Af60A62440 — Santee City Council, September 14, 2022 (part 2 of 4)

Before the EIR’s Project Description was changed to assert that the Project would rely on the “Essential Housing Project” designation, the Project originally included a proposed Specific Plan, Development Agreement, and a proposed General Plan Amendment to “increase the units on the site up to 2,949 with a school, or 3,008 without a school.” Final EIR at p. 4.10-30; see also p. 3-85 (proposing to “[a]mend the General Plan to allow 2,949 units on the project site.”). Even after City staff designated the Project an “Essential Housing Project” on December 27, 2021, the Project still proposes between 2,949 and 3,008 new housing units on the 2,636 acre site; the difference is that the proposed Project no longer purports to require any legislative approvals, including a General Plan Amendment.

However, but for the Project’s “Essential Housing Project” designation, the Project would include a General Plan Amendment. According to the Final EIR, “The proposed project does not include a golf course or lake, meet minimum lot size requirements, provide a dedicated Sports Park accessed by Carlton Hills Boulevard, or include a Development Agreement.” Final EIR at p. 4.10-21. Each of these criteria is set forth in the City’s General Plan as a mandatory condition of the development of the project site. See City of Santee General Plan, Land Use Element, pp. 1-29 through 1-31, available at https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/7191/636336569667170000 (last accessed September 13, 2022).

Under black letter law, an ordinance cannot require that a Project that is patently inconsistent with the general plan be “deemed” consistent with that plan. “The general plan has been aptly described as the ‘constitution for all future developments’ within the city or county,” and thus “‘[t]he propriety of virtually any local decision affecting land use and development depends upon consistency with the applicable general plan and its elements.’” Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 570- 71 (citations omitted). “[T]he keystone of regional planning is consistency—between the general plan, its internal elements, subordinate ordinances, and all derivative land use decisions.” Id. at 572. “Th[is] consistency doctrine [is] the linchpin of California’s land use and development laws; it is the principle which infuses the concept of planned growth with the force of law.” Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County v. County of El Dorado (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1336. Thus, zoning ordinances (Gov’t Code § 65860(a)), development agreements (§ 65867.5(b)), subdivision maps (§ 65567), and all other subordinate plans (§ 65359) all must be consistent with the general plan.

The City’s claim that the Ordinance “controls any other City plan or ordinance in the event of a conflict,” including the General Plan (Final EIR at p. 4.10-21), is simply wrong. The Court’s reasoning in Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek is City Clerk, Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Santee
September 14, 2022

Page 3 ends

instructive. The Court held that a challenged traffic control initiative could not be considered an amendment to the city’s general plan because the ballot measure available to the public had not described it as such: “We cannot at once accept the function of a general plan as a ‘constitution,’ or perhaps more accurately a charter for future development, and the proposition that it can be amended without notice to the electorate that such amendment is the purpose of an initiative.” (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 540. Thus, under Lesher, a zoning ordinance cannot result in a “pro tanto repeal or implied amendment of the general plan.” Id. at 541. Further, “[a] zoning ordinance that conflicts with a general plan is invalid at the time it is passed.” Id. at 544. See also Orange Citizens for Parks & Recreation v. Superior Ct. (2016) 2 Cal.5th 141, 153.

Even if the City could somehow argue that the Ordinance was intended to amend the general plan, by adopting the Ordinance pursuant to the urgency ordinance statute, the City concedes that it did not follow the procedural steps under state law for adopting general plan amendments. For example, “[d]uring the preparation or amendment of the general plan, the planning agency shall provide opportunities for the involvement of citizens, California Native American Indian tribes, public agencies, public utility companies, and civic, education, and other community groups, through public hearings and any other means the planning agency deems appropriate.” Gov’t Code § 65351. A legislative body must refer its proposal to a number of listed public entities before adopting or amending a general plan. § 65352. Planning commissions must hold at least one public hearing and make a written recommendation to the legislative body; legislators must hold at least one public hearing before acting on the recommendation. §§ 65353- 65356; see also § 65354.5. See Orange Citizens, 2 Cal.5th at 152–53. This statutory process would be meaningless if the City could simply declare by urgency ordinance that its “real” General Plan is not the plan the City actually circulated and approved, but instead includes other policies or procedures never presented to the public as part of that Plan.

In stark contrast, in the area of local planning, the Court has emphasized that voter action—here, Measure N—is the “most direct form” of community input on a general plan. DeVita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 786. DeVita’s protection of the public’s right to “direct” participation in land use planning furthers the “major impetus” underlying the initiative and referendum power: “to enable the people of this state, on the local level and statewide, to reclaim the legislative power from the influence of what in contemporary parlance is called the ‘special interests.’” Id. at 795. To effectively reclaim City Clerk, Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Santee
September 14, 2022

Page 4 ends

this power, the voters’ rights must be “greater than that of the [legislative body],” giving the people “the final legislative word.” Rossi v. Brown (1995) 9 Cal.4th 688, 704.

The City also cannot argue that “Essential Housing Projects” are “exempt” from the popular vote requirement under Policy 12.4 of Measure N. The City claims to have made findings pursuant to that Policy that the Ordinance is “necessary to comply with state law governing the provisions of housing, including but not limited to, Government Code sections 65583 and 65584, and additional affordable housing requirements.” Yet by its own terms, Policy 12.4 applies only to proposed general plan amendments, not to ordinances. Thus, the Ordinance as a matter of law could not qualify for Measure N’s exemption from the public vote requirement for certain “general plan amendments.” Nor could the City assert (which it has not done here) that the Project itself qualifies under Policy 12.4, since the EIR states that “the proposed project does not propose a General Plan Amendment.”
For the foregoing reasons, the Ordinance is illegal and invalid. Relying on the Ordinance to approve the Project would violate the state planning and zoning law and controlling California Supreme Court precedent. See Travis v. County of Santa Cruz (2004) 33 Cal.4th 757, 767 (construing facial challenge to ordinance as also validly challenging the ordinance’s application to a specific property). Because the Project necessarily includes a general plan amendment, Measure N requires a public vote on the Project before it can proceed.

Very truly yours,

SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP
Joseph “Seph” Petta
cc: [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
1564295.1
From: Stephen Houlahan
To: Chris Jacobs
Subject: Fanita FREIR RTC Comments
Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 3:52:46 PM
Attachments: Fanita Ranch EIR Rebuttal 7-13-2022.docx
Mr. Jacobs and City Council,
In rebut of the comments made regarding my letter dates July 12, 2022; Harris and Associates fails to adequately respond to the issues.

Comment I36-1 fails to address the issues raised in my letter stating, “a home might be built in what is currently designated as a high fire hazard severity zone due to potential exposure to high flame lengths and ember generation but may actually be low risk of ignition…” this is absolutely false. As evidenced by the recent Border Fire “in east San Diego County that so far burned more than 4,400 acres, destroyed three homes and left two people critically burned” (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-09-01/san-diego-countys-4-200-acre-brushfire-just-5-percent-contained-with-1) and Fairview Fire “ A deadly wildfire that prompted evacuations south of Hemet… the fire resulted in two civilian fatalities and one civilian injury.

Officials added that seven buildings were destroyed and several more were damaged” (https://nbcpalmsprings.com/2022/09/07/brush-fire-kills-two-people-engulfs-structures-inhemet/). These fires erupted rapidly, burned thousands of acres of land in a short period of time, resulted in many structures being destroyed, and the loss of life of the human beings that lived nearby. A fire in the Fanita Ranch proposed development would result in far greater damage to property and greater loss of life than these two fires combined.

Comment I36-2 fails to address the issues raised in my letter stating, “… phased/surgical evacuation practice has been implemented with great success”, this is not practical and is simply dangerous when considering the Fanita Ranch Property has no exit route to the north, east, or west. The Border Fire was situated allowing evacuations to the east and west (https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2022/8/31/border-32/) while the Fairview Fire allowed evacuations to the north, south, east, and west
(https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2022/9/5/fairview-fire/) both fires resulting in mortality and morbidity. Approval of this proposal would indicate to the future unknowing residents that they have safe options for escape in the instance of a Santa Anna wind driven fire; when in fact the City of Santee would be asking them to harbor in place risking their lives and the lives of their families.

Comment I36-3 fails to address the issues raised in my letter stating, “Evacuations are thereby able to occur more safely and efficiently”, this is an oversimplification of this issue.

Evacuations are dangerous under the best of circumstances and the opposite of efficient. The safe and efficient evacuation of the Border Fire resulted in, “injuring six people… and hundreds of displaced residents…” (https://www.kpbs.org/news/publicsafety/2022/09/05/border-32-fire-near-tecate-now-90-contained) and safe and efficient evacuation of the Fairview Fire “… burning 28,307 acres, causing two deaths and destroying 17 structures.” (Fairview Fire near Hemet could be fully contained Monday) These fires occurred in the last couple of weeks “HERE” in areas similar to Fanita Ranch, with multiple

Mr. Jacobs and City Council,
In rebut of the comments made regarding my letter dates July 12, 2022; Harris and Associates fails to adequately respond to the issues.

Comment I36-3 fails to address the issues raised in my letter stating, “Evacuations are thereby able to occur more safely and efficiently”, this is an oversimplification of this issue. Evacuations are dangerous under the best of circumstances and the opposite of efficient. The safe and efficient evacuation of the Border Fire resulted in, “injuring six people… and hundreds of displaced residents…” (https://www.kpbs.org/news/public-safety/2022/09/05/border-32-firenear-tecate-now-90-contained) and safe and efficient evacuation of the Fairview Fire “… burning 28,307 acres, causing two deaths and destroying 17 structures.” (https://abc7.com/fairview-fire-riverside-county-hemet-wildfire-tropical-storm-kay/12222839/) These fires occurred in the last couple of weeks “HERE” in areas similar to Fanita Ranch, with multiple evacuations routes, with all of the science stated in this inadequate Environmental Impact Report. The Fanita Ranch Project must be rejected to save lives.

Stephen Houlahan
From: Steve Splettstoesser
To: Dustin Trotter; John Minto; Ronn Hall; Laura Koval; Rob McNelis; Chris Jacobs Subject: Fanita Ranch
Date: Saturday, September 10, 2022 8:13:27 AM
Dear City Council and Mr. Jacobs,
Please respect the will of Santee resident voters. Residents rejected Fanita Ranch sprawl in a landslide referendum vote in 1999. In 2020, residents voted to protect the Santee General Plan from inconsistent sprawl developments like Fanita Ranch. In March 2022, the court ruled against Fanita Ranch for the 4th time, once again aligning with the will of voters.

Campaign contributions should not be able to buy amendments to Santee’s General Plan or exempt developers from the democratic will of Santee voters.

The people of Santee passed Measure N to assure Santee residents make the final decision at the ballot on Fanita Ranch and any other projects that violate the Santee General Plan.

City maneuvers attempting to prevent a vote of the people on the Fanita Ranch project are unethical, anti-democracy and anti-American. Please re-notice the Revised Environmental Impact Report to recognize the legal authority of Santee residents.

Placing a 3,000-unit project with significant traffic impacts into a Cal Fire identified severe fire hazard zone is a significant risk to new residents and to existing residents that must use the same routes for evacuation. The development application should be abandoned and the land permanently conserved through the Department of Defense military base buffer program (REPI).

Thank you
Steve Spletts
Sent from my iPhone

From: Susan
To: Dustin Trotter; John Minto; Ronn Hall; Laura Koval; Rob McNelis; Chris Jacobs Subject: Fanita Ranch
Date: Sunday, September 11, 2022 2:59:24 PM
Dear City Council and Mr. Jacobs,
Please respect the will of Santee resident voters. Residents rejected Fanita Ranch sprawl in a landslide referendum vote in 1999. In 2020, residents voted to protect the Santee General Plan from inconsistent sprawl developments like Fanita Ranch. In March 2022, the court ruled against Fanita Ranch for the 4th time, once again aligning with the will of voters.

Campaign contributions should not be able to buy amendments to Santee’s General Plan or exempt developers from the democratic will of Santee voters.

The people of Santee passed Measure N to assure Santee residents make the final decision at the ballot on Fanita Ranch and any other projects that violate the Santee General Plan.

Thank you

From: M E
To: Chris Jacobs; Dustin Trotter; Laura Koval; John Minto; Rob McNelis; Ronn Hall Subject: Fanita Ranch, Item 8 - Disapprove!
Date: Wednesday, September 14, 2022 9:09:49 AM
Attachments: Tangled Plot Santee City Council.pdf
September 14, 2022
Via Email 8:45 a.m.

Dear Mr. Jacobs and City Council,
The people of Santee passed Measure N and qualified a referendum to assure Santee residents make the final decision at the ballot on Fanita Ranch.

Constituents' lawful, proactive, democratic, engagement in this matter has stood the test of time over decades. Please see this link and/or attachment: https://obrag.org/2020/09/santeecity-councils-tangled-plot-to-build-fanita-ranch/ For me, there is the sordid, firsthand awareness and witnessing of appearance of conflict-ofinterest by those that have and will further profit from this recklessly, greedy project. I ask again here (as I once did at a council meeting and received no response in the public forum) for basic disclosure: Have seated council members (or any city staff) accepted funding, and/or, any favors/benefits from the developers and associated interests in this project? The people of Santee deserve full disclosure on this question. It is as fundamental as protecting our population from raging wildfire because--public servants that conceal any conflicts-of-interest, yet do not recuse from voting, but seek or acquiesce to workarounds (favoring the project applicant) that disenfranchises/quashes Santee constituents' voices and ballot-box power— burns our community and our democracy's principles, beyond recognition. I have no doubt that this matter will continue to rise in awareness, here in Santee and our region, and scrutiny of it will too.

It behooves you at the Sept 14, 2022 city council meeting to address the above question of conflict-of-interest (COI) or even appearance of COI and let the people assess whether there is reason for concern, with respect to Fanita Ranch. Again, for me, the foundation of good-faith in business is primary and is one of the council's duties of care. As our council members, but also as our neighbors first—just as I hope all Santee-ans care for one another as community— integrity, honesty, justice and ethics are cornerstones of a strong city and will bring sufficient community-supported tax revenue projects/businesses. Thus far, the decades of battling with Santee-ans while perpetuating the "tangled plot" (including failing to publicly disclose COI) heavily drains Santee resources and damages community morale. You can change that. Santee can thrive, by your rejecting this project and signaling to all developers/businesses that fair/good business practice is Santee City Hall's first oath/duty to taxpaying constituents and voters. Please, correct course and vote No.

Item 8 approval of Fanita Ranch with the illegal exclusion of a public vote on the Fanita Ranch project is unethical, anti-democracy and anti-American. I strongly urge you to vote against it.

The development application should be abandoned and the land permanently conserved through the Department of Defense military base buffer program (REPI). This is the win/win to go for!
Sincerely,
Theresa McCarthy
Santee
Say Keep it goin' to the OB Rag with your donation today! Secure Donations through PayPal
OB Rag
Grassroots and Progressive views on local, national and world news Home
About
Comment Policy
Archives
OB Rag Staff Box
Contact
Letters
1st Rag
Vol. 1, No. 7, Dec. 1970
Vol. 1 No. 13 – late April 1971
Vol. 1 No. 14, May-June 1971
Vol. 1, No. 16 – late June – early July 1971
Vol. 1, No. 17, July 1971
Vol. 2, No. 5, January 1972
Vol. 2, No. 8, March 1972
Vol. 7, No. 2, Oct. 2002
Vol. 7, No. 3, May 2003
Links
Columns
Sex in San Diego
The Widder Curry
Under the Perfect Sun
Ocean Beach
Ask an OB Convert
Hitchikers' Guide to OB
OB Flashes!
OB Heroes
OB Time Machine
Popular
SD Free Press
Santee City Council’s Tangled Plot To Build Fanita Ranch by Source on September 21, 2020 · 9 comments
in Environment, San Diego
By Colleen Cochran
Over the past few decades, natural open spaces within 20 miles of the San Diego County coast have been largely devoured by development. The city of Santee’s majestic northern Fanita Hills, a 2,600-acre region, has remained intact, although it has been under a land-use siege throughout this Santee City Council’s Tangled Plot To Build Fanita Ranch https://obrag.org/2020/09/santee-city-councils-tangled-plot-to-build-fani... 1 of 10 9/14/2022, 7:09 AM
period. Santee’s city council seats, which hold the authority to control the destiny of Fanita Hills, have been magnets for building industry contributions, and the windfall of political dollars has created sharp division between Santee residents and their elected officials on the question of whether to develop or conserve the region.

While Santee City Council members might have enabled citizens to weigh in on potential building projects, most of them deviously plotted to squash citizens’ participation. Their goal, in particular, has been to prevent citizens from attaining the power to oppose Fanita Ranch, a massive 3,000-unit housing development slated to be built in the Fanita Hills. The development will encompass an area a quarter of the size of existent Santee. Only Councilman Stephen Houlahan has not worked to quell citizens’ voices. In fact, he sponsored an initiative that would grant them a say in Santee’s development processes.

On September 23, 2020, the majority of Santee City Council members will likely vote to approve an amendment to the city’s general plan that will enable Fanita Ranch to be built, despite the fact that many of their citizens oppose the project. Approval of Fanita Ranch will prove disastrous not only for Santee but for all of San Diego County. Construction of the behemoth development will annihilate endangered species, ravage the environment, create a deadly fire trap, ensnarl traffic within Santee and on its connected highways, and it will forever deplete the tenor and quality of life throughout San Diego County.

In hopes of wooing citizens, HomeFed Corporation, the developer, has touted the project’s flaccid benefits. Namely, the company has claimed it will, out of sheer benevolence, tack on improvements to Highway 52, it will set up the city for receipt of future tax revenue, and as it cheerily noted on its Facebook page, it will provide a “town green” that will be “the perfect spot to grab a cup of coffee or a bite to eat.” The company that plans to add 8,000 residents, 15 percent of Santee’s present population, to the virgin Fanita Hills, asserts environmental stewardship has been at the forefront of its considerations. To prove it, Jeff O’Connor, HomeFed Vice President of Community Development, has been handing out bottled waters to bikers and hikers on the Stowe Trail and reminding them that if Fanita Ranch is not built, the company has every right to close off the section of trail that crosses into HomeFed’s property.

Few Santee residents have been swayed by HomeFed’s arguments. They have raised their voices at city council meetings, they submitted numerous opposition letters, and many of them posted “More Houses More Traffic” signs on their front lawns. In addition to Santee residents, environmentalists, fire experts, and citizens throughout the county have added their voices in opposition to the development project.

Santee Residents Have Been Fighting Fanita Ranch Development Projects for Decades Residents of Santee have been fighting, and defeating, proposed Fanita Ranch construction projects for nearly three decades.

In 1999, they stopped a 2,988-unit project through a referendum sponsored by the local environmental organization Preserve Wild Santee. Twothirds of the electorate voted against that project. In 2007, after a 1,395-unit project had been proposed and the city council had certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Preserve Wild Santee and others brought suit against the project applicant Barratt American and the city. The California Superior Court ruled against the project on fire safety issues. When the EIR was revised, the San Diego Superior Court again struck down the council’s certification based on fire safety issues. The city and a new developer appealed. The California Court of Appeal confirmed the Superior Court ruling on fire safety, and it determined the project EIR was also deficient on biological resource and water supply issues.

The real estate crash and recession of 2008 changed the political landscape as the courts considered the case against Barratt American. This homebuilder was highly leveraged to the point of bankruptcy and it soon became a willing seller. Environmentalists then initiated the process of acquiring Fanita Ranch so as to retain it as open space linking Mission Trails Regional Park to Sycamore Canyon. Funding was to come from public conservation sources and the U.S. Department of Defense. The Department of Defense would cover 50 percent of acquisition costs through its REPI “Buffer Program,” a program available to protect the open space surrounding the western boundary of the 20,000-acre Marine Corps Air Station Miramar from encroachment.

The city of Santee, however, effectively vetoed the environmentalists’ acquisition, which left Barratt American bankrupt and all of its lien holders, including Santee, which had outstanding liens against Barratt American totaling over $1 million, wiped out in a foreclosure auction. In 2011, through the auction process, noteholder Westbrook cleaned the title of the liens. Westbrook had offered the land to environmentalists for $20 million, but it offered the land to fellow developer HomeFed Corporation at a discounted rate. HomeFed acquired the 2,600-acre Fanita Hills region for about $12 million.

Santee City Council’s Tangled Plot To Build Fanita Ranch https://obrag.org/2020/09/santee-city-councils-tangled-plot-to-build-fani... 2 of 10 9/14/2022, 7:09 AM
HomeFed’s Formula for Hooking the Santee City Council
The citizens’ history of opposition to decimation of their northern hills might have dissuaded HomeFed from the purchase, had the company not held confidence in its ability to cultivate a cozy relationship with the Santee City Council. To maintain that relationship and to ensure a steady team of allies, HomeFed, and other developers and Political Action Committees (PACs) related to the building industry, funded the campaigns of city council candidates. In short, they purchased amendments to the Santee General Plan.

Santee code does not permit PACs to contribute directly to candidates. A research team of Santee citizens recently charted a money laundering web that shows how some political contributions went directly from developers to city council member committee accounts. More contributions went through a number of PAC accounts before benefiting council member campaigns. Only Councilman Stephen Houlahan has not accepted developer funding.

The research teams’ web chart shows, for instance, that in 2018, the Building Industry Association of San Diego gave $20,000 to the San Diego County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association. That same year, the Deputy Sheriffs’ Association directly spent $2,000 to elect incumbent Councilman Ronn Hall and spent over $2,000 on the elections of incumbent Councilman Rob McNelis and the winner of an open seat race, Laura Koval. In 2020, HomeFed’s Jeff O’Connor made several contributions to Santee City Council candidate Dustin Trotter, a candidate whose opposition, Samm Hurst, has refused developer contributions.

PAC organizations have funded other PACs. For instance, the Building Industry Association directly funded Public Safety Advocates. It funded, as well, the Deputy Sheriffs’ Association, which, in turn, funded Public Safety Advocates. Public Safety Advocates is the organization that was outed for creating deceptive campaign slate mailers directed toward voters on each side of Santee’s partisan aisle. These campaign materials sufficiently veiled candidates’ pro-developer positions so that many Santee voters were tricked into believing the candidates supported their interests.

Some contributions to PACs cannot, without investigation by an enforcement authority, be proven to have directly flowed from developers, but the contributions certainly smell fishy. For instance, the Deputy Sheriffs’ Association has, without disclosure of funding sources, unitemized receipts amounting to over $700,000 since June of 2016.

Interestingly, HomeFed has had nothing to say about the fact that council members who were likely to vote to amend the general plan to allow for Fanita Ranch were the very same ones who had been accepting developer campaign dollars. The company did, however, find it egregious that Councilman Houlahan might vote “no” on the amendment. The company asserted that because he rejected developer contributions and was outspoken in his support for the idea that citizens should be entitled to vote on whether Fanita Ranch is built, he must have planned to vote “no” on the construction project ahead of having reviewed the project documents. Based on this speculation, HomeFed looked into how it could legally exclude Houlahan from voting.

Throttling the Citizens’ Vote on Fanita Ranch
Citizens’ best plan for protecting their city from Fanita Ranch sprawl was initiated months after HomeFed submitted its application to build the gargantuan development. Van Collinsworth, Director of Preserve Wild Santee, and Councilman Houlahan sponsored a Santee General Plan Protection Initiative that would require a citizen vote if the Santee City Council amended the general plan to allow for larger development projects outside that plan’s stated zoning parameters.

The citizens quickly gathered enough signatures to get the protection initiative on the 2018 ballot. The city council could have then outright adopted the initiative or it could have put the measure on the 2018 ballot, which would have likely resulted in a citizen majority voting “yes” on the initiative. Instead, the city council, under the guise of needing to study the initiative issue more, avoided the constituents’ request, and in the meantime, it processed HomeFed’s application to build Fanita Ranch.

Said Van Collinsworth who attended the city council meeting in which the study was determined to be the best plan of action, “These people try to portray themselves as being fiscally conservative, but during that hearing there wasn’t even a word mentioned about the cost of the study. There was no question they were going to move that thing off the ballot by having a study, no matter what it cost.” The council hired London Moeder Advisors for $40,000, a firm which unsurprisingly determined that Fanita Ranch was necessary to the economic health of Santee. The real estate advisors made this decision, despite the fact that the city of Santee, under current zoning guidelines, already has an annual recurring surplus of $3.76 million. It also concluded that Santee will likely have a shortage of 1,820 residential units by 2050, and of course, building Fanita Ranch would be best way to prevent that future occurrence.

HomeFed, commenting after London Moeder’s economic impact report was released, stated, “If the initiative is passed, it will be much more difficult to amend the city’s general plan to address shifts in the economy or meet the community’s pressing needs.” In other words, only the developers’ bedfellows on the city council, and not the citizens themselves, could be trusted to make decisions for Santee.

The study proved to be the perfect stall tactic causing the general plan protection initiative, Measure N, to be moved to the November of 2020 ballot. HomeFed consultants then worked feverishly with city staff in an attempt to bullet proof a Revised Environmental Impact Report for the Fanita Ranch project so that Santee City Council members could approve the general plan amendment prior to the citizens’ November vote.

Santee City Council’s Tangled Plot To Build Fanita Ranch https://obrag.org/2020/09/santee-city-councils-tangled-plot-to-build-fani... 3 of 10 9/14/2022, 7:09 AM

Thanks for the old fashioned work!
Reply
MJ Campbell September 23, 2020 at 12:07 pm
Dear Colleen,
Your article was disturbing and revealing, confirming what I have observed through several past decades to be the slow, oozing destruction of Santee’s unique appeal. As a city we have progressed, somewhat, as evidenced by the increasing diversity of inhabitants, while maintaining an enviable low crime rate and a responsive emergency/fire service. While parks and recreation services offer many opportunities for leisure involvement, I can not comprehend the lack of a modern library. Historically, the staff has struggled to maintain a remarkable library presence in Santee. I feel betrayed by the Santee government that supports developers who are starry eyed with greed, and who are romancers with myths of a progressive golden city of million dollar houses and “affordable” (NOT!) housing density. The vision that looms in my eyes is a city that is becoming like most others, sacrificing what is desirable and precious about Santee for the many inevitable consequences of urban sprawl. Is there anything that this voter can do to stem the tide of unwise and greedy overdevelopment in Santee, and the plots to circumvent voters? I predict a future bamboozling! “Do More > Due East”, indeed. The suggested inspiration of this motto is to keep on going eastward. I appreciate your patience while listening to my sad story.

Reply
Wayne Morton September 24, 2020 at 8:54 am
Same group of people who complain about no housing don’t want anything built. All those years you loved the open spaces at someone else’s detriment. You were trespassers on others property. Why didn’t you invite the hikers over to your property? Reply
Mary Bellson September 24, 2020 at 9:18 pm
I sometimes wish that the people opposed to the Fanita development would offer solutions other than “no”, “can’t happen”, “impossible”… so many false dichotomies. So many countries in Europe have embraced advanced technologies in community development while leading the fight against climate change. Why can’t we do that in East County? Reply
Robert Germann April 21, 2022 at 1:41 pm
Hi, I have a solution for housing in Santee and it is line with other communities in Europe and the US. Move the General Aviation airport at Gillespie Field. Then build a nice, planned community on the 300 or so acres with great access to everything in East County.

Reply
Frank Gormlie September 25, 2020 at 11:43 am
As Colleen predicted, the Santee City Council voted 4-1 in favor of the Fanita Ranch project, late Wednesday evening.

Reply
TeTe October 17, 2020 at 9:48 pm
Excellent journalism that serves the public interest. As volunteers work hard all over Santee, HomeFed seemingly with consequence or reproach from the shameless council-of-4 has been subverting and aggressively interfering with democracy.

No doubt, a second installment on this unfolding, hot local story, would make a huge difference and reverberate in San Diego and perhaps beyond in this make/break-America election period.

It would be quite interesting to learn more about the young, ethnically diverse, aggressive crew that HomeFed admitted during this week’s city council meeting, that they have employed and who are on 7-day, all-day shifts, scouting out and stalking volunteers gathering referendum petition signatures of Santee voters with sly and deceitful methods/tactics to remove petition signatures from the referendum petitions. Today, one crew re-imaged their store-front worker as a petition-gatherer to “Help! firefighters” and their usual yellow/black signage was nowhere to be seen; while at another store-front location five yellow/black signage Homefed paid scabs were present where a Santee City Council’s Tangled Plot To Build Fanita Ranch https://obrag.org/2020/09/santee-city-councils-tangled-plot-to-build-fani... 5 of 10 9/14/2022, 7:09 AM

Search
Recent Comments
kh September 14, 2022 at 12:25 am on Will Avalanche of Questions Stall Gloria’s Steamrolling of Midway Rising? In an alternate universe: “To avoid any possible impropriety relating to significant direct and indirect donations to my mayoral campaign from one of the applicants,...

Vern September 13, 2022 at 8:04 pm on Will Avalanche of Questions Stall Gloria’s Steamrolling of Midway Rising? San Diego - always & forever, "Enron By The Sea".

Frank Gormlie September 13, 2022 at 8:02 pm on Will Avalanche of Questions Stall Gloria’s Steamrolling of Midway Rising? City council voted 7 to 1 in favor of Midway Rising.
zonjon September 13, 2022 at 6:39 pm on Will Avalanche of Questions Stall Gloria’s Steamrolling of Midway Rising? How the heck is this allowed to go forward? Where's the outrage? Why does San Diego always go with the cheapest/lamest choices instead of dreaming...
kh September 13, 2022 at 5:21 pm on San Diego City Council Votes Today on Flawed ‘Midway Rising’ Deal The Citizen's United decision is unfortunate and harmful, but regrettably seems justified and legal to me. The problem isn't exactly the money in politics, but...
kh September 13, 2022 at 5:14 pm on Ocean Beach Planning Board Approves City’s Concept Design for New Library If the biggest priority is to get it done quickly and on budget, design-build is certainly my preference. But I'd say design-bid-build is more likely...

Geoff Page September 13, 2022 at 4:23 pm on Ocean Beach Planning Board Approves City’s Concept Design for New Library Well, that doesn't match my experience, the contractor and the designer are a firm and work together under one contract with the owner. It's a...

No design, just build September 13, 2022 at 2:47 pm on Ocean Beach Planning Board Approves City’s Concept Design for New Library
In typical design build contracts the Prime is the general contractor and the architects and engineers are working for the general contractor. GCs are incentivized...

Mat Wahlstrom September 13, 2022 at 12:37 pm on San Diego City Council Votes Today on Flawed ‘Midway Rising’ Deal Since I mention the Citizens United decision, here's the petition to the U.S. Senate to overturn it and pass the DISCLOSE Act, https://act.commoncause.org/petitions/fight-back-against-big-moneys-influence-overturn-citizens-united-and-pass-the-disclose-act/ Mat Wahlstrom September 13, 2022 at 12:17 pm on Will Avalanche of Questions Stall Gloria’s Steamrolling of Midway Rising? Exactly, Don. Which is why rushing to give Zephyr the exclusive rights over this land is even more corrupt. Zephyr-owned subsidiary 'Broadway Block Owner LLC'...

Judi September 13, 2022 at 12:04 pm on A Memorial to Shoeshine Willie of Ocean Beach I remember when Wilkie was set up inside the Elms Department Store in the 60’s. He was always so gracious! Kathryn Burton September 13, 2022 at 11:55 am on Will Avalanche of Questions Stall Gloria’s Steamrolling of Midway Rising? Don Wood. Your comment is spot on. That is done all the time and is a total racket.

Mat Wahlstrom September 13, 2022 at 11:27 am on San Diego City Council Votes Today on Flawed ‘Midway Rising’ Deal Right? It was crazy when I read it. Let's hope justice is served here.

Don Wood September 13, 2022 at 11:24 am on Will Avalanche of Questions Stall Gloria’s Steamrolling of Midway Rising? As this article notes "the company has a history of selling its development rights to other builders once entitlements have been secured from local planning...

Frank Gormlie September 13, 2022 at 11:15 am on San Diego City Council Votes Today on Flawed ‘Midway Rising’ Deal Oh btw, your opening is awesome - had me fooled. Incredible parallels.

Recent Ocean Beach and Point Loma News
U-T Editorial Board Warns City Council to Go Slow on Approving Midway Rising 20 hours ago No Comments
A Memorial to Shoeshine Willie of Ocean Beach
20 hours ago 1 Comment
Who Is Sandy Hanshaw — the New Chairwoman of the Pt Loma Association? 20 hours ago No Comments
San Diego City Council Votes Today on Flawed ‘Midway Rising’ Deal Santee City Council’s Tangled Plot To Build Fanita Ranch https://obrag.org/2020/09/santee-city-councils-tangled-plot-to-build-fani... 7 of 10 9/14/2022, 7:09 AM
21 hours ago 6 Comments
Will Avalanche of Questions Stall Gloria’s Steamrolling of Midway Rising? 2 days ago 10 Comments
Naval Base Relents and Agrees to Make Presentation Pt Loma Assoc Meeting on Increased Military Training – Wed , Sept 14 2 days ago No Comments
Why Is Queen Elizabeth II So Popular Among American Women? 2 days ago 3 Comments
Key City Council Committee Pushes Gloria’s Choice ‘Midway Rising’ Forward 5 days ago 19 Comments
Ocean Beach Planning Board Approves City’s Concept Design for New Library 5 days ago 20 Comments
State Says Gloria’s Pick of ‘Midway Rising’ Is Legal
6 days ago 4 Comments
Professional Architects Criticize Design Process for New Expanded OB Library 7 days ago 9 Comments
OB Historical Society: ‘Peeling Back 10,000 Years of San Diego History’ – Thurs , Sept 15 7 days ago No Comments
Mayor Gloria’s Choice for Sports Arena Redevelopment – ‘Midway Rising’ – Owned by One of His Largest Contributors 7 days ago 4 Comments
Source of Sewage Spill that Closed OB’s Dog Beach Identified 7 days ago No Comments
The Dilemma of the Progressive Voter in San Diego City Council District 2 1 week ago 6 Comments
This Time Last Year
Looks Like the OB Town Council Is Trying to Move On – Is the Rest of the Community Ready to Do So? 2 Days After Smashing Recall Effort, Newsom Signs Controversial Housing Bill SB9 14 Ways One LA Designer Created Eco-Friendly ‘Granny Flat’ The ‘Restless Leg Syndrome’
No Excuses Schools: Bad Theory Created by Amateurs
Join OB Historical Society – The Lost and Found Balboa Park Gardens of Kate Sessions – Thurs. Sept. 16 1960 Winter Olympics Site Changes Racist, Sexist Name
Will Horrors of This Century Surpass Those of the Last? San Diego Group Calls for Moratorium on Zoning Changes in Transit Priority Areas The Big Wave Trumps the Big Lie
Keep in Touch!
Hours & Info
PO BOX 7012
Ocean Beach, CA 92167
[email protected]
Publish Monday - Friday
Santee City Council’s Tangled Plot To Build Fanita Ranch https://obrag.org/2020/09/santee-city-councils-tangled-plot-to-build-fani... 8 of 10 9/14/2022, 7:09 AM
Will Avalanche of Questions Stall Gloria's Steamrolling of Midway Rising? San Diego City Council Votes Today on Flawed 'Midway Rising' Deal 14 Local Groups Call to Cancel Miramar Air Show
Why Is Queen Elizabeth II So Popular Among American Women? Ocean Beach Planning Board Approves City's Concept Design for New Library U-T Editorial Board Warns City Council to Go Slow on Approving Midway Rising Key City Council Committee Pushes Gloria's Choice 'Midway Rising' Forward A Memorial to Shoeshine Willie of Ocean Beach
Naval Base Relents and Agrees to Make Presentation Pt. Loma Assoc. Meeting on Increased Military Training - Wed., Sept.14
Who Is Sandy Hanshaw -- the New Chairwoman of the Pt. Loma Association? Top Posts & Pages
Welcome to the OB Rag – Ocean Beach & Beyond
The OB Rag has been initiated to ply the Ocean Beach community and the San Diego scene with news and commentary from a distinctively progressive and grassroots perspective, and to provide a forum for those views. Others with similar views are invited to contribute and participate.

More about us...

Santee City Council’s Tangled Plot To Build Fanita Ranch https://obrag.org/2020/09/santee-city-councils-tangled-plot-to-build-fani... 9 of 10 9/14/2022, 7:09 AM
Support the OB Rag! Purchase old copies - 20% off Help keep the OB Rag online by donating to buy 40-50 year old issues of the original OB Rag, Ocean Beach's infamous and iconic counterculture, underground newspaper; limited numbers are available for purchase! Recent Posts
U-T Editorial Board Warns City Council to Go Slow on Approving Midway Rising September 13, 2022 A Memorial to Shoeshine Willie of Ocean Beach September 13, 2022 Who Is Sandy Hanshaw — the New Chairwoman of the Pt. Loma Association? September 13, 2022 San Diego City Council Votes Today on Flawed ‘Midway Rising’ Deal September 13, 2022 Will Avalanche of Questions Stall Gloria’s Steamrolling of Midway Rising? September 12, 2022 Naval Base Relents and Agrees to Make Presentation Pt. Loma Assoc. Meeting on Increased Military Training – Wed., Sept.14 September 12, 2022
14 Local Groups Call to Cancel Miramar Air Show September 12, 2022 Why Is Queen Elizabeth II So Popular Among American Women? September 12, 2022 Key City Council Committee Pushes Gloria’s Choice ‘Midway Rising’ Forward September 9, 2022 Ocean Beach Planning Board Approves City’s Concept Design for New Library September 9, 2022 Our too little, too late climate action means triage more than prevention September 8, 2022 State Says Gloria’s Pick of ‘Midway Rising’ Is Legal September 8, 2022 Professional Architects Criticize Design Process for New Expanded OB Library September 7, 2022 OB Historical Society: ‘Peeling Back 10,000 Years of San Diego History’ – Thurs., Sept. 15 September 7, 2022 Trump’s Sorry Ass Should Be in Jail September 7, 2022
Mayor Gloria’s Choice for Sports Arena Redevelopment – ‘Midway Rising’ – Owned by One of His Largest Contributors September 7, 2022
Source of Sewage Spill that Closed OB’s Dog Beach Identified September 7, 2022 The Dilemma of the Progressive Voter in San Diego City Council District 2 September 6, 2022 Sunrise in OB … for a Change September 6, 2022
Library Survey Results at OB Planning Board Meeting at Newbreak Church – Wednesday, September 7 September 6, 2022 RSS - Posts
RSS - Comments
Blog Stats
3,132,111 hits
Sitemap | Contact | About Us | Comment Policy
Copyright 2007-2017 OBRag.org ~ Code is Poetry
Santee City Council’s Tangled Plot To Build Fanita Ranch https://obrag.org/2020/09/santee-city-councils-tangled-plot-to-build-fani... 10 of 10 9/14/2022, 7:09 AM
From: Theresa McCarthy
To: Dustin Trotter; John Minto; Ronn Hall; Laura Koval; Rob McNelis; Chris Jacobs Subject: Fanita Ranch
Date: Friday, September 9, 2022 12:28:15 PM
Dear City Council and Mr. Jacobs,
Please respect the will of Santee resident voters. Residents rejected Fanita Ranch sprawl in a landslide referendum vote in 1999. In 2020, residents voted to protect the Santee General Plan from inconsistent sprawl developments like Fanita Ranch. In March 2022, the court ruled against Fanita Ranch for the 4th time, once again aligning with the will of voters.

Campaign contributions should not be able to buy amendments to Santee’s General Plan or exempt developers from the democratic will of Santee voters.

The people of Santee passed Measure N to assure Santee residents make the final decision at the ballot on Fanita Ranch and any other projects that violate the Santee General Plan.

Thank you,
Theresa McCarthy
From: Tim Hill
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 2:59 PM
To: Ronn Hall <[email protected]>; John Minto <[email protected]>; Rob McNelis <[email protected]>; Laura Koval <[email protected]>; Chris Jacobs <[email protected]>; Dustin Trotter <[email protected]> Subject: Fanita Ranch
Dear City Council members,
This email is to show my support of Fanita Ranch. Fanita Ranch has been planned for too many years. It’s time to approve it so my family will have a better chance of the American Dream……owning a home! I have reviewed the information on Fanita and it looks awesome. HomeFed has been developing Master Planned communities in San Diego County for 25 years. They know how to create a community that people want to call home.

The amenities that are planned are incredible. Miles of trails, a walkable sustainable community is exactly what we are looking for. Acres and acres of parks and an organic farm are fantastic. Please approve Fanita Ranch so I can have the opportunity to own a home.

Thank you,
Tim Hill

-----Original Message-----
From: Save Fanita < >
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 10:20 PM
To: Chris Jacobs <[email protected]>; Laura Koval <[email protected]>; John Minto <[email protected]>; Rob McNelis <[email protected]>; Ronn Hall
<[email protected]>; Dustin Trotter <[email protected]> Cc: Annette Ortiz <[email protected]>
Subject: Fanita Ranch FREIR / Item 8
Attachment: PWS Fanita Ranch Item 8 RTC Rebuttal.pdf
Please confirm receipt of the attached PWS comment letter on the Fanita Ranch FREIR / Item 8
Thank you,
Van Collinsworth
September 13, 2022
Mr. Chris Jacobs
City Council of Santee
10601 Magnolia avenue
Santee, CA 92071
RE: Fanita Ranch Item 8 9/14/22 City Council Meeting
Fanita Ranch Final Revised EIR, Case File Nos. Environmental Assessment (AEIS 2022-4, AEIS2017-11); Vesting Tentative Map (TM2022-1); Development Review (DR2022-4); Conditional Use Permits for two parks (P2022-1 and P2022-2) and a fire station (P2022-3)
Dear Mr. Jacobs and City Council,
The Final Revised EIR remains inadequate to address significant fire safety impacts.

Response to Comments are largely conclusory and without evidential support.

Furthermore, the Item 8 approvals constitute an illegal legislative act.

RTC “No Public Vote…”
City officials and documents have made prior statements regarding Referendum and General Plan Protection Measure N approved in 2020 that confirm Santee residents authority.

Example 1: From every version of City of Santee’s Housing Element Update:
“Due to the referendum, the effective date of Resolution 094-2020 is suspended, which means that the developer cannot move forward with actual construction of the Fanita Ranch project until the referendum is resolved.” Similarly, last May 25, with Item 15, and June 8, with Item 10, when project approvals and the Referendum were rescinded by this council, staff report and legal conclusions stated:
“If a city repeals the legislation in light of the referendum, the city cannot enact the same or essentially the same legislation for a one-year period.” Page of 1 16
Approval of Item 8, would be enacting “the same or essentially the same legislation.” The action is a legislative act despite City attempts to redefine it with a ruse ordinance.

Approval of Item 8 is illegal.

Regarding the peoples’ authority and Measure N, according to East County Magazine:
“Minto was reluctant to say how he’d vote. He noted that because the project would need an amendment to the city’s General Plan, it would require a public vote. That was mandated in 2020 when Santee voters passed Measure N, which would put any project that needs an amendment to the existing General Plan on the public ballot for approval.” 1
The statement from Mayor Minto is correct — the Department of Development Services contradiction is a ruse.

The Housing Element update indicated the the people would have the opportunity to vote on the project due to the Referendum and the people have relied upon that city statement.

With regard to Measure N, the project is subject to and does not comply with the Planned Development Guidelines within the Santee General Plan regarding lot sizes and other components. The project vastly increases density over those allowed by the General Plan Land Use Element.

The project must face voters through either the Referendum or initiative process. If the City is reinstating approval of the project with Item 8, then the City must also reinstate the Referendum vote.

If the City is approving a similar project, the City must wait until May of 2023 to do so and that action still violates the Santee General Plan and would require a public vote subject to Measure N.

The “urgency” scheme devised by the developer’s lawyers to approve the project without gaining approval from Santee resident voters is illegal.

I understand why this ruse was devised. The developer is terrified of Santee voters.

Considering the landslide vote against the last 3,000-unit project, it is a near certainty the project will be crushed if Santee voters determine the fate of the project at election.

Santee residents are the ultimate land-use authority. Trying to exclude them is legally perilous and anti-American. I urge you to reject this sham approval process and https://www.eastcountymagazine.org/santee-council-removes-fanita-ranch-november-ballot- 1 collinsworth-cries-foul
Page of 2 16
respect the residents of Santee by not trying to extinguish their legal right to decide the project’s fate.

FREIR Response to Comments (RTC):
(The conclusory responses are without support and are inadequate). 02-1 through 02-7,
Contrary to the RTC, the Election Code does apply to the Fanita Ranch project. It is the exact same project approved and rescinded, excepting the back-in-again Magnolia Avenue escape route removed for the September 23, 2020 hearing so that conflictedout Council member Rob McNelis could vote. Manipulating definitions does not change the project. The approval scheduled for 9/14 is illegal.

I can assure you there is no “confusion” over why Measure N was written or why over 6,200 residents signed the Referendum Petition brought forward by Preserve Wild Santee. It was to make certain Santee residents would make the final decision upon the current Fanita Ranch project or any project similar to it.

Contrary to RTC, The Purpose of Measure N specifically called out Fanita Ranch:
“B. The Importance of Protecting the General Plan: Campaign contributions from special interests can influence or pressure City Council members to approve projects that overburden Santee streets and highways with traffic. The California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) has levied fines in Santee for laundering of campaign contributions when a proposed Fanita Ranch development project requested a density intensifying General Plan Amendment, which Council members approved. Currently, voters do not have a right to vote on controversial projects that threaten overdevelopment.”
Furthermore, I wrote and brought forward Measure N so that Santee residents would not have to circulate referendum petitions every time a city council sold out its residents to corporate-developers and approved a 3,000-unit or similar project on Fanita Ranch.

In regard to Government Code section 66300 (b)(1)(B):

Building 3,000-units in a Cal Fire designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone creates an imminent threat to the health and safety of new residents on site and to existing residents south of the site and north of Mast Boulevard.

Contrary to RTC, for reasons stated above, the referendum does prohibit consideration of the currently proposed project for one year, as it is the same or similar to the original project approved on September 23, 2020 and referended by the voters of Santee.

Page of 3 16
Development industry propaganda does not constitute evidence of a housing crisis.

There is a crisis of democracy. A select minority continues to accumulate political power and concentrate wealth at the expense of American citizens.

Former President Jimmy Carter (and Habitat for Humanity volunteer) states:
“The US is now an oligarchy in which unlimited political bribery has created a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors.” Note - my wife and I also participated in a cross-border habitat for humanity housing project. I am sympathetic to the need for well-placed sustainable housing coupled with living wages so individual families and communities accrue the benefits of home ownership. Luxury housing on Fanita Ranch which places residents in harm’s way and permanently damages the environment is not consistent with a vision for sustainable and affordable housing.

There is nothing in State or Federal law that mandates sprawl development within a severe fire hazard zone. State climate laws and policies call for reduction in Vehicle Miles Traveled and discourage Fanita Ranch style auto-dependency. 3,000-units is more than double Santee’s RHNA share of approximately 1,219 units.

Furthermore, those 1,219-units can be readily accommodated on parcels off of Fanita Ranch as documented in the City’s own Housing Element Update. Therefore, the project is well beyond what is necessary to “satisfy the requirements of state housing law.”
The process that originated and adopted Ordinance 592 is itself tainted. The ordinance concept was planted by HomeFed with the Mayor and discussed during a different agenda item. Yet the Council moved forward a request for City legal staff to work on an urgency ordinance. The ordinance itself had a single agenda hearing and there was not a single question or comment by any of the five city council members before it was adopted. The ordinance does not require any public notification of projects under consideration and then allows in the dark unilateral approval by registering the result on an obscure website during holiday hours. The process is a disgraceful sham.

To the extent that any council member (specifically the Mayor) admitted to the public in the press (ECM) that the project requires a General Plan Amendment and requires a public vote under Measure N, he was in fact, correct in stating so.

Wildfire RTC
02-8
The project places houses in the northern most vulnerable portion of the fire corridor.

Magnifying the error, all structures are so dense they are vulnerable to cluster burn. Use of the term “ignition resistant” inadvertently admits these structures may ignite. The Page of 4 16
FPP does not use worst case scenario data inputs. The RTC cavalierly dismisses the vast increase in mega fires over 100,000-acres during the last 20 years unlike any period in recorded fire history.
02-9
While there is not a comprehensive database which includes the building specifications of all the homes lost to wildfires in California, substantial evidence has been presented to demonstrate that homes built to modern Chapter 7A standards are still being lost to wildfire. See my prior comments and Baylis, PW and J Boomhower. 2021. Mandated vs. Voluntary Adaptation to Natural Disasters: The Case of U.S. Wildfires. http:// www.nber.org/papers/w29621
If there is a loss of about 20% of Fanita Ranch structures during a mega fire as the data suggests, because of the dense clustering of the structures, contrary to the requirements within the General Plan, the significant risk to life and property is exacerbated.

Furthermore, additional data shows the rate of structure loss accelerating over time, not diminishing. Data from starting from 2005 to June 2022 indicates 97,196 structures destroyed. It took over a decade to destroy 47,000 and about seven years to destroy the next 50,000 structures.

There is an abundance of data for those willing to consider and disclose rather than deny and ignore.
https://headwaterseconomics.org/natural-hazards/structures-destroyed-by-wildfire/ RTC assertion with regard to the building standards of the 50,000 homes destroyed is unsubstantiated opinion.
02-10
We just experienced the longest sustained heatwave in August and September since I became a Santee resident in the 1960s. The record setting heat is extensive throughout the western United States and brought more devastating wildfires. Contrary to RTC opinion, sustained heat stresses and kills vegetation creating fuels ready for ignitions.

FPP data is cherry picked and ignores the increasing frequency of extremes. There is no response to the chart presented of the Top 20 Largest California Wildfires.

Page of 5 16
02-11
While extended FMZs can reduce the potential for direct flame impingement, structures are still vulnerable to wind blown embers and damaging convective activity that can allow those embers to penetrate the structures despite extended FMZs. The RTC misses the point that as fire weather continues to grow more extreme, eventually conditions will exceed the protections afforded by PRC 4291 enforcement and higher building standards.
02-12
Use of drones to conduct Defensible Space Inspections would violate residents 4th Amendment right under the US Constitution to protect their property from unreasonable searches. Private inspections/enforcement in San Diego County have resulted in unwarranted profit motivated inspection results with abatement and liens. If the project cannot support civil servant inspectors without profit motivated inspections, it is a further reason to abandon the project.

The fire behavior described for FMZs is descriptive of ground fires under moderate weather conditions and does not account for high wind and high temperature extreme fire behavior.
02-13
Twice yearly task inspections are insufficient as homes and their onsite landscaping becomes more mature. Especially as climate breakdown accelerates. 02-14 - 02-15
HOA’s have short=term financial incentives to ignore maintenance requirements.

Private enforcement has a corrupting profit motive without proper supervision. 02-16
The 2007 FPP did not overpredict flame lengths by approximately 40 feet. It used reasonably expected inputs for peak seasons and those predictions were duplicated in my own Bahave Plus calculations.

Page of 6 16
02-17
RTC again ignores the potential for law enforcement to be unavailable or inadequate due to multiple simultaneous incidents or the magnitude of a single incident. 02-18
RTC conveniently forgets the deaths off of Muth Valley Road / Wildcat Canyon area during a Cedar Fire that progressed at unexpected rates. These individuals did not die because they refused to leave. They died because the fire overtook them without warning in the darkness of early morning. Fanita has potential for a similar outcome when homes spaced to close together cluster burn.
02-21
RTC shows a glaring lack of awareness of the topography and vegetation surrounding the internal road network of the Northeast “Vineyard Village.” Northern aspect chaparral is already capable of producing flame lengths of 100-feet and fuel loading will continue to grow potential fire intensity until the site burns. Many individual homes would be forced to drive northeast into a firestorm before attempting to exit southwest.

RTC mistakenly assumes FMZs halt radiant heat and wind-blown embers. 02-22
RTC acknowledges there is potential for ignitions at close enough locations where the fire progresses at rates to rapid to allow for evacuation. The alternatives discussed leave the population vulnerable to cluster burning structures. 02-23 - 02-24
The process described fails with absent or inadequate numbers of emergency personnel, which is possible and likely during large or multiple incident wildfires. RTC acknowledges the public is not qualified to make judgements on TRAs. The RTC backs away from the emphasis on Ready Set Go found in the plans. Significant adverse impacts remain.
02-25
The current corporate-owner lags on WUI maintenance as documented in prior letters.

The same is to be expected over time, but with substantially more interface maintenance required.

Page of 7 16
02-26
RTC is incorrect unsubstantiated opinion. The map of the site demonstrates the opposite. The evacuation plan advises locking doors precluding use of those structures as TRAs. (The opposite of RSG).
02-27
RTC admits structures have as little as 10 feet of separation leaving each structure within the 30-foot home ignition zone of other structures. This is a recipe for cluster burns in “fire-resistant” not fire-proof structures. Data has been presented documenting vulnerability of modern higher standard construction. 02-28
If evacuation preplans actually exist for the site then they should be disclosed. Opinion does not refute the data presented in regard to potential rates of spread and the impacts of cluster burns.
02-29
This project is the same project which required a General Plan Amendment. Word games don’t change that fact.
02-30
See my prior comments and Baylis, PW and J Boomhower. 2021. Mandated vs.

Voluntary Adaptation to Natural Disasters: The Case of U.S. Wildfires. http:// www.nber.org/papers/w29621
Modern structures lost in Ventura also provide warning of what to expect on Fanita Ranch. The project does not respect Home Ignition Zones relative to other structures.

The RTC fails to present data contradicting real fire events with modern construction.

Also: Emily Guerin. December 9, 2018. Fire-Resitant is not Fire-Proof, Culifornia Homeowners Discover,, NPR. https://www. kunc.qrg/2018-12-09/fire-resistant-is-not-fireproofcalifqrnia-hqmeowners-discoyer 02-31
RTC acknowledges a PSPSO is possible - “limited in urban areas.” Loss of power for other unintentional reasons are possible as well. RTC opines back up power would be Page of 8 16
in “ignition- resistant” structures. These are not fire-proof, leaving them vulnerable. The amount of “residual water pressure” is unknown. RTC does not answer where these pumps will be sited. The comment is not refuted.
02-32 - 02-33
Fanita Ranch is 18-20 miles off of the coast and not comparable to Rancho Santa Fe on the coast with higher relative humidity and topography where Santa Ana winds have less duration. RTC does not provide documentation for the conclusory statements that fire losses since 2007 are in developments that lack redundant fire safety design. 02-34
Contrary to the unsubstantiated claims of RTC, I have participated professionally in wildfire evacuations, resource placement for immobile vulnerable residents and circulation control during wildfire incidents. Support for my conclusion that the Wildfire Evacuation Plan is inadequate to mitigate significant public safety impacts comes in my letter both before and after my statement. The analysis in the Environmental documents is biased by the source of funds paying for the work and a lead agency which predetermined the outcome of the CEQA process in anticipation of developer fees and tax revenue.
02-35
I have provided direct reference to Calfire RSG, the program the Wildfire Evacuation Plan intends to distribute to the public and rely upon and provided a supplementary Cal Fire Evacuation Tips guide which states the same unlocked door procedures.

Rather than correcting the error, the RTC doubles down on it with unsupported remarks. Firefighters are not going to be carrying tools in their web gear to unlock or open structures without doing damage. Contrary to RTC opinion, area ignition burnovers and vigorous convective activity are two examples of situations when firefighters may be in need of refuge that is unavailable. Area of the project “devoid of natural fuels” have not been demonstrated to be a distance of 4 times potential flame lengths to individuals on site and sufficient in size to hold the numbers of personnel and evacuees seeking refuge.
02-36
RTC again states there will be guidance without the ability to assure such resources will be available during large scale events or multiple simultaneous incidents.

Page of 9 16
02-37
RTC does not locate safe refuge sites nor provide specifications to evaluate any sites sheltering potential. Conclusory statements are inadequate. There can be no assurance resources will be available to coordinate evacuation movements during large scale events or multiple simultaneous incidents.
02-38
Contrary to RTC, my comment does not assume the entire project will be evacuated in all fire scenarios. What RTC continues to ignore is there are many ignition points within 16 miles of the project site that are capable of generating rates-of spread that will not allow full evacuation of the site. And because the project relies upon high density design vulnerable to cluster burn and contradictory presentations of RSG, the project located in severe fire vulnerable topography has a significant adverse risk to public safety inadequately mitigated. The project refuses to admit the facts and prepare a statement of overriding considerations or abandon the project. 02-39 - 02-40 - 02-41 - 02-42
RTC again ignores or denies the potential for a rapidly moving flame front as large or larger than the project’s developed area. In 2003, the Firefighters were overwhelmed at Scripps Ranch by a flame from extending more than a mile in length. A flame front of similar magnitude will overwhelm the intentions for phased evacuations.

Santee neighborhoods were on the flank of the Cedar fire, not at the head. Existing neighborhoods have more favorable orientation lower in the San Diego River Valley.

The project would significantly break the more intelligent design of existing development and thrust bubbles of development into the head of the Cedar fire corridor. Potential for evacuations will be negatively impacted. RTC also fails to consider the next Santa Ana wind driven firestorm may have a fire head more directly oriented to the project site and existing development.
02-43
Contrary to RTC, the comparison of Chapter 7A compliant burned structures is appropriate. When a structure is battered by a sustained ember storm or convective activity it is not significant whether the fuel source of embers is brush or brush and/or pine forest. There are fuels under 3 inches in diameter that carry the fire and generate embers in both vegetation classes. My comments have consistently stated that embers are a significant threat to structures and I’ve pointed our many different ways they can penetrate fire resistant structures.

Page of 10 16
The separation comparison between surviving structures is also appropriate. Burning homes become fuel to ignite adjacent structures.
02-44
Contrary to the RTC, Marshall Fire comparisons are relevant. Fanita Ranch is on more fire vulnerable topography with more limited access than homes which ignited during the Marshall Fire. Marshall Fire fuels were sparse grasslands. Burning structures were surrounded by large expanses of irrigated green spaces. Homes had modern construction and more separation than those proposed on Fanita Ranch. The most important factor to be attentive to is the power of a wind driven fire to accelerate rapidly through sparse fuels over pavement and irrigated spaces and burn not only homes, but commercial buildings surrounded by asphalt. The Marshall Fire is a testament to the power of wind driven fire in the era of climate breakdown extremes.

Furthermore, I have provided research in prior letters documenting inability of ember resistant features to prevent ignitions behind them.
02-45
The Orange County Fire Chief’s statements about climate change are supported by the Cal Fire data presented in this letter for major fires since year 2000. RTC does not present data detailing the level of ember resistance on homes destroyed in the events discussed. Regardless, vulnerabilities in ember-resistant vents are not the only way fire can penetrate Fanita Ranch structures (ie. open windows, open doors, open garages, broken glass due to convective activity).
02-46
Contrary to RTC, not only have I submitted more than a thousand pages of wildfire specific studies and data into the record, I have personally conducted thousands of Defensible Space Inspections, researched countless wildfires and performed many years of service as a wildland firefighter. I am qualified to make the the suggestions registered and those measures can further mitigate the significant public safety risk of the project.
02-47 - 0-48
I have not requested an endless array of wildfire scenarios. I requested a few scenarios that would be representative of high risk situations the project is likely to encounter.

Consultants refused to conduct the analysis.

Page of 11 16
02-49
The response is not responsive to request for specification on capacity. Conclusory statements, such as suggesting “Capacity of the areas would be appropriate for the targeted population” are inadequate.
02-50 - 02-51 - 02-53
RTC places too much faith in the “redundant, layered protections.” Failure is possible and the consequences of failure should be considered not denied. 02-54 - 02-55 - 02-56 - 02-57 - 02-58
RTC states it is possible to establish evacuation trigger thresholds, but RTC does not do so. Just because a project is new, does not exempt it from history demonstrating new structures burn under the right adverse conditions. RTC places too much faith in the “redundant, layered protections.”
02-59
The successful evacuations in Santee reflect development locations on the flank (not the head) of the Cedar Fire with development primarily located lower in the San Diego River Valley.
02-60
Contrary to RTC, the San Diego County Evacuation Planning Map Books remain in use on Cal Fire engines in the San Diego Unit.
02-61 - 02-62
RTC fails to acknowledge situations where the entire project may need immediate evacuation to avoid impact of the flame front.
02-63
RTC fails to disclose the non-existent Mast Boulevard connection to Lakeside SR-67 and the use of the same road network as Lakeside residents in the “new” plan.

Eucalyptus Hills and Santee residents will compete for the same El Nopal / Riverford Page of 12 16
Road circulation to SR-67. The court specifically called out the missing Mast Boulevard connection.
02-64
Any improvements would be overwhelmed by project induced traffic and off-site growth.
02-65
My comment provides context for the original statements in the FREIR. 02-66
The RTC reluctance to provide specifics on potential TRAs is another reason why the project should not rely upon their use.
02-67
A sustained wind event is likely to have different impacts than aa fire with a “lucky break in the wind such as the Lilac Fire RTC wishes to use as a model. 02-68 - 02-69
RTC is not responsive.
02-70
RTC inadvertently acknowledges the 2007 FPP calculations are correct for 6 feet stands of Chaparral. North and northeastern aspects of Fanita Ranch have recovered from the Cedar Fire to establish the 6 feet stands of chaparral currently onsite. As greater time passes without return of fire, heavy stands of FM4 chaparral will extend.

Use of alternative fuel models to diminish estimates of flame length / fire intensity is inadequate.

RTC confuses the use of 4x flame length rule of thumb buffers. My comments do not suggest structures need 400 feet FMZs. The 4x rule suggests individual firefighters or civilians caught outside during the arrival of a flame front fueled by 6 feet stands of chaparral need 400’ feet radius from those fuels to prevent burn injuries. The rule does not consider additional avoidance needed in the case of convective activity. Again, Page of 13 16
contradictory information provided to residents with regard to TRAs and locking doors is problematic.

Considering that I have led firefighters down escape routes into safety zones, I am keenly aware of what they are and the 4x rule of thumb flame length calculation. The comment is not erroneous, the RTC misinterprets it.
02-71 - 02-72 - 02-73
RTC, by not recognizing the importance of building adequate safety zones into the project admits they do not exist.
02-74
RTC misinterprets the comment which is focused upon the capabilities of untrained residents.
02-75
RTC fails to recognize the challenges of special needs residents and the consequences of being adjacent to or occupying a structure that ignites. 02-76
RTC is off topic. It is the WFEC that is providing guarantees using the word “will” when those statements cannot be assured. The limitations listed are real and consequential even if RTC wishes to diminish their significance.
02-77 - 02-78
The RTC does not refute my statements.
02-79
RTC ignores the significant impact of the project upon the existing WUI neighborhoods to evacuate.

Page of 14 16
02-80
RTC does not consider the difficulty of maintaining another 5 miles of wildland interface over the long-term.
02-81
RTC misinterprets the 4X flame length comment as applicable to structures. It is applicable to individual firefighters or civilians outside or forced outside of structures, not the structures themselves. The comment is applicable to 6 feet high stands of chaparral accumulating on the north and northeast aspect of the project and the points where evacuation routes are exposed to this fire chimneys on the “Vineyard Village.” Again there can be no assurance evacuation routes can be shut down at these points during a firestorm.
02-82
The deviation from code to allow the project does compromise safety during a wide fire front event that impacts both project exits with only 1.25 miles of separation. 02-83
RTC offers a conclusory statement without identification of safety zones or TRAs. 02-84
RTC does not recognize the high risk topography of Fanita Mountain drainages and inappropriately assumes a philosophy that project measures allow building anywhere despite additional land form risks.
02-85
I have not requested an endless array of wildfire scenarios. I requested a few scenarios that would be representative of high risk situations the project is likely to encounter.

Consultants refused to conduct the analysis.

Fuel Model 4 chaparral is common north east of the project site. The 2007 FPP correctly identified its potential rate-of-spread Santa Ana wind conditions.

Page of 15 16
02-86
Variations in fire weather fuels and terrain can impact the rate-of-spread from a 17-mile ignition point example. The example is still instructive.

RTC suggests Dudek’s bias / history should be ignored. Dudek relies upon funds from its developer clientele. Dudek was one of the firms fined for laundering funds to Santee City council members through employees while working on Fanita Ranch documents.

RTC has not provided evidence to discount the potential flame lengths for mature chaparral on the north and northeast aspects of Fanita Mountain where “Vineyard Village” is proposed.
02-87 - 02-88
RTC discounts the value of preplanning knowledge gained that could be used to adjust project design and structure locations on the site.
02-89 - 02-90
RTC fails to consider the implications of the 34 exhibits provided which support the statements in my letter.

In conclusion, I maintains my position the project has significant adverse impacts to public safety and should be denied. However, unlike the developer and the city council, I am prepared to accept Santee voters decision on this project.

Sincerely,
/s/
Van Collinsworth
Geographer/ Fire expert/ Director
Attachments:
https://headwaterseconomics.org/natural-hazards/structures-destroyed-by-wildfire/ https://www.eastcountymagazine.org/print/37950
Page of 16 16

July 25, 2022
Sent via email
Chris Jacobs
Principal Planner
Department of Development Services
City of Santee
City Hall, Building 4
10601 Magnolia Avenue
Santee, California 92071
(619) 258-4100, ext. 182
[email protected]
Re: Recirculated Sections of the Final Revised Environmental Impact Report for Fanita Ranch, SCH# 2005061118
Dear Mr. Jacobs:

These comments are submitted on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity (the “Center”) regarding the recirculated sections of the Final Revised Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2005061118) for the Fanita Ranch Project (Project). These comments follow the Center’s prior administrative advocacy and successful litigation over the inadequacies in the Project’s Final Environmental Impact Report. The Center has reviewed the Revised Environmental Impact Report (REIR) closely and is disheartened to see that the REIR, despite San Diego Superior Court’s clear instructions, has arrived at a preordained conclusion: that the Project would improve fire safety and have no impacts on evacuation and emergency access. The Center urges the City to fully and accurately inform decisionmakers and the public—as the Court ordered—of the environmental consequences of the Project and to recirculate a revised draft REIR.

The Center is a non-profit, public interest environmental organization dedicated to the protection of native species and their habitats through science, policy, and environmental law.

The Center has over 1.7 million members and online activists throughout California and the United States. The Center has worked for many years to protect imperiled plants and wildlife, open space, air and water quality, and overall quality of life for people in Santee and San Diego County.

Where, as here, the EIR fails to fully and accurately inform decisionmakers and the public of the environmental consequences or proposed actions, it does not satisfy the basic goals of CEQA. (See Pub. Res. Code, § 21061.) As detailed below, the REIR does not remedy any of July 25, 2022

Page 2 ends

the legal inadequacies that the Court ordered the City to address. The Project would bring over nine thousand residents to a site classified by the California State Fire Marshall as a very high fire hazard severity zone – without any adequate means of evacuation. Yet the REIR concludes—incredibly and contrary to all available science—that the introduction of over nine thousand residents into a very high wildfire hazard severity zone would actually improve fire safety. From there, the REIR finds that this approximate 16 percent increase in the City’s population and the seven thousand additional vehicles would have no significant impacts on evacuation, even as those vehicles flood onto the City’s existing network of two-lane roads. The REIR also fails to actually analyze whether the Project’s impacts to evacuation times would expose people to a significant risk of injury or death from wildfire, as the Court ordered. The REIR and the Fire Protection Plan (FPP) and Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan (WFEP) underpinning the REIR’s conclusions are filled with wishful thinking and unsupported conclusions.

I. THE REIR LACKS AN ADEQUATE ANALYSIS OF THE PROJECT’S

IMPACTS RELATING TO WILDFIRE HAZARDS AND EMERGENCY
EVACUATION.

Few areas in the state come with as high a fire risk as the Project site. Based on the unique characteristics of the Project site—such as the topography, vegetation, weather, and steep terrain—the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has designated the entire Project area as a “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone,” CAL FIRE’s highest designation. (FEIR at 4.18-2; FPP at 45.) Consequently, the fire hazards caused by developing a new community here are severe.

The Project site has burned regularly: at least 65 fires have occurred in the area since 1910. (REIR at 4.18-5; FPP at 22.) The most notable fire, the 2003 Cedar Fire, burned approximately 280,276 acres, including a large portion of the Project area. (Id.) That fire was started by a human recreating in the wildland-urban interface. (Hunt 2018.) Given the dry vegetation and Santa Ana winds, the fire spread southwest at speeds of up to 6,000 acres per hour. (Ibid.) The fire ultimately killed 15 people, injured countless others, and destroyed thousands of homes. (Ibid.)
The REIR reveals the Project site’s extreme susceptibility to wildfire. Its topography is “in alignment” with the Santa Ana winds, “which can influence fire spread by creating winddriven fires.” (FPP at 16.) The rural landscapes surrounding the Project area are not managed for vegetation fuel, which also increases the site’s wildfire risk. (FPP at 3, 5, 19.) Fire intervals on the site range between “one and twenty-five years,” which indicates “significant wildfire potential in the region.” (FPP at 25.) The FPP acknowledges—as it must—that “wildfire has occurred and would likely occur in the Project vicinity again.” (FPP at x.) Considering these facts, one would expect the REIR to have objectively evaluated whether the Project would expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death, as the Court ordered. (See Exhibit 1, Notice of Entry of Judgment in Preserve Wild Santee, et al. v. City of Santee, CEQA Guidelines App. G VII (h).) And yet, the REIR strives to reach a preordained, and improbable conclusion: that this Project would reduce fire risks, for July 25, 2022

Page 3 ends

both Project residents and adjacent, downwind communities. (FPP at 25.) Science and common sense contradict the REIR’s claims that this Project, unlike all other similar projects, would improve fire safety. It defies the evidence to suggest that introducing thousands of people, homes and other flammable materials, and a range of non-native vegetation to fire-prone open space in the Wildland Urban Interface will somehow be more fire safe than leaving the area undisturbed and unoccupied. As explained below, the REIR’s analysis of the Project’s potential to result in increased wildfires and the associated impacts to emergency evacuation is riddled with error and mislead the public and decisionmakers.

A. The DEIR’s Conclusion that the Project Will Not Increase Fire Hazards is Unsupported.

Wildfire experts consistently and unambiguously point out the dangers of placing communities in high fire-prone areas, yet the REIR fails to adequately assess wildfire impacts and continues to dismiss the best available science. The DEIR is deficient because it fails to acknowledge or adequately analyze the increased risk of wildfire that results from development and the increased intensity of use in very high wildfire zones. Indeed, the DEIR seeks to downplay this effect, claiming, implausibly, that the Project would reduce wildfire risk by adding a fire response center, irrigated landscaping, and additional human presence. (REIR at

4.18-49, FPP at 25.) This conclusion is patently defective in the following ways.

As an initial matter, the REIR ignores the abundant and mounting evidence that locating homes in high or very high wildfire areas demonstrably increases the risk of wildfire ignition.

The Project would add approximately 9,498 new persons to the wildland-urban interface. (FPP at

49.) Unsurprisingly, study after study has demonstrated that adding humans and new development to undeveloped wildfire-prone areas increases the risk of ignitions and exacerbates the resulting hazards. According to a report from Governor Gavin Newsom’s Office, construction of more homes in the wildland-urban interface is one of the main factors that “magnify the wildfire threat and place substantially more people and property at risk than ever before.” (Governor Newsom’s Strike Force 2019). In a scientific study, Syphard et al. (2019) found that housing and human infrastructure in fire-prone wildlands are the main drivers of fire ignitions and structure loss. This information is not new; scientists for many years have reported development’s tendency to exacerbate wildfire risk in high wildfire risk areas. This has led California’s Natural Resources Agency (which promulgates the CEQA Guidelines) to state unambiguously that “the evidence is clear that bringing more people to areas of higher wildfire risk exacerbates those risks.” (Exhibit 2 - Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action, p. 212.)
As another recent peer-reviewed study from Stanford University researchers explained, “Changing demographic factors have undoubtedly played a substantial role in community exposure and vulnerability—including the expansion of urban and suburban developments into the ‘wildland-urban interface.’” (Goss et al. 2020.) In fact, development in the wildland-urban interface, like the proposed project, is responsible for the most buildings burned in California, despite less fuel. (Kramer et al. 2019.) Researchers have determined that growth in the wildlandurban interface “often results in more wildfire ignitions, putting more lives and houses at risk.” (Radeloff et al. 2018.)
July 25, 2022

Page 4 ends

Sprawl developments with low/intermediate densities extending into habitats that are prone to fire have led to more frequent wildfires caused by human ignitions, and these types of developments have the highest chances of burning. (Keeley et al. 1999; Keeley and Fotheringham 2003; Syphard et al. 2007; Syphard et al. 2013; Balch et al. 2017; Radeloff et al. 2018; Syphard et al. 2019). This can disrupt the natural fire regime and lead to a dangerous feedback loop of deadly fires and habitat destruction. Thus, developing housing in locations in California that currently have low or no density—such as the current Project site—dramatically increases the number of fires and the amount of area burned. (See Keeley 2005; see also Syphard et al. 2013; Syphard et al. 2007 [stating that ninety-five percent of California’s fires are caused by human activity].) Common anthropogenic causes of fire include arson, equipment use, debris burning, smoking, vehicles, fireworks, electricity, and outdoor cooking. Additionally, structure fires can spread and initiate wildland fires.

Alexandre et al. (2016b) recommend “steering development away from such [high fireprone] areas entirely, as is commonly done by U.S. communities to reduce vulnerability to other natural hazards such as flooding and landslides.” And Radeloff et al. (2018) warn, “Housing development in the [wildland-urban interface] greatly exacerbates wildfire problems and other environmental issues... As long as [wildland-urban interface] growth is unchecked, wildfire problems will likely worsen.” Keeley and Syphard (2020) also bring attention to zoning restrictions for high fire hazard areas and replacing community planning with a more regional approach to keep communities safer from fire hazards. Again, the REIR fails to consider the best available science and adequately assess and mitigate the proposed Project’s impacts to wildfire and wildfire risk. In a review by Syphard and Keeley (2020) titled “Why are so many structures burning in California?” the authors summarize decades of research, noting that “as population increases and development further encroaches into wildland vegetation, there is an increased risk that a human-caused ignition will coincide in a place and time with hot, dry weather; flammable vegetation; and severe wind conditions,” and “the rapid increase in the spread of exurban development like that occurring now in California (Radeloff et al. 2018), has the potential to both increase the number of ignitions and decrease the overall distance between wildlands and housing.” (Syphard and Keeley 2020). The area burned in California in the last 20 years has doubled compared to the area burned in the previous two decades, and the wildfires most destructive to humans have been wind-driven fires (Keeley and Syphard 2020). According to Keeley and Syphard (2020), “What determines an extreme fire year is the untimely human ignition during an extreme wind event,” and “these wind-dominated fires are ~100% humanignited fires.” Alarmingly, while before 1960 there was no observed association between prior year precipitation and area burned in southern California, patterns have shifted in the last 50 years, and the region is now exhibiting patterns similar to what has been documented in grasslands and savannas throughout the southwest, as high rainfall years lead to elevated grass fuel loads; the authors suggest that the increase in type conversion from shrublands to grasslands in the region are likely driving this trend and making these areas even more flammable. (Syphard et al. 2018; Keeley and Syphard 2020).

Clustered developments surrounded by highly flammable wildlands and in line with the Santa Ana Winds, like the proposed Project, lead to an increased probability of more human ignitions and greater fire risk to human life and structures. (Alexandre et al. 2016a; Alexandre et al. 2016b). These studies found that while larger cluster areas with more buildings were more July 25, 2022

Page 5 ends

likely to be affected by wildfire, smaller clusters with fewer buildings were more likely to lose a higher proportion of structures, and when building density is higher, there is a higher chance of fire spreading between buildings. Kramer et al. (2019) analyzed California wildfire building destruction between 1985 and 2013 and found that developed areas with little wildland vegetation near large blocks of wildland vegetation had the greatest total amount of building destruction, and they suggest that other fuel sources, like landscaping, agricultural vegetation, vehicles, and the structures themselves, play a role in more buildings burning. This is further supported by Radeloff et al. (2018), who found that building homes close to wildlands will result in 1) more wildfires due to more human ignitions and 2) greater risk to people and structures.

The Project is a master-planned community consisting of up to 2,949 homes, up to 80,000 square feet of commercial uses, a school site, parks, open space, and agricultural uses, with an estimated population of up to 9,498 people. (FPP at 7.) Development will be occur in three “villages”: Fanita Commons, Orchard Village and Vineyard Village. (Ibid.) The City rightly notes the link between housing density in the wildland-urban interface and the resulting increase in wildland fire risk: “housing density directly influences susceptibility to fire.” (FPP at 25.) This is because “in higher density developments, there is one interface (the community perimeter) with the wildlands,” whereas “lower density development creates more structural exposure to wildlands…(an intermix rather than interface).” (FPP at 25.) But noticeably absent in the REIR is any effort to discuss the Project’s density in the context of that scholarship. (See FEIR at 4.18-24, 4.18-25, FPP, Figure 3A.) The REIR attempts to dismiss any such discussion by describing the Project in passing as “dense.” But the actual analysis of the Project’s density—and its influence on fire risk—is in the FPP, which notes the development is “clustered” into 3 villages, two of which are “low density residential” housing separated by open space corridors. (FPP, p. 7-8.) A Project where approximately half of the units are considered “low-density” by definition cannot be “dense.” (Compare FPP at 25 to FEIR at 4.16-33.) The FPP’s examples of projects of various densities confirm this Project is more properly considered a low- to intermediate-density development. (FPP at 26-28.)
Regardless, the REIR obscures the nuanced relationship between housing patterns and fire risk. While low- and intermediate-density housing is most at risk, density is not the only relevant factor; location within the larger landscape and configuration within the development also drive fire risk. (See ibid.; Syphard and Keeley 2020; Syphard et al. 2013.) Drs. Syphard and Keeley, fire scientists upon whom the City relies in the REIR, stated in a recent letter to the Office of the Attorney General that—contrary to the City’s claim—their “research does not support the notion that high density housing is not at high risk.” (Exhibit 3 - Syphard and Keeley, April 20, 2020 email.) By “focusing on the area just within the development instead of the development within the larger landscape context,” the City ignores other drivers of fire risk. (Ibid., emphasis in original.) “If high-density development is located within a matrix of wildland vegetation, that is actually the most dangerous housing pattern you could have!” (Ibid.) This combination is “particularly dangerous … because there is exposure to fire hazard AND the possibility for structure-to-structure spread.” (Ibid.) In other words, their research supports the opposite of what the City claims it does; even if the Project were actually high-density, given its July 25, 2022

Page 6 ends

clustered configuration within flammable wildland vegetation, the housing pattern will still pose a high danger.

This abundant and mounting scientific evidence also contradicts the City’s unsupported conclusion that there is “no data available” linking increases in wildfires with the development of communities built to California Building Codes. (REIR at 4.8-17, FPP at 25.) The REIR irresponsibly overstates that the Project’s adoption of such standards (which are required by law) along with a few other miscellaneous measures would create such an ignition-resistant landscape that fire “would be expected to burn around and/or over the developed landscape via spotting.” (REIR at 4.18-41.) These statements are dangerously misleading, and, in some cases, flatly untrue. Although defensible space immediately adjacent to structures, ember-resistant vents and roofing, and internal sprinklers may help make homes more fire-resistant, even the best mitigation cannot make a development fire-proof. In fact, Syphard and Keeley (2019) point out that “Despite the widespread advocacy of these practices, there has been little empirical study of their effectiveness under actual wildfires, and there is still debate on how much defensible space is critical to home survival despite the regulated distance of 30 m (100 ft)” (Syphard and Keeley 2019.) The authors further caution that “Those measures in a new development do not mean those homes are safe from fire.” (Syphard and Keeley, April 20, 2020 email.) In an analysis that included over 40,000 structures exposed to wildfire between 2013-2018 in California, many “fire-safe” structures with fire-resistant building materials and/or over 100 feet of immediately adjacent defensible space were destroyed (Syphard and Keeley 2019), and according to an analysis conducted in the aftermath of the Camp Fire, while 51% of homes built to code survived the blaze, the remaining 49% did not. (Kasler and Reese 2019.) In addition, homes can add fuel to fires, which can lead to fires spreading through communities (Alexandre et al. 2016a; Alexandre et al. 2016b.) For example, during the 2017 Tubbs Fire embers were blown about 1.6 miles across open areas (including the 101 Freeway) into the Coffey Park neighborhood, and the fire spread throughout the entire neighborhood. (Smith 2017; Watkins 2017.) Newer construction is “not a panacea.” (Syphard and Keeley, April 20, 2020 email.) And fuel breaks have “limited effectiveness at preventing fire spread during severe wind conditions when 99% of the structure loss occurs.” (Ibid.) Paradise for decades maintained firebreaks and defensible space around homes, but these efforts proved ineffective against the wind-driven Camp Fire. (Schlickman 2022.)
Finally, while insisting that the Project will not increase the risk of wildfire ignition, the County concludes that any increased ignition risk could be mitigated based on the “fast” “detection and response” because of the additional people in the area. (FPP at 29.) The City acknowledges that humans can create wildfires (REIR at 4.18.14, FPP at 48) and then invents a fiction, for this Project, that the presence of humans will actually reduce wildfires. This ignores the documented evidence that more humans lead to more ignitions, not fewer.

The science is clear—humans increase ignitions and therefore exacerbate wildfire risk in the wildland-urban interface. A project built in a location known to have very high wildfire risk cannot compensate for this hazard simply through a fire-resistant design. Wildfires and their devastating impacts will only worsen if the City continues to turn a blind eye to the risk and allow development to proceed that disregards such risk. Because the REIR fails to acknowledge the significant wildfire impacts from increased risk of human ignition as a result of the Project, July 25, 2022

Page 7 ends

the REIR also fatally fails to mitigate them or consider alternatives to the Project that would reduce these impacts.

B. The DEIR Underestimates the Risk of Wildfire Because it Relies on Faulty Modeling Assumptions and Methodology.

The FPP underpinning the REIR’s conclusions relies on fire behavior modeling to predict the intensity of fire that would be expected in the Project area. (FPP, Appendix B-1.) Unfortunately, the FPP repeatedly underestimates the potential intensity of fires and rates of spreads, infecting the REIR’s ultimate conclusions.

For one, the REIR concludes that converting flammable fuels into ignition-resistant development will decrease fire risk and result in a fire that burns around the Project site, not through it. (REIR at 4.18-18.) But the FPP’s modelling—upon which these conclusions are based –assumes that built structures will not burn. It tags urban development as “non-burnable” and assigns it a fuel model load of zero. (FPP, Appendix B at B-4, B-5a.) Endemic vegetation, on the other hand, is assigned high fuel model values. (Id. at B-4, B-5.) Naturally, with those assumptions, the REIR and FPP’s conclusion that converting “ignitable fuels” into “lower flammability landscape” reduces fire spread is all but guaranteed. (FPP at 48.) Second, despite the FPP’s promise to model “extreme” and “worst-case” conditions based on “fall” weather, the FPP appears to only model May through July weather. (FPP at 16.) As the REIR admits, fire behavior is worst during “extreme fall weather conditions (off-shore, Santa Ana conditions).” (B-3; FPP at 55.) One would therefore expect the modelling’s peak weather conditions to reflect the “low humidity and high wind speeds” of the standard fall fire season. But noticeably absent in the fire modelling is any peak weather scenario. Rather, the modelling relies exclusively on weather conditions for the May-July season, which is when “[p]recipitation typically occurs” and before Santa Ana winds pick up. (FPP at 16, Appendix B at B-7.)
Finally, the FPP’s modelling also fails to account for the increased ignitions that would accompany the Project. (FPP at 16.) As discussed above, developing housing in the WUI increases the probability of ignition with the Project’s footprint. Neither the REIR nor the FPP acknowledges that the Project would increase ignition sources. (REIR at 4.18-17, 4.18-18.) As discussed above, the REIR errs when it asserts that the increase in ignition sources would be mitigated with irrigated areas and fuel modification zones.

C. The REIR’s Reliance on the Wildfire Prevention Plan to “Reduce [Wildfire] Risks” to Less Than Significant Is Misplaced.

The Court ordered the City to study whether the Project would expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death. The EIR concluded wildfire impacts will be less than significant, based not on an analysis and a significance finding for the Project’s wildfire impacts but based on application of the measures contained in the Fire Protection Plan and compliance with applicable fire codes. Consequently, the EIR’s analysis provides no insight into the Project’s actual impact on wildfire risk, the magnitude of mitigation required, or whether July 25, 2022

Page 8 ends

there are alternate measures or alternatives that would better address the impact, in violation of Lotus v. Department of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 645, 655–656. It is impossible for the City to evaluate the efficacy of the mitigation measures because it is impossible to evaluate whether other more effective measures than those proposed should be considered. (Ibid.) This improperly compresses the analysis of impacts and mitigation measures into a single issue, in violation of a principle set forth in Lotus. (Ibid at 655–656.) The San Diego Superior Court recently invalidated a similar project’s environmental impact report for this error. (Exhibit 4 - Notice of Entry of Judgment in Sierra Club, et al. v. County of San Diego.) Further, the FPP, by its own admission, did not study how to protect existing communities from the Project’s potential to exacerbate wildfire risk, instead limiting its analysis to Project residents and structures. While the FPP claims to address fire safety for neighboring communities, by the FPP’s own admission, it focuses exclusively on measures for the “suitable protection of the planned structures and the people living and using them.” (FPP at ix, 105 [“Each of the fire protection features provided as part of Code requirements or customized for the proposed project are based on the FPP’s evaluation work to protect the site, its structures, and its occupants from wildfires.”].) Had the EIR complied with law and studied the increased environmental hazards posed by the Project, then it would have provided an honest assessment of the risks that must be mitigated. By focusing on on-site risks, the REIR ignores the risks the Project may impose to downwind communities that do not have the same ignition resistant design, as well as to the surrounding wildlands. Even assuming the Project itself “will not be vulnerable to embers” and will have structures that are built to “resist ember penetration and ignitions,” (FPP at 39) the FPP’s own modelling acknowledges that “[v]iable airborne embers could be carried downwind for 2.8 miles and ignite receptive fuels.”(FPP at 55; REIR at 4.18-42 [“Also known as firebrands, these specks of burning debris can glide for up to 40 kilometers (approximately 24 miles) before landing and can cause up to 90 percent of home and business fires during wildfires”].) Such receptive fuels include the surrounding communities, which are “dominated by older, more fire-vulnerable structures.” (REIR at 4.18-24.) Windblown embers ignited and destroyed the Coffey Park neighborhood in Santa Rosa, which, compared to these surrounding neighborhoods, was even further from the adjacent wildlands. (Smith 2017.) Nowhere are the risks and harms from Project-generated ignitions to adjacent communities studied.

The FPP contains no data or analysis to support the REIR’s conclusions that its implementation will reduce wildfire risk in any meaningful way. Instead, it contains only vague discussions of measures (many of which are aspirational and unenforceable) that it claims can ameliorate wildfire risk, without making any attempt to quantify these assertions or support them with evidence. Bare conclusions, even if true, are insufficient to fulfill the informational purpose of an EIR. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 736.) The failure to provide information required by CEQA in an EIR is a failure to proceed in a manner required by law. (Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 118.)
II. THE REIR LACKS AN ADEQUATE ANALYSIS OF THE PROJECT’S IMPACTS RELATING TO EMERGENCY EVACUATION.

July 25, 2022

Page 9 ends

The Project will add an additional 9,498 people and 7,042 vehicles to the City, increasing Santee’s population by approximately 16 percent. (FPP at 49; WFEP, App. D at 13; U.S. Census 2021.) Yet, even as the Project adds over 7,000 vehicles to existing two-lane roads, the WFEP astoundingly concludes that this large increase in capacity would increase evacuation times in the neighborhood by only 7 to 39 minutes. (WFEP, App. D at 18.) For such results to stand, an additional 782 vehicles would need to evacuate in 1 minute. The WFEP’s conclusions are based on overly optimistic, unrealistic assumptions and are thus not supported by substantial evidence.

A. The Evacuation Analysis Lacks a Threshold of Significance, Rendering the Analysis Inadequate as a Matter of Law.

The lead agency is responsible for determining whether an adverse environmental effect identified in an EIR should be classified as "significant" or "less than significant." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(b)(1); King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814, 884.) A lead agency's choice of appropriate thresholds of significance must be "based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data” and always supported by substantial evidence. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(b)(1); Cleveland Nat'l Forest Found. v. San Diego Ass'n of Governments (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497, 515.) The discussion of an environmental impact must come to a clear conclusion about the significance of the impact, and that conclusion must be grounded in a fact-based analysis. (Sierra Watch v. County of Placer (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 86, 101.)
The WFEP estimates that it would take up to 1.9 hours to evacuate the occupants of the Project. (WFEP at 15.) The WFEP then asserts that this evacuation time is a “reasonable time frame” for this community and any impacts are thus less than significant. (REIR at 4.18-13.) But the document skips a logical step: it provides no evidentiary basis for the assumption that the modelled evacuation times would not expose people to a significant risk of injury or death involving a wildfire, the threshold of significance identified by the City and the very inquiry the Court ordered the City to study.

In fact, no significance threshold or performance standard was applied in coming to the conclusion that evacuation impacts would be “less than significant.” The WFEP claims to rely on “acceptable guidelines evacuation times,” but the source documents the WFEP cite to contain no such statement regarding what constitutes a “reasonable time frame.” The WFEP attempts to circumvent the threshold requirement by claiming there is “no evacuation timeframe threshold that Projects must meet in order to avoid a CEQA impact.” (WFEP at 34.) The City, as the lead agency, has the obligation to select an appropriate threshold to guide its analysis. The City cannot rely on the absence of a threshold to avoid identifying one.

This leaves the City with no basis by which to conclude that its modelled evacuation times would not expose people to a significant risk of injury or death involving a wildland fire.

Naturally, whether the evacuation time will prevent exposure to harm depends on how quickly a fire in this area—depending on topography and weather conditions—could overwhelm the Project site and evacuation routes. Neither the FPP nor the WFEP make any attempt to model how evacuation times relate to the rate of fire spread for that geographic area, or how quickly a wildfire could overtake the site. Nowhere does the WFEP even consider how long it would take July 25, 2022

Page 10 ends

for a wildfire to reach the Project site, which should be the accurate metric for determining how quickly the Project site must be evacuated to avoid a significant risk of injury, loss, or death. The City must model how long it would take a Santa Ana wind-driven fire to reach the Project site under fall weather conditions, when wildfires are most common, to determine whether the Project’s evacuation time will expose people to significant risk of injury or death.

B. The REIR Fails to Provide the Required Assurance that the WFEP Would Protect People from a Significant Risk of Injury or Death Involving Wildfires.

The misguided assumptions and flawed methodology of the wildfire analysis in the FPP also infect the WFEP’s evacuation conclusions. The Project provides two points of ingress/egress, both along the southern edge of the Project—one along Fanita Parkway, and the other along Cuyamaca Street. (REIR at 4.18-33.) The REIR then presents an analysis of evacuation times, evaluating nine scenarios ranging from a claimed “Most Probable Evacuation” involving 1,885 vehicles to a total/mass evacuation scenario labeled “Existing Land Uses Plus Project with Magnolia Avenue Extension,” involving 24,956 vehicles. (WFEP, Appendix D at

13.) Between those two extremes are “targeted” scenarios involving “surgical” evacuations, resulting in evacuation times from 19 minutes to 1 hour, 57 minutes. (Ibid.) Evacuations rarely go as planned. As the WFEP itself acknowledges:

Every evacuation scenario will inevitably include some level of unique challenges, constraints, and fluid conditions that require interpretation, quick decision-making, flexibility, and optionality. For example, a roadway incident may block evacuating vehicles, requiring temporary or permanent rerouting of traffic. Wind direction may shift in a manner that was not predicted. Evacuations seldom go exactly by the book.
(WFEP, p. 14.) While the WFEP repeatedly acknowledges the challenges to an orderly evacuation, its modelling affords no allowances for such challenges. It assumes an evacuation on-site—unlike all other ground evacuations—would proceed flawlessly.

In practice, evacuations are much more challenging than the WFEP assumes in its idealized scenarios. California’s recent fires bear witness to this fact. Prior to the Camp Fire, the City of Paradise had some of the most comprehensive evacuation planning in the state. (Arthur 2019.) Similar to the WFEP, Paradise’s evacuation plan separated the town into different zones, so that residents living in each could evacuate surgically depending on where the fire started. (Ibid.) But during the Camp Fire, the whole town needed to flee, and a drive that was estimated to take 30 minutes slowed to four hours. (Ibid.) As a result, people died in their cars, attempting to evacuate on roads that did not have the capacity to get them all out at once. (Nicas 2018.) During the Tubbs fire, officials delayed warnings out of fear that a mass evacuation would cause panic and clog narrow roads that firefighters needed to access. (Chabria 2020.) Evacuation orders only went to a fraction of residents, as recommended in the WFEP. (Ibid.) But there, it left entire communities in the dark about their danger, and ultimately, 22 people died. (Ibid.) The Tubbs Fire also jumped the 101 freeway (Johnson 2017), whereas the WFEP relies on 165-foot FMZs to stop fire in its tracks. (FPP, Appendix B at B-9.) In the Glass Fire, the mandatory July 25, 2022

Page 11 ends

evacuation zone continued to expand to include entire cities such as Calistoga and Santa Rosa, resulting in “cars jammed on narrow roads.” (Money 2020.) In last year’s Caldor fire, vehicles were gridlocked in traffic for hours. (Angst 2021; PA News Agency 2021.) The Woolsey Fire quickly overwhelmed the region’s emergency response institutions, resulting in a similar standstill of traffic. (Stiles 2019; Pulse 2018; Los Angeles County 2019.) In a report on the lessons learned from Woolsey fire, the County of Los Angeles acknowledged that “[e]ven some of the largest, most experienced agencies in the United States were, at times, overwhelmed in the first hours by this incident’s speed and weight of impact.” (Los Angeles County 2019.) One of the key recommendations going forward was to “[c]reate more specific evacuation plans that can adapt to major road closures and a fast-paced disaster.” (Los Angeles County 2019, p. 8.) The WFEP nowhere contemplated the height and speed for a fire during evacuation, nor did it consider the effects of a major road closure. The failures of past evacuations should inform the WFEP. But instead, the WFEP ignores them.

The WFEP provides nine evacuation scenarios. (WFEP at 16, Appendix D at 4.) At the outset, the WFEP identifies the important assumptions that impact evacuation, such as roadway capacities, number of vehicles exiting the community, number of intersections and how they operate, mobilization time, fire spread rates, and locations of ignitions/new fire starts. (WFEP, Appendix D at 1.) The sheer number of scenarios is misleading because, for these factors that the WFEP identifies as most important, all nine scenarios rely on the same basic and flawed assumptions.

First, the WFEP fails to disclose the assumed roadway capacity. Determining how quickly traffic will flow is roadway capacity and is a key parameter in the WFEP’s modelling. (WFEP, Appendix D at 16; Annex Q at 16.) The analysis methodology relied on the following equation:

Evacuation Time = (Evacuation Population / Average Vehicle Occupancy) / Roadway Capacity The WFEP provides no information regarding the roadway capacities used in the evacuation time analysis. (See WFEP, Appendix D at 1, 2, 17.0) Without this information, the WFEP’s analysis is a black box, and the public and decisionmakers have no way to independently verify its conclusions.

Second, all nine scenarios assume any fire will originate far away from the Project site, giving many hours of lead time for warning and evacuation. The WFEP omits any study of fires that originate from the most hazardous and likely ignition points, namely, ignitions caused by residents of the Project site. The WFEP admits that if a fire started closer to the Project site during Santa Ana winds, evacuation would not be possible. (WFEP at 25.) Instead of providing assurances regarding its modeling, the County vaguely alludes to the need to explore “a different evacuation approach” or a “contingency” option for situations in which a fire starts within the Project site or nearby, or where a fire starts during low humidity and high winds (the fall months). (WFEP at 22, 25.) These “contingency” scenarios—in which evacuation breaks down and residents cannot escape—are not only possible, but quite likely.

Third, all nine scenarios do not account for the time needed to detect a fire, report a fire, for fire response, for evacuation notifications, for mobilization of the public (as people prepare to July 25, 2022

Page 12 ends

evacuate), and for notifying special needs citizens. One need only consider the recent fires in southern and northern California—and the efforts to evacuate—to understand that fire suppression and evacuation logistics do not necessarily mobilize in time to be effective. In the October 2017 Tubbs Fire, for instance, efforts to warn residents were successfully only 50 percent of the time because the system suffered from many levels of malfunction. (Sinning 2019; St. John 2017.) During the CZU Complex Fire, many emergency phone alerts were rejected as robocalls. (Har 2020.) Other Fire Protection Plans regularly provide an estimate of the time needed for these pre-evacuation activities, estimating them to be between 2 to 3 hours. (See, e.g., Exhibit 5 - Fire Protection Plan prepared by Dudek for the Harvest Hills project in Escondido (December 2020).)
Fourth, all nine scenarios assume an orderly evacuation with consistent traffic speeds. As the WFEP notes, “[a]mong the most important tools first responders use for successful evacuations in urban settings like Santee is control of intersections downstream of the evacuation area.” (WFEP at 27.) No information is provided for the public to assess the assumptions regarding intersection traffic control, such as whether intersections would be free flowing, controlled by law enforcement, or signal-controlled. Though the Project recognizes that human behavior can be unpredictable during an evacuation, the WFEP failed to account for the possibility that roads would be obscured by smoke or that visible nearby flames or blowing embers might impact driver behavior.

Fifth, all nine scenarios assume any evacuation will happen at night, during non-commute hours. (WFEP, Appendix D at 2.) In doing so, all nine evacuation scenarios fail to account for any ambient/background traffic that is already on the road system when the evacuation occurs.

The analysis includes traffic generated within the evacuation area (associated with existing land uses and the proposed project), but no other traffic generated from outside that area that might be passing through or in the area for business or social reasons. This is especially concerning given that the Final EIR recognized demands on the roadway system during regular commutes would result in a level-of-service of E or F—commonly known as “bottleneck” conditions—along Fanita Parkway and Cuyamaca Street during regular commutes, when no emergency is occurring. (FEIR, Table 4.16-11, 4.16-37-42.)
Sixth, the WFEP assumes that people will stay at home if not instructed to evacuate, despite the clear instructions provided by the homeowners’ association to leave early and under all circumstances. Under the evacuation scenario the WFEP identifies as “highest probability,” the WFEP assumes that a surgical evacuation of “perimeter” residents of Fanita Ranch and the existing community would occur, and all within 19 minutes. (WFEP at 15.) For this conclusion to hold, the WFEP assumes that all residents not instructed to evacuate will stay home and off the roads, in direct defiance of the REIR’s own observations about evacuation behavior. The REIR estimates that “approximately 25 percent of evacuees” are those who decide to leave the area “despite not being asked to evacuate off site,” known as “shadow evacuees.” (4.18-44.) The WFEP’s dependence on “surgical” evacuations assume that no such shadow evacuees exist, directly contradicting the WFEP’s own science and common sense. The Ready! Set! Go! plan, distributed to all homeowners through the HOA, urges residents “to evacuate as soon as they are notified to do so, or earlier if they feel uncomfortable and it is safe to do so. (WFEP, Appendix A; WFEP at 32 [“first and most logical choice” is for all residents to evacuate].) The basics of human behavior and the instructions contained in the Ready! Set! Go! Program dictate that more July 25, 2022

Page 13 ends

residents will try to leave the site than the WFEP hopes. With these additional residents evacuating, the WFEP’s assumptions simply do not hold.

Traffic engineer and evacuation expert Neal Liddicoat has reviewed the REIR’s evacuation analysis and identified numerous additional deficiencies. (See Exhibit 6.) His comments are incorporated herein by reference.

What is clear from the past several years of megafires in California is that these fires are extremely difficult, if not impossible to stop; the only choice is to get people out of harm’s way.

Evacuations hardly go according to plan, and wildfires can reach sizes that quickly overwhelm preexisting plans. Too few escape lanes for too many people in too many vehicles is a fundamental problem. (Diskin 2019.) It is foolish for the WFEP to consistently rely on overly optimistic assumptions, ignoring the realities of large-scale evacuation efforts. If the fire starts within the Project footprint or nearby surrounding locations during Santa Ana winds, or if the roads become congested, evacuation will be untenable. The WFEP has no basis to conclude that evacuation procedures would be sufficient to protect the public’s safety.

C. Shelter-in-Place Is Not a Substitute for an Adequate Evacuation Plan.

Nowhere is the WFEP’s failure more glaring than in its heavy reliance on the unstudied “shelter-in-place” plan, which suggests that residents can safely stay at home during a wildfire.

As discussed above, five of the County’s nine modelled evacuation scenarios depend on certain portions of the Project site remaining at home.

While the WFEP touts the importance of resident outreach for successful evacuation, the REIR noticeably does not require education or outreach to residents about shelter-in-place. The “Ready, Set, Go!” Program instructs residents to “evacuate as soon as you are set” and to “leave early enough to avoid being caught in fire,” even before directed to do so by emergency personnel. (WFEP Appendix A.) In fact, the only mention of remaining at home is as a last resort worst-case scenario, outlining a list of “survival tips” for “if you are trapped.” (Ibid.) San Diego County’s official position on shelter-in-place underlines WFEP’s overreliance on it. The WFEP touts shelter-in-place as an “available option” to be used whenever “physical evacuation is impractical.” (WFEP at 22.) Yet the County has identified “shelter-in-place” as a last resort to be used only “if an evacuation will cause a higher potential for loss of life,” (Annex Q at 11, 29) to be used primarily for “chemical, radiological, or biological incident[s].” (Annex Q at 20.) Since the City did not honestly study the evacuation risks, nor design the Project to avoid such risks, there will be many situations where physical evacuation is impractical. Shelterin-place cannot provide the City with a cure-all to hide such deficiencies.

Furthermore, the safety of a shelter-in-place plan relies upon fire-proof buildings that residents can safely shelter within—a level of fire safety that the Project does not guarantee. (WFEP at 22.) Again, this misleadingly overstates the efficacy of building codes and the role they play to reduce fire risk. The core measures in the FPP that the County relies upon are already required by the 2007 Building code (Chapter 7A). (FPP at 117.) The code’s purpose is to “establish minimum standards for the protection of life and property by increasing the ability of a building…to resist the intrusion of flames or burning embers…” (California Building Code July 25, 2022

Page 14 ends

2021, § 701A.2.) As mentioned previously, measures required in California’s Fire Code may help make homes more fire-resistant than previous homes, but they do not make them fire-proof.

Syphard and Keeley clearly communicate this in their April 20, 2020 email, and it is evident in numerous studies that repeatedly find structures built to code were destroyed by wildfire (Alexandre et al. 2016a; Alexandre et al. 2016b; Syphard et al. 2017; Syphard and Keeley 2019; Kasler and Reese 2019.) The City’s cherrypicking of fires in which no homes were lost does not absolve the City of this risk. (WFEP at 22, FPP at 34, 46 [dismissing up-to-code homes lost in fires as “due to human error”].) In many cases, only luck determines whether a temporary refuge ends up being razed by a fast-moving fire. For that reason, no fire department has ever instructed people to stay in their homes. (Chandler 2019.) Complying with the California Building Code does not make a building fireproof, and the WFEP offers no evidence to support such a claim.

Even worse, the Project appears to lack the space necessary per person for shelter-inplace to be effective. The scant details that are provided—for instance, that 5.0 acres of bare ground is needed to protect each 3-person crew, even though around 9,000 people may require shelter—provide no basis for concluding that such plans can be effective. (WFEP at 39.) The public—including future residents of the Project, and existing residents nearby who will be relying on Fanita Parkway and Cuyamaca Street for evacuation—have a right to know the full extent of the Project’s impacts on wildfire evacuation. “Omission of material necessary to informed decision-making and informed public participation is prejudicial.” (Sierra Club v.

County of Fresno, (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 515.) The City must conduct an honest assessment of the risks posed by the Project design and develop an evacuation plan that presents a less than significant risk.

D. The DEIR Wholly Fails to Analyze Whether the Project Will Result in Inadequate Emergency Access into the Project Site.

The REIR purports to analyze whether the Project will result in delays to emergency access. (REIR at 4.18-51.) However, its brief one-paragraph discussion of this issue does not address the adequacy of roadway capacity—either along Fanita Parkway, Cuyamaca Street, or within the Project site—to accommodate emergency access, particularly while site occupants are simultaneously attempting to evacuate during a wildfire. The REIR merely concludes that these roads would be used for emergency access and “sized to provide adequate access.” (REIR at

4.18-52.) The REIR omits any analysis of the effect resident evacuation would have on the ability and timing for first responders who are responding to wildfire in the vicinity of the Project. The REIR’s bare conclusion is insufficient under CEQA.

E. The DEIR Fails to Demonstrate Consistency with the Dead-End Road Requirements.

An EIR must clearly set forth all significant effects of the Project on the environment, including impacts on land use. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21100, subd. (b)(1); CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.2, subd. (a).) The REIR must identify and discuss any conflicts between the Project and land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15125, subd. (d), Appendix G (XI).) July 25, 2022

Page 15 ends

Related to the issue of evacuation and emergency access, the City must ensure that the Project complies with applicable limits on the length of dead-end roads. The Project is located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. (FEIR at 4.18-2; FPP at 45.) Within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, certain road standards apply, including limits on the length of dead-end roads. (Cal. Code. Regs., tit. 14, §§ 1270.02, 1273.08.) The City omits any mention of the deadend road requirements, and the REIR lacks any commitment that the Project will comply with them. (FEIR at 4.18-51.) If any parcels served by the dead-end roads are between 1 to 4.99 acres in size, which it appears some could be, dead end roads over .25 miles are prohibited. (Cal.

Code. Regs., tit. 14, § 1273.09 [limiting dead end roads for parcels of this size to a maximum length of 1,320 feet].)
Not only does this Project appear to present a direct violation of the State Fire Safe Regulation, it violates CEQA’s mandate that EIRs evaluate conflicts with land use plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect. The REIR must be revised to demonstrate compliance with these state law requirements.

III. THE REIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY EVALUATE THE PROJECT’S CUMULATIVE WILDFIRE IMPACTS.

The REIR’s analysis of the Projects cumulative wildfire impacts is cursory and wholly inadequate. CEQA requires an EIR to analyze a project’s significant “cumulative impacts,” defined in the CEQA Guidelines as two or more individual effects, which, when considered together, are considerable or that compound or increase other environmental impacts. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15355, 15130(a).) The CEQA Guidelines further state that individual effects may include changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects, or the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15355.) The purpose of analyzing cumulative environmental impacts is to assess adverse environmental change “as a whole greater than the sum of its parts.” (Environmental Protection Information Center v. Johnson (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 604, 625.) Absent meaningful cumulative analysis there would be no comprehensive assessment of environmental impacts within a region and “piecemeal development would inevitably cause havoc in virtually every aspect of the [] environment.” (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 721.) By their nature, the impacts of one individual project may not appear significant, but the combined impacts of many sources can drastically affect the region’s environment. The CEQA Guidelines specifically identify wildfire risk as a likely cumulative impact, stating that EIRs “should evaluate any potentially significant direct, indirect, or cumulative environmental impacts of locating development in areas susceptible to hazardous conditions (e.g., . . .wildfire risk areas).” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.2(a).)
Despite this requirement, the REIR provides only a single, conclusory paragraph dismissing cumulative wildfire impacts with virtually no analysis. The REIR makes no mention of how increased development adds more opportunities for igniting fires, more fuel, and make emergency response operations more complex. It attempts to dispel any cumulative impacts since future development projects would also undergo CEQA review of potential impacts. (REIR at 4.18-53.) Then, it concludes, without further analysis and in reliance on its own Wildfire July 25, 2022

Page 16 ends

Protection Plan and compliance with applicable fire code standards that cumulative wildfire impacts from the Project will be less than significant. (REIR at 4.18-57.) A lead agency must “identify facts and analysis supporting its conclusion” that a project’s contribution to an environmental impact will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable.

CEQA Guidelines, § 15130(a)(3). The mere fact that the project proponent has prepared a Wildfire Prevention Plan for the Project itself does nothing to address the Project’s cumulative wildfire impacts when considered along with the other projects proposed in the region; the document is silent about any other projects. (REIR at 4.18.) The REIR simply gives no indication that the wildfire impacts from the cumulative projects have ever been considered collectively.

Thus, it lacks sufficient information and analyses for the public and decisionmakers to be able to evaluate the Project’s potential cumulative impacts to wildfire risk and hazard and the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures for the Project. 1 To comply with CEQA, the City must disclose the potential for increased wildfires due to the potential for increased ignitions from the cumulative projects and evaluate the increased risk to lives and property from these fires. Only when this analysis is undertaken will the public and decisionmakers be apprised of the real-world implications of developing new residential communities in the urban wildland interface.

IV. THE REIR LACKS AN ADEQUATE ANALYSIS OF LAND USE

IMPACTS
CEQA requires that agencies analyze a project’s consistency with applicable land use plans. (Napa Citizens for Honest Gov. v. Napa County Bd. Of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 386-87; CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, § X.) Inconsistencies with plans that were enacted to protect the environment are significant impacts in themselves and can be evidence of other significant impacts.

The Project is inconsistent with the General Plan adopted by the City of Santee. The Project proposes residential development on land clearly designated as Specific Plan or PD— Planned Development or HL—Hillside Limited Residential and R1– Low Density Residential. (Santee General Plan, p. 1-3; Santee 2022.) The Specific Plan land use designation requires preparation of a specific plan for future development of those areas. (Santee 2022.) Because the Project was inconsistent with the Santee General Plan, the City originally sought a general plan amendment for the Project.

The project evaluated in the REIR does not include a specific plan and proposes a higher density development than what the General Plan allows. The REIR does not acknowledge these designations and the resulting irreconcilable conflict between the Project and the General Plan. It 1 For example, the County should, at a minimum, analyze and disclose the amount of time it would take to evacuate the entire Project under various scenarios, assuming simultaneous evacuation of existing homes in the vicinity of the Project and anticipated future development in the vicinity.

July 25, 2022

Page 17 ends

therefore fails to consider the environmental impacts that would follow from developing this area contrary to the General Plan.

Rather than recognize and evaluate impacts associated with this land use conflict, the REIR misleadingly claims that the City’s designation of the Project as an “Essential Housing Project” obviates the need to analyze consistency and comply with the General Plan. (REIR at 3-

1.) This is incorrect and undermines, the REIR as an informational document and violates CEQA (Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 322) and the state planning and zoning law.

V. THE REIR MUST BE RECIRCULATED.

Under California law, this REIR cannot properly form the basis of a final EIR. CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines describe the circumstances that require recirculation of a draft EIR.

Such circumstances include: (1) the addition of significant new information to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the DEIR but before certification, or (2) the draft EIR is so “fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15088.5.) Here, both circumstances apply. Decisionmakers and the public cannot possibly assess the Project’s impacts through the present REIR, which is riddled with error. Among other fundamental deficiencies, the REIR repeatedly underestimates the Project’s significant impacts and assumes that project design features at the margins will effectively reduce those impacts. In order to resolve these issues, the City must prepare a revised EIR that would necessarily include substantial new information.

VI. CONCLUSION
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the Revised Environmental Impact Report for the Fanita Ranch Project. The City should remedy the deficiencies identified in this letter in a revised document re-circulated for further public review and comment.

Given the possibility that the Center will be required to pursue legal remedies to ensure that the City complies with its legal obligations including those arising under CEQA, we would like to remind the County of its statutory duty to maintain and preserve all documents and communications that may constitute part of the “administrative record” of this proceeding. (§ 21167.6(e); Golden Door Properties, LLC v. Superior Court (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 733, 762-

65.) The administrative record encompasses any and all documents and communications that relate to any and all actions taken by the County with respect to the Project, and includes “pretty much everything that ever came near a proposed [project] or [] the agency’s compliance with CEQA . . . .” (County of Orange v. Superior Court (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1, 8.) The administrative record further includes all correspondence, emails, and text messages sent to or received by the City’s representatives or employees, that relate to the Project, including any correspondence, emails, and text messages sent between the City’s representatives or employees and the Applicant’s representatives or employees. Maintenance and preservation of the July 25, 2022

Page 18 ends

administrative record requires that, inter alia, the City (1) suspend all data destruction policies; and (2) preserve all relevant hardware unless an exact replica of each file is made.

Please add the Center to your notice list for all future updates to the Project and do not hesitate to contact the Center with any questions at the number or email listed below.

Sincerely,
Peter J. Broderick
Attorney
Center for Biological Diversity
1212 Broadway, Suite #800
Oakland, CA 94612
(503) 283-5474 x421
[email protected]
CC: Hallie Kutak, attorney, [email protected] July 25, 2022

Page 19 ends

REFERENCES
Alexandre, P. M., Stewart, S. I., Keuler, N. S., Clayton, M. K., Mockrin, M. H., Bar-Massada, A., Syphard, A. D., & Radeloff, V. C. (2016). Factors related to building loss due to wildfires in the conterminous United States. Ecological Applications, 26(7), 2016, pp. 2323–2338.

Alexandre, P. M., Stewart, S. I., Mockrin, M. H., Keuler, N. S., Syphard, A. D., Bar-Massada, A., Clayton, M. K., & Radeloff, V. C. (2016). The relative impacts of vegetation, topography and spatial arrangement on building loss to wildfires in case studies of California and Colorado. Landscape Ecol. 31:415–430.

Angst, M. & Kelliher, F. (2021). Caldor Fire evacuation caused hours of South Lake Tahoe traffic gridlock. Mercury News. Available at:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/08/30/its-out-of-control-caldor-fire-prompts-southlake-tahoe-evacuation-traffic-gridlock/.

Arthur, D. (2019, December 13). Unprepared to flee: Fleeing from fires is common; evacuation planning isn't. Record Searchlight. Available at: https://www.redding.com/indepth/news/2019/04/25/california-wildfire-evacuation-plans-not-required/3304823002/.

Balch, J. K., Bradley, B. A., Abatzoglou, J. T., Nagy, R. C., Fusco, E. J., & Mahood, A. L. (2017). Human-started wildfires expand the fire niche across the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(11), 2946–2951.

California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2 (Volumes 1& 2) with July 2021 Supplement.

Available at: https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CBC2019P4/chapter-7a-sfm-materials-andconstruction-methods-for-exterior-wildfire-exposure.

Chabria, A., St. John, P., Dolan, M., & Gerber, M. (2020, September 29). As flames tear through wine country, residents flash back to 2017. Los Angeles Times. Available at:
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-09-29/fires-evacuation-wine-country-santarosa.

Chandler, M. (2019, December 12). 'Am I going to stay in the parking lot . . . while the fires burn around me?’ Record Searchlight. Available at: https://www.redding.com/indepth/news/2019/04/25/california-wildfire-shelter-place-plans-questioned-evacuationpreparation/3427075002/.

City of Santee (2003). City of Santee General Plan 2000-2020. Available at:
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/services/development-services/planning-and-zoningservices/general-plan.

City of Santee (2022). Resolution 094-2020 - Resolution of the City Council of the City of Santee, California Adopting A General Plan Amendment. Available at:

July 25, 2022

Page 20 ends

http://sntbberry.cityofsanteeca.gov/sites/FanitaRanch/Public/B%20Resolutions%20and% 20Ordinances/Tab%2002%20-%20Resolution%20No.%20094-2020%20- %20GPA%20Resolution.pdf
Diskin, M. & Wyloge, E. (2019, April 25). Here's why so many California wildfire evacuations turn into deadly traffic jams. Ventura County Star. Available at: https://www.vcstar.com/indepth/news/local/2019/04/25/california-wildfire-evacuation-routes-trafficjams/3238313002/ Goss, M., Swain, D. L., Abatzoglou, J. T., Sarhadi, A., Kolden, C., Williams, A.P., & Diffenbaugh, N. S. (2020). Climate change is increasing the likelihood of extreme autumn wildfire conditions across California. Environ. Res. Lett. 15 094016.

Governor Newsom’s Strike Force (2019, April 12). Wildfires and Climate Change: California’s Energy Future
Har, J. (2020, August 31.) Wildfire Evacuation Alerts Failed to Reach Everyone. KQED.

Available at: https://www.kqed.org/news/11836037/wildfire-evacuation-alerts-failed-toreach-everyone.

Hunt, https://www.10news.com/news/remembering-the-cedar-fire-15-years-later Johnson, J. (2017, October 14). The Tubbs fire: How its deadly march from Calistoga to Santa Rosa unfolded. Press Democrat. Available at:
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/the-tubbs-fire-how-its-deadly-march-fromcalistoga-to-santa-rosa-unfolded/.

Kasler, D. & Reese, P. (2019, April 11). Which houses survived wildfire? Often, those built to code. Phys
Keeley, J. E. (2005). Fire as a threat to biodiversity in fire-type shrublands. Planning for biodiversity: bringing research and management together. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-195.

Keeley, J. E., & Fotheringham, C. J. (2003). Impact of Past Present and Future Fire Regimes on North American Mediterranean Shrublands. In Fire and climatic change in temperate ecosystems of the Western Americas (pp. 218–262).

Keeley, J. E., Fotheringham, C. J., & Morais, M. (1999). Reexamining fire suppression impacts on brushland fire regimes. Science, 284(5421), 1829–1832.

Keeley, J. E. & Syphard, A. D. (2020). Nexus between wildfire, climate change, and population growth in California. Fremontia, Vol. 47, No. 2.

Keeley, J. E. & Syphard, A. D. (2019). Twenty-first century California, USA, wildfires: fueldominated vs. wind-dominated fires. Fire Ecology, 15, 24.

July 25, 2022

Page 21 ends

Kramer, H. A., Mockrin, M. H., Alexandre, P. M., & Radeloff, V. C. (2019). High wildfire damage in interface communities in California. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 28, 641–650.

Los Angeles County (2019, November 17). After Action Review of the Woolsey Fire Incident.

Available at: http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/144968.pdf.

Money, l., Chabria, A., Smith, H., Lin II, R., & Ormseth, M. (2020, September 28). 3 found dead in latest California wildfires as wine country remains under siege. Los Angeles Times.

Available at: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-09-28/california-wine-countryfires-homes-lost-evacuations.

Nicas. J., Fuller, T., & Arango, T. (2018, November 11). Forced Out by Deadly Fires, Then Trapped in Traffic. New York Times. Available at:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/11/us/california-fire-paradise.html.

PA News Agency (2021, August 31). California wildfire approaches Lake Tahoe after mass evacuation. Stroud News and Journal. Available at:
https://www.stroudnewsandjournal.co.uk/news/national/19547550.california-wildfireapproaches-lake-tahoe-mass-evacuation/.

Radeloff, V. C., Helmers, D. P., Kramer, H. A., Mockrin, M. H., Alexandre, P. M., Bar-Massada, A., … Stewart, S. I. (2018). Rapid growth of the US wildland-urban interface raises wildfire risk. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(13), 3314–3319.

Schlickman, E., Milligan, B., & Wheeler, S. M. (2022, July 14.) We can’t design our way out of wildfires. Some communities need to retreat. Fast Company. Available at:
https://www.fastcompany.com/90769150/we-cant-design-our-way-out-of-wildfires-somecommunities-need-to-retreat.

Sinning, S. (2019, October 30). Troubled evacuation in Paradise: How a malfunctioning alert system kept citizens in harm’s way. Gov1. Available at: https://www.gov1.com/emergencymanagement/articles/troubled-evacuation-in-paradise-how-a-malfunctioning-alert-systemkept-citizens-in-harms-way-RTkXZZAyUSmdj7kG/.

Smith, D. & Agrawal, N. (2017, October 15). Despite clear risks, Santa Rosa neighborhood that burned down was exempt from state fire regulations. Los Angeles Times. Available at:
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-coffey-park-explainer-20171011-story.html.

St. John, P. (2017, December 29). Alarming failures left many in path of California wildfires vulnerable and without warning. Los Angeles Times. Available at:
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-fire-warnings-failure-20171229-story.html.

Stiles, M. & Serna, J. (2019, October 23). Woolsey fire response hurt by poor disaster preparation, lack of firefighters, report says. Los Angeles Times. Available at:

July 25, 2022

Page 22 ends

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-10-23/woolsey-fire-cause-report-malibu.

Syphard, A. D., Brennan, T. J., & Keeley, J. E. (2018). Chaparral Landscape Conversion in Southern California. In Valuing Chaparral (pp. 323–346).

Syphard, A. D. and Keeley, J. E. (2020). Factors Associated with Structure Loss in the 2013–2018 California Wildfires. Fire, 2019, 2, 49.

Syphard, A. D. and Keeley, J. E. (2019). Why Are So Many Structures Burning in California? Fremontia, Vol. 47, No. 2.

Syphard, A. D., Massada, A. B., Butsic, V., & Keeley, J. E. (2013). Land use planning and wildfire : Development policies influence future probability of housing loss. PLoS ONE, 8(8), e71708. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071708 Syphard, A. D., Radeloff, V. C., Keeley, J. E., Hawbaker, T. J., Clayton, M. K., Stewart, S. I., … Hammer, R. B. (2007). Human influence on California fire regimes. Ecological Society of America, 17(5), 1388–1402.

Syphard, A. D., Rustigian-romsos, H., Mann, M., Conlisk, E., Moritz, M. A., & Ackerly, D. (2019). The relative influence of climate and housing development on current and projected future fire patterns and structure loss across three California landscapes. Global Environmental Change, 56, 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.03.007.

United States Census Bureau: Santee city, California for Population, Census April 1, 2020 which Population Estimates, July 1, 2021
Waitkins, D., Griggs, T., Lee, J., Park, H., Singhvi, A., Wallace, T., amd Ward, J. (2017, October 21). New York Times. Available at:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/21/us/california-fire-damage-map.html.

July 25, 2022

Page 23 ends

EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: Notice of Entry of Judgment in Preserve Wild Santee, et al. v. City of Santee, Case No. 37-2020-00038168-CU-WM-CTL
Exhibit 2: Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action, Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines, California Natural Resources Agency
Exhibit 3: Syphard and Keeley, April 20, 2020 email
Exhibit 4: Notice of Entry of Judgment in Sierra Club, et al. v. County of San Diego, Case No. 37-2019-00038820.

Exhibit 5: Fire Protection Plan prepared by Dudek for the Harvest Hills project in Escondido (December 2020)
Exhibit 6: Neal Liddicoat, Fanita Ranch Project – Santee, California Recirculated Sections of Final Revised Environmental Impact Report, July 22, 2022 Exhibit 1
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
4878-6570-7546.1 NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

LAW OFFICES
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble
Mallory & Natsis LLP

ALLEN MATKINS LECK GAMBLE

MALLORY & NATSIS LLP
JEFFREY A. CHINE (BAR NO. 131742)
HEATHER S. RILEY (BAR NO. 214482)
REBECCA H. WILLIAMS (BAR NO. 328320)
One America Plaza
600 West Broadway, 27th Floor
San Diego, California 92101-0903
Phone: (619) 233-1155
Fax: (619) 233-1158
E-Mail: [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Attorneys for Real Party in Interest

HOMEFED FANITA RANCHO, LLC

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

PRESERVE WILD SANTEE, CENTER FOR

BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY,
ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE, and

CALIFORNIA CHAPARRAL

INSTITUTE,
Petitioners,
v.

CITY OF SANTEE, CITY OF SANTEE CITY
COUNCIL; and DOES 1 through 18 20,
inclusive,
Respondents.

HOMEFED FANITA RANCHO, LLC; and
DOES 21 through 40, inclusive,
Real Parties in Interest.

Case No. 37-2020-00038168-CU-WM-CTL
Judge: Hon. Katherine Bacal
Department: C-69

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
Complaint Filed: 10/21/2020
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
4878-6570-7546.1
-2-

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

LAW OFFICES
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble
Mallory & Natsis LLP
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Court has entered Judgment in this matter as of March 25, 2022. A true and accurate copy of the Judgment entered by the Court is attached hereto as Exhibit "A."
Dated: April 6, 2022 ALLEN MATKINS LECK GAMBLE

MALLORY & NATSIS LLP
By:

JEFFREY A. CHINE
HEATHER S. RILEY
REBECCA H. WILLIAMS
Attorneys for Real Party in Interest

HOMEFED FANITA RANCHO, LLC

EXHIBIT A
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

PRESERVE WILD SANTEE, CENTER FOR

BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY,
ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE, and

CALIFORNIA CHAPARRAL INSTITUTE
Petitioners,
v.

CITY OF SANTEE, CITY OF SANTEE
CITY COUNCIL; and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive,
Respondents,
HOMEFED FANITA RANCHO, LLC; and
DOES 21 through 40, inclusive,
Real Parties in Interest.

Case No. 37-2020-00038168-CU-WM-CTL
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
Action Filed: October 21, 2020
Hearing Date: February 4, 2022, 1:30 pm
Department: Dept C-69
Judge: Hon. Katherine Bacal
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
1 Petitioners Preserve Wild Santee, Center for Biological Diversity, Endangered Habitats League, and California Chaparral Institute (“Petitioners”) by the above-captioned action challenged the September 24, 2020 decision of the City of Santee and the City of Santee City Council (“Respondents”) to approve the Fanita Ranch Project (“Project”), adopt findings, and certify an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the Project. The matter came on for hearing on February 4, 2022, in Department C69 of the above-captioned court, the Honorable Katherine Bacal, presiding. Appearances were as noted in the record. The Court having reviewed the record of proceedings in this matter and having heard oral argument and fully considered the arguments of all parties, both written and oral, and after taking the matter under submission, issued a ruling by Minute Order on March 3, 2022 (“Order”), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by reference.

IT IS NOW ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that:

1. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Petitioners, Preserve Wild Santee, Center For Biological Diversity, Endangered Habitats League, and California Chaparral Institute, and against Respondents City Of Santee and City Of Santee City Council and Real Party in Interest HomeFed Fanita Rancho, LLC.

2. The San Diego Superior Court issues the Peremptory Writ of Mandate attached hereto as Exhibit B, which, inter alia, orders Respondents to:
a. Set aside and vacate in its entirety Resolution No. 093-2020 of the City Council for the City of Santee Certifying the Revised Environmental Impact Report (SCH # 2005061118) for the Fanita Ranch Project; Adopting Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations Under the California Environmental Quality Act; Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and Approving the Project;
b. Set aside and vacate in its entirety Resolution No. 094-2020 of the City Council of the City of Santee, California Adopting A General Plan Amendment, Case File GPA2017-2, Relating to the Fanita Ranch Specific Plan;
c. Set aside and vacate in its entirety Resolution No. 095-2020 of the City Council of the City of Santee, California Approving the Application of HomeFed Fanita 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
2 Rancho LLC for Fanita Ranch Vesting Tentative Map TM2017-3 for the Subdivision of Approximately 2,638 Acres into 1,467 Lots to Develop the Fanita Ranch Master Planned Community Located North of the Terminus of Fanita Parkway in the Fanita Ranch Specific Plan Development Area; d. Set aside and vacate in its entirety Resolution No. 096-2020 of the City Council of the City of Santee, California Approving the Application of HomeFed Fanita Rancho LLC for Fanita Ranch Development Review Permit DR2017-4 for the Subdivision of Approximately 2,638 Acres into 1,467 Lots to Develop the Fanita Ranch Master Planned Community Located North of the Terminus of Fanita Parkway in the Fanita Ranch Specific Plan Development Area;; e. Set aside and vacate in its entirety Resolution No. 097-2020 of the City Council of the City of Santee, California Approving the Application of HomeFed Fanita Rancho LLC for a Conditional Use Permit (P2017-5) for a New 31.2-Acre Public Community Park Located in the Fanita Commons Village Shown on Lot CP-1 of Fanita Ranch Vesting Tentative Map TM2017-3;
f. Set aside and vacate in its entirety Resolution No. 098-2020 of the City Council of the City of Santee, California Approving the Application of HomeFed Fanita Rancho LLC for a Conational Use Permit (P2020-2) for a New 4.2-Acre Public Neighborhood Park Located in the Fanita Commons Village Shown on Lot NP-8 of Fanita Ranch Vesting Tentative Map TM2017-3;
g. Set aside and vacate in its entirety Ordinance No. 580 – An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Santee, California Adding Chapter 13.20 “Specific Plan District” to Title 13 and Amending Chapter 13.04 “Administration” of the Santee Municipal Code, and Approving the Fanita Ranch Specific Plan (Case Files R2017-1 and SP2017-1); and
h. Set aside and vacate in its entirety Ordinance No. 581 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Santee, California, Approving and Authorizing Execution 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
3 of a Development Agreement by and Among the City of Santee and HomeFed Fanita Rancho, LLC.

3. Petitioners are entitled to recover costs in an amount to be determined. This Court reserves jurisdiction to hear post-trial issues matters, including the award costs and attorney’s fees.

4. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over these proceedings by way of a return to the Peremptory Writ of Mandate until such time as this Court determines that the City has complied with the terms of the writ.

DATED: ________________ _________________________________ Hon. Katherine Bacal
Judge of the Superior Court

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

PRESERVE WILD SANTEE, CENTER FOR

BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY,
ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE, and

CALIFORNIA CHAPARRAL INSTITUTE
Petitioners,
v.

CITY OF SANTEE, CITY OF SANTEE
CITY COUNCIL; and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive,
Respondents,
HOMEFED FANITA RANCHO, LLC; and
DOES 21 through 40, inclusive,
Real Parties in Interest.

Case No. 37-2020-00038168-CU-WM-CTL
[PROPOSED] PEREMPTORY WRIT OF

MANDATE
Action Filed: October 21, 2020
Hearing Date: February 4, 2022, 1:30 pm
Department: Dept C-69
Judge: Hon. Katherine Bacal
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
[PROPOSED] PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE
1 TO RESPONDENTS CITY OF SANTEE, CITY OF SANTEE CITY COUNCIL:

Petitioners Preserve Wild Santee, Center for Biological Diversity, Endangered Habitats League, and California Chaparral Institute (“Petitioners”) by the above-captioned action challenged the September 24, 2020 decision of the City of Santee and the City of Santee City Council (“Respondents”) to approve the Fanita Ranch Project (“Project”), adopt findings, and certify an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the Project. The matter came on for hearing on February 4, 2022, in Department C69 of the above-captioned court, the Honorable Katherine Bacal, presiding. Judgment having been entered in this proceeding commanding that a peremptory writ of mandate issue under seal of this Court and based on that Judgment:

IT IS NOW ORDERED that, promptly after service of this Peremptory Writ of Mandate upon Respondents,

1. Respondents shall:
a. Set aside and vacate in its entirety Resolution No. 093-2020 of the City Council for the City of Santee Certifying the Revised Environmental Impact Report (SCH # 2005061118) for the Fanita Ranch Project; Adopting Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations Under the California Environmental Quality Act; Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and Approving the Project;
b. Set aside and vacate in its entirety Resolution No. 094-2020 of the City Council of the City of Santee, California Adopting A General Plan Amendment, Case File GPA2017-2, Relating to the Fanita Ranch Specific Plan;
c. Set aside and vacate in its entirety Resolution No. 095-2020 of the City Council of the City of Santee, California Approving the Application of HomeFed Fanita Rancho LLC for Fanita Ranch Vesting Tentative Map TM2017-3 for the Subdivision of Approximately 2,638 Acres into 1,467 Lots to Develop the Fanita Ranch Master Planned Community Located North of the Terminus of Fanita Parkway in the Fanita Ranch Specific Plan Development Area; 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
[PROPOSED] PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE
2 d. Set aside and vacate in its entirety Resolution No. 096-2020 of the City Council of the City of Santee, California Approving the Application of HomeFed Fanita Rancho LLC for Fanita Ranch Development Review Permit DR2017-4 for the Subdivision of Approximately 2,638 Acres into 1,467 Lots to Develop the Fanita Ranch Master Planned Community Located North of the Terminus of Fanita Parkway in the Fanita Ranch Specific Plan Development Area;; e. Set aside and vacate in its entirety Resolution No. 097-2020 of the City Council of the City of Santee, California Approving the Application of HomeFed Fanita Rancho LLC for a Conditional Use Permit (P2017-5) for a New 31.2-Acre Public Community Park Located in the Fanita Commons Village Shown on Lot CP-1 of Fanita Ranch Vesting Tentative Map TM2017-3;
f. Set aside and vacate in its entirety Resolution No. 098-2020 of the City Council of the City of Santee, California Approving the Application of HomeFed Fanita Rancho LLC for a Conational Use Permit (P2020-2) for a New 4.2-Acre Public Neighborhood Park Located in the Fanita Commons Village Shown on Lot NP-8 of Fanita Ranch Vesting Tentative Map TM2017-3;
g. Set aside and vacate in its entirety Ordinance No. 580 – An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Santee, California Adding Chapter 13.20 “Specific Plan District” to Title 13 and Amending Chapter 13.04 “Administration” of the Santee Municipal Code, and Approving the Fanita Ranch Specific Plan (Case Files R2017-1 and SP2017-1); and
h. Set aside and vacate in its entirety Ordinance No. 581 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Santee, California, Approving and Authorizing Execution of a Development Agreement by and Among the City of Santee and HomeFed Fanita Rancho, LLC.

2. Respondents are further ordered to file and serve a return to the writ no later than 60 days after service of this writ. The return shall specify the actions taken to comply with the terms of this Peremptory Writ of Mandate.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
[PROPOSED] PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE
3 3. Respondents are further ordered to suspend all project activity that could result in any change or alteration to the physical environment unless and until Respondents have corrected the deficiencies identified the Court’s judgment and attached March 3, 2022, Minute Order; reconsidered an EIR certification determination and findings relative to the project; and brought their determination and findings into compliance with the requirements of CEQA.

4. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over these proceedings by way of a return to this Peremptory Writ of Mandate pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21168.9(b) until such time as this Court determines that the City has complied with the terms of this writ.

5. This order is made pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21168.9(b), which provides that any order finding that a decision of a public agency has been made without compliance with CEQA shall include only those mandates which are necessary to achieve compliance with CEQA, and only those specific project activities in noncompliance with CEQA.

6. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21168.9(c), this order does not direct Respondents to exercise their discretion in any particular way.

THE FOREGOING PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE ISSUES IMMEDIATELY.

DATED: ________________ _________________________________ Clerk of the Superior Court
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ________________ _________________________________ Hon. Katherine Bacal
Judge of the Superior Court
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
4878-6570-7546.1
-3-

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

LAW OFFICES
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble
Mallory & Natsis LLP

PROOF OF SERVICE
I am employed in the County of San Diego, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen (18) and am not a party to this action. My business address is One America Plaza, 600 West Broadway, 27th Floor, San Diego, California 92101-0903.

On April 6, 2022, I served the within document(s) described as:
• NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
on the interested parties in this action as stated below:

John Buse, Esq.

Aruna Prabhala, Esq.

Peter Broderick, Esq.

Ross Middlemiss, Esq.

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
1212 Broadway, Suite 800
Oakland, CA 94612
Attorneys for Center for Biological Diversity,
Preserve Wild Santee, Endangered Habitats
League, and California Chaparral Institute
Telephone: (510) 844-7100
Facsimile: (510) 844-7150
Email(s): [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Shawn Hagerty, Esq.

Amy E. Hoyt, Esq.

Amanda Daams, Esq.

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
655 West Broadway, 15th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Attorneys for Respondents
City of Santee and City of Santee City Council
Telephone: (619) 525-1300
Facsimile: (619) 233-6118
Email(s): [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
 BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Based on and in accordance with a court order or agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused a true copy of the document to be sent to the persons at the corresponding electronic address as indicated above on the above-mentioned date. My electronic notification address is [email protected]. I am readily familiar with this firm’s Microsoft Outlook electronic mail system and did not receive any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on April 6, 2022, at San Diego, California.

Pamela Tei Lewis
(Type or print name) (Signature of Declarant)
Exhibit 2

CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY

FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR

REGULATORY ACTION
Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines
Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Pursuant to SB97
December 2009
ii
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................1 FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS..................................................................... 3

BACKGROUND ON THE EFFECTS OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND CALIFORNIA‘S EFFORTS TO REDUCE THOSE EMISSIONS ........................... 3 What Are Greenhouse Gases? ......................................................................... 3 What Causes Greenhouse Gas Emissions? ..................................................... 4 What Effects May Result from Increased Greenhouse Gas Emissions?........... 5 Why is California Involved in Greenhouse Gas Regulation? .............................7 What is California Doing to Reduce its Greenhouse Gas Emissions?............... 8 AB32 – The Global Warming Solutions Act ................................................... 9 SB375............................................................................................................ 9 CEQA and SB97............................................................................................9

BACKGROUND ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.....................................................................10 ADOPTED AMENDMENTS................................................................................13 SECTION 15064. DETERMINING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS CAUSED BY A PROJECT. ...........................14 SECTION 15064.4. DETERMINING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS FROM GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS......................................................20 SECTION 15064.7. THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE ..............................30 SECTION 15065. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.................33 SECTION 15086. CONSULTATION CONCERNING DRAFT EIR.................35 SECTION 15093. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS......36 SECTION 15125. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING...........................................38 SECTION 15126.2. CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION OF
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................................41 iii
SECTION 15126.4. CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION OF MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED TO MINIMIZE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS...............46 SECTION 15130. DISCUSSION OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS.....................53 SECTION 15150. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE...............................58 SECTION 15183. PROJECTS CONSISTENT WITH A COMMUNITY PLAN OR ZONING....................................................................................................61 SECTION 15183.5. TIERING AND STREAMLINING THE ANALYSIS OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .................................................................64 SECTION 15364.5. GREENHOUSE GAS .....................................................69 APPENDIX F. ENERGY CONSERVATION...................................................71 APPENDIX G. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST ................................................74 NON-SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES........................................................................78 THEMATIC RESPONSES ..................................................................................80 Quantitative versus Qualitative Analysis ....................................................80 Existing Environmental Setting ...................................................................83 Thresholds of Significance...........................................................................84 Mitigation Hierarchy......................................................................................85 Reliability and Effectiveness of Mitigation..................................................87 Off-site Mitigation and Offsets .....................................................................87 Use of Plans for the Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in a Cumulative Impacts Analysis.......................................................................90 Definition of Greenhouse Gas Emissions...................................................91 Forestry..........................................................................................................92 “Level of Service” and Transportation Impact Analysis............................93 Parking ...........................................................................................................96 iv
AB32, SB375 and CEQA ...............................................................................97 The Effect of Consistency with the Scoping Plan and the Regulations Implementing AB32 .....................................................................................97 The Effect of Consistency with Plans for the Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Sustainable Communities Strategies and Alternative Planning Strategies.....................................................................................................98 The Effect of Compliance with Regulations Implementing AB32 or Other Laws Intended to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions.............................100 Projects That Implement AB32 or Otherwise Assist in Achieving the State‘s Emissions Reductions Goals .....................................................................101 “Adaptation” and Analysis of the Effects of Climate Change on a Project

..................................................................................................101 Additional Changes.....................................................................................104 Determination Regarding Impacts on Local Government and School Districts

...............................................................................................104 Determination Regarding Potential Economic Impacts Directly Affecting Business

.........................................................................................105 Bibliography of Works Cited..........................................................................107 1 CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY

FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR REGULATORY ACTION
December 2009

INTRODUCTION
The California Natural Resources Agency ("the Resources Agency") has adopted certain amendments and additions to certain guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA").

Specifically, these amendments implement the Legislature‘s directive in Public Resources Code section 21083.05 (enacted as part of SB97 (Chapter 185, Statutes 2007)). That section directs the Resources Agency to "certify and adopt guidelines prepared and developed by the Office of Planning and Research" "for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions[.]" (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21083.05(a)-(b).)
CEQA generally requires public agencies to review the environmental impacts of proposed projects, and, if those impacts may be significant, to consider feasible alternatives and mitigation measures that would substantially reduce significant adverse environmental effects. Section 21083 of the Public Resources Code requires the adoption of guidelines to provide public agencies and members of the public with guidance about the procedures and criteria for implementing CEQA. The guidelines required by section 21083 of the Public Resources Code are promulgated in the California Code of Regulations, title 14, sections 15000-15387 (the "Guidelines" or "State CEQA Guidelines"). Public agencies, project proponents, and third parties who wish to enforce the requirements of CEQA, rely on the Guidelines to provide a comprehensive guide on compliance with CEQA. Subdivision (f) of section 21083 requires the Resources Agency, in consultation with the Office of Planning and Research ("OPR"), to certify, adopt and amend the Guidelines at least once every two years.

Section 21083.05, as noted above, requires the promulgation of Guidelines specifically addressing analysis and mitigation of the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. The Resources Agency has adopted the following changes to the Guidelines ("Amendments") to implement that directive:

Add sections: 15064.4, 15183.5 and 15364.5.

Amend sections: 15064, 15064.7, 15065, 15086, 15093, 15125, 15126.2, 15126.4, 15130, 15150, 15183, Appendix F and Appendix G.

In addition to guidelines implementing SB97, some of the amendments listed above are non-substantive corrections.
2 The Resources Agency considered reasonable alternatives to the Amendments.

The Resources Agency has determined that no reasonable alternative would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed or would be as effective as, and less burdensome to affected private persons than, the Amendments.

This conclusion is based on the Resources Agency‘s determination that the Amendments are necessary to implement the Legislature‘s directive in SB97 and to update the Guidelines to reflect recent case law. Thus, the Amendments add no additional substantive requirements; rather, the Guidelines merely assist lead agencies in complying with CEQA‘s existing requirements. The Resources Agency rejected the no action alternative because it would not respond to the Legislature‘s directive in SB97.

There are no alternatives available that would lessen any adverse impacts on small businesses, as any impacts are due to existing requirements of CEQA and not the Amendments.

The Resources Agency also initially determined that the Amendments would not have a significant adverse economic impact on business. The Resources Agency has determined that this action would have no impacts on project proponents. However, the Resources Agency is aware that certain of the statutory changes enacted by the Legislature and judicial decisions, described in greater detail below, that are reflected in the Amendments could have an economic impact on project proponents, including businesses. Among other things, project proponents could incur additional costs in assisting lead agencies to comply with CEQA‘s requirement for analysis of greenhouse gas emissions. However, the Amendments to the Guidelines merely reflect these legislative and judicial requirements, and the Resources Agency knows of no less costly alternative. The Amendments clarify and update the Guidelines to be consistent with legislative enactments that have modified CEQA, and recent case law interpreting it, but does not impose any new requirements. Therefore, the Amendments would not have a significant, adverse economic impact on business.

Some comments were submitted during the public comment period and during the public hearings on the Proposed Amendments suggesting that the adverse economic impacts could result. For example, some suggested that the addition of forestry resources to the Appendix G checklist may increase the regulatory burden on the agricultural industry. Others suggested that application of the Guidelines to renewable energy projects or those implementing AB32 may be counterproductive.

Despite those suggestions, no evidence was presented to the Resources Agency supporting those claims. Moreover, those comments did not provide any rationale challenging the Resources Agency‘s position that the Proposed Amendments implement existing requirements. Therefore, having considered all of the comments submitted on the Proposed Amendments, the Resources Agency concludes that its initial determination that the proposed action will not have a significant adverse economic impact remains correct.

The Amendments do not duplicate or conflict with any federal statutes or regulations. CEQA is similar in some respects to the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), 42 U.S.C. sections 4321-4343. Federal agencies are subject to NEPA, which 3 requires environmental review of federal actions. State and local agencies are subject to CEQA, which requires environmental review before state and local agencies may approve or decide to undertake discretionary actions and projects in California.

Although both NEPA and CEQA require an analysis of environmental impacts, the substantive and procedural requirements of the two statutes differ. Most significantly, CEQA requirements for feasible mitigation of environmental impacts exceed NEPA‘s mitigation provisions. A state or local agency must complete a CEQA review even for those projects for which NEPA review is also applicable, although Guidelines sections 15220-15229 allow state, local and federal agencies to coordinate review when projects are subject to both CEQA and NEPA. Because state and local agencies are subject to CEQA unless exemptions apply, and because CEQA and NEPA are not identical, guidelines for CEQA are necessary to interpret and make specific provisions of SB97 and do not duplicate the Code of Federal Regulations.

FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS
The Administrative Procedure Act requires that an agency prepare a final statement of reasons supporting its proposed regulation. The final statement of reasons updates the information contained in the initial statement of reasons, contains final determinations as to the economic impact of the regulations, and provides summaries and responses to all comments regarding the proposed action. The initial statement of reasons, as updated and revised, are contained in full in this final statement of reasons.

The summaries and responses to comments are included in the Natural Resources Agency‘s file of this rulemaking proceeding.

Below is a brief background on the science relating to the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the various initiatives that California is implementing to reduce those emissions. Following that background, OPR‘s public engagement process and the Natural Resources Agency‘s rulemaking process is briefly described. Next, this Final Statement of Reasons explains the purpose and necessity of each proposed change to the Guidelines. Finally, Thematic Responses, addressing the major themes that were raised in public comments, are provided.

BACKGROUND ON THE EFFECTS OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND CALIFORNIA’S EFFORTS TO REDUCE THOSE EMISSIONS
This section provides a brief background on the potential effects of greenhouse gas emissions and California‘s efforts to reduce those emissions.

What Are Greenhouse Gases?
Certain gases in Earth‘s atmosphere naturally trap solar energy to maintain global average temperatures within a range suitable for terrestrial life. Those gases – which primarily include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, 4 perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride – act as a greenhouse on a global scale. (Health and Safety Code, § 38505(g).) Thus, those heat-trapping gases are known as greenhouse gases ("GHG").

The Legislature defined "greenhouse gases" to include the six gases mentioned above in California‘s Global Warming Solutions Act. (Health & Saf. Code, § 38500 et seq.) Similarly, the U.S. EPA has found that those same six gases could be regulated under the authority of the Clean Air Act. According to the U.S. EPA:
(1) These six greenhouse gas share common properties regarding their climate effects; (2) these six greenhouse gases have been estimated to be the primary cause of human-induced climate change, are the best understood drivers of climate change, and are expected to remain the key driver of future climate change; (3) these six greenhouse gases are the common focus of climate change science research and policy analyses and discussions; [and] (4) using the combined mix of these gases as the definition (versus an individual gas-by-gas approach) is consistent with the science, because risks and impacts associated with greenhouse gasinduced climate change are not assessed on an individual gas approach….
(EPA, Endangerment Finding, 74 Fed. Reg. 66496, 66517 (December 15, 2009).) The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change also addresses these six gases. (Id. at p. 66519.)

What Causes Greenhouse Gas Emissions?
The incremental contributions of GHGs from innumerable direct and indirect sources result in elevated atmospheric GHG levels. (EPA, Draft Endangerment Finding, 74 Fed. Reg. 18886, 18904 (April 24, 2009) ("cumulative emissions are responsible for the cumulative change in the stock of concentrations in the atmosphere"); see also 74 Fed. Reg. 66496, 66538 (same in Final Endangerment Finding).) Some GHG emissions occur through natural processes such as plant decomposition and wildfires. One large source of GHG emissions, for example, is wildfire on forestlands and rangelands, which release carbon as a result of material being burned. (California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2008 Strategic Plan and Report to the CARB on Meeting AB32 Forestry Sector Targets (October, 2008), at p. 2.) Human activities, such as motor vehicle use, energy production and land development, also result in both direct and indirect emissions that contribute to highly elevated concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere. (California Energy Commission, Inventory of California Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004 (2006).)1 Transportation

1 Multiple statewide emission inventories covering the same period of time may vary. This is largely due to inventories characterizing an emission source by sectors (e.g. agriculture, cement, transportation, etc.) which may not be treated the same depending on the methodology used and access to information. Thus, 5 alone is estimated to account for nearly 40 percent of California‘s GHG emissions. (California Air Resources Board, Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan (2008), at p. 11 ("Scoping Plan"); California Energy Commission 2007, 2007 Integrated Energy Policy Report, CEC-100-2007-008-CMF ("2007 IEPR") at p. 18, Figure 1-2.) Emissions attributable to transportation result largely from development that increases, rather than decreases, vehicle miles traveled: low density, unbalanced land uses separating jobs and housing, and a focus on single-occupancy vehicle travel. (California Energy Commission, The Role of Land Use In Meeting California‘s Energy and Climate Change Goals. (2007) at p. 9.) In approaching regulation of GHG emissions in California, for example, the California Air Resources Board ("ARB") proposes to regulate various economic sectors that are known to emit GHGs, including electric power, transportation, industrial sources, landfills, commercial and residential sectors, agriculture and forestry. (Scoping Plan, Appendix F.) With a growing population and economy, California‘s total GHG emissions continue to increase. As explained below, this rapid rate of increase in GHG emissions is causing a change in the composition of atmospheric gases that may cause life threatening adverse environmental consequences.

What Effects May Result from Increased Greenhouse Gas Emissions? Several measurable effects, including, among others, an increase in global average temperatures have been attributed to increases in GHG emissions resulting from human activity. (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group 1 Report: The Physical Science Basis (2001), at p. 101.) Evidence further indicates that a warmer planet may in turn lead to changes in rainfall patterns, a retreat of polar icecaps, a rise in sea level, and changes in ecosystems supporting human, animal and plant life. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Technical Support Document for Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, April 17, 2009 ("Technical Support Document"), at pp. ES-1 to ES-3.) Climate change is not the only effect of increased GHG emissions. Impacts to human health and ocean acidification are also attributed to increasing concentrations of GHGs in the Earth‘s atmosphere. (Id. at p. 57.)
Globally elevated concentrations of GHGs have been observed to induce a range of associated effects. For example, the effects of atmospheric warming include, but are not limited to, increased likelihood of more frequent and intense natural disasters, increased drought, and harm to agriculture, wildlife, and ecological systems. (Technical Support Document at pp. ES-1, ES-6.) According to a report prepared for the California Climate Change Center:

Climate change is likely to affect the abundance, production, distribution, and quality of ecosystem services throughout the State of California

two statewide emissions inventories may be different depending on the agency that created them or its intended application. The CARB is in the process of updating its statewide data and methodologies to be consistent with international and national guidelines. The typical emissions inventory covers 1990 to 2004.
6 including the delivery of abundant and clean water supplies to support human consumption and wildlife, climate stabilization through carbon sequestration, the supply of fish for commercial and recreational sport fishing. For example, as described in this report, areas of the state suitable for forage production to support cattle grazing in natural areas could shift as some parts of the state become too dry to support forage and others become wetter. The ability of the State‘s forests to sequester carbon and support climate stabilization could be hindered as productivity decreases and fires increase. And increased water temperatures in streams due to a decrease in provision of fresh water could seriously reduce salmon reproduction and subsequently reduce the number of salmon available for commercial and recreational harvest. Also, areas of the state suitable for forage production to support cattle grazing in natural areas could shift as some parts of the state become too dry to support forage and others become wetter. All of these ecosystem services have economic value and that value and its distribution is likely to changes under a changing climate.
(Rebecca Shaw, et al., for the California Climate Change Center, The Impact of Climate Change on California’s Ecosystem Services, March 2009, CEC-500-2009-025-D, at p.

1.)
The effects of increased GHG concentrations are already being felt in California.

For example, global atmospheric changes are causing sea levels to rise. An increase of approximately 8 inches has been recorded at the Golden Gate Bridge over the past 100 years. Such sea level rise threatens low coastal areas with inundation and increased erosion. (Scoping Plan, at p. 10.)
While sea levels continue to rise, the Sierra snowpack has been shrinking.

Average annual runoff from spring snowmelt has decreased 10% in the last 100 years.

Because snow in the Sierra acts as a reservoir, holding winter water for use later in the year, reduced snowpack creates greater potential for summer droughts and reduced hydroelectricity generation. (Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment, April, 2009, Indicators of Climate Change in California, at p. 76.) Climate change is also thought to account for changes in the timing of California‘s major precipitation events.

As explained in a report prepared for the California Climate Change Center:
reservoirs were designed to store only a fraction of the state's entire yearly precipitation, under the assumption that the annual mountain snowpack would melt at roughly the same time every year. During anomalously high rain or snowmelt events, reservoirs must not only store water, but also discharge excess water to avoid flooding. Water must sometimes be discharged in anticipation of large events to reduce flood risk. The dual functions of storage and flood management require reservoir managers to carefully balance factors such as precipitation, snowmelt timing, reservoir storage capacity, and demand. Even if future precipitation remains 7 unchanged, shifts in snowmelt timing can affect California's water supply during the warm season due to reservoir storage capacity constraints. (Sarah Kapnick and Alex Hall, for the California Climate Change Center, Observed Changes in the Sierra Nevada Snowpack: Potential Causes and Concerns, March 2009, CEC-500-2009-016-D, at p. 1.)
Climate change is also expected to increase the number and intensity of forest fires. (Technical Support Document, at p. 91; see also Indicators of Climate Change (2009) at p. 131.) A generally warmer climate is associated with a longer summer season, which in turn dries vegetation and fuels making ignition easier and hastens wildfire spread. (Ibid; see also A. L. Westerling, for the California Climate Change Center, Climate Change, Growth and California Wildfire, March 2009, CEC-500-2009- 046-D, at pp. 1-2.) Not only do wildfires release additional carbon and increase air pollutants, but they also cause indirect effects. For example, wildfires reduce vegetative cover leading to increased water runoff, which has affected watersheds and dampens the effectiveness of California‘s water works infrastructure. This will degrade California‘s water quality and challenge water treatment operations to provide safe drinking water. Adverse health impacts from heat-related illnesses are expected with hotter temperatures, and, due to poorer air quality, lung disease, asthma, and other respiratory and circulatory problems will be exacerbated. (California Climate Action Team, Executive Summary Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature (2006) at pp. xii to xiii, 27.); see also Technical Support Document, at pp.

ES-4, 69-71.)

Why is California Involved in Greenhouse Gas Regulation? California is vulnerable to the effects of global warming, and, despite its global nature, action to curb GHG emissions is needed on a statewide level. The legislative findings in Assembly Bill 32 (Chapter 448, Statutes 2006) ("AB32"), for example, state:
… Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California. The potential adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health-related problems.
… Global warming will have detrimental effects on some of California‘s largest industries, including agriculture, wine, tourism, skiing, recreational and commercial fishing, and forestry. It will also increase the strain on electricity supplies necessary to meet the demand for summer airconditioning in the hottest parts of the state. 8 (Health & Safety Code, § 38501(a), (b).) The Legislature further declared: "action taken by California to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases will have far-reaching effects by encouraging other states, the federal government, and other countries to act." (Id. at subd. (d).) As the world‘s fifteenth largest emitter of GHGs from human activity and natural sources, California is uniquely positioned to act to reduce GHGs. (Scoping Plan, at pp. 11.)
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a necessary response to the threats posed by climate change. Efforts to reduce emissions may result in other significant benefits as well. Governor Schwarzenegger laid out the case for action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Executive Order S-3-05:
… California-based companies and companies with significant activities in California have taken leadership roles by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and hydrofluorocarbons, related to their operations and developing products that will reduce GHG emissions; …
… [C]ompanies that have reduced GHG emissions by 25 percent to 70 percent have lowered operating costs and increased profits by billions of dollars; …
… [T]echnologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions are increasingly in demand in the worldwide marketplace, and California companies investing in these technologies are well-positioned to profit from this demand, thereby boosting California's economy, creating more jobs and providing increased tax revenue; …
… [M]any of the technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions also generate operating cost savings to consumers who spend a portion of the savings across a variety of sectors of the economy; this increased spending creates jobs and an overall benefit to the statewide economy.

Thus, the Governor, Legislature and private sector have concluded that action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is necessary and beneficial for the State.

What is California Doing to Reduce its Greenhouse Gas Emissions?

Action to curb greenhouse gas emissions is taking place on many fronts. As described above, the private sector has already taken important steps to increase efficiency and lower costs associated with such emissions. Many local governments have also adopted, or are currently developing, various plans and programs designed to reduce community-wide GHG emissions. (Office of Planning and Research, The California Planner’s Book of Lists (January 2009) ("Book of Lists"), at pp. 92-100; see also Scoping Plan, at p. 26.) Due to its potential vulnerability to the effects of GHG 9 emissions, and the wide variety of GHG emissions sources within its borders, California has enacted several laws and programs designed to reduce the State‘s GHG emissions. Several major legislative initiatives are described below.

AB32 – The Global Warming Solutions Act
Assembly Bill 32 (Chapter 448, Statutes 2006) is a key piece of California‘s effort to reduce its GHG emissions. AB32 requires the California Air Resources Board ("ARB") to establish regulations designed to reduce California‘s GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. (Health & Safety Code, § 38550.) On December 11, 2008, ARB adopted its Scoping Plan, setting forth a framework for future regulatory action on how California will achieve that goal through sector-by-sector regulation. (ARB, Resolution No. 08-47; see also Health & Safety Code, § 38561.) ARB must adopt, no later than January 1, 2012, rules and regulations to implement the GHG emissions reductions envisioned in the Scoping Plan. (Health & Safety Code, § 38562.) The AB32 Scoping Plan outlines a set of actions designed to reduce overall GHG emissions in California to 1990 levels by 2020. The Scoping Plan presents GHG emission reduction strategies that combine regulatory approaches, voluntary measures, fees, policies, and programs. Reduction strategies are expected to evolve as technologies develop and progress toward the State‘s goal is monitored. Thus, the Scoping Plan sets forth the outline of California‘s strategy to reduce GHG emissions on a statewide basis.

SB375
As noted above, nearly 40 percent of California‘s GHG emissions come from the State‘s transportation sector. (Chapter 728, Statutes 2007, § 1(a).) Technology innovation and lower-carbon fuels alone will not reduce transportation-related emissions sufficiently for California to reach the reduction goals set out in AB32. (Id. at § 1(c).) Therefore, in SB375, California enacted several measures to reduce vehicular emissions through land-use planning.

Specifically, SB375 requires ARB to develop "greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for the automobile and light truck sector" for each metropolitan planning organization (MPO). (Gov. Code, § 65080(b)(2)(A).) Once that target is set, each MPO must develop a sustainable communities strategy (SCS), as part of its regional transportation plan, that will set forth a development pattern that will achieve the reduction target approved by the ARB. (Id. at subd. (b)(2)(B).) The MPO‘s transportation planning activities must be consistent with the adopted SCS. (Id. at subd. (b).) While an SCS does not supersede a local government‘s land use authority, SB375 created an exemption from CEQA for local transit-oriented residential projects that are consistent with the applicable SCS as an incentive. (Id. at subd. (b)(2)(J); Pub.

Resources Code, § 21155.1.)
CEQA and SB97
10 While AB32 and SB375 target specific types of emissions from specific sectors, the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") regulates nearly all governmental activities and approvals. CEQA generally requires that a lead agency analyze the potential adverse environmental impacts of their decisions, and, if those impacts are determined to be significant, to avoid those impacts through mitigation or project alternatives. As awareness of the causes and effects of GHG emissions has increased, those effects began to be addressed in environmental analyses on a project-level basis.

Federal courts, moreover, have interpreted the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") to require an analysis of potential impacts of GHG emissions. (See, e.g., Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Ad., 538 F.3d 1172, 1215-1217 (9th Cir. 2008).) Uncertainty developed, however, among public agencies regarding how GHG emissions should be analyzed in environmental documents prepared pursuant to CEQA.

To provide greater certainty to lead agencies, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Senate Bill 97 (Chapter 148, Statutes 2007). (Governor Schwarzenegger‘s Signing Message, SB 97.) That statute, among other things, constitutes the Legislature‘s recognition that GHG emissions and the effects of GHG emissions are appropriate subjects for CEQA analysis. Pursuant to SB97, OPR developed, and the Resources Agency will adopt, amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines to address analysis and mitigation of the potential effects of GHG emissions in CEQA documents and processes. As new information or criteria established by ARB in the AB 32 process becomes available, OPR and the Resources Agency will periodically update the CEQA Guidelines to account for that new information. This rulemaking package responds to the Legislature‘s directive in SB97.

Questions concerning the relationship between AB32, SB375 and CEQA were raised in public comments on the Proposed Amendments. The Resources Agency developed responses to those questions in the Responses to Comments, which are appended to this Final Statement of Reasons. Further discussion of the relationship between AB32, SB375 and CEQA is provided in the Thematic Responses at the end of this Final Statement of Reasons.

BACKGROUND ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
OPR developed the Proposed Amendments pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.05, which states in part:

On or before July 1, 2009, the Office of Planning and Research shall prepare, develop, and transmit to the Resources Agency guidelines for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions as required by this division, including, but not limited to, effects associated with transportation or energy consumption.
11 In developing the Proposed Amendments, OPR actively sought the input, advice, and assistance of numerous interested parties and stakeholder groups. (Letter from OPR Director, Cynthia Bryant, to Secretary for the Natural Resources Agency, Mike Chrisman, April 13, 2009.) Specifically, OPR met with representatives of numerous agencies and organizations to discuss the perspectives of the business community, the environmental community, local governments, non-governmental organizations, state agencies, public health officials, CEQA practitioners and legal experts. In addition, OPR took advantage of numerous regional and statewide conferences to raise awareness about CEQA and GHG emissions among diverse audiences and to seek their input.

These activities satisfy the provisions of Government Code section 11346.45 which require early public involvement in complex proposals.

After publishing a preliminary draft, on January 8, 2009, OPR continued to conduct extensive public outreach, including two public workshops, to receive input on the Preliminary Amendments. Both public workshops were well attended, drawing over two hundred participants representing various California business interests, environmental organizations, local governments, attorneys and consultants. In addition to oral comments at its workshops, OPR received over eighty written comment letters.

Some comments suggested additional amendments to the CEQA Guidelines.

Other comments sought clarification of the language in the preliminary amendments.

OPR incorporated those suggestions and clarifications to the extent possible and appropriate into its April 13, 2009, submittal to the Resources Agency. Some suggestions were not appropriate for inclusion, however, due to conflict with existing statutory authority and/or case law. For example, some comments submitted to OPR during its public workshops indicated that the Guidelines should be addressed to "Climate Change" rather than just the effects of GHG emissions. The focus in the Guidelines on GHG emissions is appropriate for at least three reasons.

First, the Legislative authorization for the Proposed Amendments refers specifically to guidelines on the "mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and the effects of greenhouse gas emissions." (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083.05.) Had the Legislature intended the Guidelines to address climate change or global warming specifically, it presumably would have so indicated. Second, the precise "effect" of GHG emissions from a project is a factual matter for the lead agency to determine.

Such effects may include "climate change," "global warming" and other changes in the physical environment (increased ocean acidity or sea-level rise, for example). (EPA, Draft Endangerment Finding, 74 Fed. Reg. 18886 (April 24, 2009), Technical Support Document, at pp. ES-2 to ES-3; see further discussion at pages 4-5, above.) Thus, rather than limit analysis to a particular effect, the proposed Guidelines on GHG emissions are consistent with the treatment of air pollutants in the existing Appendix G, which focus largely on the concentration of pollutants. (See, e.g., existing State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, III.d.) Third, the focus in a cumulative impacts analysis is "whether any additional effect caused by the proposed project should be considered significant given the existing cumulative effect." (CBE, supra, 103 Cal. App. 4th at 118.) 12 Thus, the Proposed Amendments appropriately focus on a project‘s potential incremental contribution of GHGs rather than on the potential effect itself (i.e., climate change). Notably, however, the Proposed Amendments expressly incorporate the fair argument standard. (See, e.g., proposed Section 15064.4(b)(3).) Thus, if there is any substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that a project‘s GHG emissions may result in any adverse impacts, including climate change, the lead agency must resolve that concern in an EIR.

THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY’S RULEMAKING PROCESS
The Natural Resources Agency commenced the rulemaking process on the Amendments on July 3, 2009, by publishing its Notice of Proposed Action in the California Regulatory Notice Register. (2009 No. 27-Z.) In addition, the Notice of Proposed Action was mailed to over 640 interested parties, and notices were e-mailed to those parties that requested electronic notification. The Natural Resources Agency also posted the Notice, Proposed Text and Initial Statement of Reasons on its website, and invited public comments on the proposed amendments between July 3, 2009, and August 20, 2009. Public hearings were held on August 18, 2009, and August 20, 2009, in Los Angeles and Sacramento, respectively, at which verbal and written comments and presentations were accepted. To ensure that all interested parties were able to provide written comments if they so chose, the Natural Resources Agency extended the public comment period to August 27, 2009. The Natural Resources Agency received over 80 comment letters on the proposed amendments.

Following review of all public comments received during the public review period and at the public hearings, the Natural Resources Agency determined that further revisions to the proposed text were appropriate. It, therefore, mailed a Notice of Proposed Changes to all hearing attendees and all persons that requested notice.

Electronic notices were e-mailed to those requesting such notification. The Notice of Proposed Changes, Revised Text of the proposed amendments, comment letters, and all prior rulemaking documents were posted on the Natural Resources Agency‘s website. Since all revisions to the proposed amendments were sufficiently related to the originally noticed text, public comment was invited between October 23, 2009, and November 10, 2009. The Natural Resources Agency received over 20 comment letters on the revisions to the proposed amendments.

Following the close of the second public comment period, the Natural Resources Agency reviewed and considered all written comments. The Secretary for Natural Resources determined that, other than two non-substantive, clarifying changes in sections 15126.2(a) and 15126.4(c), described below, no further revisions to the proposed amendments was necessary. Secretary Mike Chrisman adopted the amendments described in this Final Statement of Reasons in December 2009.

Throughout the rulemaking process, staff of the Natural Resources Agency met with all interested parties requesting in person meetings. It also attended and presented at various conferences hosted by, among others, the California Chapter of 13 the American Planning Association, the California State Bar‘s Environmental Law Conference, County Counsels Association of California, several county bar association meetings and local government forums to provide updates on the proposed amendments and to ensure widespread participation in the Natural Resources Agency‘s rulemaking process.

Copies of all relevant rulemaking documents, including hearing transcripts, notices, and agendas, are included in the record of proceedings.

ADOPTED AMENDMENTS
Analysis of GHG emissions in a CEQA document presents unique challenges to lead agencies. Such analysis must be consistent with existing CEQA principles, however. Therefore, the Amendments comprise relatively modest changes to various portions of the existing CEQA Guidelines. Modifications address those issues where analysis of GHG emissions may differ in some respects from more traditional CEQA analysis. Other modifications clarify existing law that may apply both to analysis of GHG emissions as well as more traditional CEQA analyses. The incremental approach in the Amendments is consistent with Public Resources Code section 21083(f), which directs OPR and the Resources Agency to regularly review the Guidelines and propose amendments as necessary.

The Legislature expressly left development of the Guidelines to the discretion of OPR and the Resources Agency. That discretion is governed by the Government Code, which requires that any administrative regulations be consistent, and not conflict, with existing statutory authority. (Gov. Code, § 11342.2.) Thus, the Resources Agency intends, as did OPR, the Amendments to incorporate existing law, and where necessary "to implement, interpret, make specific or otherwise carry out the provisions of the statute." (Ibid.) In addition, the Guidelines must be "reasonably necessary" to carry out a legislative directive. (Ibid.) Because the determination of "reasonable necessity" implicates an agency‘s expertise, courts will defer to an agency‘s findings of necessity unless the action is arbitrary, capricious or without reasonable basis. (Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 109 ("CBE").)

The Amendments include changes to or additions of fourteen sections of the existing Guidelines, as well as changes to Appendices F (Energy Conservation) and G (Environmental Checklist Form). The Amendments are discussed below. 14 SECTION 15064. DETERMINING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS CAUSED BY A PROJECT.

Specific Purposes of the Amendment
Amendments are proposed to two subdivisions of the existing section 15064.

The first, to subdivision (f)(5), is a grammatical correction that qualifies as a "change without regulatory effect" pursuant to section 100(a)(4) of the Office of Administrative Law‘s regulations governing the rulemaking process. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 100(a)(4).) The second set of amendments is to subdivision (h)(3). The latter amendments are described in detail below.

Cumulative Impacts
Existing subdivision (h)(3) allows an agency to find that a project‘s potential cumulative impacts are less than significant due to compliance with requirements in a plan or mitigation program. (CBE, supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at 111 ("a lead agency's use of existing environmental standards in determining the significance of a project's environmental impacts is an effective means of promoting consistency in significance determinations and integrating CEQA environmental review activities with other environmental program planning and regulation").) In effect, that section creates a rebuttable presumption that compliance with certain plans and regulations reduces a project‘s potential incremental contribution to a cumulative effect to a level that is not cumulatively considerable.

The existing Guidelines text includes several criteria that define which plans or programs may create such a presumption. To satisfy those criteria, a plan or program must: (1) have been previously approved, (2) contain specific requirements that avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within a defined geographic area, and (3) be either specified in law or approved by a public agency with jurisdiction over affected resources. These criteria ensure that the presumption applies only where plans or programs have undergone public scrutiny and include binding requirements to address a cumulative problem. The existing text lists three types of plans as examples that may be relied upon for a cumulative analysis. The word "e.g." in the existing text indicates, however, that the list is not exclusive. The Third District Court of Appeal upheld what is now section 15064(h)(3) in the CBE decision. (CBE, supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at 115- 116.)
Use of Plans and Regulations in a Cumulative Impacts Analysis The Proposed Amendments include two changes to subdivision (h)(3). First, the Amendments would add several plans and regulations to the list of examples. The Proposed Amendments would add "habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, [and] plans or regulations for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions" to the list of plans and programs that may be considered in a cumulative 15 impacts analysis. As explained below, the Resources Agency finds that the added plans and regulations satisfy the criteria in the existing text. "Habitat conservation plans" are defined in the federal Endangered Species Act, and typically include specific requirements to protect listed species within a defined geographic area. (16 U.S.C. § 1539.) Though a habitat conservation plan ("HCP") may be prepared to address the impacts of one particular project, HCPs may also be, and often have been, prepared to address the impacts of cumulative development within a defined area. (Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permit Processing Handbook (November 4, 1996), at pp. 1-6 to 1-7, 1-14 to 1-15.) Most HCPs, other than "low effect HCPs," will also likely need to undergo environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act. (Id. at Ch. 5.) In such cases, an applicable HCP may appropriately be used in a cumulative impacts analysis as described in subdivision (h)(3). "Natural community conservation plans" ("NCCPs") are defined in the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act. (Fish & G. Code, §§ 2800 et seq.) The purpose of an NCCP is to conserve natural communities at the ecosystem scale while accommodating compatible land uses. An NCCP includes, among others, measures to avoid or minimize impacts to natural communities, conservation obligations, and compliance monitoring. An NCCP is adopted by the Department of Fish and Game as well as local agencies with land use authority in a defined area. As discretionary acts of public agencies, NCCPs must undergo environmental review pursuant to CEQA. Thus, NCCPs satisfy the criteria in existing subdivision (h)(3).

The Legislature recognized local GHG planning efforts in Health & Safety Code section 38561(c) by directing the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to consider such programs in developing its Scoping Plan. Greenhouse gas emission reduction plans are not currently specified in law. However, the ARB‘s Climate Change Scoping Plan includes a recommended reduction target for local governments and communitylevel emissions of 15 percent by 2020. (California Air Resources Board, Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan (2008), at p. 27 ("Scoping Plan").) The Scoping Plan also recognized the important role local greenhouse gas reduction plans would play in achieving statewide reductions. The Scoping Plan itself suggests elements that such plans should include. (Scoping Plan, Appendix C, at p. C-49.) Independent of the Scoping Plan, many local governments have adopted, or are currently developing, various plans and programs designed to curb GHG emissions. (Office of Planning and Research, The California Planner’s Book of Lists (January 2009) ("Book of Lists"), at pp. 92-100; see also Scoping Plan, at p. 26.) Other public agencies, such as school districts and public universities, may also adopt greenhouse gas reduction plans to govern their own activities. Provided that such plans contain specific requirements with respect to resources that are within the agency‘s jurisdiction to avoid or substantially lessen the agency‘s contributions to GHG emissions, both from its own projects and from private projects it has approved or will approve, such plans may be appropriately relied on in a cumulative impacts analysis. Additional guidance regarding 16 the characteristics of greenhouse gas reduction plans that may be used in this context is provided in the proposed Section 15183.5, and is explained in greater detail below.

Thus, greenhouse gas reduction plans satisfying such criteria would satisfy the criteria in existing subdivision (h)(3).

Finally, requirements addressing a cumulative problem may also take the form of regulations. AB 32, for example, requires ARB to adopt regulations that achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost effective GHG reductions to reach the adopted state-wide emissions limit. (Health & Safety Code, § 38560.) Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 38560(b), ARB will adopt a first set of regulations by January 1, 2010. Thus, a lead agency may consider whether ARB‘s GHG reduction regulations satisfy the criteria in existing subdivision (h)(3).

While section 15064(h)(3) creates a presumption that, where a plan, program or regulation governs a project‘s GHG emissions, and the project complies with those requirements, those emissions are not cumulatively considerable. That presumption is rebuttable, however. The Proposed Amendments do not alter the standard, reflected in the existing Guidelines, that if substantial evidence supports a fair argument that, despite compliance with the requirements in a plan or program, a project may have a significant effect on the environment, then an EIR must be prepared.

Demonstrating How the Plan, Program or Regulation Addresses Cumulative Impacts In addition to augmenting the list of plans, programs and regulations that give rise to the presumption that a project‘s contribution is not cumulatively considerable, the Amendments also contain explanatory language designed to ensure that the plan or regulation relied on in a cumulative impacts analysis actually addresses the cumulative effect of concern for the particular project under consideration. This language is necessary to avoid misapplication of subdivision (h)(3). For example, shortly after ARB identified early action items, some lead agencies determined that a project‘s contribution of GHG emissions was not cumulatively considerable because the project was not inconsistent with the early action items. (See, e.g., Tentative Ruling, San Bernardino County Superior Court Case Nos. 810232, 800607 (ruling that consistency with CAT Strategies alone does not provide sufficient information about the potential impacts of a project); see also California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature, March 2006, at pp. 39-63.) Such an analysis, however, would fail to account for emissions that are not addressed by the early action items. Because those early action items largely addressed industrial-type emissions, consistency with the early action items would have little relevance for a residential subdivision project. Likewise, consistency with plans that are purely aspirational (i.e., those that include only unenforceable goals without mandatory reduction measures), and provide no assurance that emissions within the area governed by the plan will actually address the cumulative problem, may not achieve the level of protection necessary to give rise to this subdivision‘s presumption.

Thus, by requiring that lead agencies draw a link between the project and the specific provisions of a binding plan or regulation, section 15064(h)(3) would ensure that 17 cumulative effects of the project are actually addressed by the plan or regulation in question.

Demonstrating that compliance with a plan addresses a cumulative problem is already impliedly required by CEQA. For example, an initial study must include sufficient information to support its conclusions. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15063(d)(3).) Similarly, section 15128 requires a lead agency to explain briefly the reasons that an impact is determined to be less than significant and therefore was not analyzed in an EIR. The added sentence, therefore, reflects existing law and is necessary to ensure that plans are not misapplied in a CEQA analysis.

Policy Goals
Inclusion of additional plans and programs to the list of examples supports two policy goals. First, an expanded list promotes integration of various regulatory mechanisms to reduce duplication. (See, e.g., Pub. Resources Code, § 21003(a) (state policy is that "[l]ocal agencies integrate the requirements of [CEQA] with planning and environmental review procedures otherwise required by law or by local practice …"), (f) ("[a]ll persons and public agencies involved in the environmental review process be responsible for carrying out the process in the most efficient, expeditious manner in order to conserve the available financial, governmental, physical, and social resources with the objective that those resources may be better applied toward the mitigation of actual significant effects on the environment").) Second, the addition of GHG emissions reduction plans and regulations for the reduction of GHG emissions reflects the view of both the OPR and the Resources Agency that the effects of GHG emissions resulting from individual projects are best addressed and mitigated at a programmatic level.

Necessity
The Legislature directed OPR and the Resources Agency to develop guidelines on the analysis of GHG emissions. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083.05.) The Guidelines must address the determination of whether the "possible effects of a project are individually limited but cumulatively considerable." (Id. at § 21083(b)(2).) Due to the global nature of GHG emissions and their potential effects, GHG emissions will typically be addressed in a cumulative impacts analysis. (See, e.g., EPA, Draft Endangerment Finding, 74 Fed. Reg. 18886, 18904 (April 24, 2009) ("cumulative emissions are responsible for the cumulative change in the stock of concentrations in the atmosphere"); California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, CEQA and Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (January 2008) ("CAPCOA White Paper"), at p. 35 ("GHG impacts are exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no noncumulative GHG emission impacts from a climate change perspective").) Existing section 15064(h) governs the analysis of cumulative effects in an initial study. The proposed amendments to section 15064(h)(3), on determining the significance of cumulative impacts in an initial study, are therefore necessary to carry out this legislative directive.
18 Reasonable Alternatives to the Regulation, Including Alternatives that Would Lessen Any Adverse Impact on Small Business, and the Resources Agency’s Reasons for Rejecting Those Alternatives
The Resources Agency considered reasonable alternatives to the Amendments and determined that no reasonable alternative would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed or would be as effective as, and less burdensome to affected private persons than, the Amendments. This conclusion is based on the Resources Agency‘s determination that the Amendments are necessary to implement the Legislature‘s directive in SB97 in a manner consistent with existing statutes and case law, and that the Amendments add no new substantive requirements.

Evidence Supporting an Initial Determination That the Action Will Not Have a Significant Adverse Economic Impact on Business
The Amendments interpret and make specific statutory CEQA provisions and case law interpreting CEQA for determining the significance of GHG emissions that may result from proposed projects. Many lead agencies, and some trial courts, have already determined that CEQA requires analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions independent of the SB97 CEQA Guidelines amendments. The Office of Planning and Research, for example, has cataloged over 1,000 examples of CEQA documents, prepared between July 2006 and June 2009, analyzing and mitigating GHG emissions. (Office of Planning and Research, Environmental Assessment Documents Containing a Discussion of Climate Change (Revised June 1, 2009).) Further, several trial courts have found that existing CEQA law requires analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions. (See, e.g., Muriettans for Smart Growth v. City of Murrieta et al., Riverside Co. Sup. Ct. Case No.

2 Federal court decisions interpreting NEPA is persuasive authority in CEQA cases. (Western Placer Citizens for an Ag. & Rur. Env. v. County of Placer (2006) 144 Cal.App. 4th 890, 902.) 19 Because the Amendments do not add any substantive requirements, they will not result in an adverse impact on businesses in California. On the contrary, the amendments to this section are intended to reduce the costs of environmental review on lead agencies and project applicants by encouraging the use of existing environmental analysis where available. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003(d) (use information in existing EIRs in order to reduce duplication), (f) (environmental review should proceed in the most efficient manner possible).)
20 SECTION 15064.4. DETERMINING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS FROM

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Specific Purposes of the Amendment
A key component of environmental analysis under CEQA is the determination of significance. (Pub. Resources Code § 21002; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1106-07.) Guidelines on the analysis of GHG emissions must, therefore, include provisions on the determination of significance of those emissions.

New section 15064.4, on the determination of significance of GHG emissions, reflects the existing CEQA principle that there is no iron-clad definition of "significance." (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(b); Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Com. v. Board of Port Comm. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1380-81 ("Berkeley Jets").) Accordingly, lead agencies must use their best efforts to investigate and disclose all that they reasonably can regarding a project‘s potential adverse impacts. (Ibid; see also State CEQA Guidelines, § 15144.) Section 15064.4 is designed to assist lead agencies in performing that required investigation. In particular, it provides that lead agencies should quantify GHG emissions where quantification is possible and will assist in the determination of significance, or perform a qualitative analysis, or both as appropriate in the context of the particular project, in order to determine the amount, types and sources of GHG emissions resulting from the project. Regardless of the type of analysis performed, the analysis must be based "to the extent possible on scientific and factual data." In addition, lead agencies should also consider several factors. The specific provisions of section 15064.4 are discussed below.

Quantitative Analysis
Subdivision (a) of section 15064.4 states that lead agencies should calculate or estimate the GHG emissions resulting from the proposed project. This directive reflects the holding in the Berkeley Jets case, which required a Port Commission to quantify emissions of toxic air contaminants even in the absence of a universally accepted methodology for doing so. (Berkeley Jets, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1370 ("The fact that a single methodology does not currently exist that would provide the Port with a precise, or 'universally accepted,‘ quantification of the human health risk from TAC exposure does not excuse the preparation of any health risk assessment--it requires the Port to do the necessary work to educate itself about the different methodologies that are available") (emphasis in original).) That case also required quantitative analysis of single-event noise, even though the applicable thresholds were expressed as cumulative noise levels. (Id. at 1382.) Quantification was required in that context in order to identify existing noise levels, the number of additional flights, the frequency of those flights, the degree to which the increased flights would cause increased noise levels at a given location, and ultimately, the community‘s reaction to that noise. (Ibid.) In other words, quantification would assist the lead agency in determining whether the increased noise would be potentially significant. (Ibid. ("CEQA requires that the Port 21 and the inquiring public obtain the technical information needed to assess whether the ADP will merely inconvenience the Airport's nearby residents or damn them to a somnambulate-like existence"); see also Protect the Historic Amador Waterways, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at 1109 ("in preparing an EIR, the agency must consider and resolve every fair argument that can be made about the possible significant environmental effects of a project, irrespective of whether an established threshold of significance has been met with respect to any given effect").)
With the foregoing principles in mind, the quantification called for in proposed section 15064.4(a)(1) is reasonably necessary to ensure an adequate analysis of GHG emissions using available data and tools, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21083.05. Even where a lead agency finds that no numeric threshold of significance applies to a proposed project, the holdings in the Berkeley Jets and Protect the Historic Amador Waterways cases, described above, require quantification of emissions if such quantification will assist in determining the significance of those emissions. OPR and the Resources Agency find that quantification will, in many cases, assist in the determination of significance, as explained below. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15142 ("An EIR shall be prepared using an interdisciplinary approach which will ensure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the consideration of qualitative as well as quantitative factors").) First, quantification of GHG emissions is possible for a wide range of projects using currently available tools. Modeling capabilities have improved to allow quantification of emissions from various sources and at various geographic scales. (Office of Planning and Research, CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change Through the California Environmental Quality Act Review, Attachment 2:

Technical Resources/Modeling Tools to Estimate GHG Emissions (June 2008); CAPCOA White Paper, at pp. 59-78.) Moreover, one of the models that can be used in a GHG analysis, URBEMIS, is already widely used in CEQA air quality analyses. (CAPCOA White Paper, at p. 59.) Second, quantification informs the qualitative factors listed in proposed section 15064.4(b). Third, quantification indicates to the lead agency, and the public, whether emissions reductions are possible, and if so, from which sources. Thus, if quantification reveals that a substantial portion of a project‘s emissions result from energy use, a lead agency may consider whether design changes could reduce the project‘s energy demand.

Proposed section 15064.4(a)(1) also reflects existing case law that reserves for lead agencies the precise methodology to be used in a CEQA analysis. (See, e.g., Eureka Citizens for Responsible Gov’t v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357, 371-373.) As indicated above, a wide variety of models exist that could be used in a GHG analysis. (CAPCOA White Paper, at pp. 59-78.) Further, not every model will be appropriate for every project. For example, URBEMIS may be an appropriate tool to analyze a typical residential subdivision or commercial use project, but some public utilities projects, such as waste-water treatment plants, may require more specialized models to accurately estimate emissions. (Id. at pp. 60-65.) The requirement to 22 disclose any limitations in the model or methodology chosen also reflects the standard for adequacy of EIRs in existing State CEQA Guidelines section 15151.

Qualitative and Performance Standard Based Analysis
As explained in greater detail below in the Thematic Responses, CEQA does not require quantification of emissions in every instance. If the lead agency determines that quantification is not possible, would not yield information that would assist in analyzing the project‘s impacts and determining the significance of the GHG emissions, or is not appropriate in the context of the particular project, section 15064.4(a) would allow the lead agency to consider qualitative factors or performance standards. Consideration of qualitative factors is appropriate for several reasons. First, CEQA directs lead agencies to consider qualitative factors. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21001(g) (CEQA‘s purpose includes to: "require governmental agencies at all levels to consider qualitative factors as well as economic and technical factors and long-term benefits and costs, in addition to short-term benefits and costs and to consider alternatives to proposed actions affecting the environment").) Second, existing section 15064.7 of the State CEQA Guidelines indicate that thresholds of significance may be qualitative, which implies that a determination of significance without a threshold could also evaluate qualitative factors. Third, the existing CEQA Guidelines state that the determination of significance requires a lead agency to use its judgment based on all relevant information. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(b); see also id. at §§ 15064.7 (thresholds may be qualitative), 15142 (analysis should be interdisciplinary and both qualitative and quantitative).)
Subdivision (a) would also allow a lead agency to rely on performance-based standards to assist in the determination of significance. Just as with quantification, the purpose of engaging in a qualitative or performance standard based analysis is to develop information relevant to a significance determination. Several examples exist of the types of performance standards that might appropriately be used in determining the significance of greenhouse gas emissions. Proposed section 15183.5(b)(1)(D), for example, contemplates that a plan for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions may contain performance based standards. Where such standards are developed as part of such a plan, a lead agency would have evidence indicating that compliance with such standards would indicate that the impact of greenhouse gas emissions would be less than significant. Further, in adopting SB375, the Legislature acknowledged that regional transportation plans, and the environmental impact reports prepared to analyze those plans, may contain performance standards that would apply to transit priority projects. (See, e.g., Public Resources Code, § 21155.2.) Other potential examples include the Bay Area Air Quality Management District‘s proposed Best Management Practices for Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions (calling for use of alternative fuels, local building materials and recycling), and the California Public Utilities Commission‘s Performance Standard for Power Plans (requiring emissions no greater than a combined cycle gas turbine plant). Compliance with such standards may be relevant to the significance determination, when considered in conjunction with the 23 project's total projected emissions. Section 15064.4(a) was revised in response to comments to clarify that lead agencies may rely on quantitative or qualitative analyses, or both, in part to emphasize that qualitative analyses and performance standards may be useful supplements to a quantitative analysis.

Similar to use of a significance threshold, a lead agency must exercise care to ensure that performance standards do not replace a full analysis of all potential emissions. (Protect the Historic Amador Waterways, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at 1109 ("in preparing an EIR, the agency must consider and resolve every fair argument that can be made about the possible significant environmental effects of a project, irrespective of whether an established threshold of significance has been met with respect to any given effect").) For example, while a Platinum LEED® rating could assist
a lead agency in determining whether emissions related to a building‘s energy use may be significant, that performance standard may not reveal sufficient information to evaluate transportation-related emissions associated with that proposed project.

As indicated above, even a qualitative analysis must be based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. Further, the type of analysis that is required will depend on the context of a particular project. Given the multitude of different project types and sizes, and different agencies subject to CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, which are general by necessity, cannot specify precisely when a quantitative analysis may be required or a qualitative analysis may be appropriate. The following hypothetical examples may illustrate, however, how section 15064.4(a) could operate:

Project 1: a small habitat restoration project is proposed in a remote part of California. Workers would drive to the site where they would camp for the duration of the project. Some gas-powered tools and machinery may be required. Cleared brush would either be burned or would decay naturally.

Project 2: a large commercial development is proposed in an suburban context.

Heavy-duty machinery would be required in various construction phases spanning many months. Following construction, the development would rely on electricity, water and wastewater services from the local utilities. Natural gas burners would be used on site. The development would employ several hundred workers and attract thousands of customers daily. A traffic study has been prepared for the project. The local air quality management district‘s guidance document recommends that projects of similar size and character should use of URBEMIS, or another similar model, to estimate the air quality impacts of the development.

In the context of Project 2 a quantitative analysis would likely be appropriate.

The URBEMIS model, which would likely be used to analyze other emissions, could also be used to estimate emissions from both project-related transportation and on-site indirect emissions (landscaping, hot-water heaters, etc.) Modeling is typically done for projects of like size and character. Other models are readily available to estimate emissions associated with utility use. In the context of Project 2, a lead agency may 24 find it difficult to demonstrate a good faith effort through a purely qualitative analysis. (See, e.g., Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Com. v. Board of Port Comm. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1370.)
In the context of Project 1, however, a qualitative analysis would likely be appropriate. Project 1‘s emissions are not easily modeled, and the Project is small in scale. While it may be technically possible, quantification of the emissions may not reveal any additional information that indicates the significance of those emissions or how they may be reduced that could not be provided in a qualitative assessment of emissions sources. (See, e.g., Public Resources Code, § 21003(f) ("public agencies involved in the environmental review process be responsible for carrying out the process in the most efficient, expeditious manner in order to conserve the available financial, governmental, physical, and social resources with the objective that those resources may be better applied toward the mitigation of actual significant effects on the environment").)
Factors Potentially Indicating Significance
The qualitative factors listed in the proposed section 15064.4(b) are intended to assist lead agencies in collecting and considering information relevant to a project‘s incremental contribution of GHG emissions and the overall context of such emissions.

Notably, while subdivision (b) provides a list of factors that should be considered by public agencies in determining the significance of a project‘s GHG emissions, other factors can and should be considered as appropriate.

Determine Whether Emissions Will Increase or Decrease
The first factor in subdivision (b), for example, asks lead agencies to consider whether the project will result in an increase or decrease in different types of GHG emissions relative to the existing environmental setting. All project components, including construction and operation, equipment and energy use, and development phases must be considered in this analysis. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15378 (project includes "the whole of the action").) For example, a mass transit project may involve GHG emissions during its construction phase, but substantial evidence may also indicate that it will cause existing commuters to switch from single-occupant vehicles to mass transit use. Operation of such a project may ultimately result in a decrease in GHG emissions. Such analysis, provided that it is supported with substantial evidence and fully accounts for all project emissions, may support a lead agency‘s determination that GHG emissions associated with a project are not cumulatively considerable.

This section‘s reference to the "existing environmental setting" reflects existing law requiring that impacts be compared to the environment as it currently exists. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15125.) This clarification is necessary to avoid a comparison of the project against a "business as usual" scenario as defined by ARB in the Scoping Plan. Such an approach would confuse "business as usual" projections used in ARB‘s Scoping Plan with CEQA‘s separate requirement of analyzing project effects in 25 comparison to the environmental baseline. (Compare Scoping Plan, at p. 9 ("The foundation of the Proposed Scoping Plan‘s strategy is a set of measures that will cut greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 30 percent by the year 2020 as compared to business as usual") with Fat v. County of Sacramento (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1278 (existing environmental conditions normally constitute the baseline for environmental analysis); see also Center for Bio. Diversity v. City of Desert Hot Springs, Riverside Sup. Ct. Case No. RIC464585 (August 6, 2008) (rejecting argument that a large subdivision project would have a "beneficial impact on CO2 emissions" because the homes would be more energy efficient and located near relatively uncongested freeways).) Business as usual may be relevant, however, in the discussion of the "no project alternative" in an EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6(e)(2) (no project alternative should describe what would reasonably be expected to occur in the future in the absence of the project).)
Notably, section 15064.4(b)(1) is not intended to imply a zero net emissions threshold of significance. As case law makes clear, there is no "one molecule rule" in CEQA. (CBE, supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at 120.)
Thresholds of Significance
The second factor in subdivision (b) asks whether a project exceeds a threshold of significance for GHG emissions. Section 21000(d) of the Public Resources Code expressly directs public agencies to identify whether there are any critical thresholds for health and safety to identify those areas where the capacity of the environment is limited. A threshold is an "identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level" at which impacts are normally less than significant. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.7(a); see also Protect the Historic Amador Waterways, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at 1107.) Lead agencies may rely on thresholds developed by other agencies that have particular expertise in the subject matter under consideration. (See, e.g., State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Sample Question III ("[w]here available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make" a significance determination).) For example, a lead agency may look to standards included in a Basin Plan to assist in the determination of whether water quality impacts are significant. (Protect the Historic Amador Waterways, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at 1107 ("[s]uch thresholds can be drawn from existing environmental standards, such as other statutes or regulations").) Several agencies have developed, or are in the process of developing, thresholds of significance for GHG emissions.3 For example, thresholds are currently being developed, or have already been adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for operations and construction,4 the City of Davis for residential

3 Reference to these thresholds and proposed thresholds does not reflect an endorsement of those thresholds; rather, they are cited solely for the purpose of demonstrating that agencies are developing such thresholds.
4 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Update: work in progress - http://www.baaqmd.gov/pln/ ceqa/index.htm. 26 developments,5
and the South Coast Air Quality Management District for industrial projects.6 Regardless of the threshold chosen, however, this section does not alter the pre-existing rule under CEQA that if substantial evidence supports a fair argument that a project may result in significant impacts, despite compliance with a threshold, an EIR must be prepared. (Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 342.) Further, "in preparing an EIR, the agency must consider and resolve every fair argument that can be made about the possible significant environmental effects of a project, irrespective of whether an established threshold of significance has been met with respect to any given effect." (Protect the Historic Amador Waterways, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at 1109.)
Consistent with the above, if relying on a threshold developed by another agency, lead agencies must exercise caution in selecting a threshold to ensure that the threshold is appropriately applied. For CEQA purposes, a threshold identifies a level below which an environmental impact will normally be less than significant. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.7(a).) Some agencies have adopted "thresholds" pursuant to other laws that may not be applicable in the CEQA context. ARB has adopted several thresholds pursuant to AB32, for example, to address specific purposes that are unrelated to CEQA. For example, the de minimis threshold governs the level at which emissions will be regulated by ARB‘s AB32 regulations. (Health & Safety Code, § 38561(e); Scoping Plan, at pp. 96-97.) CEQA does not permit use of a de minimis threshold, however. (CBE, supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at p. 121.) Additionally, the Reporting Threshold is the level at which emissions from large industrial sources are required to be reported. (Scoping Plan, at pp. 108-109; see also CARB Board Resolution 07-54 (2007).) Again, this reporting threshold reflects a policy decision regarding regulation by the ARB, but does not address the level at which environmental harm may occur, and does not satisfy a lead agency‘s duties under CEQA related to review of projects which may result in significant adverse environmental impacts.

Consistency with a Plan or Regulation
Finally, the third factor in subdivision (b) directs consideration of the extent to which a project complies with a plan or regulation to reduce GHG emissions. That section further states, however, that to be used for the purpose of determining significance, a plan must contain specific requirements that result in reductions of GHG emissions to a less than significant level. This clarification is necessary because of the wide variety of climate action plans and GHG reduction plans that are currently being adopted by public agencies. ARB, for example, recently adopted its statewide Scoping Plan. That plan may not be appropriate for use in determining the significance of individual projects, however, because it is conceptual at this stage and relies on the future development of regulations to implement the strategies identified in the Scoping

5 City of Davis (2009) Greenhouse Gas Emission Threshold and Standards for New Residential Development; Accessed 5/27/09, http://cityofdavis.org/pgs/sustainability/pdfs/ 15_4.21.09_GHG%20Standards.pdf
6 SCAQMD (2008) Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans, Accessed 5/27/09 http://www.aqmd.gov/hb/2008/December/081231a.htm. 27 Plan. (Scoping Plan, at p. 9.) Regulations that will require actual reductions of GHG emissions may not be adopted until 2012. (Ibid.) Once those regulations are adopted and being implemented, they may, if appropriate, be used to assist in the determination of significance, similar to the current use of air quality, water quality and other similar environmental regulations. (CBE, supra, 103 Cal. App. 4th at 111 ("a lead agency's use of existing environmental standards in determining the significance of a project's environmental impacts is an effective means of promoting consistency in significance determinations and integrating CEQA environmental review activities with other environmental program planning and regulation").)
In addition to the regulations that will be developed to implement the Scoping Plan, this factor would also allow lead agencies to consider plans that are developed to reduce GHG emissions on a regional or local level. (Scoping Plan, at p. 26.) The proposed section 15064.4(b)(3) is intended to be read in conjunction with the section 15064(h)(3), as proposed to be amended, and proposed section 15183.5. Those sections each indicate that local and regional plans may be developed to reduce GHG emissions. If such plans reduce community-wide emissions to a level that is less than significant, a later project that complies with the requirements in such a plan may be found to have a less than significant impact.

Notably, CEQA does not provide a specific definition of "comply" in the context of determining a project‘s consistency with a particular plan. Some guidance may be gleaned, however, from case law interpreting the requirement that a local government‘s activities be consistent with its General Plan. In that context, a "zoning ordinance [for example] is consistent with the city's general plan where, considering all of its aspects, the ordinance furthers the objectives and policies of the general plan and does not obstruct their attainment." (City of Irvine v. Irvine Citizens Against Overdevelopment (1994) 25 Cal. App. 4th 868, 879.) Reading section 15064.4 together with 15064(h)(3), however, to demonstrate consistency with an existing GHG reduction plan, a lead agency would have to show that the plan actually addresses the emissions that would result from the project. Thus, for example, a subdivision project could not demonstrate "consistency" with the ARB‘s Early Action Measures because those measures do not address emissions resulting from a typical housing subdivision. (ARB, Expanded List of Early Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California Recommended for Board Consideration, October 2007; see also State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15063(d)(3) (initial study must be supported with information to support conclusions), 15128 (determination in an EIR that an impact is less than significant must be briefly explained).)
Necessity
The Legislature directed OPR and the Resources Agency to develop guidelines on the analysis of GHG emissions. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083.05.) A key component of environmental analysis under CEQA is the determination of significance. (Id. at § 21002; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at 28 1106-07.) The new section 15064.4, on determining the significance of impacts of GHG emissions, is therefore necessary to carry out this legislative directive.

The Resources Agency rejected the no action alternative because it would not achieve the objectives of the Amendments. There are no alternatives available that would lessen any adverse impacts on small businesses, as any impacts would result from the implementation of existing law.
29 Evidence Supporting an Initial Determination That the Action Will Not Have a Significant Adverse Economic Impact on Business
The Amendments interpret and make specific statutory CEQA provisions and/or case law interpreting CEQA for determining the significance of GHG emissions that may result from proposed projects. Many lead agencies, and some trial courts, have already determined that CEQA requires analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions independent of the SB97 CEQA Guidelines amendments. The Office of Planning and Research, for example, has cataloged over 1,000 examples of CEQA documents, prepared between July 2006 and June 2009, analyzing and mitigating GHG emissions. (Office of Planning and Research, Environmental Assessment Documents Containing a Discussion of Climate Change (Revised June 1, 2009).) Further, several trial courts have found that existing CEQA law requires analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions. (See, e.g., Muriettans for Smart Growth v. City of Murrieta et al., Riverside Co. Sup. Ct. Case No.

Because the Amendments do not add any substantive requirements, they will not result in an adverse impact on businesses in California. On the contrary, by providing greater certainty to lead agencies regarding the determination of significance of GHG emissions, the cost of environmental analysis, and potential litigation, may be reduced.

7 Federal court decisions interpreting NEPA is persuasive authority in CEQA cases. (Western Placer Citizens for an Ag. & Rur. Env. v. County of Placer (2006) 144 Cal.App. 4th 890, 902.) 30 SECTION 15064.7. THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Specific Purposes of the Amendment
Proposed subdivision (c) of section 15064.7 would allow a lead agency to adopt a threshold developed by another agency, or recommended by experts, provided that such threshold is supported with substantial evidence. This proposed regulation is reasonably necessary because many lead agencies perform general governmental functions, and may lack the specific expertise necessary to develop their own thresholds of significance for GHG emissions. Such agencies may rely on thresholds developed by other agencies with specialized expertise (such as an air quality management district) in conducting their CEQA analyses. (OPR, Thresholds of Significance: Criteria for Defining Environmental Significance, September 1994, at p. 7.) In fact, Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines expressly encourages lead agencies to rely on thresholds established by local air quality management districts. (State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Question III.)
Several local and regional air districts are in the process of developing thresholds for GHG emissions. As noted above, for example, thresholds are currently being developed, or have already been adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for operations and construction, the City of Davis for residential developments, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District for industrial projects. Lead agencies within the jurisdiction of an air district, or other agency, that adopts a GHG emissions threshold may adopt such a threshold as its own. In adopting any threshold of significance, including one developed by an expert or agency with specialized expertise, the lead agency must support the threshold with substantial evidence in the administrative record. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.7(b).) Independent experts may also develop such thresholds for use by public agencies. For example, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association has published a White Paper on developing thresholds of significance for GHG emissions. (CAPCOA White Paper, at pp. 31-58.) A lead agency could potentially use CAPCOA‘s suggestions in developing its own thresholds. Because any threshold must be supported with substantial evidence, and must be adopted through a public process, any threshold recommended by an expert that is ultimately adopted will undergo sufficient scrutiny to ensure its legitimacy. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.7(b).) Necessity
The Legislature directed OPR and the Resources Agency to develop guidelines on the analysis of GHG emissions. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083.05.) Defining "significance" is a critical step in the lead agency‘s impact analysis and therefore needs to be addressed as part of the Proposed Action. Section 21000(d) of the Public Resources Code encourages the development of thresholds. These sections together 31 require OPR and the Resources Agency to develop and adopt regulations governing the adoption of thresholds of significance for GHG emissions.

Evidence Supporting an Initial Determination That the Action Will Not Have a Significant Adverse Economic Impact on Business
The Amendments interpret and make specific statutory CEQA provisions and/or case law interpreting CEQA for determining the significance of GHG emissions that may result from proposed projects. Many lead agencies, and some trial courts, have already determined that CEQA requires analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions independent of the SB97 CEQA Guidelines amendments. The Office of Planning and Research, for example, has cataloged over 1,000 examples of CEQA documents, prepared between July 2006 and June 2009, analyzing and mitigating GHG emissions. (Office of Planning and Research, Environmental Assessment Documents Containing a Discussion of Climate Change (Revised June 1, 2009).) Further, several trial courts have found that existing CEQA law requires analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions. (See, e.g., Muriettans for Smart Growth v. City of Murrieta et al., Riverside Co. Sup. Ct. Case No.

RIC463320 (November 21, 2007); Env. Council of Sac. et al v. Cal. Dept. of Trans., Sacramento Sup. Ct. Case No. 07CS00967 (July 15, 2008) (citing Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Commissions (2001) 91 Cal.App. 4th 1344, 1370- 1371 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15144 as requiring a lead agency to "meaningfully attempt to quantify the Project‘s potential impacts on GHG emissions and determine their significance" or at least to explain what steps were undertaken to investigate the issue before concluding that the impact would be speculative).) Finally, federal courts have interpreted the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") to require an analysis of potential impacts of GHG emissions. (See, e.g., Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Ad., 538 F.3d 1172, 1215-1217 (9th Cir. 2008).) Thus, the amendments to the CEQA Guidelines developed pursuant to SB97 do not create new requirements; rather, they interpret and clarify existing CEQA law.
32 Because the Amendments do not add any substantive requirements, they will not result in an adverse impact on businesses in California. On the contrary, by providing greater certainty to lead agencies regarding the determination of significance of GHG emissions, the cost of environmental analysis, and potential litigation, may be reduced. 33 SECTION 15065. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Specific Purposes of the Amendment
The amendment to section 15065(b)(1) would change the word "preliminary" to "public." The purpose of this amendment is to make section 15065 consistent with section 21064.5 of the Public Resources Code. The latter provision defines a mitigated negative declaration to be a negative declaration where mitigation measures are added to a project "before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review[.]" (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15070(b)(1).) In contrast, existing CEQA Guidelines section 15065(b)(1), dealing with mandatory findings of significance, would require a commitment to mitigation prior to "preliminary" review. "Preliminary Review," as that term is used in section 15060, refers to a period following receipt of an application during which a lead agency determines whether an exemption applies to the project or whether an EIR would clearly be prepared. Read literally, existing section 15065 would require a commitment to mitigation before an initial study is even conducted. Because the statutory definition of mitigated negative declaration contemplates that mitigation measures may be developed during the preparation of the initial study prior to public review, the change in 15065 from "preliminary" to "public" is appropriate.

Necessity
Section 21083 of the Public Resources Code directs OPR to develop, and the Resources Agency to adopt, guidelines on the implementation of CEQA. The Amendment is necessary to ensure that those guidelines are consistent with relevant statutory definitions.

Reasonable Alternatives to the Regulation, Including Alternatives that Would Lessen Any Adverse Impact on Small Business, and the Resources Agency’s Reasons for Rejecting Those Alternatives
The Resources Agency considered reasonable alternatives to the Amendments and determined that no reasonable alternative would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed or would be as effective as, and less burdensome to affected private persons than, the Amendments. This conclusion is based on the Resources Agency‘s determination that the Amendmentswould make the existing Guidelines easier to follow as a result of greater internal consistency. The Resources Agency rejected the no action alternative because it would not achieve the objectives of the Amendments. There are no alternatives available that would lessen any adverse impacts on small businesses, as any impacts would result from the implementation of existing law.
34 Evidence Supporting an Initial Determination That the Action Will Not Have a Significant Adverse Economic Impact on Business
The Amendments interpret and make specific existing statutory CEQA provisions and/or case law interpreting CEQA. Because the Amendments do not add any substantive requirements, they will not result in an adverse impact on businesses in California. On the contrary, by providing greater consistency within the Guidelines, the cost of environmental analysis, and potential litigation, may be reduced. 35 SECTION 15086. CONSULTATION CONCERNING DRAFT EIR
The revision to this section is a non-substantive correction to this section‘s reference to the California Air Resources Board. This revision, therefore, qualifies as a "change without regulatory effect" pursuant to section 100(a)(4) of the Office of Administrative Law‘s regulations governing the rulemaking process. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 100(a)(4).)
36 SECTION 15093. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Specific Purposes of the Amendment
Section 21081(b) of the Public Resources Code provides that a lead agency may approve or carry out a project with significant and unavoidable impacts only after the lead agency makes a finding that "specific overriding economic, legal, social, technical or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment." The State CEQA Guidelines describes the factors that a lead agency must weigh in determining whether to approve a project with adverse environmental effects:

CEQA recognizes that in determining whether and how a project should be approved, a public agency has an obligation to balance a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental, and social factors and in particular the goal of providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian. An agency shall prepare a statement of overriding considerations as described in Section 15093 to reflect the ultimate balancing of competing public objectives when the agency decides to approve a project that will cause one or more significant effects on the environment.
(State CEQA Guidelines, § 15021(d).) The California Supreme Court has further observed that "an agency‘s decision that the specific benefits a project offers outweigh any environmental effects that cannot feasibly be mitigated … lies at the core of the lead agency‘s discretionary responsibility under CEQA…." (City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of Cal. State Univ (2006) 39 Cal.4th 341, 368.) In the context of GHG emissions, some projects may cause adverse environmental impacts but still provide an overall benefit of reducing GHG emissions on a statewide or regional level. For example, a city may make a policy choice to allow increased housing density within a jobs-rich region in order to reduce region-wide GHG emissions from vehicles and transportation. (See, e.g., 2007 IEPR, at p. 210.) Though the introduction of new housing within the jurisdiction may result in near-term or local adverse impacts related to GHG emissions, doing so may assist the region as a whole in meeting region-wide reduction targets. Thus, subdivision (a) of section 15093 was revised to expressly allow a lead agency to consider this type of environmental benefit of a project in making a statement of overriding considerations.

The revision to section 15093(a) accomplishes two objectives. First, it reminds lead agencies and the public that even a project that appears environmentally beneficial may itself cause adverse environmental impacts, and such impacts must undergo full CEQA review, and, if applicable, a statement of overriding considerations. Second, it discourages purely local interests from dominating consideration of a project by expressly allowing a lead agency to consider region- and statewide benefits of a project.

Further, "economic, legal, social, technical and other benefits" could be interpreted to refer to local benefits. This addition would ensure that lead agencies may consider 37 regional and statewide benefits in considering a project‘s adverse impacts. Finally, the proposed addition makes clear, consistent with section 15021(d) of the existing State CEQA Guidelines, that the lead agency may consider environmental benefits to balance a project‘s significant adverse environmental effects that remain even after the adoption of all available feasible mitigation measures.

Necessity
The Legislature directed OPR and the Resources Agency to develop guidelines on the analysis of GHG emissions. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083.05.) If a lead agency determines that a project‘s GHG emissions will result in significant and unavoidable impacts, a lead agency may only approve the project if it makes specified findings. (Id. at § 21081(b).) This amendment is necessary to ensure that a lead agency considers state-wide and regional benefits of a project in addition to purely local benefits. Because consideration of state-wide and region-wide benefits may also apply to impacts unrelated to GHG emissions, the amendment was worded broadly to address any significant environmental impact.

The Resources Agency rejected the no action alternative because it would not achieve the objectives of the proposed revisions. There are no alternatives available that would lessen any adverse impacts on small businesses, as any impacts would result from the implementation of existing law.

Evidence Supporting an Initial Determination That the Action Will Not Have a Significant Adverse Economic Impact on Business
The Amendments interpret and/or make specific statutory CEQA provisions and case law interpreting CEQA for making statements of overriding considerations.

Because the Amendments do not add any substantive requirements, they will not result in an adverse impact on businesses in California.
38 SECTION 15125. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Specific Purposes of the Amendment
Section 15125 reflects existing law requiring examination of project impacts in relation to the existing environment. Subsection (d) states that lead agencies should consider whether the proposed project is inconsistent with applicable local and regional plans. That subsection provides a non-exclusive list of plans for potential consideration.

The Amendments would add specific plans, regional blueprint plans and greenhouse gas reduction plans to subdivision (d). The added plans are necessary to ensure that GHG emissions analyses in such plans are addressed.

Specific Plans
Specific Plans address a defined geographic area within the area covered by a General Plan. (Gov. Code, § 65450 ("After the legislative body has adopted a general plan, the planning agency may, or if so directed by the legislative body, shall, prepare specific plans for the systematic implementation of the general plan for all or part of the area covered by the general plan").) Specific Plans must contain "[s]tandards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable." (Id. at § 65451(a)(3).) Thus, given that so many local governments are addressing GHG emissions in their policy documents, and that Specific Plans must contain standards and criteria, it is likely that Specific Plans may address GHG emissions, and consistency with adopted Specific Plans should be considered in EIRs.

Regional Blueprint Plans
Regional Blueprint Plans are being developed in many of California‘s Metropolitan Planning Organizations through grants provided by the California Department of Transportation. While originally designed to address transportation efficiencies, Regional Blueprint Plans typically involve smart growth planning with an aim to reducing vehicle miles traveled at a regional level. As a result, Regional Blueprint Plans can provide information regarding the region‘s existing transportation setting and identify methods to reduce region-wide transportation-related impacts. (Scoping Plan, Appendix C, at pp. C-74-C-84.) Land use decisions impact many sectors responsible for GHG emissions, including transportation, electricity, water, waste, and others. However, the primary impact of land use development on GHG emissions relates to vehicle use. (Land Use Subcommittee of the Climate Action Team, LUSCAT Submission to CARB Scoping Plan on Local Government, Land Use, and Transportation (2008), at p. 13.) Blueprint Plans highlight this relationship between land use and transportation and how this relationship may impact a local community‘s and region‘s GHG emissions. Analysis of GHG reduction is not required by Blueprint grants but it is recommended. Therefore, Blueprint Plans provide an indication of the GHG emissions potentially created or reduced by the plan. (LUSCAT (2009), at p. 30.) Given the large percentage of GHG emissions that result from transportation in 39 California, a project‘s consistency with a Regional Blueprint Plan can provide information indicating whether the project could have significant environmental impacts related to GHG emissions. (Ibid.) Regional Blueprint Plans may, therefore, provide evidence to assist the lead agency in determining whether a project may tend to increase or decrease GHG emissions relative to the existing baseline. Thus, where such a plan has been developed and adopted by an MPO, lead agencies may find it useful to evaluate the project‘s consistency with that Blueprint Plan.

Plans for the Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Amendments would add plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to the list of plans in section 15125(d). Many local and regional plans now include policies relating to, and analyses of, GHG emissions. (OPR, Book of Lists, at pp. 92-100; Scoping Plan, at p. 26.) Many such plans include detailed information on the jurisdiction‘s inventory of GHG emissions and measures to reduce such emissions. (Ibid.) Such plans may also include prescriptions for specific mitigation measures to address GHG emissions. (Scoping Plan, Appendix C, at p. C-49.) Where such a plan has been developed and adopted within the relevant jurisdiction, a project‘s inconsistency with that plan could be an indication of potential adverse environmental impacts.

Notably, while section 15125(d) requires an EIR to discuss any inconsistencies of a project with the listed plans, it does not mandate a finding of significance resulting from any identified inconsistencies. The plans simply provide information regarding the project‘s existing setting and inconsistency may be an indication of potentially significant impacts. The determination of significance is to be made by the lead agency.

Necessity
The Legislature directed OPR and the Resources Agency to develop guidelines addressing the mitigation of GHG emissions and the effects of the GHG emissions. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083.05.) As indicated above, one potential indicator of a project‘s potential GHG emissions impacts is whether the project is consistent with applicable plans that have addressed that impact. Thus, the addition of plans that may address GHG emissions to the list of plans in the existing section 15125 is reasonably necessary to ensure that such analysis occurs.

Evidence Supporting an Initial Determination That the Action Will Not Have a Significant Adverse Economic Impact on Business
The Amendments interpret and make specific statutory CEQA provisions and/or case law interpreting CEQA for analyzing the effects of GHG emissions that may result from proposed projects. Many lead agencies, and some trial courts, have already determined that CEQA requires analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions independent of the SB97 CEQA Guidelines amendments. The Office of Planning and Research, for example, has cataloged over 1,000 examples of CEQA documents, prepared between July 2006 and June 2009, analyzing and mitigating GHG emissions. (Office of Planning and Research, Environmental Assessment Documents Containing a Discussion of Climate Change (Revised June 1, 2009).) Further, several trial courts have found that existing CEQA law requires analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions. (See, e.g., Muriettans for Smart Growth v. City of Murrieta et al., Riverside Co. Sup. Ct. Case No.

Amendments are proposed to two subdivisions of the existing section 15126.2.

The first, to subdivision (c), adds a cross-reference to the Public Resources Code and another section of the State CEQA Guidelines. This revision, therefore, qualifies as a "change without regulatory effect" pursuant to section 100(a)(4) of the Office of Administrative Law‘s regulations governing the rulemaking process. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 100(a)(4).) The second change, made in response to public comments, adds a sentence to the end of existing subdivision (a). That change is described in greater detail below.

Specific Purposes of the Amendment
Several comments submitted as part of the Natural Resources Agency‘s SB97 rulemaking process urged it to develop guidance addressing the analysis of the impacts of climate change on a project. These comments similarly suggested that such guidance was appropriate in light of the release of the draft California Climate Adaptation Strategy (Adaptation Strategy), developed pursuant to Executive Order S13-2008. In considering such comments, it is important to understand several key differences between the Adaptation Strategy and the California Environmental Quality Act. First, the Adaptation Strategy is a policy statement that contains recommendations; it is not a binding regulatory document. Second, the Adaptation Strategy focuses on how the State can plan for the effects of climate change. CEQA‘s focus, on the other hand, is the analysis of a particular project‘s greenhouse gas emissions on the environment, and mitigation of those emissions if impacts from those emissions are significant. Given these differences, CEQA should not be viewed as the tool to implement the Adaptation Strategy; rather, as indicated in the Strategy‘s key recommendations, advanced programmatic planning is the primary method to implement the Adaptation Strategies.

There is some overlap between CEQA and the Adaptation Strategy, however.

As explained in both the Initial Statement of Reasons and in the Adaptation Strategy, section 15126.2 may require the analysis of the effects of a changing climate under certain circumstances. (Initial Statement of Reasons, at pp. 68-69.) In particular, Section 15126.2 already requires an analysis of placing a project in a potentially hazardous location. Further, several questions in the Appendix G checklist already ask about wildfire and flooding risks. Many comments on the proposed amendments asked for additional guidance, however.

Having reviewed all of the comments addressing the effects of climate change, the Natural Resources Agency revised the proposed amendments to include a new sentence in Section 15126.2 clarifying the type of analysis that would be required.

Existing section 15126.2(a) provides an example of a potential hazard requiring analysis: placing a subdivision on a fault line. The new sentence adds further examples, as follows:
42 Similarly, the EIR should evaluate any potentially significant impacts of locating development in other areas susceptible to hazardous conditions (e.g., floodplains, coastlines, wildfire risk areas) as identified in authoritative hazard maps, risk assessments or in land use plans addressing such hazards areas.

According to the Office of Planning and Research, at least sixty lead agencies already require this type of analysis. (California Governor‘s Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, The California Planners‘ Book of Lists (January, 2009), at p. 109.) This addition is reasonably necessary to guide lead agencies as to the scope of analysis of a changing climate that is appropriate under CEQA.

As revised, section 15126.2 would provide that a lead agency should analyze the effects of bringing development to an area that is susceptible to hazards such as flooding and wildfire, both as such hazards currently exist or may occur in the future.

Several limitations apply to the analysis of future hazards, however. For example, such an analysis may not be relevant if the potential hazard would likely occur sometime after the projected life of the project (i.e., if sea-level projections only project changes 50 years in the future, a five-year project may not be affected by such changes).

Additionally, the degree of analysis should correspond to the probability of the potential hazard. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15143 ("significant effects should be discussed with emphasis in proportion to their severity and probability of occurrence").) Thus, for example, where there is a great degree of certainty that sea-levels may rise between 3 and 6 feet at a specific location within 30 years, and the project would involve placing a wastewater treatment plant with a 50 year life at 2 feet above current sea level, the potential effects that may result from inundation of that plant should be addressed. On the other extreme, while there may be consensus that temperatures may rise, but the magnitude of the increase is not known with any degree of certainty, effects associated with temperature rise would not need to be examined. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15145 ("If, after thorough investigation, a lead agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate the discussion of the impact").) Lead agencies are not required to generate their own original research on potential future changes; however, where specific information is currently available, the analysis should address that information. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15144 (environmental analysis "necessarily involves some degree of forecasting. While seeing the unforeseeable is not possible, an agency must use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can").) 43 The decision in Baird v. County of Contra Costa (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1464, does not preclude this analysis. In that case, the First District Court of Appeal held that a county was not required to prepare an EIR due solely to pre-existing soil contamination that the project would not change in any way. (Id. at 1468.) No evidence supported the petitioner‘s claim that the project would "expose or exacerbate" the preexisting contamination, which was located several hundred to several thousand feet from the project site. (Id. at n. 1.) Moreover, the project would have no other significant effects on the environment, and other statutes exist to protect residents from contaminated soils. Thus, the question confronting that court was whether pre-existing contamination near the project was, by itself, enough to require preparation of an EIR.

It held that, in those circumstances, an EIR was not required. That court also acknowledged, however, that where there is a potential for ultimately changing the environment, an EIR could be required. (Id. at p. 1469.) Thus, unlike the circumstances in the Baird case, the analysis required in section 15126.2(a) would occur if an EIR was otherwise required. Similarly, the addition to that section contemplates hazards which the presence of a project could exacerbate (i.e., potential upset of hazardous materials in a flood, increased need for firefighting services, etc.).

This revision was described in the Natural Resources Agency‘s Notice of Proposed Changes and the public was invited to present comments on that change.

The Natural Resources Agency determined that the change was sufficiently related to the original proposal described in the Notice of Proposed Action, so a fifteen day comment period was appropriate. It is sufficiently related because the Notice of Proposed Action explained that the rulemaking activity was intended to address the directive in SB97 to provide guidelines on the analysis of the "effects of greenhouse gas emissions." As explained in the Initial Statement of Reasons, the Natural Resources Agency initially chose not to provide specific guidance on the analysis of the effects of placing development in an area subject to the effects of climate change because the Agency interpreted existing section 15126.2(a) to already require that analysis under certain circumstances. As indicated above, however, many comments on the proposed amendments suggested revisions to section 15126.2(a) to provide additional guidance.

The areas susceptible to hazards include those that may result from a changing climate.

Thus, the change is sufficiently related that a reasonable person would be put on notice that such a change could occur as a result of the rulemaking activity described in the Notice of Proposed Action.

Finally, following review of comments on this revision, the Natural Resources Agency clarified that this analysis applies only to "potentially significant" effects of locating developing in areas susceptible to hazards. Because this revision clarifies the last sentence in section 15126.2(a), consistent with the Public Resources Code, and does not alter the requirements, rights, responsibilities, conditions, or prescriptions contained in the originally proposed text, this revision is nonsubstantial and need not be circulated for additional public review. (Government Code, § 11346.8(c); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 40.)
44 Necessity
The Legislature directed OPR and the Resources Agency to develop guidelines addressing the analysis of the effects of GHG emissions. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083.05.) As explained above, the effects of GHG emissions include flooding, sealevel rise and wildfires. Thus, the addition of a clarifying sentence to existing section 15126.2(a), requiring analysis of the effects of placing developing in hazardous locations, is reasonably necessary to ensure that such analysis occurs with respect to areas subject to potential hazards resulting from climate change.

Evidence Supporting an Initial Determination That the Action Will Not Have a Significant Adverse Economic Impact on Business
The Amendments interpret and make specific statutory CEQA provisions and/or case law interpreting CEQA for analyzing the effects of GHG emissions that may result from proposed projects. Many lead agencies, and some trial courts, have already determined that CEQA requires analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions independent of the SB97 CEQA Guidelines amendments. The Office of Planning and Research, for example, has cataloged over 1,000 examples of CEQA documents, prepared between July 2006 and June 2009, analyzing and mitigating GHG emissions. (Office of Planning and Research, Environmental Assessment Documents Containing a Discussion of Climate Change (Revised June 1, 2009).) Further, several trial courts have found that existing CEQA law requires analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions. (See, e.g., Muriettans for Smart Growth v. City of Murrieta et al., Riverside Co. Sup. Ct. Case No.

Because the Amendments do not add any substantive requirements, they will not result in an adverse impact on businesses in California. On the contrary, by providing greater certainty to lead agencies regarding the analysis that may be required of the potential effects of climate change on a project, the cost of environmental analysis, and potential litigation, may be reduced.
46 SECTION 15126.4. CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION OF MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED TO MINIMIZE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS.

Specific Purposes of the Amendment
Section 21083.05 of the Public Resources Code expressly requires OPR and the Resources Agency to develop regulations on the "mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions." The goals of this legislative mandate are to (1) reduce GHG emissions and (2) to provide consistency in the development of GHG emissions reduction measures.

There is no indication, however, that the Legislature intended to alter any existing laws governing mitigation under CEQA. The Amendments, therefore, interpret and make specific existing CEQA law and regulations for mitigation of significant impacts resulting from GHG emissions.

Existing section 15126.4 provides guidance on CEQA‘s general mitigation requirements. To emphasize that mitigation of GHG emissions is subject to those existing CEQA requirements, OPR and the Natural Resources Agency added a new subdivision (c) to the existing section 15126.4. The Amendments identify five general methods of mitigation that may be tailored to the specific circumstances surrounding a specific project. In response to public comments, the Natural Resources Agency provided additional guidance, described below, in the lead-in sentences introducing those five broad categories of mitigation.

Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Comments submitted on the Amendments indicated general concerns that mitigation for GHG emissions may not be effective or reliable. To further clarify the existing mitigation requirements that would apply to measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the Natural Resources Agency revised the lead-in sentences in subdivision (c). Specifically, the Natural Resources Agency added that all mitigation must be supported with substantial evidence and be capable of monitoring or reporting.

This addition reflects the requirement in Public Resources Code that a lead agency‘s findings on mitigation be supported with substantial evidence and that it must adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program along with the project if mitigation measures are required. (Public Resources Code, §§ 21081(a)(1), 21081.6.) In response to comments, the Natural Resources Agency had originally also proposed to add a sentence indicating that only emissions reductions that were not required by some other law or contract could qualify as mitigation. In response to comments on that proposed revision, that sentence is no longer proposed to be added to the lead-in section; rather, subdivision (c)(3) will be clarified, as described below.

Mitigation Identified in an Existing Plan
The first type of mitigation of GHG emissions that may be considered includes measures identified in an existing plan. As indicated above, many agencies are 47 beginning to address GHG emissions at a planning level. (OPR, Book of Lists, at pp. 92-100.) Some of those GHG reduction plans include specific measures that may be applied on a project-by-project basis. (Ibid; see also Scoping Plan, Appendix C, at p. C49.) Proposed subdivision (c)(1), therefore, would encourage lead agencies to look to adopted plans for sources of mitigation measures that could be applied to specific projects.

Project Design Features
The second type of measure that a lead agency should consider is project design features that will reduce project emissions. Various project design features could be used to reduce GHG emissions from a wide variety of projects. The CAPCOA White Paper provides examples of various project design features that may reduce emissions from commercial and residential buildings. (CAPCOA White Paper, at pp. B-13 to B18.) For example, according to the California Energy Commission, "[r]esearch shows that increasing a community‘s density and its accessibility to jobs centers are the two most significant factors for reducing vehicle miles traveled," which is an important component of reducing statewide emissions. (California Energy Commission 2007, 2007 Integrated Energy Policy Report, CEC-100-2007-008-CMF ("2007 IEPR"), at p. 12; see also CEC, The Role of Land Use in Meeting California’s Energy and Climate Goals (2007) at p. 20.) This subdivision also refers specifically to measures identified in Appendix F, which include a variety of measures designed to reduce energy use. By encouraging lead agencies to consider changes to the project itself, this subdivision further encourages the realization of co-benefits such as reduced energy costs for project occupants, increased amenities for non-vehicular transportation, and others.

Thus, project design can reduce GHG emissions directly through efficiency and indirectly through resource conservation and recycling. (Green Building Sector Subgroup of the Climate Action Team, Scoping Plan Measure Development and Cost Analysis (2008) at p. 6 to 9.)
Off-Site Measures
The third type of measures addressing GHG emissions is off-site measures including offsets. Proposed subdivision (c)(3) recognizes the availability of various offsite mitigation measures. Such measures could include, among others, the purchase of carbon offsets, community energy conservation projects, and off-site forestry projects. (See, e.g., South Coast Air Quality Management District, SoCal Climate Solutions Exchange (June 2008), at pp.1; Rodeo Refinery Settlement Agreement, BAAQMD Carbon Offset Fund; Recommendations of the ETAAC, Final Report (February 2008) at pp. 9-5; ARB, Staff Report: Proposed Adoption of California Climate Action Registry Forestry Greenhouse Gas Protocols for Voluntary Purposes (October 17, 2007), at p. 15 ("[t]he three protocols together – the sector, project, and certification protocols – are a cohesive and comprehensive set of methodologies for forest carbon accounting, and furthermore contain all the elements necessary to generate high quality carbon credits"); see also Scoping Plan, Appendix C, at pp. C-21 to C-23.) Off-site mitigation may be appropriate under various circumstances. For example, such mitigation may be 48 appropriate where a project is incapable of design modifications that would sufficiently reduce GHG emissions within the project boundaries. In that case, a lead agency could consider whether emissions reductions may be achieved through such measures as energy-efficiency upgrades within the community or reforestation programs.

The reference to "offsets" in subdivision(c)(3) generated several comments during the public review period. The offsets concept is familiar in other aspects of air quality regulation. The Federal Clean Air Act, for example, provides that increases in emissions from new or modified sources in a nonattainment area must be offset by reductions in existing emissions within the nonattainment area. (See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 7503(a)(1)(A).) California laws also apply to offsets and emissions credits. (See, e.g., Health & Saf. Code, § 39607.5.) Those other laws generally require that emissions offsets must be "surplus" or "additional". Comments on the proposed amendments suggested that to be used for CEQA mitigation purposes, offsets should also be "additional." Thus, the Natural Resources Agency further refined the revisions it publicized on October 23, 2009, by deleting the lead-in sentence stating that "Reductions in emissions that are not otherwise required may constitute mitigation pursuant to this subdivision," and amending subdivision (c)(3) to state that mitigation may include "Off-site measures, including offsets that are not otherwise required, to mitigate a project‘s emissions[.]"
Moving this concept from the general provisions on mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions to the provision on offsets does not materially alter the rights or conditions in the originally proposed text because the "not otherwise required" concept would only make sense in the context of offsets. Because this revision clarifies section 15126.4(c)(3), consistent with the Public Resources Code and cases interpreting it, and does not alter the requirements, rights, responsibilities, conditions, or prescriptions contained in the originally proposed text, this revision is nonsubstantial and need not be circulated for additional public review. (Government Code, § 11346.8(c); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 40.)
Sequestration
The fourth type of GHG emissions mitigation measure is sequestration. Indeed, one way to reduce a project‘s GHG emissions is to sequester project-related GHG emissions and thereby prevent them from being released into the atmosphere. At present, the most readily available, and accountable, way to sequester GHGs is forest management. California forests have a "unique capacity to remove [carbon dioxide, a GHG,] from the air and store it long-term as carbon." (Scoping Plan, Appendix C, at p.

C-165.) Forest sequestration functions are, therefore, a key part of the ARB‘s Scoping Plan and reduction effort. (Scoping Plan, at pp. 64-65.) The California Climate Action Team has also identified several forest-related sequestration strategies, including, reforestation, conservation forest management, conservation (i.e., avoided development), urban forestry, and fuels management and biomass. (ARB, Staff Report: Proposed Adoption of California Climate Action Registry 49 Forestry Greenhouse Gas Protocols for Voluntary Purposes (October 17, 2007), at pp. 6-7.) ARB has adopted Forest Protocols for large forestry projects. (ARB, Resolution 07-44 (adopting California Climate Action Registry Forestry Sector Protocol (September 2007), Forest Project Protocol (September 2007) and Forest Verification Protocol (May 2007).) ARB has also adopted Urban Forest Protocols for urban forestry projects. (California Climate Action Registry, Urban Forest Project Reporting Protocol and Verification Protocol (August 2008) (ARB adopted on September 25, 2008).) Such projects could be located on the project site or off-site. (Urban Forest Project Reporting Protocol, at pp. 4-5.) The protocols include methods of measuring the ability of various forestry projects to store capture and store carbon.

Consistent with section 15126.4(a), a lead agency must support its choice of, and its determination of the effectiveness of, any reduction measures with substantial evidence. Substantial evidence in the record must demonstrate that any mitigation program or measure is will result in actual emissions reductions. As a practical matter, where a mitigation program or measure is consistent with protocols adopted or approved by an agency with regulatory authority to develop such a program, a lead agency will more easily be able to demonstrate that off-site mitigation will actually result in emissions reductions. Examples of such protocols include the forestry protocols described above. Where a mitigation proposal cannot be verified with an existing protocol, a greater evidentiary showing may be required.

Measures to be Implemented on a Project-by-Project Basis Finally, the fifth type of measure that could reduce GHG emissions at a planning level is the development of binding measures to be implemented on a project-specific basis. As explained in greater detail in the discussion of proposed section 15183.5, below, ARB‘s Scoping Plan strongly encourages local agencies to develop plans to reduce GHG emissions throughout the community. In addition, the CEC‘s Power Plant Siting Committee is assessing the impacts of GHG emission from proposed new power plants and how they can be mitigated. Comments received during the CEC‘s informational proceedings warranted a lengthy discussion on the practical application of a programmatic approach to mitigating GHG emissions from new power plants. (CEC, Committee Guidance on Fulfilling California Environmental Quality Act Responsibilities for Greenhouse Gas Impacts in Power Plant Siting Applications (2009) at p. 26 to 28.) Existing State CEQA Guidelines sections 15168(b)(4) and 15168(c)(3) recognize that programmatic documents provide an opportunity to develop mitigation plans that will apply on a project-specific basis. Proposed subdivision (c)(5) recognizes that, for a planning level decision, appropriate mitigation of GHG emissions may include the development of a program to be implemented on a project-by-project basis. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(2) ("[i]n the case of the adoption of a plan, policy, regulation, or other public project, mitigation measures can be incorporated into the plan, policy, regulation or project design").)
This type of mitigation is subject to the limits of existing law, however. Thus, proposed subdivision (c)(5) should not be interpreted to allow deferral of mitigation. 50 Rather, it is subject to the rule in existing section 15126.4(a)(1)(B) that such measures "may specify performance standards which would mitigate the significant effect of the project and which may be accomplished in more than one specified way." (See also San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 645, 670-71.)
Suggestions Rejected
During its public involvement process, OPR received comments on its preliminary draft of the proposed amendments related to mitigation. Some comments suggested provisions that were not included in these Proposed Amendments. Several comments, for example, suggested that the Guidelines provide a specific "hierarchy" of mitigation requiring lead agencies to mitigate GHG emissions on-site where possible, and to allow consideration and use of off-site mitigation only if on-site mitigation is impossible or insufficient. OPR and the Resources Agency recognize that there may be circumstances in which requiring on-site mitigation may result in various co-benefits for the project and local community, and that monitoring the implementation of such measures may be easier. However, CEQA leaves the determination of the precise method of mitigation to the discretion of lead agencies. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(1)(B); see also San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City & Co. of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal. App. 4th 656, 697.)

Several comments also suggested that mitigation for GHG emissions must be "real, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, and enforceable." The Proposed Amendments do not include such standards, however, for several reasons. The proposed standard appears to have been derived from section 38562(d) of the Health and Safety Code, which prescribes requirements for regulations to be promulgated to implement AB32.

AB32 is a separate statutory scheme, and, as noted above, there is no indication that the legislature intended to alter standards for mitigation under CEQA. Similarly, standards for mitigation under CEQA already exist and are set out in section 15126.4(a). Specifically, mitigation must be fully enforceable, which implies that the measure is also real and verifiable. Additionally, substantial evidence in the record must support an agency‘s conclusion that mitigation will be effective, and in the context of an EIR, courts will defer to an agency‘s determination of a measure‘s effectiveness. (Environmental Council of Sacramento v. City of Sacramento (2006) 147 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1041 (mitigation ratio is supportable even at less than 1:1 given the project‘s circumstances); Ass’n of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1398 (lead agency has discretion to resolve dispute regarding the effectiveness of an EIR‘s mitigation measures).) No existing law requires CEQA mitigation to be quantifiable. Rather, mitigation need only be "roughly proportional" to the impact being mitigated. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(4)(B); see also id. at § 15142.)
Necessity
51 The Legislature directed OPR and the Resources Agency to develop guidelines on the mitigation of GHG emissions. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083.05.) The proposed subdivision (c) sets out types of mitigation of GHG emissions that a lead agency may consider. Thus, that subdivision is reasonably necessary to implement the Legislature‘s directive.

Evidence Supporting an Initial Determination That the Action Will Not Have a Significant Adverse Economic Impact on Business
The proposed action interprets and makes specific statutory CEQA provisions and/or case law interpreting CEQA for mitigating the impacts of GHG emissions that may result from proposed projects. Many lead agencies, and some trial courts, have already determined that CEQA requires analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions independent of the SB97 CEQA Guidelines amendments. The Office of Planning and Research, for example, has cataloged over 1,000 examples of CEQA documents, prepared between July 2006 and June 2009, analyzing and mitigating GHG emissions. (Office of Planning and Research, Environmental Assessment Documents Containing a Discussion of Climate Change (Revised June 1, 2009).) Further, several trial courts have found that existing CEQA law requires analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions. (See, e.g., Muriettans for Smart Growth v. City of Murrieta et al., Riverside Co. Sup. Ct.

Case No. RIC463320 (November 21, 2007); Env. Council of Sac. et al v. Cal. Dept. of Trans., Sacramento Sup. Ct. Case No. 07CS00967 (July 15, 2008) (citing Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Commissions (2001) 91 Cal.App. 4th 1344, 1370-1371 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15144 as requiring a lead agency to "meaningfully attempt to quantify the Project‘s potential impacts on GHG emissions and determine their significance" or at least to explain what steps were undertaken to investigate the issue before concluding that the impact would be speculative).) Finally, federal courts have interpreted the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") to require an analysis of potential impacts of GHG emissions. (See, e.g., Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Ad., 538 F.3d 1172, 1215-1217 (9th 52 Cir. 2008).) Thus, the amendments to the CEQA Guidelines developed pursuant to SB97 do not create new requirements; rather, they interpret and clarify existing CEQA law.

Because the proposed action does not add any substantive requirements, it will not result in an adverse impact on businesses in California. On the contrary, by providing greater certainty to lead agencies regarding the determination of significance of GHG emissions, the cost of environmental analysis, and potential litigation, may be reduced.
53 SECTION 15130. DISCUSSION OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Specific Purposes of the Amendment
The Proposed Amendments include two revisions to the existing section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The two proposed amendments are described below.

Section 15130(b)(1)(B)
Section 21083(b) of the Public Resources Code requires that an EIR be prepared if the "possible effects of a project are individually limited but cumulatively considerable." That section further defines "cumulatively considerable" to mean that "the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects."
In determining whether a project may have significant cumulative impacts, a lead agency must engage in a two-step process. First, it must determine the extent of the cumulative problem. To do so, a lead agency must examine the "effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects." Once it does so, the lead agency then determines whether the project‘s incremental contribution to that problem is cumulatively considerable. Section 21100(e) further provides that "[p]reviously approved land use documents, including but not limited to, general plans, specific plans, and local coastal plans, may be used in a cumulative impact analysis."
The existing Guideline section 15130(b) addresses the first step of the process.

It offers two options for estimating the effects resulting from past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects. A lead agency may either rely on a list of such projects, or a summary of projections to estimate cumulative impacts. Existing section 15130(b)(1)(B) allows a lead agency to rely on projections in a land use document or certified environmental document that addresses the cumulative impact under consideration.

The proposed amendments would clarify that plans providing such projections need not be limited to land use plans, so long as the plan evaluates the relevant cumulative effect. The proposed amendments would also allow a lead agency to rely on information provided in regional modeling programs. The best projections of the cumulative effect of GHG emissions may be available in up-to-date models such as the International Council for Local Environmental Initiative‘s Local Government GHG Protocol8and the California Climate Action Reserve‘s Registry general, 9 industry10 and

8 ICLEI (2008) Local Government Operations Protocol; Accessed 6/08/09, http://www.icleiusa.org/actioncenter/tools/lgo-protocol-1 9 California Climate Action Registry (2009) General Reporting Protocol: Accessed 6/08/09, http://www.climateregistry.org/resources/docs/protocols/grp/GRP_3.1_January2009.pdf 54 project type protocols.11
Such projections may also be supplied in plans that are not strictly "land use" plans. For example, regional transportation plans in certain areas will ultimately include sustainable community strategies which will include projections a region‘s GHG emissions and related cumulative effects. (Gov Code, § 65080(b)(2).) Finally, some agencies are beginning to develop GHG reduction plans or climate action plans that may also include such projections. (ARB, Scoping Plan, Appendix C, at p. C49; OPR, Book of Lists, at pp. 92-100.) The proposed amendments are consistent with section 21083 of the Public Resources Code and CEQA case law. Section 21083 requires consideration of "the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects." Projections in the listed types of plans and models may include inventories of existing emissions and projected future emissions. Section 21100 of the Public Resources Code provides that land use plans "may" be used in a cumulative impacts analysis, but that section does not purport to limit the types of plans that can be used in a cumulative impacts analysis to land use plans. Finally, case law has supported reliance on projections provided by industry, for example, to satisfy the requirement for a discussion of impacts caused by closely related projects. (Ass’n of Irritated Residents, supra, 107 Cal. App. 4th at 1404.) While models may provide the most up to date information, lead agencies should still look first to information provided in adopted or certified environmental documents.

First, such information has already gone through a public and agency review process.

Second, to the extent the model provides information that is not provided in the prior environmental document, the relationship of the model and applicable plans must be explained, along with any changes in circumstances.

Section 15130(d)
The Office of Planning and Research had originally proposed the addition of certain plans to section 15130(d). That section states that previously approved land use plans may be used in a cumulative impacts analysis. Those additions were inadvertently excluded from the proposed amendments that were made available for public review on July 3, 2009. Therefore, the revisions were added to revisions that were made publicly available on October 23, 2009.

The added plans include regional transportation plans and plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. This change is sufficiently related to the proposal that was originally published. Those plans were proposed for addition to other sections of the proposed amendments, for example, and comments were submitted regarding the use of such plans in cumulative impacts analysis. Plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions were described under section 15064(h)(3), above. Regional

10 California Climate Action Registry (2005) Industry Specific Protocols: Accessed 06/08/09, http://www.climateregistry.org/tools/protocols/industry-specific-protocols.html 11 California Climate Action Registry (2007) Project Protocols: Accessed 06/08/09, http://www.climateregistry.org/tools/protocols/project-protocols.html 55 transportation plans may contain information regarding transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions that may be useful in a cumulative impacts analysis. As explained above, regional transportation plans in certain areas will ultimately include sustainable community strategies which will include projections a region‘s GHG emissions and related cumulative effects. (Gov Code, § 65080(b)(2).) Thus, these additions are reasonably necessary to ensure that public agencies perform a cumulative impacts analysis of greenhouse gas emissions as required by Public Resources Code section 21083.05. The additions are also consistent with Public Resources Code section 21100(e) which provides that previously adopted land use plans may be used in a cumulative impacts analysis.

Section 15130(f)
The Natural Resources Agency originally proposed to add subdivision (f) to section 15130 to clarify that sections 21083 and 21083.05 of the Public Resources Code do not require a detailed analysis of GHG emissions solely due to the emissions of other projects. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15130(a)(1); Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce v. City of Santa Monica (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 786, 799.) Rather, proposed subdivision (f) would have provided that a detailed analysis is required when evidence shows that the incremental contribution of the project‘s GHG emissions is cumulatively considerable when added to other cumulative projects. (CBE, supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at 119-120.) In essence, the proposed addition would be a restatement of law as applied to GHG emissions. Analysis of GHG emissions as a cumulative impact is consistent with case law arising under the National Environmental Policy Act. (See, e.g., Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Ad., 538 F.3d 1172, 1215-1217 (9th Cir. 2008).) Other portions of these proposed Guidelines address how lead agencies may determine whether a project‘s emissions are cumulatively considerable. (See, e.g., Proposed Sections 1506(h)(3) and 15064.4.) Public comments noted, however, that the new subdivision merely restated the law, and was capable of misinterpretation. The Natural Resources Agency, therefore, determined that because other provisions of the Amendments address the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions as a cumulative impact, and because the reasoning of those is fully explained in the Initial Statement of Reasons, subdivision (f) should not be added to the CEQA Guidelines. The deletion was reflected in the revisions that were made available for further public review and comment on October 23, 2009.

Necessity
Sections 21083 and 21083.05 of the Public Resources Code respectively require that an EIR analyze cumulative impacts and that the effects of GHG emissions be analyzed in CEQA documents. The Amendments include guidance to assist lead agencies to evaluate the cumulative impacts of GHG emissions where an EIR is required. Thus, the Amendments are reasonably necessary to implement the Legislature‘s directive.
56 Reasonable Alternatives to the Regulation, Including Alternatives that Would Lessen Any Adverse Impact on Small Business, and the Resources Agency’s Reasons for Rejecting Those Alternatives
The Resources Agency considered reasonable alternatives to the Amendments and determined that no reasonable alternative would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed or would be as effective as, and less burdensome to affected private persons than, the Amendments. This conclusion is based on the Resources Agency‘s determination that the Amendments are necessary to implement the Legislature‘s directive in SB97 in a manner consistent with existing statutes and case law, and the Amendments add no new substantive requirements.

Evidence Supporting an Initial Determination That the Action Will Not Have a Significant Adverse Economic Impact on Business
The Amendments interpret and make specific statutory CEQA provisions and/or case law interpreting CEQA for analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions that may result from proposed projects. Many lead agencies, and some trial courts, have already determined that CEQA requires analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions independent of the SB97 CEQA Guidelines amendments. The Office of Planning and Research, for example, has cataloged over 1,000 examples of CEQA documents, prepared between July 2006 and June 2009, analyzing and mitigating GHG emissions. (Office of Planning and Research, Environmental Assessment Documents Containing a Discussion of Climate Change (Revised June 1, 2009).) Further, several trial courts have found that existing CEQA law requires analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions. (See, e.g., Muriettans for Smart Growth v. City of Murrieta et al., Riverside Co. Sup. Ct. Case No.

Because the Amendments do not add any substantive requirements, they will not result in an adverse impact on businesses in California. On the contrary, the 57 amendments to this section are intended to reduce the costs of environmental review on lead agencies and project applicants by encouraging the use of existing environmental analysis where available. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003(d) (use information in existing EIRs in order to reduce duplication), (f) (environmental review should proceed in the most efficient manner possible).)
58 SECTION 15150. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
Specific Purposes of the Amendment
The existing CEQA Guidelines allow lead agencies to incorporate information from other documents by reference. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15150.) Doing so permits a lead agency to avoid repetitious analysis of general matters and to reduce paperwork. (Pub. Resources Code § 21003 (it is state policy that "persons and public agencies involved in the environmental review process be responsible for carrying out the process in the most efficient, expeditious manner in order to conserve the available financial, governmental, physical, and social resources with the objective that those resources may be better applied toward the mitigation of actual significant effects on the environment").) Existing Guidelines section 15150(f) provides that "[i]ncorporation by reference is most appropriate for including long, descriptive, or technical materials that provide general background but do not contribute directly to the analysis of the problem at hand."
The key requirements for documents that may be incorporation by reference are set forth in the statutory definition of "EIR." (Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.) Those requirements include:

The incorporated information is a matter of public record or is generally available to the public; and
The incorporated information is reasonably available for inspection at a public place or public building.

Descriptions of global, statewide and regional GHG emissions are particularly well-suited to incorporation by reference. Such descriptions can be technical and lengthy. (Public Policy Institute of California, Climate Policy at the Local Level: A Survey of California‘s Cities and Counties (November 2008), at pp. 24-32 (describing barriers and constraints to adoption of climate action plans and policies).) General descriptions may also remain current enough to be used in several successive environmental documents. In fact, OPR has found that many agencies are addressing GHG emissions in programmatic documents that could be incorporated by reference into later documents. (OPR, Book of Lists, at pp. 92-100.) Thus, the Resources Agency and OPR find that addition of subdivision (e)(4) is reasonably necessary to effectuate the legislative directive that public agencies conduct environmental review in the most efficient manner possible.

Necessity
The Legislature directed OPR and the Resources Agency to develop guidelines on the analysis of GHG emissions. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083.05.) The Legislature has further directed that resources be conserved wherever possible in the analysis of environment impacts. (Id. at § 21003.) Thus, the amendment to add GHG 59 analyses to the list of documents that may be incorporated by reference is reasonably necessary to implement the Legislature‘s directive.

Evidence Supporting an Initial Determination That the Action Will Not Have a Significant Adverse Economic Impact on Business
The Amendments interpret and make specific statutory CEQA provisions and/or case law interpreting CEQA for analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions that may result from proposed projects. Many lead agencies, and some trial courts, have already determined that CEQA requires analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions independent of the SB97 CEQA Guidelines amendments. The Office of Planning and Research, for example, has cataloged over 1,000 examples of CEQA documents, prepared between July 2006 and June 2009, analyzing and mitigating GHG emissions. (Office of Planning and Research, Environmental Assessment Documents Containing a Discussion of Climate Change (Revised June 1, 2009).) Further, several trial courts have found that existing CEQA law requires analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions. (See, e.g., Muriettans for Smart Growth v. City of Murrieta et al., Riverside Co. Sup. Ct. Case No.

RIC463320 (November 21, 2007); Env. Council of Sac. et al v. Cal. Dept. of Trans., Sacramento Sup. Ct. Case No. 07CS00967 (July 15, 2008) (citing Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Commissions (2001) 91 Cal.App. 4th 1344, 1370- 1371 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15144 as requiring a lead agency to "meaningfully attempt to quantify the Project‘s potential impacts on GHG emissions and determine their significance" or at least to explain what steps were undertaken to investigate the issue before concluding that the impact would be speculative).) Finally, federal courts have interpreted the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") to require an analysis of potential impacts of GHG emissions. (See, e.g., Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Ad., 538 F.3d 1172, 1215-1217 (9th Cir. 2008).) Thus, the amendments to the CEQA Guidelines developed pursuant to SB97 do not create new requirements; rather, they interpret and clarify existing CEQA law.
60 Because the Amendments do not add any substantive requirements, they will not result in an adverse impact on businesses in California. On the contrary, the amendments to this section are intended to reduce the costs of environmental review on lead agencies and project applicants by encouraging the use of existing environmental analysis where available. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003(d) (use information in existing EIRs in order to reduce duplication), (f) (environmental review should proceed in the most efficient manner possible).)
61 SECTION 15183. PROJECTS CONSISTENT WITH A COMMUNITY PLAN OR ZONING
Specific Purposes of the Amendment
Section 21083.3 of the Public Resources Code provides that projects that are consistent with a General Plan, Community Plan or Zoning may not need to analyze cumulative effects that have already been analyzed in an EIR on the prior planning or zoning action. The exemption may apply, for example, where "uniformly applied development policies or standards" will substantially mitigate a cumulative effect. (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21083.3(d).) The statute does not define what types of development policies or standards may be used in this context. It does provide, however, that such standards or policies must have been adopted by the lead agency with a finding, supported with substantial evidence, that the policy or standard will substantially mitigate the environmental effect under consideration. (Ibid.) Existing Guidelines section 15183 provides several non-exclusive examples of policies and standards that might apply in the context of section 21083.3, including grading ordinances and floodplain protection ordinances.

The inclusion of "[r]equirements for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as set forth in adopted land use plans, policies or regulations" among the list of examples of "uniformly applied development policies or standards" is consistent with the direction in section 21083.3. First, the text provides that such requirements would be "adopted" by the lead agency. Second, they would be "development policies or standards" because the requirements would be contained in an adopted "land use plan, policy or regulation." Finally, such requirements could substantially mitigate the effects of GHG emissions by "reducing greenhouse gas emissions" in the adopting jurisdiction. (Proposed Section 15183.5(b) would provide elements that may be included in a GHG emissions reduction plan that might be used in the context of section 15183.) One comment submitted during OPR‘s public involvement process questioned whether such requirements relating to reductions in GHG emissions would be kept current. (See, e.g., Letter from Joyce Dillard to OPR, January 26, 2009.) Section 21083.3 specifically provides, however, that such requirements would not apply in this context if "substantial new information shows that the policies or standards will not substantially mitigate the environmental effect." (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083.3(d).) Therefore, lead agencies have an incentive to ensure that their policies remain current.

Necessity
The Legislature directed OPR and the Resources Agency to develop guidelines on the analysis of GHG emissions. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083.05.) The addition to section 15183 is reasonably necessary to carry out the legislature‘s intent that projects that are consistent with General Plans, Community Plans and Zoning benefit from streamlined CEQA review. Several jurisdictions are beginning to include requirements for reducing GHG emissions in their general plans. (OPR, Book of Lists, 62 at pp. 92-100; Scoping Plan, Appendix C, at p. C-49.) The addition is also reasonably necessary to effectuate the legislature‘s intent that OPR and the Resources Agency provide guidance on how to analyze GHG emissions.

Evidence Supporting an Initial Determination That the Action Will Not Have a Significant Adverse Economic Impact on Business
The Amendments interpret and make specific statutory CEQA provisions and/or case law interpreting CEQA for analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions that may result from proposed projects. Many lead agencies, and some trial courts, have already determined that CEQA requires analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions independent of the SB97 CEQA Guidelines amendments. The Office of Planning and Research, for example, has cataloged over 1,000 examples of CEQA documents, prepared between July 2006 and June 2009, analyzing and mitigating GHG emissions. (Office of Planning and Research, Environmental Assessment Documents Containing a Discussion of Climate Change (Revised June 1, 2009).) Further, several trial courts have found that existing CEQA law requires analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions. (See, e.g., Muriettans for Smart Growth v. City of Murrieta et al., Riverside Co. Sup. Ct. Case No.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Specific Purposes of the Amendment
In adopting SB375, the Legislature found that "[n]ew provisions of CEQA should be enacted so that the statute encourages … local governments to make land use decisions that will help the state achieve its climate goals under AB 32[.]" (Statutes 2008, Ch. 728, § 1(f).) ARB‘s Scoping Plan similarly recognizes the important role that local governments play in reducing the State‘s GHG emissions. (ARB, Scoping Plan, at p. 26.) In particular, local government "[d]ecisions on how land is used will have large impacts on the GHG emissions that will result from the transportation, housing, industry, forestry, water, agriculture, electricity, and natural gas sectors." (Ibid.) Decision-making on urban growth and land use planning begins with local general plans. (Gov. Code, § 65030.1 ("The Legislature … finds that decisions involving the future growth of the state, most of which are made and will continue to be made at the local level, should be guided by an effective planning process, including the local general plan, and should proceed within the framework of officially approved statewide goals and policies directed to land use, population growth and distribution, development, open space, resource preservation and utilization, air and water quality, and other related physical, social and economic development factors").)
GHG emissions may be best analyzed and mitigated at a programmatic level. "For local government lead agencies, adoption of general plan policies and certification of general plan EIRs that analyze broad jurisdiction-wide impacts of GHG emissions can be part of an effective strategy for addressing cumulative impacts and for streamlining later project-specific CEQA reviews." (OPR, Technical Advisory: CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review, June 19, 2008, at p. 8.) Other lead agencies may also address GHG emissions programmatically in long range development plans, facilities master plans, and other long-range planning documents.

This emphasis on long-range planning is consistent with state policy expressed in CEQA. The Legislature has clearly stated its preference that lead agencies tier environmental documents wherever feasible. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21093(b).) Specifically:

The Legislature finds and declares that tiering of environmental impact reports will promote construction of needed housing and other development projects by (1) streamlining regulatory procedures, (2) avoiding repetitive discussions of the same issues in successive environmental impact reports, and (3) ensuring that environmental impact reports prepared for later projects which are consistent with a previously approved policy, plan, program, or ordinance concentrate upon environmental effects which may be mitigated or avoided in connection with the decision on each later project. The Legislature further finds and 65 declares that tiering is appropriate when it helps a public agency to focus upon the issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review and in order to exclude duplicative analysis of environmental effects examined in previous environmental impact reports.
(Pub. Resources Code, § 21093(a).) The Amendments, therefore, include the addition of a new section 15183.5 to address both tiering and streamlining of GHG analyses, as well as the proper use of GHG reduction plans in CEQA analyses. Explanation of the rationale of each new subdivision is provided below.

Existing Methods of Streamlining and Tiering
Because GHG emissions raise a cumulative concern, analysis of such emissions in a long-range planning document lends itself to tiering and use in later project-specific environmental review. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21093.) The Legislature has created several tiering and streamlining methods, reflected in various provisions of the existing State CEQA Guidelines, that can reduce duplication in the analysis of GHG emissions.

Subdivision (a) clarifies that existing provisions in the State CEQA Guidelines regarding tiering and streamlining may be applied to the analysis of GHG emissions.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Plans
Many jurisdictions are beginning to address GHG emissions reductions in "climate action plans" and "gas emissions reduction plans." (OPR, Book of Lists, at pp. 92-100; see also, Scoping Plan, Appendix C, at p. C-49.) ARB‘s Scoping Plan specifically encourages local governments to develop such plans, and has created a local government operations protocol to assist in that effort. (Scoping Plan, at p. 26.) A community-wide emissions protocol is also under development.

Some comments raised during OPR‘s public involvement process expressed concern that due to a lack of legislative criteria for such plans, existing provisions in the CEQA Guidelines regarding cumulative impacts may be misused. (See, e.g., Letter from Center for Biological Diversity, et al., to OPR, February 2, 2009, at p. 2.) For example, without specific guidance, a lead agency could erroneously rely on a plan with purely aspirational intent to determine that a later project‘s cumulative impact is less than significant pursuant to section 15064(h)(3). The proposed subdivision (b) provides criteria to assist lead agencies in determining whether an existing greenhouse gas reduction plan is an appropriate document to use in a cumulative impacts analysis under CEQA.

The existing CEQA Guidelines allow lead agencies to rely on plans for cumulative analysis where the plan has been adopted in a public review process and contains specific requirements to avoid or substantially lessen a cumulative problem. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(h)(3).) The criteria set out in proposed subdivision (b)(1) are designed to ensure that a greenhouse gas reduction plan would satisfy the 66 requirements described in sections 15064(h)(3) and 15130(d), for the reasons described below.

Criteria (A) and (C) are necessary to define the scope of GHG emissions within the defined geographic area and the incremental contribution of activities that will occur within that area to those emissions. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(h)(3) (plan addresses cumulative impacts "within the geographic area in which the project is located").) Criterion (B) establishes a benchmark to assist the lead agency in determining whether the plan provisions will avoid or substantially lessen cumulative effects of the area‘s GHG emissions. (Ibid. (plan "provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem").) Criteria (D) and (E) are necessary to demonstrate that the plan will actually avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative effects of those emissions. (Ibid.) Finally, criterion (F) reflects the requirement in sections 15064(h)(3) and 15130(d) that the plan be adopted through a public review process, as well as case law requiring that mitigation plans themselves undergo environmental review. (California Native Plant Society v. County of El Dorado (2009) 170 Cal. App. 4th 1026, 1053 (mitigation "programs may offer the best solution to environmental planning challenges, by providing some certainty to developers while adequately protecting the environment" but "in order to provide a lawful substitute for the 'traditional‘ method of mitigating CEQA impacts, that is, a project-by-project analysis, the fee program must be evaluated under CEQA").) Notably, the criteria provided in subdivision (b) are largely consistent with the elements that ARB recommends be included in a greenhouse gas reduction plan. (ARB, Scoping Plan, Appendix C, at p. C-49.)
Subdivision (b)(2) describes the uses and limitations of plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in a cumulative impacts analysis for later projects.

Specifically, it provides a safeguard to ensure that the later activity was actually addressed in the plan for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and that any applicable requirements of the plan are incorporated into the later project. This requirement is similar the requirement in case law that a lead agency determine that a particular threshold appropriately addresses the impact of concern. (Protect the Historic Amador Waterways, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at 1109 ("in preparing an EIR, the agency must consider and resolve every fair argument that can be made about the possible significant environmental effects of a project, irrespective of whether an established threshold of significance has been met with respect to any given effect").) Finally, subdivision (b)(2) makes specific the requirement that, while the existence of an applicable plan for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions may create a presumption that compliance with that plan will reduce the incremental contribution of later activities to a less than cumulatively considerable level, the existence of substantial evidence supporting a fair argument to the contrary may still require preparation of an EIR.

Special Situations
67 Subdivision (c) provides necessary clarification of the partial exemption provided in sections 21155.2 and 21159.28 of the Public Resources Code, enacted as part of SB375 (see description above). The limitation on analysis of global warming applies only to the effects caused by GHG emissions from cars and light duty trucks. That limitation should be read in conjunction with section 21083.05 of the Public Resources Code and State CEQA Guideline sections 15064.4 and 15126.4 which require analysis of all sources of GHG emissions and mitigation if those emissions are significant. Thus, projects that qualify for the limitation in sections 21155.2 and 21159.28 must still analyze emissions resulting from, as applicable, energy use, land conversion, and other direct and indirect sources of emissions. This clarification is reasonably necessary to effectuate the legislative directive in section 21083.3 that OPR and Resources develop guidelines on the analysis of GHG emissions and to avoid confusion regarding the streamlining provisions provided by SB375.

Necessity
The Legislature directed OPR and the Resources Agency to develop guidelines on the analysis of GHG emissions. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083.05.) The Legislature has also directed that EIRs be tiered wherever possible, and that duplication be minimized. (Id. at §§ 21003, 21093, 21094.) Section 15183.5, which provides guidance on tiering and streamlining of GHG emissions analyses, is therefore reasonably necessary to carry out these directives.

This conclusion is based on the Natural Resources Agency‘s determination that the Amendments are necessary to implement the Legislature‘s directive in SB97 in a manner consistent with existing statutes and case law, and the Amendments add no new substantive requirements. The Natural Resources Agency rejected the no action alternative because it would not achieve the objectives of the Amendments. There are no alternatives available that would lessen any adverse impacts on small businesses, as any impacts would result from the implementation of existing law.

Evidence Supporting an Initial Determination That the Action Will Not Have a Significant Adverse Economic Impact on Business
The Amendments interpret and make specific statutory CEQA provisions and/or case law interpreting CEQA for analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions that may result from proposed projects. Many lead agencies, and some trial courts, have already determined that CEQA requires analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions independent 68 of the SB97 CEQA Guidelines amendments. The Office of Planning and Research, for example, has cataloged over 1,000 examples of CEQA documents, prepared between July 2006 and June 2009, analyzing and mitigating GHG emissions. (Office of Planning and Research, Environmental Assessment Documents Containing a Discussion of Climate Change (Revised June 1, 2009).) Further, several trial courts have found that existing CEQA law requires analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions. (See, e.g., Muriettans for Smart Growth v. City of Murrieta et al., Riverside Co. Sup. Ct. Case No.

Because the Amendments do not add any substantive requirements, they will not result in an adverse impact on businesses in California. On the contrary, the amendments to this section are intended to reduce the costs of environmental review on lead agencies and project applicants by encouraging the use of existing environmental analysis where available. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003(d) (use information in existing EIRs in order to reduce duplication), (f) (environmental review should proceed in the most efficient manner possible).)
69 SECTION 15364.5. GREENHOUSE GAS
Specific Purposes of the Amendment
The Legislature has not included a definition of "greenhouse gases" in CEQA, though it did include a definition in AB32. (Health & Saf. Code, § 38505(g).) Thus, new section 15364.5 adds a definition of greenhouse gases. The specified gases are consistent with existing law as they are defined to include those identified by the Legislature in section 38505(g) of the Health and Safety Code.

Notably, the definition in AB32 states that GHG "includes all of the following…." In so stating, the Legislature implies that other gases may also be considered GHGs.

The ARB‘s Scoping Plan also acknowledges that other gases contribute to climate change. (Scoping Plan, at p. 11.) In fact, the EPA‘s Endangerment Finding explained that several other gases share attributes with GHGs but would not be appropriate for regulation under the Clean Air Act at this time. (EPA Endangerment Finding, at pp. 18896-98.) Therefore, similar to the statutory definition of GHGs in AB32, the definition in the Amendments is not exclusive to the six primary GHGs. The purpose of a more expansive definition is to ensure that lead agencies do not exclude from consideration GHGs that are not listed, so long as substantial evidence indicates that such non-listed gases may result in significant adverse effects. This approach is consistent with the Supreme Court‘s directive that CEQA be interpreted to provide the fullest possible protection to the environment. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 390.)
Necessity
The Legislature directed OPR and the Resources Agency to develop guidelines on the analysis of GHG emissions. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083.05.) Section 15364.5 is necessary to make specific the instruction to analyze GHG emissions because it states which gases are considered to be "greenhouse gases" and should be included in the analysis.

Evidence Supporting an Initial Determination That the Action Will Not Have a Significant Adverse Economic Impact on Business
The Amendments interpret and make specific statutory CEQA provisions and/or case law interpreting CEQA for analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions that may result from proposed projects. Many lead agencies, and some trial courts, have already determined that CEQA requires analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions independent of the SB97 CEQA Guidelines amendments. The Office of Planning and Research, for example, has cataloged over 1,000 examples of CEQA documents, prepared between July 2006 and June 2009, analyzing and mitigating GHG emissions. (Office of Planning and Research, Environmental Assessment Documents Containing a Discussion of Climate Change (Revised June 1, 2009).) Further, several trial courts have found that existing CEQA law requires analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions. (See, e.g., Muriettans for Smart Growth v. City of Murrieta et al., Riverside Co. Sup. Ct. Case No.

Because the Amendments do not add any substantive requirements, they will not result in an adverse impact on businesses in California. On the contrary, the addition of this section is intended to reduce the costs of environmental review on lead agencies and project applicants by assisting lead agencies in determining which gases should be included in an analysis.
71 APPENDIX F. ENERGY CONSERVATION
Specific Purposes of the Amendment
CEQA‘s requirement to analyze and mitigate energy impacts of a project is substantive, and is not merely procedural. (People v. County of Kern (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 761, 774.) Despite the requirement, lead agencies have not consistently included such analysis in their EIRs. (Remy et al., Guide to CEQA, 11th Ed. 2007, at pp. 1007-1008, n. 34.) The following revisions to Appendix F are, therefore, reasonably necessary to ensure that lead agencies comply with the substantive directive in section 21100(b)(3).

Introduction
The revisions to the introduction section include a cross-reference to section 21100(b)(3) of the Public Resources Code to direct lead agencies to the statutory directive underlying Appendix F. This section also includes an addition to make clear that energy impacts that have already been analyzed may not need to be repeated in later EIRs. This sentence is consistent with the Legislative intent in CEQA that information in existing environmental review be used to "reduce delay and duplication in preparation of subsequent environmental impact reports." (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003(d).)
EIR Contents
The amendments to Appendix F revise the section on EIR Contents to clarify that lead agencies "shall" analyze energy conservation in their EIRs. The word "shall" indicates that the duty is mandatory, and makes Appendix F consistent with Public Resources Code section 21100(b)(3). While Appendix F is revised to make clear that an energy analysis is mandatory, the amendments to this section would also make clear that the energy analysis is limited to effects that are applicable to the project. "Lifecycle"
The amendments to Appendix F remove the term "lifecycle." No existing regulatory definition of "lifecycle" exists. In fact, comments received during OPR‘s public workshop process indicate a wide variety of interpretations of that term. (Letter from Terry Rivasplata et al. to OPR, February 2, 2009, at pp. 5, 12 and Attachment; Letter from Center for Biological Diversity et al. to OPR, February 2, 2009, at pp. 17.) Thus, retention of the term "lifecycle" in Appendix F could create confusion among lead agencies regarding what Appendix F requires.

Moreover, even if a standard definition of the term "lifecycle" existed, requiring such an analysis may not be consistent with CEQA. As a general matter, the term could refer to emissions beyond those that could be considered "indirect effects" of a project as that term is defined in section 15358 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 72 Depending on the circumstances of a particular project, an example of such emissions could be those resulting from the manufacture of building materials. (CAPCOA White Paper, at pp. 50-51.) CEQA only requires analysis of impacts that are directly or indirectly attributable to the project under consideration. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(d).) In some instances, materials may be manufactured for many different projects as a result of general market demand, regardless of whether one particular project proceeds. Thus, such emissions may not be "caused by" the project under consideration. Similarly, in this scenario, a lead agency may not be able to require mitigation for emissions that result from the manufacturing process. Mitigation can only be required for emissions that are actually caused by the project. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(4).) Conversely, other projects may spur the manufacture of certain materials, and in such cases, consideration of the indirect effects of a project resulting from the manufacture of its components may be appropriate. A lead agency must determine whether certain effects are indirect effects of a project, and where substantial evidence supports a fair argument that such effects are attributable to a project, that evidence must be considered. However, to avoid potential confusion regarding the scope of indirect effects that must be analyzed, the term "lifecycle" has been removed from Appendix F.

Types of Energy Use
The amendments to Appendix F clarify that project design may achieve energy savings through measures related to water use and solid waste disposal. (California Energy Commission, Water Supply-Related Electricity Demand in California, CEC 500- 2007-114 (November 2007), at p. 3 (reporting that water related energy use, including water movement, treatment and heating, annually accounts for approximately 20 percent of California‘s electricity consumption); Scoping Plan, Appendix C, at pp. C-158 to C-160.) The addition of these potential sources of energy reductions is consistent with the direction in section 21100(b)(3) to identify mitigation measures to reduce inefficient consumption of energy.

Grammar and Syntax
Finally, several minor revisions to Appendix F were made to improve grammar and syntax. Such revisions qualify as a "change without regulatory effect" pursuant to section 100(a)(4) of the Office of Administrative Law‘s regulations governing the rulemaking process. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 100(a)(4).) Necessity
The Legislature directed OPR and the Natural Resources Agency to develop guidelines on the analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083.05.) Since a significant source of GHG emissions results from energy use (consumption), these Amendments appropriately addressed energy use and conservation as a subject for CEQA analysis. Additionally, the legislature requires that lead agencies analyze energy use in their EIRs. (Id. at § 21100(b)(3).) The 73 amendments to Appendix F are, therefore, necessary to ensure that lead agencies implement these directives.

Because the Amendments do not add any substantive requirements, they will not result in an adverse impact on businesses in California.
74 APPENDIX G. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Specific Purposes of the Amendment
The Amendments include revisions to several portions of Appendix G, which contains a sample environmental checklist that lead agencies may use to satisfy the requirement to prepare an initial study. The amendments and their necessity are described below.

Note Regarding Use of the Checklist
The amendments would add a note to the beginning of Appendix G to clarify the checklist contained therein is only a sample that may be modified as necessary to suit the lead agency and to address the particular circumstances of the project under consideration. The addition is necessary for two reasons. First, several lead agencies have expressed concern that the checklist does not reflect the circumstances existing in that particular agency. (See, e.g., Letter from Napa County – Department of Conservation, Development, and Planning to OPR, January 26, 2009; Letter from County of San Bernardino - Land Use Services Department to OPR, February 2, 2009.) Second, the Third District Court of Appeal recently issued an opinion that clarified that all substantial evidence regarding potential impacts of a project must be considered, even if the particular potential impact is not listed in Appendix G. (Protect the Historic Amador Waterways, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at 1109.) Thus, the note emphasizes that Appendix G does not mandate a particular form that must be used for an Initial Study; rather, it provides merely an example.

Forest Resources
The amendments would add several questions addressing forest resources in the section on Agricultural Resources. Forestry questions are appropriately addressed in the Appendix G checklist for several reasons. First, forests and forest resources are directly linked to both GHG emissions and efforts to reduce those emissions. For example, conversion of forests to non-forest uses may result in direct emissions of GHG emissions. (See, e.g., California Energy Commission Baseline GHG Emissions for Forest, Range, and Agricultural Lands in California (March, 2004) at p. 19.) Such conversion would also remove existing carbon stock (i.e., carbon stored in vegetation), as well as a significant carbon sink (i.e., rather than emitting GHGs, forests remove GHGs from the atmosphere). (Scoping Plan, Appendix C, at p. C-168.) Thus, such conversions are an indication of potential GHG emissions. Changes in forest land or timberland zoning may also ultimately lead to conversions, which could result in GHG emissions, aesthetic impacts, impacts to biological resources and water quality impacts, among others. Thus, these additions are reasonably necessary to ensure that lead agencies consider the full range of potential impacts in their initial studies. In the same way that an EIR must address conversion of prime agricultural land or wetlands as part of a project (addressing the whole of the action requires analyzing land clearance in advance of project development), so should it analyze forest removal. 75 During OPR‘s public involvement process, some commenters suggested that conversion of forest or timber lands to agricultural uses should not be addressed in the Initial Study checklist. (Letter from California Farm Bureau Federation to OPR, February 2, 2009; Letter from County of Napa, Conservation, Development and Planning Department, to OPR, January 26, 2009.) As explained above, the purpose of the Amendments is to implement the Legislative directive to develop Guidelines on the analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions. Although some agricultural uses also provide carbon sequestration values, most agricultural uses do not provide as much sequestration as forest resources. (Climate Action Team, Carbon Sequestration (2009), Chapter 3.3.8 at p. 3.21; California Energy Commission, Baseline GHG Emissions for Forest, Range, and Agricultural Lands in California (2004), at p. 2.) Therefore, such a project could result in a net increase in GHG emissions, among other potential impacts.

Thus, such potential impacts are appropriately addressed in the Initial Study checklist.

See the Thematic Responses, below, for additional discussion of this issue.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The additions also include two questions related to GHG emissions. These questions are necessary to satisfy the Legislative directive in section 21083.05 that the effects of GHG emissions be analyzed under CEQA. The questions are intended to provoke a full analysis of such emissions where appropriate. More detailed guidance on the context of such an analysis is provided in other sections throughout the Guidelines. Despite the detailed provisions in the Guidelines themselves, questions related to GHG emissions should also appear in the checklist because some lead agencies will not seriously consider an environmental issue unless it is specifically mentioned in the checklist. (Protect the Historic Amador Waterways, supra, 116 Cal.

App. 4th at 1110.)
Transportation
The Amendments make four primary changes to the questions involving transportation and traffic.

First, question (a) changes the focus from an increase in traffic at a given location to the effect of a project on the overall circulation system in the project area.

This change is appropriate because an increase in traffic, by itself, is not necessarily an indicator of a potentially significant environmental impact. (Ronald Miliam, AICP, Transportation Impact Analysis Gets a Failing Grade When it Comes to Climate Change and Smart Growth; see also Land Use Subcommittee of the Climate Action Team LUSCAT Submission to CARB Scoping Plan on Local Government, Land Use, and Transportation Report (May, 2008) at pp. 31, 36.) Similarly, even if some projects may result in a deterioration of vehicular level of service – that is, delay experienced by drivers – the overall effectiveness of the circulation system as a whole may be improved. (Ibid.) Such projects could include restriping to provide bicycle lanes or creating dedicated bus lanes. Even in such cases, however, any potential adverse air 76 quality or other impacts would still have to be addressed as provided in other sections of the checklist. Finally, the change to question (a) also recognizes that the lead agency has discretion to choose its own metric of analysis of impacts to intersections, streets, highways and freeways. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.2(e); Eureka Citizens for Responsible Gov’t v. City of Eureka, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at 371-373 (lead agency has discretion to choose its methodology).) Thus, "level of service" may or may not be the applicable measure of effectiveness of the circulation system.

Second, the revision to question (b) clarifies the role of a congestion management program in a CEQA analysis. Specifically, it clarifies that a congestion management program contains many elements in addition to a level of service designation. (Gov. Code § 65088 et seq.) The clarification is also necessary to address any projects within an "in-fill opportunity zone" that may be exempted from level of service requirements. (Id. at § 65088.4.)
Third, the amendments eliminate the existing question (f) regarding parking capacity. Case law recognizes that parking impacts are not necessarily environmental impacts. (San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco, supra, 102 Cal.App.4th at 697.) The focus of the Initial Study checklist should be on direct impacts of a project. Therefore, the question related to parking is not relevant in the initial study checklist. As noted above, however, if there is substantial evidence indicating adverse indirect environmental impacts from a project related to parking capacity, the lead agency must address such potential impacts regardless of whether the checklist contains parking questions. (Ibid.) Additional discussion of this issue is included in the Thematic Responses, below.

Finally, the amendments revise existing question (g), now question (f), to address the performance and safety of certain modes of alternative transportation. These revisions were made in response to comments received on the Amendments. While the primary objective of the Amendments is to provide guidance on the analysis and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions, this revision was determined to be necessary to support the use of alternative transportation.

Necessity
The Legislature directed OPR and the Resources Agency to develop guidelines on the analysis of GHG emissions. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083.05.) An initial study may be used to assist in the determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment. (Protect the Historic Amador Waterways, supra, 116 Cal. App. 4th at 1110.) Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines is intended to provide a sample of an initial study that lead agencies may use. (Ibid.) Amendment of Appendix G to include questions that will assist a lead agency in determining whether a project may result in significant impacts related to GHG emissions is, therefore, necessary to carry out the Legislature‘s directive in section 21083.05 of the Public Resources Code.
77 Reasonable Alternatives to the Regulation, Including Alternatives that Would Lessen Any Adverse Impact on Small Business, and the Resources Agency’s Reasons for Rejecting Those Alternatives
The Natural Resources Agency considered reasonable alternatives to the Amendments and determined that no reasonable alternative would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed or would be as effective as, and less burdensome to affected private persons than, the Amendments. This conclusion is based on the Natural Resources Agency‘s determination that the Amendments are necessary to implement the Legislature‘s directive in SB97 in a manner consistent with existing statutes and case law, and the Amendments add no new substantive requirements. The Natural Resources Agency rejected the no action alternative because it would not achieve the objectives of the Amendments. There are no alternatives available that would lessen any adverse impacts on small businesses, as any impacts would result from the implementation of existing law.

Evidence Supporting an Initial Determination That the Action Will Not Have a Significant Adverse Economic Impact on Business
The Amendments interpret and make specific statutory CEQA provisions and/or case law interpreting CEQA for analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions that may result from proposed projects. Many lead agencies, and some trial courts, have already determined that CEQA requires analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions independent of the SB97 CEQA Guidelines amendments. The Office of Planning and Research, for example, has cataloged over 1,000 examples of CEQA documents, prepared between July 2006 and June 2009, analyzing and mitigating GHG emissions. (Office of Planning and Research, Environmental Assessment Documents Containing a Discussion of Climate Change (Revised June 1, 2009).) Further, several trial courts have found that existing CEQA law requires analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions. (See, e.g., Muriettans for Smart Growth v. City of Murrieta et al., Riverside Co. Sup. Ct. Case No.

Because the Amendments do not add any substantive requirements, they will not result in an adverse impact on businesses in California. On the contrary, the 78 amendments to Appendix G are intended to reduce the costs of environmental review on lead agencies and project applicants by assisting lead agencies in determining which topics should be addressed in an Initial Study.

NON-SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES
On October 23, 2009, the Natural Resources Agency made available for public review certain changes to its originally proposed amendments. Those changes were described in the Notice of Proposed Changes. In response to comments on those changes, the Natural Resources Agency has made two non-substantial changes.

Because those changes clarify the text that was made available for public review, and do not alter the requirements, rights, responsibilities, conditions, or prescriptions contained in the originally proposed text, the revisions are nonsubstantial and need not be circulated for additional public review. (Government Code, § 11346.8(c); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 40.) Those revisions are described below.

Section 15126.2(a)
As explained in the Notice of Proposed Changes, the revisions to the proposed text included a clarifying sentence in section 15126.2 indicating that an environmental impact report should analyze the effect of placing a project in areas susceptible to hazardous conditions. That revision specifically lists types of areas (including floodplains, coastlines and wildfire risk areas) that may be most impacted by the effects of a changing climate. The revision would also clarify that analysis of such hazards is appropriate where such areas are specified in authoritative hazard maps, risk assessments or land use plans.

The Natural Resources Agency further revised section 15126.2(a) in response to comments. That section was revised as follows:

Similarly, the EIR should evaluate the any potentially significant impacts of locating development in other areas susceptible to hazardous conditions (e.g., floodplains, coastlines, wildfire risk areas) as identified in authoritative hazard maps, risk assessments or in land use plans addressing such hazards areas.

This change does not alter the rights, responsibilities, conditions, or prescriptions contained in the originally proposed text because the Public Resources Code already provides that an EIR is only required for those impacts that are potentially significant. (Public Resources Code, § 21002.1(a).) Because this revision clarifies the last sentence in section 15126.2(a), consistent with the Public Resources Code, this revision is nonsubstantial and need not be circulated for additional public review. (Government Code, § 11346.8(c); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 40.) 79 Section 15126.4(c)
The Natural Resources Agency also further revised text related to mitigation that was made publicly available as described in the October 23, 2009, Notice of Proposed Changes in response to comments on that text. The revision clarifies that the qualification that measures to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions must not otherwise be required applies in the context of offsets and is not intended to contradict case law recognizing that changes in a project that are required to comply with existing environmental standards may qualify as mitigation. Thus, section 15126.4(c) was revised as follows:
(c) Mitigation Measures Related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Consistent with section 15126.4(a), lead agencies shall consider feasible means, supported by substantial evidence and subject to monitoring or reporting, of mitigating the significant effects of greenhouse gas emissions. Reductions in emissions that are not otherwise required may constitute mitigation pursuant to this subdivision. Measures to mitigate the significant effects of greenhouse gas emissions may include, among others:
(1) Measures in an existing plan or mitigation program for the reduction of emissions that are required as part of the lead agency‘s decision; (2) Reductions in emissions resulting from a project through implementation of project features, project design, or other measures, such as those described in Appendix F;
(3) Off-site measures, including offsets that are not otherwise required, to mitigate a project‘s emissions;
(4) Measures that sequester greenhouse gases;
(5) In the case of the adoption of a plan, such as a general plan, long range development plan, or plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, mitigation may include the identification of specific measures that may be implemented on a project-by-project basis. Mitigation may also include the incorporation of specific measures or policies found in an adopted ordinance or regulation that reduces the cumulative effect of emissions.

This change does not alter the rights, responsibilities, conditions, or prescriptions contained in the originally proposed text because the Public Resources Code already provides that to be considered mitigation, a measure must be tied to impacts resulting from the project. Section 21002 of the Public Resources Code, the source of the 80 requirement to mitigate, states that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are … feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" Similarly, section 21081(a)(1) specifies a finding by the lead agency in adopting a project that "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment." Both statutory provisions expressly link the changes to be made (i.e., the "mitigation measures") to the significant effects of the project. Because this revision clarifies section 15126.4(c), consistent with the Public Resources Code, this revision is nonsubstantial and need not be circulated for additional public review. (Government Code, § 11346.8(c); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, §

40.)

THEMATIC RESPONSES
Several themes emerged in the comments submitted on the Natural Resources Agency‘s proposed amendments to the CEQA Guidelines addressing greenhouse gas emissions. While the Natural Resources Agency has responded individually to each comment it received, the following provides general responses to several issues that were raised repeated in the comments.

Quantitative versus Qualitative Analysis
Many comments focused on section 15064.4‘s recognition of lead agency discretion in determining whether to analyze a project‘s greenhouse gas emissions using either qualitative or quantitative methods, or both. Some comments suggested that a qualitative analysis would not satisfy CEQA‘s informational mandates. Other comments indicated that qualitative analysis is consistent with CEQA, and may be particularly appropriate in the context of a negative declaration. Other comments aske for examples of how performance standards could be used in such an analysis. As explained in the Initial Statement of Reasons, the Natural Resources Agency finds that CEQA leaves to lead agencies the choice of the most appropriate methodology to analyze a project‘s impacts, and that rule should continue to apply in the context of greenhouse gas emissions. The reasoning supporting this determination is set forth below.
d
First, nothing in CEQA prohibits use of a qualitative analysis or requires the use of a quantitative analysis. As explained in the Initial Statement of Reasons, CEQA directs lead agencies to consider qualitative factors. (Initial Statement of Reasons, at p. 19; Public Resources Code, § 21001(f).) Further, the existing CEQA Guidelines recognize that thresholds of significance, which are used in the determination of significance, may be expressed as quantitative, qualitative or performance-based standards. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.7.) Moreover, even where quantification is technically or theoretically possible, "CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commentors." (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15204(a); see also Ass’n of 81 Irritated Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1396-1398; San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1996) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 728.)12

Second, the comments do not appropriately distinguish between the determination of significance and the informational standards governing the preparation of environmental documents. The purpose of section 15064.4 is to assist the lead agency in determining whether a project‘s greenhouse gas emissions may be significant, which would require preparation of an EIR, and if an EIR is prepared, to determine whether such emissions are significant, which would require the imposition of feasible mitigation or alternatives. The existing CEQA Guidelines contain several provisions governing the informational standards that apply to various environmental documents. Conclusions in an initial study, for example, must be "briefly explained to indicate that there is some evidence to support" the conclusion. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15063(d) (emphasis added).) Similarly, if an EIR is prepared, a determination that an impact is not significant must be explained in a "statement briefly indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project" are in fact not significant. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15128 (emphasis added).) If the impact is determined to be significant, the impact "should be discussed with emphasis in proportion to their severity and probability of occurrence." (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15143.) The explanation of significance in an EIR must be "prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decisionmakers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences" and must demonstrate "adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure." (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15151.) In sum, while proposed section 15064.4(a) reflects the requirement that a lead agency base its significance determination on substantial evidence, whether quantitative, qualitative or both, it does not, as some comments appear to fear, alter the rules governing the sufficiency of information in an environmental document.

Third, the discretion recognized in section 15064.4 is not unfettered. A lead agency‘s analysis, whether quantitative or qualitative, would be governed by the standards in the first portion of section 15064.4. The first sentence applies to the context of greenhouse gas emissions the general CEQA rule that the determination of significance calls for a careful judgment by the lead agency. (Proposed § 15064.4(a) ("[t]he determination of the significance of greenhouse gas emissions calls for a careful judgment by the lead agency consistent with the provisions in section 15064").) The second sentence sets forth the requirement that the lead agency make a good-faith effort to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions

12 Notably, as administrative regulations, the development of the proposed regulations is governed by the Administrative Procedures Act. Government Code section 11340.1(a) states the Legislature‘s intent that administrative regulations substitute "performance standards for prescriptive standards wherever performance standards can be reasonably expected to be as effective and less burdensome, and that this substitution shall be considered during the course of the agency rulemaking process." Thus, absent authority in CEQA that would prohibit a qualitative analysis, section 15064.4 appropriately recognizes a lead agency‘s discretion to determine what type of analysis is most appropriate to determine the significance of a project‘s greenhouse gas emissions.
82 resulting from a project. That sentence has been further revised, as explained in greater detail below, to provide that the description, calculation or estimation is to be based "to the extent possible on scientific and factual data." The third sentence advises that the exercise of discretion must be made "in the context of a particular project." Thus, as provided in existing section 15146, the degree of specificity required in the analysis will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying project. In other words, even a qualitative analysis must demonstrate a good-faith effort to disclose the amount and significance of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project.

Fourth, the discretion recognized in proposed section 15064.4 would not enable a lead agency to ignore evidence submitted to it as part of the environmental review process. For example, if a lead agency proposes to adopt a negative declaration based on a qualitative analysis of the project‘s greenhouse gas emissions, and a quantitative analysis is submitted to that lead agency supporting a fair argument that the project‘s emissions may be significant, an EIR would have to be prepared. The same holds true if a lead agency proposes to adopt a negative declaration based on a quantitative analysis, and qualitative evidence supports a fair argument that the project‘s emissions may be significant. (Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Com. v. Board of Port Comm. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1382; Oro Fino Gold Mining Corp. v. County of El Dorado (1990) 225 Cal. App. 3d 872, 881-882 (citizens' personal observations about the significance of noise impacts on their community constituted substantial evidence that the impact may be significant and should be assessed in an EIR, even though the noise levels did not exceed general planning standards).) Similarly, even if an EIR is prepared, a lead agency would have to consider and resolve conflicts in the evidence in the record. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15151 ("EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts"); Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v.

Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1109.) Finally, regarding performance standards, several examples exist of the types of performance standards that might appropriately be used in determining the significance of greenhouse gas emissions. Proposed section 15183.5(b)(1)(D), for example, contemplates that a plan for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions may contain performance based standards. Where such standards are developed as part of such a plan, a lead agency would have evidence indicating that compliance with such standards would indicate that the impact of greenhouse gas emissions would be less than significant. Further, in adopting SB375, the Legislature acknowledged that regional transportation plans, and the environmental impact reports prepared to analyze those plans, may contain performance standards that would apply to transit priority projects. (See, e.g., Public Resources Code, § 21155.2.) Other potential examples13 include the Bay Area Air Quality Management District‘s proposed Best Management Practices for Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions (calling for use of alternative fuels, local building materials and recycling), and the California Public Utilities Commission‘s Performance Standard for Power Plans (requiring emissions no greater

13 The Natural Resources Agency does not necessarily endorse the use of these performance standards. Lead agencies must determine whether a particular standard is appropriate based on the substantial evidence supporting it and the context of the particular project.
83 than a combined cycle gas turbine plant). As with either a qualitative or quantitative analysis, reliance on performance standards must be supported with "scientific or factual data" indicating that compliance with the standard will ensure that impacts of greenhouse gas emissions are less than significant.

In sum, the proposed section 15064.4(a) appropriately reflects the standards in CEQA governing the determination of significance and the discretion CEQA leaves to lead agencies to determine how to analyze impacts. Mandating that lead agencies must quantify emissions whenever quantification is possible would be a departure from the CEQA statute.

Existing Environmental Setting
Several comments focused on the phrase "existing environmental setting" in section 15064.4(b)(1). Some comments urged, for example, that only "net" emissions should be considered. Comments from energy producers suggested that the phrase "existing environmental system" should encompass the entire energy system, which extends beyond California‘s borders. Some comments suggested that section 15064.4 should include a lifecycle analysis.

Section 15064.4(b)(1) advises lead agencies to consider the extent to which a project would increase or decrease greenhouse gas emissions compared to the existing environmental setting. In performing this analysis, a lead agency must account for all project phases, including construction and operation, as well as indirect and cumulative impacts. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15063(a) ("[a]ll phases of project planning, implementation, and operation must be considered in the initial study…"), 15064(h) (addressing cumulative impacts), 15126 ("[a]ll phases of a project must be considered when evaluating its impact on the environment: planning, acquisition, development, and operation"), 15358(a)(2) (defining "effects" to include indirect effects), 15378.) The "setting" to be described varies depending on the project and the potential environmental resources that it may affect. In Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal. App. 4th 859, for example, the lead agency failed to adequately describe the environmental setting by limiting its discussion primarily to the southern portions of its water system. Framing the setting narrowly resulted in impacts to the northern portion of the water system being ignored. Finding that section 15125 is to be construed broadly to ensure the fullest protection to the environment, the court in that case held that the lead agency was required to disclose that increased use of the southern portion of the water system would require greater diversions from the northern portion, and to analyze the impacts on species in the northern portion of the system. (Id. at pp. 873-875.) In the context of power generation, to the extent that a project may cause changes in greenhouse gas emissions in an existing power system, and substantial evidence substantiates such changes, those changes may be considered pursuant to section 15064.4(b)(1).
84 Similarly, if an agency has performed an analysis that demonstrates that a particular process for waste treatment does not result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions compared to biogenic emissions that already occurs in the atmosphere, that evidence may support a conclusion that the project would not cause an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, to the extent a lead agency does not consider biogenic emissions to be new emissions, and its analysis is supported with substantial evidence, the text in section 15064.4(b)(1) would be broad enough to encompass those emissions, subject to the limitation that such analysis could not be used in a way that would mask the effects of emissions associated with the project. For example, if the emissions occurring in the short-term will have impacts that differ from emissions occurring in the future, those differences may need to be analyzed.

Finally, some comments suggested that the Guidelines should authorize a "net" or "lifecycle" analysis for projects that operate within a closed system. Nothing in section 15064.4 precludes such analysis where such analysis complies with the provision of section 15064, and where substantial evidence supports the ultimate conclusions and findings. However, since a "net" analysis may only be appropriate or possible in limited cases, the Natural Resources Agency deliberately chose to draft section 15064.4 broadly. Additionally, in some situations, a true "net" analysis may not be technically feasible or scientifically possible, and determination of an appropriate baseline for determining a "net" effect may be difficult.

As explained below, the Natural Resources Agency has deliberately avoided the term "lifecycle," however, to the extent an agency equates "lifecycle" with what occurs in the existing environmental setting, section 15064.4 authorizes lead agencies to consider such evidence.

Thresholds of Significance
Some comments expressed concern that the proposed amendments did not establish a statewide threshold of significance. Others suggested that most lead agencies are not qualified to establish their own thresholds, and if they do adopt thresholds, they should be required to adopt the most stringent threshold possible.

The CEQA Guidelines do not establish thresholds of significance for other potential environmental impacts, and SB97 did not authorize the development of a statewide threshold as part of this CEQA Guidelines update. Rather, the proposed amendments recognize a lead agency‘s existing authority to develop, adopt and apply their own thresholds of significance or those developed by other agencies or experts.

As set forth in the existing section 15064.7, a threshold 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 by the agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be less than significant." Because a threshold would be used in the determination of significance, 85 the threshold would need to be supported with substantial evidence. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.7(b).)
As explained in a recent decision of the Third District Court of Appeal, "[p]ublic agencies are … encouraged to develop thresholds of significance for use in determining whether a project may have significant environmental effects." (Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1108.) Nothing in CEQA requires that thresholds be developed by experts or expert agencies; however, "thresholds can be drawn from existing environmental standards, such as other statutes or regulations." (Id. at p. 1107.) Regardless of who develops the threshold, if an agency adopts a threshold, it must be supported with substantial evidence. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.7(b).) Additionally, "thresholds cannot be used to determine automatically whether a given effect will or will not be significant[;]" "[i]nstead, thresholds of significance can be used only as a measure of whether a certain environmental effect "will normally be determined to be significant" or "normally will be determined to be less than significant" by the agency. (Guidelines, § 15064.7, subd. (a), italics added.)" (Protect the Historic Amador Waterways, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1108-1109.) Proposed subdivision (c) of section 15064.7 recognizes the principles described above by expressly recognizing that experts and expert agencies may be developing thresholds that other public agencies may find useful in their own CEQA analyses, but requiring, as a safeguard, that any such threshold be supported with substantial evidence.

Notably, nothing in either AB32 or SB97 requires a finding of significance for any particular level of increase in greenhouse gas emissions. AB32, and regulations implementing that statute, will require reductions in emissions from certain sectors in the economy, but do not preclude new emissions. Moreover, as explained in the Initial Statement of Reasons, the proposed amendments do not establish a zero emissions threshold of significance because "there is no 'one molecule rule‘ in CEQA. (CBE, supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at 120.)" (Initial Statement of Reasons, at p. 20.) Some comments suggested that any numeric thresholds that are developed should not be set at such a low level that adverse economic impacts would result.

While economic issues are appropriate in the determination of feasibility of mitigation and alternatives, it is not appropriate in the determination of significance (see, e.g., Public Resources Code, § 21002), so a threshold should not be designed with economic impacts in mind. Moreover, even a "high" threshold would not relieve agencies of the requirement to consider any evidence indicating that a project may have a significant effect despite falling below a threshold. (Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1109; Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 342.)
Mitigation Hierarchy
86 CEQA‘s substantive mandate requires that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are … feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" (Public Resources Code, § 21002.) The statute defines feasible to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." (Public Resources Code, § 21061.1.) The Legislature further provided that a lead agency may use its lawful discretion to mitigate significant impacts to the extent provided by other laws:

In mitigating or avoiding a significant effect of a project on the environment, a public agency may exercise only those express or implied powers provided by law other than this division. However, a public agency may use discretionary powers provided by such other law for the purpose of mitigating or avoiding a significant effect on the environment subject to the express or implied constraints or limitations that may be provided by law.
(Public Resources Code, § 21004.) Cities and counties may rely on their constitutional police powers, for example, while the ability of other agencies to require mitigation may be limited by the scope of their statutory authority. Mitigation is also subject to constitutional limitations; i.e., there must be a nexus between the mitigation measure and the impact it addresses, and the mitigation must be roughly proportional to the impact of the project. (Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n (1987) 483 U.S. 825; Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374; State CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(4).) CEQA itself imposes very few limitations on a lead agency‘s discretion to impose mitigation. For example, agencies may not mitigate the effects of a housing project by reducing the proposed number of units if other feasible mitigation measures are available. (Public Resources Code, § 21159.26.) Similarly, the Legislature has prescribed specific types of mitigation in only very limited circumstances; i.e., impacts to archeological resources and oak woodlands. (Public Resources Code, §§ 21083.2, 21083.4.)
SB 97 specifically called for guidelines addressing the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. In doing so, however, the Legislature did not alter a lead agency‘s discretion, authority or limitations on the imposition of mitigation where the impacts of a project‘s greenhouse gas emissions are significant. Thus, as explained in the Initial Statement of Reasons, the existing CEQA rules apply to the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.

Within the scope of a lead agency‘s existing authority, the CEQA Guidelines already contain provisions that recognize a lead agency‘s obligation to balance various factors in determining how or whether to carry out a project. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15021(d).) Further, the Guidelines already require that "[w]here several measures are available to mitigate an impact, each should be discussed and the basis for selecting a particular measure should be identified." (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(1)(B).) 87 Additionally, public agencies are directed to adopt their own implementing procedures, consistent with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, which could set forth the types of mitigation that a particular agency finds to be most appropriate for projects subject to its approval. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15022.) The Natural Resources Agency cannot, however, state in the State CEQA Guidelines that all lead agencies have the authority to prioritize types of mitigation measures, or to establish any particular priority order for them. Each lead agency must determine the scope of its own authority based on its own statutory or constitutional authorization.

Reliability and Effectiveness of Mitigation
Some comments expressed concern about the reliability and efficacy of some mitigation strategies. In response to such comments, the Natural Resources Agency further revised section 15126.4(c) to expressly require that any measures, in addition to being feasible, must be supported with substantial evidence and be capable of monitoring or reporting. (See Revised Section 15126.4(c) (October 23, 2009).) This addition reflects the requirements in Public Resources Code section 21081.5 that findings regarding mitigation be supported with substantial evidence and the monitoring or reporting requirement in section 21081.6.

The text of proposed section 15126.4(c), addressing mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions, also requires that mitigation measures be effective. The first sentence of that section requires that mitigation be "feasible." Further, the statue defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." (Public Resources Code, § 21061.1 (emphasis added); see also State CEQA Guidelines § 15364 (adding "legal" factors to the definition of feasibility.) A recent decision of the Third District Court of Appeal confronting questions regarding the effectiveness of a mitigation measure explained: "concerns about whether a specific mitigation measure 'will actually work as advertised,‘ whether it 'can … be carried out,‘ and whether its 'success … is uncertain‘ go to the feasibility of the mitigation measure[.]" (California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova (2009) 172 Cal.

App. 4th 603, 622-623.) Thus, by requiring that lead agencies consider feasible mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions, section 15126.4(c) already requires that such measures be effective.

Off-site Mitigation and Offsets
Relatively little authority addresses the question of how close of a causal connection must exist between off-site emissions reductions and project implementation in order to be adequate mitigation under CEQA. CEQA requires lead agencies to mitigate or avoid the significant effects of proposed projects where it is feasible to do so.

While the CEQA statute does not define mitigation, the State CEQA Guidelines define mitigation to include:
88 (a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation.
(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the mpacted environment.
(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action.
(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.
i
(State CEQA Guidelines, § 15370.) As subdivision (e) implies, off-site measures may constitute mitigation under CEQA, and such measures have been upheld as adequate mitigation in CEQA case law. (See, e.g., California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova (2009) 172 Cal. App. 4th 603, 619-626.)
Whether on-site or off-site, to be considered mitigation, the measure must be tied to impacts resulting from the project. Section 21002 of the Public Resources Code, the source of the requirement to mitigate, states that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are … feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" Similarly, section 21081(a)(1) specifies a finding by the lead agency in adopting a project that "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment." Both statutory provisions expressly link the changes to be made (i.e., the "mitigation measures") to the significant effects of the project. Courts have similarly required a link between the mitigation measure and the adverse impacts of the project. (Save Our Peninsula Comm. v.

Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal. App. 4th 99, 128-131 (EIR must discuss "the history of water pumping on [the off-site mitigation] property and its feasibility for providing an actual offset for increased pumping on the [project] property").) The text of sections 21002 and 21081, and case law requiring a "nexus" between a measure and a project impact, together indicate that "but for" causation is a necessary element of mitigation. In other words, mitigation should normally be an activity that occurs in order to minimize a particular significant effect. Or, stated another way and in the context of greenhouse gas emissions, emissions reductions that would occur without a project would not normally qualify as mitigation.

Notably, this interpretation of the CEQA statute and case law is consistent with the Legislature‘s directive in AB32 that reductions relied on as part of a market-based compliance mechanism must be "in addition to any greenhouse gas emission reduction otherwise required by law or regulation, and any other greenhouse gas emission 89 reduction that otherwise would occur." (Health and Safety Code, § 38562(d)(2).) While AB32 and CEQA are separate statutes, the additionality concept may be applied analytically in the latter as follows: greenhouse gas emission reductions that are otherwise required by law or regulation would appropriately be considered part of the existing baseline. Pursuant to section 15064.4(b)(1), a new project‘s emissions should be compared against that existing baseline.

Thus, in light of the above, and in response to concerns raised in the comments, the Natural Resources Agency has revised section 15126.4(c)(3) to state that mitigation includes: "Off-site measures, including offsets that are not otherwise required, to mitigate a project‘s emissions[.]" This provision is intended to be read in conjunction with the statutory mandate in Public Resources Code sections 21002 and 21081 that mitigation be tied to the effects of a project.

This provision would not limit the ability of a lead agency to create, or rely on the creation of, a mechanism, such as an offset bank, created prospectively in anticipation of future projects that will later rely on offsets created by those emissions reductions.

The Initial Statement of Reasons referred, for example, to community energy conservation projects. (Initial Statement of Reasons, at p. 38.) Such a program could, for example, identify voluntary energy efficiency retrofits that would not occur absent implementation of the program, and then fund the retrofits through the sale of offsets that would occur as a result of the retrofit. Emissions reductions that occur as a result of a regulation requiring such reduction, on the other hand, would not constitute mitigation.

Some comments opined that offsets are highly uncertain and of questionable legitimacy. The Initial Statement of Reasons, however, cites several sources discussing examples of offsets being used in a CEQA context. Further, the ARB Scoping Plan describes offsets as way to "provide regulated entities a source of low-cost emission reductions, and … encourage the spread of clean, efficient technology within and outside California." (Scoping Plan, Appendix C, at p. C-21.) The Natural Resources Agency finds that the offset concept is consistent with the existing CEQA Guidelines‘ definition of "mitigation," which includes "[r]ectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment" and "[c]ompensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments." (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15370(c), (e).)
While the proposed amendments recognize offsets as a potential mitigation strategy, they do not imply that offsets are appropriate in every instance. The efficacy of any proposed mitigation measure is a matter for the lead agency to determine based on the substantial evidence before it. Use of the word "feasible" in proposed Section 15126.4(c) requires the lead agency to find that any measure, including offsets, would be "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors." (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15364.)
90 Thus, the Natural Resources Agency finds that by expressly requiring that any mitigation measure be feasible, supported with substantial evidence, and capable of monitoring or reporting, section 15126.4(c) adequately addresses the concern stated in the comment that offsets may be of questionable legitimacy.

Use of Plans for the Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in a Cumulative Impacts Analysis
Section 15183.5 was developed to address tiering and streamlining the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions. Subdivision (a) highlights existing tiering and streamlining mechanisms in CEQA that may be used to address the analysis and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Those mechanisms are often used for general plans and other long range planning documents. Subdivision (a) therefore recognizes that lead agencies may choose to include a programmatic analysis of greenhouse gas emissions in those long range plans. That subdivision did not create any new tiering or streamlining provisions; rather, it cross-references existing mechanisms. Each mechanism has its own benefits and drawbacks, and the use of any analysis of greenhouse gas emissions contained in such a document would be governed by the specific provisions cited in subdivision (a).

Subdivision (b), on the other hand, acknowledges that, in addition to the long range documents mentioned in subdivision (a), some agencies are voluntarily developing stand-alone plans focused specifically on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Subdivision (b) is not a tiering mechanism. Tiering is governed by section 15152 of the existing CEQA Guidelines. The purpose of section 15183.5(b) is much narrower. Because climate action plans and greenhouse gas reduction plans are voluntary, and not subject to any legislative criteria or requirements, subdivision (b) was developed "to assist lead agencies in determining whether an existing greenhouse gas reduction plan is an appropriate document to use in a cumulative impacts analysis under CEQA." (Initial Statement of Reasons, at p. 54.) Specifically, a project that is consistent with a plan that satisfies the criteria in subdivision (b) may benefit from the presumption created in sections 15064(h)(3) and 15130(d) that the project‘s cumulative impacts are less than significant due to compliance with the plan. Subdivision (b) does not create or authorize any plans; rather, it provides a tool to determine whether a plan for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions may be used in a cumulative impacts analysis as provided in section 15064(h)(3) or 15130(d). Section 15183.5(b) does not require that public agencies develop plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, nor does it prohibit public agencies from developing individual ordinances and regulations to address individual sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

As an example, if a general plan EIR analyzed and mitigated greenhouse gas emissions, a lead agency would likely use the specific streamlining provision applicable to general plan EIRs in section 15183, and not the more general provision in 15183.5(b). A stand alone "climate action plan" that was not analyzed in a program EIR, master EIR, or other mechanism identified in 15183.5(a) may still be used in a 91 cumulative impacts analysis pursuant to sections 15064(h)(3) or 15130(d), but only if that climate action plan contains the elements listed in section 15183.5(b)(1).

Some comments suggested that section 15183.5(b) should identify specific types of plans to which it would apply. That section was developed precisely because plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions are not specified in law and are so varied. They have been variously titled "climate action plans", "sustainability plans", "greenhouse gas reduction plans", etc. Contents of such plans also vary widely. Thus, the Natural Resources Agency cannot specifically identify which plans satisfy the criteria in subdivision (b). That determination must be made by the individual lead agency based on whether the specific plan under consideration satisfies each of the criteria in subdivision (b)(1).

Notably, public agencies are required to develop their own procedures to implement CEQA. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15022.) If a lead agency determines that it does not have a plan for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions that contains the criteria set forth in section 15183.5(b), but its collective policies, ordinances and other requirements nevertheless ensure that the incremental contribution of individual projects is not cumulatively considerable, and substantial evidence supports that determination, it could include such an explanation and support in its own implementing procedures.

Some comments questioned how a Sustainable Communities Strategy or Alternative Planning Strategy should be treated in light of section 15183.5. SB375 encourages programmatic analysis and planning for greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light-duty trucks, and provides specific CEQA streamlining benefits for certain types of projects that are consistent with a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) or an Alternative Planning Strategy (APS). Given the specificity of those statutory provisions, sections 21155 through 21155.3 and 21159.28 of the Public Resources Code in particular, the Office of Planning and Research and the Natural Resources Agency did not find that additional guidance on those provisions was necessary at this time. Proposed section 15183.5(c), however, clarifies that while certain projects consistent with an SCS or APS may not need to analyze greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light-duty trucks, emissions from other sources still may require analysis and mitigation. As SB97 requires the CEQA Guidelines to be updated every two years to incorporate new information, additional guidance regarding the relationship between CEQA and SB375 may be developed as necessary. (See also the discussion of AB32, SB375 and CEQA, above.)
Definition of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Several comments objected to the definition of greenhouse gas emissions in the Guidelines. Some suggested that it should be strictly limited to the gases identified in AB32. Other thought it should include all potential greenhouse gas emissions. Still others wanted to exclude biogenic emissions from the definition. 92 As explained in the Initial Statement of Reasons, the definition of greenhouse gases in AB32 states that GHG "includes all of the following…." (Health and Safety Code, § 38505(g).) The Legislature thus implied that other gases may also be considered GHGs. Further, the ARB Scoping Plan also acknowledged that other gases contribute to climate change. (Scoping Plan, at p. 11.) Consistent with the definition in the Health and Safety Code, the proposed definition in the Proposed Amendments is not exclusive to the six primary GHGs. The purpose of a more expansive definition is to ensure that lead agencies do not exclude from consideration GHGs that are not listed, so long as substantial evidence indicates that such non-listed gases may result in significant adverse effects. This approach is consistent with the Supreme Court‘s directive that CEQA be interpreted to provide the fullest possible protection to the environment. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 390.)
While the definition could not be strictly limited to the six gases identified in AB32, the Natural Resources Agency concluded that specific mention of other potential greenhouse gases was also not appropriate. Notably, the federal Environmental Protection Agency limited its proposed endangerment finding to those same six listed gases. It did so because the six gases are well studied, and have been the focus of climate change research. (Federal Register, v. 74, 18886, 18895 (April 24, 2009).) It is not necessary to list each of the known potential greenhouse gases because the proposed definition in section 15364.5 is written broadly, stating that the greenhouse gas emissions "are not limited to" the listed examples. As further explained in the Initial Statement of Reasons, the "purpose of a more expansive definition is to ensure that lead agencies do not exclude from consideration GHGs that are not listed, so long as substantial evidence indicates that such non-listed gases may result in significant adverse effects." (Initial Statement of Reasons, at p. 58.) Because the CEQA Guidelines must be updated periodically to reflect developments relating to greenhouse gas emissions, the Natural Resources Agency may expand the definition of greenhouse gas emissions if necessary to reflect the most current science and practice.

The Natural Resources Agency also concluded that the definition of greenhouse gas emissions should not differentiate between biogenic and anthropogenic emissions.

SB97 does not distinguish between the sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Notably, neither AB32 nor the Air Resources Board‘s Scoping Plan distinguishes between biogenic and anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gas emissions. On the contrary, the Scoping Plan identifies methane from, among other sources, organic wastes decomposing in landfills as a source of emissions that should be controlled. (Scoping Plan, at pp. 62-63.)
Forestry
Some comments objected to the inclusion of questions related to forest resources in the Appendix G questions in the section on agricultural resources. 93 SB97 called for guidance on the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. (Public Resources Code, § 21083.05.) As explained in the Initial Statement of Reasons, forest conversions may result in direct greenhouse gas emissions. Further, such conversions remove existing forest stock and the potential for further carbon sequestration. (Initial Statement of Reasons, at p. 63.) Sequestration is recognized as a key mitigation strategy in the Air Resources Board‘s Scoping Plan. (Scoping Plan, Appendix C, at p. C-168.)
The addition of questions related to forestry does not target the establishment of agricultural operations. The questions ask about any conversion of forests, not just conversions to other agricultural operations. Moreover, analysis of impacts to forestry resources is already required. The Legislature has declared that "forest resources and timberlands of the state are among the most valuable of the natural resources of the state" and that such resources "furnish high-quality timber, recreational opportunities, and aesthetic enjoyment while providing watershed protection and maintaining fisheries and wildlife." (Public Resources Code, § 4512(a)-(b).) Because CEQA defines "environment" to include "land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise, [and] objects of historic or aesthetic significance" (Public Resources Code, section 21060.5), and because forest resources have been declared to be "the most valuable of the natural resources of the state," projects affecting such resources must be analyzed, whether or not specific questions relating to forestry resources appear in Appendix G. (Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1109.) In effect, suggestions that the Appendix G questions be limited to conversions to "non-agricultural uses" ask the Natural Resources Agency to adopt changes that are inconsistent with CEQA, which it cannot do.

Questions related to greenhouse gas emissions in Appendix G are not sufficient to address impacts related to forestry resources. As explained in the Initial Statement of Reasons, not only do forest conversions result in greenhouse gas emissions, but may also "remove existing carbon stock (i.e., carbon stored in vegetation), as well as a significant carbon sink (i.e., rather than emitting GHGs, forests remove GHGs from the atmosphere)." (Initial Statement of Reasons, at p. 63.) Further, conversions may lead to "aesthetic impacts, impacts to biological resources and water quality impacts, among others." The questions related to greenhouse gas emissions would not address such impacts. Thus, the addition of forestry questions to Appendix G is appropriate both pursuant to SB97 and the Natural Resources Agency‘s general authority to update the CEQA Guidelines pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083(f). “Level of Service” and Transportation Impact Analysis
The Natural Resources Agency acknowledges the concern expressed by some comments that the use of level of service metrics in CEQA analysis has led to an autocentric focus. The Office of Planning and Research and the Natural Resources Agency have participated in extensive outreach with stakeholder groups to revise question (a) in the transportation section of Appendix G to accomplish the following goals:
94 Assess traffic impacts on intersections, streets, highways and freeways as well as impacts to pedestrian, non-vehicular and mass-transit circulation Recognize a lead agency‘s discretion to choose methodology, including LOS, to assess traffic impacts
Harmonize existing requirements in congestion management programs, general plans, ordinances, and elsewhere
In response to public comments submitted on proposed amendments, the Natural Resources Agency further refined question (a) to shift the focus from the capacity of the circulation system to consistency with applicable plans, policies that establish objective measures of effectiveness.

Some comments advocated leaving the existing text in question (a) of the transportation section of Appendix G intact. As explained in the Initial Statement of Reasons,
[Q]uestion (a) changes the focus from an increase in traffic at a given location to the effect of a project on the overall circulation system in the project area. This change is appropriate because an increase in traffic, by itself, is not necessarily an indicator of a potentially significant environmental impact. (Ronald Miliam, AICP, Transportation Impact Analysis Gets a Failing Grade When it Comes to Climate Change and Smart Growth; see also Land Use Subcommittee of the Climate Action Team LUSCAT Submission to CARB Scoping Plan on Local Government, Land Use, and Transportation Report (May, 2008) at pp. 31, 36.) Similarly, even if some projects may result in a deterioration of vehicular level of service – that is, delay experienced by drivers – the overall effectiveness of the circulation system as a whole may be improved. (Ibid.) Such projects could include restriping to provide bicycle lanes or creating dedicated bus lanes. Even in such cases, however, any potential adverse air quality or other impacts would still have to be addressed as provided in other sections of the checklist. Finally, the change to question (a) also recognizes that the lead agency has discretion to choose its own metric of analysis of impacts to intersections, streets, highways and freeways. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.2(e); Eureka Citizens for Responsible Gov’t v. City of Eureka, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at 371-373 (lead agency has discretion to choose its methodology).) Thus, "level of service" may or may not be the applicable measure of effectiveness of the circulation system.
(Initial Statement of Reasons, at pp. 64-65.) Further, evidence presented to the Natural Resources Agency indicates that "mitigation" of traffic congestion may lead to even greater environmental impacts than might result from congestion itself. (See, e.g., 95 Cervero, Robert. (July, 2001). Road Expansion, Urban Growth, and Induced Travel: A Path Analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 69 No. 2. American Planning Association (confirming "induced demand" phenomenon associated with capacity improvements).)
While the terms "volume to capacity ratio" and "congestion at intersections" no longer appear in question (a), nothing precludes a lead agency from including such measures of effectiveness in its own general plan or policies addressing its circulation system. Though the Office of Planning and Research originally recommended specifying "vehicle miles traveled" as a question in Appendix G, it later revised its recommendation to allow lead agencies to choose their own measures of effectiveness. (Letter from OPR Director, Cynthia Bryant, to Secretary for the Natural Resources Agency, Mike Chrisman, April 13, 2009.) Thus, as revised, question (a) accommodates lead agency selection of methodology, including, as appropriate, vehicle miles traveled, levels of service, or other measures of effectiveness.

Other comments objected to any mention of the phrase "level of service" in question (b) of the transportation section of the Appendix G checklist. That question, as revised, would ask whether a project would conflict with the provisions of a congestion management program. The Government Code, beginning at section 65088, requires Congestion Management Agencies, in urbanized areas, to adopt Congestion Management Programs covering that agency‘s cities and county, and in consultation with local governments, transportation planning agencies, and air quality management districts. A CMP must, pursuant to statute, contain level of service standards for certain designated roadways. A CMP must also include a land use analysis program to assess the impact of land use decisions on the regional transportation system. A CMA may require that land use analysis to occur through the CEQA process. Thus, level of service standards cannot be deleted from the Appendix G checklist altogether. The proposed amendments did, however, amend question (b) to put level of service standards in the broader context of the entire CMP, which should also contain travel demand measures and other standards affecting the circulation system as a whole.

Beyond this amendment, however, the Natural Resources Agency cannot remove level of service standards entirely from the Appendix G checklist.

Notably, the primary purpose of the proposed amendments is to update the CEQA Guidelines on the analysis and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. While certain changes to Appendix G were proposed pursuant to the Natural Resources Agency‘s general authority to update the CEQA Guidelines, those changes were modest and were intended to address certain misapplications of CEQA in a way that hinders the type of development necessary to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

Transportation planning and impact analysis continues to evolve, as new multimodal methods of analysis and guidelines on the integration of all modes of transportation and users into the circulation system are being developed. Additional updates to Appendix G may be appropriate in the future to address those developments. 96 Parking
As explained in the Initial Statement of Reasons, the Natural Resources Agency concluded that the question related to parking adequacy should be deleted from the Appendix G checklist in part as a result of the decision in San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656.

The court in that case distinguished the social impact of inadequate parking from actual adverse environmental impacts. In particular, that court explained:
[T]here is no statutory or case authority requiring an EIR to identify specific measures to provide additional parking spaces in order to meet an anticipated shortfall in parking availability. The social inconvenience of having to hunt for scarce parking spaces is not an environmental impact; the secondary effect of scarce parking on traffic and air quality is. Under CEQA, a project's social impacts need not be treated as significant impacts on the environment. An EIR need only address the secondary physical impacts that could be triggered by a social impact. (Id. at p. 698 (emphasis in original).) The Natural Resources Agency is aware of no authority requiring an analysis of parking adequacy as part of a project‘s environmental review. Rather, the Agency concurs with the court in the San Franciscans case that inadequate parking is a social impact that may, depending on the project and its setting, result in secondary effects. Consistent with existing CEQA Guidelines section 15131(a), deletion of the parking adequacy question from Appendix G checklist will ensure that the "focus of the analysis shall be on the physical changes." Specifically, the Appendix G checklist contains questions asking about possible project impacts to air quality and traffic.

Some comments pointed to examples of potential adverse impacts that could result from parking shortages, such as double-parking and slower circulation speeds, and referred specifically to a study of "cruising" behavior by Donald Shoup that noted that cruising could result in emissions of carbon dioxide. The relationship between parking adequacy and air quality is not as clear or direct as some comments imply. Mr.

Shoup, for example, submitted comments to the Natural Resources Agency supporting the deletion of the parking question. (See, Letter from Donald Shoup, Professor of Urban Planning, University of California, Los Angeles, October 26, 2009.) In those comments, Mr. Shoup opines that cruising results not from the number of parking spaces associated with a project, but rather from the price associated with those parking spaces. (Ibid.) The Natural Resources Agency also has evidence before it demonstrating that providing parking actually causes greater emissions due to induced demand. The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CEQA White Paper, for example, suggests reducing available parking as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. (Greg Tholen, et al. (January, 2008). CEQA & Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, at Appendix B, pp. 8-9.)
97 Moreover, parking analyses do not typically address either air quality or traffic impacts; rather, such analyses often focus on the number of parking spaces necessary to satisfy peak demand, which is often established by a local agency as a parking ratio (i.e., one space per 250 square feet of office space). (See, e.g., Shoup, Donald. (1999).

In Lieu of Required Parking. Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 18 No.

4. Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, at p. 309.) Thus, the question in Appendix G related to parking adequacy does not necessarily lead to the development of information addressing actual environmental impacts.

In sum, nothing in the CEQA statute, or cases interpreting that statute, require an analysis of parking demand. Further, parking supply is not a reasonable proxy for direct physical impacts associated with a project because parking supply may in some circumstances adversely affect air quality and traffic while in other circumstances, it may create air quality and traffic benefits. Thus, maintaining the parking question in the general Appendix G checklist is not necessary to effectuate the purposes of the CEQA statute.

The Natural Resources Agency acknowledges, however, that parking supply may lead to social impacts that agencies may wish to regulate. Cities and counties can, and do, include parking related policies in their municipal ordinances and general plans. (See, e.g., Office of Planning and Research, General Plan Guidelines, at pp. 59-60.) To the extent an agency has developed parking related policies in a general plan, zoning ordinance, or other regulation, consistency with those policies could be analyzed as a potential land use impact. Public agencies must, moreover, develop their own procedures to implement CEQA, and so may include parking-related questions in their own checklist if appropriate in their own circumstances. (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15022, 15063(f).)
AB32, SB375 and CEQA
Many comments suggested various links between CEQA, AB32 and SB375.

While there is some overlap between the statutes, each contains its own requirements and serves its own purposes. While recognizing the role of regulatory programs in addressing cumulative impacts analysis in CEQA, the Proposed Amendments deliberately avoided linking the determination of significance under CEQA to compliance with AB32. The following addresses the CEQA effect of compliance with AB32 and SB375.

The Effect of Consistency with the Scoping Plan and the Regulations Implementing AB32
The Initial Statement of Reasons explained that the Scoping Plan "may not be appropriate for use in determining the significance of individual projects … because it is conceptual at this stage and relies on the future development of regulations to 98 implement the strategies identified in the Scoping Plan." (Initial Statement of Reasons, at p. 14.) Compliance with the regulations implementing the Scoping Plan, on the other hand, might be relevant in determining the significance of a project‘s emissions, if the particular regulation or regulations specifically addresses the emissions from the project. (Ibid.) Compliance with regulations is specifically addressed in section 15064(h)(3) and 15064.4(b)(3).

Specifically, both sections provide that a lead agency may consider compliance with such regulations, and if relying on regulations to determine that an impact is less than significant, the lead agency must explain how that particular regulation addresses the impact of the project. Both sections also recognize that a lead agency must still consider whether any evidence supports a fair argument that a project may still have a significant impact despite compliance with the regulation.

The Effect of Consistency with Plans for the Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Sustainable Communities Strategies and Alternative Planning Strategies.

Several comments questioned whether the references in the Proposed Amendments to "greenhouse gas reduction plans" were intended to include a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) or Alternative Planning Strategy (APS).

SB375 created both the SCS and APS as strategies to be adopted by metropolitan planning organizations for the purpose of achieving greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets established by the California Air Resources Board. SB375 inserted specific provisions into CEQA governing the review of projects that are consistent with an APS or SCS. (See, e.g., Public Resources Code, §§ 21155-21155.3, 21159.28.) Because of the specificity of those provisions, the Office of Planning and Research and the Natural Resources Agency determined that no further guidance was needed in the Proposed Amendments to address the use of an SCS or APS.

As explained in the Initial Statement of Reasons, however, OPR and the Natural Resources Agency observed that many jurisdictions were adopting plans specifically for the purpose of addressing and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. (Initial Statement of Reasons, at pp. 12-13.) Those plans may be titled Climate Action Plans, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans, Sustainability Plans, etc. While recognizing the great variety of such plans, as well as the lack of legislative or other direction regarding the content of such plans, OPR and the Natural Resources Agency proposed the addition of a new Guidelines section 15183.5(b) to establish criteria for those plans if they are to be used in a CEQA cumulative impacts analysis as provided in sections 15064(h)(3) and 15130(d). The proposed amendments to section 15064(h)(3) and addition of section 15183.5(b) were not intended to limit or affect the use of an APS or SCS as provided in the Public Resources Code.

SB375 included provisions that would exempt certain types of projects from CEQA, and would apply the substantial evidence standard of review to other types of projects reviewed under a Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment. Some 99 comments raised concerns that the proposed amendments, and section 15064(h)(3) in particular, may conflict with those provisions of SB375. The last sentence of Section 15064(h)(3), which acknowledges the application of the fair argument standard in the determination of whether to prepare an EIR, complies with existing law. (CBE, supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at 115-116.) SB375‘s specific statutory provisions, and not section 15064(h)(3), would control for a project that satisfies the conditions in those provisions.

Thus, there is no conflict between the existing language in Section 15064(h)(3) and SB375.

Comments were also raised about the application of section 15125(d), which requires a discussion of a project‘s consistency with applicable regional plans, to an APS or SCS. One comment suggested that, for CEQA purposes, an SCS and APS are interchangeable. The Natural Resources Agency disagrees. An Alternative Planning Strategy is not a land use plan with which land use consistency should be analyzed under CEQA. (Government Code, § 65080(b)(2)(H)(v).) For that reason, the Natural Resources Agency deliberately did not propose to add "Alternative Planning Strategy" to the list of plans to be considered in an environmental setting pursuant to section 15125.

There is no similar statement precluding analysis of consistency with a Sustainable Communities Strategy, however. Thus, the reference to a "regional transportation plan" in the existing section 15125(d) remains appropriate. As explained above, and the Initial Statement of Reasons, the reference to "plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions" is intended to cover a broad range of plans that may be adopted by state and local agencies. The specific statutory provisions governing an Alternative Planning Strategy or Sustainable Communities Strategy would, however, control.

Similarly, some comments expressed concern regarding the application of the new Appendix G question asking about a project‘s consistency with applicable plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. That Appendix G question, as revised, asks whether a project would: "Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?" (Emphasis added.) In response to comments, the Natural Resources Agency replaced the word "any" with the word "an" to clarify that only a plan determined to be applicable by the lead agency, and not any plan developed by any person or entity, should be considered in determining whether a project would result in a significant impact relating to greenhouse gas emissions. Government Code section 65080(b)(2)(H)(v) states: an "alternative planning strategy shall not constitute a land use plan, policy, or regulation, and the inconsistency of a project with an alternative planning strategy shall not be a consideration in determining whether a project may have an environmental effect" for CEQA purposes. By operation of that Government Code Section 65080(b)(2)(H)(v), an alternative planning strategy would not constitute "an applicable plan" for purposes of the Appendix G question. Notably, as explained in the Initial Statement of Reasons, the Appendix G checklist is meant to provide a sample checklist of questions designed to provoke thoughtful consideration of general environmental concerns. (Initial Statement of Reasons, at p. 63.) Because it is provided as a sample only, the Office of Planning and Research and the Natural Resources Agency found that it would not be possible to 100
identify with specificity each plan that or may not apply to a particular jurisdiction or project.

Lead agencies, however, have discretion to revise the checklist in a way that is most appropriate for their own jurisdiction. If an individual agency in a region where an APS was prepared finds it necessary or desirable to restate Government Code Section 65080(b)(2)(H)(v) in its own checklist, it may do so. Further, while inconsistency with an APS is not, by itself, an indication of a potentially significant impact, other project characteristics would need to be considered as indicated in Section 15064.4 and other provisions of the CEQA Guidelines. Because Government Code Section 65080(b)(2)(H)(v) already provides that an APS is not a land use plan for CEQA purposes, and the Appendix G question asks only about "an applicable plan," the question need not specify an exception for an APS.

The Effect of Compliance with Regulations Implementing AB32 or Other Laws Intended to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Some comments urged that lead agencies should be able to rely on sector-wide reductions in emissions that may result from implementation of AB32 and other regulations in mitigating an individual project‘s impacts. Those comments appeared to conflate the requirement that a lead agency consider cumulative impacts (i.e., the impacts resulting from a project‘s emissions when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future emissions) with the requirement that a lead agency mitigate the significant effects of a project. The proposed amendments contain several provisions addressing the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions as a cumulative effect.

For example, Section 15064(h)(3) and 15130(d) would encourage lead agencies to use existing plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in cumulative impacts analysis. Additionally, Section 15130(b)(1)(B) is proposed for amendment to allow lead agencies to use projections of emissions contained in certain plans and models. Thus, the proposed amendments would allow a lead agency to consider a project in the context of other emissions resulting from the same or other sectors.

To the extent comments suggested that reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of AB32 elsewhere can mitigate the significant effects of a separate project under CEQA, the Natural Resources Agency disagrees. (See discussion below on off-site mitigation.)
A project‘s compliance with regulations or requirements implementing AB32 or other laws and policies is not irrelevant. Section 15064.4(b)(3) would allow a lead agency to consider compliance with requirements and regulations in the determination of significance of a project‘s greenhouse gas emissions. Lead agencies should note, however, that compliance with one requirement, affecting only one source of a project‘s emissions, may not necessarily support a conclusion that all of the project‘s emissions are less than significant.
101
Projects That Implement AB32 or Otherwise Assist in Achieving the State‘s Emissions Reductions Goals
Finally, some comments noted that projects implementing AB32, or that would somehow assist the State in achieving a low-carbon future, should not be considered significant under CEQA, and that requiring such projects to mitigate their emissions would frustrate implementation of AB32. CEQA requires analysis and mitigation of a project‘s significant adverse environmental impacts, even if that project may be considered environmentally beneficial overall. As the Third District Court of Appeal recently explained:
"[I]t cannot be assumed that activities intended to protect or preserve the environment are immune from environmental review. [Citations.]" ….

There may be environmental costs to an environmentally beneficial project, which must be considered and assessed.
(Cal. Farm Bureau Fed. v. Cal. Wildlife Cons. Bd. (2006) 143 Cal. App. 4th 173, 196.) Nothing in SB97 altered this rule. Thus, lead agencies must consider whether the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from beneficial projects may be significant, and if so, whether any feasible measures exist to mitigate those emissions. If such emissions are found to be significant and unavoidable, proposed amendments to section 15093 would expressly allow lead agencies to consider the region-wide and statewide environmental benefits of a project in determining whether project benefits outweigh its adverse environmental impacts.
“Adaptation” and Analysis of the Effects of Climate Change on a Project Several comments submitted as part of the Natural Resources Agency‘s SB97 rulemaking process urged it to incorporate the California Climate Adaptation Strategy (Adaptation Strategy) into the CEQA Guidelines. In considering such comments, it is important to understand several key differences between the Adaptation Strategy and the California Environmental Quality Act. First, the Adaptation Strategy is a policy statement that contains recommendations; it is not a binding regulatory document.

Second, the Adaptation Strategy focuses on how the State can plan for the effects of climate change. CEQA‘s focus, on the other hand, is the analysis of a particular project‘s greenhouse gas emissions on the environment, and mitigation of those emissions if impacts from those emissions are significant. Given these differences, CEQA should not be viewed as the tool to implement the Adaptation Strategy; rather, as indicated in the Strategy‘s key recommendations, advanced programmatic planning is the primary method to implement the Adaptation Strategies.

There is some overlap between CEQA and the Adaptation Strategy, however.

As explained in both the Initial Statement of Reasons and in the Adaptation Strategy, section 15126.2 may require the analysis of the effects of a changing climate under certain circumstances. (Initial Statement of Reasons, at pp. 68-69.) In particular, 102
Section 15126.2 already requires an analysis of placing a project in a potentially hazardous location. Further, several questions in the Appendix G checklist already ask about wildfire and flooding risks. Many comments on the proposed amendments asked for additional guidance, however.

Existing section 15126.2(a) provides an example of a potential hazard requiring analysis: placing a subdivision on a fault line. The new sentence adds further examples, as follows:

Similarly, the EIR should evaluate any potentially significant impacts of locating development in other areas susceptible to hazardous conditions (e.g., floodplains, coastlines, wildfire risk areas) as identified in authoritative hazard maps, risk assessments or in land use plans addressing such hazards areas.

Additionally, the degree of analysis should correspond to the probability of the potential hazard. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15143 ("significant effects should be discussed with emphasis in proportion to their severity and probability of occurrence").) Thus, for example, where there is a great degree of certainty that sea-levels may rise between 3 and 6 feet at a specific location within 30 years, and the project would involve placing a wastewater treatment plant with a 50 year life at 2 feet above current sea level, the potential effects that may result from inundation of that plant should be addressed. On the other extreme, while there may be consensus that temperatures may rise, but the magnitude of the increase is not known with any degree of certainty, effects associated with temperature rise would not need to be examined. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15145 ("If, after thorough investigation, a lead agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate the discussion of the impact").) Lead agencies are not required to generate their own original research on potential future changes; however, where specific information is currently available, the analysis should address that information. (State CEQA 103
Guidelines, § 15144 (environmental analysis "necessarily involves some degree of forecasting. While seeing the unforeseeable is not possible, an agency must use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can").) The decision in Baird v. County of Contra Costa (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1464, does not preclude this analysis. In that case, the First District Court of Appeal held that a county was not required to prepare an EIR due solely to pre-existing soil contamination that the project would not change in any way. (Id. at 1468.) No evidence supported the petitioner‘s claim that the project would "expose or exacerbate" the preexisting contamination, which was located several hundred to several thousand feet from the project site. (Id. at n. 1.) Moreover, the project would have no other significant effects on the environment, and other statutes exist to protect residents from contaminated soils. Thus, the question confronting that court was whether pre-existing contamination near the project was, by itself, enough to require preparation of an EIR.

Finally, while the revision in section 15126.2 is consistent with the general objective of the Adaptation Strategy and is consistent with the limits of CEQA, not all issues addressed in the Adaptation Strategy are necessarily appropriate in a CEQA analysis. Thus, the revision in section 15126.2 should not be read as implementation of the entire Adaptation Strategy. Unlike hazards that can be mapped, other issues in the Adaptation Strategy, such as the health risks associated with higher temperatures, are not capable of an analysis that links a project to an ultimate impact. Habitat modification and changes in agriculture and forestry resulting from climate change similarly do not appear to be issues that can be addressed on a project-by-project basis in CEQA documents. Water supply variability is an issue that has already been addressed in depth in recent CEQA cases. (See, e.g., Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 434-435 ("If the uncertainties inherent in long-term land use and water planning make it impossible to confidently identify the future water sources, an EIR may satisfy CEQA if it acknowledges the degree of uncertainty involved, discusses the reasonably foreseeable alternatives—including alternative water sources and the option of curtailing the development if sufficient water is not available for later phases—and discloses the significant foreseeable environmental effects of each alternative, as well as mitigation measures to minimize each adverse impact.").) Further, legislation has been developed to ensure that lead agencies identify adequate water supplies to serve projects many years in the future under variable water conditions. (See, e.g., Water Code, § 10910 et seq.; Government Code, § 66473.7.) Thus, the analysis called for in section 15126.2(a) should be directed primarily at hazards, and not all aspects of the Adaptation Strategy. 104
Additional Changes
Several comments suggested revisions or requested clarification of issues that were not addressed in this rulemaking package. The Initial Statement of Reasons explained:
[T]he Proposed Amendments suggest relatively modest changes to various portions of the existing CEQA Guidelines. Modifications address those issues where analysis of GHG emissions may differ in some respects from more traditional CEQA analysis. Other modifications are suggested to clarify existing law that may apply both to analysis of GHG emissions as well as more traditional CEQA analyses. The incremental approach in the Proposed Amendments is consistent with Public Resources Code section 21083(f), which directs OPR and the Resources Agency to regularly review the Guidelines and propose amendments as necessary.
(Initial Statement of Reasons, at p. 9.) Additionally, Public Resources Code section 21083.05(c) requires that the CEQA Guidelines be updated periodically "to incorporate new information or criteria established by the State Air Resources Board pursuant to" AB32. Therefore, the CEQA Guidelines will continually be updated to reflect evolving information and practice and to address developments regarding analysis of greenhouse gas emissions in the courts.

Determination Regarding Impacts on Local Government and School Districts The Natural Resources Agency has determined that the Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines do not impose additional requirements or costs on local government or school districts. Among other things, Public Resources Code section 21083.05 (reflected in amendments to State CEQA Guidelines sections 15064.4, 15064.7(c), 15126.4(c), 15130, 15183.5, 15364.5, and Appendix G) clarifies that CEQA requires analysis of a project‘s greenhouse gas emissions. Public Resources Code sections 21002 and 21004 (reflected in State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4) require a lead agency to impose feasible mitigation where a project will cause significant adverse environmental impacts. Public Resources Code sections 21003 and 21093 (reflected in the amendments to State CEQA Guidelines sections 15064, 15125, 15130, 15150 and 15183, and new State CEQA Guidelines sections 15064.4 and 15183.5) encourage lead agencies to tier environmental impact reports wherever possible and to use existing analyses to reduce duplication and expense. The decision in Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Com. v. Board of Port Comm. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1370, 1382 (reflected in proposed State CEQA Guidelines section 15064.4), requires that potential adverse impacts be quantified where it is possible to do so and quantification will assist in the determination of significance of the impact. 105
The Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines described above merely reflect existing legislative requirements and judicial decision interpreting those requirements.

Therefore, this rulemaking activity does not itself impose any costs on local government or school districts.

Determination Regarding Potential Economic Impacts Directly Affecting Business The Natural Resources Agency has determined that the Amendments will not have a significant, statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting business. The guidelines required by sections 21083 and 21083.05 of the Public Resources Code are promulgated in the California Code of Regulations, title 14, sections 15000-15387 (the "State CEQA Guidelines"). The Natural Resources Agency has determined that most of the amendments will have no impacts on business.

CEQA applies to activities of public agencies, including projects that are funded, proposed, or approved by public agencies. Thus, the amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines would apply to public agencies, and not directly to businesses. The Natural Resources Agency is aware, however, that certain requirements reflected in the amendments that have been enacted by the Legislature and developed in case law interpreting CEQA could have an indirect economic impact on business. Among other things, project proponents could incur additional costs in assisting lead agencies to comply with the requirement to quantify greenhouse gas emissions, if possible, as part of an analysis of the effects of such emissions. Project proponents may also incur costs in implementing mitigation measures to reduce such emissions. However, the amendments to the Guidelines merely reflect existing requirements. (See, e.g., Pub.

Resources Code, §§ 21004 ("a public agency may use discretionary powers … for the purpose of mitigating or avoiding a significant effect on the environment"), 21083.05 (requiring the development of guidelines on the analysis and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions "as required by this division"); Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Com. v.

Board of Port Comm. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1370, 1382 (potential hazardous emissions and noise impacts must be quantified where it is possible to do so and quantification will assist in the determination of significance of the impact).) Many lead agencies, and some trial courts, have already determined that CEQA requires analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions independent of the SB97 CEQA Guidelines amendments. The Office of Planning and Research, for example, has cataloged over 1,000 examples of CEQA documents, prepared between July 2006 and June 2009, analyzing and mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. (Office of Planning and Research, Environmental Assessment Documents Containing a Discussion of Climate Change (Revised June 1, 2009).) Further, several trial courts have found that existing CEQA law requires analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions. (See, e.g., Muriettans for Smart Growth v. City of Murrieta et al., Riverside Co. Sup. Ct. Case No.

Additionally, some of amendments included in this rulemaking activity may tend to reduce costs associated with environmental analysis of greenhouse gas emissions.

For example, the amendments to the Guidelines encourage tiering and streamlining of existing environmental analyses to the extent possible in order to reduce duplication.

Such tiering and streamlining mechanisms are also consistent with existing law. (See, e.g., Pub. Resources Code, § 21093 (lead agencies shall tier environmental impact reports wherever possible).)
The amendments update the State CEQA Guidelines to be consistent with legislative enactments and judicial decisions that have modified CEQA, but do not themselves impose any new requirements. Therefore, the amendments do not have a significant, adverse economic impact directly affecting business.

Bibliography of Works Cited
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. (October 2009). Revised Draft Options and Justification Report: California Environmental Quality Act Thresholds of Significance.

San Francisco, California. Retrieve from
http://baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/%20Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/Revised%2 0Draft%20CEQA%20Thresholds%20%20Justification%20Report%20Oct%202009.ashx Bay Conservation and Development Commission. (October, 2009). Status Report on the Commission’s Strategic Plan. California Natural Resources Agency. Sacramento, California. Retrieve from http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/reports/strategic_status_rpt.pdf Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. (October 17, 2008). The 2008 Strategic Plan and Report to the California Air Resources Board on Meeting AB32 Forestry Sector Targets.

California Natural Resources Agency. Sacramento, California. Retrieve from http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/forestry/documents/AB32_BOF_Report_1.5.pdf California Air Resources Board. (October 17, 2007). Staff Report: Proposed Adoption of California Climate Action Registry Forestry Greenhouse Gas Protocols for Voluntary Purposes. California Environmental Protection Agency. Sacramento, California.

Retrieve from
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/forestry/forestry_protocols/arb_staff_report_proposed_adoptio n_ccar_forestry_protocols.pdf
California Air Resources Board. (October, 2007). Expanded List of Early Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California Recommended for Board Consideration. California Environmental Protection Agency. Sacramento, California.

Retrieve from http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccea/meetings/ea_final_report.pdf California Air Resources Board. (February 11, 2008). Recommendations of the Economic and Technological Advancement Advisory Committee, Final Report.

California Environmental Protection Agency. Sacramento, California. Retrieve from http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/etaac/ETAACFinalReport2-11-08.pdf California Air Resources Board. (December 11, 2008). Climate Change Scoping Plan.

California Environmental Protection Agency. Sacramento, California. Retrieve from http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf California Air Resources Board. (December 11, 2008). Climate Change Scoping Plan; Appendices Volume I: Supporting Documents and Measure Detail. California Environmental Protection Agency. Sacramento, California. Retrieve from http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/appendices_volume1.pdf California Attorney General‘s Office. (September, 2007). Settlement Agreement between ConocoPhillips and California Attorney General. Sacramento, California.

Retrieve from http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/ConocoPhillips_Agreement.pdf 107

108

California Attorney General‘s Office. (November, 2007). Memorandum of Understanding between California Attorney General’s Office and Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Sacramento, California. Retrieve from
http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/Conoco_Phillips_MOU.pdf California Climate Action Team. (March, 2006). Executive Summary: Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature. California Environmental Protection Agency. Sacramento, California. Retrieve from http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/2006report/2006-04 03_FINAL_CAT_REPORT_EXECSUMMARY.PDF
California Climate Action Team. (March, 2006). Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature. California Environmental Protection Agency. Sacramento, California. Retrieve from http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/2006report/2006-04 03_FINAL_CAT_REPORT.PDF
California Climate Action Team. (August, 2008). Climate Action Team Recycling and Waste Management Sector Summary for Public Distribution. California Environmental Protection Agency. Sacramento, California. Retrieve from http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/CAT_subgroup_reports/ Recycling_Waste_Mngmt_Summary_and_Analyses.pdf
California Climate Action Team. (May, 2008). Draft Land Use Subgroup of the Climate Action Team (LUSCAT) Submission to CARB Scoping Plan on Local Government, Land Use, and Transportation. California Environmental Protection Agency. Sacramento, California. Retrieve from http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/luscat/documents/2008-05 14_meeting/DRAFT_LUSCAT_Submission_to_CARB.pdf
California Climate Action Team. (September, 2008). Climate Action Team Green Building Sector Subgroup: Scoping Plan Measure Development and Cost Analysis.

California Environmental Protection Agency. Sacramento, California. Retrieve from http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/CAT_subgroup_reports/ Green_Building_Measure_Analysis.pdf
California Climate Action Team. (March, 2009). Climate Action Biennial Draft Report.

California Environmental Protection Agency. Sacramento, California. Retrieve from http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CAT-1000-2009-003/CAT-1000-2009-003 D.PDF
California Climate Action Registry, et al. (May, 2007). Forest Verification Protocols:

Entities and Projects; Version 2.0. Author. Los Angeles, California. Retrieve from http://www.climateactionreserve.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/current-forest-projectprotocol_forest_verification_protocol_v20.pdf 109

California Climate Action Registry. (August, 2008). Urban Forestry Project Reporting Protocol; Version 1.0. Author. Los Angeles, California. Retrieve from http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/cufr/UrbanForestProtocol0812081ForBoardApproval .pdf
California Climate Action Registry. (August, 2008). Urban Forest Project Verification Protocol; Version 1.0. Author. Los Angeles, California. Retrieve from http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/topics/urban-forests/docs/urban-forest-verification-protocol081208.pdf California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. (October, 2003). The Changing California: Forest and Range Assessment; Assessment Summary. Fire and Resource Assessment Program. Sacramento, California. Retrieve from http://www.frap.cdf.ca.gov/assessment2003/
California Energy Commission. (December, 2006). Final Staff Report: Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004. California Natural Resources Agency. (CEC Publication No. CEC-600-2006-013-SF). Sacramento, California. Retrieve from http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-600-2006 013/CEC-600-2006-013-SF.PDF
California Energy Commission. (December, 2006). Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California. California Natural Resources Agency. (CEC Publication No.

CEC-500-2006-118). Sacramento, California. Retrieve from http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-500-2006-118/CEC-500-2006 118.PDF
California Energy Commission (August, 2007). Final Report: The Role of Land Use in Meeting California’s Energy and Climate Change Goals. California Natural Resources Agency. (CEC Publication No. CEC-600-2007-008-SF). Sacramento, California.

Retrieve from http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-600-2007-008/CEC-600 2007-008-SF.PDF
California Energy Commission. (December, 2007). Integrated Energy Policy Report.

California Natural Resources Agency. (CEC Publication No. CEC-100-2007-008-CMF).

Sacramento, California. Retrieve from http://energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-100 2007-008/CEC-100-2007-008-CMF.PDF
California Energy Commission. (March, 2009). Committee Report: Committee Guidance on Fulfilling California Environmental Quality Act Responsibilities for Greenhouse Gas Impacts in Power Plant Siting Applications. (CEC Publication No. CEC-700-2009-004) Natural Resources Agency. Sacramento, California. Retrieve from http://www.valleyair.org/programs/CCAP/documents/CEC-700-2009-004.pdf

California Governor‘s Office of Planning and Research. (September, 1994). Thresholds of Significance: Criteria for Defining Environmental Significance. State Clearinghouse.

Sacramento, California. Retrieve from http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/more/tas/Threshold.html California Governor‘s Office of Planning and Research. (June 19, 2008). Technical Advisory: CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. State Clearinghouse. Sacramento, California. Retrieve from http://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/pdfs/june08-ceqa.pdf California Governor‘s Office of Planning and Research. (January, 2009). The California Planners’ Book of Lists 2009. State Clearinghouse. Sacramento, California. Retrieve from http://opr.ca.gov/planning/publications/2009bol.pdf California Governor‘s Office of Planning and Research. (January, 2009). Comment Letters on OPR’s Preliminary Draft CEQA Amendments. State Clearinghouse.

Sacramento, California. Retrieve from
http://opr.ca.gov/index.php?a=ceqa/comments.html
California Governor‘s Office of Planning and Research. (April 13, 2009). Transmittal (Letter) of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s Proposed SB97 CEQA Guideline Amendments to the Natural Resources Agency. Sacramento, California.

Retrieve from http://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/pdfs/Transmittal_%20Letter.pdf California Governor‘s Office of Planning and Research. (August, 2009). Environmental Assessment Documents Containing a Discussion of Climate Change. State Clearinghouse. Sacramento, California. Retrieve from
http://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/pdfs/Environmental_Assessment_Climate_Change.pdf California Integrated Waste Management Board. (October, 2009). 2008 Annual Report.

California Environmental Protection Agency. (IWMB Publication No. IWMB-2009-020).

Sacramento, California. Retrieve from http://www.uctc.net/research/papers/520.pdf Cervero, Robert. (July, 2001). Road Expansion, Urban Growth, and Induced Travel: A Path Analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 69 No. 2. American Planning Association. Retrieve from http://www.uctc.net/papers/520.pdf Cervero, R. & Arrington G.B. (2008). Vehicle Trip Reduction Impacts of Transit-Oriented Housing. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 11 No. 3. Center for Urban Transportation Research. Retrieve from http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT11 3Cervero.pdf
City of Davis. (April 21, 2009). Staff Report: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Thresholds and Standards for New Residential Development. Author. Davis, California. Retrieve from
http://cityofdavis.org/meetings/councilpackets/20090421/08%20Greenhouse%20Gas%2 0Standards.pdf
110

111
Climate Action Reserve. (August, 2009). Forest Project Protocol; Version 3.0. Author.

Los Angeles, California. Retrieve from http://www.climateactionreserve.org/wpcontent/uploads/2009/03/Forest-Project-Protocol-Version-3.0.pdf Ellen Hanak, et al. (November, 2008). Climate Policy at the Local Level: A Survey of California’s Cities and Counties. Public Policy Institute of California. Retrieve from http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_1108EHR.pdf
Greg Tholen, et al. (January, 2008). CEQA & Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. Retrieve from http://www.capcoa.org/CEQA/CAPCOA%20White%20Paper.pdf ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability, et al. (September, 2008). Local Government Operations Protocol: For the quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions inventories; Version 1.0. Author. Oakland, California. Retrieve from http://www.icleiusa.org/action-center/tools/lgo-protocol-1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2001). Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Cambridge University Press. Retrieve from http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/439.htm
Jill Whynot, et al. (June, 2008). SoCal Climate Solutions Exchange. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Diamond Bar, California. Retrieve from http://www.aqmd.gov/hb/attachments/2008/June/080637B.doc Kapnick, Sarah and Hall, Alex. (March, 2009). Observed Changes in the Sierra Nevada Snowpack: Potential Causes and Concerns. California Climate Change Center for the California Energy Commission. (CEC Publication No. CEC-500-2009-016-D). Natural Resources Agency. Sacramento, California. Retrieve from http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-500-2009-016/CEC-500-2009-016- D.PDF
Michael Remy, et al. (2007). Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act, 11th Edition. Solano Press. Point Arena, CA.

Milam, Ronald. (2008). Transportation Impact Analysis Gets a Failing Grade When It Comes to Climate Change and Smart Growth. Fehr & Peers. Roseville, California.

Retrieve from http://opr.ca.gov/sch/pdfs/LOS_Climate_Change_Smart_Growth.pdf Noland, R.B. & Lem, L.L. (February, 2001). A Review of the Evidence for Induced Travel and Changes in Transportation and Environmental Policy in the United States and the United Kingdom. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington D.C.

Retrieve from http://www.cts.cv.ic.ac.uk/documents/publications/iccts00244.pdf

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. (April, 2009). Indicators of Climate Change. California Environmental Protection Agency. Sacramento, California. Retrieve from http://oehha.ca.gov/multimedia/epic/pdf/ClimateChangeIndicatorsApril2009.pdf Rebecca Shaw, et al., (March, 2009). The Impact of Climate Change on California’s Ecosystem Services. California Climate Change Center for the California Energy Commission. (CEC Publication No. CEC-500-2009-025-D). Natural Resources Agency.

Sacramento, California. Retrieve from http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC500-2009-025/CEC-500-2009-025-D.PDF Shoup, Donald. (1999). In Lieu of Required Parking. Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 18 No. 4. Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning. Retrieve from http://www.sonic.net/~woodhull/trans/Shoup_Pkg_In-Lieu_Fees.pdf Shoup, Donald. (2007). Cruising for Parking. Transport Policy, Vol. 13 No. 6, November 2006, pp. 479-486. Retrieve from http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/Cruising.pdf Shoup, Donald. (2007). Cruising for Parking. Access, No. 30, Spring 2007 pp. 16-22.

Retrieve from http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/CruisingForParkingAccess.pdf S. Brown, et al. (March, 2004). PIER Final Project Report: Baseline Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Forest, Range, and Agricultural Lands in California. Winrock International for the California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research. (CEC Publication No. CEC-500-2004-069F). Sacramento, California. Retrieve from http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/CEC-500-2004-069/CEC-500-2004-069F.PDF S. Smith, et al. (October, 2008). Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. South Coast Air Quality Management District.

Diamond Bar, California. Retrieve from
http://aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/GHG/Oct22mtg/GHGguidance.pdf United States Environmental Protection Agency. (November, 2005). Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Potential in U.S. Forestry and Agriculture. Author. Washington D.C. Retrieve from http://www.epa.gov/sequestration/pdf/greenhousegas2005.pdf United States Environmental Protection Agency. (April 17, 2009). Technical Support Document for Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. Washington D.C. Retrieve from http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/TSD_Endangerment.pdf United States Environmental Protection Agency. (April 24, 2009). Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act; Proposed Rule. Washington D.C. Retrieve from http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/EPA-HQ-OAR-2009 0171-0001.pdf
112

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (November 4, 1996). Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permit Processing Handbook. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington D.C. Retrieve from
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/HCP/Hcpbook.htm
Water and Energy Consulting. (November, 2007). PIER Final Project Report: Water Supply-Related Electricity Demand in California. Water and Energy Consulting and the Demand Response Research Center for the California Energy Commission, PIER Program. (CEC Publication No. CEC-500-2007-114). Retrieve from http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-500-2007-114/CEC-500-2007 114.PDF
Westerling, A.L. et al., (March, 2009) Climate Change, Growth and California Wildfire.

California Climate Change Center for the California Energy Commission. (CEC Publication No. CEC-2009-046-D). Natural Resources Agency. Sacramento, California.

Retrieve from http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-500-2009-046/CEC-500 2009-046-D.PDF
113
Exhibit 3
From: Alexandra Syphard
To: Nicole Rinke; Keeley Jon
Cc: Kimberly Gosling
Subject: Re: Wildfire expertise/question re. ignition risks Date: Friday, May 29, 2020 1:55 51 PM
Dear Nichole and Kim,
This claim made by SD County mischaracterizes our work We had previously written a letter to Dan Silver saying as much, and the text we wrote to him is copied below Please let me know if this helps
Best,
Alexandra
Dear Dan:

Jon Keeley and I have reviewed the materials you sent and we would like to clarify that our research does not support the notion that high density housing is not at high risk, particularly if the high density housing is in close proximity to any significant area of undeveloped wildland vegetation. t is true that our papers have consistently shown that low-density housing is most at risk when you look at a full gradient of housing density across a region. However, in all of our papers - and those of others as well - we find that the relationship with housing patterns and fire risk are nuanced and include more variables than just density. In particular, we find that the riskiest patterns are small to medium-sized clusters of development within a larger landscape of wildland vegetation, in addition to low-to-intermediate housing density and proximity to the edge of development.

In other words, I would say the materials are only getting part of the picture. That is because they are focusing on the area just within the development instead of the development within the larger landscape context. If a high-density development is located within a matrix of wildland vegetation, that is actually the most dangerous housing pattern you could have! That's because at very high densities, the relationship can switch to where houses closer than 50m to each other are more likely to have structure to structure spread (of course, depending on the building materials). In other words, there is significance to the location and size of high density development. This has been explained clearly in additional papers by Alexandre et al. 2015a and b. For example, in the Cedar Fire, we found that high-density structures in smaller clusters of development in Julian were the larger risk factor, and I think that is the same thing going on here in the newly proposed developments. Large wildland surrounding high-density areas is a particularly dangerous combination because there is exposure to fire hazard AND the possibility for structure-to-structure spread.

I also think the discussion about our paper on ignition patterns is a bit misconstrued. The main point found by our research is that humans cause 95% of fires, and as humans move farther east and into wildlands the likelihood of ignitions moving into those areas also increases. That is how humans alter the spatial pattern of fires, regardless of ignition source. Some sources are more numerous than others (like equipment), but those aren't necessarily the ones that result in the largest fires. It is more about the timing and pattern of the ignition relative to wind corridors and during severe fire weather.

In the article I wrote for an upcoming Fremontia issue (attached, Jon has one too), I have synthesized all of our work on structure loss, so some of the references in there may be helpful. Also see the attached paper by Anu Kramer finding interface communities in CA being dangerous, which runs contrary to some of the language in the materials you shared. True, intermix WUI is also very dangerous, but so is the interface.

I might add that in the paper Jon and I published in Fire, Factors Associated with Structure Loss in the 2013–2018 California Wildfires, MANY of the houses destroyed were newly built. Newer construction definitely may help but is not a panacea by any means. That also goes for defensible space. Also recall the work that we have done on fuel breaks and their limited effectiveness at preventing fire spread during severe wind conditions when 99% of the structure loss occurs.

Those measures in a new development do not mean those homes are safe from fire. The Australians are a great example of never saying anything is fire-proof.

It isn't.

I hope that is helpful. Please let me know if we can clarify anything further.

Alexandra Syphard and Jon Keeley
On 5/28/2020 6:31:03 PM, Nicole Rinke <nicole rinke@doj ca gov> wrote:

Hello Jon and Alexandra,
My colleague, Kim (cc'd here) and I are with the California Attorney General's office. Our office is reviewing and commenting, as appropriate, on proposed projects in wildland areas throughout the state to make sure that wildfire risks/issues are being adequately disclosed and considered during CEQA review for various land use approval processes at the local level. So far, we have commented on the Paraiso Springs Project in Monterey County and the Otay Village 13 Project in San Diego County.

You are both prolific in your research and writing on topics that relate directly to the work we are doing and we are interested in talking with you. On the Otay Village 13 Project, in particular, San Diego County has cited your work as support for its position that the project does not present a significant fire risk, based in large part on its characterization of the project as "higher density" housing. (See page 4- 5 of the pdf response to
our comments, https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/ceqa/OtayRanchVillage13Resort/PrePC/2019Comments/Responses/RA5_AttorneyGeneral_Response_2.27.2020%20(rrs).pdf; our comment letter can be found here: https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/ceqa/OtayRanchVillage13Resort/PrePC/2019Comments/Comments/RA5_AttorneyGeneral.pdf).

We are curious to hear your perspective on the County's response to our comments - would you be open to talking with us? We might also be interested in working with you more broadly and would like to discuss that with you too.

Thank you for your important work in this area and for your time. We look forward to hearing from you.

Best, Nicole
Nicole Rinke / Deputy Attorney General / (916) 210-7797 / [email protected] Office of the Attorney General / Public Rights Division/ Land Law 1300 I Street/ P.O. Box 944255/ Sacramento, CA 94224-2550 CONF DENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.

Exhibit 4

Exhibit 5

FIRE PROTECTION PLAN

SAFARI HIGHLANDS RANCH
Prepared for:

City of Escondido
Fire Department
1163 North Centre City Parkway
Escondido, California 92026
On behalf of Applicant:

Safari Highlands Ranch, LLC.
380 Stevens Avenue, Suite 307
Solana Beach, California 92075
Contact: Jeb Hall, Senior Vice President
Prepared by:
605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024
Contact: Michael Huff
JULY 2017
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.

Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch
8304
i July 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page No.
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................1 2 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................5

2.1 Proposed Project Summary ..................................................................................... 6

2.1.1 Location ...................................................................................................... 6

2.1.2 Project Description ...................................................................................... 6

2.2 Applicable Codes/Existing Regulations ............................................................... 13 3 PROPOSED PROJECT SITE RISK ANALYSIS ........................................................15

3.1 Field Assessment .................................................................................................. 15

3.2 Site Characteristics and Fire Environment............................................................ 15

3.2.1 Topography ............................................................................................... 15

3.2.2 Existing Land Use ..................................................................................... 16

3.2.3 Vegetation ................................................................................................. 16

3.2.4 Vegetation Dynamics ................................................................................ 24

3.2.5 Climate ...................................................................................................... 25 4 DETERMINATION OF PROJECT EFFECTS ...........................................................27 5 ANTICIPATED FIRE BEHAVIOR ..............................................................................31

5.1 Fire History ........................................................................................................... 31

5.2 Fire Behavior Modeling ........................................................................................ 32

5.2.1 Modeling Background ............................................................................... 32

5.2.2 Modeling Inputs ........................................................................................ 34

5.2.3 BehavePlus Analysis ................................................................................. 36

5.2.4 FlamMap and FARSITE Analyses ............................................................ 38 6 EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND SERVICE ...............................................................49

6.1 Fire Facilities ........................................................................................................ 49

6.2 Emergency Response Travel Time Coverage ....................................................... 50

6.3 Estimated Calls and Demand for Service from the Project .................................. 53

6.4 Response Capability Impact Assessment and Mitigation ..................................... 53 7 FIRE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS- INFRASTRUCTURE, BUILDING
IGNITION RESISTANCE, AND DEFENSIBLE SPACE...........................................55

7.1 Roads..................................................................................................................... 55

7.1.1 Access and Egress ..................................................................................... 55

7.1.2 Road Widths ............................................................................................. 56 Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Section Page No.
8304
ii July 2017

7.1.3 Road Surface ............................................................................................. 56

7.1.4 Interior Circulation Roads ......................................................................... 56

7.1.5 Gates ......................................................................................................... 57

7.1.6 Driveways ................................................................................................. 58

7.1.7 Premises Identification .............................................................................. 58

7.1.8 Response Map Updates ............................................................................. 59

7.2 Structures .............................................................................................................. 59

7.2.1 Ignition-Resistant Structural Requirements .............................................. 59

7.2.2 Structure Setbacks ..................................................................................... 59

7.2.3 Additional Requirements and Recommendations Based on Occupancy Type ........................................................................................ 60

7.3 Fire Protection Systems ........................................................................................ 60

7.3.1 Water ......................................................................................................... 60

7.3.2 Hydrants .................................................................................................... 60

7.3.3 Fire Sprinklers ........................................................................................... 61

7.3.4 Smoke Alarm Systems .............................................................................. 62

7.4 Defensible Space/Fuel Modification Zones .......................................................... 62

7.4.1 Project Fuel Modification Zone Standards ............................................... 62

7.4.2 Other Vegetation Management ................................................................. 65

7.4.3 Undesirable Plants .................................................................................... 67

7.4.4 Fuel Modification Area Vegetation Maintenance ..................................... 67

7.4.5 Annual FMZ Compliance Inspection ........................................................ 67

7.4.6 Construction Phase Vegetation Management ........................................... 67 8 ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS AND METHODS FOR NON-CONFORMING
TOP OF SLOPE SETBACKS ........................................................................................69

8.1 Heat Deflecting Walls ........................................................................................... 70

8.2 Additional Structure Protection Measures ............................................................ 71

8.2.1 Additional Project Fire Protection Measures ............................................ 71 9 EMERGENCY PRE-PLANNING - EVACUATION ...................................................73

9.1 Quick Reference - Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan ............................................... 73

9.2 Background ........................................................................................................... 74

9.3 San Diego County Evacuation Planning Summary............................................... 77

9.4 Safari Highlands Ranch Evacuation Road Network ............................................. 79

9.4.1 Evacuation Route Determination .............................................................. 82 Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Section Page No.
8304
iii July 2017

9.4.2 Roadway Capacities and Maximum Evacuation Time Estimate .............. 82

9.5 Safari Highlands Ranch Resident Fire/Evacuation Awareness ............................ 84

9.6 Safari Highlands Ranch Evacuation Procedures ................................................... 88

9.6.1 Safari Highlands Ranch Evacuation – Santa Ana Wind Conditions ........ 90

9.6.2 Safari Highlands Ranch Evacuation – Typical Summer Weather Conditions .................................................................................. 91

9.6.3 Safari Highlands Ranch Evacuation Baseline ........................................... 92

9.6.4 Civilian and Firefighter Evacuation Contingency ..................................... 92

9.7 Evacuation Plan Limitations ................................................................................. 96 10 HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATION WILDFIRE EDUCATION PROGRAM ..........99 11 CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................101 12 REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................103 13 LIST OF PREPARERS .................................................................................................109

APPENDICES
A Representative Photographs
B Fire History
C1–C6 Fire Progression Modeling for Fall and Summer Conditions D Fuel Modification Zones and Landscape Walls
E Prohibited Plant List
F Proposed Project Plant Palette
G Agency Evacuation Pre-Planning Procedures and Techniques H Ready, Set, Go! Wildfire Action Plan

FIGURES
1 Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................................7 2 Safari Highlands Ranch Site Plan ........................................................................................9 3a On-Site Vegetation Map ....................................................................................................19 3b Off-Site Vegetation Map ....................................................................................................21 4 Behave Plus Fire Behavior Modeling ................................................................................39 5 Proposed On-Site Fire Station Exhibit ...............................................................................51 6 Example of Heat Deflecting Wall ......................................................................................71 7 Fire Evacuation Plan ..........................................................................................................75 Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page No.
8304
iv July 2017
TABLES
1 Vegetation and Land Cover Types on Safari Highlands Ranch Project Site and Off-Site Facilities ...............................................................................................................16 2 BehavePlus Fine Dead Fuel Moisture Calculation ............................................................35 3 Fuel Moisture and Wind Speed Inputs ...............................................................................36 4 BehavePlus Fire Behavior Modeling Results ....................................................................37 5 Fuel Models in FlamMap and FARSITE Analyses Area ...................................................43 6 Escondido Fire Department Responding Stations Summary .............................................49 7 Distance Between Tree Canopies by Percent Slope...........................................................66 Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch
8304
1 July 2017
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Fire Protection Plan (FPP) has been prepared for the Safari Highlands Ranch Project (Proposed Project) in northern San Diego County. This FPP evaluates and identifies the potential fire risk associated with the proposed project’s land uses and identifies requirements for water supply, fuel modification and defensible space, access, building ignition and fire resistance, fire protection systems, and wildfire emergency pre-planning, among other pertinent fire protection criteria. The project proponent proposes an annexation of the entire project site into the City of Escondido. The purpose of this plan is to generate and memorialize the fire safety requirements of the Escondido Fire Department (EFD) along with project-specific measures based on the site, its intended use, and its fire environment.

This document provides analysis of the site’s fire environment and its potential impact on the proposed Project as well as the Project’s potential impact on the existing fire protection services provided by EFD. This document will be incorporated as a technical appendix of the Safari Highlands Ranch development Environmental Impact Report. Requirements and recommendations herein are based on site-specific fire environment and proposed project characteristics, and incorporate input from EFD’s Prevention Bureau, area fire planning documents, site risk analysis, and standard principles of fire protection planning.

As described in this FPP, the project will meet or exceed all applicable Code requirements. There are up to 14 lots (worst case) where a single story structure would be required or, with application of alternative forms of protection, may build two story structures and meet the intent of the EFD’s top of slope structure setback requirements. The recommendations and conditions provided herein are also consistent with the lessons learned from After Fire Action Reports from numerous fires occurring over the last 20 years, including the 2003, 2007 and 2010 San Diego County Fires.

As determined during the analysis of this site and its fire environment, the Proposed Project site, in its current condition, is considered to include characteristics that, under favorable conditions, have the potential to facilitate fire spread. Under extreme conditions, wildfires from the northeast and east could burn towards the site and result in significant ember production. Once the project is built, the on-site fire potential will be lower than its current condition due to conversion of wildland fuels to managed landscapes, improved accessibility to fire personnel, and structures built to the latest ignition resistant codes, though it will result in persons living in a wildland urban interface setting.

The developed portion of this property is proposed for improvements that include construction of 550 single -family residential units, a new fire station, and associated infrastructure and utilities.

The entire site has been designed with fire protection as a key objective. The site improvements Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch
8304
2 July 2017
are designed to facilitate emergency apparatus and personnel access throughout the site.

Driveway and road improvements with fire engine turnarounds provide access to within 150 feet of all sides of every building. Water availability and flow will be consistent with EFD requirements including fire flow and hydrant distribution. Fuel modification zones ranging between 150 and 200 feet wide will be provided, exceeding the required 100 feet and providing additional defensible space for all buildings. These features, along with the ignition resistance of all buildings, interior sprinklers, and pre-planning, training and awareness will assist responding firefighters through prevention, protection and suppression capabilities. As described in this FPP, the project will meet or exceed all applicable Code requirements with the exception of structure setbacks at top of slope for 14 lots. These setbacks have been provided mitigations consistent with the intent of the code or will be available for single story residences.

Early evacuation for any type of wildfire emergency at the Proposed Project is the preferred method of providing for resident safety, consistent with the EFD’s current approach for other communities and neighborhoods. As such, Safari Highland Ranch’s Homeowner’s Association (HOA) will formally adopt, practice, and implement a “Ready, Set, Go!” (International Fire Chiefs Association 2013) approach to site evacuation. The “Ready, Set, Go!” concept is widely known and encouraged by the state of California and most fire agencies. Pre-planning for emergencies, including wildfire emergencies, focuses on being prepared, having a well-defined plan, minimizing potential for errors, maintaining the site’s fire protection systems, and implementing a conservative (evacuate as early as possible) approach to evacuation and restricting site activities during periods of fire weather extremes. This FPP includes an emergency evacuation analysis indicating evacuation triggers and contingency plans.

Based on the results of this FPP’s analysis and findings, the following FPP implementation measures will be provided by the Safari Highlands Ranch project as part of the proposed development plan. These measures are discussed in more detail throughout this FPP.

1. Preparation of a Construction Fire Prevention Plan detailing the important construction phase restrictions and fire safety requirements that will be implemented to reduce risk of ignitions and pre-plans for responding to an unlikely ignition.

2. Project buildings will be constructed of ignition resistant construction materials based on the latest Building and Fire Codes.

3. Fuel Modification will be provided throughout the perimeter of the site and will be 150 feet wide in areas where that was analyzed appropriate and 200 feet wide everywhere else. Maintenance will occur as needed and the HOA will annually hire a 3rd party, qualified Fuel Modification Zone inspector to provide annual certification that it meets the requirements of this FPP.

Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch
8304
3 July 2017

4. Access to the site’s open space area is provided via access points that are spaced on average every 650 lineal feet with a maximum of 1,300 feet.

5. Fire apparatus access roads will be provided throughout the community and will vary in width and configuration, but will all provide at least the minimum required unobstructed travel lanes, lengths, turnarounds, parking spaces, and clearances. Primary and secondary access will comply with the requirements of the EFD.

6. Firefighting staging areas/temporary refuge areas are available throughout the facility as well as along roadways and site green spaces.

7. Water capacity and delivery provide for a reliable water source for operations and during emergencies requiring extended fire flow.

8. A site-specific evacuation plan has been prepared for the project with input and coordination with EFD.

9. The Community HOA will include an outreach and educational role to coordinate with EFD, oversee landscape committee enforcement of fire safe landscaping, ensure fire safety measures detailed in this FPP have been implemented, educate residents from the Safari Highlands development and prepare community-wide and individual “Ready, Set, Go!” plans. A qualified company will be retained to help the HOA in this capacity, as necessary.

Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch
8304
4 July 2017

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch
8304
5 July 2017
2 INTRODUCTION
This FPP has been prepared for the Proposed Project. The purpose of the FPP is to evaluate the potential impacts resulting from wildland fire hazards and identify the measures necessary to adequately mitigate those risks to a level consistent with City of Escondido (City) and County of San Diego thresholds. Additionally, this plan generates and memorializes the fire safety requirements of the Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction (FAHJ), which is the Escondido Fire Department (EFD) with support by the San Diego County Fire Authority (SDCFA).

Requirements and recommendations are based on site-specific project characteristics and incorporate input from the project applicant and the FAHJ.

As part of the assessment, this plan has considered the property location, topography, combustible vegetation (fuel types), climatic conditions, and fire history. The plan addresses water supply, access, structural ignitability and fire resistive building features, fire protection systems and equipment, impacts to existing emergency services, defensible space, and vegetation management. We have identified fuel reduction treatments and recommend the types and methods of treatment that will protect the Safari Highlands Ranch residents, and infrastructure.

The plan recommends measures that the newly formed homeowner’s association (Safari Highlands Ranch HOA) will take to reduce the probability of structure ignition throughout the area addressed by the plan.

The following tasks were performed toward completion of this plan:
 Gather site specific climate, terrain, and fuel data;  Process and analyze the data using the latest Geographical Information System technology;  Predict fire behavior using scientifically based fire behavior models, comparisons with actual wildfires in similar terrain and fuels, and experienced judgment;  Analyze and guide design of proposed infrastructure;
 Analyze the existing emergency response capabilities;  Assess the risk associated with the Proposed Project and site;  Collect site photographs and map fuel conditions using 200-scale aerial images. Field observations were utilized to augment existing digital site data in generating the fire behavior models and formulating the recommendations presented in this FPP. Appendix A provides representative photographs of existing site conditions.  Prepare this FPP detailing how fire risk will be mitigated through a system of fuel modification, structural ignition resistance enhancements, fire protection systems, and a conservative evacuation approach.

Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch
8304
6 July 2017

2.1 Proposed Project Summary

2.1.1 Location
The Proposed Project is located along the southeastern boundary of the City of Escondido within an unincorporated portion of the County of San Diego, California and will be annexed by the City. The Project lies within Township 12 South, Range 1 West in Section 16, eastern portion of Section 20, and northern portion of Section 28 and entirety of Section 21 of the Rodriquez Mountain, Escondido, and San Pasqual, California U.S. Geographical Survey 7.5-minute quadrangle maps, respectively. Specifically, the project site encompasses approximately 1,100 acres of vacant land with its most southerly property boundary approximately 1.5 miles north of State Route 78 (San Pasqual Valley Road) and its westerly property boundary 1.0 mile east of Cloverdale Road (Figure 1).To the west and southwest are the nearest urban developed areas of Rancho San Pasqual, Rancho Vistamonte community, and Eagle Crest Golf Course within the boundary of the City of Escondido. To the south is the San Diego Zoo Safari Park within the boundary of the City of San Diego. To the north and east are the communities of Lake Wohlford and Valley Center as well as large landholdings, including Rancho Guejito and the Cleveland National Forest in the unincorporated areas of the County. Additionally, the project site is within the Escondido General Plan Specific Plan Area (SPA) #4, though it is located outside of the City’s Sphere of Influence. The Project proponent proposes an annexation of the entire project into the City of Escondido.

The Proposed Project is located on the following Assessor Parcel Numbers: 240-270-33, 241- 060-03, 242-010-02, 242-010-36, 242-010-37, 242-010-38, and portions of 240-120-12, 240- 250-03, 240-251-05, 240-251-06, 240-251-07, 241-211-02, and 241-293-01.

2.1.2 Project Description
The Safari Highlands Ranch Project proposes development of a master-planned community composed of 550 single-family residences on 1,098-acre portion of SPA #4. The single-family residential dwelling units occur on lots ranging from approximately 8,000 square feet to over 200,000 square feet clustered into seven neighborhoods. Accompanying infrastructure will consist of an internal road circulation system, water, sewer, and storm water drainage systems, and utilities. Seven phases of development are proposed, corresponding to the seven neighborhoods being built. Public facilities and services and phase development would be coordinated so that services are available and ready to serve the residences as the need arises.

Figure 2 depicts the locations of these generalized land uses within the project boundary.

FIGURE 1
Vicinity Map
JULY 2013
Path: Z:\Projects\j830401\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\FPP Figs\FPP Fig 1 Vicinity.mxd 0 1,250 2,500
Feet
Project Site
Salton
Sea
8 215
805
10 5
15 Project Site
SOURCE: USGS 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Maps

Safari Highlands Ranch Fire Protection Plan
Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch
8304
8 July 2017

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
FIGURE 2
Safari Highlands Ranch Site Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch Fire Protection Plan
SOURCE: HUNSAKER 2016
0 750 1,500
Feet
Document Path: Z:\Projects\j830401\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\FPP Figs\FPP Fig 2 Site Plan.mxd Northern
Emergency
Evacuation
Access Road
Zoo Road
Emergency
Evacuation
Access
Safari Highlands Boundary
Open Space Lots
Development
Overlook view Point
FD Trail Access Points
Open Space Trail - Existing
Open Space Trail - Proposed
Multi-Use Street Trail - Meandering
Multi-Use StreetTrail - Street Adjacent
Neighborhood Concrete Sidewalk
Staging
Area
Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch
8304
10 July 2017

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch
8304
11 July 2017

2.1.2.1 Village Core
The Village Core would be located off of Safari Highlands Ranch Road in the southernmost portion of the project site. The Village Core would include a new 2.6-acre, three bay fire station site, public trails traversing the site, a 2-acre private recreation facility with swimming pool and clubhouse, and tennis courts.

2.1.2.2 Development Infrastructure
The circulation system will consist of both public and private roads. Safari Highlands Ranch Road, a new primary access road intersecting at Rockwood Road between Old Ranch Road and Vistamonte Avenue, will be the main arterial road throughout the project. It will be public from its starting point at Rockwood Road up to the gated community entry, and private once it extends past the entry gate. Safari Highland Ranch Road will have two 21-foot traffic lanes including bike lanes, a pedestrian path, and shading trees and landscaping. Interior streets will be two lanes, some of which will allow on-street parking. Two emergency access roads will be provided, one to the northwest and another to the south. The northwestern road will be approximately 2.4 miles long and will connect to Stonebridge Road in the Hidden Hills Trails development and will include two minimum 12 foot wide travel lanes along with turnouts and water sources (please refer to the Project’s Engineering Grading Plans prepared by Hunsaker 2016). The southern road will be approximately one mile long and will connect to the gated, emergency access Zoo Road, which will be upgraded to meet EFD requirements.

Water utilities will include a connection to the City of Escondido water system, pumps to boost water to an on-site water tank, and an internal water distribution system that will use pumps, reducing stations, and gravity feed. A backup power system to the approval of the EFD to help ensure performance if the local grid is de-energized will be provided. Sewer would be conveyed via new and existing pipelines for processing at the City’s primary treatment facility (Hale Avenue Resource Recovery Facility-HARRF). The proposed development also includes on-site sewer lift stations(s) and water storage. The Project will be connecting with the City’s reclaimed water system for irrigation use. Stormwater runoff will be controlled on-site through hydro-modification management practices, including the use of biofilters and the use of both retention and detention basins. The Project may also provide a “wet weather” storage site in the northeast.

Other utilities that are currently available to the site and that will be installed are gas, electrical, cable and phone service.

Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch
8304
12 July 2017

2.1.2.3 Additional On-Site Amenities
In addition to the residential and Village Core sites, there will be recreational pocket parks, trails, a trail head and vista viewpoints present throughout each of the different neighborhoods to compliment the large open space preserve areas.

The project will include an extensive trail system within the 784 acre reserve as well as “linear parks”, along roads and multiuse trails through the community. Multiuse trails would include existing dirt trails; paved utility access ways; and new soft-surface trails. The project will include access points to trail systems to facilitate emergency response. Trails will be managed and maintained by the HOA.

The project will preserve approximately 784 acres of land or 69.6% of the site as resource open space preserve. This largely contiguous block of land is located on west-facing slopes of the site, the major drainages, and most of the site’s sensitive habitats (Althouse and Meade 2016). The preserve would be managed and maintained in accordance with a Resource Management Plan to be prepared for the Project.

Common open space includes approximately 223 acres of irrigated and non-irrigated fuel modification areas. This includes manufactured slopes and non-graded areas such as fuel reduction zones and natural parks.

2.1.2.4 Off-Site Improvements
The proposed project will also undertake off-site improvements that consist of the following:

1. Reconstruction and improvements to Rockwood Road’s intersection with the proposed Safari Highlands Ranch Road;

2. Improvements along Rockwood Road between Cloverdale Road and San Pasqual Union School to enhance the school’s student pick-up and drop off locations;

3. Intersection of Rockwood Road/Cloverdale Road. Install traffic signal and restripe westbound approach to provide one left-turn and one shared left-turn lane. Restripe southbound Cloverdale Road to provide an additional receiving lane from Rockwood Road left turning movements;

4. Restripe Rockwood Road between Cloverdale and San Pasqual Union School to provide additional westbound lane;

5. Intersection of San Pasqual Valley Road (SR 78)/Citrus Avenue. Install new signal and restripe southbound approach to provide one left hand and one right hand turn lane; Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch
8304
13 July 2017

6. Intersection of San Pasqual Valley Road (SR 78)/Cloverdale Road San Pasqual Road.

Widen eastbound approach of San Pasqual Valley road to provide dual left-turn lanes.

Widen northbound section of Cloverdale Road north of the intersection to provide approximate 650 foot long plus a 150-foot transition lane;

7. Segment of Felicita Road/17th Avenue from Escondido Boulevard to San Pasqual Valley Road (SR 78). Stripe a new eastbound turn pocket at Lendee Drive and extend the twoway left turn lane eastward to the City of Escondido/San Diego County boundary;

8. Two gated emergency access roads: a 2.4 mile road to the northwest connecting to Stonebridge Road in the Hidden Hills Trails development and a one mile road to the south connecting to Zoo Road;

9. Gas, electric, cable, and phone system connections at Rockwood Road to existing infrastructure operated by San Diego Gas and Electric, Times Warner Cable, and AT&T;

10. Improvements to the Eagle Crest Golf Course including replacing the existing temporary clubhouse with a new 4,000 square foot permanent clubhouse with restaurant, reconstruction of hole #14, extension of Safari Highlands Ranch Road and miscellaneous other golf course improvements (all by separate permit).

2.2 Applicable Codes/Existing Regulations
This FPP demonstrates that the Proposed Project will be in compliance with the City of Escondido (City) 2016 Fire Code, City Ordinance 2016.116.1-4, 2016 Consolidated Fire Code, and California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Natural Resources (2016 Cal Fire- SRA Fire Safe Regulations). The project will also be consistent with the 2016 California Building Code (CBC), Chapter 7A, 2016 California Fire Code (CFC), Chapter 49, as adopted by the City. Chapter 7A of the California Building Code focuses primarily on preventing ember penetration into structures, a leading cause of structure loss from wildfires. Thus, it is an important component of the requirements of this FPP given the Project’s wildland urban interface (WUI) location, which is within an area statutorily designated by CAL FIRE (2015) as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). Fire hazard designations are based on topography, vegetation, and weather, amongst other factors with more hazardous sites including steep terrain, unmaintained fuels/vegetation, and WUI locations.

Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch
8304
14 July 2017

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch
8304
15 July 2017
3 PROPOSED PROJECT SITE RISK ANALYSIS

3.1 Field Assessment
Following extensive review of available digital site information, including topography, vegetation types, fire history, and the Proposed Project’s site plan, Dudek fire protection planners conducted field assessments of the Proposed Project during April 2014 and again in March 2016, in order to confirm digital data and fill any identified data gaps. Among the field tasks that were completed are:
 Vegetation estimates and mapping refinements
 Fuel load analysis
 Topographic features documentation
 Photograph documentation
 Confirmation/verification of hazard assumptions
 Ingress/egress documentation.

Site photographs (See Appendix A, Representative Photographs) were collected and fuel conditions were mapped using 200-scale aerial images. Field observations were utilized to augment existing site data in generating the fire behavior models and formulating the requirements provided in this FPP.

3.2 Site Characteristics and Fire Environment
The following sections discuss the characteristics within and surrounding the Proposed Project site. The intent of evaluating site conditions is to provide a better understanding of the fire environment, which is not constrained by property boundary delineations.

3.2.1 Topography
The Safari Highlands Ranch project area is part of the inland foothills and valleys of northern San Diego County. Topography is varied and generally includes a series of east-west trending ridgelines with intervening drainages. A portion of the project includes rolling hills, while the majority includes rock outcrops, and steep, rugged terrain that is dissected by drainage courses that drain primarily to the west/southwest (See Figure 1). Elevations at the northern reaches of the property approach 1,820 feet above mean sea level (ASML) while at the southwestern end, adjacent to existing Rancho San Pasqual community, elevations are approximately 420 feet amsl.

Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch
8304
16 July 2017

3.2.2 Existing Land Use
The project area is largely undisturbed and the dominant vegetation types are Southern Mixed Chaparral and Diegan coastal sage scrub. A number of dirt roads and trails crisscross the project site. Over the years, portions of the property have been used for various unauthorized land uses, including horseback riding, hiking, mountain biking, off-roading, motorcycling, and occasional dumping. Accessible areas on the property have now been fenced to inhibit unauthorized use.

3.2.3 Vegetation
The Safari Highlands Ranch property supports a variety of vegetation types that are common in north-inland San Diego County. Fire history data indicates that the site’s vegetation last burned in 2007. Therefore, the vegetation throughout the property is still in early stages of recovery toward a climax species composition. This has resulted in a change in the density and structure of plant species as well as the local fire behavior. A total of 13 vegetation and land cover types were delineated on the project site and proposed off-site improvement areas (Althouse and Meade 2016). The vegetation and land cover mapping included three non-native communities (Agriculture intensive, disturbed areas, and non-native grasslands) and one non-fuel type (developed areas). These vegetation and land cover types were verified by Dudek fire protection planners and assigned a fuel model (which was based on climax condition, not current) for use during site fire behavior modeling. The vegetation and land cover types and their coverage totals as well as corresponding fuel models are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1
Vegetation and Land Cover Types
on Safari Highlands Ranch Project Site and Off-Site Facilities Vegetation/Land Cover
Type1
Project Site
Acreage
100-ft Buffer
Acreage
Off-site Facilities
Acreage Total Acreage
Percent
Coverage
Non-Native Communities and Land Covers
Agriculture Intensive 0.0 0.0 2.32 2.32 0.2%
Developed 0.99 2.82 5.67 9.48 0.8%
Disturbed Habitat 11.26 0.13 7.97 19.37 1.6%
Non-native Grassland 6.36 0.0 0.0 6.36 0.5%
Upland Scrub and Chaparral
Cactus Scrub 0.63 0.0 0.0 0.63 0.0 (<1.0%)
Deer Weed Scrub 73.66 0.0 0.0 73.66 6.0%
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 479.65 47.93 12.11 539.69 44.2% Southern Mixed Chaparral 476.37 36.07 3.47 515.90 42.3% Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch
8304
17 July 2017
Table 1
Vegetation and Land Cover Types
on Safari Highlands Ranch Project Site and Off-Site Facilities Vegetation/Land Cover
Type1
Project Site
Acreage
100-ft Buffer
Acreage
Off-site Facilities
Acreage Total Acreage
Percent
Coverage
Woodland
Oak Woodland 5.01 0.27 0.0 5.28 0.4%
Riparian
Mulefat Scrub 1.89 0.67 0.22 2.78 0.2%
Oak Riparian Woodland 19.85 1.09 0.25 21.20 1.7%
Other Notable Habitats
Western Ragweed Meadow 2.79 0.18 0.0 2.97 0.3%
Rock Outcropping/Bushy
Spikemoss Mats

20.44 0.75 0.05 21.24 1.7%
Total 1,098.91 89.91 32.05 1,220.88 100.0%
1 Biological Surveys for the Safari Highlands Ranch Project completed by Althouse and Meade 2016 As presented, the majority of the vegetation on the Project site is associated with the Diegan coastal sage scrub (44.2%) and Southern mixed chaparral (42.3%), while the remainder of the vegetation cover types individually amount to 1% or less of the total project site, except deer weed scrub (6.0%), disturbed habitat (1.6%), oak riparian woodland (1.7%), and rock outcropping/bushy spikemoss mats (1.7%). The project’s vegetation and land coverage is illustrated in Figures 3a and 3b and briefly described below.

Changes to site vegetation types will be associated with grading for development pads and roads and installation of fuel modification areas in strategic locations at the perimeter of the developed project area. Site-adjacent vegetation (off-site and adjacent the fuel modification zones) is important relative to wildfire as some vegetation, such as brush and grassland habitats are highly flammable while other vegetation, such as riparian communities or forest understory, are less flammable due to their higher plant moisture content, compact structure, and available shading from overstory tree canopies. The effect vegetation has on fire behavior is substantial and understanding vegetation dynamics is important for developing an effective fuel modification plan.

3.2.3.1 Site Vegetation and Land Cover Type Descriptions The following descriptions are adapted from the site’s Biological Technical Report (Althouse and Meade 2016).

Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch
8304
18 July 2017
Non-Native Communities and Land Covers
Agriculture Intensive. Agriculture lands supporting active or historical agricultural operation occur at the southwest corner of the property.

Developed. Developed areas support no native vegetation and may be additionally characterized by the presence of man-made structures, such as buildings or roads. The level of soil disturbance is such that only the most ruderal plant species occur. Ornamental vegetation would be associated with developed areas. Developed areas were mapped along the southwest border of the property.

Disturbed Habitat. This type of disturbed area is dominated by non-native broad-leaf herbaceous species such as mustards, fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), horseweed (Conyza canadensis), thistles, and a sub-dominant percent cover of non-native grasses are often present. This category consists of permanently disturbed land cover consisting of small areas, including dirt roads and trails throughout the property.

Non-Native Grassland. This habitat is a disturbance-related community found in old fields or openings in the south portion of the property. This association has replaced native grassland and coastal sage scrub at many localities throughout Southern California due to past human activities.

Typical non-native grasses on-site include slender wild oat (Avena fatua), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), foxtail brome (Bromus madritensis), and rip-gut grass (Bromus diandrus).

Characteristic forbs include red-stem filaree (Erodium spp.), mustard (Brassica spp.), and tocalote (Centauria melitensis) and Russian thistle (Salsola tragus).

Upland Scrub and Chaparral
Cactus Scrub. There is one patch of coast prickly pear cactus (Opuntia littoralis) located in southwest portion of the project site.

Deerweed Scrub. Deerweed scrub (Lotus scoparius) is a post fire successional vegetation community that is eventually displaced by sage scrub or chaparral. The project site supports this vegetation type, a remnant from the 2007 fire. The deer weed appeared to be dead and did not show any new foliage during the spring season. Bush mallow (Malocothamnus fasciculatus) is a common subdominant species present.

Service Layer Credits: Copyright: © 2013 National Geographic Society !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000
Feet µ
Project Boundary
! ! MSCP Boundary
Agriculture Intensive
Cactus Scrub
Coast Live Oak Riparian
Coast Live Oak Woodland
Deerweed Scrub
Developed
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
Disturbed
Engelmann Oak Riparian
Engelmann Oak Woodland
Mixed Oak Riparian
Mixed Oak Woodland
Mulefat Scrub
Non-native Grassland
Ragweed Meadow
Rock Outcrop
Southern Mixed Chaparral
1000-ft. Contour
Safari Highlands Ranch Fire Protection Plan
SOURCE: ALTHOUSE AND MEADE, INC. 2016 FIGURE 3A
On-Site Vegetation Map
Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch
8304
20 July 2017

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
FIGURE 3B
Off-Site Vegetation Map
Safari Highlands Ranch Fire Protection Plan
SOURCE: ALTHOUSE AND MEADE, INC. 2016
Service Layer Credits:
µ
0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Feet
0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Feet
µ Emergency Access- Zoo Road Emergency Access- Northern Road Project Boundary
Agriculture Intensive
Developed
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
Disturbed
Oak Riparian
Rock Outcrop
Southern Mixed Chaparral
Project Boundary
Developed
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
Disturbed
Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch
8304
22 July 2017

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch
8304
23 July 2017
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub. Coastal sage scrub is comprised of low, soft-woody subshrubs to about 3 feet high, many of which are facultative drought-deciduous. This association is typically found on dry sites, such as steep, south-facing slopes or clay-rich soils that are slow to release stored water. Dominant shrubs on-site include California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), flattop buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), white sage (Salvia apiana), and our Lord’s candle (Yucca whipplei). Other, less frequent, constituents of this community include spiny redberry (Rhamnus crocea), deerweed, broom baccharis (Baccharis sarothroides), monkey flower (Mimulus aurantiacus), and yellow bush- penstemon (Keckiella antirrhinoides). Sage scrub is the dominant vegetation in the southern half of the project site.

Southern Mixed Chaparral. Southern mixed chaparral tends to occur on steeper, more mesic northfacing slopes than chamise chaparral. This vegetation community type is characterized by relatively high species diversity. Typical species on-site include chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), mountain mahogany (Cerocarpas minutiflora), hoary-leaf ceanothus (Ceanothus crassifolius), chaparral whitehorn (Ceanothus leucodermis), scrub oak (Quercus berberidifolia), Ramona lilac (Ceanothus tomentosus). The understory component is generally better-developed in this association than in chamise chaparral. This is the dominant vegetation in the northern half of the project site.

Woodland
Oak Woodland. Oak woodlands located away from the drainage channels on-site are classified as an upland habitat. The majority of the oaks in this category are coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia), but Englemann oaks (Quercus englemannii) also are present on-site, but often in sparser densities to be mapped as oak woodland. They were mapped as individual trees located within the sage scrub and chaparral matrix.

Riparian
Mulefat Scrub. Mulefat scrub is a riparian scrub dominated by mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia). Mulefat-dominated scrub occurs along intermittent streams with a fairly coarse substrate and moderately deep water table. Understory vegetation is usually composed of nonnative, weedy species or is lacking altogether, as is the case in the stand of mulefat in the southwest corner of the site.

Oak Riparian Woodland. On the Safari Highlands Ranch site oak riparian woodland is limited to mostly coast live oak trees clustered along the ephemeral drainages. The larger oak grove in the southern portion of the site supports sub-dominant cover of California sycamore (Platanus californicus), black willow (Salix gooddingi), arroyo willow (S. lasiolepis), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), and a sparse understory of poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), Douglas mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana), and western ragweed.

Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch
8304
24 July 2017
Other Notable Habitats
Western Ragweed Meadow. Western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya) is the co-dominant herbaceous species in the meadow habitat occurring in shallow drainage swales on the project site. Blue-eyed-grass (Sisyrhinchium bellum), redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium), Mexican rush (Juncus mexicanus), and deer grass (Muhlenbergia rigens), are either co-dominant or subdominant species with ragweed in these meadows.

Rock Outcropping/Bushy Spikemoss Mats. Throughout the site there are rock outcroppings some of which support extensive mats of brushy spikemoss (Selaginella biglovii).

3.2.4 Vegetation Dynamics
The vegetation characteristics described above and presented in Table 1 are used to model fire behavior, discussed in Section 5.2 of this FPP. Variations in vegetative cover type and species composition have a direct effect on fire behavior. Some plant communities and their associated plant species have increased flammability based on plant physiology (resin content), biological function (flowering, retention of dead plant material), physical structure (bark thickness, leaf size, branching patterns), and overall fuel loading. For example, the native shrub species that compose the chaparral communities on site are considered to be less likely to ignite, but would exhibit higher potential hazard (higher intensity heat and flame length) than grass dominated plant communities (fast moving, but lower intensity) if ignition occurred. The corresponding fuel models for each of these vegetation types are designed to capture these differences. Additionally, vegetative cover influences fire suppression efforts through its effect on fire behavior. For example, while fires burning in grasslands may exhibit lower flame lengths and heat outputs than those burning in native shrub habitats, fire spread rates in grasslands are often more rapid.

As described, vegetation plays a significant role in fire behavior, and is an important component to the fire behavior models discussed in this report. A critical factor to consider is the dynamic nature of vegetation communities. Fire presence and absence at varying cycles or regimes disrupts plant succession, setting plant communities to an earlier state where less fuel is present for a period of time as the plant community begins its succession again. In summary, high frequency fires tend to convert shrublands to grasslands or maintain grasslands, while fire exclusion tends to convert grasslands to shrublands, over time. In general, biomass and associated fuel loading will increase over time, assuming that disturbance (fire, grazing) or fuel reduction efforts are not diligently implemented. It is possible to alter successional pathways for varying plant communities through manual alteration. This concept is a key component in the overall establishment and maintenance of the proposed fuel modification zones on site. The fuel modification zones on this site will consist of irrigated and maintained landscapes as well as thinned native fuel zones that will be subject to regular “disturbance” in the form of Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch
8304
25 July 2017
maintenance and will not be allowed to accumulate excessive biomass over time, which results in reduced fire ignition, spread rates, and intensity.

Conditions adjacent the project’s footprint (outside the fuel modification zones), where the wildfire threat will exist post-development, are classified as medium to heavy fuel loads due to the dominance of chaparral fuels on the hillsides surrounding the site.

3.2.5 Climate
North San Diego County and the project area are influenced by the Pacific Ocean and are frequently under the influence of a seasonal, migratory subtropical high pressure cell known as the “Pacific High” (WRCC 2014a). Wet winters and dry summers with mild seasonal changes characterize the Southern California climate. This climate pattern is occasionally interrupted by extreme periods of hot weather, winter storms, or dry, easterly Santa Ana winds (WRCC 2014a). The average high temperature for the project area is approximately 70°F, with average highs in the summer and early fall months (July–October) reaching 95°F. Precipitation typically occurs between December through April with annual rainfall ranging from 3.5 to 13.3 inches (CY 2012 to 2014) with lower annual accumulation (3.5 to 5.2 inches) in 2015 due to the current drought (WRCC 2014b, DWR 2016). The prevailing wind pattern is from the west (on-shore), but the presence of the Pacific Ocean causes a diurnal wind pattern known as the land/sea breeze system. During the day, winds are from the west– southwest (sea) and at night winds are from the northeast (land), averaging 2 miles per hour (mph).

During the summer season, the diurnal winds may average slightly higher (approximately 16 mph) than the winds during the winter season due to greater pressure gradient forces. Surface winds can also be influenced locally by topography and slope variations. The highest wind velocities are associated with downslope, canyon, and Santa Ana winds.

The project area’s climate has a large influence on the fire risk as drying vegetation during the summer months becomes fuel available to advancing flames should an ignition be realized.

Typically the highest fire danger is produced by the high-pressure systems that occur in the Great Basin, which result in the Santa Ana winds of Southern California. Sustained wind speeds recorded during recent major fires in San Diego County exceeded 30 mph and may exceed 50 mph during extreme conditions. The Santa Ana wind conditions are a reversal of the prevailing southwesterly winds that usually occur on a region-wide basis during late summer and early fall.

Santa Ana winds are warm and dry winds that flow from the higher desert elevations in the north through the mountain passes and canyons. As they converge through the canyons, their velocities increase. Consequently, peak velocities are highest at the mouths of canyons and dissipate as they spread across valley floors. Santa Ana winds generally coincide with the regional drought period and the period of highest fire danger. The Proposed Project site is affected by Santa Ana winds from the north and east of the site. The slopes are generally in alignment with the extreme Santa Ana wind events, which can influence fire spread by creating upslope wind-driven fires.

Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch
8304
26 July 2017

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch
8304
27 July 2017
4 DETERMINATION OF PROJECT EFFECTS
FPPs provide an evaluation of the adverse environmental effects a proposed project may have from wildland fire. The FPP must provide mitigation for identified impacts to ensure that development projects do not unnecessarily expose people or structures to a significant loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Significance is determined by answering the following guidelines:

Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
The wildland fire risk in the vicinity of the Project site has been analyzed and it has been determined that wildfires may occur in wildland areas adjacent the Project site as well as potentially in any preserved on-site fuels, but would not be significantly increased in frequency, duration, or size with the construction of the Project. In fact, the existing site, pre-development, includes numerous potential fire issues including unmaintained vegetation. The Project would include conversion of fuels to maintained urban development with designated landscaping and fuel modification areas. As such, a condensed portion of the site will be largely converted from readily ignited fuels to ignition resistant structures and landscape, including up to 200 feet wide fuel modification zones on the perimeter of the Project.

The types of potential ignition sources that currently exist in the area include vehicle and roadway, electrical transmission line, and machinery associated with agricultural operations and off-site residential neighborhoods. The project would introduce potential ignition sources, but would also include conversion of ignitable fuels to lower flammability landscape and include better access throughout the site, managed and maintained landscapes, higher local presence for fire detection and reporting, and generally a reduction in the receptiveness of the area’s landscape to ignition. Fires from off site would not have continuous fuels across this site and would, therefore, be expected to burn around and/or over the site via spotting, with an overall effect of slowing fire spread across the property. Burning vegetation embers may land on Project structures, but are not likely to result in ignition based on ember decay rates and the types of noncombustible and ignition resistant materials that will be used on site.

The Project would comply with applicable fire and building codes and would include a layered fire protection system designed to current codes and inclusive of site-specific measures that will result in a Project that is less susceptible to wildfire than surrounding landscapes and that would facilitate fire fighter and medical aid response.

Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch
8304
28 July 2017
Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? The Project includes fire access throughout each neighborhood and is consistent with the EFD and San Diego County General Plan in terms of meeting a 5 minute response travel time from the on-site fire station. Fire apparatus access throughout the development will include roads that meet the code requirements for width, grade, clearance, turnouts, dead-end length and turnarounds.

Fire access on the Project site will be improved from its current condition, which provides only limited access on rugged dirt/gravel roads. Therefore, the Project’s access is considered consistent with code requirements.

Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection? The Project is projected to add a conservatively estimated 172 calls per year to the EFD’s existing call load. The actual number of calls will likely be lower based on several factors, but is assessed using the EFD’s per capita volume. Due to the project’s location, a new fire station will be needed at the site in order to meet response time goals. The primary response (first in) would be provided by the on-site Fire Station. The fire station will improve emergency response for fire and medical emergencies in the area, benefitting existing residents. The applicant is currently discussing options for funding the fire station, including the possibility of a partnership with the City of San Diego, CalFire, and other creative ways in order to avoid burdening the City of Escondido.

Additional resources would be available from EFD Stations 2 and 4, which are not considered busy fire stations, having 1,034 and 2,676 engine company calls during 2015, or roughly 2.8 and

7.3 calls per day, respectively. The addition of 172 calls/year (0.5 calls/day) to both stations is considered substantial, but the capacity for stations 2 or 4 to respond to the additional calls is available, as analyzed in Section 6.3 of this FPP. The anticipated 3.3 or 7.8 calls per day will be below what would be considered a busy station. For perspective, urban fire stations that respond to five calls per day are considered average and 10 calls per day would be considered a busy station while a suburban/rural station that responds to roughly 6 calls per day can be considered busy (Hunt 2013). For comparison, Vista Fire Protection District and San Marcos Fire Department both respond to an average of 5 calls per day per station1.

1 Dudek 2014. Analysis of Deer Springs Fire Protection District neighboring fire agency call volumes.

Average call volumes are calculated by dividing the total number of annual calls by the number of fire stations serving those calls
Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch
8304
29 July 2017
The project will provide a two acre fire station site and build a fire station meeting the EFD’s and cooperating fire agency specifications. A conceptual fire station plan is provided in Figure

5. Ongoing operations and maintenance costs will be based on a fair-share formula into which the Safari Highlands Ranch project will pay via property tax allotments. A portion of the project’s parcel tax revenue and ongoing annual assessments will be allocated to fire protection, which can be used to improve upon current levels of fire and medical response in the area, which will have positive impacts for the area’s existing residents. The final funding amount will be determined by the applicant and EFD and included in a Fire Service Agreement to be completed prior to map recordation.

Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? The project will include a connection to the City of Escondido’s water system and sufficient water supplies will be available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, including a new water storage tank to be built on the site. The Water Division requires new development within VHFHSZ area to meet 2,500 gpm fire flow. The pressures in the development will remain above 20 psi for a minimum 2 hour duration when meeting the fire requirements for the water service area.

The measures described in the responses to these significance questions are provided more detail in the following sections.

Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch
8304
30 July 2017

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch
8304
31 July 2017
5 ANTICIPATED FIRE BEHAVIOR

5.1 Fire History
Fire history is an important component of an FPP. Fire history information can provide an understanding of fire frequency, fire type, most vulnerable project areas, and significant ignition sources, amongst others. Appendix B – the Safari Highlands Ranch Vicinity Fire History exhibit, presents a graphical view of the project area’s recorded fire history. As presented in the exhibit, there have been several fires recorded since 1910 by CAL FIRE in their FRAP database (FRAP 2015)
2 in the direct vicinity of the project site. These fires, occurring in 1910, 1911, 1912, 1913, 1914, 1919, 1927, 1938, 1943, 1945, 1946, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1955, 1956, 1962, 1965, 1967, 1970, 1972, 1974, 1975, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, 2003, 2004, 2007, and 2013 burned within 5 miles of the project site. The site was burned completely in the 1910s, 1950s, 1993 (Guejito Fire), and 2007 (Witch Fire) and was partially burned in the 1930s. This information excludes fires less than 10 acres. There have been multiple fires throughout North San Diego County inland less than 10 acres. Rapid and overwhelming response to these fires has resulted in their containment before they could grow to the size that would include them in CAL FIRE’s database.

As indicated, the Safari Highlands Ranch project’s on-site landscape and some natural areas to the east and west of the Proposed Project site last burned approximately nine years ago. These natural landscapes, as with much of the open space in the region, in their present state, represent a potential threat to the many existing homes scattered along Cloverdale Road, the San Diego Zoo Safari Park to the south, and the small avocado ranches and semi-rural homes along the northern and northwestern side of the Proposed Project and beyond, which are all at risk from a Santa Ana wind driven wildfire. Note that once the proposed Safari Highlands Ranch development is built out, the fire spread patterns will be modified in this region, as the development will represent a large fuel break of maintained and irrigated landscapes, which fire may encroach upon and burn around, but will not burn through the Project area with current spread patterns, rates, or intensities. The Proposed Project will convert a relatively undisturbed native landscape to a managed and maintained, ignition resistant, site-wide landscape.

2 Based on polygon GIS data from CAL FIRE’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP), which includes data from CAL FIRE, USDA Forest Service Region 5, BLM, NPS, Contract Counties and other agencies. The data set is a comprehensive fire perimeter GIS layer for public and private lands throughout the state and covers fires 10 acres and greater between 1878–2014.

Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch
8304
32 July 2017

5.2 Fire Behavior Modeling
Three fire behavior modeling efforts were conducted in support of this FPP, as described below:
 BehavePlus: Following site evaluation and vegetative fuels data collection efforts, fire behavior modeling was conducted using BehavePlus software to document the type and intensity of fire that would be expected given characteristic site features including topography, vegetation, and weather. BehavePlus provides a tabular output and was utilized to evaluate anticipated fire behavior at seven locations (scenarios) located on or adjacent to the project site.
 FlamMap: FlamMap utilizes the same fire spread equations built into the BehavePlus software package, but allows for a geographical presentation of fire behavior outputs as it applies the calculations to each pixel in the associated GIS landscape (Finney 1998).

FlamMap was utilized to evaluate potential fire behavior on and within ½ mile of the project site and to evaluate potential fire spread in the project region in order to inform the relocation/evacuation recommendations included in this FPP.  FARSITE: The FARSITE software package is a more robust analysis tool than FlamMap, allowing for an analysis of fire spread over time, rather than a static representation of wildfire characteristics. The software simulates the growth of a fire front by using wave propagation principles over a heterogeneous surface and was utilized to account for dead fuel moisture conditioning, a feature not available in the FlamMap analysis conducted for the project. As with FlamMap, FARSITE was utilized to evaluate potential fire spread in the project region in order to inform the relocation/evacuation recommendations included in this FPP.

5.2.1 Modeling Background
Fire behavior modeling has been used by researchers for approximately 50 years to predict how a fire will move through a given landscape (Linn 2003). The models have had varied complexities and applications throughout the years. One model has become the most widely used for predicting fire behavior on a given landscape. That model, known as “BEHAVE”, was developed by the U. S. Government (USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station) and has been in use since 1984. Since that time, it has undergone continued research, improvements, and refinement. The current version, BehavePlus, 5.0.5, includes the latest updates incorporating years of research and testing. Numerous studies have been completed testing the validity of the fire behavior models’ ability to predict fire behavior given site specific inputs. One of the most successful ways the model has been improved has been through post-wildfire modeling (Brown 1972, Lawson 1972, Sneeuwjagt and Frandsen 1977, Andrews 1980, Brown 1982, Rothermel Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch
8304
33 July 2017
and Rinehart 1983, Bushey 1985, McAlpine and Xanthopoulos 1989, Grabner, et. al. 1994, Marsden-Smedley and Catchpole 1995, Grabner 1996, Alexander 1998, Grabner et al. 2001, Arca et al. 2005). In this type of study, Behave is used to model fire behavior based on pre-fire conditions in an area that recently burned. Real-world fire behavior, documented during the wildfire, can then be compared to the prediction results of BehavePlus and refinements to the fuel models incorporated, retested, and so on.

Fire behavior modeling includes a high level of analysis and information detail to arrive at reasonably accurate representations of how wildfire would move through available fuels on a given site. Fire behavior calculations are based on site specific fuel characteristics supported by fire science research that analyzes heat transfer related to specific fire behavior. Predicting wildland fire behavior is not an exact science. As such, the minute-by-minute movement of a fire will probably never be predictable, especially when considering the variable state of weather and the fact that weather conditions are typically estimated from forecasts made many hours before a fire. Nevertheless, field-tested and experienced judgment in assessing the fire environment, coupled with a systematic method of calculating fire behavior yields surprisingly accurate results.

To be used effectively, the basic assumptions and limitations of fire behavior modeling applications must be understood.

1. First, it must be realized that the fire model describes fire behavior only in the flaming front. The primary driving force in the predictive calculations is the dead fuels less than

0.25 inches in diameter. These are the fine fuels that carry fire. Fuels greater than 1 inch have little effect, while fuels greater than 3 inches have no effect on fire behavior.

2. Second, the model bases calculations and descriptions on a wildfire spreading through surface fuels that are within 6 feet of the ground and contiguous to the ground. Surface fuels are often classified as grass, brush, litter, or slash.

3. Third, the software assumes that weather and topography are uniform. However, because wildfires almost always burn under non-uniform conditions, creating their own weather, length of projection period and choice of fuel model must be carefully considered to obtain useful predictions.

4. Fourth, fire behavior computer modeling systems are not intended for determining sufficient fuel modification zone/defensible space widths. However, it does provide the average length of the flames, which is a key element for determining defensible space distances for minimizing structure ignition.

Although BehavePlus has limitations, it can still provide valuable fire behavior predictions, which can be used as a tool in the decision-making process. In order to make reliable estimates of Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch
8304
34 July 2017
fire behavior, one must understand the relationship of fuels to the fire environment and be able to recognize the variations in these fuels. Natural fuels are made up of the various components of vegetation, both live and dead, that occur in a particular landscape. The type and quantity will depend upon soil, climate, geographic features, and fire history. The major fuel groups of grass, shrub, trees, and slash are defined by their constituent types and quantities of litter and duff layers, dead woody material, grasses and forbs, shrubs, regeneration, and trees. Fire behavior can be predicted largely by analyzing the characteristics of these fuels. Fire behavior is affected by seven principal fuel characteristics: fuel loading, size and shape, compactness, horizontal continuity, vertical arrangement, moisture content, and chemical properties.

5.2.2 Modeling Inputs

5.2.2.1 Fuels
The seven fuel characteristics help define the 13 standard fire behavior fuel models (Anderson 1982) and the more recent custom fuel models developed for Southern California (Weise and Regelbrugge 1997). According to the model classifications, fuel models used for fire behavior modeling (BehavePlus, FlamMap, FARSITE) have been classified into four groups, based upon fuel loading (tons/acre), fuel height, and surface-to-volume ratio. Observation of the fuels in the field (on site) determines which fuel models should be applied in modeling efforts. The following describes the distribution of fuel models among general vegetation types for the standard 13 fuel models and the custom Southern California fuel models:
 Grasses Fuel Models 1 through 3
 Brush Fuel Models 4 through 7, SCAL 14 through 18
 Timber Fuel Models 8 through 10
 Logging slash Fuel Models 11 through 13.

In addition, the aforementioned fuel characteristics were utilized in the recent development of 40 new fire behavior fuel models (Scott and Burgan 2005) developed for use in the BehavePlus, FlamMap, and FARSITE modeling systems. These new models attempt to improve the accuracy of the 13 standard fuel models outside of severe fire season conditions, and to allow for the simulation of fuel treatment prescriptions. The following describes the distribution of fuel models among general vegetation types for the 40 new fuel models:
 Non-burnable Models NB1, NB2, NB3, NB8, NB9
 Grass Models GR1 through GR9
Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch
8304
35 July 2017
 Grass shrub Models GS1 through GS4
 Shrub Models SH1 through SH9
 Timber understory Models TU1 through TU5
 Timber litter Models TL1 through TL9
 Slash blowdown Models SB1 through SB4.

For the BehavePlus analysis, fuel model assignments were based on observed field conditions.

For the FlamMap and FARSITE analyses, fuel model assignments were derived from the acquired LANDFIRE data set, as described in Section 5.2.4.1.

5.2.2.2 Weather
Weather and wind inputs for fire behavior modeling conducted in support of this FPP utilized the guidelines and standards presented by the County of San Diego, Department of Planning and Land Use (County of San Diego 2010). These guidelines identify acceptable fire weather inputs for fire conditions during summer months and Santa Ana fire weather patterns. The County analyzed and processed 44 years of fire weather data from fire stations and Remote Automated Weather Stations (RAWS) between April 15 to December 31 in order to represent the general limits of the fire season. Data provided by the County’s analysis included temperature, relative humidity, and sustained wind speed and is categorized by weather zone, including Maritime, Coastal, Transitional, Interior, and Desert.

As identified in the County’s guidelines, Dudek utilized the Fine Dead Fuel Moisture (FDFM) tool within BehavePlus (v. 5.0.5) fire behavior modeling software package to determine fuel moisture values to be input into the FlamMap and FARSITE runs discussed in this FPP. The temperature, relative humidity, and wind speed data for the Transitional (SANGIS 2014) weather zone were utilized for this FPP based on the project’s location. Reference fuel moistures were calculated in the FDFM tool and were based on site-specific topographic data inputs. Table 2 summarizes the FDFM inputs and the resulting fine dead fuel moisture values. Table 3 presents the fuel moisture and wind speed inputs for the fire behavior modeling efforts conducted for this FPP.

Table 2
BehavePlus Fine Dead Fuel Moisture Calculation
Variable Summer Weather Peak Weather
Dry Bulb Temperature 90 -109 deg. F 90 -109 deg. F
Relative Humidity 10 - 14 % 5 - 9 %
Reference Fuel Moisture 2 % 1 %
Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch
8304
36 July 2017
Table 2
BehavePlus Fine Dead Fuel Moisture Calculation
Variable Summer Weather Peak Weather
Month Feb Mar Apr Aug Sept Oct Feb Mar Apr Aug Sept Oct Time of Day 12:00 - 13:59 12:00 - 13:59
Elevation Difference Level (within 1,000 ft.) Level (within 1,000 ft.) Slope 30-50% 25-50%
Aspect South/West North/East/Northeast
Fuel Shading Exposed (< 50% shading) Exposed (< 50% shading) Fuel Moisture Correction 1 % 1 %
Fine Dead Fuel Moisture 3 % 2 %
Table 3
Fuel Moisture and Wind Speed Inputs
Variable Summer Weather Peak Weather
1h Moisture 3% 2%
10h Moisture 5% 3%
100h Moisture 7% 5%
Live Herbaceous Moisture 60% 30%
Live Woody Moisture 90% 50%
Sustained 20-foot Wind Speed 19 mph 41 mph

5.2.2.3 Slope
Slope is a measure of angle in degrees from horizontal and can be presented in units of degrees or percent. Slope is important in fire behavior analysis as it affects the exposure of fuel beds.

Additionally, fire burning uphill spreads faster than those burning on flat terrain or downhill as uphill vegetation is pre-heated and dried in advance of the flaming front, resulting in faster ignition rates. For the BehavePlus analysis, slope values were measured from site topographic maps at the locations of each modeling scenario, and ranged in value between 16 and 50%. For the FlamMap and FARSITE analyses, slope values were derived from the acquired LANDFIRE data set, as described in Section 5.2.4.1.

5.2.3 BehavePlus Analysis
Following site evaluation and vegetative fuels data collection efforts, fire behavior modeling was conducted to document the type and intensity of fire that would be expected on this site given Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch
8304
37 July 2017
characteristic site features such as topography, vegetation, and weather. To objectively predict flame lengths, intensities, and spread rates, the BehavePlus 5.0.5 fire behavior modeling system (Andrews, Bevins, and Seli 2004) was used in seven modeling scenarios and incorporated observed fuel types, measured slope gradients, and wind and fuel moisture values derived from County guidelines. Modeling scenario locations were selected to better understand different fire behavior that may be experienced on the site.

The majority of the property is vegetated with southern mixed chaparral interspersed with large rock outcropping and boulder areas. The chaparral on and adjacent to the Project Site is in varying stages of fire recovery following the 2007 Witch Fire. As such, fuel loads are expected to increase over time, with mature chaparral potentially reaching continuous cover of 10-15 foot tall shrubs on dry, rocky, slopes. Based on the location of modeling scenarios, a fuel model SH5 (dry climate shrub with high fuel load representing chaparral fuels) was used for all BehavePlus fire behavior modeling runs.

Utilizing the dominant on-site vegetation, slope values for the site (16% to 50% slope), and the Peak and Summer wind and fuel moisture values derived from County guidelines and the FDFM analysis, fire behavior calculations were conducted. A summary of the scenario inputs and the results of BehavePlus modeling efforts are summarized in Table 4. BehavePlus modeling results and the location of the BehavePlus modeling scenarios are presented in Figure 4.

Table 4
BehavePlus Fire Behavior Modeling Results
Fire
Scenario
Summer Weather
(On-shore, 19 mph Sustained Winds)
Peak Weather
(Off-shore, 41 mph Sustained Winds)
Flame
Length
(ft.)
Fireline
Intensity
(Btu/ft/s)
Rate of
Spread
(mph)
Spotting
Distance
(miles)
Flame
Length
(ft.)
Fireline
Intensity
(Btu/ft/s)
Rate of
Spread
(mph)
Spotting
Distance
(miles)
1 - - - - 49.7 27,655 9.1 2.3
2 - - - - 49.6 27,533 9.1 2.3
3 - - - - 49.6 27,533 9.1 2.3
4 - - - - 49.5 27,455 9.1 2.3
5 24.0 5,699 2.2 0.9 49.7 27,655 9.1 2.3
6 24.2 5,774 2.2 0.8 - - - _
7 - - - - 50.5 28,674 9.5 2.3
Note: Fire Behavior Analysts recorded peak wind gusts up to 50 mph during the Witch Fire. Using Table 3 Peak Weather fine dead fuel moisture values and observed wildfire peak gusts for the Project Vicinity, the BehavePlus modeling efforts would result in flame lengths of 56 feet, spread rates of 11.8 mph, and fireline intensities reaching up to 35,899 Btu/ft/s. Viable airborne embers could be carried downwind for 2.9 miles and ignite receptive fuels.

Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch
8304
38 July 2017
As presented in Table 4, wildfire behavior in non-treated chaparral, presented as a Fuel Model SH5, represents the most extreme conditions, varying with different wind speeds. In this case, flame lengths can be expected to reach up to approximately 24 feet with 19 mph sustained wind speeds and 50.5 feet with 41 mph sustained wind speeds. Spread rates range from 2.2 mph to 9.5 mph under summer and peak weather conditions, respectively. Spotting distances, where airborne embers can ignite new fires downwind of the initial fire, range from less than 1.0 mile (Summer weather condition) to 2.3 miles (Peak weather condition).

It should be noted that the results presented in Table 4 depict values based on inputs to the BehavePlus software. The fuels models used in this analysis are dynamic models that were designed by the U.S. Forest Service to more accurately represent southern California chaparral fuel beds. Changes in slope, weather, or pockets of different fuel types are not accounted for in this analysis. Model results should be used as a basis for planning only, as actual fire behavior for a given location will be affected by many factors, including unique weather patterns, small-scale topographic variations, or changing vegetation patterns.

5.2.4 FlamMap and FARSITE Analyses
The FlamMap and FARSITE software packages were used to evaluate regional fire behavior in order to inform the relocation/evacuation recommendations included in this FPP. As noted, FlamMap utilizes the same fire spread equations built into the BehavePlus software package, but allows for a geographical presentation of fire behavior outputs as it applies the calculations to each pixel in the associated GIS landscape (Finney 1998). The FARSITE software package is a more robust analysis tool than FlamMap, allowing for an analysis of fire spread over time, rather than a static representation of wildfire characteristics. The software simulates the growth of a fire front by using wave propagation principles over a heterogeneous surface and was utilized to account for dead fuel moisture conditioning, a feature not available in the FlamMap analysis conducted for the project. FlamMap software was used to model potential fire behavior across the project site, plus the areas within ½ mile of the project site.

The analysis conducted for this FPP utilized FlamMap’s Minimum Travel Time tool and FARSITE fire growth modeling in order to evaluate the amount of time necessary for a fire to reach the project site. The following sections discuss the methods, inputs, and results of the FlamMap and FARSITE analyses.

FIGURE 4
Behave Plus Fire Behavior Modeling
SOURCE: BING 2014
Path: Z:\Projects\j830401\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\FPP Figs\FPP Fig 4 Fire_Behave_Analysis.mxd 0 1,000 2,000
Feet
Scenario Run #6
Scenario Run #7
Fuel Model: sh5
1 hr Fuel Moisture: 3%
10 hr Fuel Moisture: 5%
100 hr Fuel Moisture: 7%
Live Herbaceous Moisture: 60%
Live Woody Moisture: 90%
20-Ft Wind Speed: 19 mph
Slope Steepness: 20-30%
Fuel Model: sh5
1 hr Fuel Moisture: 2%
10 hr Fuel Moisture: 3%
100 hr Fuel Moisture: 5%
Live Herbaceous Moisture: 30%
Live Woody Moisture: 50%
20-Ft Wind Speed: 41 mph
Slope Steepness: 16-50%
Modeling Inputs:

Scenario Run #1
Scenario Run #2
Scenario Run #3
Scenario Run #4
Scenario Run #5
Summer Weather (Onshore Flow)
Fire Scenarios: 5 & 6
Peak Weather
(Offshore/Santa Ana Condition)
Fire Scenarios: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & 7
Safari Highlands Ranch Fire Protection Plan
Maximum Flame Length: 49.7 ft
Fireline Intensity: 27,655 Btu/ft/s
Spread Rate: 9.1 mph
Maximum Flame Length: 49.6 ft
Fireline Intensity: 27,533 Btu/ft/s
Spread Rate: 9.1 mph
Maximum Flame Length: 49.6 ft
Fireline Intensity: 27,533 Btu/ft/s
Spread Rate: 9.1 mph
Maximum Flame Length: 50.5 ft
Fireline Intensity: 28,674 Btu/ft/s Maximum Flame Length: 24.2 ft Spread Rate: 9.5 mph Fireline Intensity: 5,699 Btu/ft/s Spread Rate: 2.2 mph
Maximum Flame Length: 49.7 ft
Fireline Intensity: 27,655 Btu/ft/s
Spread Rate: 9.1 mph
Maximum Flame Length: 49.5 ft
Fireline Intensity: 27,455 Btu/ft/s
Spread Rate: 9.1 mph
Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch
8304
40 July 2017

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch
8304
41 July 2017

5.2.4.1 Modeling Inputs
FlamMap and FARSITE software requires a minimum of five (5) separate input files that represent field conditions in the analysis area, including elevation, slope, aspect, fuel model, and canopy cover. Each of these data files was obtained from the LANDFIRE (Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tools) data distribution site. LANDFIRE is shared program between the wildland fire management programs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and U.S. Department of the Interior and provides landscape-scale, GIS data layers, including those representing elevation, slope, aspect, fuel model, and canopy cover.

The FlamMap and FARSITE analysis area was the same, and encompassed approximately 484,291 acres (757 square miles), ranging from approximately Palomar Mountain in the north, Ramona in the south, San Marcos in the west, and Warner Springs in the east. LANDFIRE data layers were projected to the NAD 83, California State Plane, Zone 6 coordinate system using ArcGIS 10.3.1 and then exported to ASCII format. These files were then utilized in creating a FARSITE Landscape file that served as the base for the FlamMap and FARSITE runs. All LANDFIRE data files had a ground resolution of 30 meters. In addition to the Landscape file, wind and weather data were incorporated into the model inputs.

FlamMap software was utilized to graphically depict potential fire behavior for the project site plus the area within ½ mile of the project site. Peak fall weather conditions (off-shore, Santa Ana conditions) were modeled for the existing conditions in the analysis area. The Minimum Travel Time (MTT) tool in the FlamMap software package is a two-dimensional fire growth model which calculates fire growth based on calculated fire spread rates from an ignition source (point, line, or polygon). The MTT tool uses fire spread rates to find minimum travel paths between data cells in the GIS landscape, with an output data file representing the number of minutes for a wildfire to reach a particular location from the ignition source. As FlamMap provides a static representation of fire behavior, modeling using the MTT tool holds wind and weather inputs constant over the modeling period.

FARSITE is a fire growth simulation modeling system that computes wildfire growth and behavior for long time periods under heterogeneous conditions of terrain, fuels, and weather.

FARSITE was used to model the progression of a potential wildfire originating at a particular ignition source. As FlamMap provides a static representation of fire behavior, modeling using the MTT tool holds wind and weather inputs constant over the modeling period. FARSITE calculates fuel moisture during the simulation in response to changing weather conditions.

Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch
8304
42 July 2017
Four FlamMap runs were completed as described below:

1. One to model potential fire behavior during a Santa Ana wind event (Peak weather condition),

2. One using the MTT tool to represent a fire approaching the project site from the eastnortheast during a Santa Ana wind event (Peak weather condition), and

3. One using the MTT tool to represent a fire approaching the site from the west-southwest during typical on-shore weather patterns (Summer weather condition).

Two FARSITE runs were completed as described below:

1. One to represent a fire approaching the project site from the east-northeast during a Santa Ana wind event (Peak weather condition), and

2. One to represent fires approaching the site from the west-southwest during typical onshore weather patterns (Summer weather condition).

The following paragraphs provide descriptions of the inputs used in processing the FlamMap and FARSITE models. In addition, data sources are cited and any assumptions made during the modeling process are described.

Elevation
The elevation data file represents units of meters above mean sea level (AMSL). Elevations in the FlamMap and FARSITE analysis area range from 62 to 1,870 meters (203 to 6,135 feet) AMSL. Elevation data is a required input file for FlamMap and FARSITE runs and are necessary for adiabatic adjustment of temperature and humidity and for conversion of fire spread between horizontal and slope distances.

Slope
The slope data file represents values in degrees of inclination from horizontal. Slope values in the FlamMap and FARSITE analyses area range from 0–55 degrees. The slope input file is necessary for computing slope effects on fire spread and solar radiance.

Aspect
The aspect data file represents values in azimuth degrees. Aspect values are important in determining the solar exposure of grid cells.

Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch
8304
43 July 2017
Fuel Model
The fuel model data file was based on the 40 Scott and Burgan (2005) models and represents distinct distributions of fuel loading found among surface fuel components (live and dead), size classes, and fuel types. The fuel models included in the FlamMap and FARSITE analyses area are presented in Table 5.

Table 5
Fuel Models in FlamMap and FARSITE Analyses Area
Fuel Model Description Area (acreage)
Coverage
Percentage
NB1 Urban/Developed 40.294 8.3%
NB3 Agricultural 238 0.0%
NB8 Open Water 2.090 0.4%
NB9 Bare Ground 939 0.2%
GR1 Short, Sparse Dry Climate Grass 21.687 4.5%
GR2 Low Load, Dry Climate Grass 174.427 36.0%
GS1 Low Load, Dry Climate Grass-Shrub 39.679 8.2%
GS2 Moderate Load, Dry Climate Grass-Shrub 128.413 26.5% SH1 Low Load Dry Climate Shrub 3 0.0%
SH2 Moderate Load Dry Climate Shrub 8.323 1.7%
SH3 Moderate Load, Humid Climate Shrub 18 0.0%
SH5 High Load, Dry Climate Shrub 15 0.0%
SH6 Low Load, Humid Climate Shrub 5 0.0%
SH7 Very High Load, Dry Climate Shrub 32.819 6.8%
TU1 Low Load Dry Climate Timber-Grass-Shrub 5 0.0%
TU2 Moderate Load Humid Climate Timber-Shrub 4 0.0%
TU5 Very High Load, Dry Climate Timber-Shrub 16.267 3.4% TL1 Low Load Compact Conifer Litter 0 0.0%
TL2 Low Load Broadleaf Litter 2.685 0.6%
TL3 Moderate Load Conifer Litter 8.740 1.8%
TL4 Small Down Logs 335 0.1%
TL5 High Load Conifer Litter 314 0.1%
TL6 Moderate Load Broadleaf Litter 2.379 0.5%
TL7 Large Downed Logs 2.238 0.5%
TL8 Long-Needle Litter 1.292 0.3%
TL9 Very High Load Broadleaf Litter 1.080 0.2%
Total: 484,291 100.0%
Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch
8304
44 July 2017
Canopy Cover
Canopy cover is necessary for computing shading and wind reduction factors for all fuel models.

Canopy cover is measured as the horizontal fraction of the ground that is covered directly overhead by tree canopy. Crown closure refers to the ecological condition of relative tree crown density. Stands can be said to be “closed” to recruitment of canopy trees but still only have 40% or 50% canopy cover. Coverage units for this analysis are in percent cover.

Wind and Fuel Moisture
Wind speed and fuel moisture values for the FlamMap and FARSITE analyses utilized the same values as those used in the BehavePlus runs for Summer and Peak scenarios, as presented in Table 3 and consistent with the standards outlined by the County (County of San Diego 2010).

Wind alignment for the Peak (Santa Ana) analyses was set at 70 degrees. This alignment is consistent with Santa Ana wind alignments in the region, as documented in the spread patterns of the 2003 Cedar Fire and 2007 Witch Fire. Wind alignment for the summer (On-Shore) analyses was set at 250 degrees, opposite of the Santa Ana condition.

Fuel moisture information was incorporated into the Fuel Moisture file used as an input in FARSITE. In addition, temperature and relative humidity information was incorporated into a Weather data file to be used during FARSITE runs. As FARSITE incorporates a temporal component to the fire spread model, a detailed wind input file was necessary to incorporate wind direction, as well as sustained wind speeds over the entire analysis period. For the purposes of the FARSITE analyses, wind directions were aligned as noted above and held constant for the entire analysis period.

Ignition Locations
Ignition locations were selected by scenario, as described below:

1. For the FlamMap model analyzing a potential Santa Ana wind-driven fire approaching the project site from the east-northeast (Peak weather condition), an ignition line was used that ran along Highways 76 and 79 from approximately Sengme Oaks Road along Highway 76 in the northwest to the intersection of Highways 78 and 79 in the southeast.

Ignitions along these road segments were selected to model vehicle-originated fires and a linear ignition source was selected to better determine the time for a fire to reach the project site should an ignition occur within this section of roadway. Utilizing discrete point ignition sources for this scenario in FlamMap is possible; however, it is possible that the modeled fire would miss the project site, as its perimeter would be very linear in nature due to the significant influence of Santa Ana winds.

Fire Protection Plan
Safari Highlands Ranch
8304
45 July 2017

2. For the FARSITE model analyzing a potential Santa Ana wind-driven fire approaching the project site from the east-northeast (Peak weather condition), an ignition point was used, located near the intersection of Highways 76 and 79. As with the FlamMap model, this ignition point was selected to model vehicle-originated fires. For FARSITE, a point ignition source was used, given that FARSITE includes a temporal component.

Specifically, in FARSITE, line ignitions are often really area ignitions as represented at a given instant in time. The ignition point was selected due to its upwind location relative to the project site and modeled Santa Ana winds (70 degrees).

3. For the FlamMap and FARSITE models analyzing a potential fire approaching the site from the west-southwest during typical on-shore weather patterns (Summer weather condition), three ignition points were used, including one at the intersection of Highway 78 and San Pasqual Road, one at the intersection of Cloverdale Road and Cloveridge Road, and one at the end of Wild Oak Lane. These points were selected to model fires originating from adjacent urban environments, which may include vehicles, arson, accident or equipment use, amongst others.

Santee City CouncilSeptember 14, 2022

Santee City Council
September 14, 2022