PUBUC HEARENGS #1 COMPREHENSNE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE THE ATTACHED INFORMATBON WAS RECEIVED AND DESTRIBUTED AFTER PUBLECATION OF THE SNETIAL AGENDA PACKET FOR THE FEBRUARY 14, 2012, CETY COUNCH. MEETENG Reieased on: 2/13/12 at: 6:15 0m. BRIGGS LAW CORPORAHON San Diego O?ice: Inland Empire Of?ce: 814 Morena Boulevard, Suite 107 99 East Street, Suite 1 I 1 San Diego, CA 92110 Upland, CA 91? 786 Telephone: 619-49 7?0021 Telephone: 969-949- 7115 Facsimile: 619-515?641 0 Facsimile: 909-949~ 71 21 Please respond to: Inland Empire O?ice BLC File?s): 1619.02 13 February 2012 City Council City of San Marcos 1 Civic Center Drive San Marcos, CA 92069 Re: San Marcos General Plan Bear City Council: On behalf of I am writing to urge you to deny approval of the San Marcos General Plan and to not certify the accompanying environmental impact report because approval would violate the California Environmental Quality Act and other laws, The specific reasons for denial are set forth on Attachment 1 to this letter and supported by the attached evidence and evidence already in the administrative record for the project. If you do not make a decision on the General Plan and HR at this hearing, please provide me with written notice of the next public hearing or other meeting at which you will consider this item. Additionally, please provide me with written notice of whatever action you do take. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, BRI GRATION I ekaela M. Gladden Enclosed: 1) Attachment 1: Reasons for Denying the San Marcos General Plan and Not Certifying EIR 2) Ruling on Chino General Plan 3) Courtesy Copy of Prior Letter, Index of Exhibits, and Exhibits Attachment l: Reasons for the San Marcos General Plan and Not Certifying Elli. i. ii. Page i of 5 initial Comments l.0l 3.02 "l .03 submitted a continent letter. The cornment letter and the index of exhibits are attached as Attachment 3. Unless otherwise noted. the exhibits referenced below are to the exhibits previously submitted. A courtesy copy of the prior letter, index. oi." exhibits, and is attached. Although there have been multiple public hearings, the final (including the response to comments and changes to the Bill.) was not available during the planning commission review or the first city council hearing and was not available with enough time to provide comments by the second city council hearing. Public participation was thus thwarted. A tentative court ruling (which was later continued as the final ruling and is attached here) shows how a court is likely to rule on some of the issues detailed below. Traffic 2.0l he conclusion that the significant transportation and traffic impacts are reduced to a level of insigni?cance with the implementation of mitigation is not supported by substantial evidence. Mitigation measures Till and T332 are not enforceable or otherwise adequate mitigation measures. in addition, there is not adequate analysis supporting the conclusion that the measures will adequately reduce the significant impact. Air Quality: Construction and Sensitive Receptors 3.0l 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05 The EIR does not adequately analyse the General Plan?s air-quality impact. There is very little information about the severity oi" this impact. or example, there is no summary of construction emissions. A determination of significance without analysis does not provide the information that the public or decisionurnakers need. Air~quality impacts from construction are considered signi?cant. EIR. p. 3 .3- 2. Yet not all feasible mitigation measures have been implemented. Operational ainquality impacts are considered signi?cant. Elli, p. 3.3~ l3. However, no enforceable mitigation measures have been implemented. The analysis of the General Plan?s airnquality impacts is inadequate. The California Air Resources Board has documented health impacts of siting sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway? urban roads with 300,000 vehicles/day. or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day. Ex. AQS. The General Plan allows for residential and other sensitive land uses along State Route 78, a freeway with three lanes in each direction, and along several major urban roads. This siting is likely to result in a signi?cant air-quality impacts to sensitive receptors. The conclusion that mitigation measure would reduce the air?quality impact to sensitive receptors to less than signi?cant is not supported by substantial evidence. This mitigation measure is not identi?ed on page 3.2?30 of the Bill; or in the executive summary listing all measures. The mitigation measure is not enforceable and there Attachment 1: Reasons for Denying the San Marcos General Plan and Not Certifying EIR Page 2 of 5 is not enough information to discern Whether it would reduce the impact to a level of insigni?cance or not. IV. Air Quality: Greenhouse Gas Emissions 4.01 The ELR does not implement enforceable mitigation measures and does. not adequately analyze the mitigation measures that are proposed. 4.02 The conclusion that the mitigation measures would reduce construction impacts to levels is not supported by substantial evidence. The HR does not quantify the construction impacts or adequately analyze the impacts, Even if the severity of the impact is understood, there is no analysis of how the mitigation measures reduce that impact to a level of insignificance. 4.03 There are feasible mitigation measures that the City of San Marcos can take to directly reduce the local government?s emissions.E Use of compact ?orescent lights or LED lights in all new public buildings. In addition, the City can require that all lights replaced in standard light installations in existing public buildings be replaced with compact florescent or LED lights. Street lights must be replaced with more ef?cient lighting. See Exs. i- 13. Traffic signal lights must be replaced with LED lights. See Exs. GHG 13-14. Install energy?efficient exit signs and other lighted signs in public buildings. Install Energy Star?rated vending machines. See Ex. GHG l5. install directional and shielded LED lights for exterior lighting, and install exterior and security lights with motion detectors (WhightWisecrg). Install ?lters on public drinking fountains to cut down on the use of plastic water containers by people who believe that bottled water is not suf?ciently filtered. l?rovide preferential parking at City buildings for hybrid and electric vehicles. Adopt a purchasing-practices guide to support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, including preferences for energy~ef?cient of?ce equipment and the use of recycled materials The CAPCOA ?Model Policies for GHGs in General Plans? is a great resource for developing more speci?c and enforceable general?plan policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Ex. There is a worksheet that also aids in the evaluation of the model policies. Not every model policy is mentioned in this comment letter, but the City is encouraged to examine all of the model policies contained in the CAPCOA document. Attachment 1: Reasons for Denying the San Marcos General Plan and Not Cerdfying?EIR 4.04 4.05 Page 3 of 5 Install solar panels on public buildings. See Ex. GHG25. Another feasible mitigation measure includes the development and implementation of a transit~oriented development plan. See Exs. 8. CAPCOA has identi?ed a model general?plan policy for transit?oriented development. Ex. p. 76-77. There are a number of feasible mitigation measures that the City could incorporate regarding new development. The City could establish standards to increase energy ef?ciency in new developments beyond state law. A model policy has been developed by CAPCOA. Ex. GHGI, p. 90-91. The City could prohibit continuous all-night outdoor lighting in sports stadiums, construction sites, and rural areas unless required for security reasons. As an alternative to continuous allnnight outdoor lights, motion detectors could be used for outdoor lighting Where necessary. The City could require energy audits for residential and commercial buildings prior to the completion of sale, and that audit results and information about opportunities for energy-ef?ciency improvements be presented to the buyer. The City could require that all new buildings be constructed to allow for easy, cost?effective installation of solar systems in the future using ?solar?ready? features such as limiting obstructions on south?facing sloped roofs. The City could require that new of?ce/retail/cornmercial or industrial development or major rehabilitation incorporate renewable energy generation on?site to the maximum extent feasible from an engineering standpoint. The City could require new residential development projects carer units to generate electricity on-site to the maximum extent feasible from an engineering standpoint. See Exs. Parking lots could be required to use ?cool pavement? for new commercial and industrial development. See Ex. GHG23. V. Long?Term Effects 5.01 Chapter 4 of the BER indicates that the ER largely does not analyze the maximum allowable development under the general plan, but only the expected development. The HR, therefore, does not generally analyze the worst-case scenario. When considering the maximum build?out scenario, the ER determines that the general plan would have signi?cant and unavoidable impacts to aesthetics and visual resources, agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resourees, geology, soils, minerals, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, paleontological resources, population and housing, public services, utilities, energy, recreation, transportation and traffic. The ?rst problem with the approach is that analysis of the possible outcome under the general plan is cursory. The second problem is that the analysis predicts a doomsday . 9:4 Attachment 1: Reasons for Denying the San Marcos General Plan and Not Certifying EIR VI. VII. Page 4 of 5 scenario with identification and analysis of mitigation. The general plan should provide safeguards to ensure that development occurs more in line with the expected growth pattern rather than what is permissible under the proposed general plan. The simply hopes for the best outcome without safeguarding against the worst-case scenario. The scope of the ElR?s analysis must include what is possible and what will be legally allowable under the new general plan, not merely what the City believes is most likely. Public Services and Utilities 6.01 6.02 6.03 6.04 Even if future water supplies are available for the project, the ER fails to provide enough information about the environmental consequences of supplying that water. The informational purposes of an EIR are not satis?ed unless decision-makers and the public are provided with enough information to evaluate the pros and cons of supplying the amount of water that the project will need. The critical issue to be considered is not simply whether an adequate supply is available, but whether there is an adequate discussion of the project?s foreseeable impacts. While the *3le includes a discussion about water supply, it does not provide information about the impacts of supplying water such as the effect that the project?s water use will have on water infrastructure or the availability of water for other purposes. The conclusion that the mitigation measures for water infrastructure reduce the impact to a level of insignificance is not supported by substantial evidence. The mitigation measures identi?ed are not enforceable, and there is no analysis of their effectiveness. The conclusion that the mitigation measures for water supply reduce the impact to a level of insigni?cance is not supported by substantial evidence. The mitigation measures identified are not enforceable, and there is no analysis of their effectiveness. The conclusion that the mitigation measures for wastewater capacity reduce the impact to a level of insignificance is not supported by substantial evidence. The mitigation measures identified are not enforceable, and there is no analysis of their effectiveness. Necessary Findings and Sufficiency of the Evidence 7.01 7.02 7.03 You have not made the findings required under Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and to approve the project generally and as they relate to the environmentally superior alternative. To the extent that you have attempted to make all ?ndings required under Public Resources Code Section 2.1081(a) and such findings have not been supported by substantial evidence in the record. You have not complied with Public Resources Code Section 21081 and requirement concerning a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. You have not complied with Section requirement concerning speci?cation of the custodian and location of the materials constituting the record of proceedings on which the decision is based. Attachment 1: Reasons for Denying the San Marcos General Plan and Not EIR Page 5 of 5 7.04 You have not complied with Public Resources Code Section 210821. You have not made the requisite ?ndings; and to the extent that you have made any ?ndings under Section 21082.1, they are not supported by substantial evidence. Notice Issues IX, There is no evidence in the record that notice of the public hearing before the San Marcos City Council was given pursuant to Government Code Section 65090. Alternatively and additionally, to the extent such notice was given, it did not satisfy the procedural and substantive requirements of Sections 65090 and 65094 Agriculture 9.01 The planning area contains 2,664 acres of California Department of Conservation? designated farmland including prime farmland, statewide farmland, unique farmland, farmland of local importance and grazing land. EIR, p. 3.24. implementation of the proposed general plan would change the land-use designation of lands currently zone for agricultural to agricultural residential or non-agricultural land?use designations. BER, p. 3.25. The EIR concludes that ?the project would con?ict with the existing agricultural zoning. This impact is significant; mitigation is required.? EIR, p. 3.2-5. However, the mitigation only addresses a change to the zoning ordinance allowing for land use and not the actual loss of agricultural land. Attachment 2 Ruling 011 China General Plan FM. COUNTY OF SAN RANCHO CUCAMONGA AUG 11 2011 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN Citizens for Responsibie Equitabie Environmental Development Petitioners, RULING vs. City of Chino Respondent, WV Case No. CIVRS 1608458 NOTICE OF TENTATIVE The court has read and considered the briefing submitted in this matter and makes the foilowing tentative ruling en this CEQA cheiienge to the adoptien by the City on July 6, 2010, of Reso NO. 2010-25 certifying the Program BR and adopting the findings and a Statement of everriding Considerations for the updated General Pien (Envision Chino 2025), new zoning. map, zoning ordinance amendments end subdivieicn ordinance amendments. (Administrative Record Tab 57.) Factaai andlor Procedurai Context Petitioner Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmentai Development (CREED) through counsei presented written comments on the adequacy of the BR in the areas of agricuttoral resources, air quaiity, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, biological resources, water supply, feasible mitigation measures, aiternatives, necessary findings and sufficiency of the evidence, notice of public hearing, response to comments and project description, together with over 2,000 pages of attached exhibits on the morning of the City Council?s public hearing on July 6, 20?i 0. (AR, Tab 47, 48.) City Staff responded to most of criticisms, except for the alternatives analysis points 6.01 and 6.02. (AR, Tab 49.) On August 4, 2010, CREED ?led this Petition for Writ of Mandate tender CEQA and Other Laws, containing ceases of action for (1) failure to prepare adequate (2) failure to make adequate written ?ndings regarding project?s significant impacts; (3) failure to respond adequately to comments on the (4) improper reliance on Program and (5) violation of Planning and Zoning Lawm- Gov. C. 65090, et seq. The City answered on January 26, 2011, raising among others, the affirmative defenses of failure to exhaust administrative remedies and standing. A briefing schedule was ultimately agreed upon and filed its opening brief and the 4,877-page AR on February 25, 2011, the City ?led its opposition on May 20, 2011 and CREED fiied its reply on June 30, 2011. in addition, the City filed two Notices of New Cases and arguments reiying thereon on June 27tin and. July 13?? to which CREED responded in Repiy and then on July ll mwmmowm Discussion CEQA Standard of Review The public policy behind CEQA is stated in Pub. Res. Code 21002 which states: The Legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects, and that the procedures required by this division are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such signi?cant effects. The Legislature further finds and declares that in the event specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more signi?cant effects thereof. As stated in Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Com. v. Bot Port Comrs. (2001) 91 Cai.App.4?? 1344, 1354: The statutory scheme of CEQA rests on the fundamental requirement of [Pub Res. Code} section 21151 that "all local agencies shall prepare . . . an environmental impact report on any project that they intend to carry out or approve which may have a significant effect on the environment.? The serves to provide public agencies and the public in general with information about the effect that a proposed project is likely to has on the environment and to "identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced." (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, 15002, sobd. (Goidelines).) [Fn omitted] "its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the ?protects not only the environment but also informed self?government! [Citation.]? Citizens of Goiefa Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564 [276 Cal. Rptr. 410, 801 P.2d 1161].) CEQA provides two statutes governing the standard of judicial review. Pub. Res. Code 21168 and 21168.5. As stated by the Fourth BSA in Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) so Cal.App.4?? 1359, at 13744 375 (emphasis added): "in an action to set aside an agency?s determination under the appropriate standard of review is determined by the nature of the proceeding below. . . . [Sjection 21168 ?establishes the standard of review in administrative mandamus proceedings? under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 white section 21168.5 ?governs traditional mandamus actions' under Code of Civii Procedure section 4085. [Citationj The former section applies to proceedings normain termed 'quasi-adjudicative,? 'in which by law a hearing is required to be given, evidence is required to be taken and discretion in the determination of facts is vested in a public agency . . . [Citations] The latter section applies to ail other actions taken pursuant to CEQA and gederally encompasses 'quasi-legislative? decisions made by a public agency. [Citations.j? [Citations omitted] The distinction, however, is rarely signi?cant. in either case, the issue before the trial court is whether the agency abused its discretion. Abuse of discretion is? shown if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by tow, or (2) the determination is not supported by substantial evidence. [Citations omitted.) "[ijn undertaking judicial review pursuant to Sections 21168 and 21168.5, courts shall continue to follow the established principle that there is no presumption that error is prejudicial.? 21005, subd. However, "noncompliance with the information disclosure provisions of which precludes relevant information from being presented to the public agency, or noncompliance with substantive requirements of may constitute a prejudiciai abuse of discretion within the meaning of Sections 21168 and 21168.5, regardless of whether a different otaccme wouid have resulted if the public agency had complied with those provisions.? 21005, subd. - Neither standard of review ?permit[sj the reviewing court to make its own factual findings." Berbanir-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority v. Hensler (1991) 233 Cai.App.3d 577, 590. As stated in San Joaquin RaptorMiidiife Roscoe Center County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cat. App. 4th 713, at 721-722: ?[Tjhe ultimate decision of whether to approve a project1 he that decision right or wrong, is a noility it based upon an ER that does not provide the decision-makers, and the public, with the information about the project that is required by [Citation omitted] [The error is prejudicial "if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decisionmaking and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the process." [Citation omitted] "[Tjhe substantial evidence test applies to the court?s review of the agency's factual determinations." [Citation omitted} Substantial evidence means "enough relevant information and reasonable inferences frem this .4- mm?dmi?w?hAWM?A information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached? (State QEQA Guidelines, 15384, subd. see also Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California ("Laurel Heights 1 (12988) 47 Cal.3d 378, 393. CEQA is augmented by the State CEQA Guidelines, codified at titleM of the Cal. Code of Regulations (hereafter, Guidelines, The Guidelines are iaterpreted ?in such a way as to ?afford the fullest possible protection of the environment? (Friends of Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 859, 868) and are given great weight (Laure! Heights improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th11121 1123, fn 4 ("Laurel Heights Guidelines, ?15151 states ?An should be prepared with a suf?cient degree of analysis to provide decisionmakers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an Eli? is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible Disagreement among experts does not make an inadequate; but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts, The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure." in applying the substantial evidence standard, "the reviewing court must resolve reasonable doubts in favor of the administrative finding and decision.? Topanga Association for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 514. Pub. Res. Code 21080(e) de?nes substantial evidence as including ?fact, a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact" and -5- excluding ?argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is clearlyr inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts that do not contribute to; or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment.? Finally, as stated by the Fourth BSA in Badheiemy v. Chino Basin Municipal Water Dist. (1995) 38 1609, at t617: "Under CEQA, an is presumed adequate [citation], and the plaintiff in a CEQA action has the burden of proving otherwise.? [Citations omitted] requires an to reflect a good faith effort at full disclosure; it does not mandate perfection, nor does it require an analysis to be exhaustive. . . . The absence of information in an or the tailare to re?ect disagreement among the experts, does not per se constitute a prejudicial abuse of discretion. [Citation] A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs if the faiiure to include relevant information precludes informed decisionmaking and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the process. [Citation.]? (Kings County ?germ Bureau v. City of Hartford (1990} 221 Cal. App. 3d 6592, 7?12 [27 Cal. Rptr. 650]; see also 21005.) issues Raised by the Headings and Briefs Standino of CREED According to the Declaration of Richard Lawrence, President of one of core functions is to ensure compliance with CEQA and other planning, zoning and land use laws to protect and enhance the quality of life in Southern California, including San Bernardino County. Of particular concern to are developments? impacts upon air quality, water quaiity and supply, agricultural resources, traffic and global. warming. Members of CREED also live and work in Chino or travel to or through Chino, sharing the same water resources and air basin as Chino residents per the Declarations of Tomasa Calienes and Lydia and Peter Mehit, submitted in Reply. coocwmotocomus Based on a statement in Lawrence?s Declaration {?Another member of CREED is a natural person who resides in or near the City of the City contends that CREED has not met the geographical nexus between any CREED member and the City of Chi-no- to estabiish standing of CREED to bring this challenge. ?irty detect in Lawrence?s Dectaration as to a ?phantom? member is cured by the Reply Declarations. The court finds that CREED has adequately demonstrated standing to sue. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies by CREED ?That failure to exhaust administrative remedies is a bar to reiief to a California court has long been the generai rule.? Sierra Club San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Comm. (1999-) 21 Cal.4th 489, 495. Pub. Res. Code 211?? ccdi?es the exhaustion doctrine in CEQA cases: ?Art action or proceeding shall not be brought [under unless the alleged grounds for noncompliance with this division were presented to the public agency oraiiy or in writing by any person during the public comment period provided by this division or prior to the cross of the public hearing on the project before the issuance of the notice of determination.? Pub. Res. Code 21177(a) (emphasis added.) "To advance the exhaustion doctrines purpose ?[t}he ?exact issue? must have been presented to the administrative agency [Citation] While ?iess specificity is required to preserve an issue for appeal in an administrative proceeding than in a judicial proceeding? because, parties in such proceedings generally are not represented by counsel [citationi' [citation], ?generalized environmental comments at public hearings,? ?relatively bland and general references to environments! matters? [citation], or ?isolated and unelaborated ccmmen?si? [citation] will not suffice. The same is true for objections to project approval {Citationsj' [Citation] ?[Tihe objections must be sufficiently speci?c so that the agency has the opportunity to evaluate and respond to them.??" (Sierra Cfub v. City of Orange (2008) 153 Cal.App.4th 523, 535? 536 [78 Cal. 3d 11.) CREED v. City of San Diego (May 19, 2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 515, 527. The City does not raise exhaustion in its opposition but waits until submission of its Notice of New Case filed June 27th. The City ratios on the opinion in CREED v. City of San Diego, supra, finding that the same petitioner, CREED (represented by the same attorney), had not exhausted its administrative remedies in a chailenge to the- Clty ?or San Diego?s certification of an Addendum to an FEIR instead of preparing an in particular, the CREED v. City of San Diego court found that letters submitted to the city clerk?s of?ce on dates of CEQA hearings. contained only general, unetaborated objections insuf?cient to satisfy the exhaustion doctrine. id. at p. 527. Here, attorney, as indicated above, submitted written comments re noncompliance on the morning of July 6, 2010 before the City Councii hearing iater that evening. (AR, Tabs 47-48.) However, unlike the letters in the San Diego case, which did not even mention the word ?drought? which was the alleged ground requiring an SEER and which mereiy claimed the City did not foiiow the proper procedure in adopting the water supply assessment (WSA) and raised no substantive issue with the WSA (CREED v. City of San Diego, supra, at p. 527-528), Mr. Briggs? letters here detail. the exact issues raised as noncompliance under (AR, Tab 47, 48.) Nonetheless, the City also likens submission of attachments here in CDIDVD form to citation to documents buried among thousands of documents on the DVD it submitted to the city clerk before the first CEQA hearing in San Diego2 as an additionat ground for taiiure to exhaust. However, in CREED 1 inadequacy of the in the areas of agricultural resources, air quality, greenhouse gas (GHG) emisSions, biological resources, water supply, feasible mitigation measures, alternatives, necessary findings and sufficiency of the evidence, notice of public nearing, response to comments and project description. (AR, Tab 47, pp. 2618-2623.) 2 aiso submitted a digital video disk (DVD) that contained more than 4,600 pages of documents and data. The appeliate record contains hard copies of the documents on the DVD. it appears that the DVD contained no tabie of contents, no particuiar organization, no -8- mewmmemme v. San Diego, an index to the attachments as to each substantive area was in tact attached to the letter submitted here. (AR, Tab 47, pp. 2624-2628.) ?Evidence must be presented in a manner that gives the agency the opportunity to respond with countervailing evidence. (Coalition for Student Action v. City of Fuiferton (1984) 1.53 Cal.App.3d 1194, 1196?1197 CREED v. City of San Diego, supra, 196 Cal.App.4th at p. 528. Granted that Mr. Briggs? submission here contained many pages of information, the City was in fact abie to respond to the issues raised by CREED for presentation to the City Council by staff. (AR, Tab 49; Tab 16, p. 1714; Tab 17, pp. 17274728.) Moreover, the City?s Resolution in fact acknowledges that before taking action, it had ?heard, been presented with and reviewed and considered all of the infermaticn and data in the administrative record, inciuding the Final EIR and all orai and written evidence presented to it during the hearing?. (AR, Tab 57, p. 4855.) the belatedly argued ground of failure to exhaust administrative remedies. the court ?nds against the City. Proiect Description Defect An ElR?s project description per Guideiines, 15124, and the ascompanying anaiysis must be consistent throughout the if the description is inconsistent throughout the that inconsistency prevents the ER form serving as a vehicle for inteliigent pubiic participation in the decision?making process. County of lnyo v. City of Los Angeies (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 197 (EIR project description improperly shifted from first increased groundwater pumping for City-owned lands to increased pumping summary of information, and no expianation of how the copious materieis may pertain to the proposed Playa del Sci project.? CREED v. San Diego, supra, 396 Cat/?ipped: at p.521. .9. as a part of a larger operation of the Los Angeles Aqueduct system and then ?nally to the operation of the entire aqueduct system.) Referring to apparently conflicting portions of the Eli? (ARwith p. 58), BREED contends that the Project description is impermissibly unstable and inconsistent. in the ?rst instance, the Project is described as tee Proposed General Plan, which includes the Focused Growth Plan. (AR, Tab 6, pp. 46 and 50.) Thereafter, the describes in depth the ?two closely related [but separate] Projects?, the Proposed General Plan (Envision Chino 2025) and the Focused Growth Plan (more intensive development in limited areas of Chino subject to voter approval per Measure M). (AR, Tab 6, pp. 58-81..) This minor discrepancy does not demonstrate the kind of unstable and ever changing Project description found impermissible in County of Inyo, supra. Moreover, ?mite lead agency may employ a single to describe more than one project, if such projects are essentially the same in terms of environmental impact.? Guidelines, 15153(a). As a thorough reading of the Project Description section of the Eli? makes clear, the evaluates both the Envision Chino 2025 Plan and the similar Focused Growth Plan which would require voter approval for more intensive deselopment in certain limited areas of the City. Compare Figure 3-4 Proposed General Plan Land Use Map with Figure 3?5 Focused Growth Map. (AR, Tab 6, pp. 7'6 and 78.) Even though the Focused Growth Plan was analyzed in the it would require voter approval and the City only adopted the Proposed General Plan. in reply, CREED additionally argues the Project Description is misleading based on the ElR?s own inability to accurately identify the number of housing units called for under both plans. Compare AR, Tab 6, p. 80 (Table 3-1 Estimated Development under -19.. 00 M4 GE) 03% (330?! A 0-) 4 each plan) with Tab 6, p. 535. The housing unit discrepancy is in fact a typographical error, is, using the job increase number instead of the housing unit increase number. See Table 5-1 at AR, Tab 6, p. 509. The court denies petition for writ of mandate on grounds of a purported defective project description under CEQA. Reasonable Rance of Alternatives ?Ari shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibiv attain most of the basic obiectives of the proiect but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Art EAR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decisioomakirzg and public participation. Art is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disciose its reasoning tier selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rote governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the ruie of reason. (Citizens of Garcia Vailey v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cai.3d 553 and Laura! Heights improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 4? Como 376).? Guidelines, 15126.63 (Emphasis added.) 3 15126.8. Consideration and Discussion of Aitematives to the Proposed Project Alternatives to the Proposed Project. An EIR shall describe a range of reasonabie aitematives to the project, or to the iocation of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but wouid avoid or substantialiy iessen any ofthe significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivabie aiternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonabie range of potentiaily feasibie alternatives that will foster informed decisionmakirig and public .41- The Project Objectives for both the Proposed General Plan and the Focused Growth General Plan are set forth in the at AR. Tab 6, p.64 and include: a Make Chino a healthy City by increasing residents' opportunities for physical- ectlvity, access to healthy food and access to health services; Guide future development to allow Chino to grow while maintain its email town feel; and Encourage the development of variety of housing types. One additional objective for the Focused Growth Plan is: a Guide development, subject to city-wide vote, along major corridors in Chino in order to increase welkebility, support the use of public transportation, increase opportunities for economic revitalization, and provide neighborhood centers with local services and housing. ll Ii participation. An is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad role governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason. (Citizens of Goieta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cai.3d 553 and Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cat.3d 376). Purpose. Because an must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1), the discussion of alternatives shell focus on eltematives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any signi?cant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly. (0) Selection of a range of reasonable alternatives. The range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. The should briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed. The should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency?s determination. Additional information explaining the choice of alternatives may be included in the administrative record. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an ER ere:(i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility. or inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. -12- The EIR determined that the Project (the proposed general plan update, either the proposed General Plan or the Focused Growth Plan) would result in signi?cant adverse environmental impacts to agricultural resources and air quality and GHG. CREED argues that the improperly considered only three alternatives to the Project? the required no project alternative (is, the than existing general plan), a mixed-use corridor alternative and a neighborhoods center alternative none of which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the Project, (AR, Tab 6, pp. 504-533.) The court agrees with CREED that one of the threshold criteria fer identifying suitable alternatives, that the alternative can substantially reduce signi?cant environmental impacts, is not evident here in the City?s choice of a range of alternatives. Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 403; Pub. Res. C. 21002; Guidelines, ?The range of potential alternatives to the preposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the proiect and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects." Guidelines, jg 15128.6(c) (emphasis added.) ?Since the purpose of an alternatives analysis is to allow the decision maker to determine whether there is an environmentally superior alternative that will meet most of the project?s objectives, the key to the selection of the range of alternatives is to identify alternatives that meet most of the project?s objectives but have a reduced level of environmental impacts." Watsonviile Pilots Assn v. City of Watsonvi?e (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1089. See Tables 5-2 and 5-3 comparing the three chosen alternatives to the Proposed General Plan and the Focused Growth Plan. (AR, Tab 6, pp. 510611.) -13.. cocowmmemmA Speci?caily as to EiR?identitied significant adverse environmental impacts to agricultural resources and air quaiity and GHG, none of the alternatives avoid or substantially lessen those impacts. (ARexisting general plan alternative); p. 519 (as to mixed use corridors alternative); pp. 526?527 (as to neighborhood centers alternativel) The City argues in opposition that it analyzed alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice, but fails to address the fact that none of the alternatives chosen meet the threshold criteria of avoiding or substantially lessening one or more of the significant effects of the Project such as a potential reduced growth alternative, CREED is not required to show there are reasonable alternatives to the Project; the. responsibility to identify a reasonable range of alternatives lies with the City, not Petitioner. San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Ctr. v. County of Stanislaw (@934) 27 Cai.App.4th 713, 737. That responsibility based on statutory purpose was not met here. Moreover, the ElR?s choice of the proposed Project as the ensironrnentally superior choice is faulty under CEQA alternatives anatysis in that the required choice is among the alternatives to the Project. Guidelines, 15126.6(ex2) ("if the environmentally superior alternative is the "no projec alternative, the shat! also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives?) Bottom line, the fails as an informational document because neither the public nor the decisionmakers were afforded an opportunity to consider an. alternative that would result in less environmental impact than the Project. The court grants petition for writ of mandate on groands that the City?s ERR failed to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives that ceuid avoid or -14- comwmmewm?A substantially lessen one or more of the signi?cant effects of the Project and failed to identify the environmentally superior alternative. Water Sunplv impact: Water Supply Assessment Not Done and inadequate Water Sunnlv impact Analysis argues two points wfirst that the City failed to? have a water supply assessment (WSA) done for the Project and included in the ER, and secondly that the Eli-?i failed to independentiy and adequately analyze the Project?s water-supply impact. Under Water Code 10910, once the City determines that a project as defined in Water Code 10912 requires an or Negative Declaration, the City is obiigated to have a WSA performed. Under Water Code 10012 "Project" means any of the following: i (1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. (2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment empioying more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of ?oor space. (3) A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space. (4) A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms. (5) A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 050,000 square feet of fioor area. (6) A mixed?use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this subdivision. (7) A project that would demand an amount of Water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project. Compliance with the Water Code is required under CEQA. Pub. ties. Code 21151.9 (?Whenever a city or county determines that a project, as defined in Section 10912 of the Water Code, is subject to this division, it shall comply with Part 2.10 (commencing with Section 10910) of Division 6 of the Water Code?) Since both the Proposed General Plan and the Focused Growth Plan envision the addition of 56,103 or more residents, the addition of 15,802 or more housing units, -15.. moowmcnocoma and the addition of 31,446 or more jobs (AR, Tab 6, p. 80), CREED argues that the Project triggers a WSA as either a mixed use project one or more or the projects qualifying for a WSA for residential, commercial and industrial use or a project that demands an amount of water greater than the amount of water required by a project with 500 dwelling units. There are simply no facts in the AR to support this conclusion. The Project is a general plan update, not an actual development project. Although CREED is correct that nothing in Water Code exempts a general plan from the de?nition of a project, CREED cites no authority that a general plan project which is the subject of a program as here, has been determined to fall within any of the actual large development project definitions in Water Code 10912. in fact, the Supreme Court has expressed an arguably contrary view regarding water supply analysis in the case of ?rst-tier program Ele, covering, for instance, general plans: CEQA does not mandate that a first-tier program identify with certainty particular sources oi water for second-tier projects that will be further analyzed before implementation during later stages of the program. Rather, identification of specific sources is required only at the second-tier stage when speci?c projects are considered. Similarly, at the first-tier program stage, the environmental effects of obtaining water from potential sources may be analyzed in general terms, without the level of detail appropriate for second?tier, sitewspecitic review, The CALFED PEISIR satisfies these requirements. In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environments! impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1169. Program ElR?s are commonly used in conjunction with the process of tiering. (See Laurel Heights improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California, supra, 47 case at p. 899, in. Tiering is ?the coverage of general matters in broader Ele (such as on general plans or policy statements) with subsequent narrower Ele (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, 15385.) Tiering is proper ?when it helps a public agency to focus upon the issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review and in order to exclude duplicative analysis of environments! effects examined in previous environmental impact reports.? (Pub. Resources Code, 21093, subd. see also Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, 15385, subd. -15- in addressing the appropriate amount of detail required at different stages in the tiering process, the CEQA Guidelines state that ?[wjhere a lead agency is using the tiering process in connection with an Elli for a large-scale planning approval, such as a general plan or component thereof the development of detailed, site?specific information may not be feasible but can be deferred, in many instances, until such time as the lead agency prepares a future environmental document in connection with a project of a more limited geographic scaie, as long as deferral does not prevent ?adequate identi?cation of significant effects of the planning approval at hand.? (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, 15152, subd, This court has explained that "[tjiering is properly used to deter analysis of environmental impacts and mitigation measures to later phases when the impacts or mitigation measures are not determined by the first?tier approval decision but are speci?c to the later phases.? (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova, supra, 40 Cal-4th at p. re Bay-Delta ,supra, 43 Cai.4th at ?l 170. [T]he description of potential water sources for the CALFED Program's future projects and the environmental effects of obtaining water from those sources must be appropriately tailored to the current ?rst-tier stage of the planning process, with the understanding that additional detaii will be forthcoming when speci?c second-tier projects are tinder consideration. (See Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growtit, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 434 [?the burden of identifying likely water sources for a project varies with the stage of project approval in re Bayuoel?ta ,sopra, 43 Cal.4th at 113'2. Thus as to first contention that the City failed to have a water suppiy assessment (WSA) done for the Project under Water Code 10910 and included in the the court denies the petition for writ of mandate since a proposed general plan is not the type of large development project identified in Water Code 10312. triggering the WSA requirement. Secondarily, CREED contends that the failed to independently and adequately analyze the Project?s water?supply impacts, the environmental impacts of supplying water to the Project and the uncertainties in supplying that water to the Project. in the water supply is discussed in Chapter 4.14 tJtilities and infrastructure at AR, Tab 8, pp. 466-483. CREED contends the is silent on the environmental impacts of suppiying water to the Project, particularly groundwater. The court disagrees. In responseto criticism in this regard (AR, Tab 47, pp. 2621-2622, items 50$ and 5.98), the City responded (AR Tab, 49, p.483?) that it adequateiy addressed these issues, relying on projections from data in the Chino Urban Water Management Pian (UWMP) for Project demand and calculations from the previous WSA tor the SRG Chino project as to projected supply and an acknowledgment of drought issues (AR, Tab 6, pp. 479? 483.) CREED contends, however, that neither the UWMP nor SRG Chino WSA are in the BR or even part of the AR. is required to be considered in an ER must be in that formal report; what any officiai might have known from other writings or oral presentations cannot supply what is lacking in the report.? Santiago County Water District v. County of Orange, supra, 118 Cal.App.3d 818, 831 found inadequate], quoting Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Coastside County Water Dist. (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 695, 706 Laurel Heights improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 405. Furthermore, on appellate review, ?if it is not in the record, it did not happen? Protect Ger Water v. County ofMerced (2003) no CaiAppAm 362, 364. However, information from other sources may be incorporated into an by use of an appendix (Guidelines 151-47), citation to technical information (Guidelines, 15148)4 and incorporation by reference (Guidelines, 15150). Here the 14 CCR 15148 states: ?Preparation of EiRs is dependent upon information from many sources, inciuding engineering project reports and many scientific documents rotating to environmentat features. These documents shouid be cited but not included The shait cite documents used in its preparation inciuding, where possibie, the page and section number of any technical reports which were used as the basis for any statements in the -18- WSA for the SRG Chino project was incorporated by citation. (AR, Tab 6, p. 478-479, in. 16 - 18.) The Chino UWMP was incorporated by citation as well. (AR, Tab 6, p, 475, in. 12.) As to second contention ?u that the City failed to independently and adequately analyze the Project?s water?supply impacts,F the environmental impacts of sopoiying water to the Project and the uncertainties in supplying that water to the Project the court denies the petitioo for writ of mandate as the City properly incorporated? supporting information into the ER through citation. Finding of Less than Significant Air Quality impacts on Sensitive Receptors CREED contends that despite the ElR?s standard of signi?cance of exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (AR, Tab 6, p. 141), the EiR?s recognition that the California Air Resources Board (CARE) advisory guidelines that siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day and rural road with 50,000 vehicles per day should be avoided (AR, Tab 6, pi 153; Tab 47, Ex. 2e, p. 3159?, and the ElR?s recognition that State Routes 71 and 60 carry more than 100,000 vehicles per day and the Project includes residential uses within 500 feet of State Routes 71 and 60 (AR, Tab 6, p, 153), the EIR concludes that air quality impacts on sensitive receptors will be reduced to a tavel of insigni?cance (AR, Tab 6, p, 154.) 5 As indicated in own evidence, the CARB guidelines are not mandatory totes, but simply advisory recommendations, acknowledging that ?[ljand use agencies have to balance other considerations, including housing and transportation needs, economic development priorities and other quality of life issues." (AR, Tab 47, Ex. 26, p. 3158.) -19.. CREED contends there is no substantial evidence for this conclusion in that Policies P5 and P5 under Objective AQ??lfl under Goal ACM of the General Plan (AR, Tab 35, pp. 2127-2128) relied upon in the (AR, Tab 6, pp. 153-156} are vague and unenforceable mitigation measures. These General Plan provisions state: .4 Goal Preserve and improve air quality in Chino and the region. Objective Ail-1.1 improve air quality through land use and transportation planning decisions. The City shell, to the extent practicable, separate sensitive land uses (schools, senior centers, medical facilities, and residences) from significant sources of air pollution, toxic air contaminants, or odor emissions. P6. The City shall require developers of projects that include sensitive land uses (schools, senior centers, medical facilities, and residences) in proximity to State Route 71 and State Route 60 to prepare a health impact assessment to determine the significance of the impact, and to incorporate project-speci?c mitigation measures to avoid this risk. Mitigation measures may be incorporated into plans, such as general and specific plans, that provide a legal or policy framework for later projects or approvals. Pub. Res. Code Guidelines, Naps Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County 8d. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 358. This is an appropriate. approach any time a procedure for tiered environmental review is used, as here with the General Plan?s Program However the mitigation measures identified in the HR and placed in the General Plan do not suf?ciently describe enforceable performance criteria. While under P6 developers are required to prepare an for project-specific development ?in proximity? of State Routes 71 and 60 and to adopt mitigation measures to avoid the speci?c risks identi?ed in the nowhere is ?in proximity? defined. Moreover, there is -20- no performance criteria for the future unidentified mitigation measures6 other than the general avoidance of identi?ed health risks. Under P5 the City shall separate sensitive land uses ?to the extent practicable" from significant sources of air pollution, etc. This does not set forth any criteria for separation in terms of distance or other barriers and does not even speci?cally identify what are "significant sources?. apparent preference for a ban on the location of sensitiye land uses within 503 feet of the heavily traveled highways, even though such land uses already exist under the existing General Plan, is not a proper basis for challenge. Still, the City?s contention that its significance conclusion based on faulty mitigation measures cannot be second-guessed is equally improper. Because of the uncertainty and lack of enforceable performance criteria in P5 and P6, CREED is correct that there is no substantial evidence in the EIR that implementation of P5 and P6 alone will actually 5 ?Deferral of the specifics of mitigation is permissible where the local entity commits itseii to mitigation and lists the alternatives to be considered, analyzed and possibly incorporated in the mitigation plan. {Citation.]? Defend the Bay v. City of irvine (2004) 119 CalAppAth 1261, 1275. [the] kinds of impacts for which mitigation is known to be feasible, but where practical considerations prohibit devising such measures early in the planning process at the general plan amendment or rezone stage), the agency can commit itself so eventualiy devising measures that will satisfy specific performance criteria articulated at the time of project approval. Where future action to carry a project forward is contingent on devising means to satisfy such criteria, the agency shouid be able to rely on its commitment as evidence that significant impacts will in fact be mitigated. [Citations.]? Sacramento Oicf City Assn. v. City Council (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 10284029. For improper deferral, see, Gentry v. City of Murders (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th i359, 1396 [conditioning a permit on "recommendations of a report that had yet to be performed? constituted improper deferrei of mitigation}; Defend the Bay v. City of Irvine (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1261, 1275 [deferral is impermissible when the agency ?simply requires a project applicant to obtain a biological report and then comply with any recommendations that may be made in the report?]; Endangered Habitats League, inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 13'! Cal.App.4th 777, 794 [?mitigation measure [that] does no more than require a report be prepared and followed, without setting any standards? found improper deferral]; v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cai.App.3d 296, 306 [future study of hydroiogy and sewer disposal problems hetd impermissible]; Quail Botanicaf Gardens Foundation, inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cai.App.4th 1597, toes, in. 4 [city is prohibited from relying on "postapproval mitigation measures adopted during the subsequent design reviewprocess?j.) -21.. render exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations to a face than significant level. Consequently, the court grants CREED's petition for writ of mandate on grounds that the BR faiis to support its conclusion that air quaiity impacts on sensitive receptors will be reduced to toss than significant tevels with substantiai evidence. Faiiure of EIR to Fuilv Mitigate Proiect?s Signi?cant GHG Emissionsand Climate Chance impacts argues the ER fails to impose any and all feasible mitigation measures to minimize the acknowledged signi?cant impacts7 the Project will have re GHG emissions and climate change under Guidelines, Guidelines, 15126.4(a) states the following: Mitigation Measures in General. (1) An EIR shall describe feasible measures which couid minimize significant adverse impacts, including where relevant, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy. (A) The discussion of mitigation measures shall distinguish between the measures which are proposed by project proponents to be included in the project and other measures proposed by the lead, responsihie or trustee agency or other persons which are not included but the lead agency determines could reasonably be expected to reduce adyerse impacts if required as conditions of approving the project. This discussion shall identify mitigation measures for each significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. (8) Where several measures are available to mitigate an impact, each should be discussed and the basis for selecting a particular measure should be identified. Formulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future time. However, measures may specify performance standards which wouid mitigate the signi?cant effect of the project and which may be accomplished in more than one specified way. 7 The City adopted a threshoid of significance for GHG if the Project, either directiy or indirectly wouid generate GHG greater than 85% of those generated in 2005. (AR, Tab. 6, p. 166.) Based on the GHG Analysis at Appendix 2 (AR, Tab 6, even with certain identified emission reduction measures (AR. Tab 6, pp. 174-177), the Project see emissions at buiidout would exceed the 15% reduction threshold and therefore were deemed significant. (AR, Tab 6, p. 186.) -22- torpximmomm?x (C) Energy conservation measures, as well as other appropriate mitigation measures, shall be discussed when relevant. Examples of energy conservation measures are provided in Appendix F. (D) If a mitigation measure would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the effects of the mitigation measure shall be discussed but in less detail than the signi?cant effects of the project as proposed. (Stevens v. City of Glendale (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 988.) (2) Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally-binding instruments. in the Case of the adoption of a plan, policy, regulation, or other public project, mitigation measures can be incorporated into the plan, policy, regulation, or project design. (3) Mitigation measures are not required for effects which are not found to be signi?cant. (4) Mitigation measures must be consistent with all applicable constitutional requirements, including the following: (A) There must be an essential nexus connection) between the mitigation measure and a legitimate governmental interest. Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 US. 825 (1987); and (B) The mitigation measure must be ?roughly proportional" to the impacts of the project. Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 US. 374 (1994). Where the mitigation measure is an ad hoo exaction, it must be ?roughly proportional? to the impacts of the project. Ehrlich v. City of Culver City (1996) 12 Cal.4th 854. (5) it the lead agency determines that a mitigation measure cannot be legally imposed, the measure need not be proposed or analyzed. instead, the Eli-'t may simply reference that fact and brie?y explain the reasons underlying the lead agency's determination. The states that ?[t]he Proposed General Plan and the Focused Growth Plan are self mitigating with regard to environmental impacts." (AR, Tab 6, p. 56,) What this means is unclear. Although the concept of a self-mitigating project appears nowhere in CEQA or the Guidelines, what could he meant by that term is that there are mitigation ?measures which are proposed by project proponents to be included in the project.? Guidelines, As to GHG emissions and climate change impacts, however, the finds the impacts signi?cant and unavoidable. (AR, Tab 6, pp. 186-487.) The identi?es -23- certain General Plan policies to reduce GHG emissions directed at neighborhood pedestrian and bicycle activity in lieu of car travel, compact land use patterns with mixed-use and in??ll development, transportation demand management, public transit, promotion of low and zeroemission vehicles, promotion of energy etticient home building and conservation of energy. (AR, Tab 6, pp. 177?182) Of those policies, the only one identified in the EIR as an actual ?mitigation measure? under CEQA is Objective 0805.1, Action A1 (AR, Tab, 6, p. 187) from the Proposed General Plan, which states: Objective Take appropriate actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and China?s contribution to global climate change. Al. Adopt a Climate Action Plan within 18 months of adoption of this General Plan that demonstrates how the City will achieve the needed reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. The Climate Action Plan shall be developed in coordination with SANBAG and SCAQMD. (AR, Tab 35, p. 2047.) The City argues that the City is not obligated to implement mitigation measures it impacts are found signi?cant. No legal authority is presented in support of this contention and this is in fact not the law. The City then goes on to inexplicably justify its approach in determining the significance of Project GHG emissions and climate change. That is not the issue raised by CREED. Then, the City cites to its ?mitigation? measures in its General Plan (AR, Tab, 6, and its intent to adopt a Climate Action Plan. (AR, Tab 35, p. 2047,) The City in particular questions motives in submitting its comments and numerous suggestions for feasible mitigation (AR, Tab 47, 2618- 2621 and referenced Exhibits) at the last minute instead of in the BER review process or public hearings. Ultimately, the City argues that disagreement with its analysis and conclusions cannot render its EIR legally -24- insufficient, citing Association of irritated Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1898. What was at issue in that case were the differing opinions on whether the subject dairy would impact the kit fox and whether the mitigation measure would be effective, for which the court determined that the board was entitled to choose to believe one side more than the other. Id. at p. 1398. The law in California is that once the EIR determines that the impacts are signi?cant, as here, there is a legal obligation under CEQA to analyze and adopt feasible mitigation measures to fessen the significant impact. if, as so many courts have said, the ER is the heart of CEQA, then to continue the anatomical metaphor, mitigation is the teeth of the A gloomy forecast of environmental degradation is of little or no value without pragmatic, concrete means to minimize the impacts and restore ecological equilibrium. Thus, CEQA requires project proponeets to mitigate all signi?cant environmental impacts of their project (Pub. Resources Code, 21002, 21002.1, subds. (writ; Guidelines, 15126.4, 15370?) Environmental Council of Sacramento v. City of Sacramento (2006) 142 Cal.App-.4th t018, 1039. ?Having recognized and acknowledged that incremental increases in greenhouses gases would result in significant adverse impacts to global warming, the 8 ?The Legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of the state that peptic agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such protects, and that the procedures required by this division are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially tessen such signi?cant effects." Pub. Res. Code 21002. ?Each public agency shall mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment of projects that it carries out or approves whenever it is feasible to do 50." Pub. Res. Code 9 Guidelines,?15370 states: ?Mitigation? includes: Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment. Reducing or eliminating the impact overtime by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments." -25.. EIR was now legally required to describe, evaluate and ultimately adopt feasible mitigation measures which would ?mitigate or avoid? those impacts. 21602.1, subd. see also Guidelines, 15126.4, subd. 15091.)? Communities for Better Environment v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 91. It is contention that none of itssuggested mitigation measures were incorporated in the or explained as to why they were not feasible, ""Feasible? means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.? Guidelines, 15364. in response to suggestions for feasible mitigation measures from, for instance, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), Model Policies for Greenhouse Gases in General Frans, (AR, Tab 47, 2618- 26,21), the City responded that such specific actions might be considered within the scope of the proposed Climate Action Plan, but are generally too specific for a General Plan. (AR, Tab. 49, p.4835-4836.) Moreover, some of the suggested measures are already employed by the City, although not speci?caliy listed in General Plan. id. CREED argues that none of the purported ?mitigation? measures here are actually valid mitigation measures under CEQA. In Communities for Better Environment, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at 92, ?respondents argued that the City failed in not submitting a plan to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions during the environmental review process, but instead proceeding by preparing a menu of potential mitigation measures, with the specific measures to be selected by Chevron and approved by the City Council a year after Project approval. The superior court agreed with petitioners that the ?City has improperly deferred formulation of greenhouse gas mitigation -25- measures, by simply requiring Chevron to prepare a mitigation plan and submit it to City staff up to a year later after approval of conditional use permit.? The Communities court went on to state: ?Permutation of mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future time. (Guidelines, An ER is inadequate if "?{tjhe success or failure of mitigation efforts may largely depend upon management plans that have not yet been formulated, and have not been subject to enaiysis and review within the (San Joaquin Raptor, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at p. 670.) study conducted after approval of a project will inevitably have a diminished influence on decisionmaking. Even if the study is subject to administrative appsovat, it is analogous to the sort of post hoe rationalization of agency actions that has been repeatedly condemned in decisions construing CEQA. [Citations.j? (Sundetrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 CalAw?d 296, 307 [24s 352} Communities, supra, 184 Cai.App.4th at 92. CREED argues convincingly here that the City?s poiicy of adoption of ?a Climate Action Pian within 18 months of adoption of this General Plan that demonstrates how the City will achieve the needed reductions in GHG emissions" (AR, Tab, 6, p. 187) is even more vague and uncertain than the plan rejected in Communities. Not only is the future Climate Action Pian not required to ensure that its goal is enforced but the does not indicate what level of reduction is infect needed. There is nothiag in the or the Action Plan as to who determines what the needed reductions are and when that determination ?wiil be made. The City does not even identify the potential mitigation measures that will be considered or calculate how potential mitigation measures will reduce GHG emissions. CREED's challenge to the is not asking the City to choose between differing expert opinions as to impact loreffectiveness as in Association of irdtated Residents, supra, 10? Cal.App.4th at 1338. submission of reports, such as the CAPCOA Mode! Policies for Greenhouse Gases in Genera! Plans, and potential -27- mitigation measures was not demand that certain measures be implemented, but rather as a demonstration that the tools are available to develop a mitigation plan appropriate for a general plan and legaliy enforceable as required under CEQA. Similarly, the ElR?s discussion of other General Plan policies (AR, Tab, 6, pp. 177482) fail as true mitigation measures because they only ?encourage promote? or call for ?coordination? and are not fully enforceable and therefore insuf?cient tinder CEQA. public agency shall provide that measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment are fully enforceabie through permit conditions, agreements, or ether measures. Conditions of project approval may be set forth in referenced documents which address required mitigation measures or, in the case of the adoption of a plan, policy, regulation, or other public project, by incorporating the mitigation measures into the plan, policy, regulation, or project design.? Pub. Res. Code 21081603). When mitigation measures are incorporated in a plan, the City must take steps to ensure that they will actually be implemented as a condition of later development approved under the plan, ?not merely adopted and then neglected or disregarded." Federation of Canyon Assns. v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1381. There are no provisions for actual implementation here for the vague and unenforceable General Plan policies cited by the City. Finally, the City?s belated reliance on Creed v. City of Chute Vista (June 10, 2011) 2011 Cal. App. 895 to support its contention that the City did nothing wrong in assessing the Project?s GHG emissions and applying its threshold of significance to that analysis is compietely irreievant. As noted above, the discretion of -28- the City to determine a threshold of significance is not being challenged by writ petition. Bottom ltne, there is no dispute that the Project?s GHG emissions will be significant; however, the ElR?s failure to establish required enforceable and measurable mitigation measures constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion since such failure adversely affects informed public participation and decisionmaklng. The court grants the writ on this ground. Lrapacts or: Agricultural Resources: No Analysis of Air Qualitv on Agriculture. No Analysis or Adoption of Mitigation Measures for Loss of Farmland. arid No Consideration of Alternative that would Minimize Aoricultural Resource lmoact The City?s thresholds of significance for Agricultural Resources include (1) conversion of Prime or Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide lmportance to non- agricultural use; (2) conflict with existing Williamson Act contracts?); and (3) other changes in existing environment which due to location or nature could result in conversion set forth in (1). (AR, Tab 6, 100.) According to the the City in 2008 had a total of 4,928 acres of farmland.? Slnce 2008, the total farmland acreage had been reduced by 503 ac. and under buildout of the Proposed General Plan and Focused Growth Plan, the City would lose a total of an additional 1174 ac. of agriculture (57 ac. of Farmland of Statewide importance, ac. of Prime Farmland, 68 ac. of Farmland of Local Importance 22 ac. of Unique Farmland and 26? ac. of grazing land). (AR. Tab 8, p. 987.) 1" Only 18'? acres are in active Williamson Act contracts (to-year contracts for lower property taxes for agricultural or open space land.) (AR, Tab 6, p. 96, 98- 99.) 3? By type. this included 275 ac. of Farmland of Statewide lmportance, 2252 ac. Of Prime Farmland, 335 ac. of Farmland of Local importance 89 ac. of Unique Farmland and ac. of grazing land. (AR, Tab 8, p. 987.) occoowoamtsosi'ca Most of this Project loss of agricultural land was discussed in prior Ele for the College Park Specific Plan, The Preserve Specific Plan, the Edgewater @omrnunities, the Chino Sphere of influence Sub Area 1, the Chino South lndustriat Park, and the East Chino Specific Pian, and already deemed an unavoidable signi?cant impact. Since the Proposed General Plan and Focused Growth Plan do not designate additional urbanization of agricultural lands from those projects, there is np conversion impact in this Project for those same lands. Agricultural uses at mm and the Chino Airport can continue under the Project. Only a few agricultural parcels in the northern portion of the City that are identi?ed as Prime or Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide importance are not included in the agricultural [and just discussed. Some of this area has already converted and most parcels are small and surrounded by urban development. The Eli? finds that with certain Open Space Objectives, Goals, Policies and Actions in the General Plan, the impact on these agricultural parcels is less than significant. (AR. Tab 6, pp. 100405.) As to the 187 acres of active Williamson Act contract lands, 94 acres are planned for urban uses. Most of this loss has been discussed in The Preserve Specific Plan EIR. There remains one active Williamson Act contract covering two parcels not in The Preserve, but in the East Chino Speci?c Plan. Under the Project the land is designated for urban uses and so there is a conflict that is potentially significant. (AR, Tab 6, pp. 105406.) The concludes that despite the Ordinance which stays in effect, this impact cannot be mitigated and is signi?cant and unavoidable. Finally, under the third standard, the effect of the Project is less than significant since most agricultural lands are located in the southern portion of the City where -30- agricultural designations are expansive and not surrounded by urban uses. Moreover, the City?s Right~to?Farrn Ordinance and General Pian policies for buffer zones protect farmland from incompatible surrounding uses. (AR, Tab 6, pp. 106407.) CREED first argues that the improperiy contains no analysis of the Project?s air pollution impacts on agriculture, to, the effect of ozone on crops. See 1.01 at AR, Tab 47, p. 2618. The City responded at AR, Tab 49, p. 4334, that the impact to agriculture, speci?cally the plants, from the Project was not a City designated standard of signi?cance, which as to agricultural resources here was limited to tend use conversion. See, Guidelines, Appendix G. The choice of standards of significance is the City?s. Guidelines, 15064.7. As noted above, because of the prior Ele, the Project?s impacts on agricultural resources have generaiiy already been analyzed. Moreover, since ozone comes from any number of sources in the South Coast Air Basin, the City indicated that it would be speculative at best to assess this aileged additional Project impact on agricoiturai resources. (AR, Tab 49, p. 4834.) In a brief review of supporting material (AR, Tab 47, pp. 2627-2778), it is abundantly apparent that the damage to crops from air pollution (ozone or smog) is in their lost yield or loss of productivity, which is ultimately an economic impact, not an environmentai impact, such as an impact on rare or endangered flora. The court finds no violation of CEQA on the aiieged ground that the City failed to discuss the impact of Project air poliution on agriculturai crops, Next, CREED argues that the improperly contains no analysis of mitigation measures for the acknowledged Project?s significant impact of loss of farmland. See 1.03 at AR, Tab 47, p. 2618. in response, the City responded to this criticism by -31., tomwmmewm-e m?mthN?ommem-?wm?a correctly noting that the only impact to agriculture is due to the desigeation of two parcels of Williamson Act contract land for development. This designation for residential development has existed since 1987 when the East Chino speci?c Plan was adopted. At that time, however, designating a Williamson Act contract land for urban uses was not a standard for significance under CEQA as it is now. Hence, the disclosure is made in connection with the Project EIR at this time. Tab 49, p. 4834) CREED argues at this time that the City was obligated to analyze mitigation measures for agricultural land conversion suggested by the California Department of Conservation (CDC) in response to the Notice of Preparation (AR, Tab 28, pp. 1762- 1763) and again in response to the (AR, Tab 8, p. 1027), agricultural conservation easements. The City adequately responded in the (AR. Tab 8, pp. 1030?1032.) What CREED fails to acknowledge is that almost all of the agricultural conversion was discussed and analyzed in prior adopted Ele, that the {Generai Plan and Focused Growth Plan do not plan any additional conversion and thus no - signi?cant impact on agricultural resources results by reason of the over 23% loss of the inventoried farmland and therefore, mitigation measures are not required. ?Mitigation measures are not required for effects which are not found to be signi?cant.? Guidelines, The only signi?cant impact to agricultural resources identified in this arises from the designation since 1987? of one Williamson Act contract covering two parcels of land in the East Chino Speci?c Plan for residential development. it is still under contract. Although conflict with existing Williamson Act contracts was not a standard -32- of signi?cance at the time of the East Chino Speci?c Plan, agricultural conversion was. Since the East Chino Specific Plan did designate this property ultimately for residential use, the impact of agricultural conversion has already been discussed in an No speci?c cancellation or termination of existing Williamson Act contracts is proposed by the General Plan or the Focused Growth Plan not already discussed in prior Ele. Moreover, the Plans actually promote preservation of existing agriculture through the Right-to-Farm Ordinance (AR, Tab, 6, p. 94) and certain open space objectives, goals and policies (AR, Tab 6, pp. 101402) Given the limited actual signi?cant impact, the prior Ele and measures incorporated into the General Pian, substantiai evidence supports the City?s decision not to discuss the mitigation measures suggested by the CDC. On this ground, the court denies the writ of mandate. Finally, CREED argues that the ER improperly contains no alternative identified that would have preserved agriculturai tend within the Project. See 1.02 at AR, Tab 47, 2618. in response, the City contends that an alternative that preserves agricultural iand is not needed because the City is not proposing to convert any more agricultural land through the Proposed General Plan and Focused Growth Pian than what has already been planned [and approved] to date. (AR, Tab 49; p. 4834.) Despite the Plan?s ?significant? impact by reason of a conflict with one Act contract covering two perceis of tend in the East Chino Specific Pian, the court agrees with the City that consideration of an alternative based on this iirnited impact is not required since the actuai loss of this agri-cuitural land had already been anaiyzed in a prior The court denies the writ on this ground. -33.. (OmNOlm-wa-J aiiure to Make Ali Necessary Findinos CREED argues that the City failed to make ?ndings for components of the Project, making findings only as to the Envision Chino 2025 General Pian and none as to the Focused Growth Plan. (AR, Tab 57, pp. 4860, 4864.) in response, the City argues that the Focused Growth Plan could not be and was not adopted by the City Council since the residential density increases in this Files can only be approved by a city-?wide vote under Measure M. (AR, Tab 6, p. 58.) Nevertheless, should a developer ultimately seek residential densities perithe Focused Growth Plan through a city?wide vote, the City contends that the developer may still rely on the ?ndings in this and not have to start from scratch. CREED counters that the probiern with the ?ndings is that the City intends to reiy on the EiR's findings for future deveiooment under the Focused growth Pian. While the City only adopted the General Plan so far, the City?s codification is for the entire project that includes the Focused Growth Plan. Meanwhiie, the Pub. Res. Code 21 081 and 21082.1 findings were not made for the Focused Growth Pian and are fatal to the EiR?s use for the Focused Growth Plan. These facts may raise a problem in the future but do not support a finding that the City failed to make all necessary ?ndinos for the actual Protect adopted here, the Envision Chino General Pian 2025. The court denies the writ on the basis of aiieged failure to make ail necessary findings. Failure to Rely on Program when AoorovingOrdinance (Zoning and Subdivision) Amendments and Official Zoning Map CREED contends that the City failed to properly rely on the Program under Guidelines, 15168(e), when it noticed public hearings on the zoning and subdivision -34- .ordinances required under Gov] Code 65854 and 65856 (hearings and notices required for planning commission and City Council hearings). Guidelines, 15168(e) states: When a law other than CEQA requires pubiic notice when the agency later proposes to carry out or approve an activity within the program and to rely on the program for CEQA compliance, the notice for the activity shall include a statement that: (1) This activity is within the scope of the program approved earlier, and (2) The program EIR adequately describes the activity for the purposes of CEQA. - CREED argues that the Notice of Public Hearing for the proposed Municipal Code amendments and adoption of the Zoning Map did not comply with Guidelines, 15168(e}, doesn?t indicate the EIR is a Program EIR or that the ordinances and zoning map are within the scope of the program (AR, Tab 41, p. 2261-2268.) The City argues that its Notice is sufficient in that it properly referred to the and the proposed Municipal Code amendments and adoption of the Zoning Map encompassed thereby. (AR, Tab 41, pp. 2267?2268.) Technically, the Notice does not state the General Plan is a Program ER or that the Program EIR adequately describes the ordinances for the purposes of CEQA. On the other hand, the proposed Municipal Code amendments and adoption of the Zoning Map are not later activities, but integral parts of the Project which was the subject of the subject (AR, Tab 6, p. 58; 72?74.) The Notice in fact states that all of the activities - adoption ct ordinances amending the zoning and subdivision portions of the Municipal Code and certifying the Of?cial Zoning Map, along with the proposed Envision Chino 2020 General Plan - are ?projects for which a Final Environmental lmpact Report (SCH it 2008991064) has -35- cocowmmommu been prepared.? (AR, Tab, 41, p. 2267.) contention of error is not supported by the facts since the ordinances amending the zoning and subdivision portions of the Municipal Code and certifying the Of?cial Zoning Map are part of the General Plan in the ?rst instance and not a later project. AR, Tab 6, p. 58.) Moreover, any error in this regard is not prejudicial as it does not effect public participation or informed decisionmaking. The court denies the petition for writ of mandate on ground of alleged failure to rely on Program EIR when. approving Ordinance (Zoning and Subdivision) Amendments and foicial Zoning Map, Summary of Rulings Find that CREED has standing and has exhausted its administrative remedies in order to bring this petition for writ of mandate. Deny the writ on alleged grounds of a purported defective project description tinder CEQA. Grant the writ on grounds that the City?s failed to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives that could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects of the Project and failed to identify the environmentally superior alternative, finding such to be a prejudicial abuse of discretion in not proceeding in manner required by law as such failure adversely affects informed public participation and decisionmaking. Deny the writ as to the contention that the City failed to have a water supply assessment (WSA) done for the Project under Water Code t09?ld and included in the since a proposed general plan is not the type of actual development project identified in Water Code 10912 triggering the WSA requirement. Deny writ as to contention that the City failed to and adequately analyze the Project?s water-supply impacts, on grounds that the City properly incorporated supporting information in this regard into the Eli? through citation. Grant the writ on grounds that the fails to support its conciusiort that air quality impacts on secsitive receptors will be reduced to less than signi?cant levels with substantial evidence. Grant the writ on grounds that the ElR?s failure to establish required enforceable and measurable mitigation measures for the Project?s signi?cant GHG emissions and climate change impacts constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion in not proceeding in manner required by law since such failure adversely affects informed public participation and decisionmaking. Deny the writ finding no violation of CEQA on the alleged ground that the City failed to discuss the impact of Project air pollution on agricultural crops. Derry the writ on alleged failure to consider agricultural impact mitigation measures or: ground that substantial evidence supports the City?s decision not to disease the mitigation measures suggested by the CDC. Deny the writ on alleged failure to consider alternative that would minimize impacts to agricultural resources on grourtcl that consideration of an alternative based on the limited ?significant? impact of conflict with a Williamson Act contract is not required since the actual loss of this agricultural land had already been analyzed in a prior EIR. -37- Eeny writ on the basis of aileged failure t9 make ali necessary ?ndings. Deny the writ an gmund of aileged failure to rely on Pragram EIR when appmving 0rd?nance (Zoning and Subdivision) Amendments arid Of?cial Zening Map. DATED: we: I 1? 2m: ?rry L. Plotkin Judge of the Superior Court Barry Pigtkin -38- magmas: 33: Exhibits Submittedl?y; Briggs Lam "?aargaa?ati?n (m hei?agsf 9f . -??e?2i?uary 153,? 2m. 99 Street;.' Suita m. manage-A 917-86 - 3 Courtesy Cepies 0f Prim Letter; Endax of Exhibits? and Exhibits (Contained on EVE) BRIGGS LAW CORPORATION San Diego Of?ce: Inland Empire Of?ce: 814 Morena Blvd, Suite 107 99 East Street, Suite 111 San Diego, CA. 92110 ?pland, CA 91786 Telephone: 61 9-4 9 7-0021 Telephone: 909- 949- 7115 Facsimile: 619-515-6410 Facsimiie: 909-949? 7121 Please respond to: Inland Empire Of?ce BLC 1619.02 04 January 2012 City of San Marcos Attn: Garth Keller c/o Lisa Kiss, Planning Division 1 Civic Center Drive San Marcos, CA 92069 Re: Draft Program Environmental Report for the General Plan Update (GPA 09?105/ 09~145/ EIR 11?44) Dear Mr. Keller: 1 am writing on behalf of to convey my client?s concern about the environmental impact report for the general plan update. in particular, is concerned about the analysis and mitigation of traf?c, air quality, including greenhouse gas emissions, water quality, strains on public services, and agriculture. In this connection, resources have been enclosed to aid in your further analysis of these issues. Thank. you for our attention to this matter. Sincerely, BRIGGS LAW CORPORATION Mekaela M. Gladden Enclosed: Attachment and DVD ATTACHMENT 1: INDEX OF EXHIBITS Air Qnality EPA, ?Building Air Quality: Action Plan,? June 1998 AQ2 EPA, ?Building Air Quality: A Guide for Building Owners and Facility Managers,? December 1991 AQ3 EPA, ?Healthy Buildings, Healthy People: A Vision for the 21st Century,? October 2001 AQ4 EPA, ?How Does Indoor Air Quality Impact Student Health and Academic Performance?? April 2010 AQS California EPA and CARB, ?Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective,? April 2005 Energy El City of Dixon Zoning Ordinance, Adopted April 13, 1982 E2 Sustainable Urban Energy Planning: A Roadrnap for Research and Funding, June 2005 E3 City of St. Helena Housing Element Update: Goals, Policies, and Five-Year Action Plan, February 26, 2009 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change Guidance for General Plans and Climate Change CAPCOA: Model Policies for Greenhouse Gases in General Pians GHGZ CAPCOA: CEQA Climate Changes GHG3 California Attorney General?s Of?ce, ?The California Environmental Quaiity Act: Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Level? GHG4 Affordable Housing?s Green Future: Building a Movement for Durable, Healthier and More Ef?cient Housing GHGS ?The California Environmental Quality Act: On the Front Lines of California?s Fight Against Global Warming,? Center for Biological Diversity Report GHG6 Downtown San Diego, Complete Community/Mobility, September 2008 Creative Housing Associates, Neighborhood and Transit-Oriented Builders GHGS ?Bringing Home the Bene?ts of Energy Ef?ciency to Low-Income Households? GHG9 Letter from Edmund Brown Jr. To Tulare County Resource Management Agency Regarding Tulare County General Plan and Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact CAPCOA, ?Model Policies for Greenhouse Gases in General Plans,? June 2009 ?Energy Ef?cient Streetlights,? March 18, 2008 651va Media, ?California municipality shifting to energy-saving LED streetlights,? May 18, 2009 City of Portland, Energy Ef?ciency Success Story, LED Traf?c SignalsmEnergy Savings US Department of Energy, California Says ?Go? to Energy Saving Traffic Lights GHGIS Energy Star Vending Machines SunEdison Government Solutions Downtown San Diego, Complete Community/Mobility, September 2008 GHGI 8 Creative Housing Associates, Neighborhood and Transit~0riented Builders ?Bringing Home the Bene?ts of Energy Ef?ciency to Low-Income Households? GHGZO Affordable Housing?s Green Future Greener Policies, Smarter Plans GHG22 Green Communities Compliance Manual 2008 GHG23 Pavement Albedo GHG24 EPIC ?Reducing Greenhouse Gases from Electricity and Natural Gas Use in San Diego County Buildings? SunEdison ?Government Solutions? GHG26 Sustainability and General Plans: Examples of Policies to Address Climate Change GHG27 Green Communities Compliance Manual 2008 Greener Policies, Smarter Plans: How States are Using the Low?Income Housing Tax Credit to Advance Healthy, Ef?cient and Environmentally Sound Homes GHG29 Technical Advisory: CEQA and Climate Change-Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act Review GHG3O Pavements Albedo Evaluating Sustainability of Projected Water Demands Under Future Climate Change Scenarios AG Comments on General Plans GHG32 Tulare County letter GHG33 Petaluma letter GHG34 County of San Bernardino letter GHG35 San Bernardino settlement agreement GHG36 San Diego letter GHG37 Solano letter GHG38 Stockton agreement Transportation Tl Communities Tackle Global Warming 7 T2 NRDC: Transportation acts Water Supply Pacific Institute ?Waste Not, Want Not: The Potential for Urban Water Conservation in California? WSZ Executive Summary 3-06-08 W83 Managing an Uncertain Future, Update 2009 W34 Technical Paper IV, ?Climate Change and Water,? June 2008 WSS The State of Climate Change Science for Water Resources Operations, Planning, and Management W86 Managing an Uncertain Future, October 2008 W87 ?Using Future Water Climate Projections to Support Water Resources Decision Making in California,? August 2009 W88 ?What You Should Know About: San Francisco?s Water Conservation Requirements for Commercial Buildings? W89 ?Waterless Urinals Part of Schools? Conservation Efforts? W810 Water Use Ef?ciency Ideas for Gelf Courses, Parks and Commercial Landscapes W811 Water Use Ef?ciency Ideas W812 Parks Commercial Landscapes: Water Use Ef?ciency Ideas W813 Model Water Ef?cient Landscape Ordinance W814 Water Ef?cient Landscapes W815 Water Management Strategies to Weather the Effects of Global Warming W816 Executive Order 8?0608 W817 ?Evaluating Sustainability of Projected Water Demands Under Futisre Climate Change Scenarios?