Fresno City Council
February 1, 2024

FR E S NO GR E E NH O U S E GAS (GHG) RE D U C TI O N PL A N UP D A T E MA R C H 2020
Fresno Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Plan Update –
CEQA Project Consistency Checklist

INTRODUCTION
The City of Fresno updated its 2014 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Plan (the Plan) in the year 2020 to conform with existing applicable State climate change policies and regulations. The GHG Plan Update outlines strategies that the City will undertake to achieve its proportional share of GHG emission reductions. The purpose of this GHG Reduction Plan Update Consistency Checklist (Checklist) is to help the City provide a streamlined review process for new development projects that are subject to discretionary review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183.5.

This Checklist has been developed as part of the GHG Plan Update implementation and monitoring process and will support the achievement of individual GHG reduction strategies as well as the City’s overall GHG reduction goals. In addition, this Checklist will further the City’s sustainability goals and policies that encourage sustainable development and aim to conserve and reduce the consumption of resources, such as energy and water. Projects that meet the requirements of this Checklist will be deemed to be consistent with the Fresno GHG Reduction Plan Update and will be found to have a less than significant contribution to cumulative GHG (i.e., the project’s incremental contribution to cumulative GHG effects is not cumulatively considerable), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(h)(3), 15130(d), and 15183(b). Projects that do not meet the requirements in this Checklist will be deemed to be inconsistent with the Fresno GHG Reduction Plan Update and must prepare a projectspecific analysis of GHG emissions, including quantification of existing and projected GHG emissions and incorporation of the measures in this Checklist to the extent feasible. This GHG Checklist can be updated to reflect adoption of new GHG reduction strategies or to comply with any changes and updates in the Plan or local, State or federal regulations. Note that not all the measures in the checklist are applicable to all projects. The projects should comply with applicable measures from the checklist.

B3 Attach #1 of 3

F R E S N O GR E E N H O U S E GA S ( GH G ) RE D U C T I O N PL A N UP D A T E MA R C H 2020

1. Project Information
Contact Information
Project No./Name:

Address:

Applicant Name/Co:

Contact Information:

Project Information

1. What is the Site acreage of the Project?

2. Identify all Applicable Proposed Land uses:
a. Residential (Indicate number of single-family units) b. Residential (Indicate number of multi-family units)
c. Commercial (total square footage)
d. Industrial (total square footage)
e. Other (describe)

3. Is the project or a portion of the project located in a transit priority area? (Y/N)

4. Provide a brief description of the project proposed:

B3 Attach #1 of 3

F R E S N O GR E E N H O U S E GA S ( GH G ) RE D U C T I O N PL A N UP D A T E MA R C H 2020

2. Determining Land Use Consistency
Checklist Item
As the first step in determining the consistency with the GHG Reduction Plan for discretionary development projects, this section allows the City to determine the project’s consistency with the land use assumptions used in the GHG Reduction Plan.

Yes No

1. Is the proposed project consistent with the approved General Plan, Specific Plan, and Community Plan planned land use and zoning designations?
If the answer is Yes, then proceed to the GHG Plan Update Consistency Checklist.

If the answer is No, then proceed to question 2.

2. If the proposed project is not consistent with the approved planned land use and zoning designation(s), then provide estimated GHG project emissions under both existing and proposed designation(s) for comparison. Compare the maximum buildout of the existing designation with the maximum buildout of the proposed designation.

If the estimated project emissions at maximum buildout of the proposed designation(s) is equivalent to or less than the estimated project emissions at maximum buildout of the existing designation(s), then in accordance with the City’s Significance Determination Thresholds, the project’s GHG impact is less than significant. If there is a proposed development project associated with this plan amendment and or rezone then complete the GHG Plan Update Consistency Checklist and incorporate applicable measures, otherwise there is no further step required.

If the estimated project emission at maximum buildout of the proposed designation(s) is greater than the estimated project emissions at maximum buildout of the existing designation(s), then in accordance with the City’s Significance Determination Thresholds, the project’s GHG impact is significant. The project must either show consistency with applicable GP objectives and policies (provide applicable GP objectives and policies here) or provide analysis and measures to incorporate into the project to bring the GHG emissions to a level that is less than or equal to the estimated project emission at maximum buildout of the existing designation(s) unless the decision‐maker finds that a measure is infeasible in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091. If there is a proposed development project associated with this plan amendment and or rezone then complete the GHG Plan Update Consistency Checklist and incorporate applicable measures, otherwise there is no further step required.

B3 Attach #1 of 3

F R E S N O GR E E N H O U S E GA S ( GH G ) RE D U C T I O N PL A N UP D A T E MA R C H 2020

3. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Plan Update - CEQA Project Consistency Checklist
GHG Plan Update consistency review involves the evaluation of project consistency with the applicable strategies of the GHG Plan Update. This checklist was developed based on the key local GHG reduction strategies and actions identified in the GHG Plan Update that are applicable to new development projects.

Checklist Item
(Check the appropriate box and provide an explanation for your answer) Yes No Not Applicable (NA) Explanation Strategy 1: Land Use and Transportation Demand Management Does the project provide complete streets for all roadway improvements? (Complete streets are roadways that include curb, gutter, and sidewalks on both sides of the street. For local and collector streets, adequate roadway width is provided to accommodate two-way vehicle traffic and bicycles and arterial streets include striping for bike lanes.)
Is the project a large employer (over 100 employees) and if so will the project comply with SJVAPCD Rule 9410 and provide an Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan that will include trip reduction methods such as increasing transit use, carpooling, vanpooling, bicycling, or other measures? See the SJVAPCD website link for details:
https://www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/r9410.pdf
Strategy 2: Energy Conservation and Renewable Energy
Does the project meet the mandatory energy efficiency measures of the California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen)? If the Project exceeds mandatory CalGreen measures then provide the tier number that the project will meet in the explanation.

X
For commercial projects, does it achieve net zero electricity? Mark NA if project will be permitted before 2030. Mark Yes if voluntary. Add source and capacity in explanation.

Does the project include onsite energy generation using renewable energy? If no, mark NA. If yes, provide source and capacity in the explanation.

Strategy 3: Water Conservation
Does the project meet the mandatory indoor water use measures of the CalGreen Code? If the project exceeds CalGreen Code mandatory measures provide methods in excess of requirements in the explanation.

Examples may include water pipe insulation, pressure reducing valves, energy efficient appliances such as Energy Star Certified dishwashers, washing machines, dual flush toilets, point of use and/or tankless water heaters. Provide the measures, devices, or systems that the project will include in the explanation.

X
Does the project meet the mandatory outdoor water use measures of the CalGreen Code? If the project exceeds CalGreen Code mandatory measures provide methods in excess of requirements in the explanation? Examples may include any outdoor water conservation measures such as; drought tolerant landscaping plants, compliant irrigation systems, xeriscapes etc. Provide the conservation measure that the project will include in the explanation.

X
Strategy 4: Solid Waste Diversion and Recycling
When completed will the project implement techniques for solid waste diversion and reduction (i.e., recycling, composting, waste to energy technology, waste separation)?
X
During construction will the project recycle construction and demolition waste?
X
B3 Attach #1 of 3
MARCH 2020 C ITY OF F RESNO GHG REDUCTION PLAN UPDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CFO1802 Fresno GP EIR Update\PRODUCTS\4.0_GHG_Reduction_Plan\PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT\Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Update.docx (03/03/20) C-1

APPENDIX C

GHG REDUCTION MEASURES FUNDING SOURCES
Implementation of the local GHG reduction strategies may require investment for the capital improvements and other investments, and increased operations and maintenance costs. However, in some cases, operating costs are anticipated to decrease, resulting in offset savings. Table C-1 presents a summary of potential funding and financing options available at the time of writing this document.

Table C-1: Potential Funding Sources to Support GHG Reduction Strategies Funding Source Description
State and Federal Funds
Federal Tax Credits for
Energy Efficiency
 Tax credits for energy efficiency can be promoted to residents.

Energy Efficient
Mortgages (EEM)
 An EEM is a mortgage that credits a home’s energy efficiency in the mortgage itself.  Residents can finance energy-saving strategies as part of a single mortgage.  To verify a home’s energy efficiency, an EEM typically requires a home energy rating of the house by a home energy rater before financing is approved.
 EEMs are typically used to purchase a new home that is already energy efficient, such as an ENERGY STAR®-qualified home.

California Department of
Resources Recycling and
Recovery (CalRecycle)
 CalRecycle grant programs allow jurisdictions to assist public and private entities in management of waste streams.
 Incorporated cities and counties in California are eligible for funds.  Program funds are intended to:
 Reduce, reuse, and recycle all waste
 Encourage development of recycled-content products and markets  Protect public health and safety and foster environmental sustainability California Energy
Commission (CEC)
 CEC has energy efficiency financing options for projects with proven energy savings. These options include 0% interest rate loans for K–12 school districts, county offices of education, State special schools, community colleges, and 1% interest rate loans for cities, counties, special districts, public colleges or universities, public care institutions/public hospitals, University of California campuses, and California State University campuses.  Projects eligible for the CEC energy efficiency financing low interest loans include:
 Lighting system upgrades
 Pumps and motors
 Streetlights and light-emitting diode (LED) traffic signals  Building insulation
 Heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment
 Water and waste water treatment equipment
California Air Resources
Board (CARB)
 CARB offers several grants, incentives, and credits programs to reduce on-road and off-road transportation emissions. Residents, businesses, and fleet operators can receive funds or incentives depending on the program.
 The following programs can be utilized to fund local strategies:
 Air Quality Improvement Program (Assembly Bill 118)
 Carl Moyer Program – Voucher Incentive Program
 Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program (Proposition 1B Incentives)  Loan Incentives Program
 Lower-Emission School Bus Program/School Bus Retrofit and Replacement Account (Proposition 1B and United States Environmental Protection Agency Incentives) B3 Attach #1 of 3

C ITY OF F RESNO GHG REDUCTION PLAN UPDATE
F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA MARCH 2020
P:\CFO1802 Fresno GP EIR Update\PRODUCTS\4.0_GHG_Reduction_Plan\PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT\Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Update.docx (03/03/20) C-2 Table C-1: Potential Funding Sources to Support GHG Reduction Strategies Funding Source Description
Existing Capital
Improvement Program
 State and federal funds would most likely continue to local governments, builders, and homeowners in the following forms:
 Grants
 Transportation and transit funding
 Tax credit and rebate programs
 The Capital Improvement Program can be used for strategies relating to traffic or transit.

State Funding for
Infrastructure
 The State’s Infill Infrastructure Grant Program may potentially be used to help fund strategies that promote infill housing development.
 Grants can be used for gap funding for infrastructure improvements necessary for specific residential or mixed-use infill development projects.

Transportation-Related
Federal and State
Funding
 For funding strategies related to transit, bicycle, or pedestrian improvements, the following funding sources from SCAG may be used:
o Sustainability Planning Grant
o California Active Transportation Program
o Caltrans Transportation Planning Grant Program provides funding that would lead to programming and implementation of transportation improvement projects. o Sustainable Communities Grants
o Strategic Partnerships Grants
o Adaptation Planning Grants
Utility Rebates  Department of Water and Power offers a variety of residential and commercial rebate programs:
o Residential and Commercial Turf Replacement Program
o Pool/Spa Cover Rebates
o Rebates for Water-Efficient Devices
o Recirculating Pump Rebate
o Free Urinal Flush Valve Upgrades and Installation
o Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) is one of the utilities participating in the California Solar Initiative.
o A variety of rebates are available for existing and new homes. o Photovoltaics, thermal technologies, and solar hot water projects are eligible. o Single-family homes, commercial development, and affordable housing are eligible.

Energy Upgrade
California
 The program is intended for home energy upgrades.
 Funding comes from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, California utility ratepayers, and private contributions.
 Utilities administer the program, offering homeowners the choice of one of two upgrade packages—basic or advanced.
 Homeowners are connected to home energy professionals.  Rebates, incentives, and financing are available.
 Homeowners can receive up to $4,000 back on an upgrade through the local utility.

Private Funding
Private Funding  Private equity can be used to finance energy improvements, with returns realized as future cost savings.
 Rent increases can fund retrofits in commercial buildings.  Net energy cost savings can fund retrofits in households.  Power Purchase Agreements involve a private company that purchases, installs, and maintains a renewable energy technology through a contract that typically lasts 15 years. After 15 years, the company would uninstall the technology or sign a new contract.  On-Bill Financing (OBF) can be promoted to businesses for energy-efficiency retrofits. OBF funding is a no-interest loan that is paid back through monthly utility bills. Lighting, refrigeration, HVAC, and LED streetlights are all eligible projects.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
MARCH 2020 C ITY OF F RESNO GHG REDUCTION PLAN UPDATE

F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA
P:\CFO1802 Fresno GP EIR Update\PRODUCTS\4.0_GHG_Reduction_Plan\PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT\Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Update.docx (03/03/20) C-3 Table C-1: Potential Funding Sources to Support GHG Reduction Strategies Funding Source Description
Other Funding Mechanisms for Implementation
Other Funding  Increased operating costs can be supported by grants from the Strategic Growth Council or the State Department of Conservation to fund sustainable community planning, natural resource conservation and development, and adoption.

Future Funding Options: Funding Mechanisms for Capital and/or Implementation Costs New Development
Impact Fees
 These types of fees may have some potential to provide funding, but such fees are best implemented when the real estate market and overall regional economic conditions are strong.

General Obligation Bond  A general obligation bond is a form of long-term borrowing and could be used to fund municipal improvements.

Source: Compiled by LSA Associates, Inc. (2019).

HVAC = heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
In addition to pursuing the funding options above and monitoring the availability of others, the City should take the following steps to best inform decisions related to the cost of GHG reduction strategies:
• Perform and Refine Cost Estimates: Cost estimates for local reduction strategies should be performed to identify the cost-effectiveness of each strategy to inform and to guide the implementation process. This analysis will likely be based on a variety of participation, per-unit, and other assumptions. As programs are developed, cost estimates should be refined and updated over time with more precise implementation-level data. • Integrate GHG Reduction into Existing City Budget and Capital Improvements Program: Certain capital improvements may need to be added to the City’s Capital Improvements Program (CIP) and facility master plan programs, as well as those of the City utility enterprises and other public agencies that have control for project implementation. For CIPs completely under the City’s control, new projects would need to be assessed for consistency with the GHG Plan Update. • Adopt or Update Ordinances and/or Codes: Some local reduction strategies may require new or revised ordinances. Staff would need to coordinate these efforts in conjunction with planning departments, planning commissions, and City councils.
• Pursue Outside Funding Sources: A range of funding from State and federal agencies has been identified. The City would need to pursue these (and other emerging) funding sources as a part of implementation efforts.
• Implement and Direct Preferred City Funding Sources: While City funding sources are limited, the City, when financially able, as a part of its budget process, could appropriate funding from general sources or make changes in its fee schedules, utility rates, and other sources as needed to support funding the implementation of the GHG reduction strategies. • Create Monitoring/Tracking Processes: Local reduction strategies would require program development, tracking, and/or monitoring.

Identify Economic Indicators to Consider Future Funding Options: Economic recovery may occur rapidly or slowly. Whatever the timeframe, the City would need to determine the point at which B3 Attach #1 of 3

C ITY OF F RESNO GHG REDUCTION PLAN UPDATE
F RESNO , C ALIFORNIA MARCH 2020
P:\CFO1802 Fresno GP EIR Update\PRODUCTS\4.0_GHG_Reduction_Plan\PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT\Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Update.docx (03/03/20) C-4 certain additional funding sources may become feasible and/or favorable. Identification and monitoring of economic indicators and trends, such as home prices, energy prices, cost per kWh on solar installations, unemployment rates, or real wage increases, can help the City decide when to further explore the potential for funding local reduction strategies through different financing mechanisms.

To encourage implementation of all reduction strategies, City staff could develop a GHG Plan Update Implementation Timeline. GHG reduction Strategy prioritization could be based on the following factors:
• Cost/Funding: How much does the strategy cost? Is funding already in place for the strategy? • Greenhouse Gas Reductions: How effective is the strategy at reducing greenhouse gases? • Other Benefits: For example, does the strategy improve water quality or conserve resources? Would it create jobs or enhance community well-being?
• Consistency with Existing Programs: Does the strategy complement or extend existing programs?
• Impact on the Community: What are the advantages and disadvantages of the strategy to the community as a whole?
• Speed of Implementation: How quickly can the strategy be implemented and when would the City begin to see benefits?
• Implementation Effort: How difficult will it be to develop and implement the program? A qualitative appraisal of implementation effort for the City is also provided. Strategies can be categorized based on the convention of low, medium, or high, with low-level strategies requiring the least level of effort by the City and being the most likely to be pursued immediately (i.e., the lowhanging fruit). Sample criteria are shown in Table C-2.

Table C-2: Implementation Matrix
Implementation
Effort Level Sample Criteria
Low  Requires limited staff resources to develop.
 Existing programs in place to support implementation.  Required internal and external coordination is limited.  Required revisions to policy or code are limited.

Medium  Requires staff resources beyond the typical daily level.  Policy or code revisions become necessary.
 Internal and external coordination (e.g., with stakeholders, other cities or agencies, or general public) is necessary.

High  Requires extensive staff time and resources.
 Requires the development of completely new policies or programs and potential changes to the general plan.  Requires a robust outreach program to alert residents and businesses of program requirements and eligibility.  Requires regional cooperation and securing long-term funding.

B3 Attach #1 of 3

EPIDEMIOLOGIC SUMMARY OF

VALLEY FEVER (COCCIDIOIDOMYCOSIS)
IN CALIFORNIA, 2020-2021
Surveillance and Statistics Section
Infectious Diseases Branch
Division of Communicable DiseaseControl
Center for Infectious Diseases
California Department of PublicHealth
Gavin Newsom
Governor
State of California
An accessible Excel data file of the
2020-2021 Epidemiologic Summary of Valley Fever (Coccidioidomycosis) in California is available for download
Mark Ghaly, Secretary Tomás J. Aragón, MD, DrPH, Director Health and Human Services Agency Department of Public Health B3 Attach #1 of 3

Valley Fever in California in 2020-2021

Epidemiologic Summary of Valley Fever (Coccidioidomycosis) in California, 2020 - 2021
Key Findings
Valley fever (also known as coccidioidomycosis or “cocci”) is a disease caused by a fungus that grows in the soil and dirt in some areas of California and the southwestern United States.

People and animals can get sick when they breathe in dust that contains the Valley fever fungus. Valley fever can be serious and even fatal. Each year in California, there are around 80 deaths from Valley fever and more than 1,000 people are hospitalized with it.

Total Cases: A total of 7,252 and 8,030 new Valley fever cases were reported in 2020 and 2021, respectively.

Rate: The rate of Valley fever in 2020 was about 18 cases per 100,000 people, and the rate in 2021 was about 20 cases per 100,000 people.
• By County: The number of new Valley fever cases was highest in Kern County, with a total of 2,626 cases (about 288 cases per 100,000 people) in 2020 and 2,819 cases (about 306 cases per 100,000 people) in 2021. Counties with the next highest rates of Valley fever in 2021 included Kings, Tulare, San Luis Obispo, Fresno, Merced, and Monterey. Overall, most cases of Valley fever in California are reported in people who live in the Central Valley and Central Coast regions, which include the counties listed above. • By Sex: Similar to previous years, the rates of Valley fever in both 2020 and 2021 were higher in males (2020: about 21 cases per 100,000 males; 2021: about 23 cases per 100,000 males) than in females (2020: about 16 cases per 100,000 females; 2021: about 17 cases per 100,000 females).
• By Age Group: In both 2020 and 2021, the rates of Valley fever were highest in people aged 55-64 and 75-84 years (2020: both about 28 cases per 100,000 people; 2021: both about 32 cases per 100,000 people) than in any other age group. The lowest rates of Valley fever were reported in children.
• By Race/Ethnicity: For cases where race and ethnicity information were available, there was a higher percentage of Valley fever cases in people who reported Hispanic/Latino ethnicity (47%) and Black, non-Hispanic race (8%) than would be expected compared to the percentage of those groups living in California.

To decrease the risk of Valley fever, people who live, work, or travel in areas where Valley fever has been reported should avoid spending time outside in dusty areas as much as possible. Avoiding outdoor dust can help reduce the risk of breathing in the Valley fever fungus from dust in the air. On windy and dusty days, people should stay inside and keep windows and doors closed, especially if they live in the Central Valley or Central Coast of California where Valley fever is more common.

For more information about Valley fever, please visit www.CouldBeValleyFever.org. For additional data on Valley fever, please visit the CDPH Valley Fever Data and Publications webpage.

California Department of Public Health – Center for Infectious Diseases Division of Communicable Disease Control – Infectious Diseases Branch 1 B3 Attach #1 of 3

Background
Coccidioidomycosis (also known as Valley fever) results from inhaling spores of the dimorphic fungus Coccidioides spp. (Coccidioides immitis and Coccidioides posadasii) from soil or airborne dust in areas where this fungus grows. Coccidioidomycosis is not transmitted directly from person to person. The fungus Coccidioides spp. grows throughout much of the southwestern United States, and, in California, most cases of Valley fever are reported among people residing in counties of the southern Central Valley and Central Coast.

Following an incubation period of 1 to 3 weeks, clinical manifestations occur in 40 percent of persons infected with coccidioidomycosis and range from a relatively mild illness with symptoms such as cough, fever, or difficulty breathing, to severe pneumonia, and rarely, disseminated disease.

Disseminated infection, which can be fatal, most commonly involves skin and soft tissues, bones, and the central nervous system. Persons at increased risk for severe disease include persons who are Black or Filipino, pregnant women, adults of older age groups, and people with weakened immune systems.
1 This report describes the epidemiology of reported coccidioidomycosis in California in 2020- 2021 and present surveillance and demographic data for years 2015 through 2021. Because some persons with coccidioidomycosis experience chronic infection and may be reported more than once, only the first report of coccidioidomycosis per person was included using a probabilistic de-duplication method spanning multiple surveillance reporting years. For a complete discussion of the definitions, methods, and limitations associated with this report, please refer to the Technical Notes at the end of this report.

California Reporting Requirements and Surveillance Case Definition California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 17, Section 2500 requires health care providers to report suspected cases of coccidioidomycosis to their local health department (LHD) within 7 days or immediately by telephone if an outbreak is suspected. Since 2010, CCR, Title 17, Section 2505 has also mandated laboratories to report to the local health jurisdiction. 2 California regulations require local health officers to report cases of coccidioidomycosis to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). During this surveillance period, CDPH defined a confirmed coccidioidomycosis case per the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) as a person with clinically compatible illness and at least one of the following: culture, histopathologic, or molecular evidence of Coccidioides species; positive serologic test for coccidioidal antibodies in serum, cerebrospinal fluid, or other body fluids by detection of coccidioidal immunoglobulin M (IgM) by immunodiffusion, enzyme immunoassay (EIA), latex agglutination, or tube precipitin; detection of coccidioidal immunoglobulin G (IgG) by immunodiffusion, EIA, or complement fixation; or coccidioidal skin-test conversion from negative to positive after onset of clinical signs and symptoms. Clinically compatible illness includes one or more of the following: influenza-like signs and symptoms, pneumonia or other pulmonary lesion, erythema nodosum or multiforme rash, involvement of the bones, joints, or skin by dissemination, meningitis, or involvement of viscera or lymph nodes. 3 Since January 2019,
confirmed cases need only laboratory evidence to be reported. Cases included in this report were confirmed by LHDs by either meeting the clinical and laboratory criteria of the CSTE case definition or just the laboratory criteria if clinical confirmation was not feasible; CDPH accepts all cases confirmed by LHDs.

California Department of Public Health – Center for Infectious Diseases Division of Communicable Disease Control – Infectious Diseases Branch 2 B3 Attach #1 of 3

Epidemiology of Coccidioidomycosis in California
Incidence of coccidioidomycosis in 2020 was 18.2 per 100,000 population (7,252 casepatients) and 20.1 per 100,000 population in 2021 (8,030 case-patients). The incidence decreased by 20.5 percent from 2019 to 2020 and increased by 10.4 percent from 2020 to 2021. For most years prior to 2020, monthly case counts were lowest at the beginning of the year and gradually increased to peak in October or November. However, in 2020 from March to April, monthly case counts decreased by 28.4 percent. In 2021, monthly case counts were fairly consistent throughout the year (Table 2).

In 2020, incidence among males was 20.7 per 100,000 population (4,102 case-patients) and was higher than incidence among females of 15.7 per 100,000 (3,136 case-patients). Similarly in 2021, incidence among males was 23.4 per 100,000 (4,673 case-patients) and was higher than incidence among females of 16.7 per 100,000 (3,347 case-patients) (Table 3). By age group in both 2020 and 2021, incidence was highest and equal among people aged 55-64 and 75-84 years (2020: about 28 cases per 100,000 people; 2021: about 32 cases per 100,000 people) (Table 4 and Figure 2). Among children ages 17 years and younger, incidence was 3.8 per 100,000 in both 2020 (334 case-patients) and 2021 (336 case-patients). Among adults ages 18 years and older, incidence was 22.4 per 100,000 in 2020 (6,898 case-patients) and

24.8 per 100,000 in 2021 (7,681 case-patients).

Statewide in both 2020 and 2021, the incidence was highest in Kern County (2020: 287.6 per 100,000; 2626 case-patients, 2021: 306.2 per 100,000; 2819 case-patients), followed by Kings County (2020: 101.5 per 100,000; 157 case-patients, 2021: 108.3 per 100,000; 168 casepatients). Other counties with high incidence included Tulare (2020: 64.3 per 100,000; 309 case-patients), 2021: 65.8 per 100,000; 317 case-patients), San Luis Obispo (2020: 64.5 per 100,000; 178 case-patients, 2021: 61.0 per 100,000; 170 case-patients), Fresno (2020: 43.6 per 100,000; 448 case-patients, 2021: 39.8 per 100,000; 407 case-patients), Merced (2020:

27.4 per 100,000; 78 case-patients, 2021: 28.3 per 100,000; 81 case-patients), and Monterey (2020: 25.2 per 100,000; 111 case-patients, 2021: 27.0 per 100,000; 120 case-patients) (Table 1 and Figure 3). Approximately 56.5 and 52.1 percent of all California case-patients in 2020 and 2021, respectively, resided in these counties at the time of illness onset.

Incidence by race/ethnicity was not calculated due to missing race/ethnicity data for 34.9% of reported cases in 2015 through 2021. However, for cases with complete race/ethnicity data, a higher percentage of cases reported Hispanic ethnicity (46.5%) and Black non-Hispanic race (7.8%) than would be expected based on the overall demographic profile of California (39.1% Hispanic, 5.7% Black non-Hispanic) (Table 5 and Figure 4).

Comments
Since 2019, the number and incidence of new Valley fever cases have decreased in 2020 and increased slightly in 2021 although still lower than in 2019. In 2020, case counts began to decrease in April, which coincided with the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in California.

Some additional cases for 2020 and 2021 may be reported after this summary report due to delays in diagnosis and reporting; future coccidioidomycosis summary reports will have updated case numbers and incidence.

Age group, race/ethnicity, gender, and county epidemiologic profiles of incident cases with estimated illness onset dates in 2020 and 2021 are similar to those reported in California Department of Public Health – Center for Infectious Diseases Division of Communicable Disease Control – Infectious Diseases Branch 3 B3 Attach #1 of 3

coccidioidomycosis epidemiologic summaries from earlier years as described previously.4 The causes of the increase of coccidioidomycosis in recent years are not well understood but contributing factors may include climatic and environmental factors favorable to Coccidioides proliferation and airborne release, increase in endemic areas of susceptible residents, and increase in disease recognition, testing, and reporting. In particular, reporting completeness likely improved following the initiation of automatic electronic laboratory reporting in 2014.

Coccidioidomycosis is most commonly reported among residents of the counties of the southern Central Valley and Central Coast of California and remains an important public health problem in the state. There is currently no vaccine to prevent coccidioidomycosis, but antifungal medications are available for treatment, particularly for severe disease. To decrease the risk of infection, persons living, working, or traveling in areas where coccidioidomycosis is common, especially those at increased risk for disseminated disease, should limit their exposure to outdoor dust as much as possible, including by staying inside and keeping windows and doors closed when it is windy and the air is dusty. Employers should inform outdoor workers about symptoms of coccidioidomycosis and take steps to limit workers’ exposure to dust, such as watering down the soil before digging. It is important that health care providers be alert for coccidioidomycosis among patients who live in or have traveled to areas where the Coccidioides fungus may be present, especially those who work or participated in activities where soil is disturbed.
1, 5
For more information on coccidioidomycosis, including education materials and data from previous years, please visit the CDPH Coccidioidomycosis webpage (https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/Coccidioidomycosis.aspx).

Prepared by Alyssa Nguyen, Gail Sondermeyer Cooksey, Yanyi Djamba, Allyx Nicolici, and Duc Vugia — Infectious Diseases Branch, Division of Communicable Disease Control, Center for Infectious Diseases, California Department of Public Health.

California Department of Public Health – Center for Infectious Diseases Division of Communicable Disease Control – Infectious Diseases Branch 4 B3 Attach #1 of 3

YEAR OF ESTIMATED ILLNESS ONSET
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

JURISDICTION CASES RATE CASES RATE CASES RATE CASES RATE CASES RATE CASES RATE CASES RATE CALIFORNIA TOTAL 3,183 8.2 5,571 14.2 7,704 19.5 7,636 19.2 9,090 22.9 7,252 18.2 8,030 20.1 ALAMEDA COUNTY TOTAL 39 2.4 48 2.9 66 4.0 76 4.6 97 5.8 68 4.1 99 5.9 ALAMEDA 38 2.5 48 3.2 66 4.3 75 4.9 96 6.2 67 4.3 98 6.4 BERKELEY 1 0.8* 0 - 0 - 1 0.8* 1 0.8* 1 0.8* 1 0.8*
ALPINE 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -
AMADOR 4 11.1* 0 - 1 2.7* 7 18.5* 5 13.3* 7 18.6* 3 7.9* BUTTE 0 - 3 1.3* 4 1.8* 1 0.4* 6 2.8* 11 5.3* 13 5.7*
CALAVERAS 1 2.2* 1 2.2* 0 - 1 2.2* 3 6.8* 8 18.1* 1 2.3* COLUSA 1 4.6* 1 4.6* 0 - 2 9.1* 3 13.6* 1 4.5* 0 -
CONTRA COSTA 50 4.5 68 6.0 89 7.8 109 9.5 134 11.7 144 12.5 134 11.6 DEL NORTE 0 - 1 3.7* 1 3.8* 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -
EL DORADO 1 0.5* 2 1.1* 5 2.7* 2 1.1* 5 2.6* 3 1.6* 1 0.5* FRESNO 280 28.6 614 62.1 832 83.4 643 63.7 625 61.4 448 43.6 407 39.8 GLENN 0 - 0 - 2 7.0* 0 - 2 6.9* 1 3.4* 3 10.3*
HUMBOLDT 1 0.7* 0 - 2 1.5* 0 - 2 1.5* 2 1.5* 2 1.5*
IMPERIAL 2 1.1* 11 5.9* 15 8.0* 19 10.1 17 9.0* 5 2.7* 1 0.5* INYO 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 5.4* 3 16.5*
KERN 1,083 122.9 2,258 255.3 2,793 312.8 2,949 327.2 3,384 372.0 2,626 287.6 2,819 306.2 KINGS 104 69.6 235 158.0 273 181.6 173 113.3 220 143.3 157 101.5 168 108.3 LAKE 0 - 2 3.1* 2 3.1* 1 1.5* 2 3.1* 2 3.1* 0 -
LASSEN 9 29.8* 6 20.2* 0 - 1 3.4* 0 - 1 3.5* 0 -
LOS ANGELES COUNTY TOTAL 558 5.5 730 7.2 932 9.1 1,013 9.9 1,154 11.3 1,081 10.6 1,447 14.2 LOS ANGELES 521 5.5 713 7.5 904 9.5 996 10.4 1,093 11.5 1,023 10.7 1,378 14.8 LONG BEACH 36 7.6 15 3.2* 19 4.0 12 2.5* 57 12.1 55 11.7 52 11.3 PASADENA 1 0.7* 2 1.4* 9 6.3* 5 3.5* 4 2.8* 3 2.1* 17 12.2* MADERA 54 35.0 49 31.7 64 41.0 58 36.8 64 40.6 22 13.9 38 23.6 MARIN 1 0.4* 2 0.8* 4 1.5* 5 1.9* 5 1.9* 6 2.3* 4 1.5*
MARIPOSA 2 11.1* 3 16.6* 3 16.7* 1 5.6* 2 11.2* 1 5.6* 1 5.7* MENDOCINO 1 1.1* 0 - 1 1.1* 0 - 3 3.4* 2 2.3* 1 1.1*
MERCED 91 33.8 78 28.8 105 38.2 137 49.3 105 37.3 78 27.4 81 28.3 MODOC 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -
MONO 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 7.4* 0 - 0 - 2 14.5*
MONTEREY 38 8.7 79 18.0 191 43.4 238 53.9 186 41.9 111 25.2 120 27.0 NAPA 0 - 2 1.4* 1 0.7* 1 0.7* 4 2.9* 1 0.7* 5 3.6*
NEVADA 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 1.0* 0 - 4 4.1* 1 1.0*
ORANGE 172 5.5 109 3.4 231 7.2 195 6.1 287 9.0 240 7.5 284 8.8 PLACER 5 1.3* 3 0.8* 2 0.5* 3 0.8* 12 3.0* 10 2.5* 9 2.3* PLUMAS 0 - 0 - 0 - 2 10.9* 0 - 0 - 0 -
RIVERSIDE 57 2.4 64 2.7 134 5.6 142 5.9 290 11.9 311 12.7 455 18.4 SACRAMENTO 23 1.5 27 1.8 40 2.6 43 2.8 103 6.7 57 3.6 81 5.2 SAN BENITO 0 - 3 5.1* 4 6.7* 3 4.9* 5 8.1* 2 3.2* 8 13.0* SAN BERNARDINO 29 1.4 38 1.8 88 4.1 97 4.5 229 10.5 233 10.7 250 11.4 SAN DIEGO 113 3.5 132 4.0 274 8.3 276 8.3 417 12.5 461 13.8 450 13.5 SAN FRANCISCO 13 1.5* 7 0.8* 14 1.6* 12 1.3* 25 2.8 18 2.0* 29 3.2 SAN JOAQUIN 97 13.3 191 25.9 204 27.3 242 32.0 281 36.6 134 17.3 117 15.1 SAN LUIS OBISPO 65 23.5 259 93.2 438 157.7 346 124.4 268 96.7 178 64.5 170 61.0 SAN MATEO 5 0.7* 4 0.5* 18 2.3* 16 2.1* 27 3.5 17 2.2* 22 2.8 SANTA BARBARA 25 5.6 62 13.9 115 25.7 107 23.8 75 16.6 62 13.7 66 14.6 SANTA CLARA 17 0.9* 39 2.0 39 2.0 76 3.9 78 4.0 44 2.2 65 3.3 SANTA CRUZ 1 0.4* 9 3.3* 9 3.3* 14 5.1* 21 7.7 3 1.1* 17 6.2* SHASTA 0 - 2 1.1* 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 0.6* 0 -
SIERRA 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -
SISKIYOU 0 - 2 4.5* 2 4.5* 0 - 1 2.3* 2 4.6* 0 -
SOLANO 19 4.4 16 3.7* 18 4.1* 17 3.9* 34 7.7 22 5.0 35 7.9 SONOMA 1 0.2* 2 0.4* 3 0.6* 3 0.6* 12 2.4* 7 1.4* 20 4.0 STANISLAUS 48 8.9 81 14.9 122 22.3 76 13.8 80 14.4 67 12.1 86 15.3 SUTTER 0 - 1 1.0* 3 3.0* 0 - 4 3.9* 1 1.0* 1 1.0*
TEHAMA 0 - 1 1.6* 0 - 1 1.6* 2 3.1* 3 4.6* 2 3.1*
TRINITY 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 7.5* 0 - 0 - 0 -
TULARE 120 25.9 249 53.3 290 61.6 287 60.6 418 87.5 309 64.3 317 65.8 TUOLUMNE 1 1.9* 6 11.3* 6 11.4* 2 3.8* 1 1.9* 2 3.8* 1 1.9* VENTURA 48 5.7 65 7.7 257 30.3 231 27.2 371 43.9 266 31.6 181 21.3 4 1.8* 3 1.4* 16 7.2* 9 4.1* 8 3.5*
3 3.9* 2 2.6* 5 6.4* 2 2.5* 2 2.6*
YOLO 4 1.9* 6 2.8*
YUBA 0 - 0 -
Rates are expressed as cases per 100,000 jurisdiction population per year. *Potentially unreliable rate: relative standard error 23 percent or more.

For inclusion/exclusion criteria, please refer to the Technical Notes.

Coccidioidomycosis
Table 1. Coccidioidomycosis, Cases and Rates by Health Jurisdiction, California, 2015-2021 California Department of Public Health – Center for Infectious Diseases Division of Communicable Disease Control – Infectious Diseases Branch 5 B3 Attach #1 of 3

YEAR OF ESTIMATED ILLNESS ONSET
MONTH 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
TOTAL 3,183 5,571 7,704 7,636 9,090 7,252 8,030
JANUARY 217 290 371 1,034 743 715 768
FEBRUARY 182 276 288 619 684 730 682
MARCH 202 235 304 569 789 669 710
APRIL 231 276 281 485 656 479 582
MAY 175 211 337 545 692 440 601
JUNE 215 309 454 492 601 511 624
JULY 295 388 503 595 629 478 713
AUGUST 259 615 744 636 753 584 649
SEPTEMBER 328 733 838 586 745 595 665
OCTOBER 407 958 1,221 709 993 728 680
NOVEMBER 351 734 1,242 724 968 669 703
DECEMBER 321 546 1,121 642 837 654 653
For inclusion/exclusion criteria, please refer to the Technical Notes.

YEAR OF ESTIMATED ILLNESS ONSET
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

SEX CASES RATE CASES RATE CASES RATE CASES RATE CASES RATE CASES RATE CASES RATE TOTAL 3,183 8.2 5,571 14.2 7,704 19.5 7,636 19.2 9,090 22.9 7,252 18.2 8,030 20.1 FEMALE 1,171 6.0 2,066 10.5 2,749 13.9 2,933 14.8 3,723 18.7 3,136 15.7 3,347 16.7 MALE 2,009 10.3 3,501 17.9 4,947 25.1 4,696 23.7 5,354 27.0 4,102 20.7 4,673 23.4 UNKNOWN 3 - 4 - 8 - 7 - 13 - 14 - 10 -
Rates are expressed as cases per 100,000 jurisdiction population per year.

For inclusion/exclusion criteria, please refer to the Technical Notes.

YEAR OF ESTIMATED ILLNESS ONSET
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

AGE GROUP CASES RATE CASES RATE CASES RATE CASES RATE CASES RATE CASES RATE CASES RATE TOTAL 3,183 8.2 5,571 14.2 7,704 19.5 7,636 19.2 9,090 22.9 7,252 18.2 8,030 20.1 0 3 0.6* 3 0.6* 5 1.0* 8 1.7* 9 2.0* 9 2.0* 3 0.7*
1-4 15 0.7* 29 1.5 55 2.8 50 2.5 39 2.0 27 1.4 13 0.7*
5-14 105 2.0 303 5.9 393 7.6 336 6.5 285 5.6 172 3.4 187 3.7 15-24 314 5.4 608 10.4 818 14.1 745 12.9 847 14.8 603 10.6 604 10.6 25-34 448 8.5 827 15.8 1,175 22.6 1,156 22.2 1,316 25.4 958 18.6 1,046 20.1 35-44 536 10.4 942 18.3 1,257 24.2 1,260 24.1 1,455 27.7 1,256 23.9 1,229 23.4 45-54 578 11.0 1,070 20.4 1,446 27.7 1,426 27.6 1,612 31.6 1,212 24.0 1,369 27.2 55-64 559 12.0 897 18.9 1,317 27.3 1,268 25.9 1,608 32.7 1,349 27.5 1,569 32.0 65-74 356 11.8 538 17.0 783 23.8 843 24.7 1,169 33.0 967 26.4 1,162 30.7 75-84 192 12.5 263 16.7 337 20.6 419 24.6 548 30.9 508 27.5 620 32.1 85+ 65 9.5 84 12.0 114 16.0 116 16.0 188 25.0 181 23.2 215 26.6 UNKNOWN 12 - 7 - 4 - 9 - 14 - 10 - 13 -
Rates are expressed as cases per 100,000 jurisdiction population per year.

For inclusion/exclusion criteria, please refer to the Technical Notes. *Potentially unreliable rate: relative standard error 23 percent or more.

YEAR OF ESTIMATED ILLNESS ONSET
RACE/ETHNICITY 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
TOTAL 3,183 5,571 7,704 7,636 9,090 7,252 8,030
WHITE, NON-HISPANIC 803 1,249 1,736 1,724 1,719 1,534 1,666 HISPANIC/LATINO 870 1,769 2,268 2,249 2,055 1,822 2,103 ASIAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER, NON-HISPANIC 163 273 402 384 370 264 371 BLACK, NON-HISPANIC, NON-HISPANIC 198 273 354 383 340 286 381

AMERICAN INDIAN/ALASKA NATIVE,

NON-HISPANIC
12 17 38 18 46 19 26
MULTIPLE RACE, NON-HISPANIC 5 22 16 10 19 8 10
OTHER, NON-HISPANIC 106 165 559 501 736 617 569
UNKNOWN 1,026 1,803 2,331 2,367 3,805 2,702 2,904
For inclusion/exclusion criteria, please refer to the Technical Notes.

Coccidioidomycosis
Table 2. Coccidioidomycosis, Cases by Month of Estimated Illness Onset, California, 2015-2021 Table 3. Coccidioidomycosis, Cases and Rates by Sex, California, 2015-2021 Table 4. Coccidioidomycosis, Cases and Rates by Age Group, California, 2015-2021 Table 5. Coccidioidomycosis, Cases by Race/Ethnicity, California, 2015-2021 California Department of Public Health – Center for Infectious Diseases Division of Communicable Disease Control – Infectious Diseases Branch 6 B3 Attach #1 of 3

0.00 5.00

10.0 15.0

20.0 25.0

30.0 35.0
Rate per 100,000 Population
0 1-4 5-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Age Group (Years)
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
Number of cases

0.00 4.00

8.00 12.0

16.0 20.0

24.0 Rate per 100,000 population
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Year of Estimated Illness Onset
Cases Rate
________________________________________________
Coccidioidomycosis
Figure 1. Coccidioidomycosis Cases and Incidence Rates by Year of Estimated Illness Onset, California, 2015-2021
Figure 2. Coccidioidomycosis Incidence Rates by Age Group and Year of Estimated Illness Onset, California, 2015-2021
California Department of Public Health – Center for Infectious Diseases Division of Communicable Disease Control – Infectious Diseases Branch 7 B3 Attach #1 of 3

2019 2020 2021
Cases per 100,000 population per year

0.0—5.8 16.7—39.8 101.6—372.0

5.9—16.6 39.9—101.5 Potentially unreliable rate,
relative standard error 23 percent or more

Figure 3. Coccidioidomycosis, Annual Incidence by County, California, 2019—2021 Figure 4. Coccidioidomycosis, Cases and Population by Race/Ethnicity, California, 2015—2021

34.9% (n=16938) of reported incidents of Coccidioidomycosis did not identify race/ethnicity and 6.7% (n=3253) of reported incidents identified as 'Other' race/ethnicity and are not included in the Case Percent calculation. Information presented with a large percentage of missing data should be interpreted with caution.

California Department of Public Health – Center for Infectious Diseases Division of Communicable Disease Control – Infectious Diseases Branch 8 B3 Attach #1 of 3
Background
Materials and methods
Case data sources and inclusion criteria

Population data source

Definitions

Technical Notes
The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Infectious Diseases Branch maintains a passive reporting system for a list of communicable disease cases and outbreaks, including coccidioidomycosis, mandated by state law and regulation. 2 Healthcare providers and
laboratories are required to report known or suspected cases of these communicable diseases to their local health department (LHD). LHDs in turn report these cases to CDPH.

The collection and distribution of information on the health of the community is a core function and essential service of public health. The data in this epidemiologic summary provide important health information on the magnitude and burden of coccidioidomycosis in California.

Bearing in mind their limitations, these surveillance data can contribute to the identification of risk groups to whom intervention strategies and actions can be targeted, and aid in assessing the effectiveness of these control and prevention measures.

Included in this document-- Epidemiologic Summary of Coccidioidomycosis in California, 2020- 2021-- are incident cases of coccidioidomycosis with estimated illness onset dates from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2021. These data were extracted from California Confidential Morbidity Reports that LHDs submitted to CDPH by July 20, 2022. The Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) surveillance case definition requires both clinical and laboratory criteria for reporting cases as confirmed.
3 However, some LHDs used laboratory
results only due to resource constraints; CDPH accepts all cases closed by LHDs as confirmed.

Due to delays in provider reporting and time required for LHDs to complete clinical, laboratory, and epidemiologic investigation of reported cases, LHDs may continue to add and rescind cases with eligible illness onset dates after the closeout date of this summary. Data used in this report were quality checked and duplicate records were removed based on a data matching algorithm. Because coccidioidomycosis may occur as a chronic condition and be reported more than once, only the first report of coccidioidomycosis per person was included based on estimated illness onset using a probabilistic de-duplication method spanning multiple surveillance reporting years.

For the 2020-2021 Epidemiologic Summary of Coccidioidomycosis in California, State of California, Department of Finance projections and estimations population data were used. 6, 7, 8,
A case was defined as a person who had laboratory and/or clinical evidence of infection that satisfied the most recent surveillance case definition published by the CSTE.

Coccidioidomycosis cases included in the report were closed by the LHDs either after having met case definition criteria for a confirmed case or using laboratory results only; CDPH accepts all cases closed by LHDs as confirmed.
9 California Department of Public Health – Center for Infectious Diseases Division of Communicable Disease Control – Infectious Diseases Branch 9 B3 Attach #1 of 3

Data analyses

Tables and figures
Estimated date of illness onset was defined as the date closest to the time when symptoms first appeared. For cases for which an illness onset date was not explicitly reported, estimated date of illness onset was selected as the earliest of: date of diagnosis, date the case was reported to or received by CDPH, date of laboratory specimen collection, or date of patient death. Because illness onset of coccidioidomycosis is often insidious, estimated illness onset was frequently drawn from the diagnosis date.

Cases were classified to local health jurisdiction according to the case-patient’s county of residence. This classification may not correspond to the county where the case-patient was exposed, sought medical care, or was diagnosed.

Sex categories were defined as follows: Female (including Male to Female transgender) and Male (including Female to Male transgender). Cases that did not report a sex were listed as Unknown.

Mutually exclusive race/ethnicity categories were defined as follows: Hispanic/Latino (of any, including unknown, race), and non-Hispanic White, Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, Multiple Race, and Other. Cases for which race and ethnicity were not reported were categorized as Unknown.

Within this epidemiologic summary, incidence rates (or the number of cases per 100,000 people per year) are used to convey how common a disease is in a place (such as a county) or a group (such as sex or age) compared to the number of people in that place or group (the population). Different places and groups have different population sizes, and the number of new cases in those places or groups can mean different things based on the size of the population. To understand which place or group has a higher risk of disease, it is better to compare their incidence rates than the number of cases.

Case totals and incidence rates per 100,000 population were reported and stratified by local health jurisdiction, year of estimated illness onset, sex, and age group.

Incidence rate (IR) = (Number of cases in specified year(s)/population) x 100,000 Standard error (SE) = IR/√number of cases
Relative standard error = SE/IR x 100
An incidence estimate was defined as unreliable if the relative standard error was 23 percent or more (a threshold recommended by the National Center for Health Statistics). 10 A
substantial portion of race/ethnicity data were missing, thus incidence rates by race/ethnicity were not calculated. However, for comparison we depicted case totals and California population totals by race/ethnicity.

The following tables and figures are included in this report; please note that the tables and figures may be altered or suppressed to minimize depiction of unreliable IRs:

California Department of Public Health – Center for Infectious Diseases Division of Communicable Disease Control – Infectious Diseases Branch 10 B3 Attach #1 of 3

Limitations
Completeness of reporting

Small numbers and rate variability

Tables:

1. Coccidioidomycosis, Cases and Incidence Rates by Health Jurisdiction, California, 2015- 2021

2. Coccidioidomycosis, Cases by Month of Estimated Illness Onset, California, 2015-2021

3. Coccidioidomycosis, Cases and Incidence Rates by Sex, California, 2015-2021

4. Coccidioidomycosis, Cases and Incidence Rates by Age Group, California, 2015-2021

5. Coccidioidomycosis, Cases by Race/Ethnicity, California, 2015-2021 Figures:

1. Coccidioidomycosis, Cases and Incidence Rates by Year of Estimated Illness Onset, California, 2015-2021

2. Coccidioidomycosis, Incidence Rates by Age Group and Year of Estimated Illness Onset, California, 2015-2021

3. Coccidioidomycosis, Annual Incidence Rate by County, California, 2015-2021

4. Coccidioidomycosis, Cases and Population by Race/Ethnicity, California, 2015-2021 The number of reported cases of coccidioidomycosis summarized in this report are likely to underestimate the true magnitude of the disease. Factors that may contribute to underreporting include ill persons not seeking health care, misdiagnoses, not ordering diagnostic tests, and limited reporting by clinicians and laboratories. Factors that may enhance disease reporting include increased exposure and disease severity, recent media or public attention, and active surveillance activities.

Because race/ethnicity information was missing or incomplete for 34.5 percent of all 2015- 2021 cases included in this report, IRs by race/ethnicity were not calculated. However, the proportion of cases representing race/ethnicity categories are presented alongside statewide averages for these categories during the seven-year surveillance period. Nonetheless, race/ethnicity information based on a high percentage of missing data should be interpreted with caution.

Data presented in this report may differ from previously published data due to delays inherent to case reporting, laboratory reporting, and epidemiologic investigation.

All IRs are subject to random variation. Random variation may be substantial when the number of cases is small (e.g., less than 20) and can obscure distinguishing random statistical fluctuations from true changes in the incidence of disease. Rates and proportions based on small numbers of cases should be interpreted with caution.

California Department of Public Health – Center for Infectious Diseases Division of Communicable Disease Control – Infectious Diseases Branch 11 B3 Attach #1 of 3
Rate comparisons

Incidence rate comparisons between local health jurisdictions and surveillance years should be done with caution.

References
1 Brown J, Benedict K, Park BJ, Thompson GR 3rd. Coccidioidomycosis: epidemiology. Clinical Epidemiology 2013:5; 185-197.
2 California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Sections 2500. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/ReportableDise ases.pdf
3 Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. Coccidioidomycosis (Valley fever) (Coccidioides spp.) position statement 10-ID-04, 2011 [cited 29 Jun 2020]. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/conditions/coccidioidomycosis/case-definition/2011/ 4 State of California, Department of Public Health. Epidemiological Summaries of Selected General Communicable Diseases in California, 2001-2008, 2009-2012, and Epidemiologic Summary of Valley Fever in California, 2019. Sacramento, California, November 2009; January 2014; September 2020.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/CocciEpiSum mary2019.pdf;
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/CocciEpiSum mary09-12.pdf; and
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/EpiSummarie sofSelectedCommDiseasesinCA2001-2008.pdf#page=17
5 Preventing Work-Related Valley Fever (Coccidioidomycosis). California Department of Public Health. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DEODC/OHB/Pages/Cocci.aspx 6 State of California, Department of Finance, Race/Hispanics Population with Age and Gender Detail, 2000–2010. Sacramento, California, March 2013.
7 State of California, Department of Finance. P-3 State and County Total Population Projections by Race/Ethnicity and Detailed Age, 2010–2060. Sacramento, California, January 2022. 8 State of California, Department of Finance, E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020, with 2010 Census Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2022. 9 State of California, Department of Finance, E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2021-2022, with 2020 Census Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2022. 10 Xu JQ, Murphy SL, Kochanek KD, Bastian B, Arias E. Deaths: Final data for 2016. National Vital Statistics Reports; vol 67 no 5. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2018.

California Department of Public Health – Center for Infectious Diseases Division of Communicable Disease Control – Infectious Diseases Branch 12 B3 Attach #1 of 3
Report published on the Surveillance and Statistics Section website December 2022
Surveillance and Statistics Section
Infectious Diseases Branch
Division of Communicable Disease Control
Center for Infectious Diseases
California Department of Public Health
1616 Capitol Avenue, MS 7306
P.O. Box 997377, Sacramento, CA 95899-7377
(916) 552-9720
B3 Attach #1 of 3
Potential Emissions Impact of Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) Draft California Air Resources Board 1
Emission Impact: Additional Generator Usage Associated with Power Outage January 30, 2020
This report has been reviewed by the staff of the California Air Resources Board. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the California Air Resources Board, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

Summary
For public safety, it may be necessary for utilities to turn off electricity when gusty winds and dry conditions, combined with a heightened fire risk, are forecasted. This is called a “Public Safety Power Shutoff” or “PSPS”. According to CPUC de-energization report1, in October 2019, there have been almost 806 PSPS events that have impacted almost 973,000 customers (~7.5% of households in California) of which ~854,000 of them were residential customers, and the rest were commercial/industrial/medical baseline/other customers. Data also indicates that on average each of these customers had about 43 hours of power outage in October 2019.

Following the PSPS events, many households and businesses in California started operating their back-up generators to provide power for their day-to-day operations. Generators used during power outage will increase emissions as compared to an average day. Staff assessment indicated that with 973,000 customers impacted by PSPS events in October 2019, approximately 125,000 back-up generators were used by customers to provide electricity during power outage. Assuming 50 hours of operation per generator during month of October 2019, staff estimated excess emissions from the use of generators which are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Population and excess emissions from the use of electricity power generators during October 2019 PSPS events.

Generator Type NOx
(tons)
PM
(tons)
Diesel PM
(tons)
Additional
Generators
Running in PSPS
Portable
Gasoline Less than 25 hp 24.3 10.6 122,000
Diesel above 25 hp
Non-Rental Generator 7.3 0.30 0.30 381
Diesel above 25 hp
Rental Generator 9.1 0.30 0.30 582
Permitted Stationary Back-Up Generators
(Assuming 30% Load Factor) 125.7 8.3 8.3 1,810
Non-permitted generators2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 166.4 19.4 8.9 124,774
1 https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/deenergization/
2 This analysis does not include emissions estimates from non-permitted generators such as the residential standby natural gas powered generators with power rating of less than 50 hp (e.g, a 22 kW Guardian Series home standby generator by Generac). At this point there is no information available on their population and sales. According to discussion with industry, it is assumed that most of these generator are powered by natural gas.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Potential Emissions Impact of Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) Draft California Air Resources Board 2
To put these numbers into context, 9 tons of diesel PM is equivalent to emissions from almost 29,000 heavy duty diesel trucks (above 14,000 lbs.) driving on California roadways for the period of one month (on average each truck drives around 3,000 miles per month).

The calculations described in the rest of the document outlines the assumptions used to estimate potential emissions impact from the use of gasoline and diesel generators during PSPS events.

Small Gasoline Powered Generators (less than 25 hp)
Population
Based on 2018 California State University Fullerton (CSUF) Survey3 for small off-road (SORE) equipment, about one out of 8 households own a generator in California. For a population of 973,000 households, about 122,000 generators will likely to be used to provide additional power during the power shut-off period.

Emission Factors
According to data provided by manufacturers as part of the SORE Evaporative Reporting Requirement4, generators have an average horsepower of 3.5 hp of which when combined with a load factor of 0.68, derived from OFFROAD20075, results in an effective power of 2.4 hp. To determine emission factors, we used emissions data from SORE exhaust certification database.

Table 2 shows the derived emission factors along with weighted average emission factors across all horsepower bins.

Table 2: Exhaust emission factors (g/bhp-hr) for gasoline powered generator less than 25 hp Equipment Tech Type Horsepower Percent
Population
HC
(g/bhp-hr)
NOX
(g/bhp-hr)
PM
(g/bhp-hr)
Generator
Sets
G2-CARB 0 – 2 5% 27.860 0.900 0.600
G4-CARB
2 – 5 82% 5.634 1.484 0.740
5 – 15 9% 2.885 1.975 0.140
15 – 25 3% 3.390 1.422 0.140
G4-FI 15 – 25 1% 1.074 2.125 0.140
Population Weighted Average 6.296 1.505 0.655
Using the effective power and emission factors described earlier, staff estimated excess emissions as well emissions during 50 hours of generators operation (5 days with 10 hours a day operation). For example, with 122,000 generators operating for 50 hours during power shutoff, staff estimated excess emissions of 24.3 tons of NOx, 101.5 tons of THC, and 10.6 tons of PM. The calculation below outlines the assumptions used for this emissions impact assessment. Obviously, a more refined estimate can be made with additional information. 3 Survey of Small Off-Road Engines (SORE) Operating within California: Results from Surveys with Four Statewide Populations, Submitted May 15, 2019, Prepared by the Social Science Research Center (SSRC) at CSU, Fullerton. 4 https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/mailouts/ecars1805/ecars1805.pdf?_ga=2.15158582.1846785299.1570743950- 1632999103.1458687259 5 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/mobile-source-emissions-inventory/msei-road-archives B3 Attach #1 of 3
Potential Emissions Impact of Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) Draft California Air Resources Board 3
Portable Diesel Generators (above 25 hp)
Portable diesel generators are generally much larger and supply more power than gasoline generators, and could be used during PSPS events to supply power to larger facilities (such as schools, industrial facilities, or buildings). Table 3 provides CARB’s latest population, activity, and emissions associated diesel portable generators registered under CARB’s PERP program6.

Table 3: Emissions and Population of Diesel portable generators registered under CARB’s PERP program
Population
(statewide)
Annual Activity
(hours)
NOx
(tons/yr)
PM
(tons/yr)
PM25
(tons/yr)
Portable Equipment -
Non-Rental Generator 5,081 1,299 2,537 99 91
Portable Equipment -
Rental Generator 7,764 1,392 3,363 123 113
For assessing the emissions impact associated with this event, this analysis will assume that the percent of businesses that use generators and backup generators that are impacted by the PSPS is roughly proportional to the percent of households impacted (about 973,000 households out of 13,000,000 in California, or about 7.5 percent of the population of generators in the state). Table 4 shows the excess emissions from the use of portable diesel power generators during PSPS events assuming 50 hours of operations.

Table 4: Population and excess emissions from the use of portable diesel powered generators during October 2019 PSPS events
Additional Generators
Running in PSPS
NOx
(tons)
PM
(tons)
PM2.5
(tons)
Portable Equipment -
Non-Rental Generator 381 7.3 0.30 0.30
Portable Equipment -
Rental Generator 582 9.1 0.30 0.30
Total 964 16.45 0.61 0.61
Permitted Stationary Back-Up Generators (BUG)
Population
Data on permitted stationary back-up generators were provided to CARB by several air districts.

Staff used the facility ID from the districts permit data to find the address of the facility that the stationary BUGs are operating and determined whether those BUGs were impacted by the PSPS events or not. Using this process, staff determined that almost 1,810 stationary BUGs across California were impacted by the October 2019 PSPS events.

Emission Factors
Additionally, using actual emission factors for each diesel BUG engines provided in the districts’ stationary BUGs database (i.e., stationary BUGs permit database), staff assumed a work based emission factors of 0.44 g/bhp-hr for PM and 6.7 g/bhp-hr for NOx, based on averaging of a 6 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/portable-equipment-registration-program-perp B3 Attach #1 of 3
Potential Emissions Impact of Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) Draft California Air Resources Board 4
sample of permitted diesel powered backup generators in the state. The analysis also indicated that an average permitted back-up generator has a power rating of ~ 627 hp and they can go up as high as 4,400 hp which when combined with a load factor assumption of 30% resulted in an effective power of 188 hp. Table 5 provides a summary of excess emissions associated with the stationary BUGs impacted by the PSPS events.

Table 5: Population and excess emissions from the use of diesel powered stationary back-up generators (BUG) during October 2019 PSPS events
Additional Generators
Running in PSPS
NOx
(tons)
PM
(tons)
Diesel PM
(tons)
Permitted Stationary
Back-Up Generators 1,810 126 8.3 8.3
B3 Attach #1 of 3

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
EXECUTIVE ORDER N-11-21
WHEREAS on July 9, 2021, I proclaimed a State of Emergency to exist in California as a result of a significant heat wave that struck California beginning July 8, 2021, bringing widespread near-record temperatures well in excess of 100 degrees throughout the State (the "Extreme Heat Event"), and as a result of the impacts of the Bootleg Fire in Southern-Central Oregon on California's electricity supply from the Pacific Northwest; and WHEREAS the Extreme Heat Event continues to bring temperatures that put significant demand and strain on California's energy grid; and WHEREAS the Bootleg Fire continues to threaten the California Oregon lntertie, causing ongoing impacts to delivery of electricity to California from the Pacific Northwest; and
WHEREAS the Extreme Heat Event is expected to last through at least July 12, 2021; and
WHEREAS it is necessary to take further action to reduce the strain on the energy infrastructure and increase energy capacity during the Extreme Heat Event; and
WHEREAS under the provisions of Government Code section 8571, I find that strict compliance with various statutes and regulations specified in this Order would prevent, hinder, or delay appropriate actions to prevent and mitigate the effects of the Extreme Heat Event.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor of the State of California, in accordance with the authority vested in me by the State Constitution and statutes of the State of California, and in particular, Government Code sections 8567, 8571, and 8627, do hereby issue the following Order to become effective immediately:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. In regulations concerning the use of auxiliary engines by ocean-going vessels berthed in California ports, the Extreme Heat Event shall be deemed an "emergency event" under CCR, title 17, section 93118.3, subd. (c)(l4}.

2. This Order shall be deemed to provide notice to reduce use of gridbased electrical power under CCR, title 17, section 93118.3, subd. (c)(l 4)(C), and notice under that same section that reduction is no longer necessary at 11 :59 p.m. on July 13, 2021. Ships that are berthed at California ports between July 10, 2021 and July 13, 2021 shall not be required to use shore power until after 11 :59 pm on July 16, 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3

3. A ship operating on auxiliary engines pursuant to an "emergency event" under Paragraph 1 of this Order shall be deemed to qualify for an exemption under CCR, title 17, section 93118.3, subd. (d)(l )(E)(l )(a), and any visit occurring during the period described in Paragraph 2 of this Order shall be counted towards compliance under CCR, title 17, section 93118.3, subd. (d)(l )(F)(l ).

4. Any permit, regulation or law prohibiting, restricting, or penalizing the use of auxiliary ship engines or other conduct allowed by this Order during the Extreme Heat Event is suspended.

5. This Order shall expire at 11 :59 p.m. on July 17, 2021.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as soon as hereafter possible, this Order be filed in the Office of the Secretary of State and that widespread publicity and notice be given of this Order.

This Order is not intended to, and does not, create any rights or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, against the State of California, its agencies, departments, entities, officers, employees, or any other person.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set
my hand and caused the Great Seal of the
State of California to be affixed this 10th
day of July 2021.

GAVIN NEWSOM
Governor of California
ATTEST:

SHIRLEY N. WEBER, PH.D.

Secretary of State
B3 Attach #1 of 3
Exhibit D
CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds
B3 Attach #1 of 3
Image Source: Fresno Visitor Bureau

Y'h/
LINES&KZ
s
,/>
D/>
^dZs
>
d,Z
^,K>^
ĨŽƌƚŚĞ
/dzK&&Z
^EK
June 18, ϮϬϮϬ
B3 Attach #1 of 3
This page intentionally left blank
B3 Attach #1 of 3
June 18, 2020

CEQA GUIDELINES FOR

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED THRESHOLDS
Submitted to:

City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, California 93721
Prepared by:

LSA Associates, Inc.
20 Executive Park, Suite 200
Irvine, California 92614
(949) 553‐0666
Project No. CFO1802
B3 Attach #1 of 3
This page intentionally left blank
B3 Attach #1 of 3
i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Senate Bill (SB) 743, signed in 2013, changes the way transportation studies are conducted in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) replaces motorist delay and level of service (LOS) as the metric for impact determination. As a result of the final rulemaking surrounding SB 743 and the implementation deadline of July 1, 2020, the City of Fresno is adopting the new VMT thresholds and guidelines to address the shift from delay‐based LOS CEQA traffic analyses to VMT CEQA traffic analyses.

This document discusses in further detail the following:
 Definition of region for VMT analysis
 Standardized screening methods for VMT threshold compliance data  Recommendations for appropriate VMT significance thresholds for development projects, transportation projects, and plans
 Feasible mitigation strategies applicable for development projects, transportation projects, and plans
 For purposes of this analysis, the Fresno Council of Governments (COG) Activity‐Based Model (ABM)1 was used to develop screening maps. The Fresno COG ABM base year was updated from 2014 to 2019 based on consultation with Fresno COG staff. The appropriate use of the ABM for VMT calculations has been further elaborated in subsequent chapters of this document.

This document will serve as a detailed guideline for preparing VMT analysis consistent with SB 743 requirements for development projects, transportation projects, and plans. Project applicants will be required to follow the guidance provided in this document for preparation of CEQA VMT analysis. 1 Fresno COG ABM Update Report: https://www.fresnocog.org/wp‐content/uploads/2017/06/Fresno‐COG‐ ABM‐Report.pdf
B3 Attach #1 of 3
ii
This page intentionally left blank
B3 Attach #1 of 3
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................................. i TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................. iii FIGURES AND TABLES ............................................................................................................................. v LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS............................................................................................vii

1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 1

2.0 DEFINITION OF REGION: VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED CONTEXT .............................. 5

3.0 PROJECT SCREENING ........................................................................................... 9

3.1 DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.................................................................................................... 9

3.2 TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS............................................................................................. 19

4.0 SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS............................... 23

4.1 GENERAL TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS PROCEDURE ........................................................ 25

4.2 PROJECT SCREENING.......................................................................................................... 26

4.3 PROJECT VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS .................................................................. 26

4.3.1 Small Project Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis.....................................................................26

4.3.2 Large Project Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis.....................................................................26

4.4 MITIGATION MEASURES .................................................................................................... 27

5.0 SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS FOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS ......................... 31

6.0 SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS FOR LAND USE PLANS ............................................ 37

7.0 MITIGATION STRATEGIES .................................................................................. 39

7.1 DEFINITION OF MITIGATION.............................................................................................. 39

7.2 MITIGATION MEASURES AND PROJECT ALTERNATIVES .................................................... 41

7.2.1 Development Projects and Community/General Plans.......................................................41

7.2.2 Transportation Projects.......................................................................................................42

7.3 FUNDING MECHANISMS .................................................................................................... 43

APPENDICES
A:   VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED MITIGATION MEASURES FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS (CAPCOA) B:   VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED MITIGATION MEASURES FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS (CARB

PAPERS)
C:   VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED MITIGATION MEASURES FOR COMMUNITY PLANS AND GENERAL PLANS
B3 Attach #1 of 3
iv
This page intentionally left blank
B3 Attach #1 of 3
v

FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURES
Figure 1: VMT Per Capita Compared to Population in California........................................................... 2 Figure 2: 2017 GHG Emissions in California by Scoping Plan Sector and Sub‐Sector Category ............. 3 Figure 3: Percentage of Total Tours Having Origins/Destinations within the City of Fresno and Terminating within the City of Fresno, within Fresno County, or outside the County .......... 6 Figure 4: High‐Quality Transit Area Within Fresno County .................................................................. 11 Figure 5: Average VMT per Capita (Population) and VMT per Employee for City of Fresno and Fresno County ............................................................................................................................. 14 Figure 6: City of Fresno ‐ Existing VMT per Capita ............................................................................... 15 Figure 7: City of Fresno ‐ Existing VMT per Employee ......................................................................... 17 Figure 8: SB 375 Regional Plan Climate Targets for the 18 California MPOs....................................... 24 Figure 9: VMT Analysis Process for Development Projects.................................................................. 29 Figure 10: Induced Travel – VMT Attributable to Project .................................................................... 32 Figure 11: Caltrans Induced Travel Calculator...................................................................................... 33 Figure 12: Conceptual Methodology for Calculating Induced Demand for Transportation Projects........................................................................................................................................ 36 Figure 13: VMT per Capita and VMT per Employee Comparisons – City of Fresno General Plan versus Fresno County under Existing Conditions................................................................ 38 TABLE
Table A: Representative VMT and GHG Emissions from CalEEMod..................................................... 13 B3 Attach #1 of 3
vi
This page intentionally left blank
B3 Attach #1 of 3
vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ABM Activity‐Based Model
ADT average daily trips
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of Fresno
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
COG Council of Governments
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EO Executive Order
FAR floor‐to‐area ratio
GHG greenhouse gas
GPA General Plan Amendment
GWP global warming potential
HOT high‐occupancy toll
HOV high‐occupancy vehicle
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
LOS level of service
mi mile
MT metric ton
B3 Attach #1 of 3
viii
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organizations
OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
PRC Public Resources Code
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RTPA Regional Transportation Planning Agency
SB Senate Bill
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
sf Square foot/feet
SOC Statement of Overriding Considerations
TA Technical Advisory
TDM transportation demand management
VMT vehicle miles traveled
ZC Zone Change
B3 Attach #1 of 3
1 1.0 INTRODUCTION
Senate Bill (SB) 743, signed in 2013, changes the way transportation studies are conducted in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) replaces motorist delay and level of service (LOS) as the metric for impact determination. For development projects, VMT is simply the product of the daily trips generated by a new development and the distance those trips travel to their destinations. For capital projects, impacts are identified as the new VMT attributable to the added capital project, both from the installation of the facility and the induced growth—a new term in the CEQA lexicon—generated as a result of induced land use.

In January 2019, the Natural Resources Agency and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) codified SB 743 into the Public Resources Code (PRC) and the State CEQA Guidelines. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b) states:

1. Land Use Projects. Vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within one‐half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact.

2. Transportation Projects. Transportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. For roadway capacity projects, agencies have discretion to determine the appropriate measure of transportation impact consistent with CEQA and other applicable requirements. To the extent that such impacts have already been adequately addressed at a programmatic level, such as in a regional transportation plan EIR, a lead agency may tier from that analysis as provided in Section 15152.

3. Qualitative Analysis. If existing models or methods are not available to estimate the vehicle miles traveled for the particular project being considered, a lead agency may analyze the project’s vehicle miles traveled qualitatively. Such a qualitative analysis would evaluate factors such as the availability of transit, proximity to other destinations, etc. For many projects, a qualitative analysis of construction traffic may be appropriate.

4. Methodology. A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revisions to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.

The OPR provides a Technical Advisory (TA) as a guidance document to establish thresholds for this new VMT metric. The laws and rules governing the CEQA process are contained in the CEQA statute B3 Attach #1 of 3
2 (PRC Section 21000 and following), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 and following), published court decisions interpreting CEQA, and locally adopted CEQA procedures. The TA is intended as a reference document; it does not have the weight of law. Yet, deviating from the TA is best undertaken with substantial evidence to support the agency action.

The State of California is committed to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and achieving long‐term climate change goals. To achieve these climate change goals, California needs to reduce VMT. As illustrated in Figure 1, over the last 40 years, with increase in statewide population, the overall VMT has also increased. As illustrated in Figure 2, transportation is the single largest sector contributing to the State’s GHG emissions. More than 40 percent of the GHG emissions come from the transportation sector, primarily passenger cars and light‐duty trucks. Reducing the number of vehicle trips and reducing the length of trips are expected to result in reduced VMT and reduced GHG emissions. The new State CEQA Guidelines and the establishment of VMT thresholds for CEQA analyses is linked to GHG reduction strategies and overall statewide climate change goals.

Source: https://ca50million.ca.gov/transportation/
Figure 1: VMT Per Capita Compared to Population in California B3 Attach #1 of 3
3 Source: California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2017 Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators (California Air Resources Board Report) Figure 2: 2017 GHG Emissions in California by Scoping Plan Sector and Sub‐Sector Category This document establishes the City of Fresno’s (City) threshold of significance for CEQA transportation studies and provides substantial evidence as appropriate. It is divided into chapters, including:
 Chapter 2 – Definition of Region: Here the document describes what the comparative is for analysis purposes. Each project will be compared to an existing regional average. The geographical area that defines the region is defined and described.  Chapter 3 – Project Screening: OPR acknowledges that certain projects are either low VMT generators, or by virtue of their location would have a less than significant impact. The City should use these screening criteria and should offer substantial evidence for other circumstances that would lead to a less than significant impact.  Chapter 4 – Significance Thresholds for Development Projects: In this chapter, the threshold that would define a significant CEQA impact is identified. This threshold is linked to a specific travel mode and a set of trip purposes. The actual VMT metric (either an efficiency rate or total VMT) is described.
 Chapter 5 – Significant Thresholds for Transportation Projects: This chapter describes the method to evaluate significant CEQA impacts associated with transportation projects. Many non‐vehicular capital projects are presumed to have a less than significant impact. Capacity enhancing projects may have significant impacts and may be subject to a detailed analysis that will include measuring induced travel.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
4  Chapter 6 – Significance Thresholds for Land Use Plans: This chapter provides guidance and substantial evidence to support the City’s treatment of land use plans and their CEQA transportation analysis.
 Chapter 7 – Mitigation Strategies: Potential mitigation strategies are indicated in this chapter. It is noted that this discussion is not intended as a full list of measures the City sanctions as feasible. As in previous CEQA practice, it is generally the practitioner who identifies mitigation measures to offset the specific project related impacts identified in individual environmental document. The discussion here is intended as a reference and guide for possible strategy for applicants who may wish to investigate to offset their specific project‐related significant impacts.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
5 2.0 DEFINITION OF REGION: VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED CONTEXT The question of context is the definition of the scope of the VMT analysis. The common term for this in previous delay‐based LOS analyses is project study area. In the delay‐based LOS analyses, a project study area is generally determined based on the incremental increase in traffic from the project and its potential to create a significant LOS impact. This generally includes intersections and roadway segments where the project would add a prescribed number of peak‐hour trips. Many times, lead agencies stop study area boundaries at their jurisdictional borders.

Unlike delay‐based LOS analyses, VMT is a regional effect not defined by roadway, intersection, or pathway. The OPR acknowledges this in its TA (page 6), which states, Lead agencies should not truncate any VMT analysis because of jurisdictional or other boundaries….

Furthermore, the recommendations for thresholds for the primary land use types (residential and office) are based on a comparison to a regional average. Region is not defined further in the TA.

Instead, the OPR offers the following suggestions:

1. In cases where the region is substantially larger than the geography over which most workers would be expected to live, it might be appropriate to refer to a smaller geography, such as county, that includes the area over which nearly all workers would be expected to live (page 16).

2. For residential projects in unincorporated county areas, the local agency can compare a residential project’s VMT to (1) the region’s VMT per capita, or (2) the aggregate population weighted VMT per capita of all cities in the region (page 15).

LSA surveyed other large urbanized areas around the State to identify what region has been established for VMT thresholds. In most cases, the county boundary has been identified as the region selected for VMT analysis. Mobility can be studied using a trip‐based approach or a tour‐ based approach. The OPR TA states that “where available, tour‐based assessment is ideal because it captures travel behavior more comprehensively.” Since Fresno COG’s model is an ABM, a tour‐based approach has been followed. LSA used the Fresno COG ABM to examine the tours into and out of Fresno. As such, consistent with the OPR TA, only tours having origins or destinations or both within the City were considered. External pass‐through trips were not considered. As illustrated in Figure 3, out of the total tours, about 80 percent originate and are destined within the city. Another 16 percent of tours originate or are destined within other jurisdictions in Fresno County. The remaining 4 percent home‐based tours originate and are destined outside Fresno County.

Because the majority of the tours are contained within Fresno County, the county may be used to define the region. For residential projects, the TA states that “Existing VMT per capita may be measured as regional VMT per capita or as city VMT per capita. Proposed development referencing a threshold based on city VMT per capita (rather than regional VMT per capita) should not B3 Attach #1 of 3
6 cumulatively exceed the number of units specified in the [Sustainable Communities Strategy] SCS for that city, and should be consistent with the SCS.” As such, this analysis evaluated residential VMT per capita for the City using the county as the region as well as the city boundary as the region. As illustrated in Figure 3, 85 percent of the residential trips having origins/destinations within Fresno terminate within Fresno County. Hence, based on this analysis, the City has determined to use the county as the region for all residential projects. Additionally, as illustrated in Figure 3, 90 percent of the employee trips having origins/destinations within Fresno terminate within Fresno County.

Therefore, for office, retail, and all other non‐residential projects, consistent with the TA, the county will be used as the region. The other OPR guidance recommends consistency in approach; once a region is established, that region should be used for all subsequent traffic analyses.

In some cases, this county boundary has other names, such as the Council of Governments boundary. Nonetheless, county is a common and reoccurring context for CEQA VMT analyses throughout the State.

Source: Fresno COG Activity Based Model
Figure 3: Percentage of Total Tours Having Origins/Destinations within the City of Fresno and Terminating within the City of Fresno, within Fresno County, or outside the County It should be recognized the use of the county as the region defines the comparative, or the denominator, in the identification of project‐related impact. The numerator is the project’s VMT contribution. This project‐related VMT profile may go beyond the county boundary and not be truncated by a jurisdictional boundary. For example, a new, large employment generating 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Total Tours
Within City of Fresno Within Fresno County Ouside County B3 Attach #1 of 3
7 development proposed near the city’s northern boundary may include VMT from as far away as Madera, Tulare, or Kings Counties or other communities in the San Joaquin Valley. In that case, it would be the responsibility of the applicant and their traffic study preparer to include the project VMT regardless of geographical limit to the satisfaction of City staff. This project‐related VMT profile would be compared against the County of Fresno regional average.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
8 This page intentionally left blank
B3 Attach #1 of 3
9 3.0 PROJECT SCREENING
The TA does acknowledge that certain activities and projects may result in a reduction in VMT and GHG emissions and therefore a less‐than‐significant impact to transportation and circulation. A variety of projects may be screened out of a complicated VMT analysis due to the presumption described in the TA regarding the occurrence of less‐than‐significant impacts.

3.1 DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
The TA acknowledges that conditions may exist that would presume that a development project has a less than significant impact. These may be size, location, proximity to transit, or trip‐making potential. For example, development projects that have one or more of the following attributes may be presumed to create a less than significant impact:
 The project is within 0.5 mile (mi) of a Transit Priority Area or a High‐Quality Transit Area unless the project is inconsistent with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/SCS, has a floor area ratio (FAR) less than 0.75, provides an excessive amount of parking, or reduces the number of affordable residential units. In accordance with SB 743, “Transit priority areas” are defined as “an area within one‐half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program. A Major Transit Stop means:  “a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.” A High‐Quality Transit Area or Corridor is a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.

Figure 4 depicts transit priority areas within Fresno including high‐quality transit areas (within 0.5 mile of a major transit stop) served by the Fresno Area Express (FAX) with service intervals of 15 minutes or less. Projects proposed in these areas may be presumed to have a less‐than‐significant transportation impact unless the project is inconsistent with the RTP/SCS, has an FAR less than

0.75, provides an excessive amount of parking, or reduces the number of affordable residential units.
 The project involves local‐serving retail space of less than 50,000 square feet (sf).  The project has a high level of affordable housing units. The afforable‐housing requirement to meet the screening criteria is to be determined by City staff.  The project generates a low volume of daily traffic.

The TA recommends a volume of 110 average daily trips (ADT). This recommendation is not based on any analysis of GHG reduction but, rather, on a CEQA categorical exemption. This exemption criterion states that for existing facilities, including additions to existing structures of up to 10,000 sf, the project is exempted from CEQA as long as the project is in an area where public infrastructure is available to allow for maximum planned development and the project is not located in an environmentally sensible area (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, B3 Attach #1 of 3
10 This page intentionally left blank
B3 Attach #1 of 3
ÄÆ99
ÄÆ180
ÄÆ168
ROUTE 9
ROUTE 1/Q
ROUTE 38
ÄÆ41
Gettysburg
Shepherd
SR 99
SR 41
West
Santa Fe
Temperance
Ventura
Figarden
Bullard
California
Clovis
Temperance
SR 180
Airway
McKinley
Clovis
Walnut
Herndon
American
Bullard
Central
SR 99
Fowler
SR 180
North
McKinley
Shields
Peach
A St
Fresno
Abby
Maple
Cedar
Third
Leonard
Herndon
Belmont
First
Blackstone
Amador
Fowler
Ashlan
Orange
Fifth
Golden Stat
Whites Brid
Shields
Weber
Polk
Blythe
Ashlan
H St.

Marks
Palm
Kings Canyo
SR 168
Shaw
Millburn
McKinley
Chestnut
Chestnut
B St.

Cedar
First
Belmont
Marks
Brawley
Audubon
De Wolf
Shields
Fresno
SR 41
Nees
Auberry
Jensen
Willow
Copper
Elm
DeWolf
Bullard
Cornelia
BehymerMinnewawa
West
Golden Sta
Friant
Champlain
JensenPeach
Clovis
Fowler
Fresno
SOURCE: Fresno Area Express (FAX) (03/20), City of Fresno (04/20), ESRI R:\FCG1901 FresnoCOG VMT\GIS\VMT_Maps_04-20-2020\fig_X_HQ Transit.mxd (4/28/2020) FIGURE 4
CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds
High-Quality Transit Area Within Fresno County
S
!!
N
LEGEND
Cities with Sphere of Influence
Route 1/Q (Bus Rapid Transit)
Route 9
0 4000 8000 Route 38
FEET
Half-Mile Buffer
Route 9 (Headway more than 15 Mins.)
Route 38 (Headway more than 15 Mins.)
B3 Attach #1 of 3
12 This page intentionally left blank
B3 Attach #1 of 3
13 subdivision (e)(2). As stated in the OPR TA, for projects that have a linear increase in trip generation with respect to the building footprint, the daily trip generation is anticipated to be between 110 and 124 trips per 10,000 sf. Therefore, based on this assumption, the OPR recommends 110 ADT as the screening threshold. However, the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) was used to characterize the effect of changes in project‐related ADT to the resulting GHG emissions. This model was selected because it is provided by the CARB to be used statewide for developing project‐level GHG emissions. CalEEMod was used with the built‐in default trip lengths and types to show the vehicular GHG emissions from incremental amounts of ADT. Table A shows the resulting annual VMT and GHG emissions from the incremental ADT.

Table A: Representative VMT and GHG Emissions from CalEEMod Average Daily Trips (ADT) Annual Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT)
GHG Emissions (Metric Tons
CO2e per year)
200 683,430 258
300 1,021,812 386
400 1,386,416 514
500 1.703,020 643
600 2,043,623 771
Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2.

CalEEMod = California Emissions Estimator Model
CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
GHG = Greenhouse Gas
A common GHG emissions threshold is 3,000 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalent2 (CO2e) per year.3 The vehicle emissions are typically more than 50 percent of the total project GHG emissions. Thus, a project with 500 ADT would generally have total project emissions that could be less than 1,300 MT CO2e/year (i.e., 50 percent or 643 MT CO2e/year coming from vehicle emissions and the other 50 percent coming from other project activities). As this level of GHG emissions would be less than 3,000 MT CO2e/year, the emissions of GHG from a project up to 500 ADT would typically be less than significant. Therefore, the City will allow screening out projects if the project would generate less than 500 ADT.  The development of institutional/government and public service uses that support community health, safety and welfare may also be screened from subsequent CEQA VMT analysis. These facilities (e.g. police stations, fire stations, community centers, refuse stations) are already part of the community and, as a public service, the VMT is accounted for in the existing regional average. Many of these facilities generate fewer than 500 ADT and/or use vehicles other than passenger‐cars or light duty trucks. These other vehicle fleets are subject to regulation outside 2 Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) is a concept developed to provide one metric that includes the effects of numerous GHGs. The global warming potential (GWP) of each GHG characterizes the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another GHG. The GWPs of all GHGs are combined to derive the CO2e.   3
Source: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules‐compliance/ceqa/air‐quality‐analysis‐handbook/ghg‐ significance‐thresholds
B3 Attach #1 of 3
14 of CEQA, such as the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.
 The TA states “Residential and office projects that are located in areas with low VMT, and that incorporate similar features (i.e., density, mix of uses, transit accessibility), will tend to exhibit similarly low VMT. Maps created with VMT data, for example from a travel survey or a travel demand model, can illustrate areas that are currently below threshold VMT. Because new development in such locations would likely result in a similar level of VMT, such maps may be used to screen out residential and office projects from needing to prepare a detailed VMT analysis.” LSA calculated VMT per capita and VMT per employee for the City of Fresno as well as the entire Fresno County. Figure 5 illustrates the comparison of these VMTs. LSA also created screening maps that residential and office projects within the city can use to screen projects. As described earlier, the City will use Fresno County as the region. Therefore, the screening maps have been created using the county as the region. Figure 6 illustrates Fresno’s VMT per capita screening map. Figure 7 illustrates the City’s VMT per employee screening map. As illustrated in Figures 6 and 7, most of the low VMT zones are in the central part of Fresno, where the City’s vision is to promote infill development. Therefore, the VMT thresholds and IDs of these zones will effectively screen out or exempt from further VMT analysis the desired development types the City wishes to see as part of the General Plan process.

Source: Fresno COG Activity Based Model
Figure 5: Average VMT per Capita (Population) and VMT per Employee for City of Fresno and Fresno County

0.0 5.0

10.0 15.0

20.0 25.0

30.0 Average VMT per Capita Average VMT per Employee
City of Fresno Fresno County
B3 Attach #1 of 3
ÄÆ41
ÄÆ180
ÄÆ41
ÄÆ99
ÄÆ168
ÄÆ99
SR 99
West
SR 41
Temperance
Shepherd
Manning
Audubon
North
Central
Herndon
American
Polk
Fresno
Cedar
Leonard
Belmont
Whites
Brid
Fowler
Blackstone
Fifth
Shields
Figarden
Auberry
Ashlan
Millerton
Marks
McKinley
Weber
Maple
Shaw
Grantland
Chestnut
Palm
Nees
Blythe
BullardDe
Wolf
Willow
Behymer
SR 168
Copper Clovis
First
Elm
Cornelia
McCall
Minnewawa
Dinuba
Tollhouse
Friant
Champlain
SR 180
Jensen
Peach
Golden Sta
Fresno
LEGEND
City with Sphere of Influence
VMT per Capita
No Population
Less than 14.0

14.0 - 18.2
Greater than 18.2
Fresno County Average VMT per Capita: 16.1
Threshold: 13%
Map created using Fresno County as the region.

SOURCE: Fresno COG Activity Based Travel Demand Model (2019) R:\FCG1901 FresnoCOG VMT\GIS\VMT_Maps_04-20-2020\fig6_Fresno_COGAVG.mxd (4/28/2020) FIGURE 6
CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds
City of Fresno - Existing VMT per Capita
S
!!
N
0 5000 10000
FEET
B3 Attach #1 of 3
16 This page intentionally left blank
B3 Attach #1 of 3
ÄÆ41
ÄÆ180
ÄÆ41
ÄÆ99
ÄÆ168
ÄÆ99
SR 99
West
SR 41
Temperance
Shepherd
Manning
Audubon
North
Central
Herndon
American
Polk
Fresno
Cedar
Leonard
Belmont
Whites
Brid
Fowler
Blackstone
Fifth
Shields
Figarden
Auberry
Ashlan
Millerton
Marks
McKinley
Weber
Maple
Shaw
Grantland
Chestnut
Palm
Nees
Blythe
BullardDe
Wolf
Willow
Behymer
SR 168
Copper Clovis
First
Elm
Cornelia
McCall
Minnewawa
Dinuba
Tollhouse
Friant
Champlain
SR 180
Jensen
Peach
Golden Sta
Fresno
City with Sphere of Influence VMT per Employee
No Employee
Less than 22.3

22.3 - 28.9
Greater than 28.9
SOURCE: Fresno COG Activity Based Travel Demand Model (2019) R:\FCG1901 FresnoCOG VMT\GIS\VMT_Maps_04-20-2020\fig6_Fresno_EMP.mxd (4/28/2020) FIGURE 7
CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds
City of Fresno - Existing VMT per Employee
S
!!
N
0 5000 10000
FEET
Fresno County Average VMT per Employee: 25.6
Threshold: 13%
Map created using Fresno County as the region.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
18 This page intentionally left blank
B3 Attach #1 of 3
19  Based on the City’s traffic study guidelines or existing CEQA guidelines, other conditions may apply to screen out projects. Consistency with other plans to reduce GHG emissions may also reflect substantial evidence supporting a screening out. Or, the City may adopt the TA recommendations in total.

The Fresno COG VMT Screening Tool4 can be used to determine whether a development project may be screened from a detailed VMT analysis. It should be noted that if a project constitutes a General Plan Amendment (GPA) or a Zone Change (ZC), none of the above screening criteria may apply. The City will be required to evaluate such projects on a case‐by‐case basis to determine whether a VMT analysis would be required.

3.2 TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS
The primary attribute to consider with transportation projects is the potential to increase vehicle travel, sometimes referred to as “induced travel.” Based on the OPR TA, while the City has discretion to continue to use a delay‐based LOS analysis for CEQA disclosure of transportation projects, changes in vehicle travel must also be quantified. The City of Fresno will solely use VMT analysis for CEQA disclosure of transportation projects, but will also require a LOS analysis for design, traffic operations, and safety purposes. The TA lists a series of projects that would not likely lead to a substantial or measurable increase in vehicle travel and which would, therefore, not require an induced travel analysis. These include the following:
 Rehabilitation, maintenance, replacement, safety, and repair projects designed to improve the condition of existing transportation assets (e.g., highways; roadways; bridges; culverts; Transportation Management System field elements such as cameras, message signs, detection, or signals; tunnels; transit systems; and assets that serve bicycle and pedestrian facilities) and that do not add additional motor vehicle capacity
 Roadside safety devices or hardware installation such median barriers and guardrails  Roadway shoulder enhancements to provide “breakdown space,” dedicated space for use only by transit vehicles, to provide bicycle access, or to otherwise improve safety, but which will not be used as automobile vehicle travel lanes
 Addition of an auxiliary lane of less than 1 mi in length designed to improve roadway safety  Installation, removal, or reconfiguration of traffic lanes that are not for through traffic, such as left‐, right‐, and U‐turn pockets, two‐way left‐turn lanes, or emergency breakdown lanes that are not utilized as through lanes
 Addition of roadway capacity on local or collector streets, provided the project also substantially improves conditions for pedestrians, cyclists, and, if applicable, transit  Conversion of existing general‐purpose lanes (including ramps) to managed lanes or transit lanes, or changing lane management in a manner that would not substantially increase vehicle travel 4 Fresno COG VMT Screening Tool Link: http://gis.lsa‐assoc.com/FCOGVMT/ B3 Attach #1 of 3
20  Addition of a new lane that is permanently restricted to use only by transit vehicles  Reduction in the number of through lanes
 Grade separation to separate vehicles from rail, transit, pedestrians, or bicycles, or to replace a lane in order to separate preferential vehicles (e.g., high‐occupancy vehicles [HOVs], high‐ occupancy toll [HOT] lane traffic, or trucks) from general vehicles  Installation, removal, or reconfiguration of traffic control devices, including Transit Signal Priority features
 Installation of traffic metering systems, detection systems, cameras, changeable message signs, and other electronics designed to optimize vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian flow  Timing of signals to optimize vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian flow  Installation of roundabouts or traffic circles
 Installation or reconfiguration of traffic calming devices  Adoption of or increase in tolls
 Addition of tolled lanes, where tolls are sufficient to mitigate VMT increase  Initiation of a new transit service
 Conversion of streets from one‐way to two‐way operation with no net increase in the number of traffic lanes
 Removal or relocation of off‐street or on‐street parking spaces  Adoption or modification of on‐street parking or loading restrictions (including meters, time limits, accessible spaces, and preferential/reserved parking permit programs)  Addition of traffic wayfinding signage
 Rehabilitation and maintenance projects that do not add motor vehicle capacity  Addition of new or enhanced bike or pedestrian facilities on existing streets/highways or within existing public rights‐of‐way
 Addition of Class I bike paths, trails, multi‐use paths, or other off‐road facilities that serve nonmotorized travel
 Installation of publicly available alternative fuel/charging infrastructure  Addition of passing lanes, truck climbing lanes, or truck brake‐check lanes in rural areas that do not increase overall vehicle capacity along the corridor B3 Attach #1 of 3
21 Additionally, transit and active transportation projects generally reduce VMT and, therefore, may be presumed to cause a less than significant impact on transportation. This presumption may apply to all passenger rail projects, bus and bus rapid‐transit projects, and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects. The City may use this CEQA presumption of less than significant impact to aid in the prioritization of capital projects, as the CEQA process for any of these project types would be more streamlined than other capacity‐enhancing capital projects.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
22 This page intentionally left blank
B3 Attach #1 of 3
23 4.0 SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS The TA states that SB 743 and all CEQA VMT transportation analyses refer to automobiles. Here, the term automobile refers to on‐road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light duty trucks (page. 4). Heavy‐duty trucks can be addressed in other CEQA sections (air quality, greenhouse gas, noise, and health risk assessment analysis) and are subject to regulation in a separate collection of rules under CARB jurisdiction. This approach was amplified by Chris Ganson, Senior Advisor for Transportation at OPR, in a recent presentation at the Fresno COG (October 23, 2019) and by Ellen Greenberg, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Deputy Director for Sustainability, at the San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Agencies’ Directors’ Committee meeting (January 9, 2020).

The OPR has identified the subject of the thresholds as the primary trips in the home‐based typology: specifically, home‐based work tours. This includes residential uses, office uses, and retail uses. The home‐based work tour type is the primary tourmaking during the peak hours of commuter traffic in the morning and evening periods.

The impact of transportation has shifted from congestion to climate change, and the purpose of the CEQA analysis is to disclose and ultimately reduce GHG emissions by reducing the number and length of automobile trips. As part of the SB 375 land use/transportation integration process and the GHG goal setting, the State and Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPA) have agreed to reduce GHG through integrated land use and transportation planning by a statewide average of approximately 15 percent by 2035. Figure 8 illustrates the SB 375 regional GHG emission reduction targets for all the 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) in California that was established by the CARB in 2018. Furthermore, in its 2017 Scoping Plan‐Identified VMT Reductions and Relationship to State Climate Goals, the CARB recommends total VMT per capita rates approximately 15 percent below existing conditions.

The TA therefore recommends:

A proposed (residential) project exceeding a level of 15 percent below existing regional average VMT per capita may indicate a significant transportation impact.

A similar threshold would apply to office projects (15 percent below existing regional average VMT per employee).

VMT generated by retail projects would indicate a significant impact for any net increase in total VMT.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
24 Source: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our‐work/programs/sustainable‐communities‐program/regional‐plan‐ targets
Figure 8: SB 375 Regional Plan Climate Targets for the 18 California MPOs It is noted that the aggregate GHG emission reduction sought after by CARB in the SB 375 protocols is 15 percent statewide. This is one reason OPR believes the 15 percent reduction in VMT is appropriate. The aggregate 15 percent GHG emission reduction applies across all land use and transportation activities and would indicate that the State and its individual MPOs are compliant with the SB 375 goals, the overall State climate change strategy, and Scoping Plan objectives.

CARB establishes GHG targets for each of the 18 MPOs in the State, reviews the SCSs and makes a determination whether the SCS would be able to achieve GHG reduction targets if implemented.

Fresno COG’s 2018 RTP/SCS demonstrated a GHG reduction of 10 percent by 2035 through the integrated land use and transportation initiatives and capital projects listing, which meets targets set by the CARB. Fresno COG’s 2018 RTP/SCS was approved by all reviewing Federal and State authorities, including the CARB. In the spring of 2018, CARB adopted new GHG targets for all the 18 MPOs in the State based on the 2017 Scoping Plan and other new data. CARB established a 13 percent GHG reduction target for 2035 for the Fresno region’s third RTP/SCS. The State of California recognizes Fresno County’s contribution to the aggregate 15 percent statewide GHG emission reduction is 13 percent. Other regions may achieve greater reductions to achieve the aggregate statewide goal.5 As such, reduction in GHG directly corresponds to reduction in VMT. In order to reach the statewide GHG reduction goal of 15 percent, the City must reduce GHG by 13 percent. The method of reducing GHG by 13 percent is to reduce VMT by 13 percent as well. 5 The latest GHG targets by region can be found at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our‐work/programs/ sustainable‐communities‐program/regional‐plan‐targets.
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
GHG Emission Reduction Target
2020 2035
B3 Attach #1 of 3
25 Therefore, the City has established a threshold for land use developments, specifically residential and office, of 13 percent or more than the existing regional VMT per capita as indicative of a significant environmental impact.

No other discrete land use types are identified for threshold development. Mixed‐use projects should be evaluated for each component of the project independently, or the City may use the predominant land use type for the analysis. The City will make a determination of the predominant land use type on a case‐by‐case basis based on the project description. Credit for internal trip capture should be made. Internal trip capture may be calculated using the latest edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook (for smaller projects), the Fresno COG ABM (for larger projects), or other applicable sources approved by the City. The TA suggests that City may, but is not required to, develop thresholds for any other use.

One approach is to review the City’s General Plan and/or the Fresno COG RTP/SCS and identify whether the implementation of the plan would result in a reduction of VMT and GHGs. If it does, the City may conclude the implementation of the plan, including all the other land use types will achieve the regional climate change goals. Therefore, consistency with the plan and no net change in VMT per employee for the other land use types is a rational threshold. However, for projects seeking a GPA, a project exceeding a level of 13 percent than the existing County average VMT per employee would indicate a significant transportation impact.

This approach would require disclosure of substantial evidence, including the General Plan findings, and other supporting traffic and air quality forecasting support. Additionally, if the City wishes to establish some other threshold less stringent than the 13 percent recommended for residential and office projects, a body of substantial evidence would be necessary.

Figure 9 demonstrates the potential development entitlement process to comply with the State CEQA Guidelines related to VMT and transportation impacts. It provides the path from application filing through determination of impacts. It is presented as the standard process; each development application is considered unique and may create alternative or modified steps through the process.

Each step that diverges from this standard process should be accompanied with substantial evidence demonstrating compliance with other climate change and GHG emission reduction laws and regulations.

4.1 GENERAL TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
This process will be refined as the new VMT analysis process is implemented. At the outset of the project development process, the applicant should seek a meeting with City staff to discuss the project description, the transportation study content, and the analysis methodology. Key elements to address include a description of the project in sufficient detail to generate trips and identify the potential catchment area (i.e., trip lengths if no modeling is undertaken), estimate project VMT, discuss project design features that may reduce the VMT from the project development, and discuss the project location and associated existing regional VMT percentages. As a result of the meeting, the applicant or their consultant shall prepare a transportation analysis scope of work for review and approval by the City.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
26 Projects that will influence Caltrans facilities may be subject to the Caltrans Local Development‐ Intergovernmental Review program. As part of the program, Caltrans may review the VMT analysis methodology, findings, and mitigation measures, with an eye toward statewide consistency.

4.2 PROJECT SCREENING
Once a development application is filed and the meeting is held, project screening is conducted as the initial step. If the project meets any one of the screening criteria, the project may be presumed to create a less than significant impact. No further VMT analysis is necessary. The CEQA document should enumerate the screening criteria and how the project meets or exceeds that threshold. If project screening does not apply, a VMT analysis may be required. The extent of this analysis may be a simple algebraic demonstration or a more sophisticated traffic modeling exercise. This distinction is addressed later.

4.3 PROJECT VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS
The first step is to identify the project land use type and the appropriate metric to use, i.e., VMT per capita, VMT per employee, or total VMT. The metric should be VMT per capita for residential projects, VMT per employee for office projects, and total VMT for retail projects. For mixed‐use projects, after taking credit for internal trip capture, the project VMT can be estimated based on each component of the project independently, or the City may use the predominant land use type for the analysis. For all other uses, the metric used should be VMT per employee.

4.3.1 Small Project Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
Project VMT may be calculated using the Fresno COG VMT Calculation Tool6  for residential projects having less than or equal to 500 dwelling units or office projects having less than or equal to 375 employees. For all other projects, trip lengths can be determined using the Fresno COG ABM.

4.3.2 Large Project Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
For large or multi‐use projects, use of the Fresno COG ABM is required. For purposes of City review, all projects, other than residential uses with less than or equal to 500 dwelling units or offices with less than or equal to 375 employees, should use the Fresno COG ABM. At this level of trip generation, the probability of trip fulfilment expands to an area greater than the immediate project location and may include a greater regional attraction. The Fresno COG ABM can more accurately define the select links used and the total VMT generated by the project.

Next, the project generated VMT per capita/VMT per employee/total VMT is compared to the appropriate significance threshold. This is either equal to or more than 13 percent of the existing regional average per capita or employment for specific uses, or no net increase in total VMT for retail or other uses that are consistent with the General Plan. For those projects that require a GPA, a threshold of 13 percent or more than existing regional average is appropriate as the project has yet to be evaluated as part of the City’s ultimate development vision. 6 Fresno COG VMT Calculation Tool Link: Link Forthcoming B3 Attach #1 of 3
27 If the project VMT metric is less than the significance threshold, the project is presumed to create a less than significant impact. No further VMT analysis is required. If the project is greater than the significance threshold, mitigation measures are required.

4.4 MITIGATION MEASURES
The applicant is required, per CEQA, to identify feasible offsets to completely mitigate the impact created by the project. These can come from the mitigation strategies provided by the City (Appendices A and B), or selected based on the applicant and their CEQA team experience. The City must approve and accept the ultimate mitigation ascribed to the project and the related VMT percentage reduction.

If the mitigation measures mitigate the project impact to less than the jurisdictional threshold, the project is presumed to have an impact mitigated to a less than significant level. No further VMT analysis is required. If the project’s VMT impact cannot be mitigated, the City may 1) request the project be redesigned, relocated or realigned to reduce the VMT impact, or 2) require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) for the transportation impacts associated with the project. All feasible mitigation measures must be assigned to and carried out by the project even if an EIR/SOC is prepared.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
28 This page intentionally left blank
B3 Attach #1 of 3
29 Figure 9: VMT Analysis Process for Development Projects B3 Attach #1 of 3
30 This page intentionally left blank
B3 Attach #1 of 3
31 5.0 SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS FOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS The 2020 CEQA Guidelines include Section 15064.3.b.(2) to address transportation projects. It reads:

For roadway capacity projects, agencies have the discretion to determine the appropriate measure of transportation impact consistent with CEQA and other applicable requirements.

The City may continue to use delay and LOS for transportation projects for design and traffic operation purposes as long as impacts related to “other applicable requirements” are disclosed. This has generally been interpreted as VMT impacts and other State climate change objectives. These other applicable requirements may be found in other parts of an environmental document (i.e., air quality, GHG), or may be provided in greater detail in the transportation section.

For projects on the State highway system, the Caltrans will use and will require sponsoring agencies to use VMT as the CEQA metric, and Caltrans will evaluate the VMT “attributable to the project” (Caltrans Draft VMT‐Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide 2020). Caltrans may review environmental documents for capacity‐enhancing projects for the City’s analysis of VMT change.

The assessment of a transportation project’s VMT should disclose the VMT without the project and the difference in VMT with the project. Any growth in VMT attributable to the transportation project would result in a significant impact.

The primary difference in these two scenarios to OPR is related to induced growth. Current traffic models have limited abilities to forecast induced growth, as their land use or socioeconomic databases are fixed to a horizon date. OPR refers to a limited set of reports that would indicate elasticities.

The most recent major study (Duranton & Turner 2011, p. 24), estimates an elasticity of 1.0, meaning that every 1 percent change in lane miles results in a 1 percent increase in VMT.

The TA presents one method to identify the induced growth, as follows.

To estimate VMT impacts from roadway expansion projects:

1. Determine the total lane‐miles over an area that fully captures travel behavior changes resulting from the project (generally the region, but for projects affecting interregional travel look at all affected regions).

2. Determine the percentage change in total lane miles that will result from the project.

3. Determine the total existing VMT over that same area.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
32 4. Multiply the percentage increase in lane miles by the existing VMT, and then multiply that by the elasticity from the induced travel literature:
[% increase in lane miles] x [existing VMT] x [elasticity] = [VMT resulting from the project]
Figure 10 provides a representative illustration of induced VMT attributable to a project.

Source: Presentation: Caltrans Transportation Analysis under CEQA or TAC: Significance Determinations for Induced Travel Analysis (SHCC Pre‐Release Session 2 Jeremy Ketchum, Division of Environmental Analysis, Caltrans; March 2, 2020)
Figure 10: Induced Travel – VMT Attributable to Project Caltrans has identified a computerized tool that estimates VMT generation from transportation projects. It was developed at University of California, Davis and is based on elasticities and the relationship of lane mile additions and growth in VMT. It uses Federal Highways Administration definitions of facility type and ascribes VMT increases to each facility. Output includes increases on million miles of VMT per year. Caltrans is investigating its use for all its VMT analyses of capital projects on the State Highway System. Figure 11 provides an illustration of that tool.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
33 Source: https://blinktag.com/induced‐travel‐calculator/index.html Figure 11: Caltrans Induced Travel Calculator
B3 Attach #1 of 3
34 The TA provides other options to identify induced growth‐ and project‐related VMT. These include:

1. Employ an expert panel. An expert panel could assess changes to land use development that would likely result from the project. This assessment could then be analyzed by the travel demand model to assess effects on vehicle travel.

Induced vehicle travel assessed via this approach should be verified using elasticities found in the academic literature.

2. Adjust model results to align with the empirical research. If the travel demand model analysis is performed without incorporating projected land use changes resulting from the project, the assessed vehicle travel should be adjusted upward to account for those land use changes. The assessed VMT after adjustment should fall within the range found in the academic literature.

3. Employ a land use model, running it iteratively with a travel demand model. A land use model can be used to estimate the land use effects of a roadway capacity increase, and the traffic patterns that result from the land use change can then be fed back into the travel demand model. The land use model and travel demand model can be iterated to produce an accurate result.

The TA provides a final warning:

Whenever employing a travel demand model to assess induced vehicle travel, any limitation or known lack of sensitivity in the analysis that might cause substantial errors in the VMT estimate (for example, model insensitivity to one of the components of induced VMT described above) should be disclosed and characterized, and a description should be provided on how it could influence the analysis results. A discussion of the potential error or bias should be carried into analyses that rely on the VMT analysis, such as greenhouse gas emissions, air quality, energy, and noise.

Fresno COG ran a few test scenarios of roadway widening projects using the Fresno COG ABM.

These results were compared with the results from the Caltrans Induced Travel Calculator. The comparison demonstrated substantial difference in results. As such, it was identified that the ABM was more sensitive to project location, roadway type, surrounding land uses, and localized trip characteristics. Therefore, for most transportation projects that are not under Caltrans jurisdiction, it is recommended that the Fresno COG ABM be utilized to calculate project related induced VMT.

As illustrated in Figure 10, VMT attributable to the project must be calculated by evaluating no project and with project conditions under the horizon year scenario using Fresno COG ABM. Net increase in induced VMT will result in a significant impact for the proposed project.

The concept of induced demand and the methodology to be followed is explained in greater detail in the Technical Appendices. Figure 12 illustrates a conceptual overview of the methodology to be followed to calculate induced demand. As illustrated in Figure 12, the effect of induced VMT will be required to be evaluated from both a land use and a travel demand modeling perspective. Fresno COG staff and the Resource Systems Group, Inc. (RSG) have prepared a detailed process that needs B3 Attach #1 of 3
35 to be conducted for this analysis. The methodology looks at induced VMT from new land uses generated by transportation capacity improvement projects by providing iterative and incremental feedback between the Fresno COG ABM and the land‐use growth allocation model such that changes in the traffic network are incorporated into land‐use allocation, and vice‐versa. The methodology then looks at the impact of increased roadway capacity on increased traffic volumes and congestion using DaySim, the activity‐based model component of the Fresno COG ABM. The methodology concludes that roadway capacity increase may lead to increased volumes, which results in increased congestion, which could be close to or the same as the congestion before the roadway capacity increase, albeit with more vehicles and an overall increase in utility.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
LSA
New
Project
SOURCE: Fresno Council of Governments
l:\FCG 1901 \Reports\ Traffic\figl3 _I nducedVMTMethodology _05-28-2020.a i (05/28/2020) Traffic Model
Land-Use Model
FIGURE 12
CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds
Conceptual Methodology for Calculating Induced Demand for Transportation Projects B3 Attach #1 of 3
37 6.0 SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS FOR LAND USE PLANS
The OPR guidance has provided guidance on the treatment of CEQA traffic analyses for land use plans in the TA. The TA reiterates previous direction regarding individual land use assessments:
 Analyze the VMT outcomes over the full area over which the plan may substantively affect travel patterns (the definition of region).
 VMT should be counted in full rather than split between origins and destinations (the full impact of the project VMT).

The TA provides a single sentence as consideration for land use plans. It states, “A general plan, area plan, or community plan may have a significant impact on transportation if proposed new residential, office or retail land uses would in aggregate exceed the respective thresholds recommended above.” This recommendation refers to a threshold of 13 percent or more than the existing regional average for residential and office uses and no net gain for retail land uses.

To assess a land use plan, use of a traffic‐forecasting tool is recommended. Therefore, the City should use the ABM to assess VMT for land use plans. The total VMT for the plan should be identified for all tour types and all potential VMT contributors within the plan area. Model runs should be conducted for the existing base year and the horizon year with project (plan).

The SB 375 process establishes ambitious and achievable GHG reduction targets for the 18 MPOs in the State. The achievements of the targets are provided through the integration of land use planning and transportation planning, not solely through the imposition of regulation on passenger cars and light‐duty trucks. The CARB reviews the SCS and the strategies and programs that the regional agencies put in place in the SCS to achieve the GHG reduction. The CARB approved the new GHG reduction targets for all the 18 MPOs in the State in the spring of 2018. The 2018 targets are applicable to the third SCSes for the MPOs.

Other legislative mandates and State policies speak to GHG reduction targets. A sample of these include:
 Assembly Bill 32 (2006) requires statewide GHG emissions reductions to 1990 levels by 2020 and continued reductions beyond 2020.
 SB 32 (2016) requires at least a 40 percent reduction in GHG emissions from 1990 levels by 2030.
 Executive Order (EO) B‐30‐15 (2015) sets a GHG emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
 EO S‐3‐05 (2005) sets a GHG emissions reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
38  EO B‐16‐12 (2012) specifies a GHG emissions reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 specifically for transportation.

Therefore, the recommended methodology for conducting VMT assessments for land use plans is to compare the existing VMT per capita and/or VMT per employee for the region with the expected horizon year VMT per capita and/or VMT per employee for the land use plan. If there is a net increase in the VMT metric under horizon year conditions, then the project will have a significant impact. Figure 13 illustrates the comparison of VMT per capita and VMT per employee under the horizon year for the City of Fresno General Plan compared to the existing regional VMT per capita and existing VMT per employee, respectively.

Source: Fresno COG Activity Based Model
Figure 13: VMT per Capita and VMT per Employee Comparisons – City of Fresno General Plan versus Fresno County under Existing Conditions

0.0 5.0

10.0 15.0

20.0 25.0

30.0 35.0
VMT per Capita VMT per Employee
City of Fresno (General Plan Conditions) Fresno County (Existing Conditions) B3 Attach #1 of 3
39 7.0 MITIGATION STRATEGIES
When a lead agency identifies a significant CEQA impact according to the thresholds described above, the agency must identify feasible mitigation measures in order to avoid or substantially reduce that impact. Although previous LOS impacts could be mitigated with location‐specific LOS improvements, VMT impacts will require mitigation of regional impacts through more behavioral changes. Enforcement of mitigation measures will be still be subject to the mitigation monitoring requirements of CEQA, as well as the regular police powers of the agency. These measures can also be incorporated as a part of plans, policies, regulations, or project designs.

7.1 DEFINITION OF MITIGATION
Section 15370 of the 2020 State CEQA Guidelines defines mitigations as follows:
“Mitigation” includes:
a. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
b. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation.
c. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment.
d. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action.
e. Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments, including through permanent protection of such resources in the form of conservation easements.

Section 15097 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that “the public agency shall adopt a program for monitoring or reporting on the revisions which it has required in the project and the measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects.” VMT mitigations may not be physical improvements; rather, they are complex in nature and will significantly depend on changes in human behavior. Therefore, it will be important that the City develop a proper monitoring program to ensure the implementation of these mitigation measures, throughout the life of a project, in compliance with CEQA. The City must also coordinate with other responsible agencies as part of this monitoring program to determine the feasibility of the mitigations and whether they would last in perpetuity.

Historically, mitigation measures for LOS based transportation impacts have addressed either trip generation reductions or traffic‐flow‐capacity enhancements. LOS mitigation measures include adding capacity to intersections, roadways, ramps, and freeways. However, transportation demand B3 Attach #1 of 3
40 management (TDM) actions, active transportation amenities, and other measures to reduce the number of trips creating an impact are also possible mitigation strategies.

LOS based mitigations are mostly physical improvements whose benefits are observable, measurable, and virtually perpetual. The addition of a left‐turn lane at an intersection will behave similarly regardless of location and will continue to perform as intended until the lane is removed or modified. A lane mile of roadway will carry a similar volume of traffic if designed consistently across most jurisdictions in California, and it will continue to do so as long as the lane exists.

The definition of VMT mitigation measures is somewhat different. Most VMT mitigations may seem feasible from a theoretical perspective, but practical implementation of these strategies as formal CEQA mitigation measures in perpetuity is yet to be tested. Several of these mitigations are contextual and behavioral in nature. Their success will depend on the size and location of the project as well as expected changes in human behavior. For example, a project providing a bike share program does not necessarily guarantee a behavioral change within the project’s population; the level of improvement may be uncertain and subject to the whim of the population affected.

LOS mitigations (such as addition of turn lanes) focus more on rectifying a physical CEQA impact (strategy “c” of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15370). On the contrary, the majority of VMT mitigations (such as commute trip‐reduction programs) will aim at reducing or eliminating an impact over time through preservation and monitoring over the life of the project (strategy “d” of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15370). Additionally, some VMT mitigations (such as those focused on land use/location‐based policies) will aim at minimizing impacts by reducing the number of trips generated by the projects (strategy “b” of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15370).

Furthermore, it may be that identified VMT impacts cannot be mitigated at the project‐specific level.

Most VMT impacts are in the context of the region of analysis. The incremental change in VMT associated with a project in the particular setting in which it may be located would suggest a greater VMT deficit than individual strategies can offset. Only a regional solution (e.g., completion of a transit system, purchase of more transit buses, or gap closure of an entire bicycle master plan system) may offer the incremental change necessary to reduce the VMT impact to a level of insignificance. Also, VMT, as a proxy for GHG emissions, may not require locational specificity. A project does not necessarily need to diminish the VMT at the project site to gain benefit in VMT and GHG reduction in the State. Offsets in an area where the benefit would be greater will have a more effective reduction in VMT and GHG and contribute to the State’s ultimate climate goals. This is the basis for the cap‐and‐trade strategies.

These issues of regional scale, partial participation, and geographic ambiguity confound the certainty of the City’s identification of VMT mitigation measures. Section 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines states, “Where several measures are available to mitigate an impact, each should be discussed and the basis for selecting a particular measure should be identified. Formulation of mitigation measures shall not be deferred until some future time [emphasis added].” Certainty does not yet exist that partial participation in VMT mitigation measures is permissible. Regional VMT mitigation is considered the most effective method for large‐scale VMT reduction, yet the cost and implementation barriers are greater in most cases than one project can undertake. The only B3 Attach #1 of 3
41 exception may be where VMT mitigation strategies are provided at a regional level in the form of mitigation banks, fees, and exchanges and the projects are subject to contribute to these fee programs consistent with applicable provision to ensure compliance and consistency with CEQA and other legal requirements.

Section 21099 (b) (4) of the PRC states, “This subdivision [requiring a new transportation metric under CEQA] does not preclude the application of local general plan policies, zoning codes, conditions of approval, thresholds, or any other planning requirements pursuant to the police power or any other authority.” Hence, despite the fact that automobile delay will no longer be considered a significant impact under CEQA, the City can still require projects to meet the LOS standards designated in its zoning code or general plan. Therefore, in that case, the project might still be required to propose LOS improvements for congestion relief in addition to VMT strategies as CEQA mitigation measures.

7.2 MITIGATION MEASURES AND PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

7.2.1 Development Projects and Community/General Plans
Mitigations and project alternatives for VMT impacts have been suggested by the OPR and are included in the TA.

VMT mitigations can be extremely diverse and can be
classified under several categories such as land
use/location, road pricing, transit improvements, commute trip reduction strategies, and parking pricing/policy.

However, the issue with VMT mitigations is the
quantitative measurement of the relief provided by the
strategies. How much VMT reduction does a TDM program,
a bike share program, a transit route, or 1 mile of sidewalk provide? Improvements related to VMT reduction
strategies have been quantified in sources such as the
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
(CAPCOA) report Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (CAPCOA Green Book) and CARB sources, and are generally presented in wide ranges of potential VMT reduction percentages.

Appendix A is a summary of the different VMT mitigation measures and project alternatives stated in the CAPCOA Green Book (only those strategies directly attributed to transportation) and the OPR TA for development projects. It also refers to mitigation measures listed in other sources such as the VMT Measurement Calculator for the City of Los Angeles, the transportation analysis guidelines for the City of San Jose and the San Diego Region, and the memorandum Analysis of VMT Mitigation Measures Pursuant to SB 743, prepared by Iteris, Inc., for the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

Bus Rapid Transit in the City of Fresno
Source: https://abc30.com/3126364/
B3 Attach #1 of 3
42 Appendix B provides a list of mitigations for
development projects based on the research work
performed by Deborah Salon, Marlon G. Boarnet,
Susan Handy, Steven Spears, and Gil Tal with the
support of CARB. For a few mitigation measures,
Fresno COG staff conducted additional research as
applicable to the Fresno COG region using the Fresno
COG ABM and locally available empirical data. Based
on that analysis, specific VMT reduction percentages
were developed for these mitigation measures. A
detailed description of this analysis is provided in the Fresno County SB 743 Implementation Regional
Guidelines. The City recommends applying these values
to provide project‐related mitigations. For all other
mitigation measures, the project applicant will be
required to provide substantial evidence while identifying a project‐specific value. In case that information is not available, consistent with the Fresno COG’s recommendations, the project should apply the low point of provided ranges for VMT reduction. Where a mitigation strategy does not have an identified VMT reduction range, the project applicant would be required to provide a reduction estimate supported by evidence.

As for land use plans, the potential mitigation measures for community/general plans would be similar to those for development projects, with certain modifications. The OPR TA does not specifically state any VMT mitigations for land use plans. However, the transportation impact study guidelines for the San Diego Region list potential mitigation measures. These measures have been summarized in Appendix C along with corresponding VMT reduction percentages obtained from CAPCOA.

It must be noted that Appendices A–C provide only summaries of the mitigations stated in the sources mentioned above. The reader should refer to the original source for further details and for subsequent updates to the mitigation measures. Also, Appendices A–C do not provide an exhaustive list of mitigation measures to offset the CEQA impacts. Other measures can also be accepted by the City based on provision of substantial evidence.

As additional mitigation measures are developed to offset VMT impacts in the future for the State CEQA Guidelines process, linkages between the strategy and the incremental effect and quantified offset must be made. This can be based on other sources’ observations and measurements or the City’s experience in these practices. The key to mitigation is to base its efficacy on real and substantial evidence.

7.2.2 Transportation Projects
Although OPR provides detailed guidance on how to assess induced‐growth impacts associated with transportation projects, it leaves the subject of mitigation measures vague. Only four strategies are suggested as mitigation measures:

Bike Routes in the City of Fresno
Source: https://www.fresno.gov/publicworks/wp‐
content/uploads/sites/17/2016/09/170022FresnoA
TPFinal012017.pdf
B3 Attach #1 of 3
43  Tolling new lanes to encourage carpools and fund transit improvements  Converting existing general‐purpose lanes to HOV
or HOT lanes
 Implementing or funding off‐site travel demand
management
 Implementing Intelligent Transportation Systems
strategies to improve passenger throughput on
existing lanes
No quantified reduction percentage is allocated to
these strategies, and LSA could find no substantial
evidence that would provide guidance to levels of
significance after implementation of these strategies.

Review of the four recommended strategies suggests
that OPR is directing strategies away from general‐
purpose mixed‐flow lanes on expressways, freeways, and arterial highways. Inasmuch as these are the project descriptions and Purpose and Need, the project intent and the project mitigation may be at odds. The City would be subject to an SOC for the capital project VMT impact.

7.3 FUNDING MECHANISMS
The change in the metric for transportation impacts from LOS to VMT will lead to a shift in impacts and mitigation measures from being local and project‐specific to being more regional in nature. OPR acknowledges the regional nature of VMT impacts and states that regional VMT reduction programs and fee programs (in‐lieu fees and development impact fees) may be appropriate forms of mitigation. Fee programs are particularly useful to address cumulative impacts. It is very important for the City to coordinate with the RTPA or Fresno COG to develop such mitigation programs that would fund transit, develop active transportation plans, etc. These programs are regional in nature and best suited for administration by the regional agency. Regional agencies may also wish to coordinate with appropriate stakeholders, including participating local jurisdictions, developers, and other interests while conducting nexus studies and checking for rough proportionality and compliance with CEQA.

Most of the VMT mitigations included in Appendix A are applicable in urban areas. They are less effective in suburban and rural contexts, where TDM strategies may become diluted or are not applicable. Thus, site‐specific strategies are more suitable in urban areas, whereas program‐level strategies are more suitable for projects in suburban/rural areas. In the latter approach, cumulative contributions for development mitigations can pay for VMT reduction strategies that would not be feasible for the individual projects to implement themselves. Apart from fee programs, program‐ based mitigation approaches may include mitigation exchanges and mitigation banks. The mitigation exchange concept requires a developer to implement a predetermined project that would reduce VMT in order to propose a new one. On the other hand, the concept of mitigation banks seeks to establish monetary values for VMT reductions so that developers can purchase VMT reduction credits.

Source: https://medium.com/@davidcanepa/toll‐
lanes‐good‐for‐the‐rich‐bad‐for‐the‐environment‐
4f1ec24105d3
Toll Lanes
B3 Attach #1 of 3
44 As previously stated, VMT impacts are more regional in nature. Hence, there might be requirements for mitigations outside the control of the City, and without consent from the agency controlling the mitigations, the impacts might remain significant and unavoidable. Additionally, identification of regional improvements where projects can contribute their fair share to mitigate impacts might prove to be difficult. Therefore, LSA recommends that the City work collaboratively within its regions to ultimately establish fee programs, mitigation banks, and exchanges as the most efficient way to establish a regional mitigation pathway where the projects can contribute. Procedural flow charts for VMT banks, exchanges, and impact fees are illustrated at the end of this chapter.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
45 Source: VMT Mitigation Through Banks and Exchanges: Understanding New Mitigation Approaches. A White Paper by Fehr & Peers (January 2020).

Procedural Flow Chart – VMT Bank
B3 Attach #1 of 3
46 Source: VMT Mitigation Through Banks and Exchanges: Understanding New Mitigation Approaches. A White Paper by Fehr & Peers (January 2020).

Procedural Flow Chart – VMT Exchange
B3 Attach #1 of 3
47 Source: Understanding New Mitigation Approaches. A White Paper by Fehr & Peers (January 2020).

Procedural Flow Chart – VMT Impact Fee
B3 Attach #1 of 3
48 This page intentionally left blank
B3 Attach #1 of 3

APPENDIX A

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED MITIGATION MEASURES FOR

DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS (CAPCOA)
B3 Attach #1 of 3
# Mitigation Measure VMT Reduction1 Local VMT Reduction Calculations (Local Data/Fresno COG ABM)2 CAPCOA3 OPR TA4 Los Angeles Metro5 City of San Jose6 City of Los Angeles7 San Diego Region8 Notes 1 Provide a Bus Rapid Transit System (Addition of a New Route) 0.02% – 3.20% 0.33% VMT reduction per 100 miles Y Y Y N N Y Notes: CAPCOA TST‐1 (Applicable in urban and suburban context; negligible in rural context;appropriate for specific or general plans). This can be considered under Technical Advisory Measure 'Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service.' 2 Provide a Bus Rapid Transit System (Substitution of an Existing Bus Route with a BRT Route) 0.02% – 3.20% 0.20% VMT reduction per 100 miles Y Y Y N N Y Notes: CAPCOA TST‐1 (Applicable in urban and suburban context; negligible in rural context;appropriate for specific or general plans). This can be considered under Technical Advisory Measure 'Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service.' 3 Subsidize vanpool 0.30% ‐ 13.40% commute VMT 0.60% Y Y N Y N Y Notes: Similar to CAPCOA TRT‐11 (Provide Employer‐Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle: applicable in urban, suburban, and rural context; appropriate for office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects). The measure is included under the Technical Advisory Measure 'Provide incentives or subsidies that increase the use of modes other than single‐occupancy vehicle.'; City of San Jose [Applicable for employment uses only]
4 Shifting single occupancy vehicle trips to carpooling or vanpooling, for example providing ride‐matching or shuttle services

0.30% ‐ 13.40% commute VMT reduction (for CAPCOATRT‐11: Provide Employer‐Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle);7.20% ‐ 15.80% school VMT reduction (for CAPCOA TRT‐10: Implement a School Pool Program)

0.60% (for vanpool); x% (for carpool) Y Y Y Y Y Y
Notes: Similar to CAPCOA TRT‐11 (Provide employer‐sponsored vanpool/shuttle) ‐ the measure is applicable for urban, suburban, and rural context, and is appropriate for office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects; Similar measure is CAPCOA TRT‐10 (Implement a School Pool Program: Applicable for urban, suburban, and rural context and appropriate for residential and mixed‐use projects); City of San Jose [School carpool program ‐ residential uses only)]; City of LA [School carpool program ‐ level of implementation (low, medium, high); Employer sponsored vanpool or shuttle (Degree of implementation (low, medium, high), employees eligible (%), employer size (small, medium, large)] 5 Expand transit network 0.10% – 8.20% 0.07% VMT reduction per 100 miles (for addition of a new transit line) YYYYYY Notes: CAPCOA TST‐3; Measure applicable in urban and suburban context, maybe applicable in rural context but no literature documentation available, appropriate for specific or general plans. This can be considered under Technical Advisory Measure 'Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service'; City of San Jose [Increase transit accessibility to improvelast‐mile transit connections; Improve network connectivity/design to make destinations and low‐carbon travel modes accessible; both applicable for both residential and employmentuses]; City of LA [Existing transit mode share (as a percent of total daily trips) (%), Lines withinproject site improved (<50%, >=50%)] 6 Incorporate bike lane street design (on‐site)
1% increase in share of workers commuting by
bicycle (for each additional mile of bike lanesper square mile) (Bicycle Commuting and Facilities in Major U.S. Cities: If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them – Another Look by Dill and Carr (2003)); 0.075%
increase in bicycle commuting with each mile of bikeway per 100,000 residents (If You Build Them, CommutersWill Use Them; Cross‐Sectional Analysis of Commuters and Bicycle Facilities by Nelson and Allen (1997))

0.30% VMT reduction per 100 miles
(for addition of new bike lane) Y YYYY Y
Notes: CAPCOA SDT‐5 [Grouped strategy, benefits of Bike Lane Street Design are small and should be grouped with the LUT‐9 (Improve Design of Development) strategy to strengthen street network characteristics and enhance multi‐modal environments], the measure is applicable in urban and suburban contexts and is appropriate for residential, retail, office,industrial, and mixed‐use projects. This can be considered under Technical Advisory Measure 'Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service'; City of San Jose [Expand the reach of bike access with investment in infrastructure: applicable for both residential and employment uses]; City of LA [Provide bicycle facility along site (Yes/No)] 7 Improve or increase access to transit
CAPCOA TST‐2: Not quantified alone, grouped strategy
with TST‐3 'Expand transit network' and TST‐4 'Increasetransit service frequency/speed'; CAPCOA LUT‐5: 0.50% ‐ 24.60%

N/A Y Y Y Y Y Y
Notes: CAPCOA TST‐2: Implement Transit Access Improvements (applicable in urban and suburban context, and appropriate for residential, retail, office, mixed use, and industrial projects); CAPCOA LUT‐5: Increase Transit Accessibility [May be grouped with CAPCOA measures LUT‐3 (mixed use development), SDT‐2 (traffic calmed streets with goodconnectivity), and PPT‐1 through PPT‐7 (parking management strategies); measures are applicable in urban and suburban contexts; appropriate in rural context if development site is adjacent to a commuter rail station with convenient rail service to a major employment center; appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects]; City ofSan Jose [Increase transit accessibility to improve last‐mile transit connections; Improve network connectivity/design to make destinations and low‐carbon travel modes accessible; both applicable for both residential and employment uses]; City of LA [Existing transit mode share (as a percent of total daily trips) (%), Lines within project site improved (<50%, >=50%)] 8 Increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and daycare Similar to CAPCOA LUT‐3 (Increase Diversity of Urbanand Suburban Developments (Mixed Use)): 9.00% ‐

30.00% VMT reduction and CAPCOA LUT‐4 (Increase
Destination Accessibility): 6.70% ‐ 20.00% VMT reduction

N/A Y Y Y Y N Y
Notes: Similar to CAPCOA LUT‐3 (Increase Diversity of Urban and Suburban Developments (Mixed Use) ‐ Applicable in urban and suburban context; negligible in rural context (unless the project is a master‐planned community; appropriate for mixed‐use projects) and CAPCOA LUT‐ 4 (Applicable in urban and suburban context, negligible in rural context, appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects); City of San Jose [Access to Neighborhood Schools: Applicable for residential uses only]; City of San Jose [Very similar to measure 'Increase diversity of uses' ‐ Applicable for residential and employment uses] 9 Incorporate affordable housing into the project 0.04% ‐ 1.20% N/A Y Y Y Y N Y Notes: Similar measure is CAPCOA LUT‐6 [Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing] ‐ [Applicable in urban and suburban contexts; negligible impact in a rural context unless transit availability and proximity to jobs/services are existing characteristics; appropriate for residential and mixed‐use projects]; City of San Jose [Similar to measure 'Integrate affordable and market rate housing] ‐ Measure is applicable for residential uses only
Table A ‐ Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Measures for Development Projects (CAPCOA) R:\FCG1901 FresnoCOG VMT\VMT Mitigations\VMT Mitigations_FresnoCOG.xlsx\Land Dev Proj (5/12/2020) B3 Attach #1 of 3
# Mitigation Measure VMT Reduction1 Local VMT Reduction Calculations (Local Data/Fresno COG ABM)2 CAPCOA3 OPR TA4 Los Angeles Metro5 City of San Jose6 City of Los Angeles7 San Diego Region8 Notes Table A ‐ Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Measures for Development Projects (CAPCOA) 10 Incorporate neighborhood electric vehicle network 0.50% ‐ 12.70% N/A Y Y Y N N Y Notes: CAPCOA SDT‐3 [Neighborhood electric vehicles (NEV) would result in a mode shift and therefore reduce the traditional vehicle VMT and GHG emissions. Range depends on the available NEV network and support facilities, NEV ownership levels, and the degree of shift from traditional; measure is applicable in urban, suburban, and rural context, for small citywide or large multi‐use developments, and appropriate for mixed‐use projects] 11 Orient project towards transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities `1) 0.25% ‐ 0.5% (0.25% reduction is attributed for a
project oriented towards a planned corridor and 0.5%reduction is attributed for a project oriented towards an existing corridor) (as per the Sacramento MetropolitanAir Quality Management District (SMAQMD)Recommended Guidance for Land Use EmissionReductions ), 2) 0.5% reduction in VMT per 1% increase in transit frequency and per 10% increase in transit
ridership (as per the Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP) Transportation Emission Guidebook )

N/A Y Y Y N N Y
Notes: CAPCOA LUT‐7 [Orient project toward non‐auto corridor]; Grouped strategy with LUT‐ 3 (Increase Diversity of Urban and Suburban Developments (Mixed Use) ; there is no sufficient evidence that the measures results in non‐negotiable trip reduction unless combined with other measures, including neighborhood design, density and diversity of development, transitaccessibility and pedestrian and bicycle network improvements; the measure is applicable for urban or suburban context (may be applicable in a master‐planned rural community) and isappropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed use projects 12 Provide pedestrian network improvements 0.00% ‐ 2.00% N/A Y Y Y Y Y Y Notes: CAPCOA SDT‐1 [applicable in urban, suburban, and rural context; appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects; reduction benefit only occurs if the project has both pedestrian network improvements on site and connections to the largeroff‐site network]. This can be considered under Technical Advisory Measure 'Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service'; City of San Jose [Provide pedestriannetwork improvements for active transportation: applicable for both residential andemployment uses]; City of LA [Included (within project and connecting off‐site/within projectonly)] 13 Increase transit service frequency/speed 0.02% – 2.50% N/A Y Y Y Y Y Y Notes: CAPCOA TST‐4, applicable in urban and suburban context, maybe applicable in rural context but no literature documentation available, appropriate for specific or general plans.This can be considered under Technical Advisory Measure 'Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service'; City of San Jose [Similar to measure 'Subsidize public transitservice upgrades']; City of LA [Reduction in headways (increase in frequency) (%)] 14 Required project contributions to transportation infrastructure improvement projects Not Quantified: Grouped strategy (with RPT‐2 and TST‐1 through 7) N/A Y Y Y Y Y Y Notes: CAPCOA RPT‐3 (Applicable in urban, suburban and rural context; appropriate forresidential, retail, office, mixed use, and industrial projects); measure similar to some of the measures discussed above. This can be considered under Technical Advisory Measure 'Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service.' 15 Increase destination accessibility 6.70% – 20.00% N/A Y Y Y Y Y Y Notes: CAPCOA LUT‐4 [Destination accessibility measured in terms of the number of jobs orother attractions reachable within a given travel time, which tends to be the highest at central locations and lowest at peripheral ones; the location of the project also increases thepotential for pedestrians to walk and bike to these destinations and therefore reduces VMT;applicable for urban and suburban contexts, negligible impact in a rural context; appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects]. This can be considered under Technical Advisory Measure 'Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service'; City of San Jose [Increase transit availability to improve last‐mile transit connections; Improve network connectivity/design to make destinations and low‐carbon travel modes accessible; both applicable for both residential and employment uses]; City of LA [Lines within project site improved (<50%, >=50%)]
16 Provide traffic calming measures 0.25% – 1.00% N/A Y Y Y Y Y Y Notes: CAPCOA SDT‐2 [applicable in urban, suburban, and rural contexts; appropriate forresidential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects]; City of San Jose [Applicable forboth residential and employment uses]; City of LA [Streets with traffic calming improvements (%), intersections with traffic calming improvements (%)] 17 Provide bike parking in non‐residential projects 0.625% (as per the Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP) Transportation Emission Guidebook ) N/A Y Y Y Y Y Y Notes: CAPCOA SDT‐6 [Bike Parking in Non‐Residential projects has minimal impacts as a standalone strategy and should be grouped with the LUT‐9 (Improve Design of Development)strategy to encourage bicycling by providing strengthened street network characteristics and bicycle facilities]; the measure is applicable in urban, suburban, and rural contexts; appropriate for retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects; City of San Jose [Provide bike parking and end‐of‐trip facilities such as bike parking, bicycle lockers, showers, and personal lockers (Applicable for both residential and employment uses)]; City of LA [Include bike parking/lockers, showers, & repair station (Y/N)]
18 Provide bike parking with multi‐unit residential projects Not Quantified N/A Y Y Y Y Y Y Notes: CAPCOA SDT‐7 [Grouped Strategy; the benefits of Bike Parking with Multi‐Unit Residential Projects have no quantified impacts and should be grouped with the LUT‐9 (Improve Design of Development) strategy to encourage bicycling by providing strengthenedstreet network characteristics and bicycle facilities. The measure is applicable in urban,suburban, or rural contexts. It is appropriate for residential projects.]; City of San Jose [Provide bike parking and end‐of‐trip facilities such as bike parking, bicycle lockers, showers, and personal lockers (Applicable for both residential and employment uses)]; City of LA [Include bike parking/lockers, showers, & repair station (Y/N)] R:\FCG1901 FresnoCOG VMT\VMT Mitigations\VMT Mitigations_FresnoCOG.xlsx\Land Dev Proj (5/12/2020) B3 Attach #1 of 3
# Mitigation Measure VMT Reduction1 Local VMT Reduction Calculations (Local Data/Fresno COG ABM)2 CAPCOA3 OPR TA4 Los Angeles Metro5 City of San Jose6 City of Los Angeles7 San Diego Region8 Notes Table A ‐ Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Measures for Development Projects (CAPCOA) 19 Limit or eliminate parking supply 5.00% ‐ 12.50% N/A Y Y Y Y Y Y Notes: CAPCOA PDT‐1 (applicable in urban and suburban context, negligible in rural context, appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects); reduction can be counted only if spillover parking is controlled (via residential permits and on‐street market parking); follow multi‐faceted strategy including 1) elimination/reduction of minimum parking requirements, 2) creation of maximum parking requirements, and 3) provision of shared parking; City of San Jose [Decrease project parking supply at the project site to rates lower than the standard parking minimums where allowable in the San Jose Municipal Code(applicable for employment uses)]; City of LA [City code parking provision (spaces), actual parking provision (spaces)]
20 Unbundle parking costs from property costs 2.60% ‐ 13.00% N/A Y Y Y Y Y Y Notes: CAPCOA PDT‐2 (applicable in urban and suburban context, negligible in rural context, appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial and mixed‐use projects; complimentary strategies include workplace parking pricing); City of San Jose [Unbundle On‐Site Parking Costs: Application for Residential Uses Only]; City of LA [Monthly cost for parking ($)] 21 Provide parking cash‐out programs 0.60% – 7.70% commute VMT N/A Y Y Y Y Y Y Notes: CAPCOA TRT‐15 [Implement employee parking "cash‐out"; the term “cash out” is usedto describe the employer providing employees with a choice of forgoing their currentsubsidized/free parking for a cash payment equivalent to the cost of the parking space to theemployer. The measure is applicable in urban and suburban context; it is not applicable in rural context; it is appropriate for retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects. Restrictions are applied only if complementary strategies are in place: a) Residential parking permits andmarket rate public on‐street parking to prevent spill over parking; b) Unbundled parking ‐ isnot required but provides a market signal to employers to forgo paying for parking spaces and“cash‐out” the employee instead. In addition, unbundling parking provides a price with which employers can utilize as a means of establishing “cash‐out” prices; City of San Jose [Parking cash‐out: Employment uses only]; City of LA [Parking cash‐out: Employees eligible (%)] 22 Implement or provide access to a commute reduction program ‐ Voluntary 1.00% ‐ 6.20% commute VMT N/A Y Y Y Y Y Y Notes: CAPCOA TRT‐1: Commute Trip Reduction Program – Voluntary, is a multi‐strategy program that encompasses a combination of individual measures described CAPCOA measures TRT‐3 through TRT‐9. It is presented as a means of preventing double‐counting of reductions for individual measures that are included in this strategy. It does so by setting a maximum level of reductions that should be permitted for a combined set of strategies within a voluntary program. The main difference between a voluntary and a required program is: A) Monitoring and reporting is not required
B) No established performance standards (i.e. no trip reduction requirements). The measure is applicable in urban and suburban contexts, negligible in a rural context, unless large employers exist and suite of strategies implemented are relevant in rural settings. Themeasure is appropriate for retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects; City of San Jose [Applicable for employment uses only]; City of LA [Employees and residents participating (%)] 23 Provide ride‐sharing program 1.00% – 15.00% commute VMT N/A Y Y Y Y Y Y Notes: CAPCOA TRT‐3 [Provide Ride‐Sharing Programs: applicable in urban and suburban context; Negligible impact in many rural contexts, but can be effective when a large employer in a rural area draws from a workforce in an urban or suburban area, such as when a major employer moves from an urban location to a rural location; appropriate for residential, retail,office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects]; City of San Jose [Ride share for employment usesonly]; City of LA [Measured in terms of employees eligible (%)] 24 Implement car‐sharing program 0.40% – 0.70% N/A Y Y Y Y Y Y Notes: CAPCOA TRT‐9 [urban and suburban context, negligible in rural context, andappropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects]; City of San Jose [Applicable for both residential and employment uses]; City of LA [Car share project setting(urban, suburban, all other)] 25 Implement bike‐sharing program
Taking evidence from the literature, a 135‐300%increase in bicycling (of which roughly 7% are shifting from vehicle travel) results in a negligible impact (around0.03% VMT reduction)

N/A YYNYYY
Notes: CAPCOA TRT‐12 [This measure has minimal impacts when implemented alone. The strategy's effectiveness is heavily dependent on the location and context. Bike‐sharing programs have worked well in densely populated areas (examples in Barcelona, London, Lyon, and Paris) with existing infrastructure for bicycling. Bike sharing programs should becombined with Bike Lane Street Design (SDT‐5) and Improve Design of Development (LUT‐9).

The measure is applicable in urban and suburban‐center context only; it is negligible in a ruralcontext; appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects; City of San Jose [Bike share for employment and residential uses]; City of LA [bike share ‐ within 600 feet of existing bike share station ‐ OR ‐implementing new bike share station (Y/N)] 26 Provide transit passes
Similar to CAPCOA TRT‐4 [Implement Subsidized or
Discounted Transit Program]; for TRT‐4, commute VMT
reduction is 0.30% ‐ 20.00%

N/A Y Y Y Y Y Y
Notes: Similar to CAPCOA TRT‐4 [Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program]; City of San Jose [Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program]; City of LA [Employees and residents eligible (%), amount of transit subsidy per daily passenger (daily equivalent) ($)] R:\FCG1901 FresnoCOG VMT\VMT Mitigations\VMT Mitigations_FresnoCOG.xlsx\Land Dev Proj (5/12/2020) B3 Attach #1 of 3
# Mitigation Measure VMT Reduction1 Local VMT Reduction Calculations (Local Data/Fresno COG ABM)2 CAPCOA3 OPR TA4 Los Angeles Metro5 City of San Jose6 City of Los Angeles7 San Diego Region8 Notes Table A ‐ Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Measures for Development Projects (CAPCOA) 27 Implement a school pool program 7.20% ‐ 15.80% school VMT reduction N/A Y Y N Y Y Y Notes: CAPCOA TRT‐10 [This project will create a ridesharing program for school children.

Most school districts provide bussing services to public schools only. School Pool helps match parents to transport students to private schools, or to schools where students cannot walk or bike but do not meet the requirements for bussing. The measure is applicable in urban,suburban, and rural context and is appropriate for residential and mixed‐use projects.]; City of San Jose [School carpool program ‐ residential uses only)]. This measure can be considered under the Technical Advisory Measure 'Shifting single occupancy vehicle trips to carpooling orvanpooling, for example providing ride matching services.'; City of LA [School carpool program ‐ level of implementation (low, medium, high)
28 Operate free direct shuttle service
CAPCOA TST‐6 (Provide Local Shuttles): Not Quantified;

0.30% ‐ 13.40% commute VMT reduction (for CAPCOATRT‐11: Provide Employer‐Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle)

N/A YYNYYY
Notes: CAPCOA TST‐6 (Provide Local Shuttles ‐ grouped strategy with TST‐5 'Provide Bike Parking Near Transit' and TST‐4 'Increase Transit Service Frequency/Speed') ‐ Applicable in urban/suburban context; appropriate for large residential, retail, office, mixed use, and industrial projects; solves the "first mile/last mile" problem; CAPCOA TRT‐11 (Provideemployer‐sponsored vanpool/shuttle) ‐ the measure is applicable for urban, suburban, and rural context, and is appropriate for office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects. This measurecan be considered under the Technical Advisory Measure 'Shifting single occupancy vehicletrips to carpooling or vanpooling, for example providing ride matching services.'; City of San Jose [Employment uses only]; City of LA [Employer sponsored vanpool or shuttle (Degree ofimplementation (low, medium, high), employees eligible (%), employer size (small, medium,large)] 29 Provide teleworking options 0.07% ‐ 5.50% commute VMT N/A Y Y Y Y Y Y Notes: CAPCOA TRT‐6 [Applicable in urban, rural, and suburban contexts; appropriate forretail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects]; City of San Jose [Alternative work schedulesand telecommute (employment land uses only)]; City of LA [Alternative work schedules and telecommute (employees participating (%), type of program)] 30 Subsidize public transit service upgrades Not Quantified N/A Y Y N Y N Y Notes: Similar to CAPCOA TST‐2 through TST‐4; City of San Jose [Subsidize transit service through contributions to the transit provider to improve transit service to the project (e.g. frequency and number of routes); applicable for both residential and employment uses]. Themeasure is included under the Technical Advisory Measure 'Provide incentives or subsidies that increase the use of modes other than single‐occupancy vehicle.' 31 Implement subsidized or discounted transit program 0.30% – 20.00% commute VMT N/A Y Y Y Y Y Y Notes: CAPCOA TRT‐4 [Implement subsidized or discounted transit program (the measure is applicable in urban and suburban context, negligible in a rural context, appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects); The project will provide subsidized/discounted daily or monthly public transit passes. The project may also provide free transfers between all shuttles and transit to participants. These passes can be partially or wholly subsidized by the employer, school, or development. Many entities use revenue fromparking to offset the cost of such a project. The measure is included under the Technical Advisory Measure 'Provide incentives or subsidies that increase the use of modes other than single‐occupancy vehicle.'; City of San Jose [Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program]; City of LA [Transit subsidies measured by employees and residents eligible (%), and amount of transit subsidy per passenger (daily equivalent) ($)] 32 Providing on‐site amenities at places of work, such as priority parking for carpools and vanpools, secure bike parking, and showers and locker rooms
22% increase in bicycle mode share (UK National TravelSurvey)/2%‐5% reduction in commute vehicle trips(Transportation Demand Management Encyclopedia )/0.625% reduction in VMT (Center for
Clean Air Policy (CCAP) Emission Guidebook )

N/A Y Y Y Y Y Y
Notes: CAPCOA TRT‐5 [Provide End of Trip Facilities]: End‐of‐trip facilities have minimal impacts when implemented alone. This strategy’s effectiveness in reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) depends heavily on the suite of other transit, pedestrian/bicycle, and demand management measures offered. End‐of trip facilities should be grouped with Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Programs (TRT‐1: Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program ‐ Voluntary through TRT‐2: Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program – Required Implementation/Monitoring) and TRT‐3 (Provide Ride‐Sharing Programs); City of San Jose [Similar measures include 'Provide bike parking/end of trip bike facilities', 'Implement carsharing programs']; City of LA [Include bike parking/lockers, showers, & repair station (Y/N)] 33 Provide employee transportation coordinators at employment sites Not Quantified N/A Y Y Y N N Y Included as part of CAPCOA TRT‐1 (Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program ‐ Voluntary) 34 Provide a guaranteed ride home service to users of non‐auto modes Not Quantified N/A N Y Y N N Y35 Locate project in an area of the region that already exhibits low VMT 10.00% ‐ 65.00% N/A Y Y Y N N Y Notes: CAPCOA LUT‐2 (Applicable in urban and suburban contexts; negligible in rural contexts; appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects) 36 Locate project near transit 0.50% ‐ 24.60% N/A Y Y Y N N Y Notes: CAPCOA LUT‐5 [May be grouped with CAPCOA measures LUT‐3 (mixed use development), SDT‐2 (traffic calmed streets with good connectivity), and PPT‐1 through PPT‐7 (parking management strategies); measures are applicable in urban and suburban contexts; appropriate in rural context if development site is adjacent to a commuter rail station with convenient rail service to a major employment center; appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects]
37 Increase project/development density 1.50% ‐ 30.00% N/A Y Y Y Y N Y Notes: CAPCOA LUT‐1 (Applicable in urban and suburban contexts only; negligible in rural context; appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects); City of San Jose [Applicable for both residential and employment uses] 38 Increase the mix of uses within the project or within the project's surroundings 9.00% ‐ 30.00% N/A Y Y Y Y N Y Notes: CAPCOA LUT‐3: Increase Diversity of Urban and Suburban Developments (Mixed Use) [Applicable in urban and suburban context, negligible in rural context, and appropriate for mixed‐use projects]; City of San Jose [Applicable for both residential and employment uses] R:\FCG1901 FresnoCOG VMT\VMT Mitigations\VMT Mitigations_FresnoCOG.xlsx\Land Dev Proj (5/12/2020) B3 Attach #1 of 3
# Mitigation Measure VMT Reduction1 Local VMT Reduction Calculations (Local Data/Fresno COG ABM)2 CAPCOA3 OPR TA4 Los Angeles Metro5 City of San Jose6 City of Los Angeles7 San Diego Region8 Notes Table A ‐ Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Measures for Development Projects (CAPCOA) 39 Improve network connectivity and/or increase intersection density on the project site Similar measure is CAPCOA LUT‐9 [Improve Design of Development]: 3.0% ‐ 21.3% reduction in VMT N/A Y Y Y Y N Y Notes: Similar measure to CAPCOA LUT‐9 (Improve Design of Development); City of San Jose [Build new street connections and/or connect cul‐de‐sacs to provide pedestrian and bicycle access: applicable for both residential and employment uses] 40 Price workplace parking 0.10% ‐ 19.70% commute VMT N/A Y N N Y Y N Notes: CAPCOA TRT‐14 [Urban and suburban context; Negligible impact in a rural context; Appropriate for retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects; Reductions applied only if complementary strategies are in place:o Residential parking permits and market rate public on‐street parking ‐ to prevent spill‐over parkingo Unbundled parking ‐ is not required but provides a market signal to employers to transferover the, now explicit, cost of parking to the employees. In addition, unbundling parking provides a price with which employers can utilize as a means of establishing workplaceparking prices; City of San Jose [Price On‐Site Workplace Parking (for employment uses only)]; City of LA [Daily parking charge ($), Employees subject to priced parking (%)] 41 Locate project near bike path/bike lane 0.625% N/A Y N Y N N N Notes: CAPCOA LUT‐8 (Grouped strategy with 'Increase Destination Accessibility'; themeasure is most effective when applied in combination of multiple design elements thatencourage this use; strategy should be grouped with 'Increase Destination Accessibility' strategy to increase the opportunities for multi‐modal travel; measure is applicable in urban or suburban context, may be applicable in a rural master planned community; appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects 42 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing 0.80% ‐ 4.00% commute VMT N/A Y N Y Y N N Notes: CAPCOA TRT‐7 (applicable in urban and suburban context; negligible in rural context;appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects); City of San Jose [Employment uses only]
43 Education and encouragement ‐ Voluntary travel behavior change program 1.00% ‐ 6.20% commute VMT N/A YN N YYN Notes: Similar to CAPCOA TRT‐1 (Implement Commute Reduction Program ‐ Voluntary); City of San Jose [For both residential and employment uses]; City of LA [Employees and residents participating (%)]
44 Education and encouragement ‐ Promotions and marketing 0.80% ‐ 4.00% commute VMT N/A Y N N Y Y N Notes: Similar to CAPCOA TRT‐7 [Implement Commute Reduction Marketing]; City of San Jose [Similar measure might be 'Implement commute trip reduction marketing/educational campaign' (applicable for employment uses)]; City of LA [Employees and residents participating (%)]
45 Implement neighborhood shuttle Not Quantified N/A Y N N Y Y N Notes: CAPCOA TST‐6 (Provide Local Shuttles ‐ grouped strategy with TST‐5 'Provide Bike Parking Near Transit' and TST‐4 'Increase Transit Service Frequency/Speed') ‐ Applicable in urban/suburban context; appropriate for large residential, retail, office, mixed use, and industrial projects; solves the "first mile/last mile" problem; City of San Jose [Similar measure:
'Operate a free direct shuttle service' (applicable for employment uses only)]; City of LA[Degree of Implementation (low/medium/high), employees and residents eligible (%)] 46 Install park‐and‐ride lots
Two sources: 0.10% ‐ 0.50% VMT reduction (as per 2005Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) study) and

0.50% VMT reduction per day (as per Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT))

N/A Y N N N N N
Notes: CAPCOA RPT‐4 (Applicable in suburban and rural context; appropriate for residential, retail, office, mixed use, and industrial projects); Grouped strategy with RPT‐1, TRT‐11, TRT‐3, and TRT‐1 through 6
47 Electrify loading docks and/or require idling‐reduction systems 26% ‐ 71% reduction in Truck refrigeration units (TRU) idling GHG emissions N/A Y N N N N N Notes: CAPCOA VT‐1 (Measure applicability: Truck refrigeration units (TRU)) 48 Utilize alternative fueled vehicles Reduction in GHG emissions varies depending on vehicle type, year, and associated fuel economy N/A Y N N N N N Notes: CAPCOA VT‐2 (Measure applicability: vehicles) 49 Utilize electric or hybrid vehicles 0.40% ‐ 20.30% reduction in GHG emissions N/A Y N N N N N Notes: CAPCOA VT‐3 (Measure applicability: vehicles)50 Provide bike parking near transit Not Quantified N/A Y N N N N N Notes: CAPCOA TST‐5 (should be implemented with other two measures as mentioned to encourage multi‐modal use in the area and provide ease of access to nearby transit for bicyclists (measure applicable in urban and suburban context; appropriate for residential, retail, office, mixed use, and industrial projects); Grouped strategy (with measures TST‐3'Expand transit network' and TST‐4 'Increase transit service frequency/speed') 51 Improve design of development 3.00% ‐ 21.30% N/A Y N N N N N Notes: CAPCOA LUT‐9 (Include design elements to enhance walkability and connectivity; improved street network characteristics within a neighborhood such as street accessibility;design also measured in terms of sidewalk coverage, building setbacks, street widths, pedestrians crossings, presence of street trees, and a host of other physical variables that differentiate pedestrian‐oriented environments from auto‐oriented environments); measureis applicable in the urban and suburban contexts, negligible impact in rural context; appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed‐use projects 52 Provide electric vehicle parking Not Quantified N/A Y N N N N N Notes: CAPCOA SDT‐8 [This is a grouped strategy and the benefits of electric vehicle parking may be quantified when grouped with the use of electric vehicles and or SDT‐3 (Implement a Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) Network). This measure is applicable in urban orsuburban contexts and is appropriate for residential, retail, office, mixed use, and industrial projects.]
R:\FCG1901 FresnoCOG VMT\VMT Mitigations\VMT Mitigations_FresnoCOG.xlsx\Land Dev Proj (5/12/2020) B3 Attach #1 of 3
# Mitigation Measure VMT Reduction1 Local VMT Reduction Calculations (Local Data/Fresno COG ABM)2 CAPCOA3 OPR TA4 Los Angeles Metro5 City of San Jose6 City of Los Angeles7 San Diego Region8 Notes Table A ‐ Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Measures for Development Projects (CAPCOA) 53 Dedicated land for bike trails Not Quantified N/A Y N N N N N Notes: CAPCOA SDT‐9 [Larger projects may be required to provide for, contribute to, ordedicate land for the provision of off‐site bicycle trails linking the project to designated bicycle commuting routes in accordance with an adopted citywide or countywide bikeway plan. The benefits of Land Dedication for Bike Trails have not been quantified and should be grouped with the LUT‐9 (Improve Design of Development) strategy to strengthen streetnetwork characteristics and improve connectivity to off‐site bicycle networks. The measure is applicable in urban, suburban, or rural contexts and is appropriate for large residential, retail, office, mixed use, and industrial projects.]
54 Implement school bus program 38.00% ‐ 63.00% school VMT reduction N/A Y N N N N N Notes: CAPCOA TRT‐13 [Applicable in urban, suburban, and rural context; appropriate for residential and mixed‐use projects] 55 Implement preferential parking permit program Not Quantified N/A Y N N N N N Notes: CAPCOA TRT‐8 [The project will provide preferential parking in convenient locations (such as near public transportation or building front doors) in terms of free or reduced parking fees, priority parking, or reserved parking for commuters who carpool, vanpool, ride‐ share or use alternatively fueled vehicles. The project will provide wide parking spaces to accommodate vanpool vehicles. The impact of preferential parking permit programs has notbeen quantified by the literature and is likely to have negligible impacts when implemented alone. This strategy should be grouped with Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Programs (TRT‐1 and TRT‐2) and TRT‐3 (Provide Ride‐Sharing Programs) as a complementary strategy for encouraging non‐single occupant vehicle travel. This measure is applicable in urban and suburban contexts and is appropriate for residential, retail, office, mixed use, and industrialprojects.] Notes:

VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled; CAPCOA = California Air Pollution Control Officers Association; ; Fresno COG = Fresno Council of Governments; OPR = Office of Planning and Research; TA = Technical Advisory; HOV = High Occupancy Vehicle; HOT = High Occupancy Toll; ITS = Intelligent Transportation System CAPCOA Transportation Mitigation Categories (LU = Land Use/Location, SD = Neighborhood/Site Enhancements, PD = Parking Policy/Pricing, TR = Commute Trip Reduction Programs, TS = Transit System Improvements, RP = Road Pricing/Management; V = Vehicles) 1 VMT reduction numbers obtained from Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures published by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association in August 2010.2 Fresno COG VMT reduction recommendation for this measure obtained based on analysis conducted by Fresno COG staff and LSA using local data and/or the COG's Activity Based Model.3 Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures published by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association in August 2010.4 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA published by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research State of California in December 2018.5 Analysis of VMT Mitigation Measures Pursuant to SB 743 prepared by Iteris, Inc. in February 2018.6 City of San Jose Transportation Analysis Handbook (dated April 2018).7 City of Los Angeles VMT Calculator Version 1.28 Guidelines for Transportation Impact Studies in the San Diego Region developed by San Diego Section of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and the San Diego Traffic Engineers Council (SANTEC) in January 2019. **Highlighted VMT Reduction Numbers are yet to be Finalized** R:\FCG1901 FresnoCOG VMT\VMT Mitigations\VMT Mitigations_FresnoCOG.xlsx\Land Dev Proj (5/12/2020) B3 Attach #1 of 3
This page intentionally left blank
B3 Attach #1 of 3

APPENDIX B

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED MITIGATION MEASURES FOR

DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS (CARB PAPERS)
B3 Attach #1 of 3
# Mitigation Measure VMT Reduction2 Local VMT Reduction Calculations (Local Data/Fresno COG ABM)3 Notes 1 Provide Bicycling Network Improvements No effect on VMT 0.30% VMT reduction per 100 miles (for addition of new bike lane) 2 Implement Transit Improvements No effect on VMT 0.07% VMT reduction per 100 miles (for addition of a new transit line)3 Improve or increase access to transit 1.3% ‐ 5.8% N/A Variable: Various factors associated with proximity to transit stop (please refer to How do Local Actions Affect CMT? A Critical Review of the Empirical Evidence (Salon, D., Boarnet, M.G., Handy, S., Spears, S., and Tal, G.)
4 Land Use Mix Elasticity: 0.02 ‐ 0.10 N/A Variable: Entropy ‐ variety and balance of land‐use types within a neighborhood 5 Regional Accessibility Elasticity: 0.05 ‐ 0.25 N/A
Variable: Various factors associated with job accessibility and distance to CBD (please refer to How do Local Actions Affect CMT? A Critical Review of the Empirical Evidence (Salon, D., Boarnet, M.G., Handy, S., Spears, S., and Tal, G.)
6 Job‐Housing Balance Elasticity: 0.06 ‐ 0.31 for commute VMT N/A Variable: Various factors associated with job accessibility (please refer to How do Local Actions Affect CMT? A Critical Review of the Empirical Evidence (Salon, D., Boarnet, M.G., Handy, S., Spears, S., and Tal, G.)
7 Provide Pedestrian Network Improvements Elasticity: 0.00 ‐ 0.02 for sidewalk length, 0.19 for Pedestrian Environment Factor N/A 8 Voluntary Travel Behavior Change (VTBC) Program 5% ‐ 12% N/A 9 Implement Employer‐Based Trip Reduction (EBTR) Program 1.33% ‐ 6% of commute VMT N/A 10 Provide telecommuting options
Home‐based telecommuting: 48.1% for household VMT,66.5% ‐ 76.6% for all personal VMT, and 90.3% forcommute VMT only; Center‐based telecommuting: 53.7% ‐ 64.8% for all personal VMT and 62.0% ‐ 77.2% forcommute VMT only N/A
11 Increase Project/Development Density Elasticity: <=0.07 ‐ 0.19 N/A Variable: residential density 12 Improve network connectivity and/or increase intersection density on the project site Elasticity: ‐0.46 ‐ 0.59 N/A Variable: Various factors associated with intersection or street density (please refer to How do Local Actions Affect CMT? A Critical Review of the Empirical Evidence (Salon, D., Boarnet, M.G., Handy, S., Spears, S., and Tal, G.)
13 Implement Parking Cash‐out Programs or Workplace Parking Pricing 12% of commute VMT (parking cash out); 2.3% ‐ 2.9% for$3 per day workplace parking price; 2.8% for priceincrease equivalent to 60% hourly value of commutertravel time cost N/A
Notes:

VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled
1 All mitigation measures have been obtained from How do Local Actions Affect CMT? A Critical Review of the Empirical Evidence (Salon, D., Boarnet, M.G., Handy, S., Spears, S., and Tal, G.).2 All VMT reduction numbers have been obtained from How do Local Actions Affect CMT? A Critical Review of the Empirical Evidence (Salon, D., Boarnet, M.G., Handy, S., Spears, S., and Tal, G.).3 Fresno COG VMT reduction recommendation for this measure obtained based on analysis conducted by Fresno COG staff and LSA using local data and/or the COG's Activity Based Model.

Table B ‐ Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Measures for Development Projects (CARB Papers)1 **Highlighted VMT Reduction Numbers are yet to be Finalized** R:\FCG1901 FresnoCOG VMT\VMT Mitigations\VMT Mitigations_FresnoCOG.xlsx\Boarnet and Handy (5/12/2020) B3 Attach #1 of 3
This page intentionally left blank
B3 Attach #1 of 3

APPENDIX C

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED MITIGATION MEASURES FOR

COMMUNITY PLANS AND GENERAL PLANS
B3 Attach #1 of 3
# Mitigation Measure CAPCOA VMT Reduction
Local VMT Reduction Calculations (Local
Data/Fresno COG ABM)2
1 Shift single occupancy vehicle trips to carpooling or vanpooling by providing ride‐matching services or shuttle services

0.30% ‐ 13.40% commute VMTreduction (for CAPCOA TRT‐11: (Provide Employer‐Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle));Grouped strategy (for CAPCOA TST‐6 (Provide Local Shuttles))

0.60% (for vanpool); x% (for carpool)
2 Provide enhanced bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities

0.00% ‐ 2.00% (for pedestrian networkimprovements); Multiple measures for bike facilities, refer to Table A for VMT
reduction percentages

0.30% VMT reduction per 100 miles
(for addition of new bike lane)
3 Provide incentives or subsidies that increase the use of modes other than a single‐occupancy vehicle

0.30% ‐ 13.40% commute VMTreduction (for CAPCOA TRT‐11: (Provide Employer‐Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle));Grouped strategy (for CAPCOA TST‐6 (Provide Local Shuttles)); 0.30% ‐ 20.00% commute VMT reduction (forCAPCOA TRT‐4 (Implement Subsidizedor Discounted Transit Program))

0.60% (for vanpool); x% (for carpool)
4 Modify land use plan to increase development in areas with low VMT/capita characteristics and/or decrease development in areas with high VMT/capita characteristics Not quantified in CAPCOA N/A 5 Add roadways to the street network if those roadways would provide shorter travel paths for existing and/or future trips Not quantified in CAPCOA N/A 6 Improve or increase access to transit
CAPCOA TST‐2 (Implement transitaccess improvements): Not quantifiedalone, grouped strategy with TST‐3(Expand transit network) and TST‐4(Increase transit servicefrequency/speed); CAPCOA LUT‐5(Increase transit accessibility): 0.50% ‐ 24.60% N/A
7 Increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and daycare Similar to CAPCOA LUT‐3 (IncreaseDiversity of Urban and Suburban Developments (Mixed Use)): 9.00% ‐ 30.00% VMT reduction and CAPCOA LUT‐4 (Increase DestinationAccessibility): 6.70% ‐ 20.00% VMT reduction
N/A
8 Incorporate a neighborhood electric vehicle network 0.50% ‐ 12.70% N/A 9 Provide traffic calming 0.25% – 1.00% N/A
10 Limit or eliminate parking supply 5.00% ‐ 12.50% N/A Table C ‐ Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Measures for Community Plans and General Plans1 R:\FCG1901 FresnoCOG VMT\VMT Mitigations\VMT Mitigations_FresnoCOG.xlsx\Land Use Plans (5/12/2020) B3 Attach #1 of 3
# Mitigation Measure CAPCOA VMT Reduction
Local VMT Reduction Calculations (Local
Data/Fresno COG ABM)2
Table C ‐ Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Measures for Community Plans and General Plans1 11 Implement or provide access to a commute reduction program ‐ Voluntary 1.00% ‐ 6.20% commute VMT N/A 12 Provide car‐sharing, bike sharing, and ride‐sharing programs % ‐ 0.70% (

0.40% ‐ 0.70% VMT reduction (for carsharing); 1.00% ‐ 15.00% commute VMTreduction (for ride‐sharing); a 135% ‐ 300% increase in biking (of whichroughly 7% are shifting from vehicle travel) results in a negligible impact(around 0.03% VMT reduction) N/A
13 Provide partially or fully subsidized transit passes Similar to CAPCOA TRT‐4 [Implement
Subsidized or Discounted TransitProgram]; for TRT‐4, commute VMTreduction is 0.30% ‐ 20.00% N/A
14 Provide telework options 0.07% ‐ 5.50% commute VMT N/A 15 Provide employee transportation coordinators at employment sites Not quantified in CAPCOA N/A 16 Provide a guaranteed ride home service to users of non‐auto modes Not quantified in CAPCOA N/A Notes:

VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled; Fresno COG = Fresno Council of Governments; CAPCOA = California Air Pollution Control Officers Association 12 Fresno COG VMT reduction recommendation for this measure obtained based on analysis conducted by Fresno COG staff and LSA using local data and/or the COG's Activity Based Model.

CAPCOA Transportation Mitigation Categories (LU = Land Use/Location, SD = Neighborhood/Site Enhancements, PD = Parking Policy/Pricing, TR = Commute Trip Reduction Programs, TS = Transit System Improvements, RP = Road Pricing/Management; V = Vehicles)All mitigation measures have been obtained from the Guidelines for Transportation Impact Studies in the San Diego Region developed by San Diego Section of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and the San Diego Traffic Engineers Council (SANTEC) in January 2019. **Highlighted VMT Reduction Numbers are yet to be Finalized** R:\FCG1901 FresnoCOG VMT\VMT Mitigations\VMT Mitigations_FresnoCOG.xlsx\Land Use Plans (5/12/2020) B3 Attach #1 of 3
This page intentionally left blank
B3 Attach #1 of 3
B3 Attach #1 of 3
B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas
Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate
Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity
Designed for Local Governments, Communities,
and Project Developers
Final Draft
December 2021
©2021 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. All Rights Reserved.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS | i
Acknowledgements
This Handbook benefited from the hard work and creative insights of many people. The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) appreciates the efforts of all who contributed their time and energy to the project. In particular, CAPCOA thanks the following organizations and agencies.

Project Management and Coordination
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District Authors
ICF with contributions from Fehr & Peers, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, and STI
Technical Advisory Committee
Bay Area Air Quality Management District Metropolitan Transportation Commission California Polytechnic State University Placer County
California Strategic Growth Council Placer County Air Pollution Control District California Air Resources Board Sacramento Area Council of Governments California Department of Public Health Sacramento Tree Foundation California Department of Transportation Sacramento Water Forum City of Los Angeles Santa Clara Valley Water District
City of Mt. Shasta San Diego Association of Governments City of Roseville San Diego Regional Climate Collaborative City of Sacramento San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District City of Watsonville Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District County of Sacramento San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District County of Santa Barbara South Coast Air Quality Management District EcoAdapt The Climate Registry
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research University of California, Davis ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability
Special Thanks
Many people have generously provided guidance, insights, and expertise to our project.

We would like to warmly thank staff at the California Environmental Justice Alliance; the Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment; City of Bakersfield; California Energy Commission; California Department of Water Resources; California State Water Resources Control Board; and many others for their time and assistance.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS | ii
Funding Partners
California Department of Transportation (via Senate Bill 1 Adaptation Planning Grants) Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District California Department of Public Health's Office of Health Equity, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as part of a financial assistance award totaling $147,000 with 100 percent funded by CDC/HHS. The contents are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of, nor an endorsement, by CDC/HHS, or the U.S. Government.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity DEDICATION | iii
Dedication
This Handbook is intended to provide tools and methods to people who are doing the hard work on the ground. The hard work of reducing our impact on climate change, making communities more resilient to the effects of climate change, and promoting health and equity among communities that bear disproportionate environmental burdens. The hard work to include everyone in what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. referred to as “an inescapable network of mutuality” in his 1967 Christmas Sermon on Peace.

What we do today will either remedy or perpetuate past environmental injustices. What we do today will shape our climate tomorrow. Our communities are being changed by climate and will change more.

When we understand the tons of carbon emitted, the feet of sea level rise, and the degrees of temperature change, we will know better the consequences of our actions. When we listen, respect, engage, involve, and empower all people affected by our actions, we will know better the diverse concerns, needs, and hopes of all our communities.

With this understanding, we can and must take action to reduce our contributions to climate change, to make our communities more resilient, and to implement solutions that are informed by and responsive to the people most affected by new plans, projects, and programs. We need to do this with and for the people left out too often in the past to mold a better future for this generation and the generations to come. We need to do this for a state, a country, and a planet that is changing rapidly due our actions and inactions.

This Handbook is dedicated to all Californians—whose health, wellbeing, and safety are at the heart of all our efforts. We build and design communities for people, yet often the human perspective is lost amidst discussions around emissions, thresholds of significance, vehicle miles traveled, and site plans. We aim to re-center people in this conversation— especially the people whose voices have been marginalized and excluded from participating in the planning that shapes all our lives. At its core, the Handbook is designed and developed by people, for people, and for the sake of creating livable, prosperous, resilient communities in which all can thrive, now and into the future.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION | iv
An Important Consideration
CAPCOA prepared this Handbook to provide a common platform of information and tools for evaluating greenhouse gas reduction measures, climate vulnerabilities and promoting equity to support sustainable, resilient, and equitable land use planning and project design. It was prepared in collaboration with academia, agencies, community organizations and leaders, local governments, nongovernmental organizations, and technical experts. The quantification methods, tools, and recommendations provided in this Handbook were developed based on the latest science and literature available at the time of publication.

Our understanding of climate science and accepted practice for how equity and environmental justice can and should be addressed in land use planning continues to evolve. Regulations, policies, and government programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are likewise dynamic. Future legislation, litigation, public opinion, and scientific research may influence how climate change, emissions reduction, and health and equity are reviewed and addressed in our community.

In light of these considerations, this Handbook should be viewed as a planning resource.

It provides strategies, tools, and analytical methods to facilitate integrated and resilient decision making, despite potential future planning uncertainty. The Handbook should not be used to dictate public policy or provide legal advice.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity TABLE OF CONTENTS | v
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... vi Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: Integrated and Resilient Planning ............................................................................... 7 Chapter 3: Measures to Reduce GHG Emissions ......................................................................... 29 Transportation .............................................................................................................................. 62 Energy ........................................................................................................................................ 210 Water ......................................................................................................................................... 305 Lawn and Landscaping ............................................................................................................... 332 Solid Waste ................................................................................................................................ 336 Natural and Working Lands ........................................................................................................ 346 Construction ............................................................................................................................... 361 Refrigerants ................................................................................................................................ 375 Miscellaneous ............................................................................................................................. 397 Chapter 4: Assessing Climate Exposures and Measures to Reduce Vulnerabilities .....................404 Chapter 5: Measures for Advancing Health and Equity ............................................................. 450 Chapter 6: Resources to Support Resilient and Equitable Emission Reduction Planning .............. 592 Appendix A: Key Terms and Definitions .................................................................................... A-1 Appendix B: Federal and State Planning Framework ................................................................. B-1 Appendix C: Emission Factors and Data Tables .......................................................................... C-i Appendix D: Climate Vulnerability Worksheets ......................................................................... D-1 Appendix E: Measure Index ....................................................................................................... E-1 B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS | vi
Acronyms and Abbreviations
˚F degrees Fahrenheit
A/C air conditioning
AADT annual average daily traffic
AB Assembly Bill
ACS American Community Survey
ACT Advanced Clean Truck
AF acre-feet
AFUE annual fuel utilization efficiency
AMMP tool CARB’s Benefits Calculator Tool for the Alternative Manure Management Program
APEN Asian Pacific Environmental Network
APG California Adaptation Planning Guide
AQI air quality index
ARCCA Alliance of Regional Collaboratives for Climate Adaptation Bayview CBTP Bayview Community Based Transportation Plan BCZ building climate zones (as defined by the CEC)
BEV battery electric vehicle
BIPOC Black, Indigenous, and People of Color
BMR below market rate
BRACE Building Resilience Against Climate Effects
BRT bus rapid transit
Btu British Thermal Unit
C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations
CA Code California Plumbing Code
CAA Clean Air Act
CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy
CalBRACE California Building Resilience Against Climate Effects CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CALFIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS | vii
CALGreen 2019 California Green Building Standards
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CAPP Community Air Protection Program
CARB California Air Resources Board
CAS Climate Adaptation Strategy
CBO community-based organization
CBSA core-based statistical area
CBSC California Building Standards Commission
CBTP community-based travel planning
CCA Community Choice Aggregation
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDC U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CDPH California Department of Public Health
CE combustion efficiency
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CEUS California Commercial End-Use Survey
CH4 methane
CHP Tool Combined Heat and Power Energy and Emission Calculator CHP combined heat and power
CLT community land trust
CNG compressed natural gas
CNRA California Natural Resources Agency
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
COMET COMET-Planner Tool
Commercial Forecast Uncalibrated Commercial Sector Forecast CoSMoS Coastal Storm Modeling System
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS | viii
CSTDM California Statewide Travel Demand Model
CTR commute trip reduction
DBE disadvantaged business enterprise
DGS Department of General Services
DOC dissolved organic carbon
DR demand response
Du dwelling units
DVBE disabled veteran-owned business enterprise
DWR California Department of Water Resources
EA environmental assessment
EBT Electronic Benefit Transfer
ECAP Equitable Climate Action Plan
EDFZ Electricity Demand Forecast Zone
EDG Community Resilience Economic Decision Guide and
Online Tool
EER energy efficiency ratio
EGC Enterprise Green Communities
EIR environmental impact report
EIS environmental impact statement
ESP energy service provider
ETWU per the MWELO estimated total water use
eVMT electric mode vehicle miles traveled
Explorer Cool Surface Savings Explorer
FCEV fuel cell electric vehicle
FCZ Forecast Climate Zone (as defined by the CEC)
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FVS Forest Vegetation Simulator
g grams
gal gallon
GHCN-Daily Global Historical Climatology Network–Daily
GHG greenhouse gas
B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS | ix
GMP gross metropolitan product
GSP groundwater sustainability plan
GWP global warming potential
ha hectare
HDPE high-density polyethylene
HERS Home Energy Rating System
HFCs hydrofluorocarbons
HPI The California Healthy Places Index
HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
HVAC heating ventilation and air conditioning
IBHS Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety
ICARP Integrated Climate Adaptation and Resiliency Program ICT Innovative Clean Transit
LDA light-duty automobiles
LDT1 light-duty truck class 1
LDT2 light-duty truck class 2
ILSR Institute for Local Self-Reliance
IOUs investor-owned utilities
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
ITHIM Integrated Transport and Health Impact Model
KSF 1,000 gross square feet
kWh kilowatt-hours
lb pound
LBNL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
LED light-emitting diode
LFG landfill gas
LGBTBE LGBTQIA+-owned business enterprise
LHC Little Hoover Commission
LOS level of service
MAWA per the MWELO maximum allowable water use
B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS | x
MBE minority-owned business enterprise
MCHX microchannel heat exchanger
MHSA Mental Health Services Act
MJ megajoule
MMBtu 1 million British thermal units
mpg miles per gallon
MPO metropolitan planning organization
MSW municipal solid waste
MT metric ton
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
MTV maximum transfer value
MWELO Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
MWh megawatt-hour
N2O nitrous oxide
NAACP National Association for the Advancement of Colored People NAAQS national ambient air quality standards
NDC Nationally Determined Contribution
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NGO non-governmental organization
NH3 ammonia
NHTSA National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOx nitrogen oxides
NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory
NWL natural and working lands
NYLSRJP New York Law School Racial Justice Project
ODS ozone-depleting substances
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OPC Ocean Protection Council
OPR California Office of Planning and Research
PBID property business improvement district
B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS | xi
PBOT Portland Bureau of Transportation
PFCs perfluorinated carbons
PHEV plug-in hybrid electric vehicle
PM2.5, PM10 particulate matter
PV photovoltaic
PVC polyvinyl chloride
RAD Responsible Appliance Disposal
RASS Residential Appliance Saturation Study
REC renewable energy credit
REIA Racial Equity Impact Assessment and Implementation Guide Reporting Rule Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule
ROG reactive organic gases
RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard
RSM Regional Sediment Management
RTP regional transportation plan
SAF solar availability factor
SAFE Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient
SAJE Strategic Actions for a Just Economy
SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments
SB Senate Bill
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
scf standard cubic foot
sf square feet
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SFMTA San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
SFPD San Francisco Planning Department
SHP separate heat and power
SHRA Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency
SIP State Implementation Plan
SLCPs Short-Lived Climate Pollutants
SMUD Sacramento Municipal Utility District
SOx sulfur dioxide
B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS | xii
State Water Board State Water Resources Control Board
TAC technical advisory committee
TCR The Climate Registry
TDV Time Dependent Valuation
TE thermal efficiency
TOD transit-oriented development
TRB Transportation Research Board
TRUs Transport Refrigeration Units
U.S. DOE U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S.C. United States Code
UC Davis University of California, Davis
UHI urban heat island
UNIDAD United Neighbors in Defense Against Displacement USDN Urban Sustainability Directors Network
USFS United States Forest Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compounds
VTA Valley Transportation Authority
WARM Waste Reduction Model
WBE women-owned business enterprise
WMO World Meteorological Organization
WUCOLS Water Use Classification of Landscape Species
WUI wildland-urban interface
ZEBs zero-emission buses
ZNE zero net energy
B3 Attach #1 of 3
INTRODUCTION | 1
Introduction
Background
Climate change is already having profound impacts on people and planning in California. Local governments, institutions, project developers, and communities across the state must prepare for growing climate impacts while working to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These are real challenges, but they also represent new opportunities. We can design and build healthier neighborhoods, develop solutions for clean air, and create more equitable, resilient communities and economies. This Handbook offers data and methods to help effectively achieve these objectives.

Local governments and communities are increasingly experiencing the effects of climate change and, in response, are developing measures and plans to mitigate and adapt to those effects. Climate change is principally driven by human actions, particularly burning fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas that emit GHGs. GHGs trap heat in the atmosphere, which slowly increases global average temperatures, causing additional cascading effects such as extreme heat and heat waves, melting polar ice, disappearing snowpack, rising sea levels, changing precipitation patterns, ocean acidification, and more extreme or more frequent weather events.

To slow the pace of climate change and prevent its worst effects from materializing, local, state, and national governments must design measures that mitigate (i.e., lessen the severity or even eliminate) the root cause of the issue: GHG emissions from human CHAPTER 1
B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity INTRODUCTION | 2
activities. To do so, they need tools and resources to accurately assess and quantify GHG emissions, and to design effective methods to reduce emissions.

In response to this need, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) prepared this report, Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity: Designed for Local Governments, Communities, and Project Developers (hereafter referred to as the “Handbook”). The Handbook provides methods to quantify GHG emission reductions from a specified list of measures, primarily focused on project-level actions. The Handbook also includes a method to assess potential benefits of different climate vulnerability reduction measures, as well as measures that can be implemented to improve health and equity, again at the project level.

CAPCOA included a wide range of measures in the Handbook that are frequently used to reduce GHG emissions, bolster communities against expected climate impacts, and enhance community health and equity. To focus on the most effective measures, they were screened using the following factors:
▪ Feasibility of quantifying emissions reductions or benefits. ▪ Availability of robust and meaningful data, including peer reviewed studies. ▪ Ability of measures (alone or in combination with other measures) to appreciably reduce GHG emissions, reduce climate vulnerabilities, and improve health and equity.

This does not mean that other measures should not be considered or may not be effective or quantifiable; on the contrary, there are many ways to reduce emissions of GHGs, reduce climate vulnerabilities, and improve health and equity. CAPCOA seeks to provide a high-quality quantification tool to local governments, communities, and stakeholders with the broadest applicability possible. CAPCOA encourages users to be bold and creative as they approach the challenges of climate change and equity and does not intend for the Handbook to limit the scope of measures considered.

In addition to CAPCOA, other organizations that helped to prepare this Handbook include the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, with contract support from ICF, Fehr & Peers, and STI, who performed the technical analysis.

Process and Approach for Handbook Development
The Handbook builds on CAPCOA’s previous efforts to provide accurate and reliable quantification measures. In 2010, CAPCOA published Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emissions Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (hereafter referred to as the “2010 Handbook”).

Since that time, climate science has evolved and GHG reduction practices have advanced in sophistication. New priorities have also arisen, such as strengthening climate resilience and infusing health and equity into integrated planning efforts. Therefore, CAPCOA decided it was time to develop an updated and expanded resource to provide the latest data and B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity INTRODUCTION | 3
methods to quantify GHG emissions
reductions, climate change vulnerability
reductions, and equity improvements in a
single resource: The Handbook.

The Handbook development process
involved five key tasks.

1. Identifying and evaluating new and
emerging GHG reduction measures
and removing outdated measures
from the 2010 Handbook.

2. Evaluating and selecting climate risk
reduction and health and
equity measures.

3. Developing methods to quantify GHG
emissions reduction measures and
identify associated co-benefits.

4. Developing methods to assess climate
change vulnerability and a framework
to quantify reductions in climate vulnerabilities.

5. Developing health and equity measures.

The development process was a collaborative and methodical effort that involved careful review and input from experts in agencies, academia, public organizations, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and other stakeholder groups. A technical advisory committee (TAC) was formed to provide ongoing guidance, peer review, and quality control assurance at each step of the process. The Handbook was drafted and finalized through an iterative process that incorporated comments and suggestions from the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, the TAC, and the public.

The Handbook was primarily funded by a California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Senate Bill (SB) 1 Adaptation Planning Grant. Additional funding was provided by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, the California Department of Public Health, and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

Intent and Audience
The purpose of the Handbook is to provide local governments with accurate, reliable, and standardized emission reduction quantification methods for land use, climate action, and long-term planning. It also aims to support and enhance the consideration of climate vulnerabilities, health, and equity during the planning process. The Handbook is intended to support the efforts of local governments to address GHG emissions and vulnerabilities to climate change in their planning efforts and environmental review of new projects, and to achieve more equitable outcomes when addressing these impacts. The Handbook will WHAT’S NEW IN THIS
HANDBOOK?
This Handbook is an updated and
expanded resource from the 2010
Handbook. It provides the following.
▪ Updated data and new measures to
quantify GHG emission reductions.
▪ Method to identify and score future
potential climate hazards.
▪ Measures to quantify reduced
vulnerability to climate change.
▪ Measures to improve health and equity.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity INTRODUCTION | 4
also be useful for project proponents and other parties interested in enhancing resiliency, sustainability, and equitable development.

The guidance provided in the
Handbook specifically addresses
appropriate procedures to apply
quantification methods to achieve
accurate and reliable results. The
Handbook includes background
information on programs and
concepts associated with the
quantification of GHG emissions and
climate change vulnerability. The
Handbook does not provide policy
guidance on any of these issues, nor
does it dictate how a jurisdiction should address questions of policy. Policy considerations are left to individual agencies and their governing boards. The Handbook is intended to create a standardized approach to quantifying GHG reduction and climate change resilience measures so the effectiveness of these measures can be considered and compared on a common basis.

Using the Handbook
The Handbook is organized as follows.
▪ Chapter 1: Introduction – provides an overview of the Handbook and its contents. ▪ Chapter 2: Integrated and Resilient Planning – discusses the changing climate, its impacts on society and public health, federal and state planning efforts to address the problem, and how equity and resilience can be improved. ▪ Chapter 3: Measures to Reduce GHG Emissions – provides details on measures and methods to quantify and reduce GHG emissions, accompanied by measure factsheets. ▪ Chapter 4: Assessing Climate Exposures and Measures to Reduce Vulnerabilities – outlines a method to assess climate change vulnerability and the potential benefits of different climate risk reduction measures at the project level. ▪ Chapter 5: Measures for Advancing Health and Equity – describes measures to improve public health and social equity.
▪ Chapter 6: Resources to Support Resilient and Equitable Emission Reduction Planning – presents additional resources that can help resilient and equitable planning efforts. ▪ Appendix A: Key Terms and Definitions – defines the key terms used in the Handbook. ▪ Appendix B: Federal and State Planning Framework – describes federal and state regulations and policies related to reducing GHG emissions, increasing climate resilience, and improving public health and social equity. ▪ Appendix C: Emission Factors and Data Tables – provides the emission factors and data used to estimate GHG emission reductions.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity INTRODUCTION | 5
▪ Appendix D: Climate Vulnerability Worksheets – contains worksheets planners can use to assess climate vulnerability.
▪ Appendix E: Measure Index – crosswalks the Handbook measures to cross-cutting themes across all chapters (e.g., active transportation).

Because the quantification and analysis methods in the Handbook were developed to meet the highest standards for accuracy and reliability, CAPCOA believes they will be generally accepted for most purposes, though the decision to accept any quantification method rests with the reviewing agency and Handbook user. The methods contained in the Handbook include generalized information about the measures, including considerations and best practices for successful implementation and assumptions that influence the expected measure outcome. These assumptions include emissions factors, energy usage rates, climate exposures for a specific location, and other data from various sources (most commonly from published data from public agencies). The data were carefully reviewed to ensure they represent the best information available. The use of generalized information allows the quantification methods to be applied across a range of circumstances, including variations in location, climate, and population density, among others.

For instances in which high quality,
project-specific data are available,
those data should be used instead of
the more generalized data presented
in the Handbook. The quantification
and analysis methods provided in this
Handbook allow for such
substitutions. Handbook users should
confirm any substituted data meets
quality standards and will not result
in an inappropriate or under- or
overestimation of measure benefits.

CAPCOA will not be able to provide
case-by-case review of adjustments
or project-specific data inputs. More
information on the measures and
analysis data are provided in
Chapter 3, Measures to Reduce GHG
Emissions, Chapter 4, Assessing
Climate Exposures and Measures to
Reduce Vulnerabilities, and Chapter
5, Measures for Advancing Health and Equity.

Equally important to understanding how to effectively use the Handbook is knowing its limitations and potential misuses. This will help safeguard against inappropriate application of the Handbook in certain contexts. The Handbook should not be used to dictate public policy or provide legal advice. While the list of measures presented in the Handbook is comprehensive, it should not be used to exclude or reject other strategies from

APPROPRIATE USES OF

THE HANDBOOK
▪ Explore emissions reduction measures
and identify methods to quantify GHG
reductions for a program or plan.
▪ Learn about co-benefits of reducing
GHG emissions.
▪ Conduct a preliminary assessment of
climate vulnerability for a project or a plan.
▪ Explore ways to make a project or plan
more climate resilient.
▪ Identify ways to include and empower
underserved and marginalized
communities and address their concerns.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity INTRODUCTION | 6
consideration. As discussed above, there are many ways to reduce emissions, reduce climate vulnerabilities, and improve health and equity, some of which may not be captured in this Handbook or may be developed after its publication. Conversely, the Handbook measures and quantitative methods (including available defaults) should not be automatically applied to a project without thoughtful consideration of project-specific circumstances. Finally, the Handbook should not be used to complete an environmental justice analysis pursuant to Executive Order 12898 or the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Handbook may be used as a starting point for these types of analyses, but it does not constitute guidance for compliance with the executive order or NEPA requirements.

References
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. August. Prepared by CAPCOA in association with Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, National Association of Clean Air Agencies, Environ, and Fehr & Peers.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
INTEGRATED AND RESILIENT PLANNING | 7
Integrated and
Resilient Planning
The Changing Climate
The Earth’s climate is dynamic and has shifted over time. However, changes in the global climate have accelerated over the past 50 years due to human activities. Underserved and low-income communities are disproportionately impacted by the effects of climate change, as well as other environmental burdens, including air pollution. Various federal and state regulations have been adopted to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, improve environmental justice and social equity, and help communities plan for and adapt to anticipated changes in our climate. Beyond regulation, developers and decisionmakers can build future equity and resilience through informed and holistic project planning.

California is already seeing the effects of climate change on its natural resources, populations, and infrastructure. Major environmental indicators have shifted; since the start of the twentieth century, peak runoff in the Sacramento River now occurs nearly a month earlier, and glaciers in the Sierra Nevada have lost about 70 percent of their area. The state has experienced major climate events in recent years, including a drought from 2012–2016 that heavily affected the agricultural sector and resulted in statewide water conservation efforts, followed by an extremely wet winter in 2016–2017 that caused significant loss of life and damage to infrastructure. The frequency, size, and devastation of wildfires have also CHAPTER 2
B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity INTEGRATED AND RESILIENT PLANNING | 8
increased: 12 of the 20 largest wildfires (in terms of acres burned) in the state’s recorded history occurred between December 2017 and the writing of this Handbook, including five in 2020 and four in 2021 alone (Cal Fire 2021).

As human activities and natural processes continue to increase GHG emissions across the globe, the impacts of climate change are likely to continue and worsen in the future.

Specifically, the following climate hazards are projected to occur in California over the next century (Bedsworth, et al. 2018).
▪ Increase in annual average maximum daily temperature of up to 5.8°F by 2050 and up to 8.8°F by 2100.
▪ Increase in intensity of atmospheric river events, with northern California experiencing more wet extremes and southern California becoming drier. ▪ Increase in frequency and intensity of drought.
▪ Increase in the amount of precipitation falling as rain (instead of snow) and a corresponding decrease in accumulated snowpack.
▪ Increase in high wildfire risk conditions and projected increase in number of acres burned by wildfire.
▪ Increase in sea level rise along the coast, ranging from about 0.7 to 2.3 feet, by 2050.

These and other climate hazards will negatively impact public health and infrastructure.

Increased temperatures, increased humidity, and a higher frequency of extreme heat events will lead to worsening air quality and increased risk of dehydration, respiratory problems (e.g., asthma), and cardiovascular problems (e.g., heart attacks) among individuals. Cumulative deterioration of public health from heat-related ailments and other climate stressors are projected to increase emergency room visits and hospitalizations (Ziegler, Morelli, and Fawibe 2017). Extreme events like heat waves, flooding, and wildfires can cause loss of life and directly damage buildings and infrastructure. Extreme weather events can shutdown critical services and inhibit individuals from reaching healthcare and other critical supports. Power infrastructure and supply chains can also be disrupted (No Harm Canada n.d.). Climate hazards can also have significant indirect impacts, such as increased water prices during drought conditions and reduced recreational opportunities along coastal communities from sea level rise.

Certain populations will be more vulnerable to climate change and its associated direct and indirect impacts. For example, children, seniors, and persons with underlying medical conditions (e.g., chronic heart disease) may be more susceptible to developing negative health outcomes from exposure to worsening air quality (CARB 2021). As discussed further below, the adverse impacts of climate change are also expected to disproportionately affect communities of color and underserved and low-income communities, which may have fewer resources to respond to changing conditions (Milanes et al. 2018).

To adapt to an uncertain future, California planners will need to anticipate climate change risks and build communities that remain resilient in the face of a changing B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity INTEGRATED AND RESILIENT PLANNING | 9
climate. The resources and guidance presented in the Handbook provide tools to support resilient planning.

Social Environment and Public Health
Exposure to Environmental Burdens
Underserved and low-income
communities have historically suffered
from disproportionately higher rates of
pollution and other environmental hazards
compared to more affluent communities.

Socioeconomic determinants of public
health—like educational attainment,
housing costs, linguistic isolation, poverty,
and unemployment rates—are shaped by
public policy and planning. Past
exclusionary housing and planning
practices segregated and redlined certain
populations. These policies made it more
difficult for communities of color and lowincome and immigrant populations to access critical resources necessary to
support healthy, thriving, and prosperous lives.

Structural and institutional racism continue to persist and shape California communities.

Nearly one-quarter of children under 5 years old in California are currently living in poverty (August et al. 2021). Low-income populations often reside in neighborhoods that score among the lowest for key environmental and social indicators, such as access to clean water (Urban Environment & Social Inclusion Index 2021).The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) designates communities in California as disadvantaged or low-income for the purposes of allocating climate investments. Figure 2-1 shows these communities and highlights the considerable number of locations currently designated as disadvantaged, low-income, or both (CalEPA 2021).

The impacts of disproportionate exposure to environmental burdens are often felt at the individual, household, and community level (Gochfeld and Burger 2011; Katz 2012). For example, studies have found that low-income individuals have higher rates of hospitalization and greater risk of mortality when exposed to air pollution (Cakmak, Dales, and Judek 2006; Finkelstein et al. 2003). Communities with lower levels of education have higher rates of respiratory illnesses, such as childhood asthma, because of greater exposure to air pollution (August et al. 2021). Unemployment and poverty may also force individuals to live in areas with greater levels of environmental degradation (August et al. 2021). These disparities can magnify and exacerbate the spread and impact of disease and environmental disasters, as evidenced most recently by COVID-19:
individuals of color have been hospitalized with COVID-19 at 3 to 4 times the rate of white CalEPA designates disadvantaged
communities as the 25 percent highest
scoring census tracts using results of
CalEnviroScreen. Low-income
communities are census tracts with
median household incomes at or below
80 percent of the statewide median
income or at or below the state income
limit threshold.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity INTEGRATED AND RESILIENT PLANNING | 10
persons and have fatality rates about 2 to 2.5 times greater, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2021).

Figure 2-1. CalEPA Designated Disadvantaged and Low-Income Communities in California1
Improving conditions in communities over-burdened by pollution and other environmental hazards will require targeted and systematic changes in funding and policy priorities. The resources and guidance presented in this Handbook provide tools to support more equitable planning.
1 Senate Bill 535-designated disadvantaged communities represent the 25% highest scoring census tracts in CalEnviroScreen, version 3.0.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity INTEGRATED AND RESILIENT PLANNING | 11
Vulnerability to Climate Change
Underserved communities are expected to be disproportionally affected by the health, economic, and physical consequences of climate change. Individuals in these communities are likely to face a double threat from climate change to their health: they have higher exposure to climate hazards and have higher sensitivity to environmental stressors (August et al. 2021). Factors that contribute to higher exposure include occupation, time spent in risk-prone locations, ability to respond to extreme events, socioeconomic status, and the condition of community infrastructure (Gamble et al. 2016). Communities of color, lowincome communities, outdoor workers, those with limited English language skills, children, the elderly, and people who are unhoused are all groups with higher vulnerability to climate hazards (Ebi et al. 2018; Gamble et al. 2016). These populations already experience higher rates of chronic medical conditions that can be worsened by climate change (Gamble et al. 2016).

Figure 2-2, which has been adapted from Gamble et al. (2016), illustrates the intersection of various social determinants on health and vulnerability to climate change.

Implementing policies and processes to address underlying social factors that exacerbate health outcomes from climate exposures will improve the overall resilience and wellbeing of our communities.

Figure 2-2. Intersections of Social Determinants on Health and Vulnerability Various tools and resources are available to help decisionmakers prioritize people and places for investments based on combined climate and health vulnerability. The California Department of Public Health’s (2020) Climate Change and Health Vulnerability Indicators for California identifies the following three categories of indicators.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity INTEGRATED AND RESILIENT PLANNING | 12
▪ Exposure indicators: heat, air quality, drought, wildfires, and sea level rise ▪ Population sensitivity indicators: children and elderly, poverty, education, race and ethnicity, outdoor workers, vehicle ownership, linguistic isolation, disability, health insurance, and violent crime rate
▪ Adaptive capacity indicators: air conditioning ownership, tree canopy, impervious surfaces, and public transit access.

CCHVIz is an online platform that allows users to visualize the indicator data across California (CDPH n.d.). Indicators are available at the census tract level or the next smallest scale available, such as the county or regional level.

The California Healthy Places Index (HPI) developed by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California (2021) showcases community conditions that predict life expectancy and can be used to compare and explore factors influencing health by census tract across California. The HPI reflects a combination of 25 community characteristics that are weighted and validated against life expectancy. Climate change exposures, social vulnerability, and adaptive capacity indicators are included as separate “decision support” layers that can be overlaid with the HPI map and scores. The indicators are grouped into eight policy action areas (economic, education, transportation, social, neighborhood, housing, clean environment, and healthcare access). Detailed policy guides offer specific solutions for healthier communities.

Federal and State Planning Efforts
Regulations are essential to helping economies and societies prosper. They provide structure and limits for government agencies, businesses, civil society organizations, and citizens. They also help realize public benefits like increased safety, improved health, economic opportunities, and fairness. Regulations often set goals to guide future planning and development efforts and create strategies and mechanisms to achieve those goals.

This section describes important federal and state regulations, policies, and legislation related to GHG emissions reductions, climate change vulnerability and adaptation, and social equity. These various requirements directly influence and inform planning efforts across California and are important to consider when reviewing measures in later chapters. Appendix B, Federal and State Planning Framework, provides greater detail on these efforts and resources for further reading.

The regulatory landscape is constantly shifting as amendments, revocations, and new requirements are adopted. The text in this section was drafted in 2021 and reflects the regulatory landscape as of this date. Readers may need to conduct additional research to ensure they have the latest information. Potential resources that may be consulted to provide updated information include the State’s Adaptation Clearinghouse, the Alliance of Regional Collaboratives for Climate Adaptation legislative tracking site, and the Berkeley Law California Climate Policy Dashboard.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity INTEGRATED AND RESILIENT PLANNING | 13
Federal Regulations and Requirements
There is no comprehensive federal law specific to climate change, societal equity, or the reduction of GHG emissions. However, in 2021, the United States rejoined the Paris Agreement to reduce national GHG emissions and the federal government submitted the United States’ Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), which aims to reduce national GHG emissions by 50 to 52 percent by 2030 from 2005 levels. The NDC, executive orders, and other goals and efforts of the Biden Administration make up a new “wholeof-government” approach to reduce GHG emissions, increase climate resilience, improve equity, and boost economic growth (White House 2021a).

Clean Air Act and Greenhouse Gases
The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) was enacted in 1963 and has been amended numerous times since, most recently in 1990. The CAA established federal national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for six criteria pollutants and specifies future dates for achieving compliance. These standards were set to improve air quality and public health outcomes.

For local areas not meeting those standards, states must submit and implement a State Implementation Plan that demonstrates how the standards will be met (U.S. EPA 2021).

In 2009, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) released
its final Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule
(Reporting Rule). The Reporting Rule is
a response to the 2008 Consolidated
Appropriations Act, which required U.S.

EPA to develop mandatory reporting of
GHGs above appropriate thresholds.

The rule applies to most entities that
emit 25,000 metric tons of carbon
dioxide equivalent or more per year.

Starting in 2010, facility owners were
required to annually report their GHG emissions (U.S. EPA 2016).

U.S. EPA signed the Endangerment Finding and Cause or Contribute Finding for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the CAA in 2009. Under the Endangerment Finding, EPA found that the current and projected concentrations of the six key GHGs— carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), perfluorinated carbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)—in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations (U.S. EPA 2020).

Fuel Efficiency Standards
The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards were first enacted in 1975 to reduce energy consumption by improving the fuel economy of vehicles. The standards set fleet-wide averages that each automaker must meet. By improving the fuel efficiency of B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity INTEGRATED AND RESILIENT PLANNING | 14
vehicles, the standards improve national energy security, save consumers money, and reduce GHG emissions.

In 2011, the U.S. EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a Final Rule for Phase 2 GHG Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-duty Engines and Vehicles. This rule includes three regulatory categories of heavy-duty vehicles—combination tractors, heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, and vocational vehicles—and applies to model years 2014–2018. Phase 2 of these standards were established in 2016 for model years 2019–2027 (U.S. EPA 2020b).

The passenger vehicle standards were updated in 2012 CAFE for model years 2017– 2025 to incorporate stricter fuel economy requirements that required new passenger cars and light trucks to reach 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. The program also included incentives to encourage adoption of new technologies to improve vehicle performance, such as electric vehicles (U.S DOT 2014).

In 2018, the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule was proposed, which would amend prior CAFE and GHG emissions standards and create new standards for model year 2021–2026 vehicles and reduce fuel economy requirements. In September 2019, NHTSA and U.S. EPA established "The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program,” which withdrew California’s ability to create its own fuel economy standards under the CAA. The rule was finalized in 2020.2 The SAFE rule has been legally challenged by California and many other states (NHTSA 2020). On April 22, 2021, NTHSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to repeal the SAFE Vehicles Rule (49 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 531 and 533). The public comment period for this repeal concluded on June 11, 2021.

Environmental Planning
Signed in 1970, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was enacted to minimize the negative environmental impacts of new development. It requires federal agencies to incorporate environmental considerations (including related social and economic effects) into planning and decision-making processes through a systematic interdisciplinary approach (U.S. EPA 2020).

Environmental Justice and Equity
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifically prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin by any program or activity that receives federal funds. All federal agencies help execute the provisions of Title VI. Violators of the act may lose federal funding for projects or programs.

Executive Order 12898, signed in 1994, directs all federal agencies to make achieving environmental justice part of their mission. Agencies are directed to identify and address 2 CARB’s EMFAC2021 accounts for future fuel economy and emissions impacts of the SAFE Vehicles Rule. While prior versions of EMFAC, including EMFAC2014 and EMFAC2017, do not account for the rule, CARB (2019a, 2020) has published off-model adjustment factors that can be used to adjust emissions output from EMFAC2014 and EMFAC2017.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity INTEGRATED AND RESILIENT PLANNING | 15
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of agency programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations.

Pursuant to Executive Order 12898, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations to help agencies carry out the order. The guidance includes six principles for environmental justice analyses and provides guidance for how to assess human health or environmental effects on low-income, minority, and tribal communities (CEQ 1997).

Following this guidance, federal agencies have developed plans and strategies to address environmental justice through agency actions.

In 2021, President Biden signed
Executive Order 13985, which advances
racial equity by addressing issues that
have historically created inequity and
advances civil rights, social justice, and
equal opportunity. It declares that the
government will address historic failures
to invest sufficiently, justly, and equally
in underserved communities, and will
increase investment in underserved
communities by promoting equitable
delivery of government benefits and
opportunities (White House 2021b).

Also signed in 2021, Executive Order
13990 recommits the executive branch to using scientific evidence in decision-making processes to advance public health and environment outcomes. More specifically, it states the administration’s intent to ensure clean air and water, limit pollution and hold polluters responsible, reduce exposure to toxic chemicals, enhance environmental justice, and create well-paying union jobs. It also requires federal agencies to review federal regulations and actions that conflict with these objectives, with input from environmental justice organizations and other stakeholders (White House 2021c).

State Regulations and Rules
California has adopted numerous statewide laws, regulations, and policies to address GHG emissions reductions, climate adaptation, and equity. California has been a trailblazer and standard setter for climate-related regulations and programs. For example, California passed the Pavley 1 rule in 2002, which set the nation’s first GHG standards for automobiles, and the state’s GHG cap-and-trade program was the first multi-sector cap-and-trade program for GHG emissions in North America.

GHG Reduction Goals and Strategies
Executive Order S-3-05, signed in 2005, states that California is vulnerable to the effects of climate change and to help mitigate it, establishes GHG emissions reduction targets for The Soul Consoling Tower was built by Ryozo Kado in 1943 to remember the lives lost at the Manzanar War Relocation Center, where over 11,000 Japanese Americans were
imprisoned during World War II by Executive Order 9066.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity INTEGRATED AND RESILIENT PLANNING | 16
state agencies and requires the CalEPA to report the impacts of global warming on California and progress be made toward reducing GHG emissions through 2050 (Office of Governor 2005).

In 2006, Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, established a cap on statewide GHG emissions and created a regulatory framework to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, which has been achieved. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted a GHG cap-and-trade program in 2011 as a key mechanism to reduce GHG emissions and achieve California’s GHG reduction goal. The cap-and-trade program created a market-based system that set an overall emissions limit (a “cap”) for specific sectors, which is reduced annually. Revenues from the program are appropriated to state agencies to implement programs that reduce GHG emissions (C2ES n.d.). The cap-and-trade program was initially slated to sunset in 2020 but the passage of Senate Bill (SB) 398 in 2017 extended the program through 2030.

Executive Order B-30-15, signed in 2015, established the connection between reducing GHG emissions to limit future climate change and adapting to current and future climate change impacts. It set a statewide interim GHG reduction target to reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (Office of the Governor 2015). SB 32 (passed in 2016) legislatively adopted this 2030 target. CARB adopted the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan in November 2017 to meet the GHG reduction requirement set forth in SB 32.

CARB is currently working on the 2022 Scoping Plan Update that will assess progress toward achieving the 2030 target and outline a path to achieving carbon neutrality by midcentury.

Executive Order B-55-18 set a new state goal to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible (and no later than 2045) and to achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter. It also states that all policies and programs undertaken to achieve the goal should support climate adaptation, resource conservation, biodiversity, and improve public health in urban and rural communities, particularly low-income and underserved communities (Office of Governor 2018).

Complementary to the state’s larger GHG reduction goals, SB 605 (2014) directed CARB, in coordination with other State agencies and local air districts, to develop a comprehensive Short-Lived Climate Pollutants (SLCP) Reduction Strategy. SLCPs include CH4, HFC, and anthropogenic black carbon. These pollutants have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes but much greater influence on the climate, compared to CO2. SB 1383 directed CARB to approve and implement the SLCP Reduction Strategy to achieve specific SLCP reduction targets. CARB adopted the SLCP Reduction Strategy in March 2017 as a framework for achieving the reduction targets set by SB 1383 (BAAQMD 2020).

Clean Energy and Conservation
SB 1078 (2002) and SB 107 (2006), California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) obligates investor-owned utilities (IOUs), energy service providers (ESPs), and Community Choice Aggregations (CCAs) to increase the proportion of energy generated from renewable energy sources. The most recent RPS target was established by SB 100 in 2018, which set a target to source 60 percent of energy from renewables by 2030 and B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity INTEGRATED AND RESILIENT PLANNING | 17
mandated 100 percent of electricity come from carbon-free energy sources by 2045 (California Legislative Information 2018).

The California Green Building
Standards Code (Part 11, Title 24),
known as CALGreen, was adopted in
2007 as part of the California Building
Standards Code. The code includes
voluntary and mandatory standards
related to sustainable site development,
energy efficiency, water conservation,
material conservation, and reducing
internal air contaminants (California
Building Standards Commission 2019).

SB 350, which was signed in 2015,
requires a doubling of energy efficiency (electrical and natural gas) by 2030, including improvements to the efficiency of existing buildings. As of the writing of this Handbook, the 2019 standards are the latest CALGreen standards. The 2022 standards are in development and will take effect on January 1, 2023.

The State has made water conservation a priority. The California Water Action Plan was developed by CNRA in 2016 and sets forth a collection of actions to improve reliable water supply, restore the state’s ecosystems, and build a resilient and sustainable water resource system. The Water Action Plan also emphasizes diversified regional supply portfolios to increase resiliency to droughts, floods, population growth, and climate change (CNRA 2016).

Mandatory recycling requirements to reduce landfilled waste and associated GHG emissions were originally established in 2011 through AB 341. AB 1826 was passed in 2014 and requires businesses that generate two cubic yards per week of solid waste (beginning on January 1, 2020) to arrange for recycling services for organic waste (e.g., food and lawncare waste).

In 2019, CARB and other state agencies jointly released the 2030 Natural and Working Lands Climate Change Implementation Plan. The plan outlines specific conservation, restoration, and management activities that will improve resiliency, maintain a natural carbon sink, and improve environmental quality. The plan sets a 2030 goal to at least double the pace and scale of state-supported land activities by 2030 and beyond, among other goals. The plan estimates that these activities will increase emissions by 12.4-35.9 MMTCO2e by 2030 and reduce emissions by 83.1–84.2 MMTCO2e by 2045 (CARB 2019b).

Vehicle Fuel Efficiency
Pavley I (AB 1493) set the nation’s first GHG standards for automobiles and required CARB to adopt vehicle standards that lower GHG emissions from new light-duty vehicles to the maximum extent feasible beginning in 2009 (CARB 2021a). In 2012, CARB B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity INTEGRATED AND RESILIENT PLANNING | 18
strengthened the Pavley standards through the Advanced Clean Cars regulations, which limit GHG emissions from passenger vehicles for model years 2017–2025 (CARB 2021b).

Executive Order S-01-07 establishes a statewide goal to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020. In 2018, CARB passed amendments to the Low Carbon Fuel Standard that set a target to reduce fuel carbon intensity by 20% by 2030, compared to a 2010 baseline (CARB 2018b).

The Innovative Clean Transit (ICT) regulation requires all public transit agencies to gradually transition to 100 percent zero-emission bus fleets by 2040. Large and small transit agencies must submit their ZEB rollout plans by July 1, 2020 and July 1, 2023, respectively. State funding to transit agencies is contingent upon the agencies’ compliance (CARB 2021d). To further accelerate the transition of zero-emission heavy-duty vehicles, CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Truck Regulation in June 2020. The regulation requires the sale of zero-emission medium-and-heavy-duty vehicles as an increasing percentage of total annual California sales from 2024 to 2035. By 2035, zero-emission truck/chassis sales must be 55 percent of Class 2b–3 truck sales, 75 percent of Class 4–8 straight truck sales, and 40 percent of truck tractor sales. By 2045, every new mediumand-heavy-duty truck sold in California will be zero-emission (ICCT 2020). This effort is currently in litigation.

Climate Adaptation
Executive Order S-13-08 requires the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) to develop a Climate Adaptation Strategy (CAS) in partnership with local, regional, state, and federal entities. It also required the development of a California Sea Level Rise Assessment Report that is reviewed every two years. Among other directives, it directs state agencies planning construction projects to assess the vulnerability to sea level rise and other climate change impacts (Adaptation Clearinghouse 2008). In 2009, California adopted a statewide CAS that summarized climate change impacts and recommended adaptation strategies for seven sectors.

Executive Order B-30-15 requires the CNRA update the state’s CAS every 3 years and orders state agencies to take current and future climate impacts into account in all planning and investment decisions (Office of Governor 2015). In 2018, the CNRA updated the CAS to describe ongoing climate actions and recommend cost-effective and achievable next steps to respond to climate change in 11 sectors (CNRA 2018).

SB 246 establishes an integrated climate adaptation and resiliency plan to coordinate regional and local efforts with state strategies. The program emphasizes climate equity considerations throughout all sectors and regions to help develop holistic strategies for climate adaptation (California Legislative Information 2015). As a result of SB 246, in 2020, a new version of the California Climate Adaptation Planning Guide was developed by the California Emergency Management Agency and CNRA to include new requirements for local adaptation planning.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity INTEGRATED AND RESILIENT PLANNING | 19
SB 379 ensures that climate adaptation is
integrated into local jurisdictions’ general
plan processes. It requires California cities
and counties to integrate climate adaptation
into the safety element of their general plans
by conducting a vulnerability assessment to
identify local climate change risks and then
develop adaptation and resilience goals,
policies, objectives, and implementation
measures based on the assessment (OPR
2017). Furthermore, SB 1035 requires local
planning agencies to review and revise the
safety element of city or county general plans as necessary to address new climate adaptation risks and resiliency strategies. Planning agencies must do this during each revision of the housing element of the general plan or a local hazard mitigation plan, and not less than once every 8 years (California Legislative Information 2018b).

The State Water Resources Control Board has taken a variety of actions to respond to climate change, including the adoption of the Comprehensive Response to Climate Change. It requires the State Water Board to integrate proactive measures to respond to climate change in all its actions. The resolution also outlines specific measures to reduce GHG emissions, improve ecosystem resilience, and respond to climate change impacts (State Water Board 2017).

In response to the increasing frequency and intensity of wildfires across California, the Wildfire Preparedness and Response bill was signed in 2018. It allocates $200 million annually from 2019-2024 to fund grants to fire departments, cities, counties, and nonprofit organizations to help reduce forest fuel loads with thinning and prescribed burns in highrisk areas. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) distributes the funding and provides technical assistance. The bill also requires utilities to create and implement wildfire mitigation plans (Adaptation Clearinghouse 2018).

The California Coastal Commission adopted the Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance in 2015 and an update in 2018. The guidance provides an overview of the sea level rise science and broad recommendations for how to plan for and address sea level rise impacts. The guidance is broadly applicable and is used by the Coastal Commission, local governments, project applicants, and other stakeholders. The Coastal Commission describes the guidance as “a menu of options” that local planners can select from as appropriate, rather than a checklist of requirements (CCC 2019).

Social Equity
SB 1000 requires cities and counties with disadvantaged communities to include an environmental justice element in their general plans to ensure that local governments address environmental justice when planning long-term land use and growth goals and policies. Local governments must identify any disadvantaged communities and develop measures to mitigate and reduce health risks that can be attributed to the environment B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity INTEGRATED AND RESILIENT PLANNING | 20
(Strategic Growth Council 2021). SB 32 (discussed above) also includes an environmental justice component that requires GHG reduction targets to be met in a way that benefits the most disadvantaged communities (California Legislative Information 2016a). The GHG cap-and-trade program (discussed above) requires 35 percent of program revenue to be directed toward environmentally disadvantaged and low-income communities (California Legislative Information 2016a).

AB 2722 was signed in 2016 to help create more sustainable cities, to address climate justice, and to help California meet its GHG emissions reduction goals. To achieve this, the California Strategic Growth Council created the Transformative Climate Communities program, which issues grants to develop and implement transformative climate plans. The funds are used to create and implement cross-cutting community plans that improve air and water quality, reduce emissions, and provide climate, economic, employment, and health benefits to disadvantaged communities (California Legislative Information 2016b).

AB 617 requires the State to develop a statewide annual reporting system for emissions of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants for certain stationary sources. It also requires the State to prepare a monitoring plan for emissions and to prepare a statewide strategy to reduce emissions of toxic air contaminants and criteria pollutants in communities that experience a high cumulative exposure burden, in consultation with environmental justice groups and other stakeholders. (California Legislative Information, 2017). In response, CARB established the Community Air Protection Program (CAPP), which focuses on reducing pollution exposure to communities that are most affected by air pollution. The CAPP provides funds for deploying clean technologies in communities and to retrofit pollution controls on industrial sources (CARB 2021c).

Planning Guidance
The California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) guidelines, first established
in 1970, explain how to determine if an
activity is subject to environmental
review, what steps are involved in the
process, and what documents are
required. With respect to GHG
emissions, the guidelines require
agencies to describe, calculate, or
estimate the amount of GHG emissions
that are expected to result from a
project. They also require a
determination of whether a project would
exacerbate physical climate change effects (OPR 2021). SB 743 required revisions to the CEQA Guidelines (which occurred in 2018 and became effective in 2020) to establish new impact analysis criteria for the assessment of a project’s transportation impacts. The intent behind SB 743 and revising the CEQA Guidelines was to integrate and better Photo Credit: Port of San Francisco, March 2019
B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity INTEGRATED AND RESILIENT PLANNING | 21
balance the needs of congestion management, infill development, active transportation, and GHG emissions reduction (Caltrans 2021).

SB 375 provides a planning process that coordinates land use planning, regional transportation plans, and funding priorities to help California meet its GHG reduction goals. SB 375 requires regional transportation plans developed by metropolitan planning organizations to incorporate a sustainable communities strategy (SCS) in their regional transportation plans (Institute for Local Government 2015). The goal of the SCS is to reduce regional vehicle miles traveled through land use planning and transportation planning.

Building Future Equity and Resilience through
Better Planning
As discussed in Social and Environment and Public Health, underserved and low-income communities and communities of color experience disproportionate environmental and climate change impacts. It is important that resources be targeted to historically overburdened communities when planning for an equitable and climate-resilient future. Equally, decisionmakers must consider potential unintended consequences that may arise from implementation of emission reduction or adaptation measures. Striving for equity may also mean considering non-traditional measures that create socioeconomic co-benefits.

Planners can support more equitable development by engaging directly with local communities. Community-driven processes allow community members and organizations to set adaptation priorities and influence investments, identify inequities in planning, direct resources to the most at-risk areas and groups, and promote democracy and transparency in government (Georgetown Climate Center 2017).

The GHG emission reduction and climate adaptation measure descriptions presented in Chapters 3 and 4 include equity considerations. Chapter 5, Measures for Advancing Health and Equity, presents a non-exhaustive list of measures, examples, and resources to promote future health and equity in project and community planning. Chapter 6, Resources to Support Resilient and Equitable Emission Reduction Planning, provides resources and guidance on incorporating equity into resilient planning.

References
Adaptation Clearinghouse. 2008. California Executive Order S-13-08 Requiring State Adaptation Strategy. Available:
https://www.adaptationclearinghouse.org/resources/california-executive-order-s-13-08- requiring-state-adaptation-strategy.html. Accessed: May 2021.

Adaptation Clearinghouse. 2018. California SB 901—Wildfire Preparedness and Response. Available: https://www.adaptationclearinghouse.org/resources/california-sb901-wildfire-preparedness-and-response.html. Accessed: May 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity INTEGRATED AND RESILIENT PLANNING | 22
August, L., K. Bangla, L. Plummer, S. Prasad, K. Ranjbar, A. Slocombe, and W. Wieland. 2021. Update to the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool:

CalEnviroScreen 4.0. Public Draft. California Environmental Protection Agency and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Available:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/document/calenviroscreen40rep ortd12021.pdf. Accessed: May 2021.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2020. Request for Comments Report Regulation 13, Climate Pollutants: Rule 2, Organic Material Handling Operations.

Available: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/dotgov/files/rules/regulation-13-rule2/documents/20200127_rfc_r1302-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed: May 2021.

Bedsworth, L., D. Cayan, G. Franco, L. Fisher, S. Ziaja. (California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, California Energy Commission, California Public Utilities Commission). 2018. Statewide Summary Report. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. Publication number: SUMCCCA4-2018-013.

Cakmak S., R. E. Dales, and S. Judek. 2006. Respiratory health effects of air pollution gases: modification by education and income. Archives of Environmental and Occupational Health 61(1):5–10.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2015. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Available: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf.

Accessed: June 2021.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2018a. AB 32 Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/ab-32-global-warmingsolutions-act-2006. Accessed: May 2021.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2018b. Amendments to the Low Carbon Fuel Standard Regulation and to the Regulation on Commercialization of Alternative Diesel Fuels.

Available: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/regact/2018/lcfs18/fsorlcfs.pdf. Accessed: May 2021.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2019a. EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Part One. November. Available:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/emfac_off_model_adjustment_factors_final_draft.pdf.

Accessed: September 2021.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2019b. California 2030 Natural and Working Lands Climate Change Implementation Plan. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10/draft-nwl-ip-040419.pdf. Accessed:

May 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity INTEGRATED AND RESILIENT PLANNING | 23
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2020. EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions to Account for the SAFE Vehicles Rule Part One and the Final SAFE Rule. June. Available:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/emfac_off_model_co2_adjustment_factors_06262020- final.pdf. Accessed: September 2021.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2021a. California's Greenhouse Gas Vehicle Emission Standards under Assembly Bill 1493 of 2002 (Pavley). Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/californias-greenhouse-gas-vehicle-emission-standards-underassembly-bill-1493-2002-pavley. Accessed: May 2021.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2021b. Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV III) Program.

Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-carsprogram/lev-program/low-emission-vehicle-lev-iii-program. Accessed: May 2021.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2021c. Community Air Protection Program.

Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/capp/about. Accessed: May 2021.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2021d. Innovative Clean Transit. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/innovative-clean-transit/about. Accessed:

May 2021.

California Building Standards Commission. 2019. 2019 California Green Building Standards Code. Available: https://calgreenenergyservices.com/wp/wpcontent/uploads/2019_california_green_code.pdf. Accessed: May 2021.

California Coastal Commission. 2019. Sea Level Rise: Adopted Policy Guidance.

Available: https://www.coastal.ca.gov/climate/slrguidance.html. Accessed: May 2021.

California Department of Public Health (CPDH). 2020. Climate Change and Health Vulnerability Indicators for California. Available:
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/OHE/Pages/CC-Health-Vulnerability-Indicators.aspx.

Accessed: September 2021.

California Department of Public Health (CPDH). n.d. Welcome to the CCHVIz. Available:
https://skylab.cdph.ca.gov/CCHVIz/. Accessed: September 2021.

California Environmental Protection Agency. 2021. California Climate Investments to Benefit Disadvantaged Communities. Available:
https://calepa.ca.gov/envjustice/ghginvest/. Accessed: May 2021.

Cal Fire. 2021. Top 20 Largest California Wildfires. Available:
https://www.fire.ca.gov/media/4jandlhh/top20_acres.pdf. Accessed: November 2021.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2021. Senate Bill (SB) 743 Implementation. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/transportation-planning/officeof-smart-mobility-climate-change/sbB3 Attach #1 of 3 Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity INTEGRATED AND RESILIENT PLANNING | 24
743#:~:text=SB%20743%20was%20signed%20in,traffic%20congestion%20shall%20not %20be. Accessed: May 2021.

California Department of Water Resources. 2021. SB X7-7. Available:
https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Water-Use-And-Efficiency/SB-X7- 7#:~:text=The%20Water%20Conservation%20Act%20of,that%20DWR%20is%20responsi ble%20for. Accessed: May 2021.

California Legislative Information. 2015. SB-246 Climate change adaptation. Available:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB246.

Accessed: May 2021.

California Legislative Information. 2016a. SB-32 California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: emissions limit. Available:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB32.

Accessed: May 2021.

California Legislative Information. 2016b. SB-1000 Land use: general plans: safety and environmental justice. Available:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1000.

Accessed: May 2021.

California Legislative Information. 2017. AB-617 Nonvehicular air pollution: criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Available:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB617.

Accessed: May 2021.

California Legislative Information. 2018. SB-100 California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program: Emissions of Greenhouse Gases. Available:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB100.

Accessed: May 2021.

California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA). 2016. California Water Action Plan 2016 Update. Available:
https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/docs/california_water_action_plan/Final_Calif ornia_Water_Action_Plan.pdf. Accessed: May 2021.

California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA). 2018. Safeguarding California Plan: 2018 Update. Available:
https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/docs/climate/safeguarding/update2018/safeg uarding-california-plan-2018-update.pdf. Accessed: May 2021.

California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). No Date.

CalEnviroScreen. Available: https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen. Accessed: May 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity INTEGRATED AND RESILIENT PLANNING | 25
Milanes, C., T. Kadir, B. Lock, L. Monserrat, N. Pham, and K. Randles. 2018. Indicators of Climate Change. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and California Environmental Protection Agency. May.

Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES). No Date. California Cap and Trade.

Available: https://www.c2es.org/content/california-cap-and-trade/. Accessed: May 2021.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2021. Risk for COVID-19 Infection, Hospitalization, and Death by Race/Ethnicity. Last revised: March 12. Available:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investigationsdiscovery/hospitalization-death-by-race-ethnicity.html. Accessed: March 2021.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act. Available:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
02/documents/ej_guidance_nepa_ceq1297.pdf. Accessed: May 2021.

Ebi, K. L., A. Bole, A. Crimmins, G. Glass, S. Saha, M. Shimamoto, J. Trtanj, J. WhiteNewsome, J. Balbus, and G. Luber. 2018. Human Health. In Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II [Reidmiller, D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, pp. 539–571. doi: 10.7930/NCA4.2018.CH14.

Finkelstein, M., M. Jerrett, P. DeLuca, N. Finkelstein, D. K. Verma, K. Chapman, and M.

Sears. 2003. Relation between income, air pollution and mortality: a cohort study. Cmaj 169(5):397–402.

Gamble, J. L., J. Balbus, M. Berger, K. Bouye, V. Campbell, K. Chief, K. Conlon, A.

Crimmins, B. Flanagan, C. Gonzales-Maddux, E. Hallisey, S. Hutchins, L. Jantarasami, S.

Khoury, M. Kiefer, J. Klling, K. Lynn., A. Manangan, M. McDonald, R. Morello-Frosch, M.

H. Redsterr, P. Sheffield, K. T. Tart, J. Watson, K. P. Whyte, and A. F. Wolkin. 2016. Ch. 9: Populations of Concern. The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, 247–286. http://dx.doi.org/10.7930/J0Q81B0T. Accessed: May 2021.

Georgetown Climate Center. 2017. Opportunities for Equitable Adaptation in Cities.

Available: https://www.georgetownclimate.org/files/report/GCCOpportunities_for_Equitable_Adaptation-Feb_2017.pdf. Accessed: May 2021.

Gochfeld, M. and J. Burger. 2011. Disproportionate Exposures in Environmental Justice and Other Populations: The Importance of Outliers. American Journal of Public Health. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222496/. Accessed: May 2021.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2017. State of California General Plan Guidelines. Available: https://opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_COMPLETE_7.31.17.pdf. Accessed:

June 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity INTEGRATED AND RESILIENT PLANNING | 26
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2021. SB 743 Frequently Asked Questions. Available: https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/updates/sb-743/faq.html#draft-docs.

Accessed: May 2021.

Institute for Local Government. 2015. The Basics of SB 375. Available: https://www.cailg.org/post/basics-sb-375. Accessed: May 2021.

The International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT). 2020. California’s Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation: Sales Requirements for Zero-Emission Heavy-Duty Trucks.

Available at: https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/CA-HDV-EV-policy-updatejul2020.pdf. Accessed: May 2021.

Katz, Cheryl. 2012. People in Poor Neighborhoods Breath More Hazardous Particles Scientific American. Available: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/people-poorneighborhoods-breate-more-hazardous-particles/. Accessed: May 2021.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). 2020. SAFE: The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient ‘SAFE’ Vehicles Rule. Available: https://www.nhtsa.gov/corporate-average-fueleconomy/safe#:~:text=Aug.&text=The%20Safer%20Affordable%20Fuel%2DEfficient%20(S AFE)%20Vehicles%20Rule%20proposed,model%20years%202021%20through%202026.

Accessed: May 2021.

No Harm Canada. No Date. Health Care Without Harm. Climate change, health, and health care. Available: https://noharmuscanada.org/sites/default/files/Climate.Physician.Network.pdf. Accessed: May 2021.

Office of Governor. 2005. Executive Order S-3-05. Available:
http://static1.squarespace.com/static/549885d4e4b0ba0bff5dc695/t/54d7f1e0e4b0f07 98cee3010/1423438304744/California+Executive+Order+S-3-05+(June+2005).pdf.

Accessed: May 2021.

Office of Governor. 2015. Governor Brown Establishes Most Ambitious Greenhouse Gas Reduction Target in North America. Available:
https://www.ca.gov/archive/gov39/2015/04/29/news18938/index.html. Accessed:

May 2021.

Office of Governor. 2018. Executive Order B-55-18 to Achieve Carbon Neutrality.

Available: https://www.ca.gov/archive/gov39/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/9.10.18- Executive-Order.pdf. Accessed: May 2021.

Public Health Alliance of Southern California. 2021. The California Healthy Places Index.

Last revised: April 22, 2021. Available: https://healthyplacesindex.org/. Accessed:

May 6, 2021.

State Water Resources Control Board. 2017. State Water Resources Control Board Resolution No. 2017-0012. May 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity INTEGRATED AND RESILIENT PLANNING | 27
Strategic Growth Council. 2021 Transformative Climate Communities. Available:
https://sgc.ca.gov/programs/tcc/. Accessed: May 2021.

Urban Environment & Social Inclusion Index. 2021. Key Findings. Main Takeaways for the 2020 Urban Environment and Social Inclusion Index Analysis. Available:
https://datadrivenlab.org/urban/report/key-findings/. Accessed: June 2021.

U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT). 2014. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards. Available:
https://www.transportation.gov/mission/sustainability/corporate-average-fuel-economycafe-standards. Accessed: May 2021.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2016. Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP). Available: https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/10302009-rule.

Accessed: May 2021.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2020a. Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under the Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.

Available: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/endangerment-and-cause-or-contributefindings-greenhouse-gases-under-section-202aclean#:~:text=On%20April%2017%2C%202009%2C%20the,received%20over%20380% 2C000%20public%20comments. Accessed: May 2021.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2020b. Regulations for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Commercial Trucks & Buses. Available: https://www.epa.gov/regulationsemissions-vehicles-and-engines/regulations-greenhouse-gas-emissions-commercial-trucks.

Accessed: May 2021.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2021. Clean Air Act Overview.

Available: https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/clean-air-acttext#:~:text=The%20Clean%20Air%20Act%20is,has%20made%20several%20minor%20c hanges. Accessed: May 2021.

White House. 2021a. Executive Order on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government. Available:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executiveorder-advancing-racial-equity-and-support-for-underserved-communities-through-thefederal-government/. Accessed: May 2021.

White House. 2021b. Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis. Available:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executiveorder-protecting-public-health-and-environment-and-restoring-science-to-tackle-climatecrisis/. Accessed: May 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity INTEGRATED AND RESILIENT PLANNING | 28
White House. 2021c. FACT SHEET: President Biden Sets 2030 Greenhouse Gas Pollution Reduction Target Aimed at Creating Good-Paying Union Jobs and Securing U.S.

Leadership on Clean Energy Technologies. Available:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/22/fact-sheetpresident-biden-sets-2030-greenhouse-gas-pollution-reduction-target-aimed-at-creatinggood-paying-union-jobs-and-securing-u-s-leadership-on-clean-energy-technologies/.

Accessed: May 2021.

Ziegler, C., V. Morelli, and O. Fawibe. 201. Climate change and underserved communities. Primary Care: Clinics in Office Practice 44 (1)171–184. doi:10.1016/j.pop.2016.09.017.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
MEASURES TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS | 29
Measures to Reduce
GHG Emissions
The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) has included a wide range of measures that are frequently used to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and provide other benefits, like improved air quality, energy and fuel savings, and water conservation. This chapter provides methods and data to quantitively evaluate many of the measures.

While there is no one-size-fits-all approach to GHG planning, the guidance presented in this chapter has been developed to broadly apply across project types, land use types, and California regions.

Categorizing Measures
When thinking about minimizing GHG emissions in a community or for a project, it is useful to organize GHG reduction measures into categories. The standard method of categorizing emissions is to group them by economic sector, such as transportation or energy. Consistent with this practice, the emission reduction measures presented in this chapter are categorized into the following nine sectors. Measures in each sector apply to a similar emissions source or process, as described below.

CHAPTER 3
B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity MEASURES TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS | 30
▪ Transportation: Measures that promote
transit and alternative transportation,
support use of alternatively fueled
vehicles, or encourage land use planning
practices that reduce vehicle trips and
vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Measures
within the transportation sector are
separated into six subsectors: Land Use,
Neighborhood Design, Parking or Road
Pricing/Management, Transit, Trip
Reduction Programs, and Clean Vehicles
and Fuels.
▪ Energy: Measures that target energy
efficiency improvements/reduced natural
gas consumption, renewable energy
generation, building electrification, or
methane (CH4) recovery at landfills and
wastewater treatment plants.
▪ Water: Measures that reduce water
demand and/or use a less energyintensive water source. ▪ Lawn and Landscaping: Measures that promote zero-emission landscaping equipment over conventional fossil fuel-powered counterparts.
▪ Solid Waste: Measures that require alternative waste management pathways, such as recycling and composting, to increase landfill waste diversion. ▪ Natural and Working Lands: Measures that enhance the sequestration capacity of natural lands or reduce the intensity of emissions from working lands. ▪ Construction: Measures that promote efficient construction management practices or alternatively fueled construction equipment.
▪ Refrigerants: Measures to reduce or replace high global warming potential (GWP) refrigerants with lower impact compounds.
▪ Miscellaneous: General measures that will reduce GHG emissions through the implementation of novel or off-site projects defined by the user.

The nine emission sectors are illustrated in Figure 3-1. The figure shows all quantified GHG reduction measures included in this chapter. Users may click on an individual measure to navigate directly to the quantification method for that measure. Figure 3-1 does not include non-quantified measures. These measures are presented later in this chapter in Supporting or Non-Quantified GHG Reduction Measures.

EMISSIONS SECTORS
Categorizing emissions by sector is
standard practice for GHG inventories
and reduction plans, but users should
note that there is often variation in the
scope and nomenclature of sectors. For
example, the sectors in this Handbook
do not align exactly with the California
Air Resources Board or U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency
inventories because of differences in
scale and intended use. Users should
take care when comparing sectors in this
Handbook to other inventories or plans.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity MEASURES TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS | 31
Figure 3-1. Navigation Trees for Quantitative GHG Reduction Measures B3 Attach #1 of 3
MEASURES TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS | 32
B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity MEASURES TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS | 33
Selecting Measures
The GHG reduction measures presented in this chapter are diverse. Users are encouraged to carefully review the measure factsheets to determine which measures are most applicable to their project and capable of achieving their GHG reduction goals.

There are several reasons a user might implement measures to reduce GHG emissions.

Some measures may be implemented voluntarily, simply because users are seeking to reduce their GHG footprint. Other users may be obligated under law or statute to mitigate current or future impacts of specific actions or activities. This can include project-level impacts, such as those evaluated under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), or plan-level impacts, such those resulting from the implementation of a general plan or climate action plan.

When considering which measures are applicable from the Handbook, the underlying reasons and context for reducing GHG emissions should be incorporated into the decision-making process. For example, if a user is seeking to achieve substantial GHG reductions to comply with a CEQA requirement, measures that have the greatest potential to reduce emissions may be most applicable. Or, if a city is aiming to implement a climate action plan by engaging the community, measures that inspire community members and are easily accessible and affordable may be the most applicable.

Other factors for determining measure applicability include the project type, scale, and locational context. Some measures are broad and applicable to many types of projects (e.g., Measure E-2, Require Energy Efficient Appliances), while others have a narrower scope of application (e.g., Measure E-19, Establish Methane Recovery in Wastewater Treatment Plants). Additionally, certain measures are suitable for urban environments, while others are best implemented in rural contexts. The measure factsheets presented in GHG Reduction Measure Factsheets and Quantification Methods later in this chapter summarize these and other important considerations for measure selection to support informed decision making.

Consideration of Measure Co-Benefits
Co-benefits, or additional benefits that often are associated with emissions reduction measures, are valuable elements of climate action planning. Citing co-benefits has become increasingly prevalent in justifying funding, planning, and implementing of emission reduction measures. Like the quantification of GHG reductions, only those benefits with literature and methodologies to support their accurate and reliable quantification are presented in this chapter. Where quantification is not achievable, cobenefits are noted qualitatively for each measure.

The co-benefit categories considered in this Handbook include the following and are visually depicted in the measure factsheets by the corresponding icons.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity MEASURES TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS | 34
Improved air quality. Criteria pollutant reductions.

Energy and fuel savings. Electricity, natural gas, refrigerant, propane, gasoline, or diesel reductions.

VMT reductions. Reductions in vehicle miles traveled.

Water conservation. Water use reductions.

Enhanced pedestrian or traffic safety. Reduced collisions; pedestrian/bicyclist safety.

Improved public health. Toxic air contaminant reductions (including exposure); increased physical activity; improved public safety.

Improved ecosystem health. Improved biological diversity and soil and water quality.

Enhanced energy security. Systemwide load reduction; local energy generation, levelling out peaks.

Enhanced food security. Stability of food systems; improved household access to food.

Social equity. Address existing social inequities (e.g., housing/antidisplacement, community engagement, availability of disposable income).

This Handbook assigns co-benefits to measures that are likely to result from measure implementation; however, it should be noted that the achievement of co-benefits is not guaranteed because many co-benefits are dependent on how the measure is implemented.

Determining what co-benefits apply to an individual measure in a specific circumstance is not an exact science, and there is no single methodology that can be uniformly applied for B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity MEASURES TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS | 35
this purpose. When considering co-benefits that may be achieved, it is best to comprehensively think through the implications of implementing that measure. For example, Measure E-12, Install Alternative Type of Water Heater in Place of Gas Storage Tank Heater in Residences, reduces GHG emissions because it eliminates the onsite combustion of natural gas. Because combusting natural gas also results in emissions of other air pollutants that can cause adverse health effects, this measure would also improve air quality and achieve public health benefits. These co-benefits would be achieved by the measure in all project applications. Depending on where and how the measure is implemented, it may also address disparities in social equity and protect a homeowner or renter from rapid changes in fossil fuel prices, especially if solar energy is produced locally or on site. Users are encouraged to use the co-benefit icons identified for each measure as a starting point for this type of thought exercise and expand or revise for their specific project or application.

Note that while all measures achieve at least one co-benefit, some measures may also yield a disbenefit. For example, measures that electrify a fossil-fuel source will lead to improved air quality and fuel savings but increased electricity consumption. Potential disbenefits are discussed, where appropriate, for individual measures.

Quantifying GHG Reductions
The emissions quantification methods in this chapter are designed to provide GHG estimates using readily available data and user-specified information. In general, emission reductions are quantified (1) as a percentage of emissions from a given source or activity, or (2) as absolute emissions reductions from a given source or activity implementation of the measure. Where appropriate, some measures refer readers to external tools to quantify GHG reductions.

Quantification methods that provide a percent reduction rely on the underlying assumption that GHG emissions are proportional to the emissions source. For example, emissions reductions achieved by transportation measures are estimated using the expected percent reduction in vehicle trips or VMT, with an associated adjustment to account for the relationship between VMT reduction and vehicle emissions, as described further in the Transportation section. For these measures, users will need to multiply the reduction percentage by the amount of emissions that would be generated by that source without implementation of the measure to calculate the absolute reductions.2 This Handbook does not include methods for inventorying emissions from specific sources or under various scenarios, such as baseline or existing conditions. There are several tools and models available for inventorying project-level GHG emissions, including CAPCOA’s California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod).

Quantification methods that calculate absolute reductions estimate the amount of emissions that would be released as a result of the source or activity with implementation 2 The reduction percentage is denoted as a positive value when specified in text or in tables as a “reduction,” and is denoted as a negative value when calculated in equations.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity MEASURES TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS | 36
of the measure (e.g., the reduction in water sector GHG emissions achieved from using reclaimed water). GHGs evaluated in this Handbook include carbon dioxide (CO2), CH4, nitrous oxide, and commonly used refrigerants. All GHG reductions are expressed in metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), where individual GHGs that would be reduced by a measure are converted to CO2e by multiplying emissions by their GWP.

GWP represent a ratio of the heat trapping characteristic of a gas compared to CO2, which has a GWP of 1. This Handbook primarily uses GWPs from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) (2007) Fourth Assessment Report, consistent with statewide GHG emissions reporting protocol.3 For commonly used refrigerants, GWPs were obtained from the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report and databases from CARB and the World Meteorological Organization.

Measures presented in this chapter address those reductions over which a user can exercise direct control, as well as indirect emissions associated with electrical generation and the use of natural gas.

Quantification Accuracy and Reliability
IPCC (2006) defines good practices for GHG emissions quantification as those that “contain neither over- nor underestimates so far as can be judged, and in which uncertainties are reduced as far as practicable.” Part of the challenge in developing methods that meet this standard of good practice is assuring the accuracy of the methods.

This Handbook defines accuracy as the closeness of the agreement between the result of a measurement or calculation and the true value, or a generally accepted reference value. When a method is accurate, it will, for a particular case, produce a quantification of emissions that is as close to the actual emissions as can practicably be done with information that is reasonably available.

Quantification methods that meet the standard of good practice must also be reliable, which is different from being accurate. A reliable method will yield accurate results across a range of different cases, not only in one case. In some cases, the accuracy of quantification may be sacrificed to achieve reliability. This is because a method that can be applied across a range of scenarios must be generalized to some extent. For example, methods for transportation sector measures do not, for the most part, differentiate between peak and off-peak vehicle trips, even though off-peak trips will have a lower emission impact because of the effects of congestion on travel time and engine performance. To fully address all the factors that affect the emissions associated with vehicle trips for a specific project, a far more detailed analysis would be needed, and it would not be readily applied to other situations. The methods contained in this Handbook 3 The Handbook uses the IPCC’s (2007) Fourth Assessment Report because CARB currently (as of 2021) calculates CO2e values for the statewide GHG inventory using GWPs from this report. GWPs are regularly reassessed by the IPCC, which published updated GWPs in their Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC 2014). Readers are encouraged to consult the latest IPCC assessment report and CARB statewide inventory guidance available at the time of their analysis to determine if alternative GWPs should be used.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity MEASURES TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS | 37
have been developed to provide the best balance between accuracy and reliability, because accessibility and ease of use is an important consideration.

The quantification methods included in this Handbook will only be accurate to the degree that a project adheres to the assumptions, limitations, and other criteria specified for a given measure. Most of the quantification methods provide default assumptions for user consideration. The default values are based on the most up-to-date regional-, state-, or national-level data and may not be appropriate for all projects. Accordingly, it is recommended that defaults only be used if they adequately reflect analysis conditions, and no local or project-specific information is available. When a range of effectiveness may be quantified for a specific measure depending on defaults, this Handbook often presents those defaults that would yield the lower end of reductions to avoid overstating potential measure benefits. Where defaults are not available for a specific assumption, data must be provided by the user for the calculations to be valid. The quality of the data provided by the user will substantially affect the quality of the results achieved. Data supplied by the user could be a rough estimate, based on a small, onetime sample, or derived through a full project-specific study. Using a rough estimate for any of the data inputs will yield results that are less accurate than if higher quality data inputs are provided.

Users are encouraged to consider the intended use of the quantification, to make sure that the results achieved will be sufficiently rigorous to support the conclusions drawn from them. When quantification is performed for CEQA or other regulatory compliance, it is recommended that project-specific data be as robust as possible. Approximations and unsubstantiated numbers are discouraged. Moreover, it is strongly recommended that the source(s) and/or basis of all project-specific data supplied by the user be clearly identified in the analysis and the limitations of the data be discussed.

Measure Scales
GHG reduction measures can be applied at different scales or geographic levels. Some measures may only be applicable at the project-level, whereas others may be more appropriate within a broader planning context, such as for a general plan or climate action plan. Geographic levels considered in this Handbook include the Project/Site and Plan/Community. Project/Site refers to measures that reduce emissions at the scale of a parcel, employer, or development project. Plan/Community refers to measures that reduce emissions at the scale of a neighborhood (e.g., specific plan, general plan, climate action plan), corridor, or entire municipality (e.g., city- or county-level).

The transportation measures can be quantified at either the Project/Site scale or the Plan/Community scale, but never both. While some of the transportation measures could be implemented at both scales in practice, the quantification methods presented in this Handbook are limited to only the scale for which there is literature to defensibly support emissions quantification. For example, a bike-sharing program could be implemented at the Project/Site scale for employees to use at a business park, and it could be implemented at the Plan/Community scale by a municipality in their downtown district. However, there is limited defensible research on the GHG reductions associated with small scale, site-specific B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity MEASURES TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS | 38
bike-share programs. Therefore, only the Plan/Community scale version of this measure is quantified in this Handbook. The Transportation section notes each instance in which a transportation measure could be implemented at a scale for which this document does not provide a quantification method.

Some non-transportation measures can be quantified at both the Project/Site scale and the Plan/Community scale. For example, a multi-family development at the Project/Site scale may construct homes without wood-burning devices, while a specific plan for new single-family housing at the Plan/Community scale could require that all future homes prohibit wood-burning devices. The quantification method for this measure would be the same, regardless of the scale of application.

Combining Measure Reductions
When quantifying measures, it is important to be mindful of potential interactions among different measures. Often, combining measures can lead to better emission reductions than implementing a single measure by itself. For example, for Measure LL-1, Replace Gas Powered Landscape Equipment with Zero-Emission Landscape Equipment, to succeed, electrical outlets on the exterior of buildings should be accessible so that the electric landscaping equipment can be charged. Measure LL-3, Electric Yard Equipment Compatibility, should, therefore, be considered as a supporting action to equipment electrification. Where appropriate, these synergistic relationships are noted within the individual measure quantification methods. However, the compounding effect of combining these select measures is not quantified in this Handbook.

Unfortunately, the effects of combining some measures are not always beneficial, linear, complementary, or accurate. There are two primary reasons for this. The first reason is that there may be diminishing returns when certain measures are implemented together to reduce a particular source of emissions. For example, there may be six measures to increase ridership on a public transit line, any one of which might increase transit ridership by 20 percent. But implementing all these measures will not necessarily increase ridership by 120 percent. In fact, for each successive measure applied, it is likely that a lesser effect will be observed. The second reason is that there may be competition between measures.

For example, a campaign to increase ridership on a commuter rail line may be implemented while a new public transit bus line is established with overlapping service areas. Although the ridership campaign might be expected to cause 5 percent of drivers to switch to rail, some of those potential new riders might use the new bus service instead, making the ridership campaign less effective. At the same time, the new bus line might also be expected to reduce vehicle trips by 5 percent, but the actual reduction may be lower if some of the ridership comes from rail passengers. Together, the ridership campaign for the rail line and the new bus line may only reduce vehicle trips by 7 percent, and not the 10 percent predicted from summing the estimates of their independent effectiveness.

Where appropriate, guidance for combining measure reductions is provided within the introductions to each sector. Likewise, the quantification methods for each measure identify any applicable calculation maximums.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity MEASURES TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS | 39
Combining Sector Reductions
The following procedures must be followed when combining measures among the nine sectors where the GHG reduction achieved by individual measures is calculated as a percentage of emissions from a given source or activity. Specifically, the relative magnitude of emissions between sectors must be considered. Users should first determine the percent contribution made by each individual sector to the overall project GHG emissions. This percent contribution by a sector should then be multiplied by the reduction percentages from measures in that sector to determine the scaled GHG emission reductions. This should be done for each sector to be combined. The scaled GHG emissions for each sector can then be added together to give a total GHG reduction for the combined measures in all sectors.

For example, consider a project with total GHG emissions that come from the following sectors: transportation (50 percent), building energy use (40 percent), water (6 percent), and solid waste (4 percent). This project implements transportation measures that result in a 10 percent reduction in VMT. The project also implements measures that result in a combined 30 percent reduction in water usage. The overall reduction in GHG emissions is calculated in the below example.
% ReductionTransport = 50% total emissions × 10% sector reduction = 5% total reduction % ReductionWater = 6% total emissions × 30% sector reduction = 1.8% total reduction % ReductionTotal = 5% + 1.8% = 6.8% total reduction
As discussed above, GHG reductions for some measures in this Handbook are expressed in terms of the absolute MT CO2e that would be reduced. Reductions from these measures should be combined following the same approach as shown above.

However, rather than multiplying percentages, users can simply subtract the expected reductions from the sector emissions.

Users may need to combine sector reductions that are a product of measures where reductions are given as both percentages and absolute values. This can be achieved by modifying the above equations to include actual project emissions. The following equations extend the above project example to include a 10 MT CO2e reduction achieved by waste sector measures. Uncontrolled project emissions are assumed to be 2,000 MT CO2e.

Absolute ReductionTransport = 2,000 MT CO2e × 50% total emissions × 10% sector reduction = 100 MT CO2e reduction
Absolute ReductionWater = 2,000 MT CO2e × 6% total emissions × 30% sector reduction = 36 MT CO2e reduction
Absolute ReductionWaste = 10 MT CO2e
Absolute ReductionTotal = 100 MT CO2e + 36 MT CO2e + 10 MT CO2e = 146 MT CO2e B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity MEASURES TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS | 40
Limitations and Uncertainty
There are uncertainties associated with any type of estimation method. It is important to understand the limitations to properly apply the quantification methods presented in this Handbook. The following briefly discusses key limitations for user awareness and consideration.

Combination of Data Sources
Developing quantification methods for some of the measures required the use of multiple sources of data. Any time data are derived from different sources, there may be slight discrepancies in the underlying methodologies and data. When the information between two data sets is combined, the discrepancies may affect the ultimate quantification of emissions, either over- or underestimating them. It is not possible to determine the precise magnitude of error that combining data sets induces in the final quantification; however, every effort has been made to minimize potential errors through thorough review of available data and exclusion of incompatible data sets.

Level of Detail for Underlying Assumptions
Many of the calculations require users to input project-specific data or assumptions.

Certain information about a project may not be known to the user and must be either estimated or assumed based on standard procedures. Likewise, users may rely on the available defaults provided in the Handbook to enable emissions quantification of applicable measures. While defaults provided in this Handbook are based on credible sources for use in emissions quantification, they are often based on historical regional, state, and national-level data and may produce an inaccurate representation of projectspecific conditions or lead to an overestimate or underestimate of associated emissions.

This limitation can be minimized to the extent the user can provide better quality data.

Use of Case Studies
Case studies generally have detailed information on reductions that may be achieved in practice by a measure. While these studies provide valuable insight that can support measure quantification, there may be features or characteristics in the case study that do not translate to a specific project and, therefore, may over- or underestimate the GHG emission reductions. Where case studies were used, they were carefully reviewed to ensure the study methods and data meet the quality requirements of this Handbook.

Prediction of Future Behavior
Some of these methods predict future behavior (e.g., water use and energy consumption) using historical data and trends. Although this is a commonly accepted practice, current behavior is not likely to remain constant over time due to technological improvements and increasing awareness of resource conservation. This limitation can be minimized to the extent the user can provide better quality data.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity MEASURES TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS | 41
Combining Multiple Measures
Projects may involve the application of more than one measure. As discussed above, combining measures can have an additive effect on GHG reductions, or result in diminishing returns. This limitation is minimized through the establishment of sector and measure reduction caps, as described within the individual measure methods, as applicable. However, users should still exercise good judgement when selecting measures to ensure that the resulting quantification is appropriate and accurate.

Exclusion of Lifecycle and Biogenic CO2 Emissions
Except for solid waste measures and certain measures in the refrigerants and transportation sectors, the quantification methods do not include analysis of full lifecycle emissions, which are those that are emitted from the energy and resources used throughout the lifecycle of a product or material. Lifecycle emissions include the extraction of raw resources, physical distribution, use of the product or material, and disposal at the end of a product’s life. It is challenging to quantify these lifecycle emissions because identifying all the inputs that are necessary, especially for a generalized guidance document such as this Handbook, is infeasible. Because of these difficulties, lifecycle considerations are only included in the quantitative methods for those measures that cannot be quantified without a lifecycle analysis. The Transportation, Solid Waste, and Refrigerants sections discuss lifecycle considerations specific to those sectors. For all other measures, the quantification methods do not include analysis of full lifecycle emissions.

Except for Measure E-14, Limit Wood Burning Devices and Natural Gas/Propane Fireplaces in Residential Development, the methods do not address biogenic CO2 emissions. Biogenic CO2 emissions result from materials that are derived from living cells, as opposed to CO2 emissions derived from fossil fuels, limestone, and other materials that have been transformed by geological processes. Biogenic CO2 contains carbon that is present in organic materials, including wood, paper, vegetable oils, animal fat, and waste from food, animals, and vegetation (such as yard or forest waste). Biogenic CO2 emissions are excluded from these GHG emissions quantification methods because they are the result of materials in the biological/physical carbon cycle, rather than the geological or anthropogenic carbon cycle.

Extent Reductions are Achieved in Practice
The reduction methods presented in this Handbook are based on specific underlying data and assumptions for how each measure should be implemented. The quantification methods will yield the most accurate and reliable results when the user adheres to all implementation requirements described in this Handbook. In practice, there is likely to be a wide range of how individual measures are implemented given project-specific considerations, such as cost to implement the measure, physical constraints, availability of technology, and regulatory restrictions.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity MEASURES TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS | 42
GHG Reduction Measure Factsheets and
Quantification Methods
Anatomy of the Factsheets
All quantified GHG reduction measures in this Handbook include a one-page measure factsheet. The factsheet highlights important considerations for each measure. They describe the measure, locational context, scale of application, implementation requirements, cost considerations, and options to expand measure effectiveness. The factsheets also show key measure indicators, such as the GHG reduction potential, cobenefits, and considerations for climate resilience and health and equity. Where available, the GHG reduction potential is provided as the estimated maximum percent reduction in emissions. For those measures where GHG reductions are calculated as absolute emissions, the GHG reduction potential is identified as small, moderate, large, or varies. This qualitative ranking characterizes the estimated quantity of reductions relative to the magnitude of emissions generated by the source. For example, Measure E-15, Require AllElectric Development, has the potential for a large reduction in GHG emissions from building energy use if all end uses are electrified and the local utility provides zero-carbon electricity. It’s important to note that, while this measure could achieve a “large” reduction in building energy emissions, the overall reduction in project emissions could be small if building energy emissions are only a fraction of the project total.

Figure 3-2 illustrates the factsheet layout and annotates key content.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity MEASURES TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS | 43
Figure 3-2. Annotated Outline of the Measure Factsheet
B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity MEASURES TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS | 44
Following each measure’s factsheet is the measure’s quantification method. Accurate and reliable quantification of GHG reduction measures depends on properly identifying and understanding the important variables that affect the emissions from a source or activity.

A consistent framework and presentation are used for all measure quantification methods to provide a clear summary of quantification variables and usable instructions on appropriate application of the method.

The quantification methodology for each measure is comprised of the mathematical formula(s), summary of all variables used in the formula, explanation of any calculation caps or maximums, an example calculation, and information on quantified co-benefits.

The variables in the GHG reduction formula(s) are shown as letters (e.g., A, B) and are defined in the table that immediately follows the equation. The table categorizes variables as outputs, user inputs, or constants, assumptions, and defaults. Bolded variables are required user inputs (i.e., variables for which no defaults are available).

Only those measures with literature to defensibly support emissions quantification are discussed in this Handbook. Examples of credible sources consulted for this Handbook include government agency-sponsored studies, peer-reviewed scientific literature, case studies, government-approved modeling software, and widely adopted protocols.

Additional measures for user consideration are presented in Supporting or NonQuantified GHG Reduction Measures. Methods for quantifying these measures have not yet been developed, are not fully supported by available research, or require specific details that are difficult to address under a methodology with general applicability. Users are encouraged to consider including these non-quantified measures into their projects, as described further below.

The measure factsheets and quantification methods follow Supporting or Non-Quantified GHG Reduction Measures. As discussed above, measures are grouped into nine emission sectors. Information relevant to the general quantification of all measures within a sector is presented at the introduction of each sector. Users may manually scroll through the factsheets in this chapter or use Figure 3-1 (above) to automatically navigate to a specific measure’s factsheet.

Supporting or Non-Quantified GHG Reduction
Measures
As a supplement to the GHG reduction measures shown in the factsheets, there are supporting or non-quantified measures that may be of interest to users. Although not quantitatively evaluated in the Handbook, supporting or non-quantified measures may achieve emissions reductions and co-benefits on their own or may enhance the ability of quantified measures to attain expanded reductions and co-benefits. These measures may, therefore, strengthen implementation of a project mitigation strategy or community plan.

Beyond their potential to expand the efficacy of a reduction plan, supporting or nonquantified measures provide users with more options to develop a comprehensive set of B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity MEASURES TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS | 45
mitigation strategies. For example, this section can be used as a resource for expanded CEQA mitigation to identify additional measures that may be feasible and applicable to a specific project. Local governments developing a climate action plan or update to their general plan may also find this section useful as inspiration for new or more comprehensive policies. Many of the measures will achieve co-benefits (e.g., water conservation), in addition to GHG reductions, and may therefore be impactful throughout several elements of a local general plan (e.g., air quality, conservation, environmental justice).

While benefits of supporting or non-quantified measures may not be quantitively captured (or fully captured), the measures can be implemented using many of the same mechanisms as for quantified measures. When identified in a CEQA document, measures can be incorporated into a project’s mitigation monitoring and reporting program to ensure that they are implemented and enforced. Cities and counties can update their municipal codes to require measures or certain measure components, which would ensure that the measures are implemented through new development or renovations in existing development. Measures can also be included as a set of best management practices that a local government or project sponsor encourages or incentivizes.

Table 3-1 presents the list of supporting or non-quantified GHG reduction measures.

Note that these measures are numbered sequentially to follow the quantified measures within each sector (refer to the measure factsheets at the conclusion of this section). The table defines the measure’s sector, scale of application, locational context, and likely cobenefits. For simplicity, these measure “descriptors” have been abbreviated in Table 3-1 as follows.
▪ Shaded rows identify the sector and subsector (in parentheses, where applicable) for each group of measures. For example, “Transportation (Land Use).” ▪ The scale of application is abbreviated as one of the following:
̶ P/S = Project/Site
̶ P/C = Plan/Community
̶ All = Project/Site and Plan/Community
▪ For transportation measures, abbreviations for
locational context refer to the level of
development at the census tract level. The three
locational contexts identified in the Handbook are
suburban (S), urban (U), and rural (R). Most
transportation measures are applicable to
development within at least one of these three
locational context areas.

The three locational contexts were developed from
the eight neighborhood types described in
Quantifying the Effect of Local Government Actions
on VMT (Salon 2014), as summarized below.
̶ S = suburb with multifamily housing; suburb
with single-family homes

LOCATIONAL CONTEXT
The following neighborhoods are
provided as representative examples
for the three locational context areas.

Suburban — Malibu, Davis, Santee
Urban — Central Berkeley, Downtown
Los Angeles, Downtown San Jose
Rural — Coronado, Mather, most of
Alpine County
B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity MEASURES TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS | 46
̶ U = urban low transit; central city urban; urban high transit ̶ R = rural; rural-in-urban
▪ Remaining columns identify co-benefits that may be achieved by the measure where:
̶ = may be achieved by the measure
̶ = may be achieved by the measure depending on local implementation specifics ̶ = likely not achieved by the measure
Table 3-2 includes a more detailed description of each non-quantified measure, including equity considerations that lead agencies and project sponsors should review to ensure that measure implementation is as equitable as possible. Users should also refer to Chapter 4, Assessing Climate Exposures and Measures to Reduce Vulnerabilities, and Chapter 5, Measures for Advancing Health and Equity, for additional context on adaptation and equity that is also relevant to the supporting or non-quantified measures.

Finally, note that the inclusion of a measure in this section does not preclude it from quantification or indicate that it is impossible to quantify the benefits of the measure. If a user has access to specific data or methods, or if quantification guidance becomes available in the future, then users can quantitatively evaluate measures in those circumstances, if desired.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity MEASURES TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS | 47
Table 3-1. Summary of Supporting or Non-Quantified GHG Reduction Measures and Descriptors # Measure Title
Scale of Application Locational Context
Co-Benefits
Improved Air Quality Energy and Fuel Savings VMT Reductions Water Conservation Enhanced Pedestrian or Traffic Safety Improved Public Health Improved Ecosystem Health Enhanced Energy Security Enhanced Food Security Social Equity Transportation (Land Use)
T-31-A Locate Project in Area with High Destination Accessibility P/S U, S           T-31-B Improve Destination Accessibility in Underserved Areas P/C U, S           T-32 Orient Project Toward Transit, Bicycle, or Pedestrian Facility
P/S U, S, R a,
R b, R c
         
T-33 Locate Project near Bike Path/Bike Lane P/S U, S           Transportation (Neighborhood Design)
T-34 Provide Bike Parking All All          
T-35 Provide Traffic Calming Measures P/C All           T-36 Create Urban Non-Motorized Zones P/C U           T-37 Dedicate Land for Bike Trails P/C All           Transportation (Trip Reduction Programs)
T-38 Provide First and Last Mile TNC Incentives P/C U, S, R b           T-39 Implement Preferential Parking Permit Program P/S U, S           B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity MEASURES TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS | 48
# Measure Title
Scale of Application Locational Context
Co-Benefits
Improved Air Quality Energy and Fuel Savings VMT Reductions Water Conservation Enhanced Pedestrian or Traffic Safety Improved Public Health Improved Ecosystem Health Enhanced Energy Security Enhanced Food Security Social Equity T-40 Implement School Bus Program P/S All           T-41 Implement a School Pool Program P/S All           T-42 Implement Telecommute and/or Alternative Work
Schedule Program
P/S All          
Transportation (Transit)
T-43 Provide Real-Time Transit Information P/C All           T-44 Provide Shuttles (Gas or Electric) P/S U, S           T-45 Provide On-Demand Microtransit All U, S           T-46 Improve Transit Access, Safety, and Comfort P/C U, S, R b, R c
         
T-47 Provide Bike Parking Near Transit P/C U, S           Transportation (Parking or Road Pricing/Management)
T-48 Implement Area or Cordon Pricing P/C U           T-49 Replace Traffic Controls with Roundabout P/C All           T-50 Required Project Contributions to Transportation
Infrastructure Improvement
P/C All          
B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity MEASURES TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS | 49
# Measure Title
Scale of Application Locational Context
Co-Benefits
Improved Air Quality Energy and Fuel Savings VMT Reductions Water Conservation Enhanced Pedestrian or Traffic Safety Improved Public Health Improved Ecosystem Health Enhanced Energy Security Enhanced Food Security Social Equity T-51 Install Park-and-Ride Lots P/C S, R           T-52 Designate Zero Emissions Delivery Zones P/C U           Transportation (Clean Vehicles and Fuels)
T-53 Electrify Loading Docks P/S All           T-54 Install Hydrogen Fueling Infrastructure All —           Energy (Energy Efficiency Improvements)
E-20 Install Whole-House Fans P/S —           E-21 Install Cool Pavements All —          
E-22 Obtain Third-party HVAC Commissioning and
Verification of Energy Savings
P/S —          
Energy (Renewable Energy Generation)
E-23 Use Microgrids and Energy Storage All —           E-24 Provide Battery Storage All —           Energy (Building Decarbonization)
E-25 Install Electric Heat Pumps All —           B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity MEASURES TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS | 50
# Measure Title
Scale of Application Locational Context
Co-Benefits
Improved Air Quality Energy and Fuel Savings VMT Reductions Water Conservation Enhanced Pedestrian or Traffic Safety Improved Public Health Improved Ecosystem Health Enhanced Energy Security Enhanced Food Security Social Equity Lawn and Landscaping
LL-2 Implement Yard Equipment Exchange Program P/S —           LL-3 Electric Yard Equipment Compatibility P/S —           Solid Waste
S-3 Require Edible Food Recovery Program Partnerships with Food Generators
All —          
S-4 Recycle Demolished Construction Material P/S —           S-5 Source Wood Materials from Urban Wood Re-Use
Program
All —          
Natural and Working Lands
N-5 Establish a Local Farmer's Market P/C —           N-6 Establish Community Gardens P/C —           Construction
C-4 Use Local and Sustainable Building Materials All —           B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity MEASURES TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS | 51
# Measure Title
Scale of Application Locational Context
Co-Benefits
Improved Air Quality Energy and Fuel Savings VMT Reductions Water Conservation Enhanced Pedestrian or Traffic Safety Improved Public Health Improved Ecosystem Health Enhanced Energy Security Enhanced Food Security Social Equity Miscellaneous
M-4 Require Environmentally Responsible Purchasing P/S —           M-5 Fund Incentives for Green Technologies P/C —           Sector abbreviations: T = transportation; E = energy; W = water; LL = lawn and landscaping; S = solid waste; N = natural and working lands; C = construction; M = miscellaneous.

Scale of application column abbreviations: P/S = Project/Site; P/C = Plan/Community; All.

Locational context column abbreviations: — = non-applicable; R = rural; S = suburban; U = urban. Where applicable, the Handbook provides three land use distinctions within the R locational context category, where R a = rural only if the project is in master-planned community; R b = rural only if the project is adjacent to commuter a rail station with convenient rail service to a major employment center; R c = rural only if there is available transit and the project is close to jobs/services.

Co-benefits columns symbols:  = may be achieved by the measure;  = may be achieved by the measure depending on local implementation specifics;  = likely not achieved by the measure.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity MEASURES TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS | 52
Table 3-2. Description of Supporting or Non-Quantified GHG Reduction Measures Transportation (Land Use)
T-31-A. Locate Project in Area with High Destination Accessibility The measure requires development in an area with high accessibility to destinations.

Destination accessibility is measured in terms of the number of jobs or other attractions (e.g., schools, supermarkets, and health care services) that are reachable within a given travel time or travel distance, and tends to be highest at central locations and lowest at peripheral ones. When destinations are nearby, the travel time between them is less, thus increasing the potential for people to walk and bike to those destinations and, therefore, reducing the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

As an implementation consideration, projects should consider accessibility by people of all functional abilities and incorporate design principles such as Universal Design.4 See Measure T-31-B for a variation of this measure.

T-31-B. Improve Destination Accessibility in Underserved Areas This measure accounts for the VMT reduction that would be achieved by constructing job centers or other attractions (e.g., schools, supermarkets, and health care services) for residents in underserved areas (e.g., food deserts). When destinations are nearby, the travel time between them is less, thus increasing the potential for people to walk and bike to those destinations, reducing VMT and associated GHG emissions. As an implementation consideration, projects should consider accessibility by people of all functional abilities and incorporate design principles such as Universal Design. See Measure T-31-A for a variation of this measure.

T-32. Orient Project Toward Transit, Bicycle, or Pedestrian Facility This measure requires projects to minimize setback distance between the project and planned or existing transit, bicycle, or pedestrian corridors. A project that is designed around an existing or planned transit, bicycle, or pedestrian corridor encourages sustainable mode use. As an implementation consideration, projects should consider accessibility by people of all functional abilities and incorporate design principles such as Universal Design.

T-33. Locate Project near Bike Path/Bike Lane
This measure requires projects to be located within 0.5-mile bicycling distance to an existing Class I or IV path or Class II bike lane. A project that is designed around an existing or planned bicycle facility encourages sustainable mode use. The project design should include a comparable network that connects the project uses to the existing off-site facilities that connect to work/retail destinations. As an implementation consideration, projects should provide sufficient and convenient bicycle parking and long-term storage, ideally near the bike lane itself, for residents, employees, and visitors, and a bicycle repair station with tools and equipment. This measure can be implemented with Measure T-9.

Transportation (Neighborhood Design)
T-34. Provide Bike Parking
This measure requires projects provide short-term and long-term bicycle parking facilities to meet peak season maximum demand. Parking can be provided in designated areas or added within rights-of-way, including by replacing parking spaces with bike parking corrals.

Ensure that bike parking can be accessed by all, not just project employees or residents. 4 Universal Design is a concept that is comprised of seven principles that seek to make buildings and infrastructure accessible to all people. Accessibility is achieved by considering and implementing each principle during the design process.

A project designed by Universal Design standards would ensure that adjacent transit facilities are accessible to people with diverse abilities, preferences, and language skills.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity MEASURES TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS | 53
T-35. Provide Traffic Calming Measures
This measure requires projects to include pedestrian/bicycle safety and traffic calming measures above jurisdictional requirements. Roadways should also be designed to reduce motor vehicle speeds and encourage pedestrian and bicycle trips with traffic calming features. Traffic calming features may include marked crosswalks, count-down signal timers, curb extensions, speed tables, raised crosswalks, raised intersections, median islands, tight corner radii, roundabouts or mini-circles, on-street parking, planter strips with street trees, chicanes/chokers, and others.

Providing traffic calming measures encourages people to walk or bike instead of using a vehicle. This mode shift will result in a decrease in vehicle miles traveled. In 2017, 3,904 people were killed and 277,160 injured by vehicle collisions in California; traffic calming can reduce injuries and death, which improves health (State of California et al., 2018). Traffic calming also promotes active transportation, which improves physical health.

T-36. Create Urban Non-Motorized Zones
The measure requires projects to convert a percentage of its roadway miles to transit malls, linear parks, or other non-motorized zones. These features encourage non-motorized travel and thus a reduction in vehicle miles traveled. This measure is only applicable to projects located in urban environments. Consider access issues for paratransit users and those with mobility impairments.

T-37. Dedicate Land for Bike Trails
This measure requires projects to provide for, contribute to, or dedicate land for the provision of off-site bicycle trails linking the project to designated bicycle commuting routes in accordance with an adopted citywide or countywide bikeway plan. Existing desire paths can make good locations, as it represents a community-identified transportation need.

Transportation (Trip Reduction Programs)
T-38. Provide First and Last Mile TNC Incentives
This measure requires a first-last mile partnership between a municipality/transit agency and a transportation network company (TNC) for subsidized, shared TNC rides to or from the local transit station within a specific geographic area. This measure encourages a shift to transit mode for longer trips. Consider providing inclusive mechanisms so people without bank accounts, credit cards, or smart phones can access the incentives.

T-39. Implement Preferential Parking Permit Program
This measure requires projects provide preferential parking in terms of free or reduced parking fees, priority parking, or reserved parking in convenient locations (such as near public transportation or building entrances) for commuters who carpool, vanpool, ride-share or use sustainably fueled vehicles. Projects should also provide wide parking spaces to accommodate vanpool vehicles. Commercial preferential parking can accommodate workers who work non-standard hours by providing opportunities to participate. Residential preferential parking can consider an equitable distribution of permits, giving priority to owners of sustainably fueled vehicles.

T-40. Implement School Bus Program
This measure will provide school bus service transporting students to a school project. A school bus service can reduce the number of private vehicle trips to drop-off or pick-up students, thereby reducing VMT and associated GHG emissions, as well as onsite air pollution emissions, especially if the bus is zero emissions. Best practices include concentrating service for students who live further away from schools, providing service both before and after school, and encouraging parents to utilize the service. This measure is more effective at schools that draw students from a larger enrollment area, such as high schools or private schools.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity MEASURES TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS | 54
T-41. Implement a School Pool Program
This measure requires projects create a ridesharing program for school children. Most school districts provide bussing services to public schools only. School pool helps match parents to transport students to private schools, or to schools where students cannot walk or bike but do not meet the requirements for bussing. A school pool program can help reduce onsite air pollutant emissions at the school by reducing private vehicle trips, especially if the pool vehicle is zero emissions.

T-42. Implement Telecommute and/or Alternative Work Schedule Program This measure requires projects to permit employee telecommuting and/or alternative work schedules and monitor employee involvement to ensure forecasted participation matches observed participation. While this measure certainly reduces commute-related VMT, recent research has shown that total VMT from telecommuters can exceed VMT from nontelecommuters (Goulias et al. 2020). In addition, telecommuting affects commercial and residential electricity use, complicating the calculation of the net effect and attribution of emissions. More specifically, an office with fewer employees could result in a decrease in the project’s energy used to operate equipment and provide space heating and air conditioning.

Conversely, an increase in telecommuters using their private homes as workspaces could result in a residential increase in energy for those same end uses and appliances. While this measure is currently not quantified and, according to some studies, could result in total VMT increases and other disbenefits, it is recommended that users review the most recent literature at the time of their project initiation to see if new findings more conclusively support a quantifiable emissions reduction.

Transportation (Transit)
T-43. Provide Real-Time Transit Information
This measure requires projects provide real-time bus/train/ferry arrival time, travel time, alternative routings, or other transit information via electronic message signs, dedicated monitor or interactive electronic displays, websites, or mobile apps. This makes transit service more convenient and may result in a mode shift from auto to transit, which reduces VMT.

T-44. Provide Shuttles (Gas or Electric)
This measure will provide local shuttle service through coordination with the local transit operator or private contractor. The shuttles will provide service to and from commercial centers to nearby transit centers to help with first and last mile connectivity, thereby incentivizing a shift from private vehicles to transit, reducing associated GHG emissions.

Electric shuttle vehicles provide a marginally more effective reduction to GHG emissions compared to gas- or diesel-fueled shuttles due to their use of less emissions-intensive electric power. Shuttles that serve only the project residents and/or employees may be seen as increasing gentrification and exclusionary. Consider allowing all people to use the shuttle, regardless of status. Note that this measure can also be implemented at the Project/Site scale by a large employer as part of a Trip Reduction Program.

T-45. Provide On-Demand Microtransit
This measure will provide small-scale, on-demand public transit services that can offer fixed routes and schedules or flexible routes and on-demand scheduling (e.g., Metro Micro) through coordination with the local transit operator or private contractor. Microtransit aims to offer shorter wait times and improved reliability compared to the bus and rail system to further incentivize alternative transportation modes that are less emissions-intensive than private vehicle trips. On-demand rides can be booked using smartphone applications or call centers. Note that this measure may also be applicable at the Project/Site scale for a large employer (e.g., Google’s Via2G pilot) as part of a Trip Reduction Program.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity MEASURES TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS | 55
T-46. Improve Transit Access, Safety, and Comfort
This measure requires projects improve transit access and safety through sidewalk/crosswalk safety enhancements, bus shelter improvements, improved lighting, and other features.

Work with the community to determine barriers to use, most desired improvements, and other access challenges.

T-47. Provide Bike Parking Near Transit
This measure requires the project to provide short-term and long-term bicycle parking near rail stations, transit stops, and freeway access points where there are commuter or rapid bus lines. Include locations for shared micromobility devices as well as higher-security parking for personal bicycles.

Transportation (Parking or Road Pricing/Management)
T-48. Implement Area or Cordon Pricing
This measure requires projects implement a cordon pricing scheme. The pricing scheme will set a cordon (boundary) around a specified area to charge a toll to enter the area by vehicle. The cordon location is usually the boundary of a central business district or urban center but could also apply to substantial development projects with limited points of access.

The toll price can be based on a fixed schedule or be dynamic, responding to real-time congestion levels. It is critical to have an existing, high quality transit infrastructure for the implementation of this strategy to reach a significant level of effectiveness. The pricing signals will only cause mode shifts if alternative modes of travel are available and reliable.

This measure should provide an exception for low-income residents or workers within the pricing zone.

T-49. Replace Traffic Controls with Roundabout
This measure requires projects install a roundabout as a traffic control device to smooth traffic flow, reduce idling, eliminate bottlenecks, and manage speed. In some cases, roundabouts can improve traffic flow and reduce emissions. The emission reduction depends heavily on what the roundabout is compared to (e.g., uncontrolled intersection, stop sign, traffic signal). Design roundabout so cyclists have the option to join traffic or bypass the roundabout with an adjacent path.

T-50. Required Project Contributions to Transportation Infrastructure Improvement This measure requires projects contribute to traffic-flow improvements or other multi-modal infrastructure projects that reduce emissions and are not considered as substantially growth inducing. The local transportation agency should be consulted for specific needs. Larger projects may be required to contribute a proportionate share to the development and/or continuation of a regional transit system. Contributions may consist of dedicated right-ofway, capital improvements, or easements. Ensure the jurisdictional fee system does not disadvantage infill projects over greenfield projects.

T-51. Install Park-and-Ride Lots
This measure requires projects install park-and-ride lots near transit stops and high occupancy vehicle lanes. Park-and-ride lots also facilitate car- and vanpooling. Parking lots can also incorporate cool pavements, tree canopy, or solar photovoltaic shade canopies to reduce the urban heat island effect as well as evaporative emissions from parked vehicles and dedicated electric vehicle parking spots and/or charging infrastructure.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity MEASURES TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS | 56
T-52. Designate Zero Emissions Delivery Zones
This measure requires the municipality to designate certain curbside locations as commercial loading zones exclusively available for zero-emission commercial delivery vehicles. Doing so replaces tailpipe diesel emissions from last-mile delivery vehicles as well as heavy duty drayage trucks moving goods with less emissions-intensive electric vehicles and potentially micromobility for food and parcel delivery. Locations should be prioritized based on land use density and existing exposure from air pollution.

Transportation (Clean Vehicles and Fuels)
T-53. Electrify Loading Docks
This measure will require that Transport Refrigeration Units and auxiliary power units (APUs) be plugged into the electric grid at the loading dock instead of running on diesel. The indirect GHG emission from electricity generation can partially offset the emissions reduction from fuel reductions. Electrifying loading docks can reduce exposure to air pollutants for workers and drivers.

T-54. Install Hydrogen Fueling Infrastructure
The measure requires projects to implement accessible hydrogen fuel cell fueling infrastructure. Drivers of fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV), from individual passenger vehicles to haul truck fleets, will be able to refuel using this infrastructure. The expansion of hydrogen fueling locations indirectly supports the uptake of FCEV in place of the typical internal combustion engine vehicle fueled by carbon-emitting gasoline and diesel.

Energy (Energy Efficiency)
E-20. Install Whole-House Fans
This measure requires installation of whole-house fans. Whole-house fans draw cooler outdoor air through open windows, exhaust the warmer air into the attic, and then expel the air outside through attic vents. Whole-house cooling using a whole house fan can substitute for an air conditioner most of the year in most climates, resulting in a reduction in emissions associated with building energy use. Whole-house fans may be inappropriate in locations near sources that generate air pollutants during the evening hours, such as major roads and freeways.

E-21. Install Cool Pavements
This measure will install cool pavements in place of dark pavements. Cool pavements help to lower ambient outdoor air temperatures when compared to dark-colored, heat-absorbent pavements such as asphalt. This reduces the electricity needed to provide cooling, but in some climates, can also increase the energy emissions to provide heating, thereby reducing associated GHG emissions depending on the project parameters (e.g., climate, carbon intensity of local utility). Prioritize cool pavement installation in neighborhoods with high urban heat island effects, large amounts of paved areas, low tree canopy, or high vulnerability due to age, employment, income, linguistic isolation, and other indicators.

E-22. Obtain Third-party HVAC Commissioning and Verification of Energy Savings This measure requires third-party review of heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems to ensure proper installation and construction of energy reduction features. A user can obtain HVAC commissioning and third-party verification of energy savings in thermal efficiency components including HVAC systems, insulation, windows, and water heating.

Note that the 2019 Title 24 Standards requires Home Energy Rating System (HERS) verification for all new low-rise residential building (3 stories or less). Taller residential buildings and non-residential buildings may or may or not require a HERS verification depending on other buildings elements.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity MEASURES TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS | 57
Energy (Renewable Energy Generation)
E-23. Use Microgrids and Energy Storage
This measure requires management of a microgrid. Microgrids offer the opportunity to deploy more zero-emission electricity sources, thereby reducing GHG emissions. The microgrid manager (e.g., local energy management system) can balance generation from non-controllable renewable power sources, such as solar, with distributed, controllable generation, such as natural gas-fueled combustion turbines. They can also use energy storage and the batteries in electric vehicles to balance energy distribution and usage within the microgrid. Reliable electricity is vital for public health, especially vulnerable populations and people dependent on medical equipment.

E-24. Provide Battery Storage
This measure requires strategically deployed battery storage. Energy storage has no direct emissions effect. When deployed strategically, energy storage can make the grid more flexible, unlocking renewable energy and reducing GHG emissions. When deployed non-strategically, owners of energy storage assets are more likely to charge their facilities during off-peak periods when power prices are lower, in order to supply power during more expensive peak hours. Off-peak generation times such as nighttime hours are more likely to be dominated by conventional power sources, which, with the exception of nuclear and hydropower, are likely to be more emissions-intensive (Bistline and Young 2020). In California, the value of energy storage stems primarily from its ability to reduce renewable curtailment, thereby displacing fossil-fueled generation (Arbabzadeh et al. 2019). While this measure is currently not quantified and, according to some studies, could result in regional GHG and criteria pollutant emissions increases, it is recommended that users (1) review the most recent literature at the time of their project initiation and (2) evaluate any changes in policy or market for renewable energy to see if new findings more conclusively support a quantifiable emissions reduction.

Energy (Building Decarbonization)
E-25. Install Electric Heat Pumps
This measure requires installation of electric heat pumps as alternatives to conventional furnaces or air conditioners. Electric heat pumps use electricity to transfer heat between cool and warm spaces to either provide cooling or heating. When cooling is needed during the summer months, the pumps move warmer inside air to outside. The pumps operate in reverse during the winter, moving warmer outdoor air into the building to provide heat.

Because heat pumps move warm air instead of generating heat, they are more efficient than conventional heating and cooling systems. When electric heat pumps replace fossil-fuel heating or cooling sources, they achieve a dual efficiency and decarbonization benefit. The most common types of heat pumps collect heat from the air (are air-to-air), water (water-toair), or ground (geothermal-to-air). The performance and emissions reductions achieved by electric heat pumps depend heavily on the system type, cooling and heating loads, climate zone, season, and other project-specific variables.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity MEASURES TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS | 58
Lawn and Landscaping
LL-2. Implement Yard Equipment Exchange Program
This measure requires the project to participate in an established yard equipment exchange program, supplement an established program, or implement a new program. When conventional gasoline-powered yard equipment (e.g., lawn mowers, leaf blowers and vacuums, shredders, trimmers, and chain saw) are exchanged for electric and rechargeable battery-powered yard equipment, direct GHG emissions from fossil-fuel combustion are displaced by indirect GHG emissions associated with the generation of electricity used to power the equipment. Commercial users of yard equipment should be targeted for this measure given their comparatively low adoption rate of electric yard equipment relative to residential users. If the specific equipment being replaced through the program is known, reductions may be quantified using the method described under Measure LL-1.

LL-3. Electric Yard Equipment Compatibility
This measure requires projects provide electrical outlets on the exterior of buildings as necessary for sufficient powering of electric lawnmowers and other landscaping equipment.

For Measures LL-1 and LL-2 to be successfully implemented, electrical outlets on the exterior of buildings must be accessible so that the electric landscaping equipment can be charged.

Solid Waste
S-3. Require Edible Food Recovery Program Partnerships with Food Generators This measure requires food service, wholesale, and retail sources of edible food partner with food recovery programs. Food recovery programs collect edible foods from commercial production and distribution channels that would otherwise be transported to a landfill and redistribute them for consumption. This measure would avoid emissions from the decomposition of non-diverted organic material in landfills.

S-4. Recycle Demolished Construction Material
This measure requires recycling of construction waste. Recycling demolished construction material reduces GHGs by displacing new construction materials, thereby reducing the need for new raw material acquisition and manufacturing. If the process of recycling construction materials is less carbon-intensive than the processes required to harvest and produce new construction materials, recycling results in a net reduction in GHG emissions. Using local recycled construction material would also reduce emissions associated with the transportation of new construction materials, which are typically manufactured farther away from a project site. Finally, recycling avoids sending materials to landfills. Wood-based materials decompose in landfills and contribute to methane (CH4) emissions. Ensure onsite processing does not create nuisance issues for nearby residents.

S-5. Source Wood Materials from Urban Wood Re-Use Program This measure requires projects to source wood materials from urban wood re-use programs.

In areas where removed trees are sent to landfills, they decompose and contribute to CH4 emissions. Wood re-use programs extend a tree’s lifetime by converting it into a range of products and prolonging the sequestration benefit. Re-uses range from logs, lumber, woodchips, mulch, compost, biochar, animal fuel, paper products, engineered wood, furniture, and cellulosic ethanol.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity MEASURES TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS | 59
Natural and Working Lands
N-5. Establish a Local Farmer's Market
This measure would establish a local farmer’s market to provide project residents with a more local source of food, potentially reducing the number of trips and VMT by both consumers and food distribution to grocery stores and supermarkets. If the food sold at the local farmer’s market is produced organically, it can also contribute to GHG reductions by displacing carbon-intensive food production practices. Work with local non-profits or foundations to provide Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) acceptance at the market, which facilitates access for lower-income populations. The USDA offers resource and guidance for farmer’s markets accepting EBT, while some foundations offer multiplier programs, in which $1 of EBT funds becomes a greater value if spent at a farmer’s market.

N-6. Establish Community Gardens
This measure would establish a community garden to provide project residents with locally sourced food, potentially reducing the number of trips and VMT by both consumers and food distribution to grocery stores and supermarkets. Community gardens can also contribute to GHG reductions by displacing carbon-intensive food production practices.

Work with community residents and community-based organizations to make sure the gardens are designed inclusively and are open to all residents.

Construction
C-4. Use Local and Sustainable Building Materials
This measure requires using building materials that are locally sourced and processed (i.e., close to the project site, as opposed to in another state or country). This reduces VMT and therefore GHG emissions from fuel combustion. Using sustainable building materials, such as recycled concrete or sustainably harvested wood, also reduces GHG emissions due to the less carbon-intensive production process. Unlike measures that reduce GHG emissions during the operational lifetime of a project, using local and sustainable building materials mitigates emissions prior to the actual operational lifetime of a project.

Miscellaneous
M-4. Require Environmentally Responsible Purchasing
This measure requires projects to implement an environmentally responsible purchasing plan. Examples of environmentally responsible purchases include but are not limited to:
purchasing products made from recycled materials or with sustainable packaging; purchasing post-consumer recycled paper, paper towels, and stationery; purchasing and stocking communal kitchens with reusable dishes and utensils; choosing sustainable cleaning supplies; purchasing products from restaurants, farms, or ranches that source materials or goods from locations that use soil conservation practices; and leasing equipment from manufacturers who will recycle the components at their end of life.

Choosing locally made and distributed products reduces the distance required to transport the products from the distribution or manufacturing center to the project, thus reducing GHG emissions associated with transportation.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity MEASURES TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS | 60
M-5. Fund Incentives for Green Technologies
This measure would fund incentives for green technologies. Examples of green technologies include energy-efficient and zero-emission vehicle fleets and off-road equipment, building electrification upgrades, low-flow fixtures in buildings, or energy-efficient stationary sources.

The user may choose to contribute to an existing municipal energy fund or establish a new energy fund for the project. Recipients of energy fund grants could include neighborhood developers, home and commercial space builders, homeowners, and utilities. Energy funds allow recipients flexibility in choosing efficiency strategies while still achieving the desired effects of reduced energy use and associated GHG emissions. If coupled with local apprenticeship and job training, this measure can help provide workforce development in green jobs for the local community.

References
Arbabzadeh, M., R. Sioshansi, J. Johnson, and G. Keoleian. 2019. The role of energy storage in deep decarbonization of electricity production. Nature Communications 10(1):1–11. Available: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-11161-5.pdf.

Accessed: October 2021.

Bistline, J., and D. Young. 2020. Emissions impacts of future battery storage deployment on regional power systems. Applied Energy 264:114678. Available:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306261920301902.

Accessed: October 2021.

Goulias, K., R. Su, and E. McBride. 2020. Revisiting the Impact of Teleworking on Activity-Travel Behavior Using Recent Data and Sequence-Based Analytical Techniques.

Pacific Southwest Region University Transportation Center. December. Available:
https://metrans.org/assets/research/psr-19-15_goulias_final-report.pdf. Accessed:

October 2021.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Eggleston H. S., L. Buendia, K. Miwa, T. Ngara and K. Tanabe. (eds).

Published: IGES, Japan.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M.

Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)].

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp. Available: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/. Accessed: January 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity MEASURES TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS | 61
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T. F., D. Qin, G.-K.

Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P. M.

Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Available:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf.

Accessed: September 2021.

Salon, D. 2014. Quantifying the Effect of Local Government Actions on VMT. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis. Prepared for the California Air Resources Board and the California Environmental Protection Agency. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/research/apr/past/09-343.pdf.

Accessed: August 2021.

State of California, California State Transportation Agency, Department of California Highway Patrol. 2018. 2017 Annual Report of Fatal and Injury Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes. Available:
https://www.chp.ca.gov/InformationManagementDivisionSite/Documents/2017%20AN NUAL%20REPORT%20CALIFORNIA.pdf. Accessed: November 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 62
Transportation
Fossil-fuel powered vehicles are the primary
source of GHG emissions within the
transportation sector. On-road vehicles
traditionally use gasoline and diesel fuel and
release emissions based on the amount of fuel
combusted and the emission factor of the engine.

Cleaner-fueled and electric powered vehicles can
also generate GHG emissions, but often at far
lower intensities.

Transportation emissions can be reduced by
improving the emissions profile of the vehicle fleet
or by reducing VMT. Most of the measures quantified in this Handbook aim to reduce VMT and encourage mode shifts from single-occupancy vehicles to shared (e.g., transit) or active modes of transportation (e.g., bicycle). This can be accomplished by coordinating trip reduction or incentive programs; optimizing the land use of the project study area; enhancing road, bike and pedestrian networks; implementing parking policies; or improving transit systems.

Most of the emission reductions are determined by
evaluating the elasticity of a measure relative to the
amount of VMT that may be reduced by the measure.

A few transportation measures are aimed at
improving the emissions profile of the vehicle fleet.

These measures promote alternative fuels and vehicle
types. The emission reductions from these measures
are based on the improved emission factors and on
changes to the assumed vehicle fleet mix.

This section provides guidance for combining
emission reductions from transportation measures
and adjusting VMT reductions to expected GHG savings. The measure factsheets and quantification methods for individual measures follow. Use the graphic on the following page to click on an individual measure to navigate directly to the measure’s factsheet.

Selecting and Combining Transportation Measures
Depending on how VMT has been quantified for a project or program, users should exercise caution when selecting transportation measures to avoid double counting VMT benefits that may already be accounted for in the model used to produce the unmitigated or baseline VMT estimate.

For example, regional travel demand models are generally sensitive to built environment and transit service variables (e.g., density, proximity to transit). VMT estimates developed for a project or program that use such models may, therefore, already account for VMT reductions associated with certain measures in this Handbook (e.g., T-1, Increase Residential Density).

WHAT’S ELASTICITY?
Elasticity refers to how much one
variable changes, relative to a change
in another variable. For example, the
elasticity of a VMT reduction measure
would measure how much VMT is
reduced in proportion to the increase
in bicycle lanes.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 63
Interactions between transportation measures are complex and sometimes counterintuitive, whereby combining measures can have a substantive impact on reported emission reductions. To safeguard the accuracy and reliability of the methods, while maintaining their ease of use, the following rules should be followed when combining reductions achieved by transportation measures.

Combining Measures Across Scales
The first level of organization for the transportation measures is the scale of application. There are 16 quantified measures at the Project/Site scale that can be combined with each other and 17 quantified measures at the Plan/Community scale that can be combined with each other.4 The GHG reductions of transportation measures from different scales of application should never be combined. While it may be possible that a user’s project involves measures that affect vehicle trips or VMT at both scales, it is likely that combining the percent reduction from measures of different scales would not be valid. This rule does not apply to non-transportation measures that calculate the emissions reduction in terms of absolute emissions. 4 There is one additional quantified transportation measure: Measure T-30, Use Cleaner-Fuel Vehicles. All below discussion related to combining measures and determining maximums does not apply to this measure, which is part of the Clean Vehicles and Fuels subsector.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 64
Combining Measures within a Subsector
The second level of organization for the transportations measures is the subsector. Transportation measures are separated into six subsectors: Land Use, Neighborhood Design, Trip Reduction Programs, Parking Management, Transit, Parking or Road Pricing/Management, and Clean Vehicles and Fuels.

Effectiveness levels for multiple measures within a subsector may be multiplied to determine a combined effectiveness level. Because the combination of measures and independence of measures are complicated, this Handbook recommends that measure reductions within a subsector be multiplied unless the user can provide substantial evidence indicating that emission reductions are independent of one another and that they should therefore be added. This will take the following form:

Reductionsubsector = 1 − [(1 − A) × (1 − B) × (1 − C)]
Where A, B, and C are the individual measure reduction percentages for the measures to be combined in each subsector.

Each measure has a maximum allowable reduction, discussed in the quantification methods for each measure. The user should calculate the reduction from each measure, compare it to the individual measure maximum, and use the lower value of the two in the equation above.

In addition, each subsector has a maximum allowable reduction. These were derived by combining the maximum allowable reduction of each individual non–mutually-exclusive measure within the subsector using the above formula (see table below for more details). The subsector maximum is intended to ensure that emissions are not double counted when measures within the subsector are combined. The subsector maximums are provided in the below table by scale of application.

Scale Subsector Quantified Measures a Subsector Maximum b, c, d, e, f P/S Land Use 4 65%
Neighborhood Design — —
Trip Reduction Programs 9 45% commute VMT
Parking or Road Pricing/
Management
3 35%
Transit — —
P/C Land Use 1 30%
Neighborhood Design 9 10%
Trip Reduction Programs 1 2.3% commute VMT
Parking or Road Pricing/
Management
1 30%
Transit 5 15%
P/S = project/site; P/C = plan/community; VMT = vehicle miles traveled. a
Excludes Measure T-30, Use Cleaner-Fuel Vehicles, within the Clean Vehicles and Fuels subsector and all supporting or nonquantified measures from other subsectors. b — = no measure within the subsector at the specified scale. c
Where a subsector consists of only one measure, the subsector maximum listed is the individual measure maximum. d
Most maximums were conservatively rounded down to the nearest multiple of five or whole number.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 65
e
Measure T-1 and Measure T-2 were assumed to be mutually exclusive for the purpose of deriving a project’s single land use type maximum emissions reduction. More specifically, residential density (T-1) only applies to residential development, and job density only applies to commercial development (T-2). Similarly, Measure T-26 and Measure T-27 were assumed to be mutually exclusive with Measure T-28 for the purpose of deriving a plan/community’s total transit-related emissions reduction. Measure T-28 accounts for the VMT reduction associated with increased transit frequency (T-26) and decreased transit travel time from transit supportive roadway treatments (T-27). It was assumed that bus rapid transit (BRT) (T-28) would cover all of the community’s transit routes, and therefore no additional frequency or time improvements would be attainable (T-26 and T-27). f
Measures within the Trip Reduction Programs primarily reduce VMT from employee commute trips, whereas all other measures reduce VMT from all trips associated with the relevant land use type.

The user should calculate the reduction from each subsector, compare it to the corresponding sector maximum, and use the lower value of the two.

Combining Measures Across Subsectors
There is limited research directly analyzing the combined VMT impact on a project/site or plan/community from implementation of all, or a majority, of the non–mutually-exclusive transportation sector measures provided in this Handbook. However, a University of California, Davis study compared household VMT across different place types in California and found that the difference in average VMT in single-family suburban neighborhoods and central city neighborhoods was approximately 70 percent.5 Central city neighborhoods are more likely to have implemented transportation strategies like those measures included in the Handbook, when compared to suburban neighborhoods. The Handbook therefore adopts 70 percent as a maximum for the combined VMT impact from the following four subsectors: Land Use, Neighborhood Design, Parking or Road Pricing/Management, and Transit.

Reductionmulti-subsector = 1 − [(1 − Land) × (1 − Design) × (1 − Parking) × (1 − Transit)] ≤ 70% Note that this multi-subsector maximum purposefully excludes the Trip Reduction Program subsector. This is because measures in the Trip Reduction Program subsector are often implemented at the Project/Site scale based on the individual employer and are not as directly correlated with place type as the other subsectors. For example, all central city neighborhoods have a high residential and commercial density (i.e., Measure T-1 and Measure T-2 from the Land Use subsector), and most single-family suburban neighborhoods have low density. Conversely, not all employers in a central city neighborhood provide their employees with discounted transit passes (Measure T-9 from the Trip Reduction Program subsector), and the same is equally likely for the much smaller group of employers in a single-family suburban neighborhood.

Limitations of Maximums and Caps
The words maximum and cap are used interchangeably to describe either the highest percent reduction in GHG emissions or the highest expected value for a variable in the GHG reduction formula. Each subsector has a maximum allowable reduction and individual measures have a maximum allowable reduction, which is often based on one or more of the capped GHG reduction variables. In most instances, these values are a rule of thumb, or practical approximation, to limit the unrealistic influence of multiplicative measure variables. Where the 5 Salon, D. 2014. Quantifying the Effect of Local Government Actions on VMT. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis. Prepared for the California Air Resources Board and the California Environmental Protection Agency. February.

Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/research/apr/past/09-343.pdf. Accessed: October 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 66
maximum is derived based on a more precise methodology (e.g., research results), the source is cited. Users should always confirm the appropriateness of these maximums for their project.

Adjusting VMT Reductions to Emission Reductions
Most of the transportation measures in this Handbook reduce GHG emissions and criteria pollutants (co-benefit) by reducing the source metric of VMT.6 The below equation highlights the main variables used to calculate VMT in a study area. Note that VMT decreases if any of the following occurs: (1) vehicle ownership declines, (2) vehicle trips are reduced, (3) vehicle trip lengths are reduced, or (4) any combination of these three variables.

VMT =
vehicles
study area ×
trips
vehicle∙day ×
distance (miles)
trip =
miles
study area∙day
Vehicles emit pollutants during all hours of the day. The magnitude of these emissions varies with the activity phase, such as running on the road, idling while stationary, sitting outside in the sun (evaporative), or starting up. The quantification methods presented in this Handbook account for emissions that occur during the three major emission processes of running, evaporation, and starting.7 Emissions generated by these processes are determined, in part,8 by the above VMT variables: (1) emissions from evaporation are a factor of vehicle ownership, (2) emissions from starting are a factor of vehicle ownership and number of vehicle starts (i.e., trips), and (3) emissions from running are a factor of vehicle ownership and number of vehicle trips and distance per trip (i.e., VMT).

Emissionstotal = Emissionsevap + Emissionsstart + Emissionsrun Emissionsevap =
vehicles
study area ×
pollutant mass (grams)
vehicle∙day =
grams
study area∙day
Emissionsstart =
vehicles
study area ×
trips
vehicle∙day ×
pollutant mass (grams)
trip∙day =
grams
study area∙day
Emissionsrun =
vehicles
study area ×
trips
vehicle∙day ×
miles
trip ×
pollutant mass (grams)
distance (miles)
=
grams
study area∙day
GHG and criteria pollutant reductions achieved by transportation measures are primarily presented in terms of a percent reduction, where the total emissions reduction was determined based on a ratio comparison to the VMT reduction. In other words, if a measure reduces VMT by some percent, the total emissions are reduced by the same percent (or a fraction of that percent, as described below). As discussed above, VMT can be reduced by decreasing any of the three variables of vehicle ownership, number of vehicle trips, and trip distance. The ratio comparison between reductions in VMT and emissions depends on the pollutant and which VMT variable(s) decrease with implementation of a transportation measure. 6 Exceptions include Measures T-14, Provide Electric Charging Infrastructure, and T-30, Use Cleaner-Fuel Vehicles. 7 A fourth emission process is idling. EMFAC estimates idle exhaust emissions only for heavy-duty vehicles that idle for extended periods of time while loading or unloading goods. This document analyzes emissions primarily from passenger vehicles and thus focuses on the three relevant emission processes of evaporation, starting, and running. 8 Vehicle emissions are also a function of the chosen analysis year, project location, and fleet mix. When using EMFAC, future year emissions decline over time, reflecting assumed changes in fleet mix for the location and cleaner engine and fuel technologies.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 67

1. Less vehicle ownership. If a transportation measure reduces VMT by decreasing vehicle ownership, the measure would decrease running, starting, and evaporative emissions by the same rate.9 The measures where this applies are Measures T-15, Limit Residential Parking Supply, and T-16, Unbundle Residential Parking Costs from Property Cost, where the VMT reduction is a function of avoided vehicle ownership in residents disincentivized to park offsite or pay the separate cost of parking for a vehicle. For these measures, there is a 1:1 relationship between reductions in VMT and emissions because these measures reduce all emission processes at the same rate, not just running emissions.

2. Fewer vehicle trips. If a transportation measure reduces VMT by decreasing the number of vehicle trips, the measure would decrease running emissions and starting emissions by approximately the same rate. This applies to all transportation measures except Measures T-14, Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure; T-15, Limit Residential Parking Supply; T-16, Unbundle Residential Parking Costs from Property Cost; and T-30, Use Cleaner-Fuel Vehicles.

This is because each measure would result in, at minimum,10 fewer vehicle trips by promoting alternative modes of transportation in place of single-occupancy vehicles.

These measures would not decrease evaporative emissions, which are a function of vehicle ownership. However, this does not affect the ratio comparison between reductions in VMT and GHG emissions because there are no evaporation GHG emissions (i.e., 100 percent of CO2, CH4, and nitrous oxide (N2O) from vehicles are from running and starting). This is also true for nitrogen oxides (NOx) particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), and sulfur dioxide (SOx). Therefore, for these measures and pollutants, there is a 1:1 relationship between reductions in VMT and emissions.

Reactive organic gases (ROG) from vehicles include not only running and starting emissions, but also evaporative emissions.11 Running and starting ROG emissions represent approximately 87 percent of total ROG emissions in passenger vehicles.12 This adjustment factor should be applied when converting the percent GHG reduction to the percent reduction in total ROG emission.
% reduction in ROG emissions = % reduction in GHG × 87% This is noted in the co-benefits section of Improved Air Quality for each applicable transportation measure.

3. Shorter vehicle trips. If a transportation measure reduces VMT by only decreasing the distance of vehicle trips, the measure would not reduce starting or evaporative emissions. There are no transportation measures in this Handbook where this scenario occurs and, therefore, an adjustment factor is not developed.
9 Assuming emission factor variables are held constant. 10 Many of these measures also result in shorter vehicle trips. In these instances, the VMT reduction is either largely a function of the reduction in vehicle trips or is an equal function of the reduction in vehicle trips and the reduction in trip distances. There are no measures where the VMT reduction is largely a function of the reduction in trip distances with a lesser contribution from the reduction in vehicle trips.
11 See EMFAC2017 User’s Guide for more detail on these emission processes. Available:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/downloads/emfac2017-volume-i-users-guide.pdf. 12 Combined emissions from the EMFAC vehicle types of LDA, LDT1, and LDT2.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 68
The criteria pollutants CO, NO2, SO2, and PM are local pollutants that can potentially affect populations near the emissions source. Accordingly, measures that reduce localized criteria pollutant emissions can improve ambient air quality. Measures that reduce emissions of ozone precursors (NOx and ROG), which are regional pollutants, can improve regional air quality.

Note that the Handbook’s use of a ratio comparison of VMT reduction to GHG and criteria pollutant reductions makes two key assumptions that may not be valid for every user’s project. It is important users consider the validity of these assumptions on a project-by-project basis and either (1) perform any post-processing to the emissions reductions achieved by the transportation measures to better reflect their project conditions, or (2) provide a qualitative disclaimer about the accuracy of the estimated reductions considering the below assumptions.

1. Vehicle class is assumed to remain unchanged with implementation of a measure. Say a user is interested in calculating the plan/community-level GHG reduction from Measure T-22-B, Implement Electric Bikeshare Program. The user has community-level VMT without the measure and elects to calculate community-wide mobile emissions using EMFAC. The user calculates in EMFAC that the existing percent of the community VMT by vehicle class is 75 percent light-duty vehicles and 25 percent non-light-duty vehicles. In this example, the average emission factor for light-duty vehicles is 250 grams CO2 per mile and for non–light-duty vehicles is 400 grams CO2 per mile. The average community emission factor, as weighted by VMT, would be 288 grams per mile [(75% X 250 grams CO2 per mile) + (25% X 400 grams CO2 per mile)]. Users then estimate vehicle emissions prior to implementation of Measure T-22-B by applying this average vehicle emission factor to their community-level VMT.

The user then implements Measure T-22-A, Implement Pedal (Non-Electric) Bikeshare Program, and reduces GHG emissions from vehicle travel by 4 percent by replacing vehicle trips with bikeshare trips. The majority of those replaced vehicle trips are private trips as lightduty vehicles. As a result, the percent of the community VMT by vehicle class is now 70 percent light-duty vehicles and 30 percent non–light-duty vehicles, effectively increasing the community average vehicle emission factor, as weighted by VMT, from 288 grams per mile to 295 grams per mile [70% X 250 grams CO2 per mile) + (30% X 400 grams CO2 per mile)].

This increase in the community average vehicle emission factor lessens the GHG reduction that would be achieved from reduced vehicle trips.

Conversely, the circumstances could be such that a measure increases the GHG reduction that would be achieved from reduced vehicle trips. For example, Measure T-22-A may replace existing vehicle trips that are primarily from more emissions-intensive non–light-duty vehicles (e.g., transit buses). In this case, the percent of the community VMT by the less– emissions-intensive light-duty vehicle would be higher, reducing the community average vehicle emission factor. This decrease in the community average vehicle emission factor would increase the GHG reduction that would be achieved from reduced vehicle trips.

The Handbook method cannot predict or know how each measure could affect the user’s specific fleet mix. Therefore, the fleet mix is assumed to remain constant before and after implementation of all transportation measures.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 69

2. Vehicle speeds are assumed to remain unchanged with implementation of a measure. The logic of this assumption is similar to the first assumption. Say a user is interested in calculating the plan/community-level GHG reduction from Measure T-20, Expand Bikeway Network. The user elects to calculate community-wide mobile emissions prior to implementation of the measures using EMFAC and aggregated vehicle speeds. In this example, EMFAC aggregates the vehicle speeds in the user’s community at approximately 30 miles per hour (mph).13 The user implements Measure T-20 and expansion of the bikeway network reduces the average vehicle speed to approximately 25 mph. Because vehicles are slightly more GHG emissions-intensive at 25 mph compared to 30 mph, the GHG reduction achieved by the measure would be less if the impact of vehicle speeds were included in the quantification method.

Conversely, the circumstances could be such that a measure increases the GHG reduction that would be achieved from reduced vehicle trips. For example, Measure T-11, Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool, replaces private vehicle trips with shared vanpool trips, reducing the number of cars on the road. If roadways are currently congested and causing vehicles to move at low speeds, implementation of this measure could alleviate roadway congestion and increase vehicle speeds to a speed in which they are less GHG emissions intensive. The decrease in the community average vehicle emission factor would increase the GHG reduction that would be achieved from reduced vehicle trips.

The Handbook method cannot predict or know how each measure could affect vehicle speeds under the various use cases. Therefore, the vehicle speeds are assumed to remain constant before and after implementation of all transportation measures.

Use of Transportation Quantification Methodologies for Senate Bill 375 Compliance
As described in Appendix B, Federal and State Planning Framework, Senate Bill (SB) 375 requires metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to incorporate a SCS in their regional transportation plans (RTPs) and submit it to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for review. The goal of the SCS is to reduce regional passenger vehicle VMT and associated GHG emissions through land use and transportation planning. CARB requires MPOs quantify the passenger vehicle VMT reductions achieved by their SCSs using a specific method. It is therefore not recommended that MPOs use the transportation measure quantification methodologies found in this Handbook when preparing their SCSs.
13 Vehicle running emission factors are, in part, dependent on vehicle speed. Vehicles are generally more emissions-intensive at speeds that are very low (e.g., 5 mph) and very high (e.g., greater than 70 mph), though this varies by pollutant and vehicle class.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 70
T-1. Increase Residential Density
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 30.0% of GHG
emissions from project VMT
in the study area
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Increased density can put people closer to
resources they may need to access during
an extreme weather event. Increased density
can also shorten commutes, decreasing the
amount of time people are on the road and
exposed to hazards such as extreme heat
or flooding.

Health and Equity Considerations
Neighborhoods should include different
types of housing to support a variety of
household sizes, age ranges, and incomes.

Measure Description
This measure accounts for the VMT reduction achieved by a project that is designed with a higher density of dwelling units (du) compared to the average residential density in the U.S. Increased densities affect the distance people travel and provide greater options for the mode of travel they choose. Increasing residential density results in shorter and fewer trips by single-occupancy vehicles and thus a reduction in GHG emissions. This measure is best quantified when applied to larger developments and developments where the density is somewhat similar to the surrounding area due to the underlying research being founded in data from the
neighborhood level.

Subsector
Land Use
Locational Context
Urban, suburban
Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
This measure is most accurately quantified when applied to larger developments and/or developments where the density is
somewhat similar to the surrounding neighborhood.

Cost Considerations
Depending on the location, increasing residential density may increase housing and development costs. However, the costs of providing public services, such as health care, education, policing, and transit, are generally lower in more dense areas where things are closer together. Infrastructure that provides drinking water and electricity also operates more efficiently when the service and transmission area is reduced. Local governments may provide approval streamlining benefits or financial incentives for infill and high-density residential projects.

Expanded Mitigation Options
When paired with Measure T-2, Increase Job Density, the cumulative densification from these measures can result in a highly walkable and bikeable area, yielding increased co-benefits in VMT reductions, improved public health, and social equity. 30%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-1. Increase Residential Density TRANSPORTATION | 71
GHG Reduction Formula
A =
B − C
C
× D
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from project
VMT in study area
0–30.0 % calculated
User Inputs
B Residential density of project development [ ] du/acre user input Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
C Residential density of typical development 9.1 du/acre Ewing et al. 2007
D Elasticity of VMT with respect to residential density -0.22 unitless Stevens 2016
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (C) – The residential density of typical development is based on the blended average density of residential development in the U.S. forecasted for 2025. This estimate includes apartments, condominiums, and townhouses, as well as detached single-family housing on both small and large lots. An acre in this context is defined as an acre of developed land, not including streets, school sites, parks, and other undevelopable land. If reductions are being calculated from a specific baseline derived from a travel demand forecasting model, the residential density of the relevant transportation analysis zone should be used instead of the value for a typical development.
▪ (D) – A meta-regression analysis of five studies that controlled for self-selection found that a 0.22 percent decrease in VMT occurs for every 1 percent increase in residential density (Stevens 2016).

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Amax) The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) is capped at 30 percent. The purpose for the 30 percent cap is to limit the influence of any single built environmental factor (such as density). Projects that implement multiple land use strategies (e.g., density, design, diversity) will show more of a reduction than relying on improvements from a single built environment factor.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-1. Increase Residential Density TRANSPORTATION | 72
Subsector Maximum
( ∑ AmaxT-1 through T-4 ≤65%) This measure is in the Land Use subsector. This subcategory includes Measures T-1 through T-4. The VMT reduction from the combined implementation of all measures within this subsector is capped at 65 percent.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces VMT by increasing the residential density of the project study area. In this example, the project’s residential density would be 15 du per acre (B), which would reduce GHG emissions from project VMT by 14.2 percent.

Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Local Air Quality
The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) would be the same as the percent reduction in NOX, CO, NO2, SO2, and PM. Reductions in ROG emissions can be calculated by multiplying the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) by an adjustment factor of 87 percent. See Adjusting VMT Reductions to Emission Reductions above for further discussion.

Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in vehicle fuel consumption would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

VMT Reductions
The percent reduction in VMT would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

Sources
▪ Ewing, R., K. Bartholomew, S. Winkelman, J. Walters, and D. Chen. 2007. Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change. October. Available:
https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/cit_07092401a.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ Stevens, M. 2016. Does Compact Development Make People Drive Less? Journal of the American Planning Association 83:1(7–18), DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2016.1240044. November. Available:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309890412_Does_Compact_Development_Make_People_ Drive_Less. Accessed: January 2021.

A =
15 du
ac
− 9.1 du
ac

9.1 du
ac
× -0.22 = -14.2%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 73
T-2. Increase Job Density
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 30.0% of GHG
emissions from project VMT
in the study area
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Increased density can put people closer to
resources they may need to access during
an extreme weather event. Increased
density can also shorten commutes,
decreasing the amount of time people are
on the road and exposed to hazards such
as extreme heat or flooding.

Health and Equity Considerations
Increased job density may increase nearby
housing prices. Jurisdictions should consider
the jobs-housing balance and consider
measures to reduce displacement and
increase affordable housing.

Measure Description
This measure accounts for the VMT reduction achieved by a project that is designed with a higher density of jobs compared to the average job density in the U.S. Increased densities affect the distance people travel and provide greater options for the mode of travel they choose. Increasing job density results in shorter and fewer trips by single-occupancy vehicles and thus a reduction in GHG emissions.

Subsector
Land Use
Locational Context
Urban, suburban
Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
This measure is most accurately quantified when applied to larger developments and/or developments where the density is
somewhat similar to the surrounding neighborhood.

Cost Considerations
Areas with increased job density generally have higher economic gross metropolitan product (GMP) and job growth. Prosperity, measured as GMP per job, also grows faster in areas with increased job density. Decreased commute times and car use may also generate funds for public transit and reduce the need for infrastructure spending on road maintenance.

Expanded Mitigation Options
When paired with Measure T-1, Increase Residential Density, the cumulative densification from these measures can result in a highly walkable and bikeable area, yielding increased co-benefits in VMT reductions, improved public health, and social equity. 30%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-2. Increase Job Density TRANSPORTATION | 74
GHG Reduction Formula
A =
B − C
C
× D
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from
project VMT in study area
0–30.0 % calculated
User Inputs
B Job density of project development [ ] jobs per acre user input Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
C Job density of typical development 145 jobs per acre ITE 2020 D Elasticity of VMT with respect to job density -0.07 unitless Stevens 2016 Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (C) – The jobs density is based on the calculated density of a development with a floorarea ratio of 1.0 and 300 square feet (sf) of building space per employee:
43,560 sf
acre
300 sf
employee
× 1.0
sf
acre
= 145
employees
acre
If reductions are being calculated from a specific baseline derived from a travel demand forecasting model, the job density of the relevant transportation analysis zone should be used for this variable instead of the default value presented above. ▪ (D) – A meta-regression analysis of two studies that controlled for self-selection found that a 0.07 percent decrease in VMT occurs for every 1 percent increase in job density (Stevens 2016).

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Amax) The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) is capped at 30 percent. The purpose for the 30 percent cap is to limit the influence of any single built environmental factor (such as density). Projects that implement multiple land use strategies (e.g., density, design, diversity) will show more of a reduction than relying on improvements from a single built environment factor.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-2. Increase Job Density TRANSPORTATION | 75
Subsector Maximum
( ∑ AmaxT-1 through T-4 ≤65%) This measure is in the Land Use subsector. This subcategory includes Measures T-1 through T-4. The VMT reduction from the combined implementation of all measures within this subsector is capped at 65 percent.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces VMT by increasing the job density of the project study area. In this example, the project’s job density would be 400 jobs per acre (B), which would reduce GHG emissions from project VMT by 12.3 percent.

Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Local Air Quality
The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) would be the same as the percent reduction in NOX, CO, NO2, SO2, and PM. Reductions in ROG emissions can be calculated by multiplying the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) by an adjustment factor of 87 percent. See Adjusting VMT Reductions to Emission Reductions above for further discussion.

Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in vehicle fuel consumption would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

VMT Reductions
The percent reduction in VMT would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

Sources
▪ Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Trip Generation Manual. 10th Edition. Available:
https://www.ite.org/technical-resources/topics/trip-and-parking-generation/trip-generation-10thedition-formats/. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ Stevens, M. 2016. Does Compact Development Make People Drive Less? Journal of the American Planning Association 83:1(7–18), DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2016.1240044. November. Available:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309890412_Does_Compact_Development_Make_People_ Drive_Less. Accessed: January 2021.

A =
400 job
acre
− 145 job
acre
145 job
acre
× -0.07 = -12.3%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 76
T-3. Provide Transit-Oriented Development
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 31.0% of GHG
emissions from project VMT
in study area
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Providing TOD puts a large number of
people close to reliable public
transportation, diversifying their
transportation options during an extreme
weather event.

Health and Equity Considerations
TOD may increase housing prices, leading
to gentrification and displacement. Please
refer to the Accountability and AntiDisplacement and Housing section in Chapter 5, Measures for Advancing Health
and Equity, for potential strategies to
minimize disruption to existing residents.

TOD coupled with affordable housing
options can help to support equity by
helping to lower transportation costs for
residents and increase active mobility.

Measure Description
This measure would reduce project VMT in the study area relative to the same project sited in a non-transit-oriented development (TOD) location. TOD refers to projects built in compact, walkable areas that have easy access to public transit, ideally in a location with a mix of uses, including housing, retail offices, and community facilities. Project site residents, employees, and visitors would have easy access to high-quality public transit, thereby encouraging transit ridership and reducing the number of singleoccupancy vehicle trips and associated GHG emissions.

Subsector
Land Use
Locational Context
Urban and suburban. Rural only if adjacent to commuter rail station with convenient rail service to a major employment center.

Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
To qualify as a TOD, the development must be a residential or office project that is within a 10-minute walk (0.5 mile) of a high frequency transit station (either rail, or bus rapid transit with headways less than 15 minutes). Ideally, the distance should be no more than 0.25 to 0.3 of a mile but could be up to 0.5 mile if the walking route to station can be accessed by pedestrian-friendly routes. Users should confirm “unmitigated” or “baseline” VMT does not already account for reductions from transit proximity.

Cost Considerations
TOD reduces car use and car ownership rates, providing cost savings to residents. It can also increase property values and public transit use rates, providing additional revenue to municipalities, as well as open new markets for business development. Increased transit use will likely necessitate increased spending on maintaining and improving public transit systems, the costs of which may be high.

Expanded Mitigation Options
When building TOD, a best practice is to incorporate bike and pedestrian access into the larger network to increase the likelihood of transit use.
31%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-3. Provide Transit-Oriented Development TRANSPORTATION | 77 GHG Reduction Formula
A =
(B × C)
-D
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from
project VMT in study area

6.9–31.0 % calculated
User Inputs
None
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
B Transit mode share in surrounding city Table T-3.1 % FHWA 2017a C Ratio of transit mode share for TOD area with
measure compared to existing transit mode
share in surrounding city

4.9 unitless Lund et al.
2004
D Auto mode share in surrounding city Table T-3.1 % FHWA 2017b Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B and D) – Ideally, the user will calculate transit and auto mode share for a Project/Site at a scale no larger than a census tract. Ideally, variables B and D will reflect travel behavior in locations that are not already within 0.5 mile of a high-quality transit stop and may instead substitute data from nearby tracts further from transit if such locations exist.

Potential data sources include the U.S. Census, California Household Travel Survey (preferred), or local survey efforts. If the user is not able to provide a project-specific value using one of these data sources, they have the option to input the mode share for one of the six most populated core-based statistical areas (CBSAs) in California, as presented in Table T-3.1 in Appendix C, Emission Factors and Data Tables. Transit mode share is likely to be smaller for areas not covered by the listed CBSAs, which represent the most transitaccessible areas of the state. Conversely, auto mode share is likely to be larger. ▪ (C) – A study of people living in TODs in California found that, on average, transit shares for TOD residents exceed the surrounding city by a factor of 4.9 (Lund et al. 2004).

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
((B×C)max) The transit mode share in the project study area with the measure is capped at 27 percent. This is based on the weighted average transit commute mode share of five surveyed sites in California where residents lived within 3 miles of rail stations (Lund et al. 2004). As transit mode share is typically higher for commute trips compared to all trips, 27 percent represents a reasonable upper bound for expected transit mode share in a TOD B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-3. Provide Transit-Oriented Development TRANSPORTATION | 78 area. Projects in the CBSAs of San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward and San Jose-SunnyvaleSanta Clara would have their transit mode share capped at 27 percent in the formula. (Amax) For projects that use default CBSA data from Table T-3.1 in Appendix C, the maximum percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) is 31.0 percent. This is based on a project in the CBSA of San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward with a transit mode share that reaches the cap ((B×C)max). This maximum scenario is presented in the below example quantification.

Subsector Maximum
( ∑ AmaxT-1 through T-4 ≤65%) This measure is in the Land Use subsector. This subcategory includes Measures T-1 through T-4. The VMT reduction from the combined implementation of all measures within this subsector is capped at 65 percent.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces VMT by locating their project in a TOD location. Project site residents, employees, and visitors would have easy access to high-quality public transit, thereby encouraging transit use and reducing single occupancy vehicle travel. In this example, the project is within the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara CBSA with an existing transit mode share (B) of 6.69 percent. Applying a 4.9 ratio of transit mode share for TOD area with the measure compared to existing transit mode share in the surrounding city yields 33 percent, which exceeds the 27 percent cap ((B × C)max). Therefore, 27 percent is used to define (B × C). The existing vehicle mode share is 86.96 percent (D). The user would reduce GHG emissions from project study area VMT (as compared to the same project in a non-TOD location) by 31 percent.

Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Local Air Quality
The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) would be the same as the percent reduction in NOX, CO, NO2, SO2, and PM. Reductions in ROG emissions can be calculated by multiplying the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) by an adjustment factor of 87 percent. See Adjusting VMT Reductions to Emission Reductions above for further discussion.

Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in vehicle fuel consumption would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

A =
27%
-86.96% = -31%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-3. Provide Transit-Oriented Development TRANSPORTATION | 79 VMT Reductions
The percent reduction in VMT would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

Sources
▪ Federal Highway Administration. 2017a. National Household Travel Survey–2017 Table Designer.

Travel Day PMT by TRPTRANS by HH_CBSA. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed: January 2021.
▪ Federal Highway Administration. 2017b. National Household Travel Survey – 2017 Table Designer.

Average Vehicle Occupancy by HHSTFIPS. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ Lund, H., R. Cervero, and R. Wilson. 2004. Travel Characteristics of Transit-Oriented Development in California. January. Available: https://community-wealth.org/sites/clone.communitywealth.org/files/downloads/report-lund-cerv-wil.pdf. Accessed: January 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 80
T-4. Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate
Housing
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 28.6% of GHG
emissions from project/site
multifamily residential VMT
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Increasing affordable housing creates the
opportunity for a greater diversity of people
to be closer to their desired destinations and
the resources they may need to access during
an extreme weather event. Close proximity to
destinations allows for more opportunities to
use active transportation and transit and to
be less reliant on private vehicles. Alleviating
the housing-cost burden also enables more
people to remain housed, and increases
people’s capacity to respond to disruptions,
including climate impacts.

Health and Equity Considerations
Neighborhoods should include different types
of housing to support a variety of household
sizes, age ranges, abilities, and incomes.

Measure Description
This measure requires below market rate (BMR) housing. BMR housing provides greater opportunity for lower income families to live closer to job centers and achieve a jobs/housing match near transit. It is also an important strategy to address the limited availability of affordable housing that might force residents to live far away from jobs or school, requiring longer commutes. The quantification method for this measure accounts for VMT reductions achieved for multifamily residential projects that are deed restricted or otherwise permanently dedicated as affordable housing.

Subsector
Land Use
Locational Context
Urban, suburban
Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
Multifamily residential units must be permanently dedicated as affordable for lower income families. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (2021) defines lowerincome as 80 percent of area median income or below, and affordable housing as costing 30 percent of gross household income or less.

Cost Considerations
Depending on the source of the affordable subsidy, BMR housing may have implications for development costs but would also have the benefit of reducing costs for public services, similar to Measure T-1, Increase Residential Density.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Pair with Measure T-1, Increase Residential Density, and Measure T-2, Increase Job Density, to achieve greater population and employment diversity.

28.6%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-4. Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing TRANSPORTATION | 81 GHG Reduction Formula
A = B × C
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from
Project/Site VMT for multifamily residential
developments
0–28.6 % calculated
User Inputs
B Percent of multifamily units permanently
dedicated as affordable
0–100 % user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
C Percent reduction in VMT for qualified units
compared to market rate units
-28.6 % ITE 2021
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B) – This refers to percent of multifamily units in the project that are deed restricted or otherwise permanently dedicated as affordable.
▪ (C) – The 11th Edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual (ITE 2021) contains daily vehicle trip rates for market rate multifamily housing that is low-rise and not close to transit (ITE code 221) as well as affordable multifamily housing (ITE code 223). While these rates do not account for trip length, they serve as a proxy for the expected difference in vehicle trip generation and VMT generation presuming similar trip lengths for both types of land use. If the user has information about trip length differences between market rate and affordable housing, then adjusting the percent reduction accordingly is recommended.

Users should note that the ITE trip rate estimates are based on a small sample of studies for the affordable housing rate and that no stratification of affordable housing by number of stories was available. This is an important distinction since the multifamily low-rise vehicle trip rate applies to four or fewer stories. Therefore, this measure may not apply to affordable housing projects with more than four stories.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Amax) The maximum GHG reduction from this measure is 28.6 percent. This maximum scenario is presented in the below example quantification.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-4. Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing TRANSPORTATION | 82 Subsector Maximum
( ∑ AmaxT-1 through T-4 ≤65%) This measure is in the Land Use subsector. This subsector includes Measures T-1 through T-4. The VMT reduction from the combined implementation of all measures within this subsector is capped at 65 percent.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces project VMT by requiring a portion of the multifamily residential units to be permanently dedicated as affordable. In this example, the percent of units (B) is 100 percent, which would reduce GHG emissions from VMT by 28.6 percent.

Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Local Air Quality
The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) would be the same as the percent reduction in NOX, CO, NO2, SO2, and PM. Reductions in ROG emissions can be calculated by multiplying the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) by an adjustment factor of 87 percent. See Adjusting VMT Reductions to Emission Reductions above for further discussion.

Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in vehicle fuel consumption would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

VMT Reductions
The percent reduction in VMT would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

Sources
▪ California Department of Housing and Community Development. 2021. Income Limits. Available:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-funding/incomelimits/index.shtml#:~:text=%E2%80%9CAffordable%20housing%20cost%E2%80%9D%20for%20lowe r,of%20gross%20income%2C%20with%20variations. Accessed; November 2021. ▪ Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). 2021. Trip Generation Manual. 11th Edition. Available:
https://www.ite.org/technical-resources/topics/trip-and-parking-generation/. Accessed; November 2021.

A = 100% × -28.6% = -28.6%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 83
T-5. Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program
(Voluntary)
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 4.0% of GHG
emissions from project/site
employee commute VMT
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
CTR programs could result in less traffic,
potentially reducing congestion or delays on
major roads during peak AM and PM traffic
periods. When this reduction occurs during
extreme weather events, it better allows
emergency responders to access a hazard
site. Lower transportation costs would also
increase community resilience by freeing up
resources for other purposes.

Health and Equity Considerations
Design of CTR programs need to ensure
equitable access and benefits to all
employees are provided considering
disparate existing mobility options in
diverse communities.

Measure Description
This measure will implement a voluntary commute trip reduction (CTR) program with employers. CTR programs discourage singleoccupancy vehicle trips and encourage alternative modes of transportation such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking, thereby reducing VMT and GHG emissions. Voluntary implementation elements are described in this measure.

Subsector
Trip Reduction Programs
Locational Context
Urban, suburban
Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
Voluntary CTR programs must include the following elements to apply the VMT reductions reported in literature.
▪ Employer-provided services, infrastructure, and incentives for alternative modes such as ridesharing (Measure T-8),
discounted transit (Measure T-9), bicycling (Measure T-10), vanpool (Measure T-11), and guaranteed ride home.
▪ Information, coordination, and marketing for said services, infrastructure, and incentives (Measure T-7).

Cost Considerations
Employer costs may include recurring costs for transit subsidies, capital and maintenance costs for the alternative transportation infrastructure, and labor costs for staff to manage the program.

Where the local municipality has a VMT reduction ordinance, costs may include the labor costs for government staff to track the efficacy of the program.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Other strategies may also be included as part of a voluntary CTR program, though they are not included in the VMT reductions reported by literature and thus are not incorporated in the VMT reductions for this measure.

This program typically serves as a complement to the more effective workplace CTR measures such as pricing workplace parking (Measure T-12) or implementing employee parking “cashout” (Measure T-13). 4%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-5. Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program (Voluntary) TRANSPORTATION | 84 GHG Reduction Formula
A = B × C
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from
project/site employee commute VMT
0–4.0 % calculated
User Inputs
B Percent of employees eligible for program 0–100 % user input Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
C Percent reduction in commute VMT from eligible
employees
-4 % Boarnet et al.
2014
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B) – This refers to the percent of employees that would be able to participate in the program. Employees who might not be able to participate could include those who work nighttime hours when transit and rideshare services are not available or employees who are required to drive to work as part of their job duties. This input does not refer to the percent of employees who participate in the program.
▪ (C) – A policy brief summarizing the results of employer-based trip reduction studies concluded that these programs reduce total commute VMT for employees at participating work sites by 4 to 6 percent (Boarnet et al. 2014). To be conservative, the low end of the range is cited.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Amax) The maximum GHG reduction from this measure is 4 percent. This maximum scenario is presented in the below example quantification.

Subsector Maximum
( ∑ AmaxT-5 through T-13 ≤45%) This measure is in the Trip Reduction Programs subsector. This subcategory includes Measures T-5 through T-13. The employee commute VMT reduction from the combined implementation of all measures within this subsector is capped at 45 percent.

Mutually Exclusive Measures
If this measure is selected, the user may not also take credit for Measure T-6, which represents the same implementation activities as Measure T-5, except that the CTR program would be mandatory. Users should select either Measure T-5 or T-6.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-5. Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program (Voluntary) TRANSPORTATION | 85 If this measure is selected, the user may not also take credit for Measures T-7 through T-11.

Measure T-5 accounts for the combined GHG reductions achieved by each of these individual measures. To combine the GHG reductions from T-5 with any of these measures would be considered double counting. However, the user may take credit for Measures T12 through T-13 within the larger CTR subcategory, so long as the combined VMT reduction does not exceed 45 percent, as noted above.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces employee commute VMT by requiring that employers of a project offer a voluntary commute trip reduction program to their employees. In this example, the percent of employees eligible (B) is 100 percent, which would reduce GHG emissions from employee commute VMT by 4 percent.

Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Local Air Quality
The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) would be the same as the percent reduction in NOX, CO, NO2, SO2, and PM. Reductions in ROG emissions can be calculated by multiplying the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) by an adjustment factor of 87 percent. See Adjusting VMT Reductions to Emission Reductions above for further discussion.

Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in vehicle fuel consumption would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

VMT Reductions
The percent reduction in VMT would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

Sources
▪ Boarnet, M., H. Hsu, and S. Handy. 2014. Impacts of Employer-Based Trip Reduction Programs and Vanpools on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. September. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/Impacts_of_EmployerBased_Trip_Reduction_Programs_and_Vanpools_on_Passenger_Vehicle_Use_and_Greenhouse_Gas_E missions_Policy_Brief.pdf. Accessed: January 2021.

A = 100% × -4% = -4%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 86
T-6. Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program
(Mandatory Implementation and Monitoring)
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 26.0% of GHG
emissions from project/site
employee commute VMT
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Commute trip reduction programs could
result in less traffic, potentially reducing
congestion or delays on major roads during
peak AM and PM traffic periods. When this
reduction occurs during extreme weather
events, it better allows emergency
responders to access a hazard site. Lower
transportation costs would also increase
community resilience by freeing up resources
for other purposes.

Health and Equity Considerations
Design of CTR programs needs to consider
existing mobility options in diverse
communities and ensure equitable access
and benefit to all employees.

Measure Description
This measure will implement a mandatory CTR program with employers. CTR programs discourage single-occupancy vehicle trips and encourage alternative modes of transportation such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking, thereby reducing VMT and GHG emissions.

Subsector
Trip Reduction Programs
Locational Context
Urban, suburban
Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
The mandatory CTR program must include all other elements (i.e., Measures T-7 through T-11) described for the voluntary program (Measure T-5) plus include mandatory trip reduction requirements (including penalties for non-compliance) and regular monitoring and reporting to ensure the calculated VMT reduction matches the observed VMT reduction.

Cost Considerations
Employer costs may include recurring, direct costs for transit subsidies, capital and maintenance costs for alternative transportation infrastructure, and labor costs for staff to manage the program. If the local municipality has a mandatory VMT reduction ordinance, additional employer costs could include noncompliance penalties if the municipality fines CTR programs that do not meet a VMT goal. Municipal costs may include the labor costs for government staff to track the efficacy of the program, which may be outweighed by revenue generated from fines collected from non-compliant businesses.

Expanded Mitigation Options
This program typically serves as a complement to the more effective workplace CTR measures, such as pricing workplace parking (Measure T-12) or implementing employee parking “cashout” (Measure T-13). 26%
Photo Credit: University of Manitoba, 2018
B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 87
T-6. Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program (Mandatory Implementation and Monitoring)
GHG Reduction Formula
A = B × C × D
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from
project/site employee commute VMT
0–26.0 % calculated
User Inputs
B Percent of employees eligible for program 0–100 % user input Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
C Percent reduction in vehicle mode share of
employee commute trips
-26 % Nelson\Nygaard
Consulting
Associates 2015
D Adjustment from vehicle mode share to
commute VMT
1 unitless assumed
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B) – This refers to the percent of employees that would be able to participate in the program. This will usually be 100 percent. Employees who might not be able to participate could include those who work nighttime hours when transit and rideshare services are not available or employees who are required to drive to work as part of their job duties. This input does not refer to the percent of employees who participate in the program. ▪ (C) – A multiyear study of mode share on Genentech’s South San Francisco campuses tracked the long-run change in employee commute mode share with implementation of mandatory CTR. Between 2006 and 2014, employee vehicle mode share (includes single-occupied vehicles and carpools) decreased from approximately 90 percent to 64 percent, which is a 26 percent reduction (Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 2015). ▪ (D) – The adjustment factor from vehicle mode share to commute VMT is 1. This assumes that all vehicle trips will average out to typical trip length. Thus, it can be assumed that a percentage reduction in vehicle trips will equal the same percentage reduction in VMT.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Amax) The maximum GHG reduction from this measure is 26 percent. This maximum scenario is presented in the below example quantification.

Subsector Maximum
( ∑ AmaxT-5 through T-13 ≤45%) This measure is in the Trip Reduction Programs subsector. This subcategory includes Measures T-5 through T-13. The employee commute VMT reduction from the combined implementation of all measures within this subsector is capped at 45 percent.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 88
T-6. Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program (Mandatory Implementation and Monitoring)
Mutually Exclusive Measures
If this measure is selected, the user may not also take credit for Measure T-5, which represents the same implementation activities as Measure T-5, except that the CTR program would be mandatory. Users should select either Measure T-5 or T-6.

If this measure is selected, the user may not also take credit for Measures T-7 through T-11.

Measure T-6 accounts for the combined GHG reductions achieved by each of these individual measures. To combine the GHG reductions from T-6 with any of these measures would be considered double counting. However, the user may take credit for Measure T-12 and T-13 within the larger CTR subcategory, so long as the combined VMT reduction does not exceed 45 percent, as noted above.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces employee commute VMT by requiring that the employer of the proposed project offer a mandatory CTR program to their employees. In this example, the percent of employees eligible (B) is 100 percent, which would reduce GHG emissions from employee commute VMT by 26 percent.

Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Local Air Quality
The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) would be the same as the percent reduction in NOX, CO, NO2, SO2, and PM. Reductions in ROG emissions can be calculated by multiplying the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) by an adjustment factor of 87 percent. See Adjusting VMT Reductions to Emission Reductions above for further discussion.

Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in vehicle fuel consumption would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

VMT Reductions
The percent reduction in VMT would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

Sources
▪ Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates. 2015. Genentech–South San Francisco Campus TDM and Parking Report. June. Available: http://ci-ssfca.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=859&meta_id=62028. Accessed: January 2021.

A = 100% × -26% × 1= -26%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 89
T-7. Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 4.0% of GHG
emissions from project/site
employee commute VMT
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Commute trip reduction programs could
result in less traffic, potentially reducing
congestion or delays on major roads during
peak AM and PM traffic periods. When this
reduction occurs during extreme weather
events, it better allows emergency
responders to access a hazard site. Lower
transportation costs would also increase
community resilience by freeing up
resources for other purposes.

Health and Equity Considerations
Design of CTR programs needs to consider
existing mobility options in diverse
communities and ensure equitable access and
benefit to all employees. CTR programs may
need to include multi-language materials.

Measure Description
This measure will implement a marketing strategy to promote the project site employer’s CTR program. Information sharing and marketing promote and educate employees about their travel choices to the employment location beyond driving such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking, thereby reducing VMT and GHG emissions.

Subsector
Trip Reduction Programs
Locational Context
Urban, suburban
Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
The following features (or similar alternatives) of the marketing strategy are essential for effectiveness.
▪ Onsite or online commuter information services.
▪ Employee transportation coordinators.
▪ Onsite or online transit pass sales.
▪ Guaranteed ride home service.

Cost Considerations
Employer costs include labor and materials for development and distribution of survey and marketing materials to promote the program and educate potential participants.

Expanded Mitigation Options
This measure could be packaged with other commute trip
reduction measures (Measures T-8 through T-13) as a
comprehensive CTR program (Measure T-5 or T-6).
4%
Photo Credit: Sacramento Area Council of
Governments, 2012
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-7. Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing TRANSPORTATION | 90 GHG Reduction Formula
A = B × C × D
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from
project/site employee commute VMT
0–4.0 % calculated
User Inputs
B Percent of employees eligible for program 0–100 % user input Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
C Percent reduction in employee commute
vehicle trips
-4 % TRB 2010
D Adjustment from vehicle trips to VMT 1 unitless assumed Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B) – This refers to the percent of employees that would be able to participate in the program. This will usually be 100 percent. Employees who might not be able to participate could include those who work nighttime hours when transit and rideshare services are not available or employees who are required to drive to work as part of their job duties. This input does not refer to the percent of employees who actually participate in the program.
▪ (C) – A review of studies measuring the effect of transportation demand management measures on traveler behavior notes that the average empirically-based estimate of reductions in vehicle trips for full-scale, site-specific employer support programs is 4 to 5 percent. To be conservative, the low end of the range is cited (TRB 2010). ▪ (D) – The adjustment factor from vehicle trips to VMT is 1. This assumes that all vehicle trips will average out to typical trip length (“assumes all trip lengths are equal”). Thus, it can be assumed that a percentage reduction in vehicle trips will equal the same percentage reduction in VMT.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Amax) The maximum GHG reduction from this measure is 4 percent. This maximum scenario is presented in the below example quantification.

Subsector Maximum
( ∑ AmaxT-5 through T-13 ≤45%) This measure is in the Trip Reduction Programs subsector. This subcategory includes Measures T-5 through T-13. The employee commute VMT reduction from the combined implementation of all measures within this subsector is capped at 45 percent.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-7. Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing TRANSPORTATION | 91 Mutually Exclusive Measures
If this measure is selected, the user may not also take credit for either Measure T-5 or T-6.

However, this measure may be implemented alongside other individual CTR measures (Measures T-8 through T-13). The efficacy of individual programs may vary highly based on individual employers and local contexts.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces employee commute VMT by requiring that employers of a project market to employees travel options for modes alternative to single-occupied vehicles. In this example, the percent of employees eligible (B) is 100 percent, which would reduce GHG emissions from employee commute VMT by 4 percent.

Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Local Air Quality
The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) would be the same as the percent reduction in NOX, CO, NO2, SO2, and PM. Reductions in ROG emissions can be calculated by multiplying the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) by an adjustment factor of 87 percent. See Adjusting VMT Reductions to Emission Reductions above for further discussion.

Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in vehicle fuel consumption would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

VMT Reductions
The percent reduction in VMT would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

Sources
▪ Transportation Research Board (TRB). 2010. Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes Handbook, Third Edition: Chapter 19, Employer and Institutional TDM Strategies. June. Available:
http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/163781.aspx. Accessed: January 2021.

A = 100% × -4% × 1 = -4%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 92
T-8. Provide Ridesharing Program
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 8.0% of GHG
emissions from project/site
employee commute VMT
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Ridesharing programs could result in less
traffic, potentially reducing congestion or
delays on major roads during peak AM and
PM traffic periods. When this reduction
occurs during extreme weather events, it
better allows emergency responders to
access a hazard site. Lower transportation
costs would also increase community
resilience by freeing up resources for
other purposes.

Health and Equity Considerations
Program should include all onsite workers,
such as contractors, interns, and service
workers. Because ridesharing is vehiclebased, and some employees may not be in areas with feasible rideshare networks,
design of programs need to ensure
equitable benefits to those with and without
access to rideshare opportunities.

Measure Description
This measure will implement a ridesharing program and establish a permanent transportation management association with funding requirements for employers. Ridesharing encourages carpooled vehicle trips in place of single-occupied vehicle trips, thereby reducing the number of trips, VMT, and GHG emissions.

Subsector
Trip Reduction Programs
Locational Context
Urban, suburban
Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
Ridesharing must be promoted through a multifaceted approach.

Examples include the following.
▪ Designating a certain percentage of desirable parking spaces for ridesharing vehicles.
▪ Designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ridesharing vehicles.
▪ Providing an app or website for coordinating rides.

Cost Considerations
Costs of developing, implementing, and maintaining a rideshare program in a way that encourages participation are generally borne by municipalities or employers. The beneficiaries include the program participants saving on commuting costs, the employer reducing onsite parking expenses, and the municipality reducing cars on the road, which leads to lower infrastructure and roadway maintenance costs.

Expanded Mitigation Options
When providing a ridesharing program, a best practice is to establish funding by a non-revocable funding mechanism for employer-provided subsidies. In addition, encourage use of lowemission ridesharing vehicles (e.g., shared Uber Green).

This measure could be paired with any combination of the other commute trip reduction strategies (Measures T-7 through T-13) for increased reductions.
8%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-8. Provide Ridesharing Program TRANSPORTATION | 93
GHG Reduction Formula
A = B × C
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from
project/site employee commute VMT
0–8.0 % calculated
User Inputs
B Percent of employees eligible for program 0–100 % user input Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
C Percent reduction in employee commute VMT Table T-8.1 % SANDAG 2019 Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B) – This refers to the percent of employees that would be able to participate in the program. This will usually be 100 percent. Employees who might not be able to participate could include those who work nighttime hours when transit and rideshare services are not available or employees who are required to drive to work as part of their job duties. This input does not refer to the percent of employees who actually participate in the program.
▪ (C) – The percent reduction in employee commute VMT by place type is provided in Table T-8.1 in Appendix C. The reduction differs by place type because the willingness and ability to participate in carpooling is higher in urban areas than in suburban areas. Note that this measure is not applicable for implementation in rural areas (SANDAG 2019).

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Amax) The maximum GHG reduction from this measure is 8 percent.

Subsector Maximum
( ∑ AmaxT-5 through T-13 ≤45%) This measure is in the Trip Reduction Programs subsector. This subcategory includes Measures T-5 through T-13. The employee commute VMT reduction from the combined implementation of all measures within this subsector is capped at 45 percent.

Mutually Exclusive Measures
If this measure is selected, the user may not also take credit for either Measure T-5 or T-6.

However, this measure may be implemented alongside other individual CTR measures (Measures T-7 and T-9 through T-13). The efficacy of individual programs may vary highly based on individual employers and local contexts.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-8. Provide Ridesharing Program TRANSPORTATION | 94
Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces employee commute VMT by requiring that employers of a project provide a ridesharing program to their employees. In this example, the percent of employees eligible (B) at a packaging and distribution center is 50 percent and the place type of the project is urban (C). GHG emissions from employee commute VMT would be reduced by 4 percent.

Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Local Air Quality
The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) would be the same as the percent reduction in NOX, CO, NO2, SO2, and PM. Reductions in ROG emissions can be calculated by multiplying the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) by an adjustment factor of 87 percent. See Adjusting VMT Reductions to Emission Reductions above for further discussion.

Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in vehicle fuel consumption would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

VMT Reductions
The percent reduction in VMT would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

Sources
▪ San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2019. Mobility Management VMT Reduction Calculator Tool–Design Document. June. Available: https://www.icommutesd.com/docs/defaultsource/planning/tool-design-document_final_7-17-19.pdf?sfvrsn=ec39eb3b_2. Accessed: January 2021.

A = 50% × -8% = -4%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 95
T-9. Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit
Program
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 5.5% of emissions from
employee/resident vehicles
accessing the site
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Subsidized and discounted transit programs
increase the capacity of low-income
populations to use transit to evacuate or
access resources during an extreme weather
event. They could also incentivize more people
to use transit, resulting in less traffic and better
allowing emergency responders to access a
hazard site during an extreme weather event.

Lower overall out-of-pocket costs would also
help increase community resilience by freeing
up resources for other purposes.

Health and Equity Considerations
Program should include all onsite workers,
such as contractors, interns, and service
workers.

Measure Description
This measure will provide subsidized or discounted, or free transit passes for employees and/or residents. Reducing the out-of-pocket cost for choosing transit improves the competitiveness of transit against driving, increasing the total number of transit trips and decreasing vehicle trips. This decrease in vehicle trips results in reduced VMT and thus a reduction in GHG emissions.

Subsector
Trip Reduction Programs
Locational Context
Urban, suburban
Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
The project should be accessible either within 1 mile of highquality transit service (rail or bus with headways of less than 15 minutes), 0.5 mile of local or less frequent transit service, or along a designated shuttle route providing last-mile connections to rail service. If a well-established bikeshare service (Measure T-22-A) is available, the site may be located up to 2 miles from a highquality transit service.

If more than one transit agency serves the site, subsidies should be provided that can be applied to each of the services available. If subsidies are applied for only one service, all variable inputs below should also pertain only to the service that is subsidized.

Cost Considerations
The employer cost is the recurring, direct cost for transit subsidies.

The subsidies will lower the per capita income of the transit service, decreasing the revenue of the local transit agency. This cost may be offset by increased revenue from increased ridership.

The beneficiaries include the program participants saving on commuting cost, the employer reducing onsite parking expenses, and the municipality reducing cars on the road, which leads to lower infrastructure and roadway maintenance costs.

Expanded Mitigation Options
This measure could be paired with any combination of the other commute trip reduction strategies (Measures T-7 through T-13) for increased reductions.

5.5 %
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-9. Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program TRANSPORTATION | 96 GHG Reduction Formula
A =
C
B
× G × D × E × F × H × I
GHG Calculation Variables
If subsidies or discounts target employees, the GHG reduction from this measure may be limited to work-related employee trips only (i.e., home-to- work) and work-to-other, where at least one trip end is work). If residents are targeted, the GHG reductions extend to all trips.

ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from
employee/resident vehicles accessing the site
0–5.5 % calculated
User Inputs
B Average transit fare without subsidy [ ] $ user input C Subsidy amount [ ] $ user input
D Percent of employees/residents eligible for
subsidy
0–100 % user input
E Percent of project-generated VMT from
employees/residents
0–100 % user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
F Transit mode share of all trips or work trips Table T-3.1 or Table T-9.1
% FHWA 2017
G Elasticity of transit boardings with respect to
transit fare price
-0.43 unitless Taylor et al.
2008
H Percent of transit trips that would otherwise
be made in a vehicle
50 % Handy &
Boarnet 2013
I Conversion factor of vehicle trips to VMT 1.0 unitless assumption Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B and C) – The average transit fare and subsidy amount can be presented as either a fare per ride, or the cost of a monthly pass for typical transit service near the site. Pricing should be based on the expected means of subsidy implementation; for instance, if a monthly pass is provided to all residents, prices should be input on a monthly basis. ▪ (D) – The percentage of employees/residents associated with the site who have access to the subsidy. If subsidy is provided as an employee benefit, care should be taken to account for any contract or temporary workers who do not receive such benefits. ▪ (E) – The percentage of project-generated VMT from employees/residents is used to adjust the percent reduction in GHG emissions from the scale of employee and/or resident-generated VMT to project-generated VMT. If subsidies or discounts target employees at an office development, this value would simply be 100 percent. If the project site is a multifamily development with no onsite workers, this value would also be B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-9. Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program TRANSPORTATION | 97 100 percent. If the project site is a retail development, this value would be less than 100 percent, as it does not account for retail shopper trips to the site. The share of total VMT generated by employees for visitor-intensive uses, such as retail or medical offices, can be roughly estimated by multiplying the total number of employees by two (to account for both arrival and departure), divided by the total number of daily trips. ▪ (F) – Ideally, the user will calculate transit mode share for work trips or all trips of a Project/Site at a scale no larger than a census tract. Potential data sources include the U.S. Census, California Household Travel Survey (preferred), or local survey efforts.

Care should be taken not to present the reported commute mode share as retrieved from the American Community Survey (ACS), unless the land use is office or employment based and the tables are based on work location (rather than home location). If the subsidies or discounts target employees and their commute trips, then the mode share should use the home-to-work trip purpose. If the user is not able to provide a project-specific value using one of the data sources described above, they have the option to input the transit mode share for one of the six most populated CBSAs in California. The transit mode share for work trips by CBSA is presented in Table T-9.1 in Appendix C (FHWA 2017). The transit mode share for all trips is provided in Table T3.1 in Appendix C. ▪ (G) – A cross-sectional analysis of transit use in 265 urbanized areas in the U.S. found that a 0.43 percent decrease in transit boardings occurs for every 1 percent increase in transit fare price (Taylor et al. 2008). A policy brief summarizing the results of transit service strategies found this analysis to fall in the mid-point of observed, short-term values (Handy & Boarnet 2013). Price elasticities of transit demand vary based on both long-term and short-term demand, service type, and service location (Litman 2020 and Handy & Boarnet 2013).
▪ (H) – Not all new transit trips replace a vehicle trip. The share of transit trips that would otherwise be made by private vehicle ranges from less than 5 percent to 50 percent across studies. This assumption is based on observed values for high quality BRT service under the assumption that this measure is implemented alongside marketing measures and is targeted primarily at reducing vehicle commute trips. (Handy & Boarnet 2013).

Note that this study looked at service improvements rather than fare changes and is used as a proxy variable. If project-specific or location-specific information is available, it should be substituted for this assumptive variable.
▪ (I) – The adjustment factor from vehicle trips to VMT is 1. This assumes that all vehicle trips will average out to typical trip length (“assumes all trip lengths are equal”). Thus, it can be assumed that a percentage reduction in vehicle trips will equal the same percentage reduction in VMT. Subsidies or discounts targeting commute trips may have a higher factor as they are generally longer than the trip lengths for other purposes.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Amax) The GHG reduction is capped at 5.5 percent, which is based on the following assumptions:
▪ (C=B) – The subsidy coverage is capped at 100 percent of the typical transit fare. ▪ (D) – All employees are eligible for the subsidy.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-9. Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program TRANSPORTATION | 98 ▪ (E) – All project-generated VMT is from employee-generated VMT. ▪ (F) – Employees at an office development in the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward CBSA have a default transit mode share for work trips of 25.60 percent.

Subsector Maximum
( ∑ AmaxT-5 through T-13 ≤45%) This measure is in the Trip Reduction Programs subsector. This subcategory includes Measures T-5 through T-13. The employee commute VMT reduction from the combined implementation of all measures within this subsector is capped at 45 percent.

Mutually Exclusive Measures
If this measure is selected, the user may not also take credit for either Measure T-5 or T-6.

However, this measure may be implemented alongside other individual CTR measures (Measures T-7, T-8, T-10 through T-13). The efficacy of individual programs may vary highly based on individual employers and local contexts.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
In this example, the user reduces VMT by providing all employees (D) of a proposed office development in the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward CBSA a 100 percent transit subsidy in the form of a $100 monthly transit pass (C=B). The user would reduce GHG emissions from VMT by 5.5 percent.

A = (
$100
$100 × -0.43) × 100% × 100% × 25.60% × 50% × 1 = -5.5%
Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Local Air Quality
The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) would be the same as the percent reduction in NOX, CO, NO2, SO2, and PM. Reductions in ROG emissions can be calculated by multiplying the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) by an adjustment factor of 87 percent. See Adjusting VMT Reductions to Emission Reductions above for further discussion.

Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in vehicle fuel consumption would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

VMT Reductions
The percent reduction in VMT would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-9. Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program TRANSPORTATION | 99 Sources
▪ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017. National Household Travel Survey–2017 Table Designer. Travel Day PMT by TRPTRANS by HH_CBSA, Workers by WRKTRANS by HH_CBSA.

Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ Handy, L. and S. Boarnet. 2013. Impacts of Transit Service Strategies on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Available:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/transitservice/transit_brief.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ Litman, T. 2020. Transit Price Elasticities and Cross-elasticities. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. April.

Available: https://www.vtpi.org/tranelas.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ Taylor, B., D. Miller, H. Iseki, and C. Fink. 2008. Nature and/or Nurture? Analyzing the Determinants of Transit Ridership Across US Urbanized Areas. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 43(1), 60-77. Available:
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.367.5311&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

Accessed: January 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 100
T-10. Provide End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 4.4% of GHG
emissions from project/site
employee commute VMT
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
End-of-trip bicycle facilities could take more
cars off the road, resulting in less traffic and
better allowing emergency responders to
access a hazard site during an extreme
weather event. They could also make it
easier for bicycle users to access resources in
an extreme weather event.

Health and Equity Considerations
Facilities should be inclusive of all gender
identities and expressions. Consider
including gender-neutral, single-occupancy
options to allow for additional privacy for
those who want it.

Measure Description
This measure will install and maintain end-of-trip facilities for employee use. End-of-trip facilities include bike parking, bike lockers, showers, and personal lockers. The provision and maintenance of secure bike parking and related facilities encourages commuting by bicycle, thereby reducing VMT and GHG emissions.

Subsector
Trip Reduction Programs
Locational Context
Urban, suburban
Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
End-of-trip facilities should be installed at a size proportional to the number of commuting bicyclists and regularly maintained.

Cost Considerations
Employer costs include capital and maintenance costs for construction and maintenance of facilities and potentially labor and materials costs for staff to monitor facilities and provide marketing to encourage use of new facilities. The beneficiaries include the program participants saving on commuting cost, the employer reducing onsite parking expenses, and the municipality reducing cars on the road, which leads to lower infrastructure and roadway maintenance costs.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Best practice is to include an onsite bicycle repair station and post signage on or near secure parking and personal lockers with information about how to reserve or obtain access to these amenities.

This measure could be paired with any combination of the other commute trip reduction strategies (Measures T-7 through T-13) for increased reductions.

4.4%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-10. Provide End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities TRANSPORTATION | 101 GHG Reduction Formula
A =
C × (E − (B × E))
D × F
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from
employee project/site commute VMT

0.1–4.4 % calculated
User Inputs
None
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
B Bike mode adjustment factor 1.78 or

4.86 unitless Buehler 2012
C Existing bicycle trip length for all trips in
region
Table
T-10.1
miles FHWA 2017a
D Existing vehicle trip length for all trips in
region
Table
T-10.1
miles FHWA 2017a
E Existing bicycle mode share for work trips
in region
Table
T-10.2
% FHWA 2017b
F Existing vehicle mode share for work trips
in region
Table
T-10.2
% FHWA 2017b
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B) – The bike mode adjustment factor should be provided by the user based on type of bike facility. A study found that commuters with showers, lockers, and bike parking at work are associated with 4.86 times greater likelihood to commute by bicycle when compared to individuals without any bicycle facilities at work. Individuals with bike parking, but no showers and lockers at the workplace, are associated with 1.78 times greater likelihood to cycle to work than those without trip-end facilities (Buehler 2012). ▪ (C and D) – Ideally, the user will calculate bicycle and auto trip length for a Project/Site at a scale no larger than a census tract. Potential data sources include the U.S. Census, California Household Travel Survey (preferred), or local survey efforts. If the user is not able to provide a project-specific value using one of these data sources, they have the option to input the trip lengths for bicycles and vehicles for one of the six most populated CBSAs in California, as presented in Table T-10.1 in Appendix C (FHWA 2017a). Trip lengths are likely to be longer for areas not covered by the listed CBSAs, which represent the denser areas of the state.
▪ (E and F) – Ideally, the user will calculate bicycle and auto mode share for work trips for a Project/Site at a scale no larger than a census tract. Potential data sources include the U.S. Census, California Household Travel Survey (preferred), or local survey efforts. If the user is not able to provide a project-specific value using one of these data sources, they have the option to input the regional average mode shares for bicycle and vehicle B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-10. Provide End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities TRANSPORTATION | 102 work trips for one of the six most populated CBSAs in California, as presented in Table T-10.2 in Appendix C (FHWA 2017b). If the project study area is not within the listed CBSAs or the user is able to provide a project-specific value, the user should replace these regional defaults in the GHG reduction formula. For areas not covered by the listed CBSAs, which represent the denser areas of the state, bicycle mode share is likely to be lower and vehicle share higher than presented in Table T-10.2.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Amax) The maximum GHG reduction from this measure is 4.4 percent. This maximum scenario is presented in the below example quantification.

Subsector Maximum
( ∑ AmaxT-5 through T-13 ≤45%) This measure is in the Trip Reduction Programs subsector. This subcategory includes Measures T-5 through T-13. The employee commute VMT reduction from the combined implementation of all measures within this subsector is capped at 45 percent.

Mutually Exclusive Measures
If this measure is selected, the user may not also take credit for either Measure T-5 or T-6.

However, this measure may be implemented alongside other individual CTR measures (Measures T-7, T-8, T-9, and T-11 through T-13). The efficacy of individual programs may vary highly based on individual employers and local contexts.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces VMT by providing end-of-trip facilities for the project’s employees, which encourages bicycle trips in place of vehicle trips. In this example, the type of bike facility provided by the project is parking with showers, bike lockers, and personal lockers (B). The project is within San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara CBSA, and the user does not have project-specific values for trip lengths and mode shares and for bicycles and vehicles. Per Tables T-10.1 and T-10.2 in Appendix C, inputs for these variables are 2.8 miles, 11.5 miles, 4.1 percent, and 86.6 percent, respectively (C, D, E, and F). GHG emissions from employee commute VMT would be reduced by 4.4 percent.

A =

2.8 miles × (4.1% − (4.86 × 4.1%))

11.5 miles × 86.6% = -4.4%
Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Local Air Quality
The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) would be the same as the percent reduction in NOX, CO, NO2, SO2, and PM. Reductions in ROG emissions can be B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-10. Provide End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities TRANSPORTATION | 103 calculated by multiplying the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) by an adjustment factor of 87 percent. See Adjusting VMT Reductions to Emission Reductions above for further discussion.

Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in vehicle fuel consumption would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

VMT Reductions
The percent reduction in VMT would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

Sources
▪ Buehler, R. 2012. Determinants of bicycle commuting in the Washington, DC region: The role bicycle parking, cyclist showers, and free car parking at work. Transportation Research Part D, 17, 525–531.

Available: http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/cms/downloads/DeterminantsofBicycleCommuting.pdf.

Accessed: January 2021.
▪ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017a. National Household Travel Survey–2017 Table Designer. Travel Day PT by TRPTRANS by HH_CBSA. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed:

January 2021.
▪ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017b. National Household Travel Survey–2017 Table Designer.

Workers by WRKTRANS by HH_CBSA. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed: January 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 104
T-11. Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 20.4% of GHG
emissions from project/site
employee commute VMT
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Employer-sponsored vanpools could result in
less traffic, potentially reducing congestion
or delays on major roads during peak AM
and PM traffic periods. When this reduction
occurs during extreme weather events, it
better allows emergency responders to
access a hazard site.

Health and Equity Considerations
Consider using zero-emission or plug-in
electric vehicles (PHEVs) for additional
emission reduction benefits.

Measure Description
This measure will implement an employer-sponsored vanpool service. Vanpooling is a flexible form of public transportation that provides groups of 5 to 15 people with a cost-effective and convenient rideshare option for commuting. The mode shift from long-distance, single-occupied vehicles to shared vehicles reduces overall commute VMT, thereby reducing GHG emissions.

Subsector
Trip Reduction Programs
Locational Context
Urban, suburban, rural
Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
Vanpool programs are more appropriate for the building
occupant or tenant (i.e., employer) to implement and monitor than the building owner or developer.

Cost Considerations
Employer costs primarily include the capital costs of vehicle acquisition and the labor costs of drivers, either through incentives to current employees or the hiring of dedicated drivers. The beneficiaries include the program participants saving on commuting cost, the employer reducing onsite parking expenses, and the municipality reducing cars on the road, which leads to lower infrastructure and roadway maintenance costs.

Expanded Mitigation Options
When implementing a vanpool service, best practice is to subsidize the cost for employees that have a similar origin and destination and provide priority parking for employees that vanpool.

This measure could be paired with any combination of the other commute trip reduction strategies (Measures T-7 through T-13) for increased reductions.

20.4%
Photo Credit: UCLA Transportation/Flickr, 2021
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-11. Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool TRANSPORTATION | 105 GHG Reduction Formula
A =
((1 − B) × C × F) + (B × D
E
× G)
((1 − B) × C × F) + (B × D × F)
− 1
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from
project/site employee commute VMT

3.4–20.4 % calculated
User Inputs
None
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
B Percent of employees that participate in
vanpool program

2.7 % SANDAG 2019
C Average length of one-way vehicle
commute trip in region
Table
T-11.1
miles per trip FHWA 2017
D Average length of one-way vanpool
commute trip

42.0 miles per trip SANDAG 2019
E Average vanpool occupancy (including
driver)

6.25 occupants SANDAG 2019
F Average emission factor of average
employee vehicle
307.5 g CO2e per mile CARB 2020
G Vanpool emission factor 763.4 g CO2e per mile CARB 2020 Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B) – The percent of employees that would participate in a vanpool program is based on a survey of commuters in San Diego County (SANDAG 2019). If the project is not within San Diego County or the user is able to provide a project-specific value for within San Diego County, the user should replace the default employee participation rate in the GHG reduction formula.
▪ (C) – Ideally, the user will calculate auto commute trip lengths for a Project/Site at a scale no larger than a census tract. Potential data sources include the U.S. Census, California Household Travel Survey (preferred), or local survey efforts. If the user is not able to provide a project-specific value using one of these data sources, they have the option to input the regional average one-way auto commute trip length for one of the six most populated CBSAs in California, as presented in Table T-11.1 in Appendix C (FHWA 2017). Trip lengths are likely to be longer for areas not covered by the listed CBSAs, which represent the denser areas of the state.
▪ (D and E) – The average one-way vanpool commute trip length and occupancy are based on data from the San Diego Association of Government’s regional vanpool program (SANDAG 2019). If the project is not within San Diego County or the user is B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-11. Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool TRANSPORTATION | 106 able to provide a project-specific value for within San Diego County, the user should replace these defaults in the GHG reduction formula.
▪ (F and G) – The average GHG emission factors for employee commute and vanpool vehicles were calculated in terms of CO2e per mile using EMFAC2017 (v1.0.3). The model was run for a 2020 statewide average using diesel and gasoline fuel. The average of the light-duty automobile (LDA) and light duty truck (LDT1/LDT2) vehicle categories represents employee non-vanpool vehicles and the light-heavy duty truck (LHDT1) vehicle category conservatively represents a large cargo vanpool vehicle. The running emission factors for CO2, CH4, and N2O (CARB 2020) were multiplied by the corresponding 100-year GWP values from the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007). If the user can provide a project-specific value (i.e., for a future year and project location), the user should run EMFAC to replace the defaults in the GHG reduction formula.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Amax) For projects in San Diego County that use default CBSA data from Table T-11.1 and (Bmax), the maximum percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) is 20.4 percent. This maximum scenario is presented in the below example quantification. (Bmax) The percent of employees that participate in the vanpool program is capped at 15 percent, which is based on the high end of vanpool participation survey data for several successful programs in the U.S. (SANDAG 2019).

Subsector Maximum
( ∑ AmaxT-5 through T-13 ≤45%) This measure is in the Trip Reduction Programs subsector. This subcategory includes Measures T-5 through T-13. The employee commute VMT reduction from the combined implementation of all measures within this subsector is capped at 45 percent.

Mutually Exclusive Measures
If this measure is selected, the user may not also take credit for either Measure T-5 or T-6.

However, this measure may be implemented alongside other individual CTR measures (Measures T-7 through T-10, T-12, and T-13). The efficacy of individual programs may vary highly based on individual employers and local contexts.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces employee commute VMT by requiring that the employer of the project to sponsor a vanpool program. In this example, the project is in the San Diego-Carlsbad CBSA and would have an average vehicle commute trip length of 14.52 miles (C). The percent of employees that participate in the vanpool program is 15 percent (Bmax). GHG emissions from employee commute would be reduced by 20.4 percent.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-11. Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool TRANSPORTATION | 107 Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Local Air Quality
The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) would be the same as the percent reduction in NOX, CO, NO2, SO2, and PM. Reductions in ROG emissions can be calculated by multiplying the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) by an adjustment factor of 87 percent. See Adjusting VMT Reductions to Emission Reductions above for further discussion.

Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in vehicle fuel consumption (H) can be calculated using the GHG reduction formula except that (F) and (G) should be replaced by (I) and (J), as follows.

Fuel Use Reduction Formula
H =
((1 − B) × C × I) + (B × D
E
× J)
((1 − B) × C × I) + (B × D × I)
− 1
Fuel Use Reduction Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
H Percent reduction in fuel use from
project/site employee commute VMT

4.7–21.4 % calculated
User Inputs
None
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
I Fuel efficiency of average employee
vehicle

0.03639 gallon (gal)
per mile
CARB 2020
J Fuel efficiency of vanpool vehicle 0.08328 gal per mile CARB 2020 Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (I and J) – The average fuel efficiencies for employee commute and vanpool vehicles were calculated using EMFAC2017 (v1.0.3). The model was run for a 2020 statewide average using diesel and gasoline fuel. The average of the LDA, A=
((1 − 15%) × 14.52 miles
trip × 307.5 g CO2e
miles ) + (15% ×
42 miles
trip

6.25 occupants × 763.4 g CO2e
miles )
((1 − 15%) × 14.52 miles
trip × 307.5 g CO2e
miles ) + (15% × 42 miles
trip × 307.5 g CO2e
miles )
𝑒
− 1 = -20.4%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-11. Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool TRANSPORTATION | 108 LDT1, and LDT2 vehicle categories represents employee non-vanpool vehicles, and the LHDT1 vehicle category conservatively represents a large cargo vanpool vehicle. If the user can provide a project-specific value (i.e., for a future year and project location), the user should run EMFAC to replace the defaults in the fuel use reduction formula.
▪ Please refer to the GHG Calculation Variables table above for definitions of variables that have been previously defined.

VMT Reductions
The percent reduction in VMT can be calculated using a modified version of the GHG reduction formula, as shown below.
% VMT Reduction =
((1 − B) × C) + (B × D
E
)
C − 1
Sources
▪ California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2020. EMFAC2017 v1.0.3. August. Available:
https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017. National Household Travel Survey–2017 Table Designer. Travel Day VT by HH_CBSA by TRPTRANS by TRIPPURP. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/.

Accessed: January 2021.
▪ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp. Available: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/.

Accessed: January 2021.
▪ San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2019. Mobility Management VMT Reduction Calculator Tool–Design Document. June. Available: https://www.icommutesd.com/docs/default-source/planning/tooldesign-document_final_7-17-19.pdf?sfvrsn=ec39eb3b_2. Accessed: January 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 109
T-12. Price Workplace Parking
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 20.0% of GHG
emissions from project/site
employee commute VMT
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Priced workplace parking could incentivize
increased use of public transit and thus
result in less traffic, potentially reducing
congestion or delays on major roads during
peak AM and PM traffic periods. When this
reduction occurs during extreme weather
events, it better allows emergency
responders to access a hazard site.

Health and Equity Considerations
Parking pricing should include hourly and
daily options so part-time staff do not need
a monthly pass. If the project includes lowwaged employees that have fewer transportation choices or time and resource
constraints, it is instead recommended to
consider implementing Measure T-13,
Implement Employee Parking Cash-Out, or
other transportation subsidy.

Measure Description
This measure will price onsite parking at workplaces. Because free employee parking is a common benefit, charging employees to park onsite increases the cost of choosing to drive to work. This is expected to reduce single-occupancy vehicle commute trips, resulting in decreased VMT, thereby reducing associated GHG emissions.

Subsector
Trip Reduction Programs
Locational Context
Urban, suburban
Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
Implementation may include the following.
▪ Explicitly charging for employee parking.
▪ Implementing above-market rate pricing.
▪ Validating parking only for invited guests (or not providing parking validation at all).
▪ Not providing employee parking and transportation
allowances.

In addition, this measure should include marketing and education regarding available alternatives to driving.

Cost Considerations
Parking fees would be a direct, recurring cost for employees.

Employer costs include labor costs for program management and monitoring, but this may be offset by revenue generated by the program.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Best practice is to ensure that other transportation options are available, convenient, and have competitive travel times (i.e., transit service near the project site, shuttle service, or a complete active transportation network serving the site and surrounding community), and that there is not alternative free parking available nearby (such as on-street). This measure is substantially less effective in environments that do not have other modes available or where unrestricted street parking or other offsite parking is available nearby and has adequate capacity to accommodate project-related vehicle parking demand.
20%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-12. Price Workplace Parking TRANSPORTATION | 110
GHG Reduction Formula
For calculating effectiveness of pricing residential parking, see Measure T-16, Unbundle Residential Parking Costs from Property Cost. For calculating effectiveness of pricing parking at visitor-intensive land uses, see Measure T-24, Implement Market Price Public Parking (On-Street).

A =
B − C
C
× E × D × F
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from
employee commute VMT
0–20.0 % calculated
User Inputs
B Proposed parking price [ ] $ user input
C Baseline parking price [ ] $ user input
D Share of employees paying for parking [ ] % user input Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
E Elasticity of parking demand with
respecting to parking price
-0.4 unitless Lehner &
Peer 2019
F Ratio of vehicle trip reduction to VMT 1 unitless assumption Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B) – Parking price can be provided on an hourly, daily, or monthly basis. Monthly pricing is less effective than requiring daily or hourly payment since the price signal is diluted to only once a month.
▪ (C) – If baseline parking price is $0 (that is, if parking is typically free), set C = ¼ B, allowing for the maximum 50 percent increase in price. Alternatively, for locations that are located within 0.5 mile of transit service, set C = average transit fare to/from the location.
▪ (D) – Many organizations allow some employees free parking benefits. VMT reductions should be adjusted based on the share of employees that would be paying for parking. ▪ (E) – A meta-analysis of parking price studies found that a 0.40 percent decrease in parking demand occurs for every 1 percent increase in parking price (Lehner & Peer 2019). Price elasticity of parking demand varies by location, day of the week, and time of day.
▪ (F) – The adjustment factor from vehicle trips to VMT is 1. This assumes that all vehicle trips will average out to typical trip length (“assumes all trip lengths are equal”). Thus, it can be assumed that a percentage reduction in vehicle trips will equal the same percentage reduction in VMT. Subsidies or discounts targeting commute trips may have a higher factor as they are generally longer than the trip lengths for other purposes.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-12. Price Workplace Parking TRANSPORTATION | 111
GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Amax) The GHG reduction from priced workplace parking is capped at 20 percent. This maximum scenario is presented in the below example quantification. (
B−C
C max
) The percent increase in parking price is capped at 50 percent.

Subsector Maximum
( ∑ AmaxT-5 through T-13 ≤45%) This measure is in the Trip Reduction Programs subsector. This subcategory includes Measures T-5 through T-13. The employee commute VMT reduction from the combined implementation of all measures within this subsector is capped at 45 percent.

Mutually Exclusive Measures
If this measure is selected, the user may not also take credit for Measure T-13, Implement Employee Parking Cash-Out. While both measures focus on providing a price signal for employees to consider other modes for their work commute, this measure actively charges all employees to park, while Measure T-13 reimburses employees who do not park. Users should select either Measure T-12 or T-13.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces VMT by increasing the price of a monthly parking permit. In this example, the permit fee is increased from $50 (C) to $75 (B). If 100 percent of employees are subject to parking pricing (D), the user would reduce GHG emissions from VMT by 20 percent.

Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Local Air Quality
The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) would be the same as the percent reduction in NOX, CO, NO2, SO2, and PM. Reductions in ROG emissions can be calculated by multiplying the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) by an adjustment factor of 87 percent. See Adjusting VMT Reductions to Emission Reductions above for further discussion.

Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in vehicle fuel consumption would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

A =
$75 − $50
$50 × -0.4 × 100% × 1 = -20%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-12. Price Workplace Parking TRANSPORTATION | 112
VMT Reductions
The percent reduction in VMT would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

Sources
▪ Lehner, S., Peer, S. 2019. The Price Elasticity of Parking: A Meta-analysis. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 121 2019. Available:
http://sustainabletransportationsc.org/garage/pdf/parking_elasticity.pdf. Accessed: January 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 113
T-13. Implement Employee Parking Cash-Out
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 12.0% of GHG
emissions from project/site
employee commute VMT
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Employee parking cash-out could incentivize
increased use of public transit and thus
result in less traffic, potentially reducing
congestion or delays on major roads during
peak AM and PM traffic periods. When this
reduction occurs during extreme weather
events, it better allows emergency
responders to access a hazard site.

Health and Equity Considerations
Non-applicable
Measure Description
This measure will require project employers to offer employee parking cash-out. Cash-out is when employers provide employees with a choice of forgoing their current subsidized/free parking for a cash payment equivalent to or greater than the cost of the parking space. This encourages employees to use other modes of travel instead of single occupancy vehicles. This mode shift results in people driving less and thereby reduces VMT and GHG emissions.

Subsector
Trip Reduction Programs
Locational Context
Urban, suburban
Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
To prevent spill-over parking and continued use of single occupancy vehicles, residential parking in the surrounding area must be permitted, and public on-street parking must be market rate.

Cost Considerations
Employer costs include the recurring, direct cost for payment to program participants and labor costs for program management.

Employees that participate in the program would achieve cost savings through the cash-out benefit and potentially through reduced vehicle ownership and usage.

Expanded Mitigation Options
This measure could be paired with many other commute trip reduction strategies (Measures T-7 through T-11) for increased reductions.
12%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-13. Implement Employee Parking Cash-Out TRANSPORTATION | 114 GHG Reduction Formula
A = B × C
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions
from project/site commute VMT
0–12.0 % calculated
User Inputs
B Percentage of employees eligible [ ] % user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
C Percent reduction in commute VMT
from implementation of measure
-12 % Shoup 2005
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B) – The percentage of employees eligible refers to the employees that would be able to participate in the program. This will usually be 100 percent. Employees who might not be able to participate could include those who work nighttime hours when transit and rideshare services are not available or employees who are required to drive to work as part of their job duties. This does not refer to the percentage of employees who end up participating in the program.
▪ (C) – A study of eight California firms that complied with California’s 1992 parking cash-out law found employee commute VMT decreased by an average of 12 percent (Shoup 2005).

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Amax) The maximum percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) is 12.0 percent. This maximum scenario is presented in the below example quantification.

Subsector Maximum
( ∑ AmaxT-5 through T-13 ≤45%) This measure is in the Trip Reduction Programs subsector. This subcategory includes Measures T-5 through T-13. The employee commute VMT reduction from the combined implementation of all measures within this subsector is capped at 45 percent.

Mutually Exclusive Measures
If this measure is selected, the user may not also take credit for Measure T-12, Price Workplace Parking. While both measures focus on providing a price signal for employees to consider other modes for their work commute, this measure reimburses employees who B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-13. Implement Employee Parking Cash-Out TRANSPORTATION | 115 do not park, while Measure T-12 actively charges all employees to park. Users should select either Measure T-12 or T-13.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces project/site VMT by offering commuters the option to choose a cash payment equal to or greater than the current parking subsidy offered by their employer. In this example, all employees (i.e., 100 percent) are eligible to participate (B), which would reduce GHG emissions from employee commute VMT by 12 percent.

Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Local Air Quality
The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) would be the same as the percent reduction in NOX, CO, NO2, SO2, and PM. Reductions in ROG emissions can be calculated by multiplying the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) by an adjustment factor of 87 percent. See Adjusting VMT Reductions to Emission Reductions above for further discussion.

Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in vehicle fuel consumption would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

VMT Reductions
The percent reduction in VMT would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

Sources
▪ Shoup, D. 2005. Parking Cash Out. Planners Advisory Service, American Planning Association.

Available: http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/ParkingCashOut.pdf. Accessed: January 2021.

A = 100% × -12% = -12%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 116
T-14. Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 11.9% of GHG
emissions from vehicles
accessing the commercial or
multifamily housing building
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Providing electric vehicle charging
infrastructure increases fuel redundancy
for electric vehicles even if an extreme
weather event disrupts other fuel sources.

Electric vehicles could also provide benefits
to buildings and the grid, such as
emergency backup, energy reserves, and
demand response.

Health and Equity Considerations
Differential costs of PHEVs compared to
conventional vehicles are decreasing over
time, but at present are more expensive,
which means this measure could
disproportionately benefit those of greater
economic means. As costs come into parity
over time, this will be less of an issue.

Employer, electricity provider, and state
incentives for PHEV purchase could help
address near-term disparities.

Measure Description
Install onsite electric vehicle chargers in an amount beyond what is required by the 2019 California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) at buildings with designated parking areas (e.g., commercial, educational, retail, multifamily). This will enable drivers of PHEVs to drive a larger share of miles in electric mode (eVMT), as opposed to gasoline-powered mode, thereby displacing GHG emissions from gasoline consumption with a lesser amount of indirect emissions from electricity. Most PHEVs owners charge their vehicles at home overnight. When making trips during the day, the vehicle will switch to gasoline mode if/when it reaches its maximum all-electric range.

Subsector
Parking or Road Pricing/Management
Locational Context
Urban, suburban, rural
Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
Parking at the chargers must be limited to electric vehicles.

Cost Considerations
The primary costs associated with electric vehicle charging infrastructure include the capital costs of purchasing and installing charging stations, electricity costs from use of stations, and maintenance costs of keeping the charging stations in working order. Costs initially fall to the station owners, either municipalities or private owners, but can be passed along to station users with usage fees. Depending on station placement and charging times required for PHEVs, businesses near charging stations can derive benefits from patronage of station users.

Expanded Mitigation Options
In addition to increasing the percentage of electric miles for PHEVs, the increased availability of chargers from implementation of this measure could mitigate consumer “range anxiety” concerns and increase the adoption and use of battery electric vehicles (BEVs), but this potential effect is not included in the calculations as a conservative assumption. Expanded mitigation could include quantification of the effect of this measure on BEV use.

11.9%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-14. Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure TRANSPORTATION | 117 GHG Reduction Formula
A =
B × D × (F − E) × (G − (H × I × K × L))
-C × J
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from
vehicles accessing the office building or
housing
0–11.9 % calculated
User Inputs
B Number of chargers installed at site [ ] integer user input C Total vehicles accessing the site per day [ ] integer user input Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
D Average number of PHEVs served per day
per charger installed
2 integer CARB 2019
E Percent of PHEV miles in electric mode
without measure
46 % CARB
2020a
F Percent of PHEV miles in electric mode with
measure
80 % CARB 2017
G Average emission factor of PHEV in gasoline
mode
205.1 g CO2e per
mile
CARB
2020a; U.S.

DOE 2021
H Energy efficiency of PHEV in electric mode 0.327 kilowatt hours (kWh)
per mile
CARB
2020b; U.S.

DOE 2021
I Carbon intensity of local electricity provider Tables E-4.3 and E-4.4
lb CO2e per
megawatt
hour (MWh)
CA Utilities
2021
J Average emission factor of non-electric
vehicles accessing the site
307.5 g CO2e per
mile
CARB
2020a
K conversion from lb to g 454 g per lb conversion
L Conversion from kWh to MWh 0.001 MWh per
kWh
conversion
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (D) – The average number of PHEVs served per day per charger installed is 2 vehicles (CARB 2019). If the user can provide a project-specific value, they should replace the default in the GHG reduction formula.
▪ (E) - Based on the EMFAC2017 model (v1.0.3), 46 percent of miles traveled by PHEVs in California are eVMT, and 54 percent are in gasoline mode (CARB 2020a).

B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-14. Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure TRANSPORTATION | 118 ▪ (F) – A review of EV user surveys and analytics included in the CARB’s Advanced Clean Cars Mid-Term Report suggest that PHEV owners can reach 80 percent eVMT with access to adequate supportive charging infrastructure (CARB 2017). ▪ (G) – As described for (J), the average GHG emission factor for gasoline vehicles is 307.5 grams of CO2e per mile.
▪ The fuel efficiency of a PHEV in gasoline mode is calculated as 66.7 percent of the fuel consumption rate of a gasoline vehicle, based on the assumption that a gasoline hybrid vehicle has 50 percent higher fuel economy (miles per gal [mpg]) than a comparable gasoline vehicle, based on a comparison of the gasoline and hybrid Toyota Camry and Corolla models (U.S. DOE 2021). This percentage is applied to the average GHG emission factor for gasoline vehicles to determine the average emission factor for PHEVs in gasoline mode as (66.7%×307.5 g CO2e per mile). If the user can provide a projectspecific value by running EMFAC based on the future year of a project, they should replace the default in the GHG reduction formula.
▪ (H) – Scaled from a light-duty automobile gasoline equivalent fuel economy 30.3 mpg (CARB 2020a), an energy efficiency ratio (EER) of 2.5 (CARB 2020b), and an assumption of 33.7 kWh electricity per gallon of gasoline (U.S. DOE 2021). ▪ (I) – GHG intensity factors for major California electricity providers are provided in Tables E-4.3 and E-4.4 in Appendix C. If the project study area is not serviced by a listed electricity provider, or the user is able to provide a project-specific value (i.e., for the future year not referenced in Appendix C), the user should replace the default in the GHG calculation formula. If the electricity provider is not known, the user may elect to use the statewide grid average carbon intensity.
▪ (J) – The average GHG emission factor for non-electric vehicles accessing the site was calculated in terms of CO2e per mile using EMFAC2017 (v1.0.3). The model was run for a 2020 statewide average of LDA, LDT1, and LDT2 vehicles using diesel and gasoline fuel. The running emission factors for CO2, CH4, and N2O (CARB 2020a) were multiplied by the corresponding 100-year GWP values from the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007). If the user can provide a project-specific value (i.e., for a future year and project location), the user should run EMFAC to replace the default in the GHG reduction formula.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Amax) The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) is capped at 11.9 percent, which is based on the following assumptions used to generate a maximum scenario:
▪ (B) – number of chargers installed = 20. CALGreen provides a non-residential voluntary Tier 2 measure that requires projects with 201 or more parking spaces to allocate 10 percent of total parking spaces for “EV Capable” parking spaces (or 20 parking spaces) (CBSC 2019). Note that EV Capable parking spaces do not actually have EV chargers installed, though they do have electrical panel capacity, a dedicated branch circuit, and a raceway to the EV parking spot to support future installation of charging stations.

Therefore, using the number of EV Capable parking spaces as a proxy for EV chargers as a high-end estimate is conservative.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-14. Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure TRANSPORTATION | 119 ▪ (C) – total vehicles accessing the site = 200. Per the CALGreen voluntary measure, the number of total parking spaces that correspond with 20 “EV Capable” parking spaces is 201.
▪ (D) – PHEVs served per day per charger installed = 7. This value is the max (Dmax). This assumes that all PHEV drivers would coordinate sharing of the limited number of chargers at the site. Value is based on data from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (CARB 2019).
▪ (I) – carbon intensity of local electricity provider = 0 lb CO2e per MWh. This assumes that the local electricity provider is powered 100 percent by renewables and thus has a carbon intensity of zero.

Subsector Maximum
( ∑ AmaxT-14 through T-16 ≤35%) This measure is in the Parking or Road Pricing/Management subsector. This subcategory includes Measures T-14 through T-16. The VMT reduction from the combined implementation of all measures within this subsector is capped at 35 percent.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user will install electric vehicle chargers at their proposed office or multifamily housing development, which will enable employees or residents with PHEVs to drive a larger share of miles in electric mode, as opposed to gasoline-powered mode, thereby displacing GHG emissions from gasoline consumption with a lesser amount of indirect emissions from indirect electricity. In this example, 20 chargers (B) will be installed at a workplace with 200 daily employee vehicles accessing the site (C). The electricity provider for the project area is the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) and the analysis year is 2022. The carbon intensity of electricity is therefore 344 lb CO2e per MWh (I). The GHG impact is calculated as a 3.4 percent reduction from the total emissions from vehicles accessing the site.

Quantified Co-Benefits
While the measure will achieve fuel savings, it will also increase electricity consumption.

This section defines the methods for quantifying Improved Local Air Quality and fuel savings, as well as increased electricity consumption.

Improved Local Air Quality
Local criteria pollutants will be reduced by the reduction in fossil fuel combustion.

The percent reduction in criteria pollutants can be calculated using the GHG reduction formula. Electricity supplied by statewide fossil-fueled or bioenergy power plants will generate criteria pollutants. However, because these power plants are located throughout the state, electricity consumption from vehicles charging will not generate localized criteria pollutant emissions. Consequently, for the quantification A =
20 × 2 PHEVs
charger∙day × (80% − 46%) × (205.1 g CO2e
miles − (0.327 kWh
mile × 344 lb CO2eMWh × 454 g
lb × 0.001 MWh
kWh ))
-200 vehicles × 307.5 g CO2e
miles
= 3.4%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-14. Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure TRANSPORTATION | 120 of criteria pollutant emission reductions, either the electricity portion of the equation can be removed, or the electricity intensity (I) can be set to zero.

Fuel Savings (Increased Electricity)
The percent reduction in vehicle fuel consumption would be the same as the percent reduction in criteria pollutant emissions. The percent increase in electricity use (M) from this measure can be calculated as follows.

Electricity Use Increase Formula
M =
B × D × (F − E) × J × N × O
-C × P
Electricity Use Increase Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
M Increase in electricity from PHEVs [ ] % calculated
User Inputs
N Existing electricity consumption
of project/site
[ ] kWh per year user input
O Days per year with vehicles
accessing the site
260–365 days per year user input
P Average annual VMT of vehicles
accessing the site
[ ] miles per day
per vehicle
user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
None
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (N) – The user should take care to properly quantify building electricity using accepted methodologies (such as CalEEMod).
▪ (O) – If the proposed development is a workplace in which employees access the site an average of 5 days per week, the user should input 260 workdays. If the development is multifamily dwelling, the user should input 365 days. ▪ Please refer to the GHG Calculation Variables table above for definitions of variables that have been previously defined.

Sources
▪ California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017. Advanced Clean Cars Mid-Term Report, Appendix G:

Plug-in Electric Vehicle In-Use and Charging Data Analysis. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/2017-midterm-review-report. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2019. Final Sustainable Communities Strategy Program and Evaluation Guidelines Appendices. November. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-
11/Final%20SCS%20Program%20and%20Evaluation%20Guidelines%20Appendices.pdf. Accessed:

January 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-14. Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure TRANSPORTATION | 121 ▪ California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2020a. EMFAC2017 v1.0.3. August. Available:
https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2020b. Unofficial electronic version of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard Regulation. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020- 07/2020_lcfs_fro_oal-approved_unofficial_06302020.pdf
▪ California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2021. OFFROAD2017–ORION. Available:
https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory. Database queried by Ramboll and provided electronically to ICF. March 2021.
▪ California Utilities. 2021. Excel database of GHG emission factors for delivered electricity, provided to the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District and ICF. January through March 2021. ▪ California Building Standards Commission (CBSC). 2019. Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11. Appendix A5 – Nonresidential Voluntary Measures. Table A5.601 Nonresidential Buildings:

Green Building Standards Code Proposed Performance Approach. July. Available:
https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAGBSC2019/appendix-a5-nonresidential-voluntary-measures.

Accessed: May 2021.
▪ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp. Available: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/.

Accessed: January 2021.
▪ U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE). 2021. Download Fuel Economy Data. January. Available:
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/download.shtml. Accessed: January 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 122
T-15. Limit Residential Parking Supply
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 13.7% of GHG
emissions from resident
vehicles accessing the site
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Limiting residential parking supply could
incentivize increased use of public transit
and thus result in less traffic, potentially
reducing congestion or delays on major
roads during peak AM and PM traffic
periods. When this reduction occurs during
extreme weather events, it better allows
emergency responders to access a hazard
site. Evacuation plans and plans for
transport to cooling/heating/clean air
centers during power outages or unhealthy
air quality events, however, would need to
consider needs of households without access
to private vehicles.

Health and Equity Considerations
Limiting parking supply can reduce the cost of
housing development and, potentially,
increase housing supply and decrease
housing expenses. However, this may
negatively impact residents that do not have a
viable alternative to personal vehicle travel.

Measure Description
This measure will reduce the total parking supply available at a residential project or site. Limiting the amount of parking available creates scarcity and adds additional time and inconvenience to trips made by private auto, thus disincentivizing driving as a mode of travel. Reducing the convenience of driving results in a shift to other modes and decreased VMT and thus a reduction in GHG emissions. Evidence of the effects of reduced parking supply is strongest for residential developments.

Subsector
Parking or Road Pricing/Management
Locational Context
Urban, suburban
Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
This measure is ineffective in locations where unrestricted street parking or other offsite parking is available nearby and has adequate capacity to accommodate project-related vehicle parking demand.

Cost Considerations
Reducing residential parking supply, especially in high density residential areas, can have high-cost savings if it reduces the need for additional investment in parking infrastructure. Some of these savings may be offset by investments in alternative transport solutions, which will need to be robust to ensure that residents can effectively travel to work and all other destinations without a car.

Expanded Mitigation Options
When limiting parking supply, a best practice is to do so at sites that are located near high quality alternative modes of travel (such as a rail station, frequent bus line, or in a higher density area with multiple walkable locations nearby). Limiting parking supply may also allow for more active uses on any given lot, which may support Measures T-1 and T-2 by allowing for higher density construction.

13.7%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-15. Limit Residential Parking Supply TRANSPORTATION | 123 GHG Reduction Formula
A = -
B − C
B
× D × E × F
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from resident
vehicles accessing the site
0–13.7 % calculated
User Inputs
B Residential parking demand [ ] parking spaces user input C Project residential parking supply [ ] parking spaces user input D Percentage of project VMT generated by residents [ ] % user input Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
E Percent of household VMT that is commute based 37 % Caltrans 2012
F Percent reduction in commute mode share by
driving among households in areas with scarce
parking
37 % Chatman
2013
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B) – The user can calculate the parking demand in the ITE Parking Generation Manual based on the project building square footage or number of du. For residential projects, this demand varies based on the size of each unit, and ranges from 1.0 spaces/unit for one-bedroom apartments to 2.6 spaces/unit for single-family homes with 3+ bedrooms. ▪ (D) – Available research on changes in parking supply focuses on residential land uses.

Therefore, reductions are applied only to the share of VMT generated by residents of a project. For most residential projects, this will be 100 percent; however, for mixed-use projects, the user will need to provide project-specific data. ▪ (E) – The percent of household VMT that is commute-based varies from location to location; the statewide average is 37 percent (Caltrans 2012). If the user can provide a project-specific value based on their project type and area, they should replace the default in the GHG reduction formula.
▪ (F) – A study found that among households with limited off-street parking (<1 space per adult), there was a 37 percent decrease in auto mode share for commute trips. The method above pro-rates this reduction based on how much the project’s parking supply is reduced from demand rates calculated in the ITE Parking Generation Manual (ITE 2019). In addition, this reduction is applied to commute trips only due to the limitations of the research.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-15. Limit Residential Parking Supply TRANSPORTATION | 124 GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Amax) The percent reduction in GHG emissions is capped at 13.7 percent. This occurs for projects that have no onsite parking (C), 100 percent of VMT arising from residential land use (D), and 37 percent of all VMT arising from commute trips (E). This maximum scenario is presented in the below example quantification.
(C>B) Parking supply is considered to be limited when demand (C) exceeds supply (B). If demand is equal to or less than supply, then implementation of this measure would not result in a GHG reduction.

Subsector Maximum
( ∑ AmaxT-14 through T-16 ≤35%) This measure is in the Parking or Road Pricing/Management subsector. This subcategory includes Measures T-14 through T-16. The VMT reduction from the combined implementation of all measures within this subsector is capped at 35 percent.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces VMT by reducing a project’s parking supply. In this example, the parking demand per ITE is 100 parking spaces (B) and the project would not supply any parking spaces (C). The user would reduce GHG emissions from VMT by 13.7 percent.

Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Local Air Quality
The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) would be the same as the percent reduction in NOX, CO, NO2, SO2, and PM. Reductions in ROG emissions can be calculated by multiplying the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) by an adjustment factor of 87 percent. See Adjusting VMT Reductions to Emission Reductions above for further discussion.

Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in vehicle fuel consumption would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

VMT Reductions
The percent reduction in VMT would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

A = -
100 spaces − 0 spaces
100 spaces × 100% × 37% × 37% = -13.7%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-15. Limit Residential Parking Supply TRANSPORTATION | 125 Sources
▪ California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2012. California Household Travel Survey (CHTS).

Available: https://www.nrel.gov/transportation/secure-transportation-data/tsdc-california-travelsurvey.html. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ Chatman, D. 2013. Does TOD need the T? On the importance of factors other than rail access.

Journal of the American Planning Association 79(1). Available: https://trid.trb.org/view/1243004.

Accessed: January 2021.
▪ Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). 2019. Parking Generation Manual. 5th Edition. February.

Available: https://ecommerce.ite.org/IMIS/ItemDetail?iProductCode=PG5-ALL. Accessed: May 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 126
T-16. Unbundle Residential Parking Costs from
Property Cost
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 15.7% of GHG
emissions from project VMT
in the study area
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Unbundling residential parking costs from
property costs could incentivize increased
use of public transit and thus result in less
traffic, potentially reducing congestion or
delays on major roads during peak AM and
PM traffic periods. When this reduction
occurs during extreme weather events, it
better allows emergency responders to
access a hazard site.

Health and Equity Considerations
The unbundling of parking costs would help
decrease housing costs for individuals who do
not own personal vehicles.

Measure Description
This measure will unbundle, or separate, a residential project’s parking costs from property costs, requiring those who wish to purchase parking spaces to do so at an additional cost. On the assumption that parking costs are passed through to the vehicle owners/drivers utilizing the parking spaces, this measure results in decreased vehicle ownership and, therefore, a reduction in VMT and GHG emissions. Unbundling may not be available to all residential developments, depending on funding sources.

Subsector
Parking or Road Pricing/Management
Locational Context
Urban, suburban
Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
Parking costs must be passed through to the vehicle
owners/drivers utilizing the parking spaces for this measure to result in decreased vehicle ownership.

Cost Considerations
Unbundling residential parking costs from property costs may decrease revenue for property owners. This loss may be partially offset by reduced costs needed to maintain parking facilities with less car occupancy and the potential for non-resident parking as a supplementary income stream. For residents, reduced fees and the ability to go without owning a car is a major cost benefit.

Municipalities also benefit from a reduction of cars on the road, which can lead to lower infrastructure and roadway
maintenance costs.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Pair with Measure T-19-A or T-19-B to ensure that residents who eliminate their vehicle and shift to a bicycle can safely access the area’s bikeway network.

15.7%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-16. Unbundle Residential Parking Costs from Property Cost TRANSPORTATION | 127 GHG Reduction Formula
A =
B
C
× D × E
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from project
VMT in study area
0–15.7 % calculated
User Inputs
B Annual parking cost per space [ ] $ per year user input Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
C Average annual vehicle cost $9,282 $ per year AAA 2019 D Elasticity of vehicle ownership with respect to total vehicle cost
-0.4 unitless Litman 2020
E Adjustment factor from vehicle ownership to VMT 1.01 unitless FHWA 2017 Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B) – For most projects, this represents a monthly parking fee multiplied by 12. For deeded parking spaces, an estimate of the additional cost to a mortgage may be used, or the total cost may be prorated over 30 years. Costs to park will vary widely based on location; however, this value should consider if other nearby offsite parking options are available at lower cost. See Table T-16.1 in Appendix C for examples of monthly parking prices for different facility types.
▪ (C) – The average vehicle cost per year in 2019 was $9,282, based on a car driven 15,000 miles per year. Costs include gasoline, maintenance, insurance, license and registration, loan finance charges, and depreciation but do not include parking (AAA 2019).
▪ (D) – A synthesis of literature reported that, on the low end, a 0.4 percent decrease in vehicle ownership occurs for every 1 percent increase in total vehicle costs (Litman 2020). ▪ (E) – The adjustment factor from vehicle ownership to VMT is based on the following (FHWA 2017):
- The average Californian household with 1 vehicle drives 11,117 miles per vehicle while households with 2 vehicles drives 11,223 miles per vehicle. - The reduction of 1 vehicle from a 2-vehicle household leads to a 0.94 percent decrease in VMT per vehicle.
- So, E = 1 − (11,117 miles
vehicle − 11,223 miles
vehicle
11,223 miles
vehicle
) = 1.01
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-16. Unbundle Residential Parking Costs from Property Cost TRANSPORTATION | 128 GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Amax) The GHG reduction from unbundled parking is capped at 15.7 percent, which is based on the use of (Bmax) in the GHG reduction formula. (Bmax) The annual cost of parking space is capped at $3,600, or $300 per month. At monthly costs above $300, the cost of parking represents more than a 30 percent increase in total vehicle cost. In addition, this reflects the upper maximum of observed parking prices outside of extremely dense downtown areas (such as San Francisco’s SOMA neighborhood).

Subsector Maximum
( ∑ AmaxT-14 through T-16 ≤35%) This measure is in the Parking or Road Pricing/Management subsector. This subcategory includes Measures T-14 through T-16. The VMT reduction from the combined implementation of all measures within this subsector is capped at 35 percent.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces VMT by unbundling the parking costs from property costs of a project, discouraging vehicle ownership, and therefore reducing VMT. In this example, the annual parking cost per space is $1,800 (B), which would reduce GHG emissions from project study area VMT (as compared to the same project with bundled parking costs) by 7.8 percent.

Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Local Air Quality
The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) would be the same as the percent reduction in NOX, CO, NO2, SO2, and PM. Reductions in ROG emissions can be calculated by multiplying the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) by an adjustment factor of 87 percent. See Adjusting VMT Reductions to Emission Reductions above for further discussion.

Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in vehicle fuel consumption would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

VMT Reductions
The percent reduction in VMT would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

A = (
$1,800
$9,282 ) × -0.4 × 1.01 = -7.8%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-16. Unbundle Residential Parking Costs from Property Cost TRANSPORTATION | 129 Sources
▪ AAA. 2019. Your Driving Costs. September. Available: https://exchange.aaa.com/wpcontent/uploads/2019/09/AAA-Your-Driving-Costs-2019.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017. National Household Travel Survey – 2017 Table Designer. Annual VMT / Vehicle by Count of Household Vehicles in California. Available:
https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed: March 2021.
▪ Litman, T. 2020. Parking Requirement Impacts on Housing Affordability. June. Available:
https://www.vtpi.org/park-hou.pdf. Accessed: January 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 130
T-17. Improve Street Connectivity
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 30.0% of GHG
emissions from vehicle travel
in the plan/community
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Improving street connectivity could increase
route redundancy, allowing faster and more
efficient travel during extreme weather
events, evacuations, or for emergency
vehicles requiring access to hazard sites.

Health and Equity Considerations
Multiple active modes routing options
allows vulnerable road users to choose
based on perceived safety, comfort, speed,
and other factors.

Measure Description
This measure accounts for the VMT reduction achieved by a project that is designed with a higher density of vehicle intersections compared to the average intersection density in the U.S. Increased vehicle intersection density is a proxy for street connectivity improvements, which help to facilitate a greater number of shorter trips and thus a reduction in GHG emissions.

Subsector
Land Use
Locational Context
Urban, suburban
Scale of Application
Plan/Community
Implementation Requirements
Projects that increase intersection density would be building a new street network in a subdivision or retrofitting an existing street network to improve connectivity (e.g., converting cul-de-sacs or dead-end streets to grid streets).

Cost Considerations
Capital and infrastructure costs for improved street connectivity may be high. Depending on the location, losses may also be incurred through the reduction of sellable land due to the increased street footprint. Benefits come mainly from the reduction of traffic on arterial streets, which reduces congestion and allows for safer use of nonmotorized transportation, such as bikes. These outcomes, in turn, can reduce car usage, which provides costs savings to commuters and municipalities.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Pair with Measure T-18, Provide Pedestrian Network Improvement, to best support use of the local pedestrian network.
30%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-17. Improve Street Connectivity TRANSPORTATION | 131
GHG Reduction Formula
A =
B − C
C
× D
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions
from vehicle travel in plan/community
0–30.0 % calculated
User Inputs
B Intersection density in project site with
measure
[ ] intersections
per sq mile
user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
C Average intersection density 36 intersections
per sq mile
Fehr & Peers 2009
D Elasticity of VMT with respect to
intersection density
-0.14 unitless Stevens 2016
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (C) – The average intersection density is based on the standard suburban intersection density in the U.S. (Fehr & Peers 2009). This density is approximately equivalent to block faces of 750 to 800 feet, or cul-de-sac–style built environments, which are appropriate for suburban areas.
▪ (D) – A meta-regression analysis of 15 studies found that a 0.14 percent decrease in VMT occurs for every 1 percent increase in intersection density (Stevens 2016).

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Amax) The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) is capped at 30 percent. The purpose of the 30 percent cap is to limit the influence of any single built environmental factor (such as intersection density).

Subsector Maximum
Same as (Amax). Measure T-17 is the only measure at the Plan/Community scale within the Land Use subsector.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces VMT by constructing their project with a higher intersection density than the surrounding city. In this example, the project intersection density (B) would be 72 B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-17. Improve Street Connectivity TRANSPORTATION | 132
intersections per square mile (sq mile), which would reduce GHG emissions from project VMT by 14 percent.

A =
72 int
sq mile − 36 int
sq mile
36 int
sq mile
× -0.14 = -14%
Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Local Air Quality
The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) would be the same as the percent reduction in NOX, CO, NO2, SO2, and PM. Reductions in ROG emissions can be calculated by multiplying the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) by an adjustment factor of 87 percent. See Adjusting VMT Reductions to Emission Reductions above for further discussion.

Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in vehicle fuel consumption would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

VMT Reductions
The percent reduction in VMT would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

Sources
▪ Fehr & Peers. 2009. Proposed Trip Generation, Distribution, and Transit Mode Split Forecasts for the Bayview Waterfront Project Transportation Study.
▪ Stevens, M. 2016. Does Compact Development Make People Drive Less? Journal of the American Planning Association 83:1(7–18), DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2016.1240044. November. Available:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309890412_Does_Compact_Development_Make_People_ Drive_Less. Accessed: January 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 133
T-18. Provide Pedestrian Network Improvement
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 6.4% of GHG
emissions from vehicle travel
in the plan/community
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Improving pedestrian networks increases
accessibility of outdoor spaces, which can
provide health benefits and thus improve
community resilience. This can also improve
connectivity between residents and
resources that may be needed in an
extreme weather event.

Health and Equity Considerations
Ensure that the improvements also include
accessibility features to allow for people of
all abilities to use the network safely and
conveniently. Ensure that sidewalks connect
to nearby community assets, such as
schools, retail, and healthcare.

Measure Description
This measure will increase the sidewalk coverage to improve pedestrian access. Providing sidewalks and an enhanced
pedestrian network encourages people to walk instead of drive.

This mode shift results in a reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.

Subsector
Neighborhood Design
Locational Context
Urban, suburban, rural
Scale of Application
Plan/Community
Implementation Requirements
The GHG reduction of this measure is based on the VMT reduction associated with expansion of sidewalk coverage expansion, which includes not only building of new sidewalks but also improving degraded or substandard sidewalk (e.g., damaged from street tree roots). However, pedestrian network enhancements with nonquantifiable GHG reductions are encouraged to be implemented, as discussed under Expanded Mitigation Options.

Cost Considerations
Depending on the improvement, capital and infrastructure costs may be high. However, improvements to the pedestrian network will increase pedestrian activity, which can increase businesses patronage and provide a local economic benefit. The local municipality may achieve cost savings through a reduction of cars on the road leading to lower infrastructure and roadway maintenance costs.

Expanded Mitigation Options
When improving sidewalks, a best practice is to ensure they are contiguous and link externally with existing and planned pedestrian facilities. Barriers to pedestrian access and interconnectivity, such as walls, landscaping buffers, slopes, and unprotected crossings should be minimized. Other best practice features could include high-visibility crosswalks, pedestrian hybrid beacons, and other pedestrian signals, mid-block crossing walks, pedestrian refuge islands, speed tables, bulb-outs (curb extensions), curb ramps, signage, pavement markings, pedestrianonly connections and districts, landscaping, and other improvements to pedestrian safety (see Measure T-35, Provide Traffic Calming Measures).

6.4%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-18. Provide Pedestrian Network Improvement TRANSPORTATION | 134 GHG Reduction Formula
A = (
C
B
− 1) × D
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from
household vehicle travel in plan/community
0–6.4 % calculated
User Inputs
B Existing sidewalk length in study area [ ] miles user input C Sidewalk length in study area with measure [ ] miles user input Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
D Elasticity of household VMT with respect to the
ratio of sidewalks-to-streets
-0.05 unitless Frank et al.
2011
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B and C) – Sidewalk length should be measured on both sides of the street. For example, if one 0.5-mile-long street has full sidewalk coverage, the sidewalk length would be 1.0 mile. If there is only sidewalk on one side of the street, the sidewalk length would be 0.5 mile. The recommended study area is 0.6 mile around the pedestrian network improvement. This represents a 6- to 10-minute walking time. ▪ (D) – A study found that a 0.05 percent decrease in household vehicle travel occurs for every 1 percent increase in the sidewalk-to-street ratio (Frank et al. 2011; Handy et al. 2014).

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Amax) The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) is capped at 3.4 percent, which is based on the following assumptions:
▪ 35.2 percent of vehicle trips are short trips (2 mile or less, average of 1.29 miles) and thus could easily shift to walking (FHWA 2019).
▪ 64.8 percent of vehicle trips are longer trips that are unlikely to shift to walking (2 miles or more, average of 10.93 miles) (FHWA 2019).
▪ So Amax=

35.2% × 1.29 miles

64.8% × 10.93 miles = 6.4%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-18. Provide Pedestrian Network Improvement TRANSPORTATION | 135 Subsector Maximum
( ∑ AmaxT-18 through T-22-C ≤10%) This measure is in the Neighborhood Design subsector. This subcategory includes Measures T-18 through T-22-C. The VMT reduction from the combined implementation of all measures within this subsector is capped at 10 percent.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces household VMT by improving the pedestrian network in the study area. In this example, the existing sidewalk length (B) is 9 miles, and the sidewalk length with the measure (C) would be 10 miles. With these conditions, the user would reduce GHG emissions from household VMT within the study area by 0.6 percent.

Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Local Air Quality
The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) would be the same as the percent reduction in NOX, CO, NO2, SO2, and PM. Reductions in ROG emissions can be calculated by multiplying the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) by an adjustment factor of 87 percent. See Adjusting VMT Reductions to Emission Reductions above for further discussion.

Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in vehicle fuel consumption would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

VMT Reductions
The percent reduction in household VMT would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

Improved Public Health
Users are directed to the Integrated Transport and Health Impact Model (ITHIM) (CARB et al. 2020). The ITHIM can quantify the annual change in health outcomes associated with active transportation, including deaths, years of life lost, years of living with disability, and incidence of community and individual disease.

Sources
▪ California Air Resources Board (CARB), California Department of Public Health (CDPH), and Nicholas Linesch Legacy Fund. 2020. Integrated Transport and Health Impact Model. Available:
https://skylab.cdph.ca.gov/HealthyMobilityOptionTool-ITHIM/#Home. Accessed: September 17, 2021. ▪ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2019. 2017 National Household Travel Survey Popular Vehicle Trip Statistics. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/vehicle-trips. Accessed: January 2021.

A = (
10 miles
9 miles − 1) × -0.05 = -0.6%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-18. Provide Pedestrian Network Improvement TRANSPORTATION | 136 ▪ Frank, L., M. Greenwald, S. Kavage, and A. Devlin. 2011. An Assessment of Urban Form and Pedestrian and Transit Improvements as an Integrated GHG Reduction Strategy. WSDOT Research Report WA-RD 765.1, Washington State Department of Transportation. April. Available:
www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/reports/fullreports/765.1.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ Handy, S., S. Glan-Claudia, and M. Boarnet. 2014. Impacts of Pedestrian Strategies on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Policy Brief. September. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
06/Impacts_of_Pedestrian_Strategies_on_Passenger_Vehicle_Use_and_Greenhouse_Gas_Emissions_P olicy_Brief.pdf. Accessed: January 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 137
T-19-A. Construct or Improve Bike Facility
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 0.8% of GHG
emissions from vehicles
parallel roadways
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Constructing and improving bike facilities
can incentivize more bicycle use and
decrease vehicle use, which have health
benefits and can thus improve community
resilience. This can also improve connectivity
between residents and resources that may
be needed in an extreme weather event.

Health and Equity Considerations
Prioritize low-income and underserved areas
and communities with lower rates of vehicle
ownership or fewer transit options. Make
sure that the bicycle facility connects to a
larger existing bikeway network that
accesses destinations visited by low-income
or underserved communities.

Measure Description
This measure will construct or improve a single bicycle lane facility (only Class I, II, or IV) that connects to a larger existing bikeway network. Providing bicycle infrastructure helps to improve biking conditions within an area. This encourages a mode shift on the roadway parallel to the bicycle facility from vehicles to bicycles, displacing VMT and thus reducing GHG emissions. When constructing or improving a bicycle facility, a best practice is to consider local or state bike lane width standards. A variation of this measure is provided as T-19-B, Construct or Improve Bike Boulevard.

Subsector
Neighborhood Design
Locational Context
Urban, suburban
Scale of Application
Plan/Community. This measure reduces VMT on the roadway segment parallel to the bicycle facility (i.e., the corridor). An adjustment factor is included in the formula to scale the VMT reduction from the corridor level to the plan/community level.

Implementation Requirements
The bicycle lane facility must be either Class I, II, or IV. Class I bike paths are physically separated from motor vehicle traffic. Class IV bikeways are protected on-street bikeways, also called cycle tracks.

Class II bike lanes are striped bicycle lanes that provide exclusive use to bicycles on a roadway.

Cost Considerations
Capital and infrastructure costs for new bike facilities may be high.

The local municipality may achieve cost savings through a reduction of cars on the road leading to lower infrastructure and roadway maintenance costs.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Implement alongside Measures T-22-A, T-22-B, and/or T-22-C to ensure that micromobility users can ride safely along bicycle lane facilities and not have to ride along pedestrian infrastructure, which is a risk to pedestrian safety.

0.8%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-19-A. Construct or Improve Bike Facility TRANSPORTATION | 138 GHG Reduction Formula
A = -B ×
F
I
× (C + D) × E × G
H
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from
displaced vehicles on roadway parallel to
bicycle facility
0–0.8 % calculated
User Inputs
B Percent of plan/community VMT on parallel
roadway
0–100 % user input
C Active transportation adjustment factor Table T-19.1 unitless CARB 2020 D Credits for key destinations near project Table T-19.2 unitless CARB 2020 E Growth factor adjustment for facility type Table T-19.3 unitless CARB 2020 Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
F Annual days of use of new facility Table T-19.4 days per year NOAA 2017 G Existing regional average one-way bicycle
trip length
Table T-10.1 miles per trip FHWA 2017
H Existing regional average one-way vehicle
trip length
Table T-10.1 miles per trip FHWA 2017
I Days per year 365 days per year standard
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B) – The percent of total plan/community VMT within the roadway parallel to the bike facility should represent the expected total VMT generated by all land use in that area, including office, residences, retail, schools, and other uses. The most appropriate source for this data is from a local travel demand forecasting model. An alternate method uses VMT per worker or VMT per resident as calculated for SB 743 compliance and screening purposes multiplied by the population in the area.
▪ (C, D, and E) – The active transportation adjustment factor, key destination credit, and growth factor adjustment should be looked up by the user in Tables T-19.1 through T19.3 in Appendix C. The active transport adjustment factor is based on the existing annual average daily traffic (AADT) of the facility, length of the proposed bike facility, and the city population. The key destination credit is based on the number of key destinations within 0.5-mile of the facility. The growth factor is based on the type of proposed bicycle facility.
▪ (F) – The annual days of use for the new facility should be looked up by users in Table T19.4 based on the county in which the project is located. The days of use is based on the number of days per year where there is no rainfall (i.e., <=0.1 inches) (NOAA 2017).

B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-19-A. Construct or Improve Bike Facility TRANSPORTATION | 139 ▪ (G and H) – Ideally, the user will calculate bicycle and vehicle trip lengths for the corridor at a scale no larger than the surrounding census tract. Potential data sources include the U.S. Census, California Household Travel Survey (preferred), or local survey efforts. If the user is not able to provide a project-specific value using one of these data sources, they have the option to input regional average one-way bicycle and vehicle trip lengths for one of the six most populated CBSAs in California provided in Table T-10.1 in Appendix C (FHWA 2017).

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Amax) For projects that use CBSA data from Table T-10.1 in Appendix C, the maximum percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) is 0.8 percent. This is based on a neighborhood project the size of a large corridor (B = 100%) within the CBSA of Sacramento-RosevilleArden-Arcade that uses the highest values for (C, D, and E) in Tables T-19.1 through T19.3 and annual use days for Sacramento County (F) in Table T-19.4. This maximum scenario is presented in the below example quantification. (Cmax) The active transportation adjustment factor (C) was determined for roadways with AADT ranging from 1 to 30,000 (CARB 2020). Roadways with AADT greater than 30,000 are generally not appropriate for bicycle facilities. Care should be taken by the user in interpreting the results from this equation for a project roadway with AADT greater than 30,000.

Subsector Maximum
( ∑ AmaxT-18 through T-22-C ≤10%) This measure is in the Neighborhood Design subsector. This subcategory includes Measures T-18 through T-22-C. The VMT reduction from the combined implementation of all measures within this subsector is capped at 10 percent.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces VMT by constructing a bicycle facility that displaces vehicle trips with bicycle trips. In this example, the following assumptions are made to obtain inputs from Tables T-19.1 through T-19.3 in Appendix C:
▪ Percent of plan/community VMT on parallel roadway (B) = 100%. The project would establish a bike corridor the whole length of a central commercial thoroughfare. It is assumed this main street makes up the entire neighborhood. ▪ Active transportation adjustment factor (C) = 0.0207. Existing AADT on the roadway parallel to the proposed bicycle facility is 10,000, the facility length is 2.5 miles, and the project site is in a university town with a population of 200,000. ▪ Key destination credit (D) = 0.003. There are 10 key destinations within 0.25 mile of the project site.
▪ Growth factor adjustment (E) = 1.54. The bike facility would be a new Class IV bikeway.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-19-A. Construct or Improve Bike Facility TRANSPORTATION | 140 The project is within the Sacramento-Roseville-Arden-Arcade CBSA and the user does not have project-specific values for average bicycle and vehicle trip lengths. Accordingly, the inputs of 2.9 miles and 10.9 miles, respectively (G and H), from Table T-10.1 in Appendix C are assumed. The user would displace GHG emissions from project study area VMT by 0.8 percent.

Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Local Air Quality
The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) would be the same as the percent reduction in NOX, CO, NO2, SO2, and PM. Reductions in ROG emissions can be calculated by multiplying the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) by an adjustment factor of 87 percent. See Adjusting VMT Reductions to Emission Reductions above for further discussion.

Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in vehicle fuel consumption would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

VMT Reductions
The percent reduction in VMT would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

Improved Public Health
Users are directed to the ITHIM (CARB et al. 2020). The ITHIM can quantify the annual change in health outcomes associated with active transportation, including deaths, years of life lost, years of living with disability, and incidence of community and individual disease.

Sources
▪ California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2020. Quantification Methodology for the Strategic Growth Council’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program. September. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/capandtrade/auctionproceeds/draft_sgc_ahsc_q m_091620.pdf. Accessed: January 2021.
▪ California Air Resources Board (CARB), California Department of Public Health (CDPH), and Nicholas Linesch Legacy Fund. 2020. Integrated Transport and Health Impact Model. Available:
https://skylab.cdph.ca.gov/HealthyMobilityOptionTool-ITHIM/#Home. Accessed: September 17, 2021. ▪ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017. National Household Travel Survey–2017 Table Designer. Travel Day PT by TRPTRANS by HH_CBSA. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed:

January 2021.

A = -100% × (
307 days
365 days × (0.0207 + 0.003) × 1.54 × 2.9 miles

10.9 miles ) = -0.8%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-19-A. Construct or Improve Bike Facility TRANSPORTATION | 141 ▪ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2021. Global Historical Climatology Network–Daily (GHCN-Daily), Version 3. 2015-2019 Average of Days Per Year with Precipitation >0.1 Inches. Available: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/search/data-search/dailysummaries?bbox=38.922,-120.071,38.338,- 119.547&place=County:1276&dataTypes=PRCP&startDate=2015-01- 01T00:00:00&endDate=2019-01-01T23:59:59. Accessed: May 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 142
T-19-B. Construct or Improve Bike Boulevard
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 0.2% of GHG
emissions from vehicles on
roadway
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Constructing and improving bike boulevards can
incentivize more bicycle use and decrease vehicle
use, which have health benefits and can thus
improve community resilience. This can also
improve connectivity between residents and
resources that may be needed in an extreme
weather event.

Health and Equity Considerations
Prioritize low-income and underserved areas and
communities with lower rates of vehicle
ownership or fewer transit options. Make sure
that the bicycle boulevard connects to a larger
existing bikeway network that accesses
destinations visited by low-income or
underserved communities.

Measure Description
Construct or improve a single bicycle boulevard that connects to a larger existing bikeway network. Bicycle boulevards are a designation within Class III Bikeway that create safe, low-stress connections for people biking and walking on streets. This encourages a mode shift from vehicles to bicycles, displacing VMT and thus reducing GHG emissions. A variation of this measure is provided as T-19-A, Construct or Improve Bike Facility, which is for Class I, II, or IV bicycle infrastructure.

Subsector
Neighborhood Design
Locational Context
Urban, suburban
Scale of Application
Plan/Community. This measure reduces VMT on the roadway segment parallel to the bicycle facility (i.e., the corridor). An adjustment factor is included in the formula to scale the VMT reduction from the corridor level to the plan/community level.

Implementation Requirements
The following roadway conditions must be met.
▪ Functional classification: local and collector if there is no more than a single general-purpose travel lane in each direction.
▪ Design speed: <= 25 miles per hour.
▪ Design volume <= 5,000 average daily traffic.
▪ Treatments at major intersections: both directions have traffic signals (or an effective control device that prioritizes pedestrian and bicycle access such as rapid flashing beacons, pedestrian hybrid beacons, high-intensity activated crosswalks, TOUCANs), bike route signs, “sharrowed” roadway markings, and pedestrian crosswalks.

Cost Considerations
Capital and infrastructure costs for new bike boulevards may be high, though lower than implementing the same length of protected bicycle lanes (Class IV). After the bike boulevard is complete, the local municipality may achieve cost savings from reduced infrastructure and roadway maintenance costs.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Construct boulevards with forced turns for vehicles every few blocks to minimize through traffic while ensuring that speed and volume metrics are met. Implement alongside Measures T-22-A, T-22-B, and/or T-22-C to ensure that micromobility users can ride safely along bicycle lane facilities and not pedestrian infrastructure, which is a risk to pedestrian safety.

0.2%
%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-19-B. Construct or Improve Bike Boulevard TRANSPORTATION | 143 GHG Reduction Formula
A = B ×
D × (F − (C × F))
E × G
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from
displaced vehicles on roadway with bicycle
boulevard
0–0.2 % calculated
User Inputs
B Percent of plan/community VMT on roadway to
have bicycle boulevard
0–100 % user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
C Bike mode adjustment factor 1.14 unitless Schwartz
2021
D Existing bicycle trip length for all trips in region Table T-10.1
miles FHWA 2017a
E Existing vehicle trip length for all trips in region Table T-10.1
miles FHWA 2017a
F Existing bicycle mode share for work trips in
region
Table
T-10.2
% FHWA 2017a
G Existing vehicle mode share for work trips in
region
Table
T-10.2
% FHWA 2017a
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (C) – The bike mode adjustment factor is based on a database of before/after bicycle counts for 10 projects in four U.S. cities that invested in bicycle boulevards. Bicycle ridership increased on average by 114 percent (Schwartz 2021). ▪ (D and E) – Ideally, the user will calculate bicycle and vehicle trip lengths for the corridor at a scale no larger than the surrounding census tract. Potential data sources include the U.S. Census, California Household Travel Survey (preferred), or local survey efforts. If the user is not able to provide a project-specific value using one of these data sources, they have the option to input regional average one-way bicycle and vehicle trip lengths for one of the six most populated CBSAs in California provided in Table T-10.1 in Appendix C (FHWA 2017a).
▪ (F and G) – Ideally, the user will calculate bicycle and auto mode share for work trips for a Project/Site at a scale no larger than a census tract. Potential data sources include the U.S. Census, California Household Travel Survey (preferred), or local survey efforts. If the user is not able to provide a project-specific value using one of these data sources, they have the option to input the regional average mode shares for bicycle and vehicle work trips for one of the six most populated CBSAs in California, as presented in Table T-10.2 in Appendix C (FHWA 2017b). If the project study area is not within the listed B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-19-B. Construct or Improve Bike Boulevard TRANSPORTATION | 144 CBSAs or the user is able to provide a project-specific value, the user should replace these regional defaults in the GHG reduction formula. For areas not covered by the listed CBSAs, which represent the denser areas of the state, bicycle mode share is likely to be lower and vehicle share higher than presented in Table T-10.2.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Amax) For projects that use CBSA data from Tables T-10.1 and T-10.2 in Appendix C, the maximum percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) is 0.2 percent. This is based on a neighborhood project the size of a large corridor (B = 100%) within the CBSA of San JoseSunnyvale-Santa Clara that uses the highest values for (C, D, and E) in Tables T-19.1 through T-19.3 and annual use days for Sacramento County (F) in Table T-19.4. This maximum scenario is presented in the below example quantification.

Subsector Maximum
( ∑ AmaxT-18 through T-22-C ≤10%) This measure is in the Neighborhood Design subsector. This subcategory includes Measures T-18 through T-22-C. The VMT reduction from the combined implementation of all measures within this subsector is capped at 10 percent.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces VMT by providing a bicycle boulevard on the targeted roadway, which encourages bicycle trips in place of vehicle trips. In this example, it is assumed this main street makes up the entire plan area, i.e., (B) is 100 percent. The project is within San JoseSunnyvale-Santa Clara CBSA and the user does not have project-specific values for trip lengths and mode shares for bicycles and vehicles. Per Tables T-10.1 and T-10.2, inputs for these variables are 2.8 miles, 11.5 miles, 4.1 percent, and 86.6 percent, respectively (D, E, F, and G). GHG emissions from plan/community VMT would be reduced by

0.2 percent.

Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Local Air Quality
The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) would be the same as the percent reduction in NOX, CO, NO2, SO2, and PM. Reductions in ROG emissions can be calculated by multiplying the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) by an adjustment factor of 87 percent. See Adjusting VMT Reductions to Emission Reductions above for further discussion.

A = 100% ×

2.8 miles × (4.1% − (1.14 × 4.1%))

11.5 miles × 86.6% = -0.2%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-19-B. Construct or Improve Bike Boulevard TRANSPORTATION | 145 Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in vehicle fuel consumption would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

VMT Reductions
The percent reduction in VMT would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

Improved Public Health
Users are directed to the ITHIM (CARB et al. 2020). The ITHIM can quantify the annual change in health outcomes associated with active transportation, including deaths, years of life lost, years of living with disability, and incidence of community and individual disease.

Sources
▪ California Air Resources Board (CARB), California Department of Public Health (CDPH), and Nicholas Linesch Legacy Fund. 2020. Integrated Transport and Health Impact Model. Available:
https://skylab.cdph.ca.gov/HealthyMobilityOptionTool-ITHIM/#Home. Accessed: September 17, 2021. ▪ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017a. National Household Travel Survey–2017 Table Designer. Travel Day PT by TRPTRANS by HH_CBSA. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed:

January 2021.
▪ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017b. National Household Travel Survey–2017 Table Designer.

Workers by WRKTRANS by HH_CBSA. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ Schwartz, S. 2021. Planning for Stress Free Connections: Estimating VMT Reductions. February.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 146
T-20. Expand Bikeway Network
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 0.5% of GHG
emissions from vehicle travel
in the plan/community
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Expanding bikeway networks can incentivize
more bicycle use and decrease vehicle use,
which have health benefits and can thus
improve community resilience. This can also
improve connectivity between residents and
resources that may be needed in an extreme
weather event.

Health and Equity Considerations
Prioritize low-income and underserved areas
and communities with lower rates of vehicle
ownership or fewer transit options. Make
sure that destinations visited by low-income
or underserved communities are served by
the network.

Measure Description
This measure will increase the length of a city or community bikeway network. A bicycle network is an interconnected system of bike lanes, bike paths, bike routes, and cycle tracks. Providing bicycle infrastructure with markings and signage on appropriately sized roads with vehicle traffic traveling at safe speeds helps to improve biking conditions (e.g., safety and convenience). In addition, expanded bikeway networks can increase access to and from transit hubs, thereby expanding the “catchment area” of the transit stop or station and increasing ridership. This encourages a mode shift from vehicles to bicycles, displacing VMT and thus reducing GHG emissions. When expanding a bicycle network, a best practice is to consider bike lane width standards from local agencies, state agencies, or the National Association of City Transportation Officials’ Urban Bikeway Design Guide.

Subsector
Neighborhood Design
Locational Context
Urban, suburban
Scale of Application
Plan/Community
Implementation Requirements
The bikeway network must consist of either Class I, II, or IV infrastructure.

Cost Considerations
Capital and infrastructure costs for expanding the bikeway network may be high. Construction of these facilities may also increase vehicle traffic, leading to more congestion and temporarily longer trip times for motorist. However, the local municipality may achieve cost savings through a reduction of cars on the road leading to lower infrastructure and roadway maintenance costs.

Expanded Mitigation Options
As networks expand, ensure safe, secure, and weather-protected bicycle parking facilities at origins and destinations. Also, implement alongside T-22-A, T-22-B, and/or T-22-C to ensure that micromobility options can ride safely along bicycle lane facilities and not have to ride along pedestrian infrastructure, which is a risk to pedestrian safety.

0.5%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-20. Expand Bikeway Network TRANSPORTATION | 147
GHG Reduction Formula
A = -1 ×
(
C − B
B
) × D × F × H
E × G
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from
employee commute vehicle travel in
plan/community
0–0.5 % calculated
User Inputs
B Existing bikeway miles in plan/community [ ] miles user input C Bikeway miles in plan/community with
measure
[ ] miles user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
D Bicycle mode share in plan/community Table T-20.1 % FHWA 2017 E Vehicle mode share in plan/community Table T-3.1 % FHWA 2017 F Average one-way bicycle trip length in
plan/community
Table T-10.1 miles per
trip
FHWA 2017
G Average one-way vehicle trip length in
plan/community
Table T-10.1 miles per
trip
FHWA 2017
H Elasticity of bike commuters with respect to
bikeway miles per 10,000 population

0.25 unitless Pucher &
Buehler 2011
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B) – The existing bikeway miles in a plan/community should be calculated by measuring the distance of all Class I, II, III, and IV bikeways within the plan/community. This information can sometimes be found in a city’s bicycle master plan, if a plan has been prepared and is up to date.
▪ (D, E, F, and G) – Ideally, the user will calculate bicycle and auto mode share and trip length for a plan/community at the city scale. Potential data sources include the California Household Travel Survey (preferred) or local survey efforts. If the user is not able to provide a project-specific value using one of these data sources, they have the option to input the mode shares and trip lengths for bicycles and vehicles for one of the six most populated CBSAs in California, as presented in Table T-3.1, T-10.2, and T20.1 in Appendix C. Trip lengths are likely to be longer for areas not covered by the listed CBSAs, which represent the denser areas of the state. Similarly, it is likely for areas outside of the area covered by the listed CBSAs to have vehicle mode shares higher and bicycle mode shares lower than the values provided in the tables. ▪ (H) – A multivariate analysis of the impacts of bike lanes on cycling levels in the 100 largest U.S. cities found that a 0.25 percent increase in commute cycling occurs for every 1 percent increase in bike lane distance (Pucher & Buehler 2011).

B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-20. Expand Bikeway Network TRANSPORTATION | 148
GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Amax) For projects that use CBSA data from Tables T-3.1, T-10.2, and T-20.1 in Appendix C, the maximum percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) is 0.5 percent. This is based on a project within the CBSA of San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara that has no existing bike lane infrastructure. This maximum scenario is presented in the below example quantification. (
C-B
B max
) The maximum percent increase in bike lane miles in the plan/community is conservatively capped at 1000 percent. If there is no existing bike lane infrastructure in the plan/community, (B) should be set to (1/11×C), resulting in a percentage change of 1000 percent.

Subsector Maximum
( ∑ AmaxT-18 through T-22-C ≤10%) This measure is in the Neighborhood Design subsector. This subcategory includes Measures T-18 through T-22-C. The VMT reduction from the combined implementation of all measures within this subsector is capped at 10 percent.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces employee commute VMT by increasing the length of a bicycle network within a plan/community, which displaces commute vehicle trips with bicycle trips. In this example, the existing bikeway length in the plan/community (B) is 0 miles and the length with the measure (C) is 11 miles. The project is within the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara CBSA, yielding the following inputs from Tables T-3.1, T-10.2, and T-20.1 in Appendix C. ▪ Bicycle mode share (D) = 0.79 percent.
▪ Vehicle mode share (E) = 91.32 percent.
▪ Average one-way bicycle trip length (F) = 2.8 miles.
▪ Average one-way vehicle trip length (G) = 11.5 miles.

The user would displace GHG emissions from project study area employee commute VMT by 0.5 percent.

Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Local Air Quality
The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) would be the same as the percent reduction in NOX, CO, NO2, SO2, and PM. Reductions in ROG emissions can be calculated by multiplying the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) by an A = -1 × (
(1000%) × 0.79% × 2.8 miles × 0.25

91.32% × 11.5 miles ) = -0.5%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-20. Expand Bikeway Network TRANSPORTATION | 149
adjustment factor of 87 percent. See Adjusting VMT Reductions to Emission Reductions above for further discussion.

Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in vehicle fuel consumption would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

VMT Reductions
The percent reduction in employee commute VMT would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

Improved Public Health
Users are directed to the ITHIM (CARB et al. 2020). The ITHIM can quantify the annual change in health outcomes associated with active transportation, including deaths, years of life lost, years of living with disability, and incidence of community and individual disease.

Sources
▪ California Air Resources Board (CARB), California Department of Public Health (CDPH), and Nicholas Linesch Legacy Fund. 2020. Integrated Transport and Health Impact Model. Available:
https://skylab.cdph.ca.gov/HealthyMobilityOptionTool-ITHIM/#Home. Accessed: September 17, 2021. ▪ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017. National Household Travel Survey – 2017 Table Designer. Travel Day PMT by TRPTRANS by HH_CBSA. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed:

January 2021.
▪ Pucher, J., and Buehler, R. 2011. Analysis of Bicycling Trends and Policies in Large North American Cities: Lessons for New York. March. Available: http://www.utrc2.org/sites/default/files/pubs/analysisbike-final_0.pdf. Accessed: January 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 150
T-21-A. Implement Conventional Carshare Program
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 0.15% of GHG
emissions from vehicle travel
in the plan/community
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Carshare programs can increase
accessibility and provide redundancy to
vehicles that can be used to evacuate or
obtain resources during an extreme
weather event. Carshare programs can
allow residents to give up or avoid car
ownership, leading to cost savings that can
help build economic resilience.

Health and Equity Considerations
Provide inclusive mechanisms so people
without bank accounts, credit cards, or smart
phones can access the system.

Measure Description
This measure will increase carshare access in the user’s community by deploying conventional carshare vehicles.

Carsharing offers people convenient access to a vehicle for personal or commuting purposes. This helps encourage
transportation alternatives and reduces vehicle ownership, thereby avoiding VMT and associated GHG emissions. A
variation of this measure, electric carsharing, is described in Measure T-21-B, Implement Electric Carshare Program.

Subsector
Neighborhood Design
Locational Context
Urban, suburban
Scale of Application
Plan/Community
Implementation Requirements
The GHG mitigation potential is based, in part, on literature analyzing one-way carsharing service with a free-floating operational model. This measure should be applied with caution if using a different form of carsharing (e.g., roundtrip, peer-topeer, fractional).

Cost Considerations
The costs incurred by the carshare program service manager (typically a municipality or carshare company) may include the capital costs of purchasing vehicles; costs of storing, maintaining, and replacing the fleet; and costs for marketing and
administration. Some of these costs may be offset by income generated through program use.

Expanded Mitigation Options
When implementing a carshare program, best practice is to discount carshare membership and provide priority parking for carshare vehicles to encourage use of the service.

0.15%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-21-A. Implement Conventional Carshare Program TRANSPORTATION | 151 GHG Reduction Formula
A =
B × (E − D)
C
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from
vehicle travel in plan/community
0–0.15 % calculated
User Inputs
B Number of vehicles deployed in
plan/community
[ ] integer user input
C VMT in plan/community without measure [ ] VMT per day user input Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
D Conventional VMT avoided with measure 68.2 VMT per day per vehicle
Martin and
Shaheen 2016
E Conventional VMT added with measure 24.4 VMT per day
per vehicle
Martin and
Shaheen 2016
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B) – The number of cars in the carshare program is selected by the carshare provider, but its magnitude is relative to the size of the service area. A study of several carsharing programs (Martin and Shaheen 2016) documented a range of carshare fleet sizes for different North American cities: Calgary (590), San Diego (406), Seattle (640), Vancouver (920), Washington, D.C. (626).
▪ (C) – The total plan/community VMT should represent the expected total VMT generated by all land use in that area. The most appropriate source for this data is from a local travel demand model.
▪ (D) – Conventional VMT avoided per deployed carshare vehicle was derived based on a study of conventional-engine based car share programs in Calgary, Seattle, Vancouver, and Washington, D.C. It accounts for VMT avoided from carshare users who sold their personal vehicles and carshare users who decided not to purchase a personal vehicle, both directly because of the availability of carshare (Martin and Shaheen 2016). ▪ (E) – Conventional VMT added per deployed carshare vehicle was derived based on a study of conventional-engine based car share programs in Calgary, Seattle, Vancouver, and Washington, D.C. It accounts for the VMT of the carshare vehicles (Martin and Shaheen 2016).

B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-21-A. Implement Conventional Carshare Program TRANSPORTATION | 152 GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Amax) The maximum GHG reduction from this measure is 0.15 percent. This maximum scenario is presented in the below example quantification.

Subsector Maximum
( ∑ AmaxT-18 through T-22-C ≤10%) This measure is in the Neighborhood Design subsector. This subcategory includes Measures T-18 through T-22-C. The VMT reduction from the combined implementation of all measures within this subsector is capped at 10 percent.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces plan/community VMT by deploying carshare vehicles. In this example, the project would be in the city of San Diego, which in 2017 had a VMT per day of 24,101,089 miles (C) (SANDAG 2019). Assuming twice the number of vehicles used in the Car2go San Diego program (B), the GHG emissions from plan/community VMT would be reduced by 0.15 percent.

Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Local Air Quality
The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) would be the same as the percent reduction in NOX, CO, NO2, SO2, and PM. Reductions in ROG emissions can be calculated by multiplying the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) by an adjustment factor of 87 percent. See Adjusting VMT Reductions to Emission Reductions above for further discussion.

Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in vehicle fuel consumption would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

VMT Reductions
The percent reduction in VMT would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

A =
812 vehicles × (24.4 VMT
day∙vehicle − 68.2 VMT
day∙vehicle )
24,101,089 VMT
day
= -0.15%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-21-A. Implement Conventional Carshare Program TRANSPORTATION | 153 Sources
▪ Martin, E. and S. Shaheen. 2016. The Impacts of Car2go on Vehicle Ownership, Modal Shift, Vehicle Miles Traveled, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: An Analysis of Five North American Cities. July.

Available: https://tsrc.berkeley.edu/publications/impacts-car2go-vehicle-ownership-modal-shiftvehicle-miles-traveled-and-greenhouse-gas. Accessed: March 2021. ▪ San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2019. Mobility Management VMT Reduction Calculator Tool – Design Document. June. Available: https://www.icommutesd.com/docs/defaultsource/planning/tool-design-document_final_7-17-19.pdf?sfvrsn=ec39eb3b_2. Accessed: January 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 154
T-21-B. Implement Electric Carshare Program
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 0.18% of GHG
emissions from vehicle travel
in the plan/community
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Electric carshare programs can increase
accessibility and provide redundancy to
vehicles that can be used to evacuate or
obtain resources during an extreme weather
event. Electric vehicles also provide fuel
redundancy by allowing an alternative fuel
source if an extreme event disrupts other fuel
sources; however, they may decrease
resilience if they are the only option
available during a power outage.

Health and Equity Considerations
Provide inclusive mechanisms so people
without bank accounts, credit cards, or smart
phones can access the system.

Measure Description
This measure will increase carshare access in the user’s community by deploying electric carshare vehicles. Carsharing offers people convenient access to a vehicle for personal or commuting purposes. This helps encourage transportation alternatives and reduces vehicle ownership, thereby avoiding VMT and associated GHG emissions. This also encourages a mode shift from internal combustion engine vehicles to electric vehicles, displacing the emissions-intensive fossil fuel energy with less emissions-intensive electricity. Electric carshare vehicles require more staffing support compared to conventional carshare programs for shuttling electric vehicles to and from charging points. A variation of this measure, conventional carsharing, is described in Measure T-21-A, Implement Conventional Carshare Program.

Subsector
Neighborhood Design
Locational Context
Urban, suburban
Scale of Application
Plan/Community
Implementation Requirements
The GHG mitigation potential is based, in part, on literature analyzing one-way carsharing service with a free-floating operational model. This measure should be applied with caution if using a different form of carsharing (e.g., roundtrip, peer-topeer, fractional).

Cost Considerations
Costs incurred by the service manager (e.g., municipality, carshare company) may include the capital costs of purchasing vehicles; costs of storing, maintaining, and replacing the fleet; and costs for marketing and administration. Some of these costs may be offset by income generated through program use. Participants’ recurring costs of renting a carshare vehicle may be offset by the cost savings from access to cheaper transportation.

Expanded Mitigation Options
When implementing a carshare program, best practice is to discount carshare membership and provide priority parking for carshare vehicles to encourage use of the service.

0.18%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-21-B. Implement Electric Carshare Program TRANSPORTATION | 155 GHG Reduction Formula
A = -1 ×
B × ((E × G × H × I × J) − (D × F))
C × F
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions
from vehicle travel in plan/community
0–0.18 % calculated
User Inputs
B Number of electric vehicles deployed
in plan/community
[ ] integer user input
C VMT in plan/community without
measure
[ ] VMT per day user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
D Conventional VMT avoided with
measure

54.8 VMT per day
per EV
Martin and
Shaheen 2016
E Electric VMT added with measure 13.7 VMT per day
per EV
Martin and
Shaheen 2016
F Emission factor of non-electric light
duty fleet mix
307.5 g CO2e per
mile
CARB 2020a
G Energy efficiency of carshare electric
vehicle

0.327 kWh per mile CARB 2020b;
U.S. DOE 2021
H Carbon intensity of local electricity
provider
Tables E-4.3
and E-4.4
lb CO2e per
MWh
CA Utilities
2021
I Conversion from lb to g 454 g per lb conversion
J Conversion from kWh to MWh 0.001 MWh per kWh conversion Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B) – The number of cars in the carshare program is selected by the carshare provider, but its magnitude is relative to the size of the service area. A study of several carsharing programs (Martin and Shaheen 2016) documented a range of carshare fleet sizes for different North American cities: Calgary (590), San Diego (406), Seattle (640), Vancouver (920), Washington, D.C. (626).
▪ (C) – The total plan/community VMT should represent the expected total VMT generated by all land use in that area. The most appropriate source for this data is from a local travel demand forecasting model.
▪ (D) – Conventional VMT avoided per deployed carshare vehicle was derived based on a study of an electric vehicle carshare program in San Diego. It accounts for VMT avoided from carshare users who sold their personal vehicles and carshare users who decided not to purchase a personal vehicle, both directly because of the availability of carshare (Martin and Shaheen 2016).

B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-21-B. Implement Electric Carshare Program TRANSPORTATION | 156 ▪ (E) – Electric VMT added per deployed carshare vehicle was derived based on a study of an electric vehicle carshare program in San Diego. It accounts for the VMT of the carshare vehicles and includes staff-driven VMT needed to bring the vehicles to charging points (Martin and Shaheen 2016).
▪ (F) – The average GHG emission factor for non-electric vehicles was calculated in terms of CO2e per mile using EMFAC2017 (v1.0.3). The model was run for a 2020 statewide average of LDA, LDT1, and LDT2 vehicles using diesel and gasoline fuel. The running emission factors for CO2, CH4, and N2O (CARB 2020a) were multiplied by the corresponding 100-year GWP values from the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007). If the user can provide a project-specific value (i.e., for a future year and project location), the user should run EMFAC to replace the default in the GHG reduction formula. ▪ (G) – Scaled from light-duty automobile gasoline equivalent fuel economy (G from Measure T-14) based on energy efficiency ratio (EER) of 2.5 (CARB 2020b) and an assumption of 33.7 kWh electricity per gallon of gasoline (U.S. DOE 2021). ▪ (H) – GHG intensity factors for major California electricity providers are provided in Tables E-4.3 and E-4.4 in Appendix C. If the project study area is not serviced by a listed electricity provider, or the user is able to provide a project-specific value (i.e., for the future year not referenced in Appendix C), the user should replace the default in the GHG calculation formula. If the electricity provider is not known, the user may elect to use the statewide grid average carbon intensity.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Amax) The maximum GHG reduction from this measure is 0.18 percent. This maximum scenario is presented in the below example quantification.

Subsector Maximum
( ∑ AmaxT-18 through T-22-C ≤10%) This measure is in the Neighborhood Design subsector. This subcategory includes Measures T-18 through T-22-C. The VMT reduction from the combined implementation of all measures within this subsector is capped at 10 percent.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces plan/community VMT by deploying carshare vehicles. In this example, the project would be in the city of San Diego, which in 2017 had a VMT per day of 24,101,089 miles (C) (SANDAG 2019). Assuming twice the number of vehicles used in the Car2go San Diego program (B), and a commitment by the carshare service provider to purchase zero-carbon electricity for all carshare charging stations (H), the GHG emissions from plan/community VMT would be reduced by 0.18 percent.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-21-B. Implement Electric Carshare Program TRANSPORTATION | 157 Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Local Air Quality
Local criteria pollutants will be reduced by the reduction in vehicle fuel consumption. Electricity supplied by statewide fossil-fueled or bioenergy power plants will generate criteria pollutants. However, because these power plants are located throughout the state, electricity consumption from electric vehicles will not generate localized criteria pollutant emissions. Accordingly, the percent reduction in NOX, CO, NO2, SO2, and PM (K) is calculated using a simplified version of the GHG reduction formula, as follows:

K = -1 ×
B × -D
C
Reductions in ROG emissions can be calculated by multiplying the percent reduction in other criteria pollutant emissions (K) by an adjustment factor of 87 percent. See Adjusting VMT Reductions to Emission Reductions above for further discussion.

Fuel Savings (Increased Electricity)
The percent reduction in vehicle fuel consumption would be the same as the percent reduction in criteria pollutant emissions (K). The percent increase in electricity use (L) from this measure can be calculated using a variation of the GHG reduction formula, as follows.

Electricity Use Increase Formula
L =
B × E × G × N
M
Electricity Use Increase Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
L Increase in electricity from electric
vehicles
[ ] % calculated
User Inputs
M Existing electricity consumption of
plan/community
[ ] kWh per year user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
N Days per year carshare program
operational
365 days per year assumed
A =
-1 ×
812 × ( (13.7 eVMT
day∙vehicle × 0.327 kWhmile × 0 lb CO2eMWh × 454 glb × 0.001 MWhkWh ) − (54.8 cVMTday∙vehicle × 307.5 g CO2emile )) 24,101,089 VMT
day × 307.5 g CO2e
mile
= -0.18%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-21-B. Implement Electric Carshare Program TRANSPORTATION | 158 Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (M) – The user should take care to properly quantify building electricity using accepted methodologies (such as CalEEMod).
▪ Please refer to the GHG Calculation Variables table above for definitions of variables that have been previously defined.

VMT Reductions
The percent reduction in VMT (O) is calculated using a simplified version of the GHG reduction formula that excludes the variables related to emission factors, as follows.

O = -1 ×
B × (E − D)
C
Sources
▪ California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2020a. EMFAC2017 v1.0.3. August. Available:
https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2020b. Unofficial electronic version of the Low Carbon Fuel Stproved_unofficial_06302020.pdf
▪ California Utilities. 2021. Excel database of GHG emission factors for delivered electricity, provided to the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District and ICF. January through March 2021. ▪ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp. Available: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/.

Accessed: January 2021.
▪ Martin, E. and Shaheen, S. 2016. The Impacts of Car2go on Vehicle Ownership, Modal Shift, Vehicle Miles Traveled, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: An Analysis of Five North American Cities. July.

Available: https://tsrc.berkeley.edu/publications/impacts-car2go-vehicle-ownership-modal-shiftvehicle-miles-traveled-and-greenhouse-gas. Accessed: March 2021. ▪ San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2019. Mobility Management VMT Reduction Calculator Tool – Design Document. June. Available: https://www.icommutesd.com/docs/defaultsource/planning/tool-design-document_final_7-17-19.pdf?sfvrsn=ec39eb3b_2. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE). 2021. Download Fuel Economy Data. January. Available:
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/download.shtml. Accessed: January 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 159
T-22-A. Implement Pedal (Non-Electric) Bikeshare
Program
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 0.02% of GHG
emissions from vehicle travel
in the plan/community
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Bikeshare programs can incentivize more
bicycle use and decrease vehicle use, which
have health benefits and can thus improve
community resilience. This can also improve
connectivity between residents and
resources that may be needed in an
extreme weather event.

Health and Equity Considerations
Provide inclusive mechanisms so people
without bank accounts, credit cards, or smart
phones can access the system.

Measure Description
This measure will establish a bikeshare program. Bikeshare programs provide users with on-demand access to bikes for shortterm rentals. This encourages a mode shift from vehicles to bicycles, displacing VMT and thus reducing GHG emissions.

Variations of this measure are described in Measure T-22-B, Implement Electric Bikeshare Program, and Measure T-22-C, Implement Scootershare Program.

Subsector
Neighborhood Design
Locational Context
Urban, suburban
Scale of Application
Plan/Community
Implementation Requirements
The GHG mitigation potential is based, in part, on literature analyzing docked (i.e., station-based) bikeshare programs. This measure should be applied with caution if using dockless (freefloating) bikeshare.

Cost Considerations
The costs incurred by the service manager (e.g., municipality or bikeshare company) may include the capital costs for purchasing a bicycle fleet; installing accessible and secure docking stations; storing, maintaining, and replacing the fleet; and marketing and administration. Some of these costs may be offset by income generated through program use. Program participants will benefit from the cost savings from access to cheaper transportation alternatives (compared to private vehicles, private bicycles, or use of ride-hailing services). The local municipality may achieve cost savings through a reduction of cars on the road leading to lower infrastructure and roadway maintenance costs.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Best practice is to discount bikeshare membership and dedicate bikeshare parking to encourage use of the service. Also consider including space on the vehicle to store personal items while traveling, such as a basket.

0.02%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-22-A. Implement Pedal (Non-Electric) Bikeshare Program TRANSPORTATION | 160 GHG Reduction Formula
This measure methodology does not account for the direct GHG emissions from vehicle travel of program employees picking up and dropping off bikes.

A = -1 ×
(C − B) × D × E × F
G × H
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from
vehicle travel in plan/community
0–0.02 % calculated
User Inputs
B Percent of residences in plan/community with
access to bikeshare system without measure
0–100 % user input
C Percent of residences in plan/community with
access to bikeshare system with measure
0–100 % user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
D Daily bikeshare trips per person 0.021 trips per day
per person
MTC 2017
E Vehicle to bikeshare substitution rate 19.6 % McQueen et al. 2020
F Bikeshare average one-way trip length 1.4 miles per trip Lazarus et al. 2019
G Daily vehicle trips per person 2.7 trips per day
per person
FHWA 2018
H Regional average one-way vehicle trip length Table
T-10.1
miles per trip FHWA 2017
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B and C) – Access to bikesharing is measured as the percent of residences in the plan/community within 0.25 mile of a bikeshare station. For dockless bikes, assume that all residences within 0.25 mile of the designated dockless service area would have access.
▪ (D) – An analysis of bike share service areas in the San Francisco Bay Area estimated that in locations with access to bikesharing, there were between 21 and 25 bikeshare trips per day per 1,000 residents (MTC 2017). To be conservative, the low end of this range is cited.
▪ (E) – A literature review of several academic and government reports found that the average car trip substitution rate by bikeshare trips was 19.6 percent. This included bikeshare programs in Washington D.C., Minneapolis, and Montreal (McQueen et al. 2020).