Environmental Review
The California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA, as amended, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) applies to discretionary projects to be carried out or approved by public agencies. A basic purpose of CEQA is to inform governmental decision-makers and the public about potential, significant environmental effects of the proposed activities. Since the project is subject to CEQA and the Commission must issue a discretionary decision in order for the project to proceed (i.e., the Commission must approve the project pursuant to Section 1202 of the Public Utilities Code), the Commission must consider the environmental consequences of the project by acting as either a lead or responsible agency under CEQA.
The lead agency is the public agency with the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project as a whole.1 Here, the City is the lead agency for this project and the Commission is a responsible agency. As a responsible agency under CEQA, the Commission must consider the lead agency's environmental documents and findings before acting on or approving this project.2
The City prepared a Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) for the Del Amo Boulevard Extension Project, which includes the proposed grade separation, (State Clearinghouse No. 2001121087), and Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (FFSOC).
The EIR/EA included an analysis of potential environmental impacts related to, among other items, transportation and circulation, and noise. Safety, transportation, and noise as they relate to the proposed grade separation are within the scope of the Commission's permitting process.
The City, in its EIR/EA identified significant impacts related to transportation and circulation. The significant impacts relate to increased traffic congestion at street intersections. Fifteen intersections in the project area are projected to operate at highly congested levels during one or both of the peak traffic hours. Ten arterial street segments also would be significantly impacted by the traffic diversion resulting from the proposed extension.
Specific mitigation measures are proposed for 7 of the 15 significantly impacted intersections and are discussed in the EIR/EA. No mitigation measures were proposed for significantly impacted residential street segments. Consequently, significant and unavoidable impacts exist at 8 intersections and on 10 arterial street segments.
The FFSOC contains statements pertaining to impacts, mitigation measures, and findings for each impact. Included in the FFSOC is the Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC). The lead agency adopted the SOC to approve the project despite significant and unavoidable adverse environmental impacts related to transportation and circulation. Specifically, the lead agency determined that changes or alterations have been required in, or been incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR/EA. Further mitigation measures to fully mitigate impacts to a less-than-significant level at these intersections are infeasible, because of the built-out nature of the project area and the infeasibility of acquiring right-of-way to widen the roadways to provide additional turn lanes.
The City found that the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. The City determined that each of the separate benefits identified in the SOC, in itself and independent of other project benefits, is a basis for overriding all unavoidable impacts identified in the environmental documents and in the City's findings.
The Commission reviewed and considered the EIR/EA. We find that with respect to issues within the scope of our permitting process, the City did not identify any significant environmental impacts. We adopt the City's findings and mitigations for purposes of our approval.
With respect to the SOC, we find that the City enumerated several significant benefits associated with the proposed extension project despite certain significant and unavoidable impacts. Therefore, we accept and adopt the findings of the SOC for purposes of our approval.
1 CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations), Section 15051(b).
2 CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15050(b) and 15096.
