Project fails to reduce its greenhouse gas emission impacts
The most critical environmental issue facing the planet is extreme climate change consequences. Locally, as Mt. Shasta is exposed to increasing summer temperatures and heightened risk of forest fires due to climate change, we must all do our part to reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs) by insuring that new business projects implement effective improvements. Those include increasing tree planting and maximizing site vegetation, installing lighter-colored cool pavement, reducing energy usage, adding solar panels, and implementing conservation measures.
The IS-MND however shows no evidence that this development will implement any specific GHG emission reduction efforts. Complying with the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code does not count as a 40% reduction in GHG emissions compared to business-as-usual emissions because all new businesses have to comply with that Code. Nothing in the plans for this project shown in the IS-MND reveal any special energy-saving features. The IS-MND does not describe how this project incorporates efficiency and conservation measures sufficient to contribute its portion of the overall greenhouse gas reductions standards. Not even a small solar electric panel is being proposed even though a large area of solar-suitable roofs is available above the warehouses. Simply put, this Freeze warehouse and car wash project is not providing sufficient measures to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions as required by law. The developer has already unlawfully cut down dozens of mature trees, which in themselves would have captured and stored additional GHGs. The IS-MND fails to evaluate that biological impact which will result in even greater emissions of GHGs now.
The IS-MND does not sufficiently show whether California Assembly Bill 32's or Senate Bill 32’s target reductions are being met. Such calculations and estimates, or a reasonable equivalent, must be done here in Mt. Shasta. SB 32 set a goal of reducing GHGs 40 percent below the business-as-usual threshold. The IS-MND essentially determines that no mitigations or measures are required to reduce this Project’s GHG emissions, but that is incorrect.
The California Attorney General has asserted that because the State is committed by AB 32 to decreases in GHG emissions, any project that produces increases in GHG emissions could be an obstacle to complying with AB 32 and thus that should be considered a significant cumulative impact. The IS-MND must be revised in order to analyze the amount, if any, GHG emission reductions that will occur as designed. Since not included in the IS-MND, this information must now be evaluated in an EIR.
Because this Freeze Project incorporates no identified special efficiency and conservation measures sufficient to contribute its portion of the overall greenhouse gas reductions necessary, one can reasonably argue that the Project's GHG impact "is `cumulatively considerable,' because it is not helping to solve the cumulative problem of greenhouse gas emissions as envisioned by California law. (See Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Newhall Land and Farming (2015) 62 Cal.App.4th 204, 220.)
The IS-MND preparers made a serious error in their GHG calculations that renders their conclusions of a less-than-significant GHG impact totally invalid. Because this planning firm is unfamiliar with Siskiyou County, they significantly underestimated the project’s GHG emissions due to our winters here being much colder than they assumed. The IS-MND's Appendices show that Climate Zone 14 was entered into their computer for these calculations, but that is a climate zone for Barstow in southern California. Barstow is much warmer and experiences only about a third of the “heating degree days” that we do here in Climate Zone 16. That means the Freeze car wash winter heating bill for office heating and propane fuel use to keep wash water warm enough to keep from freezing will be three times more than calculated. Burning all that fossil fuel will release more GHGs than the public is being told about. This calculation error needs correction in an EIR. This Freeze development project is located within Siskiyou County, a jurisdiction with an air district without any adopted Climate Action Plan (CAP). As the result, the IS-MND preparers were adrift without a paddle, could not rely upon locally relevant standards, and grabbed onto some inapplicable climate assumptions that are just plain wrong.
The IS-MND misrepresents what energy sources the project would use. It states only that electricity would be used, though the project's plans have been modified in 2019 with the addition of a propane tank located next to the car wash. Burning propane for the car wash and office heating produces more GHG impacts than does using electricity for heating purposes. The IS-MND's discussion about GHG emissions only discusses using electricity, and never mentions use of propane fuel or natural gas.
The IS-MND incorrectly concludes that this Project's GHG emissions would comply with the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (2017 Scoping Plan), AB 32 and SB 32, and therefore would have a less than significant GHG impact. That is not accurate because this Freeze project as designed is proposing no reductions in GHG emissions, yet all feasible reductions are required to meet this Scoping Plan.
The 2017 Scoping Plan Update has the following recommendation: “Absent conformity with an adequate geographically specific GHG reduction plan (aka CAP); the California Air Resources Board (CARB) recommends that all new land use development implement all feasible measures to reduce GHG emissions. (Yet this Freeze project implements no such measures at all.) Several recent examples of sustainable land use development projects in California have demonstrated that it is feasible to design projects that achieve zero net additional GHG emissions.” (https://lsa.net/local-jurisdictions-need-climate-action-plan/ )
The public will not be asking this Project to completely eliminate its GHG emissions, just to significantly reduce them to comply with the State's goals. In the 2017 Scoping Plan Update, CARB goes on to state that zero net emissions may not be feasible for all new development projects and is not a threshold per se. However, CARB challenges lead agencies under CEQA to develop evidence-based thresholds for new developments that substantiate a less-than-significant finding. This has not been done in the preparation of this Project's IS-MND, in particular, because no reductions at all would even occur. The IS-MND adopts a threshold from a far away air district that is not applicable here in Siskiyou County. No evidence is presented showing it would be applicable here. Meeting this threshold is also inadequate because it fails to account for the fact that many existing GHG emission sources (i.e. other businesses, residences, etc.) will not be reducing their GHG emissions, so that burden cannot be foisted onto just new development at a rate calculated as an average for all sources.
If you read all that text above and it makes little sense, then just hold out your hopes that the city has the wisdom to require an EIR be prepared and written clearly to fix the severe shortcomings with the project's IS-MND. Business as usual is no longer acceptable. Those old ways will not solve the extreme climate change risks our planet is facing.
The IS-MND however shows no evidence that this development will implement any specific GHG emission reduction efforts. Complying with the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code does not count as a 40% reduction in GHG emissions compared to business-as-usual emissions because all new businesses have to comply with that Code. Nothing in the plans for this project shown in the IS-MND reveal any special energy-saving features. The IS-MND does not describe how this project incorporates efficiency and conservation measures sufficient to contribute its portion of the overall greenhouse gas reductions standards. Not even a small solar electric panel is being proposed even though a large area of solar-suitable roofs is available above the warehouses. Simply put, this Freeze warehouse and car wash project is not providing sufficient measures to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions as required by law. The developer has already unlawfully cut down dozens of mature trees, which in themselves would have captured and stored additional GHGs. The IS-MND fails to evaluate that biological impact which will result in even greater emissions of GHGs now.
The IS-MND does not sufficiently show whether California Assembly Bill 32's or Senate Bill 32’s target reductions are being met. Such calculations and estimates, or a reasonable equivalent, must be done here in Mt. Shasta. SB 32 set a goal of reducing GHGs 40 percent below the business-as-usual threshold. The IS-MND essentially determines that no mitigations or measures are required to reduce this Project’s GHG emissions, but that is incorrect.
The California Attorney General has asserted that because the State is committed by AB 32 to decreases in GHG emissions, any project that produces increases in GHG emissions could be an obstacle to complying with AB 32 and thus that should be considered a significant cumulative impact. The IS-MND must be revised in order to analyze the amount, if any, GHG emission reductions that will occur as designed. Since not included in the IS-MND, this information must now be evaluated in an EIR.
Because this Freeze Project incorporates no identified special efficiency and conservation measures sufficient to contribute its portion of the overall greenhouse gas reductions necessary, one can reasonably argue that the Project's GHG impact "is `cumulatively considerable,' because it is not helping to solve the cumulative problem of greenhouse gas emissions as envisioned by California law. (See Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Newhall Land and Farming (2015) 62 Cal.App.4th 204, 220.)
The IS-MND preparers made a serious error in their GHG calculations that renders their conclusions of a less-than-significant GHG impact totally invalid. Because this planning firm is unfamiliar with Siskiyou County, they significantly underestimated the project’s GHG emissions due to our winters here being much colder than they assumed. The IS-MND's Appendices show that Climate Zone 14 was entered into their computer for these calculations, but that is a climate zone for Barstow in southern California. Barstow is much warmer and experiences only about a third of the “heating degree days” that we do here in Climate Zone 16. That means the Freeze car wash winter heating bill for office heating and propane fuel use to keep wash water warm enough to keep from freezing will be three times more than calculated. Burning all that fossil fuel will release more GHGs than the public is being told about. This calculation error needs correction in an EIR. This Freeze development project is located within Siskiyou County, a jurisdiction with an air district without any adopted Climate Action Plan (CAP). As the result, the IS-MND preparers were adrift without a paddle, could not rely upon locally relevant standards, and grabbed onto some inapplicable climate assumptions that are just plain wrong.
The IS-MND misrepresents what energy sources the project would use. It states only that electricity would be used, though the project's plans have been modified in 2019 with the addition of a propane tank located next to the car wash. Burning propane for the car wash and office heating produces more GHG impacts than does using electricity for heating purposes. The IS-MND's discussion about GHG emissions only discusses using electricity, and never mentions use of propane fuel or natural gas.
The IS-MND incorrectly concludes that this Project's GHG emissions would comply with the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (2017 Scoping Plan), AB 32 and SB 32, and therefore would have a less than significant GHG impact. That is not accurate because this Freeze project as designed is proposing no reductions in GHG emissions, yet all feasible reductions are required to meet this Scoping Plan.
The 2017 Scoping Plan Update has the following recommendation: “Absent conformity with an adequate geographically specific GHG reduction plan (aka CAP); the California Air Resources Board (CARB) recommends that all new land use development implement all feasible measures to reduce GHG emissions. (Yet this Freeze project implements no such measures at all.) Several recent examples of sustainable land use development projects in California have demonstrated that it is feasible to design projects that achieve zero net additional GHG emissions.” (https://lsa.net/local-jurisdictions-need-climate-action-plan/ )
The public will not be asking this Project to completely eliminate its GHG emissions, just to significantly reduce them to comply with the State's goals. In the 2017 Scoping Plan Update, CARB goes on to state that zero net emissions may not be feasible for all new development projects and is not a threshold per se. However, CARB challenges lead agencies under CEQA to develop evidence-based thresholds for new developments that substantiate a less-than-significant finding. This has not been done in the preparation of this Project's IS-MND, in particular, because no reductions at all would even occur. The IS-MND adopts a threshold from a far away air district that is not applicable here in Siskiyou County. No evidence is presented showing it would be applicable here. Meeting this threshold is also inadequate because it fails to account for the fact that many existing GHG emission sources (i.e. other businesses, residences, etc.) will not be reducing their GHG emissions, so that burden cannot be foisted onto just new development at a rate calculated as an average for all sources.
If you read all that text above and it makes little sense, then just hold out your hopes that the city has the wisdom to require an EIR be prepared and written clearly to fix the severe shortcomings with the project's IS-MND. Business as usual is no longer acceptable. Those old ways will not solve the extreme climate change risks our planet is facing.
California is making important progress in reducing its GHGs.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/California-hits-2020-greenhouse-gas-reduction-13066821.php
But it takes all new businesses to contribute to this vital effort.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/California-hits-2020-greenhouse-gas-reduction-13066821.php
But it takes all new businesses to contribute to this vital effort.
reference information about greenhouse gas emissions:
From Wikipedia:
Greenhouse gases
This section describes the analytical approach to determining if a project has significant GHG impacts using guidelines from two Air Quality Management Districts in California. Finally, mitigation measures recommended by air districts and used on various projects are presented for GHG impact analysis.
Introduction and setting
Greenhouse gas emissions were not required to be analyzed as an impact to the environment when CEQA was originally adopted. Several scientists have since attributed greenhouse gases to climate change and resulting negative impacts to humans and the environment.[14] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a report[15]in 2007 stating that human activities are responsible for increased global temperatures. As a result of these assessments, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 that mandated greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020.[16] Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-3-05 in June 2005 that declared California is vulnerable to climate change impacts resulting in loss of Sierra snowpack for water supply and rising sea levels threatening coastal real estate and habitat.[17] Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger also signed Executive Order S-21-09 in September 2009 requiring 33% of electricity sold in the California come from renewable resources by 2020 to curb greenhouse gas emissions.[18] This assembly of legislation and evidence of environmental impact led to California enacting requirements for lead agencies to consider greenhouse gas emissions in their CEQA reviews.
California Office of Attorney General sent several comment letters to lead agencies urging them to consider greenhouse gas emissions during their CEQA review.[19] Senate Bill 97 required the Governors Office of Planning and Research to develop and recommend new guidelines to analyze greenhouse gas impacts under CEQA.[20] California’s Natural Resources Agency adopted new guidelines on December 31, 2009, requiring lead agencies to analyze greenhouse gas emissions under section 15064.4 during their CEQA review through California.[20][21]
The major category of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activities is carbon dioxide. Several other primary gases also include methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, perfluorocarbons, and hydrofluorocarbons.[22] Greenhouse gas sources resulting from project construction activities are typically generated from transportation of materials to the project site and petrol based equipment used during construction of the project itself.[23] Stationary sources emit greenhouse gases from a single point source such as a smoke stack. Stationary source examples include coal- or gas-fired power plants, incinerators, refineries, bakeries, or chemical plants. Projects that are not stationary sources such as residential and commercial developments, schools, and related infrastructure can also contribute to increases in greenhouse gases. These projects emit greenhouse gases from sources such as vehicle mileage trips to site, energy to run the facility, and landscape maintenance equipment.[13] Land use conversion can reduce vegetation sequestration of carbon dioxide.[24]
The State Air Resources Board or California Air Resources Board is the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of greenhouse gas emissions under AB32.[16]California's thirty-five local air pollution control districts (APCD's) and air quality management districts (AQMD's) are the agencies primarily responsible for regulating stationary sources of air pollution. These air districts traditionally provide guidance to lead agencies, such as counties, cities and public utilities, on the evaluation of air pollutants under CEQA.[25]
Analysis approach
The lead agency is the public agency which has the principal responsibility for approving a proposed project. The lead agency determines which type of environmental document will be prepared (Mitigated Negative Declaration, Environmental Impact Report, etc.) and has discretion to adopt significance criteria more conservative than those required by CEQA.[26]§15064.4 provides a lead agency discretion to determine which type of analysis approach to utilize for a given project level GHG analysis:
“(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 or methodology 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; and/or
(2) Rely on a qualitative analysis or performance based standards.”[27]
The lead agency is charged with making a good-faith effort to “describe, calculate, or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project.”[27]
Lifecycle analysis of GHG includes the full aggregate quantity of GHG generated from the extraction, production, distribution and use of energy or fuel.[28] If a lead agency had to complete a GHG lifecycle analysis under CEQA, they would have to quantify GHGs produced not only within the spatial boundary of the project site, but GHGs generated from transportation of products to the site and product supply chain production emissions. Several of these energy emissions could be produced overseas leading to difficulty by the lead agency in verification and enforcement of emission thresholds. CEQA guidance currently does not require lifecycle analysis of GHG emissions since the term is not well defined and too speculative, and the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) removed the term “Life Cycle” from CEQA guidelines in 2010.[29] If any portion of the analysis is considered speculative by the lead agency and not supported by defensible and quantifiable scientific evidence, the impact must be eliminated pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15145.[30]
Thresholds of significance can be determined by reference of air quality management district CEQA guidelines, although the ultimate discretion for thresholds remains with the lead agency. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District, South Coast Air Quality Management District, and San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District are the only districts to date that have adopted CEQA guidelines. Below are highlights from the BAAQMD and SCAQMD:
Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) typically acts as the responsible agency for setting CEQA air emission thresholds within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The BAAQMD adopted new guidance on June 2, 2010 to address greenhouse gas emission thresholds related to operational related emissions from stationary sources and projects other than stationary sources.[31] Stationary sources are allowed to emit up to 10,000 metric tons (MT) CO2e / year. Other projects are allowed to emit 1,100 MT of CO2e / yr; 4.6 MT CO2e / SP / yr; or compliance with a qualified greenhouse gas reduction strategy.[31] The BAAQMD has not established construction related emissions thresholds, deferring this responsibility to the CEQA lead agency. Chapter 8.2 of the BAAQMD Air Quality Guidelines recommends lead agencies quantify construction emissions and assess if they conflict with AB 32 goals.[31] BAAQMD also recommends using URBEMIS air modeling software to calculate GHG emissions on land use changing projects, and RoadMod software for linear projects. BAAQMD recommends analysis of operational emissions in the five step process: eliminate greenhouse gas analysis if project attributes do not pass screening criteria, quantify emissions using appropriate models, compare unmitigated emissions with thresholds of significance, implement mitigation measures if project is over thresholds of significance, then compare emissions again with thresholds of significance.[31]
South Coast Air Quality Management District
The South Coast Air Quality Management District has developed a tiered analysis process for determining the significance of project-related GHG emissions. If a project is not categorically or otherwise exempt, and if it cannot be shown that the GHG emissions from the project are within GHG budgets in approved regional plans, then project applicants are required to show that the project GHG emissions are below, or mitigated to less than, the applicable following significance screening level:
Impact mitigation measures
Lead agencies can implement several different mitigation measures to offset or reduce GHG emissions. The BAAQMD recommends using the following best management practices for construction activities: 15% of project’s heavy equipment and transportation fleet run on alternative fuels and/or electricity, recycling or reusing 50% of demolition waste, and using 10% local of building materials.[13] Other measures used to reduce construction emissions include limiting equipment idle time, car pooling, and purchase and retire of offsite carbon credits.[24][33]
BAAQMD recommends lead agencies mitigate operational emissions by adopting a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy that is consistent with AB 32.[13] This strategy can be incorporated into the lead agency’s general plan or programmatic level policy for assessing GHG emissions. The strategy involves assessing “business as usual” current and forecasted emissions to calculate a baseline for reduction. The lead agency then proposes measures to reduce those emissions to meet AB 32 expectations. BAAQMD recommends the project mitigate to the maximum extent feasible before considering offsite mitigation options, and offsite mitigation should be measurable, enforceable, and occur within the nine-county Bay Area.[13]
Greenhouse gases
This section describes the analytical approach to determining if a project has significant GHG impacts using guidelines from two Air Quality Management Districts in California. Finally, mitigation measures recommended by air districts and used on various projects are presented for GHG impact analysis.
Introduction and setting
Greenhouse gas emissions were not required to be analyzed as an impact to the environment when CEQA was originally adopted. Several scientists have since attributed greenhouse gases to climate change and resulting negative impacts to humans and the environment.[14] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a report[15]in 2007 stating that human activities are responsible for increased global temperatures. As a result of these assessments, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 that mandated greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020.[16] Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-3-05 in June 2005 that declared California is vulnerable to climate change impacts resulting in loss of Sierra snowpack for water supply and rising sea levels threatening coastal real estate and habitat.[17] Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger also signed Executive Order S-21-09 in September 2009 requiring 33% of electricity sold in the California come from renewable resources by 2020 to curb greenhouse gas emissions.[18] This assembly of legislation and evidence of environmental impact led to California enacting requirements for lead agencies to consider greenhouse gas emissions in their CEQA reviews.
California Office of Attorney General sent several comment letters to lead agencies urging them to consider greenhouse gas emissions during their CEQA review.[19] Senate Bill 97 required the Governors Office of Planning and Research to develop and recommend new guidelines to analyze greenhouse gas impacts under CEQA.[20] California’s Natural Resources Agency adopted new guidelines on December 31, 2009, requiring lead agencies to analyze greenhouse gas emissions under section 15064.4 during their CEQA review through California.[20][21]
The major category of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activities is carbon dioxide. Several other primary gases also include methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, perfluorocarbons, and hydrofluorocarbons.[22] Greenhouse gas sources resulting from project construction activities are typically generated from transportation of materials to the project site and petrol based equipment used during construction of the project itself.[23] Stationary sources emit greenhouse gases from a single point source such as a smoke stack. Stationary source examples include coal- or gas-fired power plants, incinerators, refineries, bakeries, or chemical plants. Projects that are not stationary sources such as residential and commercial developments, schools, and related infrastructure can also contribute to increases in greenhouse gases. These projects emit greenhouse gases from sources such as vehicle mileage trips to site, energy to run the facility, and landscape maintenance equipment.[13] Land use conversion can reduce vegetation sequestration of carbon dioxide.[24]
The State Air Resources Board or California Air Resources Board is the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of greenhouse gas emissions under AB32.[16]California's thirty-five local air pollution control districts (APCD's) and air quality management districts (AQMD's) are the agencies primarily responsible for regulating stationary sources of air pollution. These air districts traditionally provide guidance to lead agencies, such as counties, cities and public utilities, on the evaluation of air pollutants under CEQA.[25]
Analysis approach
The lead agency is the public agency which has the principal responsibility for approving a proposed project. The lead agency determines which type of environmental document will be prepared (Mitigated Negative Declaration, Environmental Impact Report, etc.) and has discretion to adopt significance criteria more conservative than those required by CEQA.[26]§15064.4 provides a lead agency discretion to determine which type of analysis approach to utilize for a given project level GHG analysis:
“(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 or methodology 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; and/or
(2) Rely on a qualitative analysis or performance based standards.”[27]
The lead agency is charged with making a good-faith effort to “describe, calculate, or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project.”[27]
Lifecycle analysis of GHG includes the full aggregate quantity of GHG generated from the extraction, production, distribution and use of energy or fuel.[28] If a lead agency had to complete a GHG lifecycle analysis under CEQA, they would have to quantify GHGs produced not only within the spatial boundary of the project site, but GHGs generated from transportation of products to the site and product supply chain production emissions. Several of these energy emissions could be produced overseas leading to difficulty by the lead agency in verification and enforcement of emission thresholds. CEQA guidance currently does not require lifecycle analysis of GHG emissions since the term is not well defined and too speculative, and the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) removed the term “Life Cycle” from CEQA guidelines in 2010.[29] If any portion of the analysis is considered speculative by the lead agency and not supported by defensible and quantifiable scientific evidence, the impact must be eliminated pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15145.[30]
Thresholds of significance can be determined by reference of air quality management district CEQA guidelines, although the ultimate discretion for thresholds remains with the lead agency. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District, South Coast Air Quality Management District, and San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District are the only districts to date that have adopted CEQA guidelines. Below are highlights from the BAAQMD and SCAQMD:
Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) typically acts as the responsible agency for setting CEQA air emission thresholds within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The BAAQMD adopted new guidance on June 2, 2010 to address greenhouse gas emission thresholds related to operational related emissions from stationary sources and projects other than stationary sources.[31] Stationary sources are allowed to emit up to 10,000 metric tons (MT) CO2e / year. Other projects are allowed to emit 1,100 MT of CO2e / yr; 4.6 MT CO2e / SP / yr; or compliance with a qualified greenhouse gas reduction strategy.[31] The BAAQMD has not established construction related emissions thresholds, deferring this responsibility to the CEQA lead agency. Chapter 8.2 of the BAAQMD Air Quality Guidelines recommends lead agencies quantify construction emissions and assess if they conflict with AB 32 goals.[31] BAAQMD also recommends using URBEMIS air modeling software to calculate GHG emissions on land use changing projects, and RoadMod software for linear projects. BAAQMD recommends analysis of operational emissions in the five step process: eliminate greenhouse gas analysis if project attributes do not pass screening criteria, quantify emissions using appropriate models, compare unmitigated emissions with thresholds of significance, implement mitigation measures if project is over thresholds of significance, then compare emissions again with thresholds of significance.[31]
South Coast Air Quality Management District
The South Coast Air Quality Management District has developed a tiered analysis process for determining the significance of project-related GHG emissions. If a project is not categorically or otherwise exempt, and if it cannot be shown that the GHG emissions from the project are within GHG budgets in approved regional plans, then project applicants are required to show that the project GHG emissions are below, or mitigated to less than, the applicable following significance screening level:
- 10,000 metric tons of CO2e per year for industrial projects; or
- 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year for commercial or residential projects [32]
Impact mitigation measures
Lead agencies can implement several different mitigation measures to offset or reduce GHG emissions. The BAAQMD recommends using the following best management practices for construction activities: 15% of project’s heavy equipment and transportation fleet run on alternative fuels and/or electricity, recycling or reusing 50% of demolition waste, and using 10% local of building materials.[13] Other measures used to reduce construction emissions include limiting equipment idle time, car pooling, and purchase and retire of offsite carbon credits.[24][33]
BAAQMD recommends lead agencies mitigate operational emissions by adopting a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy that is consistent with AB 32.[13] This strategy can be incorporated into the lead agency’s general plan or programmatic level policy for assessing GHG emissions. The strategy involves assessing “business as usual” current and forecasted emissions to calculate a baseline for reduction. The lead agency then proposes measures to reduce those emissions to meet AB 32 expectations. BAAQMD recommends the project mitigate to the maximum extent feasible before considering offsite mitigation options, and offsite mitigation should be measurable, enforceable, and occur within the nine-county Bay Area.[13]
Bottom line:
Each new business in California is required to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. This Freeze project is not exempt from such requirements. The City needs to take a hard look at this issue and require an EIR be prepared to include such analysis and effective mitigation measures.