Loading...
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