IMPERIAL COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT REVISED RULE 310 OPERATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FEE

Transcription

1 May 24, 2011 I. INTRODUCTION Background Clean air is an inherent right and essential to the well-being and welfare of the people of the state of California. Recognizing that people within the state of California have a primary interest in the physical environment in which they live the legislature enacted Health and Safety Code declaring that the quality of the environment is being degraded and that such degradation is detrimental to the health, safety, welfare and the sense of well-being of the people of California. As such, the state of California legislatively granted local and regional authorities the primary responsibility for the control of air pollution from all sources other than vehicular sources. 1 Existing state law grants the local authority the ability to adopt and enforce rules and regulation which will achieve and maintain ambient air quality standards within all areas affected by emissions sources under the local jurisdiction. Similarly, state law also requires that the local jurisdiction enforce all applicable provisions of local, state, and federal air quality laws. 2 The Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD) is the local jurisdictional authority responsible for the control of air pollution in Imperial County. The ICAPCD holds regulatory control over numerous sources of air contaminants within Imperial County. These sources are classified into either one of two groups. The first group, direct sources, refers to facilities such as factories, geothermal plants, and rock quarries, whereas the second group, indirect sources, refers to paved and unpaved roads, houses, businesses, open areas, construction projects, etc. Direct sources of air contaminants are mandated to secure specific permits containing conditions preventing these sources from exasperating air quality, while Indirect Sources are exempt from obtaining a permit. Indirect sources do not directly emit pollution rather their construction and presence does lead to the creation of significant amounts of pollution. Indirect sources of emissions whether the facilities are houses, businesses, roads or highways, do in fact attract and generate alarming amounts of air pollution emissions such as ozone precursors, carbon monoxide, and fine particulate matter primarily produced by motor vehicle trips. In an effort to keep to our commitments contained in both the 1991 Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP) and the 2009 PM10 SIP, mitigation of the potential increases in vehicle trips created by new development must be reduced. The 1991 AQAP proposes to mitigate the impact from growth by implementing Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) which would assist in the reduction of the overall number of vehicle trips and congestion in the Imperial Valley. The 2009 PM10 SIP similarly includes Best Available Control Measures (BACM) to mitigate PM10 emissions. Overall, the ICAPCD requires 1 Health and Safety Code (H&SC) Health and Safety Code (H&SC) 4000 et. seq. Draft Staff Report May 24, 2011 Page - 1 -

2 the application of on site and off-site mitigation measures by development projects which mitigate ozone precursors and PM10 emissions from their operational activities. II. REASONS FOR REVISIONS TO RULE 310 The Imperial County CEQA Air Quality Handbook is the central driving document intended to guide and assist lead agencies, planning consultants, ICAPCD staff and project proponents in the assessment of the potential air quality impacts from residential, commercial, and industrial developments. The menu of specific control measures, contained in the document are designed to mitigate both construction and operational emissions on site. Mitigation of construction emissions is typically not an issue. However, when a project is unable to fully mitigate its operational emissions on site it must apply all feasible off site measures. In the past, project developments have had difficulty applying feasible off-site measures without bearing a huge burden of cost and time. Thus the ICAPCD began the development of a sound means for development projects to accomplish the mitigation of their emissions off-site by providing alternatives to costly off-site projects. On November 06 of 2007 the Imperial County Air Pollution Control Board of Directors adopted and the ICAPCD implemented Rule 310 Operational Development Fee. Although the implementation of this rule has resulted in the funding of ozone and PM10 projects throughout Imperial County and subsequently in the reduction of cumulative emissions, the Imperial County Air District Board of Directors asked for a review of the effectiveness of the rule. Therefore, at the direction of the Imperial County Air District Board of Directors the ICAPCD prepared and submitted solicitations for proposals and received solicitations from three different consulting groups. After review of the proposals, Michael Brandman and Associates was selected to conduct the review of Rule 310. III. SOLICITATION AND SCOPE OF WORK SOLICITATION FOR PROPOSALS As mentioned the ICAPCD sent out solicitations for proposals to various professional consulting groups specializing in air quality. Of all the solicitations three consulting groups responded. Environ Corporation, Sierra Nevada Air Quality Air Quality Group, LLC and Michael Brandman and Associates. Of the three submitted consulting groups Michael Brandman and Associates provided most of the necessary required specs as required by the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District Board of Directors. SCOPE OF WORK Generally speaking the scope of work was to provide an overall assessment of Rule 310 Operational Development Fee. Quoting the staff report for Rule 310, Operational Development Fee the solicitation explained the reasons and the parameters necessary for a proper evaluation of the rule. It was made clear that Rule 310 was developed as Draft Staff Report May 24, 2011 Page 2

3 part of the CEQA process in response to the costly and lengthy process which was impacting development companies before any actual construction process occurred. Simply put the principal intent of the rule was to principally reduce those emissions which invariably could not be mitigated on site. This would be accomplished by funding projects that were identified as reducing emissions off-site in a manner that is cost effective. The second intent of the rule was to streamline the process in such a fashion as to not create undo hardship upon a developer during the planning stages of a project therefore hindering or restricting resources during the CEQA process. Overall, the emissions reductions expected from Rule 310 were calculated on a 10 year term of estimated operational NOx and PM10 emissions. Currently, the required mitigation is 75% of baseline NOx emissions over ten years and 100% of baseline operational PM10 emissions over ten years. Therefore, the scope of work included the following: 1 A review of the currently adopted Rule 310 Operational Development Fee and associated staff reports and appendix s 2 A comparison of currently adopted Rule 310 with other existing Indirect Source Fee Rules or similar programs a Comparatively is the rule clear and understandable b Comparatively does the rule impose greater hardship on one particular entity over another 3 An assessment of the fee structure as it pertains to: a Mitigation b Compliance with CEQA 4 A Nexus assessment 5 Affects if any on commercial warehousing 6 Recommendations on current fees IV. REVIEW OF RULE 310 RESULTS Michael Brandman Associates (MBA) divided the technical review of Rule 310 into two substantive categories producing two separate documents. The first document entitled Nexus Assessment Technical Report Imperial County Air Pollution Control District Imperial County, California examined the Rule 310 fee collection and fee use in light of the general nexus principles and California State regulations. The second document entitled Rule 310 Operational Development Fee Assessment Imperial County Air Pollution Control District, Imperial County, California examined the use of fees for verification of mitigation of impacts by funded projects. The review by MBA also Draft Staff Report May 24, 2011 Page 3

4 included an examination of rule language and a review of supporting documents to help identify areas in need of clarification. Each document is attached for your review. The first document, the Nexus Assessment examined the rule s relationship with the California Mitigations Fee Act (Government Code (GC) Section ), the California Proposition 13, People s Initiative to Limit Property Taxation, California Proposition 218, The Right to Vote on Taxes Initiative, the California Subdivision Map Act (GC Section ) fee provisions, and the Applicability of Amendment 5 (last clause) of the United States (US) Constitution, The Takings Clause. In addition, the Nexus Assessment related the findings of the court cases on the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review) to the ICAPCD Rule 310. The conclusions by MBA support the finding that Rule 310 is consistent with state law regarding fees and taxes. However, like many other rules MBA found facets of the rule that if revised would strengthen the reasonable relationship between development project impacts and the fees assessed by Rule 310. These facets will be discussed below under section VI below. The second document, the Rule 310 Fee Assessment examined all the fee rates in comparison to on-road vehicle trip generation. In addition, the assessment examined the approaches of other Indirect Source programs to help identify components that could be used to enhance Rule 310. The conclusions by MBA identified major recommendations which included adding additional land use categories, adding an alternative fee assessment, such as a per trip fee rate as well as other minor recommendations. These recommendations are discussed below under section V below. V. RULE 310 FEE REVIEW MODELING During the original development of Rule 310, and during the third party review by MBA, URBEMIS 2007 was used to model average project-level emissions for large, medium and small residential and commercial developments. Currently, the rule provides fee amounts based on the emissions from two residential categories (single and multi family) and a composite commercial category based on the average emissions per square foot. MBA examined the trip generation rates between the modeled categories and concluded that because of the wide range of commercial development in Imperial County the range of trip generation by type of commercial development varied among modeled commercial projects. It is important to note that although MBA found the trip rates varied among the modeled commercial projects Rule 310 proved not to overcharge since the averaged fee is Draft Staff Report May 24, 2011 Page 4

5 divided by the 10 year expected life span of mitigation 3 which is unlike the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) which divides its emissions by two. MBA found that the use of an average square foot commercial rate resulted in land use categories with low trip generation rates paying fees higher than their actual impact and uses with high trip generation rates paying fees lower than their actual impact. Therefore, the recommendation to add more commercial categories with a precalculated fee amount and/or a trip generation fee rate as an alternative to the commercial category was recommended in order to assign existing and new vehicle trips in a more equitable manner among commercial categories. In addition, MBA reviewed the use of project-specific vehicle fleet assessments by means of an application approach and/or the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) mitigation approach. 4 Both approaches would require detailed project emission assessments and substantial air district review resulting in increased fee rates. The pre-calculated fee amount as utilized by Rule 310 was found to be the most efficient approach by far and was the most consistent with the direction provided by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) as formed during the development of Rule 310. The original development of Rule 310 and it s subsequent third party review utilized URBEMIS as the primary land use modeling tool. However, since the finalization of the third party review an alternative, preferred model the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod) was released February 2011 to local air districts, development agencies and the general public. ICAPCD utilized both URBEMIS and CalEEMod to verify emission calculations of the recommended changes by MBA resulting from the third party review. MBA recommended adding the following to the already existing fee structure: PRE-CALCULATED FEE CATEGORIES: 1 Regional Shopping Center/Strip Mall 2 Supermarket 3 Free-Standing Discount Superstore 4 Quality Restaurant 5 Medical Office 6 Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Through Window 7 Warehouse/Distribution Center PER-TRIP FEE RATE: MBA also recommended adding a section for projects that do not fit the listed category above. Utilizing a per trip fee rate (calculated per project) would allow applicants some flexibility for those projects that generate smaller than normal vehicle trips regardless of square footage. 5 The applicant would be required to present evidence either by use of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual or an approved Traffic Study of the vehicle trips generated by the proposed facility. 3 Nexus Assessment Technical Report, page 9, last sentence. Discussion on Mitigating New Trips vs Existing Trips. 4 Rule 310 Operational Development Fee Assessment, page 1 5 Nexus Assessment Technical Report, Imperial County Air Pollution Control District, pages Draft Staff Report May 24, 2011 Page 5

6 ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: The following recommendations were made by MBA to help clarify Rule 310 language. 1 Define commercial. This would help identify what sources would be subject to the rule. For example, schools, churches, public recreational facilities, etc. 2 Define industrial. This would help clarify the types of industrial uses that would be subject to the rule. 3 Prepare a fact sheet, frequently asked questions sheet or similar document to provide guidance on the process of applying for and achieving the Alternative Emission Reduction Plan specified in Rule 310 Section F. In addition to the recommendations above the ICAPCD added a very general definition of warehouse and made some minor administrative corrections throughout the document. VI. MODELING RESULTS As mentioned above the ICAPCD utilized both the URBEMIS and CalEEMod land use modeling tools to verify all emissions calculations by MBA. The results of both models indicated differences in emission calculations that intrigued the ICAPCD and triggered a deeper review of both URBEMIS and CalEEMod. It is important to note that during the development of both models air districts throughout California were actively providing specific district information and emission factors. After review of the parameters within both models the ICAPCD is confident that CalEEMod is a better land use model as the emission calculations are much more realistic. Below is a summary indicating the main differences between both models. Both models utilize the widely accepted Trip Generation Manual (ITE) to quantify emissions from both the construction and operational phases of a project. CalEEMod, unlike URBEMIS includes the following significant features and functions. 1. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission calculations from processes downstream of a project, known as indirect sources such as energy use, solid waste disposal, vegetation planting and/or removal and water use. In addition, includes two additional combustion GHG pollutants; methane and nitrous oxides 2. Calculates the emission reduction benefits from implementing GHG mitigation measures from approved sources. i.e. adopted measures from the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). Similarly, this model incorporates Pavley standards and Low Carbon Fuel standards into the mobile source emission factors. 3. Includes more land use types such as refrigerated warehouses, golf courses and swimming pools along with updates to warehouse trip rates. Draft Staff Report May 24, 2011 Page 6

7 4. Quantifies emissions from parking lots and/or structures as a separate land use type. It also accounts for the usage of consumer products at non-residential facilities. 5. Methods for calculating fugitive dust from grading and site preparation were updated to reflect current accepted formulations. 6. Allows modeler to insert database information in the form of a spreadsheet for specific vehicle identification. i.e EMFAC2007 information and/or construction equipment list. In addition, this model allows for the selection of different vehicle classes for construction worker, vendor and hauling trips. 7. Utilizes the California Air Resources Board s BURDEN mode (a component of the EMFACT model) emission factors to provide more accurate characteristics (fleet mix, vehicle miles traveled, etc.) of the project area. 8. Model utilizes a weighted average trip rate to reflect accurate vehicle activity from a specific land use type. i.e. URBEMIS estimates only 5 days of emissions while CalEEMod estimates 7 days of emissions. Because of the aforementioned the ICAPCD utilized the CalEEMod model to finalize its review of the recommended categories by MBA. Utilizing CalEEMod allowed for a more closely mirrored actual emissions impact by the recommended projects. All categories suggested by MBA except for the Warehouse category are well above the current commercial total of $1.60 per square foot. It is not the recommendation of the ICAPCD to add any category above the current amount of $1.60 per square foot as this would trigger a Proposition 26 review. Adding the category for Warehouse would be a conditional category whereby the applicant would have to demonstrate that the projects vehicle count is below 147 Average Daily Trips. The second recommendation by MBA was the use of a per trip fee rate for those projects that did not meet the categories as recommended. While, this option is desirable, because it allows for another avenue for projects to assess their actual project emissions the actual per trip fee rate could be argued to be above the current $1.60 per square foot. For example, expansions of an existing commercial building must pay Rule 310 fees. A small 200 square foot (sq ft) expansion would currently cost $ Under the per trip fee rate this small expansion would have to account for all its vehicle miles travelled and deduce its increase due to the expansion. Once calculated the fee could be applied to the increase. Draft Staff Report May 24, 2011 Page 7

8 Using the Medical Office category above, the ITE Trip Generation Manual assigns average vehicle trips per day to a medical office per 1000 sq feet. Because the 200 sq ft project would pay $ we would divide $ per 200sq ft by the trip rate per 200sq ft resulting in a per trip fee rate of $8.86 per daily trip Fee 200sq ft X 200sq ft 36.13Daily Trip = $8.86 perdaily Trip Let s assume the medical office is 2600 square feet giving it a projected 34,287 annual vehicle trips. The 200 square foot expansion is 7% more space thus giving the expansion an additional 2,638 annual vehicle trips. Appling the per trip fee rate of $8.86 the applicant would have to pay $23, Therefore, the ICAPCD does not recommend the use of the per trip fee rate. As an alternative to the per trip fee rate and to provide projects with an additional mechanism for analyzing and calculating actual project emissions a section for a Commercial Request for Review is being proposed. This would not only allow projects another avenue for project review of the mitigation fee but would strengthen the Nexus requirement for Rule 310. The request for a project review would entail an analysis of the operational NOx and PM 10 emissions following the guidelines under a newly added section G. Adding this section would not trigger Proposition 26 because it is not a fee but rather an option to be selected or not selected by the project proponent. Selecting this option could potentially provide the project proponent a resulting lower emissions calculation thus resulting in a lower emission mitigation fee. Finally, the ICAPCD defined, as recommended by MBA, Commercial and Industrial. The Commercial definition already existed in the rule however to clarify the ICAPCD added the words, and which are for profit. Adding the language pertaining to a profit making entity allows for exclusion of governmental and non-profit organizations. The definition of Industrial was added to clarify which types of industrial sources are included or exempt. The ICAPCD issues and enforces permits which contain conditions as required by law for stationary industrial sources. Therefore, for those sources required to comply with permit conditions applying Rule 310 would be akin to assessing the facility twice which is fundamentally unfair. In order to avoid placing an unfair burden upon those industrial sources permitted through the ICAPCD the definition for industrial identifies those sources subject to Rule 207, New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule and/or Rule 201, Permits Required. VII. WAREHOUSE CATEGORY ANALYSIS As stated above the only category that would not trigger a Proposition 26 review is the warehouse category. When one imagines a warehouse, they may think of a large structure housing goods that are stored for future shipment to retailers for the purchase and consumption of an unknown customer. While this description seems all inclusive, it Draft Staff Report May 24, 2011 Page 8

9 is in fact not. Based on the description just given this warehouse could have significantly different emission rates and vehicle counts based on its commercial or industrial purpose. It could be a Costco type warehouse, whereby its emission rates and vehicle count would be significantly higher than a warehouse which only provides goods to retailers, i.e. Walmart or The Merriam Webster dictionary defines a warehouse as a structure or room for the storage of merchandise or commodities. Several sections of the Health and Safety Code define warehouse depending on the nature of the code. For example, under the Commercial Code section 7102 (13) a warehouse, means a person engaged in the business of storing goods for hire. The United States Department of the Interior, Customs and Immigration, define warehouse by type, essentially, private and public, each containing subcategories directly tied to the warehouse keeper s obligations under the Customs Warehouse procedures. A public warehouse essentially is one that stores goods for other people at a profit. A private warehouse is one in which the owner of the warehouse owns the goods stored in order to supply to retailers in the future. As you can imagine, under the private warehouse category there are a multitude of different types and sizes all contributing significantly different levels of emissions and attracting different vehicle trip rates. For example, a retail distribution center typically provides a variety of products to retail stores such as Walmart. A catalog fulfillment or e-commerce distribution center receives small orders from individuals by phone, fax or internet where orders are typically small but in high volume requiring a large square footage for storage and internal equipment such as conveyors. On the other spectrum is the perishable warehouse which handles food, fresh flowers, vaccines or other products requiring refrigeration to protect its very short shelf life. These warehouses are riddled by regulation concerning handling and indoor ambient temperature controls to prevent contamination (i.e. salmanila). This type of warehouse may have varying temperatures within the warehouse depending on the product stored. Because refrigeration is expensive space is a factor and most of these warehouses utilize every inch effectively. In any event, these are examples of the variety of warehouses which exists in today s economy. Seven studies on warehouses were analyzed by the Southcoast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and ENVIRON International when developing CalEEMod. Combined, the studies examine 68 different warehouse buildings, 35 of which were in California. Unlike URBEMIS which used a single category and hence a single vehicle trip count CalEEMod split the warehouse category into four distinct types: Refrigerated with a rail system, refrigerated without a rail system, unrefrigerated with a rail system and unrefrigerated without a rail system. These four types or categories provided enough information to identify a reasonable vehicle trip rate however the data analysis concluded that further study was required because as SCAQMD noted trip rates had no correlation to building size. While the obvious conclusion that a small warehouse attracts less vehicle trips than a large warehouse has been widely held by past analyst it is in fact an incorrect assumption. The data provided by the seven Draft Staff Report May 24, 2011 Page 9

10 studies, mentioned above and SCAQMD s own overhead and oblique aerial photography indicated that there are some large warehouses that generate less daily vehicle trips than small warehouses. In fact, the studies indicated that small distribution centers can and do generate exponentially larger vehicles trips than regular public type warehouses. It seems that the key to the vehicle trip count that should be applied to warehouses is not size but the customer base. It is evident, that further study is required on warehouses. In any event, the developers of CalEEMod, lowered the daily trip rate for warehouses with a caveat that the deviation between the reporting of actual vehicle counts for the different types of warehouses and the commonly accepted daily trip rate under the ITE Generation Manual for warehouses may underreport the actual emissions produced. Underreporting of emissions directly undermines the intent of Rule 310. Still, the ICAPCD conducted the analysis for the warehouse category utilizing CalEEMod and tied the dollar value not only on the average square footage but to the average daily vehicle trip rate. The result is that those warehouses that have a daily trip rate lower than 148 daily trips may apply for the.38 per square foot. The ICAPCD also understands that the reverse could occur with warehouses, in that a small warehouse may not attract as many daily vehicle trips as a large warehouse and so the ICAPCD is proposing a Commercial Request for Review whereby ANY commercial entity, not just warehouses, may request a review because they feel their emissions are below the $1.60 per square foot threshold. VIII. PROPOSITION 26 AND RULE 310 In November of 2010, California registered voters passed Proposition 26 requiring a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature for Any change in state statute which results in any taxpayer paying a higher tax. The newly adopted proposition also seems to define tax as any levy, charge or exaction of any kind for both State and Local Governments with some enumerated exceptions. 1. User fees or charges for a specific government service or product 2. Charge for entrance to or use of government property 3. A fine, penalty or other charge imposed for violating the law. 4. Charge imposed for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted. 5. Charge imposed for reasonable regulatory costs incident to issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, and audits, enforcing agricultural marketing orders 6. A charge imposed as a condition of property development 7. Assessments and property related fees imposed in accordance with Proposition 218. The analysis conducted both by the ICAPCD and MBA suggests that any proposed fee increase by Rule 310 would trigger a two-thirds vote. In addition, any proposal of a fee increase would lay the burden of proof upon the ICAPCD by a preponderance of the Draft Staff Report May 24, 2011 Page 10

11 evidence that the proposed fee increase is not a tax and that the amount proposed is no more than necessary to cover reasonable costs and that the costs are allocated in such a manner such that the payor bears a fair and reasonable relationship to the payor s burden or benefit received. Although the court upheld the indirect source review (ISR) rules adopted and implemented by the San Joaquin Valley Air District as a regulatory fee attempting to adopt fee increases under the Rule 310 revision would require extensive legal review and analysis imposing a greater amount of resources and time beyond the intent of simply amending the rule to address deficiencies. 6 However, amending the Rule to a lower fee would NOT trigger a two thirds vote and is recommended by the ICAPCD. IX. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION During the original development of the rule, the ICAPCD conducted several Joint Advisory Committee meetings, workshops and presentations at various City Council meetings throughout Imperial County. For the revision the ICAPCD conducted a public workshop on XXX XX, 2011 allowing the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed revisions to Rule 310. In addition, letters and s were sent to the previous Joint Advisory Committee for their solicitation and input. On XXXX XX, 2011 the revisions to Rule 310 and the staff report were presented to the Advisory Board. Upon review and discussion the Advisory Board is recommending the adoption of the revisions to Rule 310 and the Staff Report as presented. X. STAFF ICAPCD staff recommends adoption of the revisions to Rule 310 Operational Development Fee and the associated staff report as presented. The revisions will only serve to strengthen the Nexus requirement, the CEQA requirements concerning mitigation of significant impacts and provide additional emission reductions necessary to attain the PM 10 and ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard XI. REFERENCES 1. RULE 310, Operational Development Fee, adopted November 6, 2007 with revisions December 02, 2008 and January 01, RULE 310, Operational Development Fee, staff report adopted November 6, Nexus Assessment Technical Report, Imperial County Air Pollution Control District, dated November 30, 2010 by Michael Brandman Associates 6 Rule 310 was modeled in light of the requirements of the ISR rules adopted and implemented by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Draft Staff Report May 24, 2011 Page 11

12 4. Rule 310 Operational Development Fee Assessment, Imperial County Air Pollution Control District, dated November 30, 2010 by Michael Brandman Associates. 5. URBEMIS2007 for Windows Software User s Guide, by Environmental Management Software, dated November CalEEMod Appendix E, Technical Source Documentation, prepared for South Coast Air Quality Management District by ENVIRON International Corporation, dated February 2011 XII. DECLARATION OF FINDINGS The Imperial County Air Pollution Control District Board hereby finds as follows: The adoption of the revisions to Rule 310, as presented along with the associated staff report and appendices for the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD) is not considered a project within the meaning of Section of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The ICAPCD is a regulatory agency and the public agency with the principle responsibility for carrying out the project. Clean air is a valuable and an essential natural resource. The revisions to Rule 310 as presented, along with the associated staff report and appendices will strengthen the Nexus requirement, provide for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements to mitigate impacts and to aid in the restoration of a natural resource by reducing the amount of air pollutants introduced into the ambient air. The revisions to Rule 310, as presented, along with the associated staff report and appendices will serve to enhance and protect the environment by aiding in the control of sources of air pollution. There has been no evidence presented to suggest that the revisions to Rule 310, as presented, along with the associated staff report and appendices will have a significant adverse effect on the environment. There has been no evidence presented to suggest that the revisions to Rule 310, as presented, along with the associated staff report and appendices will lead to or result in cumulative adverse impacts. Health and Safety Code and provides the authority to the ICAPCD to adopt the revisions to Rule 310, as presented. Draft Staff Report May 24, 2011 Page 12

13 The revisions to Rule 310, as presented, along with the associated staff report and appendices are clear and capable of being understood by those persons directly affected by it. The revisions to Rule 310, as presented, along with the associated staff report and appendices do not conflict with or contradict any existing statute, court decision, or state or federal regulation. The revisions to Rule 310, as presented, along with the associated staff report and appendices are not duplicative of any existing state or federal regulation. The ICAPCD has a population of less than 500,000 people. Draft Staff Report May 24, 2011 Page 13