HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-02-04_7_Reduce Greenhouse Gas EmissionsBURNS,MARLENE
From:
Ramirez, Gregg
Sent:
Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:26 AM
To:
Burns, Marlene
Cc:
Wisneski, Brenda
Subject:
FW: Newport Beach Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Committee; Meeting on Tuesday, February
4 at 2:30 FM; 'Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions"
Attachments:
020414 Section 15064.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions color scan.pdf
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Please distribute and post email and attachment. Thanks!
From: Paul Watkins fmaHto:paul @lawfriend.coml
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 9:48 AM
To: Ramirez, Gregg
Cc: Wisneski, Brenda; Brandt, Kim
Subject: Newport Beach Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Committee; Meeting on Tuesday, February 4 at 2:30
PM; 'Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions"
Hi Gregg:
A few of the Goals and Policies in the proposed amended Land Use Element require that the
City "reduce greenhouse gas emissions'. (Please see Policies LU 1.X [Environmental Health], LU
3.2 [Growth and Change], LU X.X3 [Sustainable Sites and Land Development], LU X.X6 [Orange
County Sustainable Communities Strategy], etc.)
I sense that the Committee may be a bit frustrated by the State -based requirement that the
City "reduce greenhouse gas emissions" but we don't seem to have a good roadmap as to how we
accomplish the mandated reduction. I think the Committee is concerned that if our General
Plan simply falls into lockstep with State -based requirements that are undefined or ill- defined,
the City opens itself to challenges and lawsuits where a less- than - innocent plaintiff may claim
that a project should be denied because it doesn't "reduce greenhouse gas emissions ". As you
know, these lawsuits cost our City's taxpayers and the project developers enormous legal fees
and they may delay or disqualify meritorious projects.
So the question becomes: can we provide a roadmap in our General Plan amendments which
complies with the State -based requirement that the City "reduce greenhouse gas emissions"
while providing our decision makers with language to help them reach good decisions while
discouraging frivolous and expensive litigation.
I believe Mr. Tucker has suggested that as projects are evaluated by our City policymakers, we
apply a test to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions "on a Citywide basis ".
1
Woodie's helpful Memo of February 3 appears to discount the legality of the "Citywide basis"
test.
However, Woodie's Memo does allude to a possible roadmap for determining if a project
"reduces greenhouse gas emissions ". The roadmap is found in CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.4(b) which became effective on March 18, 2010. A copy of that Section is attached.
Section 15064.4(b) appears to offer cities (i.e., "lead agencies ") a 3 -step test which I believe
we might incorporate into our sustainability General Plan amendments in order to guide our
decision makers when they determine whether a project before them "reduces greenhouse gas
emissions ".
Based on this Section, may I propose that we add clarity to the murky language mandating that
we "reduce greenhouse gas emissions" by revising (for example) Policy LU 1.X (Environmental
Health) to read as follows (the proposed revised language is in bold typing):
"Promote sustainable land use and development practices that minimize the use of non-
renewable resources and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by evaluating the following for a
project within the City: (1) a reduction of emissions as compared to the existing
environmental setting for the project and /or Citywide, (2) whether the project emissions
exceed a threshold of significance that the City reasonably determines applies to the
project, and (3) the extent to which the project complies with any regulations or
requirements adopted by the City through a public review process which reduce or mitigate
the project's incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions."
No, this roadmap language is not perfect; however, the language provides badly needed guidance
to our City officials in reaching the State -based required determination that a particular
project "reduces greenhouse gas emissions."
On a final note, our City's decision makers should not overlook that fact that a proposed project
that will emit significant levels of greenhouse gases may still be considered to be an
"acceptable" project if the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits,
including Citywide or Statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project outweigh the
unavoidable adverse environmental effects. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 [Statement of
Overriding Considerations])
Thanks for considering my point of view.
Best regards,
Paul
Paul K. Watkins for
N
Watkins, Blakely & Torgerson, LLP
535 Anton Boulevard, Suite 810
Costa Mesa, California 92626 -7047
Telephone: (714) 556 -0800, ext. 2108
Facsimile: (714) 641 -4012
E -Mail: paul@lawfriend.com
Title 14. Natural Resources
Division 6. Resources Agenc%
Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
Article 5. Preliminary Review of Projects and Conduct of Initial Study
§15064.4. Determining the Significance of Impacts from Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
(a) The determination of the significance of greenhouse gas emissions calls for a careful
iudgment by the lead agencv consistent kith the provisions in section 15064. A lead agency
should make a good -faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to
describe. calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a proiect.
A lead agency shall have discretion to determine. in the context of a particular project, whether
to:
(1) Use a model or methodology to quantity Greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a
project. and which model or methodology to use. The lead agency has discretion to select the
model or methodology it considers most appropriate provided it supports its decision with
substantial evidence. The lead agency should explain the limitations of the particular model or
methodology selected for use: and /or
(2) Rely on a qualitative analvsis or performance based standards.
(b) A lead agency should consider the following factors. among others. when assessing the
significance of impacts from greenhouse gas emissions on the environment:
0 ) The extent to which the proiect may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as
compared to the existing environmental setting:
(2) Whether the proiect emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency
determines applies to the project.
(3) The extent to which the project complies N\ ith regulations or requirements adopted to
implement a statewide, regional. or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse
gas emissions. Such requirements must be adopted by the relevant public aaencv through a
public review process and must reduce or mitigate the proiect's incremental contribution of
greenhouse aas emissions. ]f there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a
particular proiect are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with the
Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083, 21083 05. Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections
21001. 21002. 21003. 21065. 21068 21 080. 21082. 21082.1 21082.2. 21083 05. 21 100 Pub
Resources Code: Eureka Citizens for Responsible Govt. v 01y of Eureka (2007) 147
Cal.App.4th 357: Meiia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322: Protect the Historic
Amodor iPatem,ays v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099: Communises fora
Better Environment v. California Resources Aeency (2002) 103 Cal.Apn.4th 98; BerkelevKeen
Jets Over the Bav Com. v. Board o %Port Comm. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344; and Citv ofIrvine
v. Irvine CitizensAgairtst Overderelo >>ment 0994) 25 Cal.A, 4th 868