The URL can be used to link to this page

sr-012511-7aCity Council Meeting: January 25, 2U11 Agenda Item: 7A To: Mayor and City Council From: Dean Kubani, Director of the Office of Sustainability and the Environment Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Prohibiting Single-Use Plastic Carry Out Bags and .Resolution Certifying Final Environmental Impact Report Recommended Action Staff recommends that City Council: a) Adopt a resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2010041004). b) Adopt a resolution to make necessary CEQA findings. c) Introduce for first reading the attached ordinance prohibiting the distribution of single-use plastic carry out bags and regulating the use of paper carry out bags in Santa Monica retail establishments: Executive Summary This ordinance is intended to significantly reduce the environmental impacts related to single-use plastic and paper carry out bags; and to promote a major shift towards reusable bags. The ordinance prohibits all retail establishments in Santa Monica from providing light-weight, single-use plastic carry out bags to customers and prohibits the free distribution of paper carry out bags by grocery stores and pharmacies in the City. The ordinance requires that grocery stores and pharmacies that decide to make recycled paper carry out bags available pass through the cost of providing such bags to their customers at an amount not less than $0.10. All of the revenue will be retained by the stores. This minimum cost pass-through is intended to provide a disincentive to customers from using single use paper bags and to incentivize the use of reusable bags. The ordinance provides a public health and safety exception for restaurants which allows them to provide plastic bags only for the transportation of hot prepared take-out food and liquids, and exemptions that protect low-income consumers and retailers against undue hardship. The cost for additional staff and supplies and expenses to initiate implementation of the ordinance through June 30, 2011 will be $60,000. These costs will be covered by savings in the current year budget. Funds for implementation of the ordinance in subsequent years will be requested in future budget cycles. Background On February 26, 2008 City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance prohibiting retail stores from distributing single-use plastic bags and regulating the use of paper bags through the collection of a fee. Staff returned 4o Council on January 13, 2009 with a proposed ordinance which would prohibit the distribution of single-use plastic bags and would establish a fee for paper bags to provide a disincentive for their use. On the advice of the City Attorney, Council did not hold a first reading of the ordinance at that time but did hold a public hearing and directed staff to return for a first reading of the ordinance following completion of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review. The CEQA review of a proposed ordinance that included a fee on paper bags was completed in 2010. Following the passage by California voters of Proposition 26 on November 2, 2010, which redefined some fees established by local governments as taxes, staff revised the proposed ordinance for City Council consideration and adoption in order to ensure conformity with Proposition 26 by eliminating any regulatory fee. . Discussion The intent of the ordinance is to significantly reduce the environmental impacts related to single-use plastic and paper carry out bags, and to promote a major shift towards reusable bags. The. ordinance prohibits all retail establishments in Santa Monica from providing single-use plastic carry out bags to customers at the point of sale. Single-use plastic carry out bags are defined by the ordinance as bags made from petroleum or bio-based plastic that are less than 2.25 mils thick.. The proposed ordinance defines a reusable bag as any bag with handles that is specifically designed and manufactured for multiple reuse and is either made of cloth or other washable fabric or is made of other durable material, including plastic, that is at least 2.25 mils thick. The ordinance does not prohibit the distribution of plastic "product bags" such as those distributed within a grocery store for bagging produce or meat products. The ordinance provides an exception for restaurants and other food service providers, allowing them to provide single-use plastic bags to customers only for the transportation of hot prepared 2 take-out food and liquids. This exception is included as a public health safeguard based on input from restaurant owners who expressed concern that some hot and liquid foods could leak from take-out containers and potentially cause paper bags to weaken and fail. The ordinance also prohibits the free distribution of paper carry out bags at all grocery stores (Includes supermarkets, convenience stores, mini-marts, and liquor stores) and pharmacies in Santa Monica. These types of stores are the largest current providers of single-use plastic bags in the City, distributing tens of millions of bags annually. If the City were to ban single-use plastic bags but not regulate paper carry out bags, it could be expected that these stores would switch to paper bags in equal numbers to the plastic bags they replaced. While paper bags are made from renewable resources and are not as problematic as plastic bags from a marine debris and litter perspective, the manufacture, transportation, and disposal of single-use paper bags has the potential to generate significant environmental impacts, and therefore increasing their use is not desirable. The ordinance does allow grocery stores and pharmacies to distribute "recycled" paper carry out bags but only if the stores pass-through the cost of those bags to their customers in an amount not less than $0.10. A recycled paper carry out bag is defined by the ordinance as any standard grocery-sized, single-use paper bag that is made from 100°/o recycled materials with a minimum of 40% post-consumer recycled content, and any smaller paper bag that is 100% recycled with a minimum of 20% post-consumer recycled content. This recycled content requirement is included in the ordinance in order to minimize the environmental impacts from any paper bags that are distributed. The ordinance sets a minimum level for the cost pass-through at $0.10 per bag. This amount is based on an analysis completed by the City which determined that a cost pass-through of $0.10 per recycled paper bag would cover the reasonable cost to a store of providing the paper bags to its customers. A copy of this analysis is included 3 with this report as Attachment 5 and as an Appendix to the Final EIR. All proceeds from the sale of recycled paper carry out bags would be retained by the store. No portion of the cost pass-through would be received by the City. The minimum cost pass-through for recycled paper carry out bags is an essential element of the proposed ordinance as it will provide a disincentive to customers from requesting paper bags when shopping at the regulated stores, and is intended to promote a major shift toward the use of reusable bags by consumers. This type of disincentive has been effective in other jurisdictions as set forth in Attachment 5. The minimum cost pass-through will not apply to other types of retail stores, because those other stores (including department stores, clothing stores, and stores that sell durable goods) do not typically distribute single-use plastic carry out bags to customers in large volumes, and so any paper bags distributed by those stores would not likely be in response to the plastic bag ban. As noted above, Proposition 26 redefined any levy, charge or exaction as a tax, unless expressly within .certain exceptions. The purpose of Proposition 26, as described in its findings and declaration of purpose, is to limit the Legislature and local governments from adopting "new taxes as `fees' in order to extract even more revenue from California taxpayers." Moreover, the paragraph in the initiative which discusses the burden of proving when a levy, charge, or other exaction is not a tax refers to the amounts raised in the context of funding a governmental activity. In the case of Santa Monica's proposed ordinance, the minimum $0.10 paper bag cost pass-through is neither a tax nor a regulatory fee impacted by Proposition 26 because it does not result in revenue to the state or local government to pay- for the cost of public programs or projects necessary to regulate the activity of a business or person. Rather, like the sale of any other product, the retail establishment retains the revenue from the sale without any requirement that the retailer pay for governmental activity. 4 The ordinance prohibits distribution of all single-use carry out bags (plastic, bio-plastic, and paper) at the Santa Monica Farmers Markets, but allows market vendors to distribute plastic product bags for produce and small paper bags for mushrooms to customers free of charge. Stores will be required to provide a customer participating in the California Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children and a customer participating in the Supplemental Food Program with a reusable bag or a recycled paper bag at no cost at the point of sale. Stores will be required to report to the City's Office of Sustainability and the Environment the number of paper bags distributed and the amount of money they collect from the cost pass-through for the bags on asemi-annual basis. These reports will allow the City to track store compliance with the ordinance and the effectiveness of ordinance at reducing the use of single use bags. Staff will periodically present these results to City Council and to the community as they become available. In addition to the public health and safety exception for restaurants and other food service providers, the ordinance allows for a one year renewable hardship exemption if it can be demonstrated that compliance with .the ordinance would cause undue economic hardship to the retail business. An undue hardship would include any situation where there are no reasonable alternatives to single-use plastic carryout bags or situations where compliance with the requirements of the ordinance would deprive a person of a legally protected right. The decision to provide an exemption will be made by the City Manager or his/her designee and will be based on review of an exemption application that includes documentation showing the factual support for the claimed exemption. The Office of Sustainability and the Environment (OSE) will have primary responsibility for enforcement of the ordinance. Enforcement will be primarily conducted on a complaint basis and will be carried out by OSE inspectors as necessary. Inspectors will have the power to issue notices of violations to retail establishments that fail to comply with any of the requirements of the ordinance. For the first violation, a written warning 5 notice will be issued. For any subsequent violation, an administrative citation shall be issued pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 1.09, with the fines to be graduated for repeat violations in amounts set forth by City Council resolution. Each violation of the ordinance shall be considered a separate offense. A statewide bill (AB 1998 - Brownley) addressing single-use bags similar to Santa Monica's proposed ordinance, was voted down in the State Senate on August 31, 2010. AB 1998 would have banned the distribution of single-use plastic bags in all supermarkets and large retail stores throughout California beginning in January 2012. The bill would have also required stores to charge customers for paper bags in an amount equal to the average cost for those bags (and no less than $0.05 per bag). If this legislation had become statewide law it would have pre-empted local regulation of single-use bags. In the absence of this statewide legislation, currently many local jurisdictions in California, including the Cities of San Francisco, San Jose, Berkeley, Long Beach and Palo Alto and the County of Los Angeles, have adopted or are considering local ordinances banning single use plastic carry out bags and regulating paper bags. An analysis of AB 1998 is attached to this report as Attachment 6. This ordinance will become effective thirty days after Council adoption, however enforcement will be delayed by approximately six months to begin on September 1, 2011. During the interim, OSE staff will conduct workshops and other outreach activities to provide information and assistance to retailers affected by the ordinance. OSE staff will also conduct a public outreach and information campaign to inform the public about the ordinance and encourage people to bring their own bags to stores. One component of the outreach campaign will include the distribution of locally made reusable bags to Santa Monica residents at various festivals and events. Staff recommends that this outreach effort continue for a minimum of two years following adoption of the ordinance in order to ensure that the ordinance achieves the intended result of a major shift toward the use of reusable bags in the city. 6 Environmental Analysis Provided as Attachment 3, an Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was circulated fora 45-day public .review period ending on July 22, 2010. As noted above, the proposed ordinance was revised following the passage of Proposition 26 in November 2010. Since the revised ordinance would not alter the overall number of paper bags or reusable bags as compared to the ordinance analyzed in the Draft EIR, the revised ordinance does not create new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of previously analyzed project impacts. All environmental impacts would be the same as described in the Draft EIR and analysis of the revised ordinance has not resulted in any significant new information requiring recirculation of the Final EIR prior to certification, consistent with CEQA guideline 15088.5. The EIR included analysis of air quality (Final EIR, Section 4.1), biological resources (Final EIR, Section 4.2), greenhouse gas emissions (Final EIR, Section 4.3), hydrology/water quality (Final EIR, Section 4.4), transportation/traffic (Final EIR, Section 4.5), and long term impacts (Final EIR, Section 5). The Final EIR concluded that the project would not result in any significant environmental impacts in any of these potential impact areas. A summary of this analysis is located in Table ES-1 of the Final EIR, pp. ES-3-5. Four comment letters were received during the public. review period from Save the Plastic Bag Coalition, American Chemistry Council, Symphony Environmental Technologies Plc, and Heal the Bay. The first three commenters, Save the Plastic Bag Coalition, American Chemistry Council, and Symphony Environmental Technologies Plc, questioned the adequacy of the EIR in a number of .respects including, but not limited to: • the amount of plastic bag litter • alternatives to addressing this litter and the cost thereof • the extent of the environmental impact of paper bags 7 • the type of reusable bags analyzed and assumptions about the use of reusable bags • the economic impact of the proposed ordinance • the range of alternatives studied, including the use of oxo-biodegradable bags • the hygiene of reusable bags • impacts on the recycling infrastructure • impacts to landfills from paper and reusable bags • the analysis of cumulative impacts Heal the Bay's comments addressed: • plastic bag litter, recycling amounts, and its impact on marine life and water quality • paper bag environmental impacts • the preferred alternative • an alternative definition for reusable bags • the scope of retail. businesses covered by ordinance The Final EIR incorporates these four comment letters received during the public comment period and provides detailed written responses to each comment contained in the letters; Final EIR, pp. 8-1 through 8-74. After the public comment period, additional and supplemental comment letters and materials were received. While these late submittals are not required to be incorporated into or responded to in the Final EIR (see CEQA Guideline, Section 15088(a)), they will be part of the administrative record and staff will be prepared to respond to these. comments at the hearing on this proposed ordinance. In its comments, Heal the Bay recommended that the City modify its definition of reusable bag in the ordinance to avoid creating a loophole that would allow slightly thicker and heavier plastic bags from being distributed in lieu of more durable woven 8 polypropylene bags. Staff agrees with this recommendation and requests Council to consider adoption of the following revised definition of reusable bag in proposed Section 5.45.010(1): "Reusable Bag means any bag with handles that is made of cloth or durable washable fabric that is specifically designed and manufactured for multiple reuse, meaning 925 or more uses, with a carrying capacity of 22 or more pounds, and is machine washable." This definition change would not require revision of the Environmental Impact Report because the potential environmental impacts using this new definition would be less than the potential impacts analyzed in the EIR. The EIR studied three alternatives. Alternative 1, the No Project Alternative, assumes that the ordinance is not adopted. The existing retail stores would continue to provide single-use plastic bags and would continue to provide single-use paper bags free of charge to the customers. Alternative 2, Ban on Single-Use Plastic Bags, No Cost Pass- Through Requirement for Single-Use Paper Bags would prohibit all retail establishments. (except restaurants) from providing single-use plastic carryout bags but would not require stores to pass-through the cost of the bags to the customer. Alternative 3, Ban Both Single-Use Plastic and Paper Bags, would prohibit all retail establishments (except restaurants) from providing single-use plastic and paper carryout bags. The City Council is not required to make findings rejecting the alternatives described above, and detailed in the Final EIR, since all of the project's impacts will be less than significant. However, none of the project alternatives are clearly superior to the proposed project on either environmental or policy grounds. The No Project alternative fails to meet the stated objectives of the project and results in continued significant impacts to the marine environment and water quality as a result of single-use plastic bag litter and pollution. Alternative 2 which would ban single-use plastic bags without requiring the cost of single-use paper bags to be passed through to the customer would 9 likely result in a significant increase in the use of single-use paper bags, which would likely result in adverse environmental impacts, as noted above. While Alternative 3, the Ban on Both Single-use Plastic and Paper Bags Alternative, would be the environmentally superior alternative, in the short term it would force retail customers to use reusable bags without option and would be potentially problematic for the stores if customers did not have reusable bags with them and were not provided an option. Policy Alternatives In addition to the recommended action, the City Council could, 1. modify the ordinance to substitute the definition of reusable bag, as noted above; 2. consider other modifications to the ordinance; 3. not adopt the ordinance. Adoption of the first alternative is recommended by staff and would have the effect of closing a potential loophole in the current ordinance that could allow the distribution of slightly thicker plastic bags, rather than more durable reusable bags, in Santa Monica stores. The impact of the second alternative would depend on the modifications that Council made and could either expand or reduce the scope of the ordinance provisions, penalties and to whom the ordinance applies. Staff would have to assess whether further environmental review was required for any of these modifications. Pursuing the third alternative would avoid additional costs to the City for outreach and implementation, and would avoid potential additional costs to Santa Monica retail establishments; however, it would not support the Council's goal of reducing the environmental impacts related to single-use carry out bags in Santa Monica. 10 Financial Impacts & Budget Actions The financial impacts from adoption of the recommended ordinance will include additional costs to City operations to: 1) conduct workshops and other outreach activities to provide information and assistance to retailers affected by the ordinance 2) conduct an ongoing public outreach and information campaign to inform the public about the ordinance and encourage people to bring their own bags to stores 3) provide ongoing enforcement of the ordinance 4) tracking and reporting paper bag sales and cost pass-through revenues reported by the stores and evaluation of store compliance and program effectiveness Completion of this additional work will require the addition of a 0.5 FTE Administrative Analyst through the remainder of the fiscal year, as well as funding for supplies and expenses, which include the purchase of locally produced reusable bags for distribution to residents, development and production of advertising materials, and other outreach activities at an additional cost of $60,000 to initiate implementation of the ordinance through June 30, 2011. The OSE has identified savings in their current budget to fund these activities. As noted above, the previous version of the proposed ordinance, developed prior to the November 2, 2010 passage of Proposition. 26 by California voters, included a fee on paper bags. Part of the revenue generated by that fee would have completely covered the costs to the City for implementation and enforcement of this ordinance. Because the fee was eliminated from the ordinance after the passage of Proposition 26 the ordinance will no longer generate revenues to offset the City's costs to administer the ordinance. 11 Budget authority for subsequent years will be requested in each annual budget cycle for Council approval. Additional requests for one-time funding in the amount of $40,000 and on-going funding in the amount of $10,000 plus the request for an addition of a 0.5 FTE Administrative Analyst ($65,000) for ongoing implementation of this ordinance will be requested as an enhancement to the OSE FY 2011-12 budget. Prepared by: Dean Kubani, Director Approved: Forwarded to Council: ~ , ,, Dean Kubani Rod Gould Director, Office of Sustainability and the City Manager Environment Attachments: 1. Resolution Certifying Final Environmental Impact Report 2. Resolution Making CEQA Findings 3. Final Environmental Impact Report 4. Ordinance 5. Analysis of Cost Pass-Through 6. Analysis of AB 1998 (Brownley) 12 Office of Sustainability and the Environment 200 Santa Monica Pier, Ste. J Santa Monica, CA 90401-3126 (310).458-2213 www.susta i na blesm.org environment@smgov. net Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance Final Environmental impact Report and Notice of Public Meeting As the Lead Agency overseeing the environmental review for the Santa Monica Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance, the City of Santa Monica has completed a Final Environmental Impact Report (FELR) for the proposed Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance to analyze the nature and extent of the Project's potential impact on the surrounding environment. That FEIR is now available for review at the City Clerk Counter, the Santa Monica Libraries. and on the Office of Sustainability and the Environment website, www.sustainablesrn.or~/bay. NOTICE is hereby given for a public meeting before the City Council to hear comments on the proposed Single-use Carryout Bag Ordinance and the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH # 2010041004). The public meeting will be held on Tuesday January 25, 2011 at 5:30 PM in the in Council Chambers, located at City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica. A more detailed project description is available at www.sustainablesm.or~/bag. The "Share a Bag" Program Creating an exchange for. durable reusable bags in the co unity The demahd in the community for durable shopping bags will continue to grow overtime, especiallyas Santa Monica considers restrictions on the distribution of single-use carryout shopping bags. In order to provide a service forthe community and to meet the projected demand for durable bags inthe coming months and years,'Santa Monica is looking to partner with local. secondhand and consignment shops citywide to create a bag exchange for gently used durable shopping bags. Program Basics: 1. Sign-up to be a participating member of the "Share a bag" program. Details pending. 2: The City of Santa Monica will provide an exchange container to any participating retail establishment free of charge. 3. The City of Santa Monica, the Buy Local Santa Monica Program, the Chamber of Commerce, and-other community partners.and business improvement districts will coordinate to promote this initiative citywide. Participating members will be listed on program advertising, Web sites, program maps, and the like. The potential for encouraging visits to your retail establishment is significant for years to come. We hope to partner with you. ATTACHMENT 4 City Council Meeting: January 25, 2011 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER (CCS) (City Council Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA PROHIBITING RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS FROM PROVIDING SINGLE USE PLASTIC CARRYOUT BAGS AND REGULATING THE USE OF PAPER CARRY OUT BAGS WHEREAS, about nineteen billion (19,000,000,000) single use bags are used annually in California but less than 5% are recycled; and WHEREAS, there are approximately seventeen hundred and eighteen (1718) commercial and retail establishments ih the City of Santa Monica ("the City") most of which provide single use, disposable carry out bags to their customers; and WHEREAS, about fifty million (50,000,000) single use carry out bags are distributed by retail establishments in the City each year; and WHEREAS, most of these single use carry out bags are made from plastic or other material that does not readily decompose; and WHEREAS, numerous studies have documented the prevalence of single use plastic carry out bags littering the environment, blocking storm draihs and fouling beaches; and WHEREAS, the City's taxpayers must bear the brunt of the clean-up costs; and 1 WHEREAS, plastic bags are a significant source of marine debris and are hazardous to marine animals and birds which often confuse single use plastic carry out bags for a source of food. The ingestion of these bags can result in reduced nutrient absorption and death to birds and marine animals; and WHEREAS, even though single use paper bags are made from renewable resources and are much less environmentally problematic than single use plastic bags, they do require significant environmental resources to manufacture, transport, and recycle and/or dispose of; and WHEREAS, from an overall environmental and economic perspective, the best alternative to single use plastic carryout bags is a major shift to reusable bags; and WHEREAS, this ordinance requires stores that decide to make recycled paper carry out bags available to pass-through to their customers the reasonable cost of providing bags; WHEREAS, the City has completed an analysis to determine the reasonable cost pass-through that would reimburse retailers for the their costs of providing recycled paper carry out bags to their customers; and WHEREAS, based on this analysis, the City has determined that a minimum cost pass-through of $0.10 per paper bag would cover the reasonable cost to a store of providing the paper bags to its customers; and WHEREAS, other jurisdictions have imposed paper bag fees on the customers requesting these bags and these fees have proven very effective at generating a major shift in consumer behavior toward the use of reusable bags and significantly reducing bag consumption; and 2 WHEREAS, the City has completed an analysis to determine the reasonable cost pass-through that would reimburse retailers for the their costs of providing recycled paper carry out bags to their customers; and WHEREAS, the proceeds from the collection of the paper bag pass-through would be retained by the retailer and this ordinance does not specify how the retailers must expend the monies collected; and WHERAS, customers can avoid this cost pass-through by using reusable bags; and WHEREAS, no portion of the cost pass-through will be provided to the City and consequently, the City will not receive any revenues from the retailers' collection of the paper bag pass-through; and WHEREAS, therefore, the cost pass-through is not a fee subject to Proposition 26; and WHEREAS, a paper bag cost pass-through is an essential element of the proposed ordinance as it is intended to provide a disincentive to customers to request paper bags when shopping at regulated stores and to promote a shift towards the use of reusable bags by Santa Monica consumers; and WHEREAS, there are several alternatives to single use carry out bags readily available in the City, including reusable bags produced locally from sustainable materials; and WHEREAS, an important goal of the City's Sustainable City Plan is to procure and use sustainable products and services; and 3 WHEREAS, it is the City's desire to whenever possible conserve resources, reduce the amount of green house gas emissions, waste, beach litter and marine pollution and to protect the public health and welfare including local wildlife, all of which increase the quality of life for Santa Monica's residents and visitors. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 5.45 is hereby added to the Santa Monica Municipal Code as follows: CHAPTER 5.45 SINGLE-USE CARRYOUT BAG ORDINANCE Section 5.45.010 Definitions ~) "Carrv Out Baq" means any bag that is provided by a Retail. Establishment at the point of sale to a customer for use to transport or carry away purchases, such as merchandise, goods or food, from the retail establishment. Carrv Out Bags do not include Product Bags as defined in this Chapter. (b) "Food Provider" means any person or establishment in the Citv of Santa Monica, that provides prepared food for public consumption on or off its premises and includes, without limitation, any store, shop, sales outlet, 4 restaurant, Grocery Store delicatessen, or catering truck or vehicle. (c) "Grocery Store" means any Retail Establishment that sells groceries fresh packaged canned, dN, prepared or frozen food or beverage products and similar items, and includes, without limitation supermarkets, convenience stores liquor stores and gasoline stations. (d) "Paper Baq Cost Pass-Through" means the cost which must be collected by retailers from their customers when providing a Recycled Paper Bag (e) "Pharmacy" means any retail store, where ,prescriptions medications controlled or over the counter drugs, personal care products or health supplement goods or vitamins are sold, but excluding any licensed pharmacy located within a hospital. jf) "Product Baq" means any bag provided to a customer for use within a Retail Establishment to assist in the collection or transport of products to the point-of-sale within the Retail Establishment. 5 (q) "Recycled Paper Bag" means a paper carryout baq provided by a store to a customer at the point of sale that meets all of the following requirements: (1) Except as provided in subdivision (2) of this subsection (g), the paper carryout baq contains a minimum of 40 percent postconsumer recycled materials. (2) An eight pound or smaller recycled paper bag shall contain a minimum of 20 percent postconsumer recycled material. (3) The paper carryout bag is accepted for recycling in curbside programs in a majority of households that have access to curbside recycling programs in the City (4) The paper carryout bag is capable of composting, consistent with the timeline and specifications of the American Society of Testing and Material (ASTM) Standard ~ecification for Compostable Plastics D6400, as published in September 2004. (5) Printed on the paper carryout baq is the minimum percentage of postconsumer content. (h) "Retail Establishment" means any person, including any corporation partnership; business, facility, vendor organization or individual that sells or provides merchandise goods or materials including without limitation clothing, food or personal .items of anv kind, directly to a customer Retail Establishment includes, without limitation any Grocery Store department store, hardware store Pharmacy,. liquor store, restaurant catering truck, convenience store, and anv other retail store or vendor. (i) "Reusable Baq" means anv bag with handles that is specifically designed and manufactured for multiple reuse- and is either (1) made of cloth or other washable fabric or (2) made of other durable material including Mastic that is at least 2.25 mils thick. (i) "Single Use Plastic Carry Out Baq" means any bag that is less than 2.25 mils thick and is made predominately of plastic derived from petroleum or from bio- based sources such as corn or other plant sources. 5.45.020 Prohibitions (a) No Retail Establishment in the City shall provide a Single-Use Plastic Carry Out Baq to a customer unless otherwise permitted pursuant to Section 5.45.040. jb) No Grocery Store or Pharmacy in the City shall provide any type of bag to a customer at the point of sale except a Reusable Baq or a Recycled Paper Baq unless otherwise permitted pursuant to Section 5.45.040. (c) No person shall distribute a Single-Use Plastic Carry Out Bag at any City Facility, City-managed concession City sponsored event. or City permitted event unless otherwise permitted pursuant to Section 5.45.040. (d) No person shall distribute a Single Use Plastic Carry Out Baq or any paper bag at the Santa Monica Farmers Markets except eight pound or smaller Recycled Paper Bags for mushrooms may be distributed free of char e. 5.45.030 Recycled Paper Bags Cost Pass- Through (a) Subject to subsection (b) of this Section, a Grocery Store or Pharmacy may only provide a Recycled Paper Baq to a customer if it collects a Paper Baq Cost Pass-through from the customer for each Recycled Paper Bag provided. 8 (b) The Paper Baq Cost Pass-through shall not be less than 10 cents unless a store has previously submitted a full accounting to the City, signed by a responsible manager under penalty of periury that identifies all costs including bag g_urchase, shipping handling and storage showing a lesser actual cost to the store for each bag. Any such accounting shall expire one year from the date of original submission and a new accounting would need to be resubmitted. (e) No Grocery Store or Pharmacv collecting a Paper Bag Pass-through pursuant to this Section shall rebate or otherwise reimburse a customer for any portion of this pass-through. (fl All Grocery Stores and Pharmacies shall indicate on the customer transaction receipts the number of Recycled Paper Bags provided and the total amount of the Paper Baq Pass-through. (q) On a semi-annual basis or as otherwise may be required by the Director of the Oftice of Sustainability and the Environment, or his or her designee each Grocery Store and Pharmacv required to collect a Paper Baq Pass-through shall report to the City on a form prescribed by the Office of Sustainability and the Environment all payments of Paper 9 Bag Pass-throughs received. The form shall be signed by a responsible officer or agent of the Grocery Store or Pharmacy who shall swear or affirm that the information provided on the form is true and complete. Every Grocery Store or Pharmacv shall also keep complete and accurate record or documents of the purchase and sale of any Recycled Paper Baq by the Grocery Store or Pharmacv for a minimum period of three (3) years from the date of purchase and sale which record shall be available for inspection at no cost to the City during regular business hours by an City employee authorized to enforce this Chapter. 5.45.040 Exemptions (a) Notwithstanding the prohibitions contained in Section 5.45.020: ~) Single-Use Plastic Carry Out Bags may be distributed to customers by Food Providers for the purpose of safeguarding public health and safety during the transportation of hot prepared take-out foods and prepared liquids intended for consumption away from the Food Provider's premises. 10 (2) Retail Establishments may distribute Product Baps and may make Reusable Bags available to customers whether through sale or otherwise. (b) Notwithstanding the requirements contained in Section 5.45.030: A store shall provide a customer participating in the California Special Supplemental Food Program for Women Infants, and Children pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 123275) of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the California Health and Safetv Code and a customer participating in the Supplemental Food Program pursuant to Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 15500) of Part 3 of Division 9 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code. with a reusable bap or a recycled paper bap at no cost at the point of sale. (c) The City Manager, or his or her designee including the Director of the Office of Sustainability and the Environment (OSE), may exempt a Retail Establishment from the requirements of this Chapter for up to a one vear period, upon a showing by the Retail Establishment that the conditions of this Chapter would cause undue hardship. An "undue hardship" shall only be found in: 11 1. Circumstances or situations uniaue to the particular Retail Establishment such that there are no reasonable alternatives to Single-Use Plastic Carryout Bags or a Paper Baq Pass-through cannot be collected or 2. Circumstances or situations uniaue to the Retail Establishment such that compliance with the requirements of this Chapter would deprive a person of a legally protected right. (d) If a Retail Establishment requires an exemption k~ond the initial exemption period, the Retail Establishment must re-apply prior to the end of the exemption period and must demonstrate continued undue hardship if it wishes to have the exemption extended. Extensions may only be granted for intervals not to exceed one year. (e) An exemption application shall include all information necessary for the City to make its decision including but not limited to documentation showing the factual support for the claimed exemption. The City Manager or his or her desianee may require the applicant to provide additional information to permit the City to determine facts regarding the exemption application. 12 (fl The City Manager or his or her designee may approve the exemption application, in whole or in part, with or without conditions. (gj Exemption decisions are effective immediately are final and are not appealable. (h) The City Council may by resolution establish a fee for exemption applications. The fee shall be sufficient to cover the costs or processing the exemption application. 5.45.050 Remedies. fa) The City Manager, or his or her designee, is authorized to establish regulations and to take any and all actions reasonable and necessary to obtain compliance with this Chapter, including, but not limited to, inspecting any retail establishment's premises to verify compliance. (b) Any person violating this Section shall be guilty of an infraction, which .shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding two hundred fifty dollars, or a misdemeanor, which shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period not exceeding six months or by both such fine and imprisonment. 13 (c) The City Attorney may seek legal, injunctive, or other equitable relief to enforce this Chapter. (d) Administrative enforcement of this ordinance shall proceed pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 1.09 with the fines to be graduated for repeat violations in amounts set forth by City Council resolution. (e) Each violation of this Chapter shall be considered a separate offense (fl The remedies and penalties provided in this section are cumulative and not exclusive, and nothing in this Chapter shall preclude any person from pursuing any other remedies provided by law. (g) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Ordinance, commencing on September 1, 2011, this Ordinance may be enforced through any remedy as provided for in this Section. Prior to September 1, 2011, this Ordinance shall not be enforced. SECTION 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance. 14 SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this .Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from its adoption. 15 APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~~~ v~.,~f- 5 Office of Sustainability and the Environment 200 Santa Monica Pier, Ste. J Santa Monica, CA 90401-3126 " 13101458-2213 www.susta i nablesm. org ~__} os environment@smgov.net Santa 9ionic+a" - Analysis of Cost Pass-Through December 20, 2010 In response to concerns regarding the environmental impacts related to single-use plastic and paper carryout bags, the Santa Monica City Council on February 26, 2008 directed city staff to prepare an ordinance prohibiting retail stores from distributing single-use plastic bags and regulating the use of paper bags through collection of a fee. Following the passage of Proposition 26 on November 2, 2010, which redefined some fees established by local governments as taxes, staff has revised the proposed ordinance for City Council consideration and adoption. Under the revised ordinance the City would not collect a fee on paper bags, but stores would not be allowed to distribute paper bags to customers for free. The revised ordinance requires stores that decide to make available recycled paper carry out bags to pass- through the "reasonable cost" of providing such bags to their customers and complying with the ordinance. The proceeds of the sale of recycled paper carry out bags to customers would be retained by the retailer for cost reimbursement; no portion of the cost pass-through would be received by the City. This report provides the basis for determining the minimum "reasonable cost" for paper bags that stores would be required to pass-through to customers. The report also includes an evaluation of the effect that single use bag fees in other jurisdictions have had on reducing the use of those bags. The evaluation is intended to establish the basis for an estimated reduction factor that could be expected in single use paper bag usage if stores pass-through the"cost of the bags to the customer. Costs to Stores for Paper Baes The City conducted research in September of 2008, which included a telephone survey of-Santa Monica retail stores and an outreach meeting hosted by the Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce and the City's Office of Sustainability and the Environment. Attendees at the outreach meeting included the following stores: • Albertson's • Ralphs • Whole Foods • Bob's Market • Vons • 99 Cents Only The purpose of the research was to identify the costs of various types of carryout bags. Based on the information provided by the six stores at the outreach meeting and the information collected from the phone survey of retailers the following costs were developed as summarized below:l City of Santa Monica Bag Cost Estimates (2008) Bay Type Low End Estimate Hir;h End Estimate Plastic Bag $0.005 $0.09 Paper Bag $0.045 $0.25 Biodegradable Bag $0.08 $0.22 Reusable Bag $0.70 $10.00 In November 2010 Santa Monica city staff also contacted representatives from the counties of Los AngelesZ, Santa Clara3, and Marino and the City of San Joses to obtain the results of research ' City of Santa Monica Nexus Study, prepared by R3 Consulting Group, Inc., January 2010 - Z County of Los Angeles, Board of Supervisor, Single-Use Plastic and Paper Carry Out Bags Certify The Final Environmental Impact Report Adopt Ordinance, Nov 16, 2010 2 that each of those jurisdictions had conducted regarding the cost to stores for paper carry out bags. This data is summarized below: Paper Bag Cost Estimates (other Jurisdictions) Jurisdiction Low End Estimate High End Estimate Los Angeles Countya $0.05 $0.23 Santa Clara Countyb $0.129 $0.19 Marin County` $0.02 $0.08 City of San Josed $0.07 $0.12 Notes a Includes prices for bags with and without handles, and of various quality and various recycled content b Price rangeis for 100% recycled content, 40% post-consumer content bags ` Price for conventional paper bags purchased in bulk by large grocery stores d Price range for 40% recycled content bags purchased in bulk In addition to the data noted above, the Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) on Single- Use and Reusable Bags prepared by Green Cities California dated March 2010 estimates the range of costs for paper carry out bags to be $0.15 to $0.25 per bag.6 Reasonable Cost a County of Santa Clara, Personal communication, Elizabeth Constantino, Division of Integrated Waste Management Program Manager, Sept 17, 2010 ° County of Marin, Personal communication, Maureen Parton, County Planning Director, Sept 17, 2010 h s City of San Jose, Personal Cnmmunication, Emy Mendoza, €nvironmental Services City Staff, Sept 17, 2010 s Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) on Single Use and Reusable Bags, forGreen Cities California (GCC), Prepared by ICF International, March 8, 2010 A summary of the cost data described above collected by the cities of Santa Monica and San Jose, the counties of Los Angeles, Santa Clara and Marin, and the estimates included in the Green Cities California MEA indicates that the cost to stores for the purchase of paper bags is within the following ranges: • 100% recycled, 40% post-consumer content paper bags: $0.07 - $0.25 • .Paper bags (recycled content unspecified): $0.02 - $0.25 Based on interviews with stores in Santa Monica the cost per bag varies greatly with the number of bags purchased. It is likely that larger stores that purchase more bags will be able to buy the bags in the lower range and the smaller stores will likely pay more. Santa Monica's ordinance specifies that the paper bags be 100% recycled with 40% post-consumer content. The costs to a store for complying with the proposed ordinance in Santa Monica would include the cost to provide recycled paper carry out bags. Based on the data above, a minimum cost pass-through of $0.10 per bag would cover the "reasonable cost" to a store for complying with the ordinance. This is near the bottom end of the range for recycled paper bag costs based on survey data. Because this would be a minimum cost pass-through, stores with higher costs for bags would be able to increase the pass-through amount to cover their actual costs: As noted above, this cost pass-through would be entirely retained by the retailer for cost reimbursement, and would only be collected if the retailer chose to offer paper carry out bags to its customers. This amount is consistent with the amount adopted by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors on November 16, 2010. The staff report that transmitted the County's Single Use Bag ordinance to the Board of Supervisors states: "Subsequent discussions by staff with paper bag manufacturers and review of other references indicates that ten (10) cents is a reasonable average cost." 4 Reduction Factor Based on $0.10 Fee for Paper Baes In order to establish the basis for an estimated reduction factor that could be expected in single use paper bag usage if stores pass the cost of the bags through to the customer, city staff researched the effects of single use bag fees imposed by Washington D.C., the Commonwealth of Ireland, and three retail stores (Marks and Spencer, IKEA, and 99 Cents Only stores) on reducing bag use. The results are summarized below. Washington D.C. On June 16, 2009 the District of Columbia adopted an ordinance requiring stores to charge a $0.05 fee for each single use disposable carry out bag provided to customers. This ordinance went into effect on January 1, 2010. The District of Columbia Office of Tax and Revenue reported that following one month of implementation single use bag distribution had dropped by an estimated 86 percent from 22.5 million bags per month to 3.3 million bags in January 2010. During the same period large retailers in the District reported that disposable bag use dropped more than 50 percent, with some businesses reporting decreases greater than 80 percent.~'$'9 Republic of Ireland In March 2002, Ireland instituted a fee on single use plastic bags throughout the country. The initial fee was approximately equivalent to $0.20 (USD). The Irish Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government reported a reduction in per capita bag use of more than 93% shortly after introduction of the fee. Bag usage increased slightly by 2006 but remained 90% Ferguson Foundation, 22nd Annual Potomac river Watershed Cleanup Final Report, April 10, 2010 htto://www.ferRUSOnfoundation.orR/trash initiative/rc resultsl0.shtml s Washington D. C. Ward 6 Councilmember Tommy Wells Press Release: First Report ofAnocostia RiverCleonup & Protection Act Shows Dramatic Progress, March 29, 2010 e District of Columbia Department of the Environment (DDOE), Anacostia River Clean Up and Protection Act of 2009,1u1y 6, 2009 below pre-fee levels. The Department also reported that the per capita use of reusable bags in Ireland increased from 36% in 1999 to over 90% in 2003 as a result of the fee on disposable bags. The fee was raised to $0.25 (USD) in 2007 to promote a further reduction in the usage of single use bags.to,u,iz Marks and Spencer Stores In May 2008, the Marks and Spencer retail chain in the United Kingdom began charging a fee of 5 pence (approximately $0.08 USD) per single use plastic bag. The company reports that by 2009/10 overall usage of single use bags had dropped 64% in their UK stores, with an 81% reduction in their grocery stores, as a result of the fee.ia,i4 IKEA Stores In March 2007, IKEA retail stores began charging a $0.05 fee for single use plastic bags in its stores in the United States. The company reported that by April 2008 single use plastic bag use had decreased by 92%. Based on the success of this program in October 2008 IKEA discontinued the distribution of all plastic and paper carry out bags at their US stores, with all customers required to use only reusable bags.is,ie 10 Ireland Plastic Bag Levy, March 4, 2002 and July 1, 2007 http://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/Waste/Plastic6asslFAQs/ "Ireland NationalCitterMdnitoringSystem,http://www.litter.ie/svstem sdrvev results/index.shtml 1z Ireland Environmental Fund uses, http://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/Waste/EnvironmentFund/ is Marks and Spencer, 2010Annua/ Report: Plan A, http://plana.marksandspencer.com/about 14 Marks and Spencer, 2010 Groundwork Charity: http://Plana.marksandspencer.com/we-are- doins/waste/stories/24/ 's IKEA, April 2, 2008 National Press Release, http~//www Ikea com/ms/en US/about Ikea/press room/press releaselnational/blue bas thank you.html 16 Los Angeles Times, Ikeato Nix All Disposable Bags by October 2008, April 3, 2008 http ~//latimesbloss.lati mes.com/emeraldcity/2008/04/ikea-to-nix-a ILhtm l 99 Cents Only Stores In September 2008, 99 Cents Only began charging customers a $0.03 fee for each single use plastic bag at three of its stores in Southern California. The company expanded this program to five stores in January 2009. Company owner Eric Schiffer reports that the fee resulted in a 68% average reduction in single use bag usage, from 33,545 bags per week per store before the fee, to 10,750 bags per week after institution of the fee.17 Single Use Bag Fees -Summary Jurisdiction Fee Amount (USD) Reduction in Bae Usage Washington, D.C. $0.05 86% Republic of Ireland $0.20 93% Marks and Spencer Stores $0.08- 64% - 81% IKEA stores $0.05 92% 99 Cents Only Stores $0.03 66% Conclusions Based on the data included in this report, a minimum cost pass-through of $0.10 per bag would cover the "reasonable cost" to a store for complying with Santa Monica's proposed ordinance. For the five examples of single use bag fees examined, the fees ranged from $0.03 to $0.20 per bag. These fees resulted in reductions in the usage of single use bags of between 64% and 93%. Based on these reported numbers, we believe it is reasonable and conservative to assume that "99 Cents Only Stores, Personal communication, Owner Eric Schiffer, September 17, 2010 the imposition of a $0.10 fee on single use paper bags in Santa Monica will result in a 50% reduction in single use paper bag use for the purposes of a CEQ,4 analysis on the proposed Santa Monica ordinance. AB 1998 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis BILL ANALYSIS SENATE RULES COMMITTEE ~ AE 1998 Office Of Senate Ploor Analyses 1020 N S[ieet, Suite 524 (916) 651-1520 Pax: (916) 32]-94]8 THIRD READING Bill No: AD 1998 Author: erownley (D), et al Amevaea: a/z]/lo in senate vote: 21 SENATE ENV OUALSTY COMMITTEE 5-2, 6/28/10 AYES:. Simitian, Corbett, Hancock, Lowenthal, Pavley NOES: Ruxntei, Etiickland SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 11-0, 8/12/10 AYES: Eeh Oe, AshbUYR, A1(lU le t, CO Zbe[C, EIIMeY50n, LEnO. Price, Walters, W01k, Wyland, Yee ASSEMBLY FLOOR 42 -2], 6/2/30 - See last page fOZ VOCe BDBJECT Solid waste: .single-use carryout bags SODRCE Heal the Bay DIGEST This bill prohibits the use o£ single-use arryout bags by prohibiting grocery stores and c ence stores from providing all single-use carryout bagsntoni ustomers after 2012, a specified. This bill makes a e-time appropriation of $2 million from the Recycling Market Development Revolving Loan EUbaccount iR LhE Integrated Waste Management Account to the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery to provide loans and grants to encourage plastic bag m nufacturers to make bags with recycled content that meet the requirements for reusable bags. CONTINUED AB 1998 Page 2 ANALYSIS Existing law, pursuant t0 Section 42250 et seg. of Chapter 5.1 of the Public Resources Code: 1. Requires operators of stares (defined as supermarkets and stores over 10,000 square feet Chat include a pharmacy) to establish a -store plastic carryout bag YeCyCling program. UndeY the program: A. Plastic bags provided by [he store must include a label e ouraging customers to return the bag to the store for recycling. B. Easily accessible recycling bins £or plastic bags must be provided. C. All plastic bags collected must be recycled i a her consistent with the local jurisdiction's n recycling plan. n. The store must maintain r orris relating to the program Eor at least three years and must make the ords available to the local jurisdiction Or the California Integrated waste Management Board (now the Department of Resources Recovery and Recycling or DRRR) upon request. E. The operator of the store must make reusable bags available to customers. 2. Preempts local governments from requiring stores that eet these provisions from implementing separate recycling programs or from imposing a fee on plastic bags. 3. Sunsets the above provisions on January 1, 2013. Page 1 of 8 ~~~ ~~~ ~ mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings\danielle.noble\Local Settings\Temporary Internet ... 1/10/2011 AB 1998 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis This bill: 3. Pmhibi[s, ono after Tanuary 1, 2012, grocery stores and chain pharmacies from providing a single-use arryovt bag to a customer at the point of sale, except as authorized. AB 1998 Page 3 2. Prohibits, o after January 1, 2013, c stores and food marts with a off-sale al coholrpermit from providing a Ingle-use carryout bag to a customer at Che. point of sale, a cep[ as authorized. 3. Allows the sale of recycled paper bags to a customer at the point o£ sale for the store's actual cast of the bag. s. Requires stores to make reusable bags available for purchase by consumers. 5. Allows stores to provide free reusable bags as paxt of limited promotional programs. 6. Requires a store [o provide Women, Infants, and Children supplemental Food Program (WIC) and supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Food Stamps) customers a reusable bag or recycled paper bag at no cast. ~. Requires grocery stores and chain pharmacies to continue at-store collection of plastic bags and plastic film for ecycling s milar tO [he current state mandate. e. Specifies Chat local jurisdictions with curbside omposting programs may allow stores to sell state approved compostable carryout bags £or their actual cost at the point of sale. 9. Requires, beginning January 1, 2013, a usable grocery bag producer Co submit to DRRR a biennial certification, ncluding a certification fee established by DRRR, that err ifies that each type of r usable grocery bag'that i imported, m nufactured, sold or distributed in the state and provided to a store far sale or distribution meets specified requirements. lo.Regn ices DRRR tO deposit the C2 rtifiCat3OR £ees into tha Reusable Hag Account, which is established by Che bill n the Integrated Waste Management Pund, and requires that m neys in the a unt be expended by DRRR, upon appropriation by thecLegisla[ure, Co implement the certification requirements. AB 1998 gage 11.Provides that a violation of these certification requirements will be subject Co an administrative civil pendlty dssessed by DRRR. Requires DRRR to deposit these penalties into the Penalty Subaccount, which [he bill creates, rn the Reusable Hag Account, £or ,expenditure by DRRR, upon appropriation by the - Legislature, to implement the certification requirements. 12.Requires DRRR, by January 1, 2015, to submit a report to the Legislature regarding the implementation of the bill's provisions. 13.Pxeemp[s, a of January 1, 2011, local regular ions on the u andssal es of r usable bags, single-use carryout bags, sretycled paper bags, or other specified bags at stores. 14.Allows a city, c unty, city and county Or the state to impose c nil penalties for a violation of the bill's requirements, except for the certification requirements. 15.Requires these c nil penalties Co be paid Co Che office of the city attorney, city prosecutor, district attorney, or Attorney General (AG), whichever office brought the action, and allows the penalties collected by the AG to be expended by the AG, upon appropriation Page 2 of 8 mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings\danielle.noble\Local Settings\Temporary Internet ... 1/10/2011 AB 1998 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis by the Legislature, tO enforce the bill's provisions. 16.Makes a e-time appropriation of $2 million from the AecyclingnMarket Development Revolving Lcan Subaccount n the Integrated waste Management Account to DRRR tO provide loans and grants to encourage plastic bag manufacturers to make bags with recycled content that meet the requirements for reusable hags. 19.COntains v s definitions and terms for the purposes of the bill r~ncluding ecycled paper bag" and ^reus able grocery ba9.° ne£ines Ingle-ssse carryout bag^ to m a bag made of plastics paper, o other mate rial, ethat is provided by a store to a ustomer at the point of sale and that i not a usable grocery bag that meets the requirements of this bill. A single-use carryout bag does not include a bag provided by a AH 1998 Page pharmacy to a customer purchasing a prescription medication, or anon-handled bag used Co protect a purchased item from damaging o ontaminating other purchase items when placed in ecycled paper bag or usable bag. 18.Oef Ines "store" to mean d retail establishment that meets any of the following requirements: A. A full-line, self-service retail store .with gross val sales Of $2, OOO, oOO, o and which sells online of dry grocery, c nedrgcads, or nonfood items and so e perishable items a. Has Over 10,000 square feet Of retail space and a licensed pharmacy, as specified. C. Is a e food store, foodmaxt, o other entity engagedrincthe retail sale of a limited line 0£ goods that generally includes milk, bread, soda, and snack foods and has a license to sell beer and BackgYOUnd California taxpayers spend approximately $25 million wally to collect and busy the 19 billion plastic bags red every year. However, these bags axe rarely recycled; nRRR estimates that less than five percent Of all single e plastic bags in the state a actually recycled. Instead, local agencies spend millions m e to dispose of plastic bags and clean up discarded plastic bags. Plastic bags a significant contributor to litter and e debris. eTheir light weight and expansive nature makes Chem especially prone to blowing into waterways. Even when disposed of in the waste stream, these bags pose litter problems as they blow off of trvcks and out of solid waste handling operations. According to the Onited States environmental Protection Agency, m e debris has become a. ricus problem along shorelines, c as[al waters, estuaries, and o s throughout the world. It i estimated that 6Oe8O percent of all marine debri ss and 90 percent of floating debris, is plastic. marine debris can AB 1998 Page be life threatening to ma ine organisms and c reak havoc on coastal communities and the fishing indus[ry.w Recent studies by the Algalita Marine Research Foundation and the Southern California Coastal water Research Project have found-that the a cage mass Of plastics in the seawdC2L Off the coast o£ LongeBeach is two and a half times greater than the a rage m of plankton. After storms with Hoff, the m Of plastics i n greater. A milar study over seawater 1,000 miles west of ran PLancis CO found thO mass O£ plastics w x times the m of plankton in drifts where manne ammalsacongregate forss feeding on plankton. Comments Acrording tO the author's office, this bill will effectively deter the use o£ single-use bags by prohibiting Page 3 of 8 mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings\danielle.noble\Local Settings\Temporary Internet ... 1/10/2011 AB 1998 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis grocery stores and c scores from providing all Ingle-use carryout bagsntona wstomer after 2032 and 2013, espectively. In lieu of single-use bags stores must make reusable bags and 40 percent post consumes paper bags available for purchase-by the customer. This bill i effective policy approach that will move consumers to u more sustainable alternatives. The State of California has a critical role to play in becoming a Crve leader in eliminating single-use bag waste and preventing the proliferation of m e debris. The passage of this bill will m e Californiarforward in breaking our addiction to single-use bags. PI SCAL EPPECT ApprOprianon: NO Fis Cal COm.: Yes Local: No Appropriates $2,000,000 from the Recycling Market Development Revolving Loan subaccount, which this bill eater, m the Integiated Waste Management Account t0 DRRR for the purposes of providing loans and grants for the eation and retention of jobs and economic activity in the nufacture and recycling of plastic bags that use recycled content. SUPPORT (Veii£ied 6/30/10) Heal the Bay (source) AB 1998 Page 1 Hag at a Time, Inc. 7th Generation Advisors American Peaeration of state, County ana Municipal Employees Amerigreer~bag.com Associations of Conmunities United of South Los Angeles BallOna Creek Renaissance Bay Area Council California Association of Environmental Health Administrators California Coastal Coalition California Coastkeeper Alliance California DemoCidtiC Party - Environmental Cdu Cns California Grocers AssoCidtion California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO California League of Conservation Voters CalifOIDia Refuse Recycling COUnCil California Retailers Association Cali£Orvid State Lands Commission Californians Against waste Central Contra COSta Solid waste Authority ChiCO Hag Cities Of Berkeley, Carpinteria, Chula Vista, Del Mai, E1 Cerrito, imperial Beach, Long Heath, LOS Angeles, Malibu, Manhattan Heath, Milpitas, Newport Heath, Palo Alto, Pasadena, SaCrament0, San Hnenaventura, San Clemente, Sa[ Prancisco, ran Jose, San Rafael, Santa Barbara, Santa Monica, Sebastopol, Solana Heath, South Lake Tahoe, and Ventura Clean South Hay Clean Water Action California Convnunities for a Hetter Enviromnevt COnmmnity Environmental Council Congresswoman Susan navis Coumilmember Jerome Stocks, City of encinitas Counci lmember maxti Emerald, City of ran Diego Councilmember Nancy Gardner, City of Newport Beach Councilmember Sherri s. Lightner, City of ran Diego Councilmember suja Lowenthal, City o£ Long Beach Councilmember Teresa Haath, City o£ Encinitas Counties Of LOS Angeles, Morin, Monteiey, San Pian CisCO. ana Santa clam nefenaer of wflalife Deputy Major Maggie Houlihan, City Of EvCinitds AH 3996 eage noWRtown Eneinitas Main Etreet AssOCidtiOn Dnlo Paper Bag Company Earth Resource POUnaation Eaithwise Bag Company East Bay Municipal U[iliti es Di stri c[ Ecology Center EndangE red Hob it dts League Page 4 of 8 mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings\danielle.noble\Local Settings\Temporary Internet ... 1/10/2011 AB 1998 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis environment California enviros ax Flip ~ Tumble, ttC FOrestEihiCS Fresh Hnd Easy Neighborhood Market Global Green Global IQ Green Chamber Of San Diego Green Sangho Humboldt Coastkeepers Humboldt County Hoard of Supervisors Humboldt Waste Management Authority JPS Global Investments Lake Balboa Neighborhood Council League of Cities Livermore Chamber of Commerce LOS Angeles County Solid Waste Management Cp~mnitt ee/ SRtegYdted Waste Management Task Porce Mdrip County Hazardous and Solid Waste Management Soint Powers Authority Mayor Anja Reinke, City O£ HurbaNc Monterey Hay Aquarium Monterey Regional Waste Management District Monterey Regional Waste Management Distri Ct Natural ResOU LCes DefeRSe COUn Cil Neighborhood Market Association Northcoast Environmental Center Oak Bark Neighborhood Association Ocean Conservancy G<eana Orange Cooney Business council Orange County COas [keeper Ormond Beach Observers Plaaninq and Conservation League Plastic PO11utiOR COdlition Project GreenBag Pw Supermarkets, Inc 9 AH 1998 Page RainfOrESt Action Network Regional Solid Waste Association Rickshaw Bag WOrksInc Rite Aia Roplast Safeway San Diego COastkeeper San Diego County DisposaY Association San Diego County Integrated waste Management Citizens Advisory CO~mnittee San Prancisc0 Chamber of Commerce San Prancisco Planning and Urban Research Association San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste Management Authority Santa Barbara Channelkeeper Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission Santa Monica Baykeeper Save MdYt $llpermarkets Save the Hay Sierra Club Of California Silicon Valley Leadership GYOUp Solid Waste Solutions, Inc Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection Authority Sonoma County Waste Management Agency South Hay Cities Council of Governments Steven Hochco Productions Super A POOd, In[ Surfers Environmental Alliance Surfrider Foundation Teens Turning Green The Northern Cdli £Ornid Recycling Association Turtle Island Restoration Network Union Of Concerned Scientists Urban Semillas valley industry and cortmierce Association Washington Elementary PTA Western States Council of the United Food s Commercial Workers Wild Heritage P1aMeis Wildcoast WinCO POOds wisdom Academy for Young Scientists Youth OppOitunitiES fOL High SChOO1 and ASSO Ciation9 Of Communities United Of South Los Angeles AB 1998 Page 5 of 8 mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings\danielle.noble\Local Settings\Temporary Internet ... 1/10/2011 AB 1998 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis to GPPOSITIOx (veriaea a/n/lo) American Chemistry Council Mle ricdn PoreSC and Paper Association Biodegradable Products Institute ' Bradley Packaging Systems Cdli£ORlid Pllm 5X[LndeZS and CORV2rteLS AssO CiatiOn California Forestry Association Californians for extended Producer Responsibility Command Packaging Corona Chamber of Conv~erce Crown eoly Diversified Tiansporta[ion Services Great American Packaging Heritage Hag eilex Poly HOwdrd Jarvis Taxpayers Association International Paper Long Beach Chamber of Commerce Metabolix Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce Page ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT ACCOLding tO ih2 bi 11'6 sponsor, Heal the Hay: "Californians use an estimated 19 billion single-use plastic bags very year. we c o longer recycle our way out of this problem. Uespitenefforts to expand recycling programs, less Chan 5k of single-use plastic bags a ently being recycled, The rest of these bags i vitably end up in our landfills o s litter, clogging stormdrain systems, and make thei rowdy to 0 waterways and ocean. ~ - "The cleanup of litter from single-use bags puts a additional strain on our economy. The state spends an estimated $25 million annually to clean up and landfill littered plastic bags. One study has estimated that the taxpayer cost to subsidize the recycling, collection, and disposal of plastic and paper bags could amount to as much as 1] cents per bag. This figure does not include the additional costs that local governments incur axu~ually for cleaning littered streets, beaches and AH 1998 Page I1 nstalling Crash control devices to comply with total m daily load limits (TMDLS) for trash under the C1 can water Act. "Paper bags axe not a fable alternative to plastic bags. Paper bags, particularly those made of Virgin materials, ontribute to deforestation, greenhouse gas e and waterborne wastes from the pulping and paper making process. Compostable plastic bags a also problematic because they are lightweight and mayre sily become litter. They do not readily degrade i aquatic eats, and instead require industrial composting Eacil fries to property break down. Only a small number of cities currently support the infrastructure to collect and dispose of compostable bags properly. "San Francisco, MdlibLL, Paixfax, and Palo Alto have baxmed plastic bags and at least 20 more cities i California a sidering this approach. xathernthan taking a piecemeal city-by-city approach, AB 1995 will Bate o ni£orm policy £or addressing all types of Ingle-use bags to encourage c s to use reusable bags, the most .sustainable alternative. "The State of California has a critical role Co play i becoming a true leader in eliminating plastic bag waste and preventing [he proliferation of m e debris. The passage of AH 1998 will be a major step1in breaking our addition to single-use bags." ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION The American Chemistry Council (ACC) writes: "Though ACC supports [he intent of [this? legislation to reduce plastic bag litter and waste, we believe that the most appropriate policy - both mentally and e ca11y - is to focus o easing and promoting the recycling infrastrvcture s Chat bags and other Films plastics c n be collected and used as feedstock in the production of other products, such as new bags, pallets, containers, crates, and pipe." ACC contends that there will be s intended consequences i£ this bill becomes lawin They point out that Page 6 of 8 mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings\danielle.noble\Local Settings\Temporary Internet ... 1/10/2011 AB 1998 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis "California law manaaces that certain grocery stores and pharmacies provide recycl inq bins so that consumers can AH 1998 Page 12 return bags for recycling. This local infrastructure also provides c with Che opportunity to recycle other plastic wrapsusuch as produce and bread bags, dry cleaning bags, wraps from paper towels, bathroom tissue, napkins, and even the plastic bags used to deliver n wspapers. Hy banning plastic bags, grocery stores will no longer be required to provide recycling bins £oi these products and a critical consumer recycling infrastructure would be dismantled. Such a rasult does not make enviYOnmentdl Other opponents to this bill argue that if this bill beCOmee law it would: 1. Eliminate manufacturing jobs in California at a time when m e jobs a eeded. These plants c not be Yxtooled. IC wouldntake millions of dollars. 2. Dismantle a growing plastic recycling program thus eating m e litter since this industry recycles other plastic film products. 3. Increase green house gas e s dve Co alternate, less a entally friendlysrproducts that will vow have toVbeooffered. 4. Expose your c nstituen[s Co possible health hazards as not everyone has the ability to wash reusable bags. ASSEMBLY PLOOR Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Carter, Chesbro, COCO, Ddvis, De Ld TOrie, Oe Leon, Eng, Evans, Pev er, FOnq, Fuentes, Fumtani, Galgiani. Hayashi, Hill, Huffman, Jones, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma,MOnning, Nava, V. Manuel Perez, Por[antino, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Skinner, Solorio, Swanson, Torlakson, Yamada, John A. PEYez NOeS: Adams, Anderson, Bill Berryhill, Blakeslee, Conway, nevore, Eimnerson, Puller, Gaines, Garrick, Gilmore, Hagman, Ndrkay, HubeY, Jeffries, I(night, Logue, Mendoza, Mi11eY, Nestande, Niello, Nielsen, Norby, Smyth, Torri co, Tran, Villines AH 1998 Page 13 NO VOTE RECORDED: TOm HEiryhill, Chdiles Cd1deYOn, Cook, Fletcher, Hall, Hernandez, Lieu, Silva, Audra Strickland, Torres, Vacancy TBM:mw 8/30/10 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOV£ xxxx F1,Ip taro Page 7 of 8 AYES: Ammiano, Arambu la, Bass, Beall, Block, Hlumenf field, mhtml:file://C:\Documents and Settings\danielle.noble\Local Settings\Temporary Internet ... 1/10/2011 AB 1998 Assembly Bill -Bill Analysis Page 8 of 8 mhhnl:file://C:\Documents and Settings\danielle.noble\Local Settings\Temporary Internet ... 1/10/2011 °~ - ~- /-~~ - I 5 ' ~ a ~"-' Proposed Changes to Single Use Carryout Bag Ordinance 1. Change the definition of "reusable bag" in section 5.45.010 (i) to be consistent with the definition adopted in the Los Angeles County ordinance as follows: "Reusable bag" means a bag with handles that is specifically designed and manufactured for multiple reuse and meets all of the following requirements: (1) has a minimum lifetime of 125 uses, which for purposes of this subsection, means the capability of carrying a minimum of 22 pounds 125 times over a distance of at least 175 feet; (2) has a minimum volume of I S liters; (3) is machine washable or is made from a material that can be cleaned or disinfected; (4) does not contain lead, cadmium, or any other heavy metal in toxic amounts, as defined by applicable state and federal standards and regulations for packaging or reusable bags; (5) has printed on the bag, or on a tag that is permanently affixed to the bag, the name of the manufacturer, the location (country) where the bag was manufactured, a statement that the bag does not contain lead, cadmium, or any other heavy metal in toxic amounts, and the percentage ofpostconsumer recycled material used, if any; and (6) if made of plastic, is a minimum of at least 2.25 mils thick. " 2. Remove the words "hot" and the second reference to "prepared" from section 5.45.040 (a)(1) of the proposed ordinance as follows: "Single-Use Plastic Carry Out Bags may be distributed to customers by Food Providers for the purpose of safeguarding public health and safety during the transportation of het prepared take-out foods and prepared liquids intended for consumption away from the Food Provider's premises. " 3. In the second WHEREAS clause of the proposed ordinance, change the number of commercial and retail establishments from 1718 to 1875 as follows: WHEREAS, there are approximately eighteen hundred and seventy-five (~S 1875) commercial and retail establishments in the City of Santa Monica ("the City') most of which provide single use, disposable carry out bags to their customers; and 4. In the third WHEREAS of the proposed ordinance, change "fifty million (50,000,000)" to "twenty six million (26,000,000)" as follows: WHEREAS, about~fty twenty-six million (30 26, 000, 000) single use carry out bags are distributed by retail establishments in the City each year; and `? - /~- ~-as- ~i ~ -. 30 Rincon Consultants; Inc. I80 North Ashwood Avenue Ventura, California 93003 aoe 644 4455 Fax 644 4240 info@rinconconsultants.com www.rinconconsultants.com January 25, 2011 Deari Kubani, Director Office of Sustainability and the Environment 200 Santa Monica Pier, Suite J Santa Monica, CA 90401 Subject: GHG Analysis in the Final EIR for the Los Angeles County's Ordinance to Ban Plastic Canyout Bags Compared to the City of Santa Monica Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR LA County Ordinance Draft EIR: The significance criteria used in the LA County Ordinance Draft EIR states that proposed ordinances would have a significant impact to climate change when the potential for any one of the following two thresholds is reached: 1: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly that may have a significant effect on the environment; 2. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases' The second threshold is further explained by two additional significance criteria: • Inconsistency with laws and regulations in managing GHG emissions • Inconsistency with the goal to reduce GHG emissions to 19901evels (approximately 427 million metric tons or 9.6 metric tons of Carbon Dioxide equivalent units (CO2e) per capita) by 2020 as required by AB 32 In the Draft EIR, the County quantified GHG emissions using both an 85% and 100% assumed conversion rate from plastic to paper. Similar to the City of Santa Monica's Ordinance EIR, the County quantified operational GHG emissions related to a potential increase in the production and distribution of paper carryout bags as well as the release of CH4 into the atmosphere as a byproduct of the decomposition of paper carryout bags in landfills as well as the increase of GHG emissions related to truck trips. The County used several approaches using the various Life Cycle Assessments to demonstrate a range of possible emissions. As shown in Tables 3.3.5-2 through 3.3.5-13 of the Draft EIR, GHG emissions resulting from the Counts proposed ordinance would be less than 0.01 metric tons of CO2e per capita which was well below the County's Target GHG Emissions per Capita of 9.6 metric tons of CO2e per capita. However as stated on page 3.3-37: Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers r "Further, while the quantitative GHG emission impacts of the proposed ordinances would be expected to be below the level of significance compared to the Counh~'s target 2020 GHG emissions, and there are no defined regulations establishing significance on a cumulative level, certain representatives of the plastic bag industnj have claimed that paper carn~out bags are significantly worst (sic) for the environment from a GHG emissions perspective. On this basis, and specific to this project only, and because the Counhj is attempting to evaluate the impacts of the proposed ordinances from a conservative worst-rnse scenario, it can be conservatively determined that the life n~cle impacts resulting from an 85-and 100-percent conversion from plnsric to paper carryout bags maybe cumulatively siQrtifrcant when considered in conjunction with all other related past, present, or reasonably foreseeable, probable future projects or activities." (emphasis added) Thus, although the analysis concluded that the per capita GHG emissions from the proposed ordinances (less than 0.01 metric tons per capita) would be well below the County's threshold of 9.6 metric tons per capita, it conservatively concluded that cumulative impacts would be significant. LA County Final EIR: Alternative 5 GHG Analysis Following the Draft EIR, the LA County's Final EIR contained a new Alternative that eventually would be adopted asthe project. This Alternative would require at least $0.05 cost per paper bag, utilizing a 50% reduction factor of plastic to paper bags based on carryout bag reductions in Washington, D.C., Ireland, and other examples in the City of Santa Monica Nexus Study. Using the same approach to calculate GHG emissions as the Draft EIR, it was determined that Alternative 5 would increase GHG emissions by as much as 184,621 metric tons CO2e per year or approximately 0.0173 metric tons CO2e per year per capita which is well below the Counts threshold of 9.6 metric tons CO2e per year per capita. GHG emissions data for Alternative 5 is contained in tables R4.2.6.3-4 through R4.3.6-6 on pages 12-47 through 12-53. Nevertheless, like the proposed ordinances analyzed in the Draft EIR, it was determined on page 12-52 that: "Based on this conservative analysis, the indirect impacts to GHG emissions front the end of life of paper cam~out bags may have the potential to be cumulatively considerable, depending on the achtal percentage increase in conversion to paper cam~out bags, the number of stores affected, the actual bag usage per day, the size of the fee or charge, and other relevant factors that are specific to each of the 88 incorporated cities within the Counhj. In the development of this EIR, the Counfij has recognized and acknowledged that each ciht has the authorihJ to render an independent decision regarding imrolementafion of its own ordinance. For the purposes of this EIR, the Counhj has extended the worst-case scenario for the Counhj ordinance and alternatives to a scenario where all 88 cities adopt comparable ordinances. However, an individual determination, including for cumulative impacts for GHG emissions target." (emphasis added) Thus similar to the analysis in the Draft EIR, the Final EIR determined that although Alternative 5 would not exceed the County's goal of 9.6 metric tons CO2e per year per capita, the cumulative impact would be significant. Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers r Santa Monica Carryout Bag Ordinance Final EIR: In the Santa Monica Ordinance EIR it was originally determined that the net increase of GHG emissions would be approximately 501 metric tons per year of C02e. However, as discussed in Response 3.3 on page 8-28 of the Final EIR, following the Response to Comments, although it is anticipated that most bag users would simply include bags in washloads that would occur with or without the bags, for a conservative estimate, washing and drying all of the additional reusable bags resulting from the proposed ordinance would increase greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 199 C02e per year. Added to the net change of greenhouse gas emissions as shown on Table 4.3-4 in Section 4.3, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed ordinance would emit 700 C02e per year, which would not exceed any of the five thresholds as discussed in Impact GHG-1 including the City of Santa Monica's adopted standard of 10,000 metric tons of C02e per year. Therefore it was determined that impacts to greenhouse gas emissions would not be significant. As stated on page 4.3-9 of the Final EIR: "An individual project (unless it is a massive construction project, such as a dam or a new freeway project, or a large fossil fuel fired power plant) does not generate sufficient GHG emissions to directly influence global climate change; Therefore, the issue ofglobal climate change fijpically involves nn analysis of whether the contribution toward a cumulative impact 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 outer current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. Other existing ar proposed cam,/out bag ordinances throughout California would be expected to result in similar impacts related to greenhwuse gas emissions. For these reasons, cumulative significant impacts associated with implementation of carn~out bag ordinances throughout the state are not anticipated." Because the proposed Santa Monica Carryout Bag Ordinance would not exceed any of the City's recommended thresholds of significance, it can be reasonably assumed that the proposed ordinance would not result in a cumulative impact. As stated in the LA County Final EIR (see page 12-52) "each cifij has the authorifij to render an independent decision regarding implementation of its own ordinance". Further, "an individual determination, including for cunnzlative impacts, far each cifij would be contingent on the exact parameters of the cifij s proposed ordinance, consideration of The above-identified factors, the cifij's adopted thresholds of significance, and its projected AB 32 GHG emissions target." The proposed Carryout Bag Ordinance's net increase of GHG emissions .(approximately 700 metric tons per year) would not exceed any of the CAPCOA thresholds for cumulative analysis. In addition, the increase of GHG emissions (700 metric tons per year) would represent less than 0.38% of the County's total GHG emissions under the worst-case scenario (approximately 184,621 metric tons per year as shown on page 12-52 of the County's Final EIR). Moreover, as stated in the City's FEIR at p. 4.3-8, begiruiing in 1990, the City has maintained a GHG emissions inventory (last updated November 2009), which allows the City to measure its progress toward achieving the goals contained in the Sustainable City Plan. According to the 2009 GHG Emissions Report, there was a reduction in GHG emissions from 1990 to 2007. Overall, GHG Environmental Scientists Planners En¢ineers r erissions in 2007 declined by 7% as compared to 19901evels. The majority of the reduction in GHG emissions has occurred in the waste sector, the impact area identified by Los Angeles County as cumulatively significant, in which emissions fell by 48%. In addition, the City's Renewable Energy Portfolio and use of green power energy sources has also reduced community emissions (reduced by 8%} and the corporate emissions (reduced by 36%). Given these facts, the City's cumulative contribution related to Countywide GHG emissions as a result of implementation of the Santa Monica Carryout Bag Ordinance would not be cumulatively considerable. Sincerely, N 7 Matt Maddox Environmental Planner Environmental Scientists Planners ~ Engineers `~- V~ 5:~a City of Santa Monica Task Force on the Environment GHG Emissions Report November 16, 2009 General Notes on Methodology * ICLEI 2004 Summary of 1990 - 2000 Emissions as basis * Added 2007 Inventory to these results * Emissions Factors maintained at 1990 levels to enable comparability * For Community Inventory, Transportation Fuel estimation used rather than a VMT model * Big Blue Bus fuel usage estimated for 1990 and 2000, based on 2007 fuel usage and scaled down based on transit miles driven. City of Santa Monica Community GHG Emissions Summary Stated Using 1990 Electricity Emissions factors .Community 1990 2000 2007 Population 86,905 84,084 90,379 Residential Energy (GJ) 2,668,635 2,800,271 2,684,764 Emissions CO2e 188,687 202,453 196,400 Commercial Industrial Transportation Waste Energy(GJ) Emissions CO2e Energy (GJ) Emissions CO2e Energy (G1) Emissions CO2e Waste (tons) Emissions C02e Community Footprint Energy (GJ) Emissions CO2e %Change (1990 Basis) Energy{GJ) Emissions CO2e 3,797,270 3,303,184 3,180,616 329,295 326,164 316,903 337,535 229,439 477,471 32,227 25,907 61,620 4,319,103 4,327,995 4,764,996 299,538 300,824 327,923 2 3 7, 77 6 151, 616 12 3, 691 74,546 47,534 38,779 11,122,543 10, 660, 889 11,107, 847 924,293 902,882 941,625 -4% 0% -2% 2 City of Santa Monica Community GHG Emissions Summary Stated Using 1990 Electricity Emissions Factors Community 1990 2000 2007 Community Footprint Energy (GJ) 11,122,543 10,660,889 11,107,847 Emissions CO2e 924,293 902,882 941,625 Renewable Portfolio Energy (GJ) 604,916 Emissions CO2e 78,965 Community Footprint Net of Renewables 11,122, 543 10, 660, 889 10, 502, 931 924,293 902,882 862,660 Change (1990 Basis) Energy (GJ) -4% -6% Emissions CO2e -2% -7% City of Santa Monica Total Community Emissions 2007 Transportation 43% Residential l Residential ^ Commercial Industrial (Transportation rcial 29% Industrial 4% City of Santa Monica GHG Emissions Summary Stated Using 1990 Electricity Emissions Factors Corporate Emissions Buildings Energy (GJ) Emissions CO2e Streetlights & Traffic Signals Energy (GJ) Emissions CO2e Water Delivery Facilities Energy (GJ) Emissions CO2e Vehicle Fleet Energy (GJ) Emissions CO2e Big Blue Bus Energy (GJ) Emissions C02e 1990 2000 2007 47,182 76,431 102,483 5,229 7,678 10,220 15,794 27,366 32,929 2,062 3,572 4,298 3,758 14,091 14,198 401 1,839 1,722 54,447 59,614 75,760 3,789 4,001. 4,936 165,871 212,655 238,926 12,627 16,189 18,069 City of Santa Monica GHG Emissions Summary Stated Using 1990 Electricity Emissions Factors Corporate Emissions 1990 2000 2007 Including Green Power Emissions Corporate Footprint including Biogenic Emissions (1990 Basis) Energy (GJ) 287,OS2 Emissions CO2e 24,108 Change (1990 Basis) 390,157 33,279 464,296 39,245 Energy (GJ) 36% 62% Emissions CO2e 38% 63% Deducting Green Power Emissions REC's - - 6,510 Direct Access 7,320 Biodiesel PW - - 466 Total Green Power Emissions - - 14,296 Emissions Net of Green Power Sources (CO2e) 24,108 33,279 24,949 %Change (1990 Basis) 3% City of Santa Monica Total Corporate Emissions 1990-2007. 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 N d = 2s,000 f u 20,000 E ls,ooo lo,ooo s,ooo I I i 1990 2000 2007 Green ^ Non-Green Energy Usage by Sector City of Santa Monica Corporate 1990-2007 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% d .,~.~ 50% m m C7 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% ^ Vehicle Fleet Big Blue Bus Water Delivery Facilities t,>' Streetlights & Traffic Signals ^ Buildings 1990 2000 2007 a S'3o `l-!k -as- ~ ~~ CITY OF SANTA MONICA LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT Final Environmental Impact Report Volume I: Final EIR SCH No. 2009041 1 1 7 Prepared far City of Santa Monica City Planning Division 1685 Main Street, Room 212, P.O. Box 2200 Santa Monica, California 90401 Prepared by PBSt£1 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Los Angeles, California 90025 April 2010 Policy 510.5 Engage in community education and outreach, such as continued maintenance of the City's on-line Green Office Buying Guide. Goal H6: Incentivize new housing to be located and produced in ways that reduce GHG emissions. Policy H6.1 Encourage housing to be located along transit corridors and close to transit stations. Policy H6.2 Encourage complementary uses and local services in conjunction with or adjacent to new housing and locate housing in close proximity to existing services. Policy H6.3 Encourage or facilitate the inclusion of complementary land uses not already present within a neighborhood district such as grocery markets, daily services, and parks. Policy H6.4 Consider separating out or reducing parking requirements for new housing near transit. Policy H6.5 Establish minimum pedestrian and bicycle facility and connectivity standards in conjunction with new housing development. 4.14.4 Project Impacts and Mi#igation Analytic Method The City of Santa Monica, along with other cities and counties in Southern California, is working towards a more sustainable future through the implementation of policies and regulations that work to reduce the region's reliance on fossIl fuels while improving the conservation of resources, such as water and open space, through maintaining greenways and parkways. Many improvements would occur as a result of the proposed LUCE, including the goals, policies and action items described above, that create an integrated land use and transportation strategy to reduce per capita GHG emissions, VM'I', reduce consumption of natural resources such as water and energy, and create along-term sustainable planning framework. Construction Emissions Construction of future new land uses would result in GHG emissions from the use of construction equipment. However, the details of these future construction activities are unknown at this time and, therefore, cannot be quantified without details relating to demolition requirements, construction time frames, and total size of projects. Proposed LUCE policies and mitigation measures, identified below, would operate to reduce construction-related emissions to a level below current "business as usual:" Further, in some cases new land uses under the proposed LUCE would be required to undergo environmental review, at which dme GHG emissions would be quantified. Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR 4.74-25 Operational Emissions Operational emissions include both direct sources, such as vehicles, natural gas consumption for heating/cooling buIldings, and indirect sources, such as water supply demand and power plants located outside the area that would supply the City's electricity. GHG emission estimates for operation of new land uses allowed under the proposed LUCE are based on total land use summaries under the proposed LUCE. URBENfIS 2007 was used to predict potential COZ emissions for each of the specific land uses under the proposed LUCE. These assumptions are preliminary and meant to illustrate the potential ,GHG emissions from operation of the new land uses under the proposed LUCE. Further, the following analysis identifies policies that could be applied to projects within the City o£Santa Monica to reduce emissions of GHGs. However, operational emissions (including vehicle emissions) axe based on the estimated land uses allowed under the proposed LUCE and do not assume implementation of the identified policies and mitigation measures, as it is not currently known which policies and measures would apply to individual projects: Thresholds of Significance For the purposes of tkiis EIR, implementation of the proposed LUCE would have significant impact if it would do any of the following: ^ Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that in conjunction with other global greenhouse gas emissions, will make a cumulatively considerable contribution to substantial adverse physical effects on the environment related to global climate change ^ Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases The interpretation of these thresholds is described below. Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions For the first bulleted threshold, the generation. of cumulatively considerable greenhouse gas emissions; this EIR uses compliance with AB 32 as the threshold of significance. AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, requires that greenhouse gases emitted. in California be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The 2020 reduction target equates to a decrease of approximately 30 percent below the current GHG emissions. Under AB 32, the GARB published its Scoping Plan to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California (GARB 2008), which axe needed to achieve the reduction goals of AB 32. These reduction goals are derived from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC: CCAT 2007) The IPCC was formed to assess "the scientific, technical, and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation" (IPCC 2004). The IPCC climate stabilization models predict a 400 to 450 carbon dioxide equivalent concentration is needed to stabilize mean global warming at approximately 2° Celsius rise from current global mean temperature (IPCC 2001). The GHG emission reduction targets in AB 32 are needed to achieve the 400 to 450 carbon dioxide equivalent concentration and stabilize global climate change. As noted earlier, the Scoping Plan encourages local governments to reduce their GHG emissions by 15 percent as part of the overall statewide efforts to achieve reductions on the order of 30 percent. 4.14-26 Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR 4.74 Global Climate Change Because project-related GHG emissions are only important in the context of cumulative emissions, the focus of the analysis is on answering the question of whether incremental contributions of GHGs are a cumulatively considerable contribution to global wamung effects. In considering the use of AB 32 as a threshold of significance, the City evacuated AB 32 against the standards established in CEQA Guidelines C15064(F3)(3). The City determined that AB 32 addresses global climate change, is in concert with international efforts to address global climate change, and includes specific greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets that will substantially lessen the cumulative problem. More specifically, CEQA Guideline g15064(h)(3) states three main conditions that a plan must meet to be sufficient for use as a basis for determining significance of GHG emissions. The plan must: ^ Be "a previously approved plan or mitigation program" ^ Provide "specific requirements that will avoid ox substantially lessen the cumulative problem" ^ 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" AB 32 meets both conditions one and three because AB 32 was adopted in 2006 by the California State Legislature. AB 32 focuses on reducing GHG in the City of Santa Monica and California respectively and further. defines GHG to include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocaxbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Further, AB 32 satisfies the second condition because it requires GARB, the State agency charged with regulating statewide air quality, to adopt rules and regulations that would achieve greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to statewide levels in 1990 by 2020. ARB published its Scoping Plan to Mitigate Climate Change in California (GARB 2008), which describes measures to reduce GHG emissions. The final report was published in December 2008. The measures became part of California's strategy for achieving GHG reductions under AB 32. One of the sources for the potential measures includes the CAT Report. Three new regulations are proposed to meet the definition of "discrete early action greenhouse gas reduction measures," which include the following: a low carbon fuel standard; reduction of HFC-134a emissions from non-professional servicing of motor vehicle-air conditioning systems; and improved landfill methane capture (GARB 2007b).-GARB estimates that by 2020, the reductions from those three measures-would be approximately 13 to 26 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. Therefore, compliance with AB 32 is used to determine if the proposed LUCE's incremental contribution of GHG emissions to cumulative climate change may be significant. Using compliance with AB 32 in determining significance related to GHG emissions is atwo-pronged approach, as explained below. First, the City uses the GHG emissions reduction targets of AB 32 in determining whether or not the proposed LUCE would "generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment" To that end, LUCE-generated GHG emissions need to be at or below the 1990 emission levels for the City, which is 924,293 metric tons of COZe, in order to meet the AB 32 GHG reduction target for year 2020. .Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR 4.14-27 Second, in determining whether or not the Project would "conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases," the City qualitatively demonstrates how the proposed LUCE complies with the policies, programs and reduction measures set forth in AB 32. To that end, this analysis evaluates whether the proposed LUCE incorporates .and supports the reduction measures found in the AB 32 Scoping Plan, including implementing all applicable California Climate Action Task Force recommendations and all applicable California GHG Emission Reduction Strategies. Conflict with Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation For the second bulleted threshold, the EIR also evaluates the potential for conflict between the goals and policies of the LUCE and the City's Sustainable City Plan. As noted above, the Sustainable City Plan calls for the City to strive to achieve goats and tazgets for reduction of GHG emissions that are lower than the reductions required by AB 32. Although the Cit}~s Sustainable City Plan establishes goals and general targets .for future GHG reductions, it does not create mandates or requirements that must be attained, nor does it provide specific implementing actions by which those targets are to be achieved. As a result, this EIR considers the Sustainable City Plan as a broad expression of the City's desire to become a more sustainable community and considers whether the proposed LUCE would generally conflict with or be generally consistent with the goals and targets of the SCP. In addition to consideration of the SCP, the EIR also considers the potential for conflict between the proposed project and the greenhouse gas reduction measures recommended by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR), the Attorney General's Office, and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). Effects Found to Have No Impact There are no Effects Found to Have No Impact with respect to climate change. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Greenhouse gas emissions are primarily important in the context of other statewide and global emissions, which on an aggregate basis have and will affect global climate. While the evaluation presented below is focused on the proposed LUCE, and is specific to the plan, it is also considered cumulative because it is only as a contribution to a cumulative effect that the project-specific emissions have environmental consequences. Therefore, the analysis provided below includes the analysis of both the project and cumulative impacts. IhPeshold Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that in ~ conjunction with other global greenhouse gas emissions may have a substantial .adverse physical effect on the environment? Impact 4.14-1 Implementation of the proposed LUCE would result in construction and operational activities that would generate emissions that are better than the target levels of AB 32. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant. 4.14-28 Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR The proposed LUCE unites land use, transportation, infrastructure, and environmental planning into a single, flexible, long-term plan that reduces the City's per capita carbon footprint, and overall impact on the environment. The proposed .LUCE addresses GHG emissions through its land use and transportation decisions such as focusing development near transit, creating complete neighborhoods, supporting infill mixed-use projects, affordable and transit-oriented housing located near jobs and transit. In addition, the proposed LUCE supports a complete network of walking and bicycling, transit improvements, carpooling, car-sharing, and transportation demand management strategies to reduce the demand for vehicle trips. The proposed LUCE is anticipated to result in significant reductions in GHG emissions from the transportation sector alone.. Through its comprehensive strategies, 'the proposed LUCE establishes the framework and tools for achieving the city's sustainability goals, including those expressed in the Sustainable Ciry Plan and AB 32. The proposed LUCE reduces per capita vehicle mIles traveled, and per capita greenhouse gas emissions and represents direct and measurable progress toward reducing the factors known to affect climate change. Specific measures included in the proposed LUCE include: ^ Aggressive land use and transportation policies, including more compact. mixed-use development with higher residential and employment densities located near, and served by, public transit. ^ Optimize the transit, walking, and bicycling networks, enhance facilities, and establish congestion management and. transportation demand management (TDM) policies that reduce trips, balance the use of roadways, and encourage mode choice. ^ Create. complete neighborhoods of mixed-use building with housing located within walking distance of jobs, public spaces, and services. ^ Proactive congestion management with the goat of No Net New Evening Peak Period Trips. ^ Incentives for more affordable and workforce housing on infill development located near employment or public transportadon. ^ Programs to reduce vehicle trips, like employee transit incentive, telewoxk programs, car sharing, parking policies, public education programs and other strategies. ^ New development participation in TDM pi•ogxams to reduce vehicle trips ^ Establishment of TDM districts near major employers and institutions, establishment of impact and parking fees to support improvements in alternative forms of transportation, and adjustment of parking requirements to encourage shared parking. r Creation of complete neighborhoods with local service within walking distance. ^ Congestion and parking pricing strategies to provide a method of efficiently managing traffic demand while raising funds for needed transit, bike, and pedestrian infrastructure investment. ^ Promotion of energy and water efficiency, and reductions in solid waste generation. ^ Expansion of parks and open spaces, and support for urban forestry through. tree planting requirements and programs. ^ Promotion of green procurement and alternative fuel vehicle use. In addition, the proposed LUCE includes a system of monitoring and managing progress tied to performance measures that reflect the community's vision expressed in the LUCE. Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR - 4.74-29 Construction Emissions Construction activities would emit GHGs over the course. of the planning horizon of the proposed LUCE. The exact amount of emissions would be dependent on the particular construction equipment used and the length of the construction period for each individual project undertaken. Because this information is unknown, it is impossible to calculate the exact emissions of GHGs from construction activities in Santa Monica over the next 20 years. Climate change is cumulative in nature while construction activities result in temporary and limited emissions over the 20-year horizon of the proposed LUCE. With the current policies with respect to construction waste diversion and with reasonably anticipated continued advancement in equipment technology, construction emissions are anticipated to be less than significant with respect to GHG emissions. Operational Emissions Electricity and Natural Gas Emissions. Commercial, residential, retail, and other land uses in Santa Monica use electricity, which would contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. The generation of electricity through the combustion of fossIl fuels typically yields COZ and, to a much smaller extent, CH4 and N,O. To determine emissions from electricity consumption, annual electricity use must be established. The emissions factors for. electricity use and natural gas combustion were obtained from the California Climate Aedon Registry (CCAR 2007). Greenhouse gas emissions from these two sources are as shown in Table 4.14-3 (Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electricity Use) and Table 4.14-4 (Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Natural Gas Use). .. - ~ _~ -- - - - Geo ~~ R ion and Emissions5owce ~ State of Cal'rf i 2006 .,.C~- ns . ? Nz0 ns ~~ Nso ~~~ ' 'COze its a ~ - ,CHs ~ru CN, CO;e -..: ns ToigfCOze ' .`~ ns orn a ( ) Existin -2007 E i i 118,615,344 545.50 169,105 987.80 20,744 118,805,192 g m ss ons (Santa Monica) 1984 Plan (2030) Proposed LUCE (2030) SOURCES: State of California emissions- C 413,624 5.31 272,635 3.50 260,421 3.34 nrza cr..re,.aa,. ~....:._:___ 1,645 1,084 1,036 15.92 10.49 10.02 334 220 210 415,603 273,939 261,668 www.arb.ca. ov/cc/invento _----""~"`""""""""'"c"'ones, 9 ry/inventory.htm. Existing 2007 emissions: City of Santa Monica Draff GHG Emissions Report, July 24, 2009. 1984 Plan (2030) antl Proposed LUCE (2030) emissions are contained in Appendix G of this DEIR. •. ~ ~ ~ r KR pn andEmissions'Sowee.., .~'r`"c~'" ont ~ ~ ;, .,;~ to „< '-COze ~ ~` "' ~C~ TotdFC61e-: State of Callfomia (2005) 125,542,693 237.77 73,709 14,028.44 294,597 125,910,999 Existing-2007 Emissions (Santa Monica) 158,913 0.30 93 14.94 314 159,319 1984 Plan (2030) 177,540 0.33 104 16.70 351 177,994 Proposed LUCE (2030) 173,961 0.33 101 16.37 344 174,406 SOURCES: State of California emissions: CARB Statewide Emissions GHG emission Inven}ories retrieved from the CARB website: ham://www arb ca ao /cGin entorv/inventci him. Existing 2007 emissions: City of Santa Monica Draft GHG Emissions Report, July 24, 2009. 1984 Plan (2030) and Proposed LUCE (2030) emissions are contained in, Appendix G of this DEIR. r J I.J L O ~~ j`I 4.14-30 Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR --. 4:14 Global Climate Change Vehicular Emissions. The largest source of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the proposed LUCE would be motor vehicle use. COZ emissions, the primary greenhouse gas associated with mobile sources, are directly related to the quantity of .fuel consumed. Two important determinants of transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions are vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle fuel efficiency. VMT in California has steadily increased over the last quarter-century (CEC 2006 but in Santa Monica is expected to decrease on a per capita basis over the 20-year horizon of the proposed LUCE. Greenhouse gas emissions from vehicular emission are as shown in Table 4.14-5. Existing 2,037,700 743,760,500 322,030 1984 Plan (2030) 2,224,800 812,052,000 316,439 Proposed LUCE (2030) 2,160,700 788,655,500 307,322 SOURCES: Existing 2007 emissions: City of Santa Monica Oraft GHG Emissions Report, July 24, 2009. 7984 Plan (2030) and Proposed LUCE (2030) emissions are contained in Appendix G of this DEIR. Combustion of fossil fuels also generates CH, and NZO. Existing and future (under both the proposed LUCE and 1984 Plan) VMT data was used to calculate CH4 and NZO emissions, emissions factors fox each gas were obtained from the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR 200'7) and were used with data on the fleet mix, fuel type and VMT for the Proposed Project to calculate their emissions, as shown in Table 4.14-6 (Estimated Vehicular NZO and CH4 Emissions from Motor Vehicles, 2030). State of California 505,063.00 13,764,473.24 4,266,986,704 898,861.01 18,876,081 4,285,862,785 Los Angeles County 40,103.90. 1,092,947.58 338,813,750 71,372.91 1,498,831 340,312,581 Existing-2007 Emissions (Santa Monica) 743.76 17.60 5,457 20.77 436 5,893 1984 Plan (2030) 812.05 17.30 5,362 20.41 429 5,791 Proposed LUCE (2030) 788.66 16.80 5,208 19.82. 416 5,624 SOURCE: a. VMT information for the state of California and Los Angeles County is from Calfrans 2006. VMT information for the Proposed Projec} is based on the traffic information provided by Fehr & Peers (see Appendix F). b. Emissions worksheets and modeling results are contained in Appendix G of this DEIR The transportation demand management and other land use and circulation policies of the proposed LUCE are designed to improve energy efficiency of the transportation system by increasing the use of transit, increasing walking and bicycling as alternatives to motorized transportation, the use of more fuel- efficient public transit, and improving circulation system levels of service. Proactive management of traffic congestion including implementation of enhanced transit operations and facilities and program improvements fox pedestrians and bicyclists would also allow for more energy-efficient vehicular travel. Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR 4.74.31 Solid Waste Emissions. Since the proposed LUCE would allow a variety of land use changes within the City, solid waste generated by those land uses would also contribute to greenhouse. gas emissions. Treatment and disposal of municipal, industrial, and other solid waste produces significant amounts of CH4. In addition to CH4i solid waste disposal sites also produce biogenic COZ and nonmethane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs) as well as smaller amounts of NZO, nitrogen oxides (NOS and carbon monoxide (CO). In the past, CH4 produced at solid waste disposal sites contributes approximately 3 to 4 percent to the annual global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (IPCC). In many industrialized countries, waste management has changed a great deal over the last decade. Waste minimization and recycling/reuse policies have been introduced to reduce the amount- of waste generated, and increasingly, alternative waste management practices (recycling, source reduction, etc.) have been implemented to reduce the environmental impacts of waste management. Also, landfill gas recovery has become more common as a measure to reduce CH4 emissions from solid waste disposal sites. The City provides comprehensive recycling services for all residents, institutions, and many businesses. Santa Monica's Solid Waste Management Division maintains aclean-air fleet. Santa Monica's recycling effort includes the operation of the Santa Monica Community Recycling Center and the Santa Monica Refuse Transfer Station. Construction and Demolition refuse is sent to an approved recycling facility. All Construction and Demolition projects are bound by the requirements of a Waste Management Plan (IYJMP) must use the approved haulers and/or recycling facilities. The City of Santa Monica curxendy diverts 72 percent of waste produced per the requirements of AB939. CH4 and COZ emissions from solid waste generated by the proposed LUCE were estimated based on formulas provided in the State Workbook: Methodologies for Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Estimates were obtained by multiplying the tons of solid waste land filled annually by the percent of degradable material the waste would be expected to contain, by the percent dissimilated, and by the pounds of gas produced per pound of biomass. Landfill gas is approximately 50 percent CH4 and 50 percent COZ. Total project emission of greenhouse gases from landfill material' is shown in Table 4.14-7 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Solid Waste). NZO emissions from landfills are considered negligible because the microbial environment in landfills is not conducive to the nitrification and denitrification processes that result in NZO emissions. NZO emissions are therefore not explicitly modeled as part of greenhouse gas emissions generated through solid waste. .. - -- - `. ~~:~.~:~';~~,~~.,; <~~.*`~. ,N „ rcR • ri'~`-`r~ ~~,~. ~..4..;.. ~.~,r ;"~,CH. ns~i '~' - . ~Tdfa! cO~e ~,'.. State of California a 33,618,907.40 36,420,483 Existing 2007 Emissions (Santa Monica)" 1.,847 38,779 1984 Plan (2030)= 569 11,954 Proposed LUCE (2030)= 548 11,515 own~.~a. ~. wmouna ernissons oasec on rorol sous waste dlsposol in California retrieved from, http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Profiles/Statewide/ b. Existing 2007 emissions: City of Santa Monica Draff GHG Emissions Repor}, July 24, 2009. c. 1984 Plan (2030) and Proposed LUCE (20301 emissions are contained in Appendix G of this DEIR 0 f`J ~:~r~ 4.14-32 Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR. 4.14: GFobal Climate Change Table 4.19-8 (Estimated Annual Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Proposed LUCE, 2030) shows the estimated total annual operational greenhouse gas emissions associated with the proposed LUCE under 2030 conditions. This summarizes all of the project-related emissions in Table 4.14-3 through Table 4.14-7. .. - =~ AnnualCOze Emis3ions ns .. Source otEmissions~ Ezislin 2007Emissions antaMonica "7984 Phn~ 030 ~ %oposed LUCE 030 ~°~' Residential 196,400 171,987 170,094 Commercial 316,903 246,910 238,762 Industrial 61,620 33,037 27,217 Transportation 327,923 322,230 312,946 Solid Waste (CHa) 38,779 11,954 11,515 Total 941,625 786,117 760,535 A632 Target 924,293 924,293 924,293 Significant? Yes No No SOURCES: Existing 2007 emissions: City of Santa Monica DratY GHG tmissions rceport, jury ca. ~uur. 1984 Plan 12030) and Proposed LUCE (2030) emissions are contained in Appendix G of this DEIR. An alternative is considered significant if the total emissions of GHG's are greater than the Target. With incorporation of Policies S1.1 through S1.7, 52.5, S2.6, S4.1, 54.2, 55.4, S5.5, 55.6, S5.7, 55.8, S8.1, and 58.4 of the proposed LUCE, emissions associated. with the proposed LUCE would be less than the AB 32 target. As such, impacts would be considered less than significant. Comparison to 1984 Plan As shown in Table 4-14.9, above, the continuation of development within the City under the 1984 Plan would generate GHG emissions that would be within AB 32 targets. For this reason, it would be also be considered less than significant for climate change impacts, although it would not achieve the level of reductions accomplished by implementation of the proposed LUCE. Threshold Would the project conflict with-any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Impact 4.14-2 Implementation of the proposed LUCE would be consistent with the goals and targets of the Santa Monica Sustainable City Plan, and the greenhouse gas reduction measures recommended by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR), the Attorney General's Office, and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA).. This impact would be considered less than significant. The proposed LUCE enables the City to achieve climate change goals through land use and transportation decisions, linking these critical sectors to the environment and providing the necessary tools to achieve the goals. As discussed above, the proposed LUCE supports integration of land use and i ',' Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR 4.14-33 I transportation necessary to reduce per capita VMT and GHG emissions, to encourage infill mixed-use housing and commercial linked to transit that reduces the demand for vehicle trips, to complete and enhance the bicycle, pedestrian and transit network, to implement TDM and congestion management programs that reduce trips, to increase affordable and workforce housing linked to employment and transit, to reduce the consumption of natural resources, and to create complete, walkable, and active neighborhoods where daily needs are available within walking distance. These strategies axe designed to complement the recommendations of the Attorney General's Office, CAPCOA, and the OPR as discussed in detail below. P Consistency with the Goals and Targets of the Sustainable City Plan As mentioned previously, the Santa Monica Sustainable City Plan (SCP) has established goals and targets for City government and all sectors of the community to strive toward in order to conserve and enhance local resources, safeguard human health and the environment, maintain a healthy and diverse economy, and improve the livability and quality of life in he City of Santa Monica. Included in the SCP are GHG emissions reduction targets for the City; these targets, if achieved, would result in greater GHG emissions reductions than those set by the State. As stated in the SCP, Santa Monica's reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions are to be 1) at least 30 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2015 for City operations and 2) at least 15 percent below 1990 levels by 2015 citywide. To meet the SCP targets, the City has implemented various programs and established indicators for these programs. Taking into account the 1990 GHG emissions of the City (924,293 metric tons CO,(e)), the SCP target for achievement of the GHG emission reductions would be 785,649 metric tons COZ(e) (compared to the AB 32 target of 924,293 metric tons of COZ(e)). By creating a truly integrated system of land use and transportation in the City, requiring aggressive implementation of TDM program, by conserving the City's existing neighborhoods and preserving the City's historic resources, and creating incentives for more complete neighborhoods, all of which would reduce trip making, VMT, and GHG emissions, the policies of the proposed LUCE would contribute to the achievement of the goals and targets of the SCP. As shown in Table 4.14-8 above, the projected annual emissions of the proposed- LUCE, inclusive of the policies of the proposed LUCE, would be 760,535 metric tons COZ(e), which would be less than the targets identified in the Sustainable Ciry Plan. Thus, the proposed LUCE would be consistent with the goals and targets of the SCP and this impact would be considered less than significant. Consistency with GHG Reduction Measures Recommended by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR), the Attorney General's Office, and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Under AB32, the CARB has the primary responsibility for formulating statewide strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, the CAT Report contains strategies that many other California agencies can implement. The CAT published a public review draft of Proposed Early Actions to Mitigate Climate Change in California. Most of the strategies were in the 2006 CAT Report or are similar to the 2006 CAT strategies. The 2006 CAT Report strategies that apply to the project are contained in 4.14-34 Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR :444 Gto6gt Climafe Change ,; Table 4.14-9 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Mitigation Measures/Design Strategies). Additionally, the California Attorney General has developed a document entitled, The California Environmental Quality ActAddrerring Global Warming Impactr at the Local Agency Level, which includes a list of mitigation measures that would serve to reduce GHG emissions. The document provides information that may be helpful to local agencies in carrying out their duties under CEQA as they relate to global warming. Included in this document are various measures that may reduce the global warming related impacts of a project. The second section of the Attorney General mitigation document lists examples of potential greenhouse gas reduction measures in the general plan context. These measures are included both to suggest how the measures set forth in the first section could be incorporated into a general plan, as well as to identify measures that axe general plan specific. This list of mitigation is periodically updated and available for public review, with the last update occurring in May 2008. The proposed LUCE was designed to meet the objectives and overall intent of reducing greenhouse gases consistent with direction/measures of the California Attorney General's Office, CAPCOA, and the CAT. As shown in the table, the proposed LUCE, with the continuation of several existing City programs, would effectively institute all cuxrentty established, feasible, and applicable measures to bring California to the emission reduction targets of AB 32. Emissions CCAT Standard Vehicle Climate Change Standards: AB 1493 (Pavley) required the state to develop and adopt regulations that achieve the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of climate change emissions emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. Regulations were adopted by the ARB in September 2004. CCAT Standard Other Light Duty Vehicle Technology: New standards would be adopted to phase in beginning in the 2017 model. CCAT Standard Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emission Reduction Measures: Increased efficiency in the design of heavy-duty vehicles and an education program for the heavy-duty vehicle sector. CCAT Standard Diesel Anti-Idling: In July 2004, the CARB adopted a measure to limit diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicle idling. Post signs that restrict idling; education for truck drivers regarding diesel health impacts. These are CARB enforced standards for vehicle manufacturing. Therefore, this standard is not applicable to the Project. However, future vehicles within the City will comply with the standards. Future development and operations within the City would be required to comply with the adopted CARB measure. Further, mitigation measure 4.2- 1 includes additional considerations with regard to the provision of electrical outlets that would further reduce for commercial motor vehicle idling in Santa Monica. Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR 4.74-35 CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ACTION TASKFORCE RECOMMENDATIONS Chapter 4 Envvonmental Analysis California Attorney General Strategy Future development and operations within the City would be required to Diesel Anti-Idling: Set specific limits on idling time for comply with the adopted CARB measure. Further, mitigation measure 4.2- commercialvehicles, including delivery vehicles. 1 includes additional considerations with regard to the provision of electrical outlets that would further reduce for commercial motor vehicle idling in Santa Monica. CCAT Standard Upon completions of the CARB enforced regulations the project will Altemative Fuels-Biodiesel Blends: CARB would develop comPlY with the standards. Therefore, the proposed LUCE would be regulations to require the use of 1 to 4 percent biodiesel required to'be consistent with-these strategies, as appropriate. displacement of California diesel fuel. California Attorney General's Office Recommended Strategies California Attomey General Strategy LUCE Policy S2.5 expands the use of alternative fuel vehicles by providing Alternative Fuels-General: fuelirig infrastructure and preferential parking in public locations, where The ro'ect shall include the necessa P 1 ry infrastructure to feasible. encourage the use of alternative fuel vehicles (e.g., electric Santa Monica's Civic Center parking structure garage accommodates vehicle charging facilities and conveniently located electdc vehicles with recharging stations and bicycles with safe-storage altemative fueling stations). units. Future projects are planned to have these types of electric vehicle recharging stations. California Attorney General Strategy The proposed LUCE incorporates aggressive TDM strategies to reduce Transportation Emissions Reduction: Vips, including a goal of No Net New Evening Peak Period trips, and Coordinate controlled intersections so that traffic passes congestion management strategies to increase the efficient use of city more efficiently through congested areas. Where signals are roadways including strategies for the movement of transit, bicycles, pedestrians and vehicles installed, require the use of Light Emitting Diode (LED) traffic , . lights. The City is currently developing a green building ordinance and will consider the use of LED traffic lights as part of that ordinance: California Attorney General Strategy As part of Goal T19, to "create an integrated transportation and land use. Transportation Emissions Reduction: program that seeks to limit total peak period vehicle. trips with a Santa The ro'ect a licant shall romote ride sharin P 1 PP p g programs Monica origin or destination to 2009 levels," the LUCE creates incentives e.g., by designating a certain percentage of parking spaces f hi h for existing employers, institutions, and residential neighborhoods to reduce their vehicle td s, includih p g promoting ride sharin ar g -occupancy vehicles, providing larger parking spaces g. to accommodate vans used for ride-sharing, and designating Additionally, LUCE Policy S2.3 seeks to advance the "no net new vehicle adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting trips" goal with transportation demand management practices such as areas. expanded rideshare programs. Consistent with the abovementioned Goals and Policies, the proposed LUCE includes an implementation measure ("Actions") to evaluate vanpool and carpool ride-matching services for TMOs and employers, including customized, real-time, on-line tools. Car- and vanpool parking are regulated by Section 9.04.10.08.050. of Santa Monira's Municipal Code. This fulfills this measure. California Attorney General Strategy The proposed LUCE seeks to reduce the cost of public transit by reducing Transportation Emissions Reduction: the "transfer penalty" between buses and rail (Policy T13.4), and Offer public transit discounts to residents encouraging all schools and major employers to provide pre-paid access . on the Big Blue Bus and Metro systems (Policy T14.2). The proposed LUCE creates TDM districts near Expo LRT stations and concentrations of employment to facilitate programs for trip reduction including transit pass subsidies. Santa Monica offers discounts and free tickets to qualifying residents and students. 0 4.14-36 Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR 4.i4 Global Climate Change ~ ~ r; CaRfamw Climate Change C3reentauseGas Finasans ~ ~ - _ °;- ~ , t"~;~, ; ~""' ,:Reduction S6afe res Pro sed WCE Consistent California Attorney General Strategy The proposed LUCE integrates land use and transportation, focusing Transportation Emissions Reduction: areas of change near the Expo Light Rail stations, and transit corridors to increase the efficiency of the transit network. The proposed LUCE calls for Design a regional transportation center where public increases in transit service on major corridors, increased Big Blue Bus and transportation of various modes intersects. Metro Bus service at the future Expo station, and system improvements for city-wide transit service with improved connections to regional systems in Los Angeles and beyond. Specific policies of the proposed LUCE, include Policy T12.3, which integrates the Expo Light Rail into the transit, pedestrian and bicycle network with connections and amenities, Policy T12.5 which provides for the accommodation and adjustment of bus service as necessary to support future rail service, and Policies 12.6, 12.7, and 12.8 seek to achieve direct transit connections and seamless transfers between systems throughout the City and the region. California Attorney General Strategy As part of the performance of Goals 12 through 14 of the proposed LUCE, Transportation Emissions Reduction: the City will evaluate and institute, where feasible, fees for the maintenance, promotion, and expansion of citywide public transit. In Contribute transportation impact fees per residential and addition, Policy 52.3 of the proposed LUCE identifies impact fees for commercial unit to the City, to facilitate and increase public transit infrastructure as one of many methods to be utilized to achieve the transit service. City's goal of °no net new evening peak hour vehicle trips." The citywide Travel Demand Model created as part of the proposed LUCE will be used in the evaluation and preparation of a Nexus Study necessary to proceed with a transportation impact fee to facilitate and increase public transit service. California Attorney General Strategy As part of the Expo Light Rail stations, the proposed LUCE identifies Transportation Emissions Reduction: shuttle services to major employment centers and institutions such as the hospitals and Santa Monica College. Policy T12.5 of the proposed LUCE Provide shuttle service to public transit. states that the City will accommodate and adjust bus service as necessary to support future rail service. California Attorney General Strategy The proposed LUCE identified bicycling as acarbon-neutral and time Transportation'Emissions Reduction: competitive alternative to the automobile in Santa Monica, and includes a strong focus on expanding the bicycle network, and support facilities such "Incorporate bicycle lanes into the project circulation system. as bicycle parking, showers, and information. Specifically; Goals T9 through T11 of the proposed LUCE contemplate new investment in the bicycle network, such that regional and local transit via bicycle is encouraged and all streets are friendly to bicyclists. Consistent with the abovementioned goals, the proposed LUCE includes implementation measures ("Actions") that include filling gaps in the bikeway network,- specifically at future light rail stations and activity centers, along the Exposition Light Rail right-of-way, and at key connections to recreational, cultural, and regional destinations. Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR 4.74-37 ~J ~, California Attorney General Strategy Transportation Emissions Reduction: Create bicycle lanes and walking paths directed to the location of schools and other logical points of destination in the incentive area. California Attorney General Strategy Transportation Emissions Reduction: Provide on-site bicycle and pedestrian facilities (showers, bicycle parking, etc.) for commercial uses, to encourage employees to bicycle or walk to work. California Attorney General Strategy Transportation Emissions Reduction: Provide public education and publicity about public transportation services. Solid Waste and Energy Emissions CCAT Standard Zero Waste-High Recycling: Additional recycling beyond the State's 50 percent recycling goal. 1) Design locations for separate waste and recycling receptacles. 2) Utilize recycled components in the building design. The proposed LUCE includes a strong focus on creating expanded bicycle and pedestrian networks throughout the city, including linking major destinations with green connections and pathways. Specifically, as part of the performance of Goals T6 through T11 of the proposed LUCE, the City will enhance the walking and bicycle network to include safe and comfortable access to schools and other logical points of destination, while also increasing permeability, and visibility. Consistent with the abovementioned goals, the proposed LUCE includes implementation measures ("Actions") that include filling gaps in the bikeway network, specifically at future light rail stations and activity centers, along the Exposition Light Rail right-of-way, and at key connections to recreational, cultural, and regional destinations. Policy T10.2 of the proposed LUCE encourages "major employers to provide covered and secure bicycle parking and shower and locker facilities for bicycle commuters." Consistent with Goals T9-T11, the proposed LUCE includes implementation measures ("Actions") that include establishing requirements for access to showers and locker facilities for bicycle commuters in new developments. Additional actions include creating a system of bicycle-transit access centers that provide secure bike parking, rentals, repairs, showers, and transit information located at major destinations. The City of Santa Monica website, and the Big Blue Bus website currently provide public education and publicity about public transportation services. Consistent with Goals T12 through T14, the proposed LUCE includes several implementation measures ("Actions") to provide transit information at popular tourist destinations and hotels, expand transit information centers, and include transit information with a variety of City communications. The proposed LUCE also recommends improved communications technology to increase transit ddership and reduce vehicle trips. ' Santa Monica s is developing a Zero waste Strategy to be delivered to Council in June 2010. In addition, the City has a Community Recycling Center, as well as a refuse transfer station. Santa Monica is currently reviewing the implementation of a composting facility as it becomes economically feasible. Additionally, Goal S8 of the proposed LUCE seeks to reduce the amount of solid waste citywide, including Policy 58.1 which expands solid waste diversion strategies such as increased commercial recycling collection and outreach, expanded food collection, composting, and waste to energy conversion programs. 4.14-38 Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR 4.74 Gio6al Climate Gfiange "~ ' Cafitomia Cfimafe Change Greenhouse Gos Emasions ., ~ ~~ ` °Reduction~ ~-'res ~~ i'ro sed WCE Consisten California Attorney General Strategy Ordinance 7.60.020 addresses solid waste in fulfillment this measure. It Solid Waste Reduction Strategy: Project construction shall should also be noted that the City of Santa Monica currently diverts require reuse and recycling of construction and demolition 72 Percent of waste produced within the City per the requirements of waste. AB939. Additionally, Goal S8 of the proposed LUCE seeks to reduce the amount of solid waste citywide, including Policy S8.1 which expands solid waste diversion strategies such as increased commercial recycling collection and outreach, expanded food collection, composting, and waste to energy conversion programs. California Attorney General Strategy Santa Monica's is developing a Zero Waste Strategy to be delivered to Solid Waste Reduction Strategy: Project shall ensure that Council in June 2010. Currently, the City provides drop-off recycling bins in each unit includes recycling and composting containers and numerous locations throughout the City. In addition, the City has a convenient facilities for residents and businesses. Community Recycling Center as well as a refuse transfer station that is open to residents and businesses. Santa Monica is currently reviewing the implementation of a composting facility as it becomes economically feasible. California Attorney General Strategy Santa Monica's is developing a Zero Waste Strategy to be delivered to Solid Waste Reduction Strategy: Project shall extend the Council in June 2010. The City has a Community Recycling Center as well types of recycling services offered (e.g., food and green as a refuse transfer station. Santa Monica is currently ,reviewing the waste recycling). implementation of a composting facility as it becomes economically feasible Goal S8 of the proposed LUCE seeks to reduce the amount of solid waste citywide, including Policy 58.1 which expands solid waste diversion strategies such as increased wmmercial recycling collection and outreach, expanded food collection, composting, and waste to energy conversion programs. CCAT Standard Santa Monica owns it own water sources that can provide water for much Water Use Efficiency: Approximately 19 percent of all of the City's water needs (refer to Chapter 4.13 for clarification). electricity, 30 percent of all natural gas, and 88 million Additionally, the City has implemented numerous aggressive water gallons of diesel are used to convey, treat, distribute and use conservation measures. The City has implemented a "20 Gallon water and wastewater. Increasing the efficiency of water Challenge" to its residences, This fulfills this measure. transport and reducing water use would reduce greenhouse Additionally, and in accordance with Goal S6 of the proposed LUCE, which gas emissions. states that the City will "[p]romote water conservation and increase the use Use both potable and non-potable water to the maximum of reclaimed and recycled water," the City will seek to increase water extent practicable; low flow appliances (i.e., toilets, .supply and conservation measures by implementing low-water using dishwashers, showerheads, washing machines, etc.); requirements for new construction, and landscaping, and by providing automatic shut off valves for sinks in restrooms; drought incentives to end users to promote reducing water usage. Consistent with resistant landscaping; Place "Save Water" signs near water the Climate Action Plan proposed by the LUCE, the City shall strive to faucets. update the Urban Water Management Plan, to include measures for water efficiency and strategies to reduce the energy impacts of water deliver in the City. Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR 4.14-39 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis - - Califomia CFinale Change 6reenhouse,Gaa Ernicsrons ~" r " ~; , ~ ~ ' "~' =','keduchon S ~ es . ` sect CUCE Considenc Pro California Attorney General Strategy Santa Monica Urban Runoff & Recycling Facility (SMURRF) collects and Water Use Efficiency: Require measures that reduce the treats urban runoff to produce non-potable water for use in landscape amount of water sent to the sewer system- see examples in irrigation, at city parks and cemeteries, toilet flushing and in same city CCAT standard above. (Reduction in watervolume sent to fountains. Infrastructure is required for implementation to residences and the sewer system means less water has to be treated and businesses. Santa Monica will implement that program when infrastructure pumped to the end user, thereby saving energy.) is in place. As noted above, Goal S6 of the proposed LUCE, states that the " [p]romote water conservation and increase the use df reclaimed City will and recycled water," The City's water conservation programs have resulted in 10% reductions in water use over the past five years, which has also reduced the amount of waste water sent through the existing sewer system to treatment facilities. CCAT Standard Goal S3 of the proposed LUCE, which states that the City will "[r]educe Green Buildings Initiative: Green Building Executive Order, overall energy use in the City,' aims to lessen the volume of energy S-20-04 (CA 2004), sets a goal of reducing energy use in consumed through a wide variety of programs and measures, including the public and private buildings by 20 percent by the year 2015, generation of renewable energy in the City and energy efficiency as compared with 2003 levels. measures: The City also has an existing Ordinance 8.108 provides for Green Building which fulfils this measure today, which will be enhanced overtime with the support of the proposed LUCE. California Attorney General Strategy Goal SS of the proposed LUCE, which states that the City will "[i]mprove Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Standards: Project the environmental performance of buildings," specifies, in its objectives, shall comply with LEED certified green building standards. the desire to achieve aLEED-equivalent local building code by 2020, and to require LEED Gold certification for all new municipal construction, consistent with this measure. Consistent with Goal S5, the proposed LUCE includes an implementation measure ("Action") to achieve energy efficiency improvements for new buildings and retrofits of existing buildings. California Attorney General Strategy Goal S4 of the proposed LUCE is to "Encourage the use of renewable Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Standards: energy in the city" with associated policies 54.1, 54.2, 54.3, and 54.4 to Incorporate on-site renewable energy production (through, explore ordinances requiring solar installation, increase renewable energy e.g., participation in the California Energy Commission's Procurement, and to support the Solar Santa Monica program. Santa New Solar Homes Partnership). Require project proponents Monica implemented the Solar Santa Monica program. The program to install solar panels, water reuse systems, and/or other assists residents, businesses and property owners reduce energy systems to capture energy sources that would otherwise be consumption and generate clean, renewable energy onsite although it wasted does not explicitly require the installation of on-site renewable energy . systems on-site. This program is considered consistent with this measure. CCAT Standard Goal S5 of the proposed LUCE is to "Improve the Environmental Building Energy Efficiency Standards in Place and in Performance of buildings" and Policy S5.1 to wntinue to maintain a Progress: Public Resources Code 25402 authorizes the Building Code and prescriptive compliance options that meet or exceed CEC to adopt and periodically update its building energy state requirements. efficiency standards (that apply to newly constructed In addition, existing Code Section 8.108 requires All projects must exceed buildings and additions to and alterations to existing Title 24 compliance by 10%. Further, the City is in the process of buildings). increasing its targeted exceedance of Title 24 (June 2008 version) to 15%. Projects required to achieve a greater reduction in wmbined This fulfills this measure. space heating, coaling and water heating energy compared to the current Title 24 Standards. 4~ O O ~I ~I 4.74-40 Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR 4.74 Giobal Climate Change S 'CalXomia CPmote Change Greerihouse GasEmBsions ' , . .. y. ;': - ~' '~'~ ~ . ~ ies ~ ,. ~ sReduchon S , pro edLUCE Consisfen CCAT Standard Santa Monica adopted Public Resources Code 25402. This fulfils this Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards in Place and in measure. Progress: Public Resources Code 25402 authorizes the Energy Commission to adopt and periodically update its appliance energy efficiency standards (that apply to devices and equipment using energy that are sold or offered for sale in California). California Attorney General Strategy Goal S3 of the proposed LUCE is "Reduce the overall energy use in the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Standards: Fund City" and Goal SS is "Improve the environmental performance of " and schedule energy efficiency "tune-ups" of existing buildings. Associated policies also support this measure such as S3.3 to " buildings by checking, repairing, and readjusting heating, Continue to promote the retrofitting of existing buildings" including ventilation, air conditioning, lighting, hot water equipment, weatherization, commercial lighting retrofits, and whole house retrofits. insulation and weatherization. (Improvement of energy Policy S5.2 of the proposed LUCE seeks to increase the energy efficiency efficiency in existing buildings could offset in part the global of all (existing and proposed) municipal facilities. All development warming impacts of new development.) occurring under the proposed LUCE would construct new buildings that would be ftted with the most energy efficient appliances feasible, as identified in Green Building ordinance. Therefore; the proposed project would comply with this strategy. California Attorney General Strategy Goal S3 of the proposed LUCE is "Reduce the overall energy use in the Lighting Efficiency Standards: Require that the project City" and Goal S5 is "Improve the environmental performance of " include efficient lighting. (Fluorescent lighting uses buildings. Associated policies also support this measure such as S3.3 to " ° approximately 75 percent less energy than incandescent Continue to promote the retroftting of existing buildings including lighting to deliver the same amount of light.) weatherization, commercial lighting retrofits, and whole house retrofits. Section 8.108 requires All projects must exceed Title 24 compliance by 10%. Further, the City is in the process of increasing its targeted exceedance of Title 24 (June 2008 version) to 15%, which is consistent with Policy S5.1 of the proposed LUCE. This fulfills this measure. California Attorney General Strategy While not explicitly requiring the contribution of funds, Goal S10 of the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Standards: proposed LUCE and its associated policies directs the City to pursue " Contribute funds for energy management services, research improved technologies and "green jobs within the City through the and developmentfor energy efficient equipment and institution of business incentives and partnerships. In addition, Policy vehicles, and public education and publicity about energy 510.5 encourages the City to public education and outreach with respect efficiency programs and incentives. to energy technologies, water conservation, green building,. design and architecture practices, waste management, and sustainability. CCAT Standard This measure applies to consumer products. Hydrofluororarbon Reduction: 1) Ban retail sale of HFC in When CARB adopts regulations for these reduction measures, any small cans; 2) Require that only low GWP refrigerants be products that the regulations apply to would comply with the measures. used in new vehicular systems; 3) Adopt specifications for new commercial refrigeration; 4) Add refigerant leaktightness to the pass criteria for vehicular Inspection and Maintenance programs; 5) Enforce federal ban on releasing HFCs. Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR 4.14-47 CCAT Standard Transportation Refrigeration Units (TRU), Off-Road Electdfiration, Port Electrification: Strategies to reduce emissions from TRUs, increase off-road electrification, and increase use ofshore-side/port electrification. If TRUs access the site, implement measures to reduce emissions; install electrif cation in applicable projects (i.e., track stops, warehouses, etc.j Policy S5.8 of the proposed LUCE encourages the installation of electrical outlets in loading zones and on the exterior of new buildings to reduce emissions from gas-powered landscape maintenance and operating refrigeration for delivery trucks: In addition,. proposed mitigation measure MM4.2-2 provides compliance with this strategy. CCAT Standard Goal S10 of the proposed LUCE encourages the City and local business Cement Manufacturing: Cost-effective reductions to reduce (now and in the future) to improving the performance, in terms of energy, energy consumption and to lower carbon dioxide emissions water, and other materials use, of operations within City limits. The in the cement industry. performance of this goal and its associated policies would be wnsidered consistent with this measure. Land Use Measures, Smart Growth Strategies, and Carbon Offsets CCAT Standard Urban Forestry: A new statewide goal of planting 5 million trees in urban areas by 2020 would be achieved through the expansion of local urban forestry programs. Trees near structures shall be planted to act as insulators from weather, thereby decreasing energy requirements. Trees also store carbon. CCAT Standard Afforestation/Reforestation Projects: Reforestation projects focus on restoring native tree cover on lands which were previously forested and are now covered with other vegetative types. Residential development on the project site shall be clustered to preserve foresUwoodland resources; increase density; and preserve and restore open space. CCAT Standard Smart Land Use and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS): Smart land use strategies encouragejobs/housing proximity, promote transit-oriented development, and encourage high-density residential/commercial development along transit corridors. ITS is the application of advanced technology systems and management strategies to improve operational efficiency of transportation systems and movement of people, goods, and services. Governor Schwarzenegger is finalizing a comprehensive 10-year strategic growth plan with the intent of developing ways to promote, through state investments, incentives and technical assistance, land use, and technology strategies that provide for a prosperous economy, social equity, and a quality environment. Several policies of the proposed LUCE encourage urban forestry and the enhancement of parks and open space citywide to increase landscaping and public space, and would achieve this measure. Policy 55.5 encourages shade trees on south- and west-facing sides of all new buildings to reduce building energy loads. Policy CE 2.6 calls for increasing the number of diversity of trees in the community forest, and Policy CEt.6 seeks to enhance the tree canopy and coverage through the coordinated citywide tree planting Urban Forest Master Plan. The city is currently developing an Urban Forest Master Plan. The City of Santa Monica does not contain any currently or recently forested land on which reforestation would occur. However, the proposed LUCE supports strategies to increase tree cover and urban forestry as discussed in the discussion of the above CCAT Standard. A major tenet of the proposed LUCE is to focus land use change in areas served by robust and multi-modal transit facilities, including the Expo Light Rail stations at Bergamot Station, Memorial Park, and Downtown, as well as along transit corridors such as Wilshire Boulevard. The integration of land use and transportation to create complete communities, reduce demand for vehicle trips, reduce VMT and GHG emissions, and create an active walkable community is described in detail in Chapter 3, and throughout this document. While many goals and policies outline this core principle, Goal LU2 specifically states °Integrate land use and transportation, carefully focusing new development on transit-rich boulevards and in the districts, to create sustainable active pedestrian- friendly centers that decrease reliance on the automobile, .increase walking, bicycling and transit use and improving community quality of life:' 4-14-42 ~ Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR 4.14 Global Ciimafie Cfiange .. - -- - -. .. -. - r- . -. ;aCalrToini6 CGmale mange Greenhouse Gas~mavons ~- -. ~ ~ - ..- ~ , , ~ Reduction Sfr -~ ies P,o sed LUCE Consfsfen ~ California Attorney General Strategy A major tenet of the proposed LUCE is to focus land use change in areas Smart Land Use and Intelligent Transportation Systems served by transit, particularly mixed-use residential and commercial (ITS): Encourage mixed-use and high-density development development along the transit corridors, and at the Expo Light Rail staflons promote altematives to vehicle travel, to reduce vehicle trips to promote walking, bicycling, and transit use and reduce VMT and GHG , and promote efficient delivery of services and goods. (A city emissions. The goals and policies meet the guidance of the Attorney ' or county could promote "smart' development by reducing s office and are described in detail in Chapter 3, and throughout General developer fees or granting property tax credits for qualifying this document. projects.) Goal LU8 of the proposed LUCE seeks to reduce vehicle trips and manage congestion through a diverse and multi-modal transportation system that incentivizes walking, biking, and transit and reduces the need for vehicle trips. Additional Goals and Policies advocating for mixed-use projects in areas served by multi-modal transit altematives are proposed in the LUCE, specifically Goal S2 and associated policies, Goal H6 and associated policies, and Goal T19 and associated policies. California Attorney General Strategy Policy 55.6 of the proposed LUCE encourages cool roofs or green roofs Smart Land Use and Intelligent Transportation Systems on new buildings, while Policy S5.7 encourages cool paving on new plazas (ITS): Impose measures to address the "urban heat island" and parking lots. Policy 5.5 encourages the planting of shade trees on the effect by, e.g., requiring light-colored and reflective roofing south and west-facing facades of new buildings to reduce energy loads. materials and paint; light-colored roads and parking lots; shade trees in parking lots; and shade trees on the south and west sides of new or renovated buildings. California Attorney General Strategy The proposed LUCE integrates public transit into a citywide land use Smart Land Use and Intelligent Transportation Systems strategy to encourage transit use, reduce VMT and GHG emissions, and (ITS): Incorporate public Vansit into project design. support a robust and successful transportation network. There are numerous land use and transportation goals and policies in the proposed LUCE, including Policy T12.2 of the proposed LUCE which seeks to integrate the proposed Expo Light Rail alignment and stations into the community fabric. California Attorney General Strategy The proposed LUCE recognizes the importance of walking, bicycling, and Smart Land Use and Intelligent Transportation Systems transit use mixed with supportive land uses as necessary components for (ITS): Require pedestrian-only sVeets and plazas within the citywide sustainability. One of the major components of the LUCE is the project site and destinations that may be reached improvement and establishment of new and improved connections for conveniently by public transportation, walking, or bicycling. Pedestrians and cyclists to public transit, as well as neighborhood uses, consistent with this measure. California Attorney General Strategy The proposed LUCE focuses exclusively on infll potential that recycles Smart Land Use and Intelligent Transportation Systems and improves existing urbanized areas, with land uses placed strategically (ITS): Discourage "leapfrog' development. Enact ordinances near transit and in compact walkable communities with a mix of residential and programs to limit sprawl. and commercial development. As noted throughout this EIR, the City is a largely urbanized environment and the proposed LUCE seeks to streamline the efficiencies of its urban environment to create a more efficient and sustainable City, consistent with this measure. It should be noted that many of the emissions reduction stategies in this table relate to technologies that are evolving and would evolve, or become available, during build-out of the Project. Some of these measures also relate to emissions reduction strategies that mus} be implemented on an area-wide or regional basis. Thus, several of these measures would be implemented over }ime as implementation becomes practicable, and the wording of these additional measures reflects that condition. Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR 4.14-43 Chapter4 Environments[ Analysis 1i Project Incorporation of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures Construction Emissions COZ emissions associated with construction of the proposed project would contribute to greenhouse gases, in addition to operation of the proposed project. Construction activities will emit greenhouse gases over the course of the proposed project lifetime. The exact amount of emissions will be dependent on the equipment used and the length of the construction period for each individual project undertaken. Because this information is unknown, it is impossible to determine the exact emissions of GHGs from construction activities. Climate Change has a cumulative nature while construction activities result in temporary and limited emissions when amortized over the lifetime of the project. With the current policies with respect to construction waste diversion, and the continued advancement in equipment technology, and construction emissions will be less than significant with respect to GHG emissions. Operational Emissions In most places, the main contribution to greenhouse gas emissions is from motor vehicles, and, to a lesser extent, stationary source emissions. In Santa Monica, Compliance with the goals and policies of the proposed LUCE and the mitigation measures identified above would reduce citywide GHG emissions to the levels shown Table 4.14-8. In addition to City policies and ordinances, existing federal and State programs are credited with reducing greenhouse gases in California. The City requires compliance with the California Energy Commission's Title 24 energy efficiency standards for buildings, appliance. energy efficiency standards, diesel engine idling restrictions, the required use of E6 fuel (6 percent ethanol, 94 percent gasoline), and vehicle emission standards, which help to reduce the production of greenhouse gases throughout the City. The City also is a member of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), which covers asix-county area. SCAG adopted a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) to provide a regional vision for all modes of surface transportation and a guide for regional transportation investments. The RTP uses State and federal funds that are provided to the region for programs designed to meet goats which include: clean air; design of communities to encourage local walk, bicycle; and transit travel; and for improvements to main routes that serve longer distance travel around the region. In response to SB 375, SCAG will include a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as part of the 2012 RTP. While conforming to SB 375, the SCS will integrate SCAG's planning process for transportation, land use/housing, growth, and the environment; and develop strategies that incorporate or axe respectful of the local and sub-regional priorities, plans, and projects. Individual projects approved under the proposed LUCE should be encouraged to implement the mitigation measures developed by CAPCOA (found in Appendix B of CAPCOA's CEQA and Climate Change Report) to the maximum extent practicable. This will provide further reductions in GHG emissions from the operation of these individual projects. Table 4.1q-10 (Potential CAPCOA Mitigation Measures) identifies the mitigation measures, as well as the potential emissions reductions that could occur with implementation of such measures. The tides identified in parenthesis, such as Tl and D1, allow for cross reference to the measures in Appendix B of CAPCOA's CEQA and Climate Change Report. 4.14-44 Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR ~. 4.t4 Glo6ai Climate Change T1: Bike Parking 1 %-5%/High: CAPCOA presents combined reductions for a range of mitigation measures related to bike facilities (Dierkers et al., 2007). SMAQMD, as a refinement to CAPCOA's calculated emission reductions, allocates combined reductions among individual measures (e.g„ 2.5% reduction for all bicycle- related measures and one- quarter of 2.5% for each individual measure) (TIAX 2005, EDAW 2006, SMAQMD 2007). Nonresidential projects provide plentiful short-and long-term bicycle parking facilities to meet peak season maximum demand (e.g., one bike rack space per 20 vehiclelemployee parking spaces. Nonresidential projects provide "end- of-trip' facilities including showers, lockers; and changing space (e.g., four clothes lockers and one shower provided for every 80 employee parking spaces, separate facilities for each gender for projects with 160 or more employee parking spaces). Long-term bicycle parking is provided at apartment complexes or condominiums without garages (e.g., one long-term bicycle parking space for each unit without a garage). Long-term facilities shall consist of one of the following: a bicycle locker, a locked room with standard racks Policy T10.2 of the proposed LUCE encourages "major employers to provide covered and secure bicycle parking and shower and locker facilities for bicycle commuters." Consistent with this policy, the proposed LUCE also includes and implementation measure ("Action") to establish requirements for access to showers and locker facilities for bicycle commuters in new developments. Additional actions include creating a system ofbicycle-transit access centers that provide secure bike parking, rentals, repairs, showers, and transit information located at major destinations. It is the policy of the City of Santa Monica to encourage any new development within the City to follow these measures through the guidelines established by the Transportation Management Division for bicycle storage. Policy T10.2 of the proposed LUCE encourages "major employers to provide covered and secure bicycle parking and shower and locker facilities for bicycle commuters." Consistent with this policy, the proposed LUCE also includes and implementation measure ("Action") to establish requirements for access to showers and locker facilities for bicycle commuters in new developments. Additional actions include creating a system of bicycle-transit access centers that provide secure bike parking, rentals, repairs, showers, and transit information located at major destinations. It is the policy of the City of Santa Monira to encourage any new development within the City to follow these measures through the guidelines established by the City's Transportation Management Division for bicycle rooms. It is the policy of the City of Santa Monica to promote any new development within the City to follow these measures through the guidelines established by the City's Transportation Management Division for bicycle storage. Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR 4.74-45 Chapter 4 Environmentaf Analysis T4: Proximity to Bike Path/Bike Lanes T5: Pedestrian 1%-10%/High: CCAP Network presents combined reductions.for a range of mitigation measures (Dierkers et al. 2007). SMAQMD allocates 1 % for each individual measure (TIAX 2005, EDAW 2006, SMAQMD 2007). and access limited to bicyclists only, or a standard rack in a location that is staffed and/or monitored by video surveillance 24 hours per day. Enure project is located within one- halfmile of an existing/planned Class I or Class II bike lane and project design includes a comparable network that connects the project uses to the existing offsite facility. Project design includes a designated bicycle route connecting all units, onsite bicycle parking facilities, offsite bicycle facilities, site entrances, and primary building entrances to existing Class I or Class II bike lane(s) within one- halfmile. Bicycle route connects to all streets contiguous with project site. Bicycle route has minimum conflicts with automobile parking and circulation facilities. All streets intemal to the project wider than 75 feet have Class II bicycle lanes on both sides. The project provides a pedestrian access network thattntemally links all uses and connects to all existing/planned external streets and pedestrian facilities contiguous with the project site. Project design includes a designated pedestrian route interconnecting all internal uses, site entrances, primary building entrances, public facilities, and adjacent uses to existing external pedestrian facilities and streets. Route has minimal conflict with parking and automobile circulation facilities. Streets (with the exception of alleys) within the project have sidewalks on both sides. All sidewalks intemal and adjacent to project site are minimum of five feet wide. All sidewalks feature vertical curbs. Pedestrian facilities and improvements such as grade separation, wider sidewalks, and traffic calming are implemented wherever feasible to minimize pedestrian barriers. Alf site entrances provide pedestdan access. encourages "major employers to provide covered and secure bicycle parking and shower and locker facilities for bicycle commuters." Policy Tg.2 of the proposed LUCE directs the Ciry to pursue completion of a citywide bicycle network, which is in support and compliance with this measure. Goals T9 through T11 of the proposed LUCE contemplate new investment in the bicycle network, such that regional and local transit via bicycle is encouraged and all streets are friendly to bicyclists. .Consistent with the abovementioned goals, the proposed LUCE includes implementation measures ("Actions") that include filling gaps in the bikeway network, specifically at future light rail stations and activity centers, along the Exposition Light Rail right-of-way, and at key connections to recreational, cultural, and regional destinations. The proposed LUCE recognizes that a high quality pedestrian network is essential to make all aspects of the transportation system work well. It identified pedestrian improvements for each type of street in the city, from Boulevards to neighborhood streets. Goals T6, T7 and T8 and each of their associated policies of the proposed LUCE call for would ensure the provision of a safe, reliable, and available pedestdan network, consistent with this measure. For example, Goal T6 "Enable everyone to walk comfortably everywhere in Santa Monica", Goal T8 "Provide a beautiful and attractive pedestrian environment throughout the City." 4.14-46 ~ Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR ::4.74 Gtoba[ Climate Change T6: Pedestrian Barriers Minimized T7: Bus shelter for existinglplanned transit service TS: Traffic Calming 1%-2%/High: CCAP presents these % reductions (Dierkers et al., 2007). SMAQMD assigns from 0.25%-1 %, depending on headway frequency (TIAX 2005, EDAW 2006, SMAQMD 2007). 1°/a-10%/High: CCAP presents combined reductions for a range of mitigation measures (Dierkers et a1.2007). SMAQMD allocates 0.25%-1.0% for each individual measure depending on percent of intersections and streets with improvements (TIAX 2005, EDAW 2006, SMAQMD 2007). Site design and building placement minimize barriers to pedestrian access and interconnectivity. Physical barriers such as walls, berms, landscaping, and slopes between residential and nonresidential uses that impede bicycle or pedestrian circulation are eliminated. Bus or streetcar service provides headways of one hour or less for stops within one-quarter mile; project provides safe and convenient bicycle/pedestrian access to transit stop(s) and provides essential transit stop improvements (i.e., shelters, route information, benches, and lighting). Project design includes pedestrian/bicycle safety and traffic calming measures in excess of jurisdiction requirements. Roadways are designed to reduce moton vehicle speeds and encourage pedestrian and bicycle trips by featuring traffic calming features. All sidewalks intemal and adjacent to project site are minimum of five feet wide. All sidewalks feature vertical curbs. Roadways that converge internally within the project are routed in such a way as to avoid "skewed intersections"; which are intersections that meet at acute, rather than right, angles. Intersections internal and adjacent to Policies T6.3 through T6.6 encourage the removal of restrictions and/or deterrents to pedestrian activity, consistent with this measure, such as creating additional pedestrian crossings, exploring shared street design, improving the quality of recreation corridors, reducing the size of large city blocks, and identifying pedestrian improvements in all planning processes. Additionally, Policy LU15.5 pf the proposed LUCE encourages the design of sites and buildings to facilitate easy pedestrian and bicycle-oriented connections. The proposed LUCE commits to continued enhancement of transit service, and integrates existing and future transit into the bicycle and pedestrian network. For example, Policy T12.3 says "Integrate the Expo Light Rail stations into the transit, pedestdan and bicycle networks with connections and amenities. Goal T12 calls for expansion of the regional rapid transit, and connections between Santa Monica and the region, and T13 cols for increasing transit ridership far all types of trips. Specifically, Policy T13.3 supports "high-frequency on regional transit streets with the goal of providing transit service that is time competitive with automobile trips." The proposed LUCE includes extensive congestion management and transportation demand management strategies to efficiently utilize the city's roadways while supporting mode choice that encourages walking, bicycling, transit use and carpoolinglcar-sharing. Goal T1 of the proposed LUCE says "Design and manage Santa Monica's street to support comprehensive public health and safety" by promoting active living and active mobility, Goal T3 says to "Ensure that Santa Monica's streets are pleasant for all users" and Goal T5 calls for the development of performance measures to ensure that the transportation network is achieving the LUCE goals. Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR ~ 4.14-47 T9: Paid Parking 1%-30%/High: CCAP (Parking Cash Out) presents a range of 15%-30% reduction for parking programs (Dierkers et al. 2007). SMAQMD presents a range of 1.0°/a-7.2%, depending on cosUday and distance to transit (TIAX 2005, EDAW 2006, SMAQMD 2007). Shoupe presents a 21 reducfionj$5/day for commuters to downtown LA, with elasticity of 0.18 (e.g., if price increases 10%, then solo driving goes down by 1.8% more)] (Shoupe 2005). Urban Transit Institute presents a range of 1%-10% reduction in trips to central city sites, and 2%-4% in suburban sites (VTPI2007). T10: Minimum 1%-30%/High: CCAP Parking presents a range of 15%-30% reduction for parking programs (Dierkers et al. 2007). SMAQMD presents a maximum of 6% (Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates, 2005, TIAX 2005, EDAW 2006). the following pedestrian safety/traffi calming design techniques: marked crosswalks, countdown signal timers, curb extensions, speed tables, raised crosswalks, raised intersections, median islands, tight comer radii, and roundabouts or mini-circles. Streets internal and adjacent to the project feature pedestrian safety/traffic calming measures such as on-street parking, planter strips with street trees, and chicanes/chokers (vadations in road width to discourage high-speed travel). Project provides employee and/or customer paid parking system. Project must have a permanent and enforceable method of maintaining user fees for all parking facilities. The facility may not provide customer or employee validations. Daily charge for parking must be equal to or greater than the cost of a transit day/monthly pass plus 20%. Provide minimum amount of parking required. Once land uses are determined, the trip reduction factor associated with this measure can be determined by utilizing the ITE parking generation publication. The reduction in trips can be computed as shown below by the ratio of the difference of minimum parking required by code and ITE peak parking demand to ITE peak parking demand for the land uses multiplied by SD%, percent Trip Reduction = 50 `[(min parking required by code- ITEpeak parking demand)/(ITE peak The proposed LUCE supports the continued implementation of parking rash-out programs for employers and recommends expansion of parking pricing strategies through the TDM programs and TDM districts identified in the LUCE. Goal T21 of the proposed LUCE says "Use all available tools to make the mast effective possible use of the transportation system" and includes Policy 21.6 to "Seek methods to use parking revenue to support travel by transit, bicycle, walking and other modes" as well as other innovative parking approaches. Santa Monica implemented a mandatory Parking Cash Out Program (Ordinance 1604) which is in line with state law AB2109. This fulfills this measure. The parking section of the proposed LUCE examines how the City can quantify the right amount of parking, manage that parking optimally, and ensure that parking policy does not conflict with housing affordability, congestion management, and air quality goals. The proposed LUCE identifies a range of strategies, including pricing strategies to achieve the right balance of parking supply and demand and to acknowledge the full costs of parking, and design it for function and beauty. Goal T26 and associated policies summarize the LUCE parking strategies. O 4.14-48 Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR r 4.T4 Gtobal Climate Cfiange T11: Parking 1%-30%/High: CCAP Reduction Beyond presents a range of 15%-30% Code/Shared reduction for parking programs Parking (Dierkers et al. 2007). SMAQMD presents a maximum of 12% (NelsonlNygaard, 2005, TIAX 2005, EDAW 2006). Provide parking reduction less than code. This measure can be readily implemented through a shared parking strategy, wherein parking is utilized jointly among different land uses, buildings, and facilities in an - area that experience peak parking needs at different times of day and day of the week: See discussion above. T12: Pedestrian 1%-4%IModerate: CCAP Pathway Through presents combined Parking reductions for a range of mitigation measures (Dierkers et al. 2007). SMAQMD allocates 0.5% reduction for this measure (TIAX 2005, EDAW 2006, SMAQMD 2007). T14: Parking Area Annual net COz reduction of Tree Cover 3.1 kg/m2 canopy covedModerate (McPherson 2001). T17: Preferential NAlLow Parking for EVs/CNG Vehicles T18: Reduced/No NAILow Parking Fee for EVs/CNG Vehicles T19: TMA 1 °/r28%IHigh: CCAP Membership presents a range of 3%-25% for TDMs with complementary transit and land use measures (Dierkers et al. 2007). VTPI presents a range of 6%-7% in the TDM encyclppedia (VTPI 2007). URBEMIS offers a 2%- Provide a parking lot design that includes clearly marked and shaded pedestrians pathways between transit facilities and building entrances, where feasible. Provide. parking lot areas with 50% tree cover within 10 years of construction, in pa[ticular low emitting, low maintenance, native drought resistant trees. Reduces urban heat island effect and requirement for air conditioning, effective when combined with other measures (e.g., electrical maintenance equipment and reflective paving material). Provide preferential parking space locations for EVs/CNG vehicles. Provide areduced/no parking fee for EVsICNG vehicles. Include permanent T=nAA membership and funding requirement. Funding to be provided by Community Facilities District or County Service Area or other non- revocable funding mechanism. TDMs have been shown to reduce employee vehicle trips up to 28% Goal T25 of the proposed LUCE addresses parking lot design, and says "Design parking to meet applicable urban design goals and minimize negative impacts on pedestrians, bicycles and transit users." It is also the policy of the City of Santa Monica to encourage any new development within the City to follow these measures. Goal CE2 and its associated policies of the proposed LUCE would encourage any new development within the City to follow these measures. Policy S2.5 would expand the level of EV/CNG vehicles citywide and provide preferential parking for such vehicles, consistent with this measure. The City of Santa Monica offers free meter parking for dedicated electric vehicles displaying the Zero Emission Vehicle decal, and compressed natural gas and HEVs displaying properly affixed California Clean Air Vehicle Decals. Also refer to the discussion of CAPCOA measure T17. Goals T19 through T21 of the proposed LUCE are intended to impose appropriate Transportation Demand Management requirements for new development while leveraging transportation funding. Municipal code 9.16.100 Transportation Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR - 4.14.49 T20: ULEV Dl: Office/Mixed Use Density D2: Orientation to ExistinglPlanned Transit, Bikeway, or Pedestrian Corridor 10% range in reductions for a TDM that has 5 elements that are pedestrian and transit friendly and 1%-5%for 3 elements. SMAOMD presents a reduction of 5% (TIAX 2005, EDAW 2006, SMAOMD 2007). NA/Low 0.05%-2%IModerate: This range is from SMAOMD, depending on FAR and headway frequencies (Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates 2005, EDAW 2006, SMAOMD 2007). through parking pricing and transit passes. The impact depends on the travel alternatives. Use of and/or provide ULEV that are 50% cleaner than average new model cars (e.g., natural gas, ethanol, electric). Project provides high-density office or mixed-use proximate to transit. Project must provide safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access to all transit stops within one- quartermile. would fulfill this measure. Policy 57.1 of the proposed LUCE directs the City to continue purchasing alternative fuel vehicles for the City's fleet and Big 81ue Bus service. Fleet Management Division has set itself a goal for Public Works vehicles to be 75% alternatively fueled fleet. This goal will be an adopted indicator in the 2010 Sustainable City Plan update process. These measures D1- DS are consistent with the organizing principles of the proposed LUCE. A major tenet of the proposed LUCE is to focus land use change in areas served by transit, particularly mixed-use residential and commercial development along the transit corridors, and at the Expo Light Rail stations to promote walking, bicycling, and transit use and reduce VMT and-GHG emissions. The goals and policies are described in detail in Chapter 3, and throughout this document: Specifically the LUCE City-wide Land Use Goals and Policies identify numerous strategies to achieve these measures including: LU2 -Integrating Land Use and Transportation for GHG Emission Reduction, which directs growth to the transit corridors, activity centers, and Expo Light Rail stations, encourages affordable and workforce housing, and vehicle hip reduction. LU3 -Complete Sustainable Neighborhoods - enwurages neighborhoods that exemplify sustainable living practices with open spaces, green connections, diverse housing, local employment and local- serving businesses that meet daily needs. LU8 - Reduction of TripslManagement ~i ~~ Lid 0.4%-1 %IModerate: CCAP attributes a 0.5% reduction per 1 % improvement in transit frequency (Dierkers et al. 2007). SMAOMD presents a range of 0.25%-5% (JSA 2005, EDAW 2006, SMAOMD 2007). Project is oriented towards existing transit, bicycle, or pedestrian corridor. Setback distance between project and existing or planned adjacent uses is minimized or nonexistent. Setback distance between different buildings on project site is minimized. Setbacks between project buildings and planned or existing sidewalks are minimized. Buildings are oriented towards existing or planned street frontage. Primary entrances to buildings are located along planned or existing public street frontage. Project provides bicycle access to any planned bicycle corridor(s). Project provides pedestrian access to any planned pedestrian D3: Services 0.5%-5%Moderate Project provides on-site shops and Ooerational services for employees. D4: Residential Density (Employ Sufficient Density for New Residential Development to Suodort the Use of 1°/a-40%/High: #7, EPA presents a range of 32%-40% (EPA 2006). SMAOMD presents a range of 1 %-12% depending on density and Project provides high-density residential development. Transit facilities must be within one-quarter mile of project border. Project provides safe and convenient LW CJ 4.14-50 Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR 4.74 Global Climate Change ;I Associates 2005, JSA 2005, EDAW 2006, SMAQMD 2007). NelsonlNygaard presents a Vip reduction formula: Trip Reduction = 0.6*(1- (19749*((4.814+hnuseholds per residential acre)I(4.814+7.14))^-, D5: Street Grid 1%IModerate: SMAQMD presents this % reduction (JSA 2005, EDAW 2006, SMAQMD 2007). transit stop(s) within one-quarter mile of oroiect border. Multiple and direct street routing (grid style). This measure only applies to projects with an internal CF >/= 0.80, and average ofone- quartermile or less between extemal connections along perimeter of project. [CF= # of intersections I (# of cul-de-sacs + intersections)]. Cul-de- sacs with bicyclelpedestrian through access maybe considered "complete intersections" when calculating the project's internal connectivity factor. External connections are bikelpedestrian pathways and access paints, or streets with safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian access that connect the project to adjacent streets, sidewalks, and uses. If project site is adjacent to undeveloped land; streets, pathways, access points, and right- of-ways that provide for future access to adjacent uses may count for up to 50% of the extemal connections. Block perimeter (the sum of the measurement of the length of all block sides) is limited to no more than 1,350 feet. Streets internal to the project should connect to streets extemal to the project whenever possible. Make physical development consistent with requirements for neighborhood electric vehicles. Current studies show that for most trips, NEVs do not replace gas- fueledvehicles as the primary vehicle. of Congestion - to create a complete transportation network that support activity and access to diverse modes of transit, and TDM measures to reduce VMT and GHG emissions. Specific proposed LUCE land use designations "Bergamot Transit Village," "Mixed-Use Creative," "Downtown Core" "Mixed-Use Activity Center Overlay, and Mixed-Use Activity Center Low Overlay" direct growth to areas of the City that are serviced by multi-modal transportation systems, and which are interconnected to the City's bicycle and pedestrian networks. Additionally, proposed land use designations "Mixed- Use Boulevard" and "Mixed-Use Boulevard Lov7' fulfill this measure. D6: NEV Access 10.5%-1.5%/Low: SMAQMD presents this % reduction (EDAW 2006, SMAQMD 2007). Proposed LUCE Policy S2.5 seeks to expand the use of alternative fuel vehicles by providing fueling infrastructure and preferential parking in public locations, where feasible. Santa Monica's Civic Cenier parking structure garage accommodates electric vehicles with recharging stations and bicycles with safe-storage units. Future nrnierts are dlanned to have these type: Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR 4.14-57 Chapter 4 Environmenfat:Anaiysis D8: Recharging Area Dg: Urban Mixed- Use D10: Suburbari Mixed- Use D11: Other Mixed- Use D12: Infill Development NA/Low 3%-9%/Moderate: SMAQMD presents this % reduction (TIAX 2005, EDAW 2006, SMAQMD 2007). 3%/Moderate: SMAQMD presents this % reduction (TIAX 2005, EDAW 2006, SMAQMD 2007). 1%/Moderate: SMAQMD presents this % reduction (TIAX 2005, EDAW 2006, SMAQMD 2007). 3%-30%/High: Infill development reduces vehicle Vips and VMT by 3% and Provide residential buildings with a "utility' room or space for recharging batteries, whether for use in a car, electric lawnmower, other electric landscaping equipment, or even batteries for small items such as flashlights. Developmentof projects predominantly characterized by properties on which various uses, such as office, commercial, institutional, and residential, are combined in a single building or on a single site in an integrated development project with functional interrelationships and a coherent physical design. Have at least three of the following on site and/or offsite within one- quartermile: Residential Development, Retail Development, Park, Open Space, or Office. All residential units are within one- quarter mile of parks, schools or other civic uses. Goal N3 of the proposed LUCE promotes, through its policies, locating services and amenities within walking distance of neighborhoods. This includes commercial and retail uses, open space and bicycle and pedestrian connections. In addition, the LUCE encourages the creation of complete neighborhood centers in Goal LU 4 - that exemplify sustainable living practices with open spaces, green connections, diverse housing, local employment and local-serving businesses that meet daily needs. Also see the discussion above regarding mixed-uses emphasis of the proposed LUCE. Project site is on a vacant infill site; The proposed LUCE focuses change in redevelopment area, or Brownfield or I existing infill locations served by hansit, ra eld lot that is highly accessible with an emohasis on mixed use of electric vehicle rechargin- g star Santa Monica's Civic Center parking structure garage accommodates electdc vehicles with recharging stations and bicycles with safe-storage units. Future projects are planned to have these types of electric vehicle recharging stations. Policy T25.7 of the proposed LUCE would incorporate additional electrical outlets and charging locations throughout the City, such as loading zones. The proposed LUCE incentivizesmixed- use residential and commercial projects ' on infill sites located near existing and future transit networks. Affordable and workforce housing is incentivized through community benefits, as well as a mixture of land uses in active walkable centers at the activity centers and Light Rail stations. For example, Policy 3.2 says to "Focus additional housing opportunities in the transit-rich commercial boulevards." These measures apply to Land Use designations that are addressed through the Land Use and Transportation policies of the proposed LUCE. The Sustainable City Plan goal is to implement land use and transportation planning and policies consistent with these measures. 4'14-52 Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR 20%, respectively (Fehr & Peers 2007). CCAP identifies a site level VMT reduction range of 20%-30% (Dierkers et al. 2007). to regional destinations; where the destinations rating of the development site (measured as the weighted average travel time to all other regional destinations) is improved by 100%when compared to an alternate greenfield site. residential and local-serving retail to replace existing underutilized commercial which reduces demand for vehicle trips and VMT. The proposed LUCE proposes redesignating a large portion of the Citys industrial areas to high-density mixed-use, transit-oriented development with local and regional access. These areas are proposed as "Bergamot Transit Village;' and "Mixed- Use Creative." D13: Electdc 1 %/Low: SMAQMD presents Provide a complimentary electric Lawnmower this % reduction (EDAW 2006, lawnmower to each residential SMAQMD 2007). buyer. D14: Enhanced NAILow Recycling/Waste Reduction, Reuse, Composting D15: LEED I NA/Moderate Certification Project provides infrastructure/education that promotes the avoidance of products with excessive packaging, recycle, buying of reflls, separating of food and yard waste for wmposting, and using rechargeable batteries. LEED promotes awhole-building approach to sustainability by recognizing performance in five key areas of human and environmental health: sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection, and indoor environmental quality. Proposed LUCE Goal St "Reduce the City's greenhouse gas emissions and climate change impacts" supports a hroad range of efforts to reduce emissions. No policies have been identified to address this measure. However, the City supports the SCA(~MD efforts to exchange diesel- powered equipment for electrical powered equipment. Goal SS of the proposed LUCE says to "Reduce the amount of solid waste citywide" and supports this measure, including expanding diversion strategies, composting and waste to energy conversion programs. Additionally, Policy S8.3 of the proposed LUCE would further promote Santa Monica's ban onnon-recyclable plastic food containers and plastic bags. Santa Monica Community Recycling Center as well as the Santa Monica Refuse Transfer provide recycling. Various education events are held to educate both residents and business. Continual meetings and workshops to the public and businesses support this measure. Therefore, this measure would be fulfilled. Goal SS of the proposed LUCE states that City will "[i]mprove the environmental performance of buildings" and specifies in its objectives the desire to achieve aLEED-equivalent local building code by 2020, and to require LEED Gold certification for all new. municipal construction. Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR 4.14-53 D17: Landscaping ~ NA/Low D19: Community Gardens E2: Wood Burning Fireplaces/ Stoves E4: Energy Star Roof E5: On-site Renewable Energy System NA/Low NA/Low 0.5%-1%/Low: SMAQMD presents this % reduction (EDAW 2006, SMAQMD 2007): 1 %-3%lModerate: SMAQMD presents this % reduction (USGBC 2002 and 2005, EDAW 2006, SMAQMD 2007). Project shall use drought resistant native trees, trees with low emissions and high carbon sequestration potential. Evergreen trees on the north and west sides afford the best protection from the setting summer sun and cold winter winds. Additional considerations include the use of deciduous trees on the south side of the house that would-admit summer sun; evergreen plantings on the north side would slow cold winter winds; constructing a natural planted channel to funnel summer cooling breezes into the house. Neighborhood CCR's not requiring that front and side yards of single-family homes be planted with turf grass. Vegetable gardens, bunch grass, and low-water landscaping shall also be permitted, or even encouraged.. Project shall dedicate space for community garden. Project does not feature fireplaces or wood burning stoves. The project installs Energy Star labeled roof materials, where feasible. Project provides onsite renewable energy system(s). Nonpolluting and renewable energy potential includes solar, wind, geothermal, low-impact Santa Monica implemented the Sustainable Landscape Grant Program to encourage landscaping with types suitable to our California coastal region. Further, Section 8.108 of the Municipal Code institutes additional requirements for the water conserving landscaping. This fulfills this measure. The proposed LUCE encourages the expansion of citywide open spaces and parks. Specifically, proposed LUCE Policy CE2.7 considers adding new community gardens as possible community benefits in new development. Santa Monica has implemented rules and regulation for community gardens, as of January 20, 2006. Community Gardens are managed by the Community Recreation Division in fulfillment of this measure. Within the City and in accordance with SCAOMD requirements, wood burning fireplaces/stoves are prohibited in new construction. Existing units are restricted to unit repair only. Policy 55.6 of the proposed LUCE says to "Encourage coal roofs or green roofs on new buildings." It is the policy of the City of Santa Monica to encourage any new development within the City to follow these measures Goal S4 of the proposed LUCE ("Increase the use of renewable energy in the City") provides a directive to explore a variety of methodologies for both commercial and residential 4.74-54 Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR 4:14 61obaCClimafe Change E6: Exceed Title 24 1 %IModerate: SMAQMD presents this % reduction (EDAW 2006, SMAQMD 2007). strategies, projects may take advantage of net metering with the local utility. Santa Monica implemented the Solar Santa Monica program. The program assists residents, businesses and property owners reduce energy consumption and generate clean, renewable energy onsite. This program fulfills this measure. Goal SS of the proposed LUCE is to "Improve the Environmental Performance of buildings" and Policy S5.1 to continue to maintain a Building Code and prescriptive compliance options that meet or exceed state requirements. Section 8.108 requires NI projects must exceed Title 24 compliance by 10%. Further, the City is in the process of increasing its targeted exceedance of Title 24 (June 2008 versionl to 15%. Project exceeds title 24 requirements. Several policies of the proposed LUCE would achieve the goal of this measure. Policy S5.5 encourages shade trees on south- and west-facing sides of all new buildings to reduce building energy loads. In addition, Policy CE1.6 seeks to enhance the tree canopy and coverage through the coordinated citywide tree planting Urban Forest Master Plan. E7: Solar 0.5%/Low: SMAQMD presents Orientation this % reduction (EDAW 2006, SMAQMD 2007). Project orients 75% or more of homes andlor buildings to face either north or south (within 30° of NIS). Building design includes roof overhangs that are sufficient to block the high summer sun, but not the lower winter sun, from penetrating south facing windows. Trees, other landscaping features and other buildings are sited in such a way as to maximize shade in the summer and maximize solar access to walls and windows in the winter. E9: Low-Energy 1 %-10%ILow: EDAW Project optimizes building's thermal Cooling presents this percent reduction distribution by separating ventilation range (EDW 2006). and thermal conditioning systems. E10: Green Roof 1.0%/Mdderate: SMAQMD presents this % reduction (EDAW 2006, SMAQMD 2007). Install a vegetated roof that covers at least 50% of roof area. The reduction assumes that a vegetated roof is installed on a least 50% of the roof area or that a combination high albedo and vegetated roof surface is installed that meets the following standard: (Area of SRI Roof/0.75)+(Area of vegetated roof/0.5) >=Total Roof Area. Water consumption reduction measures shall be considered in the design of the green roof. Policy S3.1 of the proposed LUCE encourages the implementation of a wide variety ofenergy/electricity reduction programs and is in substantial compliance with this measure. Policy S5.6 of the proposed LUCE encourages the use of cool roofs or green roofs on new construction, in compliance with this measure. Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR 4.74-55 Chapter 4 EnvironmenfaE Analysis E11; EV Charging Facilities NA/Low Project installs EV charging facilities . ._ __"" ..~,uwenc Policy 52.5 of the proposed LUCE v would expand the use of alternative fuel vehicles by providing fueling infrastructure (including electric) and preferential parking in public locations, where feasible. E12: Light colored paving NA/Low Project provides light colored paving. Policy 55.7 of the proposed LUCE encourages the use of cool paving on new plazas and parking lots, in compliance with this measure. E13: Cool Roofs NA/Low Project provides cool roofs. Highly Policy S5.6 of the proposed LUCE reflective, highly emissive roofing encourages cool roofs or green roofs on materials that stay 50-60 degree F new construction. cooler than normal roof under a hot summer sun: CA's Cool Savings Refer to the discussion of CAPCOA Program provided rebates to building Measure E10 above. For residential and owners for installing roofing commercial building owners alike, cool materials with high solar reflectance roof options would be encouraged in and thermal emittance. conjunction with solar electric, solar thermal, and improved insulation roofs especially when considering roof repair or replacement. Santa Monica's OSE provides additional information to start this process. E14: Solar Water 20%-70% reduction in cooling Heaters d Project provides solar water heaters. As required by Policy S5.4 the City of energy nee s/Moderate , Santa Monica will consider a requirement for and encourage the installation solar water heaters for all new construction. E75: Electric Yard NA/Low Equipment Project provides electrical outlets at Policy 55.8 encourages the installation Compatibility building exteriors. of electrical outlets on new construction. In addition, the City of Santa Monica's OSE provides Green Building: Guidelines for Design. Santa Monica's OSE developed the "GREEN BUILDING GUIDE Santa Monica Residential Healthy Home. Healthy PlaneY'that include provisions for external electrical outlets. Further, the City has an existing ban on gas-powered blowers for landscaping purposes. E16: Energy NA/Low ppliance Project uses energy efficient Ordinance 8.108 implements Green Standard appliances. building standards. The Cit}/s Green Building ordinance would fulfill this measure. E17: Green NA/Low: 25-30% more Building Materials efficient on average Project uses materials which are re ff All development occurring underthe . source e icient and recycled, with proposed LUCE would construct new long life cycles and manufactured in buildings that would befitted with the an environmentally friendly way. most energy efficient appliances feasible, as identified in Green Building ordinance .Therefore; the ro osed 4.14-56 Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR 4.14Gioba( Climate Change; .. - ~ e ~ ..- -. .. -. - CA,PCOA ~- Suggested ~ . - -~ AchievdbteEmisi'on : ~` ~ ^~ ~' '" .' N' ~ ~ ~ .. '' ~ ~' ^... ">~ Measure Reduction/HFediveness ~ '' ` Measwe Descri lion ~ ~ Pro ed LUCE Consisten project would comply with this strategy. Policy S5.2 of the proposed LUCE seeks to increase the energy efficiency of all (existing and proposed) municipal facilities. E18: Shading NA/Low: Up to $450 annual Install energy-reducing shading It is the policy of the City of Santa Mechanisms energy savings (Energy Star mechanisms for windows, porch, Monica to encourage any new 2007). patio and walkway overhangs. development within the City to follow these measures. Santa Monica's OSE provides Green Building: Guidelines for Design. Santa Monica's OSE developed the "GREEN BUILDING GUIDE Santa Monica Residential Healthy Home. Healthy Planet' that include measures such as this. In addition, Policy S5.5 of the proposed LUCE would encourage the use of additional shade trees to reduce energy use, consistent with this measure. E19: NA/Low: 50% more efficient Install energy-reducing Goal SS in the propose LUCE is to CeilinglWhole- than conventional fans ceiling/whole-house fans. "Improve the environmental House Fans (Energy Star 2007). performance of buildings." Santa Monica's OSE developed the "GREEN BUILDING GUIDE Santa Monica Residential Healthy Home. Healthy PlaneY'that are in substantial compliance with this measure. In addition, policies S3.1 and 53.2 of the proposed LUCE strive to achieve "zero net" energy for new development that may include measures such as ceiling and whole-house fans. E20: NAILow: $100 annual savings Install energy-reducing Goal S5 in the propose LUCE is to Programmable in energy costs (Energy Star programmable thermostats that "Improve the environmental Thermostats 2007), automatically adjust temperature performance of buildings:' It is the policy settings. of the City of Santa Monica to encourage any new development within the City to follow these measures through the Green Building Guidelines maintained by the City's Office of Sustainability and the Environment. E21: Passive NA/LOW Install energy-reducing passive Goal S5 in the propose LUCE is to Heating and heating and cooling systems (e.g., "Improve the environmental Cooling Systems insulation and ventilation). performance of buildings." It is the policy of the City of Santa Monica to encourage any new development within the City to follow these measures through the Green Building Guidelines maintained by the City's Office of Sustainability and the Environment. Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR 4.14-57 0 0 E22: Day Lighting NAILow Systems E23: Low- Water NA/Low: Avoided water Use Appliances agency cost for using water- efficient kitchen pre-rinse spray valves 9f $65.18 per acre-foot. E24: Goods NA/Moderate Transport by Rail S7: GHG NAILow Emissions Reductions Education S2: School Curriculum NA/Low C7: ARB Certifed NA/Low Diesel Constmction Equipment C2: Alternative NA/Low Fuel Construction Install energy-reducing day lighting systems (e.g., skylights, light shelves and interior transom windows). Require the installation of low-water use appliances. Provide a spur at nonresidential projects to use nearby rail for goods movement. Provide local governments, businesses, and residents with guidance/protocols(nformation on how to reduce GHG emissions (e.g., energy saving food miles). Include how to reduce GHG emissions (e.g., energy saving, food miles) in the school curriculum. Use ARB-certified diesel construction equipment. Increases CGz emissions when trapped CO and carbon particles are oxidized (Catalyst Products 2007, ETC 200. Goal S5 in the propose LUCE is to "Improve the environmental performance of buildings." It is the policy of the City of Santa Monica to encourage any new development within the City to follow these measures through the Green Building Guidelines maintained by the City's Office of Sustainability and the Environment. Goal S6 of the proposed LUCE is to "Promote water conservation and increase the use of reclaimed and recycled water." In addition, ordinance 8.108.030 fulfills this measure. Not applicable to the project because there is not functional rail service to the City. The city offers a Business Greening Program and a residential Greening Program to educate residents and businesses. They also recognize qualified business through the Santa Monica Green Business Certification. This fulf Its this measure. Policy 55.3 of the proposed LUCE directs the City to engage in community education and outreach, including providing information about programs, policies and best practices for improving the environmental performance of buildings. Additionally, consistent with the Goals St-510, the LUCE proposes the development of a Climate Action Plan to lay out the City's approach to reducing municipal and community GHG emissions. Santa Monica offers the Residential Greening Program and the Business Greening Program. The City also provides curricular materials regarding energy efficiency to local schools and staff make in class presentations. This fulfills this measure. It is the policy of the City of Santa Monica to encourage any new development within the City to follow these measures as feasible. Use alternative fuel types for It is the policy of the City of Santa construction equipment. At the Monica to encouraoe anv new ~J L.J L~. Imo. 4-14-58 Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR Equipment tailpipe biodiesel emits 10% more development within the City to follow COz than petroleum diesel. Overall these measures as feasible. Iifecycle emissions of COz from 100% biodiesel are 78% lower than those of petroleum diesel (NREL 1998, EPA 2007b). C4: Recycle NA/Low RecyclelReuse demolished City Ordinance 7.60 fulfills this measure. Demolished construction material. Use locally Construction made building materials for Material construction of the project and associated infrastructure. SOURCE: CAPCOA 2008. The identified emissions reductions are based on information provided by CAPCOA's CEQA and Climate Change report, published in January of 2008. _ In June of 2008, CARB released a Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan. The plan identifies a course that would reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent over the next twelve years. Development of the Scoping Plan is a central requirement of AB 32, the Global Warming Soludons Act of 2006 that requires California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Central to the draft plan is a cap and trade program covering 85 percent of the- State's emissions. This program would be developed in conjunction with the Western Climate Initiative, comprised of seven states and three Canadian provinces, to create a regional carbon market. Many of the emission sources covered within this cap-and-trade program are also addressed under other recommended measures, which would account for a majority of the reductions needed to comply with the cap. Sources within the cap-and-trade program would need to meet other regulatory requirements, but would then have the flexibility to reduce emissions further or purchase allowances to cover their compliance obligations. Initial reductions in greenhouse gases, beginning as early as 2010, would be achieved by new and existing regulations and other measures. By 2012, the cap-and-trade program would begin delivering reductions, and by 2020 it would achieve a significant portion of the required reductions under AB 32. Beyond 2020, all the mechanisms, including cap and trade and innovations in technology, would be needed to meet California's long-term greenhouse gas reduction goals. Because the proposed LUCE- is consistent with the GHG Reduction Measures Recommended by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR), the Attorney General's Office, and the California Aix Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), impacts associated with conflicts with adopted plans, policies, and regulations related to the reduction of GHG emissions would be less than sigrsifrcant. Comparison to 1984 Plan As shown above, the continuation of development under the 1984 Plan within the City would be largely consistent with AB 32, sim$ar to the proposed LUCE. However, as shown above in Table 4.14-8, GHG emissions associated with the 1984 Plan would be 786,117 metric tons COz(e), which would be greater than the targets set forth in the Sustainable City Plan (785,649 metric tons COz(e)). Although the SCP Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR 4.14-59 Chapfier 4 Environmental Analysis targets do not represent mandates ox requirements to which the City must adhere, because implementation of the 1984 Plan would- result in GHG emissions that would fall short of the target established in the SCP, would not implement many of the sustainabiliry policies of the proposed LUCE, and would not be consistent with the GHG reduction measures recommended by OPR, the Attorney General's office, and the CAPCOA, the impact of the 1984 Plan with respect to conflicts with adopted plans, policies, and regulations related to the reduction of GHG emissions would be considered significant and unavoidable. 4.14.5 References Bass, RE., A.I. Herron, and K. Bogdan. 1999. CEQA Deskbook (second edition). Solano Press Books: Point Arena, CA. California Department of Water Resources. 2006. Progrecr on Incorporating Climate Change into Planning and Management of Caltfornia'r Water Rerourcer, Technical Memorandum Report. Sacramento, CA. 2006. California Energy Commission. 2006. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004 -Final Staff Report, December. Dyke, Lucy. 2010. Personal communication with City of Santa Monica, January.7. Governor's Office of Planning and Research. n.d. Proposed CEQA Guideline amendments far greenhouse gas emissions. www.opr.ca.gov/cega/pdfs/PA_CEQA_Guidelines.pdf, accessed September 9, 2009. Santa Monica, City of 1996. Sustainable City Progress Report, Initial Progress Report on Santa Monica' Sustainable City Program, December. " . 1999. Sustainable City Progress Report, Update, Updated Progress Report on Santa Monica' Sustainable Ciry Program, October. . 2008. Santa Monica Sustainable Ciry Plan, adopted September 20.. . 2008. Sustainable City Progress Report, Initial Progress Report on Santa Monica' Sustainable City Program, September. . n.d. City of Santa Monica Sustainable City Progress Report, Retrieved from http://www0l.smgov.net/epd/scpr/ResourceConservation/RCS_GHG_Emissions.htm, accessed September 10, 2009. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). n.d. Rules and Regulations. www.agmd.gov, accessed September 9; 2009. 4.74-60 Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR Reference Resolution Nos. 10555 (CCS) & 10556 (ccs). Final EIR is available for review in the City Clerk's Office.