Laserfiche WebLink
City of Pleasanton <br /> CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds and Guidance <br /> 5 Utilizing Quantitative CEQA GHG Thresholds <br /> As discussed in Chapter 4, Determining Consistency with, if a plan/project is not consistent with the <br /> existing(2005-2025) General Plan land use of the plan area/project site or has a post-2030 buildout <br /> year or is not consistent with all applicable GHG reduction strategies of the CAP 2.0 as listed in the <br /> CEQA GHG Emissions Analysis Compliance Checklist,then that plan/project cannot utilize the CEQA <br /> GHG Emissions Analysis Compliance Checklist to streamline its project/plan-level GHG emissions <br /> analysis in a qualitative manner. Instead,the significance of that plan/project's GHG emissions can <br /> be evaluated using quantitative GHG thresholds derived from the assumptions of the CAP 2.0. If that <br /> plan's/project's GHG emissions are at or below the applicable quantitative threshold,the <br /> plan/project, if it has a pre-2030 buildout year,can determine that the project/plan would result in <br /> a less-than-significant GHG emissions impact or, if a CAP-specific project,can tier from the existing <br /> programmatic environmental review contained in the adopted programmatic IS-ND for the CAP 2.0. <br /> In doing so,such plans/projects would result in less-than-significant GHG emissions and would not <br /> result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to GHG emissions and climate change. In <br /> addition, plans/projects with post-2030 buildout year and GHG emissions at or below the <br /> quantitative thresholds for 2040,which equate to net zero MT of CO2e per year,would be <br /> considered less-than-significant and would not result in a cumulatively considerable GHG emissions <br /> impact. Note that the CEQA GHG thresholds need to be updated for consistency when new General <br /> Plan land use designations and CAP updates are adopted. The following sections provide an <br /> explanation of the methodology used to calculate the quantitative GHG emissions thresholds, <br /> guidance on how to utilize the thresholds, and justification for use of the thresholds. <br /> 5.1 Thresholds Calculation Methodology <br /> CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 does not establish a specific quantitative threshold of significance <br /> for evaluating GHG emissions associated with a proposed plan or project. Lead agencies have the <br /> discretion to establish significance thresholds for their respective jurisdictions, and in establishing <br /> those thresholds, a lead agency may appropriately look to thresholds developed by other public <br /> agencies, or suggested by other experts, as long as the threshold chosen is supported by substantial <br /> evidence (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7[c]).The following methodology is consistent with <br /> guidance provided by the AEP Climate Change Committee in 2016 for establishing GHG emissions <br /> efficiency thresholds using the local jurisdictional GHG inventory and demographic forecasts.24 <br /> An efficiency threshold is a threshold expressed as a per-person metric(e.g., per resident, per <br /> employee, or per service person). Efficiency thresholds are calculated by dividing the allowable GHG <br /> emissions inventory in a selected calendar year by the resident,employee,or service population in <br /> that year.The efficiency threshold identifies the quantity of GHG emissions that can be generated <br /> on a per-person basis without significantly impacting the environment. <br /> Locally appropriate, plan-and project-specific GHG emissions efficiency thresholds were derived <br /> from the GHG emissions forecasts calculated for the CAP 2.0.These thresholds were created to <br /> comply with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and interpretive GHG emissions analysis case law, <br /> which are summarized in Chapter 3,Regulatory and Legal Setting. The City of Pleasanton GHG <br /> 24 AEP.2016.Final White Paper Beyond 2020 and Newhall:A Field Guide to New CEQA Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action <br /> Plan Targets for California.https:Hcalifaep.org/docs/AEP-2016_Final_White_Paper.pdf. <br /> 24 <br />