvehicular emissions because it overestimatesthe increasein vehiclespeeds thatwouldoccur as a resultof the FreewayTunnel.BecauseMetro'sinaccurate modeling leadsto flawed conclusionsregardingthe severityof these impacts, the EIR violatesbothCEQAand NEPA.SantiagoCounty Water Dist.v. CounQ of Orange(1981)118Cal.App.3d818, 829 (EIRmust provide accurateinformationregarding"how adverse the adverseimpactwill be");see 40 C.F.R. 1502.24("Agencies shallinsure the professionalintegrity,includingscientificintegrity,of the discussionsand analysesin environmental impactstatements");Natural ResourcesDefense Counclv. U.S. Forest Service (9thCir. 2005) 421F.3d797,812-813 (EIS's erroneouscalculationsbased on improperassumptionssubvertedNEPA'spurpose and presenteda "tnisleading. . .evaluationof alternatives").(b)The DEIR/SFails to AdequatelyAnalyze oYMitigateImpacts Relatingto ParticulateHotspots.It is critical that the DEIVS conductan adequate analysis of particulateimpacts giventhe well documented serioushealth risksassociatedwith PMz.sexposure.In its final rule designatingattainmentand non-attainmentof PM2.5standards, the U.S.EPA noted the "signifcantrelationship betweenPMz.slevelsandpremature mortality,aggravationof respiratory and cardiovasculardisease . . . , lung disease, decreasedlungSHUTE,MIHALY(r=tw.tNBERcERu-pGarrett DartrrathJuly 9,2015Page20function,asthmaattacks, and certaincardiovascularproblemssuchas heartattacksandcardiac arrhythmia,"particularly among "older adults,people withheart and lung disease,and childre."See generallyAir Quality Designationsand Classificationsfor the FineParticles(PMz.s) NationalAmbientAir Quality Standards,70 Fed.Reg. 944, 945 (Jan. 5,2005) [Vol. 2, Ex. 28-e];see also Assessmentand Mitigationof Air Pollutant HealthEffects from Intra-urbanRoadways:Guidancefor LandUse Planning andEnvironmentalReview, Rajiv Bhatia and Thomas Rivard, May 6, 2008,attachedas Exhibit 17. Thestudy by Bhatia and Rivard,in particular,elaborateson the healtheffectsof particulatematterexposureand the epidemiologyof roadwayproximityhealtheffects, providingguidance for assessingthese effects.The purpose of aparticulatehotspotanalysis, suchas the onethe DEIR/Spurportsto undertake, is to determine whethera projectwould: (a) conflictwithorobstructimplementation of an applicableair quality plan, or (b) violatethe ambientairqualitystandardor contribute substantiallyto an existing or projectedair qualityviolation.DEIR/Sat3.I3-I9.In orderto determineif a project wouldresultinexceedances of air qualitystandards,the DEIR/Smust describeexisting air pollutantconcentrations,identi$uthe increasein emissionconcentrationsfrorn the Project,andthen rnodel the Project-relatedconcentrationstogether withambientconcentrations.Unfortunately,the DEIVS'sparticulatehotspotanalysis is flawed.Criticalanalyticaldetails are missing altogether, while othersare clearly effoneous.First, theDEIR/Sdoesnot describethe existing environmentalsetting. For example, the DEIR/Sdoesnot appear to takeinto account existing sources of particulate emissionsin theProjectarca.Data from areasimmediatelyadjacentto the proposed alignmentarenecessary to predict localimpacts.Second, the DEIVS doesnot identify any of the technicaldata andlorassumptionsthat were usedto conduct the quantitativeparticulatehotspotdispersionmodeling.Thedocumentdoesnot provideany specific inputparameterssuch as specif,rcroadwaysincluded in the modeland their trafficvolumes,speedsand emissionrates.Third,the DEIR/Sappearsto rely on faulty methodology for evaluatingtheProject's particulate concentrations.Whilethe document never actually disclosesitsparticulatehot spot methodology,the technicalreportfor the DEIR/S's health riskassessment("HRA"),provides a reasonableamount of documentationof the inputparametersused for the mobilesourceair toxics("MSAT")dispersionmodeling.It islikelythat the DEIR/Spreparersusedthe samemethodology and assumptionsfor theSHUTE,MIHALY(T-twEINBERGERLpGarrettDamrathJuly 9, 2015Page2Iparticulatehotspotanalysis as they did for the HRA. Accordingto Landrum & Brown,the methodologyanddatausedfor the MSAT dispersion modelingshowthat theconsultants used averagedaily trafficvolumesand speedsin the modeling.Yet, asdiscussedmorefully below, the use of averagedata doesnot properlyaccount for diurnalvariations in traffic characteristics,e.g.,increasedemissions during peak commute hours.Consequently,this averagingunderestimatesthe Project's particulate emissionsandconcentrations.Fourth,the DEIVS fails to provideany thresholdsof significancefordeterminingwhetherthe Project's particulateconcentrationswouldbe significant.Howhigh wouldthe Project's particulateconcentrationshave to be in order to exceedthe stateor federalambientair qualitystandards?The DEIVS never identifies this criticalnumericalthreshold. In fact, the DEIVS never explains the results of its "analysis"at all.While the documentidentifesPM1and PM2.5concentrationsfor eachProjectalternativein 2025(see Tables3.13 .7 , 8 and 9 at page3 .13-25), thesevalues haveno contextotherthan indicating thatconcentrationswouldbe less thanthe "no-build"alternatives. Id.CEQAis clearthat the no-project alternativeis not the baseline for determiningwhetherthe proposedproject's environmentalimpactsmay be signifrcant.CEQAGuidelines$ 15126.6.The DEIVS should haveidentifieda thresholdof significanceandthenevaluatedthe Project'sincreasein particulate concentrationsagainsta baselineofexisting conditions.Fifth, the DEIR/Sasserts that it modeled particulate concentrationsatthirteen freewaylocations that arc considered "areas that are potentiallyof air qualityconcarn"(at3.13-20),but the document never explains the effectthe Project's increaseinparticulatepollution wouldhaveat these locations. This informationis of criticalirnportance.Membersof the publicwho reside in homesor attendschoolsnear thesefreeway locationsmust be informedas to whethertheycouldbe exposedto excessiveparticulate concentrations.In orderto disclose the effects of the Freeway Tunnelalternative,the specific receptor locationsmust be presentedgraphically to showtheparticulate concentrationsin eachmodeledlocation, along withsorne indicationas towhetherthese concentrationsresultin particulatehotspots.Sixth, the DEIVS doesnotmention,let alone analyze, the Freeway Tunnelalternative's potential to exceed California's ambientair qualitystandards.The flawedanalysis discussedabove,relatesonly to the Project'spotential to exceed the federal airqualitystandards.TheSouth Coast Air Basin,whichis the settingfor the Project,isdesignated"nonattainment"of theStatePM16 andPMz.sstandards.DEIR/Sat3.l3-7.SHUTE,MIHALYCr--\EINBERGERLpGarrett DamrathJuly 9, 2015Page22California's standardsfor particulatematterare more protective of publichealth - andthereforemorestringent - thanrespectivefederalstandards.SeeCalifornia AirResourcesBoard("CARB"),"California AmbientAirhttp://www. arb.ca. gov/research/aaq$qaaqycaq.h1m.Quality Standards" availableat:15 Accordingly, it is criticalthatthe DEIR/Sanalyzethe Project'spotential to violate the statestandards.For all of these reasons, the DEIVS's analysis of particulatehotspotsviolatesCEQAandNEPAby failing to accuratelyassesshealthimpacts, therebyprecluding Proj ect approval.3.TheDEIR/SFailsto AdequatelyAnalyze or Mitigate theProject's HealthRisks.(a)TheDEIR/SSubstantiallyUnderestimatesthe Project'sHealthRisk Because the HRAReliedon InappropriateMethodology.As the Landrum& BrownAir Quality Reportexplains,the DEIVSsubstantiallyunderestimates the Project'scancerand chronic-non-cancerrisks becausethe health risk assessment("HRA"; relied on flawed methodology.First, as with theDEIVS's particulatehot spotanalysis,the HRA's dispersionmodellingutilized averagevariables,suchas averagedaily tripsand daily average speed,to characterizetheProject's pollutantconcentrations.In otherwords,the modelingassumedthat eachroadwaylink generatedthe exact sameamount of pollutants eachhour of the day.Thus,accordingto the DEIR/S, total daily emissions: average dailytrafficvolumeX emissiontt Ambient air qualitystandards("AAQS")definethe maximum amount ofpollution thatcan be presentin outdoorair withoutharm to the public's health. TheFederal CleanAir Act requires the U.S. EPA to set ambientair qualitystandardsfor thenation.It also permits statesto adoptadditional or more protective air qualitystandardsif needed.TheCaliforniaLegislature authorizedCARBto set ambientair pollutionstandardsfor the state. Health & SafetyCode section 39606.Accordingly, CARBhasset standardsfor certain pollutants, such as particulatematterand ozone,whichare moreprotective of public health thanthe respectivefederalstandards.CARBhas alsosetstandardsfor some pollutants that are notaddressedby federalstandardsSHUTE,MIHALY(f-VeINBERGERnpGarrett DamrathJuly 9, 2015Page 23rate based on averagespeed.This approachis inaccurate, of course;in reality,emissionsfrom a roadwaysourcevary throughoutthe day as trafficvolumesand speedschange.A vehicle'stravelling speedaffects the amount of emissionsit generates.However, emission ratesare notlinearlycorrelated with speed.For mostpollutants,emissionsper mile are grea.est at low andhighspeedsand lowerat medium speeds.Becauseemission ratesand speedare not linearlycorrelated,multiplyingthe averagetrafficvolumewith an emission rate based on average speeddoesnotresultin theaverageemissions. Thisaveragingimproperlyminimizesa project'semissions.An accuratepredictionof emissionsthus requires modelingacrosstime ofyear,day of week,and hour of the day. Here the DEIR/S'suseof extremelysimplifiedmodeling inputs - a singlehourlyaverage based on the daily average - filteredoutdifferencessuch as traff,rcvolumes,speedandweatherconditions.Consequently, theDEIR/Sunderestimatesthe Project'sincreasein mobilesoutceair toxics ("MSAT")emissions andthereforeunderstatesthe Project's potential to resultin cancer and chronic-non-cancer risks.The U.S. EPA's PMroHotspotGuidanceidentifiesan appropriatemethodologyto modelhealthrisks (and particulateconcentrations).EPA suggeststhat ahealthrisk modeluse fourdifferentemission factors for eachhighwaylink, one eachforthe AM and PM peakperiods,one for the middayperiod, and one for the overnightperiod. We can fnd no plausible explanationwhythe DEIR/Sdid not relyon the EPAapproach. As the Landrum& BrownAir Quality Reportexplains,the trafficrnodel usedfor the DEIVSprovides AM and PM peakperiod trafficvolumesspeedsas wellasavercgedaily volumes and speeds.Emission factors could easily havebeen developedbased on these data. Theagencies'decision to relyon a methodologythat understatesimpacts violates CEQA. BerkeleyKeepJets Overthe Bay Com.v. Bd. of Port Cmrs.(2001)91 Cal.App.4th1344 ("Berkeley KeepJets").Equallyconcerning,the DEIR/Sfails to take into accountrevisionsto theAir Toxics Hot Spots ProgramRisk AssessmentGuidelinesadoptedby the Office ofEnvironmental HealthEazardAssessment ("OEHHA")earlierthis year. See Air ToxicsHot Spots Program,Risk AssessmentGuidelines,Guidance Manual for Preparation ofHealthRisk Assessments,OEHHA, February 2015,attachedas Exhibit 18. The revisedguidelinesrecognizethe Children'sEnvironmental HealthProtectionAct of 1999 (Healthand Safety Code Section39606),whichrequires explicit considerationof infantsandchildren in assessingrisks fromair toxics.Id. The HRA prepared for the SR710 ProjectSHUTE,MIHALY(r-rvetNBERGERu_pGarrett DamrathJuly 9,201.5Page24should consider this guidancein orderto ensure that risks from the Projectare properlyidentified and rnitigated.(b)The DEIR/SFailsto Disclosethe Project's Potential toCause a SignificantIncreasein CancerRisk,and Fails toIdentifyAny Mitigation.The DEIVS assertsthat the Projectwouldresultin substantial regionalbenefitsthat will reduce health risks from exposureto mobile sourceair toxics("MSATs") in the majority of the study area. DEIR/Sat 4-8. The DEIR/Sattributes thisbenefitto the Project: o'The No Build Alternativeand all the Build Alternatives wouldcause a net decreaseof cancerrisks comparedto the2012 existing conditioneverywherein the studyarea."Id. (emphasisadded).But the DEIR'sclaim is unsupported byevidence.In fact,evidence in the recordoverwhelminglydemonstratesthatthe Project-particularlythe FreewayTunnel alternative-wouldresultin a signihcantincreaseincancer risk.The DEIR/S's technical appendixdisclosesthat all of the freeway tunnelalternativescouldcausea localizedcancerincreasedue to the added vehicle emissionsfrom the new freewaycorridorandthe roadwaysdirectlyconnectedto it. HealthRiskAssessmentAppendixat page3-8. The appendixidentifies the particular tunnelalternativevariantsthat wouldhavethe worst case localizedimpacts (dual-borewithouttoll tunnelvariation)and the specific locationswith the largestcancerimpact(a narrowstrip aroundthe north andsouthtunnelportals andthe adjacentinterchanges).Id.,Chapter 3. Manyof these locationswouldresultin cancerincreases that greatlyexceedthe SCAQMD's10-in-1-millioncancer risk significancethresholdestablishedin its AirToxics HotspotRule (Rule 140l). Id. Theappendixacknowledgesthatthe increasedcancer risk at certainlocationswouldbe a staggering149in I million.Id. at ES-4 andTable3-4.Giventhe FreewayTunnel alternative'spotential to greatly irtcreasethe riskof cancerin numerous locations,the DEIR/S's assertionthat it would improvehealth isdeeply misleading. MSATs are expectedto declinesubstantiallyin the future - not as aresultof building a new freeway-basedtunnel,but dueto stringentenvironmentalregulations.EPA's2007rule, in particular, requires controlsthat will dramaticallydecreaseMSAT emissions through cleanerfuelsand cleanerengines. DEIR/Sat 3.13-31.Accordingly, the DEIR/S errs in givingthe Projectcredit for these improvements.SeNeighbors for Smart Ralv. ExpositonMetroLne Const. Auth. (2013) 57 Cal4th439,SHUTE,MIHALY('-\y{EtNBERGERu-pGarrettDarnrathJuly 9,2015Page25445,457.In fact, withoutthe Freeway Tunnel and the substantial VMTthat willaccompany it, the region'sresidentswould likelybe far healthier.Furthermore,the leadagencies'decision to presentthe cancerriskinformationin the DEIR/S's technicalappendixis wholly improperunder CEQA.Essentialinformationof this sortmustbe includedthe text of the EIR, not buried in someappendix.Finally, the DEIVS's failure to disclosethe increasedcancer riskassociatedwith the FreewayTunnel alternativeas a significantimpactis yet anotherfatalflaw.As a resultof this error, the documentfailsentirely to identify rnitigationmeasurescapableof eliminatingor offsetting these impacts,as requiredby CEQAandNEPA.CEQAGuidelines $$ 15121(a);15123(bxl);see40 C.F.R. 1502.16(h) (EISmustdiscuss"[m]eans to rnitigate adverseenvironmentalimpacts").Becausethe DEIR/Smisleadsthe public and decision-makersabout theFreeway Tunnel'spotential to increasecancerin the region,and identifiesno mitigationfor this impact,the documentcannotsupportapprovalof the FreewayTunnel alternative.B The DEIR/S Failsto AdequatelyEvaluate or MitigateImpacts Relatedto ClimateChange.1. Analyzing ClimateChangeImpacts Is RequiredUnderCEQAand NEPA.Thelaw is clearthat lead agencies must thoroughlyevaluatea project'simpacts on climate changeunderCEQA. See Communities for a BetterEnv't v. City ofRchmond(2010)184 Cal. App.4th 70,89-91. In2007,the stateLegislaturepassedSenateBili 97, whichrequiredthe Governor'sOffice of PlanningandResearch toprepareguidelines"for the mitigation of greenhousegas emissions or the effectsofgreenhousegas emissions as requiredby [CF'QA], including,but not limitedto, effectsassociatedwithtransportationor energy consumption."SB97 (2007),codifiedas Pub.Res.Code $ 210S3.05 (emphasisadded).Consistent with thismandate,the state NaturalResourcesAgencyadoptedrevisionsto the CEQAGuidelinesthat requireleadagenciesto determine the significance of a proposedproject'sgreenhousegas ("GHG")emissionsCEQAGuidelines $ 15064.4.SHUTE,MIHALY(r*vtr-tNBERGERLTpGarrett DamrathJuly 9,2015Page26Climate changeis the classicexampleof a cumulative effects problem;emissions from numeroussources combineto create the mostpressing environmentalandsocietal problem of our time.See Ctr. r Biological Diverstyv. Nat'l HighwayTrfficSafety Admin.(9th Cir.2003) 53I F.3d 1172, l2l7 ("theirnpact of greenhousegasemissions on climate changeis preciselythe kind of cumulative impactsanalysisthatNEPArequiresagenciesto conduct."); Kngs County FarmBureauv. City of Hanrd(1990) 22I Cal.App.3d692,720 ("Perhaps the best example fof a cumulative impact] isair pollution, where thousandsof relativelysmall sources of pollution causeseriousaseriousenvironmentalhealth problem.").If an agency'sanalysis indicatesthataproposedproject will have a significantproject-speciflrcor cumulative impacton climatechange, the agencymustidentiff and adoptfeasiblemitigationmeasuresto addressthisimpact.CEQAGuidelines $ 15126,4(c).NEPA alsorequires an analysis of the Project'sGHG emissions.Ctr. rBiological Diversity, 538F.3d at l2l7 (NEPArequiresagencies to assessimpactsofproject on GHGemissions); EarthIsland Institute,351F.3dat 1300 (NEPArequires thatfederalagencies"consider every significantaspect of the environmentalimpactof aproposed action . . . .") (emphasisadded)(citations omitted).The President'sCouncilonEnvironmental Quality has issueddraft guidance on analyzingthisissue underNEPA.,See December18, 2014,Revised DraftNEPA Guidance on Considerationof the Effectsof Climate Changeand GreenhouseGas Emissions,attachedas Exhibit 19. Thisdocument recognizes that duringthe NEPAprocess,agenciesshouldconsiderboth"thepotential effectsof a proposed actionon climate changeas indicatedby its GHGemissions"and o'the implicationsof clirnatechangefor the environmentaleffectsof aproposed action." Id. atFF.77824.Specifcally, the proposedregulationsrequirethatagencies analyzea project's GHG emissions and consider reasonablemitigationmeasuresand alternativesto lower the level of the potential GHGemissions. See generally,id.Agenciesare not excusedfromanalyzingimpactsfromGHG emissions just becausethese regulationsare notyet in effect; instead,as the draft documentstates,the newregulationsare "on par with the considerationof anyother environmentaleffects andthisguidance is designedto be implementedwithoutrequiringagencies to develop newNEPA implementing procedures."Id. atFPt77824.The draft document also urgesagencies to make a determination as to whetheremissions froma project are consistentwith relevantemissions targets andreductiongoals, and specificallyreferencesCalifornia's AB 32 as an example.Id. at FR 77826.SHUTE,MIHALY(r-uetNBERGER''pGarrett DamrathJuly 9, 2015Page271The DEIR/S's PerfunctoryClimateChangeAnalysis FailstoInformthe Publicand Decision-makersAbout the FreewayTunnelAlternative'sGreenhouse Gas Emissions.The DEIVS is seriouslyflawed becauseittrivializes the Project'scontributionto climate change, particularlythatof the Freeway Tunnel alternative.TheDEIR/Slabels impactsdue to climate changeas o'speculative" andthen fails to conductan adequate analysis of thesepotential impacts.However,the Freeway Tunnelalternative's GHG emissionsfromconstructionactivities, increasedVMT,and energyuse are far fromspeculative.As detailed below, the DEIR/S's failure to properlyassessthe Freeway Tunnel'ssignificantimpactson global climate change,andto identifuenforceable mitigation for them, is fatal.The UnitedStates SupremeCourthas notedthat "[t]heharmsassociatedwithclimate changeare seriousandwell recognized."Massachusettsv. EPA (2007)549tJ.5. 497 ,499. Reducinggreenhousegasemissions in order to limit theseharmsis one ofthe mosturgentchallenges of our time.In recognitionof thisurgency,in 2005, GovernorSchwarzenegger'ssignedExecutive OrderS-3-05.The order establisheda long-termgoalof reducingCalifornia'semissionsto 80 percentbelow 1990 levels by 2050. Theorder also directedseveral stateagencies(collectivelyknownas the "ClimateActionTeam") to carryits goals forward. The followingyear, the Legislature enacted the GlobalWarmingSolutionsAct of 2006 ("AB 32"), codihedat Health and Safety Code $ 38500,et seq. By these authorities,Californiahas committedto reducingemissionsto 1990levels by 2020,and to 80 percentbelow 1990levels by 2050. Most recently,GovernorBrowntook further actionto meetthis challenge by issuinga new executiveorder, B-30-15. It sets an interimtargetof 40 percentbelow 1990 levels by the year2030. Thisorder, like EO S-3-05,is bindingon state agenciessuchas Caltrans.The California ClimateAction Team's2009 Repofi to GovernorSchwarzeneggerdetails the sciencebehind,and the environmentalimpacts of, globalwarming.i6Thisreportmakesclearthat the release of greenhousegases intothetu SuuCaliforniaEnvironmental ProtectionAgency, ClimateAction TeamBiennialReportto Governor Schwarzeeggandthe Legislature,December2010,available athttp:llwww.climatechange.ca.gov/clirnate_action_team/reports/#2010. Theentire Reportis incorporatedherein by reference.SHUTE,MIHALYCr--\EINBERGERnpGarrettDamrathJuly 9, 2015Page28atmosphereleadsto global warming,whichin turn leads to rnyriad environmentalimpacts.As the report explains,"fc]limatechange poses seriousrisksto California'snaturalresources.California-specificimpacts are expectedto include changes intemperature, precipitationpatterns, andwater availability, as well as risingsealevels andaltered coastalconditions."Despiteall of this-thescientifc consensus, the potentiallycatastrophicimpactson the State, and California'swell-foundedcommitrnentto reducingemissions-the DEIR/S's climate changeanalysis is perfunctory.It fails to determinea thresholdofsignificance, it calculates onlya portionof the GHG emissions for whichthe Projectalternatives will be responsible,andthen it ignores its obligationto deterrninewhetherthe impactis significant.It thus fails to satisff the mostbasicpurpose of an EIR/EIS:todiscloseto decision-makersandthe public a project'ssignificantenvironmentalimpacts.See Pub. Res.Code $ 21061("Thepurpose of an environmentalirnpact reportis toprovide public agenciesandthe public in generalwithdetailed informationabouttheeffect thata proposedproject is likelyto haveon the environment");40 C.F.R.$ 1500.1(b)("NEPA procedures must insure that environmentalinformationis availableto public officialsand citizensbeforedecisions are madeand beforeactionsare taken.").Havingavoidedits obligation to make a significance determination,asCEQAandNEPArequire,the DEIVS then fails to identiff crediblemitigationmeasuresto reduceor avoidthe Project'scontributions to globalwarming.This approach,whichignores scienceand law,stands in starkcontrastto the conscientioustreatmentof globalwarmingimpacts undertaken by other leadagencies throughoutthe state. The agenciesmust make substantial modifcationsto the DEIR/S's clirnatechangeanalysisto achievecompliancewithCEQAandNEPA.3.TheDEIWS'sRefusalto Makea SignificanceDeterminationRegardingthe Project's Contributionto ClimateChangeIsUnlawful.The DEIR/Scontains no thresholdsof significancefor the Project'spotential impactson climate change. Instead,the DEIR/Sstates that "in the absenceoffurther regulatory scientificinformationrelated to GHG emissions and CEQAsignificance,it is too speculative"to make a significance determination.DEIVS at 4-102.This approachis unlawful, as the statuteexpressly requires a leadagencytodetermineif a project's irnpacts are signifcant.Pub. Res.Code $ 21002. 1(a)("Thepurpose of an environmental impactreportis to identiffthe significanteffects on theSHUTE,MIHALY'-vUNBERCERu-pGarrett DamrathJuly 9, 2015Page29environmentof a project.. . ."). Accordingly, the CEQAGuidelinesrequireagencies to"make a good-faitheffort . . . to describe, calculate or estimatethe amount of greenhousegas ernissionsresulting froma project."CEQAGuidelines $ 15064.4. The Guidelinesalsoinclude a section entitled "Determiningthe Significanceof ImpactsfromGreenhouseGas Emissions." Id. There is nothing in CEQAthat relievesa leadagencyfromits obligationto determinesignificanteffectssimplybecausethe impactis relatedtoa rapidly-evolving areaof scienceandpolicy . See ProtecttheHistorcAmadorl4/aterwaysv. Amador Water Agency(2004)116Cal.App.4th1099,1106-12 (CEQAdoesnotallow irrpact analysisto be labeled too o'speculative" based on lack ofthreshold). Seea/so CEQAGuidelines $ i5065 (entitled"MandatoryFindings ofSignificance")(emphasis added).Thus, there is no justificationfor the DEIR/S's failureto containa significance finding for GHG emissions.CEQAGuidelinessection 15064,4(aX1) & (2) providestwo methods formaking a significance determinationrelated to GHG emissions. An agencymayeither:(1) use "a modelor methodologyto quantifygreenhousegas emissionsresulting from a project. . . fthat] it considersmost appropriate provided itsupportsits decisionwith substantial evidence,"or(2) "[r]ely on a qualitativeanalysis or performancebased standard []."The DEIVS follows neitherapproachhere,opting to make no significance determinationat all. TheGuidelinesdo notsanctionsuch approach.Deterrnining whethera project may havea significanteffect playsa criticalrole in the CEQAand NEPAprocesses, and this determinationmust be "basedto theextent possibleon scientificand factualdata."CEQAGuideline $ 1506a(a)and (b).Accordingly, a significancethresholdfor greenhousegases must reflectthe gravethreatsposedby the cumulative impactof adding newsources of GHG emissions into anenvironmentwhendeep reductionsfromexisting emissionlevelsare necessary to avertthe worst consequencesof global warming.See Center for Biological Diversity,508F.3dat 550 ("we cannotaffordto ignoreeven modest contributionsto globalwarming.").Althoughthe CEQAGuidelinesdo not prescribea particular methodologyfor making the signifcancedetermination,other agenciesand groups haveestablishedSHUTE,MIHALYC9--VPINBERGERu-pGarrett DamrathIuly 9,2015Page 30rnethodologies,andtheir analysis may be useful for Caltrans.TheCaliforniaAirPollutionControlOfficersAssociation ("CAPCO4::r7has issueda "CEQA& ClimateChange" white paperto assist lead agenciesin analyzinggreenhousegas impacts underCEQA. Se Exhibit2}.Notingthat "the absenceof an adoptedthresholddoesnotrelievethe agencyfrornthe obligation to determinesignificartce"of a project'simpactson climate change,CAPCOAexploredvariousapproachesto determiningsignificanceandthen evaluatedthe effectivenessof eachapproach. ,See Exhibit2}.AccordingtoCAPCOA's analysis, the only twothresholds thatare highlyeffective at reducingemissions andhighlyconsistent with AB 32 andExecutive Order5-3-05 are a thresholdof zero o. u quutrtitativethresholdof 900-tonsCO2Equivalent ("CO2eq.")t8.Id. A zerothresholdis preferablein light of ongoingscientificadvancesshowingthat globalwarmingis moresignificantthan originallyanticipated.For example,eventhe ambitiousemissionsreductiontargets set by Executive OrderS-3-05 in 2005, which were consistentwith contemporaneous scienceindicatingthat this level of reductionsby developedcountrieswouldbe sufficientto stabilize the climate,are now believedto be insufficient.Giventhe recent extrerne lossesin arcticseaice, scientists at the NationalSnow and IceData Centerhaveconcludedthat the observedchanges in the arcticindicatethat thisfeedback loop is now stafiing to take hold.reBasedon theseand other recentclimate changeobservations, leadingscientists now agreethat"humanitymust aimfor an evenlowerlevel of GHGs."2OThus,the scientificand factualdata now support a thresholdof significanceof zerc in orderto17 CAPCOAis an association of air pollution control officers representingall local air qualityagenciesand air districts in California.18 Carbon dioxideequivalents(CO2 eq.) providea universalstandardofmeasurementagainstwhichthe impactsof releasingdifferentgreenhousegases canbeevaluated. As the baseunit, carbon dioxide'snumericvalueis 1.0 while otherfitorepotentgreenhousegases havea highernumericvalue.t' SuuOct. 3, 2006 press releaseby NationalSnow and Ice Data Center,availableat:http://nsidc.org/news/newsrooml2006seaicemi nirnum/2O061 3 nressrelease.html.Thisdocumentis incorporatedherein by reference.'0 Ja-es Hansenet al,, Target Atmospheric CO2: WhereShouldHumanityAm? 2 OpenArlrospseRlc ScI. J.217,226 (2008).SHUTE,MIHALYCf--\EINBERGERLLpGarrett DamrathJuly 9, 2015Page 3 1ensure that new projects do not have a cumulativelysignificantimpacton globalwarming. Consistent with this data, many EIRshaveadopteda zerothresholdofsignificance as the most scientifically supportable threshold.See, e.g., SanFranciscoMetropolitanTransportationCommission,Transportation2035 Plan DEIR, at2.5-15,SCH # 2008022101 (project wouldhavea significantimpactif it resulted in an increasein CO2eq. emissions from on-road mobilesources comparedto existing conditions); SanFranciscoMetropolitanTransportationCommission& Association of BayAreaGovernments,Plan BayArea 2040 DEIR, at2.5-41,SCH # 2012062029 (projectwouldhavea potentiallysignificantimpactif it wouidresultin a net increasein directandindirectGHG emissionsin2040 whencomparedto existing conditions). Theseexamples, and others,demonstratethat, contraryto thisDEIVS's assertion,it is feasibleto establishthresholdsof significance.The BayAreaAir Quality ManagementDistrict("BAAQMD")hasalsoadoptedguidelinesto establishthresholdsfor GHG emissions. See BAAQMD AirQuality Guidelines,excerpts attachedas Exhibit 21. These thresholdsestablish1,100metric tons of CO2eq. as the standardfor most new development,and no net ncreaseinemissions for transportationand other regionalplans.Id. atpp.2-Ito 2-4.Althoughthe DEIVS fails to make a significance determination,it offersminimal,unsupporteddatapurportingto demonstratethat the Project,includingeventheFreewayTunnel alternative,would actuallyreduceGHGemissions. DEIR/Sat 4-98 to4-100.The DEIR/Spreparersmay haveintended thatthese data show the Projectwouldnot resultin significantimpacts to climate change,yet the paltry analysis is insufficientfor a truesignificance determination and, in any event, is faultyitseltas describedbelowPub.Res.Code $ 15064( (significance determinationmust "bebased on substantialevidence in the record").4.The DEIR/S's ClaimThat the ProjectWill ReduceGreenhouseGas EmissionsIs Flawed.The DEIVS concludesthat all of the Project's build alternatives-includingconstructionof 4,2 new miles of an eight-lanefreeway-willactuallyreducevehicle emissions, and thereforeGHG emissions. DEIR/Sat 4-98 to -99. Thisconclusionis contradictedby current transportationresearchand is also unsupportedbysubstantialevidence in the record.As the DEIR/Sacknowledges, total VMT willincreasein the Projectareaas a resultof all of the tunnel alternativesby as many 460,000milesper day. ^9ee DEIVS TransportationTechnicalReportTable4-8 atpg.,4-15.PerSHUTE,MIHALY(r---vEtNBERGERL'pGarrett DamrathJuly 9,2015Page 32capitavMTalsoincreases withall freewaytunnelalternatives.Id. These impactsdirectly contradict,or undermine,State and regional efforts to reduceGHG emissions,asthe increasein VMT from operationof the Freeway Tunnelwill lead to substantialincreasesin emissions.The link between increasedVMT and increasedGHG emissionsis well-established.Studiesshow how the nation'sincreasein VMT is projectedto overwhelmplannedimprovementsin vehicle efficiency,thus making reductionsin GHG emissionsimpossiblewithout concomitantreductionsin VMT. See GrowingCooler:EvidenceonUrbanDevelopmentand ClirnateChangeat 3, excerptsattached asBxhibit22.Recognizingthe nation'sunsustainable growth in driving,the American Association ofStateHighwayand TransportationOff,rcials, representing statedepartmentsoftransportation,has urged thatthe growth of VMTbe cut in half. Id. Underthesecircumstances, the DEIR/S's contentionthat the FreewayTunnelwill resultin reducedGHG emissions is sirnply untenable.The DEIR/Sattemptsto circumventthe well-establishedlink betweenincreasedVMT and increasedGHGemissionsby concludingthat purportedreductionsincongestion resulting fromthe Projectwill reducethe amount of fuel thatvehicleswasteinstop-and-go traffic,leadingto reduced emissions of climate-warminggases from carsandtrucks.DEIR/Sat 4-98. Yet, as the attachedSightline Institute article explains, thisclaim - which is frequently usedby proponentsof road-building - is mistaken.See"Increases in Greenhouse-gasEmissionsFromHighway-wideningProjects," SightlineInstitute, October2007 , attachedas Exhibit 23. In fact, under almostanyset of plausibleassumptions, increasinghighway capacityin a congestedurban areawill substantiallyincrease long-termGHGemissions. 1d Over the shortterm-perhaps 5 to 10 yearsafternewlanes are opened to traffic-theDEIVS's conclusionmayfind some support.Butthe docurnent'spredictionof congestion reduction failsover the longterrn. ,See NelsonNygaardReport.Consideringthe full increasein emissionsfrom highwayconstructionand additional VMT,experts at Sightline conclude that addingone mile of new highwaylane will increaseCO2eq. emissionsby more than 100,000tons over50 years.Id.This researchis corroboratedby theSurfaceTransportationPolicyProject("STPP"). TheSTPP cites a growingbody of researchshowingthat,in the longrun,widerhighways actuallycreateadditional traffic,aboveand beyond what can beattributedto populationincreasesand economicgrowth. ,SeeSurfaceTransportationPolicyProject,BuildIt and They'11 Come, attachedas Exhibit 24. Accordingto theSTPP, 100percent of additional VMT in LosAngelesCounty,and72.6percent ofSHUTE.MIHALY(r-vtr.tNBERGERLpGarrettDamrathJuly 9,2015Page 33additional VMT in San DiegoCounty,is attributableto "induced traffic."Id. Thisneans that increasesin highwaycapacityactually induces additional traffic-it doesnotsimply"accommodate" existing or predictedtraffic.CARBhas also now weighedin on the relationship between increases inhighway capacity,induced travel and increasedGHG emissions.In its recentreportentitledoolmpactof HighwayCapacityand InducedTravelon PassengerVehicle UseandGreenhouseGas Emissions,"CARB further confirms that increasedcapacityinducesadditional VMT." ,SeExhibitTat 3. CARB attributes this phenomenon to the basiceconomicprinciplesof supplyand demand: addingcapacitydecreasestraveltime, ineffect loweringthe "price" of driving;when pricesgo down,the quantity of driving goesup (Noland andLem, 2002).Id. As CARB explains,"[a]ny induced travelthat occursreducesthe effectivenessof capacityexpansion as a strategy for alleviating trafficcongestionand ofetsanyreductionsin GHGemissionsthatwouldresultfrom reducedcongestion ." Id. at 2.Accordingly, while agenciesgenerallyhave discretionto chooseappropriatemethodological approachesunderCEQAandNEPA,the DEIR/Sappearstoignoremountingevidence that building highwaycapacityinducestraffltc, therebyincreasingemissions.As the NelsonNygaardReporton transportationexplains, theDEIR/S's traffic dernandmodeldoesnot disclosethe assumptionsit uses to calculateinduced demandand likelyunderstatestrueinduceddemand. Furtherrnore,the dernandmodelinaccuratelyforecaststraff,rcvolumeson a segment-by-segment basis, meaningthat it cannotbe trusted to accuratelyestimate induced travel. ,See NelsonNygaardReport.Moreover, the DEIVS analyzestraffic demandonly through2035-thatis,duringthe short-termwindow whencongestion mayactuallybe reduced.It doesnotanalyze impactsduring the period following2035 when the purportedefficiencygains,ifany, can be expectedto dissipate as a resultof induceddemand.Id.A third-partyaudit of Caltrans recently conducted by the State SmartTransportationInitiativespecif,rcallyfaultedCaltrans' approachto induced demand,finding that "the department hasnotcometo grips with the realityof induced traffic.",SeeState SmartTransportationInitiative Assessmentand RecommendationsCaliforniaDepartmentof Transportation,January 2014 at iv, attachedas Exhibit25. The auditorsconcludedthatCaltranshasalmostcompletely ignoredimportant recommendations(includingfor reducingVMT)contained in its own Smart Mobilty2010 report. Id. atv.The audit went on to say that "despitea rich literature on induceddemand, [Caltransemployees]frequentlydisrnissedthe phenomenon."Id. at 62. Given Caltrans'history ofSHUTE,MIHALYCZ--VPINBERGERLLpGarrett DamrathJuly 9, 2015Page34ignoringor downplayinginducedtraffr,c, it is especiallyimportant that the DEIVSsupport its predictionof induced demandwith substantialevidence.It has failedto do so.Finally, the DEIR/S's calculation of the Project'sfuture emissionsassumesthat futureregulatory controlswill be imposedandwill be effectivein reducingtailpipeemissions. Landrum & BrownAir Quality Report(EMFAC2011modeling includedassurnptionthat low carbon fuel standards wouldbe implemented).The document thuscomparesfuture conditionsto existing conditionswithoutproviding an independentmeasureof the Project'simpacts.In this manner, the DEIR/SeffectivelyassignstheProjectcredit for technological andregulatory advances that will occur regardlessof itsirnplementation.Becausethe DEIVS thus fails to disclosethe full climateirnpactsof theProject'sincrease in VMT,it violates CEQAandNEPA.Indeed, this Projectserves as acautionaryexampleof how statewide improvementsin emissions reductionsduetoregulatory measures-such as California's low carbon fuel standard-canbe erasedbyincreasesin VMT.2ITheDEIR/SFailsto Accountfor Non-VehicularSourcesofGreenhouse Gas EmissionsFrom the Project.5.The GHGemissions calculationspresentedin the Air Quality AssessmentReportand the DEIVS include only thoseernitted from vehiclesdrivingwithinthe studyarea,and fail to recognizethat the Projectwill contributeto GHGemissionsthroughother sources.For example,electricitygeneratedfor use by the Projectwill alsocreateGHGemissions. SeeLandrum& BrownAir Quality Report. The Freeway Tunnelalternativewould consumeelectricityfor tunnellighting andthe tunnelventilationsystem.This couldresultin considerableGHG emissionsthat should have been includedin the Project'sGHGemissions' inventory.The LRT would consumethe most electricityof the build alternatives,as it relieson electrically-powered railcars.Failureto includethe GHGemissions associatedwithelectricitygeneration for the LRT alternativein theDEIVS's reportedGHGemissions is a particularlyegregious omission.21 Expertshavepointed out that increasesin the amount of driving causeCO2emissionsto rise despitetechnological advances, becausethe growth in drivingoverwhelmsplannedimprovernentsin vehicle efficiencyand fuelcarbon content.GrowingCooler:Evidenceon lJrbanDevelopmentand Climate Changeat l3-I4.SHUTE,MIHALY(r-V/EINBERGERu-pGarrett DarnrathJuly 9, 2015Page 35The Landrum & BrownAir Quality Reportestimatesthat the electricityconsumptionrequiredfor propulsion of the railcarsfor the LRTalternativewouldgenerate between 65 and170metric tons of CO2eQ. per day, equivalentto approximately23,400 and 61,700 metric tons of CO2ee. peryear. Thesefi.guresdo not includeelectricityconsumedby other components of the LRTalternative,such as lighting andventilation.The DEIWSanticipatesthat the LRT alternativewouldreducevehicularemissionsby 20.0 metric tonsper dayin the2025 openingyear and by 2,2 metrictonsper day in2035.DEIR/Sat 4-100.For the LRT alternative,this means that increasedGHG emissions due to electricalgeneration would outweighthe anticipatedreductionsinGHGemissions from vehicular travel. It is irrelevantthatsome of the emissionsfromnewelectrical generationmight come from outsidethe Projectarea;becauseGHGemissions are a cumulative global effect,the location of the sources of emissionsis notimportant.To evaluatethe Project'sactual effect on climate change, the DEIR/Smustinventory the carbon emissions generatedthroughnon-vehicular means. This shouldinclude electricitygenerationfor the Project,and also the manufacturing and lifecycleofthe Project's building materials. Without an inventoryof these additional emissions,theDEIVS's analysis is incomplete,making the formulationof appropriatemitigationimpossible6.TheDEIWS MustCalculate Greenhouse Gas Emissions Fromthe ProjectThrough 2050.The DEIR/Scalculates fuelconsumptionand relatedcarbon emissionsonlyto the year2035. SeeDEIR/Sat 4-100.Thistime horizon fails to provide the publicwitha meaningfulassessmentof the Project'slong-term impacts.Indeed, the dual-borefreewaytunnel alternativeis notscheduledto be cornpleted until after 2020,andthat isassumingthatit stays on schedule.Id. (calculating emissions for the Freeway Tunnelalternativeonlyfrom operationalyear2025onward).As a result, the document considersat rnost only 15 years'worth of emissions-a smallfractionof the expectedlifetime ofthe Project.22The DEIR/Sshould haveanalyzed GHG emissionsthroughthe year2050." Althoughthe DEIVS's descriptionof the Projectis inexplicablysilentonits expectedlifetime, Metro'sCostBeneftAnalysisfor the Projectstates that the tunnels(footnote continuedon next page)SHUTE.MIHALY(r-rv,tr.rNBERcERnpGarrett DamrathJuIy9,2015Page 36'Without examining impacts throughthe year2050,the DEIR/Scannotprovide meaningfulassessmentof the Project'slong-term impacts, particularlythoseofthe Freeway Tunnel.Andthereis reason to believethat these long-term impacts will bemoresigniflrcantthan in the short term. As describedpreviously,CARB's reportstatesthat increasesin highwaycapacityinduce travel, which,in turnreducesthe effectivenessof capacityexpansion as a strategy for alleviatingtraffic congestion.Exhibit 7 (ImpactofHighwayCapacityand InducedTravelon PassengerVehicleUse and GreenhouseGasEmissions).This inducedgrowth offsetsany reductionsin GHG emissionsthat wouldresultfromimproved traffic flow. Id. Therefore,over the longterm, increases inhighwaycapacity will resultin increasedGHGemissions.Thisphenomenon is notcapturedby the DEIVS'sanalysis,which looks,at most, only15 yearsbeyond thecompletion date of the dual-borefreewaytunnel alternative.Tellingly,the DEIR/Sdoesprovide someevidencethatemissionswillincreaseafter the 2035end-date. The documentstates thatin 2025,the GHG emissionsfrom the FreewayTunnelalternative (dual-borefreervaytunnelwithtolls)woulddeclineby 35.7 metric tonsperday comparedto existing conditions. DEM at 4-100. In2035,however,the Project'sGHGemissionswould creep upwards,resulting in a declineofonly24.2 metric tonsperdaycornparedto existing conditions.Id. (In fact, this declinein purportedreductionsis estimatedto occurfor all of the freewayalternatives.)In otherwords,the FreewayTunnel aiternativedoesnot appearto resultin sustained GHGemission reductions;the opposite appearsto be true. But becausethe DEIR/Sdoesnotanalyze 2050 conditions, the public has no way of knowingthe extentof the FreewayTunnel'slongterm increasein GHGemissions.Analysisof the Project'simpacts in 2050 is essentialto determiningif theProjectachievesthe long-termemissionsreductionsneeded for climate stabilization andrequiredby EO S-3-05, B-30-15,andAB 32. The statewide reductiongoalsset forth inEO 5-3-05 and AB 32 callfor reducingemissions levels to 80 percent below1990 levelsby the year2050.Accordingly, 2050is the appropriate planning horizon for analyzingthe Project' s emissions.(footnote continuedfrompreviouspage)are expectedto havea lifetimeof 100years.Analysisof Costsand Benefits for the StateRoute 710 North Study Alternativesat 2-8.SHUTE,MIHALY(y*v,tetNBERGERu-pGarrett DamrathJuly 9,2015Page 37The DEIR/SFailsto Analyze the Project's Consistency withApplicableStatePlans and Policies for Greenhouse GasEmissions Reductions.The DEIR/Sfails to analyze the Project's consistency with the state'splansandpoliciesfor reducing GHG emissions.In fact, the document barelymentionsthesecriticalplans.It merely lists eightstate bills and executiveordersaimed at reducingGHG emissions in bullet-pointformat under the heading "RegulatorySetting - State"(DEIR/Sat 4-95); it providesno discussion or analysis of whetherthe Projectisconsistentwith these rnandates,or whetherit will help theStatemeetthe reductiontargetsthat they prescribe.The DEIR/Scannot ignore the question of whetheritsemissionstrajectoryis consistentwith the trajectoryembodiedin EO 5-3-05 , theAB 32Scoping Plan, andthe First Update to theScoping Plan. Theseare based on the scientificconsensus that "the 2050 [reduction] target representsthe level of greenhousegasemissionsthat advancedeconomiesmust reachif the climateis to be stabilizedin thelatter.halfof the 21st century." Climate ChangeScoping Plan: A Framework for Change(2008),p, ll7, attachedas Exhibit 26.23California climatepolicy, as reflectedin EO S-3-05, requires reducingGHG emissionsto 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050so as to avoidcatastrophicclimateimpacts.This ExecutiveOrderembodiesthe reductionsthat climatescientistshaveconcludedare needed to provide a 50-50chanceof limiting globalaveragetemperature rise to 2"C above pre-industr