Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
DRC_2012-08-16_AgendaPacket
CALL TO ORDER CITY OF ATASCADER0 DESIGN RE VIE W COMMITTEE A GENDA Committee Meeting Thursday, August 16, 2012 3:30 P.M. City Hall City Council Chambers 6907 El Camino Real Atascadero, California Roll Call: Chairperson, Roberta Fonzi Committee Member, Bob Kelley Committee Member, Chuck Ward Committee Member, Christian Cooper Committee Member, Susan DeCarli APPROVAL OF AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT (This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Committee on any matter not on this agenda and over which the Committee has jurisdiction. Speakers are limited to three minutes. Please state your name for the record before making your presentation. The Committee may take action to direct the staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda) CONSENT CALENDAR (All items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine and non -controversial by City Staff and will be approved by one motion if no member of the Commission or public wishes to comment or ask questions) 1. APPROVAL OF DRAFT MINUTES OF THE REGULAR DRC MEETING ON JULY 24, 2012 ©Find us on http://wwwfacebook.com/planninoatascadero Facebo- City of Atascadero Design Review Committee Agenda DEVELOPMENT PROJECT UPDATE Regular Meeting, August 16, 2012 Page 2 of 2 2. PLN 2011-1421 / DRC 2011-0013, JESERSEN OLD SCHOOL TIRE AND AUTO Property Owner: Wilma Peterson, PO Box 55, Atascadero, CA 93423 Applicant: Gregory Jespersen, 9005 EI Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422 Project Title: PLN 2011-1421 / DRC 2011-0013 Project 9005 EI Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422 Location: APN 030-502-032, 33, 34 (San Luis Obispo County) Project The DRC will review the improvements which have been completed on site Description: and determine compliance with the approved Conditional Use Permit for the automotive repair business. General Plan Designation: General Commercial (GC) Zoning District: Commercial Retail (CR) 3. PLN 2010-1361 / DRC 2012-0024, APCD CAP GRANT Applicant: City of Atascadero, 6907 EI Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422 Project Title PLN 2010-1361 / DRC 2012-0024 Project Citywide Location: Project This will be the Committee's first review of the SLO Air Pollution Control District's Description: (APCD) Countywide Climate Action Planning project. The APCD's project consultant will be presenting the project to the Committee and the public, and will be available to answer questions. The Steering Committee (DRC) will be able to provide Staff direction regarding Atascadero's goals and objectives, which should be incorporated into the plan as the project moves forward. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS AND REPORTS DIRECTOR'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting of the Design Review Committee: to be announced. Agendas, Minutes and Staff Reports are available online at www.atascadero.org under City Officials & Commissions, Design Review Committee. ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: 8-16-12 CITY OF A TASCADERO DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Regular Meeting — Thursday, July 24, 2012 - 3:30 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers 6907 EI Camino Real, Atascadero, California CALL TO ORDER — 3:30 p.m. Chairperson Fonzi called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Fonzi, Committee Members Kelley, Ward, Cooper, DeCarli Absent: None Others Present: Recording Secretary Annette Manier Recording Secretary Marcia Torgerson Staff Present: Community Development Director Warren Frace Assistant Planner Alfredo Castillo Others Present: Applicants: Barbara Nunez and William Arkfeld (The Artery) Don Giessinger (76 Station applicant) APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: By Committee Member Kelley and seconded by Committee Member Ward to hear Agenda Item # 4 (Giessinger) prior to Item # 3 (Artery), and approve the Agenda. Motion passed 5.0 by a roll -call vote. PUBLIC COMMENT The following person spoke during public comment: Eric Greening. City of Atascadero Design Review Committee Draft Action Minutes CONSENT CALENDAR July 24, 2012 Page 2 of 6 (All items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine and non -controversial by City Staff and will be approved by one motion if no member of the Committee or public wishes to comment or ask questions.) 1. APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT MINUTES OF MAY 31, 2012 2. APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT MINUTES OF JUNE 21, 2012 William Arkfeld asked for changes to page 2 of the Draft Minutes of June 21, 2012, regarding tree mural and his statements. The Design Review Committee denied Mr. Arkfeld's request to alter the minutes. MOTION: By Committee Member Cooper and seconded by Committee Member Kelley to approve the minutes. Motion passed 4:1 by a roll -call vote. (DeCarli opposed) DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REVIEW 3. PLN 2012-1438 / DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT HEARING FOR 6305 MORRO ROAD (Previously Item # 4 on the Agenda) Property Don Giessinger, PO Box 791, Atascadero, CA 93423 Owner: Project Title: PLN 2012-1438 / Administrative Use Permit 2012-0061 / DRC 2012-0026 Project 6305 Morro Road, Atascadero, CA 93422 Location: APN 030-212-026 (San Luis Obispo County) Project The application is a request for a 73 -foot freeway -oriented pole sign located Description: near the intersection of Marchant Avenue and Morro Road (Highway 41). The pole sign will include 128 square feet of signage for an existing gas station and drive-through restaurant facility. General Plan Designation: General Commercial (GC) Zoning District: Commercial Tourist (CT) Proposed Categorically Exempt Section 15311: Class 11 exemption for construction of Environmental placement of a minor accessory to an existing structure (e.g. new sign). Determination: Assistant Planner Castillo gave a staff report and answered questions from the Committee. DISCLOSURE OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS: None City of Atascadero Design Review Committee Draft Action Minutes PUBLIC COMMENT None July 24, 2012 Page 3 of 6 MOTION: By Committee Member Kelley and seconded by Committee Member Ward to approve Resolution 2012-0007 to allow a freeway -oriented pole sign in the CT zone at 6305 Morro Road subject to conditions of approval. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll -call vote. DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REVIEW 4. RECONSIDERATION: PLN 2012-1437 / DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT HEARING FOR 5890 TRAFFICE WAY (THE ARTERY (Previously Item # 3 on the Agenda) Property owner: William Arkfeld, 9135 Santa Margarita Road., Atascadero, CA 93422 Project Title: PLN 2012-1437 / Administrative Use Permit 2012-0060 / Design Review 2012-0025 Project 5890 Traffic Way, Atascadero, CA 93422 Location: APN 029-322-010 (San Luis Obispo County) Project Reconsideration to allow murals on the side and rear of The Artery Description: building at 5890 Traffic Way in the downtown. The Atascadero Municipal Code limits wall paintings to the maximum size of a wall sign (50 sq. ft. on a maximum of two sides of the building), however, the code allows larger murals through approval of an Administrative Use Permit (AUP). The Design Review Committee (DRC) will conduct the AUP hearing. General Plan Designation: Downtown (D) Zoning District: Downtown Commercial (DC) Proposed Class 11 of the California Environmental Quality Act (Section 15311) Environmental exempts the construction of new on-site signs. Determination: Director Frace gave the staff report and answered questions from the committee. He explained that this item originally went before the DRC on June 21, 2012, and the committee found the mural to be inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood, based on size. A supplemental packet went out on July 23, 2012, after the agenda was printed. The applicant has revised his application, thus requesting the committee hear the item as a reconsideration. The applicant is requesting to remove portions of the tree canopy area which would reduce the size by about 10%, remove wording, and repair the chipped paint. Frace stated the content of the mural is not the issue before the DRC, only the size. The DRC is charged with basing their decision on whether the size and location is appropriate as murals fall under the City's Sign Ordinance. The City has received a number of comments City of Atascadero Design Review Committee Draft Action Minutes July 24, 2012 Page 4 of 6 from the public, including letters that were just received. (Exhibit A — Ian Cocroft, Exhibit B — Daniel Schwartz). City staff recommended the AUP for the mural be approved with the applicant's proposed changes. DISCLOSURE OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS: • Chairperson Fonzi — Received many emails. • Committee Member Kelley - After the first DRC meeting, he met with William Arkfeld and Barbara Nunez and tried to give them an opportunity to work with the DRC and come back to the committee. • Committee Member Ward — He is not pleased with the tone of a lot of the letters that came in. For the record, he does not think this is a dull and boring town. • Committee Member Cooper — None • Committee Member DeCarli - None PUBLIC COMMENT The following citizen spoke during public comment: Ilan Funke-Bilu (Artery/Applicant's Representative) submitted documentation referred to as the Indio Case (Exhibit C). Mr. Funke-Bilu stated the applicant wants to keep the mural exactly the way it is and this has nothing to do with signs. Based on the Indo Case, the committee has no jurisdiction over this issue. The real issue is private property rights and 1St Amendment rights. His request is to do away with the AUP because this is not a sign. Mr. Funke-Bilu answered questions from the Committee, and suggested that the committee give this document (Exhibit C) to the City Attorney for review. Chairperson Fonzi asked staff where this leaves the committee since this hearing is now not a reconsideration of the project, but a request to bring it back to where it was originally? Director Frace said that the applicant should state, for the record, that the requested reconsideration letter before them is to officially withdraw and the applicant proposes to go back to the original plan. Chairperson Fonzi asked Mr. Funke-Bilu to restate his intentions. Mr. Funke-Bilu asked the DRC to do away with the AUP and stated that this committee has no jurisdiction given this ordinance. Mr. Arkfeld stated that originally, his intent was to go with a reconsideration, however, he was recently presented with new information which changed his mind. He is requesting to go back to the original plan. Chairperson Fonzi stated that this is all new information for the committee and proposed the committee continue the meeting and ask for legal counsel's advice on this proposal. She asked for input from the committee. Committee Members Kelley and Ward were in agreement. Committee Members Cooper and DeCarli asked questions and Chairperson Fonzi answered their questions. Mr. Funke-Bilu answered additional questions from the committee. Chairperson Fonzi asked for a motion to continue the item. Committee Member Kelley said he was City of Atascadero Design Review Committee Draft Action Minutes July 24, 2012 Page 5 of 6 disappointed with the actions that have taken place. Committee Member Ward made a motion to delay this until more information is received from legal counsel and the committee has clear direction. MOTION: By Committee Member Ward to postpone the meeting until legal counsel has had a chance to review the document submitted and the issue at hand. Motion failed due to lack of a second. After additional discussion, Director Frace stated that it was at the Chair's discretion to open public comment or not, regardless of whether or not a decision or final vote would be made on the item. Chairperson Fonzi asked the committee if there was consensus to hear public comment. The committee voted as follows: • Committee Member Ward — no • Committee Member Cooper — yes • Committee Member Kelley — no • Committee Member DeCarli - yes Chairperson Fonzi announced that she would open the public comment period and would limit the time to two minutes. The following citizens spoke during the public comment: Richard Mullen, Kelly Evans, Tom Claris, and Robert (no last name given). Chairperson Fonzi closed the public comment period to adjourn for a break at 4:30 p.m. Chairperson Fonzi readjourned the meeting at 4:37 p.m. and reopened the public comment period. The following citizens spoke during the public comment: David Broadwater, Ginny Ranson, John Reed, Eric Greening, Chris Yuniga, Susan Lara, Ellen Beraud, Mike Brennler, Tina Salter, Mark Jansen, and Jim Shannon. Chairperson Fonzi closed the public comment period. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DELIBERATIONS Chairperson Fonzi asked the committee for additional comments and then a motion. Committee Member DeCarli does not want to see a lawsuit as this would be a waste of public financial resources. She does not want to take action until the attorney weighs in. She hopes that from here on out, there will be more decorum, democracy, and tolerance because this committee is here for the same reason the public is here, for the betterment of the community. City of Atascadero Design Review Committee Draft Action Minutes July 24, 2012 Page 6 of 6 MOTION: By Committee Member DeCarli and seconded by Chairperson Fonzi to continue the meeting. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll -call vote. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS AND REPORTS None DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director Frace announced that the committee may meet again on August 16th to discuss the Climate Action Plan. ADJOURNMENT - 5:02 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED BY: Annette Manier, Recording Secretary The following exhibits are available in the Community Development Department: Exhibit A - Email from Ian Cocroft Exhibit B - Email from Daniel Schwartz Exhibit C - Document from Ilan Funke-Bilu titled "City of Indio" Adopted t:\- dre design review committee\minutes\minutes 2012\draft action minutes 7-24-12.docx ITEM NUMBER: DATE 3 08-16-12 Atascadero Design Review Committee Report In Brief - Community Development Department Alfredo R. Castillo, AICP, (805) 470-3436, acastillo@atascadero.org CUP Conformance Review for Automotive Repair and Services Commercial Retail Zone 9005 EI Camino Real Applicant Greg Jespersen �- Property Wilma Peterson Owner: PO Box 55 »` Atascadero, CA 93422 4 �� Address: 9005 EI Camino Real APN: 030-502-033/030-502- 034/030-502-032► General Plan: General Commercial (GC) Zoning: Commercial Retail (CR) Project Area: 0.9 acres Proposed Automotive Repair Use: The applicant, Greg Jespersen, has proposed an automotive repair and tire shop at 9005 EI Camino Real. The proposal includes converting a vacant welding shop into a 1,755 square foot tire repair area, 2,400 square foot auto repair area, and an outdoor used tire and accessory vehicle storage area. ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 08-16-12 Background: The applicant formally submitted a CUP application on October 27, 2011. The City's municipal code requires an appearance review for all conditional use permits. The DRC held a meeting on November 10, 2011 in regards to the applicant's proposal. The DRC made the following recommendations: • Provide the minimum parking spaces required in either the front or the rear of the property; • work with staff on providing landscaping on the frontages of La Linia Avenue and EI Camino Real; • work with staff on revised tire storage; • provide vinyl slates for chain link fence along all visible public frontages; • provide trash enclosure; • repaint the building in an earthtone type color. The applicant provided the necessary changes as directed by the DRC and the Planning Commission approved the project on February 7, 2012. The applicant applied for building permits on February 16, 2012 and the permits were issued on March 15, 2012. The applicant has made progress with the interior work of the building, as well as some of the changes that were made a part of the conditional use permit such as the installation of landscape planters along EI Camino Real and repainting of the masonry building. In July, the applicant requested a meeting with City Staff to go over outstanding items necessary to be completed as well as request relief on some of the conditions that were approved as a part of the CUP. The applicant is requesting relief on some of the conditions that were included in the CUP and shown on the approved building permits. City Staff is requesting that the DRC review the items that the applicant is seeking a relief on and make a determination if the improvements are in conformance with the CUP. Those items include: • Required Landscaping at the south end of the property next to the driveway; • Trash Enclosure re -location and screening of the enclosure; • Location existing chain link fencing • Exterior painting z ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 08-16-12 Landscaping As recommended by the DRC and approved by the Planning Commission, the applicant was required to provide landscaping in the areas shown below. Approved Landscaping Plan Per CUP/Building Permit 2012-10022 The applicant has completed the planters in front of EI Camino Real and along La Linia Avenue. However the applicant has not installed the planter at the south corner of the EI Camino Real parking lot, due to the reconfiguration of the parking spaces. The applicant is requesting relief from this requirement due to the financial cost of removing the asphalt and extending irrigation lines. Staff is recommending that the DRC finding that the installed planting areas are in substantial conformance with the intent of the CUP, and waive the requirement for installation of the southern parking lot planter. Site Landscaping along La Linia Avenue 3 ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 08-16-12 Trash Enclosure Relocation The applicant is proposed to re -locate the trash enclosure. Both the CUP and the approved building plan showed the trash enclosure adjacent to the property line and the existing adjacent used car dealership. The applicant wants to relocate the enclosure to the other side of the property adjacent to the existing residential use. The enclosure would be located in the designated storage area. The applicant also is requesting relief from constructing a trash enclosure as conditioned in the CUP. Staff is concerned with screening issues from the adjacent property owner. The applicant is willing to add additional vinyl slats for additional screening. Staff is recommending the DRC determine that the additional slats are sufficient screening for the trash enclosure pad, and the relocated site is consistent with the CUP. Proposed Trash Enclosure Relocation / Existing Screening Proposed Relocation 10 Existing Chain Link Fence The approved CUP shows the existing chain link fence that is visible from the public right-of- way moved more towards the rear of the masonry building to accommodate both the ADA accessible parking and the original trash enclosure location. The applicant has provided the required vinyl slats, however has not moved the fence. ADA accessible parking is currently located behind the existing vinyl fence. With the proposed trash enclosure relocation, the applicant would like to maintain the existing fence where it is located. The applicant has also committed to keeping the gates opening during business hours to allow for access to the additional ADA parking. The intention of the fence with slats was to block view of the storage yard from the public right-of-way. Staff is recommending the DRC find the existing fence location meets the intent of the CUP to block view of the storage yard from the public viewshed. 4 ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 08-16-12 Existing Fencing Relocation -: Existing Fencing Proposed to remain Exterior Paint As recommended by the DRC and approved by the Planning Commission, the applicant was required to paint the building fagade, storage building and trash enclosure with earthtone type colors. The applicant has painted the main masonry building consistent with the CUP, however the applicant has not painted the rear attached building nor the accessory storage building due to cost and the transparent wall panels. Staff is recommending the DRC find the project as completed, meets the CUP requirements for exterior paint colors. View of Exterior Painting Completed 41 i Milo L130 b7 ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 08-16-12 Staff Recommendation Staff is recommending the DRC find the following changes to be in conformance with the intent of the CUP for the following items: 1. Removal of the landscape planter at the south end of the property next to the driveway; 2. Relocation of the Trash Enclosure with additional property line screening; 3. Location existing chain link fencing to remain. 4. Exterior painting of front building only. If there are any outstanding items that the DRC recommends be completed, the applicant will be required to complete those items prior to finaling the building permit. Attachments: Exhibit 1: Aerial Photo Exhibit 2: CUP 2012-0257 101 ITEM NUMBER: DATE: 08-16-12 Exhibit 1: Aerial Photo ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 08-16-12 Exhibit 2: CUP 2012-0257 F/[r RESOLUTION PC 2012-0002Crtr ArAS RANKlt's RESOLU'T'ION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION : €, OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING PLN 2011-1121/MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 201.1-0257 TO ALLOW AN A.U`TOMOTTVE REPAIR & OUTDOOR VEHICLE STORAGE USE ON APNs 030-502-032,030-502,0.33 & 030-502-034 (4005 El Camino Real / Jespersen / Peterson) WHEREAS, an application has been received from Applicant, Cireg Jespersen, (9005 Fl Camino .Real, Atascad:eio, CA 93422) and Property Owner, Wilma Peterson (PO Box 55, Atascadero, CA 93423) to consider a project consisting of a Minor Conditional Use Permit to establish a an auto repair and on-site vehicle storage (CUP 2011-0257); and, WHEREAS, the site's General Plan Designation is General Conimencial (GC); and, WHEREAS, the site's Zoning is Commercial Retail (CR); and, WHEREAS, a Minor Conditional Use Permit is required to establish an Automotive Repair and vehicle storage use within the Commercial Retail (CR) zone; and, WIiEREAS, the proposed project qualifies for an Categorical Exemption consistent with Cf. -',QA section 15303: Existing Facilities, and: minor modifications; and, WTTI-A&AS, the laNvs and regulations relating to the preparation and public notice of environmental documents, as set forth in the State and local guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ((. F.QA) have been adhered to; and, WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee of the City of Ataseadero, at a duly noticed Public Hearing held on November 10, 2011, studied and considered the Minor Conditional Ilse Perm.it2011-0257, and WHEREAS, AS, a timely and properly noticed Public Hearing upon the subject Minor Conditional. t.fse Permit application was held by the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero at which hearing evidence, oral and documentary, was admitted on behalf of said Conditional Use Permit; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadcro, at a drily noticed Public Hearing held on I`cbruary 7, 3012, studied and considered the Minor Conditional Use Permit 2011-0257, and, ITEM NUMBER: DATE NOW, THV.-Rif FORF, the Phuming Commission of the City of Atascadero takes the following actions: SECTION 1. Findings of Environmental Exemption. "l'hc Planning Commission finds as follows: 1. 'Che proposed project has been found Categorically Exempt under Class 1, Section 15301 and Existing Facilities, of the California Environmental (,quality Act. SECTION 2. Findings for approval of Minor Conditional Use Permit. Th.o Planning Commission finds as Billows: 1. The proposed project or use is consistent with the (Rmeral flan and the City's Appeanuice Review Manual.; and, 2. The proposed project or 'use satisfies all applicable provisions of the Title (Zoning Ordinance)'.. and, 3. The establishment, and subsequent operation or conduct of the use will not, because of the circumstances and conditions applied in the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the general public or persons residing or working in the: neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the ttse; and, 4. That the proposed project or use will not be inconsistent with the character or the immediate neighborhood or contrary to its orderly development; and, 5. That the proposed use or project will not generate a volume of traffic beyond the safe capacity of all roads providing access to the project, either existing or to be improved in conjunction with the project; or beyond the normal traffic volume of the surrounding neighborhood that would result from full development in accordance with the [,and Use Element. SECTION 3. Approval. The Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero, in a regular session assembled on February 7, 2012 resolved to approve the Minor Conditional. Use Permit 2011-0257 subject to the following: EXHIBIT A: Conditions of Approval EXHIBIT B: Site Plan liXH1BIT C: Landscaping Plan I-XI-IJBITD: Elevations EXf ffBI`1' B: Color Board EXFl B1T F: Fencing i Trash Enclosure /SiLptage Plan EXHIBIT G: Proposed 1'i.00r Plan 2 08-16-12 ITEM NUMBER: DATE On motion by Commissioner Bentz and seconded by Vice Chairperson Schmidt the fbregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety by the foliowing roll call vote: AYES: Bentz. Schmidt, W-,ttd,Colainariiio,Cooper, Dztriz,Wiiigeq (6) NOES: None ABST AT.N: Now ABSENT: Colamarino ADOPTED: February 7, 2012 Attest: - .el 50_0� Warren M. Frace Planning Commission Secretary 10 i CIfTY OF AT SCADERO, CA — .. . . ChLick'Ward Planning Conimis?'n Chairperson 2 EXHIBIT A; Conditions of Approval (PLN 2011-14211CUP 2041.0257) Conditions of Approval 1 Mitigatirm Monitoring Program F Lk -2011.1 421 9005 El Camicrw Real ITEM NUMBER: DATE _ —._..-Timing -_ Responsitiflity ' /Monitoring Ongoing �:Piamm�gse�xs BL Bes'—L;—a as: P.zildij Se Am GF �9'ami; =7•Fue Departrnem BP: Buildn6 PerN M Polb rlepabnem F•: Fir.1 W. .*. SCC. C4' Erpliceer 'O: To. vy Or w.q 10"V: Vftk:e FO: F"Oa:VM CA, Ck At ey Planning Department Standard Conditions Ongoing I This Conditional Use Permit shall allow an auto repair and Ongoing PS outdoor storage use at 5005 El Camino Real described on the attached exhibits and located on parcel 030-502-032, 030-502- 033 and 030-502-034 regardless of owner. 2. The approval of this use permit shall become final and effective Ongoing -- PSM T for the purposes of issuing building permits fourteen (14) days shown consistent with Exhibit B and Exhibit F. i following the Planning Commission approval unless prior to the time, an appeal to the decision is filed as set forth in Section 9- _ BP� 1.111(b) of the Zoning Ordinance. enclosure shall be repainted consistent with the color board as 3. The Community Development Department shall have the BP PS, CE authority to approve the following minor changes to the project that (1) modify the site plan project by less than 10%, (2) result 8. Rear entrance off of La Lfnia Avenue and outdoor vehicle in a superior site design or appearance, and/or (3) address a PS construction design issue that is not substantive to the Master I Plan of Development. The Planning Commission shalt have the through the use of either conditioning of existing dirt and gravel, final authority to approve any other changes to the Master Plan of Development unless appealed to the City Council. 4. Approval of this Conditional Use Permit shall be valid for twenty- BP PS four (24) months after its effective date. At the end of the period, the approval shall expire and become null and void unless the project has received a buildfng permit. 5. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hotel lrmless the Ongoing City of Atascadero or its agents, officers, and employees against any claim or action brought to challenge an approval by the City, or any of its entities, concerning the master plan of development. 6. Project fencing shall include beige vinyl states in areas that are SP PS shown consistent with Exhibit B and Exhibit F. 7. Building fapade, accessory storage building, and trash _ BP� PS enclosure shall be repainted consistent with the color board as shown in Exhibit E. 8. Rear entrance off of La Lfnia Avenue and outdoor vehicle BP PS storage area shall be maintained in a dust free condition through the use of either conditioning of existing dirt and gravel, the placement of gravel or the use of crushed rock. 11 2 nR-1 A-12 ITEM NUMBER: DATE: 08-16-12 Contflt;orisof Approval I Mitigation Monitoring Program Timing Responsibility 9005 El Camino Real BL B14-1 11— 3S.Bwklmg -- 9. All used tires shall be stored fire storage PS contaiiners consistent with Exhibit B. 10. Outdoor storage of scrap, junk and miscellaneous arfirJes and 1 BP PS materials is limited to a movi'murn area of two hundred (200) square feet, with a maximum height of five (9) feet 11. Landscaping shall include drought tolerant plants and be SP generally located in the areas shown in Exhibit , C. Plantings shall indude a minimum of four (4) shade trees that are from the following species: Chinese Pistache, London Plone'riee California Sycamore Western Cottonwood 12 Landscaping shall include irrigation that is consistent with the BP PS CVs water efficient landscaping standards. 13. A trash enclosure shall be constructed of block material and 612 Ps contain a wood fence consistent with Exhibit F. 14. On -Site signage shall be consistent with signage plan shown in BP PS Exhibit F. Building Division Conditions 115, Accessible paths of travel we will need those paths clearly BP PS defined and included some field elevation points, as well as slopes and cross slopes at the time of building permit submittal 16. All building improvements shall meet the latest building code BP PS standards at the time of submittal for a building permit. 17. A building permit shall be issued prior to any building BP Ps modification or alterations - 18. Building mav not be occupied nor operate a business until final F01BL PS inspection of all building modifications, alterations and site improvernent and a business license is Issued. Public Works _�rcijeCt 6;�diii&;W City Engineer Project Conditions to. '4�f-i;�,'C-improvpments constructed in the tight of way will require a separate encroachment permit. The application for SP GE the encroachment permit will be submitted with the building I permit. 12 ITEM NUMBER: DATE: 08-16-12 M Tinting Responsibility PLN -2011-1421 /Monitoring up: ftldimg PQ M.Pa:Ml)epa�ent To "'eamewV 20. Alignment of any required or proposed frontage improvements BP CE (drive approach etc.) shall be approved by the City 21, Full frontage improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk) will required if. a. The valuation of the proposed onsite improvements (building addN, ons. and site improvements) exceeds 25% of the assessed value of the existing building(s) and site b. The total valuation of all permit-, issued over a 12 month period exceeds 26% of the value of the existing building(s) and site improvements. All valuations are based on the City Building Department's estimate of building values and the County Assessor's assessment role at the time of appEcation. 22. 7he existing parking configuration. on the El Camino Real side ofthe buiWing, shall be modified so that cars park perpendicular BP CE to the southern fence line. Cars shall not back onto La Linia or El Camirio Real. 23. Oil or other fluid changes shall not occur in urt-roofed or in unpaved areas. Spill control equipment shall be readily BP CE available and staff trained in its implementation and subseque. it waste disposal, 24. Parking areas shall be kept clean to prevent trash and particles from washingi into the storm drain gutter. Spills and leaks shall SP CE be cleaned up immediafely. City Engineer Standard Conditions I ublic improvements shall be constructed in conformance P, BP CE with the City of Atascadero Engineering Department Standard Specifications and Drawings or as directed by the City Engineer 13 EXHIBIT B: Site Plan - ^N 2011-1421/CUP 2011-O257i 14 Er ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 08-16-12 m I � I i b* I � 1 Landscape Area. Vinyl Slane Fencing —= •�-- Oust free Condition Trash Enclosure � W � , Used Tire Storage 14 Er ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 08-16-12 m I � I i b* I � 1 ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 08-16-12 ElCN1E3lT C: Landsc��_PFan (PLH 2011-14211CUP 2011-0257) RE -41 - �'&, .3 ;�!!U its'• .• ... ::Jv'•v rvu � 9 � J . praught tole:�nt shrubs E Q • Min. toar(4) shade frees -" Grauntl etie. ltincicn Per Plascatlerc rnanicipsl wde 1 E Yk4.... t-A.I+'DSf.'1sPE.PL..AN tE _ \ Yi rC✓.rt 15 EX14101T D; Elevations (PLN 2011-14211CUP 2011-0257) 16 ITEM NUMBER: DATE: 08-16-12 ITEM NUMBER: DATE I EXHIBIT E, Color Board (PLN 2011-94211CUP 2099-0257) See File for Original Colors 2 Yx:.s - { S d• h IA EXHIBIT- F: Fencing !Trash Enclosure Manaue (PLL& 2011.1421fCUP 2Oi1-0757; WALL SIGN JESPERSEN TIRE. Iih+A� FAIWTEO �E;k BACKOFOUNu R:N7iE LEi'TEADIG BUCK Proposed Wall Sign Proposed Trash Enclosure if] ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 08-16-12 Proposed Vinyl Slats ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 08-16-12 EXHIBIT G.- Proposed Floor Plan—_..._..— {PLN 2011-1421ACUP 2011-0257} 19 ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 8-16-12 Atascadero Design Review Committee/ GHG Planning Steering Committee . Report In Brief - Community Development Department Callie Taylor, Associate Planner, (805) 470-3448, ctaylor@atascadero.org PLN 2010-1361 Central Coast Greenhouse Gas Reduction Planning Steering Committee Introduction to Process Background Grant funding has been made available through PG&E, SoCal Gas and the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) for the Cities of Paso Robles, Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, Morro Bay, Pismo and Atascadero to collaborate on preparing individual Climate Action Plans. The project is known as the "San Luis Obispo County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan." There is $400,000 in grant funding for a consultant to develop a model "toolbox" of action measures which would reduce emissions. Each city participating would be able to choose which action measures from the "toolbox" would work for their jurisdiction, and would then have the option to complete their own individual Climate Action Plan which would be presented to City Council for consideration. In March 2012 the Atascadero City Council agreed to participate in the countywide grant for the Central Coast Greenhouse Gas Planning project. At the March meeting, the Atascadero City Council appointed the City's Design Review Committee to act as a local steering committee during development of the regional "toolbox" and the local Climate Action Plan. The City Council stated that public input and participation will be a vital component of this process in order to ensure that Atascadero's unique environment and local viewpoints are considered. City Staff will be checking in with the steering committee throughout the development of the draft Climate Action Plan in order to obtain direction and feedback on the project's progress. ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 8-16-12 What is a Climate Action Plan and why do we need one? "Climate Action Plans" or "Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans" are policy documents intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve energy efficiency and integrate sustainability into municipal and community -wide planning and operations. In order to comply with California State Assembly Bill 32, the City must reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels (an estimated 15% reduction from today's levels) by the year 2020. A Climate Action Plan lays out how the City intends to reach that target. The Central Coast GHG Reduction Plan grant includes three primary components: 1. Model GHG Reduction Plan toolbox of reduction measures 2. Regional public engagement program 3. Individual Climate Action Plans to be developed for each participating city Through regional collaboration, the consultant will develop a model "toolbox" or list of action measures designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The reduction strategies will be developed for both municipal and community wide operations. Each measure will be presented along with potential costs, savings, an estimate of GHG reduction impacts, and co -benefits (benefits in addition to reducing GHG emissions). The draft measures will be reviewed by the community, including residents, business owners, City staff from various departments, decision makers, community groups, etc., to provide input on the measures. Once the model toolbox is developed, each city would then choose which action measures are appropriate for their city, and those measures would be incorporated into an individual local Climate Action Plan for that city. At the end of the process, the City Council would have the option to adopt the draft local Climate Action Plan if the City is satisfied with the end product. Similar to a General Plan or a Downtown Revitalization Plan, a Climate Action Plan is a policy document with goals and a work plan which are intended to be implemented over time. Most action measures identified in the Climate Action Plan do not all go into effect immediately; programs take time to be implemented and may require adoption of ordinances or policies prior to seeing any actual changes take place. If the City of Atascadero choses to adopt a Climate Action Plan at the end of this process, the City will be able to demonstrate compliance with AB 32. Having a Climate Action plan may also make the City eligible for additional grants for projects which have the potential to reduce GHG. Improvements to City facilities, grants for communitywide energy audits, and other funding to reduce GHG emissions would be opened up for the City. In addition, CEQA streamlining would be a major benefit. According to SLOAPCD's recently adopted CEQA GHG thresholds, development projects that are consistent with an adopted and qualified Climate Action Plan are presumed to not have significant GHG emission impacts and the project can be considered to have a less than significant impact under CEQA. ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 8-16-12 Where are we in the process? In April this year, Atascadero City staff attended a kick-off meeting with SLOAPCD, the project consultant (Rincon Consultants and their team) and the six participating cities. Rincon made a brief presentation to the group to layout the process and provided a draft timeline for the project (see Attachment 4). At this point in the process, the creation of the "toolbox" of action measures has not yet begun. There has been a substantial amount of background work to be done by the consultant and City Staff prior to getting into the development of actual GHG reduction measures. Since the kick-off meeting in April, City staff has worked with Rincon on the following items: 1. Update of 2005 Baseline Inventory In 2010, the City of Atascadero completed a baseline greenhouse gas emissions inventory. A baseline inventory calculates GHG emissions from City operations and within the overall community. The year 2005 was used by all cities in San Luis Obispo County as the baseline year for collecting data. The baseline inventory establishes a level for which future reductions can be measured. It also helps the City to identify the greatest opportunities for emissions reductions, and which strategies will be the most cost effective for the local community. Over the past several months, Rincon has reviewed the previously completed inventories for accuracy, completeness and consistency with current protocols. The following changes have been made to Atascadero's 2005 Baseline Inventory report (see Attachment 3 for compete report). Data changes were made to the communitywide portion of the inventory. No changes were made to government operations section. Atascadero's communitywide 2005 baseline emissions decreased by 30,165 metric tons CO2e compared to the April 2010 inventory. This resulted in a 2020 forecast decrease by 40,186 metric tons CO2e: • Refined methodology for on -road transportation emissions. The 2012 methodology estimates vehicle miles traveled (VMT) based on an origin - destination approach using the regional travel demand model and excludes vehicle trips that pass through the city. Transportation -related GHG emissions were then calculated using the California Air Resources Board Emissions Factor 2011 (EMFAC2011) software. • Emissions from off-road vehicle and equipment categories (lawn and garden, construction, industrial and light commercial equipment) were included. • Incorporation of improved emissions factors from the Local Government Operations Protocol. • Identification of emissions related to water and wastewater transport for the communitywide inventory. • Corrections to baseline electricity and natural gas consumption data, and waste stream profile data. ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 8-16-12 • Inclusion of updated population and employment projections using the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments' (SLOCOG) 2040 Regional Growth Forecast. 2. Actions Completed by the City to Reduce GHG Emissions One of the first steps in the GHG planning process is to determine how much the City has done to reduce GHG emissions to date. City Staff has identified a list of policies, programs and improvements that were implemented since the 2005 baseline year, and would have the effect of reducing GHG emissions. The consultant will use this list of previously implemented measures to quantify the emissions reductions to date. The City will basically get reduction credit for all actions completed since 2005. See Attachment 2 for the complete list of actions. What is interesting about this list of completed measures is that the City of Atascadero has taken these steps on its own accord with the primary goals being to save money and improve our local community. However, the projects and policies on this list also have the side benefit of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As seen on the attached list, the number of actions taken by the City of Atascadero is quite astounding. Atascadero's operations and facilities staff have become front runners in the County when it comes to obtaining grants for new equipment and finding cost savings for City operations and improvements. With the downturn in the economy, the City has been continuously looking for opportunities to cut costs, while still building projects to improve the look and feel of the community without impacting the General Fund. Major improvements to the Downtown, City facilities, tree planting projects and good community planning have continued to make Atascadero an enjoyable place to live, while reducing GHG emissions as a byproduct of these primary goals. Rincon is currently in the process of calculating the amount of GHG emissions reduction which are expected from the list of completed actions. Rincon will use this data, along with the updated 2005 baseline inventory, to complete a "gap analysis." The gap analysis identifies a reduction target based on the percentage of emission reductions already completed and the emissions which still need to be reduced for compliance with AB 32. 3. Public Outreach The project scope for the Central Coast GHG Planning project includes an extensive public outreach component. The consultant is currently in the process of connecting with local groups in each city to make community presentations on the project in these early stages. Next Thursday, August 23, 2012 a large Public Workshop will be held at Cuesta College. This will be a countywide kick-off meeting which to introduce the project and the planning process. The consultant will discuss the data collection completed so far, and talk about expectations as the project moves forward. Additional public meetings will be held throughout the development of the model ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 8-16-12 toolbox and individual Climate Action Plans in order to create an open, inclusive, and collaborative process for residents throughout the county. Public Workshop #1 will begin at 6:30 PM on August 23, 2012 at Cuesta College, in the Associated Students Auditorium, Room 5401. A Countywide project website (www.CentralCoastGHGPlanning.com) has also been set up by the project consultant so that the community can keep track of the project's progress. Information specific to the City of Atascadero's GHG steering committee meetings will be posted on the City's website. Next Steps The next step in the GHG Planning process will be to begin to develop the regional GHG reduction measure toolbox. Preliminary draft measures will be developed over the next few months by the consultant, and a public workshop will be scheduled around November 2012 to obtain public input. Revisions will then be made to the draft measures prior to beginning the individual Climate Action Plans. During the March 2012 Council meetings regarding the City's participation in the project, it was made clear that any Climate Action Plan proposed for Atascadero would need to respond to Atascadero's unique needs and community identity. The Atascadero steering committee (DRC) will receive updates throughout the planning process and will be able to provide City Staff direction as to what Atascadero's Climate Action Plan should look like. Since the City will ultimately be able to create its own individual Climate Action Plan, the project should reflect Atascadero's unique values, environment and community goals. The Climate Action Plan clearly needs to be focused cost- effectively reducing greenhouse gas emissions, with measures which improve the quality of life for residents while reducing costs for individuals, businesses and City operations. At this week's meeting, City Staff hopes to receive specific direction form the steering committee and the public to outline what those specific project goals are for Atascadero, and how best to incorporate Atascadero's objectives into the process and the draft Climate Action Plan. The City's goals, objectives and priorities must be clear at the onset of the project so that a realistic, implementable local plan can be created. ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 8-16-12 Attachments: Attachment 1: Project Facts and Questions (www.centralcoastghgplanning.com) Attachment 2: Actions Completed by Atascadero to Reduce GHG Emissions Attachment 3: 2005 Baseline Inventory Update Attachment 4: Project Schedule ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 8-16-12 Attachment 1: Project Facts and Questions (from http://www.centralcoastghgplanning.com) Q: What is a Climate Action Plan? A: A climate action plan is a detailed and strategic framework for measuring, planning, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions and anticipated climatic impacts. Local governments design and utilize climate action plans as customized road maps for making informed decisions and understanding where and how to achieve the largest and most cost-effective emissions reductions that are in alignment with other municipal and community goals. Climate action plans generally include an inventory of existing and projected greenhouse gas emissions, a reduction goal or target, measures or actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, an analysis of each measure's reduction potential, costs and savings, and an implementation and monitoring strategy that identifies required resources and funding mechanisms. Q: Why are the climate action plans being prepared? A: Assembly Bill 32 establishes a target to reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In order to achieve this target, the California Air Resources Board calls on local governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 15 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, consistent with the statewide commitment. Senate Bill 97 requires lead agencies to analyze greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate climate change impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). These laws together create a framework for greenhouse gas emissions reductions and identify local governments as having a vital role to play in assisting the state in meeting California's reduction target. Recognizing the important role and responsibility that local governments have in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating their potential impacts, the central coast cities are working together to prepare individual climate action plans to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of greenhouse gas reduction efforts, demonstrate consistency with Assembly Bill 32, and mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions impact. Q: What are the benefits of climate action plans? A: In addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, implementation of the climate action plans will help achieve multiple community goals such as lowering energy costs, reducing air and water pollution, downtown revitalization, supporting local economic development, and improving public health and quality of life. The climate action plans would also support the streamlining of the environmental review process for future projects within the cities in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15152 and 15183.5. Q: How will the greenhouse gas reduction goals of each climate action plan be achieved? ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 8-16-12 A: The goals of each climate action plan will be achieved through a series of greenhouse gas emission reduction measures that will be outlined in the document. The measures will build on and maintain consistency with the cities' existing planning documents and be selected based on careful consideration of local conditions, public input, potential costs and benefits, existing opportunities and resources, and emissions reduction potential. Some measures may include incentive programs for individuals and businesses to increase efficiency and reduce costs. Categories that the reduction measures may fall into include energy efficiency and conservation, renewable energy, transportation and land use, solid waste reduction, and water and wastewater efficiencies. Public participation will be very important in development of the greenhouse gas emission reduction measures and throughout the development of the climate action plans. Please refer to the Get Involved section of this website to find out how to participate in the development of the greenhouse gas reduction measures and climate action plans. Q: Who is involved in developing the CAP? A: A consultant team led by locally based Rincon Consultants under contract to the APCD will lead the preparation of the climate action plans with regular input from the Stakeholder Committee. Public input from residents, businesses, community organizations, and elected officials will be solicited throughout the process to ensure that each plan is crafted to meet the unique needs and goals of each city, with final decision-making regarding measure selection and climate action plan adoption up to each of the City Councils. Q: What happens if the City Council doesn't adopt the climate action plan? A: It is ultimately the local City Council's decision whether to adopt the climate action plan. It is important to note that the plans will be prepared with extensive local public input, as well as input from decision makers and stakeholders. There are no penalties if a local jurisdiction fails to adopt its climate action plan; however, the City would not be able to demonstrate it is comprehensively mitigating greenhouse gas emissions consistent with Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 97. In addition, project applicants would not benefit from the CEQA streamlining opportunities provided by a climate action plan. Additionally, co -benefits of climate action plan policies, including reduced energy costs, may not be realized. Q: How does the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments' (SLOCOG) Senate Bill 375 Sustainable Communities Strategy process relate to this effort? A: Senate Bill 375 (2009) requires the California's Air Resources Board to develop regional reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions, and prompts the creation of regional plans to reduce emissions from vehicle use throughout the state. California's 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), including SLOCOG, have been tasked with creating "Sustainable Community Strategies" (SCS). The MPOs are required to develop the SCS through integrated land use and transportation planning and demonstrate an ability to attain the proposed reduction targets by 2020 and 2035. Greenhouse gas reduction measures in the climate action plans related to transportation and land use would help the region meets its SB 375 target. ITEM NUMBER: 2 DATE: 8-16-12 Q: How can I get involved? A: To find more about how to get involved in the planning process, visit the Get Involved section of this website. Also, you are invited to join our eNews list to receive project updates and announcements. Q: What is the anticipated schedule for the project? A: This project will be completed in approximately 12 months with the Final Climate Actions Plans due to be presented to the cities for adoption in Spring 2013. Please refer to the Schedule section for additional details. Q: How is preparation of the climate action plans being funded? A: Preparation of the climate action plans is funded through the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) Green Communities Program, Southern California Gas Company, and the APCD's mitigation grant funding. Q: How will the climate action plan impact my business, house, and/or way of life? A: The climate action plans will be designed to provide incentives and flexible options to reduce GHG emissions, whether you are a homeowner, business owner, or both. The climate action plans will not infringe upon private property rights or limit the development potential of properties. Measures that rely on regulatory or financial incentives would reduce costs and existing regulatory barriers. The climate action plans will identify measures that provide ways for individuals and businesses to reduce costs by taking action if desired. ITEM NUMBER: DATE: 8-16-12 Attachment 2: Actions Completed by Atascadero to Reduce GHG Emissions Since 2005 See Attached ITEM NUMBER: DATE: 8-16-12 Attachment 3: 2005 Baseline Inventory Update See Attached Attachment 4: Project Schedule See Attached ITEM NUMBER: DATE: 8-16-12 City of Atascadero 6907 EI Camino Real Atascadero, CA 93422 Sustainability and Energy Efficiency Efforts Activity V Purpose _ Alternative Transportation & Fuel Reduction Public Transportation Carbon . City expanded public transportation system to include hourly transportation along major Ongoing since Reduction shopping, education, health service and housing corridors 2011 Buses equipped with bicycle racks and connect to regional and national bus service and rail for expanded multi -modal opportunities Atascadero Bicycle Carbon . Plan provides a blueprint for the development of a comprehensive bicycling system to facilitate Bike Plan Transportation Plan Reduction bicycle transportation and encourage recreational cycling adopted Eco Tourism . Developed through public workshops to gather input on routes, connections, bicycle tourism, November 2010 Healthy Communities enhancements & facilities • Adopted plan will allow for the City to be eligible for State and Federal grants to construct bike routes Atascadero Trail Carbon . "Atascadero Creek Trail Enhancement Project" constructed along HWY 41 from San Gabriel to Trail plan System Reduction Portola, and design in process to connect EI Camino Real to the Colony Park Community approved Eco Tourism Center & Stadium Park 2006 Healthy Communities Portions of Salinas River trail constructed Installation of • Ongoing work with ALPS to establish trails throughout City parks & help acquire additional land trails ongoing for open space and future trails North County Regional Carbon . Currently working with SLOCOG on the "North County Regional De Anza Trail Master Plan," Grant received Trail System Reduction funded by a Caltrans planning grant 2012 Eco Tourism 0 Regional effort to create a safe and fully integrated off-highway, multiuse trail system for Healthy Communities recreational ists and commuters; will connect all communities in North County, from San Miguel Master plan in to Santa Margarita, along the Salinas River & De Anza Trail process • Adopted plan will allow for the City to be eligible for State and Federal grants to construct multiuse trails Sidewalks & Bike Lanes Carbon . Bike lanes & sidewalks installed on EI Camino Real & Traffic Way to connect major commercial Ongoing since Installed Reduction and residential corridors 2008 Healthy . "Safe Routes to School' bike lanes, striping, signage & sidewalks installed near Atascadero Communities High school, San Gabriel & Santa Rosa Schools Ride Share Programs Carbon . Public Park & Ride lots located off HWY 101 at Santa Barbara Road & San Luis Ave. Bike Park & Ride Reduction lockers installed at both Park & Ride lots expansion 2009 • Worked with Topaz Solar Farm to establish Park & Ride lot to facilitate bus transportation to Solar farm lot Carrizo Plain during project construction est. 2012 Bridges & Pedestrian VMT Reduction . Lewis Ave. Bridge constructed with sidewalks and bike lanes. Provides much needed Lewis Ave. Connections Healthy connection to reduce travel time, and creates dual circulation system in downtown with non- bridge 2006 Communities vehicular travel options Pedestrian tunnel enhancements to connect High School and residential neighborhoods to Ped tunnel 2010 downtown through accessway under HWY 101 Ped bridge in • Currently working on design of pedestrian bridge which will connect the new movie theater to process the Sunken Gardens to create a walkable downtown district Bike Racks Carbon . Bike rack installation required with all new retail & public projects Ongoing Reduction . Bike racks installed at all existing parks, City facilities and schools Bike Month VMT Reduction . Partnership with SLO Bicycle Coalition to sponsor events to increase awareness & ridership Annual events Healthy during Bike Month each May. Communities . As a result of engaged staff and Council members, participation increased from 30 to over 300 riders in 2012, with more events planned City Facility Upgrades Facilities Energy Energy . Nine (9) City facilities received light retrofit projects to potentially decrease energy 2009 Retro -fit (Phase 1) Conservation consumption by 37,000 kWh hours per year, which is up to $6,100 in annual energy cost savings Fire Stations Energy, . Efficiency and conservation updates at Fire Stations 1 & 2: 2008/2009 Resource & — Installation of tinted engine bay windows & exhaust extraction system and Water Conservation — Standby generators replacement with propane or natural gas instead of electric — Efficient refrigerators and washers/dryers & low flow toilets/showers/bath faucets EECBG Grant for Resource & . California Energy Commission (CEC) completed energy audit using AARA funds to determine Dec 2009 Municipal Energy Energy what projects would provide the best payback Efficiency Retro -fits Conservation . Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) funded $152,644 in energy efficiency retro -fit projects • Included upgrades at Fire Station 1, Police Station, Pavilion, Police Station, Waste Water Treatment Plant and Public Works Corp Yard - 17 High SEER replacement HVAC units - 17 programmable thermostats - 564 florescent tube lamps 28watt - 119 Low watt T8 ballasts - 18 LED parking lot lights Retrofit kits - 28 Induction wall packs 40watt Staples Direct Install Resource & . Staples Direct Install program for Municipal Facilities; energy savings opportunity made Aug 2011 (Funded by PG&E) Energy available through the Energy Watch Partnership Conservation . 77 separate projects completed at five (5) facilities, with an estimated annual energy savings of 51,200 kWh • Upgrades such as occupancy sensors, new light fixtures and light bulb replacements completed at the current City Hall building, Pavilion, Public Works Yard, Wastewater Treatment Plant and Indoor Skate Park Wastewater Treatment Resource & . Continual redesign and improvement of sewer system to reduce energy requirements by taking Ongoing since Plant Upgrades Energy advantage of gravity flow; two lift stations have been eliminated & a third is slated for elimination 2009 Conservation . Inefficient pumps & aerators replaced with more efficient models; those not being replaced are being re -wound with more efficient wiring Colony Park Energy, . Sustainable construction practices such as use of compressed recycled paper for bathroom Constructed Community Center Resource & partitions and counters, recycled plastics for flooring and counters, and recycled rubber for the 2006 Water sports court Conservation . Building is designed to be low maintenance to reduce water, power, and chemical use Charles Paddock Zoo Public • New public restrooms incorporate green building features such as: Constructed Restroom Facility Education — Rainwater collection & daylighting (no electric lights needed during the day) 2011 Energy, Resource & — Passive ventilation and thermal walls (no HVAC needed) Water — Straw bale constructed walls & renewable materials throughout Conservation — Low flow toilets & faucets Historic City Hall Energy, The historic restoration of this 1914 City landmark includes major upgrades for energy efficiency Construction to Restoration Resource & which will result in huge savings in ongoing operating costs: be completed Water — New high efficiency HVAC units with individual temp controls for every room 2013 Conservation — Energy efficient light fixtures with occupancy sensors — Energy efficient appliances in break rooms — Low flush water closets and urinals — Added insulation on the 4th floor Green Parking Lot at Public Demonstration project at Lake Park, funded by Urban Greening Grant Program Construction in Lake Park Education Replace an existing dirt parking lot with a low impact development parking lot Process Stormwater Designed to mitigate the stormwater runoff and pollutants which enter Atascadero Creek City Facility Policies Energy & Water Directive from the City Manager outlining Citywide Energy Conservation Measures issued in 2008 Conservation September 2008 in order to cut City budget and operation costs • It is the City's policy to always purchase energy efficient equipment and appliances • 10% reduction in combined usage of all City buildings shown between 2009 and 2011, with many facilities showing an energy reduction of 20% or more based on City operations and facility upgrades in just the past few years Building Operator Education • Two (2) City employees completed Building Operator Certification Course 2010 Certification Course Energy, • Staff was trained to evaluate and improve operational efficiencies in municipal facilities and cut Resource & down on energy usage (lighting, thermostats & more) Water Conservation • Operator awareness alone has cut energy use at the Community Center by 20%, and this is a brand new building with modern and energy conscious construction! • Shows that investing in new technologies isn't enough; well-trained operators make the difference in reducing energy use and costs Energy Tracking Energy • Currently benchmarking energy performance and water usage of Municipal Facilities to manage Data input & Conservation overall energy use and identify where the energy consumption hogs are setup in process Education . Monthly usage date within individual buildings & across entire building portfolio is automatically measured and tracked through Portfolio Manager • Will be able to identify new opportunities to save, where to focus energy efficiency efforts, and what rebates and funding sources City is eligible for Energy Efficiency SLO Energy Watch Energy • A joint partnership of PG&E, SoCal Gas, Economic Vitality Corporation, SLO County and Participation Partnership Conservation participating municipalities since 2009 Education & • Partnership has provided extensive training, outreach, and energy-saving opportunities for the Outreach City as well as for local businesses and property owners • The City of Atascadero has taken full advantage of this partnership, becoming a leader in SLO County in obtaining energy grants & upgrading City facilities SLO Green Build Energy, • City works with SLO Green Build to host community workshops and seminars for homeowners, Ongoing since Partnership Resource & builders, and the general public 2005 Water • Workshops have included: grey water systems, sustainable landscaping, photovoltaic systems Conservation and alternative energy production, and green building technologies Education & . City staff meets quarterly with SLO Green Build to discuss how City can encourage sustainable Outreach design • A SLO Green Build public information kiosk is located at the City Hall front counter Building Code Energy • California Green Building Code became effective January 1, 2011 New code Conservation . Title 24 energy requirements are strictly enforced for all new construction in the City, including adopted 2011 Water significant energy efficiency standards for lighting and appliances Conservation PV System Energy • The City of Atascadero has the lowest permit fees for solar in the County, and building permits Ongoing Expedited Permits & Conservation for PV system installation receive expedited processing Reduced Fees • This policy and staff dedication ensures safe installation of PV systems while removing perceived road blocks associated with permitting process Affordable Solar Home Energy • The Single-family Affordable Solar Homes (SASH) Program is a comprehensive low-income Currently in Program (SASH) Conservation solar program made available by California Public Utilities Commission process • City staff has been collaborating with Grid Alternatives on outreach and eligibility • As part of the SASH program, PV systems will be installed on 24 new affordable units being constructed next year by People's Self Help Housing, and hopefully on many more affordable single family homes currently existing throughout the City • SASH is a first -of -its -kind solar program, structured to promote or provide energy efficiency for low income families, workforce development and green jobs training opportunities, and broad community engagement Greenhouse Gas Reduction U.S. Mayors Climate Carbon • Encourages policies and programs to create well planned communities and improve the urban Adopted 2005 Protection Agreement Reduction forest SLO Air District GHG Carbon 0 In 2007, the APCD convened a committee of city and county agency stakeholders to initiate a Ongoing since Stakeholder Group Reduction discussion of climate change, including science, policy, funding, mitigation, adaptation, and 2006 Education public engagement • Bimonthly meetings are held to share information, identify funding sources, and develop local programs, policies, and activities that to reduce GHG emissions Local Governments for Conservation • Atascadero joined ICLEI and agreed to participate in the Cities for Climate Protection Campaign 2009/2010 Sustainability (ICLEI) Carbon • ICLEI provides technical consulting, training, and information services to share knowledge and ICLEI member Reduction support local government in the implementation of sustainable development at the local level Greenhouse Gas Carbon • Grant funded Greenhouse Gas Inventory identifies major sources of emissions within City Completed Inventory Reduction . Measures progress made in reducing GHG from City operations and community wide and 2010 forecasts how emissions will grow if no behavioral changes or improvements are made Greenhouse Gas Carbon • Grant funded regional planning project in collaboration with SLOAPCD, PG&E, and the Cities of Grant Received Reduction Plan Reduction Paso Robles, Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, Morro Bay, and Pismo Beach 2012 • Development of a local plan to reduce GHG emissions and improve energy efficiency Development In Recognize local needs and perspectives and focus on practical, implementable solutions process PG&E Climate Smart Carbon • First city in the County to join PG&E program to make energy use at City facilities carbon neutral Since 2005 Program Reduction . Climate Smart program designed to make people aware of the challenges posed by climate change while also helping establish the infrastructure for a low carbon economy in California City Vehicles Emissions • City vehicle idling policies in place to reduce emissions City Operations Reduction • Filters installed on heavy duty diesel engines and old diesel vehicles retired to reduce emissions Ongoing • Fire Department tests all engines and command vehicles for emissions; two new engines exceed the 2007 EPA specs for trucks and heavy equipment Electric Vehicle Emissions • Partnership with APCD to obtain grant funding to install more charging systems in the City 2012 & Ongoing Charging Stations Reduction . City staff involvement in program to make California Plug-in Electric Vehicle ready Land Use & Development Atascadero Resource • The City's General Plan is based on the Smart Growth Principles of encouraging infill and reuse Adopted 2002 General Plan Conservation of existing land and infrastructure: Carbon o Encourage mixed-use infill development & revitalization of the Downtown Core Reduction o Preserve & protect the oak woodlands, creeks & wetlands o Minimize hillside grading & preserve a greenbelt around Atascadero Mixed Use, Retail & job Reduce Vehicle City Office of Economic Development created to encourage retail, job development, and infill in City Services development Miles Traveled the downtown & urban core. Providing services and shopping within Atascadero will reduce Ongoing vehicle miles traveled for residents who currently have to drive for goods and employment • Mixed use promoted, simplified permit process, City and staff support with development projects • Redevelopment Agency funding provided to new businesses and downtown affordable housing • Better jobs to housing balance created so that residents can work, shop and live in the City • High Density Residential areas upzoned in 2011 to increase density in the urban core South El Camino Real Planning for Plan to envision how to integrate housing, economic development, jobs and transportation with 2012 Corridor Visioning Sustainable a complete street concept for EI Camino Real for people, bicycles, transit and automobiles Study Communities Collaboration with SLOCOG through a grant from the Department of Conservation; plan will help City to obtain additional grants for infrastructure and improvements along EI Camino Real • Pilot project that will be used to illustrate how cities can integrate a mix of land uses and densities, alternative forms of transportation and complete streets Recycling & Waste Reduction Cold In -Place Road GHG Reduction City road surface repair project where existing asphalt road is crushed and mixed it with 2012 Recycling Resource additives then immediately used to repave road in a single process City Operations Conservation Innovative road reconstruction process which is a fast, cost-effective alternative to more Waste Reduction traditional methods of rebuilding asphalt roadways • "Cold In -Place Recycling" eliminates hundreds of asphalt and gravel truck trips which would traditionally be required to carry out the old asphalt, and carry in new asphalt Recycling Program Resource • City collaboration on programs with Atascadero Waste Alternatives Ongoing Conservation . Semiannual "Citywide clean-up days" for residents to recycle household waste at no cost Waste Reduction • Free curbside co -mingled recycling program and "green waste" recycling program • Atascadero became the first municipal agency in SLO County to reach targeted 50% diversion of citywide trash going to landfill Urban Forestry Native Tree Ordinance Carbon • Ordinance requires protection of native trees and replanting or mitigation fees for removals Ongoing & Replanting Sites Reduction • Tree mitigation funds used to plant almost 1000 new native trees throughout the City, with an since1999 additional 500 native trees given to private property owners • Tree and habitat survey completed with GIS and work with biologist to study Atascadero's oak forest and success of the tree replanting sites Tree City USA & Carbon 0 Recognized as a Tree City member for 24 years Ongoing Atascadero Native Tree Reduction . Atascadero Native Tree Association creates tree planting areas and does educational programs Association (ANTA) Education and outreach which focus on the care and renewal of native forest Downtown Streetscape Reduces urban . Pedestrian and operational improvements including bulb outs, landscaped medians, street trees, Public Works Projects & Tree heat island, street furniture and lighting for the Downtown according to the RVC Plan 2006 & Ongoing Plantings City Facilities . Trees planted with the recent upgrades to the waste water facility & corporation yard to create shade and reduce the urban heat island Updates to Landscape Reduces urban . Landscape standards adopted for multifamily & commercial developments, plus parking lots to Adopted Ordinance heat island establish minimum requirements for landscape coverage, decorative planting and shade trees September Citywide 2005 Water Conservation Water Conservation Water . Limits high water use landscapes with new commercial and residential development Adopted By City Landscape & Irrigation Conservation . Encourages drought tolerant plants that are well suited for Atascadero's dry climate Council Ordinance Citywide & City Operations Limitations on the amount of turf lawns and spray irrigation Jan. 2010 City Facility Operations Water . Irrigation control systems, with sensors to respond to weather conditions, installed at City parks City Operations & Landscape Water Conservation . Solar panels installed to power the irrigation controller for the landscape areas at Las Lomas Ongoing since Conservation Measures City Operations Cost Savings . Areas of underutilized turf removed at Atascadero Lake Park, Paloma Creek Park & Fire Station 2008 • Drought tolerant and low maintenance landscaping installed in Downtown Streetscape project • City water analysis shows a 25% reduction in water use at City facilities in the past 3 years Washing Machine & Water . 692 rebates have been distributed by Atascadero Mutual Water Company to customers AMWC Toilet Retrofit Programs Conservation . $90,300 of equipment installed, including high -efficiency & ultra-low flow toilets, high -efficiency 2005 & Ongoing Citywide clothes washers, plus cooling tower conductivity meters Rebates Landscape Rebate Water . 214 landscape rebates have been distributed by Atascadero Mutual Water Company AMWC Program Conservation . $33,123 in rebates have been distributed to customers for turf conservation, lawn aeration, rain 2005 & Ongoing Citywide sensors, weather -based irrigation controllers, soil moisture sensors, multi -stream rotary nozzles Rebates and rainwater harvesting Annual Garden Tour & Education . Atascadero Mutual Water Company hosts the annual garden tour where residents can gather AMWC Sustainable Landscape Water and ideas for beautiful drought tolerant landscapes 2010 Workshop Series Energy . Workshops which about irrigation types and plant selection suited to our local climate Conservation Citywide Community members learn how to create beautiful outdoor landscapes which use native plants which are water efficient and require minimal maintenance, thereby saving time, reducing the need for fertilizers, pesticides, and use of power equipment Home Water Survey Water . The highly successful Home Water Survey Program is free to customers and helps them AMWC Program Conservation conserve water by learning how to manage landscape irrigation more efficiently 2009 Citywide . AMWC's water conservation staff helps property owners create a site-specific irrigation Cost Savings schedule, recommended irrigation system improvements for the, and checks for leaks �A CITY OF ATASCADERO Community -Wide and Government Operations 2005 Baseline Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Update Prepared for: �SLO COUNTY a pcd SAN LUIS OBISPO AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO 2010 Inventory Prepared by: IPMCA 860 WALNUT STREET, SUITE B SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401-2725 Updated by: Rincon Consultants, Inc. Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers 1530 MONTEREY STREET, SUITE D SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 UPDATED JULY 2012 Credits and Acknowledgements Report prepared by PMC in April 2010 and updated by Rincon Consultants, Inc. in July 2012 for the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District on behalf of the City of Atascadero. 2012 GHG EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE PROJECT TEAM Richard Daulton, Principal, Rincon Consultants Joe Power, Principal, Rincon Consultants Shauna Callery, Project Manager, Rincon Consultants Rob Fitzroy, Assistant Project Manager, Rincon Consultants Chris Bersbach, Assistant Project Manager, Rincon Consultants Christina McAdams, Associate, Rincon Consultants 2010 GHG EMISSIONS INVENTORY PROJECT TEAM Tammy Seale, Project Manager, PMC Jaime Hill, Associate Planner, PMC Jillian Rich, Associate Planner, PMC Scott Kaiser, Assistant Planner, PMC Chad Endicott, Planning Intern, PMC WITH ASSISTANCE FROM: Air Pollution Control District Larry Allen, Air Pollution Control Officer Aeron Arlin Genet, Planning & Outreach Manager Melissa Guise, Air Quality Specialist Dean Carlson, Air Quality Engineer City of Atascadero Warren Frace, Director, Community Development Callie Taylor, Associate Planner Geoff English, Deputy Director, Public Works Rachelle Rickard, Administrative Services Director Justin Black, Chief Plant Operator, Public Works Lori Brickley, Finance Amanda Muether, Dispatch County of San Luis Obispo Janice Campbell, Agriculture Department Atascadero Waste Alternatives Mike LaBarbara, Municipal Marketing Pacific Waste Services, Inc. Jim Wyse, President PG&E Jillian Rich, Program Manager Southern California Gas Company Paulo Morais, Energy Programs Supervisor ICLEI Jonathan Strunin, Program Officer Allison Culpen, Program Associate IWWA Peter Cron, Analyst City of Atascadero Table of Contents ExecutiveSummary................................................................................................................... 1 1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 8 1.1 Purpose of a GHG Inventory ..................................................................................... 8 1.2 Legislative Background............................................................................................10 1.3 The Cities for Climate Protection Campaign............................................................12 1.4 Local Sustainability and Climate Change Mitigation Activities..................................13 1.5 Inventory Update.....................................................................................................15 2. Community and Government Operations Inventory Methodology........................................16 2.1 Baseline and Forecast Years...................................................................................16 2.2 The Two Inventories: Community -wide and City Government Operations ...............17 2.3 Data Collection and Methodology............................................................................18 2.4 Data Sources...........................................................................................................20 2.5 Data Limitations.......................................................................................................21 3. Community GHG Inventory Results.....................................................................................25 3.1 Community -Wide Emissions by Scope....................................................................25 3.2 All Scope Emissions by Sector................................................................................27 3.3 Transportation.........................................................................................................29 3.4 Off -Road Vehicles and Equipment...........................................................................30 3.5 The Built Environment (Residential, Commercial, Industrial)....................................32 3.6 Solid Waste.............................................................................................................34 3.7 Wastewater..............................................................................................................35 3.7 Community Emissions by Source............................................................................36 3.8 Per Capita Emissions..............................................................................................37 4. City Government Operations GHG Emissions Inventory Results.........................................38 4.1 City Government Operations Inventory Results.......................................................38 4.2 Building Sector........................................................................................................39 4.3 Vehicle and Transit Fleet.........................................................................................40 4.4 Employee Commute................................................................................................41 4.5 Streetlights and Traffic Signals................................................................................43 4.6 Water and wastewater.............................................................................................43 4.7 Solid Waste.............................................................................................................45 4.8 City Emissions by Source........................................................................................45 5. Forecast..............................................................................................................................48 6. Conclusion and Next Steps.................................................................................................50 City of Atascadero List of Figures Figure ES -1: Community GHG Emissions by Sector,2005......................................................... 3 Figure ES -2: City Government Portion of Community -Wide GHG Emissions ............................. 4 Figure ES -3: City Government GHG Emissions by Secto, 2005 ................................................. 4 Figure ES -4: 2020 and 2025 Business -as -usual GHG Emissions Forecast ................................ 6 Figure ES -5: Business -as -usual Forecast in Relation to State -Recommended Target ............... 7 Figure 1-1: The Greenhouse Effect............................................................................................ 8 Figure 1-2: California Climate Change Emissions and Targets................................................11 Figure 1-3: The Five -Milestone Process....................................................................................13 Figure 2-1: Relationship Between Community -wide and City Government Inventories..............18 Figure 2-2: GHG Emissions Scopes..........................................................................................19 Figure 3-1: Community GHG Emissions by Scope, 2005..........................................................26 Figure 3-2: Community GHG Emissions by Sector, 2005..........................................................28 Figure 3-3: Community GHG Emissions by Fuel Source...........................................................29 Figure 3-4: Off -Road GHG Emissions by Equipment Type........................................................31 Figure 3-5: Off -Road GHG Emissions by Fuel Type..................................................................31 Figure 3-6: Built Environment GHG Emissions by Sector..........................................................32 Figure 3-7: Built Environment GHG Emissions by Source.........................................................32 Figure 3-8: Residential GHG Emissions by Source...................................................................33 Figure 3-9: Commerical/industrial GHG Emissions by Source...................................................33 Figure 3-10: Waste GHG Emissions by Type............................................................................35 Figure 3-11: Community GHG Emissions by Source, 2005 .......................................................36 Figure 4-1: City Government Contribution to Community -Wide GHG Emissions .......................38 Figure 4-2: City Government GHG Emissions by Sector, 2005 ................................................38 Figure 4-3: Building GHG Emissions by Source........................................................................39 Figure 4-4: Vehicle Fleet Fuel Consumption per Year by Type.................................................41 Figure 4-5: GHG Emissions from Wastewater Treatment Plant................................................44 Figure 4-6: City Government GHG Emissions by Source, 2005 ................................................47 Figure 4-7: City Government GHG Emissions by Sector with Wastewater Treatment Plant Removed..................................................................................................................................47 Figure 5-1: 2020 and 2025 Projected Growth in Community -wide GHG Emissions...................48 Figure 6-1: GHG Forecast in Relation to Reduction Targets.....................................................51 • - City of Atascadero List of Tables_Toc330560969 Table ES -1: Community GHG Emissions by Sector, 2005 ......................................................... 3 Table ES -2: City Government Operations GHG Emissions by Sector, 2005 ............................. 5 Table 2-1: Data Sources for Community Analysis, 2005...........................................................20 Table 2-2: Data Sources for City Government Operations Analysis, 2005 .................................21 Table 3-1: Community GHG Emissions Sources by Scope and Sector, 2005 ...........................26 Table 3-2: Community GHG Emissions per Sector per Scope, 2005 .........................................27 Table 3-3: Community GHG Emissions by Sector, 2005..........................................................28 Table 3-4: Transportation GHG Emissions by Fuel Source.......................................................29 Table 3-5: County -wide Equipment Type Indicators..................................................................30 Table 3-6: Off -Road GHG Emissions by Equipment Type.........................................................31 Table 3-7: Off -Road GHG Emissions by Fuel Type...................................................................32 Table 3-8: Residential GHG Emissions by Source....................................................................33 Table 3-9: Commercial/Industrial GHG Emissions Sources.......................................................34 Table 3-10: Waste GHG Emissions by Waste Type..................................................................35 Table 3-11: Community GHG Emissions by Source..................................................................37 Table 4-1: City Government Operations GHG Emissions by Sector, 2005 ...............................39 Table 4-2: Building Sector GHG Emissions by Source, 2005 ....................................................40 Table 4-3: Days of City Employee Travel by Commute Mode...................................................42 Table 4-4: Employee Commute VMT by Vehicle and Fuel Type...............................................43 Table 4-5: City Government Operations GHG Emissions by Source........................................46 City of Atascadero Appendices Appendix A: CACP2009 Detailed Report for Community -Wide Emissions, 2005 Appendix B: CACP2009 Detailed Report for City Government Operations Emissions, 2005 Appendix C: Detailed Methodology for Community -Wide Inventory Appendix D: Detailed Methodology for City Government Operations Inventory Appendix E: City Employee Commute Survey, 2009 .. - City of Atascadero Executive Summary A greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventory identifies the major sources and quantities of GHG emissions produced by community activities and City government facilities and operations within a jurisdiction's boundaries for a given year. Estimating GHG emissions enables local governments to establish an emissions baseline, track emissions trends, identify the greatest sources of GHG emissions within their jurisdiction, set targets for future reductions, and create an informed mitigation strategy based on this information. This Inventory includes a 2005 baseline inventory of GHG emissions from community activities and City government facilities and operations within the city', and a 2020 and 2025 business -as -usual forecast of how emissions in Atascadero would change if no further actions are implemented to reduce those emissions. It is important to note that the City government operations inventory is a subset of the community inventory, meaning that the city government's emissions are included within the community inventory. The community inventory is divided into six sectors, or sources of emissions: transportation, residential energy use, commercial and industrial energy use, solid waste, off-road vehicles and equipment, and wastewater. The City government inventory d d t 'I d I f It' f What are Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs)? Gases that trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere are called greenhouse gases, or GHGs. GHGs include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases. While many of these gases occur naturally in the atmosphere, modern human activity has led to a steep increase in the amount of GHGs released into the atmosphere over the last 100 years. Collectively, these gases intensify the natural greenhouse effect, thus causing global average surface temperatures to rise, which in turn affects global climate patterns. GHGs are often quantified in terms of CO2 equivalent, or CO2e, a unit of measurement that equalizes the potency of GHGs. Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2007 F rove es a more a ai a ana ysis o emissions resu ing rom City -owned or -operated buildings, fleet vehicles, and lighting; water and sewage transport; City -generated solid waste; and employee commute travel. INVENTORY UPDATE PURPOSE In 2010, PMC prepared an inventory of Atascadero's 2005 community -wide and City government emissions. Changes to GHG accounting protocols have prompted an update to the ' In this report, the term "city" refers to the area inside the jurisdictional boundary of the City of Atascadero, whereas "City government" refers to those activities which are under the operational control of City agencies. City of Atascadero ' .. emissions inventory and in 2012 Rincon Consultants conducted a peer -review and update to the Inventory. This Inventory is the updated assessment of GHG emissions in Atascadero. Rincon updated the Inventory methodology, emissions coefficients, and data for consistency with current protocols, including the Local Government Operations Protocol (LGOP) version 1.1 (May 2010), for the city government inventory, and the Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) California Community -wide GHG Baseline Inventory Protocol (AEP Protocol) (June 2011) and ICLEI International Local Government GHG Emissions Analysis Protocol (IEAP) (October 2009), for the community -wide inventory. Rincon also updated the Inventory to include all emissions sectors within the discretionary action authority of the City. The primary additions and revisions to the updated Inventory include the following: • Calculation of emissions from additional off-road vehicle and equipment categories (lawn and garden equipment, construction equipment, industrial equipment, and light commercial equipment) for the community -wide inventory. • Incorporation of improved emissions factors from the LGOP version 1.1. • Incorporation of a refined methodology for on -road transportation emissions. The 2012 methodology estimates vehicle miles traveled (VMT) based on an origin -destination approach using the regional travel demand model and excludes vehicle trips that pass through the city. Transportation -related GHG emissions were then calculated using the California Air Resources Board Emissions Factor 2011 (EMFAC2011) software. • Identification of emissions related to water and wastewater transport for the community- wide inventory. • Corrections to baseline electricity and natural gas consumption data, and waste stream profile data. • Inclusion of updated population and employment projections using the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments' (SLOCOG) 2040 Population, Housing & Employment Forecast (August 2011).2 2 SLOCOG's 2040 Population, Housing & Employment Forecast includes population, housing, and employment projections developed based on an analysis of historic growth and economic trends. See San Luis Obispo County 2040 Population, Housing & Employment Forecast (August 2011) for details. .. - City of Atascadero As a result of this Inventory update, Atascadero's community -wide 2005 baseline emissions decreased by 30,165 metric tons CO2e and 2020 forecast decreased by 40,186 metric tons CO2e compared to the April 2010 inventory. COMMUNITY -WIDE GHG INVENTORY RESULTS The community of Atascadero emitted approximately 146,069 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions in the baseline year 2005. As shown in Figure ES -1 and Table ES -1, the transportation sector was by far the largest contributor to emissions (41.4%), producing approximately 60,445 metric tons of CO2e in 2005. Transportation sector emissions are the result of diesel and gasoline fuel used in vehicles traveling on local roads and state FIGURE ES -1: COMMUNITY GH11 highways within the jurisdictional boundaries of EMISSIONS BY SECTOR, 2005 Atascadero. Emissions from electricity and natural gas consumed in the residential sector were the next largest contributor (27.9%), producing approximately 40,690 metric tons of CO2e. Electricity and natural gas consumed in the commercial and industrial sector accounted for a combined 13.9% of the total. Emissions Transportation_ 41.4 from solid waste comprised 9.1% of the total, and emissions from off-road vehicles and equipment comprised 5.9% of the total. Off -Road 5.9% Wncfn Q 79L —Commercial/ Industrial 13.9% Residential 27.9 2005 Community Commercial/ Off- Waste Residential Transportation Waste TOTAL Emissions Industrial Road water by Sector CO2e (metric tons) 40,690 20,271 60,445 8,686 13,320 2,657 146,069 Percentage of Total CO2e 27.9% 13.9% 41.4% 5.9% 9.1%1.8% 1.8% I 100.0% City of Atascadero CITY GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS GHG INVENTORY RESULTS City government operations and facilities produced approximately 4,130 metric tons of CO2e in 2005. As displayed in Table ES -2 and Figure ES -2, this represents approximately 2.7% of total community -wide emissions in the city. City government emissions result from waste, energy consumption from water and wastewater facilities, buildings, streetlights and other facilities, fuel consumption by the vehicle and transit fleet and employee commutes, and miscellaneous equipment. The largest contributor to the City's emissions (70.8%) was from the wastewater facilities producing 2,923 metric tons of CO2e. The vehicle fleet was the second largest contributor to the City's emissions (9.7%), producing 402 metric tons of CO2e (refer to Figure ES -3 and Table ES -2). Communr.y- _ Wide 97.3% Municipal 2.7% Vehicle Fleet 9.7% Transit Fleet 5.2% Buildir Facilitie Solid Waste 1.2% Wastewater Facilities 70.8% Employee mmute 4.5% Streetlights & traffic Signals 1.0% City government operations emissions are a subset of the total community -wide emissions as outlined above. However, similar to the way in which businesses and factories perform their own facility -scale GHG Inventories, this Inventory analyzes City emissions separately to identify opportunities for cost -savings and emissions -reductions in the future. The methodology for estimating emissions from local government operations is guided specifically by the LGOP version 1.1 developed by the California Air Resources Board, ICLEI — Local Governments for Sustainability, and the California Climate Registry. .. - City of Atascadero DATA LIMITATIONS This Inventory captures the major sources of GHGs caused by activities within the city per standard practice. However, it is important to note that some likely emission sources were not included in the Inventory, either because of privacy laws, lack of data, or a lack of reasonable methodology for calculating emissions. It is estimated that the sources not included in the inventory comprise less than 5.0% of total emissions in the city. It is likely that as GHG inventories become more common, methodology and accessibility to data will improve. The sources that could not be included due to privacy laws, lack of data availability, and/or a reasonable methodology include the following: • Refrigerants from City government operations, facilities, and vehicles, and the community -at -large • Freight and passenger trains; • Propane, wind or solar energy consumed by the community -at -large; and • Residential septic tanks systems. These limitations are explained further in this document. BUSINESS -AS -USUAL FORECAST The GHG emissions forecast provides a "business -as -usual estimate," or scenario, of how emissions will change in the year 2020 and 2025 if consumption trends and behavior continue as they did in 2005, absent any new federal, state, regional, or local policies or actions that would reduce emissions. The year 2020 was selected for the forecast in order to maintain consistency with AB 32. As shown in Figure ES -4 and Figure ES -5, if consumption trends continue the pattern observed in 2005 emissions (i.e., under business -as -usual conditions) will City of Atascadero Street 2005 Buildings — Waste - Vehicle Transit Employee Lights & Water Solid Emissions 8 water TOTAL Fleet Fleet Commute Traffic Delivery Waste by Sector Facilities Facilities Signals CO2e (metric tons) 316 402 214 185 40 1 2,923 49 4,130 Percentage 7 6% I 9.7% 5.2% 4.5% 1.0% <0.0% 70.8% 1.2% 100.0% of CO2e DATA LIMITATIONS This Inventory captures the major sources of GHGs caused by activities within the city per standard practice. However, it is important to note that some likely emission sources were not included in the Inventory, either because of privacy laws, lack of data, or a lack of reasonable methodology for calculating emissions. It is estimated that the sources not included in the inventory comprise less than 5.0% of total emissions in the city. It is likely that as GHG inventories become more common, methodology and accessibility to data will improve. The sources that could not be included due to privacy laws, lack of data availability, and/or a reasonable methodology include the following: • Refrigerants from City government operations, facilities, and vehicles, and the community -at -large • Freight and passenger trains; • Propane, wind or solar energy consumed by the community -at -large; and • Residential septic tanks systems. These limitations are explained further in this document. BUSINESS -AS -USUAL FORECAST The GHG emissions forecast provides a "business -as -usual estimate," or scenario, of how emissions will change in the year 2020 and 2025 if consumption trends and behavior continue as they did in 2005, absent any new federal, state, regional, or local policies or actions that would reduce emissions. The year 2020 was selected for the forecast in order to maintain consistency with AB 32. As shown in Figure ES -4 and Figure ES -5, if consumption trends continue the pattern observed in 2005 emissions (i.e., under business -as -usual conditions) will City of Atascadero reach 175,210 metric tons of CO2e by 2020, or a 20.0% increase over 2005 baseline levels (projections based on population and employment growth). By 2025 emissions will reach 187,184 metric tons of COze, or a 28.1% increase over 2005 baseline levels. 200,000 175,000 150,000 0 125,000 U c 100,000 d 75,000 50,000 25,000 0 2005 2020 2025 Year ■ Wastewater Waste ■ Off -Road ■ Transportation ■ Commercial/ Industrial ■ Residential With this information, the City can make an informed determination regarding a reduction target. Conformance with the State of California's recommended reduction of 15% below present levels by 2020 would require a 29.1 % reduction below the city's business -as -usual emissions (refer to Figure ES -5).3 3 AB 32 Scoping Plan, page 27 states that the California Air Resources Board encourages local governments to "move toward establishing similar goals for community emissions that parallel the State commitment to reduce GHG emissions by approximately 15 percent from current levels by 2020." http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm .. - . City of Atascadero 200,000 175,000 W 0 U c 150,000 H u d 125,000 100,000 2005 2020 Year 2025 Business -as - usual forecast 175,210 metric tons CO2e by 2020; 187,184 metric tons CO2e by 2025 2005 baseline levels = 146,069 metric tons CO2e 15% below 2005 baseline levels = 124,159 metric tons CO2e by 2020 City of Atascadero ' .. Actual Reduction = 51,051 metric tons CO2e (29.1 %) by 2020 1. Introduction This section introduces the Inventory, defines key terms used throughout the Inventory, and provides an overview of climate change science and regulation in California. 1.1 PURPOSE OF A GHG INVENTORY This Inventory represents completion of the first step in the City's climate protection process. Quantifying recent -year emissions is essential to establish: (1) a baseline against which to measure future emission levels, and (2) an understanding of where the highest percentages of emissions are coming from, and, therefore, the greatest opportunities for emissions reductions. This Inventory presents estimates of GHG emissions in 2005 resulting from the community as a whole. Climate Change Background FIGURE 1-1: Scientific consensus holds that the world's THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT population is releasing GHGs faster than the earth's natural systems can absorb them. These gases are released as byproducts of fossil fuel combustion, waste disposal, Incoming Radiated energy use, land -use changes, and other solar radiation out to space human activities. This release of gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane Absorbed in atmosphere (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20), creates a by �greenhouse gases l./ 7- Aim,blanket around the earth that allows light to radiation pass through but traps heat at the surface rem surtacc preventing its escape into space (Figure 1- 1). Known as the greenhouse effect, models Source: Tufts University show that this phenomenon could lead to a 2°F to 10°F temperature increase over the next 100 years. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.4 Although used interchangeably, there is a difference between the terms "climate change" and "global warming." According to the State, climate change refers to "any long-term change in 4 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group I. 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policy Makers. .. - : City of Atascadero average climate conditions in a place or region, whether due to natural causes or as a result of human activities .5 The use of the term "climate change" is becoming more prevalent because it encompasses all changes to the climate, not just temperature. Additionally, the term "climate change" conveys temporality, implying that climate change can be slowed with the efforts of local, regional, state, national, and world entities. Changes in the earth's temperature will have impacts for residents and businesses in the City of Atascadero. Some of the major impacts to the Central Coast expected to occur include the following, separated by sectors' • Coastline: The San Luis Obispo County coastline could face inundation as a result of sea level rise and global warming. As temperatures rise, the ocean waters rise as well due to thermal expansion and the melting of glaciers and snowpack. The state's 2009 Climate Change Impacts Assessment (the 2009 Scenarios Project) estimates that sea levels will rise by 12 to 18 inches by 2050 and 21 to 55 inches by 2100. This level of sea rise has the potential to negatively affect groundwater salination as well as the size and attractiveness of local beaches, which could affect property values and the tourism industry in the county; • Reduced Water Supply: The 2009 Scenarios Project estimates a decrease in precipitation of 12 to 35% by 2050. In addition, more precipitation will fall as rain rather than snow, which will cause snow to melt earlier in the year and not in the warmer, drier months when water is in higher demand; • Agriculture: Climate change could cause a shift in the type and location of agriculture in the area. As saltwater intrudes into coastal aquifers and groundwater resources decrease, it is possible that some crops will be forced out of the area, which affects the local economy and food supply. Water supplies to agriculture may be 20 to 23% below demand targets between 2020 and 2050; • Public Health: Climate change could potentially threaten the health of residents of Atascadero. Heat waves may have a major impact on public health, as will decreasing 5 California Natural Resources Agency. 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy Discussion Draft. August 2009. s California Climate Change Center. Our Changing Climate: Assessing the Risks to California (2006), www.climatechange.ca.gov 7 Governor's Office of Planning and Research. Proposed CEQA Guideline Amendments for Greenhouse Gas Emissions. April 2009. City of Atascaderc air quality and an increase in mosquito breeding and mosquito -borne diseases. There is also expected to be an increase in allergenic plant pollen and an increase in the frequency of wildfires. Although climate change is a global issue, local governments can make a positive impact through cumulative local action. Cities and counties have the ability to reduce GHG emissions through effective land use and transportation planning, wise waste management, and the efficient use of energy. The City can achieve multiple benefits including lower energy bills, improved air quality, economic development, reduced emissions, and better quality of life through: • Energy efficiency in City facilities and vehicle fleet; • Sustainable purchasing and waste reduction efforts; • Land use and transportation planning; and • Efficient management of water resources. This Inventory serves as a baseline measurement for implementing and tracking the effectiveness of these efforts. 1.2 LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND California continues to be a leader in addressing climate change in the United States and in the world. In June of 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger issued a landmark Executive Order establishing progressive GHG emissions targets for the entire state. Executive Order (EO) S-3- 05 makes the following goals: • By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; • By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; • By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels. To support these reduction targets, the California legislature adopted Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006). The law requires the California Air Resources Board to develop regulatory and market mechanisms that will reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 as shown in Figure 1-2 below. To achieve this goal, the California Air Resources Board developed a set of early action measures in 2007 for priority implementation in 2010. These early action measures became part of the AB 32 implementation plan, or Scoping Plan, .. - City of Atascadero approved in December 2008. The Scoping Plan identifies a variety of GHG reduction activities including direct regulations, monetary and non -monetary incentives, voluntary actions, market- based mechanisms such as a cap -and -trade, and an implementation fee regulation to fund the program. The Scoping Plan also identifies local governments as "essential partners" and calls for cities and counties to adopt GHG reduction targets consistent with AB 32. 700 600 500 0� H L 400 m w 0 0 300 _— 0 2 200 100 0 1990 2000 2010 2020 2050 Year In support of the AB 32 reduction targets, California adopted Senate Bill (SB) 97 in August 2007, which formally acknowledges that climate change is an important environmental issue that requires analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In response to SB 97, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research submitted their proposed amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for GHG emissions in April 2009. The amendments provide guidance to public agencies regarding the analysis of mitigation and the effects of GHG emissions in CEQA City of Atascadero documents. The Natural Resources Agency certified and adopted the amendments in December 2009.8 At the same time, the State is working to form regional approaches to reducing GHG emissions in response to the passage of SB 375. SB 375 aims to reduce GHG emissions by linking transportation funding to land use planning. It also requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations, including the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, to include a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) in their Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) for reducing VMT. The bill also creates incentives for implementation of SCSs and sustainable transportation plans. Additional efforts are underway for the overall transportation sector by mandating fewer emissions from vehicles, including Assembly Bill 1493, signed into law in 2002, which will require carmakers to reduce emissions from new passenger cars and light trucks beginning in 2009. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved the new emissions standards in June 2009. The State is also preparing for climate change resiliency in order to adapt to the inevitable effects of climate change. In November 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-13-08 which asked the Natural Resources Agency to identify how state agencies can respond to rising temperature, changing precipitation patterns, sea level rise, and extreme natural events. The order requires the Natural Resources Agency to develop a Climate Adaptation Strategy to analyze climate change impacts to the state and recommend strategies to manage those threats. The Natural Resources Agency released the Climate Adaptation Strategy in 2009. 1.3 THE CITIES FOR CLIMATE PROTECTION CAMPAIGN The Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) campaign provides a framework for local communities to identify and reduce GHG emissions, organized along five milestones as represented in Figure 1-3 below: 8 Governor's Office of Planning and Research. Proposed CEQA Guideline Amendments for Greenhouse Gas Emissions. April 2009. .. - City of Atascadero FLeadership Commitment Milestone 'I Inventory Emissions Milestone 2 Establish Target Milestone 5 Milestone 3 Monitor/Evaluate Develop Climate Progress Action Plan Milestone 4 I C L E I Implement Climate Local Action Plan Govenlments for Sustainability This report represents the completion of the first CCP milestone, and provides a foundation for future work to reduce GHG emissions in the City of Atascadero. 1.4 LOCAL CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION ACTIVITIES Many of the air pollution programs already in place throughout San Luis Obispo County reduce ozone forming pollutants and toxic emissions, but they also have ancillary benefits and reduce GHG emissions. The County, cities, and the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) implement rules and regulations, clean fuels programs, CEQA mitigation measures, grants, the Transportation Choices Program, pollution prevention activities, energy efficiency and conservation measures, water conservation programs, partnerships, and general public outreach that directly or indirectly address climate change and reduce GHG emissions. City of Atascadero The APCD Board approved the first report or plan to address climate change in the county. The plan, (Options for Addressing Climate Change in San Luis Obispo County (2005)) identifies the following seven actions that could be implemented to specifically address GHGs at the local level: 1) Prepare a countywide inventory of GHG emissions; 2) Target a percentage of mitigation grant funds for GHG emission reductions; 3) Evaluate and quantify the GHG reduction benefits from existing district programs; 4) Develop public education and outreach campaigns on climate change; 5) Encourage and provide support for local governments to join the Cities for Climate Protection program; 6) Develop partnership with Cal Poly for addressing climate change; and 7) Join the California Climate Registry and encourage local industry participation. As of November 2008, the APCD has initiated, promoted, or supported all of the implementation actions to address climate change and reduction of GHG emissions in the county. The APCD joined the California Climate Registry and conducted its GHG emissions inventory in the fall of 2008. The APCD facilitates regular meetings of Climate Change Stakeholders, a local group of city and county representatives that shares resources to address climate change. To encourage and support local GHG emissions inventories, the APCD is providing technical assistance to all of the incorporated cities to assist or perform GHG government operations and community -wide emissions inventories, similar to this Inventory, for all of the incorporated cities in San Luis Obispo County. The APCD also coordinates the Central Coast Clean Cities Coalition (C5). C5 is a partnership of public/private entities whose goal is to promote the use of alternative fuels vehicles (AFV) on the Central Coast. By working with area fleet operators, C5 sponsors training seminars, public events, and grant funding workshops related to use of alternative fuels. The City of Atascadero has been pursuing energy efficiencies through measures such as: • Construction of new and improvement of existing bike lanes and sidewalks through the Safe Routes to School Program to encourage walking and biking to schools (ongoing); • The construction of bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and multi -use trails throughout the City .0 - City of Atascadero • Adoption of Native Tree Ordinance (1998); • Native tree reforestation projects at various sites throughout the City; • Partnership with SLO Green Build to promote energy efficiency in new development; • Joined PG&E's Climate Smart Program to purchase carbon credits to offset emissions from City Hall; • Replacement of high pressure sodium light bulbs with energy efficient light emitting diodes (LED) bulbs in street and traffic lights; • Development of a solar financing district through AB 811 to encourage the installation of solar panels and reduce dependence on traditional energy sources (ongoing); and • Development of a Water Conservation Landscape Ordinance (2009). 1.5 INVENTORY UPDATE In 2010, PMC prepared an inventory of Atascadero's 2005 community -wide and City government emissions. Changes to GHG accounting protocols have prompted an update to the emissions inventory and in 2012 Rincon Consultants conducted a peer -review and update to the Inventory. This Inventory is the updated assessment of GHG emissions in Atascadero. Rincon updated the Inventory methodology, emissions coefficients, and data for consistency with current protocols, including the Local Government Operations Protocol (LGOP) version 1.1 (May 2010), for the city government inventory, and the Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) California Community -wide GHG Baseline Inventory Protocol (AEP Protocol) (June 2011) and ICLEI International Local Government GHG Emissions Analysis Protocol (IEAP) (October 2009), for the community -wide inventory. Rincon also updated the Inventory to include all emissions sectors within the discretionary action authority of the City. The primary additions and revisions to the updated Inventory include the following: • Calculation of emissions from additional off-road vehicle and equipment categories (lawn and garden equipment, construction equipment, industrial equipment, and light commercial equipment) for the community -wide inventory. • Incorporation of improved emissions factors from the LGOP version 1.1. • Incorporation of a refined methodology for on -road transportation emissions. The 2012 methodology estimates VMT based on an origin -destination approach using the regional City of Atascadero travel demand model and excludes vehicle trips that pass through the city. Transportation -related GHG emissions were then calculated using the California Air Resources Board Emissions Factor 2011 (EMFAC2011) software. • Identification of emissions related to water and wastewater transport for the community- wide inventory. • Corrections to baseline electricity and natural gas consumption data, and waste stream profile data. • Inclusion of updated population and employment projections using the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments' (SLOCOG) 2040 Population, Housing & Employment Forecast (August 2011). As a result of the Inventory update, Atascadero's community -wide 2005 baseline emissions decreased by 30,165 metric tons CO2e and 2020 forecast decreased by 40,186 metric tons CO2e compared to the April 2010 inventory. This decrease was a result of the refined methodology for calculating on -road VMT and transportation emissions. 2. Community and Government Operations Inventory Methodology The first step toward reducing GHG emissions is to identify baseline levels and sources of emissions in the city. This information can later inform the selection of a reduction target and possible reduction measures to be included in a climate action plan. This section outlines the methodology used to calculate the community and City government operations9 inventories, including the difference between the two inventories, and the data collection process, data sources, GHG emission scopes, data limitations, and means of calculation. 2.1 BASELINE AND FORECAST YEARS The year 2005 was selected as the baseline year for the Inventory due to the availability of reliable data and consistency with other cities in San Luis Obispo County. The State of 9 In this report, the term "city" refers to the incorporated area (the jurisdictional boundary of the City of Atascadero), whereas "City" refers to those activities that are under the operational control of City agencies. "Community -wide" or "community" refers to all activities within the city (as defined above), including those from businesses, industrial processes, residents, vehicles, and City government operations. .0 - City of Atascadero California uses 1990 as a reference year to remain consistent with the Kyoto Protocol, and also because it has well -kept records of transportation trends and energy consumption in that year. However, cities and counties throughout California typically elect to use 2005 or 2006 as a baseline year because of the more reliable recordkeeping from those years and because of the large amount of growth that has occurred since 1990. This Inventory uses a forecast year of 2020 to be consistent with the State of California GHG Inventory10 forecast year and AB 32 target, both of which reference 2020. In addition, it is likely that any forecast considerably beyond 2020 would have a significant margin of error because of unknown population growth rates and new technology. The business -as -usual forecast has also been extended to 2025 in consideration of the City's General Plan Horizon. 2.2 THE TWO INVENTORIES: COMMUNITY -WIDE AND CITY GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS This Inventory is separated into two sections, community -wide and City government operations. It is important to note that the City government operations inventory is a subset of the community inventory, meaning that all City government operations are included in the commercial/industrial, transportation, waste, or "other" categories of the community -wide inventory. The City's government operations inventory should not be added to the community analysis; rather it should be looked at as a slice of the complete picture as illustrated in Figure 2-1. Although City operations are a small contributor to the community's overall emissions levels, an inventory allows the City to track its individual facilities and vehicles and to evaluate the effectiveness of its emissions reduction efforts at a more detailed level. 10 California Greenhouse Gas Inventory, http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/inventory.htm City of Atascadero ' .. Once completed, these inventories provide the basis for policy development, the quantification of emissions reductions associated with proposed measures, the creation of an emissions forecast, and the establishment of an informed emissions reduction target. 2.3 DATA COLLECTION AND METHODOLOGY Creating the community and City government operations emissions inventories required the collection of information from a variety of sources. Sources for community data included the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), the Southern California Gas Company, Caltrans, the California Air Resources Board, Cal -Recycle, and the County of San Luis Obispo. City government operations data sources included PG&E, the Southern California Gas Company, Atascadero Waste Alternatives, and documentation from multiple City departments including Planning, Public Works, Finance, Police, Fire, and more. Data from the year 2005 were used in both inventories, with the following exceptions: • A subset of waste data by type was not available for 2005, therefore this study utilizes a California statewide waste characterization study conducted in 2003-2004; • City employee commuting trips were calculated using an employee survey conducted in 2009; and .. - City of Atascadero • Propane, wind and solar power used in both the community -wide and City government inventories. For community activities and City operations, emissions sources are categorized by scope. Scopes help us identify where emissions originate from and what entity retains regulatory control and the ability to implement efficiency measures. The scopes are illustrated in Figure 2- 2 and defined as follows: • Scope 1. Direct emissions sources located within the community, mostly from the combustion of fuels. Examples of Scope 1 sources include use of fuels such as gasoline and natural gas. • Scope 2. Indirect emissions that result because of activities within the community, limited to electricity, district heating, steam and cooling consumption. An example of a Scope 2 source is purchased electricity used within the community. These emissions should be included in the community -wide analysis, as they are the result of the community's electricity consumption. • Scope 3. All other indirect emissions that occur as a result of activity within the community. Examples of Scope 3 emissions include methane emissions from solid waste generated within the community which decomposes at landfills either inside or outside of the community. CO2 SFg CHq N20 HFCs PCFs SCOPE 1 DIRECT SCOPE 2 SCOPE 3 INDIRECT INDIRECT GAS FOR EMPLOYEE AIR TRAVEL i RAW MATERIALS • �wPROCESSING WASTE MANAGEMENT COMPANY OWNED I CONTRACTOROWNED VEHICLES VEHICLES MATERIALS PRODUCTION Source: NZBCSD (2002), The Challenge of GHG Emissions: the "why" and "how" of accounting and reporting for GHG emissions: An Industry Guide, New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development, Auckland. City of Atascadero ' .0- Appendices A and B of this report separate the community and City government operations emissions by scope. Each sector is labeled with a 1, 2, or 3 that corresponds to the scopes above. 2.4 DATA SOURCES The data used to complete this Inventory came from multiple sources, as summarized in Tables 2-1 and 2-2. Utility providers supplied electricity and natural gas consumption data associated with commercial, industrial, residential, and City government buildings in 2005. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) was provided by Fehr and Peers and calculated using SLOCOG's Regional Travel Demand model. These data sources are further explained in the sector -specific discussions of this document. .. - City of Atascadero IV Unit ofMR" Sector atio Measurement Electricity consumption kWh PG&E Residential Natural gas Southern California Gas consumption Therms Company Electricity consumption kWh PG&E Commercial/Industrial Natural gas Southern California Gas consumption Therms Company Transportation VMT excluding pass Average Weekday Daily I Fehr & Peers through trips VMT Off -Road Vehicles Emissions from off-road Tons/year of N20, CO2, California Air Resources and Equipment equipment and CH4 Board OFFROAD2007 model Solid waste tonnage San Luis Obispo Solid Waste sent to landfill from Short tons Integrated Waste activities in City of Management Board Atascadero Methane and nitrous Public Works Wastewater oxide released in the Tonnes Department Data Treatment wastewater treatment Records process .. - City of Atascadero 2.5 DATA LIMITATIONS It is important to note that calculating community -wide GHG emissions with precision is a complicated task. The ICLEI Clean Air and Climate Protection (CACP2009) software relies on numerous assumptions and is limited by the quantity and quality of available data. Because of these limitations it is useful to think of any specific number generated by the model as an approximation of reality, rather than an exact value. The city's actual 2005 GHG emissions are likely to be slightly greater than what are reported in this document due to three main factors: (1) data limitations, (2) privacy laws, and (3) a lack of a reasonable methodology to collect or model emissions data. The following paragraphs highlight emissions that cannot be included in a GHG Inventory under current science and policy direction, or due to lack of reliable data. City of Atascadero Unit of MIT Sector Information Data Source Measurement Electricity consumption kWh PG&E Buildings & Facilities Natural gas Southern California Gas consumption Therms Company Diesel consumption and corresponding vehicle Gallons Billing Records type Vehicle Fleet Gasoline consumption and corresponding Gallons Billing Records vehicle type Employee Commute Sample of employee Annual VMT Commuter Survey (June commuting patterns 2009) Streetlights Electricity consumption kWh PG&E Electricity consumption kWh PG&E Methane and nitrous oxide released in the Public Works Water/Sewage wastewater treatment Tonnes Department Data Records process Waste Annual waste tonnage Short Tons Atascadero Waste sent to landfill Alternatives 2.5 DATA LIMITATIONS It is important to note that calculating community -wide GHG emissions with precision is a complicated task. The ICLEI Clean Air and Climate Protection (CACP2009) software relies on numerous assumptions and is limited by the quantity and quality of available data. Because of these limitations it is useful to think of any specific number generated by the model as an approximation of reality, rather than an exact value. The city's actual 2005 GHG emissions are likely to be slightly greater than what are reported in this document due to three main factors: (1) data limitations, (2) privacy laws, and (3) a lack of a reasonable methodology to collect or model emissions data. The following paragraphs highlight emissions that cannot be included in a GHG Inventory under current science and policy direction, or due to lack of reliable data. City of Atascadero Data Limitations Lack of available data prevented the calculation of emissions from community -wide freight and passenger trains, off-road vehicles and equipment, propane use, and City government operations refrigerants. For rail and port, as well as equipment emissions, the California Air Resources Board OFFROAD 2007 software provides emissions data; however, these numbers are aggregated for the entire San Luis Obispo County area, including incorporated, unincorporated, and state or federally owned land. Lack of data availability also prevents the calculation of emissions from propane (liquefied petroleum gas, or LPG) created within the city's boundaries. Propane is basically an unregulated fuel in California (except for storage and safety issues which are regulated). Because it is an unregulated commodity, no data is collected by the state on propane sales or usage. Another sector that was excluded from the inventory is City government operations refrigerants. The City of Atascadero made a best effort to gather data on the amount of refrigerants consumed by fleet vehicles, HVAC systems, and City government operations facilities; however City records were not suited to this purpose. It is recommended that the City look into amending its record keeping so that the amount of refrigerants purchased and consumed within a year is recorded. Privacy Laws This Inventory does not separately analyze site -level emissions from specific sources such as refineries or large industrial emitters. The emissions from industrial energy consumption and related transportation are included under the commercial/industrial category, but will not be analyzed independently as part of this Inventory for two reasons: 1) State privacy laws prevent us from obtaining site -level energy consumption data from utility providers. Notably the California Public Utilities Commission 15/15 rule" prevents us from analyzing industrial emissions separately from commercial emissions. 2) It is the responsibility of the emitter, whether it is a large refinery or household, to perform its own energy audit and subsequent reduction process. Efforts to require site - level energy audits and GHG emissions reporting are being continually expanded and 11 Commercial and Industrial Electricity and Natural Gas were combined into one section due to the California 15/15 rule. The 15/15 rule was adopted by the California Public Utilities Commission in the Direct Access Proceeding (CPUC Decision 97-10-031) to protect customer confidentiality. • - City of Atascadero required by the California Climate Action Registry, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and California Air Resources Board. Lack of a Reasonable Methodology There is a lack of reasonable methodology for estimating life cycle emissions for the community and, therefore, emissions associated with the production and disposal of items consumed by a community are not included in the Inventory. For instance, a life cycle assessment would estimate the emissions associated with the planning, production, delivery, and disposal of each car currently in the city. In contrast, this analysis only captures how much that car drives within the city. Despite these limitations, the CACP2009 software 12 and ICLEI methodology provide the best - available snapshot of the city's GHG emissions. Additionally, the CACP2009 tool is utilized to promote consistency among municipalities throughout the country and the world. Sector -specific data limitations or methodological issues are explained thoroughly in Appendices C and D. However, it is important to note that the emissions identified in this report are primarily GHGs that the community has directly caused and has the ability to reduce through implementation of conservation actions, a Climate Action Plan, or corresponding efforts. 2.6 CLEAN AIR AND CLIMATE PROTECTION SOFTWARE 2009 The City government operations and community -wide inventories use the CACP2009 software package developed by ICLEI in partnership with the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) and Torrie Smith Associates. This software calculates emissions resulting from energy consumption, vehicle miles traveled, and waste generation. The CACP2009 software calculates emissions using specific factors (or coefficients) according to the type of fuel used. CACP2009 aggregates and reports the three main GHG emissions (CO2, CH4, and N20) and converts them to equivalent carbon dioxide units, or CO2e. Equalizing the three main GHG emissions as CO2e allows for the consideration of different GHGs in comparable terms. For example, methane (CH4) is 21 times more powerful than carbon dioxide on a per weight basis in 12 The CACP2009 software 2009 was developed by the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (SAPPA/ALAPCO), the International Council for Local Environmental Issues (ICLEI), and Torrie Smith Associates. City of Atascadero its capacity to trap heat, so the CACP2009 software converts one metric ton of methane emissions to 21 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents. 13 The emissions coefficients and quantification method employed by the CACP2009 software are consistent with national and international inventory standards established by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1996 Revised IPCC Guidelines for the Preparation of National Inventories) and the U.S. Voluntary GHG Reporting Guidelines (EIA form 1605). 13 The potency of a given gas in heating the atmosphere is defined as its Global Warming Potential, or GWP. For more information on GWP see: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group I, Chapter 2, Section 2.10. .. - City of Atascadero 3. Community GHG Inventory Results The City of Atascadero contains primarily residential and commercial land uses. In the 2005 baseline year, there were approximately 25,940 people, 8,550 jobs, and 10,505 households in the city.14 The following section provides an overview of the emissions caused by activities within the jurisdictional boundary of the city and analyzes the emissions in terms of scope, sector, source, and population. 3.1 COMMUNITY -WIDE EMISSIONS BY SCOPE Although there are countless items that can be included in a community -wide emissions inventory, as discussed in Chapter 2, this Inventory includes Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 sources from the following sectors, consistent with the ICLEI protocol: • Residential • Commercial / Industrial • Transportation • Waste • Wastewater • Off -Road Vehicles and Equipment Emissions. Table 3-1 summarizes the scopes of each sector in this analysis. What are Scopes? The key principles to remember are that Scope 1 emissions are caused by activities within the city and emitted within the city (fuel combustion), while Scope 2 emissions are caused by activities within the city, but most likely are emitted outside of the city (electricity). Scope 3 emissions are indirect emissions, such as waste decomposition. 14 Baseline population, household, and job data for the year 2005 was obtained from SLOCOG's Long Range Socio -Economic Projections (Year 2030), prepared by Economics Research Associates (July 2006 Revision). City of Atascadero Sector Sco Sc e Residential Natural Gas Electricity --- Commercial/Industrial Natural Gas Electricity --- Transportation Gasoline & Diesel --- --- Off-Road Vehicles and Gasoline, Diesel & from the transportation sector (refer to Table 3-2 Equipment Compressed Natural Scope 1 because they involve the direct Gas boundary of the city. The second largest source of Waste I --- --- Methane from Decomposition Wastewater Methane from Water Treatment Processes Including all sectors and scopes, the community FIGUI emitted approximately 146,069 metric tons of CO2e in 2005. As shown in Figure 3-1 and Table 3-2, the majority of community GHG emissions were Scope 1 (70.9%), with Scope 2 (20.0%) and Scope 3 (9.1 %) constituting the remainder. Scope 3 9.1%_ The largest portion of Scope 1 emissions came from the transportation sector (refer to Table 3-2 and Figure 3-1). These emissions qualify as Scope 1 because they involve the direct combustion of fuel within the jurisdictional boundary of the city. The second largest source of scope 2 20.0% Scope 1 emissions was residential natural gas use. Residential uses also generated the largest percentage of Scope 2 emissions. Emissions from waste operations account for the whole of Scope 3 emissions. .. - City of Atascadero pe 1 9% Sector Scope 7 Scope 2 Total I Residential 24,778 15,912 40,690 Commercial/Indu 7,030 13,241 20,271 Transportation 60,445 60,445 Off -Road 8,686 8,686 Waste I 13,320 13,320 Wastewater I 2,657 I I I 2,657 TOTAL I 103,596 I 29,153 I 13,320 I 146,069 Percentage of Total CO2e 70.9% 20.0% I 9.1% I 100.0% 3.2 ALL SCOPE EMISSIONS BY SECTOR As noted above, the community emitted approximately 146,069 metric tons of CO2e in calendar year 2005. In addition to analyzing the data by scope, it can also be aggregated by sector. As depicted in Figure 3-2 and Table 3-3 below, the transportation sector was the largest emitter (41.4%) in 2005. Emissions from the residential sector were the next largest contributor (27.9°/x), while the commercial and industrial sectors accounted for a combined 13.9% of the total. Emissions from solid waste comprised 9.1 % of the total, and emissions from other sources such as agricultural equipment comprised 5.9% of the total. City of Atascadero Transportation 41.4% Off -Road 5.9%_ lA/acto 4 10 _ Residential 27.9% -Commercial/ Industrial 13.9% .. - City of Atascadero 200 Community Commercial/ Off- Waste Residential Tr ortation Waste TOTAL Emissions Industrial Road water by Sector CO2e (metric tons) 40,690 20,271 60,445 8,686 13,320 2,657 146,069 Percentage of 27.9% 13.9% 41.4% 5.9% 9.1% 1.8% 100.0% Total CO2e .. - City of Atascadero 3.3 TRANSPORTATION Transportation accounted for 41.4% of the City's emissions in 2005. Emissions from traffic resulted in 60,445 metric tons Of COze. Of the total emissions in the transportation sector, an estimated 93.2% was due to gasoline consumption, with the remaining 6.8% coming from diesel use (see Figure 3-3 and Table 3-4). Diesel 6. Q0/ oline 93.2% Transportation Fuel WqW Gasoline Diesel Emissions Sources 2005Wr CO2e (metric tons) 56,335 4,110 60,445 Percentage of Total CO2e 93.2% 6.8% I 100% Using origin -destination analysis and the SLOCOG Regional Travel Demand Model, three types of vehicle trips were tracked in the city: 1. Internal -Internal: Vehicle trips that remained inside the city 2. Internal -External and External -Internal: Vehicle trips that have an ending or a beginning in the city 3. External -External: Vehicle trips that pass through the city without originating or ending in the city Fehr & Peers calculated VMT for each of the three types of vehicle trips using the recommendation of the Regional Target Advisory Committee (RTAC), the body responsible for Senate Bill 375 target setting. VMT from trips of type 1, 2, and 3 (see above) were counted City of Atascadero ' .0- 100°/x, 50%, and 0% respectively toward jurisdiction -generated VMT.15 The VMT results are summarized in Appendix A and C. Annual VMT was then analyzed to determine GHG emissions from vehicle travel using the EMFAC2011 software developed by the California Air Resources Board. EMFAC2011 uses emissions rates for different types of vehicles in conjunction with travel activity statistics to calculate vehicle based emissions in metric tons per day. For a detailed description of the methodology used to estimate transportation -related emissions, please see Appendix C. Emissions that resulted from the air and rail travel of city residents were not included in the transportation sector analysis. As science and data collection methodology develop it is likely that the GHG emissions from air, rail and boat travel could be estimated as a Scope 3 items. Please see Appendix C for more detail on methods and emissions factors used in calculating emissions from the transportation sector. 3.4 OFF-ROAD VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT Gasoline, diesel, and compressed natural gas fuel are used to power off-road equipment in the City of Atascadero. Off-road equipment incorporated in this inventory includes agriculture, lawn and garden, construction and mining, light commercial equipment, and industrial equipment. Off-road vehicles and equipment accounted for 5.9% of the City's emissions in 2005. The California Air Resources Board's OFFROAD 2007 software provides emissions data for off-road equipment by county. The countywide data was attributed to city based on the indicators presented in Table 3-5. qu pment Type Allo -cation IndiclaToMr Agricultural Equipment Acres of cropland Construction and Mining Equipme Construction and mining jobs Industrial Equipment Industrial jobs Lawn and Garden Equipment Households Light Commercial Equipment Service and commercial jobs 15 Since external -external VMT is the result of vehicle trips that pass through the city without originating or ending in the city, they are excluded from the inventory as the City is unable to directly impact these VMT. .. - City of Atascadero Approximately 80.0% of off-road equipment emissions in 2005 came from construction and mining equipment, while 8.7% were the result of light and commercial equipment. The remaining off-road equipment activities included in this Inventory include lawn and garden equipment, agricultural equipment, and industrial equipment, making up the remaining 11.3% of emissions collectively (see Table 3-6 and Figure 3-4). Total emissions from off-road equipment for 2005 are estimated to be approximately 8,686 MT CO2e. Of the total emissions in the off- road sector, an estimated 84.1% was due to diesel consumption, with the remaining 15.9% coming from gasoline and compressed natural gas use (see Table 3-7 and Figure 3-5). Light and Agricultural Commercial Equipment Equipment 1.7% Lawn and 83% Garden _ Equipment 8.3% Agricultural Industrial Industrial Equipment 1.3% Construction Equipment Garden Commercial 80.0% (;acnlina Compressed Natural Gas 3.3% Equipment Type Lawn and Light and Agricultural Construction Industrial Emissions Garden Commercial TOTAL Equipment Equipment Equipment Sources Equipment Equipment 2005 CO2e (metric 148 6,950 108 722 758 8,686 tons) Percentage 1.7% 80.0% 1.3% 8.3% 8.7% 100% of Total CO2e City of Atascadero Off -Road Fuel ow Compressed Emissions Sources Gasoline Diesel TOTAL Natural Gas 2005 CO2e (metric tons) 1,095 7,303 288 8,686 Percentage of Total CO2e 12.6% 84.1% 3.3% 100% 3.5 THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT (RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL) With all scopes aggregated, 41.8% of total community -wide emissions in the year 2005 came from the "built environment." The built environment is comprised of the residential, commercial, and industrial natural gas and electricity consumption. This analysis does not include emissions from other types of energy such as propane, solar, and wind due to lack of reliable sales, construction, or consumption data. The commercial and industrial sectors are combined in this Inventory due to the mandatory aggregating of commercial and industrial data by PG&E previously referenced. In 2005, emissions from the built environment were split roughly 66.7-33.3% between the residential sector and the commercial/industrial sector (see Figure 3-6). All of the emissions calculated from the built environment were the result of local natural gas consumption (Scope 1) and local consumption of electricity generated outside of the city (Scope 2). Overall, natural gas consumption (52.2%) was slightly higher than electricity consumption (47.8%) as the cause of emissions from the built environment in 2005 as shown in Figure 3-7. Commercial Industrial 33.3% Residential 6.7% .. - City of Atascadero Electrici 47.8% N;1tural Gas 2.2% Approximately 60.9% of emissions in the residential sector resulted from combustion of natural gas for heating and cooking (see Figure 3-8 and Table 3-8), while 34.7% of emissions in the commercial/industrial sector came from natural gas usage (see Figure 3-9 and Table 3-9). Of the 20,271 MT CO2e emissions from the commercial/industrial sector, 1 MT CO2e are attributed to water delivery and 2,923 MT CO2e are attributed to wastewater treatment processes. Electricity 39.1% datural Gas 60.9% Electricity 65.3% latural Gas 34.7% Residential Emission Sources 2005 lectricity Natural Gas TOTAL CO2e (metric tons) 15,912 24,778 40,690 Percentage of Total CO2e 39.1% 60.9% 100% Energy Use (MMBtu) 242,839 465,783 708,622 City of Atascadero ' .. - Commercial / Industrial Emission Sources 2005 11V r Electricity Natural Gas TOTAL CO2e (metric tons) 13,241 I 7,030 20,271 Percentage of Total CO2e 65.3% 34.7% 100% Energy Use (MMBtu) 202,065 132,159 334,224 3.6 SOLID WASTE Solid waste disposed of at managed landfills was responsible for 9.1 % of total emissions for the community. The CACP2009 software calculates methane generation from waste sent to landfill in 2005, and accounts for the reported methane recovery factors among the two utilized landfills (Cold Canyon and Chicago Grade), which have a 60% weighted average. The Chicago Grade Landfill accepted approximately 99% of the community's solid waste, while less than 1 % went to Cold Canyon. The methane recovery factors of the landfills are well documented by the San Luis Obispo County APCD based on the system operations at that time. For more information, please see detailed methodology in Appendix C. Waste emissions are considered Scope 3 emissions because they are not generated in the base year, but will result from the decomposition of waste generated in 2005 over the full 100 - year+ cycle of its decomposition. In 2005, the community sent approximately 31,122.52 tons of waste to landfill. The 2004 California Statewide Waste Characterization Study provides standard waste composition for the State of California. Identifying the different types of waste in the general mix is necessary because during decomposition various materials generate methane within the anaerobic environment of landfills at differing rates. Carbonaceous materials such as paper and wood would actually sequester the methane released in managed landfills, thereby offsetting some or all of the emissions from food and plant waste. However, GHG sequestration at the landfills has been set to zero, based on guidance in the LGOP version 1.1, which recommends eliminating the effect of landfill sequestration for both government operations inventories and community inventories, to be consistent with the principle that local government operations and community inventories should not account for emissions sinks. Figure 3-10 and Table 3-10 show the estimated percentage of emissions coming from the various types of organic, methanogenic waste. .. - City of Atascadero 5,000 Q 0 4,000 U o 3,000 H U 2,000 1,000 C Paper Products 5,071 I Waste ,989 Wood/Textil 1,490 Plant Debris 533 Emissions Source Waste Emissions Sources 2005 Food Waste Plant Debris Woo Textiles All Other Waste TOTAL Paper Products CO2e (metric tons) 5,071 1,989 533 1,490 4,237 13,320 Percentage of Total CO2e 38.1% 14.9% 4.0% 11.2% 31.8% 100% Energy Use (MMBtu) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.7 WASTEWATER The wastewater treatment plant consists of four aerated lagoons and provides a cost effective way to treat water. However, aside from the aeration of these lagoons, the City does not use additional processes to treat the influent. As organic matter is broken down through the process of lagoons, methane is released into the atmosphere. Methane emissions released during wastewater treatment processes were responsible for 1.8% of total emissions for the community. Natural gas and electricity emissions associated with wastewater treatment facilities operations are accounted for within the commercial/industrial sector. City of Atascadero ' .0 - Paper . - 3.7 COMMUNITY EMISSIONS BY SOURCE In addition to viewing emissions by sector and by scope, policy and programs development can benefit from an analysis of emissions according to their raw fuel or waste source. Figure 3-11 and Table 3-11 below demonstrates that 39.3% of all community emissions come from the consumption of gasoline on local roads and highways. Natural gas (22.0%) and electricity (20.0°/x) consumption are the next most significant figures, with the remainder coming from diesel, methane from wastewater treatment processes, and various waste products. 60,000 50,000 N 40,000 O v 30,000 V Q1 2 20,000 10,000 0 57,430 32.096 29.153 11.413 13,320 2.657 Electricity Natural Gas Gasoline Diesel Emissions from Landfilled Solid Wastewater Waste Emissions Source Processes .. - City of Atascadero Community GHG COZe (metric tons) Emissions 2005 by Source COZe (percent of total) Electricity 29,153 20.0% Natural Gas 32,096 22.0% Gasoline 57,430 39.3% Diesel 11,413 7.8% Methane from Wastewater Treatment Processes 2,657 1.8% Landfilled Solid Waste 13,320 9.1% TOTAL 146,069 100.0% 3.8 PER CAPITA EMISSIONS Per capita emissions can be a useful metric for measuring progress in reducing GHGs and for comparing one community's emissions with neighboring cities and against regional and national averages. Currently it is difficult to make meaningful comparisons between local inventories because of variations in the scope of inventories conducted. For instance, this Inventory takes in to account emissions from agricultural off-road vehicles, which many inventories like the Sonoma County GHG Inventory do not. Only when ICLEI, the California Air Resources Board, and other organizations adopt universal reporting standards will local inventories be prepared in a consistent manner and therefore be comparable. Simply dividing total community GHG emissions (146,069 metric tons of CO2e) by city population in 2005 (27,596) yields a result of 5.30 metric tons CO2e per capita.16 It is important to understand that this number is not the same as the carbon footprint of the average individual living in the City of Atascadero, which reflects a wider scope of emissions. It is also important to note that the per capita emissions number for the city is not directly comparable to every per capita number produced by other emissions studies because of differences in emission inventory methods. 16 Baseline population data for the year 2005 was obtained from SLOCOG's Long Range Socio - Economic Projections (Year 2030), prepared by Economics Research Associates (July 2006 Revision). City of Atascadero 4. City Government Operations GHG Emissions Inventory Results In 2005, the City of Atascadero government employed 128 people and was comprised of seven departments: City Manager, Administrative Services, Police and Fire Services, Community Development, Community Services, and Public Works. This chapter reviews the results of the City government operations inventory by sector, including employee commuting emissions. 4.1 CITY GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS INVENTORY RESULTS City government operations and facilities produced approximately 4,130 metric tons of GHG emissions in 2005. As displayed in Figure 4-1, government operations emissions would equate to approximately 2.7% of total community -wide emissions. City government emissions result from waste, energy consumption from wastewater facilities, buildings, streetlights and other facilities, fuel consumption by the vehicle and transit fleet and employee commutes, wastewater treatment processes, and miscellaneous equipment. The wastewater facilities and processes were the largest contributor to the City's emissions (70.8%) with 2,923 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. The vehicle fleet (9.7%) was the second largest contributor to the City's emissions with 4,023 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. (Refer to Figure 4-2 and Table 4-1 below) CoIII unrLy- Wide 97.3% Municipal 2.7% I- . City of Atascadero VehicIPFIPPt9.7"/ Transit Fleet 5.2% Buildir Facilitie Solid Waste 1.2% Wastewater Facilities 70.8% Employee mmute 4.5% Streetlights & traffic Signals 1.0% As mentioned in the Introduction, these emissions are a subset of the community emissions inventory discussed in Chapter 3. The City's government operations emissions are separately analyzed in this section in a manner that is similar to how an industry or business would produce a facility -scale GHG audit. The LGOP, version 1.1 developed by the California Air Resources Board, The Climate Registry, the California Climate Action Registry, and ICLEI guides the methodology for estimating emissions from local government operations. 2005 Emissions by Sector Buildings Facilities Vehicle Fleet Transit Fleet Employee Commute Street Lights & Traffic Signals Water Delivery Wastewater Facilities Solid Waste TOTAL CO2e (metric tons) 316 402 214 185 40 1 2,923 49 4,130 Percentage of I 100.0 CO2e 7.6% 9.7% 5.2% 4.5% 1.0% <0.0% MAO! 1 9 % % 4.2 BUILDING SECTOR The building sector includes GHG emissions from energy consumption in facilities owned and operated by a municipality but does not included facilities located at the wastewater treatment Natural plant. Electricity consumption in facilities located 21.5 at the wastewater treatment plant is included in the Wastewater Facilities Sector. The facilities included in this analysis include City Hall, fire and police Stations, recreation facilities, Charles Paddock Zoo, parks, and numerous other facilities. As depicted in Figure 4-3 and Table 4- 2, the majority of emissions resulted from electricity consumption (78.5%). City of Atascadero ' .0- tricity 5% It should be noted that the historic Administration Building has been unoccupied since 2004. In 2004, an earthquake damaged the historic building and forced the City to move its government offices to another building in downtown. Subsequently, this Inventory does not include energy consumption in the historic Administration Building. Estimated emissions for City Hall are from a more energy efficient building where government offices were located in 2005. The City has been working with the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) to obtain the necessary funding to restore the building to pre -earthquake condition. Once the building has been repaired to pre -earthquake condition, the City plans to upgrade the building. These upgrades will likely increase the efficiency of the Administration Building; however, baseline emissions were not calculated for this building as part of this inventory and; therefore, the amount of increase in efficiency is unknown. The City plans to move its government offices back to the Administration building within the next couple of years. The relocation is likely to affect the business -as -usual forecast. 2005 City Government Electricity Natural Gas Tota Operations Emissions by Sec CO2e (metric tons) 248 I 68 316 Percentage of Total CO2e 78.5% 21.5% 100% Energy Use (MMBtu) 3,780 1,283 5,063 These emissions and associated consumption data will be useful in designating priority facilities for energy efficiency retrofits and conservation outreach. 4.3 VEHICLE AND TRANSIT FLEET City -owned and -operated vehicles emitted approximately 616 metric tons of CO2e, or 15.0% of total City government emissions. This sector includes gasoline and diesel consumption from all departments in the City operating vehicles, including the Fire and Police Departments, Community Services, Public Works, and Community Development. This sector also includes the transit fleet operated by the City. This estimate is based on 2005 fuel billing record data provided by the Finance Department for most departments. The Police Department provided their own fuel consumption data as their records are were more complete than the fuel billing records. .. - City of Atascadero The majority of fuel used by the City — FIGURE 4-4: VEHICLE FLEET FUEL vehicle and transit fleets combined — is CONSUMPTION PER YEAR BY TYPE gasoline (63%), with the remainder diesel (37%) (see Figure 4-4). When compared Diesel to the total emissions per fuel type, diesel X37% emissions actually produce less CO2e for the vehicle types used by the City. However, there are other, non-0O2e emissions from diesel -like particulate matter that make such a comparison misleading to the reader. The trend for diesel to emit less CO2e in this case does Gases not necessarily mean that the City should 63% aim to convert more vehicles to conventional diesel. There are multiple clean and alternative fuel options available, including biodiesel conversion, electric vehicles, hybrid vehicles, smaller vehicles, and shared vehicles. 4.4 EMPLOYEE COMMUTE This sector estimates GHG emissions from City employees traveling to and from work in 2005. The estimate is based on a June 2009 online survey conducted by the City, a blank version of which is included as Appendix F. Approximately 69 employees responded to the survey with usable information, meaning that all essential questions were answered. This results in approximately a 58% response rate, the results of which were applied to the City employment total for 2005. The online survey found that most City employees travel to and from work by car. Employees were asked how many days of the week they travel by each commute mode, including driving alone (which includes motorcycles), carpooling, vanpooling, public transit, bicycling, walking, telecommuting, and other. The results show that employees get to and from 77.4% of their workdays by personal vehicle. The second most popular mode of transportation was bicycling (10.7%), followed by walking and other means such as skateboarding with a combined 7.2% of the total. City of Atascadero Mode of Travel Days traveled by Commute mode /o of Total 12,792 77.4% 11�468 2.8% Vanpool 52 0.3% Public transit 260 1.6% Bicycle 1,768 10.7% Walk 520 3.1% Other 676 4.1% Total 16,536 100% These figures for commute mode were combined with each respondent's travel distance to work, car model (if any), and fuel type (if any). The results show VMT annually per vehicle type and fuel type (see Table 4-4). These VMT numbers were then adjusted for the total employee population in 2005 and entered into the CACP2009 software to obtain CO2e. Driving patterns were assumed to be constant for the purposes of this study; therefore, the 2009 sample was applied directly to the 2005 employee population. Only one modification to the sample data was made in order to account for the large increase in hybrid car sales between 2005 and 2009. The proportion of hybrid to traditional vehicles was roughly two-thirds less in 2005 than in 2009, according to State sales data." The 2009 survey results, adjusted for 2005 employee totals, resulted in an estimate of 185 metric tons CO2e in 2005 from commuter travel to and from work. This figure comprises 4.5% of total GHG emissions released from City government operations. The calculation does not include employee business travel or travel during lunchtime hours. " www.hybridcars.com .. - City of Atascadero Vehicle Group 2009 Survey results Adjusted for 2005 Annual VMT Fuel Type Annual VMT Fuel Type Light Truck/SUV/Pickup 56,197.86 Gasoline 120,997.07 Gasoline 313.08 Diesel 544.76 Diesel Large Truck 22,620.03 Gasoline 39,358.85 Gasoline 16,843.70 Diesel 29,308.04 Diesel Passenger Vehicle 138,885.77 Gasoline 183,403.96 Gasoline Motorcycle 208.72 Gasoline 363.17 Gasoline Total 235,069.16 373,975.86 Employee business travel is usually included in a City government GHG Inventory per protocol; however, we could not include it in this baseline analysis due to data limitations. The City maintains financial records of when employees travel by air or vehicle to conferences and other events; however, it does not keep records of business travel destinations. As such, this Inventory could not accurately account for GHG emissions from employee business travel. A minor adjustment to City recordkeeping would allow the data to be included in the next City government operations GHG inventory. 4.5 STREETLIGHTS AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS The electricity consumed by City streetlights and traffic signals in calendar year 2005 resulted in approximately 40 metric tons of CO2e, or approximately 1.0% of total City government emissions. This Inventory accounts for approximately 289 streetlights and 9 traffic signals. 4.6 WATER AND WASTEWATER The City of Atascadero does not provide potable water to its residents. The Atascadero Mutual Water Company provides residents with drinking water and; therefore, the City does not have regulatory control over the distribution of potable water within the City. Emissions associated with the pumping and distribution of potable water are included in the commercial/industrial portion of the energy sector of the community -wide section of the Inventory. The City is responsible for the collection, treatment, and disposal of wastewater. Approximately half (50%) of the community is served by sewer and the other 50 percent on septic. Due to a lack of methodology for calculating emissions resulting from septic systems, these emissions are not included in the Inventory. In 2005, electricity consumption from wastewater facilities in City of Atascadero ' .. - the City emitted approximately 266 metric tons of CO2e, or 9.0% of total emissions related to wastewater (see Figure 4-5). This category includes energy use at the Wastewater Treatment Plant and the numerous lift stations and pumps necessary to convey effluent to the treatment plant. Point -source emissions that arise from the wastewater treatment system due to fermentation of discarded biomass in the lagoons resulted in an additional 2,657 metric tons of CO2e, increasing the percentage of total emissions attributed to wastewater facilities to 70.8% of government operations emissions. Electricity 9.0% Methane 91.0% The wastewater treatment plant consists of four aerated lagoons and provides a cost effective way to treat wastewater. However, aside from the aeration of these lagoons, the City does not use additional processes to treat the influent. As organic matter is broken down through the process of lagoons, methane is released into the atmosphere. While this Inventory identifies methane from the wastewater treatment plant as the major contributor to the government operations emissions, emissions from other sectors and sources within government operations should not be overlooked entirely. This Inventory is meant to identify the sources of emissions from the City's operations. It does not recommend or mandate improvements or upgrades to the wastewater treatment plant. Upgrading the wastewater treatment plant to reduce GHG emissions would likely require a complete redesign of the wastewater treatment plant and be very costly. Emissions associated with government operations are broken down further in Section 4.9. .. - City of Atascadero 4.7 SOLID WASTE Similar to the Community -Wide analysis, waste produced by City facilities was calculated using the methane commitment method. The CACP2009 calculates the methane expected to be released from this landfilled waste over the course of its lifetime. Unlike other sectors analyzed, the emissions from waste disposed of in 2005 will occur over multiple years as the waste breaks down over time. Atascadero Waste Alternatives estimates that in 2005, City facilities sent a total of 168.65 tons of waste to landfill, producing 49 metric tons of CO2e, or 1.2% of total emissions. This category includes only those emissions generated by waste produced at City facilities and does not include the total emissions released from the landfill. 4.8 CITY EMISSIONS BY SOURCE It can also be helpful to view overall City government emissions by source. As shown in Table 4.5 and Figure 4.6, the majority of emissions are from methane produced at the wastewater treatment plant during the treatment of wastewater (66.5%). Gasoline (12.9%) consumption by the vehicle and transit fleets is the second largest source of emissions. Electricity consumption in City -owned buildings, streetlights, and water and wastewater facilities account for 12.6% of government operations emissions and natural gas, miscellaneous equipment, diesel and solid waste contributed in decreasing amounts to the remaining 8.0% of the overall City GHG emissions. Since the majority of GHG emissions are associated with the wastewater treatment plant and water treatment processes and strategies to reduce emissions at the treatment plant would require an expensive redesign of the plant, Table 4.5 also breaks down emissions by source with emissions from the wastewater treatment plant and water treatment processes excluded. Viewing emissions without the wastewater treatment plant (see Figure 4.7) will aid the City in identifying other sources of emissions within their operations that are equally as important in reducing the City's overall GHG emissions. City of Atascadero .. - City of Atascadero Emissions from the City Emissions All Sectors Wastewater Treatment Plant 2005 1 Processes Removed COZe (metric COZe (percent COZe (metric CO2e (percent by Source tons) of total) tons) of total) Electricity 555 13.4% 555 37.7% Natural Gas 68 1.6% I 68 I 4.6% Gasoline 567 13.7% 567 38.5% Diesel 234 5.7% 234 15.9% Solid Waste 49 1.2% 49 3.3% Decomposition (Methane) Wastewater 2,657 64.3% n/a n/a Treatment Processes (Methane) TOTAL 4,130 100% 1,473 100% .. - City of Atascadero 3,000 2,500 2,000 a> N 1,500 C: 1,000 2 555 567 500 � F168 234 49 I� ® 0 o Electricity Natural Gas Gasoline Diesel Solid Waste Decomposition Emissions Source Methane from Wastewater Treatment Processes Solid Waste 4.1% Water Delivery 0.1% Streetlights & Tr. Signals 3.3% Buildings & Facilities 26.2% Employee Commute 15.3% Transit Fleet 17.7% Vehicle Fleet 33.3% City of Atascadero 5. Forecast The emissions forecast for the City of Atascadero represents a business -as -usual prediction of how community -wide GHG levels will change over time if consumption trends and behavior continue as they did in 2005. These predictions are based on the community inventory results included in this report and statistics on job and population growth from the SLOCOG 2040 Population, Housing & Employment Forecast (August 2011). The analysis shows that if behavior and consumption trends continue as business -as -usual, emissions will reach 175,210 metric tons of CO2e by 2020, or a 20.0% increase over 2005 baseline levels (see Figure 5-1). By 2025 emissions will reach 187,184 metric tons of CO2e, or a 28.1% increase over 2005 baseline levels. 200,000 175,000 150,000 125,000 v N 100,000 V M d 75,000 50,000 25,000 0 2005 2020 2025 Year ■ Wastewater ■ Waste ■ Off -Road ■ Transportation ■ Commercial/ Industrial ■ Residential The forecast does not quantify emissions reductions from State or federal activities including AB 32, the renewable portfolio standard, and SB 375. Additionally, it does not take into account reduction activities already underway or completed since 2005, the results of which likely put the community's emissions on a track well below the business -as -usual linear projection. .. - City of Atascadero Forecasts were performed by applying job and population growth rates to 2005 community -wide GHG emissions levels. Baseline data and estimated growth were obtained from the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments report, "San Luis Obispo County 2040 Population, Housing & Employment Forecast" prepared by AECOM in August 2011. The "mid-range" cases for population and job growth were used in this forecast estimation. Baseline data from this report is consistent with the San Luis Obispo County APCD's GHG thresholds. City government operations emissions are not separately analyzed as part of this forecast due to a lack of reasonable growth indicators for the City government sector. However, a significant increase in emissions is not expected for existing facilities and operations in the City government operations sector. City of Atascadero ' .0- 6. Conclusion and Next Steps The City of Atascadero has made a formal commitment to reduce its GHG emissions. This report lays the groundwork for those efforts by estimating baseline emission levels against which future progress can be demonstrated. This analysis found that the community was responsible for emitting 146,069 metric tons of CO2e in the base year 2005, with the transportation sector contributing the most (41%) to this total. As a component of the community -wide analysis, City government operations produced 4,130 metric tons of CO2e, or 2.7% of the total. In addition to establishing the baseline for tracking progress over time, this report serves to identify the major sources of city emissions, and therefore the greatest opportunities for emission reductions. In this regard, the emissions inventory will inform the focus of the City's Climate Action Plan. If no action is taken, this report found that business -as -usual (worst case scenario) emissions will likely rise by 20.0% by 2020 and 28.1 % by 2025. It is important to note that in order to remain consistent with GHG reduction methodology, all future quantifications of reduction activities must be subtracted from this `business -as -usual' line. Not doing so would be assuming that emissions remain at constant 2005 levels while reduction activities are underway. In reality, the City's climate action efforts will be working against a rising emissions level due to job, population, and household growth. Figure 6-1 below shows the business -as -usual emissions forecast in relation to 2005 baseline levels and the 15% reduction below 2005 levels recommended by the State Attorney General and Air Resources Board. 18 The difference between the business -as -usual forecast and the reduction targets is actually 29.1 % in 2020. As the City moves forward to the next milestones in the process, including designation of emission reduction targets and development of a Climate Action Plan, the City should identify and quantify the emission reduction benefits of projects that have already been implemented since 2005, as well as the emissions reduction benefits of existing General Plan policies. The benefits of existing strategies can be tallied against the baseline established in this report to determine the appropriate set of strategies that will deliver the City to its chosen emissions reduction goal. 18 The AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan Document prepared by the Air Resources Board calls for reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by cutting approximately 30 percent from business -as -usual emission levels projected for 2020, or about 15 percent from today's levels. .. - City of Atascadero 200,000 175,000 v 125,000 100,000 2005 2020 Year 2025 Business -as - usual forecast 175,210 metric tons CO2e by 2020; 187,184 metric tons CO2e by 2025 2005 baseline levels = 146,069 metric tons CO2e 15% below 2005 baseline levels = 124,159 metric tons CO2e by 2020 City of Atascadero Actual Reduction = 51,051 metric tons (29.1 %) by 2020 APPENDIX A: CACP DETAILED REPORT FOR COMMUNITY- WIDE EMISSIONS, 2005 7/30/2012 Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2005 Detailed Report CO2 N2O CH Equiv CO2 Energy (tonnes) (kg) (kg) (tonnes) (%) (MMBtu) Residential San Luis Obsipo APCD, CA 1 SoCal Gas Company Residential Natural Gas Natural Gas 24,714 47 2,329 24,778 17.3 465,783 Subtotal 1 SoCal Gas Compan 24,714 47 2,329 24,778 17.3 465,783 Natural gas data provided by Paulo Morais, Customer Programs Environmental Affairs, Southern California Gas Co. (213) 244-3246, pmorais(cDsemprautilities.com <mailto:pmorais(a)semprautilities.com>, May 2012. CEC Emission Factor for Natural Gas - RCI Average Set from Local Government Operations Protocol version 1.1 (LGOP v1.1). Fuel CO2 set provided by Southern California Gas Co for San Luis Obispo area. 2 PG&E Residential Electricity Electricity 15,782 355 968 15,912 11.1 242,839 Page 1 Subtotal 2 PG&E Residential E 15,782 355 968 15,912 11.1 242,839 Electricity data provided by Jillian Rich, iillian.rich(a)pge.com <mailto:iillian.rich(cDpge.com> and John Joseph, ghgdatareguests a(,pge.com <mailto:ghgdatareguests(a-)pge.com>, PG&E. The "PG&E California" electricity coefficient set is based on the 2005 PG&E eCO2 emission factor of 0.489 lbs/kWh of delivered electricity as update on June 27, 2011 and provided by PG&E. PG&E's third -party -verified GHG inventory submitted to the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR)6 (2003-2008) or The Climate Registry (TCR) (2009). Criteria air pollutant emission factors for electricity were obtained from the LGOP v1.1 for California. Subtotal Residential 40,496 402 3,297 40,690 28.4 708,622 Commercial San Luis Obsipo APCD, CA 1 SoCal Gas Company Commercial Natural Gas Natural Gas 7,012 13 661 7,030 4.9 132,159 Subtotal 1 SoCal Gas Compan 7,012 13 661 7,030 4.9 132,159 Natural gas data provided by Paulo Morais, Customer Programs Environmental Affairs, Southern California Gas Co. (213) 244-3246, pmorais(a)semprautilities.com <mailto:pmoraisCcDsemprautilities.com>, May 2012. CEC Emission Factor for Natural Gas - RCI Average Set from Local Government Operations Protocol version 1.1 (LGOP v1.1). Fuel CO2 set provided by Southern California Gas Co for San Luis Obispo area. This report has been generated for San Luis Obsipo APCD, CA using ICLEI's Clean Air and Climate Protection 2009 Software. 7/30/2012 Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2005 Detailed Report CO2 N 2 0 CH Equiv CO2 Energy (tonnes) (kg) (kg) (tonnes) (%) (MMBtu) 2 PG&E Commercial + Industrial Electricity Electricity 13,132 295 806 13,241 9.2 202,065 Subtotal 2 PG&E Commercial 13,132 295 806 13,241 9.2 202,065 Page 2 Electricity data provided by Jillian Rich, jillian.rich ccDpge.com <mailto:iillian.rich(cDpge.com> and John Joseph, ghgdatareguests(a).pge.com <mailto:ghgdatarequests(cDpqe.com>, PG&E. The "PG&E California" electricity coefficient set is based on the 2005 PG&E eCO2 emission factor of 0.489 lbs/kWh of delivered electricity as update on June 27, 2011 and provided by PG&E. PG&E's third -party -verified GHG inventory submitted to the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR)6 (2003-2008) or The Climate Registry (TCR) (2009). Criteria air pollutant emission factors for electricity were obtained from the LGOP v1.1 for California. Subtotal Commercial Waste San Luis Obsipo APCD, CA 20,144 309 1,466 20,271 14.1 334,223 3 Community Solid Waste - Chicago Grade Disposal Method - Managed Landfill Paper Products 0 0 241,287 5,067 3.5 Food Waste 0 0 94,629 1,987 1.4 Plant Debris 0 0 25,393 533 0.4 Wood or Textiles 0 0 70,890 1,489 1.0 All Other Waste 0 0 201,626 4,234 3.0 Subtotal 3 Community Solid W 0 0 633,824 13,310 9.3 1. Total waste tonnage for the City in 2005 provided by the 2005 Disposal Quarterly Reports prepared by San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste Management Authority on 6/17/05, 9/27/05, 12/27/05 and 3/6/06, provided by Peter Cron, peron@iwma.com. 2. Percentages of waste share by type for landfill tonnage provided by CIWMB 2004 Statewide Waste Characterization Study. http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Publications/default.asp?pubid=1097 3. Chicago Grade landfill reports a methane recovery factor of 60%. Chicago Grade total gas generated = 157.47 mmcf/yr. Total gas transferred = 94.48 mmcf/yr. 4. Cold Canyon landfill reports a methane recovery factor of 60%. Cold Canyon total gas generated = 700 mmcf/yr. Total gas transferred = 420 mmcf/yr. Notes: 1. Waste Type data not collected by landfill. State average waste characterization data is used for residential, commercial, and self haul waste. 2. Emissions Factors from LGOP v1.1 3 Community Solid Waste - Cold Canyon Disposal Method - Managed Landfill Paper Products 0 0 199 4 0.0 This report has been generated for San Luis Obsipo APCD, CA using ICLEI's Clean Air and Climate Protection 2009 Software. 7/30/2012 Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2005 Detailed Report CO2 N2O CH Equiv CO2 Energy (tonnes) (kg) (kg) (tonnes) (%) (MMBtu) Food Waste 0 0 78 2 0.0 Plant Debris 0 0 21 0 0.0 Wood or Textiles 0 0 59 1 0.0 All Other Waste 0 0 167 3 0.0 Subtotal 3 Community Solid W 0 0 523 11 0.0 Source(s) Page 3 1. Total aste tonnage for the City in 2005 provided by the 2005 Disposal Quarterly Reports prepared by San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste Management Authority on 6/17/05, 9/27/05, 12/27/05 and 3/6/06, provided by Peter Cron, peron@iwma.com. 2. Percentages of waste share by type for landfill tonnage provided by CIWMB 2004 Statewide Waste Characterization Study. http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Publications/default.asp?pubid=1097 3. Chicago Grade landfill reports a methane recovery factor of 60%. Chicago Grade total gas generated = 157.47 mmcf/yr. Total gas transferred = 94.48 mmcf/yr. 4. Cold Canyon landfill reports a methane recovery factor of 60%. Cold Canyon total gas generated = 700 mmcf/yr. Total gas transferred = 420 mmcf/yr. Notes: 1. Waste Type data not collected by landfill. State average waste characterization data is used for residential, commercial, and self haul waste. Subtotal Waste 0 0 634,347 13,321 9.3 Other San Luis Obsipo APCD, CA 1 - On -Road Transportation Carbon Dioxide 60,445 0 0 60,445 42.1 Subtotal 1 - On -Road Transpo 60,445 0 0 60,445 42.1 Sources: • Average weekday vehicle miles traveled (VMT) were provided by Fehr & Peers, July 2012, using the San Luis Obispo Regional Travel Demand model. • Transportation -related GHG emissions (carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide) were calculated using California Air Resources Board's Emissions Factor (EMFAC2011) software and converted to CO2e. Notes: • Using origin -destination analysis, three types of vehicle trips were tracked separately for AM and PM peak periods in the City: 1. Internal -Internal: Vehicle trips that remained inside the city 2. Internal -External and External -Internal: Vehicle trips that have an ending or a beginning in the city 3. External -External: Vehicle trips that pass through the city without originating or ending in the city • Using the recommendation of the Regional Target Advisory Committee (RTAC), the body responsible for Senate Bill 375 target setting, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from trips of type 1, 2, and 3 were counted 100%, 50%, and 0% respectively toward jurisdiction -generated VMT. • Transportation -related greenhouse gas emissions were calculated using the EMFAC2011 software. EMFAC2011 provides carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide emissions according to the unique vehicle composition of each county in California. Of the total on -road transportation emissions 93.2% are the result of gasoline consumption and 6.8% are the result of diesel fuel consumption. This report has been generated for San Luis Obsipo APCD, CA using ICLEI's Clean Air and Climate Protection 2009 Software. 7/30/2012 Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2005 Detailed Report CO2 N2O CH Equiv CO2 Energy (tonnes) (kg) (kg) (tonnes) (%) (MMBtu) 1 - Off --Road and Agricultural Equipment Page 4 Carbon Dioxide 8,686 0 0 8,686 6.1 Subtotal 1 - Off -Road and Agrit 8,686 0 0 8,686 6.1 Off-road vehicle and equipment emissions obtained from the California Air Resources Boards' OFFROAD2007 software. Emissions were calculated for construction equipment based on the city's share of countywide construction jobs, lawn & garden equipment based on the city's share of countywide households, industrial equipment based on the city's share of countywide industrial sector jobs, light commercial equipment based on the city's share of countywide commercial sector jobs, and agricultural equipment based on the city's share of countywide agricultural land. Household and job data obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau and agricultural data obtained from County GIS files. Subtotal Other 69,131 0 0 69,131 48.2 Total 129,772 710 639,111 143,413 100.0 1,042,846 This report has been generated for San Luis Obsipo APCD, CA using ICLEI's Clean Air and Climate Protection 2009 Software. APPENDIX B: CACP DETAILED REPORT FOR CITY GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS EMISSIONS, 2005 7/19/2012 Government Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2005 Detailed Report Buildings and Facilities San Luis Obsipo APCD, CA All Buildings and Facilities Electricity Natural Gas Page 1 CO2 N2O CH Equiv CO2 Energy Cost (tonnes) (kg) (kg) (tonnes) (%) (MMBtu) ($) 246 6 15 248 16.8 3,780 0 68 0 6 68 4.6 1,283 0 Subtotal All Buildings and Faci 314 6 21 316 21.5 5,063 0 Revised Inventory Notes: Updated natural gas data provided by Paulo Morais, Customer Programs Environmental Affairs (213) 244-3246, pmorais@semprautilities.com, May 2012. Update electricity data provided by Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com, PG&E, May 2012. 1. The "PG&E California" electricity coefficient set is based on the 2005 PG&E CO2 emission factor of 0.489 lbs/kWh of delivered electricity as update on June 27, 2011 and provided by PG&E. PG&E's third -party -verified GHG inventory submitted to the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR)6 (2003-2008) or The Climate Registry (TCR) (2009). N2O and CH4 emissions factors from LGOP v1.1 Original Inventory Notes: Electricity data recieved from PG&E (ghgdata req uests@pge.com). Natural gas data retrieved from The Gas Company billing statements. Billing statements were provided by the Finance Department Richelle Rickard (805-470-3428). Subtotal Buildings and Facilities 314 6 21 316 21.5 5,063 0 Streetlights & Traffic Signals San Luis Obsipo APCD, CA All Streelights and Traffic Signals Electricity 40 1 2 40 2.7 613 435 Subtotal All Streelights and Trs 40 1 2 40 2.7 613 435 Source: Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com, PG&E. 1. The "PG&E California" electricity coefficient set is based on the 2005 PG&E eCO2 emission factor of 0.489 lbs/kWh of delivered electricity as update on June 27, 2011 and provided by PG&E. PG&E's third -party -verified GHG inventory submitted to the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR)6 (2003-2008) or The Climate Registry (TCR) (2009). Original Inventory Notes: Data recieved from PG&E (ghgdatarequests@pge.com). Subtotal Streetlights & Traffic Sit 40 1 2 40 2.7 613 435 This report has been generated for San Luis Obsipo APCD, CA using ICLEI's Clean Air and Climate Protection 2009 Software. 7/19/2012 Page 2 Government Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2005 Detailed Report CO2 N2O CH Equiv CO2 Energy Cost (tonnes) (kg) (kg) (tonnes) (%) (MMBtu) ($) Water Delivery Facilities San Luis Obsipo APCD, CA Water Delivery Facilities Electricity 0 0 0 0 0.0 2 Subtotal Water Delivery Faciliti 0 0 0 0 0.0 2 Source: Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com, PG&E. 1. The "PG&E California" electricity coefficient set is based on the 2005 PG&E eCO2 emission factor of 0.489 lbs/kWh of delivered electricity as update on June 27, 2011 and provided by PG&E. PG&E's third -party -verified GHG inventory submitted to the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR)6 (2003-2008) or The Climate Registry (TCR) (2009). Original Inventory Notes: Data recieved from PG&E (ghgdatarequests@pge.com). Subtotal Water Delivery Facilities 0 0 0 0 0.0 2 Wastewater Facilities 0 San Luis Obsipo APCD, CA Wastewater Facilities Electricity 264 6 16 266 18.1 4,059 0 Natural Gas 0 0 0 0 0.0 5 0 Subtotal Wastewater Facilities 264 6 16 266 18.1 4,064 0 Source: Jillian Rich, jillian.rich@pge.com and John Joseph, ghgdatarequests@pge.com, PG&E. 1. The "PG&E California" electricity coefficient set is based on the 2005 PG&E eCO2 emission factor of 0.489 lbs/kWh of delivered electricity as update on June 27, 2011 and provided by PG&E. PG&E's third -party -verified GHG inventory submitted to the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR)6 (2003-2008) or The Climate Registry (TCR) (2009). 2. Natural gas data provided by Paulo Morias at SoCalGas. Original Inventory Notes: Data recieved from PG&E (ghgdatarequests@pge.com). Service ID# 4949700205 Subtotal Wastewater Facilities 264 6 16 266 18.1 4,064 Solid Waste Facilities 0 San Luis Obsipo APCD, CA 3 - All Facilities Carbon Dioxide 49 0 0 49 3.3 0 0 Subtotal 3 - All Facilities 49 0 0 49 3.3 0 0 Data provided by Mike LaBarbera (805.466.3636) at Atascadero Waste Alternatives This report has been generated for San Luis Obsipo APCD, CA using ICLEI's Clean Air and Climate Protection 2009 Software. 7/19/2012 Page 3 Government Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2005 Detailed Report CO2 N2O CH Equiv CO2 Energy Cost (tonnes) (kg) (kg) (tonnes) (%) (MMBtu) M Subtotal Solid Waste Facilities 49 0 0 49 3.3 0 0 Vehicle Fleet San Luis Obsipo APCD, CA 1 ComDev Gasoline 14 1 1 14 1.0 207 4,250 Subtotal 1 ComDev 14 1 1 14 1.0 207 4,250 All vehicle fuel consumption records provided by the Finance Department. Records consisted of gas card billing statements. Gas cards are maintained by individual Departments. Community Development assigned gas cards to specific vehicles. This information was provided by Annette Manier, Community Development Department, (805-470-3470). Light Trucks MY 1999 includes 2 - Ford Rangers. Light Trucks MY 2004 includes 1 - Ford Explorer. 1 Fire Dept Diesel 60 0 0 60 4.1 829 14,537 Gasoline 12 1 1 12 0.8 172 2,298 Subtotal 1 Fire Dept. 72 1 1 72 4.9 1,001 16,835 All vehicle fuel consumption records provided by the Finance Department. Records consisted of gas card billing statements. Gas cards are maintained by individual Departments. Fire Department assigned gas cards to specific vehicles; however, the fleet has changed since 2005 and it was difficult to match present card information with specific vehicles in 2005. It was assumed all diesel consumption was by firetrucks and unleaded gasoline by the remaining fleet vehicles. Unleaded gasoline was distributed evenly between the six vehicles. Gas card information was provided by Ellen Perkins, Fire Department, (805-470-3300). Diesel Heavy -Duty Vehicles (All MY) includes - Vehicle Numbers 501, 502, 503, 507, and 574. Light Trucks MY 19987 to 1993 includes 2 - Chevy Blazers. Light Trucks MY 2001 includes 2 - Ford F250. Light Trucks MY 2004 includes 1 - Chevy Tahoe Fire Command Vehicle. 1 Parks Gasoline 23 3 2 24 1.6 342 0 Subtotal 1 Parks 23 3 2 24 1.6 342 0 All vehicle fuel consumption records provided by the Finance Department. Records consisted of gas card billing statements. Gas cards are maintained by individual Departments. Light Trucks MY 1987 to 1993 includes 1- 1980 Cushman Scooter, 1- 1986 Ford Ranger, 1- 1980 Chevy Truck, 1- 1990 GMC Truck. Heavy Duty Vihicles MY 2002 includes 1- 2002 Dodge Truck 3/4 Ton dump bed. 1 Police Department Diesel 1 0 0 1 0.1 11 0 Gasoline 130 7 6 132 9.0 1,910 0 Subtotal 1 Police Department 131 7 6 133 9.0 1,922 0 All vehicle gas consumption data provided by Terry Buckley, Police Department (ext. 3258). The Police Department tracks vehicle fuel consumption. Police Department personnel use government credit cards in addition to assigned gas cards to purchase fuel. These purchases do not show up in the gas card billing statements provided by the Finance Department. Unleaded gasoline was distributed evenly between the 23 vehicles. Passenger Cars MY 2005 includes 3 - Ford Crown Victoria and 1 - BMW Motorcycle. Passenger Cars MY 2004 includes 1 - Ford Crown Victoria. Passenger Cars MY 2003 includes 1 - Ford Crown Victoria and 1 - Dodge Intrepid. Passenger Cars MY 1999 includes 2 - Ford Crown Victoria and 1 - Ford Taurus. Passenger Cars MY 2001 includes 3 - Ford Crown Victoria. Passenger Cars MY 2000 includes 2 - Ford Crown Victoria. Passenger Cars MY 1998 includes 1 - Ford Taurus. Passenger Cars MY 1997 includes 2 - Dodge Intrepid. Passenger Cars MY 1995 includes 2 - Ford Crown Victoria. This report has been generated for San Luis Obsipo APCD, CA using ICLEI's Clean Air and Climate Protection 2009 Software. 7/19/2012 Page 4 Government Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2005 Detailed Report CO2 N2O CH Equiv CO2 Energy Cost (tonnes) (kg) (kg) (tonnes) (%) (MMBtu) ($) Passenger Cars MY 1984 to 1993 includes 1 - 1955 Chevy. Light Trucks MY 2004 includes 1 - Ford Expedition. Light Trucks MY 1987-1993 includes 1 - 1989 Jeep. Diesel Heavy -Duty Vehicles includes 1 - 1981 Chevy Bus. 1 PW Building Maintenance Gasoline 6 1 0 7 0.4 94 1,827 Subtotal 1 PW Building Mainte, 6 1 0 7 0.4 94 1,827 All vehicle fuel consumption records provided by the Finance Department. Records consisted of gas card billing statements. Gas cards are maintained by individual Departments. Unleaded gasoline was distributed evenly between the three vehicles. Light Trucks MY 2002 includes 1 - Ford F150. Light Trucks MY 1987 to 1993 includes 1 - Chevrolet (C-11). 1 PW Operations Gasoline 1 0 0 1 0.1 11 319 Subtotal 1 PW Operations 1 0 0 1 0.1 11 319 All vehicle fuel consumption records provided by the Finance Department. Records consisted of gas card billing statements. Gas cards are maintained by individual Departments. Light Trucks MY 2005 includes 1 - Ford Explorer. 1 PW Streets Gasoline 6 0 1 6 0.4 88 1,922 Subtotal 1 PW Streets 6 0 1 6 0.4 88 1,922 All vehicle fuel consumption records provided by the Finance Department. Records consisted of gas card billing statements. Gas cards are maintained by individual Departments. Unleaded gasoline is evenly distributed between the nine vehicles within the fleet. Heavy Duty Vehicles MY 1985 to 1986 includes 1 - 1980 3/4 Ton Chevy Utility Truck, 1 - 1981 5 YD Ford Dump Truck, 1 - 1982 5 YD Ford Dump Truck, and 1 - 1984 1 Ton Chevy Service Truck. Heavy Duty Vehicles MY 1990 to 1995 includes 1 - 1990 GMC 1 Ton Service Truck. Light Trucks MY 1987 to 1993 includes 1 - 1973 Chevy 1/2 Ton, 1 - 1989 1/2 Ton Chevy Pick-up, and 1 - 1990 1/2 Ton GMC Pick-up. Light Trucks MY 2002 includes 1 - 1/2 Ton Dodge Pick-up. 1 Wastewater Diesel 125 0 0 125 8.5 1,717 0 Gasoline 12 1 1 12 0.8 178 0 Subtotal 1 Wastewater 137 1 1 138 9.3 1,894 0 All vehicle fuel consumption records provided by the Finance Department. Records consisted of gas card billing statements. Gas cards are maintained by individual Departments. Diesel fuel was distrubeted evenly between the Front End Case Loader and Aquatech Sewer Jet Truck. Unleaded gasoline was distributed evenly between the remainder of the fleet. Diesel Heavy Duty Trucks All MY includes 1- Front End Case Loader and 1- Aquatech Sewer Jet Truck. Light Trucks MY 1987 to 1993 includes 1 - 1984 Chevy truck and 1 - 1992 GMC medium duty with crane. Light Trucks MY 1999 includes 1 - Ford F250. Heavy Duty Vehicles MY 2003 includes 1 - Ford F550 Super Duty. Light Trucks MY 2003 includes 1 - Dodge Ram. 1 Zoo Gasoline 8 1 1 8 0.5 113 2,302 Subtotal 1 Zoo 8 1 1 8 0.5 113 2,302 All vehicle fuel consumption records provided by the Finance Department. Records consisted of gas card billing statements. Gas cards are This report has been generated for San Luis Obsipo APCD, CA using ICLEI's Clean Air and Climate Protection 2009 Software. 7/19/2012 Page 5 Government Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2005 Detailed Report CO2 N2O CH Equiv CO2 Energy Cost (tonnes) (kg) (kg) (tonnes) (%) (MMBtu) ($) maintained by individual Departments. Unleaded gasoline was distributed evenly between the four vehicles.Light Trucks MY 1987 to 1993 includes 1 - 1979 Chevy Luv 4x4, 1 - 1985 Dodge Sedan, 1 - 1990 Chevy S-10, and 1 - Isuzu Trooper. Subtotal Vehicle Fleet 398 15 13 403 27.4 5,672 27,456 Employee Commute San Luis Obsipo APCD, CA 1 Employee Commute Diesel 48 Gasoline 134 Subtotal 1 Employee CommutE 181 Passenger Cars Alt. Method includes motorcycles Subtotal Employee Commute 181 Transit Fleet San Luis Obsipo APCD, CA 1 Dail -A -Ride 0 1 48 3.2 652 0 10 15 137 9.3 1,969 0 10 16 185 12.6 2,621 0 10 16 185 12.6 2,621 0 Gasoline 116 8 3 119 8.1 1,712 26,725 Subtotal 1 Dail -A -Ride 116 8 3 119 8.1 1,712 26,725 All vehicle fuel consumption records provided by the Finance Department. Records consisted of gas card billing statements. Gas cards are maintained by individual Departments. Transit Fleet information was provided by Amanda Muether, Dispatch, (805) XXX-XXXX. Heavy Duty Vehicles MY 2002 includes 1 - Chapion Type III Bus. Heavy Duty Vehicles MY 2005 includes 1 - Eldorado Aerotech Bus. Heavy Duty Vehicles MY 2003 includes 2 - Ford Type III Bus. Heavy Duty Vehicles MY 2000 includes 1 - Eldorado Champion Bus 1 North County Shuttle (Fixed Route) Gasoline 92 7 3 95 6.4 1,361 26,950 Subtotal 1 North County Shuttl, 92 7 3 95 6.4 1,361 26,950 All vehicle fuel consumption records provided by the Finance Department. Records consisted of gas card billing statements. Gas cards are maintained by individual Departments. Transit Fleet information was provided by Amanda Muether, Dispatch, (805) 461-5000. Heavy Duty Vehicles MY 2003 includes 1 - Ford Type III Bus with Graphics. Subtotal Transit Fleet 209 14 6 213 14.5 3,073 53,675 Total 1,455 53 75 1,473 100.0 21,107 81,566 This report has been generated for San Luis Obsipo APCD, CA using ICLEI's Clean Air and Climate Protection 2009 Software. APPENDIX C: DETAILED METHODOLOGY FOR COMMUNITY -WIDE INVENTORY Detailed Methodology for Community -Wide Inventory This appendix provides the detailed methodology and data sources used for calculating GHG emissions in each sector of the community -wide inventory. OVERVIEW OF INVENTORY CONTENTS AND APPROACH The community inventory methodology is based on guidance from ICLEI International Local Government GHG Emissions Analysis Protocol (IEAP) (October 2009) and the Association of Environmental Professionals California Community -wide GHG Baseline Inventory Protocol (AEP Protocol) (June 2011). The community inventory identifies and quantifies emissions from the residential, commercial/industrial, transportation, off-road, and solid waste sectors. Emissions are calculated by multiplying activity data—such as kilowatt hours or gallons of gasoline consumed—by emissions factors, which provide the quantity of emissions per unit of activity. Activity data is typically available from electric and gas utilities, planning and transportation agencies and air quality regulatory agencies. Emissions factors are drawn from a variety of sources, including the California Climate Action Registry, the Local Governments Operations Protocol (LGOP) version 1.1 (May 2010), and air quality models produced by the California Air Resources Board. In this inventory, all GHG emissions are converted into carbon dioxide equivalent units, or CO2e, per guidance in the LGOP version 1.1, AEP Protocol, and IEAP. The LGOP provides standard factors to convert various greenhouse gases into carbon dioxide equivalent units; these factors are known as Global Warming Potential factors, representing the ratio of the heat -trapping ability of each greenhouse gas relative to that of carbon dioxide. The following sections describe the specific data sources and methodology for calculating GHG emissions in each community sector. RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SECTORS All residential and commercial/industrial sector emissions are the result of electricity consumption and the on-site combustion of natural gas. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas Co.) provided residential electricity and natural gas consumption data. Specifically, data was provided by: • Jillian Rich, Program Manager with PG&E Green Communities and Innovator Pilots (jillian.rich(a)pge.com), and John Joseph, PG&E GHG Data Requests City of Atascadero ' . • - • Paulo Morais, Energy Programs Supervisor with Southern California Gas Company, Customer Programs (pmorias(d�semprautilities.com) The raw data received from PG&E and SoCal Gas Co. is summarized in Tables 1 and 2 below. This raw data was input into the CACP2009 software in kWh and therms. PG&E provided a 2005 carbon dioxide (CO2) coefficient for electricity use and SoCal Gas Co. provided a carbon dioxide (CO2) coefficient for natural gas (see "electricity and natural gas coefficients" section). Emissions coefficients for methane (CH4) and nitrogen dioxide (N2O) emissions were provided by the California LGOP version 1.1 and were converted into carbon dioxide equivalents and added to the CO2 emissions to obtain carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions. All commercial/industrial sector emissions are the result of electricity consumption and the on- site combustion of natural gas. Commercial and industrial electricity were combined into one section by PG&E due to the California 15/15 Rule. The 15/15 Rule was adopted by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in the Direct Access Proceeding (CPUC Decision 97-10-031) to protect customer confidentiality. The 15/15 Rule requires that any aggregated information provided by the utilities must be made up of at least 15 customers. A single customer's load must be less than 15% of an assigned category. If the number of customers in the complied data is below 15, or if a single customer's load is more than 15% of the total data, categories must be combined before the information is released. The rule further requires that if the 15/15 Rule is triggered for a second time after the data has been screened already using the 15/15 Rule, the customer must be dropped from the information provided. As a result, PG&E aggregated commercial and industrial energy consumption into one report, whereas SoCal Gas Co. separated commercial and industrial gas usage (shown in the chart below) into two reports. It would have been misleading to present an "Industrial" category for only natural gas emissions; therefore, the SoCal Gas Co. emissions were aggregated with commercial as well. 2005 Residential Energy Emissions smpe Input Data Metric Tons Metric Tons COZe per year PG&E Electricity 2 71,151,775 kWh 15,912 SoCal Gas Co. Natural Gas 1 4,657,834 Therms 24,778 .. City of Atascadero 2005 Commercial / Unit Value Source Fuel CO2 (Natural Gas) Set I kg/MMBtu 53.06 CO2 uric Tons COZe Industrial Energy Scope Input Data Coefficient set provided by LGOP version 1.1 Residential 0.005 CH4 per year Emissions 0.0001 N20 PG&E Commercial + kg/MMBtu Coefficient set provided by LGOP version 1.1 Industrial Electricity 2 59,204,973 kWh 13,241 SoCal Gas Co. Commercial + 1 1,321,587 Therms 7,030 Industrial Natural Gas To make the Inventory more accurate and representative of the city's real impact on climate change, tailored coefficient sets were obtained from PG&E and the LGOP version 1.1. Sources and coefficient values are summarized in the table below. Coe ic ent Set nft Value Source Jillian Rich, Program Manager with PG&E Green 489 CO2 Communities and Innovator Pilots Average Grid Lbs / MWh 0.011 N20 Oillian.rich@pge.com), and John Joseph, PG&E Electricity Set 0.03 CH4 GHG Data Requests (ghgdatareguests6a�pge.com) and LGOP version 1.1 Coefficient Set Unit Value Source Fuel CO2 (Natural Gas) Set I kg/MMBtu 53.06 CO2 Coefficient set provided by LGOP version 1.1 RCI Average Set - kg/MMBtu 0.0001 N20 Coefficient set provided by LGOP version 1.1 Residential 0.005 CH4 RCI Average Set - 0.0001 N20 Commercial + kg/MMBtu Coefficient set provided by LGOP version 1.1 Industrial 0.005 CH4 City of Atascadero ' .. - TRANSPORTATION SECTOR On -road transportation emissions were derived from local jurisdiction vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data and regional vehicle and travel characteristics. The transportation analysis, conducted by Fehr & Peers, utilized the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) Regional Travel Demand model to develop transportation -related GHG emissions data and VMT for trips that have an origin and/or destination in the city. The SLOCOG Travel Demand Model was recently updated and validated to reflect 2010 conditions and to comply with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) guidelines on implementation of Senate Bill 375 (SB 375). The update included expanding the times of day, calibration of multiple modes, and reflecting the auto and of non -auto RTP transportation system, all beneficial when quantifying potential GHG reduction strategies. A 2005 land use scenario was developed by extrapolating 2035 and 2010. Similarly, a 2020 land use scenario was developed by interpolating between 2010 and 2035. See Summary for the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments Model Improvement Project to Meet the Requirements of California Transportation Commission Guidelines for Regional Transportation Plans in Response to SB375 (February, 2012) for details on model calibration and validation. Using the model, Fehr & Peers allocated vehicle trips and VMT to each of the cities in San Luis Obispo County and the unincorporated county by weighting trips based on their origin and destination. The VMT summarized for land use with each of the incorporated cities and unincorporated county includes: a) All of the VMT associated with trips made completely internally within each jurisdiction; b) Half of the VMT generated by jobs and residences located within each jurisdiction but that travels to/from external destinations (this is consistent with the recent SB 375 Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC) decision that the two generators of an inter -jurisdictional trip should each be assigned half of the responsibility for the trip and its VMT); and c) None of the responsibility for travel passing completely through the jurisdiction with neither an origin point, or a destination within the city (also consistent with RTAC decision). The gateways exiting the model area were included in the VMT calculation. This means that a jurisdiction will be held responsible for some VMT occurring outside of the model borders. For .. City of Atascadero example, if a household in Pismo Beach travels across the Santa Maria Bridge to Santa Barbara, or through San Luis Obispo City to reach King City. To capture the effects of congestion, the model VMT for each time period were summarized by speed for each time period and then aggregated to daily. The VMT results are summarized in Table 5 for the baseline year (2005) and Table 6 for 2020. Vehicle Miles Traveled per Jurisdiction, 2005 iles Travel Average Weekday Daily Average Annual' Arroyo Grande 228,694 79,356,818 Atascadero 379,385 131,646,595 Grover Beach 111,910 38,832,770 Morro Bay 182,436 63,305,292 Paso Robles 424,926 147,449,322 Pismo Beach 476,060 I 165,192,820 San Luis Obispo 2,224,058 771,748,126 Unincorporated County 2,625,379 911,006,513 Total 6,652,848 2,308,538,256 1 Average Annual VMT was calculated by applying a multiplier of 347 to average weekday daily VMT to account for the total number of weekdays in one year based on the recommendation from Caltrans. City of Atascadero ' .. - Vehicle Miles Traveled per Jurisdiction, 2020 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) _ Average Weekday Daily Average Annual' Arroyo Grande 265,964 92,289,508 Atascadero 490,742 170,287,474 Grover Beach 153,364 53,217,308 Morro Bay 212,901 73,876,647 Paso Robles 567,135 196,795,845 Pismo Beach JL 586,947 203,670,609 San Luis Obispo 3,256,895 1,130,142,565 Unincorporated County 3,343,755 1,160,282,985 Total 8,877,703 3,080,562,941 1 Average Annual VMT was calculated by applying a multiplier of 347 to average weekday daily VMT to account for the total number of weekdays in one year based on the recommendation from Caltrans. The EMFAC2011 model developed by the California Air Resources Board was then used to calculate emissions from the VMT figures above. EMFAC defaults for San Luis Obispo County include regionally -specific information on the mix of vehicle classes and model years, as well as ambient conditions and travel speeds that determine fuel efficiency. Types of emissions accounted for include: running exhaust, idle exhaust, starting exhaust, diurnal, resting loss, running loss, and hot soak. The model estimates carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide emissions from these factors and inputted vehicle activity data. WASTE SECTOR Emissions from the waste sector are an estimate of methane generation from the decomposition of landfilled solid waste in the base year (2005). The methane commitment method embedded in CACP2009 is based on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Waste Reduction Model (WARM) model for calculating life cycle emissions from waste generated within the jurisdictional boundary of the city in 2005. The analysis does not use the waste -in-place method, which calculates emissions from all waste generated in 2005 and all waste already existing in the landfill before the baseline year. ..I City of Atascadero The waste sector only takes into account the waste sent to landfills from city residents, businesses, and institutions. It does not calculate emissions from the total amount of waste sent to county landfills (Paso Robles, Cold Canyon, and Chicago Grade) in 2005 since those landfills accept waste from the unincorporated county and incorporated cities. Solid waste tonnage data per jurisdiction was provided by: • "2005 Disposal Report" by quarter, prepared by the San Luis Obispo Integrated Waste Management Board on 3/6/06. Document provided by Peter Cron, San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste Management Authority (peron@iwma.com). Since the composition of waste sent to landfill in 2005 is unknown for the city, the following statewide average waste composition study was utilized: • CIWMB 2004 Statewide Waste Characterization Study, http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Publications/defauIt.asp?pubid=1097. The waste characterization study's distribution of waste by type was then converted into the five categories included in the CACP2009 software, which resulted in the following waste characterization: • Paper products: 21.0% • Wood/textiles: 21.8% • Food waste: 14.6% • All other waste: 35.7% • Plant debris: 6.9% The CACP2009 software does not have the ability to assign an individual methane recovery factor to each landfill; therefore, we took a weighted average (60%) based on the portion of waste in each landfill. The methane recovery factors of the landfills are well documented by the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District based on the system operations at that time. Table 7 includes the methane recovery factors for the Chicago Grade and Cold Canyon landfills. Emissions factors were obtain from the LGOP version 1.1. City of Atascadero ' .. - Methane ow Allocation Indicator Source Agricultural Equipment Acres of cropland Waste Construction and Mining Construction and mining jobs Total gas Total gas Studies, On the Map Tool recovery and Methane U.S. Census Bureau, Center for Economic Tonnage Lawn and Garden Households generated transferred Data Source 2006). SLOCOG Long Range Socio - indicator Recovery Economic Projections. 2005 baseline data Light Commercial Service and commercial jobs from city, Equipment (mmcf/yr) (mmcf/yr) inputs, 2005 2005 (tons) APCD 2005 Chicago Grade 60% 157.47 94.48 Inventory 31,097 Cold Canyon 60% 700.00 420.00 APCD 2005 Inventory 26 OFF-ROAD VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT SECTOR Off-road emissions were obtained from the California Air Resources Board's OFFROAD2007 model. The model was run using default equipment population, usage, and efficiency data for San Luis Obispo County. Emissions outputs were scaled to the local jurisdiction level by indicators identified in Table 8. Results were converted from short tons per day to metric tons per year. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions were converted to carbon dioxide equivalent units based on the Global Warming Potential factors from LGOP version 1.1. Equipment TypeF ow Allocation Indicator Source Agricultural Equipment Acres of cropland San Luis Obispo County, GIS shape files Construction and Mining Construction and mining jobs U.S. Census Bureau, Center for Economic Equipment Studies, On the Map Tool Industrial Equipment Industrial jobs U.S. Census Bureau, Center for Economic Studies, On the Map Tool Lawn and Garden Households Economics Research Associates. (July Equipment 2006). SLOCOG Long Range Socio - Economic Projections. 2005 baseline data Light Commercial Service and commercial jobs U.S. Census Bureau, Center for Economic Equipment Studies, On the Map Tool ..I City of Atascadero The OFFROAD2007 software calculates emissions from other sources of off-road equipment as well, including recreational vehicles and watercrafts; however these emissions were not included because there was no feasible methodology for separating these emissions per jurisdiction within the county. Population is proven to not be an accurate indicator of consumption rates. To remain consistent with protocol and practice, emissions must be separated in a spatial manner, similar to how highway emissions are determined by road segment length within each jurisdiction. It should also be noted that many location -sources of off-road emissions, such as recreational vehicle emissions, occur in state parks or beaches outside of the jurisdiction of each city or the county. 2020 AND 2025 FORECAST The GHG emissions forecast provides a "business -as -usual estimate," or scenario, of how emissions will change in the year 2020 and 2025 if consumption trends and behavior continue as they did in 2005, absent any new federal, state, regional, or local policies or actions that would reduce emissions. The year 2020 was selected for the forecast in order to maintain consistency with AB 32 and the year 2025 was selected in order to maintain consistency with the General Plan planning horizon. The 2020 and 2025 forecasts calculate business -as -usual growth based on population and job growth rates obtained from the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments report, "San Luis Obispo County 2040 Population, Housing & Employment Forecast" prepared by AECOM in August 2001. Mid-range estimates of growth were used in both instances (Figures ES -5 and 6- 1). Specifically population growth rates were applied to residential, waste, off-road, and wastewater sectors; job growth rates were applied to the commercial/industrial sector. For the transportation sector, Fehr & Peers provided VMT estimates for the year 2020 as shown in Table 6 above, which was extrapolated for the year 2025. It should be noted that these forecasts do not take into consideration any planned or actual efficiency or conservation measures after 2005. For example, the State Renewable Energy portfolio has advanced significantly since 2005, but the forecast calculates 2020 energy emissions by assuming constant emissions factors. City of Atascadero ' .. - APPENDIX D: DETAILED METHODOLOGY FOR CITY GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS INVENTORY Detailed Methodology for Government Operations GHG Emissions Inventory The municipal operations inventory follows the LGOP version 1.1, which was adopted in 2010 by CARB and serves as the national standard for quantifying and reporting GHG emissions from local government operations. BUILDING SECTOR The building sector includes all emissions from natural gas and electricity consumed in City - owned and - operated buildings and facilities. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas Co.) provided municipal electricity and natural gas consumption data respectively. Specifically, data was provided by: • Jillian Rich, Program Manager with PG&E Green Communities and Innovator Pilots @llian.rich(a)pge.com), and John Joseph, PG&E GHG Data Requests • Paulo Morais, Energy Programs Supervisor with Southern California Gas Company, Customer Programs (pmorias(a-)semprautilities.com) This raw data was input into the CACP2009 software in kWh and therms. PG&E provided a 2005 carbon dioxide (CO2) coefficient for electricity use and SoCal Gas Co. provided a carbon dioxide (CO2) coefficient for natural gas. Emissions coefficients for methane (CI -14) and nitrogen dioxide (N20) emissions were provided by the California LGOP version 1.1 and were converted into carbon dioxide equivalents and added to the CO2 emissions to obtain carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions (see Appendix C, Tables 3 and 4). VEHICLE FLEET SECTOR The vehicle fleet sector includes gasoline and diesel vehicles from the following City departments: • Community Development • Police • Community Services • Public Works Fire Gasoline and diesel consumption for calendar year 2005 was obtained from fuel billing statements provided by the Finance Department. The Police Department provided their own fuel City of Atascadero ' . • - usage data as there record keeping was more complete. Specific sources of data within each organization are outlined in the notes of Appendix B. Emissions were calculated using the EMFAC software for the San Luis Obispo region, consistent with the community methodology described in Appendix C. EMPLOYEE COMMUTE SECTOR Employees were surveyed in June 2009 using an online survey instrument. The questions, attached as Appendix E, asked employees about their current commuting patterns. Of those questions, we used the following for our analysis: • What is your approximate one-way distance to work (in miles)? Please indicate the most direct distance to work, discounting midway destinations that would be taken whether or not you drove to work each day (i.e. dropping off children at school). • Please indicate the type of transportation you take to work each day in your average work week. Please note that there are two types of carpooling. O Drive alone O Motorcycle O Carpool with fellow City O Bicycle employees O Walk O Carpool with drivers not employed by the City O Telecommute O Vanpool O Other O Public transit • What type of vehicle do you drive? • What type of fuel does your vehicle use? • If you carpool with fellow City employees, how many City employees ride with you? If you carpool with a different number each day, please indicate the average. Approximately 69 employees responded to the survey with usable information, meaning that all essential questions were answered. Answers with mileage left blank or with highly inconsistent • - City of Atascadero data (ex: saying they walked three days to work, biked two, and drove five) were omitted. In addition, if a respondent did not describe their `other' category of transportation, the entry was omitted. To perform this analysis, we took the following steps: 1) Separate entries by what type of vehicle they own and operate (compact, midsize car, full-size car, small truck, medium -small truck, large truck, motorcycle or "don't drive"). Within each new group, separate the entries by diesel, gasoline or hybrid. 2) For each group of entries with the same vehicle type and technology, multiply the number of miles to work by 2 (to get round-trip estimate) and then by the number of `drive alone' days for each entry. Multiply the number of miles to work by the number of `carpool' days (half of the `drive alone' emissions). Note: If a respondent entered that they motorcycle to work, but own a car as well, the motorcycle miles were moved to the motorcycle category). Adjust for hybrids (see below). 3) Add all miles per vehicle type and technology and multiply by 52.18 work weeks/year. 4) Calculate the multiplier to adjust survey response data to the entire 2005 employee population. In 2005, there were 128 employees. This, divided by the 69 survey entries, gives us our multiplier of 1.74. 5) Multiply the mileage per vehicle per technology type by the multiplier. 6) Divide the number of hybrid miles by 2.2 and add the difference to the `passenger car' category. This is to account for the large increase in hybrid sales between 2005 and 2009 (Source: Hybridcars.com sales statistics). 7) Manipulate the vehicle classes to fit the CACP2009 software categories. 8) Enter final miles into the CACP2009 software per vehicle type and fuel. • - City of Atascadero Vehicle Group * 2009 Survey Results Adjusted for 2005 Annual VMT Fuel Type Light Trucks 56,197.86 Gasoline 107,536.92 Gasoline 313.08 Diesel 6,645.64 Diesel Large Trucks 22,620.03 Gasoline 19,750.03 Gasoline 16,843.70 Diesel I 34,785.80 I Diesel Passenger Vehicle 138,885.77 Gasoline 34,785.80 Gasoline Motorcycle 208.72 Gasoline Gasoline Total 306,621.16 Gasoline 610,176.11 Gasoline 20,819.82 Diesel 41,431.44 Diesel The CACP2009 software does not provide a method of calculating emissions from hybrid cars. As a result, these emissions were divided by 2.20 based on the difference between average fuel economy of a 2005 Toyota Prius and the average fuel economy included in the 2005 SLO EMFAC data and then entered into the CACP2009 software under 'passenger vehicle' (Source: www.fueleconomy.gov). STREETLIGHT SECTOR PG&E provided electricity usage from streetlights in kWh for 2005. The total kWh were entered into the CACP2009 software using the electricity coefficients identified in Appendix C. WATER / SEWAGE This sector calculates emissions from energy consumption associated with City -owned and operated water and wastewater facilities and point -source emissions that arise due to fermentation of degraded biomass in the wastewater lagoons. The Finance Department provided the electricity consumption for each of the water facilities. Operational data provided by the Wastewater Treatment Plant Manager was utilized to determine total methane and nitrous oxide emissions using ICLEI's Wastewater Emissions Data tool. Both of these sources are outlined in Appendix B. These totals were entered into the CACP2009 software with the electricity and natural gas coefficient sets outlined in Appendix C. City of Atascadero Page WASTE Atascadero Waste Alternatives reported solid waste tonnage produced by City operations. The City produced 168.65 tons of waste in 2005 that was sent to managed landfill. The waste composition was unknown for the city; therefore, the California averages provided by the 2004 California Integrated Waste Management Board Waste Characterization Report were used. A weighted average methane recovery factor of 60% was used in this analysis, as outlined in Appendix C. • - City of Atascadero APPENDIX E: CITY EMPLOYEE COMMUTE SURVEY, 2009 City Employee Commute Survey, 2009 1) What is your approximate on -way distance to work (in miles)? Please indicate the most direct distance to work, discounting midway destinations that would be taken whether or not you drove to work each day (i.e. dropping off children at school). 2) Please indicate the type of transportation you take to work each day in your average work week. Please note that there are two types of carpooling. 3) What type of vehicle do you drive? ❑ Compact/Sub-Compact car (Civic, Corolla, Focus, Neon, Cavalier, Jetta or similar) ❑ Mid-size car (Accord, Camry, Passat, Monte Carlo, Sable, Sebring or similar) ❑ Full-size car (Impala, Intrepid, Taurus, Crown Victoria, Bonneville, Town Car or similar) ❑ Small Truck/SUV/Pickup (RAV4, Chev S10, Pickup (4 cylinder), PT Cruiser or similar) ❑ Medium -Small Truck/SUV/Pickup (Minivan, Sonoma Pickup Truck or similar) ❑ Medium -Large Truck/SUV/Pickup (Durango, Safari Cargo Van, Ford F150 or similar) ❑ Large Truck/SUV/Pickup (Suburban, Expedition, Navigator, Ford E250/350/450 or similar) ❑ Motorcycle ❑ I don't drive alone or drive a carpool City of Atascadero Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Drive Alone ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Carpool with fellow City employees ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Carpool with other drivers not ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ employed by the City Vanpool ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Public transit ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Motorcycle ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bicycle ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Walk ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Telecommute ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Other ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 3) What type of vehicle do you drive? ❑ Compact/Sub-Compact car (Civic, Corolla, Focus, Neon, Cavalier, Jetta or similar) ❑ Mid-size car (Accord, Camry, Passat, Monte Carlo, Sable, Sebring or similar) ❑ Full-size car (Impala, Intrepid, Taurus, Crown Victoria, Bonneville, Town Car or similar) ❑ Small Truck/SUV/Pickup (RAV4, Chev S10, Pickup (4 cylinder), PT Cruiser or similar) ❑ Medium -Small Truck/SUV/Pickup (Minivan, Sonoma Pickup Truck or similar) ❑ Medium -Large Truck/SUV/Pickup (Durango, Safari Cargo Van, Ford F150 or similar) ❑ Large Truck/SUV/Pickup (Suburban, Expedition, Navigator, Ford E250/350/450 or similar) ❑ Motorcycle ❑ I don't drive alone or drive a carpool City of Atascadero 4) What type of fuel does your vehicle from question 3 use? ❑ Gasoline ❑ Diesel ❑ Biodiesel ❑ Hybrid ❑ Electric ❑ I don't drive to work or drive a carpool ❑ Other (Specify): 5) If you carpool or vanpool with fellow City employees, home may City employees ride with you? If you carpool with a different number each day, please indicate the average. If `not applicable', please enter T". Enter # of people: .. City of Atascadero Central Coast GHG Planning Proposed Schedule - Work in Progress APCD/Stakeholder Committee Review Public Review rr - MeetinglWorkshop X Monthly Report Initiation (PI) PI.11: Project Kickoff Meeting PI.2: Complete Final Project Management Plan MENEM Pre-ProgramProject d Results ■■■■■ �7■■■t■■■■■■■■■��■■�■■■��■■���■■■�■■■t■■■�■��■ ■■MI■■■MI■■■MI■ 1: GING Inventory Update and Forecast 1.11: Draft GHG Inventory Update and Forecast MEME 1.2: Final GHG Inventory Update and Forecast Task 2: Policy Gap Analysis and GHG Reduction Target Refinement 2.11: Draft Policy Gap Analysis and GHG Reduction Target Refinement 2.2: Final Policy Gap Analysis and GHG Reduction Target Refinement Task 3: GHG Reduction Measure Evaluation Toolbox 3.11: Initial Draft List of GHG Reduction Strategies and Measures 3.2: Draft GHG Reduction Measure Evaluation Toolbox 3.3: Public Draft GHG Reduction Measure Evaluation Toolbox Task 4: Stakeholder Meetings and Public Engagement 4.11: List of Stakeholder Committee Members and Schedule of Committee DraftTask • .Engagement■■■■■■ ■■MI■■■MI■■■MI■ Final Public Engagement Plan 4.4: Draft Materials for Workshop #1 4.5: Draft Material for Workshop #2 4.6: Draft Material for Workshop #3 Draft4.3: . • al for Workshop • -■■NEEM■M■■■M■■M■■■M■■■■MM■■M■■■MM■■MMM■■■R ■■■ ■■■MI■MM■ ■■MI■■■MI■■■MI■ Task 5: Climate Action Plans 5.11: Administrative Draft GHG Reduction Plans 5.2: Public Draft GHG Reduction Plans 5.3: Final Draft GHG Reduction Plans 5.4: Draft Implementation Plans 5.5: Final Implementation Plans Task 6: Adaptation 6.11: Adaptation Section for Each of the Cities Climate Action Plans Task 7: CEQA Review 7.11: Prepare CEQA Documents Task 8: Invoicing and Reporting 8.11: Monthly Reports and Invoices 8.2: Draft Post -Program Survey 8.3: Final Program Report Staff Meetings 6; does not include kickoff meetingcovered . • • . ■■■■■■■MIM■■ MEM ■E■EMI■ ■IMM■■ ■■■IMM■■IMM ■■■MI■■ MENEM MMI■ ■■MI■■■MI■■■MI■ Stakeholder Hearings (7) - Work in Progress APCD/Stakeholder Committee Review Public Review rr - MeetinglWorkshop X Monthly Report