CC 2013-11-26_09.b. Draft Climate Action PlanTO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
CITY COUNCIL
TERESA McCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
~~.KELLY HEFFERNON, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
CONSIDERATION OF STAFF PROJECT NO. 13-003; DRAFT
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN (CAP); CITYWIDE
· NOVEMBER 26, 2013
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt a Resolution approving
Staff Project No. 13-003, thereby adopting a Negative Declaration and approving the
Draft Climate Action Plan (CAP).
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
No financial impact is identified at this time. There will be additional staff time necessary
to implement the policies and progra.ms of the CAP. Program costs/savings for the City
and the community vary between implementation measures.. Chapter 5 lists potential
funding sources for energy, transportation and solid waste programs. Overall; the staff
time necessary to implement every program in the plan would be equivalent to one and
a half full time staff. However, it is anticipated that about half of the staff time allocated
to implementing the CAP will be integrated into existing work programs.
BACKGROUND:
AB32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act, was signed into law in 2006. The
law sets in place a comprehensive greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction
program, requiring the State's GHG emissions to be reduced to 1990 levels by the year
2020. In response to this legislation, cities and counties across the State have been
working to adopt and implement climate action plans, or similarly named documents.
As of August 2012, 205 California public agencies had adopted a plan to reduce GHG
emissions and 105 agencies were in progress of adopting a CAP.
A CAP is a document that includes policies, measures and strategies to improve the
health, safety, mobility and livability of the community. The objectives of a CAP are to
reduce GHG emissions, streamline California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review
by serving as a "qualified GHG reduction plan", and prioritize measures to comply with
California environmental and land use planning laws. Although a CAP is not required by
State law and therefore there are no penalties if the City fails to adopt a CAP or meet
the goals set by AB 32, the incentives of minimizing potential litigation and streamlining
the CEQA process alone are persuasive. Development projects that are consistent with
Item 9.b. - Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 26, 2013
STAFF PROJECT NO. 13-003; CAP
PAGE2
a qualified CAP would not result in "significant" GHG emissions in the context of CEQA
and no further analysis would be required.
There are many benefits associated with the City's CAP project. This plan will allow
Arroyo Grande to take credit for many of its existing policies and will enable streamlined
CEQA review for future development projects and other activities. Adopting a CAP will
also help the City leverage future grant funding opportunities related to energy
conservation by increasing the City's eligibility.
To date, the following tasks have been accomplished towards completing the City's
CAP:
-Conducted a 2005 baseline GHG emissions inventory in 2010 for both City
government operations and community-wide. The inventory was updated in
2012.
Participated with the Cities of Atascadero, Grover Beach, Morro Bay,· Paso
Robles and Pismo Beach to prepare a "San Luis Obispo County Regional
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan", which included a customized CAP for each
jurisdiction. This was accomplished through a $400,000 grant from PG&E,
SoCal Gas Company, and the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control
District (APCD).
-Conducted four (4) public workshops at different locations in the County over the
last year.
Conducted study sessions with the Planning Commission on December 18, 2012
and January 15, 2013 to discuss pr6posed GHG emissions reduction measures
using the GHG Reduction Plan Toolbox. During these study sessions, staff
encouraged the Planning Commission to consider the following criteria:
• Potential to reduce GHG emissions.
• Measurability.
• City costs, including staff time.
• Private sector costs and savings.
• Enforceability.
Completed the environmental review and Draft CAP.
Held a public hearing on November 5, 2013 with the Planning Commission on
the Draft CAP. There were no public comments and the Planning Commission
recommended approval of the document to City Council with no changes.
Participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan provided several
benefits, including:
Region-wide consistency of GHG reduction strategies.
Consistency with AB32.
Development of a r:nodel GHG reduction plan toolbox.
-A comprehensive regional public engagement program.
-Tailored GHG reduction plans for each participating jurisdiction.
Item 9.b. - Page 2
CITY COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 26, 2013
STAFF PROJECT NO. 13-003;,CAP
PAGE3
'ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
The CAP is a long-range plan to reduce GHG emissions from community-wide activities
and CitY government operations within the City to support the State's efforts under
AB32 and to mitigate the community's contribution to global climate change.
Specifically, the CAP does the following: ·
• Summarizes the results of the 2005 GHG emissions inventory update, which
identifies the major sources a.nd quantities of GHG emissions produced within
. Arroyo Grande and forecasts how these emissions may change over time.
• Identifies the quantity of GHG emissions that Arroyo Grande will need to reduce
to meet the State.:.recommended target of 15% below 2005 levels by the year
2020.
• Sets forth City government and community-wide GHG reduction measures,
including performance standards which, if implemented, would collectively
achieve the specified emission reduction target.
• Identifies proactive strategies that can be implemented to help Arroyo Grande
prepare for anticipated climate change impacts.
• Sets forth procedures to implement, .monitor, and verify the effectiveness of the
CAP measures and modify efforts as necessary.
The City used 2005 _as the baseline year for the emissions inventory and not 1990 as
specified in AB32 for two primary reasons: 1) SB375 uses 2005 as the baseline year to
determine compliance with the emission reduction targets of 7% by 2020 and 15% by
2035 for cars and trucks, and 2) 2005 is a common baseline year for data collection by
municipalities, which allows benchmarking of Arroyo Grande's emissions relative to
other cities of similar size and climate conditions. Many cities throughout California
have used 2005 as a baseline year for this purpose.
The CAP strategy is primarily based upon the premise that reduced GHG emissions will
occur with the implementation of City incentive programs and ordinances that will
change people's behavior and governmental operations. Because a CAP is a policy
document with goals and a work plan that are intended to be implemented over time,
most action measures do not all go into effect immediately. Programs take time to be
implemented and generally require adoption of ordinances or policies prior to seeing
any actual changes take place.
The goals of the plan are to reduce the amount of driving, increase the options available
for people to use less polluting and energy-consuming modes of transportation (e.g.
walking, bicycling, and transit), increase energy efficiency in buildings, improve
government operations, and reduce water consumption. The CAP identifies
implementation strategies with specific actions to clarify how emission reductions would
occur.
Item 9.b. - Page 3
I
CITY COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 26, 2013
STAFF PROJECT NO. 13-003; CAP
PAGE4 ·
The CAP, provided under separate cover, is organized as follows:
Executive Summary
·chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Purpose and Scope
1.2 Content
1.3 Background and Planning Process
1.4 Relationship to CEQA
1.5 Scientific Background
1.6 Climate Change Impacts
1. 7 Implications for Arroyo Grande
1.8 Regulatory Background
Chapter 2: GHG Emissions and Reduction Target
2.1 2005 Baseline GHG Emissions
2.2 2020 GHG Emissions Forecast
2.3 GHG Emissions Reduction Target
Chapter 3: Climate Action Measures
3.1 Chapter Organization
3.2 City Government Operations Measures
3.3 Community-wide Measures
3.4 GHG Reduction Summary
Chapter 4: Adaptation
4.1 Climate Change Predictions and Vulnerability
4.2 Adaptation Measures
Chapter 5: Implementation and Monitoring
5.1 Implementation Matrix
5.2 Implementation and Monitoring Policies
5.3 Funding Sources
Chapter 6: References and Preparers
6.1 References
6.2 List of Preparers
According to the GHG emissions inventory, Arroyo Grande emitted approximately
84,399 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent GHG emissions (MT C0 2e) in 2005,
resulting from activities that took place within the transportation, residential energy use,
commercial and industrial energy use, off-road, and solid waste sectors. The largest
· contributors of GHG emissions were the transportation (44%), residential energy use
(30%) and commercial/industrial energy' use (14%) sectors. Under the business-as-
Item 9.b. - Page 4
CITY COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 26, 2013
STAFF PROJECT NO. 13-003; CAP
PAGES
usual scenario, the. City's community-wide GHG em1ss1ons are projected to grow
approximately 11 % above 2005 GHG emissions levels by the year 2020.
There are several statewide measures that have either been approved, programmed
and/or adopted that would reduce GHG emissions within Arroyo Grande (e.g. energy
efficiency requirements of Title 24, implementation of the Renewable Portfolio Standard
that requires the increased production of energy from renewable energy sources, etc.).
These State measures require no additional local action. The City has also implemented
a number of local measures since 2005 that will reduce. the community's GHG
emissions with no further action (e.g. water conservation requirements,· energy
efficiency audits and improvements, etc.). These measures were incorporated into the
forecast and reduction assessment to create an "adjusted forecast scenario," which
provides a more accurate picture of future emissions growth and the responsibility of the
City. .
Under the adjusted scenario, GHG emissions are projected to decreas~ approximately
19% below the business-as-usual scenario in 2020. The table below summarizes the
reduction in local GHG emissions that would result from State and local measures
compared to the business-as-usual forecast and the adjusted forecast.
s ummaryo f State R d f e uc ions an d Ad" ted F IJUS orecas t
2020 Reductio11
(MTCO~)
Business-as-Usual Forecast 93,513
Reduction from State Regulations -16,940
Reduction from Local Measures -920
Total Reduction from State and Local Measures -17,860
Adjusted Forecast 75,653
Based on this adjustment, the City's 2020 targeted GHG emissions would be 71,739
metric tons (MT) carbon dioxide equivalent (C02e) as indicated in the table below. To-
meet this target, the City will need to reduce its GHG emissions 5% (or 3,914 MT C02e)
below the adju~ted forecast by 2020 through implementation of local climate action
measures and implementation actions.
Item 9.b. - Page 5
CITY· COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 26, 2013
STAFF PROJECT NO. 13-003; CAP
PAGE6
-.
.-
2005 Baseline Emissions
2020 Adjusted Forecast
Target (15% below 2005 levels by 2020)
Remaining_ Gap Necessary to Meet Target
GHG Emissions -
.(MT CO:ze)
84,399
75,653
71,739
3,914
To achieve the GHG emissions reduction target of 15% below 2005 levels by,2020 and
prepare for the anticipated effects of climate change, the CAP identifies a
comprehensive set of climate action measures. These CAP measures are organized
into the following focus areas, or categories: City Government Operations, Energy,
Transportation and Land Use, Off-Road, Solid Waste, Tree Planting, and Adaptation.
The climate action measures were selected based on careful consideration of the
emission reductions needed to achieve the target, the distribution of emissions in the
GHG emissions inventory, existing priorities and resources, -and the potential costs and
benefits of each climate action measure.
Collectively, the climate action measures identified in the CAP have the potential to
reduce GHG emissions within Arroyo Grande by 5,371 MT C02e by 2020 and therefore
meet the proposed GHG emission reduction target with latitude. Importantly, developing
and reviewing the action measures provides an opportunity to evaluate additional cost
efficiencies in City operations, identify available programs to reduce energy costs for
low income families and promote disaster preparedness.
The core of the document is Chapter 5, which summarizes the selected GHG emission
reduction measures. The implementation matrix identifies the responsible Department,
, implementation time frame, City cost and savings estimates, GHG reduction potential,
and performance indicator. A summary of the selected measures is provided below.
Item 9.b. - Page 6
CITY COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 26, 2013
STAFF PROJECT NO. 13-003; CAP
PAGE7
mpemen taf M t. ion a r1.x
J
L{
Measure-Actions
.. ocal Government Operations
C-1: City C-1.1: Formalize the City
Government Energy government energy use reduction
Efficiency Retrofits goal of 20 percent.
and Upgrades. C-1.2: Complete energy audits and
Establish a goal to benchmarking of all City-owned or
reduce City -operated facilities, leveraging
government energy existing programs, such as
use by 20 percent by PG&E's Automated Benchmarking
2020 and implement Service or the U.S. EPA's
cost-effective ENERGY STAR Challenge
improvements and program.
upgrades to achieve C-1.3: Maintain a regular
that goal. maintenance schedule for heating
and cooling, ventilation and other
building functions.
C-1.4: Establish a prioritized list of
energy efficiency upgrade projects
and implement them as funding
becomes available.
C-2: City C-2.1: Conduct an inventory of
Government Energy existing outdoor public light
Efficient Public fixtures.
Realm Lighting. C-2.2: Continue to identify and
Continue to replace secure funding to replace
City-owned or -inefficient City-owned or -operated
operated street, traffic public lighting.
signal, park, and
parking lot lights with
higher efficiency lamp
technologies.
C-3: Energy C-3.1 : Adopt a policy to exceed
Efficiency 2013 Title 24 building efficiency
Requirements for standards by 20 percent.
New City-owned
· Buildings. Adopt a
policy to exceed
minimum Title 24
Building Energy
Efficiency Standards
by 20 percent for the
construction or
renovation of new City
buildinQs and facilities.
C-4: Zero-and Low-C-4.1: Replace 1 O vehicles with
Emission City Fleet zero-emission or low-emission
Vehicles. Replace vehicles by 2020.
City City 2020 GHG Responsible
Department Cost Sayings Reduction
(MTCO~)·
c
Public Works Varies Medium 48
Public Works Low Low 7
Building Low Very 8
Division Low
~II City Medium Very 13
Departments Low
Item 9.b. - Page 7
CITY COUNCIL
. NOVEMBER 26, 2013
STAFF PROJECT NO. 13-003; CAP
PAGES
Measure Actions
official City vehicles
with zero-emission
and low-emission
vehicles, including
smaller, hybrid,
electric, compressed
natural gas, biodiesel,
and neighborhood
electric vehicles.
C-5: City C-5.1: Develop and adopt a City
Government Solid purchasing policy that emphasizes
Waste Reduction. recycled and recyclable materials.
Adopt a 15 percent
solid waste diversion
rate over 2005
baseline levels and
identify steps to meet
that rate by 2020.
C-6: City C-6.1 : Develop and adopt a formal
Government Tree tree planting policy or program and
Planting Program. plant at least 250 trees by 2020.
Establish a tree C-6.2: Identify and secure grant
planting program to funding to plant trees on City
increase the number properties.
of native, drought-
tolerant trees on City-
owned property, parks
and streetscapes.
Energy
E-1: Energy E-1.1: Conduct additional outreach
Efficiency Outreach and promotional activities, either
and Incentive individually or in collaboration with
Programs. Expand San Luis Obispo County Energy
participation in and the Watch, targeting specific groups or
promotion of existing sectors within the community (e.g.,
programs, such as homeowners, renters, businesses,
Energy Upgrade etc.).
California and San E-1.2: Designate one week per
Luis Obispo County year to conduct an energy
Energy Watch, and efficiency outreach campaign·
develop new targeting a specific group. The
incentives to increase campaign week can also be used
community awareness to recognize and encourage
of existing energy programs and educational
efficiency rebates and outreach conducted by industry
financial incentives. organizations, non-governmental
entities, government agencies, and
other community groups.
E-1.3: Direct community members
Responsible City City 2020GHG
Reduction Department Cost Savings (MT C02e)
'
.
Administrative Low None 1
Services
Public Works Low None 3
~lanning · Very None 141
Division, Low
Building
Division
Item 9.b. - Page 8
CITY COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 26, 2013
STAFF PROJECT N0.13-003; CAP
PAGE9
Measure Actions
to existing program websites, such
as Energy Upgrade California and
San Luis Obispo County Energy
Watch.
E-1.4: Work with the County of
San Luis Obispo and other
partners to offer increased
incentives to residential and
commercial property owners to
install energy efficiency retrofit
improvements.
E-2: Energy Audit and E-2.1: Collaborate with San Luis
Retrofit Program. Obispo County Energy Watch,
Facilitate voluntary local utilities, and local jurisdictions
energy assessments, to develop and promote a
retrofits, and residential and commercial energy
retrocommissioning of audit program.
residential and E-2.2: Conduct outreach and
commercial buildings promotional activities targeting
within Arroyo Grande. specific groups (e.g., owners of
buildings built prior to Title 24
[1980]) in order to promote the
audit and retrofit program.
E-2.3: As part of the business
licensing and renewal process,
encourage businesses to
participate in the program and
receive an energy audit.
E-2.4: Participate in and promote
an energy efficiency financing
program to encourage investment
in residential and commercial
energy efficiency building·
upgrades.
E-2.5: Work with Energy Upgrade
California, local utilities, and/or
community businesses and
organizations, to annually conduct
a "do-it-yourself' workshop for
building energy retrofits._
E-2.6: Highlight the effectiveness
of energy audits and retrofits by
showcasing the success of retrofit
projects (e.g., on the City's website
or in its newsletter).
E-3: Income-.E-3.1: Facilitate. and promote
Qualified Energy existing income-qualified
Efficient weatherization programs, such as
Weatherization PG&E's Middle Income Direct
Responsible ~ity City 2020 GHG
Reduction Department Cost .Savings (MT C02e)
Building Very None 151
bivision, Low
!Planning
Division
01anning Very None 126
Division, Low -
Building
Division,
Item 9.b. - Page 9
CITY COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 26, 2013
STAFF PROJECT NO. 13-003; CAP
PAGE10
Measure Actions
Programs. Facilitate Install program, either individually
energy efficient or by partnering with a local
weatherization of low-organization.
and middle-income
housing through
promotion of existing
programs.
E-4: Energy E-4.1: Develop and adopt a local
Conservation residential energy conservation
Ordinance. Require ordinance, including establishment
through a new City of a maximum cost ceiling.
ordinance that cost-
effective energy
efficiency upgrades in
existing buildings be
implemented at point
of sale or during major
renovation of
residential units. A
maximum cost ceiling
would be established
to protect owners from
excessive fees.
E-5: Incentives for E-5.1 : Collaborate with community
Exceeding Title 24 organizations and businesses,
Energy Efficiency local utilities, and other local
Building Standards. jurisdictions in the region to
Provide incentives develop and promote a technical
(e.g., priority assistance and best practices
permitting, reduced program that aids developers in
permit fees, etc.} for selecting and implementing energy
new development efficiency measures that exceed
and/or major remodels State standards.
that voluntarily exceed E-5.2: Identify, provide and
State energy efficiency promote incentives (e.g., expedited
standards by 20 or streamlined permitting, deferred
percent. fees, public recognition, etc.} for
applicants whose project exceeds
State requirements by 20 percent.
E-5.3: Update building permit
process to incentivize higher
building performance (e.g.
buildings that integrate and
optimize major high-performance
building attributes, including
energy efficiency, durability, and
life-cycle performance}.
E-5.4: Launch an educational
camoaian for builders, permit
Responsible City City 2020 GHG
Reduction Department Cost Savings (MT C02e)
~dministrative
!Services
IBuilding Low None 621
Division,
~lanning
Division
Building Very None 117
Division, Low
Planning
Division
Item 9.b. - Page 10
CITY COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 26, 2013
STAFF PROJECT NO. 13-003; CAP
PAGE11
Measure Actions -
'
applicants, and the general public
to promote best practices and
incentive programs; provide
information and assistance about
energy efficiency options online
and at permit counter.
E-6: Energy Efficient E-6.1 : Develop and adopt an
Public Realm ordinance that requires new
Lighting development to utilize high
Requirements. efficiency lights in parking lots,
Require through a new streets, and other public areas.
City ordinance that
new development
utilize high efficiency
lights in parking lots,
streets, and other
public areas.
E-7: Small-Scale On-E-7.1: Collaborate with other local
Site Solar PV jurisdictions in the region to
Incentive Program. standardize requirements across
Facilitate the voluntary jurisdiction, by using common
installation of small-promotion and permit materials,
scale on-site solar PV such as checklists and standard
systems and solar hot plans, to reduce permit submittal
water heaters in the errors among contractors working
community through throughout a region.
expanded promotion E-7.2: Participate in and promote a
of existing financial renewable energy financing
incentives, rebates, program for residential and non-
and financing residential property owners.
programs, and by E-7.3: Expand education on and
helping the average promotion of existing incentive,
resident and business rebate, and financing programs for
overcome common small-scale on-site solar PV
regulatory barriers and systems and solar hot water
upfront capital costs. heaters targeting specific groups
or sectors within the communitv.
E-8: Income-E-8.1 : Collaborate with Grid
Qualified Solar PV Alternatives and other community
Program. Facilitate organizations to provide targeted
the installation of education and outreach to
small-scale on-site developers and homeowners
solar PV systems on about incentives offered through
and solar hot water the Multifamily Affordable Solar
heaters in income-Homes (MASH) Program.
qualified housing units E-8.2: Provide targeted outreach
by promoting existing regarding solar water heating
programs offered incentives offered through the
through the California California Solar Initiative.
Responsible City City 2020 GHG
Reduction Department Cost Savings (MT C02e)
Planning Very Very 8
Division Low Low
Building Very None 439
Pivision, Low
Planning
Division
Building Very None 139
Division, Low
Planning
Division
Item 9.b. - Page 11
CITY COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 26, 2013
STAFF PROJECT NO. 13-003; CAP
PAGE12
Measure Actions
Solar Initiative and
New Solar Homes
Partnership and by
collaborating with
organizations, such as
Grid Alternatives, on
outreach and
eligibility.
Transportation and Land Use
TL-1: Bicycle TL-1.1: Continue to pursue public
Network. Continue to and private funding to expand and
improve and expand link the City's bicycle network in
the City's bicycle accordance with the General Plan
network and and Bicycle Plan.
infrastructure. TL-1.2: Collaborate with the San
Luis Obispo Bicycle Coalition to
assist with event promotions and
publications to increase awareness
and ridership during Bike Month.
TL-2: Pedestrian TL-2.1: Continue to pursue public
Network. Continue to and private funding to expand and
improve and expand link the City's pedestrian network.
the City's pedestrian. TL-2.2: Continue to expand and
network. promote the Safe Routes to School
program.
TL-3: Transit Travel. TL-3.1: Coordinate with RT A and
Work with the South County Transit to facilitate
Regional Transit the use of transit by increasing its
Authority (RT A) and safety, cleanliness, and
South County Transit accessibility.
to increase transit TL-3.2: Through the development
ridership. review process, require new
development to provide safe and
convenient access to public transit
within and/or contiguous to the
project area as feasible.
TL-4: Transportation TL-4.1: Conduct additional
Demand outreach through event promotions
Management (TOM) and publications, targeting specific
Incentives. Work with groups or sectors within the
San Luis Obispo community (e.g., employers,
Regional Ride Share employees, students, seniors,
and Ride-On to etc.).
conduct additional TL-4.2: Provide information on and
outreach and promote existing employer based
marketing of existing TOM programs as part of the
TOM programs and business licensing and renewal
incentives to . process.
discourage single-TL-4.3: Continue to collaborate
Responsible City City 2020 GHG
Reduction Department Cost Savings (MT C02e)
~ngineering Very None 140
Division, Low
Planning
Division
Planning None None 119
Division,
~ngineering
Division
Planning Very None Supportive
Division Low (GHG
reductions
from this
measure are
supportive o
and grouped
under
Measure TL
7)
Planning Very None 35
Division, City Low
Manager
Item 9.b. - Page 12
CITY COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 26, 2013
STAFF PROJECT NO. 13-003; CAP
PAGE13
'
Measure Actions
occupancy vehicle with San Luis Obispo Ride Share
trips and encourage and the San Luis Obispo Bicycle
alternative modes of Coalition to assist with event
transportatio-n, such as promotions and publications to
carpooling, taking increase awareness and ridership
transit, walking, and during Bike Month and Rideshare
biking. month.
TL-4.4: Direct community
members to existing program
websites (e.g., Ride Share, Ride-
On) by providing links on the City's
website.
TL-5: Parking Supply TL-5.1: Continue to implement
Management. Reduce reduced parking requirements
parking requirements where appropriate.
in areas such as the
downtown· where a
variety of uses and
services are planned
in close proximity to
each other and to
transit.
TL-6: Electric Vehicle TL-6.1: Continue to develop and
Network and implement the electric vehicle
Alternative Fueling readiness plan through expanding
Stations. Continue to the use of alternative fuel vehicles
work with the APCD, and fueling stations in the
Central Coast Clean community (e.g., through
Cities Coalition, and identifying and zoning locations for
neighboring fueling stations, offering incentives
jurisdictions to create for alternative fuel vehicles, etc.).
and implement the TL-6.2: Provide streamlined
electric vehicle installation and permitting
readiness plan. procedures for vehicle charging
facilities, utilizing tools provided in
the electric vehicle readiness plan
(e.g., sample charging permits,
model ordinances, development
guidelines, outreach programs).
TL-6.3: Continue to pursue funding
for plug-in electric vehicle charging
stations.
TL-7: Smart Growth. TL-7.1: Provide and promote
Identify and implement incentives (e.g., parkir:ig
additional incentives to reductions, priority permitting, etc.)
encourage mixed-use, for mixed-use and very high-
higher density, and infill density development that has a
development near minimum density of 20 dwelling
existing or planned units per acre and is located within
City City 2020 GHG Responsible Reduction Department Cost Savings· (MT C02e)
Planning Very ·None 19
Division Low
.,
Building Very None 1,056
Division, Low
Planning
Division, Public
Works
Planning Very None 1,731
Division Low
Item 9.b. - Page 13
CITY COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 26, 2013
STAFF PROJECT N0.13-003; CAP
PAGE14
Measure Actions
transit stops, in existing X-mile of an existing or planned
community transit stop or park and ride facility
centers/downtown, and with regularly scheduled, daily
in other designated service.
areas. TL-7.2: Develop an incentive-
based (form based) zoning code
for the central business
districUdowntown. Incentive-based
codes emphasize building form
rather than use. This increases
flexibility for a variety of
complementary uses to be
permitted in the same area, and
the potential for mixed-use
development, which helps to
reduce vehicle miles traveled.
Off-Road
0-1: Off-Road Vehicle 0-1.1: Conduct additional outreach
and Equipment and promotional activitiestargeting
Upgrades, Retrofits, specific groups (e.g., agricultural
and Replacements. operations, construction
Continue to work with companies, homeowners, etc.).
the APCD and promote 0-1.2: Direct community members
to existing program websites (e.g., existing programs that APCD, Carl Moyer Grant page).
fund off-road vehicle
and equipment
upgrades, retrofits, and
replacement through
the Carl Moyer heavy-
duty vehicle and
equipment program or
other funding
mechanisms.
Solid Waste
S-1: Recycling at S-1.1: Develop and adopt an event
Public Events. The recycling ordinance.
City would adopt an
ordinance requiring
the provision of
·recycling receptacles
at all events requiring
a permit or held on
City-owned or -
operated property.
Tree Planting
T-1: Tree Planting T-1.1: Develop a tree planting
Program. Develop a assistance program.
Responsible City City 2020 GHG
Reduction Department Cost Savings (MT C02e)
Public Works, ~ery None 440
Planning l-ow
Division
Recreation Very None 3
Services Low
ublic Works Low None 6
Item 9.b. - Page 14
CITY COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 26, 2013
STAFF PROJECT NO. 13-003; CAP
PAGE15
..
Measure Actions
program to facilitate T-1.2: Develop and adopt tree
voluntary tree planting planting guidelines that address
within the community, tree and site selection. Emphasis
working with local non-should be placed on native,
profit organizations drought-tolerant trees.
and community
partners. Develop and
adopt tree planting
guidelines that
address tree and site
selection.
Adaptation
A-1: Climate Change A-1.1: Participate in inter-agency
Vulnerability. Identify and or inter-jurisdictional meeting
and periodically and planning activities to identify
reassess regional and periodically reassess regional
climate change climate change vulnerabilities.
vulnerabilities. A-1.2: Incorporate newly identified
.adaptation measures into planning
documents as appropriate.
A-2: Public Health A-2.1: Collaborate with
and Emergency community-based organizations
Preparedness. (such as health care providers,
Prepare for anticipated public health advocates, fire
climate change effects prevention organizations, etc.) to
on public health, the disseminate public preparedness
local economy, and and emergency response
populations that may information related to climate
beara change.
disproportionate A-2.2: Conduct training exercises
burden of the climate at public forums as well as
change effects. distribute publicly available
information on emergency exit
routes and methods.
A-2.3: Identify and focus planning
and outreach programs on
vulnerable populations including
neighborhoods that currently
experience social or environmental
injustice or bear a disproportionate
burden of potential public health
impacts.
A-2.4: Prepare a heat wave
J response plan that focuses on -
responding to the increased
propensity for heat-related death
and illness.
A-2.5: Coordinate and promote
coolino centers for residents who'
2020 GHG Responsible City City
Reduction Department Cost Savings (MT C02e)
Planning Very None NA
Division Low
;:ive Cities Fire Very None NA
~uthority, Low
!Planning
Division
Item 9.b. - Page 15
CITY COUNCIL.
NOVEMBER 26, 2013
STAFF PROJECT NO. 13-003; CAP
PAGE16
Measure Actions
may require refuge from hot days,
particularly low-income households
and senior citizens.
A-2.6: Coordinate with the City's
Fire and Police Departments to
bolster wildfire preparedness and
defensiveness for residents and
businesses through providing
information on the City's website
and conducting trainings promoting
mechanical fuel management and
increasing the area of defensible
space around structures.
A-3: Water A-3.1 : Collaborate with other
Management. jurisdictions to address water
Implement new supply threats, flooding, and
policies and programs wastewater management.
to limit community A-3.2: Continue to seek grants and
exposure to threats other sources of funding, including
such as flooding, and the State Integrated Regional
support those that Water Management Grant
encourage water use Program and mitigation
conservation and opportunities, to enhance flood
efficiency. control and improve water aualitv.
Measure A-4: A-4.1: Assess the potential impact
Infrastructure. Work of climate _change as part of the
to improve the update of plans that manage
resilience of systems community infrastructure systems.
that provide the A-4.2: Complete an assessment,
resources and including economic impacts and
services critical to threats to public health and safety,
community function. for projected climate change
impacts on local transportation,
water, wastewater, stormwater,
energy, and communication
systems.
A-4.3: Develop mitigation plans for
protection of the wastewater
treatment facility, the high school,
and the relocation or elevation of
vulnerable infrastructure.
Responsible City City· 2020 GHG
Reduction Department Cost Savings (MT C02e)
Public Works, Very None NA
Planning Low
Division
Public Works, Very None NA
i::ive Cities Fire Low
Authority,
Planning
Division,
[Building
Division, -
Engineering
Division,
~dministrative
Services, City
Manager
It is anticipated that the City will re-inventory GHG emissions every five (5) years to
evaluate the performance of the CAP and make amendments as necessary to remain
on track.
Item 9.b. - Page 16
CITY COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 26, 2013
STAFF PROJECT NO. 13-003; CAP
PAGE17
ADVANTAGES:
The CAP is a long-range plan to reduce GHG em1ss1ons from City government
operations and community activities within Arroyo Grande and to prepare for the
anticipated effects of climate change. The CAP will help the City achieve multiple
community goals such as lowering ,energy costs, reducing air pollution, supporting local
economic development, and improving public health and safety. Adopting the CAP will
allow Arroyo Grande to take credit for many of its existing policies and will enable
streamlined CEQA review for future development projects and other activities. Adopting
a CAP will also help the City leverage future grant funding opportunities related to
energy conservation.
DISADVANTAGES:
The costs associated with implementing the GHG emissions reduction measures vary
widely and are uncertain. Grant funding is an option, but is not a reliable revenue
source.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Staff has reviewed the Climate Action Plan in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has prepared an Initial Study and Draft Negative·
Declaration (Attachment 1 ). If the Negative Declaration is not adopted, the document
cannot be approved.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
A Public Notice was placed in the Tribune on Friday November 15, 2013 for the City
Council hearing. The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, November 21,
2013. The Agenda and report were posted on the City's website on Friday, November
22, 2013. To date, staff has not received any public comments.
Attachments:
1. Initial Study/Draft Negative Declaration
2. The Climate Action Plan was provided in-electronic format under separate cover
(the document can be viewed at City Hall, the South County Library, or online at
www.arroyogrande.org).
3. Public Correspondence
Item 9.b. - Page 17
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING STAFF PROJECT
NO. 13-003 AND ADOPTING AN INITIAL
STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION; CLIMATE ACTION
PLAN (CAP); CITYWIDE .
WHEREAS, global climate change is an issue that the State of California has
determined to be of statewide concern and mandates local action throughout all of
California; and
WHEREAS, with the enactment of Assembly Bill 32 (AB32), the California Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006, local governments are tasked with addressing emission
sources under their purview that contribute to climate change; and
WHEREAS, in March 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 4174 to join the
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives -Local Governments for
Sustainability (ICLEI) in order to conduct a greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventory
for the City of Arroyo Grande; and
WHEREAS, in April 2010, the City Council received the GHG inventory report, which
was updated in 2012; and ·
WHEREAS, through support from the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) Green
Communities Program and Southern California Gas Company, the San Luis Obispo
County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) secured funds to assist the cities of Arroyo
Grande, Atascadero, Grover Beach, Morro Bay, Paso Robles and Pismo Beach to prepare
a GHG emissions reduction plan for each jurisdiction and the region; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held study.sessions on December 18, 2012 and
January 15, 2013 to discuss GHG emissions reduction measures to include in the CAP;
and -
WHEREAS, on November 5, 2013 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this
staff project in accordance with City Code and recommended approval to the City Council
with no amendments to the document; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing on this staff project in accordance
with City Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has found that this project is consistent with the General Plan
and the environmental documents associated therewith; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed this project in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that a Negative Declaration can
be adopted.
Item 9.b. - Page 18
RESOLUTION NO.
NOVEMBER 26, 2013
PAGE2
WHEREAS, the City. Council finds after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the
following circumstances exist:
1. The proposed plan will promote the public health, safety, convenience, and
general welfare of the residents of Arroyo Grande. Evidence of global climate
change has been observed in the form of increased global temperatures, rising
sea levels, decreased snow-pack in mountainous regions, retreating glaciers,
increased species extinction and range shifts and an increase in floods and
wildfires. Furthermore, the international scientific community is convinced that
deforestation, emissions from burning fossil fuels, and other industrial processes
are the primary factors contributing to climate change. Locally, climate change
may result in increased sea levels, decreased air quality, increased fire hazard
and decreased water supply. The CAP provides the guidance and policies
necessary to implement programs that will reduce greenhouse gases to minimize
the effect of global climate change.
2. The proposed plan is in conformance with the purposes of the General Plan and
all applicable, officially adopted policies and plans. The CAP supports general
policies that encourage reducing traffic, improving public transit service,
increasing safety for pedestrians and bicyclists, reducing flood and fire hazards,
improving air quality and promoting energy conservation.
3. The proposed plan will have no substantial adverse effect upon the environment.
By reducing the local impacts of global climate change, the CAP will help to
ensure that Arroyo Grande remains an environmentally responsible community
that is a desirable place to live, work and play. No adverse environmental
impacts associated with the implementation of the CAP have been identified.
4. The proposed plan is a qualified CAP per the CEQA Guidelines and the San Luis
Obispo County Air Pollution Control District handbook for streamlining.
5. A copy of the CAP, staff reports and communications are on file in the
Community Development Department.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of arroyo
Grande hereby approves Staff Project No. 13-003, thereby adopting the Climate Action
Plan and Negative Declaration.
On motion of Council Member
the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
, seconded by Council Member , and on
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 26th day of November, 2013.
Item 9.b. - Page 19
RESOLUTION NO.
NOVEMBER 26, 2013
PAGE3
TONY FERRARA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
Item 9.b. - Page 20
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
Draft
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Prepared for:
City of Arroyo Grande
300 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Contact: Kelly Heffernan, Associate Planner
(805) 473-5420
kheffernon@arroyogrande.org
Prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
1530 Monterey Street, Suite D
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
October 2013
ATTACHMENT 1
Item 9.b. - Page 21
This page intentionally left blank
Item 9.b. - Page 22
City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan
Initial Study -Negative Declaration
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Page
Legal Authority ................................................................................................................................ 1
Impact Analysis and Significance Classification ............................................................................. 2
Initial Study
Project Title .................................................................................. ~ ................................................... 3
Lead Agency Name and Address ..................................................................................................... 3
Contact Person and Phone Number ................................................................................................. 3
Project Location ................................................................................................................................ 3
Project Sponsor's Name and Address .............................................................................................. 3
General Plan Designation ................................... , ............................................................................ 3
Zoning ............................................................................................................................................ 3
Description of Project ................................................................................................. : .................... 3
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting ................................................................................................ 9
Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required ...................................................................... 9
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .................................................................................. I 0
Determination ................................................................................................................................ 10
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ........................................................................................... 11
Aesthetics ................................................................................................................................. 11
Agriculture and Forest Resources ............................................................................................ 14
Air Quality ............................................................................................................................... 15
Biological Resources ............................................................................................................... 17
Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................... 19
Geology and Soils .............................................................................................................. · ...... 20
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................................................................................................... 21
Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................... 23
Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................................. 24
Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................ 26
Mineral Resources ................................................................................................................... 27
Noise ........................................................................................................................................ 28
Population and Housing ........ · ................................................................................................... 29 ·
Public Services .......................................................................................................................... 30
Recreation ................................................................................................................................ 31
Transportation/Traffic .............................................................................................................. 31
Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................................... 33
Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................................................................................ 34
References ...................................................................................................................................... 36
City of Arroyo Grande
Item 9.b. - Page 23
City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan
Initial Study -Negative Declaration
This page intentionally left blank
ii
City of Arroyo Grande
Item 9.b. - Page 24
City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan
Initial Study -Negative Declaration
LEGAL AUTHORITY
INTRODUCTION
This Initial Study /Negative Declaration (IS/ND) has been prepared in accordance. with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and relevant provisions of CEQA of 1970,
as amended.
Initial Study. Section 15063(c) of the CEQA Guidelines defines an Initial Study as the proper
preliminary method of analyzing the potential environmental consequences of a project. The
purposes of an Initial Study are:
1) To provide the Lead Agency with the necessary information to decide whether to
prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative Declaration (ND);
2) To enable the Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts, thus
avoiding the need to prepare an EIR; and
3) To provide sufficient technical analysis of the environmental effects of a project to
permit a judgment based on the record as a whole, that the environmental effects of a
project have beeri. adequately mitigated or require further in-depth study in an EIR.
Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration. Section 15070 of the CEQA
Guidelines states that a public agency shall prepare a negative declaration or mitigated negative
declaration for a project subject to CEQA when:
1) The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record
before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment; or
2) The Initial Study identifies potentially significant effects but:
a) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by the applicant
before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for
public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly
no significant effects would occur; and
b) There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that
the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.
An IS/ND may be used to satisfy the requirements of CEQA when a proposed project would
have no significant unmitigable effects on the environment. As discussed further in subsequent
sections of this document, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any
significant effects on the environment that cannot be reduced to below a level of significance.
City of Arroyo Grande
Item 9.b. - Page 25
City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan
Initial Study -Negative Declaration
IMPACT ANALYSIS AND SIGNIFICANCE CLASSIFICATION
The following sections of this IS/ND provide discussions of the possible environmental effects
of adoption and implementation of the proposed project for specific issue areas that have been
identified in the CEQA Initial Study Checklist. For each issue area, potential effects are
evaluated.
A "significant effect" is defined by Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines as "a substantial, or
potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected
by a project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of
historic or aesthetic significance." According to the CEQA Guidelines, "an economic or social
change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment, but may be
considered in determining whether the physical change is significant."
City of Arroyo Grande
2
Item 9.b. - Page 26
City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan
Initial Study -Negative Declaration
INITIAL STUDY -NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The plan would be implemented throughout the City and would occur in all General Plan
designations.
7. ZONING:
The plan would be implemented throughout the City in all zoning designations.
8. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The CAP is a policy document that sets forth policies and programs (collectively referred to as
"CAP measures" or "climate action measures") arid implementation actions to help the City of
Arroyo Grande reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and prepare for the anticipated
effects of climate change. CEQA requires the analysis of physical impacts on the environment.
As such, the impact analysis focuses on adoption of the CAP and implementation of the climate
action measures and actions and whether they would result in physical environmental impacts. It
should be noted that the CAP does not propose any land use or zoning changes, nor does it
City of Arroyo Grande
3
Item 9.b. - Page 27
City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan
Initial Study -Negative Declaration
include any site-specific development. Further, any future site-specific discretionary projects
would be subject to additional environmental review pursuant to CEQA. ·
Project Background
The State of California considers GHG emissions and the impacts of global warming to be a
serious threat to the public health, environment, economic well-being, and natural resources of
California, and has taken an aggressive stance to mitigate the state's impact on climate change
through the adoption of policies and legislation. In 2005, the Governor issued Executive Order
S-3-05, which identifies statewide GHG emission reduction goals to achieve long-term climate
stabilization as follows: reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent below
1990 levels by 2050.1 Assembly Bill (AB) 32, also known as the Global Warming Solutions Act
of 2006, subsequently codified the 2020 target, requiring California to reduce statewide GHG
emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 also directed the California Air Resources Board to
develop a plan to identify how the 2020 target would be met. That plan, called the Climate
Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) was approved in 2008 and contains the main strategies
California will implement to achieve the target. The Scoping Plan identifies local governments
as "essential partners" in achieving the goals of AB 32 since local governments have primary
authority to plan, zone, approve, and permit how land is developed and used in their
jurisdictions. The Scoping Plan encourages local governments to adopt a reduction target that
parallels the State commitment to reduce GHG emissions by approximately 15 percent to
achieve 1990 emissions levels by 2020.
Project Description
The CAP is a programmatic, long-range planning document to reduce GHG emissions from
community-wide activities and City government operations within Arroyo Grande to support
the State's efforts under AB 32 and to mitigate Arroyo Grande's climate-related impacts.·
Specifically, the CAP does the following:
o Summarizes the results of the City's GHG Emissions Inventory Update, which identifies
the major sources and quantities of GHG emissions produced within Arroyo Grande and
forecasts how these emissions may change over time.
• Identifies the quantity of GHG emissions that Arroyo Grande will need to reduce to
meet its target of 15 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2020, consistent with AB 32.
• Sets forth City government and community-wide GHG reduction measures, including
performance standards which, if implemented, would collectively achieve the specified
emission reduction target.
• Identifies proactive adaptation strategies that can be implemented to help Arroyo Grande
prepare for anticipated climate change impacts.
• Sets forth procedures to implement, monitor, and verify the effectiveness of the climate
action measures and adapt efforts moving forward.
1 Executive orders are binding only on State agencies. Accordingly, Executive Order S-03-05 will guide State
agencies' efforts to control and regulate GHG emissions, but have no direct binding effect on local government
or private actions.
City of Arroyo Grande
4
Item 9.b. - Page 28
City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan
Initial Study -Negative Declaration
The CAP utilizes 2005 as the baseline year and 2020 as the target year for achieving reductions.
The 2020 target year corresponds with the target year identified in AB 32.
GHG Emissions Inventory and Forecasts
According to the GHG Emissions Inventory, the Arroyo Grande community-as-a-whole emitted
approximately 84,399 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent GHG emissions (MT C02e) in
2005, as a result of activities that took place within the transportation, residential energy use,
commercial and industrial energy use, off-road, and solid waste sectors. The largest contributors
of GHG emissions were the transportation ( 44 percent), residential energy use (30 percent) and
commercial/industrial energy use (14 percent) sectors. The remainder of emissions resulted
from the off-road equipment (5 percent) and solid waste (7 percent) sectors.
The inventory also analyzed GHG emissions from City government operations and facilities.
The City government operations inventory is a subset of, and included within, the community
inventory. In 2005, City government operations generated approximately 1,227 MT C02e.
This quantity represents approximately 2 percent of the Arroyo Grande community's total
GHG emissions.
Under the business-as-usual scenario (a projection of how emissions will change in the future
based on 2005 emissions levels and projected growth in population, jobs, and vehicle miles
traveled), Arroyo Grande's community-wide .GHG emissions are projected to grow
approximately 11 percent above 2005 GHG emissions levels by the year 2020 (from 84,399 MT
C02e to 93,513 MT C02e).
The AB 32 Scoping Plan identifies several State measures that are approved, programmed,
and/or adopted and would reduce GHG emissions within Arroyo Grande. These State
measures require no additional local action. In addition to the State measures, the City of
Arroyo Grande has implemented a number of local measures since the 2005 baseline
inventory year that will reduce the community's GHG emissions with no further action.
Therefore, these measures were incorporated into the forecast and reduction assessment to
create an "adjusted forecast scenario," which provides a more accurate picture of future
emissions growth and the responsibility of the City.
Under the adjusted scenario, GHG emissions are projected to decrease approximately 19
percent below the business-as-usual scenario to 75,653 MT C02e in 2020. Table 1 below
summarizes the reduction in local GHG emissions that would result from State and local
measures compared to the business-as-usual forecast and the adjusted forecast.
City of Arroyo Grande
5
Item 9.b. - Page 29
City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan
Initial Study -Negative Declaration
T bl 1 S f St t R d ti a e . ummary o ae e UC ODS an .
Business-as-Usual Forecast
Reduction from State Regulations
Reduction from Local Measures
Adjusted Forecast
Target
dAd" t dF l_JUS e orecas t
2020 Reductim1
(MT C02e)
93,513
-16,940
-920
75,653
The City of Arroyo Grande is committed to reducing its GHG emissions by 15 percent below
2005 levels by 2020, consistent with AB 32. Based on this target, Arroyo Grande's 2020
targeted GHG emissions would be 71,739 MT C02e. To meet this target, Arroyo Grande will
need to reduce its GHG emissions 5 percent (or 3,914 MT C02e) below the adjusted forecast
by 2020 through implementation of local climate action measures and implementation
actions.
Climate Action Measures
To achieve the GHG emissions reduction target of 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and
prepare for the anticipated effects of climate change, the CAP identifies a comprehensive set of
climate action measures. These CAP measures are organized into the following focus areas, or
categories: City Government Operations, Energy, Transportation and Land Use, Off-Road,
Solid Waste, Tree Planting, and Adaptation. The climate action measures were selected based
on careful consideration of the emission reductions needed to achieve the target, the distribution
of emissions in the GHG emissions inventory, existing priorities and resources, and the potential
costs and benefits of each climate action measure.
Collectively, the climate action measures identified in the CAP have the potential to reduce
GHG emissions within Arroyo Grande by 5,371 MT C02e by 2020 and meet the proposed
GHG emission reduction target. Table 2 below shows a list of climate action measures and their
associated GHG emissions reductions, where applicable.
r City of Arroyo Grande
6
Item 9.b. - Page 30
City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan
Initial Study -Negative Declaration
Table 2: Summary of GHG Reductions by Measure
Measure.
N .b ... Measure· · um er· ·i
n erations
C-1 City Government Ener y Efficiency Retrofits and U grades
C-2 City Government Energy Efficient Public Realm Lighting
C-3 Energy Efficiency Requirements for New City-owned Buildings
C-4 Zero and Low Emission City Fleet Vehicles
C-5 City Government Solid Waste Reduction
C-6 City Government Tree Planting Program
Ci Government 0 erations Subtotal
Ener
E-1 Energy Efficiency Outreach and Incentive Programs
E-2 Energy Audit and Retrofit Program
E-3 Income-Qualified Energy Efficient Weatherization Programs
E-4 Energy Conservation Ordinance
E-5 Incentives for Exceeding Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency
Standards
E-6 Energy Efficient Public Realm Lighting Requirements
E-7 Small-Scale Solar PV Incentive Program
E-8 Income-Qualified Solar PV Program
Ener Subtotal
Trans ortation and Land Use
TL-1 Bicycle Network
TL-2 Pedestrian Network
TL-3 Expand Transit Network
TL-5 TDM Incentives
TL-6 Parking Sup ly Management
TL-7 Electric Vehicle Network and Alternative Fueling Stations
TL-8 Smart Growth
Trans ortation and Land Use Subtotal
Off-Road
0-1 Off-Road Equi ment Upgrades, Retrofits, and Re lacements
Solid Waste
S-1 Recycling at Public Events
Solid Waste Subtotal
Tree Plantin
T-1 Tree Planting Program
Tree Subtotal
Ada tation
A-1 Climate Change Vulnerability
2020 GHG
Reduction
(MT Co )
48
7
8
13
1
3
80
141 .
151
126
621
117
8
439
139
1,742
140
119
Su ortive
35
19
1,056
1,731
3,100
440
440
3
3
6
6
NA
r City of Arroyo Grande
7
Item 9.b. - Page 31
City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan
Initial Study -Negative Declaration
---
A-2 Public Health and Emergency Preparedness
A-3 Water Management
A-4 Infrastructure -·-
TOT AL REDUCTION
Project-Level CAP Consistency Worksheet
NA
NA
NA
Adaptation Subtotal NA
5,371
The CAP includes a CAP consistency worksheet in Appendix C to assist project applicants and
City staff in determining whether a proposed future development project is consistent with the
CAP. If it is determined that a proposed project is not consistent with the CAP, further analysis
would be required and the applicant would be required to demonstrate that the proposed
project's GHG emissions fall below the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control
District's (APCD) adopted GHG significance thresholds (see Chapter 1 of the CAP). The
project would also be required to demonstrate that it would not substantially interfere with
implementation of the CAP.
Implementation and Monitoring
Implementation and monitoring are essential processes to ensure that Arroyo Grande reduces its
GHG emissions and meets its target. To facilitate this, each climate action measure is identified
along with implementation actions, parties responsible for implementation and monitoring, cost
and savings estimates, the GHG reduction potential (as applicable), performance indicators to
monitor progress, and an implementation time frame (see Chapter 4, Implementation and
Monitoring, of the CAP). Climate action measure implementation is separated into three phases:
near-term (by 2015), mid-term (2016-2017), and long-term (2018-2020).
In order to ensure that the CAP measures and actions are implemented and their progress is
monitored, the CAP includes several implementation and monitoring policies which direct the
City to establish a CAP Implementation Team and conduct periodic measure evaluation and
GHG inventory and CAP updates. Pursuant to these measures, the City will establish a CAP
Coordinator who will provide essential CAP oversight and coordination of a multi-departmental
CAP Implementation Team comprised of key staff in each selected department. The CAP
Implementation Team will meet at least one time per year to assess the status of CAP efforts.
The City's CAP Coordinator will be responsible for developing an annual progress report to the
City Council that will: identify the implementation status of each climate action measure and
action; evaluate achievement of, or progress toward performance criteria/indictors (located in
Chapter 5, Table 5-1 Implementation Matrix, of the CAP); assess the effectiveness of the
climate action measures included in the CAP; report on the State's implementation of state-level
measures included in Chapter 2 of the CAP; and recommend adjustments to climate action
measures or implementation actions, as needed. An implementation and monitoring tool will
facilitate this process. To evaluate the performance of the CAP as a whole, the City will re-
inventory community-wide and municipal GHG emissions every five years and compare them
to the 2005 baseline GHG emissions inventory. If an update reveals that the plan is not making
progress toward meeting the GHG reduction target, the .City will adjust the measures as
necessary.
City of Arroyo Grande
8
Item 9.b. - Page 32
City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan
Initial Study -Negative Declaration
9. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING:
The City of Arroyo Grande is located in the southwestern portion of San Luis Obispo County
approximately 1.5 miles east of the Pacific Ocean. The City is 5.45 square miles in size and is
bounded by the City of Grover Beach to the west, the communities of Oceano and Halcyon to the
southwest, the City of Pismo Beach to the northwest and unincorporated portions of the County
of San Luis Obispo to the north, northeast and southeast. U.S. 101 extents northwest and
southeast through the middle of the City. Residential Rural and Suburban development
characterize unincorporated areas to the north and southe~st, and Agricultural uses dominate the
Arroyo Grande Valley that extends northeast and south of the City. Arroyo Grande is developed
primarily with residential and agricultural uses, with commercial development located along the
main arterials and within the Village Area. The City's distinctive character derives from its
traditional ties to agriculture, physical diversity, unique Village, small town atmosphere and rural
settings.
The topography of the City ranges from moderate and steep hillsides to the north of U.S. 101 to
relatively flat parcels toward the center of town, to moderate slopes further south. The Wilmar
Avenue fault is a potentially active fault adjacent to the City, and the Pismo fault underlies
portions of Arroyo Grande but is inactive and poses very low potential fault rupture hazard to the
City. Three tributaries run through the City, including Arroyo Grande Creek, Tally Ho Creek
and Meadow Creek. The City enjoys a Mediterranean coastal climate with mild, dry summers
and cool, wet winters.
10. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (e.g., PERMITS,
FINANCING APPROVAL OR P ARTICIP A TI ON AGREEMENT):
None.
City of Arroyo Grande
9
Item 9.b. - Page 33
City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan
Initial Study -Negative Declaration
ENVIRONMENTALFACTORSPOTENTIALLYAFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated on the following pages:
o Aesthetics o Land Use I Planning
o Agriculture and Forestry Resources o Mineral Resources
o Air Quality o Noise
o Biological Resources o Population I Housing
o Cultural Resources o Public Services
o Geology I Soils o Recreation
o Greenhouse Gas Emissions o Transportation I Traffic
o Hazards & Hazardous Materials o Utilities I Service Systems
o Hydrology I Water Quality o Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis ofthis initial evaluation:
• I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
o I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
o I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
o I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed
in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
o I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed' adequately in an earlier
EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
.
. _ nothin ~furth r i :equired.
--10/15/13
Kelly Heffemon
Printed Name
City of A"oyo Grande
10
Item 9.b. - Page 34
City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan
Initial Study -Negative Declaration
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
I. AESTHETICS--Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Environmental Setting
Less Than
Potentially Significant w/
Significant Mitigation
Impact Inc01porated
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
-Less
Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
• 0
• 0
• 0
• 0
Arroyo Grande is located along U.S. Highway 101, approximately midway between San Luis
Obispo and Santa Maria. For travelers heading north on Highway 101, Arroyo Grande serves as
a "gateway" to the "Five Cities" area, composed of Arroyo Grande, Pismo Beach, Grover Beach,
Oceano and Shell Beach. In addition to the quality and scale of urban development within the
City, the relationship of the built environment to surrounding natural resources -particularly
hillsides, canyons and ridges located to the north and east and agricultural areas to the northeast
and south -play an important role in defining the character of the five Cities area and the City of
Arroyo Grande itself.
The City is mostly built-out, with distinct residential, commercial and agricultural districts and
several mixed-use areas. The City also contains portions of three creeks and several open space
areas. The City has been recognized as a "Tree City" for each of the last 30 years. There are a
handful of designated historical resources within the City, including the IOOF Hall, the Pauling
House and the Bridge Street Bridge. The City's Design Guidelines for the Village Area and
standards for other overlay districts are implementing tools to protect the character of
neighborhoods and mitigate potential aesthetic impacts.
City of Arroyo Grande
11
Item 9.b. - Page 35
City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan
Initial Study -Negative Declaration
Discussion
a,c) The CAP is a policy document that does not include any site-specific development, designs, or
proposals, nor does it grant any entitlements for development that would potentially degrade the
aesthetic quality of the environment. As a policy document, the CAP would not directly affect
scenic vistas or the visual character or quality of the area. Implementation of the climate action
measures and actions would generally be associated with activities, such as encouraging energy
efficiency and conservation and the use of small-scale on-site solar energy systems; incentivizing
smart growth (infill, mixed-use, and higher density development near transit stops) consistent with
the General Plan; encouraging walking, bicycling, ride-sharing, and use of existing public transit;
facilitating the use of low-and zero-emissions vehicles; and increasing solid waste diversion. It is
not anticipated that implementation of the CAP measures and actions would result in substantial
effects on a scenic vista or substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the area
because the climate action measures and actions would not significantly affect the height, bulk, or
scale of development resulting in large structures that could block or highly modify the visual
environment.
The CAP includes climate action measures to improve and expand the City's bicycle, pedestrian,
and transit networks. Implementation of these measures could result in installation of minor
structures, including bicycle racks, benches, covered transit stops, and other alternative
transportation related facilities. However, it is not anticipated that these structures would result in
substantial effects to visual resources because structures would be small in nature and would not
significantly affect the height, bulk, or scale of development or block or highly modify the visual
environment. As a policy-document, the CAP does not include any site-specific development,
designs, or proposals for related structures. Alternative transportation structures would be located in
and near existing urbanized areas, consistent with the General Plan and Bicycle & Trails Master
Plan. Further, any future site-specific discretionary projects would be subject to City policies and
regulations related to the protection of visual resources, as well as additional environmental review
pursuant to CEQA.
The CAP also includes a measure to encourage smart growth (i.e., infill, mixed-use, and/or high-
density) development within the community, in accordance with the existing General Plan. Smart
growth incentivized by the CAP would be located in and near existing urbanized areas, consistent
with the General Plan. Implementation of this measure could result in increased density in these
areas; however, impacts associated with this type of development were analyzed during
environmental review of the General Plan. Furthermore, the CAP does not recommend specific
densities, building heights massing or design of any projects, and precise project-level analysis
would be speculative at this time. Any future site-specific discretionary projects would be subject to
City policies and regulations related to the protection of visual resources, as well as environmental
review pursuant to CEQA.
The CAP includes climate action measures to encourage installation of small-scale on-site solar
photovoltaic systems throughout the community. In 2011, the California Legislature signed Senate
Bill 226 and created a statutory exemption (CEQA exemption 21080.35) for solar photovoltaic
systems installed on rooftops or existing parking lots (and meeting specified conditions, such as not
City of Arroyo Grande
12
Item 9.b. - Page 36
City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan
Initial Study -Negative Declaration
exceeding 10 kilowatts in size). These solar installations that are exempt from CEQA are the type of
solar energy projects anticipated to result from implementation of the CAP measures. Large-scale
substantial solar energy facilities, such as solar farms or large solar panel installations that could
have visual impacts are not the types of solar installations that would be incentivized through the
measure. Implementation actions for this measure were designed consistent with the California
Solar Permitting Guidebook (Governor's Office of Planning and Research, 2012) which facilitates
streamlined permitting for solar systems under 10 kilowatt in size. According to the Guidebook,
"This 10-kilowatt threshold captures approximately 90 percent of the solar photovoltaic systems
that are currently installed. Above this size threshold, a system's design considerations become
more complex." Further, any future proposed solar systems that exceed 10 kW in size or do not
meet the requirements of CEQA exemption 21080.35 would be subject to additional environmental
review pursuant to CEQA.
The CAP also includes climate action measures to pursue energy efficiency and conservation at City
buildings and facilities and to encourage energy efficiency improvements in new and existing
buildings throughout the City. However, making buildings more energy efficient does not inherently
involve any design features that would adversely affect the aesthetic quality of the environment.
Because CAP measures and actions would not generally be of a nature or scale to substantially
affect a scenic vista or the existing visual character or quality of the area, and any future site-
specific discretionary projects would be subject to further development review, impacts would be
less than significant.
b) The Draft CAP is a policy document that does not include any site-specific development,
designs, or proposals, nor does it grant any entitlements for development that would potentially
damage scenic resources including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway. Impacts would be less than significant.
d) Implementation of the CAP would not result in the development of new significant sources
light or glare. Distributed installation of small-scale solar photovoltaic systems is encouraged to
reduce community-wide GHG emissions within the community; however, solar photovoltaic
panels are specifically designed to absorb, not reflect, sunlight.
The CAP includes several climate action measures where implementation may include replacing
public street and parking lot lighting with energy efficient lighting; however, this would not
create new sources of light and glare. Furthermore, energy efficient lighting such as light-
emitting diodes (LEDs) are directional light sources, which emit light in a specific direction,
unlike incandescent and compact fluorescent bulbs which emit light in all directions (Energy
Star, 2013). For this reason, LED lighting is able to provide a higher quality light that can be
directed more precisely to control for glare and light pollution. Impacts would be less than
significant.
City of Arroyo Grande
13
Item 9.b. - Page 37
City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan
Initial Stud~ -Negative Declaration
Potentially Less
Potentially Significant Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES --In
determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model
(1997) prepared by the California Dept. of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing
impacts on agriculture and farmland In determining
whether impacts to forest resources, including
timberland, are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to information compiled by
the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection regarding the state 's inventory of forest
land, including the Forest and Range Assessment
Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project;
and Forest carbon measurement methodology
provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the
California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? D D D •
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use or a Williamson Act contract? D D D •
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
section 51104(g) )? D D D •
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
or forest land to non-forest use? D D D II
e) Involve other changes in the existing
r City of Arroyo Grande
14
Item 9.b. - Page 38
City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan
Initial Study -Negative Declaration
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion ofFannland,
to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
Environmental Setting
D D D •
The City of Arroyo Grande is unique in that it contains approximately 355 acres of land zoned
Agriculture within the City limits, and approximately 235 of those acres include Class I and II prime
soils. The City has a long history of preserving fannland which is evident in its strong General Plan
policies.
Discussion
a-e) The CAP is a policy-level document that does not propose any land use or zoning changes, nor
does it include any site-specific development. As such, implementation of the CAP would not have
the potential to substantially degrade agricultural resources or convert agricultural or forest land to
non-agricultural or non-forest uses, nor would it conflict with existing zoning. No impacts to
agricultural resources would occur.
III. AIR QUALITY -Where available, the
significance criteria established by the applicable
air quality management or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing
or project~d air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
15
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
D
D
D
D
Less
Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
• D
• D
• D
II D
City of Arroyo Grande
Item 9.b. - Page 39
City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan
Initial Study -Negative Declaration
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
Environmental Setting
D D D •
Arroyo Grande is located within the San Luis Obispo County portion of the South Central Coast
Air Basin (Basin), which is under the jurisdiction of the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution
Control District (APCD). The APCD is required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that air
quality standards are met and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards.
Depending on whether the standards are met or exceeded, the local air basin is classified as being
in "attainment" or "non-attainment." Eastern San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area
for the federal standard for ozone and the entire County is a non-attainment area for state
standards for ozone and PM 10 . The County is in attainment for the state standards for nitrogen
dioxide and carbon monoxide and is unclassified for the associated federal standards
(SLOAPCD, 2013).
Under state law, once San Luis Obispo County has been designated and classified as a non-
attainment status, the APCD is required to prepare a plan for air quality improvement for
pollutants for which the District is in non-attainment. The APCD is responsible for developing
and implementing the Clean Air Plan for attainment and maintenance of the ambient air quality
standards in San Luis Obispo County. The region's existing Clean Air Plan, the San Luis Obispo
County Clean Air Plan was adopted in 2001, and outlines strategies to reduce ozone precursor
emissions from a wide variety of stationary and mobile sources.
Discussion
a-d) The CAP itself does not create physical growth and will not impact air quality beyond what
is anticipated in the existing General Plan. Projects that are consistent with the General Plan are
also consistent with the Clean Air Plan, as the regional air quality impacts associated with the
implementation of the General Plan were evaluated during development of the Clean Air Plan.
Therefore, the CAP is consistent with the Clean Air Plan and would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the plan. Furthermore, the purpose and intended effect of the CAP is to reduce
GHG emissions within the City to help reduce the effects of climate change, which has the
secondary benefit of also reducing criteria pollutant emissions.
CAP measures and implementation actions identified in the CAP aim to increase energy
efficiency, reduce vehicle miles traveled, promote travel via low-and zero-emissions modes
(i.e., walking, bicycling, transit, electric vehicles, and other alternatively fueled vehicles), reduce
gasoline and diesel fuel use, and increase renewable energy use. Implementation of these CAP
measures and actions would aid in reducing overall GHG emissions, as well as criteria pollutant
emissions, help meet applicable air quality plan goals, and reduce sensitive receptor exposure to
pollutant concentrations. Impacts related to air quality would be less than significant.
e) The CAP does not contain any climate action measures that would directly result in the
creation of objectionable odors. The CAP would not facilitate any specific development projects
that would create odors. No impact would occur.
City of Arroyo Grande
16
Item 9.b. - Page 40
City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan
Initial Study -Negative Declaration
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -Would the
project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any speciesidentified as a candidate,
sensitive or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish
or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
17
Potentially Less
Potentially Significant Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
D D • D
D D • D
D D • D
D D • D
D D • D
City of Arroyo Grande
Item 9.b. - Page 41
City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan
Initial Study -Negative Declaration
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Environmental Setting
D D • D
There are three creeks that run through the City of Arroyo Grande that provide food, shade and
water for a variety of plant, amphibian and animal species. There are several special plant and
wildlife species that could be present within riparian and wetland areas of the City. These include
Hoover's bent grass (Agrostis hooveri), black-flowered figwort (Scrophularia atrata), San
Bernardino aster (Symphyotricham defoliatum), California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii),
Southwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata pallid), and the Yellow Warbler (Dendroica
petechia). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW) have regulatory responsibility for the protection of special status plant and
wildlife species. "Special status" species are selected for protection because they are rare and/or
subject to population and habitat declines. Special status is a general term for species that are
afforded varying levels of regulatory protection. The City also contains several Coast Live Oak
woodland habitat areas to the east. Coast Live Oaks are a protected tree species within the City.
Discussion
a-d) The CAP is a policy-level document that does not include any site-specific development,
designs, or proposals, nor does it grant any entitlements for development that would result in
biological resource impacts. Infill development and smart growth incentivized by the CAP, and
alternative transportation facilities would be located in and near existing urbanized areas, consistent
with the General Plan and Bicycle & Trails Master Plan. Further, any future site-specific
discretionary projects would be subject to additional environmental review pursuant to CEQA.
Implementation of the CAP would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, special status
species or wildlife movement. In addition, the CAP would not have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or sensitive natural community. Impacts would be less than significant.
e) The City's General Plan Agriculture, Open Space and Conservation Element contains goals and
policies to identify, protect, and enhance significant ecological and biological resources within
Arroyo Grande, and to ensure that new development is directed away from sensitive habitat areas.
The · CAP does not permit any specific · development nor would it add or enable any new
development that would conflict with these local goals or policies ordinances protecting biological
resources. Impacts would be less than significant.
e) The CAP would not facilitate any specific development projects nor would it add or enable
any new development that would conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan. Impacts would be less than significant.
City of Arroyo Grande
18
Item 9.b. - Page 42
City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan
Initial Stud~ -Negative Declaration
Potentially Less
Potentially Significant Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES --Would the
project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as
defined in § 15064.5? D D • D
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to § 15064.5? D D • D
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic features? D D • D
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries? D D • D
Environmental Setting
Previous investigations have indicated the presence of Native Americans within the present-day
City Limits during prehistoric times. There are a handful of designated historical resources
within the City, including the IOOF Hall, the Pauling House and the Bridge Street Bridge.
Creeks are a focal area of concern for the purposes of cultural resource sensitivity due to the pre-
history and historical activity that occurred along and extending from creeks. The Central
Coastal Information Center under contract to the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP)
helps implement the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS). It integrates
information on new resources and known resources into CHRIS, supplies information on
resources and surveys to governments and supplies lists of consultants qualified to conduct
historic preservation fieldwork within the area. The California Archaeological Site Inventory is
the collection of Site Records, which has been acquired and managed by the Information Centers
and the OHP since 1975. These records indicate whether a given project site is located in the
immediate vicinity of a known cultural site. Site investigations occur on a project-by-project
basis depending on the outcome of the cultural records search.
By virtue of the project area including the confluence of two (2) creeks, there may be a
likelihood of prehistoric or early historic occupation or use of the site even though there are no
known sites in the vicinity. Additionally, the proposed project requires a limited amount of
surface excavation for the purposes of collection of fine sediment and floodplain restoration.
City of Arroyo Grande
19
Item 9.b. - Page 43
City of Arroyo G~ande Climate Action Plan
Initial Study -Negative Declaration
Discussion
a-d) The Arroyo Grande CAP is a policy-level document that does not include any site-specific
development, designs, or proposals, nor does it grant any entitlements for development that will
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical, cultural, or archaeological
resource. Further, any future site-specific discretionary projects would be subject to additional
environmental review wherein any site-specific cultural resource impacts would be addressed.
Impacts would be less than significant.
Potentially Less
Potentially Significant Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS --Would the
project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42. D D • D
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? D D • D
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? D D • D
iv) Landslides? D D • D
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? D D II 0
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? D D • D
f) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
r City of Arroyo Grande
20
Item 9.b. - Page 44
City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan
Initial Study -Negative Declaration
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
g) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
Environmental Setting
D
D
D • D
D II D
There are two faults within City Limits, the Pismo Fault and the Wilmar A venue Fault. The
Pismo Fault is an inactive fault, and presents a low risk to Arroyo Grande. The Wilmar A venue
fault is a potentially active fault that runs through the City, generally parallel to US 101.
Approximately half of the City is at moderate risk for liquefaction caused by strong seismic
ground shaking during an earthquake. These areas are primarily located south of US 101 and in
the eastern part of the City.
The majority of the City is at low risk for landslides. The areas at greatest risk are hillsides
where greater slopes are located. The potential for slope stability hazards in valley areas is low
to very low. The areas at greatest risk for landslide are just north of US 101 in the hillsides and
in the eastern portions of the City.
Discussion
a-e) The CAP is a policy-level document that does not include any site-specific development,
designs, or proposals, nor does it grant any entitlements for development that would directly impact
or be impacted by geology and soils. The CAP does not propose any site specific development that
would expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving: rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking,
seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, or landslides. Further, any future site-specific
discretionary projects would be subject to additional environmental review wherein any site-specific
impacts related to geology and soils would be addressed. Impacts would be less than significant.
Potentially Less
Potentially Significant Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment? D D • D
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
City of Arroyo Grande
21
Item 9.b. - Page 45
City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan
Initial Study -Negative Declaration
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Environmental Setting
0 0 • 0
In March 2012, the APCD adopted GHG thresholds in order to help lead agencies assess the
significance of GHG impacts of new projects subject to CEQA The APCD's CEQA guidance
identifies three different types of GHG thresholds designed to accommodate various development
types and patterns:
1) Qualitative Reduction Strategies (e.g., Climate Action Plans): a qualitative threshold that is
consistent with AB 32 Scoping Plan measures and goals;
2) Bright-Line Threshold: numerical value to determine the significance of a project's annual
GHG emissions;
3) Efficiency-Based Threshold: assesses the GHG efficiency of a project on a per capita basis.
The APCD recommends that lead agencies within the county use the adopted GHG thresholds of
significance when considering the significance of GHG impacts of new projects subject to CEQA.
Further, projects with GHG emissions that exceed the thresholds will need to implement mitigation
to reduce the impacts to a less than significant level.
As identified in the APCD's CEQA Handbook (April 2012), if a project is consistent with an
adopted Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy (i.e., a CAP) that addresses the project's GHG
emissions, it can be presumed that the project will not have significant GHG emission impacts and
the project would be considered less than significant. This approach is consistent with CEQA
Guidelines Sections 15064(h)l l and 15183.5(b). The City's CAP was developed to be consistent
with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 and APCD's CEQA Handbook to mitigate emissions
and climate change impacts and will therefore serve as a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy for the
City of Arroyo Grande.
Discussion
a) The CAP creates a comprehensive GHG emissions reduction strategy (consistent with Section
15183.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and the APCD CEQA Handbook) for the City of Arroyo Grande.
The CAP contains a series of climate action measures and actions to reduce cumulative GHG
emissions by a minimum of 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. Impacts would be less than
significant.
b) The CAP includes climate action measures and actions to reduce the City's GHG emissions by at
least 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 in accordance with AB 32 (see Table 2 of this Initial
Study). As stated in the project description, the purpose of the CAP is to reduce Arroyo Grande's
proportionate share of the statewide target set by AB 32. The CAP would not conflict with any
applicable GHG reduction plan. Furthermore, the CAP is consistent with the APCD's CEQA
Handbook and meets all of the criteria specified therein as it pertains to a Qualified Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Strategy. Impacts would be less than significant.
City of Arroyo Grande
22
Item 9.b. - Page 46
City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan
Initial Stud~ -Negative Declaration
PotentiaJly. Less
Potentially Significant "Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS --Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine transport,
use or disposal of hazardous materials? 0 0 • 0
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonable
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment? 0 0 • 0
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school? 0 0 a 0
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment? 0 0 • 0
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan, or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? 0 0 II 0
±) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? 0 0 II 0
g) Impair implementation of or physically
Interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 0 0 II 0
r City of Arroyo Grande
23
Item 9.b. - Page 47
City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan
Initial Study -Negative Declaration
h) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent
to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Environmental Setting
0 0 Iii
There are no known hazardous materials sites in the City, nor are there any airports within the
vicinity of the City. Properties located east of U.S. Highway 101 are more prone to fire risk
given the steeper topography and wooded open space areas.
Discussion
0
a-f, h) The CAP·does not involve any site-specific development nor would it directly facilitate new
development. Implementation of the proposed CAP measures would not involve the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and would not create reasonably foreseeable upset
and/or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
Therefore, no adverse impacts with regard to hazards to the public or environment, hazardous
materials with 1/.i mile of a school, development on a hazardous material site, or development near
an airport or airstrip would occur. Further, the CAP would not expose people or structures to
wildland fires. Impacts would be less than significant.
g) The CAP includes climate action measures to promote bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities,
and would not impair implementation of an adopted emergency response plan. Furthermore, one of
the adaptation measures supports emergency preparedness in response to anticipated effects of
climate change by disseminating public preparedness and emergency response information,
conducting training exercises, and identifying and focusing planning and outreach programs on
particularly vulne_rable populations. Impacts would be less than significant.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or o
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table
level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support
. existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
24
Less
Significant
.Unless
Mitigated
0
0
Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
0 II
• 0
City of Arroyo Grande
Item 9.b. - Page 48
City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan
Initial Study -Negative Declaration
have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of D D • D
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a manner which
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or
off-site (e.g. downstream)?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of D D • D
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner, which would result in flooding on-or off-
site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would D D • D
exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm
water drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
t) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? D D • D
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as D D II D
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures D D • D
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of D D • D
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or darn?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? D D Ill D
Environmental Setting
The City of Arroyo Grande draws its water supply from a combination of the Lopez Reservoir
and groundwater wells. Wastewater service is provided by the South San Luis Obispo County
Sanitation District. The City adopted interim low-impact development (LID) guidelines to
address stormwater runoff issues in 2009 and is currently developing post-construction
stormwater management requirements consistent with regulations from the State Water
Resources Control Board for the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
General Permit for Stormwater dischargers.
City of Arroyo Grande
25
Item 9.b. - Page 49
City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan
Initial Study -Negative Declaration
Discussion
a) Implementation of the CAP measures would not violate water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements. No impact would result.
b-f) The CAP is a policy document that does not include any site-specific development, designs,
or proposals, nor-does it grant any entitlements for development. As a result, no adverse impacts
related to groundwater or surface water quality, groundwater resources, runoff, or sensitive areas
would occur. Further, one of the climate adaptation measures identifies a strategy to seek funding to
enhance flood control and improve water quality. Impacts would be less than significant.
g-i) The CAP is a policy-level document that does not propose any land use or zoning changes, nor
does it include any site-specific development. As such, implementation of the CAP would neither
directly or indirectly expose people or structures to potential flood hazards or impede or redirect
flood flows, Further, one of the climate adaptation measures calls on the City to prepare for
anticipated climate change effects on water and limit community exposure to threats such as
flooding, which may have a beneficial effect. Impacts would be less than significant.
j) The CAP is a policy-level document that does not include any site-specific development, designs,
or proposals, nor does it grant any entitlements for· development that would expose people and
structures to inundation by seiches, tsunamis, or mudflows. Impacts would be less than significant.
x. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would
the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
a) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
b) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conser\Tation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
Environmental Setting
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
Less
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
D
D
D
Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
Ill D
• D
• D
The City encompasses approximately 5.45 square-miles and is bisected north/south by U.S.
Highway 10 I. There are several distinct land use categories and zoning districts for residential,
City of Arroyo Grande
26
Item 9.b. - Page 50
City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan
Initial Study -Negative Declaration
commercial, industrial, agricultural and mixed uses. The City is adjoined by the cities of Pismo
Beach and Grover Beach to the west and unincorporated areas of San Luis Obispo County to the
north, east and south.
Discussion
a) The CAP does not include any climate action measures or any specific development projects that
would divide an established community. The CAP includes several climate action measures that
would support pedestrian and bicycle circulation and improved transportation alternatives, which
would improve connectivity throughout Arroyo Grande. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) The CAP is a policy-level document that does not propose any larid use or zoning changes, nor
does it include any site-specific development; therefore it would not conflict with the City's General
Plan or Zoning Ordinance. The CAP includes a climate action measure to facilitate mixed-use,
higher density, and infill development near transit routes, in ex1stmg community
centers/downtowns, and in other designated areas. Implementation of this measure would occur in
areas currently designated for these uses in the General Plan and in a manner consistent with
existing policies. Any future site-specific discretionary projects would be subject to additional
environmental review. Impacts would be less than significant.
c) The CAP does not include any site-specific development, designs, or proposals, nor does it grant
any entitlements for development that would potentially conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Any future site-specific discretionary
projects would be subject to subsequent environmental review wherein any site-specific impacts
would be addressed accordingly. Impacts would be less than significant.
Potentially Less
Potentially Significant Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES --Would the
project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state? D D D
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan? D D D II
Environmental Setting
Arroyo Grande does not contain any areas identified by the California Department of Mines and
Geology as having substantial mineral resources and has no operating mine or quarry operations.
r City of Arroyo Grande
27
Item 9.b. - Page 51
City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan
Initial Study -Negative Declaration
Discussion
a-b) The CAP would not directly facilitate any specific development projects and would not add or
enable development that could result in the loss of mineral resources. No impact to mineral
resources would occur.
Potentially Less
Potentially Significant Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
XII. NOISE --Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies? D D • D
4) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundbome vibration or
groundbome noise levels? D D • D
5) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project? D D II D
6) A substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project? D D • D
7) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels? D D • D
8) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? D D II D
Environmental Setting
Noise exposure throughout the City is primarily caused by automobile traffic on surface streets
and U.S. Highway 101, with intermittent noise generated by agricultural operations and
construction activities.
r City of Arroyo Grande
28
Item 9.b. - Page 52
City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan
Initial Study -Negative Declaration
Discussion
a-d) Implementation of the CAP measures would not result in exposure of persons to noise in
excess of established standards or groundbome vibration or noise, nor would it result in a
temporary, periodic, or permanent increase in ambient noise levels above existing levels. Several of
the CAP measures are designed to encourage a shift from single occupancy vehicle to walking and
bicycling or from conventional fuels to electric vehicles which would reduce vehicular travel and
noise. Therefore, future ambient noise levels should be similar or somewhat reduced from present
levels. Further, any future site-specific discretionary projects would be subject to additional
environmental review wherein any site-specific noise impacts would be addressed. Impacts would
be less than significant.
e-f) The CAP does not propose any land use or zoning changes, nor does it include any site-specific
development which would expose people to excessive noise levels. Impacts would be less than
significant.
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -Would
the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Environmental Setting
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
Less
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
D
D
D
Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
D •
D •
D II
Arroyo Grande has a population of 17,252 (2010 Census) with an average household size of 2.4
persons.
Discussion
a-c) The CAP would not directly or indirectly result in an increase in population and would not
accommodate growth beyond that anticipated by the City's adopted General Plan or induce
additional population growth. Further, implementation of the CAP measures would not displace
City of A"oyo Grande
29
Item 9.b. - Page 53
City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan
Initial Study -Negative Declaration .
existing housing or people. Therefore, no impacts related to population and housing would result.
Potentially Less
Potentially Significant Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES --
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objective for any of the
public services:
Fire protection? D D D •
Police protection? D D D •
Schools? D D D II
Parks? D D D •
Other public facilities? D D D •
Environmental Setting
The City of Arroyo Grande administers its own police department and parks and recreation
facilities. Fire protection is provided by the Five Cities Fire Authority through a joint powers
agreement (JPA). The Lucia Mar Unified School District (LMUSD) provides K-12 educational
facilities. Public services to the project site are readily provided by the City of Arroyo Grande.
Discussion
a) Implementation of the CAP would not facilitate additional growth beyond that anticipated by the
General Plan. Therefore, it would not increase demand for public services or facilities or generate a
need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objective for any of the public services. Therefore, no impact on public services
causing the need for new governmental facilities is expected.
Potentially Less
Potentially· Significant Than
.. -··-· . . ........... ·-· .... ~igajficant.. .. __ Un]ess ........ ~ignifi_c3,DL ... No
r City of Arroyo Grande
30
Item 9.b. - Page 54
City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan
Initial Study -Negative Declaration
XV. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
Environmental Setting
0
0
Impact
0 • 0
0 II 0
The Recreation Department oversees recreational activities throughout the City and manages the
City's various parks and open spaces.
Discussion
a-b) Implementation of the CAP would not directly or indirectly increase population or demand
for park facilities. Therefore, the CAP would not result in physical deterioration of park facilities
or require new park facilities, the construction of which could cause physical environmental
impacts. Impacts would be less than significant.
Potentially Less
Potentially Significant Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
XVI. TRANSPORTATIONffRAFFIC -Would
the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or
policy establishing measures of effectiveness
for the performance of the circulation system,
taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-
motorized travel and relevant components of
the circulation system, including but not
limited to intersections, streets, highways
and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths,
and mass transit? 0 0 II 0
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not
City of A"oyo Grande
31
Item 9.b. - Page 55
City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan
Initial Study -Negative Declaration
limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
c) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such facilities?
Environmental Setting
0
0
0
0
0
0 • 0
0 0 II
0 • 0
0 • 0
0 • 0
The City's street network consists of a hierarchy of street types which serve different functions.
These include freeways, arterials, collectors, local streets and alleyways.
Freeways route traffic through the community and are characterized by large traffic volumes and
high-speed travel. Arterials link residential and commercial districts and serve shorter through
traffic needs. Due to the heavier traffic on arterials, adjacent land uses are intended to be a mix
of commercial and multi-family residential. Collector streets link neighborhoods to arterials and
are not intended for through traffic but are nonetheless intended to move traffic in an efficient
manner. Local streets are designed to serve only adjacent land uses and are intended to protect
residents from through traffic impacts.
Discussion
a-b) The CAP is a policy-level document that includes climate action measures to reduce GHG
emissions. It does not propose any land use or zoning changes, nor does it include any site-
specific development. Please note any future site-specific discretionary projects would be subject
to additional environmental review pursuant to CEQA. Implementation of the CAP would not
conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for
the performance of the circulation system or an applicable congestion management program.
Implementation of the CAP measures would encourage alternatives to single occupancy vehicle
travel (i.e., walking, bicycling, transit, carpooling, telecommuting, etc.) in order to reduce vehicle
trips and miles traveled. This could reduce the number of vehicle trips, volume-to-capacity ratio,
City of Arroyo Grande
32
Item 9.b. - Page 56
City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan
Initial Study -Negative Declaration
and intersection congestion within the City, thereby improving levels of service on local roads.
This would provide a positive benefit in the performance of the circulation system. Impacts
would be less than significant.
c) Implementation of the CAP would not result in a change in air traffic patterns. No impact
related to air traffic or safety would occur.
d-e) The CAP would not directly facilitate any specific development projects nor would it add or
enable development that would increase hazards or result in inadequate emergency access.
Further, any future site-specific discretionary projects would be subject to additional
environmental review wherein any site-specific impacts related to hazards or emergency access
would be addressed. Impacts would be less than significant.
f) Implementation of the CAP would encourage alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle travel,
consistent with adopted local and regional plans, policies, or programs regarding public transit,
bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, and would not result in adverse effects on their safety or
performance. Impacts would be less than significant.
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements
of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause.significant environmental
effects?
c) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
33
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
Less
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
0
0
0
0
Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
• 0
• 0
• 0
• 0
City of Arroyo Grande
Item 9.b. - Page 57
City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan
Initial Study -Negative Declaration
d) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to
serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
f) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
Environmental Setting
0
0
0
0 • 0
0 • 0
0 II 0
Water and sewer utilities are provided by the City of Arroyo Grande and the South San Luis
Obispo County Sanitation District.
Discussion
a-e) The CAP would not accommodate growth beyond that anticipated by the General Plan nor does
it propose any specific development projects that would increase wastewater generation, water
demand, or stormwater runoff. Impacts would be less than significant.
f-g) The CAP would not accommodate growth beyond that anticipated by the General Plan nor does
it propose any specific development projects that would increase solid waste generation.jlmpacts
would be less than significant.
Potentially Less
Potentially Significant Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory? 0 0 II 0
City of Arroyo Grande
34
Item 9.b. - Page 58
City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan
Initial Study -Negative Declaration
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
0
0
0 • 0
0 II 0
a) The intent of the CAP is to reduce GHG emissions from City of Arroyo Grande operations and
within the City through implementation of GHG reduction measures. CAP measures encourage
actions by residents, businesses, and the City to reduce energy, and fuel use and associated GHG
emissions. The CAP would not directly facilitate any specific development plans or projects or have
any climate action measures that would diminish wildlife habitats or eliminate important examples
of the major periods of California history or prehistory. As discussed in Sections IV, Biological
Resources, and V, Cultural Resources, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Implementation of the CAP would result in a cumulatively considerable beneficial reduction of
GHG emissions and would not make a considerable contribution to any significant cumulative
impacts. Impacts would be less than significant.
c) The CAP does not have any effects which would cause a direct or indirect adverse effect on
human beings. Rather, the CAP would reduce GHG emissions as well as have many other
secondary environmental benefits. These include: reduction in air pollution, reduction in
transportation congestion, reduction in landfilled solid waste, and energy efficiency. Therefore,
CAP implementation would have less than significant impacts with respect to adverse effects on
humans.
City of Arroyo Grande
35
Item 9.b. - Page 59
r
I
I.
I
City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan
Initial Study -Negative Declaration
REFERENCES:
California Department of Transportation. Scenic Highway Program. 2013. Available at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/Land.Arch/scenic highways/scenic hwv.htm
Energy Star. Learn About LEDs. 2013. Available at:
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm ?c=lighting. pr what are
Governor's Office of Planning and Research. California Solar Permitting Guidebook. June 2012.
Available at: http://opr.ca.gov/docs/California Solar Permitting Guidebook.pdf ·
San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD). San Luis Obispo County
Attainment Status. August 20, 2013. Available at:
http://www.slocleanair.org/images/ ems/upload/files/ Attainments tatus20August2013 %288%29 .pdf
City of Arroyo Grande
36
Item 9.b. - Page 60
Nov 19 2013 4:14PM Sierra Club -Santa Lucia so-
SIERRA
CLUB
FOUNDED 1892
November 19, 2013
Arroyo Grande City Council
City of Arroyo Grande
300 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Santa Lucia Chapter
P.O. Box 15755
ATTACHMENT 3
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
(805) 543-8717
www.santalucia.sierraclub.org
RE: 11/26 meeting -City of Arroyo Grande Draft Climate Action Plan
We commend the City for bringing forward a generally strong document to serve as a guide to achieving
your target of reducing community-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 3,914 MT C02e by 2020.
Because California's GHG reduction goals will grow over time, per the target set by Executive Order S-3-
05 which requires an additional 80% reduction by 2050, and because many of the proposed measures in
the Draft Plan are educational or voluntary, we strongly recommend the City also include in the CAP the
consideration of a Community Choice Aggregation program (CCA). Such a provision for the evaluation of
CCA is included in the Climate Action Plans of both the City and County of San Luis Obispo and in the
County's General Plan.
Community Choice Aggregation (CCA), established by the passage of AB 117 in 2002, is a policy
innovation that gives local governments the ability to achieve the state's substantial, long-term clean
energy and climate protection mandates without passing restrictive measures, levying new taxes or
drawing down their general funds. CCA gives cities the right to determine the sources of their electric
power and purchase electricity from an alternative source.
Policies that enhance the efficiency with which electricity is used in buildings, build renewable power
generation and develop programs for clean energy are policies which, by themselves, require continued
dependency upon electric power from the energy sources provided by the utility. In addition to allowing
a community to choose its energy sources, CCA can provide access to state funding for energy efficiency
programs, the ability to set and charge rates, and the ability to direct the revenue stream from utility
bills toward clean energy projects.
This is why CCA has been found to offer a plethora of co-benefits in addition to substantial GHG
reduction, including improved air quality and public health, monetary savings, and support for local
economies.
Item 9.b. - Page 61
Nov 19 2013 4:14PM Sierra Club -Santa Lucia 805-543-8727
A Community Choice program would have the potential to significantly reduce GHG emissions
from stationary sources and energy use in the commercial/industrial and residential sectors, and
increase the percentage of renewable energy in the local distribution grid.
We urge the City to add a provision to the Draft Climate Action Plan under 3.3.l Energy Measures to the
effect that Arroyo Grande will consider joining with other local jurisdictions to study the feasibility of·
Community Choice Aggregation as a potentially cost-effective strategy to increase the use of renewable
energy and realize a low-carbon, local energy portfolio.
As an expression of intent, such a measure would require no expenditures or commitment of funds by
the City.
We are confident that the inclusion of such a measure in the Cllmate Action Plan will ultimately lead to a
result in which the City will be able to meet and exceed the requirements of the State to reduce its
greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the public review drah and for your attention-to this
issue.
Andrew Christie
Chapter Director
p.2
Item 9.b. - Page 62