03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Regulatory and Legal Setting Executive Order B-55-18 On September 10,2018,the governor issued EO B-55-18,which established a new Statewide goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 and maintaining net negative emissions thereafter.This goal is in addition to the existing Statewide GHG emission reduction targets established by SB 375, SB 32, SB 1383, and SB 100. EO B-55-18 also tasks CARIB with including a pathway toward the EO B-55-18 carbon neutrality goal in the next Scoping Plan update. 3.3 Relevant GHG Emissions Analysis Case Law Friends of Oroville v. City of Oroville (Case No. 070448) The Third District Court of Appeal decision in the Friends of Oroville v. City of Oroville case was published on August 19,2013.This decision evaluated the methodology used to analyze GHG emissions in an Environmental Impact Report(EIR) prepared for a Wal-Mart Supercenter development project that included replacing an existing Wal-Mart store with a Wal-Mart Supercenter in Oroville in Butte County.The EIR used consistency with the AB 32 emissions reduction target as its significance threshold for evaluating the project's GHG emissions and compared the magnitude of the proposed project's emissions to statewide 2004 emission levels as part of the analysis.The Court found that EIR applied "a meaningless, relative number to determine insignificant impact" rather than evaluating the project's emissions in light of the AB 32 emissions reduction target.The Court also found that the EIR "misapplied the [AB] 32 threshold-of-significance standard by [1]failing to calculate the GHG emissions for the existing Wal-Mart and [2] failing to quantitatively or qualitatively ascertain or estimate the effect of the Project's mitigation measures on GHG emissions."The Court determined that the EIR could and should have performed these quantifications to adequately evaluate the project's GHG emissions using the AB 32 emissions reduction target. Sierra Club v. County of San Diego (Case No. 37-2018-00043084-CU-TT-CTL) The Fourth District Court of Appeal decision in the Sierra Club v. County of San Diego case was published on October 29, 2014.This decision evaluated the adequacy of the CAP prepared by the County of San Diego to satisfy Mitigation Measure CC-1.2 of the program EIR prepared for its 2011 General Plan.To reduce GHG emissions impacts of the 2011 General Plan to a less-than-significant level, Mitigation Measure CC-1.2 required the preparation of a CAP that would include "more detailed GHG emissions reduction targets and deadlines" and that would "achieve comprehensive and enforceable GHG emissions reduction of 17 percent(totaling 23,572 MT of CO2e)from County operations from 2006 by 2020 and 9 percent reduction (totaling 479,717 MT of CO2e) in community emissions from 2006 by 2020."The Court found the CAP did not include enforceable and feasible GHG emission reduction measures that would achieve the necessary emissions reduction;therefore, the CAP did not meet the requirements of Mitigation Measure CC-1.2 and would not ensure that the mitigation measure would reduce GHG emissions to a less-than-significant impact. In addition,the Court found that the County failed to evaluate the environmental impacts of the CAP and its associated thresholds of significance under CEQA. 19