Rancho Cucamonga City Council
July 20, 2022

City of Rancho Cucamonga – Alta Cuvee MND Responses to Comments (Draft IS/MND) January 31, 2022

Comment
#
Section/Topic Page(s) Response MND Reference
developed with input from the applicant to determine the magnitude of diesel particulate matter (diesel PM) emissions that would occur throughout the duration of construction activities. AERMOD is the Gaussian-plume air dispersion model recommended by regulatory agencies for use in estimating concentrations of air pollutants near emissions sources for air quality standard attainment demonstrations, HRAs, and other applications.

AERMOD was used to simulate average concentrations of diesel PM that would occur at sensitive receptor locations during construction of the proposed project. The inhalation-pathway HRA was conducted in accordance with guidance established by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA, 2015).

Results of the HRA determined that the maximally exposed individual resident (MEIR) would be a child receptor with an incremental increase in carcinogenic risk of no more than 2.64 excess cancers per million. This exposure would represent only 26.4 percent of the applicable SCAQMD thresholdfor TAC exposures of 10 excess cancers per million. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not result in substantial TAC concentrations affecting nearby sensitive receptors.

The comment’s assertion is based on underlying analysis conducted independently in CalEEMod that did not rely on project-specific construction schedule and equipment inventory information.
27 F. There is Substantial Evidence
that the Project May have a
Significant Health Risk Impact
28-29 Refer to response to Comment 26. In response to this comment letter and in order to provide the most conservative analysis, a construction HRA was prepared for the Project that determined emissions of diesel particulate matter would not result in possible sensitive receptor exposures that would exceed the SCAQMD carcinogenic risk threshold. The HRA that was prepared by the commenter’s expert relied on construction schedule and equipment inventory information that did not accurately reflect what is anticipated and analyzed for the proposed project. The assertion regarding operational DPM emissions is incorrect and mischaracterizeshow CalEEMod estimates emissions.

Section 4.3, pages 4-11 through 4-12
28 G. The IS/MND Failed to
Adequately Analyze Greenhouse
Gas Impacts and Thus the Project
May Result in Significant
Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
29-30 The commenter challenges the methods used to estimate the Project’s GHG emissions, which in turn determined that the Project would have a less than significant impact on GHG emissions and would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. The commenter suggests that the air model used to make these estimates and determinations was a flawed model, which is a reiteration of Comment 2, contained within the comment letter on pages 21-22. This comment references Section 4.8 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions), pages 4-29 and 4-30 of the IS/MND as well as Appendix F of the IS/MND.

See responses to Comment 14 and Comment 15, above. The project land uses have been updated to the current project design and site plan. The CalEEMod analysis was updated with the land use parameters. Emissionsremain below the SCAQMD interim screening threshold that the City is planning on adopting.

The commenter states that the SCAQMD thresholds for GHG are outdated and recommends that GHG analysis use the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target and include mitigation measures in Section 4.8 of the IS/MND in order to reduce impacts to less than significant.

The City as lead agency has determined that a threshold of significance of 3,000 MTCO2e for GHG emissions is appropriate for the proposed Project. The City based its threshold on the GHG threshold for mixed use and non-industrial projects recommended by SCAQMD, an expert agency with primary authority over air pollutants including GHG in the project area. This SCAQMD threshold was developed based on substantial evidence following the methodology established by the California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association (CAPCOA) of establishing a target of a 90 percent capture rate of emissions that would require further analysis, “while setting the emission threshold high enough to exclude small development projects that will contribute a relatively small fraction of the cumulative statewideemissions” (CAPCOA, 2008). Reliance upon the draft interim SCAQMD threshold is supported on the scientific basis of achieving an 80 percent reduction below 1990 GHG emissions levels by 2050 in accordance with Executive Order S-3-05, which was used by SCAQMD staff in proposing the draft interim threshold consistent with the CAPCOA analysis.

The SCAQMD draft guidance document included the following language regarding the objective of the proposed policy (SCAQMD Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas Significance Threshold, page 3-2, emphasis added):
“The overarching policy objective with regard to establishing a GHG significance threshold for the purposes of analyzing GHG impacts pursuant to CEQA is to establish a performance standard or target GHG reduction objective that will ultimately contribute to reducing GHG emissions to stabilize climate change. Full implementation of the Governor’s Executive Order S-3-05 would reduce GHG emissions [to] 80 percent below 1990 levels or 90 percent below current levels by 2050. It is anticipated that achieving the Executive Order’s objective would contribute to worldwide efforts to cap GHG concentrations at 450 ppm, thus, stabilizing global climate.

As described below, staff’s recommended interim GHG significance threshold proposal uses a tiered approach to determining significance. Tier 3, which is expected to be the primary tier by which the AQMD will determine significance for projects where it is the lead agency, uses the Executive Order S-3-05 goal as the basis for deriving the screening level. Specifically, the Tier 3 screening level for stationary sources is based on an emission capture rate of 90 percent for all new or modified projects. A 90 percent emission capture rate means that 90 percent of total emissions from all new or modified stationary source projects would be subject to some type of CEQA analysis, including a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or an environmental impact.

Therefore, the policy objective of staff’s recommended interim GHG significance threshold proposal is to achieve an emission capture rate of 90 percent of all new or modified stationary source projects. A GHG significance threshold based on a 90 percent emission capture rate may be more appropriate to address the long-term adverse impacts associated with global climate change. Further, a 90 percent emission capture rate sets the emission threshold low enough to capture a substantial fraction of future stationary source projects that will be constructed to accommodate future statewide population and economic growth, while setting the emission threshold high enough to exclude small projects that will in aggregate contribute a relatively small fraction of the cumulative statewide GHG emissions. This assertion is based on the fact that staff estimates that these GHG emissions would account for less than one percent of future 2050 statewide GHG emissions target (85 MMTCO2e/year).”
Section 4.8, pages 4-29 and 4-30;
Appendix F

City of Rancho Cucamonga – Alta Cuvee MND Responses to Comments (Draft IS/MND) January 31, 2022

Comment
#
Section/Topic Page(s) Response MND Reference
The commenter states that the GHG analysis of the IS/MND did not include performance-based standards under the California Air Resource Board’s (CARB’s) Scoping Plan or the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) and as such, the impact determinations are inaccurate. Reliance upon the draft interim screening threshold for GHG emissions precludes any further quantitative analysis of GHG emissions. The threshold value was determined based on California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association (CAPCOA) research that established a target of capturing 90 percent of GHG emissions above the screening threshold and excluding smaller projects from further analysis and potential mitigation. This target capture rate was derived in consideration of the Executive Order S-3-05 objective of reducing statewide GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Furthermore, the proposed Project was screened from a VMT analysis as set forth in the Transportation (4.17) section of the MND for the following reasons:
x Project is located within a half-mile of high quality transit: Omnitrans Route 66 alignment providing 15-minute peak hour headways is within a half-mile. x Project has a Floor Area Ratio equal to or greater than 0.75 (proposed Project is greater than 1.0). x Project shall not supply more parking than required by City Code: proposed Project includes parking reduction of 10% consistent with City code. x Project is consistent with RTP/SCS land use assumptions: proposed Project includes 260 multifamily units, Connect SoCal 2020 R TP/SCS forecasts approximately 9,600 additional housing units in the City, of which approximately 5,184 will be multifamily. The proposed Project would not introduce a disproportionate amount of growth that would result in SCAG assumptions being rendered invalid. x Project would not replace affordable housing units with market-rate housing units: The site is currently vacant; no affordable units would be displaced.

The proposed Project is consistent with SCAG forecast assumptions and is exempt from a VMT analysis, and therefore no further performance-based analysis is warranted.
29 H. There is Substantial Evidence of
a Fair Argument that the Project
Will Have Significant Noise Impact.
30-31 The commenter asserts that construction noise would be significant even with mitigation. The commenter is directed to Section 4.13, Noise on pages 4-46 through 4- 53 of the IS/MND. Future noise levels were predicted for the future year 2023 with project traffic. The analysis also includes consideration of stationary sources (HVAC, parking etc.). Page 4-50 discusses the incremental reduction in construction noise levels with the implementation of each of the six mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-6), and Table 4.13-4 shows the total combined noise reduction for construction at off-site receptors to below the 65 dBA residential thresholds and the 70 dBA commercial use threshold. As such, the construction noise analysis is adequate and the application of mitigation measures to get below the threshold is substantiated by the example mitigation for temporary noise barriers (i.e., temporary noise barriers produced by Echo Barriers are listed as capable of reducing noise by 10 to 20 dBA [Acoustical Surfaces, Inc. Echo Barrier, available at acoustical surfaces.com]) which was cited and included in Appendix H.

Section 4.13, Noise; Appendix H
30 Conclusion 31 This comment states the IS/MND should be withdrawn and an EIR prepared and circulated for public review. As discussed in the above responses to comments, no presentation has been made of substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project would cause a significant impact not evaluated and proposed to be mitigated to less tha
n significant in the IS/MND, and the IS/MND has been revised to clarify the project description, impact discussions and mitigation measures. Since no new significant environmental impacts would result from the Project and no new mitigation is proposed, an EIR is not required.

N/A
31 Exhibit A 32-51 The commenter includes an indoor air quality analysis comparison as an attachment to their comment letter. This comment is noted for the record and no further response to this comment is required.

N/A
32 Exhibit B 52-81 The commenter includes a biological resources analysis as an attachment to their comment letter. This comment is noted for the record and no further response to this comment is required.

N/A
33 Exhibit C 82-337 The commenter includes an air quality analysis, GHG, and health risk analysis as an attachment to their comment letter. This comment is noted for the record and no further response to this comment is required.

N/A

Exhibit B
-1-

Exhibit B
AECOM’s Response to SAFER’s April 13, 2022 Comment Letter

Exhibit B – Response to SAFER April 13, 2022 Comment Letter Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project 1

AECOM
300 S Grand Ave, 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
www.aecom.com
213.593.8100 tel
213.593.8053 fax

Exhibit B: Response to SAFER’s April 13, 2022 Comment Letter

Date: Ma y 31, 2022
Re: Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
To: Cit y of Rancho Cucamonga City Council
From: Jerr y Flores, AECOM
This memo was prepared by AECOM in response to comments submitted on April 13, 2022 by Lozeau Drury LLP on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) regarding the recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that was prepared for the proposed Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project (proposed Project) located at 12901-12939 Foothill Boulevard, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.

1. Background
The MND for the proposed Project was first circulated for public comment between September 1, 2021, and October 1, 2021, during which time the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City) received four comment letters, including one from SAFER dated October 1, 2021. AECOM prepared responses to these comments (Responses to Comments), and they were included as Appendix N to the recirculated MND. The Responses to Comments, along with applicable clarifications and modifications to the MND were part of the MND recirculation (Recirculated MND) which had a public comment period between February 8, 2022, through February 28, 2022. SAFER did not submit an additional comment letter during this public review period. On April 13, 2022, the day of the Project’s adoption of the MND by the City’s Planning Commission, SAFER submitted a comment letter on the Recirculated MND. In reviewing the April 13, 2022 comments, it is AECOM’s determination that none of the comments offer any evidence that any fact, analysis, or determination in the Recirculated MND is incorrect or not supported with substantial evidence, nor do they present any new or exacerbated environmental impacts. All but three of the comments reiterate SAFER’s same comments from the October 1, 2021 letter, were fully addressed by the Responses to Comments, and do not warrant further response from AECOM. Three of the comments, though they do not raise new or exacerbated environmental impacts, differed from the comments in SAFER’s October 1, 2021 and therefore, for clarification purposes, AECOM provides written responses to those comments below.

Exhibit B – Response to SAFER April 13, 2022 Comment Letter Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project 2

2. Response to Comments – SAFER April 13, 2022 Comment Letter:

Section/Comment Response
I. There is Substantial Evidence that the
Project Will Have a Significant Health Risk
Impact from its Indoor Air Qualit
y Impacts
See MND, Appendix N, Response to Comment 4.

II. The RIS/MND Fails to Adequately Mitigate
the Potential Adverse Impacts of the Project
on Wildlife

A. The wildlife baseline relied upon by
the RIS/MND is still woefully inadequate
See MND, Appendix N, Response to Comment 6.

While there is no evidence of a new significant impact on burrowing owls or other special status species, the Project mitigation measures have been revised to include voluntary implementation of the more specific surveys as recommended by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife.

Habitats can be identified at any time of day and the surveyor noted, on page 6 of the Biological Resources Assessment Memorandum (Appendix B of the MND), that "no survey constraints impeded the ability of the biologist to perform the survey successfully". If high-quality habitat for a special-status species was found, or incidental observation of a special-status species was noted, during the reconnaissance field survey, follow-up presence-absence surveys would have been recommended specific to the individual species with high potential to occur. However, as discussed in Section 4.4 Biological Resources, pages 4-13 through 4-15 of the MND, such findings and observations of a high quality habitat for a special-status species or of such a species did not occur. Additionally, the biologist who conducted the reconnaissance survey has over 12 years of experience with both wildlife and plant surveys in California and is qualified to make the determinations discussed in the MND and the Biological Resources Assessment Memorandum. See this biologist’s biography, under Appendix E of Appendix B, attached to the MND. As such, the reconnaissance field survey and wildlife baseline used to determine the Pro
ject’s impact on biological resources are adequate and appropriate.

B. The RIS/MND fails to address the
Project’s potential significant impact on
loss of breedin
g capacity
See MND, Appendix N, Response to Comment 7.

C. The RIS/MND fails to address the
Project’s potential significant impacts on
wildlife movement.

See MND, Appendix N, Response to Comment 9.

D. The RIS/MND fails to address the
Project’s potential significant impacts on
wildlife b
y window collisions
See MND, Appendix N, Response to Comment 10.

Exhibit B – Response to SAFER April 13, 2022 Comment Letter Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project 3

Section/Comment Response
E. The RIS/MND fails to address the
Project’s potential significant impacts on
wildlife from additional traffic generated
b
y the Project
See MND, Appendix N, Response to Comment 11.

F. The RIS/MND fails to adequately
address the Project’s potential
cumulative impacts on wildlife
See MND, Appendix N, Response to Comment 12.

G. The pre-construction and burrowing
owl surveys identified in the RIS/MND
are not sufficient to address potential
impacts to birds and bats that may be
present at the site
See MND, Appendix N, Response to Comment 13. Note that measures have been augmented in response to specific direction contained in the California Department of Fish & Wildlife Comment Letter received during the first circulation of the MND.

III. The RIS/MND Relied on Unsubstantiated
Input Parameters to Estimate Project
Emissions and Thus Failed to Adequately
Analyze the Project’s Air Quality Impacts
See MND, Appendix N, Responses to Comments 14-21.
x Addressing items one (1) and two (2) under Section III, the land use parameters that were inputted to CalEEMod were based on the most recent design drawings provided by the Project team.
x Addressing item three (3) under Section III, the architectural coating factors were consistent with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1113, which was accurately referenced.
x Addressing item four (4) under Section III, hearths would not be in the residential units based on the latest design provided and only one outdoor gas fireplace would be installed. x Addressing item five (5), see MND, Appendix N, Response to Comment 21. Residential land uses do not have heavy-duty vehicle trips in their fleets. x
Addressing item six (6), no changes were made to the solid waste generation rates and any discrepancies claimed are due to rounding.
x Addressing item seven (7), engine horsepower values were provided by the Applicant in the construction equipment inventory.
x Addressing item eight (8), requirement of Tier 4 equipment is not incorrect, it is a voluntary project design feature. Tier 4 Final equipment will be required. It is not customary to specify the “Final” vs. “Interim” standard.
x
Addressing item nine (9), there is no validity to this comment. Building envelope coatings must comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113, and no further reductions of volatile organic compound (VOC) content were assumed in buildin
g materials.

Exhibit B – Response to SAFER April 13, 2022 Comment Letter Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project 4

IV. The RIS/MND Fails to Adequately
Evaluate Health Risks from Diesel
Particulate Matter Emissions
See Exhibit A, Response to Comment 26. Note that a construction health risk analysis (HRA) was prepared for the proposed Project.

This comment is multi-faceted and is generally related to the alleged requirement that an HRA should be prepared to assess potential exposures of sensitive receptors to concentrations of diesel particulate matter (DPM) during both construction and operation of the proposed Project, and that potentially significant impacts during construction were not accurately identified. The comment suggests that input parameters used in the construction HRA were improper and that an operational HRA should have been prepared. However, the comment relies on a misunderstanding of the applicability of Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) guidance related to HRA preparation as well as a fundamentally flawed interpretation of California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) output, as described below.

The first assertion in the comment is that the construction-related HRA included in the RIS/MND should have accounted for possible exposures of infantile receptors to concentrations of DPM emanating from the proposed Project construction site. The rationale behind the assertion is based on the higher susceptibility of young individuals to experience adverse health effects from air pollution exposure as discussed in the 2015 OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. On page 1-2 of the 2015 Guidance Manual’s Introduction, OEHHA states that, “the intent in developing this Guidance Manual is to provide HRA procedures for use in the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program or for the permitting of existing, new, or modified stationary sources.” Further, “these guidelines should be used in conjunction with the emission data collected and reported pursuant to requirements of the CARB’s Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines Regulations (Title 17, CCR, Section 93300-93300.5), and the Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines Report for the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program.” Thus, the Guidance Manual was developed in consideration of particular sources of data that are specific to Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program projects and major stationary sources. The Project is not part of the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program, and the Project is an urban infill mixed-use development consisting of primarily mobile and area sources (i.e., non-stationary sources). Therefore, quantified emissions for the proposed Project are not subject to the above requirements and guidance. Neither the 2015 OEHHA Guidance Manual nor the SCAQMD 2017 Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401, 1401.1 and 212 make any mention of the applicability of the specific requirements contained therein to proposed projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The primary tool for estimating emissions of air pollutants during construction and operation of land use development projects under CEQA is the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). The CalEEMod default data inventory is populated based on broad surveys of various existing land use types and completed construction sites. Construction of the proposed Project would last for approximately 21 months, during which time daily emissions would fluctuate based on the level of on- site activit
y. The emissions modeling prepared for the proposed Project relied on conservative

Exhibit B – Response to SAFER April 13, 2022 Comment Letter Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project 5

assumptions related to construction equipment activity (i.e., assuming eight hours of continuous operation per day, six days per week for a vast majority of the equipment fleet) that likely overestimated daily emissions of air pollutants relative to what will occur in reality. Construction hours would be limited to 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM when pollutant dispersion is greatest due to the height of the atmospheric mixing layer. The OEHHA Guidance Manual acknowledges that preparing HRAs for short-term projects with variable emission rates can introduce substantial uncertainty into the input assumptions. The RIS/MND analysis included an assessment of localized particulate matter emissions as well as the construction HRA and determined that impacts would be less than significant.

For the purposes of CEQA, the construction emissions impacts assessment and HRA sufficiently addressed potential exposures of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The SCAQMD did not submit a comment regarding the emissions analysis disclosed in the RIS/MND.

The comment next asserts that an alternative “fraction of time at home” (FAH) factor of 100% should have been used for the child receptor in lieu of the OEHHA-recommended value of 0.73. This FAH derives from a draft SCAQMD guidance document that (a) has not been officially adopted, and (b) only applies to projects subject to the following SCAQMD rules: Rule 1404 (New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants), Rule 1401.1 (Requirements for New and Relocated Facilities Near Schools), and Rule 212 (Standards for Approving [SCAQMD] Permits and Issuing Public Notice). The guidance document was drafted in this manner assuming that children would attend school near enough to home that they would still be impacted by emissions of air pollutants from large stationary sources and facilities. The proposed Project represents a standard urban infill mixed-use development that would not introduce a new substantial source of toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions to the project area.

There are no elementary schools within 1,000 feet of the proposed Project site, and the nearest elementary school is approximately 2,000 feet to the north. The SCAQMD commonly recommends 1,000 feet as a safe siting distance from large stationary sources, and therefore children attending Perdew Elementary School would not be affected by construction-related emissions. Because the SCAQMD recommendation is still in draft form and, more importantly, the proposed Project would not be subject to the corresponding SCAQMD rules, the FAH recommended by the commenter is not more relevant to the Project than the FAH used in the RIS/MND analyses.

The comment also claims that a HRA should have been conducted for operation of the proposed Project. Per the Guidance Manual, however, HRAs are intended for projects in the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program or for the permitting of existing, new, or modified stationary sources. As noted above, the Project is not part of the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program and is considered an urban infill mixed-use development consisting primarily of mobile and area sources (i.e., non-stationary sources), and therefore would not introduce a new substantial source of toxic air contaminants (TACs) into the area.

Operation of the Project would not involve sources that emit substantial quantities of TACs that could cause acute or chronic health concerns. Mixed-use and residential projects are not identified by the SCAQMD as being sources of TACs that would warrant an operational HRA, and it would be speculative to conduct an analysis without SCAQMD’s necessary oversight. Furthermore, the comment relied on a fundamentall
y flawed interpretation of the CalEEMod output provided in the

Exhibit B – Response to SAFER April 13, 2022 Comment Letter Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project 6

Section/Comment Response
appendices to the RIS/MND. The operational screening HRA included in the comment letter relied on the assumption that the proposed Project would emit 0.0428 tons per year of DPM, which would equate to 0.2345 pounds per day. However, as indicated in the annual CalEEMod output file for the proposed Project, the 0.0428 tons per year corresponds to the total annual mobile source exhaust emissions of PM
10, which includes non-diesel vehicles. Thus, the operational HRA included in the comment egregiously overestimated the DPM emissions that would occur during proposed Project operations, reflecting a fundamentally flawed understanding of air pollutant emissions estimate methodology and CalEEMod.

In sum, neither a construction nor operational HRA were required for the proposed Project, and the construction HRA was prepared based on reasonable exposure assumptions as a demonstration of due diligence to protect community health.

V. There is Substantial Evidence that the
Project May have a Significant Health Risk
Impact
See MND, Appendix N, Response to Comment 27. Note that a construction HRA was prepared for the proposed Project.

VI. The IS/MND Failed to Adequately Analyze
Greenhouse Gas Impacts and Thus the
Project May Result in Significant
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
See MND, Appendix N, Response to Comment 28.

VII. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair
Argument that the Project Will Have
Si
gnificant Noise Impact
See MND, Appendix N, Response to Comment 29.

Exhibit C
-1-

Exhibit C
GHG Interim Guidance

ATTACHMENT E

SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold
October 2008
Deputy Executive Officer
Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources
Elaine Chang, DrPH
Assistant Deputy Executive Officer
Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources
Laki Tisopulos, Ph.D., P.E.

Planning and Rules Manager
Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources
Susan Nakamura
Author: Steve Smith, Ph.D. Program Supervisor
Michael Krause Air Quality Specialist
Contributors: Jeffery Inabinet Air Quality Specialist
James Koizumi Air Quality Specialist
Barbara Radlein Air Quality Specialist
Reviewed: Barbara Baird Principal District Counsel

SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

GOVERNING BOARD
Chairman: WILLIAM A. BURKE, Ed.D.

Speaker of the Assembly Appointee
Vice Chairman: S. ROY WILSON, Ed.D.

Supervisor, Fourth District
County of Riverside

MEMBERS
MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH
Supervisor, Fifth District
County of Los Angeles
MICHAEL A. CACCIOTTI
Councilmember, City of South Pasadena
Cities of Los Angeles County, Eastern Region

BILL CAMPBELL
Supervisor, Third District
County of Orange
JANE W. CARNEY
Senate Rules Committee Appointee
RONALD O. LOVERIDGE
Mayor, City of Riverside
Cities of Riverside County
JOSEPH K. LYOU, PH.D
Governor’s Appointee
GARY C. OVITT
Supervisor, Fourth District
County of San Bernardino

JAN PERRY
Councilmember, Ninth District
City of Los Angeles Representative
MIGUEL A. PULIDO
Mayor, City of Santa Ana
Cities of Orange County

TONIA REYES URANGA
Councilmember, City of Long Beach
Cities of Los Angeles County, Western Region

DENNIS YATES
Mayor, City of Chino
Cities of San Bernardino County

EXECUTIVE OFFICER
BARRY WALLERSTEIN, D. Env.

Table of Contents
TOC - 1 October 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface
List of Acronyms
Chapter 1 - Introduction and Executive Summary
Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1-1 Purpose of This Guidance Document........................................................................ 1-3 California Environmental Quality Act and GHGs .................................................... 1-3 Legal Authority ......................................................................................................... 1-6 Contents of This Guidance Document ...................................................................... 1-8 Chapter 2 – Background Information on GHGs
General Background Information on GHGs ............................................................. 2-1 Legislative Background - California ......................................................................... 2-2 Initial Guidance on Evaluating GHGs Pursuant to CEQA........................................ 2-5 Chapter 3 – Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal Introduction ............................................................................................................... 3-1 GHG Analysis Considerations .................................................................................. 3-2 Draft Staff Interim GHG Significance Threshold Proposal ..................................... 3-9 Chapter 4 – Considerations When Analyzing GHG Emissions Introduction ............................................................................................................... 4-1 GHG Analysis Recommendations............................................................................. 4-1 Chapter – Conclusion
Introduction ............................................................................................................... 5-1 Future Action Items................................................................................................... 5-1 References
TABLES
Table 2-1: Statutes and Executive Order Approach................................................. 2-9 Table 2-2: Tiered Threshold Options ....................................................................... 2-11

Table of Contents
TOC - 2 October 2008
Table 3-1: Global Warming Potential of Kyoto GHGs........................................... 3-4 Table 3-2: 2002-2004 Average Emissions and 2020 Projected Emissions (Business-as-Usual)....................................................................................... 3-6 Table 3-3: URBEMIS Run Results (based on 55 lbs/day NOx or 10 tons/year NOx total Operational and Area Sources) ..................................................................... 3-15 Table 3-4 Comparison of CARB’s and AQMD’s Interim
GHG Significance Thresholds....................................................................... 3-18 Table 5-1: California Air Resources Board GHG Emission Reduction Strategies ...................................................................................................... 5-3 Table 5-2: GHG Emission Reduction Strategies Implemented by CEC and CPUC ........................................................................................ 5-5

FIGURES
Figure 2-1: Global Anthropogenic GHG Emissions............................................... 2-1 Figure 2-2: 2004 GHG Emissions by Sector........................................................... 2-4 Figure 2-3: 1990 GHG Emissions by Sector........................................................... 2-4 Figure 3-1: Revised Staff Proposal #3 Tiered Decision Tree Approach – August 27, 2008......................................................................... 3-11 Figure 3-2: Total Number of AER Facilities and Their Accumulative NG Usage FY 06 – 07 ................................................................................... 3-14 Figure B-1: Initial Staff Proposal – Proposed Tiered Approach – May 28, 2008............................................................................................. B-3 Figure B-2: Revised Staff Proposal #1 Tiered Decision Tree Approach – June 19, 2008............................................................................. B-6 Figure B-3: Proposed Tiered Decision Tree Approach – July 30, 2008................. B-10 Figure B-4: Revised Staff Proposal #3 Tiered Decision Tree Approach – August 27, 2008......................................................................... B-13 APPENDIX A - Working Group Members and Contributors
APPENDIX B – Summaries of Working Group Meetings

P R E F A C E
This Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold document contains the proposed interim GHG significance threshold, rationale for developing the threshold, and details of the working group meetings and represents a work-in-progress of staff’s efforts to date. This document will be updated as more information becomes available. For the staff recommendation to the Governing Board at the December 5, 2008 public hearing, please refer to Attachment A of Agenda Item Number 31.

Finally, to facilitate identifying changes to this Guidance Document since its release in October 2008, added text is underlined
and deleted text is denoted with strikethrough text.

L I S T O F A C R O N Y M S A N D A B B R E V I A T I O N S

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronyms and Abbreviations - 1 October 2008
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronym/
Abbreviation Definition
AB 32 Assembly Bill 32 Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 AER Annual Emission Reporting
AG Attorney General
ARB Air Resources Board
BACT Best Available Control Technology
BARCT Best Available Retrofit Control Technology
BAU Business as Usual
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resource Board
CAT Climate Action Team
CCAR California Climate Action Registry
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CH4 Methane
CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY Fiscal Year
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GGRP Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan
GP General Plan
GWP Global Warming Potential
IGR Intergovernmental Review
IPCC International Panel on Climate Change
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
km Kilometer
LNG Liquefied Natural Gas
MMBTU Million British Thermal Units
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
MMT CO2e Million Metric Tons Carbon Dioxide Equivalent MW Megawatts
N2O Nitrous Oxide
ND Negative Declaration
NOX Oxides of Nitrogen
OPR State Office of Planning and Research
PFC Perfluorocarbon

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronyms and Abbreviations - 2 October 2008
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations (Concluded)
Acronym/
Abbreviation Definition
PM Particulate Mater
ROG Reactive Organic Gas
RPS Renewable Portfolio Standards
S-3-05 Executive Order S-3-05
SB Senate Bill
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SIP State Implementation Plan
SOX Sulfur Oxides
TAC Toxic Air Contaminants
URBEMIS Urban Emissions Model
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled

C H A P T E R 1

I N T R O D U C T I O N A N D E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y Introduction
Purpose of This Guidance Document
California Environmental Quality Act and GHGs
Legal Authority
Contents of This Guidance Document

Chapter 1 – Introduction and Executive Summary
1 - 1 October 2008

INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires public agencies in California to analyze potential adverse impacts for proposed projects undertaken by a public agency, funded by a public agency, and requiring discretionary approval by a public agency. The fundamental purposes of CEQA are to inform governmental decision-makers and the public about the significant environmental effects of proposed activities, identify ways to avoid or significantly reduce environmental damage, use feasible alternatives or mitigation measures to avoid significant damage, and disclose to the public why a governmental agency approved a project if significant effects are involved (CEQA Guidelines §15002[a]). To disclose potential adverse impacts from a proposed project, pursuant to CEQA lead agencies typically prepare multidisciplinary environmental impact analysis and make decisions based on the analysis regarding the environmental effects of the proposed project (CEQA Guidelines §15002[a]).

In the past, air quality analyses tended to focus on potential adverse impacts from criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Subsequent to the adoption of Assembly Bill (AB) 32 – The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, lead agencies have increasingly faced legal challenges to their CEQA documents for failure to analyze greenhouse gases (GHGs) or making a determination of significance regarding GHG emission impacts.

Greenhouse gases are those gases that have the ability to trap heat in the atmosphere, a process that is analogous to the way a greenhouse traps heat. GHGs may be emitted as a result of human activities as well as through natural processes. As a result of human activities, such as electricity production, vehicle use, etc., GHGs have been accumulating in the earth’s atmosphere at a faster rate than has occurred historically, i.e., prior to the Industrial Age starting approximately 150 years ago. Increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere are leading to global climate change.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provided the first unequivocal evidence that global climate temperatures are increasing (2007a).

Further, the primary driver of global climate change is increased emissions of GHGs due to human activities. According to the IPCC, there is very high confidence, based on more evidence from a wider range of species, that recent warming is strongly affecting terrestrial, marine, freshwater biological systems.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important anthropogenic GHG because it comprises the majority of total GHG emissions emitted per year and it is very long-lived in the atmosphere. Annual emissions of CO2 have increased approximately 80 percent between 1970 and 2004. In addition to CO2, other GHG pollutants emitted directly as a result of human activities include methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and halocarbons (a group of gases containing fluorine, chlorine or bromine). Without changes in current climate change mitigation policies and related sustainable

Chapter 1 – Introduction and Executive Summary
1 - 2 October 2008
development practices, GHG emissions and global climate temperatures will continue to increase.

To prevent or minimize further increases in global temperatures resulting from increases in GHG emissions due to human activities, it is necessary to stabilize the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere. Stabilizing GHGs in the atmosphere can only occur through reducing GHG emissions. Without further reductions in GHGs, increased global temperatures will surpass humans’ and ecosystems’ ability to adapt to these changing conditions (IPCC, 2007b).

In response to the increasing body of evidence that GHGs will continue to affect global climate, Governor Schwarzenegger issued executive order (EO S-3-05), which established the following greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for California: by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

Subsequent to the Governor’s issuance of EO S-3-05, the California State Legislature adopted Assembly Bill (AB) 32 – The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. With the adoption of AB 32, the California State Legislature recognized the growing concern regarding changes to global climate resulting from increasing emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs). AB 32 establishes a cap on statewide greenhouse gas emissions and sets forth the regulatory framework to achieve the corresponding reduction in statewide emissions levels. Specifically, (AB 32) recognizes the serious threat to the “economic wellbeing, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California” that results from global warming.

Consequently, AB 32 mandates a significant reduction in GHGs in order to contribute to efforts to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of GHGs. Under AB 32, greenhouse gases are defined as: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.

In general, there is currently an absence of regulatory guidance with regard to analyzing GHG emission impacts in CEQA documents. Similarly, no public agency in California has formally adopted GHG significance thresholds. Recognizing the absence of guidance regarding analyzing and determining the significance of GHGs, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) prepared a White Paper reviewing policy choices, analytical tools, and mitigation strategies for GHGs. In particular, the White Paper identifies a number of options for establishing GHG significance thresholds, but makes no formal recommendation of one approach over another.

Air districts typically act in an advisory capacity to local governments in establishing the framework for environmental review of air pollution impacts under CEQA. This may include recommendations regarding significance thresholds, analytical tools to estimate emissions and assess impacts, and mitigations for potentially significant impacts. Although districts will also address some of these issues on a project-specific basis as responsible agencies, they may provide general guidance to local governments on these issues.

Chapter 1 – Introduction and Executive Summary
1 - 3 October 2008
Because of its expertise in establishing air quality analysis methodologies and comprehensive efforts to establish regional and localized significance thresholds for criteria pollutants, local public agencies have asked South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for guidance in quantifying GHG impacts and recommending GHG significance thresholds to assist them with determining whether or not GHG impacts in their CEQA documents are significant. As a result, SCAQMD staff has received requests from a number of public agencies and other stakeholders to provide guidance on analyzing GHG impacts and establishing a GHG significance threshold. In response to these requests from the various stakeholders, SCAQMD established a stakeholder working group to receive input on establishing a GHG significance threshold. In the meantime, SCAQMD staff has joined many other stakeholders urging CARB to establish a statewide threshold for GHGs. In the absence of a statewide threshold, SCAQMD staff will recommend its interim approach to the Governing Board for consideration and it will also become the SCAQMD’s input to the statewide process.

PURPOSE OF THIS GUIDANCE DOCUMENT
The purpose of this Guidance Document, therefore, is to provide information on GHG legislation relative to CEQA, a brief summary of the Working Group process, development of the resulting staff-recommended interim GHG significance threshold proposal, and how to use it. This Guidance Document also provides information on the SCAQMD’s authority to establish a GHG significance threshold pursuant to CEQA and some background information on GHGs and global climate change. This Guidance Document also discusses future efforts to further refine the interim GHG significance threshold as necessary, includes recommendations for analyzing GHG impacts using current modeling tools, and describes measures to mitigate GHG emission impacts.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND GHGS
California Attorney General’s Office
Subsequent to adopting AB 32, the California Attorney General’s Office determined that GHG emissions contributing to global climate change also contribute to potential adverse environmental impacts that should be evaluated pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Attorney General’s Office has submitted numerous comment letters to lead agencies on their CEQA documents for failure to analyze GHG emissions, failure to make a significance determination, and failure to implement feasible mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions to the maximum extent feasible.

For example, the California Attorney General, on behalf of the people of California, filed a legal challenge against the County of San Bernardino for failure to analyze “reasonably foreseeable” GHG emissions in the CEQA document prepared for its

Chapter 1 – Introduction and Executive Summary
1 - 4 October 2008
General Plan update. The County reached a settlement with the Attorney General by committing to developing a GHG inventory and a plan for reducing GHGs.

Similarly, the California Attorney General submitted comments on the CEQA document for a refinery in northern California. Although GHG emissions were quantified, the Attorney General cited the failure of the lead agency to make a determination of significance relative to GHG emissions stating, “[E]ven if there is no established threshold in law or regulation, lead agencies are obligated by CEQA to determine significance. Neither CEQA, nor the regulations, authorize reliance on the lack of an agency-adopted standard as the basis for determining that a project’s potential cumulative impact is not significant.” In other words, the absence of a threshold does not in any way relieve lead agencies of their obligations to address GHG emissions from projects under CEQA. By not concluding whether or not a project is significant, the lead agency may be avoiding its responsibility to implement GHG mitigation measures.

Senate Bill (SB) 97 – CEQA: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
In August 2007, Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law Senate Bill (SB) 97 – CEQA: Greenhouse Gas Emissions stating, “This bill advances a coordinated policy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by directing the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the Resources Agency to develop CEQA guidelines on how state and local agencies should analyze, and when necessary, mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.” Specifically, SB 97 requires OPR, by July 1, 2009, to prepare, develop, and transmit to the Resources Agency guidelines for the feasible mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, as required by CEQA, including, but not limited to, effects associated with transportation or energy consumption. The Resources Agency would be required to certify and adopt those guidelines by January 1, 2010. OPR would be required to periodically update the guidelines to incorporate new information or criteria established by the State Air Resources Board pursuant to the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.

SB 97 also identifies a limited number of types of projects that would be exempt under CEQA from analyzing GHG emissions. Finally, the legislation will be repealed on January 1, 2010.

Office of Planning and Research Technical Advisory
Consistent with SB 97, on June 19, 2008, OPR released its Technical Advisory on CEQA and Climate Change , which was developed in cooperation with the Resources Agency, the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). According to OPR, the Technical Advisory offers the informal interim guidance regarding the steps lead agencies should take to address climate change in their CEQA documents, until CEQA guidelines are developed pursuant to SB 97 on how state and local agencies should analyze, and when necessary, mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.

According to OPR, lead agencies should determine whether greenhouse gases may be generated by a proposed project, and if so, quantify or estimate the GHG emissions by

Chapter 1 – Introduction and Executive Summary
1 - 5 October 2008
type and source. Second, the lead agency must assess whether those emissions are individually or cumulatively significant. When assessing whether a project’s effects on climate change are “cumulatively considerable” even though its GHG contribution may be individually limited, the lead agency must consider the impact of the project when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects. Finally, if the lead agency determines that the GHG emissions from the project as proposed are potentially significant, it must investigate and implement ways to avoid, reduce, or otherwise mitigate the impacts of those emissions.

SB 375 (Steinberg) Transportation, Land Use, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
On September 30, 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law SB 375 (Steinberg). SB 375 focuses on housing and transportation planning decisions to reduce fossil fuel consumption and conserve farmlands and habitat. This legislation is important to achieving AB 32 goals because greenhouse gas emissions associated with land use, which includes transportation, are the single largest sector of emissions in California. Further, SB 375 provides a path for better planning by providing incentives to locate housing developments closer to where people work and go to school, allowing them to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) every year. The following bullet points summarize some of the main provisions of the bill. x Require the regional governing bodies in each of the state’s major metropolitan areas to adopt, as part of their regional transportation plan, a “sustainable community strategy” that will meet the region’s target for reducing GHG emissions. These strategies would get people out of their cars by promoting smart growth principles such as: development near public transit; projects that include a mix of residential and commercial use; and projects that include affordable housing to help reduce new housing developments in outlying areas with cheaper land and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
x Create incentives for implementing the sustainable community strategies by allocating federal transportation funds only to projects that are consistent with the emissions reductions.
x Provide various forms of CEQA relief by allowing projects that are shown to conform to the preferred sustainable community strategy through the local general plans (and therefore contribute to GHG reduction) to have a more streamlined environmental review process. Specifically, SB 375 will change CEQA in two ways:
¾ If a development is consistent with the sustainable community’s strategy and incorporates any mitigation measures required by a prior EIR, then the environmental review does not have to consider: a) growth-inducing impacts, or b) project-specific or cumulative impacts from cars on global warming or the regional transportation network.

Chapter 1 – Introduction and Executive Summary
1 - 6 October 2008
¾ A narrowly-defined group of “transit priority projects” will be exempt from CEQA review.

LEGAL AUTHORITY
CEQA Guidelines §15022(a) states that a public agency shall adopt objectives, criteria, and specific procedures consistent with CEQA and these [State] Guidelines for administering its responsibilities under CEQA. CEQA Guidelines §15022(d) states further, “In adopting procedures to implement CEQA, a public agency may adopt the State CEQA Guidelines through incorporation by reference. The agency may then adopt only those specific procedures or provisions described in subsection [15022] (a) which are necessary to tailor the general provisions of the guidelines to the specific operations of the agency.” At the December 11, 1998 Public Hearing the SCAQMD’s Governing Board formally incorporated by reference the State CEQA Guidelines as the implementing guidelines for the SCAQMD’s CEQA program.

Adopting GHG significance thresholds would be consistent with CEQA Guidelines §15022 provision to tailor a public agency’s implementing guidelines by adopting criteria relative to the specific operations of the SCAQMD.

Specifically with regard to thresholds of significance, CEQA Guidelines §15064.7(a) states, "Each public agency is encouraged to develop and publish thresholds of significance that the agency uses in the determination of the significance of environmental effects.” Subsection (b) of the s ame section states further, “Thresholds of significance to be adopted for general use as part of the lead agency’s environmental review process must be adopted by ordinance, resolution, rule or regulation, and developed through a public review process and be supported by substantial evidence.” Staff’s recommended GHG significance threshold has undergone a public review process as part of stakeholder working group meetings that are open to the public. This Guidance Document provides the substantial evidence relative to the methodology for developing the interim GHG significance threshold.

After completion of the public process, the proposed interim GHG significance threshold will be brought to the SCAQMD’s Governing Board at a public meeting, where it will be considered for adoption by resolution, consistent with CEQA Guidelines §15064.7(b). Staff’s proposed interim GHG significance threshold is a recommendation only for lead agencies and not a mandatory requirement. The GHG significance threshold may be used at the discretion of the local lead agency.

However, if adopted the SCAQMD will use the interim GHG significance threshold for projects where it is the lead agency.

Considerations When Establishing Significance Thresholds No significance thresholds for GHG emissions have been developed, adopted, or endorsed statewide or at the local level

1. Air districts have primary authority under

1 In response to comments submitted by the Attorney General’s Office on a dairy project, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) identified a significance threshold of 38,477 metric tons of

Chapter 1 – Introduction and Executive Summary
1 - 7 October 2008
state law for "control of air pollution from all sources, other than emissions from motor vehicles" (H&SC §40000). The term air contaminant or "air pollutant" is defined extremely broadly, to mean "any discharge, release, or other propagation into the atmosphere" and includes, but is not limited to, soot, carbon, fumes, gases, particulate matter, etc. Greenhouse gases and other global warming pollutants such as black carbon would certainly be included in this definition. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Massachusetts v. EPA 549 U.S. 497 (2009) that greenhouse gases were clearly within the Federal Clean Air Act’s broad definition of air pollutants. Therefore, air districts have the authority to regulate global warming pollutants primarily from non- vehicular sources, while pursuant to AB 32 CARB has authority over a wide range of sources, including vehicular sources.

Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides a checklist of suggested environmental topics that should be addressed in a CEQA document. Questions under each environmental topic area are designed to elicit information on whether a project has the potential to generate significant adverse environmental impacts to that environmental topic area. However, neither the CEQA statutes nor the implementing Guidelines discuss or identify thresholds of significance or particular methodologies for performing an impact analysis. These tasks are left to a lead agency’s judgment and discretion, based upon factual data and guidance from regulatory agencies and other sources where available and applicable.

The determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. An ironclad definition of significant effect is not always possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting. For example, an activity which may not be significant in an urban area may be significant in a rural area (CEQA Guidelines §15064(b)). Further, in evaluating the significance of the environmental effect of a project, the Lead Agency shall consider direct physical changes in the environment which may be caused by the project and reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment which may be caused by the project (§15064(d)). Significance conclusions must be based on substantial evidence, which includes facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts (CEQA Guidelines §15064(f)(5)).

Each public agency is encouraged to develop and publish thresholds of significance that the agency uses in the determination of the significance of environmental effects.

A threshold of significance is essentially a regulatory standard or set of criteria that represent the level at which a lead agency finds a particular environmental effect of a project to be significant. Specifically, a threshold of significance is an identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental effect, non- compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant

carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MT CO2eq./yr). According to SJVAPCD staff, the agency currently has no plans to formally adopt this significance threshold through a public process.

Chapter 1 – Introduction and Executive Summary
1 - 8 October 2008
by the agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be less than significant (§15064.7(a)).

Even in the absence of clearly defined significance thresholds for GHG emissions, the California Attorney General has advised that such emissions from CEQA projects must be disclosed and mitigated to the extent feasible whenever the lead agency determines that the project contributes to a significant, cumulative climate change impact.

CONTENTS OF THIS GUIDANCE DOCUMENT
The following subsections provide brief summaries of the chapters contained in this guidance document.

Summaries of Chapter 1
Chapter 1 is the introductory chapter of this document that contains general background information on GHGs and the determination that GHGs must be analyzed in CEQA documents. There is also information on CEQA legislation related to GHGs and global climate change. Finally, the chapter contains information on the legal authority that allows the SCAQMD to adopt significance thresholds for the purpose of determining the severity of impacts analyzed in CEQA documents Summaries of Chapter 2
Chapter 2 contains more detailed background information on GHG emissions relative to global climate change, both internationally and nationally. This chapter also provides more detailed information on legislation to reduce GHG house gas emissions, e.g., Assembly Bill 32 – the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, etc. Finally, Chapter 2 contains information on early guidance on evaluating GHG emissions in CEQA documents.

Summaries of Chapter 3
Chapter 3 contains information on the working group established by the SCAQMD to provide feedback to staff on the development of an interim GHG significance threshold. The chapter also includes discussions on considerations in establishing an interim GHG significance threshold and describes the current staff proposal for an interim GHG significance threshold.

Summaries of Chapter 4
Chapter 4 contains general recommendations for analyzing GHG emissions in CEQA documents.

Chapter 1 – Introduction and Executive Summary
1 - 9 October 2008
Summaries of Chapter 5
In Chapter 5 it is assumed that the SCAQMD Governing Board will adopt staff’s proposed interim GHG significance threshold. Therefore, this chapter discusses future action items, including outreach to interested stakeholders, compiling lists of applicable GHG design features and mitigation measures, and periodic review and update, as necessary of the interim GHG significance threshold.

C H A P T E R 2

B A C K G R O U N D I N F O R M A T I O N O N G H G S General Background Information
Legislative Background – California
Initial Guidance on Evaluating GHGs Pursuant to CEQA

Chapter 2 – Background Information on GHGs
2 - 1 October 2008

GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON GHGS
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
In the last few years information and data have been compiled that demonstrate unequivocally that increases in average global air and ocean temperatures are occurring (IPCC, 2007a). For example, 11 of the last 12 years (1995-2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850). The temperature increase is widespread over the globe and is greater at higher northern latitudes.

Further, increases in sea level are consistent with global warming. For example, global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3]mm per year over 1961 to 2003 and at an average rate of about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8]mm per year from 1993 to 2003. According to the IPCC (2007b), there is very high confidence, based on more evidence from a wider range of species, that recent warming is strongly affecting terrestrial, marine, and freshwater biological systems.

One of the major drivers in global climate change has been directly linked to the increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions due to human activities worldwide (Figure 2-1). Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important anthropogenic GHG. Annual CO2 emissions have increased approximately 80 percent between 1970 and 2004 (IPCC, 2007b) Figure 2-1
Global Anthropogenic GHG Emissions
Source – IPCC, 2007b: (a) Global annual emissions of anthropogenic GHGs from 1970 to 2004.5 (b) Share of different anthropogenic GHGs in total emissions in 2004 in terms of CO2-eq. (c) Share of different sectors in total anthropogenic GHG emissions in 2004 in terms of CO2-eq. (Forestry includes deforestation.) {WGIII Figures TS.1a, TS.1b, TS.2b}
Human activities have been responsible for substantial increases in four long-lived GHGs, including: CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and halocarbons (a group of gases

Chapter 2 – Background Information on GHGs
2 - 2 October 2008
containing fluorine, chlorine or bromine). Global increases in CO2 concentrations are due primarily to fossil fuel use, with land-use change providing another significant but smaller contribution. It is very likely that the observed increase in CH4 concentration is predominantly due to agriculture and fossil fuel use. The increase in N2O concentration is primarily due to agriculture (IPCC, 2007).

According to the IPCC (2007), for the next couple of decades global temperatures are expected to rise approximately 0.2
o C per decade under a variety of scenarios. Further,
global temperatures are expected to continue for centuries as a result of human activities due to the time scales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if GHG concentrations are stabilized. As a result, based on the current understanding of climate- carbon feedback, model studies show that substantial GHG emission reductions are necessary to avoid substantial increases in global air and ocean temperatures.

LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND – CALIFORNIA
California has taken a leadership role in not only recognizing the future impacts to global climate change from anthropogenic sources of GHG emissions, but in establishing policies and adopting laws to substantially reduce GHG emissions by 2050. In addition to the GHG legislation related to CEQA described in Chapter 1, California has adopted the following policies and laws that specifically address reducing GHG emissions.

Governor Schwarzenegger’s Executive Order (June 2005)
In June 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order (EO) S-3-05, which establishes greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in response to projected increases in global air and ocean temperatures. Specifically, EO S-3-05 establishes the following three GHG emission reduction targets:
x Reduce GHG emissions to 2000 emission levels by 2010; x Reduce GHG emissions to 1990 emission levels by 2020; and x Reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Further, EO S-3-05 charges the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) secretary to coordinate with the Secretary of the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, Secretary of the Department of Food and Agriculture, Secretary of the Resources Agency, Chairperson of the CARB, Chairperson of the Energy Commission and President of the Public Utilities Commission to develop a Climate Action Plan. EO S-3-05 also charges the Secretary of CalEPA with the oversight of efforts to meet the above GHG emission reduction targets and the responsibility to prepare biannual reports on progress in meeting the GHG emission reduction targets.

Chapter 2 – Background Information on GHGs
2 - 3 October 2008
Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill (AB) 32) The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) was adopted by the California State Legislature in 2006. AB 32 assigns CARB the responsibilities of monitoring and reducing GHG emissions. Specifically, AB 32 requires CARB to:
x Establish a statewide greenhouse gas emissions cap for 2020, based on 1990 emissions, by January 1, 2008;
x Adopt mandatory reporting rules for significant sources of greenhouse gases by January 1, 2009;
x Adopt a plan by January 1, 2009, indicating how emission reductions will be achieved from significant greenhouse gas sources via regulations, market mechanisms and other actions;
x Adopt regulations by January 1, 2011, to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in greenhouse gas, including provisions for using both market mechanisms and alternative compliance mechanisms; x Convene an Environmental Justice Advisory Committee and an Economic and Technology Advancement Advisory Committee to advise CARB; x Ensure public notice and opportunity for comment for all CARB actions; x To adopt rules for “sources” including non-vehicular; and x Prior to imposing any mandates or authorizing market mechanisms, CARB must evaluate several factors, including but not limited to impacts on California's economy, the environment and public health; equity between regulated entities; electricity reliability; conformance with other environmental laws, and must ensure that the rules do not disproportionately impact low-income communities.

According to the schedule of milestones laid out in AB 32, CARB has made progress in the following areas. Consistent with AB 32’s requirement to establish a GHG emission inventory, in December 2007 CARB adopted the California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory. The Inventory accounts for all GHG emissions within the state of California and supports the AB 32 Climate Change Program. Figure 2-2 shows CARB’s inventory for the year 2004. The Inventory also serves as the basis for developing future year GHG emission forecasts necessary to support measure development and Scoping Plan recommendations.

ARB staff has developed a year 2020 “business-as-usual” (BAU) forecast of GHG emissions for use in developing the Draft Scoping Plan. Figure 2-3 shows CARB’s inventory for the year 2020, which is AB 32’s target inventory.

Chapter 2 – Background Information on GHGs
2 - 4 October 2008
Figure 2-2
2004 GHG Emissions by Sector (Gross Emissions: 484.4 MMT CO2eq.) Source: CARB, 2007
Figure 2-3
1990 GHG Emissions by Sector (Gross Emissions: 433.3 MMT CO2eq.) Source: CARB, 2007

Chapter 2 – Background Information on GHGs
2 - 5 October 2008
On December 6, 2007, the Air Resources Board (ARB) approved a regulation for the mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from major sources, pursuant to AB 32.

The mandatory reporting regulation specifies the types of facilities that must report their GHG emissions, requirements for reporting and estimating the GHG emissions, and requirements for emissions verification. Upon adoption, the CARB Board directed staff to make other conforming modifications, as may be appropriate, based on comments received.

Subsequent to adoption, the mandatory reporting regulation has undergone two sets of modifications.

Consistent with the requirement to develop a scoping plan indicating how GHG emission reductions will be achieved through regulations, market mechanisms, and other actions, the Draft Scoping Plan was released for public review and comment on June 26, 2008, followed by workshops in July and August, 2008.

The Draft Scoping Plan calls for achievable GHG emission reduction in California’s carbon footprint to 1990 levels. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels means cutting approximately 30 percent from BAU emission levels projected for 2020, or about 10 percent from today’s levels. Key elements of CARB’s preliminary recommendation for reducing California’s greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 contained in the Draft Scoping Plan include the following:
x Expansion and strengthening of existing energy efficiency programs and building and appliance standards;
x Expansion of the Renewables Portfolio Standard for electricity generation to 33 percent; x Development of a California cap-and-trade program that links with other WCI Partner programs to create a regional market system;
x Implementation of existing State laws and policies, including California’s clean car standards, goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard; and x Targeted fees to fund the State’s long-term commitment to AB 32 administration.

The Scoping Plan is expected go to the CARB Board for adoption in November, 2008.

INITIAL GUIDANCE ON EVALUATING GHGS PURSUANT TO CEQA
As noted in Chapter 1, both the California Attorney General’s Office and the OPR determined that GHG emissions contributing to global climate change have the potential to generate adverse environmental impacts that should be evaluated pursuant to CEQA. Until recently, however, there has been little or no guidance relative to analyzing GHG emissions in CEQA documents or determining significance. The first explicit guidance was provided by the Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) in its White Paper on Global Climate Change (AEP, 2007) and the White Paper on CEQA and Climate Change prepared by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA, 2008). The content of each of these White Papers is summarized in the following subsections.

Chapter 2 – Background Information on GHGs
2 - 6 October 2008
Association of Environmental Professionals – White Paper on Global Climate Change AEP’s White Paper (AEP) was one of the first attempts to discuss GHGs in the context of CEQA. The intent of the White Paper was to provide practical, interim information to CEQA practitioners and to help Lead Agencies determine how to address GHGs and global climate change in CEQA documents prior to the development and adoption of guidance by appropriate government agencies. Further, AEP’s White Paper provided a summary of the current regulatory environment surrounding GHG emissions, and the various approaches that a Lead Agency may select in a CEQA document to address the potential impacts of global climate change and a project’s cumulative contribution to GHG. The White Paper described several approaches for addressing GHGs and global Climate Change in CEQA documents, but did not recommend a single approach or methodology, leaving that decision to local Lead Agencies. The AEP White Paper identified eight approaches for analyzing GHGs and global climate change, which are summarized in the following bullet points. x Approach 1 – No Analysis: under this approach the Lead Agency would not mention or discuss GHGs or global climate change.
x Approach 2 – Screening Analysis: under this approach the Lead Agency would establish a process to screen projects and determine that they would not make significant contributions to GHG emissions or GCC and, therefore, would not need to mitigate accordingly.
x Approach 3 – Qualitative Analysis without Significance Determination: this approach involves a qualitative discussion of GHGs and global climate change and potential ways the project will contribute to the generation of GHG emissions, but does not provide any significance conclusions.
x Approach 4 – Qualitative Analysis with Significance Determination: under this approach the Lead Agency would qualitatively discuss GHGs and climate change impacts and conclude that the project impacts are significant. x Approach 5 – Quantitative Analysis without Significance Determination: under this approach the Lead Agency would quantify GHG emissions from the proposed project, but the results are not compared to a quantitative significance threshold. x Approach 6 – Quantitative Analysis with Net Zero Threshold: this approach involves quantifying GHG emissions and using zero net carbon dioxide equivalent increase as the threshold.
x Approach 7 – Quantitative Analysis Relative to California GHG Emission Reduction Strategies: this approach employs both quantitative and qualitative components. The quantitative analysis contains an inventory of project GHG emissions.

The qualitative component involves project compliance with the emission reduction strategies contained in the California Climate Action Team’s (CAT) Report to the Governor, which contains recommendations and strategies to help ensure the targets in Executive Order S-3-05 are met.
x Approach 8 – Use of Partial Exemption, “Within the Scope” of a Program EIR, or Tiering: this option relies on the preparation of a broad EIR on a plan, program, or zoning action that is certified and contains a cumulative GHG and global climate change

Chapter 2 – Background Information on GHGs
2 - 7 October 2008
impact analysis and mitigation. A later project that is consistent with the actions, goals, and/or policies in that plan, program, or zoning action need not again evaluate the cumulative impact regarding the project’s GHG contribution to global climate change. In this situation, the later project may use the “partial exemption” provision of Public Resources Code §21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines §15183.

Since the date that the AEP White Paper was finalized (June, 2007), it has become clear that any of the above eight options that do not include quantification of GHG emissions and a determination of significance would be vulnerable to legal challenge. In addition, with the exception of the net zero approach in option 6, none of the options evaluated identify potential GHG significance thresholds. Approaches to developing GHG significance thresholds were specifically addressed in CAPCOA’s White Paper (CAPCOA, 2008).

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association – White Paper: CEQA and Climate Change
The intent of CAPCOA’s White Paper is to serve as a resource for public agencies as they establish procedures for reviewing GHG emissions from projects under CEQA. It considers the application of thresholds and offers three alternative programmatic approaches toward determining whether GHG emissions are significant. Although the White Paper considers an option of not establishing a GHG significance threshold, as already noted this option is not considered to be a viable approach and will not be considered further. Ultimately, the White Paper is intended to provide consistent approaches for public agencies to ensure that GHG emissions are appropriately considered and addressed under CEQA.

The CAPCOA White Paper identifies three programmatic approaches to establishing GHG significance thresholds and also discusses the benefits and problems associated with each approach. Each approach has inherent advantages and disadvantages. The three basic approaches are:
x No significance threshold for GHG emissions (not discussed further); x GHG emissions threshold set at zero; or
x GHG threshold set at a non-zero level, two approaches.

The following subsections briefly summarize two of the three major programmatic approaches developed by CAPCOA.

Zero Threshold
An air district or lead agency may determine that any degree of project-related increase in GHG emissions would contribute considerably to climate change which, therefore, would be considered a significant impact. As a result, the air district or lead agency could adopt a zero-emission GHG threshold. If the zero threshold option is chosen, the lead agency would be required to quantify and mitigate GHG emissions for all projects subject to CEQA, regardless of the size of the project or the availability of GHG reduction measures available to reduce the project’s emissions. Projects that could not meet the zero-emission threshold would be required to undergo an environmental impact report (EIR) CEQA process to disclose the unmitigable significant impact, and develop the justification for a statement of overriding consideration to be adopted by the lead agency.

Chapter 2 – Background Information on GHGs
2 - 8 October 2008
CAPCOA notes in the White Paper that if an air district or lead agency elects to adopt a zero threshold approach, it should consider the administrative costs and the environmental review system capacity. Some projects that previously would have qualified for an exemption could require further substantial analysis, including preparation of a Negative Declaration (ND), a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or an EIR. Moreover, the trade-offs between the volume of projects requiring review and the quality of consideration given to reviews should be considered. It may also be useful to consider whether meaningful mitigation can be achieved from smaller projects.

Approach 1: Non-Zero Threshold – Statute and Executive Order Approach According to CAPCOA, a non-zero GHG significance threshold could minimize the resources spent reviewing environmental analyses that do not result in real GHG reductions or to prevent the environmental review system from being overwhelmed. The practical advantages of considering non-zero thresholds for GHG significance determinations can fit into the concept regarding whether the project’s GHG emissions represent a “considerable contribution to the cumulative impact” and therefore warrant analysis.

The first non-zero GHG significance threshold approach is based on achieving the objectives of AB 32 or executive order EO S-3-05 and explores four possible options under this scenario. A project would be required to meet the target objectives, or reduce GHG emissions to the target objectives, to be considered less than significant. The options under this approach are variations of ways to achieve the 2020 goals of AB 32 from new development, which is estimated to be about a 30 percent reduction from business-as-usual.

Table 2-1 summarizes the four statute and executive order approaches identified by CAPCOA. SCAQMD staff has identified and included in Table 2-1 potential pros and cons identified for each option.

Approach 2: Non-Zero Threshold – Tiered Threshold Options The second non-zero GHG significance threshold approach is comprised of a number of tiered GHG significance threshold options. Within this option, the CAPCOA White Paper discusses seven variations. The tiered threshold options offer both quantitative and qualitative approaches to setting a threshold, as well as different metrics for establishing the various tiers. Variations range from setting the firs t tier at zero to second tiers set at defined emission levels or based on the size of a project. This approach would then prescribe a set of GHG mitigation strategies that would have to be incorporated into the project in order for the project to be considered less than significant. CAPCOA notes that some applications of the tiered threshold approach may require inclusion in a General Plan or adoption of enabling regulations or ordinances to render them fully effective and enforceable. The various tiered threshold options are summarized in Table 2-2. SCAQMD staff has identified and included in Table 2-2 potential pros and cons identified for each option.

Chapter 2 – Background Information on GHGs
2 - 9 October 2008
Table 2 – 1
Statute and Executive Order Approach
Threshold
Number Description of Threshold Pros* Cons*

1.1 Project must reduce emissions compared to
business as usual to be less than significant,
two approaches:
a. Project must reduce GHG emissions 33
percent compared to business-as-usual
(BAU) (2020 target), or
b. Project must reduce GHG emissions 80
percent compared to business-as-usual
(2050 target).
x Could reduce resource
impacts compared to zero
threshold, as not every
project would require an
EIR
x Would achieve GHG
reductions consistent with
AB 32
x A single threshold is easier
to apply and understand
x Could be viewed as
setting a de minimis level
x Fewer projects would
trigger significance, thus,
less mitigation
x BAU should be defined
by CARB
x BAU may be difficult to
define for all projects

1.2 All new projects must reduce GHG emissions
compared to BAU by a uniform percentage to
be considered less than significant, e.g., 50
percent.
x Same as 1.1
x May produce greater
percent reduction of GHGs
x Single threshold easier to
apply & understand
x Could produce
substantially greater GHG
reductions than 1.1, but
may be difficult to
achieve
x BAU should be defined
by CARB
x BAU may be difficult to
define for all projects
* Pros and cons reflect only SCAQMD staff’s evaluation of the approaches.

Chapter 2 – Background Information on GHGs
2 - 10 October 2008
Table 2 – 1 (Concluded)
Statute and Executive Order Approach
Threshold
Number Description of Threshold Pros* Cons*

1.3 Projects must reduce GHG emissions
compared to business-as-usual by a uniform
percentage based on economic sector to be less
than significant, i.e., different reductions
required for different market sectors.
x Sector-specific approach
may be more appropriate
approach
x Would take into account
costs & available control
technologies
x Avoids over- or under-
regulation of GHGs per
sector
x Requires extensive
information on emission
inventories
x Requires extensive
information on control
technologies
x Difficult to determine
percent reduction by
sector
x Because of information
requirements, may be
more viable in the long
term

1.4 Uniform GHG emission reduction by region.

Regional GHG reduction plan developed
consistent with AB32 emission reductions, e.g.,
reduce GHG emissions 33% or 80% compared
to BAU. A project is not significant if its GHG
emissions are consistent with plan.
x Could tailor GHG
reductions to specific
regional needs
x GHG reduction strategies
could be integrated into
regional plans
x Would need to establish
GHG regions
x Requires extensive
information on regional
emission inventories
x Because of the need to
develop a regional plan,
may be a more viable
interim approach
* Pros and cons reflect only SCAQMD staff’s evaluation of the approaches.

Chapter 2 – Background Information on GHGs
2 - 11 October 2008
Table 2 – 2
Tiered Threshold Options
Threshold
Number
Description of Threshold Pros* Cons*

2.1 This threshold employs a decision tree
approach. Tier 1, no increase in GHG
emissions, not significant (zero threshold). If
GHG emissions greater than zero, tier two, use
one of the following threshold options.
x Tiered approach allows
flexibility by establishing
multiple thresholds to
cover a wide range of
projects
x Tier 2 may minimize
administrative burden &
costs
x Tiers could be set at
different levels depending
on GHGs, size & other
project characteristics
x Projects exceeding tier 2
must implement mitigation
x Tier 1 may increase
administrative burdens &
costs
x There may not be
meaningful mitigation for
small projects
x Available mitigation may
consist of purchasing
offsets
x EJ concerns of purchasing
offsets because of
associated criteria
pollutant emissions
x Offset markets not well
established

2.2 Establish a quantitative threshold based on
capturing a percentage, e.g., 90%, of future
discretionary projects, CAPCOA’s threshold is
900 metric tons CO2eq per year (equivalent to
50 houses or 30,000 square feet of commercial
space, i.e., CAPCOA assumes 90% of all
projects are this size or greater). Projects less
than this would not be significant.
x Would capture a larger
percentage of projects in
the district than is
currently the case
x Would exclude small
projects from further GHG
analysis
x Single threshold easier to
apply & understand
x Would increase
administrative & cost
burden, especially in
developing & moderate
growth areas
x May not be amenable to
industrial projects because
of the diversity of these
projects
x There may not be
meaningful mitigation for
small projects
* Pros and cons reflect only SCAQMD staff’s evaluation of the approaches.

Chapter 2 – Background Information on GHGs
2 - 12 October 2008
Table 2 – 2 (Continued)
Tiered Threshold Options
Threshold
Number
Description of Threshold Pros* Cons*

2.3 This threshold is based on CARB’s proposed
mandatory reporting threshold of 25,000 metric
tons of CO2eq per year. Alternatively, use the
Market Advisory Committee of 10,000 metric
tons of CO2eq per year. Projects less than
either would not be significant.
x CARB estimates this
threshold would capture 90
% of all industrial projects
x Single threshold easier to
apply & understand
x May not be amenable to
industrial projects because
of the diversity of these
projects
x There may not be
meaningful mitigation for
small projects

2.4 This approach establishes a GHG threshold
based on and analogous to a NOx/VOC criteria
pollutant CEQA significance threshold and is
established using the following four steps:
a. Define NOx/VOC CEQA thresholds in
tons per year (e.g., 10 t/yr)
b. Define the regional NOx/VOC
inventory in tons per year (e.g., annual NOx
inventory for 2005 from 2007AQMP ~
375,585 t/yr)
c. Calculate percentage of NOx/VOC
inventory the significance threshold represents
(10 / 375,585 = 0.00003) to obtain “minimum
percentage of regulated inventory” for
NOx/VOC.
x Single threshold easier to
apply & understand
x Threshold cumbersome to
derive
x Threshold would change
periodically as inventory
goes up or down
x Could have widely
divergent thresholds by air
basin because of varying
inventories
* Pros and cons reflect only SCAQMD staff’s evaluation of the approaches.

Chapter 2 – Background Information on GHGs
2 - 13 October 2008
Table 2 – 2 (Continued)
Tiered Threshold Options
Threshold
Number
Description of Threshold Pros* Cons*

2.4 (Cont.)
d. Define California GHG emission
inventory for 2004 in tons CO2eq per year
(499 MMT CO2eq). Apply minimum
percentage of regulated inventory to California
GHG inventory for 2004 to develop a GHG
threshold analogous to the CEQA Threshold
(e.g., 0.00003 x 499 MMT = 14,970 metric
tons CO2eq per year = significance threshold).
xx

2.5 Establish quantitative unit-based thresholds
based on capturing a percentage, e.g., 90%, of
future discretionary projects in specific market
sectors (similar to 2.2 above). CAPCOA
examples include:
• 30,000 square-foot (SF) office =800 metric
tons CO2eq per year;
• 30,000 SF retail = 2,500 metric tons CO2eq
per year;
• 30,000 SF supermarket = 43,000 metric
tons CO2eq per year.
x Would capture a larger
percentage of projects in
the district than is
currently the case
x Would exclude small
projects from further GHG
analysis
x Single threshold easier to
apply & understand
x Would increase
administrative & cost
burden, especially in
developing & moderate
growth areas
x May not be amenable to
industrial projects because
of the diversity of these
projects
x There may not be
meaningful mitigation for
small projects
* Pros and cons reflect only SCAQMD staff’s evaluation of the approaches.

Chapter 2 – Background Information on GHGs
2 - 14 October 2008
Table 2 – 2 (Concluded)
Tiered Threshold Options
Threshold
Number
Description of Threshold Pros* Cons*

2.6 This threshold would include tiered CEQA
thresholds based on CEQA’s definition of
“projects with statewide, regional or areawide
significance (§15206(b)), which include:
• Residential development > 500 dwellings
• Shopping center or business establishment
employing > 1,000 persons or > 500,000
SF
• Commercial office building employing
>1,000 persons or > 250,000 SF
• Hotel/motel > 500 rooms
• Industrial, manufacturing or processing
plant or industrial park employing > 1,000
persons or > 600,000 SF
x Could capture up to 50%
of all future commercial
development
x May capture substantially
less than 50% if future
development, resulting less
GHG mitigation
x Percentage capture of
industrial/manufacturing
projects currently
unknown

2.7 Efficiency-based thresholds would be based on
measurements of efficiency compared to
intensity. Must be based on reasonable GHG
emissions compared to business-as-usual.
x Would benchmark GHG
intensity against target
levels of efficiency
x Thresholds established to
provide future foreseeable
GHG reductions compared
to BAU
x Would support AB 32
target objectives
x Would require substantial
data & possibly modeling
x May be more appropriate
as a threshold in the long
term
* Pros and cons reflect only SCAQMD staff’s evaluation of the approaches.

C H A P T E R 3

I N T E R I M G H G S I G N I F I C A N C E T H R E S H O L D

S T A F F P R O P O S A L
Introduction
GHG Analysis Considerations
Current Staff Interim GHG Significance Threshold Proposals

Chapter 3 – Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal 3 - 1 October 2008

INTRODUCTION
Because GHG emissions affect global climate, some have argued that it may be more appropriate for national or state agencies to es tablish significance thresholds or GHG emission reduction target objectives. However, no agency has established GHG significance thresholds that could assist Lead Agencies with determining the significance of GHG emissions in CEQA documents. In the absence of statewide guidance on this issue and in response to requests from a variety of stakeholders, the SCAQMD established a GHG Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group (Working Group) to establish an interim GHG significance threshold until such time as the state establishes a GHG significance threshold or provides recommended guidance on establishing a GHG significance threshold. Staff’s goal is to reach consensus regarding an interim GHG significance threshold to the extent possible and take the staff proposal to the SCAQMD Governing for consideration and approval.

The Working Group was formed to assist staff’s efforts to develop an interim GHG significance threshold an is comprised of a wide variety of stakeholders including:
state agencies, OPR, CARB, and the Attorney General’s Office; local agencies, city and county planning departments, utilities such as sanitation and power, etc.; regulated stakeholders, industry and industry groups; and organizations, both environmental and professional. Stakeholders were chosen based on their participation in other related stakeholder working groups and their expressed interest in participating in the developing a GHG significance threshold. Working group meetings are open to the public and have been well attended. The members of the Working Group and other interested parties who have requested to be notified of the meetings are listed in Appendix A. Information on the progress of the Working Group, including agendas, overhead presentations, and letters received from the various stakeholders can be found at the following website:
https://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/GHG/GHG.html
.

Part of the purpose of the Working Group is to provide a forum to solicit comments and suggestions from the various stakeholders to assist SCAQMD staff with developing an interim GHG significance threshold that is consistent with CEQA requirements for developing significance thresholds, is supported by substantial evidence, and provides guidance to CEQA practitioners with regard to determining whether GHG emissions from a proposed project are significant.

SCAQMD staff held the first Working Group meeting in April 2008. Except for September, Working Group meetings have been held on a monthly basis since April.

Brief summaries of each Working Group meeting and the topics and staff GHG significance threshold proposals discussed to date are provided in Appendix B. Staff’s initial proposed has been modified over time based on comments and concerns raised at Working Group meetings or in written comments. The following sections summarize staff’s latest recommended interim GHG significance threshold proposal and some of the concepts necessary to understanding the various components of staff’s

Chapter 3 – Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal 3 - 2 October 2008
proposal. The latest staff proposal is considered to be a work-in-progress as staff is continuing to solicit further public input and suggestions.

The following subsections briefly summarize the GHG significance threshold design criteria concepts included as part of staff’s proposed interim GHG significance threshold proposal. Following the discussion of design concepts, SCAQMD staff’s current interim proposal is described.

GHG ANALYSIS CONSIDERATIONS
Before discussing quantification methodologies, it is necessary to consider design criteria that establish the parameters upon which the actual GHG analysis is based.

The following subsections include discussions from the Working Group of some of the most important design criteria to be considered when quantifying GHG emissions.

The following topics include some of the most important parameters that should be considered when quantifying GHG emissions and, therefore, should not be considered an exhaustive list of considerations as individual projects may include characteristics that may require additional considerations.

Policy Objective
The overarching policy objective with regard to establishing a GHG significance threshold for the purposes of analyzing GHG impacts pursuant to CEQA is to establish a performance standard or target GHG reduction objective that will ultimate contribute to reducing GHG emissions to stabilize climate change. Full implementation of the Governor’s Executive Order S-3-05 would reduce GHG emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels or 90 percent below current levels by 2050. It is anticipated that achieving the Executive Order’s objective would contribute to worldwide efforts to cap GHG concentrations at 450 ppm, thus, stabilizing global climate.

As described below, staff’s recommended interim GHG significance threshold proposal uses a tiered approach to determining significance. Tier 3, which is expected to be the primary tier by which the AQMD will determine significance for projects where it is the lead agency, uses the Executive Order S-3-05 goal as the basis for deriving the screening level. Specifically, the Tier 3 screening level for stationary sources is base on an emission capture rate of 90 percent for all new or modified projects. A 90 percent emission capture rate means that 90 percent of total emissions from all new or modified stationary source projects would be subject to some type of CEQA analysis, including a negative declaration, a mitigated negative declaration, or an environmental impact.

Therefore, the policy objective of staff’s recommended interim GHG significance threshold proposal is to achieve an emission capture rate of 90 percent of all new or modified stationary source projects. A GHG significance threshold based on a 90 percent emission capture rate may be more appropriate to address the long-term adverse impacts associated with global climate change. Further, a 90 percent emission

Chapter 3 – Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal 3 - 3 October 2008
capture rate sets the emission threshold low enough to capture a substantial fraction of future stationary source projects that will be constructed to accommodate future statewide population and economic growth, while setting the emission threshold high enough to exclude small projects that will in aggregate contribute a relatively small fraction of the cumulative statewide GHG emissions. This assertion is based on the fact that staff estimates that these GHG emissions would account for less than one percent of future 2050 statewide GHG emissions target (85 MMTCO2eq/yr). In addition, these small projects would be subject to future applicable GHG control regulations that would further reduce their overall future contribution to the statewide GHG inventory
GHG Pollutants
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often called greenhouse gases. The Kyoto Protocol, adopted in December 1997, is an agreement under which industrialized countries will reduce their collective emissions of greenhouse gases by specified percentages, depending on the country, compared to 1990 levels. The goal is to lower overall emissions of six greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons, averaged over the period of 2008-2012.

Similarly, AB 32 defines GHGs as including the following: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride (Health and Safety Code, section 38505(g)). The most common GHG that results from human activity is carbon dioxide, followed by methane and nitrous oxide.

Some greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes and human activities. Other greenhouse gases (e.g., fluorinated gases) are created and emitted solely through human activities. The principal greenhouse gases that enter the atmosphere because of human activities are:
x Carbon Dioxide (CO2): Carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees and wood products, and also as a result of other chemical reactions (e.g., manufacture of cement). Carbon dioxide is also removed from the atmosphere (or “sequestered”) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle.
x Methane (CH4): Methane is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and by the decay of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills.
x Nitrous Oxide (N2O): Nitrous oxide is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste.

Chapter 3 – Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal 3 - 4 October 2008
x Fluorinated Gases: Hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride are synthetic, powerful greenhouse gases that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes. Fluorinated gases are sometimes used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances (i.e., CFCs, HCFCs, and halons). Fluorinated gases are typically emitted in smaller quantities, but because they are potent greenhouse gases, they are sometimes referred to as high global warming potential gases (high GWP gases). ¾ Hydrofluorocarbons are manmade chemicals that have historically replaced Chlorofluorocarbons used in refrigeration and semiconductor manufacturing. ¾ Perfluorocarbons are manmade chemicals that are by-products of aluminum smelting and uranium enrichment.
¾ Sulfur hexafluoride is a manmade chemical that is largely used in heavy industry to insulate high voltage equipment and to assist in the manufacturing of cable cooling systems.

GWP is a measure of how much a given mass of greenhouse gas is estimated to contribute to global warming. It is a relative scale that compares the gas in question to the same mass of carbon dioxide (whose GWP is by definition 1). A GWP is calculated over a specific time interval and the value of this must be stated whenever a GWP is quoted or else the value is meaningless. A substance's GWP depends on the time span over which the potential is calculated. A gas which is quickly removed from the atmosphere may initially have a large effect but for longer time periods as it has been removed becomes less important. For the purposes of a CEQA analysis, especially an analysis of operation emissions, the maximum GWP is typically used, regardless of the actual atmospheric lifetime. This approach simplifies the analysis and provides a very conservative analysis, especially for the fluorinated gases. The GWP of the six Kyoto GHGs is shown in Table 3-1.

The SCAQMD staff recommends that a GHG analysis include the six Kyoto GHGs, to the extent emission factors are available primarily because there is more information on these GHGs than other potential GHGs. Other GHGs would be added to the list as scientific information becomes available and agreed to by national or international protocols and agreements.

Table 3-1
Global Warming Potential of Kyoto GHGs
Gas Atmospheric Lifetime GWP
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 50 – 200 1
Methane (CH4) 12 + 3 21
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 120 310
HFC-23 (Hydrofluorocarbons) 264 11,700
HFC-32 5.6 650

Chapter 3 – Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal 3 - 5 October 2008
Table 3-1 (Concluded)
Global Warming Potential of Kyoto GHGs
Gas Atmospheric Lifetime GWP
HFC-125 32.6 2,800
HFC-134a 14.6 1,300
HFC-143a 48.3 3,800
HFC-152a 1.5 140
HFC-227ea 36.5 2,900
HFC-236fa 209 6,300
HFC-4310mee 17.1 1,300
CF4 (Perfluorocarbons) 50,000 6,500
C2F6 10,000 9,200
C4F10 2,600 7,000
C6F14 3,200 7,400
Sulfer hexafluoride (SF6) 3,200 23,900
Source: U.S. EPA (http://www.epa.gov/)
Carbon black, a form of particulate air pollution most often produced from biomass burning, cooking with solid fuels and diesel exhaust, may also have a warming effect in the atmosphere. It is estimated that carbon black’s contribution to climate change is second only to carbon dioxide. Carbon black contributes to global warming by absorbing heat while airborne in the atmosphere. Carbon black is of particular concern in the arctic because it settles on ice and snow, reducing its reflectivity and increasing the rate of melting.

Based on a survey of available information, there are little data available for calculating carbon black effects on global warming. As a result, SCAQMD staff is not recommending analyzing carbon black effects on global warming. As information becomes available, staff will reconsider adding carbon black to the list of GHGs to be analyzed in CEQA documents.

Business-As-Usual (BAU)
In CARB’s Scoping Plan (CARB, 2008) CARB states that the BAU case is a representation of what the state of the California economy will be in the year 2020 assuming that none of the measures recommended in the Scoping Plan are implemented. CARB’s projected BAU GHG emissions in 2020 are shown in Table 3-

2.

Chapter 3 – Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal 3 - 6 October 2008
Table 3-2
2002-2004 Average Emissions and 2020 Projected Emissions (Business-as-Usual) (MMTCO2E)
Sector 2002-2004 Average
Emissions
Projected 2020
Emissions [BAU]
Transportation 179.3 225.4
Electricity 109.0 139.2
Commercial and Residential 41.0 46.7
Industry 95.9 100.5
Recycling and Waste 5.6 7.7
High GWP 14.8 46.9
Agriculture 27.7 29.8
Forest Net Emissions - 4.7 0.0
Emissions Total 469 596
Source: CARB, 2008 – Scoping Plan, Table 1
CARB’s Scoping Plan states further that continuing increases in global greenhouse gas emissions at BAU rates would result, by late in the century, in California losing 90 percent of the Sierra snow pack, sea level rising by more than 20 inches, and a three to four times increase in heat wave days, flood damage, etc. To avoid future foreseeable environmental impacts to California, the Scoping plan calls for an ambitious but achievable reduction in California’s carbon footprint. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels means reducing approximately 30 percent from BAU emission levels projected for 2020, or about 15 percent from today’s levels. On a per- capita basis, that means reducing our annual emissions of 14 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent for every man, woman and child in California down to about 10 tons per person by 2020.

Although CARB’s Scoping Plan calls for reducing GHG emissions 30 percent from BAU levels, it does not explicitly define BAU. There is, however, a brief definition of BAU in CARB’s GHG inventory document (CARB, 2007). In that document CARB describes BAU as:
x BAU is based on GHG emissions estimates in the absence of policies and reduction measures, and
x BAU is based on forecasted demographic and economic growth.

In its White Paper, CAPCOA provides a more detailed definition of BAU compared to the above definition in CARB’s inventory document. In the White Paper BAU is defined as follows:
x The projection of GHGs into the future based on current technologies and regulations;

Chapter 3 – Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal 3 - 7 October 2008
x The adoption of new GHG reduction regulations, e.g., CARB’s Scoping Plan measures, in the future establishes new BAU, i.e., the definition of BAU evolves over time; and
x BAU will normally define the CEQA no project alternative, but does not necessarily form the project baseline.

Based on the above definitions and discussions from the Working Group, SCAQMD staff defines BAU as the following
x Is used to project project’s future emissions (consistent with CAPCOA and CARB definitions), i.e., level from which GHG reductions must occur; x Is based first and foremost on current regulatory requirements (consistent with CAPCOA and CARB definitions);
x Regulatory requirements may determine current technology, e.g., advanced technology may be available, but not required, such as combined cycle gas turbine; x Will normally define the no project alternative (consistent with CAPCOA and CARB definitions); and
x May be used to establish a project’s CEQA baseline, only if consistent with CEQA Guidelines §15125.

The importance of BAU lies not only in the fact that it is a methodology for calculating a project’s future emissions, is also forms the emission level from which GHG emission reductions must occur. SCAQMD staff’s current GHG significance threshold proposal includes the Tier 4 compliance option 1 that establishes a performance standard of reducing GHG emissions 30 percent below the project’s projected BAU emissions through design features and/or mitigation measures. A 30 percent reduction from BAU is consistent with the target objectives of AB 32 and CARB’s Scoping Plan. The intent of the Tier 4 compliance option 1 is to provide a feasible target objective, that will not only contribute to achieving the AB 32 target objective, but will also contribute to achieving the 2050 target of the Governor’s Executive Order S-3-05, which establishes of target objective of reducing GHG emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels or a 90 percent reduction from current BAU estimates.

As recognized by CAPCOA and SCAQMD, BAU will evolve over time as the current regulatory framework changes to implement GHG reduction strategies, either statewide strategies, e.g., CARB’s Scoping Plan, or any future federal strategies.

Evolving BAU creates two issues for the CEQA practitioner. First, staff’s proposed Tier 4 compliance option 1 target objective is unchanged from 30 percent, then over time as BAU changes to incorporate GHG reduction strategies, achieving the target objective will become more difficult. Second, any GHG significance thresholds that rely on BAU will have higher uncertainties because they rely on a constantly changing BAU, which may be difficult to define.

Chapter 3 – Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal 3 - 8 October 2008
To resolve some of these issues of an evolving definition of BAU, SCAQMD staff recommends that a statewide definition be developed by CARB that is updated periodically. Until such time as a statewide definition of BAU is developed, the SCAQMD staff will rely on the above definition. Because the SCAQMD’s staff’s GHG significance proposal is considered to be an interim proposal, future updates or revisions to staff’s proposal would also include updates to BAU or the target objective as BAU levels decline over time. It may be that a target objective percent reduction from BAU levels is a short-term GHG threshold proposal and may become less important in the future as other concepts are evaluated and more fully developed.

GHG Source Categories to Analyze
Life Cycle Analysis
CEQA requires that the lead agency analyze direct and indirect impacts from a proposed project, giving due consideration to short-term and long-term effects (CEQA Guidelines 15126.2(a)). In the case of GHG pollutants a systems approach to evaluating the consequences of a particular product, process or activity may be more appropriate because of the long atmospheric lifetimes of the various GHGs (see Table 3-1). One of the most effective ways of evaluating GHGs using a systems approach is through the preparation of a life cycle analysis (LCA).

The goal of a life cycle analysis is to compare the full range of environmental damages assignable to products and services, to be able to choose the least burdensome one.

The term 'life cycle' refers to the concept that a fair, holistic assessment requires the assessment of raw material production, manufacture, distribution, use and disposal including all intervening transportation steps necessary or caused by the product's existence. The sum of all those steps - or phases - is the life cycle of the product.

Performing a life cycle analysis may be difficult for a number of projects or processes because life cycle emission factors may not be well established for many activities or projects and the life cycle process itself may not be known or well-defined.

SCAQMD staff, however, recommends that life cycle analyses be prepared for all projects undergoing a CEQA analysis, as this will produce a more defensible approach. If, however, any component of the life cycle analysis is unavailable, unknown, or not supported by scientific evidence, the lead agency should note such an analysis would be speculative pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15145 and terminate discussion of that impact.

Direct/Indirect Impacts
Consistent with CEQA, indirect and direct impacts of the project, typically within California, are required to be analyzed in the CEQA document for a proposed project.

The analysis of direct GHG impacts is relatively straightforward as onsite GHG sources or directly related offsite GHG sources, such as worker commute trips, are generally readily identifiable. Indirect GHG emission sources are less obvious, but may include some of the sources identified in the following paragraphs. In general,

Chapter 3 – Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal 3 - 9 October 2008
for most projects information on direct and indirect emissions may be available, rather than a full life-cycle analysis of emissions. The lead agency has typically been expected to address emissions that are closely related and within the capacity of the project proponent to control and/or influence.

Direct Impacts - are primary effects that are caused by a project and occur at the same time and place, such as emissions from boilers, heaters, or other onsite emissions sources. Direct impacts generated by a project may include offsite sources directly related to the project such as emissions from worker commute trips, haul truck trips to import raw materials and/or export finished products or other goods.

Direct GHG emission impacts will include both construction and operation activities.

Because impacts from construction activities occur over a relatively short-term period of time, they contribute a relatively small portion of the overall lifetime project GHG emissions. In addition, GHG emission reduction measures for construction equipment are relatively limited. Therefore, SCAQMD staff is recommending that construction emissions be amortized over a 30-year project lifetime, so that GHG reduction measures will address construction GHG emi ssions as part of the operational GHG reduction strategies.

Indirect Impacts - The CEQA Guidelines define indirect impacts as the following: an indirect physical change in the environment…which is not immediately related to the project, but which is caused indirectly by the project. If a direct physical change in the environment in turn causes another change in the environment, then the other change is an indirect change in the environment (CEQA Guidelines §15064 (d)(2)). Indirect or secondary effects may include growth-inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density, or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems (CEQA Guidelines §15358)(a)(2)).

DRAFT STAFF INTERIM GHG SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD

PROPOSAL
As indicated by the evolution of the staff proposal over time, SCAQMD has generally recommended a tiered decision tree approach to establishing a GHG significance threshold. In CAPCOA’s White Paper, eight of the 12 significance threshold options are based on a tiered threshold approach (see also Table 2-2 in Chapter 2). A tiered GHG significance threshold approach is an appealing approach because it provides flexibility in determining whether or not GHG emissions from a project are significant typically using a single methodology to establish various tiers that can be based on the physical size of the project, land use type, or other characteristics. The tiered approach envisioned by SCAQMD staff would require quantification of GHG emissions for all projects that are subjec t to CEQA and quantification of the GHG reduction effectiveness of design parameters incorporated into the project and any mitigation measures imposed by the lead agency. It may even be necessary to As indicated by the evolution of the staff proposal over time, SCAQMD has generallyy pp ,Q g y recommended a tiered decision tree approach to establishing a GHG significance threshold.

Chapter 3 – Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal 3 - 10 October 2008
quantify GHG emissions, if any, for projects that would otherwise qualify for a categorical exemption to document that no “cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant” (CEQA Guidelines §15300.2(b), or that there is no “reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.” (CEQA Guidelines §15300.2(c)).

The CAPCOA White Paper also includes a discussion of a decision tree approach to tiering. Instead of using a single methodology to establish tiers, a decision tree approach would use multiple methodologies to demonstrate significance for a broad range of projects/plans that may be difficult to address using a single GHG significance threshold methodology. Using a decision tree approach promotes even greater flexibility in determining significance for a variety of project types.

At the August 27, 2008 Working Group meeting #5, staff presented the revised interim GHG significance proposal #3, which included a tiered decision tree approach. Unlike the decision tree approach discussed in CAPCOA’s White Paper, some tiers include multiple approaches for determining whether a project’s GHG emissions are significant, rather than using a single different methodology for each tier.

For the purposes of determining whether or not GHG emissions from affected projects are significant, project emissions will include direct, indirect, and, to the extent information is available, life cycle emissions during construction and operation.

Construction emissions will be amortized over the life of the project, defined as 30 years, added to the operational emissions, and compared to the applicable interim GHG significance threshold tier. The following bullet points describe the basic structure of staff’s tiered GHG significance threshold proposal for stationary sources.

The components of revised staff proposal #3 are described in the following paragraphs and shown graphically in Figure 3-1.
x Tier 1 – consists of evaluating whether or not the project qualifies for any applicable exemption under CEQA. For example, SB 97 specifically exempts a limited number of projects until it expires in 2010. If the project qualifies for an exemption, no further action is required. If the project does not qualify for an exemption, then it would move to the next tier.
x Tier 2 – consists of determining whether or not the project is consistent with a GHG reduction plan that may be part of a local general plan, for example. The concept embodied in this tier is equivalent to the existing concept of consistency in CEQA Guidelines §§15064(h)(3), 15125(d), or 15152(a). The GHG reduction plan must, at a minimum, comply with AB 32 GHG reduction goals; include emissions estimates agreed upon by either CARB or the SCAQMD, have been analyzed under CEQA, and have a certified Final CEQA document. Further, the GHG reduction plan must include a GHG emissions inventory tracking mechanism; process to monitor progress in achieving GHG emission reduction targets, and a commitment to remedy the excess emissions if AB 32 goals are not met (enforcement).

Chapter 3 – Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal 3 - 11 October 2008
Figure 3-1
Revised Staff Proposal #3 Tiered Decision Tree Approach – August 27, 2008

Chapter 3 – Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal 3 - 12 October 2008
If the proposed project is consistent with the local GHG reduction plan, it is not significant for GHG emissions. If the project is not consistent with a local GHG reduction plan or there is no approved plan, the GHG reduction does not include all of the components described above, or there is no adopted GHG reduction plan, the project would move to tier 3.
x Tier 3 – attempts to identify small projects that would not likely contribute to significant cumulative GHG impacts. However, because of the magnitude of increasing global temperatures from current and future GHG emissions, staff is recommending that all projects must implement some measure or measures to contribute to reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, Tier 3 includes a requirement that all
residential/commercial projects with GHG emissions less than the screening level must include efficiency components that reduce a certain go X percentage beyond the requirements of Title 24 (Part 6, California Code of Regulations), California's energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings. Project proponents would also have to reduce by a specified percentage electricity demand from water use, primarily electricity used for water conveyance.

The
most recentlyA past recommended screening level proposed by staff was 6,500 MTCO2eq./year. This screening level was derived using the SCAQMD’s existing NOx operational threshold as a basis. The daily NOx operational significance threshold, 55 pounds per day was annualized, which results in 10 tons of NOx per year.

Staff initially considered and then rejected a bifurcated screening level, that is one screening level for residential and commercial projects and a different screening level for industrial projects based on the URBEMIS modeling runs used to derive the 6,500 MTCO3eq/yr screening level because GHG emissions from industrial were of the same magnitude as the GHG emissions from residential and commercial projects. Staff has reconsidered the bifurcated screening level approach as there is a more scientific basis for deriving the different screening levels.

SCAQMD staff is now recommending a bifurcated screening level approach to address two greatly differing project types: industrial projects as opposed to residential and commercial projects (which are largely indirect sources). The former category typically contains stationary source equipment whose emissions are largely permitted or regulated by the SCAQMD; whereas the latter category is mostly residential, commercial (may also include industrial) building structures that attract or generate mobile source emissions. In light of the GHG reductions needed to stabilize the climate while considering implementation resource requirements, the policy objective used to establish the screening thresholds is to capture projects that represent approximately 90 percent of GHG emissions from new sources. The following paragraphs describe the steps taken to derive the screening threshold values.

Chapter 3 – Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal 3 - 13 October 2008
Industrial Projects: Since the majority of GHG emissions in the district are comprised of CO2 emissions from burning natural gas rather than other types of fossil fuel, staff compiled reported annual natural gas consumption for 1, 297115 permitted facilities for 2006-2007 and rank-ordered the facilities to estimate the 90 th percentile of the cumulative natural gas usage for all permitted facilities.

Operators of these facilities are required to report their emissions and associated throughput under the SCAQMD’s Annual Emission Reporting (AER) Program if any of their criteria pollutant emissions exceed four tons per year (100 tons per year for CO) or if the facility has any reportable air toxics emission. Figure 3-2 shows that approximately 10 percent of facilities evaluated comprise more than 90 percent of the total natural gas consumption, which corresponds to 10,000 metric tons per year (tpy) of CO2 emissions. This value represents a boiler with a rating of approximately 27 million British thermal units per hour (mmbtu/hour) of heat input, operating at a
n 25 80 percent capacity factor. If the screening threshold of 10,000 MTCO2eq./yr is implemented, based on the permitting activities for 2006- 2007 it will result in at least 31 additional MNDs or EIRs being prepared by the SCAQMD as the lead agency unless another tier option is selected to demonstrate no significant impacts for GHG emissions. It should be noted that this analysis did not include other possible GHG pollutants such as methane, N2O; a life-cycle analysis; mobile sources; or indirect electricity consumption. Therefore, under a 10,000 MTCO2eq./yr screening level more projects would be required to go through an MND or EIR environmental analysis than is currently the case.

Furthermore, when the SCAQMD acts as a lead agency, the stationary source equipment employed as part of the proposed project typically must comply with BACT or other SCAQMD rules, regulations, programs that require reducing criteria pollutants or air toxics. Therefore, staff is proposing to replace the 6,500 MTCO2/yr screening level with the 10,000 MTCO2eq/yr as the screening level in tier III for industrial projects when the SCAQMD is the lead agency for the project.

Residential and Commercial Projects: To achieve the same 90 percent GHG emission capture rate for this segment of projects GHG emissions from residential and commercial sectors were compared to the GHG emissions from the industrial sector including the in-state power plants. The draft AB32 scoping plan indicates that based on statewide 2002-2004 average GHG emissions, the residential and commercial sectors account for approximately nine percent of the total statewide GHG inventory, while the industrial sector (including instate power plants) accounts for approximately 30 percent of the statewide GHG emission inventory.

The inventory methodology for both sectors includes only on-site energy use, consistent with the staff approach taken in deriving the 10,000 tpy threshold.

Assuming similar emission characteristics also exist for the residential and commercial sector (i.e., large residential or commercial projects, although fewer in numbers, contribute substantially more to the total emissions), it is estimated that at a threshold of approximately 3,000 MTCO2eq/yr emissions (10,000 x (9 percent / 30 percent)) would capture 90 percent of the GHG emissions from new residential or commercial projects. A series of sensitivity analyses was performed by the staff using URBEMIS to assess the likely project size for 3,000 MTCO2eq/yr emissions.

Table 3-3 illustrates various projects by size and shape.

Chapter 3 – Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal 3 - 14 October 2008
Figure 3-2
Total Number of AER Facilities and Their Accumulative Reported NG Usage FY 06-07
0 50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
1 66 131 196 261 326 391 456 521 586 651 716 781 846 911 976 1041 1106 1171 1236 Number of AER Facilities
Accumulative NG Usage (mmscf)
Accum. Usage
CO2 =9,738 MT
NOx = 6.16 tpy
CO2 =39,957 MT
NOx = 13.25 tpy
90% of NG usage 80% of NG usage
Total # of AER Facilities = 1,297
Total # of Fac. accounting for 90% of the total NG usage = 143 (thus, the remaining 10% of total NG usage is from 1,154 facilties) Total # of Fac. accounting for 80% of the total NG usage = 45 (which is a subset of the 143) MT = Metric Tons
tpy = Tons per year

Chapter 3 – Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal 3 - 15 October 2008
Table 3-3
URBEMIS Run Results for Residential/Commercial Projects Emitting Approximately 3,000 MTCO2 per Year* Area Source Emissions Operational Emissions TOTAL
Weighted Avg
Trip Rate Size
CO2
(tons/year)
CO2
(MT/year)
CO2
(tons/year) CO2 (MT/year) CO2 (MT/year)
Res - Single Unit 19.54 80 units 326.86 297.15 3003.56 2730.51 3027.65 Res - Apt 9.17 175 units 422.70 384.27 2971.95 2701.77 3086.05 Comm - Office 6.02 265,000 ft 2 387.41 352.19 2961.75 2692.50 3044.69 Comm - Bank 206.22 9,500 ft 2 14.38 13.07 3192.90 2902.64 2915.71

19.54 35 units Single/Apt 9.17 100 units 379.59 345.08 2964.82 2695.29 3040.37

6.02 170,000 ft 2
Office/Bank
206.22 3,400 ft 2 254.19 231.08 3042.71 2766.10 2997.18

6.02 135,000 ft 2
Office/Single

19.54 40 units
355.13 322.85 2956.32 2687.56 3010.41

6.02 135,000 ft 2
Office/Apt

9.17 85 units
403.19 366.54 2952.34 2683.95 3050.48
206.22 3,700 ft 2
Bank/Single

19.54 50 units
202.81 184.37 3052.93 2775.39 2959.76
206.22 4,000 ft 2
Bank/Apt

9.17 100 units
248.12 225.56 3042.64 2766.04 2991.60

19.54 20 units

9.17 65 units Single/Apt/Office

6.02 100,000 ft 2
382.60 347.82 2945.26 2677.51 3025.33

19.54 20 units

9.17 65 units Single/Apt/Bank
206.22 3,550 ft 2
241.78 219.80 3020.76 2746.15 2965.95

Avg CO2
(MT/year): 3009.60
*Offsite electricity use, water use, or other potential life cycle emissions not included.

Chapter 3 – Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal 3 - 15
As shown in Table 3-3, this threshold would represent a residential development of about 70 single-family dwelling units. It should be noted that the sensitivity analysis did not include GHG emissions from electricity use and water use. As a result, similar to the earlier discussion of industrial projects, this screening level of 3,000 MTCO2eq/yr could capture development projects less than 70 single-family dwelling units.

In CAPCOA’s White Paper, it is suggested that a thresholds of 900 MTCO2eq/yr would capture 90 percent of all development projects, which should translate into at least 90 percent of GHG emissions from the residential and commercial sectors

2. According to CAPCOA 900 MTCO2eq/yr equates to approximately 50 single- family dwelling units. This information appears to corroborate the SCAQMD staff’s finding that the policy objective of capturing 90 percent of all GHG emissions for this region can be achieved with a screening level of 3000 MTCO2eq/yr. Therefore, staff is recommending that this value be used by lead agencies for residential and commercial developments, including industrial parks, warehouses, etc.
x Tier 4 – Decision Tree Options: consists of three decision tree options to demonstrate that a project is not significant for GHG emissions. The three compliance options are as follows.

Compliance Option 1 – the lead agency would calculate GHG emissions for a project using a BAU methodology. Once GHG emissions are calculated, the project proponent would need to incorporate design features into the project and/or implement GHG mitigation measures to demonstrate a 30 percent reduction from BAU. Although a 30 percent reduction below BAU is consistent with the target objectives of AB 32, it will continue to reduce GHG emissions beyond 2020, thus, contributing to GHG reductions pursuant to the Governor’s Executive Order S-3- 05 (a 90 percent reduction compared to current GHG emissions). A 30 percent reduction is also considered to be an achievable GHG reduction target based on current technologies.

Compliance Option 2 – this option consists of early compliance with AB 32 through early implementation of CARB’s Scoping Plan Measures. The intent of this compliance option is to accelerate GHG emission reductions from the various

2 Although the CAPCOA White Paper implies that 9 00 metric tons per year equates to a 90 percent capture rate, there is no exp licit information provided in the White Paper that demonstrates this correlation. Indeed, the CAPCOA authors state that 900 metric tons, which represents approximately 50 residential units, corresponds to wi dely divergent capture rate percentile rankings depending on the project location (see discussion on page 43 of the White Paper). Percentile rankings were based on a survey of four cities in California. A project of 900 metric tons per year representing a 90 percent capture rate appears to be a working assumption for which there appears to be no factual basis. Further, although not explicitly stated, it is assumed that the 900 metric tons were derived using the URBEMIS2007 model. It should be noted that that the URBEMIS2007 model only quantifies CO2 emissions and direct em issions primarily from on-road mobile sources.

It does not capture other GHG pollutants or indire ct GHG emissions such as emissions from energy generation, water conve yance, etc. Ther efore, it is likely that a 50-u nit residential project would actually generate higher GHG emissions than 900 metric tons per year.

Chapter 3 – Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal 3 - 16 October 2008
sectors subject to CARB’s Scoping Plan to eliminate GHG emission, especially for those GHGs that have a long atmospheric lifetime such as CO2, sulfur hexafluoride, etc., to minimize future projected impacts to California from global climate change.

Compliance Option 3 – this compliance option consists of establishing sector- based performance standards. For example, it may be possible to use the 1990 inventory required under AB 32 to establish an efficiency standard such as pounds per person, pounds per worker, pounds per square feet, pounds per item manufactured, etc. When calculating GHG emissions from a project, if they are less than the established efficiency standard the project would not be significant relative to GHG emissions, while projects exceeding the efficiency standard would be significant.

If the lead agency or project proponent cannot achieve the performance standards on any of the compliance options in Tier 4, GHG emissions would be considered significant.
x
Tier 5 – under this tier, the lead agency would quantify GHG emissions from the project and the project proponent would implement offsite mitigation (GHG reduction projects) or purchase offsets to reduce GHG emission impacts to less than the proposed screening level. In addition, the project proponent would be required to provide offsets for the life of the project, which is defined as 30 years. If the project proponent is unable to obtain sufficient offsets, incorporate design features, or implement GHG reduction mitigation measures to reduce GHG emission impacts to less than the screening level, then GHG emissions from the project would be considered significant.

Since it is currently uncertain how offsite mitigation measures, including purchased offsets, interact with future AB 32 Scoping Plan measures, the AQMD would allow substitution of mitigation measures that include an enforceable commitment to provide mitigation prior to occurrence of emissions and to prevent mitigating the same emissions twice.

Mitigation Preference – If a project gene rates significant adverse impacts, CEQA Guidelines §15126.4 requires identification of mitigation measures to minimize potentially significant impacts. Because GHG emissions contribute to global change, mitigation measures could be implemented locally, nationally, or internationally and still provide global climate change benefits. Because reducing GHG emissions may provide co-benefits through concurrent reductions in criteria pollutants, when considering mitigation measures when the AQMD is the lead agency under CEQA, staff will implement mitigation measures that are real, quantifiable, verifiable, and surplus in the following order of preference. ¾ Incorporate GHG reduction features into the project design, e.g., increase a building’s energy efficiency, use materials with a lower global warming potential than conventional materials, purchase building materials locally, etc. ¾ Implement onsite measures that provide direct GHG emission reductions onsite, e.g., replace onsite combustion equipment (boilers, heaters, steam , pg , Q
substitution of mitigation measures that include an enforceable commitment to provideg p mitigation prior to occurrence of emissions and to prevent mitigating the same gp emissions twice.

Mitigation Preference – If a project generates significant adverse impacts, CEQAgp j g gp , Q Guidelines §15126.4 requires identification of mitigation measures to minimizef§q potentially significant impacts.

Chapter 3 – Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal 3 - 17 October 2008
generators, etc.) with more efficient combustion equipment, replace existing high global warming potential refrigerants with low global warming refrigerants, eliminate or minimize fugitive emissions, etc. ¾ Implement neighborhood mitigation measure projects that could include incentives for installing solar power, increasing energy efficiency by exceeding Title 24 building standards through replacing low efficiency water heaters with high efficiency water heaters, increasing building insulation, using fluorescent bulbs, replacing old inefficient refrigerators with efficient refrigerators using low global warming potential refrigerants, etc. ¾ Implement in-district mitigation measures such as any of the above identified GHG reduction measures; reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) through greater rideshare incentives, transit improvements, etc. ¾ Implement in-state mitigation measures, which could include any of the above measures.
¾ Implement out of state mitigation measure projects, which may include purchasing offsets if no other options are available.

CARB’s Interim GHG Significance Threshold Proposal
In October 2008 CARB released its interim GHG significance threshold proposal and held a public workshop on October 27, 2008. CARB’s threshold is considered to be an interim threshold because CARB staff intends to periodically review and change its threshold proposal as necessary. CARB’s Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal (Proposal) states that non-zero GHG significance thresholds can be supported by substantial evidence. Futher, different GHG significance thresholds may be established for different sectors. Th erefore, as part of its initial interim GHG significance threshold proposal CARB is proposing two separate GHG significance thresholds, one for new industrial projects and another for residential/commercial projects subject to CEQA. CARB’s proposal uses a tiered approach (see Table 3-4).

Chapter 3 – Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal 3 - 18 October 2008
Table 3-4
Comparison of CARB’s and AQMD’s Interim GHG Significance Thresholds Approaches Stationary/Industrial Sector Projects Residential/Commercial Sector Projects CARB AQMD CARB AQMD (Not Recommended at
this Time)
Policy
Objective
Capture 90% of statewide
stationary project emissions
Capture 90% of district wide
GHG emissions (industrial)
Capture X% of statewide
residential/commercial
project emissions
Capture 90% of district wide
residential/commercial project
GHG emissions
Exemption Apply applicable
exemption
Apply applicable exemption Apply Applicable Exemption Apply Applicable Exemption Regional GHG
Reduction
Plan
N.A. Project Consistent with
Applicable GHG Reduction
Plan with GHG inventorying,
monitoring, enforcement, etc.

Project Consistent with
Applicable GHG Reduction
Plan with GHG inventorying,
monitoring, enforcement, etc.

Project Consistent with
Applicable GHG Reduction
Plan with GHG inventorying,
monitoring, enforcement, etc.

Thresholds Project < 7,000
MTCO2eq/yr & meets
construction &
transportation performance
standards
GHG emissions from
industrial project is < 10,000
MTCO2eq/yr, includes
construction emissions
amortized over 30 years &
added to operational GHG
emissions
Project meets construction &
operation performance
tandards, e.g., energy, water
use, waste & ransportation &
< X MTCO2eq/yr
Project is < 3,000 MTCO2eq/yr
& exceeds Title 24 Energy
Efficiency Standards by X%, if
applicable – construction
emissions amortized over 30
years & added to operational
GHG emissions
Performance
Standards
See above NA See above 3 Compliance Options: 1)
Reduce GHG emissions 30%
below BAU; 2) Early
Implement AB 32 Measure; 3)
Comply with Performance
Standard
Offsets Offsite substitution allowed Implement offsite mitigation for life of project, i.e., 30
years, with mitigation
preference
Offsite substitution allowed Implement offsite mitigation for life of project, i.e., 30 years
with mitigation preference
Determination GHG emissions significant,
EIR is prepared, if meeting
none of the above
GHG emissions significant,
EIR is prepared, if meeting
none of the above
GHG emissions significant,
EIR is prepared, if meeting
none of the above
GHG emissions significant,
EIR is prepared, if meeting
none of the above

Chapter 3 – Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal 3 - 19
CARB’s interim GHG significance threshold for industrial sources was developed to capture “the vast majority (~90% statewide) of the GHG emissions from new industrial projects being subject to CEQA’s requirement to impose feasible mitigation.” According to CARB’s Proposal, CARB staff used data from a survey of industrial boilers performed by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in which it was concluded that small boilers with an input capacity of 10 MMBtu/hr corresponded to 93 percent of total industrial boiler input capacity, or 4,660 MTCO2e/yr. Using this result and accounting for process losses, purchased electricity, and water usage and wastewater discharge, CARB staff is recommending 7,000 MTCO2eq/yr as a GHG significance threshold for industrial projects. The following bullet points summarize CARB’s proposed interim GHG significance threshold for industrial sources.
x Box 1 – Apply any applicable categorical or statutory exemptions. If the project does not qualify for an exemption, move to Box 2. x Box 2 – The industrial project must meet both of the following performance standards or equivalent mitigation measures to be deemed insignificant for GHGs:
¾ Construction – Project must meet an interim performance standard for construction- related emissions (performance standard not yet defined).
¾ Transportation – Project must meet an interim performance standard for transportation (performance standard not yet defined).

AND
¾ Project with mitigation will emit no more than 7,000 MTCO2eq/yr. If the project does not qualify for either of the performance standards or exceeds 7,000 MTCO2eq/yr, move to Box 3.
x Box 3 – Project is deemed significant and an EIR must be prepared. x CARB’s Preliminary Draft Proposal for Residential and Commercial projects is summarized in the following bullet points.
x Box 1 – Apply any applicable categorical or statutory exemptions. If the project does not qualify for an exemption, move to Box 2. x Box 2 – Project complies with a previously approved plan that addresses GHG emissions and must: include a GHG reduction target consistent with AB 32; be consistent with transportation-related target adopted by CARB pursuant to SB 375; include a GHG inventory and mechanism for monitoring GHG emissions; include enforceable GHG requirements; include a mechanism for periodic updates to plan; and have a certified CEQA document. If the project is

Chapter 3 – Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal 3 - 20 October 2008
consistent with a GHG plan that includes all of these elements, it is presumed to be insignificant for GHGs. If the project is not consistent with a GHG plan or there is no adopted GHG plan that includes all of the above elements, move to Box 3.
x Box 3 – The residential/commercial project must meet all of the following performance standards or equivalent mitigation measures to be deemed insignificant for GHGs:
¾ Construction – Project must meet an interim performance standard for construction- related emissions (performance standard not yet defined).
¾ Operations – Project must meet the following performance standards:
energy use performance standard defined in CEC’s Tier II Energy Efficiency goal; an interim performance standard for water use (performance standard not yet defined); an interim performance standard for waste (performance standard not yet defined); and an interim performance standard for transportation (performance standard not yet defined).

AND
The project with performance standards or equivalent mitigation will emit no more than X MTCO2eq/yr (criterion to be developed). If the project does not qualify for any one of the performance standards or exceeds X MTCO2eq/yr, move to Box 4. x Box 4 – Project is deemed significant and an EIR must be prepared.

For a detailed description of CARB’s interim GHG significance threshold proposal, refer to the following URL:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/localgov/ceqa/meetings/102708/prelimdraftproposal1024

08.pdf.

CARB is currently accepting comments on its Draft Proposal and has scheduled a second public workshop on December 9, 2008. CARB staff currently anticipates taking their proposal to their Board in February 2009.

C H A P T E R 4

C O N S I D E R A T I O N S W H E N A N A L Y Z I N G

G H G E M I S S I O N S
Introduction
GHG Analysis Recommendations

Chapter 4 – Considerations When Analyzing GHG Emissions 4 - 1 October 2008

INTRODUCTION
As noted in Chapter 1, on June 19, 2008, OPR, in collaboration with the California Resources Agency, the California Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board, released a Technical Advisory containing informal guidance for public agencies as they address the issue of climate change in their CEQA documents. With regard to analyzing GHG emission impacts OPR states, “Each public agency that is a lead agency for complying with CEQA needs to develop its own approach to performing a climate change analysis for projects that generate GHG emissions. A consistent approach should be applied for the analysis of all such projects, and the analysis must be based on best available information… Lead agencies should determine whether greenhouse gases may be generated by a proposed project, and if so, quantify or estimate the GHG emissions by type and source.” Other than this general advice, the Technical Advisory does not provide explicit details for quantifying GHG emissions.

CAPCOA’s White Paper provides a comprehensive discussion of modeling tools that are currently available for analyzing GHG emissions

3. As indicated in the White
Paper, no one model is currently available that is capable of estimating all of a project’s direct and indirect GHG emissions. It is likely, however, that the Urban Emissions (URBEMIS) Model will be the most commonly used model for calculating GHG emissions because it currently calculates CO2 emissions (in addition to criteria pollutant emissions) during both construction and operation of proposed projects, it is publicly available, and already widely used in California. Statewide use of the URBEMIS model would provide consistency throughout California with regard to quantifying GHG emissions. For a list of currently available models that calculate GHG emissions and summaries of the capabilities, advantages, and disadvantages of each model refer to Table 10 on pages 75 through 78 in the CAPCOA White Paper.

The purpose of this chapter is to provide more explicit guidance to CEQA practitioners with regard to quantifying GHG emissions than OPR’s Technical Advisory, while building on the information provided CAPCOA’s White Paper.

GHG ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS
Direct/Indirect Impacts
As noted in Chapter 3 of this Guidance Document, consistent with CEQA, indirect and direct impacts of the project, typically within California, are required to be analyzed in the CEQA document for a proposed project. The analysis of direct GHG impacts is

3 For maximum transparency with regard to quantifying GHG emissions and disclosure to the public, SCAQMD staff recommends using only publicly available models.

Chapter 4 – Considerations When Analyzing GHG Emissions 4 - 2 October 2008
relatively straightforward as onsite GHG sources or directly related offsite GHG sources, such as worker commute trips, are generally readily identifiable. Indirect GHG emission sources are less obvious, but may include some of the sources identified in the following paragraphs. In general, for most projects information on direct and indirect emissions may be available, rather than a full life-cycle analysis of emissions. The lead agency has typically been expected to address emissions that are closely related and within the capacity of the project proponent to control and/or influence.

Direct Impacts - are primary effects that are caused by a project and occur at the same time and place, such as emissions from boilers, heaters, or other onsite emissions sources. Direct impacts generated by a project may include offsite sources directly related to the project such as emissions from worker commute trips, haul truck trips to import raw materials and/or export finished products or other goods. The following paragraphs provide general guidance on quantifying direct GHG emissions.

CAPCOA’s White Paper provides a comprehensive discussion of modeling tools that are currently available for analyzing GHG emissions. Further, no one model is currently available that is capable of estimating all of a project’s direct and indirect GHG emissions. Although there are a number of modeling tools available to calculate GHG emissions the following discussion focuses on a combination of approaches using the URBEMIS model as the basis for analyzing GHG emission impacts. Other approaches for calculating GHG emissions can be used, as long as they are supported by scientific evidence and include publicly available information.

The URBEMIS model is a publicly available model that is currently used statewide to calculate criteria pollutant emissions from construction and operation activities for a wide variety of land use projects. The model is regularly updated through a collaboration of air pollution control agencies, including the SCAQMD, to reflect the most current data, methodologies, and emission factors for quantifying criteria pollutant emissions. The most current update to the model is URBEMIS2007 version

9.2.4, which quantifies CO2 emissions in addition to criteria pollutant emissions.

Currently, there are several disadvantages to using the URBEMIS model to calculate GHG emissions from a proposed project and, as a result, it should not be the only tool used to calculate GHG emissions. For example, currently the URBEMIS model only quantifies CO2 emissions and not other GHG pollutants, with the exception of methane from mobile sources, which is converted to CO2eq. emissions. Since CO2 emissions comprise the bulk of GHG emissions from most projects, URBEMIS GHG results are fairly representative of GHG emissions from a project.

To quantify mobile source emissions from on-road mobile sources, the URBEMIS model uses trip rate information from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Handbook (ITE, 2001) as the trip rate default factor for all land uses. ITE trip rate information is widely used and is considered legally defensible as they rely on substantial reports and surveys of trip rates in cities with little or no transit. As a result, the ITE trip rates are also considered to provide a conservative estimate of trip

Chapter 4 – Considerations When Analyzing GHG Emissions 4 - 3 October 2008
rates and associated emissions. The model, however, treats each trip as a separate trip and doesn’t consider that a single trip may be used for more than one purpose, referred to as “internalization.” The model also does not fully account for interaction between land uses in its estimation of mobile source operational emissions. URBEMIS does allow the user to overwrite the default trip rates and characteristics with more project- specific data from a traffic study prepared for a project.

In spite of the disadvantages of the URBEMIS model described above, it can be used as the first step in quantifying GHG emissions for typical land use projects because it establishes default parameters for the most common emission sources from a project including construction equipment types and activity profiles, area of site disturbed during construction, building size, number vehicle trips, etc., if the level of information about the project is low. If more information about the project is available such as a precise profile of construction equipment and activity levels, number of vehicle trips based on a traffic study prepared for the project, etc., this information can be incorporated into the model. The model can then quantify CO2 emissions from both construction and operation.

The URBEMIS construction analysis quantifies criteria pollutant and CO2 emissions from both off-road sources (primarily construction equipment) and on-road sources (worker commute trips, haul truck trips, etc.). To further flesh out the construction analysis, the lead agency would have to identify emission factors for other GHG pollutants likely to be emitted during construction, i.e., methane and nitrous oxide 4, for
both off-road and on-road emissions sources and then quantify the GHG emission results using spreadsheets or other available tools.

The off-road CO2 emission factors in the URBEMIS model are generated from CARB’s off- road model (http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/offroad/offroad.htm ). Methane
emission factors for off-road equipment can also be obtained from CARB’s OFFROAD2007 model. CO2 and methane emission factors for off-road equipment that are based on CARB’s OFFROAD2007 model can also be found on the SCAQMD’s CEQA webpages at the following URL:
http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/offroad/offroad.html
. Other sources of off-road
GHG emissions factors for equipment used in California may be used, as long as they are supported by scientific evidence and are publicly available.

The URBEMIS model is able to quantify mobile source CO2 emissions during construction from on-road mobile sources such as construction worker commute trips, heavy-duty truck trips to haul away demolition debris, soil hauling to and from the site etc., and during operation, primarily vehicle trips using ITE’s Trip Generation Manual (ITE, 2001). The on-road CO2 emission factors in the URBEMIS model for both construction and operation are generated from CARB’s on- road mobile source emissions model, EMFAC2007 (http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/onroad/onroad.htm ).

Methane emission factors for on-road mobile sources can also be obtained from

4 Hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride are not combustion emissions, so would not normally be emitted during construction.

Chapter 4 – Considerations When Analyzing GHG Emissions 4 - 4 October 2008
CARB’s EMFAC2007 model. CO2 and methane emission factors for on-road mobile sources that are based on CARB’s EMFAC2007 model can also be found on the SCAQMD’s CEQA webpages at the following URL:
http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/onroad/onroad.html
.

The analysis of operation emissions from all types of land uses in the URBEMIS model focuses primarily on mobile source emissions and some area sources. The model does not quantify emissions from stationary sources. For stationary sources that require a permit from the SCAQMD, emission calculation procedures and methodologies are available in the SCAQMD’s Best Available Control Technology Guidelines ( http://www.aqmd.gov/bact/partd7-9-2004update.pdf ) . E x a m p l e s o f
facilities that use stationary sources requiring a permit from the SCAQMD include:
fossil fuel power plants
5, cement plants, landfills, wastewater treatment plants, gas stations, dry cleaners and industrial boilers. The SCAQMD has procedures and methodologies for projects subject to SCAQMD permits to calculate criteria pollutants and air toxics. It is anticipated that these same procedures and methodologies could be extended to estimate a permitted facility’s GHG calculations. For are any stationary and area sources that do not require SCAQMD permits, the same methodologies used for permitted sources could be used. It will be necessary to contact the SCAQMD to obtain information on GHG emission calculation methodologies applicable to stationary source equipment.

Indirect Impacts - Indirect or secondary effects may include growth-inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density, or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems (CEQA Guidelines §15358)(a)(2)). The examples of facilities that use stationary sources requiring a permit from the SCAQMD that may contribute to direct environmental impact (fossil fuel power plants, cement plants, landfills, wastewater treatment plants, gas stations, dry cleaners and industrial boilers) may also contribute to indirect impacts and, therefore, should be included, as necessary in the CEQA analysis of GHGs.

Quantification Methodologies and GHG Emission Factors
Methodologies for calculating GHG emissions and GHG emission factors are currently not readily available. Until such time as GHG calculation methodologies and emission factors become well established and more readily available, lead agencies may want to consult the following references to identify acceptable methodologies and emission factors.

1. The first useful reference for GHG emission factors for stationary sources is EPA’s Air Pollutant (AP)-42, which is a compilation of air pollutant emission

5 According to CEQA Guidelines §15227, CEQA does not apply to projects outside of California. The California Attorney General’s Office has rendered an opinion stating that the definition of the environment in CEQA does not stop at the borders of California. Further, California public agencies that take an action outside of California is still bound by the requirements of CEQA to prepare an EIR if the action may cause a significant effect on the environment.

Chapter 4 – Considerations When Analyzing GHG Emissions 4 - 5 October 2008
factors for stationary point and area sources. Each of the first 13 chapters of AP- 42 is dedicated to a specific source activity such as solid waste disposal, petroleum industry, and metallurgical industry. Since the publication of the fifth edition (and supplementals) in 2001, there have been a number of updates to the various specific stationary sources such as hot asphalt plants, organic liquid storage tanks, and coke production. In addition to the criteria pollutant emissions, some of the updated AP-42 chapters provide GHG emission factors for a variety of sources.

For example, Chapter 15 of AP-42 focuses on GHG emissions from biogenic sources such as soils, termites, lightning, and enteric fermentation (animal digestive fermentation).

2. Second, the California Climate Action Registry (C-CAR) has prepared a General Reporting Protocol (GRP), which is a relatively easy-to-follow user's manual that outlines the principles, concepts, calculation methodologies and procedures required for effective participation in the California Registry. The appendices of the GRP provide GHG emissions factors, specifically CO2, CH4 and N2O, for electricity use, mobile combustion and stationary combustion based on fuel usage type.

3. Third, a thorough internet search should be conducted to find reliable sources of emissions factors that would assist in accurately determining GHG emissions from a specific source being evaluated. Again, all potential GHGs, such as CO2, CH4 and N2O, should be evaluated to the best of one’s ability to locate dependable information.

4. Finally, a material balance approach also may provide reliable average emission estimates for specific sources. A material balance is when one accounts for (or “balances”) all the materials going into and coming out of the process in order to make a credible emissions estimation. For some sources, a material balance may provide a better estimate of emissions especially in situations where a high percentage of material is lost to the atmosphere (e. g., sulfur in fuel, or solvent loss in an uncontrolled coating process.) In other cases, material balances may be inappropriate where material is consumed or chemically combined in the process, or where losses to the atmosphere are a small portion of the total process throughput.

Reporting GHG Emissions – Daily vs. Annual Emissions
The analysis of GHGs is a much different analysis than the analysis of criteria pollutants for the following reasons. For criteria pollutants, significance thresholds are based on daily emissions because attainment or non-attainment is based on daily exceedances of applicable ambient air quality standards. Further, several ambient air quality standards are based on relatively short term exposure effects on human health, e.g., one-hour and eight-hour. Since the half-life of CO2 is approximately 100 years, the effects of GHGs are longer-term, affecting global climate over a relatively long time frame (see also Table 3-1).

Chapter 4 – Considerations When Analyzing GHG Emissions 4 - 6 October 2008
Typical GHG emission inventories (EPA5, ARB6, etc.) represent directly emitted GHGs during a given year. As a result, the current convention is to present GHG emissions as annual emissions. The URBEMIS model can be set to calculate annual emissions for a project. When using the URBEMIS model to calculate annual GHG emissions, it may be useful to modify the trip rate for each land use using a weighted trip rate average to more accurately reflect annualized trip rates. A weighted trip rate average reflects the trip rates during the week, as well as trip rates during Saturdays and Sundays. Trip rate information for weekdays and weekend days can be found in the ITE Trip Rate Handbook.

C H A P T E R 5

C O N C L U S I O N
Introduction
Future Action Items

Chapter 5 – Conclusion
5 - 1 October 2008

INTRODUCTION
CEQA Guidelines §15064.7(a) encourages lead agencies to establish thresholds of significance to determine the significance of an environmental impact. Further, thresholds of significance to be adopted for general use as part of the lead agency's environmental review process must be adopted by ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulation, and developed through a public review process and be supported by substantial evidence (CEQA Guidelines §15064.7(b)). Staff’s proposed interim GHG significance threshold proposal has been developed through a public process consisting of a series of Stakeholder Working Group meetings. Staff proposals have been modified over time based on written and oral feedback from the Working Group.

Staff’s intent was to reach consensus to the extent feasible, but for some items staff could not find common ground with some of the stakeholders.

The next immediate step for SCAQMD staff is to present a final interim GHG significance threshold proposal to the SCAQMD Governing Board for consideration.

If the Governing Board approves staff’s final interim GHG significance threshold proposal, then staff will embark on a number of short-term and intermediate term activities to provide outreach to public agencies that might use staff’s interim GHG significance threshold to determine whether or not their projects’ GHG emissions are significant, periodically revisit and revise as necessary the interim proposal, and accommodate stakeholders’ requests for more information on GHG calculation methodologies and mitigation measures. The following sections provide discussions on future anticipated action items

FUTURE ACTION ITEMS
Interim GHG Significance Threshold Outreach Program
It is currently anticipated that staff’s interim GHG significance threshold proposal will be presented to, and considered by the Board at the November 7, 2008 public hearing.

Consistent with other significance threshold proposals adopted by the Governing Board, if the draft GHG significance threshold proposal is adopted, staff will meet with local cities, councils of governments, and leagues of cities to discuss the staff proposal and address any questions or concerns.

Once the interim GHG significance threshold is adopted, this Guidance Document will be posted on the SCAQMD’s CEQA web pages. Staff will also send notice of the adoption of the staff proposal to all agencies, organizations, and individuals on the SCAQMD’s CEQA “Interested Parties” mailing list. In addition, it is expected that staff will prepare and make available an informational brochure that summarizes information about the interim GHG significance proposal in addition to this Guidance Document.

Chapter 5 – Conclusion
5 - 2 October 2008
Starting in January 2009, as part of its intergovernmental review (IGR) responsibilities under CEQA, where the SCAQMD reviews and CEQA documents prepared by other public agencies, SCAQMD will begin more thorough evaluations of CEQA documents with regard to their GHG analyses and the basis by which they make a determination of significance. Staff will begin recommending use of the staff’s interim GHG significance threshold proposal or other available GHG significance thresholds based on substantial evidence in comment letters on notices of preparation of an EIR. As of March 1, 2009, staff will formally recommend use of staff’s interim GHG significance threshold proposal or other available GHG significance thresholds based on substantial evidence in comment letters on NDs and MNDs. As of July 1, 2009, staff will formally recommend use of staff’s interim GHG significance threshold proposal or other available GHG significance thresholds based on substantial evidence in comment letters on EIRs.

Compile Lists of GHG Design Features and Mitigation Measures CEQA Guidelines §15126.4 requires an EIR to “describe feasible measures which could minimize significant adverse impacts, including where relevant, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy.” Ideally, it is desirable to avoid impacts altogether through incorporating design features into the proposed project. Because staff’s recommended interim GHG significance threshold includes performance standards (see tier 4 compliance options 1 and 3) or a project proponent may try to reduce GHG emissions to less than the applicable screening levels, mitigation measures or design features are important components of the overall GHG significance threshold strategy. As a result, a number of GHG Working Group stakeholders has requested that SCAQMD compile lists of design features or mitigation measures to assist with reducing GHG emissions for all land use types.

In response to the request from GHG Working Group stakeholders to develop GHG design features and mitigation measures, over the next year SCAQMD staff will compile lists of GHG reduction strategies, including control efficiencies, by sector and make the lists available online with other recommended mitigation measures. There is already a robust body of mitigation measures available (see in particular the CAPCOA bullet point discussion below), but in most cases, they do not include control efficiencies. SCAQMD staff will use the following mitigation sources as a basis from which to compile mitigation strategies.
x CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F – this appendix includes a list of general energy conservation measures that may be used as a basis to identify GHG reduction strategies. The measures do not contain GHG control efficiencies, so they would need further review to determine if control efficiencies are available. x CAPCOA White Paper – this document provides a comprehensive discussion of GHG reduction strategies and specific mitigation measures are listed in Table 16 in Appendix B. The mitigation measures are grouped by emissions source type, such as transportation measures, parking measures, commercial and residential design features, etc. Table 16 also provides other useful information about each

Chapter 5 – Conclusion
5 - 3 October 2008
mitigation measure including source of each measure, comments and descriptions about each control measure, etc. Most importantly, for many of the mitigation measures CAPCOA has included an emission reduction score. In most cases, the emission reduction score is given as a range. As a result, further evaluation would be necessary to provide a single more precise emission reduction score or a defensible average. Otherwise, it is likely that the high end of the emission reduction score would be used.
x CARB - is actively working to develop and adopt GHG protocols to support the Climate Change Program. CARB is working in collaboration with other agencies and organizations, including the California Climate Action Registry, to adopt consistent and standardized methods to accurately report GHG emissions. There are two kinds of GHG protocols, a reporting protocol and a project protocol. The project protocol may be useful as it sets standards and provides specific guidance to define GHG reduction projects and quantify and report GHG reductions from project activities. Some example protocols include manure management and urban forestry. It is expected that additional protocols will be developed and adopted by CARB. It is also expected that CARB’s Scoping Plan may provide guidance on regulatory guidance that could be used to develop GHG emission reduction measures. GHG reduction strategies that may also serve as GHG mitigation measures to be developed by CARB over the next two years are shown in Table 5-

1. Table 5-1
California Air Resources Board GHG Emission Reduction Strategies Strategy Description of Strategy
Other Light Duty
Vehicle
Technology
New standards would be adopted to phase in beginning in the 2017 model year
Hydrofluorocarbon
Reduction
1) Ban retail sale of HFC in small cans; 2) Require that only low global warming potential (GWP) refrigerants be used in new vehicular systems; 3) Adopt specifications for new commercial refrigeration; 4) Add refrigerant leak-tightness to the pass criteria for vehicular Inspection and Maintenance programs; 5) Enforce federal ban on releasing HFCs.

Transportation
Refrigeration
Units, Off-Road
Electrification,
Port Electrification
Strategies to reduce emissions from TRUs, increase off-road electrification, and increase use of shore-side/port electrification.

Manure
Management
San Joaquin Valley Rule 4570 (adopted 6/15/06) reduces volatile organic compounds from confined animal facilities through implementation of control options.

Alternative Fuels:

Biodiesel
Blends
CARB would develop regulations to require the use of 1 to 4 percent biodiesel displacement of California diesel fuel.

Chapter 5 – Conclusion
5 - 4 October 2008
Table 5-1 (Concluded)
California Air Resources Board GHG Emission Reduction Strategies Strategy Description of Strategy
Alternative Fuels:

Ethanol
Increased use of ethanol fuel.

Heavy-Duty
Vehicle Emission
Reduction
Measures
Increased efficiency in the design of heavy duty vehicles and an education program for the heavy duty vehicle sector.

Reduced Venting
and Leaks in Oil
and Gas Systems
Rule considered for adoption by the Air Pollution Control Districts for improved management practices.

Hydrogen
Highway
The California Hydrogen Highway Network (CA H2 Net) is a State initiative to promote the use of hydrogen as a means of diversifying the sources of transportation energy.

Achieve 50%
Statewide
Recycling Goal
Achieving the State’s 50 percent waste diversion mandate as established by the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, (AB 939, Sher, Chapter 1095, Statutes of 1989), will reduce climate change emissions associated with energy intensive material extraction and production as well as methane emission from landfills. According to the California Integrated Waste Management Board, in 2005 the statewide waste diversion rate was 52 percent.6
Landfill Methane
Capture
Install direct gas use or electricity projects at landfills to capture and use emitted methane.

Zero Waste - High
Recycling
Additional recycling beyond the State’s 50% recycling goal. x CEC and CPUC – These agencies are actively developing GHG emission reduction strategies that may also be used to develop GHG mitigation measures for specific energy production sources. Examples of CEC and CPUC GHG emission reduction strategies are shown in Table 5-2.

Other sources of potential GHG emission reduction measures will be evaluated and incorporated, as applicable into any GHG mitigation measure lists developed by the SCAQMD.

6 CIWMB, 2007; http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/LGCentral/Rates/Diversion/2005/Default.htm

Chapter 5 – Conclusion
5 - 5 October 2008
Table 5-2
GHG Emission Reduction Strategies Implemented by CEC and CPUC Strategy Description of Strategy

E N E R G Y C O M M I S S I O N ( C E C )
Building Energy
Efficiency
Standards in Place
and in Progress
Public Resources Code 254 02 authorizes the CEC to adopt and periodically update its building energy efficien cy standards (that apply to newly constructed buildings and additions to and alterations to existing buildings).

Appliance Energy
Efficiency
Standards in Place
and in Progress
Public Resources Code 25402 authorizes the Energy Commission to adopt and periodically update its appliance energy efficiency standards (that apply to devices and equipment using energy that are sold or offered for sale in California).

Cement
Manufacturing
Cost-effective reductions to reduce energy consumption and to lower carbon dioxide emissions in the cement industry.

Municipal Utility
Strategies
Includes energy efficiency programs, renewable portfolio standard, combined heat and power, and transitioning away from carbon intensive generation.

Alternative Fuels:
non-Petroleum
Fuels
Increasing the use of non-petroleum fuels in California’s transportation sector, as recommended in the CEC’s 2003 and 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Reports.

P U B L I C U T I L I T I E S C O M M I S S I O N ( P U C ) Accelerated
Renewable
Portfolio Standard
(33 percent by
2020)
The Governor has set a goal of achieving 33 percent renewables in the State’s resource mix by 2020. The joint PUC/Energy Commission September 2005 Energy Action Plan II (EAP II) adopts the 33 percent goal.

California Solar
Initiative
The solar initiative includes installation of 1 million solar roofs or an equivalent 3,000 MW by 2017 on homes and businesses, increased use of solar thermal systems to offset the increasing demand for natural gas, use of advanced metering in solar applications, and creation of a funding source that can provide rebates over 10 years through a declining incentive schedule.

Investor-Owned
Utility
This strategy includes energy efficiency programs, combined heat and power initiative, and electricity sector carbon policy for investor owned utility.

Periodically Review the Interim GHG Significance Threshold SCAQMD staff will periodically review and revise staff’s GHG proposal to incorporate applicable updated information on GHGs and GHG reduction strategies resulting from regulatory requirements or advances in technology. Some areas of the current proposal that may be reevaluated include the tier 3 screening levels, and the tier 4 compliance option 1 GHG reduction target objective. Further, staff will evaluate whether or not sector based performance standards can be developed for tier 4 compliance option 3.

If a statewide GHG significance threshold is developed by CARB, staff will review that threshold and report to the Governing Board by March 2009 considering such a

Chapter 5 – Conclusion
5 - 6 October 2008
threshold for adoption.regarding any implementation issues and ways to transition into the recommended GHG significance threshold within six months of formal approval by the CARB Board.

R E F E R E N C E S

References
References - 1 October 2008
Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP). 2007. White Paper on Global Climate Change – Final Version. June 2007
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2008. CEQA and Climate Change Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. January 2008.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2007. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory. December 2007.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2008. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan A Framework for Change. October 2008.

Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). 2001. Trip Generation Handbook An ITE Recommended Practice (7th ed.). March 2001.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007a. Climate Change 2007 – Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007b. Climate Change 2007 - The Physical Science Basis. IPCC Plenary XXVII (Valencia, Spain, 12-17 November 2007).

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2004. Best Available Control Technology Guidelines. July 2004. (http://www.aqmd.gov/bact/partd7-9-2004update.pdf)

APPENDIX A

W O R K I N G G R O U P M E M B E R S A N D

C O N T R I B U T O R S

Appendix A Working Group Members and Contributors
A - 1 October 2008
WORKING GROUP MEMBERS AND AFFILIATION:

Greg M Adams Los Angeles County Sanitation District
James Arnone Latham and Watkins
Jonathan Evans Center for Biological Diversity
Doug T. Feremenga San Bernardino County Land Use Planning Department Mark Grey Building Industry Association (BIA) of Southern California Gretchen Hardison City of Los Angeles, Environmental Affairs Mike Harrod Riverside County Planning Department
Michael Hendrix Association of Environmental Professionals Thomas Jelenic Port of Long Beach
Ruby Maldonado Orange County Planning Department
Bill La Marr California Small Business Alliance
Julia Lester Dairies/California Farmers Bureau
Shari Libicki Green Developers Coalition
Lena Maun-DeSantis Port of Los Angeles
Daniel Mc Givney Southern California Alliance of Public Owned Treatment Works Clayton Miller Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition (CIAQC) Jonathan Nadler Southern California Association of Governments Peter Okurowski California Environmental Associates
Bill Piazza Los Angeles Unified School District
Bill Quinn California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance (CCEEB) Cathy Reheis-Boyd Western States Petroleum Association
Janill L Richards California Department of Justice, Public Rights Division, Environment Section Jamesine Rogers California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Terry Roberts Office of Planning and Research (OPR)
David Somers City of Los Angeles - Planning
Debbie Stevens Refineries
Jocelyn Thompson Weston, Benshoof, Rochefort, Rubalcava, MacCuish Attorneys at Law Carla Walecka Realtors Committee on Air Quality (RCAQ)
Lee Wallace The Gas Company
INVITED AS MEMBERS BUT HAVE NOT ATTENDED:

Rick Bishop Western Riverside Council of Governments
Adrene K Briones City of Los Angeles, LADWP
Rick Cameron Port of Long Beach
Bahram Fazeli Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) Daniel Fierros Los Angeles County Regional Planning, Impacts Analysis Section Timothy Grabiel Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Andrea M Hricko USC Keck School of Medicine, Environmental Health Sciences Center Angela Johnson Meszaras California Environmental Rights Alliance Janea Scott Environmental Defense Fund
Martin Shlageter Coalition for Clean Air (CCA)
Bryan Speegle Orange County Planning Department

Appendix A Working Group Members and Contributors
A - 2 October 2008
ALTERNATES AND AFFILIATION:

Jeannie Blakeslee CARB
Frank Caponi Los Angeles County Sanitation District
Andrew Cheung Los Angeles Unified School District
Mark Elliott CCEEB
Jay Golida Los Angeles Unified School District
Andy Henderson BIA of Southern California
Carrie Hyke San Bernardino County Land Use Planning Department Michael Lewis CIAQC
John Pastore Southern California Alliance of Public Owned Treatment Works Sharon Rubalcava Weston, Benshoof, Rochefort, Rubalcava, MacCuish Attorneys at Law Andrew Skanchy Latham and Watkins
Justis Stewart SCAG
Allyson Teramoto Port of Long Beach
Cindy Thielman-Braun Riverside County Planning Department Matt Vespa Center for Biological Diversity
Michael Wang WSPA
INTERESTED PARTIES:

Lysa Aposhian Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles
Gregory K Arifian MWH Americas Inc
Leila Barker LADWP
Jack Bean Tesoro
Joe Becca Universal Studios
Aaron Dean Burdick ICF International
Curtis L. Coleman Law Offices of Curtis L. Coleman
Keith Cooper ICF Jones & Stokes
Kris Flaig LA Bureau of Sanitation, Department of Public Works, Regulatory Affairs Howard D Gollay Southern California Edison
Bill Gorham ENSR Consulting and Engineering
Jay Grady California Portland Cement Co.

Patrick Griffith Los Angeles Unified School District
Tony Held ICF, Jones & Stokes
Miles T. Heller BP
Jonathan A. Hershey City of Los Angeles
Vijaya Jammalamadaka Santa Barbara County APCD
Stephen L Jenkins Michael Brandman Associates
Robert Jenne CARB
Diana Kitching LA City Department of Planning
Chandra Knott City of Irvine
Vladimir Kogan Orange County Sanitation District, Air Quality & Special Projects Div.

Leslie Krinsk CARB
Martin Ledwitz Southern California Edison
Rina Leung City of Rancho Cucamonga
Serena Lin Environmental Defense Fund
Allen Lind CCEEB
Sung Key Ma Riverside County Waste Management Department Josh Margolis Cantor Cole

Appendix A Working Group Members and Contributors
A - 3 October 2008
Marty Meisler Metropolitan Water District
Denise Michelson BP
Vince Mirabella Michael Brandman Associates
Danielle K Morone Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP
Pang Mueller Tesoro Refining & Marketing Co - Los Angeles Refinery Krishna Nand City of Vernon
Jan Nguyen Exxon Mobil
Maurice Oillataguerre City of Glendale Public Works Dept.

Lynn Perkinton URS Corp.

Haseeb Qureshi Urban Crossroads
Ron Ricks BP
Leonard Scandura San Joaquin Valley APCD
Darren W Stroud Valero Energy Corporation
Ryan Taylor Brian F. Associates
Greg Tholen Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Dave Vintze BAAQMD
Sarah Weldon California Environmental Associates
Darcy Wheeles California Environmental Associates
Janet Whittich CCEEB
A.L. Wilson Southern California Edison
Cori Wilson Michael Brandman Associates
Lisa Wunder The Port of Los Angeles
Robert A Wyman Jr. Latham & Watkins
Rick Zbur Latham & Watkins
Michael H Zischke Cox Castle & Nicholson LLP

APPENDIX B

S U M M A R I E S O F W O R K I N G G R O U P M E E T I N G S

Appendix B Summaries of Working Group Meetings
B - 1 October 2008
WORKING GROUP MEETING #1 (APRIL 30, 2008)
At the first Working Group meeting SCAQMD staff presented the Working Group with a number of policy objectives and design criteria for consideration to establish the framework for developing a GHG significance threshold. Policy objectives include the following concepts. First, the GHG significance threshold should minimize environmental degradation, that is, it should not make impacts worse. To this end, it may be useful to develop a GHG significance threshold that achieves GHG emissions reductions that are consistent with the goals of AB 32 estimated to be approximately 30 percent reduction of GHG emissions from business-as-usual.

Although CEQA or a GHG significance threshold established pursuant to CEQA may be useful tools in reducing GHG emissions, they would act in parallel with regulatory requirements, e.g., AB 32, but they do not replace them. As a result, there is no requirement that a GHG significance threshold must reduce GHG emissions consistent with AB 32 or EO S-3-05.

In addition to policy considerations, a number of GHG significance threshold design criteria were also considered. An important consideration in developing a GHG significance threshold is the potential administrative burden it may create on lead agencies through increased resource impacts such as increased costs and staff if the significance threshold is established too low. For example, a zero threshold might result in eliminating or substantially reducing the number of projects that qualify for a categorical exemption, a negative declaration, or a mitigated negative declaration.

Other design considerations discussed included establishing a single GHG threshold, such as a “bright line” numerical threshold or multiple thresholds, such as the tiered approaches identified by CAPCOA, etc.

WORKING GROUP MEETING #2 (MAY 28, 2008)
At the second Working Group meeting, staff presented design criteria recommendations based on the discussion at the first Working Group meeting and correspondence received subsequent to the first Working Group meeting. With regard to analyzing life cycle GHG emissions, staff’s initial recommendation was to exclude an analysis of life cycle emissions because life cycle process are not well established.

Instead, the GHG emissions analysis should focus on direct and indirect impacts, consistent with current CEQA requirements (CEQA Guidelines §15064(d)). Feedback from the Working Group suggested that a CEQA analysis may be considered deficient without making an effort to conduct a life cycle analysis. Further, if life cycle emissions data are not available, the lead agency should note this consider further analysis speculative and terminate the discussion (CEQA Guidelines §15145).

Another design criteria recommendation made by staff was to take into consideration the administrative burden and resources impacts when establishing a GHG significance threshold. Staff recommended that the GHG significance threshold

Appendix B Summaries of Working Group Meetings
B - 2 October 2008
should not be set too low, which could result in all projects going through the EIR process. It was pointed out that requiring an EIR for all projects does not necessarily result in more mitigation, no meaningful mitigation may be available for small projects, and it may provide a disincentive for implementing mitigation if the measures are unable to reduce GHG impacts to less than significant.

Other design criteria recommended by staff included analyzing the six Kyoto GHGs, any GHG significance threshold established would be considered interim and would be periodically evaluated and updated as necessary, etc. Staff also introduced the concept of preferred GHG mitigation strategies using a hierarchy from the most to least preferred strategies as shown below.

1. Incorporate GHG reduction strategies into project design

2. Mitigate GHGs from other onsite sources for modification projects

3. Mitigate offsite GHG emission reduction projects

4. Mitigate both construction & operational GHG impacts

5. Consider feasible mitigation based on economic factors (cost) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15364

6. Purchase acceptable GHG offsets with preference toward GHG reduction projects occurring in-basin or in-state (offset cost a consideration). The following points should be considered:
a. Offset market still developing, so it is necessary to ensure offsets are obtained from a credible source
b. Offsets should be provided for at least 10 years of project operation (see SJVAPCD indirect source Rule 9510 §6.2 mitigation requirements) Finally, SCAQMD staff introduced the initial staff proposal. The initial staff proposal consisted of a tiered approach, similar to CAPCOA’s Approach 2 with mandatory GHG mitigation measures. Each tier of this proposal is briefly described in the following bullet points and shown graphically in Figure B-1. x The first tier consists of evaluating whether or not the project qualifies for any applicable exemption under CEQA. For example, SB 97 specifically exempts a limited number of projects until it expires in 2010. If the project qualifies for an exemption, no further action is required. If the project does not qualify for an exemption, then move to the next tier.

Appendix B Summaries of Working Group Meetings
B - 3 October 2008
Figure B-1
Initial Staff Proposal – Proposed Tiered Approach – May 28, 2008 Significance determination of Cumulative Impacts from GHG emissions:

Construction Operation

1. Local General Plans, at a minimum, must comply w ith AB32 reduction goals; have been analyzed under CEQA, and have a certified Final CEQA document; emission estimates approved by CARB or SCAQMD; include a GHG inventory tracking mechanism; and a commitment to remedy the excess emissions if AB32 goals are not met.

2. SCAQMD will work with CAPCOA to de velop a list of mitigation measures.

Applicable
Exemptions, if any
Early
Compliance
with AB32
measures (e.g.
low carbon fuel
standard)
Quantify Residual GHG Emissions; Implement Offsite
Mitigation and/or Offsets Mitigating GHG Emissions to Zero Significant
Demonstrate Consistency with GHG Component of
Local General Plan1 OR equivalent regional approach
No Further
Action
Mitigated
to Not
Significant
Stationary
Source (new or
modified) –
Carbon
BARCT/
BACT 2
Land Use/Indirect Sources
Predetermined Mitigation
Package by Sector (over)
Residential Commercial Industrial

Appendix B Summaries of Working Group Meetings
B - 4 October 2008
x The second tier consists of determining whether or not the project is consistent with a GHG reduction plan that is part of a local general plan for example. The GHG reduction plan must, at a minimum, comply with AB 32 reduction goals; include emission estimates approved by CARB or SCAQMD, have been analyzed under CEQA, and have a certified Final CEQA document. Further, the GHG reduction plan must include a GHG inventory tracking mechanism; process to monitor progress in achieving GHG emission reduction targets, and a commitment to remedy the excess emissions if AB 32 goals are not met (enforcement). If the proposed project is consistent with the local GHG reduction plan, it is not significant for GHG emissions.

The concept of consistency with a GHG reduction plan, is similar to the concept of consistency in CEQA Guidelines §15125(d). If the proposed project does not comply with the local GHG reduction plan or no GHG reduction plan has been adopted, then move to the third tier.
x Under the third tier there are three options that can be used to demonstrate that a project would not have significant emissions. The first significance option is early compliance with AB 32 Scoping Plan measures. The second significance option, primarily for stationary source equipment, would be to install carbon best available retrofit control technology (BARCT) or best available control technology (BACT).

Carbon BARCT/BACT would be established by the SCAQMD. The third significance option for industrial, commercial, and residential land use projects would be to implement a menu of prescribed mitigation measures. Mitigation measures would be developed for each land use sector by SCAQMD staff. Implementing one of these three options would result in a determination that GHG emission impacts from the proposed project are not significant. If the proposed project is unable to implement any one of these three options or cannot fully implement any option, then it would move to the fourth tier.
x Under the fourth tier, the lead agency would quantify GHG emissions from the project and implement offsite mitigation (GHG reduction projects) or purchase offsets. Under this tier, GHG emission impacts the lead agency would be required to mitigate or offset GHG emissions to zero. If GHG emissions can be offset to zero, GHG emissions from the project are concluded to be insignificant. If GHG impacts cannot be reduced to zero, the project is concluded to be significant for GHGs.

WORKING GROUP MEETING #3 (JUNE 19, 2008)
Subsequent to Working Group meeting #2, SCAQMD staff received feedback on the initial staff proposal. Issues and concerns raised by the stakeholders on the initial staff proposal were addressed at the third Working Group meeting and are summarized in the following bullet points.
x The staff proposal does not explicitly state any quantitative or qualitative target objectives. If there are no explicit target objectives, how is it possible to determine whether or not a project is insignificant for GHG emissions? is similar to the concept of py
consistency in CEQA Guidelines §15125(d)

Appendix B Summaries of Working Group Meetings
B - 5 October 2008
x Concerns were raised regarding the lack of detail relative to the sector-specific mitigation measures and the potentially lengthy lag time between implementing the GHG significance threshold and developing the mitigation measures. x For most projects, GHG emissions would not need to be calculated as long as the prescribed menu of sector-specific mitigation measures is implemented. Without quantifying GHG emissions and the control efficiencies of the mitigation measures, a project would be vulnerable to a “Fair Argument” that GHG emissions are still significant even after implementing prescribed mitigation measures. x A CEQA document may be vulnerable in court if control efficiencies of mitigation measures are not identified.
x Is the staff proposal really a zero GHG significance? Based on Working Group feedback, staff presented revised staff proposal #1, which consisted of a tiered decision tree approach. The components of revised staff proposal #1 are described in the following bullet points and shown graphically in Figure B-2.

As shown in Figure B-2, some of the tier components of the revised staff proposal are similar to those in the initial staff proposal.
x Tier 1 – no change from the initial proposal.
x Tier 2 – is a new component of the revised staff proposal. Tier 2 attempts to identify small projects that would not likely contribute to significant cumulative GHG impacts.

The de minimis or screening level of 900 metric tons per year is the level that is estimated by CAPCOA to capture 90 percent of the residential units or office space in pending application lists7. CAPCOA infers that projects that emit less than 900 metric ton per year would not likely be considered cumulatively considerable. Further, the 900 metric ton per year level would capture 90 percent

7 Although the CAPCOA White Paper implies that 9 00 metric tons per year equates to a 90 percent capture rate, there is no exp licit information provided in the White Paper that demonstrates this correlation. Indeed, the CAPCOA authors state that 900 metric tons, which represents approximately 50 residential units, corresponds to wi dely divergent capture rate percentile rankings depending on the project location (see discussion on page 43 of the White Paper). Percentile rankings were based on a survey of four cities in California. A project of 900 metric tons per year representing a 90 percent capture rate appears to be a working assumption for which there appears to be no factual basis. Further, although not explicitly stated, it is assumed that the 900 metric tons were derived using the URBEMIS2007 model. It should be noted that that the URBEMIS2007 model only quantifies CO2 emissions and direct em issions primarily from on-road mobile sources.

It does not capture other GHG pollutants or indire ct GHG emissions such as emissions from energy generation, water conve yance, etc. Ther efore, it is likely that a 50-u nit residential project would actually generate higher GHG emissions than 900 metric tons per year.

Appendix B Summaries of Working Group Meetings
B - 6 October 2008
Figure B-2
Revised Staff Proposal #1 Tiered Decision Tree Approach – June 19, 2008 Significance Determination of Cumulative Impacts from GHG Emissions:

1. Substitution for equivalent reductions allowed.

2. Local General Plans or other local plans local plans that, at a minimum, comply with the overall target objective or the sector-based CARB Scoping Plan; have been analyzed under CEQA, and have a certified Final CEQA document; emission estimates approved by CARB or SCAQMD; include a GHG inventory; tracking mechanism; enforcement; and a commitment to remedy the excess emissions if commitments are not met.

Tier 1: Applicable Exemptions, if any
Tier 3:

Decision
Tree
Options1
Compliance Option 4: GHG Emissions within GHG
Budgets in approved regional plans2 (similar to
consistency per existing CEQA Guidelines
§§15064(h)(3), 15125(d), 15130(d) or 15152 (a)).

No Further
Action
Less Than
Significant
Tier 2: Project’s Incremental GHG Emission Increase
Below a De Minimis Level or Mitigated to less than the
De Minimis Level (e.g., 900 MT/year CO2eq)

P R O P O S E D P R O J E C T
Significant
Compliance Option 1: Uniform Percent
Emission Reduction Target Objective (e.g.,
40 percent) from BAU By Incorporating
Project Design Features and/or
Implementing Mitigation Measures.

Compliance Option 2: Early Implementation
of Applicable AB32 Scoping Plan Measures
Compliance Option 3: Offsets alone or in combination
with the above to achieve target objective.

Appendix B Summaries of Working Group Meetings
B - 7 October 2008
of all pending projects, which means that 90 percent of all projects would have to implement GHG reduction measures.

If a project is less than 900 MT/year CO2eq or can mitigate to less than 900 MT/year CO2eq, it would be considered insignificant for GHGs. Projects larger than 900 MT/year CO2eq would move to tier 3.
x Tier 3 Decision Tree Options – consists of four decision tree options to demonstrate that a project is not significant for GHG emissions. The four compliance options are as follows.

Compliance Option 1 – the lead agency would calculate GHG emissions for a project using a business-as-usual (BAU) methodology. Once GHG emissions are calculated, the project proponent would have to incorporate design features into the project and/or implement GHG mitigation measures to demonstrate a 40 percent reduction from BAU. A 40 percent reduction below BAU was selected for the following reason. To comply with the AB 32 requirement of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels, an approximately 30 percent reduction from current BAU is necessary.

Since CEQA is not applicable to all GHG emission sources, i.e., existing projects that are not undergoing expansion or modifications, staff chose a 40 percent reduction below BAU requirement, which goes beyond the target GHG reduction objective of AB 32, but is still a potentially feasible GHG reduction for a variety of different projects.

Compliance Option 2 – this option is the same as the early compliance with AB 32 option in the third tier of the initial staff proposal.

Compliance Option 3 – this option is similar to the fourth tier of the initial staff proposal where GHG emissions would be reduced through offsite GHG reduction projects and/or use of offsets. This compliance option, however, would require offsetting GHG emissions by the same target objective as compliance option 1, that is, 40 percent below BAU instead of reducing GHG emissions to less than the de minimis or screening level.

Compliance Option 4 – this option is the same as the consistency with the greenhouse gas reduction plan component in the second tier of the initial staff proposal.

If the lead agency or project proponent cannot implement any of the compliance options in Tier 3, GHG emissions would be considered significant.

WORKING GROUP MEETING #4 (JULY 30, 2008)
Subsequent to Working Group meeting #3, SCAQMD staff received feedback on the revised staff proposal #1. Issues and concerns raised by the stakeholders on the initial

Appendix B Summaries of Working Group Meetings
B - 8 October 2008
staff proposal were addressed at the third Working Group meeting and are summarized in the following bullet points.
x Compliance with a GHG reduction plan should not be a compliance option in Tier 3, but should be its own tier, earlier in the tiering process. x There is a large disconnect between screening level and remaining emissions under the Tier 4 compliance options. For example, large projects that can reduce GHG emissions by the target objective of 40 percent would do so, which means GHG emissions would not be significant, could have substantially higher emissions than projects with GHG emissions less than the screening level.
x Compliance with a target objective should not be through offsets alone. Because of the uncertainties regarding the validity of offsets, preferred mitigation should consist of actual GHG emission reductions.
x The Tier 3 compliance option 1, GHG emissions reductions from BAU, is not the proper metric for determining significance. How can a lead agency be sure that the projected BAU emissions for a project are not artificially inflated to make it easier to achieve the required target objective?
x The Tier 3 compliance option 1, reducing GHG emission reductions from BAU, could penalize projects in environmentally progressive areas where BAU may be much lower than in other areas, thus, making it more difficult to achieve the target objectives.

Based on Working Group feedback and internal discussions, staff presented revised staff proposal #2, which further refined the previous tiered decision tree approach.

The components of revised staff proposal #2 are described in the following bullet points and shown graphically in Figure B-3. As shown in Figure B-3, some of the tier components of the revised staff proposal are similar to those in the initial staff proposal.
x Tier 1 – no change from the initial proposal.
x Tier 2 – compliance option 4 in Tier 3 has been moved back a stand-alone tier. x Tier 3 – the screening level that was previously Tier 2 has been moved to Tier 3. In response to feedback from the Working Group, the screening level has been increased to 6,500 MT/year CO2eq. The new screening level was derived using the SCAQMD’s existing NOx operational threshold as a basis. The daily NOx operational significance threshold, 55 pounds per day was annualized, which results in 10 tons of NOx per year.

Using the URBEMIS2007 model, staff initially modeled a mixed-use project that emits just under 10 tons per year to determine what the equivalent CO2 emissions would be.

Resulting CO2 emissions from the mixed use project were approximately 6,500 MT/year CO2. To further corroborate the 6,500 MT/year CO2 staff performed 19 modeling runs on a variety of projects including residential, commercial, industrial, and various combinations of land uses. In addition, since the analysis was an annual

Appendix B Summaries of Working Group Meetings
B - 9 October 2008
analysis, a weighted trip rate was derived for each land use category to obtain a more accurate estimate of trip rates throughout the week. Although the results from the 19 modeling runs were approximately 16 percent higher than staff’s original estimate of 6,500 MT/year CO2, 7,304 to 7,723 MT/year CO2, staff continued to recommend the 6,500 MT/year CO2 provides a margin of safety when deriving CO2 emissions based on the annualized NOx level of 10 tons per year and when evaluating different types of land use projects.

Projects with GHG emissions less than the screening level are considered to be small projects, that is, they would not likely be considered cumulatively considerable. However, because of the magnitude of increasing global temperatures from current and future GHG emissions, staff recommended that all projects must implement some measure or measures to contribute to reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, Tier 3 includes a requirement that all projects with GHG emissions less than the screening level must include efficiency components that reduce to a certain percentage beyond the requirements of Title 24 (Part 6, California Code of Regulations), California's energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings.
x Tier 4 Performance Standards – Tier 3 from the revised staff proposal #1 has been moved to Tier 4 and renamed.

Appendix B Summaries of Working Group Meetings
B - 10 October 2008
Figure B-3
Proposed Tiered Decision Tree Approach – July 30, 2008
Significance Determination of Cumulative Impacts from GHG Emissions:

1. Local General Plans or other local plans local plans that, at a minimum, comply with the overall target objective or the sector-based CARB Scoping Plan; have been analyzed under CEQA, and have a certified Final CEQA document; emission estimates approved by CARB or SCAQMD; include a GHG inventory; tracking mechanism; enforcement; and a commitment to remedy the excess emissions if commitments are not met.

2. Substitution for equivalent reductions allowed.

Tier 1: Applicable Exemptions, if any
Tier 4:

Performance
Standards
No Further
Action
Less Than
Significant
for GHGs
Tier 3: GHG Emissions Incremental Increase Below, or
Mitigated to Less than the Significance Screening Level (e.g., 6,500 MT/year CO2eq) and x Percent Beyond Title 24.

P R O P O S E D P R O J E C T
Significant
Option #1: Uniform Percent Emission Reduction
Target Objective (e.g., 30 percent) from BAU by
Incorporating Project Design Features and/or
Implementing Emission Reduction Measures.

Option #2: Early Implementation of Applicable
AB32 Scoping Plan Measures2.

Option #3: Achieve sector-based standard (e.g.,
pounds per person,p o unds per square foot,e tc.).

Tier 2: GHG Emissions within GHG Budgets in approved
regional plans1 (similar to consistency per existing CEQA Guidelines §§15064(h)(3), 15125(d), 15130(d) or 15152 (a)).

Tier 5: Offsets alone or in combination with the above to achieve target significance screening level. Offsets provided for 30-year project life, unless project life limited by permit, lease, or other legally binding conditions.

Appendix B Summaries of Working Group Meetings
B - 11 October 2008
Compliance Option 1 – is essentially the same as the previously recommended, except that the target objective has been changed from reducing GHG emissions 40 percent below BAU to 30 percent below BAU to be more consistent with AB 32 target objectives.

Compliance Option 2 - – no change from the previous proposal.

Compliance Option 3 – this is a new compliance option and consists of establishing sector-based performance standards. For example, it may be possible to use the 1990 inventory required under AB32 to establish an efficiency standard such as pounds per person, pounds per worker, pounds per square feet, pounds per item manufactured, etc. When calculating GHGs from a project, if they are less than the established efficiency standard the project would not be significant relative to GHG emissions, while projects exceeding the efficiency standard would be significant.

Projects that cannot comply with any of the compliance options in Tier 4 would then move on to Tier 5.
x Tier 5 – consists generally of the Tier 3 compliance option 3 from the previous staff proposal. The only difference is that the project proponent would be required to provide offsets for the life of the project, which is defined as 30 years. If the project proponent is unable to obtain sufficient offsets, incorporate design features, or implement GHG reduction mitigation measures, then GHG emissions from the project would be considered significant.

WORKING GROUP MEETING #5 (AUGUST 27, 2008)
Subsequent to Working Group meeting #3, SCAQMD staff received feedback on the revised staff proposal #2. Issues and concerns raised by the stakeholders on the initial staff proposal were addressed at the third Working Group meeting and are summarized in the following bullet points.
x A recommendation was made to modify the target objective of Tier 5 to be consistent with the target objective of Tier 4 compliance option 1, that is require emissions to be offset 30 percent from BAU rather than offset down to the screening level. x A Working Group member asked for clarification on the early implementation of applicable AB 32 Scoping Plan measures in Tier 4-Option 2. In addition, a question was asked regarding whether or not this compliance option was applicable after the requirements of AB 32 have become effective.

At Working Group meeting #5, staff presented revised staff proposal #3, which consisted primarily of minor refinements to the previous tiered decision tree approach

Appendix B Summaries of Working Group Meetings
B - 12 October 2008
in revised staff proposal #2. The components of revised staff proposal #3 are shown graphically in Figure B-4.

Aside from changing the graphic layout of the staff proposal to make it easier to understand, revised staff proposal #3 has only one minor modification. A second energy efficiency requirement has been added to the screening level in Tier 3. In addition to requiring projects to go a certain percentage beyond Title 24, projects would also have to reduce by a specified percentage electricity demand from water use, primarily electricity used for water conveyance.

Appendix B Summaries of Working Group Meetings
B - 13 October 2008
Figure B-4
Revised Staff Proposal #3 Tiered Decision Tree Approach – August 27, 2008

Exhibit D
-1-

Exhibit D
AQMD Working Group Minutes


0LQXWHVIRUWKH*+*&(4$6LJQLILFDQFH7KUHVKROG
6WDNHKROGHU:RUNLQJ*URXS
7XHVGD\6HSWHPEHU
6&$40'5RRP*%
$0±
30




 :HOFRPHDQG,QWURGXFWLRQV

'U(ODLQH&KDQJ'HSXW\([HFXWLYH2IILFHURI6&$40'¶V3ODQQLQJ5XOH'HYHORSPHQWDQG $UHD 6RXUFHV 'LYLVLRQ FDOOHG WKH PHHWLQJ WR RUGHU DW   $0 DQG DVNHG IRU VHOI
LQWURGXFWLRQVRIWKHZRUNLQJJURXSPHPEHUVDQG6&$40'VWDII'U&KDQJWKHQSUHVHQWHG DQRYHUYLHZRIWKHPHHWLQJDJHQGD

 5HYLHZRI6LJQLILFDQFH7KUHVKROG$SSURDFK

0U0LNH.UDXVH3URJUDP6XSHUYLVRURIWKH&(4$6SHFLDO3URMHFW VVHFWLRQLQ6&$40'¶V 3ODQQLQJ5XOH'HYHORSPHQWDQG $UHD6RXUFHV'LYLVLRQSURYLGHGD VXPPDU\RI6&$40' VWDII¶VSURSRVHG*+*VLJQLILFDQFHWKUHVKROGDSSURDFKVKRZQLQWKHIROORZLQJEXOOHWSRLQWV 
x 7LHU,±([HPSWLRQVHJFDWHJRULFDOVWDWXWRU\HWF x 7LHU,,±&RQVLVWHQF\ZLWKDORFDOO\DGRSWHG*+*UHGXFWLRQSODQ x 7LHU,,,±1XPHULFDO6FUHHQLQJ7KUHVKROGV
0U.UDXVHUHPLQGHGWKHJURXSWKDWRQ'HFHPEHUWKH6&$ 40'*RYHUQLQJ %RDUGDGRSWHGDQXPHULFDO*+* VLJQLILFDQFHWKUHVKROGRI 07&2H\HDUIRU LQGXVWULDOSURMHFWVZKHUHWKH6&$40'LVWKHOHDGDJHQF\6WDII LVQRZSURSRVLQJWR H[WHQGWKHLQGXVWULDO*+*VLJQLILFDQFHWKUHVKROGIRUXVHE\DOO OHDGDJHQFLHV6LPLODUO\ ZLWKUHJDUGWRQXPHULFDOUHVLG HQWLDOFRPPHUFLDO*+*VLJQLILFDQF HWKUHVKROGVDWWKH 

VWDNHKROGHUZRUNLQJJURXSPHHWLQJVWDIISUHVHQWHGWZ RRSWLRQVWKDWOHDG DJHQFLHVFRXOGFKRRVH
RSWLRQ±VHSDUDWHQXPHULFDOWKUHVKROGVIRUUHVLGHQWLDOSURMHFWV

 07&2H\HDU
 FRPPHUFLDOSURMHFWV
 07&2H\HDU
 DQG PL[HG XVH
SURMHFWV
07&2H\HDU
DQG
RSWLRQ±DVLQJOHQXPHULFD OWKUHVKROGIRUDOOQRQ LQGXVWULDOSURMHFWVRI07&2H\HDU,IDOHDGDJHQF\FKR RVHVRQHRSWLRQLWPXVW FRQVLVWHQWO\XVHWKDWVDPHRSWLRQIRUDOOSURMHFWVZKHUHLWLV OHDGDJHQF\7KHFXUUHQW VWDIISURSRVDOLVWRUHFRPPHQGWKHXVHRIRSWLRQEXWDOORZ OHDGDJHQFLHVWRFKRRVH RSWLRQLIWKH\SUHIHUWKDWDSSURDFK
x 7LHU,9±3HUIRUPDQFH6WDQGDUGV
o 2SWLRQ±3HUFHQW(PLVVLRQ5HGXFWLRQ7DUJHW
6&$40' VWDII KDV QR UHFRPPHQGDWLRQ UHJDUGLQJ WKLV DSSURDFK DW WKLV WLPH ,QVWHDGLIOHDGDJHQFLHVHQTXLUHDERXWXVLQJWKLVDSSURDFKVW DIIZRXOGUHIHUHQFH WKH*+*VLJQLILFDQFHDSSURDFKUHFRPPHQGHGE\6DQ-RDTXLQ9DOOH\ $3&'DQG GHVFULEHVRPHRIWKHFKDOOHQJHVRIXVLQJWKLVDSSURDFK o 2SWLRQ±(DUO\,PSOHPHQWDWLRQRI$SSOLFDEOH0HDVXUHV±WKLVRSWLRQKDVEHHQ IROGHGLQWRRSWLRQ
o 2SWLRQ±6HFWRUEDVHG6WDQGDUG

0LQXWHVIRUWKH*+*&(4$6LJQLILFDQFH7KUHVKROG6WDNHKROGHU:RUNLQJ*URXS0HHWLQJ 

'U (ODLQH &KDQJ SUHVHQWHG LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ WKH FXUUHQWO\ SURSRVHG 7LHU ,9 SHUIRUPDQFHVWDQGDUGV2SWLRQ KDVEHHQPRGLILHGWRLQFRUSRUD WHWKH%D\$UHD $40'¶VFRQFHSWRIHIILFLHQF\EDVHGWKUHVKROGIRUWZRWDUJHWGDW HV DQG
5HODWLYHWRWKHWDUJHWGDWHVWDIIDJUHHVZLWKWKH PHWKRGRORJ\IRU HVWDEOLVKLQJWKHHIILFLHQF\WKUHVKROGYDOXHRI07&2\UIRU SODQVEHFDXVHWKLV QXPEHULVEDVHGRQVWDWHZLGHVHUYLFHSRSXODWLRQ
63 LQ :LWKUHJDUGWRWKH
SURMHFWOHYHOHIILFLHQF\WKUHVKROG6&$40'VWDIIWRRNDVOLJKWO\ GLIIHUHQWDSSURDFK WKDQ%$$40'7RGHULYHWKHSURMHFWOHYHOHIILFLHQF\WKUHVKROGRILWDSSHDUV WKDW%$$40'WRRNWKHVWDWHZLGH*+*UHGXFWLRQWDUJHWIRUOD QGXVHRQO\


 07&2H\U
 DQG GLYLGHGLW E\ WKH WRWDO  VWDWHZLGH 63

SRSXODWLRQ SOXV HPSOR\PHQW


  

 LH


07&2H\U


  

   07&2H\U 6&$40'VWDII
EHOLHYHVWKDWLQVWHDGRIXVLQJ WRWDOVWDWHZLGHHPSOR\PHQW IRUDOOVHFWRUVWKLV DSSURDFK VKRXOG KDYH XVHG WRWDO  VWDWHZLGH HPSOR\PHQW IRU WKH ODQGXVH VHFWRUVRQO\


,I\RXXVHWRWDOVWDWHZLGHHPSOR\PHQWIRUODQGXVH VHFWRUVLQVWHDGRIWRWDOVWDWHZLGHHPSOR\PHQWIRUDOOVHFWRUVDV%$$40'GLG \RXU ORFDO SURMHFW HIILFLHQF\ WKUHVKROG EHFRPHV


 07&2H\U





 07&2H\U
5HODWLYHWRWKHWDUJHWGDWH WKLVWDUJHWGDWHZDVVHOHFWHG WREHFRQVLVWHQWZLWK WKH*+*UHGXFWLRQWDUJHWGDWHRI6%2YHUDOO*+*UHGXFWLRQ VE\WKH6% WDUJHWGDWHRIZRXOGEHDSSUR[LPDWHO\SHUFHQW7KLV SHUFHQWUHGXFWLRQ ZDVDSSOLHGWRWKHWDUJHWVUHVXOWLQJLQDQHIILFLHQF\WKU HVKROGIRUSODQVRI 07&2H\UDQGDQHIILFLHQF\WKUHVKROGDWWKHSURMHFWOHYHORI07&2H\U x 7LHU9±0LWLJDWLRQ
&(4$2IIVHWV±QRFKDQJHV
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
$FRPPHQWZDVPDGHWKDWE\HVWDEOLVKLQJD*+*VLJQLILFDQFHWKUH VKROGIRUERWKDQG DOHDGDJHQF\ZRXOGKDYHWRFRQWLQXLQJPLWLJDWLQJ*+*HPL VVLRQLPSDFWVIRU \HDUVZKLFKLVHTXLYDOHQWWRHVWDEOLVKLQJDUHDVRQDEO\DYDLODE OHFRQWUROWHFKQRORJ\ 5$&7

UXOH'U&KDQJUHVSRQGHGWKDWE\HVWDEOLVKLQJWKHHIILFLHQF\WKUHVKROGWRUHGXFH SRWHQWLDO*+*LPSDFWVWROHVVWKDQVLJQLILFDQWWKHOHDGDJHQF\ DQGSURMHFWSURSRQHQWPD\ QHHG WR ³VKDUSHQ WKHLU SHQFLOV´ WR LGHQWLI\ PLWLJDWLRQ PHDVXUHV WR UHPDLQ OHVV WKDQ VLJQLILFDQW7KHVWDIISURSRVDOLVQRWFRQVLGHUHGWREHHTXLYD OHQWWRD5$&7UXOHEHFDXVHD

0LQXWHVIRUWKH*+*&(4$6LJQLILFDQFH7KUHVKROG6WDNHKROGHU:RUNLQJ*URXS0HHWLQJ 

SURMHFWFRXOGH[FHHGWKHDQGRUHIILFLHQF\WKUHVKROG EXWVWLOOEHDSSURYHGDQG EXLOW
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
$FRPPHQWZDVPDGHWKDWWKH6&$40'¶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
$FRPPHQWZDVPDGHWKDWXVLQJ6%WDUJHWVPD\UHTXLUH*+*UHGXFWLRQVWKDWJREH\RQG ZKDWZRXOGEHUHTXLUHGLQVXVWDLQDEOHFRPPXQLW\VWUDWHJLHV 6&6V
DQGDOWHUQDWLYHSODQQLQJ
VWUDWHJLHV
$36V
)XUWKHU6%LVSULPDULO\UHODWHGWRUHG XFLQJ*+*HPLVVLRQVIURP PRELOHVRXUFHVVRHVWDEOLVKLQJHIILFLHQF\WKUHVKROGEDVHG RQO\RQ6%LJQRUHVWKH *+*HPLVVLRQHIIHFWVIURP$%
&$5%¶V6FRSLQJ3ODQ
6% UHOLHVSULPDULO\RQ
SURFHVVRULQFHQWLYHVWRUHGXFH*+*HPLVVLRQVUDWKHUWKDQPDQGDWHV6%DOVRUHOD[HV VWDWHUHTXLUHPHQWVWRXSGDWH+RXVLQJ(OHPHQWVIURPILYHWRHLJKW\HDUV&$5%¶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

VWDNHKROGHUZRUNLQJJURXSPHHWLQJ$Q\SURMHFWV
WKDWH[FHHGWKHPD[LPXP*+*OLPLWZRXOGEHFRQVLGHUHGVLJQLILFDQWHYHQWKRXJKWKH\

0LQXWHVIRUWKH*+*&(4$6LJQLILFDQFH7KUHVKROG6WDNHKROGHU:RUNLQJ*URXS0HHWLQJ 

DFKLHYHGRUDUHOHVVWKDQWKHWDUJHWHIILFLHQF\WKUHVKROG6WDIIVWDWHGWKDWWKH\ZHUHQRORQJHU LQFOXGLQJWKHPD[LPXPOLPLWLQWKHVWDIISURSRVDO
$VXJJHVWLRQZDVPDGHWKDWWKH6&$40'VKRXOGQRWPRYHIRUZDUGZ LWKWKHHIILFLHQF\ WKUHVKROGDSSURDFKEHFDXVHOHDGDJHQFLHVLQWKH%D\$UHDDUHHQ FRXQWHULQJDQXPEHURI VHULRXVLVVXHVXVLQJWKLVDSSURDFK,QDGGLWLRQEHFDXVHRIWKHZD\WKHHIILFLHQF\WKUHVKROGLV GHULYHGLWPD\LQKLELWSURSRVDOVIRUPL[HGXVHSURMHFWVUDWKHUWKDQHQFRXUDJHWKHP  2WKHU7RSLFV
1RQH
 1H[W6WHSV

$TXHVWLRQZDVDVNHGUHJDUGLQJZKHQVWDIIH[SHFWHGWREULQJWKH FXUUHQW*+*SURSRVDOVWR WKH*RYHUQLQJ%RDUGIRUFRQVLG HUDWLRQ6WDIIUHVSRQGHGWKDWWKHKRSHZDVWREULQJWKH SURSRVDOVWRWKH%RDUGE\'HFHPEHU+RZHYHUWKLVVFKHGXOHZLOOGHSHQGRQDQ\ IHHGEDFN IURP WKH ZRUNLQJ JURXS DQG QHFHVVDU\ FKDQJHV WR WKH FXUUHQW SURSRVDOV  ,Q DGGLWLRQWKHJXLGDQFHGRFXPHQWSUHSDUHGIRUWKHQXPHULFDOLQGX VWULDO*+*VLJQLILFDQFH WKUHVKROGQHHGVWREHUHYLVHGDQGXSGDWHGWRUHIOHFWWKHFXUUHQWSURSRVDOV  &ORVLQJ5HPDUNV

7KHPHHWLQJHQGHGDWDSSUR[LPDWHO\
DP7KHQH[WPHHWLQJ LVVFKHGXOHGIRU$XJXVW

LQPHHWLQJURRP*%DW
$0

 2WKHU%XVLQHVV
1RQH

0(0%(5635(6(17



*UHJ$GDPV±&LW\RI/RV$QJHOHV%XUHDXRI6DQLWDWLRQ
-DPHV$UQRQH±/DWKDP :DWNLQV
'RXJ)HUHPHQJD±6DQ%HUQDUGLQR&RXQW\/DQG8VH3ODQQLQJ'HSDUWPHQW 0LFKDHO+HQGUL[±$VVRFLDWLRQRI(QYLURQPHQWDO3URIHVVLRQDOV $(3

6KDUL/LELFNL*UHHQ'HYHORSHUV&RDOLWLRQ
RQFRQIHUHQFHFDOO

'HEELH6WHYHQV±5HILQHULHV
&LQG\7KLHOPDQ±5LYHUVLGH&RXQW\3ODQQLQJ'HSDUWPHQW
-RFHO\Q7KRPSVRQ$OVWRQ
0DWW9HVSD±&HQWHUIRU%LRORJLFDO'LYHUVLW\
&%'

RQFRQIHUHQFHFDOO

&DUOD:DOHFND±5HDOWRUV&RPPLWWHHRQ$LU4XDOLW\
5&$4

/HH:DOODFH±6HPSUD(QHUJ\8WLOLWLHV

27+(5635(6(17



/LOLD%DUNHU±/$':3
RQFRQIHUHQFHFDOO


0LQXWHVIRUWKH*+*&(4$6LJQLILFDQFH7KUHVKROG6WDNHKROGHU:RUNLQJ*URXS0HHWLQJ 

3DWULFN*ULIILWK±&RXQW\6DQLWDWLRQ'LVWULFWVRI/RV$QJHOHV&RXQW\ 0DUN+DJPDQQ±0DWUL[
RQFRQIHUHQFHFDOO

6XQJ.H\0D±5LYHUVLGH&RXQW\:DVWH0DQDJHPHQW'HSDUWPHQW 9LQFH0LUDEHOOD±0LFKDHO%UDQGPDQ$VVRFLDWHV
0ROO\3HDUVRQ±6DQWD%DUEDUD&RXQW\$3&'
RQFRQIHUHQFHFDOO

+DVHHE4XUHVKL±8UEDQ&URVVURDGV

$40'67$))35(6(17



(ODLQH&KDQJ±'HSXW\([HFXWLYH2IILFHU
6WHYH6PLWK±3URJUDP6XSHUYLVRU
'DQLHO*DUFLD±$LU4XDOLW\6SHFLDOLVW
-HII,QDELQHW±$LU4XDOLW\6SHFLDOLVW
-DPHV.RL]XPL±$LU4XDOLW\6SHFLDOLVW
0LNH.UDXVH±3URJUDP6XSHUYLVRU
*RUGRQ0L]H±$LU4XDOLW\6SHFLDOLVW
%DUEDUD5DGOHLQ±$LU4XDOLW\6SHFLDOLVW

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-0__- Page 1 of 5
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-0__

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RA

NCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE

APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW
DRC2020-00440 FOR A SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURAL

REVIEW FOR A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING
OF 259 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 2 COMMERCIAL UNITS
TOTALING 2,253 SQUARE-FEET, AND 1 LIVE/WORK UNIT
WITH 816 SQUARE FEET OF NON -RESIDENTIAL SPACE

WITHIN THE MIXED -USE URBAN CORRIDOR (MU -UCR)

DISTRICT ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FO OTHILL
BOULEVARD AND ETIWANDA AVENUE; AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF – APNS: 0229-311-14
AND -15
A. Re
citals.

1. The applicant, Wood Partners , filed an application for the approval of Design Review DRC2020-00440 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review is referred to as "the application."

2. On April 13, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Resolution No. 22-09 approving the application and making findings in support of its decision.

3. On April 20, 2022, Lozeau Drury, LLP (“Appellant”), filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision approving the application.

4. On July 20, 2022, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga opened a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal , conducted the public hearing, concluded the hearing on that date, and adopted this Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of the application and making findings in support thereof.

5. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

B. R
esolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:

1. This City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.

Attachment 5

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-0__- Page 2 of 5

2. Based upon all available evidence in the record and presented to the City Council during the above- referenced public hearing on July 20, 2022, including writ ten and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located within the City; and b. The application applies to an approximately 5.2-acre site within the Corridor 2 (CO2) designation, located on the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue; and
c. The land use, General Plan land use designation, and Zoning classification for the subject property are as follows:

d. The proposed project consists of a site plan and architectural review of a mixed- use development comprising of 259 residential units, 2 commercial units totaling 2,253 square- feet, and 1 live/work unit with 816 square feet of non- residential space; an

e. The project complies with all pertinent development standards related to building height, site coverage, front/rear setbacks , parking at th e time the application was deemed complete; and

f. The project complies with the landscaping requirements as prescribed in the Development Code at the time the application was deemed complete.

3. Based upon all available evidence in the record and presented to the City Council during the above referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the City Council hereby finds and concludes as follows:

a. The project is consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan Designation for the project site is City Corridor High, which envisions high development Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Vacant City Corridor High Corridor 2 (CO2)
North Vacant City Corridor High Corridor 2 (CO2)
South Single-Family
Residences Low Residential Low Residential – Etiwanda
Specific Plan (L-ESP)
East Single-Family
Residences Low Residential Low Residential – Etiwanda
Specific Plan (L-ESP)
West Shopping Center General
Commercial Corridor 2 (CO2)

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-0__- Page 3 of 5
intensities along Foothill Boulevard, particularly adjacent to city centers. The project proposes a total of 259 apartment units, 1 live- work unit, and 2,253 square feet of commercial space, which is consistent with the General Plan’s vision; and b. The proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The project site is within the Corridor 2 (CO2) zone , which is an area for a mix of residential and nonresidential uses of medium to high intensity, and where a vibrant pedestrian environment and transition in scale to surrounding neighbor hoods are achieved. The project provides for a proper mix of residential and commercial uses, concentrating pedestrian activity and intensity along Foothill Boulevard while transitioning building scale appropriately to the surrounding area; and

c. The propos ed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The proposed development meets all standards outlined in the Development Code at the time it was deemed complete, and the design/development standards and policies of t he Planning Commission and the City ; and

d. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The project site is vacant; the proposed land use is consistent with the General Plan’s vision for Foothill Boulevard and the expectations of the community.

4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the City Council finds that no subsequent or supplemental environmental document is required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in connection with the review and approval of this application based upon the following findings and determinations:
a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the City’s local CEQA Guidelines, the City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures, there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a signific ant effect on the environment.

Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration.

b. The City Council has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration and, based on the whole record before it, finds: (i) that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and (ii) that, based on the imposition of mitigation measures,

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-0__- Page 4 of 5
there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.

c. The City Council has also reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project that has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and finds that such Program is designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation. The City Council therefore adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project.

d. The custodian of records for the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring Program and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which City Council’s decision is based is the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the City Clerk’s Office of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2700.

5. Based upon the findings , evidence, and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, the City Council hereby denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Design Review DRC2020-00440 subject to each and every condition set forth in the Conditions of Approval attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-09.

6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 20 day of July, 2022.

__________________________________
L. Dennis Michael, Mayor
ATTEST:

__________________________________
Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-0__- Page 5 of 5

CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA )
I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a Regular Meeting of said City Council held on the 20th day of July, 2022.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

Executed this 20th day of July, 2022, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. __________________________________
Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

__________________________________
Nicholas R. Ghirelli, City Attorney
Richards, Watson & Gershon

Via E-mail and US Mail
October 1, 2021
Vincent Acuna, Associate Planner
Planning Department
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
[email protected]
Re: Comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project (DRC2020-00440)
Dear Mr. Acuna and Planning Commissioners:

I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) prepared for the proposed Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project (DRC2020-0440), including all actions related or referring to the proposed construction, use, and maintenance of a 260-unit apartment community, located at 12901-12939 Foothill Boulevard in the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“Project”).

After reviewing the IS/MND, we conclude the IS/MND fails as an informational document, and that there is a fair argument that the Project may have adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, we request that the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”) prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code (“PRC”) section 21000, et seq.

This comment has been prepared with the assistance of expert reviews by Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis “Bud” Offermann, PE, CIH, wildlife biologist Dr.

Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., and environmental consulting firm Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”). Mr. Offerman’s comment and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit A hereto and is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. Mr. Smallwood’s comment and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit B hereto and is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. SWAPE’s comment and the consultants’ curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit C hereto and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL: ITEM G1 - 7/20/2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed Project would involve the construction of a 260-unit apartment complex on 5.2 acres. Applicant is requesting to construct a mixed-use development comprising 259 residential units, 2 commercial units, and 1 live-work unit, and a Minor Exception to reduce the number of required parking stalls by 12% within the Community Commercial (CC) District. More specifically, the proposed Project would include the following elements:

● Two four-story buildings, with a maximum height of 60 feet; ● 259 apartment units, ranging from 715 square feet to 1,367 square feet; ● 1 live-work unit, consisting of two stories and 1,570 square feet; ● 3,339 square feet of commercial space (816 square feet in 1 live-work unit and 2,523 square feet of stand-alone commercial space); ● 465 parking spaces, with 265 parking spaces located in a below-grade parking garage and the remaining 200 parking spaces located on a surface parking lot on the southern and eastern portions of the Project site; ● Approximately 26 bicycle parking spaces;
● Approximately 5,500 square feet of indoor amenity space, which includes a 1,600 square-foot lobby/leasing office, a 1,400 square-foot fitness center, and a 1,400 square-foot Club Room in the west building, and a 1,500 square-foot Business Center in the east building;
● Two courtyards and a paseo, offering a pool and additional outdoor amenities;
● Landscaping surrounding both buildings;
● Sidewalks along Etiwanda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard; ● Intersection improvements at Etiwanda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard including lane modifications and restriping;
● Creation of a bus stop in front of the Project on Foothill Boulevard; and ● Undergrounding of existing Southern California Edison (SCE) overhead 12 kilovolt (kV) power lines along Etiwanda Avenue.

IS/MND, p. 1-13.

The Project site is located at 12901-12939 Foothill Boulevard in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The Project site is bound by Foothill Boulevard, a vacant lot, and condominiums to the north; Etiwanda Avenue and a shopping center to the west; and residential single-family homes to the south and east. The 5.56-acre site comprises two parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 0229-311-14 and 0229-311-15), which are currently vacant and undeveloped.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

As the California Supreme Court has held, “[i]f no EIR has been prepared for a

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR.” Communities for a Better Env’t v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt.

Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 319-320 (CBE v. SCAQMD) (citing No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 88; Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491, 504–505). “Significant environmental effect” is defined very broadly as “a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment.” Pub. Res. Code (“PRC”) § 21068; see also 14 CCR § 15382. An effect on the environment need not be “momentous” to meet the CEQA test for significance; it is enough that the impacts are “not trivial.” No Oil, Inc., 13 Cal.3d at 83. “The ‘foremost principle’ in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” Communities for a Better Env’t v. Cal. Res. Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 109 (CBE v. CRA).

The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1214 (Bakersfield Citizens); Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927. The EIR is an “environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return.” Bakersfield Citizens, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1220. The EIR also functions as a “document of accountability,” intended to “demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.” Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392. The EIR process “protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.” Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.

An EIR is required if “there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.” PRC § 21080(d); see also Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927. In very limited circumstances, an agency may avoid preparing an EIR by issuing a negative declaration, a written statement briefly indicating that a project will have no significant impact thus requiring no EIR (14 CCR § 15371), only if there is not even a “fair argument” that the project will have a significant environmental effect. PRC, §§ 21100, 21064. Since “[t]he adoption of a negative declaration . . . has a terminal effect on the environmental review process,” by allowing the agency “to dispense with the duty [to prepare an EIR],” negative declarations are allowed only in cases where “the proposed project will not affect the environment at all.” Citizens of Lake Murray v. San Diego (1989) 129 Cal.App.3d 436, 440.

However, mitigation measures may not be construed as project design elements or features in an environmental document under CEQA if such a mischaracterization is significant. See Lotus vs. Department of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 645. A “mitigation measure” is a measure designed to minimize a project’s significant environmental impacts, PRC § 21002.1(a), while a “project” is defined as including “the

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a). Unlike mitigation measures, project elements are considered prior to making a significance determination. Measures are not technically “mitigation” under CEQA unless they are incorporated to avoid or minimize “significant” impacts. PRC § 21100(b)(3).

To ensure that the project’s potential environmental impacts are fully analyzed and disclosed, and that the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures is considered in depth, mitigation measures that are not included in the project’s design should not be treated as part of the project description. Lotus, 223 Cal.App.4th at 654-55, 656 fn.8.

Mischaracterization of a mitigation measure as a project design element or feature is “significant,” and therefore amounts to a material error, “when it precludes or obfuscates required disclosure of the project’s environmental impacts and analysis of potential mitigation measures.” Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment & Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 160, 185.

Where an initial study shows that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, a mitigated negative declaration may be appropriate. However, a mitigated negative declaration is proper only if the project revisions would avoid or mitigate the potentially significant effects identified in the initial study “to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and…there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.” PRC §§ 21064.5 and 21080(c)(2); Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 331. In that context, “may” means a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment.

PRC §§ 21082.2(a), 21100, 21151(a); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927; League for Protection of Oakland’s etc. Historic Res. v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 904–05.

Under the “fair argument” standard, an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a project may have an adverse environmental effect—even if contrary evidence exists to support the agency’s decision. 14 CCR § 15064(f)(1); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 931; Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-51; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v.

City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602. The “fair argument” standard creates a “low threshold” favoring environmental review through an EIR rather than through issuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from CEQA. Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928.

The “fair argument” standard is virtually the opposite of the typical deferential standard accorded to agencies. As a leading CEQA treatise explains:

This ‘fair argument’ standard is very different from the standard normally followed by public agencies in making administrative determinations.

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

Ordinarily, public agencies weigh the evidence in the record before them and reach a decision based on a preponderance of the evidence. [Citations]. The fair argument standard, by contrast, prevents the lead agency from weighing competing evidence to determine who has a better argument concerning the likelihood or extent of a potential environmental impact. The lead agency’s decision is thus largely legal rather than factual; it does not resolve conflicts in the evidence but determines only whether substantial evidence exists in the record to support the prescribed fair argument.

Kostka & Zishcke, Practice Under CEQA, §6.29, pp. 273-274. The Courts have explained that “it is a question of law, not fact, whether a fair argument exists, and the courts owe no deference to the lead agency’s determination. Review is de novo, with a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review.” Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928 (emphasis in original).

CEQA requires that an environmental document include a description of the project’s environmental setting or “baseline.” CEQA Guidelines § 15063(d)(2). The CEQA “baseline” is the set of environmental conditions against which to compare a project’s anticipated impacts. CBE v. SCAQMD, 48 Cal.4th at 321. CEQA Guidelines section 15125(a) states, in pertinent part, that a lead agency’s environmental review under CEQA:

…must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time [environmental analysis] is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a Lead Agency determines whether an impact is significant.

See Save Our Peninsula Committee v. County of Monterey (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 124–25 (“Save Our Peninsula”). As the court of appeal has explained, “the impacts of the project must be measured against the ‘real conditions on the ground,’” and not against hypothetical permitted levels. Id. at 121-23.

III. DISCUSSION

A. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument that the Project Will Have a Significant Health Risk Impact from its Indoor Air Quality Impacts.

Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis “Bud” Offermann, PE, CIH, has conducted a review of the proposed Project and relevant documents regarding the Project’s indoor air emissions. Indoor Environmental Engineering Comments (September 24, 2021) (Exhibit A). Mr. Offermann concludes that it is likely that the Project will expose

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

residents and commercial/industrial employees of the Project to significant impacts related to indoor air quality, and in particular, emissions of the cancer-causing chemical formaldehyde. Mr. Offermann is a leading expert on indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic. Mr. Offermann’s expert comments and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit A.

Mr. Offermann explains that many composite wood products used in building materials and furnishings commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences, and hotels contain formaldehyde-based glues which off-gas formaldehyde over a very long time period. He states, “The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.” Ex. A, pp. 2-3.

Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen. Mr. Offermann states that there is a fair argument that future residents and employees of the commercial spaces will be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde of approximately 120 per million, assuming all materials are compliant with the California Air Resources Board’s formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure. Id., pp. 4-5. This exceeds the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (“SCAQMD”) CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million. Id., p. 4.

Mr. Offermann also notes that the high cancer risk that may be posed by the Project’s indoor air emissions likely will be exacerbated by the additional cancer risk that exists as a result of the Project’s location near roadways with moderate to high traffic (i.e. Foothill Boulevard, Etiwanda Avenue, Interstate 15 freeway, Auto Club Speedway, etc.) and the high levels of PM 2.5 already present in the ambient air. Id., pp. 10-12. No analysis has been conducted of the significant cumulative health impacts that will result to future employees of the Project.

Mr. Offermann concludes that these significant environmental impacts should be analyzed in an EIR and mitigation measures should be imposed to reduce the risk of formaldehyde exposure. Id., p. 5. Mr. Offermann identifies mitigation measures that are available to reduce these significant health risks, including the installation of air filters and a requirement that the applicant use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins in the buildings’ interiors. Ex. A, pp. 12-13.

The City has a duty to investigate issues relating to a project’s potential environmental impacts, especially those issues raised by an expert’s comments. See Cty. Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. Cty. of Kern, (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1597–98 (“under CEQA, the lead agency bears a burden to investigate potential environmental impacts”). In addition to assessing the Project’s potential health impacts to residents

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

and employees, Mr. Offermann identifies the investigatory path that the City should be following in developing an EIR to more precisely evaluate the Projects’ future formaldehyde emissions and establishing mitigation measures that reduce the cancer risk below the BAAQMD level. Ex. A, pp. 6-10. Such an analysis would be similar in form to the air quality modeling and traffic modeling typically conducted as part of a CEQA review.

The failure to address the Project’s formaldehyde emissions is contrary to the California Supreme Court’s decision in California Building Industry Ass’n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386 (“CBIA”). At issue in CBIA was whether the Air District could enact CEQA guidelines that advised lead agencies that they must analyze the impacts of adjacent environmental conditions on a project. The Supreme Court held that CEQA does not generally require lead agencies to consider the environment’s effects on a project. CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800-801. However, to the extent a project may exacerbate existing adverse environmental conditions at or near a project site, those would still have to be considered pursuant to CEQA. Id. at 801 (“CEQA calls upon an agency to evaluate existing conditions in order to assess whether a project could exacerbate hazards that are already present”). In so holding, the Court expressly held that CEQA’s statutory language required lead agencies to disclose and analyze “impacts on a project’s users or residents that arise from the project’s effects on the environment.” Id. at 800 (emphasis added).

The carcinogenic formaldehyde emissions identified by Mr. Offermann are not an existing environmental condition. Those emissions to the air will be from the Project.

Residents and commercial/industrial employees will be users of the Project. Currently, there is presumably little if any formaldehyde emissions at the site. Once the project is built, emissions will begin at levels that pose significant health risks. Rather than excusing the City from addressing the impacts of carcinogens emitted into the indoor air from the project, the Supreme Court in CBIA expressly finds that this type of effect by the project on the environment and a “project’s users and residents” must be addressed in the CEQA process.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning is well-grounded in CEQA’s statutory language.

CEQA expressly includes a project’s effects on human beings as an effect on the environment that must be addressed in an environmental review. “Section 21083(b)(3)’s express language, for example, requires a finding of a ‘significant effect on the environment’ (§ 21083(b)) whenever the ‘environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.’” CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800 (emphasis in original). Likewise, “the Legislature has made clear—in declarations accompanying CEQA’s enactment—that public health and safety are of great importance in the statutory scheme.” Id., citing e.g., §§ 21000, subds. (b), (c), (d), (g), 21001, subds. (b), (d). It goes without saying that the future residents and commercial/industrial employees of the Project are human beings and the health and safety of those residents and workers is as important to CEQA’s safeguards as nearby residents currently living near the project site.

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

Because Mr. Offermann’s expert review is substantial evidence of a fair argument of a significant environmental impact to future users of the Project, an EIR must be prepared to disclose and mitigate those impacts.

B. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Mitigate the Potential Adverse Impacts of the Project on Wildlife.

Wildlife biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., concludes that the Project may have significant impacts on several special status species. An EIR is required to mitigate these impacts. Dr. Smallwood’s conclusions were informed by wildlife biologist Noriko Smallwood’s site visit in September 2021. Ms. Smallwood visited the site of the proposed Project on Dr. Smallwood’s behalf for nearly 2 hours from 06:54 to 08:42 hours on September 4, 2021. Dr. Smallwood’s expert comments and curriculum vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit B.

i. The wildlife baseline relied upon by the IS/MND is woefully inadequate.

Wildlife biologist Dr. Smallwood’s review of the impacts to wildlife from the Project concluded that the Project may have significant impacts on several special- status species. An EIR is required to analyze these impacts.

According to the IS/MND and Biological Resources Assessment (“BRA”), at least 49 special-status plant species and 52 special-status wildlife species have been documented within the Guasti and surrounding eight quadrangles. IS/MND, p. 4-14. A California Natural Diversity Database (“CNDDB”) search also yielded four special-status species with occurrences that overlapped with the biological survey area (“BSA”) used for the Project, which includes the entire Project site plus a surrounding 500-foot buffer.

These special status species included the coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminates abdominalis), Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus), and Parry’s spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi). Id. While no special-status plant or wildlife species were observed within the BSA during the reconnaissance field survey for the Project site, “marginal habitat” for two special-status wildlife species, the Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) and western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus), were identified during the database review is present in the biological survey area. Id. However, as Dr.

Smallwood points out, the IS/MND fails to adequately address and mitigate Project impacts to special-status species.

The IS/MND’s baseline for biological impacts is inadequate, incomplete, and understates the biological values at the Project site for several reasons. See Ex. B, pp. 6-7. First, the IS/MND improperly relies on a single reconnaissance field survey that was insufficient and conducted using minimal effort at the most inappropriate time of the day. According to the IS/MND and BRA, a reconnaissance field survey was conducted by AECOM (2021) on September 24, 2020. See IS/MND, App. B, pp. 5-6. A botanist

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

visited the site for 90 minutes in the middle of the afternoon (14:00 to 15:30 hours), at a time when, as Dr. Smallwood points out, wildlife was least likely to be detected. Ex. B, p. 5 (citing IS/MND, App. B, p. 6). In fact, temperatures were reportedly 96° to 99° F, which Dr. Smallwood explains is “too hot for a wildlife survey.” Id., p. 5 (citing IS/MND, App. B, p. 6). The IS/MND reports that “no special-status plant or wildlife species were observed within the biological survey area during the reconnaissance field survey.” IS/MND, p. 4-14. However, Dr. Smallwood notes that “this report follows from a survey of insufficient effort at the most inappropriate time of day,” and as a result, “there should be no surprise that special-status species were undetected.” Ex. B, p. 5. Because the IS/MND fails to report which, if any, species of wildlife were detected by the botanist, Dr.

Smallwood finds this lack of reporting suggests that “the botanist likely saw no wildlife in the heat of the middle of the afternoon.” Id. Consequently, whether the BRA is substantial evidence is not apparent from the face of the document or the IS/MND.

Second, the IS/MND misuses the CNDDB. Ex. B, p. 6. When discussing that the CNDDB search yielded four special-status species—i.e. coast horned lizard, Delhi Sands flower-loving fly, Los Angeles pocket mouse, and Parry’s spineflower—with occurrences that overlapped the BSA, the IS/MND states that “the CNDDB records of these four species had non-specific locations which were not mapped precisely to the locations where the species were observed and each individual observation is a square mile or greater in size; so it is not known whether the observation was actually made precisely within the biological survey area.” IS/MND, p. 4-14. However, this statement is flawed. As Dr. Smallwood explains, “CNDDB records are mapped accurately, but exact locations are often not shared publicly as a means to protect the species.” Ex. B, p. 6.

According to Dr. Smallwood:

CNDDB records are intended to indicate the likelihood of occurrence of a special-status species in the project area, but not the species’ exact locations. Nor is CNDDB intended to support determinations of species’ absence, as the IS/MND implies. CNDDB is intended to flag the occurrences of species in the area, not to provide an exact accounting of where the species is located at the moment.

Id. Additionally, the IS/MND further misrepresents CNDDB by implying that the older records are dismissible. See id. The IS/MND states that “...CNDDB records that overlap with the biological survey area are 19 years old or more and since that time, the area has been developed substantially. As a result, it is possible many locations no longer exist. Current site conditions do not provide suitable habitat for these species and none are known to occur or expected to occur within the Project site or vicinity.” IS/MND, p. 4-

14. Dr. Smallwood explains that this statement is a misrepresentation of CNDDB because:

CNDDB does not imply that species are static, or that locations where they were mapped previously are the only locations where the species would be found later. Wildlife populations are spatially dynamic, shifting

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

centers of activity every generation or so (Taylor and Taylor 1979), so it would be inappropriate of CNDDB to assert that locations of past occupancy should still be locations of current occupancy. For this reason, users of CNDDB typically determine whether CNDDB records exist within a 5-mile radius of a proposed project. Occurrences within 5 miles serve as indicators that the species could also occur at the project site, and if so, then protocol-level detection surveys should be performed.

Ex. B, p. 6. Given the paucity of the coast horned lizard, Delhi Sands flower-loving fly, Los Angeles pocket mouse, and Parry’s spineflower in San Bernardino County, the Project’s baseline should be informed by protocol level surveys that can determine the presence or absence of these species at the Project site.

Third, the surveys conducted for the Project do not provide substantial evidence of the presence or absence of special-status species that are known in the vicinity. The IS/MND asserts that “the BSA generally does not provide suitable habitat for special- status wildlife species.” IS/MND, p. 4-14. Dr. Smallwood states that “[t]his assertion, however, lacks evidence in the form of detection survey results.” Ex. B, p. 6. According to Dr. Smallwood, detection surveys are designed by species’ experts to provide “the best chance for detecting the targeted species by applying the methods and survey effort most likely to detect the species if it is indeed present.” Id. Here, the botanist that was charged with surveying the Project site for 90 minutes in the middle of the hot afternoon failed “to come anywhere close to having performed a detection survey for any species of wildlife.” Id. As a result, neither the IS/MND nor the BRA was justified in asserting that the Project site lacks special-status species of wildlife. Hence, Dr.

Smallwood recommends that detection surveys should be performed, and subsequently assessed and reported in an EIR. Id., p. 22.

Furthermore, due to the absence of detection surveys, the IS/MND only speculates that habitat is marginal and occurrence likelihoods low. Ex. B, pp. 6-7. Dr.

Smallwood states that the “IS/MND repeatedly speculates that for this or that species, anthropogenic disturbances prevent their occurrences,” such as the IS/MND exemplifying one such disturbance as routine mowing of the site. Ex. B, p. 6 (citing IS/MND, pp. 4-14–4-15). However, as Dr. Smallwood points out, “[t]he IS/MND offers no evidence in defense of its premise that routine mowing precludes special-status species of wildlife.” Id., pp. 6-7. As evidence, Dr. Smallwood calls attention to the IS/MND’s failure “to identify the Crotch bumble bee host plants that allegedly occur in low density,” as well as “make the case that the host plants in question are the only plants useable by Crotch bumble bee.” Id., p. 7 (citing IS/MND, p. 4-14). Such failures indicate that the IS/MND “relies on generalities rather than specifics, and on speculation rather than evidence.” Id. Additionally, the IS/MND suggests that special-status species, such as the western yellow bat, were killed off by house cats, driven away by traffic noise, and inhibited by the low supply of insect prey. IS/MND, p. 4-15; Ex. B, p. 7. But as Dr.

Smallwood notes, “[n]one of these suggestions are backed by evidence, and no effort has been made to actually look for special-status species on the site.” Ex. B, p. 7. Dr.

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

Smallwood refers to the IS/MND’s discussion of the Crotch bumble bee as a prime example:

In the case of the Crotch bumble bee, the IS/MND reports, “No bumble bee species were observed during the field survey.” (There is only one species of Crotch bumble bee.) This reporting ignores the fact that Crotch bumble bees are unlikely to be out and about in the middle of the afternoon when temperatures range 96° to 99° F, as was reportedly the conditions during the one survey performed – a survey performed not by a wildlife ecologist or an entomologist, but by a botanist. The report of having not detected Crotch bumble bee was a meaningless report, and serves only to misrepresent how wildlife ecologists determine whether a species is present or likely absent from a site.

Id., p. 7. As a result, the conclusion that the Project will not significantly impact the Crutch bumble bee and western yellow bat is not supported by substantial evidence and a fair argument exists that the Project may have significant impacts on the special- status species. Dr. Smallwood recommends that detection surveys for multiple special- status species of wildlife be implemented to inform an EIR. Id., pp. 6, 22. Only with an accurate baseline could the IS/MND purport to assess the impacts on these special- status species.

Fourth, in addition to these inadequate survey methods and unidentified baselines, the IS/MND and its BRA understate the range of animal species that are likely present on the Project site. While the IS/MND’s BRA determines occurrence likelihood to be low for the western yellow bat and Crotch bumble bee, its determinations for all other species is unreported. IS/MND, App. B, pp. 8-9. The BRA refers the reader to Appendix D for determination of all species to be considered, but Appendix D is empty on the copy of the BRA report downloaded from City of Rancho Cucamonga’s website. See id., p. 8 & Appendix D. Contrary to the IS/MND and BRA reports, Dr. Smallwood’s review of eBird and iNaturalist identified no less than 60 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife and the Crotch bumble bee as having been seen very close to the project site, seen nearby, seen within the region, or whose geographic range overlaps the project site. Ex. B, pp. 7, 8-10 (Table 2) (listing species that Dr. Smallwood considers potentially occurring on the project site at one time or another or periodically).

Ms. Smallwood also detected 24 species of vertebrate wildlife during her 108- minute site visit on September 4, 2021. See Ex. B, p. 3 (Table 1) (listing species of wildlife Noriko Smallwood observed from 06:54 to 08:42 hours on 4 September 2021 at the proposed Project site). She saw Cooper’s hawk and American kestrel (Photos 2 and 3, p. 3), California scrub-jays and American crows (Photos 4 and 5, p. 4), Say’s phoebe and a great blue heron (Photos 6 and 7, p. 4), and side-blotched lizard and California ground squirrel (Photos 8 and 9, p. 5), among other species. Id., pp. 2-5. Based on Ms.

Smallwood’s observations, Dr. Smallwood writes:

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

[Ms. Smallwood’s] survey outcome indicates that the site of the proposed project continues to serve as valuable habitat to at least 24 species of vertebrate wildlife, and it likely serves as habitat to many more species. It also holds the potential to produce many new birds, mammals and reptiles for years to come. A fair argument can be made for the need to more rigorously survey the site for wildlife, and for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze potential project impacts to wildlife

Id., p. 2. Furthermore, Dr. Smallwood points out the significance of Ms. Smallwood’s observance of California ground squirrels on the adjacent property across the street from the Project site. Dr. Smallwood states:

Ms. Smallwood’s detection of California ground squirrels on the open field across the street indicates that ground squirrels likely also occur on the project site. The occurrence of ground squirrels in the project area is significant because many special-status species are found in association with ground squirrels and their burrow complexes. Ground squirrels are prey of large raptors such as bald eagle, golden eagle, ferruginous hawk and Swainson’s hawk. Ground squirrels are also prey of terrestrial carnivores such as American badger, which specialize on ground squirrels. Ground squirrels also construct subterranean habitat used by many species such as burrowing owl. The occurrence of ground squirrel warrants detection surveys for multiple special-status species that associate with this species.

Id., p. 5. Moreover, “[b]ecause ground squirrels occur in the project area,” Dr.

Smallwood also recommends that “breeding-season burrowing owl surveys need to be implemented (CDFW 2012),” but only “implemented prior to the circulation of an EIR to more appropriately address potential impacts to burrowing owls and mitigation of those impacts.” Id. p. 22. Thus, given the close proximity of these special-status species, the IS/MND fails as a matter of law to analyze the impacts to these species and their habitat.

In conclusion, the IS/MND’s failure to adequately evaluate the significance of the impacts to special-status species of wildlife violates CEQA. Thus, the Project requires an EIR to properly mitigate wildlife impacts of the Project.

ii. The IS/MND fails to address the Project’s potential significant impact on loss of breeding capacity.

Neither the IS/MND nor the BRA assess the lost breeding capacity of birds that would result from the Project. See Ex. B, pp. 7, 11. In so doing, the IS/MND fails to analyze the impact of habitat loss, or the loss of productive capacity on bird species likely to nest on the ground and in trees within the BSA. Id., p. 7. While habitat loss

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

results in the immediate numerical decline of birds and other animals, it also results in a permanent loss of productive capacity. Id. Dr. Smallwood cites a recent study that documented a “29% decline in overall bird abundance across North America over the last 48 years,” a decline which he says was “driven by multiple factors, but principally attributed to habitat loss and habitat fragmentation.” Id. (citing Rosenberg et al. 2019).

Here, the IS/MND and BRA identify only mourning dove as a bird species likely to nest on the ground, and only house finch, northern mockingbird, and California scrub- jay as species likely to nest in trees in the area. IS/MND, p. 4-15; IS/MND, App. B, p. 9.

In reality, however, Dr. Smallwood reports that “many more species of birds are capable of nesting on and around the project site,” especially since a lot of bird species are considered ground-nesters. Ex. B, p. 7. Dr. Smallwood cites two studies that show bird nesting densities that were between 32.8 and 35.8 bird nests per acre, for an average of

34.3 bird nests per acre. Id. (citing Young (1948) and Yahner (1982), respectively).

Assuming nesting density at the Project site is a fifth of the 34.3 average reported, then

6.8 bird nests per acre multiplied by the Project’s 5.2 acres of habit, Dr. Smallwood predicts that 35 bird nests produce new birds at the site annually. Id., p. 11. Based on an average of 2.9 fledglings per nest, the Project would prevent the production of 102 new birds per year. Id. (citing Young (1948)). Based on Dr. Smallwood’s calculations, “[a]fter 100 years and further assuming an average bird generation time of 5 years, the lost capacity of both breeders and annual fledgling production would total 11,600 birds.” Id. (emphasis added).

The potential loss of 11,600 birds in California over the first century following construction of this Project easily qualifies as a significant and substantial impact that has not been analyzed. An EIR is required to fully analyze the Project’s impact on lost breeding capacity, and to mitigate that impact. Dr. Smallwood recommends, at a minimum, substantial compensatory mitigation is needed in response to the Project’s impacts from habitat loss, including impacts to birds and bats using the site as stop-over or staging during migration. Ex. B, p. 22.

iii. The IS/MND fails to address the Project’s potential cumulative impacts on habitat fragmentation.

The IS/MND does not assess the likelihood of cumulative impacts on wildlife, especially from habitat fragmentation in the vicinity. Ex. B, p. 11. In addition to habit loss, habitat fragmentation, known as the reduction of connectivity of remaining habitat patches on a landscape, can also further diminish the productive capacity of the Project site. Id. (citing Smallwood 2015). Habitat fragmentation has progressed rapidly around the Project site, which has led to a diminishing number of patches of open space in the area. Id. As a result, each of these patches of open space, including the Project’s 5.2 acres, “is increasingly critical to the continued existence of many wildlife species.” Id.

Because a fair argument exists that developing a currently undeveloped site that is likely suitable habitat for many species of wildlife will further fragment wildlife habitat in this area, there is a fair argument that the Project may contribute to habitat

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

fragmentation. Thus, habitat fragmentation is a cumulative effect of this Project that should be analyzed in an EIR, and mitigated accordingly. See Ex. B, p. 22.

iv. The IS/MND fails to address the Project’s potential significant impacts on wildlife movement.

The IS/MND fails to address impacts to wildlife movement, and instead looks for impacts to a wildlife corridor. See IS/MND, pp. 4-16–4-17; Ex. B, p. 11. In doing so, the IS/MND improperly dismisses the Project’s potential to significantly impact wildlife movement reasoning that the BSA “occurs within an industrial center of the Los Angeles Basin and does not occur within a recognized/established regional wildlife corridor or wildlife nursery site,” and “as a result, direct impacts to a regional wildlife movement corridor would not occur.” IS/MND, App. B, pp. 10-11; Ex. B, p. 11.

These conclusions rely on a false CEQA standard. Ex. B, p. 11. As Dr.

Smallwood states, “[t]he primary phrase of the CEQA standard goes to wildlife movement regardless of whether the movement is channeled by a corridor.” Id.; see also CEQA Guidelines, App. G, pp. 333-34 (stating that the CEQA significance threshold is whether, among other things, a project will “[i]nterfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species….”). Impacts to wildlife movement may occur with or without the presence of a wildlife corridor. Ex. B, p.

11. Dr. Smallwood writes:

A site such as the proposed project site is critically important for wildlife movement because it composes one of the last of a diminishing suite of open space patches within a growing expanse of anthropogenic uses, forcing more species of birds to use the site for stopover and staging during migration, dispersal, and home range patrol (Warnock 2010, Taylor et al. 2011, Runge et al. 2014).

Id., p. 11. Hence, the Project “would cut birds and bats off from stopover, roosting and staging opportunities, forcing them to travel even farther between remaining stopover areas along migration routes.” Id. Because the Project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region, Dr. Smallwood agrees that an EIR needs to be prepared to address the Project’s impacts on wildlife movement in the region.

Moreover, the Project site is located within the Pacific Flyway, which is one of four major North American migration routes for birds. While migratory birds travel the flyway on their annual north-south migration, they stopover at areas with suitable habitat and food supplies. As the IS/MND’s BRA notes, many birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (“MBTA”) and California Fish and Game Code (“CFGC”) §§ 3503–3503.5 “are likely to use the BSA for breeding, migratory stopovers, and local dispersal.” IS/MND, App. B, p. 9 (emphasis added). However, no analysis of any direct impacts to wildlife movement, including birds’ stop-over habitat, is included in the IS/MND and its appendix.

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

Lastly, the IS/MND and BRA acknowledge that construction from the Project would have indirect impacts on wildlife movement, stating that the Project’s “construction activities (i.e., increased noise, human presence, vibration) would likely result in wildlife avoidance of the area during the construction time frame.” Id. at 11-12 (emphasis added). Such indirect and direct impacts could significantly affect wildlife movement, and should be addressed in an EIR and mitigated accordingly. Dr.

Smallwood recommends, at a minimum, substantial compensatory mitigation is needed in response to the Project’s impacts from interference with wildlife movement, including impacts to birds and bats using the site as stop-over or staging during migration. Ex. B, p. 22.

v. The IS/MND fails to address the Project’s potential significant impacts on wildlife by window collisions.

Dr. Smallwood’s report concludes that the Project will have significant impact on birds as a result of window collisions. See Ex. B, pp. 12-18. But neither the IS/MND nor the BRA express any concern about bird-window collision impacts, nor do they propose any mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for such impacts to special- status species of bird. Id., p. 12. Analyzing the potential impact on wildlife due to window collisions is especially important because “[w]indow collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or human-caused bird mortality.” Id.

According to Dr. Smallwood, the Project’s buildings, at 60 feet tall, would extend into much of the bird traffic observed by Ms. Smallwood at the Project site on September 4, 2021. Id. The IS/MND’s rendering of the project shows façades composed of extensive structural glass, which Dr. Smallwood notes, “would introduce substantial collision hazards to an aerosphere that currently provides critically important habitat to birds, and which would act as lethal traps to flying birds.” Id. Moreover, hundreds of thousands of birds migrate along the Pacific Flyaway, and Ms. Smallwood’s observations at the time of her site visit further confirmed that birds fly through the Project’s airspace, even during the nonmigratory season. Id. Based on Dr. Smallwood’s review, at least 47 special-status species of bird are known to the Project area, see id. pp. 8-10 (Table 2), most of which “have been documented as window collision fatalities and are therefore susceptible to new structural glass installations.” Id., p. 12 (citing Supplemental Material to Basilio et al. 2020; Smallwood unpublished review).

Dr. Smallwood reviewed a number of studies in order to calculate the number of bird collisions that would occur annually as a result of the Project. Ex. B, p. 13.

According to his calculations, each m2 of glass would result in an average of 0.073 bird deaths per year. Id. Dr. Smallwood then looked at the building design for the Project and estimated the Project would include at least 3,196 m2 of glass on its façades.

Based on the estimated 3,196 m2 of glass on its façades and the 0.073 bird deaths per year, Dr. Smallwood estimates that the Project would result in at least 234 bird deaths

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

per year. Id. Even more significant is the 100-year toll from this average annual fatality rate, which would be at least 23,363 bird deaths. Id. As Dr. Smallwood correctly points out, “[i]f the project moves forward as proposed, and annually kills 234 birds protected by state and federal laws, then the project would cause significant unmitigated impacts.” Id.

Considering the list of bird-window collision factors that Dr. Smallwood stressed should be used to formulate a bird-safe plan for the proposed Project, Ex. B, pp. 13-17, 22-23, he has suggested a number of mitigation measures. Id., pp. 17-18. As a starting point, before construction, [a]ny new project should be informed by preconstruction surveys of daytime and nocturnal flight activity.” Id., p. 17. Dr. Smallwood explains:

[Preconstruction] surveys can reveal the one or more façades facing the prevailing approach direction of birds, and these revelations can help prioritize where certain types of mitigation can be targeted. It is critical to formulate effective measures prior to construction, because post- construction options will be limited, likely more expensive, and probably less effective.

Id., p. 17. However, with regard to most of the known or suspected collision risk factors that Dr. Smallwood lists, he warns that “the proposed project’s design remains insufficiently described to determine the degree to which the project would contribute to relative collision risk.” Id. Therefore, Dr. Smallwood suggests the following:

Focused study of birds in the area could reduce the uncertainty of potential project impacts. Such studies could make use of radar (Gauthreaux et al. 2008) or visual scan surveys (Smallwood 2017). Key information useful for impacts assessment and mitigation would include intensity and timing of bird traffic, heights above ground, travel trajectories, and specific behaviors of birds in flight.

Id. Dr. Smallwood also notes the importance of post-construction fatality monitoring, which he says “should be an essential feature of any new building project.” Id.

In addition, for mitigation measures involving the siting and design of the Project, Dr. Smallwood suggests: (1) retrofitting to reduce impacts by marking windows, managing outdoor landscape vegetation, managing indoor landscape vegetation, and managing nocturnal lighting; (2) siting and designing to minimize impacts by deciding on location of structure, deciding on façade and orientation, selecting type and sizes of windows, designing to minimize transparency through two parallel façades, designing to minimize views of interior plants, and landscaping to increase distances between windows and trees and shrubs; and (3) monitoring for adaptive management to reduce impacts by systematic monitoring for fatalities to identify seasonal and spatial patterns, and adjusting light management, window marking, and other measures as needed. Ex.

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

B, pp. 17-18. Dr. Smallwood also recommends that the use of compensatory mitigation be incorporated at any new building project. Id., p. 23.

Thus, because many birds can be expected to be killed by windows of the Proposed project, a fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to adequately address and mitigate this potential impact.

vi. The IS/MND fails to address the Project’s potential significant impacts on wildlife from additional traffic generated by the Project.

Dr. Smallwood identifies the serious impacts that increased traffic has on wildlife.

Ex. B, pp. 18-20. Analyzing the potential impact on wildlife due to vehicle collisions is especially important because “traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife,” across North America. Id., p. 18 (citing Forman et al. 2003). In the United States alone, estimates for “avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year.” Id. (citing Loss et al. 2014). As Dr. Smallwood explains:

Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of reptile, amphibian, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003).

Increased use of existing roads will increase wildlife fatalities (see Figure 7 in Kobylarz 2001). It is possible that project-related traffic impacts will far exceed the impacts of land conversion to residential use for a warehouse.

Id., pp. 18-19. Furthermore, a recent study conducted on traffic-caused wildlife mortality found “1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of searches along a 2.5 mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California.” Id., p. 18 (citing Mendelsohn et al. 2009). Hence, as Dr. Smallwood points out, an analysis is needed to determine whether increased traffic generated by the Project would result in impacts to local wildlife. Id., p. 19.

The IS/MND anticipates that the proposed Project would generate an average of 16,382 daily miles traveled, which translates to 5,979,430 annual vehicle miles traveled.

IS/MND, pp. 4-9, 4-23; Ex. B, p. 18. The additional 16,382 daily miles traveled that is expected from the Project will undoubtedly result in collisions with wildlife. Ex. B, p. 19.

As Dr. Smallwood explains, this additional 16,382 daily miles driven as a result of the Project is “a lot of mileage to be driven at great peril to wildlife that must cross roads to go about their business of foraging, patrolling home ranges, dispersing and migrating.” Id. (citing Photos 10 and 11, Ex. B, pp. 19-20). However, “[d]espite the obvious risk to wildlife, and despite the multiple papers and books written about this type of impact and how to mitigate them, the IS/MND does not address impacts to wildlife caused by vehicles traveling to and from the Project site.” Ex. B, p. 19.

Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021

To predict the road mortality of wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and crushing under tires, Dr. Smallwood analyzed the data from the study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality in Contra Costa County. Id., p. 20 (citing Mendelsohn et al. 2009). By inputting estimates of vehicle miles per wildlife fatalities calculated using the Contra Costa County study, i.e. 1,825 vehicle miles per fatality, Dr. Smallwood predicts:

Based on the daily VMT predicted by the IS/MND, the project would generate 5,979,430 vehicle miles per year, which divided by the 1,825 miles per fatality, would predict 3,276 wildlife fatalities per year.

Operations over 50 years would accumulate 163,820 wildlife fatalities.

Ex. B, p. 20. Based on Dr. Smallwood’s assumptions and calculations, the traffic generated by the Project would cause substantial, significant impacts to wildlife. Id. Dr.

Smallwood also notes that “mitigation measures to improve wildlife safety along roads are available and are feasible,” and therefore, “need exploration for their suitability with the proposed project.” Id. Specifically, Dr. Smallwood suggests compensatory mitigation in the form of “funding research to identify fatality patterns and effective impact reduction measures,” and “donations to wildlife rehabilitation facilities.” Id., p. 23.

Moreover, wildlife that will be run over by the Project’s additional traffic may include special-status species of wildlife such as the coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii) and Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus).

Although these two special-status species were not observed on the Project site during the reconnaissance field survey or Ms. Smallwood’s site visit, the CNDDB search yielded occurrences for both the coast horned lizard and Los Angeles pocket mouse that overlapped with the Project’s biological survey area. IS/MND, p. 4-14. Regardless of whether these special-status species appear on the Project site, they do cross roads over which traffic from the Project will travel.

The IS/MND fails to recognize at all this potential significant impact of the Project.

Because a fair argument exists that the Project may have a significant impact on wildlife in the vicinity, an EIR must be prepared to assess this impact and identify appropriate mitigation.

vii. The IS/MND fails to adequately address the Project’s potential cumulative impacts on wildlife.

The IS/MND fails to adequately analyze the cumulative impacts to wildlife from the Project by improperly implying that cumulative impacts are in reality only residual impacts as a result of incomplete mitigation from project-level impacts. Ex. B, p. 21. For example, the IS/MND states: