CARLSBAD
CLOVIS
IRVINE
LOS ANGELES
PALM SPRINGS
POINT RICHMOND
RIVERSIDE
ROSEVILLE
SAN LUIS OBISPO
2565 Alluvial Avenue, Suite 112, Clovis, California 93611 559.490.1210 www.lsa.net
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 8, 2024
TO: Peter Vanek, Riverview Project Owner, LLC
FROM: Jessica Coria, Associate
SUBJECT: Riverview Development Project Response to Advocates for the Environment
LSA has reviewed comments submitted by Advocates for the Environment on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the proposed Riverview Development Project (proposed project) prepared by the City of Santa Clarita (City) and dated October 2024. LSA prepared the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum (AQ/GHG Memo) and Health Risk Assessment (HRA) for the proposed project, dated August 2024. The findings from the AQ/GHG Memo and HRA were used as the basis for the findings in the Draft IS/MND.
Responses to Advocates for the Environment’s comments are provided below.
COMMENTER’S SUMMARY OF PROJECT INFORMATION IN THE DRAFT IS/MND The commenter provided an introduction and description of the proposed project, including the project location and proposed uses.
This comment is noted. Given that this comment does not raise any specific issues regarding the Draft IS/MND or the analysis contained therein, no further response is necessary.
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT IS/MND
Comment: The City Should Require the Project to Reach a Net-Zero Emissions Threshold The commenter asserts that the City should require the project to have a greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions threshold of “net-zero” emissions. The commenter states that emissions from buildings form a large portion of the GHG emissions inventory in California and that it is easier for new buildings to be designed to be net-zero emissions than be retrofitted to reduce emissions in the future. The commenter suggests that the City choose net-zero as a GHG significance threshold for the proposed project. The commenter further states that the 2017 and 2022 California Air Resources Board (CARB) Scoping Plan reaffirms the necessity of a net-zero target and that CARB encourages a net-zero threshold in its strategies for local actions in Appendix D to the 2022 Scoping Plan.
10/8/24 (\\aznasunifiler2\projects\20241582 Riverview Development Project\PRODUCTS\RTC\RTC Advocates Letter\Riverview RTC_Advocates Letter.docx) 2 While State goals and GHG emission reduction targets for future years support the State reaching carbon neutrality by 2045, as codified in Assembly Bill (AB) 1279, there is no requirement for individual projects to be net-zero. The proposed project was analyzed for consistency with the goals and policies included in the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan (see the Draft IS/MND, page 53, and the LSA AQ/GHG Memo, pages 24–27).
As detailed in the AQ/GHG Memo prepared for the proposed project (pages 24–27), the proposed project would be consistent with the key project attributes from Appendix D of the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan that would support the State in reaching its carbon neutrality goals, including:
providing electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure that meets the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) standards; is located on an infill site that is surrounded by existing urban uses and reuses or redevelops previously undeveloped or underutilized land that is presently served by existing utilities and essential public services (e.g., transit, streets, water, sewer); does not result in the loss or conversion of natural and working lands; consists of transit-supportive densities (minimum of 20 residential dwelling units per acre), is in proximity to existing transit stops (within
0.5 mile), or satisfies more detailed and stringent criteria specified in the region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS); includes more than 20 percent of units that are affordable units and would result in no net loss of existing affordable units; and, with PDF-AQ-1 and PDF-GHG-1, would be all-electric.
As such, and as concluded in the Draft IS/MND, the proposed project would be consistent with the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan and with State goals and policies for GHG emission reductions, including State goals related to achieving carbon neutrality by 2045.
Comment: The IS/MND Should Include an Expanded Analysis of the Proposed Project’s Consistency with Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans
The commenter asserts that the IS/MND for the proposed project should include additional discussion of the proposed project’s consistency with plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, and that the rationale for the plans that the proposed project was analyzed for was not included in the IS/MND. As included in the AQ/GHG Memo prepared for the proposed project, the proposed project was analyzed for consistency with the Santa Clarita Climate Action Plan, along with the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/SCS. The GHG emissions for the proposed project are estimated and disclosed for informational purposes, consistent with the disclosure goals of CEQA.
As discussed under the Greenhouse Gas Threshold section of the AQ/GHG Memo, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 recommends that lead agencies quantify GHG emissions of projects and consider several other factors that may be used in the determination of significance of GHG emissions from a project, including the extent to which a project may increase or reduce GHG emissions; whether a project exceeds an applicable significance threshold; and the extent to which a project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. The State CEQA Guidelines do not establish a threshold of significance.
Rather, lead agencies, such as the City, have the discretion to establish significance thresholds for their respective jurisdictions. In establishing those thresholds, the lead agency may appropriately
10/8/24 (\\aznasunifiler2\projects\20241582 Riverview Development Project\PRODUCTS\RTC\RTC Advocates Letter\Riverview RTC_Advocates Letter.docx) 3 look to thresholds developed by other public agencies or suggested by other experts, as long as any threshold chosen is supported by substantial evidence (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7[c]).
In October 2008, the SCAQMD released a Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold that suggested a tiered approach to analyzing GHG emissions in a project-level analysis. In the Draft Guidance Document, the SCAQMD provided numerical thresholds that can be applied to projects. The draft interim CEQA thresholds guidance document was not adopted or approved by the Governing Board.
Additionally, a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative impact can be found not cumulatively considerable if the project would comply with an approved plan or mitigation program that provides specific requirements that would avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem in the geographic area of the project. To qualify, such plans or programs must be specified in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources through a public review process to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by the public agency. Therefore, a lead agency can make a finding of less than significant for GHG emissions if a project complies with adopted programs, plans, policies, and/or other regulatory strategies to reduce GHG emissions. A project would be considered consistent with applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions if a qualitative analysis demonstrates that the project meets the general intent in reducing GHG emissions in order to facilitate the achievement of local- and State-adopted goals and does not impede attainment of those goals.
The City of Santa Clarita Climate Action Plan (CAP), published in August 2012, meets the requirements for a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy and is designed to streamline environmental review of future development projects in Santa Clarita, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). However, the CAP only analyzes emissions through the 2020 horizon year, and does not include an assessment of emissions inventory and reductions necessary to meet the State’s long-term GHG emissions goals, including the 2045 carbon neutrality goal established in AB 1279.
Therefore, in the absence of any adopted numeric threshold or local Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy, the significance of the proposed project was determined based on compliance with the 2022 Scoping Plan and the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS. To determine the project’s consistency with GHG reduction plans, under criterion b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the project was also evaluated for compliance with the City’s CAP. Additionally, consistent with Section 15064.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines, GHG emissions resulting from construction and operation of the project were quantitatively estimated for informational purposes only.
As demonstrated in the AQ/GHG Memo, the proposed project would be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan, the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS, and the City’s CAP. As such, the proposed project would comply with existing State regulations adopted to achieve the overall GHG emissions reduction goals identified in the 2022 Scoping Plan, Executive Order (EO) B-30-15, and AB 197, and would be consistent with applicable State, regional, and local plans and programs designed to reduce GHG emissions. Therefore, consistent with the findings included in the IS/MND, the proposed project would not generate substantial GHG emissions and would not conflict with applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
10/8/24 (\\aznasunifiler2\projects\20241582 Riverview Development Project\PRODUCTS\RTC\RTC Advocates Letter\Riverview RTC_Advocates Letter.docx) 4 Comment: The IS/MND Should Include an Analysis of the Proposed Project’s Consistency with Senate Bill 375
The commenter asserts that the IS/MND fails to demonstrate how the project would adhere to or support the strategies included in Senate Bill (SB) 375, and states that conclusions regarding consistency with SB 375 or long-term GHG reduction goals that rely on the City’s General Plan are misleading, due to the General Plan’s reliance on “outdated legislation,” referring to AB 32.
SB 375, also known as the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, aims to reduce GHG emissions from passenger vehicles. The legislation directs CARB to establish regional targets for reducing GHG emissions and for these targets to be achieved via the regional transportation planning process. The proposed project was analyzed for consistency with the SCAG RTP/SCS, which is the region’s transportation plan that details how the Southern California region will meet applicable GHG emission reduction goals set by CARB for the area, consistent with the requirements of SB 375. As shown in the AQ/GHG Memo for the proposed project (see pages 27– 28), the proposed project would not interfere with SCAG’s ability to achieve the region’s GHG reduction target of 19 percent below 2005 per-capita emissions levels by 2035. Furthermore, the proposed project is not regionally significant per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15206; as such, it would not conflict with the SCAG RTP/SCS targets since those targets were established based on established land use planning and are applicable on a regional level.
Furthermore, as described on page 28 of the AQ/GHG Memo, the project supports the strategies in the SCAG RTP/SCS because the project site is located adjacent to the Santa Clarita Metrolink Station.
The SCAG RTP/SCS classifies the project site as a High-Quality Transit Area and Transit Priority Area because of its proximity to the Metrolink Station. Planning for more housing and jobs near transit has been a strategy incorporated in SCAG’s RTP/SCS. As such, based on the nature of the proposed project, it is anticipated that implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with SCAG’s ability to implement the regional strategies outlined in the RTP/SCS. Therefore, the proposed project would also not conflict with SB 375. No further analysis is necessary.
Comment: The Proposed Project would be inconsistent with the Goals of the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan
The commenter asserts that the proposed project would be inconsistent with the goals of the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan, which the commenter details was developed to help California meet the goals of SB 32. The commenter states that the proposed project’s per-service population emissions would overshoot the State’s 2050 per-capita emission targets, as included in the 2017 Scoping Plan. The commenter states that this would mean the proposed project would have a significant and unavoidable impact as it would be inconsistent with the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan.
As detailed in the AQ/GHG Memo prepared for the proposed project (pages 24–27) and summarized in earlier responses to comments, the proposed project would be consistent with the goals and policies included in the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan. The 2022 Scoping Plan builds on the 2017 Scoping Plan to assess the State’s progress toward meeting SB 32 reduction targets and lays out a path to the State achieving carbon neutrality by 2045. The 2017 Scoping Plan was sunset by the development of the updated 2022 Scoping Plan. As the proposed project would be consistent with
10/8/24 (\\aznasunifiler2\projects\20241582 Riverview Development Project\PRODUCTS\RTC\RTC Advocates Letter\Riverview RTC_Advocates Letter.docx) 5 the 2022 Scoping Plan and associated legislation related to GHG emission reductions, including SB 32 and AB 1279, as further discussed in the AQ/GHG Memo (page 25), the proposed project would be consistent with State goals and policies related to GHG emission reductions, and no further analysis is required.
Comment: The City Should Have Drafted an EIR and Should Require Feasible Mitigation The commenter states that the City should have prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed project and required mitigation to a “fair share” level of significance. The commenter goes on to detail mitigation measures that they propose should be required for the proposed project. As detailed in earlier comments, the preparation of an IS/MND is an appropriate document for the proposed project, as the proposed project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts under any topical areas under CEQA, including GHG emissions.
It should be noted that the proposed project includes several sustainability measures (including EV charging [44 spaces] and water conservation and energy efficiency measures consistent with the requirements of CALGreen) and would be an all-electric development. The proposed project is also consistent with the City’s CAP.
As the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to GHG emission reductions, as detailed in the preceding comments and in the AQ/GHG Memo, there is no nexus for the implementation of any mitigation measures under CEQA. The preparation of an EIR is not required, and no further analysis is necessary.
CONCLUSION
This comment restates and summarizes the comments detailed in the body of the letter and asks that Advocates for the Environment be added to the list of interested parties to receive updates about the progress of the potential project approval.
This comment is noted. LSA has prepared responses to the comments contained in the letter. No further response is necessary.