The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutS28 - Proposed CEQA Guidelines Amendmentft CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. SA August 11, 2009 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Department Fern Nueno 949 - 644 -3227, fnueno @newportbeachca.gov SUBJECT: Proposed California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines amendment related to greenhouse gas emissions ISSUE What comments should the City of Newport Beach send to the California Natural Resources Agency (Resources Agency) regarding the proposed amendment to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA) Guidelines? RECOMMENDATION 1. Review the comments from the Task Force on Green Development; and 2. Authorize the Mayor to send a letter submitting City comments to the California Natural Resources Agency regarding the proposed amendment to the CEQA Guidelines. DISCUSSION Background Senate Bill 97, approved by Governor Schwarzenegger in August 2007, requires the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare, develop, and transmit to the Resources Agency an amendment to CEQA Guidelines related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. SB 97 also requires the Resources Agency to certify and adopt final guidelines by January 1, 2010. The City has an opportunity to comment on the draft amendment to the guidelines (Attachment CC No. 1) at one of two public hearings, or to submit written comments by August 20, 2009, to the Resources Agency. The Resources Agency's Notice of CEQA Guidelines Amendment August 11, 2009 Page 2 Proposed Action (Attachment No. CC 2) includes a description of the proposed changes. Analysis The Task Force on Green Development (Task Force) was directed to monitor OPR's development of CEQA Guidelines for the mitigation of GHG emissions, and recommend City comments. The Task Force prepared the following comments for Council's consideration: • The City should support the revisions of CEQA Guidelines to include the mitigation of GHG emissions. • The City should work toward a regional approach with the region being defined as those areas within the jurisdiction of the Air Quality Management District (AQMD). The AQMD should take the lead in quantifying the region's emissions, setting quantifiable regional goals, and allocating the fair share overall reduction goals of the counties and/or cities. Because different areas contribute different amounts of GHG emissions depending on a variety of factors, such as the amount of industry and open space, a uniform 20 percent cut from each city will not achieve the state's goal. • The AQMD should also provide models that cities and counties can use in establishing their local goals and guidelines. Should the City Council choose to submit comments to the Resources Agency, a draft letter is Attachment CC 3 for consideration. Environmental Review No environmental review is necessary to submit comments because the action does not qualify as a project pursuant to CEQA. Public Notice This agenda item has been noticed according to the Ralph M. Brown Act; 72 hours in advance of the public meeting at which the City Council considers the item. The agenda item was posted at City Hall and on the City's website. Alternatives The City Council may choose to forgo submitting comments to the Resources Agency regarding the proposed amendment to the CEQA Guidelines. Submitted by: David Lepo Planning Direct r CEQA Guidelines Amendment Prepared by: rn Nueno Assistant Planner August 11, 2009 Page 3 Attachment: CC 1 Proposed CEQA Guidelines Amendment CC 2 Notice of Proposed Action by the Resources Agency CC 3 Draft Comment Letter Attachment No. CC 1 Proposed CEQA Guidelines Amendment Sections Amended: 15064, 15064.7, 15065, 15086, 15093, 15125, 15126.2, 15126.4, 15130, 15150, 15183, Appendix F, Appendix G Sections Added: 15064.4,15183.5, 15364.5 Sections Repealed: None Title 14. Natural Resources Division 6. Resources Agency Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act Article 5. Preliminary Review of Projects and Conduct of Initial Study § 15064. Determining the Significance of the Environmental Effects Caused by a Project. (a) Determining whether a project may have a significant effect plays a critical role in the CEQA process. (1) If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before a lead agency, that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the agency shall prepare a draft EIR. (2) When a final EIR identifies one or more significant effects, the lead agency and each responsible agency shall make a finding under Section 15091 for each significant effect and may need to make a statement of overriding considerations under Section 15093 for the project. (b) The determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. An ironclad definition of significant effect is not always possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting. For example, an activity which may not be significant in an urban area ma' be significant in a rural area. (c) In determining whether an effect will be adverse or beneficial, the lead agency shall consider the views held by members of the public in all areas affected as expressed in the whole record before the lead agency. Before requiring the preparation of an EIR, the lead agency must stilt determine whether environmental change itself might be substantial. (d) In evaluating the significance of the environmental effect of a project, the lead agency shall consider direct physical changes in the environment which may be caused by the project and reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment which may be caused by the project. (1) A direct physical change in the environment is a physical change in the environment which is caused by and immediately related to the project. Examples of direct physical changes in the environment are the dust, noise, and traffic of heavy equipment that would result from construction of a sewage treatment plant and possible odors from operation of the plant. (2) An indirect physical change in the environment is a physical change in the environment which is not immediately related to the project, but which is caused indirectly by the project. If a direct physical change in the environment in turn causes another change in the environment, then the other change is an indirect physical change in the environment. For example, the construction of a new sewage treatment plant may facilitate population growth in the service area due to the increase in sewage treatment capacity and may lead to an increase in air pollution. (3) An indirect physical change is to be considered only if that change is a reasonably foreseeable impact which may be caused by the project. A change which is speculative or unlikely to occur is not reasonably foreseeable. (e) Economic and social changes resulting from a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment. Economic or social changes may be used, however, to determine that a physical change shall be regarded as a significant effect on the environment. Where a physical change is caused by economic or social effects of a project, the physical change may be regarded as a significant effect in the same manner as any other physical change resulting from the project. Alternatively, economic and social effects of a physical change may be used to determine that the physical change is a significant effect on the environment. If the physical change causes adverse economic or social effects on people, those adverse effects may be used as a factor in determining whether the physical change is significant. For example, if a project would cause overcrowding of a public facility and the overcrowding causes an adverse effect on people, the overcrowding would be regarded as a significant effect. (f) The decision as to whether a project may have one or more significant effects shall be based on substantial evidence in the record of the lead agency. (1) If the lead agency determines there is substantial evidence in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR (Friends of B Streetv.City of Hayward(1980) 106 Cal. App. 3d 988). Said another way, if a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect (No Oil, Inc.v.City of Los Angeles(1974) 13 Cal. 3d 68). (2) If the lead agency determines there is substantial evidence in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment but the lead agency determines that revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur and there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment then a mitigated negative declaration shall be prepared. (3)1f the lead agency determines there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare a negative declaration (Friends of B Streetv.City of Hayward(1980) 106 Cal. App. 3d 988). (4) The existence of public controversy over the environment effects of a project will not require preparation of an EIR if there is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. (5) Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, or evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence that is not credible, shall not constitute substantial evidence. Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. (6) Evidence of economic and social impacts that do not contribute to or are not caused by physical changes in the environment is not substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. (7) The provisions of sections 15162, 15163, and 15164 apply when the project being analyzed is a change to, or further approval for, a project for which an EIR or negative declaration was previously certified or adopted (e.g. a tentative subdivision, conditional use permit). Under case law, the fair argument standard does not apply to determinations of significance pursuant to sections 15162, 15163, and 15164. (g) After application of the principles set forth above in Section 15064(t), and in marginal cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall be guided by the following principle: If there is disagreement among expert opinion supported by facts over the significance of an effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an EIR. (h)(1) When assessing whether a cumulative effect requires an EIR, the lead agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. An EIR must be prepared if the cumulative impact may be significant and the project's incremental effect, though individually limited, is cumulatively considerable. "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. (2) A lead agency may determine in an initial study that a project's contribution to a significant cumulative impact will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable and thus is not significant. When a project might contribute to a significant cumulative impact, but the contribution will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable through mitigation measures set forth in a mitigated negative declaration, the initial study shall briefly indicate and explain how the contribution has been rendered less than cumulatively considerable. (3) A lead agency may determine that a project's incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program (including, but not limited to, water quality control plan air quality attainment or maintenance plan integrated waste management plan, habitat conservation plan natural community conservation plan plans or regulations for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions) which provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem (e.g. water- quality eentml plan air quality plan, integrated waste fnaftageraent plan', within the geographic area in which the project is located. Such plans or programs must be specified in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources through a public review process to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by the public agency. When relying on a plan or program the lead agency should explain how the particular requirements in the plan or program ensure that the project's incremental contribution to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding that the project complies with the specified plan or mitigation program addressing the cumulative problem, an EIR must be prepared for the project. (4) The mere existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone shall not constitute substantial evidence that the proposed project's incremental effects are cumulatively considerable. Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083, 21083.05, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21003, 21065, 21068, 21080, 21082, 21082.1, 21082.2, 21083, 21083.05, and 21100, Public Resources Code; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68; San Joaquin RaptodWildlife Center v. County of Stanislaus (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 608; Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the University of California(1993) 6 CalAth 1112; and Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency(2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98. Title 14. Natural Resources Division 6. Resources Agency Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act Article 5. Preliminary Review of Projects and Conduct of Initial Study §15064.4. Determining the Significance of Impacts from Greenhouse Gas Emissions (a) The determination of the significance of greenhouse gas emissions calls for a careful iudgment by the lead aaencv consistent with the provisions in section 15064 A lead agency should make a good -faith effort, based on available information, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a proiect. A lead agency shall have discretion to determine, in the context of a particular proiect whether to: (1) Use a model or methodology to quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project, and which model or methodology to use The lead agency has discretion to select the model it considers most appropriate provided it supports its decision with substantial evidence. The lead agency should explain the limitations of the particular model or methodology selected for use; or (2) Rely on a qualitative analysis or performance based standards (_b) A lead agency may consider the following when assessing the significance of impacts from greenhouse gas emissions on the environment (1) The extent to which the proiect may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting (2) Whether the proiect emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines alplies to the proiect. (3) The extent to which the proiect complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Such regulations or requirements must be adopted by the relevant public agency through a public review process and must include specific requirements that reduce or mitigate the proiect's incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the proiect. Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083, 21083.05, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21001, 21002, 21003, 21065, 21068, 21080.21082 21082. 1, 210812 21083 05 21100 Pub. Resources Code: Eureka Citizens for Responsible Govt v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357: Wig v City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322• Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador WaterAQencv (2004) 116 Cal App.4th 1099; Communities for a Better Environment v California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Ca1.App.4th 98; Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Com v. Board of Port Comm (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344; and City of Irvine V. Irvine Citizens Against Overdevelopment (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 868. Title 14. Natural Resources Division 6. Resources Agency Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act Article 5. Preliminary Review of Projects and Conduct of Initial Study § 15064.7. Thresholds of Significance. (a) Each public agency is encouraged to develop and publish thresholds of significance that the agency uses in the determination of the significance of environmental effects. A threshold of significance is 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. (b) Thresholds of significance to be adopted for general use as part of the lead agency's environmental review process must be adopted by ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulation, and developed through a public review process and be supported by substantial evidence. (c) When adopting thresholds of significance, a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies, or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence. Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21000 21082 and 21083, Public Resources Code. Title 14. Natural Resources Division 6. Resources Agency Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act Article 5. Preliminary Review of Projects and Conduct of Initial Study § 15065. Mandatory Findings of Significance. (a) A lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment and thereby require an EIR to be prepared for the project where there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that any of the following conditions may occur: (1) The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species; or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. (2) The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long -term environmental goals. (3) The project has possible environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. (4) The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. (b)(1) Where, prior to the commencement of greliminary up blic review of an environmental document, a project proponent agrees to mitigation measures or project modifications that would avoid any significant effect on the environment specified by subdivision (a) or would mitigate the significant effect to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, a lead agency need not prepare an environmental impact report solely because, without mitigation, the environmental effects at issue would have been significant. (2) Furthermore, where a proposed project has the potential to substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species, the lead agency need not prepare an EIR solely because of such an effect, if: (A) the project proponent is bound to implement mitigation requirements relating to such species and habitat pursuant to an approved habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan; (B) the state or federal agency approved the habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan in reliance on an environmental impact report or environmental impact statement; and (C)l. such requirements avoid any net loss of habitat and net reduction in number of the affected species, or 2. such requirements preserve, restore, or enhance sufficient habitat to mitigate the reduction in habitat and number of the affected species to below a level of significance. (c) Following the decision to prepare an EIR, if a lead agency determines that any of the conditions specified by subdivision (a) will occur, such a determination shall apply to: (1) the identification of effects to be analyzed in depth in the environmental impact report or the functional equivalent thereof, (2) the requirement to make detailed findings on the feasibility of alternatives or mitigation measures to substantially lessen or avoid the significant effects on the environment, (3) when found to be feasible, the making of changes in the project to substantially lessen or avoid the significant effects on the environment, and (4) where necessary, the requirement to adopt a statement of overriding considerations. Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21001(c) and 21083, Public Resources Code; San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Center v. County of Stanislaus (1996) 42 Ca1.App.4th 608; Los Angeles Unified School District v. City of Los Angeles (1997) 58 Cal.AppAth 1019, 1024; and Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98. Title 14. Natural Resources Division 6. Resources Agency Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act Article 7. EIR Process § 15086. Consultation Concerning Draft EIR. (a) The lead agency shall consult with and request comments on the draft EIR from: (1) Responsible agencies, (2) Trustee agencies with resources affected by the project, and (3) Any other state, federal, and local agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the project or which exercise authority over resources which may be affected by the project, including water agencies consulted pursuant to section 15083.5. (4) Any city or county which borders on a city or county within which the project is located. (5) For a project of statewide, regional, or areawide significance, the transportation planning agencies and public agencies which have transportation facilities within their jurisdictions which could be affected by the project. "Transportation facilities" includes: major local arterials and public transit within five miles of the project site, and freeways, highways and rail transit service within 10 miles of the project site. (6) For a state lead agency when the EIR is being prepared for a highway or freeway project, the State California Air Resources Board as to the air pollution impact of the potential vehicular use of the highway or freeway and if a non - attainment area, the local air quality management district for a determination of conformity with the air quality management plan. (7) For a subdivision project located within one mile of a facility of the State Water Resources Development System, the California Department of Water Resources. (b) The lead agency may consult directly with: (1) Any person who has special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved, (2) Any member of the public who has filed a written request for notice with the lead agency or the clerk of the governing body. (3) Any person identified by the applicant whom the applicant believes will be concerned with the environmental effects of the project. (c) A responsible agency or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in the project that are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the responsible agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation. (d) Prior to the close of the public review period, a responsible agency or trustee agency which has identified what that agency considers to be significant environmental effects shall advise the lead agency of those effects. As to those effects relevant to its decision, if any, on the project, the responsible or trustee agency shall either submit to the lead agency complete and detailed performance objectives for mitigation measures addressing those effects or refer the lead agency to appropriate, readily available guidelines or reference documents concerning mitigation measures. if the responsible or trustee agency is not aware of mitigation measures that address identified effects, the responsible or trustee agency shall so state. Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21081.6, 21092.4, 21092.5, 21104 and 21153, Public Resources Code. Title 14. Natural Resources Division 6. Resources Agency Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act Article 7. EIR Process § 15093. Statement of Overriding Considerations. (a) CEQA requires the decision- making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposal project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." (b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. (d) When an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations the agency may consider adverse environmental effects in the context of region -wide or statewide environmental benefits Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21083.05, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21002 and 21081, Public Resources Code; San Francisco Ecology Center v. City and County of San Francisco (1975) 48 Cal. App. 3d 584; City of Carmel -by- the -Sea v. Board of Supervisors (1977) 71 Cal. App. 3d 84; Sierra Club v. Contra Costa County (1992) 10 Cal.AppAth 1212; Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 433; City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of Cal. State Univ (2006) 39 CatAth 341. Title 14. Natural Resources Division 6. Resources Agency Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act Article 9. Contents of Environmental Impact Reports § 15125. Environmental Setting. (a) An EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant. The description of the environmental setting shall be no longer than is necessary to an understanding of the significant effects of the proposed project and its alternatives. (b) When preparing an EIR for a plan for the reuse of a military base, lead agencies should refer to the special application of the principle of baseline conditions for determining significant impacts contained in Section 15229. (c) Knowledge of the regional setting is critical to the assessment of environmental impacts. Special emphasis should be placed on environmental resources that are rare or unique to that region and would be affected by the project. The EIR must demonstrate that the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project were adequately investigated and discussed and it must permit the significant effects of the project to be considered in the full environmental context. (d) The EIR shall discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans, specific plans and regional plans. Such regional plans include, but are not limited to, the applicable air quality attainment or maintenance plan or State Implementation Plan, area - wide waste treatment and water quality control plans, regional transportation plans, regional housing allocation regional blueprint plans greenhouse gas reduction plans, habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plans and regional land use plans for the protection of the coastal zone, Lake Tahoe Basin, San Francisco Bay, and Santa Monica Mountains. (e) Where a proposed project is compared with an adopted plan, the analysis shalt examine the existing physical conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced as well as the potential future conditions discussed in the plan. Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083, 21083.05, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21060.5, 21061 and 21100, Public Resources Code; E.P.I.C. v. County of El Dorado; (1982) 131 Cal. App. 3d 350; San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.AppAth 713; Bloom v. McGurk-(1994) 26 Cal.AppAth 1307. Title 14. Natural Resources Division 6. Resources Agency Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act Article 9. Contents of Environmental Impact Reports § 15126.2. Consideration and Discussion of Significant Environmental Impacts. (a) The Significant Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project. An EIR shall identify and focus on the significant environmental effects of the proposed project. In assessing the impact of a proposed project on the environment, the lead agency should normally limit its examination to changes in the existing physical conditions in the affected area as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or where no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced. Direct and indirect significant effects of the project on the environment shall be clearly identified and described, giving due consideration to both the short- term and long -term effects. The discussion should include relevant specifics of the area, the resources involved, physical changes, alterations to ecological systems, and changes induced in population distribution, population concentration, the human use of the land (including commercial and residential development), health and safety problems caused by the physical changes, and other aspects of the resource base such as water, historical resources, scenic quality, and public services. The EIR shall also analyze any significant environmental effects the project might cause by bringing development and people into the area affected. For example, an EIR on a subdivision astride an active fault line should identify as a significant effect the seismic hazard to future occupants of the subdivision. The subdivision would have the effect of attracting people to the location and exposing them to the hazards found there. (b) Significant Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Avoided if the Proposed Project is Implemented. Describe any significant impacts, including those which can be mitigated but not reduced to a level of insignificance. Where there are impacts that cannot be alleviated without imposing an altemative design, their implications and the reasons why the project is being proposed, notwithstanding their effect, should be described. (c) Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would be Caused by the Proposed Project Should it be Implemented. Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified. (See Public Resources Code section 21100.1 and Title 24 California Code of Reg_ ulations section 15127 for limitations to annlicability of this reauirement.) (d) Growth - Inducing Impact of the Proposed Project. Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth (a major expansion of a waste water treatment plant might, for example, allow for more construction in service areas). Increases in the population may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. Also discuss the characteristic of some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21002, 21003 and 21100, Public Resources Code; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, (1990) 52 Ca1.3d 553; Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California,(1988) 47 Cal.3d 376; Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359; Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112; and Goleta Union School Dist. v. Regents of the Univ. Of Calif (1995) 37 Cal. AppAth 1025. Title 14. Natural Resources Division 6. Resources Agency Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act Article 9. Contents of Environmental Impact Reports § 15126.4. Consideration and Discussion of Mitigation Measures Proposed to Minimize Significant Effects. (a) Mitigation Measures in General. (1) An EIR shall describe feasible measures which could minimize significant adverse impacts, including where relevant, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy. (A) The discussion of mitigation measures shall distinguish between the measures which are proposed by project proponents to be included in the project and other measures proposed by the lead, responsible or trustee agency or other persons which are not included but the lead agency determines could reasonably be expected to reduce adverse impacts if required as conditions of approving the project. This discussion shall identify mitigation measures for each significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. ('B) Where several measures are available to mitigate an impact, each should be discussed and the basis for selecting a particular measure should be identified. Formulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future time. However, 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. (C) Energy conservation measures, as well as other appropriate mitigation measures, shall be discussed when relevant. Examples of energy conservation measures are provided in Appendix F. (D) If a mitigation measure would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the effects of the mitigation measure shall be discussed but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed. (Stevens v. City of Glendale (1981) 125 Ca1.App.3d 986.) (2) Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally- binding instruments. In 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. (3) Mitigation measures are not required for effects which are not found to be significant. (4) Mitigation measures must be, consistent with all applicable constitutional requirements, including the following: (A) There must be an essential nexus (i.e. connection) between the mitigation measure and a legitimate governmental interest. Nollan v. California Coastal Commission,483 U.S. 825 (1987); and (B) The mitigation measure must be "roughly proportional" to the impacts of the project. Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994). Where the mitigation measure is an ad hoc exaction, it must be "roughly proportional" to the impacts of the project. Ehrlich v. City of Culver City (1996) 12 Cal.4th 854. (5) If the lead agency determines that a mitigation measure cannot be legally imposed, the measure need not be proposed or analyzed. Instead, the EIR may simply reference that fact and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency's determination. (b) Mitigation Measures Related to Impacts on Historical Resources. (1) Where maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation or reconstruction of the historical resource will be conducted in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer, the project's impact on the historical resource shall generally be considered mitigated below a level of significance and thus is not significant. (2) In some circumstances, documentation of an historical resource, by way of historic narrative, photographs or architectural drawings, as mitigation for the effects of demolition of the resource will not mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur. (3) Public agencies should, whenever feasible, seek to avoid damaging effects on any historical resource of an archaeological nature. The following factors shall be considered and discussed in an EIR for a project involving such an archaeological site: (A) Preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to archaeological sites. Preservation in place maintains the relationship between artifacts and the archaeological context. Preservation may also avoid conflict with religious or cultural values of groups associated with the site. (B) Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, the following: 1. Planning construction to avoid archaeological sites; 2. Incorporation of sites within parks, greenspace, or other open space; 3. Covering the archaeological sites with a layer of chemically stable soil before building tennis courts, parking lots, or similar facilities on the site. 4. Deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. (C) When data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation, a data recovery plan, which makes provision for adequately recovering the scientifically consequential information from and about the historical resource, shall be prepared and adopted prior to any excavation being undertaken. Such studies shall be deposited with the California Historical Resources Regional Information Center. Archaeological sites known to contain human remains shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 7050.5 Health and Safety Code. If an artifact must be removed during project excavation or testing, curation may be an appropriate mitigation. (D) Data recovery shall not be required for an historical resource if the lead agency determines that testing or studies already completed have adequately recovered the scientifically consequential information from and about the archaeological or historical resource, provided that the determination is documented in the EIR and that the studies are deposited with the California Historical Resources Regional Information Center. (c) Mitigation Measures Related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Consistent with section 15126.4(a) lead agencies shall consider feasible means of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions that may include, but not be limited to: (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 aproiect through implementation of proiect features project design or other measures such as those described in Appendix F' (3) Off -site measures including offsets to mitigate a proiect's emissions (4) Measures that sequester greenhouse gases; and (5) In the case of the adoption of a plan, such as a general plan, long range development plan, or greenhouse gas reduction plan, mitigation may include the identification of specific measures that may be implemented on aproiect- by_proiect 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. Note: Authority: Sections 21083, 21083.05, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 5020.5, 21002, 21003, 21083.05 21100 and 21084. 1, Public Resources Code; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, (1990) 52 Cat.3d 553; Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California, (1988) 47 Ca1.3d 376; Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.AppAth 1359; Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 111.2; and Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council of Sacramento (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City & Co. of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal Apn 4th 656; Ass'n of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107 Cal APPAth 1383; Environmental Council of Sacramento v. City of Sacramento (2006) 147 Cal.App.4th 1018. Title 14. Natural Resources Division 6. Resources Agency Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act Article 9. Contents of Environmental Impact Reports § 15130. Discussion of Cumulative Impacts. (a) An EIR shall discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project's incremental effect is cumulatively considerable, as defined in section 15065(c). Where a lead agency is examining a project with an incremental effect that is not "cumulatively considerable," a lead agency need not consider that effect significant, but shall briefly describe its basis for concluding that the incremental effect is not cumulatively considerable. (1) As defined in Section 15355, a cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts. An EIR should not discuss impacts which do not result in part from the project evaluated in the EIR. (2) When the combined cumulative impact associated with the project's incremental effect and the effects of other projects is not significant, the EIR shall briefly indicate why the cumulative impact is not significant and is not discussed in further detail in the EIR. A lead agency shall identify facts and analysis supporting the lead agency's conclusion that the cumulative impact is less than significant. (3) An EIR may determine that a project's contribution to a significant cumulative impact will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable and thus is not significant. A project's contribution is less than cumulatively considerable if the project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure or measures designed to alleviate the cumulative impact. The lead agency shall identify facts and analysis supporting its conclusion that the contribution will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable. (b) The discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as great detail as is provided for the effects attributable to the project alone. The discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness, and should focus on the cumulative impact to which the identified other projects contribute rather than the attributes of other projects which do not contribute to the cumulative impact. The following elements are necessary to an adequate discussion of significant cumulative impacts: (1) Either: (A) A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency, or (B) A summary of projections contained in an adopted deeomeHt, eF in a pFiaf- ental .1 .............t .. hieh has bee.. adopted or eeft:F:...! eumtkkative impae- local, regional or statewide plan, or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect. Such plans may include: a general plan, regional transportation plan, or greenhouse gas reduction plan. A summary of proiections may also be contained in an adopted or certified nrior environmental document for such a plan. Such projections may be supplemented with additional information such as a regional modeling program Any such plarrnin document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the lead agency. (2) When utilizing a list, as suggested in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), factors to consider when determining whether to include a related project should include the nature of each environmental resource being examined, the location of the project and its type. Location may be important, for example, when water quality impacts are at issue since projects outside the watershed would probably not contribute to a cumulative effect. Project type may be important, for example, when the impact is specialized, such as a particular air pollutant or mode of traffic. (3) Lead agencies should define the geographic scope of the area affected by the cumulative effect and provide a reasonable explanation for the geographic limitation used. (4) A summary of the expected environmental effects to be produced by those projects with specific reference to additional information stating where that information is available, and (5) A reasonable analysis of the cumulative impacts of the relevant projects. An EIR shall examine reasonable, feasible options for mitigating or avoiding the project's contribution to any significant cumulative effects. (c) With some projects, the only feasible mitigation for cumulative impacts may involve the adoption of ordinances or regulations rather than the imposition of conditions on a project -by- project basis. (d) Previously approved land use documents such as general plans, specific plans, and local coastal plans may be used in cumulative impact analysis. A pertinent discussion of cumulative impacts contained in one or more previously certified EIRs may be incorporated by reference pursuant to the provisions for tiering and program EIRs. No further cumulative impacts analysis is required when a project is consistent with a general, specific, master or comparable programmatic plan where the lead agency determines that the regional or areawide cumulative impacts of the proposed project have already been adequately addressed, as defined in section 15152(f), in a certified EfR for that plan. (e) If a cumulative impact was adequately addressed in a prior EB2 for a community plan, zoning action, or general plan, and the project is consistent with that plan or action, then an EIR for such a project should not further analyze that cumulative impact, as provided in Section15183(j). (f) An FIR shall analyze greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a proposed project when the incremental contribution of those emissions may be cumulativelyconsiderable. Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083, 21083.05, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21003(d), 21083(b), 21093, 21094 and 21100, Public Resources Code; Whitman v. Board of Supervisors, (1979) 88 Cal. App. 3d 397; San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 61; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692; Laurel Heights Homeowners Association v. Regents of the University of California(1988) 47 Cal.3d 376; Sierra Club v. Gilroy (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 30; Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v. County of Ventura (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 421; Concerned Citizens of South Cent. Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (1994) 24 Cal.AppAth 826; Las Virgenes Homeowners Fed'n v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 300; San Joaquin RaptorMidlife Rescue Ctr v. County of Stanisfaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713; Fort Mojave Indian Tribe v. Cal. Dept. Of Health Services (1995) 38 Cal.AppAth 1574; Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce v. City of Santa Monica (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 786; and Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98: and Assn of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1383. Title 14. Natural Resources Division 6. Resources Agency Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act Article 10. Considerations in Preparing E1Rs and Negative Declarations § 15150. Incorporation by Reference. (a) An EIR or negative declaration may incorporate by reference all or portions of another document which is a matter of public record or is generally available to the public. Where all or part of another document is incorporated by reference, the incorporated language shalt be considered to be set forth in fill as part of the text of the EIR or negative declaration. (b) Where part of another document is incorporated by reference, such other document shall be made available to the public for inspection at a public place or public building. The EIR or negative declaration shall state where the incorporated documents will be available for inspection. At a minimum, the incorporated document shall be made available to the public in an office of the lead agency in the county where the project would be carried out or in one or more public buildings such as county offices or public libraries if the lead agency does not have an office in the county. (c) Where an EIR or negative declaration uses incorporation by reference, the incorporated part of the referenced document shall be briefly summarized where possible or briefly described if the data or information cannot be summarized. The relationship between the incorporated part of the referenced document and the EIR shall be described. (d) Where an agency incorporates information from an EIR that has previously been reviewed through the state review system, the state identification number of the incorporated document should be included in the summary or designation described in subdivision (c). (e) Examples of materials that may be incorporated by reference include but are not limited to: (1) A description of the environmental setting from another EIR. (2) A description of the air pollution problems prepared by an air pollution control agency concerning a process involved in the project. (3) A description of the city or county general plan that applies to the location of the project. (4) A descrintion of the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on the environment. (f) Incorporation 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. Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083, 21083.05, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21003, 21061, 21083.05 and 21100, Public Resources Code. Title 14. Natural Resources Division 6. Resources Agency Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act Article 12. Special Situations $ 15183. Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning. (a) CEQA mandates that projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project - specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. This streamlines the review of such projects and reduces the need to prepare repetitive environmental studies. (b) In approving a project meeting the requirements of this section, a public agency shall limit its examination of environmental effects to those which the agency determines, in an initial study or other analysis: (1) Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located, (2) Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan or community plan with which the project is consistent, (3) Are potentially significant off -site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action, or (4) Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR. (c) if an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards, as contemplated by subdivision (e) below, then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact. (d) This section shall apply only to projects which meet the following conditions: (1) The project is consistent with: (A) A community plan adopted as part of a general plan, (B) A zoning action which zoned or designated the parcel on which the project would be located to accommodate a particular density of development, or (C) A general plan of a local agency, and (2) An EIR was certified by the lead agency for the zoning action, the community plan, or the general plan. (e) This section shall limit the analysis of only those significant environmental effects for which: (1) Each public agency with authority to mitigate any of the significant effects on the environment identified in the EIR on the planning or zoning action undertakes or requires others to undertake mitigation measures specified in the EIR which the lead agency found to be feasible, and (2) The lead agency makes a finding at a public hearing as to whether the feasible mitigation measures will be undertaken. (f) An effect of a project on the environment shall not be considered peculiar to the project or the parcel for the purposes of this section if uniformly applied development policies or standards have been previously adopted by the city or county with a finding that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that environmental effect when applied to future projects, unless substantial new information shows that the policies or standards will not substantially mitigate the environmental effect. The finding shall be based on substantial evidence which need not include an EIR. Such development policies or standards need not apply throughout the entire city or county, but can apply only within the zoning district in which the project is located, or within the area subject to the community plan on which the lead agency is relying. Moreover, such policies or standards need not be part of the general plan or any community plan, but can be found within another pertinent planning document such as a zoning ordinance. Where a city or county, in previously adopting uniformly applied development policies or standards for imposition on future projects, failed to make a finding as to whether such policies or standards would substantially mitigate the effects of future projects, the decisionmaking body of the city or county, prior to approving such a future project pursuant to this section, may hold a public hearing for the purpose of considering whether, as applied to the project, such standards or policies would substantially mitigate the effects of the project. Such a public hearing need only be held if the city or county decides to apply the standards or policies as permitted in this section. (g) Examples of uniformly applied development policies or standards include, but are not limited to: (1) Parking ordinances, (2) Public access requirements, (3) Grading ordinances. (4) Hillside development ordinances. (5) Flood plain ordinances. (6) Habitat protection or conservation ordinances. (7) View protection ordinances. (8) Requirements for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as set forth in an adopted land use plan. policy, or regulation. (h) An environmental effect shall not be considered peculiar to the project or parcel solely because no uniformly applied development policy or standard is applicable to it. (i) Where the prior EIR relied upon by the lead agency was prepared for a general plan or community plan that meets the requirements of this section, any rezoning action consistent with the general plan or community plan shall be treated as a project subject to this section. (1) "Community plan" is defined as a part of the general plan of a city or county which applies to a defined geographic portion of the total area included in the general plan, includes or references each of the mandatory elements specified in Section 65302 �)f the Government Code, and contains specific development policies and implementation measures which will apply those policies to each involved parcel. (2) For purposes of this section, "consistent" weans that the density of the proposed project is the sane or less than the standard expressed for the involved parcel in the general plan, community plan or zoning action for which an EIR has been certified, and that the project complies with the density - related standards contained in that plan or zoning. Where the zoning ordinance refers to the general plan or community plan for its density standard, the project shall be consistent with the applicable plan. 0) This section does not affect any requirement to analyze potentially significant offsite or cumulative impacts if those impacts were not adequately discussed in the prior EIR. If a significant offsite or cumulative impact was adequately discussed in the prior EIR, then this section may be used as a basis for excluding further analysis of that offsite or cumulative impact. Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083, 21083.05, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21083.05 and 21083.3, Public Resources Code. Title 14. Natural Resources Division 6. Resources Agency Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act Article 12. Special Situations §15183.5. Tierine and Streamlining the Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. (a) Lead agencies may analyze and mitigate the effects of greenhouse gas emissions at a programmatic level, such as in a general plan, a long range development plan, or a separate plan to reduce greenhouse Ras emissions Later project- specific environmental documents may tier and/or incorporate by reference that existing programmatic review. Project - specific environmental documents may rely on an EIR containing a programmatic analysis of greenhouse Ras emissions as provided in section 15152 (tiering), 15167 (staged EIRs) 15168 (program EIRs), 15175- 15179.5 (Master EIRs) 15182 (EIRs Prepared for Specific Plans) and 15183 (EIRs Prepared for General Plans, Community Plans, or Zoning). (b) Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans. Public agencies may choose to analyze and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in a greenhouse gas reduction plan or similar document A plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may be used in a cumulative impacts analysis as set forth below. Pursuant to sections 15064(h)(3) and 15130(d), a lead agency may determine that a project's incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project complies with the requirements in a reviouslyadopted plan or mitigation program under specified circumstances. 11 Plan Elements. A greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan ma (A) Quantify greenhouse gas emissions, both existing and projected over a specified time period, resulting from activities within a defined geographic area• (B) Establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to greenhouse gas emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable; (C) Identify and analyze the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated within the Peourauhic area; (D) Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a Project-by-Project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level; (E) Establish a mechanism to monitor the plan's progress toward achieving the level and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels; (F) Be adopted in a public process following environmental review. (2) Use with Later Activities. A greenhouse gas reduction plan once adopted following certification of an EIR or adoption of an environmental document, may be used in the cumulative impacts analysis of later projects. An environmental document that relies on a greenhouse gas reduction plan for a cumulative impacts analysis must identify those requirements specified in the plan that apply to the proiect and if those requirements are not otherwise binding and enforceable incorporate those requirements as mitigation measures applicable to the project If there is substantial evidence that the effects of a particular proiect may be cumulatively considerable notwithstanding the project's compliance with the specified requirements in the greenhouse gas reduction plan an EIR must be prepared for the project (c) Special Situations Consistent with Public Resources Code sections 21155.2 and 21159.28 certain residential and mixed use projects and transit priority projects as defined in section 21155 that are consistent with the general use designation density, building intensity, and Uplicable policies specified for the project area in an applicable sustainable communities strategy or alternative planning strategy accepted by the California Air Resources Board need not analyze global warming impacts resulting from cars and light duty trucks. A lead agcncy should consider whether such projects may result in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from other sources, however, consistent with these Guidelines. Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 21083.05 Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 65453 Gov. Code; Sections 21003 21061 21068.5 21081(a)(2), 21083.05, 21083.3, 21081.6, 21093 21094 21100 21151 21155 21155 .2, 21156 21157 21157.1, 21157 5.21157.6.21158, 21158.5 21159.28 Pub Resources Code; California Native Plant Societv v. County of El Dorado (2009) 170 Cal App 4th 1026• Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099. Title 14. Natural Resources Division 6. Resources Agency Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act Article 20. Definitions § 15364.5. Greenhouse Gas "Greenhouse gas" or "greenhouse gases" includes but is not limited to: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, yerfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083, 21083.05, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 38505(Q) Health and Safety Code: Section 21083.05, Public Resources Code. Title 14. Natural Resources Division 6. Resources Agency Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act Article 20. Definitions Appendix F Energy Conservation I. Introduction The goal of conserving energy implies the wise and efficient use of energy. The means of achieving this goal include: (1) decreasing overall per capita energy consumption, (2) decreasing reliance on natural gas and oil, and (3) increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. In order to assure that energy implications are considered in project decisions, the California Environmental Quality Act requires that EIRs include a discussion of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy (see Public Resources Code section 211100(b)(3)). Energy conservation implies that a project's cost effectiveness be reviewed not only in dollars, but also in terms of energy requirements. For many projects, li€etifne costs effectiveness may be determined more by energy efficiency than by initial dollar costs. A lead agency may consider the extent to which an energy source serving: the project has already undergone environmental review that adeauarely analyzed and mitigated the effects of energy production. M EIR Contents Potentially significant energy implications of a project should shall be considered in an EIR to the extent relevant and applicable to the project. The following list of energy impact possibilities and potential conservation measures is designed to assist in the preparation of an EIR. In many instances specific items may not apply or additional items may be needed. Where items listed below are applicable or relevant to the proiect, they should be considered in the EIR. A. Project Description may include the following items: 1. Energy consuming equipment and processes which will be used during construction, operation and/or removal of the project. If appropriate, this discussion should consider the energy intensiveness of materials and equipment required for the project. 2. Total energy requirements of the project by fuel type and end use. 3. Energy conservation equipment and design features. 4. Identification of rn""iyele energy ^tea supplies that would serve the rp oiect. 5. Total estimated daily vehicle trips to be generated by the project and the additional energy consumed per trip by mode. B. Environmental Setting may include existing energy supplies and energy use patterns in the region and locality. C. Environmental Impacts may include: 1. The project's energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for each stage of the projects- � including construction, operation, maintenance and /or removal. If appropriate, the energy intensiveness of materials maybe discussed. 2. The effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for additional capacity. 3. The effects of the project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy. water conservation and solid -waste reduction. 4. The degree to which the project complies with existing energy standards. 5. The effects of the project on energy resources. 6. The project's projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient transportation alternatives. D. Mitigation Measures may include: 1. Potential measures to reduce wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal. The discussion should explain why certain measures were incorporated in the project and why other measures were dismissed. 2. The potential of siting, orientation, and design to minimize energy consumption, including transportation energy. 3. The potential for reducing peak energy demand. 4. Alternate fuels (particularly renewable ones) or energy systems. 5. Energy conservation which could result from recycling efforts. E. Alternatives should be compared in terms of overall energy consumption and in terms of reducing wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy. F. Unavoidable Adverse Effects may include wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy during the project construction, operation, maintenance and /or removal that cannot be feasibly mitigated. G. Irreversible Commitment of Resources may include a discussion of how the project preempts future energy development or future energy conservation. H. Short-Term Gains versus Long -Term Impacts can be compared by calculating the ro oject's energy costs over the project's lifetime e khe-projeet. I. Growth Inducing Effects may include the estimated energy consumption of growth induced by the project. Title 14. Natural Resources Division 6. Resources Agency Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act Article 20. Definitions Appendix G Environmental Checklist Form NOTE The following is a sample form and may be tailored to satisfy individual agencies' needs and project circumstances It may be used to meet the requirements for an initial study when the criteria set forth in CEOA Guidelines have been met Substantial evidence of potential impacts that are not listed on this form must also be considered. The sample questions in this form are intended to encourage thoughtful assessment of impacts, and do not necessarily represent thresholds of significance. 1. Project 2. Lead agency name and address: 3. Contact person and phone number: 4. Project location: 5. Project sponsor's name and address: 6. General plan designation: 7. 8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Biological Resources Cultural Resources Greenhouse Gas Hazards & Hazardous Emissions Materials Land Use/ Planning Mineral Resources Population / Housing Public Services Transportation/Traffic Utilities / Service Systems DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: Air Quality Geology (Soils Hydrology / Water Quality Noise Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed w by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been.addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier E1R or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Signature SAMPLE QUESTION Issues: I. AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? H. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture Date Date Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Ranee Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Mo,jem and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. -- Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farntand, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? cl Conflict with existine zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)l or timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526)? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -Sorest use? de) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable au quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 1V, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a .substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Signifcaat Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Vt. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potenti a] substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with any applicable plan policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of ereenhouse eases? VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mule of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is irt. -luded on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -- Would the moi cet: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with any applicable plan policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of ereenhouse eases? VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mule of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is irt. -luded on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) 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? V111- IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project. a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planted slormwater drainage systems or provide Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow'? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? XI. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XII. NOISE -- Would the project result in: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the locat general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XIIl. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XfIIXIV. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 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 objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? v4 "XV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XVI. TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC — Would the project: a) at iaterseet.o� Exceed the capacity of the existing circulation sysrem, based on an avolicable measure of effectiveness (as designated in a general plan policy ordinance etc.), taking into account all relevant components of the circulation system, including but limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit Conflict with an applicable congestion management program including, but not limited Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? gf) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVBI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a 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)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Note: Authoritv cited: Sections 21083.21083.05. Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 65088.4 Gov. Code; Sections 21080 21083 05 21095 Pub Resources Code Eureka Citizens for Responsible Govt. v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal App.4th 357: Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agenev (2004) 116 Cal App 4th at 1109' San Franciscans Upho -dine the Downtown Plan v City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal App,4th 656. Attachment No. CC 2 Notice of Proposed Action by the Resources Agency NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the California Natural Resources Agency ( "Resources Agency') proposes to adopt and amend regulations implementing Division 13 of the Public Resources Code, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE Public Resources Code section 21083.05 requires the Office of Planning and Research to develop, and the Resources Agency to adopt and certify, "guidelines for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions[.]" Section 21083 of the Public Resources Code further generally mandates adoption of regulations (CEQA Guidelines) implementing CEQA, and requires the Resources Agency, in consultation with the Office of Planning and Research, to certify amendments to the CEQA Guidelines at least once every two years. The proposed action would implement, interpret and make specific the following: Sections 65088.4, 65453, Government Code; Section 38505(g), Health and Safety Code; Sections 21001, 21002, 21003, 21060, 21061, 21064.5, 21065, 21068, 21068.5, 21080, 21081, 21081.6, 21082, 21082.1, 210821, 21083, 21083.05, 210833, 21093, 21094, 21100, 21151, 21155, 21155.2, 21156, 21157, 21157.1, 21157.5, 21157.6, 21158, 21158.5, and 21159.28, Public Resources Code. The particular code sections and other provisions of law that would be implemented, interpreted and made specific by each section of this proposed action are described in the Informative Digest, below. PROPOSED REGULATORY ACTION The proposed action is intended to adopt and amend portions of the CEQA Guidelines to explain and implement the requirements of CEQA, and in particular the requirements to analyze and mitigate, if necessary, the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. The Resources Agency proposes to amend and add the following sections of Title 14, CCR: 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. PUBLIC HEARING The Resources Agency will hold two public hearings, consistent with the requirements of the California Administrative Procedure Act, to receive comments, objections, and recommendations. The first hearing will begin at 1:OOpm on August 18, 2009, at the Natural Resources Agency 15t floor auditorium located at 1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento, California, 95814. The second hearing shall begin at 1:OOpm on August 20, 2009, at the Ronald Reagan State Building 1 °t floor auditorium located at 300 South Spring Street, Los Angeles, California, 90013. Both auditoriums are wheelchair accessible. At the hearings, any person may present comments orally or in writing, or both, relevant to the proposed action. The hearing will be closed when all persons present have had an opportunity to comment on the proposed action. Time limits may be placed on oral comments to ensure that all persons wishing to comment have an opportunity within the available time for the hearing. The Agency requests but does not require that persons who make oral comments at the hearing also submit a written copy of their testimony at the hearing. WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD Any interested person, or his or her authorized representative, may submit written comments relevant to the proposed regulatory action of the Agency. The Resources Agency must receive written comments no later than 5:00pm on August 20, 2009, in order to be considered by the Resources Agency. Written comments may be delivered, mailed or transmitted by facsimile or electronic mail. Written comments should be addressed as follows: Christopher Calfee, Special Counsel ATTN: CEQA Guidelines California Resources Agency 1017 L Street, #2223 Sacramento, CA 95814 Facsimile: (916) 653 -8102 CEQA Rulemakinjergsources . ca.no_v Comments may be delivered to 1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311, Sacramento, California, 95814. Pursuant to Government Code section 11346.9(a)(3), the Resources Agency shall in a final statement of reasons respond to comments submitted during the comment period containing objections and /or recommendations specifically directed at the Resources Agency's proposed action or to the procedures followed by the Resources Agency in proposing or adopting the proposed action. INQUIRIES AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Inquiries relating to the proposed administrative action may be directed to Christopher Calfee or, if he is unavailable, to Ian Peterson at (916) 653 -5656. The Resources Agency has prepared an Initial Statement of Reasons for the proposed action that provides an explanation of the purpose and justification for the proposed rulemaking. Anyone may view and print a copy of the statement or the text of the proposed revisions by accessing the following page on the Resources Agency's Internet website: http: / /ceres.ca.gov /ceqa /guidelines /. Copies of the initial statement of reasons and text of the regulations are also available upon request from Christopher Calfee or Ian Peterson at (916) 653 -5656. The entire rulemaking file is available for public inspection at 1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311, Sacramento, California, 95814. The Resources Agency will post the Final Statement of Reasons and any future notices related to the proposed action on the Resources Agency's website. Anyone wishing to receive future notices related to the proposed action and /or receive a copy of the Final Statement of Reasons once it has been prepared should submit a written request containing her or his postal mailing address to Christopher Calfee, Natural Resources Agency, State of California, 1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311, Sacramento, California 95814. These requests can also be submitted by facsimile at (916) 653 -8102. INFORMATIVE DIGEST The California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.) (CEQA) requires public agencies to identify potential adverse environmental effects of activities that they propose to carry out, fund, or approve, and to consider feasible alternatives and mitigation measures that would substantially reduce significant adverse environmental effects that are identified. CEQA compliance usually involves preparation by a public agency of either a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or an environmental impact report. CEQA requires the Secretary for the Natural Resources Agency, in consultation with the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR), to periodically adopt, amend and repeal the CEQA Guidelines. In addition, Public Resources Code section 21083.05 requires the Office of Planning and Research to develop, and the Resources Agency to adopt and certify, "guidelines for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions[.]" Fourteen sections have been identified for adoption or amendment during this rulemaking process. The Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency intends that the proposed revisions provide guidance on the analysis and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions, clarify certain portions of the existing Guidelines, and update the Guidelines consistent with recent court decisions. The following summaries describe existing laws and regulations related to the proposed action and explain the effect of the proposed revisions. Also include, where appropriate, are the specific objectives of the revisions and additions. 15064. Determining the Significance of the Environmental Effects Caused by a Project Public Resources Code section 21082.2 requires lead agencies to "determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment[.]" Further, a lead agency must determine whether a project's effects will be cumulatively considerable- (Pub. Resource Code, § 21083(b).) Section 21003(d) provides that information in existing environmental documents may be used in future environmental analysis in order to reduce delay and duplication. In considering whether a project's incremental contribution to an effect is cumulatively considerable, existing CEQA Guidelines section 15064(h)(3) allows a lead agency to consider whether the project is consistent with plans or regulations that will ensure that the project's incremental contribution to cumulative impacts are not cumulatively considerable. (Communities for a Better Environment v. Col. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal. App. 4th 98,115 (upholding substance of current Guidelines section 16064(h)(3)).) Public Resources Code section 21083.05 requires the development of guidelines on the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions. The authorities for the proposed amendments are 21083 and 21083.05 of the Public Resources Code. This amendment implements, interprets, and makes specific sections 21003(d), 21082.2, and 21083 of the Public Resources Code. The proposed amendments to section 15064(h)(3) include the addition of several plans to the list of plans on which a lead agency may rely in a cumulative impacts analysis. The proposed amendments also include a clarification that, when relying on consistency with a plan to determine that a project's impacts are not cumulatively considerable, the lead agency should explain how the requirements in the plan reduce the project's incremental contribution to the cumulative effect. The proposed amendments to this section also include a non - substantive correction in subdivision (f)(5). 15064.4. Determining the Significance of Impacts from Greenhouse Gas Emissions Section 21083.05 of the Public Resources Code mandates the development of regulations on the analysis of the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. Public Resources Code section 21082.2 requires lead agencies to "determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment[.]" (See also Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.) Existing law further provides that the analysis used to determine whether impacts are significant should include both quantitative and qualitative elements. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21001(g); Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Comm. v. Ed. of Port Comm'rs (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344,1380 -1382; see also CEQA Guidelines, § 15142.) The authorities for the proposed amendments are 21083 and 21083.05 of the Public Resources Code. This amendment implements, interprets, and makes specific sections 21001, 21002, and 21083.05, as well as 21003, 21065, 21068, 21080, 21082, 21082.1, 21082.2, and 21100 of the Public Resources Code. The proposed addition of section 15064.4 interprets existing CEQA requirements for the analysis and determination of potential impacts and makes those requirements specific to the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, proposed section 15064.4 provides that a lead agency must use its best efforts to calculate or estimate the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project. In estimating the emissions resulting from a project, a lead agency would have the discretion to perform a quantitative or a qualitative analysis based on the circumstances surrounding the project. In addition to a quantitative or qualitative analysis, a lead agency should also consider several factors, including whether the project will result in a net increase or decrease in greenhouse gas emissions compared to the existing baseline, whether the project's emissions exceed an applicable threshold, and whether the project will comply with the requirements in a plan designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 15064.7. Thresholds of Significance Public Resources Code section 21083.05 requires the development of guidelines on the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions. Sections 21082 and 21083 of the Public Resources Code call for the development and adoption by all lead agencies of procedures to implement the California Environmental Quality Act. Existing law supports reliance on thresholds of significance to assist in the determination of whether a project may result in a significant adverse environmental impact. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000(d); Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal. App. 4th 1099, 1106 -09.) A threshold of significance is a level below which impacts will normally be less than significant. Existing law encourages lead agencies to develop thresholds of significance to be applied within their jurisdiction as part of their CEQA analyses. (ld.; see also Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21082, 21083.) The authorities for the proposed amendments are 21083 and 21083.05 of the Public Resources Code. This amendment implements, interprets, and makes specific sections 21003(d), 21082 and 21083 of the Public Resources Code. The proposed amendment to section 15064.7 clarifies that in adopting a threshold, a lead agency may consider thresholds developed by experts or other agencies, provided that the proposed threshold is supported with substantial evidence. 15065. Mandatory Findings of Significance Section 21083 of the Public Resources Code calls for the development of procedures to implement the California Environmental Quality Act. Public Resources Code section 21083.05 requires the development of guidelines on the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions. The existing CEQA Guidelines provide for a period of "preliminary" review of a project to determine whether the project may qualify for an exemption, or will require preparation of a negative declaration or environmental impact report. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21160; see also CEQA Guidelines, § 15060.) Public Resources Code section 21083 specifies several instances in which a finding of significance must be made. (See also CEQA Guidelines, § 15065.) Public Resources Code section 21064.5 also provides that where a project proponent agrees to alter the project or impose mitigation measures prior to public review of the project, a lead agency may prepare a mitigated negative declaration. The authorities for the proposed amendments are 21083 and 21083.05 of the Public Resources Code. This amendment implements, interprets, and makes specific section 21083 of the Public Resources Code. The proposed amendment to section 15065 clarifies that mitigation measures could be agreed to prior to 'public" review, rather than "preliminary/' review. 15086. Consultation Concerning Draft EIR The proposed amendment to section 15086 is a non - substantive correction. 15093. Statement of Overriding Considerations Public Resources Code section 21083.05 requires the development of guidelines on the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions. Existing law provides that a lead agency may approve a project with significant adverse effects only after all feasible mitigation and alternatives have been imposed on the project and the lead agency has adopted a statement of overriding considerations. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21002, 21081.) A statement of overriding considerations sets forth the lead agency's determination that the benefits of the proposed project outweigh its adverse environmental impacts. The authorities for the proposed amendments are 21083 and 21083.05 of the Public Resources Code. This amendment implements, interprets, and makes specific sections 21002 and 21081 of the Public Resources Code. The proposed amendment to section 15093 would clarify that a lead agency may consider statewide and region -wide environmental benefits of a project when making its statement of overriding considerations. 15125. Environmental Setting Public Resources Code section 21083.05 requires the development of guidelines on the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions. Existing law requires a lead agency to describe the project's environmental setting as part of its environmental analysis of the project. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21060.5, 21061, 21100.) Existing law also requires a lead agency to discuss inconsistencies with various plans. (CEQA Guidelines, § 151251d).) The authorities for the proposed amendments are 21083 and 21083.05 of the Public Resources Code. This amendment implements, interprets, and makes specific sections 21060.5, 21061 and 21100 of the Public Resources Code. The proposed amendments to section 15125 would add to the list of plans that a lead agency should consider for potential inconsistencies. The added plans are likely to include information relating to a jurisdiction or region's greenhouse gas emissions. 15126.2. Consideration and Discussion of Significant Environmental Impacts. The proposed amendment to section 15126.2 is a non - substantive cross - reference 15126.4. Consideration and Discussion of Mitigation Measures Proposed to Minimize Significant Effects. Public Resources Code section 21083.05 requires the development of guidelines on the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Public Resources Code section 21002 requires lead agencies to impose feasible mitigation to reduce a project's significant adverse environmental impacts. The authorities for the proposed amendments are 21083 and 21083.05 of the Public Resources Code. This amendment implements, interprets, and makes specific sections 21002 and 21083.05 of the Public Resources Code. The proposed amendments to section 15126.4 provide a non - exclusive list of categories of mitigation strategies that a lead agency may consider implementing to reduce a project's greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed addition also clarifies that existing standards regarding the adequacy of mitigation apply equally to mitigation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 15130. Discussion of Cumulative Impacts Public Resources Code section 21083.05 requires the development of guidelines on the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions. Existing law requires lead agencies to consider whether a project's effects may be individually limited but cumulatively considerable. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21083, 21100.) The authorities for the proposed amendments are 21083 and 21083.05 of the Public Resources Code. This amendment implements, interprets, and makes specific sections 21083 and 21100 of the Public Resources Code. The proposed amendments to section 15130 would add to the list of plans that may contain relevant projections for use in a cumulative impacts analysis. The amendments would also clarify that projections may be contained in modeling programs used to support various land use plans. Finally, the amendments clarify that a lead agency must analyze a project's cumulative greenhouse gas impacts when the project's incremental contribution of greenhouse gases is cumulatively considerable. 15150. Incorporation by Reference Public Resources Code section 21083.05 requires the development of guidelines on the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions. Public Resources Code section 21003 encourages lead agencies to avoid duplication and conserve resources by incorporating existing environmental information developed for other environmental analyses or plans into the environmental document for a proposed project. Section 21061 defines environmental impact report to include information that is incorporated therein by reference. The authorities for the proposed amendments are 21083 and 21083.05 of the Public Resources Code. This amendment implements, interprets, and makes specific sections 21003, 21061 and 21083.05 of the Public Resources Code. The proposed amendment to section 15150 would allow a description of the effects of greenhouse gas emissions to be incorporated by reference. 15183. Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning Public Resources Code section 21083.05 requires the development of guidelines on the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions. Public Resources Code section 21083.3 provides for streamlining environmental review for projects that are consistent with a general plan, community plan or zoning for which an EIR was certified. A project that is consistent with such a plan or zoning would only have to analyze effects that are peculiar to the project or the project site. An effect will not be considered peculiar to the project or project site where uniformly applied development standards will substantially mitigate the effects of future projects. The authorities for the proposed amendments are 21083 and 21083.05 of the Public Resources Code. This amendment implements, interprets, and makes specific sections 21083.05 and 21083.3 of the Public Resources Code. The proposed amendment to section 15183 would add requirements for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to the list of examples of uniformly applied development standards. 15183.5 Tiering and Streamlining the Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Public Resources Code section 21083.05 requires the development of guidelines on the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions. Public Resources Code sections 21003 and 21093 encourage lead agencies to tier environmental documents wherever feasible. Specific forms of tiering and streamlining are provided in Public Resources Code sections 21083.3, 21155.2, 21157, 21157.1, and 21159.28, among others. The authorities for the proposed amendments are 21083 and 21083.05 of the Public Resources Code. This amendment implements, interprets, and makes specific section 65453 of the Government Code, and sections 21003, 21061, 21068.5, 21081(a)(2), 21083.05, 21083.3, 21081.6, 21093, 21094, 21100, 21151, 21155, 21155.2, 21156, 21157, 21157.1, 21157.5, 21157.6, 21158, 21158.5, 21159.28 of the Public Resources Code. The proposed section 15183.5 would provide examples of tiering and streamlining provisions that may be used in the context of greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed added section would also provide criteria for greenhouse gas reduction plans that a lead agency may consider in determining whether such a plan may be used in a project's cumulative impacts analysis. Finally, the proposed added section would clarify the requirements for review of greenhouse gas emissions from certain mixed -use and transit priority projects. 15364.5. Greenhouse Gas Public Resources Code section 21083.05 requires the development of guidelines on the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions. Health and Safety Code section 38505(8) defines "greenhouse gases" for the purposes of regulatory actions by the California Air Resources Board. The authorities for the proposed amendments are 21083 and 21083.05 of the Public Resources Code. This amendment implements, interprets, and makes specific section 38505(f) of the Health and Safety Code and section 21083.05 of the Public Resources Code. The proposed added section 15364.5 would state that for CEQA purposes, greenhouse gas emissions include, but are not limited to, the same greenhouse gases that will be regulated by the Air Resources Board. Appendix F — Energy Conservation Section 21083.05 of the Public Resources Code mandates the development of regulations on the analysis and mitigation of the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, "including but not limited to, effects associated with ... energy consumption." Public Resources Code section 21100(b)(3) requires an environmental impact report to analyze a project's impact on energy resources and to include mitigation measures to reduce those impacts. (People v. County of Kern (1976) 62 Cal.App,3d 761, 774.) The authorities for the proposed amendments are 21083 and 21083.05 of the Public Resources Code. This amendment implements, interprets, and makes specific sections 21083.05 and 21100 of the Public Resources Code. The proposed amendments to Appendix F would clarify that a lead agency must conduct an analysis of a project's impacts on energy resources. The proposed amendments would also remove a vague term from Appendix F to reduce confusion about the scope and extent of the required analysis. The proposed amendments would also add types of energy use that could be reduced as mitigation. Appendix G — Environmental Checklist Public Resources Code section 21083.05 requires the development of guidelines on the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions. Public Resources Code section 21080(c) requires the preparation of an initial study to support a lead agency's determination that a project will have no significant adverse impacts. An initial study may also be prepared to assist a lead agency in preparing an environmental impact report. Appendix G of the existing CEQA Guidelines contains a sample checklist form that lead agencies may use in the preparation of an initial study. The authorities for the proposed amendments are 21083 and 21083.05 of the Public Resources Code. This amendment implements, interprets, and makes specific sections 21080 and 21083.05 of the Public Resources Code. The proposed amendments to Appendix G would add several questions to the environmental checklist form related to forestry resources and greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed amendments would also revise questions related to transportation and traffic. Finally, the proposed amendments would add a note to the beginning of Appendix G to clarify, consistent with recent case law, that the form provided is only a sample. The form can be tailored to a lead agency's individual circumstances and should not be used to avoid examination of potential impacts that may not be listed in the form. Policy Objectives The broad objective of the Proposed Amendments is to implement the Legislative directive in SB97, which requires the development of "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." (Pub. Resources Code, 4 21083.05 (codifying SB97).) The phrase "as required by this division" indicates that the Legislature's intent that while greenhouse gas emissions must be analyzed, the analysis must follow traditional rules governing CEQA analysis. Specific objectives are described below. lead Agencies Retain Traditional Discretion A lead agency must prepare an EIR wherever substantial evidence supports a fair argument that a project may cause adverse environmental impacts. Once a lead agency determines to prepare an EIR, however, CECIA leaves lead agencies wide discretion to, for example, choose the appropriate methodology to analyze specific impacts, evaluate evidence regarding the significance of an impact, and choose appropriate mitigation for impacts identified as significant. Nothing in SB97 indicates that the Legislature intended to in any way limit a lead agency's traditional discretion. Therefore, the Proposed Amendments differ to that discretion where permitted by CEO.A. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Should be Analyzed as a Cumulative Impact While the Proposed Amendments do not foreclose the possibility that a single project may result in greenhouse gas emissions with a direct impact on the environment, the evidence before the Resources Agency indicates that in most cases, the impact will be cumulative. Therefore, the Proposed Amendments emphasize that the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions should centeron whether a project's incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions is cumulatively considerable. Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Should be Tiered Wherever Possible Because greenhouse gas emissions are largely a cumulative issue, such emissions may be best addressed at a programmatic level to permit a thorough analysis of all sources and coordinated mitigation to reduce emissions across a broad area. Such an analysis of greenhouse gas emissions could then be tiered for use in later environmental documents on a project - specific basis. The Legislature has enacted various tiering and streamlining mechanisms that would be appropriately applied in a greenhouse gas emissions context. Therefore, these Proposed Amendments encourage the use of existing greenhouse gas emissions analyses to the extent possible. Relationship to Federal Law The Proposed Amendments contain revisions and additions to the State CEQA Guidelines. Those Guidelines assist lead agencies in complying with the California Environmental Quality Act. CEQA is a state law that governs state agencies. The Proposed 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. However, NEPA requires environmental review of federal actions by federal agencies while CEQA requires environmental review of state and local projects by state and local agencies in California. Moreover, although both NEPA and CEQA require an analysis of environmental impacts, the substantive and procedural requirements of the two statutes differ. Most significantly, CEQA requires feasible mitigation of environmental impacts, while NEPA does not require mitigation. 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 a review when projects are subject to both CEQA and NEPA. Because a state or local agency cannot avoid CEQA review, and because CEQA and NEPA are not identical, guidelines for CEQA are necessary and do not duplicate the Code of Federal Regulations. NEPA requires analysis of greenhouse gas emissions. (See, e.g., Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Ad., 538 F.3d 1172, 1215 -1217 (9th Cir. 2008).) The Proposed Amendments approach that analysis similarly to the requirements of federal law. However, as noted above, a primary difference between CEQA and NEPA is that the former requires the imposition of mitigation where an impact is determined to be significant. DISCLOSURES REGARDING THE PROPOSED ACTION The Resources Agency has made the following determinations regarding the proposed changes to the Guidelines: Mandates on Local Agencies and School Districts The Resources Agency has determined that the proposed revisions to the CEQA Guidelines will not impose a mandate on local agencies or school districts. Costs or Savings to Local Agencies and School Districts or Federal Funding to the State No costs or savings have been identified from the proposed action for any state agency, local agency, or school district. No reimbursable costs or savings under Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of the Government Code to local agencies or school districts, no nondiscretionary costs or savings to local agencies or school districts, and no costs or savings in federal funding to the State will result from the proposed action. Housing Costs The proposed amendments will not affect housing costs because the revisions.will interpret and make specific certain existing CEQA requirements affecting the way public agencies administer the CEQA process. Significant Adverse Economic Impacts on Business The Resources Agency has initially determined that the proposed action will not have a significant, statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting business, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. The factual basis for this conclusion is that the revisions will interpret and make specific existing analysis and mitigation requirements imposed by statute and judicial decisions interpreting the CEQA statute. Effect on California Business Enterprises and Individuals The Resources Agency has assessed the potential for the proposed action to adversely affect California business enterprises and individuals, including whether it will affect the creation, elimination or expansion of businesses, as required by subdivision (b) of Government Code Section 11346.3. The proposed action is not expected to have a positive or adverse effect on the creation or elimination of jobs or businesses within California. The Resources Agency has also concluded that the proposed amendments will not affect the expansion of businesses currently doing business within the state. The Resources Agency's complete Economic and Fiscal Impact Statement (Form Std 399) for the proposed action is part of the rulemaking file, and is available from the agency contact person named in this notice. Cost Impacts on a Representative Person or Business The Resources Agency is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action. Effect on Small Business The proposed amendments will not affect small business because the revisions will interpret and make specific certain existing CEQA requirements affecting the way public agencies administer the CEQA process. CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES In accordance with subsection 11346.5(a)(13) of the Government Code, the Resources Agency must determine that no reasonable alternative considered by the Resources Agency or otherwise identified and brought to the Resources Agency's attention would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed, or would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action. AVAILABILITY OF STATEMENT OF REASONS, TEXT OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS, AND RULEMAKING FILE The Resources Agency will have the entire rulemaking file available for inspection and copying throughout the rulemaking process at its office at the above address, As of the date of this notice is published in the Notice Register, the rulemaking file consists of this notice, the proposed text of the regulations, the initial statement of reasons, and supporting information. Copies may be obtained by contacting Christopher Calfee or Ian Peterson at the address and /or phone number listed above. AVAILABILITY OF CHANGED OR MODIFIED TEXT Following the hearings and consideration of all timely and relevant comments received, the Resources Agency may adopt the proposed regulations substantially as described in this notice. If the Resources Agency makes modifications which are sufficiently related to the originally proposed text, it will make the modified text (with the changes clearly indicated) available to the public for at least 15 days before the Resources Agency adopts the regulations as revised. Any requests for copies of any modified regulations should be directed to the attention of Ian Peterson at the address indicated above following publication of the modified text. If the Resources Agency modifies the originally proposed text, the Resources Agency will accept written comments on the modified regulations for 15 days after the date on which the modifications are made available. AVAILABILITY OF THE FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS Upon its completion, copies of the Final Statement of Reasons may be obtained by contacting Ian Peterson at the above address. Christopher Calfee, Special Counsel ATTN: CEQA Guidelines California Resources Agency 1017 L Street, #2223 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: CEQA Guidelines amendment pursuant to SB 97 Dear Mr. Calfee, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed amendment to the CEQA Guidelines regarding the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. The City of Newport Beach appreciates the efforts by both your organization and the Office of Planning and Research in order to implement these important changes. The City of Newport Beach supports the revision of CEQA Guidelines to include the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and has the following comments for your consideration. The City would like to work toward a regional approach, with region being defined as those areas within the jurisdiction of the Air Quality Management District (AQMD). The AQMD should take the lead in quantifying the region's emissions, setting quantifiable regional goals, and allocating the fair share overall reduction goals of the counties and/or cities. Because different areas contribute different amounts of GHG emissions depending on a variety of factors, such as the amount of industry and open space, a uniform 20 percent cut from each city will not achieve the state's goal. The AQMD should also provide models that cities and counties can use in establishing their local goals and guidelines. Sincerely, Edward D. Selich Mayor