SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 1

APPENDIX A 

Responses to Comments on Proposed 

Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review) and 

Rule 3180 (Administrative Fees for Indirect Source Review)

December 15, 2005 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 2

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 

ON THE RECEIVE AND FILE OF DRAFT RULE 

NOVEMBER 17, 2005 

Public Comment

Date November 5, 2005 

Multiple Letters- Signed by 

Kaaren Page Betty Sanderson Theresa Stump 

Stephen Page J Wesley Sanderson Bill Moffit 

Warren A. Minna Georgette Theotig Deb See 

Nancy Faisselman Isabel Stierle Rosmarie Grabski 

Nany Bacon Li?? Wa??? Monte Harper 

 Emid Harper 

As a resident of the San Joaquin Valley, I am very well aware that the Valley is rated as 

ëextreme non-attainmentí when it comes to meeting federal air quality standards. We 

must take bold steps to clean up our air while allowing reasonable housing growth. 

The best way to reach this goal is through your proposed Indirect Source Rule Package 

(Rules 9510 and 3180) that the District is sponsoring. This is accomplished two ways: 

allowing housing and commercial developments to be designed to reduce air pollution 

and to charge a fee for that air pollution that cannot be eliminated, with the fees being 

used to fund other projects that reduce air pollution. 

1. COMMENT: I support a strong version of the rule that offers a real chance to 

improve the air in the valley and at the same time allow developers to use 

innovative design features to reduce our dependency on automobile 

transportation. 

Our lungs, our health, and our children deserve no less. 

RESPONSE: Comment Noted 

California State Department of Housing and Community Development: 

Date: November 29, 2005 

Thank you for the continued opportunity to comment on the San Joaquin Valley Air 

Pollution Control Districtís (District) proposed Draft Rules 9510 and 3180 (Rules). The 

Department has reviewed the draft Rules as revised November 17, 2005 and the 

Districtís ìResponse to Commentsî found in Appendix A of the draft Rules. The 

Department appreciates the District addressing some of the issues raised in the 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 3

comment letters of July 25, 2005 and September 15, 2005. However, as discussed 

below, the Department continues to have a number of concerns with the revised draft of 

the Rules. 

Proposed Rule 9510 does not comply with the ìclarity,î ìconsistency,î and 

ìnonduplicationî requirements set forth in Health and Safety Code Section 40727, and 

an adequate nexus has not been established to support these rules. In addition, 

2. COMMENT: The proposed inclusion, followed by the deletion of, an 

exemption for housing directly assisted by federal, State, or local 

government is of particular concern. The Districtís response to comment #92 

indicated the government supported housing exemption (affordable housing) was 

removed ìbased on the Districtís internal analysis of applicability and 

impactsÖ.î. Although affordable housing qualifies as a mitigation measure, it is 

unclear how the URBEMIS model assesses and credits affordable housing. 

Affordable housing is often a catalyst for the type of transit-oriented development 

that is encouraged by the Districtís policy recommendations as described in 

Districtís Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans. According to the Air 

Resources Boardís study, The Land Use – Air Quality Linkage, densities found in 

affordable housing developments are generally high enough to provide the 

ridership needed to support transit service (page 15). 

RESPONSE: As stated in the November 17th Staff Report (p. 11) and in the 

September 1, 2005 Response to Comments, the methodology for emission 

reduction is detailed in the URBEMIS Userís Guide 

(http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/urbemis.html). Basically, the trip reduction benefit of 

below-market-rate housing will be credited to a development that includes this 

feature. In addition, Appendix D- Recommended Changes to URBEMIS details 

the research supporting the emission reduction and the methodology for the 

reduction on pages D-38 through 39 and includes the following statement: 

... Thus, the total reduction is as follows: 

 Trip reduction = % units that are BMR * 0.04 

 A development with 20% BMR units would thus gain a 0.8% reduction. A development 

with 100% BMR units would gain a 4% reduction.

3. COMMENT: There is also insufficient information in the draft Rule analyses to 

discern whether and to what extent affordable housing developments, despite 

qualifying for some mitigation credits, might be subject to fees for off-site 

emissions reductions. This has the potential to render projected affordability 

levels or the projects themselves, infeasible as proposed. Affordable housing 

development proposals, are already subject to significant development 

constraints despite their acknowledged benefit potential relative to air quality. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 4

Applying Rule 9510 to these projects would subject them to an additional and 

ambiguous permit requirement. This effect would be inconsistent with State laws 

which require affirmative actions to promote affordable housing opportunities. 

Accordingly, the Department urges the District to reinstate the exemption for 

housing projects in which at least 49 percent of the units are reserved for lowerincome households and which are directly assisted by federal, State, or local 

government.

RESPONSE: The staff report and socio-economic impact analysis recognize 

that any fee would increase costs, but that market forces so far outweigh the 

effect of the fee that they render it insignificant. The District disagrees that the 

rule is contrary to state law promoting affordable housing. Rule 9510 is being 

adopted to reduce the air quality impacts of new development, including housing 

projects serving all market segments. Since the rule contains provisions to 

reduce potential fees for developments that contain affordable housing, it 

encourages affordable housing to be included in more projects.

4. COMMENT: Having deleted the exemption, the District must now amend those 

documents that were based on the exemption being part of the project. This 

includes the CEQA initial study which describes the project as exempting some 

sources including ìcertain low-income housing projectsî (page 4). By removing 

the exemption, the District has redefined the project. 

RESPONSE: The District does not concur that removing the low-income 

housing exemption substantially changes the project analyzed in the CEQA initial 

study. First, the socioeconomic impact analysis that is the basis of the initial 

study discussion on impacts on housing and population indicated that lowincome households were already unable to afford new homes and rental units 

affected by the rule. The revised socioeconomic impact analysis was based on 

the latest rule version and arrived at the same conclusions regarding impacts 

with and without the exemption. Therefore, the impacts examined in the initial 

study are also the same. Second, by removing the exemption for "certain lowincome housing projects", the language of the Rule would result in a slight 

reduction in air quality impacts, as some additional housing projects would now 

be subject to the Rule. The change in language does not substantively affect the 

analysis of environmental impacts. On the contrary, the language change would 

result in an environmental benefit.

5. COMMENT: Although the District does have the authority to implement 

regulations to accomplish the reduction or mitigation of emission from 

indirect sources, it does not have the authority to operate a permitting 

system for the operation or construction of these sources and has failed to 

show the required nexus. The proposed Rules would impose an (off-site) fee 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 5

on development projects which are unable to incorporate on-site measures 

adequate to reduce indirect emissions to a specified level. The fee is determined 

via an application (Air Impact Assessment Application (AIA)) which is required to 

be approved by the District before a final discretionary permit is issued for the 

construction of the development project. Unless the AIA application is 

submitted, the project cannot go forward without the developer incurring civil 

penalties. In such circumstances, contrary to the assertions of the staff analyses, 

a fee is being imposed as a condition of approval of a development project. A 

1993 Attorney General Opinion explained that ìthe Legislature has recognized 

indirect sources as essentially different from other sources of pollution and 

consequently has made them exempt from ordinary permitting requirementsî 

(Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 92-519). The opinion goes on to clarify that ìpermits may 

not be required of indirect sources under either the general permitting authority 

(Government Code Section 42300) or the special permitting authority provision 

relating to the attainment of State ambient air quality standards (Government 

Code Sections 40910-40926). Further, the imposition of fees as a condition of 

permit approval is subject to the nexus requirements of Government Code 

Section 66000 et. seq. and the District has failed to show the ìreasonable 

relationshipî nexus as required. 

RESPONSE: The author is mistaken about the nature of the ISR program and 

how the rule is designed to be implemented. The rule is consistent with the 

Attorney General opinion cited in that it does not require permits. Under the 

commenters theory, any fee is a de facto permit. Developers are subject to civil 

penalties if they fail to follow any District regulation. For example, failure to 

comply with Regulation VIII ñ Fugitive Dust Rules during construction or Rule 

4901 ñ Residential Wood Combustion fireplace installation limitations may result 

in civil penalties. Similarly, failure to comply with the mitigation requirements of 

Rule 9510 may result in civil penalties, but cannot stop a development from 

being constructed. The District will not be implementing a permitting system for 

the operation or construction of projects. The ISR program will not be a 

permitting system, have discretionary actions, or have any land-use authority. 

The author states: 

The fee is determined via an application (Air Impact Assessment Application (AIA)) which 

is required to be approved by the District before a final discretionary permit is issued for 

the construction of the development project. 

However, this is not the case. The application is required, but is not tied to the 

issuance of a discretionary permit. The purpose of the application is to provide 

information necessary to determine if a fee must be paid and the amount of the 

payment if one is required. The application must be submitted concurrent with 

the application to the local land use authority for a final discretionary permit. 

This timing is to allow the applicant to take credit for reducing project air impacts 

during the local agencies approval process. The District does not require 

completion prior to issuance of a permit by the local agency, nor does the District 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 6

have the authority to stop the project from being issued a final discretionary 

permit by the local agency. 

The Districtís action is ministerial, and does not involve conditions of approval. 

All projects are subject to the same requirements, and must fulfill the 

requirements. The District does have the authority to enact penalties for noncompliance; however, this does not make the actions of the District discretionary 

or make the program a permitting program. Further, the fee is only enacted if a 

project is, ìunable to incorporate on-site measures adequate to reduce indirect 

emissions to a specified levelî. The required emission reduction applies to all 

applicable projects equally, and must be satisfied. The project applicant has the 

option to reduce the fee through on-site measures. There is no discretion on the 

part of the District. The authorís statements on applicability of laws regulating 

permitting actions do not apply to the ISR program, as it is not a permitting 

program. 

The District continues to assert that Rule 9510 is not subject to Government 

Code Section 66000 et. Seq. Regarding the reasonable relationship 

requirement, the District has clearly made this demonstration. The air quality 

impacts of construction, area source and indirect source emissions from 

development projects and the methods used to quantify these impacts are 

clearly identified in the staff report and are undeniably contributing to the air 

basinís serious air quality problems. The emission reduction projects that will be 

utilized to mitigate a portion of these impacts are also clearly identified. 

Sufficient checks and balances are in place in the rule through an elected 

Governing Board and EPA oversight of this state implementation commitment to 

ensure that the mitigation funds will be used effectively on the impacts created 

by the development projects.

6. COMMENT: The consistency analysis (Appendix G) fails to include 

analysis and findings relative to other State laws and regulations, including 

directly related provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act 

(CEQA). The District already has existing procedures for permit review pursuant 

to CEQA, which are put forth in its ìGuide for Assessing and Mitigating Air 

Quality Impactsî. Proposed Rule 9510 should be subjected to a rule consistency 

analysis with this guide, as well as requirements for air quality analysis and 

mitigation pursuant to CEQA which is undertaken in the permitting process of 

local governments. The Department remains concerned about the duplication of 

assessment and potential duplication of mitigations pursuant to CEQA and the 

proposed Rule 9510. The Districtís decision to modify its CEQA handbook after 

the adoption of the proposed rules (G-2) is inconsistent with the requirement of 

Health and Safety Code 40727. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 7

RESPONSE: The Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts 

(GAMAQI) identified by the author is a voluntary guidance document for use by 

lead agencies addressing air quality in CEQA documents and is in no way 

regulatory. Under CEQA, for most development projects the District is a 

commenting agency. As a commenting agency the District provides comments 

to the Lead Agency to the following aspects: the potential significance of air 

quality impacts of a project; applicable District Rules; potential mitigation 

measures; and if an analysis is provided to the District, the adequacy and 

accuracy of that analysis. Requesting comments from the District is voluntary by 

the Lead Agency, and comments and mitigation measures suggested by the 

District are non-binding. CEQA requires disclosure of environmental effects for 

discretionary actions by a public agency, and requires reasonable and feasible 

mitigation of effects that are determined to be significant. Nowhere within CEQA 

can the District require a reduction in emissions from a development project. 

Voluntary CEQA commenting is not parallel to an ISR program. Mitigation 

required by CEQA is not the same in intent, requirements, or in practice with the 

emission reduction requirements of the ISR program. ISR is not duplicative of 

any mitigation required by the lead agency since the rule provides for credit for 

all measures and features included in the project that reduce emissions when 

project emissions are calculated. The District disagrees that modifying the 

Districtís GAMAQI after adoption is inconsistent with the California Health and 

Safety Code (CH&SC) Section 40272 for all the reasons stated above. 

CH&SC Section 40272(b)(4) states: 

"Consistency" means that the regulation is in harmony with, and not in 

conflict with or contradictory to, existing statutes, court decisions, or state 

or federal regulations. 

CH&SC Section 40272(b)(5) states: 

"Nonduplication" means that a regulation does not impose the same 

requirements as an existing state or federal regulation unless a district finds 

that the requirements are necessary or proper to execute the powers and duties 

granted to, and imposed upon, a district. 

CH&SC Section 40727.2(a) states: 

... the district shall identify all existing federal air pollution control 

requirements, including, but not limited to, emission control standards 

constituting best available control technology for new or modified equipment,

that apply to the same equipment or source type as the rule or regulation 

proposed for adoption or modification by the district... 

And 

...The analysis shall also identify any of that district's existing or proposed 

rules and regulations that apply to the same equipment or source type, and 

all air pollution control requirements and guidelines that apply to the same 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 8

equipment or source type and of which the district has been informed 

pursuant to subdivision (b) 

 CH&SC Section 40727.2(h) states: 

Nothing in this section limits the existing authority of districts to determine 

the form, content, and stringency of their rules and regulations. In 

implementing this section, it is the intent of the Legislature that the 

districts retain their existing authority and flexibility to tailor their air 

pollution emission control requirements to local circumstances. 

The District has performed the analysis required by CH&SC 40727 et. seq, in 

Appendix G: Rule Consistency Analysis. First, no person has identified any 

existing federal or state requirement or guideline that applies to the same type of 

source that the District is proposing to regulate per CH&SC Section 40272(b). 

Second, the District identified few District rules for consistency analysis, and no 

US EPA rules or guidelines that apply to development projects in terms of New 

Source Performance Standards, Control Technique Guidelines, Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology or National Emission Standards for Hazardous 

Pollutants. 

The District has found that the proposed ISR program is consistent with existing 

District rules, and has determined that there is no conflict or duplication with 

existing state law and CEQA. 

7. COMMENT: The direct and indirect costs imposed by the Rules on the 

residential development process will result in increased housing costs. 

The preparation of the AIA (which not only calls for a detailed Urban Emissions 

analysis (URBEMIS)), but also for ongoing monitoring of selected mitigation 

measures), is likely to result in increased costs. In some instances, despite the 

assessment of the socio-economic analysis, the mitigation fees could have a 

detrimental impact on the economic feasibility of developers of market-rate 

mixed-use and workforce housing. These types of developments are already 

financially burdened since they typically have a more difficult time obtaining 

financing and quickly bringing a project into the market place. 

RESPONSE: The cost of the preparation of a typical AIA is included in the 

application-filing feeó $400 for residential projects and $600 for non-residential 

projects, regardless of number of units. Worst case for a 50 unit residential 

subdivision would be $80 per housing unit. The modeling required for an AIA will 

be done by the District if not provided by the applicant. Monitoring of mitigation 

measures selected will only occur for measures that are not already required by 

another public agency, and the costs will be born out of the administrative fees 

from the rule (assessed at 4% of the off-site fee amount). Therefore, there are 

no costs additional to those discussed in the Socioeconomic Analysis. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 9

8. COMMENT: By proposing to control emissions through fees that will be 

used to fund other projects, the District would be treating housing 

developments as direct sources when they are in fact indirect sources. The 

CEQA initial study for the proposed rules describes the projectís purpose as 

being to ìreduce emissions of NOx and PM 10 from new development projectsî 

(page 4). If the fees collected under the Rules are a mechanism to control 

emissions from new development projects, then the District is adopting a marketbased incentive program and is subject to the Economic Incentive Program (EIP) 

requirements, as was asserted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 

their comments. Market-based programs may only be used for direct sources. 

ìAn EIP is a regulatory program that achieves an air quality objective by 

providing market-based incentives or information to emission sources 

(emphasis in original). By providing information or flexibility in how sources meet 

an emission reduction target, an EIP empowers sources to find the means that 

are most suitable and most cost-effective for their particular circumstances. By 

setting a price on pollution and pollution reductions through a fee-based 

approach or a trading program, some sources can realize an economic 

reductions for less than the cost imposed by a fee (Improving Air Quality with 

EIP, EPA-452/R-01-001, January 2001 at 23). The proposed Rules allow a 

developer to either use the on-site emissions controls or to pay a fee and thus 

ìrealize an economic gain or avoid additional costs by making the reductions for 

less than the cost imposed by a fee.î The District has failed to show the 

proposed Rules are consistent with EPAís EIP guidance and is treating new 

developments as direct sources. 

RESPONSE: The District disagrees that EIP guidance applies. Although there 

are similar elements in EIPs, Rule 9510 contains both voluntary elements (onsite 

mitigation) and mandatory elements (mitigation fees) that preclude the use of the 

EIP guidance in its entirety. Still, the rule meets the SIP submittal criteria that 

apply to all rules of being surplus, enforceable, quantifiable, and permanent for 

the time required in the SIP and meets the fundamental EIP principles of 

integrity, equity, and environmental benefit. 

9. COMMENT: It is impractical, and an excessive and unnecessary burden for 

applicants to be required to include justification of mitigation measures not 

selected, as is proposed by Section. 5.3.2. The on-site checklist contains a 

number of emission reduction measures, which will often be inapplicable. As a 

result, Section 5.3.2 should be deleted. As proposed, the provision implies, for 

example, that all 18 of the on-site measures listed in Appendix C for residential 

projects (or 39 if the ìon-site enhancing measuresî also required justification) 

could be applicable for all projects. Measures which would not be routinely 

feasible or applicable, include but are not limited to: 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 10

● An on-site bike lane would not likely be warranted or feasible on the site of 

a 50-unit apartment building (R-7) nor would an apartment building 

involve the design of street patterns (R-10). 

● ìReduce Wood Fireplaces and/or Woodstove above that required by 

District Rule 4901î would not be applicable to most new apartment 

buildings (R-14). 

● All new subdivisions cannot be sited within half a mile of an existing transit 

stop, and it is beyond the ability of applicants to have a transit stop added 

within a half a mile of a new subdivision (R-2), independent of where the 

project is located. 

RESPONSE: The District does not agree with the authorís statement that it is 

impractical, excessive and/or an unnecessary burden to include justification. 

The purpose of the justification is to encourage developers to examine the 

potential measures more closely and not immediately reject a measure without 

considering its feasibility. Onsite measures have permanent air quality benefits 

and typically create value and provide other benefits to the development. 

Measures included as mitigation measures in the lead agencies CEQA 

document, as most are expected to be, will not require District long term 

monitoring. If a measure is impractical or not applicable to a project, the 

applicant needs only to state that in the justification. The District does not see 

how this is an undue burden. Finally, onsite measures are implemented 

voluntarily by the developer and are not required by Rule 9510.

10. COMMENT: As a result of these concerns, the Department respectfully requests 

that the District not adopt the Draft Rules as proposed and continue to work with 

all interested parties on needed revisions. Thank you for your consideration of 

these concerns. For further discussion or to set-up a meeting, please contact 

Linda Wheaton, Assistant Deputy Director, at (916) 327-2642. 

RESPONSE: Comment Noted. 

City of Porterville

Date: November 29, 2005 

11. COMMENT: The City of Porterville appreciates and encourages the District's 

efforts to improve air quality in our Valley, however, the District staff report does 

not clearly define how the additional fees acquired through adoption of the 

DESIGN program would result in a quantifiable improvement to air quality in the 

San Joaquin Valley air basin beyond the measures already in place. Further, 

neither rule dictates a funding source to compensate local jurisdictions for the 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 11

additional efforts resulting from approval. Please provide clarification of these 

points in the final rules. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

RESPONSE: First, Appendix B ñ Emission Reduction Analysis, Attachments 2 

and 3 show the tonnage of offsite reductions that are estimated to occur as a 

result of the adoption of the ISR rules. By 2010, it is estimated that the ISR will 

achieve 5.4 tons per day (tpd) reduction of NOx, and 5.8 tpd reduction of PM10 

from growth. The amount of off-site reductions (from the fees) are 4.7 tpd and 4 

tpd of NOx and PM10, respectively. These estimates are based on the amount 

of reduction required by the rule, and assume an amount of that reduction is 

achieved on-site. The off-site fees will be used to achieve this reduction, as 

specified in Appendix E: Cost Effectiveness Analysis, which states how much in 

off-site fees is expected and how that money will be spent to achieve quantifiable 

reductions. Specifically, Appendix E: Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Attachment 1 

(p. E-13 through E-33) details potential projects, the amount of reduction 

achievable, the cost of those reductions and a potential spending plan. 

Second, the rule does not dictate a funding source to compensate local 

jurisdictions because there are no requirements placed on local jurisdictions. 

The local jurisdiction is not required to review, assess or otherwise act on ISR 

projects. The District is committed to including local jurisdictions in the process 

through informing them of projects and project-specific information received by 

the District, and District actions on those projects just as it does now when it 

provides comments on local agency CEQA referrals. However, neither the ISR 

rules nor the administrative process require ëadditional effortsí from local 

agencies. 

Visalia Unified School District

Date: October 25, 2005 

On behalf of the Visalia Unified School District (ìthe School Districtî), I respectfully 

submit the following comments and questions to Draft Rules 9510 and 3180 of the San 

Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (ìthe Valley Air Districtî). I am unclear about 

several items in the Valley Air Districtís proposed fee and plan to decrease emissionsí 

impact from new development in the area. The School Districtís main concern is that 

the Draft Rules lack sufficient clarity to allow the School District to analyze what the 

potential impact of the new fees may be and whether the fees would actually be 

applicable to our projects. The School District is particularly concerned because any 

fees that must be paid as a result of the enactment of the Draft Rules will reduce the 

School Districtís financial ability to provide classrooms to students in these newly 

developed areas. 

12. COMMENT: Applicability of Draft Rules to the School District
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 12

It is unclear whether the Draft Rules apply to the School Districtís construction of 

new schools. Section 2.1 of Draft Rule 9510 states that the rule applies ìto any 

developer that seeks to gain a final discretionary approval for a development 

projectÖ of Ö 9,0000 square feet of educational space.î The Draft Rules define 

ìdeveloperî as any person or entity that undertakes a development project. Also, 

the definition of a ìdevelopment projectî includes any project that it ìsubject to a 

discretionary approval by a public agencyî where the discretionary approval 

ìrequires the exercise of judgment or deliberation.î 

The school District takes the position that the Draft Rules do not apply to it 

because it does not operate as a ìdeveloperî and the School District school 

construction projects are not development projects since they are not ìsubject to 

the discretionary approval by a public agency.î However, according to the Draft 

Rules, if a developer is constructing a school facility on behalf of the School 

District, then due to the definitions in the Draft Rules, the fee may be applicable. 

RESPONSE: If the approval to site and construct a new school is not subject to 

a discretionary permit, then the author is correct that the ISR rules would not 

apply. Otherwise, schools have many options available in onsite measures that 

would substantial reduce any potential fee. 

13. COMMENT: Fee Calculation

In addition to the question of the feeís applicability, the formula to be used in 

calculating the air impact mitigation fee is extremely confusing. A more 

straightforward formula from which the estimates of fees can be made would 

prove beneficial to those impacted by the Draft Rules. If these Draft Rules are 

intended to apply to the School Districtís development of new schools, a more 

concise formula would help us in the planning and estimating process. 

RESPONSE: Although the fee formula is somewhat complex, it is the most 

accurate and equitable way to assess fees based on emissions to achieve the 

emission reduction committed to in the Districtís SIP. The District has found that 

using an excel file to calculate fees is easy and accurate. The District will make 

a calculator with the formula built in available to the public prior to 

implementation. Prior to that, the District is willing help applicants and agencies 

create an excel file that calculates emission reductions required and fees 

required.

14. COMMENT: Requirement of Nexus

The School District has reviewed comments to the Draft Rules submitted by 

other associations that are impacted by these rules. One major problem noted 

by many of the commentators related to the fact that the Draft Rules fail to 

comply with the nexus test required by AB 1600, enacted as Government Code 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 13

Sections 66000 et seq, and as required by case law such as in Ehrlich v. City of 

Culver City (1996) 12 Cal4th 854. 

Similarly, we would like to express our concerns that the fees proposed do not 

appear to demonstrate a reasonable relationship to the cost of implementing the 

air pollution mitigation program. It appears to us that there is a huge disparity 

between the cost of implementing the mitigation program and the fees to be 

collected. Further, the Draft Rules and supporting analyses are largely silent on 

the actual mitigation measures to be funded that will reduce emissionsí impact 

resulting from a given project. It would be helpful if the Valley Air District 

provided details of the actual measures and projects that will be undertaken to 

reduce emissionsí impact as well as the benefits accruing to the public as a 

result of these measures. 

 RESPONSE: Please refer to the September 1, 2005 Response to Comment 

#125 about the analysis of nexus applicability that the District performed. The 

District disagrees that there is a disparity between the fees to be collected, 

estimated as up to $103 million between 2006 and 2008, and the cost of 

achieving off-site reductions. In Appendix E: Cost Effectiveness Analysis, 

Attachment 1 (p. E-13 through E-33) details potential projects, the amount of 

reduction achievable, the cost of those reductions and a potential spending plan. 

15. COMMENT: Notice to Those Impacted by Draft Rules

Although the School District is within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin and is 

subject to the jurisdiction of the Valley Air District, we feel we were not provided 

with adequate notice of the Draft Rules. If the Draft Rules are held to apply to 

the School District, the fees imposed will greatly impact our ability to plan for the 

development of new classrooms and educational facilities. Therefore, in the 

future, we request written notice of proposed rules and regulations that are 

intended to apply to the School District. 

RESPONSE: The District regrets that the School District did not receive notice 

of the proposed rules; however, this rule was noticed in accordance with all legal 

requirements. The District will add the School District to the ISR mailing list. In 

addition, the District suggests that the School District visit the District website at 

http://www.valleyair.org/lists/list.htm. The School District can receive District 

news, workshop notices, and other important information for this or other plans 

via e-mail by subscribing to one of the Districtís e-mail notification lists. The email notification lists are setup and maintained by the end user and not by 

District staff. Individuals may add or delete their names from these lists at 

anytime.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 14

California League of Food Processors (CLFP)

Date: November 22, 2005 

16. COMMENT: First, CLFP supports the amendments proposed by the District that 

would exempt canning and food processing from Rule 9510. Most of the primary 

activities performed by food processors are already regulated by the District and 

are subject to Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule) and 

Rule 2010 (Permit Rule), so the proposed exemption will avoid redundant or 

confusing new regulations. 

RESPONSE: Comment Noted

17. COMMENT: Second, CLFP and other organizations have expressed concern to 

the District regarding the cumulative cost of complying with the various new air 

pollution control requirements imposed on manufacturers in recent years. The 

food processing industry is one of the major sources of employment in the San 

Joaquin Valley and the firms operate in a very competitive economic 

environment. The financial resources available for complying with new 

regulations are very limited. CLFP appreciates that the District has responded to 

industry concerns by recognizing the cumulative impact of air regulations and the 

major investments made in stationary source emission controls. 

 RESPONSE: Comment Noted 

California Building Industry Association

Date: November 29, 2005 

On behalf of the California Building Industry Association (CBIA) and its Affiliate 

Associations located in the San Joaquin Valley, I am entering into the formal record 

comments on the proposed Draft Rules 9510 and 3180 (the ìISRî). CBIA member 

companies provide housing that is the cornerstone of quality of life in the San Joaquin 

Valley. 

18. COMMENT: The Federal Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 7410 (a)(2)(F), 

requires that approvable control measures provide quantifiable, surplus, 

enforceable, permanent, and adequately supported reductions in air emissions. 

The proposed Draft ISR does not provide sufficient analysis or findings to 

establish that the proposed Indirect Source Mitigation Program meets these 

criteria. Indeed, the document barely addresses these fundamental topics. 

Because these criteria have not been met, the Indirect Source Mitigation 

Program does not meet the Federal Clean Air Act test for full approval and 

inclusion in the State Implementation Plan (ìSIPî). 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 15

 Indirect Source programs, on the scale proposed by the San Joaquin Valley Air 

District, have not been adopted or implemented successfully anywhere in the 

United States. We note that USEPA has never approved a proposed indirect 

source rule for emission reduction credit. 

RESPONSE: The District has complied with the cited Clean Air Act section. 

EPA has recognized that areas with a long history of air regulation must pursue 

new and innovative ways to reach emission reduction requirements since the 

stationary sources in many cases are already in their second or third retrofit 

requirement with rapidly diminishing air quality returns. This had led EPA to 

produce guidance on voluntary and emerging measures and for taking SIP credit 

for mobile source incentive programs. Although Rule 9510 is unique, it still 

meets all control measure approvability criteria. See also the Districtís response 

to EPAís comment letter on the September 1, 2005 draft. 

19. COMMENT: The expected emissions benefits are not properly quantified. 

The URBEMIS model-based approach proposed to calculate project travel and 

emission impacts is inconsistent with the SIP inventory methodology. The SIP 

emissions inventory used the California Air Resources Boardís EMFAC-2002 

model to establish the NOX and PM10 emission reductions targeted by the ISR 

rules. One of the key components of EMFAC is a regional travel demand model 

(ìTDMî). The TDM is used to calculate regional travel impacts such as vehicle 

miles traveled (ìVMTsî) and trips within the SIP inventory. The SIP calculations 

that identify further emission reductions needed for the San Joaquin Valley to 

attain federal ambient air quality standards are, in turn, based on vehicle travel 

activity forecasts from TDMs. 

New project impacts determined under the ISR rules should be calculated in a 

manner consistent with the SIP targets to ensure no over- or under-compliance. 

There is an inconsistency between the way URBEMIS and TDMs calculate new 

or net added vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle trips. The fundamental 

difference between TDMs and URBEMIS is that TDMs robustly account for the 

interaction effects between multiple land uses, while URBEMIS does not. 

Interaction effects refer to the fact that when considered together, each individual 

land use (or project) ìcompetesî with others for vehicle trips. Where these land 

uses are located within a metropolitan area or county and how well the regional 

roadway network provides access to each land use affects the number of trips 

taken and their length (and thus VMT). For example, locating a new shopping 

center near an existing residential area would likely shorten the length of existing 

shopping trips taken from the residential area (and thus reduce VMT). It may 

also increase the number of shopping trips from the residential area due to its 

proximity compared to the location of existing shopping centers. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 16

The Draft ISR relies primarily on URBEMIS to calculate project level impacts, 

even though the Districtís own modeling consultant has stated that this model 

was designed to be a ìsketch planningî tool, and was never intended to provide 

a detailed numerical analysis of project level air quality impacts. If the travel 

activity (VMT and trips) of all the URBEMIS-based individual ISR project 

analyses were added together, they would overstate the net travel impacts 

determined when jointly simulating the same new projects using a TDM. This 

conclusion is based on a side-by-side comparison of impacts of a hypothetical 

but typical new residential project performed by Sierra/Dowling using URBEMIS 

and the Fresno County TDM. Correcting the existing biases in the URBEMIS 

default assumptions does not change this result because URBEMIS treats each 

new project and its interaction with existing land uses and other new projects 

separately. 

 

The District has attempted to account for this fundamental difference between 

TDMs and URBEMIS by applying a 50% discount factor in the NOx and PM10 

fee formulas to require mitigation of only half or one direction of two way trips 

between a new project and existing land uses. While in concept this approach 

could eliminate the double counting problem, simply slicing URBEMIS impacts in 

half does not demonstrate SIP consistency. 

On top of this fundamental discrepancy with the SIP methodology, URBEMIS 

overstates residential project emissions by over 70% as a result of multiple 

technical shortcomings. On this basis alone, URBEMIS cannot be considered a 

reliable and accurate gauge of project emissions. URBEMISí technical problems 

as an emission estimation tool are documented in detail in Sierra Researchís 

comment letter of July 22, 2005. 

RESPONSE: The author states that the ìemission reduction benefits are not 

properly quantifiedî. The District assumes the author is discussing the emission 

reduction benefits from implementation of the rule, which were properly 

quantified in Appendix B: Emission Reduction Analysis, using the known growth 

data (provided to the state by the COGs), and applying a standard rule 

penetration, estimated on-site emission reduction achievement, and applying the 

emission reduction requirements to the growth emissions. This analysis is 

considered ëtop-downí and is standard practice. The analysis did not rely on 

URBEMIS, a project-level model or ëbottom-upí analysis, for valley-wide 

emissions estimates from valley-wide growth.

The District has repeatedly addressed the ì70%î overestimation cited by the 

author as a distortion of fact. The District has stated that project-specific data is 

acceptable when available and has committed to addressing the few issues that 

have been raised concerning URBEMIS default values, and will provide guidance 

on those items prior to ISR implementation. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 17

The District could not find any reference in the Clean Air Act or in EPA guidance 

that prescribes implementation to use the same methodology as the SIP. 

Indeed, the District did not find any reference prescribing a model or 

methodology to assess mobile and area emissions from development projects. 

The authorís assertion that the methodology itself must be the same for the SIP 

and implementation is not based on any statute, guidance, or on historical 

methods of rule implementation. What is important is that the rule achieves the 

amount of reduction committed to in the SIP, and that the model produce 

consistent and repeatable results and be based on widely accepted inputs and 

methods, all of which apply to URBEMIS. 

The author mischaracterizes the fee formulaís use of a 50 percent baseline as a 

discount factor used to correct a deficiency in URBEMIS. URBEMIS correctly 

uses ITE trip generation rates to show the impact of all trips associated with a 

development project including those generated and those attracted to the site. 

The purpose of the 50% of the baseline in the fee formula is to meet the nexus 

requirements and to meet the intent of Health and Safety Code 40717.5(a)(1) for 

Districts toÖ ìmake reasonable and feasible efforts to assign responsibility for 

existing and new vehicle trips in a manner that equitably distributes responsibility 

among indirect sources.î By basing the fee on half the emissions, the District is 

ensuring that only trips from the project site are assigned responsibility. 

Furthermore, URBEMIS has the capability to account for reductions for passby 

trips where someone stops on their way to their primary destination and diverted 

linked trips where the trip length is shortened to account for trips that although 

not directly on the route to the primary destination, still result in a shorter trip 

length than would occur if someone went there directly. Finally, URBEMIS can 

accept project specific trip generation information based on market studies and 

local traffic studies when a proposed project may produce different results than 

would be expected using default trip information. We believe this a reasonable 

and feasible effort to meet the Health and Safety Code requirements. 

The District believes the best model should be used based on the needs and 

parameters of the project. For SIP inventory purposes, regional TDMs are the 

most appropriate model for estimating emissions. However, as admitted by 

Sierra Research (letter November 29, 2005, Comment #29 below), TDMs are 

regional models that are inappropriate for project-level analysis and TDMs 

contain their own flaws. These flaws are ignored in the authorís ëURBEMIS vs. 

TDMí discussion. For instance, TDMs do not account for some trips on arterial 

and collector streets. TDMs require a large amount of data input, are not easily 

used, were not developed to estimate land-use impacts, and are not available to 

the public. Simply, TDMs are too broad of tools to accurately estimate the 

emissions from individual projects. A side-by-side comparison of a project-level 

analysis using URBEMIS and a TDM would be misleading, as a regional TDM 

was never meant to be, nor should be, used to estimate and individual projectís 

emissions. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 18

URBEMIS uses emissions factors derived from EMFAC2002, the same model 

used in the SIP. Several issues raised with URBEMIS (silt loading, fleet mix) will 

be remedied prior to implementation. URBEMIS is maintained by a statewide 

working group of technical experts and air districts. URBEMIS is used in CEQA 

analysis across the state, and is commonly used for Environmental Impact 

Reports (EIRs) to assess project-specific air quality impacts. URBEMIS has 

been used by the District and applicants in assessing air emissions for Mitigation 

Agreements, as well as other agencies to assess air impacts for mitigation 

settlements. The District has more than adequately shown URBEMIS to be the 

best model for the job. 

The ëfundamental flawí raised by the author simply does not exist. It has been 

well demonstrated that URBEMIS is the best program for ISRís needs, and it is 

widely recognized across the state by other air districts, local land use agencies, 

and other agencies as an appropriate tool for assessing specific project-level air 

impacts. It is the Districtís assessment that the author compares TDMs to 

URBEMIS in raising ëSIP methodology consistencyí as a ëfundamental flawí to 

discredit URBEMIS; and, since TDMís are inappropriate for project-level 

analysis, leave the District with no available model to use.

20. COMMENT: There is no discussion of whether the emissions are surplus. 

New development is already controlled by existing and proposed District rules, 

some of which overlap the ISR proposal. Dozens of cities and counties with the 

San Joaquin Air Basin have adopted ordnances creating local traffic mitigation 

and congestion relief programs, funded by fees on new development and, in the 

case of several counties, increased sales taxes. In addition, large scale 

developments, such as planned communities, are increasingly entering into air 

quality mitigation agreements within the context of the environmental review 

process mandated by the California Environmental Quality Act (îCEQAî). All of 

these measures address the same concerns as the Draft ISR, improved traffic 

flow and reduction of tail pipe emissions. 

 The failure of the Draft ISR and the supporting documentation to discuss or 

quantify the emissions reductions attributable to these other programs undercut 

the ability of the measure to provide surplus and quantifiable emission reductions 

as required by statute. 

 

RESPONSE: The emissions growth estimates used to develop the rule are from 

the Districtís emission inventory that includes the benefit of all adopted local, 

state, and federal regulations and so are surplus to adopted control programs 

and regulations. Local regulations that have been adopted as transportation 

control measures currently have no emission reductions claimed in the Districtís 

SIP. Congestion relief measures and other transportation impact fees are 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 19

required just to keep emissions from exceeding emission budgets and do not 

provide additional SIP creditable reductions. Local programs and ordinances 

that do provide a surplus benefit will now be able to provide credit to their 

communities through the onsite mitigation component of the rule and will reduce 

the fees paid by developments contributing to those programs. In addition, 

reductions obtained through CEQA measures and Development Mitigation 

Agreements will be credited toward the emission reduction requirements of the 

rule. 

There are no existing or proposed District rules that overlap the proposed ISR 

program. Appendix G: Rule Consistency Analysis describes other District rules 

and analyzes potential for inconsistencyónone were found. 

21. COMMENT: The proposed Indirect Source Mitigation Program does not 

contain an enforceable commitment. The permitting process in the Draft ISR 

operates independently of any other relevant regulatory process. Numerous 

parties have commented that the air quality impacts attributable to new 

development are also subject to CEQA. Early attempts by the Air District to 

reconcile or streamline the ISR with the normal environmental review process 

have been abandoned for the time being, replaced with a statement that the Air 

District will revise its existing Air Quality CEQA Guidelines at some future date to 

minimize conflicts between the two processes. By separating the Air District 

permit process from CEQA, the Air District has removed any responsibility for 

enforcement from local agencies with the land use authority necessary to 

enforce on-site mitigation measures. 

RESPONSE: First, the ISR program is not a permitting program. Second, the 

ISR program is enforceable, the same as all other District Rules, and does not 

need to rely on ëother relevant regulatory processí and does not conflict with 

other regulatory processes. This enforcement authority comes from state law. 

In fact, most of the Districtís rules ìoperate independently of any other relevant 

regulatory processî as they are stand-alone rules not dependant on other 

regulations. Please see District Rule 1040 (Enforcement). 

 The District does not need to revise the Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air 

Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) in order to make the rule enforceable. The District 

will be revising the GAMAQI in order to clarify for those undergoing the CEQA 

process how ISR will affect their projects. This is no different than how the 

GAMAQI currently addresses other applicable rules. For instance, Regulation 

VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions) is discussed in the text of the GAMAQI. 

However, the GAMAQI discussion does create the enforcement of Regulation 

VIII, but acts to inform lead agencies, consultants, project applicants, and the 

public. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 20

22. COMMENT: In addition, no legal nexus between the proposed mitigation 

program and the fees imposed on individual development projects has been 

established. The cost and ultimate success of the mitigation measures are 

speculative. The Air Districtís proposed mitigation program, based upon afterthe-fact grant applications and the funding of primarily off-site mitigation, has not 

worked well in other situations, such as the South Coast Air Quality Management 

Districtís Mobile Source Reduction Commitment program. Until nexus can be 

demonstrated, no enforceable commitment is possible. The language of SB 709 

did not repeal the independent, Constitutionally-based requirement that that 

ìrough proportionalityî between the impact created and the cost of its mitigation 

be established. This comment has been made several times, both in writing and 

testimony, and the Air District has never fully responded to this issue. 

 The Air District cites the USEPA approved PM10 and Ozone Attainment Plans 

along with SB 709 as authority that it must impose ISR. In doing so, the District 

is arguing backward from a conclusion, sidestepping the fundamental issue of 

whether an enforceable commitment exists. Such backstops are not a substitute 

for establishing whether an enforceable commitment exists for purposes of the 

Federal Clean Air Act. 

RESPONSE: Although the District believes it has adequately responded to each 

comment regarding nexus ërough proportionalityí, here is a synopsis of how the 

District makes this demonstration: 

 The District developed an estimate of growth in mobile source emissions 

from new development by using the SIP emission inventory growth-only 

projections. This allows us to estimate the amount future emissions will 

increase only accounting for growth. This information was used as the 

basis for the ISR control measure in the 2003 PM10 Plan. Construction 

and area source emissions are entirely the responsibility of the 

development project. The emissions attributable to growth were then 

reduced to account for projects that will be exempt from the rule. The 

mitigation requirements were then applied to the emissions subject to the 

rule to determine the potential emission reductions. The emission 

reductions are cumulative since each year additional mitigation is 

accomplished and the benefits from prior years continue to provide a 

benefit. This information is provided in Appendix B of the staff report. 

 Once the overall emission reduction target for the ISR control measure 

was identified, the next step was to determine the method to calculate the 

fair share of the emissions attributable to individual projects. As has been 

thoroughly discussed elsewhere, it is not appropriate to use the SIP 

inventory method to calculate emissions from individual projects. 

URBEMIS was identified as the best tool for conducting project level 

estimates. See Appendix D of the staff report. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 21

 With the emission estimation tool selected, the District then used 

URBEMIS to estimate emissions from a variety of different land use 

projects using basic default inputs. The basic factors used to estimate 

project mobile emissions are the number of vehicle trips, the length of the 

trips, and the average vehicle fleet emission rates. Based on comments 

received on early drafts, the District replaced default values for PM10 silt 

loading values, and activated the commercial passby trips component. 

The purpose of this analysis was to estimate the potential emissions and 

fees from an individual development. The results were then used in 

socioeconomic impact analysis to determine the potential impacts of 

worst-case fee amounts. 

 The next step in determining rough proportionality is to verify that the 

individual project impact is roughly proportional to the mitigation achieved 

with the fees that are collected. This is accomplished by using an 

emission based fee formula to determine the amount of funds collected 

and a fixed cost of reductions for the emission reductions to be purchased 

by the District. The cost of reductions was developed for future years 

based on recent cost-effectiveness history with District grant programs, a 

determination that the reductions will be continue to surplus to any 

adopted regulations, the emission inventory for the sources, and the 

technical and economic feasibility of the projects. This analysis is 

adequate to confirm that the District will be able to maintain rough 

proportionality between the emissions generated and the emissions 

reduced through the fees. 

 The District has several options for corrective actions should the average 

cost of reductions achieved by the ISR Program be significantly higher or 

lower than predicted. Since staff will be continuously monitoring the 

projects funded, we will be able to identify early if costs are on target. If 

costs of reductions are coming in high, the first option would be to focus 

the project mix on more cost-effective projects until the average 

approaches the target amount. If insufficient low cost off-site projects are 

available, the cost of reductions could be increased by amending the rule. 

 If costs of reductions are coming in low and it appears that the lowerthan-expected cost-effectiveness can be sustained, the fee amount may 

be lowered. The District may also modify the incentive amounts offered to 

attract preferred, highly cost-effective projects where potential applicants 

may be reluctant to participate when the incentive amount offered may be 

inadequate to cover costs of implementing the project. Modified incentive 

amounts could also be used if the District has difficulty attracting sufficient 

projects. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 22

The comparison to mobile source emission reduction credit programs is not 

valid. The reason those programs have not been highly successful is because 

stationary sources needing ERCs have been able to obtain those reductions at 

lower costs using traditional banked ERCs than could be achieved by mobile 

source reductions. Grant programs throughout the state have been extremely 

successful in obtaining emission reductions from a wide variety of sources. 

Since ISR reductions can be obtained from any source of surplus, quantifiable, 

and enforceable reductions, it can be expected to do even better than the 

existing grant programs in attracting projects. 

23. COMMENT: There is no finding that the benefits of the proposed measures 

will be permanent. 

The Draft ISR assumes that the measures will be in effect for ten years. 

Because of the passive nature of many of the on-site mitigation measures, there 

is no guarantee that purchasers of newly developed property will leave those 

mitigation measures in place. Likewise, there is no documentation that the 

emission reductions associated with the proposed control measures will persist 

throughout the life of the SIP. As discussed previously, the benefits are 

speculative, have not been quantified and documented, and as a result the 

longevity of the benefits are equally speculative. 

RESPONSE: The ISR program differentiates between onsite and off-site 

measures when demonstrating the permanence of the reductions for SIP 

purposes. The onsite measures are most closely related to measures covered 

by EPAís Voluntary and Emerging Measures Policy. This policy recognizes that 

land use measures are highly desirable, but more difficult to quantify than 

traditional measures. Once the project is constructed with the onsite features in 

place, the benefits continue indefinitely into the future. Measures like density, 

mix of uses, and pedestrian infrastructure are not likely to be eliminated after 

development. All on-site measures that are not required by the lead agency will 

be enforced by the District to ensure that the emission reduction benefits will 

occur for the full duration of ten years. Offsite projects funded with mitigation 

fees only take credit for SIP reductions during the life of the project. This is 

accounted for in the emission reduction spreadsheet in Appendix B. Offsite 

projects meet EPA SIP criteria for permanence. Applicants are under contract to 

utilize the cleaner equipment through the term of the contract. When the new 

equipment, device, or paved road reaches the end of its useful life, the new 

purchase must comply with regulations in place at that time and will use cleaner 

technology in many cases. 

As the District has repeatedly demonstrated, the benefits are not speculative, 

have been quantified and documented. Please refer to the entire Staff Report, 

Appendix B: Emission Reduction Analysis, Appendix D: Recommended Changes 

to URBEMIS, and Appendix E: Cost Effectiveness Analysis. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 23

24. COMMENT: The proposed Indirect Source Mitigation Program is not 

adequately supported. The Air Districtís socio-economic analysis focused on 

the narrowest viewpoint available, the impact on residential builders, and did not 

even attempt to analyze the larger impacts on other business sectors, 

employment, public services, etc. The proposed rulemaking provides no 

information on the commitments from other agencies that are necessary to 

implement the various measures. Finally, there is no indication that the proposed 

requirements have been integrated into local development plans. 

RESPONSE: First, there are no ìcommitments from other agencies that are 

necessaryî to implement ISR. Therefore, the District did not include 

ìcommitments from other agenciesî as there are none. 

The author mistakenly states that the socioeconomic analysis, ìfocused on the 

narrowest viewpoint available.î The author is posing that the District did not 

thoroughly or adequately address the socioeconomic impacts of the ISR 

program, which is untrue. The socioeconomic analysis included analysis on the 

impacts to homebuilders, homebuyers, renters, low-income housing and housing 

affordability. In addition it analyzed the impacts to commercial, office and 

industrial builders, buyers and renters, and small businesses. The mitigation 

fees are spent on projects in the San Joaquin Valley that provide benefits to the 

Valleyís economy as described in the revised socioeconomic impacts report. 

ISR has been designed to work synergistically with the local development 

approval process. Developers may use mitigation measures and local 

requirements of the local development process to reduce their Rule 9510 fees, 

but are not required to do so. The proposed requirements of ISR, a prescribed 

amount of emission reduction for particular development projects, do not need to 

be integrated into local development plans, but may be used to demonstrate that 

air quality impacts of the project have been reduced. Developers wanting to use 

Rule 9510 as support for their air quality impact study for the local development 

approval process can time their application to the District such that it will fit 

seamlessly with the normal CEQA timelines. For the ëmitigation programí, there 

are no up-front requirements for all projects. Applicants that voluntarily commit 

to certain measures that are not already requirements by other agencies must 

enter into an agreement with the District that details the schedule of monitoring 

and reporting for the District to enforce implementation of those measures. The 

ëmitigation programí requirements are to implement those measures the 

applicant has voluntarily committed to. The only possible conflict with local 

development plans is if a measure is not allowed by the local agency: in that 

instance, the District would remove that measure from the ISR project, and 

reassess emissions. Thereby avoiding conflicts with the local agency.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 24

25. COMMENT: In summary, for the reasons stated above, the Draft ISR continues 

to be fundamentally flawed, and is unlikely to satisfy the requirements of the 

Federal Clean Air Act. As a result, the Air District will have a difficult time 

convincing USEPA that the ISR control measure will contribute to the emission 

reduction goals set forth in the SIP and the District should look to other 

measures to obtain PM10 and NOx reductions. 

RESPONSE: As stated in Response to Comment #18, the EPA is supportive of 

the rule, and has not raised the ëflawsí that the author claims are present. The 

emission reduction goals in the SIP will primarily be achieved through grant and 

incentive programs that have been in operation for over a decade and that meet 

all SIP submittal criteria. Credit for new grant and incentive programs will follow 

the same SIP criteria and will comply with the same standards for quantification 

and verification as the existing programs. Each new program will go through a 

public review process and be approved by the Districtís Governing Board. The 

voluntary onsite measures will only be credited to the extent that they meet the 

criteria of EPAís Voluntary and Emerging Measures Policy. 

 

Sierra Research – On Behalf of CBIA

Date: November 29, 2005 

On behalf of the California Building Industry Association (CBIA), Sierra Research 

(Sierra) is pleased to submit the following comments on the revised draft Indirect 

Source Rules (ISR) 9510 and 3180 released by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District (District) earlier in November. 

Our comments in this letter rebut District responses to earlier comments submitted by 

Sierra in September. As directed by CBIA, our comments focus on technical and 

modeling issues related to the use of the URBEMIS model under the proposed rules 

based on our independent review of the model and its underlying assumptions. In this 

review we were assisted by Dowling Associates, Inc. (Dowling), a transportation 

planning firm with extensive travel demand modeling experience supporting a number 

of the San Joaquin Valley Transportation Planning Agencies (TPAs). 

Our rebuttal covers the following two issues: 

1. URBEMIS modeling assumptions substantially overestimate residential project 

emissions. A combination of unresolved technical problems result in overstating both 

residential PM10 and NOx project emissions, and therefore ISR fees, by over 70%. 

2. Rule 9510 consistency with SIP emissions inventory has not been demonstrated. 

The SIP travel model projects a different amount of travel (and therefore emissions and 

fees) from each project than URBEMIS calculates. Our Fresno County test case shows 

that URBEMIS produces higher project emissions than does the SIP methodology. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 25

A detailed discussion of each of these unresolved issues is provided in Attachment A. 

26. COMMENT: Summary 

The following table summarizes each of the technical modeling issues identified 

by Sierra/Dowling during the ISR rulemaking process, their impacts, and the 

Districtís response to each issue.

Although the District has indicated a willingness to address some of the modeling 

issues we have identified, we believe the responses to our earlier comments on 

URBEMIS model issues are incomplete (in that corrections will not be made until 

after ISR adoption) or mildly dismissive (e.g., not willing to consider how revised 

residential age distribution impacts will be addressed). Some of the unresolved 

issues are fundamental and still need to be addressed before these rules can go 

forward 

Furthermore, the District has not proven that the URBEMIS-based ISR approach 

will result in emission reductions that match SIP targets. From a policy 

standpoint, we believe this burden-of-proof lies with the District and that SIP 

consistency cannot simply be asserted. 

These technical problems result in major discrepancies in estimating emissions 

and corresponding fees under Rule 9510. Thus, we respectfully recommend that 

the District delay its scheduled December 15 hearing on ISR adoption until these 

issues are fully resolved. 

If you have any questions about the information presented above or in 

Attachment A, please feel free to contact Bob Dulla or me at (916) 444-6666.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 26

RESPONSE: The District has determined that all items that the author raises 

have been adequately addressed. See the following Comments and Response 

to Comments #27 through #29.

ATTACHMENT A

UNRESOLVED RULE 9510 TECHNICAL ISSUES 

THAT RESULT IN OVERSTATED EMISSIONS

27. COMMENT: URBEMIS Modeling Assumptions Substantially Overestimate 

Residential Project Emissions - In responses to our comments, the District 

acknowledged that many of the default modeling assumptions in the URBEMIS 

model do not accurately represent conditions in the San Joaquin Valley when 

applied to residential projects. These incorrect model defaults identified by Sierra 

and Dowling substantially overestimate residential project emissions by a 

minimum of 70% for both pollutants targeted under the ISR rules, oxides of 

nitrogen (NOx) and ìfineî particulate matter (PM10). 

The Districtís response to these URBEMIS model default issues is incomplete. In 

acknowledging these problems, the District responds only that these faulty model 

assumptions will be corrected in a future version of URBEMIS that will be 

released (presumably without opportunity for public review) after the ISR rules 

are adopted. 

Although the District has indicated that a small part of these model corrections 

will be made prior to rule implementation, no timetable has been provided for 

revising URBEMIS, nor has it been made clear that these revisions will be 

publicly reviewed. The District has been aware of these modeling issues since 

July, yet no further action has been taken. The Districtís approach does not 

guarantee the release of a revised and fully reviewed model before 

implementation. 

RESPONSE: The District does not ìacknowledge that many (emphasis added) 

of the defaultsÖ do not accurately represent conditions in the San Joaquin 

Valleyî. The District does acknowledge that a there are a few items that need 

refinement, specifically the on-road silt loading factor (easily adjusted by a known 

amount) and the fleet mix (less easily adjusted). The District had already hired a 

consultant to analyze and recommend a revised fleet mix, and results are 

expected prior to rule implementation. The authorís assertion that ìno further 

action has been takenî is misinformed and false. In addition to researching the 

fleet mix, the District is participating in the URBEMIS statewide working group 

(see paragraph below for more information). The model defaults do not

overestimate residential project emissions ìby a minimum of 70% for both 

pollutantsî. This claim is false, and the District has repeatedly addressed this 

claim. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 27

The author is incorrect in his assertion that the District will make changes to 

URBEMIS ìwithout opportunity for public reviewî and therefore without any 

review or safeguards. Changes to URBEMIS are made through a statewide 

working group that includes other air districts, model experts, technical experts 

and other public agencies such as CalTrans. As consultants such as Sierra 

Research use URBEMIS, they often find areas for improvement and correction. 

Any proposed changes impacting the statewide use of the model must be vetted 

through this group. The District cannot, nor does it propose to, make ëclosed 

doorí, questionable changes to the URBEMIS model. If an applicant or a 

consultant can find better input data or another model that more accurately 

characterizes the emissions from their project, the District will consider them. If 

they apply broadly, the District is committed to make those changes available to 

all users. Sierra should recognize that all modeling is based on incremental 

improvement. The District will use the best information currently available and 

commits to continuous improvement in its emission estimating techniques and 

models. 

The author states that a ìsmall partî of issues will be addressed. The District 

finds only three items raised that are legitimate and only two that are substantial, 

one of which (silt loading) has been resolved, and the other (fleet mix) is 

currently being researched. As for a ìguaranteed releaseî of a revised program 

prior to implementation, these two issues can be addressed through guidance. A 

revised program is not necessary to account for the refined default changes. As 

stated above, the District is participating in the URBEMIS statewide working 

group, which is currently expecting to release a revised program in more than 

one year. The District is committed to making URBEMIS as accurate as 

possible, and is working towards that goal. Any change that can be made 

through District guidance will be implemented quickly. 

In addition, the silt loading factor issue was raised by Sierra Research, which 

proposed a new factor, and the District agreed that the proposed factor was 

more accurate. This revised factor has been publicly discussed, and has been 

included in ISR documentation. 

 

28. COMMENT: In addition, the District did not act on the evidence presented by 

Sierra/Dowling based on U.S. Census and Caltrans Travel Survey dataóthat 

new residential developments exhibit newer vehicle fleet age distributions (and 

therefore have lower average emissions). The Districtís response indicates a 

need for further survey data to warrant revising the URBEMIS default vehicle age 

distribution when applied to new residential projects. 

Would data from a third-party survey that gathered information on vehicles per 

household and age from a random sample of ìnewî residential households in the 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 28

San Joaquin Valley be sufficient to warrant a revision if it showed a similar shift 

toward newer vehicles in the existing Sierra/Dowling analysis? And if so, how will 

this be accomplished? The District suggests the possibility of an age correction 

factor to address the fact that the EMFAC model emission factors used by 

URBEMIS cannot easily be modified to account for a revised age distribution. 

Who would develop this age correction factor and how would it be developed? 

RESPONSE: The District did not act on the survey data because we are not yet 

convinced that it is more accurate than the information currently used in 

URBEMIS, which is an age distribution from EMFAC2002 (See September 1, 

2005 Response to Comments #121 through #153). As pointed out in your 

previous comment letter, providing a project-specific fleet-mix age for each land 

use type would not be easy and would not be possible to automate in the current 

models used to quantify project emissions. We are not sure if the survey data 

described is adequate for this purpose. Since Sierra previously stated that it 

wants any changes vetted through a public process, the District will first pass this 

information to the URBEMIS Working Group for assessment. If consensus is 

reached that a major overhaul to URBEMIS is needed to account for fleet age 

differences, then the District will work to raise the necessary resources to 

develop the model. The new model would need to be submitted to EPA for 

approval. The fleet age distribution currently in use is adequate for the ISR 

program until such a time as a model capable of using this information becomes 

available. 

29. COMMENT: Rule 9510 Consistency with SIP Emissions Inventory Has Not 

Been Demonstrated We continue to disagree with the Districtís assertion that 

the URBEMIS model-based approach proposed to calculate project travel and 

emission impacts is consistent with the Statewide Implementation Plan (SIP) 

inventory methodology. This SIP emissions inventory and its underlying 

methodology were used to establish the NOx and PM10 emission reductions 

targeted by the ISR rules. Thus, it is critically important to ensure that new 

project impacts determined under the ISR rules are calculated in a manner 

consistent with the SIP targets to ensure no over- or under-compliance. 

Our disagreement centers on the inconsistency between URBEMIS and regional 

travel demand models (TDMs) in calculating new or net added vehicle miles 

traveled (VMT) and vehicle trips. The TDM models are used to calculate regional 

travel impacts (i.e., VMT and trips) within the SIP inventory. The fundamental 

difference between TDMs and URBEMIS is that TDMs robustly account for the 

interaction effects1

 between multiple land uses; URBEMIS does not. 

 

1 Interaction effects refer to the fact that when considered together, each individual land use (or project) 

“competes” with others for vehicle trips. Where these land uses are located within a metropolitan area or 

county and how well the regional roadway network provides access to each land use affects the number of 

trips taken and their length (and thus VMT). For example, locating a new shopping center near an existing 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 29

If travel activity (VMT and trips) were totaled across all the URBEMIS-based 

individual ISR project applications, we believe they would overstate the net travel 

impacts determined when jointly simulating the same new projects using a TDM. 

This conclusion is based on a side-by-side comparison of impacts of a 

hypothetical but typical new residential project performed by Sierra/Dowling 

using URBEMIS and the Fresno County TDM. Further, we believe this 

conclusion remains valid even after correcting existing bias in URBEMIS default 

assumptions. This is because URBEMIS treats each new project and its 

interaction with existing land uses and other new projects separately. 

We understand and agree with the District that it is not practical to make 

developers run TDM simulations under each ISR application, and readily 

acknowledge that TDMs are not without flaws of their own. However, calculations 

performed within the SIP that identify further emission reductions needed for the 

San Joaquin Valley to attain federal ambient air quality standards (a portion of 

which are targeted by the ISR rules) are based on vehicle travel activity forecasts 

from TDMs. 

The District suggests that this fundamental difference between TDMs and 

URBEMIS is accounted for by applying a 50% discount factor in the NOx and 

PM10 fee formulas to require mitigation of only half or one direction of two-way 

trips between a new project and existing land uses. We understand the concept 

in principle, but strongly believe that by simply slicing URBEMIS impacts in half, 

SIP consistency has not been demonstrated. We believe the acid test of SIP 

consistency consists of an analysis that compares summed URBEMIS vs. TDM 

simulated travel impacts for a package of specific projects that have been 

developed in recent years. We are not aware that this type of URBEMIS analysis 

has ever been done and is likely one of the key reasons why ISR rules have 

never been successfully adopted and implemented on this scale.

RESPONSE: Please see Response to Comment #19 above. The District agrees 

that the model used for the ISR program should be carefully chosen as to not 

over- or under-comply with the SIP reduction targets. However, the District 

maintains that the methodology for implementation does not need to be identical 

to the SIP methodology to achieve this. The author states that for the Valley, if 

URBEMIS is compared side by side to a TDM, URBEMIS over-estimates net 

travel impacts. However, a regional TDM was never meant to be, nor should it 

be, used to estimate emissions from an individual project. To take a project-level 

model and try to compare it ëside-by-sideí to a regional model is inappropriate 

and misleading. 

 

residential area would likely shorten the length of existing shopping trips taken from the residential area 

(and thus reduce VMT). It may also increase the number of shopping trips from the residential area due to 

its proximity compared to the location of existing shopping centers.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 30

Stop the Air Board Tax We’ll All Pay!

Date: November 16, 2005 

Signed by 

City of Clovis ñ Mayor Nathan Magsig 

San Joaquin Busniess Council ñ President Ron Addington 

Visalia Chamber of Commerce ñ President and CEO Mike Cully 

Kern County Taxpayers Association ñ Executive Director Michael Turnipseed 

Greater Merced Chamber of Commerce ñ CEO Will Lee 

30. COMMENT: A broad-based coalition of local chambers of commerce, local 

government officials, homebuilders, taxpayer organizations, agricultural groups, 

ethnic and community groups are formally opposing Rules 9510 and 3180 

proposed by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (the District). 

These Rules will collect hundreds of million of dollars by imposing fees on every 

new home, small and large business, public facilities and other new construction 

projects within the Central Valley, with questionable air quality benefit. 

 Indeed, as Rules 9510 and 3180 are currently proposed, the District is proposing 

to collect more than $670 million in fees over the next five years- taken right out 

of the regional economy. 

RESPONSE: First, the proposed rule does not apply to all new development nor 

does it impose fees on all new development. For instance, the following 

projects are exempt from the rule or the fees: 

• Projects below the applicable size thresholds in the rule (e.g., 50 

residential homes) 

• Projects at stationary source businesses already regulated by the District 

• New projects and expansions that do not require a new discretionary 

approval by the local land-use agency 

• Projects that employ enough control features to reduce emissions to less 

than 2 tons per year

The Districtís most up to date estimate of the offsite mitigation fees is $103 

million over the next 3 years. The authorsí estimate of $670 million in five years 

is erroneous. The authorsí estimate is based on incorrect use of the fee 

formulas and emissions estimates and record setting development rates. The 

District believes that it is not prudent to base revenue estimates on record 

development rates that would result in SIP commitments that fall short if not 

realized. Although the authorsí estimates are overstated, it should be recognized 

that solving the Valleyís air pollution problems is very costly as can confirmed by 

industrial sources that have invested billions of dollars on pollution control in the 

last three decades. The funds will not be taken out of the regional economy. All 

offsite mitigation fees will be used to purchase emission reductions here and will 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 31

result in the funds being reinvested in the Valley. The cost of administering the 

program is assessed at only four percent of the offsite emission fees. 

Finally, the District has thoroughly documented, described and demonstrated 

that the proposed rules will have a real and substantial beneficial impact on air 

quality. For more information on the emission reduction analysis or spending 

plan, please see Staff Report Appendix B: Emissions Reduction Analysis (which 

used a standard, accepted emission reduction methodology) and Appendix E: 

Cost Effectiveness Analysis (which thoroughly demonstrates the availability of 

off-site reductions and a plan for off-site fee use). 

31. COMMENT: As you are probably aware, the Air District recently released a 

revised version of these Rules and accompanying documents. In our opinion, 

the changes have failed to address some of the fundamental concerns of our 

coalition. Namely, the Rules continue to unfairly target new homeowners and 

businesses to disproportionately fund air emissions cleanup; the methodology 

and science remain flawed and they still significantly overestimate emissions and 

result in inflated fees; the fees still seek to impose enormous and unjustified new 

costs on businesses, new homeowners, public entities and ultimately all Valley 

consumers and our economy; and the rules still fail to provide for full 

accountability. 

We all support the goal of cleaner air, but there are better and more effective 

ways to reduce air pollution in a manner that is balanced and less costly for 

residents and our economy. 

As representatives of the coalition, we feel compelled to share the following key 

reasons we are respectfully urging you and other Governing Board members to 

oppose Rules 9510 and 3180 when they come up for a vote on December 15, 

2005. 

RESPONSE: Please see Response to Comments #32 through #42 below.

32. COMMENT: ISSUE #1 ñ LACK OF FAIRNESS, EFFECTIVENESS OR 

EFFICIENCY 

Indirect source rules place a disproportionate burden on new housing, new 

businesses and new public facilities to pay for a regional problem that is the 

responsibility of ALL residents. Indirect source rules are just that ñ indirect, 

unproven and inefficient ways to go about calculating and mitigating air quality 

emissions. For this reason, no other air district in the nation has adopted this 

type of indirect source rule. The District should be pursuing more balanced 

solutions that equally apply to all residents and rules that more directly go after 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 32

the true source of emission ñ namely tail pipe emissions and the dirtiest pollution 

sources like diesel. 

RESPONSE: The authors claim that new homeowners and businesses are 

being singled out unfairly for controls by this rule. This rule would be only one of 

many measures that the District has implemented and proposes to implement to 

control emissions from nearly every possible source category. The District has 

produced two comprehensive plans, one for ozone and one for PM10, that 

analyze current and future emissions, and lay out a strategy for emission 

reductions by a variety of controls and actions. For example, the ISR program is 

one of more than 20 rules identified in the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment 

Demonstration Plan. 

The authors indicate that the ISR program attempts to ëburdení new development 

to pay for a regional problem. The ISR program only assesses and places 

requirements on the fair share of the emissions from new development to solve 

regional ozone and PM10 problems. Each project that would go through the ISR 

program would be responsible only for their own emissions. 

In addition, the District has successfully and aggressively regulated existing 

sources of air pollution. Existing homeowners have contributed in the form of 

DMV surcharges to the tune $7 per year per vehicle, compliance with fireplace 

regulations, low-VOC architectural coatings, and smog check programs. New 

stationary sources must employ Best Available Control Technology and mitigate 

their new emissions with offsets. 

33. COMMENT: ISSUE #2 ñ THE COST OF THE PROPOSED RULES 

Two years into the rule-making process, the District still has failed to provide the 

public with a comprehensive estimate of the cost of the proposed Rules. 

Specifically, the socioeconomic analysis fails to address the cumulative impact 

on housing costs, on business costs, and on economic growth and job creating. 

The analysis discusses impact on only select segments of the business 

community, ignoring the full economic impacts of the rule. Our coalition has 

reviewed what information is available in the Districtís socioeconomic analysis 

and we were able to determine that the District will collect as much as $670 

million in fees over the next five years. 

RESPONSE: Concerning the adequacy of the Districtís analysis of economic 

impacts, please refer to Response to Comment #24 above. Concerning the 

ë$670 millioní in purported fees, please refer to Response to Comments #30 and 

#34. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 33

34. COMMENT: Housing:

The Districtís analysis shows the fees will average more than $1,700 on every 

home by 2008. Cumulatively, we estimated that the cost on all new housing 

projects in the eight county region will exceed $225 million over the next 5 years, 

assuming the current pace of housing permits. Thatís why the State Department 

of Housing and Community Development warned that these Rules will negatively 

impact housing affordability in our region. 

RESPONSE: The author has misstated the facts provided in the Districtís 

analysis and in the Socioeconomic Analysis. The fee estimates of $1,700 per 

home and the various numbers sited for industrial and commercial projects 

represent maximum worst-case fees that may apply if the developers choose to 

employ no on-site controls. Even so, this amount was found to not have a 

significant impact on the housing market in the socioeconomic impact analysis. 

If the high rates of development continue, the air impacts from housing will also 

be greater than predicted, and so those funds will be needed to offset some of 

that increase. The District believes that nearly all projects will be able to reduce 

their fees with on-site-measures since local land use agencies currently require 

some of the measures and many developers incorporate them as standard 

practice. The District has published an extensive list of control measures that 

would reduce the applicable fees. The authorsí estimate assumes that all homes 

and industrial and projects will be built with no control features and is not 

realistic. In addition, the authors apply the worst-case fee to a higher, possibly 

unsustainable, rate of housing construction. The author then used this inflated 

fee amount and based the $670 million on a rough assumption of the ratio 

between housing and commercial/industrial development. The District finds this 

methodology of fee estimation to be inappropriate and inflated. 

The District hired an independent consultant to perform a comprehensive 

socioeconomic analysis that assesses the economic impact of the proposed rule 

including any significant impact on housing affordability. This report concluded 

that rule would have a negligible impact on housing affordability. 

35. COMMENT: New Business Developments: 

 The Districtís own assessment estimates the level of likely fees on selected 

properties to be significant. By 2008 it will cost $397,483 in new fees to build a 

local community shopping center and $131,000 in new fees to build a 

neighborhood shopping center. These developments are typically home to mom 

and pop businesses, restaurants and small retail shops and these fees will be 

directly passed along to these small business owners (and ultimately their 

consumers and employees). The District also reports that as much as 2/3 of the 

total fees they plan to collect will come from non-residential projects. Since the 

Districtís figures show that the total fees on housing may exceed $225 million, it 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 34

is conceivable that the cost to businesses and non-residential developments will 

exceed $400 million. 

RESPONSE: The fees are based on emissions generated by each project. If a 

commercial development generated emissions that resulted in a fee of $397,483, 

it would be a very large development or one composed of many small retail 

establishments. If it were comprised of many small businesses, each one would 

be responsible for a fair share of the impact and the fee. 

The author falsely states that, ìthe Districtís figures show Öfees on housing may 

exceed $225 million.î The Districtís figures do not show that housing fees will 

be that high. See Response to Comment #34 above, which illustrates how the 

authors distorted facts to generate an inflated number. In fact, the Districtís 

analysis shows that the District may receive up to $103 million from all types of 

development subject to the rule between 2006 and 2008. The 2/3 ratio cited by 

the author was provided by the District as a rough estimate arrived at by 

subtracting residential development emissions from all development related 

emissions. The District used the emission reduction analysis (Appendix B) for 

fee income analysis since the emissions growth data from the state is well 

accepted for this purpose. See also Response to Comment #30 and #34. 

36. COMMENT: Public Facilities: 

 The Rules also apply to public and government facilities such as new schools, 

transit projects, government office buildings, fire houses, police stations and 

more ñ driving up the cost of public works projects and ultimately further 

burdening taxpayers with higher costs. The Districtís analysis is silent on these 

costs and their impact on local finances and fees. 

RESPONSE: The District has drafted the rule to fairly allocate emissions among 

all indirect sources. Public uses are a substantial part of the growth in emissions 

that if not addressed here, would need to be addressed through other means. 

We agree that the cost of achieving air quality mandates could increase the cost 

of these facilities; however, we would expect most transit projects, fire houses, 

and police stations to be exempt since they would produce emissions below the 

two ton per year level. In addition, schools and government offices are well 

suited in many cases to incorporate features that enhance walking, bicycling and 

transit use and use low emission vehicles and equipment that could reduce the 

fees, possibly to zero.

37. COMMENT: ISSUE #3 – FLAWED SCIENCE

 Members of our coalition and others have repeatedly demonstrated that the 

methodology and modeling that the District staff is using to calculate indirect 

sources of emissions ñ and resulting fees and mitigations ñ are fundamentally 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 35

flawed. These flaws result in grossly inflated fees and mitigation requirements. 

For instance, the URBEMIS model being used by the District (a computer 

program used to estimated emissions associated with land development 

projects), overstates vehicle emissions by over 70% (see public comments filed 

Sierra Research, July 22, 2005). No other air district in the nation uses 

URBEMIS to determine fees for vehicle emissions because, as the Districtís 

modeling consultant said, itís a ìsketch planningî tool, not an accurate gauge of 

the specific emissions resulting from an individual project. 

RESPONSE: In context, the term sketch-planning tool did not imply that it is not 

an accurate gauge of specific emissions resulting from an individual project. In 

fact, URBEMIS is a proven statewide model used by other air districts, including 

South Coast and Sacramento Metro Air Districts, in assessing emissions from 

project-level developments. URBEMIS is commonly used for CEQA analysis, 

and is also used by other air districts to determine off-site mitigation fees. In 

addition, the Development Agreements entered into by the District and 

applicants relied on URBEMIS for emissions estimates. See Staff Report pages 

19 through 22 for a detailed discussion on why URBEMIS is the best model for 

the purposes of the rule. See also Response to Comment #19 above. 

The CBIA and its consultant, Sierra Research, have provided comments (See 

September 1, 2005 Comments #123 through #162 and above comments #18 

through #29) about the adequacy or implied lack thereof of the URBEMIS model. 

 However, the District has shown that the ëflawsí stated by the author are not 

valid. 

For example, the authors assert that the model overstates vehicle emissions by 

over 70%. The comments received by the District compared the URBEMIS 

model, which counts both ends of trips, to a regional impact model (admittedly 

inappropriate for project-level analysis- See Comment #19 above) that only 

accounts for one end of trips. The URBEMIS program does not overstate 

emissions, as asserted by the author, but accounts for emissions differently than 

a regional model. It should also be understood how the fee formulas work. 

Please see Figure 3 and 4 in Appendix B- Emission Reduction Analysis, which 

clearly show that half of the estimated baseline emissions are not assessed fees. 

URBEMIS reflects the state of art in quantifying emissions from development 

projects. In fact, developers and local land use agencies routinely use 

URBEMIS to quantify project impacts during the CEQA process. The proposed 

rule allows for the use of other models that can better quantify emissions from 

various types of projects. The accuracy of URBEMIS will be further refined 

through the use of project-specific information in lieu of the otherwise applicable 

defaults. The authorsí claim may have merit if the District rule only allowed for 

the use of URBEMIS defaults and disallowed the use of project-specific 

information such as proper traffic counts and vehicle mix. This is not case. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 36

The District is part of a statewide working group that will continually work on 

refining and enhancing the accuracy of the URBEMIS model. 

38. COMMENT: ISSUE #4 – DISTRICT’S OWN DOCUMENTS DEMONSTRATE 

THAT FEES CANNOT BE AVOIDED THROUGH ON-SITE MITIGATION.

 District staff has continually and erroneously stated that if sponsors of new 

development satisfy the Districtís list of on-site mitigation measures, they wonít 

have to pay any fees. According to the Air Districtís own documents and 

comments by their own staff, this is simply not true. 

Even the Districtís newly revised staff report demonstrates that new 

homebuilders and businesses likely cannot completely mitigate indirect source 

emissions on-site (see Draft staff report page 15, 11/17/05). Perhaps this is why, 

at a recent meeting before the Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce, District 

Deputy Executive Officer Seyed Sadredin admitted most projects will not be able 

to mitigate their estimated air impact on site and will likely have to pay all or most 

of the fees. 

Neither the text of the Rules nor the staff report provide useful guidance on how 

doing one or all of the proposed on-site mitigations will score against the 

proposed fees and it has provided no detail about the air quality benefits of each 

of the proposed mitigation measures. Accordingly, applicants have no way of 

determining how much on-site mitigation will reduce emissions or how it will 

reduce the fee theyíre obligated to pay. 

Second, the Districtís proposed on-site mitigation checklist relies heavily on the 

existence of mass transit and other forms of transportation that donít exist to 

achieve emission reductions. Further, since there is no plan or realistic prospect 

of these necessary transportation projects being built in the near future, it is 

impossible for sponsors of development to comply with these types of on-site 

mitigations to avoid fees. 

RESPONSE: The authorsí comments are incorrect. The District has not stated 

that simply enacting the measures on the on-site list would result in no fees. The 

District has stated, and has conducted internal analysis that verifies, that it is 

possible to incorporate enough measures to result in no fees. The page 

referenced to from Staff Report does not assert or state that homebuilders and 

businesses cannot completely mitigate emissions on-site. The Staff Report does 

demonstrate how a certain percentage of on-site reduction achieves a larger 

percentage of fee reduction. District staff is unsure how the author 

misinterpreted the Staff Report, as the text states, ìÖ the ìbigger bang for the 

buckî is achieved with as much on-site mitigation as possibleÖ..See Table 1 for 

examples (emphasis added) of on-site emission reductions and the associated 

off-site fee reductionî. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 37

Concerning guidance on how the measures ìscoreî against the fees, and the air 

quality benefit associated with the measures, the authors should read page 11 of 

the Staff Report, which states, 

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. 

URBEMIS is a free, easy to use program that can be downloaded and used by 

the public, project applicants, public agency staff, and anyone else. See also 

September 1, 2005 Response to Comments #7 and #9. Applicants can easily 

see on their own how incorporation of measures reduces emissions through 

using the model (most simple projects take less than 1⁄2 hour), and can see how 

that reduces the fees by running the numbers through the fee formulas. 

Finally, the checklist does not ërelyí on mass transit and other transportation for 

emission reductions, but provides a venue to credit emission reductions from 

those items. Project applicants are not required to ëcomplyí with the list, but fill in 

which measures apply to their project, and which measures do not. 

The fees can be reduced significantly by employing the reasonable number of 

measures suggested by the District. We agree that it will be difficult to total 

eliminate the fees initially with the type of development that has historically 

occurred in the Valley. 

On how to ëscoreí the emission reduction from the measures suggested by the 

District, all measures in the on-site lists have a quantification methodology in the 

URBEMIS model. These methodologies may be read in the URBEMIS Userís 

Guide. The measures do not have a straight ìcreditî associated with 

implementation, but a calculated reduction based on various parameters, which 

may include interaction with other selected measures, amount input, and other 

parameters. The District will provide a great deal of assistance to the applicants 

to properly quantify the emissions and the applicable credits for measures 

employed. 

ISSUE 5 – DISTRICT HAS FAILED TO ADDRESS SOME BASIC – BUT IMPORTANT 

– POLICY QUESTIONS RAISED THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS

The following represent just a few of the many very important policy concerns that the 

Air District has failed to address or respond to, despites these questions being raised 

for many months. Governing Board members should take great pause before voting on 

Rules without getting answers to these very serious questions and concerns.

39. COMMENT: District has not quantified fees for the full 5-year rule period: 

The socio-economic and cost/effectiveness analyses provide an incomplete 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 38

accounting of fees that the District expects to assess over the 5-year rule period. 

 No information has been provided in either appendix on the cost to public 

facilities including schools, parks, and roads. No information has been provided 

in any appendix on the overall economic impact to the Central Valley. 

RESPONSE: The fee schedule holds fees past 2008 at the 2008 level. The 

socioeconomic impact analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis only assess 

2006-2008 because those are the amounts being proposed in the rule. If the 

rule is amended to change the fee amounts by a significant amount, it would 

result in the preparation of new analyses. If fees are held to the 2008 level, 

socio impacts would be the same as the 2008 level. For cost effectiveness, the 

District is confident that targets are feasible through 2008, but past 2008 would 

be too speculative. 

The District disagrees that overall impact on the economy in the Central Valley is 

not adequately addressed. Since the impact on the development industry was 

not significant and fees will be recirculated into the regional economy, it is logical 

to conclude that the rule would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

regional economy. See also Response to Comment #24 above. 

See Response to Comment #36 regarding public facilities.

40. COMMENT: Incomplete Spending Plan: Although Appendix E offers a 

spending program for the fees collected by Rule 9510, it falls short of what is 

acceptable. First, it covers only three of the five years of the rule period. 

Second, the revenue projects cover roughly one-sixth of the Ruleís potential 

revenue: $102 million vs. the potential $670 million in total fees that could be 

collected. 

RESPONSE: As stated above, the first three years have enough information to 

be adequately assessed.. Second, the $670 million stated by the authors is 

based on incorrect information and misinterpretations of rule requirements (see 

above Response to Comments #30 and #34). District analysis, using factual 

data, shows that the District may receive up to $103 million between 2005 and 

2008 based on the availability of the fee deferral option and historic development 

rates. The cost of reductions is more uncertain farther into the future. The 

District will reassess the cost of reductions prior to 2009 so that changes in 

regulations and the availability of new technologies can be taken into account. 

The District has proposed a detailed plan in the staff report that will be 

considered by the Board at the December hearing. Additionally, as a part of the 

Districtís annual budget process, the plan will be reviewed and amended as 

necessary. The District will also provide routine reports on the quantity fees 

collected, projects funded, and emission reductions achieved per Rule 9510 

Section 10.4. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 39

41. COMMENT: Unresolved fee estimation issues: As noted above, the 

URBEMIS model overstates project emissions by over 70%. The District has not 

committed to fix URBEMIS prior to Rule adoption and implementation. Unless 

resolved, Governing Board adoption will result in projects paying fees that are 

exaggerated by as much or more than 70% due to improper default values that 

do not reflect actual conditions in the Central Valley. 

RESPONSE: As stated previously (Response to Comment #19), the ì70%î 

overestimation is simply not valid. Previous comments have pointed out 

refinements that should occur to some URBEMIS default values, such as the silt 

loading factor, and the District has committed to providing guidance prior to 

implementation and to update URBEMIS as soon as possible with the revised 

factors (see Response to Comments #19-22, #27-29, #37, and Staff Report 

pages 21-22). However, the statement that the model grossly overstates vehicle 

emissions is not valid. 

42. COMMENT: Unresolved CEQA conflicts: CEQA already requires mitigation of 

air quality impacts associated with new development, yet the District states that 

Rule 9510 is not duplicative and is completely independent of the CEQA 

process. However, the Districtís response to EPA concerns is that it is counting 

on local agency CEQA requirements to make on-site mitigation measures 

enforceable. The District has not explained how its Rule will interact with local 

agency CEQA actions to achieve this result. 

RESPONSE: Currently, for measures that are required by a local agency, that 

agency includes them in CEQA documentation and is required to enforce those 

measures. The District recognizes this enforcement mechanism through CEQA 

for those measures that are required by the local agency. Therefore, although 

the project applicant is taking credit for emission reductions from measures 

required by lead agencies, the District will not have to enforce those measures 

independently. For measures that are not required by the local agency, the 

District will be responsible for enforcement. There are no new requirements on 

local agencies, and no additional ëinteractioní is required by the rules. 

43. COMMENT: In closing, members of our coalition agree that improving the 

regionís air quality is an important goal and one that demands that everyone in 

the Central Valley play a role. Accordingly, the District has a duty to convince 

the public of the value of its new policy and to win their trust in carrying it out. 

Regrettably, the District has failed to demonstrate the value or benefit of the 

proposed Rules. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 40

 Members of our coalition stand ready to work with the District on an alternative to 

proposed Rules 9510 and 3180 and towards achieving a more equitable, 

efficient and cost effective plan to reduce emissions. 

 In the meantime, we urge you to reject Rules 9510 and 3180 when theyíre 

brought before a vote of the Governing Board on December 15, 2005. 

RESPONSE: Comment Noted. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 41

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 

ON THE SEPTEMBER DRAFT RULE 

SEPTEMBER 1, 2005 

EPA: 

Date: September 20, 2005 

1. COMMENT: We are providing comments based on our preliminary review of the 

draft rule identified above. In general, we are very supportive of the District's 

effort to reduce emissions from new development projects and we recognize that 

this effort raises unique challenges. Please direct any questions about our 

comments to me at (415) 947-4115 or to Lily Wong at (415) 947-4114. 

RESPONSE: Comment Noted.

2. COMMENT: 1. Program Evaluations and the EIP 

This rule relies on market-based strategies to reduce emissions and, as a result, 

is subject to national guidance entitled, "Improving Air Quality with Economic 

Incentive Programs" (EIP), EPA-452/R-01-001, January 2001. Specifically, the 

DESIGN program has elements similar to Clean Air Investment Funds as 

described in chapter 9 of the guidance. As a result, the District's staff report 

should demonstrate that the program is consistent with the EIP guidance 

including, for example, provisions regarding environmental benefit, consistency 

with attainment/progress plans and automatic suspensions. Generally, we do 

not believe these demonstrations will be difficult to make. However, we believe 

the District should expand the scope of the annual program evaluation 

requirement (rule provision 10.4) to address elements identified in the EIP 

(sections 5.3(b) and (c)), including evaluation of the overall effects of the 

program, whether the Air Impact Mitigation Fees are appropriate based on the 

cost of reductions, and whether the program is achieving the projected emission 

reductions. The rule should also describe the procedures and criteria for the 

evaluations. Lastly, since the District will be responsible for obtaining emission 

reductions for off-site mitigation projects, the SIP submittal should include the 

District's commitment to rectify in a timely manner any shortfall in emission 

reductions. 

RESPONSE: The District disagrees that the rule is a market based strategy 

subject to EIP guidance. Indirect sources are not seeking to use incentive 

funding as a substitute for controlling emissions directly. Although it is not an 

EIP, the District intends to demonstrate that the program will provide 

environmental benefit and is consistent with all plans and rules. The appropriate 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 42

mechanism to ensure program performance is with annual reporting and 

corrective action to make up any shortfall. This can be accomplished by focusing 

funding on more cost-effective projects and would not require any special rule 

provision to accomplish. In the event that the rule did not achieve a milestone 

and altering the project mix was not successful, contingency measures are in 

place in the SIP to make up the shortfall while revisions to the rule are made or 

new rule(s) are adopted to correct the situation. 

3. COMMENT: 2. Mitigation 

The District should ensure that on-site mitigation of emissions and off-site 

emission reductions are enforceable. 

RESPONSE: The on-site measures are voluntarily chosen by the developer 

and, when included as a mitigation measure in the local agency environmental 

document, are enforceable under the California Environmental Quality Act 

(CEQA). These types of measures have a relatively large amount of uncertainty, 

but are highly desirable due to their ability to permanently change trip generation 

and miles traveled. Therefore the District proposes to account for emission 

reductions accomplished onsite under Voluntary and Emerging Measures 

guidance. Projects funded with off-site fees will be under contract with the 

District enforceable under contract law. 

4. COMMENT: 3. Director's Discretion 

The rule (provisions 3.2, 3.5, 5.3) allows the use of an "APCO-approved model" 

to calculate emissions and emission reductions from development projects. To 

avoid inappropriate director's discretion, the rule should identify, by name and 

version, all models that may be used under this rule, or require that the model or 

model revisions be approved by the District and EPA. 

RESPONSE: The rule has been revised to reflect that the District and EPA will 

approve models and model revisions used under the rule. Since all emission 

reduction calculations are accomplished using emission factors approved by the 

ARB and EPA and are consistent with the emission inventory factors, this should 

allow for quick implementation of model improvements that will be developed 

over time. 

5. COMMENT: 4. Surplus 

The rule should include provisions and mechanisms to ensure that emission 

reductions from on-site and off-site mitigation projects will be surplus to the 

requirements of the plan (e.g., reductions required by Rule 8061), and are not 

otherwise relied upon in the plan (e.g., part of the planning or growth 

assumptions in the plan). At a minimum, the rule should define "surplus" to 

include consideration of rule requirements and planning assumptions, and 

include provisions to prevent the double counting of emission reductions. We 

note, for example, that the May 19, 2005 PM-10 Plan (p. 4-45) lists a few specific 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 43

activities expected to provide emission reductions for this rule. However, the 

URBEMIS model allows credit for on-site mitigation measures not included on 

this list such as fewer wood burning stoves, energy efficiency projects and offroad maintenance equipment. While the Plan may include assumptions 

regarding these emissions, the District should ensure that the rule achieves the 

emissions reductions that the Plan predicts for the rule and that mitigation 

measures do not result in double counting of emission reductions assumed 

elsewhere in the plan. 

RESPONSE: The District will demonstrate that all offsite emission reduction 

projects submitted for credit are surplus in the documentation for each program 

developed to utilize the off-site funds. The Districtís Heavy Duty Engine 

Incentive Program is the prototype for how it will manage funding received from 

Rule 9510. This program has stringent criteria for determining if reductions 

remain surplus for the wide variety of projects. The District works closely with 

ARB in developing guidelines such as those adopted for the Carl Moyer 

Program. These guidelines pay particular attention to the issue of surplus 

reductions. New project types will undergo a similar rigorous process.

ARB: No comment received. 

California State Department of Transportation: 

Date: September 8, 2005 

6. COMMENT: The purpose of this letter is to comment on the proposed San 

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (District) Rule 9510 

(Decreasing Emissionsí Significant Impact from Growth and New Development) 

and the associated fees as stated in proposed rule 3180 (Administrative Fees for 

Air Impact Assessment Applications). When applied to the California 

Department of Transportationís (Department) construction sites, these rules 

attempt to regulate vehicular (mobile) emissions regardless of the Districtís lack 

of specific authority to regulate these emissions. 

Both statutory and case law clearly establishes that ìlocal and regional 

authorities have the primary responsibility for control of air pollution other than 

vehicular sources.î (See California Health and Safety Code sections 39002, 

40000, 43000 and 43013). The responsibility for regulating vehicle emissions 

belongs to the California Air Resources Board. The proposed District rules 

attempt to regulate mobile emissions from vehicles without statutory authority 

and therefore, it is our position that the proposed rules do not apply to vehicular 

emissions on Caltrans projects. 

RESPONSE: Rule 9510 does not attempt to regulate emissions from vehicles. 

The rule would regulate the emissions resulting from the act of construction and 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 44

the emissions resulting from the act of operation. The distinction lies in the 

following: 

• The rule does not set emission reduction requirements for individual engines 

or pieces of equipment 

• The rule does not require retrofits, the use or purchase of certain pieces of 

equipment or prescribe any specific use of emission reduction technology 

• The rule does not limit emissions through hours of operation or prescribe 

certain activities that reduce emissions 

• The rule does not require emission reductions to be achieved through the 

equipment or engines used. 

Simply, an amount of reduction is required by the rule, which can be achieved 

through any on-site or off-site means that are quantifiable and meet the 

requirements of the rule. The rule does not set a fleet average, regulate engines 

or vehicles or otherwise delve into the realm of mobile emissions, which the 

District does not have authority to regulate. The District does, however, have the 

authority to regulate indirect sources per Health and Safety Code, Section 

40716:

“(a) district may adopt and implement regulations to ... reduce or mitigate 

emissions from indirect and areawide sources of air pollution.” 

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

Act (CAA ß110(a)(5)(C)) as, ìÖ a facility, building, structure, installation, real 

property, road, or highway which attracts, or may attract, mobile sources of 

pollutionî(emphasis added). This authority comes from the CAA ß110(a)(5)(A)(i): 

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

source review program. 

The Indirect Source Review Program that the District is proposing would review 

the emissions from that indirect source (the facility, building , installation, real 

property, road, etc.) that occur from the installation of that source (i.e. 

construction) and the operation of that source (i.e. area and mobile). For 

transportation projects, essentially road construction, the District would review 

only the construction emissions associated with that indirect source. 

It is the Districtís position that the proposed rule is within the authority granted to 

the District by the federal Clean Air Act and the California Health and Safety 

Code. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 45

California State Department of Housing and Community Development

Date: September 15, 2005 

The Department of Housing and Community Development (Department) has reviewed 

the Draft Rules as revised September 1, 2005 and continues to have significant 

concerns about their impact on housing development and costs in the San Joaquin 

Valley. Many of the concerns expressed in the Departmentís July 25, 2005 letter have 

not been addressed by subsequent revisions or by the Districtís responses to our 

comments, and are reiterated below. 

7. COMMENT: 1. The on-site mitigation measures for residential development 

proposed by the Draft Rule 9510 duplicate the type of mitigation measures 

already required by the environmental review and mitigation process pursuant to 

CEQA or the local land-use permitting process. For example, requirements for 

transit measures, tree canopies, bike trails, etc., are already imposed by local 

governments during the existing local permitting process. This duplication is of 

particular concern if the projects cannot receive credit for such measures already 

incorporated in the project, or if the duplication were to result in most projects 

being charged fees for off-site mitigation programs. It is not evident that 

imposing the same type of mitigation requirements as those already imposed by 

State law (or sometimes federal as well) is necessary for the District to execute 

its powers as required by Health and Safety Code Section 70727 (b)(5). 

Recommendation: Clarify that projects will receive mitigation credits for on-site 

mitigation measures approved or required by the local government’s permitting 

process. 

RESPONSE: It is the Districtís intent that all quantifiable on-site measures that 

reduce a projectís emissions be given credit in the ISR program. The District 

does not require the applicant to implement any of the measure listed, but 

requires the applicant to identify which measures will and wonít be implemented. 

 The applicant is required to identify measures that are a requirement of another 

agency so that the District can identify which selected measures will need District 

enforcement, and which measures will be enforced by another public agency. 

The measures listed in Appendix C have a known quantification within the 

URBEMIS model. Measures selected will be credited to the project. The 

District will amend the rule language and staff report to reflect this. 

8. COMMENT: 2. Draft Rule 9510 will lengthen and complicate permit-processing 

times for new homes in a manner inconsistent with the Permit Streamlining Act, 

which is applicable to all public agencies (Chapter 4.5 of the Government Code, 

commencing with Section 65920). Draft Rule 9510 does not meet the 

consistency standard of Health and Safety Code Section 40727 (b)(4)). 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 46

• Section 8.1 of Draft Rule 9510 has been revised to require the District to 

determine the completeness of Air Impact Assessment (AIA) applications in 

ten days instead of thirty. It is unclear whether this changes will result in a 

practical benefit, however, as the Draft Rule does not include a mechanism 

for facilitating concurrent review between the District and local planning 

agencies. Sections 5.0 and 8.2 suggest the District is cognizant of the need 

to coordinate with local agencies, but does not specify the timing and nature 

of the coordination. Without concurrent review, developers who are required 

to, or elect to, alter a project may be required to resubmit plans to the local 

planning agency for additional discretionary review. Such outcomes would 

have additional and redundant cost implications for permit processing. 

Further, projects which would otherwise be subject to ministerial permit 

processing only, should not be subjected to discretionary review because of 

the Draft Rules. 

• Draft rule 9510, Section 8.8, proposes the District should have 90 days to 

take final action on an AIA application. Consequently, absent a concurrent 

review, process time could now take an additional 90 days. In some cases, 

Draft Rule 9510 thus has the potential to double existing processing times. 

Recommendation: Revise draft Rule to include a mechanism or process for 

concurrent review by the District and local planning agencies to avoid impacts on 

local government. The Rule should not directly, or indirectly, prompt local 

governments to assess yet additional fees for responsibilities which may fall on 

them in implementing the District’s Rule. 

RESPONSE: Draft Rule language will be revised to make application submittal 

for ISR concurrent with local agency processes. Specifically, applications must 

not be submitted after application for a final discretionary permit in the San 

Joaquin Valley Air Basin, and may be submitted prior to that time. The rule will 

not place requirements upon the public agency for review or implementation of 

the ISR process. The public agency review (ß 8.2) has been revised to a 

voluntary review. The District will be coordinating review with the public agency 

through: 

1. 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. Providing a letter of project status to the public agency upon request. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 47

It should be noted that this rule will not apply to ministerial projects, nor will it 

prompt ministerial projects into becoming discretionary projects. That 

determination is made by the local land use authority.

9. COMMENT: 3. There is insufficient information or clarity in the Draft Rules 

regarding not only permit processing coordination, but also quantification and 

cost of mitigation measures. According to Health and Safety Code Section 

40727 (b)(3), a rule or regulation adopted by a District board should be ìÖeasily 

understood by the persons directly affected by it.î Neither the Draft Rules, the 

Appendices, nor the Draft Staff Report describes the methodology the District will 

use to determine the number or value of mitigation credits to be associated with 

the various mitigation measures. Other aspects of the Draft Rules warranting 

clarification include, but are not limited to: Ö.(District - see Comments 10 

through 13 below)

Recommendation: Revise Draft Rule 9510 to include a detailed description and 

analysis of the methodology the District will use to determine the number or 

value of mitigation credits to be associated with various mitigation measures. 

Clarify the items noted above in Draft Rules 9510 and 3180. 

RESPONSE: The District will clarify the staff report to address how emission 

reductions from measures will be assessed. All measures within Appendix C 

have a quantification methodology in the URBEMIS model. These 

methodologies may be read in the URBEMIS Userís Guide, available at South 

Coast Air Quality Management Districtís website 

http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/urbemis.html, and will be made available at the 

Districtís website. The measures do not have a straight ìcreditî associated with 

implementation, but a calculated reduction based on various parameters, which 

may include interaction with other selected measures, amount input, and other 

parameters. 

10. COMMENT: Draft Rule 9510, Section 5.5 ñ Mitigation and Monitoring Report 

Program: The Draft Rule should specify if the applicant or the District is 

responsible for preparing this document. 

RESPONSE: The rule language will be revised to reflect the following: 

The applicant is responsible for preparing a proposed document. The District will 

provide the format and recommended keys for the document. The District will 

then work with the applicant to finalize the document prior to approval. It should 

be noted that this will only apply to measures selected by the applicant that do 

not have another enforcement mechanism, such as being a requirement by 

another public agency. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 48

11. COMMENT: Draft Rule 9510, Section 8.5 ñ Air Impact Mitigation Fee Estimate 

Acceptance: What amount of time does the developer have to respond to the 

estimate provided by the District? 

RESPONSE: The draft Rule will be revised to reflect the following 

Unless the applicant has proposed a Fee Deferral Schedule (FDS) prior to AIA 

approval, the applicant must pay the fee within 60 days, or may propose a FDS 

within 15 days of receiving the fee invoice. If the applicant proposes a FDS 

within the allowed timeframe, the District then has up to 15 days to finalize the 

FDS with the applicant. 

12. COMMENT: Draft Rule 9510, Section 10.2.3 ñ Administration of the Mitigation 

Funds: what, if any, limits are there on the duration of the contract between the 

developer and the District? 

RESPONSE: A distinction must be drawn between the ISR applicant, and an 

applicant for the funds. Section 10.2.3 discusses the process between the 

District and the applicant for funds. 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. 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. The staff 

report will be amended to include this information. 

13. COMMENT: Draft Rule 3180, Section 4.2 ñ Application Processing Time Log: 

How long does the District have to respond to a developerís request for a copy of 

the Log? 

RESPONSE: The District uses an automated Labor Information System (LIS) to 

track project time by all staff working on a project. This allows the District to 

easily prepare the time log within a short timeframe. The District standard for 

this type of request is 10 days. The District will amend Draft Rule 3180, Section 

4.2 to state the District has up to 10 days to provide the information.

14. COMMENT: 4. The direct and indirect costs imposed by the Draft Rule on the 

residential development process will result increased housing costs. The 

rationale for these increased costs as required by the Health and Safety Code 

Section 40728.5 are not adequately identified nor justified by the complete 

analysis. 

The Department commends the Districtís decision to reinstate the exemption for 

housing projects directly assisted by federal, State, or local housing funds. 

Assisted projects, however, only account for a small percentage of the San 

Joaquin Valleyís workforce housing stock. The majority of new lower- and 

moderate-income residents will occupy market-rate units. Increases in 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 49

construction costs resulting from the Draft Rules will ultimately be passed on to 

these residents in the form of higher rents and home prices. 

Yet, as indicated below, the Executive Summary of the socioeconomic 

assessment the District prepared pursuant to the Health and Safety Code 

Section 40728.5 concludes that increases in the construction and housing costs 

are irrelevant because lower-income residents are already overpaying for 

housing and are thus dependent on public subsidies: 

The analysis demonstrates that, even before the imposition of an air quality 

fee(s), most low-income (and) households in the Central Valley are priced out of 

newly constructed multifamily unit market, the rents for which need to be at 

levels that account for the price of land, development cost, developer fees, and 

an adequate level of profit, among other things. The analysis discusses how 

public subsidies can assist in enhancing the financial feasibility of a real estate 

project in which a certain portion of units are set-aside as below-market rental 

units (San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. Socioeconomic 

Analysis Proposed Indirect Source Rule: Draft Rules 9510 and 3180. 24 August 

2005.p.1.) 

The demand for assisted housing far exceeds available resources of all levels of 

government. The District should not assume that higher rents and home prices 

can be solely addressed by government subsidies. Furthermore, higher housing 

prices are problematic because the affordability gap widens, forcing more San 

Joaquin Valley residents to overpay for housing and/or live in overcrowded 

conditions. Additional regulatory barriers that increase the cost of housing 

supply must be restructured and their benefit should exceed their cost impacts. 

The Department also notes that the socioeconomic assessment does not 

address the impact of the Draft Rules on small business or analyze the 

availability or cost-effectiveness of alternatives, as required by Health and Safety 

Code Section 40728.5(b)(1), (b)(3), and (b)(4). For example, Part 6 (p. 26-32) 

includes generic information about impacts on single-family and multifamily 

homebuilders, but does not specify impacts on small homebuilders. 

Recommendation: Revise the socioeconomic assessment to include: 1) a more 

thorough analysis of the impact of the Draft Rules on the economy of the San 

Joaquin Valley, including the number of consumers who will be overpaying for 

housing; 2) the impact of the Draft Rules on small residential developers; and 3) 

alternatives to the Draft Rules. 

RESPONSE: The Socioeconomic Analysis will be amended to include analysis 

on the ruleís impact on small businesses. In addition, the analysis does not 

discuss alternatives because there are no identified alternatives to adoption of 

the ISR rules.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 50

Although the Socioeconomic Analysis does discuss the role of public subsidies, 

the Districtís conclusion is not that low-income housing impacts are irrelevant 

due to public subsidies. The Socioeconomic Analysis discusses public subsidies 

to show the options and availability of what subsidies exist. The conclusion of 

the Socioeconomic Analysis is that the impacts on housing costs (both to the 

developer and the buyer/renter) are less than significant. The Districtís 

conclusion is similar to how some pollutant thresholds of significance are set. 

For example, the District is in non-attainment for ozone and PM10. It could be 

argued that because the air is bad already, any increase is contributing to nonattainment and therefore is significant. However, the District finds it impractical 

and unwarranted to force every project that emits any amount of the applicable 

pollutants into the ësignificantí category. Therefore, the District determines 

significance for PM10 and ozone precursors against a threshold that aims to truly 

differentiate between less-than-significant and significant impacts. Similarly, the 

Socioeconomic Analysis states on page 37: 

For the most part, rents that low-income households should pay are substantially 

below the rents that the typical new multi-family units construction in the region 

should command, even before the imposition of the air fee. 

That is to say, the market is such that low-income households are already priced 

out of most new dwelling units. Any increase in housing costs, regardless of 

origin, will exacerbate this disparity. However, the analysis shows that the 

potential increase in mortgage is, ìa small fraction of the original household 

income required to finance a new home in the event no air quality fees were in 

place,î and the potential increase in rents are, ìsimilarly small.î (p.1) 

15. COMMENT: 5. Draft Rule 9510 would impose mitigation fees without 

adequately establishing a nexus. The Draft Staff Report and Summary of 

Comments and Responses from the June 30, 2005 public workshop do not 

adequately support the nexus between the expenditure of mitigation fees and the 

location of indirect sources. For example, while NOx occurs throughout the 

District, the impact of other pollutants, such as PM10, is more localized. 

Recommendation: Clarify the nexus between PM10 and the expenditure of 

mitigation fees. 

RESPONSE: The District has prepared documentation included in the staff 

report for the rule that provides the information necessary to demonstrate a 

nexus between project impacts and the off-site fee. See Response to Comment 

#125 for the findings of the Districtís legal counselís analysis of nexus 

requirements.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 51

16. COMMENT: In summary, the Draft Rules do not appear to comply with the 

ìclarityî, ìconsistency,î and ìnonduplicationî requirements set forth in Health and 

Safety Code Section 40727(b). Than you for the opportunity to submit additional 

comments. Given the magnitude of the concerns identified in this letter, the 

Department recommends that the District not adopt Draft Rules 9510 and 3180 

as drafted and continue to work with all interested parties on needed revision. 

RESPONSE: The District disagrees that Rule 9510 conflicts with H&S 40727(b). 

 The District prepared a consistency analysis that is provided as Appendix G to 

the Staff Report. The rule is being revised to improve clarity of the requirements 

and will provide detailed rule implementation guidance prior to implementation 

and typically uses compliance assistance bulletins when issues arise after 

implementation. The rule does not duplicate other requirements on indirect and 

areawide sources. Emissions estimates used in the rule account for existing 

controls on vehicles and equipment. The rule requires a reduction of a portion of 

the remaining emissions after control. Because of the Valleyís rapid growth, a 

substantial portion of benefit of the controls is offset; hence the need for 

additional emission reductions to reach attainment by deadlines mandated for 

the Districtís PM10 and ozone plans. 

Local Public Agencies: 

City of Hanford 

Date: September 23, 2005 

17. COMMENT: I applaud your efforts to continue to evaluate methods to improve 

the air quality in the valley. However, I would request that the San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District take the time to further study Draft 

Rule 9510 and Draft Rule 3180. 

RESPONSE: This rule has been under development for more than two years. 

The District has had three rounds of workshops, focus groups, stakeholder 

meetings and other outreach. We believe that the rule development process has 

been adequate. 

18. COMMENT: On behalf of the City of Hanford, I would ask that you slow down 

the process and identify specific steps and programs that will be implemented to 

reduce air pollution; include additional input from representative agencies and 

clearly identify how the funds collected will actually improve air quality in the 

valley. 

RESPONSE: See the Staff Report for more information on how the rule works 

to reduce emissions through on and off-site measures and how the District will 

use funds received as a result of Rule 9510 and Rule 3180. In addition, 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 52

Appendix E (Cost Effectiveness Analysis for Rule 9510) for details on the 

exercise that the District has completed to ensure that: 

1. The emission reduction projects exist in a quantity to provide the reductions 

necessary, and 

2. Those projects exist at a cost-effectiveness that can achieve the schedule 

listed in the rule in Section 7.2.1 and 7.2.2. 

19. COMMENT: The incompatibility of the proposed regulations regarding the 

CEQA requirements poses additional concerns. 

RESPONSE: The District believes that Rule 9510 is fully compatible with CEQA 

requirements. The rule provides a new opportunity to provide consistent air 

quality analysis and emission reductions on a Valley-wide basis. See 

Response to Comments #8. 

20. COMMENT: Restraint must be used in determining actions that would have a 

significant impact on our residents, the business community and our local 

governments. Specifically, there must be a nexus for the feeís charged and the 

specific identification on how the generated funds would be used to remedy the 

problem which exists.

RESPONSE: The District has designed the rule to address only a fair share of 

the impacts caused by new development. We are confident that the rule will 

mitigate emissions in direct proportion to the impact caused by the project in 

keeping with nexus standards. The key to meeting the nexus is that impact will 

be estimated with best available tools and emission reductions obtained to offset 

the impact will be quantified with best available factors and methods. See also 

Response to Comment #125. 

Council of Fresno County Governments (Fresno COG) 

Date: September 9, 2005 

At the request of our Transportation Technical Committee (TTC), the Council of Fresno 

County Government (Fresno COG) is submitting this letter regarding the Air Districtís 

DESIGN (Decreasing Emissionsí Significant Impact from Growth and New 

development) program. The most recent draft of the DESIGN program was discussed 

by Fresno COG staff and TTC members at the September 7, 2005 meeting. Many of 

our member jurisdictions have significant concerns over the proposed rule and 

requested that we submit the following comments. 

21. COMMENT: Inadequate Notice and Review Time 

In some cases, Fresno COG and our member agencies received only a one-day 

notice for the September 1, 2005 workshop. This late notice prevented several 

agencies from attending on that day. On several calls with the Air District last 

month, Fresno COG staff indicated the need for improved communication and 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 53

coordination. This continues to be a concern, as the current rule development 

schedule allows only two weeks to review and comment on the draft rule. 

RESPONSE: The District has a list serve for the rule that enables all interested 

parties to receive immediate notice of workshops and document availability. The 

District accepts comments up to and including the Governing Board hearing, 

allowing for more than a month of additional review time should it be needed.

22. COMMENT: Transportation Projects Subject to the Rule 

The short review time is especially troubling given the recent addition of 

transportation projects (with construction emissions greater than 2 tons per year) 

as subject to the DESIGN rule. Fresno COG and our local agencies are unclear 

how this will impact the project approval process and need additional time and 

information to assess the impacts. 

RESPONSE: The rule does not impact the project approval process since the 

District has no discretion over those projects. The rule just provides a 

mechanism to enable the agencies to reduce the impacts of project construction. 

 See also the Staff report. 

23 COMMENT: Demonstrate the Air Quality Benefits 

Fresno COG requests that the Air District clarify how this rule will improve air 

quality. Please provide additional analysis of the air quality improvements and 

examples of how the revenue will be used. 

RESPONSE: The Staff Report contains analysis that quantifies the projected air 

quality benefits of the rule. Additional details regarding the potential projects 

funded by the rule are included in the revised Appendix E. See also Response to 

Comment #18 on the use of off-site funds.

24. COMMENT: Improve Response to Comments 

As noted by several commenters at the September 1st workshop and by our 

member agencies at our committee meeting, Fresno COG also requests that the 

District develop and adequate process to address comments received. The 

ìResponse to Commentsî distributed at the workshop was organized by category, 

rather than submitting agency; this made it time-consuming to locate and review 

specific Reponses. In several cases, our local jurisdictions indicated that 

comments were not addressed and needed to be given sufficient consideration by 

Air District staff. 

RESPONSE: The District has modified the Response to Comment format to 

address this concern. The District feels that the current format will allow 

commenters to find their specific comments and the associated responses.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 54

25. COMMENT: Identify Rule Changes 

Please provide a document on the Air District website that identifies and tracks 

changes made from previous drafts of the rule. This has been the practice with 

other rule modifications and is essential to reviewing and commenting on this 

document. 

RESPONSE: The changes to the draft from this round of comments will be 

made in strikeout/underline format.

Fresno County, Department of Public Works and Planning 

Date: September 15, 2005 

26. COMMENT: We are concerned with the language of the rules as it relates to 

transportation projects. Should 2.2 say ìtwo (2.0) tonsî per year ìof NOx and 

PM10 combined.î, based on similar language in 2.3.4 and 4.2 

However, looking more closely, these three are not identical in that: 

• 2.2 says ìNOx and PM10 combinedî 

• 2.3.3 says ìNOx and PM10î 

• 4.2 says ìNOx and PM10 eachî 

If there is a specific reason for the differences, can you explain? 

RESPONSE: Since construction emissions occur during a specific period, the 

emissions are based on the total during the construction period. For example, if 

a project emits 3 tons of combined emissions during a six month construction 

period, that amount is subject to the 20% NOx and 45% PM10 emission 

reduction requirement. If a project emits the same 3 tons of emissions over two 

years, the calculation is also based on the entire construction project. 

Section 2.2 refers to construction NOx and PM10, which is based off of 2 tons of 

NOx and PM10 total tons combined. The District will revise the rule language to 

clarify that construction pollutants are total tons combined, and operational 

pollutants are tons per year non-combined. Section 2.3.2 will be revised to state 

ìNOx or PM10î and be specific to operational emissions. 

27. COMMENT: Also, please look at 8.8. Under it you have 8.7.3, but should that 

actually be 8.8.4?

RESPONSE: The section will be renumbered as noted.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 55

Kern County Planning Department 

Date: July 22, 2005 

The Kern County Planning Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on 

Draft Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 which are being implemented to assist the Districtís 

attainment goals for State and Federal standards for ozone and PM10. The stated 

purpose of Rule 9510 is to provide a mechanism for development to mitigate 

construction, direct and indirect emissions from their projects through design features, 

on-site and off-site measures. Rule 3180 will provide for payment of the Districtís staff 

cost to implement the new rule. 

As our comments have consistently stated, the DESIGN Rule, while using the language 

of CEQA (Significant Impact) avoids all relationship to CEQA and simply defers any 

questions to a later time after Rule Development is complete. The following is a 

preliminary list of questions, comments and concerns regarding this matter. 

28. COMMENT: What is the basis for the exemption of projects that have mitigated 

baseline below two tons per year for each pollutant from the Rule? Is this basis 

evidence that 10 projects in the same area producing less then two tons per year 

each are not cumulatively considerable under CEQA? 

RESPONSE: The District has made changes to the project submittal timing in 

the rule to ensure that the air analysis conducted can also be used to support the 

CEQA process for the local agencies discretionary approval. 

The rule is designed to reduce the impact of the project 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. The rule sets levels that are in compliance with state law regarding 

indirect source regulations and are feasible to achieve. Based on the Districtís 

analysis, projectís with emissions below two tons per year of operational NOx 

and PM10 were not required to reduce emissions to achieve the emission 

reduction required by the Districtís plans for attainment. 

29. COMMENT: Why are only NOx and PM10 being addressed when CEQA 

requires all pollutants to be quantified and mitigated to the extent they exceed 

thresholds? 

RESPONSE: The ISR programís primary purpose is to meet attainment plan 

requirements not as a CEQA compliance method; however, we believe that 

reducing one precursor, NOx, will reduce the cumulative impact on ozone from 

new development to less than significant levels. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 56

It is not the Districtís intent to reduce the impacts of all pollutants in the valley 

through this rule. The rules are the result of the Districtís PM10 and Ozone 

Attainment Plans, as they identified the need to reduce directly emitted PM10 

and NOx in order to reach the standards on schedule. Sufficient ROG was 

obtained from other control measures to enable the District to predict attainment 

without additional ROG control. Therefore, the rule was able to focus on those 

two pollutants and can make the case that ROG from predicted growth from new 

development will not impact the attainment strategy. 

30. COMMENT: The District has an established threshold in the GAMAQI of 10 tons 

of ROG yet no provision for mitigation in the DESIGN rule. Why?

RESPONSE: See Response to Comment #29 above. The GAMAQI is the 

Districtís Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, specifically 

written to help lead agencies, as identified in CEQA, address CEQA for air 

quality impacts and may be revised to reflect changes that are appropriate.

31. COMMENT: Section 6.2 requires mitigation of only apportion of the projectís 

emissions (1/3 of the projectís first-year area source and operational baseline 

NOx emissions over a period of ten years) and then states that it ìrepresents 

cumulative emissionsÖî. The use of the term ìcumulativeî should be deleted 

and replaced by another term to explain the Districts intention. An interpretation 

of the phrase ìcumulative emissionsî in a CEQA document, under current case 

law interpretation, does not include such a reduction as proposed by the District. 

 This disconnect will lead to confusion and legal challenges of CEQA documents.

RESPONSE: The District believes that the term ìcumulativeî best describes the 

emissions being reduced by the rule. The NOx emissions are declining over 

time, so a project that reduces emissions to the extent described by the fee 

formula will be mitigating its cumulative impact. See also Response to Comment 

#28.

32. COMMENT: The District is the authority that provides guidance and direction for 

local government on air assessments for CEQA and has been recognized as 

such by the Courts. If the District has sufficient basis for establishment of this 

Rule with reductions in required emissions to be mitigated on ì the concept that 

annual NOx emission from motor vehicles declines 50% over ten years.î, then 

the District should include in this Rule making, clear direction from the Governing 

Board to amend the GAMAQI, through a Public Hearing process, to formally 

adopt this approach in Air Quality Assessment methodology for CEQA 

documents. This process, which would necessarily include the fact basis for the 

adoption of this standard, would provide clear direction for the connection of this 

Rule to CEQA and provide support of the Lead Agency in current challenges to 

Air Assessment methodology in CEQA documents.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 57

RESPONSE: The primary purpose of the rule is to help the District meet its 

attainment plan commitments. The rule provides for emission reductions in a 

framework that provides strong assurance that reductions will be real, surplus, 

quantifiable, and permanent and therefore should strengthen environmental 

documents that rely on reductions to reduce significant air impacts. The 

Districtís GAMAQI is formally adopted by the Governing Board at a public 

hearing. Any revisions will also go through a public review process with a 

workshop and Governing Board hearing. See also Response to Comment #28.

33. COMMENT: The staff report states on Page 11 that ìThe current concept is that 

Rule 9510 will mitigate the cumulative impacts of anticipated growth since the 

reductions attributed to this program was identified in two attainment plans as 

necessary to achieve the applicable standards.î Yet the next sentence weakly 

states that ìThe District may (emphasis added) revise the GAMAQI to define the 

exact role that Rule 9510 will have in the CEQA process, prior to adoption of this 

program.î Please clarify why the District is not committed to amending the 

GAMAQI to clearly provide relief for local government in CEQA litigation in a 

matter, air impacts, for which the District is the recognized expert.

RESPONSE: The District is committed to providing guidance through the 

GAMAQI that accurately reflects the impacts of all adopted District rules and 

regulations on air quality.See also Response to Comment #28 and #31.

September 1, 2005 Workshop – Verbal Comments

Bakersfield

Dr. Adrian Moore – Reason Foundation 

34. COMMENT: There is a lack of a causal link between new uses and an increase 

in emissions from new trips. If it is automobiles that are causing the pollution 

that the rule is targeting, then the District should be going after automobiles. 

RESPONSE: There are more than twenty years of CEQA documents that have 

consistently found that new development has a significant impact on air quality. 

New development is constructed to accommodate growth. Prior to development 

of green field areas there are no trips and no construction emissions at the 

project site. The argument that some trips are displaced from another existing 

use are not valid except in the short term. When people move to a new house, 

someone can be expected to move into the existing home and replace the trips 

the old homeowner was making. When commercial uses open in a new growth 

area, they may temporarily divert trips from existing commercial uses, but in a 

growing area the most important factor is an expanding market area. When the 

community adds enough residents to support another like commercial use, the 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 58

trips will be drawn from the area farthest from the existing use to the new use, 

and overall the number of trips is increasing. 

35. COMMENT: The sources listed in the Districtís staff report are not published or 

peer-reviewed. Specifically, Dr. Holtzclawís study is not published.

RESPONSE: The Holtzclaw study provides analysis of VMT differences in areas 

with different levels of pedestrian and transit accessibility in California. The 

study has been available for all who wish to review it. In addition, the study has 

been referenced by other researches numerous times in peer-reviewed journals.

36. COMMENT: Additionally, the benefits from design identified in the staff report 

are likely the result of self-selection and not an actual shift in modal choices 

based on design. Therefore the reductions from the increase in the on-site 

measures implemented will not materialize from implementation of this rule. 

RESPONSE: The authorís comment is based on a false assumption that there 

are no people in the San Joaquin Valley that would choose different 

development designs if they were available. The District maintains that trip 

making behavior would change if onsite design measures were widely 

implemented. The causal link between new development and vehicle emissions 

has been well documented and is generally accepted. The issue of selfselection v. modal shift in development with ësmart growthí, ëtransit-orientedí or 

ëpedestrian-orientedí design has not been resolved. It is known that there is a 

real, verifiable correlation between land use design and vehicle use. Studies 

show that well-designed development that considers pedestrian, bicycling and 

transit generates less emissions than totally automobile oriented design.

The District recognizes that there is always uncertainty when predicting individual 

travel behavior. For this reason, the District proposes to submit reductions 

claimed for onsite measures as a voluntary and emerging measure that allows 

for this type of uncertainty in order to promote innovation. 

37. COMMENT: If it is automobiles that are causing the pollution that the rule is 

targeting, then the District should be going after automobiles. 

RESPONSE: State and federal controls on motor vehicles are not sufficient for 

the District to attain federal air quality standards within mandated timeframes. 

The District has authority to seek additional reduction from indirect and areawide 

sources to close the gap. Stationary sources must provide offsets to further 

reduce emissions beyond what is feasible onsite. Indirect source rules operate 

under a similar concept. See also Response to Comment #6.

38. COMMENT: Reducing trips doesnít create large reductions relative to 

increasingly clean vehicles, regardless of increasing VMT
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 59

RESPONSE: The heart of the problem is that although vehicles are increasingly 

clean, increases in travel and VMT are offsetting a substantial portion of the 

benefit, hence the need for an indirect source review rule.

39. COMMENT: The housing impact is not near accurate because the market could 

be in a bubble right now. The Socioeconomic Impact Analysis should use 

quintiles instead of an average; you would find a huge impact on low incomes 

with that methodology.

RESPONSE: First, the impact on housing stated in the Socioeconomic Analysis 

was based on the number of housing units used by the District, which were 

based on the state population forecasts. If the growth rate exceeds the 

projection, the impacts will be greater and so will the need for emission 

reductions. Also, a greater number of units subject to the rule would have no 

added impact on individual development projects. Second, the use of an 

average is appropriate because the impact of the fee filters out over time, so the 

effect, such as an increase in rent, isnít immediate. See also Response to 

Comment #49. 

Arthur Unger – Kern-Kaweah Chapter of the Sierra Club 

40. COMMENT: The studies in the Districtís materials regarding differences in trip 

generation from different types of development are published. 

RESPONSE: Comment Noted.

41. COMMENT: Concerning the information provided in the Socioeconomic Impact 

Report ñ the prices of housing in the Valley are a result of supply and demand, 

not necessarily resultant from fees that are assessed. 

RESPONSE: The Socioeconomic Analysis supports the authorís comment. The 

report states, ìit is apparent that larger market forces are the primary culprit 

behind the increases in housing pricesÖî

Carla Waleka – Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition 

42. COMMENT: The Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition would like to see the 

construction calculator and know the assumptions and inputs.

RESPONSE: The calculations used in the rule were done using URBEMIS 

construction module. The construction calculator used by SMAQMD is proposed 

as a model for development of a San Joaquin Valley version. We are now 

proposing to continue using URBEMIS with the option for developers to use a 

construction calculator if approved by the APCO.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 60

Renee Nelson – Clean Water and Air Matter, Bakersfield 

43. COMMENT: The process laid out by the District does not comply with CEQA. 

The process will allow for negotiations with applicants behind closed doors with 

no option for public input, which is required under CEQA. In addition, CEQA 

states that mitigation canít be differed until later. The District also put forth a 

comment that CEQA timelines vary with jurisdiction, which is untrue. 

RESPONSE: The ISR program does not involve discretionary approval of 

development projects, and therefore is not subject to CEQA. We expect local 

agencies to use the air analysis accomplished for the rule and o-site emission 

reduction measures agreed to by the applicant and the local agency to reduce 

air impacts in their CEQA process. If a citizen has an issue with the approval of 

a project due to air quality impacts they will have the same options that are 

currently available to them to challenge the project and the validity of the 

analysis used to support the decision made by the local council or board. See 

also Response to Comments #8 and #28.

44. COMMENT: This program must be aligned with CEQA and should not allow 

changes to a project behind closed doors.

RESPONSE: The rule is being revised to change the application timeframe to 

be concurrent with the local agency CEQA process. District has no authority to 

require applicants to include on-site emission reduction measures. We have 

traditionally worked with applicants to help them identify changes to the project 

that would reduce air impacts as early in the development process as possible 

and will continue this effort. The rule requirement is for the applicant to fill out 

the on-site emission reduction checklist; however, it does not prescribe a 

minimum or maximum number of measures that should be checked. The 

responses on the checklist are solely up to the applicant. The land-use decision 

making authority is with the local land use authority, not the District. The AIA 

information will be made available to the public. See also Response to 

Comments #8 and #29.

45. COMMENT: Does the ISR program apply to agricultural projects? 

RESPONSE: The District believes the applicability section and the definition of a 

development project effectively exclude agricultural projects. 

46. COMMENT: Will the ISR apply to waste-hauling projects? 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 61

RESPONSE: Hauling projects are not specifically stated as a project in the rule. 

 ISR projects are land-use based, triggered by a discretionary permit in 

combination with new construction or increased use that generates construction 

and/or area and mobile emissions that exceed the ISR threshold. If a land use 

requires a discretionary permit, and meets or exceeds the applicability threshold, 

then the emissions from hauling would be subject to the rule. However, if the 

project is hauling operations alone then it would not be subject to the rule.

47. COMMENT: Where will mitigation funds be used in relation to the project 

assessed the fees? 

RESPONSE: The funds will be spent within an area based on the type of 

pollutant. NOx is a regional pollutant, but every attempt will be made to fund 

projects in the vicinity of the project site. PM10 is a more localized pollutant, and 

PM10 funds would be spent closer to the project assessed the fees. 

Brian Todd, BIA and Business, Industry and Government (BIG) 

48. COMMENT: The District needs to tell the public about how much more fees will 

be in the Bakersfield area due to the need for additional PM10 reductions. 

RESPONSE: The additional PM10 reductions cited by the commenter is the 1-

ton per day by 2010 needed in the Bakersfield Metropolitan area. This rule does 

not address that reduction. ISR program fees are tonnage based and do not 

adjust by location. The 1-ton needed in Bakersfield is being addressed through 

a PM10 task force. Voluntary mitigation agreements in the area may be used to 

the extent that they mitigate beyond the requirements of Rule 9510.

49. COMMENT: The dynamic driving prices for housing in small and medium cities 

stated in the presentation is due to school fees. The ISR fees will exacerbate 

this problem. In addition, the housing market may be a bubble. Basing the fee 

on housing bubble numbers is a flawed methodology because the market is 

unstable, and the fee revenue depends on the number of houses. 

RESPONSE: The District fees were not based on the number of housing units 

going in. The fees were based on the amount required to offset emissions, and 

is purely emission based. The expected fee revenue and future impacts are 

estimated from the forecasted population data from the state and the emissions 

from growth in residential and non-residential development. 

It is important to note that the District will only be collecting fees to reduce as in 

there is development creating emissions to reduce. If the number of houses 

decrease (bubble burst), the District would have fewer emissions to reduce; 

therefore, the same fee brings the appropriate amount to reduce those 

emissions (less revenue). If the number of houses increases, the District would 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 62

have more emissions to reduce; therefore, the same fee brings the appropriate 

amount to reduce those emissions (more revenue).

Heather Ellison 

50. COMMENT: What is the meaning of ërecreational spaceí and ëunidentified 

spaceí in the rule?

RESPONSE: Rule 9510 ß13.7 defines recreational space for recreational uses 

such as soccer fields. Unidentified is a catchall category to indicate that other 

land use categories not listed are still subject to the rule if they generate 

emissions and are not otherwise exempt. 

Mike Kelly – Western State Petroleum, Vector Environmental 

51. COMMENT: Previous comments to the District were not adequately addressed 

in the previous response to comments. The law states that the District can 

regulate the increase in emissions. There is a concern that the Rule will trigger 

review of those discretionary permits that donít result in an increase in vehicle 

traffic, such as certain Conditional Use Permits (CUPs).

RESPONSE: The District typically consolidates similar comments and provides 

a single response. The District will consider providing individualized responses 

on a case-by-case basis. 

The Rule applies to the increase in emissions resulting from land-uses changes 

that require a discretionary permit. Therefore, if project requires a discretionary 

permit, but does not result in an increase in emissions that meet the applicability 

threshold, then it would not be subject to the Rule. However, if the CUP allows 

for an increase in indirect or area source emissions or new construction activity 

that generates emissions, it would be subject to the rule if not specifically 

exempt.

Fresno

Bob Keenan – BIA, BIG 

52. COMMENT: Fee collection and use is governed by the Health and Safety Code, 

ß6600 subsection G. The rule does not meet those requirements.

RESPONSE: The author cites Government Code Section 66000 (The Mitigation 

Fee Act) as the impetus for promulgating a nexus document. The legislation 

clearly states that it is applicable to fees (ß66000(b)), ìin connection with 

approval of a development project.î Section 66000(a) defines a development 

project as including, ìa project involving the issuance of a permit for construction 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 63

or reconstruction, but not a permit to operate.î In addition, Section 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: 

(Emphasis added) 

Section 66005(a) also ties the legislation with ëcondition of approval of a 

development projectí. 

1. The District will not approve or disapprove a development project, but will 

approve or disapprove the projectís analysis to determine the quantity of 

emission reductions required to comply with the rule. The authority to 

approve or disapprove the development itself is the local land-use agency, 

not the District. 

2. The District will not be issuing a permit, nor will the District give a 

discretionary approval of the project. 

3. The Districtís ISR action is ministerial, and therefore will not include 

conditions of approval. 

The District stands by its previous assessment. The Mitigation Fee Act does not 

apply to the ISR rules. However, the District has analyzed the applicability of 

nexus requirements to this rule. See Response to Comment #125 for the 

findings of the analysis. 

53. COMMENT: Fees paid at the permit doubles to the buyer and prices people out 

of the market. 

RESPONSE: Fee prices may price some people out of a particular house, but 

not necessarily out of the entire market. Currently, market forces are increasing 

the price of housing to a much greater extent than the fee would. In addition, the 

difference between paying prior to building permit issuance and at certificate of 

occupancy canít possibly double the cost unless the loan was at an astronomical 

interest rate. If the fee were financed in a mortgage at 30 years it may double, 

but it also doubles the amount they are paying for anything. 

54. COMMENT: The fees from the program will drive up the costs of existing 

housing.

RESPONSE: Existing housing is not subject to the rule. Although the District 

realizes that sellers of existing housing may take advantage of a potential 

increase in new housing prices by artificially inflating the price of existing 

housing, the District does not have control over existing housing prices. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 64

Increases in existing housing prices ëattributableí to the rule would be resultant of 

the seller, not of the District.

55. COMMENT: The impact of the fees resulting from implementation of the ISR 

program would ruin the Valleyís economy.

RESPONSE: The commenterís position that ISR fees would ruin the economy is 

not supported by factual evidence. The Socioeconomic Analysis found the 

worst-case scenario of fees to be within the margin that can be absorbed by the 

economy. This is not to say that there is no impact, but that the impact is less 

than significant. In addition, the residential scenario in 2008 resulted in a fee of 

about $1,800 per house. This scenario had no emission reduction measures 

included; it had a density of 3 unit per acre (increased density decreases 

emissions), no sidewalks, or any other measure that reduces emissions (and 

thus fees). See also response to comment #56 and #14. Finally, housing prices 

have steadily increased in over the last ten years. This increase is far more than 

$1,800 every year. The District does not state this to justify the potential fee, but 

to illustrate what has occurred in housing prices and that the Valleyís economy 

has not crashed as a result. It is illogical to suggest that a potential $800 per 

residential unit in 2006 to $1,800 in 2008 would ruin the Valleyís economy. As 

stated in Response to Comment #14, the fee amount listed in the 

Socioeconomic report is likely much more than will actually occur.

56. COMMENT: The cost of on-site mitigation is not included in the socioeconomic 

impact report. Therefore, the report does not accurately reflect the impact of the 

rule.

RESPONSE: The Socioeconomic Analysis does not include the price of on-site 

emission reduction measures for a specific reason. That is, it is reasonable to 

expect that an applicant would not choose a more expensive option over a 

cheaper option. The ëworst-caseí, no on-site-measure fees are therefore the 

most that an applicant would pay. It is also important to note that on-site 

measures are entirely voluntary. 

Also of note, many of the on-site measures that count towards reduced 

emissions are already requirements by local land use agencies. For example, 

most agencies require some amount of sidewalks or bicycle improvements with 

development that is adjacent to a street. URBEMIS calculates an emission 

reduction from the amount of sidewalks and bicycle infrastructure built in the 

project. Therefore, crediting certain on-site measures are of no additional cost to 

an applicant because they had already incorporated the measures into the 

project as a result of the public agency requirements.

Mark Stout - Fresno Metro Ministries 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 65

57. COMMENT: The proposed rule only mitigates a portion of the emissions. Why 

does the rule only reduce a portion of the emissions, and why the particular 

level- for example the 33% for operational NOx. 

RESPONSE: The District calculated the level of reduction needed on a perproject basis that would achieve the emission reduction committed to in the 

PM10 and ozone attainment plans. The rule sets levels that are in compliance 

with state law regarding indirect source regulations and are feasible to achieve. 

The 33% is based on the area under the triangle that accounts for declining 

mobile emissions over time ñ see the fee formula. 

58. COMMENT: A slide of the presentation showed huge NOx emissions increase 

from 2006 to 2010 from development. The number listed for reduction 

attributable to the rule seems rather small in comparison. 

RESPONSE: The slide incorrectly showed the reductions attributable to 

construction as cumulative instead of temporary during the construction phase of 

development.

59. COMMENT: The District would benefit from making the URBEMIS runs 

available to the community groups. The community groups should be able to 

review what developers are inputting, and verify the modeling.

RESPONSE: The runs will typically be used in the CEQA process and included 

with negative declarations and EIRs. The files will be available with a public 

information request. The District will make this information public. See also 

Response to Comment #8.

Colby Morrow – Southern California Gas Company 

60. COMMENT: Appendix C should be amended. PUC Energy Efficiency programs 

can be administered by energy companies and municipalities.

RESPONSE: Appendix C, page C-5 will be amended.

Cathy Crosby, Fresno County Public Works, Transportation and Planning 

61. COMMENT: The response to comment format from the previous workshop 

made it difficult to find oneís comments and the associated responses. The 

preferred format would be the EIR format, where the original comment letter is 

retained. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 66

RESPONSE: The District has revised the response to comment format to 

address this issue. The format is a hybrid, retaining the original comment but not 

in the original letterform.

62. COMMENT: Several of the Fresno County July 22nd comments werenít 

addressed in the response to comments. Specifically: 

• Transportation projects should be re-written to include non-vehicle projects, 

such as pedestrian projects. 

RESPONSE: The definition of Transportation projects does not include nonvehicle projects because of the definition of an indirect source. The Clean Air 

Act (CAA ß110(a)(5)(C)) defines and indirect source as, ìÖ a facility, building, 

structure, installation, real property, road, or highway which attracts, or may 

attract, mobile sources of pollutionî. Pedestrian projects do not attract mobile 

sources of pollution, but pedestrians. It would be inappropriate to include nonindirect sources in with transportation projects to be subject to the requirements 

of the rule.

63. COMMENT: ß7.2.2.2 of their letter describers the dissolution of community 

service districts. 

Previous Comment 

7.2.2.2- Community Service Districts (as a means to insure perpetual funding for 

operational mitigation): The Air District may want to evaluate under what 

conditions a Community Service District that funds any mitigation activity not 

directly related to health & safety may, after formation, discontinue assessment 

or dissolve the Community Service District by vote of property owners making up 

the District. 

RESPONSE: All measures within the on-site checklist have an emission 

reduction benefit associated with their implementation. The District identified 

those on-site measures that reduce emissions from development projects, and 

help reduce the air impact of development projects. The goal of the rule is to 

reduce emissions from development project to achieve the emission reduction 

committed to by the PM10 and ozone attainment plans. Although each measure 

is indirectly associated with an air benefit (reduced emissions and attainment of 

the PM10 and ozone standards), the District considers the measures to be 

health-related. Therefore, funding of these measures constitutes a healthrelated activity. 

64. COMMENT: Maintenance concern. Where will the funds for County 

enforcement of the rule come from?

RESPONSE: The County will not be required to enforce the rule. See Response 

to Comment #8.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 67

Ray Leon – Latino Issues Forum 

65. COMMENT: The District should clarify the PM2.5 and toxics issue. Suggests 

that the District break PM10 down further to strengthen the rule. 

RESPONSE: This rule is a result of the PM10 and ozone attainment plan 

commitments. The rule controls NOx and PM10. Some fraction of PM10 is 

PM2.5 and will be reduced as a result of the rule. NOx reduces ozone during the 

warm months and reduces ammonium nitrate, most of which is PM2.5, during 

the cold months of the year. 

The District recognizes the issue of toxic emissions from diesel engines, and the 

particular hazards of PM2.5. However, toxics are addressed through the 

Districtís permitting program, state regulation, and through CEQA commenting. 

District thresholds of significance for these pollutants are contained in the Guide 

for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI). In addition, PM2.5 

will be addressed in the federal PM2.5 Attainment Plan due in 2005.

Mike Sanchez – City of Fresno 

66. COMMENT: The cityís July 22nd comments need to be addressed; they werenít 

addressed in the previous response to comments. 

 Previous Comments (paraphrased) 

 Nexus and Proportionality 

A. What is the Nexus determination for the project

B. ISR rules address emissions from existing development; so, placing 

requirements on new development to remedy problems from existing 

development would be inappropriate.

Relationship of SJVAPCD and Rules 9510 and 3180 to CEQA and Planning 

Law

C. Rule appears to defer or circumvent CEQA analysis because analysis and 

mitigation would be prepared after CEQA analysis. Also, it appears that the 

District would be issuing a construction permit, making the District a 

responsible or trustee agency.

D. There may be differences in interpretation of mitigation measures and the 

reductions associated with them.

E. Because the District is the appropriate agency to make a detailed 

determination of air quality impacts and appropriate mitigations, the District 

should fulfill its CEQA responsibilities by providing analysis and 

recommendations to the local land use jurisdictions so that the CEQA 

analysis work can be completed with this information.

F. The District should not determine locations or patterns for development, this 

is the local jurisdictionís authority.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 68

G. ìAnalysis and conclusions regarding land use and its vehicular emissions 

need to be rooted in dataÖ recommend objective criteriaî

Applicability of the Rules 9510 and 3180

H. It is not addressed if the rule applies to general, regional, community or 

specific plan adoptions. At that level, project specific information may not be 

known, and analysis may not be accurate. Therefore, they should be 

exempted from the rule. 

I. Each public agency defines ëdiscretionaryí and there is variability as to what 

each public agency considers discretionary. Therefore, the ISR rules will be 

applied inconsistently. 

J. Language should be included in the rules to prevent piecemealing.

Timing and Project Tracking

K. Request ISR review to be shortened from 30 to 10 days to , ìremain within 

the statutory CEQA timelines for responding to initial study requestsî 

because URBEMIS runs are quick. The District should send the ISR project 

information to the public agency for incorporation into CEQA documents.

L. How will timing of construction be controlled for mixed use projects, since 

commercial often lags behind residential development?

M. How will the District track projects, such as multi-phase tract maps or shell 

buildings, for review and analysis.

Interagency Cooperation

N. ìThe ISR Rules propose that cities and counties withhold building permits 

pending satisfaction of SJVUAPCD requirements.î There should be an 

agreement between the public agencies and the District that includes 

indemnification of the city.

O. “Local land use jurisdictions should be made a party to any mitigation 

agreements entered with the developerÖ(and) it would be ideal if such 

agreements were recorded as covenants running with the landÖfor which 

the Ö analysis was done.î

Use of Mitigation Fees Collected Through ISR Rules

P. It appears that the ISR funds will be used to fund existing programs. New 

programs that expand mass transit and similar systems should be 

considered. ìÖ the majority of the funding generated through the ISR rule 

should address vehicular pollution through measures to reduce traffic volume 

and relieve traffic congestion in the vicinity of the land use projects paying 

the ISR Rule-related fee.î

RESPONSE: 

A. See Response to Comment #125 

B. ISR rules address emissions from growth, not from existing emissions. See 

Response to Comment #170. See also, Response to Comments #34 and 

#39. 

C. Rule has been revised to be concurrent with CEQA analysis and Public 

Agency approval process. See Response to Comments #8 and #44. Also, 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 69

the District would not become a Responsible agency as a result of ISR 

implementation (See Response to Comment #52 and #187) 

D. The measures listed in the On-Site Emission Reduction Checklists have a 

known quantification method associated with them. Applicants will identify 

the specific implementation of each measure, so there will not be 

interpretation of the amount of reduction. See also Response to Comments 

#7 and #9. 

E. Although the ISR rules were not written to address CEQA, the reductions 

committed to in the PM10 and ozone attainment plans from this rule and 

individual project compliance can be used in CEQA documents at the public 

agencyís discretion. See Response C above for timing of ISR 

implementation. See Response to Comment #8 for information on 

communications between the District and the land-use authority. 

F. The District will not be making land-use decisions, and recognizes that that is 

the authority of the local land use agency. The land-use design 

considerations discussed by the District are discussed because they are 

known to reduce air quality impacts. The District provides these types of 

measures to encourage applicants to design projects submitted for 

city/county approval in ways that improve air quality and reduce potential ISR 

fees. The District has no authority over implementing land-use changes. 

Please note, the District will not require a minimum selection for the on-site 

checklist, measures selected are voluntarily identified by the applicant and 

are likely already part of the project. See also Response to Comment #43 

and #44. 

G. The measures listed on the on-site checklist have objective criteria, based on 

extensive research within URBEMIS. Please refer to Appendix D 

(Recommended Changes to URBEMIS for Rule 9510 and 3180) and the 

URBEMIS Userís Guide (available at URBEMIS Userís Guide, available at 

South Coast Air Quality Management Districtís website 

http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/urbemis.html). See also Response to Comments 

#7 and #9. 

H. The ISR rules are applied to the last discretionary approval of a development 

project per Rule 9510 Section 2.1. The adoption of a general plan or specific 

plan is not usually the last discretionary approval a project will go through. 

Residential development may be rezoned, and must get a subdivision or tract 

map. Conditional Use Permits and Site Plan Reviews often apply to 

commercial and office development. However, the District recognizes that 

some projects may not require additional discretionary approval after the 

zoning is approved. Specifically, industrial development may not require 

additional approval. Therefore, the last discretionary approval will vary 

depending on the project. The District will provide outreach to developers 

and the public to ensure awareness of the rule; however, it is the 

responsibility of the applicant to be aware of the need, or lack thereof, for 

additional discretionary approval by the local land-use agency, and to apply at 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 70

the appropriate time. Additionally, applicants are encouraged to apply prior to 

the application for last discretionary approval with the land-use agency. 

I. The District recognizes the variability of the application of ëdiscretioní in the 

Valley. As stated in H above, the last discretionary action is the trigger for the 

rule. This may cause inconsistency early in ISR implementation; however, 

J. Language has been included. See Rule 9510 Section 2.3 

K. First, the ISR program is not a CEQA compliance program (See Comments 

above). Analysis of the AIA application involves more than opening and 

running URBEMIS. The District will be analyzing the documentation for 

projects, running modeling program, finalizing MRSís, finalizing FDSís, etc. 

See the Draft Staff Report for additional information. The District will be 

sending information to the public agency. See Response to Comment #8. 

L. The District does not have the authority to control construction timing. See 

Comments F, G and H above. 

M. The District will be tracking projects through a database, and will be tracking 

project location primarily through APN. Multi-phase projects will be entered 

as such, with the applicable expected build-out dates. The applicant is 

responsible for identifying the use and build out of the projects. Should the 

project change, the applicant is responsible for notifying the District. If the 

project changes such that there is an increase in air emission and the 

applicant does not notify the District, they will be in violation of the rule and 

subject to District enforcement action. The District will share project 

information with public agencies to coordinate project tracking. 

N. The District will not require or request that public agencies withhold building 

permits for ISR enforcement. However, the District may enter into an 

agreement with a public agency for information sharing that would facilitate 

District enforcement of the rules. 

O. The District will be sending the public the on-site emission reduction 

checklist, as well as other information (see Response to Comment #8) during 

the review process. The District will consider the use of covenants for MRS 

compliance enforcement. 

P. The District will not be using the ISR funds solely for existing emission 

reduction programs. The District has conducted an analysis of emission 

reduction projects available, and the cost effectiveness associated with them. 

 This analysis can be found in Appendix E. See Response to Comments #18 

for the use of funds, and #47 and #188 on the location of funding projects. 

Modesto

Sally Rodeman – CalTrans, District 10 

67. COMMENT: District 10 did not receive the notice for the meeting. 

RESPONSE: You will be added to the rule mailing list. Other Caltrans staff 

received notice.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 71

CalTrans District 10 is on the Districtís mailing list as a street address, to which 

the District has been mailing notices. District staff looked into the issue, and 

found that the CalTrans website lists a PO Box for District 10. The District will 

work to resolve this issue. 

68. COMMENT: Is CalTrans a developer as defined by the rule?

RESPONSE: CalTrans would be a developer in those instances where the 

project meets the applicability of the rule.

69. COMMENT: Can the District put that in writing in the rule?

RESPONSE: The District does not specify or write out who a rule applies to, but 

write what a rule applies to. The rule is written so that all entities and individuals 

conducting activities subject to the rule must comply, so there is no need to list 

every possible agency or entity subject to the rule.

70. COMMENT: Does the Socioeconomic Impact Report account for impacts on the 

State of California, considering that the state is broke? 

RESPONSE: The socioeconomic analysis provides the overall impact to the 

economy but does not specifically separate out impact to individual government 

agencies.

71. COMMENT: Does the District have a list of mitigation measures for 

construction?

RESPONSE: The Staff Report contains a discussion of measures that reduce 

emissions from construction activities.

Tom Carlson – Sierra Research 

Thanks for addressing Sierra Researchís comments from the last draft of the rule. 

Particularly, for Sierra Researchís comments on silt loading, trip links and fleet mix. 

72. COMMENT: How will the District be addressing the needed changes to the 

URBEMIS model?

RESPONSE: Updated default values will be provided as rule guidance. This 

information may be contained in the next update to the GAMAQI. The next 

upgrade to URBEMIS, beginning next year will include many of the new defaults 

and an improved construction module. The upgrade may take as much as a 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 72

year to complete, so in the interim, the guidance documents will be provided as 

needed.

73. COMMENT: What is the basis for the targets on PM and NOx reductions from 

construction?

RESPONSE: The District researched what other air districts had set for 

reductions, and found that those targets are achieved in practice. The reductions 

(20% NOx and 45% PM10) 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.

74. COMMENT: What is the Districtís response to the vehicle age distribution by 

age of project that Sierra Research had provided? Is the information provided by 

Sierra Research not adequate or substantial enough to change the modeling? 

RESPONSE: The District is not currently convinced that the data cited would be 

valid in all circumstances, but will consider projects that provide evidence 

supporting a reduction for fleet age. There may be other factors that offset the 

possible benefit from newer vehicles such as higher rates of vehicle ownership 

(more vehicles per household).

75. COMMENT: URBEMIS is a sketch planning tool. Sierra Research believes the 

District should use a travel model. Sierra Research believes that a travel model 

is more accurate than URBEMIS, and found that URBEMIS estimates are 60% 

higher than the travel model estimates for the same project. In addition, as a 

sketch tool, URBEMIS is inconsistent with SIP methodology. 

RESPONSE: The District believes that URBEMIS has been improved beyond its 

characterization as a sketch planning tool. Very few of the modules of the 

program are overly conservative. Most modules rely on statewide averages 

extracted from the emission inventory which should not be considered 

conservative estimates. The most important module is the mobile source 

module that includes the same emission factors used to build the emission 

inventory. It does a good job of arriving at a composite emission rate needed for 

a project level analysis. Models can always be made more accurate by 

individualizing more and more input factors. The District believes that URBEMIS 

balances data requirements with reasonable output accuracy and ease of use. 

The travel demand models described by Sierra Research are extremely data 

intense and would be very costly to run for the approximately 1,000 projects that 

will be submitted to the District each year. It is uncertain whether the demand 

models are more accurate for project level analyses than URBEMIS with local 

information.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 73

Jan Ennenga – Manufacturing Council 

76. COMMENT: There is a concern that the ISR program would apply to CEQA 

processes and permits for existing facilities that make modifications.

RESPONSE: ISR projects are land-use based, triggered by a discretionary 

permit in combination with new construction or increased use that generates 

construction and/or area and mobile emissions that exceed the ISR threshold. If 

a land use requires a discretionary permit, and meets or exceeds the applicability 

threshold, then the emissions from hauling would be subject to the rule. 

77. COMMENT: What exactly does ìprimary source of emissionsî mean for the 

exemptions section? 

RESPONSE: The District had originally include an exemption for ìA 

development project, whose primary source of emissions are from stationary 

sourcesÖî However, the District is revising exemption to make specific land 

uses exempt. The District has completed a review of industries permitted by the 

District. This analysis details the amount of rules that apply to each industry and 

the amount of pollutants regulated by these rules. The intent is to remove the 

ambiguity of ìprimaryî emissions and detail which industries will be exempt from 

the rule. In addition, industries with stationary sources may petition the APCO 

for ISR exemption.

Bill Zelocci – BIA CC, PSSP, StanCo (Affordable Housing) 

78. COMMENT: The bill targets housing only. The fees, at least the biggest fees 

are from housing. The Rule doesnít affect other land uses that produce vehicle 

trips.

RESPONSE: The rule targets new development that results in area and/or 

mobile emissions. The rule contains an applicability section and an exemptions 

section. The rule does not target housing exclusively or charge higher fees for 

residential development. Housing constitutes about 1/3 of the development 

related emissions and therefore 1/3 of the potential for fees under the rule. 

Other land uses such as commercial office and retail generate more emissions 

and potential fees. Housing is used extensively in discussing socio-economic 

impacts because that is what concerns most people. Fees are emission based, 

not land-use specific. Fees apply to the broad categories of land uses specified 

in the rule. Certain land uses are exempted from the rule because their 

emissions are primarily from stationary sources, and they have been subject to 

extensive controls and requirements already. The sector targeted by the rule are 

those land uses without the majority of emissions from controlled stationary 

sources, which havenít been subject to rules or emission controls. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 74

All fees are tonnage based, and the required reduction formula applies equally to 

all applicable projects. This means that a particular project only pays the off-site 

emission reduction fee for the required reductions that are not achieved on-site. 

The Socioeconomic Analysis discusses the potential impacts to housing more 

extensively than the impacts to commercial or industrial, because the impact on 

housing affordability is of a greater concern to the affected industries and the 

general public than the impacts on commercial or industrial. 

Certain land uses are exempted from the rule because their emissions are 

primarily from permitted stationary sources (the rule only covers area and mobile 

emissions), and they are and have been subject to extensive controls and 

requirements. 

79. COMMENT: The rule should also address existing housing. 

RESPONSE: The goal of the rule is to achieve an emission reduction from 

growth that was identified in the PM10 and ozone plans. Although VMT is 

increasing valley wide, the majority of new emissions are attributable to new 

development. It would be inequitable to assess fees on existing uses with the 

purpose of mitigating emissions from growth. 

80. COMMENT: Part of the presentation used small, unreadable font. Please use a 

reasonably large font for presentations, so that people may be able to read what 

is on the screens. 

RESPONSE: Comment Noted. The District apologizes for the illegible font-size, 

and will attempt to make future presentations clear and readable.

Randy Hatch – Planning Director, City of Ceres 

81. COMMENT: There is a concern that the ISR program will cause changes to a 

project after a local agency has granted approval to the project.

RESPONSE: The rule has been changed to make the process concurrent or 

prior to the approval process by the public agency. The District defers land-use 

choices to the public agency and the applicant. See Response to Comment #8 

for more information. 

The District does not place requirements for land-use measures on the project. 

The on-site emission reduction checklist must be filled out by the applicant, but 

the District does not have a minimum or maximum requirement for the number or 

type of measures to be selected. Inclusion of measures is voluntary by the 

applicant (see Response to Comments #56). The District will not engage in 

negotiations to include on-site measures (See Response to Comment#44). 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 75

Therefore, the District will not be imposing measures that conflict with the local 

land use agency. It is the applicantís responsibility to make sure that those 

measures they have voluntarily selected are consistent and approvable by the 

local land use agency. In the instance that the identified measure is not 

acceptable by the local land use agency, the applicant is responsible for notifying 

the District and the on-site emission reduction checklist and emissions modeling 

will be revised to reflect the project at that time. 

In addition, the rule and staff report will be revised to provide more interaction 

with the public agency and the District. See Response to Comment #8 for more 

information.

82. COMMENT: How do public agencies determine compliance with the rule, 

especially if the Districtís approval can occur after the approval by the public 

agency?

RESPONSE: The District will revise the ISR process to be concurrent with or 

prior to the approval process at the public agency. See Response to Comment 

#8 for more information. Specifically, the District will provide letters notifying the 

public agency of the Determination of Completeness, AIA Approval and Final 

Compliance, as well as providing a letter of compliance status to the public 

agency upon request.

83. COMMENT: What exactly is meant by ëparksí in the applicability section?

RESPONSE: Active recreation parks ñ parks that attract motor vehicles. It is 

not the intent of the rule to assess passive recreation parks. Parks will be 

assessed based on emissions the same as other land uses, 

84. COMMENT: The City of Ceres suggests the District alter the application process 

to make it prior to the final public agency approval, perhaps by tying it to the 

application to the public agency. In addition, the City suggests the District 

include a predevelopment process. The City of Ceres has a predevelopment 

process that aids in the application process.

RESPONSE: The District will amend the rule language and the staff report to 

make the application to the ISR program concurrent with or prior to the final 

discretionary approval application to the public agency See Response to 

Comment #8 for more information. The District does not currently have a plan 

for formal pre-application consultations. However, the District will be available 

for consultations any time prior to actual application and encourages applicants 

to meet with District staff to clarify issues when needed.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 76

Fresno

Kathryn Phillips – Environmental Defense 

85. COMMENT: Concerning the view that land use does not have an impact on air 

quality (see comment #34) ñ that is a minority view. Most have realized that land 

use does have an impact on air quality. 

RESPONSE: Comment Noted.

86. COMMENT: Concerning the issue of self-selection (see comment #36), the 

choice of good design should be available. 

RESPONSE: Comment Noted.

87. COMMENT: The URBEMIS model is imperfect, but it is appropriate for this rule. 

RESPONSE: The District concurs. The District is aware that there is not a 

ëperfectí model available, nor is there likely to be one in the future. However, the 

URBEMIS model is best available method for quantifying project emissions and 

benefits from on-site measures. 

88. COMMENT: Rule 9510 section 2.1.8 has one threshold for recreation, but the 

definition includes movies. ëMovie theatersí are more commercial in nature, and 

should be moved to commercial. In addition, ëparksí should be defined.

RESPONSE: Comment Noted. ëMovie theatersí will be removed from recreation 

to commercial. 

89. COMMENT: A 2-ton exclusion level (Rule 9510 section 4.2) is too generous. 

This level should be reduced.

RESPONSE: See Response to Comment #180. 

90. COMMENT: Rule 9510 section 2.2 discusses transportation projects that have 

two tons or more of NOx and PM10 combined. How large of a project would fit 

this description? How large would a project be to be subject to the rule ñ a 

pothole or an interstate exchange?

RESPONSE: Small maintenance projects would not exceed the threshold. 

Construction of a one-half mile arterial road segment would exceed the 

threshold. The road project must also be subject to a discretionary approval to 

be brought into the ISR process.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 77

91. COMMENT: Rule 9510 section 3.5 defines ëBaseline Emissionsí. This section 

should be clarified. Where exactly is the baseline?

RESPONSE: The definition will be changed to the following: 

Baseline Emissions: the unmitigated estimated NOx and PM10 emissions, output 

calculated by the APCO-approved model, in the units of tons per year. 

In addition, the following will be added to the definition section of the rule to 

clarify the issue of baseline: 

Construction Baseline: the sum of unmitigated NOx or exhaust PM10 for the 

duration of construction activities for a project or any phase thereof. 

Operational Baseline: the entirety of NOx or PM10 emissions, including area 

source and mobile emissions, calculated by the APCO-approved model, for the 

first year of buildout for that project, or any phase thereof.

A development would have two construction baselines (one NOx, one PM10) 

and two operational baselines (one NOx and one PM10), if it does not have 

phase. For the purposes of this discussion, the four baselines will be referred to 

as a ëbaseline setí. For projects with phases, each phase will have one baseline 

set. According to the off-site fee formulas, the equations are used for each 

baseline set. 

As and example, one project has three phases. The rule contains four fee 

formulas: an operational NOx, an operational PM10, a construction NOx, and a 

construction PM10. Each of the four calculations are performed three times, 

once for each phase or ëbaseline setí. 

The operational baseline is calculated at the date of expected buildout, the 

construction baseline is calculated at the date(s) of expected construction. 

92. COMMENT: Rule 9510 section 4.1.5 needs clarification of what federal, state 

and local funds for low income housing are applicable. 

RESPONSE: Based on the Districtís internal analysis of applicability and 

impacts, the exemption for low-income housing has been removed. It has been 

determined that the Rule should apply to all new residential development that 

meets the applicability section of the Rule.

93. COMMENT: Rule 9510 section 5.3.2 discusses the application for the AIA. The 

District should list out what information will be in the application.

RESPONSE: The District will expand that section to include more specific 

information of what will, at a minimum, be included in the AIA application.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 78

94. COMMENT: Environmental Defense recommends including ROG in the rule for 

emissions reductions. 

RESPONSE: See Response to Comment #57 and #65.

95. COMMENT: Rule 9510 section 6.1.1.1 and 6.1.1.2 discusses the reductions 

required from construction emissions. The 45% reduction requirement for PM10 

is too low. Applicants can get much higher results with existing technology. The 

20% NOx reduction requirement may similarly be too low. In addition, 

Environmental Defense recommends requiring emission reductions by vehicle 

and suggests that the District talk to CARB about their in-use construction 

equipment regulations.

RESPONSE: See Response to Comment #57 and #65.

96. COMMENT: Rule 9510 section 10.2 (APCO administration of funds) does not 

contain the term ëpermanentí. The District should aim for permanent reductions.

RESPONSE: Many of the projects funded by the District will meet the strict 

interpretation of permanent reductions. In some cases, the projects are 

expected to be permanent but the user of the clean equipment is only obligated 

to operate it during the contract period. After the contract period ends, it is highly 

likely that any replacement equipment will be as clean or cleaner than that 

funded by the District due to lower emission standards and improving technology 

over time for nearly all source categories.

97. COMMENT: The funding of projects with fees received from this rule is implied 

to be application-based. The rule should state if it is application based.

RESPONSE: Although current District programs are primarily open application 

based for as long as funding is available, for some source categories it may be 

more appropriate to have requests for proposals with deadlines and project 

ranking. Therefore, the rule language should remain the same.

98. COMMENT: The economic analysis and other supporting documents donít 

include health impacts and those costs. This information should be included to 

keep the purpose and goals of these actions in perspective. 

RESPONSE: It is not feasible to assign a dollar amount to the health effects that 

will be avoided or lessened by the implementation of this rule. However, the 

District will include health-impacts information from the PM10 and ozone 

attainment plans in the staff report.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 79

Kristine Foster – Asthma Coalition, Respiratory Therapist, Asthma Educator and 

CAC member. 

99. COMMENT: Land use planning is important and the District needs to include 

education for the public.

RESPONSE: The District concurs with both of the commenterís points. The 

District currently believes that Rule 9510 will provide incentives for development 

that creates fewer impacts and will bring greater awareness of this issue to the 

public. 

Bakersfield

Mike Kelley – Vector Environmental 

100. COMMENT: Does the rule apply to the fraction of PM greater than 10 microns? 

RESPONSE: No. The rule applies to PM10, the fraction of PM 10 microns or 

less in diameter.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 80

Chambers of Commerce – Public/Private Organizations

The Greater Merced Chamber of Commerce 

Date: September 14, 2005 

101. COMMENT: The Greater Merced Chamber of Commerce urges the district to 

reevaluate the impacts of rules 9510 and 3180 will cause to the Central Valley. 

The District has no organized plan for the fees that will be charged and when 

asked, the district indicates grant money for clean air vehicles and other 

measures to reduce the pollution. Before these rules should be brought to the 

board for approval, a complete plan should be developed.

RESPONSE: The District has a history of funding more than $100 million in 

emission reduction projects. These existing programs are underway and the 

system is in place for processing projects funded by Rule 9510. The District has 

provided additional information on the types of projects available for the program 

in Appendix E. The District has identified more than $400 million in projects 

available at a cost-effectiveness that will allow the District to achieve plan 

commitments. As technology advances, even more opportunities for retrofit and 

replacement programs are expected. 

102. COMMENT: These rules will make the housing costs rise to a level that will 

make housing in Merced more unaffordable and will hamper industrial and 

commercial development in the greater Merced area. A comprehensive study 

needs to be completed on the effect the rules will have on economic 

development and jobs in the valley. The valley leads the nation in 

unemployment figures and the need for jobs through out the Valley is extremely 

important. These rules ill affect new job creation. 

The costs of these new rules will slow down growth that will be coming to the 

Valley. Without a clear economic study, these rules should not be approved. 

Growth will happen and proper planning is needed to make sure the growth is 

well-planned and well-implemented. These rules will create more problems than 

they will solve. 

The Greater Merced Chamber requests more studies and a better economic 

plan be developed before the rules go forward to the board for approval. Thank 

you for your consideration of our concerns. 

RESPONSE: According the Merced County Association of Realtors, the median 

home price in Merced County is $330,000. The proposed fee amounts not 

considering the potential for reductions due to project design are between $800 

and $1800 per unit in the first 3 years of program operation. In percentage terms 

this ranges from .24% to .54% added cost to the median home. The funds 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 81

collected from the developers are used for air pollution projects in the area that 

will benefit the local economy.

Stanislaus Economic Development and Workforce Alliance (Alliance) 

Date: September 13, 2005 

I am the CEO of the Stanislaus Economic Development and Workforce Alliance. The 

Alliance is a public private organization comprised of representatives of Stanislaus 

County, all cities in the county and dozens of private business investors. It is the 

designated agency for all economic development and workforce activities in the county. 

I attended the video conference of an APCD staff presentation at a public \meeting on 

September 1 in Modesto. I am very concerned about several aspects of that 

presentation and therefore the consequences of Rule 9510 and Rule 3180 proposed for 

implementation by the APCD. 

My concerns are as follows: 

103. COMMENT: Regarding the exemption for projects whose primary source of 

emissions that come from stationary sources, how is primary determined?

RESPONSE: The District has completed a review of industries permitted by the 

District. This analysis details the amount of rules that apply to each industry and 

the amount of pollutants regulated by these rules. The intent is to remove the 

ambiguity of ìprimaryî emissions and detail which industries will be exempt from 

the rule. In addition, industries with stationary sources may petition the APCO 

for ISR exemption.

104. COMMENT: Regarding the submittal of applications no later than 30 days after

last discretionary approval, what kinds of delays to projects will be experienced 

while APCD reviews the mitigation plans and does their calculations and 

assessments. My experience tells me the current workload precludes timely 

processing or even a return of phone calls regarding ATC requests and other 

permitting. Staffing is either insufficient or incompetent or both. What steps are 

contemplated to alleviate the existing gridlock and avoid additional bottlenecks in 

the future? 

RESPONSE: See Response to Comment #8 for the ISR application changes. It 

should be noted that the ISR process is not a permit, nor is it a discretionary 

action (See Response to Comment #187). The District is working on producing 

a streamlined approval process that has clear information requirements and 

timelines (as listed in the rule). The Planning Department will be responsible for 

ISR project review and approval. The Planning Department, as well as all 

affected departments (Compliance, Emission Reduction Incentive Program ñ 

ERIP, and Administration), has produced a staffing analysis for implementation 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 82

of the ISR program. The Planning Department identified the steps in review and 

approval, the time associated with those steps, and in this process identified 

steps that could be merged or simplified. The staffing requests are listed in the 

Board Memo, and the District will provide a more detailed staffing request before 

the Board adoption hearing. However, the staffing analysis is for ISR adoption 

only, and does not address staffing for existing programs.

105. COMMENT: The APCD has not yet created an emissions calculator. 

RESPONSE: URBEMIS will be used for Operations, District is working to 

determine if a modification to URBEMIS or a separate calculator will be needed 

for construction. However, methodology for construction is known. Take vehicle 

type, hours of operation and compare to emissions from the state-wide average. 

 URBEMIS can come up with default fleet numbers, we are working about 

refining them.

106. COMMENT: Developers and business with the same degree of concern on this 

issue that the APCD exhibits, albeit with a different perspective, have expressed 

serious reservations about the integrity of URBEMIS. Are these concerns 

dismissed out of hand with no attempt to verify the soundness beyond your belief 

that it must be okay because you are using it. 

RESPONSE: The Staff Report contains a detailed discussion of why URBEMIS 

is appropriate for this rule, and why it was chosen over other models. The 

District has completed extensive research, including hiring a consultant to review 

existing models to determine the most appropriate, comparisons of models, and 

detailed model research and has determined that URBEMIS is the most 

appropriate model for the rule. See Response to Comments # 157.

107. COMMENT: The socioeconomic impact predictions for Rules 9510 and 3180 

were calculated using dated methodology (1995) that does not factor in the 

impact of the meteoric increases in valuations and costs and burden of stagnant 

incomes regarding affordability. 

RESPONSE: The Socioeconomic impact report uses median price data up to 

2005. Most data was no older than 2003. The methodology is standard for the 

air pollution rule development process and is not dated.

108. COMMENT: The financial windfall that will occur if these rules are implemented 

could total tens of millions of dollars per year in the valley. What accountability is 

associated with the ìmitigation accountsî? Who determines and what is the 

definition of quantifiable and enforceable mitigation projects?î Is there an audit 

of these accounts and by whom? How were the fee levels determined? Are 

they equitable? 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 83

RESPONSE: 

1. Accountability ñ The District has successfully managed over $100 million in 

grant money over the last decade. The District has an outside auditing 

company to provide assurance to the Governing Board and the public that 

funds are appropriately managed. The California Air Resources Board has 

also audited the District. 

Definition of quantifiable ñ The project to be funded must have emission 

factors, process rates, and use data, necessary to calculate baseline 

emissions and emission reductions after the project is implemented.3. 

Enforceable ñ The project must have a mechanism that ensures that the 

project will be implemented and that emission reductions will be achieved 

during the specified timeframe. 

2. Fee level determination ñ The fee levels are based on the average cost of 

reductions projected for each year for each pollutant. See also Response to 

Comment #114. 

3. The fees are equitable because they are based on emissions generated by 

the project and each projectís emissions are quantified using the same wellaccepted models and factors. 

109. COMMENT: APCDís goal over the next ten years to reduce the ozone and 

PM10 emissions targets new development only. If the housing bubble bursts 

and the corresponding emissions from new growth cease, will the burden shift to 

commercial, industrial and/or existing housing in order to meet the goals? 

RESPONSE: The emission reduction targets for ISR in the PM10 and ozone 

plan are based on the predicted growth in emissions from new development. 

ISR reduces, through on-site and/or off-site measures, emissions generated by 

new growth. If that growth does not occur as predicted, for example in a ëbubble 

burstí scenario, then the emissions from new development will be less than 

predicted. If the emissions do not occur, they would not have to be reduced 

through the ISR program. In this situation, ISR does not have to adjust the 

emission reduction ëburdení, or assess additional emission reductions. 

110. COMMENT: There seems to be confusion about the degree of compatibility of 

these rules with the CEQA process, adding additional burden for businesses in 

meeting timelines and development schedules. 

RESPONSE: See Response to Comment #8 and the Staff Report, Section IV.C.

111. COMMENT: Those of us who are tasked with promoting and marketing the 

valley for business locations and as a quality place to live and work are very 

concerned about the air quality issues that we fact. Certainly the air quality is a 

factor in decisions made by individuals and businesses alike when determining 

the suitability of the valley for their purposes. The major challenge is to address 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 84

those issues in a fair and balanced way with techniques and plans that are 

based on sound logic and a strong scientific basis. 

RESPONSE: The District concurs with the authorís statement. 

Business, Industry & Government Coalition of the South San Joaquin Valley 

Date: August 30, 2005 

112. COMMENT: Our organization and its members share a deep commitment to 

improving air quality in the South Valley and applaud all reasonable efforts to 

attain Federal and State mandates. Draft Rule 9510, as we are coming to 

understand it, is the program that will be employed by the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District to involve indirect sources, those land uses 

that attract or generate motor vehicle trips, in the mitigation of air emissions. The 

required reviews of the draft rule are delineated, however, the fees associated 

with the draft rule are not easily understood. 

The presentation on Draft Rule 9510 ñ DESIGN (Decreasing Emissionsí 

Significant Impact from Growth and New Development) gave several members 

of our organization cause for alarm after the initial public meeting was held. 

While there were references to fee schedules and proposed costs for building 

permits, the method describing the establishment of fees was not clearly 

reviewed. The Building Industry members of our organization are well aware of 

Public Facility Fees, Govt. Code 66000. Using that base of reference, the 

description about fee collection and fee usage was not congruent with their 

experience with Public Facility Fees. Upon further review after the meeting, the 

fees established through the Health & Safety Codes of California are the 

references for the Air Boardís proposed fees. These fees are ìnewsî to our 

members and additional information would be very helpful.

RESPONSE: See Response to Comment #6 and the Staff Report Section I(B) 

for a discussion on District authority for the rule. 

113. COMMENT: For the next public meeting, scheduled September 1, 2005, our 

request is to have staff provide information about the process establishing the 

fee each year and how the fees are used for programs and projects under the 

authority of the Air Board. We want to know about the programs and the 

proposed costs for programs that will be instituted pursuant to Health & Safety 

Code 42311 (g). Our read of the statute indicates these fees are set annually 

based on estimated costs of air pollution control programs that will be conducted 

in the following year. In the event all funds are not expended, the fee revenue will 

carry over to the next year and will, then, reduce the fees for the subsequent 

year. What is the reporting mechanism and public process for these fees? While 

there are specific requirements outlined in the statute, none of our membership 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 85

was aware of actual dates for the public hearings and none were aware of what 

projects are in process for this year or their related cost(s). 

RESPONSE: The fee amount is based on the anticipated cost of reductions in 

each year. Staff performed an analysis of historical project funding costs from 

our existing grant programs that have successfully contracted over $100 million 

and examined the potential for projects in the future based on the emission 

inventory and population of project candidates, the technologies available to 

reduce emissions from the source, whether the reductions will be surplus in the 

future based on proposed and adopted regulations on the potential project 

candidates, and the feasibility the project. Based on these factors, the District 

made percentage funding estimates for each type of project for each year. This 

information allows the District to calculate a projected average cost-effectiveness 

for each year. To further verify these numbers, staff prepared project mix 

spreadsheets based on available projects and funding for each year to 

demonstrate that the cost-effectiveness averages are achievable. This 

information has been added to Appendix E of the staff report. 

114. COMMENT: In concert with the fees proposed through H&S Code 42311(g) are 

the fees outlined in Draft Rule 3180. Those fees are cost recovery based ñ cost 

recovery for administering Rule 9510. We ask for clarification on how that rate is 

developed and how applicants will be billed for the actual hours of staff time to 

evaluate and review proposed projects. We also ask to be informed if the 

weighted average labor rate will be reviewed in a public meeting or public 

hearing prior to annual establishment. The Health and Safety Code reference for 

the cost recovery fees appears to be in section 40604. The draft report of Staff 

indicates that section 40604 was codified as a result of legislation SB709, Florez, 

from the past fiscal year. Section 40604 is devoid of explanation about the fee 

structure other than to indicate there will be a schedule of fees and the fee 

schedule ìshall be designed to yield a sum not exceeding the estimated cost of 

the administration of this chapter and mitigation of emissions and the filing of 

applicationsî. How will this fee be published and through what public process? 

The project fees allow for annual rollover; how will the administrative fees be 

managed? If estimated costs are higher than annual costs, how will notification 

occur and what mechanism will be used to refund overpayment? We are hoping 

that the public meeting on September 1st will provide answers to this fee. 

RESPONSE: The District will use the same average weighted labor rate method 

that it has used for many years in processing stationary source permits. It is 

based on labor and overhead rates used to develop the Districtís budget that is 

adopted in a public hearing each June. The project review fees are based on 

the hours predicted for a relatively simple project. Projects proposing standard 

on-site measures and having air quality impact assessments that use standard 

factors and default changes that have been agreed to in advance are expected 

to be covered by the fee amount. Complex projects are expected to require 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 86

additional staff analysis and review time that would result in costs that exceed 

the application fee. The District will be using a project management and billing 

system to track hours for the project. An applicant can request the status of 

labor charges at any time. The amounts accumulated to date can be obtained 

from the database and provided to the applicant. When the District staff 

completes its review and determines the off-site fee amount, they will generate 

an invoice that itemizes charges for review and the proposed off-site fee amount.

115. COMMENT: We are concerned that implementation of additional fees (Rules 

9510 and 3180) associated with new construction will adversely affect the 

addition of sorely needed housing stock to the South Valley. Our region of the 

state is expected to take the brunt of the projected population growth, and we 

are already woefully under stocked. Our coalition believes that inadequate 

attention has been placed on studying the socio-economic implications of 

implementing the proposed fees. 

Reducing PM10 and NOX emissions from indirect sources is a commitment 

thrust upon everyone in the Central Valley. Adding additional reviews and 

controls during the planning phase of construction is workable as long as all 

steps in the review process are clearly communicated and upheld. Compounding 

the issue of added reviews are the added fees for air pollution control and 

emission reduction projects that are not well known to members of our 

organization. As requested, providing more information about the type of 

projects, costs for current year and the process for the annual review of these 

fees would be most beneficial. Added study and discussion about the factors that 

influence the socio-economic status of the Central Valley are desired before 

these draft rules are presented to the Board of Directors for their consideration 

and vote. 

Thank you for your attention to our concerns and we ask that this letter be read 

into the public record during the meeting on September 1, 2005. 

RESPONSE: The District recognizes that the rule may add a relatively small 

cost to development; however, the rule is structured to maximize benefits for 

designs and features incorporated into the project that will reduce the fees and 

add value to the development. It is possible to significantly reduce the fee with 

measures now commonly included in projects. The District is committed to 

streamlining the review process wherever possible and strives to minimize costs 

and delays. The analysis will be accomplished with URBEMIS for most projects. 

 URBEMIS is very easy to use and can be operated using information typically 

required by local agencies during the CEQA review process.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 87

INDUSTRY

The Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition (CIAQC) 

Date: September 15, 2005 

The Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition (CIAQC) is composed of the Southern 

California Contractors Association and the Southern California chapters of the 

Associated General Contractors Association, Building Industries Association, 

Engineering Contractors Association and Rock Products Association. Its membership 

includes 3,500 construction/development companies. 

116. COMMENT: 2.0 Applicability: The potential emissions from constructing 2,000 

square feet of commercial space, 9,000 square feet of educational space and 

10,000 square feet of government space appear too small when compared to 

emissions from constructing 50 residential units, 39,000 square feet of general 

office space and 25,000 square feet of industrial space. 

RESPONSE: The difference is due to different trip rates for different land uses. 

Commercial space generates many trips per 1000 square feet compared to other 

land uses. 

117. COMMENT: While the rules do not have an effective date, the District should 

consider the economic impact on small contractors with a high percentage of 

Tier 0 engines of setting relatively small development project baselines in 2006. 

An annually decreasing baseline from, say, 200 residential units, 10,000 square 

feet of commercial space, etc., in 2006 would allow small contractors more time 

to upgrade their fleets and compete in the bidding process. 

RESPONSE: The current approach in the rule using the baseline for each year 

construction occurs and emission based thresholds provides more incentive to 

purchase or rent the cleanest equipment at the earliest date. Once in use, the 

cleaner equipment is available for all future projects subject to the rule. Although 

small contractors may have an older fleet, those are the equipment and vehicles 

that are in need of upgrade. 

118. COMMENT: 3.0 Definitions: The use of computer modeling to estimate 

construction emissions from potential land uses would eliminate many small 

contractors unless they can seek advice from the District on how to employ these 

models. Also, CARB should offer assistance in identifying a diesel emission 

control device that has been verified for typical diesel engines as well as 

instruction on the use of the construction emission calculator. Ideally, the 

contractor or developer could submit to the District the number and types of 

machines he proposes to use on a project and the number of hours he proposes 

to run them, and the District would estimate his emissions. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 88

RESPONSE: The District will provide assistance on the use of models to 

calculate construction emissions and staff can run the models for the applicants 

on a time and materials basis. 

119. COMMENT: 4.1.5 Housing projects directly assisted by government housing 

funds: Why is government assisted housing exempt from mitigation? 

RESPONSE: Based on comments received, the District has removed this 

exemption so that sources are treated based solely on their emissions. 

120. COMMENT: 5.0 The draft rule implies in 5.3 that the APCO is willing to produce 

an AIA from information supplied by the developer. Is that correct? 

RESPONSE: The District will prepare air quality impact assessments if the 

applicant provides the information needed as inputs in the model. 

121. COMMENT: 6.0 A developer should be given emission reduction credit for 

mitigating windblown dust (PM10) as a result of constructing buildings and 

landscaping an area. 

RESPONSE: The developer is already required to mitigate windblown emissions 

to comply with District Regulation VIII ñ Fugitive Dust Rules, therefore, the 

reductions would not be considered surplus. 

122. COMMENT: 7.0 Off-site Mitigation Calculations and Fee Schedules for 

Construction Activities: In order to be reasonably contemporaneous with 

emission increases, off-site mitigation should be designated and purchased by 

the District no later than six months after the payment of the funds by the 

developer. 

RESPONSE: The District commits to spend any funds received as quickly as 

possible. The programs envisioned require an applicant to come to the District 

to request funds for qualifying projects, so there may be times when funds take 

longer than six months to expend. 

California Building Industry Association (CBIA) 

Date: September 15, 2005 

California homebuilders, represented by the California Building Industry Association 

(CBIA) and its five affiliated Building Industry Associations (BIAs) located in the San 

Joaquin Valley, are respectfully submitting comments on the Draft Rules, 9510 and 

3180 (ìproposed rulesî) of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (ìthe 

Districtî). 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 89

123. COMMENT: CBIA continues to be troubled by what it sees as several 

fundamental flaws in the Districtís plan to assess new ìair quality mitigationî 

obligations on new development in the Central Valley: 

1) The District has failed to show a nexus between the impacts of new 

development on air quality in the region and the massive amount of new 

fees it proposes charging for this purported impact; 

2) The District is using flawed scientific modeling to justify charging massive 

new fees on housing and economic development; 

3) The district singles out new development to bear the burden of its new 

mitigation scheme which contains highly questionable calculations and a 

woefully deficient cost-benefit analysis. 

4) The District has failed to adequately explain what it intends to do with 

these new fees (taxes) ñ somewhere between $300 million and $450 

million over the next five years ñ and how charging them will improve the 

regionís air quality; and 

5) The District has failed to acknowledge and account for the impacts of 

these new fees on the regionís economy or on housing affordability. 

RESPONSE: See Response to Comments #124 through #142 below. 

124. COMMENT: For these and other reasons, CBIA remains strongly opposed to 

the adoption of the proposed rules and urges the District to withdraw them and, 

working with citizens and other stakeholders in the region, begin the work of 

developing a more responsible, equitable and scientifically grounded plan for 

improving air quality in the central valley.

In the pages that follow CBIA will enunciate in detail both its fundamental 

concerns as well as other defects in the proposed rules.

RESPONSE: Opposition noted. See Response to Comment #17 for additional 

information on the development of these rules. 

125. COMMENT: The District has failed to demonstrate the required legal nexus for 

imposing its proposed fees. This has been an ongoing concern of CBIAís and 

thus far the responses to it given by the District have only caused to make that 

concern grow. Indeed, the sheer weight of the mitigation fees being proposed by 

the District for new housing, alone ñ somewhere between $300 million and $450 

million over the next five years ñ demands a clear description as to what the 

impacts are that justify the Districtís fee plans and how the level of fees to be 

charged are supported by anticipated costs. 

RESPONSE: Although the District is not subject to the Mitigation Fee Act (See 

Response to Comment #52), the Districtís legal counsel has prepared an 

analysis of nexus requirements. The analysis identifies if a nexus is required, 

and discusses the following:
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 90

The applicability of the 5th amendment of the US Constitution. 

o The analysis finds that the fees resultant from the rule are subject to the 

ìreasonable relationshipî test established by San Remo Hotel LP v. City 

and County of San Francisco2

. 

o Therefore, if the fee is collected from a development because of the 

expected air pollution from that development, and the fee is used to offset 

the type and amount of pollution caused by that development ñ the fee 

will likely pass under the reasonable relationship test. 

California Mitigation Fee Act

o The analysis finds that the Mitigation Fee Act may not apply to the ISR 

rules, for the reasons cited from the District in the text of Comment # 126, 

and in the Response to Comment #52. 

California Proposition 13

o The analysis finds that Proposition 13 does not apply to the ISR rules. 

California Proposition 218

o The analysis finds that Proposition 218 does not apply to the ISR rules. 

California Subdivision Map Act

o The analysis finds that the SMA does not preempt the District from 

assessing fees on a subdivision.

126. COMMENT: Remarkably, however, the District denies there is a problem. To 

summarize the Districtís position, the Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600) does not 

apply to these types of fees because (1) the District has no approval authority 

over development projects, is not imposing the fee as a condition of approval of 

a development project, and the fee is purely regulatory in nature, (2) AB 1600 

only applies to fees for ìpublic facilitiesî and mitigation measures such as diesel 

retrofit programs are not ìfacilities,î and (3) even if AB 1600 doesnít apply, the 

district has met the nexus standard under the Act as well as any other legal 

standard. 

This analysis contains multiple flaws. Government Code Section 66000(b) 

defines a fee as a monetary exaction other than a tax or special assessment, 

whether established for a broad class of projects by legislation of general 

applicability or imposed on a specific project on an ad hoc basis, that is charged 

by a local agency to the applicant in connection with approval of a development 

project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities 

related to the development project. The proposed rules are applicable to a 

broad range of projects. Likewise, the proposed project-level analysis of on-site 

 

2 San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City and County of San Francisco, (2002) 27 Cal.4th 643, 669-670. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 91

mitigation constitutes an ad hoc, project-specific review. Both types of analyses 

therefore apply to the proposed rules. 

RESPONSE: See Response to Comment #52.

127. COMMENT: Indeed, the District is a local agency subject to the Mitigation Fee 

Act. Government Code Section 66000 (c) defines "Local agency" as ìa county, 

city, whether general law or chartered, city and county, school district, special 

district, authority, agency, any other municipal public corporation or district, or 

other political subdivision of the state.î Certainly the District qualifies as a 

special district, agency, or other political subdivision of the state. 

RESPONSE: The District is considered a local agency, but this distinction is not 

relevant. The Mitigation Fee Act does not apply to the ISR rules. See Response 

to Comment #52 for more information. 

128. COMMENT: The attempt to limit the application of this statute to public facilities 

is also incorrect. Government Code Section 66000(d) includes within the 

definition of "Public Facilities" ìpublic improvements, public services and 

community amenities.î Cleaning up the air is a service provided by government 

and, as such, provides a benefit to the community. 

Comment 64 states that the District does not have the authority to impose 

conditions of approval and contemplates that any project review will occur after 

the local agency has completed its approval of the project. The developer will be 

ìallowedî to either include on site mitigation measures or pay a fee. Regardless 

of the choice of words, it is impossible to characterize this requirement as 

anything other than a fee or exaction on new development. If this is not 

enforceable as an exaction, then it is voluntary and the District cannot take credit 

for it as a control measure for purposes of demonstrating compliance with the 

SIP goals and the Federal Clean Air Act requirement to demonstrate reasonable 

further progress. 

RESPONSE: The District does agree that the ISR program may require a fee 

from new development. However, the District disagrees with this interpretation of 

air emission reductions as a public service under GC 66000(d). In addition, the 

Mitigation Fee Act does not apply to the ISR rules. See Response to Comment 

#52 for more information.

129. COMMENT: The Districtís attempt to define itself out of the Constitutional 

requirement that nexus be demonstrated is highly questionable. As noted in 

Government Code Section 66005(c): ìIt is the intent of the Legislature in adding 

this section to codify existing constitutional and decisional law with respect to the 

imposition of development fees and monetary exactions on developments by 

local agencies. This section is declaratory of existing law and shall not be 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 92

construed or interpreted as creating new law or as modifying or changing existing 

law.î 

RESPONSE: See Response to Comment #125 for the findings of the Districtís 

analysis of nexus requirements. See also Response to Comment #52. 

130. COMMENT: It is important to examine that larger body of existing law. The 

constitutional standards for legislatively enacted development fees of general 

applicability, such as the proposed indirect source fee on new development, are 

less stringent than are the standards for fees imposed on specific developments 

on an individual and discretionary basis (see Ehrlich v. City of Culver City 12 Cal. 

4th 854, 50 Cal. Rptr. 2d 242; 1996). Where a development fee is imposed 

generally on a broad class of property owners, it need only bear a reasonable 

relationship to the impacts of the development project (Id. at 875-876, 50 Cal. 

Rptr. 2d at 256,257). In adopting the fee, the city must make the "nexus" findings 

set forth in Government Code section 66001. 

RESPONSE: Although the Mitigation Fee Act does not apply to the ISR rules 

(see Response to Comment #52), the rule has been designed to meet this test. 

The District analysis contained in the staff report for the rule provides supporting 

information to draw this conclusion. 

131. COMMENT: The District uses a flawed analysis to produce huge sums to be 

collected as fees on new housing and new businesses. According to an analysis 

conducted by Sierra Research (see attached letter) using the numeric emission 

reduction goals in the Districtís approved SIP Measures for NOx and PM-10, as 

well as the assumptions set forth in Section 7.2 of Draft Rule 9510, including the 

stated ton-per-year mitigations costs, the District will require a total of 

$38,844,869 to meet the SIPís emission reduction goals for calendar years 2006 

through 2010. Assuming the Districtís ìworst caseî fee scenario of $856 per unit 

in 2006, rising to $2841 per unit in 2010, the District could collect as much as 

$292,719,600. The disparity between the cost of the service and the fee 

charged is 754%. Even at a lowered standard of review of ìreasonableness,î a 

disparity of that magnitude will not survive judicial scrutiny. 

RESPONSE: The District has addressed the analysis that Sierra Research 

provided in Response to Comments #143 to #162. In these responses, the 

District details which parts of the analysis provided by Sierra Research are 

flawed and/or inaccurate. 

132. COMMENT: Again, the proposed rules are in direct conflict with California law 

as they are proposing to collect fees well in excess of what might be justified 

under a nexus test. State law is clear about what burden is on local agencies 

which propose to impose new fees on development. Government Code Section 

66005(a) says ìWhen a local agency imposes any fee or exaction as a condition 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 93

of approval of a proposed development Ö or development project, those fees or 

exactions shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the 

service or facility for which the fee or exaction is imposed.î 

RESPONSE: As stated in Response to Comment #52, the Mitigation Fee Act 

does not apply to the ISR rules. The author points out a significant reason why. 

Section 66005(a) clearly states ìas a condition of approvalî. The District cannot 

place conditions of approval on development projects through the ISR program, 

as it is a ministerial action. In addition, the fees are designed to mitigate only a 

fraction of project emissions and there is nearly zero potential for over mitigating. 

 The fees are tonnage based (what is required to buy one ton of reduction for a 

particular pollutant) and are charged on a tonnage base. For example, if a 

project is required to mitigate 2 tons of NOx, then the price per ton is multiplied 

by 2 to obtain the off-site emission reduction fee. 

133. COMMENT: Discretionary, site specific fees, the kind that the District proposes 

to impose on individual development projects after a project-specific analysis of 

all on-site mitigation measures, are subject to the stricter "essential nexus" and 

"rough proportionality" requirements of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission,

483 U.S. 825, 107 S. Ct. 3141 (1987), and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 

374,114 S. Ct. (1994); see discussion in Ehrlich at 12 Cal. 4th 876, 50 Cal. Rptr. 

2d at 256,257; City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd., 526 U.S. 

687, 119 S. Ct. 1624, 1635, 143 L. Ed. 2d 882 (1999). 

 RESPONSE: Although the District will not be making discretionary actions, the 

Rule has been designed to meet this test. The District has prepared an analysis 

of nexus requirements. See Response to Comment #125 for the findings of the 

analysis.

134. COMMENT: In spite of repeated requests from various local agencies and 

members of the public, the District has not made available any calculations of 

the amount of emissions credits that will be awarded for on-site mitigation 

measures. For reasons explored in greater detail in Sierra Researchís comment 

letter, the URBEMIS model was not designed to, and is incapable of, accurately 

calculating the amount of emissions reductions from most of the design or 

location-based indirect source mitigation measures included in the Districtís 

proposed mitigation checklist. The unknown cost of the deferred mitigation 

(achieved after the fact through a grant program) makes an accurate analysis of 

proportionality even more difficult. For this reason, any project-specific fee 

calculation will be suspect, and subject to the higher standard of review. 

RESPONSE: The onsite emission reduction measures are calculated using the 

URBEMIS v8.7 mitigation component. The model is available for free at 

urbemis.com. The authorís statement that URBEMIS is, ìwas not designed to, 

and is incapable of, accurately calculating the amount of emissions reductions 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 94

from most of the design or location-based indirect source mitigation measures 

included in the Districtís proposed mitigation checklist,î is inaccurate at best, and 

misleading at worst.

The URBEMIS model is maintained by a state-wide working group that includes 

representatives from air districts throughout California, state agency 

representatives (such as CalTrans). Proposed changes to the model are vetted 

through peer review. The last model update, sponsored by the District, was 

changes to the Area Source module, specifically overhauling and quantifying the 

mitigation section. 

The model components and methodologies are available to the public in the 

URBEMIS Userís Guide, available at South Coast Air Quality Management 

Districtís website http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/urbemis.html, and will be made 

available at the Districtís website. In addition, the details of the model and the 

recent update are available in the Staff Report and as Appendix DRecommended Changes to URBEMIS.For more information on URBEMIS 

components, see Response to Comment #9. 

The authorís second main point is that, ìthe unknown cost of the deferred 

mitigation (achieved after the fact through a grant program) makes an accurate 

analysis of proportionality even more difficult.î The cost of ëdeferred mitigationí is 

exactly that of the off-site emission reduction fee. The applicant is assessed a 

fee based on the calculations provided in the rule. The per-ton fee is also 

provided in the rule. The applicant is assessed an administrative fee, stated in 

Rule 3180 as 4% of the off-site fee. The applicant is also assessed time and 

materials for the AIA review in excess of that covered by the application fee, 

detailed in Rule 3180. This is the full extent of fees. The ëdeferred mitigationí 

fee is expressly stated in the rules.

135. COMMENT: The District has failed to explain its calculations in determining a 

massive revenue-raising plan or the cost-benefit of the plan. According to the 

proposed rules, the District plans to raise between $300 million and $450 million 

in fees between 2006 and 2010 from housing alone. Similar fees will be collected 

from new schools, hospitals, government facilities, transportation projects, retail, 

office, and industrial development. The use of these funds, presumably, is to cut 

NOx emissions by 4.1 tons per day and PM-10 emissions by 5.2 tons per day. 

Yet, the Districtís own estimates show that NOx will cost an estimated $4,650 per 

ton in 2006, rising to $13,250 per ton in 2010 and that PM-10 reductions will cost 

$2,907 per ton, climbing to $13,850 per ton in 2010. These totals are far less 

than the fee revenue the District intends to raise during the same period. 

RESPONSE: The ruleís emission calculations are designed to identify a level of 

reductions from new development that will meet the SIP targets at the cost per 

ton predicted each year for each pollutant. The $300-450 million for residential 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 95

development severely overstates the fee potential and is based on an erroneous 

analysis of the rule requirements and incorrect calculations. For a detailed 

analysis of the cost effectiveness calculations, please review Appendix E ñ Cost 

Effectiveness Analysis for Rule 9510 ISR. For a detailed analysis of the 

emission reductions, please review Appendix B ñ Emissions Reductions Analysis 

for Rule 9510 ISR. 

136. COMMENT: The District has failed to lay out a coherent plan for using its 

mitigation plan to actually clean the air and to account for it. How the District 

intends to spend the massive amounts of money it is proposing to raise remains 

unclear. This in light of the recent concerns expressed by the Districtís 

Governing board that the District has not expended its existing motor-vehicle 

surcharge fees ñ representing over $50 million in taxpayer dollars ñ on mitigation 

measures in a timely and effective manner. In addition, in advancing these 

proposed rules ñ again, raising hundreds of millions of dollars over the next five 

years ñ the District has failed to present a clear and specific program to insure 

timely expenditures for measures that reduce emissions proportionately in the 

areas contributing fees. 

RESPONSE: The District will provide additional information to clarify the 

proposed plan for expending any fees collected and has amended Appendix E ñ 

Cost Effectiveness Analysis for Rule 9510 ISR accordingly. The District has 

successfully contracted over $100 million in funds for air quality projects. 

137. COMMENT: Finally, the District has failed to adequately recognize or account 

for the impact of the proposed rules on housing affordability and the regionís 

economy. The Socioeconomic Analysis examines narrowly examines housing 

impacts in terms of homebuilder profits without any similar analysis of housing 

cost and affordability impacts. This overlooks some important facts. Fees have 

a direct impact on homebuyers. According to a national study, every $1,000 

added to the price of a home, locks more than 23,000 California families out of 

the housing market. Further, $1,000 to $4,000 added to the purchase price of a 

home escalates dramatically when it is financed with a typical 30 year mortgage. 

 What this does to housing affordability in the region is completely ignored. In 

addition, the Analysis overlooks the impact of higher housing costs on the 

regional economy. First, more money spent on housing means less money 

spent on other goods and services. Second, higher housing costs discourage 

new business development as housing costs are viewed by executives as having 

the biggest impact on labor costs. Finally, fewer buyers mean fewer homes to 

be built which means fewer construction jobs and the profound ripple effects on 

the regional economy. Right now, home construction represents more than $7 

billion in annual economic output in the Central Valley and is responsible for 

creating nearly 70,000 new jobs every year. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 96

RESPONSE: First, the August 24, 2005 Socioeconomic Analysis provided at the 

September 1st workshop contains an analysis of housing costs and affordability 

impacts in Section 6.3 ñ Impacts on Affected Industries. Section 6.3 ¶1 states, 

ìIn addition to impacts on homebuilders, the section analyzes how changes in 

price affect prospective homebuyers and renters,î and contains Affordable 

Housing for Low-and Moderate Income Households as a subsection. The 

analysis found: 

...that while the residential fee that the typical residential development 

would pay under Draft Rule 9510 and 3180 can increase the amount of 

household income required to finance the purchase of a new home, the 

estimated increase represents a small fraction of the original household 

income required to finance a new home the event no air quality fees were 

in place. The affect of the fees on rents is similarly small. Page 1 Executive 

Summary

Second, 100 percent of all off-site funds collected will be spent on emission 

reduction projects in the San Joaquin Valley. This will create economic activity 

and jobs. Many of these projects involve the construction industry; for example, 

road paving to control PM10. The District recognizes that all off-site fees have 

an impact on the cost of development; however, the emission reductions 

obtained from the rule will benefit all residents of the San Joaquin Valley. 

Finally, refer to Response to Comment #53 for additional information. 

138. COMMENT: In addition to the impacts on housing, those on businesses and 

public service activities have not been fully analyzed. Half of the vehicle trips 

addressed by the proposed rules are assumed to come from non-residential 

uses, but it remains unclear how much non-residential uses are going to pay 

their mitigation obligations (fees). The Socioeconomic Analysis fails to mention 

fees for new schools, medical facilities or public facilities such as government 

offices, roads and libraries. The Socioeconomic Analysis concludes that the 

impact on commercial and industrial development will be significant, but fails to 

identify Valley-wide costs based on the full range of non-residential uses, or the 

ripple effect on public agencies, business start-ups and expansions, job 

generation and the cost of goods and services. 

RESPONSE: The District is unsure where the author is referencing the 

assumptions on vehicle trips. The cost to any sector is proportional to the 

emissions caused by indirect, area, and construction emissions generated by the 

project. The potential cost to any development can be calculated using the 

URBEMIS model to calculate emissions and the cost of reductions for the year of 

development and fee formula from the rule. The fee formula and cost of 

reductions applies to all development subject to the rule equally. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 97

Valley-wide impacts would be speculative. As stated in the Socioeconomic 

Analysis (p. 42), ìIt is not clear how the development will adjust to the additional 

costs.î Although the analysis states that, ìa typical commercial or industrial 

development could absorb air quality fees in 2006 or 2010,î developers may 

choose to pass on the cost to the buyer or renter. This aspect is unknown, and 

any projected valley-wide impacts as a result would be speculative and nonquantifiable. 

139. COMMENT: The proposed rules 9510 lack effectiveness estimates for on-site 

mitigation that lead to uncertainty and inaccurate fees. Appendix C contains a 

12-page checklist of mitigation measures that developers must consider for their 

project. Project applicants are instructed to justify why they did not apply a 

particular mitigation measure if they decided not to use it. However, the checklist 

provides no control efficiencies for the measures, making it impossible for project 

developers to reach an informed decision about the most cost-effective methods. 

 Of greatest concern, a large number of mitigation measures are not included in 

URBEMIS, and their effectiveness must be negotiated between the project 

applicant and the District. These off-model mitigation decisions inject great 

uncertainty and potential inaccuracy into determining the amount of mitigation 

provided and fees exacted. 

RESPONSE: The effectiveness of on-site measures varies depending on the 

design of the project and the land uses and transportation systems supporting 

the project. A single percentage number for each on-site measure is not 

appropriate. Please see Response to Comments #7 and #9 on URBEMIS 

quantification of measures. It should be noted that URBEMIS is free, available 

to the public, and user-friendly. 

140. COMMENT: The proposed rules will create an expansive new bureaucracy to 

perform duties that duplicate and conflict with existing local planning processes. 

Local jurisdictions already have the ability to address and mitigate construction 

and operational emissions of new development through environmental reviews ñ 

pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The most recent 

draft of the proposed rules actually appears to dismiss this likelihood for greater 

conflict and overlap with CEQA by eliminating previously published schedules for 

District staffís performance of project reviews, mitigation analyses and fee 

calculations. Indeed, at a recent District-sponsored workshop regarding the 

proposed rules, District staff essentially said that their measures were separate 

from those identical ones mandated by CEQA. Indeed, the failure of the District 

to clarify its role as a ìresponsible agencyî within the meaning of CEQA will 

foster conflicts with local governments, result in conflicting mitigation standards 

and requirements and fuel legal challenges ñ with direct and negative 

implications for job-generating business projects, affordable housing, schools, 

roads, and medical and public facilities urgently needed in the area. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 98

RESPONSE: The rule will be revised to make the Districtís timeline more closely 

match CEQA timelines. An applicant may come to the District prior to or 

concurrent with the local agency discretionary application. This is similar current 

District consultation in its role as a commenting agency. Once the applicant has 

settled on a project design and scope and on-site measures that will be used for 

reducing air impacts, the District or the applicant can prepare an air quality 

impact assessment to determine project baseline emissions, mitigated 

emissions, and a off-site fee, if any is required. There will be no conflict with 

local agency mitigation standards since all on-site measures will be sent to the 

agency for voluntary review and the District will not accept conflicting measures. 

In addition, it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that measures 

selected are approvable by the public agency. If a selected measure is not 

approvable, the District will remove the selection and re-assess the projectís air 

impacts. Although more projects will be subject to analysis under this rule, air 

quality is a critical concern in the San Joaquin Valley and should be receiving this 

additional attention. 

141. COMMENT: The proposed rules lack essential information on construction 

emission reduction requirements. The latest draft rule requires new 

development to reduce construction emissions, but does not provide any details 

on how emission reduction requirements will be calculated. At the September 1st

rule workshop, District staff was unable to confirm that a construction emissions 

ìcalculatorî would be available during the public comment period, or indeed prior 

to Board consideration of the rule. The homebuilding industry will be directly 

affected by this provision of the rule, but we cannot gauge the impact of the 

requirement without information on the assumptions and methods for calculating 

project emissions. Itís requested that this information be provided with time for 

public review period or eliminate construction emission requirements from the 

proposed rules. 

RESPONSE: URBEMIS V 8.7 is available to quantify construction emissions. 

The District is working on enhancements to the default values in the model and 

will be considering a spreadsheet based calculator if it is more appropriate. This 

will be completed at least 30 days prior to program implementation. 

142. COMMENT: For these reasons, as well as reasons previously placed on the 

record, we request that the District withdraw these proposals as inequitable and 

unworkable and unenforceable. Continuing down this path is a waste of public 

resources, which could be better put to use in developing alternative control 

measures well-designed and well-calculated to achieve compliance with the 

emission reduction goals set forth in the SIP.

RESPONSE: 

• The District considers the ISR Rules to be equitable 

Fees and assessment are emissions based and same for all land-uses. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 99

• The District considers the ISR rules to be workable. 

The rules set a clear path of what is required and how to achieve that. The 

URBEMIS model is used statewide by air districts and public agencies for 

project-specific air impacts. 

• The District considers the ISR rules to be enforceable. 

The District is granted the authority to promulgate and enforce the rules 

through the following:

The Clean Air Act Sec. 110 (5)(C) and 110 (5)(D) 

Sierra Research 

Date: September 15, 2005 

On behalf of the California Building Industry Association (CBIA), Sierra Research 

(Sierra) is pleased to submit the following comments on the revised draft Indirect 

Source Rules (ISR) 9510 and 3180 released by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District (the District) in late August. 

Our comments in this letter expand upon those presented before the District at the 

September 1st workshop. As directed by CBIA, our comments focus on, but are not 

limited to, technical and modeling issues related to the use of the URBEMIS model 

under the proposed rules based on our independent review of the model and its 

underlying assumptions. In this review we were assisted by Dowling Associates, Inc. 

(Dowling), a transportation planning firm with extensive travel demand modeling 

experience supporting a number of the San Joaquin Valley Transportation Planning 

Agencies (TPAs). 

Our comments are summarized briefly blow. Detailed explanations of each comment 

follow in attachment A. 

143. COMMENT: Summary 

Our overarching concerns with the draft ISR rules stem from their use of the 

URBEMIS model to calculate pollutant emission impacts from development 

projects and the fact that URBEMIS broadly overstates vehicular emission 

impacts from residential projects. Our analysis of typical single-family residential 

projects indicates that URBEMIS overstates vehicle emissions of both NOx and 

PM10 (the two pollutants targeted by these ISR rules) by over 70%. Since the 

mitigation fees that developers would pay under the proposed rules are directly 

related to the emission impacts calculated by URBEMIS, this model also 

substantially inflates the fees developers should be required to pay by roughly 

the same percentage. Our key concerns are summarized below. 

RESPONSE: Sierra Researchís conclusions are based on erroneous 

information. URBEMIS is designed to estimate all emissions related to a 

development project and counts all trips going to and coming from the 

development as is appropriate for a project level analysis. This accounts for the 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 100

higher emission numbers. By using trip counts using both ends of the trip, 

URBEMIS can credit developers who design their projects to generate less trips 

with reductions for both ends of the trips that were reduced. To avoid charging a 

fee on emissions that may be attributable to another new or existing indirect 

source, the fee formula is based on 50% of the baseline emissions after 

mitigation is applied onsite. The regional transportation model used as a 

comparison with URBEMIS is flawed when used for a project level analysis. The 

fees are not inflated compared to the impact. Sierra incorrectly calculated the 

potential fees.

144. COMMENT: URBEMIS Defaults Are Biased High ñ Most but not all of our 

concerns with the URBEMIS model result from its heavy reliance on detailed 

default assumptions that are not likely to be well understood by project 

applicants required to use the model under the proposed rules. As our analysis 

shows, a number of these default assumptions substantially overestimate 

residential project emissions in the following areas: 

• by about 20% for NOx due to over-represented heavy-duty vehicles in the 

fleet mix; 

• by over 20% for NOx, ROG and PM10 because of older age distribution 

assumptions; and 

• by roughly 50% for PM10 due to incorrect silt loading factors; and 

• by 20-30% for all pollutants from overstated average vehicle trip lengths in 

the San Joaquin Valley. 

RESPONSE: The District will provide revised defaults accounting for land use 

specific fleet mix information, a Valley specific silt loading factor, and updated 

trip length data prior to rule implementation. The District will consider an age 

correction factor; however, more evidence of the validity of this approach is 

needed. 

145. COMMENT: URBEMIS Is Inconsistent With SIP Methodology ñ Region-wide 

pollutant emissions calculated under State Implementation Plans (SIPs) use a 

more rigorous set of models to determine motor vehicle travel impacts and 

resulting emission impacts than represented in URBEMIS. During the ISR rule 

development, the District has provided no clear evidence that URBEMIS is 

capable of calculating emissions from development projects in a manner that is

consistent with SIP-level emissions and has simply asserted its appropriateness 

for use under these rules. 

To test the Districtís assertion, Sierra and Dowling performed an equivalent, 

side-by-side analysis of travel and emissions impacts of a typical hypothetical 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 101

ìsuburban fringeî residential project using both URBEMIS and the Fresno 

County regional travel demand model (one of several county-level travel demand 

models used to calculate vehicle travel under the SIP). (As in URBEMIS, 

emission impacts were calculated using the Air Resources Boardís EMFAC2002 

vehicle emission factor model.) Our analysis found that URBEMIS estimates 

over 60% higher vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and over 50% higher emissions for 

all pollutants than the travel model/SIP-based approach. Moreover, this 

discrepancy cannot apparently be corrected by using ìbetterî URBEMIS inputs 

than the default assumptions built into the model. Thus, these findings cast 

doubt on the validity of broadly applying URBEMIS under the ISR rule as 

URBEMIS clearly does not produce SIP-consistent emission impacts. 

RESPONSE: Prior to implementation, the District will provide updated default 

values to provide the most accurate emission estimates possible. Regional 

travel demand models are not practical for project level analysis. The rule 

requires 50 percent of baseline emissions to be mitigated. The 50 percent more 

than accounts for emissions due to counting both ends of the trips related to the 

project. URBEMIS counts two way trips to account for the total impact of the 

project. When used in analyze a single project, this is appropriate measure of 

impact. When looking at regional impacts, only half of the trips should be 

counted since if every project, new and existing were examined at once it would 

exactly double count the trips. Using URBEMIS will result in consistent analysis 

from project to project. Emission reductions achieved by the rule from offsite 

measures will be calculated using emission factors and methods consistent with 

the SIP. Onsite measures will be credited in accordance with EPA Voluntary and 

Emerging Emission Measures Policy.

146. COMMENT: Residential Fees Appear Understated in Socioeconomic Report ñ 

In addition to the comments summarized above on the URBEMIS model, we also 

have concerns with the fee estimates for typical residential developments 

contained in the Districtís socioeconomic analysis of the ISR rules. Table 16 of 

the socioeconomic report cites ìworst-caseî fee estimates ranging from $856 per 

unit in 2006 to $2,841 per unit in 2010. The supporting text offers no explanation 

of how these estimates were developed. 

Its fundamental flaws notwithstanding, Sierra independently estimated residential 

fees using URBEMIS, and the fee formulas and cost reduction ratios contained 

in the August drafts of Rule 9510 and 3180. Our analysis found fees were twice 

as high ($1,607-$7,971 per unit) over the same period for a single-family 

residential development, assuming a default housing density of 3 units/acre. 

When the housing density was doubled (to 6 units/acre), per unit fees were still 

over 50% higher ($1,295-$5,556 per unit) than those cited (without explanation) 

In the socioeconomic report. . We also calculated fees assuming a 93% vs. 7% 

split between single and multi-family units, based on the average number of new 

single- and multi-family housing units permitted in the San Joaquin Valley in 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 102

2002 obtained from the California Department of Finance 

(http://countingcalifornia.cdlib.org/title/castat.html). Even under these mixed use 

assumptions, our fee estimates ranged from $1,550-$7,702 per unit, still nearly 

twice as high as those in the socioeconomic report. 

Thus, we question how the estimates in that report were developed. Our 

analysis suggests that the worst case residential fees are substantially higher 

than those employed in the socioeconomic analysis. If this is correct, then the 

impacts quantified in the study are understated and would need to be revised. 

RESPONSE: Sierra incorrectly calculated the construction emission reductions. 

 This accounts for the differences between the Districtís numbers in the socioeconomic impact report and Sierraís inflated numbers.

147. COMMENT: Revenue From Residential Fees Will Dramatically Exceed the Cost 

of Purchasing Mitigation Needed to Meet ISR SIP Commitments ñ Using 

information developed by the District for this rulemaking, Sierra prepared 

estimates of the funds that will be generated from residential fees and spent 

purchasing mitigation between 2006 and 2010. We found incoming fee revenue 

exceeded outgoing mitigation expenses by $146 to $728 million depending on 

the level of the fee assumed (the percent difference ranges from 377% to 

1,873%). The magnitude of these differences indicates that the rule is seriously 

flawed. There are two primary reasons for the discrepancy between fee revenue 

and mitigation expenses. First, as noted above, URBEMIS default assumptions 

include biases that lead to significant overestimates of project emissions, which 

in turn lead to overpayment of mitigation fees. Second, there is a fundamental 

flaw in the fee formulas developed for the rule that overstates the cost of 

purchasing mitigation. 

The fee formulas are designed to advance to the District a monetary sum 

necessary to mitigate excess emissions not mitigated onsite for a period of ten 

years. Assuming no onsite mitigation, the operational NOx formula requires 

payment for 2.5 times and the operational PM10 formula requires payment for 5 

times the estimated base year emissions. The important point is that developers 

would be required to pay mitigation fees that offset several years of project 

emissions. Mitigation expenses, however, are not denominated in years. 

Instead they represent a single one-time purchase that continues to provide 

emission reductions for multiple years. According to the staff report the average 

project life for NOx mitigation is 7 years and for PM10 it is 12 years. 

Thus, assuming no onsite mitigation, a project applicant can expect to pay for 

17.5 years of mitigation for the base year NOx emissions of the project (i.e., 2.5 

× 7) and 60 years of mitigation for the base year PM10 emissions of the project 

(i.e., 5 × 12). This bias is extreme and comes on top of the significant default 

biases incorporated into URBEMIS. Collectively, they explain the huge absolute 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 103

and percentage difference between incoming fees and outgoing mitigation 

expenses. Since the residential fees in this analysis are used to purchase all of 

the ISR SIP mitigation commitments, the inclusion of both residential and nonresidential (e.g., industrial) development fees would only worsen the already 

enormous inconsistency between ISR revenue and expenses. 

RESPONSE: The fee formula does not include a project life multiplier of 7 or 12 

years. Any funds collected will be used on projects with average project lives of 

7 for NOx or 12 years for PM10, so the mitigation is effective for that long on 

average. The fee formula calculates an amount of emissions in tons that must 

be mitigated at the cost of reductions for each year. For most projects funded, 

the reductions may be considered permanent since at the end of the project life 

new engines/devices will be purchased that achieve reductions that are 

equivalent or better. 

148. COMMENT: Conclusions. 

The draft ISR rules have serious and fundamental flaws related to their reliance 

on URBEMIS and its extreme overstatement of residential project emissions. 

Moreover, our analysis of incoming and outgoing revenue streams indicates that 

the ISR fee formulas dramatically overstate the amount of revenue needed to 

buy emission reduction offsets for NOx and PM10 at ìmarketî prices estimated by 

the District. 

RESPONSE: The District strongly disagrees with this conclusion. Sierra based 

its conclusions on erroneous calculations and comparisons.

SIERRA RESEARCH 

ATTACHMENT A 

DETAILED COMMENTS

Our detailed comments on the ISR rules are presented below. Some of these 

comments were provided by Sierra to the District in July in response to the preceding 

versions of the draft rules. For completeness and where relevant as related to the 

Districtís response to these earlier comments, they are repeated in this letter. At the 

end of each of these comments, we have listed the Districtís response as contained in 

Appendix A of the August version of the ISR rule packet and provided follow-up 

comments to these responses. 

149. COMMENT: URBEMIS Fleet Mix Overstates Residential Project Emissions ñ 

One of the most striking instances of inappropriate default data in URBEMIS is 

the distribution of vehicle types (e.g., passenger cars, light trucks, heavy trucks, 

etc.) or ìfleet mixî employed in the model. Fleet mix differences can significantly 

impact calculated vehicle emissions because of the relative stringency imposed 

on different vehicle types under emission certification standards adopted and 

implemented by the state Air Resources Board (ARB). Generally speaking, 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 104

passenger cars must meet more stringent (i.e., lower) emission standards than 

larger vehicle types such as heavy-duty trucks. 

The default fleet mixes in URBEMIS (which vary slightly by calendar year) are 

based on statewide average distributions contained in ARBís EMFAC2002 

model. Those default distributions assume that roughly 3% of the vehicles are 

heavy-duty vehicles (trucks and buses). This is reasonable for a statewide or air 

basin average of a large vehicle fleet, but clearly not representative of the mix of 

vehicles operating in a new residential project. New residential projects are not 

likely to contain any heavy-duty vehicles (in the ìoperatingî phase following 

construction). Thus, the use of the URBEMIS default fleet mixes that contain 

heavy-duty vehicles is clearly inappropriate for these projects. 

Table 1 compares the results of URBEMIS runs with default and ìno heavy-dutyî 

adjusted fleet mixes. These URBEMIS runs were performed for hypothetical 

100-unit residential development with single family detached housing for 

calendar year 2005 using default assumptions for the remaining inputs and 

assume no mitigation. 

The upper portion of Table 1 shows the existing default fleet mix and the 

corrected fleet mix which was adjusted by removing all heavy-duty vehicle 

categories and renormalizing the remaining percentages. The lower portion 

compares operating emissions calculated by URBEMIS using each fleet mix. 

Although the emission impacts for ROG and PM10 are minimal, NOx emissions 

are some 23% lower (2.13 vs. 2.76 tpy) when representative fleet mix is used to 

model residential project emissions. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 105

Table 1 

Emission Impacts of Corrected Vehicle Fleet Mix 

(SJV Fleet, Calendar Year 2005) 

Vehicle Class Default Mix (%) Adjusted Mix (%) 

Light Auto 56.1 58.1 

Light Truck 1 15.1 15.6 

Light Truck 2 15.5 16.1 

Med Truck 6.8 7.0 

Light-Heavy Truck 1 1.0 - 

Light-Heavy Truck 2 0.3 - 

Med-Heavy Truck 1.0 - 

Heavy-Heavy Truck 0.8 - 

Line Haul 0.0 - 

Urban Bus 0.1 - 

Motorcycle 1.6 1.7 

School Bus 0.3 - 

Motor Home 1.4 1.5 

FLEET TOTALS 100.0 100.0 

Heavy-Duty Pct. 3.5 0.0 

Operating Emissions (tpy) for 

100-Unit Residential Project: 

 

 ROG 2.18 2.16 

 NOx 2.76 2.13 

 PM10 1.99 1.98 

This is a clear instance where URBEMIS default inputs are not appropriate and 

significantly overstate NOx emissions and resulting mitigation fees that would be 

calculated under the District proposed ISR rules. This finding clearly points out 

the need for the District to thoroughly review the default assumptions in 

URBEMIS and carefully consider the technical capabilities of applicants as end 

users of the model under these rules. 

RESPONSE: The District is working to ensure that the fleet mix assumptions in 

URBEMIS are appropriate for each land use type. The District will provide 

updated land use specific fleet mix information for residential development and 

possibly other land uses prior to rule implementation. URBEMIS data files 

containing the updated fleet mix data will be available for ease of use. We will 

accept changes to default information such as fleet mix when supported by 

adequate documentation. While the fleet average may somewhat overstate 

emissions [from] residential developments there are heavy-duty truck emissions 

associated with them. These include school buses, refuse collection, package 

delivery and other service vehicles.

150. COMMENT: Follow-Up ñ Refuse collection vehicles are contained in the heavyheavy truck (HHT) category. In 2004, ARB adopted a statewide rule for 

controlling emissions from solid waste collection vehicles 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 106

(http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/dieselswcv/dieselswcv.htm). Under that effort, a 

solid waste collection vehicle emissions inventory was prepared which identified 

the statewide population of both residential and commercial refuse collection 

vehicles as 11,778 in calendar year 2000. According to EMFAC2002, the 

statewide population of all HHTs in 2000 was 158,204. Thus, residential and

commercial refuse collection vehicles represent only 7% (11,778  ̃ 158,204) of 

the total HHT population, with residential collection vehicles less than that. 

Package delivery and other service vehicles generally span the light-heavy truck 

(LHT) and medium-heavy truck (MHT) categories, but the vehicle populations 

and vehicle miles traveled for those vehicles serving residential customers is 

likely much less than those serving commercial customers. Thus, the 

EMFAC2002 fleet percentages for the LHT and MHT categories still overstate 

the fractions of those vehicles serving residential areas. 

To address these issues, the analysis presented earlier in Table 1 was revised to 

include school buses and all LHTs and MHTs at the same proportions of the 

original EMFAC2002 fleet mix. This addresses the District concern that school 

buses be included and conservatively overstates the representation of residential 

package delivery and other service vehicles. Since residential refuse collection 

vehicles represent a very small fraction of all HHTs (less than 7%), the HHT 

residential fleet fraction was set to zero. Using this revised residential fleet mix, 

NOx emissions were calculated to be 2.44 tpy, which are 12% lower (2.44 vs. 

2.76 tpy) than those based on URBEMIS defaults. 

Thus, we believe NOx emissions for a properly determined residential fleet mix 

are still 12-20% lower than if URBEMIS defaults are used, depending on what 

assumptions are made with respect to the package delivery and other service 

vehicle fractions of LHTs and MHTs. 

RESPONSE: EMFAC emission projections are revised periodically to account 

for changes from adopted motor vehicle emission regulations. The next version 

of EMFAC is expected to be released in 2006. The District will help fund the 

next upgrade to URBEMIS to utilize the new EMFAC. The Districtís methodology 

for estimating land use specific fleet mixes will be available prior to rule 

implementation

151. COMMENT: URBEMIS Age Distribution Overstates Residential Project 

Emissions ñ Another area where URBEMIS does not accurately reflect particular 

project conditions relates to the distribution of vehicle ages internally built in to 

the model. The vehicle age distributions contained in URBEMIS are based on 

statewide average vehicle registrations for the entire on-road fleet contained in 

the EMFAC2002 model. These distributions likely reflect a generally older 

vehicle fleet than exists in a new residential project. Vehicle emissions strongly 

depend on vehicle age due to ARBís implementation of dramatically tighter 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 107

emission standards over the last 30 years. New vehicles today are 

approximately 10-20 times cleaner than those introduced in the early 1970s. 

And this trend will continue into the future. Thus, it is necessary to accurately 

represent the age distribution of a fleet of vehicles when calculating their 

emissions. 

Our subcontractor Dowling has compiled statistics on housing age and vehicle 

fleet age from two readily available data sources: 1) the 2000 U.S. Census; and 

2) the 2001 Caltrans Statewide Household Travel Survey. They compared 

vehicle age from households in the San Joaquin Valley in two groups: 

1. ìnewî households defined as those that were ≤ 10 years old; and 

2. ìoldî households defined as those older than 10 years. 

Dowling found that the ìnewî housing areas had a 49.5% to 50.5% mix between 

vehicles ≤ 5 years old and vehicles > 5 years old. In the ìoldî household areas, 

the split between ≤ 5 year old vehicles and vehicles > 5 years old was 35.7% to 

64.3%, indicating that new households in the San Joaquin Valley reflect a newer 

vehicle fleet than represented by the URBEMIS model defaults for the entire 

area. 

Figure 1 illustrates the differences in vehicle age distributions between those in 

the EMFAC2002 model (upon which URBEMIS is based) and those developed 

for a typical new residential development based on Dowlingís findings. As 

highlighted in Figure 1, new residential developments exhibit a much larger 

fraction of newer and therefore generally cleaner vehicles. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 108

Figure 1 

Comparison of Light-Duty Automobile Age Distributions

(Calendar Year 2005)

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Age (years)

Population Fraction

URBEMIS-Statewide EMFAC-SJV New Residential SJV

New residential developments exhibit a much 

higher fraction of newer, cleaner vehicles

The emissions impact of using a younger age distribution typically found in new 

residential developments was determined from a series of spreadsheet 

calculations by individual model year using age-specific emissions factors 

extracted from the EMFAC2002 model. 

Table 2 presents and compares resulting light-duty automobile exhaust emission 

factors (in grams per mile) during summer in calendar year 2005. Table 2 also 

shows the percentage difference in emission factors (and thus calculated project 

exhaust emissions) using the URBEMIS and New Residential age distributions. 

Table 2 

Exhaust Emission Impacts of Corrected Vehicle Age Distribution 

(SJV Light-Duty Auto Fleet, Calendar Year 2005, Summer) 

Quantity/Age Distribution ROG NOx PM10

Emission Factor (grams/mile) - URBEMIS Default 0.177 0.290 0.0082 

Emission Factor (grams/mile) - New Residential 0.132 0.222 0.0065 

% Difference (New Residential vs. URBEMIS) -25.6% -23.3% -20.5% 

As highlighted in Table 2, exhaust emissions of light-duty automobiles were 

found to be over 20% lower for ROG, NOx and PM10 when an age distribution 

representative of a typical new residential neighborhood is used compared to the 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses Rule 9510 and 3180 December 15, 2005 

Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

 Rule 9510 and Rule 3180

A - 109

existing fleet-average age distribution contained in URBEMIS. These emission 

impacts calculated for automobiles are likely to be similar for light-duty trucks as 

well, which together with automobiles account for about 90% of the vehicles in a 

residential project fleet. 

RESPONSE: The District will consider adding an age correction factor in the fee 

calculation formula for residential development. The emissions for PM10 in the 

table appear to be from exhaust and are small compared to the entrained road 

dust that is not affected by the age of the vehicle. 

152. COMMENT: Unlike the previous fleet mix problem which can be addressed by 

issuing guidance to supply a different fleet mix in one of the URBEMIS input 

screens, the model cannot be easily revised to properly account for a 

representative residential vehicle fleet age distribution. The way URBEMIS is 

currently designed, it internally uses a series of calendar year and season 

specific emission factor files developed from ìupstreamî runs of the EMFAC2002 

model for a statewide average vehicle fleet. Although it is possible to generate 

air basin-specific EMFAC2002 files, URBEMIS would need to be re-programmed 

to utilize these air basin-specific emission factors. More importantly, fleet age 

distributions for an air basin as a whole are still not likely to reflect those of a 

typical new residential project. This can clearly be seen from the ìEMFAC-SJVî 

and ìNew Residential SJVî distribution plotted earlier in Figure 1. 

The EMFAC2002 model maintained by ARB is designed to produce several 

types of outputs under the following three modes: 1) ìBurdenî; 2) ìEmfacî; and 

3) ìCalimfacî. URBEMIS is currently designed to work with ìEmfacî mode 

outputs from EMFAC2002. Although EMFAC2002 can be run with different age 

distributions, this feature is only available under the ìBurdenî output mode, not 

the ìEmfacî mode. 

Thus, we believe the District will need to completely overhaul the design of 

URBEMIS and its interaction with ARBís ìofficialî EMFAC2002 emission factor 

model or consider another analysis method/tool to adequately address this age 

distribution issue for residential project analyses under the ISR rules. 

RESPONSE: The District continues to believe that URBEMIS is the appropriate 

tool for the job. The District will consider an off model vehicle age correction if 

well documented. However, the District believes that the fleet average is a 

reasonable assumption for new development projects. There are a number of 

factors that impact emissions including age, vehicle class, and fleet turnover. If 

more specific information is available, the District would consider utilizing project 

specific numbers.