HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-17-2017 Item 01 Climate Action Plan Implementation Strategy Meeting Date: 1/17/2017
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Xzandrea Fowler, Community Development Deputy Director
SUBJECT: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
RECOMMENDATION
1. Participate in a Study Session on Climate Action Plan Implementation strategy and receive
and file the background reports; and
2. Consider the recommended Climate Action Plan implementation strategies to further the
City’s efforts to address climate change and to mitigate Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions as
part of the process of creating Major City Goals, Other Important Objectives, and other
budget priorities as part of the 2017-19 Financial Plan.
DISCUSSION
On October 18, 2016, the City Council received a status update report on the implementation of
the 2012 City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan (CAP). Council provided input and
direction to staff to proceed with an analysis of the feasibility of implementing the near-term
recommendations that were identified in the 2016 Climate Action Plan Progress Report
(Attachment A) and the City of San Luis Obispo Energy Baseline Report (Attachment B).
Staff’s analysis concluded that all of the identified recommendations that Council directed staff
to analyze are feasible for implementation in the near-term, however they require varying
degrees and commensurate allocation of resources (staffing and financial) to complete. This
report categorizes the individual recommendations based on their source (i.e., Progress Report,
Energy Baseline Report, staff, public, etc.) and then assigns a completion timeframe and
identifies the anticipated resources be needed for successful completion.
Background
In July 2012 the City Council adopted the City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan (CAP).
The CAP serves as the City’s policy document that sets forth objectives and strategies that the
City and community members can in turn use to implement measures to reduce greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions and to establish infrastructure that will save energy and reduce energy-related
costs in the future.
The CAP is available online at <http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4086>. The
California American Planning Association (CalAPA) recognized the CAP with an Award of
Excellence-Innovation in Green Community Planning, which is the highest level award provided
in this category.
In August 2016 two assessments related to the implementation of the CAP were completed. The
first was an assessment of the near-term CAP implementation strategies to reduce GHG
Packet Pg. 9
1
emissions. The findings of that assessment are compiled in a report entitled “2016 Climate
Action Plan Progress Report.” The report identified specific recommendations designed to
further the City’s progress towards achieving its GHG emissions reduction objectives.
The second was an assessment of the City’s energy use and costs from June 2013 to May 2016,
and is entitled “City of San Luis Obispo Energy Baseline Report.” The report serves as the
baseline and guiding document for future energy efficiency efforts, and identifies specific
recommendations to further the City’s efforts regarding energy management.
Climate Acton Plan Implementation Strategy Recommendations
The following is a list of near-term CAP implementation strategy recommendations that staff
analyzed, as previously directed by the City Council.
Implementation of Recommendations
The Progress Report, Baseline Report, and additional recommendations that follow include
action items to further the City’s efforts to address climate change and to mitigate GHG
emissions in the near term. Many of these recommendations involve tasks that could be assigned
to a Sustainability Coordinator. The creation of a Sustainability Coordinator is included in the
CAP as Government Operations (GO) Strategy 10. This report includes a recommendation to
consider establishing the Sustainability Coordinator role as part of the 2017-19 Financial Plan.
The CAP strategy calls on the City to “allocate or hire staff” to implement these energy
programs. The decision about how the role of Sustainability Coordinator will be filled (e.g.
allocate existing staff resources by adjusting work programs and priorities, or by creating a new
position) should be made as part of the 2017-19 Financial Plan process so that the decision can
be made in the context of all City goals and objectives. As a result, the following
recommendations do not presume exactly how the role of Sustainability Coordinator would be
created or funded.
2016 Climate Action Plan Progress Report Recommendations
1. Re-evaluation of the feasibility or relevance of some of the identified GHG emissions
reduction implementation measures that are identified in the CAP, and identification of
potential implementation funding sources.
Resources: Task should be assigned to a Sustainability Coordinator.
Timing: 3-6 months to initiate, then ongoing for monitoring with recommendations to be
included in the annual report.
2. Creation of a City “Green Team” to be comprised of a representative from each
department with expertise in environmental policy, transportation/mobility, energy
efficiency, consumption and waste, food and agriculture, land use planning and building,
government operations, climate change preparation (adaptation), advocacy and public
outreach/ community engagement. The Green Team would be an active group that would
create its own action plan and meet regularly to implement, oversee, and report out on
City implementation efforts. The Green Team would be led by the Sustainability
Coordinator, and would be accountable and specifically tasked with carrying out
implementation of the CAP, as well updating and maintaining the City’s CAP.
Packet Pg. 10
1
Resources: Requires allocation of existing staff resources from each department, and may
require some resources from other organizations and/or consultant services to develop
the operational framework for the Green Team.
Timing: 6-9 months to initiate, then ongoing until CAP implementation is complete.
3. Establish and support a “Climate Action Coalition” to enhance community education,
participation, and advocacy in city and regional climate change and GHG emissions
reduction efforts.
Resources: Strategy GO 10 of the CAP says that the Sustainability Coordinator will act
as the City’s representative in regional sustainability efforts.
Timing: The Sustainability Coordinator would work with regional partners to develop
and strengthen the Coalition over time. This work would be ongoing until CAP
implementation is complete.
City of San Luis Obispo Energy Baseline Report Recommendations
The Baseline Report identified several recommendations to further the City’s efforts to address
climate change and to mitigate GHG emissions as they relate to energy management. Those
recommendations included the following:
4. Performance of energy assessments on all City owned facilities.
Resources: Can be completed by temporarily allocating existing staff resources, and may
require some consultant services to prepare the energy assessments, if County and/or
CivicSpark staffing resources are no longer available.
Timing: 6 months to initiate, and then ongoing work effort depending on how often the
assessments are updated.
5. Implementation of energy and cost saving measures and projects identified in the energy
assessments.
Resources: Will vary depending on the type of measures and scope of the projects
identified.
Timing: Will vary depending on the type of measures and scope of the projects identified.
6. Annual monitoring and measuring of facility and infrastructure performance.
Resources: Can be completed by allocating existing staff resources.
Timing: 3-6 months annually until the CAP implementation is complete.
7. Annual preparation of an Energy Baseline Report and Rate Analysis.
Resources: Can be completed by temporarily allocating existing staff resources, and may
require some consultant services to prepare the rate analysis, if County and/or
CivicSpark staffing resources are no longer available.
Timing: 3 months annually if updated on an annual basis.
Additional Recommendations
In addition to the recommendations highlighted in the Progress Report and the Energy Baseline
Report, there are several recommendations that have been identified by the community and City
staff. Those recommendations include the following:
Packet Pg. 11
1
8. Establishment of a “Sustainability Coordinator” who will be directly responsible for the
following tasks; securing grant funding; coordinating the efforts of the Green Team;
providing assistance and support to the community “Climate Action Coalition”;
overseeing the update and maintenance of the City’s Climate Action Plan web page and
resources; overseeing the update of the City’s GHG emissions inventory and CAP;
development and monitoring of incentive programs; and supporting energy efficiency
programs (such as PACE and CCA).
Resources: As previously discussed, requires allocation of existing staff or creation of a
new FTE position to be considered as part of the 2017-19 Financial Plan process.
Timing: Ongoing for the duration of the CAP implementation.
9. Updating the City’s GHG emissions inventory. The existing GHG emissions inventory
has a baseline of 2005 and was completed in 2008. The field of Climate Change and
Adaptation has changed substantively, and the new standard is to update the GHG
emission inventory every 5 years.
Resources: Requires allocation of existing staff resources from each department, and may
require some resources from other organizations and/or consultant services.
Management of this task would be assigned to the Sustainability Coordinator.
Timing: 9-12 months every 5 years until CAP implementation is complete.
10. Update the Climate Action Plan to reflect the legislative changes associated with the AB
32 Climate Change Scoping Plan that address implementation scope and the
establishment of the 2030 GHG emissions reduction targets, and the Sustainable
Communities Strategy for the San Luis Obispo Region (SB 375). The City was a pioneer
when it adopted its CAP in 2012, however, since that time there have been numerous
regional, state and global protocols established that are not reflected in the existing CAP
rendering the CAP out of date.
Resources: Requires allocation of existing staff resources, and may require some
resources from other organizations and/or consultant services. Management of this task
would be assigned to the Sustainability Coordinator.
Timing: 12-18 months initially, and 6-12 months every 5 years to coincide with GHG
emissions inventory updates until CAP implementation is complete.
11. Better accountability and monitoring of the CAP implementation strategy and measures.
The Central Coast Collaborative recently completed the development of a Climate Action
Plan Monitoring and Report tools for the City of San Luis Obispo and other local
jurisdictions, which will help the City measure and track the actual impact of
implemented CAP measures and to compare our progress regionally. These tools will
streamline annual reporting of the effectiveness of individual measures and will provide
an indication of how the overall emissions levels have changed over time relative the
reduction targets identified in the CAP.
Resources: Requires allocation of existing staff resources. Oversight of this task would
ideally be assigned to the Sustainability Coordinator and Green Team.
Timing: 3-6 months annually until the CAP implementation is complete.
Packet Pg. 12
1
12. Annual reporting of the effectiveness of individual measures to provide the City Council
with an indication of how overall emissions levels have changed over time relative the
reduction targets identified in the CAP. It is anticipated that this reporting would occur at
the beginning of each new fiscal year, beginning with FY 2017-2018 to allow for
completion of the General Plan Annual Report and to fully evaluate the effectiveness of
any resources that were allocated to CAP implementation efforts.
Resources: Requires allocation of existing staff. This task would be assigned to the
Sustainability Coordinator.
Timing: 3-6 months annually until the CAP implementation is complete.
13. Development of enhanced incentive programs to encourage energy efficiency and GHG
emissions reduction, such as exceeding Title 24 energy efficiency, LEED certification,
photovoltaic system, use of clean air vehicles (AKA “Green vehicles”) or shared vehicle
services installations, and water efficiency.
Resources: Can be completed by temporarily allocating existing staff. This task would
ideally be assigned to the to the “Sustainability Coordinator.”
Timing: 12 months to initiate, and then ongoing to coincide with GHG emissions
inventory updates until CAP implementation is complete.
CONCURRENCES
Community Development, Administration, Public Works, Utilities, Parks and Recreation, and
Finance all concur and believe that the information provided will assist the City Council to
navigate the 2017-19 Financial Plan and goal setting process. Once staff has a better
understanding of the outcome of the Financial Plan goal-setting process, staff will develop a
cohesive strategy and work program to complete the appropriate near-term GHG reduction
strategy implementation measures and monitoring, as well as set the stage for the implementation
of the mid-term GHG reduction strategies.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Negative Declaration of environmental impacts, in accordance with CEQA, was approved
when the CAP was adopted in July 2012. Subsequently the GHG reduction strategy
implementation measures identified in the CAP were evaluated and considered in the
Environmental Impact Report that was prepared for the update of the General Plan for the Land
Use and Circulation Elements in December 2014.
Updating the CAP to reflect the legislative changes associated with regional, state, federal and
global protocols, and the update of the GHG emissions inventory and implementation measures
will require environmental review, and would be completed prior to Council’s consideration of
such amendments.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no budget or fiscal impacts of conducting this study session. Any and all fiscal impacts
Packet Pg. 13
1
will be assessed as part of the Financial Plan process. That being said, when the CAP was
adopted, it included the following overview and estimate of fiscal impacts. These are general
estimates that will be updated as part of any budget proposal put forward through the 2017-19
Financial Plan process.
Implementation Time
Frame
Estimated Staff Hours Estimated Additional
Service and Supply Costs
Near-Term Strategies
(0 – 5 years)
1,480 – 4,800 $50,000 - $200,000
Mid-Term Strategies
(5 – 10 years)
3,400 – 5,500 $150,000 - $275,000
Long-Term Strategies
(10+ years)
3,080 – 3,500 $160,000 - $175,000
Total 7,960 – 13,800 $360,000 – $650,000
Currently the implementation of CAP strategies is funded through existing enterprise funds and
General Fund allocations as part of larger work efforts. Staff continues to seek grants and other
sources of funding to accelerate the existing efforts. It is important to note that whether from
reallocating existing resources or dedicating one-time funds, some budget allocation is
anticipated to initiate and expedite the recommended thirteen near-term CAP implementation
strategies. The size and scale of any annual or ongoing costs allocations would be dependent on a
variety of factors including the following:
funding needed for the Sustainability Coordinator;
the amount of grant funding that can be secured for future updates of the GHG emissions
inventory and the CAP implementation measures;
the energy cost saving measures and projects that are identified; and
the type of enhanced incentive programs that are developed to encourage energy
efficiency and GHG emissions reduction.
ALTERNATIVES
Request additional information and continue to a future meeting. The Council could request
additional information from staff and request that time be set aside on the agenda at an upcoming
meeting for further discussion.
Attachments:
a - 2016 Climate Action Plan Progress Report
b - City of San Luis Obispo Energy Baseline Report
Packet Pg. 14
1
2016
Climate Action Plan
Progress Report
Sydnie Margallo
College of Agriculture, Food and Environmental Sciences
Natural Resources Management & Environmental
Sciences Department
California Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo, California
August 2016
Packet Pg. 15
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Table of Contents
Introduction 3
Near Term GHG Reduction Strategies 4
Implementation Measures and Progress 5
Buildings 6
Renewable Energy 8
Transportation and Land Use 9
Water 13
Solid Waste 16
Parks and Open Space 18
Governmental Options 20
General Recommendations 22
Acknowledgements 23
List of Acronyms 23
Appendix A 24
Appendix B 26
Appendix C 28
Appendix D 29
Appendix E 30
Appendix F 32
Appendix G 33
2
Packet Pg. 16
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Introduction
The 2012 San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan (CAP) educates the public on the most
significant causes of climate change and outlines critical steps towards reducing
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over the next 20 years. Using the CAP, the City of San
Luis Obispo can directly implement GHG reduction strategies through local government
operations, as well as through engagement with the community. As a result, CAP
implementation allows the City to bring communities together to create a safer, cleaner,
and healthier environment.
Since the adoption of the CAP in 2012, little work has been done to educate City
employees on its goals and objectives. While City employees seem to be unfamiliar with
the CAP’s GHG reduction strategies, many of these strategies are being pursued through
daily City operations anyways. Consequently, implementation of the CAP is not far off
track. This report explains which actions are in progress and which are on hold in order
to aid awareness of the City’s advancement in CAP implementation. From here, the City
can identify barriers to implementation and update the CAP accordingly.
Using the Local GHG Reductions Matrix on page 59 and 60 of the CAP (See Appendix
C), I determined the near term (0 to 5 years) GHG reduction strategies and which
departments were responsible for each. I then contacted City employees from these
responsible departments for updates on current progress of implementation and
barriers to completion. Any details that I was unable to collect via City contacts, was
found by researching within City documents and contacting other agencies. With this
information I created a progress report, outlining what the City has accomplished and
proposing solutions to help overcome obstacles to implementation of the GHG
reduction strategies.
The first section of this report identifies the near term GHG reduction strategies as well
as the departments responsible for implementing them. The next portion states the
implementation measures under each GHG reduction strategy, and notes the status and
progress of each. Also included in this section are recommendations on more effectively
implementing and monitoring the measure. Following this is a section of general
recommendations proposed to optimize CAP implementation. Lastly, evidence of the
City’s progress is included in the appendices.
3
Packet Pg. 17
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Near Term GHG Reduction Strategies
Table 1. The table below organizes the near term GHG reduction strategies addressed in this
report by the department that is responsible for implementation. On the left side of the table is
the chapter and strategy number, as established in the CAP.
Department
# Community
Development
Utilities Parking Public Works Parks & Rec
RE 3
TLU 9
WTR 3
WST 2
GO 11
Public Outreach and
Education
BLD 3 Public Outreach
and Education
PKS 5 Public Outreach
and Education
BLD 2 New Construction
Energy
Conservation
TLU 2 Alternative Vehicles
TLU 6 Parking
Management
Parking
Management
TLU 7 Shared Parking
TLU 8 Reduce the Need for
Commuting
WTR 1 Water
Conservation:
Existing
Development
WTR 2 Water Conservation:
New Development
PKS 3 Green Waste
Recycling
GO 1 City Energy
Conservation
City Energy
Conservation
GO 9 Employee
Commute
GO 10 Sustainability
Coordinator
Sustainability
Coordinator
4
Packet Pg. 18
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Implementation Measures and Progress
The CAP outlines actions, or implementation measures, that shall be completed in order
to execute each of the GHG reduction strategies shown in Table 1. The following section
is a list of these GHG-reducing implementation measures for near term CAP
implementation. These measures are organized by the six chapters, or focus areas, of the
plan, and correspond to the GHG reduction strategy numbers laid out in Table 1. For
example, New Construction Energy Conservation is listed as “BLD 2” in Table 1. This
refers to strategy 2 in the Buildings section of the CAP. The four implementation
measures for this strategy are listed as BLD 2.1, BLD 2.2, and so on.
To the left of the listed implementation measures there are notes on the City’s
progression of completing the action. The four progress levels of implementation are
Complete, In Progress, Ongoing, and No Progress.
Complete: the measure is complete and does not require any additional action
In Progress: the measure is currently in the process of completion
Ongoing: the measure has been initiated and requires ongoing implementation
No Progress: no action has been taken to implement the measure
Under each implementation measure are bullet point notes on what the City has done to
accomplish the measure. Following these progress notes, there are recommendations on
implementation efforts and monitoring for incomplete implementation measures.
5
Packet Pg. 19
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Buildings (BLD)
BLD 2 New Construction Energy Conservation
In Progress BLD 2.1 Expand incentive program for projects that exceed Title 24 energy
efficiency standards.
• The City provides incentives for projects that exceed Title 24 energy efficiency standards, however, these incentives are rarely used
• The City partnered with County EnergyWatch to maintain energy audit resources for all municipal buildings Recommendation: While there are incentive programs to encourage projects that exceed Title 24 energy efficiency standards, they are rarely used. The City should revise these incentive programs to make them easier to apply to and more desirable. Monitoring: The City should then monitor the number of projects that exceed Title 24 energy efficiency standards and include the data in the CAP annual report.
Complete BLD 2.2 Require new development to install energy efficient appliances.
• The state already mandates the installation of energy efficient appliances through Title 20 and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations
° Both titles are regulated by the California Energy Commission
No Progress BLD 2.3 Amend design guidelines and other documents to promote low impact
development strategies such as cool roofs and cool paving surfaces.
• The City created brochures promoting low impact development strategies, but these strategies are not included in City documents
• The Community Development Department may consider this action in the upcoming update of the Design Guidelines Recommendation: Without a law or ordinance requiring the encouragement of low impact development strategies, like cool roofs, this is not a priority for the City at this time. Also, the SLO Design Guidelines have not been updated since the adoption of the SLO CAP. This issue shall be considered in the upcoming update of the Design Guidelines.
BLD 3 Public Outreach and Education
Ongoing BLD 3.1 Promote energy efficiency programs and available financing options
including energy-efficiency mortgages, State energy programs, Energy
Upgrade California, utility company upgrade programs, and local rebates.
• The City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility recently partnered with PG&E to complete an energy efficiency design build project
° Energy audit in 2011
° New cogeneration system uses digesters’ biogas as a fuel source to provide about 20% of the electricity needed for the facility
° Exterior lighting replaced with night sky friendly LED lighting
° Aging equipment replaced and upgraded
6
Packet Pg. 20
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
♦ Now less equipment and motors are used, at a fraction of the horsepower
° These actions resulted in rebates from PG&E
Ongoing BLD 3.2 Collaborate with the County, State, and energy providers to develop a
central website for streamlined access to energy efficiency resources, including
a database of certified energy raters and recommended upgrades.
• CivicSpark is a statewide AmeriCorps program that the City works with to help implement components of the CAP
° Created handouts to inform homeowners, renters, and business owners on how to low-to-no cost actions to reduce their energy usage and save money
° Provided information through outreach and online on emPower’s free home energy coach visits and energy audits, and information on commercial audits, retrofits, and available financing options and incentives for PG&E and SoCal Gas Company
• Slocool.org is a climate action planning website for the City that has not been updated since 2013 Recommendation: The City should hire a Green Team, dedicated to implementing the CAP, including activities like updating and maintaining the City’s climate action planning website.
In Progress BLD 3.3 Work with local green building organizations on education and
outreach programs.
• The City has not made significant progress for public outreach and education on green building
• The City asks other agencies, like CivicSpark, to work on outreach
° Presented energy efficiency efforts throughout the County at Green Building Alliance meetings
° Held block party highlighting companies focused on green building (i.e. BuildSMART sustainable building materials resource trailer, Semmes & Co Builders, and SLO Sustainability Group Architects) Recommendation: This is not a priority for the City at this time. This measure is especially difficult with the lack of employees dedicated to creating and maintaining climate action outreach and education programs, and would be more efficiently implemented through the work of the Green Team.
No Progress BLD 3.4 Work with the business community to establish a green business
certification program. Recommendation: This is not a priority for the City at this time and there are no City employees currently assigned to this task of establishing a green business certification program. A Green Team dedicated to implementing the CAP would be able to work on completing this measure. Monitoring: Once the program is established, the City should monitor the number of certified green business in San Luis Obispo and include this information in the CAP annual report.
7
Packet Pg. 21
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Renewable Energy (RE)
RE 3 Public Outreach and Education
In Progress RE 3.1 Educate the community about renewable energy programs using
various methods, such as the City's website, TV channel, flyers in reception
areas, and public events.
• The City’s Climate Action Planning website (slocool.org) has not been updated since 2013
• The City coordinates with the County and other agencies to use and distribute flyers they created for renewable energy programs Recommendation: See Recommendation BLD 3.3
No Progress RE 3.2 Consider results of the SLO-RESCO project. Recommendation: Since the City no longer participates in the SLO-RESCO project, the CAP should be updated with this measure eliminated.
Ongoing RE 3.3 Encourage the use of photovoltaic installations whenever possible
during design review process.
• The City encourages the use of photovoltaic installations with a streamlined process for approval Recommendation: The City should create an incentive program to encourage the use of photovoltaic systems. The City should then monitor the number of photovoltaic installations and include this information in the CAP annual report.
8
Packet Pg. 22
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Transportation and Land Use (TLU)
TLU 2 Alternative Vehicles
No Progress TLU 2.1 Require all new development with 50 or more parking spaces to
designate a minimum 8% of parking spaces for clean air vehicles.
• The designation of clean air vehicle parking spaces is currently only conditioned through EIRs Recommendation: The Community Development Department should develop a streamlined process of requiring clean air vehicle parking spaces for all new development within the development review process.
No Progress TLU 2.2 Require all new development with 50 or more parking spaces to pre-
wire for electric vehicle charging stations, and provide a minimum 2 percent
charging spaces.
• The City currently conditions EV charging stations and clean vehicle parking spaces through EIRs
• The Target parking lot is included in the few that currently provide EV charging stations Recommendation: Parking structures should be planned in advance for the wiring of EV charging stations because they are more expensive to install later on. This consideration should be added to development review.
Ongoing TLU 2.3 Work with the APCD on the EV Community Readiness Plan for the
Central Coast.
• The City attended workshops and provided the APCD with input and information during their development of the EV Community Readiness Plan for the Central Coast
° The plan is now finished
° The APCD continues to reach out to the City whenever more funding is available for further implementation of the plan
No Progress TLU 2.4 Identify a network of streets appropriate for Neighborhood EV use in
the SLO 2035 General Plan update. Recommendation: This measure is somewhat unrealistic and irrelevant with the lack of current Neighborhood EV use. The use of these low-speed vehicles is prohibited on most streets because of their maximum capable speed of approximately 25 mph.
No Progress TLU 2.5 Allow car-sharing companies to designate spaces in public parking
areas and multifamily housing projects. Recommendation: Without a law or ordinance requiring the designation of parking spaces for clean air vehicles or EV charging stations, the enforcement of this is not a priority for the City at this time. This issue shall be considered with the upcoming construction of the parking structure at Palm and Nipomo Streets.
9
Packet Pg. 23
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
TLU 6 Parking Management
In Progress TLU 6.1 Make Downtown parking structures an attractive alternative to meter
parking by making on-street meter fees more expensive than structure
parking.
• The parking meters in the Downtown Area currently cost more than in the downtown parking structures, which are also free for the first hour
• The parking structure on Palm and Morro Streets now accepts credit cards to encourage more parking in the structure
• There are plans to construct a new parking structure on Palm and Nipomo Streets
• The SLO Downtown Association encourages customers to park in structures for special events
• (See Parking Structure Revenue in Appendix D)
• (See Parking Structure Occupancy Rates in Appendix E)
In Progress TLU 6.2 Locate transit stops and bicycle racks near parking structures to
make alternative transportation choices Downtown more convenient.
• The 2016 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan
° Reconfigured routes to connect the downtown with other areas, including the San Luis Obispo High School campus
° Created additional transit stops located in the downtown area
° Plans for a new Downtown Transit Center
° Plans for bus stop improvements, including 10 supplementary bicycle racks
TLU 7 Shared Parking
No Progress TLU 7.1 Amend the Zoning Regulations to increase the potential shared
parking reduction from 10% to 30%.
• This measure shall be considered during the upcoming Zoning Regulations update in the fiscal years 2016-2018 Recommendation: Reduction strategies for shared parking reduction must be more specific to be added to the Zoning Regulations. This measure should be revised and considered in the upcoming Zoning Regulations for the fiscal years 2016-2018.
TLU 8 Reduce the Need for Commuting
In Progress TLU 8.1 Improve the City’s jobs-housing balance to reduce VMT from
commuting.
• The City’s jobs-housing balance has continued at a constant of approximately 1.6:1 since 2012, when the CAP was adopted
• There are several City policies aimed at improving the jobs-housing balance
° Land Use Element Policy 1.5 (See Appendix B)
° Housing Element Policies 10.1 and 10.2 (See Appendix B)
° Housing Element Program 10.3 (See Appendix B)
• The General Plan build out period plans for the construction of more than 4,300 new units by the year 2035 to provide housing for the City’s workforce
10
Packet Pg. 24
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Ongoing TLU 8.2 Support infill housing projects that implement General Plan policies,
especially BMR housing close to job opportunities.
• The City continues to promote housing near employment centers
• Over 100 new affordable units (moderate income and below) have been built since 2012
° A majority of these units were built near employment centers and transportation.
• The City continues to implement Inclusionary Housing requirements for all new developments in the City
° 3-5% of units deed restricted for in-fill projects
° 15% of units deed restricted for expansion area sites (specific plan areas)
• The City enforces policies to support infill housing
° Housing Element policy 6.2 (See Appendix B)
° Housing Element policy 6.8 (See Appendix B)
Ongoing TLU 8.3 Continue to allow SDU construction and look for opportunities to
reduce barriers to their production.
• The City continues to allow SDU development
• The City also encourages the production of SDUs with the reduction of impact fees and cheaper fees than SFRs
° Water for SDU at $3,307 vs. SFR at $11,023
° Wastewater for SDU at $1,144 vs. SFR at $3,815
° Studio fees: area calculated at ⅓ rate of a tradition SFR
° Flexible parking requirements
• The City has permitted approximately 10 SDUs since 2012
• Housing Element Program 6.29 promotes the SDU construction by allowing flexible development standards and other incentives (See Appendix B)
• The City’s Zoning Regulations are consistent with AB 1866 (Section 65852.2 of State Housing Element law)
° Allow SDU construction in R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 and O zones with ministerial approvals when the primary use of the site is a single-family dwelling
TLU 9 Public Outreach and Education
Ongoing TLU 9.1 Distribute informational transportation welcome packets and bus
passes to new residents and businesses.
• Welcome packets with information on alternative transportation and ridesharing opportunities are distributed to new businesses through Rideshare’s Back ‘N’ Forth Club program
• SLOCOG is starting the Residential Transportation Demand Program in the fiscal year 2016-17
° The program works with realtors to distribute informational packets (included with a letter from the mayor) that encourage new residents to use alternative transportation options
11
Packet Pg. 25
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
In Progress TLU 9.2 Install additional informational bike signage.
• This action is included in the City of San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan, but has not yet been initiated Recommendation: The City Council should identify this task as a priority for the City. Since this task is not a capital project, there is currently no funding to complete it.
Ongoing TLU 9.3 Continue partnership with regional organizations, including
SLOCOG’s Regional Rideshare and SLO County’s Bicycle Coalition, on
outreach and education events.
• The City still has strong partnerships with these regional organizations and participates in many of their programs
° Rideshare’s Bike Month and Rideshare Month
° The City contributes to programs such as Bike Education and Bike Valet put on by Bike SLO County
No Progress TLU 9.4 Market incentive programs in the Bicycle Commuter Act to employers
and workers in the community. Recommendation: Paperwork for participation in the Act is confusing and time consuming, and the incentive is not great enough to encourage participation. The incentive program and application should be revised to make participation in the Act more desirable.
12
Packet Pg. 26
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Water (WTR)
WTR 1 Water Conservation: Existing Development
Complete WTR 1.1 Require landscape projects that trigger building permit review to
incorporate native and drought tolerant plant materials and minimize
irrigated turf areas.
• Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (See Appendix A) Recommendation: The City should incentivize landscape projects that incorporate native and drought tolerant plant materials and use the applications to monitor the number of these projects.
Complete WTR 1.2 Require landscape projects that trigger building permit review to
incorporate irrigation system designs that avoid runoff, low-head drainage,
and overspray.
• Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (See Appendix A)
• Water Conservation Ordinance (See Appendix A) Recommendation: The City should monitor the number of water efficient irrigation systems installed and include this information in the CAP annual report.
Ongoing WTR 1.3 Encourage the use of recycled water, greywater or rainwater-
harvesting systems.
• The Utilities department encourages the use of greywater and rainwater harvesting systems through
° A construction water program that uses exclusively recycled water
° Recycled Water Service Ordinance requires the use of recycled water where feasible (See Appendix A)
• Outreach includes
° Handouts at the farmer’s market booth
° Online outreach on their Facebook page
° Links provided in the Utilities Department section of the city’s website
° Time spent with customers interested in these resources Recommendation: The City should create an incentive or water rebate program to encourage the installation of recycled water, greywater, or rainwater-harvesting systems. The City could then organize home installation workshops with home improvement stores and monitor the number of attendees as well as the number of installations made.
13
Packet Pg. 27
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
WTR 2 Water Conservation: New Development
Ongoing WTR 2.1 Review new development projects for consistency with CALGreen
water efficiency standards.
• The CALGreen water efficiency standards require the installation of compliant plumbing fixtures for all development built prior to 1994
° For smaller projects with work being done only to the exterior, the City cannot gain access to the interior of the house to check plumbing fixtures. In this case, a self-certification form is sent (See Appendix G)
° Any additions or remodels will not be approved until required plan check comments are made, including
♦ Outlining the scope of work
♦ Listing the 2013 CALGreen compliance code
♦ Verifying that all plumbing fixtures included in the project are in compliance with CALGreen standards
• The City’s development review process encourages new development to comply with these standards (while not required by law)
In progress WTR 2.2 Expand recycled water infrastructure to encourage use of greywater
in new construction and landscape projects.
• The City has expanded infrastructure for water recycling, with a steady increase of recycled water use since 2010 (AF= acre feet):
° 2010 = 152.62 AF 2011 = 159.85 AF 2012 = 165.11 AF 2013 = 176.65 AF 2014 = 185.77 AF 2015 = 187.41 AF
• The Public Works Department used recycled water to irrigate several City parks in 2015
° This minimized potable water use at City parks by 26% and conserved almost 8 million gallons of water
• There is currently no city-owned infrastructure for greywater
° Any existing infrastructure is for homeowners only Recommendation: If this is still an important issue, it should be identified by the City as a higher priority for the Public Utilities Department to implement. Monitoring: The City should also monitor the number of new construction and landscape projects using greywater and include this information in the CAP annual report.
Ongoing WTR 2.3 Require use of native and non-invasive drought tolerant plant
materials combined with conservative use of water and landscape designs that
prevent run-off.
• The Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan outlines steps the City takes to identify species of local concern and maintain these native species
• City staff continue to restore native vegetation in place of areas invaded with non-native vegetation
14
Packet Pg. 28
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
• Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (See Appendix A)
• Water Conservation Ordinance (See Appendix A) Recommendation: This measure is difficult to implement because it is unclear whether the action should be focused on municipal buildings only or on all new development. Monitoring: The City should monitor the number of projects with landscape designs incorporating native and non-invasive drought tolerant plant materials and include this information in the CAP annual report.
WTR 3 Public Outreach and Education
Ongoing and
In Progress
WTR 3.1 Provide a graphical history of household water usage on utility bills,
and a comparison to average water usage for similar types of homes in the
community.
• The Utilities department does provide a graph of household water use on utility water bills (See graph in Appendix F)
• The Utilities department does not currently provide data showing a comparison to other types of homes in the community, but this is a goal for individual mailings for high use customers
Ongoing WTR 3.2 Maintain Utilities Department online resources and outreach
materials for water saving tips, planting guides and available rebates.
• These resources and outreach materials are available online at www.slowater.org/drought
• Planting guides are available through www.slowaterwiselandscaping.com
• Joe Little currently mans a bimonthly farmers market booth to educate the public on the Utilities Department services
15
Packet Pg. 29
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Solid Waste (WST)
WST 2 Public Outreach and Education
Complete WST 2.1 Provide the option for home and commercial waste audits to identify
and educate consumers where waste production can be reduced.
• The San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA) is an agency formed by the County and the cities within it to develop and implement regional programs to reduce solid and hazardous waste
• The IWMA will perform commercial and residential waste audits
° The IWMA will take calls about disposing of anything from needles to beached whales
° They enforce county-wide ordinances to discourage the disposal of paints, needles, pharmaceuticals, batteries, fluorescent lights, and mercury thermostats
♦ Retailers selling any of these products are required to take them back from the public for free, reducing the amount of hazardous waste in landfills
• The IWMA is also implementing a program called Love Food Not Waste to reduce GHG emissions by adding food scraps to our greenwaste bins
° Small food waste bins with educational flyers are being distributed to all residential areas in the county that currently have green waste bins
° They are also being distributed to businesses one by one
° Food scraps will be taken to an aerobic digestor in the County for collection of methane gas which will then be redistributed to PG&E and used for energy production
° This will reduce a large amount of GHG emissions from shipping the food waste down to a landfill in Santa Maria as well as from releasing the methane gas produced from the food waste
Complete WST 2.2 Maintain Utilities Department online resources and outreach
materials for recycling.
• This material is generally issued by the IWMA on a regional level
• This information and more can be found online at http://www.iwma.com/guide/
In Progress WST 2.3 Host interactive workshops on home composting.
• With the upcoming distribution of food waste collection bins from the County, the City plans to coordinate with local home improvement stores to host workshops on home composting and food waste collection Recommendation: With the upcoming distribution of food waste bins, the City should include informational pamphlets on the proper use of these with household utility bills. The City can also support the use of these bins by working with home
16
Packet Pg. 30
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016 improvement stores to provide in-store food composting workshops for the public. These workshops would be effectively advertised on social media and City websites and easily monitored with the number of attendees.
Ongoing WST 2.4 Explore options for landfill and Water Reclamation Facility site visits
open to the public and school groups.
• College and community tours are conducted, as well as annual grade school tours brought by the Science Discovery program for a total of about 50 tours per year
• Water Resource Recovery Facility site visits are available through either calling the Utilities Department, via the web at http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/utilities-department/wastewater/wastewater-treatment/sign-up-for-a-tour or on the Water Resource Recovery Facility website at http://slowrrfproject.org/join-the-conversation/visit-the-wrrf/
17
Packet Pg. 31
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Parks and Open Space (PKS)
PKS 3 Green Waste Recycling
Ongoing PKS 3.1 Store green waste from park maintenance at established composting
facilities or other park properties.
• Green waste from park maintenance is used for
° City landscape planters and beds
° Restoration plantings by the Natural Resources Department
° Tree plantings by the Urban Forest Service
° Certain CIPs
• 200 yards or more of woodchips serve City uses
Ongoing PKS 3.2 Continue to chip larger green waste at the City’s Corporation Yard
and redistribute for public and private use.
• All green waste produced from tree pruning, removals, or stump grinding is distributed and used for wood chips
• The Parks & Recreation Department sends loads to the community gardens
• Usable wood is sent to local mill (at the end of Prado) for conversion into furniture or lumber product
° Usable logs from 20-200 dead, dying, or storm damaged trees are given to the local mill or Central Coast Woodturners of California annually
• Excess green waste is advertised for Woodchip and Firewood Giveaway
° 120 yards of woodchips and about 5 cords of firewood are given away to citizens annually
• None is sent to the landfill
PKS 5 Public Outreach and Education
Ongoing PKS 5.1 Continue tree planting and maintenance education programs such as
Arbor Day and Downtown Foresters.
• The City continues to host the Annual Arbor Day Celebration, which is now held in the fall to provide less harsh weather conditions for the newly planted trees
° Attendees are invited to plant trees
° Students learn about urban ecology
° City staff is expected to attend to help plant trees and educate attendees on plant techniques
• The City Arborist reports to the Public Works Department on trees in the Downtown Area and is head of the Downtown Foresters volunteer program, in which the City Arborist trains volunteers to plant, prune, water and fertilize plants to maintain the urban ecology Recommendation: The City should monitor the attendance of these tree planting and maintenance education programs.
18
Packet Pg. 32
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Ongoing PKS 5.2 Partner with regional organizations to create volunteer opportunities
for trail work, habitat restoration and open space maintenance.
• The City partners with several regional organizations, including Environmental Center San Luis Obispo (ECOSLO), Central Coast Concerned Mountain Bikers (CCCMB), CivicSpark, Central Coast Grown, and Leadership SLO
° ECOSLO: The City collaborates with ECOSLO to create a program called SLO Stewards, which heads docent-led hikes and performs trail maintenance twice a month, each time with 10 to 20 volunteers
° CCCMB: The organization builds trails with City Rangers every Wednesday with about 10 volunteers and a few Saturdays out of the year, usually with 100 volunteers
° CivicSpark: The program led about 10 volunteers to do trail maintenance in the Cerro San Luis Nature Reserve
° Central Coast Grown: The City owns City Farm property on the Calle Joaquin Agricultural Preserve and has a 20 year lease with this group so they can do maintenance and farm sustainably everyday
° Leadership SLO: This is a program through the Chamber of Commerce that led a group of 40-50 volunteers on two different occasions to reestablish the historic Lemon Grove hiking loop at Cerro San Luis
Ongoing PKS 5.3 Advertise availability of composted green waste, wood chips and
firewood.
• As indicated under PKS 3.2, all excess green waste is advertised as available at the Woodchip and Firewood Giveaway
19
Packet Pg. 33
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Government Options (GO)
GO 1 City Energy Conservation
In Progress
and Ongoing
GO 1.1 Create and implement a City Building Retrofit Program.
• There is no single retrofit plan or program, but there are several City employees and departments enacting building retrofit
• The City’s building retrofit is ongoing through CIPs, light replacements, and energy audits
• An energy use inventory was done via CivicSpark to alert the City of buildings using high amounts of energy or where energy use is increasing
° The preliminary report created via CivicSpark shall be used by the City to target specific sites for future CIPs
• The City also partners with the County, SoCal Gas Company, and PG&E to work to improve energy efficiency throughout the city
• The City recently received a proposal from ZeroCity, LLC (a company dedicated to helping municipalities, school districts, and universities reach zero net greenhouse gas emissions) to help identify, fund, and implement energy use reduction projects
° The legal team is currently researching the legality of ZeroCity’s special funding approach Recommendation: The City should monitor all building retrofits and include the number of buildings retrofitted as well as the amount of energy saved in the CAP annual report.
GO 9 Employee Commute
Ongoing GO 9.1 Continue to reduce single-occupant employee commuting through trip
reduction incentives.
• The Public Works Department currently encourages businesses to have (or to work with the City to create) a Trip Reduction Plan with trip reduction incentives
• The City also has a Trip Reduction Plan for all City employees
• SLO Regional Rideshare started the Back ‘N’ Forth Club program that includes
° A Commute Survey and Trip Reduction Plan tailored to each business involved
° Other ridesharing tools and incentives for the business’s employees
Recommendation: The City should monitor trip reduction rates with the
Commute Surveys distributed by Rideshare’s Back ‘N’ Forth Club program and
include this data in the CAP annual report.
GO 10 Sustainability Coordinator
No Progress GO 10.1 Allocate or hire staff to implement CAP and energy programs. Recommendation: See Local Government Operations (#9) on page 23
20
Packet Pg. 34
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
GO 11 Public Outreach and Education
No Progress GO 11.1 Publish information on the City’s climate action planning website
about successful programs aimed at reducing GHG emissions. Recommendation: See Recommendation BLD 3.2
No Progress GO 11.2 Participate in Earth Day activities, the County’s Energy-Efficiency
Month, and other regional events to educate the community about City climate
action planning. Recommendation: Funding should be provided for participation in Earth Day activities, the County’s Energy-Efficiency Month, and/or other regional events for public outreach and education on City climate action planning.
21
Packet Pg. 35
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
General Recommendations
CAP Amendments
1. Revise the responsible departments assigned to GHG reduction strategies
2. Create a list of implementation measures to be completed by each department
separately so they know what goals to focus on
3. Exclude unrealistic or irrelevant GHG reduction implementation measures
4. Update the language used to differentiate between strategies for municipal
buildings or actions only or community wide
5. List existing policies and potential funding sources for implementation
6. Show calculations or short descriptions of what was included in calculations for
GHG reduction goals
7. Start out with easier tasks so employees feel more empowered to take on future,
more challenging tasks
8. All implementation measures for the near term GHG reduction strategies that
have not been started by August 2017 should be included with the
implementation measures for the mid-term GHG reduction strategies.
Local Government Operations
9. Create a “Green Team” to implement the CAP
● Comprised of representatives from each department and should include
individuals with expertise in environmental policy, transportation, energy
efficiency, planning, and public outreach, for efficient City involvement in
CAP objectives
● Communicate and coordinate with the City departments involved in CAP
implementation to monitor implementation actions
● Provide annual progress reports
● Develop CAP updates and amendments
● Update the CAP website (slocool.org) and tie it to the City website
(slocity.org)
● Advertise CAP objectives through outreach (i.e. informational booth at the
farmers’ market, with flyers at City Hall and local businesses, etc.)
10. More extensive monitoring should be done for all CAP strategies in order to know
what progress has been made and what still needs to be done
11. Organize a Green Team presentation on CAP objectives for new employees
during Day of Welcome
12. Coordinate with PACE to create outreach events and marketing of CAP
implementation actions
Community Involvement
13. Develop a San Luis Obispo Climate Action Coalition to involve the community in
learning about and participating in climate action efforts
14. Allow credit card acceptance at all downtown public parking structures
22
Packet Pg. 36
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Acknowledgements
Xzandrea Fowler, Community Development
Doug Davidson, Community Development
Brian Leveille, Community Development
Mark Sadowski, Community Development
Rebecca Gershow, Community Development
Jenny Wiseman, Community Development
Steven Orozco, Community Development
Kyle Van Leeuwen, Community Development
Andrew Collins, Public Works
Alex Fuchs, Public Works
Daryl Grigsby, Public Works
Barbara Lynch, Public Works
Jennifer Rice, Public Works
Adam Fukushima, Public Works
Mychal Boerman, Public Utilities
Judy Buonaguidi, Public Utilities
Pam Ouellette, Public Utilities
Robert Hill, Administration
Katelynn Webster, CivicSpark
Melissa Guise, Air Pollution Control District
Jesse Carpentier, Cal Poly MCRP Program
List of Acronyms
APCD…………………………………………………………………………...Air Pollution Control District
BMR……………………………………………………………………………………………Below Market Rate
CAP……………………………………………………………………………………………Climate Action Plan
CAV……………………………………………………………………………………………….Clean Air Vehicle
CIP……………………………………………………………………………..Capital Improvement Projects
EIR…………………………………..…...…………………………………..Environmental Impact Report
EV……………………………………………………………………………………………………Electric Vehicle
GHG……………………………………………………………………………………………….Greenhouse Gas
PACE……………………………………………………….Professional Association of City Employees
SDU………………………………………………………………………………………….Single Dwelling Unit
SFR……………………………………………………………………………………..Single Family Residence
SLOCOG……………………………………………………..San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
VMT………………………………………………………………………………………Vehicle Miles Traveled
23
Packet Pg. 37
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Appendix A
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Sections
Title 17 Zoning
Chapter 87 Water Efficiency Landscape Standards
Section 040 Implementation Procedures
A. Development Review. For projects that require development review (tentative parcel
map, tentative tract, development plan or conditional use permit), project applicants
shall submit the following documentation:
1. A completed maximum applied water allowance for the conceptual landscape
design.
2. A conceptual landscape design plan which demonstrates that the landscape will
meet the landscape design specifications of the city engineering standards uniform
design criteria for landscaping and irrigation.
3. A conceptual irrigation design plan which notes the irrigation methods and
design actions that will be employed to meet the irrigation specifications of the city
engineering standards uniform design criteria for landscaping and irrigation.
4. A grading plan which demonstrates the landscape will meet the specifications of
the city engineering standards uniform design criteria for landscaping and
irrigation.
B. Building Application. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, project applicants
shall submit the following:
1. A completed maximum applied water allowance form (appendices, city
engineering standards) based on the final landscape design plan.
2. A final landscape design plan that includes all the criteria required in the city
engineering standards uniform design criteria for landscaping and irrigation.
3. A final irrigation plan that includes all the criteria required in the city engineering
standards uniform design criteria for landscaping and irrigation.
4. A soils management report that includes at a minimum the criteria required in
the city engineering standards uniform design criteria for landscaping and
irrigation.
5. A final grading plan that includes all the criteria required in the city engineering
standards uniform design criteria for landscaping and irrigation.
6. A hydrozone table (appendices, city engineering standards).
C. Project Completion. Upon completion of the installation of the landscape and
irrigation system and prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the project
applicant shall submit the following:
24
Packet Pg. 38
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
1. A certification of completion (appendices, city engineering standards) signed by
the professional of record for the landscape and irrigation design certifying that the
project was installed per the city-approved landscape design, irrigation and grading
plans and meets or exceeds an average landscape irrigation efficiency of 0.71. The
city reserves the right to inspect and audit any irrigation system which has received
an approval through the provisions of this chapter.
2. A project applicant shall develop and provide to the owner or owner
representative and the city an irrigation schedule that assists in the water
management of the project and utilizes the minimum amount of water required to
maintain plant health. Irrigation schedules shall meet the criteria in the city
engineering standards uniform design criteria for landscaping and irrigation.
3. A regular maintenance schedule shall be submitted by the project applicant with
the certificate of completion that includes: routine inspections, adjustment and
repairs to the irrigation system, aerating and dethatching turf areas, replenishing
mulch, fertilizing, pruning and weeding. The maintenance schedule will be provided
to the owner or owner representative. (Ord. 1547 § 2 (part), 2010)
Title 13 Public Services
Chapter 07 Water Conservation
Section 010 Substandard water fixtures prohibited.
No person shall cause or allow any water received by such person from the city water
system to be wasted due to substandard, leaky or faulty water fixtures or water-using or
distributing devices. (Ord. 1089 § 1 (part), 1987)
Section 020 Water runoff prohibited.
A. No person shall cause any water delivered by the city water system to flow away from
property owned, occupied or controlled by such person in any gutter, ditch or in any
other manner over the surface of the ground, so as to constitute water waste runoff.
B. “Water waste runoff” means water flowing away from property and which is caused
by excessive application(s) of water beyond reasonable or practical flow rates, water
volumes or duration of application. (Ord. 1089 § 1 (part), 1987)
Chapter 24 Recycled Water Service
Section 010 Statement of policy.
When in the judgment of the city, reclaimed water service can be feasibly provided to a
particular parcel for particular uses, the utilities director shall require the use of
reclaimed water in lieu of potable water for those uses. As used herein, the term
“feasible” means reclaimed water is available for delivery to the property in compliance
with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances and regulations and such
reclaimed water can be delivered to the property at an overall cost to the user which
does not exceed the overall cost of potable water service. (Ord. 1403 § 1, 2001)
25
Packet Pg. 39
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Appendix B
San Luis Obispo General Plan Element Policies and Programs
Chapter 1 Land Use
Goal 1 Growth Management
Policy 5 Jobs/Housing Relationship
The gap between housing demand (due to more jobs and college enrollment) and supply
should not increase.
Chapter 3 Housing
Goal 6 Housing Production
Policy 2
New commercial developments in the Downtown Core (C-D Sone) shall include
housing, unless the City makes one of the following findings:
A) Housing is likely to jeopardize the health, safety or welfare of residents or
employees; or
B) The property’s shape, size, topography, or other physical factor makes
construction of new dwellings infeasible.
Policy 8
Consistent with the City’s goal to stimulate higher density infill where appropriate in the
Downtown Core (C-D Zone), the City shall consider changes to the Zoning Regulations
that would allow for the development of smaller apartments and efficiency units.
Program 29
Continue to pursue incentives to encourage development of Secondary Dwelling Units
(SDUs). Possible incentives to include SDU design templates, flexible development
standards, fee reductions or deferrals, or other measures to encourage the construction
of SDUs where allowed by zoning.
Goal 10 Local Preference
Policy 1
Administer City housing programs and benefits, such as First Time Homebuyer
Assistance or affordable housing lotteries, to give preference to: 1) persons living or
working in the City or within the City’s Urban Reserve, and 2) persons living in San Luis
Obispo County
26
Packet Pg. 40
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Policy 2
Cal Poly State University and Cuesta College should actively work with the City and
community organizations to create positive environment around the Cal Poly Campus
by:
A) Establishing standards for appropriate student densities in neighborhoods
near campus;
B) Promoting homeownership for academic faculty and staff in Low-Density
Residential neighborhoods in the northern part of the City; and
C) Encouraging and participating in the revitalization of degraded
neighborhoods.
Program 3
Continue to work with the County of San Luis Obispo for any land use decisions that
create significant expansion of employment in the unincorporated areas adjacent to the
City to mitigate housing impacts on the City.
27
Packet Pg. 41
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Appendix C
Local GHG Reductions Matrix
28
Packet Pg. 42
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Appendix D
City Parking Structure Revenue
29
Packet Pg. 43
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Appendix E
City Parking Structure Occupancy Rates
30
Packet Pg. 44
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
31
Packet Pg. 45
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Appendix F
Water Utility Bill
32
Packet Pg. 46
1
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Appendix G
Water Fixture Retrofit Self-Certification Form
33
Packet Pg. 47
1
City of San Luis Obispo
Energy Baseline Report
August 2, 2016
Packet Pg. 48
1
Contents I. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 II. Energy Use and Cost Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 1 III. Energy Use Intensity Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 6 IV. Next Steps in Municipal Energy Management Program ................................................................................ 8 V. Contact Information ..................................................................................................................................................... 8 VI. Portfolio Manager Login Credentials ..................................................................................................................... 8 Appendix A- Table of Property Information ................................................................................................................ 9 Appendix B - Definitions of Primary Function Types ............................................................................................. 10
Packet Pg. 49
1
1
I. Introduction San Luis Obispo County’s Energy Watch 1 (Energy Watch) is a partnership between the County of San Luis Obispo, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), and participating cities and special districts. As part of a comprehensive program, Energy Watch provides information to local governments regarding energy use and costs in their facilities and infrastructure. This information is used to identify opportunities for energy and cost savings, to help participants finance and implement energy saving measures and projects, and to track building performance. This report was made possible by collaboration between CivicSpark and Energy Watch. CivicSpark is a governor’s initiative AmeriCorps program designed to help local governments build capacity. In the County of San Luis Obispo, CivicSpark’s mission is to provide support for the implementation of the Climate Action Plans for the seven incorporated Cities and County. The dual purpose of this report is to (1) analyze San Luis Obispo’s energy use and cost from June 2013 to May 2016 and to (2) serve as a baseline and guiding document for future energy efficiency efforts. San Luis Obispo authorized Energy Watch to collect utility data from PG&E and SoCalGas to produce this report. The Environmental Protection Agency’s Energy Star Portfolio Manager, a free online benchmarking tool, was used, in part, to track and monitor energy use and cost, as well as building performance in facilities over time.
II. Energy Use and Cost Analysis This report highlights 18 buildings and three types of utility infrastructure owned and operated by the City of San Luis Obispo. The energy analysis below describes the electricity and natural gas use and costs for each facility, the percent change between June 2013 and May 2016, and overall energy trend analysis. Tables 1.1 and 1.2 below include a detailed year by year breakdown of electricity and natural gas use and costs for all San Luis Obispo buildings and infrastructure types.
1 This program is funded by California utility customers and administered by PG&E and SoCalGas under the
auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission.
Packet Pg. 50
1
2
Table 1.1 Electricity Usage and Cost, 2013 to 2016
Electricity
Cost ($)
Electricity
Usage (kWh)
Electricity
Cost ($)
Electricity
Usage (kWh)
Electricity
Cost ($)
Electricity
Usage (kWh)
836 Pacific Street Parking Garage 39,047.72$ 258660 44,632.11$ 275604 47,044.29$ 283307 17%9%
842 Palm Street Parking Structure 18,879.37$ 136847 20,219.28$ 135312 20,466.63$ 132716 8%-3%
871 Marsh Street Office and Parking Garage 21,475.90$ 144291 18,284.54$ 103777 18,325.58$ 95651 -17%-51%
919 Palm Parking Garage 23,187.85$ 153329 24,621.15$ 151848 25,485.73$ 154853 9%1%
City Hall 49,793.96$ 296246 52,461.53$ 287061 54,398.38$ 279226 8%-6%
City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department 3,115.98$ 17436 4,406.28$ 22289 5,124.43$ 24123 39%28%
Corporation Yard 44,850.97$ 275748 47,516.64$ 278315 48,282.75$ 270262 7%-2%
Fire Station #1 25,614.76$ 155099 29,986.83$ 166450 30,366.07$ 162046 16%4%
Fire Station #2 7,785.63$ 42104 7,906.90$ 41262 9,579.11$ 45368 19%7%
Fire Station #3 7,558.63$ 40661 7,937.65$ 41009 8,552.46$ 40249 12%-1%
Fire Station #4 6,190.98$ 33487 6,824.90$ 35287 7,288.38$ 34276 15%2%
Ludwick Community Center 8,470.70$ 39053 7,209.64$ 36755 6,871.85$ 32492 -23%-20%
Parks and Recreation Department Offices 8,650.54$ 45520 8,984.38$ 44320 8,487.45$ 38429 -2%-18%
Police Department Building 59,412.91$ 344392 51,829.87$ 285541 45,685.88$ 245472 -30%-40%
Public Works and Community Development Offices 38,815.68$ 213480 38,965.67$ 197640 40,202.06$ 206636 3%-3%
Safety Dispatch Center 49,677.37$ 368946 53,698.03$ 381307 54,858.08$ 367054 9%-1%
Senior Citizens Center 6,151.52$ 27652 6,824.05$ 30156 7,021.44$ 30125 12%8%
Sinsheimer Park 34,534.24$ 209795 13,431.26$ 15486 25,166.58$ 109398 -37%-92%
Buildings Total 453,214.71$ 2802746 445,740.71$ 2529419 463,207.15$ 2551683 2%-10%
WWTP/WRRF Main Operations 549,612.55$ 4498218 591,134.56$ 4524723 523,594.67$ 3818560 -5%-18%
WWTP/WRRF Recycled Water System 46,706.52$ 247506 50,448.05$ 249637 56,852.32$ 270451 18%8%
Waste Water Total 596,319.07$ 4745724 641,582.61$ 4774360 580,446.99$ 4089011 -3%-16%
Water Treatment Plant 303,754.27$ 2097600 326,650.82$ 2059200 311,232.87$ 1885200 2%-11%
All Facilities Total 1,353,288.05$ 9646070 1,413,974.14$ 9362979 1,354,887.01$ 8525894 0%-13%
Building
Utility Infrastructure Waste Water
Utility Infrastructure Fresh Water
Electricity Usage
(kWh) % Change
June '13 -
May '16
Facility Name
June '13 - May '14 June '14 - May '15 June '15 - May '16 Electricity Cost
($) % Change
June '13 -
May '16
Packet Pg. 51
1
3
Table 1.2 Natural Gas Usage and Cost, 2013 to 2016
Energy usage throughout the next section of the report is expressed in British Thermal Units (BTUs) – a standard unit for energy use. Energy usage of any kind can be expressed in BTUs, including electricity and natural gas, making it an effective metric to show total energy usage. The energy usage in the tables above have been converted into kBTUs in the graphs below using the standard conversion of 1 kWh = 3.412 kBTUs and 1 Therm = 100 kBTUs. For the purpose of this baseline report and to help determine potential opportunities for future energy and cost savings, threshold criteria were developed to help identify facilities for further analysis. These criteria, highlighted below, emphasize facilities with energy use that is high and increased over the analysis period. Please note there are other facilities with significant energy use and cost that should be considered for future assessment.
Facilities highlighted in this report have EITHER electrical consumption greater than 20,000 kWh (68,240 kBTUs) annually OR gas use greater
than 1,000 therms (100,000 kBTUs) annually, AND experienced BOTH an increase in energy use greater than 3% and an increase in energy
cost greater than $500 between 2013 and 2016.
Natural Gas
Cost ($)
Natural Gas
Usage (Therm)
Natural Gas
Cost ($)
Natural Gas
Usage (Therm)
Natural Gas
Cost ($)
Natural Gas
Usage (Therm)
City Hall 3,959.95$ 3907 3,224.17$ 3159 3,414.63$ 3728 -16%-5%
City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department 694.42$ 484 549.51$ 370 539.04$ 384 -29%-26%
Fire Station #1 2,759.01$ 2642 2,023.52$ 1945 2,023.52$ 1945 -36%-36%
Fire Station #2 1,153.87$ 940 859.06$ 682 971.20$ 860 -19%-9%
Fire Station #3 1,610.51$ 1381 1,200.08$ 1024 1,519.86$ 1495 -6%8%
Fire Station #4 1,185.66$ 994 708.67$ 524 974.13$ 858 -22%-16%
Ludwick Community Center 1,079.57$ 872 770.99$ 600 1,057.08$ 936 -2%7%
Parks and Recreation Department Offices 639.79$ 445 559.28$ 383 653.88$ 505 2%12%
Police Department Building 6,913.41$ 7643 4,525.19$ 4741 4,238.03$ 4796 -63%-59%
Public Works and Community Development Offices 272.94$ 78 266.08$ 72 253.80$ 66 -8%-18%
Senior Citizens Center 1,191.65$ 980 997.33$ 818 1,078.51$ 957 -10%-2%
Sinsheimer Park 73,296.94$ 104235 88,219.62$ 136534 47,647.96$ 76984 -54%-35%
Buildings Total 94,757.72$ 124601 103,903.50$ 150852 64,371.64$ 93514 -47%-33%
WWTP/WRRF Main Operations 24,532.32$ 30264 21,623.59$ 27036 13,660.50$ 18528 -80%-63%
All Facilities Total 119,290.04$ 154865 125,527.09$ 177888 78,032.14$ 112042 -53%-38%
Utility Infrastructure Waste Water
Building
Facility Name
June '13 - May '14 June '14 - May '15 June '15 - May '16 Natural Gas Cost
($) % Change
June '13 - May
'16
Natural Gas
Usage (Therm) %
Change
June '13 - May
'16
Packet Pg. 52
1
4
Graphs 1.1 - 4 depict the total energy cost ($) over total energy use (kBTUs) for San Luis Obispo’s 4 facilities with the highest energy use and costs, in accordance with the above threshold.
Graph 1.1 836 Pacific Street Parking Garage Energy Cost and Use from June 2013 - May 2016
Graph 1.2 City of San Luis Utilities Department Combined Energy Cost and Use from June 2013 - May 2016
$-
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$3,000.00
$4,000.00
$5,000.00
$6,000.00
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
100000
JuneAugustOctoberDecemberFebruaryAprilJuneAugustOctoberDecemberFebruaryAprilJuneAugustOctoberDecemberFebruaryAprilJune '13-May '14 June '14 - May '15 June '15 - May '16 Total Energy Cost ($) Total Energy Usage (kBTUs) 836 Pacific Street Parking Garage
Electricity Usage Total Cost
$-
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$3,000.00
$4,000.00
$5,000.00
$6,000.00
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
JuneAugustOctoberDecemberFebruaryAprilJuneAugustOctoberDecemberFebruaryAprilJuneAugustOctoberDecemberFebruaryAprilJune '13-May '14 June '14 - May '15 June '15 - May '16 Total Energy Cost ($) Total Energy Usage (kBTUs) City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department
Electricity Usage Natural Gas Usage Total Cost
Packet Pg. 53
1
5
Graph 1.3 Fire Station No. 3 Combined Energy Cost and Use from June 2013 to May 2016
Graph 1.4 WWTP/WRRF Recycled Water System Energy Cost and Use from June 2013 to May 2016
$-
$200.00
$400.00
$600.00
$800.00
$1,000.00
$1,200.00
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
JuneAugustOctoberDecemberFebruaryAprilJuneAugustOctoberDecemberFebruaryAprilJuneAugustOctoberDecemberFebruaryAprilJune '13-May '14 June '14 - May '15 June '15 - May '16 Total Energy Cost ($) Total Energy Usage (kBTUs) Fire Station #3
Electricity Usage Natural Gas Usage Total Cost
$-
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$3,000.00
$4,000.00
$5,000.00
$6,000.00
$7,000.00
$8,000.00
$9,000.00
$10,000.00
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
JuneAugustOctoberDecemberFebruaryAprilJuneAugustOctoberDecemberFebruaryAprilJuneAugustOctoberDecemberFebruaryAprilJune '13-May '14 June '14 - May '15 June '15 - May '16 Total Energy Cost ($) Total Energy Usage (kBTUs) WWTP/WRRF Recycled Water System
Electricity Usage Total Cost
Packet Pg. 54
1
6
III. Energy Use Intensity Analysis Energy Use Intensity (EUI) is a unit of measurement that represents the energy consumed by a building relative to its size and property type. This is calculated by dividing the total amount of energy consumed (kBTU) by a building in one year by the building’s total floor area (square feet). The following analysis includes all of San Luis Obispo’s facilities that were eligible for calculating EUI. See Appendix B for property type definitions. High or low EUI values do not necessarily describe a facility’s energy efficiency. EUI numbers are relative and are compared to other similar facilities. For the purpose of this report, we have decided to compare the EUI of San Luis Obispo’s facilities to a national median of similar property types. Facilities with EUIs that are higher than the national median are considered less efficient, while facilities with EUIs lower than the national median are more efficient. These comparisons are portrayed below in Graph 2.1. Table 2.1 lists the EUI of San Luis Obispo’s facilities as calculated by the Portfolio Manager tool.
Table 2.1 Site EUI for 2013 to 2016
Facility Name Property Type
Gross
Floor
Area
(ft2)
Site EUI (kBTU/ft2) National
Median
Site EUI June '13
- May '14
June '14
- May '15
June '15
- May '16
Building City Hall Office 22971 61 56 58 52 City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department Office 3810 28 30 32 59 Corporation Yard Other - Public Services 36000 26 26 26 39 Fire Station #1 Fire Station 20398 39 37 37 60 Fire Station #2 Fire Station 3000 79 70 80 63 Fire Station #3 Fire Station 3726 74 65 77 72 Fire Station #4 Fire Station 3130 68 55 65 64 Ludwick Community Center Social/Meeting Hall 15000 15 12 14 30 Parks and Recreation Department Offices Office 4200 48 45 43 56 Police Department Building Police Station 25152 77 58 52 64 Public Works and Community Development Offices Office 17000 43 40 42 63 Safety Dispatch Center Police Station 6044 208 215 207 49 Senior Citizens Center Social/Meeting Hall 5766 33 32 34 32 Sinsheimer Park Fitness Center/Health Club/Gym 8288 1344 1654 974 85
Packet Pg. 55
1
7
Graph 2.1 depicts how the energy use intensity of San Luis Obispo facilities compares to a national median of facilities with the same property type. According to Portfolio Manager, the national median EUI is the recommended benchmark metric for all buildings. The median value is the middle of the national population – half of the buildings use more energy and the other half use less. A complete listing of all national median EUI values can be found at https://portfoliomanager.energystar.gov/pdf/reference/US%20National%20Median%20Table.pdf
Graph 2.1 Site EUI vs. National Median
*Sinsheimer Park has an EUI value of 979 kBTU/ft2, which exceeds the maximum value shown on the vertical axis of Graph 2.1.
979
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
Site EUI (kBTU/ft2) 2016 Site EUI vs. National Median Site EUI
Site EUI National Median Site EUI
Packet Pg. 56
1
8
IV. Next Steps in Municipal Energy Management Program
Perform energy assessments on priority or all facilities
o Energy Watch will coordinate with the utilities and each of the 3rd party service providers conducting energy assessments to provide a single report identifying the best opportunities for energy and cost savings, as well as the information necessary for financing and moving forward with project implementation.
Implement Energy and Cost Saving Measures and Projects
o Energy Watch will help select, plan, and manage cost-effective energy saving projects. This includes leveraging technical and engineering resources, navigating rebate and incentive procurement, and securing no or low interest financing.
Monitor and measure facility and infrastructure performance and provide an annual Energy Baseline Report and Rate Analysis
o Energy Watch and CivicSpark will assist in the continual monitoring of energy use for your City and provide annual baseline reports and rate analyses to City staff.
V. Contact Information Jordan Garbayo jgarbayo@co.slo.ca.us Katie Webster kwebster@civicspark.lgc.org
VI. Portfolio Manager Login Credentials User Name: SanLuisObispoCity Password: EnergyWatch1 http://Portfoliomanager.energystar.gov Energy Watch staff is available to help train San Luis Obispo staff how to use Portfolio Manager as a means to easily track and measure energy use, costs, and performance over time.
Packet Pg. 57
1
9
Appendix A - Table of Property Information
Facility Name Address SAID # (PG&E) BAID # (SCG)Meter # (SCG)
Property
Floor Area
(ft^2)
Total Energy Cost
($)
June ’13 - May ‘14
Total Energy Cost
($)
June ’14 - May ‘15
Total Energy Cost
($)
June ’15 - May ‘16
Total Energy Usage
(kBTU)
June ’13 - May ‘14
Total Energy Usage
(kBTU)
June ’14 - May ‘15
Total Energy Usage
(kBTU)
June ’15 - May ‘16
836 Pacific Street Parking Garage 836 Pacific Street 7212993421 1350 $ 39,047.72 $ 44,632.11 $ 47,044.29 882548 940361 966643
842 Palm Street Parking Structure 842 Palm Street 7212993880 92212 $ 18,879.37 $ 20,219.28 $ 20,466.63 466922 461685 452827
871 Marsh Street Office and Parking Garage 871 Marsh Street 7212993138 104862 $ 21,475.90 $ 18,284.54 $ 18,325.58 492321 354087 326361
919 Palm Parking Garage 919 Palm Street 7212993548 86000 $ 23,187.85 $ 24,621.15 $ 25,485.73 523159 518105 528358
2473387193 $ 49,793.96 $ 52,461.53 $ 54,398.38 1010791 979452 952719
969151300 13235835 $ 3,959.95 $ 3,224.17 $ 3,414.63 390700 315900 372800
5519318748 $ 3,115.98 $ 4,406.28 $ 5,124.43 59492 76050 82308
1494151193 3608214 $ 694.42 $ 549.51 $ 539.04 48400 37000 38400
0978936811 $ 1,056.67 $ 1,314.77 $ 703.69 14344 17022 6851
2473387022 43,794.30$ 46,201.87$ 47,579.06$ 926508 932588 915283
965296595 $ 25,614.76 $ 29,986.83 $ 30,366.07 530594 569425 554359
1221152027 13264921 $ 2,759.01 $ 2,023.52 $ 2,023.52 264200 194500 194500
965296872 $ 7,785.63 $ 7,906.90 $ 9,579.11 144038 141157 155204
1442169800 10280293 $ 1,153.87 $ 859.06 $ 971.20 94000 68200 86000
965296588 $ 7,558.63 $ 7,937.65 $ 8,552.46 139101 140292 137692
90152900 6434889 $ 1,610.51 $ 1,200.08 $ 1,519.86 138100 102400 149500
965296943 $ 6,190.98 $ 6,824.90 $ 7,288.38 114559 120717 117258
1409149100 13234391 $ 1,185.66 $ 708.67 $ 974.13 99400 52400 85800
2473387325 $ 8,470.70 $ 7,209.64 $ 6,871.85 133600 125739 111155
976157300 13473354 $ 1,079.57 $ 770.99 $ 1,057.08 87200 60000 93600
5845533555 $ 8,650.54 $ 8,984.38 $ 8,487.45 155724 151619 131466
1746150427 12743068 $ 639.79 $ 559.28 $ 653.88 44500 38300 50500
1152896225 $ 59,412.91 $ 51,829.87 $ 45,685.88 1178165 976836 839760
1389151200 13617407 $ 6,913.41 $ 4,525.19 $ 4,238.03 764300 474100 479600
5845533756 $ 38,815.68 $ 38,965.67 $ 40,202.06 730315 676126 706902
1200616737 12172910 $ 272.94 $ 266.08 $ 253.80 7800 7200 6600
Safety Dispatch Center 1135 Roundhouse Ave 1152896248 6044 $ 49,677.37 $ 53,698.03 $ 54,858.08 1258844 1301019 1252388
2473387050 $ 6,151.52 $ 6,824.05 $ 7,021.44 94597 103164 103058
1143161600 3021736 $ 1,191.65 $ 997.33 $ 1,078.51 98000 81800 95700
5845533948 $ 34,534.24 $ 13,431.26 $ 25,166.58 717709 52978 374251
1959152600 11122666 $ 73,296.94 $ 88,219.62 $ 47,647.96 10423500 13653400 7698400
Buildings Total $ 547,972.43 $ 549,644.21 $ 527,578.79 22033431 23723623 18066243
5845533029 $ 549,612.55 $ 591,134.56 $ 523,594.67 15388404 15479077 13063294
317150100 14988716 $ 24,532.32 $ 21,623.59 $ 13,660.50 3026400 2703600 1852800
WWTP/WRRF Recycled Water System 35 Prado Road 6348223153 8508 $ 46,706.52 $ 50,448.05 $ 56,852.32 844490 851761 922779
Waste Water Total $ 620,851.39 $ 663,206.20 $ 594,107.49 19259294 19034439 15838873
Water Treatment Plant Stenner Creek Road 5845533075 8508 $ 303,754.27 $ 326,650.82 $ 311,232.87 7157011 7025990 6432302
All Facilities Total 1,472,578.09$ 1,539,501.23$ 1,432,919.15$ 48449736 49784052 40337418
35 Prado Road
900 Southwood Drive
1445 Santa Rosa Road
25152
17000
5766
8288
14492
3000
3726
3130
15000
4200
Utility Infrastructure Fresh Water
City Hall
City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department
Fire Station #1
Fire Station #2
Fire Station #3
Fire Station #4
Ludwick Community Center
Parks and Recreation Department Offices
Police Department Building
Public Works and Community Development Offfices
Senior Citizens Center
1395 Madonna Road
864 Santa Rosa Street
1341 Nipomo Street
1042 Walnut Street
Sinsheimer Park
WWTP/WRRF Main Operations
136 N. Chorro Street
1280 Laurel Lane
Building
Utilty Infrastructure Waste Water
919 Palm St #1
Corporation Yard 25 Prado Rd
990 Palm Street
879 Morro St
2160 Santa Barbara Street
22971
3810
36000
20398
Packet Pg. 58
1
10
Appendix B - Definitions of Primary Function Types Primary Function Definition Office Office refers to buildings used for the conduct of commercial or governmental business activities. This includes administrative and professional offices. Non-Refrigerated Warehouse Non-Refrigerated Warehouse refers to unrefrigerated buildings that are used to store goods, manufactured products, merchandise or raw materials. Fire Station Fire Station refers to buildings used to provide emergency response services associated with fires. Fire stations may be staffed by either volunteer or full-time paid firemen. Library Library refers to buildings used to store and manage collections of literary and artistic materials such as books, periodicals, newspapers, films, etc. that can be used for reference or lending. Police Station Police Station applies to buildings used for federal, state, or local police forces and their associated office space. Social/Meeting Hall Social/Meeting hall refers to buildings primarily used for public or private gatherings. This may include community group meetings, seminars, workshops, or performances. Please note that there is another property use available, Convention Center, for large exhibition and conference facilities. Swimming Pool Swimming Pool refers to any heated swimming pools located either inside or outside. To enter a swimming pool, a specific pool size must be selected. In order to enter buildings associated with a Swimming Pool, the main property use must be entered (e.g., K-12 School, Hotel, Fitness Center/Health Club/Gym, etc.). Wastewater Treatment Plant Wastewater Treatment Plant refers to facilities designed to treat municipal wastewater. The level of treatment at a plant will vary based on the BOD limits and the specific processes involved. This property use is intended for primary, secondary, and advanced treatment facilities with or without nutrient removal. Treatment processes may include biological, chemical, and physical treatment. This property use does not apply to drinking water treatment and distribution facilities. Other - Public Services Other – Public Services refers to buildings used by public-sector organizations to provide public services other than those described in the available property uses in Portfolio Manager (i.e. services other than offices, courthouses, drinking water treatment and distribution plants, fire stations, libraries, mailing centers or post offices, police stations, prisons or incarceration facilities, social or meeting halls, transportation terminals or stations, or wastewater treatment plants). Drinking Water Treatment & Distribution Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution refers to facilities designed to pump and distribute drinking water through a network of pipes. Depending on the water source (groundwater, surface water, purchased water), a water utility may or may not contain a treatment process. This property use applies to any/all water sources and any/all levels of treatment. Courthouse Courthouse refers to buildings used for federal, state, or local courts, and associated administrative office space.
Packet Pg. 59
1
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg. 60
1
2016
Climate Action Plan
Progress Report
Sydnie Margallo
College of Agriculture, Food and Environmental Sciences
Natural Resources Management & Environmental
Sciences Department
California Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo, California
August 2016
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Table of Contents
Introduction 3
Near Term GHG Reduction Strategies 4
Implementation Measures and Progress 5
Buildings 6
Renewable Energy 8
Transportation and Land Use 9
Water 13
Solid Waste 16
Parks and Open Space 18
Governmental Options 20
General Recommendations 22
Acknowledgements 23
List of Acronyms 23
Appendix A 24
Appendix B 26
Appendix C 28
Appendix D 29
Appendix E 30
Appendix F 32
Appendix G 33
2
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Introduction
The 2012 San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan (CAP) educates the public on the most
significant causes of climate change and outlines critical steps towards reducing
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over the next 20 years. Using the CAP, the City of San
Luis Obispo can directly implement GHG reduction strategies through local government
operations, as well as through engagement with the community. As a result, CAP
implementation allows the City to bring communities together to create a safer, cleaner,
and healthier environment.
Since the adoption of the CAP in 2012, little work has been done to educate City
employees on its goals and objectives. While City employees seem to be unfamiliar with
the CAP’s GHG reduction strategies, many of these strategies are being pursued through
daily City operations anyways. Consequently, implementation of the CAP is not far off
track. This report explains which actions are in progress and which are on hold in order
to aid awareness of the City’s advancement in CAP implementation. From here, the City
can identify barriers to implementation and update the CAP accordingly.
Using the Local GHG Reductions Matrix on page 59 and 60 of the CAP (See Appendix
C), I determined the near term (0 to 5 years) GHG reduction strategies and which
departments were responsible for each. I then contacted City employees from these
responsible departments for updates on current progress of implementation and
barriers to completion. Any details that I was unable to collect via City contacts, was
found by researching within City documents and contacting other agencies. With this
information I created a progress report, outlining what the City has accomplished and
proposing solutions to help overcome obstacles to implementation of the GHG
reduction strategies.
The first section of this report identifies the near term GHG reduction strategies as well
as the departments responsible for implementing them. The next portion states the
implementation measures under each GHG reduction strategy, and notes the status and
progress of each. Also included in this section are recommendations on more effectively
implementing and monitoring the measure. Following this is a section of general
recommendations proposed to optimize CAP implementation. Lastly, evidence of the
City’s progress is included in the appendices.
3
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Near Term GHG Reduction Strategies
Table 1. The table below organizes the near term GHG reduction strategies addressed in this
report by the department that is responsible for implementation. On the left side of the table is
the chapter and strategy number, as established in the CAP.
Department
# Community
Development
Utilities Parking Public Works Parks & Rec
RE 3
TLU 9
WTR 3
WST 2
GO 11
Public Outreach and
Education
BLD 3 Public Outreach
and Education
PKS 5 Public Outreach
and Education
BLD 2 New Construction
Energy
Conservation
TLU 2 Alternative Vehicles
TLU 6 Parking
Management
Parking
Management
TLU 7 Shared Parking
TLU 8 Reduce the Need for
Commuting
WTR 1 Water
Conservation:
Existing
Development
WTR 2 Water Conservation:
New Development
PKS 3 Green Waste
Recycling
GO 1 City Energy
Conservation
City Energy
Conservation
GO 9 Employee
Commute
GO 10 Sustainability
Coordinator
Sustainability
Coordinator
4
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Implementation Measures and Progress
The CAP outlines actions, or implementation measures, that shall be completed in order
to execute each of the GHG reduction strategies shown in Table 1. The following section
is a list of these GHG-reducing implementation measures for near term CAP
implementation. These measures are organized by the six chapters, or focus areas, of the
plan, and correspond to the GHG reduction strategy numbers laid out in Table 1. For
example, New Construction Energy Conservation is listed as “BLD 2” in Table 1. This
refers to strategy 2 in the Buildings section of the CAP. The four implementation
measures for this strategy are listed as BLD 2.1, BLD 2.2, and so on.
To the left of the listed implementation measures there are notes on the City’s
progression of completing the action. The four progress levels of implementation are
Complete, In Progress, Ongoing, and No Progress.
Complete: the measure is complete and does not require any additional action
In Progress: the measure is currently in the process of completion
Ongoing: the measure has been initiated and requires ongoing implementation
No Progress: no action has been taken to implement the measure
Under each implementation measure are bullet point notes on what the City has done to
accomplish the measure. Following these progress notes, there are recommendations on
implementation efforts and monitoring for incomplete implementation measures.
5
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Buildings (BLD)
BLD 2 New Construction Energy Conservation
In Progress BLD 2.1 Expand incentive program for projects that exceed Title 24 energy
efficiency standards.
• The City provides incentives for projects that exceed Title 24 energy efficiency standards, however, these incentives are rarely used
• The City partnered with County EnergyWatch to maintain energy audit resources for all municipal buildings Recommendation: While there are incentive programs to encourage projects that exceed Title 24 energy efficiency standards, they are rarely used. The City should revise these incentive programs to make them easier to apply to and more desirable. Monitoring: The City should then monitor the number of projects that exceed Title 24 energy efficiency standards and include the data in the CAP annual report.
Complete BLD 2.2 Require new development to install energy efficient appliances.
• The state already mandates the installation of energy efficient appliances through Title 20 and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations
° Both titles are regulated by the California Energy Commission
No Progress BLD 2.3 Amend design guidelines and other documents to promote low impact
development strategies such as cool roofs and cool paving surfaces.
• The City created brochures promoting low impact development strategies, but these strategies are not included in City documents
• The Community Development Department may consider this action in the upcoming update of the Design Guidelines Recommendation: Without a law or ordinance requiring the encouragement of low impact development strategies, like cool roofs, this is not a priority for the City at this time. Also, the SLO Design Guidelines have not been updated since the adoption of the SLO CAP. This issue shall be considered in the upcoming update of the Design Guidelines.
BLD 3 Public Outreach and Education
Ongoing BLD 3.1 Promote energy efficiency programs and available financing options
including energy-efficiency mortgages, State energy programs, Energy
Upgrade California, utility company upgrade programs, and local rebates.
• The City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility recently partnered with PG&E to complete an energy efficiency design build project
° Energy audit in 2011
° New cogeneration system uses digesters’ biogas as a fuel source to provide about 20% of the electricity needed for the facility
° Exterior lighting replaced with night sky friendly LED lighting
° Aging equipment replaced and upgraded
6
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
♦ Now less equipment and motors are used, at a fraction of the horsepower
° These actions resulted in rebates from PG&E
Ongoing BLD 3.2 Collaborate with the County, State, and energy providers to develop a
central website for streamlined access to energy efficiency resources, including
a database of certified energy raters and recommended upgrades.
• CivicSpark is a statewide AmeriCorps program that the City works with to help implement components of the CAP
° Created handouts to inform homeowners, renters, and business owners on how to low-to-no cost actions to reduce their energy usage and save money
° Provided information through outreach and online on emPower’s free home energy coach visits and energy audits, and information on commercial audits, retrofits, and available financing options and incentives for PG&E and SoCal Gas Company
• Slocool.org is a climate action planning website for the City that has not been updated since 2013 Recommendation: The City should hire a Green Team, dedicated to implementing the CAP, including activities like updating and maintaining the City’s climate action planning website.
In Progress BLD 3.3 Work with local green building organizations on education and
outreach programs.
• The City has not made significant progress for public outreach and education on green building
• The City asks other agencies, like CivicSpark, to work on outreach
° Presented energy efficiency efforts throughout the County at Green Building Alliance meetings
° Held block party highlighting companies focused on green building (i.e. BuildSMART sustainable building materials resource trailer, Semmes & Co Builders, and SLO Sustainability Group Architects) Recommendation: This is not a priority for the City at this time. This measure is especially difficult with the lack of employees dedicated to creating and maintaining climate action outreach and education programs, and would be more efficiently implemented through the work of the Green Team.
No Progress BLD 3.4 Work with the business community to establish a green business
certification program. Recommendation: This is not a priority for the City at this time and there are no City employees currently assigned to this task of establishing a green business certification program. A Green Team dedicated to implementing the CAP would be able to work on completing this measure. Monitoring: Once the program is established, the City should monitor the number of certified green business in San Luis Obispo and include this information in the CAP annual report.
7
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Renewable Energy (RE)
RE 3 Public Outreach and Education
In Progress RE 3.1 Educate the community about renewable energy programs using
various methods, such as the City's website, TV channel, flyers in reception
areas, and public events.
• The City’s Climate Action Planning website (slocool.org) has not been updated since 2013
• The City coordinates with the County and other agencies to use and distribute flyers they created for renewable energy programs Recommendation: See Recommendation BLD 3.3
No Progress RE 3.2 Consider results of the SLO-RESCO project. Recommendation: Since the City no longer participates in the SLO-RESCO project, the CAP should be updated with this measure eliminated.
Ongoing RE 3.3 Encourage the use of photovoltaic installations whenever possible
during design review process.
• The City encourages the use of photovoltaic installations with a streamlined process for approval Recommendation: The City should create an incentive program to encourage the use of photovoltaic systems. The City should then monitor the number of photovoltaic installations and include this information in the CAP annual report.
8
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Transportation and Land Use (TLU)
TLU 2 Alternative Vehicles
No Progress TLU 2.1 Require all new development with 50 or more parking spaces to
designate a minimum 8% of parking spaces for clean air vehicles.
• The designation of clean air vehicle parking spaces is currently only conditioned through EIRs Recommendation: The Community Development Department should develop a streamlined process of requiring clean air vehicle parking spaces for all new development within the development review process.
No Progress TLU 2.2 Require all new development with 50 or more parking spaces to pre-
wire for electric vehicle charging stations, and provide a minimum 2 percent
charging spaces.
• The City currently conditions EV charging stations and clean vehicle parking spaces through EIRs
• The Target parking lot is included in the few that currently provide EV charging stations Recommendation: Parking structures should be planned in advance for the wiring of EV charging stations because they are more expensive to install later on. This consideration should be added to development review.
Ongoing TLU 2.3 Work with the APCD on the EV Community Readiness Plan for the
Central Coast.
• The City attended workshops and provided the APCD with input and information during their development of the EV Community Readiness Plan for the Central Coast
° The plan is now finished
° The APCD continues to reach out to the City whenever more funding is available for further implementation of the plan
No Progress TLU 2.4 Identify a network of streets appropriate for Neighborhood EV use in
the SLO 2035 General Plan update. Recommendation: This measure is somewhat unrealistic and irrelevant with the lack of current Neighborhood EV use. The use of these low-speed vehicles is prohibited on most streets because of their maximum capable speed of approximately 25 mph.
No Progress TLU 2.5 Allow car-sharing companies to designate spaces in public parking
areas and multifamily housing projects. Recommendation: Without a law or ordinance requiring the designation of parking spaces for clean air vehicles or EV charging stations, the enforcement of this is not a priority for the City at this time. This issue shall be considered with the upcoming construction of the parking structure at Palm and Nipomo Streets.
9
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
TLU 6 Parking Management
In Progress TLU 6.1 Make Downtown parking structures an attractive alternative to meter
parking by making on-street meter fees more expensive than structure
parking.
• The parking meters in the Downtown Area currently cost more than in the downtown parking structures, which are also free for the first hour
• The parking structure on Palm and Morro Streets now accepts credit cards to encourage more parking in the structure
• There are plans to construct a new parking structure on Palm and Nipomo Streets
• The SLO Downtown Association encourages customers to park in structures for special events
• (See Parking Structure Revenue in Appendix D)
• (See Parking Structure Occupancy Rates in Appendix E)
In Progress TLU 6.2 Locate transit stops and bicycle racks near parking structures to
make alternative transportation choices Downtown more convenient.
• The 2016 SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan
° Reconfigured routes to connect the downtown with other areas, including the San Luis Obispo High School campus
° Created additional transit stops located in the downtown area
° Plans for a new Downtown Transit Center
° Plans for bus stop improvements, including 10 supplementary bicycle racks
TLU 7 Shared Parking
No Progress TLU 7.1 Amend the Zoning Regulations to increase the potential shared
parking reduction from 10% to 30%.
• This measure shall be considered during the upcoming Zoning Regulations update in the fiscal years 2016-2018 Recommendation: Reduction strategies for shared parking reduction must be more specific to be added to the Zoning Regulations. This measure should be revised and considered in the upcoming Zoning Regulations for the fiscal years 2016-2018.
TLU 8 Reduce the Need for Commuting
In Progress TLU 8.1 Improve the City’s jobs-housing balance to reduce VMT from
commuting.
• The City’s jobs-housing balance has continued at a constant of approximately 1.6:1 since 2012, when the CAP was adopted
• There are several City policies aimed at improving the jobs-housing balance
° Land Use Element Policy 1.5 (See Appendix B)
° Housing Element Policies 10.1 and 10.2 (See Appendix B)
° Housing Element Program 10.3 (See Appendix B)
• The General Plan build out period plans for the construction of more than 4,300 new units by the year 2035 to provide housing for the City’s workforce
10
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Ongoing TLU 8.2 Support infill housing projects that implement General Plan policies,
especially BMR housing close to job opportunities.
• The City continues to promote housing near employment centers
• Over 100 new affordable units (moderate income and below) have been built since 2012
° A majority of these units were built near employment centers and transportation.
• The City continues to implement Inclusionary Housing requirements for all new developments in the City
° 3-5% of units deed restricted for in-fill projects
° 15% of units deed restricted for expansion area sites (specific plan areas)
• The City enforces policies to support infill housing
° Housing Element policy 6.2 (See Appendix B)
° Housing Element policy 6.8 (See Appendix B)
Ongoing TLU 8.3 Continue to allow SDU construction and look for opportunities to
reduce barriers to their production.
• The City continues to allow SDU development
• The City also encourages the production of SDUs with the reduction of impact fees and cheaper fees than SFRs
° Water for SDU at $3,307 vs. SFR at $11,023
° Wastewater for SDU at $1,144 vs. SFR at $3,815
° Studio fees: area calculated at ⅓ rate of a tradition SFR
° Flexible parking requirements
• The City has permitted approximately 10 SDUs since 2012
• Housing Element Program 6.29 promotes the SDU construction by allowing flexible development standards and other incentives (See Appendix B)
• The City’s Zoning Regulations are consistent with AB 1866 (Section 65852.2 of State Housing Element law)
° Allow SDU construction in R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 and O zones with ministerial approvals when the primary use of the site is a single-family dwelling
TLU 9 Public Outreach and Education
Ongoing TLU 9.1 Distribute informational transportation welcome packets and bus
passes to new residents and businesses.
• Welcome packets with information on alternative transportation and ridesharing opportunities are distributed to new businesses through Rideshare’s Back ‘N’ Forth Club program
• SLOCOG is starting the Residential Transportation Demand Program in the fiscal year 2016-17
° The program works with realtors to distribute informational packets (included with a letter from the mayor) that encourage new residents to use alternative transportation options
11
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
In Progress TLU 9.2 Install additional informational bike signage.
• This action is included in the City of San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan, but has not yet been initiated Recommendation: The City Council should identify this task as a priority for the City. Since this task is not a capital project, there is currently no funding to complete it.
Ongoing TLU 9.3 Continue partnership with regional organizations, including
SLOCOG’s Regional Rideshare and SLO County’s Bicycle Coalition, on
outreach and education events.
• The City still has strong partnerships with these regional organizations and participates in many of their programs
° Rideshare’s Bike Month and Rideshare Month
° The City contributes to programs such as Bike Education and Bike Valet put on by Bike SLO County
No Progress TLU 9.4 Market incentive programs in the Bicycle Commuter Act to employers
and workers in the community. Recommendation: Paperwork for participation in the Act is confusing and time consuming, and the incentive is not great enough to encourage participation. The incentive program and application should be revised to make participation in the Act more desirable.
12
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Water (WTR)
WTR 1 Water Conservation: Existing Development
Complete WTR 1.1 Require landscape projects that trigger building permit review to
incorporate native and drought tolerant plant materials and minimize
irrigated turf areas.
• Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (See Appendix A) Recommendation: The City should incentivize landscape projects that incorporate native and drought tolerant plant materials and use the applications to monitor the number of these projects.
Complete WTR 1.2 Require landscape projects that trigger building permit review to
incorporate irrigation system designs that avoid runoff, low-head drainage,
and overspray.
• Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (See Appendix A)
• Water Conservation Ordinance (See Appendix A) Recommendation: The City should monitor the number of water efficient irrigation systems installed and include this information in the CAP annual report.
Ongoing WTR 1.3 Encourage the use of recycled water, greywater or rainwater-
harvesting systems.
• The Utilities department encourages the use of greywater and rainwater harvesting systems through
° A construction water program that uses exclusively recycled water
° Recycled Water Service Ordinance requires the use of recycled water where feasible (See Appendix A)
• Outreach includes
° Handouts at the farmer’s market booth
° Online outreach on their Facebook page
° Links provided in the Utilities Department section of the city’s website
° Time spent with customers interested in these resources Recommendation: The City should create an incentive or water rebate program to encourage the installation of recycled water, greywater, or rainwater-harvesting systems. The City could then organize home installation workshops with home improvement stores and monitor the number of attendees as well as the number of installations made.
13
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
WTR 2 Water Conservation: New Development
Ongoing WTR 2.1 Review new development projects for consistency with CALGreen
water efficiency standards.
• The CALGreen water efficiency standards require the installation of compliant plumbing fixtures for all development built prior to 1994
° For smaller projects with work being done only to the exterior, the City cannot gain access to the interior of the house to check plumbing fixtures. In this case, a self-certification form is sent (See Appendix G)
° Any additions or remodels will not be approved until required plan check comments are made, including
♦ Outlining the scope of work
♦ Listing the 2013 CALGreen compliance code
♦ Verifying that all plumbing fixtures included in the project are in compliance with CALGreen standards
• The City’s development review process encourages new development to comply with these standards (while not required by law)
In progress WTR 2.2 Expand recycled water infrastructure to encourage use of greywater
in new construction and landscape projects.
• The City has expanded infrastructure for water recycling, with a steady increase of recycled water use since 2010 (AF= acre feet):
° 2010 = 152.62 AF 2011 = 159.85 AF 2012 = 165.11 AF 2013 = 176.65 AF 2014 = 185.77 AF 2015 = 187.41 AF
• The Public Works Department used recycled water to irrigate several City parks in 2015
° This minimized potable water use at City parks by 26% and conserved almost 8 million gallons of water
• There is currently no city-owned infrastructure for greywater
° Any existing infrastructure is for homeowners only Recommendation: If this is still an important issue, it should be identified by the City as a higher priority for the Public Utilities Department to implement. Monitoring: The City should also monitor the number of new construction and landscape projects using greywater and include this information in the CAP annual report.
Ongoing WTR 2.3 Require use of native and non-invasive drought tolerant plant
materials combined with conservative use of water and landscape designs that
prevent run-off.
• The Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan outlines steps the City takes to identify species of local concern and maintain these native species
• City staff continue to restore native vegetation in place of areas invaded with non-native vegetation
14
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
• Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (See Appendix A)
• Water Conservation Ordinance (See Appendix A) Recommendation: This measure is difficult to implement because it is unclear whether the action should be focused on municipal buildings only or on all new development. Monitoring: The City should monitor the number of projects with landscape designs incorporating native and non-invasive drought tolerant plant materials and include this information in the CAP annual report.
WTR 3 Public Outreach and Education
Ongoing and
In Progress
WTR 3.1 Provide a graphical history of household water usage on utility bills,
and a comparison to average water usage for similar types of homes in the
community.
• The Utilities department does provide a graph of household water use on utility water bills (See graph in Appendix F)
• The Utilities department does not currently provide data showing a comparison to other types of homes in the community, but this is a goal for individual mailings for high use customers
Ongoing WTR 3.2 Maintain Utilities Department online resources and outreach
materials for water saving tips, planting guides and available rebates.
• These resources and outreach materials are available online at www.slowater.org/drought
• Planting guides are available through www.slowaterwiselandscaping.com
• Joe Little currently mans a bimonthly farmers market booth to educate the public on the Utilities Department services
15
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Solid Waste (WST)
WST 2 Public Outreach and Education
Complete WST 2.1 Provide the option for home and commercial waste audits to identify
and educate consumers where waste production can be reduced.
• The San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA) is an agency formed by the County and the cities within it to develop and implement regional programs to reduce solid and hazardous waste
• The IWMA will perform commercial and residential waste audits
° The IWMA will take calls about disposing of anything from needles to beached whales
° They enforce county-wide ordinances to discourage the disposal of paints, needles, pharmaceuticals, batteries, fluorescent lights, and mercury thermostats
♦ Retailers selling any of these products are required to take them back from the public for free, reducing the amount of hazardous waste in landfills
• The IWMA is also implementing a program called Love Food Not Waste to reduce GHG emissions by adding food scraps to our greenwaste bins
° Small food waste bins with educational flyers are being distributed to all residential areas in the county that currently have green waste bins
° They are also being distributed to businesses one by one
° Food scraps will be taken to an aerobic digestor in the County for collection of methane gas which will then be redistributed to PG&E and used for energy production
° This will reduce a large amount of GHG emissions from shipping the food waste down to a landfill in Santa Maria as well as from releasing the methane gas produced from the food waste
Complete WST 2.2 Maintain Utilities Department online resources and outreach
materials for recycling.
• This material is generally issued by the IWMA on a regional level
• This information and more can be found online at http://www.iwma.com/guide/
In Progress WST 2.3 Host interactive workshops on home composting.
• With the upcoming distribution of food waste collection bins from the County, the City plans to coordinate with local home improvement stores to host workshops on home composting and food waste collection Recommendation: With the upcoming distribution of food waste bins, the City should include informational pamphlets on the proper use of these with household utility bills. The City can also support the use of these bins by working with home
16
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016 improvement stores to provide in-store food composting workshops for the public. These workshops would be effectively advertised on social media and City websites and easily monitored with the number of attendees.
Ongoing WST 2.4 Explore options for landfill and Water Reclamation Facility site visits
open to the public and school groups.
• College and community tours are conducted, as well as annual grade school tours brought by the Science Discovery program for a total of about 50 tours per year
• Water Resource Recovery Facility site visits are available through either calling the Utilities Department, via the web at http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/utilities-department/wastewater/wastewater-treatment/sign-up-for-a-tour or on the Water Resource Recovery Facility website at http://slowrrfproject.org/join-the-conversation/visit-the-wrrf/
17
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Parks and Open Space (PKS)
PKS 3 Green Waste Recycling
Ongoing PKS 3.1 Store green waste from park maintenance at established composting
facilities or other park properties.
• Green waste from park maintenance is used for
° City landscape planters and beds
° Restoration plantings by the Natural Resources Department
° Tree plantings by the Urban Forest Service
° Certain CIPs
• 200 yards or more of woodchips serve City uses
Ongoing PKS 3.2 Continue to chip larger green waste at the City’s Corporation Yard
and redistribute for public and private use.
• All green waste produced from tree pruning, removals, or stump grinding is distributed and used for wood chips
• The Parks & Recreation Department sends loads to the community gardens
• Usable wood is sent to local mill (at the end of Prado) for conversion into furniture or lumber product
° Usable logs from 20-200 dead, dying, or storm damaged trees are given to the local mill or Central Coast Woodturners of California annually
• Excess green waste is advertised for Woodchip and Firewood Giveaway
° 120 yards of woodchips and about 5 cords of firewood are given away to citizens annually
• None is sent to the landfill
PKS 5 Public Outreach and Education
Ongoing PKS 5.1 Continue tree planting and maintenance education programs such as
Arbor Day and Downtown Foresters.
• The City continues to host the Annual Arbor Day Celebration, which is now held in the fall to provide less harsh weather conditions for the newly planted trees
° Attendees are invited to plant trees
° Students learn about urban ecology
° City staff is expected to attend to help plant trees and educate attendees on plant techniques
• The City Arborist reports to the Public Works Department on trees in the Downtown Area and is head of the Downtown Foresters volunteer program, in which the City Arborist trains volunteers to plant, prune, water and fertilize plants to maintain the urban ecology Recommendation: The City should monitor the attendance of these tree planting and maintenance education programs.
18
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Ongoing PKS 5.2 Partner with regional organizations to create volunteer opportunities
for trail work, habitat restoration and open space maintenance.
• The City partners with several regional organizations, including Environmental Center San Luis Obispo (ECOSLO), Central Coast Concerned Mountain Bikers (CCCMB), CivicSpark, Central Coast Grown, and Leadership SLO
° ECOSLO: The City collaborates with ECOSLO to create a program called SLO Stewards, which heads docent-led hikes and performs trail maintenance twice a month, each time with 10 to 20 volunteers
° CCCMB: The organization builds trails with City Rangers every Wednesday with about 10 volunteers and a few Saturdays out of the year, usually with 100 volunteers
° CivicSpark: The program led about 10 volunteers to do trail maintenance in the Cerro San Luis Nature Reserve
° Central Coast Grown: The City owns City Farm property on the Calle Joaquin Agricultural Preserve and has a 20 year lease with this group so they can do maintenance and farm sustainably everyday
° Leadership SLO: This is a program through the Chamber of Commerce that led a group of 40-50 volunteers on two different occasions to reestablish the historic Lemon Grove hiking loop at Cerro San Luis
Ongoing PKS 5.3 Advertise availability of composted green waste, wood chips and
firewood.
• As indicated under PKS 3.2, all excess green waste is advertised as available at the Woodchip and Firewood Giveaway
19
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Government Options (GO)
GO 1 City Energy Conservation
In Progress
and Ongoing
GO 1.1 Create and implement a City Building Retrofit Program.
• There is no single retrofit plan or program, but there are several City employees and departments enacting building retrofit
• The City’s building retrofit is ongoing through CIPs, light replacements, and energy audits
• An energy use inventory was done via CivicSpark to alert the City of buildings using high amounts of energy or where energy use is increasing
° The preliminary report created via CivicSpark shall be used by the City to target specific sites for future CIPs
• The City also partners with the County, SoCal Gas Company, and PG&E to work to improve energy efficiency throughout the city
• The City recently received a proposal from ZeroCity, LLC (a company dedicated to helping municipalities, school districts, and universities reach zero net greenhouse gas emissions) to help identify, fund, and implement energy use reduction projects
° The legal team is currently researching the legality of ZeroCity’s special funding approach Recommendation: The City should monitor all building retrofits and include the number of buildings retrofitted as well as the amount of energy saved in the CAP annual report.
GO 9 Employee Commute
Ongoing GO 9.1 Continue to reduce single-occupant employee commuting through trip
reduction incentives.
• The Public Works Department currently encourages businesses to have (or to work with the City to create) a Trip Reduction Plan with trip reduction incentives
• The City also has a Trip Reduction Plan for all City employees
• SLO Regional Rideshare started the Back ‘N’ Forth Club program that includes
° A Commute Survey and Trip Reduction Plan tailored to each business involved
° Other ridesharing tools and incentives for the business’s employees
Recommendation: The City should monitor trip reduction rates with the
Commute Surveys distributed by Rideshare’s Back ‘N’ Forth Club program and
include this data in the CAP annual report.
GO 10 Sustainability Coordinator
No Progress GO 10.1 Allocate or hire staff to implement CAP and energy programs. Recommendation: See Local Government Operations (#9) on page 23
20
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
GO 11 Public Outreach and Education
No Progress GO 11.1 Publish information on the City’s climate action planning website
about successful programs aimed at reducing GHG emissions. Recommendation: See Recommendation BLD 3.2
No Progress GO 11.2 Participate in Earth Day activities, the County’s Energy-Efficiency
Month, and other regional events to educate the community about City climate
action planning. Recommendation: Funding should be provided for participation in Earth Day activities, the County’s Energy-Efficiency Month, and/or other regional events for public outreach and education on City climate action planning.
21
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
General Recommendations
CAP Amendments
1. Revise the responsible departments assigned to GHG reduction strategies
2. Create a list of implementation measures to be completed by each department
separately so they know what goals to focus on
3. Exclude unrealistic or irrelevant GHG reduction implementation measures
4. Update the language used to differentiate between strategies for municipal
buildings or actions only or community wide
5. List existing policies and potential funding sources for implementation
6. Show calculations or short descriptions of what was included in calculations for
GHG reduction goals
7. Start out with easier tasks so employees feel more empowered to take on future,
more challenging tasks
8. All implementation measures for the near term GHG reduction strategies that
have not been started by August 2017 should be included with the
implementation measures for the mid-term GHG reduction strategies.
Local Government Operations
9. Create a “Green Team” to implement the CAP
● Comprised of representatives from each department and should include
individuals with expertise in environmental policy, transportation, energy
efficiency, planning, and public outreach, for efficient City involvement in
CAP objectives
● Communicate and coordinate with the City departments involved in CAP
implementation to monitor implementation actions
● Provide annual progress reports
● Develop CAP updates and amendments
● Update the CAP website (slocool.org) and tie it to the City website
(slocity.org)
● Advertise CAP objectives through outreach (i.e. informational booth at the
farmers’ market, with flyers at City Hall and local businesses, etc.)
10. More extensive monitoring should be done for all CAP strategies in order to know
what progress has been made and what still needs to be done
11. Organize a Green Team presentation on CAP objectives for new employees
during Day of Welcome
12. Coordinate with PACE to create outreach events and marketing of CAP
implementation actions
Community Involvement
13. Develop a San Luis Obispo Climate Action Coalition to involve the community in
learning about and participating in climate action efforts
14. Allow credit card acceptance at all downtown public parking structures
22
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Acknowledgements
Xzandrea Fowler, Community Development
Doug Davidson, Community Development
Brian Leveille, Community Development
Mark Sadowski, Community Development
Rebecca Gershow, Community Development
Jenny Wiseman, Community Development
Steven Orozco, Community Development
Kyle Van Leeuwen, Community Development
Andrew Collins, Public Works
Alex Fuchs, Public Works
Daryl Grigsby, Public Works
Barbara Lynch, Public Works
Jennifer Rice, Public Works
Adam Fukushima, Public Works
Mychal Boerman, Public Utilities
Judy Buonaguidi, Public Utilities
Pam Ouellette, Public Utilities
Robert Hill, Administration
Katelynn Webster, CivicSpark
Melissa Guise, Air Pollution Control District
Jesse Carpentier, Cal Poly MCRP Program
List of Acronyms
APCD…………………………………………………………………………...Air Pollution Control District
BMR……………………………………………………………………………………………Below Market Rate
CAP……………………………………………………………………………………………Climate Action Plan
CAV……………………………………………………………………………………………….Clean Air Vehicle
CIP……………………………………………………………………………..Capital Improvement Projects
EIR…………………………………..…...…………………………………..Environmental Impact Report
EV……………………………………………………………………………………………………Electric Vehicle
GHG……………………………………………………………………………………………….Greenhouse Gas
PACE……………………………………………………….Professional Association of City Employees
SDU………………………………………………………………………………………….Single Dwelling Unit
SFR……………………………………………………………………………………..Single Family Residence
SLOCOG……………………………………………………..San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
VMT………………………………………………………………………………………Vehicle Miles Traveled
23
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Appendix A
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Sections
Title 17 Zoning
Chapter 87 Water Efficiency Landscape Standards
Section 040 Implementation Procedures
A. Development Review. For projects that require development review (tentative parcel
map, tentative tract, development plan or conditional use permit), project applicants
shall submit the following documentation:
1. A completed maximum applied water allowance for the conceptual landscape
design.
2. A conceptual landscape design plan which demonstrates that the landscape will
meet the landscape design specifications of the city engineering standards uniform
design criteria for landscaping and irrigation.
3. A conceptual irrigation design plan which notes the irrigation methods and
design actions that will be employed to meet the irrigation specifications of the city
engineering standards uniform design criteria for landscaping and irrigation.
4. A grading plan which demonstrates the landscape will meet the specifications of
the city engineering standards uniform design criteria for landscaping and
irrigation.
B. Building Application. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, project applicants
shall submit the following:
1. A completed maximum applied water allowance form (appendices, city
engineering standards) based on the final landscape design plan.
2. A final landscape design plan that includes all the criteria required in the city
engineering standards uniform design criteria for landscaping and irrigation.
3. A final irrigation plan that includes all the criteria required in the city engineering
standards uniform design criteria for landscaping and irrigation.
4. A soils management report that includes at a minimum the criteria required in
the city engineering standards uniform design criteria for landscaping and
irrigation.
5. A final grading plan that includes all the criteria required in the city engineering
standards uniform design criteria for landscaping and irrigation.
6. A hydrozone table (appendices, city engineering standards).
C. Project Completion. Upon completion of the installation of the landscape and
irrigation system and prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the project
applicant shall submit the following:
24
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
1. A certification of completion (appendices, city engineering standards) signed by
the professional of record for the landscape and irrigation design certifying that the
project was installed per the city-approved landscape design, irrigation and grading
plans and meets or exceeds an average landscape irrigation efficiency of 0.71. The
city reserves the right to inspect and audit any irrigation system which has received
an approval through the provisions of this chapter.
2. A project applicant shall develop and provide to the owner or owner
representative and the city an irrigation schedule that assists in the water
management of the project and utilizes the minimum amount of water required to
maintain plant health. Irrigation schedules shall meet the criteria in the city
engineering standards uniform design criteria for landscaping and irrigation.
3. A regular maintenance schedule shall be submitted by the project applicant with
the certificate of completion that includes: routine inspections, adjustment and
repairs to the irrigation system, aerating and dethatching turf areas, replenishing
mulch, fertilizing, pruning and weeding. The maintenance schedule will be provided
to the owner or owner representative. (Ord. 1547 § 2 (part), 2010)
Title 13 Public Services
Chapter 07 Water Conservation
Section 010 Substandard water fixtures prohibited.
No person shall cause or allow any water received by such person from the city water
system to be wasted due to substandard, leaky or faulty water fixtures or water-using or
distributing devices. (Ord. 1089 § 1 (part), 1987)
Section 020 Water runoff prohibited.
A. No person shall cause any water delivered by the city water system to flow away from
property owned, occupied or controlled by such person in any gutter, ditch or in any
other manner over the surface of the ground, so as to constitute water waste runoff.
B. “Water waste runoff” means water flowing away from property and which is caused
by excessive application(s) of water beyond reasonable or practical flow rates, water
volumes or duration of application. (Ord. 1089 § 1 (part), 1987)
Chapter 24 Recycled Water Service
Section 010 Statement of policy.
When in the judgment of the city, reclaimed water service can be feasibly provided to a
particular parcel for particular uses, the utilities director shall require the use of
reclaimed water in lieu of potable water for those uses. As used herein, the term
“feasible” means reclaimed water is available for delivery to the property in compliance
with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances and regulations and such
reclaimed water can be delivered to the property at an overall cost to the user which
does not exceed the overall cost of potable water service. (Ord. 1403 § 1, 2001)
25
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Appendix B
San Luis Obispo General Plan Element Policies and Programs
Chapter 1 Land Use
Goal 1 Growth Management
Policy 5 Jobs/Housing Relationship
The gap between housing demand (due to more jobs and college enrollment) and supply
should not increase.
Chapter 3 Housing
Goal 6 Housing Production
Policy 2
New commercial developments in the Downtown Core (C-D Sone) shall include
housing, unless the City makes one of the following findings:
A) Housing is likely to jeopardize the health, safety or welfare of residents or
employees; or
B) The property’s shape, size, topography, or other physical factor makes
construction of new dwellings infeasible.
Policy 8
Consistent with the City’s goal to stimulate higher density infill where appropriate in the
Downtown Core (C-D Zone), the City shall consider changes to the Zoning Regulations
that would allow for the development of smaller apartments and efficiency units.
Program 29
Continue to pursue incentives to encourage development of Secondary Dwelling Units
(SDUs). Possible incentives to include SDU design templates, flexible development
standards, fee reductions or deferrals, or other measures to encourage the construction
of SDUs where allowed by zoning.
Goal 10 Local Preference
Policy 1
Administer City housing programs and benefits, such as First Time Homebuyer
Assistance or affordable housing lotteries, to give preference to: 1) persons living or
working in the City or within the City’s Urban Reserve, and 2) persons living in San Luis
Obispo County
26
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Policy 2
Cal Poly State University and Cuesta College should actively work with the City and
community organizations to create positive environment around the Cal Poly Campus
by:
A) Establishing standards for appropriate student densities in neighborhoods
near campus;
B) Promoting homeownership for academic faculty and staff in Low-Density
Residential neighborhoods in the northern part of the City; and
C) Encouraging and participating in the revitalization of degraded
neighborhoods.
Program 3
Continue to work with the County of San Luis Obispo for any land use decisions that
create significant expansion of employment in the unincorporated areas adjacent to the
City to mitigate housing impacts on the City.
27
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Appendix C
Local GHG Reductions Matrix
28
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Appendix D
City Parking Structure Revenue
29
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Appendix E
City Parking Structure Occupancy Rates
30
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
31
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Appendix F
Water Utility Bill
32
Climate Action Plan Progress Report 2016
Appendix G
Water Fixture Retrofit Self-Certification Form
33
1/18/2017
1
City Council
Climate Action Plan
Implementation Update
October 18, 2016
Community Development Department
Recommendation
1.Receive a status update report on the implementation
of the 2012 City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action
Plan; and
2.Provide input and direct staff to proceed with an
analysis of the feasibility of implementing the
recommendations identified in the 2016 Climate Action
Plan Progress Report and the City of San Luis Obispo
Energy Baseline Report, and return to the City Council
with recommended implementation strategies to
further the City’s efforts to address climate change
and to mitigate GHG emissions.
1/18/2017
2
Climate Action Plan
In July 2012 the City Council Adopted the Climate
Action Plan (CAP) in response to the passage of the
Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32)
It is the result of a collaborative effort with the
community
Serves as a policy document that sets forth objectives
and strategies to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions and to save energy and reduce energy-
related cost
Target: Reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by
2020
Status of the CAP Implementation
In 2016 two assessments regarding the status of the
CAP Implementation were prepared:
Climate Action Plan Progress Report
•Highlights and provides a status update on the near term
(0 to 5 year) GHG reduction strategies and implementation
measures
•Identifies recommendations to accelerate the City’s
progress towards CAP implementation and monitoring
Energy Baseline Report
•Analyzes the City’s facility and infrastructure energy use
and cost and provides a baseline for future energy
efficiency efforts
•Identifies recommendations to further the City’s efforts
regarding energy management
1/18/2017
3
CAP Progress Report
The report highlighted the 47 near term (0 to 5 years)
GHG emissions reduction implementation measures that
are identified in the CAP and the responsible
Departments:
Complete
In Progress
Ongoing
No Progress
CAP Progress Report Recommendations
Progress Report:
Re-evaluate the feasibility and relevance of the
CAP implementation measures
Create a “Green Team” to address CAP
Implementation
Enhance public outreach and education
Provide the framework and support for a Climate
Action Coalition
1/18/2017
4
Energy Baseline Report
Civic Spark, which is part of the County’s Energy
Watch Climate Services Program (Energy Watch)
prepared a Energy Baseline Report
The report analyzes, from June 2013 to May 2016, the
energy (natural gas and electricity) use and cost
associated with 18 facility buildings and 3 types of
utility infrastructure that are owned and operated by
the City
The report also provides a baseline for future energy
efficiency efforts that will allow the City to monitor
progress
Energy Baseline Report Recommendations
Energy Baseline Report :
Perform energy assessments on all facilities
Implement energy and cost saving measures and
projects
Monitor and measure facility and infrastructure
performance
Prepare an annual Energy Baseline Report
1/18/2017
5
Next Steps
The Progress Report and the Energy Baseline Report are resources
that can be used to set the stage for future discussions and decisions
regarding the identification of the following:
Areas for improvement
Re-evaluation of GHG emission reduction targets and
implementation strategies
Short and long term work efforts
Objectives for consideration during the 2017-2019 Financial Plan
goal setting process
Allocation of resources
Community involvement and education
Progress towards CAP implementation and monitoring is being made,
but there is still a lot of work to be done to ensure that the City achieves
the adopted GHG emissions reductions targets.
Conclusion
Recommendation:
1.Receive a status update report on the implementation
of the 2012 City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action
Plan; and
2.Provide input and direct staff to proceed with an
analysis of the feasibility of implementing the
recommendations identified in the 2016 Climate Action
Plan Progress Report and the City of San Luis Obispo
Energy Baseline Report, and return to the City Council
with recommended implementation strategies to
further the City’s efforts to address climate change
and to mitigate GHG emissions.
2
Table of Content
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Why are plans contradictory? 5
Planning and Resilience 7
Goals of the Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard 7
How the Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard was Developed 10
Advisory Board 10
Pilot Communities 11
How to use this guidebook 12
Leadership and forming your team 13
Structure of the Guidebook 15
Chapter 2: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS 17
POLICY TEAM 19
Task 1: Assemble the ‘Network of Plans’ 19
Task 2: Generate Lists of Policies 22
MAPPING TEAM 32
Task 1: Determine Planning Districts 33
Task 2: Delineate Hazard Zones 34
Task 3: Map your ‘Mappable Policies’ 38
Chapter 3: SCORING 40
Task 1: Create Plan Integration for Resilience ‘Scorecards’ 42
Task 2: A nalyze the Plan Integration Scores 46
3
Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook
Chapter 4: VULNERABILITY 50
Task 1: Assess Physical Vulnerability 52
4.1.2 Take it a step further 55
Task 2: Assess Social Vulnerability 57
Chapter 5: STORIES 61
League City
Fort Lauderdale
Chapter 6: UPDATE PLAN
APPENDIX
4
Table of Content
CHAPTER 1
2
Intoduction
INTRODUCTION
Prior to the destruction from Hurricane Sandy, a New Jersey
city’s hazard mitigation plan called for acquisitions and buy-outs
in high-hazard areas, while the comprehensive plan set goals to in-
crease investments in the same location. These plans were not only
incompatible, but actively increased vulnerabilities. Unfortunately,
this is commonplace in planning practice as local plans—whether
comprehensive plans, hazard mitigation plans, small area plans, or
functional plans—lack the integration required to address vulner-
ability to hazards. This guide will provide a step-by-step approach
to evaluate your community’s network of plans to understand
contradictory policies which increase vulnerabilities. It is the aim of
this guidebook to provide a mechanism to discuss with the ‘whole
community’ prioritization of community investment.
Chapter 1 | 3
Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook
Figure 1.1: Planning in Isolation. Oftentimes plans are developed in isolation
of one another, where a comprehensive plan might not reference hazards and
the hazard mitigation plan does not reference land use and components of the
built environment.
4
Intoduction
Figure 1.2: Overlaying Planning Districts with Hazards. Here we overlay
planning districts with hazard zones and other ‘mappable areas’ to generate
scores for each plan and for the community overall. The overlay can help the
reveal hotspots and areas of conflict that the plans produce.
Chapter 1 | 5
Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook
As communities grow and change, oftentimes responsibilities shift
and separate. A planning department may not guide community
development and housing or the emergency management office
may not influence planning and development management. City
staff may not review an adjacent community’s plans or may not
investigate county or regional initiatives. Additionally, state plans
may seem like a distant relative to many cities and counties. Yet, in
planning for hazards, all departments and their associated plans
and projects should consider the long term impacts of develop-
ment. Some plans—such as land use plans, comprehensive plans,
or general plans—point to policies and strategies based on ad-
ministrative boundaries or cultural districts (i.e. Central Business
District). Other plans—such as hazard mitigation plans—develop
policies and strategies based on hazard geographies (i.e. 100-year
floodplain) (Figure 1.1).
Instead of planning in isolation, the Plan Integration for Resilience
Scorecard reveals incongruities in planning policies by overlaying:
• Policy districts with
• Hazard Zones
Figure 1.2 conceptually illustrates data layering and how policies
impact specific areas. Here, we layer planning districts, current and
future flood hazard zones, and conservation areas, which yield
scores that reveal increasing or decreasing vulnerabilities.
To gather data layers (as seen in Figure 1.2), we collect communi-
ty-wide plans and evaluate the policies within them (Figure 1.3).
As illustrated in Figure 1.3, we extract policies within community
plans and test whether they increase or decrease vulnerability
within hazard zones. As you will see, this simple exercise reveals
plan conflicts or alignments.
Why are plans contradictory?
6
Intoduction
Figure 1.3: How well are different plans in your community integrated? Are there
policies within your plans that contradict and exacerbate disaster vulnerability?
Chapter 1 | 7
Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
The Disaster Mitigation Act
of 2000 (DMA) requires all
local governments to adopt
hazard mitigation plans
approved by FEMA to be
eligible for federal pre- and
post-disaster mitigation
funds. For the first time,
federal policy shifted to a
more proactive approach—
hazard mitigation.
Planning and Resilience
Resilience is “the ability to prepare
and plan for, absorb, recover from,
and more successfully adapt
to adverse events.” 1 A resilient
community can ‘bounce back’ from
a disaster, learn from past mistakes
and adapt to new conditions.
We know planning, specifically
preventative land use planning,
plays a strong role in reducing
vulnerability to hazards.2 Land use
approaches can guide new growth
to locations outside of current
and future hazard zones. In fact,
when plans have land use goals
and policies that focus on reducing
disaster losses, governments are
more likely to adopt ordinances
or invest in infrastructure,3
encourage households to reduce
their risk,4 and reduce property
damage from hazards.5
Because of the Disaster Mitigation
Act of 2000, emergency managers
are the primary planners to
develop local hazard mitigation
plans. It is important to note,
when emergency managers
and land use planners work
alongside one another to develop
mitigation plans, plans are
more likely to include land use
policies and other preventative
approaches.6 Within the current
guidance, FEMA recommends
certain planning approaches and
intergovernmental coordination
to develop local hazard mitigation
plans. A strong interdisciplinary
connection between local planners
with place-based knowledge can
increase the incorporation of land
use policies into plans.7 In essence,
communities that plan together
are better equipped to handle a
disaster when it strikes and are
considered more resilient.
Goals of the Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard
To address concerns of
inconsistent plans, the National
Research Council (NRC)
recommended the development of
a resilience scorecard in 2012. The
NRC believes a resilience scorecard
is “essential if communities want
to track their progress toward
resiliency” and “target efforts where
they most need to improve.” 8
There are a number of resilience
indicators, tools, and scorecards
available to assess community
resilience (see full list in
Appendix).9 While some resilience
scorecards look at community
1 National Academies 2012, p.1. Many relevant organizations adopted this definition
of resilience in the “Industry Statement on Resilience”
https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.nibs.org/resource/resmgr/Docs/StatementonResilience.pdf.
2 NRC 2006, 2014
3 Berke et al., 2006; Burby & May, 1997
4 Horney, Simon, Grabich, & Berke, 2015
5 Burby 2006; Nelson & French, 2002
6 Lyles, 2015
7 Lyles, Berke & Smith, 2014
8 National Research Council, 2014
9 Cutter, Susan. (2015). The landscape of disaster resilience indicators in the USA.
Natural Hazards 80:741-758.
NRC believes a resilience
scorecard is “essential
if communities want to
track their progress toward
resiliency” and “target
efforts where they most
need to improve.”
8
Intoduction
capacities, other scorecards
address economies, infrastructure,
and other components of the
built environment.10 Still other
scorecards look at community
plans and mitigation measures.11
The Plan Integration for
Resilience Scorecard is the first to
evaluate the integration of plans.
A community’s network of plans
are cornerstones because they
1) represent the community’s
vision, 2) set goals, and 3) guide
community development, actions,
and policy decisions. The Plan
Integration for Resilience Scorecard
aims to:
1. Identify incongruities
within networks of plans. Plan
incongruities may exacerbate
existing vulnerabilities or
create new vulnerabilities, both
physical and social. By identifying
incongruities overlaid with
hazards and physical and social
vulnerability, communities can
prioritize resilience projects
with multiple co-benefits to
strengthen areas with the greatest
risk. By contrast, the scorecard
will uncover compatibility and
harmony between plans that
reduce vulnerabilities. Ultimately
the scorecard will reveal
unforeseen opportunities to create
better aligned plans.
2. Help “integrate and improve
local plans in ways that reduce
losses from hazard events.” 12
The NRC recommends focusing
on land use strategies and tools
to mitigate hazards in the long-
term.13 Researchers have long
discussed the positive impacts
land use policies have on
reducing vulnerabilities.14 When
communities consider hazards
within land use policies, they are
better able to anticipate, respond
to, cope with, recover from, and
adaptively learn from disasters.
The Plan Integration for Resilience
Scorecard evaluates land use
plans, but also all the plans that
spatially influence a community
to encourage comprehensive
preparedness and mitigation.
3. Provide communities
developing new plans or
updating existing plans with a
guidance framework to reduce
future hazard exposure through
smarter and more consistent
policies. The methodical approach
to policy development should
be used to monitor and assess
progress of the coordination of
networks of plans plans for hazard
vulnerabilities. A community
can also evaluate the progress
and performance of resilience
investments. By integrating climate
resilience into everyday work,
communities can ensure continuity
of decisions and investments. It
10 Cutter, Susan (2015)
11 Cutter, Susan (2015) 12 Berke, Philip, G. Newman, J. Lee, T. Combs, C. Kolosna, D. Salvesen. (2015).
Evaluation of networks of plans and vulnerability to hazards and climate change: a resilience scorecard. Journal of the American Planning Association, 81:4, 289.
13 National Research Council, 201414 Burby et al., 1999; Burby, French, Cigler, Kaiser & Moreau, 1985; Godschalk,
Kaiser, & Berke, 1998; Berke et al., 2006; Burby & May, 1997.
is designed to be repeatable and
a valid assessment across various
plans and communities.
4. Provide a validated tool
to address on-the-ground
needs and build capacity. Each
community has a specific set of
challenges and opportunities.
The scorecard aims to support
communities with this user-
friendly tool to meaningfully
engage through stakeholders and
residents to build local capacity.
Aligning with Other
Initiatives
The scorecard is not meant to
be used in isolation, but as a
tool to better reveal congruities
and priorities for wise decision
making and investments. The Plan
Integration for Resilience Scorecard
can and should be integrated into
initiatives, funding opportunities,
and other plan developments
your community may already be
pursuing. Resilient infrastructure,
businesses, policies, plans, and
therefore communities, starts with
understanding the integration of
plans and community efforts. The
following are examples of existing
initiatives that can be aligned with
the Plan Integration for Resilience
Scorecard to capitalize on and
strengthen planning efforts.
Detailed descriptions can be found
in Appendix X.
Chapter 1 | 9
Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook
Agency Plan Funding Technical
assistance
Consolidated Housing Plan (CHP) and Annual
Action Plans (AAP)
HUD X
Hazard Mitigation Plan [Preparedness Grants,
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Pre-disaster
Mitigation Grants, Flood Mitigation Assistance]
FEMA X X
Habitat Management Plan (HMP) and Annual
Habitat Work Plans (AHWP)
USFWS X
State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP), aka
Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies
[Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program
(WCRP) funds; State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
(SWG) program]
Congress by
Conservation
and
Reinvestment
Act of 2000
X X
Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP)
[Coastal Zone Enhancement Program; Coastal
Nonpoint Pollution Control Program]
NOAA X
Forest Plan (Land Management Plan)USFS X
Endangered Species Recovery Plan NOAA X
Climate Action Plan (focusing on adaptation,
mitigation, and/or resilience)
NA X
Historic Preservation Planning Program NPS X
National Conservation Innovation Grants NRCS X
NOAA Climate Program Office: Regional
Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISA)
Program
NOAA X
Resilience AmeriCorps CNCS X
Resilience Dialogues USGCRP X
Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments NOAA X
Landscape Conservation Cooperatives DOI X
Regional Climate Hubs USDA X
Climate Adaptation Community of Practice USGCRP X
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)EPA X
Fostering Advancements in Shipping and
Transportation for the Long-term Achievement of
National Efficiencies (FASTLANE)
DOT X
Sustainable Communities Initiative HUD X
Table 1.1 Examples of Plans, Finding and Technical Assistance that aligns with the Plan Integration
for Resilience Scorecard
10
Intoduction
Advisory Board Members:
• Allison Hardin
• Chad Berginnis
• Darrin Punchard
• Gavin Smith
• Jennifer Ellison
• Matt Campbell
• Michele Steinberg
• Rich Roths
• Barry Hokanson
How the Scorecard was Developed[not written]
Advisory Board
[Barry Hokanson to tell the HMDR story; not written]
In developing the scorecard and guidebook, the advisory board
discussed a number of issues, including:
Chapter 1 | 11
Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook
Pilot Communities
Staff:
Adopted plans used to test the Resilience
Scorecard:
Pilot Communities
We worked with two pilot communities between July 2016 and June
2017, to test the Resilience Scorecard. With guidance for Resilience
Scorecard team and Advisory Board, pilot communities:
• Assembled a team of stakeholders and key informants familiar
with local planning documents
• Received training on how to apply the Resilience Scorecard to the
local network of plans
• Scored their own network of plans with technical assistance from
the Scorecard Team
Pilot communities met the following criteria:
• Population less than 250,000
• Coastal community with potential for sea level rise
• Networks of plans
• A need for a tool or process for updating a plan
• Leadership and staff in position (planner, emergency manager,
etc.)
• Communities positioned to leverage partnerships with other
agencies (i.e., HUD, FEMA, EDA, EPA, RPC/EDD, USACE, NIST,
USDA, etc.) and NGOs, VOADs, etc. to achieve mutual aims.
Additionally, we worked with four local government partners to test the
plan integration assessment tool within the timeframe of January – June
2017. Each partner received training and technical assistance to support
scoring their own network of plans.
Test communities met the following criteria:
• Communities exposed to a diversity of hazard types (other than
flooding and sea level rise)
• Communities positioned to leverage partnerships with other
agencies (i.e., HUD, FEMA, EDA, EPA, RPC/EDD, USACE, NIST,
USDA, etc.) to achieve mutual aims.
In developing the scorecard and guidebook, the pilot communities
discussed a number of issues, including:
[not written]
12
Intoduction
How to use this guidebook
The guidebook and scorecard should be used by practitioners to
understand how existing local plans are coordinated, allowing them to
address hazard-prone areas and serving as a guide to improve future
plans. The scorecard should be used over time to improve and gauge
progress in reducing vulnerabilities in current and future hazard zones.
Such an analysis “will enable communities to reduce counterproductive
efforts and more efficiently use resources to reduce their vulnerability to
hazards.” 16
Throughout the guidebook we will use the city of Washington, North
Carolina as an example community. Sidebars and maps will describe
policies, plan inconsistencies and compatibilities, and other anecdotes
related to things we uncovered while evaluating the network of plans:
• 2023 Comprehensive Plan: Washington, NC (2013) –
provides detailed land policy guidance (e.g., density and
types of land uses and location, timing, and capacity of
infrastructure) and a context for decision-making
• City of Washington, North Carolina CAMA Core Land Use Plan
(2007) – land use plan adopted to fulfill the requirements
of North Carolina’s 1974 Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA) by establishing policies and guidelines related
to the management of coastal areas, including economic
development and the protection of natural resources
• Beaufort County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
(2010) -- county-level hazard mitigation plan, developed to
coordinate local disaster prevention and response and to
fulfill the requirements of the federal Disaster Mitigation
Act of 2000
• City of Washington Parks and Recreation Comprehensive
Master Plan (2011) -- park plan developed to improve
recreational opportunities and quality of life in Washington
Example Community :Washington, NC12
The precolonial city of
Washington is located in
Beaufort County on the
North Carolina coast. In
2010, the population was
9,074. Since the 1990s
the economy has shifted
toward tourism, and the
population increased 1.7%
between 2000 and 2010.
The city’s terrain averages
about 10 feet above sea
level, with slopes ranging
from level to 4%; the city is
exposed to several recur-
ring natural hazards, includ-
ing hurricanes, floods, and
nor’easters. Flooding due
to storm surge and sea-lev-
el rise are major threats
because of the area’s low-ly-
ing land and proximity to
surface water.
16 Berke, et al. [year], 289.
Chapter 1 | 13
Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook
Leadership and forming
your team
The evaluation of networks of
plans cannot be conducted in
silos. We recommend establishing
a Leadership Team and sub-teams
(depending on the community
size and resources)to oversee
the spatial plan evaluation. The
primary goal of establishing
teams is to communicate across
departments or entities and
understand the content of plans.
Depending on your state and
the authorities granted by the
state, there will be different
configurations of leadership
teams. For instance, in some
states planning is handled by
the counties, where smaller
municipalities look to counties
for planning needs. In other
states, the state itself coordinates
local hazard mitigation planning
efforts through guidance, review,
and approval, where smaller
municipalities develop the city-
specific sub-plans. In still other
states, counties have very little
authority as far as enforcing
ordinances, but they can lead
planning initiatives. Additionally, in
other parts of the country, regional
planning agencies play a large
role in hazard mitigation planning
development. Knowing the
different political dynamics in your
state will yield a leadership team
that brings the right stakeholders
to the table.
The Leadership Team should be
composed of 2-4 people to guide
plan evaluations and communicate
results with stakeholders. The
participants of the Leadership
Team should include the persons
that oversee planning initiatives or
plans. The team should assist with
cross-agency coordination and
include a chief executive official to
oversee “silo-busting.”
The Leadership Team would
ideally include the person
responsible for the:
• Hazard mitigation plan, typically
the emergency manager and
• Comprehensive land use
plan, typically the planning
director, city manager, county
commissioner, or other group.
Depending on the size and the
number of plans in the community,
other participants may be a
good fit. We recommend local
planners, emergency managers,
engineers, other local officials,
and any other group, person,
or agency with land use or
emergency planning responsibility
play a central role in applying
the scorecard and in guiding
communities to revise and improve
plans. The key to establishing
an effective team is the capacity
and their ability to advocate for
policy change. We recommend
utilizing existing committees. For
14
Intoduction
example, metropolitan planning
organizations (MPO) or rural
planning organizations (RPO),
are planning groups required for
federal transportation funding
and might be a good place to
start depending on capacity. You
can also refer to already existing
mitigation plan teams, recovery
teams, and other existing teams
when putting the scorecard teams
together.
If you are in a larger community,
with many plans, departments,
and agencies, the Leadership Team
will coordinate and delegate tasks
to sub-teams. If you are in a small
city, like Washington, NC with
little staff support, the Leadership
Team can take on the roles and
responsibilities of the sub-teams.
The sub-teams include the
Policy Team, Mapping Team, and
Engagement Team. Participants
of the Leadership Team should
also participate on each sub-team.
Others should be invited to the
sub-teams depending on their
background and expertise. In total,
6-12 participants should make up
the three sub-teams.
Policy Team – have a general
understanding of land use policies
and should be comfortable
identifying land use policies
within different types of planning
documents.
Mapping Team – able to gather
community maps and ideally
have a general understanding of
geographic information systems
software (GIS). Local level maps
are needed, as well as the ability to
collect from other sources.
Engagement Team – develop
a strategy to engage the
public and other stakeholders
to communicate the results
of the Plan Integration for
Resilience Scorecard. Using the
physical vulnerability and social
vulnerability maps, work with
stakeholder groups to determine
which areas in the community
need more attention and an
integrated policy approach.
Chapter 1 | 15
Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook
Table 1.1 breaks down the time is might take members of the teams to
accomplish the full Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard.
Team Tasks (per plan)Staff Time
Policy Team 8-12 hr. per plan
Score Policies 8 hr. per plan
Total +/- 20 hr. per plan
Team Tasks Staff Time
Mapping Team 8 hr.
Physical Vulnerability 8 hr.
Social Vulnerability 8 hr.
Engagement Team 8-12 hr.
Total 32-26 hr.
Table 1.2 Time commitment
Structure of the Guidebook
We recommend reading through the entire guidebook as you might
read through a recipe, identifying ingredients, materials, and techniques
needed to ‘cook your meal’. Ask yourself: What plans and data are
available? What people have authority to make land use or emergency
planning decisions? What skillsets are needed?
The guidebook is broken into the following:
Chapter 2: Technical Analysis – With the Policy Team, gather all
community plans and extract applicable policies. With the Mapping
Team, use maps—digital, printed, or with geographic information
systems (GIS) software—to overlay planning districts and existing and
future flood hazard zones.
Chapter 3: Scoring – Using the information from the Policy Team and
the Mapping Team, score the policies based on whether they increase
or decrease exposure in hazard zones and create tables and/or maps to
compare planning districts.
16
Intoduction
Chapter 4: Vulnerability - To
better understand the impacts
of the planning district scores,
develop a physical vulnerability
and social vulnerability map.
Compare maps with the scores
map to reveal vulnerability
hotspots.
Chapter 5: Stories - Before you
communicate with agencies,
residents, and other stakeholders
you must be able to tell your plan
integration story. Learn from other
communities’ plan integration
stories in preparation for your
story.
Chapter 6: Update Plans –
Once the technical analysis and
scoring is complete, engage the
whole community to determine
community values and a plan-of-
action going forward in light of
new information. This may mean
amending plans to minimize
conflicts and taking advantage
of opportunities revealed by the
evaluation
CHAPTER 2
Technical Analysis
18
TECHNICAL
ANALYSIS
Evaluating and mapping community policies within the net-
work of plans is a technical analysis and the bulk of the work for
the Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard. The network of plans
is all the plans within your community among different depart-
ments or agencies including the comprehensive plan (or general
plan), hazard mitigation and disaster recovery plan, area plans,
and/or functional plans. In order to understand the integration of
such varying plans, perform a technical analysis of 1) policies with-
in community planning documents (Policy Team) and 2) the spatial
relationships of policies (Mapping Team). The technical analysis
will take the majority of your time and will prepare you for the next
step, ‘Scoring’ (Chapter 3).
Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook
Chapter 2 | 19
POLICY TEAM
The Policy Team should have a general understanding of land use poli-
cies and should be comfortable identifying policies within different types
of planning documents. We recommend at least 2 people staff the Policy
Team in order to enable a discussion of the applicability of each policy to
the results of the spatial analysis.
OBJECTIVES:
• Gather all planning documents in the community
• Develop list of all policies (or policy-like language, see Box X.X)
within all planning documents
MATERIALS REQUIRED:
• Community plan documents
• Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard
SKILLS RECOMMENDED:
• Ability to identify land use policies
• Ability to identify ’mappable’ policies with place-specific terms
• Ability to link policies to the impacts of hazard vulnerabilities
• Ability to identify policy tools within policies
Task 1: Assemble the ‘Network of Plans’
First, gather as many community planning documents as possible.
Generally, community plans are available for download on government
websites and can be found by browsing the planning, development,
emergency management, and other relevant sections of the site (see
Figure 1.2, below). If available, you may do a website-specific search for
terms like “plan” or “planning.” Alternatively, some plans are not available
on websites. We suggest validating plans with the leadership team and
other departments to ensure all relevant documents are included. Focus
your attention on city- and county-level plans. State-level plans are not
considered for this analysis and regional-level plans may be considered if
specific to the community.
Checklist:
• Assemble the
‘Network of Plans’
• Generate lists of
applicable policies
Technical Analysis
20
2.1.1 Plan Document Types
The types of plans to include in the
evaluation are all plans that govern
land use and development in
hazard areas. Typically, community
planning includes a comprehensive
or general plan. Of all the plans
that local governments prepare,
the comprehensive or general
plan deals most directly with how
and where development will take
place. The hazard mitigation plan
is also a very common planning
document adopted by local
governments (though it may be
county- or metro-wide in scale,
which is acceptable). Such plans
were mandated by the Disaster
Mitigation Act of 2000 as a
requirement for communities to
become eligible for federal pre-
and post-disaster mitigation funds.
It is important to note that FEMA
has recently placed more emphasis
on the integration of land use tools
with mitigation planning. 17
Other stand-alone plans might
also influence development within
hazard zones, such as ‘area’ plans
that focus on a particular area, such
a downtown district, waterfront
development, etc. Transportation
and infrastructure plans, park
and recreation plans, or wildlife
habitat management plans, can
Double Check:
Be sure to double check with
local and regional depart-
ments to ensure plans are
not left out. Even a thorough
initial search may miss some
plans. You may want to circle
back and contact specific
agencies.
and should complement hazard
mitigation plans. Other ‘functional’
plans can include economic
development plans, housing
consolidated plans, etc. Capital
improvement plans also influence
where development will occur and
can actively steer development
away from hazard zones with
disinvestment. Some examples of
potentially applicable plans are
included in Table 2.1.
2.1.2 Plan Criteria
As you are gathering plans make
sure they contain policies or poli-
cy-like language (see Box X.X) that
meet the following criteria:
• Plans should still be relevant;
that is, they should be relative-
ly recent (produced or updated
within the past 10 years) and/
or should still influence policy
decision-making
• Area Plans must (at least par-
tially) intersect with a designat-
ed hazard zone (See Table 2.1).
If the subject of an area plan
is located entirely outside of
hazard zone, it is relatively safe
and therefore should not be
included in this analysis.
17 FEMA, 2013, 2014.
Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook
Chapter 2 | 21
Table 2.1 Examples of Types of Plans in a Community’s ‘Network of Plans’
Plan Type Purpose Contribution (+/-) to Vulnerability
Comprehensive/General Plan Main community
planning document
Policies can guide future
development into or away from
hazard zones.
Hazard Mitigation Plan Reduce long-term
risk to human life and
infrastructure
Advocates vulnerability reduction
and resiliency building, often via
general policies or specific “action
items”
Disaster Recovery Plan Address disaster
recovery related needs
to be activated during
recovery
Advocates vulnerability reduction
and resiliency building post-disaster.
Coordinates agencies to assist people
post-disaster.
Area Plans:
Address planning issues
pertaining to a portion
of the community
Targeted policies may increase or
decrease vulnerability, depending
on purpose and location. Area plans
may also contribute to policy district
delineation.
Downtown (Redevelopment)
Small Area/Neighborhood/
District
Waterfront
Corridor Plan
Functional or Sector-specific Plans:
Focus on individual
or related functions
or sectors in need of
specialized planning
Individual plan policies (or objectives,
action items, etc.) may increase or
decrease vulnerability, and are often
distinct from those found in comp or
hazard mitigation plans. Applicability
to individual policy district may be
aided by additional function/sector
maps.
Transportation (or Transit)
Parks / Open Space
Economic Development
Environmental Management
Climate Adaptation/Mitigation
Housing (Consolidated/Strategic)
Wildlife Management
Wildfire Protection
Technical Analysis
22
Task 2: Generate Lists of
Policies
In order to generate policy lists for
each community plan, thoroughly
read each plan and compile lists
of potentially applicable policies.
For many plans, policies will be
plainly labeled; for others, they
may be labeled as ‘objectives’
or ‘action items’ (or may simply
exist as policy-esque language
in the document’s narrative).
Because of their unique role within
the network of plans, hazard
mitigation plans typically contain
action items rather than ‘true’
policies. Action items are discussed
in section 2.2.4. In many ways,
determining a plan’s applicable
policies is as much an art as it is
a science – Remain flexible and
responsive to the variation of your
community’s plans. Ideally, two
people should independently
compile lists to compare and
discuss.
To be applicable for spatial
plan evaluation, a policy should
include all the following criteria
of the three-point test for policy
inclusion:
(1) Contain at least one mappable,
place-specific term;
(2) Potentially reduce or increase
vulnerability to hazards; and
(3) Contain a recognizable policy
tool, or a form of government
intervention to achieve specific
objectives and outcomes.
Descriptions of policy tools are
provided in Table 2.4.
Types of place-specific terms:
Political or cultural areas
• Neighborhoods
• Commercial centers
• Cultural or recreational districts
Geographic features
• Natural areas
• Floodplains
• Conservation areas
• Rivers
• Streets
Individual buildings
• Frequently flooded structures
• Community facilities
2.2.1 Identify Mappable
Policies
Read through each plan and
generate a list of all the mappable
policies. Policies that are consid-
ered ‘mappable’ are those which
contain at least one place-specific
term that can be (or preferably
that already has been) mapped
within the community, including:
• Cultural or administrative
areas, e.g. ‘downtown’ or ‘the
riverfront’;
• Geographic features, e.g.
‘wetlands’ or ‘Main Street’; and
even
• Individual buildings, e.g.
‘repetitive loss structures’ or
‘critical facilities’.
Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook
Chapter 2 | 23
To illustrate this concept, we use
an example from Washington,
NC. Several policies in the com-
prehensive plan refer to the same
specific place: conservation areas.
In this case, ‘conservation areas’
were well-defined in the plan as
park land or other preserved areas.
As shown in Figure 2.1, policies
referring to ‘conservation areas’
could be considered ‘mappable.’
The simplified map illustrates
how community policies are often
Figure 2.1 Map of conservation areas in Washington, NC (planning district
boundaries also shown). Because the location of “conservation areas” is known
– and is, in fact, mapped – we can spatially assign policies that reference such
areas to the planning districts.
mappable due to their inclusion of
place-specific terms that refer to
mapped areas, features, or facili-
ties. However, you will find some
policies are written in an aspa-
tial way. Non-mappable policies
may not reference specific areas,
features, or facilities and should
not be included in the scorecard to
evaluate plans. Examples of map-
pable and non-mappable policies
are shown and described in Table
2.2.
Technical Analysis
24
Table 2.2 Examples of Mappable and Non-Mappable Policiesies
Mappable policy Justification for inclusion
Strengthen controls on development
within flood-prone and wetland areas
by improving existing ordinances, such
as the erosion and sediment control
ordinance, zoning ordinance, subdivision
ordinance, flood plain regulations and
other development regulations. (2023
Comprehensive Plan, p. 46)
The floodplain and wetland areas can be identified
and have been mapped within the community.
Assure that as changes are planned
for improvements to the downtown
and especially the waterfront area that
consideration is given to access issues
and to environmentally-friendly building
techniques. (2023 Comprehensive Plan,
p. 42)
The downtown and waterfront areas can be identified
within the community.
Non-mappable policy Justification
Develop strategies that increase
homeownership opportunities while
also ensuring the City achieves an
appropriate balance of other housing
choices (rental housing, housing for the
aged, etc.). (2023 Comprehensive Plan,
P. 66)
While housing and residential land use can easily be
mapped in a community, this policy is not mappable
because it does not indicate the places in which
homeownership should take place. If the policy would
have specified the development of owner-occupied
housing within a known hazard area, there would have
been justification for including this policy within the
scorecard.
Continue to pursue construction of
greenways and walking trails throughout
the community. (2023 Comprehensive
Plan, P. 58)
While greenways and walking trails are mappable, this
particular policy does not specify the location of future
greenways and trails. If the policy had pointed to a
specific plan or design of new trails, this policy would
have been mappable. If the policy would have referred
to the maintenance of existing greenways and trails
this policy would have been mappable.
Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook
Chapter 2 | 25
Table 2.3 Examples of Policies Likely and Unlikely to Affect Community Vulnerability
Policy likely to affect vulnerability Justification for inclusion
Encourage higher-density multifamily
development in pedestrian-oriented
urban areas with access to transit, a
broad range of services and amenities
and access to employment to: ... (86)
This policy encourages greater residential population
density in certain parts of the city; if some of these
“pedestrian-oriented urban areas” are in hazard zones,
this effectively increases the number of people and
the amount of infrastructure in harm’s way.
All proposed development adjacent to
wetlands shall provide adequate buffers
to protect wetlands and surface waters.
(249)
In contrast, this policy encourages the establishment
of adequate buffer zones which, while ostensibly for
the purpose of protecting sensitive areas, also have
the effect of limiting the amount of development in
potentially hazardous areas.
Policy unlikely to affect
vulnerability
Justification for exclusion
The City will capitalize on the Tar and
Pamlico Rivers as community amenities
for enjoyment by residents and visitors.
At first glance, this policy appears to encourage
preservation of the rivers and their environs (which
would have a positive effect on resilience), but it
might also be interpreted as advocating increased
use and investment in these “community amenities”
(which may place more infrastructure and people in
harm’s way). Because of such ambiguity, this policy
should be excluded.
Improve the infrastructure at City
boat docks to increase visitation.
Infrastructure improvement to
include picnic tables, benches, boater
bathrooms, a dock attendant’s station,
and other amenities near public ramps
and waterfront destinations.
Although this policy advocates for greater
investment in potentially hazardous coastal areas,
the infrastructure improvements listed are generally
water-oriented and therefore likely to be constructed
in a resilient way, given the obvious potential for
flooding.
2.2.2 Identify Policies that Affect Vulnerability
The question of whether or not a policy will affect community
vulnerability – in this case, to coastal flooding – is an important, though
potentially subjective, one. The POLICY TEAM should be able to judge
the potential effects of policies on vulnerability in the community.
Table 2.3 presents examples of policies that ought to be included and
excluded from the scorecard.
Technical Analysis
26
Table 2.4 Policy Tools: Land Use Policy categories and sub-categories*
LAND USE APPROACH APPLICATION TO HAZARD VULNERABILITY
Development Regulations
Permitted Land Use Provision regulating the types of land use (e.g. residential, commercial,
industrial, open space, etc.) permitted in areas of community; may be
tied to zoning code
Density of Land Use Provision regulating density (e.g. units per acre); may be tied to zoning
code
Subdivision Regulations Provision controlling the subdivision of parcels into developable units
and governing the design of new development (e.g. site storm water
management)
Zoning Overlays Provision to use zoning overlays that restrict permitted land use/density
in hazardous areas; may be special hazard zones or sensitive open space
protection zones
Setbacks or Buffer Zones Provision requiring setbacks or buffers around hazardous areas (e.g.
riparian buffers and ocean setbacks)
Cluster Development Provision requiring clustering of development away from hazardous
areas, such as through conservation subdivisions
Land Acquisition
Acquire Land & Property Purchase land/property in hazard area
Open Space or Easement
Requirement/Purchase
Provision encouraging open space purchase by the community or open
space easements as an element of development approval
Density Transfer Provisions
Transfer/Purchase of
Development Rights
Provision for transferring development rights to control density; may
be transfer of development rights or purchase of development rights
2.2.3 Identify Policies with a Policy Tool
The inclusion of a recognizable policy tool is important, because a
statement without such language – even if labeled a policy – is unlikely
to be actionable. Policy tools are a set of techniques and form of
government intervention to achieve specific objectives and outcomes.
Descriptions of policy tools are provided in Table 2.4 (note that this list
is the basis for the policy tool categories and sub-categories in the first
column of the Resilience Scorecard). Examples of policies containing
and not containing policy tools are shown in Table 2.5.
Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook
Chapter 2 | 27
LAND USE APPROACH APPLICATION TO HAZARD VULNERABILITY
Financial Incentives and Penalties
Density Bonuses Density bonuses such as ability to develop with greater density in
return for dedication or donation of land in areas subject to hazards
Tax Abatement Tax breaks offered to property owners and developers who use
mitigation methods for new development
Impact / Special Study /
Protection Fees
Provision requiring impact fees, special study fees, or protection fees
for development in hazardous areas; fees could cover costs of structural
protection
Land Use Analysis and Permitting Process
Land Suitability Hazards are one of the criteria used in analyzing and determining the
suitability of land for development
Site Review Provision requiring addressing hazard mitigation in process of
reviewing site proposals for development
Design/Construction
Guidelines/Requirements
Guidelines or requirements that apply to the design or construction of
developments in hazard areas
Public Facilities (including Public Housing)
Siting Provision to site public facilities, including municipal buildings and
public housing, out of hazard areas
Sizing/Capacity Provision limiting capacity of public facilities, including public housing,
in hazard areas to cap amount of development
Post-Disaster Reconstruction Decisions
Development Moratorium Provision imposing a moratorium on development for a set period of
time after a hazard event to allow for consideration of land use change
Post-Disaster Land Use Change Provision related to changing land use regulations following a hazard
event; may include redefining allowable land uses after a hazard event
Post-Disaster Capital
Improvements
Provision related to adjusting capital improvements to public facilities
following a hazard event
Capital Improvements
Infrastructure “Hardening” or
Weatherproofing
Provision encouraging or requiring development in hazard zones to
increase structural resilience to hazards
Elevating Provision pertaining to the physical elevation of structures in hazard
zones
Drainage Improvements or
Flood Control
Provision that pertains to drainage or flooding issues within the
community
Ecosystem Enhancement Provision that seeks to improve or preserve the functioning of the
natural environment within the community
Slope/Dune Stabilization Provision that pertains specifically to stabilization of slopes or dunes or
seeks to control erosion
*A more detailed table is provided in Appendix B.
Technical Analysis
28
Table 2.5 Examples of Policies With and Without a Policy Tool
Policies with a Policy Tool Justification for Inclusion
LU Policy 6.1.3: Support proposals to
convert non-residential properties
along mixed-use corridors, between
major intersections, to residential
or mixed-use residential uses
and ensure the development is
compatible with surrounding land
uses and has adequate access to
transit services and community
services. (47)
The policy tool in this example is
permitted land use; this land use
policy encourages conversion of
currently non-residential properties to
residential use, effectively increasing
the number of people in harm’s way in
cases where the “mixed-use corridors,
between major intersections” happen
to be in hazard zones.
ENV Policy 1.2.5: Use techniques,
which may include clustering and
transfer of development rights, to
protect environmentally sensitive
areas. (240)
This policy actually contains two
policy tools: clustering and transfer
of development rights (TOD). Both
of these tools can be used to guide
development away from certain
undesirable areas (including flood
hazard zones).
Policies without a Policy Tool Justification for Exclusion
The City of Washington will monitor
sea level rise and respond to threats
to property and important natural
areas as threats are identified.
Even though the policy directs the
city to be cognizant of the land use
implications of sea level rise, it fails to
offer any policy tools that would lead
directly to land use actions.
The City of Washington will protect
its waterfront/shoreline areas,
historic district, and valuable scenic
areas.
A policy to protect such areas is
laudable -- and likely to result in
greater community flood resilience
-- but this example offers no concrete
tools by which the city might go about
doing so.
Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook
Chapter 2 | 29
BOX 2.1 : Organize Policies in the Resilience Scorecard
When collecting policies, organize them in the Resilience Scorecard by completing the
following:
1 Place each selected policy in an appropriate policy tool category or sub-category (see
Table 2.4).
2 Underline the place-specific term in each selected mappable policy.
3 Italicize the policy tool in the policy. If there is more than one distinct (and applicable)
policy tool present in a single policy, include multiple ‘copies’ of the policy in the policy
list (in the appropriate sub-categories).
4 After separate policy lists have been generated, the Policy Team should convene to
discuss the applicability of each policy to spatial analysis (again, per the criteria in Task 2,
Section 2.1) – accepting some policies, rejecting others, and re-categorizing, as needed
(through trial and error, we’ve learned that this is the best way to get a comprehensive
list of applicable policies) – in order to generate a final list of policies for each of the
community’s plans. Some plans may have dozens of applicable policies, while others
may have very few. Plans that contain zero applicable policies should not be included in
the analysis
Figure 2.2 Collecting Policies within Plans. Gather all plans in your communi-
ty that affect the built environment and generate a list of all policies related to
land use and hazards.
30
Technical Analysis
2.2.4 The Special Case of
Hazard Mitigation Plan
‘Policies’
Whereas comprehensive and
functional plans contain policies
designed to guide and manage
a community’s growth, hazard
mitigation plans are more narrowly
focused on hazard assessment
and mitigation. This difference
in purpose often (though
not always) results in hazard
mitigation plans that contain few
‘true’ policies. Rather, policy-like
statements in these plans often
come in the form of mitigation
action items. As long as an action
item satisfies the requirements
– i.e. contains a place-specific
term, contains a policy tool, and
affects vulnerability – it should
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Permitted Land Use
The City should discourage development in areas designated for light-density residential
use with the exception of low-density residential/agriculture land uses (see Map 21).
Because of its current land use patterns, rezoning and amendments to the future land
use map should be carefully balanced with a demonstrated need for such proposed
development that will be the overall best management policy for Washington’s future
land development. (p. 189)
Density of Land Use
The City of Washington supports larger lots, decreased impervious surface areas, and
cluster development in conservation classified areas and areas with low land suitability
(see future land use map, Map 21) through enforcement of the city’s subdivision and
zoning ordinances. (p. 193)
Subdivision Regulations or Buffer Zones
The City supports the enforcement of local controls and the efforts of state and federal
agencies with regulatory authority to require development to be above the base flood
elevation and comply with the NC State Building Code. (p. 203)
Cluster Development or Buffer
The City of Washington supports larger lots, decreased impervious surface areas, and
cluster development in conservation classified areas and areas with low land suitability
(see future land use map, Map 21) through enforcement of the city’s subdivision and
zoning ordinances. (p. 193)
Table 2.6: Example Scorecard of Applicable Land Use Policies
Chapter 2 | 31
Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook
Action Item Justification for Inclusion
Revise local development ordinances to encourage shoreline
vegetation protection to help mitigate flooding (Beaufort
County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2010, p.
6-15)
The river shoreline can be identified within the
community. Development regulations are to
be used to protect shoreline vegetation. Flood
vulnerability will likely be reduced as a result.
Continue to maintain all property acquired with public
mitigation funds within the Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) as undisturbed open space in perpetuity. Continue
to pro-actively establish open space within the floodplain
and floodway as grant funds become available to carry out
this initiative. (Beaufort County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard
Mitigation Plan, 2010, p. 6-21)
The extent of the SFHA and the floodplain and
floodway can be identified within the community.
Land use planning tools used include development
regulations, zoning overlays, and land acquisition.
Flood vulnerability will likely be reduced as a result.
Coastal Erosion – Columbia Point
• UMass and the state should stabilize the bank or establish a
new bank. (Metro-Boston Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2008,
p. 70)
The extent of the Columbia Point district in Boston,
MA, is known. The capital improvements policy tool
of bank stabilization/improvement is used. This will
likely reduce flood vulnerability.
Consider the use of land acquisition programs for properties
subject to development that are located in high-hazard areas.
(Broward County Enhanced Local Mitigation Strategy, 2012,
p. 278)
High-hazard areas in Fort Lauderdale Broward
County have been mapped. Land acquisition is the
policy tool used. These actions are likely to reduce
vulnerability to flooding.
The City of League City will pursue grant funding to elevate/
acquire RL [repetitive loss] and SRL [severe repetitive loss]
properties or mitigate them through drainage projects. (City
of League City Local Mitigation Plan, 2010, p. 126)
The location of repetitive loss and severe repetitive
loss properties within League City is known. Tools
such as property acquisition and elevation are
to be employed, and doing so will reduce flood
vulnerability.
Project # 44.3
3311 W Napoleon Avenue
Construct new stormwater system to connect to box culvert
and eliminate flooding along Napoleon. (Hillsborough
County Local Mitigation Strategy, 2014, p. ___)
The location of this proposed and funded project in
Tampa, FL, can be mapped. The stated policy tool to
be used – drainage enhancement – will likely reduce
vulnerability to flooding.
be included in the scorecard
analysis. Table 2.7 contains
examples of action items from
Washington’s hazard mitigation
plan, the Beaufort County Multi-
Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation
Plan (which happen to be very
similar to policies) as well as
Table 2.7 Examples of Mappable and Non-Mappable Action Items
from several other community
hazard mitigation plans, thereby
illustrating the range of action
items one might find in a plan.
Justifications for why such action
items should be included or
excluded from the analysis are also
provided.
32
Technical Analysis
MAPPING TEAM
The Resilience Scorecard is unique because it spatially evaluates policies
and plans that may increase or decrease vulnerability to hazards. The
Mapping Team has a critical role in producing or gathering maps that
will be used for scoring the network of plans. The Mapping Team will
first identify and map planning districts in the community. Then, they
will identify and map hazard zones—in the case of this evaluation we
focus on coastal flood hazards. Finally, using the policies gathered by the
Planning Team, the Mapping Team will create or use maps that refer to
the place-specific terms within the policies collected. The Mapping Team
does not need geographic information systems software (GIS), but using
GIS will enhance the evaluation.
OBJECTIVES:
• Create or gather Planning Districts Map (or GIS layer)
• Create or gather Hazard Zones Map (or GIS layer)
• Create or overlay Hazard Zones in Planning Districts Map (or GIS
layer)
• Create or gather maps of place-specific terms in the
mappable policies
MATERIALS REQUIRED:
• Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard
• Maps of:
Planning Districts
Hazard Zones
Place-specific terms in Mappable policies
SKILLS RECOMMENDED:
• Ability to gather maps within plans
• Ideally, ability to bring shapefiles and data into GIS software to
generate new information (manual overlay of maps can work as
well).
Checklist:
• Delineate Planning
Districts
• Delineate Hazard
Zones
• Map your ‘Mappable
Policies’
Chapter 2 | 33
Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook
Download data to build
maps:
• FEMA’s 100-year floodplain
(Zones A, AE….) (https://
msc.fema.gov/portal/),
or(http://www.data.gov/).
• United States Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE) sea
level rise estimations--
http://www.corpsclimate.
us/ccaceslcurves.cfm)
• Elevations from USDA’s
Geospatial Data Gateway--
https://gdg.sc.egov.usda.
gov/
• Block groups and specific
planning districts in your
community (i.e., Central
Business District)-- (https://
www.census.gov/geo/
maps-data/data/tiger-line.
html)
Task 1: Determine Plan-
ning Districts
In order to spatially analyze
the applicable plan policies18
(see POLICY TEAM: Task 2), the
community must be divided into
areas known as Planning Districts.
2.3.1 Choose Planning
Districts
There are two strategies for
selecting planning districts.
1. US Census Block Groups are a
convenient and widely utilized
sub-jurisdictional spatial unit.
2. ‘Specialized’ planning districts
are often the focus of planning
initiatives and policies,
such as historic districts,
overlay districts, planned-
unit developments, or other
areas designated within local
policies.
We recommend using planning
districts referenced in your
community’s plans because
there are often specific policies
associated with the planning
districts. . In reality, you will likely
define your planning districts with
a few ‘specialized’ planning districts
and the remaining with US Census
Block Groups. In Washington, we
selected planning districts using
land use maps from the 2023
Choosing Planning Districts:
Boston, MA- the City’s official
neighborhoods (see Figure 2.3,
below) are used as Planning Dis-
tricts, given their significance to
current and historical planning
Houston, TX- the City is divid-
ed into ‘super neighborhoods’,
which may be a relevant plan-
ning district
18 Each applicable policy affects the vulnerability of the population (or of the infra-
structure, ecology, etc.) in each LPD differently, depending on the land use characteristics
in that district. Many of the community’s land uses or classifications are mapped, which
allows for spatial differentiation. Thus, the LPD acts as the basic unit of analysis for this
research.
Comprehensive Plan and the
CAMA Land Use Plan. Planning
districts are important to identify
because many planning efforts
attempt to develop goals and
coordinate policies within these
areas.
2.3.2 Map Planning Districts
After determining the planning
districts, map each district as
a single GIS layer and number
themin a logical manner (to
help with future analysis and
description). For those with limited
GIS capability, overlay image
files with a slight transparency
in Microsoft PowerPoint or other
software. Images can also be
printed and physically overlaid, but
using digital platforms will make it
easier to overlay the various maps.
34
Technical Analysis
BOX 2.2
Delineating Planning
Districts
Through the process of
delineating planning districts
based on Census Block Group
data from Census Bureau
(https://www.census.gov/geo/
maps-data/data/tiger-line.html),
GIS-based district boundary is
created.
Census Block Group (top)
and Planning Policy District
(bottom)
Using the geographic district
code of the GIS data that can
be linked to the policy scores,
policy score sheets in Excel
is combined to GIS. In the
same way, it would be able to
create policy score maps by
each plan (e.g. comprehensive
plan, mitigation plan, etc.) and
vulnerability (e.g. physical,
social, ecological and structural
specific vulnerability).
Chapter 2 | 35
Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook
Task 2: Delineate Hazard
Zones
The first step is to delineate hazard
zones—where the community is
affected by a given hazard. You can
map different types of hazards, but
for purposes in Washington, NC we
evaluated coastal hazard zones—
of the FEMA floodplain as the ‘cur-
rent hazard zone’ and sea level rise
projections with the floodplain as
the ‘future hazard zone’. While this
is the focus of the Resilience Score-
card, be aware that your commu-
nity can gather other hazard maps,
such as surge zones or wave action
locations or dam inundation areas.
It is also common for communi-
Online mapping resources:
These online mapping tools
can help communities that lack
data and maps.
• NOAA Coastal Flood
Exposure Mapper:
https://coast.noaa.gov/
floodexposure/#/map
• FEMA’s National Flood
Hazard Layer on ArcGIS
Online: http://www.arcgis.
com/home/webmap/
viewer.
BOX 2.3
Since not all cities build hazard-related GIS data to delineate
hazard zones and analyze the impacts, HAZUS-MH would be a
good alternative for mapping the hazard zones. HAZUS-MH is a
nationally applicable standardized risk-based disaster management
tools assessing damages, estimated economic losses for buildings
and infrastructures, and mitigation benefits from earthquakes,
coastal floods and hurricanes. It allows to not only assess whether
a hazard exists but also visually display the hazards and identify
vulnerabilities. With the information, it enables users to prioritize
mitigation measures to determine how those can be implemented
in order to reduce future losses.
ties to buffer flood hazard areas,
acknowledging changes in flood
patterns, as opposed only using
the 100-year floodplain. Consider
your context when delineating
coastal hazard areas. If your com-
munity is exposed to more than
coastal hazards, we encourage
you to explore the relationship of
such hazards in the community.
Non-coastal hazards may include,
fire risk areas, liquefaction zones,
earthquake risk zones, high wind
zones, etc. Manually collect maps
or gather the GIS layers.
36
Technical Analysis
2.4.1 Current Hazard Zone
The 100-year floodplain is the
land area predicted to flood
during a 100-year storm event,
which by definition has a 1%
chance of occurring in a given
year. Shapefiles of current FEMA
100-year floodplain boundaries
(generally 2014 or 2015) can be
found at:
• the individual county’s GIS
website,
• FEMA’s Flood Map Service
Center (https://msc.fema.
gov/portal/), or
• Data.gov (http://www.data.
gov/).
If you are unable to gather data,
consider buffering waterbodies.
2.4.2 Future Hazard Zone
The Future Hazard Zone combines
the 2100 sea level rise estimates
with the 100 yr. floodplain
‘hazard zone’—or the new 100-
year floodplain in 2100 due to
sea level rise. The United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
provides alternative sea level
change projections in 10-year
increments, up to 2100. The 2100
sea level rise is selected because
it shows the largest impacts.
Also, 2100 is a useful long-term
planning horizon to understand
the impacts of sea level rise on
land use commitments and urban
infrastructure.
Online resources for sea
level rise:
• SLR Tools Comparison
Matrix is a helpful tool
for future SLR inundation
mapping. http://sealevel.
climatecentral.org/matrix/
• NOAA has developed
an interactive map that
models sea-level rise
against a number of
factors. The web tool
displays socio-economic
vulnerability. (http://www.
csc.noaa.gov/slr/viewer/)
• NOAA has also developed
a tool for lake level rise for
the Great Lakes https://
coast.noaa.gov/llv/
• NOAA Sea Level Rise and
Coastal Flooding Impacts:
https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/
• Rhode Island Coastal
Resource Management
Council (CRMC) also
developed Sea Level
Affecting Marches Model
(SLAMM) to project three
different sea level rise
scenarios of 1, 3, and 5
feet in the future for all 21
coastal communities of
Rhode Island. http://www.
crmc.ri.gov/climatechange.
html
1. Collect the USACE sea level rise
estimations based on NOAA
coastal gauge measurements
(http://www.corpsclimate.us/
ccaceslcurves.cfm). We use the
“intermediate high” scenario
for the year 2100 (chosen from
a range of possible sea level
rise scenarios).
2. Add the base elevation of the
100-year floodplain to the
USACE sea level rise estimate
for the year 2100. Elevation
data for every county in the
US can be obtained from
the USDA’s Geospatial Data
Gateway website (https://gdg.
sc.egov.usda.gov/). Generally,
the most detailed LiDAR
elevation dataset provided is a
1-meter elevation dataset.
2.4.3 Combine Planning
Districts and Hazard Zones
The “Planning District” layer should
then be spatially joined to the
“Hazard Zones” layer, resulting in
a separate “hazard zones within
planning districts” layer, which
represents the true unit of analysis
for this research.
Chapter 2 | 37
Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook
Figure 2.4 100-year Floodplain.The current 100-yr floodplain is mapped, along
with the new floodplain due to sea level rise in year 2050 and 2100.
Figure 2.5 Planning Districts and Hazard Zones
38
Technical Analysis
Task 3: Map your ‘Mappa-
ble Policies’
In Task 2 of the Policy Team, you
generated lists of ‘mappable’
policies within the plans. In order
to fully understand how hazard
zones impact each policy, it may be
useful to collect maps that reflect
the ‘place-specific terms’ within the
policies (Figure 2.2). For instance,
in Washington several policies
referred to conservation areas
and ‘natural areas’. These areas are
place-specific and when overlaid
with hazard zones, we found t
conservation areas were reducing
vulnerability by absorbing flood
waters. If we overlay the waterfront
commercial area with the hazard
zone, we see a different story—
commercial investments in areas
exposed to hazards, increasing
vulnerability. Take some time to
collect maps of your ‘place-specific
terms’ so that you can better under
their exposure to hazards.
Figure 2.6 Place- Specific Terms. Here are two place-specific terms that can
be mapped, making the policy ‘mappable’.
CHAPTER 3
40
Scoring
SCORING
Now comes the fun part: SCORING! Communities can score
the network of plans to understand policy implications within haz-
ard zones and compare plans against a national standard. The Plan
Integration for Resilience Scorecard, or scoring matrix, generates a
numeric score for each policy, plan, and the network of plans. We
recommend your team come together as a group to score poli-
cies. The POLICY TEAM may find it easier to score, because of their
familiarity with the policies. Once all team members have scored
plans, discuss your results and determine similarities. Communities
may adjust the number of evaluators based on available resources
and personnel.
Chapter 3 | 41
Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook
OBJECTIVES:
• Score your Network of Plans
MATERIALS REQUIRED:
• Planning Districts Map (or GIS layer)
• Hazard Zone boundaries map (or GIS layer)
• Maps showing mappable policies (or GIS layers)
• Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard
SKILLS RECOMMENDED:
• Ability to determine whether a policy might increase or decrease
exposure in Hazard Zones
Task 1: Create Plan Integration for Resilience ‘Score -
cards’
Using the Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard (see Appendix C),
score the ‘current hazard zone’ and ‘future hazard zone’ of all planning
districts for each applicable policy. All district scores will add up resulting
in scores per district in each hazard zone and compiled will result in a
total score for each planning document, which then accumulates into
the community’s network of plans score. An example scorecard is shown
in Figure 3.1.
3.1.1 Process
As a group, discuss whether each policy increases or decreases hazard
vulnerability. Ask yourself:
Is the policy exposing the mappable, place-specific term to the
Current Hazard Zone?
Is the policy exposing the mappable, place-specific term to the
Future Hazard Zone?
Evaluate each policy based on the number of hazard zones. For example,
in Washington we looked at two hazard zones, the current 100-year
floodplain and the future floodplain due to sea level rise by 2100. Other
communities may choose to look at fire risk, liquefaction, or other
mappable hazards. The policies of each district receive scores based on
the vulnerability to each hazard.
Checklist:
• Create Plan
Integrations for
Resilience Scorecards
• Create Tables, Maps,
and Indexes
42
Scoring
Example 2: A policy in the
City of Washington hazard
mitigation plan, which is part
of a county multi-jurisdiction
mitigation plan, states the
need for “acquisition of prop-
erties located in the city’s
repetitive loss areas…includ-
ing areas adjacent to Jack’s
Creek…passing through
areas that are largely utilities
for public housing” (Beaufort
County 2010, p. 4-14). These
areas covered three districts
(5,6 and 8). The policy of
acquisition received a score
of +1 for each of the three
districts in the current hazard
zone and a score of 0 for the
Example 1: A policy in the
infrastructure element of the
City of Washington Compre-
hensive Plan states, “Assure
the provision of public and
private parking in support of
increased development and
activity” (City of Washing-
ton, 2013, p. 30). The City of
Washington aims to expand
infrastructure capacity to fos-
ter downtown development,
which is entirely in the 100-
year floodplain and future
hazard zone due to sea level
rise. There is no discussion of
vertical elevation, but in-
stead seems to disregard the
hazard completely. Thus, for
District 1, this policy received
a score of -1 for the current
hazard zone and a -1 for the
future hazard zone.
Every hazard zone in each
planning district receives a score
of ‘+1’, ‘-1’, or ‘0’ for every policy,
depending on how it affects
vulnerability in each district. In
some cases, a community policy
may reduce vulnerabilities in the
‘current hazard zone’ (+1), but may
not reduce vulnerabilities in the
‘future hazard zone’ (-1), resulting
in an accumulated final score of
zero (0).
+1’ indicates a policy that
positively affects (that is, to reduce)
vulnerability. In other words,
is it reducing the community’s
exposure to hazards?
‘-1’ indicates a likely negative
effect, or an increase in
vulnerability, as a result of policy
implementation. In other words,
is it increasing the community’s
exposure to hazards?
‘0’ indicates that the policy does
not affect vulnerability in the
planning district.
Keep in mind, there is a level of
professional judgment in the
scoring process. The policies can
be complex and nuanced. It is not
appropriate to only think two-
dimensionally, or that it is inside
or outside of the hazard zone.
Carefully consider each policy and
ask yourself how the policy avoids
or resists the hazard. Below are
some policy examples:
Chapter 3 | 43
Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook
Table 3.1 Example of Portion of Scorecard for Washington, NC.
Planning District 1 2
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Permitted Land Use
The City of Washington will give priority to the protection of the
following shoreline assets…(p.185).Current Hazard Zone 1 1
Future Hazard Zone 1 1
The City should discourage development in areas designated for light-
density residential use with the exception of low-density residential/
agriculture land uses (see Map 21). Because of its current land use
patterns, rezoning and amendments to the future land use map
should carefully balance with a demonstrated need for such proposed
development that will be the overall best management policy for
Washington’s future land development. (p.189)
Current Hazard Zone 1
Future Hazard Zone 1
Industrial development which can comply with the use standards
specified by 15A NCAC7H, the City of Washington zoning ordinance and
state/federal regulations may be located within conservation classified
areas. (p. 191)
Current Hazard Zone -1
Future Hazard Zone -1
The City supports commercial development at the intersections of
major roads (i.e., in a nodal fashion) and in the Central Business District
consistent with the City’s future land use map. (p.192)
Current Hazard Zone -1
Future Hazard Zone -1
44
Scoring
Task 2: Analyze the Plan Integration Scores
You can analyze the final scores within the Plan Integration for Resilience
Scorecard using tables and maps. The relatively simple tables and maps
described below are helpful for initial visual comparisons and pattern
recognition.
3.2.1 Tables
Developing a table that contains the summed values for each district
and policy is one simple analysis to perform. Create separate tables for
each planning district and each plan. Figure 3.2 provides an example
table for all four plans scored in Washington, NC. You can see some
plans are scoring far better than others. Also, the tables reveal plans that
decrease vulnerabilities in the current hazard zone versus the future
hazard zone.
BOX 3.1 : Scoring the Network of Plans in Washington, NC
Most of the city of Washington, NC is located in either the 100-year floodplain or the projected sea-
level rise hazard zone. However, the relationships between ability and plan scores are not consistent.
For example, the network of local plans proposes to raise physical vulnerability in at least part of every
planning district in the city—including all of downtown (District 1), which is already highly physically
vulnerable). In contrast, policies in the network of plans are likely to reduce existing physical vulnerability
in the 100-year floodplain in Districts 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
The resilience scorecards also reveal discrepancies in the way Washington’s network of plan documents
individually affect vulnerability in the city. Most notably, Figure 3.4 shows that the current comprehensive
plan receives negative scores in several planning districts, particularly the Central Business District,
indicating that the plan is likely to increase vulnerability in parts of the city, whereas the hazard mitigation
plan receives uniformly positive scores. These results point to differences in emphasis; the comprehensive
plan is largely concerned with economic development, while the mitigation plan’s explicit focus is
vulnerability reduction.
The resilience scorecards for Washington, NC indicate that the city’s plans are having an overall effect of
increasing vulnerability to coastal flooding in many areas, a troubling finding for an already vulnerable
community. They also reveal conflicts between the documents in the community’s network of plans;
some appear to be exacerbating vulnerability, even as others work to reduce it. These and other insights
revealed through the resilience scorecard analytical method will be valuable for local planners and
decision-makers as they work to improve planning for coastal flooding hazards in Washington.
Chapter 3 | 45
Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook
Land
Policy
District:
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 TOTAL
(ALL
LPDs)
Development Regulations
Permitted Land Use
[GOAL] Public facilities and publicly
owned lands will be used at their
highest and best use, except for
those public lands that are in
environmentally sensitive locations,
where conservation should be the
objective. (p. 47)
Current
hazard
zone
1 1 2
Future
hazard
zone
1 1 2
Density of Land Use
Subdivision Regulations
Strengthen controls on
development within flood-prone
and wetland areas by improving
existing ordinances, such as the
erosion and sediment control
ordinance, zoning ordinance,
subdivision ordinance, flood plain
regulations and other development
regulations. (p. 46)
Current
hazard
zone
1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Future
hazard
zone
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Zoning Overlays
Consider creation of a Conservation
Overlay Zoning District to help
protect sensitive areas. (p. 42)
Current
hazard
zone
1 1 2
Future
hazard
zone
1 1 2
Increase and bolster the number
of key destinations near the
downtown and waterfront to
provide multiple components
and uses catering to different
audiences. (p. 38)
Current
hazard
zone
-1 -1 -1 -1 -4
46
Scoring
Future
hazard
zone
-1 -1 -1 -1 -4
Seek out opportunities to enhance
downtown as a center of arts and
cultural resources. Promote efforts
to enhance the visibility and use of
the historic Turnage Theater. (p44)
Current
hazard
zone
-1 -1
Future
hazard
zone
-1 -1
Setbacks or Buffer Zones
Cluster Development
(Policy Category Total)Current
hazard
zone
-1 2 0 0 1 3 0 0 5
Future
hazard
zone
-1 2 1 0 1 3 0 0 6
Figure 3.2 Scores by district, plan, and hazard zone for Washington, NC
Core Land Use
(CAMA)
2023
Comprehensive Hazard Mitigation
Parks &
Recreation
All Four Plans
(Combined)
District (total
score for all
policies in
district)
100-year
Floodplain SLR 100-year
Floodplain SLR 100-year
Floodplain SLR 100-year
Floodplain SLR 100-year
Floodplain SLR
District 1
Downtown)-4 -7 -6 -6 6 0 0 0 -4 -13
District 2 -1 -4 -3 -3 5 0 0 0 1 -7
District 3 -3 -5 -1 -1 1 0 0 0 -3 -6
District 4 -3 -4 0 0 1 0 0 0 -2 -4
District 5 -1 -4 -1 -1 4 0 0 0 2 -5
District 6 0 -3 -1 -1 5 0 0 0 4 -4
District 7 -2 -5 -3 -3 6 0 0 0 1 -8
District 8 -3 -6 -2 -2 6 0 0 0 1 -8
TOTAL -17 -38 -17 -17 34 0 0 0 0 -55
Figure 3.2 Scores by district, and hazard zone for Washington, NC for the
comprehensive plan.
Chapter 3 | 47
Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook
3.2.2 Maps
To go a step further, you can
create choropleth maps from the
totals and sub-totals (see Figure
3.4). Figure 3.4 shows maps for
each planning document. Notice
that scores are not given to
areas outside the hazard zones.
Remember, scores are given for
Figure 3.3 Comparing Scores of Different Planning Documents in
Washington, NC.
each hazard zone per policy in
each planning district. Because of
this, we can see different scores
in each planning district because
of the geographies of the hazard
zones. For instance, in Figure 3.4,
the Core Land Use (CAMA) plan
had more policies focused on
reducing vulnerabilities in ‘current
48
Scoring
Figure 3.4 Composite score among all plans.
hazard zones’ (hatched and darker
shade of green) in the western-
most planning district (district 2),
than the areas in the ‘future hazard
zones’ (dotted and lighter green).
Additionally, we can compare maps
across plans. In Washington, NC,
the comprehensive plan and the
land use plan had more policies
that increased vulnerabilities in
current and future hazard zones,
while the hazard mitigation plan
and park and open space plan
actively decreased vulnerabilities.
Figure 3.5 provides the composite
Policy Scores Map by planning
district for all plans in Washington.
CHAPTER 4
50
Vulnerability
VULNERABILITY
Congratulations, your community has a resilience score—now
what? Your scores may reveal areas in the community where poli-
cies are increasing or decreasing vulnerabilities. The areas of your
community where policies increase vulnerability and which poli-
cies need to change can leave you with a daunting feeling. To help
prioritize actions and policy changes, we recommend ‘unpacking’
the vulnerabilities a bit more into: physical and social vulnerabili-
ties.
Physical vulnerability refers to buildings, structures, and infrastruc-
ture that are exposed to hazards.
Social vulnerability refers to the people that are exposed to haz-
ards.
Chapter 4 | 51
Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook
Checklist:
• Assess Physical
Vulnerability
• Assess Social
Vulnerability
In both cases, not all types of structures or people respond in the
same way to disasters. Knowing and understanding which people
and structures may have a more difficult time bouncing back from
the event will point to needs in the community. In this chapter,
you will overlay and compare physical and social vulnerability
‘hotspots’ with the resilience scores map as seen in Figure 4.1. We
recommend using GIS to calculate the physical and social vulnera-
bility by district. We understand GIS may be challenging for some
communities and see this chapter as an enhancement to smarter
planning. Communities that are able to assess their physical and
social vulnerability are performing the ‘gold standard’ for the Plan
Integration for Resilience Scorecard.
OBJECTIVES:
• Assess physical and social vulnerability
MATERIALS REQUIRED:
• Planning Districts Map (or GIS layer)
• Hazard Zone boundaries map (or GIS layer)
• Policy Scores Map
• Data on physical vulnerability (improved parcel value)
• Data on social vulnerability (from Census Bureau)
SKILLS RECOMMENDED:
• GIS knowledge and experience creating maps (recommended)
Task 1: Assess Physical Vulnerability
What is physical vulnerability? The simplest way to view physical
vulnerability is to think about the investments that will be impacted
if a disaster strikes. What structures—whether homes or businesses—
will need support to recover? What infrastructure—whether roads,
public transportation services, stormwater drains, electrical, water
and wastewater lines and facilities or even levees and dams—will be
damaged or effected by the disaster? What other critical community
facilities—such as schools, fire stations, police stations, hospitals, post
offices, etc.—will be exposed to hazards? As you can imagine there are a
number of elements in the built environment that may be affected.
52
Vulnerability
Figure 4.1 Overlay and compare Physical Vulnerability, Social Vulnerability,
and Policy Score Map to find hotspots and priority areas.
Chapter 4 | 53
Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook
One strategy to calculate
physical vulnerability is to use
the improved tax value and
parcel data, along with the
previously delineated hazard
zones and planning districts.
While the improved tax value
data is not all encompassing, it
provides two benefits:
All communities have appraisal
records available, making it
easily accessible.
The improved tax value acts as
a simple proxy for investments
in the community.
Of course, there are drawbacks
to using this data. For instance,
some rural communities do
not always have up-to-date
reappraisals. We encourage
you to explore other metrics
and indicators as they fit your
community’s context.
Figure 4.2 shows physical
vulnerability in Washington,
NC planning districts using
the improved parcel value.
The most physically vulnerable
area is the Central Business
District. It is not a surprise that
compared to the scorecard, the
Central Business District also
scored low because policies
within plans were increasing
vulnerability in hazard zones.
Not only are policies guiding
investments into the hazardous
areas, property owners are
making investments in the area.
Policies should focus on ways
to decrease vulnerabilities to
protect investments.
Figure 4.2 Physical Vulnerability by Planning District in Washington, NC.
54
Vulnerability
4.1.1 Mapping Parcel Value
Gather the latest improved
parcel value from the appraisal
records database, which is usually
provided by the county assessor.
Also gather the latest parcel
boundary shapefile with the parcel
code. Ideally you’ll want to create a
GIS layer by joining the improved
tax value data to the parcel
boundary data using the parcel
code shared by both datasets.
Find the average improved parcel
values for each planning district.
Figure 4.3 displays the results from
Washington, NC. The improved
values are divided into quintiles
by planning district, where 5 is the
highest and 1 is the lowest. Values
across districts are $0.7 to $12.1
per square foot in the 100-year
floodplain and $2.9 to $22.2 per
square foot in the sea-level rise
zone. Comparing this to the plan
policy scores for each district we
can see how some districts, like
District 1 have higher improved
value, but also have the lowest
policy scores.
Figure 4.3 Physical Vulnerability [Improved value (U.S. dollar per square
foot)] and plan policy scores for 100-year floodplain and sea-level rise (SLR)
zones.
Notes:
Improved values (U.S. dollars per square foot) by planning district were divided into five
groups, with 5 = highest quintile and 1 = lowest quintile. This metric of physical vulnera-
bility can be compared to the policy scores to determine which hazards areas might be
impact more investments.
Chapter 4 | 55
Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook
BOX 4.1
HAZUS-MH Flood Loss Tool
To quantify the economic and social aspects of flood vulnerability,
HAZUS-MH flood loss tool provides a national level database of not
only demographic (age, income, race etc.) and infrastructure data, but
also critical facilities, transportation and utility networks, and building
inventory (GBS: general building stock). Figure X shows how HAZUS-
MH is applied to calculate annualized loss values by different hazard
zones. HAZUS provides a table that represents census block, hazard
type and flood frequency for the risk assessment performed. In this
example, a census block contains flood loss estimates for the 0.2%
(500-year) and 10% (10-year) annual chance events.
Figure X. Example showing economic impacts based on HAZUS results
19 Guidance for Flood Risk Analysis and Mapping from FEMA, 2014: p.7
56
Vulnerability
4.1.2 Looking at Critical
Facilities and Infrastructure
Take your analysis a step further
by overlaying critical facilities
and other infrastructure. Critical
facilities include structures and
infrastructure that are important
for proper functioning of a
community including, water and
wastewater treatment facilities,
electricity facilities, hospitals,
police and fire departments,
schools, public transportation
facilities, etc. The true value of
a critical facility is often greater
than the appraised value, in that
when a community’s electricity
is out for several days, the quality
of life is significantly affected.
Pull this data, which is already
collected by emergency managers
within hazard mitigation plans,
and overlay with parcel values.
Identify which districts have high
parcel values and critical facilities.
The intersection of the two create
hotspots where policies and
plans can align to protect and
reduce vulnerability to the critical
components of our communities.
Online Physical
Vulnerability Tools:
USGS Structures Inventory
Database provides critical
facilities data (http://
nationalmap.gov/structures.
html) reproduced by NOAA
within the coastal geographies
including coastal shoreline
counties, coastal watershed
counties, coastal states, the
coastal zone and FEMA flood
zones. There are 40 different
types of facilities grouped
into 4 categories; Fire/
EMS, Hospital/Medical, Law
Enforcement, and Schools.
The data includes point
locations and can be
downloaded in ESRI
geodatabase format for U.S
coastal areas. Data can be
downloaded from the web
at: ftp://rockyftp.cr.usgs.gov/
vdelivery/Datasets/Staged/
Struct/GDB/
Definitions, methodologies and
the geographic descriptions
can be found here: https://
coast.noaa.gov/dataregistry/
search/collection/info/
criticalfacilities
Hazus-MH Software from
FEMA provides data on
physical damage to residential
and commercial buildings,
schools, critical facilities, and
infrastructure and is free to
download.
Task 2: Assess Social Vul-
nerability
Social vulnerability is a term
that emerged in the disaster
research field in the 1990’s and
is considered a person or groups
“capacity to anticipate, cope
with, resist and recover from the
impacts of a natural hazard.” 20
In other words, disasters affect
people in different ways, resulting
in some populations that are
more vulnerable. There are a
number of ways to assess social
vulnerability and there are a
number of methodologies in the
research literature. The approach
we will describe from the Center
for Disease Control (CDC) has two
benefits:
1) Data is easy to access, utilizing
data collected from the U.S. Census
Bureau’s American Community
Survey, and
2) The demographic information
is combined to generate areas of
potential ‘need’.
20 Blaikie, P.M., T. Cannon, I. Davis, and B. Wisner. At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulner-
ability and Disasters. London: Routledge, 1994. P.
Chapter 4 | 57
Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook
Figure 4.3 Social Vulnerability by Planning Districts. Higher ‘flag counts’
represent areas with higher levels of social vulnerability and a social vul-
nerability ‘hotspot’.
4.2.1 Assess Social
Vulnerability
Figure 4.3 shows the social
vulnerability by planning district
of Washington, NC overlaid with
hazard zones. The most socially
vulnerable area is just north of
the Central Business District and
exposed to flood hazards. While
the policies in this area were not
increasing vulnerability, additional
attention and investments in this
area will make the community
more resilient. There are several
metrics and indicators to assess
social vulnerability. The Center for
Disease Control (CDC) has mapped
social vulnerability by county and
Census tract and specifically looks
at:
58
Vulnerability
Socioeconomic characteristics
• Below poverty
• Unemployed
• Income
• No high school diploma
Household composition and
disability characteristics
• Aged 65 or older
• Aged 17 or younger
• Civilian with a disability
• Single-Parent households
Minority status and language
barriers
• Minority
• Speak English “less than well”
Housing and transportation
characteristics
• Multi-unit structures
• Mobile homes
• Crowding
• No vehicle
• Group quarters
The CDC’s 15 social vulnerability
indicators (SVI) allow communities
large and small to access mapped
data as well as download data to
use in GIS software. Of course, this
data does not need to be gathered
in a vacuum. Communities can
also use data already gathered in
other planning initiatives. If your
community already has data on
socially vulnerable populations,
use it.
Because CDC’s data comes
from the U.S. Census Bureau,
communities that want to take
a closer look can download data
at the finer scale of Census block
group. Communities can consider
using all 15 indicators or a few
that may be more applicable to
the context. For communities
that would like to analyze their
communities at the block group
level:
1. Gather Census block group
data as listed in the subheadings
above. Calculate each indicator as
a proportion of the region or state
data by planning district. Join the
census data to the block group
boundary layer using the shared
block group code.
2. Overlay and combine indicators
into the larger categories
(socioeconomic characteristics,
household composition and
disability characteristics, minority
status and language barriers,
and Housing and transportation
characteristics). By combining
multiple data sets into one map,
we can begin to see where specific
needs are emerging which may
influence response and recovery
times.
3. Overlay all 15 indicators into
one map to create the social
vulnerability ‘hotspots’.
4. Overlay social vulnerability
indicators with the current and
future hazard zones to determine
the planning districts exposed to
hazards.
Chapter 4 | 59
Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook
Figure 4.4 displays social vulnerability compared to policy scores within
the hazard zones.
Social vulnerability values by
planning district are based on
SVI flag counts, weighted by
population density and then
divided into four groups, with 4 =
highest quartile (most vulnerable)
and 1 = lowest quartile (least
vulnerable). Red denotes the
‘current hazard zone’, while yellow
is used for the ‘future hazard zone’.
The policy scores are the sum of
scores for policies found in four
of Washington’s plans: the Core
Land Use Plan (“CAMA”), the 2023
Comprehensive Plan, the Beaufort
County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard
Mitigation Plan, and the Parks
& Recreation Master Plan. Dark
blue denotes the ‘current hazard
zone’ and light blue is used for the
‘future hazard zone’. Raw scores
were again reclassified into 4
categories, using the range and
classifications previously identified:
“4” for the lowest scores (-12 to -7);
“3” for scores -6 to -1; “2” for scores
0 to 4; and “1” for the highest
scores (5 to 9). Because so few
policies in the plans were directly
related to social vulnerability, most
districts actually receive scores of
“0” (no score).
60
Vulnerability
The Center for Disease Control has mapped social vulnerability by county and
specifically looks at socioeconomic characteristics, household composition and
disability characteristics, minority status and language barriers, and housing
and transportation characteristics. (http://svi.cdc.gov/map.aspx)
Digital Coast, NOAA Coastal Services displays hundreds of maps on hazard
vulnerability, natural vulnerability, and social vulnerability. (http://csc.noaa.gov/
digitalcoast/dataregistry/#/)
NOAA, Office of Science and Technology- Mapping Social Vulnerability
maps coastal cities and their social vulnerability which includes, labor force
characteristics, housing characteristics, poverty, population composition, and
personal disruption. (http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/humandimensions/social-
indicators/map)
NOAA’s State of the Coast displays population data for coastal counties in the
U.S. It also provides important information on coastal communities, economies,
ecosystems, climate, and more. (http://stateofthecoast.noaa.gov/population/
welcome.html)
The Texas Planning Atlas, as discuss in Masterson et al., 2014, provides social
vulnerability indicators described above. Currently, the Atlas only covers
Texas, but we anticipate ‘lighting up’ other states in the near future. (http://
coastalatlas.arch.tamu.edu/)
Esri SoVI Mapping Tool summarizes risk for states and counties. At
scales greater than 1:3 million, vulnerability is calculated on the state
level. At scales less than 1:3 million, scores are calculated for each
county. Although this web service provides a simplistic view of social
vulnerability, it shows which areas have a greater potential for damage
caused by disaster events. (http://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.
html?layers=0a85781f7890497185d6cde6760a20c5&useExisting=1)
The U.S. Census Bureau, Center for Economic Studies has developed a web
mapping tool for communities to better understand their economies. On The
Map (http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/) lets you evaluate the primary industries,
and the inflow and outflow of your community, among other things.
Social Explorer is an interactive website that pulls Census data in an easy to read
format, through maps, tables, graphs. (http://www.socialexplorer.com/explore/
tables)
American FactFinder has downloadable data from the U.S. Census Bureau
and communities can pull Census Block Group boundary information
and shapefiles (https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/
index.xhtml; https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/geo/shapefiles/index.
php?year=2010&layergroup=Block+Groups)
CHAPTER 5
62
Stories
STORIES
Boefore you communicate with agencies, residents, and other
stakeholders, consider your community’s plan integration story.
This chapter tells the plan integration for resilience story of two
communities’ network of plans. Both communities face develop-
ment pressures and have successfully integrated promising strat-
egies to reduce vulnerabilities. The first community has far better
strategies for undeveloped areas, while the second community has
innovative strategies in already developed areas. Learn from their
plan integration stories to better incorporate the lessons learned
into your own community. Identifying strategies within other com-
munities will prepare you to change your own community’s plan
integration for resilience story.
Chapter 5 | 63
Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook
Checklist:
• Identify promising
strategies for
undeveloped areas
• Identify promising
strategies for developed
and built-out areasOBJECTIVES:
• Learn from other communities’ network of plans
• Identify strategies for undeveloped and developed areas
• Consider ways to incorporate lessons into your own community
SKILLS RECOMMENDED:
• Familiarity with the Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard
• Understanding of policies tools
Task 1: Identify promising strategies for undeveloped
areas
To begin, let’s start with the low hanging fruit or policy changes that
effect undeveloped areas. Here, we focus on League City, Texas, a fairly
young community with large amounts of undeveloped land slated to
grow considerably in the coming decades. Communities like League City,
have the potential to change the course of history and guide develop
to less vulnerable areas or build in such a way to reduce vulnerabilities.
Carefully read through the case study and identify strategies that may be
applicable to areas in your community that are undeveloped or expected
to grow.
64
Stories
Background
League City, TX is a bedroom
suburb of Houston located in
low-lying coastal region facing
significant flooding and hurricane
hazards. The city has experienced
four major flood events since
2000 that were designated as
Presidential Disaster Declarations
and thus eligible for federal
recovery funds. Additionally, the
city is rapidly growing with a
population increase from 83,500
in 2010 to a projected 228,000 in
2040 (League City 2013). Current
land use patterns are dominated
by conventional development
characterized by low-to-moderate
density suburban residential
neighborhoods, commercial
strip corridors and retail centers.
About 4,730 acres (15% of the
city’s total land area) is in the
100-year floodplain mostly due to
the Clear Creek riparian area that
runs east to west through League
City. Of the floodplain lands,
only 496 acres are designated as
permanent open space (public
parkland and conservation
areas), while only 496 acres of
Plans Evaluated:
• League City
Comprehensive Plan
2035—June 2013
• City of League City Local
mitigation Plan, 2010
• 5-Year Strategic Plan for
League City, Texas
• City of League City, Texas
Parks & Open Space
Master Plan – November
2006
floodplain lands designated as
permanent open space (public
parkland and conservation areas),
and the remaining 4,234 acres
of floodplain lands are privately
owned. There is considerable
potential for increased floodplain
development as about 57% of the
privately-owned floodplain land
is undeveloped. Past floodplain
development has fragmented
aquatic systems and filled in
wetlands along major coastal
creeks and lake shorelines,
which offer critical flood hazard
mitigation functions.
City (State)Area of Hazard Zone (%)Population in Hazard
Zone (%)Standardized Parcel Value
100-yr*2100 SLR**100-yr 2100 SLR 100-yr 2100 SLR
League City (TX)8.1 sq.mi
(15.4%)
19.5 sq.mi
(37.0%)
8,488
(9.9%)
41,811
(49.0%)
$2.65/sq.ft
(10.7%)
$4.75/sq.ft
(43.1%)
*: 100-year floodplain
**: Estimated sea level rise change in 2100 (Excludes 100-year floodplain); League City: 6.29 ft.
5.1.1 The Plan Integration Story in League City, TX: A Case Study
Chapter 5 | 65
Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook
All plans include similar hazard
goals involving protection of
people and structures through
sound development and/or
environmental practices that
support flood mitigation. The
comprehensive plan, mitigation
plan, and parks plan contain the
city’s future land use map to guide
future new development and
redevelopment.
The following sections dive deeper
in two planning districts. The
first district (Challenger Seven
Memorial Park district or District
7), has innovative policies to
reduce vulnerabilities, but they are
within a low vulnerability area. The
second district (W Main St. district
or District 10), reveals far less
innovation of policies in areas that
are most vulnerable to hazards.
Innovative Policies in Low
Vulnerability Areas
The Challenger Seven Memorial
Park District (or District 7; see
Figure 5.1) exemplifies how the
city’s network of plans prioritizes
vulnerability reduction in districts
that are less developed. The
plan integration score has the
fifth highest score in reducing
physical vulnerability (+37),
but the third lowest in physical
vulnerability among the city’s 21
districts. About 22% (197 acres) of
the district is located in the 100-
year floodplain. Of the current
floodplain land uses,
• 55% (110 acres) is designated
as park,
• 31% (60 acres) as private
developable open space, and
• 14% (27 acres) as low-density
single-family housing (see
Figure 5.1).
Among the four plans, only the
comprehensive plan includes
policies that support more
development in the floodplain in
this district. These include zoning
policies that allow “granny flats”
in existing single-family homes
and designate privately owned
open spaces for low-density
development. However, the
plans place more attention on
“the Comprehensive Plan
embraces the intentions and
recommendations of other plans
and serves as a bridge tying
the solutions of other plans [to
achieve]…the desired character
and development patterns in the
community”
(League City 2011, p. 4).
Overview of Network of Plans
League City’s network of four
plans (comprehensive, hazard
mitigation, parks, and capital
improvements) is highly integrated
and supports a common policy
framework aimed at hazard
vulnerability reduction. The
introduction of the comprehensive
plan reflects the city’s strong
commitment to plan integration
by indicating that,
66
Stories
avoidance of future development
in the floodplain, especially in
the Clear Creek riparian area that
runs along the southern boundary
of the district (see Figure 5.1).
Several prominent themes of
policies work together to reduce
new floodplain development
vulnerabilities:
Land use regulations aimed
at reducing vulnerability in
undeveloped floodplains:
Figure 5.1: District 7, League City Texas
• The comprehensive plan
proposes new floodplain
development with buffer
regulations to enhance
preservation of floodplain
riparian lands.
• The comprehensive plan
proposes subdivision
regulations that require
clustering and open space
dedication standards for setting
aside natural areas that include
floodplains.
Chapter 5 | 67
Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook
• The implementation elements
of the hazard mitigation plan
and parks plan explicitly
indicate that the city revise
ordinances to be consistent with
the proposed changes in the
comprehensive plan.
Public spending for land
acquisition in proposed
conservation areas in undeveloped
floodplains:
• The comprehensive plan, parks
plan, and hazard mitigation plan
all specify that land acquisition
funds be used to target riparian
areas and wetlands that serve
to mitigate flood impacts,
provide recreation and water
conservation benefits, as well
as create trails that link open
spaces.
Public facility investments aimed
at reducing impacts of flooding:
• The comprehensive plan and
parks plan support investment
in stormwater management
facilities (e.g., rain gardens and
swales) in parks to provide
flood mitigation and other
environmental benefits to
surrounding neighborhoods.
• The parks plan and hazard
mitigation plan propose a
string of flood detention
lakes connected by trails for a
regional drainage corridor.
• The mitigation plan prohibits
construction of government
buildings and special needs
facilities (medical facilities,
nursing homes) in floodplains.
Development limits are tied
to evacuation times for new
developments:
• The hazard mitigation plan and
comprehensive plan support
setting density limit standards
due to the impacts of new
development on evacuation
times along emergency routes.
Little Attention to High
Vulnerability Areas
The W. Main St. District (or District
10; see Figure 5.2) offers of an
example of how the network of
plans gives far less attention to
reducing vulnerability in districts
that are physically vulnerable.
The district has the fourth
lowest policy score (+12), but
has the sixth highest of physical
vulnerability among 21 districts
in the city. About 46% (100 acres)
of the district is located in the
100-year floodplain, with limited
opportunity for new development.
Roughly,
• 71% (71 acres) of the
floodplain land is used as low-
density single-family housing,
• 5% (5 acres) in commercial use
• 2% (2 acres) as park land (see
Figure – annotated google
map).
• The remaining floodplain
land use includes private
undevelopable open space
(22%, 22 acres), but none of
the private open space land is
developable.
68
Stories
Figure 5.2: District 10, League City, Texas
Chapter 5 | 69
Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook
Policies in the comprehensive plan
support increased development
in the 100-year floodplain in
this district, including zoning
policies that support infill
development by allowing a
“granny flat” into any existing
single family home, and design
guidelines that support infill on
large lots currently occupied
by a residential unit that can be
subdivided. W. Main St. district
(District 10) does not include a
high priority conservation district
like Clear Creek riparian areas. As
a result, many of the conservation
protection policies that are
relevant to the Challenger Seven
Memorial Park district (District 7)
are not applicable in District 10.
Despite this, a few policies deal
with reducing vulnerability to
existing development:
• Public facility investment
policies aimed at reducing
impacts from flooding appear
in comprehensive plan, hazard
mitigation plan, and parks plan.
Examples include best practices
for stormwater mitigation (e.g.,
pervious pavement for parking
lots, detention ponds, rain
gardens, and vegetative swales),
and purchase of drainage
easements in the floodplain.
• Affordable housing includes
a stormwater drainage
infrastructure policy aimed
at an existing underserved,
low-income neighborhood in
floodplain areas, but this policy
is not coordinated with other
plans.
• The hazard mitigation plan
includes a land acquisition
program for repetitive flood
loss properties in existing
neighborhoods, but the
targeting of properties is
not coordinated with the
future land use policies in the
comprehensive plan or other
local plans.
Task 2: Identify best
strategies for built-out
areas
Many communities already
fully developed or built-out
and exposed to hazards may
fear there are limited options to
reduce vulnerability. Here, we
focus on Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
one of the most vulnerable cities
in the United States. Carefully
read through the case study
and identify strategies that may
be applicable to areas in your
community that are already
developed.
70
Stories
City (State)Area of Hazard Zone (%)Population in Hazard
Zone (%)Standardized Parcel Value
100-yr*2100 SLR**100-yr 2100 SLR 100-yr 2100 SLR
Fort Lauderdale (FL)14.22 sq.mi
(44%)
65,414
(40%)
*: 100-year floodplain
**: Estimated sea level rise change in 2100 (Excludes 100-year floodplain);
Plans Evaluated:
• 2008 Fort Lauderdale
Comprehensive Plan
• 2012 Enhanced Local
Mitigation Strategy for
Broward County
• 2014 Broward County
Comprehensive Plan
• The City of Fort
Lauderdale 2010–2015
Consolidated Plan
• 2007 Downtown Master
Plan
• 2008 Downtown New
River Master Plan
• 2007 Davie Boulevard
Corridor Master Plan
• 2004 South Andrews
Avenue Master Plan
Background
Fort Lauderdale is the largest
city in Broward County, Florida.
Located along the state’s
southeastern coast and nicknamed
the “Venice of America” due to its
many canals, the city offers 337
miles of coastline. It is a principle
city of the Miami metropolitan
area, which is home to 5,564,635
people (2010 U.S. Census Bureau)
and is considered one of the
world’s most vulnerable urban
areas with respect to climate
change and hazard events. Fort
Lauderdale faces significant
flooding, thunderstorm, tornado,
and hurricane hazards (Broward
County 2012). The city is almost
entirely built out, with only
four percent remains vacant
(City of Fort Lauderdale 2008).
As a high-amenity location,
however, much potential exists
for redevelopment—including
in the 100-year floodplain, which
encompasses approximately
44% of the city. Land use in Fort
Lauderdale is a mix of:
• 55% residential (41%),
• utility (34%),
• commercial (12%),
• industrial (6%), and
• institutional (3%) uses.
Overview of Network of Plans
The city of Fort Lauderdale’s
network of eight plans (city
comprehensive plan; local
mitigation strategy; county
comprehensive plan; city
consolidated plan; downtown
master plan; downtown new river
master plan; Davie Boulevard
corridor plan; South Andrews
Avenue plan) is well-integrated
and generally reduces vulnerability
to hazards. The Coastal
Management Element of the city’s
5.2.1 The Plan Integration Story in Fort Lauderdale, FL: A Case
Study
Chapter 5 | 71
Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook
comprehensive plan essentially
satisfies the requirements of
Chapter 163, Florida Statutes that
The county’s hazard mitigation
plan places high priority on
mitigating floodplain development
in highly vulnerable areas.
Throughout the city’s network of
plans, however, much attention
is paid to development or
redevelopment of areas that are
of regional significance, known as
Regional Activity Centers (RACs).
The following sections dive deeper
into one best practice planning
district. The district (Lauderdale
Beach/Dolphin Isles or District 27),
is almost entirely developed and
highly vulnerable, yet the city has
managed to fully integrate plans
and pursue innovative policies to
reduce vulnerabilities.
“local coastal governments plan
for [and] restrict development
where development would
damage or destroy coastal
resources and protect human
life and limit public expenditures
in areas that are subject
to destruction by natural
disaster”(Fort Lauderdale 2008,
p. 4-1).
High vulnerability and high
score
The Lauderdale Beach/Dolphin
Isles district (or District 27;
Figure 5.3) is a largely residential
neighborhood located between
the Intracoastal Waterway and
the Atlantic Ocean in eastern Fort
Lauderdale. It is entirely within
the state-designated Coastal
High Hazard Area (CHHA; City of
Fort Lauderdale 2008), an overlay
zone. It ranks in the top ten of Fort
Lauderdale’s districts in physical
vulnerability and is among the
highest overall in terms of policy
score (+45), ranking 3rd out of
111 districts. As Figure 5.31 shows,
about 61.7 % (99 acres) of the
district is located in the 100-year
floodplain. Within this hazard zone,
land uses are:
• low-density single-family
housing (58%, 58 acres),
• multi-family housing (25%, 25
acres),
• community facility (5.4%, 5
acres),
• hotel (0.3%, 0.3 acres),
• commercial (4.9%, 5 acres),
• office (1%, 1 acre), and
• open space (0.3%, 0.3 acres).
Lauderdale Beach/Dolphin Isles
serves as a best practice example
because Fort Lauderdale’s
network of plans gives much
more attention to reducing
vulnerability than to increasing
development in this highly
physically vulnerable district.
72
Stories
Figure 5.3: Satellite view of the Lauderdale Beach/Dolphin Isles neighborhood
(District 27) in Fort Lauderdale, FL, with 100-year floodplain extent (blue hatch)
Chapter 5 | 73
Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook
Fifty-three polices across three
plans (city comprehensive plan;
county local mitigation strategy;
county comprehensive plan)
affect Lauderdale Beach/Dolphin
Isles. Only four polices are likely
to increase vulnerability by
promoting redevelopment and
reuse, all four of which are located
in the city comprehensive plan.
Three are linked to development
regulations and one is tied to post-
disaster reconstruction decisions.
All three of Fort Lauderdale’s
plans focus more on vulnerability
reduction. Several prominent
themes of policies work together
to reduce existing vulnerability
and to prevent vulnerability
due to future development or
redevelopment in Lauderdale
Beach/Dolphin Isles:
Development regulations aimed
at protecting coastal and hazard-
prone areas:
• Policies throughout the city
and county comprehensive
plans encourage protection
and conservation of existing
natural beaches or berm areas,
wetlands, and other types
of open space in coastal and
hazard-prone areas.
• Policies propose to regulate
inappropriate development
and limit land use densities and
intensities within the CHHA
overlay zone in sensitive areas
such as floodplains (short-term
focus on the 100-year floodplain
and long-term focus on the 500-
year floodplain).
• Enforcement and monitoring
are also encouraged with
respect to compliance with
the regulations of the Florida
Department of Environmental
Protection’s Coastal
Construction Control Line
(CCCL), a statewide program to
protect the state’s beaches and
dunes.
• Several polices suggest an
inventory of hazard-prone
properties throughout
the city, which may result
in the implementation of
development regulations, such
as setback provisions and other
site controls, to reduce future
property damages and losses.
Land acquisition and land use
guidelines aimed at reducing
vulnerability for new development
and redevelopment in coastal and
hazard prone-areas:
• Fort Lauderdale’s
comprehensive plan contains
policies suggesting that
undeveloped land in the
CHHA overlay zone should
be considered for acquisition
as recreation, open space, or
restoration to its natural state.
• All new construction along the
beachfront should be consistent
with design guidelines and
criteria established during the
designation of the CCCL.
• The impacts of development
or redevelopment are to
be limited with respect to
wetlands, water quality and
74
Stories
quantity, wildlife habitat, living
marine resources, and beach
dune system. Similarly, drainage
and stormwater management
in new developments should
follow designated standards to
mitigate future impacts.
Directing capital funding related to
coastal and hazard-prone areas:
• Policies in Broward County’s
comprehensive plan and the
hazard mitigation plan direct
public expenditures to improve
public infrastructure in the
CHHA overlay zone, including
existing wellfields, surface or
subsurface storage facilities,
control structures, water and
wastewater treatment plants,
and transmission infrastructure.
• Several policies in the county’s
comprehensive plan propose
that capital improvement funds
focus on projects which restore
the dune system and enhance
natural resources, such as beach
nourishment.
• Policies in the hazard mitigation
plan require that hazard
mitigation considerations link
to the capital improvement
funding process.
Strategies to Further
Increase Resilience and Plan
Integration
Like much of Fort Lauderdale, the
Lauderdale Beach/Dolphin Isles
neighborhood (or District 27) is
almost fully built out and much
of it is in the 100-year floodplain.
Options are therefore limited
with respect to reducing future
physical vulnerability. Rather
than directing new development
to less hazardous areas, which
is a good option for cities that
have yet to reach build-out and/
or have substantial lands outside
the hazard zone, the Lauderdale
Beach/Dolphin Isles district (and
Fort Lauderdale as a whole)
must build resilience and plan
integration through measures
that can be applied in situ. The
themes described above may be
complemented through several
additions:
• In addition to requiring new
development in the CHHA
overlay zone to meet certain
criteria, Fort Lauderdale’s
network of plans could focus
on elevation requirements
for existing structures,
directing grants and funding
to preventative elevation of
single-family and multi-family
structures above current flood
safety standards.
• To enhance the land acquisition
strategy in Fort Lauderdale’s
comprehensive plan,
density transfer or transfer-
of-development programs
could be encouraged that
include hazard-prone coastal
neighborhoods like Lauderdale
Beach/Dolphin Isles.
• In addition to protecting
the coastal ecology through
conservation, overlay
regulations, and beach
nourishment, vulnerability
could be reduced by directing
capital funds to more holistic
vegetation-based approaches,
such as encouraging
reforestation and vegetated
dunes on the seaward side and
mangrove areas in the canals.
Glossary | 75
Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook
GLOSSARY
Term Definition Source
100-year
Floodplain
Land area predicted to flood during a 100-year
storm event, which by definition has a 1 % chance of
occurring in a given year.
http://www.fema.gov
2010 Sea Level
Rise
The new 100-year floodplain in 2100 due to sea level
rise
http://www.fema.gov
Acquire Land &
Property
Purchase land/property in hazard area North Carolina Division of
Emergency Management,
1998
Built Environment The built environment is a material, spatial and
cultural product of human labor that combines
physical elements and energy in forms for living,
working and playing. It has been defined as “the
humanitarian-made space in which people live,
work, and recreate on a day-to-day basis.
Roof, K; Oleru N. (2008).
“Public Health: Seattle and
King County’s Push for the
Built Environment.”. J Environ
Health 71: 24–27.
Capital
Improvement
Programming (CIP)
Capital improvements programs are timetables that
define when, where, and what level of municipal
services a government will supply. Typically a part
of the comprehensive plan, the CIP sets public
spending on improvements for the ensuing five to
ten years. Timetables can be effective at managing
growth because it is rarely feasible for a developer
to provide water, sewer and other services without a
public subsidy.
North Carolina Division of
Emergency Management,
1998
Central Business
District
The commercial and business center of a city. In
larger cities, it is often synonymous with the city’s
“financial district”
www. scalloway.org.uk
Cluster
Development
Provision requiring clustering of development away
from hazardous areas, such as through conservation
subdivisions
North Carolina Division of
Emergency Management,
1998
Coastal High-
hazard Areas
An area of special flood hazard extending from
offshore to the inland limit of a primary frontal dune
along an open coast and any other area subject to
high velocity wave action from storms or seismic
sources. The coastal high hazard area is identified
as Zone V on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs).
Special floodplain management requirements
apply in V Zones including the requirement that all
buildings be elevated on piles or columns.
http://www.fema.gov
76
Glossary
Comprehensive
Plan
Comprehensive plans identify how a community
should be developed and where development
should not occur. They govern the rate, intensity,
form and quality of physical development. A
thorough comprehensive plan will also address
economic development, environmental, social and
hazard mitigation concerns.
North Carolina Division of
Emergency Management,
1998
Density Bonuses Density bonuses such as ability to develop with
greater density in return for dedication or donation
of land in areas subject to hazards
North Carolina Division of
Emergency Management,
1998
Density of Land
Use
Provision regulating density (e.g. units per acre); may
be tied to zoning code
North Carolina Division of
Emergency Management,
1998
Design/
Construction
Guidelines/
Requirements
Guidelines or requirements that apply to the design
or construction of developments in hazard areas
North Carolina Division of
Emergency Management,
1998
Development
Moratorium
Provision imposing a moratorium on development
for a set period of time after a hazard event to allow
for consideration of land use change
North Carolina Division of
Emergency Management,
1998
Disaster Mitigation
Act of 2000 (DMA)
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA) requires
all local governments to adopt hazard mitigation
plans approved by FEMA to be eligible for federal
pre and post-disaster mitigation funds. For the first
time, federal policy shifted to a more proactive
approach- hazard mitigation planning.
North Carolina Division of
Emergency Management,
1998
Drainage
Improvements or
Flood Control
Provision that pertains to drainage or flooding issues
within the community
North Carolina Division of
Emergency Management,
1998
Ecosystem
Enhancement
Provision that seeks to improve or preserve the
functioning of the natural environment within the
community
North Carolina Division of
Emergency Management,
1998
EDA U.S. Economic Development Administration https://www.eda.gov
Elevating Provision pertaining to the physical elevation of
structures in hazard zones
North Carolina Division of
Emergency Management,
1998
Glossary | 77
Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook
Emergency
Management
The creation of plans through which communities
reduce vulnerability to hazards and cope with
disasters.
“Maine Emergency
Management Agency”
(2007). “What is
Emergency Management?”
Drabek, Thomas (1991).
Emergency Management:
Principles and Practice
for Local Government.
Washington, D.C.:
International City
Management Association. pp.
xvii.
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency https://www3.epa.gov
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency http://www.fema.gov
Floodplain
Management
Floodplain management addresses the hazard risk
of communities partially or entirely located in a
floodplain. The term also refers to the application of
structural mitigation measures and codes to existing
or proposed buildings in the floodplain.
North Carolina Division of
Emergency Management,
1998
Functional Plan The planning that is made to ensure smooth
working of the organization taking into account of
the needs of each and every department.
http://www.yourarticlelibrary.
com/planning/planning-
types-corporate-operational-
functional-and-proactive-
planning/25637/
Future Land Use
Plan
Urban planning encompassing various disciplines
which seek to order and regulate land use in an
efficient and ethical way, thus preventing land-
use conflicts. Governments use land-use planning
to manage the development of land within their
jurisdictions.
Young, A., 2003
Hazard Exposure Hazard exposure is a state of being in which a person
or a group of people remain in an imminent risk of
danger. Such dangers are related to the workplace
health safety and environment or day to day life.
https://www.safeopedia.
com/definition/681/hazard-
exposure-safety
Hazard Mitigation
Plan
Hazard mitigation is the practice of reducing risks to
people and property from natural disasters. A hazard
mitigation plan specifies actions a community will
take to reduce its vulnerability to natural hazards or
to minimize the impact of a hazard event.
North Carolina Division of
Emergency Management,
1998
78
Glossary
Hazard Zones In the guide book, hazard zones equal to flood
zones. Flood zones are geographic areas that the
FEMA has defined according to varying levels
of flood risk. These zones are depicted on a
community’s Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) or
Flood Hazard Boundary Map. Each zone reflects the
severity or type of flooding in the area.
http://www.fema.gov
Historic District A historic district is a group of buildings, properties,
or sites that have been designated by one of
several entities on different levels as historically
or architecturally significant. Buildings, structures,
objects and sites within a historic district are
normally divided into two categories, contributing
and non-contributing.
“History of Local Historic
Districts”. Establishing
Local Historic Districts.
Massachusetts Historical
Commission.
HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development
http://portal.hud.gov/
hudportal/HUD
Impact / Special
Study /Protection
Fees
Provision requiring impact fees, special study fees, or
protection fees for development in hazardous areas;
fees could cover costs of structural protection
North Carolina Division of
Emergency Management,
1998
Infrastructure Infrastructure refers to structures, systems, and
facilities serving a country, city, or area, including
the services and facilities necessary for its economy
to function. It typically characterizes technical
structures such as roads, bridges, tunnels, water
supply, sewers, electrical grids, telecommunications,
and so forth, and can be defined as “the physical
components of interrelated systems providing
commodities and services essential to enable,
sustain, or enhance societal living conditions.
Sullivan, Arthur; Steven M.
Sheffrin (2003). Economics:
Principles in action. Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey
07458: Pearson Prentice Hall.
p. 474. ISBN 0-13-063085-3.
Fulmer, Jeffrey (2009). “What
in the world is infrastructure?”.
PEI Infrastructure Investor
(July/August): 30–32.
Infrastructure
“Hardening” or
Weatherproofing
Provision encouraging or requiring development
in hazard zones to increase structural resilience to
hazards
North Carolina Division of
Emergency Management,
1998
Land Suitability Hazards are one of the criteria used in analyzing and
determining the suitability of land for development
North Carolina Division of
Emergency Management,
1998
Mappable Areas An area in the community that can be mapped or
is place-specific. Such areas can include, existing
neighborhoods, existing commercial centers,
natural areas, floodplain, native habitats, wetlands,
primary conservation area, secondary conservation
area, structures that frequently flood, and existing
community facilities. Area/place: neighborhood,
park; line: river, bike path, road; Point: critical
infrastructure (school, fire department).
Glossary | 79
Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook
National Research
Council (NRC)
The National Research Council (NRC) is a private,
nonprofit institution in the United States founded
in 1916, which produces reports that shape policies,
inform public opinion, and advance the pursuit of
science, engineering, and medicine.
“ARTICLES OF ORGANIZATION
OF THE NATIONAL RESEARCH
COUNCIL Approved June
15, 2007”. National Research
Council. Retrieved 22 March
2014.
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology http://www.nist.gov
Open Space
or Easement
Requirement/
Purchase
Provision encouraging open space purchase by the
community or open space easements as an element
of development approval
North Carolina Division of
Emergency Management,
1998
Permitted Land
Use
Provision regulating the types of land use (e.g.
residential, commercial, industrial, open space, etc.)
permitted in areas of community; may be tied to
zoning code
North Carolina Division of
Emergency Management,
1998
Physical
Vulnerability
Physical Vulnerability is determined by aspects
such as population density levels, remoteness of a
settlement, the site, design and materials used for
critical infrastructure and for housing (UNISDR).
http://www.odpm.gov.tt/
node/162
Post-Disaster
Capital
Improvements
Provision related to adjusting capital improvements
to public facilities following a hazard event
North Carolina Division of
Emergency Management,
1998
Post-Disaster Land
Use Change
Provision related to changing land use regulations
following a hazard event; may include redefining
allowable land uses after a hazard event
North Carolina Division of
Emergency Management,
1998
Public facility
siting
Provision to site public facilities, including municipal
buildings and public housing, out of hazard areas
North Carolina Division of
Emergency Management,
1998
Public facility
sizing/capacity
Provision limiting capacity of public facilities,
including public housing, in hazard areas to cap
amount of development
North Carolina Division of
Emergency Management,
1998
Resilience the ability to prepare and plan for, absorb, recover
from, and more successfully adapt to adverse events)
National Academies, 2012, p.1
RPC/EDD Employment Development Department
Setbacks or Buffer
Zones
Provision requiring setbacks or buffers around
hazardous areas (e.g. riparian buffers and ocean
setbacks)
North Carolina Division of
Emergency Management,
1998
80
Glossary
Site Review Provision requiring addressing hazard mitigation in
process of reviewing site proposals for development
North Carolina Division of
Emergency Management,
1998
Slope/Dune
Stabilization
Provision that pertains specifically to stabilization of
slopes or dunes or seeks to control erosion
North Carolina Division of
Emergency Management,
1998
Small Area Plans Small-area plans apply to a range of situations and
therefore come in a variety of forms. Some focus
on redevelopment within built-up parts of the
planning jurisdiction. Others apply to new urban
and suburban development on the urban fringe.
Still others address not development, but the
protection of natural resources form development.
Some are part of a whole constellation of similar
small-area plans, more or less covering the planning
jurisdiction in a systematic manner, following
unified guidelines on content and process. Others
are single shot attempts to address issues in special
areas in a more or less opportunistic manner. The
more common types of plans include the following:
district or sector plan, transportation corridor plan,
neighborhood plan, business center revitalization
plan, redevelopment area plan, transit station area
plan, historic or appearance district plan, facilities
complex plan, natural resource area plan, specific
development plan.
Berke et al (2006). Urban land
use planning 5th ed, Urbana:
University of Illinois Press,
ISBN:0252030796.
Social Vulnerability Social vulnerability has been defined in terms of
people’s “capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist
and recover from the impacts of a natural hazard”.
Social Vulnerability refers to the inability of people,
organizations and societies to withstand adverse
impacts to hazards due to characteristics inherent
in social interactions, institutions and systems of
cultural values. It is linked to the level of well-being
of individuals, communities and society. It includes
aspects related to levels of literacy and education,
the existence of peace and security, access to
basic human rights, systems of good governance,
social equity, positive traditional values, customs
and ideological beliefs and overall collective
organizational systems (UNISDR).
Wisner, Blakie, Canon & Davis,
2004, p. 11 http://www.odpm.
gov.tt/node/162
Glossary | 81
Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook
Subdivision
Ordinance
Local municipal ordinances specifying the conditions
under which a tract of land can be subdivided. The
ordinances may include layout and construction,
street lighting and signs, sidewalks, sewage and
storm water systems, water supply systems, and
dedication of land for schools, parks, etc.
http://www.
dictionaryofconstruction.
com/definition/subdivision-
regulations.html
Subdivision
Regulations
Provision controlling the subdivision of parcels into
developable units and governing the design of new
development (e.g. site storm water management)
North Carolina Division of
Emergency Management,
1998
Tax Abatement Tax breaks offered to property owners and
developers who use mitigation methods for new
development
North Carolina Division of
Emergency Management,
1998
Transfer/Purchase
of Development
Rights
Provision for transferring development rights to
control density; may be transfer of development
rights or purchase of development rights
North Carolina Division of
Emergency Management,
1998
US Census Block
Groups
Block Groups (BGs) are statistical divisions of census
tracts, are generally defined to contain between 600
and 3,000 people, and are used to present data and
control block numbering. A block group consists
of clusters of blocks within the same census tract
that have the same first digit of their four-digit
census block number. Most BGs were delineated
by local participants in the Census Bureau’s
Participant Statistical Areas Program. The Census
Bureau delineated BGs only where a local or tribal
government declined to participate, and a regional
organization or State Data Center was not available
to participate.
https://www.census.gov/geo/
reference/gtc/gtc_bg.html
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers http://www.usace.army.mil
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture http://www.usda.gov/wps/
portal/usda/usdahome
Vulnerability
(disaster)
The degree to which a person, system or unit
is likely to experience harm due to exposure to
perturbations or stresses. Vulnerability describes the
characteristics and circumstances of a community,
system or asset that make it susceptible to the
damaging effects of a hazard. There are many
aspects of vulnerability, arising from various physical,
social, economic, and environmental factors.
Kasperson, et al. (2002) http://
www.odpm.gov.tt/node/162
82
Glossary
Zoning Ordinance Written regulations and laws that define how
property in specific geographic zones can be used.
Zoning ordinances specify whether zones can
be used for residential or commercial purposes,
and may also regulate lot size, placement, bulk
(or density) and the height of structures. Zoning
ordinances are lengthy documents describing not
only the acceptable use for specified areas of land,
but also the procedures for handling infractions
(including any penalties), granting variances and
hearing appeals.
http://www.investopedia.
com/terms/z/
zoning-ordinance.
Zoning Overlays Provision to use zoning overlays that restrict
permitted land use/density in hazardous areas; may
be special hazard zones or sensitive open space
protection zones
North Carolina Division of
Emergency Management,
1998
APPENDIX
84
Appendix
APPENDIX A
Other Resilience Indicators and Scorecards
Measure name Type
ASPIRE (World Bank 2015)Tool
BRIC (Cutter et al. 2010, 2014)Index
CART (Pfefferbaum et al. 2011, 2013)Tool
CCRAM (Cohen et al. 2013) Tool
CDRI (Peacock et al. 2010)Index
Coastal Resilience Index (Sempier et al. 2010) Score-card
CoBRA (UNDP 2014)Tool
Community Resilient System (CARRI 2013; White et
al. 2015)
Tool
Community Resilience Index (Sherrieb et al. 2010)Index
CREAT (USEPA 2015) Tool
DFID Resilience (Twigg 2009)Tool
FAO Livelihoods (Alinovi et al. 2010)Index
Financial System Resilience (Berry et al. 2015)Index
FM Global Resilience (Oxford Metrica 2015)Index
NIST (NIST 2015)Tool
Oxfam GB (Hughes and Bushell 2013) Index
PEOPLES (Renschler et al. 2010)Tool
RCI (Pendall et al. 2010)Index
ResilUS (miles and Chang 2011) Tool
RMI (Fisher et al. 2010; Petit et al. 2013)Index/tool
Rockefeller 100 resilient cities (ARUP and
Rockefeller 2014
Tool
RRI (Cox and Hamlen 2015) Index
SPUR (San Francisco Planning 2009)Score-card
Surging Seas (Climate Central 2015)Tool
TNC Coastal Resilience (TNC 2015) Tool
UNISDR Resilient Cities (UNISDR 2013, 2015a, b)Tool
USAID Resilience (USAID 2013)Tool
Adapted from Cutter 2016
Cutter, Susan. 2016. The landscape of disaster resilience indicators in the USA. Natural Hazards.
80: 741-758.
Appendix | 85
Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook
APPENDIX B
Aligning with Other Initiatives
Consolidated Housing Plan
(CHP) and Annual Action Plans
(AAP)- Data- and dialogue-
driven assessment of community
affordable housing and
development needs; aligns and
focuses funding from multiple
federal block grant programs (e.g.
CDBG); carried out through Annual
Action Plans and monitored via
annual performance reports
Alignment: Align resilience
strategies with housing and
poverty prevention strategies
to expand housing stability;
High-vulnerability areas are
mapped, may overlap with hazard
zones; policies and action steps
sometimes contain place-specific
terms (which allow us to map
their influence); policies/actions
might be amended to reduce
flood exposure of vulnerable
population
Agency: Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD),
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/
HUD?src=/program_offices/
comm_planning/about/conplan
Hazard Mitigation Plan
[Preparedness Grants, Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program, Pre-
disaster Mitigation Grants, Flood
Mitigation Assistance]- State,
tribal, and local governments
identify risks, vulnerabilities, or
natural disasters and develop long-
term strategies to protect people
and property as a condition for
receiving types of non-emergency
disaster assistance
Align: Community risk assessment
often includes maps and
descriptions of areas affected
by hazards; mitigation actions
are included, many of which
contain place-specific terms;
aligning hazard mitigation with
other community goals is rarely
considered
Agency: Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA),
within the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), https://
www.fema.gov/hazard-mitigation-
planning-process
Habitat Management Plan (HMP)
and Annual Habitat Work Plans
(AHWP)- Wildlife-Refuge-scale
documents that guide analysis,
management, and decision-
making according to a long-term
vision, emphasizing continuity and
consistency; plans stress the role
of refuge habitat in international,
national, regional, tribal, State,
ecosystem, and refuge goals and
objectives
Align: National Wildlife Refuge
System lands that exist in
communities or in their extra-
territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) may
be within or may affect hazard
zones; their management
therefore impacts vulnerability;
opportunities to preserve or
expand such areas would likely
have benefits for hazard mitigation
and preventing increased exposure
of people and infrastructure
Agency: United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), within
the Department of the Interior
(DOI), https://www.fws.gov/
policy/620fw1.html
State Wildlife Action Plans
(SWAP), aka Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategies
[Wildlife Conservation and
Restoration Program (WCRP)
funds; State and Tribal Wildlife
Grants (SWG) program]-States
are required to develop a strategic
plan for wildlife and habitat
conservation to be eligible for
funds
Align: Overlap between wildlife
areas and hazard zones in
communities; planners and
decision makers can partner on
projects of mutual interest[1]
Agency: Congress by the
Conservation and Reinvestment
Act of 2000, “http://teaming.
com/state-wildlife-action-plans-
swaps, http://teaming.com/swap-
overview”
Coastal Zone Management
Program (CZMP) [Coastal Zone
Enhancement Program; Coastal
Nonpoint Pollution Control
Program]- Voluntary partnership
between federal government and
coastal states; tasked with helping
to responsibly manage coastal
communities; issues addressed
include coastal development,
water quality, public access,
habitat protection, energy facility
siting, ocean governance and
planning, coastal hazards, and
climate change; federal funding
matched with state and local
funding
86
Appendix
Align: Coastal flood risk and
resilience are key aspects of the
CZMP, and related studies and
actions are frequent recipients
of funding from the program;
the PIRS method may improve
targeting of such funds to the
most vulnerable areas (and may
further justify expenditures)
Agency: National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), within the Department
of Commerce via the Coastal
Zone Management Act (CZMA) of
1972, https://coast.noaa.gov/czm/
about/, https://coast.noaa.gov/
czm/media/funding-summary.pdf”
Forest Plan (Land Management
Plan)- Every national forest or
grassland managed by the United
States Forest Service must develop
and maintain a management plan,
revised at a minimum every 15
years; plans consider multiple-use
goals and objectives, management
standards and prescriptions,
and ¬monitoring requirements;
proposed projects inconsistent
with the plan cannot proceed
(unless the plan is amended, which
requires preparation of an EIS and
public participation)
Align: The management of
national forests and grasslands
located within or adjacent to
community is likely to affect its
flood vulnerability; the forest
managers that create Forest
Plans are therefore important
stakeholders and potential allies
in help to shape the resilience of a
community
Agency: United States Forest
Service (USFS), within the
Department of Agrictulture
(USDA) via the National Forest
Management Act (NFMA) of
1976, http://www.fs.usda.gov/
main/planningrule/101, http://
www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_
DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5110094.
pdf”
Endangered Species Recovery
Plan- All species considered
threatened or endangered
must have a recovery plan as a
foundation for a recovery effort;
contents include a description
of what is needed to return the
species to a healthy state, specific
criteria for this ‘healthy state’,
and estimates of time and cost
requirements
Align: Habitat conservation is an
important element of most species
recovery plans. Opportunities exist
to leverage policies designed to
protect species and help them
recover to improve neighborhood-
level and citywide resilience,
especially in riparian areas.
Agency: National Marine Fisheries
Service of NOAA, within the
Department of Commerce
and the USFWS, within the
Department of the Interior via the
Endangered Species Act of 1973,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Endangered_species_recovery_
plan, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
pr/recovery/”
Climate Action Plan (focusing on
adaptation, mitigation, and/or
resilience)- Motivated by concerns
about current and future threats
from the changing climate, states
and communities have taken the
initiative to develop adaptation,
mitigation, and/or resilience
plans; typical structure includes
vulnerability assessment (fact
base), resilience/adaptation goals,
objectives, and policies, and an
implementation and monitoring
plan
Align: Climate Action Plans
may be considered a part of a
community’s network of plans and
may contain policies designed
to increase resilience in parts
or all of a community. The PIRS
method provides an opportunity
to assess -- and strengthen -- the
connections between these and
other community plans (especially
through a focus on their spatial
integration).
Agency: No federal legislation or
requirement yet “http://
www.c2es.org/us-states-regions/
policy-maps/adaptation, http://
www.georgetownclimate.org/
adaptation/plans.html”
Historic Preservation Planning
Program- As required by the
National Historic Preservation Act,
each State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) periodically develops
a statewide historic preservation
plan, meant to encourage broad
public participation in planning for
cultural resources, meet challenges
unique to each state, influence
historic preservation policy in state
and local governments, and
Appendix | 87
Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook
empower local communities,
organizations, and individuals to
action.
Align: State Historic Preservation
plan policies and actions are
necessarily place-specific.
Preventing (re)development
in/near historic structures and
lands may reduce exposure, and
therefore vulnerability, to flooding.
Preservation policies/actions may
potentially have the opposite
effect, though, protecting and
encouraging the continued use
of buildings (or entire districts)
in flood-vulnerable parts of a
community.
Agency: Nation Park Service
(NPS) within the USDA via the
National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, https://www.nps.gov/
preservation-planning/, https://
www.nps.gov/preservation-
planning/stateplanning.html”
National Conservation
Innovation Grants- The
purpose of CIG is to stimulate
the development and adoption
of innovative conservation
approaches and technologies,
while leveraging the Federal
investment in environmental
enhancement and protection
in conjunction with agricultural
production.
Align: PIRS might be a useful
analytical tool with respect
to some of the ‘innovative
conservation approaches’
funded by National Conservation
Innovation Grants
Agency: Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS),
within the USDA, http://www.
grants.gov/search-grants?html?fu
ndingCategories%3DENV%7CEnvi
ronment
NOAA Climate Program Office:
Regional Integrated Sciences
and Assessments (RISA)
Program- CPO funds a network
of RISA teams which are a model
for interdisciplinary science and
assessment and work to inform
improvements in resilience and
preparedness in diverse socio-
economic regions and sectors
throughout the US and abroad
through the use of climate
knowledge and information;
research advances the nation’s
understanding of climate-
related risks and vulnerabilities
across sectors and regions, and
the development of tools to
foster more informed decision
making.
Align: The PIRS methodology
might be used to assess or better
integrate many of the innovations
produced by the interdisciplinary
RISA teams; further development
of the method may even be
eligible for funding from the RISA
program
Agency: NOAA, within the
Department of Commerce, http://
cpo.noaa.gov/ClimatePrograms/
ClimateandSocietalInteractions/
RISAProgram.aspx, http://cpo.noaa.
gov/sites/cpo/RISA/UPDATED%20
RISA-2pager-11-02-16.pdf”
Resilience AmeriCorps- A
program that builds capacity for
climate resilience planning and
implementation in low-income
communities. The program
provides technical assistance to
local communities.
Align: PIRS can be utilized as part
of the tools and training; The
engagement team of the PIRS can
work with the program to engage
the community.
Agency: Corporation for National
and Community Service (CNCS)
with NOAA, EPA, DOE, and non-
federal partners, http://www.
nationalservice.gov/programs/
americorps/americorps-initiatives/
resilience-americorps
Resilience Dialogues- A program
to address the need for training
and technical assistance for
communities. It provides a
platform for communities to
discuss issues related to climate
change and to take steps to
become more resilient.
Align: PIRS can be utilized as part
of the tools and training; The
engagement team of the PIRS can
work with the program to engage
the community.
Agency: USGCRP, http://www.
resiliencedialogues.org/
Regional Integrated Sciences
and Assessments- Regional teams
that leverages a trusted network
of research teams around the
country to advance the knowledge
base, provide expertise to support
88
Appendix
responses to extreme events.
Align: RISA can work with already
established relationships, such
as managers and planners, and
use PIRS to advance a regional
approach to plan integration.
Agency: NOAA, http://cpo.
noaa.gov/ClimatePrograms/
ClimateandSocietalInteractions/
RISAProgram/AboutRISA.aspx
Landscape Conservation
Cooperatives- Regional teams
that work collaboratively to
identify best practices, connect
efforts, identify science gaps,
and avoid duplication through
conservation planning and
design.
Align: LCC can use PIRS to
integrate planning efforts to
reduce vulnerabilities to climate
change.
Agency: DOI, https://lccnetwork.
org
Regional Climate Hubs- A
program that develops and
delivers science-based,
region-specific information
and technologies for rural
producers.
Align: When conducting PIRS,
communities should engage
with the RCH and extension
professionals; rural communities
can utilize data from the RCH for
data for physical vulnerabilities,
etc.
Agency: USDA, https://www.
climatehubs.oce.usda.gov/
Climate Adaptation Community
of Practice- A network of
practitioners that share tools,
information, and best practices
and work to develop federal
government-wide goals and
strategies for climate change
training.
Align: The network can train
and share best practices of plan
integration.
Agency: USGCRP
Clean Water State Revolving
Fund (CWSRF)- A financial
assistance program that can
be used for a variety of water
infrastructure projects.
Align: PIRS can be used as an
analytical tool to justify projects
funded by the program; PIRS can
be used to identify physically and
socially vulnerable areas across a
community’s network of plans.
Agency: EPA, https://www.epa.
gov/cwsrf
Fostering Advancements in
Shipping and Transportation
for the Long-term Achievement
of National Efficiencies
(FASTLANE)- Funds critical
freight and highway projects
and includes climate resilience
considerations.
Align: PIRS can be used as
an analytical tool to justify
transportation projects funded by
the program.
Agency: DOT, https://www.
transportation.gov/buildamerica/
FASTLANEgrants
Sustainable Communities
Initiative- Provides grants to
improve regional and local
planning efforts that integrate
housing and transportation
decisions, and increase the
capacity to improve land use
and zoning to support market
investments that support
sustainable communities.
Align: PIRS can be used as an
analytical tool to justify projects
funded by the program; PIRS can
be used to identify physically and
socially vulnerable areas across a
community’s network of plans.
Agency: HUD, http://portal.
hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/
hudprograms/sci
Appendix | 89
Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook
APPENDIX C
Detailed Policy Tools: Land Use Policy categories and sub-categories (continued from table 2.4)
Land Use Approach Description Example of measurements S* /
NS**
Development Regulations
Permitted Land Use Provision regulating the types of land use (e.g. residential,
commercial, industrial, open space, etc.) permitted in areas
of community; may be tied to zoning code
- Bonus and incentive zoning
- Mandatory low-income housing construction
ordinance
- Rolling easement
- Coastal construction control line (CCCL)
N
N
N
N
Density of Land Use Provision regulating density (e.g. units per acre); may be
tied to zoning code
- Cumulative substantial improvement
- Lower substantial improvement threshold
S
S
Subdivision Regulations Provision controlling the subdivision of parcels into
developable units and governing the design of new
development (e.g. site storm water management)
- Strict conformance with development regulations N
Zoning Overlays Provision to use zoning overlays that restrict permitted
land use/density in hazardous areas; may be special hazard
zones or sensitive open space protection zones
- Velocity zone regulations to Coastal “A” zones N
Setbacks or Buffer Zones Provision requiring setbacks or buffers around hazardous
areas (e.g. riparian buffers and ocean setbacks)
- Coastal forests
- Dunes, shore physical barriers (debris, logs, etc.)
- Floodplain storage
- Shore vegetation
- Detention and Retention within watershed
N
S
N
N
S
Cluster Development Provision requiring clustering of development away
from hazardous areas, such as through conservation
subdivisions
- Setting development caps / population limits
- Maintaining public infrastructure for clustering
development intensity away from hazard areas
N
N
Land Acquisition
Acquire Land & Property Purchase land/property in hazard area - Eminent domain
- Acquiring vacant riverfront parcels
N
N
Open Space or Easement
Requirement/Purchase
Provision encouraging open space purchase by the
community or open space easements as an element of
development approval
- Conservation easement N
90
Appendix
Density Transfer Provisions
Transfer/Purchase of
Development Rights
Provision for transferring development rights to control
density; may be transfer of development rights or purchase
of development rights
- Density/intensity credits N
Financial Incentives and Penalties
Density Bonuses Density bonuses such as ability to develop with greater
density in return for dedication or donation of land in areas
subject to hazards
- CBD periphery Bonus N
Tax Abatement Tax breaks offered to property owners and developers who
use mitigation methods for new development
- Development exactions
- Land gains taxation
- Special assessment districts
N
N
N
Impact / Special Study /
Protection Fees
Provision requiring impact fees, special study fees, or
protection fees for development in hazardous areas; fees
could cover costs of structural protection
- Impact fees and system development charges N
Land Use Analysis and Permitting Process
Land Suitability Hazards are one of the criteria used in analyzing and
determining the suitability of land for development
Site Review Provision requiring addressing hazard mitigation in
process of reviewing site proposals for development
- Site specific surveys and field documentation N
Design/Construction
Guidelines/Requirements
Guidelines or requirements that apply to the design or
construction of developments in hazard areas
- Requiring specific building standards
- Seismic retrofitting and design
- Setting environmental performance standards
S
S
N
Public Facilities (including Public Housing)
Siting Provision to site public facilities, including municipal
buildings and public housing, out of hazard areas
- Preserving hazard areas for new road alignments
- Limiting public expenditures for infrastructure
N
N
Sizing/Capacity Provision limiting capacity of public facilities, including
public housing, in hazard areas to cap amount of
development
-
Appendix | 91
Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard Guidebook
Density Transfer Provisions
Transfer/Purchase of
Development Rights
Provision for transferring development rights to control
density; may be transfer of development rights or purchase
of development rights
- Density/intensity creditsN
Financial Incentives and Penalties
Density Bonuses Density bonuses such as ability to develop with greater
density in return for dedication or donation of land in areas
subject to hazards
- CBD periphery BonusN
Tax Abatement Tax breaks offered to property owners and developers who
use mitigation methods for new development
- Development exactions
- Land gains taxation
- Special assessment districts
N
N
N
Impact / Special Study /
Protection Fees
Provision requiring impact fees, special study fees, or
protection fees for development in hazardous areas; fees
could cover costs of structural protection
- Impact fees and system development chargesN
Land Use Analysis and Permitting Process
Land SuitabilityHazards are one of the criteria used in analyzing and
determining the suitability of land for development
Site Review Provision requiring addressing hazard mitigation in
process of reviewing site proposals for development
- Site specific surveys and field documentationN
Design/Construction
Guidelines/Requirements
Guidelines or requirements that apply to the design or
construction of developments in hazard areas
- Requiring specific building standards
- Seismic retrofitting and design
- Setting environmental performance standards
S
S
N
Public Facilities (including Public Housing)
Siting Provision to site public facilities, including municipal
buildings and public housing, out of hazard areas
- Preserving hazard areas for new road alignments
- Limiting public expenditures for infrastructure
N
N
Sizing/CapacityProvision limiting capacity of public facilities, including
public housing, in hazard areas to cap amount of
development
-
Post-Disaster Reconstruction Decisions
Development Moratorium Provision imposing a moratorium on development for
a set period of time after a hazard event to allow for
consideration of land use change
- Limit redevelopment N
Post-Disaster Land Use
Change
Provision related to changing land use regulations
following a hazard event; may include redefining allowable
land uses after a hazard event
- Eliminating unsafe conditions and inappropriate uses N
Post-Disaster Capital
Improvements
Provision related to adjusting capital improvements to
public facilities following a hazard event
- Relocating city infrastructure S
Capital Improvements
Infrastructure “Hardening”
or Weatherproofing
Provision encouraging or requiring development in hazard
zones to increase structural resilience to hazards
- Levees and dikes
- Underground utility lines
S
S
Elevating Provision pertaining to the physical elevation of structures
in hazard zones
Drainage Improvements or
Flood Control
Provision that pertains to drainage or flooding issues
within the community
- Flood walls / Sediment control structures
- Stormwater treatment improvements
S
S
Ecosystem Enhancement Provision that seeks to improve or preserve the functioning
of the natural environment within the community
- Retaining ponds
- River channel changes
- Restoring vegetated shorelines on public lands
S
S
N
Slope/Dune Stabilization Provision that pertains specifically to stabilization of slopes
or dunes or seeks to control erosion
- Shoreline protection S/NS
* S: Structural / **NS: non-structural
City of San Luis Obispo
Climate Action Plan
Community Development Department August 2012
Climate Action Plan
Adopted by Resolution No. 10388 (2012 Series)
City Council
Jan Marx, Mayor
John Ashbaugh, Vice Mayor
Andrew Carter
Kathy Smith
Dan Carpenter
Planning Commission
Michael Draze
John Fowler
John Larson
Eric Meyer
Michael Multari
Airlin Singewald
Charles Stevenson
Project Managers
Kim Murry, Deputy Director, Long Range Planning
James David, Associate Planner, Long Range Planning
City Staff
Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
Todd Beights, Parks Maintenance Supervisor
Ron Combs, City Arborist
Andrew Collins, Facilities Maintenance Supervisor
Doug Davidson, Deputy Director, Development Review
Anudeep Dhaliwal, Planning Intern
Tim Girvin, Chief Building Official
Ron Holstine, Fleet Maintenance Supervisor
Peggy Mandeville, Principal Transportation Planner
Ron Munds, Conservation and Recycling Manager
Tessa Salzman, Planning Intern
John Webster, SLO Transit Manager
Cal Poly Climate Team
Dr. Adrienne Greve, Faculty Advisor
Matthew Goehring, Graduate Student Assistant
Thomas Markel, Graduate Student Assistant
CRP Senior Undergraduate Planning Lab
Steven Degar
Julie Epshteyn
Jonelle Fournet-Collazos
Tyler Hartrich
Monica Kittinger
Neil Ledsam
Katelyn Lewis
Donald Nielsen
Staci Ordiz
Leeanne Singleton
Jordan Smith
Sean Tiedgen
Scott Twitchell
With Assistance from
Acknowledgements
The San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan was a collaborative effort of City and
Regional Planning Department students at California Polytechnic State University –
San Luis Obispo, City staff, and community members. The plan sets forth objectives
and strategies that the City and community members can implement to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
City staff would like to express its appreciation to the Chamber of Commerce, SLO
Greenbuild Alliance, Homebuilder’s Association, Association of Realtors, Kiwanis
Club, Workforce Housing Coalition, Empower Poly, and all other community
members who provided input on the Plan. Sincere appreciation is extended to the
Cal Poly Climate Team students who drafted the initial strategies in the Climate
Action Plan after extensive public outreach and research.
Climate Action Plan
Table of Contents
Executive Summary...................................... i
Climate Action Plan Development ................................................................... i
GHG Reduction Strategies ................................................................................. ii
GHG Reduction Summary ................................................................................ iii
Conclusion ............................................................................................................. iv
Introduction .................................................. 1
Purpose, Scope & Organization ....................................................................... 1
Understanding Climate Change ...................................................................... 2
Climate Change Impacts .................................................................................... 4
Five Milestone Process ....................................................................................... 5
GHG Inventory ............................................................................................................. 6
GHG Reduction Target .............................................................................................. 7
Business-As-Usual Forecast ..................................................................................... 7
State Policies to Reduce GHG Emissions ...................................................... 8
Adjusted Business-As-Usual Forecast ............................................................... 11
Climate Action Plan Development ............................................................... 12
Buildings ..................................................... 17
State Reductions ........................................................................ 17
Existing Actions .......................................................................... 17
Buildings Strategies .................................................................. 18
Adaptation ................................................................................... 21
Renewable Energy ..................................... 23
State Reductions ......................................................................... 23
Existing Actions ........................................................................... 23
Renewable Energy Strategies ................................................. 23
Adaptation .................................................................................... 25
Transportation & Land Use ...................... 27
State Reductions ......................................................................... 27
Existing Actions: Transportation ............................................ 27
Existing Actions: Land Use ....................................................... 28
Transportation and Land Use Strategies ............................. 29
Adaptation .................................................................................... 34
Water ........................................................... 35
State Reductions ......................................................................... 35
Existing Actions ........................................................................... 35
Water Strategies .......................................................................... 36
Adaptation .................................................................................... 37
Solid Waste ................................................. 39
State Reductions ......................................................................... 39
Existing Actions ........................................................................... 39
Solid Waste Strategies ............................................................... 40
Adaptation .................................................................................... 42
City of San Luis Obispo
Parks & Open Space .................................... 43
Existing Actions: Parks .............................................................. 43
Existing Actions: Open Space ................................................. 44
Existing Actions: Urban Forest ............................................... 44
Existing Actions: Community Gardens ................................ 44
Parks & Open Space Strategies .............................................. 44
Adaptation .................................................................................... 47
Government Operations ............................ 49
GHG Forecast for Government Operations ........................... 49
Government Operations Reduction Target .......................... 50
Existing Actions .............................................................................. 51
Government Operations Strategies ......................................... 51
Conclusion ................................................... 57
Technical Appendix ................................. A-1
State Legislation
AB 32 ............................................ California Global Warming Solutions Act
AB 117 ......................................................... Community Choice Aggregation
AB 737 .............................................................................. Solid Waste Diversion
AB 758 .......................... Energy Efficiency Program for Existing Buildings
AB 811 ...... Contractual Assessments: Energy Efficiency Improvements
AB 939 ............................... California Integrated Waste Management Act
AB 1103............... Commercial Building Energy Use Disclosure Program
AB 1358............................................................................. Complete Streets Act
AB 1493................................................................ California Vehicle Emissions
Executive Order S-01-07 .................................. Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Executive Order S-3-05 ................................... Emission Reduction Targets
SB 97 .......................................................... CEQA: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
SB 107............................................................. Renewable Portfolio Standards
SB 375...................................................Sustainable Communities Strategies
SB 1078 .......................... Amendment to Renewable Portfolio Standards
Topic Abbreviations
Buildings BLD
Renewable Energy RE
Transportation & Land Use TLU
Water WTR
Solid Waste WST
Parks & Open Space PKS
Government Operations GO
Climate Action Plan
List of Acronyms
ADA .................................................................. Americans with Disabilites Act
afy .............................................................................................. Acre feet per year
ARB ................................................................... California Air Resources Board
BAU............................................................................................. Business as usual
BTU ......................................................................................British Thermal Units
CAP ........................................................................................ Climate Action Plan
CCA .............................................................. Community Choice Aggregation
CCP .................................................................... Climate Protection Campaign
CCR ................................................................... California Code of Regulations
CEC ................................................................... California Energy Commission
CEQA .................................................... California Environmental Quality Act
CFL ............................................................... Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs
COSE ................................................... Conservation & Open Space Element
CPUC .................................................. California Public Utilities Commission
CSI ................................................................................. California Solar Initiative
C-C Zone .................................................................... Community Commercial
C-D Zone .................................................................... Downtown Commercial
C-N Zone ............................................................. Neighborhood Commercial
C-R Zone ................................................................................. Retail Commercial
C-S Zone ..............................................................................Service Commercial
C-T Zone .............................................................................. Tourist Commercial
GHG ......................................................................................... Greenhouse gases
GIS................................................................ Geographic Information Systems
HASLO ............................................... Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo
HVAC ......................................... Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
ICLEI .................................................... Local Governments for Sustainability
IEPR................................................................ Integrated Energy Policy Report
IPCC ..................................... Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IWMA ......................................... Integrated Waste Management Authority
kWh .................................................................................................. kilowatt hours
LCFS ......................................................................... Low Carbon Fuel Standard
LED ...................................................................................... Light Emitting Diode
LEED ............................. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
LEED-CS ........................................................................ LEED for Core and Shell
LEED-NC ................................................................ LEED for New Construction
M Zone ........................................................................................... Manufacturing
MPG ............................................................................................. miles per gallon
MPH .................................................................................................miles per hour
MTCO 2 e .......................................................... Metric Ton of CO2 Equivalents
NEV................................................................... Neighborhood Electric Vehicle
O Zone ............................................................................................................ Office
PG&E ............................................................................... Pacific Gas and Electric
PV ....................................................................................................... Photo Voltaic
RPS .................................................................... Renewable Portfolio Standard
R-1 Zone ...................................................................... Low Density Residential
R-2 Zone .............................................................. Medium Density Residential
R-3 Zone ................................................... Medium-High Density Residential
R-4 Zone ..................................................................... High Density Residential
SLOCOG ......................................San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
SRTP ............................................................................. Short Range Transit Plan
TRIP .......................................................... Employee Trip Reduction Program
USGBC ........................................................................... Green Building Council
VMT .................................................................................. Vehicle Miles Traveled
WRF .......................................................................... Water Reclamation Facility
City of San Luis Obispo
This page intentionally left blank.
Climate Action Plan
Executive Summary i
Executive Summary
The global challenge of climate change requires action at all levels
of government. A wide range of policies have been adopted at the
state and regional levels to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,
such as developing clean energy resources and promoting energy-
efficient buildings and vehicles.
States with Adopted GHG Emission Reduction Targets
California is among the nation’s leaders in GHG emission reduction
initiatives, including: an aggressive renewable energy portfolio
standard, public benefit funds for renewables and efficiency,
alternative fuel policies, new vehicle standards, and a statewide
emission reduction target. The State’s Global Warming Solutions Act
of 2006 (AB 32) establish a goal of reducing statewide GHG
emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020.
Local governments are well positioned to develop and implement
locally effective strategies to address the consequences of climate
change and mitigate GHG emissions. In 2008, the City of San Luis
Obispo committed to address climate change and joined ICLEI-Local
Governments for Sustainability’s Cities for Climate Protection
campaign. Since that time, the City has completed the first step of
the five milestone climate protection process: conduct a baseline
emissions inventory. This Climate Action Plan (CAP) marks
completion of the second and third milestones: adopting a GHG
emissions reduction target and developing a plan to achieve that
target. The adopted target is a reduction of communitywide
emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, consistent with AB 32. The fourth
and fifth milestones are implementation and monitoring.
Climate Action Plan Development
The process of drafting a CAP included a series of steps
accomplished from 2010 thru 2012: research, outreach, local policy
audit, and strategy review. Research included review of climate
science, climate planning guidance documents, climate policy
enacted in other jurisdictions, and existing local policies and
programs already serving to reduce GHG emissions. In addition, an
State(s) Adopted Emission Reduction Target
VT 25% below 1990 levels by 2012
CT, MA, ME, NH, NY, OR, RI 10% below 1990 levels by 2020
CA, HI, NJ, MT, IL, WA 1990 levels by 2020
FL 1990 levels by 2025
NM 10% below 2000 levels by 2020
AZ 2000 levels by 2020
CO, MI, MN 15-20% below 2005 levels by 2015-25
UT 2005 levels by 2020
MD 25% below 2006 levels by 2020
VA 30% below BAU by 2025
City of San Luis Obispo
Executive Summary ii
extensive public outreach effort was begun that continued
throughout the process. Outreach was conducted through farmers’
market booths, community group meetings, a website
(SLOCOOL.org) and Facebook page, digital surveys, feedback boards
at local grocery stores, and a visit to a local elementary school. Early
in the plan development process, the goal of public outreach was to
raise public awareness of climate planning and to hear from
community members about their hopes and fears for the future of
San Luis Obispo.
The research phase of plan development was concluded with
development of a policy audit. This audit served as a basis for
emissions reduction strategy development. During strategy
development, outreach efforts shifted focus with the intent of
gauging the level of support for potential measures. Feedback was
solicited from the community, City staff, and multiple local groups,
and used to refine strategies in the plan. A complete list of public
outreach events is included in the Appendix. Strategies that act
directly on emissions sources were quantified to demonstrate the
projected effectiveness of the CAP.
GHG Reduction Strategies
Community strategies for climate change adaptation and reduction
of GHG emissions are divided into six chapters: Buildings,
Renewable Energy, Transportation & Land Use, Water, Solid
Waste, and Parks & Open Space. Strategies that will help reduce
GHG emissions associated with City Government Operations have
been separated into their own chapter.
Buildings addresses emissions associated with the
heating, cooling, and operating of structures. This
includes electricity and natural gas consumption in
residential and commercial buildings, as well as the
energy needed to run industrial processes. The goal is to
make buildings more energy efficient. In the GHG Emissions Inventory,
buildings account for 43% of total GHG emissions, largely due to
aging inefficient structures. Over 80% of the City’s housing stock is
more than 20 years old. New construction is already subject to
stringent State efficiency standards, so significant emission
reductions will be achieved through energy efficiency
improvements to older building stock.
The Renewable Energy chapter focuses on local
energy production from renewable sources that
produces no or minimal GHG emissions. The goal is
clean and renewable energy sources. One of the barriers
to renewable energy installations is high upfront costs.
Several strategies seek to ease the initial financial burden through
the use of incentives, including: federal, state and local financing,
reduced permit fees, and streamlining of development review
processes.
Transportation & Land Use addresses the largest con-
tributor to community emissions: vehicles. The goal is to
improve transportation options. This chapter encourages
use of a variety of transportation modes and cleaner
vehicles. It also outlines long-term changes to land use
Climate Action Plan
Executive Summary iii
patterns to reduce trip lengths and encourage safe, attractive
environments where people will want to walk or bike.
Water used by the community must be pumped,
treated, and delivered. Each of these steps uses energy,
which creates GHG emissions. The goal is to reduce and
reuse consumed water. Community-wide strategies focus
on voluntary programs to reduce water use in existing
buildings, require new buildings to reduce anticipated water use,
and encourage use of reclaimed water when possible.
Solid Waste deposited in a landfill emits methane,
which is 21 times more powerful in trapping GHGs than
carbon dioxide. The goal is to prevent, reduce, reuse and
recycle waste. The chapter focuses on increasing the rate
at which waste is diverted from the Cold Canyon Landfill
through recycling and other programs. Strategies include
consideration of an adjusted volume-based rate system, improved
recycling and composting options, and researching other waste
reduction programs such as a food packaging ordinance or waste
audits.
While the maintenance of Parks & Open Space areas
generates GHG emissions, these areas also have the
potential to directly reduce emissions through carbon
sequestration; trees, plants and soils absorbing carbon.
The goal is to maintain natural areas, plant additional
trees and acquire more open space. Strategies in this chapter cover
energy-efficient maintenance, water conservation, tree planting,
community gardens and open space preservation.
Government Operations identifies GHG reduction
strategies for City facilities, fleets, infrastructure and
employees. The goal is to reduce GHGs from government
operations to 1990 emissions levels. This is the same level
of GHG reductions as the community target. Strategies
focus on facilities, streetlights and traffic signals, water and
wastewater infrastructure, the vehicle fleet, employee commuting,
and employee business travel.
GHG Reduction Summary
This CAP is a policy document, adopted by Resolution, that provides
a road map to achieve the City’s GHG reduction goals. It needs to be
dynamic, with continual updates that address changes in
technologies and the natural environment. When combined with
State policies, the local GHG reduction strategies presented in this
CAP can achieve the target of 1990 emissions levels by 2020; a 22%
reduction from projected business-as-usual (15% below the 2005
emissions baseline).
State Policies
-69%
Buildings
-6%
Renewable
Energy
-4%
Transportation
& Land Use
-8% Water
<1%
Waste
-12%
Parks and
Open Space
-2%
Government
Operations
-1%
2020 GHG Reductions by Topic Contribution
City of San Luis Obispo
Executive Summary iv
The majority of local emissions reductions come from
transportation, waste and buildings strategies. Collectively, local
strategies included in this CAP will address 31% of the emissions
reduction required to achieve the 2020 target. State policies to
reduce GHG emissions, such as vehicle fuel efficiency standards,
renewable portfolio standards, and building energy efficiency and
CALGreen construction standards, will result in emissions reductions
in the community that make up the remaining 69% required to
reach the target.
Conclusion
The adjusted GHG emissions forecast shows that implementation of
all strategies in this plan can achieve a 15% reduction from baseline
levels by 2020, which will meet required AB 32 State reduction goals.
For consistency with County and regional planning efforts, a second
reduction forecast year of 2035 is included. The target emissions
curve slopes dramatically downward after 2020 in response to the
Governor’s executive order (S-3-05) to reach a reduction in
statewide emissions of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. This is
a laudable yet challenging goal, which will likely require significant
technological innovation. Nevertheless, the path to the closer target
in 2020 is a measurable reality. The appendix provides further detail
on the calculations and assumptions used to document that path.
Public Outreach and Edcucation
The majority of the GHG reduction strategies in the CAP are based
on voluntary behavior from the community. The most vital step
towards achieving the reduction target is public outreach and
education. A well informed community is empowered to make
alternative decisions, or in many cases, to continue environmentally
sound practices already taking place in SLO. The City will work with
the County, State and other regional organizations to develop a
comprehensive education program targeting energy-efficiency,
renewables, alternative transportation, and other CAP
communitywide objectives. A specific Public Outreach and Education
strategy section is included at the end of each chapter.
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
2005 2010 2020 2035
Adjusted Forecast of Community-wide GHG
Emissions
Business As Usual Forecast
Baseline
Adjusted Forecast with State Reductions
Adjusted Emissions with State & Local Reductions
Target Emissions
-15%
Climate Action Plan
1
Introduction
Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases are altering temperature and rainfall patterns and
contributing to rising sea
levels. Climate change is a
global issue, but local
governments are uniquely
positioned to identify the
specific risks and most
effective solutions for their
communities.
The City of San Luis Obispo joined ICLEI-Local Governments for
Sustainability’s (ICLEI) Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) Campaign
and adopted its five milestone process. This Climate Action Plan
(CAP) represents step three of this five-step campaign and is
consistent with recently enacted statewide climate legislation and
San Luis Obispo’s established General Plan goals.
Recognizing the importance of local action, the CAP presents
measures that will serve as a road map to meeting San Luis Obispo’s
greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets. It addresses government
operations emissions under the City’s control, as well as community-
wide emissions. The emissions reduction measures build on existing
plans, policies and practices already adopted by the City, including
the General Plan.
Purpose, Scope & Organization
Purpose
The CAP is a strategic document, rooted in the idea that effective
global solutions to climate change will largely be the result of
collective action of local communities and governments. The CAP
enables the City to maintain local control of implementing State
direction (AB32 – the California Global Warming Solutions Act) to
reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. GHG reduction
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. Having an adopted CAP will also allow the City to streamline
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process of
certain development projects.
The plan identifies strategies to guide the development and
implementation of GHG reduction measures in the City of San Luis
Obispo and quantifies the emissions reductions that result from
these strategies. In addition to addressing strategies to reduce GHG
emissions, the CAP includes adaptation measures to improve the
City’s ability to address the potential impacts that climate change
may have on the City and its residents. The overall benefit of the
CAP is larger than reducing GHG emissions; it is quality of life
improvements for the community, potential energy cost savings for
residents and businesses, and protection of the environment for
future generations.
Scope
The CAP is adopted by Resolution, and is not law. Some strategies
will be implemented through ordinance, while others will require
City of San Luis Obispo
Introduction 2
development of educational programs or prioritizing resources for
infrastructure. The CAP proposes strategies to reduce GHG
emissions from community-wide activities and government
operations. Community-wide activities are broken down into six
focus areas: buildings, renewable energy, transportation and
land use, water, solid waste, and parks and open space.
Corresponding goals include: energy-efficient buildings, clean and
renewable energy sources, improved transportation options,
reduced water consumption, reduced waste, and maintenance and
growth of the urban forest.
Organization
Each chapter describes sources of GHG emissions, existing actions,
and new strategies. Where possible, the GHG reduction strategies
are quantified in terms of expected amount of emissions reduced by
2020. When combined with anticipated emissions reductions from
State requirements, San Luis Obispo can reach its adopted GHG
reduction target.
Adaptation measures are included at the end of each chapter.
These measures indicate actions the City can take to respond to
climatic changes that will occur regardless of actions taken to
reduce emissions.
Understanding Climate Change
The Evolution of Climate Science
Mounting scientific evidence links rising atmospheric GHG
concentrations to global climate change caused by human activities.
Although uncertainty has surrounded the issue of climate change
since the mid-twentieth century, it is evident that higher levels of
GHG emissions in the atmosphere are warming temperatures.
Melting Arctic sea ice, shrinking glaciers, rising sea levels,
lengthening growing seasons, and shifting flora and fauna
geographic ranges all point to climate change.
The questions surrounding climate change are no longer about
whether the earth’s temperature is rising, but to what extent, how
fast, and with what impacts. Ongoing scientific studies have
documented a rise of 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit in the average surface
air temperature of the earth over the last century along with a
continual rise in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide.1
Global climate models accounting for both natural and human-
related activity have shown that the global climate is warming more
rapidly than it would under solely natural conditions. The natural
cycle produces and removes GHGs via forests and oceans to keep a
1 Henson, R, 2008.
Climate Action Plan
Introduction 3
Note: Numbers represent flux of carbon dioxide in gigatons
Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007
balance, but humans produce extra GHGs without removing any.
While fossil-fuel derived GHGs are a very small component of the
global carbon cycle, the extra GHGs are cumulative because the
natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional GHGs.2 A
climate action plan identifies ways humans can reduce the GHGs
they generate to bring the cycle closer to balanced.
The Mechanics of Climate Change: Greenhouse Effect
Greenhouse gases play an essential role in keeping earth habitable;
without them, surface temperatures would average negative two
degrees Fahrenheit.3 Approximately 50% of solar radiation is
absorbed by the earth’s surface, 30% is reflected back to space, and
20% is absorbed by the earth’s atmosphere. The energy absorbed by
the earth’s surface is released as infrared radiation from the earth.
2 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007
3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009.
While some energy is lost to space, GHGs trap the majority of heat
and radiate it back to the earth’s surface. This delicate energy
balance, called the Greenhouse Effect, nurtures life and supports the
complex natural ecosystems in which humans thrive.
Human activities are altering this delicate balance. Since the days of
the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric concentrations of
greenhouse gases have increased due to the burning of fossil
fuels—including coal, oil, and natural gas—in vehicles, power
plants, factories, and homes. Concentrations of nitrous oxide,
carbon dioxide, and methane have increased 18%, 36%, and 148%
respectively.4 Higher concentrations of greenhouse gases have
resulted in a stronger Greenhouse Effect that traps more heat and
reduces the radiation of heat into space. The result is a documented
increase in the average surface temperature of the earth.
The challenges associated with climate change are complex and
forecasting continues to be plagued with uncertainty. Under
business-as-usual scenarios, scientific models suggest that
atmospheric carbon dioxide levels may double those of the pre-
industrial period by the mid-twenty-first century. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts a
corresponding rise in average global surface temperature between
2.7 and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit in the same time period.5 The extent
of future impacts depends on how quickly and to what degree GHG
emissions can be reduced on a global scale in addition to how well
4 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007.
5 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007.
The Global Carbon Cycle
City of San Luis Obispo
Introduction 4
areas are able to adapt to climate change effects. The solution lies in
global action, which is the cumulative sum of local reform.
The Greenhouse Effect
Climate Change Impacts
California’s climate is already changing. Annual nighttime
temperatures statewide have increased 0.33 degrees Fahrenheit per
decade since 1920, while daytime temperatures have increased by
0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade during the same period.6
Increases in average temperatures in California result in variations in
6 California Natural Resources Agency, 2009.
temperature by area and by season, which will have a number of
potential consequences including: wildfire, public health issues,
flooding, drought, and agricultural risks.
Potential Climate Change Impacts
Source: California Energy Commission
Increased Wildfires
Wildfires have increased in frequency and intensity in recent years.7
Rising temperatures cause shifts in precipitation patterns and earlier
melting of mountain snowpack. This reduction in rainfall, combined
with a longer growing season (i.e. more fuel) and higher
7 California Natural Resources Agency, 2009.
Source: Tufts University.
Climate Action Plan
Introduction 5
temperatures, can lead to an increase in the frequency and intensity
of wildfires. In a relatively hot and arid climate like that of San Luis
Obispo, an increase in wildfire danger in wildland-urban interface
areas is an expected consequence of climate change.
Impacts on Public Health
Higher overall temperatures increase the likelihood and severity of
heat waves. Higher temperatures are associated with increased risk
of heat-related deaths and illness. This risk is greater for people in
economically depressed areas with reduced access to air
conditioning. Higher temperatures also increase air pollution by
increasing fuel evaporation, raising energy demand, and creating
ideal conditions for smog formation.
Flooding, Drought & Reduced Snowpack
Climate change threatens to alter rainfall patterns in San Luis
Obispo, increasing the frequency and severity of both flooding and
drought. It also threatens the State’s overall water cycle. The
majority of precipitation in California falls as winter snow in the
mountains. The mountain snowpack stores this water, supplying the
State’s water needs in the dry summer months. Rising temperatures
will have two significant impacts on this important process: more
precipitation comes as rain and less as snow causing flooding; and
spring snowmelt will happen earlier. This means a longer period of
low-flow conditions in the warmer months causing impacts to water
supplies, fish and other aquatic life.8
8 California Natural Resources Agency, 2009.
Threats to Agriculture
Agriculture is a critical industry in California ($37.5 billion in revenue
in 2010) that supplies half of the nation’s domestic fruits and
vegetables.9 Rising temperatures and increased drought conditions
in the State’s agricultural areas will increase water demand and
constrain agricultural output when water supply becomes less
reliable. Rising temperatures can also negatively impact crop yield
and quality. Many of the most valuable crops in California—such as
fruits and nuts—require a certain period of cool temperatures in the
winter to properly set their fruit. Rising winter temperatures can lead
to late or irregular blooms, meaning lower quality and yield at
harvest time.10
Five Milestone Process
The City of San Luis Obispo has a long history of supporting
sustainable and environmentally friendly initiatives and practices.
Upon joining the Cities for Climate Protection Campaign in 2008,
San Luis Obispo committed to following its established Five
Milestone Process consisting of the following steps:
1. Conduct a baseline emissions inventory and forecast.
2. Adopt an emissions reduction target for the forecast year.
3. Develop a local climate action plan.
4. Implement the plan’s policies and measures.
5. Monitor and verify results.
9 California Department of Food and Agriculture, 2012.
10 California Natural Resources Agency, 2009.
City of San Luis Obispo
Introduction 6
GHG Inventory
Pursuit of the first milestone began in 2008 when the City
conducted an emissions inventory and business-as-usual (BAU)
forecast.11 The emissions inventory identifies 2005 as the baseline
year for which comprehensive energy use data is available. The
baseline data in the inventory provides a basis for establishing
strategies that are appropriate for San Luis Obispo’s emissions
patterns and for quantifying any reductions over time. Emissions
resulting from government operations were quantified separately as
a subset of community-wide emissions and are addressed in this
document under Government Operations.
In addition to naturally occuring GHGs, human processes generate
emissions that impact the Greenhouse Effect. Emissions inventories
use carbon dioxide equivalents (CO 2 e) as a standard unit for
measuring carbon footprints. The idea is to express the impact of
each different greenhouse gas in terms of the amount of CO 2 that
would create the same amount of warming.12 For example, methane
traps over 21 times more heat per molecule than carbon dioxide
and one metric ton (MT) of methane would show as 21 MTCO 2 e.
Community-wide emissions were split into four sectors: Commercial
& Industrial, Residential, Transportation, and Solid Waste. The City’s
community-wide emissions in 2005 came to a total of 264,240
MTCO 2 e. Half of community emissions come from transportation
11 City of San Luis Obispo, 2009.
12 The Guardian, April, 2011.
sources, which includes vehicle trips passing through San Luis
Obispo on Highways 101 and 1.
2005 Community Wide GHG emissions (264,240 MTCO 2 e)
Government operations emissions were separated into Vehicle
Fleet, Employee Commute, Business Travel, Buildings or Facilities,
Streetlights, Traffic Signals, Water Delivery and Wastewater.
City Operations Emissions (6,700 MTCO 2 e)
Residential
21%
Commercial/
Industrial
22%
Transportation
50%
Waste
7%
Buildings
18%
Streetlights
3%
Traffic Signals
1% Water
Delivery
16% Wastewater
Treatment
18%
Vehicle Fleet
29%
Employee
Commute
15%
Business
Travel
< 1%
Climate Action Plan
Introduction 7
In 2005, government operations accounted for 2.5% of the total
community-wide emissions, or 6,700 MTCO 2 e.
GHG Reduction Target
The emissions inventory identified a GHG reduction target,
consistent with the Proposed Scoping Plan for AB 32, of 15% below
the baseline year by 2020. This equates to 22% below the projected
buisness-as-usual (BAU) forecast by 2020, which takes into account
anticipated growth in the population and built environment.
Business-As-Usual Forecast
The GHG emissions inventory report included a business-as-usual
(BAU) forecast for community and government emissions.
Business-As-Usual Forecast of Community-wide Emissions
The BAU forecast indicates that emissions will increase, especially in
the commercial/industrial sector, as the community’s population
and jobs continue to grow. The BAU forecast for both community-
wide emissions and City government operations reflects actual and
anticipated growth rates between 2005, 2010, 2020, and 2035.
Community growth rates are based on 2010 San Luis Obispo Council
of Governments (SLOCOG) adopted growth projections of
population and jobs. The BAU forecast for City governement
operations also reflects anticipated changes in facilities, vehicle
fleet, streetlight use, and employee commuting behaviors.
Business-As-Usual Forecast of Government Operations
Emissions
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
2005 2010 2020 2035
Waste Employee Business Travel Employee Commute
Vehicle Fleet Wastewater Treatment Water Delivery
Traffic Signals Streetlights Buildings
6,920 7,010 7,030 6,700
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
2005 2010 2020 2035
Waste Transportation Commercial/ Industrial Residential
264,230 271,510 287,750 318,420
City of San Luis Obispo
Introduction 8
State Policies to Reduce GHG Emissions
AB 32, SB 375 and SB 97
Various pieces of climate change legislation have become law in
California since San Luis Obispo’s emissions inventory baseline year
of 2005. AB 32 is the primary legislation that contains the State’s
adopted GHG reduction strategies to reduce GHG emissions to 1990
levels by the year 2020. This target is estimated to be 15% below
emissions measured in the baseline year of 2005. One of the central
requirements of AB 32 directed the California Air Resources Board
(ARB) to create a Climate Change Scoping Plan, which was adopted
by ARB in 2008. The Climate Change Scoping Plan recognizes the
unique ability of local governments to impact emissions reductions
through policy change.
The Climate Change Scoping Plan also recognizes that passenger
vehicles are the single biggest source of GHG emissions in California,
and one of the biggest obstacles to reaching the goal of 1990 GHG
levels by 2020. To address this, Senate Bill (SB) 375 was signed into
law in 2008. This bill—largely an anti-sprawl measure—supports the
implementation of AB 32 by (1) requiring that metropolitan
planning organizations (MPO) create regional transportation plans
that include strategies for reducing GHG emissions from passenger
vehicles, (2) aligning the regional housing needs allocation process
with regional transportation planning, and (3) incentivizing transit-
oriented residential projects that further AB 32 goals. SLOCOG, the
region’s MPO, has adopted reduction targets for per capita
emissions from passenger vehicles of 8 percent below baseline
(2005) for the years 2020 and 2035.13
Another important piece of State legislation is SB 97 (2007). SB 97
identifies greenhouse gas emissions associated with a project as
potentially significant environmental impacts under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA allows lead agencies to
analyze and mitigate the significant effects of greenhouse gas
emissions at a programmatic level, such as in a general plan, or as
part of a separate plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (CEQA
15183.5). The CAP serves as the City’s qualified GHG reduction plan,
because it contains the following required plan elements:
Community-wide GHG emissions inventory and "business-as-
usual" forecast of 2020 community-wide GHG emissions;
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 the
plan would not be cumulatively considerable);
Analysis of local and state policies and actions that may
impact GHG emissions within the jurisdiction;
Quantification of GHG reduction measures demonstrating
that, if implemented, the GHG reduction targets will be met;
Implementation and monitoring strategy and timeline; and
Adequate environmental review of the CAP.
13 SLOCOG Preliminary Sustainable Communities Strategy
Climate Action Plan
Introduction 9
Incorporation of these plan elements allows the CAP to be used in
the cumulative impacts analysis of later projects. The environmental
document for each project must identify those requirements
specified in the CAP that apply to the project, and if those
requirements are not otherwise binding or enforceable, should be
incorporated as mitigation measures applicable to the project
(CEQA 15183.5b). The City will develop a mitigation matrix as an
offshoot of the CAP for projects that exceed specified GHG
thresholds. The matrix will include quantifiable CAP reduction
measures consistent with SB 97 direction.
A number of other laws directly relate to local climate planning
efforts and will result in local GHG emissions reductions. The laws
are outlined in the following sections.
Clean Car Standards, AB 1493 (Pavley)
Signed into law in 2002, AB 1493 requires carmakers to reduce GHG
emissions from new passenger cars and light trucks beginning in
2011. Regulations were adopted by ARB in 2004 and took effect in
2009 with the release of a waiver from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) granting California the right to implement
the bill. ARB anticipates that the Pavley standards will reduce GHG
emissions from new California passenger vehicles by about 22% in
2012 and about 30% in 2016, all while improving fuel efficiency and
reducing motorists’ costs.14
14 California Air Resources Board, 2010.
Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Established in 2007 under an executive order from Governor
Schwarzenegger, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) directs the
California Environmental Protection Agency, the California Energy
Commission, and the California Air Resources Board to develop
protocols for measuring the life-cycle carbon intensity of
transportation fuels to be included as part of the state’s early action
item for implementing AB 32. The LCFS will reduce the average
carbon intensity of transportation fuels by 10%.15
Renewable Portfolio Standard
California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) is one of the most
ambitious renewable energy standards in the country, mandating
that 33% of electricity delivered in California is generated by
renewable sources like solar, wind, and geothermal by 2020. The
California RPS was first codified in 2002 by SB 1078 (requiring 20%
renewable electricity mix by 2010) and further strengthened in April
2011 with the adoption of SB X 1-2 (requiring 33% renewable
electricity mix by 2020).16 The RPS intends to boost the economy
and establish California as a leader in the development and use of
renewable energy.
Despite the 2020 goal of California’s RPS, technological and political
challenges may prevent some investor-owned utilities from meeting
the 33% target by 2020. In 2010, the California Public Utilities
Commission reported that 18% of California’s electricity came from
15 California Air Resources Board, 2011.
16 California Public Utilites Commision, 2011.
City of San Luis Obispo
Introduction 10
renewable sources in 2010, missing the 20% goal by 2%. California
utilities have more than enough renewable electricity under
consideration to meet the 33% target by 2020. However, due to
contract and transmission limitations, not all of this new electricity
may be available in time.17 Taking these issues into account, this
document assumes a more conservative forecast of a 28%
renewable mix by 2020.
California Building Codes, Title 24
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) regulates how
each new home and business is built or altered in California. It
includes requirements for the structural, plumbing, electrical, and
mechanical systems of buildings, and for fire and life safety, energy
conservation, green design, and accessibility in and about buildings.
Two sections of Title 24 – Part 6, the California Energy Code, and Part
11, the California Green Building Standards Code or CALGreen Code
– contain standards that address GHG emissions related to new
construction. These two sections require direct electricity, natural
gas, and water savings for every new home or business built in
California. Part 6, which was last updated in January 2011, also
includes requirements for lighting, insulation and equipment
upgrades to residential and nonresidential buildings undergoing
additions, alterations or repairs. CCR Title 24 are statewide codes
and standards that must be enforced by local agencies through the
construction application process.
17 California Public Utilites Commision 2011.
Part 11, 2010 California Green Building Code
California is the first state in the nation to adopt a mandatory green
building code, the California Green Building Standards Code, or
CALGreen. The CALGreen Code became a mandatory code
beginning January 1, 2011. The code takes a holistic approach to
green building by including minimum requirements in the areas of
planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and
conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and
environmental quality. The CALGreen code has minimum
mandatory standards and two additional tiers of voluntary measures
intended to achieve greater levels of effeciency which result in lower
levels of GHG emissions. Local governments must enforce the
minimum standards and can choose to adopt either Tier 1 or Tier 2
standards to achieve greater positive environmental impacts. The
CAP maintains minimum CALGreen requirements, and proposes
incentives for projects that elect to meet Tier 1 standards.
Mandatory CALGreen standards do not require explicit reductions in
energy consumption beyond the minimum Title 24 Part 6 standards.
However, if a local agency elects to adopt either of the optional tiers
of CALGreen, additional prerequisites and electives must be
implemented by new development projects. For the voluntary
energy efficiency prerequisites, Tier 1 is a 15% and Tier 2 is a 30%
improvement over minimum Title 24 Part 6 requirements.
The GHG forecast in this plan incorporates the net energy and water
benefit of new Title 24 requirements that did not exist in the
baseline year. These estimates are based on California Energy
Commission studies that compare each new update of Title 24 to its
former version. The AB 32 Scoping Plan calls for ongoing triennial
Climate Action Plan
Introduction 11
updates to Title 24 that will yield regular increases in the mandatory
energy and water savings for new construction. As such, the GHG
forecast also includes a conservative estimate of the energy and
water reductions due to future updates of Title 24 based on historic
growth rates. The energy reductions quantified in the forecast from
Part 6 Energy Code updates are based on the assumption that the
triennial updates to the code will yield regular decreases in the
maximum allowable amount of energy used from new construction.
California Solar Initiative
The California Solar Initiative (CSI) was authorized in 2006 under SB 1
and allows the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to
provide incentives to install solar technology on existing residential,
commercial, nonprofit, and governmental buildings if they are
customers of the State’s investor-owned utilities (IOUs): Pacific Gas &
Electric (PG&E), San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E), or Southern
California Edison (SCE). The CSI program has a budget of nearly $2.2
billion to be expended by 2016 with a goal to reach 1,940
megawatts (MW) of installed solar power throughout the State by
that time.18 The CSI program has several components, including the
Research and Development, Single-family Affordable Solar Housing
(SASH), Multi-family Affordable Solar Housing (MASH), and Solar
Water Heating Pilot Program, each of which provides incentives to
further the installation of solar technology on California’s buildings.
Adjusted Business-As-Usual Forecast
Implementation of State legislation has direct impacts on the
current and future GHG emissions in San Luis Obispo. State policies
18 California Energy Commission and California Public Utilities Commission, 2011.
address emissions that are difficult for the City to directly influence
with local policy such as vehicle fuel efficiency and the emissions
associated with the generation of electricity.
Local Impact of State Emissions Reduction Policies
State Law Amount of Emissions (MTCO 2 e)
2010 2020 2035
Clean Car Standards (Pavley) 0 -21,020 -35,420
Low Carbon Fuel Standard 0 -9,330 -8,690
Renewable Portfolio Standard -3,490 -10,290 -17,070
California Solar Initiative -640 -1,490 -1,420
Title 24 0 -980 -4,850
Total Emissions Reductions -4,130 -43,110 -67,450
287,740
264,230
244,630
224,600
200,000
230,000
260,000
290,000
320,000
350,000
2005 2010 2020 2035
Adjusted Business-As -Usual GHG Emissions
Business As Usual Forecast
Baseline
Adjusted BAU with State Reductions
State Recommended Reduction Targets
City of San Luis Obispo
Introduction 12
Reductions resulting from State policies are estimated to reduce
GHG emissions 15% below projected business-as-usual (BAU) GHG
emissions. This means the City must implement local strategies to
reduce emissions by an additional 7% to reach the 2020 reduction
target of 22% below BAU (15% below baseline).
Climate Action Plan Development
In 2009, the City partnered with the Cal Poly Climate Team to
develop a CAP. The draft plan was developed over two phases: (1)
auditing the City’s existing policies, and (2) drafting the CAP.
Education and outreach was conducted throughout the process and
is described in more detail below.
Phase 1: Development of a citywide policy audit and other
background research was completed by December 2009. This
included identifying existing policies and programs that either
support or conflict with the City’s GHG reduction goals,
reviewing strategies implemented in other jurisdictions to
identify those strategies that are applicable to San Luis Obispo,
and holding community workshops to gather public feedback.
Phase 2: The research and community input completed in Phase
1 served as an informational foundation for creation of a draft
CAP that identifies specific emissions reduction strategies,
establishes progress-tracking indicators, and makes policy
implementation recommendations. The expected emissions
reduction from each strategy was calculated to demonstrate
how the City can reach its GHG reduction target of 1990 levels by
the year 2020.
Public Engagement
City residents were involved at all stages of plan development.
Outreach efforts included
hosting booths at four
separate Thursday night
Farmers’ Markets, four
community meetings,
electronic outreach
including a Facebook page
and a website, digital
surveys, visits to local
schools, and Saturday visits
to local supermarkets.
Early in the plan development process, public engagement efforts
focused on sharing information with the public, raising awareness,
and gaining an understanding of community needs. Activities
included an educational climate change game, a board where
residents could identify the ways they are already working to reduce
their own carbon footprint, and walking surveys. Emphasis was
placed on soliciting community-based ideas for addressing climate
change, which was used as the foundation for draft GHG emissions
reduction strategies.
The Climate Team and staff made a number of Saturday visits to
local supermarkets, where the team shared details of the project
with interested residents, solicited feedback on draft strategies, and
invited residents to upcoming meetings. In an attempt to engage
residents of all ages, visits were also made to local schools. Students
Climate Action Plan
Introduction 13
were given an opportunity to share some of their ideas and to learn
more about climate change and how it might affect San Luis Obispo.
Flyers announcing upcoming community meetings were also
dropped off at schools for students to take home to their parents.
Subsequent public workshops and events focused on presentation
of draft GHG reduction strategies and gathering feedback on which
strategies residents could support. Presentations and participation
excercises were also held at regular meetings of local community
groups, including: Home Builder’s Association, Greenbuild Alliance,
Association of REALTORs, Chamber of Commerce, Kiwanis Club,
Empower Poly, and Workforce Housing Coalition.
A website (SLOCOOL.org) and Facebook page allowed residents to
post questions and comments via Facebook or email, and review
updates and information about future events. Three digital surveys
were administered through web resources. Two of the surveys
focused on residents, and a third survey was sent to the business
community via the Chamber of Commerce.
Finalizing the City’s Reduction Strategies
GHG emissions reduction policies and programs reflect public input,
climate science literature, State and Federal legislation, emerging
planning policy, and CAPs adopted by other jurisdictions. The
majority of the community GHG reduction strategies are based on
voluntary behavior. The CAP guides residents and workers to make
alternative efficiency-based decisions, or in many cases, to continue
environmentally sound practices already taking place in SLO. Where
strategies have potential to impose costs on the community, a cost-
benefit analysis shall accompany implementation proposals. The
overall benefit of the CAP is larger than reducing GHG emissions; it is
quality of life improvements for the community and protection of
the environment for future generations.
Sample Survey Question
City of San Luis Obispo
Introduction 14
Implementation:
Monitoring:
Estimated amount of GHG emissions
reduced by the year 2020, measured in
metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
(MTCO2e).
= -500 MTCO2e
Actions that implement the strategy. A
checked box indicates continuation of
existing efforts.
Climate Action Plan
Introduction 15
City of San Luis Obispo
Introduction 16
This page intentionally left blank.
Climate Action Plan
Buildings
Buildings
17
Goal: Reduce energy-related emissions by promoting greater
energy efficiency at the point of final use in buildings.
The GHG emissions associated with energy use from buildings
account for 43% of community-wide GHG emissions (113,620
MTCO2e). These emissions come from fossil fuels that supply energy
to residential, commercial, and industrial buildings, facilities and
associated appliances. Energy-related GHG emissions can be
reduced by using less energy through conservation and making
buildings more efficient with the energy they use.
Energy is used to light, heat, and cool buildings, as well as power
appliances, equipment, and electronics that are used within each
building. Small, low-cost actions such as switching to more efficient
light bulbs, or line drying clothes instead of using a dryer, can
provide significant energy savings, which results
in emissions reductions. Energy efficiency
improvements also can increase property values,
reduce monthly utility costs, and improve indoor
air quality.
State Reductions
Title 24 – Part 6, the California Energy Code, and
Part 11, the California Green Building Standards
Code or CALGreen Code – require direct
electricity, natural gas, and water savings for
every new home or business built in California.
Part 6 also includes requirements for lighting,
insulation and equipment upgrades to residential and
nonresidential buildings undergoing additions, alterations or
repairs.
Existing Actions
Existing local policies that reduce energy use within the community
can be found in the General Plan, Community Design Guidelines,
and Zoning Regulations. These policies include:
Design standards that promote sustainable and efficient
development, such as maximizing passive ventilation and
cooling systems, and use of natural lighting within buildings.
Application requirements for large development projects to
complete green building and low impact development
checklists.
Additional energy efficiency performance standards for
proposed buildings taller than 50 feet.
13% of Total
Community GHG
Reductions
Community
Savings
Education
&
Awareness
Reduces
Energy
Demand
Fossil fuels supply roughly 90 percent of the world’s commercial
energy; energy-related emissions account for more than 80
percent of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere each
year (World Resources Institute).
City of San Luis Obispo
Buildings 18
Energy efficiency mitigations for projects that may have a
significant environmental impact.
Buildings Strategies
Local strategies to reduce community-wide energy-related
emissions from buildings include energy efficiency requirements,
programs, incentives, education and outreach. Many of the building
strategies align with policies in the County EnergyWise Plan and
pending State legislation.
Building GHG Emissions Reductions by Strategy (-3,543 MTC02e)
The majority of emissions reductions can be achieved through
energy efficiency improvements to existing buildings. Conserving
existing building stock also preserves “embodied energy”, which is
the sum of energy inputs used in initial building construction.
BLD 1: Efficiency Improvements to Existing Buildings
Implement local programs, and
collaborate with the County and
State, to improve energy efficiency
in older building stock.
Program Description:
An efficient building ensures that space heating and cooling, water
heating, insulation systems and electrical systems are working
together to achieve the optimal comfort using the least amount of
energy. Building performance is improved by sealing leaks and
insulating the “envelope” or exterior shell. Efficiency upgrades can:
eliminate drafts, quiet the interior, reduce mold, save money on
utility bills, reduce respiratory irritants, reduce energy use, improve
fire safety, and lower GHG emissions.
Energy ratings by certified professionals are the first step. Energy
ratings inform owners and buyers about the energy efficiency of a
building, its operating costs, and improvements that can be made to
make the building more energy efficient. Making this information
available helps consumers make better decisions. Property owners
Basic Efficiency Upgrades
-1,745 MTCO2e
Efficiency
Improvements
to Existing
Buildings
New
Construction
Energy
Conservation
Public
Outreach and
Education
Climate Action Plan
Buildings
19
In 2012, the average cost of an energy rating is $400 to $700,
which includes: infrared and blower door testing for air leaks,
insulation, HVAC and duct inspection, utility history analysis,
safety and mold testing, air pressure mapping, and customized
efficiency upgrade recommendations.
will be able to receive incentives for completing energy ratings of
older buildings and submitting the results to the City.
Energy efficiency upgrades to older buildings are a common goal of
the City, County and State. Continuing education of the public using
energy ratings, online resources, State-mandated annual energy
reports for nonresidential buildings (AB 1103), and energy monitors
will create the basis of information that leads to more retrofits. This
aligns with the State’s Comprehensive Energy Efficiency Program for
Existing Buildings (AB 758), which requires the Energy Commission
to develop and implement strategies for energy assessments,
benchmarking, energy use ratings and labels, cost-effective energy
efficiency improvements, financing, outreach and green workforce
training.
Implementation:
BLD 1.1 Accomplish 425 residential energy-efficiency
retrofits and 10,000 square feet of commercial efficiency
retrofits annually, by encouraging energy ratings, offering
rebates and incentives, and supporting regional education
efforts such as an EnergyWatch energy-efficiency website.
BLD 1.2 Encourage property owners to monitor building
energy use through energy monitors, web applications and
State-required energy use disclosures (AB 1103).
BLD 1.3 Evaluate options for a local
energy conservation ordinance, pursuant
to pending State legislation (AB 758), that
requires entry-level efficiency upgrades
identified in certified energy ratings.
BLD 1.4 Identify energy efficiency
upgrades for historic structures that do
not compromise the historic integrity of
the building, such as interior upgrades like
insulation, air sealing, and wrapping
ducts.
Implementation Time Frame: Mid-Term
Indicators & Monitoring:
• Number of energy ratings submitted to City in exchange for
nominal compensation.
• Number of permits issued that include energy-efficiency
retrofits.
• Annual review of PG&E Green Communities local data on
residential and nonresidential energy consumption trends.
BLD 2: New Construction Energy Conservation
Encourage and incentivize new
development to exceed minimum Cal Green
requirements.
Program Description:
The City has established incentives for certain green building
practices in new construction. Downtown development projects
-288 MTCO2e
City of San Luis Obispo
Buildings 20
that exceed Cal Green standards have the opportunity to develop at
taller heights than those that only meet minimum efficiency
standards. Expansion of incentives for projects that go beyond Cal
Green requirements will encourage additional energy conservation
in new construction, and reduce energy-related GHG emissions
beyond State law.
Utilization of the latest “smart” appliances and other green
technologies such as cool roofs and cool pavement in new
construction helps reduce energy demand. Cool roofs use special
reflective pigments that reflect sunlight, making a building cooler
and air conditioning use less frequent. Cool pavement reflects more
solar energy reducing heat absorption in the built environment.
Implementation:
BLD 2.1 Expand incentive program for projects that exceed
Title 24 energy efficiency standards.
BLD 2.2 Require new development to install energy-
efficient appliances.
BLD 2.3 Amend design guidelines and other documents to
promote low impact development strategies such as cool
roofs and cool paving surfaces.
Implementation Time Frame: Near-Term
Indicators & Monitoring:
• Percentage of new construction projects that exceed Cal
Green requirements.
• Percentage of new projects with smart grid appliances.
BLD 3: Public Outreach and Education
Collaborate with local utility providers,
the County and State, businesses, and
community organizations to develop
energy conservation campaigns and
marketing for existing programs.
Program Description:
Voluntary energy efficiency and conservation programs provide
incentives to residents and businesses to reduce energy use, and
collectively work towards reducing community-wide GHG
emissions. Energy Upgrade California is one program being
implemented statewide that offers rebates up to $4,000 for energy
efficient upgrades to buildings. Energy-efficiency mortgages,
sponsored by federally insured mortgage programs (FHA and VA)
and the conventional secondary mortgage market (Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac), are used to purchase existing homes that will have
energy efficiency improvements completed. The City will work to
educate the public about this financing option and other programs
offered by Federal, State and regional agencies and utility
companies via publications and online materials.
The City will also strengthen partnerships with local organizations
committed to promoting green building design and energy-efficient
living standards. Development of a certification program that
recognizes businesses with energy efficient operations will help
promote energy conservation and grow community-wide
awareness.
-1,510 MTCO2e
Climate Action Plan
Buildings
21
Implementation:
BLD 3.1 Promote energy efficiency programs and available
financing options including energy-efficiency mortgages,
State energy programs, Energy Upgrade California, utility
company upgrade programs, and local rebates.
BLD 3.2 Collaborate with the County, State, and energy
providers to develop a central website for streamlined access
to energy efficiency resources, including a database of
certified energy raters and recommended upgrades.
BLD 3.3 Work with local green building organizations on
education and outreach programs.
BLD 3.4 Work with the business community to establish a
green business certification program.
Implementation Time Frame: Near-Term
Indicators & Monitoring:
• Number of local participants in Energy Upgrade California.
• Number of hits on community web portal.
• Number of certified green businesses.
Adaptation
An increase in the frequency and severity of heat waves is one
anticipated consequence of climate change in California. Higher
temperatures mean increased energy demand to power residential
and commercial air conditioning, and increased strain on energy
distribution systems. Improved standards to promote more energy-
efficient buildings can reduce indoor air temperatures during heat
waves, thereby reducing energy consumption of cooling systems.
Heat waves can also threaten vulnerable
populations such as infants, elderly, and those
without access to cool indoor spaces. Improving
emergency preparedness for heat waves will help
at-risk residents avoid the negative impacts of
higher than normal temperatures.
BLD Adaptation 1: Public Relief during
Extreme Heat
Facilities that provide air-conditioned indoor
space should be accessible to the general public
during heat waves. They should be City-owned
facilities, educational buildings, commercial
structures or any other air-conditioned building that is centrally
located and can accommodate up to 100 people. Agreements shall
be developed that define an extreme heat event and the hours each
facility will be available to the public.
City of San Luis Obispo
Buildings 22
This page has been intentionally left blank.
Climate Action Plan
Renewable Energy
Renewable Energy
23
Goal: Use cleaner and renewable energy sources.
Energy conservation and efficiency reduce GHG emissions by
decreasing demand for energy created from burning fossil fuels. A
third alternative to reduce GHG emissions is utilization of renewable
energy sources like solar and wind. Renewable energy generation
does not produce GHG emissions, making it a cleaner alternative to
traditional energy sources. State and local programs and incentives
have led to the installation of nearly 200 renewable energy systems
on residential and commercial properties within the City since 2005.
State Reductions
State incentives such as the California Solar Initiative (CSI) offer cash
back on the costs of installing solar technology on existing
residential, commercial, nonprofit, and governmental buildings if
they are customers of the State’s investor-owned utilities.
California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) is one of the most
ambitious renewable energy standards in the country, mandating
that 33% of electricity delivered in California is generated by
renewable sources like solar, wind, and geothermal by 2020.
Existing Actions
The City continues to support renewable energy
through policies in the Conservation and Open
Space Element (COSE) of the General Plan,
including:
Solar access standards for new
development that ensure new and existing
buildings maintain adequate solar access
for future solar installations.
Solar power requirements for new single-
family residential projects of 20 or more dwelling units.
Photovoltaic solar collector requirements for common-use
facilities in multi-family residential developments with 20 or
more units.
Renewable Energy Strategies
Local strategies supporting installation of renewable energy systems
are a combination of financing, incentives and outreach. A local
renewable energy financing program can help develop the City’s
clean energy economy.
7% of Total
Community
GHG Reductions Supports Local
Business
Community
Savings
Financing
Implemen
tation
Renewable Energy GHG Reductions by Strategy (-2,240 MTC02e)
Renewables
Implementation
Renewables
Financing
City of San Luis Obispo
Renewable Energy 24
RE 1: Renewable Energy Financing
Promote a wide range of renewable
energy financing options including a
renewable energy fund or loan
program.
Program Description:
Financing programs help to remove the high upfront costs of
renewable energy equipment by allowing participants to take out
low-interest loans that will be offset by low to minimal monthly
energy costs. The City will evaluate the feasibility of a public and/or
private low-interest loan program. The California Energy
Commission offers energy-efficiency financing for cities, counties,
and special districts. A community-funded renewable energy fund
asks customers to voluntarily pay a little extra on their utility bills.
These customer donations are distributed once a year to individuals,
schools and nonprofit agencies that are generating solar and wind
power. Renewable energy generated goes into the electrical grid
and is distributed to customers.
The County’s EnergyWise Plan includes formation of a countywide
energy collaborative that will include cities, the County, state and
local agencies, and investor-owned utilities. The City will support
this regional approach to provide renewable funding and financing.
Implementation:
RE 1.1 Support efforts to implement a revolving low-interest
loan program or renewable energy fund.
RE 1.2 Work with the County to build a collaborative network
to promote renewable funding and financing.
RE 1.3 Work with the County and regional energy providers
to evaluate a “feed-in tariff” program that pays property
owners generating renewable energy based on the amount
of energy generated.
Implementation Time Frame: Mid-Term
Indicators & Monitoring:
• Number and size of renewable energy projects installed.
• Number of residents and/or businesses taking advantage of
financing and funding programs.
RE 2: Renewable Energy Implementation
Incentivize renewable energy generation in new and existing
developments.
Program Description:
The City will offer incentives to offset elevated construction costs
associated with renewable energy installations. New developments
receiving incentives will need to generate a minimum share of their
energy requirements through on-site renewable technologies.
Amendments to development codes, design guidelines and the
Zoning Regulations will be completed as necessary to make
renewable energy use easier.
Implementation:
RE 2.1 Incentivize renewable energy generation by
streamlining review processes, reducing permit costs, and/or
-2100 MTCO2e
-140 MTCO2e
Climate Action Plan
Renewable Energy 25
allowing modest density bonuses for construction projects
with renewable energy installations.
RE 2.2 Revise City policies and regulations as needed to
eliminate barriers to the use of renewable energy, and
implement General Plan programs that require solar power
for certain residential projects (COSE 4.6.17).
RE 2.3 Evaluate the feasibility of a regional Community
Choice Aggregation program to procure electricity from
renewable resources.
Implementation Time Frame: Mid-Term
Indicators & Monitoring:
• Number and size of renewable energy projects installed.
• Number of residents and/or businesses taking advantage of
incentive programs, and associated cost savings.
RE 3: Public Outreach and Education
Increase community awareness of renewable energy programs.
Educate professionals about benefits of integrating renewable
technologies in project design.
Program Description
Community members need to be informed about federal, state,
regional and local renewable energy programs using a mixed media
approach; online, in-person, and on television. The Renewable
Energy Secure Communities project for SLO County (SLO-RESCO)
project is a regional partnership working to identify the best mix of
resources for clean, secure and affordable energy. The City supports
SLO-RESCO’s efforts and will help the public and
decision makers consider their research results.
Photovoltaic cells are becoming more
commonplace on residential and commercial
rooftops, but design professionals should consider
additional opportunities to capture solar energy
on accessory structures.
Implementation:
RE 3.1 Educate the community about
renewable energy programs using various methods, such as
the City's website, TV channel, flyers in reception areas, and
public events.
RE 3.2 Consider results of the SLO-RESCO project.
RE 3.3 Encourage the use of photovoltaic installations
whenever possible during design review process.
Implementation Time Frame: Near-Term
Indicators & Monitoring:
• Attendance at public events focused on energy.
• Number of projects with photovoltaic systems.
Adaptation
Climate change increases the probability of extreme heat events,
which increases the demand for cooling systems in buildings.
Alternative energy generation reduces demand on traditional
transmission infrastructure, and provides additional energy security.
City of San Luis Obispo
Renewable Energy 26
This page has been intentionally left blank.
Climate Action Plan
Transportation & Land Use
Transportation & Land Use
27
Goal: Improve transportation options.
Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the main indicator used to track GHG
emissions produced from vehicle combustion of fossil fuels. VMT is
estimated using traffic counts from 176 locations and includes
vehicle trips on all streets, highways, and freeways within the City
limits. The 2005 Baseline GHG Inventory estimates a citywide daily
VMT of 768,239, and approximately 50% of the community-wide
GHG emissions, from vehicle traffic. While this is higher than the
statewide percentage of total emissions coming from vehicles
(41%), some of the transportation-related emissions in the City may
be attributable to pass-through traffic on State Highways 1 and 101.
Based on the City’s traffic model, about 34% of citywide daily VMT is
pass-through traffic. With a land area of just over 10 square miles,
many trips within San Luis Obispo are short and may not require an
automobile.
Transportation-related GHG emissions are directly influenced by trip
length, mode of travel, and vehicle efficiency. Mode choice and trip
length are indirectly influenced by land use patterns. Replacing
vehicle trips with alternative modes of transportation, including
bicycling and walking, reduces VMT and related
GHG emissions. Expanding the existing network of
bicycle and pedestrian routes, increasing the
safety of alternative modes of travel, and
conducting additional education and outreach
efforts facilitate and promote car-free alternatives.
State Reductions
The Pavley Standards (AB 1493) require carmakers
to reduce GHG emissions from new passenger
cars and light trucks beginning in 2011. The
anticipated statewide GHG emissions reductions
are about 22% in 2012 and about 30% in 2016. These standards
build upon the State’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard to improve fuel
efficiency and reduce motorists’ costs.
The State has also indirectly reduced local VMT from campus
commuters. Over the last several years, California Polytechnic State
University (Cal Poly) has developed additional on-campus housing,
which reduces vehicular travel to and from campus.
Existing Actions
Transportation
The City of San Luis Obispo’s first Bicycle Facilities Plan was adopted
in 1985. Since then, the City has increasingly focused on providing
additional bicycle infrastructure, safety education, and community
outreach programs for cyclists. This investment in infrastructure and
safety programs earned the City the status of a Silver Level Bicycle
Friendly Community from the League of American Bicyclists in 2007.
Community
Savings
Improves
Mobility
Health
Benefits
Supports Local
Business
40% of
Total
Community
GHG
Reductions
City of San Luis Obispo
Transportation & Land Use 28
In 2010, there were more than 39 miles of bikeways in the City. A
major goal of the City’s 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan is to have a
complete network of bikeways, including Class II (striped bike lanes
for one-way bicycle travel on a street) and Class III (designated bike
routes along lightly traveled streets) by 2017, and Class I (bike paths
reserved for bicycles and pedestrians separated from streets) by
2027. Recent bicycle infrastructure projects include the dedication
of Morro Street south of downtown as a Bike Boulevard, bike-
specific arrow markings, called “sharrows,” along Monterey Street,
the completion of portions of the City to Sea Bike Trail to Avila
Beach, the Madonna Bike Path, and portions of the Railroad Safety
Trail. Additionally, improvements include bike sensors at signalized
intersections along Class II and Class III bikeways and a Caltrans Bike
Box striped at the Madonna Road and Higuera Street intersection.
Efforts have also been made to encourage bicycle transportation
through development review. In 1993, the City adopted bicycle
parking standards requiring new development to provide safe and
accessible long- and short-term bike parking as a condition of
approval. New developments may reduce the number of required
parking spaces by providing additional bike parking, above the
minimum requirements. The Racks with Plaques program allows
community groups to sponsor additional bike parking and has
provided 100 additional bike parking spaces since 2005. Since 2006,
the City has supported the County Bike Coalition’s Bike Valet
program at community events. Providing opportunities for bike
parking facilitates alternative transportation, thereby reducing GHG
emissions from vehicular travel.
The City continues to support community outreach and education
related to bike and pedestrian safety through programs and events
like the Bike Rodeo and the employee TRIP reduction program.
Additionally, the community can participate in countywide events
and programs like the Rideshare program, Commute for Cash
Challenge, Safe Routes to School program, and Bike Month
organized by SLOCOG’s Regional Rideshare.
Land Use
Land use patterns influence the transportation choices we make in
our community on a daily basis. Compact mixed-use neighborhoods
that locate housing, jobs, recreation, and other daily needs within
close proximity give us more choices in what mode of
transportation to use. Walkable and transit-oriented communities
are better serviced by public transit and make cycling and walking
more attractive modes of transportation by reducing the distances
to be traveled and allowing transit and infrastructure investments to
be focused in areas where they will have the highest utility. Research
has shown that compact development which includes higher
density, increased diversity, and greater accessibility can reduce
VMT to 20% to 40% below average.1
The City encourages mixed-use projects that mix residential and
commercial on the same site. Mixed-use projects play an
increasingly important role in providing additional housing, without
1 U.S. Department of Transportation, 2010.
Climate Action Plan
Transportation & Land Use
29
sacrificing opportunities for commercial and office spaces. The City
has entitled several mixed-use projects in the Downtown core.
Transportation and Land Use Strategies
Strategies to reduce transportation-related GHG emissions focus on
supporting alternative modes of travel, and making it easier for
people to get to jobs, goods and services without traveling long
distances in a vehicle.
Transportation Emission Reductions by Strategy (-10,509 MTC0 2 e)
TLU 1: Transit Services
Continue to maintain and expand transit services utilizing best
practices in planning and management.
Program Description:
Transit expansion promotes additional ridership and aligns with San
Luis Obispo’s Council of Governments (SLOCOG) Sustainable
Communities Strategy. Approximately 50% of those additional
transit trips would otherwise be made by car, which means a
reduction in VMT and related GHG emissions. The City will continue
to grow transit ridership by implementing best
practices in transit planning and development.
Implementation:
TLU 1.1 Implement the Short Range Transit
Plan.
TLU 1.2 Continue to research federal and
local funding for transit service upgrade
projects.
TLU 1.3 Support the County’s EnergyWise
Plan strategy to add transit routes that
provide intercity express services.
TLU 1.4 Continue to offer a free or discounted bus passes to
residents who work in the downtown core, seniors and
students.
Implementation Time Frame: Mid-Term
Indicators & Monitoring:
• Number of discounted bus passes distributed annually.
• Average number of passengers per revenue hour.
• Number of annual transit trips.
TLU 2: Alternative Vehicles
Promote clean air vehicles (CAV), and expand
the network of electric car charging stations and
car-sharing parking spaces.
Program Description:
Access to designated parking and charging infrastructure facilitates
Transit
Services
Alternative
Vehicles
Bike Travel
Complete
Streets
Land Use
Diversity and
Density
Parking
Management Shared Parking Reduce
Commuting
-420 MTCO2e
-1,110 MTCO2e
City of San Luis Obispo
Transportation & Land Use 30
alternative vehicle use. The Air Pollution Control District’s (APCD)
Electric Vehicle (EV) Community Readiness Plan promotes expansion
of EV charging infrastructure in the County. The City will take
advantage of available EV Plan funding to retrofit existing charging
stations, and establish new requirements for large developments to
accommodate CAVs. The SLO2035 General Plan update should
identify a street network appropriate for Neighborhood EVs.
Car-sharing helps reduce the number of cars on the road by
providing an alternative to car-ownership. The City will encourage
the continued expansion of car-sharing services by allowing parking
spaces for these vehicles in additional places such as public lots and
residential areas.
Implementation:
TLU 2.1 Require all new development with 50 or more
parking spaces to designate a minimum 8% of parking
spaces for clean air vehicles.
TLU 2.2 Require all new development with 50 or more
parking spaces to pre-wire for electric vehicle charging
stations, and provide a minimum 2 percent charging spaces.
TLU 2.3 Work with the APCD on the EV Community Readiness
Plan for the Central Coast.
TLU 2.4 Identify a network of streets appropriate for
Neighborhood EV use in the SLO2035 General Plan update.
TLU 2.5 Allow car-sharing companies to designate spaces in
public parking areas and multifamily housing projects.
Implementation Time Frame: Near-Term
Indicators & Monitoring:
• Number of working electric vehicle charging stations.
• Number of local car-share vehicles and members.
• Percent of parking in new developments reserved for clean
air vehicles.
• Number of registered CAVs in the City.
TLU 3: Bike Travel
Increase the percentage of non-
recreational trips that are made by
bicycle.
Program Description:
The City will continue to invest in bicycle infrastructure and
programs that support the safe use of bicycles. A 20% bicycle mode
share by 2020 can be achieved via the City’s Bicycle Transportation
Plan (BTP) and supporting State and Federal funding. The BTP
establishes a citywide network of Class I, II, and III bikeways over the
next 20 years.
Improvements to bicycle access and parking will make it easier to
use a bicycle for commuting or running errands. Development of a
bike-share program with self-serve rental kiosks throughout the
community will be explored.
Implementation:
TLU 3.1 Modify Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP) to achieve
20% bicycle mode share by 2020.
-4,818 MTCO2e
Climate Action Plan
Transportation & Land Use
31
TLU 3.2 Develop additional funding and staff resources to
implement the BTP, including cyclist safety programs and
bicyclist commuter incentives.
TLU 3.3 Research opportunities for a bike-share program near
parking facilities.
Implementation Time Frame: Long-Term
Indicators & Monitoring:
• Miles of bike lanes and bike paths installed.
• Number of bike trips observed in biannual bike counts.
• Percentage of BTP projects completed.
TLU 4: Complete Streets
Modify General Plan policies in the SLO2035 update to support a
balanced, multimodal transportation network.
Program Description:
Implement the Complete Streets Act of 2008 by developing General
Plan policies in the SLO2035 update that plan for a multimodal
transportation network that safely accommodates all users. Develop
a Downtown pedestrian master plan for safety and accessibility that
includes best practices to increase safety at intersections, addresses
discontinuous or poor quality sidewalks, and ensures that the City
meets Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.
Expansion of the Safe Routes to School program will encourage
students to use alternative modes of transportation to get to and
from school. The City will focus on infrastructure improvements
surrounding schools on City maintained streets.
Maintaining travel corridors in the transportation
network allows pass-through traffic to separate
from local users, which keeps traffic flowing.
Reducing vehicle idling from stop and go traffic
reduces GHGs from engine emissions.
Implementation:
TLU 4.1 Require new and redeveloped
street designs to address the needs of all
users – motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists,
children, persons with disabilities, seniors
and users of public transit – where
appropriate.
TLU 4.2 Develop and adopt a Downtown Pedestrian Plan.
TLU 4.3 Collaborate with SLO Regional Rideshare to expand
Safe Routes to School programs, events, and projects.
TLU 4.4 Research traffic congestion management techniques
that decrease vehicle stop rate and time, such as signal
synchronization or roundabouts.
Implementation Time Frame: Long-Term
Indicators & Monitoring:
• Completed projects that improve the balance of the City’s
transportation network for all users.
• Adopted Downtown Pedestrian Plan.
• Safe Routes to School participation rates.
-551 MTCO2e
City of San Luis Obispo
Transportation & Land Use 32
-2850 MTCO2e
TLU 5: Land Use Diversity and Density
Encourage compact urban form and mixed-
use developments.
Program Description:
Promote compact urban form by amending regulatory documents
to increase density and allow mixed-use projects in suitable zones,
excluding low-density residential (R-1) neighborhoods. Transit-
oriented development (TOD) is a type of mixed-use project
designed to maximize access to public transit, and often
incorporates features to encourage transit ridership. Mixed-use
development can reduce the distance traveled for jobs, goods and
services, and diminish transportation-related GHG emissions.
Implementation:
TLU 5.1 Improve connectivity between neighborhoods and
services based on opportunities identified in the SLO2035
General Plan update.
TLU 5.2 Promote infill by amending the General Plan and
Zoning Regulations to increase residential densities in
suitable zones.
TLU 5.3 Incentivize mixed-use development by reducing
parking requirements, allowing alternatives to Parking and
Driveway Standards, and streamlining permit review.
TLU 5.4 Evaluate allowing mixed-use projects in the High-
density residential zone in the SLO2035 General Plan update.
TLU 5.5 Apply a Mixed-Use (MU) overlay zone to areas
suitable for TOD based on the SLO2035 General Plan update.
Implementation Time Frame: Mid-Term
Indicators & Monitoring:
• Area of the City rezoned to allow higher residential density.
• Increased land use index (diversity of land uses).
• Number of new mixed-use developments.
• Mean travel time to work.
TLU 6: Parking Management
Motivate Downtown visitors to park once and walk or ride to
multiple destinations, or use transit to get to and from downtown.
Program Description:
Circling the block looking for parking increases vehicle emissions
and creates Downtown traffic. Higher costs for short-term parking
on the street will motivate Downtown visitors to park once in less
expensive parking garages and walk or ride to multiple locations. It
will also ensure that short-term parking close to businesses is
available for consumers with a specific destination.
Implementation:
TLU 6.1 Make Downtown parking structures an attractive
alternative to meter parking by making on-street meter fees
more expensive than structure parking.
TLU 6.2 Locate transit stops and bicycle racks near parking
structures to make alternative transportation choices
Downtown more convenient.
Implementation Time Frame: Near-Term
-460 MTCO2e
Climate Action Plan
Transportation & Land Use
33
Indicators & Monitoring:
• On-street parking vacancy rate.
• Parking structure occupancy rates.
• Annual revenue from parking structures versus parking
meters.
TLU 7: Shared Parking
Reduce VMT and associated GHG emissions by further reducing
parking requirements for land uses that share the same parking lot.
Program Description:
Businesses that have different peak hour parking usage can satisfy
their parking needs, while consuming less land, by sharing lot space.
Reductions in available parking spaces can reduce VMT if alternative
modes of transportation are easy and accessible.
Implementation:
TLU 7.1 Amend the Zoning Regulations to increase the
potential shared parking reduction from 10% to 30%.
Implementation Time Frame: Near-Term
Indicators & Monitoring:
• Average shared parking reduction for tenants in multi-use
centers.
TLU 8: Reduce the Need for Commuting
Increase local housing options for workers in the community that
include variety in location, type, size, tenure and style of dwellings.
Program Description:
Maintaining an appropriate jobs-housing balance
helps give residents the opportunity to live close
to where they work, which reduces VMT from
commuting. Supporting below market-rate (BMR)
infill housing construction, including secondary
dwelling units (SDU), helps increase housing
options for workers in the community.
Implementation:
TLU 8.1 Improve the City’s jobs-housing
balance to reduce VMT from commuting.
TLU 8.2 Support infill housing projects that implement
General Plan policies, especially BMR housing close to job
opportunities.
TLU 8.3 Continue to allow SDU construction and look for
opportunities to reduce barriers to their production.
Implementation Time Frame: Near-Term
Indicators & Monitoring:
• Jobs-housing ratio listed in the General Plan Annual Report.
• Number of BMR housing units built, including SDUs.
TLU 9: Public Outreach and Education
Increase community awareness of transit options and established
pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. Inform residents and
businesses about available incentives for commuting via carpool,
transit and bicycle.
-250 MTCO2e
-50 MTCO2e
City of San Luis Obispo
Transportation & Land Use 34
Program Description:
Education and outreach informs the community about safe and
attractive alternative transportation options. Transportation
welcome packets will include information on transit services, bicycle
paths, and electric car charging stations. Additional bicycle signage
is needed to direct bicyclists to the Bike Boulevard and other safe
routes throughout the community.
The City will continue partnership with regional transportation
organizations and seek new outreach opportunities such as
Department of Motor Vehicles training on sharing the road with
bicyclists. Marketing available incentives for commuting by
alternative tranportation will help employers and workers stay
informed about ways to reduce VMT and associated GHG emissions.
Implementation:
TLU 9.1 Distribute informational transportation welcome
packets and bus passes to new residents and businesses.
TLU 9.2 Install additional informational bike signage.
TLU 9.3 Continue partnership with regional organizations,
including SLOCOG’s Regional Rideshare and SLO County’s
Bicycle Coalition, on outreach and education events.
TLU 9.4 Market incentive programs in the Bicycle Commuter
Act to employers and workers in the community.
Implementation Time Frame: Near-Term
Indicators & Monitoring:
• Number of transportation welcome packets distributed
annually.
• Amount of participation in commuting events and programs.
Adaptation
Climate change is projected to have a limited impact on
transportation infrastructure and land use in San Luis Obispo.
Impacts, including increased frequency of fires, elevated air
temperatures, reduced air quality, and rising sea levels, require
relatively little adaptation in terms of transportation infrastructure
within the City limits.
Higher average daytime temperatures and more frequent heat
waves may contribute to increases in GHG emissions and a
reduction in air quality. This could cause an increase in vehicular
travel as people try to reduce exposure to declining air quality and
excessive temperatures. Stricter Federal and State vehicle emissions
will help counteract temperature impacts on vehicle emissions.
Elevated daytime temperatures can compromise the integrity of
roads and railroad tracks. More severe rainstorms, although
infrequent, could potentially flood streets and neighborhoods along
local creeks. More frequent fires may impact traffic on roads in and
surrounding the wildland-urban interface and also pose a greater
risk of property damage for structures adjacent to open space areas.
Climate Action Plan
Water
Water
35
Goal: Reduce and reuse water consumed by the community.
The bulk of water-related GHG emissions are tied to the electricity
required to pump, treat, and deliver water. Strategies that will
reduce emissions associated with water delivery and wastewater
treatment are included in the Government Operations section. The
community can help reduce water-related GHG emissions indirectly
through water conservation, which reduces water demand and the
amount of energy needed for delivery and treatment.
One disincentive for water conservation is that less revenue for the
City is generated if customers use less water, which may lead to
increased water billing rates to maintain the water distribution
system. However, the City addresses this paradox by encouraging
water conservation using a tiered rate structure. Users can realize
water rate savings by lowering the number of water units consumed
(1 water unit = 100 acre-feet).
State Reductions
The State adopted the California Green Building Standards Code
(CALGreen) in 2011. CALGreen includes minimum requirements in
the areas of planning and design, energy
efficiency, water efficiency and conservation,
material conservation, and resource efficiency.
CALGreen water efficiency and conservation
standards require new construction to reduce
building potable water use by 20%.
Existing Actions
The City’s Urban Water Management Plan
outlines present and future water use reduction
programs for the community and its residents.
San Luis Obispo aims to maintain water use at or
below 125 gallons per person per day. Since 2005, per capita water
usage has dropped to approximately 120 gallons per person per
day, while continuing to allow growth. The most effective water
conservation programs for residents include three components:
hardware retrofits, dynamic pricing, and public education. Past and
current programs to promote water conservation include high-
efficiency washer rebates, retrofit upon sale requirements, and a
leak-detection program. Educational information regarding water
conservation is available on the City’s website, which has guides for
both indoor and outdoor water conservation techniques.
The Conservation and Open Space Element recommends new
development adheres to the Ahwahnee Principles, which encourage
the use of greywater, recycled water, and efficient water use. The
City has also implemented water-efficient landscape standards in
the Zoning Regulations and Community Design Guidelines.
0.41% of
Total GHG
Reductions
Community
Savings
Reduces Energy
Demand
Reduces Water
Consumption
City of San Luis Obispo
Water 36
Water Strategies
Strategies for water conservation promote water-efficient
construction and landscapes, and reuse of greywater and rainwater.
Implementation of existing policies is a large part of this section
since the City has numerous ongoing water conservation plans and
standards already in place.
Water GHG Emissions Reductions by Strategy (-110 MTCO 2 e)
WTR 1: Water Conservation: Existing Development
Implement Water Efficient Landscape
Standards (MC 17.87) when landscape
projects trigger building permit review.
Program Description:
Applications for all landscape projects requiring building permit
review need to submit a landscape documentation package that
responds to required landscape and irrigation design criteria. Project
review and final field inspection will include a list of any observed
deficiencies and recommended correction measures. Opportunities
for rainwater-harvesting or use of greywater will be identified.
Implementation:
WTR 1.1 Require landscape projects that trigger building
permit review to incorporate native and drought tolerant
plant materials and minimize irrigated turf areas.
WTR 1.2 Require landscape projects that trigger building
permit review to incorporate irrigation system designs that
avoid runoff, low-head drainage, and overspray.
WTR 1.3 Encourage the use of recycled water, greywater or
rainwater-harvesting systems.
Implementation Time Frame: Near-Term
Indicators & Monitoring:
• Reduction in the amount of potable water used for irrigation.
• Number of rainwater-harvesting systems installed.
• Annual increase in recycled water use.
WTR 2: Water Conservation: New Development
Implement CALGreen standards, Water
Reuse Master Plan, and Water Efficient
Landscape Standards to reduce potable
water use in new development.
Program Description:
Builders may comply with CALGreen requirements by installing
fixtures that do not exceed maximum flow rates or by
demonstrating that the building will achieve a 20% reduction in
water use through alternative methods.
Conservation:
Existing
Development
Conservation:
New
Development
-90 MTCO2e
-20 MTCO2e
Climate Action Plan
Water
37
The City’s recycled water distribution system can provide
approximately 1,000 acre feet per year of recycled water. The
mandatory use ordinance for recycled water adopted in 2001 allows
the City to require the use of recycled water on parcels when
considered feasible.
Implementation:
WTR 2.1 Review new development projects for consistency
with CALGreen water efficiency standards.
WTR 2.2 Expand recycled water infrastructure to encourage
use of greywater in new construction and landscape projects.
WTR 2.3 Require use of native and non-invasive drought
tolerant plant materials combined with conservative use of
water and landscape designs that prevent run-off.
Implementation Time Frame: Near-Term
Indicators & Monitoring:
• Average water use reduction for new development.
• Annual increase in recycled water use.
WTR 3: Public Outreach and Education
Inform the community about household water usage, and ways to
reduce indoor and outdoor water consumption.
Program Description:
Informed water customers may choose to reduce water
consumption if household usage details are presented clearly and
compared to community averages. Maintaining a database of
simple do-it-yourself water conservation
measures will help willing customers achieve
measurable reductions.
Implementation:
WTR 3.1 Provide a graphical history of
household water usage on utility bills, and
a comparison to average water usage for
similar types of homes in the community.
WTR 3.2 Maintain Utilities Department
online resources and outreach materials
for water saving tips, planting guides and
available rebates.
Implementation Time Frame: Near-Term
Indicators & Monitoring:
• Reductions in household water usage after graphic utility
bills are released.
• Number of households that take advantage of available
rebates.
Adaptation
As a result of climate change, drought conditions may become more
frequent and persistent in the future. San Luis Obispo is adapting to
climate change by reducing per capita water use and increasing
water reserves. Completion of the recent Nacimiento pipeline
project increased the amount of available water, which means the
City is more capable of dealing with potential drought conditions.
Reducing water demand further strengthens available water supply,
City of San Luis Obispo
Water 38
making the City better prepared for drought. The reduction in
demand also lowers GHG emissions, as there is less water to treat,
deliver and collect.
Reusing water is one conservation measure that can serve both
adaptation and GHG reduction goals. The City treats approximately
4.5 million gallons of wastewater a day, approximately 5,000 acre
feet annually. This flow, except what is needed to support creek
flows for endangered steelhead, can be reutilized.
WTR Adaptation 1: Recycled Water
Continue to implement the Water Reuse Master Plan.
Program Description:
Based on the City’s current Recycled Water Master Plan area and its
associated demand, the City’s anticipates utilizing approximately
1,000 acre feet per year of recycled water for approved uses,
primarily landscape irrigation. The recycled water distribution
system will be expanded over time as well as the ability to store the
recycled water for distribution.
The use of recycled water for non-potable needs directly reduces
drinking water demand and conserves water resources. The City will
continue to implement the Water Reuse Master Plan to utilize the
capacity of recycled water when available.
Implementation Time Frame: Near-Term
Indicators & Monitoring:
• Reduction in the amount of potable water used for irrigation
purposes.
• Annual increase in recycled water use.
Climate Action Plan
Solid Waste
Solid Waste
39
Goal: Prevent, reduce, reuse and recycle solid waste to minimize
the amount of waste being sent to the landfill.
In 2005, San Luis Obispo sent 84,439 tons of waste to Cold Canyon
Landfill, resulting in the release of 18,769 MTCO 2 e. The
decomposition of organic materials, including paper products, food
waste, plant debris, wood and textiles releases methane, a
greenhouse gas 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide 1.
Approximately 60% of the methane released through
decomposition at Cold Canyon is captured and transferred to the
Price Canyon Oil Fields, where it is used as an energy source 2. The
remaining methane emissions are released into the atmosphere. In
addition, transportation-related GHG emissions occur with waste
collection and transport to Cold Canyon Landfill. A community’s
waste diversion rate is the percentage of material diverted from the
landfill, which is recycled, composted or reused. Increasing the
community’s waste diversion rate can reduce solid waste-related
1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007.
2 San Luis Obispo County, 2006.
GHG emissions associated with transport and
organic decomposition.
State Reductions
The California Integrated Waste Management Act
of 1989, or AB 939, required all California cities
and counties to achieve a 25% diversion rate by
1995 and a 50% diversion rate by 2000. It also
requires all jurisdictions to improve construction
and demolition recycling.
Existing Actions
The City surpasses AB 939 goals through its
successful “single stream recycling” or “comingled recycling”, green
waste, and construction and demolition recycling programs. The
community diverts approximately 63% of its waste from
landfills. The single stream recycling program allow for all types of
common recyclables, including glass, metals, plastics, and paper, to
be collected in one bin. Switching to this type of recycling system in
1998, along with the addition of yard waste pickup, was well
received by the community. San Luis Obispo also requires new
development and major improvement projects larger than 1,000
square feet or greater than $50,000 in valuation to recycle 50% of
construction and demolition materials.
The City contracts with Waste Connections, Inc. to provide its
comingled recycling and green waste services through its franchise
The San Luis Garbage Company. Waste Connections, Inc. owns and
operates Cold Canyon Landfill. An expansion of Cold Canyon Landfill
Education &
Awareness
28% of Total
GHG Reductions
City of San Luis Obispo
Solid Waste 40
is expected to absorb County waste disposal needs until the year
2047. The anticipated expansion will provide opportunities for
additional methane capture, commercial recyclables, additional
capacity, and separate composting facilities for residential, industrial
and commercial users.
The City has a long history of proactive waste management
practices that reduce waste-related GHG emissions, including:
A purchasing policy for recycled products, including bonuses
for outside contractors that use recycled products in their
goods and services provided to the City.
Curbside pickup of hard-to-recycle items twice a year.
Support for the San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste
Management Authority’s (IWMA) “SLO Take Back Program”,
which requires any retailer who sells mercury-containing
household batteries, fluorescent tubes, and compact
fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) to recycle them at no charge.
City government use of online electronic documents first,
and printing double-sided on recycled paper second.
Backyard composting guides on the City’s webpage.
Composting biosolids that are a byproduct of the digestion
process at the City’s Water Treatment Facility.
Solid Waste Strategies
The City can employ several strategies to improve its diversion rate,
including community educational programs regarding proper waste
management behavior, enhancing recycling programs, and adding
new services such as curbside food waste pickup.
WST 1: Increased Waste
Diversion
Reduce the community waste
stream to as close to zero waste as
possible, with a 75% diversion rate
by the year 2020.
Program Description:
In 2005, the City diverted approximately 61% of all waste generated.
The City will work with IWMA to reach a 75% diversion rate by 2020
through reduced waste disposal, increased recycling, and
composting programs at home or at the landfill.
The City currently offers four sizes of bins for residential garbage
collection under a variable can system. The cost to rent a bin rises as
the size increases, while recycling and green waste collection is
incentivized because these cans are large and are offered at no
additional cost to users.
Owners of multifamily dwellings and commercial buildings are
required to provide tenants with the appropriate facilities to recycle
comingled recyclables and green waste. The City will collaborate
with IWMA to develop an enforcement program to address
noncompliant properties. Notices will be distributed and fines may
be charged to landlords and commercial property owners that do
not provide recycling and green waste bins.
A compost bin for backyard use will be provided at a discounted
price to households that wish to pursue home composting. This will
help reduce the amount of food waste entering the City’s waste
-7,440 MTCO2e
Climate Action Plan
Solid Waste
41
stream. The City would provide a one-time subsidy for a portion of
the market price of bins. The City has previously implemented a
similar program with positive results.
A feasibility study of a waste audit program will be completed. One
strategy could be working with garbage haulers to carry out audits
of curbside waste generated by businesses and residences. Those
who fail to comply with correct disposal practices would be issued
educational material. Customers who continuously mix regular
garbage with recyclable materials could be subject to enforcement.
An ordinance that requires biodegradable food packaging in
restaurants and other food vendors can reduce the amount of non-
recyclable Styrofoam that is sent to the landfill. Successful examples
in other California cities will be explored.
Implementation:
WST 1.1 Continue to provide and incentivize recycling and
green waste services for single-family residential, multi-
family, and commercial customers.
WST 1.2 Evaluate the effectiveness of a more aggressive
volume-based rate schedule for waste pickup.
WST 1.3 Enforce existing IWMA standards that require
landlords and commercial businesses to provide recycling
service.
WST 1.4 Re-establish financial support for home composting.
WST 1.5 Explore the feasibility of a waste auditing program.
WST 1.6 Consider residential and commercial curbside food
waste pickup.
WST 1.8 Evaluate the effectiveness of a
Food Packaging Ordinance that requires
biodegradable containers.
WST 1.9 Conduct a feasibility assessment
of waste cooking oil collection for City-run
biodiesel production and distribution.
WST 1.10 Conduct a feasibility assessment
of relocating biosolid composting closer
to the City.
Implementation Time Frame: Mid-Term
Indicators & Monitoring:
• Annual waste diversion rate.
• Pounds of waste per person and per employee per day.
• Tonnages of green waste and recycling.
WST 2: Public Outreach and Education
Provide waste reduction education to the City’s consumers.
Program Description:
Education and outreach should focus on recycling and composting
at the household and business level. Periodic public site visits to
waste facilities serving the City will help consumers realize the
cumulative impact of community waste.
Implementation:
WST 2.1 Provide the option for home and commercial waste
audits to identify and educate consumers where waste
production can be reduced.
City of San Luis Obispo
Solid Waste 42
WST 2.2 Maintain Utilities Department online resources and
outreach materials for recycling.
WST 2.3 Host interactive workshops on home composting.
WST 2.4 Explore options for landfill and Water Reclamation
Facility site visits open to the public and school groups.
Implementation Time Frame: Near-Term
Indicators & Monitoring:
• Home composting workshop attendance.
• Number of waste audits.
• Number of field trips to waste facilities annually.
Adaptation
The City anticipates limited impacts on GHG emissions associated
with solid waste disposal at Cold Canyon from climate change.
Potential temperature increase may alter the amount of methane
produced at Cold Canyon Landfill as decomposition of domestic
refuse speeds up. An increase in methane production may
strengthen the greenhouse effect, but methane can also be
harvested as an alternative energy source.
Climate Action Plan
Parks & Open Space
Parks & Open Space
43
Goal: Maintain natural areas and plant trees and green spaces.
San Luis Obispo has a diverse range of parks and open space,
including natural landscapes, managed sports facilities, community
gardens, and small neighborhood parks. These areas are important
to the physical and mental well-being of residents, offering
recreational opportunities, social interaction, and an enhanced
sense of place. Parks and open spaces provide community benefits,
but there are associated GHG emissions from park maintenance
equipment (leaf blowers, trimmers, mowers and water trucks),
lighting and irrigation systems.
However, the GHG emission reduction benefits of parks, open space
and other urban green spaces outweigh the costs of ongoing
maintenance. Trees, plants and undisturbed soil in these spaces
capture carbon dioxide, known as carbon sequestration, which
helps offset community-wide GHG emissions. These benefits can be
increased through preservation and additional planting. Parks and
open spaces also provide opportunities for non-motorized forms of
recreation, such as hiking, biking and horseback riding, which do not
produce GHG emissions.
Existing Actions
Parks
As of 2011, there are 21 designated parks within
the City, totaling 158 acres of park landscape and
82 acres of turf. The General Plan requires
annexation areas to provide parkland at the rate
of 10 acres per 1,000 residents, with 5 of those
acres dedicated as neighborhood parks (Parks &
Recreation Element 3.13). The Subdivision
Regulations require each new subdivision to
dedicate 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 anticipated
residents, or pay an in-lieu fee equivalent to fair
market value.
The City actively works to decrease greenhouse gas emissions from
parks maintenance where possible. Existing actions include:
Use of a computerized irrigation control system for all parks
that facilitates efficient monitoring and use of landscape
irrigation.
Use of water-efficient irrigation systems with long-term
reliability.
Use of recycled water to irrigate 28 acres of turf and 1.15
acres of additional landscaping.
Use of drought-tolerant landscaping in 23 acres of parkland.
Recycling of green waste from mowing and trimming.
Reduction of mowing frequency during the off-season, when
the focus switches to annual turf renovation.
6% of Total GHG
Reductions
Provides
Health
Benefits
Reduces
Energy
Demand
Adaptation
Measure
City of San Luis Obispo
Parks & Open Space
44
Open Space
As of 2012, the City maintains a total of 6,765 acres of Open Space
(3,513 acres in fee, and 3,252 acres in easements). Since 2005, the
City has restored approximately 62 acres of open space. Of that
space, 32 acres have been restored as brush or oak woodland
habitats that provide carbon sequestration benefits to the
community. The City has created or is in the process of creating
conservation plans for the Bishop's Peak, Irish Hills, Reservoir
Canyon, Johnson Ranch, Stenner Springs, and South Hills open
spaces.
Urban Forest
The urban forest includes trees and woody plant vegetation that
grow within the City. Existing actions that enrich the City’s urban
forest include:
General Plan policy direction for a nearly continuous tree
canopy in the Downtown (LUE 4.5).
Ongoing development of a Master Street Tree list (most
native) that guides plantings in front yard setbacks and the
public right-of-way.
A Tree Maintenance Program responsible for planting and
maintenance of municipal trees.
The Commemorative Grove Program, which enables citizens
or community groups to plant a tree in recognition of a
person or event.
Community Gardens
General Plan policy directs the City to make community gardens
available in appropriate park locations. Four community gardens are
available to City residents including the recently constructed garden
in Meadow Park. The City is actively looking for new infill community
garden opportunities since demand exceeds available plots.
Parks and Open Space Strategies
GHG emissions reduction strategies associated with Parks and Open
Space focus on carbon sequestration, water conservation, and
maintenance efficiency. Open space preservation provides the
biggest net benefit since carbon absorption in these areas is high
while maintenance is low. Public education is required for upkeep
and care of the urban forest and to foster successful community
stewardship.
Parks & Open Space GHG Emissions Reductions by Strategy
(-1,700 MTC0 2 e)
PKS 1: Enrich the Urban Forest
Increase the number of native trees along City streets, parks, and
open spaces, with sensitivity to potential locations for solar energy
opportunities.
-340 MTCO2e
Enrich the Urban
Forest
Parks and Open
Space
Development
Climate Action Plan
Parks & Open Space
45
-1,360 MTCO2e
Program Description:
Increasing the number of trees in the City will increase carbon
sequestration and beautify outdoor spaces. An audit of existing
parks and open spaces will identify and prioritize available land for
additional trees. Community planting events and volunteer tree
maintenance programs help enrich the urban forest and establish a
sense of ownership for residents.
The City will work with Cal Poly to create an Urban Forester
internship program. Students could receive training in tree
maintenance and help City staff with urban forest management.
Implementation:
PKS 1.1 Conduct an audit of parks and open space to identify
and prioritize potential tree planting locations.
PKS 1.2 Continue to expand tree planting through adopt-a-
tree, commemorative plaque, and other volunteer-based
planting programs.
PKS 1.3 Establish an unpaid Urban Forester internship
program with Cal Poly.
Implementation Time Frame: Mid-Term
Indicators & Monitoring:
• Number of net new trees planted per year.
PKS 2: Parks & Open Space
Development
Continue to develop and acquire parks
and open space resources.
Program Description:
Successful parks and open space acquisition
requires a mix of strategies including donations,
dedications, easements, grants, and mitigation
fees from projects. The City will continue to
implement local conservation plans. A donation
program allocated for open space preservation
could be offered on utility bills and the City’s
website. Continued partnership with the County
and others committed to expanding open spaces,
such as The Land Conservancy of SLO County and
The Nature Conservancy, will enable the City to
realize more opportunities for land preservation.
Implementation:
PKS 2.1 Continue to negotiate easements and land donations
for conservation.
PKS 2.2 Continue to develop and implement conservation
plans for large City open space areas.
PKS 2.3 Use conservation easements in a coordinated fashion
to create trails.
PKS 2.4 Expand donation programs for open space
preservation and maintenance.
PKS 2.5 Partner with other local organizations committed to
open space preservation and parkland development.
Implementation Time Frame: Long-Term
City of San Luis Obispo
Parks & Open Space
46
Indicators & Monitoring:
• Acres of open space preserved, restored or rehabilitated.
• Amount of parkland created annually.
• Amount of park in-lieu fees collected annually.
PKS 3: Green Waste Recycling
Utilize green waste from trimming, mowing, and other landscaping
maintenance as compost.
Program Description:
Reuse of green waste from parks maintenance will reduce GHG
emissions by diverting waste going to the landfill. Residents will also
benefit from a free source for compost, wood chips and firewood.
Implementation:
PKS 3.1 Store green waste from park maintenance at
established composting facilities or other park properties.
PKS 3.2 Continue to chip larger green waste at the City’s
Corporation Yard and redistribute for public and private use.
Implementation Time Frame: Near-Term
Indicators & Monitoring:
• Tons of green waste stored and composted.
• Amount of firewood and wood chips recycled and
distributed from the Corporation Yard.
PKS 4: Foster Local Food Production
Foster local food production by increasing the availability and
sustainability of community gardens and agriculture.
Program Description:
Community gardens foster a sense of community and increase the
potential for local self-reliance. Local and personal food production
reduces GHG emissions by decreasing the distance that food must
travel from farm to plate. The Calle Joaquin Agricultural Reserve,
when under cultivation, will be a local food source. Community
gardens also have the potential to educate residents about
composting and the environmental and health benefits of eating
locally produced food.
Implementation:
PKS 4.1 Continue to identify suitable locations for community
gardens on public and private property.
PKS 4.2 Implement the Calle Joaquin Agricultural Reserve
Master Plan.
Implementation Time Frame: Mid-Term
Indicators & Monitoring:
• Number of community garden plots.
• Annual yield from Calle Joaquin Agricultural Reserve.
PKS 5: Public Outreach and Education
Educate the community about tree planting, habitat restoration,
and available resources for home landscape projects.
Program Description:
The City will collaborate with local organizations and nurseries to
provide education events and publications regarding best practices
for tree planting and maintenance. Parkways in between sidewalks
Climate Action Plan
Parks & Open Space
47
and residential streets are primarily maintained by the residents
along the street. A more informed community will foster greater
care for the ongoing survival of street trees.
Established volunteer trail work programs will continue in
partnership with regional organizations dedicated to open space
preservation. Information on open space stewardship, suitable plant
and tree types for home and professional use, and green waste
recycling will be available through City websites and publications.
Implementation:
PKS 5.1 Continue tree planting and maintenance education
programs such as Arbor Day and Downtown Foresters.
PKS 5.2 Partner with regional organizations to create
volunteer opportunities for trail work, habitat restoration and
open space maintenance.
PKS 5.3 Advertise availability of composted green waste,
wood chips and firewood.
Implementation Time Frame: Near-Term
Indicators & Monitoring:
• Number of attendees at outreach and training events.
• Number of partnerships with local organizations.
Adaptation
The potential impact of climate change on parks and open space is
significant and could influence wildlife habitat, public safety, and
outdoor leisure and recreation opportunities. Higher temperatures
and a lack of water are both likely to have a direct impact, resulting
in changed ecosystem dynamics, increased
wildfires, and depleted water resources. Higher
temperatures increase evapo-transpiration rates
from plants, soils, and open water surfaces,
drying out landscaped and natural spaces. As
temperatures increase, droughts will become
more prevalent, yet more water will be required
for upkeep of plant life. Drier conditions and
hotter temperatures can also impact the size,
severity, duration, and frequency of wildfires.
CALFIRE is designated to assist government
agencies, universities, and the private sector in
preparing for disasters and reducing the risk of disaster through
local planning. The City’s Safety Element calls for adequate fire
services and wildland fire safety, which classifies and places rules on
different vegetation types. The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP)
also addresses avoidance and mitigation of fire hazards. It identifies
areas and vegetation types prone to wildfire, and existing
ordinances and regulations pertaining to fire safety standards. The
2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy also provides a number
of strategies to confront issues associated with parks and open
space statewide.
The City has planned for emergency wildfire events, and the Natural
Resources Department will continue to implement its Best
Management Practices Guidelines for Open Space Lands, which
includes the following adaptation strategies.
City of San Luis Obispo
Parks & Open Space
48
PKS Adaptation 1: Vegetation Management
Control invasive species, erosion and sediment, re-vegetate open
space with native plants and trees, and restore natural processes.
Implementation Time Frame: Near -Term
Indicators & Monitoring:
• Status of open space preservation efforts reported each year
in the General Plan Annual Report.
PKS Adaptation 2: Fire Management
Monitor open space areas to determine if brush, weeds or other
heavy fuel materials need to be thinned or removed.
Implementation Time Frame: Near-Term
Indicators & Monitoring:
• Status of open space preservation efforts reported each year in
the General Plan Annual Report.
Climate Action Plan
Government Operations 49
Government Operations
Goal: Reduce GHG emissions from government operations to 1990
levels using a mix of strategies, including: conservation, clean
energy, efficiency upgrades, recycling, and alternative
transportation incentives for employee commute.
Community-wide GHG reduction strategies rely on active
participation from City residents and businesses to reduce their
carbon footprint. Those GHG reduction strategies that can be
directly implemented by City government involve changes to the
way government operates. This section focuses on Government
Operations and what can be done to reduce associated GHG
emissions.
GHG Emissions Forecast for Government Operations
As discussed in the introduction, the City’s Government Operations
GHG emissions were forecast to reflect the anticipated growth in
facilities and energy use. GHG emissions have been forecast for
2010, 2020, and 2035. Projected emissions for buildings, water
delivery, wastewater treatment, and streetlights
and traffic signals utilize actual energy use data
compiled by staff.
In cases where electricity use has decreased in
facilities due to a change to renewable energy
source or retrofits, the forecast for that facility
remains constant. In these cases, the reduction
benefit will be represented in the CAP as a GHG
reduction measure to clearly demonstrate the
beneficial impact of the retrofit or installation. For
instance, the installation of the co-generator at
the Sinsheimer pool has resulted in a significant
reduction in electricity use. The pool’s electricity use decreased from
391,000 kWh in 2005 to just 87,000 in 2010. In the business-as-usual
(BAU) forecast, the pool electricity use is forecast to stay at 2005
levels, and the reduction of 304,000 kWh is presented in reduction
measure GO 2: City Renewable Energy.
The GHG forecast assumes that the number of employees will
remain nearly constant over the next 25 years; therefore, GHG
emissions from the City’s vehicle fleet, employee commuting, waste
disposal, and employee business travel will not grow beyond 2005
levels. The following graphics summarize the Government
Operations GHG emissions forecast from 2005 to 2035.
Community
Savings
Reduces
Water
Consumption
Reduces
Energy
Demand
4% of Total Community GHG
Reductions
City of San Luis Obispo
Government Operations 50
Government Operations GHG Emissions Forecast
2005–2035
The BAU forecast growth in GHG emissions is approximately a 4%
increase in GHG emissions by 2020 and 5% by 2035. Similar to the
community-wide forecast, the Government Operations business-as-
usual forecast is adjusted for State reductions. By 2020, State
legislation will reduce government operations GHG emissions by
approximately 520 MTCO2e.
Government Operations Business-As-Usual Forecast
2005-2035
Government Operations GHG Reduction Target
The City government will demonstrate leadership in reducing GHG
emissions through cost-effective changes to operations that help
achieve the reduction target of 18% below the BAU forecast by 2020
(15% below baseline). State legislation will reduce government
operations emissions by 7% below BAU, and the City will need to
make up the remaining 12% reduction to achieve the target.
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
2005 2010 2020 2035
Waste Employee Business Travel Employee Commute
Vehicle Fleet Wastewater Treatment Water Delivery
Traffic Signals Streetlights Buildings
6,920 7,010 7,030 6,700 6,700
6,990
6,470
5,700
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
5,500
6,000
6,500
7,000
7,500
2005 2010 2020 2035
Baseline Emissions
Growth Forecast
Adjusted with State Reductions
Target Emissions
Climate Action Plan
Government Operations
51
Existing Actions
Several General Plan policies and programs in the Conservation and
Open Space Element require efficient City operations that help to
reduce GHG emissions (COSE 2.3, 4.3, 4.6, 5.5, 10.3). Facility retrofit
highlights to date include:
Environmental control systems and indoor and outdoor
lighting system upgrades.
Installation of photovoltaic panels on the Ludwick
Community Center and the Utilities Administration Building.
Installation of a co-generator at the Sinsheimer Swim Center.
Upgrades at the Water Reclamation Facility including a
replacement energy-efficient aeration blower and a methane
gas-powered electricity generator.
Government Operations Strategies
Strategies to reduce GHG emissions from government operations
include energy conservation, fleet and equipment upgrades,
building and facility retrofits, water-conserving irrigation and
minimizing employee commutes made by single-occupant vehicles.
Government Operations Reductions by Strategy (-980 MTCO 2 e)
GO 1: City Energy Conservation
Create and implement a City Building Retrofit
Program.
Program Description:
Facilities will be prioritized based on an evaluation
of potential energy-saving retrofits versus
implementation cost. Retrofit program will include
automatic shutoff sensors for interior lights during
non-business hours to reduce energy use and
related GHG emissions.
Implementation Time Frame: Near-Term
Indicators & Monitoring:
• Annual facility energy use.
GO 2: City Renewable Energy
Generate renewable energy at City-owned facilities.
Program Description:
The City will continue to install renewable energy systems at
appropriate facilities and will consider installing photovoltaic
systems on top of City-owned parking lots and structures.
Implementation Time Frame: Long-Term
Indicators & Monitoring:
• Energy generated from renewable sources at City facilities.
-150 MTCO2e
Energy
Conservation
Renewable
Energy
Transit Fleet
Upgrades
Energy Efficient
Street Lighting
Water and
Wastewater
Infrastructure
Waste
Collection
Park Water Use
Fleet and
Equipment
Upgrades
Employee
Commute
-190 MTCO2e
City of San Luis Obispo
Government Operations 52
GO 3: Transit Fleet Upgrades
Continue to upgrade to fuel-efficient
vehicles as part of fleet replacement
program.
Program Description:
The City will continue to replace buses every 12 years as federal
transportation grants permit. Replacement buses will utilize the best
available technology for fuel efficiency as feasible. This commitment
to utilize the best available technology includes the evaluation of
the feasibility of hybrid buses and other technologies, such as
biodiesel or natural gas.
Implementation Time Frame: Long-Term
Indicators & Monitoring:
• Average fuel efficiency of transit fleet.
GO 4: Energy-Efficient Street Lighting
Install energy-efficient streetlights and traffic
signals.
Program Description:
LED bulbs use less electricity and need to be replaced less frequently
than conventional bulbs. Existing outdoor light fixtures, including
street lights, will continue to be retrofitted for efficiency.
Implementation:
GO 4.1 Continue to replace traffic signal fixtures with light-
emitting diode (LED) lighting.
GO 4.2 Replace public streetlights with high-efficiency
fixtures.
GO 4.3 Continue to upgrade outdoor lighting fixtures with
best available technology at City-owned facilities.
Implementation Time Frame: Mid-Term
Indicators & Monitoring:
• Percentage of streetlights and traffic signals replaced.
GO 5: Water and Wastewater Infrastructure
Continue energy-efficient upgrades to water
pumping and lift stations, and processes at
the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF).
Program Description:
Implement a schedule for the replacement water and wastewater
infrastructure, prioritizing the oldest and least efficient equipment,
with the goal of reducing overall energy use from pumping and lift
stations by 10% by 2020. Continue efficiency upgrades to the WRF
including additional energy-efficient blowers and plant expansion.
Implementation:
GO 5.1 Implement a schedule to prioritize replacement of
water pumping and lift stations.
GO 5.2 Continue implementation of the WRF energy
conservation plan.
Implementation Time Frame: Long-Term
-160 MTCO2e
-50 MTCO2e
-190 MTCO2e
Climate Action Plan
Government Operations
53
-150 MTCO2e
Indicators & Monitoring:
• Annual reduction in water and wastewater energy use.
GO 6: Increase Waste Diversion from
City-owned Property
Enhance recycling and composting efforts at parks, plazas, bus
stops, offices and facilities.
Program Description:
Audit all City-owned property for recycling receptacles and install
recycling containers where needed. Consider composting
receptacles at City facilities to minimize waste sent to the landfill.
Implementation:
GO 6.1 Ensure that all City facilities have recycling containers.
GO 6.2 Assess the feasibility of food scrap collection and
pickup in public places.
Implementation Time Frame: Long-Term
Indicators & Monitoring:
• Percentage of facilities with recycling and composting
receptacles.
• Annual disposal tonnages from City facilities.
GO 7: Water Conservation
Continue implementation of General Plan policies for efficient water
use (COSE 10.3).
Program Description:
Water conservation lowers operating costs and
reduces GHG emissions associated with water
delivery. Landscaping replaced in the City,
including turf, should be water-efficient. Periodic
review of irrigation systems and building plumbing
systems will help reduce water waste from leaks.
Implementation:
GO 7.1 Choose appropriately-sized plants for
City landscapes that are suitable for the
climate, with emphasis on use of drought-
tolerant plants.
GO 7.2 Prepare soils for water penetration and retention.
GO 7.3 Design and operate efficient irrigation systems.
GO 7.4 Install water-efficient fixtures and maintain leak
control at City facilities.
Implementation Time Frame: Mid-Term
Indicators & Monitoring:
• Acres of landscape replaced with low-maintenance plants.
• Annual facility water use.
GO 8: Fleet and Equipment Upgrades
Utilize best available technology for
equipment and poolcar upgrades
identified in the vehicle fleet
replacement program.
-40 MTCO2e
City of San Luis Obispo
Government Operations 54
Program Description:
Standard gasoline-burning vehicles and maintenance equipment
can be replaced with more fuel-efficient or electric equipment.
Vehicles such as tractors and riding mowers can be replaced with
biodiesel, natural gas, or propane powered alternatives.
Implementation Time Frame: Mid-Term
Indicators & Monitoring:
• Vehicle fleet average fuel efficiency.
GO 9: Employee Commute
Continue to reduce single-
occupant employee commuting
through trip reduction incentives.
Program Description:
The City currently participates in SLO Regional Rideshare's
Transportation Choices Program, which provides resources for
employees to utilize alternative commuting options. Employees
who elect to use alternative transportation for commuting can earn
additional vacation hours or a small monetary benefit. The City also
allows staff to utilize an alternative work schedule, reducing VMT
through one less day of commuting per two-week period. The City
will explore additional programs and options to reduce employee
commuting by single-occupant vehicles through additional
incentives and programs.
Implementation Time Frame: Near-Term
Indicators & Monitoring:
• Percentage of total commute trips made by alternative
transportation such as carpooling, bicycling, walking or
transit.
GO 10: Sustainability Coordinator
Allocate or hire staff to implement CAP and energy
programs.
Program Description:
Staff resources are needed to secure funding, work with City staff
and contractors and complete annual monitoring for CAP programs.
This staff person will also act as the City’s representative in regional
sustainability efforts.
Implementation Time Frame: Mid-Term
Indicators & Monitoring:
• Number of CAP programs implemented through dedication of
staff time.
GO 11: Public Outreach and Education
Demonstrate the City’s commitment to reducing GHG emissions
using outreach about CAP program implementation.
Program Description:
Updates on Climate Action Plan progress will keep the public
informed. Highlighting successful programs that reduce GHG
-50 MTCO2e
Climate Action Plan
Government Operations
55
emissions from government operations will set a good example, and
lead to community support for future implementation efforts.
Implementation:
GO 11.1 Publish information on the City’s climate action
planning website about successful programs aimed at
reducing GHG emissions.
GO 11.2 Participate in Earth Day activities, the County’s
Energy-Efficiency Month, and other regional events to
educate the community about City climate action planning.
Implementation Time Frame: Long-Term
Indicators & Monitoring:
• Number of hits on the City’s climate action planning website.
• Attendance at various outreach events.
City of San Luis Obispo
Government Operations 56
This page intentionally left blank.
Climate Action Plan
Conclusion
57
Climate change is a global problem that must be addressed at all
levels of government. This Climate Action Plan (CAP), which
represents the City of San Luis Obispo’s strategies for addressing
climate change, builds on actions taken at the State level to curb
GHG emissions. Many of these State policies influence local GHG
emissions and contribute to the City’s reduction goals.
Forecast of Community GHG Emissions with Different
Reductions Strategies
The forecast of community GHG emissions compares anticipated
GHG emissions factoring in different emission reduction strategies;
Business as Usual (BAU) forecast (no action), forecast with State
climate action laws, and forecast with State laws and
implementation of the City’s CAP. It is projected that State and local
actions will enable the City to meet the AB 32 reduction target with
an overall reduction in community-wide GHG emissions of 22%
below BAU by 2020 (15% below baseline). Timely implementation of
the local strategies defined in the CAP will be required to reach this
target, in addition to regular updates to the GHG Emissions
Inventory.
For consistency with County and regional planning efforts, a second
reduction forecast year of 2035 is included. The target emissions
curve slopes dramatically downward after 2020 in response to the
Governor’s executive order (S-3-05) to reach a reduction in
statewide emissions of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. This is
a laudable yet challenging goal, which will likely require significant
technological innovation. The local and State reduction strategies
included in this CAP will only get the City part of the way there.
Nevertheless, the path to the target in 2020, consistent with State
goals in AB 32, is a measurable reality. The majority of local GHG
reduction strategies have a near-term (0 to 5 years) or mid-term (5 –
10 years) implementation time frame. Assuming implementation of
all strategies with near or mid-term objectives, the City will achieve
approximately 73% of projected emissions reductions by the target
year 2020. Implementation time frames may be adjusted over time
depending upon resource availability.
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
2005 2010 2020 2035
Business As Usual Forecast
Baseline
Adjusted Forecast with State Reductions
Adjusted Emissions with State & Local Reductions
Target Emissions
City of San Luis Obispo
58
Among local strategies aimed at 2020, the largest potential
reductions are associated with waste diversion and transportation
strategies. The projected GHG emissions reductions were developed
by making assumptions, which are included in the Appendix.
2020 Local GHG Emissions Reductions by Issue Area
Issue Area 2020 GHG Emissions Reductions (MTCO 2 e)
Waste -7,440
Transportation and Land Use -5,140
Buildings -3,543
Renewable Energy -2,240
Government Operations -440
Parks and Open Space -340
Water -110
Total -19,253
Additional details about strategy-specific reductions,
implementation methods, and city costs appear in the following
Local GHG Reductions Matrix. City costs are based on assumptions
consistent with those used in the City’s two year Financial Plan:
Low (L): Minimal staff effort and no consultant assistance will
be needed to complete the analytical work and coordinate
stakeholder-public outreach. While this is a qualitative
assessment, this generally means that less than 80 hours of
staff work and no additional budget resources will be needed
to implement the program.
Medium (M): Significant staff effort, some consultant
assistance or supplemental funding for operations or capital
projects will be needed to complete the analytical work and
coordinate stakeholder-public outreach or implement the
program. Again, while this is a qualitative assessment, this
generally means between 80 to 500 hours of staff work
and/or up to $25,000 for added budget resources will be
needed to implement the program.
High (H): Major staff effort, consultant assistance or
supplemental funding for operations or capital projects will
be needed to complete the analytical work, coordinate
stakeholder-public outreach or implement the program.
Generally, this means that more than 500 hours of staff work
and/or more than $25,000 for added budget resources will
be needed to implement the program.
15%
58%
27%
Implementation Time Frame
(% of total emissions reductions)
Near-term
(0 to 5 years)
Mid-term
(5 to 10 years)
Long-term
(10+ years)
Climate Action Plan
59
Local GHG Reductions Matrix
# Strategy GHG
Reductions
City
Costs
Implementation
Method
Responsible
Department Indicators and Monitoring
Near-Term (0 to 5 years) GHG Reduction Strategies
-4,018 MTCO 2 e (15%) ● 1,480 – 4,800+ staff hours ● $50,000 - $200,000+ City costs
BLD 3 Public Outreach
and Education -1,510 Low Regional Program
Community
Development,
Utilities
Number of local participants in
Energy Upgrade CA
Number of hits on
community web portal
Number of certified green
businesses
TLU 2 Alternative
Vehicles -1,110 Medium General Plan Update
Ordinance
Community
Development
Number of EV charging stations
and clean vehicle parking spaces
Number of local car-share
vehicles and members
Number of registered CAVs
in City
TLU 6 Parking
Management -460 Medium
Fee Program
Downtown Parking Access
& Management Plan
Parking
Public Works On-street parking vacancy rate Parking structure
occupancy rates
Annual revenue from
parking structures versus
parking meters
BLD 2
New Construction
Energy
Conservation
-288 Low
Community Design
Guidelines
Building Code Changes
Incentive Program
Community
Development
Percentage of new construction
projects that exceed Cal Green
requirements
Percentage of new
projects with smart grid
appliances
TLU 7 Shared Parking -250 Medium Zoning Code Amendment Community
Development
Average shared parking
reduction for tenants in multi-
use centers
GO 1 City Energy
Conservation -190 High City Program Public Works,
Utilities Annual facility energy use
WTR
1
Water
Conservation:
Existing
Development
-90 Low City Program Utilities Reduction in the amount of
potable water used for irrigation
Number of rainwater-
harvesting systems
installed
Annual increase in recycled
water use
TLU 8 Reduce the Need
for Commuting -50 Low LUCE Update
Fee Program
Community
Development
Jobs-housing ratio reported
each year in the General Plan
Annual Report
Number of BMR housing
units built, including
secondary dwelling units
GO 9 Employee
Commute -50 Medium City Program Parking
Percentage of total commute
trips made by alternative
transportation
WTR
2
Water
Conservation:
New
Development
-20 Low City Program Community
Development
Average water use reduction for
new development
Annual increase in
recycled water use
City of San Luis Obispo
60
# Strategy GHG
Reductions
City
Costs
Implementation
Method
Responsible
Department Indicators and Monitoring
RE 3 Public Outreach
and Education
Support
Measure Low Regional Program Community
Development
Attendance at public events
focused on energy
Number of projects with
photovoltaic systems
TLU 9 Public Outreach
and Education
Support
Measure Medium Regional Program Community
Development
Number of transportation
welcome packets distributed
annually
Amount of participation in
commuting events and
programs
WTR
3
Public Outreach
and Education
Support
Measure Medium City Program Community
Development
Reductions in household water
usage
Number of households
that take advantage of
available rebates
WST
2
Public Outreach
and Education
Support
Measure Low City Program Community
Development
Composting workshop
attendance Number of waste audits Number of field trips to
waste facilities
PKS 5 Public Outreach
and Education
Support
Measure Low City Program
Community
Development,
Parks &
Recreation
Number of attendees at
outreach and training events
Number of partnerships
with local organizations
GO
11
Public Outreach
and Education
Support
Measure Low Regional Program Community
Development
Number of hits on the City’s
climate action planning website
Attendance at various
outreach events
PKS 3 Green Waste
Recycling
Support
Measure Low City Program Public Works Tons of green waste collected Amount of firewood and
wood chips distributed
GO
10
Sustainability
Coordinator
Support
Measure High City Program
Financial Plan Priority
Community
Development,
Utilities
Number of CAP programs
implemented through
dedication of staff time
Mid-Term (5 to 10 years) GHG Reduction Strategies
-15,235 MTCO 2 e (58%) ● 3,400 – 5,500+ staff hours ● $150,000 - $275,000+ City costs
WST
1
Increased Waste
Diversion -7,440 High
Ordinance
City Program
Fee Program
Regional Program
Utilities Annual waste diversion rate
Pounds of waste per
person and per employee
per day
Tonnages of green waste
and recycling
TLU 5 Land Use Diversity
and Density -2,850 High General Plan Policy
Ordinance
Community
Development
Increased land use index
(diversity of land uses)
Number of new mixed-use
developments and area of
the City rezoned for higher
residential density
Mean travel time to work
RE 1 Renewable
Energy Financing -2,100 Medium Regional Program
Incentive Program
Community
Development
Number and size of renewable
energy projects installed
Number of residents
and/or businesses in
financing programs
Climate Action Plan
61
# Strategy GHG
Reductions
City
Costs
Implementation
Method
Responsible
Department Indicators and Monitoring
BLD 1
Energy Efficiency
Improvements to
Existing Buildings
-1,745 Medium
State Requirement
Ordinance
Historic Preservation
Guidelines update
City Program
Community
Development,
Utilities
Number of energy ratings
submitted to City in exchange
for nominal compensation
Number of permits issued
that include energy-
efficiency retrofits
Annual review of PG&E Green
Communities local data on
residential and
nonresidential energy
consumption trends
TLU 1 Transit Services -420 High
Short Range Transit Plan
Fee program
City Program
Public Works,
Community
Development
Annual transit trips Average passengers per
revenue hour
Number of discounted bus
passes distributed annually
PKS 1 Enrich the Urban
Forest -340 High City Program Public Works Number of net new trees
planted per year
GO 8
Fleet and
Equipment
Upgrades
-150 Medium City Policy Public Works Vehicle fleet average fuel
efficiency
RE 2 Renewable
Energy Incentives -140 High Ordinance
Incentive program
Community
Development,
Utilities
Number and size of renewable
energy projects installed
Number of residents
and/or businesses taking
advantage of incentive
programs, and associated
cost savings
GO 4 Energy-Efficient
Street lighting -50 High City Program Public Works Percentage of streetlights and
traffic signals replaced
PKS 4 Foster Local Food
Production
Support
Measure Medium
General Plan Policy
City Program
Collaboration with
community groups
Regional Program
Parks &
Recreation
Number of community garden
plots
Annual yield from Calle
Joaquin Agricultural
Reserve
GO 7 Water
Conservation
Support
Measure Medium City Program
Parks &
Recreation
Public Works
Acres of landscape replaced with
low-maintenance plants Annual park water use
City of San Luis Obispo
62
# Strategy GHG
Reductions
City
Costs
Implementation
Method
Responsible
Department Indicators and Monitoring
Long-Term (10+ years) GHG Reduction Strategies
-7,269 MTCO 2 e (27%) ● 3,080 – 3,500+ staff hours ● $160,000 – $175,000+ City costs
TLU 3 Bike Travel -4,818 High
General Plan Policy
Bicycle Transportation
plan update
Financial Plan priority
City Program
Public Works,
Community
Development
Miles of bike lanes and bike
paths installed
Number of bike trips
observed in biannual bike
counts
Number of Bicycle
Transportation Plan projects
completed
PKS 2
Parks and Open
Space
Development
-1,360 High City Program
Regional Program
Natural
Resources
Acres of open space preserved,
restored or rehabilitated
Amount of parkland
created annually
Amount of in-lieu fees
collected for parks.
TLU 4 Complete Streets -551 High
General Plan Policy
Ordinance
Street Design Manual
Regional Program
Public Works,
Community
Development
Completed projects that
improve the balance of the City’s
transportation network for all
users
Safe Routes to School
participation rates
Adopted Downtown
Pedestrian Plan
GO 5
Water and
Wastewater
Infrastructure
-190 High City Program
Financial Plan Priority Utilities Annual reduction in water and
wastewater facility energy use.
GO 3 Transit Fleet
Upgrades -160 High City Program
Financial Plan Priority Public Works Average fuel efficiency of transit
fleet
GO 2 City Renewable
Energy -150 High
City Program
Financial Plan Priority
Grant or Utility Funding
Public Works,
Utilities,
Community
Development
Energy generated from
renewable sources at City
facilities
GO 6
Increase Waste
Diversion from
City-owned
Property
-40 Medium City Program Utilities, Public
Works
Percentage of facilities with
recycling and composting
receptacles
Annual disposal tonnages
from facilities
MTCO 2 e – Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
City Costs – Low: 0 to 80 hours, no additional budget; Medium: 80 to 500 hours, up to $25,000; High: 500+ hours, $25,000+
Climate Action Plan
A-1
Technical Appendix
The technical appendix provides more detail on how GHG emissions
reductions were calculated for each strategy. Policies and
implementation steps are restated, followed by costs, and
assumptions used to estimate the amount of GHG emissions
reduced by 2020.
BLD 1: Efficiency Improvements to Existing Buildings
Implement local programs, and collaborate with the County and
State, to improve energy efficiency in older building stock.
Implementation:
BLD 1.1 Accomplish 425 residential energy-efficiency
retrofits and 10,000 square feet of commercial efficiency
retrofits annually, by encouraging energy ratings, offering
rebates and incentives, and supporting regional education
efforts such as an EnergyWatch energy-efficiency website.
BLD 1.2 Encourage property owners to monitor building
energy use through energy monitors, web applications and
State-required energy use disclosures (AB 1103).
BLD 1.3 Evaluate options for a local energy conservation
ordinance, pursuant to pending State legislation (AB 758),
that requires entry-level efficiency upgrades identified in
certified energy ratings.
BLD 1.4 Identify energy efficiency upgrades for historic
structures that do not compromise the historic integrity of
the building, such as interior upgrades like insulation, air
sealing, and wrapping ducts.
2020 Reductions (MTCO2e): -1,745
City Costs: Medium
Assumptions:
Implementation of an energy-efficiency retrofit incentive program
will begin in 2013. 3,400 housing units (425 annually), and 80,000
square feet of commercial (10,000 sq. ft. annually), will be retrofitted
by the end of 2020. The average electricity savings per retrofitted
household is estimated to be 874 kWh, and the average natural gas
savings per retrofitted household is 62 therms. The average
electricity savings per retrofitted commercial square foot is
estimated to be 3 kWh, and the average natural gas savings per
retrofitted commercial square foot is 0.082 therms.
Smart grid integration will reduce energy demand through
continuous feedback of real-time energy use. Studies have shown
that the more frequently feedback is given to users on their energy
use, the more significantly they alter their behaviors to reduce their
energy use.
Sources:
California Energy Commission. 2010. Nonresidential Building Energy
Performance Rating Disclosure Regulations. Sacramento, CA.
Earth Advantage Institute. 2011. Program Sustainability with EPS.
http://www.earthadvantage.org.
EnergySavvy. 2010. Energy Audit Programs that Work: Program
Comparison Data. http://www.energysavvy.com.
Zillow, Inc. 2011. San Luis Obispo Home Prices and Home Values.
http://www.zillow.com/local-info/CA-San-Luis-Obispo-home-value/.
City of San Luis Obispo
A-2
BLD 2: New Construction Energy Conservation
Encourage and incentivize new development to exceed minimum
Cal Green requirements.
Implementation:
BLD 2.1 Expand incentive program for projects that exceed
Title 24 energy efficiency standards.
BLD 2.2 Require new development to install energy-
efficient appliances.
BLD 2.3 Amend design guidelines and other documents to
promote low impact development strategies such as cool
roofs and cool paving surfaces.
2020 Reductions (MTCO2e): -288
City Costs: Low
Assumptions:
Reduction in electricity and natural gas use from new buildings is
based on average energy reductions by building type and climate
zone as provided in the California Air Pollution Control Officers
Association’s (CAPCOA) Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation
Measures. It is assumed that 10% of new projects will exceed Title 24
energy efficiency requirements by a minimum of 10% by 2020, for
an average electricity savings of 0.7% to 2.6%, and an average
natural gas savings of 7.2% to 9%.
Additional energy savings will be achieved through the installation
of smart grid appliances that can be pre-programmed to run at off-
peak energy times.
Sources:
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2010.
"Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures."
California Building Standards Commission. 2010 California Green
Building Standards Code. Sacramento, CA: California Building
Standards Commission.
California Energy Commission. 2007. Impact Analysis: 2008 Update
to the California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and
Nonresidential Buildings. Sacramento, CA: California Energy
Commission.
Caltrans. 2010. Highway Performance Monitoring System 2009
California Public Road Data. http://www.dot.ca.gov.
City of San Luis Obispo. 2010. Zoning Regulations.
Pike Research. 2010. Smart appliance sales to start off slow, but 118
million units will be sold worldwide by 2019.
http://www.smartgridnews.com/artman/publish/.
BLD 3: Public Outreach and Education
Collaborate with local utility providers, the County and State,
businesses, and community organizations to develop energy
conservation campaigns and marketing for existing programs.
Implementation:
BLD 3.1 Promote energy efficiency programs and available
financing options including energy-efficiency mortgages,
State energy programs, Energy Upgrade California, utility
company upgrade programs, and local rebates.
Climate Action Plan
A-3
A
BLD 3.2 Collaborate with the County, State, and energy
providers to develop a central website for streamlined access
to energy efficiency resources.
BLD 3.3 Work with local green building organizations on
education and outreach programs.
BLD 3.4 Work with the business community to establish a
green business certification program.
2020 Reductions (MTCO2e): -1,510
City Costs: Low
Assumptions:
Participation in energy efficiency financing programs and the
average energy savings per participant are based on program
evaluations and research of existing programs in other jurisdictions
with 10% of owner-occupied residential units and 5% of owner-
occupied nonresidential units participating by 2020.
Sources:
City of Berkeley. 2010. Berkeley FIRST Initial Evaluation. Berkeley, CA.
City of San Luis Obispo. 2010. General Plan Housing Element. San
Luis Obispo, CA.
National Resources Defense Council; PACE Now; Renewable Funding
LLC; The Vote Solar Initiative. 2010. Property Assessed Clean Energy
Programs White Paper.
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. 2009.
Spare the Air Control Measure Program; Revision to State
Implementation Plan Staff Report. http://www.airquality.org/notices
/CAPUpdate/STA-revisiontoSIP-StaffRpt23April2009.pdf.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. 2005–2009 American Communities Survey
5-Year Estimates. Washington, D.C. http://factfinder.census.gov.
RE 1: Renewable Energy Financing
Promote a wide range of renewable energy financing options
including a renewable energy fund or loan program.
Implementation:
RE 1.1 Support efforts to implement a revolving low-interest loan
program or renewable energy fund.
RE 1.2 Work with the County to build a collaborative network to
promote and provide renewable funding and financing.
RE 1.3 Work with the County and regional energy providers to
evaluate a “feed-in tariff” program that pays property owners
generating renewable energy based on the amount of energy
generated.
2020 Reductions (MTCO2e): -2,100
City Costs: Medium
Assumptions:
Participation in energy efficiency financing programs and the
average energy savings per participant are based on program
evaluations and research of existing programs in other jurisdictions.
Sources:
City of Berkeley. 2010. Berkeley FIRST Initial Evaluation. Berkeley, CA.
National Resources Defense Council; PACE Now; Renewable Funding
LLC; The Vote Solar Initiative. 2010. Property Assessed Clean Energy
Programs White Paper.
City of San Luis Obispo
A-4
RE 2: Renewable Energy Incentives
Incentivize renewable energy generation in new and existing
developments.
Implementation:
RE 2.1 Incentivize renewable energy generation by
streamlining review processes, reducing permit costs, and/or
allowing modest density bonuses for construction projects
with renewable energy installations.
RE 2.2 Revise City policies and regulations as needed to
eliminate barriers to the use of renewable energy, and
implement General Plan programs that require solar power
for certain residential projects (COSE 4.6.17).
RE 2.3 Evaluate the feasibility of a regional Community
Choice Aggregation program to procure electricity from
renewable resources.
2010 Reductions (MTCO2e): 0
2020 Reductions (MTCO2e): -140
2035 Reductions (MTCO2e): -280
City Costs: Low
Assumptions:
This measure quantifies the GHG reduction benefit of installing
renewable energy on new residential development. The State of
California has developed the New Solar Homes Partnership,
requiring new developments to have a solar option for all new
home purchases. The California Energy Commission has estimated
that the average solar system size would be 2 kW and that
approximately 20% of new homes would include a solar
photovoltaic system at the time of purchase.
Sources:
California Energy Commission. 2010. New Solar Homes Partnership,
Third Edition. Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commission.
RE 3: Public Outreach and Education
Increase community awareness of renewable energy programs.
Educate professionals about benefits of integrating renewable
technologies in project design.
Implementation:
RE 3.1 Educate the community about renewable energy
programs using various methods, such as the City's website,
TV channel, flyers in reception areas, and public events.
RE 3.2 Consider results of the SLO-RESCO project.
RE 3.3 Encourage the use of photovoltaic installations
whenever possible during design review process.
Supporting Measure
City Costs: Low
TLU 1: Transit Services
Maintain and expand transit services consistent with the City’s Short
Range Transit Plan.
Implementation:
TLU 1.1 Implement the Short Range Transit Plan.
TLU 1.2 Continue to research federal and local funding for
transit service upgrade projects.
Climate Action Plan
A-5
A
TLU 1.3 Support the County’s EnergyWise Plan strategy to add
transit routes that provide intercity express services.
TLU 1.4 Continue to offer a free or discounted bus pass
(Downtown Pass) to residents who work in the downtown
core, seniors and students.
2020 Reductions (MTCO2e): -420
City Costs: Medium
Assumptions:
Since 2005, SLO Transit has seen an increase of over 200,000 transit
trips per year. It is anticipated that the City's transit system will
continue to carry additional riders by expanding services and
through additional promotions and press. It is estimated that
approximately 50% of those additional transit trips would have
otherwise been made by car.
Sources:
Federal Transportation Administration. 2009. National Transit
Database: City of San Luis Obispo Transportation Program Profile.
http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/pubs/profiles/2005/agen
cy_profiles/9156.pdf.
TLU 2: Alternative Vehicles
Promote clean-energy vehicles, and expand the network of electric
car charging stations and car-sharing parking spaces.
Implementation:
TLU 2.1 Require all new development with 50 or more
parking spaces to designate a minimum 8% of parking
spaces for clean air vehicles (CAV).
TLU 2.2 Require all new development with 50 or more
parking spaces to pre-wire for electric vehicle (EV) charging
stations, and provide a minimum 2 percent charging spaces.
TLU 2.3 Work with the APCD on the EV Community Readiness
Plan for the Central Coast.
TLU 2.4 Identify a network of streets appropriate for
Neighborhood EV use in the SLO2035 General Plan update.
TLU 2.5 Allow car-sharing companies to designate spaces in
public parking areas and multifamily housing projects.
2020 Reductions (MTCO2e): -1,110
City Costs: Medium
Assumptions:
This measure quantifies the VMT and fuel savings impacts of
expanded use of CAVs, which is incentivized by additional public
and private electric vehicle charging stations, and designated CAV
parking areas. Implementation will occur in future development
with 50 or more required parking spaces, which will likely be
business park campuses in the Margarita Area (1.1 mil. sq. ft.) and
Airport Area (3 mil. sq. ft.). VMT reductions may also occur through
the increased participation and availability of local car-sharing
programs.
Sources:
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2010.
Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures.
City of San Luis Obispo. 2010. Zoning Regulations.
City of San Luis Obispo
A-6
Department of Transportation. 2001. National Household Travel
Survey. Washington, D.C.
Idaho National Laboratory. 2006. Full Size Electric Vehicles:
Advanced Vehicle Testing Reports.
TLU 3: Bike Travel
Increase the percentage of non-recreational trips that are made by
bicycle.
Implementation:
TLU 3.1 Modify Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP) to achieve
20% bicycle mode share by 2020.
TLU 3.2 Develop additional funding and staff resources to
implement the BTP, including cyclist safety programs and
bicyclist commuter incentives.
TLU 3.3 Research opportunities for a bike-share program near
parking facilities.
2020 Reductions (MTCO2e): -4,818
City Costs: High
Assumptions:
In 2005, The City’s estimated bike mode share was 5.5%. The
Circulation Element of the General Plan sets modal split objectives
for bicycles of 14% in 2010, and 16% in 2020. The CAP sets a goal of
achieving a 20% mode share by 2020 through the continued
expansion of bike infrastructure, facilities and the development of a
bike-share program.
Sources:
Dierkers, G., E. Silsbe, S. Stott, S. Winkelman, and M. Wubben. 2007.
CCAP Transportation Emissions Guidebook. Center for Clean Air
Policy. Washington, D.C. http://www.ccap.org/safe/guidebook.php.
as cited in California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
(CAPCOA) 2008. CEQA and Climate Change.
Nelson, Arthur C., and David Allen. 1997. If You Build Them,
Commuters Will Use Them: Cross-Sectional Analysis of Commuters
and Bicycle Facilities.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. 2005–2009 American Communities Survey
5-Year Estimates. Washington, D.C. http://factfinder.census.gov.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
2009. National Household Travel Survey. http://nhts.ornl.gov.
U.S. Department of Transportation; Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
2004. Summary of Travel Trends: 2001 National Household Travel
Survey. http://nhts.ornl.gov/2001/pub/STT.pdf
TLU 4: Complete Streets
Modify General Plan policies in the SLO2035 update to support a
balanced, multimodal transportation network.
Implementation:
TLU 4.1 Require new and redeveloped street designs to
address the needs of all users – motorists, pedestrians,
bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, seniors and
users of public transit – whenever feasible.
TLU 4.2 Develop and adopt a Downtown Pedestrian Plan.
Climate Action Plan
A-7
A
TLU 4.3 Collaborate with SLO Regional Rideshare to expand
Safe Routes to School programs, events, and projects.
TLU 4.4 Research traffic congestion management techniques
that decrease vehicle stop rate and time, such as signal
synchronization or roundabouts.
2020 Reductions (MTCO2e): -551
City Costs: Medium
Assumptions:
Continuing to improve and renovate streets to accommodate all
transportation user modes will provide a safer pedestrian
environment and encourage residents to make trips by foot or other
alternative modes instead of by car. This measure also includes the
VMT reduction associated with increased participation in local Safe
Routes to School programs.
Sources:
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2010.
"Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures."
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments. 2007. SLO County Safe
Routes to School Update. http://library.slocog.org.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. 2005–2009 American Communities Survey
5-Year Estimates. Washington, D.C. http://factfinder.census.gov.
TLU 5: Land Use Diversity and Density
Encourage compact urban form and mixed-use developments.
Implementation:
TLU 5.1 Improve connectivity between neighborhoods and
services based on opportunities identified in the SLO2035
General Plan update.
TLU 5.2 Promote infill by amending the General Plan and
Zoning Regulations to increase residential densities in
suitable zones.
TLU 5.3 Incentivize mixed-use development by reducing
parking requirements, allowing alternatives to Parking and
Driveway Standards, and streamlining permit review.
TLU 5.4 Evaluate allowing mixed-use projects in the High-
density residential zone in the SLO2035 General Plan update.
TLU 5.5 Apply a Mixed-Use (MU) overlay zone to areas
suitable for TOD based on the SLO2035 General Plan update.
2020 Reductions (MTCO2e): -2,850
City Costs: Low
Assumptions:
The increased connectivity, density, and diversity of land uses within
San Luis Obispo will decrease the distances that will need to be
traveled to reach jobs, housing, services, and other amenities by
approximately 2.5% by 2020. Decreased distances between land
uses will not only reduce VMT, but will also make it more convenient
to utilize non-auto modes of travel.
Sources:
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2010.
"Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures."
City of San Luis Obispo
A-8
City of San Luis Obispo. 2010. General Plan Housing Element. San
Luis Obispo, CA.
City of San Luis Obispo. 2010. Zoning Regulations.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. 2005–2009 American Communities Survey
5-Year Estimates. Washington, D.C. http://factfinder.census.gov.
U.S. Department of Transportation. April 2010. Transportation’s Role
in Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Volume 1: Synthesis Report.
TLU 6: Parking Management
Motivate Downtown visitors to park once and walk or ride to
multiple destinations, or use transit to get to and from downtown.
Implementation:
TLU 6.1 Make Downtown parking structures an attractive
alternative to meter parking by making on-street meter fees
more expensive than structure parking.
TLU 6.2 Locate transit stops and bicycle racks near parking
structures to make alternative transportation choices
Downtown more convenient.
2020 Reductions (MTCO2e): -460
City Costs: Medium
Assumptions:
Higher costs for short-term parking on the street will motivate
Downtown visitors to park once in less expensive parking garages
and walk or ride to multiple locations.
Sources:
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2010.
"Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures."
TLU 7: Shared Parking
Reduce VMT and associated GHG emissions by further reducing
parking requirements for land uses that share the same parking lot.
Implementation:
TLU 7.1 Amend the Zoning Regulations to increase the
potential shared parking reduction from 10% to 30%.
2020 Reductions (MTCO2e): -250
City Costs: Low
Assumptions:
The VMT reductions associated with this measure assume that on
average a 7% shared parking reduction will occur for all new non-
single-family residential developments. A 7% reduction in parking
provisions will result in a 0.2% reduction in VMT.
Sources:
City of San Luis Obispo. 2010. Zoning Regulations.
TLU 8: Reduce the Need for Commuting
Increase local housing options for workers in the community that
include variety in location, type, size, tenure and style of dwellings.
Implementation:
TLU 8.1 Improve our jobs-housing balance to reduce VMT
from commuting.
Climate Action Plan
A-9
A
TLU 8.2 Support infill housing projects that implement
General Plan policies, especially BMR housing close to job
opportunities.
TLU 8.3 Continue to allow secondary dwelling unit
construction and look for opportunities to reduce barriers to
their production.
2020 Reductions (MTCO2e): -50
City Costs: Low
Assumptions:
Maintaining an appropriate jobs-housing balance helps give
residents the opportunity to live close to where they work.
Supporting below-market-rate (BMR) infill housing construction,
including secondary dwelling units, helps increase housing options
for workers in the community with varying income levels. New BMR
housing opportunities will result in a 4% decrease in household VMT
per new BMR unit.
Sources:
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2010.
Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures.
City of San Luis Obispo. 2010. General Plan Housing Element. San
Luis Obispo, CA.
Nelson/Nygaard. 2005. Creating Low-Traffic Developments:
Adjusting Site-Level Vehicle Trip Generation Using URBEMIS, pg. 12.
Urbemis. 2007. Version 9.2.4. Rimpo and Associates.
TLU 9: Public Outreach and Education
Increase community awareness of transit options and established
pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. Inform residents and
businesses about available incentives for commuting via carpool,
transit and bicycle.
Implementation:
TLU 9.1 Distribute informational transportation welcome
packets and bus passes to new residents and businesses.
TLU 9.2 Install additional informational bike signage.
TLU 9.3 Continue partnership with regional organizations,
including SLOCOG’s Regional Rideshare and SLO County’s
Bicycle Coalition, on outreach and education events.
TLU 9.4 Market incentive programs in the Bicycle Commuter
Act to employers and workers in the community.
Supporting Measure
City Costs: Low
WTR 1: Water Conservation: Existing Development
Implement Water Efficient Landscape Standards (MC 17.87) when
landscape projects trigger building permit review.
Implementation:
WTR 1.1 Require landscape projects that trigger building
permit review to incorporate native and drought tolerant
plant materials and minimize irrigated turf areas.
WTR 1.2 Require landscape projects that trigger building
permit review to incorporate irrigation system designs that
avoid runoff, low-head drainage, and overspray.
City of San Luis Obispo
A-10
WTR 1.3 Encourage the use of greywater or rainwater-
harvesting systems.
2020 Reductions (MTCO2e): -90
City Costs: Low
Assumptions:
Reduced water use by the community will result in reduced energy
consumption by City facilities to pump, deliver, and treat the City's
water supply. It is assumed that communitywide water use will be
reduced by 5% by 2020 and 10% by 2035, resulting in gallons per
capita per day of 115 and 110, respectively.
Sources:
California Energy Commission. 2005. California’s Water-Energy
Relationship. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-700-
2005-011/CEC-700-2005-011-SF.PDF.
———. 2006. Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in
California. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-500-
2006-118/CEC-500-2006-118.PDF.
City of San Luis Obispo. 2006. 2005 Annual Water Resources Status
Report. http://www.slocity.org/utilities/
WTR 2: Water Conservation: New Development
Implement CALGreen standards, Water Reuse Master Plan, and
Water Efficient Landscape Standards to reduce potable water use in
new development.
Implementation:
WTR 2.1 Review new development projects for consistency
with CALGreen water efficiency standards.
WTR 2.2 Expand recycled water infrastructure to encourage
use of greywater in new construction and landscape projects.
WTR 2.3 Require use of native and non-invasive drought
tolerant plant materials combined with conservative use of
water and landscape designs that prevent run-off.
2020 Reductions (MTCO2e): -20
City Costs: Low
Assumptions:
Reduced water use from new buildings will result in reduced energy
consumption by City facilities to pump, deliver, and treat the city's
water supply. The new CALGreen requirements include standards to
reduce building potable water use by 20%. This measure also
quantifies the impact of the expanded use of recycled water, which
is less energy intensive than potable water use. Approximately 150
acre-feet of recycled water were utilized in 2010. Recycled water use
will increase to 250 acre-feet per year by 2020 and 600 acre-feet per
year by 2035.
Sources:
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2010.
"Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures."
California Building Standards Commission. 2010 California Green
Building Standards Code. Sacramento, CA: California Building
Standards Commission.
Climate Action Plan
A-11
A
California Energy Commission. 2005. California’s Water-Energy
Relationship. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-700-
2005-011/CEC-700-2005-011-SF.PDF.
———. 2006. Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in
California. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-500-
2006-118/CEC-500-2006-118.PDF.
City of San Luis Obispo. 2006. 2005 Annual Water Resources Status
Report. http://www.slocity.org/utilities/download/annualwater
resourcereport/wrsr06.pdf.
Natural Resources Defense Council. 2004. Energy Down the Drain:
The Hidden Costs of California's Water Supply.
WTR 3: Public Outreach and Education
Inform the community about household water usage, and ways to
reduce indoor and outdoor water consumption.
Implementation:
WTR 3.1 Provide a graphical history of household water
usage on utility bills, and a comparison to average water
usage for similar types of homes in the community.
WTR 3.2 Maintain Utilities Department online resources and
outreach materials for water saving tips, planting guides and
available rebates.
Supporting Measure
City Costs: Low
WST 1: Increased Waste Diversion
Reduce the community waste stream to as close to zero waste as
possible, with a 75% diversion rate by the year 2020.
Implementation:
WST 1.1 Continue to provide and incentivize recycling and
green waste services for single-family residential, multi-
family, and commercial customers.
WST 1.2 Evaluate the effectiveness of a stricter volume-based
rate schedule for waste pickup.
WST 1.3 Enforce existing IWMA standards that require
landlords and commercial businesses to provide recycling
service.
WST 1.4 Re-establish financial support for home composting.
WST 1.5 Explore the feasibility of a waste auditing program.
WST 1.6 Consider residential and commercial curbside food
waste pickup.
WST 1.8 Evaluate the effectiveness of a Food Packaging
Ordinance that requires biodegradable containers.
WST 1.9 Conduct a feasibility assessment of waste cooking oil
collection for City-run biodiesel production and distribution.
WST 1.10 Conduct a feasibility assessment of relocating
biosolid composting closer to the City.
2020 Reductions (MTCO2e): -7,440
City Costs: Medium
Assumptions:
In 2005, the City diverted approximately 61% of all waste generated.
It is assumed that the City will reach a 75% diversion rate by 2020
City of San Luis Obispo
A-12
through reduced waste disposal, increased recycling, and the
development of a food waste pickup program.
Sources:
California Integrated Waste Management Board. 2004. Statewide
Waste Characterization Study. Sacramento, CA: California Integrated
Waste Management Board.
CalRecycle. 2011. Jurisdiction Profile for San Luis Obispo County
Integrated Waste Management Authority.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov.
WST 2: Public Outreach and Education
Provide waste reduction education to the City’s consumers.
Implementation:
WST 2.1 Provide the option for home and commercial waste
audits to identify and educate consumers where waste
production can be reduced.
WST 2.2 Maintain Utilities Department online resources and
outreach materials for recycling.
WST 2.3 Host interactive workshops on home composting.
WST 2.4 Explore options for landfill and Water Reclamation
Facility site visits open to the public and school groups.
Supporting Measure
City Costs: Low
PKS 1: Enrich the Urban Forest
Increase the number of native trees along City streets, parks, and
open spaces, with sensitivity to potential solar energy opportunities.
Implementation:
PKS 1.1 Conduct an audit of parks and open space to identify
and prioritize potential tree planting locations.
PKS 1.2 Continue to promote tree planting through adopt-a-
tree, commemorative plaque, and other volunteer-based
planting programs.
PKS 1.3 Establish an unpaid Urban Forester internship
program with Cal Poly.
2020 Reductions (MTCO2e): -340
City Costs: High
Assumptions:
The City has an established tree canopy of over 18,000 trees within
the public right-of-way and within City-maintained parks and
facilities. The City has estimated that there are 4 trees on private
property or natural spaces within San Luis Obispo for every tree
maintained by the City. These assumptions have been used to
calculate the carbon sequestration and climate cooling benefits of
additional shade trees, which will be planted at a rate of 200 new
trees per year. The calculation also incorporates the added GHG
emissions from increased maintenance equipment, water use, and
the decomposition of the tree at the end of its life.
Sources:
McHale, Melissa R., E. Gregory McPherson, and Ingrid C. Burke. 2007.
The potential of urban tree plantings to be cost effective in carbon
credit markets. Fort Collins, CO: Elsevier.
Climate Action Plan
A-13
A
PKS 2: Parks and Open Space Development
Continue to develop and acquire parks and open space resources.
Implementation:
PKS 2.1 Continue to negotiate easements and land donations
for conservation.
PKS 2.2 Continue to develop and implement conservation
plans for large City open space areas.
PKS 2.3 Use conservation easements in a coordinated fashion
to create trails.
PKS 2.4 Expand donation programs for open space
preservation and maintenance.
PKS 2.5 Partner with other local organizations committed to
open space preservation and parkland development.
2020 Reductions (MTCO2e): -1,360
City Costs: High
Assumptions:
This measure quantifies the carbon sequestration benefit of open
space and habitat restoration and re-vegetation. The GHG reduction
benefit of replanting open space areas utilizes average annual
sequestration rates for forestland scrub, trees, cropland, and
grasslands. The total areas to be rehabilitated are based on the
conservation plans created for each of the City-owned open spaces.
Sources:
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2010.
"Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures."
PKS 3: Green Waste Recycling
Utilize green waste from trimming, mowing, and other landscaping
maintenance as compost.
Implementation:
PKS 3.1 Store green waste from park maintenance at
established composting facilities or other park properties.
PKS 3.2 Continue to chip larger green waste at the City’s
Corporation Yard and redistribute for public and private use.
Supporting Measure
City Costs: Low
PKS 4: Foster Local Food Production
Foster local food production by increasing the availability and
sustainability of community gardens and agriculture.
Implementation:
PKS 4.1 Continue to identify suitable locations for community
gardens on public and private property.
PKS 4.2 Implement the Calle Joaquin Agricultural Reserve
Master Plan.
Supporting Measure
City Costs: Low
PKS 5: Public Outreach and Education
Educate the community about proper tree maintenance, gardening
and available resources for home landscape projects.
City of San Luis Obispo
A-14
Implementation:
PKS 5.1 Continue tree planting and maintenance education
programs such as Arbor Day and Downtown Foresters.
PKS 5.2 Partner with regional organizations to create
volunteer opportunities for trail work, habitat restoration and
open space maintenance.
PKS 5.3 Advertise availability of composted green waste,
wood chips and firewood.
Supporting Measure
City Costs: Low
GO 1: City Energy Conservation
Create and implement a City Building Retrofit Program.
2020 Reductions (MTCO2e): -190
City Costs: Medium
Assumptions:
The City has already achieved a 5% reduction in facility energy use
between 2005 and 2010 through upgrades and retrofits such as
indoor and outdoor lighting fixture retrofits, roof replacements,
lighting sensor controls, and HVAC upgrades.
Sources:
Blair, Cheryl. 2011. Administrative Analyst, City of San Luis Obispo.
Email correspondence.
Collins, Andrew. 2011. Facilities Supervisor, City of San Luis Obispo.
Personal communication.
GO 2: City Renewable Energy
Generate renewable energy at City-owned facilities.
2020 Reductions (MTCO2e): -150
City Costs: High
Assumptions:
This measure quantifies the impact of the City's renewable energy
installations at the Ludwick Community Center, Utilities
Administration building, and Sinsheimer Swim Center. Additionally,
the opportunity to install photovoltaic panels on additional City
facilities, including parking lots, has been quantified.
Sources:
Blair, Cheryl. 2011. Administrative Analyst, City of San Luis Obispo.
Email correspondence.
Munds, Ron. 2011. Utilities Coordinator, City of San Luis Obispo.
Personal communication.
GO 3: Transit Fleet Upgrades
Continue to upgrade to fuel-efficient vehicles as part of fleet
replacement program.
2020 Reductions (MTCO2e): -160
City Costs: Medium
Assumptions:
Incremental increases in the fuel efficiency of the City's transit
vehicles will continue to occur as the City replaces the transit fleet.
Climate Action Plan
A-15
A
The City's fleet averaged approximately 3.5 miles per gallon (MPG) in
2005 and is expected to reach 4.5 MPG by 2020.
Sources:
Webster, John. 2011. Transit Manager, City of San Luis Obispo. Email
correspondence.
GO 4: Energy-Efficient Street Lighting
Install energy-efficient streetlights and traffic signals.
Implementation:
GO 4.1 Continue to replace traffic signal fixtures with light-
emitting diode (LED) lighting.
GO 4.2 Replace public streetlights with high-efficiency
fixtures.
GO 4.3 Continue to upgrade outdoor lighting fixtures with
best available technology at City-owned facilities.
2020 Reductions (MTCO2e): -50
City Costs: Medium
Assumptions:
The City will continue to retrofit the existing 682 traffic signals and
2,200 streetlights. The City has already reduced traffic signal energy
use by installing LED lighting, which will also reduce maintenance
and replacement costs. This measure anticipates that the City will
retrofit 25% of the city's streetlights by 2020 with LED or other
energy-efficient lighting, which will result in a 48% decrease in
electricity use per fixture.
Sources:
Blair, Cheryl. 2011. Administrative Analyst, City of San Luis Obispo.
Email correspondence.
City of Little Rock. 2003. "Conventional Vs LED Traffic Signals;
Operational Characteristics and Economic Feasibility." Little Rock,
AR.
U.S. Department of Energy, Pacific Gas & Electric. 2008. LED Street
Lighting: U.S. DOE Solid-State Lighting Technology Demonstration
Gateway Program and PG&E Emerging Technologies Program.
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/gatew
ay_sf-streetlighting.pdf.
GO 5: Water and Wastewater Infrastructure
Continue energy-efficient upgrades to water pumping and lift
stations, and processes at the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF).
Implementation:
GO 5.1 Implement a schedule to prioritize replacement of
water pumping and lift stations.
GO 5.2 Continue implementation of the WRF energy
conservation plan.
2020 Reductions (MTCO2e): -190
City Costs: High
Assumptions:
It is assumed government operations will reduce energy use related
to water delivery and wastewater treatment by 10% by 2020. This
will be achieved through pump upgrades, more efficient treatment
City of San Luis Obispo
A-16
systems, and the use of more efficient equipment at the water and
wastewater treatment facilities.
Sources:
City of San Luis Obispo. 2009. Baseline Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Inventory.
GO 6: Increase Waste Diversion from City-owned Property
Enhance recycling and composting efforts at parks, plazas, bus
stops, offices and facilities.
Implementation:
GO 6.1 Ensure that all City facilities have recycling containers.
GO 6.2 Assess the feasibility of food scrap collection and
pickup in public places.
2020 Reductions (MTCO2e): -40
City Costs: Low
Assumptions:
The City will continue to install recycling and composting
receptacles at City facilities to reduce the waste collected by the City
and sent to the landfill.
Sources:
Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District. 2008. "Solid
Waste Composition Study." http://www.metrovancouver.org/about
/publications/Publications/SolidWasteCompositionStudyFinal-
2007.pdf.
GO 7: Water Conservation
Continue implementation of General Plan policies for efficient water
use (COSE 10.3).
Implementation:
GO 7.1 Choose appropriately-sized plants for City landscapes
that are suitable for the climate, with emphasis on use of
drought-tolerant plants.
GO 7.2 Prepare soils for water penetration and retention.
GO 7.3 Design and operate efficient irrigation systems.
GO 7.4 Install water-efficient fixtures and maintain leak
control at City facilities.
Supporting Measure
City Costs: Low
GO 8: Fleet and Equipment Upgrades
Utilize best available technology for equipment and poolcar
upgrades identified in the vehicle fleet replacement
program.
2020 Reductions (MTCO2e): -150
City Costs: Medium
Assumptions:
The City will continue to replace existing vehicles with the most fuel-
efficient models available. The City's police fleet accounts for over
60% of the City's vehicle gasoline consumption. Since 2005, the
City's police fleet has been replaced with more fuel-efficient
Climate Action Plan
A-17
A
vehicles, and the City will continue to replace vehicles with more
fuel-efficient vehicles.
Sources:
U.S. Department of Energy. 2011. FuelEconomy.gov.
GO 9: Employee Commute
Continue to reduce single-occupant employee commuting
through trip reduction incentives.
2020 Reductions (MTCO2e): -50
City Costs: Low
Assumptions:
This measure assumes that the City will continue to offer employee
incentives for utilizing alternative transportation options to
commute to work.
Sources:
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2010.
"Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures."
GO 10: Sustainability Coordinator
Allocate or hire staff to implement CAP and energy
programs.
Supporting Measure
City Costs: High
GO 11: Public Outreach and Education
Demonstrate the City’s commitment to reducing GHG emissions
using outreach about CAP program implementation.
Implementation:
GO 11.1 Publish information on the City’s climate action
planning website about successful programs aimed at
reducing GHG emissions.
GO 11.2 Participate in Earth Day activities, the County’s
Energy-Efficiency Month, and other regional events to
educate the community about City climate action planning.
Supporting Measure
City Costs: Low
1/18/2017
1
City Council - Study Session
Climate Action Plan Update
January 17, 2017
Community Development Department
Recommendation
1.Participate in a Study Session on Climate Action
Plan Implementation strategy and receive and
file the background reports; and
2.Consider the recommended Climate Action Plan
implementation strategies to further the City’s
efforts to address climate change and to mitigate
GHG emissions as part of the process of
creating Major City Goals, Other Important
Objectives, and other budget priorities as part of
the 2017-19 Financial Plan.
1/18/2017
2
Climate Action Plan
Adopted in July 2012 in response to the passage of the
Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32)
It was the result of a collaborative effort with the community
Serves as the City’s primary policy document that sets forth
objectives and strategies to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions and to save energy and reduce energy-related
cost
Target: Reduce GHG emissions to
1990 levels by 2020
CAP Implementation Assessment
In 2016 two assessments regarding the status of the
CAP Implementation were prepared:
Climate Action Plan Progress Report
•Highlights and provides a status update on the near term
(0 to 5 year) GHG emission reduction strategies and
implementation measures
•Identifies recommendations to accelerate the City’s
progress towards CAP implementation and monitoring
Energy Baseline Report
•Analyzes the City’s facility and infrastructure energy use
and cost, and provides a baseline for future energy
efficiency efforts
•Identifies recommendations to further the City’s efforts
regarding efficient energy management
1/18/2017
3
Setting the Stage
The Progress Report and the Energy Baseline Report are resources
that are being used to set the stage for future discussions and
decisions regarding:
Areas for improvement
Re-evaluation of GHG emission reduction targets and
implementation strategies
Short and long term work efforts
Objectives for consideration during the 2017-2019 Financial Plan
goal setting process
Allocation of resources
Community involvement and education
Progress towards CAP implementation and monitoring is being made,
but there is still a lot of work to be done to ensure that the City achieves
the adopted GHG emissions reductions targets.
City Council Study Sessions
In October 2016, the City Council held a study session to review
and discuss the two CAP assessments and the identified
recommendations to further the City’s efforts to address climate
change and to mitigate GHG emissions.
• Council provided staff with direction to proceed with an
analysis of the feasibility of implementing all of the identified
near-term recommendations.
During today’s study session will be primarily focused on Council’s
consideration of staff’s recommended strategy to implement the
CAP as part of the 2017-19 Financial Plan.
• The strategy includes 13 specific recommendations, including
the identification of resources and timing to complete each.
1/18/2017
4
Near-Term Strategy Recommendations
1.Re-evaluation of the feasibility or relevance of some of the
identified GHG emissions reduction implementation measures
that are identified in the CAP, and identification of potential
implementation funding sources.
2.Creation of a City “Green Team” to be comprised of a
representative from each department with expertise in various
subject matters. The team would implement, oversee, and report
out on all City implementation efforts. As well as be responsible
for updating and maintaining the City’s CAP.
3.Establish and support a “Climate Action Coalition” to enhance
community education, participation, and advocacy in all city and
regional climate change and GHG emissions reduction efforts.
Near-Term Strategy Recommendations
4.Performance of energy assessments on all City owned facilities.
5.Implementation of energy and cost saving measures and projects
identified in the energy assessments.
6.Annual monitoring and measuring of facility and infrastructure
performance.
7.Annual preparation of an Energy Baseline Report and Rate
Analysis.
1/18/2017
5
Near-Term Strategy Recommendations
8.Establishment of a “Sustainability Coordinator” who will be
directly responsible for securing grant funding; coordinating the
efforts of the “Green Team”; providing assistance and support to
the community “Climate Action Coalition”; overseeing the update
and maintenance of the Climate Action Plan web page and
resources; overseeing the update of the City’s GHG emissions
inventory and CAP; development and monitoring of incentives
programs; and supporting energy efficiency programs (ex: PACE
and CCA).
9.Updating the City’s GHG emissions inventory.
Near-Term Strategy Recommendations
10.Update the Climate Action Plan to reflect the legislative changes
associated with the AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan that
addresses implementation scope and the establishment of the
2030 GHG emissions reduction target, and the Sustainable
Communities Strategy for the San Luis Obispo Region (SB 375).
11.Better accountability and monitoring of the CAP implementation
strategy and measures.
12.Annual reporting of the effectiveness of individual measures to
provide the City Council with an indication of how overall GHG
emissions levels have changed over time relative to the reduction
targets identified in the CAP.
1/18/2017
6
Near-Term Strategy Recommendations
13.Development of enhanced incentive programs to encourage
energy efficiency and GHG emissions reduction, such as
exceeding Title 24 energy efficiency, LEED certification,
photovoltaic systems, use of clean air vehicles or shared
vehicles, and water efficiency.
Correspondence – Additional Strategies
•Climate Change Adaptation/Resilience Planning– evaluate vulnerability to hazards
associated with climate change (i.e., sea level rise, natural resource management,
infrastructure improvements, etc.) and prepare an adaptation/resilience plan.
•Net Zero Energy (ZNE) Consumption – residential building that produces as much
renewable energy on-site as it consumes annually. State is working on legislation
that would require compliance by 2020.
•Design Guidelines Update – incorporate low impact development, address urban
heat island effect, energy efficient interior lighting, and landscaping.
•Passive Solar Design concepts for subdivisions – orient site design features (i.e.,
building placement, street /lot layout, landscaping, topography. etc.) and
development to maximize access to sunlight.
•Jobs-housing balance and reducing VMT from commuting – planning for a diverse
mix of housing products near job centers with pedestrian, bicycle and transit
infrastructure.
•Climate/Energy Advisory Body – Committee that is specifically tasked with
overview of the City’s carbon neutral objectives.
•Water demand offset program to subsidize water efficiency incentives (i.e.,
recycled water, grey water, and rainwater harvesting systems, etc.).
1/18/2017
7
Next Steps
Staff will use the direction provided by Council today
and the 2017-19 Financial Plan Goal-Setting process to
inform the development of a Climate Action Plan
Implementation work program.
Conclusion
Staff is recommending the following:
1.Participate in a Study Session on Climate Action
Plan Implementation strategy and receive and
file the background reports; and
2.Consider the recommended Climate Action Plan
implementation strategies to further the City’s
efforts to address climate change and to mitigate
GHG emissions as part of the process of
creating Major City Goals, Other Important
Objectives, and other budget priorities as part of
the 2017-19 Financial Plan.
1/18/2017
8
Questions?
1/18/2017
9
CAP Progress Report
The report highlighted the 47 near term (0 to 5 years)
GHG emissions reduction implementation measures that
are identified in the CAP and the responsible
Departments:
Complete
In Progress
Ongoing
No Progress
CAP Progress Report Recommendations
Progress Report:
Re-evaluate the feasibility and relevance of the
CAP implementation measures
Create a “Green Team” to address CAP
Implementation
Enhance public outreach and education
Provide the framework and support for a Climate
Action Coalition
1/18/2017
10
Energy Baseline Report
Prepared by CivicSpark, which is part of the County’s
Energy Watch Climate Services Program (Energy
Watch)
Analyzed the energy use and cost associated with 18
City-owned/operated facility buildings and 3 types of
utility infrastructure, from June 2013 to May 2016
Provides a baseline for future energy efficiency efforts
that will allow the City to track and monitor progress
Energy Baseline Report Recommendations
Energy Baseline Report :
Perform energy assessments on all facilities
Implement energy and cost saving measures and
projects
Monitor and measure facility and infrastructure
performance
Prepare an annual Energy Baseline Report
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/resilience
https://www.compactofmayors.org/globalcovenantofmayors/
https://www.compactofmayors.org/
https://www.bbhub.io/mayors/sites/14/2016/06/Charter-for-the-Global-Covenant-of-Mayors-for-
Climate-and-Energy-FINAL.pdf
http://opengov.slocity.org/weblink/1,1,1/doc/62250/Page1.aspx
CAP
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4086
GHG Inventory
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4084
Stewardship report
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4082
Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard
The Leadership Team should be composed of 2‐4 people to guide the evaluation and communicate
results with other stakeholders. The participants of the Leadership Team should include the persons that
oversee planning initiatives or plans and would ideally include:
The person responsible for the hazard mitigation plan, typically the emergency manager and
The person responsible for the comprehensive land use plan, typically the planning director, city
manager, county commissioner, or other official.
Depending on the size of the community and the number of plans to be evaluated, other participants may
be good additions to the Leadership Team. We recommend that local planners, emergency managers,
engineers, other local officials, and any other group, person, or agency with land use or emergency
planning responsibility play a central role in applying the scorecard and in guiding communities to revise
and improve plans.
We expect the project duration to be 4‐6 months (intermittent schedule) and 30‐40 hours per plan to
complete. The following is an example of possible plans and staff time:
Comprehensive plan (1 planning staff, 40 hours)
Parks and recreation plan (1 planning staff, <40 hours)
Climate adaptation plan (1 planning staff, 40 hours)
Hazard mitigation plan (1 emergency management staff, 40 hours)
Admin/Learning Items
(static)
Staff Time Notes
Introductory Peer Learning
Summit
8 hr. + travel
time
Ideally we’d like to convene a peer learning workshop
with all of the pilot communities. Travel costs are
covered. Alternatively, we could work in the pilot
community.
Final Peer Learning Summit
or TAMU site visit
8 hr. + travel Ideally we’d like to convene a peer learning workshop
with all of the pilot communities. Travel costs are
covered. Alternatively, we could work in the pilot
community.
Check‐in phone or web calls
1 hr. x 4 calls Monthly calls to answer any questions and check
progress.
Total 20 hours
Project Items (per plan) Staff Time Notes
Pull policies (Policy Team)
8 hr. per plan
Identify ‘mappable areas’ 4 hr. per plan
Develop maps (Mapping
Team)
TAMU TAMU will develop maps based on the plans.
Scoring
8 hr. per plan
Vulnerability Assessment
TAMU TAMU will calculate vulnerability and develop maps.
Total
40 hrs. per plan
City of San Luis Obispo
Energy Baseline Report
August 2, 2016
Contents I. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 II. Energy Use and Cost Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 1 III. Energy Use Intensity Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 6 IV. Next Steps in Municipal Energy Management Program ................................................................................ 8 V. Contact Information ..................................................................................................................................................... 8 VI. Portfolio Manager Login Credentials ..................................................................................................................... 8 Appendix A- Table of Property Information ................................................................................................................ 9 Appendix B - Definitions of Primary Function Types ............................................................................................. 10
1
I. Introduction San Luis Obispo County’s Energy Watch 1 (Energy Watch) is a partnership between the County of San Luis Obispo, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), and participating cities and special districts. As part of a comprehensive program, Energy Watch provides information to local governments regarding energy use and costs in their facilities and infrastructure. This information is used to identify opportunities for energy and cost savings, to help participants finance and implement energy saving measures and projects, and to track building performance. This report was made possible by collaboration between CivicSpark and Energy Watch. CivicSpark is a governor’s initiative AmeriCorps program designed to help local governments build capacity. In the County of San Luis Obispo, CivicSpark’s mission is to provide support for the implementation of the Climate Action Plans for the seven incorporated Cities and County. The dual purpose of this report is to (1) analyze San Luis Obispo’s energy use and cost from June 2013 to May 2016 and to (2) serve as a baseline and guiding document for future energy efficiency efforts. San Luis Obispo authorized Energy Watch to collect utility data from PG&E and SoCalGas to produce this report. The Environmental Protection Agency’s Energy Star Portfolio Manager, a free online benchmarking tool, was used, in part, to track and monitor energy use and cost, as well as building performance in facilities over time.
II. Energy Use and Cost Analysis This report highlights 18 buildings and three types of utility infrastructure owned and operated by the City of San Luis Obispo. The energy analysis below describes the electricity and natural gas use and costs for each facility, the percent change between June 2013 and May 2016, and overall energy trend analysis. Tables 1.1 and 1.2 below include a detailed year by year breakdown of electricity and natural gas use and costs for all San Luis Obispo buildings and infrastructure types.
1 This program is funded by California utility customers and administered by PG&E and SoCalGas under the
auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission.
2
Table 1.1 Electricity Usage and Cost, 2013 to 2016
Electricity
Cost ($)
Electricity
Usage (kWh)
Electricity
Cost ($)
Electricity
Usage (kWh)
Electricity
Cost ($)
Electricity
Usage (kWh)
836 Pacific Street Parking Garage 39,047.72$ 258660 44,632.11$ 275604 47,044.29$ 283307 17%9%
842 Palm Street Parking Structure 18,879.37$ 136847 20,219.28$ 135312 20,466.63$ 132716 8%-3%
871 Marsh Street Office and Parking Garage 21,475.90$ 144291 18,284.54$ 103777 18,325.58$ 95651 -17%-51%
919 Palm Parking Garage 23,187.85$ 153329 24,621.15$ 151848 25,485.73$ 154853 9%1%
City Hall 49,793.96$ 296246 52,461.53$ 287061 54,398.38$ 279226 8%-6%
City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department 3,115.98$ 17436 4,406.28$ 22289 5,124.43$ 24123 39%28%
Corporation Yard 44,850.97$ 275748 47,516.64$ 278315 48,282.75$ 270262 7%-2%
Fire Station #1 25,614.76$ 155099 29,986.83$ 166450 30,366.07$ 162046 16%4%
Fire Station #2 7,785.63$ 42104 7,906.90$ 41262 9,579.11$ 45368 19%7%
Fire Station #3 7,558.63$ 40661 7,937.65$ 41009 8,552.46$ 40249 12%-1%
Fire Station #4 6,190.98$ 33487 6,824.90$ 35287 7,288.38$ 34276 15%2%
Ludwick Community Center 8,470.70$ 39053 7,209.64$ 36755 6,871.85$ 32492 -23%-20%
Parks and Recreation Department Offices 8,650.54$ 45520 8,984.38$ 44320 8,487.45$ 38429 -2%-18%
Police Department Building 59,412.91$ 344392 51,829.87$ 285541 45,685.88$ 245472 -30%-40%
Public Works and Community Development Offices 38,815.68$ 213480 38,965.67$ 197640 40,202.06$ 206636 3%-3%
Safety Dispatch Center 49,677.37$ 368946 53,698.03$ 381307 54,858.08$ 367054 9%-1%
Senior Citizens Center 6,151.52$ 27652 6,824.05$ 30156 7,021.44$ 30125 12%8%
Sinsheimer Park 34,534.24$ 209795 13,431.26$ 15486 25,166.58$ 109398 -37%-92%
Buildings Total 453,214.71$ 2802746 445,740.71$ 2529419 463,207.15$ 2551683 2%-10%
WWTP/WRRF Main Operations 549,612.55$ 4498218 591,134.56$ 4524723 523,594.67$ 3818560 -5%-18%
WWTP/WRRF Recycled Water System 46,706.52$ 247506 50,448.05$ 249637 56,852.32$ 270451 18%8%
Waste Water Total 596,319.07$ 4745724 641,582.61$ 4774360 580,446.99$ 4089011 -3%-16%
Water Treatment Plant 303,754.27$ 2097600 326,650.82$ 2059200 311,232.87$ 1885200 2%-11%
All Facilities Total 1,353,288.05$ 9646070 1,413,974.14$ 9362979 1,354,887.01$ 8525894 0%-13%
Building
Utility Infrastructure Waste Water
Utility Infrastructure Fresh Water
Electricity Usage
(kWh) % Change
June '13 -
May '16
Facility Name
June '13 - May '14 June '14 - May '15 June '15 - May '16 Electricity Cost
($) % Change
June '13 -
May '16
3
Table 1.2 Natural Gas Usage and Cost, 2013 to 2016
Energy usage throughout the next section of the report is expressed in British Thermal Units (BTUs) – a standard unit for energy use. Energy usage of any kind can be expressed in BTUs, including electricity and natural gas, making it an effective metric to show total energy usage. The energy usage in the tables above have been converted into kBTUs in the graphs below using the standard conversion of 1 kWh = 3.412 kBTUs and 1 Therm = 100 kBTUs. For the purpose of this baseline report and to help determine potential opportunities for future energy and cost savings, threshold criteria were developed to help identify facilities for further analysis. These criteria, highlighted below, emphasize facilities with energy use that is high and increased over the analysis period. Please note there are other facilities with significant energy use and cost that should be considered for future assessment.
Facilities highlighted in this report have EITHER electrical consumption greater than 20,000 kWh (68,240 kBTUs) annually OR gas use greater
than 1,000 therms (100,000 kBTUs) annually, AND experienced BOTH an increase in energy use greater than 3% and an increase in energy
cost greater than $500 between 2013 and 2016.
Natural Gas
Cost ($)
Natural Gas
Usage (Therm)
Natural Gas
Cost ($)
Natural Gas
Usage (Therm)
Natural Gas
Cost ($)
Natural Gas
Usage (Therm)
City Hall 3,959.95$ 3907 3,224.17$ 3159 3,414.63$ 3728 -16%-5%
City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department 694.42$ 484 549.51$ 370 539.04$ 384 -29%-26%
Fire Station #1 2,759.01$ 2642 2,023.52$ 1945 2,023.52$ 1945 -36%-36%
Fire Station #2 1,153.87$ 940 859.06$ 682 971.20$ 860 -19%-9%
Fire Station #3 1,610.51$ 1381 1,200.08$ 1024 1,519.86$ 1495 -6%8%
Fire Station #4 1,185.66$ 994 708.67$ 524 974.13$ 858 -22%-16%
Ludwick Community Center 1,079.57$ 872 770.99$ 600 1,057.08$ 936 -2%7%
Parks and Recreation Department Offices 639.79$ 445 559.28$ 383 653.88$ 505 2%12%
Police Department Building 6,913.41$ 7643 4,525.19$ 4741 4,238.03$ 4796 -63%-59%
Public Works and Community Development Offices 272.94$ 78 266.08$ 72 253.80$ 66 -8%-18%
Senior Citizens Center 1,191.65$ 980 997.33$ 818 1,078.51$ 957 -10%-2%
Sinsheimer Park 73,296.94$ 104235 88,219.62$ 136534 47,647.96$ 76984 -54%-35%
Buildings Total 94,757.72$ 124601 103,903.50$ 150852 64,371.64$ 93514 -47%-33%
WWTP/WRRF Main Operations 24,532.32$ 30264 21,623.59$ 27036 13,660.50$ 18528 -80%-63%
All Facilities Total 119,290.04$ 154865 125,527.09$ 177888 78,032.14$ 112042 -53%-38%
Utility Infrastructure Waste Water
Building
Facility Name
June '13 - May '14 June '14 - May '15 June '15 - May '16 Natural Gas Cost
($) % Change
June '13 - May
'16
Natural Gas
Usage (Therm) %
Change
June '13 - May
'16
4
Graphs 1.1 - 4 depict the total energy cost ($) over total energy use (kBTUs) for San Luis Obispo’s 4 facilities with the highest energy use and costs, in accordance with the above threshold.
Graph 1.1 836 Pacific Street Parking Garage Energy Cost and Use from June 2013 - May 2016
Graph 1.2 City of San Luis Utilities Department Combined Energy Cost and Use from June 2013 - May 2016
$-
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$3,000.00
$4,000.00
$5,000.00
$6,000.00
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
100000
JuneAugustOctoberDecemberFebruaryAprilJuneAugustOctoberDecemberFebruaryAprilJuneAugustOctoberDecemberFebruaryAprilJune '13-May '14 June '14 - May '15 June '15 - May '16 Total Energy Cost ($) Total Energy Usage (kBTUs) 836 Pacific Street Parking Garage
Electricity Usage Total Cost
$-
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$3,000.00
$4,000.00
$5,000.00
$6,000.00
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
JuneAugustOctoberDecemberFebruaryAprilJuneAugustOctoberDecemberFebruaryAprilJuneAugustOctoberDecemberFebruaryAprilJune '13-May '14 June '14 - May '15 June '15 - May '16 Total Energy Cost ($) Total Energy Usage (kBTUs) City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department
Electricity Usage Natural Gas Usage Total Cost
5
Graph 1.3 Fire Station No. 3 Combined Energy Cost and Use from June 2013 to May 2016
Graph 1.4 WWTP/WRRF Recycled Water System Energy Cost and Use from June 2013 to May 2016
$-
$200.00
$400.00
$600.00
$800.00
$1,000.00
$1,200.00
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
JuneAugustOctoberDecemberFebruaryAprilJuneAugustOctoberDecemberFebruaryAprilJuneAugustOctoberDecemberFebruaryAprilJune '13-May '14 June '14 - May '15 June '15 - May '16 Total Energy Cost ($) Total Energy Usage (kBTUs) Fire Station #3
Electricity Usage Natural Gas Usage Total Cost
$-
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$3,000.00
$4,000.00
$5,000.00
$6,000.00
$7,000.00
$8,000.00
$9,000.00
$10,000.00
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
JuneAugustOctoberDecemberFebruaryAprilJuneAugustOctoberDecemberFebruaryAprilJuneAugustOctoberDecemberFebruaryAprilJune '13-May '14 June '14 - May '15 June '15 - May '16 Total Energy Cost ($) Total Energy Usage (kBTUs) WWTP/WRRF Recycled Water System
Electricity Usage Total Cost
6
III. Energy Use Intensity Analysis Energy Use Intensity (EUI) is a unit of measurement that represents the energy consumed by a building relative to its size and property type. This is calculated by dividing the total amount of energy consumed (kBTU) by a building in one year by the building’s total floor area (square feet). The following analysis includes all of San Luis Obispo’s facilities that were eligible for calculating EUI. See Appendix B for property type definitions. High or low EUI values do not necessarily describe a facility’s energy efficiency. EUI numbers are relative and are compared to other similar facilities. For the purpose of this report, we have decided to compare the EUI of San Luis Obispo’s facilities to a national median of similar property types. Facilities with EUIs that are higher than the national median are considered less efficient, while facilities with EUIs lower than the national median are more efficient. These comparisons are portrayed below in Graph 2.1. Table 2.1 lists the EUI of San Luis Obispo’s facilities as calculated by the Portfolio Manager tool.
Table 2.1 Site EUI for 2013 to 2016
Facility Name Property Type
Gross
Floor
Area
(ft2)
Site EUI (kBTU/ft2) National
Median
Site EUI June '13
- May '14
June '14
- May '15
June '15
- May '16
Building City Hall Office 22971 61 56 58 52 City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department Office 3810 28 30 32 59 Corporation Yard Other - Public Services 36000 26 26 26 39 Fire Station #1 Fire Station 20398 39 37 37 60 Fire Station #2 Fire Station 3000 79 70 80 63 Fire Station #3 Fire Station 3726 74 65 77 72 Fire Station #4 Fire Station 3130 68 55 65 64 Ludwick Community Center Social/Meeting Hall 15000 15 12 14 30 Parks and Recreation Department Offices Office 4200 48 45 43 56 Police Department Building Police Station 25152 77 58 52 64 Public Works and Community Development Offices Office 17000 43 40 42 63 Safety Dispatch Center Police Station 6044 208 215 207 49 Senior Citizens Center Social/Meeting Hall 5766 33 32 34 32 Sinsheimer Park Fitness Center/Health Club/Gym 8288 1344 1654 974 85
7
Graph 2.1 depicts how the energy use intensity of San Luis Obispo facilities compares to a national median of facilities with the same property type. According to Portfolio Manager, the national median EUI is the recommended benchmark metric for all buildings. The median value is the middle of the national population – half of the buildings use more energy and the other half use less. A complete listing of all national median EUI values can be found at https://portfoliomanager.energystar.gov/pdf/reference/US%20National%20Median%20Table.pdf
Graph 2.1 Site EUI vs. National Median
*Sinsheimer Park has an EUI value of 979 kBTU/ft2, which exceeds the maximum value shown on the vertical axis of Graph 2.1.
979
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
Site EUI (kBTU/ft2) 2016 Site EUI vs. National Median Site EUI
Site EUI National Median Site EUI
8
IV. Next Steps in Municipal Energy Management Program
Perform energy assessments on priority or all facilities
o Energy Watch will coordinate with the utilities and each of the 3rd party service providers conducting energy assessments to provide a single report identifying the best opportunities for energy and cost savings, as well as the information necessary for financing and moving forward with project implementation.
Implement Energy and Cost Saving Measures and Projects
o Energy Watch will help select, plan, and manage cost-effective energy saving projects. This includes leveraging technical and engineering resources, navigating rebate and incentive procurement, and securing no or low interest financing.
Monitor and measure facility and infrastructure performance and provide an annual Energy Baseline Report and Rate Analysis
o Energy Watch and CivicSpark will assist in the continual monitoring of energy use for your City and provide annual baseline reports and rate analyses to City staff.
V. Contact Information Jordan Garbayo jgarbayo@co.slo.ca.us Katie Webster kwebster@civicspark.lgc.org
VI. Portfolio Manager Login Credentials User Name: SanLuisObispoCity Password: EnergyWatch1 http://Portfoliomanager.energystar.gov Energy Watch staff is available to help train San Luis Obispo staff how to use Portfolio Manager as a means to easily track and measure energy use, costs, and performance over time.
9
Appendix A - Table of Property Information
Facility Name Address SAID # (PG&E)BAID # (SCG)Meter # (SCG)
Property
Floor Area
(ft^2)
Total Energy Cost
($)
June ’13 - May ‘14
Total Energy Cost
($)
June ’14 - May ‘15
Total Energy Cost
($)
June ’15 - May ‘16
Total Energy Usage
(kBTU)
June ’13 - May ‘14
Total Energy Usage
(kBTU)
June ’14 - May ‘15
Total Energy Usage
(kBTU)
June ’15 - May ‘16
836 Pacific Street Parking Garage 836 Pacific Street 7212993421 1350 $ 39,047.72 $ 44,632.11 $ 47,044.29 882548 940361 966643
842 Palm Street Parking Structure 842 Palm Street 7212993880 92212 $ 18,879.37 $ 20,219.28 $ 20,466.63 466922 461685 452827
871 Marsh Street Office and Parking Garage 871 Marsh Street 7212993138 104862 $ 21,475.90 $ 18,284.54 $ 18,325.58 492321 354087 326361
919 Palm Parking Garage 919 Palm Street 7212993548 86000 $ 23,187.85 $ 24,621.15 $ 25,485.73 523159 518105 528358
2473387193 $ 49,793.96 $ 52,461.53 $ 54,398.38 1010791 979452 952719
969151300 13235835 $ 3,959.95 $ 3,224.17 $ 3,414.63 390700 315900 372800
5519318748 $ 3,115.98 $ 4,406.28 $ 5,124.43 59492 76050 82308
1494151193 3608214 $ 694.42 $ 549.51 $ 539.04 48400 37000 38400
0978936811 $ 1,056.67 $ 1,314.77 $ 703.69 14344 17022 6851
2473387022 43,794.30$ 46,201.87$ 47,579.06$ 926508 932588 915283
965296595 $ 25,614.76 $ 29,986.83 $ 30,366.07 530594 569425 554359
1221152027 13264921 $ 2,759.01 $ 2,023.52 $ 2,023.52 264200 194500 194500
965296872 $ 7,785.63 $ 7,906.90 $ 9,579.11 144038 141157 155204
1442169800 10280293 $ 1,153.87 $ 859.06 $ 971.20 94000 68200 86000
965296588 $ 7,558.63 $ 7,937.65 $ 8,552.46 139101 140292 137692
90152900 6434889 $ 1,610.51 $ 1,200.08 $ 1,519.86 138100 102400 149500
965296943 $ 6,190.98 $ 6,824.90 $ 7,288.38 114559 120717 117258
1409149100 13234391 $ 1,185.66 $ 708.67 $ 974.13 99400 52400 85800
2473387325 $ 8,470.70 $ 7,209.64 $ 6,871.85 133600 125739 111155
976157300 13473354 $ 1,079.57 $ 770.99 $ 1,057.08 87200 60000 93600
5845533555 $ 8,650.54 $ 8,984.38 $ 8,487.45 155724 151619 131466
1746150427 12743068 $ 639.79 $ 559.28 $ 653.88 44500 38300 50500
1152896225 $ 59,412.91 $ 51,829.87 $ 45,685.88 1178165 976836 839760
1389151200 13617407 $ 6,913.41 $ 4,525.19 $ 4,238.03 764300 474100 479600
5845533756 $ 38,815.68 $ 38,965.67 $ 40,202.06 730315 676126 706902
1200616737 12172910 $ 272.94 $ 266.08 $ 253.80 7800 7200 6600
Safety Dispatch Center 1135 Roundhouse Ave 1152896248 6044 $ 49,677.37 $ 53,698.03 $ 54,858.08 1258844 1301019 1252388
2473387050 $ 6,151.52 $ 6,824.05 $ 7,021.44 94597 103164 103058
1143161600 3021736 $ 1,191.65 $ 997.33 $ 1,078.51 98000 81800 95700
5845533948 $ 34,534.24 $ 13,431.26 $ 25,166.58 717709 52978 374251
1959152600 11122666 $ 73,296.94 $ 88,219.62 $ 47,647.96 10423500 13653400 7698400
Buildings Total $ 547,972.43 $ 549,644.21 $ 527,578.79 22033431 23723623 18066243
5845533029 $ 549,612.55 $ 591,134.56 $ 523,594.67 15388404 15479077 13063294
317150100 14988716 $ 24,532.32 $ 21,623.59 $ 13,660.50 3026400 2703600 1852800
WWTP/WRRF Recycled Water System 35 Prado Road 6348223153 8508 $ 46,706.52 $ 50,448.05 $ 56,852.32 844490 851761 922779
Waste Water Total $ 620,851.39 $ 663,206.20 $ 594,107.49 19259294 19034439 15838873
Water Treatment Plant Stenner Creek Road 5845533075 8508 $ 303,754.27 $ 326,650.82 $ 311,232.87 7157011 7025990 6432302
All Facilities Total 1,472,578.09$ 1,539,501.23$ 1,432,919.15$ 48449736 49784052 40337418
35 Prado Road
900 Southwood Drive
1445 Santa Rosa Road
25152
17000
5766
8288
14492
3000
3726
3130
15000
4200
Utility Infrastructure Fresh Water
City Hall
City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department
Fire Station #1
Fire Station #2
Fire Station #3
Fire Station #4
Ludwick Community Center
Parks and Recreation Department Offices
Police Department Building
Public Works and Community Development Offfices
Senior Citizens Center
1395 Madonna Road
864 Santa Rosa Street
1341 Nipomo Street
1042 Walnut Street
Sinsheimer Park
WWTP/WRRF Main Operations
136 N. Chorro Street
1280 Laurel Lane
Building
Utilty Infrastructure Waste Water
919 Palm St #1
Corporation Yard 25 Prado Rd
990 Palm Street
879 Morro St
2160 Santa Barbara Street
22971
3810
36000
20398
10
Appendix B - Definitions of Primary Function Types Primary Function Definition Office Office refers to buildings used for the conduct of commercial or governmental business activities. This includes administrative and professional offices. Non-Refrigerated Warehouse Non-Refrigerated Warehouse refers to unrefrigerated buildings that are used to store goods, manufactured products, merchandise or raw materials. Fire Station Fire Station refers to buildings used to provide emergency response services associated with fires. Fire stations may be staffed by either volunteer or full-time paid firemen. Library Library refers to buildings used to store and manage collections of literary and artistic materials such as books, periodicals, newspapers, films, etc. that can be used for reference or lending. Police Station Police Station applies to buildings used for federal, state, or local police forces and their associated office space. Social/Meeting Hall Social/Meeting hall refers to buildings primarily used for public or private gatherings. This may include community group meetings, seminars, workshops, or performances. Please note that there is another property use available, Convention Center, for large exhibition and conference facilities. Swimming Pool Swimming Pool refers to any heated swimming pools located either inside or outside. To enter a swimming pool, a specific pool size must be selected. In order to enter buildings associated with a Swimming Pool, the main property use must be entered (e.g., K-12 School, Hotel, Fitness Center/Health Club/Gym, etc.). Wastewater Treatment Plant Wastewater Treatment Plant refers to facilities designed to treat municipal wastewater. The level of treatment at a plant will vary based on the BOD limits and the specific processes involved. This property use is intended for primary, secondary, and advanced treatment facilities with or without nutrient removal. Treatment processes may include biological, chemical, and physical treatment. This property use does not apply to drinking water treatment and distribution facilities. Other - Public Services Other – Public Services refers to buildings used by public-sector organizations to provide public services other than those described in the available property uses in Portfolio Manager (i.e. services other than offices, courthouses, drinking water treatment and distribution plants, fire stations, libraries, mailing centers or post offices, police stations, prisons or incarceration facilities, social or meeting halls, transportation terminals or stations, or wastewater treatment plants). Drinking Water Treatment & Distribution Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution refers to facilities designed to pump and distribute drinking water through a network of pipes. Depending on the water source (groundwater, surface water, purchased water), a water utility may or may not contain a treatment process. This property use applies to any/all water sources and any/all levels of treatment. Courthouse Courthouse refers to buildings used for federal, state, or local courts, and associated administrative office space.
Zone City100‐yearFloodplain2100 SLR:6.33‐foot*Remainderof City**Area Square Miles15.7 (100%) 1.9 (12.1%) 1.5 (9.6%) 12.3 (78.3%)* Excludes 100‐year Floodplain** Excludes 100‐yeare Floodplain and 2100 SLR (6.33 ft) zones