CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION v. BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICTRespondent’s Request for Judicial NoticeCal.May 28, 2014 COPY Case No. 8213478 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRYASSOCIATION ¢: 00000. oehure Cler Plaintiff and Respondent vs. BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENTDISTRICT Defendant and Appellant CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCTATION’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTIONFOR JUDICIAL NOTICE; DECLARATION OF ANDREWB. SABEY & [PROPOSED] ORDER After a Decision by the Court of Appeal in a Published Opinion First Appellate District, No. A135335 & A136212 On Appeal from a Judgment Alameda County Superior Court, No. RG10548693 -Honorable Frank Roesch, Judge of the Superior Court COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP MICHAEL H. ZISCHKE (SBN 105053) mzischke@coxcastle.com *ANDREWB. SABEY (SBN 160416) asabey@coxcastle.com CHRISTIAN H. CEBRIAN (SBN 245797) ccebrian@coxcastle.com 555 California Street, 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104-1513 Telephone: (415) 262-5100 Facsimile: (415) 262-5199 PAUL CAMPOS (SBN 165903) pcampos@biabayarea.org 101 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, CA 94596-5160 Telephone: (925) 274-1365 Case No. 8213478 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION Plaintiff and Respondent BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENTDISTRICT Defendant and Appellant CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE; DECLARATION OF ANDREW B. SABEY & [PROPOSED] ORDER After a Decision by the Court of Appeal in a Published Opinion First Appellate District, No. A135335 & A136212 On Appeal from a Judgment Alameda County Superior Court, No. RG10548693 Honorable Frank Roesch, Judge of the Superior Court COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP MICHAELH. ZISCHKE (SBN 105053) mzischke@coxcastle.com *ANDREWB. SABEY (SBN 160416) asabey@coxcastle.com CHRISTIAN H. CEBRIAN (SBN 245797) ccebrian@coxcastle.com 555 California Street, 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104-1513 Telephone: (415) 262-5100 Facsimile: (415) 262-5199 PAUL CAMPOS (SBN 165903) pcampos@biabayarea.org 101 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, CA 94596-5160 Telephone: (925) 274-1365 Pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 452 and 453, Plaintiff and RespondentCalifornia Building Industry Association (“CBIA”) hereby requests that the Court take judicial notice of the exhibits identified below, offered in support ofits Joint Answer to Amici Briefs. The authenticity of the exhibits is established through the declaration of Andrew B. Sabey, whichis attached hereto as Exhibit M. Exhibits H throughL arerelevantto the interpretation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) andto rebut the factual assertions made by Amici. These documents were not presentedto thetrial court because they are being relied on to rebut arguments madeafter judgment wasentered. Judicial notice may be taken of the “{o]fficial acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of . . . any state of the United States.” (Cal. Evid. Code § 452(c).) The Court may judicially notice “[fJacts and propositionsthat are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” (Cal. Evid. Code § 452(h).) CBIAseeksjudicial notice of the following five documents: Exhibit H: An excerpt of OPR’s 2003 General Plan Guidelines. Judicial notice of this documentis appropriate under Evidence Code Section 452, subdivision (c) and (h) becauseit constitutes an official act of a public agencyand is not reasonably subject to dispute. ExhibitI: An excerpt of the environmental impact report for the Sth and Colorado Hotel Projects. Judicial notice of this documentis appropriate under Evidence Code Section 452, subdivision (c) and (h) becauseit constitutes an official act of a public agency andis not reasonably subject to dispute. Exhibit J: Yingling Fan,et al., [s Sprawl Associated with a Widening Urban-Suburban Mortality Gap?, Journal ofUrban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, Vol. 86, No. 5, p. 717, 2009. Judicial notice of the existence of the document is appropriate under Evidence Code Section 452, subdivision (h) because its existence is not reasonably subject to dispute. (See People v. Pizarro (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 57, 72 n. 11.) CBIA arguesthat articles such as this could potentially be used by project opponents as substantial evidence of a fair argumentthat an impact related to urban environment. Exhibit K: Yara Halasa,et al., Quantifying the Impact of Mosquitoes on Quality ofLife and Enjoyment ofYard and Porch Activities in New Jersey, PLoS ONE, Volume9,Issue 3, 2014. Judicial notice of the existence of this documentis appropriate under Evidence Code Section 452, subdivision (h) becauseits existence is not reasonably subject to dispute. (See People v. Pizarro (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 57, 72 n. 11.) CBIA argues that articles such as this could potentially be used by project- opponentsas substantial evidence ofa fair argument that an impact related to vectors. Exhibit L: A printout from the District’s official website http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA- GUIDELINES.aspx. Judicial notice of this document is appropriate under Evidence Code Section 452, subdivision (c) and (h) becauseit constitutes an official act of a public agency and is not reasonably subject to dispute. CBIArespectfully requests this Court grant judicial notice of Exhibits H through L. Dated: May 28, 2014 Respectfully submitted, Cox, Castle Nicholson LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffjand Respondent CaliforniajBuilding Industry Association nA\)\\ { EXHIBIT H EXHIBIT H GOVERNORS OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH General Plan Guidelines Ss. [ATE OF CALIFORNIA State of California Gray Davis, Governor Governor’s Office of Planning and Research Tal Finney, Interim Director 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 916-322-2318 State Clearinghouse Director: Terry Roberts Lead Editor: Brian Grattidge Assistant Editor: Anya Lawler October 2003 Please feel free to reproduce all or part of this document. You need not secure permission; we ask that you print it accurately and give credit to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. This documentis available on the Internetat Attp-/Avww.opr.ca.gov. Director’s Message The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR)is proud to announcethe publication of the 2003 General Plan Guidelines. These advisory guidelines serve as a valuable reference for cities and counties in the preparation of local generalplans.It is our hope that the General Plan Guidelines will be useful not onlyto city and county planningstaffs, but to elected officials, planning consultants, and membersofthe public. The State Legislature declared in 1976 that “decisions involving the future growth ofthe state, most ofwhich are made and will continue to be madeat the local level, should be guided by an effective planning process, including the local general plan, and should proceed within the framework ofofficially approved statewide goals and policies.” In all of its work, OPR attempts to encourage more collaborative and comprehensive land use planningat the local, regional, and statewide levels to achieve sustainable developmentgoals ofprotecting the environment, maintaining a healthy economy,and ensuring equitable treatmentofall people. In addition to the General Plan Guidelines, OPR hasrecently published the Municipal Service Review Guide- lines, which provide guidance for Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCOs) to address the delivery of municipal services at a regional level, in a manner that informs other LAFCO boundary-setting decisions. The Municipal Service Review Guidelines will be followed by A Guide to the LAFCO Processfor Incorporations, which will assist LAFCOsin establishing new city boundaries. Finally, for the first time in twenty-five years, the Environmental Goals and Policy Report will provide the statewide framework that guides the infrastructure investments and comprehensiveplansof state agencies and departments. As the General Plan Guidelines enters its thirtieth year, I know you will find the 2003 edition to be an invaluable toolin the practice of local planning. Tal Finney Interim Director October 2003 Sacramento, California General Plan Guidelines 3 Chapter 2: Sustainable Development and EnvironmentalJustice jobs/housing balance alone could easily result in a city composed ofsingle-use residential subdivisions on one side of town and single-use business parks and shop- ping centers on the other side of town. At the scale of the region, this might be preferable to a jobs/housing imbalance, butat the scale ofthe community and ofthe neighborhoodit does not improvelivability or reduce dependence on the automobile. While it is not likely that most employeesoflocal businesswill also live in the neighborhood,it is important that the planning of the neighborhoodnotprecludethat possibility for those who would choseit. ENVIRONMENTALJUSTICE Environmental justice is defined in state planning law asthe fair treatmentofpeople ofall races, cultures, and incomeswith respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcementofenvironmentallaws, regulations, and policies (§65040.12(e)). The Governor’s Office ofPlanning and Research (OPR)is requiredto pro- vide guidanceto cities and counties for integrating envi- ronmental justice into their general plans (§65040.12(c)). This section discusses the framework for environmental Justice andthe relationship ofenvironmental justice to the general plan. The recommendations in this chapter are also reflected in the chapters on the required general plan elements (Chapter4), optional elements (Chapter6), and public participation (Chapter 8). Federal Framework The basis for environmental justice lies in the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Four- teenth Amendment expressly provides that the states may not “deny to any person within [their] jurisdic- tion the equal protection of the laws” (U.S. Constitu- tion, amend. XTV, §1). On February 11, 1994, President Clinton signed Ex- ecutive Order (E.O.) 12898,titled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.” The executive order fol- lowed a 1992 report by the U.S. Environmental Protec- tion Agency (U.S. EPA)indicatingthat “[rJacial minority and low-income populations experience higher than av- erage exposures to selected air pollutants, hazardous waste facilities, and other forms of environmental pol- lution.” Amongother things, E.O. 12898 directed fed- eral agencies to incorporate environmental justice mto their missions. Ina memorandum accompanying E.O. 12898,Presi- dent Clinton underscored existing federal laws that can be used to further environmentjustice. These laws in- 22 General Plan Guidelines clude Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), among others. Title VI prohibits any recipient(state or local entity or public or private agency) of federal financial assistance from discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin in its programsoractivities (42 USC §2000d-§2000d-7). State and local agencies that receive federal funding must comply with Title VI. Pursuantto the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, this requirement applies to all agency programs and activities, not just those that receive direct federal fund- ing. In response, many state and local agenciesthat re- ceive federal funding have initiated environmental justice programsoftheir own. NEPAappliesto projects carried out or funded by a federal agency (including the issuance of federal] per- mits). NEPAis useful relative to environmentaljustice becauseit requires public participation and discussion of alternatives and mitigation measures that could re- duce disproportionate effects on low-income and mi- nority populations. On December10, 1997, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) released NEPA Guid- anceforFederalAgencies on Key Termsin E.O. 12898. This document is a useful reference for planners,al- though it is focused on environmental review ofindi- vidual projects rather than long-term comprehensive land use planning. State Framework Anti-discrimination laws existed in California prior to the passage of the first state environmental justice legislation in 1999. The California Constitution prohibits discrimination in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting (Article I, §31). State law further prohibits discrimination under any program oractivity that is funded or administered by the state (§11135). The Planning and Zoning Law pro- hibits any local entity from denying any individual or group of the enjoyment of residence, land ownership, tenancy, or any other land use in California due to the race, sex, color, religion, ethnicity, national origin, an- cestry, lawful occupation, or age of the individual or group of individuals (§65008). The Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)specifically prohibits hous- ing discrimination on the basis ofrace, color,religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry,familia] status, disability, or source ofincome (§12900, et seq.) In 1999, Governor Davis signed SB 115 (Solis, Chapter 690, Statutes of 1999) into law, defining envi- ronmental justice in statute and establishing OPR as Chapter2: Sustainable Development and EnvironmentalJustice the coordinating agency for state environmental jus- tice programs (§65040.12). SB 115 further required the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) to develop a model environmental justice mission state- ment for boards, departments, and offices within the agency by January 1, 2001 (Public Resources Code §72000-72001). In 2000, Governor Davis signed SB 89 (Escutia, Chapter 728, Statutes of 2000), which complemented SB 115 by requiring the creation of an environmental justice working group and an advisory groupto assist Cal/EPAin developing an intra-agency environmental justice strategy (Public Resources Code §72002- 72003). SB 828 (Alarcon, Chapter 765, Statutes of 2001) added and modified due dates for the develop- ment of Cal/EPA’s intra-agency environmentaljustice strategy and required each board, department, and of- fice within Cal/EPA to identify and address any gaps in its existing programs, policies, and activities that may impede environmentaljustice no later than January 1, 2004 (Public Resources Code §71114-71115). AB 1553 (Keeley, Chapter 762, Statutes of 2001) required OPRto incorporate environmental justice con- siderations in the General Plan Guidelines. AB 1553 specified that the guidelines should propose methods for local governments to address the following: @ Planning for the equitable distribution ofnew pub- lic facilities and services that increase and enhance community quality oflife. @ Providing for the location ofindustrialfacilities and uses that pose a significant hazard to humanhealth and safety in a manner that seeks to avoid overconcentrating these uses in proximity to schools or residential dwellings. @ Providing for the location ofnew schools andresi- dential dwellings in a mannerthat avoids proxim- ity to industrial facilities and uses that pose a significant hazard to human health and safety. # Promoting more livable communities by expand- ing opportunities for transit-oriented development. Forms of Inequity Problems of environmental justice can be broken down into two categories: procedural inequity and geographic inequity. In other words, unfair treatment can manifest itself in terms of process or in terms of results. Procedural inequity occurs when the planning pro- cess is not applied uniformly. Examples of procedural inequity include: ¢ “Stacking” commissions or committees with cer- tain interests while ignoring the interests of other segments of the community, such as minority and low-incomeresidents. @ Holding meetingsat timesorin locations that mini- mize the ability of certain groups or individuals to participate. @ Using English-only written or verbal communica- tion when a non-English speaking population will be affected by a planning decision. @ Requiring lower levels of mitigation for projects affecting low-incomeor minority populations. @ Unevenly enforcing environmental rules. Geographic inequity describes a situation in which the burdensofundesirable land uses are concentrated in certain neighborhoods while the benefits are re- ceived elsewhere. It also describes a situation in which public amenities are concentrated only in cer- tain areas. Examples of geographic inequity include situations in which: @ Certain neighborhoods have a disproportionate share of industrial facilities that handle or produce hazardous waste, while the economic benefits are distributed to other neighborhoods(in the form of jobs and tax revenue). @ Certain neighborhoods have a disproportionate share of waste disposal facilities, while the ben- efits of such facilities are received by the commu- nity or region as a whole. @ Certain neighborhoods have ample community cen- ters, parks, and open space and thus experience more ofthe environmental benefits associated with these amenities, while other neighborhoods have fewer such amenities. Public Participation Community involvementin the planning processis an important part of environmental justice. Cities and counties should develop public participation strategies that allow for early and meaningful community involve- mentin the genera] plan processby all affected popu- lation groups. Participation plans should incorporate strategies to overcomelinguistic, institutional, cultural, economic, and historic barriers to effective participa- tion. Chapter 8 is dedicated to the issue of public par- ticipation and suggests methods to improve outreach to and communication with all population groups, in- cluding low-income and minority populations. General Plan Guidelines 23 Chapter 2: Sustainable Development and EnvironmentalJustice Compatibility At the general plan level, discussions about envi- ronmental justice involve a central Jand use concept: compatibility. The primary purpose of planning, and the source of governmentauthority to engage in plan- ning, is to protect the public health, safety, and wel- fare. Incompatible land uses maycreate health, safety, and welfare issues for the community. Geographic in- equity occurs when incompatible land uses dispropor- tionately affect a particular socioeconomic segment of the community. In this sense, environmental justice problemsindicate a failure of land use planning to de- liveronits original promise—reducing the harmfulef- fects of incompatible land uses. Traditionally, zoning has attempted to minimize health and safety risks by segregating land uses. How- ever, taking this approach too far has negative conse- quences that run counter to the goals of sustainable development. Rigid separation ofland uses has resulted in disconnected islands of activity and contributed to sprawl. As discussed above, developmentpatterns char- acterized by single-use zoning result in the automobile being the only viable transportation option, which has high environmental, economic, and social costs. The traditional pyramidal zoning model places single-family homesat the pinnacle, followed by denser multi-family housing, followed by office and commer- cial uses, and, finally, followed by industrial uses at the base. In this model, land uses at a lower level on the pyramid are not allowed within the higher designa- tions (e.g., commercial uses are not allowed in multi- family zones, and apartments are not allowed in single-family zones). This is giving way to a much more sustainable model, where the middle of the pyramid consists ofmixed-use developmentthat integrates hous- ing, commercial, and recreational/cultural activities. Despite the desirability of mixed-use zoning,it is 1m- portant to recognize thatthere are certain industrial uses that will always be incompatible with residential and school uses. Residential and school uses are harmed by incom- patible land uses that have environmentaleffects, such as noise, air emissions (including dust), and exposure to hazardous materials. The compatibility problem also operates in reverse. Incompatible uses adjacent to resi- dential units, schools, or environmentally sensitive ar- eas mayalso suffer negative consequencesin the form of higher mitigation costs or the curtailment of eco- nomic activities. Specific examples ofland use incom- patibility include: @ Residential and schooluses in proximity to indus- trial facilities and other uses that, even with the best. 24 General Plan Guidelines available technology, will contain or produce ma- terials that, becauseoftheir quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, pose a sig- nificant hazard to human health and safety. @ Residential and school uses adjacent to intensive agricultural uses. @ Residential and school uses adjacent to majorthor- oughfares, such as highways. @ Residential or commercial uses in proximity to re- source utilization activities, such as miningoroil and gas wells. Tssues related to industrial overconcentration and the location of residential dwellings and schools are dis- cussed below. Information and Analysis Good information is critical to making informed decisions about environmentaljustice issues. The analy- sis of environmental justice problems has benefited from the advancementof geographic information sys- tems(GIS),as has the entire planning field. The role of data in the general plan processis discussed morefully in Chapter 3. The data suggestions for the mandatory general plan elements (Chapter 4) include much ofthe information necessary for developing environmental justice policies. Relevant information for addressing environmental justice issues includes, butis not limited to: # Base map ofthe city or county planningarea. @ General plan designations ofland use (existing and proposed). ¢ Current demographic data. > Population location and density. > Distribution of population by income. >» Distribution ofpopulation by ethnicity. > Distribution ofpopulation by age. # Location of public facilities that enhance commu- nity quality oflife, including open space. @ Location of industrial facilities and other uses that contain or produce materials that, because oftheir quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, pose a significant hazard to human health and safety. Location of existing and proposed schools. Location ofmajor thoroughfares, ports andairports. Location and density ofexisting and proposedresi- dential development. Chapter2: Sustainable Development and EnvironmentalJustice Althoughthe use ofpopulation data is a normalpart of the planning process, cities and counties do notal- ways gather socioeconomic data when preparing or substantially revising their general plans. Jurisdictions do haveto collect some socioeconomic data during the preparation of the housing element, such as income level and persons with special housing needs(elderly, farmworkers, single head of household,etc.), but this required informationis not enough to paint a complete socioeconomic picture ofthe community. From an en- vironmentaljustice perspective, socioeconomic data is useful for a numberofthings, including: @ Improving the public participation process. @ Identifying low-income and minority neighbor- hoodsthat are underserved by public facilities and services that enhance quality of life and planning for the equitable distribution of such facilities and services. @ Planning for infrastructure and housing needs. @ Identifying low-income and minority neighbor- hoods in which industrial facilities and uses that posea significant hazard to human health and safety may be overconcentrated. Asdiscussed below, the definitions of both equi- table distribution and overconcentration do not depend on socioeconomic factors. However, reversing historical problemsofprocedural and geographic inequity requires accurate socioeconomic information in order to develop policies andprioritize implementation measures. Relationship to the General Plan Cities and counties may incorporate environmental justice into their general plans in several ways. A city or county may choose to adopt an optional environ- mental justice element. However, OPR recommends incorporating policies supportive ofenvironmental jus- tice in all ofthe mandatory elements ofthe generalplan. These policies should also be reflected in any optional elements. In keeping with the interna] consistency re- quirement, environmentaljustice policies in one element cannot conflict with the policies of another element. For example, if the land use element containsa policy pro- hibiting residential uses adjacent to certain industrial uses, properties affected by that policy could not be used aspart of the housing elementsite inventory. Public Facilities and Services Cities and counties should plan for the equitable distribution throughout the community of new public facilities and services that increase and enhance com- munity quality of life, given the fiscal and legal con- straints that restrict the siting of such facilities. Public facilities and services that enhance quality oflife include, butare not limited to, parks, open space, trails, greenbelts, recreational facilities (including se- nior and youth centers), community centers, child care centers, libraries, museums, cultural centers, science centers, and zoos. The equitable distribution of facili- ties and services has two components. Thefirst com- ponentis the numberandsizeoffacilities. Simply put, a community should have adequate facilities and ser- vices to serve all residents equally. The second compo- nent is access, which can be measuredasthe distance ortravel time from each residential areato the facility or service. Access may also be measuredbythe ability to use a variety oftransportation modes, including pub- lic transit, walking, and bicycling, to travel between each residential area and the facility or service. A geo- graphic analysis ofresidential areas and the Jocation of public amenities may reveal underserved neighbor- hoods. Policies addressing the distribution of benefi- cial public facilities and services should addressexisting disparities as well as the needsoffuture residents. Public facilities and services that enhance commu- nity quality oflife can be divided into three basic types for purposesofdistribution. Thefirst type is neighbor- hoodfacilities, such as parks,that serve a specific neigh- borhood or subdivision. The second type is district facilities, such as branch libraries or recreational cen- ters, that serve more than one neighborhood. The third type is unique facilities, where one facility serves the entire community—“community” being an incorpo- rated city or, for counties, an unincorporated area. Neighborhood facilities should be geographically dispersed throughout the community. Examples include parks,tot lots, and neighborhoodactivity centers. These facilities should be located within the neighborhood they serve. Public amenities can serve to anchor a neigh- borhood and should becentrally located. Furthermore, locating neighborhood-serving public facilities within walking distance of most residents will encourage use and provide a sense of place. A distance of a quarter to a halfmile is generally considered a walkable distance. Planning for the Jocation of district facilities should follow the sameprinciples as above. Sincethesefacilities serve several neighborhoods,they should be centrally lo- cated relative to the neighborhoods they serve. Locating such facilities along transit corridorsorin transit-oriented developmentswill increase their accessibility (see Tran- sit-Oriented Developmentlater in this chapter). Examplesofunique publicfacilities include the cen- tral library or city museum. Where a community has General Plan Guidelines 25 Chapter 2: Sustainable Development and EnvironmentalJustice only onerecreational or cultural center, that would be considered a unique facility or service. Thesefacilities should belocatedin the civic center or urban core rather than isolated in remote single-use complexes. They should beclose to transit to allow maximum accessfor the entire community. Consideration should also be given to regional fa- cilities, which may exhibit the characteristicsofall three tity, concentration, or physical or chemical character- istics, pose a significant hazard to human health and safety in a mannerthat seeks to avoid overconcentrating these uses in proximity to schools or residential dwellings. Overconcentration occurs when two or more indus- trial facilities or uses, which do not individually ex- ceed acceptable regulatory standards for public health and safety, pose a significant hazard to adjacent resi- basic types described above. Re- gional facilities include trails, networks of open space such as greenbelts, regional parks and recreation areas, etc. Linear facili- ties (suchas trails and greenbelts) mayserve several neighborhoods but are also a unique amenity for the entire area. The sameis true of large regional] recreational] ar- eas. Individualcities and counties may haveless control over the lo- cation ofregionalfacilities, which may be operated by special dis- ATENUneeCLC A University of Southern California study, Parks and Park Fundingin Los Angeles:An Equity Mapping Analysis, is an example of how equitable distribution of public amenities (in this case, parks and open space) can be analyzed using a geographic information system (GIS). The report is available at www.usc.edu/ dept/geography/espe. dential and school uses due to their cumulative effects. Facilities that emit, handle, store, or dispose of hazardous materials are regulated by a vari- ety of agencies. These agencies include local Certified Unified Program Agencies (such as en- vironmental health departments or fire departments), air dis- tricts, regional water quality control boards, the California Department ofHealth Services, the California Integrated Waste tricts or joint powers authorities. Management Board, and the Cities and counties have evenless control over state and federal parks, recreational areas, and forests,althoughcities and counties should account for such facilities in the planning process. New regional facilities are rare, and when the opportunity to acquire or develop such facilities arises, the location may be predeterminedby suchfactors as natural features, aban- donedrail lines(for trail use), or the availability oflarge undevelopedproperties. Nevertheless, planners should consider existing and proposedregional facilities when analyzing community access to public facilities that contribute to quality of life and when planning for fu- ture suchfacilities. Locating public facilities and uses according to these planning principles may be limited by fiscal and legal constraints. Fiscal constraints mcludethe relative cost of land andthe ability of public agencies to obtain fi- nancing for acquisition and construction. Legal con- straints include, but are not limitedto, local, state, and federal regulations for the protection of the environ- ment, public health and safety, and the preservation of natural and cultural resources, including historical and archeological resources. Industrial Facilities Cities and counties should develop policies that pro- vide for the location of industrial facilities and other uses that, even with the best availabletechnology, will contain or produce materials that, because oftheir quan- 26 General Plan Guidelines California Department ofToxic Substance Control (DTSC). However, cities and counties, as the local land use authority, are prima- rily responsible for the Jocation and distribution of potentially hazardous industrial facilities through their general plans and zoning ordinances. Cities and counties may pursue several strategies within their general plans to address overconcentration. Strategies may include: @ Buffer zones between industrial and residential land uses. @ Policies addressing individualprojectsiting decisions. @ Capping the numberofcertain facilities and uses. @ Changing land use overconcentratedareas. designations in Buffer zones are a broad approachto land use compatibility. Buffer zone policies may be ap- proached in one of two ways.First, the general plan land use diagram may designate transitional land uses between industrial and residential areas. Transitional uses may include open space, light industry, office uses, business parks, or heavy commercial uses. The land use policies for these buffer areas should pro- hibit school uses (see discussion below on school siting). Appropriate distances for buffer areas will vary depending on local circumstances. Factors such as the intensity of nearby residential uses, prevailing Chapter 2: Sustainable Development and EnvironmentalJustice winds, geographic features, and the types of facili- ties and uses allowed in industrial areas should be considered. Second, buffer zones may be implemented at the project level. One weakness ofgeneral buffer zone poli- cies is the difficulty ofmaking apriori decisions about how much distance is needed to minimize potential health and safety hazardsto residential and school uses. A stronger approach may be buffer policies aimed at individual siting decisions. Approvalof certain industrial facilities or uses can be made conditional if they are within a certain dis- tance of residential or school uses and/or contain or produce hazardous materials. This allows thecity or county to considerthe potential hazards associated with individual facilities or uses on a case-by-case basis. General plan policies can outline consistent standards to be used in approving, conditionally approving, or denying proposedlocations forindustrial facilities and other uses that may posea significant hazard to human health and safety. Such standards should bereflected in the zoning ordinance that implements the general plan (see Chapter 10 for a discussion ofzoning consistency). Approval of a conditional use is discretionary and thus would be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQArequires decision makers to consider the environmental consequences of their actions. CEQAalso serves as an important consulta- tion tool. A lead agency must consult with an affected schooldistrict if any facility that would create hazard- ous air emissionsor handle acutely hazardous material is proposed within a quarter mile of a schoo] (Public Resources Code §21151.4). Another policy response to overconcentration is to cap the numberofpotentially hazardousfacilities within a certain distance of eachother. For example, the State of Georgia does not allow siting of a new solid waste facility iftwo such facilities already exist within a two mile radius ofthe proposed facility. While capping poli- cies are easy to implement and understandable to the pub- lic, they have serious drawbacks. Numerical caps are more likely to be based on perception andpolitical compromise than scientific merit. Without analyzing the type, quan- tity, and concentration ofmaterials to be contained or pro- duced at a proposedfacility,it is difficult to determine the number of facilities that would create a situation of overconcentration. The general plan strategies above can assist a city or county in addressing future problems of overconcentration. General plans, which are by their nature concerned with future development, are not as effective at correcting past problems. One way to ad- dress existing or potential future problems of overconcentration is to change the land use designa- tion for existing industrial areas. This approach differs from buffer zones in that buffer zones affect the land use designation of areas adjacent to existing or pro- posed industrial areas. Changing the allowable land uses in existing industrial areas prevents new indus- trial land uses from being established and may affect the expansion ofexisting facilities and uses (depend- ing on how localpolicies treat pre-existing or “legal non-conforming,”land uses). An important caveat is to consider what new uses will be allowed in the previously industrial areas. A new environmental justice problem could be created if residences and schools are allowed without consid- ering any lingering effects of industrial overconcentration. At the same time, where overconcentration is no longer an issue and effective remediation or clean-up is possible, so-called “brownfield” development is an important tool for a community’s continued sustainable development. Finally, planners should rememberto differentiate between overconcentration and the mere presence of materials thatmay beclassified as hazardous. Many neigh- borhood businesses, such as gas stations, photography studios, retail paint stores, dry cleaners, etc., may have hazardous materials present. While these activities must be conducted in a responsible manner in accordance with all environmental regulations, they should not be confused with thosetruly industrial activities that are in- appropriate for residential or mixed-useareas. New Residential Uses and Schools Cities and counties should provide for the location of new schools and residential dwellings in a manner that seeks to avoid locating these uses in proximity to industrial facilities and uses that will contain or pro- duce materials that, because of their quantity, concen- tration, or physical or chemical characteristics, pose a significant hazard to human health andsafety. Thelocation ofnew residential and school develop- ment is the flip side of the problem discussed in the section above. Given the need for new housing and schools and given the need to makeefficientuse ofland, how do cities and counties deal with existing overconcentration of industrial uses? When designat- ing areas for residential development, the city or county should identify any areas ofoverconcentration. Appro- priate buffers should be placed between overconcentrated industrial areas and new residential areas. Using their authority over the approval and de- sign of subdivisions, cities and counties may develop General Plan Guidelines 27 Chapter2: Sustainable Development and EnvironmentalJustice policies and standards related to industrial overconcentration and new residential subdivision ap- provals. Thesepolicies could include buffer zones, as well as the criteria to be used for rejecting newresidential de- velopment (such as standards for risk to human health and safety from nearby industrial facilities and uses). Thelocation ofnew schoolsis ofparticular concern to both local governments and schooldistricts. The gen- eral plan should identify possible locations for new schools. Such locations may be approximate and need not indicate specific parcels. Identifying appropriate schoollocationsas part ofthe general plan process may avoid project-level problems ofproximity to certain in- dustrial facilities and uses. Due to the fragmentation of authority in the areas of land use planning and school siting and construction,it is recommendedthat the plan- ning agency work closely with the schooldistrict to iden- tify suitable school locations. Prior to adopting or amending a general plan, the planning agency must re- fer the proposed action to any schoo!district within the area coveredby the proposed action (§65352). The city or county should use this opportunity to engage school districts on issues of schoolsiting. Fortheir part, school districts are required to notify the planning commissionofthe city or county prior to acquiring property for new schools or expansion of an existing school. Schooldistricts are not bound by local zoning ordinances unless the ordinance provides for the location ofschools andthe city or county has adopted a general plan (§53091). Schooldistricts can override the general plan and zoning ordinances with regard to the use ofproperty for classroom facilities by a two-thirds vote of the school board (§53094). The school board cannot exercise this power for non-classroom facilities, such as administrative buildings, bus storage and main- tenance yards, and warehouses.Ifthe school board ex- ercises their override power, they must notify the city or county within 10 days (§53904). CEQArequires that the environmental document prepared for a new school identify whetherthe proposed site is any ofthe following: a current or former hazard- ous waste or solid waste disposal facility, a hazardous substancesrelease site identified by DTSC,thesite of one or morepipelines that carry hazardous substances, or located within a quarter mile of a facility that emits hazardous air emissions or handles acutely hazardous material (Public Resources Code §21151.8). If such facilities exist, the schoo] board must makefindingsthat the facilities would not endanger the health of those attending or employed by the proposed school or that existing corrective measures would result in the miti- gation of any health endangerment. 28 General Plan Guidelines TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT Cities and counties should promote more livable communities by expanding opportunities fortransit-ori- ented development (TOD) so that residents minimize traffic and pollution impacts from traveling for purposes ofwork, shopping, school, and recreation. TODis defined as moderate- to high-density devel- opment located within an easy walk of a major transit stop, generally with a mix of residential, employment, and shopping opportunities. TOD encourages walking and transit use without excluding the automobile. TOD can be new construction or redevelopment of one or more buildings whose design andorientationfacilitate transit use (Statewide Transit-Oriented Development Study: Factors for Success in California, California Department ofTransportation, 2002). A well-designed, vibrant TOD community can pro- vide many benefits for local residents and businesses, as well as for the surrounding region. Compact devel- opmentnear transit stops can increase transit ridership and decrease rates of vehicle miles traveled (VMT), thereby yielding a good return ontransit system invest- ments. TOD can also provide mobility choices, increase public safety, increase disposable household income by reducing transportation costs, reduce air pollution and energy consumptionrates, help conserve resources and open space,assist in economic development, and con- tribute to the housing supply. TODis a strategy that may help a community achieve its general plan goals related to circulation, housing, environmental quality, and economic development. Additionally, by improving access to jobs and housing and revitalizing existing neighborhoods, TOD can bea tool for promoting environmentaljustice. A variety offactors need to be considered during the development and implementation of TOD. These fac- tors include transit system design; community partner- ships; understanding of local real estate markets; coordination amonglocal, regional, and state organiza- tions; and providing the right mix of planning and fi- nancial incentives and resources. A successful TOD will reinforce the community andthe transit system. Transit operators, property owners,and residents shouldbe in- volved in the development ofTOD proposals. Data to identify and assess potential locations for TODshould be collected during preparation ofthe land use, circulation, and housing elements of the general plan. An inventory ofpotential development(and rede- velopment) sites within a quarter to a halfmile of exist- ing and proposed transit stops may reveal potential locations for TOD. Additional data may beusedto verify the optimum location and mix ofuses to further refine EXHIBIT I EXHIBIT I 2 a (City of J? . Santa Monica 5% and Colorado Hotel Projects Final Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2012041084 May2013 Preparedfor: city of Santa Monica Planning and Community Development Department 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, GA 90401 Prepared by AMECEnvironment & Lnfrastrueture, Ine 104 West AnapanmStreet, Suite 2044, anta Barbara, CA 93101 3.11 SOLAR ACCESS ANI SHADOWS 3.11 SOLAR ACCESS AND SHADOWS This section analyzes the potential environmental effects of shadows created as a result of implementing the proposed projects. For purposes of this analysis, shading refers to placing and made, thereby prev ing direct access to sunlight due ta shadows cast hy buildings or The consequences of shadows on land uses may be positive, including cooling effects during warmweather, or negative, such as shading of exterior patios, the loss of natural Tight access, solar access energy generation purposes or the loss of warming influences during cool ‘weather. Shadow effects are dependent upon several factors, including the local typography, the height and bulk of a project's structural elements, the shade sensitivity of adj season and consequent length of shadows, and the duration of shadow projet cent land uses, the on, 3.41.1 EnvironmentalSetting Shade and ShadowPatterns Shadow fength and bearing (the direction in which they are cast) is dependent on the location (latitude and longitude) of the project site, which dictates the angle of the sun relative to the project site, Shadows are castin a clockwise direction from west/northwest to east/nartheast from approximately 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM or later depending on the time of the year: Summer Solstice (Qune 20), Spring/Fall Equinoxes (March 20 and 7h er pale of the edsting stuctures uittr project September 22), and Winter Solstice sites and proxinty of adjacent structuresfms the extentof (December 21). Genetally. the shortest Ste 204 sooncencast on arenaces shadowsate cast during the Summer Solstic: Solstice. During the winter and peaking at Winter Sul shadowsare at their maximum coverage Tengihs: nd grow increasingly longer until the Winter , the sun is lower in the sky and Existing development on the project sites casts limited shade and shadow patterns on adjacent structures and uses. The one- to two-story height and lack ofsetbacks of the Midas building on the proposed Courtyard hy Marriott site result in limited shadows cast primarity onto adjacent roadways, sidewalks, or alleys, as well as lower levels of adjacent buildings. The Midas building has @ substantially lower profile than the adjacent five story residential building (Step Lip on ¥* and Colorado Hotel Projects aT Final ER 3.11 SOLAR ACCESS AND SHADOWS Fifth) that shares the propertyline to the north, so it does not cast substantial shadows ontoSi Midas Building, Step Up on Fifth, and the Silvererest Senior [Tousingta the sidewalks on the south side Up on Fifth or onto the Silvercrest Senior Housing beyond. The proximity of 4 of 5” Street (e.g., limited non-existent building setbacks) results in substantial shading of sidewalks along much of the south side of5" Streetin the vicinity of the Courtyard by Marriott site. Shading of 4" Court Alley and the adjacent residential structure to the southeast of the ‘Midas Building is limited to lower levels of the residential structure. The existing three-story office building on the proposed HansptonTan & Suites site is set back boun fromalt property lines, limiting shadows that extend beyond thes imited shading ‘on the north side of also occurs from the two-story partial subterranean parking structurelncat the existing office building. Shadowsprimarily extend to surface parking areas to the north and lewalks. Shading of 5" Court Alley andthe adjacent residential anto adjacent roadways or structure is limited due fo the distance betweenthe structures and relative height and mass of the existing office building. In additionto the structures, the Indian faurelfig treesthatline 5" Street adjacent ta the projectsites provide shadeto sidewalks and adjacent roadway. Shadow-Sensitive Shadow sensitive uses are those where sunlight is important to function, physical comfort, and/or commerce, Facilities and operations sensitive to the effects of shading include, but are not necessarily limited 0, residential, recreational, institutional (e.g., schools, nursing homes, etc.), and some Public outdoor spacessuch as parks, restaurants with outdoor seating areas, plantnurseries, and existing solar collectors.’ The proposed project sites are near several shadow-sens uses, inchiding the Silvercrest Senior Housing buil adjacent mixed use and/or residential structures {Le., Step up Shadow-sensitve uses intne vicinity on Fifth, the Luxe@ 1548,Colorado Court, Luxe@1539); and. of the projectsites nciuco saveratresitontt ard miaccuse budings fda sonor housing fay. Solar 11; Table 3.111). Tn addition, the future oeeeeeseee {and solar pana, 016 bo particularly sensive o sede effects the autdoor patio area of an indoor/outdoor eatery (Uma Burger) (Figure Expo LRT Colorado/4" Street Statiun plaza is considereda furure shadow-sensitive use. * Shadow:-sensive ussfor his uals redefine Rast City of Santa Monia’s Land Use and Craton Flea Foal Envir “rapact Repo, Jane 2010,which I consistent wlthe CityafFa Angeles CHA Thresholds Gedecriteri gare S* and Coloralo Hotel Projects Final ER 3.1] SOLAR ACCESS AND SHADOWS. FIGURE B.11-1 Table 3.11-1. Shadow-Sensitive Uses PotentiallyAffectedhy Project Shade and Shadow a Relation Project [| Shadaw: Figure # |__Address and/or Use Type of Lise Site Stories | Sensitive?_j 1 152871548 Gth Street Loxe #1548 ‘Novth and northeast 6 Yes (sedUseResidential 2 1502 Colorado Avenue Calerado Court Southeast yes | | (Residentit) 31588 5°Stet Step UponFifth Now Yes (Residential) 1 (188098 Steet Silvercrest Residence Nocih 6 Yes | 900 Broadway Street Outdoor Dining Patio Northwest 1 Yes i {Ineor’Outdoor Restaurant Umant Borges) & 417 Colorado Avenue Vacant Somtheast an south Yes (ending Expo LRT Station) 71537-15394" Street Lane @ 1539 Southwest anu west 4 Yes (Mixed OseResidential) Sand Coloraita Hotel Projects 31 Final BIR 3.1 SOLAR ACCESS AND SHADOWS: 3.11.2 Regulatory Framework Gi The LUCEcontains several policies that contain direction for the minimization of shadow impacts tonsolar access for adjacent parcels, Pertinentpolicies are listed helaw. Policy LLUL6.1 Design Buildings with Consideration of Solar Pattern, In designing new buildings, consider the pattem of the sun and the potential impact of building mass on habitable ‘outdoor spaces and adjacent structures in ordet to minimize shadawss on publfe spaces at times ‘ofthe day and year when warmth is desired, and provide shade at times when cooling is appropriate, and minimize solar disruption on adjacent properties. Policy LUI6.2 Preserve Solar Access to Neiphborhoods, ‘The same development standard that is adopted to require a step down building envelope to transition commercial buildings to lower adjacent residential properties also needs to assure solar access fo the resident buildings. Goal 117; Promote the creation ofnew housing that fs tailored to the needs of residents and emphasizes amenitiesthat increase the livability of the residential environment, such as ground floor open space and access to natural light and air. Policy H7.5. Ensure that site and building design responds to Sania Monica's: watural environmentthrough access (o natural light and air Goal B10: Create an enhanced mixed-use, pedestrian boulevard [along Colorado Avenue] that provides residents, employees andvisitors with an inviting landscaped pedestrian environment. Palicy B10.5. Ensure that new commercial or mixed-use buildings adjacent to residential districts are contained within a prescribed building envelope that eps down toward the residential district to maintain access to light. Thresholds of Significance The City of Los Angeles has published guide lds af significance of Santa Monica and G. The Las Angeles related to shadows andshading. The further define how the City of Santa Monica interprets the CEQA Thresholds Guide speci “A project impact would normally be considered significatt if stadow-sensitive uses would be shaded by profect-related structures for more than three haurs between the hours of9:00AM and3:00PMPacific Standard Time (between late aad 3 and Colorado Hotel Projects Final FAR 3,1] SOLAR ACCESS SHADOWS October and early April), ar for more than four hours between the hours of9:00 AMand 5:00 PMPacific Daylight Time (between earlyApril andlate October).” 3.11.3 Impact Assessinent and Methodalogy Shadow length and hearing (the direction in which they are cast) are dependent on the location (latitude and longitude) of the project site, which dictates the angle of the sun relative to the project, site. In the Los Angeles area, the maximum shadowa building can castis usually equivalent to three times its height during the Winter Solstice {Cily of Los Angeles 2006). The potential for off- dependent on the length of shadows created by the project, and distance between the prpicvnetunasecedeKevoke project site and the nearest shade-sensitive land |_artduth of the proposedstructures uses, When there is potential for shade-sensitive uses to be placedin shadowby a proposed project for three or more howrs, shading may create a potentially significant impact by substantially site imps interfering with and adversely affecting the activities onthat off-siteproperty Methodology Shadow simufations were prepared for the proposed hotels hy using a computer generated model to identify the height and bulk of proposed buildings, :apping the “footprint” (location, shape, and size) of the projectsites, and then calculating and diagramming the shadows that would be cast by the building components during the most extreme, or conservative, conditions, The model considers all buildings that could be impacted by shadows and includes simntations to illustrate pofential shadowimpacts. The analysis includes simulations for winter equinox, summer equinox, vernal equinox, and antunmal equinox at 9:00 AM, 12:00 PM, and 3:00 PM. The proposed llampton Inn & Suites and Courtyard by Marriott would each be six-story buildings ofup ta 84 feetin height or approximately 80 feet from finished first Hoor to the top of the main roof, This height would cast shadows on adjacent and vicinitybuildings and public streets, including shadow-sensilive structures. Shadows created by the projects are modeled for both Summer and Winter Solst respectively (Figure 3.11-2), as well as the which the days and nights are of equal duration (Figure 3.11: 1 are the longest and shortest days of the year, x ‘Vernal (spring) and Autummal (fall) Equinoxes, of 7 and Colonie Hotel Projects SS Final EIR Bgestiownn ®Saene @ Seas @) Fos sexy Raies @ sniper SenerD nce D Fonstestise Winter Solstice BE 9am 12pm BE 3pm sSisurytik esiRas Sp Upc th (3) FreWiese ‘Summer Solstice wa gam pm HS apn \ amec” Shade and Shadow Effects of Project Structures: FIGURE Winter and SummerSolstice 3.11-2 3116 ea ®ae ® Begone G4) sistayriadina | ® Frey ele © Senn ta © soma B) Fonsi ned Vernal Equinox a 9 am TEGEND © bemtennm ® yew Siaserytiaciie | > ec? Shade and Shadow Effects of Project Structures FIGUREam Vernal and Autumnal Equinoxes. 3.11-3 BLT 3.11 SOLAR ACCESS AND SHADOWS 3.11.4 Project Impacts and Mit Threshold: Would shadow-sensitive uses be shaded by project-related structures for more than three hours betweenthe hours of 9:00 AMand 3:00 PMPacific Standard Time (betweenlate October and early April), or formore than four hours between the hours of 9:00 AM and 5:00 PMPacific Daylight Time (between early April and late October)? Impact Description SHDt ‘The propased project structures would ubstract solar access and cast shadows on adjacentstructures for more than three hours in winter and four hoursin summer, “The proposed six-story Courtyard by Marriott and Hampton Inn & Suites: b replace theexisting two-story and three-story office buildi substantially Jonger shadiws than existing structures, ‘(hese shadows would result in substantially increased shading of 5" Street and associated sidewalks, as well as th portions of 3” Court and 4" Court; however, these areas. are not considered shade sensitive, Shadow- - Solar sovess to aneast-facing opaigue/tamsparent fagade (left side of builting) and portions ofthe roof of 7 Ne 7 ings, an (02 Stop-Uip on Fith would be largely blocked bythe include residential and mixed-use buildings, an ocosed Courtyard by Marriot structure, significantly outdoor dining patio of the UmumBurger increasing shade to residences and coinmeonareas, ‘nd potential reducing the bulding’s operating restaurant, and the future plaza af the amictoncy Colorado/4"Street Station for the Expo LRT. Project development of each site, as well ay in combination, would shade adjacent sensitive structures for greater than three hours in the winter and four hours in the summer, resulting in a sensitive Jand uses adjacent to the project s potentially significant impact. Significant shadows from the proposed Courtyard by Marriott significant shadows would occur on the Step {Up on Fifth building throughout the year, wl cent Tuxe@1548residential building to the northeast trom the Llampton Inn & Suites on the adj would occur for approximately 104 days during the winter. Project shadows are provided in Figures 3.11 2 and 3.11-3 and further described below. 3108 Fanid Colorado Hotel Projects Final EIR 3.1] SOLARACCESS AND SHADOWS Courtyardby Marriott Project Site Shadowstudies performedfor the proposed Courtyard hy Marriott show significant shading of ihe Step Up on Fifth structure would occur throughout the year. Na other adjacent structures ‘would be shadedfor greater than three hours in winter or four hours in summer, Shadows cast on the shadow: sensitive Step Up on Fifth residential building would shade southeast facing portions and building courtyards daily throughout the year. Shading from the proposed Courtyard by ‘Marriott primarily results from stairwell andthenortheast portions of the sixth floor, adjacent (o Step Up on Fitth (Figure 3.11-4). Resident rooms are located onevery other floor of Step Up on Fifth nverlookingthe private courtyards, which serve as the prhnary social areas for residents. ess to these areas would he substantially reduced by the proposed projects, shading internal common arvas utilized by residents for preater than three hours in winter and four hours in summer, resulting in a potentially significant impact. 1 ton In & Suites would bs ® so the ajacen: mxed-use bung Py; at shad “The popaced Ceuryart by Mant would cas sa utyards between 3am Solara “ranet aoresfe Bh Fe spoon g "ep 3.on Pansate mo: stash© emis enter @ Prot ne ®Proeetiecinen © syn ¥and Cotorady HotePonject ure Praul ER BuESOLAR ACCESS AND SHADOWS ‘The Step Up on Fifth building, constructed in 2009, was planned and designed to employ passive design strategies to increase energy efficiency. Passive stra shatling facade and internal courtyard areas, make the Step Up an Fifth buil efficient andreliant onsolar access. The prope to the Step Up on Fifth courtyard ing of these courtyards during morning and afternoon periods throughout the year (refer to Figure 3.11-3). In particular, the southwest courtyard would he substantially shaded hy the proposed stairwell of the Courtyard by Marriott. ‘This reduction in solar access would alsa potentially reduce the building's operating efficiency. This wouldbe potentiallyinconsistent with LUCEPolicy 16.1, which requires new development to minimize solar disruption on adjacent properties. In addition, LUCE Policy LU16.2 requires a step down building envelope ta tansition commercial buildings to low to assure solar access to the residential buildings. While the im proposed Courtyard by Marriott would allowsome ambient light thrmgh and reduce the effects of ies, including the aluminum ing highly energy re would abut the property line adjacent ed struct resulting in th adjacent residential ermal atrium of the shading, substantial blackage of solar a impact cess would occur, resulting in a potentially significant Hampton Inn & Suites Project Site ‘The proposed Hampton Inn & Suites would result in significant shading of the residences at the Tuxe@ 1548 building to the northeast of the project site, This building contains residences and associated balconies that face the proposed hotel, which would be shaded for greater than three hows during winter, extending from approximately February 4 and Octoher 24,” Additionally, morning shadows would extend ti : {| Ambveusa rasisontal eompox located across across the existing parking lot towards the Umami cin io the retofthe HamptonIn & Suites Burger; however, shadows would occur for less. ste is antcipated fo expeneoce significant peviods afshade from the proposed hate, partsilany than three hours and would not occur during ducing wintor monins. nomial business hours. ‘The proposed Mampton inn & Suites would resvit in three or more hours of shading to residences and associated balconies at Luxe@1548 located to the northeast of the praject site, resulting in a potentially significant impact. * As depicted Inthe Winer Solstice mel in Figure 311-2, the 12PNaswells the PMshoeras he ited useht the noth, Indicating sade ove a peo ofSor mare ha, Dates prided are based ve adiinnaldelihar wasperformed1ify rhe pei chat sting beeen12PMT and 3PM sonle occ, aw ¥Fand Colorado Hotel Projects FinalER 3.11 SOLARACCESS AND SHADOWS ‘Theproposed Courtyard by Marriott and the Hampton Inn & Suites would each resultin shading ofadja significant and unavoidable impact, vent sensitive uses in exceedance of City of Santa Monica thresholds, resulting in a ‘Mitigation Measures SHDW-la In onder to protect solar access, the Planning Commission and City Council shall review the design(e., stepbacks, height, structural elements, site coverage) of the proposed projects. For the proposed Courtyard hy Marriott and Hampton Tun & Suites, redesign measures such as additional step back of the Gfth and sixth level andrelocation the proposed stairwell closet to the Step Up on Fifth Building would be required to eliminate the shadowimpact. For the Hampton Inn and Suites, relocation ofboth stairwells would be requiredor elimination ofthe sixth story. Residual Impacts The proposed projects’ shadow impacts could be mitigated through inclusion ofstep backs on the fifth and sixth stories on the side of the structures closest to impacted uses, as well as relocation of stairwells. For the Courtyard by Marriot this would require step backs of at least nine feet for the filth and sixth stories adjacent to the Step Up onFifth building. In addition, the stairwell for the Courtyard by Marriott building closest to Step Up on Fifth would need to be relocatedat leust 50 feet to the southeast in order to eliminate the shade and shadow impact on that building. For the Hampton Inn & Suites, in order to eliminate the shade and shadows impact onthe Luxe@1548 building, step backs of at least nine feet wouldbe required on the fifth and sixth floors along the northwest portion of the building as well as relucalion of both stairwells at least 20 feet further southfrom the Luxe@1548 building, Alternately, elimination of(he sixth floorof the Hampion Tnn and Suites would reduce this impact to less than significant. While suchmodifications would eliminate shadow impacts, they would potentially result in issues (ie., appropriate distances from fire stairwells), major design complications due to relocation ofthe stairwells that would require significant changes to the building code conformity overall building design, and substantial losses in uscable floor space. Because these proposed mitigation measures would require major changes in project design, the feasibility and extent of fully inplementing these measures would need to be determined during the Plaming Commis ion and City Council review ofthe proposedhotels, However, it should be noted that use of step backs alone would substantially reduce both thefrequency and duration of shading impacts, without requiring major redesign. If the Planuing Commission and City Council determinethat building redesign is required, such redesign would be subject to andbased upon ‘Sand Coloradda Hotel Projects 31 FinutBIR future modeling to ensure that redesign results in the elimination ofshadow impacts. Because foll mitigation ofthese impacts would require such major design changes that are more akin to a project alternative, shadow impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, Cumnlative Impacts Cumulative developmentof buildings of greater height, including the proposed project, would generally increase shadowing throughoutthe City. Table 3-0 in Section 3.0, Cumulative Setting, provides list of knawn development projects located throughout the City. Based on a review of this list, some projects in the immediate project vicinity could result in cumulative shadow effects in combination with the proposed projects. The shadoweffects of individual buildings would be addressed on a case-by-case basis since shadowing is dependent upon building height, massing, and location, as well as the immediately surrounding uses. Nonetheless, the proposed icant impact to shade projects would ind shaddow cont iM in a cumulatively si Barz " and Colorado Hotel Projects Finel EIR EXHIBIT J EXHIBIT J Journal of Lrban Heath: Gulia oftne few Yer: Academy of Medion, Vl. 86, No. 5 oi t0.107/511524-00.9382.3 12 2009 The New York Academy of Medicine Is Sprawl Associated with a Widening Urban-Suburban Mortality Gap? Yingling Fan and Yan Song ABSTRACT ‘this paper exantines schether sprawl, featured by lour development density, segregated land uses, lack ofsignificant centers, and pour streetconnectivity, contributesto a widening mortality gap between urbanand suburban residents. We employ ttvo mortality datasets, inclading a national cross-sectional dataset examining the impact ofmetropolitan- level sprawl on urban-suburban mortality gaps and a longitedinal dataset from Portland examining changes in urbar-suburban morlality gaps over time, The national and Portland studies provide the only evidence to date that (1) across metropolitan areas, the size of urban-suburbin mortality gaps varies by the extent of sprawk in spravling metropolitan areas, urbanresidents have significant excess mortality risks thar suburban residents, xebile in compact metropolitanareas, urbanicity-related excess mortality becomes insignificant; (2) the Portland metropolitan area not ordy experienced net decreasesit ‘mortality rates but also a narrowing urban suburban mortality gap since its adoption of smart growth regime in the past decades and (3) the existence of excess mortality among urban residentsis US sprawling metropolitanareas, as well as the net mortality decreases and narrowing urban suburban mortality gap in the Portland metropolitan area, is not attributable to sociodemographic variations. These findings suggest that health threats imposed by sprawl affect urban residents disproportionately compared to suburban residents and that efforts curbing sprasol may mitigate urbant-sutserban health disparities. KErWORDS. Mortity, Sprawl, Smart growth, Urbax health penalty, Health disparities INTRODUCTION ‘Whether health disparities exist between urban and suburhan residents has been debated in thefield of public health for centuries. Early cities in the nineteenth or the early twentieth century were developed with rapid population growth in an environment without proper sanitation. High population density coupled with accumulation of city waste waslikely to deteriorate air quality, contaminate water supply, provide new foci of infection, and create favorable conditions for the rapid transmission of disease from host to host—all of which led to clevated mortality risks among urbanresidents." Moderncity life, althoughoffering health benefits through improved access to medical care, sanitation, education, jabs, social support, and higher income,* still threatens health via greater exposure to environmental pollutions, social stress, infections, violence, and accidents." Fan is with the Huhert H. Homphery Insrime of Public Atfairs, University of Minnesota, Tisin Cires, ‘Minneapolis, USAs Sung iv with the Department of City and Regional Planning, University of Nosth Carolina at Chapel Ul, Chapel Til, USA Correspondence: Yingliag Kao, Hubert H. Humphrey Instiute of Poblic Aifsirs, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, 301 19th Avenue South, 295F HIFIH Center, Minneapalis, MIC 55455, USA. ‘E-mail: vingling@uom.cd} 708 15 SPRAWL ASSUCIATED WITH S WIDENING URBAN-SUBLIRRAN MORFALITY GAP? 709 W. H. McNeil explicitly developed a conceptual model to explain variations in mortality rates between large metropolitan centers and their mose thinly settled hinterlands.* Central areas, he argued, act as endemic reservoirs of diseases which spill over to their hinterlands in the form of recurrent epidemics. Urban populations thus experience generally higher and more stable levels of mortality. Hinterland mortality, by contrast, is less severe but is subject to violent short-termftuctuations.® Empirical studies conducted in the 1970s and 1980s concur with McNeil’s model of the urban health penalty, Manysuggest that there is a general increased risk of death for urbanresidents when compared to suburban residents.”“"” However, studies in the 1970s and 1980s inadequately controlled for confounding variables such as race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, To some extent, “white flight”—the demographic shift in thefirst half ofthe twentieth century where middle-class families moved away from inner-city neighborhoods and where inner-city residents became equated with \dvantagedgroups such as minority and low-income houscholds—might explain the higher mortality rates found in urban areas in the 1970s and 1980s.* More recent and rigorous studies on urban-suburban health disparities offer mixed and inconsistent findings. House et al. studied a national sample of 3,617 adults and found that significant urban mortality risk exists among white men, but not among white women.’ Surprisingly, African Americansin suburban areas were found to have mortality risks as high as those in urban areas. Geronimus et al. selected several pairs af African-American communities and non-Hispanic white communities and investigated urban—rural disparities in mortality cates. Their results contradict the findings of Houseet al., suggesting that African-American residents of urbancommunities suffer extremely high and growing rate of excess mortality. However, the contradiction may be due to the specific focus of Geronimus et al. on urban-nural disparities, which is different from the focus of House et al. on urban-suburban disparities. Smith et al. and Hayward et al. focused on a population of men 55 years or older and found that excess mortality existed among urban residents even after controlling for differences in social clase and lifestyle factors between urban and suburban residents.1"9 Although the aforementioned studies performed adjustments for population composition and socioeconomic status, no study has yet examined how the extent of urban—suburban health disparities in a metropolitan area may be influenced by the region’s built environment. The built environment, encompassing all of the buildings, spaces, and products that are created or significantly modified by people, not onlyformas a backcloth against which people live, work, and play,"* but also to some degree determines residents’ exposure to environmental risks and the associated physiological and psychosocial impacts.’ Thus, the built environmenthas a profound impact on the health of its inhabitants, and different types of metropolitan environments (e.g., compact versns sprawling) each offer unique urban andsuburban experiences, leading toa varied degree of urhan-suburhan health disparities. Figure 1 illostrates a conceptual framework linking the built environment to health outcomes. The mediating factors and downstream pathways illustrated in Figure 1 are of particular interest as they ouUline possible connections beeween the buil: environment and health. Some of the meditating factors and downstream pathways are obvious: vehicle emissions, exposure to air pollution, and respiratory hhealth; traffic congestion and noise, stress, and chronic diseases; and poorly maintained neighborhoods, crime, and homicides. Others are Jess direct. but increasingly recognized as important, such as the relationships of land use patterns to humanactivity patterns and obesity-related diseases. In this research, we apply 70 FAN AND SONG iDatelaa 4. Gone, the Soria Eviommrt the Healy Case Sten) —__... i iavivonment (~ Medlatng Factors Massing Comment ‘apoee Medi Dowastrewm Putivays “Respse) Lond ue pate stmironmenial toxins > Behaviorcg. physica mtniy, eHothidasbtort og, + Trrpereon ‘et belosingitn, Rhpersed setneks auesaking. NY etc, wet + Intastwcte spt[rine Tevet ‘ ychniogikessen, ein + Pie filities VY nisstrs daccideas depressionStes, social 4] + Population bevel eg, + udigs Accesso series tele ‘useage ipsiopeal¢nkcs, ony ates, "ortonction, sbitoc rena pone FIGURE 1. A conceptual model of how the built environment impacts health. The model presented in this figure is adapted from a conceptual model developed by Klitzmanet al.'® The model has been modified to highlight the mediating factors andl downstream pathways by which the built environment influences health outcomes. the conceptual framework in Figure 1 to study how sprawl may contribute to orban-suburban health disparities in canse-specific mortality. Sprawl is the prevailing land development pattern in the US, featured by low development density, segregated land uses, lack of significant centers, and poor street connectivity. Sprawl is found to be associated with higher levels of environmental pollution.’”"* Thereby, according to Figure 1, residents living in sprawling metropolitan areas may experience higher levels of physical, chemical, and biological exposure and are likely to have elevated mortality risks from tumor, infection, or respiratory diseases, Sprawl is also found to be associated with a sedentarylifestyle, unhealthy eating habits, and risk behaviors such as smoking,"?* and based upon the downstreampathwaysillustrated in Figure 1, sprawl may lead to a higher mortality risk from cardiovascular/heart diseases. In addition, spraw] promotesextensive auto use and increases social polarization among communities, which may increase crime rates, worsen traffic conditions, and make residents more vulnerable to external causes of death2223 Uavinghighlighted the underlying canses of death that are most relevant to health threats associated with sprawl, it is important to note that, within a metropolitan area, the health threats associated with sprawl are likely to affect urban residents disproportionately compared to suburban residents. Sprawl inevitably leads to decentralization and fragmentation of economic opportunities, dramatic reductions in population size, density, diversity, and resources in urban areas, and deprivationof economic, social, and political capitals in inner-cities, all of which create urban-suburhan health disparities and increase excess mortalityrisks among urban residents. In contrast, compact development (ie., the opposite of sprawl) promotes “smart growth”” and often has goals targeted to prevent “Smart growth” is antispraw! development that values long-range, holistic considerations of environmental protection, econuinie erowtl, and social equity aver sborcteem fiscal considerations. "The term of “smart growth” is often used interchangeably wich “growth management.” Examples of growth managenenuisnart growth slintegiesinchnde (a) urhan comtainnert boundacies that ditcet wrbaa development into areasintended or needed for urban uses and protect reral land frome urban spillovers, ib} capital improvements programming and adequate facilites standards that discourage developments faither away from existing civil infrastrueure systems and coconrage infill and cedevelopments,{¢} land preservation techniques {eg transfer of development sights and apriculturstorest hoffers} that protect resource land from urhandevelopment pressures,ett. IS SPRAWL ASSOCIATEDWITH A WIDENING URBAN-SLBUIRBAN MORTALITYGAP? mm decentralization of economic opportunities, avoid inner-city decline, and advocate compact, transit-oriented, walkable, and bicycle-friendlyland uses.?* These policies embrace geographic equity and promote a more balanced allocationof resources within the metropolitan ara between inner-cities and suburbs. Therefore, it is expectedthat sprawling regions mayobserve notonly higher overall mortality rates but also a wider mortality gap between urban and suburhan residents when compared to compact regions, "This paper presents a direct effort to test this a priori expectation.To ensure the robustness and thoroughness of the empiricaltest, two datasets are employedin this paper: one has cross-sectional population, mortality, and urbanforminformation in the nation’s 65 largest metropolitan areas from the year 2000; another has longitudinal population, mortality, and urban form information from 1989 to 2000 in the Portland metro’s 71 zip code areas. Analysis of the national dataset attempts to quantify the size variation in urban-suburban mortality gaps across different metropolitan areas and how the magnitude of mortality gaps varies as a function of the extent of sprawl. Analysis of the Portland dataset comes with a longitudinal design that examines whether Portland’s recent efforts on curbing sprawl are associated with decreases in urban-suburban health disparities. The two analyses complement each other and are intended to provide supporting empirical evidence on the hypothesis that spraw!is positivelylinked to the level of urban— suburban health disparities. NATIONWIDECROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY: DATA, METHOD, ANDFINDINGS This national study focuses on the 100 largest metropolitan areas during the year 2000. Boundaries of the metropolitan areas are specified using the Core Based Statistical Areas system defined by the US. Office of Management and Budget (OMB)in 2000. According to the US OMB,each metropolitan area consists of one ‘or more counties, encompassing (1) the counties containing a coze urban area of 50,000 or more population and {2) any adjacent counties that have a high degree of social and economicintegration with the urban core. This operational definition offers opportunities of applying a parallel-group design (ie., matched pairs of core urbanversus suburban counties) to examine urbar-suburhan mortality gaps. The final sampleof this research is limited to 65 metropolitanareas becauseof dara availability and matching suitability of county components in each metro, Single-countymetrosare either excluded from the sample (e.g., El Paso, TX and San Diego, CA) or combined into adjacent metros {eg., the Oakland metropolitan area in CA is combined into the San Francisco metropolitan area). The final 65 metro areasin the sample, as shown in Figure 2, include a total of 458 counties. The 458 counties are categorized into core urban versus suburban counties based upon their urbanization level. Countiesatecoded as core urban counties if they are identified as large central counties in the 2006 Urban-Rural Classification Scheme by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). If no counties in a metropolitan area are coded as large central by NCHS,counties with the largestcity population in the metropolitan area are identified as the urban core county, For example, in the Portland metropolitan area, Mulmomah Countyis identified as the core urban county while Washington, Clark, and Clackamas Counties are identified as suburhan counties. Finally, 79 counties are identified as coreurban counties and 379 are identified as suburbancounties m FAN ANDSONG ah a ep ae yr eT e * “ai*& @ & & ‘4*,. Ro ae gt a‘uo9, OF aAnyShenae WYRtoqeeraveit aManataver, a ‘lets.Sandy Springs Maiti, GA ‘Ausie-Round Rock, TX q Batrore-Tonsan, MD New Orlaans-AetaiieKanner, LA ‘Baton Rouge, LA NewYork Norther New Jersey-Long Island, NY-Ni-PA ‘Simingharm-Hoover, AL ‘Okiahama City, OK alosNiagrara Fall, RY ‘Omaha-Counelt Bll, NEMA ‘Chicege-Napervie-Joi, LN ‘Stiando, FL Gincinnat-Niicletown, OHARYAN PhikidelphiaCarden.Wilmington, PA. Gleveland.Elyia-Mentos, OH Phoerix-Mess-Scotsdste, AZ ‘Gelorada Springs, CO Piteburgh, PA Columbia, SC Fortand:Vancouver-Beavertor, OR-WA Columns, OH ProvidenceWanwick-Pawtucket, RI DallasFert Westh-Aakngten, TX Raleigh-Cary, NO Benver-Aurora, CO. Riverside-San Bamardino-Ontario, CA Betot:Warren-Livenia, Ml Rochester, NY Grand RepidssWyoming, Me ‘Sacremenin~Arden-Arcade-—Rosevila, CAGreensboroHigh Pont MC SallLake Chy, UT Greenvile, SC San Anton, TX Harford, CT ‘Sin Franess0o-Caitand.Freront, CA Heuston-Baytowm-Sugar Land, TX ‘San dose-Sunnyvalo-Barta Clara, CA Ilana, ‘SaatTacoma-Ballovue, WR, décksorle, FL Springhele. Mi Kansas Ciiy MO-KS. Sk Lovie, HCL Kooriile, 7 ‘Syracuse, NY Lite Rack North Lite Rack, AR “Tamepa-St Petorsburg-Clearwates, FL Las Angeec-Lomg Beach-Santa Ana, CA ‘ote, OH Memphis, TNAS-AR Tubs, OK MamiFort Leuderdale Meri Beach, FL Virghtia Beach ‘ortolic Newport News, YANG thvaucoe Wauitesha Vestlis, 4 ‘WoshmatonAvtington-Afexanario, OC-VA- MOAN Minneapots-St. Paul-Blcomegton, BNA hehe, KS New Haven-Bodgepor- StamfordNbterbury-Denbuy, CT Wetcesier- Lawrence-Lowallfrackion, MA.NH FIGURE 2. Study area: 65 metro areas. Data and Variables County-level_ mortalicy data come from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC]. Using the online CDC WONDER platform, 2000-2005 mortality counts by underlying cause of death in the 458 study counties are acquired. As discussed in the “Introduction”section, we highlight the underlying causes of deaththat are most relevant to health threatsassociated withsprawl. They are {1) infections, (2) tomers, (3) cardiovascular diseases, (4) respiratory diseases, and (5) external causes such as injury, suicide, and homicide. Cause-specific mortality rates are identified using the International Classification of Diseases {ICD} published by the World Health Organization. To dare, there have been ten revisions of the ICD. ICD-9 was used from 1979 to 1998 and ICD-10 has been used 15 SPRAWL ASSOCIATEDWITH 4 WIDENING UROAN SUBURBAN MORTALITY GAP? 73 TABLE 1 ICD codesforfive specific underlying causes of death Gauses of death 1€D9 (1979-1988) 100-10 (1999-present) Certain infectious and parasitic diseases 001-139 AN0-B99 Neoplasms/tumors 140-239 c00-D48. Heart diseascs/diseases of the circulatory system 390-459 100-199 Diseases oftherespiratory system 460-519, ‘100-598 Externalcauses of morbidity and mortality FB00-FBGY VO1-Y9R since 1999, Table 1 presents the ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes correspondingto each of the five death causes. Sociodemographic information at the county level comes from the U.S. Census Bureau, including age, sex, race, ethnicity, marital status, income level, and poverty. Furthermore, a set of dummyvariables are created to capture contextual differences, such as weather and climate in the nine ceasus divisions(i.e., New England, Middle Atlantic, East North Central, West North Central, South Atlantic, East South Central, West South Central, West Mountain, and West Pacific). A sprawl indicator at the metropolitan level is incorporated into. mortality models. Metropolitan-level sprawl indices have been developed by many sources, including USA Today, Sierra Chib, and independent researchers (for example, Galsteret al.).?5 This paper adopts the sprawl index developed by Ewinget al. for 83 US metropolitan areas because Ewing's index is the most recent and comprehensive effort of measuring sprawl, incorporating various density, land use mix, centrality, and street connectivity dimensions. Ewing’s sprawl index is a metropolitan-level factor extracted from six variables through principle component analysis: (1) gross population density (persons per square mile); (2) percentage of population living ar low suburban densities; (3) percentage of population living at moderate to high urban densities; (4) net density in urban areas; (5) average block size; and(6) percentage of blocks with areas less than 1/100 square mile. This factor vwas transformedto a scale with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 25. Larger values of the sprawl index indicate more compact metro areas, whereas smaller values indicate more sprawling metro areas. The additionof Ewing's sprawl index to the national dataset allows us tu examine whether Seattle (sprawl index=100.9) would have smaller urban-suburban mortality gaps if it were as compact as Portland {sprawl index=126.0) after controlling for sociodemographics. Regression Model Atthe first glance, Poisson regression is appropriate for this analysis because our dependent variables are mortality rates. However, descriptive analysis shows overdispersion in all-cause and cause-specifie mortality rates, which contradicts the assumptionof Poissondistribution(i, the assumption that the mean is equal to the variance). To address this issue, we estimate mortality models using generalized Iinear models (commonly referred to as GLZ}""—anapproach that places fewer restrictions on model parameters. The GLZ. approach allows the variance 10 he adjusted independently of the mean and thereby relaxes the requirement of equality **The Generalized Linear Model (GLZ} is an extension of the General Linear Model (GI) tobe used shen response variablesfollow disrihurions other than the novroal diciribation and whenvariances are ™ FAN AND SONG or constancy of variances in traditional Poissonregression.‘The specificationof the GLZ model is shown below. An interaction termbetweenthe urban dummyvariable and the sprawl index is added to the modelto test the hypothesis that the urbanicity- related excess mortality is more evidentin sprawling metrosthan in compact metros. In other words, inclusion of the interaction term allowsus to infer whether the level of urhan-suburban health disparities within a metropolitan area changes with the area’s, sprawlmagnitude. Control variables of the modelinclude age, gender, race,ethnicity, income, and geographical division. Thestandard errors in the model are adjusted to correct for correlation among counties in the same metropolitan area: In{B(¥)} flo + AXeiton + BeXmant “+ BsXipmnet + BoXments be, ¥~ Poisson where Yis the all-cause or cause-specific mortality rates within each study county in 2000-2005 (unit: deaths per person-year), Xuhen is the dummy variable as 1 represents core urban countyand O represents suburban county, Xsprawi is the sprawlindex score, XurbenXspeaet is the interaction term of the urban dummy and the sprawl index, Xcontole 2 sct of control variablesincluding age, gender, race, ethnicity, income, and geographical division, Bp, Br Bay Ba» and Bc are regression coefficients, and & is the error term. Overall, this analysis has a national scope that improves generalizability and uses a parallel-group design thar prevents the metropolitan-level environmental context from confounding the impact of urban residence on health, In addition, integrating spatial factors such as the extent of spraw! into cross-sectional mortality models helps to understand the impact of sprawl on urban-suburban health disparities. Ie is expected that urhan-suburban mortality gaps are more evident in sprawling metrosthan in compact ones. dings Table 2 presents descriptive statistics on the variables used in the national study. Core urban counties and suburban counties differ with regard to crude moxtality rates, population composition, and socioeconomic level. In core urban counties, the percentage of individuals aged 18-29 years tends to be higher. Population. in suburban counties {median age=36 years) are generally older than those in core urban counties (median age=34 years). The population size and diversity of suburban counties are much lower than urban counties. Suburban counties on average have higher income levels than their urban counterparts. In addition, Table 2 shows that all-cause mortalityrates are higher in core arban counties, but when looking at cause-specific mortality rates, excess mortality among urban residents does not exist in any of the five cause-specitic categories. While death rates associated with infectious and cardiovascular diseases are higher in core urbancounties, death rates associated with tumor, respiratory, and extemal causes are lower in urban counties. Thediscrepancy in mortality rates between urban and suburban counties presented in Table 2 does not adjust for demographic composition and socioeco nomic characteristics. Table 3 presents the regression results from the estimated GIZ, which controls for sociodemographic confounding factors The results in Table 3 show that, after adjusting variations in age, race, ethnicity, income, and regional location, the urban dummyvariable is significant and, positive in all of the mortality models except theexternal cause model. Among the IS SPRAWL ASSOCIATED NITH A WIDENING URBAN SUBUREAN MORTALITYGAD? S l s H S E SUATZLSCNBSS AL'S ZATUE ORR eHOS oz ° ze 6 a L su oz pera 6 ° 8 a L el oL ig raed z ° 9 ig z u bl ulog usta 08 @ t & 6 z ve le ’ t z @ ‘ £ zu @ aL z 31 ub UL L # @ 8 z ob a a L SL z 8 z a a bt z 3 o 9 z ou 6 8 z a ue E z s ub £ L 9 <} LAL aBy ca ‘ z a z a z aL i) £15 By u E L z 6 + L £ § §aopun By ooo'LL 6z ero 66I'L 0d'8S 08 88's 869 {suosiad o0'L! sa0z-0002 indo sojgeuesqUapwtodapul |ara}-Aauno3 siz uz 98 sis A y ge r o t e reuarg zit Fb ez 682 Liz, So let ee r o e 96'9 GL 96 oue'z—ceay ESL Lek L Z semseroipiey air 9 lr vre'L -BLO'E—ZLTL G E O L ssown 859 € 38 061 sao 6 L a e opayuy aypads-asney s e l mIsz 60S LLL aSEL Ley e R c t {HeaKsoesuosiad GqoTagO'L 49dsipeap}So1eL AeLIOW j>49)-AaNFIED ew u a H W wi as uray aigeueA (e2€=N) saqUNOD uequngns (Gi=n)sopURED wegen 3105 Apweqan 4q sayea Ayjevour pue “sapsuayrezeyp syuounsep0s ‘uopssoduiod >ydesoulag 7 ITV. TAN AND SONG toua1e424)J japow wow pepnppxe212KsayqeUeA “ioHarED aouasaye)aypsf 3yped 1S3y “U Lotter S S O b a d , PsnsuaDSuoWY “uoReD ae ameIDIa}asLSI ,6E-OE 3 ro aip yew “sdnou8 ae Fuouny o000'0 tS'0EF'9 a S seoxBS60Z— xe960'0— e0e50°0— #Z00L'0~ wx6L50'0 wend bS0O— 469760 x$900'0— ex€SEL'0 wxe8L09'01 seEZER 6P966'S #698087 ~ sna lP E R E #y690S°7~ s298'7— x9€600 Sasnes IV 000'0 OL 6lz'z a h ovozz— +¥2920°0 een6597'0 #49060°0 wexZBb70— wenZOE O— sesS1ZUO— eenf915°0 sxaZLL0'O— ¥95680'0: wen PLLEE wes Z90E sendLEB'E- sp HELB'S— sen19'E— 6 0 S T E— £2600 zouo' pond'o- sasmea /eUsaRg 000'0 EL bPS'L 8 h wendSOPS— sen006V0— n l 980°0— wandLbL'O ser£0L0°0— ee 9BEE0— sanGELTO— see00€L'0— sexs S O L eee 955201 yx POE9'S /9868L— x6 L E E #s6€S1'0 e£000°0— 9 LO0'O— saseasip Aoqeadsay o000'0 sorsse'z Bsr eeLeo- s249080"0— sexZELLO- 0479900 send9S0°0 ey 16900 sex LLZEO 9 5 S L0- see B L O sas9S9E LL sesb&Z8'6 eO8 LEP s s b b L — seeubb67'S— sexe F — 8ZEZ'S es 8LL0 so00'0 =01000~ saseasip JepMDseAoIpie) a000'0 a6Bec'r s v s7999E— +¥€080°0— 20nB9L0°0- 47990'0— emx€E9L'0- #469200 y9n00900 #926820°0— senL T O veeb£00°0— sexePLOLO- srebE T B sxaxGB1'9) 29599687 O P T 1696S E— 126566'L- exe6192'5— sxsbOLLO x6000'0 sve L000— ooa0'a RLSO'T a b Seve L soa Z O sen£96E0 eve£Z5E0 9 8 2 1 0 nae PZPEO wr @898'0 eeeZL9P'0 ss 86S00- r e llixd sx£SZL'0 199869 aZEZES— sensPOBL'S— 8 7 8 6 ' S weLPG P L 2 9 6 7 0 ey97Z00°0 seeb Z00°0— SHOWIN/SWISEIdODN saseaSIP sno|D—JUi ons (eydye| ¢ onsnels a)N sonsyeis Auewtuns queysuo} ypnuay yinos 1se3 yenuay anos 3s044 DHUERY Ypnos uaUnayy Iss, 5944 S A M Y 1829 ISOMpIRY anueny aippin pueyeur {o00'0L$} awoour P E E aiuedsiyj % 1109 813104 % Be uerpay4 dn gg aay % H I S o8y %, 6b-Ob ay % C z a B Y 12-81, aBy LI=S aBy5, sapun ai Awuinp uequn, xapui [aesds wuat vanseJarul SOIgeLER pms jeuonsas- mosquitosbest scenario tf iefering to a iuscion of mosquitoes wort aeenarin) EuroQol states trade-off (EurvQulSTO). ‘Tio-Tule- off {TTO} ea tool useio health economies to determine the quality OF Tle of & puient or gruup. This tool instructs indicia co ‘honse between Ivica fixed umber afyears Surely 10 yearn ot [5 in a sposiied bealth coubtian, Wo living Z years in perfect heals, Vhe diference Y, whiere Y=F Z, denows the wate of yeas the respondent is wling tp waee co move JrHingin the Specified heableovielonte bva perfect health, The. mb ‘of years uf penfeet health selected 7} is thea comvretealin wily score [generally 2/F, and use 16 calesfte QALYs [33]. We modified the ITO method derive the mocesite abundance uty score byallowing vsideals ta elicit welerences arch 2014 | Volume @ | Issue 3 | 65221 between alternative health states, ialead of sue, and Ting an average day willy moamptoes, We first asked respondents to remember hovr it wns ving an average day widh mosqnitoes as Ahey sere it their yard and porch chat summer. We thea zaked them to selece which is a weonv slate sn tele opininn: living an average day with monquitesas they were i ther yard seed pore that summer or living in each of ve health sates selected, as resented in Snovey Si. We coneepmualized theee states we rungs fon a ladder, 99 the cepandent contd indicate dhe rung belose ‘which their mniquite acceptably fll, Tinefive heath sates were derived from FurcQol RQ:5D descriptive system, which coaptomise health dimemsious of mobility, seiboar, yaual sutiviies, yain/dicemfor, and ansieey or depression. Each dimension has three levels: nu prohlerss, some problems, and ‘extemne problems, These dimensions were analyzed to generate a ity scone that ranges betveea 1 (dewoting perfecthealth and 6 ‘egal to deal, he five selected heals states had uility scones ranging from 0.897 tw1,806, the range that wo expected wonld poly 10 most respondents [34] Disease atates trade-off (D-STO). Using paived sompari- son questions axl population health equivalence, the Global Burden of Disease 200 stidy quantified ditablty. weighs associated swith one year in each specified health conden, where {implies 2 eallas equivalent4 dead snd1 implies na los af Theat perfect heath[31]. These weights, whicharethe reverse cof sights in QALY,ate ied to cempote the dsabiity-adjused Iif-years (DALYreported in burden ofdisease staies, Sonar to EumQulSTO, we sleled Gye diseases swith mild disability ‘weights per unit time (chown in paremesesh inuensa QUO, slomct diy (0.281), stvere hearing Tose (0.099), verse fracture {(L0R8), and bromchits 1.210} [92]. Agi, we asked respondents To recall tiving an average day with moequitoes as Whey sere in theie yard aod porch that sumer, We dhe asked dhem to select hie ic hotter sate in their opinion: living an average Uay with mweguitesa they were in rheyan and porch chat summer oF living an average day silt each of these(ive health conditions Contingent valuation. To estimate the benefit assucitted with a prmgram chat ceduore aneguitees’ auitwnce, wr asked respanelenis to sankfive porch and yard activites e., eating and ooking outside,paying claxing and soctalsing, gardening, and _maincainiug their car or house), aud w stale dhe nsinn ammount ley wee slling 1o payfor oneational hour engaged in each uf these aries with reduced muiguite reiauce, We started the bid wich $1. Foor cases (8.4% of our sarmple) reported extreme values (over #200 per porch or yard aetvity). We adjusted fr these extreine values by wintering wiingness to pay {WLP| vanes the variable’s 95d percents, The survey instrument ‘To measure the impel of snosyuitocs on eesidents! qualigy af Ife we developed a fonrsection structured quesiomusire w complement dit insile avey eondhisted anooally Grom 2008 2011. The fie section Focused on intesviewee's experience wih noxuity bites it thelr neighborhood during a typical 2010 summer work, whether they were teited Ker bites, 90d) isa, the ost of teaimeat. The second section raced the imporeunce ofthe ability to rehux ouldours witht mesquitoes compaed to other rieigsbneroed charartceintes {U=not inportint, 8 velreely iunpurtant ud che enphrasantoessastociated with mosquito bites camapated to other unpleasim eveats tht er occuin 1d nieighlboraae(1 20r unpleasant, 9 —extremely, unpleasant. the third esction iatersireee wens asked! ro rate and rank the enjoyment awociated with five porch aud yard aeisites sed Ur inulicate sbeie willngsess ta pay for one adional imayicary PLOS ONE | weeveplasonecors Mosquitoes and Quality of ite “work-fice mooquito-free hour each summer weekengaged in each ‘of five pore or yard selves, In due Fourth section imersiewoes redtheir current mosquito acceptability on a sity seale(similar 10 FQ-5D-VASvisual analogue scale} from 100 (nomosquitoes) ta 0 (mosquize invasion), and anrwered Ue Euro(QuLSTO and D- STO gestions. Data analysis ‘Graduate studentsfom Branceis Univesity coded tbe survey esponses and engerea the data nen Excel spreadsheets (Microsoft ‘Gorporacion, Redmond, WA), Twenty percent of ie sample wat eeatered ly check for vonsstency and quality of the data entry, Daca were then transferred to STATA (College Station, TX) for analysis. Resales are reported at unweighted mesos, standard, deviations, and standart ertor of Ue meses for continoous variables and Bequencies or categorical variables, Then ests and Chi-square test were pesformed for hypothesis testing. To estimate each respondent's EuroQol$TO mosquito-abun- dance wblity vcore, we fret waded as] thuse items respondents reported a: mosqoitors sere worse than the compasisan states, nd coded izms not woree as 0. We chen defined « L-based [worst ceneliton) and O-baved (best condi! uly forach respondent. "The I-based utlty war based on items coded an Us he, those TruraQol descriptive llth states for which living an average summer day widh the then level uf mosquitoes was comidered (0 bie worse, ‘The lowest wlity of those descriptive sates was dhe 1 Tpased uly sere, The O-based ecore was the itis coded as 0; ie, the wallty of the EuroQol descriptive hellstate with the bigest ublty for which the respondent stated chat lieing an average summer day with the then level of mosquitoes wa not cousidered wore AT niwsguitves swece worse than all five FuroQol descriptive Death sates, we set both the L-based and O-based uilty scores at 10.806, 1 value extrapolated duwanwaa frathe woes of he five Luelth states above. IE mosquitoes sseze equal tao hetthan all TBuroQpl descriptive health states, we set but the Mbased and 0+ based uty sores 0.897, 2 value exteapolatedl upward froma the ilies ofthe fc states belove. Finally, we set each eaponden's EuroQp]STO utility se dhe average of dies Olasel aad based lilies. For respondentswhose answers were eonsinent with the Tnro-Qol ordering nf hralth states, their Qhased aud Mbaed wiles were identical "Yo derivethe D-STOuity e wed similar categories ta those ved 19 derive the EnroQol-STO, veith rskzor cnodifcatons. Fer category J, we defined a better disease state asthe one just Letter snthe mildest of ese diseases,which was intellnetoal dsabiigy, snild (fisnbiiy weight 0.091), For category 2, we defined a worse liseane state as the ane just wore thas the iwel severe uf Giese tliseases, which was ncek pain (sability eight 0.286), Ta help seadees intespret the senltang uclity valves, we idencified healdh states ia the Global Burdes of Divenwe Sludy with comparable lilt waluce [4,35,86) {Vo salidete he WTP resule, wr estimated a logit modsbowe svhether the regnandent ws willow pry some init anno! sewoid mixquitacs as a finetion af household characteristics, exposure o moequitees and cost aneeiated with mosquitoes ‘Aiionally,we ouodeled the positive sien araoune resides wom willing to pay for acl af the selected yard and parch actvides on household charucteristis, exposnre « mosquitoes, sad cost sauce witl vacqito contro! ane! mesqnite-alaced hheahlicare services usinglog linear regression model, Motch 2014 | Volume @ | Isue 3 | 989221 Results Household characteristies OF the 400 ruovlorofy selevied adkbesses, 121 households completed the interview, Sf households were not interested in participating in the stuty, 9 addersses were nat residential ons, and 6 addresses were omisde dhe eeudy areas. The remaining 206 Thouschalds weer not successilly concacted. OF the 385 valid address, the response rate wae 314% (121/385), and the ‘oqperation rate was 67.5% (122121458). ‘The majority of respondeme (55%) were frum Monoull ‘Gonmey, seamen (62%), and in che Labor force 57%. Table 1 ‘ompares the rain chavactesaties oftaestudy sample seth those in the AW-IPM project’ selected sites and counties, While some of the sarlables shaved satistially signicane diflorcnoes from the population, the excess of females and larger households is ‘ponsiatene wid the stucy procedures. Experience and expenditure associated with mosquite bites ‘The majariry 64.6%) of respondents consilered auequitoes to be a problem, with 3h tatiug moxpines as a moderate problem, 12.4% ag severe one, adil 11.62% ay an extremely Mosquitoes and Quality of Lie horrible one. Mosquitoes prevented 59.5% of respondents from cnjeying their outdoor seeseational activities, at least to sone tent, During 3 typical summer week, 89.2% of reqpondents reparted being binea at least once; 77.7% weee Dilla while ‘ontdoors and 29.1% were hitlen vile indoors, Overall, respon ents experienced an average (standard errorofthe mean, SEM} of T1211 anooquite bites per seek, Respondents reported bites at all times of the day or igh including the daytiene, waon the Asian tiger mosquito bites, ‘The disuitationof times was: early morning (11.6%), Iate merning (12.64), late afternoon £80.6%, conly evening {92.1%}, and night (31.496) "These percentages um to more than 100%, ae resdenss reported being biten dung rmshiple peeiods in the day. OF those bitten, 444% usedexisting preducts at hoane to treat cher bites,34.7% bought neve products, nt 4.254 saw a health earo provider to treat their biles (1.7% a specialized ductor, and 2.5% a ume or primary heakheare Aoctor, Tox al those ineerviewed, the average (SEM) azawet puld per person on itching and mosquito bite treatmentas $9.14 (81.98), on medical providers 93.71 (9.19), while their fsurance cuversge paid on average $1314 (2591). The sespondienc* medical cost associated with elie and tovatment uf rausquile bites for the stedy smeas daringe the sumaer period {rable 1. Househald characteristics of respondents compared ta stutly sites and counties, 2070, aisle numer of households in county NW=120"! onmainh Merce Rasponcents ae Sind up Leesan fh gece souls ete Grate 9: pessoal eragehousehold ze 120) respondents enpleyoert satus N=120) Inthe borfre ‘Unemrloyt ooking Sor jh et in oho free Study sample sa, 1188 we ss ho anotes tha rember of esands to the vesion ad nce Jaorie:371jourapenecowyzz1 10 POS ONF | wrew.giocane.ory Jo c001 aseon Ci uate ts fr crt Yaables! and Hest Hr conus vals NS= Nox sacs syst arch 2014 | volume 9 | Isiue | €89221 (asuuning sunsner is 13 weeks) averaged across all residents, incInding thosewith no espenditaee,$31,48(10,57) per resident, ‘of which 28.5%was paid by hiuseholis foritching and mosqnita bite tratiment/products, 30.1% paid by households as co-payment for bealh eonrultancies, and 41.1% by insurance companies (or ‘medical feer. This distribution shove that rmuhiple sertors were alfeted linwacially by mosyuiw bites. We found no statically Significant difference by gender, exept for auraber ul residents cho reported being bitten: inn were moze likely ta he bitten compareto women,and womenwere more likely to useor buy2 [product to treat bites compared to mea, We fovnno sgsifieant Siference by counyy, except forthe avezall Ievet of eating of the proxies probleani the neighborhood, Importance of mosquito control compared to other public services Respondents rated importance of enjoying pores and yard outdoors activites withont mosquitoes’ nuisance [£43 seeand 10 tat of neighburhood safety (2.74 and higher than dhat of a lean, rrighboshoed(4.585, As showniu Table 2, residents experiencing 7 mosgpito in a week was rated as the eneat unpleasant ent {A.71)fellowed by having tach in their lark (461%, and having, ‘mosquitoes outside User reilence(48) Porch and yard activities: importance and willingness to pay ‘As presented in ‘Table 3, die autvty cled 48 entimport ‘was relaxing and socializingin the yard or porch 89.2%, fellnwed by eating and coking otal (82.7%). "The order of ese ratings paralleted that of thir enjoyment. When asked forthe onan amount respondents were viling t@ pay for one addicimal imaginary worketree, mowitecree hoor per aimoner week, engaged in these activities, the ranking of he average maximomn amoums they were wilingpay was very sila wo the enjoyabily ranking. We found one exception io gardening, ($7.74), which wan ranked fourth but the amoune was 6% Pigher than the amet they sere willing to py Ge plying in he yard (87.2. Hable 2. Respandants’ perceived import and unpleasant Mosquitoes and Qualty of Life Of those interviewed, 12.4% stated theie wings to pay for this imaginary howe eogaged in at leat one of these activi: 85.7% vwere willing ta pay a least $0.25 « enjoyeating oF cooking ontide, 78.5% to play m yard or porch, and 75.6% to enjoy srardening, Eighy-nine percent were willing to pay at leas $9.50 19 relax and socialize, and 714% to maintain their howe or cit. able 4 digplys delerasiaaens of WIPfrom logit and log-linear regressions, Willingness 10 pay any araount was positively associated with residency in Mercer Conacy compared 1a Monmouth: County, having atleast ane chill vader Ove age of 18 yeane ofage,attaining ome higher education, being female, being employed Suline, being bothered by moscitees to the exleat Usaoue eonnot spesn! thetne they desired engaged in yard and porchactivises, and incurring some cost storied with mowgnite control oF Death expesuliue aacoviated with mosquito bites, Health exptasditures amociated with moamuito bites showed poslive statistically sigvticant impacts oa cesidents’ WIP for this sadiiional mosquito fice hour eating p—#.051, playing p—1076, relaxing p=Hh051, mointenanee 0.018) Loss in utility due to mosquitoes (On average (18D), residents ratnd their overall mosquito acceptabiiny seote duting that eummer oa 2 suale of 100 fae wosgutoes) te 0 (mosquito invasion) at 56.74428.73. Table 5 presents the percentages of respondent’ stating Gal living aa average day wilh mosyullues in dueyard and porch during the sommer of 2010 was worse than living an average day with the speciied camparsear acalds conditions sad disewses, The average (SM uaifey based on EurvQel STO was DATM.O%, coere- spoutingtoa udityloss of 0.15. The average (SD)ulity based on the five diseases (D-STO} wae (0,79°+0.71, comresponding ta a UFsailty of O.21°°0.90,whieh ie close to the disability wright attibuted to mederaue diarrhea (0-203) [31], We found uo significant difference by gener ox cuoaty Consistency checks ‘The average (SDj overall self-rated mucquito avceptalty score fusing VAS) was sgnilicanity wer for respondents with rolerale to severe mosquito acceptability camparea with those of certain asperts of neighborhood, 2010 aspect of Bving Ina nelghborhoed ¢=1211 mparanceof aby "Wa aroure your eeghborhwod witout sting garbane er tlic your nihterhaod a wight wahoueofcme ss pos nt ayaa (Croatsyour oichborhnt fty Fray, taberur py nd oben your yor oF porch hotresus avg hnur ck Sesh yut on lappaaeephonepar onyour ork ‘avoa whosqutoes outs yourtase tang sean meosguto Bas 9 week +1 =o rponaee S=esreney ianootros unpleacare Srey unplsant Notron SE senoes sndet ofese, PLOS ONE : wavwptasonecrg a8 ase March 2014 | Volume Isue + 969221 Table 3. Enjoyment associated with yard and porch activities and wiingness to pay [WTP for one adcitional wi free hour per summer week engaged In each of these activities Mosqultoes sind Quality of Life K-fiee, mosquito Yard and porch atviey or important ann anFb babe, o am totarivg house ot ae nm = benots ghee acd mort enjoys)acty. etntion: Sedete sana re f the sn esino.3/1joumelpenectazz0s who stated uusquitoes as a mill or 0 peullem in their rrighborhond (€76726.418 and 676222818, respectively; WI19}= £04 ps.00), The pattern of the EurvQol-STO tity Arrived for EQ-SD-SLwas similar co that observed for VAS soures; the average (#SD) EnroQuhS1O uly was spicy Tower for weapondenss wich a movderate 2 severe Toso acceptability conupared with Give who stated musquiues a6 a rild or no problem io their neighhorhood (OAK=G43 and 0.870108, respeccivly;t{119}=2.08 p= 0.04, The two variables are sigoificanly conclated, + (119) 0.28, p<0.01 The pattem of the D-STO uly index desived for disability weighs was liferent from that ubserved in ie VAS soures ane Ue EuroQplSTO utltyderived from EQ.SD; the average {4SD! Indices weve sgutianlly higher for remvondents wilh « moderate to severe mesquite experience compared vith thoee who stated rmosqulitees to be a mit! or no problom ip thelr neighborhndd (0.8070.04 apd 0.79°0.02, respectively; (118)= 2.39 p=0.02), ‘We feud no cneelaion hernen the ny sparederived Srorn tbr BuroQol EQSD-IL wily soure aud the atlty obtained feathe five disability weigher, 785) —87.68, p 0.39. ‘Our studyhainvestigated and explored theimpactofmosquito abundance on residents fo in two counties io Now Jersey. Onr results support observationsfrom previous studies, which indicated fhe high valor ssidens plac. on veduction of rareuito nulgance, We also measured che mnaxinaam sauount they are wing to pay for an ardive program that can significantly crdhce minsquito fasisanee aud iuprove the quality of heir local envicunmnent [7.28.24]. Our resus shawthat on average (48D)residents were swing topy the amonon of $8.59 (£12.49; per pervou per week for ome additional mosquite-fe hour each simamer week sprst emgage in any yard ar powch activity co 8848 (213.05) per person perweek fr an aditional recteasional mosspitn-feear Additionally, aur stady shows Uast mosquitoes are a major fomecen for residents: monquitors ace fnecing them ta earifice some of the time they would uve ideal pent outdoors eagaged im yard or potch activities, The igh percentage of respondents {B06} being bitten, and the fact Ghat the majority of Usese bites took place outdoors, resulted ia les time spent ouufaors. This high ate of respons! repocting Veg hteat lest once duca snimmace week shorld also be cause for cance about the rapid syresel pf arberial leases, Sncliagchikngny views bald it ‘ever be introrluced in the United States. In Résnion and nearby ‘atands during the YOIK-21K17 epicemie, much ofthe popaatinn seas infectedwith ebllugunya views withie & few moths [37]. PLOS ONE | swwneplosone.org 5 "The muiled survey recut show tat cespundents lost on average {ESEM) 849: 1.07 hours daring a typical 2010 swmnmer week dlue to mosquitos,of which 2.42:20,39 hours vere lostonaverage ‘fom less eating and cooking outdoom,and 7.8] 10.43 hours fom, less relaxing and sovifizing. Assuming a constantmarginal tty for each additonal hour spent outdoors and ne budget consersins, ‘oor sesults suggest tat resideuts vere lingto pay $71.91 76.94 per penou per suamer week, or $93480* 1,000.24 per 15-week susamerto enjoy their yard artivdes without mosquitoes. ‘The negetive onefcients associated with the maximum mmownt residenis were willing to pay foe ono adil iansinay wurk free/mosquito-tree hour for all uctivcies except relaxing and respondents’ tucation agreed with previous research that found Ligher tdncntion wis mvociaed with lower wiligaess eo ‘conarbite to mosquita control [36]. Likeniee, we found that, oi avecage, are highly cucated respondentsspent less fie iyard and povels ase aud bad lower WIP, Siaiarly, che higher WIP in Mercer Countyis consitene with its 12% lower median Ineo ineerne in MOBY[Hl (ur amy isthe fst, eo our knossledge, to quantify the impact of raenuite ubundsce wad unisanee om residents? quality of lie, We used chree approaches: che VAS, based on the thenry of measurable meltvatribute valoe action used ca caderditferences in individuale’ preferences Detween altematives [11], gave am ‘overall aerated masquitn acceptability status of 94.74, We wed Hano@ol EQSD-AL desvripsve sytean Lo derive Une KaroQol SEO ntilcy score of 0.87, a uty compardble to living with up to ‘wo tk factors or diabetes fe, abdominal obesity, Body Mase Index of 28 or move, reported chester] profane, diagnose of byperension, and history of cardiovascolar diseanc) or veomen experiencing menatoval disorders [35,46]. lv the third approach, we wed the D-STO tw derive the snosquita nuisance disbilcy ‘weight of 0.21, ecenparahle wn a sevece episode of infhionca [31] “As expected, the overall scores derived fora the TQ-ST-A1, snes measured by WAS ne wily index acre, weve significa Ihgherin cases where the mosquitu experimace in die reighhor Jhond was enoderace, severe nr horcible na seated by respemlents, ‘umpireto cases weve vespondts faced! no problems vr xy mild problem with morquitors, However, the D-STO ucinyas bianca iy vomparing the sncagite scvapakiliry iat suamner ‘with a specified disease were wexpected and disygreedsite he resuks ohtained from the EstoQalSTO ily, showing a highes li: eavefw eases with anders, seveee oF haseble waite experience in the nighbochood” ae stated by respondents ‘cotopared 10 those sin experienced a mild of wo tonquile problem, This enight be due ta-t80 faclore: the Get i the low smumer of espundents sho stated thet mosquitoes are worse ta (March2014 | volume 9 | fssue 3 | 89221 Mosquitoes and Qualty of Life ‘See o o = o wero e e patenbs-4 paisniy + ase i n o a os a s e e s say B o e sie w e e e ont 92) m p i pen fensBr septa i pone 9 era ra y s a s aa} e h o S PNG 00 i s e p e ue t b pron eine r a s = pre a 00m a exo pss c sexe 0 a v0 abo J a s o n wena - _—-Sessern o s E i a d Can fedosauBun 50 VoREPHEA e r a arch 2614 | Yorurne 9 | bsue 3 | ©89221PLOS ONE | avrplocone.arg Mosquitoes and Qualof ie Table 5. Percentage of respondents rating an average day with mosquitoes during the summer of 2010 as worse than each Jcompatator conaltion, aot sth sine decripinn GreorTo Wa 5 2211: sume palnay Gund, ai sone pla th balate ass asa 12: sume prehelaan ete au sis au Decise aes fe SFOw= 10, Ser hear oe ses usr iar atte ass as on 070 na oi, vie 36 1 disease (average of 11% of respondents) compared co health states average of 31% of repozident), The second factoreefted, to dhe quesdon ibelf. Toe relte suggest thie residents faced Aitculies in iraling off a daytving with mosquitacto a dag living with ome of the selected diseases, whichwe associatewid aqeat discomfort and disabilityand might lead tn confineroecr in Find, Hemeven they wrse- more epan and willingta cada sare, moderate sates that ehey can adjuie to and live with, Some limitations nf or sdy must be acknowledged. Fit, the respondents may have been yersons who cared ruore aliout ruvsquitoes than aca respondents, However, tie favorable eodp: ‘eration rate {87-55}, and gearsal similariey 09 education benecen responders anul che slaysites supgess any potectial bigs would bbe limited, Secomd, the mirvey arnesses ceported or intended actions, rather shan ohjecchely observed acciviies, Hawerer, the sultanintemal couibtencyfg. dhe sume aetivily-relasing ad socialising was ranked highest on impormance,enjoyabilty, and WIE) suggested Uiat he respunmes sere thouglilfl Third, to shorten the interviews, we wl only selevted items frou the EQ: 5D fnwead of the fill insenmnent, ue may hace Jost same precision, Huorth, our inerviews occurred weeksafter Ue pele hising season, 30 respondents may not have fully recalled the mitanoe they experienced. Fil, aur method snalyeat the riowggito ouivance but did aot include the potential heat threat associated vsith disease carrying mesquitoes. Incorporating cis facie might hve incressed Use lbiy lose Further, Sixty we presented the onveigheed resus,since we found no statically Sigaificanc erences by eonaty ar gender ar the customary Sgnificance level of p03, However, cuyylenentary azale shoved dffrrenees hetwreen gender groupe on the EnroQl-STO tilly ore aL the hrseaine level of p= OK: Ax weigiting the rests changed only the third decimal place of wur results bom ATI 40 0.479 and lowered precision,we decided to rypour the ceovreightelcesulis, Father sesearel, could exten! die work by applying additional methods, such as a direct ulity elicitation teccmniqie sun as TTO or standard gemnble Conversely, our investigation alee hits several sires, Our sample of 121 casesi adequate to estimate the ulity lost dur to PLOS ORE | wsyeplosoneory rmosquitnes as ie excerds dhe anggested mininnamal 16h respondents t@ valuale one condition [12]. To our kuowledge, thins de Sse study ta quantify che uty auociared with massa abundance using threedifferent methods, al te the fst stuly puta valle om tt hoor fre uf mosquitoes pent in yard or porch, The present paper provides evidenee of the impact of mosquitoes om residents’ quality of life. New Jerey residents report a 0.1% deerrameeti uilry de to mesqulioes, comparable le worvsoune Lealfe ids, ‘The mowuitoes? nuisance effect is further emphasized by che perceived importance respondents plason taavqaita cantiol acthites compared 10 other public servis, uch us acorss w public parks aud trl collection. Supporting Information Survey ST DE, Acknowledgments We souk! the to adeleDe saynd asian of Foe ‘Wier. PD, rom te Hand SexeceNeathdsp {be aly oe qpeionmie, Clie Ls sey, MSE, fr editingnaoUrscoatn Spitaah,9 Da TvsAve Stent rssyaleeRrerWe Shank oho. Canbei, eom Rates CacryDeparrest otodlgy or egg and ectthe ts tame eel losFeinokTeal Tar perege ma oer mp ‘induc Vancperurd iarrnhe tors oi enc secesy eee te ‘sews cl soe anoSponNoue he subs Bae ay Saves cee Sy pode onemn se Author Contributions Conceived end designed te experiments: DSS VAIL Pecfnsed the rpmicite DSS YAH DMCC AR SH IEG KAHDAS GGC, Anatyed te Hiss DSS YAH. Comribuard reogii’matenal/snahrie tool. DSS ‘YAH, Wrote papr! DSS YAH DMF AF SH RG KRH DAS GG: Monch 2014 | Volume 9 seue 2 | 289221 References Taf4, Seber MP YOR) Changes fe Aedes soptws Dr {Cable} papeSe New ry sb Bans fr ateie ane ie) ed Eta$6120 128 ‘eer St Ren 1K 2010 Peal Fue eiea Ail ‘Phapy 6, Dela, Magy Te Come, Ril Wb (0Aces api, fev eburew ser om he dtsoe ie Mtnsce e177 rte NG 008) Cea sevofewerfAeaopim Met “TusMnarb MR,Opin: Mt,Aakash 2009Ac dnc atin feds enna scene Drs Coa sere on Rik Vin) Mel Eta2.97 8 ‘Carenmene: Ny Sera M, Ripell A, Gace M, etl. 0H fA Pinyin Bios peepothe alec pepaoe ater Acyl Ite eauSp) Ace Deno9:7 713 ‘Sdgan Ci (00) The Aen Tiger My (es sepSp sng23 Hema hopesSuaVeg: WigPale Traine aare Cry ‘rk Heh Organs (0) The WenHeath Ropar 2000, He Srne movas Pofnore Caen Worl Heals Organon aprbeGayois ConeBly od Brice New York, NY oslo nl, Beads 5 002) To nrageonze joe: gern ‘Salersting Aasstan erimee[ ho, Rachlin , Ninbagg’ BV, Motcioaes ML Feral A 2015) Citeange fool img eqnsothe See ager meqAuer upat [Rordhason USA, pionfopubes pesconers et One Enmpess Crate Gr Diss Fewsneand Cons282) Aihonee Seapie ewer ia Mees, HorsSociaie Ears Cee foe Die Prone st Cano. BIRT RL Keamovg B, Posie A, tee, Unis 1 ea e00) Sipprenng Aus apt, ierso ofengking iliesbps need aucknatan of mmc semie Tela Af Trop Med Hy 2 1-. Bimon tad K,Uni, Obese: BMaps Mea Se a CUL2 aad unis aio rls204 Commi yma2 Aedes epee od AeweDg: Coin |fare 1: 0RE ljA ey SP, UngyPosDM PHS Feoof iaInce rigtioe apeoftweeeaal ede Ue» eal were fengandchigarys rwHLS One ‘sare vsti9, Pat KB, Ents RA Rowley WA CENA copparin of Wr ‘Nic Vine eeonchaueUy Botton wctan(OQ), Cale ise 3 Sd Ader sop(Sams Vie Beste Zuote Di8.39 1 Ifo W201 Aedeseps New YokCae wucan eine Toe etiam Murai Canal Aart Ya Aca Sieg Sesion (8 ‘la NIRuse D, Yaar 1, OhoKR, Thinner 1028 Mseog ‘Same etacon hunni foUHEtd Sion PES Nh ‘op Uae 118 ie, PY,PangTy Kans; Verda: Naa Mea 8) Dene fe, Hon EY 280 ee De 2 12708, Ghus E4, Galbin B, De Lalallore Xho RIC 2A0) Th een of| Schraderzalungors Pee Eos adst {GeceMaran, ej B Krsar D, Laslar V, Rta Ae (203)Dalamdeoin Gro Ape Seger 2tar Sore esas, BiodetLyAva #, KenaBFAC a. 207 Tlion targanF urmake aenerc go Lact7 sh Io PLOS ONE | wewplosoneorg 2% ” mosquitoesand Gualtyof Life sna Hinch H, Boke: P AO) Oucevath staf wegconst Terao bane incsi total agente Ue inpBoe wy{Geman J eee Bi Gace! Soe 2378, Decnei Fasowir § B21 Wilgroe yy fo sty condof chaoe aeoe? acho, Gaps His, Falls A 2018 he dof oete {dre otherehs essenaspple fcanainr ‘Runng Soke mamnters pr Gaetan wrpense Neh rece, ali 0 8 {Gere Gt, Eons TH J ierman AD, Ga JP (1985) Sad of Ane vcs and dee of Ae seyDion eoFlas] Med Ene fhabe ‘Hos VA, Shed DS, Wiener, Fens DM,aaa12 illopesingy fe na are nerd yo unaPragan © rnei gNe s.Can Vio f, Praja A, Healy Grp, BarveHey K, ca 300) [ses wide manopenest sf Ander lbs cee fs) ss ued ot ‘oesdraeneirmand meatpoplin, Fes Nemay sdoe Panern DMDeleCoepnn PratA, Mealy SP, or 613)Ares ile eacagaoent of Ae liopicn Part 2° Dango tre elo uf (einegcdcreelacgraneonSec ‘Separd DS, Huta YA, WidengPomsDM, ParalA eta 022) ‘sintereanin a Ne Jonry ican sce of rnMen rt Ieee UnAon) Mec, Wn, Gur Suton Js Vee Hogan, agen Mt, Naghss Mo 3.2012) Gao Srl rang Lah cineten eesetyih ‘pense sl ir he Chal BarcofDae Stay 200, Laon kD, De 206} Ty ee «ce Fa wing 08) dogs wae ‘ania i any ha?elBo 1: See, hi Fs aks ©, Bint P, Sina 108) The dine Undo ta ‘sl fave geo! peony, Beds Bae 9-136 Enrol (08) LST SY, Cea tab ts Ronde, The Nene Ext Gow(ray 8,Roe KM 2108 OSDinangea andy nd hee ‘einith te an)ok Sor aber Fangs Coon he Sey Fup lege nybono al mgrie lcm Lending beter SHIELD Menke Gl La Ouiees &18. Site PS, Lawince WR, Chwshedyiny V POOBN A wafoal cesog sroee-tard er oucieeowlowis Ue Ualod Sato, Bod Care erguerae C, Poubeou P,Stahowaky Fy Lory MyLe Muu Bb 200%(Gates of caugsops oy RewIa lea wed ney Bintang 2, Anlinader P, LxDew SL, DeCotin M, MottJ, 2013)lng megan ttc tn ren someemun sey wee, 2d {eco ron prissbWags bea US Geo Boe2024)Mere Cony NonJrcet. Watraer DS CeneBern Asalesquegogma hoaeevee 301 Fab 4 US Conn Hens ULI) Mononats Gaunsy New Janey auch fits Waningen, Barat Bpepieg! (Bivens1/0%er. Acrae O14 eb ‘yer J rn RUC} Meare mation sah ons, Oper tehala me Tsar C3, MeoSamer PS Kade YRehh) 2086 the Theta yas tod armenoes cfcds or ans TD tin tis Heh ee 12 UW TD, March 2014 | Volume 9 Issue 3 | 689221 EXHIBIT L EXHIBIT L BAAQMD- CFQAGuidelines hup:!4www.baagmd gov/Divisions/Planning-and-RescurchiCEQA-. Lf? 7] Bay ArgA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DisTRICT Home| Planning, Rules and Research | CEQA Guidelines CEQA Guidelines UPDATE: January 16, 2014: On June 2, 2010,the Bay AreaAir Quality Management District’s Board of Directors unanimously adopted thresholds of significanceto assist in the reviewof projects undertheCalifornia EnvironmentalQuality Act. These Thresholds are designed to establish the level at which the District believed air pollution emissions would causesignificant environmental impacts under CEQA and were posted on theAir District's website and includedin theAir District's updated CEQA Guidelines (updated May 2012). On March 5, 2012 the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the Air District had failed to comply with CEQA whenit adopted the Thresholds. The court did not determine whetherthe Thresholds were valid on the merits, but found that the adoption of the Thresholds wasa project under CEQA. Thecourt issued a writ of mandateordering the District to set aside the Thresholds and cease dissemination of them until the Air District had complied with CEQA. TheAir District has appealed the Alameda County Superior Court’s decision. The Court of Appeal of the Stale ofCalifornia, First Appellate District, reversed the trial court's decision. The Court of Appeal's decision was appealed to the California Supreme Court, which granted limited review, and the matter is currently pending there. In viewof the trial court’s order which remainsin place pending final resolution of the case, theAir District is no longer recommendingthatthe Thresholds be used as a generally applicable measureof a project's significant air quality impacts. Lead agencieswill need to determine appropriate air quality thresholds of significance based on substantial evidencein the record. Although lead agencies mayrely on the Air District's updated CEQAGuidelines (updated May 2012)forassistance in calculating air pollution emissions, obtaining information regarding the heafth impacts ofair pollutants, and identifying potential mitigation measures, theAir District has been ordered to set aside the Thresholds and is no longer recommending that these Thresholds beused as a general measure of project’s significantair quality impacts. Lead agencies may continueto rely on the Air District's 1999 Thresholds of Significance and they may continue to make determinations regarding the significance of an individualproject's air quality Impacts based on the substantial evidencein the record for that project. Various tools and resourcesareavailable on this website to assist local jurisdictions in applying the Air District's CEQA Guidelines. For more information, please contact Sigalle Michael, Senior Environmental Planner at smichacl@baagmd.govor 415-749-4683. Learn more aboutthe updated CEQA Guidelines. Viewthe District's 1999 CEQA Guidelines. To viewthe State CEQA Guidelines and related materials visit the California Resources Agency California Air Districts Launch Greenhouse Gas Exchange Update: January 2, 2014 S/27/2014 2:54 PM EXHIBIT M EXHIBIT M Exhibit M I, AndrewB.Sabey, declare as follows: 1. 1am a memberofthe State Bar of California, and Iam an attorney with the law firm of Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP,attorneys for Plaintiff and Respondent California Building Industry Association (“CBIA”). I makethis declaration in support of the CBIA’s Supplemental Motion for Judicial Notice filed concurrently. 2. Lhave personal knowledgeofthe matters set forth in this declaration, andif called uponto lestify to those matters, I could and would so testify. 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true andcorrect copy of an excerpt of OPR’s 2003 General Plan Guidelines from OPR’s official website [htip://opr.ca.gov/docs/General_Plan_Guidelines 2003.pdf] downloaded on May 27, 2014. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit Lis a true and correct copyof an excerpt of an excerpt ofthe environmental impactreport for the 5th and ColoradoTlotel Projects from the City of Santa Monica’sofficial websile [http://wwwsmgoy.net/departments/ped/plans-projects/] downloaded on May14, 2014. 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a truc andcorrect copy of Yingling Fan, et al., /s Spraw? Associated with a Widening Urban- Suburban Mortality Gap?, Journal of Urban Tealth: Bulletin ofthe New York Academyof Medicine, Vol. 86, No. 5, p. 717, 2009 fromthe U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health official website [http://wwwnebi.nlm.nib.gov/pubmed/19533362 }] downloaded on May 15, 2014. 6. Attachedhereto as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of Yara Halasa,et al, Quantifying the Impact of Mosquitoes on Quality of Life and Enjoyment of Yard and PorchActivities inNew Jersey, PLOS ONE,Volume9,Issue 3, 2014 from the PLoS One website [hup:/Awww.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri-info%3 Adoi%2 F10,1371%2Fjoumal pone.008922 | &representation=PDF] downloaded on May15, 2014. 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of a printout fromthe District’s official website [htip:/Avww.baaqmd.gow/Divisions/Planning-and-Researeh/CEQA- GUIDELINES.aspx} downloaded on May27, 2014. I declare underpenaltyofperjury, under the laws of the State of California,that the foregoingis true and correct. Executed this 28th day of May 2014 in San Francisco, California. ‘Andrew B. Sabey & Case No. 8213478 IN ‘THE SUPREME COURTOF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION Plaintiff and Respondent vs. BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENTDISTRICT Defendant and Appellant CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION’S MOTION FOR JUDICIALNOTICE After a Decisionby the Court ofAppealin a Published Opinion First Appellate District, No, A135335 & 4136212 On Appeal from a Judgment Alameda CountySuperior Court, No. RG10548693 Honorable Frank Roesch, Judgeofthe Superior Court |PROPOSED] ORDER The Court grants CBIA’s motionand takes judicial notice ofthe following documents: Exhibit H Exhibit _ Exhibit] Exhibit K Exhibit | Il 1S SO ORDERED. Dated: _, 2014 Justice ofthe Supreme Court 196251916225580¥1 PROOF OF SERVICE Tam employedin the County of San Francisco, State of California. 1 am overthe age of 18 andnota party to the within action; my business address is 555 California Street, 10th Floor, San Francisco, California 94104- 1513. On May 28, 2014,I servedthe foregoing document(s) deseribed as CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTIONFOR JUDICIAL NOTICE; DECLARATION OF ANDREWB. SABEY & [PROPOSED] ORDER on ALL JNTERESTED PARTIESinthis action by placing a truc copy thereofenclosed in a sealed envelope addressedasfollows: Please see attached Service List ‘Onthe abovedate: _x_ BY U,S.MAIL Thescaled envelope with postagethereon fully prepaid was placed for collection and mailing following ordinary business practices. I am aware that on motion ofthe partyserved,serviceis presumed invalid if the postage cancellation date or postage meter date on the envelope is more than one dayafter the date of deposit for mailing set forth in this, declaration. 1am readily familiar with Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP's practice for collection and processing of documents for mailing with the United States Postal Service and that the documents are deposited with the United States Postal Service the same day as the day of collection in the ordinary course ofbusiness. Therebycertify that the above document was printed on recycled paper. 1 declare under penaltyofperjury that the foregoingis truc and correct. Executed on May 28, 2014, at SanFrancisco, California. getOCs Michell Ho _ ngasigazsav6sve SERVICE LIST Supreme Court of California Case No, $213478 CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION,et al. v. BAYAREA QUALITY MANAGEMENTDISTRICT APPELLATE CASE NOS, A135335 & A136212 \Alameda County Superior “Party Bay Area Air Quality Ellison Folk ManagementDistrict: Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger Defendant and Appellant 396 HayesStreet Court Case No, RG10-548693 Courtof Appeal ofthe State of California First Appellate District, Div. 5, Appellate Case Nos. A135335 & A136212 06259 RR2NORNS San Francisco, CA 94102-4421 \ Brian Charles Bunger Bay Area Air Quality ManagementDistrict 939Ellis Street San Francisco, CA 94109 The Honorable Frank Roesch [Alameda County Superior Court 1221 Oak Street Oakland, CA 94612 Clerk ofthe Court Court of AppealoftheState of California First Appellate District, Division5 350 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA. 94102-3600 Tel: 415-865-7300 | VIA TIAND DELIVERY Clerk ofthe Supreme Court Supreme Court ofCalifornia 350 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102-4797 ‘Tel: 415-865-7000 (Original and 9 copies) [- Party Counsel for Amicus Curiae, South Coast Air Quality Management District Attorney Veera Tyagi South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765-0940 Tel: 909-396-3535 Fax: 909-396-2961 Email: vtyagi@aqmd.gov Counsel for Aovici Curiae, ‘LeagueofCaliforniaCities, County of Tulare, County of Kings, and County of Solano Arthur E. Coon MatthewC. Henderson 1331 N,California Blvd., 5" Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 ‘Tel: 925-935-9400 Fax: 925-933-4126 Email: arthur.coon@msrlegal.com [Counsel for Amicus Curiae, ‘Communities for a Better Environment Adriano }., Martinez Rarthjustice 50 California Street, Suite 500 ;San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: 415-217-2000 Fax: 415-217-2040 [Counsel for Amicus Curise, Center for Biological ‘Diversity, Sierra Club, The (Natural Resources Defense Council, andthe Planning and Conservation League Matthew Vespa Sierra Club 185 2nd Street, 2" Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel; 415-977-5753 Fax: 415-977-5793 Email: matt.vespas@sierraclub.org, ‘Kevin P, Bundy Center for Biological Diversity 351 California Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94104 rel: 415-436-9682 x. 313 fax: 415-436-9683 Email: kbundy@biologicaldiversity.org 6251992520685 ee Counsel for Amicus Curiae, California Chapter of the American Planning Association and California Association of Environmental Professionals Counsel for Amicus Curiae, ‘Center for Creative Land Reeyeling,etaf dea toiazs2n686 Attorney William P. Parkin Wittwer Parkin LLP 147 S. River Strect, Suite 221 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 iTel: 831-429-4055 Re 831-429-4057 |Email: ‘Stephen L. Kostka Geoffrey L. Robinson Perkins Coie LLP San Francisco, CA 94111-4131 415-344-7000 415-344-7050 wparkin@wittwerparkin.com Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 2400 b e e
