DATE: February 29, 2024
TO: Adam Smith, Sancerra Communities – Whitewood, LLC FROM: Haseeb Qureshi
Ali Dadabhoy
JOB NO: 14984-06 GHG CAP Consistency Checlist Assessment
WHITEWOOD I GREENHOUSE GAS (CAP CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST)
ASSESSMENT
Adam Smith,
Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide the following Greenhouse Gas (CAP Consistency Checklist) Assessment for the Whitewood I (Project ), which is located on the northeast corner of Whitewood Road and Clinton Keith Road in the City of Murrieta.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Project consists of a Development Plan Permit and Tentative Tract Map for a
17.26-acre site. The Project would provide for the development of 243 multi-family residential homes at a density of 15.1 dwelling units per acre. The Project also includes construction of a recreational pool area with a ±900sf restroom and pool equipment building, tot lot and 65,120 SF of total common open space areas throughout the site (see Exhibit 1). The proposed 243 dwelling units comprise 2 - and 3-story townhomes. A total of 629 parking spaces would be provided with 10% of spaces designated as future electric vehicle (EV) spaces. Access to the Project would be provided by two (2) full access driveways, one located on Arendt Lane, and the other located on Whitewood Road.
Grading proposed by the Project would result in disturbance to 16.64 acres of the Project with the balance of the site remaining undisturbed. The project will preserve 0.62 acres of sensitive area including 33 mature Oaks and 0.35 acres of County of Riverside riparian/riverine features.
The project will construct a ±12” offsite EMWD master plan sewer line within Arendt Lane, continuing easterly within Clinton Keith Road and terminating near the northwest corner of Clinton Keith Road and Menifee Road.
Adam Smith, Sancerra Communities – Whitewood, LLC
February 29, 2024
14984-06 GHG Assessment
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Results of the assessment indicate that the Project is consistent with the City of Murrieta CAP Checklist and not anticipated to result in a significant impact associated with greenhouse gases and not have impacts beyond what was studied in the City of Murrieta General Plan EIR.
Mitigation is required as mentioned in the CAP Checklist below.
EXHIBIT 1: PROJECT’S TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 1
1 It should be noted, since the time this air quality & energy assessment has been prepared, the site plan has been updated: the single family attached residential dwelling units has been reduced from 257 dwelling units to 243 dwelling units. In an effort to provide flexibility for minor changes to the site plan during final preparation, the Whitewood I Traffic Analysis evaluated the higher single family attached residential dwelling units in an effort to provide a conservative analysis. As such, the emissio ns presented in this air quality & energy assessment as well represent a conservative analysis and may overstate emissions.
Adam Smith, Sancerra Communities – Whitewood, LLC
February 29, 2024
14984-06 GHG Assessment
CITY OF MURRIETA
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN (CAP)
The City of Murrieta originally adopted a CAP as part of the City’s General Plan 2035 in 2011. In order to aggressively address the threats of global climate change, the City prepared a CAP Update (in 2020), which provides a framework for reducing GHG emis sions and managing resources to best prepare for a changing climate (1). The CAP Update includes GHG emissions targets that are consistent with the reduction targets of the State of California and presents several strategies that will make it possible for the City of Murrieta to meet the recommended targets. Projects that demonstrate consistency with the strategies, actions, and emission reduction targets contained in the CAP would have a less than significant impact on climate change. The CAP Update was completed in January 2 020 and approved by the City Council on June 16, 2020. A project’s consistency with the CAP is determined through the CAP Consistency Review Checklist. The CAP Consistency Review Checklist contains GHG reduction measures applicable to development projects that are required to be implemented on a project-by-project basis to ensure that the specific emission targets identified in the CAP are achieved. New development projects will need to incorporate all potential applicable CAP measures to demonstrate consistency with the CAP.
The Project will be compliant with the goals and objectives set forth in the City of Murrieta’s CAP Update (as shown on Table 1). Therefore, Project consistency with the CAP Update would result in a less than significant impact with respect to GHG emissions.
Discussion on Establishment of Significance Thresholds
The City of Murrieta has not established local CEQA significance thresholds for GHG emissions, as described in Section 15064.7 of the CEQA guidelines. According to the Final Statement of Reasons (FSOR ) for Regulatory Action, the revised Section 15064.7 gives lead agencies the discretion to determine their methodology for quantifying GHG emissions (2).
The AEP Climate Change Committee has prepared a white paper to provide guidance to local governments on how to develop thresholds for use in CEQA based on Section 15064.7 and guidance developed by several air quality districts and the CAPCOA guidance on ad dressing climate change. The AEP white paper identified seven thresholds for operational emissions. The following four methods described are the most widely used evaluation criteria. (1) Consistency with a Qualified GHG Reduction Plan. For a project located within a jurisdiction that has adopted a qualified GHG reduction plan (as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5), GHG emissions would be less than significant if the project is anticipated by the plan and fully consistent with the plan. However, projects with a horizon year beyond 2020 should not tier from a plan that is qualified up to 2020. (2) Bright line Thresholds. There are two types of bright line thresholds: a. Standalone Threshold. Emissions exceeding standalone thresholds would be considered significant. b. Screening Threshold. Emissions exceeding screening thresholds would require evaluation using a second -tier threshold, such as an efficiency threshold or other threshold concept to determine whether project emissions would be considered Adam Smith, Sancerra Communities – Whitewood, LLC
February 29, 2024
14984-06 GHG Assessment
significant. However, projects with a horizon year beyond 2020 should take into account the type and amount of land use projects and their expected emissions out to the year 2030.
(3) Efficiency Thresholds. Land use sector efficiency thresholds are currently based on AB 32 targets and should not be used for projects with a horizon year beyond 2020. Projects with a horizon year beyond 2020 should use efficiency metrics that are adjusted for 2030 and include applicable land uses.
(4) Percent Below “Business as Usual” (BAU). GHG emissions would be less than significant if the project reduces BAU emissions by the same amount as the statewide 2020 reductions. However, this method is no longer recommended following the Newhall Ranch ruling.
The AEP recommendations are similar to the recommendation developed by the SCAQMD Working group. As the City has adopted a Climate Action Plan, i.e. qualified GHG reduction plan, method 1 is the most applicable.
Consistency with City of Murrieta CAP Update
The CAP recommends GHG emissions targets that are consistent with the reduction targets of the State of California and presents a number of strategies that will make it possible for the City of Murrieta to meet the recommended targets (3). As part of the CAP development the City of Murrieta developed a project level checklist for CEQA purposes. Based on the requirements of the CAP a ll “applicable” Checklist questions must be answered “Yes”, and documentation provided, where necessary, that substantiates how compliance would be achieved as requested by the City of Murrieta . For measures for which a “Yes” is indicated, the features must be demonstrated as part of the project’s design and described. All applicable requirements in the Checklist will be included in the conditions of approval. Further, if any questions are marked with a “No”, the project cannot be determined to be consistent with the CAP, and project specific GHG analysis would be required as part of the CEQA process. If any questions are marked “N/A” (meaning “not applicable”), a stateme nt describing why the qu estion is not applicable shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Planning Division or building official , as requested . The CAP also suggests best practices for implementation and makes recommendations for measuring progress. As indicated in Table 1, the proposed Project would be consistent with, or otherwise would not conflict with, the CAP.
Adam Smith, Sancerra Communities – Whitewood, LLC
February 29, 2024
14984-06 GHG Assessment
TABLE 1: PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH THE CAP UPDATE CONSISTENCY REVIEW CHECKLIST Checklist Item Project Consistency with Item
Step 1: Land Use Consistency
1. Are the proposed land uses in the project
consistent with the existing General Plan land
use and zoning designations?
Yes. The City of Murrieta General Plan designates the Project site as “Multiple-Family Residential 2” (MF-2) uses. The MF-2 designation allows for up to 10.1 – 30 du/ac dwelling units per acre. This land use allows for attached and detached apartments and condo miniums. Allowed development includes townhomes, condominiums, apartment senior housing, and stacked flats (4). As previously stated, for purposes of analysis, the total development is proposed to consist of 130 single family attached residential dwelling units and 132 multifamily residential (low-rise) dwelling units for a total of 262 units. The 130 single family attached units are classified as units that share a wall with adjacent units (such as a duplex or townhouse. The proposed Project is consistent with the maximum 30 units per acres allowed pursuant to the current zoning designation. Therefore, the proposed Project analyzed herein would not exceed the allowable General Plan density of 30 units per acre or the total existing commercial land use designation and zoning allowed for the Project site.
Based on the allowed density and land uses, the Project envisions up to 130 single family attached residential dwelling units and 132 multifamily residential (low-rise) dwelling units for a total of 262 units. The 130 single family attached units are classified as units that share a wall with adjacent units (such as a duplex o r townhouse) within the “Multiple- Family Residential” designation. Typical development consists of townhomes, condominiums, apartments, senior housing, and stacked flats. Multiple- Family Residential encourages the development of integrated projects that provide complementary open spaces and amenities on-site.” Based on the allowed uses, the Proposed residential uses would be consistent with the “Multiple- Family Residential ” designation.
Based on the existing land use designation the Project would not require amendments to allow the proposed land uses and is thus considered consistent with the City of Murrieta General Plan land uses.
Since the answer to this question is “Yes”, the project is directed to move on to Step 2 of the checklist.
Step 2: CAP Strategies Consistency
1. Zero Net Energy Standards (Measure BE -3)
a) For residential projects, would the project or a
portion of the project be subject to building
permitting (i.e., building permits issued) on or
after January 1, 2023?
Yes. Since the answer is Yes, the checklist directs proceeding to question d.
b) For commercial projects or commercial
portions of mixed -use projects, would the
project or a portion of the project be subject to
building permitting (i.e., building permits
issued) on or after January 1, 2025?
N/A. The Project does not contain commercial or mixed land uses.
Adam Smith, Sancerra Communities – Whitewood, LLC
February 29, 2024
14984-06 GHG Assessment
Checklist Item Project Consistency with Item
c) For industrial projects, would the project or
a portion of the project be subject to building
permitting (i.e., building permits issued) on or
after January 1, 2025?
N/A. The Project does not contain industrial land uses. d) Would the project or portions of the project
permitted after January 1, 2023 for residential
projects and after January 1, 2025 for
nonresidential projects be designed and
constructed to comply with the Zero Net Energy
standard?
Yes. As identified in the CAP checklist, although the City has not yet developed a Zero Net Energy standard, the City will develop such a standard prior to January 1, 2023, pursuant to Measure BE-3 in the CAP.
For purposes of CAP compliance, all new residential projects that include phases for which building permitting would begin after January 1, 2023, compliance with zero net energy standard as stated herein must be included as a condition of approval and included as a mitigation measure in the project’s environmental document (as applicable). Such projects or phases thereof, to meet the zero net energy standard, must achieve a Total Energy Design Rating (Total EDR) and Energy Efficiency Design Rating (Efficiency EDR) of zero, consistent with the standards in Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations, by the date established above for each land use type. As noted in the CAP Consistency Checklist, all applicable requirements will be included in the conditions of approval for the Project.
2. Construction Waste Diversion (Measure SW -2)
a) For residential projects, recycle and/or salvage
for reuse a minimum of 80 percent of the
nonhazardous construction and demolition
waste in accordance with either Section 4.402.2,
4.408.3, 4.408.4 of the California Code of
Regulations, Title 24?
Yes. The proposed project would be required to comply with the California Code of Regulations, Title 24 which requires a minimum of 80 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste to be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse.
b) For nonresidential projects, recycle and/or
salvage for reuse a minimum of 80 percent of
the nonhazardous construction and demolition
waste in accordance with either Section
5.408.1.1, 5.408.1.2 or 5.408.1.3 of the California
Code of Regulations, Title 24?
N/A. The Project does not contain nonresidential land uses.
3. Transportation Demand Management Program (Measure T -7) a) For the construction of nonresidential
projects that would include 50 or more
employees, would the project include a
transportation demand management plan
that meets requirements of Section 16.40
“Transportation Demand Management” of the
City’s Municipal Code has been reviewed and
approved by the City of Murrieta Public Works
Department?
N/A. The Project does not contain nonresidential land uses.
4. Electric Vehicle Service Equipment (EVSE) (Measure T -2) a) One - and two -family dwellings and
townhouses with attached private garages:
Would the required parking serving each new
dwelling include Electric Vehicle Service
Equipment (EVSE) to allow for electric vehicle
charging by resident(s)?
Yes. The proposed Project will provide EVSE parking spaces to allow for electric vehicle charging by residents. As noted in the CAP Consistency Checklist, all applicable requirements will be included in the conditions of approval for the Project.
Adam Smith, Sancerra Communities – Whitewood, LLC
February 29, 2024
14984-06 GHG Assessment
Checklist Item Project Consistency with Item
b) Multi-family Residential Projects: Would 6%
of the total parking spaces required or a
minimum of two spaces, whichever is greater,
include Electric Vehicle Service Equipment
(EVSE) to allow for electric vehicle charging by
the resident(s)?
Yes. The proposed Project will provide 10% EV parking spaces (68 spaces) of the total parking spaces (680 spaces), which is to allow for electric vehicle charging by residents. As noted in the CAP Consistency Checklist, all applicable requirements will be included in the conditions of approval for the Project.
c) Non -residential projects: Would 3% of the
total parking spaces required, or a minimum of
two spaces, whichever is greater, include
Electric Vehicle Service Equipment (EVSE) to
allow for electric vehicle charging by the
resident(s)?
N/A. The Project does not contain nonresidential land uses.
5. Tree Planting (Measure LU -2)
a) For residential and non-residential projects,
would the project include the planting of new
trees where required by Section 16.26
“Landscaping Standards and Water Efficient
Landscaping” of the City’s Municipal Code?
Yes. The project will incorporate trees per the City’s landscaping requirements. As noted in the CAP Consistency Checklist, all applicable requirements will be included in the conditions of approval for the Project.
As shown in Table 1, the Project would comply with all applicable CAP Checklist items, therefore, the Project is consistent with the CAP and GHG impacts are less than significant.
GREENHOUSE GAS CONCLUSION
Results of the assessment indicate that the Project is consistent with the City of Murrieta CAP Checklist and not anticipated to result in a significant impact associated with greenhouse gases and not have impacts beyond what was studied in the City of Murrieta General Plan EIR.
Mitigation is required as mentioned in the CAP Checklist above.
14984-06 GHG Assessment
REFERENCES
1. City of Murrieta. Climate Action Plan. Murrieta : RBF Consulting, 2011.
2. California Natural Resources Agency. Final Statement for Reasons for Regulatory Action. [Online] December 2009.
http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/Final_Statement_of_Reasons.pdf.
3. City of Murrieta. City of Murrieta Climate Action Plan. Murrieta, CA : s.n., December 2011.
4. City of Murrieta 2035. City of Murrieta General Plan 2035. [Online] 2011. https://www.murrietaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4370/03---Land-Use-Element-A- textpdf.