APPENDIX F Goleta Valley Community Plan Update for the Eastern Goleta Valley Air / Greenhouse Gas Analysis

Transcription

1 Eastern Goleta Valley Community Plan EIR Appendices APPENDIX F Goleta Valley Community Plan Update for the Eastern Goleta Valley Air / Greenhouse Gas Analysis County of Santa Barbara

2 Appendices Eastern Goleta Valley Community Plan EIR THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK. County of Santa Barbara

3 1927 Fifth Avenue 2033 East Grant Road 2027 Preisker Lane, Ste. G San Diego, CA Tucson, AZ Santa Maria, CA P P P F F F An Employee-Owned Company July 25, 2014 Mr. Allen Bell County of Santa Barbara Long Range Planning Division 123 East Anapamu Street, First Floor Santa Barbara, CA Reference: Goleta Valley Community Plan Update for the Eastern Goleta Valley Air / Greenhouse Gas Analysis (RECON Number 7229) Dear Mr. Bell: This letter report provides the results of the air quality criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions modeling performed for the future buildout of the proposed Goleta Valley Community Plan for the Eastern Goleta Valley (Plan update), including eight housing opportunity sites. In addition, this letter report provides the results of the calculations of operational emissions in relation to standards, guidelines, and screening thresholds, as applicable. The air quality and GHG impacts will be assessed in the environmental impact report based in part on the data and modeling results contained in this letter. RECON Environmental, Inc. (RECON) reviewed the traffic data received from Associated Transportation Engineers and calculated air quality criteria pollutant emissions and GHG operational emissions using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version , as recommended for calculating air emissions from land use developments within the County of Santa Barbara (County; Bay Area Air Quality Management District [BAAQMD] 2012; Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD; 2011; San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District [SLOAPCD] 2014). These operational modeling results are analyzed in relation to the GHG reduction measures and targets set forth in the Draft Energy and Climate Action Plan (ECAP) prepared by the County. A brief analysis comparing the operational modeling results with GHG thresholds from other jurisdictions is also included for reference purposes, as the Draft ECAP is in the process of being approved. Modeling of short-term construction emissions of air quality criteria pollutants is not included, in accordance with County and SBCAPCD guidelines for plan updates. However, a qualitative discussion will be included in the environmental document outlining the necessary measures needed for controlling emissions from construction activities. The modeling of short-term construction emissions of GHG emissions for the housing opportunity sites is included based on standard projections for land uses in CalEEMod in order to determine which sites would need additional analysis at the time that development is proposed.

4 Mr. Allen Bell Page 2 July 25, Project Description The Plan update is proposed to revise the adopted 1993 Goleta Community Plan (1993 GCP) for the unincorporated eastern portion of the Goleta Valley Planning Area. The update would amend the Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan, including the 1993 GCP, the Local Coastal Plan, and the associated maps, actions, and zoning ordinances that regulate and guide future land use exclusively in the Eastern Goleta Valley Planning Area (Plan area). The Plan update includes adding the new Eastern Goleta Valley Plan area to the 1993 GCP footprint; Urban/Rural boundary line changes; Land Use and Development Code amendments, including a new mixed use zone for an extent of the Hollister Avenue and State Street Commercial Corridor; and Coastal Zoning Ordinance amendments. The Plan update also includes the study of eight housing opportunity sites, which include rezoning at densities of up to 20 units per acre; complete street transportation system improvements; planning for coastal access, and parks and trails planning. Finally, the Plan update contains goals, policies, and standards to guide development in the region. 1.1 Future Potential Development Most of the developable land within the Plan area is currently developed. Table 1 provides a summary of the additional remaining development that could occur under the 1993 GCP, the Plan update, and theoretical buildout projections from the Environmental Scoping Study for the Goleta Valley Community Plan Update for the Eastern Goleta Valley (Environmental Scoping Study; County of Santa Barbara 2013). Existing emissions due to existing development in the Plan area was not modeled, but is a part of the criteria pollutant concentrations measured at air monitoring stations. These existing emissions area accounted for in the Clean Air Plan. Emissions due to future remaining potential development under the 1993 GCP are also estimated in the Clean Air Plan. To determine if the emissions due to future remaining development under the Plan update would be consistent with Clean Air Plan projections, using the land uses shown in Table 1, operational emissions were calculated for the future remaining development of the Plan update and compared to the future remaining development emissions of the 1993 GCP. Table 1: Land Uses Land Uses 1993 GCP 1 Plan Update 2 Theoretical Buildout 2,3 Scoping Study Single-family 1,542 dwelling unit (DU) 99 DU 1,392 DU Multi-family 98 DU 1,033 DU 874 DU Retail Commercial 908,507 square feet (SF) 402,779 SF 1,149,959 SF Non-retail Commercial 520,559 SF 0 SF 81,628 SF SOURCE: County of Santa Barbara These units or square footage values do not include existing values and include future values only. 2 County of Santa Barbara 2014b. 3 An estimated maximum theoretical buildout scenario for the land uses is provided based on Table 1-9 of the Environmental Scoping Study to inform the public and decision-makers of the maximum permissible density and intensity conceivable under the proposed land use designations and zones. Due to regulatory and physical constraints, and foreseeable market conditions, the maximum theoretical buildout scenario is highly unlikely to be realized (County of Santa Barbara 2013).

5 Mr. Allen Bell Page 3 July 25, Site-specific A description of the housing opportunity sites is provided in Table 2. Table 2: Housing Opportunity Sites Land Uses Site Land Uses Quantity 1 Multi-family 205 DU 2 Multi-family 277 DU 3 Multi-family 22 DU 4 Multi-family 15 DU 5 Multi-family 30 DU 6 Single-family 48 DU 7 8 Multi-family Commercial Office Restaurant / Bar Hotel Commercial Multi-family 154 DU 58,840 SF 40,000 SF 33,000 SF 88 rooms 11,200 SF 23 DU SOURCE: Associated Transportation Engineers Air Quality Emissions 2.1 Methodology and Guidance The methodology and guidance used for this analysis is based on the SBCAPCD thresholds of significance (SBCAPCD 2011) and the County of Santa Barbara Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual (County of Santa Barbara 2008). Criteria Pollutants Long-term operational emissions include total emissions from any equipment or process used in the project and motor vehicle emissions associated with the project (County of Santa Barbara 2008). The County s screening table for air quality criteria pollutants is used to assess the potential for air quality impacts from projects (SBCAPCD 2011). As the County is in nonattainment for ozone, which is formed from the interaction of nitrogen oxide (NOX) and reactive organic gases (ROC), known as ozone precursors, and particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (), these criteria pollutants are the focus of the County s air quality guidance. According to the County s air quality guidance, there would be potential adverse impacts to air quality if total project emissions of NOX and ROC exceeded 55 pounds (lbs) per day or if emissions of exceeded 80 lbs per day. Alternately, the County also considers emission of NOX or ROC equaling or exceeding 25 lbs from motor vehicles associated with a project to represent an adverse impact on air quality. The screening levels are applicable to total projectspecific emissions and not necessarily appropriate for total emissions of a community plan update. Community plans present unique challenges for assessing air quality impacts. Community plans include development strategies for long horizons, e.g., 20-year. They also provide for a wide range of potential land uses and densities that accommodate all types of development. Also, plans are subject to program-level analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as opposed to project-level analysis. Therefore, consistency with the Clean Air Plan, which assesses and provides guidance to reduce emissions, is the most appropriate method for determining

6 Mr. Allen Bell Page 4 July 25, 2014 whether the Plan s impact to regional air quality would be significant. However, to be conservative, buildout of future remaining development projects under the Plan update would result in an increase in air pollutant emissions within the County; therefore, all remaining development that could occur under either the 1993 GCP and the Plan update were quantified and compared to the project-level thresholds. Health Risk The California Air Resources Board (CARB) produced the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, which among other information, provides advisory guidance of local agencies for the siting of air quality sensitive land uses to reduce potential cancer risks (CARB 2). The air quality sensitive receptors identified by CARB include residences, schools, daycare centers, playgrounds, and medical facilities, and locating these sensitive receptors near these sources would result in potential to exceed limits and health risks. The following distances are the recommended buffers for siting sensitive receptors in proximity to known emission sources: 500 feet from freeways (e.g. U.S. 101), urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day 1,000 feet from a distribution center 1,000 feet from a major service and maintenance yard Avoidance of siting immediately downwind of ports Avoidance of siting immediately downwind of refineries 1,000 feet from a chrome plater 300 feet from dry cleaners (500 feet for operations with 2 or more machines) 300 feet from a large gas station (3.6 million gallons of throughput per year or greater) or 50 feet from a typical gas dispensing facility The distances provided here are not specifically indicators of risk but instead are indicators of where additional study and consideration are to be given prior to allowing the development of new sensitive receptors. Additionally, the SBCAPCD does not consider a health risk assessment an appropriate tool for determining the potential for health risks from freeways due to the lack of source-specific data for vehicles (SBCAPCD 2014). Instead the SBAPCD recommends maintaining the buffer distance recommended by CARB and to use site design and indoor air filtration to reduce the exposure where this distance cannot be achieved. Carbon Monoxide The County monitors emissions associated with carbon monoxide (CO) near congested intersections. A carbon monoxide hotspot can form at congested intersections if a project contributes 800 peak hour trips or more at an existing congested intersection at level of service (LOS) D or below, or will cause an intersection to reach LOS D or below. However, projects that will incorporate intersection modifications to ease traffic congestion are not required to perform modeling to determine potential CO impacts.

7 Mr. Allen Bell Page 5 July 25, Emissions Calculations Future Potential Development The summary of operation emissions for the future buildout of the 1993 GCP Plan, the Plan update, and Theoretical Buildout are listed in Table 3, and the modeling output table is provided in Attachments 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Table 3: Plan Area Future Air Quality Emissions due to Future Remaining Development 1 (pounds/day) ROC 2 NO X 2 PM GCP Area Mobile Plan update Area Mobile Theoretical Buildout Area Mobile County Threshold (All Sources) Exceed Threshold (All Sources)? Yes Yes Yes County Threshold (Vehicles Only) Exceed Threshold (Vehicles Only)? Yes Yes -- Net Change from 1993 GCP to Plan Buildout SOURCE: County of Santa Barbara As the County is in non-attainment for the federal and state standards for ozone (precursor NOx and ROC) and the state standard for PM 10, the established air quality thresholds are focused on these three pollutants. 2 The summer emissions were reported per SBCAPCD Guidance. The SBAPCD 2010 Clean Air Plan accounts for anticipated criteria pollutant emissions from existing plans, including the buildout of the 1993 GCP. Based on the results in Table 3, the operational emissions for the future buildout of the Plan update would be lower than the emissions estimated for the remaining development under the 1993 GCP. The decrease in emissions would result primarily from fewer vehicle trips from both commercial and residential land uses. The Plan update includes more infill and transit-oriented development through more mixed use multi-family and less single-family residential. The inclusion of these high-density commercial and residential land uses would lower the number of vehicle trips as well as emissions. Emissions would also decrease as there is no non-retail commercial development proposed for the Plan update. This decrease in emissions would be consistent with the SBAPCD 2010 Clean Air Plan, as it already accounts for the level of emissions anticipated under the buildout of the 1993 GCP. Site-specific The level of development for proposed land uses is the primary indicator in assessing air quality emissions. The sites with the most dwelling units or the highest combination of land uses were modeled in CalEEMod to determine if they exceeded the SBCAPCD thresholds for air pollutants.

8 Mr. Allen Bell Page 6 July 25, 2014 Site 7 was selected for analysis, as it proposes the highest number of uses of all of the sites. Site 2 was also selected for analysis, as it proposes the most dwelling units of all of the sites. Housing opportunity site 7 would be developed with 154 multi-family units, 58,840 square feet of commercial uses, 40,000 square feet of office uses, a 33,000-square-foot restaurant/bar, and an 88-room hotel. Table 4 summarizes the CalEEMod results for site 7. Housing opportunity site 2 would be developed with 277 multi-family units. Table 5 summarizes the CalEEMod results for site 2. Table 4: Housing Opportunity Site 7 Air Quality Emissions 1 (pounds/day) ROC 2 NO x 2 PM 10 2 Area Source Emissions Mobile Source Emissions Emissions County Threshold (All Sources) Exceed Threshold (All Sources)? No No No County Threshold (Vehicles Only) Exceed Threshold (Vehicles Only)? Yes Yes -- SOURCE: Associated Transportation Engineers 2014; Attachment 4. 1 As the County is in non-attainment for the federal and state standards for ozone (precursor NOx and ROC) and the state standard for PM 10, the established air quality thresholds are focused on these three pollutants. 2 The summer emissions were reported per SBCAPCD Guidance. Table 5: Housing Opportunity Site 2 Air Quality Emissions 1 (pounds/day) ROC 2 NO x 2 PM 10 2 Area Source Emissions Mobile Source Emissions Emissions County Threshold (All Sources) Exceed Threshold (All Sources)? No No No County Threshold (Vehicles Only) Exceed Threshold (Vehicles Only)? No No -- SOURCE: Associated Transportation Engineers 2014; Attachment 4. 1 As the County is in non-attainment for the federal and state standards for ozone (precursor NO x and ROC) and the state standard for PM 10, the established air quality thresholds are focused on these three pollutants. 2 The summer emissions were reported per SBCAPCD Guidance. The complete model outputs and calculations are included in Attachment 4, and the modeling assumptions are included in Attachment 5. Based on the results, site 7 would exceed the SBCAPCD threshold of 25 lbs per day of NO X or ROC from motor vehicle trips. Site 2 would not exceed any of the established thresholds. Sites with less intense development would generate fewer emissions. It can thus be concluded that the development of the housing opportunity sites 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 would not exceed the significance thresholds either.

9 Mr. Allen Bell Page 7 July 25, Health Risk Plan-wide Based on the guidance from CARB, U.S. 101 is the only freeway or roadway of concern. At buildout of the Plan update, U.S. 101 is projected to carry between 163,933 and 174,179 average daily trips within the Plan area. The distance of buildings from a highway is the most readily identifiable and understandable approach for preventing the residual health risk from traffic pollution exposures for those living closest to the roadways, because it distances them from the highest pollution concentrations (CARB 2012). Where maintaining the recommended distance is infeasible, project design measures would be necessary to reduce and minimize health impacts to sensitive receptors. However, further analysis would need to occur to determine feasible design measures should the sites be located within 500 feet of U.S CARB recommended measures include high-efficiency filtration with mechanical ventilation, high-efficiency portable air cleaning devices, and reducing indoor-generated pollutants (Attachment 6). There are no large-scale railyards, refineries, or ports identified within the Plan area, and as these source categories are not proposed, they are not assessed for health risks. Site-specific Five housing opportunity sites are partially or entirely within the 500-foot buffer of the U.S Sites 5 and 7 are largely within the buffer distance, while sites 1, 2 and 8 have smaller portions within it. Site 5 entire site within 500 feet and on the north side of U.S. 101 Site 7 nearly entire site within 500 feet and on the south side of U.S. 101 Site 1 southern portion within 500 feet and on the north side of U.S. 101 Site 2 northern portion within 500 feet and on the south side of U.S. 101 Site 8 northern portion within 500 feet and on the south side of U.S. 101 As these sites are within the buffer distances for freeways identified by CARB, these sites would need to include potential design measures such as high-efficiency filtration with mechanical ventilation and high-efficiency portable air cleaning devices (see Attachment 6). As sites 7 and 8 consist of commercial uses among others, these sites would require further analysis if any of the source categories identified by CARB (primarily chrome platers, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities) are anticipated as end users within the developments. As this level of detail may not yet be available, performance-based mitigation will be included in the environmental document to limit exposure and reduce health risks. 2.4 Carbon Monoxide Plan-wide Within the Plan update, the U.S. 101 southbound ramp / Turnpike Road intersection is forecasted to operate at a LOS D during the A.M. peak hour period with buildout traffic volumes, which exceeds the County s LOS operating standard for determining the potential for CO hotspots (Associated Transportation Engineers 2014). However, improvements are planned for this intersection, and as described within the traffic study, this intersection would operate at LOS C after improvements (Associated Transportation Engineers 2014). As the intersection would operate at LOS C after completion of the project a CO hotspot is not anticipated. Site-specific Based on the Draft Traffic and Circulation Study, all of the housing opportunity sites would generate less than 800 peak hour trips (Associated Transportation Engineers 2014). Therefore, a detailed CO hotspot analysis would not be required for the housing opportunity sites.

10 Mr. Allen Bell Page 8 July 25, Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.1 Methodology and Guidance The County released its Draft ECAP in May Local governments may generally use adopted plans consistent with CEQA Guidelines to assess the cumulative impacts of projects on climate change when the adopted plan includes a certified environmental impact report (EIR). While the ECAP is in draft form and cannot be used for determining significance under CEQA, it provides the most relevant guidance for assessing the impacts of the proposed Plan update. The methodology and guidance for assessing the Plan update includes an analysis and comparison of GHG emission reductions of the Plan update to the GHG reduction targets put forth in the Draft ECAP. For the purposes of this analysis, the Plan update was evaluated for its consistency with the ECAP and state plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions For determining significance under CEQA, the County of Santa Barbara is considering the guidance set forth by other air districts within the State of California that have adopted thresholds or have produced guidance on thresholds for GHG emissions while its Draft ECAP proceeds through the EIR process. This guidance is disclosed only for reference purposes, as they were established for neighboring jurisdictions with different development patterns and not specifically applicable to the County of Santa Barbara. This analysis references two sources of guidance on GHG thresholds. One source is the SLOAPCD (2012). This guidance specifies a threshold of significance of 4.9 metric ton carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO 2 E) per service population (as defined by residents plus employees) per year for plans and 1,150 MTCO 2 E per year threshold for project level emissions. Another source is the BAAQMD (2009). This guidance proposes thresholds of significance of 6.6 MTCO 2 E per service population per year for plans and 1,100 MTE per year threshold for projects. This guidance is included despite ongoing litigation that required the BAAQMD to remove the screening thresholds from their Air Quality Guidelines (BAAQMD 2012). The service population was then derived from a combination of sources including the 2010 census for the County of Santa Barbara (SBCAG 2010) and the GHG Thresholds and Supporting Evidence, Appendix 4 document (SLOAPCD 2012). 3.2 Emissions Calculations Future Potential Development GHG emissions were calculated using the CalEEMod computer program. According to SBCAPCD, CalEEMod may not be appropriate for estimating emissions from the buildout of a community plan because it can over-estimate emissions associated with transportation from a community plan area rather than a specific project (SBCAPCD 2011). In the absence of projectspecific information, the default assumptions must be used for each emissions category, which can also overestimate emissions. The model also overestimates construction emissions because it is tailored for specific projects rather than community plans and assumes that the future homes are built all at once (i.e., site preparation and grading occurs for all buildout units and commercial development occurs within the first several years). However, buildout of the Plan update would occur over a much longer period. Nonetheless, at this time, CalEEMod is recommended as the tool for these purposes. Existing baseline GHG emission inventories have been conducted by CARB and the County. Buildout of individual projects under the Plan update would result in an increase in GHG emissions within the County. For comparative purposes, GHG emissions due to future remaining development projects that could be constructed in the same geographical area (i.e., within Plan area boundary) under the 1993 GCP and the Plan update were calculated. Emission estimates

11 Mr. Allen Bell Page 9 July 25, 2014 have been calculated for the three GHGs of primary concern (CO 2, CH 4, and N 2 O) that would be emitted from construction and the five primary operational sources that would be associated with Plan buildout: mobile sources, area sources, energy use, water use, and solid waste disposal. GHG emissions calculated for the Plan update land uses are provided in Appendix G and summarized in Table 6. The complete modeling output for the 1993 GCP is provided in Attachment 7. The modeling output for the Plan update is provided in Attachment 8. Table 6: Plan Area GHG Operational Emissions due to Future Potential Development (MTCO 2E / year) 1 Category 1993 GCP Plan Update Theoretical Buildout Area Energy 10,227 3,010 9,702 Mobile 31,284 13,288 35,570 Waste 1, ,473 Water ,554 16,991 47,299 SOURCE: CalEEMod version , 6. 1 The calculations for GHG emissions of the future buildout of the 1993 GCP account for reductions from statewide measures including Pavley I and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, which are included in the emission factors used in CalEEMod. Additional reductions were taken for the Clean Car Standard (Pavley II) accounting for 2.7 percent reduction in mobile emissions and additional Renewable Portfolio Standard Compliance by Southern California Edison, accounting for a 4.1 percent reduction in energy emissions (CPUC 2014; SCE 2011) (Attachment 9). As shown in Table 6, the largest emissions reductions would occur in the transportation category and are attributed to fewer vehicle trips from both commercial and residential land uses. The Plan update s inclusion of more infill and transit-oriented development through more mixed use multifamily and less single-family residential land uses would be consistent with the GHG reduction measures presented in the Draft ECAP. The Plan update contains trip-reduction strategies such as promoting mixed-use and infill developments that would direct growth in already populated areas near U.S. 101 and existing transportation routes and neighborhood amenities. This pattern of development is consistent with goals of reducing sprawl and directing new housing in areas in close proximity to transit and other available alternative transportation modes. These fewer vehicle trips would also help achieve the Sustainable Communities Strategy s goal of reducing GHG emissions from transportation, which is also included in the Draft ECAP. Therefore, the Plan update would assist the County of Santa Barbara in meeting the Draft ECAP s GHG reduction target of 15 percent below the baseline by the year For reference purposes, a brief analysis of the service population emissions was provided using the SLOAPCD and BAAQMD guidelines. As these guidelines were developed for jurisdictions with different development patterns and land uses, they are not specifically applicable to the County of Santa Barbara. In order to calculate the total per service population emissions, the operational emissions (MTCO 2 E) are divided by the total calculated service population (SBCAG 2010; SLOAPCD 2012). Dividing the total emissions by the service population results in 5.3 MTCO 2 E per service population per year for the 1993 GCP MTCO 2 E per service population per year for the Plan update, and 5.0 MTCO 2 E per service population per year for the theoretical Plan buildout (Attachment 10). The 1993 GCP and the theoretical buildout would exceed the service population threshold for the SLOAPCD but would not exceed the threshold for the BAAQMD. The Plan update would not exceed the thresholds for either the SLOACPD or the BAAQMD.

12 Mr. Allen Bell Page 10 July 25, 2014 Site-specific As with the air quality emissions calculations, housing opportunity sites with the most dwelling units or the highest combination of land uses were modeled in CalEEMod to assess the GHG emissions from the operational and the construction phases. Several housing opportunity sites were modeled in CalEEMod to determine at which point the projects started to emit below the significance threshold. Based on the SLOAPCD screening threshold of 1,150 MTE per year and BAAQMD screening threshold 1,100 MTE per year, the development intensity proposed at sites 1, 2, and 7 would exceed the screening threshold. Site 6 represents the maximum development that would not exceed the screening criteria. As all other sites have less intense development, the development of sites 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 would not exceed the screening thresholds. The complete CalEEMod results are included in Attachment 11, and the modeling assumptions are included in Attachment 5. Table 6 provides a summary of the CalEEMod results. Table 6: Housing Opportunity Sites GHG Emissions (MTCO 2E / year) Land Uses Land Uses Quantity GHG Emissions 1 Multi-family 154 DU Commercial 58,840 SF 7 Office 40,000 SF 5,425 Restaurant / Bar 33,000 SF Hotel 88 room 2 Multi-family 277 DU 2,020 1 Multi-family 205 DU 1,461 6 Single-family 48 DU 625 SOURCE: CalEEMod version , 6. 1 Emissions include 30-year amortized construction emissions added to the operational emissions. As indicated in the results in Table 6, sites 7, 2, and 1 would all be above the screening threshold, and additional analyses would be needed to determine feasible GHG reduction measures to lower the greenhouse gas emissions. However, due to the less intense development proposed sites 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 would not require additional analysis. Sincerely, William Maddux Senior Air Quality Analyst Attachments

13 Mr. Allen Bell Page 11 July 25, References Associated Transportation Engineers 2014 Draft Traffic and Circulation Study. April 3. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) 2009 Proposed Threshold of Significance. December CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. May. California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2 Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April Status of Research on Potential Mitigation Concepts to Reduce Exposure to Nearby Traffic Pollution. August 23. California Public Utilities Commissions (CPUC) 2014 Biennial RPS Program Update. February. Santa Barbara, County of 2008 Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual. October Environmental Scoping Study for the Goleta Valley Community Plan Update for the Eastern Goleta Valley. August. 2014a Draft Energy and Climate Action Plan. May. 2014b Personal communication with Bret McNulty on April 23, Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) Census Overview. Accessed April 9, Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD) 2011 Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental Documents. Prepared by the Technology and Environmental Assessment Division. Updated December Personal communication with Molly Pearson (SBCAPCD) on April 1, San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) 2012 Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Supporting Evidence. _Evidence_ pdf. Accessed on April 9, Rules, Regulations, and Plans. Accessed on April 9, Southern California Edison (SCE) 2011 Southern California Edison Company (U 338-E), Verified and August 2011 Semi-annual Compliance Report Pursuant to the California Renewables Portfolio Standard.

14 ATTACHMENTS

15 ATTACHMENT 1 CalEEMod Output (Summer Emissions) Buildout of 1993 GCP

16 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 1 of 17 Date: 7/8/2014 2:06 PM Housing Opportunity - Buildout Current Plan without Existing Santa Barbara County APCD Air District, Summer 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building sqft , Apartments Mid Rise Dwelling Unit , Single Family Housing 1, Dwelling Unit ,775, Strip Mall sqft , Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.9 Precipitation Freq (Days) 37 Climate Zone 8 Operational Year 2035 Utility Company Southern California Edison Intensity (lb/mwhr) Intensity (lb/mwhr) Intensity (lb/mwhr) User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

17 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 2 of 17 Date: 7/8/2014 2:06 PM Project Characteristics - Land Use - NA Construction Phase - NA Off-road Equipment - NA Vehicle Trips - ATE traffic report Area Coating - Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Area Mitigation - Energy Mitigation - Water Mitigation - Vechicle Emission Factors - Vechicle Emission Factors - Vechicle Emission Factors -

18 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 3 of 17 Date: 7/8/2014 2:06 PM Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tbllanduse LandUseSquareFeet 520, , tbllanduse LandUseSquareFeet 908, , tblprojectcharacteristics OperationalYear tblvehicletrips ST_TR tblvehicletrips ST_TR tblvehicletrips ST_TR tblvehicletrips ST_TR tblvehicletrips SU_TR tblvehicletrips SU_TR tblvehicletrips SU_TR tblvehicletrips SU_TR tblvehicletrips WD_TR tblvehicletrips WD_TR tblvehicletrips WD_TR Emissions Summary

19 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 4 of 17 Date: 7/8/2014 2:06 PM 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 N Year lb/day lb/day , , , , , , , , , Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 N Year lb/day lb/day , , , , , , , , , ROG NOx CO SO2 N20 Percent Reduction

20 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 5 of 17 Date: 7/8/2014 2:06 PM 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 N Category lb/day lb/day Area e Energy , Mobile , , , , , , , , Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 N Category lb/day lb/day Area e Energy , Mobile , , , , , , , ,

21 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 6 of 17 Date: 7/8/2014 2:06 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 N20 Percent Reduction Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 NA Site Preparation 1/1/2015 5/18/ Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0 (Architectural Coating sqft) OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor NA Rubber Tired Dozers NA Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class NA LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

22 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 7 of 17 Date: 7/8/2014 2:06 PM 3.2 NA Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 N Category lb/day lb/day Dust Off-Road , , , , , , Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 N Category lb/day lb/day Hauling Vendor Worker e e e e e e

23 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 8 of 17 Date: 7/8/2014 2:06 PM 3.2 NA Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 N Category lb/day lb/day Dust Off-Road , , , , , , Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 N Category lb/day lb/day Hauling Vendor Worker e e e e e e

24 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 9 of 17 Date: 7/8/2014 2:06 PM 3.2 NA Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 N Category lb/day lb/day Dust Off-Road , , , , , , Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 N Category lb/day lb/day Hauling Vendor Worker e e e e e e e e

25 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 10 of 17 Date: 7/8/2014 2:06 PM 3.2 NA Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 N Category lb/day lb/day Dust Off-Road , , , , , , Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 N Category lb/day lb/day Hauling Vendor Worker e e e e e e e e Operational Detail - Mobile

26 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 11 of 17 Date: 7/8/2014 2:06 PM 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile ROG NOx CO SO2 N Category lb/day lb/day Unmitigated , Mitigated , , , , , Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Mid Rise ,798,126 1,798,126 General Office Building 5, , ,235,923 10,235,923 Single Family Housing 14, , ,503,607 40,503,607 Strip Mall 40, , ,921,031 42,921,031 61, , , ,458,687 95,458, Trip Type Information Miles Trip % Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Mid Rise General Office Building Single Family Housing Strip Mall

27 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 12 of 17 Date: 7/8/2014 2:06 PM LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Energy Detail 4.4 Fleet Mix Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Exceed Title 24 ROG NOx CO SO2 N Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas Mitigated , , , NaturalGas Unmitigated , , ,

28 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 13 of 17 Date: 7/8/2014 2:06 PM 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 N Land Use kbtu/yr lb/day lb/day Single Family Housing , , , Strip Mall e Apartments Mid Rise e e e General Office Building e , , , , , ,

29 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 14 of 17 Date: 7/8/2014 2:06 PM 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 N Land Use kbtu/yr lb/day lb/day Single Family Housing , , , Strip Mall e e Apartments Mid Rise e e e General Office Building e , , , , , , Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area No Hearths Installed

30 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 15 of 17 Date: 7/8/2014 2:06 PM ROG NOx CO SO2 N Category lb/day lb/day Unmitigated e- Mitigated e Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 N SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating Consumer Products Hearth Landscaping e e

31 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 16 of 17 Date: 7/8/2014 2:06 PM 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 N SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating Consumer Products Hearth Landscaping e e Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water Apply Water Conservation Strategy 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Vegetation

32 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 17 of 17 Date: 7/8/2014 2:06 PM

33 ATTACHMENT 2 CalEEMod Output (Summer Emissions) Buildout of Plan Update

34 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 1 of 13 Date: 7/8/2014 2:19 PM 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Housing Opportunity - Proposed Plan without Existing Santa Barbara County APCD Air District, Summer Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Apartments Mid Rise 1, Dwelling Unit ,033, Single Family Housing Dwelling Unit , Strip Mall sqft , Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.9 Precipitation Freq (Days) 37 Climate Zone 8 Operational Year 2035 Utility Company Southern California Edison Intensity (lb/mwhr) Intensity (lb/mwhr) Intensity (lb/mwhr) User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

35 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 2 of 13 Date: 7/8/2014 2:19 PM Project Characteristics - Land Use - Per ATE traffic study Off-road Equipment - Water And Wastewater - Construction Phase - Vehicle Trips - ATE traffic study Vechicle Emission Factors - Vechicle Emission Factors - Vechicle Emission Factors - Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tbllanduse LandUseSquareFeet 402, , tblprojectcharacteristics OperationalYear tblvehicletrips ST_TR tblvehicletrips ST_TR tblvehicletrips ST_TR tblvehicletrips SU_TR tblvehicletrips SU_TR tblvehicletrips SU_TR tblvehicletrips WD_TR tblvehicletrips WD_TR Emissions Summary

36 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 3 of 13 Date: 7/8/2014 2:19 PM 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 N Year lb/day lb/day , , , , , , Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 N Year lb/day lb/day , , , , , , ROG NOx CO SO2 N20 Percent Reduction

37 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 4 of 13 Date: 7/8/2014 2:19 PM 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 N Category lb/day lb/day Area e Energy , Mobile , , , , , , , , Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 N Category lb/day lb/day Area e Energy , Mobile , , , , , , , ,