HomeMy WebLinkAbout23 - Supplemental CorrespondenceMILES • CHEN Law GROUP RECEIVED
9911 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 150 • Irvine, CA 92618 A PROFEEffig!)l GqRI R 7'I
Phone: 949.788.1425 - Fax (949) 7aa -1991 1 A N 0 u 5 E E II V I A 0 N M E N T ��EE N T I T L E M E N 7
July 9, 2009
VIA U.S. MAIL AND EMAIL (icamobellQcitv.newport-boach.ca.us
James Campbell
Principal Planner, Newport Beach Planning Dept
City of Newport Beach
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Re: Aerie Development Project — 201 -207 Carnation
July 14, 2009, City Council Hearing
Mr. Campbell:
OFFICE OF
THE 0TY CLERK
CfiY OF 1E PORT BEA(,'Fi
'Phis firm represents Residents for Responsible Development ( "RFRD ") in conjunction
with the City's review of the proposed Aerie Development Project located at 201 -207
Carnation Avenue (the "Aerie Project "). On behalf of RFRD, we respectfully request a
continuance of the noticed public meeting for the Aerie Project currently scheduled for
next Tuesday, July 14, 2009.
With the intention of preparing materials well in advance of the City Council's review of
the Aerie Project, we began meeting with City Council Members last week to discuss the
priority of concerns held by RFRD in opposition to the Aerie Project. Upon receipt of
the Public Notice of yesterday's Harbor Commission meeting, we became somewhat
confused about the procedure that was taking place in conjunction with the Harbor
Commission hearing (90 days after the Harbor Commission took its advisory action) and
the fact that the Public Notice expressly states that: "[Tjhe project applicant is appealing
the project for the entire Harbor Commission to reconsider." I've attached a copy of the
Public Notice for your convenience and, in light of the City Attorney's reclassification of
the public meeting as neither an appeal nor a motion for reconsideration; we assert that
the Public Notice was defective.
However, our concern is less about the defective notice and more about the loss of time
we encountered trying to address a Harbor Commission appeal for reconsideration. six
days before a City Council hearing on the same subject matter where, by the terms of the
Public Notice, a right of appeal is present and the City Council review of the matter
would be within the appeal window for the Harbor Commission action.
Our desire is to simply have sufficient time to submit information concerning die Aerie
Project in advance of the City Council's deliberation on the Project. We feel it is
beneficial for the decisionmaker to have an opportunity to read the material prior to the
James Campbell
Principal Planner, Newport Beach Planning Dept.
City of Newport Beach
July 9, 2009
Page 2 of 2
eve of the public hearing and we have informed the City Council that we will endeavor to
submit our material in a timely manner. If the City Council hears the matter on July 14,
2009, we will be unable to submit RFRD's material until the day of the hearing. We are
not asking for an extensive continuance and believe that we could submit material to well
in advance of a July 28, 2009, hearing date.
Thank you, Jim, for your consideration and for distributing this request to the appropriate
individuals.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
MILES • CHEN Law GItoUP, P.C.
By: z9X'Z1j
Steph n M. Miles
SM:lak
Attachment
cc: Honorable Members of the Newport Beach City Council
Mr. David Hunt, Esq.
John McClendon, Esq., Leibold, McClendon & Mann
Washington, Lillian
From: Campbell, James
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 11:48 AM
To: Washington, Lillian
Subject: FW: Aerie Development - Corona del Mar
FYI
From: jeannefobes @yahoo.com [mailto:jeannefobes @yahoo.coml
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 9:49 AM
To: Varin, Ginger
Subject: Aerie Development - Corona del Mar
I am writing to protest the so- called Aerie Development in Corona del Mar. This Aerie is too large a project for
our area. We citizens of Newport Beach certainly did not "Vision" such a huge project to be part of the General
Plan for our town. This Aerie would be almost two times as big as the Oasis Senior Center and it would be
plunked down in a residential enclave.
Where is the benefit to the public from this huge development in our dear village ?? I ask the Council to please
deny this request and direct the applicant to come up with a smaller, more reasonable alternative.
Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Jeanne and Steve Fobes
Washington, Lillian
From:
Campbell, James
Sent:
Friday, July 10, 2009 10:30 AM
To:
Washington, Lillian
Subject:
FW: AERIE PROJECT
FYI
From. Ross Roskamp [mailto:rossroskamp @cox.netj
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 10:04 AM
To: Lepo, David; Campbell, James; Curry, Keith; Gardner, Nancy; Edward Selich; Daigle, Leslie; Don Webb; "Steven
Rosansky"@ ProofPointAppliance .city.newport- beach.ca.us; Henn, Michael
Subject: AERIE PROJECT
Dear Council Members and staff:
I encourage you to approve the AERIE development. The benefits so outweigh the issues of a
few neighbors. Rick Julian, a model of integrity and good neighborliness, has modified and modified
the design to accommodate every rational request. There should be no further delays. With the
Planning Commission's overwhelming vote along with unanimous recommendation from the Harbor
Commission, let's get this project to the Coastal Commission before the second coming.
Certain neighbors are running adds, canvassing door to door and have even started a web site in
order to exaggerate the mass of the project, which is irrational since AERIE is smaller than what is
allowed. They also point to the hauling of dirt. The 28 trucks a day is equivalent to 1 truck every 15
minutes during the week days when most people are all at work. Others who live in this
neighborhood understand this as well and that is why the opponents have failed to get many
people to object. It is easy to get people to oppose development... it is difficult to get people to go out
of their way to support it. You should rest easy knowing that the good folks in this neighborhood want
the 50 year old eyesore replaced with the many benefits AERIE brings to this community.
Respectfully,
G. Roskamp
Washington, Lillian
From:
Campbell, James
Sent:
Friday, July 10, 2009 10:30 AM
To:
Washington, Lillian
Subject:
FW: AERIE PROJECT
FYI
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Iryne Black [mailto:ayeblack@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 9:00 PM
To: Varin, Ginger
Subject: AERIE PROJECT
This project just may be the beginning of a totally different newport beach ... it is too
large; lacking in aesthetics; and represents mcmansions on our coast both on the cliffs and
inthe harbors. Please try to make it more acceptable for all of us and for the future. I.C.
Black, 1646 Irvine Ave.
1
Washington, Lillian
From:
Campbell, James
Sent:
Friday, July 10, 2009 10:32 AM
To:
Washington, Lillian
Subject:
FW: Aerie
FYI
....._..,.w __._....._..___r._ ........ ... .._ . ..... ....... _ .. __. __ ......, . —.. __.. ._ _..,._.
From: michaelpridley [mailto:mridley @octechlaw.coml
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 3:51 PM
To: Varin, Ginger
Subject: Aerie
Once again the nimbies rise up and ignore the simple facts of life that we are in a massive
recession and jobs continue to leave this state. The project should be approved. I am a resident
of Newport Beach, residing in the Shores.
Michael P. Ridley
2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
Irvine, CA 92614
cell 949- 378 - 8347 /office 949 - 260 -9170 ext 5058 /fax 949 -260 -9175
www.octechlaw.com http: //a laskan poet, blogsoot.com
Ridley's Free Law Of The Day, July 9, 2009 The First Law Of Inefficiency "There is nothing so useless as
doing efficiently that which should not be done at all." Peter Drucker How true it is
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipients) and may contain
confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. if you
are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original
message.
, lt � ; � 0
4
P,4;A1, p'R AGENOA
39 9
Vyhlfew e, p9'ya ..
na de1 Mar, C4 .925215 -1441
RECEIVED
July 5, 2009
2419 JUL —9 AM & 58
Honorable Mayor and Members OFFfCE OF
City Council THE CITY CLERK
City of Newport Beach Re; Oppoi f h *#Wit�,�dominiums
Dear Mayor and Council Members;
My name is Kent Harvey; my wife and I own the residence at 316 Poppy,
Corona del Mar. The Aerie Condominium project in Corona del Mar is simply
too large for the site as evidenced by the need to excavate and export
75,000,000 pounds of bluff material. I urge your Honorable Council to
consider an alternative to the project which would be more compatible with
the site and the community.
I am fortunate to have spent the better part of my life in Corona del Mar,
growing up here during the 1949s and 1950's, and returning to our home at
316 Poppy in 1987 after my military service and employment commitments
elsewhere. We are now temporarily living away from Corona del Mar to be
with family, but will be back to our home soon.
Upon returning to CdM in 1987, I spent the next 20 years driving to my
office every day via Seaview Avenue from Poppy to Fernleaf. I know this
street well; there is no doubt that the more than 2,000 heavy truck trips
required by the project's massive excavation will damage the street and will
be a threat to the health and safety of the residents and visitors.
The following facts about the proposed project are not disputed:
1. The developer does not have an enforceable property right to build
the project as proposed.
2. 2/3 of the site is comprised of steep bluff face and water.
3. The project is controversial, and will become more so when excavation
begins.
4. It provides for no onsite parking, except by an inconvenient elevator
scheme.
5. It requires excavating 75,000,000 pounds of bluff material (based on
25,000 cubic yards at 1 -1/2 tons per cubic yard).
6. The excavated bluff material will be exported in more than 2,000
trips by 10 wheel diesel trucks weighing more than 50,000 pounds
each when loaded.
7. The trucks will travel on Seaview Avenue which is an aging, narrow,
two lane residential street, with 9 street intersections and 7 alley
intersections most of which have poor sight distance.
8. These trucks will damage the streets and will pose health and safety
risks to residents and visitors and destroy the pedestrian friendly
atmosphere which is a major benefit of life in CdM.
9. There are alternative designs for the site which could be built under
existing law, would be attractive, would provide convenient on site
parking, would require significantly less bluff excavation, and would be
less damaging to the health, safety and welfare of the community.
I understand that at least two factors make consideration of alternative
developments difficult for your Council. First, before your Council conducts
its first public hearing, an unwarranted sense of entitlement for the
proposed project is created by the time and effort already spent by the
developer and staff. Second, the applicant is not motivated to present an
alternative which may be vastly superior from your perspective, but less
profitable for the developer.
However, exercising your discretion to approve this incompatible project
confers an extraordinary benefit on the developer at the expense of the
community.
Instead of making such an unjustified gift to the developer, please consider
less invasive development alternatives, which conform to existing land use
regulations and are more compatible with the site and the community.
Let's keep Corona del Mar in Corona del Mar and not export 75,000,000
pounds of it to a dump in Brea for no better reason than to satisfy a single
property owner.
Sin el o
Ha //
manatt
manatt I phelpa I phillim
July 14, 2009
RECEIVED
2V JUL 14 PM * 32
h='r!CE OF
TH_ C' T Y CLEFK
CITY n- 1.:, ._XOPT SE"r'H
BY E -MAIL JELBETTAR @CTI'Y.NEWPORT- BEACH.CA.US
Mr. Jay Elbettar, P.E., C.B.O., LEED AP
Building Director
City of Newport Beach Building Department
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Re: Aerie (PA2005 -196)
Dear Mr. Elbettar:
Tim Paone
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Direct Dial: (714) 371 -2519
E -mail: tpwne@manatt.com
cs "l-Mamr: 29254.030
.r.rc•,•
Manatt, Phelps & Philhps, LLP represents Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc., the
applicant in connection with the Aerie project located at 201 -205 and 207 Carnation Avenue, 101
Bayside Place (Case No. PA2005 -196.) This letter is intended to explain our conclusion under the
2007 California Building Code ( "CBC') that, due to the Aerie site's sloping topography, we
believe the project to be exempt from providing disabled access between the residential structure
and the docks. Of course, we understand that this issue will ultimately be determined by the City's
Building Official — either administratively or through the City's Building and Fire Code Board of
Appeals.
Generally speaking, the CBC requires disabled- accessible routes of travel between multi
family dwelling units and the exterior spaces and facilities that serve the dwelling units. (See CBC
§1110A.1.) Such accessible routes must be designed to meet minimum requirements regarding,
for instance, slope (CBC §1111A) and width (CBC §1114A.1.) Although it is not clear to us
whether the CBC's accessible route requirement generally applies between private residential
structures and private docks, that question appears to be irrelevant for purposes of Aerie because
of the site impracticality exemption discussed below.
The main Aerie residential structure has been designed to comply with all applicable CBC
accessibility requirements. Common areas (e.g., pool, gym) will be fully accessible, as will the
routes of travel from the street and parking garages. In addition, certain individual residential
units will be handicapped adaptable, as required by the CBC.
However, it is our position, in accordance with CBC Section 1150A (Site Impracticality
Tests), that providing an accessible route of travel between the residential structure and the docks
695 Town Center Drive, 14th Floor, Costa Mesa, Cakfomia 92626 -1924 Telephone: 714.371.2500 Fax 714.3712550
Albany I Los Angeles I New York I Orange County I Palo Alto I Sacramento I San Francisco I Washington, D.C.
manatt
manatt I phalps I philYps
Mr. Jay Elbettar
July 14, 2009
Page 2
is impractical due to the physical constraints of the site, i.e.: the steeply sloping terrain.
Impracticality Test No. 1 of Section 1150A provides as follows:
It is not required by this code to provide an accessible route when
the terrain of the site is such that both of the following apply:
1. The slopes of the undisturbed site measured between the
planned entrance and all vehicular or pedestrian arrival
points within 50 feet (15 240 mm) of the planned entrance
exceed 15 percent; and
2. The slopes of the planned finished grade measured between
the entrance and all vehicular or pedestrian arrival points
within 50 feet (15 240 mm) of the planned entrance also
exceed 15 percent.
If there are no vehicular or pedestrian arrival points within 50 feet
03 240 mm) of the planned entrance, the slope for the purposes of
Test No. I will be measured to the closest vehicular or pedestrian
arrival point.
For purposes of these requirements, vehicular or pedestrian
arrival points include public or resident parking areas, public
transportation stops, passenger loading zones and public streets or
sidewalks. To determine site impracticality, the slope would be
measured at ground level from the point of the planned entrance
on a straight line to (1) each vehicular or pedestrian arrival point
that is within 50 feet (15 240 mm) of the planned entrance, or (2) if
there are no vehicular or pedestrian arrival points within the
specified area, the vehicular or pedestrian arrival point closest to
the planned entrance. In the case of sidewalks, the closest point to
the entrance will be where a public sidewalk entering the site
intersects with the walk to the entrance. In the case of resident
parking areas, the closest point to the planned entrance will be
measured from the entry point to the parking area that is located
closest to the planned entrance.
As shown on the attached diagram prepared by Brion Jeannette Architecture, the slope between
the planned dock entrance and the pedestrian arrival point from the building is an average of
38.6 %. This is over twice as steep as the 15% gradient required to establish impracticability under
manatt
manatt I PhelPe I PttIMPs
Mr. Jay Elbettar
July 14, 2009
Page 3
the CBC. As a result, we believe that the project is exempt from providing disabled access
between the proposed project structure and the proposed docks under CBC Site Impracticality Test
No. 1.
Please do not hesitate to call me at (714) 371 -2519 with any questions.
Sincerely,
Tim Paonc
cc: Mr. Faisal Jurdi, P.E., C.B.O., Deputy Building Official
Mr. Richard Julian
Mr. James Campbell
encl.
70075904.1
TO GOOK
PEDESTRIAN
ARRIVAL POINT:
(44.48 F5) --\
N
PLANNED 5\i�(9�9
ENTRANCE: 3N�9 Ne,p c�(i
(9.25 F5)
91' -4 [t"
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE
TO BUILDING
w
V
Q
V
U
AERIE DOCK ACOESS ANALYSIS N.T.5.
CBC CHAPTER IIA - SECTION 1150A 51TE IMPRACTICALITY TE5T5
TEST NO. I - INDIVIDUAL BUILDING TEST - SLOPE EXCEEDS 15%
n Jeannette AlChBft ll
MOM Pft.WBWA�d- "W
w w+ww� • n. wvm�+m
SPON
.Ark ••' ��'
P.O Box 102. Balboa hfarW, CA 92662 Telephone (949) 514 -1686
July 14, 2009
Re: Aerie
Gentlemen and Ladies of the Council:
"RECEIV D AFfE A ENDA
!"TE ,
As you might recall the Steering Committee of SPON had asked me to review the
project and provide a statement on their behalf, of their findings that we would
place forward at Council. This letter is the briefest statement to that effect and
may be accompanied by other testimony. Having reviewed the latest plans and
having talked with some of SPON's Steering Committee members who have
again visited the site, I author these findings of the greatest resistence to the
project's approval. We believe the project is as poor and impactful a
development as previously heard at Council and more recently at Planning
Commission. This leaves our opinion unchanged form our previous writings.
In the great hope to meet with the Owner and try to mitigate our concern, we
proposed supporting an alternative project that excavates less and perhaps has
less truck trips that contribute to the number one impact, short term air quality.
These meetings were unsuccessful.
In the broadest and most simple sense our resistence to the project and our
message to Council is, please condition the project to take care of the
following concerns or deliver a rejection of the project. They are:
1. The stability and sustainability of Natural Bluff at the PLOED-
The bluff at the PLOED, as established, shall be able to be self
supporting and sustainable and not be affected by the activities (very
aggressive retaining on this project) of construction reasonably employed
to construct the projects structural systems. Simply put, no one wants the
preserved portion of the bluff at the PLOED to be wrecked by retaining
wall construction and then re -built as if a Disney project and the project, as
proposed, bring this into an awful reality. Where such PLOED intersects
the bluff face the construction shall provide aproiect setback from that
intersection. measured to the buildings nearest point of construction, of 5'.
This shall be a buffer to ensure the wellbeing and protection of the portion
of natural bluff. Since the policy and the development of the PLOED are
to provide a point to be preserved, such PLOED shall remain natural and
not be subject to reconstruction. A reasonable setback to the PLOED
C.1D000meMa and SM09SW4m MWy Daum V erie Ca 0-14.09r.dp
C]
M
r
T -j
M
-�gypp
'
m
w
As you might recall the Steering Committee of SPON had asked me to review the
project and provide a statement on their behalf, of their findings that we would
place forward at Council. This letter is the briefest statement to that effect and
may be accompanied by other testimony. Having reviewed the latest plans and
having talked with some of SPON's Steering Committee members who have
again visited the site, I author these findings of the greatest resistence to the
project's approval. We believe the project is as poor and impactful a
development as previously heard at Council and more recently at Planning
Commission. This leaves our opinion unchanged form our previous writings.
In the great hope to meet with the Owner and try to mitigate our concern, we
proposed supporting an alternative project that excavates less and perhaps has
less truck trips that contribute to the number one impact, short term air quality.
These meetings were unsuccessful.
In the broadest and most simple sense our resistence to the project and our
message to Council is, please condition the project to take care of the
following concerns or deliver a rejection of the project. They are:
1. The stability and sustainability of Natural Bluff at the PLOED-
The bluff at the PLOED, as established, shall be able to be self
supporting and sustainable and not be affected by the activities (very
aggressive retaining on this project) of construction reasonably employed
to construct the projects structural systems. Simply put, no one wants the
preserved portion of the bluff at the PLOED to be wrecked by retaining
wall construction and then re -built as if a Disney project and the project, as
proposed, bring this into an awful reality. Where such PLOED intersects
the bluff face the construction shall provide aproiect setback from that
intersection. measured to the buildings nearest point of construction, of 5'.
This shall be a buffer to ensure the wellbeing and protection of the portion
of natural bluff. Since the policy and the development of the PLOED are
to provide a point to be preserved, such PLOED shall remain natural and
not be subject to reconstruction. A reasonable setback to the PLOED
C.1D000meMa and SM09SW4m MWy Daum V erie Ca 0-14.09r.dp
SPON
shall be provided to allow for construction of the project without
jeopardizing the bluff in the area of the PLOED.
PLOED as covered by a deck and allows the building to descend into the
bluff below the PLOED- None of the existing residences that established
the PLOED cover, descend into or obscure the natural bluff with the
building or a balcony like or to the extent as the proposed project. The
result is the very bluff that the policies attempt to protect for the purpose of
view, are forever covered by overhang. The bluff structure is turned into a
parking garage well below the PLOED. Regardless of anyone's taste in
the architecture, some of the coverage depicted by the latest drawings
cross sections obscures forever the vision of the natural part of the bluff
and this is a poor handling and development of the PLOED. A
reasonable setback above and (a reasonable limit to the deck size) shall
be provided.
3. Project is too massive- We don't believe that the project fits within or
preserves the community regardless of the admittedly diverse mix of
housing types. Simply put, there are no SFD's this large (when presenting
the area per unit figure) and there are no duplexes or triplexes that
compare (in this area per unit calculation). There are no building bulks, on
either street, that are of this size or density. SPON asks, 'why establish a
new precedent ?' We can not agree that the GP policies set forth to
protect the City's fabric are satisfied. There may be likelihood that fulfilling
the first 2 conditions above might reduce the bulk of the building and we
are very hopeful that the Council reduces the size of the project.
4. The project in entitled in a faulty manner- The project proponents have
unjustifiably convinced staff to consider the area of submerged lands to
contribute to the huge size of the project. This is a decision that is flawed
and should be corrected. To mitigate this, the project must be redesigned
using an area restriction based on land that is not submerged. We find
Planning Commissioner Michael Toerge's dissenting comments relevant
in this regard.
5. Project EIR should not be certified- We don't believe that the project EIR
addresses air quality (short or long term) nor mitigates the admittedly
impactful findings. With all due respect to our City, we have seen worse
CADM Ume and SftUnSWkmft Ay S
Dona M Amfe Courc:7- to -09l.aOL
r
P.O. Box 102 Baboa [stand, CA 92662
SPON
TeMpnons (949) 514 -1888
certifications but, as other project opponents have approached SPON for
their use of our consultants and some of those consultants have reported
glaring vulnerabilities, the City's certification should be guarded if there is
no further mitigation. The hope of anyone urging the City to employ a
CEQA justification using a 'Statement of over riding considerations', as if
this was a type of public facility with public benefit that adheres to CEQA §
21081, will be a circumstance for which we see project opponents fully
prepared to mount a legal challenge.
It may be that the project will be approved but, SPON hopes that these mitigation
measures will be employed to save further delay and challenge.
With great appreciation of the work of the Council,
Don Krotee, Co -Chair
SPON
C VOocwneMS and oocumemswena Cou 7 -14-09r aoo
"RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA
Brown, Leilani
From: Robert Plance [robplance @yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 2:42 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Brown, Leilani
Subject: Aerie Development Project
Dear City Council & M. Brown
I had hoped to he able to attend the meeting this evening when the Aerie Development Project was gouig to be discussed, but
will not be able to attend.
I live a few blocks from this proposed project - have owned my home here for over 15 years on the comer of Goldenrod and
Scaview. I have run by the proposed site for over twenty years.
I am very concerned about the change and especially worried as my home sits directly on the path that will be used to supply
the construction. Half a century ago this section of the bluff - from my home to the proposed site was a more commercial area
with a hotel(s?) and 1 believe even a gas station. Since then we have elected to become a peaceful residential area. I do not see
how this project contributes to that and can only detract.
I understand that there is possibly growing support for this project from City Council and if this is so wish I better understood
the rationale and reasoning. While this seems to be a prestigious project that might appear ostensibly to enhance the local
values and certainly provide a strong property tax revenue incentive to government, it is not clear that it benefits the lifestyle in
the surrounding community.
Thank you for your consideration of my position which at present is to be against this project
Sincerely
Rob Plance
300 Goldenrod Avenue - CDM
Brown, Leilani
From: Wood, Sharon
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 10:17 AM
To: Jackson, Marilee; Brown, Leilani; Campbell, James. Lepo, David
Subject: RE: Comment from the Web re Aerie
This should go to City Council for tomorrow night's meeting.
From: Jackson, Marilee
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 10:12 AM
To: Wood, Sharon
Subject: Comment from the Web re Aerie
Hi Sharon - should these comments be forwarded to you? Patrick? or?
Marilee Jackson, PIO
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
949 -644 -3031
From: internetwebuser [mailto:intemetwebuSer)
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 2:35 PM
To: Jackson, Marilee
Subject: Comments and Questions from the Web
I implore the City Council to rethink their position on the Aerie Development. I believe it will be a
detriment to our neighborhood, a threat to the bluffs, and take away from the very nature of our harbor.
Enormous yachts would disrupt the feeling of the harbor, and become a symbol of the 'sell -out' for big
money by our city government. Nothing about this project is good for our community. Most of us moved
here because of the small village feel of the neighborhoods, not the ostentatious excesses of a
development like Aerie. This project would definitely have a major negative impact on our neighborhood,
not the least of which includes, the 3 to 4 years of the excavation and building process. This alone will
have an impact on all of us; clogging our neighborhoods with enormous, noisy trucks all day, and
ultimately affecting all of CDM because of disruption of traffic throughout. This has to have an effect on
property values for the years of construction. Who would willingly pay over 2 million dollars for a home in
the middle of a mess like that? I feel that allowing this project to become a reality, will signal that our
village has been sold out, financial gain outweighing the integrity of our neighborhood. It would be a very
sad day, indeed, to see the excavating equipment begin to dig into the bluffs. Please think carefully about
your decision in this matter; the quality of life for many of your residents is at stake.
from Michele
Email: michele wilhite(alyahoo.com
Sent at 7/11/2009 2:35:11 PM
Brown, Leilani
From: Marilyn [mdb @becktrustee.com)
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 10:27 PM
To: City Council; Henn, Michael; Rosansky, Steven; Webb, Don (City Council), Daigle, Leslie;
Selich, Edward; Gardner, Nancy; Curry, Keith
Cc: Alcaraz, Debbie: Brown, Leilani; Campbell, James
Subject: Aerie Petition
Attachments: RFRD Petition.pdf; July 2009 Petition.pdf
To: All City Council Members
Cc: Jim Campbell, Leilani Brown, David Hunt
Please find attached two petitions in opposition to the Aerie
Development project. A group was formed several months ago called
Residents for Responsible Development and a web site was set up:
www.rfrd.info. The web site had an on -line petition allowing people
to add their names, addresses, and comments. We would like to share
not only the petition but also the comments with you. This is in a
pdf format which was exported directly from the web
site. Additionally, attached is a paper petition signed by some of
the neighbors who do not have Internet access. There are a total of
121 names. We hope that you will be able to read these comments
prior to Tuesday's meeting to better understand the concerns of the
people who live in this area.
Thank you.
Marilyn Beck
303 Carnation
TimesWlp Naffs Ad6eu City Slob mCaa.
303 Camahm
V4,7099 10 23 41 Merely, Back Avenue
4/162009 13 50 2801 Seaview
01 melinda mocallum Ave
aft 7 2009 13 17 245 Heliotrope
02 Jane Hagendorf Ave
4:202009 13 St' 221 Goldenrod
31 Jim Hansen Avenue
4;29200911 e3
221 Goldenrod
C: Wham R Hansen
Ave
i2912IM Is 10
543 Sayewed
O4 De Wright
Drive
51712009 11 23 14 John McAle erney
PO Box 1112
Corona Del Mar CA
92625 1 am opposed m this protect
Please keep us informed as to when :here a a meeting Ion this poled Thank you I'm against such a leg developmerel m
corona del mar caldoma
92625 this Site
corona del Mar
I am opposed b this masswe project Just the construction traffic alone win be horreneous once these trucks inn pass
5172009 12 55 55 Crud Daly
deadly by my home Our quiet neighborhood will have amost 3 years of disruption with the concoction II they stay m
Corona del Mar CA
92625 moor time line. which I think a highly unlikely
Corona del Mar CA
926252316 Please keep me, informed and let me know whon you'd Ike me to rally neighbors
Corona Del Mar
The 60.000 s buking size is forte large for the actual usable site area Fora companion of scale. the cunen; N"Dort
5712009 % 2t Aboa Coons
Beach CM Hall is aboul 40,000 St Tie new City Hall office budding is proposed to be about 70 000 sf The imp-actrde
Corona del Mar
paring by elevator design proves site is too small fa the bu ding
5712009 16 06 54 John Coons
The 25.240 cubic yards of excavation for this Project removes the natural bluff and bluff face 25.240 cubic yards is Ina
Corona del Mar CA
92625 same as a hole 88 feet wide x 88 feet long x 88 feet deep
Newport Beach Ca
Corona del Mar CA
T"&Kathy
5!7 ?009 12 38 C I DeLap
225 Jasmine Ave
corona del Mar
ca
5172009 12 55 55 Crud Daly
312 Jeanine Ave
Corona Del Mar
CA
517.2009 13 42 08 Sheryl Johnson
3500 Ocean Sod.
Corona Del Mar
CA
5712009 % 2t Aboa Coons
207 Ins Ave
Corona del Mar
CA
5712009 16 06 54 John Coons
207 Ins Ave
Casa del Mar
CA
572009 16 20 22 potence s hrwm
218 jasmine
corona del met
ca
214 Heliotrope
5'7.2009 17 21 14 Pat Vramicsr
Ave
Corona del Met
CA
Me 8 Mrs Jack
5nr200917 38'A Scheme,
314 Margolin Ave
Corona dot Maor
CA
572009 19 57 5' Blake
2711 Seavew Ave
corona del mar
ca
322 Heliotrope
5,712009 23 14 31 Wcteb Wilhite
Ave
Comma Del Mar
CA
309 Marguerte
5612009 10 14 QC Greg Hansen
Ave. C
Corona del Met
CA
300 Lens W r
Sa2009 10 42 94 Jay Rifkin
Avenue
Coma del Mar
Calterma
216 Goldenrod
5,4200,, 12 46 2Y Debbie Helens
Ave
Corona del Mar
CA
218 Goldenrod
&807W9 12 47 50 Gregory Helms
Ave
Corona del Mar
CA
218 Goldenrod
592009 12 41 3`_ Jessica Helms
Ave
Corona del Mar
CA
5&2009 15 44 :if robed mine,
220 narcissus ave
coma del mar
ca
419 Goldenrod
542009 8 57 21 Kel:'y Agueme
Ave
Came del mar
CA
316 Heliotrope
519,20U9 12 43 53 Damer Navarro
Ave
Corona Del Mar
CA
316 Helotrope
5&20091253 '31 Anthony Cerche
Ave
Coona Del Mar
CA
92660 Please let me know what I can do to hole We can't of ton happen In Newport Beach Thanks. De
92625 Include me on the petition
Thank you for your efforts In opposing this plan We have lived at this address since 1965. and are convinced that this
development and its Cm51rl1dlm are the wont idea the: developers nave come up with yet It his ncompabbla with aid
neighborhood and the traffic flow lot residents, visitors and emergency venides. The Marguerite St
light is already overwhelmed at tertan boas Vlsnos regularly Ignore the signs and go directly up Marguerite St from the
the comfort lane. mSW of Idnrg of There are Ids of !amses walking vein dogs or stroller they're as at risk veth mesa
92625 trucks Can we count on support from the Harbor Commisswnl What about Me coastal Commnvon'h
92625 Way too much traffic now at PCHAAargueme Intersection, which n the only outlet from my CDM neighborhood
92625 Way too much traffic pis Ocean Sod. We are opposed to project
92625 1 am opposed to this project ties over Lied fee the at"
92625 1 do not support Me project due to the impact on our neighborhood
92625 NO' DON'T WANT ALL THOSE TRUCKS TRYING TO CROSS COAST HIGHWAY
Irs much too big a development for don Brea It would be a great idea to Nsl demo me old apartments and make a
beaulrful dhffsde "M overloolu g the 1, r That way ^any people could enloy the view, rather, than son it at a great
92625 pof t for a wealthy few
Pan Mile to meet General Plan speoficeeons' To much density fee Ire community"
Why have a General Plan mat requires a conservative approach to development it we're gong to allow a project of Ions
magnitude to proceed? NOee
92625
92625 We oppose the proposed project
The development esee. sounds unappealing It seems that rte construchon should W allowed cuffing into the blunt The
project seems much too large and overbeering fee the area 11 would spoil the tranquility at the fool of Cainshore and
impact the whole neighborhood 1 smcerety hoped that this project can be stopped for the benefit of lee wnpe
92625 neighborhood
Too mum it they we gong to create that mum traffldnohse. man they should provide some benefit to aro cdnrrunty such
92625 as paying for all the utilities, to go underground on the south see of PCH' I vote me
I oppose the development project and Marra M described by the Aere development project The amount d constricaon
traffic alone through Cords Del Mar village and Pacific Coast Highway is busy enough wfvw a proposed 2976 trips of
heavy trucks through our neighborhood. It this project a approved why donl Rey use Avocado via PCH raper than gang
92625 m Marguerite and Ocean Boulevard as mesa are the man routs to the State beau.
I am strongly against a development of this We enpactrg the neighborhood of Corona del Ma This development does
rot conform to the General pan of our neighborhood and pie completely cripple the neighborhood s.reets with Construction
porspnnel parkng, heavy trucks for initial excievabon for a 5 month period. Emergency vehicles would not be ape to reach
our neighborhood. Marguente a very congested intersection at all tines of the yea would be al a standstill. Please vole
92625 against this type of development in that lecabon.
Pease vote no for this development. It does not conform with general plan tied will sevedy impact our already congested
92625 neighborhood
92625 Vote rid for this projedi
92625 Much too much
I am not opposed o devekemenl rys1 to the Immense sue of this project It n not in algnment wdh Corona del Mar and rt
92625 will destroy a huge portion d the hill side Please reN" the project to something Sion wMm reason
As a resident along the proposed haul route I whoehearteAy, propose the development of the property at Ocean SHd (g
Carnation Corona Del Mar shoud only no-develop Nose proper es that are In existence and take a hands off approach m
92625 die Intle natural bluffs that exist today
92625 1 oppose Bss development.
Timestamp National Address
S Ii. Qx? :J v 217 Goldenod
Robert Scherer Avenue
': Ip791N 1J 99.
17 Yones Kabr
Joseph Vaae)o
Lisa Vallejo
5'•970 ".!' 7' h2
19 Linda Martin
21 $It
M Fn: Van Nana
0.n. John Martin
Henry and
Debo th Mayh"
City
Corona del Mar CA
323 Marguerite Came Del Mar CAZ
2501 Ocean Blvd. Corona del Men CA
2501 Ocean Blvd, Corona del Men CA
239 Carnation
Ave Corona dal Mar CA
1312 S. Bayhont Balboa Island CA
902 So. Bayfronl Newport Beach. CA
3108 Ocean Blvd. Corona dH Mor CA
325 Mayflower
State ZIP Code
11 3P
a:: Dartln Ginsberg
y lc �;;;.;! •:r y' Tom and Candl
21 Stan
S I r2a09 Z314
1!: Elizabeth Young
'x' S'2'JU9 I:J 9
i Dorval Walker
5 "s20rN311 2�5. Michele Oupuie
3P DoWe"
r :S20C31131 Raymond Kent
31 Hervey
19110
5i panted phams
........i21q 10' Ran A Lesley
14 Clear
22 0
59 Richard L. Kasper
2; J,
n: Marlyn Collins
5:
Ili 2?uf1 S x' :n DeaDaa King
4:6'21109 1701.
O1 Chad" Allen
h "629r.9 I'S I:
15 Kathy Temple
I, '•>2Y9 12 i2 William 8 Sodom
5S Beckman
317 Carnation Ave Casa Doi Mar Ca
322 Larkspur
Avenue Corona del No, CA
Controlled
92625 Project is too large and is out of character with the neighborhood.
Hi
I am opposing for the proposed Haul Route of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Blvd condominium project. 3(700 truck bad
just for haul off of debns will create an unsale environment for the community.
(I am an environmental engineer and I will be at the pudic heading for the matter, please notify me the dale of the hewing).
92625 Thanks
The project Is much ton big for the area. and will destroy an excessive amount of the natural bluff Also, the oversized
92625 manna will block the putylc's view of the natural rack formation. as well as be a dethmeni to navaganon in IN harbor.
How can 1M project have got this far with the City? It will destroy a projected coastal Nutt for a rvmongous six VOr,
building'!! And one manna will destroy Carnation Cave and the public's enjoyment of that area of the harbor win be
92625 changed foever!!I Bad idea and terrible precedent for Mare development in our 'BEACH COMMUNITY''!'
92825 This project is so overwhelming foe the neighborhood that I am surprised it's gotten this far!
92662 This protect would be a detriment to Newport Beach'
92662 1 am completely in opposition to this out of scale pro.W in a Sensitive coastal hillside location
92625 We oppose the Aerie Project
The Project is too big for the size of propMy. I lived in the dbortmanB for 30 plus years and it a slmighl up and down and
92660 will be way ton large.
92625 Please polity the City Council that I vehement y oppose this project.
92625 1 oppose the Aerie Developmenl
92625 I find the sae of the Proposed project and the marina totally inaccephaule.
92625 I am vehemently opposed to the Aerie dev¢lopment at Carnation Ave. and Oman Blvd
I am totally opposed to IN size ar'd scale of d'r9 project and the impeC to the neighborhood. The constrvclion route is
unhafevable....
92625
92625 We'd like to keep this quaint commurdy as kwnkeyed and charming as a currently is
519 Dahlia Ave. Corona del Mar CA
Drive
Newport Beach
CA
definitely move oul of IN area. What a d.Saiter for as IM res ounls n this area and along the haul route Noll 10 mention
300 Dahlia Place
91 the wsl0ri that em up add down Ocean Blvd, throughout the year. This would run the very esgWif of what this area in
it Paul Smith
220 Jasmirw Ave
Corona del Mar
CA
My father was a local archhW, designed humorous hones in CdM. inducing our current hone on Poppy which he bu':1 in
1996. The AERIE project imposes such a dispoponionate burden on the community. tM mas of the proect and the
'.' Patricia
Srteh
Corona, del Mar
CA
5'•.37J:M it 51
92625 eye sore W our beautiful community. slap IN madness of all IN money hungry developemriip
3700 Ocean Blvd CDM California
92625 We are codcemed by the size of the project.
,+a Helga Pralla
2727 Ocean Blvd
Corona, del Mar
CA
5.13 l'Id9 1 <i 5e
219 Heliotrope
Commissioners and IM City C*unp, would spend one minute enlenaining the aaa of such a monsterms undertaking in our
98 G Marsden Blanch Ave
Carona, del Mar
California
11 3P
a:: Dartln Ginsberg
y lc �;;;.;! •:r y' Tom and Candl
21 Stan
S I r2a09 Z314
1!: Elizabeth Young
'x' S'2'JU9 I:J 9
i Dorval Walker
5 "s20rN311 2�5. Michele Oupuie
3P DoWe"
r :S20C31131 Raymond Kent
31 Hervey
19110
5i panted phams
........i21q 10' Ran A Lesley
14 Clear
22 0
59 Richard L. Kasper
2; J,
n: Marlyn Collins
5:
Ili 2?uf1 S x' :n DeaDaa King
4:6'21109 1701.
O1 Chad" Allen
h "629r.9 I'S I:
15 Kathy Temple
I, '•>2Y9 12 i2 William 8 Sodom
5S Beckman
317 Carnation Ave Casa Doi Mar Ca
322 Larkspur
Avenue Corona del No, CA
Controlled
92625 Project is too large and is out of character with the neighborhood.
Hi
I am opposing for the proposed Haul Route of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Blvd condominium project. 3(700 truck bad
just for haul off of debns will create an unsale environment for the community.
(I am an environmental engineer and I will be at the pudic heading for the matter, please notify me the dale of the hewing).
92625 Thanks
The project Is much ton big for the area. and will destroy an excessive amount of the natural bluff Also, the oversized
92625 manna will block the putylc's view of the natural rack formation. as well as be a dethmeni to navaganon in IN harbor.
How can 1M project have got this far with the City? It will destroy a projected coastal Nutt for a rvmongous six VOr,
building'!! And one manna will destroy Carnation Cave and the public's enjoyment of that area of the harbor win be
92625 changed foever!!I Bad idea and terrible precedent for Mare development in our 'BEACH COMMUNITY''!'
92825 This project is so overwhelming foe the neighborhood that I am surprised it's gotten this far!
92662 This protect would be a detriment to Newport Beach'
92662 1 am completely in opposition to this out of scale pro.W in a Sensitive coastal hillside location
92625 We oppose the Aerie Project
The Project is too big for the size of propMy. I lived in the dbortmanB for 30 plus years and it a slmighl up and down and
92660 will be way ton large.
92625 Please polity the City Council that I vehement y oppose this project.
92625 1 oppose the Aerie Developmenl
92625 I find the sae of the Proposed project and the marina totally inaccephaule.
92625 I am vehemently opposed to the Aerie dev¢lopment at Carnation Ave. and Oman Blvd
I am totally opposed to IN size ar'd scale of d'r9 project and the impeC to the neighborhood. The constrvclion route is
unhafevable....
92625
92625 We'd like to keep this quaint commurdy as kwnkeyed and charming as a currently is
519 Dahlia Ave. Corona del Mar CA
92625 Who wants 2100 truckloads of M belching diesel exhaust for IN nest Couple of years on PCHo
I am odgially from Nobraska and moved to this loeaeon approximately one year ago. It this project's approved I will
definitely move oul of IN area. What a d.Saiter for as IM res ounls n this area and along the haul route Noll 10 mention
300 Dahlia Place
91 the wsl0ri that em up add down Ocean Blvd, throughout the year. This would run the very esgWif of what this area in
Aid. A Corona Del Mar CA
92625 all about. I cant believe Ihrs is even being considered. Daniel Walker
213 Dahlia Corona del Mar CA
92625 1 am opposed to the Aerie developmern as described on this websde
My father was a local archhW, designed humorous hones in CdM. inducing our current hone on Poppy which he bu':1 in
1996. The AERIE project imposes such a dispoponionate burden on the community. tM mas of the proect and the
316 Poppy Ave Comma del Ma CA
92625 elevator Parking are absurd. Keep up your good work and efforts to stop this project.
I say no to this development -- It will be noisy and a cause of greet pollution to the enviroment aM the ocean as wan as an
306 poinsettia corona del mar ca
92625 eye sore W our beautiful community. slap IN madness of all IN money hungry developemriip
3700 Ocean Blvd CDM California
92625 We are codcemed by the size of the project.
11 makes no San" lo have vemcal car elevators Several Stories high which could be deraled by even a smell eafhquake
3 Bordeaux Newport Beach Ca
92660 are hmpnson and endager passengers I wonder if sale guards for such areal situation have been Considered
I would like to go m recom as bang totally against this protect as proposed lye mind boggling to think that the Planning
Commissioners and IM City C*unp, would spend one minute enlenaining the aaa of such a monsterms undertaking in our
301 Carnation Corona Del Ma California
92625 beautiful Corona del Mar
928 Femleaf Cooro Del No Ca
92625 Although 1 respect ambitious architecture. I feel this location Is inappropriate for such a enpmous project
320 Poinsettia Ave Corona Del Ma CA
92625 The develomenl is to large for the area.
Do not allow this project to proceed at this we. The visual teauty of this bluff AS viewed from BaySide Drive. Balboa Isle".
Me harbor and one open ocean will be lost forever. Our family moved to Balboa Island in 1962 and we continuo to enjoy the
1555 Sandcastle
beauty al the bleeds. that remain. We must deny this plan because of the size. They need Io mouce d to one third one
Drive Corma del Mar California
92625 proposed sae to keep the impact minimal Thank you to, giving me this chance to speak.
206 12 Ferni"I
Have Submitted our oppovhon 10 IN Anne Project to Mayor Ed Selich. Nancy Gardner and to the entire Planning
Ave. Corona Del Mar CA
92625 Commission today.
Tbnnwm Name
5172009 12 Se
2 t Ron Hager ny
5118,2009 9 07 28 David Demu9an
YIa'2o091246 Dune Nelson
18 Mernirger
S782M 15 09'
14 wield moothed
51192009 7 09 25 Donnell Moothan
5;19R009 9 07 3+ Kathy Hamilton
S 19,7009 11111?: John Hamilton
5/1912009 9 27 53 Cheryl Ftsche-
51192009 14 01
42 Philip Gold
5192009 22 3C
4a Jeffrey H Beck
Pamela A
51'11120099'741 Lawrence
521'2009 10 15
30 Laura Momsson
92 V 1305
OE Melinda Lumin
521:2909 1308
38 Mellyda Lulhin
5121211391351 Chnsbne
27 VOROBIEFF
512120091519 Christopher
10 Sprite.
5121'2009 22 48
41 Pat Parsons
5222009 14 3G
31 nussel wolhhagen
&22'2009 IS Cut
50 Jenny Williams
Linda DdminK
523/1009' 4404 Atha
-75'2009 10"
1' Nina SmM
Mike 8 Joan
526:2000 9 33 Ili Hoppe
5261009 17 1C,
44 Mavis Obien
5292009 11 10
4] Sue Cott,
5292009 11 11
55 Bern Nicholas
529.2009 11 13
13 Tommy Denman
6,302009 IS 24 Penelope W
I Taupe
570.2009 15 26
OS Robed Taube
Address
city
303 Narcissus
Avenue
Ave
Corona del Mar CA
319 Carnation
CA
Avenue
Corona del Mar CA
421 Femleaf Ave Corona Del Mar ca
305 poinsettia ave Corona Del Mar CA
305 Polnsenia Corona Del Mar Ca
2735 Ocean Blvd Corona del Mar CA
2735 Ocean Broc Corona del Mar CA
240 heliotrope
Avenue Corolla del Mar CA
2601 Way Lane Corona Del Mar CA
Stow
303 Carnation
CA
92625 Stop Ae•ke
Avenue
Corona del Mar
CA
406 112 Jasmine
CA
92627 This is NOT good for our communing This development must be slopped
Ave
Corona del Mar
CaHOrnia
406 1:2 Jasmine
CA
92,360 I oppose the Aerie project .n Its currently Proposed state
Ave
Corona del Mar
CA
P 0 Box 417
Corona del M.,
CA
P 0 Box 417
Corona del Mar
CA
301 Heliotrope Ave Corona del Mar
CA
314 O•chd
224 Jasmine Ave cdm
ca
Avenue
Corona del Mar
CA
2525 Ocean Blvd Corona del Mar CA
4108 Pacheco
Street San hanciscid California
zip Code Comment
92625 The current plan is an obscene overbundvg of the rule
92625 Stop the development of his Protect! TM resources of lnis area are already strained
we just moved to 421 Fern LEaf but have not charged Dour address worth voters registration old address 1524 Sandcastle
Dr. CDM 92625
92625 thank you
92625 Have the project meet the conservative requirements
92625-3019 Slop the Aerie development project at the corner of carnation and Ocean
92625 No questions
92625 no comment
I do not believe It Proposed Project is not appropriate for this area We sail and I believe the Marna will contest IDs
canal and the units do not comply with the plan for the area In addition. I believe the tuck Vafnc ha prolecl w41 geratate
n such a compact and conlerl residential area vein narrow streets will he very disnupllve and dangerous due to the
92625 number of people that walk,'jog each day
The size of me protect is much too large for the site and Ne8 It's Imoact upon the rnmeduate area our" the period of
construction is rat accepatable for the location and effect on Individuals and sunoundng property The project should be
92625 reduced in size and scope for me protection of the community and Its cilRens
The Project IS too large for the site and neighborhood violates the spirit and loner of the applicable land use hegulailions as
to minimizing impact on coastal bluffs requires valiance from applicable roar set back requirements that should vol be
Wanted and set a derge'ous precedent, violates the horizontal predo niriaM line of eanleg development. a reevam factor
;he city's Planning staff has either negligently of Intentionally ignored and compelery disregarded The design of Ire
Project is also entirely out of character will, the surrourding development . thereby also a vplation of applicable land use
regulations that are intended to Protect neighborhoods from me imposition of cubandish design toncepls out of character
92625 with the surrounding neighborhood
92625 I'm a
92625 Enough s enough
I believe this proaot should be more strictly studied for Its Impact o. the community . the beach. the habor and the
92625 environment in genital
I believe this protect should be more Strc" studied and scaled back. If necessary. In order to ensure there is no ceased
92625 nagaWe impact or me community. the beau the harbor and the enwronment In general
I I ve on Seavaw and have a walking toddler I already In we have loo much traffic and speed issues and cannot
imagine the added noise and danger to Ms street We will be put In harms way trying to back out of our garage with
92625 endless trucks coming We must work to limit Ilia DrDjecli
I do not support mIs project and believe the request to build it on this Ste be denied This a totally overbuilt and out of
92625 conlexl w,m the rest of nor neighborhood
I believe that the proposed development s still too
massive for the lot size aid that the manna Is an
outrageous assault on me harbor Regarding the exterior
design. my Personal opinion Is that it [mks Mader surfed
92625 for Dubai than Corona del Mar
94116 1 oppose this protec'l nans me character of Corona del Mar
331 Poppy Avenue Corona oe! Mar
CA
92625 Stop Ae•ke
1956 Ananem
Avenue Costa mesa
CA
92627 This is NOT good for our communing This development must be slopped
2224 Heather
Lane Newport Beach
CA
92,360 I oppose the Aerie project .n Its currently Proposed state
We strongly oppose this project because as presented it Is out of conformity vidn the historical clatter and charm of this
3501 Seawew Ave Corona del Mar
CA
92625 peach community
I worry about the heavy edurpment needed for a project this size and is affect in the neighborhood lot such a long period
315139 Ave Corona dill Mar
CA
92625 of time
224 Jasmine Ave cdm
ca
92625 We are to" Me - quaintness' of our, village Please stop or scale back this project'
224 Jasmine Ave Corona del Mar
224 Jasmine Ave. cam
m 92625
ce 92625
2622 Circle Drive Newport Bea, M CA 92663 norie
7622 Circle Drve Newport Beach CA 92663 No cmment
Timesh'np Name
5:3: 4019 2J 5i
lm Jan VandersFool
S1 Leny POrtar
•3: 1: "[� 12 OC •11 perk Kelkgg
Addreaa City
2221 E. 18th St. Newport Beach CA
1501 WestGff Dr.
*201 Newport Beach CA
3309 Ocean BNd. corona del Met ca.
5 �.
2J35 IB'iG'
92625
Corona De1Mar
W Jan Vargersloot
2221 E 16th Street
Corona dim Mar
CA
713 112 Goldenrod
!,.I S:.
^C94 ? • 1 5.� Daniel Putmee
Aw
'p%
-2u:, 654:4 Susan Hart
200 Femleaf
41 :'2:Rci
6 ST, 19 James Hart
200 Femleaf
..1
qLl:'; 8 49 4F. Andrea Hughes
401 Lugon* St.
' +
XC * A 52 11 kalNeaa muntosh
an
2495 me blvd.
Gr::'201:9
Is 03
development. Lets get back to the basic standards that we as have had to adhere to in Me past - tamer than Mrs new
corona del mar
*22 dons stoughtm
3708 mean blvd
'
. 1-0.19 15 u4
92625 t am very much OPPOSED to Ire Aer•e project
corona del mar
41 doneld f. slmghion
3708 mean blvd.
6 "'a ^Cti4 L f.i
4;• Ten Dupuis
L:'4'Cn:p W :i]
2" ka y
9 16 fib.
.:!: Goo slayback
!` 17'22+1ti 6 40.2 Sherri Stevens
h::7.JO:i9 1.'. 17
C {, R OosSamos
424 112
Heliotrope Ave
Tackes
Newport Beach CA
S lit, Zip Code
92663 Thank you.
92660 Why doesn't your group hire someone to pay Me city like the developer obviously has'
me project grossly over builds and is not in keeping with this residential neighborhood
There is great danger in possibly deslabkiing The dull. Truck Traffic would be very
92625 herd of this area.
Keep up Me, good worki
92663 Jan
Corms del Mar
CA
92625
Corona De1Mar
CA
92525 Timis protect is too big as proposed and the.npan of conswctgn trucks m the is unacceptable.
Corona dim Mar
CA
92625 1 vote NO m the Aerie poled.
Newport Beach
ra
92663 I'm not an imnkidiate neghbor. but I see the enwromlenlal impacts.
2804 Ocean Blvd.
Coona del Mar
This is another example of a developer belnfwng mat he has the right to invade public and protected space for financial
15:3.113 Mary Schmidt
379 jesmrne street
gain. This project is far too massive for a protected bluff in Corona dim Mar or Newpon Beach What would make Me
G
developer believe he has me use of public right of way on the water for the proposed massive marry Perhaps we should
consider me-way Sheets in Corona del Mar to allow developers to use pudic wdewatks and pro other IraR'c lane for
Ave.. Apt. 20
Newport Beach
development. Lets get back to the basic standards that we as have had to adhere to in Me past - tamer than Mrs new
corona del mar
G
92625 at4ud9 o(willement for pore
corona del mar
G
92625 t am very much OPPOSED to Ire Aer•e project
corona del mar
G
92625 i am OPPOSED to the Aerie projed
we all krgw That COM is a developers dream. Nit there comes a prim To where it's ridiculous This is certainty it Car9 tion
park should be eff with 1i3 praline view. not to mention thge traffic it will cause. The coy has bedor brigs to do. then to
Corona Del Mar
CA
92625 okay a project that Me corrununey is set against
Corona DM Mar G
426 riversk/e ave newpot beach G
1 Bekaurt Drive Newport Beech CA
497 Momeg Cyn.
Road Coma del Mar CA
If OS 1.'. Andrea 4rgle
2024 Newport Beach
CA
6.'M'ir`G9 17 :1
I:j Ryan
Kmy
Corona del Mar
CA
7'7 ;2'1. 19 2" '6 S` C41hy DeRosseb
2804 Ocean Blvd.
Coona del Mar
CA
15:3.113 Mary Schmidt
379 jesmrne street
leg" beach
G
1433 Supoior
7:9120^9 t:' 49 51 Safah SOmz
Ave.. Apt. 20
Newport Beach
CA
7:)9CC9 7C 2? * Jem'ifer RJOn
-0i2Ji9 2! 1-7 27 Joan McCauley
7. rv: (G9'+ 5ri 4) Gag Molssette
7:11- 21)',l "0 :> Frans Van
Ovemem
7•:02049 -053
44 Devo Hansen
?"w:2:wg L: l6
^ Eric Webon
217 112 Marguerite Corona Del Mar CA
542 Santa Ana
Ave. Newport Beach CA
PO Box 888 Newpor! Beach CA
3104 Ocean Blvd. Coors Del Met CA
3104 Ocean Blvd. Corona Del Mar CA
2960 Ba ry Dr. Coona del Mar CA
92625 This changes the unique persohality of The village and as residents. This is a true theme
Keep The tll0slde in its natural stale. Allow Me Tiny beach below TO remain as it is. Marinas contribute 10 be poeutio of our
92663 waterways.
92660 PLEASE STOP THIS BUILDING PROJECT'
92625 1 oppose me Aerie Protect
This development is completely out of scale for the neighborhood.
92669 Thank you
92625 Protect Our bluffs
I oppose Aar *. Our Street• and neighborhood can not tolerate the construction vehicles and additional Udffc. The
eCIXtemy is ho'r'ble and we don: need to have to assume Vie added burden of street mpau lip the nuisance of heavy
92625 vehicle no." and hazardous conditions to pedest ans.
92651 Please keep our coasbine pristine and do not allow this development to go through!
92663 1 oppose this coastal bluff development.
Aena Development Protect is not a conservative means :o help protecting our environment nor is 4 rospons'be!o apow 8
comrs to lake up 61,207 s9 It Please do not allow this protect to move torwa d.
Respectfully,
92614 Jennifer Ruffin
The scale of this development is rnmplehly out of proportion lo :his area. Please ask me developer, to propose a mote
92663 appropeatety, sized project This protect as proposed wig have a terribly negetwe impact on the neighborhood.
9266: 0888 The Scale of the project as well as the emaronmental impact to the bluff is olltrageci
92625 strongly against it
92625 de6ne!ely d0 not want the additional noise of construction trucks
92625 Absolutely "lid• to Ihe AMeS protect This is an abo ninat *n 10 the Property and community
PETITION OPPOSING AERIE DEVELOPMENT AT
201 -207 CARNATION AVENUE
I am signing this petition because I oppose the development project known as Aerie as it is currently
proposed at 61,709 sq feet. I am requesting that the City of Newport Beach City Council deny the
project because it fails to meet the requirements of the General Plan, it is too large and inconsistent
with the neighborhood and because it will put an undue burden on the residents of Corona del Mar with
over 3000 heavy truck trips during construction.
SIGN
A{TURE , NAME ADDRESS DATE—— —
I" //5 - -- % — -
;P0 - LroT�?a�C
-vDllt ➢CpoC Vol i° 4 7 d.�acs -
���a
MUMMA
- --
-
Brown, Leilani
From:
Marilyn [mdb @becktrustee.comi
Sent:
Monday, July 13, 2009 11:35 AM
To:
Gardner, Nancy; City Council
Cc:
Brown, Leilani; Campbell, James
Subject:
Petition Summary Re Aerie
Nancy, I hope you were able to open the petition I sent on
Saturday. My IT person suggested that sending it as a pdf was the
best way to do it. If you aren't able to view it, please let me know.
Just to summarize the concerns and the questions that we have as a group:
1. First and foremost, there is strong opposition to a 62,000 sq It
building anywhere in CDM and especially on a protected coastal bluff.
2. The construction traffic will put a huge burden on the residents
of CDM. There will be certain damage to the streets which are
already in poor condition. People want to know who will pay for this
damage. Since the residents of CDM don't want this project, they
don't to have to pay for repairs caused by it.
3. Everyone would like to see this site re- developed, no one is
opposed to this developer or to re- development of the site. But they
want the size in keeping with current development projects. There is
nothing in CDM that comes close to these numbers. There doesn't seem
to be justification for the massiveness of Aerie.
4. People believe that the General Plan was established to protect
the community from this type of development, they don't understand
why the City isn't using its discretion to reduce this project within
the boundaries of the CLUP, specifically the policies which state
'design and site new development to minimize alterations to
significant natural landforms' and 'coastal bluffs are considered
significant scenic and environmental resources and are to be
protected' and 'employ site design and construction techniques to
minimize alteration of coastal bluffs to the maximum extent feasible
siting new development on the flattest area of the site'. Does
excavating to 28 feet and building two full levels subterranean meet
the intent of these requirements?
5. There is concern that this is another Channel Reef. It is the
largest project since Channel Reef and people find that
unacceptable. People do not understand the City's position on
this. They would like to hear from the Council Members what the
over -riding considerations are which allow this to happen.
6. There is serious concern about the precedents this project will
set for future development on the bluff. There are another four
contiguous 'original' properties on the Carnation bluff. If Aerie is
I
allowed variances and deviation from the policies of the CLUP, what
will happen with the other re- development projects? Does the CC
believe it is acceptable to excavate out and build subterranean along
other large sections of this bluff?
7. There is equal concern about the size of the marina. The Harbor
Commission didn't give resounding approval of the marina, they
struggled long and hard over three sessions to come to a point of
agreeing on this. This will also set a precedent for future
development in the harbor.
This is not an exclusive list of concerns, but I think these are the
primary issues. The people attending or watching the Council meeting
tomorrow evening would really like to hear answers to these concerns.
Thank you.
Marilyn Beck
303 Carnation
July 13, 2009
Mayor Edward D. Selich
City Council Members
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658
RECEIVED
70 JUL 14 AM I: 00
OZHC= 0.
The QTY CLERK
Fc,
Re: Proposed Aerie Project
Corona del Mar
Dear Mayor Selich and Council Members:
We have followed, and expressed our opposition, to the proposed Aerie project in Corona del
Mar for approximately 2 years. As proposed, the project is too large, is not compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood and fails to "minimize alteration of the coastal bluff to the maximum
extent possible" as dictated by the City of Newport Beach's Coastal Land Use Plan. The CLUP
also addresses the issue of Natural Landform Protection. A bluff is a natural landforrn and
removal of 25,240 cubic yards of material from this bluff does 04> protect the natural land form
or minimize the alteration of it.
Per the Draft Environmental Impact Report dated March 2009:
The project will require the following discretionary entitlements:
General Plan Amendment (GP2005 -006)
Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment (GP2005 -002)
Zone Change(CA2005 -009)
Tract Map (NT2005- 004MI6882)
Modification Permit (MD2005 -087)
Coastal Residential Development Permit (CR2005 -002)
The Aerie project, as proposed, is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. In
addition to the above mentioned discretionary entitlements, this project requires:
A 25+ page Construction Management Plan
7 Consultants (per CMP) relating to biological, concrete and shoring, contractor, grading,
soils and structural issues
There are approximately 80 mitigating factors, some which relate to multiple agencies
(i.e., Federal, State, local). Of the 80, approximately 18 of these mitigating factors
relate to the overly ambitious marina which is a part of the Aerie development.
There will be approximately 3,000 truckloads traversing Pacific Coast Highway and the
small residential streets of Corona del Mar just to remove the existing structure
and for removal of excavated bluff material. Even if only 1 truck every 15 minutes
travels to the construction site (as stated in the CMP), it is still 3,000 trucks which
potentially could cause excessive wear and damage to the residential streets not
designed to withstand this type of heavy traffic.
The number of workers on -site daily will average from 25 to 80 depending on
construction phase and will require off -site parking and shuttling of the workers which
will add approximately 12 -16 trips each morning and evening and an estimated 5 trips at
lunch.
No detailed information is given regarding traffic and safety measures relating to the
haul route. There are numerous street crossings and alley accesses along the route.
One area of particular concern is at Seaview and Goldenrod which does not have a
crosswalk but is a heavy pedestrian area due to the Goldenrod Footbridge.
The DEIR indicates that construction will exceed dBA CNEL noise levels throughout the
construction process. This will have a significant impact and cannot be mitigated.
Due to the location of this property this is an issue which will affect not only the
immediate neighborhood, but residents of the Balboa Peninsula and other residential
areas throughout Newport Harbor.
Like the land portion of this proposed project, the marina portion is too large. It poses a
threat to the environment of the harbor, will potentially block views of the bluff from the
harbor and peninsula vantage points and creates safety issues related to the location of
the marina and storm surges.
This project is not without significant risk — financial, environmental and to adjoining
property owners. There are development alternatives listed in the Draft Environmental
Report. We are not opposed to development of this site. We are opposed to the
approximately 61,207 square foot structure which is currently proposed. A scaled down
project such as the 5 unit one would significantly minimize the massiveness of the
project as well as the destruction of the coastal bluff.
Please consider the ramifications of this project and the precedent it will set.
Sincerely,
Bill & Jinx Hansen
221 Goldenrod Avenue
Corona del Mar, CA
jinxst @pacbell.net
July,,, 2009 RECEIVED
Dear Council Members and Staff, 70 JUL 14 mi I- I q
Hopefully this next Tuesday you will help AERIE tp_3R_ file to move along. It would
certainly mean a lot to the Julians, as well as Lin�BtkLE118 have your support as our
City of Newport Beach representatives. Here ielp ®poWE96bB ervations.
The opposition, while nice people, have an agenda which changes with the wind. As
each issue came up they opposed each and every element of Aerie. As recent as this
weekend they are going door to door to try and rally opposition, which is certainly an
abnormal and atypical approach to such a process.
Their latest website is RFRD. (we have our own definition for what this anacronym
stands for) This is just the latest iteration from the same individuals. Originally they
were known as "Alliance to Preserve the Bluff at Carnation Cove" next came the
"Newport Beach Alliance" and then after an insulting, full page newspaper ad, with
some of the same misleading and inaccurate information, they have come up with
"RFRD ". In each of these endeavors they have not had the candor to identify
themselves rather than hide behind a cloak.
As those adopted titles came in a group of three, so has their choice of attomey's.
There was a very strong admonishment by your council to not bring in material late in
the process (this is after it happened multiple times including the EIR comment period
and before the Planning Commission, once just a few minutes before last year's council
hearing. Now this third lawyer is apparently asking for a continuance, as he states he
would be unable to submit information for this untitled group until just before the
hearing. Why hasn't he been working.
It seems unfair that Mr. Julian who has again and again compromised and tried to
accommodate everyone for the support of all of the neighbors (mind you he has a
preponderance of the local neighbors, in close proximity, strongly on his side) now be
asked once again to postpone. It has been literally years and it could be said what does
a 'couple more weeks matter'. It seems apparent that it will cost Mr. Julian far more than
the cost of overtime that could be charged by this new attorney to review his files in time
for Tuesday's meeting. Simple fair mindedness and observation would dictate that the
opposition has had plenty of time.
This process has turned out to be a very frustrating one for all of us neighbors.
Certainly no one could say it has not been made public. Please see that this applicant
has met and exceeded all requirements placed on him by all the governmental entities.
He deserves a chance to move on with what a great majority of us strongly believe is a
definite asset to our wonderful community. Please approve AERIE
Thank you in advance for your consideration and service.
Linda and Bud Rasner
2500 Ocean Blvd.
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
Brown, Leilani
From: Campbell, James
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 1:08 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: FW: Support for Aerie Project
Letter for AEIRE Hearing tomorrow night
- - -- Original Message —
From: Peggie Fariss [ mailto :peggiefariss @earthlink.net]
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 9:39 PM
To: Rosansky, Steven; Lepo, David; Gardner, Nancy; Campbell, James; Curry, Keith; Webb, Don
(City Council); Henn, Michael; lelsiejdaigle @aol.com; edselich @adelphia.net
Subject: Support for Aerie Project
Esteemed Members of the Newport Beach City Council and staff,
I have been following the progress of the Aerie project for more than a year and am so hopeful that
the project will receive your final support on Tuesday. Having attended numerous City Council,
Planning Commission and Harbor Commission meetings, I have been extremely impressed by the
flexibilty and good efforts of the applicant, Rick Julian, as he has sought to invite comments and to
satifsfy concerns of yours and his neighbors. As one of the Planning Commissioners stated at the
last meeting (I'm paraphrasing), "seems like nothing the applicant can do would please those who
have dedicated themselves to opposing this project."
I'm hoping that each of you will recognize the extent to which Mr. Julian has gone to offer the
community a truly world class project. One that includes outstanding design, view corridors, state of
the art energy features, new parking, underground utilties, visual improvements and numerous other
benefits to the community.
Surely, it's time to say "yes" to this project and to let it move forward.
Best regards,
Peggie Fariss
418 Heliotrope Ave
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
Resident of Corona del Mar since 1977.
Brown, Leilani
From:
Campbell, James
Sent:
Monday, July 13, 2009 1:08 PM
To:
City Clerk
Subject:
FW: Aries Development
Letter for AEIRE Hearing tomorrow night.
From: Susan Kopicki [mailto:sckopicki @ gmail.comj
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 2:07 PM
To: Varin, Ginger
Subject: Aries Development
Re: Airies Development
This project does not deserve approval as it is simply too large of a project when compared to what the public wants and
was 'Visioned' as part of the General Plan. A project of over 60,000 SF (almost twice the size of Oasis Sr. Center) in a
small community's residential enclave, is too great for this site. Further the City should not erase or live with the impacts
in the EIR by allowing the use of a Statement of Overriding Consideration. There is not enough benefit to have the public
endure this project.
The developer will accept a smaller, more reasonable alternative; please Council, direct the applicant in this more
reasonable direction.
It seems especially important in the current economic situation that we balance our land use with its impact on the
environment and especially on the surrounding community. Also, the general plan reflects the people's desires and
changes to it should be avoided.
Susan Kopicki
511 El Modena
Newport Beach, CA
Brown, Leilani
From: Warmington Bob and Lori [ bwarmington @warmingtonland.com]
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 2:30 PM
To: Brown, Leilani
Subject: Fw: aerie project
Good afternoon Leilani,
Here is an email I sent to Nancy Gardner re: the Aerie Project,
I live within 200 yards of the project and have been a real estate developer for 40 years.
Regards,
Bob Warmington
- -- Original Message —
From: Warminofoh Bob and Lori
To: gardnerncy(Waol.com3
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 10:35 AM
Subject: aerie project
Nancy: I am opposed to the aerie project. It is interesting to compare this project with the French
country house on ocean which has about 100 feet of frontage and is two story above ground with
approximately 11,000 square feet. This is a large house! On the carnation site there is 150 feet of
frontage and 60,000 square feet of building with two story on carnation but four stories facing the
bay. The submerged land area of 28,414 q. feet and the set backs leave approximately 28,900 sq.
feet of real buildable.What you have is a project that doesnt conform to anything we could build in
CDM. we have four 37.5 foot frontage lots on carnation and 15,300 sq. feet of building on each lot!
The view from the bay will be a four story building that is 140 feet wide.Does this fit into the character
and housing stock we have in CDM? It just doesnt fit into our neighborhood.The other issue of
putting docks out in front of carnation cove is not right. How can the harbor department appprove
this? Does the EIR accept this part of the development plan? Nancy, I have been a real estate
developer for over 40 years . This is the wrong project for this site. It should be 4 single families or
four duplexes ( 8 condos) That would be consistant to our neighborhood. Bob Warmington
Brown, Leilani
From: BECKMANWR@aol.com
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 6:41 PM
To: Henn, Michael; Rosansky, Steven; Webb, Don (City Council); Daigle, Leslie; Selich, Edward,
Gardner, Nancy; Curry, Keith; Brown, Leilani
Subject: OPOSITION TO AERIE COMPLEX PROJECT
Dear City Council Members,
At the May 21, 2009 Newport Beach, CA Planning Commission meeting we heard details about the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) for the proposed Aerie Project, that emphasized there that the Project (even Alternate B) is too big for the
property at 201 -205 & 207 Carnation Avenue here in Corona Del Mar. This proposed complex to create 8 residential units
far exceeds the size of the Newport Beach Older Adult Social & Information Services (OASIS) Center now being rebuilt
(36,500 square feet), and approaches the size of the proposed Newport Beach City Hall.
Though the EIR provided for this proposed Aerie Project minimized the inappropriate size of the Project for this Corona
Del Mar bluff site, we are strongly opposed to the proposed 62,000 square foot size for the Aerie Condominium Complex
at Carnation Avenue & Ocean Boulevard in Corona Del Mar for the following reasons: (even though approved by the
Newport Beach Planning Commission and Planing Department)
1) The proposed Complex does not conform to the Coastal Land Use Plan to minimize alterations to the Coastal Bluffs
here in Corona Del Mar, even though the Planning Commission and Planning Department approve;
2) The proposed Complex does not conform to the City of Newport Beach's General Plan, its Land Use Policies, or the
California Coastal Act which promise to protect our scenic and visual resources, even though the Planning Commission
and Planning Department approve;
3) The proposed Complex does not conform to the size of other residences in that part of Corona Del Mar on Carnation
Avenue, even the though the Planning Commission and Planning Department disagree with this;
4) The construction of the proposed Complex will have a severe impact on those of us who live in Corona Del Mar
between the only two streets to this site from Pacific Coast Highway - Ocean Boulevard and Seaview Avenue. The
Architect and the Planning Commission and Planning Department minimize this impact to residents of Corona Del Mar.
The Architect/builders in their Construction Management Plan (CMP) have indicated that in order to achieve this gross
size for the proposed Aerie Complex, they will have to excavate more than 25,000 cubic yards of dirt (and rocks) from the
site to make room for the Complex' garage and lower Condo Units. This will require at least 2,100 heavy truck loads of
material be hauled out on Ocean Boulevard to the Pacific Coast Highway (then off 40 miles to the Brea/Olinda Landfill).
Then over 800 heavy cement trucks will be hauling cement into the site on Seaview Avenue, over a period of twenty four
(24) months on this narrow street.
The architect advised in his CMP, a truck can be loaded every 15 minutes, within each 8 hour work -day. Thus there will
be time to pack 32 truck loads each day. The Brea/Olinda Landfill is approximately 40 miles on freeways. We have
traveled the proposed route and analyzed the minimum time required for a truck to make this trip to be one hour (60
Minutes), 9 there are no traffic jams on any of the Freeways involved. Round trip to Brea and return to Corona Del Mar
thus will take two hours minimum.
The Architect advised that only 27 or 28 truck loads per day would be necessary to excavate to the depths he envisioned
for the Project. After reviewing his CMP, we found that this number of heavy trucks loads will have to be close to 32 truck
loads each work -day to move the 25,000 cubic yards of material. Apparently the Architect figured the average number
based upon calendar days, rather than the 5-day work -week he proposed. This will also have to include the 60 loads of
existing building debris/demolition material to be removed. Per the CMP during this Phase I of the project, over 190 heavy
cement trucks will be coming in on Seaview Avenue to the Aerie site to build the Caissons required to hold the building on
the site. So there will be at least 2355 heavy truck loads to be moved in and out of Corona Del Mar on Seaview Avenue
and Ocean Boulevard during the 126 day period from July 16, 2010 to January 10, 2011, an average of 18.7 heavy trucks
per day proceeding through these narrow streets. Even though the Draft EIR stated there would be a flag person so no
trucks would queue on Carnation Avenue, nothing is stated about the traffic interference and constant truck noise while
trucks are sitting on Seaview Avenue, after their return from Brea/Olinda.
As shown on the CMP the combined Phase II and Phase III activities of the Aerie Project (during the period from 11
January, 2011 through September 12, 2011), there will be another 622 heavy loads of cement to be delivered to the site
via Seaview Avenue, at a rate of 20 loads per work day, during Pour Events occurring 3 to 5 work day for each Pour
Event. And this doesn't take into account the trucks hauling in construction material for the building. Assume 6 day work
weeks for these truck activities. Thus for nearly 42 weeks (3% years) we will be subjected to persistent truck movement
on Ocean Boulevard and Seaview Avenue.
This is certainly a serious impact to those of us living here in Corona Del Mar while these heavy trucks are moving in and
waiting to load on Seaview Avenue. This will severally impact all residents living on the following streets in Corona Del
Mar: Seaview Avenue, Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue, Dahlia Avenue, Fernleaf Avenue, Goldenrod Avenue,
Heliotrope Avenue, Iris Avenue, Jasmine Avenue, Larkspur Avenue and to Marguerite Avenue (which is the only entrance
or exit to Pacific Coast Highway from this part of Corona Del Mar) for the trucks.
There are approximately 250 single family residences, 75 duplex residences and 10 apartment buildings in this group of
Olde Corona Del Mar homes — probably averaging 2 -3 persons per unittresidence, totaling more than 750 people that will
be impacted for 3'/: years by construction of this oversized Aerie Complex..!!!
In addition, this construction project will have a critical safety impact on beach visitors trying to reach or exit the Corona
Del Mar State Beaches, with traffic backups on Marguerite Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway that we already experience
every day. Ocean Boulevard is only 2 blocks to the traffic light at Pacific Coast Highway. That traffic signal permits left
turns no more often then once every 2 % minutes. Typically five autos make each cycle on left turn to Pack Coast
Highway from Marguerite Avenue. And these heavy truck trips will incur dangers to pedestrian traffic coming across
Pacific Coast Highway walking to the beaches or shopping in Corona Del Mar Village. Further dangers will occur at the
Goldenrod Footbridge for families walking to the beaches and to their homes in Olde Corona Del Mar!!!!
If this proposed Complex is to be approved, the builder /contractors should be required to find an alternate method of
moving the dirt (and rock), such as by loading it onto a sea -going barge in the Newport Harbor channel below the site.
The builder /contractor should be required to find an alternate method of transporting cement to the site for the Caissons
required for the site, such as having them poured at a remote site and transported via seagoing vessels, and unloaded
and installed from the Harbor channel below the site.
And furthermore this CMP does not indicate any activities that will require access to the Carnation Avenue site for building
the associated Aerie boat dock, below in the Harbor Channel.
The EIR proposes that the construction workers be prohibited from parking on Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard.
This parking restriction will have to include No Parking for the workers on Dahlia Avenue, Fernleaf Avenue, Goldenrod
Avenue, Heliotrope Avenue, Iris Avenue, Jasmine Avenue, Larkspur Avenue and to Marguerite Avenue. This is significant
since all of these streets are narrow and have each side closed to parking one morning each week for street sweeping.
The EIR advises that shuttle buses will be bringing the workers to the site. This will add an additional 15 to 25 vehicle trips
to Seaview Avenue and Ocean Boulevard per working day. This will probably start at 6AM (assume the work -day starts at
7AM), with lunch break shuttle service and finish at 4 - 5PM.
Please do not approve such a large construction project that will impact us who own property and live near the proposed
Aerie Condominium Complex site.!!!
Respectfully,
William and Sandra Beckman,
Property owners of 206 & 206 '/z Fernleaf Avenue
Corona Del mar, CA 92625 -3213
M Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Stepsl
manatt
manatt I Phelps I philliips
July 10, 2009
VIA E -MAIL
Mayor Selich and Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Re: Aerie Project
Mayor Selich and Members of the City Council :
"RECMED AETER AGEND
Tim Paone
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Direct Dial: (714) 371.2519
E-mail: ipaone@manati.com
We have been informed that a new law firm has been retained by unidentified
opponents of the Aerie project. These lawyers apparently are inconvenienced by the
timing of the upcoming hearing on the project and would like to burden the applicant
with another continuance. While a two -week continuance may be insignificant to these
lawyers, it is highly significant to the applicant.
As you know, this project has been the subject of many public hearings over the course
of several years. Mr. Julian has fully cooperated with an extensive and, perhaps,
unprecedented environmental review of the project at great cost in terms of time and
money. It seems unimaginable that are project opponents who believe they have the
right to further delay the project simply so that they can get their "ducks in a row." We
previously and repeatedly have seen opponents' tactics involving last minute "document
dumps" designed to cause delays to this project, and this clearly is one more strategic
effort to undermine the fair process which should be accorded to the applicant.
Perhaps these new attorneys simply haven't done their homework (and it only takes a
few minutes to do so) to understand the relationship between the Harbor Commission
and the City Council. For starters, the Harbor Commission's purely advisory action this
week did not involve the approval or denial of anything and, even if it theoretically could
be invalidated, such invalidation would have no effect whatsoever on the Aerie
entitlement process. Please don't fall for their threats. The applicant, for sure, is willing
to bear whatever risk may exist.
More significant, these new attorneys simply do not seem to understand that the only
action before the City Council on July 14 regarding the project's docks will be to assess
whether the EIR adequately addresses, as part of its evaluation of the entire project, the
695 Town Center Drive, 14th Floor, Costa Mesa, California 92626.1924 Telephone: 714.371.2500 Fax: 714.371.2550
Albany I Los Angeles I New York I Orange County I Palo Alto I Sacramento I San Francisco I Washington, D.C.
manatt
ma 11 I phelps I phillips
Mayor Selich and Members of the City Council
July 10, 2009
Page 2
environmental issues pertaining to the docks. Action on dock permits is not on the
Council's agenda for the simple reason that the Council only acts on dock permits if the
appeals process contained in the City's Municipal Code brings those permits to the
Council. As clearly addressed by the City Attorney at the Harbor Commission meeting
last night, as well as by the Harbor Resources Manager in the Staff Report for that
meeting, the dock permits will be acted upon initially by the Harbor Resources Manager,
but only after the City Council has certified the project's EIR. His action can be appealed
to the Harbor Commission. The Harbor Commission's decision can then be appealed to
the Council by a member of the Council. Therefore, the dock permits are not on the
Council's agenda for July 14.
The entitlement process is long, complex, and open. The unidentified project opponents
who have retained new counsel have had abundant opportunity to comment on the EIR
and present their views on the project to the Planning Commission and City Council.
They've had plenty of time to hire lawyers. Undoubtedly, they can always come up with
something new and different to say, but their creativity should not be cause for
continued delay and cost to the applicant. Please remember that anyone, in any
process for any project, can always do a last minute "document dump" to try to cause
delay and expense for an applicant. It is a ploy utilized every day by lawyers throughout
California. Please don't jeopardize the integrity of your city's entitlement process by
falling for this sham tactic. We are confident that there is not a court in this state that
would fault the City for refusing to grant this unwarranted continuance request.
We also ask you to consider the precedent you would establish if the opponents of any
project in the City could simply bring in new lawyers (perhaps simply even change
lawyers) at the last minute and then say "We know this project has been in the
entitlement process for years, but please delay everything for us." If you delay Aerie for
these project opponents, then you should be prepared to delay every project that comes
through the City for the same reasons. And if some other unidentified project opponents
hire new lawyers immediately before the suggested continued July 28 hearing, will you
then continue the hearing one more time at their request so that you treat all community
members alike? And how long will that go on? We suspect that the precedent that
would be created by continuing this hearing for the convenience of these lawyers is one
that you would not enjoy living with in the future.
The Aerie applicant strenuously objects to the granting of a continuance requested
solely for the convenience of a law firm brought into this process years after it began
and months after the public review process for the EIR ended. We are confident that
the project's EIR has addressed all environmental issues, in many instances to a
degree unprecedented in the City's history. Any interested party clearly has the right to
manatt
man tt I phelps I Phillips
Mayor Selich and Members of the City Council
July 10, 2009
Page 3
submit any information it wants at the public hearing, but it is time to allow the process
to move forward. Similarly, any party who is not satisfied with any action taken by the
Council on the Aerie project has other legal remedies which it may pursue and, once
again, the applicant is willing to bear that risk. No one, however, has the right to delay
an application simply to make it more convenient for them to submit their objections.
Please respect Mr. Julian's right to have his project processed without further cost and
delay resulting from the gamesmanship of project opponents. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Tim Paone
cc: James Campbell, Principal Planner
David Hunt, City Attorney
Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney
mnnrn. t
RECEIVED
ZM9.NI. 15 All 1 :52
July 10. 2009
r
C:-N'c OF
T; :, C TY CLERK
Hon. Edward Seli"%gl+!r? 'IT EEA(,'H
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
,1 li ty Y 19 ll It 1,11 u 11 1
C�ASTKEEPER
I ;AICAI I, 1-'s'A1) %'i( -NO *M: IOKAIION I I �N I(IR(.I.VIN'I
31 iI AIIP'a}' Arc., Suitc F.110
Coua Moa, CA 92620
714.850.1905 Voicc
714.850.1592 Fac
w .coaitkccper.org
Re: Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) "AERIE" Tent. Tact 16882 —Support
Dear Mayor Selich:
Orange County Coastkeeper is a non - profit corporation focused on water
quality and healthy marine habitats. Our mission is to protect and preserve our
marine habitats and watersheds through education, advocacy, restoration and
enforcement. One of our programs is to constructively work with the development
community to review and make recommendations on proposed Water Quality
Management Plans (WQMP) of specific development projects. This effort is to
ensure that new development projects embrace state -of- the -art technologies,
design and management to eliminate polluted runoff from discharging off the
project property.
Coastkeeper has reviewed the Water quality management plan for the
AERIE project and have met with the applicants. On February 14, 2008,
Coastkeeper submitted a letter to the Director of Planning in support of the
WQMP component of the project. After reviewing the proposed WQMP
Coastkeeper made recommendations for technologies to be installed on the
project site that would treat and remove pollutants of concern and eliminate up to
90% of the bacteria that otherwise would be discharged into Newport Harbor.
Coastkeeper believes this to be important since the projects discharges directly
into Newport Harbor. The applicant has agreed with our recommendation to
install these technologies.
Realizing the current proposed project has been modified from the
previous designs, the WQMP is essentially unchanged. Therefore, Coastkeeper
continues to support the WQMP of this project as it will represent the use of the
"Best Available Technology" and will exceed regulatory standards.
Just to be clear, this is an endorsement of the WQMP as a component of
the project. Coastkeeper does not take positions on projects as a whole as that is
the decision of the local community. Our interest is ensuring that if a project is
approved and built it will not contribute pollutants to our waterways and harbors.
Resppcygly,
Bro
Executive hector
kR3- 7.1y'o�
PATRICIA F. PARSONS, Ph.D.
CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST
July 14, 2009
Dear Mayor Selich and Council Members:
I am a clinical psychologist practicing in Newport, and have
lived in Corona del Mar for the past 29 years, the last 12 at the
Channel Reef building on Ocean Boulevard.
I appeared before the Council last year and submitted a petition
signed by a majority of Channel Reef residents, indicating their
opposition to the Aerie project.
Subsequent to that meeting, I presented another petition to the
Harbor Commission signed by an ever greater number of
residents, which opposed the project's plan to include a marina
to house huge yachts.
Last month I attended a Board meeting at Channel Reef where
the developer and architect of the project made a presentation
which included renderings of the building and dock. Several
Board members and residents expressed concerns about the
impact on the bluff and the harbor. Speaking only for myself
here, I want to say that the sheer size of the building shown in
the renderings, as well as the exterior design, looked like it
would be more at home in Dubai than Corona del Mar.
It is my hope that the Council will not allow this gargantuan
project to overwhelm Carnation Street and the mouth of the
harbor.
Sincerely yo- u-rrss,%�
I G �'l i rte-,. 0•� Rit,S laws, �^1
Patricfg:f5 8&fipI3 jcP, ". Corona del Mar, CA 92625 949 - 212 -1550
email: eatexcels(Waol.com Fax 1- 949 -675 -3434
"RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA
PRINTED!'
Brown, Leilani
From:
Stephen Miles [smiles @miles- chen.com]
Sent:
Tuesday, July 14, 2009 2:53 PM
To:
Campbell, James
Cc:
City Council; Brown, Leilani
Subject:
Aerie Condominium - PA 2005 -196
Attachments:
RFRD. AerieProject .CommentaryMCLG.071409.pdf; RFRD protest to NB CC re Aerie condo
project.let.pdf
Mr. Campbell:
Attached please find comment letters submitted to the City of Newport Beach on behalf of Residents for Responsible
Development. The second letter from Leibold, McClendon & Mann includes fifteen (15) attachments that will be
transmitted in several parts by separate emails. I will provide a hard copy of the letters and the attachments this
evening.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call my cell phone.
Take care,
- -Steve
Stephen M. Miles, Esq.
MILES • CHENLAwGROUP
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
9911 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 150
Irvine, CA 92618
9 Main: (949) 788 -1425
2 Mobile: (714) 393 -3389
Fax: (949) 788 -1991
PA smiles @miles- chen.com
LLIBOLD MCCLFNDON & MANN
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
23422 MILL CREEK DRIVE, SUITE 145
LAGUNA IIILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653
(949) 457 -6300
FAX: (949) 457 -6305
JOHN G. MCCLENDON
j.hO(y CW.,C..
July 14, 2009
HAND DELIVERED AND EMAIL [lbrown(tJcity.newport- beach. ca. usI
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
CITY OP NEWPORT BEACH - CITY HALL
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92658
Re: AERIE Condominiums project [applicant: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc.[
201 & 207 Carnation Avenue and 10l Bayside Place [Project File No. PA2005 -196]
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:
Lcibold McClendon & Mann respectfully submits this letter on behalf of RESIDENTS FOR
RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT and other Newport Beach and Orange County residents. They
have asked us to assist you in your assessment of the above- referenced Aerie Condominiums
project (the "Project ") by explaining some of the reasons why the Project, as currently
proposed, merits your denial.
On their behalf, we would urge that you neither approve the Project nor adopt the Final
Environmental Impact Report prepared for it unless and until: (1) the City brings its Housing
Element into compliance with the California Planning and Zoning Law ( Govemment Code
sections 65000 et .seq.), and (2) the City prepares and certifies an EIR for the Project that
adequately analyzes the environmental impacts of the Project and properly fulfills its role as
a public disclosure document in accordance with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code sections 21000, et seq:
"CEQA ") and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (Title 14, California Code
of Regulations, sections 15000, et seq.: "Cl'-QA Guidelines ").
1 request that this letter and its attachments be included in the record of the City's
proceedings for the Project.
LACK OF A HOUSING ELEMENT PRECLUDES PROJECT APPROVAL
The Legislature has found "that decisions involving the future growth of the state, most of
which are made and will continue to be made at the local level, should be guided by an
effective planning process, including the local general plan." (Government Code § 65030.1;
honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council
AERIE Condominiums project and EIR
July 14, 2009
Page 2
emphasis added.) In the context of the Planning and Zoning Law, the Legislature requires
each city in the State to adopt a comprehensive, long -term general plan for the physical
development, configuration, and character of the city and requires that all future land use
decisions be consistent with the general plan. (Government Code §§ 65300 e1 seq.; Elysian
Heights Residents Assn.. Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 21, 27.)
A general plan is required to contain seven mandatory elements: (a) a land use element; (b) a
circulation element; (c) a housing element; (d) a conservation element; (e) an open -space
element; (f) a noise element; and (g) a safety element. (Government Code § 65302.) If one
ofthe seven mandatory elements is missing, or ifa relevant clement is inadequate, then a city
cannot take any action under the Planning and "Zoning Law or the Subdivision Map Act
(Government Code §§ 66410 et seq.) that is required to be consistent with the general plan.
Since "[t]he general plan 'is, in short, a constitution for all further development within the
city.' [Citations.]" (Friends of "B" Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988,
9970, this prerequisite of an adequate general plan has been repeatedly affirmed by the
courts.'
A. The City's General Plan Housing Element is Not
in Compliance with State Ilousing Element Law
Unlike the other six mandatory General Plan elements, a housing element must be reviewed
"as frequently as appropriate" and revised "not less than every five years, to reflect the
results of this periodic review." (Government Code § 65588(a) & (b).) State law mandated
that the City prepare and adopt a final, valid "fourth revision" (lousing Element to its
' (Save El Toro A.ss'n v. Days (1977) 74 Cal. App. 3d 64, 74 (1977) [city could not
approve any subdivisions because it had not adopted a valid open space element to its general plan];
Friends of B "St. v. City ofllayward, supra, 106 Cal. App. 3d at 999 [city could not proceed with
a public works project because it was missing its noise element; therefore the project could not
conform to an officially adopted general plan]; Camp v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 123 Cal. App.
3d 334, 349 [county could not approve subdivisions because some of its general plan elements were
inadequate under state law]; Resource Defense Fund v. County of Santa Cruz (1982) 133 Cal. App.
3d 800, 806 [ "Since consistency with the general plan is required, absence of a valid general plan,
or val id relevant elements or components thereof, precludes any enactment of zoning ordinances and
the like.']; Neighborhood Action Group v. City of Calaveras (1984) 156 Cal. App. 3d It 76,1188
[issuance of a conditional use permit was beyond the county's authority if the noise element of the
county's general plan does not conform to the statutory criteria]; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City
of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal. App. 3d 692, 745 [court invalidated a building permit for proposed
cogeneration plant based on general plan inadequacy].)
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council
AERIE. Condominiums project and EIR
July 14, 2009
Page 3
General Plan by July 1, 2008. (See Tab 1, July 6, 2005, letter to SCAG Executive Director
Pisano affirming AB 2158's extension of Government Code § 65588(c)(1) deadline by two
years to July 1, 2008.) However, the most recent Housing Element Compliance Report
issued last week by the California Department of (lousing and Community Development
( "IICD ") show that, not only has the City failed to adopt a valid "fourth revision" Housing
Element, but HCD determined that the City's draft dousing Element was "OUT" of
compliance with State housing element law. (See Tab 2, Housing Element Compliance
Report dated July 7, 2009.) Lest one assume the City has received an extension of time
to prepare and submit its "fourth revision" Housing Element, this is not the case since
such extensions are expressly prohibited by law. (Govcmment Code § 65361(6).)
Notably, this is not a predicament the City suddenly finds itself in; it has been this way for
years. In fact, on numerous occasions HCD has informed the City of deficiencies in its
Housing Element and has given the City many opportunities to cure those deficiencies. For
example, on Febntary 25, 2005, Cathy Creswell, Deputy Director of HCD, reported to the
City's planning director that the City's 2003 adopted Housing Element was in conditional
compliance with State housing element law "contingent on the City effectively implementing
its multifamily development and rezone strategies." (See Tab 3.)
On June 20, 2005, Creswell, commenting on the City's amended Housing Element, reminded
City Manager Bludau that HCD's prior approval of the Housing Element was "conditioned
on the City ensuring the supply of appropriately zoned sites is adequate to accommodate its
regional housing need for lower- income households." (See Tab 4.) Moreover, "if the City's
October 2005 annual report ... reveals the Avocado /MacArthur site is not available for
multifamily development and an alternative site has not been identified, the (Housing
Element will no longer comply with the 'adequate sites statutory requirement ... . "' (Id.)
In July 2006, the City revised its Housing Klement in an effort to comply with State housing
element law. Unfortunately, HCD again determined that the City's revisions to its Housing
Element were insufficient. (See Tab 5.) After reviewing the revisions, HCD's Creswell,
noting that HCD's earlier finding of compliance "was contingent on the City's commitment
to rezone the Avocado /MacArthur site and continuing to encourage and facilitate
development on the Banning Ranch site," found that the "revised clement no longerproposes
to rezone the MacArthur site as a means to address the adequate sites statutory requirement."
(Id.) In addition, the revised element prioritized "the retention of Banning Ranch as open
space." (ld.) According to HCD, this was an "especially critical point as the previously
adopted element relied on Banning Ranch to accommodate 406 multifamily units without the
need for a zone change or general plan amendment." (Id.) Thus, Creswell concluded that
the City's revised I lousing Element "does not contain the necessary information and analysis
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council
AERIE Condominiums project and EIR
July 14, 2009
Page 4
to determine which specific sites are suitable and available to accommodate the City's
remaining housing need within the current planning period." (Id.) However, HCD did
provide the City with a list of information that, if included in a revised (lousing Element,
could bring it into compliance. (Id.)
The City again revised its Housing Element in 2007, and, on September 10, 2007, Creswell
again informed the City that the revised Housing Element was inadequate. (See Tab 6.) This
time Creswell told the City that, in order for its Housing Element to comply with State
Housing Element Law it "must demonstrate the strategies [proffered by the Cityl are realistic
and viable such that they can accommodate Newport Beach's remaining share ofthe regional
housing need, particularly for lower - income households." (Id.)
Most recently, on October 24, 2008, HCD reported on its review of the City's tardy draft
"fourth revision" (lousing Element. (See Tab 6.) Director Creswell informed the City's
planning director that the draft document still failed to analyze "the adequacy of identified
sites to accommodate the regional housing need for lower - income households," and noted
that "many of the findings described in HCD's September 17, 2007 review were still
necessary to comply with State housing element law." (Id.)
B. A Nexus Exists Between the Lack of a Housing Element and the Project
The failure of the City's General Plan to include a valid Housing Element has a direct and
immediate bearing on the Project. First, by law the City's Ilousing Element must include a
program that (among other things) will "[c]onserve and improve the condition of existing
affordable housing stock, which may include addressing ways to mitigate the loss ofdwelling
units demolished by public or private action." (Government Code § 65583(c)(4).) Yet no
Housing Element even exists at present to include such a program. Were it to exist, it would
likely address the Project's demolition of the 14 -unit apartment complex on the site with no
provision for replacing these affordable units. To compound matters, in order to circumvent
the letter — but certainly not the spirit — of Article 10.7 of Chapter 3 of the Planning and
Zoning Law, which requires provision for the replacement of demolished affordable units
within the Coastal Lone, the Project applicant evicted the previous low and moderate income
residents of the apartment complex more than a year ago.' A valid Housing Element might
address such a transparent attempt to circumvent Article 10.7.
Z Nevertheless, the March 2009 Draft EIR repeatedly states that at least three of the
units on the site are occupied; however, it appears no effort has been made by the City to determine
the whether any of those occupants are persons and families of low or moderate income.
Ilonorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council
AERIE. Condominiums project and EIR
July 14, 2009
Page 5
Second, in July, 2007, the Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG ")
released its Final Regional /lousing Need Allocation Plan for the planning period January
1, 2006 through June 30, 2014. (See Tab 8.) The Plan allocates to the City the "RHNA"
requirement that its overdue Housing Element provide for the development of 1,784 units of
residential housing during the Fourth Planning Period. (Id.) Of those units, 392 must be
available to very low income households, 322 must be available to low income households,
362 must be available to moderate income households, and 708 must be available to above
moderate income households.' (ld.) Thus, the City currently finds itself without a valid
Ilousing Element that provides for the development 1,076 very low, low, and moderate
income units under its current RHNA allocation, plus the need to make up an additional 145
such units under its former RIINA allocation. Needless to say, the substitution of 15
affordable units with eight units that must each sell for an average minimum price of twelve
million dollars in order for the Project must to pencil is going in a direction that is counter to
what State law requires.
C. The City Council Cannot Make the Requisite Findings
that the Project Complies with the City's General Plan
Both the Planning and Zoning Law and Subdivision Map Act make it clear that the City's
approval of the Project requires as a prerequisite that the City have a valid General Plan. If
land use approvals conflict with either a city's general plan or zoning code the approvals are
ultra vires and must be set aside. This is because California land use regulations form a
pyramid, and "[t]he General Plan is atop the hierarchy of local government law regulating
land use. It has been aptly analogized to 'a constitution for all future development'...
Subordinate to the general plan are zoning laws, which regulate the geographic allocation and
allowed uses of land. "Zoning must conform to the adopted general plan." Neighborhood
Action Group v. County of Calaveras (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1 176, 1183.
"Since consistency with the general plan is required, absence of valid general
plan, or valid relevant elements of components thereof, precludes enactment
of zoning ordinances, and the like.'... (Thus) the scope of authority of the
agency to enact a general plan and zoning ordinances and to apply them is
governed by the requirements of state law. A permit action taken without
' To make matters worse, the City's 2005 -2006 annual progress report on Housing
Element Implementation admitted that, of the 86 very low income units the City was required to
develop under the prior (1998 -2008) RHNA periods, it only produced 24 and still needs to produce
another 62 such units. Similarly, of the 83 moderate income units the City was required to develop
under the prior period, it failed to produce any such units.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council
AERIE Condominiums project and EIR
July 14, 2009
Page 6
compliance with the hierarchy of land use laws is ultra vires as to any defect
implicated by the use sought by the permit."
Id., at 1184 (italics in original; emphasis added). An ultra vires act is "beyond the scope of
power allowed or granted ... by law," [Black's Law Dictionary 1525 (7th Ed. 1999)] and is
void ab initio. (See Hansen v. California Bank (1936) 17 Cal.App.2d 80, 100.) Thus, where
subordinate project approvals conflict with the superior general plan or zoning ordinance,
such approvals are void on their face. Stated slightly differently, independent of the
adequacy of the EIR, project approvals granted in violation of the general plan or zoning
ordinance are invalid.'
As shown above, the City lacks a Housing Element that is in compliance with State law.
Because this key element of the City's current General Plan does not comply with State law,
and there is a direct nexus between the Ilousing Element and the Project, the City cannot
snake the statutory findings required by Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act that the
tentative tract map for the Project is consistent with the General Plan. A land use approval
cannot be consistent with a general plan that does not conform to State law.
11. THE EIR FOR THE PROJECT IS FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED
Environmental protection is the guiding concept of CEQA. "The foremost principle under
CEQA is that the Legislature intended that it 'be interpreted in such manner as to afford the
fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory
language. "' (Laurel Heights Improvement A.s.s'n of San Francisco v. Regents of the
University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 390.)
The EIR has been aptly described as "the 'heart' of CEQA." (CEQA Guidelines § 15003(a)
quoting County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810.) Again quoting Laurel
Heights (at p. 392):
While a city's interpretation of its own general plan and zoning ordinance is entitled
to deference (Anderson First Coalition v. City ofAnderson (2005) 130 Cal.AppAth 1173, 1192, such
interpretation is not to be treated as irrefutable. (Balsa Chica Land Trust v. Superior Court (1997)
71 Cal. App. 4th 493, 504 [ "[b]ecause an interpretation is an agency's legal opinion, however
'expert', rather than the exercise of a delegated legislative power to make law, it commands a
commeasurably lesser degree of judicial deference.'].) Therefore, although a court may consider
a city's interpretation, it is not bound by it. (Stolman v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 114 Cal.AppAth
916, 928.)
I Ionorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council
AERIE Condominiums project and EIR
July 14, 2009
Page 7
"The Legislature has made clear that an GIR is 'an informational document'
and that'[t)he purpose of an environmental impact report is to provide public
agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect
which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment ....'
"An EIR is an 'environmental "alarm bell" whose purpose is to alert the public
and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have
reached ecological points of no return.' [Citations.] The EIR is also intended
'to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact,
analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.' [Citations.]
Because the EIR must be certified or rejected by public officials, it is a
document of accountability. If CEQA is scrupulously followed, the public will
know the basis on which its responsible officials either approve or reject
environmentally significant action, and the public, being duly informed, can
respond accordingly to action with which it disagrees. [Citations.] The EIR
process protects not only the environment but also informed self- government."
While many of the EIR's faults have already been brought to the City's attention by others,
we will focus here on just three of its most egregious shortcomings. Because of these
shortcomings (and others), neither the public nor you as the City's elected decision- makers
can make an informed decision about the Project.
A. The EIR Preaarer Lobbies for the Project Instead of Honestiv Assessing It
"The determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment
calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent
possible on scientific and factual data." (CEQA Guidelines § 15064(b); emphasis added.)
Of all the EIR's failings, one failing permeates the document and stands out above all others:
the consultant who prepared it simply forgot his role. Rather than be the objective analyst
of the Project's impacts, he chose instead to become the Project's apologist.
His walk -on role as a salesman for the Project is perhaps nowhere more salient than in the
public relations -style "spin" he puts on the Project's most obvious consequence — the
removal of a fragile and protected Coastal bluff. The Project requires the removal of all but
a thin facade of the eroding bluff. The consultant artfully terms this thin veneer a trapezoidal
"pillar," which he assures us will last for the 75 -year useful life of the eight condominium
units. Then, using reasoning that would make a public relations hack blush, he has the EIR
conclude that the Project will not adversely impact the Coastal bluff it replaces.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council
AERIE. Condominiums project and EIR
July 14, 2009
Page 8
This is more than disingenuous; it is insulting to the public and you the decision- makers, and
it contrary to common sense. For example, we are all familiar with the Citadel Outlet Mall
adjacent to the Interstate 5 Freeway in the City of Commerce. The Citadel was built in the
early 1990s on the site where a Samson Tire & Rubber Company factory (later operated by
Uniroyal) once stood. The factory was torn down; however its 22 -foot high wall, a cultural
landmark that runs a third of mile along the freeway and features bas - relief griffins, winged
genies and warriors in chariots in a design inspired by ancient Assyria, was preserved as a
facade for the shopping center. Would anyone seriously contend that the tire factory itself
still exists because its outer wall remains?
Similarly, when Chapman University built its new law school it tore down the old Orange
Unified School District headquarters building but preserved the building's facade and built
the law school behind it. No one today would argue that the old Orange Unified School
District headquarters building itself still exists even if they were looking at its old facade.
Yet this is exactly the reasoning the EIR consultant resorts to with regard to the site's Coastal
bluff: that the bluffitselfwill still exist after it is excavated and carted off to a Brea landfill
because a thin veneer of it will remain visible.
Tortured rationalizations such as this have no place in an EIR. Claiming that the Project will
not cause the loss of a protected Coastal bluff is simply putting a fig leaf on the Project's true
impacts. It is like claiming that the Matterhorn at Disneyland is a genuine actual mountain.
It is reasonable for the public to expect to hear such spin from the Project's proponents. It
is neither reasonable nor acceptable under CEQA for an EIR to spin facts this way.
B. The EIR Understates the Project's Significant Greenhouse Gas Impacts
CEQA is designed to ensure that environmental problems resulting from the combined
effects of many small impacts are not overlooked because any one project's contribution can
be characterized by a project proponent or lead agency as small or insignificant. Importantly,
the requirement to analyze cumulative impacts cannot be avoided by contending a project
would only make a de minimis contribution to the problem as a whole. As the court noted
in Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103
Cal.AppAth 98, 117, this interpretation of the cumulative impacts analysis requirement
would "contravene the very conceptof cumulative impacts" and "turn the cumulative impact
analysis on its head by diminishing the need to do a cumulative impact analysis as the
cumulative impact problem worsens." (See id. at 120 [ "In the end, the greater the existing
environmental problems are, the lower the threshold should be for treating a project's
contribution to cumulative impacts as significant. ").)
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council
AERIE Condominiums projecl and EIR
July 14, 2009
Page 9
Global warming is a paradigntaticexample ofacumulative effects problem; where emissions
from numerous, small sources combine to create one of the most pressing environmental and
societal problems of our day. (Tab 9.) Like its numerous sources, the solution lies not in any
one single action, but rather with all agencies ensuring that the projects they approve address
their contributions to climate change by adopting avoidance or mitigation measures. (Id.)
On September 27, 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill 32, styled the
California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, into law ( "AB 32 "). (Health & Safety
Code § 38500 et seq.) AB 32 requires reduction of State greenhouse gas ( "GHG ") emissions
to 1990 levels by 2020. (Health & Safety Code § 38550.)
On August 24, 2007, the Governor approved Senate Bill 97, which amended CEQA to
clearly establish that GIIG emissions are appropriate subjects for CEQA analysis. SB 97
directed the Governor's Office of Planning and Research ( "OPR ") to develop draft CEQA
Guidelines "for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas
emissions" by July I, 2009, and directs the Resources Agency to certify and adopt them by
January I, 2010.
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines provide that in any of the following circumstances, a
finding must be made that the project may have a significant effect on the environment:
"A lead agency shall find that project may have a significant effect on the
environment and thereby require an EIR to be prepared for the project where
there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that any of the
following conditions may occur:... (3) the project has possible environmental
effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable.
"Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an
individual project arc significant when viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects."
(Public Resources Code § 21083(b); CEQA Guidelines § 15065(a)(3).)
California courts have confirmed the importance of addressing cumulative impacts in the
context of air quality assessment.
"One of the most important environmental lessons evident from past
experience is that environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a
variety of small sources. These sources appear insignificant, assuming
Honorable Mayor and Members o f t he City of Newport Beach City Council
AERIE Condominiums project and EIR
July 14, 2009
Page 10
threatening dimensions only when considered in light of the other sources with
which they interact. Perhaps the best example is air pollution, where
thousands of relatively small sources of pollution cause a serious
environmental health problem. CEQA has responded to this problem of
incremental environmental degradation by requiring analysis of cumulative
impacts."
(Kings County harm Bureau v. County o/Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 720.)'
While comprehensive regulations to implement AB 32 will not be in place until 2012, the
CEQA Guidelines developed pursuant to SB 97 are now available, and the many projects
proposed within the City will contribute cumulatively to the GHG load in the environment.
Once approved, those projects will continue to cause environmental degradation well beyond
2012. Accordingly, the City has a current obligation under CEQA to analyze potential global
warming impacts of the Project on a cumulative basis and evaluate alternatives and
mitigation measures that would avoid, rectify, or reduce any unavoidable adverse global
warming impacts caused by cumulative projects.
The EIR is inadequate because it fails to adequately analyze the Project's GHG emissions.
Buried in Appendix D of the EIR's appendix is the disclosure that the Project will result in
construction - related GHG emissions associated with the removal of the Coastal Bluff and the
more than two thousand heavy diesel' truck trips traveling 60 miles to deposit the Coastal
Bluff in a Brea landfill. Any increase in emissions will burden State mandates to meet the
greenhouse gas reduction requirements of Assembly Bi1132, and 2,168 metric tons of CO,
for a single residential development project will do nothing but exacerbate the City's
already difficult obligation to reduce carbon emissions on a City -wide, programmatic, and
collective manner. Simply put, the environmental analysis of the Project must address,
disclose, and mitigate those air quality impacts caused by GHG emissions. The EIR must
also address GHG emissions in a cumulative basis. Feasible mitigation measures for GIIG
presently exist, and injust the past 18 months the California Attorney General, the California
' (See also Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) 127 S. Ct. 1438, 1455 -1457 [U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency arguments for not regulating carbon dioxide from vehicles under
the Clean Air Act "rests on the erroneous assumption that a small incremental step, because it is
incremental, can never be attacked in a federal judicial forum. Yet accepting that premise would
doom most challenges to regulatory action. Agencies, like legislatures, do not generally resolve
massive problems in one fell regulatory swoop. "].)
These diesel truck emissions were also given short shrift in the EIR. (See Tab 10.)
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council
AERIE Condominiums project and EIR
July 14, 2009
Page I1
Air Pollution Control Officers Association ( "CAPCOA "), and OPR have released extensive
materials to guide lead agencies in imposing credible, feasible and enforceable mitigation
measures to reduce project greenhouse gas emissions and cumulative impacts on global
climate change. (See (See Tab 1 I, Tab 12 & Tab 13, respectively.)
While the Project is held out as utilizing "green" construction techniques (begging the
question of what modern construction doesn't utilize "green" construction techniques), there
is nothing "green" about generating 2,168 metric tons of GHG emissions during the
construction of the Project— especially when the 2,168 metric ton factor (buried in Appendix
D to the EIR), is grossly understated.
The EIR consultant skirted the cumulative GHG issue by declining to identify a "threshold
of significance" for determining the significance of the Project's GHG emissions. However,
"in preparing an EIR, the agency must consider and resolve every fair argument that can be
made about the possible significant environmental effects of a project, irrespective of
whether an established threshold of significance has been met with respect to any given
effect." (Protect the Historic Amador Waterways (2004) 116 Cal.AppAth 1099, 1109.) As
the court in Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.AppAth 322, 342, cautioned, "[a]
threshold of significance is not conclusive, however, and does not relieve a public agency of
the duty to consider the evidence under the fair argument standard."
For example, in 2007 the City of Rancho Cordova developed a threshold of two tons of CO2
per person, which was estimated based on vehicle emission reductions needed to meet
AB 32's 1990 levels. Tab 14.) Utilizing the Rancho Cordova threshold and assuming that
each of the Project's eight condominium units will be occupied by five persons, the Project's
construction - related GIIG impacts alone will max out the 40 occupants' GHG emissions
threshold for the next 54 years. So much for the Project being a "green" project!
As another comparison, a 2008 EIR for a shopping center in the City of Calexico disclosed
that "CO, emissions from project operations would be 243,449 Ibs /year." (Tab 15.) While
conceding that "there are no thresholds to compare GHG emissions to determine if the
impact is significant," this EIR nevertheless concluded that "the impact is conservatively
assumed to be significant and unavoidable." 243,449 Ibs of CO2 emissions equates to 110
metric tons. The Project's construction - related CO2 emissions are almost twenty times more
than this. Yet the EIR consultant blithely overlooks the magnitude of this impact with no
consideration of mitigation measures or alternatives that would reduce these emissions.
The EIR consultant's refusal to honestly analyze those emissions flies in the face of CEQA.
The Legislature has declared a policy that feasible mitigation measures must be adopted
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council
AERIE Condominiums project and F.IR
July 14, 2009
Page 12
whenever they would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the project.
(Public Resources Code § 21002.) Under CEQA, the requirement that mitigation measures
be adopted depends upon the economic and technical feasibility and practicality of the
measures, and whether they will substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of
the project. (Public Resources Code § 21002 & § 21081(a)(3); A Local & Regional Monitor
v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 12 Ca1.App.4th 1773, 1790.) "rhe requirement is not abated
simply because the measures will not lessen the effects to below a level of significance.
C. The FIR Plays Fast and Loose with Its Analysis of Alternative to the Project
CEQA includes a "substantive mandate" to protect the environment, prohibiting public
agencies from approving projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible
mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen or avoid the project's
significant environment effects. (Public Resources Code § 21002; CEQA Guidelines
§ 1502 ] (a).) For this reason, an EIR must identify (among other things) alternatives to the
project. (Public Resources Code § 21002.1(a).)
Notably, alternatives need not meet all project alternatives to be considered feasible. (Mira
Mar Mobile Community v. City ofOceanside (2004) 119 Cal.AppAth 477; CEQA Guidelines
§ 15126.6(b).) Furthermore, the objectives for a project cannot be so narrowly defined so
that they essentially preordain the selection of the agency's proposed alternative.
Case law under CEQA's federal equivalent, the National Environmental Policy Act
( "NEPA ": 42 U.S.C. § 4331 et seq.) can be helpful in interpreting CEQA' Thus, the
opinion of the Federal court in Simmons v. U.S. Army Corps of F.ng'rs (7th Cir. 1997)
120 F.3d 664, 669, is relevant to the Project:
"The 'purpose' of a project is a slippery concept, susceptible of no hard -and-
fast definitions. One obvious way for an agency to slip past the strictures of
NEPA is to contrive a purpose so slender as to define competing 'reasonable
alternatives' out of consideration (and even out of existence). The federal
courts cannot condone an agency's frustration of Congressional will."
' Early CEQA cases relied heavily on NEPA case law. (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los
Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 80; Friends of Mammoth v. Board ofSupervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247,
261.) "NEPA cases continue to play an important role in adjudication of CEQA cases, especially
when a concept developed in NEPA decisions has not yet been applied to CEQA cases." (Del Mar
Terrace Conservancy, Inc. v. City Council (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 712, 732.)
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council
Ab*R1E Condominiums project and EIR
July 14, 2009
Page 13
Earlier, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeal similarly said:
"An agency may not define the objectives of its action in terms so unreasonably
narrow that only one alternative from among the environmentally benign ones
in the agency's power would accomplish the goals of the agency's action."
(Citizens Against Burlington v. Busy (D.C. Cir. 1991) 938 F.2d 190, 196.) Thus, rejection
of less intense development alternatives based upon artificial project objectives is improper.
Yet this is precisely what the Project EIR did. In Section 10. 1.2 ["Criteria for Selecting
Alternatives "], the EIR set forth eight "project objectives" that are so narrow and artificial
that nothing but the Project can satisfy them. For example, objective d4 is for the Project to
provide such amenities as "a dock for each resident, ample storage space, can common
recreational and health facilities, such as a swimming pool and fitness center." This is utterly
artificial, and the alternatives to the Project can likely achieve most, if not all, of them.
Similarly, objective t#5 calls for "the use of new technology" to increase parking and limit
Project ingress and egress through the use of subterranean parking garage. As noted above,
this can only be accomplished by removing the Coastal bluff itself. Thus, any alternative that
actually preserver the Coastal bluff will not satisfy this "project objective."
The EIR's lower- intensity residential development alternatives are clearly environmentally
superior from the standpoint of reducing Coastal bluff destruction and construction- related
GHG emissions. Yet the FIR dismisses those alternative because they do not include the
Project's artificial "state -of- the -art" energy features, enhancements to a catch basin, and
removal of two power poles. When one commentor on the FIR questioned this, the EIR
consultant responded by playing lawyer and claiming that, "These benefits cannot be
required by the City. As a result, the inclusion or exclusion of these benefits in a particular
alternative is a function only of the applicant's willingness to provide those benefits."
Who is the FIR consultant trying to kid? All that is required is that there be a nexus between
a mitigation measure and a legitimate governmental interest, and the measure must be
roughly proportional to the impacts of the proposed project. (CEQA Guidelines,
§ 15126.4(a)(4); see Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374; Nollan v. California
Coastal Commission (1987) 483 U.S. 825.) Given the GIIG emissions that will redound
from any demolition and development on the Project site, there is an obvious nexus between
mitigating those impacts and requiring any development on the site to incorporate "state -of-
the -art" energy features. Moreover, by the time construction actually commences on the site,
such features are likely to be mandatory for all construction.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council
AERIE Condominiums project and /:IR
July 14, 2009
Page 14
As for removing the two poles and undergrounding utilities, a reality check is in order. Any
developer developing homes at this location is simply not going to risk losing qualified
buyers seeking homes at this lofty price point by leaving those utilities above ground.
Instead, the developer is more likely to actually insist that he be allowed to underground
those utility lines to make his homes more marketable.
Even in the case of enhancements to the catch basin there may be a nexus between the
development of the site on impervious services and the need to expand the basin.
Regardless, in discussing alternatives, CEQA dictates that the -EIR shall include sufficient
information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison
with the proposed project." (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(d).) A project should not be
approved if environmentally superior alternatives exist "even if these alternatives would
impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly."
(Public Resources Code § 21002; CEQA Guidelines § 15021(a)(2), 15 126.6.) The project
must be rejected if an alternative available for consideration would accomplish "most [not
all) of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more
of the significant effects." (Id., at § 15126.6(c).)
Ironically, perhaps the best evidence supporting rejection of the Project by the City Council
comes from the EIR's own alternatives analysis. Feasible alternatives are shown to exist that
will reduce construction - related GIIG emissions, preserve the Coastal bluff (and not just a
veneer of it), and achieve all but the most narrow and artificial "objectives" of the Project.
Thus, the City simply has no basis for rejectingone of these environmentally superior, lower -
intensity alternatives to the Project.
111. CONCLUSION
In summary, the Project cannot be approved until the City adopts a fourth revision Housing
Element that complies with State law, and the F,IR for the Project also fails to adequately
disclose, analyze, and mitigated the true environmental impacts of the proposed Project. We
therefore urge the City Council not to approve the Project without first adopting a valid
Housing Element and revising and recirculating the E1R for public review.
Respectfully submitted,
LEIBOLD MCCLENDON & MANN, P.C.
By: John G. McClendon
MILES • CHEN LAW GROUP C3IGINAI
9911 Irvine Center Drive, Suite ISO • Irvine, CA 92618 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Phone: 949.788.1425 • Fax (949) 788 -1991 - , .: - . . [
July 14. 2009
VIA HAND DF.LIVF.RYAA'D F:yA1L (icamnbell <a:cih,.newuorl- beach.ca.us)
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Newport Beach City Council
c'o James Campbell. Principal Planner
Newport Beach Planning Department
City of Newport Beach
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Re: Aerie Condominiums Project Advanced Real Estate Sen ices. Inc.
201 -207 Carnation Avenue. 101 Bayside Placc IPA 2005 -196]
July 14, 2009. City Council I fearing
Honorable Members of the Newlwl1 Beach City Council:
]'his firm represents Residents for Responsible Development ("RFRD ") in cont Lill ctIon
with the City's review of the proposed Aerie Condominium Project located at 201 -207
Carnation Avenue (the '-Aerie Project "). In addition to the extensive amount of
testimony provided by members of RFRD and various members of the pubic, we are
submitting this supplemental commentary to fiocus on a recent procedural concern that
RFRD has with the timing of certain public meetings held for the Aerie Project and the
adequacy of the public notice provided in conjunction with these meetings. RFRD
believes that the timine of this public hearing violates the appeal provisions of the
Newpom Beach Municipal Code and the government -to- government consultation
mandates of Senate Bill 18.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide the following written commentary. This
commentary is being submitted concurrently with commentary submitted by Mr. John G.
McClendon. Esq., of Lcibold, McClendon & Mann — also on behalf of RFRD. Mr.
McClendon's commentary focuses on the California Planning & 7oning law violations
that will accrue if the .Aerie Project is approyCd as presented to this City Council and
Provides supplemental environmental crnnnlcntary on three main issues under the
California Environmental Quality Act (" C'IiQA ") concerning the shortcomings of the
eniironmental impact report prepared for the Aerie Project (the "EIR"').
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Newport Beach City Council
July 14, 2009
Page 2 of* 5
THE AERIE PRO.IECT WAS iNADEQUATELY NOTICED AND
THIS HEARING IS PROCFDURAI,LV FLAWED
As stated in written con espondence to Mr. Campbell on July 9. 2009, and July 13, 2009,
on behalf of RFRD, we respectfully request a continuance of today's noticed public
hearing for the Aerie Project.
The Public Notice for the July S. 2009, Harbor Commission meeting expressly states that:
-[T]he project applicant is appealing the project for the entire Harbor Commission to
reconsider." Additionally. Response to Comments S -S for the Aerie Project EIR,
confirms the right to appeal the Harbor Commission action. In contrast to the notification
provided by the City, the Citv Attorney's Office is taking a position contrary to the
express language of the Notice of Public Meeting and the EIR declaring that the July S
Harbor Commission meeting was not an appeal, was not an appeal for reconsideration.
and that no rights of appeal exist under the Harbor Code. Obviously, RFKD's initial
concern is that the Notice of Public Meeting is thereidre clearly defective and warrants
re- noticing of the Harbor Commission proceeding. Likewise. the Response to Comments
should be revised.
RFRD's second concern is that the July S Harbor Commission appeal for reconsideration
occurred six days before today's City Council hearing on the Aerie Project. By the tenor,
of the Public Notice and iiIR, a right of appeal is present and the City Council review of
the Aerie Project matter is within the appeal window for the I larbor Commission action.
Notably, NBMC Section 17.65.020 (Ilarbor Code) provides that: "Appeals shall be
initiated within fourteen (14) days of the decision." In simple terms. City Council
hearings should not occur within fourteen (14) days of Harbor Commission proceedings.
Accordingly, this City Council hearing is premature as it effectively undercuts the right to
appeal under the I larbor Code.
Based on this recent display of a "rush to judgment:' RFRD requests that, at a minimum,
the City Council continue this matter to a future date certain.
IL THIS PROCEEDING VIOLATES CEQA AND SENATE BILL 18
The California Environmental Ouality Act
In the alternative. if the City Council intends to review this matter, we note that the entire
EIR process was simply an effort to justify a foregone conclusion reached well betbre the
Aerie Project was originally processed under a mitigated negative declaration in 2005.
The California Environmental Quality Act does not codify requirements for categorical
exemptions. mitigated negative declarations and environmental impact reports to enable a
I lonorable Mayor and -Members of the Newport Beach City Council
July 14, 2009
Pate 3 of 5
project applicant and lead agency to choose a short cut and then abandon that short cut
only if the public takes issue with the lead agency's sophomoric approach to CEQA
compliance. CEQA also does not permit post hoc rationalization and an alternatives
analysis that is merely a pretext for a project that is already committed to with disregard
for potential environmental impacts.
Instead, CEQA codifies a dual tenet of full public disclosure and informed
decisionmaking. A critical vehicle to achieve this dual tenet of CEQA is the alternatives
analysis of the EIR. (CEQA Guidelines Scction 15126.6(o.) CEQA mandates that the
lead agency analyze "a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives," including
the review of alternative project sites. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a).) A
feasible alternative is not required to meet all project objectives to be considered. (Mira
Mar Mobile Cummunitr r. Citr u% Oceanside (2004) 119 Cal.AppAth 477; CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.6(b).) What this means is that coming off the heels of a
mitigated negative declaration eflbrt that failed to address alternatives whatsoever, the
City cannot now simply give lip service to reduced project size alternatives to the Aerie
Proicct. Reduced project size alternatives will avoid, minimize, and mitigate significant,
unmitigated environmental impacts caused by the proposed Aerie Project, including
greenhouse gas emissions and noise impacts.
Senate Bill 18
Prior to the adoption of any amendment of a general plan. a lead agency must notify the
appropriate tribes (set forth on a list maintained by the Native American heritage
Commission) of the opportunity to conduct consultations for the purpose of preserving.
or mitigating impacts to, cultural places located on land within the lead agency's
jurisdiction that is affected by the proposed project. (See. Government Code Section
65352.3.) As confirmed by the Juancno Band of Mission Indians, Acjachcmen Nation
(the "appropriate tribe" for purposes of Senate Bill 18), the Cite did not provide the
Juancno people a reasonable opportunity to engage in early government -to- government
consultation as intended by Senate Bill IR. (Id. [tribes have 90 days tiom proper
notification to request consultation].) As such. the City has not consulted with the
appropriate tribe concerning the Monterrey formation as it cultural place and the EIR fails
to address the potential cultural significance of the Monterrey formation and coastal
bluff —not simply a veneer or fa4ade of a coastal Muff but the actual coastal bluff in its
entirety —and its relation to the coastline.
Tribal interests should have been informed of their opportunity to consult with the City
when the Aerie Project was finally defined and at the time when the City was preparing
the draft EIR. The City failed to provide that requisite notice and should do so now to
fulfill the purposes of Senate Rill 1R.
Ilonorable Mayor and Members of the Newport Beach City Council
July 14, 2009
Page 4 of 5
Further, Senate Bill 18 provides that, prior to the adoption of a general plan amendment.
the lead agency must refer the proposed action to the appropriate tribe that has traditional
lands located within the city's jurisdiction. The referral must allow a 45 -day comment
period and notice must be sent regardless of whether prior consultation was properly
noticed or took place. (Government Code Section 65352.) The City failed to provide the
.luaneno with the notice required by Government Code Section 65352.
The luaneno Band of Mission Indians is regularly involved in the projects within the City
of Newport Beach and, in accordance with Government Code Section 65092. the City
Should have sent notice of today's public hearing to the tribe at least 10 days prior to this
hearing. A continuance of this proceeding will enable the City to rectify these statutory
violations.
Ill. CONCLUSION
As noted above. in accordance with the Public Notice of the July 8, 2009, harbor
Commission meeting, NBMC Section 17.65.020, and EIR Response to Comments 8 -8,
rights of appeal arc currently pending that preclude this City Council from taking action
on the eerie Project. Additionally. the FIR for the Aerie Project is fatally flawed and
little more than a lobbying effort for the project that was originally introduced in 2005
with a disingenuous negative declaration. Finally, the City has not complied with the
provisions of Senate Bill 18 and should consider postponing these proceedings so that
tribal interest may be properly consulted.
The purpose behind Senate Bill 18 is to provide Calitomia Native American tribes an
opportunity to participate in local land use decisions and in early planning stages to allow
consideration of cultural places in the context of broad local land use policy. This has
dramatic application to the Aerie Project -- a residential development project that is
forging new land use policy by proposing to remove 60 percent of a significant coastal
bluff resource and to then generate 2,169 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions during
the construction phase alone to dispose of the Monterrey formation. Senate Bill l8
provides the Juaneno with an opportunity to consult with the City and for the City to
consider their interests in cultural places and how those interests may be affected by a
land use policy that ignores coastal resources and attempts to make a mockery of the
definition of a signiificant coastal bluff under the City's General Plan.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Newport Beach City Council
July 14. 2009
Nags: 5 of 5
On behalf of URD, we thank you fix the limited opportunity to provide you with this
written commentary. We respectfully request that the City Council continue the matter to
a date certain, or, alternatively, deny certification of the EIR and deny the Aerie Project
for failure to comply with CE.QA. Califb nia Planning & Zoning Law, and Senate Bill 18.
Very truly yours,
MILES CHLN [,,\w GROUP. P.C.
By:
Stephen M. Miles
cc: Lisa and Joe Vallejo, Residents for ResponsibIc Development
Chief and Chairman David Belardes and Ms. Joyce Perry
Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation
John C. McClendon, Esq., Leibold, McClendon & Mann
Marco Gonzales, Esq.. Coast Law Group
ORIGINAL
LEIBOLD MCCLENDON & MANN
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
23422 MILL CREEK DRIVE, SUITE 105
LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653
(949) 457 -6300
FAX: (949) 457 -6305
JOAN G. McCLENDON
johw_FkTQ.n cam
July 14, 2009
HAND DELIVERED AND EMAIL [ Ibrown (& ,-cin!.nexnort- beach.ca.usl
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH — CITY HALL
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92658
Re: AERIE Condominiums project /applicant: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc.]
201 & 207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place [Project File No. PA2005 -196]
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:
Leibold McClendon & Mann respectfully submits this letter on behalf of RESIDENTS FOR
RESPONSIBLE: DE.vFLOPMEN r and other Newport Beach and Orange County residents. They
have asked us to assist you in your assessment of the above- referenced Aerie Condominiums
project (the "Project ") by explaining some of the reasons why the Project, as currently
proposed, merits your denial.
On their behalf, we would urge that you neither approve the Project nor adopt the Final
Environmental Impact Report prepared for it unless and until: (1) the City brings its Housing
Element into compliance with the California Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code
sections 65000 et seq.), and (2) the City prepares and certifies an EIR for the Project that
adequately analyzes the environmental impacts of the Project and properly fulfills its role as
a public disclosure document in accordance with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code sections 21000, et seq:
"CEQA ") and the State Guidelines for Implementation ofCEQA (Title 14, California Code
of Regulations, sections 15000, et seq.: "CEQA Guidelines').
I request that this letter and its attachments be included in the record of the City's
proceedings for the Project.
I. LACK OF A HOUSING ELEMENT PRECLUDES PROJECT APPROVAL
The Legislature has found "that decisions involving the future growth of the state, most of
which are made and will continue to be made at the local level, should be guided by an
effective planning process, including the local general plan." (Government Code § 65030.1;
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council
AERIF. Condominiums project and EIR
July 14, 2009
Page 2
emphasis added.) In the context of the Planning and Zoning Law, the Legislature requires
each city in the State to adopt a comprehensive, long -term general plan for the physical
development, configuration, and character of the city and requires that all future land use
decisions be consistent with the general plan. (Government Code §§ 65300 et seq.; Elysian
Heights Residents Assn., Inc. v. City, of Los Angeles (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 21, 27.)
A general plan is required to contain seven mandatory elements: (a) a land use element; (b) a
circulation element; (c) a housing element; (d) a conservation element; (e) an open -space
element; (f) a noise element; and (g) a safety element. (Government Code § 65302.) If one
of the seven mandatory elements is missing, or if a relevant element is inadequate, then a city
cannot take any action under the Planning and Zoning law or the Subdivision Map Act
(Government Code §§ 66410 et seq.) that is required to be consistent with the general plan.
Since "[tlhe general plan 'is, in short, a constitution for all further development within the
city.' [Citations.]" (Friends of "B" Street v. Citi, of Ilavwvard (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988,
9970, this prerequisite of an adequate general plan has been repeatedly affirmed by the
courts.'
A. The City's General Plan Housing Element is Not
in Compliance with State Housing Element Law
Unlike the other six mandatory General Plan elements, a housing element must be reviewed
"as frequently as appropriate" and revised "not less than every five years, to reflect the
results of this periodic review." (Government Code § 65588(a) & (b).) State law mandated
that the City prepare and adopt a final, valid "fourth revision" Housing Element to its
(Same El Torn Assn v. Days (1977) 74 Cal. App. 3d 64, 74 (1977) [city could not
approve any subdivisions because it had not adopted a valid open space clement to its general plan];
Friends (?f "'B " St. v. 04, of Havward, supra, 106 Cal. App. 3d at 999 [city could not proceed with
a public works project because it was missing its noise element; therefore the project could not
conform to an officially adopted general plan]; Camp v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 123 Cal. App.
3d 334, 349 [county could not approve subdivisions because some of its general plan elements were
inadequate under state law]; Resource Defense Fund v. Counn gfSanta Cruz (1982) 133 Cal. App.
3d 800, 806 [ "Since consistency with the general plan is required, absence of a valid general plan,
or valid relevant elements or components thereof, precludes any enactment ofroning ordinances and
the like. "], Neighborhood Action Group v. City oj'C.alavera.s (1984) 156 Cal. App. 3d 1176, 1188
issuance of a conditional use permit was beyond the county's authority if the noise element of the
county's general plan does not conform to the statutory criteria]; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City
of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal. App. 3d 692, 745 [court invalidated a building permit for proposed
cogeneration plant based on general plan inadequacy].)
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council
AERIE Condominiums project and EIR
July 14, 2009
Page 3
General Plan by July I, 2008. (See Tab 1, July 6, 2005, letter to SCAG Executive Director
Pisano affirming AB 2158's extension of Government Code § 65588(e)(1) deadline by two
years to July 1, 2008.) However, the most recent Housing Element Compliance Report
issued last week by the California Department of Housing and Community Development
( "HCD ") show that, not only has the City failed to adopt a valid "fourth revision" Housing
Element, but HCD determined that the City's draft Housing Element was "OUT" of
compliance with State housing element law. (See Tab 2, Housing Element Compliance
Report dated July 7, 2009.) Lest one assume the City has received an extension of time
to prepare and submit its "fourth revision" Housing Element, this is not the case since
such extensions are expressly prohibited by law. (Government Code § 65361(b).)
Notably, this is not a predicament the City suddenly finds itself in; it has been this way for
years. In fact; on numerous occasions HCD has informed the City of deficiencies in its
Housing Element and has given the City many opportunities to cure those deficiencies. For
example, on February 25, 2005, Cathy Creswell, Deputy Director of HCD, reported to the
City's planning director that the City's 2003 adopted Housing Element was in conditional
compliance with State housing element law "contingent on the City effectively implementing
its multifamily development and rezone strategies." (See Tab 3.)
On June 20, 2005, Creswell, commenting on the City's amended Housing Element, reminded
City Manager Bludau that HCD's prior approval of the Housing Element was "conditioned
on the City ensuring the supply of appropriately zoned sites is adequate to accommodate its
regional housing need for lower- income households." (See Tab 4.) Moreover, "if the City's
October 2005 annual report ... reveals the Avocado /MacArthur site is not available for
multifamily development and an alternative site has not been identified, the [Housing
E]lement will no longer comply with the 'adequate sites statutory requirement .... "' (Id.)
In July 2006, the City revised its Housing Element in an effort to comply with State housing
element law. Unfortunately, HCD again determined that the City's revisions to its Housing
Element were insufficient. (See Tab 5.) After reviewing the revisions, HCD's Creswell,
noting that HCD's earlier finding of compliance "was contingent on the City's commitment
to rezone the Avocado /MacArthur site and continuing to encourage and facilitate
development on the Banning Ranch site," found that the "revised element no longer proposes
to rezone the MacArthur site as a means to address the adequate sites statutory requirement."
(Id.) In addition, the revised element prioritized "the retention of Banning Ranch as open
space." (1d.) According to HCD, this was an "especially critical point as the previously
adopted element relied on Banning Ranch to accommodate406 multifamily units without the
need for a zone change or general plan amendment." (Id.) Thus. Creswell concluded that
the City's revised Housing Element "does not contain the necessary information and analysis
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council
AERIE Condominiums project and EIR
July 14, 2009
Page 4
to determine which specific sites are suitable and available to accommodate the City's
remaining housing need within the current planning period." (1d.) However, HCD did
provide the City with a list of information that, if included in a revised Housing Element,
could bring it into compliance. (Id.)
The City again revised its Housing Element in 2007, and, on September 10, 2007, Creswell
again informed the City that the revised Housing Element was inadequate. (See Tab 6.) This
time Creswell told the City that, in order for its Housing Element to comply with State
Housing Element Law it "must demonstrate the strategies [proffered by the City] are realistic
and viable such that they can accommodate Newport Beach's remaining share of the regional
housing need, particularly for lower - income households." (1d.)
Most recently, on October 24. 2008, 11CD reported on its review of the City's tardy draft
"fourth revision" Housing Element. (See Tab 6.) Director Creswell informed the City's
planning director that the draft document still failed to analyze "the adequacy of identified
sites to accommodate the regional housing need for lower- income households," and noted
that "many of the findings described in HCD's September 17, 2007 review were still
necessary to comply with State housing element law." (Id.)
B. A Nexus Exists Between the Lack of a [lousing Element and the Project
The failure of the City's General Plan to include a valid Housing Element has a direct and
immediate bearing on the Project. First, by law the City's Housing Element must include a
program that (among other things) will "[c]onserve and improve the condition of existing
affordable housing stock, which may include addressing ways to mitigate the loss of dwelling
units demolished by public or private action." (Government Code § 65583(c)(4).) Yet no
Housing Element even exists at present to include such a program. Were it to exist, it would
likely address the Project's demolition of the 14 -unit apartment complex on the site with no
provision for replacing these affordable units. To compound matters, in order to circumvent
the letter — but certainly not the spirit — of Article 10.7 of Chapter 3 of the Planning and
"Zoning Law, which requires provision for the replacement of demolished affordable units
within the Coastal Zone, the Project applicant evicted the previous low and moderate income
residents of the apartment complex more than a year ago.' A valid Housing Element might
address such a transparent attempt to circumvent Article 10.7.
Nevertheless, the March 2009 Draft FIR repeatedly states that at least three of the
units on the site are occupied; however, it appears no effort has been made by the City to determine
the whether any of those occupants are persons and families of low or moderate income.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council
AERIE Condominiums project and EIR
July 14, 2009
Page 5
Second, in July, 2007, the Southern California Association of Governments ( "SCAG ")
released its Pinal Regional Housing Need Allocation Plan for the planning period January
1, 2006 through June 30, 2014. (See Tab 8.) The Plan allocates to the City the "RHNA"
requirement that its overdue Housing Element provide for the development of 1,784 units of
residential housing during the Fourth Planning Period. (Id.) Of those units, 392 must be
available to very low income households, 322 must be available to low income households,
362 must be available to moderate income households, and 708 must be available to above
moderate income households.' (1d.) Thus, the City currently finds itself without a valid
Housing Element that provides for the development 1,076 very low, low, and moderate
income units under its current RHNA allocation, plus the need to make up an additional 145
such units under its former RHNA allocation. Needless to say, the substitution of 15
affordable units with eight units that must each sell for an average minimum price of twelve
million dollars in order for the Project just to pencil is going in a direction that is counter to
what State law requires.
C. The City Council Cannot Make the Requisite Findings
that the Project Complies with the City's General Plan
Both the Planning and Zoning Law and Subdivision Map Act make it clear that the City's
approval of the Project requires as a prerequisite that the City have a valid General Plan. If
land use approvals conflict with either a city's general plan or zoning code the approvals are
ultra Tires and must be set aside. This is because California land use regulations form a
pyramid, and " [t]he General Plan is atop the hierarchy of local government law regulating
land use. It has been aptly analogized to `a constitution for all future development'...
Subordinate to the general plan are zoning laws, which regulate the geographic allocation and
allowed uses of land. Zoning must conform to the adopted general plan." Neighborhood
Action Group v. County of Calaveras (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1176, 1183.
"Since consistency with the general plan is required, absence of a valid general
plan, or valid relevant elements of components thereof, precludes enactment
of zoning ordinances, and the like.'... (Thus) the scope of authority of the
agency to enact a general plan and zoning ordinances and to apply them is
governed by the requirements of state law. A permit action taken without
' To make matters worse, the City's 2005 -2006 annual progress report on Housing
Element Implementation admitted that, of the 86 very low income units the City was required to
develop under the prior (1998 -2008) RHNA periods, it only produced 24 and still needs to produce
another 62 such units. Similarly, of the 83 moderate income units the City was required to develop
under the prior period, it failed to produce any, such units.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council
AERIE Condominiums project and EIR
July 14, 2009
Page 6
compliance with the hierarchy of land use laws is ultra vires as to any defect
implicated by the use sought by the permit."
Id., at 1184 (italics in original; emphasis added). An ultra sires act is "beyond the scope of
power allowed or granted ... by law," [ Black's Law Dictionan, 1525 (7th Ed. 1999)] and is
void ah initio. (See Hansen v. California Bank (1936) 17 Cal.App.2d 80, 100.) Thus, where
subordinate project approvals conflict with the superior general plan or zoning ordinance,
such approvals are void on their face. Stated slightly differently, independent of the
adequacy of the EIR, project approvals granted in violation of the general plan or zoning
ordinance are invalid.'
As shown above. the City lacks a Housing Element that is in compliance with State law.
Because this key element of the City's current General Plan does not comply with State law,
and there is a direct nexus between the Housing Element and the Project, the City cannot
make the statutory findings required by Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act that the
tentative tract map for the Project is consistent with the General Plan. A land use approval
cannot be consistent with a general plan that does not conform to State law.
11. THE EIR FOR THE PROJECT IS FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED
Environmental protection is the guiding concept of CEQA. "The foremost principle under
CEQA is that the Legislature intended that it 'be interpreted in such manner as to afford the
fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory
language. "' (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn of San Francisco v. Regents of the
University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 390.)
The EIR has been aptly described as "the 'heart' of CEQA." (CEQA Guidelines § 15003(a)
quoting County oflnyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810.) Again quoting Laurel
Heights (at p. 392):
' While a city's interpretation of its own general plan and zoning ordinance is entitled
to deference (Anderson First Coalition v. CityolAnderson (2005) 130Cal.App.4th 1173, 1192, such
interpretation is not to be treated as irrefutable. (Bolsa Chica Land Trust v' Superior Court (1997)
71 Cal. App. 4th 493, 504 [ "[b)ccause an interpretation is an agency's legal opinion, however
'expert', rather than the exercise of a delegated legislative power to make law, it commands a
commeasurably lesser degree of judicial deference. ").) Therefore, although a court may consider
a city's interpretation, it is not bound by it. (Stolman v. Ciry afl os Angeles (2003) 114 Cal.AppAth
916, 928.)
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council
AERIE Condominiums project and EIR
July 14, 2009
Page 7
"The Legislature has made clear that an FIR is 'an inforniational document'
and that'[t]he purpose of an environmental impact report is to provide public
agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect
which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment ....'
"An EIR is an' environmental "alarm bell" whose purpose is to alert the public
and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have
reached ecological points of no return.' [Citations.] The EIR is also intended
'to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact,
analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.' [Citations.]
Because the EIR must be certified or rejected by public officials, it is a
document of accountability. If CEQA is scrupulously followed, the public will
know the basis on which its responsible officials either approve or reject
environmentally significant action, and the public, being duly informed, can
respond accordingly to action with which it disagrees. [Citations.] The EIR
process protects not only the environment but also informed self - government."
While many of the EIR's faults have already been brought to the City's attention by others,
we will focus here on just three of its most egregious shortcomings. Because of these
shortcomings (and others), neither the public nor you as the City's elected decision - makers
can make an informed decision about the Project.
A. The EIR Preparer Lobbies for the Project Instead of Honestly Assessing It
"The determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment
calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent
possible on scientific and factual data." (CEQA Guidelines § 15064(b); emphasis added.)
Of all the EIR's failings, one failing permeates the document and stands out above all others:
the consultant who prepared it simply forgot his role. Rather than be the objective analyst
of the Project's impacts, he chose instead to become the Project's apologist.
His walk -on role as a salesman for the Project is perhaps nowhere more salient than in the
public relations -style "spin" he puts on the Project's most obvious consequence — the
removal of fragile and protected Coastal bluff. The Project requires the removal of all but
a thin facade of the eroding bluff. The consultant artfully terms this thin veneer a trapezoidal
"pillar," which he assures us will last for the 75 -year useful life of the eight condominium
units. Then, using reasoning that would make a public relations hack blush, he has the EIR
conclude that the Project will not adversely impact the Coastal bluff it replaces.
Honorable Mayor and Member of the City of Newport Beach City Council
.AERIE Condominiums project and EIR
July 14, 2009
Page 8
This is more than disingenuous; it is insulting to the public and you the decision - makers, and
it contrary to common sense. For example, we are all familiar with the Citadel Outlet Mall
adjacent to the Interstate 5 Freeway in the City of Commerce. The Citadel was built in the
early 1990s on the site where a Samson Tire & Rubber Company factory (later operated by
Uniroyal) once stood. The factory was tom down; however its 22 -foot high wall, a cultural
landmark that runs a third of a mile along the freeway and features bas- relief griffins, winged
genies and warrior in chariots in a design inspired by ancient Assyria, was preserved as a
facade for the shopping center. Would anyone seriously contend that the tire factory itself
still exists because its outer wall remains.)
Similarly, when Chapman University built its new law school it tore down the old Orange
Unified School District headquarters building but preserved the building's facade and built
the law school behind it. No one today would argue that the old Orange Unified School
District headquarters building itself still exists — even if they were looking at its old facade.
Yet this is exactly the reasoning the EIR consultant resorts to with regard to the site's Coastal
bluff. that the bleiitself will still exist after it is excavated and carted off to a Brea landfill
because a thin veneer of it will remain visible.
Tortured rationalizations such as this have no place in an EIR. Claiming that the Project will
not cause the loss of a protected Coastal bluff is simply putting a fig leaf on the Project's true
impacts. It is like claiming that the Matterhorn at Disneyland is a genuine actual mountain.
It is reasonable for the public to expect to hear such spin from the Project's proponents. It
is neither reasonable nor acceptable under CEQA for an EIR to spin facts this way.
B. The EIR Understates the Project's SiEnificant Greenhouse Gas Impacts
CEQA is designed to ensure that environmental problems resulting from the combined
effects of many small impacts are not overlooked because any one project's contribution can
be characterized by a project proponent or lead agency as small or insignificant. Importantly,
the requirement to analyze cumulative impacts cannot be avoided by contending a project
would only make a de minimis contribution to the problem as a whole. As the court noted
in Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103
Cal.App.4th 98, 117, this interpretation of the cumulative impacts analysis requirement
would "contravene the very concept of cumulative impacts" and "turn the cumulative impact
analysis on its head by diminishing the need to do a cumulative impact analysis as the
cumulative impact problem worsens." (Sec: id. at 120 ( "In the end, the greater the existing
environmental problems are, the lower the threshold should be for treating a project's
contribution to cumulative impacts as significant."].)
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council
AERIE Condominiums project and EIR
July 14, 2009
Page 9
Global warming is a paradigmatic example of cumulative effects problem; where emissions
from numerous, small sources combine to create one of the most pressing environmental and
societal problems of our day. (Tab 9.) Like its numerous sources, the solution lies not in any
one single action, but rather with all agencies ensuring that the projects they approve address
their contributions to climate change by adopting avoidance or mitigation measures. (Id.)
On September 27, 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill 32, styled the
California Global Warning Solutions Act of 2006, into law ( "AB 32 "). (Health & Safety
Code § 38500 et seq.) AB 32 requires reduction of State greenhouse gas ( "GHG ") emissions
to 1990 levels by 2020. (Health & Safety Code § 38550.)
On August 24, 2007, the Governor approved Senate Bill 97, which amended CEQA to
clearly establish that GHG emissions are appropriate subjects for CEQA analysis. SB 97
directed the Governor's Office of Planning and Research ( "OPR ") to develop draft CEQA
Guidelines "for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas
emissions" by July 1, 2009, and directs the Resources Agency to certify and adopt them by
January 1, 2010.
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines provide that in any of the following circumstances, a
finding must be made that the project may have a significant effect on the environment:
"A lead agency shall find that project may have a significant effect on the
environment and thereby require an EIR to be prepared for the project where
there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that any of the
following conditions may occur:... (3) the project has possible environmental
effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable.
"Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an
individual project are significant when
of past projects, the effects of other
probable future projects."
viewed in connection with the effects
current projects, and the effects of
(Public Resources Code § 21083(b); CEQA Guidelines § 15065(a)(3).)
California courts have confirmed the importance of addressing cumulative impacts in the
context of air quality assessment.
"One of the most important environmental lessons evident from past
experience is that environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a
variety of small sources. These sources appear insignificant, assuming
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council
AERIE Condominiums project and EIR
July 14, 2009
Page 10
threatening dimensions only when considered in light of the other sources with
which they interact. Perhaps the best example is air pollution, where
thousands of relatively small sources of pollution cause a serious
environmental health problem. CEQA has responded to this problem of
incremental environmental degradation by requiring analysis of cumulative
impacts."
(Kinks County Farm Bureau v. County of Han %rd (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 720.)`
While comprehensive regulations to implement AB 32 will not be in place until 2012, the
CEQA Guidelines developed pursuant to SB 97 are now available, and the many projects
proposed within the City will contribute cumulatively to the GHG load in the environment.
Once approved, those projects will continue to cause environmental degradation well beyond
2012. Accordingly, the City has a current obligation under CEQA to analyze potential global
warming impacts of the Project our a cumulative basis and evaluate alternatives and
mitigation measures that would avoid, rectify, or reduce any unavoidable adverse global
warming impacts caused by cumulative projects.
The EIR is inadequate because it fails to adequately analyze the Project's GHG emissions.
Buried in Appendix D of the EIR's appendix is the disclosure that the Project will result in
construction- related GHG emissions associated with the removal of the Coastal Bluff and the
more than two thousand heavy diesel' truck trips traveling 60 miles to deposit the Coastal
Bluff in a Brea landfill. Any increase in emissions will burden State mandates to meet the
greenhousegas reduction requirements of Assembly Bill 32, and 2,168 metric tons of C01
for a single residential development project will do nothing but exacerbate the City's
already difficult obligation to reduce carbon emissions on a City -wide, programmatic, and
collective manner. Simply put, the environmental analysis of the Project must address.
disclose, and mitigate those air quality impacts caused by GHG emissions. The EIR must
also address GHG emissions in a cumulative basis. Feasible mitigation measures for GHG
presently exist, and in just the past 18 months the California Attorney General, the California
(See also Mussuchusetts v. EPA (2007) 127 S. Ct. 1438, 1455 -1457 [U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency arguments for not regulating carbon dioxide from vehicles under
the Clean Air Act "rests on the erroneous assumption that a small incremental step, because it is
incremental, can never be attacked in a federal judicial forum. Yet accepting that premise would
doom most challenges to regulatory action. Agencies, like legislatures, do not generally resolve
massive problems in one fell regulatory swoop. "].)
These diesel truck emissions were also given short shrift in the EIR. (See Tab 10.)
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council
.AERIE Condominiums project and EIR
July 14, 2009
Page I I
Air Pollution Control Officers Association ("CAPCOA "), and OPR have released extensive
materials to guide lead agencies in imposing credible, feasible and enforceable mitigation
measures to reduce project greenhouse gas emissions and cumulative impacts on global
climate change. (See (See Tab 11, Tab 12 & Tab 13, respectively.)
While the Project is held out as utilizing "green" construction techniques (begging the
question of what modern construction doesn't utilize "green" construction techniques), there
is nothing "green" about generating 2,168 metric tons of GHG emissions during the
construction of the Project — especially when the 2,168 metric ton factor (buried in Appendix
D to the EIR), is grossly understated.
The EIR consultant skirted the cumulative GHG issue by declining to identify a "threshold
of significance" for determining the significance of the Project's GHG emissions. However,
"in preparing an EIR, the agency must consider and resolve every fair argument that can be
made about the possible significant environmental effects of a project, irrespective of
whether an established threshold of significance has been met with respect to any given
effect." (Protect the Historic Amador Watery ays (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1109.) As
the court in Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Ca1.App.4th 322, 342, cautioned, "(a]
threshold of significance is not conclusive, however, and does not relieve a public agency of
the duty to consider the evidence under the fair argument standard."
For example, in 2007 the City of Rancho Cordova developed a threshold of two tons of CO,
per person, which was estimated based on vehicle emission reductions needed to meet
AB 32's 1990 levels. (Tab l4.) Utilizing the Rancho Cordova threshold and assuming that
each of the Project's eight condominium units will be occupied by five persons, the Project's
construction - related GHG impacts alone will max out the 40 occupants' GHG emissions
threshold for the next 54 years. So much for the Project being a "green" project!
As another comparison, a 2008 EIR for a shopping center in the City of Calexico disclosed
that "CO, emissions from project operations would be 243,449 lbslyear." (Tab 15.) While
conceding that "there are no thresholds to compare GHG emissions to determine if the
impact is significant," this EIR nevertheless concluded that "the impact is conservatively
assumed to be significant and unavoidable." 243,449 lbs of COZ emissions equates to 110
metric tons. The Project's construction- related CO: emissions are almost ttiventy times more
than this. Yet the EIR consultant blithely overlooks the magnitude of this impact with no
consideration of mitigation measures or alternatives that would reduce these emissions.
The EIR consultant's refusal to honestly analyze those emissions flies in the face of CEQA.
The Legislature has declared a policy that feasible mitigation measures must be adopted
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council
AERIE Condominiums project and EIR
July 14, 2009
Page 12
whenever they would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the project.
(Public Resources Code § 21002.) Under CEQA, the requirement that mitigation measures
be adopted depends upon the economic and technical feasibility and practicality of the
measures, and whether they will substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of
the project. (Public Resources Code § 21002 & § 21081(a)(3); A Local & Regional Monitor
v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1773, 1790.) The requirement is not abated
simply because the measures will not lessen the effects to below a level of significance.
C. The EIR Plays Fast and Loose with Its Analysis of Alternative to the Project
CEQA includes a "substantive mandate" to protect the environment, prohibiting public
agencies from approving projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible
mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen or avoid the project's
significant environment effects. (Public Resources Code § 21002; CEQA Guidelines
§ 15021(a).) For this reason, an EIR must identify (among other things) alternatives to the
project. (Public Resources Code § 21002.1(a).)
Notably, alternatives need not meet all project alternatives to be considered feasible. (Mira
Mat-Mobile Community v. City o%Uceanside (2004) 119 Cal.AppAth 477; CEQA Guidelines
§ 15126.6(b).) Furthermore, the objectives for a project cannot be so narrowly defined so
that they essentially preordain the selection of the agency's proposed alternative.
Case law under CEQA's federal equivalent, the National Environmental Policy Act
( "NEPA ": 42 U.S.C. § 4331 et seq.) can be helpful in interpreting CEQA.' Thus, the
opinion of the Federal court in Simmons v. U.S. Arnty Corps of Eng'rs (7th Cir. 1997)
120 F.3d 664, 669, is relevant to the Project:
"The 'purpose' of a project is a slippery concept, susceptible of no hard -and-
fast definitions. One obvious way for an agency to slip past the strictures of
NEPA is to contrive a purpose so slender as to define competing `reasonable
alternatives' out of consideration (and even out of existence). The federal
courts cannot condone an agency's frustration of Congressional will."
Early CEQA cases relied heavily on NEPA case law. (No Oil, Inc. r. City of Los
Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68.80; Friends ojMammoth r' Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247,
261.) "NEPA cases continue to play an important role in adjudication of CEQA cases, especially
when a concept developed in NEPA decisions has not yet been applied to CEQA cases." (Del Mar
Terrace Conservancy, Inc. v. City Council (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 712, 732.)
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council
AERIE Condominiums project and EIR
July 14, 2009
Page 13
Earlier, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeal similarly said:
"An agency may not define the objectives of its action in terms so unreasonably
narrow that only one alternative from among the environmentally benign ones
in the agency's power would accomplish the goals of the agency's action."
(Citizens Against Burlington v. Bury ( D.C. Cir. 1991) 938 F.2d 190, 196.) Thus, rejection
of less intense development alternatives based upon artificial project objectives is improper.
Yet this is precisely what the Project EIR did. In Section 10. 1.2 [ "Criteria for Selecting
Alternatives "], the EIR set forth eight "project objectives" that are so narrow and artificial
that nothing but the Project can satisfy them. For example, objective #4 is for the Project to
provide such amenities as "a dock for each resident, ample storage space, can common
recreational and health facilities, such as a swimming pool and fitness center." This is utterly
artificial, and the alternatives to the Project can likely achieve most, if not all, of them.
Similarly, objective #5 calls for "the use of new technology" to increase parking and limit
Project ingress and egress through the use of a subterranean parking garage. As noted above,
this can only be accomplished by removing the Coastal bluff itself. Thus, any alternative that
actually preserves the Coastal bluff will not satisfy this "project objective."
The E1R's lower- intensity residential development alternatives are clearly environmentally
superior from the standpoint of reducing Coastal bluff destruction and construction- related
GHG emissions. Yet the EIR dismisses those alternative because they do not include the
Project's artificial "state -of -the -art" energy features, enhancements to a catch basin, and
removal of two power poles. When one commentor on the EIR questioned this, the EIR
consultant responded by playing lawyer and claiming that, "These benefits cannot be
required by the City. As a result, the inclusion or exclusion of these benefits in a particular
alternative is a function only of the applicant's willingness to provide those benefits."
Who is the EIR consultant trying to kid? All that is required is that there be a nexus between
a mitigation measure and a legitimate governmental interest, and the measure must be
roughly proportional to the impacts of the proposed project. (CEQA Guidelines,
§ 15126.4(a)(4); see Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374; Nollan v. California
Coastal Commission (1987) 483 U.S. 825.) Given the GHG emissions that will redound
from any demolition and development on the Project site, there is an obvious nexus between
mitigating those impacts and requiring any development on the site to incorporate "state -of-
the -art" energy features. Moreover, by the time construction actually commences on the site,
such features are likely to be mandatory for all construction.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council
AERIE Condominiums prgiect and EIR
July 14, 2009
Page 14
As for removing the two poles and undergrounding utilities, a reality check is in order. Any
developer developing homes at this location is simply not going to risk losing qualified
buyers seeking homes at this lofty price point by leaving those utilities above ground.
Instead, the developer is more likely to actually insist that he be allowed to underground
those utility lines to make his homes more marketable.
Even in the case of enhancements to the catch basin there may be a nexus between the
development of the site on impervious services and the need to expand the basin.
Regardless, in discussing alternatives, CEQA dictates that the "EIR shall include sufficient
information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison
with the proposed project." (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(d).) A project should not be
approved if environmentally superior alternatives exist "even if these alternatives would
impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly."
(Public Resources Code § 21002; CEQA Guidelines § 1502I(a)(2), 15126.6.) The project
must be rejected if an alternative available for consideration would accomplish "most (not
all) of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more
of the significant effects." (Id., at § 15126.6(c).)
Ironically, perhaps the best evidence supporting rejection of the Project by the City Council
comes from the EIR's own alternatives analysis. Feasible alternatives are shown to exist that
will reduce construction- related GHG emissions, preserve the Coastal bluff (and not just a
veneer of it), and achieve all but the most narrow and artificial "objectives' of the Project.
Thus, the City simply has no basis for rejecting one of these environmentally superior, lower -
intensity alternatives to the Project.
III. CONCLUSION
In summary, the Project cannot be approved until the City adopts a fourth revision Housing
Element that complies with State law, and the EIR for the Project also fails to adequately
disclose, analyze, and mitigated the true environmental impacts of the proposed Project. We
therefore urge the City Council not to approve the Project without first adopting a valid
Housing Element and revising and recirculating the EIR for public review.
Respectfully submitted,
LEIBOLD MCCLENDON & MANN, P.C.
By: iolin G. McClendon
honorable Mayor and Members of the City of Newport Beach City Council
AERIE Condominiums project and EIR
July 14, 2009
Page 15
A final postscript:
Residents for Responsible Development and others pleaded unsuccessfully for tonight's City
Council hearing on the Project to be continued to allow more time for the community to
respond to this hugely controversial issue. Lest the claim be made that our comments are
somehow untimely, the following quote from Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City,
of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184. 1201, amply rebuts this claim:
"City appears to have thought that the public's role in the environmental
review process ends when the public comment period expires. Apparently, it
did not realize that if a public hearing is conducted oil project approval, then
new environmental objections could be made until close of this hearing.
(§ 21177, subd. (b); Guidelines, § 15202, subd. (b); Hillside, .supra, 83
Cal.App.4th at p. 1263.) If the decisionmaking body elects to certify the EIR
without considering comments made at this public hearing, it does so at its
own risk. If a CF.QA action is subsequently brought, the EIR may be found to
be deficient on grounds that were raised at any point prior to close of the
hearing on project approval."
HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT
Please note: To verify compliance status for the purposes of determining eligibility of
funding, please contact the Division directly at (916) 322 -4263 or (916) 322 -7995
The Department makes every effort to ensure the following information is complete and
accurate. For any questions or clarifications, please contact the Division of Housing Policy
Development at (916) 445 -4728.
To determine the official status of each jurisdiction's housing element, refer to the column on
the right. The definitions of terms used are:
IN — local government adopted an element the Department found in compliance with State
housing element law.
OUT — either the local government adopted an element the Department found did not comply
with State housing element law, or the local government has not yet adopted a housing
element pursuant to the statutory schedule.
IN REVIEW — element is under review by the Department as of date of this report.
DUE — means a housing element has not yet been submitted for the current planning period.
Total Jurisdictions= 435
HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT 1 of 11
7107/2009 3:32 p.m.
County
Jurisdiction
ttecorg
uale WAVL
�wmuiiancv
_ ....
.im
ffl c iv Reviewed RWewed_.
$tdtus
ALAMEDA
ALAMEDA
DRAFT
I 4/1612009
6/15/2009
OUT
ALAMEDA COUNTY
ADOPTED_
10!1412003
11/14/2003
DUE
_
ALBANY
DRAFT
6/2412002
8/23/2002
DUE
BERKELEY
ADOPTED
31612003
3127/2003
DUE
DUBLIN
DRAFT
618/2009-
IN REVIEW
EMERYVILLE
ADOPTED
6/29!2009-
IN REVIEW
FREMONT
DRAFT
3/71/2009
518/20091
OUT
HAYWARD
DRAFT
6/2912009-
IN REVIEW
.LIVERMORE
DRAFT
613012009-
IN REVIEW
(NEWARK
DRAFT
212312009
4/242009
OUT
OAKLAND
DRAFT
3/2/2009
4/30/2009
OUT
'PIEDMONT
ADOPTED
1211312002!
1/7/2003
DUE
PLEASANTON
ADOPTED
3/7/2005
317/2005
DUE
SAN LEANDRO
DRAFT
71212009-
IN REVIEW
UNION CITY
DRAFT
6/11/2009 -
IN REVIEW
ALPINE
ALPINE COUNTY
ADOPTED
4/212004
I
5/7/2004
IN
AMADOR
AMADOR
DRAFT
10/1912006
12/15/2006
OUT
AMADOR COUNTY
ADOPTED
5/2512005
7!1/2005
IN
NONE
DRAFT
413/2009
6/2/2009
IN
JACKSON
ADOPTED
317/1994
3/11/1994
OUT
PLYMOUTH
ADOPTED
1/212005
3/11/2005
IN
SUTTER CREEK
-ADOPTED
3/1212008
4/1412008
IN
BVTTE
BIGGS
ADOPTED
5/27/2005
611312005.
IN
BUTTE COUNTY
DRAFT
61112 9 -
IN REVIEW
CHICO
DRAFT
6/512009
611912009
IN
:GRIDLEY
,ADOPTED
3(242004
4/762004
IN
OROVILLE
ADOPTED
4/1/2004
6/24/2004
IN
PARADISE
DRAFT
51262009.-
IN REVIEW
CALAVERAS
ANGELS CAMP
_
ADOPTED
911512004:
10/122004
IN
CALAVERAS COUNTY
ADOPTED
5125120051
7/182005
IN
COLUSA
, COLUSA
DRAFT
512912009-
IN REVIEW
. COLUSA COUNTY
ADOPTED
12/6/2004
12/15/2004
IN
WILLIAMS
ADOPTED
1212712004;
12/302004
IN
CONTRA COSTA
ANTIOCH
DRAFT
5/192009 -
IN REVIEW
BRENTWOOD
DRAFT
7/18/2005
8112005
DUE
CLAYTON
ADOPTED
10/3/2005
121272005.
DUE
CONCORD
DRAFT
4/32009_
6/112009
OUT
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
DRAFT
3/3/2009
511!2009
OUT
DANVILLE
ADOPTED
4122002
41152002
DUE
EL CERRITO
ADOPTED
1272003
2/27/2003
DUE
HERCULES
ADOPTED
i 121282004
12/302004
DUE
LAFAYETTE
DRAFT
3/2612009
52212009
OUT
MARTINEZ
ADOPTED
7292005
82412005_
DUE
MORAGA
DRAFT
6/3012009 -
IN REVIEW
OAKLEY
DRAFT
3!30!2009
5128/2009
OUT
ORINDA
ADOPTED
1118/2004
2/4/2005'
DUE
PINOLE
ADOPTED
5/192003
6/16/2003
tizuIR E _
PITTSBURG
'ADOPTED
6/17 /2009-
REVIEW
—
_
PLEASANT HILL
DRAFT
6/2612009 -
EVIE W
RICHMOND
ADOPTED
211412006
2/27120061
Due means a housing element has not yet been submitted for the current planning period.
HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT 2 of 11
7/07/2009 3:32 p.m.
Due means a housing element has not yet been submitted for the current planning period.
Record
QAtt Date
Compliance
n
JuriedlOon
Tvae
Received Reviewed
Status
SAN PABLO
_
ADOPTED
8/912002
8/_2312002
DUE
SAN RAMON
(DRAFT
512912009'-
IN REVIEW
WALNUT CREEK
DRAFT
41292009
6/26/2009
OUT
DEL NORTE
CRESCENT CITY
(ADOPTED
111162003
12/29!2003
IN
IDEL NORTE COUNTY
ADOPTED
5119/2009 -
IN REVIEW
EL DORADO
EL DORADO COUNTY
ADOPTED
51412009'
6/11/2009
IN
PLACERVILLE
ADOPTED-..
12122/2004(
2!312005
DUE
.SOUTH
LAKE TAHOE
ADOPTED
12/16/2008
1/26/2009
IN
FRESNO
CLOVIS
ADOPTED
711 412 0 0 8'
10110/1008
OUT
COALINGA
ADOPTED
1!29(2004
4/1712004.
DUE
FIREBAUGH
DRAFT
6/2512009-
IN REVIEW
FOWLER
DRAFT
71112003
8/29/2003
DUE
FRESNO
ADOPTED
2!2/2009
2/27/2009.
IN
FRESNO COUNTY
ADOPTED
41912003
5122/2003
DUE
HURON
ADOPTED
312112005
4/14/20051
DUE
KERMAN
DRAFT
611912006
8116/2006
DUE
_
KINGSBURG
ADOPTED
7/1/2002
9/26/2002
DUE
MENDOTA
ADOPTED
7119/2004
911012004
DUE
ORANGE COVE
;ADOPTED
5129!2009
61112009
IN
PARLIER
(ADOPTED
6/262009-
'
IN REVIEW
REEDLEY
ADOPTED
9/262003
122312003:
DUE
SAN JOAQUIN
DRAFT
4162009
6/5/2009
OUT
SANGER
DRAFT
226/2008
4/24/2008
DUE
;SELMA
,DRAFT
6/2/2008
8/1/2008
OUT
GLENN
_
GLENN COUNTY
!ADOPTED
12/9/2003
12/292003
IN
ORLAND
ADOPTED
412/2004
423/2004
IN
WILLOWS
ADOPTED
128/2008
3/26/2008
IN
HUMBOLDT
ARCATA
ADOPTED
3/2312004
4/272004
IN
BLUE LAKE
DRAFT
71212009:-
IN REVIEW
EUREKA
ADOPTED
525/2004
5/282004
IN _
FERNDALE
ADOPTED
I 9128/2006
10142006
IN
FORTUNA
DRAFT
4!18!2008
61172008
OUT
HUMBOLDT COUNTY
DRAFT
211112009.
IN REVIEW
HUMBOLDT COUNTY
DRAFT
2/U/2009.__411012009
IN
RIO DELL
ADOPTED
1/28/2004
4/27/2004
IN
TRINIDAD
DRAFT
8/11/1997
9/2511997
OUT
IMPERIAL
BRAWLEY
ADOPTED
711412008
8/152008
IN
CALEXICO
ADOPTED
5/1912009-
IN REVIEW
CALIPATRIA
ADOPTED
1/152009 _
1/23/2009
IN
EL CENTRO
ADOPTED
6/182009 -
IN REVIEW
HOLTVILLE
ADOPTED
11/132008
12130/2008
IN
IMPERIAL
ADOPTED
12/30/2008
119/2009
IN
IMPERIAL COUNTY
ADOPTED
719/2008
8/15/2008
IN
WESTMORLAND
_ ADOPTED
3!122009
4/312009'
IN
INYO
BISHOP
DRAFT
4/25/2009
6/24/2009
OUT
INYO COUNTY
DRAFT
5/5/2009
7/3/2009
OUT
KERN
ARVIN
DRAFT
6/2811993
8/12/1993
DUE
BAKERSFIELD
ADOPTED
3116!2009
41812009
IN
CALIFORNIA CITY
DRAFT
'6/29/2009'-
IN REVIEW
DELANO
ADOPTED
4142003
711/2003
DUE
Due means a housing element has not yet been submitted for the current planning period.
HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT 3 or 11
7107/2009 3:32 p.m.
County
Jurlsdlc9on
rtec -org
'U41xq1 vatn
wmonuncu
TvPQ
JReceivvd Ravit�
KERN COUNTY
ADOPTED
2/1112009
311612009
IN
MARICOPA
DRAFT
6/1212009-
IN REVIEW
MCFARLAND
DRAFT
4/611009
4/7/2009
OUT
RIDGECREST
ADOPTED
10/412002
10/24/2002
DUE
SHAFTER
ADOPTED
1126/2009
412411009
OUT
TAFT
DRAFT
41912009
6!812009?
OUT
TEHACHAPI
ADOPTED
419/2004
6/2212004
DUE
WASCO
DRAFT
6!1!2009-
I
IN REVIEW
KINGS
AVENAL
- ADOPTED
3126+2004_
412112004
IN
CORCORAN
ADOPTED
312612004
4/21/2004
IN
HANFORD
ADOPTED
3/2612004
4/21/2004
IN
'KINGS COUNTY
ADOPTED
3126/2004
4/2112004
IN
LEMOORE
ADOPTED
31261200041
41 , 21/2004
IN
LAKE
CLEARLAKE
ADOPTED
7123/20041
81512004
IN
LAKE COUNTY
ADOPTED
12127/2004
3/2512005
IN
LAKEPORT
DRAFT
618/20091-
IN REVIEW
LASSEN
"LASSEN COUNTY
ADOPTED
5142009-
IN REVIEW
SUSANVILLE
DRAFT
6/24/2009 -
IN REVIEW
LOS ANGELES
AGOURA HILLS
ADOPTED
11!18/2008
11162009
IN
ALHAMBRA
DRAFT
11126!2008
1/23/2009
OUT
ARCADIA
ADOPTED
11!132001
2111 P1002.
DUE
ARTESIA
DRAFT
52212009.
IN REVIEW
_
AVALON
ADOPTED
5/82006
6/162006
DUE
AZUSA
ADOPTED
12172001
12126!2001
DVE
BALDWIN PARK
DRAFT
5/1112009-
IN REVIEW
BELL
ADOPTED
1 12/1311996
122411996
DUE
BELL GARDENS
ADOPTED
` 11/232005
227/2006
DUE
.BELLFLOWER
ADOPTED
12!182003
22/2004
DUE
BEVERLY HILLS
ADOPTED
7/30/2001
102312001
DUE
_
BRADBURY
:DRAFT
5292009-
IN REVIEW
BURBANK
'ADOPTED
101292008
1/92009.
IN
CALABASAS
ADOPTED
2122009
42312009'
IN
CARSON
DRAFT
6112009-
IN REVIEW
CERRITOS
ADOPTED
3/132002
611 /2002
DUE
CLAREMONT
DRAFT
5/21/2009
7/1/2009
OUT
COMMERCE
ADOPTED
31282008
52/2008
OUT
COMPTON
ADOPTED
7/10/2000
10/3120011
DUE
COVINA
DRAFT
4!312009
6/1/2009
OUT
CUDAHY
ADOPTED
611/1992
912911992
DUE
CULVER CITY
DRAFT
9182008
11/7!2008'.
OUT
DIAMOND BAR
DRAFT
6152009.
IN REVIEW
DOWNEY
DRAFT
511812009.
IN REVIEW
DUARTE
DRAFT
2/17 /2009
4/17/2009
OUT
EL MONTE
ADOPTED
3125/2009'
IN
EL SEGUNDO
ADOPTED
811612001:
1012412001
DUE
- --
GARDENA
DRAFT
619/2008:
8/812008
OUT
.GLENDALE
_ _
- ADOPTED
212/2009,
212412009
IN
_
-GLENDORA
DRAFT
614!2009 -
IN REVIEW
_
:HAWAIIAN GARDENS
DRAFT
4(1!2009
6!52009_
OUT
HAWTHORNE
ADOPTED
911512003
12!1212003
DUE
Due means a housing element has not yet been submitted for the Current planning period.
HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT 4 of 11
7/0712009 3:32 p.m.
Cwnty Jurisdlnton ;R—grd 211L 2&_ I Camclianco
_ .. .. _ ROPTED Oe Ree`ived R""e %tita __ HERMOSA BEACH OPTED 8/25/2003 9112/2003 DUE
HIDDEN HILLS 412812005 7127/2005 DUE
!HUNTINGTON PARK ADOPTED 2126/2009 4/7/2009 IN
•INDUSTRY ADOPTED 12172612007: 2/2012008 IN
INGLEWOOD ADOPTED 12123/2005 2/28/2006 DUE
IRWINDALE ADOPTED 3!1812008: 5/20/2008 DUE
LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE DRAFT 618/2009- IN REVIEW
LA HABRA HEIGHTS ADOPTED 1/28/2002 4/26/2002 DUE
LA MIRADA DRAFT 7/1/2006 8/29120o8 OUT
LA PUENTE ADOPTED 912!2008 10!2112008 IN
LA VERNE DRAFT 51512009 713/2609'
LAKEWOOD DRAFT 512 V2009- i IN REVIEW
LANCASTER .ADOPTED 8/2112008 11!19!2008 OUT
LAWNDALE (DRAFT 61812009- IN REVIEW
LOMITA (DRAFT 512612009- IN REVIEW
;LONG BEACH ADOPTED 5127/2009 6/3/2009 IN
___ LOS ANGELES ADOPTED 811912008 11/1712008 IN
IOS ANGELES COUNTY ADOPTED 8/8/2008 11/6/2008 IN
_ LYNWOOD DRAFT 112312009 3/24/2009 OUT
MALIBU ADOPTED 3f22/2001' 6/2012001 DUE
•MANHATTAN BEACH ADOPTED _2/28120031 5114/2003 DUE
MAYWOOD DRAFT 12117/2008 2/11/2009 OUT
MONROVIA DRAFT 1!7!2009 3/5!2009 OUT
MONTEBELLO ADOPTED 5/511994 6/2411994 DUE
MONTEREY PARK ADOPTED 3/30/2009' 4/24/2009 IN
NORWALK DRAFT 4115!2008 6/13!2008 OUT
PALMDALE ADOPTED 4/23!2001 7/1912001 DUE
PALOS VERDES ESTATES DRAFT 611/2009. IN REVIEW
:PARAMOUNT ADOPTED 1/11 Y2005 3124/2005 DUE
PASADENA DRAFT 1212212008_ 2119/2009 OUT
PICO RIVERA DRAFT 2/13/2009 4114!2009 OUT
POMONA DRAFT 5/1412008 7111t2008 OUT
RANCHO PALOS VERDES 'DRAFT 71712008" 915/2008 OUT
REDONDO BEACH 'ADOPTED 10/26/2000 12120/2000 DUE
ROLLING HILLS ADOPTED 1126!2009 412312009 OUT
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES ADOPTED 612612009 7/3/2009 IN
...
ROSEMEAD (ADOPTED 4/11/2002 6/612002 DUE
:SAN DIMAS ;ADOPTED 121412008 1116/2009 IN
iSAN FERNANDO ADOPTED 4124/2009 6/1212009 IN
SAN GABRIEL DRAFT 5/14/2009 - IN REVIEW
SAN MARINO DRAFT 3110/2009 5/8/2009 OUT
SANTA CLARITA DRAFT 1122/2009 3/23/2009 OUT
SANTA FE SPRINGS ADOPTED 12118/2008 112112009 IN
_ SANTA MONICA ADOPTED 12/5/2008 2/2712009 IN
!SIERRA MADRE ADOPTED 5/5!2003 5/9/2003 DUE
•SIGNAL HILL ADOPTED 10!9!2008 11712009 OUT
SOUTH EL MONTE DRAFT 41312009! 6/212009 OUT
SOUTH GATE DRAFT 618/2009- IN REVIEW
SOUTH PASADENA DRAFT 9119/2008 11/18/2008 OUT
TEMPLE CITY DRAFT 9/19!2008 11/18/2008 OUT
Due means a housing element has not yet been submitted for the current planning period.
HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT 5 of 11
7/07/2009 3:32 p.m.
Due means a housing element has not yet been submitted for the current planning period.
Record
221L Mite
Compliance
County
Jurisdldion
T= _
Received Reviewed
StatuE
TORRANCE
:DRAFT
2/23/2009
4123120091
OUT
_
VERNON
_
ADOPTED
3!1612009
4/612009
IN
WALNUT
DRAFT
2123/2009
4/24/2009
OUT
WEST COVINA
DRAFT
12116/2004'
2/1412005
DUE
(WEST HOLLYWOOD
ADOPTED
6/18/20021
91161M02
DUE
WESTLAKE VILLAGE
DRAFT
12119/2008
211712009
OUT
WHITTIER
312/2009
5/111009
OUT
MADERA
CHOWCHtLLA
_DRAFT
ADOPTED
12/20/2004
1!2412005
IN
MADERA
DRAFT
4/112009
5/28/2009
IN
MADERA COUNTY
DRAFT
I 5/1111009 -
IN REVIEW
MARIN
BELVEDERE
DRAFT
611212009-
IN REVIEW
CORTE MADERA
ADOPTED
812212D02
11202002
DUE
FAIRFAX
DRAFT
2/13/2008
4/11/2008
DUE
LARKSPUR
ADOPTED
1118/2004
1211012004
DUE
MARIN COUNTY
ADOPTED
6125/2003
7/24/2003/
DUE
MILL VALLEY
ADOPTED
11/12/2003
2/10!2004
DUE
NOVATO
ADOPTED
4!7/2003.
7/3/2003
DUE
SS
E
ADOPTED
31112005
412712005
DUE
N ANSELMO
ADOPTED
4126!2004
5/712004
DUE
wSAN RAFAEL
ADOPTED
11118!2004
12!2912004
DUE
SAUSALITO
DRAFT
5/27/2005
7126!2005
DUE
_
TIBURON
ADOPTED
9/12/2005
1219/2005
DUE
MARIPOSA
MARIPOSA COUNTY
DRAFT
77 --
1712009.
IN REVIEW
MENDOCINO
_
FORT BRAGG
__ FT
DRA
&9/2009'-
IN REVIEW
MENDOCINO COUNTY
DRAFT
_
7!112009-
IN REVIEW
_
POINT ARENA
ADOPTED
}I 11/42005
11/17/2005
IN
.UKIAH
ADOPTED
I 6725t2004
7112/2004
IN
WILLITS
ADOPTED
3/30 /2004
5/2112004
IN
MERCED
ATWATER
4116/2008
5/19/2008
IN
DOS PALOS
_ADOPTED
ADOPTED
3127 /2003
3!2812003
IN
GUSTINE
ADOPTED
2/27/2008
5/27/2008
OUT
LIVINGSTON
6!212009-
IN REVIEW
LOS BANOS
(DRAFT
DRAFT
5122/2009 -
IN REVIEW
-
. MERCED
ADOPTED
7/1,1004
8112/2004,
IN
_
MERCED COUNTY
ADOPTED
10/412004'
12/14/2004
IN
MODOC
ALTURAS
ADOPTED
6/22/2005
Bl9 /2005
IN
MODOC COUNTY
DRAFT
6!15/2009 -
IN REVIEW
MAMMOTH LAKES
ADOPTED
12124/2003
12/29!2003
IN
,MONO
:MONO COUNTY
DRAFT
-
IN REVIEW
`CARMEL
ADOPTED
_611612009
10/12/2004
17!102004
IN
_MONTEREY
DEL REY OAKS
DRAFT
8/11 12006
10/42006
OUT
GONZALES
ADOPTED
625 /2009-
IN REVIEW
GREENFIELD
ADOPTED
. 5130/2008
6/272008
IN
KING
ADOPTED
10!222004
12!1712004
IN
- -- - - -
_CITY
- - -- -- - - - --
MARINA
DRAFT
3/162009 .
5115!2009
IN
MONTEREY
DRAFT
.
3252009
5122/2009
IN
MONTEREY COUNTY
ADOPTED
l 11152003
1122004
IN
PACIFIC GROVE
ADOPTED
121222003
3/12/2004
OUT
'SALINAS
DRAFT
672612009-
IN REVIEW
SAND CITY
_
DRAFT
6112!2009 •
IN REVIEW
Due means a housing element has not yet been submitted for the current planning period.
HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT 6 of 11
710712009 3:32 p.m.
Cgunty urlsdiction Record 2ZIL ;Reviewed pate Compliance
h
Type Receed Status
SEASIDE ADOPTED 6/15 /20031 9/9/2003 IN
ISDLEDAD ADOPTED 6/16!20094 - IN REVIEW
NAPA AMERICAN CANYON ADOPTED 911512006!!: 111312006 DUE
CALISTOGA ADOPTED 3/212004 5113/2004 DUE
NAPA ADOPTED 7/1!2009- IN REVIEW
NAPA COUNTY ADOPTED 6'2912009 - IN REVIEW
SAINT HELENA DRAFT 3/13 /2009 5112/20091 OUT
YOUNTVILLE DRAFT 412912009 626/20091 OUT
NEVADA GRASS VALLEY DRAFT 611212009- i IN REVIEW
_
NEVADA CITY DRAFT 312012009 5119/2009 OUT
NEVADA COUNTY ADOPTED 10113!2004 12121!2004 IN
TRUCKEE DRAFT 6124/2009- IN REVIEW
ORANGE ALISO VIEJD DRAFT _1123/2009 312412009 OUT
'ANAHEIM DRAFT 514/2009 6/1112009 OUT
BREA ADOPTED 1113/2008 1/3012009 IN
BUENA PARK ADOPTED 511112009 - IN REVIEW
COSTA MESA ADOPTED 91412008: 9/17!2008 IN
CYPRESS ADOPTED 12/212008 1/912009 IN
DANA POINT ADOPTED 6!1512009 7/712009 IN
FOUNTAIN VALLEY DRAFT 41212009 6/1/2009 OUT
FULLERTON DRAFT 4/24/2009] 6/16/2009 OUT
GARDEN GROVE DRAFT 1013112008' 12/3012008 OUT
HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTED 6262008 712912008 IN _
_ IRVINE ADOPTED 3/131_2002 5/9/2002 DUE
LA HABRA DRAFT 3/16/2009 5114/2009 OUT
LA PALMA DRAFT 811412008 10110/1008 OUT
LAGUNA BEACH DRAFT 911512008 11/141_2008• OUT
t
LAGUNA HILLS DRAFT _ 818!2008 10/7/2008 OUT
LAGUNA NIGUEL ADOPTED 6/30/2000 9!25/2000 DUE
LAGUNA WOODS ADOPTED _ 2/2/2009 2/27/2009 IN
LAKE FOREST 'DRAFT 4128/2008 6/2712006: OUT
LOS ALAMITOS DRAFT 4/3/2009 6!212009 OUT
-MISSION VIEJO DRAFT 6122/2009- IN REVIEW
NEWPORT BEACH DRAFT 81252008 1024!2008 OUT
ORANGE DRAFT 5121/2009 6/19/2009 OUT
ORANGE COUNTY ADOPTED 2/3/2009 5!42009 OUT
�PLACENTIA DRAFT 5/14/2009 623/2009 OUT
]RANCHO ST. MARGARITA DRAFT 521/2009 - IN REVIEW
SAN CLEMENTE DRAFT 3/4/2009 5112009 OUT
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO DRAFT 8122/2008 10212008 OUT
SANTA ANA DRAFT 41112009 5/29/2009 OUT
SEAL BEACH DRAFT 6.2512001; 8/2312001 DUE
I
STANTON ADOPTED Sf22J2009 61192009 IN
TUSTIN ADOPTED ! 6/2512009 - IN REVIEW
VILLA PARK DRAFT 6/27!2008 8/26/2008 OUT
WESTMINSTER ADOPTED 121112008 12/3012008 IN _
YORBA LINDA DRAFT 511212009- IN REVIEW
PLACER AUBURN ADOPTED 117/2009, 1/27209 0 IN
COLFAX ADOPTED 5/19/2009 - IN REVIEW
LINCOLN DRAFT 6/172009 - IN REVIEW
Due means a housing element has not yet been submitted for the current planning period.
HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT 7 of 11
7/07/2009 3:32 p.m.
V BENITO HOLLISTER
DRAFT
Record
`pate pate
ComoliancE
'
... ..._
Judsdlctlon
_... —._ . ........ .... ._._
Tvoe
Recetved .ReAswed .._
.
SAN JUAN BAUTISTA
LOOMIS
ADOPTED
3!212006
5124!2006
DUE
DRAFT
PLACER COUNTY
ADOPTED
• 5126/2009.
6!10/2009
IN
DRAFT
ROCKLIN
DRAFT
611/2009 -
i
IN REVIEW
DtAD FT
ROSEVILLE
DRAFT
4115/20_09
6/10/2009 OUT
IS
PLUMAS COUNTY
iDRAFT
612312009-
OUT
IN RE VIEW
PORTOLA
DRAFT
4/10/2009
6/9/2009
IN
SIDE
BANNING
DRAFT
2/212009.
4/312009
OUT
BEAUMONT
:DRAFT
11(13/20078
1/12/2009
OUT
ADOPTED
1112/2006
1/3/2007
DRAFT
1/7/20091
3/5/2009
OUT
IBLYTHE
CALIMESA
ADOPTED
1/29/2002
4/29/2002
DUE
CANYON LAKE
DRAFT
12116!2002
2114!2003
DUE
- CATHEDRAL
DRAFT
211812009
4/17/2009
OUT
COACHELLA
ADOPTED
4/1312009-
IN REVIEW
.....---
- ---.... ... - - -.
CORONA
._.
DRAFT
5/2112009-
.._..
IN REVIEW
DESERT HOT SPRINGS
DRAFT
12/22!2008
I
2/1912009
OUT
HEMET
DRAFT
712!2008
8/2912008'
INDIAN WELLS
6/1112009 -
IN REVIEW
"INDIO
_DRAFT
ADOPTED
3/23/2009
4/23/2009
IN
LA OUINTA
DRAFT
5/1/2009
6!30/2009
OUT
LAKE ELSINORE
DRAFT
3(20!2009
511912009
OUT
MORENO_VALL_EY
(DRAFT
71112009 -
IN REVIEW
MURRIETA
(ADOPTED
12121/2001
1226/2001
DUE
NORCO
DRAFT
11120/2008
1116/20091
OUT
PALM DESERT
ADOPTED
5!2272002'
DUE
PALM SPRINGS
DRAFT
4/9/2009
61812009'
iPERRIS
ADOPTED
612412009-
IN REVIEW
I..
�RANCHO MIRAGE
_....
DRAFT
5118/2009'-
—..
IN REVIEW
RIVERSIDE
ADOPTED
12112!2007
1/1012008
DUE_
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
ADOPTED
12!712005
1227!2005
DUE
;SAN JACINTO
ADOPTED
1111312006;
2182007
DUE
.TEMECULA
DRAFT
411012009
6/92009
OUT
1MENTO
CITRUS HEIGHTS
ADOPTED
1022/2008
1!62009
IN
ELK GROVE
DRAFT
_
1172009
3152009
OUT
FOLSOM
DRAFT
514!2009
6182009
OUT
GALT
ADOPTED
7115/2003
9/1512003
DUE
ISLETON
DRAFT
628/2007
828/2007
OUT
RANCHO CORDOVA
DRAFT
6!172009 -
IN REVIEW
SACRAMENTO
ADOPTED
11/20/2008
213/2009
IN
SACRAMENTO COUNTY
ADOPTED
12!192008-
12712009-
IN
V BENITO HOLLISTER
DRAFT
51412009-
'
IN REVIEW
SAN BENITO COUNTY
ADOPTED
4/11!2005
6/1/2005
IN
SAN JUAN BAUTISTA
ADOPTED
3131/2009
6/29/2009
IN
J BERNARDINO ADELANTO
DRAFT
4!42001
6/1/2001
DUE
_APPLE VALLEY
DRAFT
4113/2009
6/2/2009UT
BARSTOW
DtAD FT
5/222009 -
IN REVIEW
BIG BEAR LAKE
T
2/232009
4/24/2009
OUT
CHINO
PTED
1182009
2/2712009
IN
CHINO HILLS
T
6127/2008
8/26/2008
OUT
COLTON
_
PTED
9124/200 2;
1126/2002
DUE
FONTANA
ADOPTED
1112/2006
1/3/2007
DUE
Due means a housing element has not yet been submitted for the current planning period.
HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT 8 of 11
7107/2009 3:32 p.m.
= ....
"' "••"•`
Type
IRxeived Reviewed
Sta s
GRAND TERRACE
DRAFT
4/25/2008
6/2412008
OUT
HESPERIA
ADOPTED
8/152002
11!812002.
DUE
HIGHLAND
DRAFT
9/30 /2008
71/2612008
OUT
LOMA LINDA
-DRAFT
1!15/2008
3174!2008 .
OUT
MONTCLAIR
ADOPTED
7182002
_ —..
9/26!2002
DUE
NEEDLES
.DRAFT
:..
11/1/2004
12/28/2004
DUE
,ONTARIO
DRAFT
6126/2009,-
IN REVIEW
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
DRAFT
4/11/20081
6110!2008
OUT
�REDLANDS
ADOPTED
10/26!2008
1126!2009
OUT
'RIALTO
ADOPTED
3!27/2001
6!2512001
DUE
SAN BERNARDINO
ADOPTED
7/31/2003
9110!2003
DUE
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
_
ADOPTED
5/312007
615!2007
DUE
TWENTYNINE PALMS
ADOPTED
71312000
9115/2000
DUE
UPLAND
DRAFT
4/2412009
6/15/2009
OUT
VICTORVILLE
DRAFT
6127/2008
8126/2008
OUT
YUCAIPA
(ADOPTED
3!9!2009
4117/2009
IN
YUCCA VALLEY
DRAFT
4!2812009
6!2612009
OUT
SAN DIEGO
:CARLSBAD
DRAFT
9/24/2008
11/212008
OUT
CHULA VISTA
ADOPTED
71122/2006)
7/3/2007
IN__,__
CORONADO
I
ADOPTED
12110/2007
2/28!2008
IN
:DEL
MAR
ADOPTED
612912007
9/272007
OUT
EL CAJON
ADOPTED I
524!2007_8!2212007
IN
_
ENCINITAS
DRAFT i
8/10 /2007
70!912007
OUT
ADOPTED
12/292005 _
318!2006
IN _
_ESCONDIDO _
IMPERIAL BEACH
DRAFT
9/1212008
11/7/2008
OUT
-LA MESA
ADOPTED
711512005
8!102005
IN
LEMON GROVE
ADOPTED
12/192006
1/3/20071
IN
NATIONAL CITY
;ADOPTED
121142007
1/2412008
IN
OCEANSIDE
DRAFT
41872009
4/10/2009
OUT
ADOPTED
8/26/2008
9117!2008
IN
- - --
_POWAY
.SAN DIEGO - --
ADOPTED
12212006
2/5/2007
IN
(SAN DIEGO COUNTY
DRAFT
7/1/2009;-
IN REVIEW
SAN MARCOS
ADOPTED
72!2812005
3/102006
IN
SANTEE _
DRAFT
320/2008
5/1912008.
OUT
SOLANA BEACH
ADOPTED
12/18/2006
111012007
IN
VISTA
DRAFT
1211412007
2/172008
OUT
SAN FRANCISCO
SAN FRANCISCO
ADOPTED
10/412004
101282004
DUE
SAN JOAQUIN
ESCALON
DRAFT
6/242009 -
IN REVIEW
LATHROP
DRAFT
51112009-
IN REVIEW
LODI
ADOPTED
10222004
1222/2004
IN
MANTECA
ADOPTED
611612004
11122004'
IN
RIPON
ADOPTED
17/20/2006
2/16/20071
OUT
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
DRAFT
3125/2009
512212009
IN
STOCKTON
ADOPTED
9/242004
1124!2004
IN
TRACY
_
ADOPTED
8/2/2006
70/37/2006
OUT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARROYO GRANDE
ADOPTED
3!3012005
622!2005
IN
ATASCADERO
(DRAFT
_
11312005;
3/412005
OUT
GROVER BEACH
DRAFT
526/20091-
IN REVIEW
MORRO BAY
DRAFT
6!17!2009 -
IN REVIEW
PASO ROBLES
DRAFT
521/2009 -
IN REVIEW
Due means a housing element has not yet been submitted for the current planning period.
HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT 9 of 11
7/07/2009 3:32 p.m.
Due means a housing element has not yet been submitted for the current planning period.
Record
Dato Date
Comdianca
County
Jurisdiction
.Tym
.Received Reviewed
Status ..
PISMO BEACH
DRAFT
614/2009-
.-
IN REVIEW
.. - -.
SAN LUIS OBISPO
DRAFT
61 5/2009 -
IN REVIEW
SAN LUIS OBISPO CO.
.DRAFT
7/112009-
IN REVIEW_
SAN MATEO
- ATHERTON
ADOPTED
714!2003
4/14f2063'
BELMONT
ADOPTED
9111/2002
10/1612062
DUE
BRISBANE
ADOPTED
10111/2002
12/1312002
DUE
BURLINGAME
DRAFT
711t2009.-
IN REVIEW
COLMA
DRAFT
63012009-
IN REVIEW
DALY CITY
ADOPTED
11/10/2004
121312004
DUE
EAST PALO ALTO
ADOPTED
51812002
5/22/2002
_
DUE
FOSTER CITY
DRAFT
-
6/512(569
--
REVIEW
HALF MOON BAY
DRAFT
612V2009'-
IN REVIEW
_
HILLSBOROUGH
ADOPTED
6110/2009
7/111009'
IN
MENLO PARK
ADOPTED
91811992
12122/1992
DUE
MILLBRAE
ADOPTED
(DRAFT
2/10/2009
3/312009
OUT
IPACIFICA
41112005
5131120051
DUE
PORTOLA VALLEY
DRAFT
4130/2004
6/2912004
DUE _
REDWOOD CITY
4!1512009
6/12/2009
OUT
:SAN BRUNO
_DRAFT
ADOPTED
4125120031
5/8/2003
DUE
SAN CARLOS
712/2009 -
IN REVIEW
— --
SAN MATEO
_DRAFT
ADOPTED
6126!2009 -
IN REVIEW
SAN MATEO COUNTY
ADOPTED
9113/2004
9/292004
DUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
DRAFT
71212009 -
IN REVIEW
WOODSIDE
DRAFT
423/2009
6/22/2009
OUT
SANTA BARBARA
BUELLTON
DRAFT
612212009-
IN REVIEW
:CARPINTERIA
ADOPTED
4123!2004
7122/2004
IN
GOLETA
DRAFT
61192009-
IN REVIEW
GUADALUPE
DRAFT
6112009.
IN REVIEW
LOMPOC
DRAFT
61122009.
IN REVIEW
SANTA BARBARA
- ADOPTED
8/262004
_
92812004:
IN
SANTA BARBARA COUNTY
10! &2008
1/6/2009
IN
SANTA MARIA
JAOOPTED
ADOPTED
12129!2006
227/2007
IN
1SOLVANG
DRAFT
2/1111009
4!10!2009
IN
SANTA CLARA
CAMPBELL
DRAFT
6125/2009 -
IN REVIEW
CUPERTINO
DRAFT
626/2009.-
IN REVIEW
GILROY
DRAFT
10/2112003
12/19/2003
DUE
�LOSALT&
DRAFT
51812009-
IN REVIEW
'LOS ALTOS HILLS
ADOPTED
121/2004
4/202004
DUE
LOS GATOS
ADOPTED
121112003;
2/262004
DUE
MILPITAS
DRAFT
62912009 -
IN REVIEW
MONTE SERENO
DRAFT
32312009
5/222009
OUT
MORGAN HILL
ADOPTED
823/2006
111202006_
DUE
MOUNTAIN VIEW
ADOPTED
12!232002
113!2003
DUE
PALO ALTO
ADOPTED
2282003
5/23/2003
DUE
SAN JOSE
6/29t2004-
IN REVIEW
SANTA CLARA
_ADOPTED
DRAFT
612912009-
IN REVIEW
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
DRAFT
_;715i2009'-
IN REVIEW
SARATOGA
DRAFT
4/3012009
629/2009
OUT
SUNNYVALE
DRAFT
611712009
7/3J2009�
OUT
SANTA CRUZ
CAPITDLA
ADOPTED
3/302004
5/7/2004
IN
Due means a housing element has not yet been submitted for the current planning period.
SOLANO
HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT 10 of 11
7/07/2009 3:32 p.m.
Jurisdiction
Rewrd
Date Date
Compliance
.Tvoe
.Received - Revlawed .
Statue _
SANTA CRUZ
DRAFT
6/30/2009 -
I
IN REVIEW
SANTA CRUZ COUNTY
5/18/2009-
_
6+2512009 -
IN REVIEW
IN REVIEW
SCOTTS VALLEY
1/142009
DRAFT
411312009
6/12/2009
OUT
W ATSONVILLE
(DRAFT
DUE
/20
3/3009
5/29/2009
IN
ANDERSON
DUE
ADOPTED
12/8/2003
12/29/2003
IN
REDDING
DT
RAF
4/612009
615!2009
IN
OUT
SHASTA COUNTY
ADOPTED
9/24/2004
10212004
IN
HUGHSON
SHASTA LAKE
ADOPTED
11/112004
12/2112004
IN
ADOPTED
LOYALTON
DRAFT
6/22/2009 -
NEWMAN
IN REVIEW
SIERRA COUNTY
ADOPTED
11/6/2006
1/3/2007
IN
OORRIS
ADOPTED
412012006
7118/2006
IN
DUNSMUIR
DRAFT
5202006
3!2712006"
IN
ETNA
ADOPTED
512712004
6114/20041
IN
FORTJONES
'ADOPTED
3126!2004
4!9/2004
IN
MONTAGUE
11/3!2003
41112004
62412004-
OUT
MOUNT SHASTA
(ADOPTED
ADOPTED
6128/2005
912312005
IN
COUNTY
:ADOPTED
5124!2004_
12712004
5/2712004'
IN _
_SISKIYOU
TULELAKE
ADOPTED
7!23/1004
9/3/2004
IN
DUE
ADOPTED
41112004
412712004
IN
IWEED
YREKA
ADOPTED
1116!2004.
1129!2004.
IN
. _
BENICIA
ADOPTED
51272003'
713112003
DUE
—
-DIXON
DRAFT
-
2!4!2009
4/3!2009
OUT
_
ADOPTED
i 6(19!2009
722009
IN
.FAIRFIELD
RIO VISTA
ADOPTED
I 2/15/2006'
41242006
DUE
_
SOLANO COUNTY
ADOPTED
_ 1011712008
116/2009
DUE__
SUISUN CITY
32712009
51262009
OUT
VACAVILLE
_DRAFT
DRAFT
5/12009
6!292009,
OUT
VALLEJO
DRAFT
_.—
4!17!2009
6!162009
OUT
CLOVERDALE
DRAFT
4/292009
6!262009
OUT
COTATI _
ADOPTED
- 614!2003
9!12/2003,
DUE
HEALDSBURG
(DRAFT
6!62009-
IN REVIEW
PETALUMA
ADOPTED
6122/2009-
INREVIEW
ROHNERT PARK
DRAFT_
5/18/2009-
IN REVIEW
. SANTA ROSA
DRAFT
1/142009
3/13/2009
OUT
— ....._...__ —_— . _._ _
_ -_
DRAFT
.__
5!42007
DUE
�SEBASTOPOL
SONOMA
ADOPTED
_3(672007
1!30120041
2/202004
DUE
SONOMA COUNTY
—
ADOPTED
6/'14 /2009
626!2009
IN
(WINDSOR
DRAFT
1262009
312712009
OUT
'ANISLAUS CERES
ADOPTED
10!15/2007
121272007
IN
HUGHSON
DRAFT
612/2009 -
IN REVIEW
MODESTO
ADOPTED
5172004
5111/2004'
NEWMAN
DRAFT
61612009-
IN REVIEW
OAKDALE
ADOPTED
_
51242004
6122/2004'
PATTERSON
DRAFT
5120!2009 -
IN REVIEW
RIVERBANK
_
DRAFT
4/22009
5129/2009
IN
STANISLAUS COUNTY
!ADOPTED
12129/2003
3262004
IN _
TURLOCK
ADOED PT
11/3!2003
12!162003
IN
WATERFORD
DRAFT
1ADOPTED
6122009 -
IN REVIEW
)TTER LIVE OAK
61262009 -
IN REVIEW
SUTTER COUNTY
ADOPTED
_ 10162004
12/14/2004
DUE
Due means a housing element has not yet been submitted for the current planning period.
HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT 11 of 11
7/07/2009 3:32 p.m.
Due means a housing element has not yet been submitted for the current planning period.
:Recorcl
Dale Date I
Canotiance
County
Jurisdiction
Tvoe
ReceNad Reviewed
Slatus .._
YUBA CITY
DRAFT
412912009
6/10/2009
OUT
TEHAMA
CORNING
ADOPTED
512612005
71812005
IN
RED BLUFF
DRAFT
IN REVIEW
TEHAMA
ADOPTED
_6/112009
3130/20041
4/20/2004
IN
TEHAMA COUNTY
DRAFT
511912009! -
IN REVIEW
TRINITY
TRINITY COUNTY
ADOPTED
31911004
4/1612004
IN
TULARE
DINUBA
ADOPTED
I 12/3011004
12/30/2004
IN
EXETER
DRAFT
6/2911009-
IN REVIEW
FARMERSVILLE
ADOPTED
51912005
6/10/2005
IN
LINDSAY
ADOPTED
913012004
10!20120041
IN
PORTERVILLE
DRAFT
31100009
5/6/2009
IN
TULARE
'DRAFT
4/30/2009
6/29!2009.
IN
TULARE COUNTY
ADOPTED
2118/2004
4!27/2004
IN
VISALIA
ADOPTED
12128/2005
3/2712006
IN
WOODLAKE
°DRAFT
6/30/2009-
IN REVIEW
TUOLUMNE
SONORA
ADOPTED
2/4/2004;
3/17(2004
IN
TUOLUMNE COUNTY
DRAFT
4116/2009
6/1511009
IN
VENTURA
CAMARILLO
ADOPTED
5/1812009-
IN REVIEW
FILLMORE
DRAFT
1013012008-
12/2912008
OUT
MOORPARK
ADOPTED
111812002
318!2002
DUE
OJAI
DRAFT
413/2009
I7I
611!2009
OUT
AF
DRT
2123/1009
4/24/2009
OUT
_OXNARD
.PORT HUENEME
DRAFT
I 3!1812009
5/14/2009
OUT
BUENAVENTURA
_.
DRAFT
10/3/2008
12!2!2008
OUT
_SAN
SANTA PAULA
DRAFT
6/27/2008
8/22/2008
OUT
SIMI VALLEY
ADOPTED
12/1312001
3/13/2002:
DUE
THOUSAND OAKS
ADOPTED
3118/2009
6116/20091
OUT
VENTURA COUNTY
ADOPTED
6112/2008
1111012008T
OUT
YOLO
DAVIS
'DRAFT
41411008
6/3/2008
OUT
-WEST SACRAMENTO
ADOPTED
10/10/2008
12!2412008'
IN
WINTERS
DRAFT
611912009-
IN REVIEW
WOODLAND
ADOPTED
3/2512009
61312009
IN
YOLO COUNTY
DRAFT
9/26/2008
11/25/2008
OUT
YUBA
MARYSVILLE
ADOPTED
4/4!2003
71112003
DUE
WHEATLAND
ADOPTED
4r 00
6/2711005
DUE
YUBA COUNTY
ADOPTED
6126!2009-
IN REVIEW
Due means a housing element has not yet been submitted for the current planning period.
5 FAT-1 01rA1 n:uRCIA.nrSIVPtll I RA14S)4* -rA 1I UN,AN0 1aJL!5 &CAUNCY
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
1600 Third Sjr c. Rwim. 430
SNMml1o.CA 05814
fG 1415>>.117i
ha +141Li t?).1641
July 6, 2005
Mr. Mark Pisano, Executive Director
Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG)
818 W. 7th Street, 12th floor
Los Angeles, California 90017
Dear Mr. Pisano:
RE: Pending Regional Housing Need Allocation Process
This is in response to your letter requesting the regional housing need determination (RHND)
and allocation (RHNA) in the SCAG region be coordinated with the Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP) process, pursuant to Government Code Section 65584.02. As you are aware, this
presents an opportunity to implement this new provision of law, actively supported by SLAG,
enacted by Chapter 696, Statutes of 2004 (AB 2158, Lowenthal). The objective of these new
provisions is to improve the coordination of planning for housing and transportation, and should
benefit your members and the State.
Your letter requested the following:
1. The forecast being developed by SCAG for the 2007 RTP update be used as the basis for
allocating housing need.
2. The duration of the planning period for housing elements in the SCAG region be six years.
3. The deadline for the submission of the housing element updates be July 1, 2008. The
following major milestones of the RHNA process were proposed:
a. Consultation on region's share of statewide housing need 1111/05
b. Determination of region's share of statewide housing need 5/l/06
c. Final determination of local shares 7r 1 /07
d. Adopted housing element updates due 7/l/08
The Department of Housing and Community Development (Department) staff met with
Lynn Hams and other SCAG staff on March 1, 2005 to discuss this request, and advised staff
that the Department would accept the request to combine the RHNA process with the forecasting
process for the 2007 RTP, such that the final adoption by SCAG of RHNAs as required by
Government Code Section 65584.05(h) occur no later than July I, 2007. As you know.
Mr. Mark Pisano, Executive Director
Page 2
Government Code Section 65584 requires SLAG to adopt a final RHNA plan at least one
year before the housing element due date. This means that the next (fourth) statutory due date
for housing elements within the SCAG region. as otherwise set forth in Government Code
Section 65588 (e)(1), is extended to June 30, 2008 (instead of June 30, 2006).
The next steps arc to define the data sources and methodologies for those portions of the RHNA
process specific to housing in consultation with you and your staff. Your letter included some of
the information required by Government Code Section 65584.02, but some of the data items and
information must be updated and other information must still be provided during the consultation
process, as it applies to the pending 2007 RTP, rather than the existing (2004) RTP. The
Department is committed to acting in a timely manner, in addition to another meeting with your
staff to exchange information as soon as possible.
To ensure the elTectivc implementation of this new collaborative process, it is especially critical
that procedural timelines he met; doing so will yield the additional benefit of avoiding the
pitfalls encountered in the past. We therefore urge you to take every opportunity to work closely
with your subregions and local government members to undertake the required statutory steps as
early as possible. It is also important to do so in a manner whereby the processes and
distinctions between the RHNA and RTP forecasting and processes are clear and, while
dovetailed, are understandable.
As you know, the extension pmcess was developed by the Housing Element Working Group to
facilitate better coordination between housing and transportation planning. The leadership and
commitment of Working Group members, including SCAG, were critical to reaching the
necessary consensus to adopt comprehensive reforms. The Department also recognizes and
appreciates your commitment to support the collaborative efforts and goals of Secretary Sunne
Wright McPeak, of the Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency (BTH), to incorporate
further improvements to the long -range housing and transportation planning processes.
However, the State continues to lace a growing housing crisis that threatens California's
economic prosperity and long -term competitiveness as well as the quality of life for all residents.
The housing crisis is reflected in declining affordability and increasing home prices. According
to the California .Association of Realtors, the April 2005 housing affordability index (the
percentage of households that can afford a median priced home) dropped to I I percent for
Orange County, 16 percent for Los Angeles, and 20 percent for Riverside/San Bernardino
Counties. As a result, it is critical that SCAG reinforce each community's obligation to continue
implementing their existing housing elements and approving additional housing to meet existing
and projected housing needs. This is especially critical during the extension period, because as
you know, the RI INA represents the minimum need for additional housing during the planning
period and does not represent a cap. Local governments should also be mindful of Government
Code Sections 65008, 65863, 65913, and 65589.5 as they continue implementing their housing
elements and considering applications for housing projects.
Mr. Mark Pisano, Executive Director
Page 3
The Department looks forward to continuing to work in partnership with SLAG to improve
housing planning and implementation in California and to determine the region's share of
statewide housing need. If you, or your staff, have any questions, please feel free to contact me
at (916) 323 -3177 or Linda Wheaton, Assistant Deputy Director, at (916) 327 -2642.
Sincerely,
Cathy . Creswell
Deputy Director
SIAIL GAGENCY _ AR\ 01 nSC11WARZI NLGG1AQ2rwor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Division of Housing Policy Development
10) rhmi Smn. S9i, 4;0
P 0 M4 , 952051 t
SlG0mn1O.CA 94252.2053
19161 12 1.3177
1'A%(916) 1272611
February 25, 2005
Ms. Patricia Temple
Director of Planning
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Beach Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Dear Ms. Temple:
RE: Review of Draft Amendments to the City of Newport Beach's Adopted Housing Element
Thank you for submitting proposed amendments to the City's housing element, received for review
on December 27, 2004. As you know, the Department is required to review draft housing elements
and report the findings to the locality pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(b). A series of
telephone calls and e-mail exchanges with Mr. Jaime Murillo, Assistant Planner, facilitated the
review.
The Department's September 15, 2003 review found the City's adopted housing element in
conditional compliance with State housing element law (Article 10.6 of the Government Code).
The amendments include, among other things, clarifying and correcting references to household
income levels and municipal code sections. The City's housing element will remain in compliance
with State housing element law (Article 10.6 of the Government Code) upon adoption of the
draft amendments and submittal to the Department for review (pursuant to Government Code
Section 65585(g). The Department would, however, recommend the City remain diligent in
monitoring and report on the status of its housing program actions, as required by Government Code
Section 65400. The City should focus its reporting efforts on its inclusionary housing program
(Program 2.2. 1) by tracking and evaluating how the affordability provisions described in the
program impact the overall cost and supply of housing.
As you know, the Department's September 15, 2004 finding of compliance was contingent on the
City effectively implementing its multifamily development and rezone strategies (i.e., within one
year of housing element certification), as described in Programs 3.2.2 and 3.2.3. While the
Department commends the City for submitting an annual progress report, received by the
Department on October 18, 2004, additional information is needed to determining whether the City
has met the conditions described in the September review. According to Mr. Murillo, the Bay-view
Landing project is now under construction (Program 3.2.2), however, efforts to redesignate the
Avocado /MacArthur site (to higher density) are on hold at the applicant's request (Program 3.2.3).
The 45.2 acre Banning Ranch site was identified as the third site in the City's land inventory as
being suitable and available for high density development.
Ms. Patricia Temple
Page 2
As indicated in the Department's September review, the entire Banning Ranch site need not be made
available for development within the planning period for the City to accommodate its regional share
need. However, some portion of the site must be made available to accommodate the development
of housing that is affordable to lower- income households and the local workforce (to accommodate a
minimum of 58 units). Within 15 days from the date of this letter, the City should provide the
Department with a report detailing how the City is meeting its obligation under the finding of
conditional compliance, including the status of the approval process for the Avocado/MacArthur
site, along with a description of the steps the City is taking to make a portion of the Banning Ranch
site available for residential development. The status report should include updated implementation
timelines as applicable.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed amendments, and hope our comments are
helpful. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Don Thomas, of our staff, at
(916) 445 -5854.
In accordance with their requests pursuant to the Public Records Act, we are forwarding a copy of
this letter to the individuals listed below.
Sincerely,
Cathy Creswell
Deputy irector
cc: Jaime Murillo, Assistant Planner City of Newport Beach
Mark Stivers, Senate Committee on Transportation & Housing
Suzanne Ambrose, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AG's Office
Terry Roberts, Governor's Offiec of Planning and Research
Nick Cammarota, California Building Industry Association
Marcia Salkin, California Association of Realtors
Marc Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Rob Weiner, California Coalition for Rural Housing
John Douglas, AICP, Civic Solutions
Deanna Kitamura, Western Center on Law and Poverty
S. Lynn Martinez, Western Center on Law and Poverty
Alexander Abbe, Law Finn of Richards, Watson & Gershon
Michael G. Colantuono, Colantuono, Levin & Rozell, APC
Ilene J. Jacobs, California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc.
Richard Marcantonio, Public Advocates
Veronica Tam, Cotton, Bridges and Associates
David Booher, California Housing Council
Jonathan Lehrer - Graiwer, Attorney at Law
Ana Marie Whitaker, California State University Pomona
Joe Carrcras, Southern California Association of Governments
Won Chang, Attorney at Law, Davis and Company
Jacob Lieb, Southern California Association of Governments
Ms. Patricia Temple
Page 3
Karen Warner. Karen Warner Associates
Lynne Fishel, Building Industry Association
Ralph Kennedy, Orange County Housing Coalition
Crystal Simms, Legal Aid Society of Orange County
Jean Forbath, Orange County Hunan Relations
Kenneth W. Babcock. Public Law Center
Ellen Winterbottom, Attorney at Law
Dara Schur, Protection & Advocacy, Inc.
Greg Spiegel, Western Center on Law and Poverty
Dara Kovel, Mercy Charities Housing California
Janet Falk, Mercy Housing California
Maya Dunne, St. Joseph Health System
Mark A. Gordon, Public Law Center
Christine Diemer, Christine Diemer Iger & Associates
S'IAIEOl'(AI IFUILNIA aUSINE.SS. TRANSFORTATION AND IIOCSa:G AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Division of Housing Police Development
I goo Tlnrd Arta, SuiT, 430
P.O. Am 9521W
5ec.wmo.CA 04252.2053
191602; 11"
1 A \ 19161 12!.2m %
June 20. 2W5
Mr. Homer Bludau. City Manager
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Mr. Bludau:
RE: Review of the City of Newport Beach's Adopted Housing Element
ARN.11 11S( 1J W $RiFNLGGER. G"a=
Thank you for submitting Newport Beach's housing element, as amended and adopted by the City
Council on April 12, 2005 and received for review on May 5, 2005. Pursuant to Government Code
Section 65585(h), the Department is required to review adopted housing elements and report the
findings to the locality. A series of telephone conversations and e-mail exchanges with
Mr. Jaime Murillo, Assistant Planner, facilitated the review.
The Department's February 25, 2005 review found the draft amendments, which clarified and
corrected references to household income levels and municipal code sections, would not affect the
compliance status of the City's housing element. Given these amendments were formally adopted
by the City Council, the Department is pleased to find the housing element remains in compliance
with State housing element law (Article 10.6 of the Government Code).
The Department's February 2005 review also required an update outlining the progress in meeting
conditional compliance requirements, specifically the status of the approval process for the
Avocado /MacArthur site, along with a description of the steps the City is taking to make a portion of
the 45.2 acre Banning Ranch site available for residential development. This report, received on
March 14, 2005, indicates the Banning Ranch site remains zoned for multifamily uses, however, no
development applications have yet been submitted. The report also indicates the necessary general
plan amendment, rezoning, and environmental analysis for the Avocado /MacArthur site has been
initiated by the City Council (pursuant to Program 3.2.3). However, the project is currently on -hold
pending the outcome of negotiations between the City and the property owner. According to the
City's status report, negotiations are expected to be completed by October 2005. Depending on
negotiation results, the City acknowledges it may have to identify an alternative site to remain in
compliance with the "adequate sites" statutory requirements for lower- income households.
Therefore, the Department's finding of compliance remains conditioned on the City ensuring the
supply of appropriately zoned sites is adequate to accommodate its regional housing need for lower -
income households. If the City's October 2005 annual report, as required by Government Code
Section 65400, reveals the Avocado/MacArthur site is not available for multifamily development
and an alternative site has not been identified, the element will no longer comply with the "adequate
Mr. Horner Bludau, City Manager
Page 2
sites" statutory requirement and will necessitate immediate amendment to provide the necessary
sites. Any altemative site must be suitable, available, and appropriately zoned to encourage and
facilitate the development of housing for lower- income households.
Since the City of Newport Beach's adopted housing element is in compliance, it has met one of
the threshold requirements for an innovative new program that rewards local governments for
approving affordable workforce housing. The Workforce Housing Program, funded by
Proposition 46, provides grant funds to eligible local governments for every qualifying unit
permitted, beginning calendar year 2005. Grant awards can be used to fund any capital asset
project, such as transportation or park improvements. More specific information about the
program is available on the Department's website at hnp:.,'v7viv.hcd.cu.tor. cu; itInp.'. It is
important to note that in addition to housing element compliance, the City must submit an annual
report on the implementation of the housing element in accordance with Government Code
Section 65400, by Dccetnber 31, 2005 to he eligible for funding.
The Department wishes the City of Newport Beach continued success in implementing its housing,
land -use, and development assistance programs, and looks forward to receiving the City's 2005
general plan implementation progress report. If the Department can provide any additional
assistance in implementing the City's housing element, please contact Don Thomas, of our staff, at
(916) 445 -5854.
Sincerely,
Cathy ewDeputy or
cc: Patricia Temple, Planning Director, City of Newport Beach
Jaime Murillo, Assistant Planner, City of Newport Beach
SIAIEAF CAUEORMA BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSNGAGFNCY _ ___ _ ARNCII G c MWAR7F NF[�•FQ foy.��
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Division of Housing Policy Development
1600 Thud Sireel, Suite 430
P. O. Box 952053 �-
S ,8� CA 942522053
(916) 3233177
PAX (916) 3272643
November 2, 2006
Mr. Homer Bludau, City Manager
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
IeZFTLR� :3RC'FnF
RE: Review of the City of Newport Beach's Revised Adopted Housing Element
Thank you for submitting Newport Beach's revised housing element, adopted by the City
Council on July 25, 2006 as part of a comprehensive general plan update. The element
was received for review on August 3, 2006. Pursuant to Government Code Section
65585(h), the Department is required to review adopted housing elements and report the
findings to the locality. A series of telephone conversations with Mr. Gregg Ramirez,
Senior Planner, facilitated the review.
As you know, the Department found Newport Beach's 2003 adopted housing element,
along with a subsequent revision in April 2005, in conditional compliance. The
Department's finding of compliance was contingent on the City's commitment to rezone
the Avocado /MacArthur site and continuing to encourage and facilitate development on
the Banning Ranch site. The revised element no longer proposes to rezone the
MacArthur site as a means to address the adequate sites statutory requirement. Also, the
element indicates the updated Land Use element is now prioritizing the retention of
Banning Ranch as open space. This is an especially critical point as the previously
adopted element relied on Banning Ranch to accommodate 406 multifamily units without
the need for a zone change or general plan amendment.
Instead, the adopted element now includes a general land inventory which focuses on
potential housing opportunities in the John Wayne Airport, Banning Ranch, Newport
Center, Mariners' Mile, and Balboa Peninsula areas. The element, however, only
contains general descriptions and potential dwelling unit capacity figures for those areas
(described on pages 5 -34 through 5-49). The element does not contain the necessary
information and analysis to determine which specific sites are suitable and available to
accommodate the City's remaining housing need within the current planning period. As a
result, the element no longer identifies adequate sites, and further, requires revisions to
analyze potential governmental constraints. As discussed with Mr. Ramirez, the following
specific revisions are needed to bring the element into compliance with State housing
element law (Article 10.6 of the Government Code).
Mr. Homer Bludau, City Manager
Page 2
Include an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites
and sites having the potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of
zoning and public facilities and services to these sites (Section 65583(x)(3)). The
inventory of land suitable for residential development shall be used to identify sites that
can be developed for housing within the planning period (Section 65583.2).
The element must be expanded to include a complete land inventory with specific site
descriptions and analysis. The inventory and analysis should include the following:
• A parcel specific listing of sites describing general plan designation, zoning,
maximum density, and parcel size.
• A description of existing uses on the identified non - vacant sites.
• A description of the impact of parcel size on development feasibility, capacity, and
affordability.
• An analysis that demonstrates how the City calculated its projected buildout
capacities for the identified sites. This analysis should evaluate the impact of the
City's land -use controls and site improvement requirements on buildout capacity
estimates. For example, the City must consider the imposition of maximum lot
coverage requirements, open space, parking, and floor area ratios (FARs), when
establishing its realistic unit capacity, rather than relying on a theoretical number
based on maximum buildout.
• A general analysis of the existing infrastructure capacity (i.e., water and sewer),
including access to distribution facilities along with an indication of whether capacity
is, or will be, sufficient to serve the identified sites within the planning period.
• A general description and analysis of known environmental constraints.
• Identification of which zones and densities can accommodate the City's lower -
income housing need (see Item 2, page 2 of the Department's AB 2348 technical
assistance paper).
• A map or other method for identifying specific sites in the inventory
For example, the Land Use element now prioritizes Banning Ranch as open space, yet
the housing element continues to identify it as a potential housing site (1,375 units).
Table H30 indicates the site will have both Open Space (OS) and Residential Village
(RV) the General Plan designations, while zoned Planned Community (PC). Therefore,
the element must clearly describe how much of the 465 acre site will be designated
specifically for residential uses, including timing of adoption of the zoning that can
accommodate residential development. The element should also explain how the future
master plan /specific plan, including development standards, acres of the various
residential components, density levels, and design guidelines will allow residential
development this planning period.
Mixed -Use: Table H30 indicates several areas have mixed -use development potential.
Based on the general land -use descriptions in the element, it appears a large
percentage of the Airport, Newport Center, Mariners' Mile, and Balboa Peninsula, areas
are builtout.
Mr. Homer Bludau, City Manager
Page 3
Therefore, the element must demonstrate that mixed -use development or stand alone
residential uses are realistic and viable development strategies for those sites with active
uses. For example, the element should describe the condition or age of existing
development and describe the potential for such uses to be discontinued and replaced
with housing, or provide a clear indication of whether housing could be added to the
existing use (such as adding second story residential to ground floor retail).
Also, the analysis should evaluate whether the redevelopment or intensification of a site
would require lot consolidation to allow additional residential development. The element
should further describe the City's experience in facilitating mixed -use development of
non - residentially zoned sites, including current market conditions, redevelopment trends
(i.e., high land and construction costs in concert with limited supplies of available and
developable land resources could promote the market conditions necessary to facilitate
more compact and efficient residential development) and incentives and policies to
encourage the development of underutilized and/or mixed -use sites.
To assist the City in addressing the adequate sites requirement, the Department has
provided Mr. Ramirez the AB 2348 technical assistance memo (via the Department's
website).
Given the City's reliance on mixed -use development to accommodate its remaining
need, the element should also include strong programs and policies to facilitate such
development.
2. Analyze potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance,
improvement, and development of housing for all income levels. The analysis shall also
demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality
from meeting its share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584
(Section 65583(a)(4)).
Land -Use Controls: Table H30 lists several zoning designations that are not
described or analyzed in the element's governmental controls section (Table H31).
The element should describe /define the applicable development standards and
permitted and conditional residential uses allowed in each of these zones (e.g., MU,
RV PC, SP, RSC -MM, APF). The element should also describe and analyze how
implementation of allowed density, building setbacks, height provisions, parking and
open space requirements help to facilitate and encourage housing for all income
groups. Should the requisite analysis determine the City's land -use controls are
impeding residential development, the element should describe efforts to mitigate
and /or remove any identified constraints.
Measure "S ": The Measure, approved in November 2000, establishes threshold
residential density and /or land -use intensity increases that trigger voter approval.
According to the adopted element, this Measure will not impact the City's ability to
accommodate its share of the regional housing need (pg 5-54). However, the
element must be expanded to include a more detailed description and evaluation of
Measure "S" impacts on the cost and supply of new residential development.
Mr. Homer Bludau, City Manager
Page 4
For example, the element should explain how Measure "S" is implemented, including
how the "vested rights" provisions are applied and whether any exception provisions
exist for affordable housing or housing needed to meet the City's Regional Housing
Needs Assessment (RHNA).
Requiring "major" general plan amendments to be decided on by the local electorate
could be costly and result in significant fiscals impacts to individual development
projects. The element should clarify if a project applicant is 100 percent responsible
for election costs and explain the methodology for determining these costs.
Also, pursuant to Government Code Section 65583(cX(3) the element must include
a program action that specifically addresses, and where appropriate, removes any
identified residential development constraints associated with Measure S. This
would be in addition to Program 2.3.1 as this action only commits the City to
studying the impacts of major commercial and industrial projects on the existing
housing supply.
The Department hopes these comments are helpful and would be glad to assist the City in
addressing the above requirements. If you would like to schedule a technical assistance
meeting or site visit, please contact Don Thomas, of our staff, at (916) 445 -5854.
Sincerely,
Cathy .Creswell
Depu Director
SjATFOFCAULOR"OIJ51NF55 TRANSPORTATION AND MOUSING AGENCY_.. _— _ ARNOIO Cf�RiNFQC.Q PGv @mq
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Division of Housing Policy Development
1800 TWO Street, Suite 430
P. O. Box 952053
SBCrem m. CA 942522053
(916) 3233177
FAX (916) 327-2643
September 10, 2007
Mr. Greg Ramirez, Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Dear Mr. Ramirez:
RE: Review of the City of Newport Beach's Revised Housing Element
Thank you for submitting revisions to Newport Beach's housing element. Pursuant to
Govemment Code Section 65585(b), the Department is required to review draft housing
elements and report the findings to the locality. A series of telephone conversations with
you facilitated the review.
The revised adopted element addresses some of the findings described in the
Department's November 2, 2006 review. For example, the draft revisions indicate that
Measure "S" (Section 423 of the City Charter) will not impact the development of the sites
identified in the inventory (Table H -30 and Appendix H5) due to the increased densities/
intensities established as part of the recent comprehensive general plan update
(approved by the voters in November of 2006). Newport Beach should be diligent in
monitoring the potential impacts of Charter Section 423 as identified in Housing
Program 2.3.1. Should monitoring reveal that residential projects are being subjected to
the voter approval process, the City must take the appropriate steps (in a timely manner)
to remove governmental constraints and provide adequate sites. The revisions also
indicate the City is continuing to work on a comprehensive zoning ordinance update,
which when completed, will establish zoning designations consistent with the new land -
use designations established as part of the general plan update.
However, according to the revised element, the John Wayne Airport and Newport Center
areas offer the greatest residential development potential during the remainder of the
planning period, through a variety of development strategies, including mixed -use, infill
and reuse. Therefore, as described in the Department's previous review, and discussed
with you, the element must demonstrate these strategies are realistic and viable such that
they can accommodate Newport Beach's remaining share of the regional housing need,
particularly for lower- income households.
Mr. Greg Ramirez, Senior Planner
Page 2
Include an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites
and sites having the potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of
zoning and public facilities and services to these sites (Section 65583(8)(3)). The
inventory of land suitable for residential development shall be used to identify sites that
can be developed for housing within the planning period (Section 65583.2).
Given that most of the sites listed in Appendix H5 are developed with existing uses, the
element must be expanded to describe the condition and age of existing development
and describe the realistic potential for these uses to be discontinued and replaced with
housing this planning period. The expanded analysis should describe the City's
experience in facilitating redevelopment and mixed -use development of non -
residentially zoned sites, including current market conditions, and redevelopment
trends. Please refer to the Department's November 6, 2006 review.
Also, as discussed with you and described in the Department prior review, given the
City's strong reliance on a combination of mixed -use and redevelopment to
accommodate its remaining housing need, Policy H.2.3 must be complemented with
strong programs and implementation actions to facilitate such development (i.e.,
specific commitment to provide regulatory and /or financial incentives and promote the
development of underutilized and/or mixed -use sites). Under a separate cover,
examples of program implementation actions from other jurisdictions that have or are
currently relying on mixed use and recycling development strategies will be sent to you.
The element's analysis of the identified sites in the John Wayne Airport and Newport
Centers areas must be expanded to include the following:
• A description of the impact of parcel size on development feasibility, capacity, and
affordability.
• An analysis that demonstrates mixed -use development or stand alone residential
uses are realistic and viable development strategies for those sites identified in
Appendix H5.
• An indication whether redevelopment, recycling, or intensification of a site would
require lot consolidation to allow additional residential development.
• A clarification that the noise and height restrictions set forth in the JWA Airport
Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) (page 5 -35) will not impact the projected
residential buildout capacities described in Table H30 for the identified sites listed in
Appendix H5.
Analyze potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance,
improvement, and development of housing for all income levels. The analysis shall also
demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality
from meeting its share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584
(Section 65563(a)(4)).
Mr. Greg Ramirez, Senior Planner
Page 3
Land -Use Controls: According to the draft revisions, City staff is currently working
on a comprehensive zoning ordinance update to address inconsistencies between
recently established general plan land use designations and outdated zoning
categories. As indicated in the element, the City Council adopted a resolution (as an
interim measure) that allows projects to be "reviewed" in spite of this general
plan /zoning inconsistency (page 5 -66). However, the element must be expanded to
demonstrate that in addition to "reviewing" residential projects, they can actually
receive final approval during the time period which the zoning ordinance is being
updated. In addition, the element should also include a timeline for completing the
zoning ordinance update. Finally, as indicated in the Department's prior review the
element must describe and analyze how implementation of allowed density, building
setbacks, height provisions, parking, and open space requirements of all newly
established zoning categories, particularly the Planned Community (PC) zone, will
facilitate and encourage housing for all income groups. Should the requisite
analysis determine the City's new land -use controls will impede residential
development, the element must include a program to mitigate and/or remove any
identified constraints.
The Department is committed to assisting the City of Newport Beach in bringing its housing
element into compliance and would be pleased to provide any additional assistance
necessary, including another meeting in Newport Beach. If you have any questions, or wish
to schedule a visit, please contact Don Thomas, of our staff, at (916) 445 -5854.
Sincerely,
y res
well
Depu irector
STATE OF CAI IFORNIA .Bt1SINFSS TRANSPORTATION AND HOI151NG A(9FNCY ARNOLD SCRWAR7FNFCCER Cnvernor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
1600 Third Sheel, Suile 430
P. O. Box 952053 1
Sacramento. GA 942522053
(916) 3233177 t FAX (916) 3272643
w .hcd.ca.gov
October 24, 2008
Mr. David Lepo, Planning Director
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Dear Mr. Lepo:
RE: Review of the City of Newport Beach's Draft Housing Element
Thank you for submitting Newport Beach's draft housing element received for review on
August 25, 2008. The Department is required to review draft housing elements and
report the findings to the locality pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(b). A
telephone conversation on October 20, 2008 with Mr. Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner,
and Ms. Linda Tatum and Ms. Jessie Barkley from PBS &J, the City's consultants,
facilitated the review. In addition, the Department considered comments from
Mr. Cesar Covarrubias, from the Kennedy Commission, Ms. Kathy Lewis, from the
Newport Beach Housing Coalition, and Mr. Ezequiel Gutierrez, from the Public Law
Center, pursuant to Government Code Section 65565(c).
The draft element addresses many of the statutory requirements; however, revisions will
be necessary to comply with State housing element law (Article 10.6 of the Government
Code). In particular, the element should include analyses of the adequacy of identified
sites to accommodate the regional housing need for lower- income households and
revise programs to demonstrate the City's commitment to assist in the development of
housing affordable to extremely low- income households. The enclosed Appendix
describes these and other revisions needed to comply with State housing element law.
Furthermore, in September of 2007, the Department reviewed draft changes to the
adopted housing element from the previous housing element planning period and
determined revisions relating to the adequacy of sites would be necessary to comply
with State housing element law. As the current draft contains much of the same site
related information, many of the findings described in the September 10, 2007 review
are still necessary to comply with State housing element law (Article 10.6 of the
Government Code).
Mr. David Lepo, Planning Director
Page 2
The Department would be happy to arrange a meeting in either Newport Beach or
Sacramento to provide any assistance needed to facilitate your efforts to bring the
element into compliance. If you have any questions or would like assistance, please
contact Melinda Coy, of our staff, at (916) 445 -5307.
Sincerely,
Cathy E. Creswell
Deputy Director
Enclosure
cc: Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner, City of Newport Beach
Kathy Lewis, Newport Beach Housing Coalition
Cesar Covarrubias, Kennedy Commission
Ezequiel Gutierrez, Public Law Center
APPENDIX
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
The following changes would bring Newport Beach's housing element into compliance with
Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the
supporting section of the Government Code.
Housing element technical assistance information is available on the Department's website at
www.hcd.ca.c1ov/hpd. Refer to the Division of Housing Policy Development and the section
pertaining to State Housing Planning. Among other resources, the Housing Element section
contains the Department's latest technical assistance tool Building Blocks for Effective Housing
Elements (Building Blocks) available at www.hcd.ca.00v- hpd!housinp element2:lndex.php, the
Government Code addressing State housing element law and other resources.
A. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints
1. include an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites
and sites having the potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of
zoning and public facilities and services to these sites (Section 65583(a)(3)). The
inventory of land suitable for residential development shall be used to identify sites that
can be developed for housing within the planning period (Section 65583.2).
Newport Beach has a Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) of 1,769 housing
units, of which 70B units are for lower- income households. To address this need, the
element relies primarily on underutilized and non - vacant sites within newly designated
mixed -use areas. However, to demonstrate the adequacy of these sites and strategies
to accommodate the City's share of the RHNA, the element must include more detailed
analyses, as follows:
Addressing Unaccommodated Need from the Previous Planning Period: Pursuant to
Chapter 614, Statutes of 2005 (AB 1233), as Newport Beach failed to adopt a housing
element demonstrating sufficient sites to accommodate the City's RHNA for the 2000-
2008 planning period, the element must include specific actions in its 2008 -2014 update
to address any unaccommodated need resulting from the previous planning period within
the first year of the 2008 -2014 planning period. To assist you in meeting this statutory
requirement, including instructions on calculating the unaccommodated need, see the
Department's AB 1233 memo at http i +www hcd ca ctov'hpd'hrciplanrheiab 1233 final dt pdf.
For additional assistance, please refer to the Building B /ocks'website at
hitp :r'!www.hcd.ca.govihodihousing element2.'GS reviewand revise. php.
Realistic Capacity: To calculate the potential residential capacity of sites in the
inventory, the element assumes the sites will be built at either maximum allowed
densities or to the maximum build out allowed under the general plan. The element
must describe the methodology for determining capacity assumptions and demonstrate
how the calculation accounts for land -use controls and site improvements, including
height limits, and floor area ratios. The element could also describe the density yield of
projects recently built or under construction. In addition, the element must provide a
parcel specific estimate of the number of units that could be accommodated on all sites
in the inventory including those within the John Wayne Airport Area.
-2-
Furthermore, as many of the sites are zoned for mixed -use, the residential capacity
analysis must account for the potential development of non - residential uses and could
consider any performance standards such as those mandating a specified portion of a
mixed -use site be non - residential (i.e., first floor, front space as commercial) when
estimating the potential residential capacity.
Sites to Accommodate the RHNA for Lower- Income Households: Given allowed
densities, the John Wayne Airport Area appears to have the greatest potential to
accommodate Newport Beach's share of the regional housing need for lower- income
households. However, the element must demonstrate how existing uses, parcel sizes,
land -use regulations, and General Plan Policy LU 6.14.6 impact the viability of this
strategy to accommodate the RHNA for lower- income households within the planning
period. For example:
Non - Vacant Sites: As the element relies primarily on non - vacant and underutilized
sites to accommodate the regional housing need (Appendix H -4), it must describe
the existing uses of each of the identified sites within the parcel specific inventory
and analyze the extent to which those uses may impede additional residential
development. The element should also describe any existing or proposed regulatory
incentives and standards to encourage and facilitate more intensive residential
development on the identified underutilized sites. For further information, refer to the
Building Blocks' website at
htta: / /www.hcd.ca.gov /had /housing element2 1SIA zoning.ohn.
Small Sites: Should the City need to rely on very small sites to accommodate a
portion of the remaining regional housing need for lower- income households, the
element must include an analysis demonstrating the development potential of
smaller sites, including their capacity to facilitate the development of housing for
lower- income households. The element could use development trends to facilitate
this analysis. This is particularly important given the necessary economies of scale
to facilitate the development of housing affordable to lower- income households. For
example, most assisted housing developments utilizing State or federal financial
resources typically include at least 50 to 80 units.
Lot Consolidation: General Plan Policy LU 6.14.6 requires residential
neighborhoods to include 10 continuous acres centered on a neighborhood park
(page 5 -44). The element should analyze the impacts of this policy on the
availability of development opportunities within the Airport Area for a variety of
housing types, including multifamily rental. While larger developers may have the
ability to assemble the necessary sites to meet the 10 acre requirement, the analysis
should consider the impact on smaller scale development proposals such as a low -
income housing tax credit project and indicate the impact of LU 6.14.6 on such
projects.
Sites with Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types: The housing element must
demonstrate the availability of sites, with appropriate zoning, that will encourage and
facilitate a variety of housing types, including supportive housing, single -room
occupancy (SRO) units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. An adequate
analysis should, at a minimum, identify whether and how zoning districts explicitly allow
-3-
the uses, analyze whether zoning, development standards and permit procedures
encourage and facilitate these housing types. If the analysis does not demonstrate
adequate zoning for these housing types, the element must include implementation
actions to provide appropriate zoning.
SROs: While the element indicates SROs are conditionally permitted in the RSC and
APF zones, it must also demonstrate how the City's permit processing procedures,
development standards, and standard conditions of approval encourage and facilitate
the development of SROs.
Emergency Shelters: The element includes Program 5.1.6 committing the City to
amend the zoning code to permit emergency shelters pursuant to Chapter 633,
Statutes of 2007 (SB 2). In conjunction with the City's program strategy, the element
must also identify the zone(s) being considered for emergency shelters and
demonstrate sufficient capacity in the zone(s) to accommodate the need for emergency
shelters, including sufficient capacity for at least one (year- round) emergency shelter.
For further information, please see the Department's memo at
htti)Vwww.hcd.ca.00v /h0/sb2 memo050708.0.
Transitional and Supportive Housing: The element includes Program 5.1.6 to amend
the zoning code to identify zones where transitional housing will be permitted and
conditionally permitted. Pursuant to SIB 2. the element must demonstrate transitional
and supportive housing are treated as residential uses subject only to those restrictions
that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. For example, if
the transitional housing is a multifamily use proposed in a multifamily zone, then zoning
and permit processing should treat transitional housing the same as other multifamily
uses proposed in the zone.
2. Analyze potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance,
improvement, and development of housing for all income levels, including land use
controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, lees and other
exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures. The
analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that
hinder the locality from meeting its share of the regional housing need in accordance
with Section 65584 (Section 65583(a)(5)).
Land -Use Controls: While the element includes Table H35 summarizing development
standards for residential zoning districts and Table H34 describing FAR and density
standards for the mixed -use areas, as stated in the Department's September 10, 2007
review, it must also analyze how implementation of these standards, particularly the
Planned Community (PC) zone, will facilitate and encourage housing for all income
groups. For example, the element must analyze how implementation of General Plan
Policy LU 6.14.6 could impact the development of housing affordable to lower- income
households. Should the requisite analysis determine the City's new land -use controls
will impede residential development, the element must include a program to mitigate
and /or remove any identified constraints.
-4-
Local Processing and Permit Procedures: As indicated in the element, City staff
is currently working on a comprehensive zoning ordinance update to address
inconsistencies between recently established general plan land -use designations and
outdated zoning categories and the City Council adopted a resolution (as an interim
measure) that allows projects to be "reviewed" in spite of this general plan/zoning
inconsistency (page 5 -77). However, as stated in the Department's
September 10, 2007 review, the element must be expanded to demonstrate that in
addition to "reviewing" residential projects, they can actually receive final approval
during the time period which the zoning ordinance is being updated.
Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP): The draft element indicates the City
requires an AHIP be prepared for projects with more than 50 residential units
(page 5 -51). While the element describes threshold requirements for the preparation of
an AHIP and in -lieu options, the element should be expanded to include a more specific
analysis of the program's proposed implementation framework and demonstrate the
ordinance will not act as a constraint on development of market -rate units. For
example, the element should include a more specific description and analysis of the
types of incentives the City will adopt to encourage and facilitate compliance with
inclusionary requirements, what options are available for developers to meet
affordability requirements, how the ordinance interacts with density bonus laws, and the
current amount of any in -lieu fee.
Constraints on Persons with Disabilities: The element must include a detailed
description of the City's recently adopted policies regarding group home development
and analyze this policy for requirements that may constrain housing for persons with
disabilities.
3. Analyze the opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential
development (Section 65583(a)(8)).
The element states Newport Beach's updated natural resources element contains
polices that promote energy efficient construction and encourage provision of energy
alternatives (page 5 -65), but does not provide a description of those policies. Given the
importance of promoting strategies to address climate change and energy conservation,
the City's analysis could facilitate adoption of housing and land -use policies and
programs in the housing element that meet housing and conservation objectives.
Planning to maximize energy efficiency and the incorporation of energy conservation
and green building features can contribute to reduced housing costs for homeowners
and renters. For example, the element could include incentives to encourage green
building techniques and materials in new and resale homes, promote energy audits and
participation in utility programs, and facilitate energy conserving retrofits upon resale of
homes. Additional information on potential policies and programs to address energy
conservation are available in the Building Blocks' website at
htlp: / /www.hcd.ca.aov /hod /hou$ina element21SIA conservation.pho.
-5-
B. Quantified Obiectives
Establish the number of housing units, by income level, that can be constructed,
rehabilitated, and conserved over a five -year time frame (Section 65583(b)(1 & 2)).
The element does not address this requirement. It must quantify the number of housing
units by income cateoory that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five -
year time period. This requirement could be addressed by utilizing a matrix like the one
illustrated below:
C. Housing Proarams
Identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning and
development standards and with public services and facilities needed to facilitate and
encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels,
including rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, and emergency shelters
and transitional housing. Where the inventory of sites, pursuant to paragraph (3) of
subdivision (a), does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups of
all household income levels pursuant to Section 65584, the program shall provide for
sufficient sites with zoning that permits owner - occupied and rental multifamily residential
use by right, including density and development standards that could accommodate and
facilitate the feasibility of housing for very low- and low - income households
(Section 65583(c)(1)).
As noted in finding Al, the element does not include a complete site analysis and
therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results
of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs
to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing
types. For your information, where the inventory does not identify adequate sites
pursuant to Government Code Sections 65583(a)(3) and 65583.2, the element must
provide a program to identify sites in accordance with subdivision (h) of 65583.2 for
100 percent of the remaining lower- income housing need with sites zoned to permit
owner - occupied and rental multifamily uses by -right during the planning period. These
sites shall be zoned with minimum density and development standards that permit at
least 16 units per site at a density of at least 20 units per acre. Also, at least 50 percent
of the remaining need must be planned on sites that exclusively allow residential uses.
Furthermore, as noted in finding A1, pursuant to AB 1233, the element must identify the
unaccommodated housing need by income level in the previous planning period and
include programs to make sufficient capacity available by June 30, 2009. This
demonstration is separate and in addition to adequate sites for the new planning period.
New
Construction
Rehabilitation
Conservation
Extreme) Low - Income
Very Low - Income
Low - Income
Moderate- Income
Above Moderate- Income
TOTAL
C. Housing Proarams
Identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning and
development standards and with public services and facilities needed to facilitate and
encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels,
including rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, and emergency shelters
and transitional housing. Where the inventory of sites, pursuant to paragraph (3) of
subdivision (a), does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups of
all household income levels pursuant to Section 65584, the program shall provide for
sufficient sites with zoning that permits owner - occupied and rental multifamily residential
use by right, including density and development standards that could accommodate and
facilitate the feasibility of housing for very low- and low - income households
(Section 65583(c)(1)).
As noted in finding Al, the element does not include a complete site analysis and
therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results
of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs
to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing
types. For your information, where the inventory does not identify adequate sites
pursuant to Government Code Sections 65583(a)(3) and 65583.2, the element must
provide a program to identify sites in accordance with subdivision (h) of 65583.2 for
100 percent of the remaining lower- income housing need with sites zoned to permit
owner - occupied and rental multifamily uses by -right during the planning period. These
sites shall be zoned with minimum density and development standards that permit at
least 16 units per site at a density of at least 20 units per acre. Also, at least 50 percent
of the remaining need must be planned on sites that exclusively allow residential uses.
Furthermore, as noted in finding A1, pursuant to AB 1233, the element must identify the
unaccommodated housing need by income level in the previous planning period and
include programs to make sufficient capacity available by June 30, 2009. This
demonstration is separate and in addition to adequate sites for the new planning period.
MM
Al a minimum, the element should be revised as follows:
• Programs 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 must be revised to include timeframes for the adoption of
the proposed development standards and zoning districts that implement general
plan land -use designations and policies.
As stated in the Department's September 10, 2007 review, given Newport Beach's
reliance on a combination of mixed -use and redevelopment to accommodate its
remaining housing need, Policy H.2.3 must be complemented with strong programs
and implementation actions to facilitate such development (i.e., specific commitment
to provide regulatory and /or financial incentives and promote the development of
underutilized and /or mixed -use sites).
To comply with the provision of Chapter 633, Statutes of 2007 (SB 2), Program 5.1.6
must be modified to identify a zone(s) where emergency shelters will be permitted
without a conditional use permit (CUP) or other discretionary action within one year
of adoption of the housing element, and demonstrate sufficient capacity is available
within this zone to accommodate at least one shelter. The zoning code must also
permit transitional and supportive housing as a residential use and only subject to
those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same
zone.
2. The housing element shall contain programs which "assist in the development of
adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low -, low- and moderate - income
households (Section 65583(c)(2)).
While the element includes some programs to assist the development of very low -, low -,
and moderate - income households, programs should be expanded or added pursuant to
Chapter 891, Statutes of 2006 (AB 2634), to specifically assist in the development of a
variety of housing types to meet the housing needs of extremely low- income
households.
3. The housing element shall contain programs which "address, and where appropriate
and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance,
improvement, and development of housing' (Section 65583(c)(3)).
As noted in finding A2, the element requires a more detailed analysis of potential
governmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may
need to strengthen or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified
constraints.
-7-
4. The housing program shall preserve for low- income household the assisted housing
developments identified pursuant to paragraph (8) of subdivision (a). The program for
preservation of the assisted housing developments shall utilize, to the extent necessary,
all available federal, state, and local financing and subsidy programs identified in
paragraph (8) of subdivision (a), except where a community has other urgent needs for
which alternative funding sources are not available. The program may include
strategies that involve local regulation and technical assistance (Section 65583(c)(6)).
The element identifies 46 units as at -risk within the immediate planning period and
another 87 units in the subsequent five years. Therefore, the element should
strengthen Policy H.3, to include specific actions to address the potential loss of units.
For example, the program should develop a strategy to quickly move forward in case
units are noticed to convert to market -rate uses. In addition, Programs 4.1.1 through
4.1.3 should include specific timeframes for implementation.
D. Public Participation
Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all
economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the
element shall describe this effort (Section 65583(c)(7)).
While the element provides a detailed listing of organizations and individuals notified
regarding workshops for the housing element update, it should also describe the success of
the outreach and how comments received as part of the public participation process were
incorporated into the housing element. Newport Beach should continue to engage the
community, including the parties commenting on the element, through any revisions and
subsequent adoption of those revisions to the housing element.
Final Regional Housing Need Allocation Plan - Planning Period (January 1, 2006 - June 30, 2014)
for Jurisdictions within the Six - County SCAG Region (approved by the SCAG Regional Council on July 12, 2007)
1100/ Adiustment toward County Distribution
County
City
% % above
% very low % low moderate moderate
income income income income
households households households households
% lotal
Number of
very low
income
households
Number of low
income
households
Number of
moderate
income
households
Number of
above
moderate
income
households
Total
SCAG Region
23.7%
16.2%
18.1%
42.094
100%
165,457
113.649
126,715
293,547
699.368
Imperial
Brawley city
24.5%
16.6%
16.0°0
42.9%
100%
757
511
494
1,326
31088
Imperial
Calexico city
24.6%
16.2%
15.7%
43.5%
100%
615
405
391
1,086
2.498
Impenal
Calipatria city
25.0%
16.0°0
16.D%
43.0%
100%
so
32
32
87
202
Imperial
El Centro city
24.8%
16.6%
16.1%
42.6%
100%
720
483
467
1,238
2.908
Imperial
Hol lle city
25.4%
16.7%
115.91/6
42.0%
100%
35
23
22
59
139
Imperial
Imperial city
26.0°0
17.1%
16.3%
40.7%
1000.
470
309
295
736
1.610
Imperial
Westmorland city
23.6%
16.5%
15.7%
44.1%
100%
61
42
40
113
256
Imperial
Unincorporated
24.7%
16.3%
15.7%
43.2%
100%
3.317
2.194
2,109
5,805
13.427
Los Angeles
Agoura Hills city
26.6%
165%
17.4%
39.4%
100%
29
18
19
43
110
Los Angeles
Alhambra city
24.5%
15.5%
16.8%
43.2%
100%
379
239
260
668
1.546
Los Angeles
Arcadia city
25.5%
15.8%
171%
41.5%
100 %
549
340
368
892
2,149
Los Angeles
Artesia city
25.29/6
15.3%
16.8%
42.7%
100%
33
20
22
56
132
Los Angeles
Avalon city
25.2%
150%
170%
42.9%
100%
37
22
25
64
148
Los Angeles
Azusa city
24.6%
15.4%
16.6%
43.3%
100%
184
115
124
323
745
Los Angeles
Baldwin Park city
24.9%
15.4%
165%
43.1%
100%
186
115
123
321
744
Los Angeles
Bell city
23.4%
14.9%
17.0 %
44.7%
100%
11
7
8
21
47
Los Angeles
Bell Gardens city
240%
149%
16.5%
44.6%
100%
29
118
20
54
122
Los Angeles
Bellflower city
24.7%
15.4%
16.6%
43.3%
100%
263
164
178
462
1.067
Los Angeles
Beverly Hills city
25.5%
16 2%
17.6%
40.7%
1000%
111
71
77
178
436
Los Angeles
Bradbury city
25.7%
17.1%
17.1%
40.00.
100%
9
6
6
14
35
Los Angeles
Burbank city
25.0%
158%
169%
42.3%
100%
947
597
642
1,600
3,786
Los Angeles
Calabasas city
26.4%
16.5%
17.8%
39.3%
100%
137
86
93
205
521
Los Angeles
Carson city
254%
158%
16.90.
41.8%
100%
461
287
307
757
1,812
Los Angeles
Cerritos city
26.6%
16.0%
17.0%
404%
100%
25
15
16
38
95
Los Angeles
Claremont city
25.6%
161%
17.4%
40.8%
100%
117
74
80
187
457
Los Angeles
Commerce city
23.8%
15.90.
15.9%
".4%
100%
15
10
10
28
64
Los Angeles
Compton city
23.5%
14 7%
17.6%
44.1%
100%
16
10
12
30
69
Los Angeles
Covina city
25.1%
15.8%
16.9%
42.20.
100%
336
211
226
564
1.337
Los Angeles
Cudahy city
23.5%
14.9%
16.7%
44."
100%
94
60
67
180
399
Note. There is a one unit rounding difference in some localities between the total housing need and the sum of the 4 income groups.
In such cases, communities may choose which of the income categories %will adjust by one unit to maintain Consistency with the approved total housing need.
MAjohnson \RHNA\RHNAFir l.xls
Final
07/12/2007
Page 1
Final Regional Housing Need Allocation Plan - Planning Period (January 1, 2006 - June 30, 2014)
for Jurisdictions within the Six - County SCAG Region (approved by the SCAG Regional Council on July 12, 2007)
a�
County
City
% % above
% very low % low moderate moderate
income income income income
households households households households
% total
Number of
very low
income
households
Number of low
income
households
Number of
moderate
income
households
Number of
above
moderate
income
households
Total
Los Angeles
Culver city
25.6%
15.5%
16.800
41.8%
100%
129
80
85
211
504
Los Angeles
Diamond Bar city
26.1%
16.4%
17.2%
40.3%
100%
284
179
188
440
1.090
Los Angeles
Downey city
25.01/6
15.7%
1618%
42.4%
100%
277
174
187
470
1.108
Los Angeles
Duarte city
25.1%
15.9%
17.1%
41.9%
100%
92
58
63
154
367
Los Angeles
El Monte city
24.1%
15.1%
16.6%
44.1%
100%
532
333
370
973
2,208
Los Angeles
El Segundo city
26.2%
16.1%
16.7%
41.1%
100%
44
27
28
69
168
Los Angeles
Gardena city
24.4%
15.5%
17.0%
43.1%
100%
270
171
168
476
1.105
Los Angeles
Glendale city
24.5%
15.7%
17.0%
42.6%
100%
767
491
534
1,340
3.131
Los Angeles
Glendora city
25.7%
16.0°0
17.1%
41.2%
100%
192
119
127
307
744
Los Angeles
Hawaiian Gardens city
24.3%
15.3%
16.7%
43.80%
100%
35
22
24
54
145
Los Angeles
Hawthorne city
24,1 %
15 1%
168%
44 1%
100%
219
137
153
401
910
Los Angeles
Hermosa Beach city
26.2%
16.5%
17.4%
39.9%
100%
147
93
98
224
562
Los Angeles
Hidden Hills city
265%
17.6%
17 6%
38.2%
100%
9
6
6
13
34
Los Angeles
Huntington Park city
23.7%
14.8%
16.80/6
44.6%
1000 /.
240
150
170
452
1.013
Los Angeles
Industry city
33.3%
16.7%
16.7%
33.3%
100%
2
1
1
2
6
Los Angeles
Inglewood city
24.0%
15.4%
16.8%
43.8%
100'%
398
255
278
727
1.658
Los Angeles
Irwindale city
23.9%
16.4%
16.4%
43.3%
100%
16
11
11
29
68
Los Angeles
La Canada Flinlridge city
26.2%
16.7%
18.0%
39.1%
100%
62
39
42
92
235
Los Angeles
La Habra Heights city
26,7%
164%
18.1%
388%
100%
21
13
14
31
80
Los Angeles
La Mirada city
25.8%
16.0%
17.3%
40.9%
100%
452
280
303
716
1.751
Los Angeles
La Puente city
24,9%
15.4%
16.9%
4290%
100%
201
124
136
346
807
Los Angeles
La Verne city
25.8%
15.9%
17.3%
41.0%
100%
220
136
148
351
854
Los Angeles
Lakewood city
25.6%
16.0%
17,1%
41.2%
too %
172
108
115
277
673
Los Angeles
Lancaster city
24.6%
15.5%
16.9%
43.0%
100%
3.144
1,989
2.165
5.501
12.799
Los Angeles
Lawndale city
24.B%
15.4%
16.5%
43.4%
100%
116
72
77
203
468
Los Angeles
Lomita city
25.1%
15.6%
16.8%
42.5%
100%
87
54
58
147
346
Los Angeles
Long Beach city
24.2°0
15.5%
17.1%
412%
100%
2.321
1.485
1.634
4.143
9.583
Los Angeles
Los Angeles city
24.1%
15.5%
17.1%
43.3%
100%
27,238
17.495
19.304
48,839
112.876
Los Angeles
Lynwood city
24.4%
15.3%
16.4%
419°.
100%
89
55
60
159
363
Los Angeles
Malibu city
26.1%
16.5%
17.8%
39.6%
100%
115
73
79
175
441
Los Angeles
Manhattan Beach city
26.4%
16.6%
17.9%
39.1%
100%
236
149
160
350
895
Note: There is a one unit rounding difference in some localities between the total housing need and the sum of the 4 income groups
In such cases. communities may choose which of the income categories 0 will adjust by one unit to maintain consistency with the approved total housing need.
M:yohnson \R H NA \R HNAFinal.xls
Final
07/12/2007
Page 2
Final Regional Housing Need Allocation Plan - Planning Period (January 1, 2006 - June 30, 2014)
for Jurisdictions within the Six - County SCAG Region (approved by the SCAG Regional Council on July 12, 2007)
County
City
% %above
% very low % low moderate moderate
income income income income
households households households households
% total
Number of
very low
income
households
Number of low
income
households
Number of
moderate
income
households
Number of
above
moderate
income
households
Total
Los Angeles
Maywood city
22.7%
13.6%
18.2%
45.5%
100%
5
3
4
10
22
Los Angeles
Monrovia city
25 1%
155%
16.9%
42.5%
100%
142
88
96
241
567
Los Angeles
Montebello city
24.5%
15.5%
15.9%
43.21/6
100%
123
78
85
217
502
Los Angeles
Monterey Park city
24.6%
155%
17.0%
43.0%
100%
280
177
194
490
1.141
Los Angeles
Norwalk city
25.291.
15.5%
16.7%
42.6%
100%
75
46
50
126
297
Los Angeles
Palmdale city
25.0%
15.8%
16.9%
42.3%
100%
4.481
2.822
3,024
7,583
17.910
Los Angeles
Palos Verdes Estates city
26.4%
16.7%
1B.1%
38.910
100%
19
12
13
28
72
Los Angeles
Paramount city
24.4%
15.4%
16.6%
43.7%
100%
248
156
168
444
1.017
Los Angeles
Pasadena city
24.8%
15.8%
17.1%
42.3%
100%
711
452
491
1.215
2.869
Los Angeles
Pico Rivera city
24.6%
15.7%
16.7%
42.9%
10ON.
211
134
143
367
855
Los Angeles
Pomona city
24.5%
15.5%
16.8%
411%
100%
901
571
619
1.587
3.678
Los Angeles
Rancho Palos Verdes city
26.7%
16.7%
17.8%
38.9%
100%
16
10
11
23
60
Los Angeles
Redondo Beach city
26.0%
16.2%
17.3%
40.5%
1 00%
580
363
387
904
2,234
Los Angeles
Rolling Hills city
273%
18.2%
18. %
36.4%
100%
6
4
4
8
22
Los Angeles
Rolling Hills Estates city
26.9%
15.4%
19.2%
385%
100%
7
4
5
to
26
Los Angeles
Rosemead city
24,3%
15.3%
16.8%
43.6%
100%
190
119
131
340
780
Los Angeles
San Dimas city
25.9%
16.1%
17.2%
40.8%
100%
162
101
107
255
625
Los Angeles
San Fernando city
24.7%
15.1%
16.7%
43.4%
100%
62
38
42
109
251
Los Angeles
San Gabriel city
24.9%
15.4%
17.0%
42.8%
100%
206
127
140
354
827
Los Angeles
San Marino chy
26.9%
15.4%
19.2%
38.5%
100%
7
4
5
10
26
Los Angeles
Santa Clarita city
26.0%
16.2%
17.3%
40.5%
100%
2,494
1,560
1.657
3.888
9,598
Los Angeles
Santa Fe Springs city
25.0%
15.8%
16.7%
42.5%
100%
115
73
77
196
460
Los Angeles
Santa Monica city
24.8%
16.0%
17.2%
41.9%
100%
164
106
114
277
662
Los Angeles
Sierra Madre city
26.1%
15.9%
17.4%
40.6%
100%
36
22
24
56
139
Los Angeles
Signal Hill city
253%
15.9%
16.7%
42.06!
100%
56
35
37
93
222
Los Angeles
South El Monte city
24.5%
15.0%
17.0%
435%
100%
49
30
34
88
202
Los Angeles
South Gate city
24,5%
15.1%
16.6%
43.96/
100%
322
198
218
576
1,313
Los Angeles
South Pasadena chy
25.7%
15.8%
17.M.
41.5%
100%
43
26
28
69
166
Los Angeles
Temple city
25.3%
15.8%
16.8%
42.1%
100%
249
156
165
416
987
Los Angeles
Torrance city
25.6%
16.0%
17.1%
41_4%
100%
468
292
312
756
1.829
Los Angeles
Vernon city
0.0%
0.0%
0.0°/,
0.0°1.
o%
0
0
0
0
0
Note: There is a one unit rounding difference in some localities between the total housing need and the sum of the 4 income groups.
In such cases. communities may choose which of the income categories it will adjust by one unit to maintain consistency wth the approved total housing need.
M:\iohnson\RHNA\RHNAFinal.xls
Final
07112/2007
Page 3
Final Regional Housing Need Allocation Plan - Planning Period (January 1, 2006 - June 30, 2014)
for Jurisdictions Within the Six - County SCAG Region (approved by the SCAG Regional Council on July 12, 2007)
110 M"
+
County
city
% % above
% very low % low moderate moderate
income Morrie income income
households households households household$
%total
Number of
very low
income
households
Number of low
income
households
Number of
moderate
income
households
Number of
above
moderale
income
households
Total
Los Angeles
Walnut city
26.1%
16.5%
17.9%
39.5%
100%
153
97
105
232
587
Los Angeles
West Covina city
25.6%
15.8%
16.9%
41.7/<
100%
631
388
417
1.026
2.461
Los Angeles
West Hollywood city
24.4%
15.5%
16.9%
432%
100%
142
91
99
252
584
Los Angeles
Westlake Village city
2691/6
17.3%
17.3%
38.5%
100%
14
9
9
20
52
Los Angeles
Whittier city
25.20/6
15.7%
17.0%
421%
100%
225
140
151
375
892
Los Angeles
Unincorporated
252%
15.9%
17.2%
41.7%
100%
14,425
9,073
9.816
23.862
57.176
Orange
Aliso Viejo city
22.6%
18.000
19.4%
40.0%
100%
208
165
179
367
919
Orange
Anaheim city
20.8%
170%
19.7%
42.5%
100%
1,971
1,618
1.874
4,035
9,498
Orange
Brea city
21,5%
17.4%
19.7%
41.4%
100%
441
356
404
647
2.048
Orange
Buena Park city
21.0%
17.1%
19.5%
42.3%
100%
142
116
132
286
677
Orange
Costa Mesa city
21.D%
17.2%
19.6%
42.2%
100%
353
289
330
710
1.682
Orange
Cypress city
21.7%
17.5%
19.7%
41.0%
100%
98
79
89
185
450
Orange
Dana Point city
22.1%
17.6%
19.1%
41.2%
100%
15
12
13
28
69
Orange
Fountain Valley crty
22.1%
17.7%
19.7%
40.5%
100%
103
83
92
189
466
Orange
Fullerton city
20.9%
17.2%
19.7%
42.2%
100%
398
329
376
806
1.910
Orange
Garden Grove city
20.7%
17.1%
19.6%
42.5%
100%
116
96
110
238
560
Orange
Huntington Beach city
21.7%
17.6%
19.8%
40.9%
100%
454
369
414
855
2.092
Orange
Irvine city
21.7%
t8.0%
20.0%
40.3%
100%
7,735
6.408
7,139
14.376
35.660
Orange
La Habra city
20.7%
17.2%
19.5%
42.6%
100°/
53
44
50
110
258
Orange
La Palma city
25.0%
18.8%
18.8%
37.5%
100°i
4
3
3
6
16
Orange
Laguna Beach city
233%
16.7%
20.0%
40.01Y.
100%
7
5
6
12
30
Orange
Laguna Hills city
25.0%
12.5%
25.0%
375%
100%
2
1
2
3
a
Orange
Laguna Niguel city
224%
17.9%
19.9%
39.8%
100%
80
64
71
141
355
Orange
Laguna Woods city
18.7%
17.2%
20.1%
440%
100%
25
23
27
60
135
Orange
Lake Forest city
207 %
17.2%
20.7%
41.4%
100%
6
5
6
12
29
Orange
Los Alamitos crty
22.0%
17.1%
19.5%
41.5%
100%
9
7
8
17
41
Orange
Mission Viejo city
22.6%
17.8%
19.9%
39.7%
100%
33
26
29
59
147
Orange
Newport Beach city
22.0%
18.0%
20.3%
39.7%
100%
392
322
362
708
1,784
Orange
Orange city
21.4%
17.5%
19.8%
4I4%
100°1,
1,086
887
1,004
2.102
5.079
Orange
Placentia city
21.6%
17.5%
19.6%
41.2%
1 DO%
21
17
19
40
98
Orange
Rancho Santa Margarita city
22.8%
17.9%
19.5%
39.8%
100%
28
22
24
49
124
Note: There is a one unit rounding difference in some localities between the total housing need and the sum of the 4 income groups.
In such cases. communities may choose which of the income categories 4 will adjust by one unit to maintain consistency with the approved total housing need.
M! \Johnson \RHNA \RHNAFinal.xls
Final
07/12/2007
Page 4
Final Regional Housing Need Allocation Plan - Planning Period (January 1, 2006 - June 30, 2014)
for Jurisdictions within the Six - County SCAG Region (approved by the SCAG Regional Council on July 12, 2007)
�»+
1.11
County
City
% %above
% very low % low moderate moderate
income income income income
households households households households
%total
Number of
very low
income
households
Number of low
income
households
Number of
moderate
income
households
Number of
above
moderate
income
households
Total
Orangc
San Clemente city
21.6%
17.6%
19.9%
40.9%
100%
126
103
116
239
584
Orange
San Juan Capistrano dry
21_6%
17.7%
19.8%
41.0%
100%
229
188
210
436
1.062
Orange
Santa Ana city
20.5%
16.9%
19.6°0
43.0%
100°0
694
574
665
1,461
3.393
Orange
Seal Beach city
193%
17.5%
21J%
42.1%
100°0
11
10
12
24
57
Orange
Stanton city
19.9%
17.1%
19.7%
434%
100%
108
93
1D7
236
544
Orange
Tustin city
21,5%
17.2%
19.6%
41.6%
100%
512
410
468
991
2.380
Orange
Villa Park city
27.3%
18.2%
18.2%
364%
100%
3
2
2
4
11
Orange
Westminster city
20.5%
17.1%
19.9%
42.5%
100%
30
25
29
63
147
Orange
Yorba Linda city
22.6%
18.2%
2020/6
39 0%
100%
460
371
412
796
2,039
Orange
Unincorporated
22.3%
18.1%
20.0%
39.6%
100%
1,777
1.445
1.597
3.159
7,978
Riverside
Banning city
22.7%
161%
18.4%
42.8%
100%
873
618
705
1,645
3,841
Riverside
Beaumont city
22.4%
16.2%
18.7%
42.7%
100%
1,586
1,146
1.320
3,019
7,071
Riverside
Blythe city
22.7%
16.5%
1 B.5%
42.3%
100%
177
128
144
329
778
Riverside
Calimosa city
23.21/6
16.2%
18.4%
42.2%
100%
528
367
419
957
2.271
Riverside
Canyon Lake city
25.D%
17. D%
19.0%
39.0%
100%
25
17
19
39
101
Rivorside
Cathedral city
23.5%
16.3%
18.3%
42.0%
100%
782
542
608
1.397
3.329
Riverside
Coachella city
22.5%
15.6%
18.5%
43.5%
100%
1,288
893
1 .059
2,493
5,733
Riverside
Corona city
24.8%
16.9%
18.5%
39.8%
100%
619
560
611
1,317
3.308
Riverside
Desert Hot Springs city
21.6%
15.8%
18.9°/
43.5%
100%
2,161
1.570
1.871
4,322
9.923
Riverside
Hemet city
22.1%
15.8%
18.5%
43.6%
100°/
2.484
1,781
2.080
4,898
11,243
Riverside
Indian Wells city
24.8%
17.4%
19.4%
38.4%
100%
61
42
47
94
244
Riverside
Indio city
23.1%
16.1%
18.1%
42.7%
100%
955
667
752
1,769
4.143
Riverside
La Ouinla city
24.6%
16.7%
18.4%
40.2%
100%
1.065
724
796
1.741
4,327
Riverside
Lake Elsinore city
23.5%
16.5%
18.6%
41.4%
100%
1.311
921
1,041
2.316
5.590
Riverside
Moreno Valley city
24.21,
16.6%
18.2%
41.0%
100%
1,806
1,239
1.362
3.068
7.474
Riverside
Murriela city
24.91/6
16.906
18.6%
39.6%
100%
1,568
1,067
1.171
2.497
6.303
Riverside
Norco city
24.9%
17.1%
18.6%
394%
100 %
236
162
177
374
949
Riverside
Palm Desert city
24.1%
16.5%
18.5%
40.99/6
100%
1.105
759
847
1.875
4.586
Riverside
Palm Springs city
231%
16.2%
18.6%
42.1%
100%
523
366
421
951
2,261
Riverside
Perris city
23.2%
16.1%
18.0%
42.7%
100%
967
669
748
1.778
4,163
Riverside
Rancho Mirage city
24.3%
16.8%
18.8%
40.1%
100%
781
539
603
1.285
3,208
Note: There is a one unit rounding difference m some localities between the total housing road and the sum of the 4 income groups.
in such cases, communities may choose which of the income categories h will adjust by one unit to maintain consistency with the approved total housing need.
M: \johnson\RHNA \RHNAFinal.xls
Final
07/12/2007
Page 5
Final Regional Housing Need Allocation Plan - Planning Period (January 1, 2006 - June 30, 2014)
for Jurisdictions within the Six - County SCAG Region (approved by the SCAG Regional Council on July 12, 2007)
w+
County
City
% %above
% very low % low moderate moderate
income income income income
households households households households
%total
Number of
very low
income
households
Number of low
income
households
Number of
moderate
income
households
Number of
above
moderate
income
households
Total
Riverside
Riverside city
23.6%
16.4%
18.4%
41.5%
100%
2.687
1,866
2,099
4.728
11.381
Riverside
San Jacinto city
22.5%
16.1%
18.3%
43.1%
100%
2.707
1,931
2,206
5.183
12.026
Riverside
Temecula city
24.8%
17.0%
18.5%
39.7%
100%
1,014
693
757
1.622
4,085
Riverside
Unincorporated
23.7%
16.4%
18.5%
41.4%
100%
13,343
9.267
10.428
23,331
56.368
San Bernardino
Adelanto city
22.6%
16.0%
18.5%
429%
100%
1.908
1,344
1,561
3,610
8.422
San Bernardino
Apple Valley town
236%
16.1%
18.9%
41.4%
100%
912
627
736
1,611
3.887
San Bernardino
Barstow city
22.7%
16.3%
18.8%
422%
100%
1,018
728
842
1.890
4,479
San Bernardino
Big Bear Lake city
228%
16.1%
19.3%
41.8%
100%
113
80
96
207
495
San Bernardino
Chino city
24.3%
16.900
19.1%
39.8%
100%
739
513
581
1.212
3.045
San Bernardino
China Hills city
25.2%
17.3%
19.7%
37.8%
100%
262
180
205
393
1,040
San Bernardino
Colton city
23.1%
16.1%
187%
42.2%
100%
854
595
693
1,%3
3.705
San Bernardino
Fontana city
23.9%
16.4%
18.8%
40.9%
100%
1.365
932
1,073
2.329
5.699
San Bernardino
Grand Terrace city
24.21/
16.9%
19.0%
39.9/
100%
80
55
63
131
329
San Bernardino
Hesperia city
23.5%
16.2%
18.8%
41.6%
100%
2.135
1.469
1,707
3.784
9.094
San Bernardino
Highland city
23.3%
16.5%
19.0%
41.3%
100%
502
355
409
890
2.156
San Bernardino
Loma Linda city
23.1%
16.3%
18.90/.
41_7%
100%
610
432
501
1.103
2.646
San Bernardino
Montclair city
23.5%
16.2%
19.0%
41A%
100°/
426
293
343
748
1,810
San Bernardino
Needles city
21.20%
16.7%
19.7%
42,4%
100%
14
11
13
28
67
San Bernardino
Ontario city
23.91/
16.2%
18.6/
41.3%
100%
1,826
1,243
1.425
1165
7.662
San Bernardino
Rancho Cucamonga city
24.7%
16.8%
19.1%
39.3%
100%
317
216
245
504
1.282
San Bernardino
Redlands city
24.0%
16.5%
18.9%
40.6%
100°/,
682
469
539
1.155
2.x45
San Bernardino
Rialto city
23.7%
16.2%
18.80/6
41.4%
100%
1023
700
812
1.788
4.323
San Bernardino
San Bernardino city
22.4%
16.1%
19.0%
42.6%
100%
1,275
913
1.079
2.420
5.687
San Bernardino
Twentynine Palms city
22.8%
15.6%
18.80/6
42.8%
100%
702
480
578
1.317
3.078
San Bernardino
Upland city
23.9%
16.4%
19.2%
40.5%
100° /,
476
328
382
809
1,995
San Bernardino
Victorville city
22.91/6
16.3%
18.906
41.9%
100%
1,972
1,401
1,630
3.614
8.618
San Bernardino
Yucaipa city
23.3%
16.2%
19.0%
41.5%
100%
476
332
389
850
2.048
San Bernardino
Yucca Valley town
22.3%
15.9%
18.90/6
42.9%
100%
560
399
474
1,076
2,510
San Bernardino
Unincorporated
233%
16.1%
18.9%
41.7%
100%
4,602
3,324
3.899
6.598
20.622
Ventura
Camarillo city
21.8%
17.7%
20.6%
40.0%
100%
727
591
687
1,335
3.340
Ventura
Fillmore city
20.6%
17.3%
20.5%
41.6%
100%
203
170
202
410
985
Note: There is a one unit rounding difference in some localities between the total housing need and the sum of the 4 income groups.
In such cases. communities may choose which of the income categories it will adjust by one unit to maintain consistency with the approved total housing need.
M:ljohnsoMRHNA\RHNAFinal.xls
Final
07/12/2007
Page 6
Final Regional Housing Need Allocation Plan - Planning Period (January 1, 2006 - June 30, 2014)
14 for Jurisdictions within the Six - County SCAG Region (approved by the SCAG Regional Council on July 12. 2007)
Note: There is a one unit rounding difference in some localities between the total housing need and the sum of the 4 income groups.
In such cases. communities may choose which of the income categories it will adjust by one unit to maintain consistency with the approved total housing need.
M:\iohnson \R HNA \R HNAFinal.xls
Final
07/1212007
Page 7
Number of
%above
Number of
Number of
above
%very low
%low
moderate
moderate
very low
Number of low
moderate
moderate
income
income
income
income
income
income
income
income
County
City
households households
households households
% lolal
households
households
households
households
Total
Ventura
Moorpark city
22.4%
18.1%
20.7%
38.8%
100%
363
292
335
627
1.617
Ventura
Ojai city
20.8%
17.1%
20.8%
413%
100%
90
74
90
179
433
Ventura
Oxnard city
210%
172%
20.4%
41.4%
1010%
1,491
1.221
1,445
2.936
7.093
Ventura
Pan Hueneme city
20.001.
17.2%
20.6%
42.2%
100%
36
31
37
76
180
Ventura
San Buenaventura (Ventura)
21 2%
17.5%
20.3%
41.0%
100%
849
703
816
1,643
4,011
Ventura
Santa Paula city
20.2%
17.4%
20.6%
41.8%
100%
453
390
462
936
2.241
Ventura
Simi Valley city
22.3%
17.9%
20.5°16
39.3%
100%
754
605
694
1.330
3.383
Ventura
Thousand Oaks city
22.3%
1B.0%
20.81/6
38.9°!
100%
411
333
385
718
1.847
Ventura
Unincorporated
21.7%
17.8%
20.7%
39.7%
100%
305
250
291
558
1.404
Note: There is a one unit rounding difference in some localities between the total housing need and the sum of the 4 income groups.
In such cases. communities may choose which of the income categories it will adjust by one unit to maintain consistency with the approved total housing need.
M:\iohnson \R HNA \R HNAFinal.xls
Final
07/1212007
Page 7
Final Regional Housing Need Allocation Plan - Planning Period (January 1, 2006 - June 30, 2014)
for Jurisdictions within the Six - County SCAG Region (approved by the SCAG Regional Council on July 12, 2007)
Summary by County
% °!o above
%very low % low moderate moderate
income income income income
households households households households
%total
Number of
very low
income
households
Number of
% %above
Number of
Total
Number of
above
very low % low moderate moderate
very low
Number of low
moderate
moderate
income income income income
income
income
income
income
County City households households households households %total
households
households
households
households Total
Summary by County
% °!o above
%very low % low moderate moderate
income income income income
households households households households
%total
Number of
very low
income
households
Number of low
income
households
Number of
moderate
income
households
Number of
above
moderate
income
households
Total
Imperial
IVAG
24.8%
Imperial
248%
16.4%
15.8%
43.0%
100%
6.025
4.000
3.851
10.451
24,327
Los Angeles
24.7%
15.7%
17 1%
426%
100%
70.117
44,469
48,472
120,869
283.927
Orange
21.5%
17.7%
19.9%
40.904
10109%
17,733
14.566
16.380
33.653
82.332
Riverside
234%
16.3%
18.5%
41.8%
100/,
40.849
28,535
32.292
73.029
174.705
San Bernardino
23.3%
15.204
18.81Y.
41.6%
100%
25,051
17,420
20,275
44.797
107,543
Ventura
214%
17.6%
20.5%
40.5%
100%
5.682
4,660
5,444
10.748
26.534
SCAG
23.7%
16.2%
181%
42.04
100%
1 165.457
113,649
126,715
293,547
699.368
For Information only
Summary by Subrefil
County Subregion
% °!o above
%very low % low moderate moderate
income income income income
households households households households
%total
Number of
very low
income
households
Number of low
income
households
Number of
moderate
income
households
Number of
above
moderate
income
households
Total
Imperial
IVAG
24.8%
16.4%
15.8%
43.01Y.
100%
6.025
4,000
3.851
10.451
24.327
Los Angeles
North LA
25.2%
15.9%
17.1%
41.04
100%
18499
11,661
12.554
30.639
73.352
Los Angeles
LA City
24.1%
15.5%
17.1%
43.3°!
100%
27.436
17,620
19.443
49,199
113.698
Los Angeles
Arroyo Verdugo
24.9%
15.8%
17.0%
42.3%
100%
1,871
1.187
1,282
3.184
7,524
Los Angeles
San Gabriel Valley Assoc.
25 29/.
15.7%
17.0%
42.1%
100%
10.690
6.675
7.220
17,893
42,478
Los Angeles
Westsido Cities
254%
16.0%
172%
414%
100%
893
564
605
1,457
3.519
Los Angeles
South Bay Cities Assoc
25.1%
15.8%
17.1%
42.0%
100%
3,450
2.173
2.345
5.765
13,733
Los Angeles
Gateway Cities
24.5%
154%
169%
43 2v.
100%
6.914
4,360
4,777
12.185
28.236
Los Angeles
Las Virgenes, Coney
26.3%
16.5%
17.7%
39.5%
100%
364
229
246
548
1,387
Orange
Orange
21.5%
17.7%
19.9%
409%
100%
17,733
14,566
16,380
33.653
82.332
Riverside
WRCOG
235%
16.4%
18.5%
41.7%
100%
30.798
21,501
24.208
54,625
131,133
Riverside
CVAG
23.1%
16.1%
18.6%
42 2%
100%
10,050
7,034
8.084
18.404
43.572
San Bernardino SANBAG
23.3%
16.2%
18.81%
41.6%
100%
25.051
17.420
20.275
44,797
107,543
Ventura
VCOG
21.4%
17.6%
20.5%
40.5%
f00%
5.682
4,660
5,444
10.748
26.534
SCAG
23.7 %
16.2%
18.1%
42.04
1004
165,457
113,649
126.715
293,547
699.368
For Inforinatlon only
M:\johnson\RHNA\RHNAFinal.xis
Final
0711212007
Page 8
Principal authors:
Kassie Siegel, Matt Vespa, Brian Nowicki
September 2007
Front cover photos:
Clockwise from top: US Fish and Wildlife Service,
Los Padres Forest Watch, Kassie Siegel
Center for Biological Diversity
1095 Market Street, Suite 511
San Francisco, California 94103
www.biologicaldiversity.org
The Center for Biological Diversity is a nonprofit
conservation organization with more than 35,(X)0 members
dedicated to the protection of imperiled species and habitat.
Contact: Brian Nowicki, bnowickiCi ubiologicaldiversity.org, 916 - 201 -6938
Table of Contents
Summary and Introduction 1
Global Warming: Impacts and Risks 2
I
California's Commitment to Fighting Global Warming 4
Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Under CEQA 5
Environmental Impacts Analysis 5
Evaluation of Alternatives 9
Adoption of Mitigation Measures 9
Statements of Overriding Considerations 12
Conclusions 12
Literature Cited 13
Appendix: Methodologies for Calculating a Project's Greenhouse Gas Emissions 14
Photo courtesy Michael Mengak, wuJorestn tm gesor&
The California Environmental Quality Act
On the Front Lines of California's Fight Against Global Warming
SUMMARY
The State of California has long been a champion of environmental protection and a
national leader in climate change policy. California has a number of laws and policies
that address the critical challenge of slashing California's greenhouse gas emissions by
mid - century. Prominent among these laws, but as yet little utilized, is California's
flagship environmental protection statute, the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).' CEQA requires state and local agencies to assess and reduce to the extent
feasible all significant environmental impacts from new project approvals. The CEQA
environmental review process is fully established throughout the state, with a proven
track record of mitigating impacts relating to air pollution, water quality and availability,
land use, endangered species, and many other aspects of California's environment.
With regard to climate change, CEQA offers an opportunity and a legal mandate for
cities, counties, and government agencies to consider the greenhouse gas emissions
from new projects they approve and to adopt the many measures available to reduce
those emissions.
This paper describes the tremendous benefits to California from analyzing and reducing
greenhouse gas emissions of new development through the CEQA process, and
presents a blueprint for agencies and project applicants to address greenhouse gas
emissions at each step in the CEQA review process. The assessment and reduction of
greenhouse gas pollution through the CEQA process is one of our most important tools
on the front lines of California's battle against global warming. For this reason, we
encourage full implementation and enforcement of CEQA review of global warming
impacts.
' Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.: Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq. ( "CEQA Guidelines").
The California Environmental Quality Act
On the Front Lines of California's Fight Against Global Warming
I. GLOBAL WARMING: IMPACTS AND
RISKS TO CALIFORNIA AND THE
WORLD
Changes in the climate in California and
throughout the world are painfully
apparent. Changes already observed in
California include warmer winter and
spring temperatures; a smaller mountain
snowpack that melts one to four weeks
earlier in the spring; increased
frequency and severity of droughts,
floods, and wildfires; changes in plant
and animal populations and ranges; and
about seven inches of sea level rise.
The California Climate Change Center's
summary report presents future impacts
based on a low, medium, and high
emissions scenario (Luers et al. 2006).
In all impact categories from
temperatures to heat related deaths to
wildfire risk to loss of the Sierra
snowpack, impacts become far worse
under the medium and high warning
scenarios. The low warming scenario
presumes a rapid shift away from fossil
fuels and towards clean and resource -
efficient technologies.
In addition to impacts to California, the
Intergovemmental Panel on Climate
Change reports that global warming
impacts are similar across the United
States and worldwide (Adger 2007).
The IPCC projects an increase in global
average surface temperature by as
much as 11.5 °F over the next 100
years; reductions in snow cover and
permafrost; reductions in sea ice extent,
with the arctic becoming ice-free in the
summer in the second half of the
century; increases in frequency of
extreme heat and heavy precipitation
events; an increase in the intensity of
hurricanes; increases in the intensity of
El Nino weather pattems; and changes
in precipitation patterns, increasing or
decreasing regionally by as much as
20% or more. These changes are
predicted to displace millions of coastal
residents, negatively impact public
health, and lead to the catastrophic loss
of biodiversity.
There is a large and growing body of
economics literature on the
environmental costs of climate change.
For example, the Stem Review of the
Economics of Climate Change (2006), a
comprehensive report commissioned by
the British government, concluded that if
greenhouse gas emissions are
unabated, each ton of carbon dioxide
emitted today will cause damage worth
at least $85. Further, Stem (2006)
warns that allowing current emissions
trajectories to continue unabated would
eventually cost the global economy
between 5 to 20 percent of global gross
domestic product (GDP) each year
within a decade, or up to $7 trillion, and
that these figures should be considered
conservative estimates. By contrast,
measures to mitigate global warming by
reducing emissions were estimated to
cost about one percent of global GDP,
or $300 billion each year, and could
save the world up to $2.5 trillion per
year (Stem 2006).
The severity of future global warming
impacts is a collective societal choice:
the longer it takes to reduce emissions,
the worse the changes will be. Leading
climate scientists wam that just ten
more years of continued global
"business as usual" greenhouse gas
emissions will make it difficult or
impossible to achieve the low warming
scenario and avoid some of the worst
impacts, including 20 feet of sea level
Center for Biological Diversity 2 September 2007
"rhe California Environmental Qualiq Act
On the Front Lines of California's Fight Against Global Warming
rise in as little as a century, and the
displacement of millions of coastal
residents worldwide (Hansen et al.
2006, 2007). One scientific review
determined that 35 percent of species
may be committed to extinction by the
year 2050 under a high emissions
scenario (Thomas et al. 2004). Quite
literally, continued unabated
greenhouse gas emissions threaten life
Higher
Emissions
scenario
Medium-
High
Emission
scera o
Lower
Emissan
scenario
on earth as we know it.
The importance of reducing greenhouse
gas pollution cannot be overstated:
reductions made today not only make
economic sense, but will determine the
type of climate and quality of life
experienced by our children and
grandchildren.
Summary of Projected Global Warming Impact, 2070 -2099
(as compared with 1961 -1990)
13 G
7-34K e, loss in Sierra snowpack
r n s — .
• 22- 301nches of sea level rise
12
2 5-4 tines as many heal was days In major urban centers
3 -0nmes as many heat was days in majot urban contras
• 2- 6tenes as many heat.related deaths in major urban centers
3 Medium
• 4-6 amps as many heat•telatsd deaths In major urban centers
11
2.5 times more critically dry years
1 -25 times more critically dry years
"itihik,
204E increase in energy dent and
1•
WarmYgamge
5
55% increase in theaxpated risk of Wrga Mares
(8 -[0.54)
a lows
30-6We loss in Siena snowpatk
Warmkiq aarsge
3 (3 -5341 6 -14 inches of sea eyel rise
2 -23 tines as many Nat was days In major urban centers
2 2 -3 times as many heat- telated deaths in major urban centers
• 25- 3590lncrwvse In days conducive to ozone formation*
1 Up to 1 5 times more cmrcaly dry year
3- 6%imrsaw m electricity demand
0 7 -14% decrease in forest yields (pines
• 10 -3590 increase in the risk of large svadfua
•rakgha®nk 10) rra taNrrirwab WIiesaarae4sasw4ytwaW
Figure from Luers et al 2006
Center for Biological Diversih 3 September 2007
7-34K e, loss in Sierra snowpack
9
• 14 -22 Inches of sea level rise
a
2 5-4 tines as many heal was days In major urban centers
• 2- 6tenes as many heat.related deaths in major urban centers
3 Medium
7S-8590 incrsyse in days conducive to ozone fomsaton•
Warming Hoge
is 5E•F,
1 -25 times more critically dry years
6
10% increase in electricity demand
• 30% decrease in Brest yields tia",
5
55% increase in theaxpated risk of Wrga Mares
a lows
30-6We loss in Siena snowpatk
Warmkiq aarsge
3 (3 -5341 6 -14 inches of sea eyel rise
2 -23 tines as many Nat was days In major urban centers
2 2 -3 times as many heat- telated deaths in major urban centers
• 25- 3590lncrwvse In days conducive to ozone formation*
1 Up to 1 5 times more cmrcaly dry year
3- 6%imrsaw m electricity demand
0 7 -14% decrease in forest yields (pines
• 10 -3590 increase in the risk of large svadfua
•rakgha®nk 10) rra taNrrirwab WIiesaarae4sasw4ytwaW
Figure from Luers et al 2006
Center for Biological Diversih 3 September 2007
'The California Environmental Quality Act
On the Front Lines of California's Fight Against Global Warming
II. CALIFORNIA'S COMMITMENT TO
FIGHTING GLOBAL WARMING
The significant risks climate change
poses to California as well as the
considerable benefits of reducing the
State's greenhouse gas emissions have
resulted in many laws and policies
designed to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and increase energy
efficiency and the use of renewable
energy. These include California's
Clean Vehicle Law (AB 1493, 2002),
Governor Schwarzenegger's June 2005
Executive Order S -3 -05, the Califomia
Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
(AB 32, 2006), and many others.
Califomia's Clean Vehicle law was
implemented through a 2004 Califomia
Air Resources Board (GARB)
rulemaking and would result in an 18%
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions
from Califomia light -duty passenger
vehicles by 2020 and a 27% reduction
by 2030. These reductions would also
be achieved, according to the CARB
staff analysis, at a net benefit to the
Califomia economy.
The Governor's Executive Order
established greenhouse gas emission
targets as follows: by 2010, reduce
emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020,
reduce emissions to 1990 levels; and by
2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80
percent below 1990 levels. The
Executive Order also established the
interagency Califomia Climate Action
Team to coordinate the State's
reduction efforts and report back on the
progress of those efforts as well as the
ongoing impacts of global warming on
the State.
The Califomia Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006 is the nation's first
mandatory cap on a state's overall
greenhouse gas emissions. The Act
states:
Global warming poses a serious
threat to the economic well - being,
public health, natural resources, and
the environment of California. The
potential adverse impacts of global
warming include the exacerbation of
air quality problems, a reduction in
the quality and supply of water to the
state from the Sierra snowpack, a
rise in sea levels resulting in the
displacement of thousands of coastal
businesses and residences, damage
to marine ecosystems and the
natural environment, and an
increase in the incidences of
infectious diseases, asthma, and
other human health - related
problems.
The Global Warming Solutions Act
requires the reduction of emissions to
1990 levels by the year 2020. The law
will be implemented through a series of
CARB rulemakings including
establishing emission source monitoring
and reporting requirements, discrete
early action emission reduction
measures, and finally greenhouse gas
emission limits and measures to achieve
the maximum feasible and cost -effective
reductions in furtherance of the
greenhouse gas emission cap.
Solving our climate crisis requires action
on many fronts and pursuant to many
different laws and policies. California's
important new laws and policies are in
addition and completely complementary
to the existing obligation of state and
local agencies to analyze the
Center for Biological Diversity 4 September 2007
The California Environmental Quality Act
On the Front Lines of California's Fight Against Global Warming
greenhouse gas emissions from new
project approvals pursuant to CEQA.2
Indeed, recognizing that CEQA provides
an independent basis to combat global
warming, the legislature recently passed
SB 97 (2007), which requires the Office
of Planning and Research to prepare by
July 1, 2009, and the Resources Agency
to certify by January 1, 2010, guidelines
"for the mitigation of greenhouse gas
emissions or the effects of greenhouse
gas emissions as required by [CEQA],
including, but not limited to, effects
associated with transportation and
energy consumption."
III. ASSESSMENT OF GREENHOUSE
GAS EMISSIONS AND CLIMATE
CHANGE UNDER CEQA
The CEQA environmental review
process requires state and local
agencies to analyze and disclose all
significant environmental impacts of
their discretionary project approvals.
CEQA provides for varying levels of
review based on the nature of the
project's impacts. A Negative
Declaration indicates that an initial study
does not reveal any potentially
significant environmental impacts. A
Mitigated Negative Declaration indicates
that potentially significant impacts exist
but can be avoided or mitigated to below
significance. Where there is a "fair
For example, the Global Warming Solutions
Act states repeatedly that "Inlothing in this
division shall relieve any person, entity, or public
agency of compliance with other applicable
federal, state, or local laws or regulations,
including state air and water quality
requirements, and other requirements for
protecting public health or the environment."
Health and Safely Code § 36592(b). see also id.
§ 38598.
argument" that the project would have
one or more significant environmental
impacts, an Environmental Impact
Report ( "EIR ") must be prepared (Laurel
Heights Improvement Assn v. Regents
of Univ. of Cal. [1993] 6 Cal.AppAth
1112, 1123; see also Pub. Res. Code §
21082.2).
An EIR is a documented review of the
significant environmental effects of a
project, possible ways to minimize those
effects, and a comparison of alternative
versions of the project. The purpose of
the EIR is to inform agency decisions
with regard to projects, to improve
projects by reducing and mitigating
environmental effects, and to inform the
public and facilitate public input into the
decisionmaking process. Once an
agency has determined that a project's
environmental effects will be significant,
the agency cannot approve the project
as proposed if there are feasible
alternatives or feasible mitigation
measures that will avoid or substantially
lessen those effects (Pub. Res. Code §
21002). This paper focuses on the EIR
process to disclose and analyze the
project's greenhouse gas emissions.
A. Environmental Impacts Analysis
A project impact must be assessed if it
has "an effect on the environment within
the meaning of CEQA" (See Protect the
Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador
Water Agency [2004] 116 Cal.AppAth
1099, 1111). Global warming affects
the "environment" as defined by CEQA
CEQA defines "environment" as "the physical
conditions which exist within the area which will
be affected by a proposed project, including
land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise,
objects of historic or aesthetic significance."
Pub. Res. Code § 21060.5.
Center for Biologics( D(versfq 5 September 2007
The California Environmental Quality Act
On the Front Lines of California's Fight Against Global Warming
because global warming affects the
physical conditions in all regions of
California. Because a project that
generates greenhouse gas emissions
contributes to global warming, this
impact must be fully disclosed and
analyzed under CEQA.
In order to properly analyze a project's
climate change impacts, an EIR should:
1) provide a regulatory and scientific
background on global warming; 2)
assess the project's contribution to
climate change through an emissions
inventory; 3) assess the effect of climate
change on the project and its impacts;
and 4) make a significance
determination.
1. Providing a Scientific and
Regulatory Background on Global
Warming
As discussed above, climate change
poses enormous risks to California. In
order to assess a project's contribution
to global warming, the EIR should
provide an accurate and relevant
summary of global warming and its
impacts. The scientific literature on the
impact of greenhouse gas emissions on
California (and the world) is well
developed and can provide the context
for this discussion .4 The summary
should make a good faith effort at full
disclosure and avoid minimizing or
discounting the severity of global
warming's impacts (see CEQA
Guidelines 14 C.C.R. § 15151; San
Joaquin RaptorIlMildlife Rescue Center
v. County of Stanislaus [1994] 27
Cal.App.4th 713).
Reports issued by California agencies are
available at hltp :I,www.climatechange.ca.gov,
and IPCC reports available at
http://www.ipcc.ch .
The EIR should also include a brief
discussion of other laws that address
climate change, including California's
mandate to reduce emissions to 1990
levels by 2020 and goal of further
reducing emissions to 80% below 1990
levels by 2050. Achievement of state -
mandated emissions reductions will be
severely impeded if agencies across the
state continue to approve new projects
without incorporating measures to
reduce the added emissions created by
these projects.
2. Assessing the Project's
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
To assess the project's greenhouse gas
pollution, the EIR should complete an
inventory of all of the project's emission
sources. This inventory should include
a "sufficient degree of analysis to
provide decision- makers with
information which enables them to make
a decision which intelligently takes
account of environmental
consequences," and should include
direct and indirect sources included in
all phases of the project (CEQA
Guidelines §§ 15151; 15126;
15358(a)(2)). The greenhouse gas
inventory can be conducted in
conjunction with the assessment of the
project's energy consumption, required
by Pub. Res. Code § 21100(b)(3) (see
also CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4).
While the exact contents of an inventory
will vary depending on the project
considered, sources to consider include
the following:
• Electricity and natural gas usage in
buildings;
• Vehicle trips generated by the
project;
Center for Biological Diversity 6 September 2007
The California Environmental Quality Act
On the Front Lines of California's Fight Against Global Warming
• Water supply and transportation to
the project;
• Operation of construction vehicles
and machinery;
• Manufacture and transport of
building materials;
• Waste disposal, including transport
of solid waste and methane
emissions from organics
decomposition;
• Process emissions, such as from the
production of cement or the refining
of gasoline;
• "End use" emissions, such as the
burning of the fossil fuels extracted
by a production project;
• Agricultural processes, including
methane from concentrated animal
manure;
• Fugitive emissions, such as methane
leaks from pipeline systems and
leaks of HFCs from air conditioning
systems.
A project's greenhouse gas emissions
can be measured though a variety of
straightforward inventory methodologies
including protocols from the California
Air Resources Board, the California
Climate Action Registry, the California
Energy Commission, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, and non - governmental
organizations. Inventory methodologies
are listed in the Appendix of this paper.
3. Assessing the Effect of Global
Warming on the Project and the
Project's Impacts
The EIR should discuss how climate
change will affect the project and its
impacts. For example, a development
project in a coastal area may be subject
to flooding based on projected sea level
rise. In addition, global warming may
exacerbate or change a proposed
project's impacts. Dewatering of rivers
by pumping will be much more
significant if surface flows are reduced
by global warming; higher air
temperatures will increase the formation
of ground level ozone; and species at
risk from temperature increases and
changes in precipitation will be more
sensitive to project impacts to their
habitats. In sum, global warming may
exacerbate a project's impacts or
reduce the effectiveness of mitigation
measures to reduce those impacts, and
the EIR should include a discussion of
these dynamics.
4. Making a Significance
Determination
After disclosing and analyzing a
project's greenhouse gas emissions, the
agency must determine whether the
impacts from those emissions are
significant (Pub. Res. Code § 21082.2).
A lead agency must determine not only
whether a project's impacts will be
significant in and of themselves, but also
whether the impact will be significant on
a cumulative basis. A project's impacts
require a mandatory finding of
significance if they are "cumulatively
considerable" (Pub. Res. Code §
21083(b)). "'Cumulatively considerable'
means that the incremental effects of an
individual project are significant when
viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects" (CEQA Guidelines §
15064(h }(1)).
Center for Biological Diversity 7 September 2007
The California Environmental Quality Act
On the Front Lines of California's Fight Against Global warming
Climate change is a classic example of
a cumulative effects problem: emissions
from numerous sources combine to
create the most pressing environmental
and societal problem of our time. These
sources may appear insignificant when
considered individually, but assume
threatening dimensions when
considered collectively with other
sources with which they interact (see
Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. City
of Los Angeles [1997] 58 Cal.AppAth
1019, 1025). The solution to climate
change lies not in any one single action,
but in systematically reducing emissions
from all possible sources.
While a particular project's greenhouse
gas emissions represent a fraction of
Califomia's total emissions, courts have
flatly rejected the notion that the
incremental impact of a project is not
cumulatively considerable because it is
so small that it would make only a de
minimis contribution to the problem as a
whole (see Communities for a Better
Environment v. California Resources
Agency [2002] 103 Cal.AppAth 98,
117).5 An EIR may not use the
magnitude of a current problem to
trivialize the project's impacts (see
Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of
Hanford [1990] 221 Cal.App.3d 692,
719). Rather, "the greater the existing
environmental problems are, the lower
the threshold should be for treating a
project's contribution to cumulative
5 See also Massachusetts v. EPA. 127 S.Cl-
1438, 1457 (2007) (U.& Environmental
Protection Agency arguments for not regulating
carbon dioxide from vehicles under the Clean Air
Act "rests on the erroneous assumption that a
small incremental step, because it is
incremental, can never be attacked in a federal
judicial forum I ... ] Agencies, like legislatures, do
not generally resolve massive problems in one
fell regulatory swoop.-).
impacts as significant" (see
Communities for a Better Environment
103 Cal.AppAth at 120). In light of the
magnitude and scope of the climate
change impacts facing California and
the mandate of both the Califomia
Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
and Executive Order S -3 -05 that
existing levels of greenhouse gases be
significantly reduced, any new
emissions generated by a project should
be considered cumulatively significant.
Consistent with CEQA's treatment of
cumulative impacts, lead agencies have
explicitly determined that any increase
in greenhouse gases above existing
levels is a significant impact under
CEQA (see Marin Countywide Plan
Update DE/R, 2007; San Diego Assn of
Governments Regional Transportation
Plan DElR, 2007). Other agencies have
declined to make a significance
determination on global warming
impacts based on the assertion that
doing so would be "speculative." In the
case of climate change, there is nothing
speculative about the fact that: 1) new
sources of greenhouse gases add to
existing levels; and 2) the state has
determined existing levels are
unacceptable and must be reduced
within a fixed timeframe.
Moreover, even where there is no
universally accepted methodology as to
what constitutes a significant impact, a
lead agency must still meaningfully
attempt to quantify a particular impact
and determine whether the impact is
significant (see Berkeley Keep Jets
Over the Bay Committee v. Board of
Port Commissioners [2001 ] 91
Cal.AppAth 1344, 1370 -71.
Accordingly, the lack of established
greenhouse gas thresholds does not
Center for Biological Diversity 8 September 2007
The California Environmental Quality Act
On the Front Lines of California's Fight .Against Global Warming
shield a lead agency from making a
significance determination on global
warming impacts. Because the
legislature has determined that
California's current greenhouse gas
baseline is so high that it requires
significant reductions, and any
additional emissions will exacerbate
existing conditions, it is difficult to see
how a new source, even a small one,
can be cumulatively insignificant.
Because additional greenhouse gas
emissions from new projects will nearly
always qualify for a mandatory finding of
significance under CEQA as a
cumulative impact, an agency's
determination of whether the emissions
should be considered significant in and
of themselves may assume less
importance as a practical matter. While
the authors believe that agencies should
consider emissions from large projects
significant in their own right as well as
cumulatively, agencies will exercise their
discretion in this regard and further
clarification will likely come in the form
of case law or guidance.
It does not follow from this analysis,
however, that every project that
generates greenhouse gas emissions
will require an EIR. As with any other
potentially significant impact, the project
may include measures to reduce the
impact of greenhouse gas emissions to
below significance, allowing for a
Mitigated Negative Declaration (Pub.
Res. Code § 21064.5). As discussed
below, there are many mitigation
measures available for housing and
other types of projects that can do so.
B. Evaluation of Alternatives
A rigorous analysis of alternatives is
essential to avoid or substantially lessen
environmental impacts in the first
instance (Pub. Res. Code § 21002;
CEQA Guidelines §§ 15002(a)(3),
15021(a)(2)). "Without meaningful
analysis of alternatives in the EIR,
neither courts nor the public can fulfill
their proper roles in the CEQA process"
(Laurel Height Improvement Assn v.
Regents of University of California
[1988] 47 Cal.3d 376, 404). With regard
to development projects, an EIR should
examine alternatives that call for higher
density development, mixed use, and
site locations in urban areas that would
reduce vehicle miles traveled. In the
case of fossil fuel related energy
projects, an EIR should examine the
feasibility of energy generation utilizing
renewable energy sources. Impacts
should be avoided wherever possible
through the adoption of environmentally
superior alternatives.
C. Adoption of Feasible Mitigation
Measures
Mitigation of a project's significant
impacts is one of the "most important"
functions of CEQA (Sierra Club v. Gilroy
City Council [1990] 222 Cal.App.3d 30,
41). Once an agency has determined
that a project's greenhouse gas
emissions will be significant, the agency
cannot approve the project as proposed
if there are feasible alternatives or
feasible mitigation measures that will
avoid or substantially lessen the
project's significant environmental
effects (Pub. Res. Code § 21002).
The applicability of mitigation for global
warming impacts was recognized by the
Center for Biological Diversity 9 September 2007
The California Environmental Quality Act
On the Front Lines of California's Fight Against Global Warming
legislature in SB 97, which sets a
deadline of January 1, 2010, for the
Resources Agency to certify and adopt
guidelines developed by the Office of
Planning and Research "for the
mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions
as required" by CEQA. While SB 97
darifies that the legislature considers
global warming to be an impact
requiring mitigation under CEQA,
nothing in SB 97 postpones or defers
the current obligation of agencies to
mitigate greenhouse gas emissions from
proposed projects prior to the adoption
of guidelines by the Resources Agency.
Agencies should utilize a hierarchy of
options to avoid and reduce greenhouse
gas emissions before moving on to
other types of mitigation. For example,
with regard to energy use, the agency
should first look at reducing the energy
required by the project, then at
measures to generate the remaining
energy from renewable sources, then at
measures to offset any remaining
energy related emissions. (See Pub.
Res. Code § 21100(bK3); CEQA
Guidelines, App. F; see also Anderson
First Coalition v. City of Anderson [2005]
130 Cal.AppAth 1173). Measures to
reduce climate change impacts may not
be deferred until some future time or be
so vague that it is impossible to evaluate
their effectiveness (see CEQA
Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B)).
While the specific array of feasible
mitigation measures varies with the
diversity of project proposals in
Califomia, there is a common suite of
avoidance and mitigation measures for
many types of projects. Below we
discuss two of the most common project
types, proposals for new residential or
commercial buildings and municipal
general plans.
1. Avoiding and Mitigating a
Building Project's Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
California has access to nearly year -
round sunshine in vast areas of the
state and already has more stringent
energy efficiency requirements than the
rest of the nation as a whole. This has
placed our state in an enviable position:
by increasing green building practices, it
is feasible today to build many
structures with vastly reduced energy
needs for heating, cooling, lighting, and
other needs. Mitigation measures
agencies should consider include the
following:
• Constructing highly energy - efficient
buildings to decrease heating,
cooling, and other energy demands,
including using passive heating,
natural cooling, and reduced
pavement;
• Utilizing high - efficiency heating and
cooling systems, lighting devices,
and appliances;
• Minimizing and recycling
construction- related waste;
• Using salvaged and recycled - content
materials, and other materials that
have low production energy costs,
for building materials, hard surfaces,
and non -plant landscaping;
• Maximizing water conservation
measures in buildings and
landscaping;
• Installing photovoltaic solar energy
arrays on buildings to meet energy
needs;
Center for Biological Diversity t0 September 2007
The California Environmental Quality Act
On the Front Lints of California's Fight Against Global Warming
• Installing solar hot water systems to
meet hot water needs; and
• Cooperating with local transportation
agencies to secure public
transportation, and contributing to
public transportation infrastructure.
2. Mitigating a Municipal Plan's
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The adoption and updating of municipal
general plans and transportation plans
offer exceptional opportunities to
examine the impact of agency planning
and policy on greenhouse gas pollution
and to adopt measures to reduce that
pollution. Mitigation measures
incorporated into these multi-year plans
would not only reduce the greenhouse
gas emissions and global warming
impacts of the plans, but facilitate the
development of future projects with
lower impacts and greater opportunities
for mitigation. For example, municipal
plans can include provisions for:
• Expanded public transportation
service and infrastructure, such as
bus and light rail lines;
• Energy efficiency /green building
requirements, adopted via
ordinances, codes, and regulations;
• Installation of electric vehicle
charging stations;
• Expanded infrastructure for
pedestrian and bicycle circulation;
• Public awareness and education
programs;
• Conversion of state, local, and
private fleets to alternative fuel
vehicles, and requirements and
incentives for fleets to run on
alternative fuels;
• Capture and control of methane from
municipal landfills and composting
facilities; and
• Incentives to focus housing
development along existing travel
corridors, urban areas, and as in -fill.
3. Offsetting Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Once all measures to avoid and
minimize greenhouse gas emissions
have been adopted, the project will need
to offset the remaining greenhouse gas
emissions. Offsets are a type of offsite
mitigation in which the greenhouse gas
emissions of the project are balanced by
an action to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions elsewhere. Credit is given in
the amount of emissions avoided or
sequestered by the offsite project. It is
critical that offsets be real, verifiable,
and permanent, and not have adverse
impacts on communities or the
environment. For example, offsets can
include a retrofit of previously existing
buildings in the project area to make
them more energy efficient, or the
installation of photovoltaic arrays or
solar water heating systems on offsite
buildings.
However, offsite mitigation and offsets
should be pursued only after all feasible
onsite actions have been undertaken to
maximally avoid and reduce the
project's greenhouse gas emissions.
Furthermore, any offsite mitigation
should give the highest priority to offsets
within California in order to contribute to
state -wide greenhouse gas emissions
reductions and to help ensure that the
offsets comply with
California environmental laws
and emissions standards.
Center for Biological Diversity I I September 2007
The California Environmental Quality Act
On the Front Lines of California's Fight Against Global Warming
D. Statements of Overriding
Considerations
If a proposed project will still have a
significant impact on the environment
after all feasible alternatives and
avoidance and mitigation measures
have been adopted, an agency may still
approve the project if it adopts a
"Statement of Overriding
Considerations" (CEQA Guidelines §
15092). Thus, CEQA does not prevent
agencies from approving new sources of
greenhouse gas emissions, it simply
provides a time- tested mechanism for
agencies to explore and adopt options
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It
also serves an important informational
purpose - the public and decision -
makers can track a jurisdiction's
approach to greenhouse gas reductions
and the success of that approach
through the CEQA process. CEQA will
continue to illuminate, as the Legislature
intended, the way that local elected
officials balance factors, including the
environment and greenhouse gas
emissions, in their project approvals.
IV. CONCLUSION
The solutions to climate change are
multi- faceted, including the need for a
federal commitment to reducing
greenhouse gas emissions, a world-
wide transition away from fossil fuels
and towards renewable and low- carbon
energy sources, and a general adoption
of all possible means of systematically
reducing emissions from all sources.
These challenges will be made even
more difficult if we continue to engage in
land use and planning decisions that do
not take global warming into account.
The solutions to climate change, then,
are also highly local. In California we
are extremely fortunate to already have
an established and straightforward
mechanism for evaluating and
ameliorating the greenhouse gas
emissions from local project approvals.
Taking full advantage of the CEQA
review process to do so will continue to
be an important and integral part of
solving the climate crisis.
Center for Biological Diversity 12 September 2007
The California Environmental Quality Ad
On the Front Lines of California's Fight Against Global Warming
14114 :Y_r01 :14160 i4a]
Adger, N., et al. 2007. Summary for Policy Makers in Climate Change 2007: Climate
Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Working Group II Contribution to the
Intergovern mental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report.
Available at http: / /www.ipcc.ch.
Hansen, J., M. Sato, R. Ruedy, K. Lo, D. W. Lea, and M. Medina - Elizade. 2006. Global
temperature change. Proc. Nall. Acad. Sci. 103:14288- 14293,
d o i:10.1073/pnas.0606291103.
Available at http:// www. pnas .orq /cqi /contentlabstract/103 /39/14288.
Hansen, J., et al. 2007. Climate change and trace gases. Phil. Trans. R. Soc.
365:1925 -1954. Available at htti): / /Dubs.Qiss.nasa.gov /authors /ohansen.html.
Luers, A., D. R. Cayan, G. Franco, M. Hanemann, and B. Croes. 2006. Our changing
climate, Asessing the risks to California: A summary report from the California Climate
Change Center, CEC- 500 - 2006 - 077 -SF.
Available at httl)://www.climatechange.ca.gov/biennial reports /2006report/index.html.
Stem, N. 2006. The Economics of Climate Change: the Stern Review.
Available at http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/indel)endent reviews /stern review
economics climate change /stem review report.cfm.
Thomas, C. D. C., A., R. E. Green, M. Bakkenes, L. J. Beaumont, Y. C. Collingham, B.
F. N. Erasmus, M. Ferreira de Siqueira, A. Grainger, L. Hannah, L. Hughes, B. Huntley,
A. S. van Jaarsveld, G. F. Mldgley, L. Miles, M. A. Ortega - Huerta, A. T. Peterson, O. L.
Phillips, and S. E. Williams. 2004. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature
427:145 -148.
Available at http / /www nature.com/ nature /journal /v427/n6g7O labs /natureO2l2l .html.
Center for Biological Diversity 13 September 2007
The California Environmental Quality Act
On the Front Lines of California's Fight Against Global Warming
APPENDIX: METHODOLOGIES FOR CALCULATING A PROJECT'S
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The following resources are available for calculating a project's greenhouse gas emissions. No
single protocol will necessarily fulfill CECIA's requirement to assess all of a project's direct and
indirect emissions. It may be necessary to combine more than calculation protocol to include all
of the project's impacts.
• The California Climate Action Registry, http : / /www.climateregistry.orq /, is developing
inventory protocols for many greenhouse gas emission sources, including: electricity use;
motor vehicles; stationary combustion sources such as power plants, refineries,
manufacturing processes, and furnaces; purchased steam, heat, and power from co-
generation plants; fugitive emissions; cement manufacturing; forestry operations; and
livestock operations.
• The California Energy Commission 2006 "Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks: 1990- 2004," Appendix B, describes methodologies for the calculation
Of CO2 and methane emissions from a variety of sources. The report is available at:
http: / /www.climatechange.ca.gov /policies /qreenhouse gas inventory /index.html;
• The California Air Resources Board has developed the EMission FACtors (EMFAC) model
computer program to calculate CO2 and methane emissions from motor vehicles. The model
and data are available at: http: / /www.arb.ca.gov /msei /onroad /latest version.htm.
• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2007 "Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions and sinks: 1990-2005" provides an inventory of greenhouse gas emissions by
state, and methodologies for estimating CO2, methane and N20 emissions from a variety of
sources. The report is available at:
ttp : / /www.epa.gov /climatechanQe/ emissions /usinventoryreport.htmi.
• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency provides a clearinghouse of online programs for
calculating greenhouse gas emissions from homes and businesses, motor vehicles, and solid
waste, and for converting emissions to CO2 equivalents. The clearinghouse is available at:
http: / /yosemite.epa.gov/ oar/ globalwarming .nsf /content/ResourceCenter ToolsCalculators.html.
• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Climate Leaders Program offers a Greenhouse
Gas Inventory Protocol based on the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol) developed
by the World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable
Development Emissions Inventory Improvement Program. The program and documents are
available at: http : / /www.epa.gov /climateleaders /resources /index.htmi.
• The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2006 Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories provides methodologies for calculating greenhouse gas
emissions from energy production, transport, and use; industrial processes and product use;
agriculture, forestry, and other land use; solid waste and wastewater treatment. The
guidelines are available at ham: //www.ipcc- nggip.iges.or.ip /public /2006gl /index.htm.
• World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable
Development (WRI/WBCSD) provide standards and guidance for a greenhouse gas
emissions inventory, covering the six greenhouse gases covered by the Kyoto Protocol —CO2,
methane, N20, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulphur
hexafluoride (SF6). The protocols are available at http: / /www.ghgprotocal.org.
Center for Biological Diversity 14 September 2007
C�MY birf/ IIOMYrA�e
.WAIR RESOURCES BOARD
Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust Particulate Matter
Diesel engines emit a complex mixture of air pollutants, composed of gaseous and solid
material. The visible emissions in diesel exhaust are known as particulate matter or PM,
which includes carbon particles or "soot." Diesel exhaust also contains a variety of
harmful gases and over 40 other known cancer - causing substances. In 1998, California
identified diesel PM as a toxic air contaminant based on its potential to cause cancer,
premature death, and other health problems. Those most vulnerable are children whose
lungs are still developing and the elderly who may have other serious health problems.
Each year in California, diesel PM contributes to 3,500 premature deaths and
thousands of hospital admissions, asthma attacks and other respiratory symptoms, and
lost workdays. Overall, diesel engine emissions are responsible for the majority of
California's known cancer risk from outdoor air pollutants. In addition, diesel soot
causes visibility reduction and is a potent greenhouse agent involved in global warming.
Summary of the Health and Environmental Effects
of Diesel PM Exposure for California'
Premature deaths (3,500 per year)
r Lung cancer (250 per year)
Decreased lung function in children
r Chronic bronchitis
Increased respiratory and cardiovascular hospitalizations
Aggravated asthma
Increased respiratory symptoms
v Lost workdays
i+ Reduction in visibility (10 to 75% of total)
Y Global warming 2rd to carbon dioxide
'Except for lung cancer, the health effects are based on the assumption that diesel
exhaust PM is approximately as toxic as the general ambient PM mixture.
Diesel Particulate Matter (PM) Contributes to Premature Death
PM is a contributing factor to premature death from heart and /or lung diseases, based
on studies of over 500,000 people (Pope et al., 1995, 2002), and independently verified
with a reanalysis requested by industry and the U.S. Congress (Krewski et al., 2001).
Average life expectancy was reduced by about 1.5 years, comparing the cities with
highest and lowest high PM levels (Brunekreef, 1997). This translates to a loss of about
14 years of life for people who died from diseases associated with PM exposure
(USEPA, 1999). These studies serve as the basis for PM air quality standards by ARB,
U.S. EPA, the World Health Organization guidelines for Europe, and other countries.
1
Very few studies have investigated the responses of human subjects specifically
exposed to diesel PM, and none of the available epidemiologic studies have measured
the diesel PM content of the outdoor pollution mix. However, the extensive animal
toxicology literature on the health impacts of diesel exhaust PM leads to the conclusion
that diesel exhaust PM is at least as toxic as the general ambient PM mixture. ARB has
made quantitative estimates of the public health impacts of diesel exhaust PM based on
this equivalency assumption. We estimate that current Statewide levels of diesel PM
contribute to 3,500 deaths (range: 1,000 to 6,400) annually (CARB, 2008). Additional
health impacts can result from exposure to secondary diesel PM that is formed in the
atmosphere from oxides of nitrogen, emitted from diesel engine exhaust.
Specific studies that link motor vehicle - related PM exposure to premature death include:
• Elderly people living near major roads had almost twice the risk of dying from
cardiopulmonary causes (Hoek et al., 2000).
• PM from motor vehicles was linked to increased mortality (Tsai et al., 2000).
• Fine PM (PM2.5) from mobile sources accounted for three times the mortality as did
PM2.5 from coal combustion sources (Laden et al., 2000).
PM Contributes to Illness
PM is also a contributing factor to hospital admissions and emergency room visits for
cardiopulmonary causes (Pope, 1989; Schwartz et al., 2003; Sheppard, 2003; Zanobetti
and Schwartz, 2003), asthma exacerbation (Whittemore and Kom, 1980), and lost work
days (Ostro, 1987). We estimate thousands of hospital admissions for cardiopulmonary
causes, emergency room visits, asthma attacks, and millions of lost work days each
year in California due to PM (CARB, 2002). At least 10% of these impacts (see below)
are related to diesel PM. In addition, preliminary evidence suggests that diesel PM
exposure may facilitate development of new allergies (Diaz- Sanchez et al., 1999;
Kleinman et al., 2005). By age 18, children exposed to higher levels of PM2.5, NOx,
acid vapor, and elemental carbon (all products of fossil fuel combustion, especially
diesel) are five times more likely (7.9% versus 1.6 %) to have underdeveloped lungs
(80% of normal, equivalent to 40 -year olds) compared to teenagers living in
communities with lower pollutant levels, and will likely never recover (Gauderman et al.,
2004).
In addition, several "intervention" studies report significant reduction in the number of
adverse health impacts following either removal or reduction of a PM emission source.
For example, the Southern California Children's Health Study reported improved lung
function growth rates for young children who relocated from a high PM area to a lower
PM area (Avol at al., 2001).
Diesel PM Is a Significant Component of PM
There is no unique marker for diesel PM, so directly measuring outdoor levels is difficult.
However, we have estimated that the average Statewide exposure to diesel PM in 2000
is 1.8 pg/m3 (CARB, 1998). Thus, using an average Statewide PM2.5 exposure of 18.5
pg /m3 (GARB, 2002), diesel PM makes up about 10% of total PM2.5.
2
Calculations performed for an air pollution episode in Southern California show that NOx
emitted from diesel engines could account for a significant fraction of the PM2.5
measured at inland locations. When both these diesel contributions are considered, the
diesel PM contribution could increase to an upper limit of 40% during a severe PM2.5
episode (Mysliwiec and Kleeman, 2002).
Diesel PM is Emitted in Urban Areas Resulting in High Exposure
Many diesel emission sources are concentrated near densely populated areas such as
ports, rail yards, and heavily traveled roadways. Thus, on average, every ton of diesel
emissions in populated areas leads to higher exposures and greater health
consequences than emission sources that are further removed from population centers.
This point is illustrated by in- vehicle exposure studies conducted in Califomia. Even
though Californians average about 6% of their time on roadways, 30 to 55% of diesel
PM exposures occurs in vehicles (Frain et al., 2004). Moreover, self - pollution (i.e.,
pollution from the vehicle itself) has been observed on every school bus tested in
California, regardless of the age of the bus. The cumulative exhaust inhaled by the 40
or so kids on a self - polluting bus is comparable to, or in many cases larger than, the
cumulative amount inhaled by all the other people in the South Coast Air Basin
(Marshall and Behrentz, 2005).
Diesel PM Deposits in the Lung and Components can be Absorbed in the Body
The majority of diesel PM is less than 1 pm in diameter (1170`" the diameter of a human
hair). In general, particles 10 pm or less in diameter can be inhaled into the lungs (U.S.
EPA, 2004). Not all inhaled particles deposit in the lung, and many are exhaled.
Particles about 0.5 pm in diameter are minimally deposited in the airways, with higher
deposition rates for particles both smaller and larger than 0.5 Pm in diameter,
Chemicals adsorbed on particles can dissolve in the fluid lining the airways, and then be
absorbed into the body. Insoluble particles are cleared by more complex mechanisms.
Diesel PM Contains Compounds Known to Damage DNA and Cause Cancer
Diesel PM contains toxic chemicals including compounds that are known to cause
damage to genetic material (DNA) and are considered to cause cancer. For example,
one class of compounds typically present on diesel PM is polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, or PAHs. Some PAHs have been classified as probable human
carcinogens by the U.S. EPA and by the International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC, 1989), a World Health Organization group. These compounds have also been
shown to damage DNA and also be absorbed into the bloodstream after diesel PM
exposure, and are therefore considered to be available to damage cells in tissues such
as the lung (U.S. EPA, 2002). Benzene, the first toxic air contaminant listed by the
State, and a known human cancer causing agent for leukemia, has been reported not
only in the gaseous phase of diesel exhaust, but also is present on diesel PM itself
(U.S. EPA, 2002). Other cancer causing compounds such as formaldehyde,
acetaldehyde, acrolein, and 1,3- butadiene are present in diesel exhaust (IARC, 1989;
U.S. EPA, 2002) primarily in the gas phase. Diesel exhaust is also considered to pose a
respiratory hazard to humans based on extensive studies that show that inflammation is
3
present in many animals exposed to diesel exhaust (U.S. EPA, 2002). Diesel exhaust is
a complex mixture of toxic chemicals, many of which remain unidentified.
In addition to the health effects outlined above, it is estimated that exposure to diesel
PM causes about 250 excess cancer cases per year in California (GARB, 2000). Over
30 human epidemiologic studies have investigated the potential carcinogenicity of diesel
exhaust. These studies, on average, found that long -term occupational exposures to
diesel exhaust were associated with a 40% increase in the relative risk of lung cancer
(SRP, 1998). Other organizations have evaluated the carcinogenicity of diesel exhaust.
For example, IARC (1989) concluded that diesel engine exhaust is a probable human
carcinogen, and based on these IARC findings, the State of California under the Safe
Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65) identified diesel
exhaust as a chemical known to the State to cause cancer. The U.S. EPA (2002)
similarly concluded that diesel exhaust be considered a "probable" human carcinogen
by inhalation exposure.
The Value of the Health Benefits of Reducing Diesel PM Exceed the Control Costs
Air pollution has a serious impact on the State's economy. The value of premature
deaths resulting from exposure to direct diesel PM is estimated to be $16 billion per
year (GARB, 2002; U.S. EPA. 1999). Further, an annual value of over $3.5 billion is
associated with hospitalizations, the treatment of major and minor illnesses, and lost
workdays each year (GARB, 2002; U.S. EPA. 1999). ARB diesel PM control measures
provide health benefits (by avoiding premature deaths, hospitalizations, etc.) that
exceed the cost of control. The ratio of benefits to costs for recently adopted measures
range from 3 to 80 (CARB, 2003a, 2003b, 2003c, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c). Also, the U.S.
EPA recently reported a ratio of 30 for off -road diesel vehicles (U.S. EPA, 2003).
Diesel PM Causes Visibility Reduction
The impact of diesel PM on visibility occurs at a wide range of scales, from large scale
impacts, such as near - continental regional haze, to the small -scale impacts that occur
from an individual vehicle's exhaust plume. Diesels constitute only about 5% of road
vehicles; however, they could contribute from 10% to 75% of visibility degradation in
urban areas, depending on surrounding source characteristics (Eldering and Cass,
1996). The peculiar composition of "conventional" diesel exhaust gives it an ability to
reduce visibility nearly double that of most other particle sources. The net result is that
the visibility impacts of the existing diesel fleet, though variable in time and location, are
consistently far greater than their proportional fraction of vehicle mileage, and it is
anticipated significant visibility benefits will accompany future reductions in diesel PM
and NOx emissions (Kleeman et al., 2001).
Diesel PM is a Potent Global Warming Agent
PM is an important component of the earth's climate system. Diesel engines emit soot,
or black carbon particles which then become airborne. Diesel is responsible for more
than half of black carbon emissions in the U.S. (Battye et al., 2002), and about 30%
globally (Bond et al., 2004). Black carbon is a strong absorber of solar radiation.
Scientists have known for many years that when black carbon particles combine with
4
dust and chemicals in air they become more efficient in absorbing solar radiation. These
black carbon mixtures may be the second biggest contributor to global warming - about
60% of the global warming effects of carbon dioxide (Roberts and Jones, 2004).
Research on Diesel PM Health Effects
Several recent research publications have added to concems regarding adverse health
effects from exposure to diesel exhaust. First, a study of railroad workers employed
between 1959 and 1996 found that lung cancer mortality was elevated in jobs
associated with work on trains powered by diesel locomotives, suggesting that diesel
exhaust contributed to lung cancer mortality in this study group. However, lung cancer
mortality did not increase with increasing years of work in these jobs (Garshick and
Laden, 2004).
A second study investigated transient exposures to diesel exhaust and their effects on
cardiovascular function. Previous studies found a link between traffic- related pollution
and cardiovascular effects, such as acute myocardial infarction (heart attacks). Mills
and colleagues (2005) exposed 30 healthy men to diluted diesel exhaust in exposure
chambers. The investigators found that inhalation of diesel exhaust at the levels found
in urban environments impaired two important aspects of vascular function in humans:
the regulation of vascular tone and endogenous fibrinolysis. This finding provides a
potential mechanism that links air pollution to heart disease including heart attacks.
(Mills et al., 2005)
The ARB has conducted a number of studies on the emissions from heavy -duty diesel
engines. In one set of studies, toxic pollutant emissions were measured from an in -use
1998 model year diesel transit bus equipped with either an oxidative muffler or a
catalyzed particulate filter (DPF) (Ayala et al., 2002; Kado et al., 2005). The emission
rates of the measured PM- associated toxic compounds (micrograms per mile) were
much lower for the DPF - equipped engine compared to the emission rate from the same
diesel engine equipped with the oxidative muffler. The genetic toxicity of the emissions
was similar in the two configurations above, both fueled with low sulfur diesel fuel, and
depending on the test cycle used. In another related study, the toxicity for a similar
engine (1998 model year), but with no aftertreatment (tested with CARIB fuel) or with
DPF (tested with low or ultraflow sulfur fuel) was determined (Kado and Kuzmicky,
2003). This was part of a larger multi- investigator project (Lev -On, et al. 2002). The
highest relative toxicity was observed with the CARB - fueled diesel with no after -
treatment, followed by the low sulfur fuel (in the diesel without after- treatment), followed
by the low and ultralow sulfur diesel - fueled vehicles equipped with DPF.
Currently, a multi - disciplinary cooperative research effort to characterize and evaluate
the health effects of advanced diesel engine systems and fuels is currently being
developed by the Health Effects Institute (HEI) and the Coordinating Research Council
(CRC). The Program entitled the "Advanced Collaborative Emissions Study" (ACES) is
an eight -year, multi - million dollar research project for evaluating the health effects of
new 2007 and 2010 engine emissions and is sponsored by several entities. Central to
the health effects evaluation will be a chronic animal inhalation study initially modeled
after the National Toxicology Program bioassay analyses. The bioassay is conducted
using two rodent species exposed over their lifetime to engine emissions, and they will
be evaluated for carcinogenicity and for non - cancer endpoints. The engine emissions
will also be chemically characterized in detail for toxic and criteria air pollutants.
References
Avol EL, Gauderman WJ, Tan SM, London SJ, Peters JM. Respiratory effects of
relocating to areas of differing air pollution levels. Amer. J. of Resp. and Crit. Care Med.
164: 2067 -2072, 2001.
Ayala, A., Kado, N.Y., Okamoto, R.A., Holmen, B.A., Kuzmicky, P.A., Kobayashi, R.,
and Stiglitz, K.E., 2002. Diesel and CNG Heavy -duty transit buses over multiple driving
schedules: regulated emissions and project overview. SAE Trans.J.Fuel Lub. 2002.
111, 735 -747 (see also: SAE Paper 2002 -01- 1722).
Battye W., Boyer K., Pace TG. Methods for improving global inventories of black carbon
and organic carbon particulates. Report No. 68 -D -98 -046. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC, by EC /R Inc., Chapel
Hill NC, 2002.
Bond TC, Streets DG, Yarber KF, Nelson SM, Woo J -H, Klimont ZA. Technology -based
global inventory of black and organic carbon emissions from combustion. J. of Geophys.
Res., 109 D14203, 2004.
Brunekreef B. Air pollution and life expectancy: is there a relation? Occ. Environ. Med.
54:781 -784, 1997.
CARB 1998 Proposed Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air Contaminant.
Appendix III. Part A: Exposure Assessment, available at:
http: //www arb.ca.gov /toxics /summary/diesel_a.pdf. 1998.
CARB 2002 California Air Resources Board and Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment. Staff Report: Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Particulate Matter and Sulfates, available at:
http: / /www.arb.ca.00v/ research /aags /std- rs /pm- final /pm- final.htm. 2002.
CARB 2003a. California Air Resources. Staff Report: Proposed Diesel
Particulate Matter Control Measure For On -Road Heavy -Duty Residential
And Commercial Solid Waste Collection Vehicles, available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/dieselswcv/isor3.pdf. 2003.
CARB 2003b. California Air Resources. Staff Report: Proposed Airborne Toxic Control
Measure For In -Use Diesel - Fueled Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU)
And TRU Generator Sets, And Facilities Where TRUs Operate, available at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/trude03/isor.pdf. 2003.
CARB 2003c. California Air Resources. Staff Report: Airborne Toxic Control Measure
For Stationary Compression- Ignition Engines, available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/statde/isor.pdf. 2003.
CARB 2004a. California Air Resources. Staff Report: Proposed Modifications To The
Fleet Rule For Transit Agencies And New Requirements For Transit Fleet Vehicles,
available at http: / /www.arb .ca.gov /regact/bus04Asor.pdf. 2004.
CARB 2004b. California Air Resources. Staff Report: Airborne Toxic Control Measure
For Diesel - Fueled Portable Engines, available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/porteng/isor.pdf. 2004.
CARB 2004c. California Air Resources. Staff Report: Proposed Regulatory
Amendments Extending the California Standards for Motor Vehicle Diesel Fuel to Diesel
Fuel Used in Harborcraft and Intrastate Locomotives, available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/carblohr-/isor.pdf. 2004.
CARB 2008. California Air Resources. Staff Report: Methodology for Estimating
Premature Deaths Associated with Long -term Exposure to Fine Airborne Particulate
Matter in California, available at:
http: / /wvvw. arb.ca. gov / research / health /pm- mort/pm- mort_final.pdf. 2008
Diaz- Sanchez D, Garcia MP, Wang M, Jyrala M, Saxon A. Nasal challenge with diesel
exhaust particles can induce sensitization to a neoallergen in the human mucosa. J.
Allergy Clin. Immunol. 104:1183 -8, 1999.
Eldering A, Cass GR. Source - oriented model for air pollutant effects on visibility, J. of
Geophys. Res., 101 (D14), 9,343- 19,369, 1996.
Freeman III, A. M.; The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory
and Methods, Second Edition. Resources for the Future, Washington D.C. 2003.
Fruin SA, Winer AM, Rodes CE. Black carbon concentrations in California vehicles and
estimation of in- vehicle diesel exhaust particulate matter exposure. Atmos. Environ. 34:
4123 -4133, 2004.
Garshick E, Laden F, Hart JE, Rosner B, Smith TJ, Dockery DW, and Speizer F. Lung
Cancer in Railroad Workers Exposed to Diesel Exhaust. Environ Health Perspect
112:1539- 1543(2004).
Gauderman WJ, Avol E, Gilliland F, Vora H, Thomas D, Berhane K, McConnell R,
Kuenzli N, Lurmann F, Rappaport E, Margolis H, Bates D, Peters J. The Effect of air
7
pollution on lung development from 10 to 18 years of age. N. Eng. J. Med. 351:1057-
1067, 2004.
Hoek G, Brunekreef B, Goldbohm S, Fischer P, van den Brandt PA. Association
between mortality and indicators of traffic- related air pollution in the Netherlands: A
cohort study. Lancet 360:1203 -1209, 2002.
IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) Monographs on the Evaluation of
the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans: Diesel and Gasoline Engine Exhausts
and Some Nitroarenes, Vol. 46, IARC, World Health Organization, Lyon, France. 1989.
Kado, N.Y., Okamoto, R.A., Kuzmicky, P.A., Kobayashi, R., Ayala, A., Gebel, M.E.,
Rieger, P.L., Maddox, C., and Zafonte, L. Emissions of Toxic Pollutants from
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and Low Sulfur Diesel - Fueled Heavy -Duty Transit
Buses Tested Over Multiple Driving Cycles, Environmental Science and Technology,
39:7638 -7649, 2005.
Kado, N.Y. and Kuzmicky, P.A. Bioassay Analyses of Emissions from Compressed
Natural Gas and Ultra -low Diesel Fueled Transit Buses. Final Report, South Coast Air
Quality Management District, 2003.
Kittelson DB, Johnson J, Watts W, Wei Q, Bukoweicki N. Diesel aerosol sampling in the
atmosphere. SAE Technical Paper No. 2000 -01 -2122, 2000.
Kleeman MJ, Eldering A, Hall JR, Cass GR. Effect of emissions control programs on
visibility in southern California. Environ. Sci. Technol. 35, 4668 -4674, 2001.
Kleinman MT C. Sioutas C, Stram D, Froines JR, Cho AK, Chakrabarti B. Hamade A,
Meacher D, Oldham M. Inhalation of concentrated ambient particulate matter near a
heavily trafficked road stimulates antigen - induced airway responses in Mice. J. Air
Waste Management Assoc. 55:1277 -88, 2005.
Krewski D, Burnett R, Goldberg MS, Koover K, Siemiatycki J, Jerrett M et al. Reanalysis
of the Harvard Six Cities Study and the American Cancer Society Study of particulate
air pollution and mortality. Research Report of the Health Effects Institute, 2001.
Laden F, Neas LM, Dockery DW, Schwartz J. Association of fine particulate matter from
different sources with daily mortality in six U.S. cities. Environ. Health Persp. 108: 941-
947, 2000.
Lev -On, M, LeTavec, C., Uihlein, J., Alleman, T.L., Lawson, D., Vertin, K., Thompson,
G.J., Gautam, M., Wayne, S., Okamoto, R., Rieger, P., Yee, G., Ospital, J., Zielinska,
B., Sagebiel, J., Chatterjeee, S., and Hallstrom, K. 2002.
Marshall JD, Behrentz E. Vehicle self- pollution intake fraction: children's exposure to
school bus emissions. Environ. Sci.Technol. 39(8): 2559 -2563, 2005.
1i
Mills Nicholas L., Hakan Tbmqvist, Simon D. Robinson, Manuel Gonzalez, Kareen
Darnley, William MacNee, Nicholas A. Boon, Ken Donaldson, Anders Blomberg,
Thomas Sandstrom, David E. Newby. Diesel Exhaust Inhalation Causes Vascular
Dysfunction and Impaired Endogenous Fibrinolysis. Circulation 112:3930 -3936, 2005.
Mysliwiec MJ, Kleeman MJ. Source apportionment of secondary airborne particulate
matter in a polluted atmosphere. Environ. Sci. Technol. 36: 3806 -3814, 2002.
Ostro BD. Air pollution and morbidity revisited: a specification test. J. Environ. Econ.
Management. 14: 87 -98, 1987.
Pope CA, Thun MJ, Namboodid MM, Dockery DW, Evans JS, Speizer FE, Health CW.
Particulate air pollution as a predictor of mortality in a prospective study of U.S. adults.
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Car. Med. 151:669 -674, 1995.
Pope, CA, Bumett RT, Thun MJ, Calle EE, Krewski D, Ito K, Thurston G. Lung cancer,
cardiopulmonary mortality, and long -term exposure to fine particulate air pollution.
JAMA. 287:1123-1141, 2002.
Pope, CA. Respiratory disease associated with community air pollution and a steel mill,
Utah Valley. Amer. J. Public Health. 79: 623 -628, 1989.
Roberts DL, Jones A. Climate sensitivity to black carbon aerosol from fossil fuel
combustion. J. Geophys. Res. 109, D16202, doi:10.1029/2004JD004676, 2004.
Schwartz J, Zanobetti A, Bateson T. Morbidity and mortality among elderly residents of
cities with daily PM measurements. Revised Analyses of Time - Series Studies of Air
Pollution and Health. Special Report. Health Effects Institute. Pgs. 25 -72, 2003.
Sheppard L. Ambient air pollution and nonelderly asthma hospital admissions in Seattle,
Washington, 1987 -1994. Revised Analyses of Time - Series Studies of Air Pollution and
Health. Special Report. Health Effects Institute. Pgs. 227 -240, 2003.
SRP, 1998. Findings of the Scientific Review Panel: The Report on Diesel Exhaust,
California Air Resources Board/ Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.
http: / /www.arb.ca.gov /toxics /dieseltac /de- fnds.pdf.
Tsai FC, Daisey JM, Apte MG. An Exploratory analysis of the relationship between
mortality and the chemical composition of airborne particulate matter. Inhalation
Toxicology 12 (Supplement 2): 121 -135, 2000.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter. Vol. 2,
Chapter 6. EPA/600 /P- 99 /002aF.
Z
US EPA 1999. United States Environmental Protection Agency. The Benefits and Costs
of the Clean Air Act 1990 to 2010. EPA - 410 -R -99 -001. 1999. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/air/sect8l2lcopy99.html
US EPA (2002) Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust. National
Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
US EPA (2003). Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions from Nonroad
Diesel Engines. EPA420 -R -03 -008, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
Whittemore A, Kom E. Asthma and air pollution in the Los Angeles area. Amer. J.
Public Health. 70:687 -696, 1980.
Zanobetti A, Schwartz J. Airborne particles and hospital admissions for heart and lung
disease. Revised Analyses of Time - Series Studies of Air Pollution and Health. Special
Report. Health Effects Institute. Pgs. 241 -248, 2003.
10
_14 VA .�w.�.rA,�,w. Army
WWAIR RESOURCES BOARD December 2008
Summary of Adverse Impacts of Diesel Particulate Matter
Diesel engines emit a complex mix of pollutants, the most visible of which are very small
carbon particles or "soot ", known as diesel PM. Diesel exhaust also contains over 40
cancer- causing substances, most of which are readily adsorbed on the soot particles. In
1998, California identified diesel PM as a toxic air contaminant based on its potential to
cause cancer, premature death, and many other health problems. In addition, several
international and national health agencies have concluded that diesel exhaust has the
potential to contribute to cancer and other health effects'. These agencies include the
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (1988), the International Agency for
Research on Cancer (1989), the World Health Organization (1996), the National
Toxicology Program (2000) and the U.S. EPA (2002).
Overall, diesel engine emissions are responsible for a majority of California's estimated
cancer risk attributable to air pollution. In addition, diesel PM is a significant fraction of
California's particulate pollution problem. Assessments by ARB and U.S. EPA estimate
that diesel PM contributes to approximately 3,500 premature respiratory and
cardiovascular deaths and thousands of hospital admissions annually in California .
The estimates of the magnitude of the contribution of diesel PM to air pollution related
deaths are based on health studies involving ambient particulate matter pollution in
general. The method used to quantity diesel PM's effect likely underestimates its
contribution because this method assumes that diesel PM, per unit of concentration, has
the same health impact as general ambient particulate matter. However, the combination
of several factors strongly suggests that diesel emissions pose a significantly greater
health threat than non - combustion particle pollution.
These factors include the following':
• Diesel PM is more often emitted close to people so high exposures often occur
• Diesel PM more readily deposits in the lung and can be absorbed in the body
• Diesel PM contains compounds known to damage DNA and cause cancer
In addition, there are other important reasons to reduce diesel PM pollution:
• The value of the health benefits are expected to vastly exceed the control costs
• Diesel PM causes visibility reduction, and
• Diesel PM is a potent contributor to global warming
1 See Attachment 1 for summary of the findings of these agencies
2 See Attachment 2 for more complete discussion of the evidence linking particle pollution and
diesel PM to adverse health effects, including a listing of references
3 Also discussed in Attachment 2
Attachment 1
Brief Summary of Diesel Hazard Assessments°
NIOSH 1988 • Animal evidence "confirmatory" for carcinogenesis
• Human evidence "limited"
• Diesel exhaust classified as "potential occupational carcinogen"
IARC 1989 • Rat data "sufficient' for carcinogenicity
• Human epidemiology data "limited"
• Diesel exhaust considered a "probable" human carcinogen
WHO 1996 • Rat data support carcinogenicity
• Human epidemiology data suggests "probably carcinogenic"
• Epidemiology studies considered "inadequate for a quantitative
estimate of human risk"
California EPA • Rat data "have demonstrated" carcinogenicity of diesel exhaust
1998 particles
• Causal association of diesel exhaust and lung cancer in
epidemiology studies is a 'reasonable and likely explanation"
• Designated diesel particulate matter a "toxic air contaminant"
NTP 2000 • Diesel exhaust particulates listed as "reasonably anticipated to
be a human carcinogen" based on findings of elevated lung
cancer in occupational groups exposed to diesel exhaust and
supporting animal and mechanistic studies.
EPA 2002 Diesel emissions considered "likely to be carcinogenic to humans"
• strong but less than sufficient epidemiologic evidence;
• evidence of carcinogenicity of diesel exhaust particles in rats
and mice by non inhalation routes of exposure;
• extensive supportive data including the demonstrated
mutagenic and/or chromosomal effects of DE and its organic
constituents and knowledge of the known mutagenic and /or
carcinogenic activity of a number of individual organic
compounds present on the particles and in DE gases.
Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust
°Summary taken From "The Advanced Collaborative Emissions Study (ACES), Project Plan for
Emission Characterization and Health Effects Assessment"
The California Environmental Ouality Act
Mitieation for Global Warming Impacts
California Attorney General's Office
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), local agencies have a very important role to play in
California's fight against global warming. Local agencies must require feasible mitigation for global warming
impacts caused by the projects they permit, and must include feasible mitigation in their own projects. By the
sum of their individual decisions, local agencies are helping to move the State away from "business as usual"
and toward a low - carbon future.
This document provides general information that may be helpful to local agencies in carrying out their duty to
mitigate global warming. The measures set forth in this package are examples; the list is not intended to be
exhaustive. Moreover, the measures cited may not be appropriate for every project. The lead agency must use
its own informed judgment in deciding which measures it will analyze, and which measures it will require, for a
given project.
The first section of this document lists examples of mitigation measures that could be undertaken or funded by a
diverse range of projects. Such projects may include, for example, a private residential or commercial
development, a public works or infrastructure project, a local "Climate Action Plan," or a general plan update
(where a given measure could be fashioned into a goal, policy, program, or land use designation), as
appropriate. The lead agency must design mitigation measures to be enforceable, and commit sufficient
resources to enforcement.
In general, a given mitigation measure should not be considered in isolation, but as par of a larger set of
measures that, working together, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the effects of global warming. And in
selecting a mitigation set, the relevant environmental goal must kept in view - emissions reductions not just for
the project, but for the region and for California.
The second section of this document lists examples ol'potential mitigation in the general plan context. This
section is included both to suggest how the larger set of measures set forth in the first section could be
incorporated into a general plan, as well as to identify measures that are general plan specific. The measures in
the second section may also be appropriate for inclusion in larger scale plans, including regional plans (e.g.,
blueprint plans) and specific plans.
The third section provides links to sources of information on global warming impacts and mitigation measures.
The list is not complete, but may be a helpful start for local agencies seeking more information to carry out their
CEQA obligations as they relate to global warming.
The Endnotes set forth just some of the many examples of exemplary mitigation measures already being
implemented by local government and agencies, utilities, private industry, and others. As these examples
evidence, California at every level is taking up the challenge, devising new and innovative solutions, and
leading the charge in the fight against global warming.
Office otlhe California Attorney General
Global \Nanning Mitigation Measures
Updated: 117 /Ug
Page I of 19
(1) Mitigation Measures
Energy Efficiency'
• Design building to be energy efficient. Site buildings to take advantage of shade, prevailing
winds, landscaping and sun screens to reduce energy use.'
• Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems. Use daylight as an integral part of lighting
systems in commercial buildings.
• Install light colored "cool" roots, cool pavements, and strategically placed shade trees.'
Provide information on energy management services for large energy users.'
• Install energy efficient heating and cooling systems, appliances and equipment, and control
systems!
• Install light emitting diodes (LEDs) for traffic, street and other outdoor lighting.'
• Limit the hours of operation of outdoor lighting.
• Use solar heating, automatic covers, and efficient pumps and motors for pools and spas.'
• Provide education on energy efficiency.'
Renewable Energy
Install solar and wind power systems, solar and tankless hot water heaters. and energy-
efficient heating ventilation and air conditioning. Educate consumers about existing
incentives.'
Install solar panels on carports and over parking areas where appropriate.10
Use combined heat and power in appropriate applications.''
Water Conservation and Efficiency"
• Create water- efficient landscapes."
Install water - efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture -based irrigation
controls.
• Use reclaimed water for landscape irrigation in new developments and on public property.
Install the infrastructure to deliver and use reclaimed water.
• Design buildings to be water - efficient. Install water - efficient fixtures and appliances.
• Use graywater. (Graywater is untreated household waste water from bathtubs, shower,
bathroom wash basins, and water from clothes washing machines.) For example, install dual
plumbing in all new development allowing graywater to he used for landscape irrigation."
• Restrict watering methods (e.g., prohibit systems that apply water to non - vegetated surfaces) and
control runoff.
• Restrict the use of water for cleaning outdoor surfaces and vehicles.
• Implement low- impact development practices that maintain the existing hydrologic character of
the site to manage storm water and protect the environment. (Retaining storm water runoff
onsite can drastically reduce the need for energy- intensive imported water at the site.)"
Devise a comprehensive water conservation strategy appropriate for the project and location.
The strategy may include many of the specific items listed above, plus other innovative measures
Office of the California Attorney General
Global Warming Mitigation Mea_aures
Updated: 1 .17/08
Page 2 of 19
that are appropriate to the specific project.
Provide education about water conservation and available programs and incentives. "'
Solid Waste Measures
• Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste (including, but not limited to, soil,
vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal. and cardboard).
• Provide interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables and green waste and adequate
recycling containers in public areas.
• Recover by- product methane to generate electricity."
• Provide education and publicity about reducing waste and available recycling services."
Land Use Measures
Incorporate mixed -use, infill, and higher density development to reduce vehicle trips, promote
alternatives to individual vehicle travel, and promote efficient delivery of services and goods.
(Infill development generates fewer vehicle miles traveled per capita and reduced emissions of
greenhouse gases, and denser development is associated with increased public transit usc.)`
Avoid development that will increase passenger vehicle miles traveled.
Incorporate public transit into project design were appropriate.'"
Preserve and create open space and parks. Preserve existing trees, and plant replacement trees at
a set ratio.
Develop "brown fields" and other underused or defunct properties near existing public
transportation and jobs.
Include pedestrian and bicycle -only streets and plazas within developments. Create travel routes
that ensure that destinations may be reached conveniently by public transportation, bicycling or
walking.`
Transportation and Motor Vehicles
• Limit idling time for commercial vehicles, including delivery and off -road construction vehicles.
• Use low or zero - emission vehicles, including off -road construction vehicles.
• Promote ride sharing programs e.g., by designating a certain percentage of parking
spaces for ride sharing vehicles, designating adequate passenger loading and unloading
and waiting areas for ride sharing vehicles, and providing a web site or message board for
coordinating rides.
• Create car sharing programs. Accommodations for such programs include providing parking
spaces for the car share vehicles at convenient locations accessible by public transportation.'-'
• Create local "light vehicle" networks, such as neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV) systems.2'
• Provide the necessary facilities and infrastructure to encourage the use of low or zero- emission
vehicles (e.g., electric vehicle charging facilities and conveniently located altemative fueling
stations).
• Increase the cost of driving and parking private vehicles by, e.g., imposing tolls and parking fees.
• Build or fund a transportation center where various public transportation modes intersect.
Office of the California Attorney General
Global Warming Mitigation Mca ure%
Updated: 1:7:08
Page 3 of 19
• Encourage the use of public transit systems by enhancing safety and cleanliness on vehicles and
in and around stations, and convenience by, e.g., installing electronic signs that provide real -time
information on schedules and service.
• Provide shuttle service to public transit.
• Provide public transit incentives such as Gee or low -cost monthly transit passes.
• Incorporate bicycle lanes and/or routes into street systems, new subdivisions, and large
developments.
• Incorporate bicycle- friendly intersections into street design.
• For commercial projects, provide adequate bicycle parking near building entrances to promote
cyclist safety, security, and convenience. For large employers, provide facilities that encourage
bicycle commuting, including, e.g., locked bicycle storage or covered or indoor bicycle parking.
• Create bicycle lanes and walking paths directed to the location of schools, parks and other
destination points 21
• Restore and/or expand school bus services.
• Institute a formal telecommute work program. Provide information, training, and incentives to
encourage participation. Provide incentives for equipment purchases to allow high - quality
teleconferences.
• Provide information on all options for individuals and businesses to reduce transportation - related
emissions. Provide education and information about public transportation.
Carbon Offsets
In some instances, a lead agency may decide to go beyond measures that will directly reduce a project's
emissions. A lead agency may consider whether carbon offsets would be appropriate. The project
proponent could, for example, fund off =site projects (e.g., alternative energy projects, or energy or water
audits for existing projects) that will reduce carbon emissions, conduct an audit of its other existing
operations and agree to retrofit, or purchase "credits" from another entity that will undertake mitigation
projects. The lead agency should ensure that any mitigation taking the form of carbon offsets is
specifically identified and that such mitigation will in fact occur.
(2) General Plans
Mitigation measures for global warming may he reflected in a general plan as goals, policies, or programs; in
land use designations; and/or as additional mitigation measures identified during the CEQA review process.
Many of the mitigation measures listed above may be appropriate for inclusion in a general plan. In addition, a
non - exhaustive list of measures specific to the general plan context follows. The examples are listed under
required general plan elements. A given example may, however, be appropriate for inclusion in more than one
element, or in a different clement than listed. Global warming mitigation measures may, alternatively, be
included in an optional Climate Change or Energy element.
Conservation'
Climate Action Plan or Policy: Include a comprehensive climate change action plan that
requires a baseline inventory of greenhouse gas emissions from all sources by a date certain;
Office of the California Attorney General
Global \Nanning Mitigation Measures
Updated: 1+7:08
Page 4 of 19
greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and deadlines. and enforceable greenhouse gas
emissions reduction measures.2' (dote: If the Climate Action Plan complies with the
requirements of Section 15064(h)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, it may allow for the streamlining
of individual projects that comply with the plan's requirements.)
• Climate Action Plan Implementation Program: Include mechanisms to ensure regular review of
progress toward the emission reduction targets established by the Climate Action Plan, report
progress to the public and responsible officials, and revise the plan as appropriate, using
principles of adaptive management. Allocate funding to implement the plan. Fund staff to
oversee implementation of the plan.
• Strengthen local building codes for new construction and renovation to require a higher level of
energy efficiency.''
• Require that all new government buildings, and all major renovations and additions, meet
identified green building standards.'"
• Adopt a "Green Building Program" to require or encourage green building practices and
materials.74 The program could be implemented through, e.g., a set of green building ordinances.
• Require orientation of buildings to maximize passive solar heating during cool seasons, avoid
solar heat gain during hot periods, enhance natural ventilation, and promote effective use of
daylight. Orientation should optimize opportunities lot on -site solar generation.
• Provide permitting - related and other incentives for energy efficient building projects, e.g., by
giving green projects priority in plan review, processing and field inspection services.''
Conduct energy efficiency audits of existing buildings by checking, repairing, and readjusting
heating, ventilation, air conditioning, lighting, water heating equipment, insulation and
weatherization.'l Offer financial incentives for adoption of identified efficiency measures. 12
• Provide innovative, low - interest financing for energy efficiency and alternative energy projects.
For example, allow property owners to pay for energy efficiency improvements and solar system
installation through long -term assessments on individual property tax bills."
• Fund incentives to encourage the use of energy efficient vehicles, equipment and lighting."
Provide financial incentives for adoption of identified efficiency measures.
• Require environmentally responsible government purchasing.35 Require or give preference to
products that reduce or eliminate indirect greenhouse gas emissions, e.g., by giving preference to
recycled products over those made from virgin materials."
• Require that government contractors take action to minimize greenhouse gas emissions by, for
example, using low or zero- emission vehicles and equipment.
• Adopt a "heat island" mitigation plan that requires cool roofs, cool pavements, and strategically
placed shade trees." (Darker colored roofs, pavement. and lack of trees may cause temperatures
in urban environments to increase by as much as 6 -8 degrees Fahrenheit as compared to
surrounding areas."') Adopt a program of building permit enforcement for re- roofing to ensure
compliance with existing state building requirements for cool roofs on non - residential buildings.
• Adopt a comprehensive water conservation strategy. The strategy may include, but not be
limited to, imposing restrictions on the time of watering, requiting water - efficient irrigation
equipment, and requiring new construction to offset demand so that there is no net increase in
water use. j4
• Adopt water conservation pricing, e.g., tiered rate structures, to encourage efficient water use.i0
• Adopt water - efficient landscape ordinances."
Office of the California Anomey Gencral
Global Warming Mitigation Measures
Updated: I MOR
Page 5 of 19
• Strengthen local building codes for new construction and implement a program to renovate
existing buildings to require a higher level of water efficiency.
• Adopt energy and water efficiency retrofit ordinances that require upgrades as a condition of
issuing permits fir renovations or additions, and on the sale of residences and buildings. ''
• Provide individualized water audits to identify conservation opportunities." Provide financial
incentives for adopting identified efficiency measures.
• Provide water audits for large landscape accounts. Provide financial incentives for efficient
irrigation controls and other efficiency measures.
• Require water efficiency training and certification for irrigation designers and installers, and
property managers.°'
• Implement or expand city or county -wide recycling and composting programs for residents and
businesses. Require commercial and industrial recycling.
• Extend the types of recycling services offered (e.g.. to include food and green waste recycling).
• Establish methane recovery in local landfills and wastewater treatment plants to generate
electricity."
• Implement Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) for renewable electricity generation, if
feasible. (CCA allows cities and counties, or groups of them, to aggregate the electric loads of
customers within their jurisdictions for purposes of procuring electrical services. CCA allows
the community to choose what resources will serve their loads and can significantly increase
renewable energy).'
• Preserve existing conservation areas (e.g., forested areas, agricultural lands, wildlife habitat and
corridors, wetlands. watersheds, and groundwater recharge areas) that provide carbon
sequestration benefits.
Establish a mitigation program for development of conservation areas. Impose mitigation fees
on development of such lands and use funds generated to protect existing, or create replacement,
conservation areas.
Provide public education and information about options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions
through responsible purchasing, conservation, and recycling.
Land Uses'
• Adopt land use designations to carry out policies designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
e.g., policies to reduce vehicle miles traveled, encourage development near existing public
transportation corridors, encourage alternative modes of transportation, and promote infill,
mixed use, and higher density development.
• Concentrate commercial, mixed use, and medium to higher density residential development in
areas near jobs, transit routes, schools, shopping areas and recreation.
• Identify and facilitate the development of land uses not already present in local districts — such as
supermarkets, parks, and schools in neighborhoods; or residential uses in business districts to
reduce vehicle miles traveled and encourage bicycling and walking.
• Increase density in single family residential areas located near transit routes or commercial areas.
For example, allow duplexes in residential areas, and allow increased height multi -unit buildings
on main arterial streets, under specified conditions.
• Impose minimum residential densities in areas designated for transit- oriented, mixed use
Office of the California Attorney General
Global Warming Mitigation Measure%
Updated: 1 /7 1O9
Page 6 of 19
development to ensure higher density in these areas.
• Require bike lanes and bicycle/pedestrian paths.
• Site schools to increase the potential for students to walk and bike to school.
• Enact ordinances and programs to limit or prohibit "sprawl" development that requires
additional or longer passenger vehicle commutes between employment, services, and residential
areas. 49
• In areas designated for mixed use, require rather than merely allow mixed use.
• Promote infill, mixed use, and higher density development by, for example, reducing developer
fees or granting property tax credits for qualifying projects: "' providing fast -track permit
processing; reducing processing fees; funding infrastructure loans; and giving preference for
infrastructure improvements in these areas.
• Where appropriate, adopt and enforce growth boundaries to encourage infill. Provide new
services and infrastructure only within the growth boundary.5'
• Transfer a portion of the county's housing allocation to existing cities to encourage infill were
services and employment already exist: preserve open space, agricultural land, and water quality;
and reduce vehicle miles traveled.
• Require best management practices in agriculture and animal operations to reduce emissions,
conserve energy and water. and utilize alternative energy sources, including biogas, wind and
solar.
Circulation"
In conjunction with measures that encourage public transit, ride sharing, bicycling and walking,
implement circulation improvements that reduce vehicle idling. For example, coordinate
controlled intersections so that traffic passes more efficiently through congested areas."
Create an interconnected transportation system that allows a shift in travel from private
passenger vehicles to alternative modes, including public transit, ride sharing, bicycling and
walking. Before funding transportation improvements that increase vehicle miles traveled.
consider alternatives such as increasing public transit or improving bicycle or pedestrian travel
routes.
• Give funding preference to investment in public transit over investment in infrastructure for
private automobile traffic."
• Include safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian access in all transportation improvement
projects. Ensure that non - motorized transportation systems are connected and not interrupted by
impassable barriers, such as freeways' and include amenities such as secure bicycle parking.
• Provide adequate and affordable public transportation choices including expanded bus routes and
service and other transit choices such as shuttles. light rail, and rail where feasible.
• Assess transportation impact fees on new development in order to maintain and increase public
transit service.''
• Provide public transit incentives, including free or reduced fare areas.'
• Adopt a comprehensive parking policy that discourages private vehicle use and encourages the
use of alternative transportation." For example, reduce parking for private vehicles while
increasing options for alternative transportation; eliminate minimum parking requirements for
new buildings: "unbundle" parking (require that parking is paid for separately and is not
Office of the California Attorney General
Global Warming Mitigation Measures
Updated: 1 /7 `OR
Page 7 of 19
included in rent for residential or commercial space); and set appropriate pricing for on- street
parking.
Develop school transit plans to substantially reduce automobile trips to, and congestion
surrounding, schools. (According to some estimates, parents driving their children to school
account for 20 -25% of the morning commute.) Plans may address, e.g., necessary infrastructure
improvements and potential funding sources; replacing older diesel buses with low or zero-
emission vehicles: mitigation fees to expand school bus service; and Safe Routes to School
programs" and other formal efforts to increase walking and biking by students.
Create financing programs for the purchase or (case of vehicles used in employer ride sharing
programs.
Enter into partnerships to create and/or expand polluting vehicle buy -back programs to include
vehicles with high greenhouse gas emissions.
Provide public education and information about options for reducing motor vehicle - related
greenhouse gas emissions. Include information on trip reduction. trip linking; public transit;
biking and walking; vehicle performance and efficiency (e.g., keeping tires inflated): low or
zero - emission vehicles; and car and ride sharing.
housing`'
Improve the jobs- housing balance and promote a range of affordable housing choices near jobs,
services and transit to reduce vehicle miles traveled.
Open Space'
• Preserve forested areas, agricultural lands, wildlife habitat and corridors. wetlands, watersheds.
groundwater recharge areas and other open space that provide carbon sequestration benefits.
• Establish a mitigation program for development of open space. Impose mitigation fees on
development of such lands and use funds generated to protect existing, or create replacement.
open space.
• Allow alternative energy projects in areas zoned for open space where consistent with other uses
and values.
• Protect existing trees and encourage the planting of new trees. Adopt a tree protection and
replacement ordinance, e.g., requiring that trees larger than a specified diameter that are removed
to accommodate development must be replaced at a set ratio.
• Connect parks and publicly accessible open space through shared pedestrian/bike paths and trails
to encourage walking and bicycling.
Safety "
Address expected effects of climate change that may impact public safety, including increased
risk of wildfires, flooding and sea level rise, salt water intrusion; and health effects of increased
heat and ozone, through appropriate policies and programs.
Adopt land use designations that restrict or prohibit development in areas that may be more
severely impacted by climate change, e.g., areas that are at high risk of wildfire, sea level rise, or
Office of the California Attorney General
Global Warming Mitigation Measures
Updated: U71108
Page 8 of 19
flooding.
Adopt programs for the purchase, transfer or extinguishment of development rights in high risk
areas.
Monitor the impacts of climate change. Use adaptive management to develop new strategies.
and modify existing strategies, to respond to the impacts ofclimate change.
(3) Resources
The following web sites and organizations provide general information about mitigating global warming
impacts at the local level. These sites represent only a small fraction of the available resources. Local agencies
are encouraged to conduct their own research in order to obtain the most current and relevant materials.
The Institute for Local Government (ILG) maintains a list of local agencies that have Climate Action
Plans. The list is available here: huv:':+vw++.cacities.rnt index.isn? zone= flsa�lnrevicwStorv- 27(135,
According to ILG, the list includes Marin County and the cities of Arcata, Berkeley, Los Angeles, Palo
Alto. San Diego, and San Francisco. Many additional local governments are in the process of
conducting greenhouse gas inventories.
The U.S. Conference of Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement contains valuable information for the
many local agencies that are joining the fight against global warming. The Agreement is available here:
htpi::www.coolcities.us: resources .bestl'racticc(iuides'L:SM ClimateActionllB.ndf. Overonehundred
and twenty California cities have joined the "Cool Cities" campaign, which means they have signed the
U.S. Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement and are taking concrete steps toward addressing global
warming. These steps include preparing a city -wide greenhouse gas emissions inventory and creating
and implementing a local Climate Action Plan. Additional resources, including various cities' Climate
Action Plans, are located at the Cool Cities website: lit tp:ii vww.coolcities.us resources.ohn.
In July 2007, Alameda County became one of twelve charter members of the "Cool Counties" initiative.
Participating counties sign a Climate Stabilization Declaration, which is available at the website for
King County (Washington State): lit to:'. w'++w.mctrokc.90V.execi fie ++s 2007'0716dcc.asp .
Participating counties agree to work with local, state, and federal governments and other leaders to
reduce county geographical greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below current levels by 2050 by
developing a greenhouse gas emissions inventory and regional reduction plan. Current member counties
are recruiting new members and are committed to sharing information. Cool Counties contact
information is available at: htttt r -wu•w.kin,cnuntv.Mov exec. cuolcounties'.loinus.asnx.
Local Governments for Sustainability, a program of International Cities for Local Environmental
Initiatives (ICLEI), has initiated a campaign called Cities for Climate Protection (CCP). The
membership program is designed to empower local governments worldwide to take action on climate
change. Many California cities havejoined ICLEI. More information is available at the organization's
website: httn:: +cww.iclei.ort.
The Institute for Local Government, an affiliate of the Califomia State Association of Counties and the
Office of the California Attorney General
Global warming Mitigation Meavures
Updated: 1117 +09
Page 9 of 19
League of California Cities, has instituted a program called the California Climate Action Network
(CalifornlaCAN!). The program provides information about the latest climate action resources, best
practices, and case studies. More information is available at the CalifomiaCAN! website:
http::` +vuw.cavities.ore:`index.ui'dis vtyne- §ion-climate&zarte =ilsc.
The Governor's Office of Planning and Research provides valuable resources for lead agencies related
to CEQA and global warning at httn:: opr.ca.eov: indcx.php'. a —cega: index.html. Among the materials
available are a list of environmental documents addressing climate change and greenhouse gas
emissions and a list of local plans and policies addressing climate change.
The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association has prepared a white paper entitled "CEQA
and Climate Change" (January 2008). The document includes a list of mitigation measures and
information about their relative efficacy and cost. The document is available at
httn: ti'+ r +c.capcoa.orgiccya' ^(ioclf)—ceua.
The Attorney General's global warming website includes a section on CEQA. See
lit :: `ag.ca.eov:.0obaIwamr it) -: ceua.nhp. The site includes all of the Attorney General's public
comment letters that address CEQA and global warming.
For information on the general plan process, see Governor's Office of Planning and Research, General Plan
Guidelines (1998), available at htto::`cores.rt.co+rplannin ti cnplaa anxlf:
Office of the California Attomey Genl'r31
Global Wanning Mitigation Measures
Updated: 1117109
Page 10 of 19
(4) Endnotes
I. Energy efficiency leads the mitigation list because it promises significant greenhouse gas
reductions through measures that are cost - effective for the individual residential and
commercial energy consumer.
2. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) administers a Green Building
Ratings program that provides benchmarks for the design, construction, and operation of
high - performance green buildings. More information about the LEED ratings system is
available at http' w\v%e usebc.ore Build it Green is a
non - profit, membership organization that promotes green building practices in California.
The organization offers a point- based, green building rating system for various types of
projects. See h�,:::ww'w builditareen.orc auidclines- ratinu- sv,tcn,s. Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratories' Building Technologies Department is working to develop
coherent and innovative building construction and design techniques. Information and
publications on energy efficient buildings are available at the Department's wcbsite at
http: `rbtcch.lbl.gov.
For more information, see Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories, Heat Island Group
at http:; cetd.lbl.gov.licatlsland..
See California Energy Commission, "How to Hire an Energy Services Company" (2000)
at http' `,vww energy ca govh'cports efficiency handbooks'400 -00 -001 D.PDF.
Energy Star is a joint program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S.
Department of Energy that certifies energy efficient products and provides guidelines for
energy efficient practices for homes and businesses. More information about Energy
Star - certified products is available at hum':': www.energystangoc'. The Electronic
Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) is a system that ranks computer
products based on their conformance to a set of environmental criteria, including energy
efficiency. More information about EPEAT is available at
http :::wwtc.epeat.net:AboutEPEAT.as x.
6. LED lighting is substantially more energy efficient than conventional lighting and can
save money. See
Imp:: %% \vty cncrl_,, ca.eoy cllicicnc ,artrtcrship. case studics'TechAssWitv.ndf(noting
that installing LED traffic signals saved the City of Westlake about $34,000 per year).
As of 2005, only about a quarter of California's cities and counties were using 100%
LEDs in traffic signals. See California Energy Commission (CEC), Light Emitting
Diode Traffic Signal Survey (2005) at p. 15, available at
hup:` www.cn rg,. ca.gov.2005publications'('F:('- 400 - 2005- 003:CEC- 400 - 2005- 003.1'D
F. The CEC's Energy Partnership Program can help local governments take advantage of
energy saving technology, including, but not limited to, LED traffic signals. See
111112:?e'ww.c1lcr1'v.a+.c0,.' c LOW icncv. panncrshin.I.
Office oflhe California Attorney General
Global Waning Mitigation Measures
Updated: 1117 .108
Page 11 of 19
See Palm Desert Energy Partnership at
http::: wwwsce. corn :'rebatcsandsavinespalnulcscrt. The City, in partnership with
Southern California Edison, provides incentives and rebates for efficient equipment. See
Southern California Edison, Pool Pump and Motor Replacement Rebate Program at
http:: :Svww.sce.cpm:RehatesandSavines 'Residential:` Poul:PovlPutttpand \4otor:`.
8. Many cities and counties provide energy efficiency education. Sec, for example, the City
of Stockton's Energy Efficiency website at
http:`: wwwstocktongo .corn: ener_esa� ine index.clin. See also "Green County San
Bernardino," har):: www.crecncountvsh.cont: at pp. 4 -6. Private projects may also
provide education. For example, a homeowners' association could provide information
and energy audits to its members on a regular basis.
9. See httn:: www.sosolarcaliliunia.ca.Lov documents CEC- 300 - 2007 - 11(18- ('MF.PDF. At
the direction of Governor Schwarzenegger, the California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) approved the California Solar Initiative on January 12, 2006. The initiative
creates a S3.3 billion, ten -year program to install solar panels on one million roofs in the
State. Seeh�: iwwu. cusolarcalilimia .ca.eo�.nshp:index.hunl.
10. For example, Alameda County has installed two solar tracking carports, each generating
250 kilowatts. By 2005, the County had installed eight photovoltaic systems totaling
over 2.3 megawatts. The County is able to meet 6 percent of its electricity needs through
solar power. See
her::` www. acgpv. org�sa '.�lamcda "-„2(ICuunhoi,20- b2( 1Solar "o?0('ase "u2(IStudv.ndl'.
11. Many commercial, industrial, and campus -type facilities (such as hospitals, universities
and prisons) use fuel to produce steam and heat for their own operations and processes.
Unless captured, much of this heat is wasted. Combined heat and power (CHP) captures
waste heat and re -uses it, e.g., for residential or commercial space heating or to generate
electricity. See U.S. EPA, Catalog of CHP Technologies at
htip:' www.er)a.eo� chnidocuments.cat:doc of ' n20cho tech entirc.pdf: The average
efficiency of fossil - fueled power plants in the United States is 33 percent. By using
waste heat recovery technology, CHP systems typically achieve total system efficiencies
of 60 to 80 percent. CHP can also substantially reduce emissions of carbon dioxide.
http:: :ww�N.epa.eov chp :'basic: elficiency.html. Currently, CHP in California has a
capacity of over 9 million kilowatts. See list of California CHP facilities at
http::: \\„w.eca- inc.com chpdatwStat" CA.html.
12. The California Energy Commission has found that the State's water - related energy use
which includes the conveyance, storage, treatment, distribution, wastewater collection,
treatment, and discharge consumes about 19 percent of the State's electricity, 30
percent of its natural gas, and 88 billion gallons of diesel fuel every year, and this
demand is growing. See
Imp: rwN\ w.cncrgv ca.goc?007puhlic;uionsrC'1 ?('- 999. 20()7- 008rCEC- 999 - 2007- O(18.PD
Office of the California Attorney General
Global Wartning Mitigation Measures
Updated: 1!7109
Page 12 of 19
P. Accordingly, reducing water use and improving water efficiency can help reduce
energy use and associated greenhouse gas emissions.
13. The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881) requires the Department
of Water Resources (DWR), not later than January 1, 2009: to update the Model Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The draft of the entire updated Model Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance will be made available to the public. Sec
httn:. WwW.otvue.water.ca. Inv .Iandscapciord'uodatedord.cfill.
14. See Graywater Guide. Department of Water Resources, Office of Water Use Efficiency
and Transfers at httrr . u w owuc ater ca eoc does t raywatet gum book.ndf. See
also The Ahwahnee Water Principles, Principle 6, at
Imp: ahw'ahnee:112o orinciples.hunl. The Ahwahnee Water Principles
have been adopted by City of Willits, Town of Windsor, Menlo Park, Morgan Hill, Palo
Alto, Petaluma, Port Hueneme, Richmond, Rohnert Park, Rolling Hills Estates, San Luis
Obispo, Santa Paula, Santa Rosa, City of Sunnyvale, City of Ukiah, Ventura, Marin
County, Marin Municipal Water District, and Ventura County.
15. Sec Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the California Water and
Land Use Partnership, Low Impact Development, at
hex: Www. coastal .ca.sov'npslid- factshcei.ndf.
16. See, for example, the City of Santa Cruz, Water Conservation Office at
1111m.' wwW.ci.sanr<rctw . ca.us:`wrnaam:`indcx.hunl; Santa Clara Valley Water District,
Water Conservation at and
Metropolitan Water District and the Family of Southern California Water Agencies, Be
Water Wise at httn::`rwwH'.bewateiwise.com. Private projects may provide or fund
similar education.
17. Sec CEC Public Interest Energy Research Program, Dairy Power Production Program,
Dairy Methane Digester System, 90 -Day Evaluation Report, Eden Vale Dairy (Dec.
2006) at
hito' w'Ww enerbv ci corn'.2006public'ttions.('F('- 500- 2006 -083 ('E(' -500- 2006- (183.PD
F. See also discussion in the general plan section, below, relating to wastewater
treatment plants and landfills.
18. Many cities and counties provide information on waste reduction and recycling. See, for
example, the Butte County Guide to Recycling at huy::Nvwx %.recN•clehuttcnet. The
California Integrated Waste Management Board's website contains numerous
publications on recycling and waste reduction that may be helpful in devising an
education project. See ham": w w W ciwmb ca gm: Puhlir,nionsidctault . asp'!cat -13.
Private projects may also provide education directly, or fund education.
19. See U.S. EPA, Our Built and Natural Environments, A Technical Review of the
Interactions between Land Use, Transportation, and Environmental Quality (Jan. 2(K)I) at
Office of the California Attorney General
Global Warning Mitigation Mewurcc
Updated: 1117:08
Page 13 of 19
pp. 46 -48 httn>':+c.v+v.c tea gov.'dced:`poit %built . pdt:
20. The U.S. Conference of Mayors cites Sacramento's Transit Village Redevelopment as a
model of transit- oriented development. More information about this project is available
at httrr' www citynfcaaamento nrgjtl ;inning:nroiccts:65th- street - village:. The
California Department of Transportation maintains a searchable database of 21 transit -
oriented developments at
hup Aransitortenteddevelooment dot ca cov :nliscellancous. New] lotne.kri.
21. Palo Alto's Green Ribbon Tack Force Report on Climate Protection recommends
pedestrian and bicycle -only streets sections under its proposed actions. See
hitp' w ewcitv.palo- altoca. uc; civica' filehank :hlobdload.asp?I3 lob 1D -7478.
22. There are a number of car sharing programs operating in California, including City
CarShare Imp:= ++ww.citycarsharc.org , Zip Car htu):: a w+v.zipcar.cont: and Flexcar
hup:: www.11cxcar.com .
23. The City of Lincoln has a NEV program. See hit p:.. ww+v.lincolncv.com index. ht in 1.
24. See, for example, Marin County's Safe Routes to Schools program at
Nil)::: ++ ww.safcroutcstoschools.or.
25. The Conservation Element addresses the conservation, development, and use of natural
resources including water, forests, soils, rivers, and mineral deposits. Measures proposed
for the Conservation Element may alternatively be appropriate for other elements. In
practice, there may be substantial overlap in the global warming mitigation measures
appropriate for the Conservation and Open Space Elements.
26. See the Attorney General's settlement agreement with the County of San Bernardino,
available at
hty ae.ca.eov cntc tdk press 2007 -08 -2I San Bcmardino settlement a_rcement.pdf.
See also Marin County Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (Oct. 2006) at
ham:' %+ ++v++.w ntarinca us :dcpts CD:ntain:'pdffinal glig, rcd Vlan.ptlf; Marin
Countywide Plan (Nov. 6, 2007) at
ht r wa w co ntarin ca uc :dents CD,ntain'f'nrcwpdocs-CWI' CD2.pdt Draft
Conservation Element, General Plan, City of San Diego at
ham' hv+v++ Sandielw. go 'plannin_ gcnplvrpdf: roncrtlplan ccll7l)918 pdf.
27. Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)2 and Section 10 -106 of the Building Energy
Efficiency Standards establish a process that allows local adoption of energy standards
that are more stringent than the statewide Standards. More information is available at the
California Energy Commission's websitc. See
hup +v+e'+v cncrgv ca co+':title24 2005standardsordinances eNcccdina 2005 building s
tandards.html.
Office of the California Attornev General
Global Warming Mitigation Measures
Updated: 117/08
Page 14 of 19
28. See, e.g., LEED at hJx:: www.usebc.ory DisalavPaec.aspx'Catet ot� :ID =19; see also
Build it Green at hnn::9www.buildItrreen.ora iguide Iines- rating- systcros.
29. The City of Santa Monica, for example, has instituted a Green Building Program. See
httn:':`w" tt.e reenbuildiny rs.santa- monica.on, :. The City of Pasadena also has a green
building ordinance that applies to public and private buildings. See
huo::: www ci pasadcna.ca us pcmtitccntcr: grcencitv'huildinc: ehnro ram.asp and
htq)': ordlink cone codes 'p•tsidenr. index htm °Seau-ch Cudc Be,:in • Scarchine• Nlunicina
1 - Code at Title 14. The City of San Francisco is considering adopting green building
performance requirements that would apply to public and private buildings. See
http: www.sfenvironmenture downloads lihrary httl'rrelease�'1.3.nd1.
30. See, e.g., "Green County San Bernardino," lute:' w«'\v.grcencountysb.cont. As part of
its program, the County is waiving permit fees for alternative energy systems and
efficient heating and air conditioning systems. See http:.xk-ww.arecncountvsb.com at p.
3. For a representative list of incentives for green building offered in California and
throughout the nation, see U.S. Green Building Council, Summary of'Govertment LEED
Incentives (updated quarterly) at
hops:': tecvw.usebc.or,: Show Filc.asns''DocumcntlD- 2021.
31. For example, Riverside Public Utilities offers free comprehensive energy audits to its
business customers. See
htto::rwww.riversideca. u ^ aril itirsbusi- technicalassistancaasn.
32. Under Southern California Gas Company's Energy Efficiency Program for
Commercial Large Business Customers, participants are eligible to receive an
incentive based on 50% of the equipment cost, or $0.50 per therm saved, whichever is
lower, up to a maximum amount of $1,000,000 per customer, per year. Eligible projects
require an energy savings of at least 200,000 therms per year. See
httn:::'�w'w.uocaleas.can business cfticiencv(-)rants:.
33. The City of Berkeley is in the process of instituting a "Sustainable Energy Financing
District." According to the City, "The financing mechanism is loosely based on existing
'underground utility districts' where the City serves as the financing agent for a
neighborhood when they move utility poles and wires underground. In this case,
individual property owners would contract directly with qualified private solar installers
and contractors for energy etiiciency and solar projects on their building. The City
provides the funding for the project from a bond or loan fund that it repays through
assessments on participating property owners' tax bills for 20 years." See
hum. % vw w. citvofberkeley. inl2 r: ,�viavocPR :nressrclease2007- 1023.htm.
34. As described in its Climate Action Plan, the City of San Francisco uses a combination of
incentives and technical assistance to reduce lighting energy use in small businesses such
as grocery stores, small retail outlets, and restaurants. The program offers free energy
audits and coordinated lighting retrofit installation. In addition, the City offers residents
Office of the California Attorney General
Global Wanning Mitigation Measures
Updated: 1/7/08
Page 15 of 19
the opportunity to turn in their incandescent lamps for coupons to buy fluorescent units.
See San Francisco's Climate Action Plan, available at
http'':`cv+v +c sfenvironntent nrY:`doa nloade 'librarv:'climateactionnlan.ndt:
35. Among other strategies for reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, Yolo County has
adopted purchasing policies for computers and electrical equipment.
htgt::+vw+%•.voloaxmtv.ora does :oressl(ireenl)ousc(ias.hun.
36. See, for example, Los Angeles County Green Purchasing Policy, June 2007 at
httnJ 'w+c.c.resnonsihleourchasine.or 'L erFiles: File .'(icnetal:Los%20Ant;e1es`i)') 'ount
v. °4,2(Kircen °.i 2 " 2OPc,lice'',o211 Ju»e4i 202007.nd1: The policy requires
(1Purchasm_:a_
County agencies to purchase products that minimize environmental impacts, including
greenhouse gas emissions.
37. Some local agencies have implemented a cool surfaces programs in conjunction with
measures to address storm water run off and water quality. See, for example, The City of
Irvine's Sustainable TravelwaysiGreen Streets program at
h ::+vw+v Citvofirvine ors depth rcdcvclopmcntrsustainablc tr:tvchvays.asp; The City of
Los Angeles's Green Streets LA program at
htryr water kgc org water- workshops la- workshop Gcen Streets Uaniels.pclt7 Vic ;see
also The Chicago Green Alley Handbook at
httry :crov citvolchica�o ore :+echporttl'('O('WcbPurtal:COC EDITORIAL'GrecnAllev
Handbook Jan.pdC
38. See the website for Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's Urban Heat Island Group
at httn:.:' eetd .lbl.izoviH eat lslandil.F.ARV and U.S. EPA's Heat Island website at
+v+vu.epa.ROV: hcatisland:. To learn about the effectiveness of various heat island
mitigation strategies, see the Mitigation Impact Screening Tool, available at
httn:' www.epa.eowheatisld freSOU rceSA001S. III rn1.
39. For example, the City of Lompoc: has a policy to "require new development to offset new
water demand with savings from existing water users, as long as savings are available."
See httn:.' www.ci.Inntooc.ca.us denartmcnts. cons dev:odfll7:RF.SRC'MCJMI'.pdt
40. The Irvine Ranch Water District in Southern California, for example, uses a five- tiered
rate structure that rewards conservation. The water district has a baseline charge for
necessary water use. Water use that exceeds the baseline amount costs incrementally
more money. While "low volume" water use costs $.082 per hundred cubic feet (ccf),
"wasteful' water use costs 57.84 per cef. See
httn:::+vu'+c.ir d.cotn:AbouliRW U rates residendal.phn. Marin County has included
tiered billing rates as part of its general plan program to conserve water. See Marin
County Countywide Plan, page 3 -204, PFS -2.q, available at
11111)': +c+ +n Co marin ut us.dcnls:CU' main f nicwpclocs:CWP C'D2.pol.
Office of the California Attorney General
Global Warming Mitigation Measure+
Updated: V OR
Page 16 of 19
41. See the City of Fresno's Watering Regulations and Ordinances at
http:: N'N'w. Fresno. ce»: Govcrnmcnl:' DcpartmcntUirectorv�PublicUtilitics \4atennanaeem
ent C' onscl-x' ation: WaterRceulation,WaterinR ",ulationsandRcstrictions.htm.
42. See, e.g., the City of San Diego's plumbing retrofit ordinance at
httm::www.sandicgn.l.,ov waterconser ationsellirnI.shiml.
43. The City of Roseville offers free water conservation audits through house calls and on-
line surveys. See
lt�Y :- Www.l'ose \llle cil us�: ell watel utilltyA%ater conservation- IOr home prof--rams n re
bates.asn.
44. Sec Landscape Performance Certification Program, Municipal Water District of Orange
County at Landscapers LC 01.1)1111.
45. For example, San Diego's Metropolitan Wastewater Department (SDMWD) installed
eight digesters at one of its wastewater treatment plants. Digesters use heat and bacteria
to break down the organic solids removed from the wastewater to create methane, which
can be captured and used for energy. The methane generated by SDMWD's digesters
runs two engines that supply enough energy for all of the plant's needs, and the plant
sells the extra energy to the local grid. See
hit Ir: r\cww. sand iego.go%. : iii wN'd.facilities :ptlonta. slit nll. In addition, the Califomia Air
Resources Board approved the Landfill Methane Capture Strategy as an early action
measure. hJt:: 4iN:\ vN: .arb.ca.eov:'cc:`cce:ylandlills landtills.htm. Numerous landfills in
California, such as the Puenta Hills Landfill in Los Angeles County
(hull "'N'IC \ \' lac sd pl'}; about: Gplld \aasic tacilitieS:pucntc hills:clean fuels proaram.aso
the Scholl Canyon Landfill in the City of Glendale
(lit tp':w w wglcnda lc%• ucrtndpowerconliRenewable9i)20E nerc\-9,i20Developnitnt.aso).
and theYolo Landfill in Yolo County, are using captured methane to generate power and
reduce the need for other more carbon - intensive energy sources.
46. On April 30, 2007, the Public Utilities Commission authorized a CCA application by the
Kings River Conservation District on behalf of San Joaquin Valley Power Authority
(SJVPA). SJVPA's Implementation Plan and general CCA program information is
available at www.ocnnmunitvchoicc.inii\. See also
httn::` N•ww.co.ularin.ca.usdents :('D: main: coats lcc. ad\' ancc :Sustainability :Encrl;v :ccr -C
Ckctni. (County of Marin); and
h�:::slu atcr.ore:ntlo main cfnt MC ID'I2 NIS(' ID 131) NI YO ID 217 (San Francisco
Public Utilities Commission).
47. The Land Use Element designates the type, intensity, and general distribution of uses of
land for housing, business, industry. open - space, education, public buildings and
grounds, waste disposal facilities, and other categories of public and private uses.
Office of the California Attome\' General
Global Warming Mitigation Mm urc.
Updated: 1: 7 +0R
Page 17 of 19
48. Samples of local legislation to reduce sprawl are set forth in the U.S. Conference of
Mayors- Climate Action Handbook. See
Imp: wwtr. ielci. orcdocument , %LS4:documents'CCPi('limate Action Handbook- 0900.
PLY.
f
49. The City of Berkeley has endorsed the strategy of reducing developer fees or granting
property tax credits for mixed -use developments in its Resource Conservation and Global
Warming Abatement Plan. City of Berkeley's Resource Conservation and Global
Warming Abatement Plan p. 25 at
httn:: wxvw. baadntd., ovi pinGlobalWannina' Bcrkelc vClintateActionPlan.txlt:
50. For a lists and maps related to urban growth boundaries in California, see Urban Growth
Boundaries and Urban Line Limits, Association of Bay Area Governments (2006) at
Imp: \e ru•.aha .ca.,oc iointnoIicv Ui bit n ,0OGrowth %20Boundaries "o20and" 02011 rban
° n20I- innit',,20Lincs.ndt:
51. The Circulation Element works with the Land Use element and identifies the general
location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes,
terminals, and other local public utilities and facilities.
52. See Orange County Transportation Authority, Signal Synchronization at
InttP:'• \v'tt'tt.octa.ne['signals.aspx. Measures such as signal synchronization that improve
traffic flow must be paired with other measures that encourage public transit, bicycling
and walking so that improved flow does not merely encourage additional use of private
vehicles.
53. San Francisco's "Transit First" Policy is listed in its Climate Action Plan, available at
lit n:- \cwwsfenvironntent.or,:'do cnloads Iihrarv:'clinr<ue;tetionnlan . ndl'1 The City's
policy gives priority to public transit investments and provides public transit street
capacity and discourages increases in automobile traffic. This policy has resulted in
increased transit service to meet the needs generated by new development.
54. The City of La Mesa has a Sidewalk Master Plan and an associated map that the City
uses to prioritize funding. As the City states, "The most important concept for sidewalks
is connectivity. For people to want to use a sidewalk, it must conveniently connect them
to their intended destination." See httn:': wwwxi .Ia- nncsa. ca. usrindex.asp? \ID -699.
55. San Francisco assesses a Downtown Transportation Impact Fee on new office
construction and commercial office space renovation within a designated district. The
fee is discussed in the City's Climate Action plan, available at
http: \ va° tt. sfenvironnlent. or,,. downloads. Iihratl'clinrucactionplan.ndC
56. For example. Seattle, Washington maintains a public transportation "ride free" zone in its
downtown from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily. See
h1u): ntan.hunl fare.
Office of the California Attorney General
Global Warming Mitigation Measures
Updated: 1: 7'08
Page 18 of 19
57. Reforming Parking Policies to Support Smart Growth, Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (June 2007) at
httn:;:yvwu.nttc.rt . dll +plannin+:smart t+rowthinarkinscminar'Toolbox- Handhoak.ndf.
58. See Safe Routes to School Toolkit, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(2002) at www.nhtsa. dot. eov;peonleiiniun•:nedbimotibikc Safe- Routes - 2002; see also
ww% %.satcroutestoschools.ore (Mann County).
59. The Housing Element assesses current and projected housing needs. In addition, it sets
policies for providing adequate housing and includes action programs for that purpose.
60. The Open Space Element details plans and measures for preserving open space for
natural resources, the managed production of resources, outdoor recreation, public health
and safety, and the identification of agricultural land. As discussed previously in these
Endnotes, there may be substantial overlap in the measures appropriate for the
Conservation and Open Space Elements.
61. The Safety Element establishes policies and programs to protect the community from
risks associated with seismic, geologic. flood, and wildfire hazards.
Office of the California Attorney General
Global Warming Mitigation Measures
Updated: F7:08
Page 19 of 19
■
CAPCOA
CEQA & r - - <. 1
Climate Change
Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse
Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to : the California Environmental Quality Act _
p
January 2008
r
Disclaimer
The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) has
prepared this white paper consideration of evaluating and addressing
greenhouse gas emissions under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) to provide a common platform of information and tools to support
local governments.
This paper is intended as a resource, not a guidance document. It is not
intended, and should not be interpreted, to dictate the manner in which an air
district or lead agency chooses to address greenhouse gas emissions in the
context of its review of projects under CEQA.
This paper has been prepared at a time when California law has been
recently amended by the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32),
and the full programmatic implications of this new law are not yet fully
understood. There is also pending litigation in various state and federal
courts pertaining to the issue of greenhouse gas emissions. Further, there is
active federal legislation on the subject of climate change, and international
agreements are being negotiated. Many legal and policy questions remain
unsettled, including the requirements of CFQA in the context of greenhouse
gas emissions. This paper is provided as a resource for local policy and
decision makers to enable them to make the best decisions they can in the
face of incomplete information during a period of change.
Finally, this white paper reviews requirements and discusses policy options,
but it is not intended to provide legal advice and should not be construed as
such. Questions of legal interpretation, particularly in the context of CEQA
and other laws, or requests for advice should be directed to the agency's
legal counsel.
Acknowledgements
This white paper benefited from the hard work and creative insights of many people.
CAPCOA appreciates the efforts of all who contributed their time and energy to the
project. In particular, the Association thanks the following individuals:
Principal Authors
Greg Tholen. BAAQMD Matt Jones. YSAQMD
Davc Vintrc. HAAQMD Larn Robinson. SMAQMD
Jean Getchell MBUAPCD Ron Tan, SBCAPCD
Editor
Barbara Lec, NSAPCD
Reviewers
CAPCOA Climate Pmtecrion Committer. CA PCO.I Planning Afanagers:
Barbara Lee (NSC'APC'D). Chair CEQA & CLrnale Change Subconnnittee
Larry Allen, SLOC'PC'D
Bobbie Bretz SBAPCD
Karen Brooks, SI.00APCD
Chris Brown, MCAQMD
'I am C'hristotk. PCAPCD
Jorge DcGuzman. SMAQMD
Mat Ehrhardt. YSAQMD
Jean Getchell. MBC:APCD
Larry Greenc. SMAQMD
Henn" Hilken, HAAQMD
.Alan Hobbs, PCAPCD
Jim Jester, SMAQMD
Dave Jones, KCAPCD
Tom Jordan. SJV'UAPCD
'Tom Murphy, SB.APCD
Don Price. VCAPCD
Jean Rogccnkamp. BAAQMD
Ana Sandoval. HAAQMD
Amy Taketomo, MBUAPCD
Tim I aylor, SMAQMD
Mike Villegas. VC4PCD
David Vintze. HAAQMD
Dave Wamer,SJVtrAPCD
Jill Whynot, SMAQMD
John Yu. CAPCOA
Mel Zeldin. C'APC'GA
Dave V intze (BAAQMD). Chair
Greg Tholen (BAAQMD), Project Manager
Charles Anderson. SMAQMD
Acton Arlin Genet, S1.0C.APCD
Jean Getchell, MBUAPCD
Melissa Guise, SLOCAPCD
Matt Jones, YSAQMD
Barbara Lee. NSCAPCD
Ryan Murano. NSAQMD
Tom Murphy. SBCAPCD
Susan Nakamura. SCAQMD
Larry Robinson. SMAQMD
Jean Roggenkamp, BAAQMD
Ana Sandoval. BAAQMD
Ron Tan. SBCAPCD
Brigetre l'ollstrup, SMAQMD
Jill NVhynot, SCAQMD
External Reviewers
James Goldstene. C'ARB Annmarie Mora, GARB I erri Roberts. OPR
Proofing & Layout
Jake Too)son. CAPCOA John Yu. CAPCOA
Contract Support
Jones & Stokes, Sacramento, CA (analysis of non-zero threshold approaches)
EDA W. Inc.. Sacramento. CA (reriew q1 analytical methods and mitigation so'ategiec).
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .................................................... ..............................I
Chapter
I.
Introduction ................................................................. ..............................5
2.
Air Districts and CEQA Thresholds ......................... ..............................1
1
3.
Consideration of Fundamental Issues ....................... ..............................1
3
4.
Consideration of a Statewide Threshold .................... .............................21
5.
CEQA with No GHG Thresholds .............................. .............................23
6.
CI ?QA With GIiG Threshold of Zero ........................ .............................27
7.
CEQA With Von -Zero Thresholds ............................ .............................31
Approach 1: Statute and Executive Order Approach . .............................32
Approach 2: Tiered Approach ................................... .............................36
8.
Analytical Methodologies for GHG ........................... .............................59
9.
Mitigation Strategies for ( Fi( :................................... .............................79
10.
Examples of Other Approaches ................................. .............................85
Appendix A Relevant Citations
Appendix 13 Mitigation Measure Summary
Appendix C — Rule and Regulation Summan
i
List of Figures
Figure I - Climate Change Significance Criteria Flow C hart ......... .............................38
List of Tables
Table I -- Analysis of Cif IG Emissions from Stationary Combustion Equipment
Pen-nits
Table 2 - Approach 2 Tiering Options
18
Table 3 - Comparison of Approach 2 Ticred Threshold Options .... .............................49
Table 4 - Non -Zero Threshold Evaluation Matrix Approach I .... .............................56
Table 5 Non -Zero Threshold Evaluation Matrix - Approach 2 .... .............................57
Table 6 - Residential Project Example 6HG Emissions Estimates . .............................62
Table 7 - Commercial Project Example GHG Emissions Estimates ............................63
Table 8 - Specific Plan Example GHG Emissions Estimates .......... .............................64
Table 9 - General Plan Example CifJG Emissions Estimates ........... .............................68
'fable 10 - Summary of Modeling "Fools for GI IG Emissions ......... .............................75
Table I I - Residential Project Example 61 16 Emissions Estimates with Mitigation
..81
Table 12 - Residential Projects Example Methodology and Mitigation .......................82
Table 13 - Commercial Projects Example Methodology and Mitigation .....................82
"fable 14 - Specific Plans Example Methodology and Mitigation ... .............................83
Table 15 - General Plans Example Methodology and Mitigation .... .............................83
Table 16 - Mitigation Measure Summary .......................................... ...........................E3
-1
Table 17 - General Planning Level Mitigation Strategies Summary . ...........................B
-35
Table 18 - Rule and Regulation Summary ........................................ ............................0
-1
Im
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronyan/
Abbreviation
Mcanintz
AB 32
Assembly Bill 32 Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
AG
Attorney General
ARB
Air Resources Board
ASTM
American Society of Testing and Material
BAAQMD
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
RAU
Business as Usual
BEES
Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability
Calfire
California Fire
Caltrans
California Department of Transportation
CAP
Criteria Air Pollutants
CAPCOA
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
CARB
California Air Resource Board
CAT
Climate Action Team
CLAP
Center for Clcan Air Policy
CCAR
California Climate Action Registry
CDFA
California Department of Food and Agriculture
CEC
California Energy Commission
CEQA
California Environmental Quality Act
Cl:
Connectivity Factor
CH,
Methane
CIWMB
California Integrated Waste Management Board
CO
Carbon Monoxide
CO,
Carbon Dioxide
CNG
Compressed Natural Gas
CPUC
Califomia Public Utilities Commission
CUFR
California Urban Forestry
DGS
Department of Gencral Services
DOE
U.S. Department of Energy
DOF
Department of Finance
DPF
Diesel Particulate Filter
DWR
Department of Water Resources
E85
85% Ethanol
EEA
:Massachusetts Executive Oflice of Energy and Environmental
Affairs
EERE
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
EIR
Environmental Impact Report
EOE
Encyclopedia of Earth
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ETC
Edmonton'] rolley Coalition
F.V
Electric Vehicles
FAR
Floor Area Ratio
iv
GIIG
Greenhouse Gas
GGI:.P
Greenhouse Gas [missions Policy
GGRP
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan
GP
General Plan
GWP
Global Warming Potential
IGCC
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle
IOU
Investor Owned Utility
IPCC
International Panel on Climate Change
IT'
Information Technology
ITE
Institute of Transportation Engineers
J &S
Jones & Stokes
km
Kilometer
I.andGem
Landfill Gas Emissions Model
LEF.D
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
LNG
Liquefied Natural Gas
MBUAPC D
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District
MF.PA
Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act
MNI)
Mitigated Negative Declaration
MMT CO2e
Million Metric Tons Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
MW
Megawatts
N20
Nitrous Oxide
NACAA
National Association Clean Air Agencies
ND
Negative Declaration
NEV
Neighborhood Electric Vehicle
NIST
National Institute of Standards and Technology
NO--
Oxides of Nitrogen
NREL
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
NSCAPCD
Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District
NSR
New Source Review
OPR
State Office of Planning and Research
PFC
Perfluorocarbon
PG &F.
Pacific Gas & Electric
POI
Publicly Owned Utility
PM
Particulate Mater
RoadM.od
Road Construction Emissions Model
ROG
Reactive Organic Gas
RPS
Renewable Portfolio Standards
RTP
Regional Transportation Plan
5 -3 -05
Executive Order 5 -3 -05
SB
Senate Bill
SBCAPCD
Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District
SCAQMD
South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCM
Sustainable Communities Model
SIP
State Implementation Plan
SJVAPCD
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
SLOCAPCD
San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
v
SMAQMD
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District
SMUD
Sacramento Municipal Utilities District
SOX
Sulfur Oxides
SP
Service Population
SRI
Solar Reflectance Index
SWP
State Water Pro.ject
TAC
Toxic Air Contaminants
TBD
'1'o Be Determined
TDM
Transportation Demand Management
TMA
Transportation Management Association
THC
Total Hydrocarbon
UC
University of California
L'LEV
Ultra Low Emission Vehicle
UNFCC'C
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
URBEMIS
Urban Emissions Model
USGBC
U.S. Green Building Council
VMT
Vehicle Miles] raveled
VTPI
Victoria Transit Policy
YSAQMD
Yolo- Solano Air Quality Management District
vi
Executive Summary
Introduction
CEQA
and
Climate Change
Executive
Summary
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that public agencies
refrain from approving projects with significant adverse environmental impacts if I
there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that can substantially reduce ♦
or avoid those impacts. There is growing concern about greenhouse gas emissions'
(GHG) and recognition of their significant adverse impacts on the world's climate and on
our environment. In its most recent reports, the International Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) has called the evidence for this "unequivocal." In California, the passage of the
Global Warming
Solutions Act of
2006 (AB 32) ,
recognizes the
serious threat to the
"economic well- '
being, public health.
natural resources, and
the environment of
California" resulting
from global warming.
In light of our current
understanding of
these impacts, public "
agencies approving
projects subject to the _
CEQA are facing
increasing pressure to y
identify and address potential significant impacts due
to GHG emissions. Entities acting as lead agencies
in the CEQA process are looking for guidance on low
how to adequately address the potential climate
change impacts in meeting their CEQA obligations.
Air districts have traditionally provided guidance to
local lead agencies on evaluating and addressing air pollution impacts from projects
subject to CEQA. Recognizing the need for a common platform of information and tools
to support decision makers as they establish policies and programs for GHG and CEQA,
the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association has prepared a white paper
reviewing policy choices, analytical tools, and mitigation strategies.
This paper is intended to serve as a resource for public agencies as they establish agency
procedures for reviewing GHG emissions from projects under CEQA. It considers the
application of thresholds and offers three alternative programmatic approaches toward
' Throughout this paper GHG. CO:. CO:e, are used interchangeably and refer generally to greenhouse
gases but do not necessarily include all greenhouse gases unless otherwise specified.
CEQA
and
Climate Change
determining whether GHG emissions are significant. The paper also evaluates tools and
methodologies for estimating impacts, and summarizes mitigation measures. It has been
prepared with the understanding that the programs, regulations, policies, and procedures
established by the California Air Resources Board (GARB) and other agencies to reduce
GHG emissions may ultimately result in a different approach under CEQA than the
strategies considered here. The paper is intended to provide a common platform for
public agencies to ensure that GHG emissions are appropriately considered and addressed
under CEQA while those programs are being developed.
Examples of Other Approaches
Many states, counties, and cities have developed policies and regulations concerning
greenhouse gas emissions that seek to require or promote reductions in GHG emissions
through standards for vehicle emissions, fuels, electricity production/renewables,
building efficiency, and other means. A few have developed guidance and are currently
considering formally requiring or recommending the analysis of greenhouse gas
emissions for development projects during their associated environmental processes.
Key work in this area includes:
• Massachusetts Office of Energy and Environmental
Affairs Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy:
• King County, Washington, Executive Order on the
Evaluation of Climate Change Impacts through the
State Environmental Policy Act:
• Sacramento AQMD interim policy on addressing
climate change in CEQA documents: and
• Mendocino AQMD updated guidelines for use
during preparation of air quality impacts in Enviroi
Impact Reports (EIRs) or mitigated negative declarations.
The following paper evaluates options for lead agencies to ensure that GHG emissions
are appropriately addressed as pan of analyses under CEQA. It considers the use of
significance thresholds, tools and methodologies for analyzing GHG emissions, and
measures and strategies to avoid, reduce, or mitigate impacts.
Greenhouse Gas Significance Criteria
This white paper discusses three basic options air districts and lead agencies can pursue
when contemplating the issues of CEQA thresholds for greenhouse gas emissions. This
paper explores each path and discusses the benefits and disbenefits of each. The three
basic paths are:
• No significance threshold for GHG emissions;
• GI IG emissions threshold set at zero; or
• GHG threshold set at a non -zero level.
CEQAT CAPCOA
a0d
Climate Change
Executive
Summary
Each has inherent advantages and disadvantages. Air districts and lead agencies may
believe the state or national govemment should take the lead in identifying significance
thresholds to address this global impact. Alternatively, the agency may believe it is
premature or speculative to determine a clear level at which a threshold should be set.
On the other hand, air districts or lead agencies may believe that every GHG emission
should be scrutinized and mitigated or offset due to the cumulative nature of this impact.
Setting the threshold at zero will place all discretionary projects under the CEQA
microscope. Finally, an air district or lead agency may believe that some projects will
not benefit from a full environmental impact report (FIR), and may believe a threshold at
some level above zero is needed.
this paper explores the basis and implications of setting no threshold. setting a threshold
at zero and two primary approaches for those who may choose to consider a non -zero
threshold. The first approach is grounded in statute (AB 32) and executive order (EO 5-
3-05) and explores four possible options under this scenario. The options under this
approach are variations of ways to achieve the 2020 goals of AB 32 from new
development. which is estimated to be about a 30 percent reduction from business as
usual.
The second approach explores a tiered threshold option. Within this option, seven
variations are discussed. The concepts explored here offer both quantitative and
qualitative approaches to setting a threshold as well as different metrics by which tier cut -
points can be set. Variations range from setting the first tier cut -point at zero to second -
tier cut - points set at defined emission levels or based on the size of a project. It should be
noted that some applications of the tiered threshold approach may require inclusion in a
General Plan or adoption of enabling regulations or ordinances to render them fully
effective and enforceable.
Greenhouse Gas Analytical Methodologies
The white paper evaluates various analytical methods and modeling tools that can be
applied to estimate the greenhouse gas emissions from different project types subject to
CEQA. In addition. the suitability of the methods and tools to characterize accurately a
project's emissions is discussed and the paper provides recommendations for the most
appropriate methodologies and tools currently available.
The suggested methodologies are applied to residential, commercial, specific plan and
general plan scenarios where GHG emissions are estimated for each example. This
chapter also discusses estimating emissions from solid waste facilities, a wastewater
treatment plant, construction, and air district rules and plans.
7
CEQA
and
Climate Change
Another methodology, a service population metric, that would measure a project's overall
GHG efficiency to determine if a project is more efficient than the existing statewide
average for per capita GHG emissions is explored. This methodology may be more
directly correlated to a project's ability to help achieve objectives outlined in AB 32,
although it relies on establishment of an efficiency -based significance threshold. The
subcommittee believes this methodology may eventually be appropriate to evaluate the
long -term GHG emissions from a project in the context of meeting AB 32 goals.
However, this methodology will need further work and is not considered viable for the
interim guidance presented in this white paper.
Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures
Common practice in environmental protection is first to avoid, then to minimize, and
finally to compensate for impacts. When an impact cannot be mitigated on -site, off -site
mitigation can be effectively implemented in several resource areas, either in the form of
offsetting the same impact or preserving the resource elsewhere in the region.
This white paper describes and evaluates currently available
mitigation measures based on their economic, technological
and logistical feasibility, and emission reduction
effectiveness. The potential for secondary impacts to air
quality are also identified for each measure. A summary of
current rules and regulations affecting greenhouse gas
emissions and climate change is also provided.
Reductions from transportation related measures (e.g.. bicycle.
pedestrian, transit, and parking) are explored as a single
comprehensive approach to land use. Design measures that
focus on enhancing alternative transportation are discussed.
Mitigation measures are identified for transportation, land
use/building design, mixed -use development, energy efficiency,
education/social awareness and construction.
4
Chapter 1: Introduction
Purpose
CEt1A 11 a
Climate Change
Chapter 1
ntroducUOn
CEQA requires the avoidance or mitigation of significant adverse environmental
impacts where there are feasible alternatives available. The contribution of GHG to
climate change has been documented in the scientific community. The California
Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) mandates significant reductions in
greenhouse gases (GHG); passage of that law has highlighted the need to consider the
impacts of GHG emissions from projects that fall under the jurisdiction of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Because we have only recently come to fully
recognize the potential for significant environmental impacts from GHG, most public
agencies have not yet established policies and procedures to consider them under CEQA.
As a result, there is great need for information and other resources to assist public
agencies as they develop their programs.
Air districts have historically provided guidance to local governments on the evaluation
of air pollutants under CEQA. As local concern about climate change and GHG has
increased, local governments have requested guidance on incorporating analysis of these
impacts into local CEQA review. The California Air Pollution Control Officers
Association (CAPCOA), in coordination with the CARB, the Govemor's Office of
Planning and Research (OPR) and two environmental consulting firms, has harnessed the
collective expertise to evaluate approaches to analyzing GHG in CEQA. The purpose of
this white paper is to provide a common platform of information and tools to address
climate change in CEQA analyses, including the
evaluation and mitigation of GHG emissions from
proposed projects and identifying significance
threshold options. 0�'EXA :453�N.
CEQA requires public agencies to ensure that�.�..r
potentially significant adverse environmental r
effects of discretionary projects are fully ( -
characterized, and avoided or mitigated where
there are feasible alternatives to do so. Lead
agencies have struggled with how best to identify
and characterize the magnitude of the adverse
effects that individual projects have on the global -scale phenomenon of climate change,
even more so since Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S -3 -05 and the
state Legislature enacted The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). There is
now a resounding call to establish procedures to analyze and mitigate greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions. The lack of established thresholds does not relieve lead agencies of
their responsibility to analyze and mitigate significant impacts, so many of these agencies
are seeking guidance from state and local air quality agencies. This white paper
addresses issues inherent in establishing CEQA thresholds, evaluates tools, catalogues
mitigation measures and provides air districts and lead agencies with options for
incorporating climate change into their programs.
C
CEQA
��d
Climate Change
Background
National and International Efforts
International and Federal legislation have been enacted to deal with climate change
issues. 'Me Montreal Protocol was originally signed in 1987 and substantially amended
in 1990 and 1992. In 1988, the United Nations and the World Meteorological
Organization established the IPCC to assess the scientific, technical and socioeconomic
information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human - induced
climate change, its potential impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation. The
most recent reports of the IPCC have emphasized the
scientific consensus around the evidence that real and
measurable changes to the climate are occurring, that
they are caused by human activity, and that significant
adverse impacts on the environment, the economy, and
human health and welfare
are unavoidable.
In October 1993.
- President Clinton
announced his Climate
Change Action Plan,
which had a goal to return
greenhouse gas emissions
:.,-vn to 1990 levels by the year
-F r
2000. This was to be
accomplished through 50
_ initiatives that relied on
innovative voluntary
partnerships between the
private sector and
government aimed at producing cost - effective reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
On March 21. 1994, the United States joined a number of countries around the world in
signing the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Under the Convention, governments agreed to gather and share information on
greenhouse gas emissions, national policies, and best practices; launch national strategies
for addressing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to expected impacts, including the
provision of financial and technological support to developing countries; and cooperate in
preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate change.
These efforts have been largely policy oriented. In addition to the national and
international efforts described above, many local jurisdictions have adopted climate
change policies and programs. However, thus far little has been done to assess the
significance of the affects new development projects may have on climate change.
2
CEQA
Climate Change
Executive Order S -3 -05
�CAPCOA
Chapter 1
Introduclon
On June I, 2005. Governor Schwaraenegger issued Executive Order S -3 -05 (S- 3 -05).
It included the following GHG emission reduction targets: by 2010, reduce GHG
emissions to 2000 levels, by 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels: by 2050,
reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. To meet the targets, the
Governor directed the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency to
coordinate with the Secretary of the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency,
Secretary of the Department of Food and Agriculture, Secretary of the Resources
Agency, Chairperson of the GARB, Chairperson of the Energy Commission and
President of the Public Utilities Commission on development of a Climate Action Plan.
The Secretary of CaIEPA leads a Climate Action Team (CAT) made up of
representatives from the agencies listed above to implement global warming emission
reduction programs identified in the Climate Action Plan and report on the progress made
toward meeting the statewide greenhouse gas targets that were established in the
Executive Order.
-� Sources of Potential Reductions
(Million Metric Tons CO2 Equivalent)
.Y e
Oav Ullty it
RIPS Ill
U06ry r,.,qy fr.
Pmw¢ ]I
(fY104ry w.v.w�...
SIaWw r
I
Source: March 2006 Climate Acton Team Report
SOURCI ARn 2107
Srun taw IhalmixmM
Trswpo 27
,0 NO. at
In accord with the requirements of the Executive Order, the first report to the Governor
and the Legislature was released in March 2006 and will be issued bi- annually thereafter.
The CAT Report to the Governor contains recommendations and strategies to help ensure
the targets in Executive Order S -3 -05 are met.
7
CEQA
and
Climate Change
California Global Warmine Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32)
In 2006, the California State Legislature adopted the California Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 establishes a cap on statewide greenhouse gas emissions
and sets forth the regulatory framework to achieve the corresponding reduction in
statewide emissions levels. AB 32 charges the California Air Resources Board (GARB),
the state agency charged with regulating statewide air quality, with implementation of the
act. Under AB 32, greenhouse gases are defined as: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous
oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.
The regulatory steps laid out in AB 32 require CARB to: adopt early action measures to
reduce GHGs: to establish a statewide greenhouse gas emissions cap for 2020 based on
1990 emissions: to adopt mandatory reporting rules for significant source of greenhouse
gases: and to adopt a scoping plan indicating how emission reductions will be achieved
via regulations, market mechanisms and other actions: and to adopt the regulations
needed to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost - effective reductions in
greenhouse gases.
AB 32 requires that by January I. 2008, the State Board shall determine what the
statewide greenhouse gas emissions inventory was in 1990, and approve a statewide
greenhouse gas emissions limit that is equivalent to that level, to be achieved by 2020.
While the level of 1990 GHG emissions has not yet been approved. CARB's most recent
emission inventory indicates that California had annual emissions of 436 million metric
tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMT CO20 in 1990 and 497 MMT CO:e in 2004.
The regulatory timeline laid out in AB
AB 32 Tinepne 32 requires that by July I, 2007, CARB
adopt a list of discrete early action
• • •r0-0 / • wmm► measures, or regulations, to be adopted
'" and implemented by January I, 2010.
I I These actions will form part of the
.-� State's comprehensive plan for
achieving greenhouse gas emission
F 120
reductions. In June 2007, CARB
adopted three discrete early action
measures. These three new proposed
SOURCI'. ARB 2007 regulations meet the definition of
"discrete early action greenhouse gas reduction measures," which include the following:
a low carbon fuel standard: reduction of HFC -134a emissions from non- professional
servicing of motor vehicle air conditioning systems, and improved landfill methane
capture. CARB estimates that by 2020, the reductions from those three discrete early
action measures would be approximately 13 -26 MMT CO2e.
CARB evaluated over 100 possible measures identified by the CAT for inclusion in the
list of discrete early action measures. On October 25, 2007 CARB gave final approval to
the list of Early Action Measures, which includes nine discrete measures and 35
8
CEQA
MW
Climate Change
additional measures, all of which are to be enforceable by January I. 2010. AB 32 (Chapter 1
requires that by January I. 2009, CARB adopt a scoping plan indicating how emission Introduction
reductions will be achieved via regulations, market mechanisms and other actions.
Senate Bill 97
Senate Bill (SB) 97, signed in August 2007, acknowledges
that climate change is an important environmental issue
that requires analysis under CEQA. This bill directs the
OPR to prepare, develop, and transmit to the Resources
Agency guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG
emissions or the effects of GHG emissions, by
July I, 2009. The Resources Agency is required
to certify or adopt those guidelines by January 1,
2010. This bill also protects projects funded by
the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air
Quality and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, or
the Disaster Preparedness and Flood Protection
Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition I B or I E) from
claims of inadequate analysis of GHG as a legitimate cause of action. This latter
provision will be repealed on January 1, 2010. Thus, this "protection" is highly limited to
a handful of projects and for a short time period.
The Role of Air Districts in the CEQA Process
Air districts assume one of three roles in the CEQA process. They may he lead agencies
when they are adopting regulations and air quality plans. In some instances, they can
also be a lead agency when approving permits to construct or operate for applicants
subject to district rules. However, in many cases where an air district permit is involved,
another agency has broader permitting authority over the project and assumes the role of
lead agency. In these situations, the air district becomes what is referred to as a
responsible agency under CEQA. When CEQA documents are prepared for projects that
do not involve discretionary approval of a district regulation, plan or permit, the air
district may assume the role of a concerned or commenting agency. In this role. it is
typical for air districts to comment on CEQA documents where there may be air quality-
related adverse impacts, such as projects that may create significant contributions to
existing violations of ambient standards, cause a violation of an ambient standard or
create an exposure to toxic air contaminants or odors. In some cases, the air district may
also act in an "advisory" capacity to a lead agency early on in its review of an application
for a proposed development project.
A few air districts in California began developing significance thresholds for use in
CEQA analyses in the late 1980's and early 1990's. By the mid- 1990's most air districts
had developed CEQA thresholds for air quality analyses. Many of the districts have
included in their guidance the analysis of rule development and permits that may be
subject to CEQA.
W
CEQA
and
Climate Change
What is Not Addressed in this Paper
Impacts of Climate Change to a Project
"Ilse focus of this paper is addressing adverse impacts to climate change and the ability to
meet statewide GHG reduction goals caused by proposed new land development projects.
rcne ,ice requires an assessment of significant adverse
i project might cause by bringing development
)le into an area affected by climate change
;uidelines §15126.2). For example, an area that
experiences higher average temperatures due
to climate change may expose new
development to more frequent exceedances
and higher levels of ozone concentrations.
Alternatively, a rise in sea level brought on
by climate change may inundate new
development locating in a low -lying area.
The methodologies, mitigation and threshold
approaches discussed in this paper do not
specifically address the potential adverse
impacts resulting from climate change that
may affect a project.
Impacts from Construction Activity
Although construction activity has been addressed in the
analytical methodologies and mitigation chapters, this
paper does not discuss whether any of the threshold
approaches adequately addresses impacts from
construction activity. More study is needed to make this
assessment or to develop separate thresholds for
construction activity. The focus of this paper is the
long -term adverse operational impacts of land use
development.
E
Chapter 2: Air Districts & CEQA Thresholds
Introduction
CEQA
Climate Change
;hapter 2
Air District's
& CEQA
Any analysis of environmental impacts under CEQA includes an assessment of the Thresholds
nature and extent of each impact expected to result from the project to determine
whether the impact will be treated as significant or less than significant. CEQA gives
lead agencies discretion whether to classify a particular environmental impact as
significant. "The determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the
environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved," ref:
CEQA Guidelines §15064(6) ( "Guidelines'). Ultimately, formulation of a standard of
significance requires the lead agency to make a policy judgment about where the line
should be drawn distinguishing adverse impacts it considers significant from those that
are not deemed significant. This judgment must, however, be based on scientific
information and other factual data to the extent possible (Guidelines § I5064(b)).
CEQA does not require that agencies establish thresholds of significance. Guidelines
§15064.7(a) encourages each public agency "...to develop and publish thresholds of
significance that the agency uses in the determination of the significance of environmental
effects. A threshold of significance is an identifiable quantitative, qualitative or
performance level of a particular environmental effect, non - compliance with which means
the effect will normally be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with
which normally means the effect will be determined to be less than significant."
Once such thresholds are established, an impact that complies with the applicable
threshold will "normally" be found insignificant and an impact that does not comply with
the applicable threshold will "normally" be found significant.
Additionally, Guidelines §15064.7(b) requires that if thresholds of significance are
adopted for general use as part of the lead agency's environmental review process they
must be adopted by ordinance, resolution. rule or regulation, and developed through a
public review process and be supported by substantial evidence.
While many public agencies adopt regulatory standards as thresholds, the standards do not
substitute for a public agency's use of careful judgment in determining significance. They
also do not replace the legal standard for significance (i.e.. if there is a fair argument, based
on substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the project may have a significant
effect, the effect should be considered significant) (Guidelines §15064(()(1). Also see
Communities . for a Better Environment v. Ca(i/imwia Resource Agency 103 Cal. App. 4th 98
(2002)). In other words, the adoption of a regulatory standard does not create an
irrebuttable presumption that impacts below the regulatory standard are less than significant.
CEQA
,�d
Climate Change
Summary of CEQA Thresholds at Air Districts
This section briefly summarizes the evolution of air district
CEQA significance thresholds. Ventura County APCD, in
1980, was the first air district in California that formally
adopted CEQA significance thresholds. Their first CEQA
assessment document contained impact thresholds based on
project type: residential, nonresidential, and government.
Then, as now, the District's primary CEQA thresholds
9 'd 1'
'va J,M COUNT.
Ni
auocu.cs
applied only to ROG and NO.. The 180 Gw e mes r• adLR_
did not address other air pollutants.
Santa Barbara County APCD and the Bay Area
AQMD adopted thresholds in 1985. The South Coast
AQMD recommended regional air quality thresholds
in 1987 for CO, S02. NO2, particulates, ROG, and
lead. Most of the other California air districts adopted -
CEQA guidance and thresholds during the 1990's. Air
districts have updated their thresholds and guidelines
several times since they were first published. _-
Originally, most districts that established CEQA - . —• - -- ® .-
thresholds focused on criteria pollutants for which the —W -
district was nonattainment and the thresholds only
addressed project level impacts. Updates during the
1990's began to add additional air quality impacts such
as odors, toxic air contaminants and construction. Several air districts also developed
thresholds for General Plans that relied on an assessment of the plan consistency with the
district's air quality plans. A consistency analysis involves comparing the project's land
use to that of the general plan and the population and employment increase to the
forecasts underlying the assumptions used to develop the air quality plan.
Most air district thresholds for CEQA are based on the threshold for review under the
New Source Review (NSR). The NSR threshold level is set by district rule and is
different depending on the nonattainment classification of the air district. Areas with a
less severe classification have a higher NSR trigger level while the most polluted areas
have the lowest NSR trigger level. Some districts, such as Ventura County APCD, have
significantly lower CEQA thresholds that are not tied to the NSR requirements. In
Ventura, one set of CEQA thresholds is 25 pounds per day for all regions of Ventura
County, except the Ojai Valley. The second set of CEQA thresholds was set at 5 pounds
per day for the Ojai Valley.
The Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD bases its thresholds for ozone precursors on the
projected land use share of emission reductions needed for attainment. The emission
reductions needed to reach attainment are based on commitments made in the state
implementation plan (SIP) prepared for the federal clean air act.
12
C=
CEQA
Chapter 3: Consideration of Fundamental Issues Climate Change
CEQA Considerations in Setting Thresholds
Chapter 3
Consideration
Of Fundamental
Public agencies use significance thresholds to disclose to their constituents how they Issues
plan on evaluating and characterizing the severity of various environmental impacts
that could he associated with discretionary projects that they review. Significanc
thresholds are also used to help identify the level of mitigation needed to reduce a
potential) significant impact to a less than significant level and to determine what type
or of an environmental document should be
prepared for a project; primarily a
rr7" negative declaration• mitigated negative
declaration or an environmental impact
rr n report.
■ While public agencies are not required
to develop significance thresholds, if
they decide to develop them, they are
v
required to adopt them by ordinance,
resolution, rule or regulation through a
public process. A lead agency is not restrained from adopting any significance threshold
it sees as appropriate, as long as it is based on substantial evidence. CEQA Guidelines
§15(X4.7 encourages public agencies to develop and publish significance thresholds that
are identifiable, quantitative, qualitative or performance level that the agency uses in the
determination of the significance of environmental effects. The courts have ruled that a
"threshold of significance" for a given environmental effect is simply that level at which
the lead agency finds the effects of the project to be significant.
Before an agency determines its course with regard to climate change and CEQA, it must
be made clear that a threshold, or the absence of one, will not relieve a lead agency from
having to prepare an EIR or legal challenges to the adequacy of an analysis leading to a
conclusion, or lack of a conclusion, of significance under CEQA. CEQA has generally
favored the preparation of an EIR where there is any substantial evidence to support a fair
argument that a significant adverse environmental impact may occur due to a proposed
project. This paper explores three alternative approaches to thresholds, including a no
threshold option, a zero threshold option and a non -zero threshold option.
Fair Argument Considerations
Under the CEQA fair argument standard, an EIR must be prepared whenever it can be
fairly argued, based on substantial evidence in the administrative record, that a project
may have a significant adverse effect on the environment. "Substantial evidence"
comprises "enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information
that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions
might also be reached." (Guidelines §15384) This means that if factual information is
presented to the public agency that there is a reasonable possibility the project could have
13
CEQA
aid
Climate Change
a significant effect on the environment, an EIR is required even if the public agency has
information to the contrary (Guidelines §15064 (f)).
The courts have held that the fair argument standard "establishes a low threshold for
initial preparation of an EIR, which reflects a preference for resolving doubts in favor of
environmental review." (Santa Teresa Citizen Action Group v. City of San Jose [2003)
114 Cal.AppAth 689) Although the determination of whether a fair argument exists is
made by the public agency, that determination is subject to judicial scrutiny when
challenged in litigation. When the question is whether an EIR should have been
prepared, the court will review the administrative record for factual evidence supporting a
fair argument.
The fair argument standard essentially empowers project opponents to force preparation
of an EIR by introducing factual evidence into the record that asserts that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment. This evidence does not need to be
conclusive regarding the potential significant effect.
In 1998, the Resources Agency amended the State CEQA Guidelines to encourage the
use of thresholds of significance. Guidelines §15064 (h) provided that when a project's
impacts did not exceed adopted standards, the impacts were to be considered less than
significant. The section went on to describe the types of adopted standards that were to
be considered thresholds. Guidelines §
15064.7 provided that agencies may adopt __
thresholds of significance to guide their I CEQA
determinations of significance. Both of
these sections were challenged when
environmental groups sued the Resources '" " `"° of PL " "a f
Agency in 2000 over the amendments. The INTRODUCTION
trial court concluded that §15064.7 was (Nervim offhe Cdifornia t m iron men to Revie"
proper, if it was applied in the context of the and Permit Appro%al Process
fair argument standard. — J
At the appellate court level, §15064(h) was invalidated. Establishing a presumption
that meeting an adopted standard would avoid significant impacts was "inconsistent with
controlling CEQA law governing the fair argument approach." The Court of Appeal
explained that requiring agencies to comply with a regulatory standard "relieves the
agency of a duty it would have under the fair argument approach to look at evidence
beyond the regulatory standard, or in contravention of the standard, in deciding whether
an EIR must be prepared. Under the fair argument approach, any substantial evidence
supporting a fair argument that a project may have a significant environmental effect
would trigger the preparation of an EIR:' (Communities for a Better Environment v.
California Resources Agency [20021 103 Cal.App.4th 98)
Prior §I5064(h) has been removed from the State CEQA Guidelines. Current §15064(h) discusses
cumulative impacts.
14
CEQA
.rw
Climate Change
In summary, CEQA law does not require a lead agency to establish significance Chapter 3
thresholds for GHG. CEQA guidelines encourage the development of thresholds, but Consideration
the absence of an adopted threshold does not relieve the agency from the obligation to of
undamental
determine significance. Issues
Defensibility of CEOA Analyses
The basic purposes of CEQA, as set out in the State CEQA Guidelines. include: (1)
informing decision makers and the public about the significant environmental effects of
proposed projects; (2) identifying ways to reduce or avoid those
pfO)e impacts; (3) requiring the implementation of feasible mitigation
measures or alternatives that would reduce or avoid those impacts; and
(4) requiring public agencies to disclose their reasons for approving
any project that would have significant and unavoidable impacts
(Guidelines §15002). CEQA is enforced through civil litigation over
procedure (i.e., did the public agency follow the correct CEQA
procedures ?) and adequacy (i.e., has the potential for impacts been
disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated to the extent feasible ?).
The California Supreme Court has held that CEQA is "to he interpreted in such manner
as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope
of the statutory language." (Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors 119721 8
Cal.3d 247, 259) Within that context, the role of the courts is to weigh the facts in each
case and apply their judgment. Although the court may rule on the adequacy of the
CEQA work, the court is not empowered to act in the place of the public agency to
approve or deny the project for which the CEQA document was prepared. Further, the
court's review is limited to the evidence contained in the administrative record that was
before the public agency when it acted on the project.
Putting aside the issue of CEQA procedure. the defensibility of a CEQA analysis rests on
the following concerns:
whether the public agency has sufficiently analyzed the environmental
consequences to enable decision makers to make an intelligent decision;
• whether the conclusions of the public agency are supported by substantial
evidence in the administrative record: and
• whether the agency has made a good faith effort at the full disclosure of
significant effects.
CEQA analyses need not be perfect or exhaustive -- the depth and breadth of the analysis
is limited to what is "reasonably feasible" (Guidelines §15151) At the same time, the
analysis "must include detail sufficient to enable those who did not participate in its
preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed
15
CEQA
and
Climate Change
project." (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California
(1988) 47 Cal.3d 376)
By itself, establishment of a GHG threshold will not insulate individual CEQA analyses
from challenge. Defensibility depends upon the adequacy of the analysis prepared by the
lead agency and the process followed. However, the threshold can help to define the
boundaries of what is a reasonable analysis by establishing when an analysis will be
required and the basic scope of that analysis. The threshold would attempt to define the
point at which an analysis will be required and when a level of impact becomes
significant, requiring preparation of an EIR. If the threshold includes recommendations
for the method or methods of analysis, it can establish the minimum level of analysis to
address this issue.
Considerations in Setting Thresholds for Stationary Source Projects
In many respects, the analysis of GHG
emissions from stationary sources is much more
straightforward than the analysis of land use
patterns, forecasted energy consumption, and
emissions from mobile sources. The reason is
that, for the most part, the latter analyses depend
largely on predictive models with myriad inputs
and have a wider range of error. Emissions
from stationary sources involve a greater
reliance on mass and energy balance calculations and direct measurements of emissions
from the same or similar sources. Energy demand is more directly tied to production, and
even associated mobile source emissions will likely fall within narrower predictive
windows.
Imolementine CEOA Without a Threshold
A lead agency is not required to establish significance thresholds for GHG emissions
from stationary sources. The lead agency may find that it needs more information or
experience evaluating GHG from these types of projects to determine an appropriate
significance threshold. As with other project types, the lead agency could conduct a
project specific analysis to determine whether an environmental impact report is needed
and to determine the level of mitigation that is appropriate. The agency might also rely
on thresholds established for criteria pollutants as a screening method, and analyze GHG
emissions (and require mitigation) from projects with emissions above the criteria
pollutant thresholds. Over time, the agency could amass information and experience with
specific project categories that would support establishing explicit thresholds. The lead
agency may also choose to base local CEQA thresholds on state guidelines or on the
category- specific reduction targets established by ARB in its scoping plan for
implementing AB32. Resource constraints and other considerations associated with
implementing CEQA without GHG thresholds for stationary sources would be similar to
those outlined for other types of projects (see Chapter 5 — No Threshold Option).
IP
Implementing CEQA with Threshold of 7ero
CEQA I s me i
Climate Change
Chapter 3
Consideration
of
A lead agency may find that any increase in GHG emissions is potentially significant issues
under CEQA. The resources and other considerations fir implementing a threshold of
zero for stationary sources are the same as those outlined for other types of' projects
(see Chapter 6 — Zero Threshold Option).
Implementing CEQA with a Non -Zero Threshold
A lead agency may identify one or more non -zero thresholds for significance of
emissions of GHG from stationary sources. The agency could elect to rely on existing
thresholds for reviewing new or modified stationary sources of GHG, if the state or local
air district has established any. The agency could also apply the threshold(s) established
for non - stationary sources to GHG emissions from stationary sources. Significance
thresholds could also be established by ordinance. rule, or policy for a given category of
stationary sources; this approach is especially conducive to a tiered threshold approach.
For example, the agency could establish significance and mitigation tiers for stationary
compression- ignition diesel- fueled generators. Under such an approach, the project
proponent could be first required to use a lower GHG- emitting power source if feasible,
and if not, to apply mitigation based on the size of' the generator and other defined
considerations, such as hours of operation. Certain classes of generators could be found
to he insignificant under CFQA (e.g., those used for emergency stand -by power only,
with a limit on the annual hours of use). As with non - stationary projects. the goal of
establishing non -zero thresholds is to maximize environmental protection, while
minimizing resources used. Resource and other considerations outlined for non -
stationary projects are applicable here (see Chapter 7 — Non -Zero Threshold Options).
Implementing, CEQA with Different Thresholds for Stationary and Non - stationary
Projects
Although a lead agency may apply the same thresholds to stationary and non - stationary
projects, it is not required to do so. There are, in fact, some important distinctions
between the two types of projects that could support applying different thresholds. The
lead agency should consider the methods used to estimate emissions. Are the estimates a
"best/worst reasonable scenario" or are they based on theoretical maximum operation?
How accurate are the estimates (are they based on models, simulations, emission factors,
source test data, manufacturer specifications, etc.)? To what extent could emissions be
reduced through regulations after the project is constructed if they were found to be
greater than originally expected (i.e., is it possible to retrofit emissions control
technology onto the source(s) of GHG at a later date, how long is the expected project
life, etc.)? Are there emission limits or emissions control regulations (such as New
Source Review) that provide certainty that emissions will be mitigated? Generally,
stationary source emissions are based on maximum emissions (theoretical or allowed
under law or regulation), are more accurate, and are more amenable to retrofit at a later
time than non - stationary source emissions. It is also more likely that category specific
17
CEQA
am
Climate Change
rules or some form of NSR will apply to stationary sources than non - stationary projects.
Notwithstanding, it is almost always more effective and cost - efficient to apply emission
reduction technology at the design phase of a project. There are, therefore, a number of
considerations that need to he evaluated and weighed before establishing thresholds — and
which may support different thresholds for stationary and non - stationary projects.
Furthermore, the considerations may change over time as new regulations are established
and as emissions estimation techniques and control technology evolves.
Direct GHG Emissions from Stationary Sources
The main focus of this paper has been the consideration of
projects that do not. in the main. involve stationary sources of
air pollution, because stationary source projects are generally a
smaller percentage of the projects seen by most local land use
agencies. That said, some discussion of stationary sources is
warranted. As the broader program for regulating GHG from
these sources is developed. the strategies for addressing them
under CEQA will likely become more refined.
The primary focus of analysis of stationary source emissions has traditionally been those
pollutants that are directly emitted by the source, whether through a stack or as fugitive
releases (such as leaks). CAPCOA conducted a simplified analysis of permitting activity
to estimate the number of stationary source projects with potentially significant emissions
of greenhouse gases that might be seen over the course of a year. This analysis looked
only at stationary combustion sources (such as boilers and generators), and only
considered direct emissions. A lead agency under CEQA may see a different profile of
projects than the data provided here suggest, depending on what other resources are
affected by projects. In addition, air districts review like -kind replacements of equipment
to ensure the new equipment meets current standards, but such actions might not
constitute a project for many land use agencies or other media regulators. The data does
provide a useful benchmark, however, for lead agencies to assess the order of magnitude
of potential stationary source projects. A similar analysis is included for non - stationary
projects in Chapter 7.
Table 1: Analysis of GHG Emissions from Stationary Combustion Equipment Permits
' District data varies based on specific local regulations and methodologies.
18
13AAQMD
SMAQMD
SJVUAPCD
SCAQMD
Total Applications for Year
1499
778
1535
1179
Affected at threshold of:
900 metric tons /year
26
43
63
108
10,000 metric tons/year
7
5
26
8
25,000 metric tons/year
3
1
11
4
' District data varies based on specific local regulations and methodologies.
18
Emissions from Energy Use
CEQA nr�
a�tl
Climate Change
Chapter 3
In addition to the direct emissions of GHG from stationary projects, CEQA will likely
need to consider the project's projected energy use. This could include an analysis of
opportunities for energy efficiency, onsite clean power generation (e.g., heat/energy
recovery, co- generation, geothermal, solar, or wind), and the use of dedicated power
contracts as compared to the portfolio of generally
available power. In some industries, water use and
conservation may provide substantial GHG
emissions reductions, so the CEQA analysis should
consider alternatives that reduce water consumption
and wastewater discharge. The stationary project
may also have the opportunity to use raw or
feedstock materials that have a smaller GHG
footprint: material substitution should be evaluated
where information is available to do so.
Emissions from Associated Mobile Sources
Consideration
of
Issues
The stationary project will also include emissions from associated mobile sources. These
will include three basic components: emissions from employee trips, emissions from
delivery of raw or feedstock materials, and emissions from product i9iiarmalla
transport. Employee trips can be evaluated using trip estimation as
is done for non - stationary projects, and mitigations would include
such measures as providing access to and incentives for use of
public transportation, accessibility for bicycle and pedestrian
modes of transport, employer supported car or vanpools (including
policies such as guaranteed rides home, etc). Upstream and
downstream emissions related to goods movement can also be
estimated with available models. The evaluation will need to
determine the extent of the transport chain that should be included
(to ensure that all emissions in the chain have been evaluated and mitigated, but to avoid
double counting). Mitigations could include direct actions by operators who own their
own fleet, or could be implemented through contractual arrangements with independent
carriers; again, the evaluation will need to consider how far up and down the chain
mitigation is feasible and can be reasonably required.
Comparing Emissions Changes Across Pollutant Categories
The potential exists for certain GHG reduction measures to increase emissions of criteria
and toxic pollutants known to cause or aggravate respiratory, cardiovascular, and other
health problems. For instance, GHG reduction efforts such as alternative fuels and
methane digesters may create significant levels of increased pollutants that are
detrimental to the health of the nearby population (e.g.; particulate matter, ozone
precursors, toxic air contaminants). Such considerations should be included in any
CEQA analysis of a project's environmental impacts. While there are many win -win
19
CEQA
and
Climate Change
strategies that can reduce both 0110 and criteria/toxic pollutant emissions, when faced
with situations that involve tradeoffs between the two. the more immediate public health
concerns that may arise from an increase in criteria or toxic pollutant emissions should
take precedence. GIIG emission reductions could be achieved offsite through other
mitigation programs.
20
CEQA JUAPU [
Chapter 4: Considerations of a Statewide Threshold Climate Change K-. "
Introduction
Chapter 4
Consderalion
of a Statewide
Under state law, it is the purview of each lead agency to determine what, if aH�r Threshold
significance thresholds will be established to guide its review of projects un
CEQA. While the state does provide guidelines for implementing CEQA,
guidelines have left the decision of whether to establish thresholds (and if so. at what
level) to individual lead agencies. Frequently, lead agencies consult with resource -
specific agencies (such as air districts) for assistance in determining what constitutes a
significant impact on that specific resource.
With the passage of AB 31 the ARB has broad authority to regulate GI IG emissions as
necessary to meet the emission reduction goals of the statute. This may include authority
to establish emission reduction requirements for new land use projects, and may also
enable them to recommend statewide thresholds for GIIG under CEQA.
In developing this white paper. CAPCOA recognizes that, as the GI IG reduction program
evolves over time, GIIG thresholds and other policies and procedures for CEQA may
undergo significant revision, and that uniform statewide thresholds and procedures may
be established. This paper is intended to serve as a resource for public agencies until
such time that statewide guidance is established, recognizing that decisions will need to
be made about GIIG emissions from projects before such guidance is available. This
paper is not, however, uniform statewide guidance. As stated before, it outlines several
possible approaches without endorsing any one over the others.
Some air districts may choose to use this paper to support their establishment of guidance
for GHG under CEQA, including thresholds. This paper does not, nor should it he
construed to require a district to implement any of the approaches evaluated here.
Decisions about whether to provide formal local guidance on CEQA for projects with
GHG emissions. including the question of thresholds, will be made by individual district
boards.
Fach of the 35 air districts operates independently and has its own set of regulations and
programs to address the emissions from stationary, area and mobile sources, consistent
with state and federal laws, regulations. and guidelines. The independence of the districts
allows specific air quality problems to be addressed on a local level. In addition, districts
have also established local CEQA thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants — also
to address the specific air quality problems relative to that particular district.
The overall goal of air district thresholds is to achieve and maintain health based air
quality standards within their respective air basins and to reduce transport of emissions to
other air basins. In establishing recommended thresholds, air districts consider the
existing emission inventory of criteria pollutants and the amount of emission reductions
needed to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards.
21
CEQA
and
Climate Change
However, unlike criteria pollutants where individual districts are characterized by varying
levels of pollutant concentrations and source types, greenhouse gases (GHG) and their
attendant climate change ramifications are a global problem and, therefore, may suggest a
uniform approach to solutions that ensure both progress and equity.
Under S1397, the Office of Planning and Research is directed to prepare, develop, and
transmit to the Resources Agency guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG
emissions or the effects of GHG emissions through CFQA by July 1. 2009. Those
guidelines may recommend thresholds. As stated, this paper is intended to provide a
common platform of information and tools to support local decision makers until such
time that statewide guidance or requirements are promulgated.
Local Ability to Promulgate District - Specific GHG Thresholds
One of the primary reasons behind the creation of' air districts in California is the
recognition that some regions within the state face more critical air pollution problems
than others and, as has often been pointed out — one size does not fit all. For example, a
"Serious" federal nonattainment district would need greater emission reductions than a
district already in attainment — and, therefore. the more "serious' district would set its
criteria pollutant CEQA thresholds of significance much lower than the air district
already in attainment.
The action of GHGs is global in nature, rather than local or regional (or even statewide or
national). Ultimately there may be a program that is global, or at least national in scope.
That said. actions taken by a state. region, or local government can contribute to the
solution of the global problem. Local governments are not bared from developing and
implementing programs to address GIIGs. In the context of California and CEQA, lead
agencies have the primary responsibility and authority to determine the significance of a
project's impacts.
Further, air districts have primary authority under state law for "control of air pollution
from all sources, other than emissions from motor vehicles." (I I &SC §40000) The term
air contaminant or "air pollutant" is defined extremely broadly, to mean "any discharge.
release, or other propagation into the atmosphere" and includes, but is not limited to,
soot, carbon, fumes, gases, particulate matter, etc. Greenhouse gases and other global
waning pollutants such as black carbon would certainly be included in this definition,
just as the U.S. Supreme Court held in Massachusetts v. EPA that greenhouse gases were
air pollutants under the federal Clean Air Act. Therefore, air districts have the primary
authority to regulate global waning Pollutants from nonvehicular sources. AB 32 does
not change this result. Although it gives wide responsibility to GARB to regulate
greenhouse gases from all sources, including nonvehicular sources, it does not preempt
the districts. Ala 32 specifically states That "nothing in this division shall limit or expand
the existing authority of any district... "(1I &SC § 38594). Thus, districts and CARB retain
concurrent authority over nonvehicular source greenhouse gas emissions.
22
CEQA
n,d
Chapter 5: CEQA with No GHG Thresholds Climate Change
Introduction Chapter 5
CEQA oath
The CEQA statutes do not require an air district or any lead agency to establish No GHG
significance thresholds under CEQA for any pollutant. While there are Thresholds
considerations that support the establishment of thresholds (which are discussed i
other sections of this document), there is no obligation to do so.
An air district or other lead agency may elect not to establish significance thresholds for a
number of reasons. The agency may believe that the global nature of the climate change
problem necessitates a statewide or national framework for consideration of
environmental impacts. SB 97 directs OPR to develop "guidelines for the mitigation of
greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions by July 1, 2009,"
and directs the California Resources Agency to certify and adopt the guidelines by June
30, 2010.
An agency may also believe there is insufficient
information to support selecting one specific threshold
over another. As described earlier, air districts have
historically set CEQA thresholds for air pollutants in the
context of the local clean air plan, or (in the case of toxic
air pollutants) within the framework of a rule or policy that
manages risks and exposures due to toxic pollutants.
There is no current framework that would similarly
manage impacts of greenhouse gas pollutants, although the CARB is directed to establish
one by June 30, 2009, pursuant to AB 32. A local agency may decide to defer any
consideration of thresholds until this framework is in place.
Finally, an agency may believe that the significance of a given project should be assessed
on a case -by -case basis in the context of the project at the time it comes forward.
Implementing CEQA Without Significance Thresholds for GHG
The absence of a threshold does not in any way relieve agencies of their obligations to
address GHG emissions from projects under CEQA. The implications of not having a
threshold are different depending on the role the agency has under CEQA — whether it is
acting in an advisory capacity, as a responsible agency. or as a lead agency.
Implications of No Thresholds for an Agency Acting in an Advisory Capacity.
Air districts typically act in an advisory capacity to local governments in establishing the
framework for environmental review of air pollution impacts under CEQA. This may
include recommendations regarding significance thresholds, analytical tools to assess
emissions and impacts, and mitigations for potentially significant impacts. Although
districts will also address some of these issues on a project - specific basis as responsible
agencies, they may provide general guidance to local governments on these issues that
23
CEQA
and
Climate Change
are program wide, and these are advisory (unless they have been established by
regulation).
An air district that has not established significance thresholds for GHG will not provide
guidance to local governments on this issue. This does not prevent the local government
from establishing thresholds under its own authority. One possible result of this would
be the establishment of different thresholds by cities and counties within the air district.
Alternatively, the air district could advise local governments not to set thresholds and
those jurisdictions may follow the air district's guidance.
It is important to note here (as has been clearly stated by the Attorney General in
comments and filings) that lack of a threshold does not mean lack of significance. An
agency may argue lack of significance for any project. but that argument would have to
be carried forth on a case -by -case, project specific basis. By extension then, a decision
not to establish thresholds for GHG is likely to result in a greater workload for
responsible and lead agencies as they consider individual projects under CEQA.
Implications of No Thresholds for a Responsible Agency
If there are no established thresholds of significance, the significance of each project will
have to be determined during the course of review. The responsible agency (e.g.. the air
district) will review each project referred by the lead agency. The review may be
qualitative or quantitative in nature. A qualitative review would discuss the nature of
GHG emissions expected and their potential effect on climate change as the district
understands it. It could also include a discussion of the relative merits of alternative
scenarios. A quantitative analysis would evaluate, to the extent possible, the expected
GHG emissions; it would also need to evaluate their potential effect on climate change
and might include corresponding analysis of alternatives. The air district, as a
responsible agency, may also identify mitigation measures for the project.
The lack of established thresholds will make the determination of
significance more resource intensive for each project. The district
may defer to the lead agency to make this determination, however
the district may be obligated, as a responsible agency, to evaluate
the analysis and determination.
Implications of No Thresholds for a Lead Agency
The main impact of not having significance thresholds will be on the primary evaluation
of projects by the lead agency. Without significance thresholds, the agency will have to
conduct some level of analysis of every project to determine whether an environmental
impact report is needed. There are three fundamental approaches to the case -by -case
analysis of significance, including presumptions of significance or insignificance, or no
presumption:
24
2.
3
CEQA nr�i
Climate Change
The agency can begin with a presumption of significance and the analysis hapter 5
would be used to support a case - specific finding of no significance. This is CEDAwan
similar to establishing threshold of zero, except that here, the "threshold" is Thresholds
GHG
g P Tnresnad5
rebuttable. This approach may result in a large number of projects proceeding
to preparation of an environmental impact report. Because of the attendant
costs, project proponents may challenge the determination of significance.
although formal challenge is less likely than attempts to influence the
determination.
The agency can begin with a presumption of insignificance, and the analysis
would be used to support a case - specific finding of significance. A presumption
of insignificance could be based on the perspective that it would be speculative to
attempt to identify the significance of GHG emissions from a project relative to
climate change on a global
scale. This approach
might reduce the number
of projects proceeding to
preparation of
environmental impact
reports. It is likely to have
greater success with
smaller projects than larger
ones, and a presumption of
insignificance may he
more likely to be
challenged by project
opponents.
It is not necessary for the
lead agency to have any
presumption either way.
The agency could
approach each project from
a tabula rasa perspective.
and have the determination
of significance more
broadly tied to the specific
context of the project; this approach is likely to be resource intensive, and creates
the greatest uncertainty for project proponents. To the extent that it results in a
lead agency approving similar projects based on different determinations of
significance for GHG emissions, it may be more vulnerable to challenge from
either proponents or opponents of the project. Alternatively, in the absence of
either thresholds or presumptions, the lead agency could use each determination
of significance to build its approach in the same way that subsequent judgments
define the law.
25
CEQA
e.a
Climate Change
Relevant Citations
The full text of relevant citations is in Appendix A.
Public Resources Code — §21082.2. Significant Effect on Environment; Determination;
Environmental Impact Report Preparation.
State CEQA Guidelines — §15064. Determining the Significance of the Environmental
Effects Caused by a Project.
26
CEQA
.no
Chapter 6: CEQA with a GHG Threshold of Zero Climate Change
Chapter 6
Introduction
CEQA Math a
GHG
If an air district or lead agency determines that any degree of project - related increase Threshold of
in GHG emissions would contribute considerably to climate change and therefore zero
would be a significant impact. it could adopt a zero - emission threshold to identify
projects that would need to reduce their emissions. A lead agency may determine that a
zero - emission threshold is justified even if other experts may disagree. A lead agency is
not prevented from adopting any significance threshold it sees as appropriate. as long as
it is based on substantial evidence.
If the zero threshold option is chosen, all
projects subject to CEQA would be required
to quantify and mitigate their GHG emissions.
regardless of the size of the project or the
availability of GHG reduction measures
available to reduce the project's emissions.
Projects that could not meet the zero- emission
threshold would be required to prepare
environmental impact reports to disclose the
unmitigable significant impact, and develop
the justification for a statement of overriding
consideration to be adopted by the lead
agency.
Implementing CEQA With a Zero Threshold for GHG
The scientific community overwhelmingly agrees that the earth's climate is becoming
warmer, and that human activity is playing a role in climate change. Unlike other
environmental impacts, climate change is a global phenomenon in that all GHG
emissions generated throughout the earth contribute to it. Consequently, both large and
small GHG generators cause the impact. While it may be true that many GHG sources
are individually too small to make any noticeable difference to climate change, it is also
true that the countless small sources around the globe combine to produce a very
substantial portion of total GHG emissions.
A zero threshold approach is based on a belief that, 1) all GHG emissions contribute to
global climate change and could be considered significant, and 2) not controlling
emissions from smaller sources would be neglecting a major portion of the GHG
inventory.
CEQA explicitly gives lead agencies the authority to choose thresholds of significance.
CEQA defers to lead agency discretion when choosing thresholds. Consequently, a zero-
emission threshold has merits.
27
CEQA
and
Climate Change
The CEQA review process for evaluating a project's impact on global climate change
under the zero threshold option would involve several components. Air quality sections
would be written by lead agencies to include discussions on climate change in CEQA
documents, GHG emissions would be calculated, and a determination of significance
would be made. The local air districts would review and comment on the climate change
discussions in environmental documents. lead agencies may then revise final EIRs to
accommodate air district comments. More than likely, mitigation measures will be
specified for the project, and a mitigation monitoring program will need to be put in place
to ensure that these measures are being implemented.
Since CEQA requires mitigation to a less than significant level, it is conceivable that
many projects subjected to a zero threshold could only be deemed less than significant
with offsite reductions or the opportunity to purchase greenhouse gas emission reduction
credits. GHG emission reduction credits are becoming more readily available however
the quality of the credits varies considerably. High quality credits are generated by
actions or projects that have clearly demonstrated emission reductions that are real,
permanent, verifiable, enforceable, and not otherwise required by law or regulation.
When the pre- or post - project emissions are not well quantified or cannot be
independently confirmed, they are considered to be of lesser quality. Similarly, if the
reductions are temporary in nature, they are also considered to be poor quality. Adoption
of a zero threshold should consider the near -term availability and the quality of potential
offsets.
There are also environmental justice concerns about the effects of
using offsite mitigations or emission reduction credits to offset, or CR
mitigate. the impacts of a new project. Although GHGs are
global pollutants, some of them arc emitted with co- pollutants
that have significant near -source or regional impacts. Any time The Climate
that increases in emissions at a specific site will be mitigated at a R@ 1
remote location or using emission reduction credits, the agency
evaluating the project should ensure that it does not create
disproportionate impacts.
Administrative Considerations
If electing to pursue a zero threshold, an air district or lead agency should consider the
administrative costs and the environmental review system capacity. Some projects that
previously would have qualified for an exemption could require further substantial
analysis, including preparation of a Negative Declaration (ND), a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) or an EIR. Moreover, the trade -offs between the volume of projects
requiring review and the quality of consideration given to reviews should be considered.
It may also be useful to consider whether meaningful mitigation can be achieved from
smaller projects.
28
CEQA
a"a
Climate Change
Consideration of Exemptions from CEQA
Chapter 6
CEQA with a
A practical concern about identifyin g 6110 emissions as a broad cumulative impact is GHG
Threshold of
whether the zero threshold option will preclude a lead agency from approving a large I Zero
set of otherwise qualified projects utilizing a Categorical Exemption. ND 'D' or MND.
The results could he a substantial increase in the number of EIR's. This is a valid and
challenging concern, particularly for any threshold approach that is based on a zero
threshold for net GHG emission increases.
CEQA has specified exceptions to the use of a categorical exception. Specifically,
CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2 includes the following exceptions:
"(h) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions . fin- these classes are inapplicable when the
cumulative impact of successive prgjecte of the same type in the same place, over time is
signi /icant. "
(c) significant Ellect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where
there is a reasonable possibility that the activirt: will have a significant effect on the
environment due to unusual circumstances. "
These CEQA Guidelines sections could be argued to mean that any net increase in GHG
emissions would preclude the use of a categorical exemption. However, as described
below, if the tollowing can be shown, then the exceptions above could be argued not to
apply:
(1) Cumulative local, regional and /or state GHG emissions are being reduced or will be
reduced by adopted, funded, and feasible measures in order to meet broader state targets.
(2) Mandatory state or local GHG reduction measures would apply to the project's
emissions such that broader GHG reduction goals would still be met and the project
contributions would not be cumulatively considerable.
(3) Project GHG emissions are below an adopted significance threshold designed to take
into account the cumulative nature of GHG emissions.
A similar argument could be made relative to the use of a ND (provided no additional
mitigation (beyond existing mandates) is required to control GHG emissions) and to the
use of a MND instead of an EIR. I lowever, due to the "fair argument' standard, which is
discussed in Chapter 3. caution is recommended in use of a ND or MND unless all three
elements above can be fully supported through substantial evidence and there is no
substantial evidence to the contrary. Establishing a significance threshold of zero is
likely to preclude the use of a categorical exemption.
29
CEQA
and
Climate Change
Relevant Citations
'rhe full text of relevant citations is in Appendix A.
Public Resources Code - §21004. Mitigating or Avoiding a Significant Effect; Powers of
Public Agency.
State CI :QA Guidelines — §15064, Determining the Significance of the Environmental
Effects Caused by a Project.
State CEQA Guidelines — § 15130, Discussion of Cumulative Impacts.
State CEQA Guidelines — § 15064.7.'rhresholds of Significance.
30
CEQA JUAPU I
Chapter 7: CEQA with Non -Zero GHG Thresholds Climate Change
Introduction Chapter 7
C[oA with
Non -Zero GHG
A non -zero threshold could minimize the resources spent reviewing environmental 1h1e5hdds
analyses that do not result in real GIIG reductions or to prevent the environmental
review system from being overwhelmed. The practical advantages of considerin
non -zero thresholds for GI IG significance determinations can fit into the concept
regarding whether the project's GI IG emissions represent a "considerable contribution to
the cumulative impact" and therefore warrant analysis.
Specifying a non -zero threshold could be construed as setting a de mininris value for a
cumulative impact. In effect, this would be indicating that there are certain GHG
emission sources that are so small that they would not contribute substantially to the
global GHG budget. This could be interpreted as allowing public agencies to approve
certain projects without requiring any mitigation of their GHG. Any threshold
framework should include a proper context to address the de minimis issue. However, the
CEQA Guidelines recognize that there may be a point where a project's contribution,
although above zero, would not be a considerable conrriburion to the cumulative impact
and, therefore, not trigger the need for a significance determination.
GHG emissions from all sources are under the purview of CARB and as such may
eventually be "regulated" no matter how small. Virtually all projects will result in some
direct or indirect release of GHG. However, a decision by CAR13 to regulate a class of
sources does not necessarily mean that an individual source in that class would constitute
a project with significant GIIG impacts under CEQA. For example, GARB has
established criteria pollutant emission standards for automobiles, but the purchase and
use of a single new car is not considered a project with significant impacts under CEQA.
At the same time, it is important to note that it is likely that all meaningful sources of
emissions, no matter how small are likely to he considered for regulation under AB 32. It
is expected that projects will have to achieve some level of GHG reduction to comply
with CARB's regulations meant to implement AB 32. As such all projects will have to
play a part in reducing our GI IG emissions budget and no project, however small, is truly
being considered de rninimis under CARB's regulations.
This chapter evaluates a range of conceptual approaches toward developing GHG
significance criteria. The air districts retained the services of J &S an environmental
consulting, firm to assist with the development of a Statute and Executive Order -based
threshold (Approach 1) and a tiered threshold (Approach 2) based on a prescribed list of
tasks and deliverables. Time and financial constraints limited the scope and depth of this
analysis, however, the work presented here may be useful in developing interim guidance
while AB 32 is being implemented. J &S recognized that approaches other than those
described here could be used.
As directed. J &S explored some overarching issues, such as:
• what constitutes "new" emissions?
31
CEQA
a -e
Climate Change
• how should "baseline emissions' he established'?
• what is cumulatively "considerable' under CEQA?
• what is "business as usual" ? and
• should an analysis include "life- cycle" emissions?
The answers to these issues were key to evaluating each of the threshold concepts.
Approach 1 — Statute and Executive Order Approach
Thresholds could be grounded in existing mandates and their associated GHG emission
reduction targets. A project would be required to meet the targets, or reduce GHG
emissions to the targets, to be considered less than significant.
AB 32 and 5 -3 -05 target the reduction of statewide emissions. It should be made clear
that AB 32 and S -3 -05 do not specify that the emissions reductions should be achieved
through uniform reduction by geographic location or by emission source characteristics.
For example, it is conceivable. although unlikely, that AB 32 goals could be achieved by
new regulations that only apply to urban areas or that only apply to the transportation
and /or energy sector. However, this approach to evaluating GHG under CEQA is based
on the presumption that a new project must at least be consistent with AB 32 GHG
emission reduction mandates.
The goal of All 32 and S -3 -05 is the significant reduction of future GHG emissions in a
state that is expected to rapidly grow in both population and economic output. As such,
there will have to be a significant reduction in the per capita GHG output for these goals
to he met. CEQA is generally used to slow or zero the impact of new emissions, leaving
the reduction of existing emission sources to be addressed by other regulatory means.
With these concepts in mind, four options were identified for statute /executive order -
based GHG significance thresholds and are described below.
Threshold I.I: AB 32/5 -3 -05 Derived Uniform Percentage -Based Reduction. AB 32
requires the state to reduce California -wide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
Reducing greenhouse gas emission levels from 2020 to 1990 levels could require a 28 to
33 percent reduction of business -as -usual GHG emissions depending on the methodology
used to determine the future emission inventories. The exact percent reduction may
change slightly once CARB finalizes its 1990 and 2020 inventory estimates. In this
context, business -as -usual means the emissions that would have occurred in the absence
of the mandated reductions. The details of the business -as -usual scenario are established
by CARB in the assumptions it uses to project what the state's GHG emissions would
have been in 2020. and the difference between that level and the level that existed in
1990 constitutes the reductions that must be achieved if the mandated goals are to be met.
32
CEQA
Climate Change
This threshold approach would require a project to meet a percent reduction target napter 7
based on the average reductions needed from the business -as -usual emission from all c Non-Zero b Non -Zero GNG
GHG sources. Using the 2020 target. this approach would require all discretionary Thresholds
projects to achieve a 33 percent reduction from projected business -as -usual emissions " l: i slower
annd d Ex ew6ve Order
in order to be considered less than significant. A more restrictive approach would - e e AB32JS -3 -05
use the 2050 targets. S -3 -05 seeks to reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below Derived Uniform
g � rce w Percenlage-Based
1990 levels by 2050. To reach the 2050 milestone would require an estimated 90 Reduction
percent reduction (effective immediately) of business -as -usual emissions. Using this
goal as the basis for a significance threshold may he more appropriate to address the
long -term adverse impacts associated with global climate change. Note that AB 32 and
S -3 -05 set emission inventory goals at milestone years; it is unclear how California will
progress to these goals in non - milestone years.
Wane hiaogauM
lad 1rK ad Lnee.eL
r'aun Ra F1g21 file
..: 19n *RflKm
l.wd Taupen
{gY10a
(416r Refit
0eeateity
0^.
■L.�u re.nth
�HAv Y<le.n�dr
I
Mill
100. 20-. 10'. DIY. e0.. 60e. 'Oe. W. ?Ot. 100'.
1Vt:Kf I AKH:0117
Threshold 1.2: Uniform Percentame -Based (e.R.50%) Reduction for New Development.
This threshold is based on a presumption that new development should contribute a
greater percent reduction from business -as -usual because greater reductions can be
achieved at lower cost from new projects than can be achieved from existing sources.
This approach would establish that new development emit 50 percent less GHG
emissions than business -as -usual development. This reduction rate is greater than the
recommended reduction rate for meeting the Threshold I.1 2020 target (33 percent) but is
significantly less restrictive than the Threshold 1.1 2050 target reduction rate (90
percent). If a 50 percent GHG reduction were achieved from new development. existing
emissions would have to be reduced by 25 to 30 percent in order to meet the 2020
emissions goal depending on the year used to determine the baseline inventory. Although
this reduction goal is reasonable for achieving the 2020 goal, it would not be possible to
33
CEQA
and
Climate Change
reach the 2050 emissions target with this approach even if existing emissions were 100
percent controlled.
Threshold 1.3: Uniform Percentage -Based Reduction by Economic Sector. This
threshold would use a discrete GHG reduction goal specific to the economic sector
associated with the project. There would be specific reduction goals for each economic
sector, such as residential, commercial, and industrial development. Specifying different
reduction thresholds for each market sector allows selection of the best regulatory goal
for each sector taking into account available control technology and costs. This approach
would avoid over - regulating projects (i.e. requiring emissions to be controlled in excess
of existing technology) or under - regulating projects (i.e. discouraging the use of available
technology to control emissions in excess of regulations). This approach requires
extensive information on the emission inventories and best available control technology
for each economic sector. This data will be compiled as CARB develops its scoping plan
under AB 32 and its implementing regulations: as a result. this approach will be more
viable in the long term.
Threshold IA: Uniform
Percentage -Based Reduction by
California Air Basins and Counties
Region. AB 32 and 5 -3 -05 are
written such that they apply to a
geographic region (i.e. the entire
state of California) rather than on
a project or sector level. One
could specify regions of the state
such as the South Coast Air
♦.
Basin, Sacramento Valley, or
Bay Area which are required to
plan (plans could be developed
by regional governments, such as
councils of governments) and
demonstrate compliance with
AB 32 and 5 -3 -05 reduction
goats at a regional level. To
demonstrate that a project has
less than significant emissions,
one would have to show,
compliance with the appropriate
regional GHG plan. Effectively
=:..
this approach allows for analysis
of GHG emissions at a landscape
( .Id,mia Pnvrzmmmt�l Yrpar,ar. nRcm}
— irRecam•n „�
scale smaller than the state as a
whole. Specifying regions in rough correlation to existing air basins or jurisdictional
control allows for regional control of emissions and integration with regional emission
reduction strategies for criteria
and toxic air pollutants. Although differing GHG
reduction controls for each region are possible, it is likely that all regions would be
34
CEQA
..a
Climate Change
required to achieve 1990 emission inventories by the year 2020 and 80 percent less hapter 7
emissions b 2050. Threshold 1.4 is considered viable long-term significance criteria GEOA ro
y g }� Non Zero GHG
that is unlikely to be used in the short term. Threshokts
Approach 1 Statute
and Executive Order
Implementing CEQA Thresholds Based on Emission Reduction Targets 40 14 Uniform
Based Reduction by
Region
Characterizing Baseline and Project Emissions
While the population and economy of California is expanding, all new projects can be
considered to contribute new emissions. Furthermore, GHG impacts are exclusively
cumulative impacts: there are no non - cumulative GHG emission impacts from a climate
change perspective. "Business -as- usual' is the projection of GHG emissions at a future
date based on current technologies and regulatory requirements in absence of other
reductions. For example to determine the future emissions from a power plant for
"business -as- usual' one would multiply the projected energy throughput by the current
emission factor for that throughput. If adopted regulations (such as those that may be
promulgated by CARB
for AB 32) dictate that
power plant emissions
must be reduced at some
time in the future, it is
appropriate to consider
these regulation
standards as the new
business -as -usual for a
future date. In effect.
business -as -usual will
continue to evolve as
regulations manifest.
Note that "business -as-
usual' defines the CEQA
No Project conditions,
but does not necessarily
form the baseline under
CEQA. For instance. it is common to subtract the future traffic with and without a
project to determine the future cumulative contribution of a project on traffic conditions.
However, existing conditions at the time of issuance of the notice of preparation is
normally the baseline.
Establishing Emission Reduction Tamets
One of the obvious drawbacks to using a uniform percent reduction approach to GHG
control is that it is difficult to allow for changes in the 1990 and future emission
inventories estimates. To determine what emission reductions are required for new
projects one would have to know accurately the 1990 budget and efficacy of other GHG
promulgated regulations as a function of time. Since CARB will not outline its
35
CEQA
.-a
Climate Change
regulation strategy for several more years, it is difficult to determine accurately what the
new project reductions should be in the short term. Future updates to the 1990 inventory
could necessitate changes in thresholds that are based on that inventory'. It is important to
note that it is difficult to create near term guidance for a uniform reduction threshold
strategy since it would require considerable speculation regarding the implementation and
effectiveness of forthcoming CARB regulations.
Of greater importance are the assumptions used to make the projected 2020 emission
inventories. Projecting future inventories over the next 15 -50 years involves substantial
uncertainty. Furthermore, there are likely to be federal climate change regulations and
possibly additional international GI IG emission treaties in the near future. To avoid such
speculation, this paper defines all future emission inventories as hypothetical business -as-
usual projections.
This white paper is intended to support local decisions about CEQA and GI IG in the near
term. During this period, it is unlikely that a threshold based on emission reduction
targets would need to be changed. However, it is possible that future inventory updates
will show that targets developed on the current inventory were not stringent enough, or
were more stringent than was actually needed.
Approach 2 — Tiered Approach
The goal of a tiered threshold is to maximize reduction predictability while minimizing
administrative burden and costs. This would be accomplished by prescribing feasible
mitigation measures based on project size and type, and reserving the detailed review of
an EIR for those projects of greater size and complexity. This approach may require
inclusion in a General Plan, or adoption of specific rules or ordinances in order to fully
and effectively implement it.
A tiered CEQA significance threshold could establish different levels at which to
determine if a project would have a significant impact. The tiers could be established
based on the gross GHG emission estimates for a project or could be based on the
physical size and characteristics of the project. This approach would then prescribe a set
of GHG mitigation strategies that would have to be incorporated into the project in order
for the project to be considered less than significant.
The framework for a tiered threshold would include the following:
• disclosure of GHG emissions for all projects;
• support for city/county/regional GHG emissions reduction planning;
• creation and use of a "green list" to promote the construction of projects that have
desirable GI IG emission characteristics:
• a list of mitigation measures:
36
CEQA — I.VM
Climate Change
hapter 7
CF OA wilh
Non -[ero GHG
• a decision tree approach to tiering; and thresholds
Approach 9. lived
• quantitative or qualitative thresholds. IL
Decision-Tree Approach to Tiering
CEQA guidance that allows multiple methodologies to demonstrate GHG significance
will facilitate the determination of significance for a broad range of projects /plans that
would otherwise be difficult to address with a single non - compound methodology. Even
though there could be multiple ways that a project can determine GI IG significance using
a decision -tree approach, only one methodology need be included in any single CEQA
document prepared by the applicant. The presence of multiple methodologies to
determine significance is designed to promote flexibility rather than create additional
analysis overhead. Figure I shows a conceptual approach to significance determination
using a tiered approach that shows the multiple routes to significance determination.
Figure I Detail Description
Figure I pictorially represents how an agency can determine a project's or plan's
significance for CEQA analysis using the non -zero threshold methodology. The
emissions associated with a project/plan are assumed to have a significant impact
unless one can arrive at a less- than - significant finding by at least one of the
methodologies below.
I. Demonstrate that a General Plan (GP) or Regional Plan is in Compliance with AB32
• For most GPs or RPs this will require demonstration that projected 2020
emissions will he equal to or less than 1990 emissions.
• GPs or RPs are expected to fully document 1990 and 2020 GHG emission
inventories.
• Projection of 2020 emissions is complicated by the fact that CARB is expected to
promulgate emission reductions in the short term. Until explicit CARB
regulations are in place, unmitigated GP 2020 emission inventories represent
business -as -usual scenarios.
• E'IRs for GPs or RPs which demonstrate 2020 mitigated emissions arc less than or
equal to 1990 emissions are considered less than significant.
2. Demonstrate the Project is Exempt Based on SB 97
• As specified in SR 97, projects that are funded under November 2006 Proposition
I (Highway Safety. Traffic Reduction, Air Quality and Port Security Bond Act)
and IC (Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act) may be exempt
from analysis until January 1, 2010.
37
r
E
S
p�
8
Climate Change Significance Criteria Flow Chart
.o Thy them pctanaty ropreserrL hbw on aaency can datermne o prgect s s' Dlan'S
sgnficwce hr CEQA anaysu
a Tne anGSrns assxacaa vmn a proI,= /vial ern WZul a to neve a :.gnjr_ re nlpact 11rtam
One Can artrvie at a Ius.mar sgrecant finding vy at remit one cr the menooalogas belay
1. f)Fa'YIr flee that a %,ral Poll s n Ca "mce wth Aa32 by 9) wsg
I E tivt f?(: arnic_rrn }rte A , I m. < 1 Q, arum rx hr rtn rvk+ son
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
Pass.
1
1
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
+1
1
WE Jones & Stoke
2 Demcr.strata U: a prbptl Is eternpt based on SB 97
vd„
7ha Grwan itat (r,.,,,..^n.., A,y..r.1h)
F [ , ..,t/ ywu . ar .I y yr.0 .,J p"T+
rypc &at a daa.rwd. pm tsanL,eon tp CA
Cmwaa Aqp. the AG p....m beep ap.olovt
m rha (i I;. v, r.+ APP
AB32 dtvta and m antra (lot the Cman Lax
e.rinaa am nmawaint wN hm its AG drev
..sprats A692 &WC C crun W"Vyftmba
1ha UYe Lw wW bw w7datad M7 6 mandra ar m
,reptr IRJUtaw'y cr logo d~Cpnana Ur
Prvp Ti that am rn "pnsn Yt as to b, mre4a
asd Ame tnen aagna n br L04, en.sal>7
pt. µ
— An warrylb b a Oran Lot Tray wra V be a wad
rare tAat daa rNpapD4 r cm mn tanlook"
G Jones & Stokes
3. Ddmonctrge that the pr'oloct ,c to the 'Greg Lots
a.l
I , PdSS
U Du, ,v air aW a Iayta tl w goes a.y wU, s n At>32
Gov" Plan (or Pmgmd Pfm)
a cat
I P ♦—
S. AreWe G-G emsstans and rrfltipate using
the nwv mwhnAnln(H
Pass
I 1
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT - +
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT
38
Figure 1
Climate Change Significancy Criteria Flow Chart
CEQA Arl VA
wd
Climate Change
hapter 7
• An exemption can be used in an ND, MND, or EIR to support a less than ChoA vnh
Non -Zero GHG
significant finding for GHG impacts. thresholds
> Approach J tiered
3. Demonstrate that the Project is on the -Green List'
• This list would include projects that are deemed a positive contribution to
California efforts to reduce GHG emissions. If the project is of the type described
on the Green List it is considered less than significant.
• If the Green List entry description requires mitigation for impacts other than
GHG, this methodology can be used in MNDs or EIRs: if the Green List entry
does not require mitigation this methodology can be used in NDs, MNIX or
F.IRs.
4. Demonstrate a Project's Compliance with a General Plan
• If a project is consistent with an appropriate General Plan's Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Plan (GGRP), a project can he declared less than significant.
• Note that at this time there are no known jurisdictions that have a GGRP that has
been fully subject to CEQA review. While Marin County has adopted a forward -
thinking GGRP and it is described in the most recent GP update, the associated
FIR does not analyze the secondary environmental impacts of some of the GGRP
measures such as tidal energy. While one can reference GGRPs that have not
been reviewed fully in CEQA, to attempt to show a project's compliance with
such a plan as evidence that the project's GHG emission contributions are less
than significant may not be supported by substantial evidence that cumulative
emissions are being fully addressed in the particular jurisdiction.
• Compliance with a CEQA -vetted GGRP can be cited as evidence for all CF,QA
documents (Categorical Exemption, ND. MND, and EIR).
5. Analyze GHG Emissions and Mitigate using the Tiered Methodology
• Guidance and mitigation methodology for various development projects
(residential, commercial, industrial) are listed in the form of tiered thresholds. If a
project incorporates the mitigation measures specified in the tiered threshold
tables the project is considered less than significant.
• All project emissions are considered less than significant if they are less than the
threshold(s).
• If the tiered approach requires mitigation, this methodology can he used in MNDs
or EIRs: if the tiered approach does not require mitigation this methodology can
be used in NDs. MNDs, or EIRs.
39
CEQA
a"e
Climate Change
The Green List
• The Green List would be a list of projects and project types that are deemed a
positive contribution to California's efforts to reduce GHG emissions.
• If this approach is followed, it is suggested that CARB and the Attorney General
(AG) are consulted prior to listing a project on the Green List to ensure
consistency with CARB AA 32 efforts and to ensure that the Green List entries
are consistent with how the AG office interprets AB 32 and GHG CFQA
compliance.
• The Green List should be updated every 6 months or as major regulatory or legal
developments unfold.
• Projects that are on the Green list are to be considered less than significant for
GHG emissions purposes.
• A tentative list of potential Green List entries is presented below. Actual Green
List entries should be far more specific and cover a broad range of project types
and mitigation approaches. The list below is merely a proof -of- concept for the
actual Green List.
I . Wind farm for the generation of wind- powered electricity
2. Extension of transit lines to currently developed but underserved communities
3. Development of high -density infill projects with easily accessible mass transit
4. Small hydroelectric power plants at existing facilities that generate 5 mw or
less (as defined in Class 28 Categorical Exemption)
5. Cogeneration plants with a capacity of 50 mw or less at existing facilities (as
defined in Class 29 Cat Exemption)
6. Increase in bus service or conversion to bus rapid transit service along an
existing bus line
7. Projects with LEER "Platinum" rating
8. Expansion of recycling facilities within existing urban areas
9. Recycled water projects that reduce energy consumption related to water
supplies that services existing development
10. Development of bicycle, pedestrian, or zero emission transportation
infrastructure to serve existing regions
There are also several options for tiering and thresholds, as shown in Table 2 below. One
could establish strictly numeric emissions thresholds and require mitigation to below the
specific threshold to make a finding of less than significant. One could establish
narrative emissions threshold that are based on a broader context of multiple approaches
to GHG reductions and a presumption that projects of sufficiently low GHG intensity are
less than significant.
In Concept 2A, a zero threshold would be applied to projects and thus only projects that
result in a reduction of GHG emissions compared to baseline emissions would be less
than significant absent mitigation. All projects would require quantified inventories. All
projects that result in a net increase of GHG emissions would be required to mitigate their
emissions to zero through direct mitigation or through fees or offsets or the impacts
40
CECIA
ar"
Climate Change
Table 2: Aooroacb 2 Tierine Outions
CLOA with
Non -Zero GHG
I hresholds
Approach 2: 1 owed
would be identified as significant and unavoidable. This could be highly problematic and
could eliminate the ability to use categorical exemptions and negative declarations for a
wide range of projects.
In Concepts 2B and 2C, the first lier of a tiered threshold includes projects that are within
a jurisdiction with an adopted greenhouse gas reduction plan (GGRP) and General
Plan /Regional Plan that is consistent with AB 32 (and in line with S- 3 -05), or are on the
Green List, or are below the Tier 2 threshold. All Tier 1 projects would be required to
implement mandatory reductions required due to other legal authority (Level I
reductions) such as AB 32, Title 24, or local policies and ordinances. With Level 1
41
Concept 2A
Concept 2B
Concept 2C
Zero
Quantitative
uslitativ¢
Pier I
Pmiect results in a net
Prgicet in compliance with an
project in compliance with an
reduction of GI1(i emissions
Ali 32•compliani
AB 32- compliant
General' Regional Plan, on the
General +Regional plan. on the
(ireen List. or below fier 2
Green List art helow'I'ier 2
threshold.
threshold.
Level I Reductions
Level I Reductions
(Could include such measures
(See measures under 2B)
as: bike parking, transit stops
for planned mute, Bnergy Star
Less than Significant
roofs, Energy Star appliances.
Less than Significant
Title 24. water use efficience.
etc.)
Less than Si ni ,cant
Pier 2
Project results in net increase
Abo,c Tier 2 threshold
Above Tier 2 threshold
of GI IG emissions
Level 2 Mitigation
(Could include such measures
Ixvcl 2 Mitigation
Mitigation to zero
as: Parking reduction beyond
(See measures wder 2B)
(including on-scts)
code, solar roofs. 1.1,11) Sitter
or Gold Certification, exceed
Title 24 by 200iw IDM
.Mitigated to Less than
measures, etc.)
.Mitigated to Less than
Significant
Sigri front
.Mitigated to Less that,
Significant
Tier 3
Mitigation infeasible to reduce
Above Tier 2lhnshold With
.Above Ticr 3 thresholds
emissions to tern
Level I, 2 Mitigation
It.g.. cost of onsets infeasible
for project or offsets not
Level 3 Mitigation:
available)
(Could include such measures
Quantity Emissions. bevel 3
as: On -site rcncwahle energy
%litigation (sce measures under
systems. I.ICIiD platinum
2B), and Dfrscis tort 90% (it'
certification. Exceed'[ isle 24
remainder
b) 40P0.,v, required recycled
water use for irrigation. zero
wastcihigh recycling
requirements, mandalon" transit
passes, ofBctrcarbon impact
fees)
Significance and (dravoidable
Significant and Unavoidable
dfifigated to Less than
Significant
CLOA with
Non -Zero GHG
I hresholds
Approach 2: 1 owed
would be identified as significant and unavoidable. This could be highly problematic and
could eliminate the ability to use categorical exemptions and negative declarations for a
wide range of projects.
In Concepts 2B and 2C, the first lier of a tiered threshold includes projects that are within
a jurisdiction with an adopted greenhouse gas reduction plan (GGRP) and General
Plan /Regional Plan that is consistent with AB 32 (and in line with S- 3 -05), or are on the
Green List, or are below the Tier 2 threshold. All Tier 1 projects would be required to
implement mandatory reductions required due to other legal authority (Level I
reductions) such as AB 32, Title 24, or local policies and ordinances. With Level 1
41
CEQA
aM
Climate Change
reduction measures. qualifying Tier I projects would be considered less than significant
without being required to demonstrate mitigation to zero.
In Concept 213, the Tier 2 threshold would be quantitative, and quantified inventories
would be required. Several quantitative threshold options are discussed below. A more
comprehensive set of Level 2 mitigation would he required. If the project's emissions
still exceed the Tier 2 threshold, an even more aggressive set of Level 3 mitigation
measures would be required including offsets (when feasible) to reduce emissions below
the Tier 2 threshold.
In Concept 2C, there would be two thresholds, a lower Tier 2 threshold (the "low bar")
and a higher Tier 3 threshold (the "high bar'). The Tier 2 threshold would be the
significance threshold for the purposes of CEQA and would be qualitative in terms of
units (number of dwelling units. square feet of commercial space, etc.) or a per capita
ratio. Projects above the Tier 2 threshold would be required to implement the
comprehensive set of Level 2 mitigation. Projects below the Tier 2 threshold would not
be required to quantify emissions or reductions. The Tier 3 threshold would be a
threshold to distinguish the larger set of projects for which quantification of emissions
would be required. Level 3 mitigation would be required and the project would be
required to purchase offsets (when feasible) in the amount of 90 percent of the net
emissions after application of Level I reductions and Level 2 and 3 mitigation. A variant
on Concept 2C would be to require mandatory Level 3 mitigation without quantification
and offsets.
Approach 2 Threshold Options
Seven threshold options were developed for this approach. The set of options are framed
to capture different levels of new development in the CEQA process and thus allow
different levels of mitigation. Options range from a zero first -tier threshold (Threshold
2.1) up to a threshold for GHG that would be equivalent to the capture level (i.e.. number
of units) of the current criteria pollutant thresholds used by some air districts (Threshold
2.4). The decision -based implementation approach discussed above could be used for
any of these options. Table 3 below compares the results of each of the approaches
discussed here.
I'hreshold 2.1: Zero First Tier Tiered Threshold
This option would employ the decision tree concept and set the first tier cut -point at
zero. The second tier cut -point could be one of the qualitative or quantitative
thresholds discussed below. First -tier projects would be required to implement a list
of very feasible and readily available mitigation measures.
Threshold 22: Quantitative Threshold Based on Market Capture
A single quantitative threshold was developed in order to ensure capture of 90 percent or
more of likely future discretionary developments. The objective was to set the emission
42
CE(A
Climate Change
threshold low enough to capture a substantial fraction of future residential and non- Chapter 7
ment that will be constructed to accommodate future statewide Qo -Zern°
residential development No�lero GHG
population and job growth, while setting the emission threshold high enough to thresholds
exclude small development projects that will contribute a relatively small fraction of ' Approach 2. Tiered
P P I . 2.2: Quantitative
the cumulative statewide GIIG emissions. Threshold Based on
Market Capture
The quantitative threshold was created by using the following steps:
• Reviewing data from four diverse cities (Los Angeles in southern California and
Pleasanton, Dublin, and Livermore in northern California) on pending
applications for development.
• Determining the unit (dwelling unit or square feet) threshold that would capture
approximately 90 percent of the residential units or office space in the pending
application lists.
• Based on the data from the four cities, the thresholds selected were 50 residential
units and 30,000 square feet of commercial space.
• The GI IG emissions associated with 50 single - family residential units and 30,000
square feet of office were estimated and were found to be 900 metric tons and 800
metric tons, respectively. Given the variance on individual projects, a single
threshold of 900 metric tons was selected for residential and office projects.
• A 900 metric ton threshold was also selected for non - office commercial projects
and industrial projects to provide equivalency for different projects in other
economic sectors.
• If this threshold is preferred, it is suggested that a more robust data set be
examined to increase the representativeness of the selected thresholds. At a
minimum, a diverse set of at least 20 cities and/or counties from throughout the
state should be examined in order to support the market capture goals of this
threshold. Further, an investigation of market capture may need to he conducted
for different commercial project types and for industrial projects in order to
examine whether multiple quantitative emissions thresholds or different
thresholds should be developed.
The 900 -ton threshold corresponds to 50 residential units, which corresponds to the 84'h
percentile of projects in the City of Los Angeles, the 79'h percentile in the City of
Pleasanton, the 50'h percentile in the City of Livermore and the 4'h percentile in the City
of Dublin. This is suggestive that the GfIG reduction burden will fall on larger proijects
that will be a relatively small portion of overall projects within more developed central
cities (Los Angeles) and suburban areas of slow growth (Pleasanton) but would be the
higher portion of projects within moderately (Livermore) or more rapidly developing
areas (Dublin). These conclusions are suggestive but not conclusive due to the small
sample size. The proposed threshold would exclude the smallest proposed developments
43
CEQA
..e
Climate Change
from potentially burdensome requirements to quantify and mitigate GIIG emissions
under CEQA. While this would exclude perhaps 10 percent of new residential
development, the capture of 90 percent of new residential development would establish a
strong basis for demonstrating that cumulative reductions are being achieved across the
state. It can certainly serve as an interim measure and could be revised if subsequent
regulatory action by CARR shows that a different level or different approach altogether is
called for.
The 900 -ton threshold would correspond to office projects of approximately 35,000
square feet, retail projects of approximately 11.000 square feet, or supermarket space of
approximately 6,300 square feet. 35.000 square feet would correspond to the 40h
percentile of commercial projects in the City of Los Angeles, the 54'h percentile in the
City of Livermore, and the 35'h percentile in the City of Dublin. However, the
commercial data was not separated into office, retail. supermarket or other types, and thus
the amount of capture for different commercial project types is not known. The proposed
threshold would exclude smaller offices, small retail (like auto -parts stores), and small
supermarkets (like convenience stores) from potentially burdensome requirements to
quantify and mitigate GIIG emissions under CEQA but would include many medium -
scale retail and supermarket projects.
The industrial sector is less amenable to a unit -based approach given the diversity of
projects within this sector. One option would be to adopt a quantitative GIIG emissions
threshold (900 tons) for industrial projects equivalent to that for the
residential /commercial thresholds described above. Industrial emissions can result from
both stationay and mobile sources. CARR estimates that their suggested reporting
threshold for stationary sources of 25,000 metric tons accounts for more than 90 percent
of the industrial sector GHG emissions (see Threshold 2.3 for 25,000 metric ton
discussion). If the CARR rationale holds, then a 900 metric ton threshold would likely
capture at least 90 percent (and likely more) of new industrial and manufacturing sources.
If this approach is advanced, we suggest further examination of industrial project data to
determine market capture.
This threshold would require the vast majority of new development emission sources to
quantify their GHG emissions, apportion the forecast emissions to relevant wurce
categories, and develop GI IG mitigation measures to reduce their emissions.
Threshold 2.3: CARR Reporting Threshold
CARR has recently proposed to require mandatory reporting from cement plants, oil
refineries, hydrogen plants, electric generating facilities and electric retail providers.
cogeneration facilities, and stationary combustion sources emitting ? 25.000 MT
CO2e /yr. AR 32 requires CARR to adopt a regulation to require the mandatory reporting
and verification of emissions. CARB issued a preliminary draft version of its proposed
reporting requirements in August 2007 and estimates that it would capture 94 percent of
the GHG emissions associated with stationary sources.
44
CEQA
and
Climate Change
This threshold would use 25.000 metric tons per year of GHG as the CEQA
significance level. CARB proposed to use the 25.000 metric tons/year value as a
reporting threshold, not as a CEQA significance threshold that would be used to
define mitigation requirements. CARB is proposing the reporting threshold to begin
to compile a statewide emission inventory, applicable only for a limited category of
sources (large industrial facilities using fossil fuel combustion).
Chapter 7
CEQA with
Non-Zero GHG
I hreshrAds
Approach 2: Tiered
2 3: CARB
Mandatory
I Reporting
2 4: Regulated
Emissions Inventory
Capture
A 25,000 metric ton significance threshold would correspond to the GHG emissions
of approximately 1.400 residential units. 1 million square feet of office space, 300,000
square feet of retail, and 175,000 square feet of supermarket space. This threshold would
capture far less than half of new residential or commercial development.
As noted above, CARB estimates the industrial -based criteria would account for greater
than 90 percent of GHG emissions emanating from stationary sources. However,
industrial and manufacturing projects can also include substantial GHG emissions from
mobile sources that are associated with the transportation of materials and delivery of
products. When all transportation - related emissions are included. it is unknown what
portion of new industrial or manufacturing projects a 25,000 -ton threshold would actually
capture.
An alternative would be to use a potential threshold of 10.000 metric tons considered by
the Market Advisory Committee for inclusion in a Greenhouse Gas Cap and Trade
System in California. A 10.000 metric ton significance threshold would correspond to
the GHG emissions of approximately 550 residential units. 400,000 square feet of office
space. 120.000 square feet of retail, and 70,000 square feet of supermarket space. This
threshold would capture roughly half of new residential or commercial development.
Threshold 2.4: Revulated Emissions Inventory C'.aoture
Most California air districts have developed CEQA significance thresholds for NOx and
ROG emissions to try to reduce emissions of ozone precursors from proposed sources
that are not subject to NSR pre - construction air quality permitting. The historical
management of ozone nonattainment issues in urbanized air districts is somewhat
analogous to today's concerns with greenhouse gas emissions in that regional ozone
concentrations are a cumulative air quality problem caused by relatively small amounts of
NOx and ROG emissions from thousands of individual sources, none of which emits
enough by themselves to cause elevated ozone concentrations. Those same conditions
apply to global climate change where the environmental problem is caused by emissions
from a countless number of individual sources, none of which is large enough by itself to
cause the problem. Because establishment of NOx/ROG emissions CEQA significance
thresholds has been a well- tested mechanism to ensure that individual projects address
cumulative impacts and to force individual projects to reduce emissions under CEQA.
this threshold presumes the analogy of NOx /ROG emission thresholds could be used to
develop similar GHG thresholds.
45
CEQA
art•
Climate Change
The steps to develop a (if IG emission threshold based on the NOx /ROG analogy were as
follows:
• For each agency, define its NOx /ROG CEQA thresholds.
• For each agency, define the regional NOx /ROG emission inventory the agency is
trying to regulate with its NOx /ROG thresholds.
• For each agency. calculate the percentage of the total emission inventory for NOx
represented by that agency's CEQA emission threshold. That value represents the
"minimum percentage of regulated inventory" for NOx.
• The current (2004) California -wide GHG emission inventory is 499 million
metric tons per year of CO, equivalent (MMT CO2e). Apply the typical
"minimum percentage of regulated inventory" value to the statewide GHG
inventory, to develop a range of analogous GHG CEQA thresholds.
The preceding methodology was applied to two different air quality districts: the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), a mostly - urbanized agency within
which most emissions are generated from urban areas; and the San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), which oversees emissions emanating in part from
rural areas that are generated at dispersed agricultural sources and area sources. For
example. in the Bay Area the NOx threshold is IS tons/year. The total NOx inventory for
2006 was 192,00(1 tons /year (525 tons /day). The threshold represents 0.008 percent of
the total NOx inventory. Applying that ratio to the total statewide GHG emissions
inventory of 499 MMT CO2C (2004) yields an equivalent GHG threshold of 39,000 MMT
CO2c.
The range of analogous CEQA GHG thresholds derived from those two agencies is
tightly clustered, ranging from 39.000 to 46,000 tons/year. A 39,000 to 46,000 metric ton
threshold would correspond to the GHG emissions of approximately 2.200 to 2,600
residential units. 1.5 to 1.8 million square feet of office space, 470,000 to 560.000 square
feet of retail, and 275,000 to 320,000 square feet of supermarket space. This threshold
would capture far less than half of new residential or commercial development.
Similarly, this threshold would capture less of new industrial /manufacturing GHG
emissions inventory than Thresholds 2.2 or 2.3.
Threshold 2.5: Unit -Based "Thresholds Based on Market C'amture
Unit thresholds were developed for residential and commercial developments in order to
capture approximately 90 percent of future development. The objective was to set the
unit thresholds low enough to capture a substantial fraction of future housing and
commercial developments that will he constructed to accommodate future statewide
population and job growth, while setting the unit thresholds high enough to exclude small
development projects that will contribute a relatively small fraction of the cumulative
statewide GHG emissions. Sector -based thresholds were created by using the same steps
M
CEQA I 1,Ars-
Climate Change
and data used to create Threshold 2.2- Quantitative Threshold Based on Market Chapter 7
CtoA with
Capture above. Nomzem CHC
Thresholds
The distribution of pending application data suggests that the GIIG reduction burden " np 2..5. nis. unir Tiered
a Based
will fall on larger projects that will be a relatively small portion of overall projects rhMSMId5 Based
within more developed central cities and suburban areas of slow growth but would be on Market Capture
the higher portion of projects within moderately or rapidly developing areas. The
proposed threshold would exclude the smallest proposed developments from
potentially burdensome requirements to quantify and mitigate GIIG emissions under
CEQA. While this would exclude perhaps 10 percent of new residential development,
the capture of 90 percent of new residential development would establish a strong basis
for demonstrating that cumulative reductions arc being achieved across the state. It can
certainly serve as an interim measure and could he revised if subsequent regulatory action
by CARB shows that a different level or different approach altogether is called for.
A similar rationale can be applied to the development of a commercial threshold.
Threshold 2.5 would exclude many smaller businesses from potentially burdensome
requirements to quantify and mitigate GlIG emissions under C7 ?QA. It should be noted
that the GHG emissions of commercial projects vary substantially. For example, the
carbon dioxide emissions associated with different commercial types were estimated as
follows:
30,000 square -foot (SF) office = 800 metric (ons /year CO2
30,00f) SF retail = 2,500 metric tons /year CO.-
30,000 SI supermarket = 4.300 metric tons /year CO2
Thus, in order to assure appropriate market capture on an emissions inventory basis, it
will be important to examine commercial project sire by type, instead of in the aggregate
(which has been done in this paper).
The industrial sector is less amenable to a unit -based approach given the diversity of
projects within this sector. One option would be to use a quantitative threshold of 900
tons for industrial projects in order to provide for rough equivalency between different
sectors. Industrial emissions can result from both stationary and mobile sources.
Ilowever, if the GARB rationale f'or > 90 percent stationary source capture with a
threshold of 25,000 metric tons holds. then a 900 metric ton threshold would likely
capture at least 90 percent (and likely more) of new industrial sources. Further
examination of unit -based industrial thresholds. such as the number of employees or
manufacturing floor space or facility size, may provide support for a unit -based threshold
based on market capture.
This threshold would require the vast majority of new development emission sources to
quantify their GHG emissions, apportion the forecast emissions to relevant source
categories, and develop GHG mitigation measures to reduce their emissions.
47
CEQA
"d
Climate Change
Threshold 2.6. Projects of Statewide, Regional, or Areawide Significance
For this threshold. a set of qualitative. tiered CEQA thresholds would be adopted based
on the definitions of `projects with statewide, regional or areawide significance" under
the Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act, CCR Title 14, Division 6,
Section 15206(b).
Project sires defined under this guideline include the following:
• Proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units.
• Proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000
persons or encompassing more than 500,000 square feet of floor space.
• Proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or
encompassing more than 250.000 square feet of floor space.
• Proposed hotel /motel development of more than 500 rooms.
• Proposed industrial, manufacturing or processing plant or industrial park planned
to house more than 1,000 persons, or encompassing more than 600.000 square
feet of floor space.
'these thresholds would correspond to the GHG emissions of approximately 9.000 metric
tons for residential projects, 13.000 metric tons for office projects, and 41,000 metric tons
for retail projects. These thresholds would capture approximately half of new residential
development and substantially less than half of new commercial development. It is
unknown what portion of the new industrial or manufacturing GHG inventory would be
captured by this approach.
Threshold 2.7 Efficiency -Based Thresholds
For this approach, thresholds would be based on measurements of efficiency. For
planning efforts, the metric could be GIIG emissions per capita or per job or some
combination thereof. For projects, the metric could he GHG emission per housing unit or
per square foot of commercial space. In theory. one could also develop metrics for GHG
emissions per dollar of gross product to measure the efficiency of the economy.
This approach is attractive because it seeks to benchmark project GI IG intensity against
target levels of efficiency. The thresholds would need to he set such that there is
reasonably foreseeable and sufficient reductions compared to business as usual to support
meeting AB 32 and S -3 -05 goals in time (in combination with command and control
regulations). Because this approach would require substantial data and modeling to fully
develop, this is a concept considered as a potential future threshold and not appropriate
48
CEQA
and
Climate Change
for interim guidance in the short term. Thus. it is not evaluated in the screening
evaluation in the next section.
'fable 3 compares the results for each of the approaches.
Table 3: Comparison of Approach 2 Tiered Threshold Options
Threshold
GHG Emission
Future Development Captured
Threshold
by GHG Threshold
metric ton /year)
2.1: Zero threshold
0 tons:ycar
All
2.2: Quantitative -I- hreshold
-900 tonsivear
Residential deveopment > 50
Rased on Market Capture
dwelling units
Office space = 36.0(1(1 IT'
Retail space %11,000 ti'
Supermarkets ',6.300 n
small. medium. large industrial
2.3: C'ARB lit 16 Mandaton
25.000 metric tons:year
Residential deveopmcm = -1.400
Reporting Threshold OR
OR
dwelling units OR 550 dwelling units
Potential Cup and l'ra r lintry
IILINO metric tons +year
Offices space > I million W OR
pa
�.el
400.000 n'
Retail span:>3(KV0l It' OR 120.000
fir
Supermarkets' ,175,000 f' OR 70,000
It!
mediurnAarger industrial
2 4: Regulated Inventory
40,000 — 50,(00 metric
Residential development >2.200 to
Capture
luns:)car
2.6(H) dwelling units
Office space >1.5 to 1.8 million III
Retail spa" >470.000 to 560,000 n'
Supermarkets `270.4100 to 320,1H0 W
medium larger industrial
2.5: Unit -Based Threshold
Not applicable.
Residential development >so dwelling
Based on Market Capture
units
Commercial space >50.OW ft'
> small. medium. large industrial
(with GIRT emissions > 900
tonsCO2c)
2.6: Projects of Statewide.
Not applicable.
Residential development >5(0 dwelling
Regional, or Areawide
units
Significance
Office space `250,000 ft, ,
Retail space ,500.000 W
I lords :300 units
Industrial project ' °1,000 employ ecs
Industrial project >40 acre or 650.00()
It-
2.7: EOicicncy -Based
1130 tonaycariperson
1lcpcnds on the efficiency cocas. rc
Thresholds
"1131) tonsivearium
selected.
49
CE-OA with
Non -Zero GHG
Thresholds
i Approach 2. Tiered
2 7 Efficiency.
Based Thresholds
CEQA
a.e
Climate Change
Implementing CEQA With Tiered Thresholds
Several issues related to Approach 2 are addressed below:
Some applications (?f this approach nuav need to be embodied in a duly approved
General Plan, or in sonic other formal regulation or ordinance to be Bully
enforceable. Because CEQA does not expressly provide that projects may be
deemed insignificant based on implementation of a set of mitigations, this
approach may need to he supported with specific and enforceable mechanisms
adopted with due public process.
2. Host would this concept affect adoption gjair district rules and regulations?
Proposed air district rules and regulations may be subject to CEQA like other
projects and plans. Thus, if significance thresholds were adopted by an APCU or
AQMU. then they could also apply to air district discretionary actions. If GHG
emissions would be increased by a rule or regulation for another regulated
pollutant, that would be a potential issue for review under CEQA.
3. Mitigation measures may not be all - inclusive; better measures now or new future
technology would make these measures obsolete. The mandatory mitigation
measures could be periodically updated to reflect current technology, feasibility,
and efficiency.
4. Total reduction may not be quantified or difficult to quant{fi,. CEQA only
requires the adoption of feasible mitigation and thus the reduction effectiveness of
required mitigation should not be in question. However, the precise reduction
effectiveness may indeed he difficult to identify. As described above, if a
quantitative threshold is selected as the measure of how much mitigation is
mandated, then best available evidence will need to be used to estimate resultant
GHG emissions with mitigation adoption. If a qualitative threshold is selected,
then it may not be necessary to quantify reductions.
5. Difficult to measure progress toward legislative program goals. One could
require reporting of project inventories to the Climate Action Registry, air district,
or regional council of governments, or other suitable body. Collection of such
data would allow estimates of the GI IG intensity of new development over time,
which could be used by GARB to monitor progress toward AB 32 goals.
6. Measures may have adverse impacts on other programs. The identification of
mandatory mitigation will need to consider secondary environmental impacts,
including those to air quality.
7. Consideration g( life -cycle emissions. In many cases, only direct and indirect
emissions may be addressed, rather than life -cycle emissions. A project applicant
has traditionally been expected to only address emissions that are closely related
and within the capacity of the project to control and /or influence. The long chain
50
CEQA • n ALSM
Climate Change
8. of economic production resulting in materials manufacture, for example. Chapter 7
CEQA with
involves numerous parties, each of which in turn is responsible for the GHG Non -7ero GHG
emissions associated with their particular activity. However, there are Thresholds
situations where a lead agency could reasonably determine that a larger set of ' Approach 2. Tiered
upstream and downstream emissions should he considered because they arcili
being caused by the project and feasible alternatives and mitigation measures
may exist to lessen this impact.
Approach 2 Tiered Threshold with Mandatory Mitigation
As shown in Table 2, due to the cumulative nature of GHG emissions and climate change
impacts, there could be a level of mandatory reductions and/or mitigation for all projects
integrated into a tiered threshold approach. In order to meet AB 32 mandates by 2020
and 5 -3 -05 goals, there will need to be adoption of GHG reduction measures across a
large portion of the existing economy and new development. As such, in an effort to
support a determination under CEQA that a project has a less than considerable
contribution to significant cumulative GHG emissions, mitigation could he required on a
progressively more comprehensive basis depending on the level of emissions.
• Level I Reductions — These reduction measures would apply to all projects and
would only consist of AB 32 and other local /state mandates. They would be
applied to a project from other legal authority (not CEQA). Level I reductions
could include such measures as bike parking, transit stops for planned routes.
Energy Star roofs. Energy Star appliances, Title 24 compliance, water use
efficiency, and other measures. All measures would have to be mandated by
CARB or local regulations and ordinances.
• Level 2 Mitigation — Projects that exceed the determined threshold would be
required to first implement readily available technologies and methodologies with
widespread availability. bevel 2 Mitigation could include such measures as:
parking reduction below code minimum levels, solar roofs, LEED Silver or Gold
Certification, exceed Title 24 building standards by 20 percent, 'traffic Demand
Management (TDM) measures, and other requirements.
• Level 3 Mitigation - If necessary to reduce emissions to the thresholds, more
extensive mitigation measures that represent the top tier of feasible efficiency
design would also be required. Level 3 Mitigation could include such measures
as: on -site renewable energy systems, LEED Platinum certification, exceed Title
24 building requirements by 40 percent, required recycled water use for
irrigation, zero wastelhigh recycling requirements, mandatory transit pass
provision, and other measures.
• Offset Mitigation — If, after adoption of all feasible on -site mitigation, the project
is still found to exceed a Tier 2 quantitative threshold, or exceed a 'tier 3
qualitative threshold, or if a project cannot feasibly implement the mandatory on-
site mitigation, then purchases of offsets could be used for mitigation. In the case
51
CEQA
a�a
Climate Change
of a quantitative threshold, the amount of' purchase would be to offset below the
Tier 2 significance threshold. In the case of a qualitative threshold, the amount of
purchase could be to offset GHG emissions overall to below the lowest
equivalent GHG emissions among the Tier 2 qualitative thresholds. With
Threshold 2.5, this would be approximately 900 tons of GHG emissions
(corresponding to 50 residential units). With Threshold 2.6, this would be
approximately 9.000 tons (corresponding to 500 residential units). Alternatively.
one could require purchase of offsets in the amount of a set percentage (such as
90% or 50% for example) of the residual GHG emissions (after other mitigation).
As discussed earlier. any decision to include or require the use of emission
reduction credits (or offsets) must consider issues of availability, quality, and
environmental justice.
Substantial Evidence Supporting Different Thresholds
If a project can be shown by substantial evidence not to increase GHG emissions relative
to baseline emissions. then no fair argument will be available that the project contributes
considerably to a significant cumulative climate change impact.
It is more challenging to show that a project that increases GIIG emissions above
baseline emissions does not contribute considerably to a significant cumulative climate
change impact. It is critical therefore, to establish an appropriate cumulative context, in
which, although an individual project may increase 0-16 emissions, broader efforts will
result in net GHG reductions.
Approach 1 -based thresholds that by default will require an equal level of GHG
reductions from the existing economy (Thresholds I.l. 1.3, and 1.4) may he less
supportable in the short run (especially before 2012) than Approach 1.2 (which requires
new development to be relatively more efficient than a retrofitted existing economy).
This is because, prior to 2012, there will only he limited mandatory regulations
implementing AB 32 that could address the existing economy in a truly systematic way
that can be relied upon to demonstrate that overall GHG reduction goals can he achieved
by 2020. Approach 1.2 will still rely on substantial reductions in the existing economy
but to a lesser degree.
Approach 1 -based thresholds that would spread the mitigation burden across a sector
(Threshold 1.3) or across a region (Threshold 1.4) will allow for tradeoffs between
projects or even between municipalities. In order to demonstrate that a sector or a region
is achieving net reductions overall, there would need to be feasible, funded, and
mandatory requirements in place promoting an overall reduction scheme, in order for a
project to result in nominal net increased GHG emissions.
Approach 2 -based thresholds that capture larger portions of the new development GHG
inventory (Thresholds 2.2 and 2.5) would promote growth that results in a smaller
increase in GI IG emissions; they may therefore be more supportable than thresholds that
do not and that have a greater reliance on reductions in the existing economy (Thresholds
52
CEQA I v n AA
Climate Change
Chapter 7
2.3. 2.4, and 2.61, especially in the next three to five years. With an established CEGA with
cumulative context that demonstrates overall net reductions. all threshold approaches Nonzero GHG
could be effective in ensuring growth and development that significantly mitigates Thresholds
Approach 2. Tiered
GHG emissions growth in a manner that will allow the GARB to achieve the
emission reductions necessary to meet AB 32 targets. In that respect, all of these
thresholds are supported by substantial evidence.
Evaluation of Non -Zero Threshold Options
Overarching issues concerning threshold development are reviewed below. Where
appropriate, different features or application of the two conceptual approaches and the
various options for thresholds under each conceptual approach described above are
analyzed. The screening evaluation is summarized in Tables 4 (Approach 1) and 5
(Approach 2). The summary tables rate each threshold for the issues discussed below
based on the level of confidence (low, medium or high) ascribed by 1 &S. The confidence
levels relate to whether a threshold could achieve a particular attribute, such as emission
reduction effectiveness. For example, a low emission reduction effectiveness rating
means the threshold is not expected to capture a relatively large portion of the new
development inventory.
As described above, Threshold 2.7 is not included in this evaluation because the data to
develop an efficiency -based threshold has not been reviewed at this time and because this
threshold is not considered feasible as an interim approach until more detailed inventory
information is available across the California economy.
What is the GI fG Emissions Effectiveness of llifferent'rhresholds?
Effectiveness was evaluated in terms of whether a threshold would capture a large
portion of the GIIG emissions inventory and thus require mitigation under CEQA to
control such emissions within the larger framework of AR 32. In addition, effectiveness
was also evaluated in terms of whether a threshold would require relatively more or less
GHG emissions reductions from the existing economy verses new development. This is
presumptive that gains from the existing economy (through retrofits, etc.) will be more
difficult and inefficient relative to requirements for new development.
Approach 1 -based thresholds that require equivalent reductions relative to business -as-
usual (Thresholds 1. 1, 1.3. and 1.4) for both the existing and new economy will be less
effective than thresholds that support lower -GHG intensity new development (Approach
1.2). However, since Approach 1 -based thresholds do not establish a quantitative
threshold below which projects do not have to mitigate, the market capture for new
development is complete.
Approach 2 -based thresholds can be more or less effective at capturing substantial
portions of the GI IG inventory associated with new development depending on where the
quantitative or qualitative thresholds are set. Lower thresholds will capture a broader
range of projects and result in greater mitigation. Based on the review of project data for
53
CEQA
nn0
Climate Change
the select municipalities described in the Approach 2 section above. thresholds based on
the GARB Reporting Threshold /Cap and Trade Entry Level (Threshold 2.4) or CEQA
definitions of "Statewide. Regional or Areawide" projects (Threshold 2.6) will result in a
limited capture of the GHG inventory. Lower quantitative or qualitative thresholds
(Thresholds 2.1. 2.2 and 2.5) could result in capture of greater than 90 percent of new
development.
Are the Different Thresholds Consistent with AB 32 and S -3 -05?
Thresholds that require reductions compared to business -as -usual for all projects or for a
large portion of new development would he consistent with regulatory mandates. In
time, the required reductions will need to be adjusted from 2020 (AB 32) to 2050 (S -3-
05) horizons, but conceptually broad identification of significance for projects would be
consistent with both of these mandates. Thresholds that exclude a substantial portion of
new development would likely not be consistent, unless it could be shown that other
more effective means of GHG reductions have already been. or will be adopted, within a
defined timeframe.
All Approach I -based thresholds would be consistent with AB 32 and S -3 -05 if it can be
demonstrated that other regulations and programs are effective in achieving the necessary
GHG reduction from the existing economy to meet the overall state goals.
Approach 2 -based thresholds that include substantive parts of the new development GI IG
inventory (Thresholds 2.1. 2.2 and 2.5) will be more consistent with AB 32 and S -3 -05
than those that do not (Thresholds 2.3. 2.4, and 2.6) unless it can he demonstrated that
other regulations and programs are effective in achieving the necessary GHG reduction
from the existing economy to meet the overall state goals.
What are the Uncertainties Associated with Different Thresholds?
All thresholds have medium to high uncertainties associated with them due to the
uncertainty associated with the effectiveness of AB 32 implementation overall, the new
character of GHG reduction strategies on a project basis, the immaturity of GHG
reduction technologies or infrastructure (such as widespread biodiesel availability), and
the uncertainty of GHG reduction effectiveness of certain technologies (such as scientific
debate concerning the relative lifecycle GHG emissions of certain biofuels, for example).
In general. Approach 1 -based thresholds have higher uncertainties than Approach 2
thresholds because they rely on a constantly changing definition of business -as- usual.
Threshold 1.2, with its relatively smaller reliance on the existing economy for GHG
reductions has relatively less uncertainty than other Approach 1 thresholds. Thresholds
that spread mitigation more broadly (Thresholds 1.3 and 1.4) have less uncertainty by
avoiding the need for every project to mitigate equally.
Approach 2 thresholds with lower quantitative (2.1 and 2.2) or qualitative (2.5)
thresholds will have uncertainties associated with the ability to achieve GIIG reductions
54
CEQA I ` " "1`
��a
Climate Change
hapter 7
from small to medium projects. Approach 2 thresholds with higher quantitative (2.3. CCOA with
2.4) or qualitative (2.6) thresholds will have uncertainties associated with the ability NM.Zr.(o GHG
to achieve relatively larger GHG reductions from the existing economy. lhre5holds
Approach 2: Tiered
What are Other Advantages /Disadvantages of the Dil7erent Thresholds?
Thresholds with a single project metric (Thresholds I. 1. 1 2, 2.1. 2.2, 2.3. 2.4, 2.5,
and 2.6) will be easier to apply to individual projects and more easily understood by
project applicants and lead agencies broadly. Thresholds that spread mitigation across
sectors (1.3) or regions (1.4), while simple in concept, will require adoption of more
complicated cross - jurisdictional reduction plans or evaluation of broad sector -based
trends in GHG intensity reduction over time. Approach I options would require all
projects to quantify emissions in order to determine needed reductions relative to
business -as -usual (which will change over time as described above). Concepts that are
unit -based (Threshold 2.5 and 2.6) will not result in thresholds that have equal amount of
GHG emissions, and thus equity issues may arise.
55
Table 4: non -Zero Threshold Evaluation Matrix - Approach I
APPTOZCh 1
1.1
1.2 .. 1-3 1.4
28 %- 33% Reduction from B,U' M,
50% Reduction frum BAC by 2020 by Z8% - 33% Reduction by 2020 by
28 %- 33% Reduction he 2020 be
2020 by Project
Project SeClar
Region
low - Captures all new projects but
Medium - (`aplures all new projects and Low - Captures all new projects hilt
IAw - Captures all new flrolcciS but
GHG Emlt41a9T
relies on a high lei el of reductions from
has a more realistic level o(redtsuuns relies on a high level of redwouns Iron)
relies on a high ltvel of redtrtums from
Hrdurnon F1F'rti + -rrtc +s
the existing l'Cnnarly
from the existing economy the existing <COIIaInN'
the eximing CCnnnmV
Aw - Some projects will not he able to
Low " Sane protects s,dl Mn be able to i Medlum - Sectors as a whole w ill be
14% - Sonic regums and newly
afford this level of rcducuon wdhout
afford this Icvcl of reduction without better able to achieve reductions than
de,clopcd areas may nor be able n.
Frnnmm�r Fcaobitay
dkctive market-based mechanisms like
effective market -bused mechanisms lake individual projects
afford this level of teducunn without
oll'wns
nlfscls
ctfectwc markrubased mechanisms like
offal,
Medium - Some prnittls will not be able
Low - Relra ,cly larger set of projeris high - Sonic projects will net he able to
Medium - Some regions and newly
to achieve this level of reduction without
w,It MM be ahlc to aUueve this level of achtes a this kycl of reduction without
de,elupcd areas may' not he able to
7ivhmral Pe robilav
ef(ccu,c market -based mechanisms like
reduction wohuul e((ectn-e market -based effecinc market -bawd mechanisms like
afford this level of reduction without
atfwm
mechansms like offsets nlfscis
effective market-based mechamsms like
offsets
Loa - Absent broader reductions
Low - Ahscnt broader reductions
Low - Ahsent broader reductions
Low - Ahsent broader mducuuns
strategies, each project may reinvent the
suategws. each prnRCt may reumcm the
strategies. each project may reinvent the
gmjegies. each project may reinvent the
ingisn, al hiaabdm-
,heel each time to achieve mandated
wheel each Time to Mhmyu mandated
,,heel cash time to xlinvc mandated
wheel each time to xhtc,e mandated
reductions
reductions
reductions
' rcducuon,
Iilgb
Medium -Nigh - u'uuld rely nn
)tedium -Iligb - Would rah nn
Medium - would require hcavN. reliance
Consi.umrr oath Aq 32
on command and control gams
command and control gums, but would
canmand and control gams, bul ,could
noel $ w 1;3
allow xromral llcxihdin
allosc regional flcX,h.lnv
Low -Will rcyu.rc all types a(prulects'
Low . w'dl require all IV of sirocco
Low /Mer lum - .Allows nadcnRfs wdhm
Low.Ofedlum - Al laws nadcoRs „.thin
to reduce the store regardless of the
u, reduce the same regardless of the
sector 1b twec r high and low cost
region between high and low cost
Cast Efleedveness
cusctnn of GIIq rcducuon,
cost ton of Gl1G reductions
reduction posmblllnfs but not W,,occn
reduction possubihnes, Mt not between
Seelols
re ions
High - HAI: changes o,rr time
Mtdlurn fligb - 11AI1 changes o,u I high - HAI' changes over time
Ilieh - HAI: changes over time
Abdrn'to reduce (ilh, emissions from
time AMbty to limn OW emrssmns Ability to reduce GHO emissions from
Ability to reduce 611❑ cmiumns from
routing ccononw will take scars to
from other new de,elnpmenl well take existing eeonumy will take Nears to
existing economy well take years to
mrrfacol",
dOrsonstrate
Scar, to demomsuatr demonstrate
demonstrate
Ability to limit 6110 ermwons from
Ahdtp to limit Glf(I emuswns from
Ability to limo (;11(; emissions from
tither new development will take yean to
other new development will take gems to
other new development will take scan W
demonstrate
demonstrate
demunstmic
Other Ad, anra ,s
Son lc•'casv to ex plain
I Sim Iceasv to explain
S reads mitigation Mnadiv
Spreads mmgatmn brnulh,
Requires all projects to quantify
Reques all prolteR to qusotik
Requires all prtiuvis to qusmtfy
Requnes :dl gojccts to quantify
OOIr/ Dimdvmuags
- emissions
emesmos ..-
emissions
emtszmns .. ..
56
LS
Z 4auolddv - x1.112W uollsnlsng ploqu. jqy ojz,Z uo� :S a148.1.
gplucnh W sl.,afold lsa9ml
suassnua
s:,awuoapor!(!
%UnKS,wa r)!1') I1° ldU I P
4+9) slwa l)Hq luaap lP
.y4uenh 01 s"Aud
suo¢slwa .yllumb
anl!y>IVfold IeloUa$
anry'J"luJd lelulaaj'
Ilr Almau Salmha)1
al glafold lie sannbam
VJV x11 Jo Jal p.4,)
zlijarid dIS p>4sllgclsa
aulm palm SIV Uju IIV
lr._ ).ly Po- JQPay S3)afoKl
palrpdn ay
s,u0u,{ s0afo,d
aw ivfi)d .Awlua.wl
)s1wJ xg 9wss:I ,kj
uc) spinysalyl P>sl!m-Uu; l
11(x11 +ml Swssavxl
FIH\V q.,af id Isnw JoJ
palrPdn>4 url miva3Jp
sa8uluo.,py>aY10
VC)J.) AWN—' xw saIKI
PMUPdn )y ueo fslluaaJl)
VOJJ aflurq:, Wu sxKI
9ulssaxJld VbH:) a9ue4a
palepdn ag ura sdWH
3ugapwS 9uusmj
palepdn all ur311INH
PI++4s>Jy1 alums
Im sanO pp14su41 a19wy
pWysinll ,I9Iws
pingsa,41 alSwS
weu3aun slaa u)
weua3u111133 m ,mews
nlaigun 501111
al lnwa ml wswogvW
w_I wSlurpaw p>sm!y
allows ao) ulxwr.4law
P3cgcal
Pxoq-aymW 1m1411.1
P3n1cw
Pay.1rm
ya!lJew I00411m 40,11ku
pxry -04xw lnn41111
raJ)VInJ /dill; )
OI )a9Uo t l
>4 I�I�YI
ale9luw m .:u I cJolax
I4 \'
(I) laifuo A l 1
>y I�I•YI
VUabtw 1 1 I
>V I�I��I
nl All 1 r +m10.1s
I4\
alcl IPW VI A11 I4V'
Ionuo3 Pup puewwo,
wwoa pur %a, wl ldepe
In0un3 Pup punwwnl
lwwoa Pun Iwowuloa
wwoa puP saJ Iq J&Pe
SIoix - 'wwo3 PUe sm
wwl Sum!)'tplf ll
nl awl,l.'4 wwmlp>IV
wo {I wlery-43111
woy swr,). 421H
ul awl,l.- 421111wnIP31C
)ol Opp! nl- 1,l.'92!H
4214 saP.,,aUJoj
awu
L11114 nap.Nw+oJ
014 nap alau Joj
awl lw a.n01 wl
Umgp.S4lw x, U> s1331wd
111 a.lmldwl 1p., . <wmllpp
wItIaGuU Jo lP> I,PafuJd
Uunr91OW JO Ila'allafold
llms iauaupld s>svyd
a51rl Wl sna(�I 4u,tl
simId <Ppa ul s>y,lnAil!
05111 uo saaol 41I.M
Ja9)cl uusnanl 411,1A
dlma ul sl4omWdu
dpnexl aWw (w(k J
UagP9giw wa1aiJJ>UI
111n1!>4 110W Awt x la
q.,riq X,),11 Xwlwul)
U011VALI w JUAlgJw1
aw 11 Ill anoldwl 1pnl
I,,uJ ...... 11.E mT )
Nwp,.x3 lof Suoq)npa)
U1 4nsal ll." Um Ink"W
iiuusiaa Jo.;>uollallpaJ
Iiutima ull suoglnpi
UI II(1 \4+ JIM UUlle9111u
I .1- xa1,lUJ C.,gmnlddr.
lolwoa Pur, PUPwwUa
I(IJ hat " .(JP Mall
(Intro, pup, PU¢w W W
10,111+1, pill! Iwl:wwol
I(IJ Kai . \al, mau
u0ndul111111>lalflaUl
W. sm1a2 - wn!pa1\
uo )1 ,Ilvildw':1 - wnlpbh
un o4aN . mmpal\
uo saJp2 • wnlpatC
Un sl slsnyduJ] - mnpaK
w ynvl III.M - �%Wl
s I.,vN f5a1M5
awn Ja1U>lux ea Wllirw
Sll1Pa4 msx,aM
elleeml smnll5
fl'A)'SP In, i t''HY
IuJ1uu3 pie Pillow wo,
almbnpo alenslwulap
lmnuoa Put, purtwwro
lonua pup. Pupwwoo
ewbt
Y+! + i Iv.,JSUUn )
Uu � aJ VI lw, M ' e U' 1
,
nl PL ' - wo I a IC
1111 A I a1 PI nn, M MO' 1
un (h v PI no_ 1 � U' 1
IP aInldU3 13 le 4V ' 2111
amide, Ia m l ' 4 1 11
eaP.Nau owl 31P.031111
naPA%M 01111 . >Iw a1W
01 ium ale.) Illa1 hal alau
III 3LW114CI 111.11 be) 'QU
el a,,fo)d Ill! aiOmw
.VJ)IyHIJa.Y
'.UlL3alp MUlle of 11311111.
iIIS1aA1P.10IIP UI UaIIUN
ml lln3l4Ilp.Va.,5irul
/1"llfJ2117
uunpaluul m, I - 92i11
.ilpm)q s,IKH - wnlpaK
ungr9glw ssa ! 4alH
uune9mw ssa'I - 42111
�Ipeolq sd1VH - wmp liv
lasmo uI aaJ ss31u:1 . ro I
31p gull ul lual,IJlau1
al PinVW 011U311ImIDn
>lp IPw ul alylsvjpl
N nrW 1IN,fU1(I Jall6+US
N 3PW 'SWaloxl
aq 60w 'S omojd
sayxuJddp. uwanpm
m ri Jr nolurd' Vfl
1 I I fl
saymwdde uu0xlpa,
s>ylm)dd1 uo9,np3J
allruJs wl dsa':IVH ul
allews ml dsa ':1VH
.ogJy!s'n.,,{
p,aryY)a.1
.11d11111W laJ VIIIUnu(IddU
UI i2llftlJ h!IIUI'1G1n5 aq
.11d111nW 1(II \>IllumLmddU
>1d111n11110f U111U1111(Idd(1
allR!yl CllUlllSyne 34 IILN
w i9ueyo enuelsym aV
111111 ^ - 1rd!11
IILN S.,sp.yd ellui . wnlpal\
ale >n) . 421H
nie3x) -42111
sxcgd . <pP] - mn!P> W
III.,1 sa nqd .yIffq - r0 '1
'
al .• III W nl
al .. Ipw o1 alquraPll
alp 1 Ul of ihllsY >)ul
alylseaJul ay .Amu 'slaafold
>q 4m q.:ialoxl
ay Arm, ',W,Mim l
PUl ywsye
.Ihews loJ dsa'fl Vfl
ISU34msgc
Imayx"ll
Jallews xJ,l dsa';IVtl 111
allPwc al ds>':)Vfl
+upynvd.4
uxuuuag
01 .<Pl1yp. 011319 l.Wy
111 i9llftla II!IIUClsyns >(!
(JI .Vglyr aleb9 }icy
VI .AilpyC lap ?af9 anly
39Ury, ingUnlSynS >4 IILN
w a9UCyJ le111n31Syn5 J4
slaafWd An" I - 42111
III., tinv4d epri - willpaK
gvfn)d a9m'I - 42!H
soafoid 32,w I ' 92111
imlyd Spc] - mn!pi1V
Ill. }rw4d .Alm.l - r0 '1
I aam paw pup mews
uidls•'lllnws l3>0 'Saal(1U5
saomos
es,u±nilSy�
s>pnpaq amxfe, la:{JPw
MJa.11P5amldn.) %06-
>mldr,
amldN U:)Jetu
x »11p sa)IIIdv,) n.W6,
5a>In1K
von.J.P,,'y
alWap11V - wnlP>Ix
IV 3Jnlde, I>!1)el,4 - 92!11
1X1muJ nW] - %Cal
ale,apnlV - W e!p3K
le aJnldol a>fle)\ - 42111
Ile samldr.,) - 42111
+mlrnw3 WID
'1 4 90ZSI
wol o00 oS - 0 o►-I
w,1 Gwol Jeuol 000 SZ
ue!PP!n9 YO: /:))
amdej
ape>.l. Pee deJ1ploquiq.1.
aplreaJV
IP104WA41 P>saH'llea
.001u3ne1 Pa11ge2311
Dulyodam 9HV3
(sum 006)
ao 1wg23H - apl.31eK
anpgllsea
3,,pu mangy
a.utelliurno
a.cllelguanrl
Pln4s»4.1. oarl'
9'Z
VZ
Yi
1`2
I'Z
I'Z
Z 4auolddv - x1.112W uollsnlsng ploqu. jqy ojz,Z uo� :S a148.1.
CEQA
and
Climate Change
58
CEQA P►r�
and
Chapter 8: Analytical Methodologies for GHG Climate Change
Chapter 8
Introduction
Analytical
Methodologies
This chapter evaluates the availability of various analytical methods and modeling For GHG
tools that can be applied to estimate the greenhouse gas emissions from different
project types subject to CEQA. This chapter will also provide comments on the
suitability of the methods and tools to accurately characterize a projects emissions and
offer recommendations for the most favorable methodologies and tools available. Some
sample projects will be run through the methodologies and modeling tools to demonstrate
what a typical GHG analysis might look like for a lead agency to meet its CEQA
obligations. The air districts retained the services of F.DAW environmental consultants
to assist with this effort.
Methodologies /Modeling Tools
There are wide varieties of discretionary projects that fall under the purview of CEQA.
Projects can range from simple residential developments to complex expansions of
petroleum refineries to land use or transportation planning documents. It is more
probably than not, that a number of different methodologies would he required by any
one project to estimate its direct and indirect GIIG emissions. Table 10 contains a
summary of numerous modeling tools that can be used to estimate GHG emissions
associated with various emission sources for numerous types of project's subject to
CEQA. The table also contains information about the models availability for public use.
applicability, scope, data requirements and its advantages and disadvantages for
estimating GHG emissions.
In general, there is currently not one model that is capable of estimating all of a project's
direct and indirect GHG emissions. However, one of the models identified in Table 9
would probably be the most consistently used model to estimate a projects direct GHG
emissions based on the majority of projects reviewed in the CEQA process. The Urban
Emissions Model (URBEMIS) is designed to model emissions associated with
development of urban land uses. 11RBEMIS attempts to summarize criteria air pollutants
and COz emissions that would occur during construction and operation of new
development. URBEMIS is publicly available and already widely used by CEQA
practitioners and air districts to evaluate criteria air pollutants emissions against air
district - adopted significance thresholds. URBEMIS is developed and approved for
statewide use by GARB. The administrative reasons for using URBEMIS are less
important than the fact that this model would ensure consistency statewide in how COZ
emissions are modeled and reported from various project types.
One of the shortfalls of URBEMIS is that the model does not contain emission factors for
GHGs other than CO:. except for methane (CH.t) from mobile- sources, which is
converted to CO,e. This may not be a major problem since CO; is the most important
GHG from land development projects. Although the other GHGs have a higher global
warming potential, a metric used to normalize other GIIGs to Cote, they are emitted in
far fewer quantities. URBEMIS does not calculate other GHG emissions associated with
W,
CEQA
ore
Climate Change
offsite waste disposal, wastewater treatment, emissions associated with goods and
services consumed by the residents and workers supported by a project. Nor does
URBEMIS calculate GHGs associated with consumption of energy produced off-site.
(For that matter. URBEMIS does not report criteria air pollutant emissions from these
sources either).
Importantly, IJRBEMIS does not fully account for interaction between land uses in its
estimation of mobile source operational emissions. Vehicle trip rates are defaults derived
from the Institute of Transportation Engineers trip generation manuals. The trip rates are
widely used and are generally considered worst -case or conservative. URBEMIS does
not reflect "internalization" of trips between land uses. or in other words, the concept that
a residential trip and a commercial trip are quite possibly the same trip, and, thus,
URBEMIS counts the trips separately. There are some internal correction settings that
the modeler can select in URBEMIS to correct for "double counting''; however, a project -
specific "double- counting correction` is often not available. URBEMIS does allow the
user to overwrite the default trip rates and characteristics with more project - specific data
from a traffic study prepared for a project.
Residential, Commercial, Mixed -Use Type Projects/ Specific Plans
Direct Emissions
URBEMIS can be used to conduct a project- specific model run and obtain CO2e
emissions for area and mobile sources from the project, and convert to metric tons CO2e.
When a project- specific traffic study is not available, the user should consult with their
local air district for guidance. Many air district staff are experienced practitioners of
IJRBEMIS and can advise the lead agency or the modeler on how to best tailor
IJRBEMIS default input parameters to conduct a project - specific model run. When a
traffic study has been prepared for the project, the user must overwrite default trip length
and trip rates in IJRBEMIS to match the total number of trips and vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) contained in the traffic study to successfully conduct a project - specific model run.
URBEMIS is recommended as a calculation tool to combine the transportation study (if
available) and EMFAC emission factors lbr mobile- sources. Use of a project - specific
traffic study gets around the main shortfall of IJRBEMIS: the lack of trip internalization.
IJRBEMIS also provides the added feature of quantifying direct area - source GHG
emissions.
lmp2rtant steps for running IJRBEMIS
I. Without a traffic study prepared for the project, the user should consult with the
local air district for direction on which default options should be used in the
modeling exercise. Some air districts have recommendations in the CEQA
guidelines.
2. If a traffic study was prepared specifically for the project, the following
information must be provided:
60
CEG1A
Climate Change
a. Total number of average daily vehicle trips or trip- generation rates by Chapter 8
land use type per number of units: and. Analytical
Methodologies
b. Average VMT per residential and nonresidential trip. For GHG
c. The user overwrites the "Trip Rate (per day)" fields for each land use in •
URBEMIS such that the resultant "Total Trips" and the "Total VMT"
match the number of total trips and total VMT contained in the traltic
study.
d. Overwrite "Trip Length" fields for residential and nonresidential trips in
UBEMIS with the project - specific lengths obtained form the tralre study.
3. Calculate results and obtain the CO; emissions from the URBEMIS output file
(units of tons per year [TPY]).
Indirect Emissions
URBEMIS does estimate indirect emissions from landscape maintenance equipment, hot
water heaters, etc. URBEMIS does not however. provide modeled emissions from
indirect sources of emissions, such as those emissions that would occur off -site at utility
providers associated with the project's energy demands. The California Climate Action
Registry (CCAR) Protocol v.2.2. includes methodology, which could be used to quantify
and disclose a project's increase in indirect GHG emissions from energy use. Some
assumptions must be made for electrical demand per household or per square foot of
commercial space, and would vary based on size. orientation, and various attributes of a
given structure. An average rate of electrical consumption for residential uses is 7,000
kilowatt hours per year per household and 16.750 kilowatt hours per thousand square feet
of commercial floor space. Commercial floor space includes ofTces, retail uses.
warehouses, and schools. These values have been increasing steadily over the last 20
years. Energy consumption from residential uses has increased due to factors such as
construction and occupation of larger homes, prices of electricity and natural gas, and
increased personal income allowing residents to purchase more electronic appliances.
Commercial energy consumption is linked to factors such as vacancy rates, population,
and sales.
The modeler will look up the estimated energy consumption for the project's proposed
land uses under year of project buildout, or use the values given in the previous paragraph
for a general estimate. The CCAR Protocol contains emission factors for CO., CH4, and
nitrous oxide. The "CAIA, region grid serves most of the State of California. If a user
has information about a specific utility provider's contribution from renewable sources,
the protocol contains methodology to reflect that, rather than relying on the statewide
average grid. The incremental increase in energy production associated with project
operation should be accounted for in the project's total GHG emissions for inclusion in
the environmental document.
61
CEQA
and
Climate Change
The incremental increase in energy production associated with project operation should
be accounted for in the project's total GHG emissions. but it should be noted that these
emissions would be closely controlled by stationary- source control -based regulations and
additional regulations are expected under AB 32. 1lowever, in the interest of disclosing
project - generated GHG emissions and mitigating to the extent feasible, the indirect
emissions from off -site electricity generation can he easily calculated for inclusion in the
environmental document.
Example Project Estimates for GHG Emissions
Residential Project
Project Attributes:
• 68 detached dwelling units
a 15.9 acres
a 179 residents
a Ojobs
• Located in unincorporated Placer County (PCAPCD jurisdiction)
• Analysis year 2009
As shown in 'fable 6, the project's direct GHG emissions per service population (SP)
would he approximately 8 metric tons C'02e /SP /year.
Cable 6: Residential Proiect Examnle GHG Emissions Estimates
UP-BEMIS Output (Project Specific)
Metric Tons/Year
Cole
Demographic Data
Area- source emissions
251
Residents 179
Mobile- source emissions
1,044
Johs 0
Indirect emissions (from CCAR
174
Protocol)
Service population 179
Total operational emissions
1,469
Operationalemissions.SP
8.2
Notes
( U;c — cation dioxide equivalent, (CAR — Cahfornia ( hmutc Aonm Rcgutrr, SP
= semce pnpulatnmisee definition of service
population below in discussion of Nurmahzauun'Scrvice
Populavnn Marled
Sources HIAW 2007, ARH''(Wb, CC'AR 21W, CH''tiIX)
Commercial Project
Project Attributes:
• Prec Standing Discount Superstore: 241 thousand square feet (ksf)
• 0 residents
62
CECIA
and
Climate Change
• 400jobs
• Located in the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District's (SJVAPCD)
jurisdiction
• Analysis year 2009
Table 7. Commercial Project Example GHG Emissions Estimates
URBEMIS Output (Project Specific) Metric TonslYear Demographic Data
CO =e
.Area- source emissions 464 Residents 0
Mobile - source emissions BA99 Jobs 400
Indirect emissions (from CCAR Protocol) 1,477
Total operational emissions 15,930 Service population 400
Operational cmissionsiSP 39.6
Soms
COX - carMm dioxide equivalent. CCAR - Coh furnia Chmulc Acl ion Rcglsw. Sr- wn'ice pupulairon (see de ti nnion of wrvkc
population below in diwuanrn of Nu ahcmuNService 1'upulaoon Monc)
Sources IDAU 211. ARB 2W7b. CCAR 2007. C'LC 20W
SILecitic Plan
Chapter 8
Analytical
Methodologies
For GHG
If used traditionally with default trip rates and lengths, rather than project- specific
(Traffic Analysis Zone - specific) trip rates and lengths, URBEMIS does not work well for
specific plan or general plan -sized projects with multiple land use types proposed.
However, in all instances, projects of these sizes (several hundred or thousand acres)
would be accompanied by a traffic study. Thus, for large planning -level projects.
URBEMIS can he used as a calculation tool to easily obtain project - specific mobile -
source emissions. The user should follow the steps discussed above: wherein he /she
overwrites the default ITF. trip rates for each land use type with that needed to make total
VMT match that contained in the traffic study. The URBEMIS interface is a simple
calculator to combine the traffic study and EMFAC emissions factors for mobile -source
CO).
Project Attributes:
• 985 acres
• Total dwelling units: 5.634
• Commercial /Mixed Use: 429 ksf
• Educational: 2.565 ksf
• 14.648 residents
• 37743 jobs
• Located in Sacramento County (SMAQMD jurisdiction)
• Analysis year 2009
63
CEQA
and
Climate Change
I able 8: Specific Plan Example GHG Emissions F,stimates
URBEMIS Output (Project Specific) Metric Tons/Year
Cole
Demographic Data
Area- senlrce emissions 23.273
Residents 14.648
Mobile- source emissions 73,691
Jobs 3,743
Indirect emissions (from CCAR 32,744
Protocol)
Service
Total operational emissions 129,708
1 8.391
population
Operational emissions.'SP 7.1
Notes
CO;e - carbon dioxide equn'alen{, ('('AR = Cahtivma CLmate Action Regatr},
SP - unvice population (sec defmmon of
service population Mow m discussinn of Kormalrrnuon :Sen ice Populawn Memel
Sources EDAW 2 (XIT ARn 2W7b, CCAR 2/Mf7.(TC2000
The specific plan example, when compared to the residential or commercial examples,
illustrates the benefit of a mixed -use development when you look at CO2e emissions per
resident or job (service population) metric (see definition of service population below in
discussion of Normalization /Service Population Metric). Though this particular specific
plan is not an example of a true jobs /housing balance, the trend is clear: accommodating
residents and jobs in a project is more efficient than residents or jobs alone.
Stationary- and Area - Source Project "Penes
GHG emissions from stationary or area sources that require a permit to operate from the
air district also contain both direct and indirect sources of emissions. Examples of these
types of sources would be fossil fuel power plants. cement plants. landfills, wastewater
treatment plants, gas stations, dry cleaners and industrial boilers. All air districts have
established procedures and methodologies for projects subject to air district permits to
calculate their regulated pollutants. It is anticipated that these same procedures and
methodologies could be extended to estimate a permitted facility's GHG calculations.
For stationary and area sources that do not require air district permits, the same
methodologies used for permitted sources could be used in addition to URBEMIS
and CCAR GRP to calculate GHG emissions from these facilities.
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Direct GHG emissions associated with a proposed waste water treatment plant can be
calculated using AP -42 emission factors from Chapter 4.3.5 Evaporative Loss Sources:
Waste Water - Greenhouse Gases and the CCAR methodology. In general, most
wastewater operations recover CH4 for energy, or use a flare to convert the CH4 to CO2.
There are many types of wastewater treatment processes and the potential for GHG
emissions from different types of plants varies substantially. There is not one standard
set of emission factors that could he used to quantity GIIG emissions for a state
64
CEQA `- rss
Climate Change
"average" treatment plant. Thus, research will need to be conducted on a case -by -case Chapter 8
basis to determine the "Fraction Anaerobically Digested" which is a function of the Analytical
type of treatment process. Indirect emissions from these facilities can be calculated MethodOogies
using the CCAR energy use protocols and URBEMIS model for transportation For GHG
emissions.
Solid Waste Disoosal Facilities
Air districts will have emission estimate methodologies established for methane
emissions at permitted landfills. In addition. EPA's Landfill Gas Emissions Model
(LandGem) and the CCAR methodology could also be used to quantify GHG emissions
from landfill off gassing; however, this model requires substantial detail be input. The
model uses a decomposition rate equation, where the rate of decay is dependent on the
quantity of waste in place and the rate of change over time. This modeling tool is free to
the public. but substantial project detail about the operation of the landfill is needed to
run the model. Indirect emissions from these facilities can be calculated using the CCAR
energy use protocols and URBEMIS model for transportation emissions.
Construction Emissions
6116 emissions would occur during project construction, over a finite time. In addition,
a project could result in the loss of GHG sequestration opportunity due primarily, to the
vegetation removed for construction. URBEMIS should be used to quantify the mass of
CO2 that would occur during the construction of a project for land development projects.
Some construction projects would occur over an extended period (up to 20-30 years on a
planning horizon for general plan buildout, or 5 -10 years to construct a dam, for
example). OFFROAD emission factors are contained in URBEMIS for CO2 emissions
from construction equipment. For other types of construction projects. such as roadway
construction projects or levee improvement projects, SMAQMD's spreadsheet modeling
tool, the Road Construction Emissions Model (RoadMod), should be used. This tool is
currently being updated to include CO2 emissions factors from OFFROAD.
The full life -cycle of GHG emissions from construction activities is not accounted for in
the modeling tools available. and the information needed to characterize GHG emissions
from manufacture, transport, and end -of -life of construction materials would be
speculative at the CEQA analysis level. The emissions disclosed will be from
construction equipment and worker commutes during the duration of construction
activities. Thus, the mass emissions in units of metric tons CO2e /year should be reported
in the environmental document as new emissions.
General Plans
In the short-term, URBEMIS can be used as a calculation tool to model GHG emissions
from proposed general plans, but only if data from the traffic study is incorporated into
model input. The same methodology applied above in the specific plan example applies
to general plans. The CCAR GRP can be used to approximate indirect emissions from
W
CEQA
and
Climate Change
increased energy consumption associated with the proposed plan area. The same models
and methodologies discussed previously for wastewater, water supply and solid waste
would be used to estimate indirect emissions resulting from buildout of the general plan.
In the longer - term, more complex modeling tools are needed, which would integrate
GHG emission sources from land use interaction, such as I- PLACE ;S or CTG
Energetics' Sustainable Communities Custom Model attempt to do. These models are
not currently available to the public and only have applicability in certain areas of the
state. It is important that a tool with statewide applicability be used to allow for
consistency in project treatment, consideration, and approval under CEQA.
Scenarios
At the general plan level, the baseline used for analyzing most environmental impacts of
a general plan update is typically no different from the baseline for other projects. The
baseline for most impacts represents the existing conditions, normally on the date the
Notice of Preparation is released. Several comparative scenarios could be relevant,
depending on the exact methodological approach and significance criteria used for GHG
assessment:
• Gxistimz Conditions. The GHG emissions associated with the existing, on -the-
ground conditions within the planning area.
• 1990 conditions. The GHG emissions associated with the general plan area in
1990. This is relevant due to the state's AB 32 GHG emission reduction goals'
benchmark year of 1990. The GHG - efficiency of 1990 development patterns
could be compared to that of the general plan buildout.
• Buildout of the Existing General Plan. The GHG emissions associated with
buildout of the existing general plan (without the subject update). This is the no
project alternative for the purposes of general plan CEQA analysis.
• Buildout of the Undated General Plan. The GHG emissions associated with
buildout of the general plan, as proposed as a part of the subject update. This
would include analysis of any changes included as a part of the general plan
update for the existing developed portions of the planning area. Many
communities include redevelopment and revitalization strategies as a part of the
general plan update. The general plan L'IR can include assumptions regarding
what level and type of land use change could be facilitated by infill and
redevelopment. Many jurisdictions wish to provide future projects consistent
with these land use change assumptions with some environmental review
streamlining. In addition, many communities include transit expansions.
pedestrianibicycle pathway improvements, multi -modal facility construction,
travel demand policies, energy efficiency policies, or other measures that could
apply to the existing developed area. just as they may apply to any new growth
66
CECIA I la nra a
Climate Change
areas. Such policies could affect the overall GHG emissions of the built out Chapter 8
general plan area.
Analytical
Methodologies
• Increment between Buildout of Undated General Plan and Existing General For GHG
Plan Area. There are many important considerations associated with the
characterization of the impact of the General Plan update. The actual GHG
emissions impact could be described as the difference between buildout under the
existing and proposed land use plan (No -Build Alternative). However, the courts
have held that an EIK should also analyze the difference between the proposed
General Plan and the existing environment (Environmental Planning•_&
Information Council v. Countv of El Dorado (EPIC'-) (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 350).
At the General Plan level, over the course of buildout, some new land uses are
introduced, which could potentially add operational GHG emissions and
potentially remove existing sequestration potential. Some properties become
vacant and arc not redeveloped. Other properties become vacant and then are
redeveloped. Communities cannot pretend to understand fully in advance each
component of land use change. The programmatic document is the preterred
method of environmental analysis. Through this programmatic framework,
communities develop buildout assumptions as a part of the General Plan that are
normally used as a basis of environmental analysis. For certain aspects of the
impact analysis, it becomes important not just to understand how much "new
stuff" could be accommodated under the updated General Plan, but also the
altered interactions between both "new" and "existing" land uses within the
planning area. As addressed elsewhere, there are tools available for use in
understanding land use /transportation interactions at the General Plan level.
Without the GHG targets established by AR 321 a simple mass comparison of
existing conditions to General Plan buildout might be appropriate.
However. within the current legal context, the GIIG efficiency of the updated General
Plan becomes the focus of analysis. Some options in this regard include:
• Estimate the GI IG emissions associated with all the land uses included within the
planning area upon buildout of the General Plan using no project specific
information (regional, countywide, or statewide defaults). Estimate GHG
emissions using project specific information from the transportation engineer,
transportation demand policies, community design elements, energy efficiency
requirements, wastewater treatment and other public infrastructure design
changes, and other components. Compare these two calculations. Is the second
calculation reduced by the percent needed to meet AR 32 goals compared to the
first calculation?
• Estimate the GHG emissions associated with the 1990 planning area and the per -
capita or per - service population GHG associated with the 1990 planning area.
(Many communities are establishing GHG inventories using different tools).
Estimate the GHG emissions associated with buildout of the proposed General
Plan update and the resulting per - capita or per- service population GHG
67
CEQA
ana
Climate Change
emissions. Compare the two calculations. Is the General Plan buildout per- capita
or per - service population level greater than the 1990 estimate?
Example General Plan Update: Proposed new growth area
Project Attributes:
• 10,050 single family dwelling units
• 652 multi - family dwelling units
• 136 acres parks
• 2,047 ksf commercial (regional shopping center)
• 2.113 ksf office
• 383 acres industrial park
• 31,293 new residents
• 4,945 new jobs
• Located in Stanislaus County (SJ VAPCD jurisdiction)
• Analysis year 2025
Table 9: General Plan Example (;H(; Emissions Estimates
URBEMIS Output (Project Specific)
Metric Tons11'ear
Demographic Data
CO2e
Construction emissions
12.083'
Residents 31.293
Area-source emissions
45.708
Mobile- source emissions
263.954
Jobs 4,945
Indirect emissions (from CCAR Protocol)
78,385
Total operational emissions
388,046
36,238
Service population
Operational emissions /SP
10.7
' ApproxmateN 241,656 metric tons ('O a tdul at general plan hmldom (assumes 20 -rear huddnut period). Construction emission
were not included in total operational emicuom
Note.,
CO!e ` carbm dioxide eaui,alent. CCAR - California
Climate Action Retaivo;, 6p
- service pojulal Kin (Sic definition of service
population bdoI in dIYLLtiSmll Of h10TW11 %tlt10ry:1L'M1
ice Population Metric)
Sources I[DAW 2(1117. .ARR 2007h, CCAR 20117. CFC 210)
Due to the programmatic level of analysis that often occurs at the general plan level, and
potential for many relevant GIIG emission quantities, it could be preferable to use a
qualitative approach. Such an analysis could address the presence of GIIG- reducing
policy language in the general plan.
Three possible tiers of approaches to addressing GHG mitigation strategics, either as
general plan policy, general plan EIR mitigation measures, or both, include:
• Forward planning
• Project toolbox
• Deter to GI IG reductions plan
68
CEQA
,na
Climate Change
The three basic approaches are described below. lChapter 8
Analylic:al
I. Brink reduction strategies into the plan itself. The most effective way for local Methodologies
jurisdictions to achieve GHG emissions reductions in the medium- and long -term is For GHG
through land use and transportation policies that are built directly into the community
planning document. This involves creating land use diagrams and circulation
diagrams, along with corresponding descriptive standards, that enable and encourage
alternatives to travel and goods movement via cars and trucks. The land use and
circulation diagrams provide a general framework for a community where people can
conduct their everyday business without necessarily using their cars. The overall
community layout expressed as a part of the land use and circulation diagrams is
accompanied by a policy and regulatory scheme designed to achieve this community
layout. Impact fees. public agency spending, regulations, administrative procedures,
incentives, and other techniques are designed to facilitate land use change consistent with
the communities' overall vision, as expressed in policy and in the land use diagram.
There are many widely used design principles that can be depicted in land use and
circulation diagrams and implemented according to narrative objectives, standards. and
policies:
• Connectivity. A finely- connected transportation network shortens trip lengths
and creates the framework liar a community where homes and destinations can be
placed close in proximity and along direct routes. A hierarchical or circuitous
transportation network can increase trip lengths and create obstacles for walking,
bicycling, and transit access. This policy language would likely be found in the
Circulation Element.
• Compactness. Compact development, by its nature, can increase the efficiency of
infrastructure provision and enable travel modes other than the car. If
communities can place the same level of activity in a smaller space, GHG
emissions would be reduced concurrently with VMT and avoid unnecessary
conversion of open space. This policy language would likely be found in the
Land Use Element.
• Diversity. Multiple land use types mixed in proximity around central "nodes" of
higher - activity land uses can accommodate travel through means other than a car.
The character and overall design of this land use mix is, of course, different from
community to community. This policy language would likely be found in the
Land Use Element.
• Facilities. Pedestrian, bicycle. and public transportation improvements, planning,
and programming are sometimes an afterthought. To get a more GIIG- efficient
mode share, safe and convenient bike lanes, pedestrian pathways, transit shelters,
and other facilities are required to be planned along with the vehicular travel
network. This Policy language would likely be found in the Circulation Element.
69
CEQA
•�d
Climate Change
• Redevelopment. One way to avoid GHG emissions is to facilitate more efficient
and economic use of the lands in already - developed portions of a community.
Reinvestment in existing neighborhoods and retrofit of existing buildings is
appreciably more GHG efficient than greenfield development, and can even
result in a net reduction in GHG emissions. This policy language would likely be
found in the Conservation or Land Use Element.
• Housing and limployment. Most communities assess current and future
economic prospects along with long -range land use planning. Part of the
objective for many communities is to encourage the coalescence of a labor force
with locally available and appropriate job opportunities. This concept is best
known as "jobs- housing balance." This policy language would likely be found in
the Housing Element.
• Planning Level Versus Proiect Level. For transportation - related GI IG emissions
that local governments can mitigate through land use entitlement authority, the
overall community land use strategy and the overall transportation network are
the most fruitful areas of focus. The reduction capacity of project- specific
mitigation measures is greatly limited if supportive land use and transportation
policies are lacking at the community planning level. The regional economic
context, of course. provides an important backdrop for land use and
transportation policy to address Cif IG emissions. Within this context, the general
plan is the readily available tool for local governments to establish such land use
and transportation strategies. This policy language would likely be found in the
Land Use and Circulation Elements.
• Shipping Mode Shift. Locate shipping - intensive land uses in areas with rail
access. Some modes of shipping are more GHG - intensive than others. Rail, for
example, requires only about 15 to 25 percent of the energy used by trucks to ship
freight equivalent distances and involves reduced transportation- related GHG
emissions. Cities and counties have little direct control over the method of
shipment that any business may choose. Nevertheless, as a part of the general
planning process, cities and counties can address constraints on the use of rail for
transporting goods. This policy language would likely be found in the Land Use
and Circulation Flements.
2. Provide a "toolbox" of strategies after the proiect site has been selected. In addition to
the examples of design principles that are built into the community planning process,
communities can offer project applicants a range of tools to reduce GIIG emissions.
Mitigation strategies are elaborated in detail in Chapter 9.
3. Defer to General Plan implementation measure. Develop and implement a GIIG
Emissions Reduction Plan. Another option for local governments would be development
of an implementation measure as a part of the general plan that outlines an enforceable
6116 reduction program. Perhaps the most well known example of this approach is the
result of California's Attorney General settlement of the lawsuit brought against San
70
CEQA
."a
Climate Change
Bernardino County. The County has agreed to create a 1990 GHG inventory and Chapters
develop measures to reduce such emissions according to the state's overall goals. Analytical
Other communities have pursued similar programs (i.e.. the City of San Diego, Marin Methodologies
County). Along with the inventories, targets, and example reduction measures, these For GHG
programs would include quantitative standards for new development; targets for
reductions from retrofitting existing development; targets for government operations;
fee and spending program for GHG reduction programs; monitoring and reporting; and
other elements. The local government itself should serve as a model for GHG reduction
plan implementation, by inventorying emissions from government operations and
achieving emission reductions in accordance with the plan's standards. An optional
climate change element could be added to contain goals, policies, and this
implementation strategy, or this could belong in an optional air quality element.
Other Project Types
Air District Rules, Regulations and Air Quality Plans
Air district air quality plans. rules and regulations could have the potential to increase or
decrease GHG emissions within their respective jurisdiction. In general, air district air
quality plans. rules and regulations act to reduce ozone precursors, criteria air pollutant
and toxic air contaminant emissions. which would almost always act to reduce GHG
emissions simultaneously. However. this may not always be the case.
Air Ouality Plans
Air districts will have to include GHG emissions analysis as part of their criteria air
pollutant and toxic air contaminant air pollutant analysis when considering the adoption
of air quality plans and their subsequent rules and regulations needed to implement the
plans. Multiple models and methodologies will be needed to accomplish this analysts.
Regional Transportation Plans
Regional transportation plans would also need to be evaluated on a case -by -case basis to
determine if a net increase or decrease in GHG emissions would occur. Complex
interactions between the roadway network, operating conditions, alternative
transportation availability (such as public transit, bicycle pathways, and pedestrian
infrastructure), and many other independent parameters specific to a region should be
considered. Regional transportation models exist to estimate vehicular emissions
associated with regional transportation plans. which includes the ability to estimate GHG
emissions.
Normalization/Service Population !Metric
The above methodology would provide an estimate of the mass GHG emissions
generated by a proposed project, which could be compared to a mass emission threshold.
F.DAW developed a methodology that would measure a project's overall GHG efficiency
71
CEQA
and
Climate Change
in order to determine if a project is more efficient than the existing statewide average for
per capita GI IG emissions. The following steps could be employed to estimate the GHG -
"efficiency." which may be more directly correlated to the project's ability to help obtain
objectives outlined in AB 32, although it relies on establishment of an efficiency -based
significance threshold. The subcommittee believes this methodology may eventually be
appropriate to evaluate the long -term GHG emissions from a project in the context of
meeting AB 32 goals. However, this methodology will need substantially more work and
is not considered viable for the interim guidance presented in this white paper.
• Divide the total operational GIIG emissions by the Service Population (SP)
supported by the project (where SP is defined as the sum of the number of
residents and the number of jobs supported by the project). This value should be
compared to that of the projected statewide GHG emissions inventory from the
applicable end -use sectors (electricity generation, residential,
coin merciallinstitutiona1, and mobile- source) in 1990 divided by the projected
statewide SP for the year 2020 (i.e., Ali 32 requirements), to determine if the
project would conflict with legislative goals.
o If the project's operational GIiGlSP falls below AB 32 requirements, then
the project's GHG emissions are less than cumulatively considerable.
o If the project's operational GHG(SP exceed AB 32 requirements (a
substantial contribution), then the project's (if IG emissions would conflict
with legislative requirements. and the impact would he cumulatively
considerable and mitigation would be required where feasible.
• New stationary and area sources /facilities: calculate GIIG emissions using the
CCAR GRP. All GHG emissions associated with new stationary or area sources
should be treated as a net increase in emissions, and if deemed significant, should
he mitigated where feasible.
• Road or levee construction projects or other construction -only projects: calculate
GHG emissions using the RoadMod, which will be updated to contain GHG
emission factors from F.MFAC and OFFROAD. All construction- generated
GHG emissions should be treated as a net increase, and if deemed significant,
should be mitigated to the extent feasible.
• Air District rulemaking or air quality management plan -type projects should he
evaluated on a case -by -case basis for secondary impacts of increased GHG
emissions generation. In most cases. the types of projects that act to reduce
regional air pollution simultaneously act to reduce GHG emissions, and would be
beneficial, but should be evaluated for secondary effects from GHG emissions.
• Regional transportation plans should also be evaluated on a case -by -ease basis for
potential to either reduce or increase GHG emissions from the transportation
sector. F,MFAC can be utilized to determine the net change in GHG emissions
72
CEQA I wry
and
Climate Change
associated with projected vehicle VMT and from operating speed changes Chapter 8
associated with additional or alleviated congestion. Analytical
Methodologies
To achieve the goals of Al; 32, which are tied to GHG emission rates of specific For GHG
benchmark years (i.e.. 1990). California would have to achieve a lower rate of
emissions per unit of population and per unit of economic activity than it has now.
Further. in order to accommodate future population and economic growth, the state
would have to achieve an even lower rate of emissions per unit than was generated in
1990. (The goal to achieve 1990 quantities of GHG emissions by 2020 means that this
will need to be accomplished in light of 30 years of population and economic growth in
place beyond 1990.) 'Thus, future planning efforts that would not encourage new
development to achieve its fair share of reductions in GI 1131 emissions would conflict with
the spirit of the policy decisions contained in AB 32, thus impeding California's ability to
comply with the mandate.
Thus, if a statewide context for GHG emissions were pursued, any net increase in GHG
emissions within state boundaries would be considered "new" emissions. For example, a
land development project. such as a specific plan, does not necessarily create ..new"
emitters of GHG, but would theoretically accommodate a greater number of residents in
the state. Some of the residents that move to the project could already be California
residents, while some may be from out of state (or would 'take the place' of in -state
residents who 'vacate' their current residences to move to the new project). Some may
also be associated with new births over deaths (net population growth) in the state. The
out -of -state residents would be contributing new emissions in a statewide context. but
would not necessarily be generating new emissions in a global context. Given the
California context established by All 32, the project would need to accommodate an
increase in population in a manner that would not inhibit the state's ability to achieve the
goals of lower total mass of emissions.
The average net influx of new residents to California is approximately 1.4 percent per
year (this value represents the net increase in population. including the net contribution
from births and deaths). With population growth. California also anticipates economic
growth. Average statewide employment has grown by approximately 1.1 percent over
the last 15 years. The average percentage of population employed over the last 15 years
is 46 percent. Population is expected to continue growing at a projected rate of
approximately 1.5 percent per year through 2050. Long -range employment projection
data is not available from the California Department of Finance (DOF) and can be
extrapolated in different ways (e.g., linear extrapolation by percentage rate of change,
percentage of population employed, mathematical series expansion, more complex
extrapolation based on further research of demographic projections such as age
distribution). Further study would he needed to refine accurate employment projections
from the present to 2050. For developing this framework, employment is assumed to
have a constant proportionate relationship with the state's population. The projected
number of jobs is assumed to be roughly 46 percent of the projected population.
73
CEQA
and
Climate Change
In light of the statewide context established by California law, consistency is most
important for evaluating GI IG emissions from projects. Thus. UR13EMIS and the CCAR
GRP are the recommended tools for quantification of GHG emissions from most project
types in the short term. Over the long term. more sophisticated models that integrate the
relationship between GHG emissions and land use, transportation, energy, water, waste,
and other resources, and have similar application statewide would have better application
to the problem, but may not currently be as accessible or as easily operable. I- PI.ACE'S
and CTG Energetics' Sustainable Communities Model (SCM) are two examples of such
models that contain emission factors for GHGs, which could be refined to have
applicability statewide and made available to CEQA practitioners. Other models are
likely to be developed, given the importance of this issue.
Short -Term and Long -Term Methodologies
The following tools can be used to quantify a project's GHG emissions until tools that are
more comprehensive become available statewide:
I. I.and development projects: URBFMIS 2007 v. 9.2 and the CCAR GRP v. 2.2
(short- term): further development of I- PLACES or CTG's Sustainable
Communities Model (long- term).
2. New stationary and area sources/facilities: AP -42 Chapter 4.3, I.andGem v. 3.02,
and /or CCAR GRP v. 2.2.
3. Road or levee construction projects or other construction -only projects:
RuadMod /OFFROAD 2007.
Ideally. I- PLACF'3S or CfG's Sustainable Communities Model would be expanded to
apply to all regions of the state. These types of models use an integrated approach, which
is the best approach for reasonably approximating the emissions that result from
interaction between land uses, but neither is available to the public and would create
consistency problems in reporting emissions from projects across the state if these were
used today. However, a similar model with statewide applicability will likely be
developed due to the importance of the issue.Table 10
Summary of Modeling Tools for Estimating GI IG Emissions and Project Applicability
74
Table 10• Summary o(Modelina Tools for GHG Emissions
75
Data Input
Face of
Recommendation
Advantages!
Method/Tool
Availability
Applicability
Scope
(Requirements
lase
Data Output
Comments
Disadvantages
Description
and Guidance)
-Does our quantifi'
Land use
- Recommended for•
indirect emissions from
information,
land vac
cnerKi. consumption or
Land development
cn+strvc(iun and
Afobile- source
development and
other C,HG.m (et'eepr
Public domain
and construction
operational data
Cons(nu:(ior &.
construction
nrerhane frorn mobile -
URRI? 115
Uocmload
projects
Local
Fairl��
and assumptions
Operational CO,
projects
sources)
2007
Atmw.ur'benris.co
(construction.
Easv.
/e.g.. jurisdic«or,
llh /drq• o�
-Also recommended
-Frye, availuhlc to public.
m %see gfcha+;yc
mobile- and a-eu-
acres of land use
nns!i�earj
for net chanKC in
uml applicable.snr",ide
.mobile emissions'!
npe. Year 0. f
land use (zoning
- Midely u.med for
operation, etc./
changes)
assessment of other air
qualify impacts
- Recornnrended fen
Indirect emissions
indirect en+i.rsions
- Cunruir+.r emi.msiot jaerors
California
from land
from vnergv
for CH, and ;V :O in
Climate
fCvt'lopnurN
develop
consumption for
addition to CO,
Action
Puhlir guidance
E'nergv
C-O:c• (dletric
land are
-Does not contain
Registry
document
svutionar)T- and
State
Ease.
consumption
ton.s/1 ar)
development
emission factors broken
General
area -so rcc
projects, and for
down by utilin. provider
Reporting
facilitiCS
nee+' stationar- or
(stuten•ide average grid
Protocol v. 2.2
regulated under
area- sources n be
nnft)
AR i2
r {Kulated
- Recommended for
Clean Air and
Public agencies
Local
Enrrgv usage.
inientories of loral
Climate
Projection
inrcmbers of
governments used
Lucaf
waste
:V%A
CO'e (tnnsivear)
government entitics
"Not araifubfc 1u public
ICLF,1. ,V.4Cda, or
jut ernic.cinnv
gerrre•ra(ion/di.grn.caf
uctirifie.c /must he a
I('AC'P)
similar)
inventrnies
transportation
member of uirliated
Software
ngeuc.p or grn+P)
Land use
C'l G
information.
-An integrated and
Sustainable
Custom model
Land development
cgioml,
operational
Poi:4 (mabilc. Cner�t
CO.r !tntuyear)
coo rehensire
p
-h'nr available «, public
Communities
scalable,
s
modeling tool. but
Model
economic'
cannot obtain
infrastrucnve)
assunquiors
75
A7ethod /'1'o0l
Availability
Applicahilih
ticope
Ease of
Data Input
(Re quirements
Data Output
Recommendation
Advantages/
Description
�•9e
and Guidance)
Comments
Disadvantages
-Not freely urailable m
- Recommended for
Psuhlic
.4ccccfce through
land use
-` uhle tac,
Ant applic vide
local COG
dcve•lupmenl
-Acnmlly provides in.yight
I- PL.4CF.'S
Only available for
Lord are chnngr
Rexipnal,
Fairy:
Parcel ulfirnnntinn
CO: rlh/dnr or
projects find land
into land test interaction
eixht California
scalable
Fear
tons:hvar)
use changes
-Can include ten .specific
counties
- Espeeirdlt good for
project attributes
general plans
-"Trip rates are fnom
behavioral survev data,
instead of
-Abu recommended
for pour projects
-Can compare emissions
(URBEMIS
hased on speed -
EMFAC2007
Public domain
On -road mobile-
Stateuide.
Fairiv
Vehicle fleet
CO,
preferred)
distribution
sources
regional
F"asr
infonnotiorr
(grants /n Be)
-Could he used for
- E,nixaon Jac tors
certain Air District
contained inURBF"AIIS
Rulentaking
-Not a smnd -alone model
applications
-Not recommended
(URBE.MIS
Of -road mobile
preferred)
D
Public dnmaiu
sources
Statewide.
Fairh
Cnrusnuct;on fleet
CO: /lhidut')
-could be used Inv
�
certain AL- Diurua
- limissinn Jiuctors
2007
2007
(conctnaann
regionn!
Easy
infnnuat;mr
�
contn;nerl;n 1'RHEA4IS
equipment/
uapplications n s Inc:
applications
construction
equipment/
Of) -mad and o,u-
RoadMod
road muhile
- Reeononended fn-
(to Ex updated
sources
-use
Cnnsnuction
CO, Obase or
construction -ony'
-lo be updated to support
include
Public domain
(construction
Statewide
t.
inj�nnatinrr
trnrs:projcc0
projects /linear in
ern;SSions factors _from
c
C "U`)
equipment and
nature; i.e., levees.
OFFROAD 2007
material haul
roads. pipelines)
mucks)
76
1le 'o0l
Availability
ApplicaM1llih
Scope
Ease of
Data Input
(Requirements
Data Output
Recommendation
Advantages/
Description
Use
and Guidance)
Comments
Disadvantages
Di f Jicllt
(consists of
a .series nf
- f;:N1•a C•files
-,Vol updated to support
three
- 'I'rafc model
E,bffAC 2007 emission
programs
output ,files (e.g..
fiavocs
DTIM
Public domain
On -road mobile-
Statewide.
and
link, inic+=onal, and
CO: no'vrnrl
-r4br rrcununended
-Input files include (,Input
.solaces
regional
requires
es
trip end data/
,files from regional
input ffes
- C,seroptionsfile
transportation models
from traffic
- optional fifes
which more acc'm'ateh'
and
re'flr•r t V.41T
emissions
modeling)
Southeast
L'Ji" Local
-.Vol
-.Vol recommended
Climate
Change
Public domain
government/
Local
Fnergv usage.
use in
California. hutcould
- Applicabifily for UK. but
htt /iwuw.rlinmu'
ph
agcnnec/
o+gmti�rrtio +ts
carroty.
Fairly easy
waste
generation: disposal
Co.
(tonnes /year)
he a vahmble sourer
.
could he updated with CA-
Spreadsheet
Spreadsh a
southeast nrg.uk/
used fr)r emissions
regional
, transportation
for huildi+ ;¢ an
spccili<• emission factors
(UK)
nrrnrories
applicable
spreadsheet model
F.a.t%
- Substantial niveareh
EPA AP -42:
GNC enti.s.sion.s
equation;
Biochemical nxcgmn
- Recommended for
needed to determine the
Cvaporation
I'uhlic reference
front waste water
Facilin
suhstantiaf
demand (BOD/
Publicly owned
' fraction anaerobicallr
Loss Sources
document
treatment
level
research
loading, Fraction
0114 /lh!yeary
treannertr works
digested" parameter,
Chapter
p
_facilities
needed la
amaerobically
(YO11f)prnjcetc
which is dependent (,m the
use
digested
Itpc of treatment
plantiprocec.c
- Emission rates change
Puhlic domain
GIIG emissions
Sulid waste
dependent nn years of
m v.
II1p::7www.epagn
front anaerobic'
decomposition
Moderate
Processing. year u%
CO:. CH. (.47ega
- Recommended for
decomp)sition. waste in
3.02
3.02
m /crrtc.dirl /Ian
Lore!
Level
analysis, liletirne of
grams. cearl
landfill emissions
place rates of change.
dgem- st7(1 ?..rls
dg
associated with
sc'aste to place
-Complex decomposition
P -
landfill's
I
tale equation, but good
first appro.rimation
77
Method/Tool Availability Applicability Scope
Description
Ease of Data Input
Use (Requirements
and C:uidance)
Recommendation
Data Output
Comments
Advantages/
Disadvantages
- Reeummended (nr
Stationary .source
repnrtinl; facilities
under AR 32 and for
- Extimamv all GHC.c and
rwissinnc. rehirle f «cilia
CARROT Regi.vtrt• menthes epni Far!
I4u'ilih•- xnec'r'Jic
Moderate Facimatian
A11 Gll(is indirect emissions
nnrnralizec to (n_e
mobile
from enerkr
-Air puhlicly availah/e
srntrn .c
consumption /C(-.AR
Protocoil
Kok"
6H(i - greenhuuec gas, All aixembh' bill. C(1;e ° carlxw dioxide equivalent. (ll, - methane. V;17 - ourous oxide. COG crnmciI of governments . I'IF - IMUtute of 'I ranipunatimi Fagircerc. CCAR -
Cahfisnia Chmuk- Acwm Rceistn
Sourcc Data compdcJ by HDAW and the Culdomta Air Pulluuon Conunl Olficcrx Aq. c -iauon in 2(X17
78
91
for GHG
CEQA
and
Climate Change
Chapter 9
Introduction Mitigation
Strategies for
This chapter (and Appendix R) identifies existing and potential mitigation measures GHG
that could be applied to projects during the CEQA process to reduce a project's GHG
emissions that would be identified using the analytical methodologies included in this
white paper. The Subcommittee retained the services of EDAW to assist with this effort.
EDAW performed a global search of mitigation measures currently in practice and under
study that would reduce GHG emissions.
Table 16 (Appendix R) provides a brief description of each measure along with an
assessment of their feasibility (from a standpoint of' economical. technological, and
logistical feasibility, and emission reduction effectiveness). and identifies their potential
for secondary impacts to air quality. During the global search performed, EDAW also
took note of GHG reduction strategies being implemented as rules and regulation (e.g.,
early action items under AR 32), which are summarized in Table 18 (Appendix C). It is
important to note that though compliance with such would be required by regulation for
some sources, such strategies may be applicable to other project and source types.
The recurring theme that echoes throughout a majority of these measures is the shift
toward New Urbanism. and research has consistently shown that implementation of
Neotraditional Development techniques reduces VMT and associated emissions. The
material reviewed assessed reductions from transportation - related measures (e.g.. bicycle.
pedestrian, transit, and parking) as a single comprehensive approach to land use. This
comprehensive approach focuses on development design criteria conducive to enhancing
alternate modes of transportation. including transit, walking, and bicycling.
Transportation Demand Management (fDM) programs are viewed as a mechanism to
implement specific measures. TDM responsibilities may include offering incentives to
potential users of alternative modes of transportation and monitoring and reporting mode
split changes.
The comprehensive approach makes it more difficult to assess reductions attributable to
each measure. Nevertheless, there is a strong interrelationship between many of the
measures, which justifies a combined approach. Consider the relationship between bike
parking nonresidential, bike parking residential. endtrip facilities, and proximity to bike
path bike lane measures. In reality, these measures combined act as incentives for one
individual to bike to work, while implementation of a single measure without the others
reduces effectiveness.
The global nature of GIIG emissions is an important feature that enables unique
mitigation: abatement. When designing a project subject to CEQA, the preferred practice
is first to avoid. then to minimize, and finally to compensate for impacts. Where the
impact cannot be mitigated on -site, off =site mitigation is often and effectively
implemented in several resource areas, either in the form of offsetting the same impact or
preserving the resource elsewhere in the region. Frequently. mitigation fee programs or
funds are established, where the proponent pays into the program and fees collected
79
CEQA
0�
Climate Change
throughout the region or state are used to implement projects that, in turn, proportionately
offset the impacts of the projects to the given resource. It may be more cost - effective to
reduce as much GHG on -site as feasible (economically and technologically). Then the
propoment would pay into a "6116 retrofit fund" to reduce equivalent GHG emissions
off -site. In contrast to regional air pollutant offset programs such as the Carl Moyer
Program, it matters greatly where reductions of ozone precursors occur, as ozone affects
regional air quality. The GHG retrofit fund could be used to provide incentives to
upgrade older buildings and make them more energy efficient. This would reduce
demand on the energy sector and reduce stationary source emissions associated with
utilities. This program has been successfully implemented in the Onited Kingdom where
developments advertise "carbon neutrality." Of course, some GIIG emissions occur
associated with operation of the development, but the development would offset the
remainder of emissions through ofT site retrofit. Avoiding emissions that would
otherwise continue to occur at existing development would be a unique opportunity for
mitigation of GHG emissions. Reduction of GHG emissions also may have important
side benefits including reduction of other forms of pollution.
Depending on the significance threshold concept adopted, projects subject to the CEQA
process would either qualitatively or quantitatively identify the amount of GHG
emissions associated with their project using the analytical methodologies identified in
the previous chapter. The analysis would then apply the appropriate number of
mitigation measures listed in Appendix B to their project to reduce their GHG emissions
below the significance level. Calculating the amount of GIIG emission reductions
attributable to a given mitigation measure would require additional research. The
examples below illustrate how a project would be mitigated using this approach.
Residential Project Example
Project Attributes:
• 68 detached dwelling units
• 15.9 acres
• Located in unincorporated Placer County PCAPCD jurisdiction)
• Assume L'RBEMIS defaults for a rural project in Placer County, in absence of a
traffic study (This is contrary to the recommendations contained under Task l; a
traffic study is necessary to asses project - specific GHG emissions).
• Analysis year 2009
80
CE(QA ` r►r%,a
and
Climate Change
Table 11: Residential Protect Example GHG Emissions Estimates with Mitigation
URBEMIS Output
Metric
CRBEMIS Output
Metric
percent
(Unmitigated)
Tons/Year COze
I °� ear Cz
Reduction
.Area - source emissions
252
.Area - source emissions
215
14.6
Mobile - source
1,047
Mobile- source emissions
916
12.5
emissions
Total direct operational
1,299
'Total operational
1.131
12.9
emissions (area *
emissions (area + mobile)
mobile)
Notes:
CO:e - carbon dioxide equivalent
Sources: Data compiled by EDAW in 2007
Using UR13EMIS 2007 and assuming the project would implement the mitigation
measures listed below, yearly project - generated emissions of COie would be reduced by
approximately 13 percent. Implementation of the following mitigation measures is
assumed:
• 100 housing units within one- half -mile radius of project's center. including this
project's 68 residential units;
• provision of 80jobs in the study area:
a retail uses present with one- half -mile radius of project's center.-
• 10 intersections per square mile:
• 100% of streets with sidewalks on one side;
• 50% of streets with sidewalks on both sides;
• 30% of collectors and arterials with bike lanes. or where suitable, direct parallel
routes exist:
• ) 5% of housing units deed restricted below market rate:
• 20% energy efficiency increase beyond Title 24: and
• 100% of landscape maintenance equipment electrically powered and electrical
outlets in front and rear of units.
81
:hapter 9
Mitigation
Strategies for
GHG
CEQA
e.o
Climate Change
Example Project Methodolop, and Mitigation
Table 12 - Residential Projects Example MethodoloaN and Mitieation
Source
Methodology
Mitigation
Direct Emissions
Construction
Direct Emissions
MM C -1—MM C -4
emission factors)
Construction
CRBF.MIS (OFFROAD
MM C -I —MM C -4
emission factors)
MM'1' -I5. MM T -17,MM T -21
emission factors)
MM D -I,MM D -3, MM D -S-+
While Sources
URBEMIS (EMF.AC
MM T -3 - »MM '1' -8.
MM
T -10,
emission factors)
MM '1 -14. MM T -16.
MM
T -19,
MM S -I MM S -2
MM T -21
MM tit -1 -•MM M -2
Area Sources
URBEMIS
MM D- 14 - »MM D -17
MM G1, MM E -4- NIM E -13,
MM D -2, \1M D -8,
MM
D -10,
MM E- 16—MM 1,24
MM D -15. MM D -17
MM S- I —MM S -2
MM M -1,MM M -2
Area Sources
URBENIS
MM D- 13 NIM O -I5, M.M
MM E -I,MM F -8.
MM G12,MM E-23
D -17
MM
f•:10,
Indirect Emissions
Energy Consumption
('CAR GRP R CFTC'
MM S -I —MM S -2
MM M -1 MM M -2
Table 13 -Commercial Projects Example Methodolo and Ntiti Ration
Source
Methodology
Mitigation
Direct Emissions
Construction
"'"FM'S (OFFROAD
MM C -1—MM C -4
emission factors)
Mobile Sources
URBIfMIS (F.MFAC
NM T -I -aMM T -2, MM T -4,
emission factors)
MM'1' -I5. MM T -17,MM T -21
MM D -I,MM D -3, MM D -S-+
MM D -6. NM D -10. AIM D -12,
MM D -14,MM D -17
MM E -24
MM S -I MM S -2
MM tit -1 -•MM M -2
Area Sources
URBEMIS
MM D- 14 - »MM D -17
MM G1, MM E -4- NIM E -13,
Indirect Emissions
Energy Consumption CCAR GRP K CEC
MM E- 16—MM 1,24
MM S -I MM S -2 MM M-1 —MM M -2
82
CEQA nra t
Climate Change
Table 14 -Specific Plains Example methodology and Mitigation
Source Methodology
Mitigation
Direct Emissions
Construction
URBEMIS (OFFROAD
AIM C -1 �M.M C -4
MS G -1
emission factors)
MM T -I MM T -21
Mobile Sources
Short-term: t:RBEMIS
Short-term: CRBEMIS
(EAIFAC emission factors).
(EMFAC emission factors).
Long -term: I-
MM D -I,MM D -12, MM D -18,
Long -term:
PL.ACE'SiCTG SCM
\1M D -19
I- PLACF.'S+CTG SCM
MM E -24
Short-term: CRBF.MIS
MSG -I
MM S -I MM S -2
(EMFAC emission factors).
MS G -8 --MS C -11, MS G -134,
MM M -1 ,MM M -2
Area Sources
Short-tern: UKBEMIS
MM D- 13 --+MM D -19
I- PLACE'S: CTG SCM
(EMFAC emission factors).
Indirect Emissions
Energy Consumption
Long -term: I-
MM E- I —MM F-24
CF.C. Long -term: t-
PI.ACF.'S.'CTG SCM
MM S -I —MM S -2
MM M -I —MM M -2
Indirect Emissions
Energy Consumption
Short-term: CCAR GRP &
CF.C. Long -term: 1-1
PLACE4S.ICTC, SCM
General Plans
• Include a general plan policy to reduce emissions within planning area to a level
consistent with legislative requirements.
• Implementation strategies include preparation of a GHG reduction plan.
• Projects consistent with a general plan could be responsible for complying with
such a policy.
Table 15 -General Plans Examole Methodoloey and Mitieation
Source
Methodology
Mitigation
Direct Emissions
Construction
CRBEMIS (OFFROAD
MS G -1
emission factors).
MM G -15
Mobile Sources
Short-term: CRBEMIS
MS G -1
(EMFAC emission factors).
MS 6-2 —MS C -7, MS G -9, MS G -12.
Long -term:
11S -13 -- CMS -14, MS- 16—MS-23
I- PLACF.'S+CTG SCM
Area Sources
Short-term: CRBF.MIS
MSG -I
(EMFAC emission factors).
MS G -8 --MS C -11, MS G -134,
Long -term:
MSG -12, MS -15. MS -17, MS -22
I- PLACE'S: CTG SCM
Indirect Emissions
Energy Consumption
Short-term: CCAR RP &
CF.C. Long -term: t-
PLACE'S.CTG SCM
83
Mitigation
Strategies for
GHG
CEQA
and
Climate Change
Other Project Types
Air District Rules and Regulations
Air district rules and regulations could have the potential to increase or decrease GHG
emissions within the respective jurisdiction. In general, air district rules and regulations
act to decrease criteria air pollutant or toxic air contaminant emissions, which would
usually act to reduce GI IG emissions simultaneously. However, this may not always be
the case and air district rules and regulations could address emissions from a large variety
of different source types. Reductions of GHG emissions associated with implementation
of applicable mitigation, which could also vary greatly, would need to be evaluated on a
case -by -case basis. However, once applicable mitigation measures are identified, percent
reductions based on the best available research to date, such as those specified in Table
15, could be applied to determine mitigated emissions.
Air Quality Plans
Similarly to air district rules and regulations, air quality plans could have the potential to
increase or decrease GHG emissions because of criteria air pollutant reduction strategies.
In general, strategies implemented by air districts to reduce criteria air pollutants also act
to reduce GHG emissions. However, this may not always he the case. Reductions of
GHG emissions associated with implementation of applicable mitigation would need to
be evaluated on a case -by -case basis. The methodology identified above for determining
whether the strategics contained within the GHG reduction plan would adhere to the level
specified in general plan policy could also be used to determine the reductions associated
with CAP strategies.
Regional Transportation Plans
Regional transportation plans and reductions of GHG emissions associated with
implementation of applicable mitigation would also need to be evaluated on a case -by-
case basis to determine if a net increase or decrease in GHG emissions would occur.
Complex interactions between the roadway network, operating conditions, alternative
transportation availability (such as public transit, bicycle pathways, and pedestrian
infrastructure), and many other independent parameters specific to a region should be
considered. EMPAC 2007 can be used with VM7' from the RTP to create an inventory of
GHG emissions. Reductions associated with implementation of applicable measures
contained in Table 16 could be accomplished by accounting for VMT reductions in the
traffic model.
84
CEQA C_AP_COA
Chapter 10: Examples of Other Approaches Climate Change
Chapter 10
Many states. counties, and cities have developed policies and regulations concerning Examples of
greenhouse gas emissions that seek to require or promote reductions in GHG Other
emissions through standards for vehicle emissions, fuels, electricity Approaches
production /renewables, building efficiency, and other means. however, we could
only identify three public agencies in the United States that are considering formally
requiring the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change for development
projects during their associated environmental processes. There may he others. but they
were not identified during research conducted during preparation of this paper.
The following is a summary of those three efforts.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts - MEPA Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy and
Protocol
The Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) has
determined that the phrase "damage to the environment" as used in the Massachusetts
Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) includes the emission of greenhouse gases caused by
projects subjects to MEPA Review. EEA has published a Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Policy (GGEP) to fulfill the statutory obligation to take all feasible measurers to avoid.
minimize or mitigate damage to the environment.
The GGEP concerns the following projects only:
• The Commonwealth or a state agency is the proponent;
• The Commonwealth or a state agency is providing financial assistance;
• The project is privately funded, but requires an Air Quality Permit from the
department of Environmental Protection:
• The project is privately funded, but will generate:
0 3,000 or more new vehicle trips per day for office projects;
0 6,000 or more new vehicle trips per day for mixed use projects that are
25% or more office space; or
0 10.000 or more new vehicle trips per day for other projects.
As a comparison, the trip generation amounts correspond as follows:
• 3,000 vehicle trips per day = approximately 250,000 square foot office
development;
• 6,000 or more new vehicle trips per day for mixed use projects that are 25% or
more office space = if 25% office space, then equivalent to approximately
130,000 square feet of office and either 100.000 square feet of retail or 450
single- family residential units or some combination thereof.
• 10.000 or more new vehicle trips per day = approximately 1.000 single family
residential units or 250,000 square feet retail.
85
CEQA
•.a
Climate Change
The draft policy states it is not intended to create a numerical GI IG emission limit or a
numerical GHG emissions reduction target, but rather to ensure that project proponents
and reviewers have considered the GI IG emissions impacts of their projects and taken all
feasible means and measure to reduce those impacts.
The draft policy notes that some projects within these categories will have little or no
greenhouse gas emission and the policy will not apply to such projects. EEA intends to
identify in the scoping certificate whether a project falls within this de minimis exception.
The GGEP requires qualifying projects to do the following:
• to quantify their GHG emissions:
• identify measures to minimize or mitigate such emissions;
• quantify the reduction in emissions and energy savings from mitigation.
Emissions inventories are intended to focus on carbon dioxide, but analysis of other
GIIGs may be required for certain projects. EEA will require analysis of direct GGH
emissions and indirect (electricity and transportation) emissions. The GGEP references
the protocols prepared by the World Resource Institute as guidance for inventory
preparation.
The policy is still in draft form, but the comment period closed on August 10, 2007.
King County, Washington - Executive Order on the Evaluation of Climate Change
Impacts through the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
On June 27, 2007, the King County Executive Ron Sims directed all King County
Departments, as follows:
.....effective September 1. 2007 to require that climate impacts,
including, but not limited to those pertaining to greenhouse gases,
he appropriatel V identified and evaluated when such Departments
are acting as the lead ugenev in reviewing the environmental
impacts of private or public proposals pursuant to the State
Environmental Policy Act ".
The Executive Order does not define what a "climate impact" is. Based on statements of
the County Deputy Chief of Staff
• County agencies will ask project proponents to supply information on
Transportation. energy usage and other impacts of proposed projects using the
County's existing SEPA checklist.
Marten Law Group: Lnvironmental News, August I. 2007, "King County (WA) First in Nation to
Require Climate Change Impacts to be Considered During Environmental Review of New Projects'.
86
CEC.A I .,tLr% %Lt%
Climate Change
• There is no current plan to require project proponents to take action to mitigate Chapter 10
the impacts identifies. Examples of
• Development of emissions thresholds and mitigation requirements will be Other
undertaken in connection with the County's upcoming 2008 update of its Approaches
Comprehensive Plan.
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Qualih, Management District
The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District released an interim
guidance on addressing climate change in CEQA documents on September 6. 2007.
While very general in nature, the District recommends that CEQA environmental
documents include a discussion of anticipated GHG emissions during both the
construction and operation phases of the project. This includes assessing the GHG
emissions from projects (using readily available models) to determine whether a project
may have a significant impact. If so. then the District recommends addressing all of the
District's GHG mitigation measures (drawn from comments made by the California
Attorney General) — with explanations on how the mitigation will be implemented or
providing rationale for why a measure would be considered infeasible. The District
provides assistance to agencies in their analysis of GHG emissions and the applicability
of specific mitigation measures. The District's guidance can be found at:
hitp://64.143.64.2 I /climatechange /CI imateChangeCEQAguidance.pdf
Mendocino Air Quality Management District — CEQA Guidelines
The Mendocino AQMD updated its "Guidelines for Use During Preparation of Air
Quality Impacts in FIRS or Mitigated Negative Declarations" in May 2007. The
guidelines call for preparing estimates of the increased emissions of air contaminations
(including GHG) for projects.
The guidelines state that GHG emissions should be presumed to have a significant impact
if CO emissions from District - approved modeling exceed either of the following:
• 80% of the level defined as significant for stationary sources in Regulation I, Rule
130 (s2) of the District (which is 550 Ibs!day for CO, meaning a threshold of 440
Ibs /day for CO for stationary sources); or
• levels established in District Regulation I Rule 130 (i2) for indirect sources
(which is 690 Ibs /day for CO for indirect sources).
If an average passenger vehicle emits 22 grams of CO /mile and 0.8 lb /mile of CO2, then the 690-
lb/day threshold for CO corresponds to approximately 11,400 lb/day CO, threshold for passenger
vehicle - related emissions. If one assumes that the average passenger vehicle goes 12.500
miles/year (about 35 miles /day), then this is a threshold equivalent to about 320 vehicles. Using
an average in California of about 1.77 vehicles household, this would correspond to about 250
households /dwelling units.
87
Appendix A
Relevant Citations
Appendix A: Relevant Citations
CEQA
and
Climate Change
Citations from the Public Resources Code (Division 13 &21000 et sea) as amended Appendix A
through January I, 2005.
Public Resources Code — Section 21004, MITIGATING OR AVOIDING A
SIGNIFICANT EFFECT; POWERS OF PUBLIC AGENCY: 1
"in mitigating or avoiding a significant effect of a project on the environment, a public
agency may exercise only those express or implied powers provided by law other than
this division. However, a public agency may use discretionary powers provided by such
other law for the purpose of mitigating or avoiding a significant effect on the
environment subject to the express or implied constraints or limitations that may be
provided by laww."
Public Resources Code — Section 21082.2, SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON
ENVIRONMENT; DETERMINATION; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PREPARATION:
(a) The lead agency shall determine whether a project may have a significant effect on
the environment based on substantial evidence in light of the whole record.
(b) The existence of public controversy over the environmental effects of a project shall
not require preparation of an environmental impact report if there is no substantial
evidence in light of the whole record before the lead agency that the project may have a
significant effect on the environment.
(c) Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is
clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not
contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment, is not
substantial evidence. Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions
predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supponed by facts.
(d) If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency,
that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact
report shall be prepared.
(e) Statements in an environmental impact report and comments with respect to an
environmental impact report shall not be deemed determinative of whether the project
may have a significant effect on the environment.
Citations from the Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act CCK Title 14
Division 6 (& 15000 et seq.) as amended through July 27 2007.
AG- Anonie) General, ARB -California Air Resources Hoard, AS 'M= American Suciel) fur Testing and Material. BAAQMR -na)
Area Air Qualm Management Diw et. HtF.S= Building for FrIvuonnii and [commie Sumunandny. CA- California.
Callians- Califurnm Deonmcnt ut Transponaunn. CAPs=<'rilena Air Pollutants. OCAP4'enler for Clean Air Policy.
CF- Coimectn Ily Factor. CUVNB "California Integrated Waste Management Hewd, CO- Carton Momxide. CO:-Carbon Dioxide.
IXS= l)cfenmenl of(ieneral Scrvmes. IX)F -U S Department of Lei DPP= Diesel paniculate Filter. F85- 8S% FthwoL
SERE- Enercy ElTiciencv and Renewable Fmp. POI = Fnevclopedia of Earth. EPA-U S Fnvnonmental Protection Agency.
F rC -Ldmunlun - fndlcy Coalition. LVx:CNG -Eleclnc Vehrclee/Compressed Natural Gas. PAR -Floor Area Ratio, GIIG- Greenhouse
(ias, I "IT- Insulate of "I"lanspnnatmn Engineers, kg:mikflogram per utuare rosier. km= Kilometer. Il>- pound, ITED- Leader hip in
Energy and Environmental Deugn. M- Million. NA- Not Avadahle. NFV= Ncighhorhuud Flectnc Vehicle. NISI Nuhond Institute
of Staidurdi and I eehmlogy. Nox- Oxidcs of Nitrogen. NREL-National Renesvahle Energy Laboratory. NrS =Nmh South.
PG &F.- Pacilw (ias and Ficeiric, PM-Panicolale Matter, SJV.APCD -San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Convol District.
SNAQ.%fD- tiaeramenlo Mevalwhtan Art Qua) t) hlmxagcrneN Ihstnct SMCD-Sacramenio Mumopel IJtdmis Duusl, SO, -SulNr
(hide, SRI -Solon R<Reclance Irdex, "fACs I "oar, Air Contaminants. T DM= Transportation Demand Management,
IMA= I "ramsponaunn Slamizement Association, III(' -Ifoal II)drocarbon, ULFV =Uhm Low Lmssion Vehicle. CS(iH(' -11 S Green
Budding Council. and VTPI - Victoria Transit Pol icy
A -1
CEQA ten_"
Climate Change
State CEQA Guidelines — Section 15064, DETERMINING THE Appendix A
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS CAUSED BY A
PROJECT:
(a) Determining whether a project may have a significant effect plays a critical role in
the CEQA process.
(1) If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before a lead agency. that
a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the agency shall prepare a
draft FIR.
(2) When a final FIR identifies one or more significant effects, the Lead Agency, and each
Responsible Agency shall make a finding under Section 15091 for each significant effect
and may need to make a statement of overriding considerations under Section 15093 for
the project.
(b)'I*hc determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the
environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based
to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. An ironclad definition of significant
effect is not always possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the
setting. For example. an activity which may not be significant in an urban area may be
significant in a rural area.
(c) In determining whether an cftcct will be adverse or beneficial, the lead Agency shall
consider the views held by members of the public in all areas affected as expressed in the
whole record before the lead agency. Before requiring the preparation of an EIR, the
Lead Agency must still determine whether environmental change itself might be
substantial.
(d) In evaluating the significance of the environmental effect of a project, the Lead
Agency shall consider direct physical changes in the environment which may he caused
by the project and reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment
which may be caused by the project.
(1) A direct physical change in the environment is a physical change in the environment
which is caused by and immediately related to the project. Examples of direct physical
changes in the environment are the dust, noise. and traffic of heavy equipment that would
result from construction of a sewage treatment plant and possible odors from operation of
the plant.
(2) An indirect physical change in the environment is a physical change in the
environment which is not immediately related to the project, but which is caused
indirectly by the project. If a direct physical change in the environment in turn causes
another change in the environment, then the other change is an indirect physical change
in the environment. For example, the construction of a new sewage treatment plant may
facilitate population growth in the service area due to the increase in sewage treatment
capacity and may lead to an increase in air pollution.
(3) An indirect physical change is to be considered only if that change is a reasonably
foreseeable impact which may be caused by the project. A change which is speculative
or unlikely to occur is not reasonably foreseeable.
(e) Economic and social changes resulting from a project shall not be treated as
significant effects on the environment. Economic or social changes may be used.
however, to determine that a physical change shall be regarded as a significant effect on
the environment. Where a physical change is caused by economic or social effects of a
CEQA
Climate Change
project, the physical change may be regarded as a significant effect in the same Appendix A
manner as any other physical change resulting from the project. Alternatively,
economic and social effects of a physical change may he used to determine that the
physical change is a significant effect on the environment. If the physical change
causes adverse economic or social effects on people, those adverse effects may be
used as a factor in determining whether the physical change is significant. For example.
if a project would cause overcrowding of a public facility and the overcrowding causes an
adverse effect on people, the overcrowding would be regarded as a significant effect.
(f) The decision as to whether a project may have one or more significant effects shall be
based on substantial evidence in the record of the lead agency.
(I) if the lead agency determines there is substantial evidence in the record that the
project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an
EIR (Friends of B Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988). Said another
way, if a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a
significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it
may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a
significant effect (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68).
(2) If the lead agency determines there is substantial evidence in the record that the
project may have a significant effect on the environment but the lead agency determines
that revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant
would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant
effect on the environment would occur and there is no substantial evidence in light of the
whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant
effect on the environment then a mitigated negative declaration shall be prepared.
(3) If the lead agency determines there is no substantial evidence that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare a negative
declaration (Friends of B Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App. 3d 988).
(4) The existence of public controversy over the environmental effects of a project will
not require preparation of an EIR if there is no substantial evidence before the agency
that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
(5) Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, or evidence that is
clearly inaccurate or erroneous. or evidence that is not credible, shall not constitute
substantial evidence. Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions
predicated upon facts, and expert opinion support by facts.
(6) Evidence of economic and social impacts that do not contribute to or are not caused
by physical changes in the environment is not substantial evidence that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment.
(7) "I'he provisions of sections 15162. 15163. and 15164 apply when the project being
analyzed is a change to, or further approval for. a project for which an EIR or negative
declaration was previously certified or adopted (e.g. a tentative subdivision. conditional
use permit). Under case law, the fair argument standard does not apply to determinations
of significance pursuant to sections 15162. 15163, and 15164.
(g) After application of the principles set forth above in Section 15064(f)(8), and in
marginal cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence that a project
may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall be guided by the
following principle: If there is disagreement among expert opinion supported by facts
A -3
CECA
30d
Climate Change
over the significance of an effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall treat the Appendix A
effect as significant and shall prepare an GIR.
(h)(1) When assessing whether a cumulative effect requires an FIR. the lead agency
shall consider whether the cumulative impact is significant and whether the effects of
the project are cumulatively considerable. An FIR must be prepared if the
cumulative impact may be significant and the project's incremental effect, though
individually limited, is cumulatively considerable. "Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.
(2) A lead agency may determine in an initial study that a project's contribution to a
significant cumulative impact will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable and
thus is not significant. When a project might contribute to a significant cumulative
impact, but the contribution will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable through
mitigation measures set forth in a mitigated negative declaration, the initial study shall
briefly indicate and explain how the contribution has been rendered less than
cumulatively considerable.
(3) A lead agency may determine that a project's incremental contribution to a
cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the
requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program which provides
specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem
water quality control plan, air quality plan. integrated waste management plan) within the
geographic area in which the project is located. Such plans or programs must be
specified in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected
resources through a public review process to implement, interpret, or make specific the
law enforced or administered by the public agency. If there is substantial evidence that
the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable
notwithstanding that the project complies with the specified plan or mitigation program
addressing the cumulative problem, an FIR must be prepared for the project.
(4) The mere existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone
shall not constitute substantial evidence that the proposed project's incremental effects
are cumulatively considerable.
State CEQA Guidelines — Section 15130, DISCUSSION OF CUMULATIVE
IMPACTS:
(a)(3). "An EIR may determine that a project's contribution to a significant cumulative
impact will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable and thus is not significant. A
project's contribution is less than cumulatively considerable if the project is required to
implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure or measures designed to alleviate
the cumulative impact. the lead agency shall identify facts and analysis supporting its
conclusion that the contribution will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable.
State CEQA Guidelines — Section 15064.7, THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
"Each public agency is encouraged to develop and publish thresholds of significance that
the agency uses in the determination of the significance of environmental effects. A
threshold of significance is an identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level
CEQA I a Arut
and
Climate Change
of a particular environmental effect, non - compliance with which means the effect I Appendix A
will normally be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with
which means the effect normally will be determined to he less than significant."
A -5
CEQA nr�
Appendix B: Mitigation Measure Summary Climate Change
Appendix B
Appendix B
Mitigation Measure Summary
Mitigation
Meawe
MINI T -I: Bike
Parking
MM T -2: End of
Trip Facilities
MM T -3: Bike -
Parking at Multi-
Applicable Effective
ProjectlSolrce
Type'
Emissions
Reduction/ScoW
f5[T=
LD (C. N1). I,
1 % -5% Risk CC.AP
sP.'rP, .AQP,
presents combined %
RR, P /Mobile
reductions for a range
of mitigation measures
(Dierkers et al. 2007).
SMAQMD allocates
combined reductions
among individual
measures (e.�.. 2.5%
I,D (C, M), 1,
reduction for all
SP. 'f P. AQP,
bicycle - related
RR. P;Mobile
measures and one -
quarter of 2.5% for
each individual
measure) (TIAX 2005.
EDAM' 2006,
SMAQMD 2007).
VTPI presents %
reductions for showers
and combined
LD (R• M),
measures in the'FDM
SP. AQP, RR
encyclopedia (VTPI
Cost (YeslNo)1
Yes: Lockers
(SI.200-
$2.950,
5700 bike on
average),
Racks (S70-
s2.0n0,
S70 /bike on
Yes
Table 16
Mitigation Measure Summary
Feasible (YeslNo) Secondary Agency /Organizationt0therl
Effects
(YeslNo)
Tectirl
Yes (Caltrans
2005.
Dierkers et al
2007. VTPI
2007)
Yes (Caltrans
Dierkers ct al.
2007, VTPI
2007)
LogisticaP
Yes
((Ialtrans
2005.
Dierkers et
al. 2007,
VTPI 2007)
Yes
(Caltrans
2005.
Dierkers et
al. 2007.
VTPI 2007 )
Advcrsc: No Caltrans, Portland Bicycle
Beneficial: Master Plan (City of
CAPS, TAUS Portland 1998), C'C'AP
'Transportation Emissions
Guidebook (Dierkers ct al.
2007), SMAQMD
Recommended Guidance
for Land Use 1: mission
Reductions (SMAQMD
Descr iptionlComments
Nonresidential projects provide
plentiful short- and long-term
bicycle parking facilities to
meet peak season maximum
demand (e.g.. one bike rack
space per 20 vchicleiemploycc
parking spaces.
Advcrsc: No 2007), V 1 Pl. CA air Nonresidential projects provide
Beneficial: quality management and ..end-of-trip" facilities including
CAPi TACs control districts, and showers, lockers, and changing
cities'counties. space (e.g., four clothes lockers
and one shower provided for
every 80 employee parking
spaces, separate facilities for
each gender for projects with
160 or more employee parking
spaces).
Yes: Lockers Yes (C'altmns Yes Adverse: No
(51,200- 2005, (Caltrans Beneficial:
Long -term bicycle parking is !
provided at apartment
AG- Attrionec (icneral. ARB -Cah forma An Resources Board. AS'I'M American Socmty for 'Festmg and Material. BAAQ`ID -nav Area Air Quality Management District, Ill FS= Building for Environmental and F<onoma
SuscunaMhn. CA =Cal dirna. ('aIna s Cahibmia Department of I'ransporurhon. CAPS Criteria Air Pnihnants. ('CAP - Center for Clean Air Pohcp. (T- Connectn n) Factor. CIwMB=('aI forma Inteerated W,.uae
Mawgement Board. CO- Carton Mcmaxide, CO;- Carbat Dioxide. IX;S= l)cpanmmt of General Services. DOF'-INS Department of Energy. DPF- Diesel pamcu law FiIwr. F.gS gS96 FthamL FFR F= Fnergy LiTicanp
and Renesyahle I'.nergy. EOL- lincgclupedta of Faith, F:PA-ll S tin tronmental Protection Agency. Ii FC Uniumun Trull" Coalition. F]b('NG- Llednc VehiclesrCompressed Natural Gas. FAR- rloor Area Rena,
GIIG' Grecnhomw bas, I I - Institute of Transportation Engmcers, kgrm' - kilogram per sgi,are nsctcr, km- Kilometer. lb potmJ. LFFDYI.cadcrship in Energy and Em•ronmental Design. M- Million, NA -Not Aaadahlc.
NEV- Nerehtwrbood FDeetnc Vehicle: NIS'1'- National Institute of Standards and Technology: NOx -Oodes of Nitrogen, NREL- Natiowl Reneaahle Energy I ahorahrp. WS- NonhSouth. P(IRF =Paofic (;a% and Electric.
PN= Particulate Natter. SIVAPCD San Jmqum Valley Air Pollution Control District, SMAQMD - Sacramento Metropohtian Air Quality Management District. SM UDY Sacramento Municipal t:hhhes District. S4 1,= Sulfur
(.hides. SRI =Snlnr Reflectance Index. TACs -Toxic Air(' omammanl'.'I'UMI-Transprrtatinn Demand Managenenl.'rM A- Transpnnaunn Management Assuxrahai, TII(' =l'rnal Hydrocarhtm. LLIiV (IIua IA%v Emission
Vehicle. I1SGRC -I: S Circe. Bwldmg Corned. and VTPI- Vmmna'Iransn Poliq
IM
IM
Table 16
Mitigation Measure Summary
Mitigation
Applicable
Effective
Feasible
(Yes/No)
Secondary
AgencylOrganizatiorJOlher6 Description/Comments
Measure
ProjectlSource
Effects
Type'
(YeslNo)
Emissions
Cost (YeslNo)t
Technical'
LogisticaP
Reduction/Score'
Unit Residential
P/m. obile
2007). 1SA bases
$2,950,
Dierkers et al.
2005,
CAPS. TACs
complexes or condominiums
estimates on CCAP
S700 bike on
2007, VTPI
Dierkers et
without garages (e.g., one long
information (JSA
average),
2007)
al. 2007,
tenn bicycle parking space for
2004).
Racks ($70-
VTPI 2007)
each unit without a garage).
52,000,
Long -tern facilities shall
S70 %bike on
consist of one of the following:
average).
a bicycle locker. a locked room
with standard tacks and access
limited to bicyclists only, or a
standard rack in a location that
is staffed and.'or monitored by
video surveillance 24 hours per
day.
V1Vi T4:
LD (R, C. Mi.
Yes
Yes (Caltrans
Yes
Adverse No
Entire project is located within
Proximitv to
L SPJ'P.
2005,
(Caltrans
Beneficial
one -half mile of an
Bike Path ?Bike
AQP. RR,
Dierkers et al.
2005.
CAPS. TAC;s
existing/planned Class I or
Lanes
P1Hlobile
2007, VTPI
Dierkers et
Class 11 bike lane and project
2007)
al. 2007,
design includes a comparable
VTPI 2007)
network that connects the
project uses to the existing
offsite facility. Project design
includes a designated bicycle
route connecting all units, on-
site hicycle parking facilities,
offsite hicycle facilities. site
entrances, and primary building
entrances to existing Class I or
Class II bike lane(s) within one-
half mile. Bicycle mute
connects to all streets
contiguous with project site.
Bicycle route has minimum
conflicts with automobile
parking and circulation
IM
Table 16
Mitigation Measure Summary
Mitigation Applicable Effective Feasible (Yes(No) Secondary Agency /OrganizatioN0ther6 DescriptioWComments
Measure ProjecVSource Effects
Type' (Yes/No)
Emissions Cost (YesfNo)3 Technical' Logistical$
ReductionlScorei
facilities. All streets internal to
the project Wider than 75 feet
have Class II bicycle lanes on
both sides.
A(;- Artumev General, ARn California Air Resources Buard, ASTM- Anuncan Socicly Hv'I'esmng aril Material. HAAQMD =Hay Area Air Qualvy Managenwnt District BFFS Budding for Fncuonmental and Economic
Suaaluablh N. CS- Cahfunna. Caluancz4 ahfom'a Department of Transportation, CAPS- Critena Air Pellulants, CCAP ='enter fm Clean Au Puhcv. CF C'onnectrern Factor, CIWMIB California Integratal Waste
Mtanagcmcm Hoard. C(F- ('arMm Munuxide. C'O:�'arMn Ihoxldc, IXIS- Department of General Strvmes. IH)f -C S tepurtmcnt of h:nergy. DI'F- Diesel particulate Filter, Iig5 =R5O; F.thanul, lil[RL Energy FlSaer'cy
and Renewable Energy, F(W= Encyclopedia of Earth. EPA- C S Hnvuonmenal Protection Agency, FTC- Fdmorl1nn'frnI1cv Cualilmn. EVACNG- Llecmc Vchldev(.ompressed Natural G&a, FAR =Hmx Area Ratio.
GH(i=(6eenhewse Gas, ITF- Institute of T'ranspnrtation Lngmeers. kpirl- kilogram per square meter. km- Kilometer. Ih=pound. I.P.LD- l.eadenhlp in Energy and Fnvuonmental Design. M Million, NA =Not Available,
NEV- Nelghbnrhood Idectvc Vehicle, NIST- Naunnal Institute of Standards and Technology, NOa- (k+des of Nitrogen. NREI.- Natimal Renewable Energy Latxratury. N!S= Nonh!Siwth, PO &E Pacific (lac and Flcotne,
PM- Pamculale Matter, V VAPCD -San Joaquin Valle)' Air Pollution Control District. SM AQMD7- Sacrameruo Metn+pnhtan Au Qaallh' Management District, SMUD- Sacramento Municipal Litiliti" District. SO, Sultin
Osrdesi SRI-Solar Reflectance Index. 'PACs- 'Pixie Air Cnnamuants, I' DM- I'ranspunanun Demand Management, *1 MA 'fransportallon Management Assoclallon, I'IIC =total Hvdrocarhon, MAN -Ulna Low Lmnssion
Vehicle, USGIW I I S Gran Bwldma('nuncil, and V'IYI- Victuna Tranvt Policy
13 -3
Table 16
Mitigation Measure Summary
Mitigation Applicable Effective Feasible (Yes/No) Secondary AgencylOrganizatiosV ttteO DescriptiordComments
Measure ProjectlSource Effects
Type' (YeslNo)
ti1M T -5:
Pedestrian
.Network
1. 1) (R, C, M),
I. SP, TP,
AQP, RR.
PI.Mobile
MM T -6: LD (R. C. M),
Pedestrian 1, SP. TP,
Emissions Cost (YeslNo)s
ReductiordScore2
I %- 100.04 1 igh: CLAP
presents combined %
reductions for a range
of mitigation measures
(Dierkers et al. 2007),
SMAQMD allocates
1% for each individual
measure ('f lA k 2005.
EDAW 2006,
SMAQMD 2007).
Technical4 Logisticals
Yes Yes (Dierkers Yes
ct al. 2007. (Dierkers et
V'IPI2007) al. 2007,
VTPI2007)
Adverse: No CCAP'I ransportation
Beneficial: Emissions Guidebook
CAPS, TACS (Dierkers ct al. 2007),
SMAQMD Recommended
Guidance for Land Use
Emission Reductions
(SMAQMD 2007), VTPI,
CA air quality
management and control
districts, and
cities,+counties.
Yes Yes (Dierkers Yes Adverse' No
ct al. 2007. (Dierkers et Beneficial:
s -a
The project provides a
pedestrian access network that
internally links all uses and
connects to all existingiplanned
external streets and pedestrian
facilities contiguous with the
project site. Project design
includes a designated pedestrian
route interconnecting all
internal uses, site entrances,
primary building entrances.
public facilities, and adjacent
uses to existing external
pedestrian facilities and Streets.
Route has minimal conflict with
parking and automobile
circulation facilities. Streets
(with the exception of alleys)
within the project have
sidewalks on both sides. All
sidewalks internal and adjacent
to project site are minimum of
five feet wide. All sidewalks
feature vertical curbs.
Pedestrian facilities and
improvements such as grade
separation, wider sidewalks, and
traffic calming are implemented
wherever feasible to minimize
pedestrian barriers. All site
entrances provide pedestrian
access.
Site design and building
placement minimize barriers to
Mitigation
Measure
Applicable
Project/Source
Type'
Effective
Emissions
Reduction/Scoret
Table 16
Mitigation Measure Summary
Feasible (Yes/No) Secondary Agency*rganization/Otherl
Effects
(Yes/No)
Cost (Yesft)3 Technical"
Logistical5
Description /Comments
Barriers AQP, RR. VTPI 2007) al. 2007. CAPS. TACs pedestrian access and
Minimized P /Mobile VTPI 2007) interconnectivity. Physical
barriers such as walls, berms.
landscaping, and slopes between
residential and nonresidential
uses that impede bicycle or
pedestrian circulation arc
eliminated.
111M T -7: Bus
Shelter for
Lxisting-'Planned
Transit Service
I.D (R. C. M),
I. SP. TP.
AQP, RR,
P:'Mobile
1%-2%:l ligh: C'CAP
presents these a.6
reductions (Dierkers et
al., 2007). SMAQMD
assigns from .25 %-1 %,
depending on headway
frequency ('1'IAt
2005, EDAV. 2006,
SMAQMD 2007),
Y'es: SI5.000- Yes (Dierkers
$70,000. et al. 2007.
VTPI 2007 )
Yes
Adverse: No CLAP Transportation
(Dierkers et
Beneficial: Emissions Guidebook
a1. 2007,
C'.APs, I ACs (Dierkers ct al. 2007).
VTPI 2007)
SMAQMD Recommended
Guidance for land Use
Emission Reductions
(SMAQMD 2007), V" I'PI,
City of Calgary (City of
Calgary 20(14), CA air
quality management and
control districts, and
citicucountics.
Bus or streetcar service provides
headways of one hour or less for
stops within one-quarter mile:
project provides safe and
convenient bicyclefpedestrian
access to transit stop(s) and
provides essential transit stop
improvements (i.e.. shelters.
route information, benches, and
lighting).
AG-Ammnes General, ARH- Califurma An Resources Hoard, AS I'M- Amencan Socxq for 'I'emng and Material: BAAQMD'Has Area Au Qualdv Management District, HEFTS= Building for Envtrunmcntal and Fcnmtmx
Swxtemxbihb. CA- Cahfoma, ('altranx- Cahfurma Department of'I'ransportalwn, CAPs-Cnin to .Air Pollutants. CLAP -Center for Clean Air Policy. C'F- ('onnectrarly Factor, CwMR =Caldomia Integrated Waste
Management IAtard, CO Cartoon Monov,de, CO-Carlson Dioxide. DGS= Department ofGeneral Services. DGIi =C S Ikpartment of Fnergv. PPP- Dmael particulate Filter. Ii9S 85 ?o Pthannl, EFRF -P :nervy I:(Tinox)
and Renewable Fnergv. E(11[ - Lncyclupedia of Ianh, EI'A =1; S P.nvuonmental Protection Agency. F lC l Edmonton Trolly Cnalilmn, bV.v('NG -1 leclrlc VchIcicSC ompreSKd Natural Gas. FAR —Flom Area R6no.
GIIG Gtcenhmrtt Gw, It F- Inshtule of 'Franspurtaunn Iingmecm, kg/m'- kdoemm per square meter, km =Adumeler. lb- pound. ITED- Leadership in Encrgv and Environmental Design. M- Mdlun. FA- NuA Avallahle.
NEV- Neighborhood Electric Vehicle, KIST- National Institute of Standards and rmhmdoey, NO.-Oztdes nl Nnrngen- NRlil.- Nalwnal Renewable Iinergy Lahxmmy. N /S- NunhKuuth, n: &F= Pa[dic Gas mrJ lilecuic.
PM- Panindate Matter. SJVAI'C'D-Smr Joaquin Valle)' Air Polluhrn Control Disrrict. SMAQM D- Sacramento Metmpaltun Au Quality Management District, SMI ID= Sacramento Municipal Gohoes Disarm S(1.- Sulfur
Oxides. SRI =Solar Reflectance Index. TAC's -Toxic Air Contaminants, 'IDM-Tmnspomtion Ikmand Management. TMA- 'I'ranspmtation Management Association. TII('= 'Total ilvdnxwbon. UI EV -ultra I ow I'.mrssr<n
Vchmle.l BGBC US' Green Huddmg Comxd. and VTPI- Victoria 'Iiannt Policy
R -5
Mitigation Applicable
Measure ProjecttSource
Type'
Effective
Emissions Cost (YesfNo)5
Reduction/Score'
Table 16
Measure Summary
Feasible (YesfNo) Secondary AgencylOrganizatioNOtherb
Effects
(YesWo)
TechnicaN Logistical5
DescriplioNComments
mm T- g:l'raffic LD (R. C, M),
I %- 10 °0ligh: CCAP Yes
Ycs (Dierkers Yes
.Adverse: No CCAP Transportation
Project design includes
Calming L SP. "I'P,
presents combined %
et al. 2007, (Dierkers et
Beneficial: Emissions Guidebook
pedestrian.bic)cle safety and
AQP, RR,
reductions for a range
VTPI 2007) al. 2007,
C.APs, TACs (Dierkers et al. 2007),
traffic calming measures in
PRviobilc
of mitigation measures
VTPI 2007)
S>1AQ \1D Recommended
excess of jurisdiction
(Dierkers et al. 2007).
Guidance for Land Use
requirements. Roadways are
SMAQMD allocates
Emission Reductions
designed to reduce motor
.25910 1.0% for each
(SMAOMD 2007), VTPI,
vehicle speeds and encourage
individual measure
CA air quality
pedestrian and bicycle trips by
depending on percent
management and control
featuring traffic calming
of intersections and
districts, and
features. All sidewalks internal
streets with
cities•'countics.
and adjacent to project site are
impmvemcras (TIAX
minimum of five feet wide. All
2005. LD.AW 2006,
sidewalks feature vertical curbs.
SMAQMD 2007).
Roadways that converge
internally within the project are
routed in such a way as to avoid
"skewed intersections:" which
arc intersections that meet at
acute, rather than right, angles.
Intersections internal and
adjacent to the project feature
one or more of the following
pedestrian safety'tra(Tic calming
design techniques: marked
crosswalks, count -down signal
timers, curb extensions, speed
tables, raised crosswalks, raised
intersections, median islands,
tight comer radii, and
roundabouts or mini - circles.
Streets internal and adjacent to
the project feature pedestrian
safetyltraf7ic calming measures
such as on- street parking.
planter strips with street trees,
R -6
Mitigation Applicable
Measure ProjecUSource
Types
MM T -9: Paid LD (C, h1), I,
Parking (Parking SP, TP, AQP.
Cash Out) RR, P.Mobile
Effective
Emissions
ReductionlScoret
I %- 30 °n;'11igh: CCAP
presents a range of
15 %- 300., reduction
for parking programs
(Dierkers ct al. 2007).
SMAQMD presents a
ranee of 1.0%- 7.2°'0.
depending on cost/day
and distance to transit
(TLAX 2005, FDAW
2006. SMAQMD
2007). Shoupe presents
a 21% reduction
[E5:day for commuters
to downtown LA, with
elasticity of -0.19 (e.g.,
if price increases 10 %,
then solo driving goes
down by 1.8% more)]
(Shuupe 2005). Urban
Transit Institute
Table 16
Measure Summary
Feasible (Yesilil Secondary AgencyMrganizatiord0ther6
Effects
Cost (Yes/No)' Technical' Logisticals
Yes: Vary by Yes (Dierkers Yes
location and et al. 2007, (Dierkers et
project size. VTPI 2007) al. 2007.
VTPI 2007)
Adverse: No CCAP Transportation
Beneficial: Emissions Guidebook
CAPS, TACs (Dierkers et al. 2007),
SMAQMD Recommended
Guidance for Land Use
Emission Reductions
(S \IAQMD 2007), V'I'PI,
CA air quality
management and control
districts, and
cities counties
Description/Comments
and chicane~ +chokers (variations
in road width to discourage
high -speed travel).
Project provides employee
and or customer paid parking
system. Project must have a
permanent and enforceable
method of maintaining user fees
for all parking facilities. The
facility may not provide
customer or employee
validations. Daily charge for
parking must be equal to or
greater than the cost of a transit
day /mor bly pass plus 20 %.
AG -A Homey (lentral. ARR =('al omia An Resources Hoard. AS'I'M= American Soc)ety for Testing and Material, HAAQM D-I)a) Area An Qualm Management DISIOCL HLLS Dwldine for Environmenal and IEconomic
Suuainubihn. CA Cahthrna. Caltrans-Cahfomra Department of Transponatmn, (A Ps Cnlet a Air Pollutants, CCA I -Ccnta for Clean Air Policy. CF -Conne<uvin Factor, CIwMD Cali forma Integratcd wane
Management Hoard, 0)- Carbon Mononidc; W: =Carhon Dioxide. l)GS-Depanment off ieneral Services, Ix)L CI 5 Department of Energy, I WF -Diesel paniculne Filter, F85 =W6 IdhanoE, LLRL-Energy I:ipency
aid Renewable f5xrgy, FUF.- i(ngclopedia of Farth, FPA =1: S Fm'uonmental Protection Agency. HI( = Fdmixmm'I Tolle} Coalition, FVYCN(i= F)ecua Vehxles:Compressed Natural Cas, FAR- 1'lixx Area Ratio.
GIIG Grecnlxanse Gas. I'fF= lresutute of 'I ransportabon Fngmem- kglm'- kilogram per square meter, km= Kilomcwr, Iblxxml. LLLD leadership in Energy' and Environmental Design, M- Million. NA -Nix Available.
NEV- NeighborhWd Electric Vehicle. NIS I- National Institute Of Standards and rechoOlugy, NO, Oxides ol.Nitrogen. NRFI: Nanonal Renewable Energy Laboratory, NIS- NOnhSouth. 143&F-Pacitle (ias and Electric,
PVl- Pamculatc Mutter. SJV'AisCD' San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. SMAQMU =Swrx ento JJeiropoltan Air Quahn Management District. SMUD' S;xramenio Municipal I Itdmes District, SO,- Sulfur
Oxides, SRI =Snlar RcHectance Index. TAUS -toxic Air Contann ants,'IDM- Transportation Demand Management, 'I MA-Transponavon Management Asuxiauon.'I'IDC" Total Ilydrocarhon, ULE.V .Ultra Low Emmion
Vehicle. IiSGHC d' S Green Hwlding Council, and VTPI V ictoria Tramit Policy,'
B -7
M
Table 16
Mitigation Measure Summary
Mitigation
Applicable
Effective
Feasible (Yes/No)
Secondary
Agency /Organizatiort/Olher6
Description/Comments
Measure
Project/Source
Effects
Type'
(Yes/No)
Emissions
Cost (Yes)No)3 Technicalr Logislical5
Reduction/Scoret
presents a range of
1%- 10% reduction in
trips to central city
sites. and 2 %4% in
suburban sites (V IPI
2007).
MM T -10:
LD (R. C. M).
IN 630% High: CCAP
Yes Yes (Dierkers Yes
Adverse: No
CCAP Transportation
Provide minimum amount of
Minimum
1. SP, 'IP.
presents a range of
et al. 2007, (Dierkers et
Beneficial:
Emissions Guidebook
parking required. Once land
Parking
AQP, RR,
15 % -30% reduction
vTPI 2007) al. 2007,
C.APs, TACs
(Dierkers et al. 2007),
uses are determined, the trip
P!Mobile
for parking programs
VIPI 2007).
Sb1AQMD Recommended
reduction factor associated with
(Dierkers et al. 2007).
Vote that in
Guidance for Land Use
this measure can be determined
SMAQMD presents a
certain areas
Emission Reductions
by utilizing the ITF. parking
maximum of 6%
of the state.
(SMAQAID 2007), V I PI,
generation publication. The
(Nelson/Nygaard
the
Governor's Office of
reduction in trips can be
Consulting Associates,
minimum
Smart Growth (Annapolis.
computed as shown below by
2005, TIAX 2005,
parking
klaryland) (Zimbler). CA
the ratio of the difference of
EDAW 2006).
required by
air quality management
minimum parking required by
code is
and control districts, and
code and Ill: peak parking
greater than
cities"counties.
demand to 1'IE peak parking
the peak
demand for the land uses
period
multiplied by 50 %.
parking
Percent Trip Reduction - 50
demand for
f(min parking required by code
most land
— IlE peak parking demand)
uses. Simply
(ITF. peak parking demand)]
meeting
minimum
code
requirements
in these
areas would
not result in
an emissions
reduction.
M
Mill T -12:
LD (R, C. M),
10.'04%.Moderate:
Table 16
I. SP. TP.
CCAP presents
Pathwav
AOP. RR,
combined %
Mitigation Measure Summary
P.'Mobile
Mitigation
Applicable
Effective
Feasible (YesfNYo)
Secondary
AgencylOrganizationl0thera Description/Comments
Measure
Project/Source
SMAQMD allocates
Effects
0.5°0 reduction for this
Type'
measure (TLAX 2005.
(Yes)No)
EDAW 2006.
Emissions
Cost (YesMo)3 Technical' Logistical°
ReductionlScorez
MM T -11:
LD (R, C, n1),
1 %- 30°6/High: CLAP
Yes Yes (Dierkers Yes
Adverse: No
Provide parking reduction less
Parking
1. SP, "f P.
presents a range of
et al. 2007, (Dicrkers et
Beneficial:
than code. This measure can be
Reduction
AQP. RR.
15 °- o -30 °.6 reduction
VTPI 2D07) al. 2007,
CAPS. TACs
readily implemented through a
Beyond
P /.Mobile
for parking programs
VTPI 2007)
shared parking strategy, wherein
Code: Shared
(Dierkers et al. 2007).
parking is utilized jointly among
Parking
SMAQMD presents a
different land uses. buildings.
maximum o f f 2%
and facilities in an area that
(Nelson.'Nygaard,
experience peak parking needs
2005. TIAX 2005,
at different times of day and day
F.DA W 2006).
of the week.
Mill T -12:
LD (R, C. M),
10.'04%.Moderate:
Pedestrian
I. SP. TP.
CCAP presents
Pathwav
AOP. RR,
combined %
Through Parking
P.'Mobile
reductions for a range
of mitigation measures
(Dierkers et al. 2007).
SMAQMD allocates
0.5°0 reduction for this
measure (TLAX 2005.
EDAW 2006.
SM,AOMD 2007),
Yes Yes (Dierkers
et al. 2007,
VTPI 2007)
Yes
(Dierkers ct
al. 2007.
VTPI 2007)
Adverse: No
Beneficial:
CAPS, T.ACs
Provide a parking lot design that
includes clearly marked and
shaded pedestrian pathways
between transit facilities and
building entrances.
A(i= Aaomee General. ARR Cahframa Air Resources Board, AS'1'M Amenc:m Snuen, for Tcq.ng and Material. BAAOMD Ray Area Air Quahn Management District, BE FS- Building for krivimnmental and Fcunnoc
., auandov' (A- California, Caltrms-Cahfmrma Department of I'ranslwrtanon. CA Ps -Crate i Au PolIuants', ('CAP Center for Clean Air Pohcv, C l- =Conn ichvrty I actor . CIWMB -( aldnrma Integrated Waste
Management Board, CO- Cartxin Monoxide. CO:-Carton Dioxide. DOS= Department of General Scretces, [))F =1: S I)epartment of Energy. DPP - Diesel particulate Filter, If85 -85 °6 Ethanol, FERE- Fnergy Hficmncr
and Renewable Eaerg }: E(JE- l:ncyclopedia of Earth. EPA -(1 S Fnvuonmental Protection Agencv. 1:'1'C Edmonton TiMlev Coalition, FV<CN(i Fleetric VehicleslCompresud Natural GaS, FAR -Floor Area Ratio,
GHG= Grmnhuuse Gas, ITF Institute of 1'rancpnnatmn Engineers. kg/m`- kilogram per %quart meter, km' Kilometer. lb-puund, LFED= 1,eadership in F.nertin and Liwaonmcntal Design, M=Mdhon. NA -Not Available,
NFV- NnghhmhexM Electric Vehicle, NIST- National Instmne of Standards and'r«hnologc. NO,,- Oxides of Nitrogen. NREL National Renewable Energy IaMraton, NIS' NNonh'Stwth, P(IRIi= Pautic Gas anJ F"Icctrm.
PM Particulate Matter, SJVAP('O =San Joaquin Valle) Air Pollution Control District, SMAQMD - Sacramento Meonpnhtan Air Qualm Management Dwrict. SMDD- Sacramento Municipal I4 Mies District. SO,= Sulfur
Oxides, SRI -Solar Rc lectance Index. I'ACs -foam Air Contaminants. TDM ='I rensponatiun Demand Management, TMA= Transportation Management A.ssociauon, TIIC -Total HNdrocarNin, ULFV 'Ultra I oss Fnncnnn
Vehicle, IISGNC =D S Green Budding Council, and V I'I'I= Vmtona'Eransa Policy
EK
B -10
Table 16
Mitigation Measure Summary
Mitigation
Applicable
Effective
Feasible (Yes/Na)
Secondary
Agency /OrganizatioMOtherr
Description/Comments
Measure
Pro)ect/Source
Effects
Type'
(Yes/No)
Emissions
Cost (Yes/No)3
Technical' LogisticaP
ReductiordScoret
MM T -13: Off -
LD (R. C. M),
1 9o-4 "6 Moderate:
Yes
Yes (Dierkers Yes
Adverse: No
Parking facilities are not
Street Parking
1. SP, IT,
CLAP presents
et al. 2007, (Dierkers et
Beneficial:
adjacent to street frontage.
AQP, RR,
combined %
VTPI 2007) a). 2007,
GAPS, TACs
P/Mobile
reductions for a range
VTPI 2007)
of mitigation measures
(Dierkers ct al. 2007).
SMAQMD allocates a
range of 0.1 °'o- 1.5%
for this measure
(TI.AX 2005, LDAW
2006, SMAQMD
2007).
MM T -14:
LD (R. C. N1).
Annual net CO,
Yes: $19 per
Yes Yes
Adverse:
AG. State of CA
Provide parking lot areas with
Parking Area
I, SP. TP,
reduction of 3.1 kg� m'
new tree for
VOCs
Department of Justice
50% tree cover within 10 years
Tree Cover
AQP. RR,
canopy
CA. cost
Beneficial:
(Goldberg 2007) and
of construction, in panicular
P %Mobile
cover Moderate
varies for
CAPS. TA(a
cities.counties (e.g..
low emitting, low maintenance.
(McPherson 2001).
maintenance,
parking lot ordinances in
native drought resistant trees.
removal and
Sacramento, Davis, and
Reduces urban heat island effect
replacement
Los Angeles, CA).
and requirement for air
(McPherson
conditioning, effective when
2001).
combined with other measures
(e.g.. electrical maintenance
equipment and reflective paving
material).
mm r -Is: Valet
LD (C. M).
NAi1,ow
Yes
Yes Yes: Raley
Adverse: No
Raley Field (Sacramento,
Provide spaces for the operation
Bicycle Parking
SP. AQP, TP,
Field
Beneficial:
CA).
of valet bicycle parking at
RR, P /Mobile
(Sacramento.
CAPS. TACs
community event `centers" such
CA)
as amphitheaters, theaters, and
stadiums.
19N1 T -16:
LD (R, N1),
NA;Low
Yes: Less
Yes Yes
Adverse: No
City of Fairview, OR
Provide storage space in one -car
Garage Bicycle
SP, AQP,'I P,
than
Beneficial:
garages far bicycles and bicycle
Storage
RR. P..Wobile
$200:multiple
CAPS. T.ACs
trailers.
bike rack.
B -10
AG Allorncv General, ARH- Calilonsw Air Resources Board, AS'I'M- Amencan Soemt) for Teautg And Material. HAAOMD -nav Area Air Qmhn. Management District. TIFFS- Hulding fur Enwronmenlal and Ikon noc
Suaaanahrhty, CA Caldmma, Call ran, (Califnmct thparnent ofTransporianon. CA Ps- Cntena Air Pollutants, C('AP- (:enter for Cleat A. Police: C'F =Connecuvny Factor. CI WM [I---( Wifornia Integrated Waste.
Management IAtad, CO Car bon Monoxide, M.- Carbon Dioxide, DGS- Depanmenl of General Services, DOF-I' S Dcpanment of Energy, UPr-Diesel pan cut ate hdter, EX5 -95% Clhanol. P.ERF= Energy li(Ile enn
and Renewable Frtargv, 1:0I: 'Em% clopedw of Earth, FPA =U S F.nvmtnmental Protection .Agenw. I:TC- Rdmornon Trulky Coalition, F..VrCVG- Elednc VehicicsCompressed Natural Gas, FAR -Floor Area Ratio,
GIIG-Gcenhnuse (ias, I'17 Tlmtnute of Trnrtspunition Engineers, kpjm' ktlogiam per square meter, km- Kilometer. Ib-puund, LEIiD= leadership m Energy and Rnvtronnwnml Dcstgn, M' Million. NA Nnt Avmlahle,
NEV- Nnghburhoutl Electric Vehicle, NIS I'- National Institute of'Staandard., and 'I echnalogv. NO,'-Oxides of Nitrogen, SRFL- National Renessahle F'.nerg Latxtrato y. N�S- Nonh!South, IKi &F -Pacific Gm and Electric.
PM= Pamculale planer. SIVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control Disinct. SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Au Quality Management District SMtID= Sacramento Municipal litda¢s Dmom SO,' Sulfur
Oxdec, SRI =Solo Reflectance Index. TAC's_ "rnx,c .An Contaminants, TDM' Transportation Denuun1 Management: TMA= 1'ronmonatmn Management Association. 'IIIC= 'Total Hydrocarbon. ULEV -1IItra I.mc Emission
Vehicle, IJSGB(' -1I S (ircen Huddmg Count 1. and VTPI- Victoria '1'ransa Policy
IEH
Table 16
Mitigation Measure Summary
Mitigation
Applicable
Effective
Feasible (YeslNo)
Secondary
AgencylOrganizatiorUOthers
DescripliordComments
Measure
ProjectlSource
Effects
Type'
(YeslNo)
Emissions
Cost (Yes/No)' Technical( LogisticaP
ReductiordScore2
MM T -17:
LD (C, M), I,
NA/Low
Yes Yes Yes
.Adverse: No
USGBC. CA air quality
Provide preferential parking
Preferential
SP, 1'1). AQP.
Beneficial:
management and control
space locations for GVs'C NG
Parking for
RR. P :Mobile
('AP%. T`ACs
districts and cities counties
vehicles.
E s C'KG
(c.g.. BAAQMD).
Vehicles
MM T -18:
LD (C, M), I,
NA/Low
Yes Yes Yes
Adverse: No
Hotels (e.-.. Argonaut in
Provide a reduced +no Parkin -
Reduced/No
SP, TP, AQP,
Beneficial:
San Francisco. CA)
fee for EVs CNG vehicles.
Parking Fee for
RR. PiM obile
C'.APs, TACs
E.Vs•'CXG
Vehicles
AG Allorncv General, ARH- Calilonsw Air Resources Board, AS'I'M- Amencan Soemt) for Teautg And Material. HAAOMD -nav Area Air Qmhn. Management District. TIFFS- Hulding fur Enwronmenlal and Ikon noc
Suaaanahrhty, CA Caldmma, Call ran, (Califnmct thparnent ofTransporianon. CA Ps- Cntena Air Pollutants, C('AP- (:enter for Cleat A. Police: C'F =Connecuvny Factor. CI WM [I---( Wifornia Integrated Waste.
Management IAtad, CO Car bon Monoxide, M.- Carbon Dioxide, DGS- Depanmenl of General Services, DOF-I' S Dcpanment of Energy, UPr-Diesel pan cut ate hdter, EX5 -95% Clhanol. P.ERF= Energy li(Ile enn
and Renewable Frtargv, 1:0I: 'Em% clopedw of Earth, FPA =U S F.nvmtnmental Protection .Agenw. I:TC- Rdmornon Trulky Coalition, F..VrCVG- Elednc VehicicsCompressed Natural Gas, FAR -Floor Area Ratio,
GIIG-Gcenhnuse (ias, I'17 Tlmtnute of Trnrtspunition Engineers, kpjm' ktlogiam per square meter, km- Kilometer. Ib-puund, LEIiD= leadership m Energy and Rnvtronnwnml Dcstgn, M' Million. NA Nnt Avmlahle,
NEV- Nnghburhoutl Electric Vehicle, NIS I'- National Institute of'Staandard., and 'I echnalogv. NO,'-Oxides of Nitrogen, SRFL- National Renessahle F'.nerg Latxtrato y. N�S- Nonh!South, IKi &F -Pacific Gm and Electric.
PM= Pamculale planer. SIVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control Disinct. SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Au Quality Management District SMtID= Sacramento Municipal litda¢s Dmom SO,' Sulfur
Oxdec, SRI =Solo Reflectance Index. TAC's_ "rnx,c .An Contaminants, TDM' Transportation Denuun1 Management: TMA= 1'ronmonatmn Management Association. 'IIIC= 'Total Hydrocarbon. ULEV -1IItra I.mc Emission
Vehicle, IJSGB(' -1I S (ircen Huddmg Count 1. and VTPI- Victoria '1'ransa Policy
IEH
R -12
Table 16
Mitigation Measure Summary
Mitigation
Applicable
Effective
Feasible (YestNo)
Secondary
Agency/OrganizatioN0ther6
Description/Comments
Measure
Project/Source
Effects
Type'
(YestNo)
Emissions
Cost (YeslNo)s TechnicaP Logisticals
ReductionlScoret
Mbeegouv aMeaswe
MM T -19: T`,4A
LD (R. C, M),
I°'o-28 %,High: CLAP
Yes Yes (Dierkers Yes
Adverse: No
CA air quality
Include permanent'I'M.A
Membership
1, SP, TP,
presents a range of
et al. 2007. (Dierkers et
Beneficial:
management and control
membership and funding
AQP, RR,
3%-25% tbr'lVNIs
VIM 2007) al. 2007.
C'AK TA(s
districts and citieVcountics
requirement. Funding to be
PMobile
with complementary
V'I'PI 2007)
(c .g., S` IAQ \ID).
provided by Community
transit and land use
Facilities District or Courtly
measures (Dierkers ct
Service Area or other
al. 2007). VTPI
nonrcvocable funding
presents a range of
mechanism. TDMs have been
6%-7% in the 'I'DM
shown to reduce employee
encyclopedia (VTPI
vehicle trips up to 28% with the
2007), URFIFNI S
largest reductions achieved
offers a 2% -10% range
through parking pricing and
in reductions fora
transit passes. 'I he impact
TVM that has 5
depends on the travel
elements that are
alternatives.
pedestrian and transit
friendly and l6io -5%
for .4 elements.
SMAQMD presents a
reduction of S%
(TIAX 2005. EDAW
2006, SMAQMD
2007).
bIM T -20:
1,I) (R, C, M),
NA/Low
Yes: Highcr Yes Yes: Fueling
.Adverse: No
IX;S. CA air quality
Use of and/or provide ULEV
ULEV
1, SP, TP,
than stations
Beneficial:
management and control
that are 50% cleaner than
.AQP, RR,
corresponding might not he
CAPS, TACs
districts and cities counties
average new model cars (e.g.,
P'Mobile
gasoline readily
(e.g.. SMAQMD),
natural gas, ethanol, electric).
models, available
depending
on location.
More than
900 E85
fueling
R -12
AG Attorney General. ARH= ('ahtomw Au Resources Nicol. AS'I'M= American Society for Texting and Material. BAAQMD "Bav Area Art Ouahn' Management District. BEES'= Budding for Lneironniental and Ec oniimc
Sustaimbi lily. CA-California. Cal Iran<-CaliGxma Department of Transpogauon. CAPS -Cmena Air Pollutants. ('('AP- Center fa Clean An Polrec. CF -( onnecucny Factor, CRtlMH= ('ahfinnw Integrated Waste
Management Hnard. ('O Carbon Monoxide, CO :=Carhop Dioxide, UGS-Dcpirtmeni of Gericrol Services, DOF -I I ti Ikpanment of linerbx'. UPF- Diesel IxiNCUlate triter. IigS -gi?'o Fth.'inol, hFNF= h.nergy E(fiarn:y
ant Renewable Energy, F.OI'.- lincyclnpedia of Fanh, FPA =1: S Envminmental Protection . Agency. FIC- Fdmnnton Itollev Coal itimi. FVc('N(: Electric Vehicec. Compressed Natural (rib, I'AR Flax .Area Rahn,
GIIG Creenhuuse (ias, 1'I'F= lnsu1um of transportation Engineers, kgim'- kilogram per square meter, km= Kilometer. I6 pound. LFED- Leadership in Energy and Emuonmental Ocsign. M' Million. NA -Nnt .Available,
NEV= Nnghhnrhood Lleanc Vehicle. NISI= National IMilab of Standards and Icchnolog). NOo-Crxides of Nitrogen, NREL 'National Renesc'ahle l:mrgy I.atxoretnry. NiS - North'Snuth. IY7Rh -Pamfic Gas;ind Flectne.
P.M- Particulate Mann. SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. SNAQMD- Sacramento Metropolitan Air Qualm' Management District. SMI ID= Sacramento Municipal Utilities Dittnct, SO, Sulfur
Oxides. SRI Solar Reflectance Index. JAC> Toxic Air Contaminants, 'IOM= transportation 1lemanl Management. TNA Tramrionaunn Merwgement Asuwation. Tll(' =total HYdrocarhon. Il1.FV -1 lltra I.nw Lmis ion
Vehicle. USGBC -t: S Green Budding Council, and V 11 Victoria Transit Police
13 -13
Table 16
Mitigation Measure Summary
Mitigation
Applicable
Effective
Feasible (YesMo)
Secondary
AgencylOrganization/Other6
Description/Comments
Measure
ProjectlSource
Effects
Type'
(YeslNo)
Emissions
Cost (Yes1No)'
Technicall Logistical'
Reduction/Scorer
stations in
the U.S.. 5 in
CA.
Vehicles
available in
select
regions only
MM T -21: Flex
LU (R. C, M),
5466.97[b
Yes: F,85
Yes Yes: More
Adverse: Yes
I)GS, CA air quality
Use of and %or provide vehicles
Fuel Vehicles
1. SP, TP,
GHG /year.'Low (DOE
costs less than
than 900
Issues with
management and control
that utilize gasoline ethanol
AQP, RR,
Fuel Economy)
gasoline per
F8S fueling
the energy
districts and cities:counties
blends (e.g.. 1 :85).
P. Mobile
gallon, but
stations in
intensive
(e.g.. SJVAPCD).
results in
the U.S.. 5 in
ethanol
lower fuel
CA.
production
economy.
Vehicles
process (e.g..
available in
wastewater
select
treatment
regions only
requirements).
Beneficial:
CA T.ACs
Cawwerrlal R RedAm al Buil&tg De*w Meamm
MM D-1:
LT) (C. M),
0.05 %- 2 %iModerate:
Yes
Yes (VTPI Yes (VFPI
Adverse: No
CA air quality
Project provides high density
Office.-Mixed
SP, TP, AQP,
This range is from
2007) 2007)
Beneficial:
management and control
office or mixed -use proximate
Use Density
RR, P. Mobile
SMAQMD, depending
CAPS, TACs
districts and cities counties
to transit. Project must provide
AG Attorney General. ARH= ('ahtomw Au Resources Nicol. AS'I'M= American Society for Texting and Material. BAAQMD "Bav Area Art Ouahn' Management District. BEES'= Budding for Lneironniental and Ec oniimc
Sustaimbi lily. CA-California. Cal Iran<-CaliGxma Department of Transpogauon. CAPS -Cmena Air Pollutants. ('('AP- Center fa Clean An Polrec. CF -( onnecucny Factor, CRtlMH= ('ahfinnw Integrated Waste
Management Hnard. ('O Carbon Monoxide, CO :=Carhop Dioxide, UGS-Dcpirtmeni of Gericrol Services, DOF -I I ti Ikpanment of linerbx'. UPF- Diesel IxiNCUlate triter. IigS -gi?'o Fth.'inol, hFNF= h.nergy E(fiarn:y
ant Renewable Energy, F.OI'.- lincyclnpedia of Fanh, FPA =1: S Envminmental Protection . Agency. FIC- Fdmnnton Itollev Coal itimi. FVc('N(: Electric Vehicec. Compressed Natural (rib, I'AR Flax .Area Rahn,
GIIG Creenhuuse (ias, 1'I'F= lnsu1um of transportation Engineers, kgim'- kilogram per square meter, km= Kilometer. I6 pound. LFED- Leadership in Energy and Emuonmental Ocsign. M' Million. NA -Nnt .Available,
NEV= Nnghhnrhood Lleanc Vehicle. NISI= National IMilab of Standards and Icchnolog). NOo-Crxides of Nitrogen, NREL 'National Renesc'ahle l:mrgy I.atxoretnry. NiS - North'Snuth. IY7Rh -Pamfic Gas;ind Flectne.
P.M- Particulate Mann. SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. SNAQMD- Sacramento Metropolitan Air Qualm' Management District. SMI ID= Sacramento Municipal Utilities Dittnct, SO, Sulfur
Oxides. SRI Solar Reflectance Index. JAC> Toxic Air Contaminants, 'IOM= transportation 1lemanl Management. TNA Tramrionaunn Merwgement Asuwation. Tll(' =total HYdrocarhon. Il1.FV -1 lltra I.nw Lmis ion
Vehicle. USGBC -t: S Green Budding Council, and V 11 Victoria Transit Police
13 -13
B -14
Table 16
Mitigation Measure Summary
Mitigation
Applicable
Effective
Feasible (Yes/No)
Secondary
Agency0ganization /Other6
Description/Comments
Measure
Project/Source
Effects
Type'
(Yes/No)
Emissions
Cost (YesJNo)' TechnicaP Logistical$
Reduction/Scotez
on FAR and headway
(e.g., SMAQMD).
safe and convenient pedestrian
frequencies
and bicycle access to all transit
(Nelson./Nygaard
stops within one- quarter mile.
Consulting Associates
2005. EDAW 2006,
SMAQMD 2007).
MM D -2:
ID (R, C, NI),
0.40i6- 1 %fModerate:
Yes Yes (Dierkers Yes
Adverse: No
CA air quality
Project is oriented towards
Orientation to
1. SKIT,
CLAP attributes a
et al. 2007) (Dierkers et
Beneficial:
management and control
existing transit, bicycle, or
Existing /Planned
AQP, RR.
0.5 "b reduction per I %6
al. 2007)
CAPS. TACs
districts and cities. counties
pedestrian corridor. Setback
Transit.
11/Mobile
improvement in transit
(e.g., SMAQMD).
distance between project and
Bikeway, or
frequency (Dierkers et
existing or planned adjacent
Pedestrian
al. 2007). SMAQMD
uses is minimized or
Corridor
presents a range of
nonexistent. Setback distance
0.25 %_5% (JSA 2005,
between different buildings on
LDA W 2006,
project site is minimized.
SMAQMD 2007).
Setbacks between project
buildings and planned or
existing sidewalks are
minimized. Buildings are
oriented towards existing or
planned street frontage. Prim ary
entrances to buildings are
located along planned or
existing public street frontage.
Project provides bicycle access
to any planned bicycle
corridor(s). Project provides
pedestrian access to any planned
pedestrian corridor(s).
MM D-3:
LD (R, C. W.
0.50 /o-5 %6,Moderate
Yes Yes Yes
Adverse: No
CA air quality
Project provides on -site shops
Services
1, SP, TP,
Beneficial:
management and control
and services for employees.
Operational
AQP, RR,
CAPS, TACs
districts and cities1counties
P`Mobilc
(c.g., SMAQMD).
1
B -14
Table 16
Non Measure
Mitigation Applicable Effective Feasible (YeslNo) Secondary Agencylorganizatlon.`Oftr6 DescriptionlComments
Measure Project/Source Effects
Type' (Yes/No)
Emissions Cost (YeslNo)s Technical' Logisticals
Reduction/Scoret i
MM D-4: LD (R, M),
I %-40 0,b 1High: 47,
Yes Yes (VTPI
Yes (V'I'PI
Adverse: No (',A air quality
Project provides high- density
Residential SP. TP, AQP.
EPA presents a range
2007.
2007,
Beneficial: management and control
residential development. Transit
Density (Employ RR, PlMobile
of.32aw-40:a (LPA
Holtzclaw
Holtzclaw
CAPS, TACs districts and citics/counties
facilities must be within one -
Sufticicnt
2606). SVIAQMD
2007)
2007)
(e.g., SMAQMD).
quarter mile of project border.
Density for New
presents a range of
Project provides safe and
Residential
10,o- 12% depending on
convenient bicyclepedestrian
Development to
density and headway
access to all transit stops)
Support the Use
frequencies
within one- gnaner mile Of
of Public 'I'ransit)
(Nelson:'Nygaard
project border.
Consulting Associates
2005,15A 2005,
FDA W 2006,
SNIAQMD 2007).
Nelson.,Nygaard
presents a trip
reduction formula:
Trip Reduction
0.6'(]-
(1974()-((4.814—
households per
residential
acre); (4.814- 7.14))%
06.39)125914).
J
MM QS: Street LD (R, C. M), I %i!vloderate: Yes Yes (Dierkers Yes Adverse: No CA air quality Multiple and direct street
Grid 1. SP, "IT, SMAQMD presents et al. 2007, (Dierkers et Beneficial: management and control routing (grid style). This
AQP, RR, this %reduction (1SA VTPI 2007) al. 2007. CAPS, TACs districts and cities +counties measure only applies to projects
AG Anornev General, ARB- Cahfomia Air Resources Hmrd..AS'1- N- Amenam Socicw tor 'I'"nng and Material. BAAQMD' nay Area Art Quahnx Management DistncI. HP FS= Hudding for Lnytronmrntal and Economic
Susanmibd try. GA= California, ('altrens-Caldvrnia Department oflransrwnation. CA Ps Cntena Air Pollutants. CLAP Centel fur Clean Air Polley; ('F Ybnneetn, n)' Factor. CIw'bIH= ('aldlxn)a Integrated Wane
Nanaeemrnt Board. CO- Carhnn Monoxide. CO: Carbon Dioxide. IHiS= lepamnent of General Services. IX)F =1: S Department of Energy. DPF= Diescl particulate Filter, L85 -85 1,a Etlianol, EFRE- Energy LlGocncs
and Renewable Emrhs. BOG' Fucrclopeda of Earth. EPA -U S Environmental Protection Agency. GIC-Fdmnnton Trolley Coalition. IN.WNG- Fitaric Vehicicz C-onnpreswd Natural Gas, FAR =Floor Area Ratio,
GIIG =irccnhousc Gus. I IL Institute of Transponanon Iingineen, kg/m'- kdogram per square meter, Ion -K ilomctcr, lb-found. 1 EFD-1.eademhip in Lnergy and Enrunnmcnial Design, M Mdlwn, NA =NM Available.
NLV NughhonlxwA Electric Vehicle. NISI`-National Immure of SUrdiink and "ImI nulogy, NOs= (hides of Nitrogen, NREL-Naaoml Renewable Energy laboratory. WS- Nnnh'South. P(i&E Pacific Gas and Irectne.
PM=Pamculate Natter, S1VAIi('I) =San Joaquin Valley An Pulluhoa Control District. SMAQMD-Sacramento Meirty+nhi in Air Owlit) Namgement District. SMI I D-Sacramento Municipal Iinhnes 1),tnyt SO. -Sulfur
Oxides. SRI-Solar Reflectance Index.']ACs= I'oxic Air Contamiwnts. TDM='I'ransp orlaunn Ienand Mamgenienl, TMA ='I'rarrspuruuuwn Manaeement Association, I'HC.-roml Ilydrocwbvn. I:I.EV =Ulna Losy hunim inn
Vehicle, US(;IW =I I S Omn Budding Council, and V'I'1'1= Viclona'Iransit Policy
LRE
Table 16
tion Measure S
Mitigation Applicable
Measure Project/Source
Type'
Effective Feasible (YeslNo)
Secondary AgencylOrganizationlOtherb Description/Comments
Effects
(Yes/No)
Emissions Cost (YesMo)' Technical4 Logisticals
Reductionlscore1
P /Mobile
2005, EDAW 2006. V I PI 2007)
(e.g.. SM.AQMD). with an internal CIF 0.80,
SMAQVID 2007).
and average of one - quarter mile
or less between external
connections alone perimeter of
project. [(T— 6 of intersections
(0 of cul -de -sacs
intersections)]. Cul -de -sacs with
bicycle` pedestrian through
access may be considered
..complete intersections" when
calculating the project's internal
connectivity factor. External
connections are bikeipedestrian
pathways and access points, or
streets with safe and convenient
bicycle and pedestrian access
that connect the project to
adjacent streets, sidewalks, and
uses. If project site is adjacent
to undeveloped land: streets,
pathways, access points, and
right -of -ways that provide for
future access to adjacent uses
may count for up to 50% of the
external connections. Block
perimeter (the sum of the
measurement of the length of all
block sides) is limited to no
more than I,350 feet. Streets
internal to the project should
connect to streets external to the
project whenever possible.
13 -16
MM D -7:
LD (R, M), 0.4i?,'WdModerate: Yes
Yes Yes Adverse: No CA air quality
Table 16
Affordable
SP. I'll, AQP, SMAQMD presents
Beneficial: management and control
projects of five or more
Housing
RR. PI!Nobilc this % reduction
Mitigation Measure Summary
dwelling units provide a deed -
Component
Mitigation
Applicable
Effective
Feasible (Yes/No)
Secondary
Agency /Drganizationt0therli
Description/Comments
Measure
Project/Source
defined in the code). Developers
Effects
SMAQMD 2007).
who pay into In -Lieu Fee
Type'
(YeslNO)
eligible to receive credit for this
Emissions
Cost (Yes/No)' TechnicaN Logistical5
measure. 'fee award of emission
ReductiorflScorer
only on the proportion of
MM D-6: NEV
LD (R. C, M),
0.50,6-1.5%.l ow:
Yes Yes (Litman Yes (Litman
Adverse: No
CA air quality
Make physical development
Access
SP, 'I'll, AQP,
SMAQMD presents
1999 1999,
Beneficial:
management and control
consistent with requirements for
RR, P'Mobile
this % reduction
Sperling Sperling
CAPS, TACs
districts and citics counties
neighborhood electric vehicles.
(EDAW 2006,
1994) 1993)
tag., SMAQ`v'117)).
Current studies show that for
SMAQNID 2007),
most trips. NI:Vs do not replace i
gas - fueled vehicles as the
primary vehicle.
MM D -7:
LD (R, M), 0.4i?,'WdModerate: Yes
Yes Yes Adverse: No CA air quality
Residential development
Affordable
SP. I'll, AQP, SMAQMD presents
Beneficial: management and control
projects of five or more
Housing
RR. PI!Nobilc this % reduction
CAPS, TACs districts and citicti` counties
dwelling units provide a deed -
Component
(Nelson/Nygaard
(e.g.. SMAQMD).
restricted low- income housing
Consulting Associates
component on -site (or as
2005, FDA W 2006.
defined in the code). Developers
SMAQMD 2007).
who pay into In -Lieu Fee
Programs are not considered
eligible to receive credit for this
measure. 'fee award of emission
reduction credit shall be based
only on the proportion of
affordable housing developed
on -site because in -lieu programs
simply induce a net increase in
development.
Percentage reduction shall be
calculated according to the
following formula:
A(: Anomie) General. ARH= Cahl'omia Air Resources Hoard, AS'I'M- American Society for Testing and Materiel. B.AAQMD -Hap Arca Air Quahn Management District. HFLS- Building tur Emunnmenial and Fconcumc
Sunamabduv, CA-Califorma. ('altrans- California Department of Transportation. CAN - Criteria Air Pollutants, CCAP Center for Clean Au Pohcc. ('F- Connect its Factor, C'Iw MB California Integrated % %ask-
Memagemmn Hoard. CO- Carbon Monoxide, C'O,- ('whop Dioxide, rX1S- I)cWment of General Services, DOF =C S I)cpnmml of Emrg), DPF =Disci pamculate Filter, FR5- g5 %F.thenol, hGRL-f:mrp litfiacnev
and Renessahle lincrg. FOIi- Lrwyclupeda of Earth, EPA =II S I'.muunmentel Prot"tim Ageney, f >fC f:dmomon 'rrollev C oWnion. Iib's'CNG- Fleebl< Vehicles Compressed Natural Gas, FAR -Floor Area Ratio.
GlIG (Greenhouse (;&%.I I E= nstnute uf'I'rensponation Fnginccrs, kg'm °- kilogram per square meter. km- Kilometer. lb-pound. LF.FD- I.eadcnhip in Fmrgv and Environmental Design. M- Million, NA -Not Available,
NFV =Nc ghM)rlxxod Electric Vehicle. NISI-National Institute of Standardsand Icchnologv, NOx- Oxides of Nitrogen. NREL-National Renewahlc lioergq Laboratory: NrS= NrathSouth, PG&E-Paciic Gas end F.lectnC,
P.M-Particulate Matter, SIVAPCD-San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, SMAQMD- Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quaht) Management District, SMIID S;wramentu SLmicgwl I:tilnms Dtsinct. SO,- Sulfur
Oxides. SRI -Solar Reflectance Index. rACs Toxic Ao C'omammants. TDM•Transponation Ikmand Management,' rMA= I'rensr onatiori Manugemrnt Association, HIC 'total 11)'Jrucarbnn. I:LE. \'-1 �hra Losv emission
Vchwlc, I:SGBC US Gieen Building Council, and VTPI- Vmtora'Transit Pulws
B -17
Table 16
Mitigation Measure Summary
Mitigation
Applicable
Effective
Feasible(YesW)
Secondary
AgencylDrganization)Other6
Description)Commenls
Measure
ProjecitSource
Effects
Type'
(Yes)No)
Emissions
Cost (Yes114o)' Technical' Logistical'
ReductfonlScore2
% reduction — 0,. units deed -
restricted below market rate
housing . 0.03
MNI D -8:
LD (R, %U.
NAA.ow
Yes Yes Yes
Adverse: No
Provide residential buildings
Recharging Area
SP, 7P, AQP,
Beneficial:
with a "utility" room or space
RR, P /Mobile
CAPS, TACs
for recharging batteries, whether
fur use in a car, electric
lawnmower, other electric
landscaping equipment, or even
batteries for small items such as
flashlights.
Allred -Use DevelopwnuMcaswa
MM D-9: Urban
LD (M), SP,
3 %- 90- 6'Moderate:
Yes Yes (EPA Yes (EPA
.Adverse: No
CA air quality
Development of projects
Mixed -Use
TP, AQP. RR,
SMAQMD presents
2006) 2006)
Beneficial:
management and control
predominantly characterized by
P/Mobile
this %reduction
CAPS, TACs
districts and cities/counties
properties on which various
(TIAX 2005, F..DAW
(e.g.. SMAQMD).
uses, such as office,
2006. SMAQMD
commercial, institutional, and
2007).
residential, are combined in a
single building or on a single
site in an integrated
development project with
functional interrelationships and
a coherent physical design.
MM D-10:
LD (R, C. M).
3 %'..'Moderate:
Yes Yes (EPA Yes WP.A
Adverse: No
CA air quality
Have at least three of the
Suburban Mixed-
I. SP. TP.
SMAQMD presents
2006) 2006)
Beneficial:
management and control
following on site and/or offsite
Use
AQP, RR,
this % reduction
CAPS. TACs
districts and cities'counties
within one- quarter mile:
P /Mobile
(TIAX 2005. F.DAW
(e.g.. SMAQMD)
Residential Development, Retail
2006. SMAQMD
Development, Park, Open
2007).
Space, or Office.
MM D- It: Other
LD (R, M).
J %Moderate:
Yes Yes (EPA Yes (ISPA
Adverse: No
CA air quality
All residential units are within
Mixed -Use
SP, TP, AQP.
SMAQMD presents
2006) 2006)
Beneficial:
management and control
one - quarter mile of parks,
RR. P Mobile
this % reduction
CAPS. TA('s
districts and cities /counties
schools or other civic uses.
(TIAX 2005, EDAW
(e.g., SMAQMD).
AO =Attomcv General, ARH- Cahforma Air Resources Board. AS I'M- American Socien' for 'I estmg and Material, BAAQMD -Nay Area Air Quality Management District, HFFS= Building for Lrnuumnental and Fconomic
SuaamandIN. CA {'al forma, Cafrans-('a I, frxma I)ePartmem of'ItansportNmn, CAPa=CYneru, Air Pollutants, CCAP- ('enter for (Aeon Air Policy. CF- C'onneeus'it)' Factor, (f WMB- Cahfumia Integrated waste
Management Board. ( 0- Carbon MmuxKk-. (0- Carhon Dmxide, IXiS -Deportment of General Services, IX)F -U S Department of Energy, DPF =Dicscl Particulate Filter. 1785 -1 Fihaool, FERL Eflerg) Efficiency
and Renewable Fnergy, FOF= F:ncycloPeda of Earth, EPA -l' S F,ncnonmental Protection Agency, ET('- F:dmormn l'iollcv Coalition. EVsrCNG Flectric Vehiclev('omPressed Natural Gas, FAR=FIoor Area Ratio,
Glf(i- Greenhuusr Gas. ITF= lnsutite of Trarep nation Engineers, kg ;mt = kilogram per square meter, km -Kilometer, Ils=pnund, LEPD "Leadership in Encrgp and Em'oonmental Ihsign, >1- Million, NA =Sm Available.
NFV= Neighlortwo d Filecinc Vehicle, KIST= National Imitate of Suusdards and Technology, NOx- (hides of Nitrogen, NRFI.- National Renewable Energy Lab raton•, NIS- NortIvSourl P(i &I: Pacfic Gas and Electric.
P1,11-Particulate Matter, SJVAPCIY San Joaquin Valle) ,Air Pollution Control District. SMAQMD- Saaamemo Metropolitan At Quaht) Management District, SMUD- Sacramento Municipal Ifuhucs District, SO,- Sulfur
Oxides. SRI- Solar Reflectance Index, TA(.s- toxic Air Contaminants, I DWI raresprtanon Demand ManagemenI. I MA- transportation Management Asmaation, fI ff - final l l) drocarbon, I TE V =Ultra Low Lmission
Vehicle, USUR' II S Green Building Cnuoed, and VTPI- Victoria transit Policy
[am
Table 16
Mitigation Measure Summary
Mitigation
Applicable
Effective
Feasible (Yes/No)
Secondary
Agency /Organizationl0therli
DescriptiordCommenls
Measure
ProjecUSource
Effects
Type'
(Yes/No)
Emissions
Cost (Yes/No)' Technicat' Logisticals
Reductiorl/Scoret
2006, S.%I AQMD
2007).
MM D -12: Infill
LD (R, C, M),
3 %- 3001.1ligh: Infill
Yes Yes (Dierkers Yes
Adverse: No
CA air quality
Project site is on a vacant infill
Development
1, SP, TP,
development reduces
et a). 2007) (Dierkers et
Beneficial:
management and control
site, redevelopment area, or
AQP. RR,
vehicle trips and VATf
al. 2007)
CAPS, TACs
districts and cities counties
browmfield or greyfield lot that
P /Mobile
by 391, and 20 %.
(e.g., SMAQMD).
is highly accessible to regional
respectively (Fehr &
destinations, where the
Peers 2007). CLAP
destinations rating of the
identifies a site level
development site (measured as
V MT reduction range
the weighted average travel time
of 20 % -30% (Dierkers
to all other regional
et al. 2007).
destinations) is improved by
100% when compared to an
alternate grecnficld site.
N7weflw&e~ Measures
MM D -13:
1-D (R, M),
1 %/Low: SMAQMD
Yes Yes Yes
Adverse: No
CA air quality
Provide a complimentary
Electric
SP. AQP, RR,
presents this %
Beneficial:
management and control
electric lawnmower to each
Lawnmower
P %Area
reduction (EDA W
CAPS, T.ACs
districts and citiesrcounties
residential buyer.
2006, SMAQMD
(e.g.. SMAQMD).
2007).
AO =Attomcv General, ARH- Cahforma Air Resources Board. AS I'M- American Socien' for 'I estmg and Material, BAAQMD -Nay Area Air Quality Management District, HFFS= Building for Lrnuumnental and Fconomic
SuaamandIN. CA {'al forma, Cafrans-('a I, frxma I)ePartmem of'ItansportNmn, CAPa=CYneru, Air Pollutants, CCAP- ('enter for (Aeon Air Policy. CF- C'onneeus'it)' Factor, (f WMB- Cahfumia Integrated waste
Management Board. ( 0- Carbon MmuxKk-. (0- Carhon Dmxide, IXiS -Deportment of General Services, IX)F -U S Department of Energy, DPF =Dicscl Particulate Filter. 1785 -1 Fihaool, FERL Eflerg) Efficiency
and Renewable Fnergy, FOF= F:ncycloPeda of Earth, EPA -l' S F,ncnonmental Protection Agency, ET('- F:dmormn l'iollcv Coalition. EVsrCNG Flectric Vehiclev('omPressed Natural Gas, FAR=FIoor Area Ratio,
Glf(i- Greenhuusr Gas. ITF= lnsutite of Trarep nation Engineers, kg ;mt = kilogram per square meter, km -Kilometer, Ils=pnund, LEPD "Leadership in Encrgp and Em'oonmental Ihsign, >1- Million, NA =Sm Available.
NFV= Neighlortwo d Filecinc Vehicle, KIST= National Imitate of Suusdards and Technology, NOx- (hides of Nitrogen, NRFI.- National Renewable Energy Lab raton•, NIS- NortIvSourl P(i &I: Pacfic Gas and Electric.
P1,11-Particulate Matter, SJVAPCIY San Joaquin Valle) ,Air Pollution Control District. SMAQMD- Saaamemo Metropolitan At Quaht) Management District, SMUD- Sacramento Municipal Ifuhucs District, SO,- Sulfur
Oxides. SRI- Solar Reflectance Index, TA(.s- toxic Air Contaminants, I DWI raresprtanon Demand ManagemenI. I MA- transportation Management Asmaation, fI ff - final l l) drocarbon, I TE V =Ultra Low Lmission
Vehicle, USUR' II S Green Building Cnuoed, and VTPI- Victoria transit Policy
[am
B -20
Table 16
Mitigation Measure Summary
Mitigation
Applicable
Effective
Feasible (YesfNo)
Secondary
Agencyl(Aganizationt0ther6
DescriptioNComrnents
Measure
ProjectlSource
Effects
Type'
(Yes/No)
Emissions
Cost (YeslNo)3
TechnicaP Logisticals
ReducWnlScoret
MM D-14:
LD (R, C. M),
NA. Low
Yes
Yes Yes:
Adverse: No
CIW'MB
Provide infrastructurc..education
Enhanced
1, SP, AQP,
Association
Beneficial:
that promotes the avoidance of
Recycling /Waste
RR,
with social
CAPS. TACs
products with excessive
Reduction.
R`Stationary
awareness.
packaging, recycle, buying of
Reuse,
& Area
refills, separating of food and
Composting
yard waste for composting, and
using rechargeable batteries.
MM D-15:
LD (R, C. M).
NA Moderate
Yes: Receive
Yes Yes: More
Adverse: No
USG13C, CA air quality
LEED promotes a whole -
LF.F.D
I. SP, AQP,
tax rebates,
than 700
Beneficial:
management and control
building approach to
Certification
RR,
incentives
buildings of
C'APs, TACs
districts and cities/counties
sustainability by recognizing
P: Stationary
(e.g., F.DAW
different
(e.g.. 13AAQMD).
performance in five key areas of
& Area
San Diego
certifications
human and environmental
office interior
in CA
health: sustainable site
remodel cost
(USGBC
development, water savings.
$1,700,000
2007).
energy efficiency. materials
for 32,500
selection, and indoor
square feet)
environmental quality.
(CSGBC
2007)
MM D-16:
I.D (C, M), 1,
& % -10% reduction in
Yes: Average
Yes Yes: 27
.Adverse: No
DOS, CA air quality
I he process ensures that all
Retro-
SP..AQP, RR,
energy
S0.28./square
projects
Beneficial:
management and control
building systems perform
Commissioning
RStationary
usage:'Modemte: (Mills
feet, varies
underway in
CAPS. TACs
districts and cities/counties
interactively according to the
& Area
et al. 2004)
with building
CA, 21 more
(e.g.. BAAQMD).
contract documents, the design
size (Haasl
to he
intent and the owner's
and Sharp
completed in
operational needs to optimize
1999).
2007, mostly
energy performance.
state
buildings
owned by
DGS (f)GS
2007).
MM M17
LD (R. C, M).
NArl.ow
Yes
Yes Yes
Adverse: No
Alliance for the
Project shall use drought
Landscaping
1, SP, AQP,
Beneficial:
Chesapeake Bay, EPA
resistant native trees, trees with
RR,
CAPS, TAC's
Green Landscaping
low emissions and high carbon
B -20
AG Attorney General. ARH ='ahfomw Au Routuces Board. ASTM- American Society for I'esvnu and Material, It AAQ \10-Hny Area Air Qua] it) Management Dtstnet, BEES- Budding for Iinyuonn,ental and F.connmre
Saaxmubihty. CA-Cal fiwni3. Callra,,s= Cabfbmia Department of Transportation, CA Ps- Ctuena .Air Pollutants. CCAP =Center tux Clean Air Poli,:Ni CF 'Cunnectnuy Factor, CI WMB -Col drama Inlegrned waste
Management Hoard. C O- Carbon Monoxide, CO; =Carhon Uwxide, DGS-'Depanment of Ocoeral Services. DOIi D S Department of Pnetgg, DI'F= Diesel pan,culate Filter, LR5 -95% Filaym , [:FBI ; Energy Efliocn;)
and Renewable F.nergr, FOI: I;Mvclopedia of Farth, EPA =1l S Fnruonmental Protmuon Agency, L'fC= Edmnntnn'I rollcy Coalition. LVs/ CNG- Flectne Velucle,Compressed Natural Gas. PAR =Floor Area Rally).
(IIIG- Greenhoua G &s, I'fF= lnsuane of'1'ransportatim Lnginceys, kg'm'= kilogram per square motet. km Nilnmcten, Ilr pound, LEED'-Leadership in Pncrgc and Environmental Design. M-Million, NA =Nnt Avadahle,
NFV= Nughhorhod Electric Vehicle. NIS'I'= Nauonal Institute of Standards and Technology. NOx -)sites of Nnrugen. NRFI. -Nai.1 Renewahle FncTp Iabnlatorx'. N!S- NorUv'South, P(idl ?' Pacific Gas and Ficetric.
PM-'Paruculate !loner, SJVAPC'D -San Joaquin Vallev Air Polluunn ('ontrol District, SMAQMD- Sacrsnuntn Meuorolk an Air Quahl) Management District. SMtID- Sacramento Municipal 1'tilma Oatnct. SO, Sulfur
Oxides, SRI Solar Reflectance Index, I'ACs Toxic Air Comammants,' I' DM-' rransportabonD emand Management.IMA -Inuvi'ptmatiun Management Ac:nciatron,'I if('- 'total IDydmcarbun. CLI'VA lira Lon P.mtsson
Vch¢Ie; USGBC -G S Green Building Council, and V11il- Vmtuna Transit Pohcv
B-21
Table 16
Mitigation Measure Summary
Mitigation
Applicable
Effective Feasible (YesfNO)
Secondary
AgencylOrganizatiord0ther6
Description/Comments
Measure
Project/Source
Effects
Type'
(Yes/No)
Emissions Cost (YeslNo)s Technical' Logisticals
Reduction/Score2
P.1stationary
Resources
sequestration potential.
& Area
Evergreen trees on the north and
west sides afford the best
protection from the setting
summer sun and cold winter
winds. Additional
considerations include the use
of deciduous trees on the south
side of the house that will admit
summer sun: evergreen
plantings on the north side will j
slow cold winter winds:
constructing a natural planted
channel to funnel summer
cooling breezes into the house.
Neighborhood CCR's not
requiring that front and side
yards of single family homes be
planted with turf grass.
Vegetable gardens. hunch grass.
and low -water landscaping shall
also be permitted, or even
encouraged.
MM D-18: Local
LD (N1),
NA:'I.ow Yes Yes Yes:
Adverse: No
Cities,'counties (e.g..
Project shall dedicate space in a
Farmers' Market
SP:T1obile.
Associated
Beneficial:
Davis, Sacramento)
centralized, accessible location
Stationary, &
with social
CAPS, TACs
for a weekly farmers' market.
AG Attorney General. ARH ='ahfomw Au Routuces Board. ASTM- American Society for I'esvnu and Material, It AAQ \10-Hny Area Air Qua] it) Management Dtstnet, BEES- Budding for Iinyuonn,ental and F.connmre
Saaxmubihty. CA-Cal fiwni3. Callra,,s= Cabfbmia Department of Transportation, CA Ps- Ctuena .Air Pollutants. CCAP =Center tux Clean Air Poli,:Ni CF 'Cunnectnuy Factor, CI WMB -Col drama Inlegrned waste
Management Hoard. C O- Carbon Monoxide, CO; =Carhon Uwxide, DGS-'Depanment of Ocoeral Services. DOIi D S Department of Pnetgg, DI'F= Diesel pan,culate Filter, LR5 -95% Filaym , [:FBI ; Energy Efliocn;)
and Renewable F.nergr, FOI: I;Mvclopedia of Farth, EPA =1l S Fnruonmental Protmuon Agency, L'fC= Edmnntnn'I rollcy Coalition. LVs/ CNG- Flectne Velucle,Compressed Natural Gas. PAR =Floor Area Rally).
(IIIG- Greenhoua G &s, I'fF= lnsuane of'1'ransportatim Lnginceys, kg'm'= kilogram per square motet. km Nilnmcten, Ilr pound, LEED'-Leadership in Pncrgc and Environmental Design. M-Million, NA =Nnt Avadahle,
NFV= Nughhorhod Electric Vehicle. NIS'I'= Nauonal Institute of Standards and Technology. NOx -)sites of Nnrugen. NRFI. -Nai.1 Renewahle FncTp Iabnlatorx'. N!S- NorUv'South, P(idl ?' Pacific Gas and Ficetric.
PM-'Paruculate !loner, SJVAPC'D -San Joaquin Vallev Air Polluunn ('ontrol District, SMAQMD- Sacrsnuntn Meuorolk an Air Quahl) Management District. SMtID- Sacramento Municipal 1'tilma Oatnct. SO, Sulfur
Oxides, SRI Solar Reflectance Index, I'ACs Toxic Air Comammants,' I' DM-' rransportabonD emand Management.IMA -Inuvi'ptmatiun Management Ac:nciatron,'I if('- 'total IDydmcarbun. CLI'VA lira Lon P.mtsson
Vch¢Ie; USGBC -G S Green Building Council, and V11il- Vmtuna Transit Pohcv
B-21
B -22
Table 16
Mitigation Measure Summary
Mitigation
Applicable
Effective
Feasible (Yes/No)
Secondary
AgencylOrganizatiod0thers
Description/Comments
Measure
Project/Source
Effects
Type'
(Yes/No)
Emissions
Cost (Yes/No)s
Technical' Logisticals
ReductfortlScoret
Area
choice and
public
awareness.
Nfm D -19:
LD (\f),
NW'Low
Yes
Yes Yes:
Adverse: No
Cities /counties (e.g.,
Project shall dedicate space for
Community
SP/Mobile,
.Associated
Beneficial:
Davis)
community gardens.
Gardens
Stationary, &
with social
CAPS, TACs
Area
choice and
public
awareness.
MM E -1: Iligh-
LD (R, C, \T),
NA/Low
Yes
Yes Yes
.Adverse: No
('A air quality
Project shall use high - efficiency
Efficiency
SP. AQP. RR.
Beneficial:
management and control
pumps.
Pmnps
P!Stationary
C'APs, TACs
districts and citiescomrties
& Area
(e.g., BAAQMD).
NIM F, -2: Wood
LD (R. M).
NAA.ow: ED:\ W 2006
Yes
Yes Yes
Adverse: No
CA air quality
Project does not feature
Buming
SP, AQP, RR,
Beneficial:
management and control
fireplaces or wood buming
Fireplaces'Stoves
Pr Stationary
C'APs, 1'A('s
districts and cities/counties
cloves.
& Area
(e.g.. SMAQMD).
MM E -3:
LD (R, h1),
NA'Low: EDAW 2006
Yes: Cost of
Yes Yes
Adverse: No
CA air quality
Project features only natural gas
Natural Gas
SP. AQP, RR,
stove $350
Beneficial:
management and control
or electric stoves in residences.
Stove
R ;Stationary
(gas) and
CA Pc. TACs
districts and citiescountics
& Area
$360
(e.g.. SMAQMD).
(electric)
same brand.
total yearly
cost of $42.17
as Opposed to
556.65 for
electric
(Saving
Electricity
2006).
B -22
A0 =Attnn cV Genial. ARH-C ahGxma Air Re.sources Hoard. AS'rM- Amencao SrcWtr for I'estmg and Material, HAAQMU -Hay Area Air Qialna Management District. IgFS Budding for I!m'mmmental and Fcmxmuc
SustainaM6R�, CA- Caldoima. Caltmns- Califnmia Department of'rranspruition, CAI's-('nuva Air PullmanG, CLAP = Center fur (lean Air Policv, CF =Cnnnccnvny factor, CIWMB- ('aldnrmu Integrate) N'astr.
Management Huard CO= Cartxm Monosde. CO:-Oarhnn navde, IRIS Department of General Semmes, LX)E US fkpamuem of F.ner6�, UPF- Ulesel peiniculate Fiher, I: %5 - %5 °ro Glhanul, [IiRli= t :nergy Iallcierky
and Reoewahle Emig). 1701 - Focyclnpdia of Earth. EPA-U S Fnvuonnental Protection Atiencs.ITC= WmnntrM'1'roll<p C'cahuun; EVS CNG= F :ICCVm Veh¢IevCumpressed Natural (ias. FAR Fluor Atea Ravn.
GI1G= (ircenMmsc Gas: I'l E Institute of transportation Engmeers, kg'm'= kiingram per square meter. km- Kilmocicr, Ih -pound LLED-Leadaslup in F.ncrgv and P.nvmmnemal Design, M= Mdhun, NA Nut Aradahle.
NEV- Neighbnrhnnd F:lecue Vehicle. KIST- National Institute of Standards and Tcchnolci NU>ti).vdesuf Vrtrugen, \'RFD =Nalu nal Renewable Energy I.aMratory. NIS- Norih'Sotrth. PG &Ii= Pacnic Gas and Electric.
lied Pamculate Matim SJVAP('D)=San Joaquin Valley :fir Pollution Control District. SMAQMD- Sacrameran Metropolitan Air (Mala) Management Distct. SMCD Sacramento Municipal Chhtics District. SG,= Sulfur
(hedec; SRI-:Gdan Reflectance Index,'I'AC Tfoxm Air Contammants, 'I' DM= Transportation Demand Maragcmcnt. TMA- Transportation Management Asysiavon. TIIC Total Hvdnx:arhnn. ULLV -Cltm I ow Fhusunn
Vehicle. l'SGHC =(IS (irwn Building Council, and Vl Pl- Vnctoxia'1'nansR Polio
13 -23
Table 16
Mitigation Measure Summary
Mitigation
Applicable
Effective
Feasible (YeslNo)
Secondary
AgencylOrganizatiord0ther6
DescriptionlComments
Measme
ProjectiSource
Effects
Types
(Yes/No)
Emissions
Cost (YesfNo)a Technical( LogisticaP
ReductiorUScoret
MM F.4:
LD (R, C. M),
0.50 %I %+Low:
Yes Yes Yes: 866
.Adverse: No
CA air quality
Project installs Energy Star
Energy Star Roof
1, SP, AQP,
SMAQMD presents
Energy Star
Beneficial:
management and control
labeled roof materials.
RR,
this %reduction
labeled
CAPS. 'Ws
districts and cities/counties
P /Stationary
(F.DAW 2006,
buildings in
(e.g.. SMAQMD).
& Area
SMAQMD 2007).
California
(Energy Star
2007)
MM E -5: On-
LD (R, C, M),
1 %-3 % Moderate:
Yes Yes (ljSG13C Yes
Adverse: No
CA air quality
Project pr idce onsite
site Renewable
1, SP. AQP,
SMAQMD presents
2002 and (USGBC
Beneficial:
management and control
renewable energy system(s).
Energy System
RR,
this Qo reduction
2005) 2002 and
CAPS, *1'ACs
districts and citie .rcountics
Nonpolluting and renewable
P'Stationary
(CSGBC 2002 and
2005)
(e.g., SMAQMD).
energy potential includes solar, :
& Area
2005, LDA W 2006,
wind, geothermal, low- impact
SMAQMD 2007). .
hydro. biomass and bio- gas
b
strategies, When applying these
strategies, projects may take
advantage of net metering with
the local utility.
A0 =Attnn cV Genial. ARH-C ahGxma Air Re.sources Hoard. AS'rM- Amencao SrcWtr for I'estmg and Material, HAAQMU -Hay Area Air Qialna Management District. IgFS Budding for I!m'mmmental and Fcmxmuc
SustainaM6R�, CA- Caldoima. Caltmns- Califnmia Department of'rranspruition, CAI's-('nuva Air PullmanG, CLAP = Center fur (lean Air Policv, CF =Cnnnccnvny factor, CIWMB- ('aldnrmu Integrate) N'astr.
Management Huard CO= Cartxm Monosde. CO:-Oarhnn navde, IRIS Department of General Semmes, LX)E US fkpamuem of F.ner6�, UPF- Ulesel peiniculate Fiher, I: %5 - %5 °ro Glhanul, [IiRli= t :nergy Iallcierky
and Reoewahle Emig). 1701 - Focyclnpdia of Earth. EPA-U S Fnvuonnental Protection Atiencs.ITC= WmnntrM'1'roll<p C'cahuun; EVS CNG= F :ICCVm Veh¢IevCumpressed Natural (ias. FAR Fluor Atea Ravn.
GI1G= (ircenMmsc Gas: I'l E Institute of transportation Engmeers, kg'm'= kiingram per square meter. km- Kilmocicr, Ih -pound LLED-Leadaslup in F.ncrgv and P.nvmmnemal Design, M= Mdhun, NA Nut Aradahle.
NEV- Neighbnrhnnd F:lecue Vehicle. KIST- National Institute of Standards and Tcchnolci NU>ti).vdesuf Vrtrugen, \'RFD =Nalu nal Renewable Energy I.aMratory. NIS- Norih'Sotrth. PG &Ii= Pacnic Gas and Electric.
lied Pamculate Matim SJVAP('D)=San Joaquin Valley :fir Pollution Control District. SMAQMD- Sacrameran Metropolitan Air (Mala) Management Distct. SMCD Sacramento Municipal Chhtics District. SG,= Sulfur
(hedec; SRI-:Gdan Reflectance Index,'I'AC Tfoxm Air Contammants, 'I' DM= Transportation Demand Maragcmcnt. TMA- Transportation Management Asysiavon. TIIC Total Hvdnx:arhnn. ULLV -Cltm I ow Fhusunn
Vehicle. l'SGHC =(IS (irwn Building Council, and Vl Pl- Vnctoxia'1'nansR Polio
13 -23
13 -24
Table 16
Mitigation Measure Summary
Mitigation
Applicable
Effective
Feasible (Yes/No)
Secondary
Agency /Organization/Others
Description/Comments
Measure
Project/Source
Effects
Type'
(Yes/No)
Emissions
Cost (Yes/No)3 Technical' Logisticals
Reduclion/Score2
MM E-6:
LD (R, C, M),
I ?'a Moderate:
Yes Yes (PG &E Yes (PG &h:
Adverse: No
P(3&E. SMUD, CA air
Project exceeds title 24
Exceed Title 24
I. GSP. AQP.
SMAQMD presents
2002. SMUD 2002.
Beneficial:
quality management and
requirements by 20 %.
RR,
this %reduction
2006) SMI II)
CAPS. TACs
control districts and
P�Stetionary
(EDAW 2006.
2006)
cities`counties(c.g.,
& Area
SMAQMD 2007).
SMAQMD).
MM E -7: Solar
LD (R. C, M),
0.5 %j Low: SMAQMD
Yes Yes Yes
Adverse: No
CA air quality
Project orients 75% or more of
Orientation
I, SP, AQP,
presents this %
Beneficial:
management and control
homes andror buildings to face
RR,
reduction (F.DAW
CAPS, TACs
districts and cities,'countics
either north or south (within 30'
P+Stationery
2006, S`v1AQMD
(c.g.. SMAQMD).
of NIS). Building design
& Area
2007).
includes roof overhangs that are
sufficient to block the high
summer sun, but not the lower
winter sun, from penetrating
south facing windows, Frees.
other landscaping features and
other buildings are sited in such
a way as to maximize shade in
the summer and maximuz solar
access to walls and windows in
the winter.
MM E -8:
LD (R, C, M),
1.0 °b;Low: S %iAQMD
Yes Yes (USGBC Yes
Adverse: No
CA air quality
Provide shade (within 5 years)
Nonroof
L GSP, AQP,
presents this %
2002 and (t1SGB('
Beneficial:
management and control
and, or use light- colored Thigh-
Surfaces
RR,
reduction (EDAW
2005) 2002 and
CAPS. TACs
districts and cities/counties
alhedo materials (reflectance of
P/ Stationary
2006, SMAQMD
2005)
(c.g., SMAQMD).
at least 0.3) and. or open grid
& Area
2007).
pavement for at least 30% of the
site's nonroof impervious
surfaces, including parking lots,
walkways, plazas, etc.: OR
place a minimum of 50% of
parking spaces underground or
covered by structured parking:
OR use an open -grid pavement
system (less than 50%
impervious) for a minimum of
13 -24
AG -A Inane, General, ARR- Caldnmia Art Resources Board. ASTM- .American Sonehv for I'esh ng and Material, HA.AQMD -Bay Area Air Qualitv Management District. BELS - But mg for Fmrtunmental and Economic
SuswmabJity, CA- Cahfwwa, Caltrans =Cahfbma Department of Transportation, C'.APs- ('nterio At Pollutants, CCA P=Ccinter lie ('lean Air Puhn'. CF- Connectivity Factor, Cllk'MIi- C'ahlorma Integrated Waste
Management HoerJ, ('(Y (arlxal MunuvWe, CO :�'arlx+n UurtWc, IXiS -0epartment of f General Sernces. DOE US rktanmuu of Fn<rg♦, UPI'• Unexl paNadatr Filler, F %5 ^ %S "e Iilhanol. f F.RE- I'.nergy Fllincnev
and KcnewaMe Bwrgp, 1:0F = =Encyclopedia of lash. FPA -1: S Fnruonmental Proteclion Agency. F.TC'= Fdmnnlon'frolley Coal ition, FVSICN0= Flectnc Vch,cics Compressed Natural ;as. FAR- Plow Area Ratio,
GI.16- (4crnhouse Gas, ITT- Dnstnute nf'IYansryMation Lngl ati kg:m'= kilogram per square meler, km- Kilometer. Ih pourk; LEER- Leadership in P.nergy and limuonmenwl Design; M- Million, NIA-Not Available,
?1FV- Ne'gh1hmhad Flectnc Vehicle. KIST- Nauonal Inmitute of Swndards and Technnlnp. ND, -()odes of Nnrogen. NRI =Natwrwl Renewable Energy I.abomton, NiS= NonhrSoulhi 1'G &F Paulic (im and Fleomc,
PM Particulate Matter, SIVA PCO-San Joaquin Val 1c) Air Pollution Control District. SMAQMD--Sacramento Menopnhwn Au Quality Management District, SMIID "Sacramento Municipal l:bhhes District. SO,- Sulfur
Otides, SRI Sohn Reflectance Index; I'ACs toxic An Contaminants. I' DM= "Transportation Demand Management, IMA- Iranspwtatan Management Assncmnrm.'I'IIC- total Hydrocarlwsn, OLIN (llba Low Fmmman
Vehicle, USGIRC -1' S Green Building ('owned, and V'IYI- Vrelona Transit Pnhes'
11 -25
Table 16
Mitigation Measure Summary
Mitigation Applicable
Effective Feasible (Yes/No) Secondary
Agency /Organization /Olher6 Description /Comments
Measure ProjectlSauce
Effects
Type'
(YeSNO)
Emissions Cost (Yes/No)l Technical' Logisticals
Reduction/Score'
50 "6 of the parking lot area. The
mitigation measure reduces heat
islands (thermal gradient
differences between developed
and undeveloped areas to
minimize impact on
microclimate and human and
wildlife habitats. This measure
requires the use of patented or
Copyright protected !
methodologies created by the
ASTM. The SRI is a measure of
the constructed surface's ability
to reflect solar heat, as shown
by a small rise in temperature. It
is defined so that a standard
black (reflectance 0.05.
eminance 0.90) is -'0" and a
standard white (reflectance
0.90, eminance 0.90) is 100. To
calculate SRI for a given
material, obtain the reflectance
value and eminance value for
the material. SRI is calculated
according to AS TM E 1980 -01.
Reflectance is measured
AG -A Inane, General, ARR- Caldnmia Art Resources Board. ASTM- .American Sonehv for I'esh ng and Material, HA.AQMD -Bay Area Air Qualitv Management District. BELS - But mg for Fmrtunmental and Economic
SuswmabJity, CA- Cahfwwa, Caltrans =Cahfbma Department of Transportation, C'.APs- ('nterio At Pollutants, CCA P=Ccinter lie ('lean Air Puhn'. CF- Connectivity Factor, Cllk'MIi- C'ahlorma Integrated Waste
Management HoerJ, ('(Y (arlxal MunuvWe, CO :�'arlx+n UurtWc, IXiS -0epartment of f General Sernces. DOE US rktanmuu of Fn<rg♦, UPI'• Unexl paNadatr Filler, F %5 ^ %S "e Iilhanol. f F.RE- I'.nergy Fllincnev
and KcnewaMe Bwrgp, 1:0F = =Encyclopedia of lash. FPA -1: S Fnruonmental Proteclion Agency. F.TC'= Fdmnnlon'frolley Coal ition, FVSICN0= Flectnc Vch,cics Compressed Natural ;as. FAR- Plow Area Ratio,
GI.16- (4crnhouse Gas, ITT- Dnstnute nf'IYansryMation Lngl ati kg:m'= kilogram per square meler, km- Kilometer. Ih pourk; LEER- Leadership in P.nergy and limuonmenwl Design; M- Million, NIA-Not Available,
?1FV- Ne'gh1hmhad Flectnc Vehicle. KIST- Nauonal Inmitute of Swndards and Technnlnp. ND, -()odes of Nnrogen. NRI =Natwrwl Renewable Energy I.abomton, NiS= NonhrSoulhi 1'G &F Paulic (im and Fleomc,
PM Particulate Matter, SIVA PCO-San Joaquin Val 1c) Air Pollution Control District. SMAQMD--Sacramento Menopnhwn Au Quality Management District, SMIID "Sacramento Municipal l:bhhes District. SO,- Sulfur
Otides, SRI Sohn Reflectance Index; I'ACs toxic An Contaminants. I' DM= "Transportation Demand Management, IMA- Iranspwtatan Management Assncmnrm.'I'IIC- total Hydrocarlwsn, OLIN (llba Low Fmmman
Vehicle, USGIRC -1' S Green Building ('owned, and V'IYI- Vrelona Transit Pnhes'
11 -25
Table 16
13 -26
Mitigation Measure Summary
Mitigation
Applicable
Effective
Feasible (Yes/No)
Secondary
AgencylOrganizationl0lher"
Description/Comments
Measure
ProjecUSource
Effects
Type'
(Yes/No)
Emissions
Cost (YeslNo)s TechnicaP
Logisticals
ReducliordScore2
according to ASTM E 903,
AS 'I M F.: 1919. or ASTM C
1549. Ennitiance is measured
according to ASTlvl E 408 or
AS1 'M C 1371. Default values
for.ome materials will he
available in the LEED -NC v2?
Reference Guide.
MM E -9: Low-
LD (C', M). 1,
11'o-10 %4.ow: EDAW
Yes Yes (CSGB('
Yes
Adverse: No
CA air quality
Projet optimizes building's
Energy Cooling
SP. AQP. RR,
presents this percent
2002 and
(I:SGB('
Beneficial:
management and control
thermal distribution by
P: stationary
reduction range
"_'005)
2002 and
CAPS. TA(.s
districts and cities: counties
separating ventilation and
& Area
(EDAW 2006).
2005)
(e.g., SMAQMD).
thermal conditioning systems.
MNI F. -10:
LD (R. C. M).
1.001aModerate:
Yes Yes (CSGBC
Yes
Adverse.
CA air quality
Install a vegetated roof that
(ireen Roof
1. SP..AQP.
SMAQMD presents
2002 and
ICSGBC
Increased
management and control
covers at (cast 50% of roof area.
RR,
this %reduction
2005)
2002 and
Water
districts and citicscountics
The reduction assumes that a
Plstationary
(EDAW 2006.
2005)
Consumption
(e.g.. SMAQMD),
vegetated roof is installed on a
& Area
SMAQMD 2007).
Beneficial:
least 50% of the roof area or
CAPS. TAC's
that a combination high albedo
and vegetated roof surface is
installed that meets the
following standard: (Area of
SRI Roof.'0.75)'(Area of
vegetated roof +0.5) n - 'total
Roof Area. Water consumption
reduction measures shall be
considered in the design of the
green roof.
MM F. -11: EV
LD (C, M),
NA/Low
Yes: $500 - Yes
Yes: 381
Adverse: No
DOE, FI.Rl :, CA air
Project installs EV charging
Charging
SP, AQP. RR.
$5000/
facilities in
Beneficial:
quality management and
facilities.
Facilities
P /Stationary
vehicle site
CA (Clean
CAPS, TACs
control districts and
& Area
(PG &F. 1999)
Air Maps
cities +counties (e.g..
2007).
BA AQMD).
MM E-12:
LD (R, C. M).
NA /Low: Increasing
Yes: Light Yes
Yes: Apply
Adverse: No
Project provides light - colored
13 -26
.AG-Anoocy General, AR13-California Air Resources Hoard, AS M - American Societs for Testing and Marcnal, B.AAQ \1D -Bav Area Air Quahte Management District. FEES= Huddmg for I nvironncnial qsA hconormc
SLLUa1Whl l lty, CA-Cal l forma, ( aluans-Cahforma DeparMICOt of IransixNgtlon, CAPS "C Ater la :Ur POI I utari (C AP- Center for Clean Air Polcy, CFY'onne:tivu, F¢tor, CIWM.B -Cah Gxma Integrated Waste
Management Board, CO C-artsnn Monoxide, (.');- Carbon Dioxide, rXiS= Department of General Services. DOh =L S Department of Lnergp, DPF- Diesel (articulate Filter. L85-85% Fthanol, FhRI.- I'.nergs LlLciencc
and Renewable Fnergv, IiOF,- LrcydoNdie nt Fanh, FPA =U S P.m IT onmental Protection Agency. F:IC Ldmonion Trullev Coal it Inn. FV.c(:N( ;-F Iectric VehmIcs:Compressed Natural Gas. FAR -Floor Arca Ratio,
GI IG -Greenhouse Gas: I'I'F- Institute of 17anspurtatmn Engineers, kgim'-kilogram per square meter, km- Kilometer. l6 'pound. HiIiD= Leadership in Energy and Env nonmental Design. M- MITI tun. NA -Not Avadahe,
NFV- Neighhorhoud Flechic Vehicle, NIS r- National Institute of Standards and 'rechnology, NO.c' (hides of Nitrogen, NRI:1.' National Rencwahle Fnerp- I aNnahiv. N+S 'Nurtln'Sotah, PGdF= Pacific Gas and Ficctne.
PM- Pariculate Matter. SJVAPCD-San Joaquin Vallcwv Air Pollution Control District. SKIAQMD- Sacramento Mctropnhgn Air Ouahty Management District. SMUD-=Sacramento MuniclP;d Unlnies District, SO,- Sulfur
Oxides. 5RI -So131 Rellectame Index. TACs -Tom¢ Art Contaminants. IUM-Tmnsporqunn Iemani \1aragemeni. TMA- Tianspnnatmn Vlareeement A�aughon, TII(' =1'ogl liydncarlwn. llLFV -I :Itm Inw Fmissun
Vchcic, USOBC'U S Green Building Council, and VTPI Victoria Transit Policy
R -27
Table 16
Mitigation Measure Summary
Mitigation
Applicable
Effective
Feasible (Yesft)
Secondary
AgencylOrganizatiord0ther6 Description/Comments
Measure
ProjectfSource
Effects
Type'
(Yes/No)
Emissions
Cost (YeslNo)'
Technical( Logistical'
ReductionlScore1
Light - Colored
L SP, AQP,
the albedo of I.250 km
colored
natural sand
Beneficial:
paving (e.g., increased albedo
Paving
RR,
of pavement by 0.25
aggregates
or gravel
C•APs.'LACs
pavement).
P Stationary
would save tooling
and white
colored
& Area
energy worth S15M
cement are
single
per year.
more
surface
expensive
treatments to
than gray
asphalt
cement
(IfOP: 2007).
Certain
blended
cements are
very light in
color and may
reflect
similarl to
white cement
at an
equivalent
cost to normal
gray cement.
MM F- -13: Cool
LD (R, C, M).
NA.(Loxv
Yes: 0.75
Yes Yes: Over
Adverse: No
CEC, Project provides cool roofs.
Roofs
1. SP, .AQP,
1.5/square
900,6 of the
Beneficial:
I lighly reflective, highly
RR,
feet coating
roofs in the
CAPS, TACs
emissive roofing materials that
P. Stationary
(EPA 2007a)
United
stay 50-60'F cooler than a
& Area
States are
normal mof under a hot summer
dark colored
sun. CA's Cool Savings
.AG-Anoocy General, AR13-California Air Resources Hoard, AS M - American Societs for Testing and Marcnal, B.AAQ \1D -Bav Area Air Quahte Management District. FEES= Huddmg for I nvironncnial qsA hconormc
SLLUa1Whl l lty, CA-Cal l forma, ( aluans-Cahforma DeparMICOt of IransixNgtlon, CAPS "C Ater la :Ur POI I utari (C AP- Center for Clean Air Polcy, CFY'onne:tivu, F¢tor, CIWM.B -Cah Gxma Integrated Waste
Management Board, CO C-artsnn Monoxide, (.');- Carbon Dioxide, rXiS= Department of General Services. DOh =L S Department of Lnergp, DPF- Diesel (articulate Filter. L85-85% Fthanol, FhRI.- I'.nergs LlLciencc
and Renewable Fnergv, IiOF,- LrcydoNdie nt Fanh, FPA =U S P.m IT onmental Protection Agency. F:IC Ldmonion Trullev Coal it Inn. FV.c(:N( ;-F Iectric VehmIcs:Compressed Natural Gas. FAR -Floor Arca Ratio,
GI IG -Greenhouse Gas: I'I'F- Institute of 17anspurtatmn Engineers, kgim'-kilogram per square meter, km- Kilometer. l6 'pound. HiIiD= Leadership in Energy and Env nonmental Design. M- MITI tun. NA -Not Avadahe,
NFV- Neighhorhoud Flechic Vehicle, NIS r- National Institute of Standards and 'rechnology, NO.c' (hides of Nitrogen, NRI:1.' National Rencwahle Fnerp- I aNnahiv. N+S 'Nurtln'Sotah, PGdF= Pacific Gas and Ficctne.
PM- Pariculate Matter. SJVAPCD-San Joaquin Vallcwv Air Pollution Control District. SKIAQMD- Sacramento Mctropnhgn Air Ouahty Management District. SMUD-=Sacramento MuniclP;d Unlnies District, SO,- Sulfur
Oxides. 5RI -So131 Rellectame Index. TACs -Tom¢ Art Contaminants. IUM-Tmnsporqunn Iemani \1aragemeni. TMA- Tianspnnatmn Vlareeement A�aughon, TII(' =1'ogl liydncarlwn. llLFV -I :Itm Inw Fmissun
Vchcic, USOBC'U S Green Building Council, and VTPI Victoria Transit Policy
R -27
MW
Table 16
Mitigation Measure Summary
Mitigation
Applicable
Effective
Feasible (Yes/No)
Secondary
Agency /Organizalion/Other6 Description/Comments
Measure
Project/Source
Effects
Type'
(Yes/No)
Emissions
Cost (Yes/No))
TechnicaN Logisticals
Reduction /Saxe=
(EPA
Program provided rebates to
2007x).
building owners for installing
roofing materials with high
solar reflectance and thermal
emittance. The highest rebate
went to roofs on air conditioned
buildings, while buildings with
nxiRop ducts and other I
nonresidential buildings were
eligible for slightly less.'Ihe
program aimed to reduce peak
summer electricity demand and
was administered by the CFC.
MM E -14: Solar
LD (R. M),
20 % -70% reduction in
Yes:
Yes Yes: Based
Adverse: No
Europe Project provides solar water '
Water Heaters
SP. AQP. RR,
cooling energy
$1675;20
on solar
Beneficial:
heaters.
P'Stationary
needs/Moderate
square feet,
orientation,
CAPS. TACs
& Area
requires a 50
building
gallon tank,
codes.
annual
zoning
operating cost
ordinances.
of $176 (DOE
2007).
MM E -15:
IT) (R, M).
NA/Low
Yes: $75—
Yes Yes
Adverse: No
Project provides electrical
Electric Yard
SP. AQP, RR.
$250ioutlet
Beneficial:
outlets at building exterior
Equipment
P'Stationary
from existing
CAPS, IACs
areas.
Compatibility
& Area
circuit (Cost
Helper 2007).
MM E -16:
I.D (R, C, M).
KA'Low
Yes: Varies
Yes Yes: Major
Adverse: No
Project uses energy efficient
Energy Efficient
SP, AQP. RR,
for each
retail stores.
Beneficial:
appliances (e.g- Energy Star).
Appliance
P.'Stationary
appliance
CAPs.'1'ACs
Standards
& Area
higher capital
costs, lower
operating
costs (Energy
MW
Table 16
Mitigation Measure Summary
Mitigation
Applicable
Effective
Feasible (Yes1No)
Secondary
AgencylOrganizationl0ther6 Description/Comments
Measure
Project/Source
Effects
Type'
(Yes/No)
Emissions
Cost (Yes/No)a
Technicat'
Logisticals
ReductiordScore'
Star 2007).
MM E -17:
H) (R. C. h1).
NA %Low: 25-30%
Yes
Yes: BEES
Yes
Adverse: No
Project uses materials which are
Green Building
SP, AQP, RR,
more efficient on
software
Beneficial:
resource efficient. recycled.
Materials
WSlationary
average.
allows users
C.APs,'1'.ACs
with long life cycles and
R Area
to balance the
manufactured in an
environmental
environmentally friendly way.
and economic
performance
of building
products:
developed by
NIST(NIST
2007).
M >1 E -lg:
LD (R. C, M),
NA/Low: Up to $450
Yes: Higher
Yes
Yes: Major
Adverse: No
Install energy- reducing shading
Shading
I. SP. AQP,
annual energy savings
capital costs,
retail stores.
Beneficial:
mechanisms for windows.
Mechanisms
RR,
(Energy Star 2007).
lower
CA Ps. TACs
porch, patio and walkway
P,•'Stationary,
operating and
overhangs.
K Area
maintenance
costs(Lnergy
Star 2007).
AG Anornev General, ARH =C3I I forma Air Resources Hoard, ASTM= American Soemt) tor'I estmg and Material, n.AAQMD -Hm. Aica Air Qualm Marmgcri District. BLLS- Budding tot Environmental and Pcurwmuc
Sasiainandav, CA- California, Caluanr- C'ahtinma Department of Transportation. CAD's- C'nteria Air Polluunts. CCAI' =Ccnmr fie Clean Air Pubes: CP -4'nnnWmv, Factor. CIWNH- California Integrated Waste
Management Hoard. CO- Carbon Munoxde, CO =Carton Dioxide. UGS Department of General Semites, DOL -U S Department of En'r6y, UPI Dleeel particulate Filter, FK5 =95% Ethanol, LERF [nergy Efficiency
and Renewable Emig, FOF= Fnccclopedta of Lanh. FPA -ll S F)rvuonrmmtal Protection Agency, 1i'1'C= Fdmonton'I rollev C'ualition. FV :V('NG= Flecnm Vehicles Compressed Nanual Gas, FAR -Floor Area Ratio.
GIIG Greenhouse Ga<, ITF=lnstime of I'rensportation Fngineus, kg'm °= kilogram per w4rure meter, km- Ailomelt ls- pound. LEED- Ixadcrship m Energy and Environmental Design. M- Mdhon, NA -Not Available,
NI :V= NUghIKUMKd Electric Vehicle, NIS'1=National Institute of Star lards:md' technology, NO,_-O.xdesof Nitrogen, NREI =Nnuoruil Renewable Lnergc I,abnatom NrS= NorthStwth. M &F. Pacnic Dias xtd P.Iettmc.
I'M-'Particulate Matter, SIVAPCU-$an Joaquin Valles Air Pollution Control District. SMAOMD= Sacramento Metropolitan Ar Qualap Management DlUrlet, SMUU-Sacramento Municipal Ilelnes District. SO,-SunBr
(hides, SRI -Solar ReH<ctance Indec.'I'.AC.s- 'I'oxtc An C'onwmtnants, 1'UVI- 'fransponation rknund Management,'I'MA 'I "runsportation Maagement Asustauon. IIIC Total llydrocarhnn, ULFV I: lira Love F:mmion
Vehicle. IISGH(' -0 S Green Budding Co m il, and V'IYI- Victoria Transit Policy
B -29
B-30
Table 16
Mitigation Measure Summary
Mitigation
Applicable
Effective
Feasible (YeslNo)
Secondary
AgencylOf9anixationif0ther6 DescriptionlComments
Measure
Project/Source
Effects
Type'
(Yes/No)
Emissions
Cost (Ye5lNo)3
Technical' Logisticals
ReductionlScorez
MM F:19:
LD (R, C, M),
NA /Low: 50:'o more
Yes: $45-
Yes Yes: Major
Adverse. No
Install energy- reducing
Ceiling/Whole-
1, SP, AQP,
efficient than
$200; fan,
retail stores.
Beneficial
ceiling/whole-house fans.
House Fans
RR,
conventional tans
installation
CAPS. TACs
Pislationan• ,
(Energy Star 2007).
extra (Lowe -s
& Area
2007).
MM E -20:
LD (R, C, M),
NA /Low: $100 annual
Yes:
Yes Yes: Major
Adverse: Yes,
Install energy- reducing
Programmable
1. SP, AQP,
savings in energy costs
$60/LCD
retail stores.
Mercury
programmable thermostats that
Themrostats
RR,
(Energy Star 2007).
display and 4
Beneficial:
automatically adjust
Pi Stationary,
settings for
CAPS, TACs
temperature settings.
& Area
typical
residential
use(Lowe's
2007).
MM E -21:
LD (R, C. M),
\A/ Low
Yes: 5800
Yes Yes
Adverse: No
Install energy - reducing passive
Passive Heating
I, SP, AQP,
(wall healers)
Beneficial:
healing and cooling systems
and Cooling
RR,
to S4,000,
CAPS, TACs
(c.g., insulation and ventilation).'
Systems
P+Slationary.
(central
& Area
systems)
MM E -22: Day
LD (R, C, M).
NA. Low
Yes: V..100
Yes Yes: Work
Adverse: No
Install energy- reducing day
Lighting Systems
I. SP, AQP,
to S 1,500
well only for
Beneficial:
lighting systems (e.g.. skylights.
RR,
depending
space near
CAPS. TACs
light shelves and interior
P!Stationary,
upon the kind
the roof of
transom windows).
& Area
of roof
the building.
(Barrier
little benefit
1995),
in multi -
installation
floor
extra.
buildings.
MM E-23: Low-
LD Ill, C. M),
NA: Low: Avoided
Yes: Can
Yes Yes
Adverse: No
Require the installation of low -
Water Use
I, SP, AQP,
water agency cost for
return their
Beneficial:
water use appliances.
.Appliances
RR,
using water - efficient
cost through
CAPs.'rACs
P'Stationary,
kitchen pre -rinse spray
reduction in
& Area
valves of $65.18 per
water
acre -fort.
consumption,
B-30
AG—Attorney General. ARII4'ahl'orma Air Resources Board. ASTM- American Socmn, for I"aig and Matcn ;d, BAAOMD- -Bav Area An Qualny Management Distnet, Is F. hS- Building for Fnenonmental and Izonomu:
Sustamab lay. CA- Caldwriuf. Caluan.- Califomta Dcrartment of raruponabon. CAPS =Cntena Air Pol l uums. CCAP- ('enter for Clean Air Pohcv. CF Cunnectrnty Factor, CIU MB- Caldurma Integrated waste
Management Board. (Y) =( -amore Monoxide. CO:- ('atbon Dmxidct IXiS- I)cpartmenl of General Services, IX)I: U S Department of Gnerg). DPF= lhescl particulate Fitter. F85-81% Ethanol, I;ERI. Lnergy Gfficrencv,
and Renewable Energy. FOG- hneyclnpedia of liarih. LPA-C S Fnsvonrnental Protection Ageix }. ITC Gdnionton'I'rol ley Coalition. EVS'CNG-Flcctne Veh cicvCompresud Natural G:u. FAR =Floor Area Ratio,
(iHG= irttnMruse Ga,,, IrE- Intnute of ltansfortation Engineers. kg/m`- kilogram per square meter, km Kilometer. II>- pound. I. FF.1".eadership in Lnergy and Environmental Dc ogn. M Million. SA =Not Available.
NEV- Neighhnrhood Flcetnc Vehicle. NIST-National Irrtstitute ol'Standards and Technolo((v. NOx- )xrdes of Nitrogen. NREL- National Raawzhle Fnergy I.ahoralon.. NUS- NonhSouth. P(ikf- -Pacific G:¢ and Electric.
PM- Paniculale Matter, SIVAIY:D =San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, SMAVMD-Sacramcrim Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. SMUT)= Sacramento Municipal Utilities Dimria. SO, Sulfur
(hides, SRI-solar Reflectance Index. 'FACs ='Ioxrc .Air Contaminants. TDA1- )'r3nsponation Demand Management. J_MA ='T'ranspmation Management Assorianon. 'Ili(' =Total Ihdroxartx�q III FV- l'Itra I om, Ermsaon
Vehicle, l'SY;R(' =C S Green Building Council, and VIII= Vmrora'I'ramn Policy
Eff
Table 16
Mitigation Measure Summary
Mitigation
Applicable
Effective
Feasible (YeslNo)
Secondary
Agency /OrganizationlOthers
DescriptionlComments
Measure
ProjectlSource
Effects
Type'
(YeslNo)
Emissions Cost (Yes/No))
Technicat' Logistical+
Reduction /Score=
pumping. and
treatment.
MM E -24:
I.D (C, M), I,
NA/Moderate Yes
Yes Yes
Adverse: No
ARB Goods Movement
Provide a spur at nonresidential
Goods Transport
SP, AQP, RR,
Beneficial:
Plan (ARB 2007)
projects a) use nearby rail for
by Rail
P:Mobile
CAPS, TACs
gnosis movement.
MM S-1: GHG
LD (R, C. M),
NA /Low Yes
Yes Yes: Similar
Adverse: No
Provide local governments.
Emissions
I. SP, 'I P.
programs
Beneficial:
businesses, and residents with
Reductions
AQP, RR,
currently
C'APs. TACs
guidance /protocols +information
Education
P.rMobile,
exist in CA.
on how to reduce GI IG
Stationary. &
emissions (e.g., energy saving.
Mobile
food miles).
MM S-2: School
LD (R, C. M),
V.A!Low Yes
Yes Yes: Similar
.Adverse: No
Include how to reduce GHG
Curriculum
1, SP, T'P,
programs
Beneficial:
emissions (e.g., energy saving.
AQP, RR,
currently
CAPs.'I'ACs
food miles) in the school
P:'Mobile,
exist in CA.
curriculum.
Stationarv. &
Mobile
MM C -1: ARB-
LD (R. C. M),
NA:1.ow Yes:
Yes Yes
Adverse: Yes,
AG. EPA, ARB, and CA
Use ARB- certified diesel
Certified Diesel
1, SP, TP,
Oxidation
NO,
air quality management
construction equipment.
Construction
AQP, RR,
Catalysts.
Beneficial:
and pollution control
Increases CO: emissions when
Equipment
P /Mobile
S1.000-
CAPS, TACs
districts.
trapped CO and carton particles
AG—Attorney General. ARII4'ahl'orma Air Resources Board. ASTM- American Socmn, for I"aig and Matcn ;d, BAAOMD- -Bav Area An Qualny Management Distnet, Is F. hS- Building for Fnenonmental and Izonomu:
Sustamab lay. CA- Caldwriuf. Caluan.- Califomta Dcrartment of raruponabon. CAPS =Cntena Air Pol l uums. CCAP- ('enter for Clean Air Pohcv. CF Cunnectrnty Factor, CIU MB- Caldurma Integrated waste
Management Board. (Y) =( -amore Monoxide. CO:- ('atbon Dmxidct IXiS- I)cpartmenl of General Services, IX)I: U S Department of Gnerg). DPF= lhescl particulate Fitter. F85-81% Ethanol, I;ERI. Lnergy Gfficrencv,
and Renewable Energy. FOG- hneyclnpedia of liarih. LPA-C S Fnsvonrnental Protection Ageix }. ITC Gdnionton'I'rol ley Coalition. EVS'CNG-Flcctne Veh cicvCompresud Natural G:u. FAR =Floor Area Ratio,
(iHG= irttnMruse Ga,,, IrE- Intnute of ltansfortation Engineers. kg/m`- kilogram per square meter, km Kilometer. II>- pound. I. FF.1".eadership in Lnergy and Environmental Dc ogn. M Million. SA =Not Available.
NEV- Neighhnrhood Flcetnc Vehicle. NIST-National Irrtstitute ol'Standards and Technolo((v. NOx- )xrdes of Nitrogen. NREL- National Raawzhle Fnergy I.ahoralon.. NUS- NonhSouth. P(ikf- -Pacific G:¢ and Electric.
PM- Paniculale Matter, SIVAIY:D =San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, SMAVMD-Sacramcrim Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. SMUT)= Sacramento Municipal Utilities Dimria. SO, Sulfur
(hides, SRI-solar Reflectance Index. 'FACs ='Ioxrc .Air Contaminants. TDA1- )'r3nsponation Demand Management. J_MA ='T'ranspmation Management Assorianon. 'Ili(' =Total Ihdroxartx�q III FV- l'Itra I om, Ermsaon
Vehicle, l'SY;R(' =C S Green Building Council, and VIII= Vmrora'I'ramn Policy
Eff
B -32
Table 16
Mitigation Measure Summary
Mitigation
Applicable
Effective
Feasible (Yesft)
secondary
Agency /Organizationt0ther6
Description/Comments
Measure
ProjecVSource
Effects
Type'
(Yeslf4o)
Emissions
Cost (Yes/No)3
Technical' LogisticaP
Reduction/Score2
$2,000,
are oxidi7rd (Catalyst Products
DPF, $5000-
2007, ETC 2007).
$10 -000;
installation
extra (EPA
2007b).
MM G2:
LD (R. C, M),
NA`Low•
Yes
Yes Yes
Advcnc: Yes,
AG. LPA, ARB, and CA
Use alternative fuel types for
Alternative Fuel
1, SP, TP,
'1'1IC, NO,
air quality management
construction equipment. At the
Construction
AQP, RR.
Beneficial:
and pollution control
tailpipe biodieacl emits 10%
Equipment
P!Mobile
CO. PM. SO,
districts.
more CO_ than petroleum
diesel. Over-all I it-ecycle
emissions of CO: from 100%
biodiesel are 78% lower than
those of petroleum diesel
(NREL 1998. EPA 2007b).
N1M C -3: Local
LD (R. C, M),
NA!Low
Yes
Yes Yes:
Adverse: No
Use locally made building
Building
I, SP, TP.
Depends on
Beneficial:
materials for construction of the .
Materials
AQP. RR,
location of
CAPS. TACs
project and associated
P!Mobile
building
infrastructure.
material
manufacture
sites.
MM C4:
LD (R, C, M),
NA/Low
Yes
Yes Yes
Adverse: No
Recycle!Reuse demolished
Recycle
1. SP. TP.
Beneficial:
construction material. Use
Demolished
AQP, RR,
CAPS, TACs
locally made building materials
Construction
P +'\Mobile
for construction of the project
Material
and associated infrastructure.
B -32
Table 16
Mitigation Measure Summary
Mitgation Applicable Effective Feasible (Yes1No) Secondary AgencylOrganizationlOther6 DescriptiordComments
Measure Project/Source Effects
Type' (YeslNo)
Emissions Cost (Yes/No)) Technical( LogisticaP
ReductlordScore2
MM M -I: Off-
LD (R, C, M),
NA /Moderate -High: Yes
Yes No: Program
Adverse: No
Provide +Pay into an off -site
Sile Mitigation
I, SP. TP,
Though there is
does not
Beneficial:
mitigation fee program, which
Fee Program
AQP. RR,
currently no program
exist in CA,
CAPs, TACs
focuses primarily on reducing
P/Mobile &
in place, the potential
but similar
emissions from existing
Area
for real and
programs
development and buildings
quantifiable reductions
currently
through taro -fit (e.g.. increased
of GHG emissions
exist (e.g-
insulation).
could be high if a
Carl Moyer
defensible fee program
Program.
were designed.
SJVAPCD
Rule 9510,
SMAQMD
Off -Site
Construction
Mitigation
Fee
Program).
MM M -2: Offset
LD (R, C. M).
NA:T.ow Yes
Yes No: ARR
No
Provide +purchase offsets for
Purchase
1. SP, TP,
has not
additional emissions by
AQP, RR,
adopted
acquiring carbon credits or
P:Alohile,
official
engaging in other market "cap
Stationary. &
program, but
and trade" systems.
Area
similar
programs
AG -A Homey (ieneral. ARB-C alitumia Air Resource, hoard, AS I'M Ameucan Society for Testing and Material. ItAAQMU -Hap Area An Qua IN Management Di it, er HFFS- But lding to, Lm nonmental and Fcon nue
Suuamahlhrv. C'A- C'ahfomm, Caluans- California Department of I'rampmtation. CAPS Criteria Air Pollutants, CLAP=( enter tirr Clean Air Policy. CI' -Cori ity Factor. ('IwMH- C'ahfornm Integrated Neste
Management Hoard, C0= Carton Monoade. CO;- Carbun Diuxdc, rXIS- Department mr6eneral Sentces, LN)L-C! S Department of Energy. DPF= Diesel particulate Filer. E95 85% Ethanol, FFR Fffiiciency
and Renescahle Energy, EOE FnescI credit a of Earth, f%PA -II S Environmental Protect nn Agency, F' IC= Edmonton T'rolle, Coalition. EVS:CNG- Flectne VehiciesR'nmpresseJ Natural Gas. FAR -Flom Area Ratio,
OHG= GncnMta,c (Ia,. HE- Institute of Transportation Fngmc,eTs, kg/m'-kilogram per squire meter, km= Adnmeter, IF pound, LHA) Leadership in Fri and Environmental Iksaen, M- Million, NA Not Avadahle.
NEV- Nctghborhnad Fttttne Vehicle, NIS'I'- National Institute of Surdards and'I'echnringv. NO,- O.,desof Nnrogcn, NRF.L- Natmnal Rcmwahle Frio r6w lainratory, WS- NorthrSOUth. P(I &F.= Pacific Gas and Liectitc.
PM- Partmulate Minter. S)VAPCD -San Joaquin Vail" Air Pollution Control District, SMAQMU= Cacrememn Meuorrohtan Air Quality' Management District. SMI:D- Snramento Municipal Utiln¢s District, SO,= Sulfur
Uvdea, SRI' Solar Reflectance Index,'1.AC5=Iox¢ Air CnntammanL,'. 'I'UM-Transportation Demand Management. I'MA franspmtation Management Association, I'HC- Total flvdmcarbun, CLFV -1'kra Low Fmwson
Vehicle. CSGHU =I:S ( been Building Council, and VTPI- Victoria 'I ramp Policy
13 -33
Table 16
Mitigation Measure Summary
Mitigation Applicable Effective Feasible (YeslNo)
Secondary Agency0ganization /Other4
Description/Comments
Measure Project/Source
Effects
Types
(YeslNo)
Emissions Cost (YeslNo)s Techn cal" Logisticals
ReductiontScorer
currently
exist.
MM RTP -I: RTP Yes Yes Yes
Adverse: Caltrans, local government
Evaluate the trip reduction (and
Dedicate High
possible local
GHG reduction) potential of
Occupancy
CO
adding HOV lanes prior to
Vehicle (IIOV)
Beneficial:
adding standard lanes.
lanes prior to
regional
adding capacity
CAPS. TACs
to existing
highways.
MM RTP -2: Rip Yes Yes Yes
Adverse. Caltrans
Evaluate price elasticity and
Implement
possible local
associated trip reduction (and
tolhuser fee
CO.
GI IG reduction) potential with
programs prior to
Beneficial:
adding or increasing tolls prior
adding capacity
regional
to adding capacity to existing
to existing
CAPS. TACs
highways.
highways.
Note.
Where LD (R. C. M) =Land Development (Residential, Commercial. Mixed -Use), 1=lndustrial, GP= General Plan, SP= Specific Plan. TP= Transponatlon Plans, AQP =Air Quality
Plans. RR= Rules/Regulations.
and P= Policy. It is important 10 note that listed project types may not be directly specific to the mitigation measure (e.g..
TP, AQP, RR, and P) as such could apply to a variety
of source types. especially RR
and P
'This score system entails ratings of high, moderate. and low that refer to the level of the measure to provide a substantive. reasonably certain (e.g . documented emission reductions with proven
technologies), and long -term reduction of GHG emissions.
'Refers to whether the measure would provide a cost - effective reduction of GHG emissions based on available documentation.
'Refers to whether the measure is based on currently. readily available technology based on available documentation.
`Refers to whether the measure could be implemented without extraordinary effort based on available documentation.
'List is not meant to be all inclusive.
Source Data complied by EDAW in 2007
B -34
Table 17
General Planning Level Mitigation Strategies Summary
strategy Source Type' AgencylOrganizationr DescriptOnlComments
i
- Adopt GliG reduction targets for the planning area - based on the current legislation providing
MS GI: Adopt a GI IG GP.' Mobile, City of San direction for state -wide targets, and update the plan as necessary.
reduction plan stationary, R Area Bernardino The local government agency should serve as a model by inventorying its 61 K; emissions from agency
operations, and implementing those reduction goals.
11 -35
- Create a gridded street pattern with small block sizes. This promotes walkabil4y through direct
routing and case of navigation.
- Maintain a high level of connectivity of the roadway network. Minimize cul -de -sacs and incomplete
roadway scgmems.
-Plan and maintain an integrated, hierarchical and multi -modal system of roadways, pedestrian walks.
and bicycle paths throughout the area.
Ms G -2: Provide for
Cities Counties
-Apply creative traffic management approaches to address congestion in areas with unique problems,
convenient and safe local GP,' Mobile
(c. g., Aliso Viejo,
particularly on roadways and intersections in the vicinity of schools in the morning and aflemoom peak
travel
Claremont)
hours, and near churches, parks and community centers.
-Work with adjacent jurisdictions to address the impacts of regional development patterns (e.g.
residential development in surrounding communities, regional universities, employment centers. and
commercial developments) on the circulation system.
- Actively promote walking as a safe mode of local travel. particularly for children attending local
schools. - Employ traffic calming methods such as median landscaping and provision of bike or transit
lanes to slow traffic. improve roadway capacity, and address sat'ety issues.
- Encourage the transportation authority to reduce fees for short distance trips.
MSC -3: Enhance the
Cities:counties (e.g..
regional transportation
r zonal
GP; Mobile
. Aliso Viejo,
-Ensure that improvements to the traffic corridors do not negatively impact the operation of kcal
e and maintain
network and
Claremont)
roadways and land uses.
11 -35
B -36
Table 17
General Planning
Level Mitigation Strategies Summary
Strategy Source Type'
Agenryl0rganizationt
Description/Comments
- Cooperate with adjacent jurisdictions to maintain adequate service levels at shared intersections and to
provide adequate capacity on regional routes for through traffic.
- Support initiatives to provide better public transportation. Work actively to ensure that public
transportation is part of every regional transportation corridor.
- Coordinate the diflercnt modes of travel to enable users to transfer easily from one mode to another.
-Work to provide a strong paratransit system that promotes the mobility of all residents and educate
residents about local mobility choices.
- Promote transit - oriented development to facilitate the use of the community`s transit services.
- Promote increased use of public transportation and support efforts to increase bus service range and
MS G4: Promote and
frequency within the area as appropriatc.
support an efficient public
Cities: Counties Ic.g.,
- Enhance and encourage provision of attractive and appropriate transit amenities, including shaded bus
transportation network GP: Mobile
Aliso Viejo.
stops. to encourage use of public transportation.
connecting activity
Claremont)
centers in the area to each
-Encourage the school districts. private schools and other operators to coordinate local bussing and t o
other and the region.
expand ride- sharing programs. All bussing options should be fully considered before substantial
roadway improvements are made in the vicinity of schools to case congestion.
- Improve area sidewalks and rights -of -way to make them efficient and appealing for walking and
bicycling safely. Coordinate with adjacent, jurisdictions and regional agencies to improve pedestrian
MS G5: Establish and
and bicycle trails, facilities, signage, and amenities.
maintain a comprehensive
system, which is safe and
CitiesC'ountics (e.g.,
- Provide safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle connections to and from town centers, other
convenient, of pedestrian
commercial districts, office complexes, neighborfioods, schools, other major activity centers, and
GR.' Mobile
ways and bicycle routes
Aliso \'iejo,
Claremont)
communities.
that provide viable
options to travel by
-Work with neighboring jurisdictions to provide well - designed pedestrian and bicycle crossings of
automobile.
major roadways.
- Promote walking throughout the community. Install sidewalks where missing and make improvements
B -36
B -37
Table 17
General Planning
Level Mitigation Strategies Summary
Strategy Source Type' AgencylOrganaation=
DescriptiordComments
to existing sidewalks for accessibility purposes. Particular attention should he given to needed sidewalk
improvement near schools and activity centers.
- Encourage businesses or residents to sponsor street fitmiture and landscaped areas.
- Strive to provide pedestrian pathways that are well shaded and pleasantly landscaped to encourage
use.
- Attract bicyclists from neighboring communities to ride their bicycles or ro bring their bicycles on the
train to enjoy bicycling around the community and to support local businesses.
Meet guidelines to become nationally recognized as a Bicycle - Friendly community.
- Provide for an education program and stepped up code enforcement to address and minimize
vegetation that degrades access along public rights -of -way.
- Engage in discussions with transit providers to increase the number of hicvcics that can be
accommodated on buses
- Support regional rail and work with rail authority to expand services.
MSG -b: ACAICYI' Cities Counties (c.g.,
- Achieve better integration of all transit options.
optimum use of regional GP: Mobile Aliso Viejo.
-Work with regional transportation planning agencies to finance and provide incentives for multimoda)
rail transit. Claremont)
transportation systems.
- Promote activity centers and transit - oriented development projects around the transit station.
- Encourage convenient public transit service between area and airports.
MS G -7: Expand and Cities: Counties (e.g..
optimize use of local and
- Support the establishment of a local shuttle to serve commercial centers.
GPi Mobile . Aliso Viejo,
regional bus and transit
Claremont)
systems.
- Promote convenient, clean, efficient. and accessible public transit that serves transit - dependent riders
and attracts discretionary riders as an altemative to reliance on single- occupant automobiles.
B -37
B -:S
Table 17
General Planning Level Mitigation Strategies Summary
Strategy
Source Type' AgencylOrganizationl Description/Cornments
. Empower seniors and those with physical disabilities who desire maximum personal freedom and
independence of lifestyle with unimpeded access to public transportation.
- Integrate transit service and amenities with surrounding land uses and buildings.
- Reduce the amount of water used for landscaping and increase use of native and low water plants.
Maximize use of native. low -water plants for landscaping of areas adjacent to sidewalks or other
impermeable surfaces.
NIS G-8: Emphasize the
- Encourage the production, distribution and use of recycled and reclaimed water for landscaping
importance of water
projects throughout the community, while maintaining urban runoff water quality objectives.
(:iticsCoumies (e.g..
conservation and
maximizing the use of
GP.!Stationary d
Aliso Viejv.
Area - Promote water conservation measures, reduce urban runoff. and prevent groundwater pollution within
native, low- water
Clarcmonq
development projects. property maintenance, area vpemtivns and all activities requiring approval.
landscaping.
- Iiducate the public about the importance of water conservation and avoiding wasteful water habits.
-Work with water provider in exploring water conservation programs. and encourage the water provider
to offer incentives for water conservation.
- integrate air quality planning with area land use. economic development and transportation planning
efforts.
- Support programs that reduce air quality emissions related to vehicular travel.
MS G -9: Improve air
GP, Mobile, Citie%.Counties (e.g..
Ahso Viejo, - Suppon alternative transportation modes and technologies, and develop bike- and pedestrian- friendly
quality within the region.
Stationay. & Area
Claremont) neighborhoods to reduce emissions associated with automobile use. .
- Encourage the use of clean fuel vehicles.
- Promote the use of fuel - efficient heating and cooling equipment and other appliances, such as water
B -:S
B -39
Table 17
General Planning Level Mitigation Strategies Summary
Strategy Source Type'
AgencylOrganizationr DescriptionlComments
heaters, swimming pool heaters, cooking equipment, refrigerators- furnaces. and boiler units.
- Promote the use of clean air technologies such as fuel cell technologies. renewable energy sources.
UV coatines, and alternative. non - fossil fuels.
- Require the planting of street trees along streets and inclusion of trees and landscaping for all
development projects to help improve airshed and minimize urban heat island effects.
- f ncourage small businesses to utilize clean. innovative technologies to reduce air pollution.
- Implement principles of green building.
- Support lobs:ltousing balance within the community so more people can both live and work within the
community. To reduce vehicle trips. encourage people to telecommute or work out of home or in local
satellite offices.
- Encourage green building designs for new construction and renovation projects within the area.
- Coordinate with regional and local energy suppliers to ensure adequate supplies of energy to meet
community needs. implement energy conservation and public education programs, and identify
alternative energy sources where appropriate.
MS G -10: Encourage and
- Encourage building orientations and landscaping that enhance natural lighting and sun exposure.
maximize energy
conservation and GP. Stationary &
Cities %Counties (e.g..
Aliso Viejo. - Encourage expansion of neighborhood -level products and services and public transit opportunities
identification of Area
Claremont) throughout the area to reduce automobile use.
alternative energy
sources.
- Incorporate the use of energy conservation strategics in area projects.
- Promote energy - efficient design features, including appropriate site orientation, use of light color
rooting and building materials, and use of evergreen trees and wind -break trees to reduce fuel
consumption for heating and cooling.
B -39
Table 17
General Planning Level Mitigation Strategies Summary
Strategy Source Type' Agency/Organization' Description/Comments
- Explore and consider the costbenefits of alternative fuel vehicles including hybrid, natural gas, and
hydrogen powered vehicles when purchasing new vehicles.
dbntinue to promote the use of solar power and other energy conservation measures.
- Encourage residents to consider the cost'benefits of alternative fuel vehicles.
- Promote the use of different technologies that reduce use of non - renewable energy resources.
- Facilitate the use of green building standards and LFFD in both private and public projects.
- Promote sustainable building practices that go beyond the requirements of Title 24 of the California
Administrative Codc, and encourage energy - efficient design elements, as appropriate.
- Support sustainable building practices that integrate building materials and methods that promote
environmental quality. economic vitality, and social benefit through the design, construction, and
operation of the built environment.
- Investigate the feasibility of using solar (photovoltaic) street lights instead of conventional street lights
that are powered by electricity in an effort to conserve energy.
- Encourage cooperation between neighboring development to facilitate on -site renewable energy
supplies or combined heat and power co- generation facilities that can serve the energy demand of
contiguous development.
B-40
- Encourage development of affordable housing opportunities throughout the community, as well as
MS G -12: Provide Citics /Counties (e.g_ development of housing for elderly and low and moderate income households near public transportation
affordability levels to GPI 'Mobile Aliso Viejo, services.
meet the needs of Claremont)
community residents. -Ensure a portion of future residential development is affordable to low and very low income
households.
MS G -13: Promote a - Preserve the current pattern of development that encourages more intense and higher density
visually - cohesive urban development at the core of the community and less intense uses radiating from the central core.
form and establish GP/ .Mobile. ('m Aliso tej (e.g.,
connections between the Stationary, & Area Aliso Vona) - Create and enhance landscaped grecnway, trail and sidewalk connections between neighborhoods and
urban core and outlying Claremont) to commercial areas, town centers, and parks.
portions of the
a -a I
Table 17
General Planning Level Mitigation Strategies Summary
Strategy Source Type'
AgertcylOrganizationt
DescriptionlComments
- Develop a tree planting policy that strives to accomplish specific °,; shading of constructed paved and
concrete surfaces within five Years of construction.
- Provide adequate funding to manage and maintain the existing forest, including sufficient funds for
tree planting, pest control, scheduled pruning, and removal and replacement of dead trees.
MS G -11: Preserve
-Coordinate with local and regional plant experts in selecting tree species that respect the natural region
unique community
Cities'Counties (e.g..
in which (Claremont is located, to help create a healthier, more sustainable urban forest.
forests, and provide for GP. .-Stationary &
Aliso Viejo,
sustainable increase and Area
Claremont)
- Continue to plant new trees (in particular native tree species where appropriate). and work to preserve
maintenance of this
mature native trees.
valuanlc resource.
- increase the awareness of the benefits of street trees and the community forest through a area wide
education effort.
- Encourage residents to properly care for and preserve large and beautiful trees on their own private
- Encourage development of affordable housing opportunities throughout the community, as well as
MS G -12: Provide Citics /Counties (e.g_ development of housing for elderly and low and moderate income households near public transportation
affordability levels to GPI 'Mobile Aliso Viejo, services.
meet the needs of Claremont)
community residents. -Ensure a portion of future residential development is affordable to low and very low income
households.
MS G -13: Promote a - Preserve the current pattern of development that encourages more intense and higher density
visually - cohesive urban development at the core of the community and less intense uses radiating from the central core.
form and establish GP/ .Mobile. ('m Aliso tej (e.g.,
connections between the Stationary, & Area Aliso Vona) - Create and enhance landscaped grecnway, trail and sidewalk connections between neighborhoods and
urban core and outlying Claremont) to commercial areas, town centers, and parks.
portions of the
a -a I
B -42
Table 17
General Planning
Level Mitigation Strategies Summary
Strategy
Source Type' Agency /Organizations
DescriptiontComments
commmnitv.
- IdentiR, ways to visually identify and physically connect all portions of the community, focusing on
enhanced eateways and unifying isolated and +or outlying areas with the rest of the area.
-Study and create a diverse plant identity with emphasis on drought - resistant native species.
- .Attract a broad range of additional retail. medical, and office uses providing employment at all income
levels.
MS G -14: Provide a
- Support efforts to provide beneficial civic, religious, recreational, cultural and educational
diverse mix of land uses
Cities %Counties (e.g.,
opportunities and public services to the entire community.
to meet the future needs
GP/ Mobile .Aliso Viejo,
of all residents and the
Claremont)
- Coordinate with public and private organizations to maximize the availability and use of parks and
business community.
recreational facilities in the community.
- Support development of hotel and recreational commercial land uses to provide these amenities to
local residents and businesses.
MS G -15: Collaborate
with providers of solid
waste collection- disposal
Citiesicounlies (e.g..
- Require recycling, composting. source reduction and education efforts throughout the community,
and recycling services to
GP: Stationary. & Aliso Viejo,
including residential, businesses, industries, and institutions, within the construction industry, and in all
ensure a level of service
Area
Claremont)
sponsored activities.
that promotes a clean
community and
environment.
-Work to expand and improve community recreation amenities including parks, pedestrian trails and
MS (' -16: Promote
connections to regional trail facilities.
construction, maintenance
and active use of publicly-
Citics/Counties (c.g.,
-As a condition upon new development, require payment of park fees and.!or dedication and provision
and privately-operated
GR' Mobile Aliso Viejo,
of parkland, recreation facilities andor multi -use trails that improve the public and private recreation
parks, recreation
Claremont)
system.
programs, and a
community center.
- Research options or opportunities to provide necessary or desired community facilities.
B -42
B -43
Table 17
General Planning
Level Mitigation Strategies Summary
Strategy
Source Type'
Agencyllhganizationt
DescriptionlCommertts
- Encourage sustainable development that incorporates green building best practices and involves the
reuse of previously developed property and.. or vacant sites within a built -up area.
- Encourage the conservation. maintenance. and rehabilitation of the existing housing stock.
MS G -17: Promote the
Cities'C aunties (e.g..
- E.ncourage development that incorporates green building practices to conserve natural resources as pan
application of sustainable
GPI Mobile.
Aliso Viejo,
of sustainable development practices.
development practices.
Stationary, & Area
Claremont)
-Avoid development of isolated residential areas in the hillsides or other areas where such development
would require significant infrastructure investment, adversely impact biotic resources.
- Provide land area zoned for commercial and industrial uses to support a mix of retail, office.
professional, service, and manufacturing businesses.
MS G -18: Create activity
- Provide pedestrian amenities, traffic - calming features, plazas and public areas. attractive streetseapes.
nodes as important
Citics,'Countics (e.g..
shade trees, lighting, and retail stores at activity nodes.
destination areas. with an
Gpi Mobile
Aliso Viejo,
emphasis on public life
Claremont)
- Provide for a mixture of complementary retail uses to be located together to create activity nodes to
within the community,
serve adjacent neighborhoods and to draw visitors from other neighborhoods and from outside the area.
- Provide crosswalks and sidewalks along streets that are accessible for people with disabilities and
MS G- 19: Make roads
CitiesC'ountics (e.g..
people who are physically challenged.
comfortable, safe,
accessible- and attractive
GP GPI Mobile
Aliso Viejo,
- Provide lighting for walking and nighttime activities. where appropriate,
for use day and night.
- Provide transit shelters that are comfortable- attractive- and accommodate transit riders.
MS G -20: Maintain and
- Provide sidewalks where they are missing, and provide wide sidewalks where appropriate with buffers
expand where possible the
CitievCounties (e.g..
and shade so that people can walk comfortably.
system of neighborhood
connections that attach
GR' Mobile
Aliso Viejo .
-Make walking comfortable at intersections through traffic - calming, landscaping- and designated
neighborhoods to larger
Claremont)
crosswalks.
roadways.
B -43
B -44
Table 17
General Planning
Level Mitigation Strategies Summary
Strategy
Source Type' AgencylOrganizationz
DescriptiontComments
-Look for opportunities for connections along easements & other areas where vehicles not permitted.
- Provide benches, streetlights, public art. and other amenities in public areas to attract pedestrian
activities.
- Encourage new developments to incorporate drought tolerant and native landscaping that is pedestrian
friendly, attractive. and consistent with the landscaped character of area.
- Encourage all new development to preserve existing mature trees.
MS G -21: Create
Citiec•'Coumics (e.g.,
- Encourage strectscape design programs for commercial frontages that create vibrant places which
distinctive places
GP: Mobile Aliso Viejo.
support walking, bicycling. transit, and sustainable economic development.
throughout the area.
Claremont)
- Encourage the design and placement of buildings on lots to provide opportunities for natural systems
such as solar heating and passive cooling.
- Ensure that all new industrial development projects are positive additiuns to the community setting,
provide amenities for the comfort of the employees such as outdoor seating area for breaks or lunch,
and have adequate landscape buffers.
MS C -22: Reinvest in
- Identify all undcrused properties in the plan area and focus development in these opportunity sites
existing neighborhoods
CitievCounties (e.g..
prior to designating new growth areas for development.
and promote infll
development as l
GP; \lobile-
Stationary, &Area Aliso Viejo.
Claremont)
- Implement programs to retro -fit existing structures to make them more energy- efficient.
preference over new.
greenfield development
- Encourage compact development, by placing the desired activity areas in smaller spaces.
B -44
Strategy
MS G -23: promote a safe
community in which
residents can live. work,
shop, and play.
Source Type'
0 K Mobile
Note.
'Where GP= General Plan.
' List is not meant to be all inclusive.
Source. Data complied by EDAW in 2007
Table 17
General Planning Level Mitigation
AgencylOrganizationi
CiticsuC:ountics (e.g..
Aliso Viejo.
Claremont)
Description/Comments
- Foster an environment of trust by ensuring non - biased policing. and by adopting policies and
encouraging collaboration that creates transparency.
- Facilitate traffic satety for motorists and pedestrians through proper street design and traffic
monitoring.
B -a5
Appendix C: Rule and Regulation Summary
Appendix C
CEQA
and
Climate Change
Rule and Regulation Summary
CAPCOA
Appendix C
AB= Assembly Bill: ARB = California Air Resources Board; Calfire= California Fire; CA= Califomia. Caltrans= Califomia Department of Transportation: CAT = Califomia Action Team: CEC= Califomia
Energy Commission: CDFA= Califomia Department of Food and Agriculture: CH,= Methane: CO;= Carbon Dioxide: CPUC = Califomia Public Utilities Commission: CUFR = Califomia Urban
Forestry. DGS= Department of General Services; DWR= Department of Water Resources: GHG = Greenhouse Gas, GWP= Global Warming Potential: IGCC= Integrated Gasification Combined
Cycle: IOU= Investor -Owned Utility; 1T= Information Technology, IWCB= Integrated Waste Management Board. LNG= Liquefied Natural Gas; MMT CO,e= Million Metric Tons Carbon Dioxide
Equivalent: MW= Megawans: NA =Not Available: N,O= Nitrous Oxide, PFC= Perfluorocompound: POU= Publicly Owned Utility; RPS= Renewable Portfolio Standards: RTP= Regional
Transportation Plan SB= Senate Bill; SWP =State Water Project: TBD =To Be Determined: UC /CSU= University of California/Califomia State University: ULEV =Ultra Low Emission Vehicle.
C-11
Table 18
Rule and
Regulation
Summary
Rule /Regulation
Reduction
Implementation
Agency
Description
Comments
Date
Low Carbon Fuel Standard
10-20 MMT
January 1, 2010
ARR
This rule /regulation will require fuel
ARB Larly Action Measure
CQ,c by 2020
providers (e.g., producers. importers. refiners
and blenders) to ensure that the mix of fuels
they sell in CA meets the statewide goal to
reduce the carbon intensity of CA's
transportation fuels by at least 10% by the
2020 target.
Reduction of HE('-134a Emissions from
12 MMT CO:e
January I, 2010
ARB
This rulcircgulation will restrict the use of
ARB Early Action Measure
Nonprofessional Servicing of Motor
by 2020
high GW'P refrigerants for nonprofessional
Vehicle Air Conditioning Systems
recharging of leaky automotive air
conditioning systems.
Landfill Gas Recovery
2 -4 MMT Cb.c
January 1, 2010
IWNIB,
This rule /regulation will require landfill gas
ARB Early Action .Measure
by 2020
ARR
recovery systems on small to medium
landfills that do not have them and upgrade
the requirements at landfills with existing
systems to represent best capture and
destruction efficiencies.
Vehicle Climate Change Standards (AB
30 MfOT CO•e
209
ARB
This rule %regulation will require ARB to
ARB Early Action Measure
1493 Pavley. Chapter 200. Statutes of
by 2020
achieve the maximum feasible and cost
2002)
effective reduction of GHG emissions from
passenger vehicles and light -duty trucks.
Reduction of PFCs from the
0.5 MM'1' CO_•e
2007 2009
ARB
This rute.:regulation will reduce GHG
Underway or to he initiated by
Semiconductor Industry
by 2020
emissions by process improvements/source
CAT members in 2007 -2009
reduction, alternative chemicals capture and
period
beneficial reuse, and destruction technologies
AB= Assembly Bill: ARB = California Air Resources Board; Calfire= California Fire; CA= Califomia. Caltrans= Califomia Department of Transportation: CAT = Califomia Action Team: CEC= Califomia
Energy Commission: CDFA= Califomia Department of Food and Agriculture: CH,= Methane: CO;= Carbon Dioxide: CPUC = Califomia Public Utilities Commission: CUFR = Califomia Urban
Forestry. DGS= Department of General Services; DWR= Department of Water Resources: GHG = Greenhouse Gas, GWP= Global Warming Potential: IGCC= Integrated Gasification Combined
Cycle: IOU= Investor -Owned Utility; 1T= Information Technology, IWCB= Integrated Waste Management Board. LNG= Liquefied Natural Gas; MMT CO,e= Million Metric Tons Carbon Dioxide
Equivalent: MW= Megawans: NA =Not Available: N,O= Nitrous Oxide, PFC= Perfluorocompound: POU= Publicly Owned Utility; RPS= Renewable Portfolio Standards: RTP= Regional
Transportation Plan SB= Senate Bill; SWP =State Water Project: TBD =To Be Determined: UC /CSU= University of California/Califomia State University: ULEV =Ultra Low Emission Vehicle.
C-11
Table 18
Rule and
Regulation
Summary
Rule/Regulation
Reduction
Implementation
Agency
Description
Comments
Date
Restrictions on I lieh GWP Refrigerants
9 MMT CO,c by
2010
ARB
this rule./regulation will expand and enforce
ARR F.arly Action Measure
2020
the national ban on release of high GWP
refrigerants during appliance lifetime.
Cement Manufacture
<I MM'FCO_e
2010
Caltrans
This rule./regulation will allow 2.5 0o
CAT Early Action Measure
per year (based
mierground limestone concrete mix in
on 2004
cement use.
production
levels)
Hydrogen Fuel Standards (SB 76 of 2005)
TBD
By 2008
CDFA
Phis ode %regulation will develop hydrogen
CAT Early Action Measure
fuel standards for use in combustion systems
and fuel cells.
Regulation of WIG from Load Serving
15 MM '1' CO_c
May 23, 2007
CEC.
This rule regulation will establish a GHG
CAT Early .fiction Measure
Entities (SB 1368)
by 2020
CPI:C
emission performance standard for bascluad
generation of local publicly owned electric
utilities that is no higher than the rate of
emissions of GIG for combined -cycle
natural gas bascload generation.
Energy Efficient Building Standards
TBD
In 2009
CIiC
This rulciregulation will update of'1'ille 24
CAT Early Action Measure
standards.
Energy Efficient Appliance Standards
TBD
January I. 2010
CEC•
'Phis rule: regulation will regulate light bulb
CAT Fariv Action Measure
efficiency
'fire Efficiency (Chapter 8.7 Division 15
<I MMT CO_e
January 1. 2010
CF.0 R
This rule ..regulation will ensure that
CAT F;arly Action Measure
of the Public Resources Code)
by 2020
IWMB
replacement tires sold in CA are at least as
energy efficient. on average. as tires sold in
the state as original equipment on these
vehicles.
New Solar I tomes Partnership
'I'BD
January 2007
CEC
Under this rule. - regulation, approved solar
CAT Early Action Measure
systems will receive incentive funds based
on system performance above building
standards.
AB= Assembly Bill, ARB= California Air Resources Board; Calfire = Califomia Fire: CA= California, Caltrans= Califomia Department of Transportation, CAT = Califomia Action Team: CEC= Caldomia
Energy Commission: CDFA = Califomia Department of Food and Agriculture: CH.= Methane: CO >= Carbon Dioxide. CPUC= Califomia Public Utilities Commission: CUFR = Califomia Urban
Forestry. DGS= Department of General Services, DWR = Department of Water Resources: GHG= Greenhouse Gas: GWP =Global Waring Potential; IGCC= Integrated Gasification Combined
Cycle: IOU= Investor -Ovmed UTAry; T= Information Technology; IWCB= Integrated Waste Management Board: LNG= Liquefied Natural Gas; MMT CO,e= Million Metric Tons Carbon Dioxide
Egwvalenl; MW= Megawatts: NA =Not Available, N>O= Nitrous Oxide: PFC= Perfluorocompound: POU= Publicly Owned Utility; RPS= Renewable Portfolio Standards: RTP= Regional
Transportation Plan SB= Senate Bill: SWP =State Water Project; TBD =To Be Determined: UCICSU= University of Califomia /Califomia State University, ULEV =Ultra Low Emission Vehicle.
C
Table 18
Rule and
Regulation
Summary
Rule/Regulation
Reduction
Implementation
Agency
Description
Comments
Date
Water Use Efficiency
1 MMT CO >e by
2010
DWR
This ruleiregulation will adopt standards for
CAT Early Action Measure
2020
projects and programs funded through water
bonds that would require consideration of
water use efficiency in construction and
operation.
Slate Water Project
'i'DD
2010
DWR
Phis rulerreeulation will include feasible and
CA'f Early Action Measure
cost effective renewable energy in the SWP's
portfolio.
Cleaner Fnergy for Water Supply
TRD
2010
DWR
Crider this rule regulation. energy supply
CAT Early Action Measure
contracts with conventional coal power
plants will not be renewed.
IOU Energy Efficiency Programs
d MMT CO,c by
2010
CPUC
This rule regulation will provide a
CAT Early' Action Nleasurc
2020
riskireward incentive mechanism for utilities
to encourage additional investment in energy
efficiency: evaluate new technologies and
new measures like encouraging compact
fluorescent lighting in residential and
commercial buildings
Solar Generation
'fBD
2007 -2009
DGS
3 MW of clean solar power generation
Underway or to he initiated by
implemented in CA last year. with another I
CAT members in 2007 -2009
MW coming up. The second round is
period
anticipated to total additional 10 MW and
may include l;C'CSU campuses and state
fairgrounds.
AB= Assembly Bill, ARB= California Air Resources Board; Calfire = Califomia Fire: CA= California, Caltrans= Califomia Department of Transportation, CAT = Califomia Action Team: CEC= Caldomia
Energy Commission: CDFA = Califomia Department of Food and Agriculture: CH.= Methane: CO >= Carbon Dioxide. CPUC= Califomia Public Utilities Commission: CUFR = Califomia Urban
Forestry. DGS= Department of General Services, DWR = Department of Water Resources: GHG= Greenhouse Gas: GWP =Global Waring Potential; IGCC= Integrated Gasification Combined
Cycle: IOU= Investor -Ovmed UTAry; T= Information Technology; IWCB= Integrated Waste Management Board: LNG= Liquefied Natural Gas; MMT CO,e= Million Metric Tons Carbon Dioxide
Egwvalenl; MW= Megawatts: NA =Not Available, N>O= Nitrous Oxide: PFC= Perfluorocompound: POU= Publicly Owned Utility; RPS= Renewable Portfolio Standards: RTP= Regional
Transportation Plan SB= Senate Bill: SWP =State Water Project; TBD =To Be Determined: UCICSU= University of Califomia /Califomia State University, ULEV =Ultra Low Emission Vehicle.
C
C -4
Table 18
Rule and Regulation
Summary
Rule-Megulation
Reduction
Implementation Agency
Description
Comments
Dale
Transportation Efficiency
9 MMT C'O,e by
2007 2009 Caltrans
This ruVregulation will reduce congestion,
Underway or to be initiated by
2020
improve travel time in congested corridors.
CAT members in 2007 -2009
and promote coordinated, integrated land
period
use.
Smart Land l `se and Intelligent
10 MMT CO:e
2007 2009 C'altrans
This rule'rcgulation will integrate
Underway or to he initiated by
Transportation
by 2020
consideration of GHG reduction measures
CAT members in 2007 -2009
and energy efficiency factors into RTPs,
period
project development etc.
Cool Automobile Paints
1.2 to 2.0 MM '1
2009 ARB
Cool paints would reduce the solar heat gain
ARB Early Action Measure
CO:c b) 20_20
in a vehicle and reduce air conditioning
needs.
Tire Inflation Program
7BD
2009 ARB
This rule/regulation will require tires to be
ARB Early Action Measure
checked and inflated at regular intervals to
improve fuel economy.
Electrification of Stationary Agricultural
0.1 MMT CO c
2010 ARB
'Phis ruloregulation will provide incentive
ARB Early Action Measure
Engines
by 2020
funding opportunities for replacing diesel
engines with electric motors.
fksktop Power Management
Reduce energy
2007-2009 D(iS. ARB
This mle.rregulation will provide software to
Currently deployed in DGS
use by 50%
reduce electricity use by desktop computers
by up to 40 %.
Reducing CI 1, Venting,•1.caking from Oil
I MMT CO:e by
2010 ARB
This ruic:regulation will reduce fugitive CH,
ARB Early Action Measure
and Gas Systems (EJAC -? /ARB 2 -12)
2020
emissions from production, processing.
transmission, and distribution of natural gas
and oil.
Replacement of I ligh GWP Gases Used
0.1 MMT C'O -e
2011 ARB
This mlciregulation will require the use of
ARB Early Action Measure
in Fire Protection Systems with Altemate
by 2020
lower GWP substances in fire protection
Chemical (ARB 2 -10)
systems.
Contracting for Environmentally
NA
2007 -2009 DGS
New state contracts have been or are being
Underway or to be initiated by
Preferable Products
created for more energy and resource
CAT members in 2007 -2009
efficient IT goods, copiers, low mercury
period
fluorescent lamps, the CA Gold Carpet
Standard and office f imiture.
Hydrogen Fuel Cells
VA
2007 -2009 DGS
This ruleEregulation will incorporate clean
Underway or to be initiated by
hydrogen fuel cells in stationary applications
CAT members in 2007 -2009
C -4
AB= Assembly Bill; ARB = California Air Resources Board: Calflre= California Fire: CA= Calitomia; Caltrans= California Department of Transportation. CAT = California Action Team: CEC= California
Energy Commission: CDFA = California Department of Food and Agriculture: CH,= Methane. CO:= Carbon Dioxide: CPUC = California Pubic Utilities Commission: CUFR= Califomia Urban
Foreslry; DGS = Department of General Services: DWR= Department of Water Resources. GHG= Greenhouse Gas: GWP =Global Warming Potential; IGCC= Integrated Gasiflcatwn Combined
Cycle. IOU= Investor -Owned Utility: IT= Information Technology: IWCB= Integrated Waste Management Board: LNG= Liquefied Natural Gas, MMT COxe= Million Metric Tons Carbon Dioxide
Equivalent; MW= Megawatts; NA =Not Available, NrO= Nitrous Oxide; PFC= Perfluorocompound. POU= Publicly Owned Utility: RPS= Renewable Portfolio Standards: RTP= Regional
Transportation Plan SB= Senate Bill: SWP =Slate Water Project; TBD =To Be Determined: UCICSU= University of California /Cailomia State University, ULEV =Ultra Low Emission Vehicle.
C -5
Table 18
Rule and
Regulation
Summary
RulelRegulation
Reduction
Implementation
Agency
Description
Comments
Date
at State facilities and as back -up generation
period
for emergency radio services.
I ligh Performance Schools
NA
2007 -2009
DGS
New guidelines adopted for energy and
Underway or to be initiated by
resource efficient schools: up to $100 million
CAT members in 2007-2009
in bond money for construction of
Period
sustainable, high performance schools.
Urban Forestry
I MNIT CO,c by
2007 2009
Calfirc,
This rule-regulation will provide five million
Underway or to be initiated by
2020
CIJFR
additional trees in urban areas by 2020.
CAT members in 2007 -2009
period
Fuels Management/Riomass
i MMT CO3e by
2007 2009
Calfire
'Ibis rule: regulation will provide biomass
Underway or to be initiated by
2020
from forest fuel treatments to existing
C'A'T members in 2007 -2009
biomass utilization facilities.
period
Forest Conservation and Forest
10 \IMT CO_c
2007 -2009
Calfirc.
This rule rcgulation will provide
Underway or to be initiated by
Management
by 2020
\GCB
opportunities for carbon sequestration in
CAT members in 2007 -2009
Proposition 84 forest land conservation
period
program W conserve an additional 75.000
acres of forest landscape by 2010.
Afforestation.-Reforestation
2 mm CO3e by
2007 2009
Calfirc
This rule regulation will subsidize tree
Virdervay or to be initialed by
2020
planting.
CAT members in 2007 -2009
period
Dairy Digesters
'BD
January 1, 2010
CDFA
This rule: regulation will develop a dairy
ARB Larly Action Measure
digester protocol to document GI IG emission
reductions from these facilities.
AB= Assembly Bill; ARB = California Air Resources Board: Calflre= California Fire: CA= Calitomia; Caltrans= California Department of Transportation. CAT = California Action Team: CEC= California
Energy Commission: CDFA = California Department of Food and Agriculture: CH,= Methane. CO:= Carbon Dioxide: CPUC = California Pubic Utilities Commission: CUFR= Califomia Urban
Foreslry; DGS = Department of General Services: DWR= Department of Water Resources. GHG= Greenhouse Gas: GWP =Global Warming Potential; IGCC= Integrated Gasiflcatwn Combined
Cycle. IOU= Investor -Owned Utility: IT= Information Technology: IWCB= Integrated Waste Management Board: LNG= Liquefied Natural Gas, MMT COxe= Million Metric Tons Carbon Dioxide
Equivalent; MW= Megawatts; NA =Not Available, NrO= Nitrous Oxide; PFC= Perfluorocompound. POU= Publicly Owned Utility: RPS= Renewable Portfolio Standards: RTP= Regional
Transportation Plan SB= Senate Bill: SWP =Slate Water Project; TBD =To Be Determined: UCICSU= University of California /Cailomia State University, ULEV =Ultra Low Emission Vehicle.
C -5
C -6
Table 18
Rule and
Regulation
Summary
RuWRegulation
Reduction
Implementation
Agency
Description
Comments
Date
Consmit ion Tillage and Enteric
I MMT CO,c by
2007 -2009
C'DFA
This ode. regulation will develop and
Underway or to he initiated by
Fermentation
2020
implement actions to quantify and reduce
CAT members in 2007 -2009
enteric fermentation emissions from
period
livestock and sequester soil carbon using
cover crops and conservation tillage.
ULFV
'1'111)
2007 2009
DGS
A new lone term commercial rental contract
Underway or to be initiated by
was released in March 2007 requiring a
CAT members in 2007 -2009
minimum CLEV standard for gasoline
period
vehicles and requires altemative fuel and
hybrid - electric vehicles.
Flex Fuel Vehicles
370 metric tons
2007 -2009
DGS
Under this rulerregulation, L)GS is replacing
Underway or to be initiated by
CO;, 0.85 metric
800 vehicles with new. more efficient
UA'f members in 2007 -2009
tons of CH„ and
vehicles.
period
1.14 metric Ions
of V -O
Climate Registry
TBD
2007 -2009
1)GS
Benchmarking and reduction of G116
I;ndervvay or to he initiated by
emissions for state owned buildings. leased
CA 'f members in 2007 -2009
buildings and light duty vehicles.
period
Municipal Utilities Electricity Sector
Included in SB
2007 -2009
CIiC,
l;nder this rulehegulation, GI IG emissions
Underway or to he initiated by
Carbon Policy
1368 reductions
CPUC,
cap policy guidelines for CA's electricity
CAT members in 2007 -2009
ARB
sector (IOUs and POCs).
period
Alternative Fuels: Nonpctrolcum Fuels
TBD
2007 2009
CE(-
State plan to increase the use of alternative
Underway or to be initiated by
fuels for transportation: full fuel cycle
CAT members in 2007 -2009
assessment.
period
Zero 1VastclHigh Recycling Strategy
5 MM'I' CO,e by
2007 2009
IWMB
This ruleiregulation will identify materials to
Underway or to be initiated by
2020
focus on to achieve GHG reduction at the
CAT members in 2007 -2009
lowest possible cost; Builds on the success of
period
504% Statewide Recycling Goal.
Organic Materials Management
TBD
2007 2009
IWMB
1'his rule: regulation will develop a market
Underway or to be initiated by
incentive program to increase organics
CAT members in 2007 -2009
diversion to the agricultural industry.
period
Landfill (;as Energy
TBD
2007 -2009
IWMB
Landfill Gas to Energy & LNGibiofucls
Underway or to he initiated by
CAT members in 2007 -2(H)9
period
C -6
AB= Assembly Bill: ARB= CaIAoma Art Resources Board; Calfire= California Fire: CA= Califomia: Caarans= Califomia Department of Transportation: CAT = California Action Team; CEC= Califomia
Energy Commission: CDFA= Califomia Department of Food and Agriculture; Cl-,= Methane: CO,= Carbon Dioxide: CPUC= Califomia Public Utilities Commission; CUFR= Califomia Urban
Forestry: DGS= Department of General Services. DWR= Department of Water Resources: GHG = Greenhouse Gas: GWP =Global Warming Potential: IGCC= Integrated Gasification Combined
Cycle: IOU= Investor -Owned Utility, 1T= Information Technology: IWCB= Integrated Waste Management Board, LNG= Liquefied Natural Gas: MMT CO,e= Milhon Metric Tons Carbon Dioxide
Equivalent: MW= Megawatts, NA =Not Available: N20= Nitrous Oxide: PFC= Perfluorocomlwund, POU= Publicly Owned Utility; RPS= Renewable Portfolio Standards: RTP= Regional
Transportation Plan SB= Senate Bill, SWP =State Water Project: TBD =TO Be Determined. UC /CSU= University of CatilomiafCalitomla Slate University: ULEV =Ultra Low Emission Vehicle.
C -7
Table 18
Rule and
Regulation
Summary
Ru$efRegulation
Reduction
Implementation
Agency
Description
Comments
Date
Target Recycling
TBD
2007 2009
IWMl3
This rule'regulation will focus on
Underway or to be initiated by
indusm,ipublic sectors with high GHG
C'A'I members in 2007 -2009
components to implement targeted
period
commodity recycling programs.
Accelerated Renewable Portfolio
Included in S13
2007 2009
CPUC
This rule:reeulation will examine RPS long
Underway or to he initiated by
Standard
1368 reductions
term planning and address the use of tradable
CAT members in 2007 -2009
renewable energy credits for RPS
period
compliance.
CA Solar Initiative
I MM 'I CO:e by
2007 2009
CPCC
Initiative to deliver 2000 MWs of clean.
Underway or to be initiated by
2020
emissions free energy to the CA grid by
C.A "1' members in 2007 -2009
2016.
period
Carbon Capture and Sequestration
TBD
2007 -2009
CPCC
Proposals for power plants with IGCC and�or
Vndensay or to be initiated by
carbon capture in the next 18 months.
CAT members in 2007 -2009
Source: Data complied by EDAW in 2007
AB= Assembly Bill: ARB= CaIAoma Art Resources Board; Calfire= California Fire: CA= Califomia: Caarans= Califomia Department of Transportation: CAT = California Action Team; CEC= Califomia
Energy Commission: CDFA= Califomia Department of Food and Agriculture; Cl-,= Methane: CO,= Carbon Dioxide: CPUC= Califomia Public Utilities Commission; CUFR= Califomia Urban
Forestry: DGS= Department of General Services. DWR= Department of Water Resources: GHG = Greenhouse Gas: GWP =Global Warming Potential: IGCC= Integrated Gasification Combined
Cycle: IOU= Investor -Owned Utility, 1T= Information Technology: IWCB= Integrated Waste Management Board, LNG= Liquefied Natural Gas: MMT CO,e= Milhon Metric Tons Carbon Dioxide
Equivalent: MW= Megawatts, NA =Not Available: N20= Nitrous Oxide: PFC= Perfluorocomlwund, POU= Publicly Owned Utility; RPS= Renewable Portfolio Standards: RTP= Regional
Transportation Plan SB= Senate Bill, SWP =State Water Project: TBD =TO Be Determined. UC /CSU= University of CatilomiafCalitomla Slate University: ULEV =Ultra Low Emission Vehicle.
C -7
\c E Of P
e * o
2
cc T
o_ ?
�l�lFOf���P
Technical
Advisory
CEQA AND CLIMATE CHANGE:
Addressing Climate Change Through
California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Review
This technical advisory is one in a series of advisories provided by
the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) as a service to
professional planners, land use officials and CEQA practitioners. OPR
issues technical guidance from time to time on issues that broadly affect
the practice of CEQA and land use planning. The emerging role of
CEQA in addressing climate change and greenhouse gas emissions has
been the topic of much discussion and debate in recent months. This
document provides OPR's perspective on the issue.
JUNE 17.2008 I. PURPOSE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
General scientific consensus and increasing public awareness
Arnold Schwarzenegger,
Govemor
regarding global warming and climate change have placed new focus on
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEiQA) review process as a
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE
means to address the effects of greenhouse gas (GI I(;) emissions from
OF PLANNING AND
proposed projects on climate change. Many public agencies along
RESEARCH
with academic, business, and community organizations —are striving to
Cynthia Bryant, Director
determine the appropriate means by which to evaluate and mitigate the
1400 Tenth Street
impacts of proposed projects on climate change. Approaches and
Sacramento. CA 95814
methodologies for calculating GHG emissions and addressing the
environmental impacts through CEQA review are rapidIv evolving and
PO Box 3044
are increasingly available to assist public agencies to prepare their
Sacramento, CA 95812
CEQA documents and make informed decisions.
(916)322 -2318
www.opr.ca gov
The Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) will develop, and
the California Resources Agency (Resources Agency) will certify and adopt
amendments to the Guidelines implementing the California Environmental
Quality Act ( "CEQA Guidelines'), on or before January 1, 2010, pursuant to
Senate Bill 97 (Dutton, 2007). These new CEQA Guidelines will provide
regulatory guidance on the analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions in CEQA
documents. In the interim, OPR offers the following informal guidance regarding
the steps lead agencies should take to address climate change in their CEQA
documents. This guidance was developed in cooperation with the Resources
Agency, the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/1--.PA), and the
California Air Resources Board (ARB).
11. BACKGROUND
Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate, such
as average temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns over a period of time.
Climate change may result from natural factors, natural processes, and human
activities that change the composition of the atmosphere and alter the surface
and features of the land. Significant changes in global climate patterns have
recently been associated with global warming, an average increase in the
temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth's surface, attributed to
accumulation of GHG emissions in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases trap heat
in the atmosphere, which in turn heats the surface of the Earth. Some GI IGs
occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes,
while others are created and emitted solely through human activities. The
emission of GI lGs through the combustion of fossil fuels (i.e., fuels containing
carbon) in conjunction with other human activities, appears to be closely
associated with global warming.
State law defines GHG to include the following. carbon dioxide (CO),
methane (CH), nitrous oxide (N,O), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and
sulfur hexafluoride (Health and Safety Code, section 38505W.) The most
common GI IG that results from human activity is carbon dioxide, followed by
methane and nitrous oxide.
Requirements of AB 32 and SB 97
Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of
2(X)O (.Nunez, 2006), recognizes that California is the source of substantial
amounts of GHG emissions. The statute begins with several legislative findings
and declarations of intent, including the following:
Global warming pones a serious threat to the economic well-
being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of
California. The potential adverse impacts of global warming
include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in
the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snow
pack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands
of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine
ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the
incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human
health - related problems. (I lealth and Safety Code, section 385111.)
In order to avert these consequences, AB 32 establishes a state goal of
reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020 (a reduction of
approximately 25 percent from forecast emission levels) with further reductions
to follow. The law requires the ARB to establish a program to track and report
GHG emissions; approve a scoping plan for achieving the maximum
technologically feasible and cost effective reductions from sources of G1 1G
emissions; adopt early reduction measures to begin moving forward; and adopt,
implement and enforce regulations — including market mechanisms such as "cap -
and- trade" programs — to ensure the required reductions occur. The ARB
recently adopted a statewide GIiG emissions limit and an emissions inventors,
along with requirements to measure, track, and report GHG emissions by the
industries it determined to be significant sources of GHG emissions.
CEQA requires public agencies to identify the potentially significant effects
on the environment of projects they intend to carry out or approve, and to
mitigate significant effects whenever it is feasible to do so. %While AB 32 did not
amend CEQA to require new analytic processes to account for the environmental
impacts of GHG emissions from projects subject to CEQA, it does acknowledge
that such emissions cause significant adverse impacts to human health and the
environment.
Senate Bill 97, enacted in 2007, amends the CEQA statute to clearly
establish that GI IG emissions and the effects of GIIG emissions are appropriate
subjects for CEQA analysis. It directs OPR to develop draft CEQA Guidelines
"for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas
emissions" by July 1, 2009 and directs the Resources Agency to certify and adopt
the CEQA Guidelines by January 1, 2010.
Requirements of CEQA
CEQA is a public disclosure law that requires public agencies to make a
good - faith, reasoned effort, based upon available information, to identify the
potentially significant direct and indirect environmental impacts — including
cumulative impacts — of a proposed project or activity. The CEQA process is
intended to inform the public of the potential environmental effects of proposed
government decisions and to encourage informed decision - making by public
agencies. In addition, CEQA obligates public agencies to consider less
environmentally- damaging alternatives and adopt feasible mitigation measures to
reduce or avoid a project's significant impacts.
The lead agency is required to prepare an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR), a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or equivalent document, when it
determines that the project's impacts on the environment are potentially
significant. This determination of significance must he based upon substantial
evidence in fight of all the information before the agency.
Although the CEQA Guidelines, at Appendix G, provide a checklist of
suggested issues that should be addressed in an EIR, neither the CEQA statute
nor the CEQA Guidelines prescribe thresholds of significance or particular
methodologies for performing an impact analysis. This is left to lead agency
judgment and discretion, based upon factual data and guidance from rcgulatory
agencies and other sources where available and applicable. A threshold of
significance is essentially a regulatory standard or set of criteria that represent the
level at which a lead agency finds a particular environmental effect of a project to
be significant. Compliance with a given threshold means the effect normally will
be considered less than significant. Public agencies are encouraged but not
required to adopt thresholds of significance for environmental impacts. liven in
the absence of clearly defined thresholds for GHG emissions, the law requires
that such emissions from CEQA projects must be disclosed and mitigated to the
extent feasible whenever the lead agency determines that the project contributes
to a significant, cumulative climate change impact.
%X'c realize that perhaps the most difficult part of the climate change analysis
will he the determination of significance. Although lead agencies typically rely on
local or regional definitions of significance for most environmental issues, the
global nature of climate change warrants investigation of a statcwide threshold of
significance for GHG emissions. To this end, OPR has asked ARB technical staff
to recommend a method for setting thresholds which will encourage consistency
and uniformity in the CEQA analysis of GHG emissions throughout the state.
Until such time as state guidance is available on thresholds of significance for
GHG emissions, we recommend the following approach to your CEQA analysis.
111. RECOMMENDED APPROACH
Bach public agency that is a lead agency for complying with CEQA needs to
develop its own approach to performing a climate change analysis for projects
that generate GHG emissions. A consistent approach should be applied for the
analysis of all such projects, and the analysis must be based on best available
information. For these projects, compliance with CEQA entails three basic steps:
identify and quantify the GHG emissions; assess the significance of the impact on
climate change; and if the impact is found to be significant, identify alternatives
and /or mitigation measures that will reduce the impact below significance.
Lead agencies should determine whether greenhouse gases may be
generated by a proposed project, and if so, quantify or estimate the GHG
emissions by type and source. Second, the lead agency must assess whether those
emissions are individually or cumulatively significant. When assessing whether a
projects effects on climate change are "cumulatively considerable" even though
its GHG contribution may he individually limited, the lead agency must consider
the impact of the project when viewed in connection with the effects of past,
current, and probable future projects. Finally, if the lead agency determines that
the GHG emissions from the project as proposed are potentially significant, it
must investigate and implement ways to avoid, reduce, or otherwise mitigate the
impacts of those emissions. Although the scientific knowledge and
understanding of how best to perform this analysis is rudimentary and still
evolving, many useful resources are available (see Attachment 1).
Until such time as further state guidance is available on thresholds of
significance, public agencies should consider the following general factors when
analyzing whether a proposed project has the potential to cause a significant
climate change impact on the environment.
Identify GHG Emissions
Lead agencies should make a good-faith effort, based on available
information, to calculate, model, or estimate the amount of CO. and
other GI K; emissions from a project, including the emissions associated
with vehicular traffic, energy consumption, water usage and construction
activities
Technical resources, including a variety of modeling tools, are available to
assist public agencies to quantify GHG emissions. OPR recognizes that
more sophisticated emissions models for particular types of projects are
continually being developed and that the state -of -the -art quantification
models are rapidly changing. OPR will periodically update the examples
of modeling tools identified in Attachment 2.
There is no standard format for including the analysis in a CEQA
document. A GI IG / climate change analysis can be included in one or
more of the typical sections of an F.IR (e.g., air quality, transportation,
energy) or may be provided in a separate section on cumulative impacts or
climate change.
Determine Significance
• When assessing a project's GIIG emissions, lead agencies must describe
the existing environmental conditions or setting, without the project,
which normally constitutes the baseline physical conditions for
determining whether a project's impacts are significant.
• As with any environmental impact, lead agencies must determine what
constitutes a significant impact. In the absence of regulatory standards for
GHG emissions or other scientific data to clearly define what constitutes
a "significant impact ", individual lead agencies may undertake a project -
by- project analysis, consistent with available guidance and current CEQA
practice.
• The potential effects of a project may he individually limited but
cumulatively considerable. Ixad agencies should not dismiss a proposed
project's direct and /or indirect climate change impacts without careful
consideration, supported by substantial evidence. Documentation of
available information and analysis should be provided for any project that
may significantly contribute new GHG emissions, either individually or
cumulatively, directly or indirectly (e.g., transportation impacts).
• Although climate change is ultimately a cumulative impact, not every
individual project that emits GI Gs must necessarily be found to
contribute to a significant cumulative impact on the environment. CEQA
authorizes reliance on previously approved plans and mitigation programs
that have adequately analyzed and mitigated GHG emissions to a less than
significant level as a means to avoid or substantially reduce the cumulative
impact of a project.
Mitigate Impacts
• Mitigation measures will vary with the type of project being
contemplated, but may include alternative project designs or locations that
conserve energy and water, measures that reduce vehicle miles traveled
(VATIj by fossil - fueled vehicles, measures that contribute to established
regional or programmatic mitigation strategies, and measures that
sequester carbon to offset the emissions from the project.
• The lead agency must impose all mitigation measures that are necessary to
reduce GHG emissions to a less than significant level. CEQA does not
require mitigation measures that are infeasible for specific legal, economic,
technological, or other reasons. A lead agency is not responsible for
wholly eliminating all GI IG emissions from a project; the CEQA standard
is to mitigate to a level that is "less than significant'.
• If there are not sufficient mitigation measures that the lead agency
determines are feasible to achieve the less than significant level, the lead
agency should adopt those measures that are feasible, and adopt a
Statement of Overriding Considerations that explains why further
mitigation is not feasible. A Statement of Overriding Considerations
must be prepared when the lead agency has determined to approve a
project for which certain impacts are unavoidable. These statements
should explain the reasons why the impacts cannot be adequately
mitigated in sufficient detail, and must be based on specific facts, so as not
to be conclusory.
• Agencies arc encouraged to develop standard GI iG emission reduction or
mitigation measures that can he applied on a project -by- project basis.
Attachment 3 contains a preliminary menu of measures that lead agencies
may wish to consider. This list is by no means exhaustive or prescriptive.
Lead agencies are encouraged to develop their own measures and /or
propose project alternatives to reduce GHG emissions, either at a
programmatic level or on a case -by -case review.
• In some cases GHG emission reduction measures will not be feasible or
may not be effective at a project level. Rather, it may be more appropriate
and more effective to develop and adopt program -level plans, policies and
measures that will result in a reduction of GHG emissions on a regional
level.
IV. ADDITIONAL LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS
CEQA can be a more effective tool for GHG emissions analysis and
mitigation if it is supported and supplemented by sound development policies
and practices that will reduce GHG emissions on a broad planning scale and that
can provide the basis for a programmatic approach to project - specific CP.t )A
analysis and mitigation.
Local governments with land use authority are beginning to establish policies
that result in land use patterns and practices that will result in less energy use and
reduce GHG emissions. For example, some cities and counties have adopted
general plans and policies that encourage the development of compact, mixed -
use, transit- oriented development that reduces VMT; encourage alternative fuel
vehicle use; conserve energy and water usage; and promote carbon sequestration.
Models of such developments exist throughout the state (see OPR climate change
website for examples of city and county plans and policies, referenced in
Attachment 1).
For local government lead agencies, adoption of general plan pohcies and
certification of general plan F.IRs that analyze broad jurisdiction -wide impacts of
GHG emissions can be part of an effective strategy for addressing cumulative
impacts and for streamlining later project- specific CEQA reviews.
International, national, and statewide organizations such as ICLII (Local
Governments for Sustainabihty), the Cities for Climate Protection, and the Clean
Cities Coalition —to name just a few — have published guidebooks u) help local
governments reduce GI IG emissions through land use planning techniques and
improved municipal operations. links to these resources are provided at the end
of this advisory.
Regional agencies can also employ a variety of strategies to reduce GHG
emissions through their planning processes. For example, regional transportation
Planning agencies adopt plans and programs that address congestion relief, jobs -
to- housing balance, reduction of vehicle miles traveled (VNM, and other issues
that have implications for GI R; emission reductions.
State agencies are also tackling the issue of climate change. Some have
adopted or support policies and programs that take climate change into account,
including the Department of Water Resources' Stare Water Plan; the Department
of Transportation's State Transportation Plan; and the Business, Housing and
Transportation Agency's Regional Blueprint Planning Program. These efforts not
only raise public awareness of climate change and how the State can reduce GHG
emissions, but also offer specific information and resources for lead agencies to
consider.
V. NEXT STEPS
C)PR has asked ARB technical staff to recommend a method for setting a
threshold of significance for GI K; emissions. OPR has requested that the ARB
identify a range of feasible options, including qualitative and quantitative options.
OPR is actively seeking input from the public and stakeholder groups, as it
develops draft Cf ?QA Guidelines for GHG emissions. OPR is engaged with the
Resources Agency and other expert state agencies, local governments, builders
and developers, environmental organizations, and others with expertise or an
interest in the development of the Guidelines.
OPR will conduct public workshops later this year to receive input on the
scope and content of the CEQA Guidelines amendments. It is OPR's intent to
release a preliminary draft of the Cl-.QA Guidelines amendments for public
review and comment in the fall. This will enable OPR to deliver a proposed
package of CEQA Guidelines amendments to the Resources Agency as early as
January 2009, well before the statutory due date of July 1, 2009.
We encourage public agencies and the public to refer to the OPR website at
wwa.o cca.eov for information about the CEQA Guidelines development
process and to subscribe to C )PR's notification system for announcements and
updates.
For more information about this technical advisory and assistance in
addressing the impacts of GHC; emissions on the environment, please contact:
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
14(X) Tenth Street
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, CA 95812 -3044
Telephone: (916) 445 -0013
Fax: (916) 323 -3018
Web Address: wow wo r ca.gov
ATTACHMENTS
1. References and Information Sources
2. Technical Resources /Modeling Tools to Fistimate GHG Emissions
3. Examples of GHG Reduction Measures
Attachment r
References and Information Sources
The following is a fist of websites of organizations that can offer additional
information regarding methods to characterize, quantify, assess and reduce GHG
emissions. In addition, a list of useful resources and reference materials is
provided on the subject of climate change and greenhouse gases.
ORGANIZATIONS
• Govemor s Office of Planning and Research
http: / /wwwopr.ca.gov
• California Climate Action Team
http://v,-w-w.climatechange.ca.gov/climate—action—team/
• California Climate Change Portal
http://u,%-w.cbmatechinge.ca.gov
• California Air Resources Board Climate Change Website
http://wx%-w.arb.ca.goN,/cc/cc.htm
• California Climate Action Registry
h"p://v.,%-w.climatercgistry.org/
• California Department of Water Resources, Climate Change and
California Water Plan \X'ebsite
http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/climate/
• California Energy Commission Climate Change Proceedings
http://www.energy.ca.gov/global—cbmate—change/index.htmi
• California Public Utilities Commission, Climate Change Website
http://x%,ww.cpuc.ca.gov/stafic/enerl,7/clectric/chmate+change/
index.htm
• Green California Website
http://www.green.ca.gov/default.htm
Western Climate Initiative
http://www.westernchmateinitiative.org
• California :fir Pollution Control Officers Association
http://x%-x-w.capcoa.org
• Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI)
lit tp: / /ww wJcici.org/
• ICLEA Cities for Climate Protection (CCP)
http://%%-ww.icici.org/index.php?id=8(X)
• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
http://unfccc.int/2860.php
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
http: / /www ipcc.ch
• United States Environmental Protection Agency
http://v:u,%v.cpa.gov/climatechange/
• City of Seattle U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement
http://www.scattle.gov/mayor/chmatc/
• Mayors for Climate Protection
http: / /www .coolmavOmcom
• U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Web Page
http://usmayors.org/climateprotec6on
• Institute for local Government California Climate Action Network
http://,a,u,w.c2-ilg.org/chmatechange
STATUTES, REGULATIONS, AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS
• SB 97
http://opr.ca.gov/ccqa/pdf,./SB-97—bill-20070824—chaptered.pdf
• SB 97 Governor's Signing Message
http://opr.ca.gov/ccqa/pdfs/SB-97-signing-message.pdf
• AB 32
http: / /www.Ieonfo.ca.g(w/ pub /05 -00 /bill /asm /ab_ )001- (X150/
ab_ 32_bill_2(X)001)27_ch2ptered.pdf
• AB 1493
h"p: / /"- w.leginfo.ca.gov /pub /01 -O2 /bill /asm /ab_1451- 1500/
ab_ 1493_bi II_20020722_chaptered.pd f
• Regulations implementing AB 1493
htrp: / /wwwarb.ca .gov /regact /grnhsgas /rcvfro.pdf and http: //
www.arb.ca.gc)v/regact/gmhsgas/revtp.pdf
• SB 1368
http: / /www leonfo.ca.gov /pub/05 -06 /bill /sen /sb_l351 -1400/
sb_ 1368_bill_20060929_chaptered.pd f
• Executive Order S -01 -07 regarding low carbon standard for
transportation fuels
http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/exccutivc-order/5172/
• Executive Order S -20 -00 regarding implementation of AB 32
http://gov.ca.gov/indcx.php?/cxecuti%,e-()rder/4484/
• Executive Order 5 -3 -05 regarding greenhouse gas goals
http: / /gov.ca .gov /index.php? /executive- order /1861/
• Executive Order 5 -20 -04 regarding energy conservation by state
http://go%,.ca.gov/index.php?/cxccutive-order/3360/
REPORTS
• OPR List of Environmental Documents Addressing Climate Changc
http: / /opr.ca.g(w /cega /pdfs/
Environmental Assessment_Climate_Change.pdf
• OPR Irst of Ix)cal Plans Addressing Climate Change
http: / /opr.ca.gov /cega /pdf%/
City_and_County_ Plans _Addressing_Climate_Change.pd f
• CGmate Action Team Proposed liar/)- Action Measures to Mitigate Climate
CbanRe in California, April 2(X)7
http: / /www chmatLchange .ca.gov /climate_action_ team /reports /2(X )7-
04-20_CAT RIPORT.PDI'
• California Air Resources Board, F_ar# Action Items to Afikgale Cb'mate
Change in California, October 2007
http://wxv-w.arb.ca.gcw/cc/ccc2/mcetings/ca—final—report.pdf
• California :Ur Resourced Board, Draft Greenbouse Gas Inventory,
November 2007
http: / /www.arb.ca.gov /cc /inventory /data /tables/
rpt_Imentory_I PCC_AII_2(X)7- 11.19.pdf
• Ch'mate Action Team Report to for Gotwwor and Legislature, March 2(X)6,
http:/ /u,uw.climatechange.ca .gov /chmate_action_team/ reports/
index.html
• California Climate Change Center, OurChangigq Planet: Assessing the Risks
to California - .Summary Report
htrp: / / www. energy .ca.gov /2(X)6pubbcations /CE(: 500- 20(6- 077 /CEC-
5(X)- 2006- 077.PDF
Detailed reports available at: http: / /uww.climatechangc.ca.gov/
biennial_reports / 2(N)6report / index. h rm I
• California Fnergy Commission, 2007 Integrated Enayy 1'ofiry Report Update
http: / /www. energy .ca.gov /2(X)7pubhcations /CF.G 1(X)- 2007 - 008 /CEC-
1(X) -2(X)7- (N)8- CMF.PDF
• California Department of V('ater Resources, Progress on Incorporating Climate
Change into Alanagement of California } ll'ater Resources
http://baydeltaoffice.water.ca.gov/cbmattchange/
DWrRChmateChangeJulN00.pdf - pagemo de =bo okmarks &page =l
• ChmateArtion Pro
gram a JCaltranr, December 2(N)6
h"p://www.dot.ca.gov/docs/(:hmateReport.pdf
• California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, C.F_QA 6 C4mate
Cbange, January 2(108
http:/ /uww capcoa. org /cega /CAP(,OA " /`2OWhite %2ONper" /o20-
%20CEQA %20and %20Chmatc %2(N :hange.pd f
• West Coast Governors' Global Warming Initiative, November 2(XW
http://v,-%%w.chmatechange.ca.gov/westcoast/documents/20(4-
I I_final_report /2004- 11- 18_STAFF_RECOMMFNDS.PDF
• Western Climate Initiative Work Plan, October 2007
http://\v-%-w.westernclimateinifiative.org/ewebeditpro/items/
0104F13792.pdf
• California Climate Change Center, University of California at Berkeley,
Managing Greenhouse Gar Emissions in California, 2(X)7
htirp://calchmate.berkeley.edu/mgnaging—(;l IGs_in_CA.html
• U.S. Conference of Mayors, Energy d,' I!ntdronment Best Practices
http://u-xm,.usmayors.org/chmareprotection/
AtlantaEF Summi tCD ROM Version. pd f
•
US. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement Chmate Action Handbook, 2(X )O
http://www.scattle.gov/climatt:/docs/ClimateActionHandb4x)k.pdf
• Natural Capitalism Solutions Chmate Protetion Manual for Cities, June 2007
http://wwNv.chmatemanual.org
National Governor's Association Center for Best Practices Growing with
Less Greenhouse Gases, November 2(X)2
http://w-4wnga.org/cda/files/I 12002ghg.pdf
• National Governor's Association Center for Best Practices .State and
Kegional Greenhouse Gar Initiatives, October 2(X)6
http://u-u,w.nga.org/Files/pdf/061OCYREENH(.)USE.PDI-'
United States Climate Change Program The Effects of Ck'mate Change on
Agriculture, Land Resources, U' %ter Resources, and 13iodivermly in the linited .States,
May 2008
http:/ /www. usda.gov /oce /global_ change /sap_2007_FinalReport.htm
Attachment z
Technical Resources/Modeling Tools to Estimate
GHG Emissions
TOOL
AVAILABILITY
SCOPE BCOPE
LOCAL TWW3PORT ,.
DATA IrPIi? DATA
REGIONAL BUILDINGS
REOUTAIWU TS OUTPUT
• Traspaapa�
• laid we rlio a, . CO2
• aRa
(Pounds Constructor,
URBEMIS
• IAEFpdotan
' Ladptdpo
• Some EWOry larva
said. &^d Oer daYl
Iflsel
lesM
�
0arsmonalwr Mallow
askrrosms noers
Clean Air and
• &ww umga
Climate
. Domaow ' fluild'9s
• wasegl ad , 002.
Protection
. Asailom to c ' L Cwv w • Canrnnses
dtpoed wo per
(CACP)
sDrow lase) 1e`d • Gpesrreria
• TrarwOamaonlotl vw
Sottware
usaRavwr
– - -
Il . Train dr"
• tnafonaN ab
Sustainable
. Pa.," , Buy"
spoof ft also , Cc2e
Communities
. oulaw mold . Saiatieto vegoo*oods
• Tistaparsaw Pond
Model(SCM)
em lesel . ltage'nanre0
:sta0lnrs Year)
conaruraoes
• O» aergyVW
Internet.
accessed
Planning for
. WoD-baw
• Trasmodaw
. Pdmel Over Lard X60
• CO21ary
Community
. Smal aces kr
' Ilowq
daa(abler to
Energy.
. Fun nkde +
Scalable to
•ld h
"A
ow a y
Economic and
"aoe n!Ktt
se Ism
' p' IW*vel dad to areI
Environmerslal
CA0knes
' Eregy
`ram
Sustainabillty
• Ecooncs
co pantie s
FPLACE'S
• Mosee source
Climate Actlon
. Weoaased
Cookaabon Row*
Wrtuson (Vert a
��
. Avialliso
• r Tr2r5Wrtaa
NO usage) Earl, &G
Reporting On-
gaparymabda
saaaeto Bironplayses
• Smocrary oyrbuser are Cole
Urre Tool
• Garltaw nok =
ersity am • Speck prowmlt k• care
(lud usage) (ors pa
(CARROT)
ssw NUY repay
bary as# sectors
• h*w emssms yearl
— _
_
(eadnay usage)
_ —_
- _.• CW and
• Dowrlad
• S:Mrde
. Trdsel aaC" data w meamd
SWAC
. RLk dmah
• Regorallan ' Trasponsaonemsson
ai CO2 twm IRan Da
(0ee�
omn W*t wevs
volem mml
errysvo*
adore
VMT _ Vehicle miles traveled
eCO2 = Carbon boxide equivalent emissions
Note: This is not meant to be a definitive list of modeling tools to estimate climate
change emissions impacts. Other tools may be available.
Description of Modeling Tools
l li l'
The Urban Emissions ,Model is used extensively during the CEQA process
by local air districts and consultants to determine the impacts of projects on
criteria pollutants. It was recently updated to calculate CO2 emissions as well.
Future updates will include additional greenhouse gases. URBF.JIIS uses the ITE
Trip Generation Rate Manual and the Air Resources Board's (ARB) motor vehicle
emissions model (EMFAC to calculate transportation- related CO2 emissions
and ARB's OFFROAD2007 model for CO2 emissions from off -road equipment.
Area source outputs include natural gas use, landscaping equipment, consumer
products, architectural coatings, and fireplaces. It also estimates construction
impacts and impacts of mitigation options. Web site: http: / /%vww:urbemis.com.
(:Iran \ir:ind(hmatc Pn)I cru.m 4 V 1)P S,Am`.rc
This too[ is available to state and local governments and members of ICI.EI,
NACAA, NASF.O and NARUC to determine greenhouse gas and criteria
pollutant emissions from government operations and communities as a whole.
The user must input aggregate information about energy (usage), waste (quantity
and type generated, disposal method, and methane recovery rate) and
transportation (VMT) for community analyses. CACP uses emission factors from
EPA, DC )E, and DOT to translate the energy, waste and transportation inputs
into greenhouse gas (in carlx)n dioxide equivalents) and criteria air pollutant
emissions. If associated energy, waste and transportation reduction are provided,
the model can also calculate emission reductions and money saved from policy
alternatives. Web site: http: / /cacpsofmare.org.
�'uq:unablc (atlt71nUn111CN %I(ulrl 'S(:.. \I:
This model quantifies total CO2e emissions allowing communities the ability
to optimize planning decisions that result in the greatest environmental benefit
for the least cost. Total CO2c emissions are based on emissions from energy
usage, water consumption and transportation. The model provides an interactive
comparison of various scenarios to provide environmental performance,
economic performance, and cost benefit analysis.
Web site: www.ctg- net. com / energetics /documents /doc_SCM_070731.pdf
IPI VI
This model is an internet -accessed land use and transportation model
designed specifically for regional and local governments to help understand how
their growth and development decisions can contribute to improved sustainability.
It estimates CO2, criteria pollutant and energy impacts on a neighborhood or
regional level for existing, long -term baseline and alternative land use plans. The
data input requirements are extensive and require a fiscal commitment from the
Metropolitan Planning Organization and its member local governments. Once
the data is available, the IPLACFS tool can be developed for that region relatively
quickly, in approximately one week. The benefits include a multifunctional tool
that provides immediate outputs to compare alternatives during public meetings,
multilevel password protected on -fine access, as well as providing access for local
development project CEQA analyses. This tool also supports regional travel
Models and integrated land use and transportation assessments. Web site: http: //
wwv: sacreoonbluepnnt. org/ sacregionblueprint /the_project /technology.cfm and
http://v.-vkrw.places.energy.ca.gov/piaces
t 1RRt YI
The California Climate Action Registry offers the Climate Action Registry
Reporting On -line Tool (CARROT) for Registry members to calculate and
report annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. CARROT calculates direct and
indirect GHG emissions for the following emission categories by source:
stationary combustion, process emissions, mobile source combustion, fugitive
emissions and electricity use by source. It calculates emissions using entity
collected data such as fuel purchase records, VMT and utility bills. While
reporting and certification through CARROT is only available to members, the
public may access entity reports online. Reporting protocols are also available to
the public, including the General Reporting Protocol (www.climateregistryorg/
does /PROTOCOL S /GRl " /o2OV2- March2OO7_web.pdo and cement, forestry
and power /utility sector protocols. Additional sector protocols are under
development. Website: ww,\vchmatercostry.org /( :ARROT/
I \11 .1t
The Air Resources Board's EMission FACtors (EMFA(� model is used to
calculate emission rates from all motor vehicles in California. The emission
factors are combined with data on vehicle activity (miles traveled and average
speeds) to assess emission impacts. The URBEMIS model described above uses
F_MFAC to calculate the transportation emission impacts of local projects. Web
site: http: / /www.arbca.gov /msei /onroad /onroad.htm
Attachment 3
Examples of GHG Reduction Measures
The following are examples of measures that have been employed by some
public agencies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, either as general
development policies or on a project -by- project basis. These are provided for
illustrative purposes only.
LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION
• Implement land use strategies to encourage jobs /housing proximity,
promote transit - oriented development, and encourage high density
development along transit corridors. Encourage compact, mixed -use
projects, forming urban villages designed to maximize affordable housing
and encourage walking, bicycling and the use of public transit systems.
• Encourage infill, redevelopment, and higher density development,
whether in incorporated or unincorporated settings
• Encourage new developments to integrate housing, civic and retail
amenities (jobs, schools, parks, shopping opportunities) to help reduce
VMT resulting from discretionary automobile trips.
• Apply advanced technology systems and management strategies to
improve operational efficiency of transportation systems and movement
of people, goods and services.
• Incorporate features into project design that would accommodate the
supply of frequent, reliable and convenient public transit.
• Implement street improvements that are designed to relieve pressure on a
region's most congested roadways and intersections.
• limit idling time for commercial vehicles, including delivery and
construction vehicles.
URBAN FORESTRY
• Plant trees and vegetation near structures to shade buildings and reduce
energy requirements for heating /cooling.
• Preserve or replace onsite trees (that are removed due to development) as
a means of providing carbon storage.
GREEN BUILDINGS
• Encourage public and private construction of LEED (Ixadership in
Energy and Environmental Design) certified (or equivalent) buildings.
ENERGY CONSERVATION POLICIES AND ACTIONS
• Recognize and promote energy saving measures beyond Title 24
requirements for residential and commercial projects
• Where feasible, include in new buildings facilities to support the use of
low /zero carbon fueled vehicles, such as the charging of electric vehicles
from green electricity sources.
• Educate the public, schools, other jurisdictions, professional associations,
business and industry about reducing GI IG emissions.
• Replace traffic hghts, street lights, and other electrical uses to energy
efficient bulbs and appliances.
• Purchase finergy Star equipment and appliances for public agency use.
• Incorporate on -site renewable energy production, including installation of
photovoltaic cells or other solar options.
• Execute an Energy Savings Performance Contract with a private entity to
retrofit public buildings. This type of contract allows the private entity to
fund all energy improvements in exchange for a share of the energy
savings over a period of time.
• Design, build, and operate schools that meet the Collaborative for I ligh
Performance Schools (CIIPS) best practices.
• Retrofit municipal water and wastewater systems with energy efficient
motors, pumps and other equipment, and recover wastewater treatment
methane for energy production.
• Convert landfill gas into energy sources for use in fueling vehicles,
operating equipment, and heating buildings.
• Purchase government vehicles and buses that use alternatives fuels or
technology, such as electric hybrids, biodicsel, and ethanol. Where
feasible, require fleet vehicles to be low emission vehicles. Promote the
use of these vehicles in the general community.
• Offer government incentives to private businesses for developing
buildings with energy and water efficient features and recycled materials.
The incentives can include expedited plan checks and reduced permit
fees.
• Offer rebates and low- interest loans to residents that make energy- saving
improvements on their homes.
• Create bicycle lanes and walking paths directed to the location of schools,
parks and other destination points.
PROGRAMS TO REDUCE VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
• Offer government employees financial incentives to carpool, use public
transportation, or use other modes of travel for daily commutes.
• Encourage large businesses to develop commute trip reduction plans that
encourage employees who commute alone to consider alternative
transportation modes.
• Develop shuttle systems around business district parking garages to
reduce congestion and create shorter commutes.
• Create an online ridesharing program that matches potential carpoolers
immediately through email.
• Develop a Safe Routes to School program that allows and promotes
bicycling and walking to school.
PROGRAMS TO REDUCE SOLID WASTE
• Create incentives to increase recycling and reduce generation of solid
waste by residential users.
• Implement a Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling Ordinance to
reduce the solid waste created by new development.
• Add residential /commercial food waste collection to existing greenwastc
collection programs.
Attematrve Approaches to Analyzing Greenhouse Gas
Association of Environmental Professionals Emissions and Global climate change In CEQA Documents
Cumulative Versus Project- Specific Impacts
If a Lead Agency chooses to address GCC in a
cumulative (versus project - specific) impact.
significant direct impacts on the environment
areawide impacts is "cumulatively considerable.
on substantial evidence.
iocument, it should be addressed in the context of a
The determination of whether a project creates
as well as whether the project's contribution to
is the sole responsibility of the Lead Agency based
Thresholds of Significance
There are currently no published thresholds of significance for measuring the impact of GCC on, or
from, a project. To our knowledge to date, neither CARB nor any air districts have submitted a
comment letter during a Notice of Preparation period recommending that an FIR address GHG
emissions. CEQA Guidelines §15064.7 indicates only that. "each public agency is encouraged to
develop and publish thresholds of significance that the agency uses in the determination of the
significance of environmental effects:'
It may further be asserted that because there are no published thresholds of significance, a Lead
Agency is relieved of the threshold determination. This supports a Lead Agency in finding that a
determination of significance for GCC impacts is speculative. In Laurel Heights improvements
Associarion v. Regents (119931 6 C'al.App.Wh 1112. 1137). the Court upheld the conclusion in the FIR
that potential cumulative impacts of toxic air emissions are too speculative based on the lack of
accepted methodologies or standards and based on CEQA Guideline § 15145.
The City of Rancho Cordova developed a threshold of 2 tons of CG, per person. which was estimated
based on vehicle emission reductions needed to meet 1990 levels (RC 2006). An Air Quality and
Emissions Reduction Plan was also prepared for the project. which contains vehicle trip rcducUOn
measures. which is estimated to be a 15 percent reduction in emissions (Eli 2006). The project
declared the emissions significant because they were over the 2 tons per person threshold. If a Lead
Agency develops a threshold, the methodology should be clearly explained in the analysis.
Approaches
In the absence of regulatory guidance, and prior to the resolution of CEQA challenges regarding GCC
impact analysis, CEQA documents may choose to address GHG emissions on a case -by -case basis
using methods tailored to the pro'ject`s circumstances individual interpretation of existing CEQA
guidance. The selection of an approach can be based on the location and characteristics of the
project, or the level of information available about the site, the jurisdiction, or regional GHG
emissions.
The following discussion explores the various approaches that could be used in CEQA documents to
analvze GCC. Also included is the support for each approach and the items to consider when
selecting the best approach. Each approach may have advantages and disadvantages. but it is the
responsibility of the Lead Agency to select the most appropriate methodology based on the project's
unique circumstances. There are man other kinds of actions and projects undertaken or approved by
Lead Agencies that are not addressed in these proposed approaches. such as timber harvest plans,
water quality management plans. highway improvement projects, and others that do not directly
contribute to GHG emissions or have complicated interrelationships to the GHG balance in the
atmosphere.
rfnal - June 29, 2007 to
Draft
CALEXICO MEGA PARK
Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for: March 2008
City of Calexico
Development Services Department
Planning Division
-A r _
—C RT -r T iitcrrrr
3. Enwonmentai Seft". impacts and Mrbgabw Measures
.. —... — 3.3 Air a,aiay
the proposed project would contribute a very small increment to this. Regardless, because the
background already exceeds the 8 -hour standard, the project emissions from vehicle traffic would
exacerbate the existing violations of the CO standard and would be a significant and unavoidable
impact on local CO concentrations.
Conclusion: Localized COemissions would result in a significant and unavoidable impact.
Mitigation: Refer to Measure 3.3 -3.
Significance After Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable.
Impact 3.3 -5: The proposed project would have a significant and unavoidable impact
resulting from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
In addition to regulated air pollutants, the proposed project would result in emissions of the
greenhouse gas (GI IG) CO, as a byproduct of combustion of gasoline and diesel fuel in
construction equipment and construction worker commute trips. Additional unknown quantities
of greenhouse gases, such as methane, would be emitted during the life cycle of the project.
Methane would be produced from organic waste materials disposed of at landfills. Methane either
escapes landfills as an uncontrolled gas (fugitive emissions) or is collected at landfills as part of
the landfill gas collection system and combusted. Thus, by increasing solid waste generation, the
proposed change of land use would also increase GIIG emissions. In addition, the increased
demand for electrical energy by the proposed project would result in an increase of CO,
emissions from those off -site sources of energy (referred to as indirect emissions, since they are
not directly emitted by the facility operations).
As provided in Table 3.2 -4. CO, emissions from project operations would be 243,449 Ibsiyear.
Currently, there are no thresholds to compare GIIG emissions to determine if the impact is
significant. F.ven so, it can be concluded that a project of this size would not have an individually
discernable effect on global climate change (i.e., that any increase in global temperature or sea
level could not be attributed to the emissions resulting from a single project). Declaring an impact
significant or not significant implies some knowledge of incremental effects. A determination
associated with global climate change, in light of the fact that there exists no numerical threshold
for such an impact, can be considered speculative and requires no additional analysis under
C F()A.
Conclusion: As potential impact resulting from project GIIG emissions is speculative, the impact
is conservatively assumed to be significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation: Refer to Measure 3.3 -3.
Significance After Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable.
cae.. L"P.i 3.3-19 ESA,2 5
U." E,m W .r .c: Rp � 2008