Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

FINAL DRAFT STAFF REPORT 

December 15, 2005

Rule 9510 – Indirect Source Review (ISR) 

Rule 3180 – Administrative Fees for Indirect Source Review 

Prepared by: Chrystal Meier, Air Quality Specialist

Jennifer Barba, Senior Air Quality Specialist 

Dave Mitchell, Planning Manager 

Tom Jordan, Special Projects Administrator 

Scott Nester, Planning Director 

I. SUMMARY 

A. Reasons for Rule Development and Implementation

The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) is classified as a nonattainment area for the 

state and federal health based ambient ozone and PM10 standards by the California Air 

Resources Board (ARB) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The 

SJVAB is currently classified as serious nonattainment for the 24-hour and annual 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter 10 microns in 

size and smaller (PM10), serious nonattainment for the new federal 8-hour ozone 

standard, non-attainment for the new federal PM2.5 standard, and severe 

nonattainment for the 1-hour state ozone standard. 

Legislation 

SB 709, Florez, was passed by the state legislature, was signed by Governor Gray 

Davis, and codified into the Health and Safety Code in §40604 in 2003. This requires 

the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District to adopt, by regulation, a schedule 

of fees to be assessed on areawide or indirect sources of emissions. 

PM10 Plan Commitment. 

The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (District) adopted its 2003 

PM10 Plan on June 19, 2003, which projects attainment of the NAAQS for PM10 at the 

earliest practicable date of December 31, 2010. As part of its PM10 attainment 

strategy, the District is required to reduce directly emitted PM10 and the PM10 

precursor oxides of nitrogen (NOx). The 2003 PM10 Plan commits the District to 

develop new rules or amend existing rules to achieve these emission reductions. The 

Indirect Source Rule (ISR) is one of the commitments contained in the 2003 PM10 Plan 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Draft Staff Report: Rules 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

2

to meet these requirements. The ISR commitment will be implemented through Rule 

3180 and Rule 9510. Indirect sources are land uses that attract or generate motor 

vehicle trips. 

Ozone Plan Commitment. 

Emission reductions from Rule 9510 are also important for attaining state and federal 

ozone standards. As an extreme nonattainment area, the SJVAB was required by the 

Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) to attain the NAAQS for ozone by November 15, 2010. In 

order to achieve attainment by 2010, the Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration 

Plan contained commitments to reduce a precursor of ozone, NOx and volatile organic 

compounds (VOC). These commitments included NOx reductions from indirect 

sources. Although the federal one-hour standard has been revoked, the plan 

commitments must still be implemented to ensure progress is made toward attaining 

the new more stringent 8-hour ozone standard. By 2007, the District will be required to 

prepare a plan to comply with the federal 8-hour ozone standard that is expected to 

require additional reductions. Additionally, the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires 

the District to adopt all feasible control measures to attain the standards. 

Health Impacts of Non-Attainment 

Since 1996 there have been more than 800 new scientific studies published that 

associate the effects of airborne particulates on human health. Overall the studies 

validate earlier research and confirm the relationship between particulate air pollution, 

illness, hospitalization and premature death. Infants and children, particularly asthmatic 

children, are especially sensitive to the effects of fine particulate pollutions. For 

additional information on particulate health impacts see the 2003 PM10 Plan, Chapter 

1. 

Ozone research has produced strong evidence that correlates exposure to ozone and 

adverse health effects. In humans, ozone can irritate and inflame the respiratory tract, 

particularly during heavy physical activity, which results in heavy coughing, throat 

irritation, and breathing difficulties. For additional information on ozone health impacts 

see the District’s Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan, Section 2.3. 

B. District Authority and Limitations

Authority 

The primary provision of state law giving the District authority to regulate indirect source 

emissions is part of the California Clean Air Act legislation adopted in 1988. The 

provision, incorporated into Health and Safety Code, Section 40716, states that “a 

district may adopt and implement regulations to ... reduce or mitigate emissions from 

indirect and areawide sources of air pollution.” To further clarify, a California Attorney 

General opinion issued in 1993 states that 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Draft Staff Report: Rules 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

3

“a district’s regulations may require the developer of an indirect source to 

submit the plans to the district for review and comment prior to the issuance 

of a permit for construction by a city or county. A district may also require the 

owner of an indirect source to adopt reasonable post-construction measures 

to mitigate particular indirect effects of the facility’s operation. Such 

regulations could be enforced through an action for civil penalties...” 

Indirect source mitigation programs are also consistent with ARB’s interpretation of the 

CCAA all feasible measures requirement: 

“every feasible measure to mean that, at a minimum, a district consider 

regulations that have been successfully implemented elsewhere. They 

should also consider going beyond what has already been accomplished by 

evaluating new technologies and innovative approaches that may offer 

potential emission reductions. Further, districts should consider not only 

technological factors, but also social, environmental, economic (e.g., costeffectiveness), and energy factors which prevail in the district, along with the 

resources realistically available to the district to adopt, implement, and 

enforce the measures.” 

Health and Safety Code 42311(g) allows districts to adopt a schedule of fees on 

areawide or indirect sources which are regulated, but for which permits are not issued, 

to cover the costs of District programs related to this source. SB 709, Florez, was 

passed by the state legislature, was signed by Governor Gray Davis, and codified into 

the Health and Safety Code in §40604 in 2003. This requires the San Joaquin Valley 

Air Pollution Control District to adopt, by regulation, a schedule of fees to be assessed 

on areawide or indirect sources of emissions. 

Finally, the District has the authority to control indirect sources, defined in the Clean Air 

Act (CAA §110(a)(5)(C)) as, “... a facility, building, structure, installation, real property, 

road, or highway which attracts, or may attract, mobile sources of pollution”(emphasis 

added). This authority comes from the CAA §110(a)(5)(A)(i): 

“Any State may include in a State implementation plan ... any indirect source 

review program.” 

Analysis of Nexus Applicability 

The District analyzed the applicability of Nexus requirements for Rule 9510 and 3180. 

The District’s legal council’s analysis found that the Rule and supporting documentation 

likely meets the federal ‘reasonable relationship test’. In addition, the analysis found 

that the California Mitigation Fee Act (CGC §66000 et seq.) does not apply to Rule 

9510 and 3180. The analysis similarly found that California Proposition 13 and 218 do 

not apply to Rules 9510 and 3180. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Draft Staff Report: Rules 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

4

California’s Mitigation Fee Act (CGC §66000 et seq.) establishes authority and 

limitations on fees or taxes charged, “by a local agency to the applicant in connection 

with approval of a development project.” CGC §66001 (a) states, “In any action 

establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of approval of a development 

project by a local agency on or after January 1, 1989, the local agency shall do all of the 

following,” and §66001 (b), “In any action imposing a fee as condition of approval of a 

development project. (Italics added).” The District cannot impose on the local land-use 

authority and will not be approving or disapproving development projects. As such, the 

District cannot place ‘conditions of approval’ on a project. Therefore, the Mitigation Fee 

Act does not apply to the ISR Rule. The District does not consider the action of 

approving or disapproving an air quality analysis and assessment of fees as a 

discretionary action. 

Limitations 

The District will not be approving development projects, but the air impact assessments 

associated with development projects. In this approval, the District will assess air 

impacts, the amount of reduction required by the rule, the amount of applicant-specified 

on-site emission reductions, and the amount of off-site emissions reductions needed, if 

any. The District recognizes the land-use authority of SJVAB Cities and Counties and 

does not have land-use authority itself. 

II. RULE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS 

As part of the rule development process for this project, District staff held public scoping 

meetings in Fresno, Modesto, and Bakersfield in October 2003. At the scoping meetings, 

District staff presented the objectives of the proposed rulemaking project, collected 

information, and received comments from interested parties, local agencies, the building 

industry, real estate associations, consultants, and trade associations. The comments 

received were incorporated into the draft rules and staff report. In March of 2004, the 

District presented a draft Rule 9510, and several other documents. In June of 2005, the 

District presented draft Rule 9510 and draft Rule 3180, as well as associated appendices. 

 The comments received were incorporated into the draft rules and staff report. In 

addition, District staff held a public workshop September 1, 2005 and solicited input on 

the draft rule and associated documents. The District received comments from interested 

parties and affected entities. Information obtained throughout this workshop process was 

used to develop and modify the draft rules and staff report. 

Pursuant to state law, District staff is required to perform an assessment of the 

socioeconomic impacts prior to the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a rule that will 

have significant air quality benefits or that will strengthen emission limitations. As a part 

of the District’s socioeconomic analysis process, District staff held a Focus Group 

meeting on August 11, 2005 to assist in the collection of socioeconomic data for the 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Draft Staff Report: Rules 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

5

implementation of the new proposed program. The Focus Group consisted of a limited 

number of representatives from interested groups. 

Final drafts of the proposed rules, staff report, emission reductions analysis, cost 

effectiveness analysis, on-site emission reduction checklist, socioeconomic analysis, 

and rule consistency analysis, will be published prior to a public hearing by the 

Governing Board to consider the adoption of proposed Rules 3180 and 9510. The 

tentative schedule for the public hearing to consider the adoption of the newly proposed 

rules by the District Governing Board is for December 15, 2005. 

III. BACKGROUND 

A. Growth and Emissions

The District exceeds state and federal air quality standards for ozone and PM10, 

despite significant reduction of air pollution from both mobile and stationary sources, 

primarily because of increases in population and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the 

SJVAB. 

Reductions 

Federal, state and local efforts have led to approximately 30 percent reduction in smog 

precursors and a ten percent reduction in PM10 (overall) in the SJVAB since 19901. 

Significant reductions from stationary sources have been achieved, so that mobile 

sources now produce 69 percent of all NOx emissions in the District. Today's new cars 

pollute about 90 percent less than models produced 25 years ago due to California's 

strict vehicle emissions standards. By 2003, the average new car in California will 

pollute 75 percent less than 1994 models2. Although these standards will continue to 

greatly improve air quality, large increases in population and driving partially reduce the 

benefits of cleaner motor vehicles. The following chart shows how much lower the 

emissions from motor vehicles would be if growth were not to occur. 

Figure 1 

Difference in NOx Emissions for All Vehicle Types

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2006 2010 2015

Year

tons 

Growth

No Growth
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Draft Staff Report: Rules 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

6

Population Growth 

The SJVAB has experienced a large increase in population in the past several 

decades. The total population in the District increased by 22% between 1990 and 

2000, and California’s Department of Finance is projecting that the SJVAB will see an 

overall increase in population of 24% between 2000 and 2010. Each county varies, 

with the highest expected growth in terms of percentage increase in Madera, and the 

lowest expected growth in Fresno, but in terms of numbers of people, Fresno is 

expected to see the largest increase3. With increased population there is an increase 

in emissions from area sources, such as consumer products, fuel combustion, 

landscape maintenance equipment, etc. 

VMT Growth 

The total number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the District has increased at a 

faster rate than population growth. The District witnessed a nine percent increase 

between 1999 and 2002, and is expecting a 27 percent increase from 2002 to 20104

. 

Entrained and re-entrained paved road dust and corresponding PM10 emissions, 

increase as VMT increases. The ozone and PM10 precursor NOx, also increases as 

VMT increases. 

Figure 2

PM10 Emissions from Development

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2006 2010 2015

Year

Emissions (tpd)

Re-entrained Paved

Road Dust Growth

Motor Vehicle Exhaust

Growth

Construction Exhaust

Increased Emissions From Growth 

The past and projected increases in population, associated development and 

construction emissions and vehicle miles traveled, and the slower than expected 

introduction of technological advances in automobile and truck emission controls, have 

significantly slowed progress toward attainment. The ISR program can reduce and 

offset some of the growth in emissions and is required for attainment of the federal 

ozone and PM10 standards by the dates required in ozone and PM10 attainment plans. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Draft Staff Report: Rules 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

7

B. Existing Indirect Source Programs 

The District identified several examples of air pollution agencies in California that are 

currently reviewing land use projects for indirect source impacts and/or collecting 

mitigation fees in their districts. Five air pollution agencies have adopted and 

implemented an indirect source rule or policy. The methods and authority over 

development projects vary from air district to air district. Brief descriptions of these 

programs are provided below. 

Mendocino County Air Quality Management District (AQMD) outlines their permitting 

process for indirect sources in Rule 1-200. The rule requires any indirect source to 

obtain an Authority to Construct (ATC) prior to starting construction. When Mendocino 

AQMD receives an application, they perform a California Environmental Quality Act 

(CEQA) determination. The ATC is not issued until a Notice of Determination is 

completed and filed. 

Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (APCD) also has an indirect 

source permit rule in place, Rule 216. This rule defines indirect sources as a secondary 

source, which is any structure, building, facility, equipment, installation, operation, or 

aggregation thereof. The application and associated informational documents are 

reviewed, and an analysis on expected emissions and air quality impact is performed. 

Public notice is published, and the general public is allowed to review and comment. 

The District then considers comments and imposes conditions on the approval of the 

permit or denies a permit if it is determined that the secondary source will contribute to 

a violation of any air quality standard. The fees imposed on secondary sources in 

Great Basin are outlined in Rule 301. Those fees are based on the size of the 

commercial unit and the number of parking spaces, or the number of residential 

dwelling units. 

Colusa County APCD has an indirect source fee rule, Rule 4.8. The fees are 

assessed for building permit applicants during the city or county’s permit process. The 

fees are based on the square footage of commercial or industrial projects, or by 

residential unit. The city or county may retain an administrative fee of ten percent. The 

fees are used to offset the District’s costs, and any excess is used to mitigate air quality 

impacts. 

Placer County APCD has instituted a “Policy Regarding Land Use Air Quality 

Mitigation Funds.” During CEQA review, the APCD assesses total emissions that are 

estimated to occur during the ozone season from a particular project. The emissions 

are estimated by utilizing URBEMIS, which will be mentioned later in this staff report. 

After estimating emissions during the ozone season from URBEMIS, Placer County 

APCD requires 40% mitigation of a project’s impact or to below a significance threshold, 

either on-site, off-site, by paying a fee, or a combination of those options. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Draft Staff Report: Rules 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

8

Shasta County AQMD has adopted Rule 3:16, which allows Shasta County to place 

reasonable conditions on any fugitive, indirect or non-traditional source. At the current 

time, Shasta County utilizes the rule to mitigate the impact of new residential dirt roads 

by requiring paving or paying a fee. Their Resolution 84-2 authorizes an in-lieu buy out 

schedule for road paving, which is currently set at $800 per parcel below 1,000 feet in 

elevation. 

In addition to the above examples, numerous government agencies in the SJVAB have 

created impact fee programs that have proved useful in drafting this program. The 

most common are transportation/transit impact fees for cities such as Bakersfield, 

Lathrop, and Visalia. The City of Stockton and the City of Turlock also have air quality 

impact fee programs in place. 

C. Program Options

The District considered several options for the initial approach to the ISR program. The 

options were developed to coincide with the normal development process as a 

condition of application completeness during the environmental review with a 

city/county, or while compiling conditions of permit approval as part of the 

cities/counties development processes. 

District Permit Program: This option would require permit applicants to obtain a permit 

from the District prior to paying the city/county’s building permit fees. The District could 

require applicants to provide specific documents needed to determine the emissions 

from the project using URBEMIS. The District could then require on-site emission 

reduction measures as conditions of approval of the permit and/or calculate a fee. 

Under this option, the District could collect the off-site fee prior to issuing the District 

permit or defer the fee until the city/county issued the building permit. 

City/County Review & Administration: This option would allow the city/county to review 

the emissions generation of an applicant’s project, likely using URBEMIS. Under this 

option, the city/county would collect the off-site fee, if any, and transfer the fee to the 

District’s off-site fund account(s). The city/county could also operate the entire program 

including expenditure of funds on emission reduction projects if the city/county adopted 

a program at least as effective at reducing emissions as the District’s rule. 

District Review & City/County Administration: Under this option, the District would 

require the applicant to provide documents necessary to perform an emissions 

generation analysis, likely using URBEMIS. The District would calculate the off-site fee 

amount based on total emissions and identify credits for specific on-site emission 

reduction measures included in the project. Prior to authorization of a building permit, 

the city/county would review the list, check which on-site measures have been 

incorporated into the project, and collect the fee, if any. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Draft Staff Report: Rules 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

9

Simple Fee: This option would allow cities/counties to charge an off-site fee based on 

certain criteria, such as size or number of units. If this option was pursued, most likely 

the per unit fee would be based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip 

generation rates for the different land uses and emissions calculated by URBEMIS. 

Under this option, the city or county would assess and collect the fee. An appeal 

program or a rebate program would be a possibility to give credit for any on-site 

measures that were performed or incorporated into the design of the project. 

District Review & Administration: Under this option, the District would require the 

applicant to provide documents necessary to perform an emissions generation analysis, 

likely using URBEMIS. The District would calculate a required reduction amount based 

on total emissions and identify credits for specific on-site emission reduction measures 

included in the project. Required reductions not achieved by voluntary on-site 

measures would be achieved off-site through an offset fee. Offsite reductions would be 

subject to criteria including (but not limited to) being quantifiable and surplus. The 

District would conduct annual reporting to analyze the effectiveness of the off-site 

emission reduction program. 

The District chose to pursue the ‘District Review & Administration’ option for several 

factors. Primarily, the District chose to craft the ISR rules to be compatible with local 

land-use authorities decision-making processes, and to have the ability to be worked 

into CEQA documents at the Lead Agencies’ discretion. The District includes the 

options for voluntary on-site emission reduction measures that would allow a reduction 

in off-site fees. 

IV. PROPOSED REGULATIONS 

A. Proposed Rule 9510

The purpose of proposed Rule 9510 is to reduce emissions of NOx and PM10 from new 

development projects. The rule applies to development projects that will seek to gain a 

discretionary approval for projects that, upon full build-out will include any one of the 

following: 50 residential units, 2,000 square feet of commercial space, 25,000 square 

feet of industrial space, 20,000 square feet of medical office space, 39,000 square feet 

of general office space, 9,000 square feet of educational space, 10,000 square feet of 

government space, 20,000 square feet of recreational space, or 9,000 square feet of 

uncategorized space. The rule also applies to transportation projects whose 

construction exhaust emissions will result in a total of two tons per year of NOx and 

PM10 combined. However, there are several sources that are exempt. These include 

transportation projects that meet certain conditions, reconstruction projects that result 

from a natural disaster, development project’s whose primary functions are from District 

permitted stationary sources. Also, development projects that have a mitigated 

baseline below two tons per year for NOx and PM10 shall be exempt from the 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Draft Staff Report: Rules 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

10

mitigation requirements of the rule. Anti-circumvention language was added to prevent 

piecemealing of development projects. 

Applicability 

Rule 9510 applies to any applicant that applies for a final discretionary approval for a 

development project which will include any of the following: 50 residential units; 2,000 

square feet (sf) of commercial space; 25,000 sf of light industrial space; 100,000 sf of 

heavy industrial space; 20,000 sf of medical office space; 39,000 sf of general office 

space; 9,000 sf of educational space; 10,000 sf of government space; 20,000 sf of 

recreational space; 9,000 sf of space not identified, and; transportation and transit 

projects where construction exhaust emissions results in a total of 2 tons of NOx and 

PM10 combined.

Exemptions 

Transportation and Transit projects are only subject to the construction emission 

reduction requirements of the rule. Development projects subject to the rule that 

reduce their operational emissions to less than 2 tons per year of NOx and PM10 each 

not subject to the rule’s operational or construction emission reductions requirements. 

Reconstruction of a development that was damaged or destroyed that is rebuilt to 

essentially the same use and intensity is similarly not subject the rule’s requirements. 

In addition, development projects whose primary functions are regulated by District 

permits are exempt. Those stationary source projects are exempted because the 

projects’ primary emissions are from stationary sources that are currently regulated by 

District rules and permitting requirements. 

Application 

Rule 9510 requires applicants of new development projects to submit an Air Impact 

Assessment (AIA) application to the District prior to or at the project’s application for a 

final discretionary approval with a public agency. The application would include the 

information necessary for the District to perform an assessment, project location and 

description, an on-site emission reduction checklist, and an assessment by the 

applicant (if desired). An AIA would consist of inputting project data into an APCOapproved model to estimate emissions, and inputting on-site emission reduction 

measures that are components of the project design and/or other project specifics to 

calculate emissions reductions. This will be performed by the District and may be 

performed by the applicant. The emissions and emissions reduction outputs will be 

used to calculate the amount of on-site emission reduction is achieved, and what the 

off-site emission reduction fee would be, if any. Proposed Rule 9510 specifies the use 

of an APCO-approved model (Draft Rule 9510 Section 3.2), which in most cases will be 

URBEMIS. In the event that URBEMIS is not suitable for the proposed land use (i.e. 

does not have ITE trip rate), the District may approve another model, or review and 

approve off-line with project-specific calculations. If project-specific data is entered into 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Draft Staff Report: Rules 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

11

the APCO-approved model and overrides defaults, the applicant shall document and 

justify those project-specific inputs. 

On-Site Emission Reduction Checklist 

The measures listed in the checklist have a known quantification methodology in 

URBEMIS 8.7. The methodologies can be found in the URBEMIS User’s Guide, 

available at South Coast AQMD’s website http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/urbemis.html. The 

on-site emission reduction checklist shall identify which measures have been voluntarily 

selected by the applicant, the enforcement mechanisms available for those measures, 

and the reasons for not selecting the remaining measures. All measures selected that 

are above District or State requirements, regardless of enforcement mechanism, will 

count towards emission reductions for the project, in accordance with the 

methodologies in URBEMIS. The measures for the On-Site Emission Reduction 

Checklist can be found in Appendix C. 

On-Site Enhancing Measures 

The District has identified several measures that are known to have an air quality 

benefit. However, at this time they do not have a quantification methodology for 

project-level emission reductions. These measures still have a beneficial air quality 

impact. For this reason, the District will maintain a list of ‘On-Site Enhancing Measures’ 

and make it available to applicants. There are no requirements on selection of 

measures from the On-Site Enhancing Measures list. As emission reduction 

methodologies are determined for these and other new measures, they can be 

incorporated into URBEMIS. The list is available in Appendix C. 

Monitoring and Reporting Schedule 

For projects that select on-site measures that do not already have an enforcement 

mechanism, a proposed SJVAPCD On-Site Monitoring and Reporting Schedule (MRS) 

will be completed. The District will provide a standard form for the MRS, and the 

applicant is responsible for completing the MRS. The District will then work with the 

applicant to finalize the MRS. Draft Rule 9510 §5.4 discusses the components of a 

MRS. 

Fee Deferral Schedule 

In addition to the AIA application, the applicant may propose a Fee Deferral Schedule 

at the time of application or during application review in anticipation of a possible offsite fee, or within 15 days of receiving an off-site fee invoice. The District will provide 

the Fee Deferral Schedule format. The applicant can choose the schedule of 

payments, but all fees for a development or phase thereof must be received prior to 

construction of that development or phase thereof. Draft Rule 9510 §5.5 discusses the 

components of a FDS. 

Completeness Finding 

The District will have 10 days to determine whether or not the application is complete. 

After the District deems the application complete, the District has 30 days to approve 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Draft Staff Report: Rules 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

12

the application and notify the applicant of the estimated fee amounts. In addition, the 

application and MRS will be submitted to the applicable public agency for voluntary 

review. The public agency may provide comment at their discretion. The applicant may 

have the assessment modified to incorporate more on-site measures, if desired. Once 

the proposed MRS is approved, the District and the applicant shall finalize the MRS. If 

there are changes to the project that will impact the emissions total or schedule of buildout, the applicant shall notify the District of that change within 60 days of said changes, 

or prior to the start of project construction, whichever is first. As stated above, if a 

project mitigates to less than two tons of operational NOx and PM10, it will not be 

subject to the required emission reductions stated in the draft Rule 9510 §4.3. 

Required Emission Reductions 

Proposed Rule 9510 would require applicants to reduce NOx and PM10 emissions. 

The rule is designed to reduce the impact of the development projects to the extent 

needed for the District to reach attainment of ozone and PM10 standards. The District 

calculated the level of reduction needed on a per-project basis that would achieve the 

emission reduction committed to in the PM10 and ozone attainment plans. Draft Rule 

9510 Section 6.0, et seq., describes the required emission reductions. 

Although the majority of the NOx emissions associated with a project are due to motor 

vehicles, there is a decline in NOx emissions over time due to ARB’s tailpipe controls. 

The NOx mitigation fee is structured to account for a 50% decline in annual NOx 

emissions from motor vehicles over ten years. Thus, the rule requires mitigation of the 

cumulative NOx emissions in excess of 50% of the project’s operational baseline 

emissions (the emissions at the first year of buildout) until the project’s emissions reach 

half of the project’s first-year baseline emissions, which is approximately 10 years. This 

method ensures that a project does not over-mitigate its emissions. Draft Rule 9510 

Sections 3.8 defines baseline emissions. Rule 9510 Sections 3.10 and 3.27 define 

construction baseline and operational baseline, respectively. Rule 9510 Section 3.20 

defines ‘mitigated baseline’. Project emissions and the required mitigation can be 

visually represented as follows: 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Draft Staff Report: Rules 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

13

Figure 3

NOx Project Emissions and Reductions Compared to 50% of 

the First Year Emissions

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Number of Years

Emissions (tons)

Baseline Project

Emissions in

Excess of 50% of

First Year

50% of first Year

In essence, the NOx mitigation required for Rule 9510 is represented above by the 

triangle, which is equal to one third of total project emissions during the first ten years. 

The applicant can reduce the emissions represented by that triangle by using on-site 

mitigation measures, by paying the District a fee to fund emission reduction projects offsite, or through a combination of the two. The fee amount would decrease or be 

eliminated depending on the amount of on-site mitigation incorporated by the applicant 

into the design of the project. 

The PM10 mitigation requirement is different from NOx. Operational PM10 emissions 

from a project do not decline over time – they remain constant. Accordingly, Rule 9510 

will require mitigation equal to half of the emissions for the first year after build-out for 

10 years (the same period of time required for NOx mitigation). 

Proposed Rule 9510 would also require applicants to reduce NOx and PM10 

construction equipment emissions. The rule requirement is to reduce construction NOx 

emissions by 20% and PM10 emissions by 45% beyond the statewide average. In 

determining the level of reduction for construction emissions, the District researched 

what other air districts had set, and found those targets are achievable. There are 

several options available for controlling NOx and PM10 emissions from equipment used 

for construction on-site. Options can include, utilizing newer equipment, altering fuel 

type, modifying an engine, or using exhaust after-treatment devices, to meet the rule 

requirements. New equipment can provide a high percentage of emissions reductions, 

depending on the horsepower and the year of the equipment. The reductions are 

achievable with existing technology with a mix of newer equipment and retrofit devices, 

and will allow applicants applying moderate effort to pay no fee on construction.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Draft Staff Report: Rules 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

14

Achieving Emission Reductions 

If on-site mitigation measures are chosen by the applicant, the applicant shall submit a 

MRS to the District for the those on-site mitigation measures that do not have built in 

enforcement mechanisms. All on-site emission reductions measures that are above 

District and State requirements will be credited to emission reductions for the project. 

The MRS will identify enforcement mechanisms, which may include identifying specific 

funding mechanisms, as well as monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting. The 

Proposed MRS shall be forwarded by the District to the public agency for review. It is 

important to note that the percent reduction achieved onsite results in a greater 

reduction of the NOx fee. While on-site mitigation is not required, the “bigger bang for 

the buck” is achieved with as much on-site mitigation as possible. For example, when 

onsite NOx reductions exceed the excess emissions above 50% of the first year’s 

baseline, the NOx fee becomes zero. Additionally, if the onsite measures reduce the 

NOx and PM10 to less than 2 tons per year each at buildout (baseline), no additional 

reductions are required. See Table 1 for examples of on-site emission reductions and 

the associated off-site fee reduction. See Table 2 for a list of simple measures that 

small projects can achieve, and a list for larger projects. If the emission reductions 

required by the rule are not fully achieved on-site, off-site fees would be required. 

The use of off-site fees is strictly limited to procurement of off-site emission reductions. 

 Absolutely no off-site funds may be used for District staffing or budget. The District 

shall provide annual reporting per draft Rule 9510 Section 10.4. Annual reports shall 

include, at a minimum: the total amount of off-site fees received; the total monies spent; 

total monies remaining; any refunds distributed; a list of all projects funded; the total 

emission reductions realized, and; the overall cost-effectiveness factor for the projects 

funded. 

Off-site mitigation would consist of paying a fee to fund emission reduction projects for 

required emission reductions that are not reduced on-site. Rule 9510 contains 

pollutant-specific fee formulas in Section 7.0, et seq. Appendix B shows how those 

formulas were developed. The off-site fees are strictly tonnage based. This means 

that all projects are treated equally, and assessed on the amount of emissions 

associated with the project. The fee formula applies equally to all applicable projects, 

accounts for the amount of on-site emission reductions. The fee would be payable in 

60 days upon notification of fee amount, unless the applicant has arranged a FDS with 

the District. 

Both the NOx and the PM10 fee formulas include a Cost of Reductions for one ton of 

that pollutant. These values were determined based on historical grant programs with 

the district and project fund use, and represents an average value for a range. 

Appendix E contains a greater description of how those values were derived. 

Rule 9510 directs the District to administer the fee use to achieve emissions reductions 

that the fees were based on, in a cost-effective manner. There are numerous emissions 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Draft Staff Report: Rules 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

15

reduction projects available. Potential projects are as follows: projects currently 

qualifying for the District’s Heavy-Duty Engine Incentive Program including, alternative 

fuel low-emission school buses, transit buses, and other vehicles, diesel engine retrofits 

and repowers for trucks, PM efficient street sweepers powered by natural gas, 

agricultural water pumping engine replacements, locomotive repower/retrofits, electric 

forklifts, etc. Other potential projects include gross polluter replacement, biomass 

subsidies, electric vehicle or lawn equipment rebates, truck refrigeration unit plug-ins at 

distribution centers, woodstove replacement/retirement, video-teleconferencing 

systems, and telecommuting start-up costs. Potential PM10 reduction programs 

include paving or treating unpaved traffic surfaces and shoulders and PM10 efficient 

street sweeper purchases. Some projects will achieve reductions of NOx and PM10. 

The funds will be managed by a grant-like program and allocated as applications are 

received. If a sufficient amount of applications to fund projects are not received, the 

District will consider a directive program that would be approved by the Governing 

Board. The District recognizes the sensitivity of the geographic distribution of the funds. 

 Any emissions reduction project will provide a localized benefit to the area of fee origin. 

Table 1 

On-Site Reductions and Associated Operational Off-Site Fee Reductions. 

On-Site Emission 

Reduction (%) 

Operational OffSite Fee Reduction 

(%) 

Example Project 

150 Single-Family Units in 2006 

On-Site Package

- Increased Density (from 50 to 30 acres) 

- No Wood Stoves 

- Increased Energy Efficiency by 10% 

- Located near local-Serving Retail 

- Bus Service Nearby 

- Traditional Street Design 

- Sidewalks on Both Sides of Street 

- Bikelanes on 20% of streets 

- 10% of units Deed-Restricted Below Market Rate

NOx 

12%

PM10 

36% 

NOx 

36% 

PM10 

72% 

On-Site Emission 

Reduction (%) 

Operational OffSite Fee 

Reduction (%) 

Example Project 

200 Multi-Family Units 

40,000 sf Strip Mall 

60,000 sf General Office

On-Site Package

- No Wood Stoves 

- Increased Energy Efficiency by 10% 

- Located near local-Serving Retail 

- Bus Service Nearby 

- Traditional Street Design 

- Sidewalks on Both Sides of Street 

- Bikelanes on 20% of streets 

- 5% of units Deed-Restricted Below Market Rate 

- Commercial and Retail implement Transportation 

Demand Measures 

- Commercial and Retail Reduce Parking Supply

NOx 

23%

PM10 

29% 

NOx 

68% 

PM10 

59% 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Draft Staff Report: Rules 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

16

Table 2 

Basic On-Site Measures for Small and Large Projects. 

Small Projects 

All Land Uses: 

Traditional Street Design 

Increased Energy Efficiency 

Include Sidewalks on all streets 

Locate near mass transit stops 

Locate near a mix of uses 

Residential: 

No Fireplaces or Woodstoves 

Locate near local serving retail 

Locate near jobs 

Non Residential: 

Reduce parking supply 

Locate near residences 

Implement Transportation Demand 

Measures 

Include Bike Racks

Large Projects 

Same as Small Projects, Plus: 

All Land Uses: 

Include a mix of uses 

Install Bike Paths or Bike Lanes and/or 

Pedestrian paths 

AIA Approval 

The District will provide a decision on the AIA application within 30 days of finding the 

application complete. The District will approve the AIA application or disapprove the 

AIA application. It is important to note that the District will not be approving a permit or 

other discretionary action as a result of Rule 9510. In addition, the District will not be 

approving or disapproving the development project itself, but the Air Impact 

Assessment application for that project. The authority for land-use decisions lies with 

the local land-use agency. The AIA application approval is ministerial and will not 

involve conditions of approval. 

MRS Maintenance 

For those projects that have a MRS with the District, the applicant is responsible for 

implementing those measures identified. The District is responsible for monitoring and 

receiving reports for on-site emission reduction measures. The District shall provide a 

tentative compliance letter to the applicant, public agency and public upon request. 

Upon completion of the last MRS requirement, the District shall provide a letter of MRS 

completion to the public agency and applicant. The District shall also make the letter 

available to the public. 

If the applicant committed to on-site construction emission reductions, the applicant is 

responsible for submitting the construction equipment schedule to the District prior to 

applying to the public agency for a grading permit. At that time, the District will verify 

construction emissions for the project. If the on-site emission reductions specified by 

the applicant are not achieved, the District shall assess and invoice for off-site fees 

required by the rule. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CON

Draft Staff Report: Rules 9510 and 3180 

17

Yes

Application

and

Application

Fee Submitted

Complete?

Notify applicantofCompletenessFinding

Problem? Send Approval Letter to Applica

Invoice for

Adminstrative Fe

if any

Satisfy MRS

10 Days to Deem

Complete

No

No

30 days to

Review for

Approval

Time 

Materia

Administrative Fees 

in 60 days

ISR Application Flow Chart

Yes

Stop 30 day clock

& ask for

clarification/

additional info

Send Application to Land

Use Authority for

Voluntary Review

(incl. Checklist and MRS)

Applicant

District

Is there an Off-Site

Fee?

Yes

No

Public Agency

Submit

Revised

Information

Is there an

MRS?

No Fee

Yes

Redesign project

or change on-site

measures

Resubmit

Application

Evaluateapplicationpacket, AIAinformation,Checklist, MRS,FDS

No Action

Required

Send Approval Letter to

Land Use Authority

No Action

Required

Approve

AIA

Public No Action

Required
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Draft Staff Report: Rules 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

18

B. Proposed Rule 3180

The purpose of proposed Rule 3180 is to recover the costs of administering Rule 9510. 

The proposed rule includes a non-refundable application-filing fee to be paid when an 

application is submitted to the District. Once an application and the application fee are 

received, district staff will log the total staff hours spent on the project using the 

District’s automated Labor Information System. The application evaluation fee will 

comprise those hours at a weighted average labor rate, minus the application-filing fee, 

so that only the cost of the actual hours spent on the project will be recovered. 

Rule 3180 also contains a fee equal to 4% of the offsite emission reduction fees to 

recover the cost of administering off-site emission reduction projects. The 4% would be 

payable when the offsite emission reduction fees are collected. 

C. Program Implementation - Streamlining

The process identified in Rule 9510 may be completed prior to or concurrent with the 

City/County permit review process. Specifically, Rule 9510 has been designed for noninterference with the City/County land-use and California Environmental Quality Act 

(CEQA) processes. However, information from the ISR process may be used by a 

Lead Agency in environmental documents, at their discretion. Currently, air quality 

impact assessments are usually required for projects with potentially significant air 

impacts. Since the NOx and PM10 pollutants will be addressed through ISR, it will not 

place an added burden to the applicant, and should provide a foundation for or replace 

the ozone precursor and PM10 emission analysis included in that environmental 

document. The On-Site Emission Reduction Checklist will help applicants identify 

quantifiable mitigation alternatives and provide justification for feasibility or infeasibility. 

The MRS will identify enforcement mechanisms for on-site emission reduction 

measures that were selected by the applicant. 

The District will provide information on the District’s website, such as application forms 

and guidance documents. The District will revise its Guidelines for Assessing and 

Mitigating the Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) document as needed. In addition, the 

District will work with Cities and Counties on additional measures to facilitate 

communication and streamlining of the application and review process. 

Finally, the ISR program is set up to allow the applicant to provide the AIA. However, 

the applicant is not required to provide modeling or emissions calculations. The District 

will prepare the AIA based on the project-specific information provided in the AIA 

application. The District will not charge a specific fee for modeling, but will invoice for 

any time and materials beyond that covered by the application filing fee. The 

application filing fee was estimated based on the average time expected to review and 

AIA application and conduct emissions calculations/modeling for the project. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Draft Staff Report: Rules 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

19

D. Use for Environmental Review – CEQA 

The ISR program operation is not subject to CEQA requirements. The review 

conducted on applications for the program is a ministerial action not subject to CEQA, 

per PRC §21080 Division Application to Discretionary Projects; Nonapplication; 

Negative Declarations; Environmental Impact Report Preparation (b)(1): 

 

(b) This division does not apply to any of the following activities: 

(1)Ministerial projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public 

agencies. 

The ISR Program will require an amount of emission reductions from certain 

development projects subject to the rule. Implementation and compliance with the rule 

will reduce the cumulative NOx and PM10 impacts of anticipated growth to less than 

significant because the reductions attributed to this program were identified in two 

attainment plans as necessary to achieve the applicable standards. CEQA Guidance 

document § 15064 (h)(3) statesA lead agency may determine that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative 

effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with requirements in a 

previously approved plan ... which provides specific requirements that will avoid or 

substantially lessen the cumulative problem (e.g. ... air quality plan). 

The GAMAQI will be updated with any necessary changes to District CEQA policy and 

provides a suitable location for changes to defaults and guidance on model usage. 

E. APCO- Approved Models

Proposed Rule 9510 specifies the use of an APCO-approved model, which in most 

cases will be URBEMIS. URBEMIS stands for "Urban Emissions Model." URBEMIS 

was originally developed by the California Air Resources Board (ARB) as a modeling 

tool to assist local public agencies with estimating air quality impacts from land use 

projects when preparing a CEQA environmental analysis. The model was developed to 

estimate construction, area source, and operational air pollution emissions from 

vehicles from a wide variety of land use development projects in California, such as 

residential neighborhoods, shopping centers, office buildings, etc. Originally designed 

as a ‘sketch planning’ tool for CEQA project review, it has been continuously enhanced 

with each new version to provide greater capability and accuracy. URBEMIS is used 

statewide by air agencies and public agencies and contains air basin-specific 

information. URBEMIS has substantial flexibility to accommodate project specific travel 

and vehicle information when available. The model also includes a mitigation 

component that allows the user to select specific measures and quantify emission 

reductions associated with the selected measures5

. 

The District undertook an extensive effort to ensure that URBEMIS is the right tool for 

this program. The District hired a consultant, TY Lin International/CCS, to review 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Draft Staff Report: Rules 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

20

available land use emissions models, recommend which model is most suitable for this 

program, and identify areas of improvement. The consultant recommended URBEMIS 

as the best tool for ISR for several reasons, including: 

• URBEMIS contains the latest California-specific emission factors with motor 

vehicle emission factors based on EMFAC2002, 

• URBEMIS is the only model that contains emissions calculations for PM10 

• URBEMIS contains emissions calculations for area sources 

• URBEMIS contains motor vehicle activity based on trip rates from the Institute of 

Transportation Engineers (ITE) 

ITE rates are nationally accepted, are widely used and have withstood legal 

challenges. 

• URBEMIS does not require large amounts of input for an emissions estimate (it 

is easy to use) 

• URBEMIS inputs are objective and quantifiable. 

For Example- For sidewalk coverage, the input fields include percent of streets 

with sidewalks on both sides and the percent of streets with sidewalks on one 

side. 

• URBEMIS contains the flexibility to modify defaults if project-specific information 

is known. 

• URBEMIS is free. 

TY Lin International/CCS made recommendations on the improvements to the areawide mitigation component and hired a sub consultant, Nelson/Nygaard, to make 

detailed recommendations for improvements to the operational mitigation component. 

Nelson/Nygaard researched the latest studies on land use, what design features 

consistently reduced vehicle activity (and consequently emissions) in the real world and 

by how much. Nelson/Nygaard then created emissions reduction calculation 

methodologies based on those studies and submitted a report to the District. The 

District then initiated an extensive statewide effort to update the URBEMIS model with 

the resulting recommendations. The District, TY Lin International/CCS, and 

Nelson/Nygaard met with the URBEMIS working group, which is a group of 

representatives from air districts throughout the state of California, as well as the 

California Department of Transportation (CalTrans), and presented the recommended 

changes to URBEMIS. Once the URBEMIS Working Group made recommendations 

that were incorporated into the report, the report was then peer reviewed by several well 

respected researchers in the field of land use and travel activity. The peer review 

comments were incorporated into the report and approved. The final report was 

incorporated into URBEMIS 8.7, released to the public, and is included in this document 

as Appendix D. 

The URBEMIS model would require, at minimum, the following inputs: type of land use, 

number of units, and any mitigation measures selected. However, there are numerous 

defaults that can be modified if more precise information on the project is available. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Draft Staff Report: Rules 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

21

These can include: trip rate(s), emission factors and usage rates for specified area 

source emissions, year of project use, fleet characteristics in terms of percentage of 

and fuel use of vehicle types, trip speeds, trip lengths, trip percentages, ambient 

seasonal temperatures, variable start percentages, and emission reduction inputs. 

Emission reduction inputs can include increased density, zero hearth options, percent 

energy efficiency beyond Title 24, percent of landscape equipment electrically powered, 

number of housing units and study area employment (job to housing ratio), the 

presence of local serving retail, the number of transit stops, intersections per square 

mile, percentage of streets with sidewalks, percentage of bike lane coverage, 

percentage of housing units below market rate, numerous transportation demand 

management measures, number of actual parking spaces, and controls on fleets. 

Based on those inputs, the model calculates total area source emissions, total vehicle 

emissions, total overall emissions and total reduced emissions in terms of lbs/summer 

day, lbs/winter day, or tons/year. 

In addition to the benefits of URBEMIS, this model was chosen over other potential 

models for various reasons. A different option was to use transportation models used 

by the COGs for conformity purposes. Transportation models, while appropriate for 

their current use, are not appropriate for ISR for the following reasons: 

• There is not one model used valley-wide. 

o There are eight different models. Some cover only one county, others 

cover multiple counties. 

• The eight models do not use the same modeling basis, making for 

inconsistencies of software if multiple models are used. 

• The analysis requires subjective inputs. 

• Certain trips are not accounted for in the transportation model. 

For example- While URBEMIS will account for the very-short trips associated 

with new gas stations (passby trips), transportation models do not include the 

short drives into gas stations. 

• The transportation models include deviations from known trips. 

o They do not account for 10-15% of trips on Arterial Streets 

o They do not account for 15-35% of trips on Collector Streets 

o Trips on local streets are not included 

• The trip types come from old, 1970’s data that is only periodically updated.

• Does not include new area emissions, which are wholly attributable to new 

developments.

• Transportation modeling requires many inputs, and is not easily used by an 

average applicant.

• Transportation modeling is not free

It is the view of the District that URBEMIS is the best tool available. As stated above, 

URBEMIS has a solid, proven basis (EMFAC2002, ITE, peer-reviewed quantification), 

is flexible and allows changes to various calculation inputs when project-specific 

information is known. Comments received by the District pointed out that URBEMIS 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Draft Staff Report: Rules 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

22

contains some information that may need refinement. Particularly, the fleet mix and the 

on-road silt-loading factor. The District agrees that new, more accurate information 

should be incorporated into URBEMIS when that information becomes available 

Concerning the on-road silt-loading factor, the District concurs with the air basin specific 

factor received in comments and will be recommending using the factor of .031 for 

analyses prepared for the rule and will incorporate that factor into the San Joaquin 

Valley portion of URBEMIS. To remedy the fleet-mix issue, the District has hired a 

consultant (VRPA) to investigate and recommend new land-use specific fleet mixes. In 

addition, the District is participating in a statewide effort to improve the construction 

portion of URBEMIS. In the interim detailed guidance and sample construction inputs 

will be provided by the District to assist applicants.

F. Other Issues

The 2003 PM10 Plan also included a one-ton per day PM10 emission reduction 

commitment for Metropolitan Bakersfield by 2010. That commitment is being 

addressed through a “task force” composed of staff from the City of Bakersfield, Kern 

County, and the District. The task force is identifying the projects that would provide the 

greatest impact on ambient PM10 levels in the area. 

Input from the public during the scoping meetings and from written comments 

suggested that the proposed indirect source rules should include existing sources as 

well. There are several types of land uses that generate significant trips that could be 

considered: event centers, distribution centers, and regional shopping centers. The 

District has performed some preliminary research on distribution centers and 

warehouses. There are well over 2600 distribution facilities in the SJVAB, with an 

average size of 800,000 sq ft, according to District estimates. The District will continue 

to consider regulations on these types of sources for some time in the near future. 

The District will work to coordinate the ISR program with the public agency land-use 

approval process. The District will be coordinating review with the public agency 

through1. Making the ISR process concurrent with or prior to the public agency process; 

2. Forwarding a copy of the AIA application (upon determination of completeness), 

a copy of the AIA approval package (upon approval), and a letter of Final 

Compliance to the public agency for voluntary review and commenting; 

3. Communicating with the public agency when necessary during the application 

review process; and 

4. Incorporating ISR AIA data into the District’s CEQA commenting process. 

5. Providing a letter of project status to the public agency upon request. 

In addition, the application and approval will be made available to the public. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Draft Staff Report: Rules 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

23

V. EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS 

The District committed to reduce the PM10 and NOx emissions from indirect sources in 

the 2003 PM10 Plan and the Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan, which 

could be achieved by on-site emission reduction and/or emission based fees that would 

be used to fund off-site emissions reduction projects. Both plans contained emissions 

reduction commitments from growth that were necessary to demonstrate attainment. 

Appendix B contains an estimate of total emissions and emissions reductions expected 

from new development projects by 2010, which are 5.4 tons per day of NOx and 5.8 

tons per day of PM10. 

The ISR program is expected to achieve the emission reductions committed to in the 

PM10 and ozone plans. However, the District realizes that those emission reductions 

may not be achieved for a variety of reasons. If the emission reductions are not 

achieved because growth becomes less than that forecast in the emission inventories, 

the District will not need to adjust the program to make up the reductions. This is 

because the need for emission reductions was based on the projected growth. If 

growth occurs at a level less than that predicted, then the level of emission reductions 

needed will similarly be reduced. However, if other circumstances are encountered and 

the emission reductions are not achieved, the District will have to make a SIP revision, 

possibly substituting another measure for the remainder of emission reductions 

required or adjusting the off-site mitigation fee program to obtain greater reductions. 

The District based its estimate of emission reductions achievable by the ISR program 

on total growth in the emission inventory that is subject to the rule accounting for rule 

mitigation requirements, exemptions and applicability thresholds. The District 

considered using a bottoms-up estimate of emissions based on the number of projects 

and units expected each year. Statistics on residential development were available for 

this type of analysis; however, due to the wide variety of uses and limited data on the 

numbers and sizes of non-residential uses, a comprehensive bottom-up analysis was 

not feasible. 

VI. COST EFFECTIVENESS – OFF-SITE EMISSION REDUCTION PROJECTS 

District staff has prepared a draft cost effectiveness analysis of the estimated costs of 

emission reductions required in the proposed Draft Rule 9510. The cost effectiveness 

analysis is attached to this staff report and labeled Appendix E. This analysis details 

the types, quantities and costs of projects available for funding from the off-site fees 

collected by the District, and provides an example mix of projects to demonstrate how 

the fees may be used. The District shall use 100% of the off-site funds received for 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Draft Staff Report: Rules 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

24

emission reduction projects. No off-site funds may be used for the District’s budget, 

staffing or other administration. 

Off-Site fund use accountability is written into the Draft Rule 9510. The District shall 

provide annual reporting per draft Rule 9510 Section 10.4. Annual reports shall 

include, at a minimum: the total amount of off-site fees received; the total monies spent; 

total monies remaining; any refunds distributed; a list of all projects funded; the total 

emission reductions realized, and; the overall cost-effectiveness factor for the projects 

funded. Annual reports shall be made available to the public. 

For off-site emission reduction projects, the duration of the contract will vary depending 

on the project. Some contracts will be completed upon installation, while others may 

require reporting for 5 years or longer. For example, a road-paving project would have 

a contract that is completed upon installation, whereas an engine contract typically 

contains a 5-year reporting requirement. 

VII. SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Pursuant to state law, the District is required to analyze the socioeconomic impacts of any 

proposed rule or rule amendment that significantly affects air quality or strengthens an 

emission limitation. The provisions of Draft Rules 9510 and 3180 will reduce PM10 and 

NOx, emissions by requiring pollutant specific mitigation through measures incorporated 

in to the design of a new project, and/or paying a fee to fund emissions reduction 

projects; therefore, District staff solicited volunteers from affected entities to participate as 

members of the socioeconomic focus group for these rules. District staff held a focus 

group meeting, to identify the socioeconomic impacts of the draft rules. District staff will 

use the socioeconomic analysis to further refine the draft rules. The socioeconomic 

report was released to the public for comment and review and was presented at the final 

workshop. The report was incorporated into this staff report as Appendix F. The final 

socioeconomic report will be presented to the District Governing Board at the public 

hearing for adopting the proposed rules. 

The implementation of ISR fees may have socioeconomic impacts on certain 

development types that are summarized below and described in the socioeconomic 

impact analysis. Although impacts may occur, the program has been designed to 

minimize economic impacts and to allow options to developers that minimize their fees. 

However, the District recognizes that some businesses and individuals will be impacted, 

but believes that the impact is justified by the benefits of the rule to the Valley. The rule is 

designed to reduce emissions of pollutants contributing to poor air quality in the entire air 

basin and will provide a health benefit through its implementation. The District is required 

to attain federal air quality standards by specific dates with reductions contained in District 

attainment plans. These plans rely on reductions from ISR that if not achieved will result 

in sanctions that would cause a far greater impact to the Valley’s economy than 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Draft Staff Report: Rules 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

25

implementing the rule. If ISR were not adopted, rules on other industries with as great or 

greater economic impacts would still be required. 

A. RESULTS

SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. The Socio found a less-than-significant impact on 

Single-Family Residential project applicants for 2006, 2007 and 2008. The Socio found a 

minor increase in the price Single-Family Residential buyers would find in the average 

Valley City for 2006, 2007 and 2008. See Appendix F Tables 19-21 and associated text. 

MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. The Socio found a less-than-significant impact on MultiFamily Residential project applicants for the average Valley city for 2006, 2007 and 2008. 

The Socio found a minor increase in the price Multi-Family Residential buyers and renters 

would find in the average Valley City for 2006, 2007 and 2008. Multi-family residential 

development in small and medium sized bedroom communities is projected to experience 

a significant impact in 2007 and 2008. Small rural/farming communities could have a 

significant impact in 2008. The reason for the greater impact in these particular areas is 

the lower overall cost of housing in those areas making the fee a higher percentage of the 

housing cost. This impact is mitigated to some extent by the rule threshold of 50 units 

and 2 tons per year of emissions. Many projects in those areas are small. Some 

locations qualifying as bedroom communities are seeing very rapid growth in housing 

stock that is as expensive or more expensive than in the large urban areas. This trend 

may also limit the areas of impact. Due to the ability of the developer to pass on or 

absorb at least part of the cost and for consumers to amortize the cost in a mortgage or 

through rents, the District believes that this impact is not significant. See Appendix F 

Tables 23-25 and associated text.

INDUSTRIAL. The Socio found a less-than-significant impact on industrial project 

applicants for 2006 and 2008. The Socio found a less-than-significant impact on 

industrial renters in 2006 and 2008. See Appendix F Tables 28 and 29 and associated 

text. 

OFFICE. The Socio found a less-than-significant impact on office project applicants for 

2006 and 2008. The Socio found a less-than-significant impact on office renters in 

2006 and 2008. See Appendix F Tables 28 and 29 and associated text. 

COMMERCIAL. The Socio found a less-than-significant impact on industrial project 

applicants for 2006, but a significant impact in 2008. The Socio found a less-thansignificant impact on commercial renters in 2006, but a significant impact in 2008. 

Commercial uses with a small footprint but high trips due to customer turnover 

experience the greatest impact. Commercial and other development types may reduce 

their fees with on-site measures. Many measures are available that may be required 

for other purposes and add no cost to the development, but can add amenities and 

value to the project. This would provide a mechanism to reduce the impact of the fee. 

Overall, the District concludes that with mitigation options and the ability to pass costs 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Draft Staff Report: Rules 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 

26

on to project tenants, this impact should not be considered significant. See Appendix F 

Tables 28 and 29 and associated text. 

PROSPECTIVE HOME-BUYERS AND SMALL BUSINESSES. Socio Section 6.4 

addresses the impact on small business and includes a discussion of potential 

disproportionate impact on home-buyers and small business. The socio concludes that 

the increased costs due to the fees would have a temporary impact while the consumer 

responds to the costs with changes in purchasing decisions or increases income. 

VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

Pursuant to state law, District staff has conducted an initial study to identify any 

possible environmental impacts of this program and prepared a proposed negative 

declaration for draft Rules 9510 and 3180. The 30-day comment period for the 

proposed negative declaration ends on December 5, 2005. The District Governing 

Board will consider approving the negative declaration at the December 15, 2005 public 

hearing for the rules. 

IX. RULE CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS 

Pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code, Section 40727.2, District staff has 

prepared a rule consistency analysis of the program and is included in this staff report 

as Appendix G. The Rule consistency analysis shows the rule is non-duplicative, and 

consistent with existing District, state and federal rules.

X. REFERENCES 

1. California Air Resources Board, Emissions Inventory, www.arb.ca.gov. 

2. California Air Resources Board, Status Report, 1994 

3. California Department of Finance, Population Projections, 

www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/projco.pdf

4. 2003 PM10 Plan, Appendix B 

5. South Coast AQMD website, Frequently Asked CEQA Questions, 

http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/faq.html