HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-17-2012 ph3 climate action plancounci lac en Oa p epoit
C I T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O
FROM :
Derek Johnson, Community Development Directo r
Prepared By :James David, Associate Planner
SUBJECT :CONSIDERATION OF THE DRAFT CLIMATE ACTION PLA N
(www . slocool . org).
RECOMMENDATIO N
As recommended by the Planning Commission, adopt a Resolution to approve the Climat e
Action Plan and the associated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact .
REPORT-IN-BRIE F
The global challenge of climate change requires action at all levels of government . The City has
developed a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in response to Council objectives, State direction, and
existing General Plan policies . The CAP lays out a roadmap for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG )
emissions from the community and government operations. CAP strategies reflect many ongoin g
best management practices, and are based on significant input from the public, regional agencies ,
community groups, and Planning Commission .
DISCUSSIO N
Why Develop a Climate Action Plan ?
In response to Council direction, the City has been developing a CAP that establishes strategie s
for reducing municipal and communitywide GHG emissions . The CAP is a proactive strateg y
document that enables the City to maintain local control of implementing State direction (AB3 2
— the California Global Warming Solutions Act) to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels b y
2020 . GHG reduction strategies implement existing General Plan (GP) policies (Attachment 5 ,
List of Related GP Policies), and adoption of a CAP was identified as an Other Importan tObjectivein the City's 2011-13 Financial Plan .
The CAP is not proposed to become a n
element or component of the General Plan . I t
is a comprehensive strategy to guide decisions ,
develop programs, and highlight publi c
outreach efforts to reduce communitywid e
GHG emissions . Portions of the CAP will b e
used to inform and develop policies during th e
ongoing Land Use and Circulation Elemen t
(LUCE) update. Other sections help realiz e
opportunities to strengthen private secto r
economic activity through business adaptatio n
or market development in response to a n
A
Meeting Date
7-17-1 2
Item Number PH 3
PH3-1
GPI71-09 (Climate Action Plan) Page2
identified need, such as voluntary home efficiency retrofits . Lastly, some portions of the CA P
identify areas where additional regulations can help reduce per-capita GHG emissions .
Having an adopted CAP will also allow the City to streamline portions of the Californi a
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review of certain projects . Senate Bill (SB) 97 amende d
CEQA to allow lead agencies to analyze and mitigate the cumulative effects of GHG emission s
at a programmatic level, such as in a general plan, or as part of a separate plan to reduce GH G
emissions (CEQA 15183 .5). The CAP serves as the City's qualified GHG reduction plan ,
because it contains the following required features :
1 Community-wide GHG emissions inventory and "business-as-usual" forecast of 202 0
community-wide GHG emissions ;
2.GHG reduction targets consistent with AB 32 (i .e . a level, based on substantial evidence ,
below which the contribution to greenhouse gas emissions from activities covered by th e
plan would not be cumulatively considerable);
3.Analysis of local and state policies and actions that may impact GHG emissions withi n
the jurisdiction;
4.Quantification of GHG reduction measures demonstrating that, if implemented, the GH G
reduction targets will be met ;
5.Implementation and monitoring strategy and timeline ; and
6.Adequate environmental review of the CAP .
Inclusion of these plan elements allows the CAP to be used in the cumulative impact s
environmental analysis of projects . Projects that exceed GHG thresholds adopted by the Ai r
Pollution Control District (APCD) can be considered to have a less than significant impact t o
GHG emissions if they comply with the CAP . The environmental review for each project mus t
identify those reduction strategies specified in the CAP that apply to the project, and if thos e
requirements are not otherwise binding or enforceable, they should be incorporated as mitigatio n
measures applicable to the project (CEQA 15183 .5b).
Climate change is a global issue, but local governments are uniquely positioned to identify th e
specific risks and most effective solutions for their communities . GHG emissions reductio n
policies and programs in the CAP are based on extensive public input (Attachment 3 ,
Participation Matrix), Planning Commission direction (Attachment 4, Planning Commissio n
Matrix), climate science literature, State and Federal legislation, emerging planning policy, an d
CAPs adopted by other jurisdictions . The overall benefit of the CAP is larger than reducing GH G
emissions ; it is reduced costs associated with energy use, quality of life improvements for th e
community and protection of the environment for future generations .
CAP Developmen t
The process of drafting a CAP involved collaboration with Cal Poly students (Cal Poly Climat e
Team), and included a series of steps accomplished from 2010 through 2012 : research, outreach ,
local policy audit, and strategy development . The Cal Poly Climate Team produced the firs t
draft . Staff reviewed and updated strategies, and the City subsequently used grant funds to hire a
PH3-2
GPI 71-09 (Climate Action Plan) Page3
consultant (PMC) to conduct a peer review and assist with quantifying projected GHG emission s
reductions associated with the strategies .
Public outreach was conducted through farmers' market booths, workshops, community grou p
meetings, a website (www . S LOCOOL.org)and Facebook page, digital surveys, feedback boards
at local grocery stores, and a visit to a local elementary school.Early in the plan developmen t
process, the goal of public outreach was to raise public awareness of climate planning and t o
hear from community members about their ideas . During strategy development, outreach effort s
shifted focus with the intent of gauging the level of support for potential emissions reductio n
measures . Feedback was solicited from the community and multiple local groups, which wa s
used to refine strategies in the plan (Attachment 3, Participation Matrix).
The CAP addresses State and local polic y
objectives to reduce GHG emissions fro m
the community and governmen t
operations to 1990 levels by 2020 . This i s
generally assumed to represent a 15 %
reduction from the emissions measured i n
the "baseline" year: for the City, this year
is 2005 . This equates to 22% below the
projected
business-as-usual
(BAU) 225,00 0
forecast by 2020, which takes int o
account anticipated growth in th e
population and built environment .175,00 0
Assumptions are based on the San Luis
200 5
Obispo County 2040 Population, Housing
&Employment Forecast,which is the
same forecast used in the LUCE update .
Reaching the adopted GHG reductio n
target relies on both State and loca l
reduction strategies .
Measuring the Baselin e
The City's GHG inventory followed accepte d
industry standards used by all jurisdictions i n
the region to develop their respectiv e
inventories . Emissions inventories use carbo n
dioxide equivalents (CO 2 e) as a standard unit
for measuring carbon footprints . The idea is t o
express the impact of each differen t
greenhouse gas in terms of the amount of CO 2
that would create the same amount o f
warming. For example, methane traps over 2 1
times more heat per molecule than carbo n
dioxide and one metric ton (MT) of methan e
would show as 21 MTCO2e . The City's
baseline emissions inventory showed total
Forecast of Community GHG Emissions wit h
Different Reductions Strategie s
325,00 0
275,000
201 0
• • •®• • Business As Usual Forecas t
Baselin e
—Adjusted Forecast with State Reduction s
-40—Adjusted Emissions with State &Local Reduction s
• Target Emissions
2020 2035
2005 Community Wide GHG emission s
(264,240 MTCO 2 e)
Waste
7%
•PH3-3
GPI 71-09 (Climate Action Plan) Page4
communitywide emissions to be 264,240 MTCO 2 e . Community emissions were split into fou r
sectors : Commercial & Industrial, Residential, Transportation, and Solid Waste . Half o f
community emissions come from transportation sources, which include vehicle trips passin g
through San Luis Obispo on Highways 101 and 1 . Total government operations emissions (a
subset of the community emissions) accounted for 2 .5% of the total communitywide emissions ,
or 6,700 MTCO2e . In comparison, government operations in the City of Santa Barbar a
accounted for 1 .6% of total community emissions, and in the City of Davis governmen t
operations accounted for 3%. The proportion of government emissions may vary according to the
respective jurisdiction's services, facilities, and operations . The results of the emission s
inventory and emissions reduction target are discussed in detail in the introduction of the CAP .
Local GHG Reduction Strategie s
Content of the CAP includes sector specific emissions reduction strategies ; an implementatio n
and monitoring program to track emissions; and quantification of potential emission reduction s
associated with each strategy . There are a total of 36 strategies spread across seven sectors, eac h
with their own implementation actions and timeframes . The CAP is divided as follows :
Page Chapter Goal Strategies Action Item s
17 Buildings (BLD)Make buildings more energy efficient .3 1 1
23 Renewabl e
Energy (RE)
Provide clean and renewable energ y
sources .
3 9
27 Transportation
and Land Us e
(TLU)
Improve transportation options an d
opportunities to use land more
efficiently .
9 3 0
35 Water (WTR)Reduce and reuse consumed water .3 8
39 Solid Wast e
(WST)
Prevent, reduce, reuse and recycl e
waste .
2 1 2
43 Parks and Open
Space (PKS)
Maintain natural areas, plant additiona l
trees and acquire more open space .
5 1 4
49 Government
Operations (GO)
Reduce GHGs from government
operations to 1990 emissions levels .
11 1 3
Total 3697
Implementatio n
The CAP is a strategy document, adopted by resolution, which provides a road map to achiev e
the City's GHG reduction goals . The plan focuses on incentives and education rather tha n
regulation . No regulations are enacted through adoption of the CAP and implementation wil l
occur in a variety of ways. In a few instances, new ordinances may be required (for example, R E
2 .2 : Revise regulations as needed to eliminate barriers to the use of renewable energy). Other
PH3-4
GPI 71-09 (Climate Action Plan)
Pane 5
strategies may be more appropriate to implement through the Land Use and Circulation Element
update process (for example, TLU 5 .2 : Promote infill). Still others may be implemented simply
by assigning staff resources to develop education approaches or to collaborate with othe r
partners such as the County or SLO Energy Watch . Identifying indicators and monitoring effort s
are key components of the plan so that adjustments can be made over time .
The majority of local GHG reduction strategie s
have a near-term (0 to 5 years) or mid-term (5 - 1 0
years) implementation time frame. Assumin g
implementation of all strategies with near or mid -
term objectives, the City will achieve
approximately 73% of projected emission s
reductions in the CAP by the target year 2020 .
Implementation time frames may be adjusted ove r
time depending upon resource availability .
Additional details about implementation methods ,
city costs and strategy-specific reductions appea r
in the Local GHG Reductions Matrix (Attachment
1).
Environmental Revie w
Strategiesin the CAP help the environment by working towards reducing GHG emissions an d
adapting to associated increases in average temperatures in California that will have a number o f
potential consequences, including wildfire, public health, flooding, drought, and agricultura l
risks . A Negative Declaration of environmental impact, in accordance with the CEQA, i s
recommended by the Community Development Director regarding CAP adoption (Attachment 7 ,
Initial Study). The CAP may provide information to consider during update of the General Plan ,
which will be evaluated in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the SLO203 5
Land Use and Circulation Update .
Conclusio n
The CAP reflects input from the Planning Commission, Cultural Heritage Committee, publi c
workshops, and local community groups, including :Home Builder 's Association, Greenbuil d
Alliance, Association of REALTORS, Chamber of Commerce, Kiwanis Club, Empower Poly ,
and Workforce Housing Coalition. There was an overall discussion that GHG reduction effort s
should have a regional focus, which is evident in CAP strategy language ,
The CAP is a stand-alone document, but plays a part in comprehensive planning initiative s
adopted by the Council. Along with the Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP), the CA P
informs sustainability principles, policies and programs being developed in the LUCE updat e
(Attachment 6 : Local Sustainable Planning Graphic). GHG reduction policies such as energ y
efficiency, reducing vehicle miles traveled, and compact mixed-use neighborhoods will b e
considered alongside EDSP direction for creation of head-of-household jobs as part of the LUC E
update .
Implementation Time Fram e
(% of total emissions reductions )
s
4 Near-term
(0 to 5 years)
Mid-term
(5 to 10 years)
■ Long-ter m
(10+ years)
GPI 71-09 (Climate Action Plan) Page6
CONCURRENCE S
The Community Development Department prepared the CAP with input from other Cit y
departments,San Luis Obispo County Planning, Air Pollution Control District, and the San Lui s
Obispo Council of Governments . The City Utilities, Public Works, and Parks and Recreatio n
departments reviewed and supported all GHG reductions strategies related to their respectiv e
program areas .
FISCAL IMPAC T
The CAP will require fiscal allocations throughout implementation . The following genera l
estimates were made using assumptions for City costs consistent with those used in the City's
two-year Financial Plan . More detail is provided in the Local GHG Reductions Matri x
(Attachment 1). Funding and/or staff resources above that which is available in the existin g
Financial Plan are needed to implement aspects of the CAP, and will be requested through future
financial plans . There are no immediate budgetary actions requested with adoption of the CAP .
Implementation Tim e
Frame
Estimated Staff HoursEstimated Additiona l
Service and Supply Costs
Reductio n
(MTCO 2 e)
Near-Term Strategie s
(0 — 5 years)
1,480 - 4,800 $50,000 - $200,000 -4,01 8
Mid-Term Strategies
(5 — 10 years)
3,400 — 5,500 $150,000 - $275,000 -15,23 5
Long-Term Strategie s
(10+ years )
/(,/,il
3,08 0
7,960
— 3,500
— 13,800
$160,000 - $175,00 0
$360,000 — $650,000
-7,26 9
-26,522
ALTERNATIVE
The Council may continue the item and direct staff to make revisions to the CAP or includ e
additional information .
ATTACHMENT S
1.Local GHG Reductions Matri x
2.Public Outreach Schedul e
3.Participation Matri x
4.Planning Commission Matri x
5.List of General Plan Policies Related to CAP GHG Reduction Strategie s
6.Integrating Local Sustainable Planning Graphi c
7.Council Resolutio n
8.Initial Stud y
ENCLOSURE/LINK
Climate Action Pla n
www .slocool .or g
T: I Council Agenda Reports l2 012 12 012-0 7-1 71Climate Action Plan (Johnson-David) I GPI 71-09 (Climate Action Plan) - Council .docx
P.H3-6
Attachment 1
Local GHG Reductions Matrix
Near-Term (o to 5 years) GHG Reduction Strategie s
01 MTCO (l~'='b)• s 4 0 4,50o staffhours • $co,000 S2oo,000 City cost s
BLD 3 Public Outreac h
and Education -1,510 LowRegional Program
Community
Development,
Utilities
Number of local participants i n
Energy Upgrade CA
Number of hits o n
community web portal
Number of certified gree n
businesses
TLU 2 Alternative
Vehicles 1,110 Medium General Plan Updat e
Ordinance
Community
Development
Number of EV charging station s
and clean vehicle parking spaces
Number of local car-shar e
vehicles and members
Number of registered NEV s
in City
TLU 6 Parkin g
Management -46o Medium
Fee Progra m
Downtown Parking Acces s
&Management Plan
Parkin g
Public Works On-street parking vacancy rate Parking structure
occupancy rates
Annual revenue from parkin g
structures versus parkin g
meters
BLD 2
New Constructio n
Energy
Conservation
-288 Low
Community Desig n
Guideline s
Building Code Changes
Incentive Program
Communit y
Development
Percentage of new constructio n
projects that exceed Cal Gree n
requirements
Percentage of new projects
with smart grid appliance s
TLU 7 Shared Parking -250 Medium Zoning Code Amendment Community
Development
Average shared parkin g
reduction for tenants in multi-us e
centers
GO 1 City Energy
Conservation -190 High City Program Public Works,
Utilities Annual facility energy us e
WTR
Wate r
Conservation :
Existin g
Development
go Low City Program Utilities Reduction in the amount o f
potable water used for irrigation
Number of rainwater-
harvesting system s
installed
Annual increase in recycle d
water us e
TLU 8 Reduce the Nee d
for Commuting -5o Low LUCE Updat e
Fee Program
Communit y
Development
Jobs-housing ratio reported eac h
year in the General Plan Annua l
Report
Number of BMR housin g
units built, includin g
secondary dwelling unit s
GO g Employee
Commute -50 Medium City Program Parking
Percentage of total commut e
trips made by alternativ e
transportatio n
WT R
2
Wate r
Conservation :
New Development
-20 Low City Program Community
Development
Average water use reduction fo r
new development
Annual increase in recycle d
water use
RE 3 Public Outreach Support Low Regional Program Community Attendance at public events Number of projects with
PH3-7
Attachment 1
and Education Measure Developmentfocused on energy photovoltaic system s
TLU 9 Public Outreach
and Education
Support
Measure Medium Regional Program Community
Development
Number of transportatio n
welcome packets distributed
annually
Amount of participation i n
commuting events and
program s
WTR
3
Public Outreac h
and Education
Support
Measure Medium City Program Community
Development
Reductions in household wate r
usage
Number of household s
that take advantage o f
available rebate s
WST
2
Public Outreac h
and Education
Support
Measure Low City Program Communit y
Development
Composting worksho p
attendance Number of waste audits Number of field trips to wast e
facilitie s
PKS 5 Public Outreac h
and Education
Support
Measure Low City Program
Communit y
Development,
Parks &
Recreation
Number of attendees at outreac h
and training events
Number of partnership s
with local organization s
GO ii Public Outreac h
and Education
Support
Measure Low Regional Program Community
Development
Number of hits on the City's
climate action planning website
Attendance at various
outreach event s
PKS 3 Green Wast e
Recycling
Support
Measure Low City Program Public Works Tons of green waste collected Amount of firewood an d
wood chips distribute d
GO io
WST
Sustainability
Coordinato r
Increased Wast e
Diversion
Support
Measure
-744 0
High City Progra m
Financial Plan Priorit y
Mid-Term (5 to
Community
Development,
Utilities
Number of CAP program s
implemented through dedicatio n
of staff time
City cost s
Pounds of waste pe r
person and per employee
per day
Tonnages of green waste an d
recyclin g
10 years) GHG Reduction Strategie s
-1 5,2 3 5
High
fv1TCO 2 e (58°io)•400—5,50 0
Ordinance
City Progra m
Fee Progra m
Regional Program
staF f
Utilities
hours •Sa o,000 - $275,00 0
Annual waste diversion rat e
TLU 5 Land Use Diversity
and Density 2,850 High General Plan Policy
Ordinance
Communit y
Development
Increased land use inde x
(diversity of land uses)
Number of new mixed-us e
developments and area o f
the City rezoned for highe r
residential density
Mean travel time to wor k
RE i Renewable Energ y
Financing -2,100 Medium Regional Progra m
Incentive Program
Communit y
Development
Number and size of renewabl e
energy projects installed
Number of residents
and/or businesses i n
financing programs
2
PH3-8
Attachment i
~~,~yc pp~~p ~~z fig-yam.+~.y~i~.~g ~„g~„yam ~¢.y¢.may .HPr ~C f~W
BLD 1
Energy Efficiency
Improvements to
Existing Buildings
-1,745 Medium
State Requirement
Ordinanc e
Historic Preservatio n
Guidelines update
City Program
Community
Development,
Utilities
Number of energy rating s
submitted to City in exchange fo r
nominal compensation
Number of permits issue d
that include energy -
efficiency retrofits
Annual review of PG&E Green
Communities local data o n
residential and nonresidentia l
energy consumption trend s
TLU 1 Transit Services -420 High
Short Range Transit Pla n
Fee progra m
City Program
Public Works,
Community
Development
Annual transit trips Average passengers pe r
revenue hour
Number of discounted bu s
passes distributed annuall y
PKS 1 Enrich the Urba n
Forest -340 High City ProgramPublic Works Number of net new trees plante d
per yea r
. GO 8
Fleet an d
Equipmen t
Upgrades
-15o MediumCity Policy Public Works Vehicle fleet average fue l
efficienc y
RE 2 Renewable Energy
Incentives -140 High Ordinance
Incentive program
Community
Development,
Utilities
Number and size of renewabl e
energy projects installed
Number of resident s
and/or businesses takin g
advantage of incentiv e
programs, and associate d
cost saving s
GO 4 Energy-Efficien t
Street lighting -5o High City Program Public Works Percentage of streetlights an d
traffic signals replace d
PKS 4
Establish more
Communit y
Gardens
Support
Measure Medium
General Plan Policy
City Progra m
Collaboration with
community group s
Regional Program
Parks &
Recreation
Number of community garden
plot s
GO 7 Water
Conservation
Suppor t
Measure MediumCity Program
Parks &
Recreation
Public Works
Acres of landscape replaced with
low-maintenance plants Annual park water use
PH3-9
Attachment i
Long-Term (1a+years) GHG Reduction Strategie s
7,269 MTCO -e (2 ' ~~? •3 o8o —5oo staff hours • $16o,000 —51 75,000 City costs
TLU 3 Bike Travel -4,818 High
General Plan Policy
Bicycle Transportatio n
plan updat e
Financial Plan priorit y
City Program
Public Works ,
Community
Development
Miles of bike lanes and bike path s
installed
Number of bike trip s
observed in biannual bike
counts
Number of Bicycle
Transportation Plan project s
complete d
PKS 2
Parks and Ope n
Spac e
Development
1,36o High City Program
Regional Program
Natura l
Resources
Acres of open space preserved ,
restored or rehabilitated
Amount of parklan d
created annually
Amount of in-lieu fees
collected for parks .
TLU 4 Complete Streets 551 High
General Plan Polic y
Ordinance
Street Design Manua l
Regional Program
Public Works ,
Communit y
Development
Completed projects that improv e
the balance of the City's
transportation network for al l
users
Safe Routes to Schoo l
participation rates
Adopted Downtown
Pedestrian Pla n
GO 5
Water an d
Wastewate r
Infrastructure
-190 High City Progra m
Financial Plan Priority Utilities Annual reduction in water an d
wastewater facility energy use .
GO 3 Transit Flee t
Upgrades 160 High City Progra m
Financial Plan Priority Public Works Average fuel efficiency of transi t
flee t
GO 2 City Renewabl e
Energy -15o High
City Progra m
Financial Plan Priorit y
Grant or Utility Funding
Public Works
Utilitie s
Communit y
Development
Energy generated fro m
renewable sources at Cit y
facilities
GO 6
Increase Wast e
Diversion fro m
City owne d
Property
-4o Medium City Program Utilities, Publi c
Works
Percentage of facilities wit h
recycling and compostin g
receptacles
Annual disposal tonnage s
from facilities
PH3-1 0
Attachment 2
OUTREA 'SCHEDUL E
DATE AUDIENCE NUMBER O F
PARTICIPANTS ACTIVIT Y
8/31/2011
SLO Greenbuild Alliance, Downtown Association ,
Homebuilders Association, REALTORS, Chamber ,
Empower Poly
6 stakeholde r
groups
Email inquiry for opportunities to speak about
Climate Action Plan at organization meetings .
9/9/2011 Public Citywide Published Facebook page dedicated to CAP planning .
9/9/2011 Public Citywide Draft CAP published on SLOCOOL .org website .
9/ 15/2011 Climate Action Plan email list 43 Blast email to key stakeholders notifying public draft
CAP is available at SLOCOOL .org .
9/ 15/2011 Developers Roundtable email list 19 Notification of public draft CAP with link to
SLOCOOL.org .
9/27/2011 Sustainable Spirits Monthly Meeting
SLO
Greenbuild 35
Presentation and interactive exercise ; participants
placed green (support) or red (concerned) dots nex t
to proposed CAP strategies listed on boards t o
indicate comfort level, and wrote up additiona l
comments or suggested alternatives .
9/28/2011 APCD Greenhouse Gas Committee 12 Presentation on CAP strategies and supportin g
actions .
9/29/2011 Farmers Market 50 Booth held to engage the public on the CAP an d.inform visitors of upcoming workshops .
9/30/2011 SLO Rotary, Rotary de Tolosa,Rotary Daybreak ,
Kiwanis
4 stakeholder
groups
Notification of public draft CAP with link t o
SLOCOOL .org .
10/11/2011 Kiwanis AM 11 Presentation on CAP strategies and supportin g
actions.
10/13/2011 Public Downtown
Handout workshop save-the-date cards and pos t
workshop details in Downtown restaurants an d
retailers .
10/ 13/2011 Public 300+Council Note notifying public draft CAP is available
at SLOCOOL.org .
10/ 17/2011 Climate Action Plan email list 43 Notification of public workshop #3 on CAP with link
to web site .
Page 1 PH3-1 1
Attachment 2
DATE AUDIENCE NUMBER OF ACTIVIT Y
10/18/2011 Empower Poly Student Coalition 20
Presentation and interactive exercise ; participant s
placed green (support) or red (concerned) dots nex t
to proposed CAP strategies listed on boards t o
indicate comfort level, and wrote up additional
comments or suggested alternatives .
10/20/2011 Public 15
Community Workshop #3 -Presentation an d
interactive exercise ; participants placed gree n
(support) or red (concerned) dots next to propose d
CAP strategies listed on boards to indicate comfor t
level, and wrote up additional comments o r
suggested alternatives .
11/1/2011 Public Citywide Advertise CAP workshop and website on publi c
access television Channel 20 and in SLO Tribune .
11/3/2011 Workforce Housing Coalition 10 Discussion on CAP strategies with direct impact t o
housing industry .
11/3/2011 Chamber of Commerce - CAP Joint Taskforce 15 Presentation on CAP strategies and supportin g
actions .
11/8/2011 Association of REALTORS 50 Presentation on CAP strategies and supportin g
actions .
11/9/2011 Planning Commission 14
Study Session -Presentation on CAP ; discussion o n
strategies and supporting actions that have raise d
public concerns, request for PC direction .
11/10/2011 Home Builders Association 8 Discussion on CAP strategies with direct impact t o
housing industry .
11/16/201 l Greenbuild Alliance 30 Presentation on CAP ; discussion on strategies wit h
direct impact to building industry .
11/17/2011 Public Food4Less Grocery
Store Reusable Bag Giveaway and Outreach .
Page 2
PH3-1 2
Attachment 2
DATE AUDIENCE UMBE R
PARTICIPANTS ACTIVIT Y
11/ 19/2011 Public 10
Community Workshop #4 -Short presentation ;
small group discussion on strategies and supportin g
actions that have raised public concerns an d
possible alternatives to achieve reduction target .
12/1/2011 Chamber of Commerce - CAP Joint Taskforce 18 Discussion about similarities and difference s
between County Energywise Plan and City CAP .
12/ 1/2011 Kiwanis Noontime 15 Presentation on CAP strategies and supportin g
actions .
12/13/2011 Chamber of Commerce - CAP Joint Taskforce 8 Discussion on Chamber's concerns and edits for th e
draft CAP .
1/11/2012 Greenbuild Government Liaison Meeting 16 Presentation on CAP strategies and supportin g
actions .
1/11/2012 City/County GHG Stakeholder Meeting 21 Discussion of APCD GHG thresholds and City CAP
status update .
1/23/2012 Cultural Heritage Committee 8 Study Session -Presentation on CAP strategies
related to historic preservation.
5/23/2012 Planning Commission 20 Public Hearing -Presentation on CAP ;formulate
recommendation to Council .
6/ 13/2012 Planning Commission 18 Public Hearing -Presentation on CAP;formulate
recommendation to Council .
6/20/2012 City/County GHG Stakeholder Meeting 15 Discussion of APCD GHG thresholds and City CA P
status update .
7/17/2012 City Council Public Hearing
Page 3
PH3-1 3
Attachment 3
CAP Participation Matri x
KEY
1
WHO $
Business, HBA
STRATE9,
CAP
SUMMARY „
Account for pass-through trips when calculating GHG emissions fro m
transportation .
STAFF RESPONS)q
Staff ran the City's traffic model again and removed trips on HWY 1/101, bu t
left in miles traveled between interchanges within City limits . About 34% o f
citywide daily VMT is attributable to pass-through traffic .
2 Business, HBA ,
PC CAP Land use strategies should specifically address jobs/housing imbalance .The City's jobs/housing balance is addressed in the Transportation and Lan d
Use chapter ; strategy TLU 8.
3
Business, HBA,
Resident ,
Workforce ,
Gree n
Professional
CAP Prioritize strategies based on cost benefit analysis . Capture all costs (privat e
as well as public) and prioritize the biggest bang for the buck .
Quantifiable strategies are at the beginning of each Strategies section, an d
have the most trees next to them, which is a visual reference of the amount o f
impact on GHG emission reduction . The Local GHG Reduction Matrix was
revised to include detailed cost estimates, and prioritized based o n
implementation time frame and amount of GHG reductions .
4 Business, PC ,
Resident
CAP Encourage behavior change rather than increase regulation . Use incentives t o
reward positive behavior.
The CAP was revised to focus on education before regulation . In some
instances regulation is needed to achieve measurable results .
5 APCD CAP Make more measures in the CAP mandatory instead of voluntary.
This is the opposite of input received from the community . The Planning
Commission did not agree with APCD and directed staff to remain focused o n
education, incentives and voluntary-based approaches instead of regulatory
language .
6 Business, PC ,
Resident CAP
Coordinate a regional outreach and education campaign (e .g . Sammy the
Steelhead). Get the community excited and include youth outreach . Be sure to
tie energy efficiency back to the CAP's stated goal of reducing emissions . What
does it do at the energy production source?
Each chapter provides background info in the beginning, and now has a,Public Education and Outreach" strategy at the end . Partnership with th e
County on education efforts is supported throughout the CAP .
Business,
Resident CAP Ensure consistency and uniformity between climate action plans i n
neighboring areas in the City and county-wide. Is there a regional authority?
Staff recognizes that GHG reduction strategies need to be a regional effort an d
made this more apparent in CAP strategy language . There is no regiona l
authority, but the City is advising APCD in its development of a regional GHG
reduction toolkit for the six other cities in the County .
8 Government
Liaison CAP What is the City's strategy for the environmental review process?The initial study on the CAP recommends a negative declaration . The CAP wil l
also be evaluated as part of the EIR for the LUCE update .
9 Green
Professional CAP Sell the plan ; what will apparent upfront cost mean to me in the long term?Narratives and co-benefits listed in each chapter describe the long-ter m
benefits to the community .
10 Green
Professional CAP How does CAP relate/inform General Plan policy?
The CAP is a stand-alone strategy document that will inform the LUCE updat e
process. The CAP also recognizes existing GP policy that helps reduce GHG
emissions .
11 HBA, Green
Professional CAP The City's emission reduction target should be greater than a 15% reduction .
The City is targeting a 15% reduction in energy use at facilities by 2020 . This
is consistent with the CAP's overall community goal of 15% below baselin e
emissions by 2020 .
12 Home Builder s
Association CAP Did you consider green energy already being used in total GHG emission s
from buildings?
The GHG inventory evaluated community-wide emissions from four broa d
categories: Commercial/Industrial, Residential, Transportation, and Soli d
Waste . The type of energy consumed was not evaluated .
1 PH3-1 4
WH tKEY
13 PC
STRATEG Y
CAP Minimize weak, vague language in CAP .
STAFF RESPOND,awesarv~;=zc:-
All strategies and supporting actions were reworked to eliminate vagu e
statements in favor of implementable language .
14 PC CAP Concerns about the steepness of the Business As Usual forecast curve .
This forecast is included for reference only. It is an estimate of where the
community's emission levels would be if we did nothing . It helps emphasiz e
the need for action .
15 PC CAP Assign quantifiers to indicators and implement a monitoring program fo r
quantifiers .
Monitoring actions have a quantifiable value, such as "number of wast e
audits", where feasible .
16 PC, BusinessCAP The organization of the information in the document is unclear.
Each chapter was reformatted to include a goal statement, pie chart outlinin g
the percentage contribution to the overall reduction goal, and co-benefits .
Strategies were separated into State Reductions, Existing Actions, and [New ]
Strategies. Numerical values were assigned to pictographs (trees) representin g
amount of GHG reductions .
17 PC, CHC CAP Give residents more information on energy use at the individual and loca l
level . Arm residents with tools to reduce energy consumption on their own.
The Buildings chapter now contains strategies to: disclose energy use history,
provide online resources, and market energy-efficiency programs an d
financing.
18 Resident CAP Make it easier for residents to do the right thing .See above . Removing barriers for those residents seeking to reduce thei r
carbon footprint is repeated throughout the CAP .
19 Resident CAP How will the plan be implemented? Share examples from other cities .
Many of the GHG reduction strategies will take voluntary action from th e
community. Some strategies call for development of ordinances . Hiring a
Sustainability Coordinator to oversee implementation is another strategy . The
City's climate action planning website, SLOCOOL .org, provides links to othe r
adopted CAPs .
20 Resident CAP The City should stress human preservation which means preserving resources
for future generations .Staff added a statement about future generations to the introduction.
21 Resident CAP The City should have community visitations to landfills, WRF, for visua l
impacts.
This was added to the "Public Outreach and Education" section in the Soli d
Waste chapter.
22 APCD CAP Check the math throughout the document. Increase transparency in
calculations and assumptions .
All calculations and number references were double-checked and revised a s
needed. The Technical Appendix contains all assumptions for GHG reductio n
calculations . The consultant's MS Excel GHG reduction calculation workboo k
is difficult to follow given the complicated formulas . It can be made availabl e
to anyone that inquires at the Community Development Department .
23 APCD CAP Build in a margin of error .
The CAP does have a significant margin of error in the form of long-ter m
implementation strategies . 27% of anticipated GHG reductions do not facto r
in to hitting the 2020 target,but are still part of the long-term plan . They will
make up the gap over time if the reduction target is not met in 2020 .
24 APCD CAP Implementation and monitoring should be clearly defined .
Staff added additional info on implementation to the Executive Summary ,
Introduction, Conclusion and Local GHG Reduction Matrix.Each strategy ha s
its own indicators and monitoring items .
2 PH3-1 5
Attachment 3
KEY WHO STRATEGY STAFF RESPONS E
25 SLOCOG CAP
26 (ALL)~aiunal
Make stronger statements in the document about Transportation Deman d
Management (TDM) and Transportation System Management (TSM).
TDM and TSM are the application of strategies to reduce travel deman d
(specifically that of single-occupant vehicles). This is addressed extensively i n
the Transportation and Land Use Chapter through expansion of transi t
services, promoting alternative vehicles, developing Complete Streets, an d
public outreach and education .
The Municipal Code prohibits burning of waste matter, combustible materia l
or refuse in the open air within the city, except barbecue fires .
27
128
BLD (ALL)
I I L
li 1 0
-Lilt nrn
n r,o,' h i .stn u r n,;ro1c ':' tl~~
~Il sifI .I li nu n '1'r'I~c ]rit ;ii .Irnn1_
Staff clarified that this is an existing policy in Municipal Code Chapter 17 .42 ;
Buildings constructed Downtown may exceed max building height of 50 fee t
certain efficiency standards are met .
BLD 1 was changed to resemble language used in the County's Energywis e
plan, and include pieces from other adopted CAPs in California . Energy
ratings and upgrades are no longer mandatory . Cost recovery metrics wer e
included based upon type of upgrade. There are 36 BPI certified energy rater s
in the County . The average cost of an energy rating is between $300-$700 .
29 [(F_? LT(H1 H h .Gar1 m rl A time-of-sale energy audit was removed from the plan .
This is a heavy-handed approach that may receive increased public
dissatisfaction .30 R'F,\LTO F1H
1110 ,
pn :1lx~rlh ~t
~i 'A (pi 01,00131
A building that is on one of the City's historic lists, Contributing or Maste r
List, is considered a historic resource . All buildings that are 50 years or olde r
gamer closer review when changes are proposed .
3 PH3-1 6
An excellent point that needs consideration if an ordinance is developed in th e
future .
The utility company in Ann Arbor offers a rebate for energy audits ; $75 no w
and $75 when upgrades are completed . Working with local utility companie s
to offer rebates is part of BLD 3 .
Discussion of housing conservation and embodied energy was added to th e
'Buildings Strategies" section .
A great point . It is assumed that 45% of property owners that receive energ y
ratings will voluntarily complete associated entry-level upgrades .
LTr_;P
InIQLT Ip .r ;1r,1 _nr1 :IUI rr
cl
L i lh , l i i 1 1 1 I La l
An excellent point that needs consideration if an ordinance is developed in th e
future .32 LIL L ?U .
33 Pa(i)i LP 1
35 CHC BLD 1
-icr hul l 'r
36
n11s<~ns iii.111 rr ..;!1
Ltoscr'.~.ill ir n,I nBLD1CHC, HBA
ur_; r,~' I utilir.ix,:()pOn Ann ;1r ,.Sr, 111 IL :
n1 rL .n34BLD].CHC
Attachment 3
Y WHO STRATEGY SUMMARY STAFF RESPONS E
37 hax:i .i~--'A I
An excellent point that needs consideration if an ordinance is developed in th e
future.
38 ,.3 1
39 Pi ~r of ir1,wa n
4 0
43 I
ftl'l n .-,t )41
rt II,itl I 'TT ,142iona!
of localR?:D 1.
1:n,~I
t l l,~
I lo g,,g ild 111 ,1
45
46
The time of sale plumbing retrofit requires homeowners to submi t
documentation that work was completed on the City website. A similar model
s proposed as an incentive/monitoring item for voluntary energy ratings .
This is a good alternative that aligns with implementation actions in BLD 1 ;
energy use disclosures and home energy monitoring. Giving consumers more
info about energy use can create positive change .
A great comment that exposes the limitations of time-of-sale requirements .
Energy ratings do provide information on home safety, and a typical hom e
inspection during escrow also checks for unsafe conditions .
A good alternative worth considering if mandatory upgrades are a part o f
future ordinances. As drafted, only energy ratings are required .
Greywater systems can be permitted under current Utility and Building codes .
Opportunities for these systems will be identified in development review a s
part of WTR 1 .
AB 758 requires the Energy Commission to develop and implement a
comprehensive program to achieve greater energy savings in the state o f
California's existing building stock . Proposed program strategies include :
energy assessments, building benchmarking, building energy use ratings an d
labels, cost-effective energy efficiency improvements, public and private secto r
energy efficiency financing, and green workforce training . BLD 1 .5 ties City
efforts to this pending State legislation, which is on track for 2014-2015 .
BLD 1 no longer includes mandatory energy-efficiency upgrades (instead i t
calls for staff to evaluate options). If upgrades are required in the future ,
exemptions could be based on an efficiency rating of the work done ,
regardless of timing of improvements .
The types of efficiency upgrades the CAP works towards do not necessaril y
compromise the integrity of the resource, such as interior upgrades lik e
insulation, air sealing and wrapping ducts .
If efficiency upgrades are required, two energy audits may be necessary t o
track progress . The CAP does not require upgrades as drafted .
A good suggestion that is addressed in BLD 1 .1 and BLD 1 .3 ; finding ways t o
incentivize and promote efficiency rating and upgrades .
The Planning Commission did not agree with this suggestion since CAPSL O
and the State already provide assistance for low-income housin g
weatherization and efficiency retrofits .
47
lc ;ni ~,lf -i'r iJ (
Mini h i li p
tinporl i t831
1
48
49
PH3-17
Attachment 3
KEY WHO STRATEGY SUMMARY STAFF RESPONS "rpmf .R
50 oLl
col roofs are not necessarily white. They use special reflective pigments that
,lrrr can be various colors . Architectural review ensures that changes to historic
51 (i~rY '7,
structures will be compatible .
11 1111 ,11,BLD 2 .2 covers energy-efficient appliances in new construction.1
si,lcrn-
lrn,-_
BLD 2 was revised to incentivize exceeding T24 instead of requiring it .
52 Ill r ~c},Ic Mandatory T24 exceedance for new development projects did not reduce a
Cn~significant amount of GHG emissions, so the heavy-handed approach wa s
iA abandoned .
53
uirir ,111 1 11 ,iir_i
clu e.F~ rc ro Iii A great suggestion that could be included in an energy efficiency program a s
Ir rir ~~11131 part of BLD 3 : Public Outreach and Education .
54 F]I I i nr t'ii ICI n nur .. ~ t r :~ I r ~.: ~~n r u rlrr~_r I ors R,r i ni Good ideas for types of energy-efficiency programs that could be develope d
11 11 1 :111 per BLD 3 : Public Education and Outreach .
55 P -;ion :,l .i'LI FIiL,al, 1,11 n enri'~nd sr1Tn~~~tic ,i,inns rune s1 II ~~rr ;n,ilini*,Staff included a BLD 3 implementation action to collaborate on a regiona l
website for streamlined access to efficiency resources .Our local chapter o f
re ne
Energy Watch CA has already begun to create this site .
Energy Improvement Mortgages (EIMs),which are used to purchase existin g
homes thatwill have energy efficiency improvements made to them, are
already sponsored by federally insured mortgage programs (FHA and VA) and56Fria, ssional,BLD 3 the conventional secondary mortgage market (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac).
57 Resident BLD 3
CAP strategies include public education about these financing options as well
as pending regional programs .
cone iir label A good suggestion that is now included in BLD 3 : Public Outreach.
58 Resident BLD 3 Monitor restau Monitoring of commercial exhaust systems is regulated by State Buildin giitCode and wood-burning stoves are reviewed by APCD .
59 Student .BLD 3 Educate public Loy,on Diet, and edu business owners about Good ideas for types of energy-efficiency programs that could be develope d
Resident closing doors w r t per BLD 3 : Public Education and Outreach .
60 Business RE 1
Energy efficiency is pervasive throughout the plan,and specifically addresse d
Remove "renewable"from the title of this chapter. Focus of this section should for structures in the Buildings section. Renewable energy is an important par t
be on energy efficiency overall .of climate reduction strategies state and nationwide, and should remain it s
own chapter .
Green RE 1 .3 calls for a regional approach for renewable energy financing, similar t o
61 Professional,RE 1 Join or create a Regional Energy Authority .energy authority. This is also echoed in the County's Energywise Plan . Th e
APCD Planning Commission did not want to explicitly call out a regional energ y
authority as an objective in the CAP .
5 PH3-1 8
Attachment 3
rc C cUMNIARYKEYWH e
r .:z~ STRATEG1 STAFF RESPON ::..:.,._,._:..•.:a .., <:._:_. s i:'f
Chelan County's SNAP program:customers voluntarily pay a little extra o n
their utility bills . These customer donations are collected by the PUD an d
r
1 .,te's distributed once a year to SNAP producers -- individuals, schools an d
62 Resident ogram nonprofit agencies that are generating solar and wind power . Renewable
h n n energy generated by SNAP producers goes into the PUD's electrical grid and i s
distributed to PUD customers . This type of program is described in the City's
CAP under the strategy RE 1 .
Staff added :RE 1 .3 Work with the County and regional energy providers t o
Gr e63 RE 1 the feasibility of a feed-in tarriff .evaluate a feed-in tariff" program that pays propert y owners generatingProf
Tonal renewable energy based on the amount of energy generated .
64 CHC
RE 2 will there be any discretionary revs,
process for these small scale renewabl e
energy systems when they are on 1)1 [i uric sites or within historic districts?
Yes . The counter planner currently reviews PV installations on histori c
buildings . If there is a potential impact it is referred to the CHC .
Green More credits to reduce upfront costs for renewable energy systems in order to Strategy RE 2 focuses on reducing barriers and costs for renewable energy65ProfessionalREqualify for state rebate thresholds .system installations .
Green Solar and wind installations should be no-cost and/or expedited permits .The City already has reduced costs for renewable energy systems, and RE 266Professional,
HBA
RE 2 Would the fee reduction offset the compliance costs?works to strengthen these incentives .
APC:a,G re e n Staff added RE 2 .3 :Evaluate the feasibility of a regional Community Choice
67 Profess i
Gre[
RE 2 Explore options fc hoice Aggregation program to procure electricity from renewable resources .
68 Proi Pp 3 ht .,i wab],
III .,niu Use CLornel 20 .RE 3 includes marketing strategies that use Ch . 20 as well mother forums .
RE 3 li 11 [VS r,
,ini(
—
A tough situation that may be improved through additional outreac h69S ii
rater :
r <m_
rind p er < 1 ,'r_,
[p s i.l!~.he p_aw :1 on :_ll -ran iii
described in RE 3 .
70 F
i
o p al ,
it
I2E 3 A good suggestion that is now included in RE 3 : Public Outreach .
Sun Power and REC Solar are two big solar energy providers that hav e
established a leasing program ; homeowners buy down the energy but do no t71tdezt3,Il,ri,n pay for the equipment on their roof . Public education about these options wil l
be included as part of RE 3 .
The Renewable Energy Secure Communities project for SLO County (SLO -
RESCO) is a regional partnership working to identify the best mix of resources72StudentRE 3 I'■I for clean, secure and affordable energy . The City will help the public an d
decision-makers consider their research results .
+r-h~I1ln
i ,-s State law (Complete Streets Act of 2008) requires that cities plan for a
balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of al l
73 i ,,I silent L1i 1LL!inl
~_S nn i (iii
ni ..\users, including alternative transportation users . The CAP implement s
u Complete Streets legislation (TLU 4), and capitalizes on associated GH G
imi_:reduction benefits .
74 APCD
TLU (A1_;The Planning Commission did not agree with this suggestion .
PH3-1 9
KEY WHOA='.STRATEG Y
75 LI TI _
76 I ,si,nn l
77 I~.FL [
nr [78 TL I ;
79 FLU 2
80 Business TLU 2
Government
81 Liaison, Green TLU 2
Professional
82 Business TLU 2
Attachment 3
SUMMARY
Hie City's Short Range Transit Plan identifies inefficiencies with th e
Downtown Transit Center and recommends improvements . Staff added :TL U
1 .1 Implement the Short Range Transit Plan.
This is already a program funded by the City's Parking Fund . The program is
designed to free up parking Downtown for customers and short-term user s
that would otherwise be occupied by cars belonging to Downtown employees .
The CAP realizes the co-benefit of reduced vehicle miles travelled an d
associated reduction emissions .
TLU 1 addresses expansion of transit services .
Good idea . TLU 2 .2 now includes a threshold based on project size .
The Zoning Code already establishes thresholds (10 or more spaces) fo r
projects thay need to supply bicycle and motorcycle parking. This strategy
continues that vein for dedicated alternative vehicle parking spaces . The
Planning Commission wanted thresholds to be explicit .
TLU 2 .4 responds to State mandates for Complete Streets policies in th e
Circulation Element of the General Plan . One of the objectives of the ongoin g
GP Update process is to revise GP policies to incorporate street designs an d
transportation networks for all users .
TLU 2 focuses on expanding the network of EV charging stations . Private
homeowners may install stations in the public right-of-way with a temporar y
encroachment agreement .
TLU 2 .2 only requires 2% of required parking spaces to be allocated for EVs ,
in projects requiring ten or more spaces . This does not interfere with parkin g
requirement reduction incentives for mixed-use .
California Vehicle Code 1808 and the Public Records Act provide tha t
information collected by the DMV is generally considered public information .
This suggestion was added as a monitoring item in TLU 2 .
There are numerous benefits to alternative transportation including, but no t
limited to: cost savings on gas, vehicle maintenance, and car insurance ;
environmental stewardship; saving time; less stress and better health .
TLU 2 accommodates car-sharing services, and TLU 3 explores a bike-sharin g
program. In Paris, electric car sharing subscriptions cost 13 dollars a day, 2 0
dollars a week, and 187 a year. Beyond that, the hourly fees run from $5 to
12 based on the rental plan - and users' credit cards can be charged in cas e
of damage to the vehicles .
vt1in ~~.il_h~, lirrhr fire }
hnirl a ice ~n ~~liccu irtl ._ I ,d irLli
d
rnrr t-tt,,
[t Iiiiuiniu_n rl t.[i s i
,l
I
hr [
alI'F'gun'.lit,i
~! -f
uiarke1-dri~.'rn_
\~'1LII L I
hicrease E`:'
homeowne r
sidewalk tree well or media,[
Requiring EV charging
through parking requir
,kc FILL IlL ..L,il ;c ,
d i
PH3-2 0
SUMMARY 1^y t',
lug- ! I,iLr I i
STAFF RESPONS E
Implementation of the Bicycle Transportation Plan will increase the amount o f
bike infrastructure, thereby making more short term bike parking available t o
cyclists .
A major goal of the Bicycle Transportation Plan is to have a complete network
of Class I bike paths by 2027 . Strategies in the CAP further implementation o f
this plan .
T,>,ve less,
!L ridr^=h .~~ c .
r~inl lizc
The TLU section includes strategies to expand the network of bicycle an d
pedestrian routes, and increase safety of alternative modes, which will make
car-free alternatives more attractive . TLU 9 also calls for continue d
partnership with Rideshare on events like Bike Month .
The City cannot control private industry, but can provide more air pump s
chained to bike racks like in front of the Bike Kitchen at Morro and Pacific .
TLU 4 responds to Complete Streets legislation to require new an d
redeveloped street designs to address the needs of all users, including cyclist s
and pedestrians .
The Prefumo Creek pedestrian/bike bridge was unable to move forwar d
because private lands could not be secured . An alternative Safe Route t o
School is planned along LOVR that will be a dedicated bike and pedestria n
path separate from the roadway .
There are cost implications, and alternatives may present challenge s
conforming to State/Federal guidelines .
Rideshare is supported in two strategies (TLU 4 and TLU 9), and school-
reltaed programs are specifically called out in TLU 4 .3 .
Staff added :TLU 4.4 Research traffic congestion management techniques tha t
decrease vehicle stop rate and time, such as signal synchronization or
roundabouts .
TLU 6 takes credit for GHG reductions associated with existing actions ; meter
fees were recently raised and instituted on Sundays. Higher parking costs on
street make garages an attractive alternative .
T i
Do not remove the Job s-Housin9Ratio dis c
I
TLU 7 increases potential shared parking reduction from 10% to 30%.
Reductions in available parking can reduce VMT in compact mixed us e
i t r i*developments because people take shorter trips, and can easily walk or bik e
for multiple goods and services. Mixed-use infill is a major policy objectiv e
championed by decision-makers .
The Planning Commission directed staff to remove the jobs-housing rati o
discussion . Instead the strategy focuses on actions that have a direct impac t
on reducing GHGs ; reducing the need for commuting .
i i Good idea that was added to the program description of TLU 9 : Public
Outreach .
STRATEGY
9 6
9 7
98
i .l
,n
TIL T
TiA T a
TL l
T I .'.
TLU 7
TLU 8
TLU 9
86
87
Attachment 3
REP'
9 9
100
10 1
102
STRATEGY
TLl '
1)l I r_
p[ssional w tR 1
Gree n
Professional WTR 1
SUMMARY
[1)t,sh<~..
;:;u I
ens _rag e
Woa1-:
p m,
r .~
J
a ;,r .'r :r nc i t ~ICfPn^XI
STAFF RESPONS E
TLU 9 calls for education about bike-to-work programs like the Bicycl e
Commuter Act ($20 a month to employees,employers get a tax write off).
Some companies offer cash for biking as part of their health plan .
TLU 9 calls for continuing partnership with regional organizations ._
The City uses volume-based sewer rates based on dec thru jan use. Ongoing
monitoring is not feasible, yet would be required for a rebate program base d
on homeowner water conservation .
Greywater policies will come from the State and the City will adopt State-
mandated regulations .hiu :~L
103 Green WTR 1Professional
Rama IL sy5lelll-over a large area ul wniiiiun[:~- jus i
ndivid The City already uses regional detention basins for larger areas .
Green The ffcient landscape be Requir emeaning of should specified .water-Staff included more detail in WTR 1 to clarify water-efficient landscapes :Us e
104 Professional,WTR 1 efficient Iandsc of native and drought tolerant materials combined with conservative use of
Student water and landscape designs that prevent run-off.
Water self-sufficiency in buildings is a very ambitious goal . Initial steps are
105 Resident WTR 1 Work on "net-zero n ater" as a goal covered in the CAP through rainfall harvesting,water conservation,and water
recycling .
Resident, Green Wastewater must pass through numerous systems before being returned to
106 Professional WTR 1 There should be a variety of water reclamation strategies .the environment .The City's Water Reclamation Facility has been upgrading
various processes since 2005 to make them more energy efficient .
107 Resident,WTR 1 Implement use of grey. i ater .The City's Water Reuse Master Plan strongly encourages new development to
Student connect to recycled water for irrigation .
Green There should b . ~t ,anted wastewater t t uzu.i[~~ , re»eA in toilets mi d108ProfessionalWTR 2 landscaping wit quiring a CUP .A use permit is not required for greywater systems .
Green The groundwater basin, recharged by .SLO creek,is Dalidio's private property .109 WTR 2 Do not Is t1 d aipply south of I?r~,Professional It is out of the City's direct control .
BLD 2 .1 covers additional incentives for exceeding T24 and CalGree n110ResidentT2z0%.standards .Reducing impact fees in one possible alternative .
111 1 [ lent WTR 2 C { r .~ I ,.<:~. ! ~ ~i ~ v n r'.l C \ I s (The CAP takes credit for emission reductions associated with State laws .
},[],,n AFI I[ns i ~I The CAP addresses energy savings from water delivery and wastewate r112ResidentWTR 2',t More waler con,.:r .._ [;ionstreatment in the Government Operations section .
Average consumption in the 1980s was 128 gallons per person/per day. It i s
113 WTR 2 The City sl r„_.I d qu>,1> ,ng and treating water .now at 104 gallons per person/per day. Water conservation has saved cos t
because the treatment facility hasn't needed expansion .
C 20 percent of the Building "Water Use "baseline as specified in Chapters 4 and114n l 5 of the CalGreen Code .
9 PH3-2 2
Attachment 3
KE Y
115
WH O
less i~
STRATEGY
WTR 3
SUMMARY
e City
STAFF RESPONS E
This strategy was clarified and included in WTR 3: Public Outreach .
116 1:csidenl his n
?
Water itself requires energy to deliver and treat,so excess use compounds our
energy problems . The CAP is a collection of incremental strategies that wil l
n en t
make an overall difference .
At Cold Canyon it is ground up into alternative daily cover and fill .117 I ur1 ".,u 9lternatively, it can be trucked down to Santa Maria for composting .
118 f 1 I n, leer-IWMA banned single-use bags at Farmers effective January 1, 2013 .1_~i
innal ~
119 T 1 Cl1 ~~ ds :t onuncr~.~l r all]es i h .11i The CAP emphasizes a regional approach,and supports existing IWM A
P_u1
I ii °standards for commercial business recycling .
120 =~usru
~:,~'~"f
!itlr ;l WST 1 .4 was revised accordingly .
E,
ou~;i~nub 11 :1t i 1 -limit t(e 1
k~_>ir .,
ai l
121 lu ..:unc„il,~hr
nsinGt n,un
~dmuliit,l(WST 1 .4 considers of a food packaging ordinance.uli
-inna?
1 t,i .rl lay.122 WST 1 .3 reestablishes financial support for home composting bins .Professions rI
t I ,I
it
ier .~~~.
H 1 .11 i (Ii
u ~1
a t
r ls .•
123 Green WST 1 const Construction recycling requirements were removed from this strategy .Professional bette r
Green The trash company provides green waste bins, and large amounts of gree n124WST 1 The City should create green waste drop-off areas .Professional waste can be dropped off at Cold Canyon .
125 Resident WST 1 Consider compost
toilets .These are more appropriate for roadside facilities and other situations wher e
there is no suitable water supply or waste treatment facility .
126 Resident WST 1 .Are Cal Poly's efforts reflected
n,.
f
<1 ~' ~?City's water andCal Poly's demand on water/wastewater was backed out of the GH G
sewer ?emissions inventory . Poly is doing their own CAP .
127 Resident WST 1 Implement curbside construction waste pig _Already an option if an IWMA certified recycling company is used .
128 Business
_
WST 1 "Encourage" mstead of "establish" et rbsidr
I WST 1 .6 was revised accordingly .
129 Business WST 1 "Encourage instead of "establish" zero ova :n .~.Zero waste farmers markets was removed per the Planning Commission .
130 Student WST 1 Donate excess food from farmers market A good idea that can be part of WST 2 : Public Outreach and Education .
131 Student WST 1 'Have a City biodiesel option or biodiesel piri There is a biodiesel provider located at 75 Prado .
132 Student
_
WST 1 Find ways to ie people The City currently offers four bin sizes at different rates to accommodat e
trash varying homeowner needs . Smaller bins are less cost .
133 PC WST 1 E .r
i1rc1 1 'r ip ~J.
i'i
i~
c
u
u r u Staff removed the word "tax" and revised this strategy to support IWMA's bag
n(1 ban efforts .
Green n1
I .
r .
a ,1
-;l un P,.
:ome
i
~. t_
rl a Staff clarified that maintenance of parks is a larger GHG emitter than Ope n134ProfessionalPKS (ALLI n ,I,Space in the chapter introduction .
Attachment3
g reen The City should pla
11 g ait trees . TreeProfessional,PKS 1 now focuses on volunteer-based planting . Hiring additional staff t o135PKS 1 planting should be
;, _vtaff should focu sResident,plant more trees was removed .
Student on tree care .
136 Green
PKS 2 Use conservation easements in a coordinated fashion to create Class I hike A great idea that was added as PKS 2 .4.Professional paths and walking trails .
137 Student
PKS 2 What is the meaning of in lieu fees"?Paying predetermined in-lieu fees is an alternative to providing a required
parkland dedication .
Green Green waste should be composted from all City parks and be made availablePKS 3 reemphasizes existing efforts to chip larger green waste at the Corp138Professional,
PKS 3
Student for public use.yard and redistribute for City use .
Gree n
139 Professional,
PKS 4Resident,
Student
More community gardens and edible teaching gardens at schools .PKS 4 includes both of these suggestions .
140 APCD
PKS 4 Secure/implement programs to reduce food miles for schools and other larg e
families .
A good suggestion that can be part of implementing PKS 4 :Establish more
Community Gardens and PKS 5:Public Outreach and Education .
Green The program description for GO 1 now includes automatic shut off sensors fo r141Professional
GO 1 Tull,"n
ill
r lighl
1 i ; ~n
n
n
~~
hours .interior lights as part of the facility retrofit program .
142 Green
GO 3 ~Il,City employees have and established bike share program, and Utilities meter
Profe
sal readers often use scooters and Segway .
143 R clen PC~;iri z.n,l ('i~~vin ar,il Grp I,.~Evaluation of natural gas and hybrid fleet vehicles is now included in the
project description for GO 3 .
Evaluation of biodiesel as an alternative fuel is included in the project144l~~m u~ci_=r :Inrt>>i~description for GO 3 .
The Planning Commission did not agree with this suggestion, and wanted t o145APt C
) I, 8 ~ l
pi
err IF ur ~,:
_ rnm tie vehicle ugrades to ongoing City transit planning .
146 The City continues to replace signal fixtures with LED lights (GO 4).
Language in GO 7 was revised to require landscaping replaced in the City ,147 F
l l ~~,r':nu alum Il „.I ”,it an ilt~rnan
F . } I (es?including turf, to be water-efficient .
148 G,Fid<Inii%:I A good idea that was added as GO 7 .4 .
11
PH3-2 4
Attachment 4
PLANNING COMMISSION FEEDBACK MATRIX
KEY
1
CHAPTE R
CAP
PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTIO N
Document where City will be in eight years relative to 2020 reduction target .
Prioritize strategies . Show costs including staff time . Assign resources .
STAFF WILL :
Revise the Communitywide GHG Reductions Matrix and sort it according t o
implementation timeframe .
2 CAP Incorporate more mitigation measures for projects that exceed GHG thresholds i n
the CAP.
Add a strategy to develop a mitigation matrix as an offshoot of the CAP that can b e
given to project applicants . This will serve as compliance with quantifiable CA P
reduction measures and SB 97 direction .
3 CAP Explain check boxes next to Implementation Actions .Add an explanation in the Introduction, under "How to Read this Document".
4 CAP It is hard to scan the document for GHG reduction strategies .Increase font size of strategy headings .
5 CAP Make format consistent — existing actions section has section name in some place s
and stands alone in others .
Make headings consistent and add subheadings where chapters have multiple focu s
areas, such as Parks and Open Space .
6 CAP Correct math errors throughout .Double-check numbers and math in the CAP and appendix .
7 CAP Public Outreach and Education implementation actions are too limiting . Need mor e
comprehensive approach .
Include "development of a comprehensive education program" as a strateg y
throughout the CAP targeting energy-efficiency, renewable energy, and other CA P
priorities .
8 CAP Describe how the document is adopted and its relationship to General Plan .
Discuss how CAP is adopted by Resolution, and is not law . Some GHG reductio n
strategies will be implemented through ordinance, others will be revisions to existin g
policy,and still others may just require additional staff time . Identify different type s
of implementation in Communitywide GHG Reductions Matrix .
9 "
_
CAP Be consistent in message, the reduction target, and numbers throughout th e
document .
Ensure that references to the GHG reduction target are given in terms of reductio n
from baseline, as well as reduction from projected BAU . See item 6 for numbe r
consistency .
10 CAP Clarify pie charts at beginning of each chapter are community GHGs and do no t
reflect State reductions .Add the word "community" to data label on all chapter pie charts .
11 CAP Get rid of fluff that has miniscule impact and confuses people .Eliminate implementation actions that do not have strong direct connection t o
reducing GHGs .
12 CAP Re examine costs in matrix ; staff vs .real .Revise costs assigned to each strategy keeping in mind potential infrastructure ,
equipment or capital improvement costs .
13 EXEC SUM
Recognize that many of the proposed strategies are ongoing efforts .
Add :The most vital step towardsachieving the reduction target is public outreac h
and education . A well informed community is empowered to make alternativ e
decisions, or in many cases,to continue environmentally sound practices alread y
taking place in 5LO .
14 INTRO Move "Understanding Climate Change" into appendix .Add a second appendix, since there is just technical appendix now .
15 INTRO Make case for why we are doing this stronger. Distinguish between natural an d
human activities generating GHGs . Avoid inflammatory language .
Emphasize these reasons: AB 32, SB 97, SB 375, General Plan policy, Counci l
objective, and dangers of climate change impacts . Identify cause in terms of huma n
vs .natural .
1 PH3-2 5
Attachment 4
...._`~'-.'+s ~•--•~r'-
`i •PLANNING
b`v ' ISSION DI
.,.~:' -P1RC "~'.'_"-inn F -..FKEY
16
BUIL D
17
CHAPTE R
INTR O
N(-3 s
BLD 1
Describe the GHG reduction target from projected Business-As-Usual (BAU) i n
addition to baseline .
Combine implementation actions where possible .
+li___w 1 1
Clarify that GHG target is 15% below baseline, and about 25% below expected BA U
emissions .
Combine BLD 1 .1 and 1.2, and combine BLD 1.3 and 1 .4 .
18 BLD 1 Program description assumes energy-efficient homes are inherently more valuable ,
which is not always the case .Eliminate discussion of inherent value .
19 BLD 1 .1 Do not require energy ratings at this time . Incentivize and educate instead .Revise wording to state :Accomplish 250 energy-efficiency retrofits annually b y
encouraging energy audits, offering rebates and incentives, and education .
20 BLD 1 .1 Explore incentives for indicators and monitoring . For example, a resident can receiv e
$5 if they do an energy audit and submit it to the City .
Research and include possible funding sources for an energy-audit incentive program
that requires submittal of audit results to the City .
21 BLD 1 .3, 1 .5 Explain State legislation AB 1103 and AB 758 .
Move the program description section to after the strategy and befor e
implementation actions . AB 1103 and AB 758 are already explained in the progra m
description .
22 BLD 1 .6 Clarify that historic integrity is what is referenced rather than structural integrity .Add the word "historical" in front of "integrity".
23 BLD 2 .2 Do not require appliances to be preset to operate in off-peak times .End sentence after the word "appliances ".
24 BLD 3 .2 A regional energy conservation competition is not a good idea .Eliminate implementation action 3 .2 .
25 BLD 3 .4 Link local green building organizations to education and outreach .
Strike word "develop" in favor of "support efforts to" implement a revolving low -
interest loan ...The City does not want to be a bank .
Reword :Work with local green building organizations on education and outreac h
programs .
Revise implementation action 1 .1 and research Empower Santa Barbara to see wha t
kind of participation rate they have had in 2 years of program operation, loadin g
order, and if HERS rating is required .
RENEWABLE ENERG Y
26 RE 1 .1
27 RE 1.2 Do not make it specific to green businesses .Reword to indicate renewable energy improvement program is for all businesses, no t
just green businesses .
28 RE 1 .3 A regional energy authority is not feasible or desired .Remove reference to regional energy authority .
29 RE 2 Include mitigation measures here for projects that exceed GHG thresholds .
Add implementation action for development projects that exceed local GH G
thresholds to install renewable energy infrastructure . Change title of strategy t o
"Renewable Energy Implementation ".
30 RE 3 .2 Flesh out what might come out of SLO RESCO project in a little more detail .Move the program description section to after the strategy and befor e
implementation actions . SLO-RESCO already explained in the program description .
31 RE 3.3 How will we encourage PV installations? Why only on shade structures?
Include "design review process" as method to encourage use of renewable energ y
and give an example. Expand focus to"whenever possible "instead of limiting t o
parking garages and shade structures .
PH3-2 6
Attachment 4
KEY CHAPTER
[PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION STAFF WILL :
Revise strategy to make more general, and tie into ongoing transit planning .
Ra.NSFORTAT10N c<LAND US E
32 TLU 1 Actions are too specific and limiting . Focus on continuing existing transit services ,
plans and upgrades.
33 TLU 1 .5 Discuss all merits of the Downtown employee bus pass program .Highlight senior and student discounts in existing commuting promotions .
34 TLU 2 .1 Establish a project size threshold for requiring clean vehicle parking spaces .Use the same threshold as TLU 2 .2 ; when 10 or more spaces are required .
35 TLU 2 .3 Explain APCD efforts in a little more detail .Discuss grant funding APCD and EV Connect received to upgrade older electri c
vehicle charging stations with outdated equipment .
36 TLU 3 Set goal of 20% bike mode share instead of 10%. Clearly describe that this is mod e
share not an increase of 20%.
Include strategy to revise Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP) to achieve goal of 20 %
mode share, and provide funding to implement BTP .
37 TLU 3 Consolidate strategies where possible .Combine TLU 3 .1 through TLU 3 .4 .
38 TLU 3 .5 Bike-share should be near parking lots and structures . Consult with Bike Coalitio n
about other successful programs .
Add "near parking structures "to the end of TLU 3 .5 . Research other bike-share
programs .
39 TLU 4 Check GHG reductions —this seems too low .Recalculate projected GHG emissions reductions associated with Complete Street s
policies based on consultant's workbook and other cities' examples .
40 TLU 4 .1 Complete streets are not appropriate for all streets .Focus more on a complete network and development of complete streets where i t
makes sense .
41 TLU 5 Many of these efforts are on-going and the boxes should be checked to indicate it i s
an existing program .Check all boxes in TLU 5 .
42 TLU 5 Clarify that upzoning is not targeted at existing low-density residentia l
neighborhoods .
Provide more detail in Program Description and Indicators and Monitoring abou t
purpose and scope of upzoning, which excludes R-1 neighborhoods .
43 TLU 6.2 The box should be checked to show this is an on-going effort .Check box next to TLU 6 .2 .
44 TLU 6.3 Preventing Downtown parking overflow does not have much of an impact o n
reducing GHGs .Eliminate this implementation action and modify program description .
45 TLU 8.3 Focus on reducing need for commuting . Jobs-Housing discussion isn't necessary .Remove jobs-housing discussion from program description .
46 TLU 8 .3 Revise to show that this is an ongoing effort .
Reword :Continue to allow secondary dwelling unit construction and look fo r
opportunities to reduce barriers to their production such as high impact fees or
development requirements .
47 TLU 9 Public Outreach and Education implementation actions are too limiting . Need mor e
comprehensive approach .
Include "development of a comprehensive education program "as a strategy
throughout the CAP targeting alternative transportation and other CAP priorities .
v,AT SE
Expand upon when Water Efficient Landscape Standards are required; when a
discretionary permit is needed .
Clarify when these strategies apply: new construction involving landscaping change s
versus a permit for a new roof .Check relevant boxes that continue implementatio n
of adopted Water Efficiency Landscape Standards .
48 WTR 1 .1-1 .2
PH3-27
Attachment 4
'^KE
49 WTR 3 .2
....ar~[bu ' ,ti`r.~ i~—r .•-~xw a
Utilities Dept already provides conservation resources online and in print .Check the box next to WTR 3.2 .
50 WTR
ADAPTATION Losses in the Sierra Snowpack doesn't influence our water supply .Delete what doesn't apply to SLO; we have secured additional water sources vi a
Nacimiento Pipeline and don't have to worry about water supply .
SOLI D
51
WAST E
WST 1 .1 We need to evaluate the effectiveness of a new rate schedule before establishin g
one .Modify to say "Evaluate the effectiveness" instead of "Establish".
52 WST 1 .4 Food packaging ordinance — is it worth the trouble? Explore if this is needed fo r
reduction .
Provide more analysis of impact on GHG reductions . If action is still needed, modif y
to say "Evaluate the effectiveness" instead of "Develop".
53 WST 1 .5 Why include this strategy? The IWMA action is completed . Does handing out fre e
bags really help?
Review GHG reduction calculations for this action . Determine if it has a significan t
impact . Remove "give away free reusable bags".
54 WST 1.7 Some construction debris is not organic and doesn 't generate methane (eg . concrete
and drywall). Analyze effectiveness of this strategy .
Review GHG reduction calculations for this action . Determine if it has a significan t
impact . If needed, modify to address construction waste that does have GH G
impacts .
55 WST 1 .9
Look into other jurisdictions that have initiated this effort to determine how it i s
working . Is there a tradeoff in methane capture putting things in the garbage
disposal instead of the landfill?
Modify to say "consider" versus "establish". Revisit consultant's GHG reductio n
calculation workbook and other cities' examples .
5 6
PARKS
WST 1 .10
&OPEN SPACE
What does zero waste farmers market mean?Zero-waste farmers 'markets is a goal that can be achieved through recycling ,
donating excess food, ban on plastic bags, etc . Add details to program .
57 PKS 1 Make sure that strategies for trees and renewable energy don't conflict ; trees shoul d
not block photovoltaic arrays .Add :provided they do not interfere with solar energy installations .
58 PKS 1 .2 We should expand the volunteer planting programs instead of just promoting them .Replace "promote "with "expand ".
59 PKS 1 .3 Additional staffing should be evaluated in the context of competing fiscal priorities .Add"unpaid "to Urban Forester internship program .
60 PKS 2 .4 Should this be tied to a bike program in TLU chapter?Remove "bike paths and walking" to emphasize that the strategy is about trails for al l
users .
61 PKS 2 .5, 2 .6 These are ongoing strategies .Check boxes next to PKS 2 .5 and PKS 2 .6 .
62 PKS 4 Fostering local food production is good, but implementation actions are fluffy an d
don't relate .Remove PKS 4 .2 and PKS 4 .3 .
63 PKS S Select plants based on expected size .Add suitable plant and tree types for home and professional use to public outreac h
and education objectives .
64 PKS 5 .1, 5 .2 Theses actions don 't directly relate to GHG reduction .
Revise : PKS 5 .1 Continue tree planting and maintenance education programs such a s
Arbor Day and Downtown Foresters PKS 5 .2 Partner with regional organizations t o
create volunteer opportunities for trail work, habitat restoration and open spac e
maintenance.
PH3-2 8
Attachment 4
KEY CHAPTER PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION STAFF WILL :
GOVERNMENT OPERATION S
65 GO 7 Select plants based on expected siz e
66 GO 1,2,3 These strategies reflect ongoing efforts .Check boxes next to GO 1, GO 2 and GO 3 .
67 GO 3 Revise to show that this is an ongoing effort .Revise wording :Continue to upgrade to fuel-efficient vehicles as part of flee t
replacement program .
68 GO 4 .1, 4 .3 Make reference to best available technology . LED may not always remain mos t
efficient lighting possible .
4 .1 references the City's ongoing traffic signal upgrade project . To date,all of th e
green and red lights have been upgraded to LED . Given the midterm implementatio n
time frame, the City should stick with LEDs to be consistent . 4 .3 will be revised t o
reflect Commission input .
69 GO 5 .1 This strategy reflects ongoing efforts .Check boxes next to GO 5 .1 .
70 GO 6 .1 This strategy reflects ongoing efforts .Check boxes next to GO 6 .1 .
71 GO 7 Choose plant size based on locatio n
72 GO 7 .1, 7 .3 ,
7 4 These strategies reflect ongoing efforts .Check boxes next to GO 7 .1, GO 7 .3 and GO 7 .4.
73 GO 8 Place more emphasis on upgrading with best available technology .Revise :Utilize best available technology for equipment and poolcar upgrade s
identified in the vehicle fleet replacement program .
74 GO 11 .1, 11 .2 These strategies reflect ongoing efforts .Check boxes next to GO 11 .1, GO 11.2 .
Attachment 5
General Plan Policies Related to Climate Action Plan GHG Reduction Strategie s
General Plan Policy Descriptio n
Building s
2 .4 .2
Land Use Element
Density Bonuses (Residential Density )
Projects can receive a density bonus if they receive development credits fro m
the downtown core or expansion areas in order to protect open space, o r
provide the minimum percentage of dwellings for the elderly or income groups
set by state law .
3 .1 .6
Land Use Element
Building Intensity (General Retail )
Building density increases, as measured by floor area ratio, are allowed in th e
downtown core for projects that meet other City objectives, like affordabl e
housing, open space or historic preservation .
3 .1
Housing Element
Housing Conservatio n
Encourage the rehabilitation, remodeling or relocation of sound or re-habitabl e
housing rather than demolition . Demolition of non-historic housing may b e
permitted, where conservation of existing housing would preclude th e
achievement of other housing objectives or adopted City goals .
6.1 0
Housing Element
Housing Productio n
Provide incentives to encourage additional housing in the Downtown Core ,
particularly in mixed-use developments . Incentives may include flexible density ,
use, height, or parking provisions, fee reductions, and streamlined developmen t
review and permit processing .
9 .4
Housing Element
Sustainable Housing, Site, & Neighborhood Desig n
To promote energy conservation and a cleaner environment, encourage th e
development of dwellings with energy-efficient designs, utilizing passive an d
active solar features, and the use of energy-saving techniques that excee d
minimums prescribed by State law .
4 .3 .1
Conservation & Ope n
Space Element
Use of best available practice s
The City will employ the best available practices in energy conservation ,
procurement, use and production, and will encourage individuals ,
organizations and other agencies to do likewise .
4 .6 .8
Conservation & Ope n
Space Element
Energy-efficient project desig n
Encourage energy-efficient project design by emphasizing use of daylight an d
solar exposure, shading and natural ventilation, as opposed to designing a
particular image and relying on mechanical systems to maintain functionality
and comfort . Educate City staff, citizen advisers, developers and designers o n
ways to exceed minimum State energy standards .
5 .5 .7
Conservation & Ope n
Space Element
Energy efficiency and Green Building in new developmen t
The City shall encourage material and energy-efficient "green buildings"a s
certified by the U .S . Green Building Council's LEED Program or equivalen t
certification .
PH3-3 0
Attachment 5'
General Plan Policy Descriptio n
Renewable Energ y
4 .2
Conservation an d
Open Space Element
Sustainable energy use
Increase use of sustainable energy sources such as solar, wind and therma l
energy, and reduce reliance on non-sustainable energy sources to the exten t
possible with available technology and resources .
4 .3 .4
Conservation and
Open Space Element
Use of energy efficient, renewable energy source s
The City will promote the use of cost effective, renewable, non-depletin g
energy sources wherever possible, both in new construction projects and i n
existing building and facilities .
4 .5 .3
Conservation an d
Open Space Element
Solar Access Easement s
Solar access easements will be required in all new subdivisions, as provided i n
the State of California Solar Rights Act, unless any of the following applies :
A .The subdivision incorporates a building development plan that will assure
desirable solar access.
6 . Desirable solar exposure will be protected by the City's Zoning Regulations .
C. The subdivision establishes yard or height standards designed to assur e
desirable solar access, supplementary to the Zoning Regulations, which woul d
make a system of easements for each lot unnecessary .
4 .6 .1 7
Conservation an d
Open Space Element
Require Solar Power for new Dwelling s
Within new single-family residential projects of 20 or more dwelling units, 5% o f
the total number of dwellings shall be built with photovoltaic solar collector s
beginning thi
seducatio
npercentag e
.
shall increase 4% each year until 2020 .
Multi-family residential developments shall be exempt from thi s
requirement, except for common-use facilities such as recreation rooms ,
spas or swimming pools . In these cases, the common facilities shall be buil t
with photovoltaic solar collectors .
publi c
in2008 ,
5 .5 .6
Conservation an d
Open Space Element
1 .4
Land Use Element
The City will expand its public education outreach efforts to raise publi c
awareness of energy and materials conservation goals, sustainable technology ,
benefits and incentives .
Transportation and Land Us e
Jobs/Housing Relationshi p
The gap between housing demand (due to more jobs and college enrollment )
and supply should not increase .
2 .1 .4
Land Use Element
Neighborhood Connection s
All areas should have a street and sidewalk pattern that promote s
neighborhood and community cohesiveness. There should be continuou s
sidewalks or paths of adequate width, connecting neighborhoods with eac h
other and with public commercial services to provide continuous pedestria n
paths throughout the City .
PH3-3 1
Attachment 5
General Plan Policy Descriptio n
2 .3 .2
Land Use Element
Separate Path s
Within major expansion areas, bicycle and walking paths which are separat e
from roadways should connect residential areas with neighborhoo d
commercial centers, schools, parks and, where feasible, other areas if the City .
4 .1 0
Land Use Element
Parkin g
Any major increments in parking should take the form of structures, located a t
the edges of the commercial core, so people will walk rather than driv e
between points .
4 .2 2
Land Use Element
Parking for Downtown Resident s
Develop alternative parking options for residents in the downtown .
2 .0 .1
Circulation Element
Multi-level Program s
The City should support county-wide and community programs in order t o
substantially reduce the number of vehicle trips and parking demand .
2 .0 .2
Circulation Element
Flexible Work Schedule s
The City should support flex time programs and alternative work schedule s
where they reduce peak hour traffic levels .
2 .0 .3
Circulation Element
Work-based Trip Reductio n
Employers should participate in trip reduction programs .
2 .1 .3
Circulation Element
Trip Reductio n
The City will support aggressive efforts of the Air Pollution Control District t o
establish trip reduction programs that affect downtown employers, Cal Pol y
and Cuesta College, and the California Men's Colony.
2 .1 .5
Circulation Element
Large Employers
The City will work with area employers, the Chamber of Commerce, Ai r
Pollution Control District, Transportation Management Association, and othe r
agencies to support a voluntary trip reduction program .
3 .0 .1
Circulation Element
Transit Developmen t
The City should encourage transit development, expansion, coordination an d
aggressive marketing throughout San Luis Obispo County to serve a broade r
range of local and regional transportation needs including commuter service .
3 .1 .2
Circulation Element
Employee Transit Passes
To help reduce traffic and the demand for parking, employers should b e
encouraged to purchase monthly transit passes in bulk and make the m
available to their employees . The City will develop a bulk discount pass rate .
5 .0 .1
Circulation Element
Promote Walkin g
Walking should be encouraged as a regular means of transportation for peopl e
who live within a 20-minute walk of school, work, or routine shoppin g
destinations .
3
PH3-3 2
Attachment 5
General Plan Policy Descriptio n
5 .1 .2
Circulation Element
Sidewalk Networ k
The City will pursue the installation of sidewalks to complete a continuou s
network throughout the community .
5 .1 .3
Circulation Element
Handicapped Ramp s
The City will continue its annual program of replacing existing curbs wit h
handicapped ramps .
5 .1 .4
Circulation Element
School Route s
The City should work with parents and teachers of elementary school students
to establish a "suggested routes to school" program for bicycling and walking .
8 .0 .2
Circulation Element
Peak Hour and Daily Traffi c
The City should cooperate with county and state government to institut e
programs that reduce the levels of peak-hour and daily vehicle traffic .
11 .0.6
Circulation Element
Public Transit Service
Public transit service should be encouraged to serve the county airport as soo n
as practical ,
5 .2
Housing Element
Housing Variety and Tenur e
Encourage mixed-use residential/commercial projects to include live-work an d
work-live units where housing, offices or other commercial uses are compatible .
5 .3
Housing Element
Housing Variety and Tenur e
Encourage the development of housing above ground-level retail stores an d
offices to provide housing opportunities close to activity centers and to us e
land efficiently .
6 .1 2
Housing Element
Housing Productio n
Consider amendments to the General Plan to rezone commercia l
manufacturing or public facility zoned areas for residential use, to promot e
higher-density, infill or mixed-use housing where land development pattern s
are no longer valid and where impact to Low-Density Residential areas i s
minimal .
6 .1 4
Housing Element
Housing Productio n
Encourage residential development by focusing as much on infill developmen t
and densification within City Limits as on annexation of new residential land .
7 .4
Housing Element
Neighborhood Quality
Within expansion areas, new residential development should be an integra l
part of an existing neighborhood or should establish a new neighborhood, wit h
pedestrian and bicycle linkages that provide direct, convenient and safe acces s
to adjacent neighborhoods, schools and shopping areas .
2 .3 .3
Conservation and
Open Space Element °
Alternative Transportation/Land Use Strategie s
Implement public transit-, bicycle- and pedestrian-oriented land use and desig n
strategies in new development, as described in the Land Use and Circulation
PH3-3 3
Attachment 5
General Plan Policy Descriptio n
Elements of the General Plan to reduce the number of single-occupant trips i n
fossil-fueled vehicles .
1 .13 .3
Water/Wastewate r
Element
Reserve for Intensification and Infill Developmen t
The City will annually update the water available for allocation based on th e
difference between the adopted safe annual yield (policy 1 .1 .2)and the presen t
water demand (policy 3 .1 .4) as part of the annual Water Resources Statu s
Report . One-half of the water available for allocation (not to exceed the tota l
required for infill and intensification), as identified in the Water Resources Statu s
Report, will be reserved to serve intensification and infill development withi n
existing city limits as of July 1994 .
Wate r
10 .2 .2
Conservation an d
Open Space Element
Ahwahnee Water Principles
The City will be guided by the Ahwahnee Water Principles and will encourag e
individuals, organizations and other agencies to follow these policies .
10 .3 .1
Conservation an d
Open Space Element
Efficient Water Use
The City will support efficient water use, and will encourage individuals ,
organizations, and other agencies to do likewise .
9 .5
Housin g
Element
Sustainable Housing, Site, and Neighborhood Desig n
Actively promote water conservation through housing and site design to hel p
moderate the cost of housing .
1 .17 .1
Water/Wastewate r
Element
Reclaimed Water Qualit y
The City will produce high quality reclaimed water, suitable for a wide range o f
non-potable uses .
1 .17 .2
Water/Wastewate r
Elemen t
3 .13 .1
Parks an d
Recreatio n
Element
Uses of Reclaimed Wate r
The City will make available reclaimed water to substitute for existing potabl e
water uses as allowed by law and to supply new non-potable uses . Whe n
deemed appropriate by the Utilities Director, new development shall be
equipped with dual plumbing to maximize the use of reclaimed water for non -
potable uses .
Parks and Open Spac e
The Park Syste m
Develop and maintain a park system at the rate of 10 acres of parkland pe r
1,000 residents . Five acres shall be dedicated as a neighborhood park . Th e
remaining five acres required under the 10 acres per 1000 residents in th e
residential annexation policy may be located anywhere within the City's par k
system as deemed appropriate .
3.19 .4
Parks and Recreation
Playgrounds and Special Recreation Area s
The City will make available community gardens in appropriate park locations .
5
PH3-34
Attachment 5
General Plan Policy Descriptio n
9 .2
Housin g
Element
Sustainable Housing, Site, and Neighborhood Desig n
Residential site subdivision and neighborhood designs should be coordinated
to make residential sustainability work . Some ways to do this include:
Design subdivisions to maximize solar access for each dwelling and site .
Design sites so residents have usable outdoor space with access to both su n
and shade .
Streets and access ways should minimize pavement devoted to vehicular use .
Use neighborhood retention basins to purify street runoff prior to its enterin g
creeks .
Encourage cluster development with dwellings grouped around significantl y
sized, shared open space in return for City approval of smaller individual lots .
Treat public streets as landscaped parkways, using continuous plantings at leas t
six feet wide and where feasible, median planters to enhance, define and to
buffer residential neighborhoods .
Government Operations ap.
2 .1 .4 Circulatio n
Element
City Trip Reductio n
City government will aggressively pursue a trip reduction plan for Cit y
employees with the goal of achieving an average vehicle ridership of 1 .7 o r
greater.
4.3 .2
Conservation an d
Open Space Element
Efficient City building operatio n
City buildings and facilities will be operated in the most energy-efficien t
manner without endangering public health and safety and without reducin g
public safety or service levels .
4 .3 .3
Conservation an d
Open Space Element
Energy-efficiency improvement s
The City will continue to identify energy efficiency improvement measures t o
the greatest extent possible, undertake all necessary steps to seek funding fo r
their implementation and, upon securing availability of funds, implement th e
measures in a timely manner.
4 .6 .1
Conservation an d
Open Space Element
Efficient City energy use .
Manage City operations for energy efficiency, including purchase and use o f
vehicles, equipment and materials .
4.6 .3
Conservation an d
Open Space Element
Sustainable design in City facilities .
Incorporate conservation and sustainable energy sources and features i n
existing and new City facilities .
4 .6 .1 0
Conservation an d
Open Space Element
Retrofit City facilities for energy savings .
As funding allows, the City will retrofit existing City buildings with energy -
saving features such as insulation, glazing and fluorescent lighting fixtures, an d
will participate in programs to encourage property owners to do the same .
5 .5 .1
Conservation and
Efficient use of materials in City operation s
The City will manage its operations for efficient materials use by : substituting
PH3-3 5
Attachment 5
General Plan Policy Descriptio n
Open Space Element electronic information exchange for paper whenever feasible and cost effective ,
and reproducing paper documents as two-sided publications whenever cos t
effective .
5 .5 .2
Conservation an d
Open Space Element
Promote City materials reuse and recyclin g
The City will manage its operations to foster reuse and recycling .
2 .3 .6
Water/Wastewate r
Element
Energy Efficiency
Wastewater operations will minimize energy use and will incorporate cost -
effective energy recovery or production facilities .
7
PH3-36
Integrating Local Sustainable Planning into San Luis Obispo's General Plan
Attachment 6
Council Long RangePlanningGoals and General Plan Policie s
Economic Development Strategic Plan Climate Action Pla n
Policies for head-of-household job s
Infrastructure enhancemen t
Focus on promising growth sector s
Expedite desired economic activity
GHG reduction policie s
Energy-efficienc y
Reduce VM T
•Compact mixed-use neighborhood s
•Alternative mode s
'inform inform SLCCO G
scs
Land Use & Circulation Element Updat e
Sustainability Principles, Policies & Programs SLOCO G
Regiona l
guide—Blueprin t
San LuisObispoGeneral Plan Elements
updat e
1
t
i
Ho!.~sin Land Use
1994
Circulatio n
1994
PH3-3 7
▪Efficient land us e
Decreased energy us e
Alternative transportatio n
Neighborhood wellnes s
Healthy City for m
Economic vitality
Attachment 7
city of san lu g s og isp o
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FOR M
For GPI 71-09 (Climate Action Plan )
1.Project Title :Climate Action Pla n
2.Lead Agency Name and Address :
City of San Luis Obisp o
919 Palm Stree t
San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 1
3.Contact Person and Phone Number :
James David, Associate Planner (805) 781-7576, e-mail : jdavid@slocity .org
4.Project Location :San Luis Obispo, Californi a
5.Project Sponsor's Name and Address :
City of San Luis Obisp o
919 Palm Stree t
San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 1
6.General Plan Designation :Not applicable .
Zoning :Not applicable .
Description of the Project :
The Climate Action Plan (CAP) establishes strategies for reducing municipal and community -
wide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions . The CAP is a proactive strategy document that enable s
the City to maintain local control of implementing State direction (AB32 – the California Globa l .
Warming Solutions Act) to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 . GHG reductio n
strategies align with existing General Plan policies, and adoption of a CAP is an Other Importan t
Objective in the City's 2011-13 Financial Plan .
9.Surrounding Land Uses and Settings :Citywide .
10 .
Other public agencies whose approval is required :State Clearinghouse .
PH3-3 8
7 .
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Less Tha n
Significant
rro
Impact
GPI 71-09 (Climate Action Plan)
Issues with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED :
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at leas t
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages .
Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions Population / Housing
Agriculture Resources Hazards & Hazardou s
Materials
Public Service s
Air Quality Hydrology / Water Quality Recreatio n
Biological Resources Land Use / Planning Transportation / Traffi c
Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities / Service System s
Geology / Soils Noise Mandatory
Findings
of
Significance
FISH AND GAME FEE S
The Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect determinatio n
request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife, or habitat (se e
attached determination).
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fis h
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711 .4 of the California Fish and Game Code . This initial study has bee n
circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment .
STATE CLEARINGHOUS E
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or mor e
X
State agencies (e .g . Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing an d
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guideline s
15073(a)).
PH3-3 9
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Ian
Sim~11
Impact
y~,,,~TQ~p^~t
SSff~h}}~s$Ci
GPI 71-09 (Climate Action Plan)Mitigation
Incorporated
DETERMINATION £To be completed by the Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation :
^I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, an d
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared .
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 bee n
made, by or agreed to by the project proponent . A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared .
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and a n
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required .
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentiall y
significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has bee n
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) ha s
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attache d
sheets . An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only th e
effects that remain to be addresse d
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment ,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier D R
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revision s
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required .
Ls'Signa Date
C1(o'o~ /l Z
OG/ot/h
ty Development Directo rPrinted Name
PH3-4 0
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significan t
with
Less Than
Significan t
Impact
No
Impact
GPI 71-09 (Climate Action Plan)Mitigation
Incorporated
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS :
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by th e
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question . A "No Impact" answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to project s
like the one involved (e .g . the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explaine d
where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e .g . the project will not expose sensitiv e
receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2.
All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as wel l
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts .
3.Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant .
"Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant . If
there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required .
4."Negative Declaration : Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation o f
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact .
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less tha n
significant level (mitigation measures from Section 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross -
referenced).
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has bee n
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)). In this case,a brie f
discussion should identify the following :
a)Earlier Analysis Used . Identify and state where they are available for review .
b)Impacts Adequately Addressed . Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of an d
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects
were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis .
c)Mitigation Measures . For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describ e
the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which the y
addressed site-specific conditions for the project .
6.Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potentia l
impacts (e .g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should ,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated .
7.
Supporting Information Sources : A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacte d
should be cited in the discussion .
The explanation of each issue should identify :
a)the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question ; and
b)the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance .
PH3-4 1
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentiall y
Significan t
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Less Than
Significant
Impact
N o
Impact
GPI 71-09 (Climate Action Plan)Mitigation
Incorporated
PH3-4 2
1 . AESTHETICS . Would the project :
I)
I Ii c
;uhstantial .inverse effect on ,i scenic vista .'
hl
Suhst,i nti,tll~. drima ;1r «cniC reSoutces, incluclin , but not iImr k:C I
ti).ULc .rock oUtcrohhine>. 01)e11 shUCC .and historc huildin~.,
within tt local or slllle sonic hi I vv,IH H
c)
Suhstanti,illy cicUracle the cyiiiu i.a v isual clmrttctcr or quality o f
the site and its surroundin_s '
l)
('rciIic a nevv source of substantial li,,ht or!,larc which woul d
v crscly affect char or ni0httimc v ie),vs to the area''
Evaluatio n
a)CAP strategies encourage use of green building design features such as cool roofs . Cool roofs use white or reflectiv e
roofing material to minimize heat gain in a house . Other green design features could be solar and wind installations on larg e
structures such as parking garages . Solar panel installations, wind turbines or cool roofs are subject to design review, whic h
ensures there are no adverse effects on scenic vistas .
b)The CAP promotes alternative energy conservation measures for historic buildings that do not compromise the integrity o f
the building . The CAP is a policy document that is consistent with the guidelines outlined in the City's General Plan t o
preserve the historic identity of prominent structures .
c)Impacts are less than significant ; refer to a) and b) above .
d)Encouraging solar panels or cool roofs on rooftops promotes energy efficiency in the City . Solar panels do not reflect light ,
are not visible at night and would not create a new source of glare . Cool roofs that are white may create some glare whe n
viewed from a higher vantage point, but the impact is minimal during the day and negligible at night . In general, the CA P
proposes that interior and exterior lights are turned off whenever possible to conserve energy, which helps preserve nighttim e
views .
Conclusio n
Less than significant impact .
1, 7
X1, 7
X1, 7
X
1,7
2 . AGRICULTURE RESOURCES . Would the project :
o
(on%CII I'rink_ I 111111,11 1d l_'niyuc l ttnl,tntl .or l r urminnci v l
Sia~c~~ i~ic Inih~n ~nni c (I innl ;intl). as ,ho«n on the turp s
pur~u~int io the l armlend bl .thhino mid RIonitorinn I'ru rnn o f
the (urnii I :esources Apenc■, to nun-c)criculuintl unc'.'
b)
(onllict .%ith iLi<tinn
liar aerieuluual u .c ttr a
\\ illi<nn~on \ct contrary '
Inwly c other droners III the c~i,tin~env ironmcnt vLJtich .JuL t o
their
thou Ur naiure_ mulct ii ult in i r ctcion oi' I tnml,intl
1,7
to nc,u-,it)ricul1ur,tl use .
Evaluatio n
a, b, c) The CAP is a policy document that provides strategies to reduce GHG emissions in the City . No conversion o f
farmland is proposed . The CAP promotes acquisition of additional open space, which can be farmed . The document i s
consistent with General Plan policies regarding protection of agricultural lands and will not conflict with existing zoning fo r
X
X
X
1,7
1,7
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
N o
Impac t
GPI 71-09 (Climate Action Plan Issues with
Mitigatio n
Incorporated
Impact
agricultural use .
Conclusio n
No impact .
3.AIR QUALITY . Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management o r
air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the followingdeterminations .Would the project :
(untlic1 I S Ilh nr uhsmuct ih iplenlcnt,Iti0n or the npplirahlc air 1
1 9rlualiry piul'?
bl \ iolatc am ;lir tlu ;tlity standatd or Conti illutc substentially t(, an 1 9
(.tcctc ohIcctionchlc )dots iii Icctin or tr suhst ;nitial nurnhcr of 9
Evaluatio n
a, b, c, d, e) The CAP contains strategies to reduce GHG emissions and improve air quality in the City consistent with th e
State's primary GHG reduction goals contained in AB 32 . The CAP is also consistent with the Air Pollution Control District's
(APCD) Regional GHG Thresholds, and CEQA Section 15183 .5, which prescribes criteria for adoption of a qualified GH G
reduction plan . The only potential impact to air quality could come from increased infill development, which is encouraged in
the CAP . New development is still subject to CEQA, APCD thresholds for ozone particulates, and the City's developmen t
review process .
Conclusion
Less than significant impact.
4.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES . Would the project :
11 ;o c a substultitt1 adv crc e ices, cithrr dirccily or throu g h
habitat nlodiltcatlon,.or nn-,t sect ics idcnti[led Us rl candidate
scnsitiv c_ ur special st5rtus specie,in lomil or rceirund pltrns .
policies . or reeuitiiuns, or hythe l alilornicr I)cpartnlcnt ol t l t is h
cal (tone or I t isll nnrl ildlne Scry ice ?
h)I Invc ;I znhsiaulICI advcrsc CCIUCt .on anv riparian Him ;tt o r
OncCrS s'n5l1lAC nalulll c'nlllIllilltlt`. IdelltfIW sI IIl lUC .11'il CCS`Itrn ;l
plans .pilicics .or rc„ultrtilSns .to by the (t aliHrnic I)ep .ntnlcn t
hel l ish nnrl mine or t.!; Fish and \1 ilch!lc crvicc5'
IIctvc substantial ttdvCtsc cftcct on rcdcrllly protected vac .land s
us dcltncd in cetivn lU <trthc Glean A\alter \ct tincludiu~. bu t
not biotlitl to . rnar,lc vernal }too ., ehastal . etc t them-dl direc t
rcmnsol .lillinvt hvm drolur'iral InICrruption .or other means .'
d Iii crlcre tiuhslruitialIy t.vith the movement 01,1y5 nntivr rc,iriun t
or nliiIr ;ttory lid]or wiidiile species or with established nabs c
PH3-4 3
ct,istinc or projectcrl air yu .rlit~t,ioiction t '
cl Kcsult in a cunudutivcly citnsidcrchlc Oct increase orunv crilcri a
pollutant Cott yvhich the project re p irn i ;non-attctinntcnt under er n
applicable Icdcral or sruc amhicnt air yuality- standar d
(irlChldinc sit emissions which Cycccyd cluantitativ d
hreshrtids titr )Pone prcrurmn rs H
d,1\posc SCrlsitIAc mLCpittrs tt>sl1hs :<1311 ;ll p ..>Ilut .m .1 9vol ICCntratl lens ?
pcoly I c
'X
1,7
1,7
1,7 ,
1 3
1,7
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentiall y
Significan t
Issues
Less Tha n
Significan t
with
Less Tha n
Significan t
Impact
No
Impac t
GPI 71-09 (Climate Action Plan)Mitigatio n
Incorporated
rriidcut or mi_ritun ~lild(itc corridors .or impede the use o f
n,jtivc
fill IL nrnncry silos '
c)
Conllicl with anv loctul policies ur ordinances hrulcclin n
hiolutnicttl resottrccti . such tits tt tree prcirnation
ru
1, 7
X
ordincutcc ?
I)
(onilicl with the prov isiom of an adopted habitat (ton cruhlot l
Natural Community Consc rvalion hiutti . or other ah(uovcd
1,7
local .rctt2ionu1 .ur it,itc hahittu conscrvutiot plat .'
Evaluation
a)The CAP does not propose new development in the City however, infill development and mixed-use development i s
encouraged . Infill is characterized by development within urbanized areas of the City that are not primary habitats fo r
identified species of concern. Furthermore, new large development projects that have the potential to affect local wildlife
require their own environmental review process .
b)The CAP is a policy document guiding the community in reducing GHG emissions . The CAP does not propose any
development that will interfere with riparian or sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans .
c)Impacts are less than significant ; refer to a), and b) above .
d)Impacts are less than significant ; refer to a), and b) above .
e)The CAP does not contain any strategies that will affect any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources .
The CAP supports local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources .
f)The CAP will remain consistent with approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans .
Conclusio n
Less than significant impact .
5 . CULTURAL RESOURCES . Would the project :
( cuic ti inhSLI111ial adccrnc Chance in the si~mil ancc uf n
historic rciourcc tti dctincd i n
Cause C vub~tantial adFcr,ic cltait C in the ;i~rrtilicance oh ;m
archLtc«lonicttl rciourcc hutSUnnt to 17"',064 .5-.t
I~ircctl~ ur indircctly dcstrov a uaiyuc halcoiitul .I
I rc,our0r
ur itc or utiyuc cc0lot,1ic Icatur c
I)uiiurh iii'. hum,in rcmaint-t . includin~c Thine irntcrttid outside o C
101111111 X
Evaluation
a)The CAP recommends alternative energy conservation measures for historic buildings that will not alter the structure's
integrity .
b)The CAP is a policy document recommending strategies to reduce GHG emissions with no proposed development projects .
There is a remote possibility that ground-disturbing activities that occur as a result of the Bicycle Transportation Plan, infill ,
mixed-use, and transit-oriented developments pursuant to the CAP could uncover previously unknown archaeologica l
resources . In the event that this occurs, compliance with State regulations and the City's Archaeological Preservation Progra m
PH3-4 4
1,7
1,7
1,7 ,
14
X
X
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significan t
with
Less Than
Significant
Impact
N o
Impac t
GPI 71-09 (Climate Action Plan)Mitigatio n
Incorporated
Guidelines pertaining to discovery of archaeological resources would ensure that this impact is less than significant .
c)The CAP is a policy document recommending strategies to reduce GHG emissions with no proposed development projects .
Indirect impacts that could result from implementing CAP strategies may include development of bike trails, buildin g
retrofits, redevelopment projects, changes in transit services, installation of alternative energy infrastructure, infill, mixed-use ,
and transit-oriented developments . These indirect impacts would be very unlikely to result in adverse impacts . There is a
remote possibility that ground disturbing activities that occur as a result of mixed-use or transit-oriented developmen t
projects, infrastructure development, or bicycle infrastructure pursuant to the CAP could unearth a previously unknow n
paleontological resource . However, compliance with State regulations and the City's Archaeological Preservation Progra m
Guidelines pertaining to discovery of paleontological resources would ensure that this impact is less than significant .
d)There is a remote possibility that ground-disturbing activities that occur as a result of mixed-use or transit-oriente d
development projects, infrastructure development, or building bicycle infrastructure pursuant to the CAP could uncove r
previously unknown human remains . In the event that this occurs, compliance with State regulations and the City's
Archaeological Preservation Program Guidelines pertaining to discovery of human remains would ensure that this impact i s
less than significant .
Conclusion
Less than significant impact .
Evaluation
a) The CAP would implement measures intended to reduce community-wide GHGs, none of which would directly affect th e
potential to expose people or structures to strong seismic ground-shaking . Some components of the CAP would include th e
development of an expanded network of bike and pedestrian facilities, infill, new mixed-use and transit-oriented developmen t
projects, and retrofitting existing residential and commercial structures to be more energy efficient, and thus reduce GH G
emissions associated with energy consumption . These bike and pedestrian facilities, new structures, and building retrofit s
PH3-4 5
6 . GEOLOGY AND SOILS .Would the project :
a l I \Hi-L. pec~pic Oi' ?trUChl[tiR to I10 ;crtli,ti SLlhtil,illit,li td Cl :,C
CHUCK .includin thCri k ni lt»s,iujurt to dc,ith invuIv ing :
I .
Ruhltrrc of ;I l :notAn c,rrihrlu,nc~lault,ru dcl j nc,lted on th e
nx>st rcecnt '\loft)..1.1-tluluake 1'1niIi 1_inlin AI,t p
lA>IICd 1>1 IIIC tit,11C l .1colir_Itil 1f1r .1hC ,tIC,l Ol'l7ta~Y1 (~Il o',hcr 1,6
LnOv■ n 1,111lt .'Rcler tc, 1)iv I,1011 o f
lines ,uul (1,_010L.!\MI 1 ''UhhL,rtiO n
l I .'')1111J scisniic around ;hal .111 :.'1, 6
III .Srismir rrlatcd ~~roun~l lhilu c, inclu~lin<n li~lucfaction .'1,6
\.Land~iid~~~<~%
h1 Rc~uli in ~uhsl,intial ~uil rou j on or the lu g s of t&p ;rnl'.'
C1 L3c lo(_,i .d oil J i'CnIU=1C f11"or so I h ;ll ul th .)t
uuld [~ccom~ umtuhir :u ,i <ult ol'thc prject .Mid potrn1ia1[r
ICSUh in ou or Hi ;i1c land lids, I ;ucr ;rl ~hrc ;ulin+~. suh~idcncc .
IRIucfhlion ur coliupuc "
d1 hr I0u,llCJ nn c~:p,ur :i~c sniL,u rlCLinud in I ahIc IHL .._nl th e
(.tlilurniu 1:tiiildiuu 'ndc (_'(11 7 l . crcaLInL ,uhstuuti,rl ri,ks t o
I~ w prr~pci t~.'.'
ei I[ate :;ails incnp :HI of .ulctlu,ttcl~.,ulipi,rtittnthe rue ref septi c
tnnL nlrcrn ins vt ;iiCr di5pu ;,rl >,. slrm~nhcrc set■Cr'1,6
uC nut n .a11,1 lur thc.disposal of unL uc nu!cr
1, 6
1,6
1,6
1, 6 ,
1 6
Attachment 7Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Less Than
Significant
Impact
N o
Impact
GPI 71-09 (Climate Action Plan)Mitigation
Incorporated
PH3-4 6
could be adversely affected by strong seismic ground-shaking if not developed in compliance with building codes fo r
structural integrity . However, the City of San Luis Obispo is in Seismic Zone 4, a seismically active region of California an d
strong ground shaking should be expected during the lifespan of any future projects . Future development will be required t o
conform to the City's standard construction practices to address seismic safety and any unfavorable soil conditions . Standard
requirements will also address geological, drainage, sedimentation and erosion control at the time of development .
b)No future project resulting from implementation of the CAP would directly involve major movement of topsoil or directl y
result in substantial soil erosion . In the event that proposed residential or commercial retrofits or renovations, construction of
bike paths and pedestrian improvements, new mixed-use or transit-oriented development projects pursuant to the CAP requir e
construction activity that may result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil, such activities would be subject to the City's
grading regulations to reduce erosion impacts .
c)The CAP does not propose new development projects located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that woul d
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence ,
liquefaction, or collapse as identified in the City General Plan .
d)No new development projects will result from the implementation of the CAP although infill, mixed-use, and transit -
oriented developments are encouraged . All development projects would be subject to applicable engineering and Cit y
building code requirements, which would ensure that they are developed in a way that minimizes the possible effects o f
expansive soil .
e)All development projects would be subject to applicable engineering and City building code requirements, which woul d
ensure that they are developed on soils which are capable of supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste wate r
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water .
Conclusio n
Less than significant impact .
7 .GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS . Would the project :
l_iCnCl111C Lt'CII~]i~l1~C 1,111S CIlIlSa1(I]111 .CI1h1Cf (1Ircr1I'.t~l Illd IrCCIlv'.
that may hat c a ~i<_~nilir ;ul~1111pllrt 1)11 the Cnl inllllllCnl ."
hl (: nilict WW II :In ahhlic :uHcc hl~ln . p()linv In rnnul ;uinul aRI(TIc d
lni 1.11C hLlrl)n n C a t Il'cllIC111C 1_11C CIIII,:-;W)l-ul JrnnnIn n LfHIC ninnti .~
Evaluatio n
a)The CAP provides strategies the City should implement to help reduce GHG emissions . The emissions inventory identifie d
a potential reduction target consistent with the Proposed Scoping Plan for AB 32 of a 15% reduction from the baseline yea r
by 2020 . This equates to reducing community-wide emissions by 39,640 MTCO 2 e by 2020 . The CAP establishes a road ma p
to reduce community-wide GHG emissions directly and indirectly .
b)The CAP is a policy document that identifies strategies to guide the development and implementation of greenhouse ga s
(GHG) reduction measures in the City of San Luis Obispo and quantifies the emissions reductions that result from thes e
strategies . These strategies seek to meet the goal of reducing San Luis Obispo's GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 ,
consistent with AB 32 . The CAP also includes adaptation measures to improve the City's ability to address the potentia l
impacts that climate change may have on the City and its residents .
The CAP implements State and Federal direction (AB 32, SB 375, SB 97) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions . It is als o
consistent with many of the regional GHG reduction policies in the County's EnergyWise Plan (Climate Action Plan).
1
X
1
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentiall y
Significant
Less Tha n
Significant
Less Tha n
Significant
No
Impac t
GPI 71-09 (Climate Action Plan Issues with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
Conclusion
No impact .
8 . HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS . Would the project :
al ( cob ~t si niticant hazard to the public or the cneiroumon t
throuioi the routine transport, use . or disposal of hazardou s
on to!ials '
Pt
('rcilte si0nil .eant hazard to the public or the cm ironmen t
through reilsonnhly I reseeahle upset and nci idcnt condition s
involy ini,the release 01 hazardous materials into th e
env ironmcnl "
el limit hazardous emissions or handle haittrdous or acute l
hazardous materials .substances .or waste Ii thin one-quarte r
mile tit i an esislin0 or proposed school '
};e located on a site ~~hich is included on :t list of hazardou s
nritcrittls site,complied pursuant to ''O\Crnmcnt ('Ode ~colo n
(Htod ~ and, as a result . vtoult1 it create a si g nitictial hazard t o
the public or the env ironnment '
el
fora project luooted rnithhl an airpun land WYC plan Or . wher e
such tt plan has not peen adopted . within 11to miles of it public
1,6 ,
airport
public usr airport . would the project result in a s<ticty
1 1
hit/ard inr people ro ;idintz or1/urking in the project area`.'
I t
l(u a projectithin the iciuit~oltt pri■at< airstrip_Mild th e
project mull in it ;ufcty hozzird For people rc~idumc or worLhlp
1,6
1 1
In 111c project 110 '
Impair implementation of or physical]) intcrlcrc with stn adopte d
nirr cnc~ rc~pnntic plat . or cnirr~cncv e tICLI lliotl plan'.'
hl Iypose people 0r strictures to a significant rill : of loss, injure .
or death inch,fan wildland fires . includin g where wildlandk ar c
adjacent to urhztnizc~_1 urr<t, or where resiileitces are intermisr d
00.iti ~~.il~llands'.'
1,6
1,6
1,6
1,6
1, 6 ,
1 5
1,6
Evaluation
a, b) The CAP does not propose new development in the City however, infill, mixed-use, and transit-oriented development i s
encouraged . It is possible that construction activities associated with new mixed-use or transit-oriented development project s
or residential and commercial retrofit and renovation projects recommended by the CAP would require use of potentiall y
hazardous construction materials, such as paints and solvents, however all new projects are subject to applicable utility ,
building and safety codes .
c)The CAP does not propose new development in the City which will emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous o r
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school .
d)Where surface or subsurface contamination may be a concern, project applicants are required to prepare an environmenta l
assessment . The assessment would include, but not be limited to : (a) Identification of potential sources of contaminatio n
caused by past or current land uses ; and (b) evaluation of non-point sources of hazardous materials, including agricultural
PH3-4 7
Attachment 7Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentiall y
Significan t
Issues
Less Than
Significan t
with
Less Than
Significan t
Impact
No
Impact
GPI 71-09 (Climate Action Plan)Mitigatio n
Incorporated
chemical residues, fuel storage tanks, septic systems, or chemical storage areas . An assessment at the time of projec t
implementation will occur, along with a description of the hazard and remedies to avoid or minimize any impacts t o
acceptable levels .
e)There are no projects in the CAP that would negatively affect operation of an airport, caused by height, light interference o r
land use incompatibility.
f)The CAP does not propose to place people, whether living or in permanent job-sites, near an airport .
g)According to standard development review procedures for project applications, individual projects within the Project are a
will be reviewed prior to approval by the Fire Department . The CAP recommends strategies and measures to reduce GH G
emissions . It does not include any recommendations that would physically interfere with the City's Emergency Operation s
Plan or any established emergency evacuation plan .
h)The CAP includes adaptation measures that align with the City's Safety Element, which calls for adequate fire services an d
wildland fire safety, and classifies and places rules on different vegetation types . The CAP also supports the City's Local
Hazard Mitigation Plan, which addresses avoidance and mitigation of fire hazards . It identifies areas and vegetation type s
prone to wildfire, interface zones, and existing ordinances and regulations pertaining to fire safety standards .
Conclusion
Less than significant impact.
9 . HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY . Would the proect :
a)\lit I ;IiC,1111 V,aLC1 tlUallly SttIIMIII RIB ML 1v ;IiIC (11',.1111!t,1, 7 ,
ICc] LI1 l'C111CIILN'18
bl
Cuh,tuntiallt.dCpICt0 ,~ronnd ~~;u0r Muhpli0 ;01 I111t'r fCR'
~uI IMI1Iiall~~~ilh cround~1IICI ICChaI CO ;urh that 111010 \Mild 1N,.,1
a MCI &I -R.11 in a III1I r ~olun1C MI'a IMvvCr1I1M H ftc loca l
MIMILI1tivvatCr 1a1 1)101C%CI (c C the prodIIClI ll 1 .110 of 1100-Cv114IU C
n0arh~ ~~rll, viollld drop to a 10 01 Inch ',oul d
0~i>1iu~land HC',or pl<tnnCd II~C>1Or 1v11iC11 pCrUIII,I1MvC hCCI 1
Crall l Cd )"
r1 ilh,I,uui1111y 11110/1110 C>:istintC d1'ai11aMC paltcrll ol~thr SiIC o r
ama .IlICllldInC lhri>UCI1 1110 aIICraIiMI1 off 1.11C LUUP,C 111 1.1 >tl'Calll o r
11A Cr .111 a 111,1111101 ' 'A LOU AAMind lc',llll C10',1011 o r
ltation Un 01 oI M1IC''
dl uh :,taniially 1111011110 Cyi,linC dIrainaMMC ItalIOr11 01 1110 site u1.
area_ 111HuthIlI: throUC11 tflc a LCl alioll off IhC CMLIYCC 01 J.;ITCaIll 0 1
1i\C1 .MlMI]hstallliall~1I101C,UC 1.110 rate or IIIIMIIIlt of sul lac e
[MMMII a I11MILIICI 1 1,111011 VMild 1C>1111 in iloodiIlC 011 nrOff Hitc',
01 (10,110 or C01111+UWC !Wadi vy ;IICY v'tint 11 vyMind C[CC'Cd 111 0
Capat itV of CA1,liltu or plann0d itol ll-I tA111CI dr,lina ;C ;A,lc111,I n
plot idC CUC>lanuul atIdilinna1 .ourCCC of pollulcd runoff '
Il
I)IIICY,ri,t~CIIC,ItlnIi111k d0uadr ~~a10rCUality"
1,7 ,
2,1 8
1, 1 3
1, 1 3
1,7
1, 7 ,
dl i'1110C hM[IHI1C t~iihin a l()U-Car 110od 1)11/11rd,10011 11 :-1 InappOd o n
1I fcd0ral I'lootl Hazard I,oundan'o r Flood InCU[allCC I'HIc \la p
or olhCr flood hazard dollncMI1o11 map :
hl 1'1,100 vvilhin a I 00-vrar IIMMJ II /II'd arc.,truCuire ;vtllie h
't ollld illlpcdC Or ICdir001.Iood
PH3-4 8
13, 1 8
1, 7 ,
1 8
1, 7 ,
18
X
X
X
X
X
X
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Less Tha n
Significant
Impact
No
Impac t
GPI 71-09 (Climate Action Plan)Mitigation
Incorporated _
i)[_ypo,c peopIc or',tructuIt,to ~i~nilir~u~r ri>k c,f lns~.injure 0 1
doatil lilt oh tloixlinO . including Ilo) Ii n,4 as ti rr,1Ilt (1i'du o
IIdi111rC ora ICVCC Or (11[111 ?
hlun(1atioii h t>Ul uluu,or nluddoty "
Evaluation
a)The CAP does not propose new development in the City however, infill, mixed-use, and transit-oriented developments i s
encouraged. Construction associated with these projects could increase erosion and adversely affect urban runoff . However ,
the City enforces a Creek Setback Ordinance and Stormwater Regulations for construction to prevent sediment from enterin g
creek environments .
b)The CAP recommends numerous water conservation measures, which may result in reduced demand for water supplies ,
and an increase in groundwater supplies . The CAP does not recommend any strategy or measure that would require additiona l
water supply that would be attained from groundwater supplies and would not result in any future projects that woul d
substantially interfere with groundwater recharge .
c)The CAP does not recommend any strategy or measure that would directly alter drainage patterns . No streams or rivers ar e
anticipated to be altered . The CAP does recommend construction of additional pedestrian and bicycle paths, which ma y
indirectly result in slight alterations to drainage patterns . However, the changes would not be substantial, and any changes tha t
would occur would be subject to existing Federal, State and local engineering standards .
d)Less than significant impact, see c) above .
e)Less than significant impact, see a) above .
f)The CAP does not propose development to substantially degrade water quality .
g)All developments in the City are subject to the City's flood-control program .
h)Less than significant impact, see g) above .
i)No strategy or measure proposed within the CAP would expose people or structures to significant risk to loss, injury o r
death involving flooding .
j)The CAP does not recommend any strategy or measure that would result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow .
Conclusion
Less than significant impact .
10 . LAND USE AND PLANNING . Would the project :
I'h~,io;llly di,ILL yin c,t ;Ihli,hcd communi p .'
h1 C'ontirt oo .ilh nnv uppli0ah1O loud ii plwl .ho1 ~.~+I rc-`I 11111101 1
of au ;h_encv with jurisdiction ovcr 1110 proiecl includin_,hu t
no[ limited to the octicu tl pIhn,tipecilic plan_Ioc;1l coa,tal 1,2
pr0 0 0r,lnl .or 01 1110 )lyd1i11an(Id) adopted fi,r thr purpose u l
at oldino or nliti tlnoo <Ill cut 11-oluillcl7tal Cilccl .~
cl (~onlliot nn oh ant applicable huhitat conticrt .;nion plan or 01101 l
unlnuulil 1.cun~rr~;lUUli p[WI ?1 7
PH3-4 9
Attachment 7Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Less Tha n
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
GPI 71-09 (Climate Action Plan)Mitigation
Incorporated
PH3-5 0
Evaluatio n
a) The CAP does not propose any structures, land use designations or other features (for example freeways, railroad tracks )
that would physically divide an established community . The CAP includes strategies and measures to improve connectivit y
within San Luis Obispo and to promote alternative transportation methods . The CAP does not recommend any strategy o r
measure that would physically divide the community .
b) The CAP proposes strategies and measures to reduce GHG emissions . Implementing the CAP may require som e
modification of existing City policies, including the General Plan and Zoning Regulations . However, proposed CAP strategie s
and measures would generally result in greater avoidance or mitigation of environmental effects,as the CAP is designed to
mitigate adverse environmental impacts associated with global climate change . For these reasons, although some changes t o
existing City policies and plans would result from adoption of the CAP, the intent is beneficial .
c) The CAP promotes local habitat conservation plans and natural community conservation plans .
Conclusio n
No Impact.
11 . MINERAL RESOURCES . Would the project :
ai
ILc~ult in the lo,s of a~ailahilit~01a kl]ovtn mincrit1 resuu c c
'hut 'i\
[tit h ((I I v ;III_IC It the re ;_itm anti the rC>idents H the
1, 7
X
h)
IZ~,ult in the Ic~,> of ,n<tiLthiGty ol'a I ciIl~iutpurl~tnt minera l
rr>~ulrcc rec~~v CI ;ilr ~iclilteatcd I,1t
lucid ncncnlI Matt .
1, 7
X
specific plan or other Ind u~c plain ?
Evaluatio n
a)The State legislature adopted the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) in 1975, which designated Minera l
Resource Zones (MRZ) for areas possessing minerals which are of statewide or regional significance . As stated in the San
Luis Obispo General Plan, the City of San Luis Obispo has not received recent requests on quarry or mine operations and th e
City's policy on mineral extraction within City limits has remained unchanged. As a result, the General Plan does not need t o
identify locations of resource sectors, nor are policies for the management of mineral resources required .
b)No impact, see a) above .
Conclusio n
No impact .
12 . NOISE . Would the project result in :
I)
IA pi1 1,Ille ill pCISt~n?11 1 or I~CIlLr,1l1()I1 ~)I q UI~C LC\CI
In ~ACCSS i t
nei,lyd ; est,I)Iisltcd n the IUlal eneml plan If noise
5, 10
X
~ndin,mrc, or aphlicahlc ~t nidurd : ill cuhnr tr~~ncics >
h)
I yp',~urc p it pci'011 ,I() ()I
Ilion 01 C
\ i h r ,1 1 ] 0 1 1 or urtIuodhorne q ui>c
C
c~I
:A ;Ilh ;lantial pernlaIICnt InrrC,he in ,tmhicnt 1l01,0 1evC11 in the2
project ~ icinity aht»c IcticIS lain vritlte>ut ilte pit IC `I .
d)
suh ;t,utlial Irntprrin to peri<xlic irlrrca ;c itt amhient uc,i>c
Ictrls in thr lunjcet vicinily ahovL lc\cl ;e .~istiIin
ithuut Ihr
5, 10
X
I'
I
5, 1 0
5, 10
X
X
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impac t
GPI 71-09 (Climate Action Plan)
Issues with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
l-ur ,I hrl,jcct Iucatcd vv111h1
in airhi,rt kind a>c plan . ur vl hcrc
'such ~i Ilan has not h cn adi,ptrcl_vlu p in tv cv, milc~ (Ca publi c
rport of puhlir H'',-' airport, vvuuld the prliject c~po~c pclipl c
r~~T~ll[1~l~f llli(LtllLI tll iL prnjcni arca tl)C\cCS IAC ilnl c lc1cl k
tl
1 =<n a prcijcut vithin the vicinity cif ti private airtrip .v4(tIkl th e
1 1)1010:1 eypusc pcliplc rnSIdIlIg
1.1,.011-.11 111c!in the project ,11C,1 tIi
5, 1 0
e~cc~,tillc 110I n In hIF''
Evaluation
a)While the CAP does not recommend any strategy or measure that would generate excessive amounts of noise, constructio n
activity associated with recommended energy efficiency retrofits in residential or commercial buildings, new mixed-use or
transit-oriented development projects, expansion of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and installation of distributed renewabl e
energy systems could possibly result in temporary increases in noise levels .
Noise in the City is regulated by the City's noise ordinance, which declares that construction and demolition activities ar e
prohibited between the hours of 7 :00 p .m . and 7 :00 a.m. on weekdays and Saturdays, and between 7 :00 p .m. and 7 :00 a .m. o n
Sundays and holidays . The ordinance further requires that construction equipment be equipped with sound mufflin g
equipment.
Construction activity noise levels for projects resulting from the recommendations of the CAP would not be excessive .
However, the exact nature of future construction that could occur pursuant to the recommendations of the CAP is not known
at this time, thus construction noise levels cannot be estimated . All construction activities must comply with the City's nois e
ordinance . Such compliance would reduce noise levels associated with construction activities .
b)Similar to the evaluation within item (a), temporary construction activities resulting from recommendations from the CA P
could potentially result in excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels for a temporary period of tim e
associated with recommended redevelopment, energy efficiency retrofits in residential or commercial buildings, expansion o f
bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and installation of distributed renewable energy systems . Construction activity vibratio n
levels for projects resulting from the CAP would not be excessive .
All construction activities must comply with the City's noise ordinance, which prohibits construction noise between 7 :0 0
p .m .to 7 :00 a .m. weekdays and Saturdays, and between 7 :00 p .m. and 7 :00 a.m. on Sundays and holidays . Such complianc e
would reduce groundborne vibration levels associated with construction activities .
c)No increase in local traffic volumes is anticipated as a result of recommendations from the CAP . Thus, no increase i n
ambient noise levels related to travel activity is expected. Conversely, the CAP includes numerous recommendations designe d
to reduce the number and length of vehicle trips in San Luis Obispo, which could lead to a decrease in ambient noise levels .
d)One source of temporary ambient noise in San Luis Obispo would be construction activity, as described in Item (a). Since
the CAP encourages infill, mixed-use, and transit-oriented developments, construction-related noise is inevitable . All projects
will be subject to the City's noise ordinance, which would reduce noise to ambient levels without significant impact .
e)See Section VIII-8e & f (Hazards near airports and airstrips) for a discussion on exposure to airport noise .
f)See Section VIII-8e & f (Hazards near airports and airstrips) for a discussion on exposure to airport noise .
Conclusio n
Less than significant impact.
PH3-5 1
5, 1 0
Attachment 7Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Less Than
Significant
Impact
N o
Impact
GPI 71-09 (Climate Action Plan)Mitigation
_Incorporated
13 . POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project :
Induce euh<t ;nnial population _rc~vtih in an uicii . Cither dirCCll y
12~r cyample . by proposing new home~ un(I businc~scsi o r
Indirectly (for n niiuplc . thruunh cyten ,.inn cal roads or othc r
inli ;lstruclurc
hl
I)i pinec suhstanti~ll nrnnbcr ; o! cni,tinn Ii i ins nccessitatin n
he const r uction nircpinncment houi-inn cl,n here''
Uiipl<lcc ~uhstanli~ll numhers of people . necc sitntin nr th e
ChI1 .~UIcnn 1 (At 1'i pIncnnicni hollSillg C1SCAAhelc .
Evaluatio n
a)The CAP includes strategies and measures that seek to reduce GHG emissions . Proposed measures include encouragin g
transit-oriented development and retrofitting existing residential and commercial buildings to make them more energ y
efficient . These activities could affect San Luis Obispo's housing stock, either by resulting in new development projects tha t
provide additional housing, by adding residential uses to commercial areas to support transit-oriented development, or b y
retrofitting existing homes . Commercial and residential energy efficiency retrofits that may occur as recommendations fro m
the CAP would update homes already located in San Luis Obispo to make them more energy efficient and would not be likel y
to include additions that make homes larger and accommodate more people .
b)Although CAP strategies and measures encourage energy efficient retrofits for existing homes and encourage new mixed -
use and transit-oriented development projects, homes would not be displaced . Possible future development activities woul d
likely lead to a greater mix of uses within the City's commercial corridors and would result in more homes . Replacement
housing would not be necessary.
c)No impact, see b) above .
Conclusio n
No impact .
14 . PUBLIC SERVICES . Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with th e
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significan t
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performanc e
objectives for any of the public services :
1,2 ,
3,4
1,2 ,
3,4
1, 2 ,
3, 4
X
X
lire protectio n
bl
Pollee prntcctln n
ti(linuk .
~l l
I'arks ~
cl
Other public luclhhc s
Evaluation
1, 2,
X6,1 5
1,2,6
X
1,2,6 X
1,2,
X
1 7
1,2,6
X
a)As discussed under "Population and Housing," recommendations of the CAP could result in construction of new mixed-us e
and transit-oriented projects . New construction is subject to the General Plan's growth management regulations and will no t
create unanticipated demand on public services .
b)The possible increase in population that may occur as a result of implementation of the development recommendations o f
the CAP would not increase the demand for police protection service to the extent that new police protection facilities would
PH3-5 2
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentiall y
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
GPI 71-09 (Climate Action Plan Issues With
Mitigatio n
Incorporated
Impact
PH3-5 3
be required .
c)The possible increase in population that may occur as a result of implementation of the development recommendation s
from the CAP would not increase the demand for school-related service to the extent that new school facilities would b e
required .
d)The CAP recommends additional parkland to increase carbon sequestration from trees, plants and unfilled soil .New
parkland is subject to General Plan policies in the Parks and Recreation Element, as well as engineering design standards ,
which prevent substantial adverse physical impacts .
e)The possible increase in population that may occur as a result of implementation of the strategies from the CAP would not
be expected to increase the demand for libraries or other governmental services tothe extent that new facilities would b e
required.
Conclusion Less than significant .
15. RECREATION .
,Il OtIld thr ilroicct incrc,l :>c the a>c. ul nei hIlothooci o r
r~~~ivnai h :n-k',Or other rr~r~itti~~nal iariI111C, such th .0
uhstnntiul hlt■.sicJI d criurauun ill the IiiCiliu vuulL{Incur o r
he ,RCCClcr ;rtc j
hl I)uc,the hrojccl VI(hid,: -WCrcatirm,Il Iarilitic in rrciuirc 111(2
~l~Il~I rtICtli l n C \p,111LIC111 H I ccr C,Itll!II,II 'Lk:11111i',VMuch lilt jh t
hQ1C ,III ,Illy CI LC nIIv,IcnI CIlCct Oil the co ii flincH ?
Evaluation
a)The CAP promotes expansion of the park network, which would create more opportunities for users and less concentrated
impact on parks or other recreational facilities .
b)The CAP recommends additional parkland to increase carbon sequestration from trees, plants and untilled soil . Ne w
parkland is subject to General Plan policies in the Parks and Recreation Element, as well as engineering design standards ,
which prevent substantial adverse physical impacts .
Conclusion
Less than significant .
16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC . Would the project :
(011111 .1 vv itll ,Ihhlicnblc pi,ln .orriili,ulcc or hulk v
cLt,lhli>hin_nlr,uurc ;o[cllcctivrncs for the pertonrn ;lcc Ill th e
ClIC1.1hI IniI C\~lClll .l,lhln_' Inlir ;l~cull lii ail I lloilc ;
u :ul hort :uion 111',l>:, In,ln>ii ,Intl n~,n nx~torizrll tona l
,Ind rcI v,ult Conlpollcnin of tilt circul,uion ;~>trm . iurludo bu t
not limited to intcr :,cclions .;ucct 1 .1i i,11r.N.;1', 1 .11 R I
I~crlcsto:in ,Intl hicvcic hath'.,Intl i11no tr ;In .it''
bI ( ontlict_vvith cc applicable con'cOiulr 1111111 anent hrr~crnm .
nclu(lin~. but not linlitcd to Locl of,crvicc nt,uld,ads and irvc l
dc:lI1,ald 11 1e,ISUrCS_ ~,r otllcr 11III &Itkk ctitahlishcd by the CUUllt c
conurtition nl,ra,1_enlcnt,lCncv Inc ~Ic~ir~nntccl I 1mms o r
C)Rc>ult in n ch,n :cc in air til lit pattcrn~_ ill~~luciin~~ cithcr,t11 1,2 ,
1,2,4
1,2,4
Attachment 7Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Less Than
Significant
Impact
N o
Impac t
GPI 71-09 (Climate Action Plan)Mitigation
Incorporated
increase in trullic Icv cls or it chanric in ICcIIIHII daft results i n
substantial safet y
dl
Substnntinll~ increase hazards due ti p ,t desi g n lcaturc c .c ..
sharp curves yr duiigcrous hid r,4:clions) or inc(mpilihlc uses
1,2,4
X
c .~. farm equipment):'
I cstlh In InadCgUale Clllc'r~el]C1 access .'
1,2,4
X
t)
C'itnllict with adopted policies . plans_ ('proijanis rc<<,irdin
~publictransit.bicicic .orpcdcsnian lltcilitics, or otherwise
1,2,4
decrease the perlormancc or safety of such Cacilitirs >
Evaluation
a)Implementation of CAP strategies would increase the availability of transit service for San Luis Obispo residents, ad d
additional bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and discourage single-occupancy vehicle use . Achieving each of these goals woul d
result in a reduction in traffic loads, which would reduce the number of vehicle trips, volume to capacity ratio, an d
intersection congestion within the City . New mixed-use and transit-oriented development projects recommended within th e
CAP would be designed specifically to reduce vehicle trips and place more people within walking distance of commercia l
uses and public transit. Furthermore, no proposed strategy would directly increase traffic in relation to the existing traffic loa d
and capacity of the street system .
b)Less than significant impact, see a) above .
c)The CAP does not include any strategy or measure that would directly or indirectly affect air traffic patterns .
d)The CAP does not include any strategy that would promote the development of hazardous design features or incompatibl e
uses . Rather, the CAP promotes the development of new bicycle and pedestrian facilities built to current standards, whic h
would provide greater safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers .
e)The CAP recommends strategies and measures that would increase safety for drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists and seek s
to reduce the number of automobiles on San Luis Obispo streets, both of which may actually make access for emergenc y
vehicles easier and more efficient . No strategy proposed in the CAP would result in the development of uses or facilities tha t
would degrade emergency access .
f)Supporting and increasing access to alternative transportation is a major focus of the CAP . The CAP would enhanc e
adopted policies, plans, and programs supporting alternative transportation .
Conclusion
Less than significant impact.
17 . UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS . Would the project :
a 1
lsccc(l ~~<istr~, atcr lrctttlnent reguircments of the applic~~bl e
I'
ioi ll \Vntcr <<lualit~ ( outb i d 13r~~rrd '
bJ Kegnirc or !CHUM in INC constraci05]of expansion of rev, wate r
'rl-VAUStcvA
lICili lclli I :ICilriics of cApansion of e?:iatin c
facilities . the consu action ofwhich could cause significan t
cn~ ironmcniul cfLcts '
C I kcguirc or resull In the construction of new storm water
dr ;Illl<I Li facilities or cxpiillsai n of cxisting facilities, th e
construction or which could cause significant environmenta l
cllccis'.'
1, 2 ,
7, 18 X
1,2 ,
7, 18 X
1 ,2 ,
7, 18 X
PH3-54
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
N o
Impact
GPI 71-09 (Climate Action Plan Issues
WithMitigation
Incorporated
Impac t
d)1I .,Rc suliicionl U'aler wpplics availablo to :,orcr the prujoot 1,2 ,Brun C' 11)110 entiilenl0nts and 001111001).ur ale 1h.i IA anti 7, 1 8
e l
Cypa ldcd 0ntitl0n10nis ncodcd .'
1Zcsult in a dOi0I111111lltlull by th0 ~castc~~ ltcr u0atmrnt 1101 in o r
N.hiCh ,er1 c1)ur milv S01\ 0 the p101001 that it has adrquitte 1, 2 ,
npacit~to 1)011)tho projcri~ti projootCd dcm :111d in nddliioll to 7, 1 8
t)
he pro 1) IJO1 s ~.~istin~c(inun t ncnt>"
llc ur1Lid by 1 1andlhII %v itll 1)01 0icnt pornlittod c .lpacito to 1, 2 ,
accrmm0d,11C thy:projccl',~nlid v1?htl dispo1 .11 n00ds?7,18
~~l (ompir With lodoral .Jta10 .nod 10Cal 111110101 and rr~rul,llion>1, 2 ,
m111t d In tio1ill \;nstc"7,18
Evaluation
a)Implementation of the CAP could possibly result in a small increase in population through infill, mixed-use, and transit -
oriented developments . However, the population increase would not create unanticipated demand for wastewater treatmen t
that would exceed treatment requirements.
b)Implementation of the CAP would not result in an unanticipated increase in population through infill, mixed-use, an d
transit-oriented developments . Thus, resulting needs for water, storm-water, and wastewater treatment would not increas e
substantially. No expanded or new treatment facilities would be required .
c)Less than significant impact, see b) above .
d)Less than significant impact, see b) above .
e)Less than significant impact, see b) above .
f)The CAP promotes recycling, and an increased waste diversion rate, which would reduce landfill capacity demands .
g)The CAP does not recommend any strategy that does not comply with applicable solid waste regulations . Conversely, the
CAP promotes recycling and includes actions to achieve waste reduction goals .
Conclusion
Less than significant impact .
1R.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .
I )~~es the pn,j0ct 1l'nv c tho potential to drgradr the ~Iutllity of rh o
rn~111)01 111 0 1 1 1 . suhst :n1111111~ rcdu0e the h0bltat of .1 Il~h or ~~ildlii c
p~~l~~.~1lll~c a loo or 1111)11110 popt11a11011 to dn)p holol~ 101I -
~u ;lainin~10111).lhr~a100 rh elinlin ;Ite n 11 .1111 10 1101111 .1 1
Coll m11111111t~.roduoo 1110111M-1NCr or 001)10101 1111.1111100 of II 1 .11`0 01 .
01111tH 0cr,2d 1011 or 011111011 ur rlin1l110 c important cxamplrs o h
the 1111111,1pCriu(1 ;oi(~11111 1111,1lllPll~ly VrprRhlstorv 7
hl 1)001)tllc p10100t h .n r 111111)11011)that .lrc indiv 0111al1 11111i10d .hu t
0un 11101i~cl y con~id0rhlhIo .("Cumulati~clv 0un~iderahl0"11101111 ;
that the i11CrL1110n1111 0110011 nI :I projOCi 1100 00]11idcrahIe Uh01 1
'i000J 111 cunncction n Oh the 0110ct ;of the 111 ;1 pn~jc0ts_ th e
01(0011)olothori111101 1 p1)j0011).;Ind flit: CIlooi ul l?rl hhlh L
P11010 pt(.00011) )~>
PH3-5 5
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Less Than
Significant
Impact
N o
Impact
GPI 71-09 (Climate Action Plan)Mitigation
Incorporate d
~)ll(,c,the projcct hav°r cnv inurnllcnlal (Ate( l .~ vv Ili(h will c,nl>e
tiU htil,llll 1,11 :I(I\(1 1 1-*L ICCi>011 1111111 III lllh',111 11(11 di](1 (11\
X
ndirccllv :'
Evaluation
a, c) The CAP is a proactive strategy document that enables the City to maintain local control of implementing State directio n
(AB32 - the California Global Warming Solutions Act) to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 . GHG reductio n
strategies align with existing General Plan policies, and adoption of a CAP is an Other Important Objective in the City's
2011-13 Financial Plan . Strategies in the document will improve the quality of the environment, and the quality of life fo r
human beings .
b) Having an adopted CAP will also allow the City to streamline CEQA review process of certain projects . Senate Bill (SB )
97 amended CEQA to identify GHG emissions associated with a project as a potentially significant environmental impact bu t
also allowed lead agencies to analyze and mitigate the effects of GHG emissions at a programmatic level, such as in a genera l
plan, or as part of a separate plan to reduce GHG emissions (CEQA 15183 .5). The CAP serves as the City's qualified GH G
reduction plan, which allows the CAP to be used in the cumulative impacts environmental analysis of projects . The
environmental review for each project must identify those requirements specified in the CAP that apply to the project, and i f
those requirements are not otherwise binding or enforceable, they should be incorporated as mitigation measures applicable t o
the project (CEQA 15183 .5b).
Conclusion
No Impact .
19 . EART1ER ANALYSES .
L,ulier c11,111 iity he u'cd where . pursuluii Iu the lirrin~c pro_ranl t(\r Gibe r
Nccn .1(1(1 \,Irr,dy/cd ill ,In (lien I-.IR (\I Nec,unc l)cclaniticn .tiecricrl
~hiuli(1 idcntilk the toll()vv inn ilenl>
(i (.)'\ pro(c,~>. one n(\r ncrc cftcci,Jhav c
1,110 (e (?)(I)I .In dli~c,i~c a discuK,io n
Ior revie w
Were vv11l)in INC a opt of and ,Idequ,lic k
a)F.arlicr anal}sis used .1(1(11111\
(11 11(,l
aiialvsc~ln(I',InIC (,vhcrc- they cc 7v,lilllhl c
T!\
h)lutpach adetluately addressed . 1(IrntiK which cllcctti loom the ,11)(t ,s checklis t
iimcIIV /(_(1 Ill J11 C,IIllcl (IUdIIIII(lil pul,llalll It)ipphcahlc 1c iiI ,s -Lin(l ;mivIS .mid StctC iilicthcv Sll(h CIICCIS Wive ;I(I(IvcscC d
11111111 Holt Ille,l>'IIi do \,I>C(I (~Il dlc CUIller,lll,ll \
N \
c)J1iti2atiun measures .1 /11cer~rh,ll arc "Lc»11)in Hnnific,ult Alt ,Alili ,11cm In((lrpuraic(I ."do critic the uliti~,Uiu n
111, 1HlIIC/VVJIICh VAi'rC IIIC(urpo RllcJ (1 idlille(I 1101l1 the C3dli'l (h)ll1111C1lt ;llld the CXICIIi 1(1 AAhldh IIICV ,1(IdIL ~11C-SPCC III (
Ct )11(1111011)ict 1h(pl-olcct.
N/A
20 . SOURCE REFERENCES .
1 .City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan, September 201 1
2 .City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element, August 199 4
3 .City of SLO General Plan Housing Element, January 201 0
4.City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element, November 199 4
5 .City of SLO General Plan Noise Element, May 199 6
6 .City of SLO General Plan Safety Element, July 200 0
7 .City of SLO General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element, April 200 6
8 .San Luis Obispo County Local Hazard Mitigation Pla n
9 .Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County, Air Pollution Control District, 200 1
10 .City of San Luis Obispo Noise Guidebook, May 1996
PH3-5 6
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentiall y
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
N o
Impac t
GPI 71-09 (Climate Action Plan)
Issues With
Mitigatio n
Incorporated
Impact
11 .San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan
12 .City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Ma p
13 .City of SLO Waterways Management Pla n
14 .City of San Luis Obispo, Historic Resource Preservation Guidelines, on file in the Community Developmen t
Department
15 .City of San Luis Obispo Emergency Operations Pla n
16 .2007 California Building Cod e
17 .City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Parks and Recreation, April 200 1
18 .City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Water and Wastewater, July 201 0
Attachments/Links :
Climate Action Pla n
REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM S
N/A
PH3-5 7
Attachment 8
RESOLUTION NO .
(2012 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISP O
ADOPTING THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION O F
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (GPI 71-09)
WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearin g
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on July 17 ,
2012, for the purpose of considering Planning File No . GPI 71-09, the draft Climate Action Pla n
and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact ; and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a
public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo ,
California, on May 23, 2012 and on June 13, 2012, for the purpose of formulating an d
forwarding recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding th e
Climate Action Plan ; and
WHEREAS,the City's General Plan contains policies supporting improved energy -
efficiency, alternative transportation options, infill, sustainable energy use, neighborhoo d
connections, efficient municipal operations, and parks and open space development, which hel p
reduce greenhouse gas emissions ; and
WHEREAS,the City Council has adopted "Climate Protection" as an Other Counci l
Objective for the Community Development Department in the 2011-13 Financial Plan ; an d
WHEREAS,the City Council considered the Initial Study and Negative Declaration o f
Environmental Impact for the project (ER 71-09) on July 17, 2012, and determined that th e
document adequately addresses the potential environmental effects of the Climate Action Plan ;
and
WHEREAS,the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimon y
of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at
said hearing .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Lui s
Obispo as follows :
SECTION 1 . Findings .Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes th e
following findings :
1 . The proposed Climate Action Plan implements General Plan policies because i t
establishes strategies for improved energy-efficiency, alternative transportation options ,
infill, sustainable energy use, neighborhood connections, efficient municipal operations ,
and parks and open space development .
PH3-58
Council Resolution No . XXXX (2012 Series)
Attachment 8
2.The proposed Climate Action Plan implements an Other Council Objective of the 2011 -
13 Financial Plan because it implements strategies for greenhouse gas reduction, energy
conservation, and infrastructure that will save energy and energy-related costs in th e
future .
3.The project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significan t
environmental impacts of the proposed project, in accordance with CEQA guidelines .
SECTION 2 .Environmental Determination .The City Council does hereby adopt a Negativ e
Declaration for the project .
SECTION 3 . Action .The City Council does hereby adopt the Climate Action Plan .
Upon motion of , seconded by , and on the following vote :
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT :
The foregoing Resolution was adopted this , 2012 .
Mayor Jan Mar x
ATTEST :
Sheryll Schroeder, Interim City Cler k
APPROVED AS TO FORM :
Christine Dietric k
Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
PH3-59
Page intentionally lef t
blank .