HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - November 20, 2013 I-02AGENDA ITEM
-2
CITY OF LODI
,. COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
TM
AGENDA TITLE: Adopt Resolution Certifying a Negative Declaration for the. Climate Action Plan and
Adopt Lodi Climate Action Plan
MEETING DATE: November 20, 2013
PREPARED BY: Community Development Director
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution certifying a Negative Declaration for the Climate
Action Plan and adopt Lodi Climate Action Plan.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) set the stage for
the State of California's transition to a sustainable, clean energy future.
AB 32 included a number of specific objectives, most notably was the
requirement to identify the statewide level of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 1990 to serve as the
emissions limit to be achieved by 2020. AB 32 also acknowledged that further reductions would be required in
the future. Subsequent legislation, SB 375, facilitates GHG reduction goals through regional transportation
analysis and sustainable community strategies.
On August 18, 2010, the Lodi City Council approved the City of Lodi's participation in the Smart Valley Places
Compact, a partnership among cities and other local and regional agencies and organizations from the eight
counties of the San Joaquin Valley region. The purpose of this partnership was (1) to work together to locally
define and implement a regional plan for sustainable development for the San Joaquin Valley; and (2) to
pursue funding such as the Sustainable Communities Planning Grant Program. Those funds were offered
through the Sustainable Communities Partnership, made up of the U.S. Departments of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), Transportation (DOT), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and were
intended to support regional planning efforts that integrate housing, land use, economic and workforce
development, transportation, and infrastructure investments in a manner that empowers jurisdictions to
consider the interdependent challenges of economic competitiveness and revitalization; social equity,
inclusion, and access to opportunity; energy use and climate change; as well as public health and
environmental impacts. At their meeting on February 5, 2012, the City Council authorized the City Manager to
negotiate an agreement with AECOM (consultant team) for professional services related to the preparation of
a CAP and Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy. AECOM and the UC Davis Studio 30 began working
on this project to develop a plan and specific strategies to engage Lodi residents, businesses, organizations
and key stakeholders in the development of the CAP.
The development of the CAP grew out of corroborative city staff, students from the University of California,
Davis's Land Use and Natural Resources extension program, the consultant firm, and citizens input. Key
stakeholders were identified and engaged in a series of individual meetings and group workshops. Real-estate
developers were invited to attend an individual "round -table" discussion. The round -table was attended by
representatives of the Building Industry Association of the Delta who provided a regional perspective on
development. The developers provided insight into the state of development in Lodi and the potential for
measures that addressed new and existing buildings.
Discussions were also held with local businesses and institutions, including Pacific Coast Producers, the Lodi
Unified School District (LUSD), Lodi Memorial Hospital, the Wine and Grape Commission and Lodi Citizens in
Action. Some representatives expressed an interest in energy efficiency technologies;, as a result, this CAP
includes measures to engage these organizations in energy retrofit assistance programs and demonstration
JACommunity Development\Council Communications\2013 t
APPROVED:. -A
Konradt Bartlam, City Manager
CAP NegDec Certification
Page 2 of 4
projects. Other representatives provided insight into constraints to energy efficiency, such as food processing
and hospital sanitation requirements, and how to frame the measures in the CAP to alleviate the concerns of
some local interest groups.
The Farmer's Market provided a means of engaging residents (adults and children), including a survey on
potential energy efficiency measures, alternative transportation and solid waste disposal. The citizens were
engaged with a trivia game involving a spinning wheel with randomly selected questions.
The consultant team presented a draft set of strategies and action plan to the public at a Planning
Commission's hearing held on September 11, 2013. The presentation format provided opportunities for
residents and community members to ask questions and ,discuss the climate action planning process and
provide input on individual measures and strategies. The Draft CAP was also released for public review from
September 1, 2013 to October 9, 2013. On October 9, 2013, the Planning Commission held a public hearing
regarding the Lodi Climate Action Plan. At this hearing the Planning Commission reviewed the Draft Climate
Action Plan and the proposed Negative Declaration for the project. The Commission received a staff report;
heard the staff presentation; asked questions of staff and the general public; closed the public hearing, and
voted 7-0, to recommend the City Council adopt Resolution Certifying a Negative Declaration for the Climate
Action Plan and Adopt Lodi Climate Action Plan.
ANALYSIS: A Climate Action Plan (CAP), or similarly designed implementation plan, is essential for cities and
counties to begin the process of identifying approaches to achieve GHG emission reductions. In order to
monitor progress towards AB 32 implementation and report GHG emissions over time, one of the first key
components to developing a CAP includes calculating a baseline GHG emissions inventory. The emission
baseline identifies a year for which the City and community can provide data on energy consumption and
waste generation. To date, the State and/or Air Resources Board has yet to address the regulatory
environment or provide guidance, methodologies, significance thresholds, standards, or the types of analysis
or mitigation measures needed to map and benchmark current emission levels. However, most recent
inventories aggregate GHG emissions from the year 2005-2008.
Recognizing the important role that cities will play in the transition to a low -carbon economy, Lodi has
prepared this Climate Action Plan (CAP) as a roadmap for achieving city-wide GHG emissions reductions. The
CAP includes a quantitative inventory and analysis of existing and anticipated GHG emissions. The analysis
starts with the established 2008 baseline year and projects business -as -usual emissions for 2020. Given that
a 1990 baseline year would not have accurate or complete datum for all key emission sources, the year 2008
was chosen as the baseline year since this year has more readily available data and has increasingly
becoming the standard for such inventories throughout the State.
The City of Lodi CAP presents estimates of GHG emissions resulting from the community as a whole
(including residential and commercial activity), as well as those resulting from the City's government
operations. Each sector is associated with a variety of emission sources. The majority of the emissions
recorded in the 2008 inventory have been calculated using calculation -based methodologies to derive
emissions using activity data and emission factors. Activity data refers to the relevant measurement of energy
use or other greenhouse gas -generating processes such as fuel consumption by fuel type, metered annual
electricity consumption, and annual vehicle miles traveled. Emission factors are used to convert energy usage
or other activity data into associated emissions quantities. They are usually expressed in terms of emissions
per unit of activity data (e.g. lbs CO2/kWh). Please see Appendix "A" in the City of Lodi CAP for a listing of
emissions factors and listing of activity data used in composing this inventory.
The local protocols established in the CAP will play a key role in ensuring that strategies are developed and
implemented at the local level. The City of Lodi has chosen to utilize an efficiency based emissions target with
the CAP. The logic behind the efficiency targets is that if all California communities achieved this level of
efficiency on a "fair -share" per service population basis, then the State would achieve its AB 32's 2020 GHG
reduction goals. The target metric is calculated by dividing total land use related statewide emissions by the
sum total of population and jobs projected in the State in the horizon. The CAP establishes a target of
improving communitywide per service population emissions efficiency to 4.5 MT CO2e/ service population/
year by 2020 and to 3.0 MT COW service population/ year. These goals demonstrate the City's commitment
to make a fair -share contribution to state climate protection efforts and demonstrate a trajectory towards an
emissions level in-line with State mandates. Overall, the City's 2008 emissions baseline total was 486,628
CAP NegDec Certification
Page 3 of 4
metric tons CO2 equivalent. The 2008 baseline is included in the CAP as Appendix "A" and has been
organized by the following major categories, called "sectors," including transportation, residential buildings,
commercial and industrial buildings solid waste, wastewater, and municipal operations.
Emissions Sector
Baseline 2008
Business -as -usual 2020
Business -as -usual
2030
MT CO2e
%
MT CO2e
% increase
2010-2020
MT CO2e
%
increase
2010-
2030''
Energy Consumption
268,102
55.1%
371,915
38.7%
458,427
71.0%
Electricity
179,781
36.9%
249,396
38.7°o
307,408
71.0°0
Natural Gas
88,320
18.1%
122,520
38.7%
151,019
71.0%
Transportation
148,624
29.0%
212,329
42.9%
276,901
86.3%
On -Road Vehicles
141,124
29.0%
201,925
43.1%
264,077
87.1%
Off -Road Vehicles
7,500
1.5%
10,404
38.75o
12,824
71.0%
Solid Waste
54,305
11.2%
75,333
38.7%
92,856
71.0%
Water consumption
5,231
1.1%
7,257
38.7%
8,945
71.0%
Wastewater Treatment
3,649
0.7%
5,061
38.7%
1 6,239
71.0%
Municipal
6,717
1.4%
8,075
20.2% 1
9,207
37.1%
Source: Lodi Climate Action Plan
As shown in Table 1, without state or local action, emissions would grow 39.7% from 2010 to 2020 and by
75.2% from 2010 to 2030. Transportation emissions would grow the most amongst the sectors (42.9% by
2020 and by 86.3% by 2030). The next largest sector would be energy consumption, followed by solid waste,
and water and wastewater, all of which are expected to increase 38% by year 2020. Many of these increases
result from planned residential developments forecasted to occur in the 2010 General Plan. However, the
market realities since 2008 significantly altered these numbers.
Achieving the goals of AB 32 to reduce GHG emissions by approximately 15 percent from current levels by
2020 will require a wide range of approaches. The CAP will position the City to address a variety of emission
sources and proposes transportation, residential building, nonresidential, solid waste, water, and municipal
operations reduction strategies. These efforts provide the framework for moving forward with development and
implementation of a CAP, and are summarized below:
1. Energy Efficiency recommends ways to increase energy efficiency in existing buildings and systems;
and increase the use of renewable energy.
2. Transportation encourages alternatives to driving alone by car; promotes transit as a viable
transportation mode; and greater travel efficiency.
3. Solid Waste increases organic waste diversion to decrease methane emissions.
4. Water recommends actions to support state mandated goals to reduce water consumption and the
energy required to collect, store, distribute, and treat water and wastewater.
5. Green Infrastructure uses urban vegetation to off -set the urban heat island effect, thereby reducing
building energy use.
Strategies listed in the CAP (Exhibit "CC -2") are associated with a measure or series of measures that helps
identify how the City and the broader community can reduce GHG emissions. Each measure listed includes a
brief description and reduction assumption. The combination of statewide reduction described in Table 4 and
CAP NegDec Certification
Page 4 of 4
the communitywide reduction measures detailed above in Table 5 result in overall reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions 15% by 2020 and 37% by 2030.
The Planning Division conducted an initial environmental assessment of the project in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff determined that the project will not have a significant
impact on the environment and therefore a Negative Declaration is prepared. An Initial Study and Negative
Declaration was drafted and circulated between July 12, 2013 and August 12, 2013. They City received no
comment during the. public review period. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been proposed as an
adequate environmental documentation for the Climate Action Plan.
FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable.
FUNDING AVAILABLE: Not applicable.
Konradt ffartlam .
Community Development Director
KB/IB
Attachments:
1. Planning Commission Staff Report
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 13-18
3. Planning Commission minutes of October 9, 2013
4. Climate Action Plan
5. Initial Study/Negative Declaration
6. City Council Draft Resolution
CITY OF LODI
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
MEETING DATE: October 9, 2013
APPLICATION NO: NIA
REQUEST: Request for Planning Commission to Recommend to the City
Council Adoption of the Draft Climate Action Pian and Certify the
Negative Declaration.
LOCATION: City Wide
APPLICANT: City of Lodi
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the Draft
Climate Action Plan and certify the Negative Declaration.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK:
Acknowledging some of the climate change issues, the State of California adopted the Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006, also known as AB 32. The law requires the California Air Resources Board
(CARE) to develop regulatory and market mechanisms that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions to
1990 levels by 2020. As the lead agency for implementing AB 32, in December 2008, CARB approved
the AB 32 Scoping Plan outlining regulatory and market mechanisms to achieve the goal of AB 32. The
plan cites local government action as an integral partner to achieving the State's goals. A number of
other legislative actions support AB 32 and the overall focus on energy efficiency and climate change.
On August 18, 2010, the Lodi City Council approved the City of Lodi's participation in the Smart Valley
Places Compact, a partnership among cities and other local and regional agencies and organizations
from the eight counties of the San Joaquin Valley region. The purpose of this partnership was one, to
work together to locally define and implement a regional plan for sustainable development for the San
Joaquin Valley; and two, to pursue funding such as the Sustainable Communities Planning Grant
Program. Those funds were offered through the Sustainable Communities Partnership, made up of the
U.S. Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Transportation (DOT), and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and were intended to support regional planning efforts that
integrate housing, land use, economic and workforce development, transportation, and infrastructure
investments in a manner that empowers jurisdictions to consider the interdependent challenges of
economic competitiveness and revitalization; social equity, inclusion, and access to opportunity; energy
use and climate change; as well as public health and environmental impacts. At their meeting on
February 5, 2012, the City Council authorized the City Manager to negotiate an agreement with AECOM
(consultant team) for professional services related to the preparation of a CAP and Energy Efficiency and
Conservation Strategy. AECOM and the UC Davis Studio 30 began working on this project to develop a
plan and specific strategies to engage Lodi residents, businesses, organizations and key stakeholders in
the development of the CAP.
This Climate Action Plan (CAP) is designed to streamline environmental review of future development
projects in the City of Lodi consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines
Section 15183.5(b) and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District) CEQA Air
Quality Guidelines. The CAP identifies a strategy, reduction measures, and implementation strategies the
City will use to achieve the State -recommended greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction target of
15% below 2008 emissions levels by 2020.
Project Kick Off
The development of the CAP grew out of corroborative city staff, students from the University of
California, Davis's Land Use and Natural Resources extension program, the consultant firm, and citizens
J,\Community Development\Planning\STAFF REPORTS\2013\10-09-2013 Climate Action Plan
input. Key stakeholders were identified and engaged in a series of individual meetings and group
workshops. Real-estate developers were invited to attend an individual "round -table" discussion. The
round -table was attended by representatives of the Building Industry Association of the Delta who
provided a regional perspective on development. The developers provided insight into the state of
development in Lodi and the: potential for measures that addressed new and existing buildings.
Inventory and Reduction Target
The city of Lodi's baseline inventory is ordered by sector. A "sector" is an individual subset of the total
greenhouse emission spectrum, composed of emissions relating to an economy, industry, market, or
general society. The sectors that were measured in this CAP are: energy, transportation, solid waste,
waste water, and water consumption. Each of these sectors is shown separately in the overall emissions
spectrum to allow for specific measure development for emissions reductions.
lnventoty
A GHG emissions inventory (inventory) lays the groundwork for the entire CAP planning process. This
Inventory catalogues GHG emissions for 2008 and projects emissions levels for 2020. To comply with
state guidance, the CAP identifies an emissions reduction target for the forecast year (see Chapter 4 of
the CAP). The difference between the emissions projection and the reduction target represents the
necessary reduction in the amount of GHG emissions and sets the focus for the reduction measures
presented in Chapter 5 of the CAP. Additional information on the Inventory is provided in Appendix A of
the CAP.
In 2008, the Lodi community emitted approximately 486,628 MTCO2e_ Table 4 below reports these
emissions by sector and ranks the sectors from highest to lowest.
TABLE 1; BASELINE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 2008
Emisslons Sector
MT COZe
%
Energy Consumption
268,102
5.5.10%
Residential Electricity
6.1,295
12.6035
Residential Natural Gas
118,486
24.3035
Non -Residential Electricity
52,548
10.80%
Transportation
35,773
7.40%
On -Road Vehicles
148,624
30.50%
Off -,Road Vehicles and Equipment
141,124
29.00%
Solid Waste
7,500
1.50%
Water Consumption
54,305
1.1.20%
Wastewater Treatment
5,231
1.10%
Municipal
3,649
0,70%
TOTAL
486,628
1op 0' ►
Source. Lodi Climate Action Plan
The baseline inventory guides future local policy decisions that relate to emissions within the City's
influence; therefore, energy and water consumption, and other private sector activities are excluded from
further discussion. Table 2 and Figure 1 (following page) reflect Lodi's municipal baseline of 5,747
MTCO2e.
!:\Community Development\Planning\STAFF REPORTS\2013\10-09-2013 Climate Action Plan 2
TABLE 2: MUNICIPAL EMISSIONS 2008
Emissions Sector
MT CO2e
%
Buildings and Facilities
1,941
29%
Electricity
103
2%
Natural Gas
1,838
27%
Mobile Fleet
1,612
2494
Gasoline
1,173
1736
Diesel
354
5%
Refrigerants
84
1%
CNG
2
0%
Wastewater Treatment
1,519
23%
Employee Commute
739
11%
Power Generation
653
10%
Streetlights
145
2916
Solid Waste
55
19tol
Transit Fleet
50
1%
Water Delivery
3
0%
Storm water Management
2
0%
Water Delivery Pumps
1
0%
TOTAL
6,717
100%*
Source: Lodi Climate Action Plan
Individual percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
Figure t:
Jurisdictional Baseline Emissions by Sector
Municipal Emissions 2008
2,000
1,800
1,400-
1,200-
1.000-
800-
600-
4001
,4001,2001,000800600400 Y
200-
0
Buildings Mobile Fleet Wastewater Employee Power Streetlights Solid WasteTranA Fleet Water
and Treatment Commute Generation Deiiwq
Facilities
1;\Community Develop ment\Plann ing\STAFF REPORTS\2013\10-09-2013 Climate Action Plan
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Forecast
A GHG emissions forecast is an estimate of future GHG emissions based on anticipated changes in
population, jobs, households, commercial activity, and driving patterns in the community. This forecast of
community -wide emissions addresses 2020 and 2030, the AB 32 horizon year. Two versions of the
forecast are presented below -a business -as -usual (BALI) and a State -adjusted BALI (adjusted BAU)
scenario.
Business as Usual Forecast
The BALI forecast estimates how emissions would grow over time without influence from state, regional,
and local GHG reduction efforts. This BALI forecast assumes 2008 energy consumption and energy
efficiency rates and incorporates demographic information from the City of Lodi population growth
estimates prepared in 2012 as part of the Impact Fee Program prepared and adopted in the fall of 2092.
Emissions Sector Baseline 2008
MT CO2e %
Business -as -usual 2020
Business -as -usual 2030
MT COze
% Increase
2010-2020
MT COZe
% Increase
2010-2030
Energy Consumption
268,102
55.1%
371,915
38.7%
458,427
71.0%
Electricity
179,781
36.9%
249,395
38.7%
307,408
71.0%
Natural Gas
88,320
18.1%
122,520
38.7%
151,019
71.0%
Transportation
148,624
29.0%
212,329
42.9%
276,901
86,3%
On -Road Vehicles
141,124
29.095
201,925
43.1%
264,077
87.1%
Off -Road Vehicles
7,500
1.5%
10,404
38.7%
11,824
71.0%
Solid Waste
54,305
11.2%
75,333
38.7%
92,856
71.0%
Water consumption
5,231
1.1%
7,257
38.7%
8,945
71.0%
Wastewater Treatment
3,649
0.7%
5,061
38.7%
6,239
71.0%
Municipal
6,717
1.4%
8,075
20.2%
9,207
37.1%
Total
486,628
100.0%
679,970
39.7%
852,575
75.2%
Source. Lodi Climate Action Plan
As shown in Table 3, without state or local action, emissions would grow 39.7% from 2010 to 2020 and
by 75.2% from 2010 to 2030. Transportation emissions would grow the most amongst the sectors (42.9%
by 2020 and by 86.3% by 2030). The next largest sector would be energy consumption, followed by solid
waste, and water and wastewater, all of which are expected to increase 38% by year 2020. Many of
these increases result from planned residential developments forecasted to occur in the 2010 General
Plan. However, the market realities since 2008 significantly altered these numbers.
Adjusted Business as Usual Forecast
The adjusted business -as -usual (adjusted BALI) forecast estimates how state renewable energy, building
energy efficiency, low-GHG transportation fuels, and vehicle fuel efficiency actions will reduce emissions
in Lodi. This adjustment creates a more realistic estimate of the city's future emissions since the
reductions will require little to no effort on behalf of the City, yet count toward a locally established GHG
emissions reduction target. A general overview of these state reduction programs is presented below.
J;\Community Development\Planning\STAFF REPOR'T'S\2013\10-09-2013 Climate Action Plan 4
State Reduction Summary
2020
(MT COzelyr)
2030
(MT COze/yr)
Energy Efficiency
Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)
31,424
38,733
Transportation
Aa 1493 (Pooley!)
44,674
92,650
AB 1493 (Pavleyll)
3,284
3,488
EO -S-1-07 Law Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS)
19,222
24,832
Water
SB 7x Water Conservation
1,271
1,523
% Business -As -.Usual
14.9%
19.1%
SUBTOTAL STATEWIDE REDUCTIONS
99,875
161,227
Source: Lodi Climate Action Plan
As shown in Table 4, implementation of the above -listed state programs would reduce BAU emissions by
02,664 MTCO2e in 2020. Most of these reductions come from the Paviey standards and cleaner Electric
Utility Department pursuant to the RPS, State and federal actions that reduce communitywide emissions
within the City of Lodi will make it easier for the community to achieve 2020 and 2030 emission reduction
goals. As shown in Table 4 with implementation of State and federal actions, .communitywide emissions
would be 580,094 MT CO2elyr in 2020 and 691,346 MT CO2elyear in 2030.
Reduction Target
The City of Lodi has chosen to utilize an efficiency based emissions target with the CAP. The logic
behind the efficiency targets is that if all California communities achieved this level of efficiency on a "fair -
share" per service population basis, then the State would achieve its AB 32's 2020 GHG reduction goals.
The target metric is calculated by dividing total land use related statewide emissions by the sum total of
population and jobs projected in the State in the horizon. The CAP establishes a target of improving
communitywide per service population emissions efficiency to 4.5 MT CO2e1 service population/ year by
2020 and to 3.0 MT CO2e1 service population/ year. These goals demonstrate the City's commitment to
make a fair -share contribution to state climate protection efforts and demonstrate a trajectory towards an
emissions level in-line with State mandates.
Reduction Measures
Measures were developed by (a) evaluating existing community conditions-, (b) identifying emission
reduction opportunities within the community; and (c) reviewing best practices from other jurisdictions
and organizations. Two categories of GHG reduction policies are presented in this CAP: (1) existing
activities and (2) CAP measures and actions.. Existing activities include projects or programs enacted
before or since the 2008 baseline year. CAP measures and actions were created for this document
through a collaborative planning process: The City will implement these measures and actions through
new and existing programs, standards for new development, and programs that improve the efficiency of
existing development.
Measures are grouped into five strategy areas that represent the primary ways to reduce communitywide.
GHG emissions in Lodi Strategy areas are as follows:
• Energy Efficiency recommends ways to increase energy efficiency in existing buildings and
systems; and increase the use of renewable energy.
• Transportation encourages alternatives to driving alone by car; promotes transit as a viable
transportation mode; and greater travel efficiency.
• Solid Waste increases organic waste diversion to decrease methane emissions.
• Water recommends actions to support state mandated goals to reduce water consumption and
the energy required to collect, store, distribute, and treat water and wastewater.
J:\Community Development1Planning.�STAFF REPORTS\2013,10-09-2013 Climate Action Plan
+ Green Infrastructure uses urban vegetation to off -set the urban heat island effect, thereby
reducing building energy use.
Energy Efficient
Energy Efficiency
Retrofits
E-1.1
LEU Energy Conservation Programs
7,474
13,919
E-1.2
Energy Efficient Financing
175
262
E-1.3
Low -Income Weatherization
175
262
Building Systems Efficiency
E-2.1
Energy Management Systems
1339
4,437
E-2.2
Commercial Building
Commissioning
1,698
2,094
E-2.3
Building Shade Trees
34
56
E-2.4
I Streetlight Upgrades
1,568
1,568
Renewable EnerRv
Generation
E-3.1
Solar Photovoltaic Systems
3,735
6,518
E-3.2
Solar Water Heaters
188
235
Subtotal
16,386
29,352
Transportation
Transportation Strate
T-11
Telecommuting and Alternative
Work Schedules
3,080
4,134
T-1.2
Reduced Parking Minimum
Requirements
527
240
T-1.3
Carsharin
85
109
T-1.4
Transit Improvements
13,717
18,571
T-1.5
Ridesharing
1,558
2,099
Subtotal
18,967
25,153
Solid Waste
Waste Diversion
SW -0.0
Methane Capture"
7,458
7,748
SW -1.1
Organic Waste Diversion
1,671
5,511
Subtotal
9,129
13,260
COMMUNITYWIDE TOTAL
44,481
67,765
Source: Lodi Climate Action Plan
The combination of statewide reduction described in Table 4 and the communitywide reduction measures
detailed above in Table 5 result in overall reduction of greenhouse gas emissions 15% by 2020 and 37%
by 2030.
SUMMARY OF REDUCTIONS:
En_En_ eLgy:
In 2008, the city's consumption of electricity for appliances, lighting and cooling, and combustion of
natural gas for heating, cooking, and other processes within residential, commercial, and industrial
buildings generated 58% (295,649 MT CO2 -e) of Lodi's total GHG emissions. Of the total energy
consumption in Lodi, residential energy use accounted for 39% (113,843 MT CO2 -e) whereas non-
residential energy use accounted for 61% (181,806 MT CO2 -e). The CRP's energy efficiency measures
are primarily focused on efficient use of electricity, though some measures will also result in natural gas
savings. Measures include retrofits of existing residential and commercial buildings, building system
efficiency upgrades, streetlight upgrades, building shade tree planting, and increasing renewable energy
f:\Community Development\Planning\STAFF REPO RTS\2013\10-09-2013 Climate Action Plan
use. The total GHG emission reduction potential of the energy efficiency strategy is 16,386 MT CO2e/yr
in 2020 and 29,352 MT CO2elyr in 2030.
Transportation and Land Use:
Transportation is the second largest sector in Lodi's baseline inventory, producing 29% (148,624 MT
CO2 -e) of Lodi's total GHG emissions (514,175 MT CO2 -e) in 2008. Emissions in this sector are primarily
the result of the combustion of fossil fuels and are determined largely by the number of vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) by residents and employees. The best practices for reducing transportation -related
greenhouse gas emissions involve reducing the number of vehicle trips through various transportation
demand management (TDM) strategies and enhancing the viability of transit and other forms of
alternative transportation. In addition, transit -oriented development and mixed-use developments result in
denser uses near commercial centers that contribute 'to decreased vehicle trips. The greenhouse gas
reduction strategies presented in this CAP primarily focus on TDM strategies and transit system
improvements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The total GHG emission reduction potential of the
transportation strategy is 18,967 MT CO2elyr in 2020 and 25,153 MT CO2elyr in 2030.
Solid Waste:
Waste disposal creates emissions when organic waste (e.g., food scraps, yard clippings, paper, and
wood products) is buried in landfills and anaerobic digestion takes place, emitting methane. In Lodi, 11%
of GHG emissions are associated with solid waste generation and disposal in landfills. Construction
waste accounts for approximately 29% of the waste stream statewide, and includes items such as
lumber, drywall, metals, masonry, carpet, plastics, pipes, rocks, and dirt. The CAP's waste diversion
measures seek to divert. organic waste from landfills by reusing construction materials when possible and
increasing communitywide participation in food scrap and yard waste composting. The total GHG
emission reduction potential of the waste strategy is 9,129 MT CO2elyr in 2020 and 13,260 MT CO2e/yr
in 2030.
Water:
Water -related GHG emissions are mainly caused by energy used to pump, transport, heat, cool, and
treat potable water. Emissions associated with this energy use accounted for approximately 1% of the
communitywide GHG inventory. Water supplies are expected to continue to decline in the future, so
water conservation strategies have the double benefit of reducing GHG emissions and aligning demand
with future water availability. The measures included in this section quantify the greenhouse gas
emissions reductions. of conservation programs that are already underway in the city.
Green infrastructure:
Green infrastructure refers mainly to the open spaces and vegetation that provide places for recreation,
wildlife habitat, and relief from the heat of the sun. The term can also refer to building -integrated
vegetation projects, such as green walls and green roofs. There are numerous benefits to planting trees
and increasing vegetated surfaces, including reduced surface runoff, increases in natural habitat,
reduced urban heat island effect and opportunities for carbon sequestration. While vegetation -related
carbon sequestration is known to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the precise level to which
this occurs is not well understood and difficult to quantify at this time. As a supplement to the quantified
measures in this CAP, two measures are included in the Green Infrastructure section that are not
quantified, but rather focus on environmental stewardship and education through local agency
partnerships and demonstration projects.
Reductions since 2008 Baseline
The City of Lodi has a proven history of developing and implementing GHG reduction activities.
Emissions reductions from these activities will take place regardless of the development of the CAP.
They are included in this plan because the City has not previously quantified them, and they count toward
achievement of the GHG emissions reduction target. These measures also highlight how proposed CAP
measures build upon existing efforts. Existing efforts include "waste reduction", "new multi -family
development', 'Bike Master Plan", and implementation and enforcement of the California Green Building
Code.
J;\Community Development\Planning\STAFF RFPORTS\2013\10-09-2013 Climate Action Plan
IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN:
For discretionary projects seeking to use CEQA streamlining provisions, the City may require measures
in the CAP as mandatory conditions of approval or as mitigation identified in a mitigated negative
declaration or in an environmental impact report, as appropriate, on a project -by -project basis. This
approach allows the City to ensure that new development can benefit from CEQA streamlining provisions
while also ensuring that the City can achieve the reduction targets outlined in this plan.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY:
The City of Lodi's 2010 General Plan calls for preparation and adoption of a Climate Action Plan. The
proposed Climate Action Plan fulfills one of the several policy directives outlines in the General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The Planning Division conducted an initial environmental assessment of the project in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff determined that the project will not have a
significant impact on the environment and therefore a Negative Declaration is prepared. An Initial Study
and Negative Declaration was drafted and circulated between July 12, 2013 and August 12, 2013. They
City received no comment during the public review period. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been
proposed as an adequate environmental documentation for the Climate Action Plan.
STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION
Planning staff and consultant met with representatives from the local individuals, developers, citizens,
civic groups, environmental groups, and the governmental affairs personnel from the Building Industry
Association to describe the CAP and receive comment. The input from these community outreach efforts
was used to develop new goals and policies that have been incorporated into a draft Climate Action Plan.
In addition, the City presented the document to the Planning Commission at its meeting of September 11,
2013, which was published in the paper and notices were sent to stakeholders and interested parties.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS:
After the Commission completes its review of the proposed Draft Climate Action Plan, staff recommends
that the attached draft resolution be adopted making the recommendation to the City Council to adopt the
Draft Climate Action Plan and certify the proposed Negative Declaration as adequate environmental
documentation for the project. Any additional changes requested by the Commission would be included
in the motion to approve the resolution.
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE:
Legal Notice for the Climate Action Plan and the Negative Declaration was published on Lodi Sentient
newspaper on Saturday, September 28, 2013 and eleven (11) notices were sent via email and US Post
to stakeholders and interested parties as required by Government Code §65091 (a) (3).
ALTERNATIVE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS:
• Approve with additional/different conditions
• Deny the Use Permit request
• Continue the request
Respectfully Submitted, Ca cur,
Immanuel �Bereke�t�� Konradt Bartlam
Associate Planner Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Climate Action Pian
2. Project Initial Study/Negative Declaration
3. Draft Resolution
J:\Community Development\Pianning\STAFF REPORTS\2013\10-04-2013 Climate Action Plan 8
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 13-18
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LODI RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED DRAFT CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND TO
CERTIFY THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WHEREAS, on January 20, 2009, the City Council of the City of Lodi adopted a 2010 General Plan
which calls for preparation and adoption of a Climate Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, on February 15, 2012, the Climate Action Plan (CAP) project was initiated to streamline
environmental review of future development projects in the City of Lodi consistent with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183.5(b) and the
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The CAP
identifies a strategy, reduction measures, and implementation strategies the City will use
to achieve the State -recommended greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction target
of 15% below 2008 emissions levels by 2020; and
WHEREAS, City Staff and the Consultant have been working diligently since that time to prepare a
draft Climate Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lodi has prepared a draft Climate Action Plan, which was released for public
review on September 2, 2013; and
WHEREAS, the Citywide Climate Action Plan identifies strategies the City will use to achieve the
State -recommended greenhouse. gas (GHG) emissions reduction target of 15% below
2008 emissions levels by 2020; and
WHEREAS, the City conducted an Initial Study pursuant to CEQA to determine if the proposed
Citywide Climate Action Plan would have any significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, CEQA does not require a detailed evaluation of all projects that could conceivably be
developed consistent with Climate Action Plan policies, but rather requires the City to
conduct project -level environmental review for subsequent projects as appropriate; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study concluded that the proposed Citywide Climate Action Plan would have
no significant environmental impacts;,and
WHEREAS, on July 12, 2013, a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration was prepared,
posted by the San Joaquin County Clerk, and circulated for a 30 day public review
period in accordance. with CEQA; and
WHEREAS, on July 18, 2013, a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration was published on
the Lodi News Sentinel; and
WHEREAS, no comments were received from the public during the public review period; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after giving all public notices required by State law and the
Lodi Municipal Code, held a duly noticed public hearing on October 9, 2013 to consider
the Project; and
WHEREAS, at such public hearing, the Planning Commission considered all testimony and
information received at the public hearing, the oral report from City staff, the written
report from City staff dated October 9, 2013, exhibits- presented, pertinent pians and
documents, the Negative Declaration, and other materials and information contained in
the record of proceedings relating to the Project, which are maintained at the offices of
the City of Lodi Planning Division (collectively, "Environmental Information"); and
I',' V� �L,!,PLI!�.?1,ItJ la's:, �' i:�LfJ:!.i?>,�.11i lii
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the approval of this request have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T FOUND that the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi hereby
incorporates the staff report and attachments, project file, testimony presented at the time of the
hearing, and written comments, on this matter, and make the following findings:
1. The recitals above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.
2. The Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental document for the Project.
3. The environmental documents for the Project have been prepared, published, circulated, and
reviewed in accordance with CEQA.
4. The Planning Commission hasreviewed, considered, and evaluated all ,of the Environmental
Information.
5. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City as the lead
agency for the ProJect.
6. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Planning Commission,
that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment.
7. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt. the Negative
Declaration as part of its consideration and approval of the proposed Citywide "Climate Action
Plan.
8. The draft Climate Action Plan is consistent with all of the applicable objectives, policies; general
land uses, programs, and actions of all applicable elements of the General Plan.
9. The draft Climate Action Plan will notbe: detrimental to the public convenience, health, safety, or
general welfare of the City.
10. The draft Climate Action Plan is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of the
policies.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.
2. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt
a Resolution adopting the draft Climate Action Plan and Certify the Negative Declaration as an
adequate environmental documentation.
Dated: October 9, 2013
I hereby certify that Resolution No. 13.18 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Lodi at a regular meeting held on Wednesday, October 9, 2013, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Heinitz, H'ennecke, Kiser., Kirsten, Olson, Slater, and Chair Jones
NOES: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners. None
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planning Comm sion
-fL-ini mrCy=-'ie'.alpi,i,..s$F-'p:ti.l'iI?"61'20I : 2
LODI PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING
CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 20-13
1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
The Regular Planning Commission meeting of October 9, 2013 was called to order by Chair Jones at 7.00 p.m.
Present: Planning Commissioners— Heinitz, Hennecke, Kiser, Kirsten, Olson, Slater and Chair Jones
Absent: Planning. Commissioners — None
Also Present: Community Development Director Konradt Bartlam, Deputy City Attorney Janice Magdich,
Neighborhood Services Manager Joseph Wood, and Administrative Secretary Karl
Chadwick
2. MINUTES
"August 14, 2013"
MOTION / VOTE:
The planning Commission, on motion of Commissioner Kiser, Slater second, approved the minutes of
August 14, 2013 as written. (Commissioners Heinitz and Jones abstained because they were not in
attendance. of subject meeting)
"September 11, 2013"
MOTION / VOTE:
The Planning Commission, on motion of Commissioner Heinitz, Kiser second, approved the minutes of
September 11, 2413 as written. (Commissioners Hennecke and Kirsten abstained because they were
not in attendance of subject meeting)
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a) Notice thereof having been published according to law, an affidavit of which publication is on file in the
Community Development Department, Chair Jones called for the public hearing to consider the request
of the Planning Commission for approval of a Use Permit to allow a mixed martial arts studio and
training facility within an existing industrial building located at 1744 Akerman Drive. (Applicant: Mike
Kogan, on behalf of Diaz Ventures, LLC; File 13-U-14; CEQA Determination: Categorical Exemption
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 In -Fill Development Projects)
Director Bartlam gave a brief PowerPoint presentation based on the staff report. Staff recommends
approval of the project as conditioned.
Hearing Opened to the Public
• None
Public Portion of Hearing Closed
• Commissioner Olson asked if staff had. the floor pian on one of the slides. .She would like to
know how all of the equipment was going to fit into the space. There seems to be a lot of
activity going on in the space. Director Bartlam stated that he did not have that pian on one of
the slides.
• Vice Chair Kiser asked if the applicant is going to be required to bring the building up to code
for ADA purposes: - Director Bartlam stated that they will need to meet all the codes.
Page 2 of 4 Oeta6er 9, 2013 PC Minutes Continued
MOT10N / VOTE:
The Planning Commission, on motion of Kirsten, Kiser second, approved the request to continue
the Use Permit to allow a mixed martial arts studio and training facility within an existing industrial
building located at 1744 Akerman Drive subject to the conditions in the resolution.
• Commissioner Heinitz stated his opposition to approving a project when the applicant
doesn't attend the meeting to answer questions such as Commissioner Olson.'s.
• Commissioner Olson asked if it could be a matter of the applicant being late. Director
Bartlam stated that they were informed of the meeting.
• Commissioner Heinitz asked if the Commission could continue the item to a future date
rather than deny the application, so the applicant won't have to incur new fees. Director
Bartlam stated that if the Commission wished they could continue the item to a future
meeting.
• Commissioner Kirsten stated that he was fine with the application and comfortable with
staff recommendation and would like his motion to stand.
• Commissioner Hennecke stated that his support for the project.
• Commissioner Olson stated her support for the project and her disappointment that the
applicant wasn't able to make to answer questions.
The motion carried by the following. vote:
Ayes: Commissioners— Hennecke, Kiser, Kirsten, Olson, Slater and Chair Jones
Noes: Commissioners— Heinitz
Absent: Commissioners - None
b) Notice thereof having been published according to law, an affidavit of which publication is on file in the
Community Development Department, Chair Jones called for the public hearing to consider the request
of the Planning Commission for approval of a Use Permit to establish a ready -mix batch plant at 1580
East Pine Street. (Applicant: Reyes Jaramillo; File No. 13-U-11; CEQA Determination: Categorical
Exemption Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 In -Fill Development Projects)
Director Bartlam .gave a brief PowerPoint presentation based on the staff report. The protest letters
were pointed out to the Commission. Staff recommends approval of the project as conditioned.
Commissioner Hennecke asked for confirmation that there will not be any recycling on the property.
Director Bartlam stated that the condition has been added because that is not the applicant's intent.
Hennecke asked about the surplus concrete that Customers bring back. Typically that is recycled.
Bartlam stated that that is a good question for the applicant.
Vice Chair Kiser asked if the equipment has been check for the possibility of causing noise issues.
Director Bartlam stated that the site is not going to be a crushing site. This will be very similar to the old
US Rentals site.
Chair Jones asked about the distances on the sound level chart in the Blue Sheet letters. Mr. Snider
stated that the column directly below the center circle is in feet.
Commissioner Heinitz asked if the chart that has been supplied is accurate and if the comparisons used
correct. Director Bartlam stated that staff confirmed that the chart is accurate.
Hearing Opened to the Public
* Stephen Snider, representative for the applicant, came forward to answer questions. The
facility is going to be mixing a yard at a time; it is not a large batch plant. Mr. Snider pointed out
the correspondence that he sent to the Commission earlier today. He stated that the chart was
sent to the Lodi Cemetery by his office along with some correspondence. The applicant has
expressed his willingness to work with the neighbors if they have an event occurring at the
cemetery.
• Commissioner Slater asked for confirmation regarding the fact that the business is only for the
business use and not open to the public and if the applicant is willing to clean up any accidental
N
Page 3 of G October 9, .2013 PC Minutes Continued
spillage of concrete in the streets. Mr. Snider stated that the applicant will definitely be
proactive with any messes made by his business.
• Commission Hennecke asked if the trailers are the rotating trailers. Heyes Jaramillo stated that
they are. Hennecke stated his concern for the noise that they put out. He would like to know
what the noise factor is for the .mobile trailers. Director Bartlam stated that our noise ordinance
does not pertain to mobile noise sources.
• Mr. Snider questioned condition number twenty-nine addresses noise pertaining to the
envelope of the building and there is no building involved with this situation. B.artiam stated that
condition twenty-nine is directly out of the noise ordinance.
• Vice Chair Kiser asked if Mr. Jaramillo planned on getting a larger batch truck. Mr. Jaramillo
came to the podium to answer the question. Kiser would like to insert a condition that would
stipulate that only one yard trucks shall be used for the business. Mr. Jaramillo stated that he is
does not plan to increase the size at this time. Kiser asked if he would be okay with a condition
that states that only one yard trailers will be used. Mr. Jaramillo stated that he isn't sure if he
will be using larger trucks, so he isn't sure.
• Commissioner Heinitz stated that since there isn't any plan at this time to have bigger trucks
then we should be able to put the condition in and Me. Jaramilio could come back and ask to
enlarge the truck size. Heinitz stated that he visited the site and commended Mr. Jaramillo for
placing the batch site as far away from the cemetery as possible.
• Commissioner Slater stated his agreement with Commission Kiser and Heinitz.
Public Portion of Hearing Closed
• Vice Chair Kiser would like to have a condition added for limiting the size of the trailer.
• Commissioner Olson asked if there is already a condition. in the resolution that limits the size.
Director Bartlam stated that there isn't a condition that addresses the size of the trucks, but the
condition could be added as number thirty-seven.
• Commissioner Kirsten stated that the sound conversion chart seems to nullify the eighty
disciple level for the concerns of the cemetery, Kiser stated that when the tubs on the trailers
are rotating with dry material the noise is higher than after it is mixed. Bartlam added not to
take away from the cemetery's historic location, but once the trucks exist the property they are
on an industrial street surrounded by industrial uses.
MOTION I VOTE:
The Planning Commission, on motion of Vice Chair Kiser, Heinitz second, approved the request to
continue the Use Permit to establish a ready -mix batch plant at 1560 East Pine Street subject to the
conditions in the resolution with the condition below added.
Director Bartlam stated:
Condition #37 — "The maximum size of any truck/trailer hauling concrete from the site shall not
exceed one yard capacity."
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Commissioners— Heinitz, Honnecko, Kiser, Kirsten, Olson, Slater and Chair Jones
Noes: Commissioners — None
Absent: Commissioners - None
c) Notice thereof having been published according to law, an affidavit of which publication is on file in the
Community Development Department, Chair Jones called for the public hearing to consider the request
of the Planning Commission Approval of;
Growth Management Allocation for 232 Low Density Residential Lots; and
3
Page 4' of 6 October 9; 2013 PC Minutes Confinised
• A Vested Subdivision Map for the Proposed Rose Gate Subdivision, a 50 acre, 232 lot, single-family
residential subdivision
• Adopt Development Standards for the subdivision known as Rose Gate Subdivision located within
Planned Development 42 Zoning District
(Applicant: FCB Homes, Inc.; File #'s: 13-S-01 and 13 -GM -01; CEQA Status: Project Environmental
Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2005092096, Certified on November 15, 2006)
Director Bartlam gave a brief PowerPoint presentation based on the staff report. Staff recommends
approval of the project as conditioned.
Vice Chair Kiser asked if another development agreement would be put into place since the original
agreement has been cancelled. Bartlam stated there would not be another agreement. Kiser asked if
there was originally supposed to be a 300 foot easement over the Woodbridge Irrigation District Canal.
Ba0lam stated that the easement is only 100 foot, but there was originally a 300 foot easement set up
to run along the westerly edge which was the original city limits line. That line was pushed further to the
west with the adoption of the new General Plan.
Commissioner Slater asked about a few of the flag lots and the parking issues that can occur. Barham
stated that his personal view of flag lot allows for design flexibility and it takes a special kind of home
owner to live on a flag lot. Heinitz stated that flag lots can be very successful in Lodi.
Commissioner Heinitz asked about the retention basin being so large and the departure from the plan to
put smaller parks and a long line of water retention along the westerly edge of the project with a
walking/biking path. Bartlam state that this is an in-between basin/park combination and will allow for
smaller neighborhood style parks to be placed in all of the subsequent new subdivisions,
Commissioner Olson asked what staffs thoughts are regarding the subdivision street size. Bartlam
stated that the improvements to Lodi Avenue will be fully built out for the project up to the roundabout
and. will then transition back to a two-lane road. Olson asked if the public services are in place to
services this development. Bartlarn stated that the community facility district will be collecting 650
dollars per year per dwelling.
Commission Kiser asked if there will be parking on both sides of the street. Bartlam stated there will be
parking on both sides.
Commission Hennecke asked about the fire trucks needing 24' and the sizes illustrated on the plans
are smaller than that. Bartlam stated that this is the same type of layout that has existed for the last
then years in the development south of Century Boulevard around Mills Avenue and the Fire
Department has had no problems maneuvering in the trucks through the area.
Commissioner Heinitz asked if there will be a Mello -Roos fee paid. Bartlam stated that there will be
only the Community Facilities District Fee paid which will cover more than a typical Landscape District
fee. Jones asked it will include the slurry -sealing of the streets. Bartlam stated it would not.
Hearing Opened to the Public
• Tom Doucette, applicant, came forward to answer questions.
• Commissioner Hennecke disclosed that he has had a conversation with the applicant regarding
the project.
• Chair Jones asked why the lot sizes. Doucette stated that it allows for a good variety of housing
prices as well as different looks. There will be a good mix of single -story and two-story dwelling.
styles.
• Commissioner Heinitz stated his appreciation of the project. He also added his concern with
the way that the corners turn out.
• Mr. Doucette added that the size of the streets has caused a few complaints from people that
live there, but all of the studies say that they are safer because they cause the vehicles to
naturally slow down. Heinitz stated that the only complaint that he has heard over the years is
on garbage day it can be tough to find an open spot to put the cans.
• Kathy Polinski, Lodi resident, came forward to ask about the roundabout and if anyone using
Lodi heading towards Davis Road will encounter it. It was confirmed that you will encounter the
4
Page 5 of 6 October 9, 2013 PC wnutes Continued
roundabout if you head west on Lodi Avenue heading to Davis Road coming from Lower
Sacramento Road,
Public Portion of Hearing Closed
• Commissioner .Kirsten shared that on Myth -busters they confirmed that roundabouts make the
roads safer. Heinitz stated that there is a roundabout in Woodbridge if you want to experience
driving through one.
• Commissioner Hennecke stated his pleasure at seeing growth in Lodi.
MOTION I VOTE:
The Planning Commission, on motion of Commissioner Kirsten, Hennecke second, approved the
request for a Vested Subdivision Map for Rose Gate Subdivision, a 50 -acre, 234 -lot, single-family
residential subdivision, Development Standards for Rose Gate Subdivision and recommends that
the City Council approve 232 Growth Management Allocations at 2875 West Lodi Avenue subject to
the conditions in the resolution. The motion carried by the following vote;
Ayes: Commissioners — Heinitz, Hennecke, Kiser, Kirsten, Olson, Slater and Chair Jones
Noes: Commissioners — None
Absent: Commissioners - None
Commissioner Heinitz asked Mr. Doucette to come forward and explain the reason for picking the name
Rose Gate. Mr. Doucette carne forward and explained that while developing the plans it came up that
the City of Lodi's official flower is the Rose.
d) Notice thereof having been published according to law, an affidavit of which publication is on file in the
Community Development Department, Chair Jones called for the public hearing to consider the request
of the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council Adoption of the Draft Climate Action
Plan and Certify the Negative Declaration,
Director Bartlam introduced Joseph Wood, Neighborhood Services Manager and the Climate Action
Plan (CAP) project manager. Mr. Wood introduced the item and the AECOM consultant representative,
Culley Thomas; who has been working on this item with the City. Mr. Thomas gave a brief PowerPoint
presentation based on the staff report.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the plan
as presented.
Chair Jones asked if the grant covered all of the costs to create the plan. Bartlam stated that it did not
cover our staff costs; it did cover the consultant and outreach costs. Jones asked if the grant came
from State or Federal monies. Bartlam stated that it was a Federal grant. Jones asked what the
incentives will be. Culley stated that the incentives are the CEQA streamlining., Bartlam stated that the
various businesses and homeowners can take advantage of the programs that are offered because the
CAP is in place. The program is completely voluntary from a private sector standpoint, and will be
mandatory for the City. There are things that are considered. just good business that the City will be
doing from an energy standpoint that will save the rate payers money. Jones stated that the State is
mandating that energy companies be operating with 3.3% green energy by 2020; what percent of the
City's energy sources? Bartlam stated that the City is currently at 20%. Culley added that currently all
large hydro in California is not considered green. Bartlam stated that the State does not consider large
Hydra green because of the offsetting environmental impacts such as damning rivers and streams.
Commissioner Slater complimented the City on the programs that have been offered already to the
citizens. How are we going to be delivering the wastewater, purple pipe? Bartlam stated that our own
plant is currently putting things into motion to be a zero discharge plant within the next five to ten years.
Hearing Opened to the Public
• None
5
Page 6 of 6 October 9, 2013 PC Minutes Continued
Public Portion of Hearing Closed
• None
MOTION / VOTE:
The Planning Commission, on motion of Klrsten,; Kiser second, approved the request to
Recommend to the City Council Adoption of the Draft Climate Action Plan and Certify the Negative
Declaration. The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Commissioners— Heinitz, Hennecke, Kiser, Kirsten, Olson, Slater and Chair Jones
Noes: Commissioners — None
Absent: Commissioners - None
4, PLANNING MATTERS/FOLLOW-UP ITEMS
(done
5. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE
None
6. ACTIONS OF THE CITY .COUNCIL
Director Bartlam stated that there wasn't a memo provided, but he would be happy to answer any questions
the Commission may have.
7.. ACTIONS OF THE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
None
4. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES
Commissioner Kirsten gave a brief report on recent meetings. The bronze statues may come back to the
downtown. The first phase of the Utility Box painting project is complete and the next phases are being
planned. The Commissioners complimented how the boxes have turned out. Jones asked if the money
being spent on renting the statues be put toward purchasing permanent art. Kirsten stated that the statues
are extremely pricey, so probably not the statues. Heinitz asked if the new developments will be bringing in
new revenues for Art In Public. Places. Bartlam stated It will. Barham clarified that the boxes are traffic
signal boxes not electrical utility boxes.
S. COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC (NON -AGENDA ITEMS)
None
9. COMMENTS BY STAFF AND COMMISSIONERS (NON -AGENDA ITEMS)
None
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at
8:31 P.M.
ATT ST:
o Bartlam
Planning Commission Secretary
R
•IEW9I6
rk d+tinrn L�
�IFOR�`
Prepared by
AECOM Design + Planning
For
City of Lodi
221 West Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95240
4 i
Chapter 1 -Introduction: Planning for
Energy,, Efficiency
The City of Lodi is a diverse community that is passionate about
maintaining the city's small town atmosphere, preserving its
surrounding agricultural lands, and protecting its natural
resources. The City developed this Climate Action Plan (CAP) as
part of the General Plan process to serve as a guide for a
community -wide effort to increase energy and resource
efficiency, while following the State of California's guidance
regarding the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The
CAP provides a strategic framework for the development of
measures, policies and programs across all sectors that aim to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions resulting from
communitywide and municipal government operations. The
strategy presented in this CAP is unique to Lodi's specific
community context so as to be both feasible and
implementable.
What is a CAP?
A CAP (Climate Action Plan) is a tool that many cities in California
are using to quantify their share of statewide GHG emissions and
establish action steps toward achieving a local emissions
reduction target. A CAP provides a set of strategies intended to
guide community efforts to reduce GHG emissions, typically
through a combination of statewide and local actions. Figure 1.1
shows the typical steps included in the CAP process
A CAP contains community -specific GHG emission inventories
and forecasts to establish a starting point and probable future
emissions levels if no action is taken (Step 1). A reduction target
is then defined to provide an aspirational goal for improvement
(Step 2). Emission reduction measures and implementation
programs are then written to help the city meets its goal by
achieving the reduction target (Step 3). Upon adoption of the
CAP, the jurisdiction takes action to implement the reduction
measures (Step 4), monitor their progress towards achievement
of the reduction target (Step 5), then evaluate effectiveness,
celebrate their successes, and use the monitoring results to
make adjustments to CAP measures to improve performance
(Step 6). This CAP represents the City's progress on Steps 1-3.
Purpose
This CAP is the City's first step in the development of a long-
range, comprehensive plan to move from business -as -usual
practices to more efficient use of energy, the transportation
network, and water, and reduced waste. The primary objectives
of the CAP process are to contribute to the State's climate
protection efforts and to provide California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) review streamlining benefits for
development projects within the city limits.
Lodi Climate Action Plan
Step 2,
Establish a
Reduction
Target
Step 3:
Develop a
Climate
Acdon Plan
Step 5'
Mon! Wr and Step 4:
Track Implement
Measures
Figure 1.1 Steps in the CAP Process
This CAP provides a summary of Lodi's greenhouse gas emissions
inventory and describes how the City will achieve reductions
through local actions that contribute to the statewide reduction
target defined in Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006, CEQA guidelines, and other
State guidance.
The CAP aims to:
+ Support the community vision described in Lodi's 2010
General Plan of a centralized, compact urban form,
safe and comfortable walking and bicycling facilities,
smart street designs, and revitalized building stock
+ Leverage existing programs available through Lodi
Electric Utility (LEU) and various state departments
and agencies to encourage voluntary implementation
of CAP measures
+ Reduce building operating costs through reduced
resource consumption; and
+ Provide CEQA streamlining to reduce barriers to new
development
Chapter Contents
The CAP consists of five chapters, 1) Introduction, 2) Community
Context, 3) Baseline Inventory and Projections, 4) Greenhouse
Gas Reduction Strategy, and 5) Implementation. The contents of
each chapter are briefly described below:
+ Chapter 1- Introduction provides a summary of the
CAP development process and describes the City's
rationale for creating the CAP. This chapter also
describes the potential impacts Lodi may face as a
result of climate change and the benefits that the
community will realize upon implementation of the
greenhouse gas reduction strategy (defined in Chapter
4). This Chapter also provides a summary of statewide
climate change legislation, the CAP's relationship to
the General Plan and the potential for CEQA "tiering".
+ Chapter 2- Community Context describes how Lodi's
unique community context played an integral role in
the development of the measures in this CAP. This
chapter explains how the climate zone, the age of the
existing building stock and the local economy relate to
GHG reduction measures found in this CAP. This
Chapter also describes how successful implementation
of the CAP depends on reducing communication and
information barriers for certain demographic groups
through targeted outreach efforts.
+ Chapter 3- Baseline Inventory and Projections
outlines key steps taken to develop the CAP, including
the 2008 baseline GHG inventory, projecting future
emissions in 2020 and 2030, setting a communitywide
GHG emissions target for 2020 and a long-range target
for 2030. This chapter also describes the anticipated
local emissions reductions resulting from
implementation of State and federal actions.
+ Chapter 4- Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy
addresses the five main reduction strategies; building
energy efficiency, transportation, water and
wastewater, solid waste, and green infrastructure.
Each measure contains a description of how the
measure reduces emissions and how existing programs
can be leveraged in combination with the
development of new efforts to achieve the reductions
estimated in this CAP. The measures also provide
action steps to achieve implementation, a description
of co -benefits associated with the measure and the
approximate range in cost to the private and public
sectors.
+ Chapter 5- Implementation describes the process to
monitor the City's progress toward achieving their
GHG reduction target. This chapter identifies
monitoring procedures, plan update processes and
other steps to ensure successful implementation.
Climate Change Science
The United Nations International Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), defines "climate change" as "a change in the state of the
climate that can be identified (e.g. using statistical tests) by
changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and
that persists for an extended period, typically decades or
longer." ' The properties of GHGs are such that they retain heat
in the atmosphere, which would otherwise escape to space.
GHGs accumulate in the atmosphere when they are emitted
faster than they can be naturally removed, and that
accumulation prompts changes in the climate system. Once
emitted into the atmosphere, GHGs influence the Earth's energy
balance for a period of decades to centuries... "'
According to trends identified by the United States Global
Change Research Program, average global temperatures and sea
level have increased over the last fifty years as a result of an
increase in greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and are
projected to continue to rise over the next century'v. If the
average temperature of the Earth continues to rise, there may
be implications on both a global and local level. Potential
implications of global climate change include:
+ Global Impacts: melting of the polar ice caps may
cause infrastructural damage along the coast as the
global sea level rises. Increased temperatures may
create more erratic weather patterns and an increase
CH 1: Introduction
in extreme weather systems. Disrupted seasonal
patterns, ocean acidification and increased flooding
could lead to inundation of aquatic freshwater
habitats and affect the status of flora and fauna
species worldwide.
+ Local Impacts: The Central Valley may experience
intense heat waves, reduced precipitation, more
frequent drought conditions, early melting of the snow
pack in the Sierras and disrupted seasonal patterns
which could affect farming practices as well as natural
habitats.
The California legislature passed legislation (addressed below)
based upon the findings of the IPCC, the U.S. Global Change
Research Program, and the National Research Council of the U.S.
National Academy of Sciences. The development of CAPS in
California, in general, is based upon the actions of the California
legislature and its reliance on these findings. For further
information on Climate Science, please visit the California
Climate Change Portal at http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/.
Local Benefits of Addressing
GHG Emissions
Planning efforts intended to reduce GHG emissions through
resource efficiency and conservation measures often have
multiple co -benefits that will improve the quality of life for
community members in Lodi. While some co -benefits are
qualitative, others are quantifiable improvements over current
conditions.
Although the following list is in no way exhaustive of the myriad
co -benefits related to climate action planning, this plan
references them to illustrate the overlapping benefits of various
CAP measures. Overall, these co -benefits:
+ Strengthen local economic development (e.g., CEClA
streamlining/tiering, transparent development
requirements, job creation);
+ Improve the downtown and neighborhood experience;
+ Protect and preserve agricultural lands by promoting
smart growth;
+ Preserve underground aquifers by reducing water use;
+ Improved air quality and resulting public health
benefits;
+ Protect and enhance natural habitat; and
+ Potential long-term savings for residents resulting
from reduced energy use.
Lodi Climate Action Plan
Additional co -benefits are discussed in Chapter 4 -Greenhouse
Gas Reduction Strategy. Each measure is assigned one or more
co -benefits which may incentivize residents to participate in the
programs that are proposed in this CAP.
Public Outreach
This CAP was developed in collaboration with students of the
University of California, Davis's Land Use and Natural Resources
extension program, who played a vital role in planning and
organizing the public outreach process. Key stakeholders were
identified and engaged in a series of individual meetings and
group workshops.
Real-estate developers were invited to attend an individual
"round -table" discussion. The round -table was attended by
representatives of the Building Industry Association of the Delta
and FCB Homes who were able to provide a regional perspective
on development, as well as Tokay Development, a local
developer . The developers provided insight into the state of
development in Lodi and the potential for measures that
addressed new and existing buildings.
Discussions were also held with local businesses and institutions,
including Pacific Coast Producers, the Lodi Unified School District
(LUSD), Lodi Memorial Hospital, the Wine and Grape
Commission and Lodi Citizens in Action. Some representatives
expressed an interest in energy efficiency technologies; as a
result, this CAP includes measures to engage these organizations
in energy retrofit assistance programs and demonstration
projects. Other representatives provided insight into constraints
to energy efficiency, such as food processing and hospital
sanitation requirements, and how to frame the measures in the
CAP to alleviate the concerns of some local interest groups.
The Farmer's Market provided a means of engaging residents
(adults and children), including a survey on potential energy
efficiency measures, alternative transportation and solid waste
disposal. Children were engaged with a trivia game involving a
spinning wheel with randomly selected questions. To gauge
children's understanding of recycling, composting, energy saving
behaviors in the home and the environmental benefits of riding
their bikes or walking to school.
Several key conclusions, described below, were drawn from the
public outreach process, which informed the development of
measures within this CAP.
Energy Efficiency
While Lodi Electric Utility (LEU) offers rebates for the purchase
of energy efficient appliances and home energy efficiency
upgrades, LEU does not currently have a program to provide
financial assistance such as loans or grants.
absorbed rapidly each year and outreach at the fare
indicated that additional financial resources woul
residents to upgrade their homes. Barriers t
residential energy efficiency that were identified tF
outreach include:
+ Limited understanding of co -benefits;
+ Lack of financing options (i.e. loans and gr
+ Program awareness; and
+ Language and technological barriers.
LEU's Lodi Energy Efficiency Financing (LEEF) progrz
revolving loan fund that commercial customers
finance energy efficiency retrofits, paying off the
their monthly utility bill. This program could be
increase retrofit financing options for commercial a
customers.
Lodi has historically experienced a slow rate of
with growth occurring at less than 2% over the
years; a trend which City officials expect will conti
next 5-7 years. As a result GHG reductions ass
energy efficient new developments will not be sign
horizon years 2020 and 2030. Reductions will there
be achieved by reinvesting in the existing vac;
building stock which will not only improve energy
homes and businesses, but provide more local job i
and reduce the number of people commuting by cai
Transportation
While residents agree that Lodi is very walkable and bike -
friendly, most residents commute by car to work outside of Lodi.
Residents indicated that they may drive less if:
+ bus service was offered more frequently
+ regional connectivity was enhanced
+ bicycle awareness was promoted to enhance safety
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs exist in
some businesses and institutions in Lodi, however; participation
is typically low.
Figure 1.2 Studio 30 Students and the "Wheel of
Awesome"
The "Wheel of Awesome" engaged
children at the Farmer's Market in the
CAP process. After spinning the wheel,
the children were asked a question that
related to various sectors in the CAP,
such as "Do you walk or ride your bike to
school?" or "Have you ever heard of
composting?" These questions helped to
gauge the children's level of awareness of
these concepts and informed the
development of several outreach and
demonstration measures.
CH 1: Introduction
Solid Waste
While residents in Lodi typically responded that they "always"
recycle, few survey participants were familiar with the term
"composting". The Lodi Unified School District had a composting
program in the past and while the program was discontinued
due to budgetary issues they would like to re -instate it in the
future. Lodi's local fruit canning and dairy industries send large
amounts of organic solid waste to the landfill each year.
Water
As residents transition to tiered rate pricing with Lodi's Water
Meter Program, the City's new Sustainable Water Use Guide
could be leveraged to encourage residential water conservation
practices.
While the City requires the installation of recycled water pipes in
all new development, there is currently no distribution system in
place to deliver the water to its larger commercial customers for
irrigation and other non -potable water needs.
Green Infrastructure
Local businesses have expressed interest in partnering with the
City for a building -integrated vegetation demonstration project.
Planning Context
Many cities in California are using CAPS to quantify their share of
statewide GHG emissions and establish action steps toward
achieving a local emissions reduction target. CAPS typically
address emissions targets through reduced dependency on fossil
fuels and nonrenewable energy sources, and through increases
in the efficient use of the energy that is consumed. CAPS also
provide a way to connect climate change mitigation (GHG
reduction) to climate adaptation, community resilience, and
broader community goals.
In Lodi, most GHG emissions come from energy used in buildings
and gasoline burned in motor vehicles, with water and waste
related emissions contributing relatively smaller proportions.
Lodi's CAP examines the communitywide activities that result in
GHG emissions and establishes strategies that help reduce those
emissions in future and existing development through both
voluntary and mandatory actions.
Many of the strategies included in this plan, in addition to
reducing GHGs, will also help make Lodi a more attractive place
to live — lowering energy and water bills through conservation,
improving bike and pedestrian facilities, improving air quality,
and reducing waste generation to extend the lifetime of local
landfills.
Lodi Climate Action Plan
California Climate Change
Actions
Since the 1970's California has been a leader in environmental
health and climate change legislation. In 2005 Governor
Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order (EO) 5-3-05, which
recognizes California's vulnerability to a reduced snowpack,
exacerbation of air quality problems, and potential sea -level rise
due to a changing climate.
To address these concerns, the governor established targets to
reduce statewide GHG emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, to 1990
levels by 2020, and to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.
In 2006, California became the first state in the country to adopt
a Green House Gas reduction target through AB 32. This law
codifies the EO 5-3-05 requirement to reduce statewide
emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 resulted in the 2008
adoption by the California Air Resources Board (ARB) of a
Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan), outlining the State's
plan to achieve emission reductions through a mixture of direct
regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, different types
of incentives, voluntary actions, market based mechanisms, and
funding. The Scoping Plan addresses similar areas to those
contained in this CAP, including transportation, building energy
efficiency, water conservation, waste reduction, and green
infrastructure.
AB 32 engendered several companion laws, referred to as
statewide actions throughout this plan, that represent a
significant source of estimated GHG reductions for the City.
These actions include:
+ Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) established
increasingly stringent Renewable Portfolio Standard
requirements for California utilities
+ 2013 California Title 24 details energy efficiency
standards for residential and non-residential
development
+ AB 1109 established efficiency standards for
residential and commercial lighting products
+ SB 7X required water management districts to reduce
per capita water consumption
+ AB 1493 established emission performance standards
for motor vehicles
+ EO -S-1-07 established performance standards for the
carbon intensity of transportation fuels
+ other vehicle efficiency regulations
Additional descriptions of these and other legislative actions are
provided below. At the time of plan preparation, the City
estimated the GHG emission reductions associated with AB
1493, EO -S-1-07, the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), AB
1109, and other discrete vehicle efficiency programs (see
Chapter 3 for GHG emission reductions associated with these
programs). In the future, as the regulatory framework
surrounding AB 32 grows, it may be possible to evaluate a wider
range of statewide reductions.
Renewable Portfolio Standard
SB 1078, SB 107, and EO -S_14_08 have established increasingly
stringent RPS requirements for California utilities. RPS -eligible
energy sources include wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and
small-scale hydro.
+ SB 1078 required investor owned utilities to provide at
least 20 percent of their electricity from renewable
resources by 2020.
+ SB 107 accelerated the timeframe to take effect in
2010.
+ EO -S_14_08 increased the RPS further to 33 percent
by 2020.
California Title 24
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations dictates how new
buildings and major remodels are constructed in California. Title
24, Part 6 is a component of Title 24 that details energy
efficiency standards for residential and non-residential
development. It is updated on approximately a three-year cycle.
The State will be increasing building energy conservation
requirements through adoption of the 2013 Title 24 standards,
which will go into effect beginning in 2014. It is estimated that
these revisions to the current 2008 Title 24 standards will result
in energy consumption reductions of 25% over the current
standards.
AB 1109
AB 1109, known as the Lighting Efficiency and Toxics Reduction
Act, established requirements for reducing lighting energy usage
in indoor residences and state facilities by no less than 50% by
2018, and a 25% reduction in commercial facilities by the same
date.
Figure 1.3 Wind Turbines
CH 1: Introduction
To achieve these efficiency levels, the California Energy
Commission would apply its existing appliance efficiency
standards to include lighting products, as well as require
minimum lumen/watt standards for different categories of
lighting products. The bill expands existing incentives for energy
efficient lighting. The bill also requires manufactures to reduce
the levels of toxins in lighting products, such as mercury
inflorescent and lead in incandescent bulbs.
SB 7X
SB 7x requires the state to achieve a 20 percent reduction in
urban per capita water use by the end of 2020. The bill also
requires each urban retail water supplier to develop both
interim and long term urban water use targets. Alameda County
Water District is in the process of setting a plan to help achieve
these targets, and has been closely involved in the development
of the CAP to see how it can help achieve this water reduction
goal. SB 7x also creates a framework for future planning and
actions for urban and agricultural users to reduce per capita
water consumption 20 percent by 2020.
AB 1493 (Pavley)
California's mobile -source GHG emissions regulation for
passenger vehicles was signed into law in 2002. This bill would
require the Air Resources Board (ARB) to set emission standards
for greenhouse gases, with no mandate for specific technology.
In doing so, the ARB is to consider cost-effectiveness,
technological feasibility, economic impacts, and mandate
maximum flexibility to manufacturers.
EO -S-1-07 - The Low Carbon Fuel
Standard (LCFS)
EO -S-01-07 reduces the carbon intensity of California's
transportation fuels by at least ten percent by 2020. The LCFS is
a performance standard with flexible compliance mechanisms
that incentivizes the development of a diverse set of clean, low -
carbon transportation fuel options to reduce GHG emissions.
Vehicle Efficiency Regulations
ARB has adopted several regulations to reduce emissions
through improved vehicle efficiency. The following two
regulations were quantified and included in the CAP
calculations.
Tire Inflation Regulation
On September 1, 2010, ARB's Tire Pressure Regulation took
effect. The purpose of this regulation is to reduce GHG emissions
from vehicles operating with under -inflated tires by inflating
Lodi Climate Action Plan
them to the recommended tire pressure rating. The regulation
applies to vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of
10,000 pounds or less. Under this regulation, automotive service
providers must meet the following requirements:
+ Check and inflate each vehicle's tires to the
recommended tire pressure rating, with air or
nitrogen, as appropriate, at the time of performing any
automotive maintenance or repair service. Indicate on
the vehicle service invoice that a tire inflation service
was completed and the tire pressure measurements
after the service were performed.
+ Perform the tire pressure service using a tire pressure
gauge with a total permissible error no greater than +
two (2) pounds per square inch (psi).
+ Have access to a tire inflation reference that is current
within three years of publication.
+ Keep a copy of the service invoice for a minimum of
three years, and make the vehicle service invoice
available to the ARB, or its authorized representative
upon request.
Heavy -Duty Vehicle GHG Emission
In December 2008, ARB adopted a new regulation to reduce
GHG emissions by improving the fuel efficiency of heavy-duty
tractors that pull 53 -foot or longer box -type trailers. Fuel
efficiency is increased through improvements in tractor and
trailer aerodynamics and the use of low rolling resistance tires.
The regulation is expected to reduce approximately 1 million
metric tons of carbon dioxide -equivalent emissions statewide by
2020.
Over the 11 years between 2010, when the rule went into effect,
and the end of 2020, it is estimated that truckers and trucking
companies will save about $8.6 billion by reducing diesel fuel
consumption by as much as 750 million gallons in California, and
5 billion gallons across the nation. The tractors and trailers
subject to this regulation must use U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency SmartWaycertified tractors and trailers, or
retrofit their existing fleet with SmartWayverified technologies.
These requirements apply to both California -registered trucks
and out-of-state registered trucks that travel to California.
Relationship to the General
Plan
Lodi is among many other cities and counties in California that
are addressing the State's greenhouse gas reduction goals in
their general plans. The City's policy commitment includes
encouraging higher density, mixed-use and infill development in
appropriate locations, energy efficiency, and renewable energy
development that contribute to GHG reduction strategies
contained in the CAP. Since GHG emissions are a cross -cutting
issue addressed by many General Plan elements, the CAP as a
whole is generally considered an implementation measure for
the General Plan. This structure allows the City to update the
CAP on an ongoing, as -needed basis to ensure that the City's
climate protection efforts reflect both current legislation and
emerging best practices.
Relationship to the California
Environmental Quality Act
Local governments may prepare a Plan for Reduction of
Greenhouse Gases that is consistent with AB 32 goals. By
preparing such a plan, the city can streamline CEQA review of
subsequent plans and projects consistent with the GHG
reduction strategies and target in the plan. To meet the
standards of a qualified GHG reduction plan, Lodi's CAP must
achieve the following criteria (which parallel and elaborate upon
criteria established in State CEQA Guidelines Section
15183.5[b][1]):
+ Completing a baseline emissions inventory and
projecting future emissions
f Identifying a community -wide reduction target
f Preparing a CAP to identify strategies and measures to
meet the reduction target
t Identifying targets and reduction strategies in the
General Plan and evaluating the environmental
impacts of the CAP in the General Plan EIR
f Monitoring effectiveness of reduction measures and
adapting the plan to changing conditions
+ Adopting the CAP in a public process following
environmental review
This approach allows jurisdictions to analyze and mitigate the
significant effects of GHGs at a programmatic level, by adopting
a plan for the reduction of GHG emissions. Later, as individual
projects are proposed, project -specific environmental
documents may tier from and/or incorporate by reference that
existing programmatic review in their cumulative impacts
analysis. Project -specific environmental documents prepared for
projects consistent with the General Plan and CAP may rely on
the programmatic analysis of GHGs contained in an EIR that
would be certified for the City's future General Plan and CAP.
Chapter 5 provides a discussion of the criteria and process the
City will use to determine if a future project is consistent with
the CAP.
A project -specific environmental document that relies on this
CAP for its cumulative impacts analysis must identify specific
CAP measures applicable to the project, and how the project
incorporates the measures. If the measures are not otherwise
binding and enforceable, they must be incorporated as
mitigation measures applicable to the project. If substantial
evidence indicates that the GHG emissions of a proposed project
may be cumulatively considerable, notwithstanding the project's
compliance with specific measures in this CAP, an EIR must be
prepared for the project.
'Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007).
Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Retrieved from:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
74 Fed. Reg. 66514
W Section retrieved from
https:Hen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_green house
_gases_under_the_Clean_Air_Act; October 2012
'" United States Global Change Research Program (2009).
Global Climate Change Impacts in the US. Retrieved from:
http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scient
ific-assessments/us-impacts; January 2013
CH 1: Introduction
M k
•7-0-907
% ti 9h_ -.NFL
-•% 'L�1
7
stir
_9M Milk,
OL
■ 1
. r
■ ,
'-.0,6 ti
ti• ��• 9
I ` 11:
. � -WLTi
•� %
� .Iti � �ti . �' .• r r . �, � ,i '.5 � 1 ■ . � ` i ti _ 1 _
__ . :. .. -_.�A . . I- �: IM ME Jr. %M -106
.L { L _ k r
• ___ _ i.• ¢— * L •� _ •'z ' %1 j I % _ Z ti ti n
N 16
. LL �Lpj
7 • • - _
• i
Iti
1 7 _ _ LLL i Ik 1• .. .` -' J
1 r�1 .% % _ •� 'ti • L 1
.% i __M_M _t, ,_• - L. I Iti- % L r _
J•, , 7 , J •1 , r• 1 '
.91
�' L
1 - - - a�11'lift" 46b69& ti
ti - •-• ■• _ l 7 , L 1 T
1 1
•�, r
_r .4 ' ■
Chapter 2 -Community Context
This Climate Action Plan has been developed within the context
of Lodi's distinct local characteristics. The climate, building stock,
demographics, and local economy establish the capacity for
emissions reductions opportunities in Lodi. Thus the measures in
this CAP were designed to be context specific with
implementation strategies based on targeted outreach to
engage all demographic groups. This chapter provides an
overview of the community characteristics that factored into the
measure development process identifies potential barriers to
participation of residents and provides a discussion of how
actions in this CAP are designed to reduce these barriers,
enabling successful implementation.
Climate Zone
Lodi is located in California's agriculturally -rich Central Valley,
bounded by the Sacramento -San Joaquin River Delta to the west
and the San Joaquin Valley to the east. Lodi is a compact city
with situated just south of the Mokelumne River in on a gridded
street network surrounded by agricultural lands. Industrial uses
are primarily concentrated in the eastern side of the City,
defined by the rail road line and Highway 99. Large commercial
uses are concentrated along the highway and other major
corridors, such as Kettleman Lane to the south. The newly
revitalized downtown area is in the very core of the City, located
among historic neighborhoods and smaller retail stores. The
remainder of the urban area is primarily dedicated to residential
developments.
Lodi's climate has a direct relationship to energy use in homes
and businesses. Lodi typically experiences cool, rainy winters
and hot, dry summers. While inland California experiences
greater temperature swings than the temperate coastal areas,
Lodi's proximity to the Delta and the San Francisco Bay results in
more moderate temperatures than other cities in the valley.
Strategies to increasing energy efficiency in the built
environment are central to reducing energy consumption
associated with heating and cooling systems during the hot
summer and cold winter. One such measure acts to encourage
the replacement of conventional roofs with cool roofs, which
use reflective materials to deflect the heat of the sun, in turn
reducing interior building temperatures and demands on the
HVAC system.
Lodi Climate Action Plan
Other measures which help to mitigate summer heat include
planting large deciduous street trees and planting residential
shade trees to protect the southern and western walls of a
home from the sun, reducing heat absorption and cooling costs.
Building integrated vegetation can also lower energy use as
green roofs and green walls act to decrease interior building
temperatures by absorbing the sun's energy before it reaches
the building envelope.
Each of these measures will reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and utility costs for service users. Due to Lodi's unique climate
and geography, certain measures will be more successful at
reducing emissions than others, but all measures will ultimately
improve the quality of life for Lodi's community members.
Building Inventory
The majority of Lodi's housing stock, 68%, consists of single-
family homes while 20% consists of multi -family developments.
Of the total housing stock, 66% was built prior to 1980, which
marked the implementation of Title 24, California's Green
Building Code. Homes of this vintage are excellent candidates for
building energy retrofits and weatherization as they often suffer
from inefficiencies due to outdated heating and cooling systems,
poor insulation, single pane windows, cracks in the building
foundation and other gaps in the building envelope.
2000 2011
Housing Type Number Percent Number Percent Change
Owner -
Occupied 11,264 54.4 12,159 54 8
Single -Family
10,662
51.5
11,179
50
5
2 to 4 Units
162
0.8
171
1
6
5 or More Units
90
0.4
458
2
409
Mobile Homes
343
1.7
351
2
2
Renter -
385
2
1,529
1990 to 1999
1,535
7
9,430
45.6
10,156
46
8
Occupied
2,140
10
4,669
1970 to 1979
1,735
Single -Family
3,616
17.5
4,016
18
11
2 to 4 Units
1,527
7.4
1,405
6
-8
5 or More Units
4,193
20.3
4,557
20
9
Mobile Homes
94
0.5
178
1
89
Total
20,694
100
22,315
100
8
Source: ACS Three -Year Estimate, 2011
Energy efficiency retrofits can achieve significant greenhouse gas
reductions for Lodi as building energy is responsible for over
50% of the communitywide greenhouse gas emissions. Several
measures in this CAP are aimed at achieving reductions through
promoting retrofit assistance programs, which are available to
both single family and multi -family property owners and
residents.
As of 2008 there was over 6 million square feet of non-
residential space in Lodi, composed of primarily industrial food
processing facilities. Opportunities for commercial retrofit
financing could be expanded to gain additional reductions
through energy efficiency improvements.
Renter Occupied Housing
While 50% of Lodi's building stock is composed of single-family
detached homes that are owner occupied, as shown in Table 2.1,
another 20% are single family homes that are renter occupied
and renters occupy a majority of the multi -family housing.
Furthermore, Table 2.2 indicates that renters occupy half of the
housing stock that was built before the enactment of Title 24 in
1980. In general, renters are less likely to pursue opportunities
for energy efficiency improvements, even though they may
qualify for free weatherization programs that improve the
comfort of their home while reducing utility bills.
CH 2: Community Context
Owner Occupied
Renter Occupied
Year Built
Number
percent
Number
Percent
Total
Total Units
12,159
54
10,156
46
22,315
2005 or later
242
1
58
0
300
2000 to 2004
1,144
5
385
2
1,529
1990 to 1999
1,535
7
905
4
2,440
1980 to 1989
2,529
11
2,140
10
4,669
1970 to 1979
1,735
8
1,913
9
3,648
1960 to 1969
1,403
6
2,217
10
3,620
1950 to 1959
1,848
8
1,377
6
3,225
1940 to 1949
877
4
511
2
1,388
1939 or earlier
846
4
650
3
1,496
Sum pre -1980
6,709
30
6,668
30
13,377
Source: ACS Three -Year
Estimate, 2011.
CH 2: Community Context
Income Category
SJ County Income Limits
Number
Percent
Extremely -Low
Less than $19,600
2407
11
(5530% AMI)
Percent
Under 5 years
4,495
Very -Low
$19,600-32,700
3013
14
(30%!550% of AMI)
8
4,596
8
Low
$32,701-52,300
3923
18
(50%!5 80% of AMI)
15 to 19 years
4,184
8
Moderate and
$52,301-78,500
12972
58
Above (>_ 80%AMI)
4,401
7
25 to 34 years
1. Number of households per range is an approximate value based on 2011 Census
data.
Source: ACS Three -Year Estimate 2011; HCD 2011
Demographics
The majority of the measures in this CAP are voluntary and
written to promote participation of Lodi's residents and
businesses. As outreach to and participation of all members of
the community is a primary objective of this plan, some of the
measures are designed to emphasize the engagement of groups
in Lodi that might have difficulty accessing the information and
resources in this CAP. The measures are designed to help the
City work towards reducing barriers to participation for
marginalized groups in order to ensure implementation of the
CAP. The following population groups are possible candidates
for targeted outreach efforts.
Low Income Households
Table 2.3, above, describes the household income characteristics
of Lodi residents. Approximately 41% of the households in Lodi
are considered low income, very -low income or extremely low
income. The high cost of whole -house energy efficiency
improvements prevents many low-income residents from
investing in retrofits, even though they would save money in the
long run on their utility bills. The Federal Weatherization
Assistance Program uses local service providers to install cost-
effective energy efficiency improvements, such as high efficiency
light bulbs, new windows and new insulation, in low income
households to reduce utility bills and improve overall comfort
and safety. Barriers to energy efficiency for low income
residents include a lack of program awareness, as well as
informational and technical barriers.
Some measures in this CAP promote the use of alternative
transportation by improving bicycle and pedestrian connectivity
and increasing service of the City's bus system. Since low income
residents are more likely to rely on an alternative means of
transportation, enhancing local and regional transit connectivity
Lodi Climate Action Plan
would not only reduce GHG emissions associated with single -
occupancy vehicle trips, but also provide these residents with
greater access to job centers.
Senior Households
While the majority of Lodi's residents are middle-aged adults,
many are nearing the age of retirement, represented by a 50%
increase in population between the ages of 55 to 59 by 2011,
and a 53% increase in residents between 60 to 64 years of age.
Seniors citizens may have difficulty applying for retrofit
programs, but could see significant utility bill savings, especially
if they live in older homes.
Targeted outreach efforts can engage seniors with technical
assistance, information on available rebates and financial
assistance to encourage their participation in energy efficiency
retrofit programs. Many seniors live older homes and could
reduce their energy cost with energy efficiency improvements.
For various reasons, seniors may face challenges in participating
in such programs, such as lack of knowledge about energy
efficiency programs, reluctance to incur debt (even zero interest
rate deferred loans), and the need for help applying for
assistance and working with contractors.
Source: ACS Three -Year Estimate, 2011.
Change
-5
0
11
13
14
4
-5
19
50
53
12
-8
2000
2011
Age
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Under 5 years
4,495
8
4,276
7
5 to 9 years
4,581
8
4,596
8
10 to 14 years
4,448
8
4,946
8
15 to 19 years
4,184
8
4,713
8
20 to 24 years
3,855
7
4,401
7
25 to 34 years
7,605
14
7,901
13
35 to 44 years
8,427
15
8,035
13
45 to 54 years
6,896
12
8,180
13
55 to 59 years
2,421
4
3,627
6
60 to 64 years
1,946
3
2,972
5
65 to 74 years
3,694
7
4,147
7
75 to 84 years
3,146
6
2,889
5
Source: ACS Three -Year Estimate, 2011.
Change
-5
0
11
13
14
4
-5
19
50
53
12
-8
Lodi's General Plan has several policies to encourage mixed-use
and transit -oriented developments as the City grows to
accommodate future populations. Higher density developments
near downtown and other commercial areas create dynamic and
walkable communities that have become increasingly appealing
to the elderly who may be looking to drive less while downsizing
from their larger detached single family homes.
Non Native English Speakers
While Lodi's population has grown at 10% in the last few years,
the demographic makeup of the community has also changed.
Spanish speaking immigrants compose the majority of the non-
native English speakers in Lodi and have grown as a group by
42% between 2000 and 20007.
This CAP emphasizes the importance of reaching out to and
engaging all demographic groups in the community who may
have difficulty accessing the resources in this CAP due to
communication, information and technical barriers. Community
and social events provide an excellent channel for engaging
various ethnic groups. Without their involvement, the CAP will
not reach its mandated emissions reductions projections.
2000
2011
% Change
Age Number Percent
Number Percent
(2000 to
2005-2007)
White 36,200 64
34,081 55
-6
Latino 15,464 27
21,941 35
42
Hispanic
Origin
Asian or 2,860 5
Pacific
Islander
Native 309 <1
American
African 260 <1
American
Other 1,906 3
Source: ACS Three -Year Estimate, 2011
4,000 6 40
341 1 10
1,001 2 285
1,095 2 -43
CH 2: Community Context
Local Economy
Employment opportunities in Lodi are primarily centered on
agricultural operations and industrial manufacturing companies.
Other employers include the hospital, school district and local
retailers. Employment opportunities in Lodi have grown in the
last few years, due in part to the development of the Reynolds
Ranch property on the southeast end of town which is now
occupied by three large commercial retail employers.
Agricultural and food processing facilities in Lodi could
contribute hugely to GHG reductions through diverting organic
waste from landfills, which releases methane as it decomposes.
Industrial manufacturing companies should be encouraged to
undergo energy audits and upgrade to more advanced
technologies to increase efficiency across their production
system. In addition, these companies could develop
transportation demand management programs to promote
carpooling among employees and provide increased services for
employees that may use alternative transit to reach work.
Lodi's proximity to two major freeways provides access to
various job centers, but a lack of regional transit connectivity
requires many residents to use personal cars for their daily
commutes. Over half of the residents in Lodi, or 57%, commute
daily for job purposes, which is slightly less than the County
average of 59% commute trips. As a result, a large portion of
emissions can be attributed to single -occupancy vehicle trips,
which can only be reduced by enhanced fuel efficiency or the
use of alternative transportation for commuters. While the
downtown transit center provides some regional connectivity
through Amtrak, further reducing emissions attributed to
commuting will require additional alternative transportation
options to further connect Lodi residents to regional
employment centers.
Lodi Climate Action Plan
Lodi Employed Residents
Worked in Lodi 10,525
Worked Outside Lodi 13,694
San Joaquin County Employed Residents
Worked in San Joaquin County 96,497
Worked Outside San Joaquin County 136,121
Source: ACS Three -Year Estimate, 2011.
43
57
41
59
.V "
i=M2
2008 Baseline Inventory
The purpose of the 2008 baseline inventory is to identify current
emission sources, relative source contributions, and to
understand the overall nature and magnitude of
communitywide GHG emissions. The inventory is then used to
assist policy makers in effectively implementing cost-effective
GHG-reduction policies, actions and measures. An accurate
inventory is necessary to understand which sectors contribute
the largest portion of emissions, have the greatest reduction
potential and can be most effectively influenced by policies and
actions implemented by the City. This inventory contains both a
community and municipal inventory which contribute to the
total emissions.
The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) identifies six
primary GHG compounds, including carbon dioxide (COA
methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20) as the predominant
GHGs found in non -industrial processes. Since each type of GHG
has a different capacity for trapping heat, all emissions are
presented in units of metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
per year (MT COze/yr), which allows all emissions to be
normalized to a single unit of measure.
Community Inventory
2008 Baseline Emissions
The city of Lodi's baseline inventory is ordered by sector. A
"sector" is an individual subset of the total greenhouse emission
spectrum, composed of emissions relating to an economy,
industry, market, or general society. The sectors that were
measured in this CAP are: energy, transportation, solid waste,
waste water, and water consumption. Each of these sectors is
shown separately in the overall emissions spectrum to allow for
specific measure development for emissions reductions.
Energy
The energy sector consists of electricity and natural gas
consumption. Energy use typically represents a large portion of
total greenhouse gas emissions and is divided into residential
and non-residential uses. The City obtained historical (2008)
electricity consumption data from Lodi Electric Utility (LEU) and
natural gas consumption data from Pacific Gas and Electric
(PG&E). LEU and PG&E provided communitywide data
aggregated by land use (i.e., residential and non-residential).
Electricity data for kWh used from 2008-2009 was converted
into COZe using an LEU -specific emission factor. Natural gas data
for therms was converted into COze using a PG&E -specific
natural gas emission factor.
Energy Consumption 268,102 55.1%
Residential Electricity 61,295 12.6%
Residential Natural Gas 118,486 24.3%
Non -Residential Electricity 52,548 10.8%
Non -Residential Natural Gas 35,773 7.4%
Transportation 148,624 30.5%
On -Road Vehicles 141,124 29.0%
Off -Road Vehicles and Equipment 7,500 1.5%
Solid Waste 54,305 11.2%
Water Consumption 5,231 1.1%
Wastewater Treatment 3,649 0.7%
Municipal 6,717 1.4%
Transportation
The transportation sector provides an estimate of emissions
generated from vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by passenger cars
and freight trucks. The inventory accounts for two types of trips;
any vehicle trips generated by Lodi land uses that stay within the
city limits and half of all vehicle trips generated by Lodi land uses
that either begin or end outside of Lodi. The inventory does not
account for pass-through trips. Based on these trips, annual
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is estimated using existing daily
traffic volumes determined during the 2008 General Plan update
process, and average trip length assumptions generated from
U.S. Census data. Annual VMT is translated into emissions using
a transportation -specific emissions factor, which was developed
using national data for vehicle fleet mix, fuel economy and
average fuel combustion. The transportation sector also
accounts for emissions from off-road vehicles.
Solid Waste
Solid waste emissions are generated from decomposing organic
waste in place and methane management activities. Solid waste
generated within the City, as a result of community and
municipal activities, is collected by Waste Management and
deposited at various landfills throughout the region. Annual tons
of waste generated and typical waste composition data was
obtained from Cal Recycle to determine the total emissions.
r
Wastewater Treatment
Wastewater treatment plants generate as a byproduct of the
processes used to break down organic materials in the
untreated water. The City provided activity data describing the
volume of wastewater treated annually by the White Slough
Sewer District. The inventory includes both direct emissions,
resulting from the wastewater treatment processes, and indirect
emissions, resulting from electricity used to power the
wastewater treatment plant. Direct emissions were calculated
using the volume of wastewater treated annually. Indirect
emissions were determined using state averages for energy
intensities in kWh/MG for wastewater collection and treatment.
An LEU specific emissions factor was used to convert electricity
intensity data to CO2e.
Water Consumption
Unlike the wastewater sector, emissions from the water sector
come from the electricity used to treat, convey, and distribute
potable water. Total electricity consumption associated with
both municipal operations and communitywide land uses was
obtained from the City. Emissions were determined using the
LEU -specific emissions factor.
RESIDENTIAL ENERGY
NON-RESIDENTIAL ENERGY
TRANSPORTATION
SOLID WASTE
WATER
WASTEWATER
MUNICIPAL
TOTAL MTCO2e
486,628
Figure 3.1: Communitywide Emissions by Sector
Municipal Operations
Emissions from municipal operations are included as a sector in
the communitywide total. A separate municipal inventory was
conducted and is further described in the next section of this
chapter.
Community Inventory Results
The community baseline inventory is composed of the five
previously described emissions sectors. The majority of Lodi's
communitywide emissions originated from energy (55.1%) and
transportation (30.5%), which collectively accounted for
approximately 85.6% of the total emissions inventory. Solid
waste accounted for 11.2% of communitywide emissions.
Wastewater treatment and water consumption combined made
up less than 1.8% of emissions. Municipal emissions collectively
amounted to 1.4% of the total communitywide emissions.
Table 3.1 provides a summary of the communitywide inventory,
presenting subsectors within energy and transportation that
were calculated separately during the inventory process. On -
road vehicle use is the largest contributor of any subsector, at
29.0% of total community -wide emissions. The next largest
contributor is non-residential electricity use at 24.3%, followed
by residential electricity (12.6%), and residential natural gas
(10.8%).
Municipal Inventory
2008 Baseline Emissions
The baseline municipal emissions inventory follows Local
Government Operations Protocols (LGOP) guidance which uses
different emissions sources, including; buildings and facilities,
the municipal vehicle fleet, wastewater treatment facilities,
employee commutes, power generation facilities, public lighting,
solid waste, the municipal transit fleet, and water delivery.
While municipal operations are a small portion of the
communitywide emissions, the City has the power to directly
affect its own emissions, thereby setting a good example for
programs and policies in the private sector.
Buildings and Facilities
Emissions from the City's buildings and facilities result from the
consumption of electricity, natural gas and other fuels.
Emissions associated with municipal building and facility
operations were quantified using data obtained from PG&E and
Lodi Electricity Utility (LEU).
Mobile Fleet
The City's vehicle fleet emissions were quantified using fuel
consumption data for gasoline, diesel and compressed natural
gas (CNG), to operate fire response vehicles, landscape
maintenance vehicles, passenger cars, light trucks, and sport
utility vehicles (SUVs).
Wastewater Treatment
Wastewater treatment facilities generate methane and nitrous
oxide, as a byproduct of the treatment process, as well as
emissions from electricity and on-site natural gas consumption.
Data relating to electricity consumption was obtained from
PG&E. Data relating to backup generators and fuel consumption
was obtained from Public Works.
Employee Commute
The municipal inventory also includes emissions resulting from
employee commute trips, which are predominantly fueled by
gasoline, with only a few vehicles using diesel.
Power Generation
Emissions from power generation facilities result from the
combustion of natural gas and coal to generate electricity, as
well as the transmission and distribution of purchased
electricity.
Buildings and Facilities
1,941
29%
Electricity
103
2%
Natural Gas
1,838
275vo
Mobile Fleet
1,612
24%
Gasoline
1,173
17%
Diesel
354
5%
Refrigerants
84
1%
CNG
2
0%
Wastewater Treatment
1,519
23%
Employee Commute
739
11%
Power Generation
653
10%
Streetlights
145
2%
Solid Waste
55
1%
Transit Fleet
50
1%
Water Delivery
3
0%
Stormwater Management
2
0%
Water Delivery Pumps
1
0%
total 6,717 100%*
Individual percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding
The City operates its own utility which procures electricity
through the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA);
therefore, only emissions related to transmission and
distribution lines are included in the City's inventory.
Streetlights
The City of Lodi also consumes electricity to operate public
lighting infrastructure, including traffic signals and streetlights.
Data from local utility providers was used to calculate emissions
from the City's streetlights.
Solid Waste
Emissions from municipal solid waste are an estimate of
methane generation that will result from the anaerobic
decomposition of organic waste sent to landfill, including paper
and food waste from offices and facilities, construction waste
from public works, and plant debris from the parks departments.
r
Transit Fleet
Lodi's transit fleet includes buses and shuttles that run on
compressed natural gas (CNG), an alternative fuel that produces
significantly lower emissions than gasoline.
Water Delivery
The distribution of potable water for drinking and irrigation
purposes generates emissions through electricity and natural gas
consumption. Lodi relies entirely on groundwater to supply its
potable water needs and must use electricity to power pumps
which bring the water from underground aquifers to the surface.
Data relating to electricity and fuel consumption were obtained
from PG&E.
BUILDINGS AND FACILITES
MOBILE FLEET
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
EMPLOYEE COMMUTE
POWER GENERATION
STREETLIGHTS
SOLID WASTE
TRANSIT FLEET
WATER DELIVERY
TOTAL MTCO2e
61717
Figure 3.2: Municipal Emissions by Sector
Municipal Inventory Results
The municipal baseline inventory accounts for emissions from
nine separate sources. Similar to the community inventory, the
majority of municipal emissions originated from energy use by
buildings and facilities (29%) and the City's mobile fleet (24%).
Wastewater treatment accounted for 22% of communitywide
emissions, city employee commute accounted for 11% and
power generation facilities, another 10%. The four remaining
emissions sources amounted to less than 5% and include
streetlights, solid waste, the City's transit fleet and water
delivery.
Table 3.2 provides a summary of the emissions sources for the
municipal inventory. Of the largest emissions source, buildings
and facilities, natural gas consumption comprised a strong
majority at 27% of the total emissions. As for the mobile fleet, a
majority of the emissions were the result of vehicles powered by
gasoline.
Emissions Forecasts
Community Emissions
The baseline inventory was used to project the communitywide
GHG emissions to the horizon years 2020 and 2030 under a
business -as -usual scenario. Emission projections estimate future
emissions levels and provide insight regarding the scale of
reductions necessary to achieve an emissions target. GHG
reduction measures developed for the CAP are applied to the
2020 and 2030 emissions levels to determine if the City will
achieve its GHG reduction targets. Business -as -usual projections
coincide with the statewide greenhouse gas reduction target for
the year 2020, set by AB 32, as well as the City's General Plan
horizon year 2030. As the CAP is a supporting document for the
General Plan, estimating emissions to 2030 will allow for
"integral implementation" of the CAP alongside the General
Plan.
The business -as -usual scenarios assume that historical and
current GHG-generating practices and trends for energy
consumption, transportation, solid waste, wastewater, and
water consumption will continue through 2030. The business -as -
usual projections do not include locally -realized GHG reductions
from implementation of statewide GHG reduction programs or
the local CAP measures described in Chapter 4.
Emissions projections are based on the estimated increase in
service population. Service population measures the number of
jobs and population as an indicator of current and potential
resource consumption in a community. Estimates used to
project emissions for this plan are consistent with estimates
determined during the General Plan update process, which
assume service population will increase by 39.7% from 2008 to
2020 and 75.2% from 2008 to 2030.
The business -as -usual projections use service population growth
assumptions across all sectors in this CAP as an indicator of
potential growth in Lodi. The projections have been developed
for planning purposes, and due to the complexity of each
emissions sector, are subject to change. As 2020 approaches,
the City will reevaluate its emissions projections and reduction
target to incorporate progress toward long-term GHG
reductions, and will repeat this process as 2030 approaches as
well.
Municipal Emissions
The growth of City government is related to the population
growth within its jurisdiction; however, City government is
unlikely to grow at the same rate. Rather, City operations
increase in response to demand for resident services, but tend
to avoid over -expansion.
"Service
population is
expected to
increase by
39.7% from
zoos to 2020
and 75. 2 % from
1008 to 2030."
Therefore, growth in the City's municipal operations was
projected to occur at a more conservative rate of 65% of the
population growth from year 2008 to 2020, and 2020 to 2030.
All emissions sectors were projected to increase equally, while in
reality, changes in the City's priorities and implementation of the
CAP will shift the emission ratios and total mass emissions. In
the future, updates to the City's municipal emissions inventory
should be evaluated considering the economic state of the City
during the baseline year to better understand the connections
between other factors.
Communitywide Business -As -Usual
Emissions Forecasts
Table 3.3 provides a summary of Lodi's 2020 communitywide
business -as -usual projected emissions, which are anticipated to
be 671,896 MT CO2e in 2020 and 843,367 MT CO2e in 2030.
Under this scenario, GHG emissions would increase across all
sectors from 2008 to 2020 and 2020 to 2030. Municipal
emissions, included in Table 3.3, are incorporated into the
communitywide total. By 2020 business -as -usual municipal
emissions are anticipated to be 8,075 MT CO2e, while emissions
in 2030 are anticipated to reach 9,207 MT CO2e.
r
Emissions Sector
BASELINE 2008
BUSINESS -AS -USUAL 2020
BUSINESS -AS -USUAL 2030
% increase
% increase
MT CO2e
% of total
MT CO2e
MT CO2e
2010-2020
2010-2030
Energy Consumption
268,102
55.1%
371,915
38.7%
458,427
0,
Electricity
179,781
36.9%
249,396
38.7°0
307,408
71.0%
Natural Gas
88,320
18.1%
122,520
38.7%
151,019
71.0%
Transportation4:
•0
On -Road Vehicles
141,124
29.0%
201,925
43.1%
264,077
87.1%
Off -Road Vehicles
7,500
1.5%
10,404
38.7%
12,824
71.0%
Total 486,628 100.0% 679,970 39.7% 852,575 75.2%
Table 3.3: Emission Inventory and Projections
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
2008 2020 2030
Figure 3.3: Adjusted Business -As -Usual Emissions
❑ ADJUSTED BUSINESS -AS -USUAL
❑ BUSINESS -AS -USUAL
Pavley 1
44,674
92,650
Low Carbon Fuel Standard
19,222
24,832
Pavley II
3,284
3,488
Renewable Portfolio Standard
31,424
38,733
SB 7x Water Reduction
1,271
1,523
% Business -As -Usual
14.9%
19.1%
Adjusted Business -As -Usual
Emissions Forecasts
Table 3.4 describes the emission reductions anticipated to occur
within the community through implementation of State and
federal policies and regulations. The largest reductions are from
State and federal fuel efficiency improvements to passenger
vehicles and light-duty trucks. As residents and businesses
replace older vehicles with newer ones, people will consume less
fuel and generate fewer emissions per vehicle mile traveled.
California's low carbon fuel standard will also reduce
transportation -related emissions in the community by requiring
a transition away from fossil fuels (i.e., gasoline and diesel)
toward lower -carbon bio -fuels (e.g., ethanol). Implementation of
the regional SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategy will
reduce vehicle emissions through development of effective
transit and other alternative transportation systems and
encouragement of low -carbon development.
California law also requires all utilities to obtain 33% of their
electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020. This increase
in renewable electricity will reduce the community energy-
related emissions. The medium- and heavy-duty vehicle
efficiency improvements program and California Energy Code
(Title -24) requirements for new construction will create smaller,
but still important, communitywide emission reductions.
State and federal actions that reduce communitywide emissions
within the City of Lodi will make it easier for the community to
achieve 2020 and 2030 emission reduction goals. As shown in
Figure 3.3 with implementation of State and federal actions,
communitywide emissions would be 580,094 MT CO2e/yr in
2020 and 691,348 MT CO2e/year in 2030.
Emissions Efficiency Target
The City of Lodi has chosen to utilize an efficiency based
emissions target with the CAP. The logic behind the efficiency
targets is that if all California communities achieved this level of
efficiency on a "fair -share" per service population basis, then the
State would achieve its AB 32's 2020 GHG reduction goals. The
target metric is calculated by dividing total land use related
statewide emissions by the sum total of population and jobs
projected in the State in the horizon. As shown in Figure 3.5, this
CAP establishes a target of improving communitywide per
service population emissions efficiency to 4.5 MT CO2e/ service
population/ year by 2020 and to 3.0 MT CO2e/ service
population/ year. These goals demonstrate the City's
commitment to make a fair -share contribution to state climate
protection efforts and demonstrate a trajectory towards an
emissions level in-line with the Executive Order S-3-05 goals.
The General Plan planning horizon extends only to 2030, which
makes projecting 2050 activity and emission levels highly
uncertain. As a result, this CAP does not address the steps
needed to achieve reduction goals beyond 2030. However the
City will regularly reevaluate its long-term emissions reduction
goals to respond to future circumstances.
Community Actions
The greenhouse gas reduction strategy presented in the next
chapter of this CAP will serve as a framework for achieving the
City's reduction target through local actions. Each greenhouse
gas reduction measure includes action steps, which serve to
guide the implementation process and insure the City achieves
the estimated reductions in the future. The estimated
reductions were quantified based on participation rates that
reflect on historic trends and future expectations. The 16
quantified greenhouse gas reduction measures would result in
communitywide emissions reductions of 44,481 MT CO2e/year
and an efficiency level of 4.3 MT CO2e/ service population/ year.
r
6.0
a
W
5.0
z
U 0
W g 4.0
U :)
LJ_ p 3.0
W d
H W
z
0 2.0
H �
H W
W 1.0
a�
N
0.0
H
BASELINE 2020 2020 ADJUSTED
BUSINESS- BUSINESS -AS -
AS -USUAL USUAL
Figure 3.4: Community Emission Efficiency Levels and 2020 Target
mm
41% 4%
rJTWi i
IR
�Mft
Popi
- jvv�
i ■
1
• i
t
. to# '%
do
s•
4F 14
7jz-�%x
Ore1
s �
40,i4b, .
fA9
f
6
4r Tr
Np.
10
t ke
3M P
Jr
h L 6
X -n-
1 6
�L 01 p
Leverage Local and Regional
Opportunities
Measures in this CAP were designed to foster existing local
initiatives and implement policies and programs in the 2010
General Plan while leveraging regional partnerships. Existing city
programs were identified and opportunities for program
expansion were considered. The greenhouse gas reduction
potential of existing programs contributes to the total
reductions, while action steps to expand these programs
contribute additional reductions to help meet the city's target.
Where there were no existing programs offered by the city, local
and regional initiatives were identified as a platform for cross-
promotion or new program development.
Measure Structure
Measures are organized by strategy areas (e.g., energy,
transportation), and while most measure are designed to
achieve quantifiable GHG reductions, the direct emissions
reduction benefits of some measures cannot be accurately
quantified. The measures that are not quantified have been
identified in this CAP as supporting measures.
Each measure includes: a description providing policy
background; action steps to guide implementation; a relative
cost analysis; city departments and government agencies with
primary responsibility; a description of qualitative and
quantitative co -benefits; and an indication of the measure's
GHG reduction potential relative to other measures within the
strategy area.
Strategy Areas
Measures are grouped into five strategy areas that represent the
primary ways to reduce communitywide GHG emissions in Lodi.
Strategy areas are as follows:
• Energy Efficiency recommends ways to increase
energy efficiency in existing buildings and systems; and
increase the use of renewable energy.
• Transportation encourages alternatives to driving
alone by car; promotes transit as a viable
transportation mode; and greater travel efficiency.
• Solid Waste increases organic waste diversion to
decrease methane emissions.
• Water recommends actions to support state
mandated goals to reduce water consumption and the
energy required to collect, store, distribute, and treat
water and wastewater.
• Green Infrastructure uses urban vegetation to off -set
the urban heat island effect, thereby reducing building
energy use.
Measure Description
Each measure begins with a description of how GHG emissions
are reduced and provides important background information
regarding the city's rationale and policy direction. Additionally,
some descriptions highlight the city's actions to date and then
provide guidance for expanding existing programs.
Actions and Performance
Action steps are provided in a table following each measure
description. Actions identify specific steps that the city will take
to implement the measure. Performance metrics are also
provided so that the city may track progress towards achieving
the reductions described in this CAP.
Relative Public and Private Cost
The relative cost associated with measure implementation and
participation is provided for the city (i.e., public) and residents /
businesses (i.e., private). The cost analysis uses assumptions of
labor hours and capital costs for code enforcement, program
development, planning, and outreach efforts. In instances where
the CAP is simply documenting GHG reductions associated with
ongoing or planned city programs (e.g., implementation of the
Urban Water Management Plan), the public cost estimates only
reflect those additional actions recommended in the CAP (e.g.,
expanded public outreach efforts). Public costs are estimated as
total cost to implement through 2020 (as opposed to annual
costs), while private costs are estimated as one-time installation
or participation costs.
These assumptions were used to assign a cost range to each
measure, represented by the symbols shown in Figure 4.1
below. Where implementation does not require the city to
increase funding above baseline levels, the measure is
considered cost neutral. Supporting information on cost
estimates is provided in Appendix C.
ICON
RANGE
0
COST NEUTRAL
PUBLIC: $0.00
PRIVATE: $0.00
•p
$
VERY LOW
PUBLIC: $10,000 and below
PRIVATE: below $100
$$
LOW
•p•p
PUBLIC: $10,001- $20,000
PRIVATE: $101- $200
$$$MEDIUM
•p•p•p
PUBLIC: $20,001- $100,000
PRIVATE: $201- $1,000
$$$$
,p `p `p `p
HIGH
PUBLIC: above $100,000
PRIVATE: above $1,000
Figure 4.1: Relative Cost Analysis Range
Lodi Climate Action Plan 4-2
Responsible Agencies
Each measure is assigned to a city department, public agency, or
non-governmental nonprofit organization that will be
responsible for implementing action steps. The following
agencies are assigned responsibility for implementing this CAP:
• Lodi Electric Utility Department
• Community Development Department:
o Planning Division
o Building Division
o And Neighborhood Services Division
• Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services
• Public Works
• San Joaquin County Human Services Agency (HSA)
• Tree Lodi
• Lodi Chamber of Commerce
Community Co -benefits
Beyond reducing GHG emissions as described in Chapter 2, many
recommended CAP actions have the potential to provide
additional benefits for the community. These co -benefits
represent an improvement in the quality of life in Lodi and
contribute to improved environmental quality. Some co -benefits
are quantifiable, such as the amount of energy that is saved,
while others are qualitative and will be realized to varying
degrees.
The co -benefits which are quantifiable are listed below, and use
the following metrics:
• Electricity Savings: kilowatt hours per year (kWh/yr)
• Natural Gas Savings: therms/yr
• Waste Reduction: tons/yr
• Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction: miles/yr
Qualitative benefits, which are not quantified, include:
• Utility Bill Savings
• Improved Air Quality
• Improved Water Quality
• Reduced Stormwater Runoff
• Reduced Heat Island Effect
• Improved Public Health
In the future, methodologies may be developed that allow the
value of these co -benefits to be quantified.
Greenhouse Gas Reductions
Reduction potential values are provided with each measure that
identifies the estimated annual GHG emission reductions
anticipated in 2020 and 2030 in MT COze/yr. Each quantified
measure also includes a donut chart that describes the
percentage of reductions that result from the measure relative
to the total reductions for the strategy area.
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Potential
Table 4.1 summarizes the CAP's GHG reduction potential. The
majority (43%) of reductions come from energy efficiency
improvements. Transportation strategies provide 37% of
reductions. Waste reduction and management strategies make
up the remaining 20% of reductions.
4-3 CH 4: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy
Energy Efficiency
Energy Efficiency Retrofits
E-1.1 LEU* Energy Conservation Programs
7,474
13,919
E-1.2 Energy Efficiency Financing
175
262
E-1.3 Low -Income Weatherization
175
262
Building Systems Efficiency
E-2.1 Energy Management Systems
1339
4,437
E-2.2 Commercial Building Commissioning
1,698
2,094
E-2.3 Building Shade Trees
34
56
E-2.4 Streetlight Upgrades
1,568
1,568
Renewable Energy Generation
E-3.1 Solar Photovoltaic Systems
3,735
6,518
E-3.2 Solar Water Heaters
188
235
Subtotal
16,386
29,352
Transportation
Transportation Strategy
T-1.1 Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedules
3,080
4,134
T-1.2 Reduced Parking Minimum Requirements
527
240
T-1.3 Carsharing
85
109
T-1.4 Transit Improvements
13,717
18,571
T-1.5 Ridesharing
1,558
2,099
Subtotal
18,967
25,153
Solid Waste
Waste Diversion
SW -0.0 Methane Capture**
7,458
7,748
SW -1.1 Organic Waste Diversion
1,671
5,511
Subtotal
9,129
13,260
Communitywide Subtotal
44,481
67,765
Statewide Reductions
Energy Efficiency
Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)
31,424
38,733
California Energy Code (i.e., Title 24 Part 6)
6,171
11,313
Transportation
AB 1493 (Pavley 1)
44,674
92,650
AB 1493 (Pavley 11)
3,284
3,488
EO -S-1-07 Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS)
19,222
24,832
Water
SB 7x Water Conservation
1,271
1,523
Subtotal Statewide Reductions
106.046
172,539
* Lodi Electric Utility
** Methane Capture is included as a reduction, but it is assumed the city will not need to take any action. See the discussion on Solid Waste
for more information.
Lodi Climate Action Plan 4-4
In 2008, the city's consumption of electricity for appliances,
lighting and cooling, and combustion of natural gas for heating,
cooking, and other processes within residential, commercial,
and industrial buildings generated 58% (295,649 MT CO2 -e) of
Lodi's total GHG emissions. Of the total energy consumption in
Lodi, residential energy use accounted for 39% (113,843 MT
CO2 -e) whereas non-residential energy use accounted for 61%
(181,806 MT CO2 -e). The CAP'S energy efficiency measures are
primarily focused on the efficient use of electricity, though
some measures will also result in natural gas savings. Measures
include retrofits of existing residential and commercial
buildings, building system efficiency upgrades, streetlight
upgrades, building shade tree planting, and increasing
renewable energy use.
The total GHG emission reduction potential of the energy
efficiency strategy is 16,386 MT COZe/yr in 2020 and 29,352 MT
COZe/yr in 2030.
I
E -1.1 LEU ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Promote existing Lodi Electric Utility energy conservation programs for residential
and commercial properties.
About 2/3 of houses in Lodi were built prior to the adoption of California's Title 24 energy efficiency requirements in 1978, and
79% of the building stock that is projected to exist in Lodi in 2020 has already been constructed. Lodi stands to realize a large
portion of its emissions reductions from building retrofits. While energy efficiency retrofits reduce building -related greenhouse
gas emissions, residents can also benefit from noticeable savings on their utility bills and improved comfort of their home or
business. Since 1998, Lodi Electric Utility (LEU) has spent more than $8.3 million in Public Benefits Charge funds on energy
efficiency programs, resulting in an 18% peak demand reduction and 16% energy reduction. LEU's energy conservation programs
include:
• Appliance Rebate for the purchase of an energy efficient refrigerator, clothes washer or dishwasher;
• Home Improvement Rebate for replacing insulation, installing attic fans, whole house fans, shade screens or window
tinting, radiant barriers or replacing HVAC air conditioning systems;
• HVAC System Test Rebate for performing high-end duct system testing to measure air flow, air return and system
balance;
• Commercial/Industrial Rebates for building envelope improvements and system efficiency upgrades;
• Commercial Energy Efficiency Financing up to $150,000 in financing for energy efficiency improvements, to be repaid
on the participant's monthly utility bill; and
• Energy Assessments on-line and on-site for residential and commercial customers.
LEU will continue to implement its energy conservation programs, and increase participation through a comprehensive public
outreach campaign. The city will conduct targeted outreach to demographic groups who may be less likely to retrofit their home.
1 2020: Achieve net annual energy savings of 20,989 MWh
2030: Achieve net annual energy savings of 39,091 MWh
A
Maintain the LEU website with information about current energy efficiency rebates and incentives. Add local energy
Lodi Electric Utility Department
efficiency improvement success stories. Leverage Energy Upgrade California outreach and educational materials.
$$$
B
Provide training to Building Division counter staff regarding available sources of rebates/incentives and printed
Community Development Department
a
pamphlets or FAQ sheets.
•
C
Identify demographic groups for targeted outreach efforts; develop promotional materials in several languages for
distribution at community events.
D
Partner with San Joaquin County Human Services Agency to develop a program which provides direct assistance to
Public
individuals in identifying programs, applying for rebates and working with contractors.
1 2020: Achieve net annual energy savings of 20,989 MWh
2030: Achieve net annual energy savings of 39,091 MWh
Lodi Climate Action Plan 4-5
Lodi Electric Utility Department
Reductions by 2020: Sector Reduction
$$$
Varies
Community Development Department
a
7,474 MTCO,e/yr 47%
a
•
Wh/yrImproved
San Joaquin County Human Services Agency
Lodi Climate Action Plan 4-5
Improved Air
Reductions by 2020: Sector Reduction
;
Quality•
7,474 MTCO,e/yr 47%
Wh/yrImproved
FN20,989,268
Public
Reductions by 2030:
Health••091,231
13,919 MT COZe/yr
Wh/yr
Utility Bill
Savings
Lodi Climate Action Plan 4-5
I
E -1.2 ENERGY EFFICIENCY FINANCING
Collaborate with other San Joaquin agencies to create a regional PACE program.
A property -assessed clean energy (PACE) financing program is enabled through AB 811 legislation. This bill allows land -secured
loans for homeowners and businesses who install energy efficiency projects and clean -energy generation systems. Senate Bill 555
reinforced implementation opportunities for PACE programs by expanding the scope of activities allowed within a community
facilities district, as defined by the Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982. A PACE program permits property owners within
participating districts to finance the installation of energy- and water -efficiency improvements in their home or business through a
lien against their property that is repaid through their property tax bill. If the property is sold, payment responsibility transfers to
the new owners, allowing building owners to avoid up -front installation costs while at the same time requiring little or no
investment of local government general funds. In some instances, the new lender may require repayment of the existing lien, in
which case the remaining PACE loan is repaid from the proceeds of the property sale.
The city will partner with other interested San Joaquin County jurisdictions to create a Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE)
financing program for commercial and residential energy efficiency retrofits.
12020: 4% of existing single-family units install a medium retrofit package (retrofit packages are described in Appendix B)
2030: 6% of existing single-family units install a medium retrofit package
Fop
a regional PACE program through collaboration with other San Joaquin County cities.
Lodi Electric Utility Department
op an outreach program describing available PACE financing options. Work with LEU to identify large energy users
cus outreach efforts.
12020: 4% of existing single-family units install a medium retrofit package (retrofit packages are described in Appendix B)
2030: 6% of existing single-family units install a medium retrofit package
4-7 CH 4: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy
>
Lodi Electric Utility Department
m
•E
Varies
1
am
Reductions by 2020: Sector Reduction
W
0.
Community Development Department
4-7 CH 4: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy
110,588
kWh/yr
Improved Air
Reductions by 2020: Sector Reduction
24 642
>
Quality
175 MTCOZe/yr 1%
Therms/yr
Improved Public
Reductions by 2030:
165,$$2
'
Health
262
cUtility
kWh/yr
Bill
MT CO2e /yr
"
36,963
savings
Therms/yr
4-7 CH 4: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy
E-1.3 LOW-INCOME WEATHERIZATION
Provide weatherization assistance to low-income households.
Weatherization reduces residential energy consumption by sealing gaps in the building envelope, moderating interior temperatures
and reducing loads on HVAC systems. There are several co -benefits that come with weatherization, including reduced utility bills
and improved occupant comfort. Weatherization is accomplished through various cost-effective home repairs, including; installing
insulation, caulking or replacing windows and doors, and repairing inefficient HVAC systems. While most homes can benefit from
weatherization, it is especially effective in older homes and can provide some relief to low-income households who may be
struggling to pay their utility bills and do not have the means to invest in more intensive energy efficiency repairs.
Lodi Electric Utility partnered with California Youth Energy Services in the past to provide weatherization services to a few hundred
households in Lodi. Future weatherization initiatives will utilize a third party contractor to deliver weatherization services to low
income customers who are enrolled in LEU's utility bill assistance programs, or fall below certain income restrictions. San Joaquin
County Human Services Agency (HSA) also administers weatherization services to low-income residents through the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) Federal Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP), which they promote to Lodi residents through the
HSA Community Service Center and utility bill assistance programs.
The city will identify neighborhoods that would benefit from weatherization and develop a targeted outreach campaign to provide
low income homeowners and renters with information about available weatherization assistance programs, accompanied by
application assistance.
1 2020: 4% low-income households receive weatherization assistance
2030: 6% low-income households receive weatherization assistance
A
Support LEU in the development of weatherization initiatives for low-income households.
Lodi Electric Utility Department
B
Leverage LEU's CARE and SHARE utility bill assistance programs for cross promotion of weatherization programs.
•
C
Develop a targeted outreach campaign to demonstrate the benefits of weatherization to low-income households and
encourage participation in weatherization assistance programs.
a
D
Work with San Joaquin County Human Services Agency to promote the federal weatherization assistance program.
•
1 2020: 4% low-income households receive weatherization assistance
2030: 6% low-income households receive weatherization assistance
Lodi Climate Action Plan 4-8
110,588
Lodi Electric Utility Department
U
$$$$
••
O
Community Development Department
a
Reductions by 2020: Sector Reduction
°C
a
•
24 642
>
duality
175 MT CO2e/yr 1%
San Joaquin County Human Services Agency
Lodi Climate Action Plan 4-8
110,588
kWh/yr
Improved Air
Reductions by 2020: Sector Reduction
"
24 642
>
duality
175 MT CO2e/yr 1%
Therms/yr
Improved Public
165,8$2
?
Health
Reductions by 2030:
262 MT CO2e /yr
c
kWh/yr
Utility Bill
"
36,963
Savings
Therms/yr
Lodi Climate Action Plan 4-8
I
E -2.1 ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Promote energy management systems to reduce peak load energy demand.
Energy Management Systems (EMS) are computerized systems that reduce commercial and industrial energy use by automating
the control of a building's mechanical, electrical, and ventilation systems. Various energy demand-side management programs
throughout the country are leveraging this technology, combined with web -based user interfaces, to attract participation in these
kinds of voluntary programs.
The city will develop an outreach campaign to describe how energy management systems work inside a building, including
internet-based displays that show how much energy is being used and smart appliances that can defer discretionary electricity
use to off-peak hours. LEU will also consider developing peak load reduction incentives for commercial and residential customers.
F10% of existing non-residential floor area install energy management systems and compatible technologies
25% of existing non-residential floor area install energy management systems and compatible technologies
25% of new non-residential floor area install energy management systems and compatible technologies
40% of new non-residential floor area install energy management systems and compatible technologies
m
A
Develop an EMS outreach program and make information available at the Building Division counter.
Varies
B
Identify and advertise available rebates for energy management systems on the city's Website.
•
C
Consider developing a peak load reduction incentive for LEU customers.
Community Development Department
D
I Demonstrate energy efficiency savings and co -benefits through a municipal EMS pilot project.
F10% of existing non-residential floor area install energy management systems and compatible technologies
25% of existing non-residential floor area install energy management systems and compatible technologies
25% of new non-residential floor area install energy management systems and compatible technologies
40% of new non-residential floor area install energy management systems and compatible technologies
m
aLodi
Varies
Electric Utility Department
a
a
Community Development Department
4-9 CH 4: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy
Improved AirReductions
by 2020: Sector Reduction
0
;
Quality
1,339 MTCO2e/yr 15%
N
kWh/yr
>
I3,358,447
Improved Public
I
Reductions by 2030:
9
Health
M
11,131,442
4,437 MT CO2e /yr
N
kWh/yr
Utility Bill
Savings
4-9 CH 4: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy
I
E -2.2 COMMERCIAL BUILDING COMMISSIONING
Improve energy efficiency in new and renovated buildings through continuous
commissioning.
Building commissioning is the process of achieving, verifying, and documenting the performance of a building's facilities and
systems to meet defined objectives and criteria. In a study conducted by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
commissioning resulted in whole -building energy savings averaging 18% with a corresponding payback time of 0.7 years. Building
commissioning is typically applied to new construction during the planning/design and construction phases to ensure the
building's systems (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) are performing at optimum efficiency. Retro -commissioning
addresses systems in existing buildings that are undergoing renovation or installing upgraded equipment. Buildings should be re-
commissioned every five years to maintain optimal system efficiency.
LEU will consider developing a commercial building commissioning program that will provide information and incentives to
commercial customers for commissioning new or renovated buildings and facilities.
1 2020: 25% of existing non-residential buildings undergo commissioning through 2020
2030: 25% of existing non-residential buildings undergo commissioning through 2030
2 2020: 25% of new non-residential buildings undergo commissioning through 2020
2030: 25% of new non-residential buildings undergo commissioning through 2030
• m
A
Provide outreach to commercial building owners to promote the energy savings and other benefits of commissioning
..
Lodi Electric Utility Department
and retro commissioning.
•
B
Create a building commissioning program through LEU.
Community Development Department
C
Develop a municipal commissioning program to commission all buildings and facilities, with re -commissioning occurring
cMWh/yr
every five years.
1 2020: 25% of existing non-residential buildings undergo commissioning through 2020
2030: 25% of existing non-residential buildings undergo commissioning through 2030
2 2020: 25% of new non-residential buildings undergo commissioning through 2020
2030: 25% of new non-residential buildings undergo commissioning through 2030
• m
..
Lodi Electric Utility Department
a
a
•
Community Development Department
Lodi Climate Action Plan 4-10
2,733
cMWh/yr
Improved Air
Reductions by 2020: Sector Reduction
"
136,678
,,,
Quality
•
1,698 MT CO2e/yr 7
Therms/yr
F
Improved Public
Health
Reductions by 2030:
•
635,852
2,094 MT CO2e /yr .
M
"
MWh/yr
31,793
Therms/yr
Utility Bill
Savings
Lodi Climate Action Plan 4-10
I
E -2.3 BUILDING SHADE TREES
Plant building shade trees to improve energy efficiency in new and renovated
buildings.
When properly placed, large shade trees can reduce energy use by protecting a building from the heat of the sun, in turn reducing
demand on the heating and cooling system. A successful shade tree program needs to address various factors, such as tree
selection, planting location, and maintenance. Trees with larger canopies and denser foliage provide more shade than other
species. Deciduous species are ideal for reducing building cooling costs as they provide shade in summer, but allow winter
sunlight into buildings for passive solar gain in cooler weather.
The city will partner with Tree Lodi to develop an outreach program to encourage property owners to plant trees in locations that
maximize building shade potential.
1 2020: Plant 2,500 shade trees
2030: Plant 4,000 shade trees
• �
J
CO
Fr
with Tree Lodi to promote the various benefits of planting building shade trees to property owners.
� ..
Lodi Electric Utility Department
op a shade tree planting guide to facilitate proper tree selection, siting, and installation.
1 2020: Plant 2,500 shade trees
2030: Plant 4,000 shade trees
• �
J
CO
$$$
� ..
Lodi Electric Utility Department
Reductions by 2020: Sector Reduction
0
171,962
>
a
34 MT COZe/yr i1%
c
a
•
Tree Lodi
411 CH 4: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy
Improved Air
Reductions by 2020: Sector Reduction
0
171,962
>
Quality
34 MT COZe/yr i1%
^'
kWh/yr
Utility Bill
Savings
Reductions by 2030:
..
•
M
283,738Cr
a—o
56 MT CO,e /yr
N
kWh/yr
Reduced Heat
Island Effect
411 CH 4: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy
I
E -2.4 STREETLIGHT UPGRADE
Upgrade existing streetlights with more efficient technology.
High pressure sodium bulbs, commonly used in streetlights, require more energy and have a shorter lifespan than new induction
and/or light -emitting diode (LED) lights. The City of Lodi's Public Works Department maintains 6,500 street lights and 52 traffic
signals. The city previously upgraded several streetlights around Lodi Avenue as part of the Lodi Avenue Eastside Improvement
Project. The city is planning to upgrade all other streetlights, which they estimate will cost $3 million, and save approximately
$350,000 to $400,000 per year.
u
M
O*
the city's street lights standards to include requirements for energy-efficient technology in new and replacement
O ..
FBDevipelop
.
a
a street light upgrade plan that identifies an implementation phasing schedule.
u
M
O*
LU
O ..
Lodi Electric Utility Department
•
D
a
4,402,343
Public Works
* This CAP measure does not recommend any additional expenses related to streetlight upgrades beyond those already under
consideration by the city.
Lodi Climate Action Plan 4-12
by 2020: Sector Reduction
4,402,343
W
Improved Air
o
1,568 MTCO2e/yr 5%kWh/yr
>quality
UMReductions
a~Reductions
by 2030:-a
c
Improved Public4,402,343
Health
1,568 MT COZe /yr
kWh/yr
* This CAP measure does not recommend any additional expenses related to streetlight upgrades beyond those already under
consideration by the city.
Lodi Climate Action Plan 4-12
E-3.1 SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEMS
Promote solar PV rebates and eliminate regulatory barriers.
Increasing the use of distributed renewable energy systems (e.g., rooftop solar photovoltaic) prevents the combustion of fossil
fuels to generate electricity, thereby reducing GHG emissions. Solar photovoltaic systems convert solar radiation into electricity
that can directly power buildings, increasing energy independence and subsequently reducing monthly utility bills. Solar PV
systems can be scaled to individual residential systems and larger -scale commercial systems. Parking lots also provide excellent
opportunities for solar energy generation. Numerous barriers may prevent widespread adoption of solar PV technology, including
city regulations, up -front costs, and misinformation or lack of information. Reviewing and revising the city's zoning and building
codes can remove regulatory barriers to solar PV installation. While up -front cost can deter some property owners from investing
in solar energy, rebates are available through Lodi Electric Utility and homeowners can use solar service providers or acquire
financing through participation in a PACE program (see Measure E-1.2) to reduce out-of-pocket expenses.
Lodi Electric Utility has engaged in outreach via the Solar Education program and the Solar Fair with solar service providers. The
Lodi Unified School District recently installed a 2 MW solar project. LEU will continue to promote solar installations through
outreach efforts, seeking partnerships to engage in commercial and industrial solar projects. The city will further reduce barriers to
participation by reviewing (and streamlining where possible) the permitting process.
F1% single-family residential units install a 4.5 kW solar PV system
1% single family residential units install a 4.5 kW solar PV system
nstall 3.0 MW (total) of solar PV on non-residential buildings
nstall 6.0 MW (total) of solar PV on non-residential buildings
A
Review and revise all applicable building, zoning, and other codes and ordinances to remove regulatory barriers to the
installation of solar PV in residential and nonresidential construction.
B
Provide priority permitting and reduced permitting fees for building -scale renewable energy projects.
•
C
Enhance outreach efforts to increase solar PV installations, leveraging existing solar PV informational materials from
Energy Upgrade California, the California Solar Initiative, and LEU.
Community Development Department
D
Identify potential retail, commercial, or industrial partnerships for large solar projects.
CL
F1% single-family residential units install a 4.5 kW solar PV system
1% single family residential units install a 4.5 kW solar PV system
nstall 3.0 MW (total) of solar PV on non-residential buildings
nstall 6.0 MW (total) of solar PV on non-residential buildings
413 CH 4: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy
Lodi Electric Utility Department
•$$$
$$$$
Community Development Department
D
Reductions by 2020: Sector Reduction
CL
•
kWh/yr
413 CH 4: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy
0
9,646,226
Improved Air
Reductions by 2020: Sector Reduction
N
kWh/yr
Quality
3,735 MTCOze/yr 22%
generated
F
Improved Public
Health
Reductions by 2030:
M
18,306,313
:)
6,518 MT CO,e /yr
N
kWh/yr
generated
Utility Bill
Savings
413 CH 4: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy
I
E -3.2 SOLAR WATER HEATERS
Promote solar thermal rebates and eliminate regulatory barriers.
Solar hot water heaters harness the sun's energy to provide hot water, replacing natural gas or electric systems. Solar collectors,
usually placed on a roof, absorb the sun's energy to heat water that is stored in a water tank. According to the California Solar
Initiative (CSI), solar hot water systems can lower energy bills by meeting 50% to 80% of hot water needs. The California Solar
Water Heating and Efficiency Act of 2007 (AB 1470) created a 10 -year program aimed at installing solar water heaters in homes
and businesses. AB 1470 was designed to lower the initial costs of purchasing a system, which typically range from $3,000 to
$6,000. Similar to solar PV installations, available rebates can reduce the upfront costs of solar water heater systems, and
participation in a PACE financing program (see Measure E-1.2) can help to amortize the remaining costs.
The city will remove regulatory barriers to solar thermal installations and encourage homeowners to install solar thermal systems
through outreach.
1 12020: 1% single-family residential units install a solar hot water system
2030: 1% single-family residential units install a solar hot water system
2 1 2020: 1% multi -family residential units install a solar hot water system
2030: 1% multi -family residential units install a solar hot water system
. 2 12020: 3% of non-residential buildings install solar thermal systems I
2030: 3% of non-residential buildings install solar thermal systems
A
Review and revise all applicable building, zoning, and other codes and ordinances to remove regulatory barriers to the
Lodi Electric Utility Department
installation of solar hot water systems in residential and nonresidential construction.
$ $
B
Reduce solar hot water heater permitting fees.
Community Development Department
C
Leverage existing California Solar Initiative Thermal Program information to develop an outreach program to maximize
a
•
installation of solar hot water systems and promote existing funding opportunities.
D
Work with local Chamber of Commerce to identify industrial businesses with high water use (e.g., Laundromats), and
Chamber of Commerce
develop an outreach program to explain financial benefits of converting existing hot water heaters to solar hot water
Improved Public
Health
systems.
1 12020: 1% single-family residential units install a solar hot water system
2030: 1% single-family residential units install a solar hot water system
2 1 2020: 1% multi -family residential units install a solar hot water system
2030: 1% multi -family residential units install a solar hot water system
. 2 12020: 3% of non-residential buildings install solar thermal systems I
2030: 3% of non-residential buildings install solar thermal systems
Lodi Climate Action Plan 4-14
Lodi Electric Utility Department
J
>
$ $
LU
>$$$$
35,412
Community Development Department
a
188 MT COze/yr 1
a
•
Therms/yr by 2020
Chamber of Commerce
Lodi Climate Action Plan 4-14
Improved Air
Reductions by 2020: Sector Reduction
0
35,412
,,,
Quality
188 MT COze/yr 1
'"
Therms/yr by 2020
Improved Public
Health
Reductions by 2030:
10
a
M.
M
44,345
235 MT cote /yr
'�"
Therms/yr by 2030
Utility Bill
Savings
Lodi Climate Action Plan 4-14
Transportation is the second largest sector in Lodi's baseline
inventory, producing 29% (148,624 MT CO2 -e) of Lodi's total
GHG emissions (514,175 MT CO2 -e) in 2008. Emissions in this
sector are primarily the result of the combustion of fossil fuels
and are determined largely by the number of vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) by residents and employees. The best practices
for reducing transportation -related greenhouse gas emissions
involve reducing the number of vehicle trips through various
transportation demand management (TDM) strategies and
enhancing the viability of transit and other forms of alternative
transportation. In addition, transit -oriented development and
mixed-use developments result in denser uses near commercial
centers that contribute to decreased vehicle trips. The
greenhouse gas reduction strategies presented in this CAP
primarily focus on TDM strategies and transit system
improvements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The total GHG emission reduction potential of the
transportation strategy is 18,967 MT COZe/yr in 2020 and
25,153 MT COZe/yr in 2030.
T-1.1 TELECOMMUTING AND ALTERNATIVE WORK
SCHEDULES
Advocate for flextime work arrangements to decrease daily commuter trips.
Flextime includes both telecommuting and alternative work schedules and is one of many transportation demand management
(TDM) strategies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the number of vehicle trips made on a given day. Flextime
reduces peak period traffic congestion directly by allowing employees to set their own work schedules, which often involve a
condensed four-day work week. The flexibility in hours can also make ridesharing and transit use more feasible. In addition,
staggered shifts can reduce peak -period trips and traffic congestion, particularly around large employment centers.
The city will work to increase employee participation in telecommuting and alternative work schedules through targeted outreach
to large local employers. Where programs or policies already exist the city will focus its efforts on outreach to employees in order
to increase participation rates. For those employers who do not currently offer flextime schedules, the city will encourage the
employer to adopt a program or policy and provide promotional support.
U
$$$
small to moderate increase in employee participation rates in telecommuting and alternative work schedules due
$$$$ '
FBEoncourage
itional promotional efforts by the city.
a
employers to adopt a flextime program or policy, if they do not already have one, and provide promotional
Improved Air
rt upon program kick off.
U
$$$
>
$$$$ '
Community Development Department
a
a
614 565
by
Lodi Climate Action Plan 4-16
Reductions by 2020: Sector Reduction
N
614 565
by
Improved Air
3,0$0 MTCOZe/yr 16%
miles/yr 2020
quality
a
Reductions by 2030:
'
0
792,395
a
CY
Improved Public
Health
4,134 MT COZe /yr
miles/yr by 2030
Lodi Climate Action Plan 4-16
' T-1.2 REDUCED MINIMUM PARKING
REQUIREMENTS
Support transit -oriented and mixed use development by reducing parking
requirements in new development.
Research shows that there is an indirect link between reduced minimum parking requirements and a decline in vehicle trips.
Reducing parking requirements allows market forces to determine the appropriate level of parking supply based on user
demands. As parking lots can be land -intensive, reducing these requirements supports transit -oriented and mixed-use
development by maximizing commercial retail space and reducing overall cost to development. Such a policy is especially
effective near commercial centers where it is easier for people to take transit, walk, or ride their bikes. In addition, the lower
development costs can also support housing affordability.
Reduced parking requirements could be established in locations where parking demand will be lower due to geographic and
demographic factors, such as downtown and other commercial and transit centers.
U
A
Identify areas where new or infill development is likely to occur near commercial and transit centers and determine
O
Community Development Department
appropriate number of parking spaces based on market demand.
B
Phase in tailored reductions in minimum commercial parking requirements.
U
IL
F
O
Community Development Department
CL
°C
a
•
417 CH 4: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy
Reductions by 2020: Sector Reduction
88 967
Imiles/yr by 2020
Improved Air
52] MT COZe/yr 1
quality
�
Reductions by 2030:
la
•
not
587,087
a
Cr
Improved Public
Health
240 MT COZe /yr
0
N
miles/yr by 2030
417 CH 4: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy
I
T -1.3 CARSHARING
Support city employees who choose alternative transportation by providing access to
cars as needed for work or personal trips.
Carsharing programs reduce the need for businesses or households to own vehicles, while reducing personal transportation costs
and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Carsharing has sometimes been referred to as the "missing link" in the package of alternatives to
the private automobile. For example, vehicles available near a person's workplace or school can enable them to commute to work
via transit or other means, knowing that they'll have a carshare vehicle available during the day if needed for work or personal
trips.
The city will develop a carsharing program for use by city employees. The city will promote the successes of this new program
throughout the community, particularly to large employers, to encourage the development of additional programs.
U
a small-scale carsharing program for city employees.
O
Fment
te the successes of the program throughout the community encouraging large employers to implement similar
ms.
U
IL
F
O
Community Development Department (CDD)
CL
°C
a
•
;
Lodi Climate Action Plan 4-18
Reductions by 2020: Sector Reduction
0
N6,496
1%
;
Improved Air
85 MT COZe/yr >1
les by 2020
a
quality
Reductions by 2030:
•
M
253,354
a
c
Improved Public
Health
109 MT CO,e /yr
0
miles/yr by 2030
Lodi Climate Action Plan 4-18
I
T -1.4 TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS
Expedite the implementation of improvements identified in the Regional Short -Range
Transit Plan.
In most cities that have succeeded in growing while limiting vehicle trips, a fundamental component of their success has been
improved transit services. In 2009 the city adopted a Short Range Transit Plan which outlines the current level of service and
identified improvements that would increase ridership through fiscal year 2017/18. Implementation of the Short Range Transit
Plan, however, has been limited by funding in recent years.
The city should advocate for expedited funding to implement the improvements that were identified in the Short Range Transit
Plan, increasing system efficiency by focusing on: maintaining the current level of service coverage throughout the city,
streamlining existing routes, reducing route redundancy, and extending service to the Reynolds Ranch development upon
completion. The city should coordinate new and existing services to serve both general and targeted travel markets and consider
potential consolidation of existing private -sector transit operations. To increase ridership the city should provide real-time arrival
information, enhance passenger amenities at transit shelters and major transfer centers, update and distribute new route maps
and schedules as hard copies and online, and provide information about other transit services to customers across many
platforms.
D$$$
ate for expedited funding of improvements identified in the adopted Regional Short Range Transit Plan, with
O
Public Works
ed improvements to increase system efficiency, enhance access to new developments, and connect with other
FBImprove
al transit services.
;
Improved Air
Quality
transit ridership experience through integration of GPS -based technologies, clearer transit schedule messaging,
provements to transit facilities.
D$$$
>
O
Public Works
a
°C
a
•
;
419 CH 4: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy
Reductions by 2020: Sector Reduction
0
0
38 383,737
> >
miles/yr by 2020
;
Improved Air
Quality
13,717 MTCOZe/yr 74%
a
Reductions by 2030:
•
M
51,950,019
a
c
Improved Public
Health
1$,571 MT Cote /yr
0
" �
miles/yr by 2030
419 CH 4: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy
I
T -1.5 RIDESHARING
Encourage and support ridesharing groups and initiatives through additional
outreach efforts.
Ridesharing is a transportation demand management strategy that reduces commute trips from single -occupant vehicles through
organized carpooling and vanpooling. Ridesharing can attract 5-15% of total commute trips if commuters are encouraged to
participate through outreach and information sharing. Providing incentives such as parking cash outs or vanpool subsidies can
result in greater participation rates of around 10-30%.
The city can increase participation in employee rideshare programs by working with local employers and/or the Chamber of
Commerce to coordinate information sharing, and possibly develop a ridesharing website to help match drivers and riders. The
city could also encourage employers to offer parking cash out or subsidies for greater participation rates.
J
CO
$ $
t small to moderate increase in employee participation rates in carpools and vanpools due to additional
$$$$
FBETncourage
otional efforts by the city.
a
employers to offer financial incentives for ridesharing, including parking cash out and carpool subsidies
J
CO
$ $
Ui
>
$$$$
Community Development Department (CDD)
a
a
5 180 041
> >
>
Lodi Climate Action Plan 4-20
Reductions by 2020: Sector Reduction
N
5 180 041
> >
>
Improved Air
1,558 MTCOZe/yr . 8%
miles/yr by 2020
F
quality
a
Reductions by 2030:
'
m
6,979,711
a
Cr
Improved Public
Health
2,099 MT COZe /yr
0
N
miles/yr by 2030
Lodi Climate Action Plan 4-20
Waste disposal creates emissions when organic waste (e.g., food
scraps, yard clippings, paper, and wood products) is buried in
landfills and anaerobic digestion takes place, emitting methane.
In Lodi, 11% of GHG emissions are associated with solid waste
generation and disposal in landfills. The CAP's waste diversion
measures seek to divert organic waste from landfills by reusing
construction materials when possible and increasing
communitywide participation in food scrap and yard waste
composting.
Construction waste accounts for approximately 29% of the
waste stream statewide, and includes items such as lumber,
drywall, metals, masonry, carpet, plastics, pipes, rocks, and dirt.
Most of these materials are inert and do not contribute to
landfill methane generation upon decomposition. However,
waste lumber comprises nearly 15% of the total statewide waste
stream, and represents a significant source of potential GHG
emissions reductions. Per the California 2010 Building Standards
Code (Title 24), effective January 1, 2011, all jurisdictions must
require the diversion of 50% of construction waste materials
generated during certain construction and renovation projects.
This CAP assumes the city will enforce these diversion
requirements in all applicable future projects.
As shown in Table 4.1, the CAP includes reductions associated
with increased methane capture at landfills. The California Air
Resources Board approved a new regulation (effective in June
2010) that requires operators of certain landfills to install
methane control systems that operate in an optimal manner.
Historically, the majority of solid waste generated in Lodi is
disposed of at the North County Landfill. While this landfill
already has a methane capture system in place, it is less efficient
than currently available technology used elsewhere throughout
the state. For purposes of this CAP, it is assumed that efficiency
improvements will be made to the existing methane capture
system at the North County Landfill, but that the city will play no
role in implementing these improvements.
The total GHG emission reduction potential of the waste
strategy is 9,129 MT CO2e/yr in 2020 and 13,260 MT CO2e/yr in
2030.
I
SW-1.1 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION
Work with Waste Management to divert food waste and compostable paper from
landfills and ensure compliance with existing yard waste diversion and
construction/demolition waste diversion ordinances.
Food scraps are unwanted cooking preparation items and leftover table scraps, such as banana peels, apple cores, vegetable
trimmings, bones, egg shells, meat, and pizza crusts. Compostable paper, sometimes called food -soiled paper, usually comes from
the kitchen and is not appropriate for paper recycling due to contamination. Materials such as stained pizza boxes, uncoated paper
cups and plates, used coffee filters, paper food cartons, napkins and paper towels are all compostable paper. Diverting these
organic items from the landfill helps to reduce methane gas generation from anaerobic decomposition, and helps to prolong the
operable life of a landfill. The city will work with Waste Management to expand its yard waste collection program to accept
compostable food and paper products in residents' existing green waste bins, so these items can also be diverted to composting
facilities. The expanded program will allow collection of:
• all food products: fruits, vegetables, breads, cereals, dairy, meat and fish (including bones);
• coffee grounds, filters, and tea bags; and
• food soiled paper: paper towels, plates, napkins, and pizza boxes.
The city will work with Waste Management to develop comprehensive outreach campaigns to inform solid waste customers about
the change to the yard waste collection program, identifying what can and cannot be included in the yard waste bins and providing
helpful tips to minimize pest and odor problems. The city will also partner with Lodi Unified School District to promote composting
education programs in Lodi classrooms.
1 2020: 50% of residential units participate in food scrap and compostable paper diversion
2030: 75% of residential units participate in food scrap and compostable paper diversion
2 2020: 10% of commercial businesses participate in food scrap diversion
2030: 40% of commercial businesses participate in food scrap diversion
3 2020: 50% of commercial businesses participate in compostable paper diversion
2030: 75% of commercial businesses participate in compostable paper diversion
4 2020: 50% of construction and demolition debris is diverted from landfills
2030: 50% of construction and demolition debris is diverted from landfills
• �
$$$
with Waste Management to allow residents and local businesses to include food scraps and compostable paper in
aste collection bins.
•ation
Public Works Department (PWD)
with Waste Management and Lodi Unified School District to promote organic waste diversion through customer
campaigns.
FCEnsure
a
compliance with state construction and demolition diversion requirements.
Waste Management
1 2020: 50% of residential units participate in food scrap and compostable paper diversion
2030: 75% of residential units participate in food scrap and compostable paper diversion
2 2020: 10% of commercial businesses participate in food scrap diversion
2030: 40% of commercial businesses participate in food scrap diversion
3 2020: 50% of commercial businesses participate in compostable paper diversion
2030: 75% of commercial businesses participate in compostable paper diversion
4 2020: 50% of construction and demolition debris is diverted from landfills
2030: 50% of construction and demolition debris is diverted from landfills
• �
$$$
+..
{1TL1
Public Works Department (PWD)
D
a
'
Waste Management
Lodi Climate Action Plan 4-22
Reductions by 2020: Sector Reduction
0
N
13 093
Improved Air
a
1,671 MTCOZe/yr 42%
tons/yr
quality
a
Reductions by 2030:
•
0
M
0
N
24,004
tons/yr
Ct
Improved Public
Health
5,511 MT COZe /yr
Lodi Climate Action Plan 4-22
I
SW-2.1 COMPOSTING EDUCATION
Increase awareness of composting through and outreach and education program.
At-home composting, or turning food scraps into fertilizer, reduces greenhouse gases by reducing the amount of organic waste that
is sent to the landfill. Public outreach at the Farmer's Market indicated that few residents in Lodi were familiar with composting or
its benefits. The Lodi Unified School District had a composting program in the past, which was cut due to budgetary constraints. The
city could work with the San Joaquin County Master Gardening Class and the Landscape Management Outreach Program (LMOP),
which focus on education and stewardship, to develop a composting education program for city and county residents. The program
could include a school education program focused on Lodi's K-6 students to teach composting skills and spread knowledge of the
benefits of waste diversion in their own homes. The program could also include an outreach component to provide information to
the general public through newspaper articles, newsletters, informational booths at community events, and other volunteer -led
outreach activities.
J
m
A
Support Waste Management in developing an outreach campaign to encourage residents to include their food scraps
and yard waste bins by distributing bill inserts upon roll-out of the food waste program.
•
6
Provide composting information on the city's website, with a link to resources provided by the County.
Improved Public Health
c
Partner with Lodi Unified School District and the San Joaquin County Master Gardeners to develop a hands-on school
C
composting education program to teach students about the benefits of composting, and how they can do it in their own
a
'
homes.
J
m
W
a
a
i
..
O
Public Works Department (PWD)
•
D
Improved Public Health
Not Quantified
C
a
'
Waste Management
423 CH 4: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy
W
a
�
Improved Air Quality
Supporting Measure
Improved Public Health
Not Quantified
C
423 CH 4: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy
Water-related GHG emissions are mainly caused by energy used
to pump, transport, heat, cool, and treat potable water.
Emissions associated with this energy use accounted for
approximately 1%of the communitywide GHG inventory. With
water supplies expected to continue declining into the future,
water conservation strategies have the double benefit of
reducing GHG emissions and aligning demand with future water
availability. The measures included in this section quantify the
greenhouse gas emissions reductions of conservation programs
that are already underway in the city.
I
W -1.1 WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Support conservation through water metering and other UWMP programs.
The city relies entirely on local groundwater for its water resource needs. By conserving water, the city also conserves energy used
to pump, treat, and transport water to its customers. The city will meet its obligations under SB 7-X to reduce water consumption
20% by 2020, primarily through implementation of the Water Meter Program which is planned for completion in 2017. The city will
also implement water conservation programs described in the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) to reach the mandated
reduction target.
* This CAP measure does not recommend any additional expenses related to water conservation programs beyond those already
planned as part of the city's Urban Water Management Plan.
425 CH 4: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy
A
Implement UWMP water conservation programs.
•
B
Promote the city's Sustainable Water Use Guide simultaneously with outreach for the Water Meter Retrofit program.
* This CAP measure does not recommend any additional expenses related to water conservation programs beyond those already
planned as part of the city's Urban Water Management Plan.
425 CH 4: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy
W
•
Public Works Department
_U
m
• J
0�
W
�
..
O
�
a
Quantified in State Reductions
a
•
Utility Bill Savings
Cr
* This CAP measure does not recommend any additional expenses related to water conservation programs beyond those already
planned as part of the city's Urban Water Management Plan.
425 CH 4: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy
W
•
a
Improved Water Quality
Quantified in State Reductions
Utility Bill Savings
Cr
* This CAP measure does not recommend any additional expenses related to water conservation programs beyond those already
planned as part of the city's Urban Water Management Plan.
425 CH 4: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy
Green infrastructure refers mainly to the open spaces and
vegetation that provide places for recreation, wildlife habitat,
and relief from the heat of the sun. The term can also refer to
building -integrated vegetation projects, such as green walls
and green roofs. There are numerous benefits to planting trees
and increasing vegetated surfaces, including reduced surface
runoff, increases in natural habitat, reduced urban heat island
effect, and opportunities for carbon sequestration. While
vegetation -related carbon sequestration is known to reduce
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the precise level to which
this occurs is not well understood and difficult to quantify at
this time. Regardless, the other benefits associated with
increased tree and vegetation cover, such as reducing the
urban heat island effect, may increase comfort and encourage
more individuals to walk, ride their bikes, or take transit,
indirectly reducing greenhouse gas emissions while
contributing to the overall well-being of Lodi's residents.
As a supplement to the quantified measures in this CAP, two
measures are included in the Green Infrastructure section that
are not quantified, but rather focus on environmental
stewardship and education through local agency partnerships
and demonstration projects.
I
GI-1.1 URBAN FOREST
Partner with Tree Lodi to maintain and expand the urban forest.
Healthy urban forests can reduce greenhouse gas emissions through carbon sequestration, cool existing buildings as discussed in
Measure E-3.3, and shade parking lots to reduce the urban heat island effect. The urban forest can also improve air quality, provide
wildlife habitat, and provide shade for people walking or riding their bicycles.
Currently, the Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services maintains all trees in Lodi's parks system, while the Public
Works Department manages Lodi's street trees. The city is also undergoing a survey of existing street trees to determine potential
planting locations for new trees. Tree Lodi, a local non-profit group, has assisted the city with the maintenance of its street trees in
recent years, and the city sees an opportunity to leverage their relationship through a memorandum of understanding to describe
the ways in which Tree Lodi can be more involved in the overall management of the city's urban forest. Such a partnership can
expand the urban canopy through planting new trees, while ensuring the proper care and maintenance of all trees in the urban
forest.
427 CH 4: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy
with Tree Lodi to outline their role in the management and expansion of the urban forest through a memorandum
Public Works Department
erstanding.
TSupport
•
H
>
Tree Lodi in outreach efforts, utilizing existing informational materials about the benefits of Lodi's urban forest
Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services
a
ourage the planting of additional trees on private property.
427 CH 4: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy
Improved Water Quality
Public Works Department
U
• ca$$$
H
>
O
Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services
a
Measure
°C
a
•
r<Reduced
Urban Heat Island Effect
Tree Lodi
427 CH 4: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy
Improved Water Quality
Reduced Storm Water RunoffSupporting
Measure
r<Reduced
Urban Heat Island Effect
Not Quantified
Improved Air Quality
427 CH 4: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy
I
GI-1.2 EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
Partner with a local business or agency in a green infrastructure demonstration
project.
A green infrastructure demonstration project could include a living wall, green roof, or urban rain garden. Living walls and green
roofs help to insulate a building, retain water during storms, increase energy efficiency of buildings, and contribute to local wildlife
habitats. Rain gardens are vegetated depressions that allow storm water runoff to slowly filtrate through the soil, relieving
pressure on storm drains and other urban infrastructure.
The city could partner with local businesses or the school district to create a demonstration living wall, green roof, or rain garden,
which would show the community how such innovative projects can provide multiple benefits, which also contribute to GHG
reductions.
Lodi Climate Action Plan 4-28
A
uct a green roof on City Hall or a building in the Downtown area. Provide informational signs at ground level with
Public Works Department
photos and descriptions of the benefits, including extended roof life, enhanced building insulation, natural
Varies
IL
t for birds and insects, and storm water management. Organize rooftop tours for building owners interested in
Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services
a
;before/after
roof installation.
•
B
with LUSD to install a rain garden that allows storm water runoff from a roof, walkway, or parking lot to infiltrate
e ground. Provide informational displays on-site and on the city's and LUSD's websites explaining the benefits and
Urban Heat Island Effect
Lodi Unified School District
functions of the system, irrigation water savings, and costs/benefits of the project.
Lodi Climate Action Plan 4-28
Improved Water Quality
Public Works Department
U
•
Varies
IL
O
Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services
a
Supporting Measure
a
r<Reduced
Urban Heat Island Effect
Lodi Unified School District
Lodi Climate Action Plan 4-28
Improved Water Quality
Reduced Storm Water Runoff
Supporting Measure
r<Reduced
Urban Heat Island Effect
Not Quantified
Utility Bill Savings
Lodi Climate Action Plan 4-28
Target Achievement
By 2020, implementation of the State and federal actions identified in Chapter 3 and the City's greenhouse gas reduction measures are
anticipated to reduce communitywide emissions reductions of 150,528 MT CO2e/year and achieve a community efficiency level of 4.3 MT
CO2e/ service population/ year. This level of reduction would surpass the City's adopted 2020 emissions target of 4.5 MT CO2e/ service
population/ year. Table 4.2 demonstrates the anticipated level of reductions in 2020.
Table 4.3 demonstrates that by 2030, implementation of City's CAP is anticipated to reduce communitywide emissions by approximately
240,304 MT CO2e/year and achieve a community efficiency level of 4.1 MT CO2e/ service population/ year. This level of reduction falls short
of the City's adopted 2030 emissions target of 3.0 MT CO2e/ service population/ year. The City anticipates that additional State actions will
contribute greatly to the closing of this gap. The City will reevaluate 2030 target achievement and potential local actions once the next
round of State actions has been defined.
BASELINE BUSINESS- ! LOCAL
1 AS -USUAL MEASURES
STATE &
FEDERAL
ACTIONS
LOCAL MEASURES +
STATE & FEDERAL
ACTIONS
Population 63,362 83,074
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Employment 24,655 39,025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service Population i 88,017 122,099
..
Mass GHG Emissions
2030
(CO2e)
479,911
671,896
627,414
565,850
521,368
--------------
Change from Mass
AS -USUAL
-------------------------
FEDERAL
STATE & FEDERAL
Emission Baseline
0%
40.0%
30.7%
17.9%
8.6%
Emissions Efficiency
-------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
99,500
Employment
(MT CO2e /Service
5.45
5.50
5.14
4.63
4.27
Population / Year)
150,500
Mass GHG Emissions
Change from Baseline
Emissions Efficiency
-------------------------
0% 1%
-6%
-15%
-22%
..
00:
2030
BUSINESS-
LOCAL
STATE &
LOCAL MEASURES +
BASELINE
AS -USUAL
MEASURES
FEDERAL
STATE & FEDERAL
ACTIONS
ACTIONS
Population
63,362
-------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
99,500
Employment
24,655
51,000
Service Population
88,017
150,500
Mass GHG Emissions
479,911
1 852,575
1 784,810
1 680,036
1 612,271
(CO2e)
--------------
Change from Mass
o
0/
0
77.7/
0
63.5/
0
41.7/
0
27.6/
Emission Baseline
Emissions Efficiency
(MT CO2e / Service
5.45
5.66
5.21
4.52
4.07
Population / Year)
Change from Baseline
-------------------------
0/ o
4%
-4/0 0
-17/ 0
0
-25/
Emissions Efficiency
. 1 1
Lr -
IL
ic a A- r,
J r
L 4r
J
y
7 % L
WE
IT` 4r 1
Y
r 'Y' %b }�
J 1- J 1 _ •' I% _ r
r. J ' 1
r - L-1 i
. r %& V %
�'■ y' 1 r
r
t
_.i31
Ir
r ■-�. AEOM_ IN-■ '■A ■
:4� a
Amp mw
t_
' F _ - ?'- �■ 1 .. _ � f ry- ■ 'I y r ■
MANE �� 1
�r. •�. -�_ _ 1
f �� ff}�
■
r
• �
1.
r
. 1 1
Lr -
IL
ic a A- r,
J r
L 4r
J
y
7 % L
WE
IT` 4r 1
Y
r 'Y' %b }�
J 1- J 1 _ •' I% _ r
r. J ' 1
r - L-1 i
. r %& V %
�'■ y' 1 r
r
t
_.i31
Ir
r ■-�. AEOM_ IN-■ '■A ■
:4� a
Amp mw
t_
' F _ - ?'- �■ 1 .. _ � f ry- ■ 'I y r ■
MANE �� 1
�r. •�. -�_ _ 1
f �� ff}�
■
r
Measure Implementation
Progress and Achievements
Ensuring that the measures translate to on -the -ground results is
critical to the success of the CAP. To facilitate this, each measure
described in Chapter 4 contains a table identifying specific
actions the City will implement. The table also identifies
responsible departments and establishes an implementation
timeframe for each action.
The second section of each table provides performance targets
that allow staff, the Board of Supervisors, and the public to track
measure implementation and monitor overall CAP progress.
These targets are suitable benchmarks to monitor
implementation progress. They are indicators to evaluate if a
measure is achieving the necessary GHG reductions. Table 5-1
provides a summary of these benchmarks for easy reference.
The list also illustrates the measure's sector applicability and if a
measure is either mandatory or optional.
Upon adoption of the CAP, identified City departments will be
responsible for implementing appropriate action measures of
the CAP. Responsible staff in each department will facilitate and
oversee action implementation. CAP implementation meetings
will occur regularly to assess the status of CAP measure progress
and the City's efforts. Some actions will require
interdepartmental or inter -agency cooperation and appropriate
partnerships will need to be established accordingly.
Plan Evaluation and Evolution
The CAP lays out a comprehensive, communitywide strategy to
reduce greenhouse gasses (GHGs) and improve community
sustainability. City staff will evaluate the CAP's performance
over time and be prepared to alter or amend the plan if it is not
achieving the reduction target
Lodi Climate Action Plan
Plan Evaluation
There are two important types of performance evaluation:
evaluation of the CAP as a whole and evaluation of the individual
measures. Subsequent communitywide GHG emission
inventories provide the best indication of CAP effectiveness, and
will allow actual growth to be reconciled with growth projected
by the General Plan and CAP. Conducting periodic inventories
will allow comparison to the 1990 baseline and will demonstrate
the CAP's ability to achieve proposed reduction targets.
The Planning Division will coordinate community inventories
every three to five years beginning in 2015 to measure
performance and progress towards achieving emission reduction
targets.
While inventories provide information about overall emission
reductions, it is also important to understand the efficacy of
individual measures. Evaluating the emission reduction capacity,
cost, and benefit of individual measures improves County staff
and decision makers' ability to manage and implement the CAP.
Evaluating CAP measure performance requires monitoring the
level of community participation and the GHG reduction
capacity. The progress indicators, provided within each
quantified measure, identify the level of participation and
performance required to achieve the estimated level of GHG
reduction. By evaluating whether the implementation of a
measure is on track to achieve its progress indicators, the
County can identify successful measures and reevaluate or
replace under -performing ones.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b)(1)(E) requires that the City
amend the CAP if it finds that the plan is not achieving the
adopted GHG reduction target. The Planning and Public Works
Department will evaluate measures every two years beginning in
2013, and will summarize progress toward meeting the GHG
reduction target at that time in a report to the Board of
Supervisors that describes:
+ Estimated annual GHG reductions;
+ (compared to 1990, 2008, and subsequent inventory
years);
+ Achievement of progress indicators;
+ Participation rates (where applicable);
+ Implementation costs;
+ Community benefits realized;
+ Remaining barriers to implementation; and
+ Recommendations for changes to the CAP.
Plan Evolution
To remain relevant, the City must be prepared to adapt and
transform the CAP over time. It is likely that new information
about climate change science and risk will emerge, new GHG
reduction technologies and innovative municipal strategies will
be developed, new financing will be available, and State and
federal legislation will change. It is also possible that future
inventories will indicate that the community is not achieving its
adopted target. As part of the evaluations identified above, the
City will assess the implications of new scientific findings and
technology, explore new opportunities for GHG reduction,
respond to changes in climate policy, and incorporate these
changes in future updates to the CAP to ensure an effective and
efficient program.
CH 5: Implementation
•IEW616
II11.18leggraror, 71.1an, 90
Narrative Report
Supported by Pacific Gas and Electric Company
In Collaboration with City of Lodi and
The Great Valley Center
July 26, 2012
Lodi Climate Action Plan
Credits and
Acknowledgements
City of Lodi
Joseph Wood, Neighborhood Services Manager, Community Development Department
Norma J. Lagorio, Senior Administration Clerk, Fleet Services Division, Public Works Department
Rob Lechner, Manager of Customer Service and Programs, Lodi Electric Utility
Kevin Bell, Electric Utility Rate Analyst, Public Works Department
Great Valley Center
Bryce Dias, Program Associate
Caldean Biscocho, Program Coordinator
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)
Pacific Gas and Electric Company provides comprehensive climate planning assistance to local governments, from
providing energy usage data and assistance with greenhouse gas inventories, to training and guidance on climate action
plans.
This program is funded by California utility customers and administered by PG&E under the auspices of the California
Public Utilities Commission.
Legal Notice
THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED AS A RESULT OF WORK SPONSORED BY THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
("COMMISSION"). IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION, ITS EMPLOYEES, OR THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. THE COMMISSION, THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ITS EMPLOYEES, CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS MAKE NO
WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AND ASSUME NO LEGAL LIABILITY FOR THE INFORMATION IN THIS REPORT; NOR DOES ANY
PARTY REPRESENT THAT THE USE OF THIS INFORMATION WILL NOT INFRINGE UPON PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS. THIS REPORT HAS
NOT BEEN APPROVED OR DISAPPROVED BY THE COMMISSION NOR HAS THE COMMISSION PASSED UPON THE ACCURACY OR
ADEQUACY OF THE INFORMATION IN THIS REPORT.
This report was prepared by Alicia Valenzuela, Green Communities Intern at the Great Valley Center. The authors
would like to thank City of Lodi staff for providing much of the insight and local information necessary for the
completion of this report.
Table of Contents
ExecutiveSummary............................................................................................. 6
Cityof Lodi Profile..................................................................................................................6
The Purpose of Conducting an Inventory.............................................................................6
InventoryResults....................................................................................................................7
Regional and Local Context...................................................................................................8
Climate Change Mitigation Activities in California..................................................................8
Pacific Gas and Electric Company Supported Inventory Project...........................................9
Climate Change Mitigation Activities in City of Lodi.............................................................10
Introduction.........................................................................................................
11
GeneralMethodology...........................................................................................................11
Local Government Operations Protocol...............................................................................11
Greenhouse Gases and Carbon Dioxide Equivalent...........................................................11
CalculatingEmissions.........................................................................................................12
The Scopes Framework......................................................................................................12
Organizational Boundaries..................................................................................................13
Typesof Emissions.............................................................................................................13
SignificanceThresholds......................................................................................................14
InformationItems.................................................................................................................15
UnderstandingTotals...........................................................................................................16
InventoryResults...............................................................................................
17
EmissionsTotal.....................................................................................................................17
Buildings and Other Facilities..............................................................................................17
Streetlights, Traffic Signals, and Other Public Lighting....................................................19
WaterDelivery Facilities.......................................................................................................20
Wastewater Treatment Facilities..........................................................................................22
Power Generation Facilities.................................................................................................23
Vehicle Fleet and Mobile Equipment...................................................................................25
TransitFleet...........................................................................................................................27
Government -Generated Solid Waste...................................................................................27
EmployeeCommute..............................................................................................................29
Inventory Methodologies...................................................................................
32
Buildings and Other Facilities..............................................................................................32
Buildings and Other Facilities: Electricity and Natural Gas Related Emission .....................32
Buildings and Other Facilities: Reporting Inconsistencies and Troubleshooting ..................33
Streetlights and Traffic Signals...........................................................................................34
Lighting: Electricity Related Emission..................................................................................34
Lighting: Reporting Inconsistencies and Troubleshooting...................................................35
Water Transport Facilities....................................................................................................35
Water Transport Facilities: Electricity Related Emission......................................................35
Water Transport Facilities: Reporting Inconsistencies and Troubleshooting .......................36
Wastewater Treatment Facilities..........................................................................................36
Wastewater Treatment Facilities: Electricity and Natural Gas Related Emission ................37
Wastewater Treatment Facilities: Wastewater Treatment Related Emission ......................37
Power Generation Facilities.................................................................................................39
Power Generation Facilities: Electricity and Natural Gas Related Emissions ......................
39
Power Generation Facilities: Transmission and Distribution Loss Related Emissions .........
39
Power Generation Facilities: Transmission and Distribution Fugitive Emissions .................39
Power Generation Facilities: Reporting Inconsistencies and Troubleshooting ....................40
Vehicle Fleet, Transit Fleet and Mobile Equipment............................................................40
Vehicle Fleet, Transit Fleet and Mobile Equipment: Fuel and VMT Related Emission ........40
Vehicle Fleet, Transit Fleet and Mobile Equipment: Refrigerant Related Emission .............41
Vehicle Fleet, Transit Fleet and Mobile Equipment: Reporting Inconsistencies and
Limitations...........................................................................................................................42
Government -Generated Solid Waste...................................................................................42
Government -Generated Solid Waste: Solid Waste Related Emission.................................42
Government -Generated Solid Waste : Reporting Inconsistencies and Troubleshooting .....43
EmployeeCommute..............................................................................................................43
Employee Commute: Fuel and VMT Related Emission.......................................................43
Employee Commute : Reporting Inconsistencies and Troubleshooting...............................44
List of Tables and Figures
Figure 1: 2008 Government Operations CO2e Emissions by Sector.......................................................... 7
Figure 2: 2008 Government Operations CO2e Emissions by Source.........................................................8
Table 1: LGO Protocol Report - Overall Emissions by Scope.....................................................................8
Table 2: Greenhouse Gases.....................................................................................................................11
Table 3: Basic Emissions Calculations.....................................................................................................12
Table 4: Inventoried Emissions Sources by Scope...................................................................................13
Table5: Information Items........................................................................................................................15
Figure 3: Buildings and Other Facilities Emissions by Department..........................................................18
Table 6: Buildings and Other Facilities Emissions by Department............................................................18
Figure 4: Buildings and Other Facilities Emissions by Source..................................................................18
Table 7: Buildings and Other Facilities Emissions by Source...................................................................19
Table 8: LGO Protocol Report - Buildings Sector Emissions by Scope and Emission Type ....................19
Figure 5: Public Lighting Emissions by Subsector....................................................................................20
Table 9: Public Lighting Emissions by Subsector.....................................................................................20
Table 10: LGO Protocol Report — Public Lighting Emissions by Scope and Emission Type ....................
20
Figure 6: Water Delivery Facilities Emissions by Subsector.....................................................................21
Table 11: Water Delivery Facilities Emissions by Subsector....................................................................21
Table 12: LGO Protocol Report - Water Delivery Facilities Emissions by Scope and Emission Type......
21
Figure 7: Wastewater Treatment Facilities Emissions by Subsector........................................................22
Table 13: Wastewater Treatment Facilities Emissions by Subsector.......................................................23
Table 14: LGO Protocol Report - Wastewater Treatment Facilities Emissions by Scope and Emission
Type..........................................................................................................................................................23
Figure 8: Power Generation Facilities Emissions by Facility.....................................................................24
Table 15: Power Generation Facilities Emissions by Facility....................................................................24
Table 16: LGO Protocol Report — Power Generation Emissions by Scope and Emission Type...............24
Figure 9: Vehicle Fleet Emissions by Source...........................................................................................25
Table 17: Vehicle Fleet Emissions by Source...........................................................................................26
Figure 10: Vehicle Fleet Emissions by Department..................................................................................26
Table 18: LGO Protocol Report - Vehicle Fleet Emissions by Scope and Emission Type........................26
Table 19: Transit Fleet Emissions by Source............................................................................................27
Table 20: LGO Protocol Report - Transit Fleet Emissions by Scope and Emission Type ........................27
Figure 11: Government Waste Emissions by Subsector...........................................................................28
Table 21: Government Waste Emissions by Subsector............................................................................28
Table 22: LGO Protocol Report - Government Waste Emissions by Scope and Emission Type .............29
Table 23: LGO Protocol Report - Employee Commute Emissions by Scope and Emission Type ............
29
Table 24: Employee Commute — Reasons for Not Carpooling/Vanpooling..............................................30
Table 25: Employee Commute — Reasons for Not Taking Transit............................................................30
Table 26: Employee Commute — Reasons for Not Walking/Biking...........................................................
31
Table 27: Employee Commute — Travel Mode Data.................................................................................31
Table 28: Employee Commute — Reasons for Not Carpooling/Vanpooling..............................................31
Executive Summary
City of Lodi Profile
The City of Lodi covers over 12 square miles and ranges from Lodi Lake to Cherokee Memorial Park. The City of Lodi
had an estimated population of 62,000 in 2008. With 458 city employees in the year 2008, there was a ratio of
approximately 7.3 employees per one thousand residents. The City of Lodi's total budget was $ 213,347,142 for fiscal
year 2007-2008 and $ 187,032,383 for fiscal year 2008-2009.
Lodi is located within Climate Zone 12,1 according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Climate Zone 12 is classified as a
Mediterranean climate, by the Koppen Classification System, and is characterized by hot summers and mild winters.
Lodi experiences a climate similar to the Stockton area, which recorded 3,066 heating degree days2 and 1,482 cooling
degree days in 2008.3
The Purpose of Conducting an Inventory
Each day, local governments operate buildings, vehicle fleets, street lights, traffic signals, water systems, and wastewater
plants; local government employees consume resources commuting to work and generate solid waste which is sent for
disposal. All of these activities directly or indirectly cause the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into
the atmosphere. This report presents the findings and methodology of a local government operations (LGO)
greenhouse gas emissions inventory for City of Lodi. The inventory measures the greenhouse gas emissions resulting
specifically from City of Lodi's government operations, arranged by sector to facilitate detailed analysis of emissions
sources. The inventory addresses where and what quantity of emissions are generated through various local government
activities. Through analysis of a local government's emissions profile, the City of Lodi can tailor strategies to achieve the
most effective greenhouse gas emission reductions.
Strategies by which local governments can significantly reduce emissions from their operations include increasing energy
efficiency in facilities and vehicle fleets, utilizing renewable energy sources, reducing waste, and supporting alternative
modes of transportation for employees. The benefits of these actions include lower energy bills, improved air quality,
and more efficient government operations, in addition to the mitigation of local and global climate change impacts. By
1 Pacific Energy Center's Guide to: California Climate Zones, retrieved from
http: / /www.PG&E.com/includes/docs /pdfs/about/edusafety/training/pec/toolbox/arch/climate/california_climate_zones_01-
16.pdf
2 Heating and Cooling Degree Days are a measurement designed to reflect demand for energy needed to heat or cool a facility, and
are calculated as the difference between the average daily temperature for a region and a baseline temperature (usually 65° or 80° F).
HDD value is the summation of degrees of the average temperature per day below 65° F for the year. CDD is the summation of
degrees of the average temperature per day above 80° F for the year.
3 NNDC Climate Data, retrieved from http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/CDODivisionalSelect.jsp
striving to save taxpayer money through efficient government operations, City of Lodi is working to improve
government services in a smart and targeted way that will benefit all of the City/County's residents.
By conducting this inventory, City of Lodi is acting now to limit future impacts that threaten the lives and property of
Lodi's residents and businesses, make government operations more efficient, and improve the level of service it offers
to the residents of Lodi.
Inventory Results
The following figures summarize the results of the LGO greenhouse gas emissions inventory for the City of Lodi, by
sector and source. As illustrated in Figure 1, the sector producing the most greenhouse gas emissions in the City of Lodi
is the Buildings and Facilities sector at 28.9%, followed by the Vehicle Fleet sector at 22.8%. As shown in Figure 2,
Natural Gas and Gasoline are the sources with the greatest percentage of emissions (32.5% and 26.9% respectively).
Table 1 delineates the different types of greenhouse gases (CO2, CHa, N20, etc.), which are assigned a standard metric
of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 e), and then combined to describe the City's total emissions by Scope.
Figure 1: 2008 Government Operations CO2e Emissions by Sector
Mobile Source
Refrigerants _
1.2%
Public Lighting
2.2%
Electric Power
9.7%
Government -
Generated Solid
Waste
Transit Flee
0.7%
Water and
Sto r mwate r
Services
0.0%
Figure 2: 2008 Government Operations CO2e Emissions by Source
Die
8.2
Wastewater
Process
Emissions
14.0%
Vehicle
Sulphur Refrigerants Solid Waste
„1. . 12% Process
Table 1: LGO Protocol Report - Overall Emissions by Scope
Total Emissions
SCOPE 1
SCOPE 2
SCOPE 3
INFORMATION ITEMS
CO2e CO2 CH4 N20 HFC -134a SF6
4,965.03 3,730.34
4.53 2.95
0.06 0.01
958.00 893.00
0.48 0.18
- -
793.78 721.07
2.66 0.05
- -
79.14 78.33
0.01 0.00
- -
For more detail on the concepts of scopes, sources, and sectors, and to review more granular data produced through the
inventory study, please refer to the full report on the following pages.
Regional and Local Context
Climate Change Mitigation Activities in California
Since 2005, the State of California has responded to growing concerns over the effects of climate change by adopting a
comprehensive approach to addressing emissions in the public and private sectors. This approach was officially initiated
with the passage of the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), which requires the state to reduce its
greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The AB 32 Scoping Plan was developed to identify strategies for
meeting the AB 32 goal, and was adopted by ARB in December 2008. Among many other strategies, it encourages local
governments to reduce emissions in their jurisdictions by 15 percent below current levels by 2020. In addition, it
identifies the following strategies that will impact local governance:
• Develop a California cap -and -trade program
• Expand energy efficiency programs
• Establish and seek to achieve reduction targets for transportation -related related greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions
• Expand the use of green building practices
• Increase waste diversion, composting, and commercial recycling toward zero -waste
• Continue water efficiency programs and use cleaner energy sources to move and treat water
• Reduce methane emissions at landfills
• Preserve forests that sequester carbon dioxide
Other measures taken by the state include mandating stronger vehicle emissions standards (AB 1493, 2002), establishing
a low -carbon fuel standard (EO # S-01-07, 2007), mandating a climate adaptation plan for the state (S -EO # 13-08,
2008), establishing a Green Collar Job Council, and establishing a renewable energy portfolio standard for power
generation or purchase in the state. The state also has made a number of legislative and regulatory changes that have
significant implications for local governments:
• SB 97 (2007) required the Office of Planning and Research to create greenhouse gas planning guidelines
for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In addition, ARB is tasked with creating energy -use
and transportation thresholds in CEQA reviews, which may require local governments to account for
greenhouse gas emissions when reviewing project applications.
• AB 811 (2007) authorizes all local governments in California to establish special districts that can be used
to finance solar or other renewable energy improvements to homes and businesses in their jurisdiction.
• SB 375 (2008) revises the process of regional transportation planning by metropolitan planning
organizations (MPOs), which are governed by elected officials from local jurisdictions. The statute calls on
ARB to establish regional transportation -related GHG targets and requires the large MPOs to develop
regional "Sustainable Communities Strategies" of land use, housing and transportation policies that will
move the region towards its GHG target. The statute stipulates that transportation investments must be
consistent with the Sustainable Communities Strategy and provides CEQA streamlining for local
development projects that are consistent with the Strategy.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company Supported Inventory Project
With the administrative support of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and funding from California utility
customers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission, the Great Valley Center was contracted to
to assist in the quantification of municipal greenhouse gas emissions for the City of Lodi and the following other
participating communities throughout 2012: the Counties of San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Merced and the cities of
Atwater, Dos Palos, Gustine, Los Banos, Manteca and Tracy.
Climate Change Mitigation Activities in City of Lodi
The City of Lodi is currently preparing a community -wide greenhouse gas emissions inventory and reduction strategy in
sequence with the municipal inventory as part of its Climate Action Planning process. The Climate Action Plan will
identify the significant sources of greenhouse gas emissions that can be influenced and/or controlled through various
governmental actions, including federal, State and local actions. Mitigation measures are being planned to address the
State's AB 32 goals.
Introduction
General Methodology
Local Government Operations Protocol
A national standard called the Local Government Operations Protocol (LGO Protocol) has been developed and
adopted by the California Air Resources Board (ARB). This standard provides accounting principles, boundaries,
quantification methods, and procedures for reporting greenhouse gas emissions from local government operations. The
LGO Protocol forms the basis of the Clean Air & Climate Protection Software (CACP 2009), which allows local
governments to compile data and perform the emissions calculations using standardized methods.
Greenhouse Gases and Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
In accordance with LGO Protocol recommendations, CACP 2009 calculates and reports all six internationally
recognized greenhouse gases regulated under the Kyoto Protocol (Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Nitrous Oxide,
Hydrofluorocarbons, Perfluorocarbons, and Sulfur Hexafluoride). Emissions summaries found throughout this report
also use CACP 2009's ability to combine emissions from the various greenhouse gases into carbon dioxide equivalent,
CO2e. Since equal quantities of each greenhouse gas have more or less influence on the greenhouse effect, converting all
emissions to a standard metric, CO2e, allows apples -to -apples comparisons amongst quantities of all six emissions types.
Greenhouse gas emissions are reported in this inventory as metric tons of CO2e (MTCO2e).
Table 2 exhibits the greenhouse gases and their global warming potential (GWP), a measure of the amount of warming a
greenhouse gas may cause compared to the amount of warming caused by carbon dioxide.
Table 2: Greenhouse Gases
WarmingChemical Global
Gas
Formula
Activity
Potential •
Carbon Dioxide
CO2
Combustion
1
Combustion, Anaerobic Decomposition of
Organic Waste (Landfills, Wastewater), Fuel
Methane
CHa
Handling
21
Nitrous Oxide
N20
Combustion, Wastewater Treatment
310
H drofluorocarbons
Various
Leaked Refrigerants, Fire Suppressants
12-11,700
Aluminum Production, Semiconductor
Manufacturing, HVAC Equipment
Perfluorocarbons
1 Various
1 Manufacturing
6,500-9,200
Sulfur Hexafluoride
I SFS
I Transmission and Distribution of Power
23,900
Calculating Emissions
In general, emissions can be quantified in two ways.
1. Measurement -based methodologies refer to the direct measurement of greenhouse gas emissions from a
monitoring system. Emissions measured this way may include those emitted from a flue of a power plant, wastewater
treatment plant, landfill, or industrial facility. This method is the most accurate way of inventorying emissions from a
given source, but is generally available for only a few sources of emissions.
2. Calculation -based methodologies refer to an estimate of emissions calculated based upon measurable activity
data and emission factors. Table 3 provides examples of common emissions calculations.
Table 3: Basic Emissions Calculations
Activity Data X
Emissions Factor
Emissions
Electricity Consumption (kilowatt hours)
CO2 emitted/kWh
CO2 emitted
Natural Gas Consumption therms
CO2 emitted/therm
CO2 emitted
Gasoline/Diesel Consumption(gallons)
CO2 emitted /gallon
CO2 emitted
Waste Generated by Government Operations
tons
CHa emitted/ton of waste
I CHa emitted
The Scopes Framework
This inventory reports greenhouse gas emissions by sector and additionally by "scope", in line with the LGO Protocol
and World Resources Institute (WRI) and World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Protocol Corporate Standard.
Scope 1: Direct emissions from sources within a local government's operations that it owns and/or controls, with the
exception of direct CO2 emissions from biogenic sources. This includes stationary combustion to produce electricity,
steam, heat, and power equipment; mobile combustion of fuels; process emissions from physical or chemical processing;
fugitive emissions that result from production, processing, transmission, storage and use of fuels; leaked refrigerants;
and other sources.
Scope 2: Indirect emissions associated with the consumption of purchased or acquired electricity, steam, heating, or
cooling.
Scope 3: All other emissions sources that hold policy relevance to the local government that can be measured and
reported. This includes all indirect emissions not covered in Scope 2 that occur as a result of activities within the
operations of the local government. Scope 3 emission sources include (but are not limited to) tailpipe emissions from
employee commutes, employee business travel, and emissions resulting from the decomposition of government -
generated solid waste.
LGO Protocol provides standard methodologies for calculating emissions from the sources shown in Table 4. Other
sources of emissions, such as those associated with the production of consumed products do not yet have standard
calculation methodologies and are thus excluded from this inventory.
Table 4: Inventoried Emissions Sources by Scope
Scope
Fuel consumed at facilities
Purchased electricity consumed by
Solid waste generated by
facilities
government operations
Fuel consumed by vehicle fleet and
Purchased electricity consumed by
Fuel consumed by vehicles during
mobile equipment
electric vehicles*
employee commuting
Fuel consumed to generate electricity
Leaked refrigerants from facilities and
vehicles
Fugitive HFC Emissions from
electricity transmission and distribution
Solid waste in government landfills
Wastewater decomposition and
treatment at a municipal wastewater
treatment plant
Organizational Boundaries
The organizational boundary for the inventory determines which aspects of operations are included in the emissions
inventory, and which are not. Under the LGO Protocol, two control approaches are used for reporting emissions:
operational control or financial control. A local government has operational control over an operation if it has full
authority to introduce and implement policies that impact the operation. A local government has financial control if the
operation is fully consolidated in financial accounts. If a local government has joint control over an operation, the
contractual agreement will have to be examined to see who has authority over operating policies and implementation,
and thus the responsibility to report emissions under operational control.
LGO Protocol strongly encourages local governments to utilize operational control as the organization boundary for a
government operations emissions inventory. Operational control is believed to most accurately represent the emissions
sources that local governments can most directly influence, and this boundary is consistent with other environmental
and air quality reporting program requirements. For this reason, this inventory was conducted according to the
operational control framework.
Types of Emissions
As described in the LGO Protocol, emissions from each of the greenhouse gases can come in a number of forms:
Stationary or mobile combustion: These are emissions resulting from on-site combustion of fuels (natural gas, diesel,
gasoline, etc.) to generate heat, electricity, or to power vehicles and mobile equipment.
Purchased electricity: These are emissions produced by the generation of power from utilities outside of the
jurisdiction.
Fugitive emissions: Emissions that result from the unintentional release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (e.g.,
leaked refrigerants, methane from waste decomposition, etc.).
Process emissions: Emissions from physical or chemical processing of a material (e.g., wastewater treatment).
Significance Thresholds
Within any local government's own operations there will be emission sources that fall within Scope 1 and Scope 2 that
are minimal in magnitude and difficult to accurately measure. Within the context of local government operations,
emissions from leaked refrigerants and backup generators may be common sources of these types of emissions. For
these less significant emissions sources, LGO Protocol specifies that up to 5 percent of total emissions can be reported
using methodologies that deviate from the recommended methodologies in LGO Protocol. In the context of registering
emissions with an independent registry (such as the California Climate Action Registry), emissions that fall under the
significance threshold are called de minimis.
In this report, the following emissions fell under the significance threshold and were reported using best available
methods:
• Scope 1 fugitive emissions from leaked refrigerants from vehicles and equipment
In this report, some emissions were calculated using methods that deviate from the methods recommended in the LGO
Protocol. However, the LGO Protocol identifies several alternative methods that still meet emission calculation
standards. For the following areas, alternative methods were used to calculate emissions:
• Scope 2 CO2, CHa and N20 emissions from purchased electricity used in City facilities were calculated
using the CARB California Grid Average electricity emissions factor
In addition, emissions data from the following sources could not be obtained for this report and therefore emissions
from these sources are not included in this inventory:
• Scope 1 fugitive emissions from the leakage of refrigerants from stationary heating, air conditioning, and
refrigeration units
0 Scope 1 fugitive emissions from leaked/deployed fire suppressants
Information Items
Information items are emissions sources that are not included as Scope 1, 2, or 3 emissions in the inventory, but are
reported here separately in order to provide a more complete picture of emissions from the City of Lodi's government
operations.
A common emission that is categorized as an information item is carbon dioxide emitted in the combustion of biogenic
fuels. Local governments will often burn fuels that are of biogenic origin (wood, landfill gas, organic solid waste,
biofuels, etc.) to generate power. Common sources of biogenic emissions are the combustion of landfill gas from
landfills or biogas from wastewater treatment plants, as well as the incineration of organic municipal solid waste at
incinerators.
Carbon dioxide emissions from the combustion of biogenic fuels are not included in Scope 1 based on established
international principles. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from biogenic fuels are considered Scope 1 stationary
combustion emissions and are included in the stationary combustion sections for the appropriate facilities. These
principles indicate that biogenic fuels (e.g., wood, biodiesel), if left to decompose in the natural environment, would
release CO2 into the atmosphere, where it would then enter back into the natural carbon cycle. Therefore, when wood
or another biogenic fuel is combusted, the resulting CO2 emissions are akin to natural emissions and should therefore
not be considered as human activity -generated emissions. The CHa and N20 emissions, however, would not have
occurred naturally and are therefore included as Scope 1 emissions.
The emissions categorized as information items in this inventory are presented below in Table 5. Information items
quantified for this inventory include:
• Scope 1 emissions from natural gas consumption by backup generators at the CT1 generation plant
• Scope 2 emissions from consumption of electricity at the CT1 generation plant
Table 5: Information Items
CO2e
CT1 Emergency Generator (Natural Gas) 68.14
CT1 Plant Electricity Consumption 11.00
Total Information Items '
Understanding Totals
It is important to realize that the totals and sub -totals listed in the tables and discussed in this report are intended to
represent all-inclusive, complete totals for the City of Lodi's operations. However, these totals are only a summation of
inventoried emissions using available estimation methods. Each inventoried sector may have additional emissions
sources associated with them that were unaccounted for, such as Scope 3 sources that could not be estimated.
Also, local governments provide different services to their citizens, and the scale of the services (and thus the emissions)
is highly dependent upon the size and purview of the local government. For these reasons, comparisons between local
government totals should not be made without keen analysis of the basis for figures and the services provided.
Inventory Results
Emissions Total
In 2008, the City of Lodi's greenhouse gas emissions from government operations totaled 6,717 metric tons of CO2e.
This number represents a roll -up of emissions. While the roll -up is a valuable figure, information on the breakdown of
emissions from local government operations by scopes, sources, and sectors allows the comparative analysis and insight
needed for effective decision-making on target setting, developing GHG reduction measures, or monitoring. The LGO
Protocol identifies reporting by scopes, sources, and sectors as the strongly preferred form of reporting a greenhouse
gas inventory. For more details on the breakdown of City of Lodi's emissions by scopes, sources, and sectors, refer to
subsequent sections within Inventory Results in this report.
Buildings and Other Facilities
Facility operations contribute to greenhouse gas emissions in two major ways. First, facilities consume electricity and
fuels such as natural gas. This consumption is associated with the majority of greenhouse gas emissions from facilities.
In addition, fire suppression, air conditioning, and refrigeration equipment in buildings can emit hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs) and other greenhouse gases when these systems leak refrigerants or fire suppressants. Refrigerants and fire
suppressants are very potent greenhouse gases, and have Global Warming Potential (GWP) of up to many thousand
times that of CO2. For example, HFC -134a, a very common refrigerant, has a GWP of 1300, or 1300 times that of CO2.
Therefore, even small amounts of leaked refrigerants can have a significant effect on greenhouse gas emissions.
City of Lodi operates several facilities, ranging from general offices to parks. For the purpose of reporting emissions,
these facilities were grouped by department. Data relating to natural gas consumption were obtained from PG&E. Data
relating to electricity consumption were obtained from both LEU and PG&E.
The Buildings and Facilities sector produced the largest amount of emissions by sector. Overall, these facilities produced
1,941 metric tons of CO2e (28.9% of total emissions). As illustrated in Figure 3 and Table 6, the facility group producing
the most greenhouse gas emissions in the City of Lodi is the Public Works facility group at 60.2%. The second largest
contributor is the Police facility group at 15.1%.
As illustrated in Figure 4, the source producing the most greenhouse gas emissions in the Buildings and Facilities sector
is Natural Gas at 94.7%, followed by Electricity at 5.3%. Emissions from electricity consumption are lower by
comparison due to the fact that Lodi receives electricity from the Northern California Power Agency, which reports low
emissions factors from power generation.
Figure 3: Buildings and Other Facilities Emissions by Department
City Hall
Administratic
4.9%
Fire Animal Shelter
Library 22% 0.9%
Table 6: Buildings and Other Facilities Emissions by Department
Department
•
Public Works
1,167.96
Police
292.70
Parks and Recreation
251.72
City Hall Administration
95.93
Library
65.32
Fire
43.13
Animal Shelter
17.68
Transit
Totals
6.58
9- i
Figure 4: Buildings and Other Facilities Emissions by Source
Flectricitv
Table 7: Buildings and Other Facilities Emissions by Source
Table 8: LGO Protocol Report - Buildings Sector Emissions by Scope and Emission Type
BUILDINGS & OTHER FACILITIES
Scope Emission Type Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons)
SCOPE 1 CO2e CO2 CH4 N20
Stationary Combustion
Total Direct Emissions 1,838.33 1,833.62 0.17 0.0CM
SCOPE 2 CO2e CO2 CH4 N20
Purchased Electricity
Total Indirect Emissions 102.69 95.71 0.05 0.021
Streetlights, Traffic Signals, and Other Public Lighting
Like most local governments, City of Lodi operates a range of public lighting including traffic signals and streetlights.
The majority of emissions associated with the operation of this infrastructure are due to electricity consumption. Data
relating to electricity consumption for public lighting were obtained from both LEU and PG&E.
The Public Lighting sector produced the sixth-largest amount of emissions of all sectors overall, but this comparison is
distorted by the lack of kWh reported for other public lighting operation data that were not collected. Overall, these
facilities produced 145 metric tons of CO2e (2.2% of total emissions). As illustrated in Figure 5 and Table 9, the
subsector producing the most greenhouse gas emissions in the Public Lighting sector are Streetlights at 97.4%, followed
by Traffic Signals at 2.6%.
Figure 5: Public Lighting Emissions by Subsector
Traffic Signals
/Controllers
2.6
Table 9: Public Lighting Emissions by Subsector
Table 10: LGO Protocol Report - Public Lighting Emissions by Scope and Emission Type
STREETLIGHTS, TRAFFIC SIGNALS, AND OTHER PUBLIC LIGHTING
Scope Emission Type Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons)
SCOPE 2 CO2e CO2 CH4 N20
Purchased Electricity
Total Indirect Emissions 145.01 135.15 0.07 0.03
Water Delivery Facilities
This sector includes emissions from equipment used for the distribution or transport of water, including drinking water,
sprinkler systems and irrigation. The City of Lodi operates a range of water transport equipment. Electricity
consumption and the on-site combustion of fuels such as natural gas are significant sources of greenhouse gas emissions
from the operation of City of Lodi's water transport equipment. Data relating to electricity consumption were obtained
from PG&E. Data relating to fuel consumption were obtained from PG&E.
The Water Transport sector produced the smallest amount of emissions overall, with 3 metric tons of CO2e (less than
0.1% of total emissions). As illustrated in Figure 6 and Table 11, the subsector producing the most greenhouse gas
emissions in the Water Transport sector is Water Delivery Pumps at 77.4%, followed by Stormwater Management at
22.6%.
Figure 6: Water Delivery Facilities Emissions by Subsector
Table 11: Water Delivery Facilities Emissions by Subsector
Table 12: LGO Protocol Report - Water Delivery Facilities Emissions by Scope and
Emission Type
WATER TRANSPORT FACILITIES
Scope Emission Type Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons)
SCOPE 1 CO2e CO2 CH4 N20
Stationary Combustion
Total Direct Emissions 0
SCOPE 2 CO2e CO2 CH4 N20
Purchased Electricity
Total Indirect Emissions
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Wastewater coming from homes and businesses is rich in organic matter and has a high concentration of carbon and
nitrogen (along with other organic elements). As wastewater is collected, treated, and discharged, chemical processes in
aerobic and anaerobic conditions lead to the creation and emission of two greenhouse gases: methane and nitrous oxide.
Local governments that operate wastewater treatment facilities, including treatment plants, septic systems, collection
lagoons, and other facilities, must therefore account for the emission of these gases.
Electricity consumption and the on-site combustion of fuels such as natural gas and diesel are also significant sources of
greenhouse gas emissions from the operation of wastewater treatment facilities. Data relating to electricity consumption
were obtained from PG&E. Data relating to backup generators and fuel consumption were obtained from Public
Works.
The City of Lodi has operated the White Slough Wastewater Treatment Facility since 1966. The treatment plant covers
approximately 1,040 acres. In 2008, these facilities served approximately 63,313 people, including the residents and
businesses located in other jurisdictions.
The Wastewater Treatment sector produced the third-largest amount of emissions in this inventory. Overall, this facility
produced 1,519 metric tons of CO2e (22.6% of total emissions). As illustrated in Figure 7 and Table 13, the subsector
producing the most greenhouse gas emissions in the Wastewater Treatment sector is Centralized Treatment Process
Emissions at 57.4%, followed by Facility Energy Use at 31.9%.
Figure 7: Wastewater Treatment Facilities Emissions by Subsector
Backl
Genera
6.19
Anaerobic
Digester Wastewater
Process Pumps
Fmiccinnc ,.....
Table 13: Wastewater Treatment Facilities Emissions by Subsector
Table 14: LGO Protocol Report - Wastewater Treatment Facilities Emissions by Scope
and Emission Type
SCOPE 1
Stationary Combustion
Process Emissions
Total Direct Emissions
Power Generation Facilities
CO2e CO2 CH4 N20
Emissions from power generation are due to the combustion of fuels (natural gas, coal, etc.) to generate electricity.
Emissions can also come from purchased electricity used by the utility, transmission and distribution losses, and the
emission of sulfur hexafluoride from power transmission lines.
City of Lodi is one of the relatively few local governments in California that operates a municipal utility. In order to
serve their residents' and businesses' energy needs, municipal utilities can perform a variety of functions—among others,
this may include generating electricity, purchasing natural gas and other fuels, and purchasing renewable energy offsets.
This allows the City of Lodi more flexibility in determining how "clean" the electricity is (what proportion of electricity
comes from renewable or low -polluting sources), and provides an excellent opportunity for effective emissions
reduction within the City's operations.
Lodi Electric Utility is a publicly owned utility provider (POU) which services the City of Lodi and surrounding areas.
LEU procures electricity through the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA), a joint powers authority. The NCPA
purchases and generates electricity on behalf of member entities. Since electricity generation at LEU facilities is part of
the NCPA collaborative, emissions from these activities are not counted toward the City of Lodi's municipal GHG
emissions inventory. However, the City does own and operate local transmission and distribution lines. Transmission
and distribution of electricity in inherently inefficient, so emissions associated with transmission losses are included in
this inventory. Additionally, transmission and distribution lines are insulated by chemicals, such as SF6, which release
GHG emissions when leaked. SF6 leakage is also included in this inventory.
The Power Generation Facilities sector produced the fifth-largest amount of emissions in this inventory. Overall, these
facilities produced 653 metric tons of CO2e (9.7% of total emissions). As illustrated in Figure 8 and Table 15, the
subsector producing the most greenhouse gas emissions in the Power Generation Facilities sector was the Transmission
and Distribution system at 78.4%, followed by SF6 Emissions at 21.6%.
Figure 8: Power Generation Facilities Emissions by Facility
Table 15: Power Generation Facilities Emissions by Facility
Table 16: LGO Protocol Report — Power Generation Emissions by Scope and Emission
Type
POWER GENERATION FACILITIES
Scope Emission Type Greenhouse Gas Emissions
(metric tons)
SCOPE 1 CO2e SF6
Fugitive Emissions
Total Direct Emissions 140.93 0.01
SCOPE 2 CO2e CO2 CH4 N20
Purchased Electricity
Total Indirect Emissions 512.36 477.52 0.26 0.09
Vehicle Fleet and Mobile Equipment
The vehicles and mobile equipment used in the City of Lodi's daily operations include: heavy duty trucks responding to
emergency fire calls; heavy and light trucks used for landscape and maintenance tasks; passenger cars, light trucks, and
sport utility vehicles (SUVs) driven on a variety of site visits, including building inspections; among others. Most
vehicles consume gasoline, some consume diesel, some consume compressed natural gas (CNG), and each results in
greenhouse gas emissions. Gasoline and diesel -powered maintenance equipment contributes to greenhouse gas
emissions as well (22 pieces of equipment were repoted). In addition, vehicles with air conditioning or refrigeration
equipment use refrigerants that can leak from the vehicle.
The majority of vehicles in the fleet were used in the Public Works Department across a variety of divisions (e.g. Water,
Streets, Park Maintenance, etc.). Other vehicles were used by the Police Department, Fire Department, and
Administration, among others.
The Vehicle Fleet sector produced the second-largest amount of emissions in this inventory. Overall, this sector
produced 1612 metric tons of CO2e (24.0% of total emissions). As illustrated in Figure 9 and Table 17, the source
producing the most greenhouse gas emissions in the Vehicle Fleet sector was Gasoline at 72.8%, followed by Diesel at
21.9%. Emissions from vehicle fleet use by department are illustrated in Figure 10.
Figure 9: Vehicle Fleet Emissions by Source
Refrigerants CNG
5.2% ,
Table 17: Vehicle Fleet Emissions by Source
Figure 10: Vehicle Fleet Emissions by Department
Solid V
5.4
Waste Wate
5.8%
Parksand Recreation
6.0%
Motor Pool Water
Table 18: LGO Protocol Report - Vehicle Fleet Emissions by Scope and Emission Type
VEHICLE FLEET
Scope Emission Type Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons)
SCOPE 1 CO2e CO2 CH4 N20 HFC -134a
Mobile Combustion
Fugitive Emissions
Total Direct Emissions
INDICATORS Number of Vehicles
Vehicle Miles Traveled
Number of Pieces of
Equipment
Transit Fleet
The vehicles and mobile equipment used in the City of Lodi's public transportation operations, including buses, shuttles,
and others, burn compressed natural gas (CNG), resulting in greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, vehicles with air
conditioning or refrigeration equipment use refrigerants that can leak from the vehicle. These values were not provided
assuming they are included in with the vehicle fleet.
The Transit Fleet sector produced the eighth -largest amount of emissions in this inventory. Overall, this sector
produced 49.68 metric tons of CO2e (0.7% of total emissions). As illustrated in Table 19, the only source producing the
greenhouse gas emissions in the Transit Fleet sector was CNG.
Table 19: Transit Fleet Emissions by Source
Table 20: LGO Protocol Report - Transit Fleet Emissions by Scope and Emission Type
SCOPE 1
Mobile Combustion
Total Direct Emissions
Government -Generated Solid Waste
CO2e CO2 CH4 N20
Many local government operations generate solid waste, much of which is eventually sent to a landfill. Typical sources
of waste in local government operations include paper and food waste from offices and facilities, construction waste
from public works, and plant debris from parks departments. Organic materials in government -generated solid waste
(including paper, food scraps, plant debris, textiles, wood waste, etc.) generate methane as they decay in the anaerobic
environment of a landfill. Emissions from the waste sector are an estimate of methane generation that will result from
the anaerobic decomposition of all organic waste sent to landfill in the base year. It is important to note that although
these emissions are attributed to the inventory year in which the waste is generated, the emissions themselves will occur
over the 100+ year timeframe that the waste will decompose.
The Solid Waste sector produced the seventh-largest amount of emissions in this inventory. Overall, this sector
produced 54.87 metric tons of CO2e (0.8% of total emissions). The breakdown of shares of waste generation by
department and/or location are reported in Figure 11 and Table 21. The subsector that produced the most waste was
Parks and Recreation (not including Hutchins Square) at 32 metric tons of CO2e (57.8%).
Figure 11: Government Waste Emissions by Subsector
City Hal
5.3%
Municipal Coui
5.8%
Train Station Library
1.9% /-1.9% _.
Table 21: Government Waste Emissions by Subsector
Department
metric tons •
Parks and
Recreation
31.69
Hutchins Street
Square
8.45
Police
4.23
Municipal Court
3.17
City Hall
2.89
Fire
1.48
Train Station
1.06
Library
1.06
Animal Shelter
0.85
Totals
54.87
Table 22: LGO Protocol Report - Government Waste Emissions by Scope and Emission
Type
SCOPE 3
Waste All Facilities
INDICATORS Short tons of solid waste
Employee Commute
CO2e
Emissions in the Employee Commute sector are due to combustion of fuels in vehicles used by government employees
for commuting to work at the City of Lodi. Results from a survey are shown below. Current full-time City staff
members were surveyed and 94 responses were collected, resulting in a sample of approximately 21% of employees at
2008 staff levels. The survey was used to collect the data needed to calculate emissions and also capture other
information that will help the City set effective policy addressing this sector.
The Employee Commute sector produced the fourth-largest amount of emissions in this inventory. As seen in Table 23,
this sector produced 739 metric tons of CO2e (11.0% of total emissions). Nearly all vehicles are fueled by gasoline, with
only a few using diesel.
Tables 24 through 28 present summary information from preference -based questions included in the survey. This
information is intended to inform the City of Lodi about potential transportation options to increase convenience and
productivity while reducing the City's impact on the environment.
Table 23: LGO Protocol Report - Employee Commute Emissions by Scope and Emission
Type
SCOPE 3 CO2e
Mobile Combustion
Table 24: Employee Commute — Reasons for Not Carpool ing/Van pool! ng
Table 25: Employee Commute — Reasons for Not Taking Transit
Reason
Percentage
Reason
Percentage
Other people do not match
7%
my schedule or route
2%
Difficult to find others to
12%
carpool/vanpool
5%
Work late or irregular hours
9%
May not be able to get
home quickly in an
12%
emergency
Like the privacy when I'm in
13%
my own car
Dislike being dependent on
17%
others
12%
Need my car on the job
4%
Need to make stops on the
13%
way to work or home
Makes my trip too long
4%
1 don't know enough about
1%
carpooling or vanpooling
Never considered
3%
carpooling or vanpooling
Other
4%
Table 25: Employee Commute — Reasons for Not Taking Transit
Reason
Percentage
Transit service doesn't match
19%
my route or schedule
It costs too much
2%
It takes too long
9%
It is not safe or easy to walk
5%
to work from the transit stop
Not enough parking at the
transit stop from which I'd
4%
depart
It is too far to walk to work
0%
from the transit stop
I work late or irregular hours
12%
May not be able to get home
12%
quickly during an emergency
Like the privacy when I'm in
12%
my own car
Need my car on the job
4%
Need to make stops on the
16%
way to work or home
I don't know enough about
0%
taking transit
Never considered using
5%
public transit
Other
0%
Table 26: Employee Commute — Reasons for Not Walking/Biking
Table 27: Employee Commute — Travel Mode Data
Percentage
67%
Reason
Percentage
I live too far away
15%
There isn't a safe or easy route
6%
for walking or biking
0%
Weather
19%
No place at work to store bikes
2%
safely
0%
It's not easy to look good and
0%
feel comfortable for work after
8%
walking or biking
0%
Workplace does not have
0%
adequate facilities for
6%
showering/changing
May not be able to get home
15%
quickly in an emergency
Need to make stops on the way
13%
to work or home
Never considered walking or
4%
biking to work
I don't know enough about
0%
walking or biking to work
Other
12%
Table 27: Employee Commute — Travel Mode Data
Table 28: Employee Commute — Reasons for Not CarpoolingNanpooling
Miles
0-5
Percentage
67%
Mode
Drive Alone
Percentage
100%
CarpoolingNanpooling
0%
Public Transportation
0%
Bicycling
0%
Walking
0%
Telecom m ute/Other
0%
Table 28: Employee Commute — Reasons for Not CarpoolingNanpooling
Miles
0-5
Percentage
67%
6-10
14%
11-15
10%
15-20
5%
21-25
0%
26-30
5%
31-35
0%
36-40
0%
41-45
0%
46-50
0%
51-75
0%
76-100
0%
Over 100
0%
Inventory Methodologies
The Clean Air & Climate Protection Software (CACP 2009) made it possible to calculate greenhouse gas emissions for
the following greenhouse gases: Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Nitrous Oxide, Hydrofluorocarbons, Perfluorocarbons, and
Sulfur Hexafluoride. Activity data was collected for a number of operations through a number of methods. Activity data
was stored in Master Data Workbook (MDWB), which serves as a tool for organizing and conditioning data, and, in
some cases, calculating emissions. Data collection methods range from LGO Protocol -recommended, to LGO
Protocol -alternative and non-LGO Protocol (but generally accepted) alternatives. The methods used depend on the
availability and format of data. Inputting activity data into CACP 2009, along with the correct emission factor, resulted
in the calculation of greenhouse gas emissions for the City of Lodi's 2008 government operations.
Buildings and Other Facilities
The Building and Facilities sector of the inventory reports emission from two main sources: electricity and natural gas.
The required data were obtained from the local government departments and regional utility providers. The utility
companies that service City of Lodi's government facilities are:
• Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) — natural gas and electricity service
• Lodi Electric Utility (LEU) — electricity service
This data were acquired per request and approval from both the City of Lodi and the utility providers. The data were
received in the following formats:
• PG&E electricity and natural gas (kWh/therms) — Excel spreadsheet indicating therms of consumption
and cost by individual account
• LEU electricity (kWh) — Data table indicating kWh consumption and cost by address.
The data were then inserted into the corresponding section within the MDWB. The data were then sorted and
conditioned in order to use the recommended method for reporting emissions.
Buildinas and Other Facilities: Electricitv and Natural Gas Related Emission
According to the LGO Protocol, the recommended method for reporting emissions related to electricity consumption
and natural gas combustion is summing the total number of kWh or therms (Activity Data) and multiplying the Activity
Data by a corresponding emission factor. Emission factors are values that are reported by the utility company and are
stored within CACP software.
• Summed Activity (kWh/therm) x Emissions Factor = GHG Emissions
The raw data were inserted into the spreadsheet labeled FA -Utility Raw Data (raw data must be kept without
conditioning as a quality -control reference) and then copied to the spreadsheet labeled FA -Utility Working Data in the
MDWB to be sorted. The data were sorted within the FA -Utility Working Data spreadsheet to isolate building facilities
kWh and therm usage; premise type, account numbers, addresses, and service descriptions were categories used to sort
the data. Once sorted, the data were copied to the Building Working Data spreadsheet, where they were separated into the
different building facilities. The kWh and therms were then summed per individual facility and the values per facility and
grand total are reflected in the Building Final Data spreadsheet.
After the Building Final Data spreadsheet was populated with all of the facilities and their kWh/therm usage, the
information was entered into CACP. According to LGO protocol, inventory of kWh emissions for the Building and
Facilities sector is reported as Scope 2 -purchased electricity while the inventory of therm emission is reported as Scope
1 -stationary combustion. A separate record is entered into CACP per facility's kWh and therm usage, making sure that
the entry is reported under the correct Scope and with the correct emissions factor (differs for each utility provider).
Buildings and Other Facilities: Reporting Inconsistencies and Troubleshooting
Electricity and natural gas data were conditioned according to the LGO protocol with some minor inconsistencies.
While sorting the data to clearly identify the electricity and natural gas used per facility, there were some facilities that
had only electricity or natural gas usage associated with them:
• Parks and Recreation (OFC) — natural gas data missing
• Parks and Recreation (SW/COR N STKN-E LOCUST) — electricity data missing
• Public Works (1331 S HAM LN UNIT B) — electricity data missing
• Public Safety Building — electricity data missing
The totals were reported with these inconsistencies assuming that the utility providers may have included the
accompanying natural gas or electricity usage for the facility elsewhere (i.e. the facility shares a utility meter with another
facility). Another explanation may be that the building does not use electricity or natural gas. For instance, some heating
systems may be run completely by electricity, rendering natural gas service unnecessary.
Since LEU procures electricity through the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA), the emissions factors related to
electricity use at City facilities must be taken from NCPA operations rather than LEU alone. NCPA's emissions factors
tend to be lower than average, so it was important to utilize the appropriate factors for Scope 2 emissions calculations.
While the format of emissions reported by NCPA to CARB and the Climate Registry were not compatible with CACP,
2005 emissions factors for NCPA were available. 2005 emissions factors were applied to all facilities utilizing NCPA
power.
Facility refrigerants were omitted from the inventory due to unavailability of data. Thus, emissions in this sector may be
slightly undercounted. Fire suppressants were also omitted from the inventory. According to the Facilities Services
division, the City's extinguishers are serviced once per year. No further data could be acquired pursuant to LGO
protocol recommended methods.
During the course of this inventory, backup power generator fuel records were requested from the Facilities Services
division, LEU, and White Slough Wastewater Treatment Facility. While data were acquired for the latter two facilities
(reported in the Power Generation and Wastewater Treatment sectors), backup generator data could not be obtained for
general buildings and facilities. Thus, emissions in this sector may be slightly undercounted.
Streetlights and Traffic Signals
The Lighting sector of the inventory reports emission from one main source, electricity. The required data were
obtained from the regional utility providers. The utility company that services City of Lodi's lighting is:
• LEU — electricity service
This data were acquired per request and approval from both the City of Lodi and LEU. The data were received in the
following formats:
• LEU Traffic Signals (kWh) — Data table indicating electricity consumption by month
• LEU Streetlights (kWh) — Aggregate value for electricity consumption and total number of streetlights
The data were inserted into the corresponding section within the MDWB public lighting final data tab. The recommend
method was used for reporting emissions.
Lighting: Electricity Related Emission
According to the LGO Protocol, the recommended method for reporting emissions related to electricity consumption is
summing the total number of kWh (Activity Data) and multiplying the Activity Data by a corresponding emission
factor. Emission factors are values that are reported by the utility company and are stored within CACP software.
• Summed Activity (kWh) x Emissions Factor = GHG Emissions
The raw data were provided asaggregate values, requiring no further conditioning. After the PublicLagbting Final Data
spreadsheet was populated with the kWh usage, the information was entered into CACP. According to the LGO
protocol, the inventory of kWh emissions for the Public Lighting sector is reported as Scope 2 -purchased electricity. A
separate record is entered into CACP per subsector's kWh usage, making sure that the entry is reported under the
correct Scope and with the correct emissions factor (differs for each utility provider).
Lighting: Reporting Inconsistencies and Troubleshooting
Additional public lighting data were not provided upon request including park lighting, traffic controllers, and other
lighting. There is indication that the data exists but was not readily available.
Electricity emissions factors for 2005 were used as proxy factors in lieu of 2008 factors. In 2008, the information was
not reported in a format consistent with LGO protocol methodologies.
Water Transport Facilities
The Water Transport sector of the inventory reports emission from two main sources, electricity and natural gas. This
sector of the inventory consisted of electricity and natural gas for the operation of sprinkler systems, lift stations, and
well pumps associated with non -waste water transport. The required data were obtained from the local government
departments and regional utility providers. The utility company that services City of Lodi's water transport facilities is:
• PG&E — electricity service
This data were acquired per request and approval from both the City of Lodi and PG&E. The data were received in the
following formats:
• PG&E electricity and natural gas (kWh/therms) — Excel spreadsheet indicating therms of consumption
and cost by individual account
The data were inserted into the corresponding section within the MDWB raw data tabs. The data were then sorted and
conditioned in order to use the recommended method for reporting emissions.
Water Transport Facilities: Electricity Related Emission
According to the LGO Protocol, the recommended method for reporting emissions related to electricity consumption is
summing the total number of kWh (Activity Data) and multiplying the Activity Data by a corresponding emission
factor. Emission factors are values that are reported by the utility company and are stored within CACP software.
• Summed Activity (kWh/therms) x Emissions Factor = GHG Emissions
The raw data were inserted into the spreadsheet labeled FA -Utility Katy Data (raw data must be kept without
conditioning as a quality -control reference) and then copied to the spreadsheet labeled FA -Utility Working Data in the
MDWB to be sorted. The data were sorted within the FA -Utility Working Data spreadsheet to isolate lighting activity
(kWh); premise type, account numbers, addresses, and service descriptions are categories used to sort the data.
Once sorted, the data were copied to the Water Transport Working Data spreadsheet to be separated into the different
subsectors (water delivery pumps, sprinklers/irrigation, storm water, and others). The kWh and therms were then
summed per individual facility. The values per facility and grand total are reported in the Water Transort Final Data
spreadsheet.
After the Water Transport Final Data spreadsheet was populated with all of the subsectors and their energy usage, the
information was entered into CACP. According to the LGO Protocol, the inventory of kWh emissions for the Water
Transport sector is reported as Scope 2 -purchased electricity, while the inventory of therm emission is reported as Scope
1 -stationary combustion.. A separate record is entered into CACP per subsector's kWh usage to ensure the entry is
reported under the correct Scope and with the correct emissions factor (differs for each utility provider).
Water Transport Facilities: Reporting Inconsistencies and Troubleshooting
An assumption made is that all the data were provided and some data may include only one type of consumption. For
example, the drainage pumps are powered only by electricity and not natural gas.
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
The Wastewater Treatment Facilities sector of the inventory reports emission from three main sources: electricity,
natural gas, and wastewater processes. This sector of the inventory consisted of electricity and natural gas data from the
treatment facility, wastewater pumps, and wastewater lift stations. In addition, emissions from wastewater treatment
processes are also reported in this sector of the inventory. The required data were obtained from the local government
departments and regional utility providers. The utility companies that service City of Lodi's wastewater facility are:
• PG&E — natural gas and electricity service
• LEU— electricity service
This data were acquired per request and approval from both the City of Lodi and utility providers. The data were
received in the following format:
• PG&E electricity and natural gas (kWh/therms) — Excel spreadsheet indicating therms of consumption
and cost by individual account
• LEU electricity (kWh) — Data table indicating kWh consumption and cost by address
In addition, the White Slough Waste Water Treatment Facility division provided relevant data to calculate process
emissions and emissions from fuels consumed by backup generators.
The data were inserted into the corresponding section within the MDWB raw data tabs. The data were then sorted and
conditioned in order to use the recommend method for reporting emissions.
Wastewater Treatment Facilities: Electricitv and Natural Gas Related Emission
According to the LGO Protocol the recommended method for reporting emissions related to electricity consumption
and natural gas combustion is summing the total number of kWh or therms and multiplying them by their
corresponding emission factor. Emission factors are values that are reported by the utility company and are stored
within CACP software.
• Summed Activity (kWh/therm) x Emissions Factor = GHG Emissions
The raw data were inserted into the spreadsheet labeled FA -Utility Raw Data (raw data must be kept without
conditioning as a quality -control reference) and then copied to the spreadsheet labeled FA -Utility Dorking Data in the
MDWB to be sorted. The data were sorted within the FA -Utility Dorking Data spreadsheet to isolate the wastewater
facility kWh and therm usage as well as wastewater transport kWh; premise type, account numbers, addresses, and
service descriptions are categories used to sort the data.
Once sorted, the data were copied to the DD Energy Use Dorking Data spreadsheet, where it was separated into the
different facilities. The kWh and therms were then summed per individual facility. The values per facility and grand total
are reflected in the DD -Energy Use Final Data spreadsheet.
After the W, V -Energy Use Final Data spreadsheet was populated with all of the facilities and their kWh/therm usage, the
information was entered into CACP. According to LGO Protocol, inventory of kWh emissions for the Wastewater
Treatment Facilities sector is reported as Scope 2 -purchased electricity, the inventory of therm emission is reported as
Scope 1 -stationary combustion, and the inventory of wastewater treatment is reported as Scope 1 -process emissions. A
separate record is entered into CACP per facility's kWh and therm usage to ensure the entry is reported under the
correct Scope and with the correct emissions factor (differs for each utility provider).
Wastewater Treatment Facilities: Wastewater Treatment Related Emission
According to the LGO protocol, the recommended method for reporting emissions related to wastewater treatment
processes is to obtain site-specific measurements and apply a standard equation (below) based on the type of treatment
system in place. The alternative method is to utilize population estimates, which applies a standard per -capita emissions
rate. In 2008, the City of Lodi maintained a centralized treatment facility with an anaerobic digester.
As outlined in LGO protocol Equations 10.7 and 10.9 below, quantifying emissions from centralized treatment facilities
requires collection of the following data: quantity of nitrogen produced per day, and population served by the treatment
facility. The nitrification/denitrification process creates N20, which is emitted into the atmosphere. Emissions are
calculated using the following formulas, which are built into the MDWB.
• Equation 10.7: Annual N20 emissions (metric tons CO2e) = ((Ptotalx Fina-com) x EF nit/denit x 10-1) x GWP
Where:
TERM DESCRIPTION VALUE
Pmtat = total population that is served by the centralized WWTP adjusted for industrial discharge, user input
if applicable [person]
Find -nom = factor for industrial and commercial co -discharge waste into the sewer system 1.25
EF nit/denit = emission factor for a WWTP with nitrification/denitrification 7
[g N20/person/year]
10-6 = conversion from g to metric ton [metric ton/g] 10-6
GWP = N20 Global Warming Potential 310
Source: EPA Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007, Chapter 8, 8-13 (2009).
• Equation 10.9: Annual N20 emissions (metric tons CO2e) = (N Load x EF effluent x 365.25 x 10-3 x
44/28) x GWP
Where:
TERM
DESCRIPTION
VALUE
N Load =
measured average total nitrogen discharged [kg N/day]
user input
EF effluent =
emission factor [kg N20-N/kg sewage -N produced]
0.005
365.25 =
conversion factor [day/year]
365.25
10-3 =
conversion from kg to metric ton [metric ton/kg]
10-3
44/28 =
molecular weight ratio of N20 to N2
1.57
GWP =
Global Warming Potential
310
Source: EPA Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007, Chapter 8, 8-13 (2009).
As outlined in LGO protocol Equation 10.1 below, quantifying emissions from anaerobic digesters requires collection
of the following data: quantity of digester gas produced per day, and fraction of digester gas as CH4. The anaerobic
digestion process creates CH4, which is captured and combusted. Due to minimal destruction inefficiencies, some gases
escape the system. Emissions from digester gas are calculated using the following formula, which is built into the
MDWB.
• Equation 10.1: Annual CH4 emissions (metric tons CO2e) = (Digester Gas x FCH4x C)(CH4) x (1 -DE) x
0.0283 x 365.25 x 10-1) x GWP
Where:
ITEM DESCRIPTION VALUE
Digester Gas =
measured standard cubic feet of digester gas produced per day [ft-1/day]
user input
F CH4 =
measured fraction of CH4 in biogas
user input
p(CH4) =
density of methane at standard conditions [g/m3]
662.00
DE =
CH4 Destruction Efficiency
.99
0.0283 =
conversion from ft3 to m3 [m3/ft3]
0.0283
365.25 =
conversion factor [day/year]
365.25
10-6 =
conversion from g to metric ton [metric ton/g]
10-6
GWP =
Global Warming Potential
21
Source: EPA Inventory
of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007, Chapter 8, 8-7 (2009).
Power Generation Facilities
The Power Generation sector of the inventory reports emissions from electricity and natural gas consumption by LEU
facilities, transmission and distribution losses by LEU, and fugitive gasses in the transmission and distribution process.
The required data were obtained from LEU, either directly or indirectly (i.e. by being directed to CARB reports).
Power Generation Facilities: Electricity and Natural Gas Related Emissions
According to the LGO Protocol the recommended method for reporting emissions related to electricity consumption
and natural gas combustion is summing the total number of kWh or therms and multiplying them by their
corresponding emission factor. Emission factors are values that are reported by the utility company and are stored
within CACP software.
• Summed Activity (kWh/therm) x Emissions Factor = GHG Emissions
The raw data were obtained directly from LEU in the following format:
• LEU electricity (kWh) — aggregate total electricity usage and cost for the M operation
• Natural gas (MMBTU) — aggregate total natural gas usage and cost for the M operation
LEU also operates the STIG facility. However, energy consumption data was not available for this facility.
The data were classified as information items because the facilities are owned and operated under a joint powers
agreement with NCPA and other members.
Power Generation Facilities: Transmission and Distribution Loss Related Emissions
The City of Lodi owns and operates the City's transmission and distribution system. The recommended method for
reporting emissions related to transmission and distribution system losses is by first identifying the amount of electricity
lost, and then by multiplying that amount by its corresponding emission factor. Emission factors are values that are
reported by the utility company and are stored within CACP software.
Electricity losses (kWh) x Emissions Factor = GHG Emissions
LEU provided commentary on the rate of loss for the local system (approximately 41/o). The total amount of electricity
transmitted by LEU was obtained from a report submitted to CARB for 2008 operations. The rate of loss was applied
to the total amount. After that, the standard Scope 2 — purchased electricity methodology is applied.
Power Generation Facilities: Transmission and Distribution Fugitive Emissions
The calculation for annual fugitive SFS emissions was very simple. Instead of the LGO protocol preferred mass balance
method, a sum total value was provided for the amount of fugitive SFS emission. LEU reports this information to
CARB, so the information was readily available. The raw value was inserted into the MPG -Raze Data Spreadsheet and
then copied to the MPG-SF6 Final Data Spreadsheet. According to the LGO protocol, the inventory of emissions
related to SFS is reported as Scope 1 -fugitive emissions. A single record is entered into CACP, to ensure that the entry is
reported under the correct Scope.
Power Generation Facilities: Reporting Inconsistencies and Troubleshooting
Electricity emissions factors for 2005 were used as proxy factors in lieu of 2008 factors. In 2008, the information was
not reported in a format consistent with LGO protocol methodologies.
Energy consumption records could not be obtained from the STIG facility. The facility is connected directly to the
transmission system. Thus, emissions from electricity consumed by the STIG facility may already be reported in the
transmission and distribution losses. Energy consumption records for the CT1 facility were provided by LEU; however,
it was noted that the facility is connected directly to the internal distribution system and that the figures were reported
based on the amount billed to NCPA through a contractual cost-sharing agreement. Since this facility is operated under
an agreement with NCPA, and because emissions from electricity consumed by the CT1 facility may already be reported
in the transmission and distribution losses, these emissions were recorded as information items.
Vehicle Fleet, Transit Fleet and Mobile Equipment
The Vehicle Fleet and Transit Fleet sectors of the inventory report emission from three main sources: fuel combustion,
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and refrigerants. The recommended method for reporting mobile emission varies
according to the emission source. For fuel combustion, the recommended method requires individual vehicle fuel data
in order to build a detailed fuel consumption record. For VMT, the recommended method involves gathering individual
vehicle miles to create a detailed record. The records were acquired through the City's Fleet Services division in the
following format:
• Name of vehicle or vehicle group, vehicle type, model year, class description, department, gallons
consumed, fuel type, cost, and operating hours/miles
• Aggregate refrigerant purchases
Vehicle Fleet, Transit Fleet and Mobile Equipment: Fuel and VMT Related Emission
According to LGO protocol, the emissions from vehicle fleet must be reported according to CO2 emissions, calculated
directly from fuel combustion, and N2O /CH4 emissions, calculated from VMT.
• Fuel (gallons) x Emissions Factor = CO2 Emissions
0 VMT (miles) x Emissions Factor= N2O/CH4 Emissions
The raw data were inserted into the spreadsheet labeled VF -Raw Data Data (raw data must be kept without conditioning
as aquality-control reference) and then copied to the spreadsheet labeled VF Working Data in the MDWB to be sorted
by:
• Department
• Vehicle type
• Fuel type
Once sorted and conditioned, data were entered into the VF -Detailed Fuel Final Data and VF -Detailed VMT Final Data
spreadsheets where the total amounts fuel consumption and VMT are reported per department and vehicle type.
After the VF -Detailed Fuel Final Data and VF -Detailed VMT Final Data spreadsheets were populated, the information
was entered into CACP. According to LGO protocol, the inventory of fuel and VMT emissions for the Vehicle Fleet
sector is reported as Scope 1 -mobile combustion. A separate record is entered into CACP per department to ensure the
records are entered as follows:
• Fuel related emissions:
o Fuel type
o Vehicle type
o Model year
o Fuel CO2 coefficient - Default
o Transport Average -Highway Fuel CO2 only
• VMT related emissions:
o Fuel type
o Vehicle type
o Model year
o Fuel CO2 coefficient -Highway VMT N20, CH¢, and CAP
o Transport Average - Default for VMT emissions.
Vehicle Fleet, Transit Fleet and Mobile Equipment: Refrigerant Related Emission
This sector of the inventory required refrigerant charge information. For leaked refrigerants, the recommended method
requires individual data per vehicle on the amount (lbs or kg) of refrigerant recharged into the vehicle. In the event that
there is not sufficient information to complete the recommended method, alternative methods can be used to calculate
the amount of leaked refrigerants. In this case, aggregate refrigerant purchases were used as indicators of the amount of
refrigerant recharged throughout the year. Since refrigerants were reported in aggregate, it was not possible to
disaggregate data by sector (Vehicle Fleet vs. Transit Fleet), so all refrigerant related emissions were allocated to the
larger vehicle fleet.
According to LGO Protocol, the recommended method for reporting emissions from leaked refrigerants is the mass
balance method where HFC's that have escaped into the atmosphere are summed and then multiplied by the Global
Warming Potential (GWP) factor. A simplified version of the mass balance method was used in this sector of the
inventory, with purchased refrigerants serving as proxy measures of leaked refrigerants.
• Total purchased HFCs (kg) x GWP Factor = GHG Emissions
The raw data were inserted into the spreadsheet labeled RF -Raw Data and then copied to the spreadsheet labeled RF -VF
Vorking Data in the MDWB (raw data must be kept without conditioning as a quality -control reference) to be sorted by
refrigerant type. Once sorted and conditioned, the data were then entered into the RF -VF Mass Balance Data
spreadsheet.
Once the KF -VF Mass Balance Data spreadsheet was populated, the information was entered into CACP. According to
LGO Protocol, the inventory of refrigerant emissions for the Vehicle Fleet sector is reported as Scope 1 -fugitive
emissions. A separate record is entered into CACP per refrigerant and vehicle type to ensure the entries are reported
under the correct Scope and with the correct GWP factor (differs for each refrigerant).
Vehicle Fleet, Transit Fleet and Mobile Equipment: Reporting Inconsistencies and
Limitations
Records of purchased refrigerants served as a proxy measure of leaked refrigerants in lieu of actual data. All refrigerants
were recorded in the Vehicle Fleet sector because refrigerant data could not be disaggregated.
Government -Generated Solid Waste
The Government -Generated Solid Waste sector of the inventory reports emission from one main source, solid waste.
This sector focused exclusively on the solid waste generated by government operations. The records were acquired
through
• Public Works department — manages contract with waste -hauler
and were in the following format:
• Solid Waste by Volume — City report providing the number of units, capacity and number of pick ups per
week for each location
Government -Generated Solid Waste: Solid Waste Related Emission
According to the LGO protocol, the recommended method for reporting emissions associated with solid waste is to acquire the
volume of waste collected per department within the local government operations. This information was entered into the VG -Solid
Vaste by Volume spreadsheet. The volumes are converted to tons of waste that are ultimately sent to landfill. The totals are then
pasted into the IVIG -Solid Wllaste Final Input Data spreadsheet and used to create a record within CACP. The government -generated
waste was entered into CACP as Scope 3 — waste related emissions. The following waste characterization4 is preset in CACP with
different emissions factors for each waste type:
• Paper Products — 39.4%
• Food Waste — 9.8%
• Plant Debris — 7.0%
• Wood and Textiles — 6.7%
• All other waste — 27.1%
Government -Generated Solid Waste : Reporting Inconsistencies and Troubleshooting
Containers were assumed to be 90% full at pickup, which is a conservative estimate in lieu of actual records. Each
record indicated whether the unit contained waste or recyclable material. 100% of the waste was assumed to be sent to
landfill. Data relating to recycling containers were excluded during the calculation process because those materials were
assumed to be diverted from the waste stream.
Employee Commute
The Employee Commute sector of the inventory reports emission from two main sources: fuel combustion and vehicle
miles traveled. This sector of the inventory utilized a survey to assess VMT and fuel data. The employees were surveyed
on their work commute time, distance, vehicle type, fuel consumption, fuel type, and several reasons for not using
alternative transportation like bus transit or bicycling. The records were acquired through
• Employee Commute Questionnaire — Survey
and were in the following format:
• Survey results — Excel spreadsheet
Emplovee Commute: Fuel and VMT Related Emission
The VMT information was adjusted according to the survey response rate. The adjusted VMT for each vehicle type was
entered into CACP as Scope 3 — employee commute. The Total VMT value was entered with the transport average set
coefficients were set to Default and the fuel set coefficients were set to Highway VMT (N2O, CH4). The Total Fuel
value was entered into CACP as Scope 3 — employee commute. For this data, the transport average set coefficients were
set to Highway Fuel CO2 Only and the fuel set coefficients were set to Default.
4 Default Waste Characterization provided by the CIWMB 1999 Waste Characterization Study -- Public Administration Group:
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/WasteChar/BizGrpCp.asp. Waste categories in the report were bundled to fit the waste categories of the Clean Air
and Climate Protection 2009 software (CACP 2009).
Employee Commute : Reporting Inconsistencies and Troubleshooting
The City opted to use a truncated form of the Employee Commute Survey alongside the full version developed by
ICLEI. While the truncated survey matches the full version by generating responses regarding employee commute time,
distance, vehicle type, fuel consumption and fuel type, it does not include questions to determine behavior choices — as
the regular ICLEI survey does. As a result, summary statistics regarding commute choices are from the sample of 21
employees who opted to respond to the full version.
The emissions reported in this sector are derived from a sample of 94 current employees, which is a 20.5% response rate
assuming the 2008 staffing level (458). The calculations rely on commute trends extrapolated from this sample, rather
than all employees.
Public Review Draft
Initial Study/
Negative Declaration
For the
City of Lodi
Climate Action Plan
M
TRF F CMTSA iSA
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR THE
CITY OF LODI CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
Prepared by the City of Lodi
Community Development Department
221 West Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95240
August 2013
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE o f PLANNING .AND RESEARCH
August 13, 2013
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT
Immanuel Bereket
City of Lodi Community Dev. Dept.
221 West Pine Street
Lodi, CA 94565
Subject: Climate Action Plan
SCH#: 2013072024
Dear Immanuel Bereket:
NOW
KEN ALEX
DIRECTOR
RECEIVED
AUG 14 2013
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT
CRY OF LORI
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for
review. The review period closed on August 12, 2013, and no state agencies submitted comments by that
date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements
for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the
environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project, please refer to the
ten -digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office.
Sincerely,
Sco Morgan
Director, State Clearinghouse
140010th Street F.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044
(916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov
Document Details Report
- ---- -- — State-Clearirrgh_ouse-Data-Base-
SCH# 2013072024
Project Title Climate Action Plan
Lead Agency Lodi, City of
Type Neg Negative Declaration
Description The proposed project is the adoption of a policy document, the Climate Action Plan, intended to
provide policy direction and identify actions the City and the community can take to significantly reduce
the generation of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) consistent with California Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and
Executive Order S-3-05. The purpose of the plan is to guide the development, enhancement, and
ultimately the implementation of actions and strategies that reduce Lodi's greenhouse gas emissions.
Lead Agency Contact
Name Immanuel Bereket
Agency City of Lodi Community Dev. Dept.
Phone 209 333 6711 Fax
email
Address 221 West Pine Street
City Lodi State CA Zip 94565
Project Location
County San Joaquin
City Lodi
Region
Lat l Long
Cross Streets Entire City
Parcel No.
Township Range Section Base
Proximity to:
Highways Hwy 99, 12
Airports No .
Railways UPRR
Waterways Mokelumne River
Schools Lodi USD
Land Use City of Lodi, City Wide
Project Issues
Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Conservation; Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 2;
Agencies Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; California Highway Patrol;
Caltrans, District 10; Air Resources Board, Transportation Projects; Regional Water Quality Control
Bd., Region 5 (Sacramento); Native American Heritage Commission; California Energy Commission
Date Received 07/12/2013 Start of Review 07/12/2013 End of Review 08/12/2013
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY AND NOTICE TO OF INTENT
TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CITY OF LODI
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
The City of Lodi has prepared an Initial Study pursuant to California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines (Public Resources Code, Division 13 and
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3) evaluating the potential
environmental impacts of the Lodi Climate Action Plan (CAP). The City proposes to
adopt a Negative Declaration ("ND") because the CAP would not have a significant
effect on the environment. This ND and the Initial Study describe the reasons that this
project will not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, does not
require the preparation of an environmental impact report under CEQA.
In accordance with provisions of the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft Negative Declaration
tiers off of the 2009 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH#
2009022075 that was certified by the City Council in April 2010. Together, this Draft
Negative Declaration and the 2009 General Plan FEIR constitute the environmental
record for the proposed CAP. The 2010 General Plan FEIR can be viewed at Lodi City
Hall (221 West Pine Street, Lodi Ca 95240) or on the City's website
http://www.lodi.goy/com dev/El.Rs.html
FILE NUMBER: 13 -ND -01
PROJECT TITLE: City of Lodi Climate Action Plan
PROJECT LOCATION: The City of Lodi Climate Action Plan is intended to provide
strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions throughout the City of Lodi, including
White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project is the adoption of a policy document,
the Climate Action Plan, intended to provide policy direction and identify actions the
City and the community can take to significantly reduce the generation of Greenhouse
Gases (GHG) consistent with California Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and Executive Order 5-3-
05. The purpose of the plan is to guide the development, enhancement, and ultimately
the implementation of actions and strategies that reduce Lodi's greenhouse gas
emissions. The plan consists of five (5) chapters and appendices that:
➢ Summarize climate change, outline actions by the State and City to reduce
emissions, and describe how Lodi residents and business owners can participate in
GHG reduction efforts;
➢ Describe the role public participation played in the formation of the CAP, State
regulations governing climate action planning, and regional climate change
initiatives and programs;
➢ Characterize Lodi's current GHG emissions, indicate the City's projected emissions
in 2020 and 2050, and note the action by City General Plan policy to establish a
reduction target;
➢ Propose strategies and measures the City can take to achieve its emissions
reduction target, and analyze the estimated cost of the proposed measures; and
➢ Discuss the means by which the City will monitor the Plan's implementation,
verify achievements; and fund the selected measures.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: As mandated by State law, the minimum public review
period for this document is 30 days. The proposed Negative Declaration will be
circulated for a 30 -day public review period, beginning on Monday, July 15, 2013 and
ending on Thursday, August 15, 2013. Copies of the Draft Negative Declaration and
Draft Development Code documents are available for review at the following locations:
Community Development Department, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, CA 95240
Lodi Public Library, 201 West Locust Street, Lodi, CA 95240
Online at http://www.lodi..zov/com dev/EIRs.html
Any person wishing to comment on the Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration
must submit such comments in writing no later than 5:30 pm on Thursday, August 15,
2013 co the City of Lodi at the following address:
Immanuel Bereket, Associate Planner
City of Lodi
P. O. Box 3006
Lodi, CA 95241
Facsimiles at (209) 333-6842 will also be accepted up to the comment deadline (please
mail the original). For further information, contact Immanuel Bereket, Associate Planner,
at (209)333-6711.
A public hearing will be scheduled before the Planning Commission and City Council to
receive comments on the document and to adopt the Negative Declaration. This meeting
will be separately noticed when the date and time are set.
nradt Bartlam, Community Development Director Date
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.1 Intrduction and Regulatory Guidance.......................................................................1-1
1.2 Purpose and Document Organization.......................................................................1-1
1.3 Incorporation by Reference.........................................................................................1-1
1.4 Necessary Public Agency Approvals ................................... ...................................... 1-1
2.1 Project Title....................................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Lead Agency Name and Address..............................................................................2-1
2.3 Contact Persons.............................................................................................................2-1
2.4 Project Sponsor's Name and Address.......................................................................2-1
2.5 General Plan Designation............................................................................................2-1
2.6 Zoning Desingation......................................................................................................2-1
2.7 Project Assumptions.....................................................................................................2-1
2.8 Project Background......................................................................................................2-1
2.9 Project Location.............................................................................................................2-1
2.10 Project Objectives.........................................................................................................2-1
2.11 Project Description..................................................................................................2-9
2.12 Emissions Invesntory, Baseline and Projections................................................... 2.10
2.13 Reduction Strategies..................................................................................................2.11
3.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected............................................................. 3.1
3.2 Environmental Determination....................................................................................3.1
Envorimental Checklist
1
Aesthetics....................................................................................................................4-1
2
Agricultural Resources..............................................................................................4-3
3
Air Quality..................................................................................................................4-5
4
Greenhosue Gas Emissions......................................................................................4-7
5
Biological Resources..................................................................................................4-9
6
Cultural Resources...................................................................................................4-11
7
Geology and Soils....................................................................................................4-13
8
Hazards and Hazardous Materials......................................................... ..........4-17
9
Hydrology and Water Quality...............................................................................4-21
10
Land Use and Planning..........................................................................................4-25
11
Mineral Resources..................................................................................................4-27
12
Noise..........................................................................................................................4-29
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
13 Population and Housing.........................................................................................4-33
14 Public Services..........................................................................................................4-35
15 Recreation.................................................................................................................4-39
16 Transportation/ Traffic ........................................................................................... 4-41
17 Utilities and Service Systems.................................................................................4-43
18 Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................... ..... ..................................... 4-45
DicumentsReferenced..........................................................................................5-1
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Figure 2-1: Regional Map.................................................................................................................2-5
Figure2-2: City Boundaries.............................................................................................................2-7
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
Section 1
1.1- INTRODUCTION AND REGULATORY GUIDANCE
This document is an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/ MND) for the
City of Climate Action Plan (Draft CAP). The City of Lodi has prepared a Draft
Climate Action Plan using input from city staff, consultants, the public, and from
various interviews, stakeholder meetings and sessions. The Draft CAP was prepared
and developed consistent with the recently adopted 2010 General Plan. Pursuant to
Section 15152 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, this
Initial Study is tiered from the City of Lodi 2010 General Plan Environmental Impact
Report (General Plan EIR) (State Clearinghouse Number 2009022075).
Under CEQA, tiering refers to the use of analysis contained in previously certified,
broad -level Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) (often programmatic EIRs) to
support or complement project -specific EIRs or IS/NDs.1 CEQA Guidelines
encourage the use of tiered environmental documents to reduce delays and excessive
paperwork in the environmental review process. This is accomplished in tiered
documents by eliminating repetitive analyses of issues that were adequately
addressed in the Program EIR and by incorporating those analyses by reference.
Impacts only need to be analyzed in more detail in the Initial Study if they were not
examined in the prior EIR or if findings were not adopted for significant,
unavoidable impacts.
1.2 - PURPOSE AND DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
The purpose of this Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration (IS/ND) is to
identify the potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated
with the Draft Climate Action Plan. The intended use of this document is to provide
information to support conclusions regarding the potential environmental impacts of
the Draft CAP. The IS/ND provides the basis for input from public agencies,
organizations, and interested members of the public..
This Initial Study is organized into the following chapters:
Section 1: Introduction. This section provides an introduction and overview of the
Initial Study document.
Section 2: Project Description. This section describes the location and setting of the
Draft CAP, along with the principal components of the project boundaries and its
relations to the City's recently adopted General Plan. The section also describes the
policy setting and implementation process. In addition, this section provides
pertinent project details, including lead agency contact information, project location,
and General Plan and Zoning designations.
1 California Association of Environmental Professionals, 2012, CEQA Statute and Guidelines.
1-1
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
Section 3: Environmental Determination. This chapter summarizes environmental
factors potentially affected by this project and the City's environmental
determination.
Section 4: Environmental Checklist and Findings. Making use of the CEQA
Appendix G Environmental Checklist, this chapter identifies and discusses
anticipated impacts from the proposed Master Plans, providing substantiation of the
findings made. The chapter concludes with the determination, based on the analysis
contained in this Initial Study, that a Negative Declaration is appropriate for the
proposed Master Plans.
Chapter 5: References. This chapter provides a list of documents used in the project.
1.3 - INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
The references outlined below were utilized during preparation of this Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. The documents are available for public
review at the addresses listed below. All City of Lodi documents are available at City
of Lodi, Community Development Department, located at 221 West Pine Street,
California 95240.
City of Lodi General Plan 2010. State law requires every city and county to adopt
a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of that
city and county. The City of Lodi General Plan, adopted April 2010, contains
goals, policies, and programs which are intended to guide land use and
development decisions for the next twenty years. The General Plan consists of
eight elements, or chapters, which together fulfill the requirements for a general
plan. The General Plan chapter include the Land Use; Growth Management and
Infrastructure; Community Design and Livability; Transportation; Parks,
Recreation and Open Space; Conservation; Safety, and Noise Elements.
City of Lodi General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, February 2010.
The City of Lodi General Plan, Final Environmental Impact Report (General Plan
FEIR), SCH2O09022075, is intended to provide information to public agencies and
the general public regarding the potential environmental impacts related to
implementation of the City of Lodi General Plan. The purpose of the EIR is "to
identify the significant effects of a project on the environment, to identify
alternatives to the project and to indicate the manner in which significant
impacts can be mitigated or avoided."
• City of Lodi General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, November 2009.
The City of Lodi, Pubic Review Draft General Plan Environmental Impact Report,
SCH2O09022075, is a first-tier evaluation of the environmental effects associated
with the adoption of the updated City of Lodi General Plan.
1-2
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
The San Toayuin Caunty Multi 5 ies Habitat Conservation and Qgm Space
Plan (sJ 2000. The City of Lodi adopted the SJMSCP in 2001, and projects
under the jurisdiction of the City can seek coverage under the plan. The
proposed project is consistent with the SJMSCP, as amended, as reflected in the
conditions of project approval for this proposal. Pursuant to the Final EIR/EIS
for the SJMSCP, dated November 15, 2000, and certified by the San Joaquin
Council of Governments on December 7, 2000, implementation of the SJMSCP is
expected to reduce impacts to biological resources resulting from the proposed
project to a level of less -than -significant. That document is hereby incorporated
by reference and is available for review during regular business hours at the San
Joaquin Council of Governments (555 E. Weber Avenue, Stockton, CA 95202) or
online at: vvw.sicoq,orq..
• City of Lodi Municipal Code. The City of Lodi Zoning Code is contained in
Chapter 17 of the Lodi Municipal Code (LMC) and represents the minimum
requirement for the promotion of public safety, health, convenience, comfort,
prosperity or general welfare.
1.4 NECESSARY PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVALS:
The City of Lodi is the lead agency with responsibility for approving the
proposed Development Code update. No other public agency approvals are
needed.
1-3
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
Section 2
2.1- PROJECT TITLE:
City of Lodi Climate Action Plan (CAP)
2.2 - LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS:
City of Lodi
Community Development Department
221 West Pine Street
Lodi, CA 9540
2.3 CONTACT PERSONS:
Environmental document:
Project Coordinators:
Immanuel Bereket: 209-333-6711
Joseph Wood: 209-333-6711
Immanuel Bereket: 209-333-6711
2.4 - PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS:
City of Lodi, Community Development Department
221 W. Pine Street
Lodi CA 95240
2.5 - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
The Draft CAP encompasses the entire City of Lodi General Plan area.
2.6 - ZONING DESIGNATION:
The Draft CAP area includes various zoning designations.
2.7 - PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS:
This IS/ND assumes compliance with all applicable state, federal, and local codes
and regulations.
2.8 - PROJECT BACKGROUND
The City of Lodi adopted its current General Plan in April of 2010. The General
Plan is the City's vision for how to accommodate anticipated growth within the
next 20 to 30 years. The City of Lodi currently provides services to approximately
8,911.55 acres. According to the 2010 General Plan 2010, the service area will
increase to approximately 10,623 acres of land (16.6 square miles) at full buildout
of the General Plan boundaries. Low Density Residential will continue to represent
the largest land use category in the City and will make up approximately 33
percent of the total acreage at buildout. The General Plan calls for preparation,
adoption and implementation of a Climate Action Plan.
2-1
J:\Community Development\Pluming\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
California has adopted a wide variety of regulations aimed at reducing the State's
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. While State actions alone cannot stop global
warming, the adoption and implementation of this legislation demonstrates
California's leadership in addressing this critical challenge. Assembly Bill (AB) 32,
the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, requires California to reduce
statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 directs the California Air
Resources Board (ARB) to develop and implement regulations that reduce
statewide GHG emissions. The Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) was
approved by ARB in December 2008 and outlines the State's plan to achieve the
GHG reductions required in AB 32. The Scoping Plan contains the primary
strategies California will implement to achieve a reduction of 169 million metric
tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMT CO2e), or approximately 28% from the
State's projected 2020 emission levels.
In the Scoping Plan, ARB encourages local governments to adopt a reduction goal
for municipal operations emissions and move toward establishing similar goals for
community emissions that parallel the State commitment to reduce GHGs. Though
the specific role local governments will play in meeting the State's AB 32 goals is
still being defined, they will nonetheless be a key player in implementing GHG
reduction strategies.
Lodi's Draft CAP articulates the City's intentions with respect to reducing
community -wide GHG emissions in a manner consistent with AB 32. Throughout
the Draft CAP, the City outlines strategies, objectives, measures and actions to
minimize energy consumption and waste; create an interconnected transportation
system; and conserve, create and enhance natural assets that improve the
community's quality of life. An action, program, or project would be considered
consistent with the Draft CAP if, considering all of its aspects, it would further the
strategies, objectives, measures, and actions set forth within the Draft CAP and not
obstruct their attainment.
2.9 - PROJECT LOCATION
Lodi is situated in the San Joaquin Valley between Stockton, 6 miles to the south;
Sacramento, thirty-five miles to the north; and along State Route (SR) 99. The City
is located on the main line of the Union Pacific Railroad and is within 5 miles of I-5
via SR -12. The regional is depicted in Figure 2.1, Regional Location Map.
The Mokelumne River forms the northern edge of the city; Harney and Hogan lane
southern edge. The Central California Traction Line (CCT) railroad (north of
Kettleman Lane) and SR -99 (south of Kettleman Lane) form the eastern boundary.
The western boundary extends approximately one-half mile west of Lower
Sacramento Road. Lodi (exclusive of White Slough Water Pollution Control
2-2
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
Facility) encompasses an area of 12.3 square miles. Figure 2 - 1: Regional Map
illustrates the City's location in regional context.
2.10 - PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The Draft CAP establishes a comprehensive community wide GHG emissions
reduction strategy for Lodi with regard to: a) buildings and energy, b)
transportation and land use, and c) waste and water. The project objectives,
derived from the vision statement, are expressed below.
➢ Adopt a CAP that will comply with and implement State law, advance
citywide sustainability and reflect community values.
➢ Reduce Lodi's annual community -wide GHG emissions by 15% below 2005
baseline emission levels by 2020.
➢ Provide clear guidance to City staff and decision -makers regarding when and
how to implement key actions to reduce GHG emissions.
➢ Inspire residents and businesses to participate in community efforts to reduce
GHG emissions.
Based on these objectives, the Draft CAP defines community strategies and GHG
reduction measures through text and maps. The Draft CAP also includes
implementation actions corresponding to quantified GHG reduction measures.
The recommended actions serve as the basis for future programming decisions
related to the assignment of staff and expenditure of City funds toward
implementing the CAP.
2-3
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
2-4
4
y`►tbvs. rpt'3!
41 1
- - i ,1
707rCON�ard
y,. r
ct.ytere drsstrso°d :
44
an
ra �
,k;colon : '•ter
N
Figure 2 - 1. Regional Location Map
0 $5 Ro ''^0 MO 440
2-5
J:\Community llcvclopmcnt\Planning\NI s(jl)l':C,\2012
�:
cs
66'AmH
rn
c
O
3
E
F
WON 5 elelsiaiul
.ul Isom
66 "AmH 66
d7
N
0i
•pa ovieweneS jamol G
d
N
I
N
N
7
OO
J
` CGuild
A�
•eny ling
m
m
_
O7 E
C
a
-' vi a
'ul aWA43
c
`
a
7e u014001S 1e uolmoole
'IS uoWolS
'iS uoWoole
a
9 Iii
4wn4o
E'IS
E
IS 4om43
�
1
Is suNWH m
r
E
W q
x
'ul weH
E
w
E
Y
m
LU „y BOW
�v sAW
U)
U
Jamol
m
'Pa
E
Ttzol
w
E
F
WON 5 elelsiaiul
.ul Isom
66 "AmH 66
d7
N
0i
•pa ovieweneS jamol G
d
N
I
N
N
7
OO
J
Go
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.11- PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of Lodi has prepared a Draft Climate Action Plan (CAP or plan) with
input from the City Council, City staff, community members, the development
community and citizens. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) the City has prepared this Initial Study (IS) to assess the environmental
impacts of adoption and implementation of the CAP. This IS consists of a
summary, followed by a description of potential environmental effects that may
result from adoption and implementation of the draft CAP.
The Draft CAP provides policies and identifies actions intended to reduce GHG
emissions within the City and serves to aid the State in its implementation of
Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,
which requires California to reduce statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 directed the California Air Resources Board (ARB)
to develop and implement regulations that reduce statewide GHG emissions.
The Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) was approved by ARB in
December 2008 and outlines the State's plan to achieve the GHG reductions
required by AB 32. The Scoping Plan contains the primary strategies that
California will implement to achieve a reduction of 169 million metric tons of
carbon dioxide equivalent (MMT CO2e), or approximately 28 % from the State's
projected 2020 emission levels, which includes actions to be taken by local
governments.
The Lodi Draft CAP provides general information about climate change and how
GHG emissions within the City contribute to it, as well as an analysis of the
potential effects of climate change on the City. In addition, the Draft CAP
describes baseline GHG emissions produced in Lodi, and projects GHG
emissions that could be expected if the Draft CAP is not implemented. The
strategies, measures, and actions proposed in the Draft CAP are described in
more detail under "Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies," below.
2.12 - EMISSIONS INVENTORY, BASELINE AND PROJECTIONS
Chapter 3 of the Draft CAP, "Green House Gas Inventory," presents a GHG
emissions inventory, establishes an emissions baseline dating back to the year
2008, provides projections of emissions in 2020 and 2030, and describes the City's
emissions reduction target. Baseline emissions are determined using activity data
collected from energy, water and waste collection service providers, as well as
information collected as part of the General Plan process. Future emissions levels
are then projected for the years 2020 and 2030, based on estimated future. The
emission inventory identifies the sources, distribution, and amount of GHG
emissions by emission sector, including energy consumption, transportation,
solid waste, wastewater and water consumption.
2-9
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2008 Baseline Emissions
The city of Lodi's baseline inventory is ordered by sector. A "sector" is an
individual subset of the total greenhouse emission spectrum, composed of
emissions relating to an economy, industry, market, or general society. The
sectors that were measured in this CAP are: energy, transportation, solid waste,
waste water, and water consumption. Each of these sectors is shown separately
in the overall emissions spectrum to allow for specific measure development for
emissions reductions.
Energy
The energy sector consists of electricity and natural gas consumption. Energy use
typically represents a large portion of total greenhouse gas emissions and is
divided into residential and non-residential uses. The City obtained historical
(2008) electricity consumption data from Lodi Electric Utility (LEU) and natural
gas consumption data from Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). LEU and PG&E
provided communitywide data aggregated by land use (i.e., residential and non-
residential).
onresidential). Electricity data for kWh used from 2008-2009 was converted into
CO2e using an LEU -specific emission factor. Natural gas data for therms was
converted into CO2e using a PG&E -specific natural gas emission factor.
2008 BASELINE EMISSIONS
Emissions Sector
MT CO2e
%
Residential Electricity
61,295
12
Residential Natural Gas
52,548
10
Non -Residential Electricity
118,486
23
Non -Residential Natural Gas
63,320
13
Total EmMW Cons 'on
295,649
58
On -Road Vehicles
141,124
28
Off -Road Vehicles and Equipment
7,500
1
Total Transportation Emissions
148,624
29
Solid Waste
54,305
11
Water Consumption
5,231
1
Wastewater Treatment
3,649
1
Municipal
6,717
1
TOTAL
514,175
100
Transportation
The transportation sector provides an estimate of emissions generated from
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by passenger cars and freight trucks. The inventory
accounts for two types of trips; any vehicle trips generated by Lodi land uses that
stay within the city limits and half of all vehicle trips generated by Lodi land uses
that either begin or end outside of Lodi. The inventory does not account for pass-
through trips. Based on these trips, annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is
estimated using existing daily traffic volumes determined during the 2008
General Plan update process, and average trip length assumptions generated
from U.S. Census data. Annual VMT is translated into emissions using a
2-10
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
transportation -specific emissions factor, which was developed using national
data for vehicle fleet mix, fuel economy and average fuel combustion. The
transportation sector also accounts for emissions from off-road vehicles.
Solid Waste
Solid waste emissions are generated from decomposing organic waste in place
and methane management activities. Solid waste generated within the City, as a
result of community and municipal activities, is collected by Waste Management
and deposited at various landfills throughout the region. Annual tons of waste
generated and typical waste composition data was obtained from Cal Recycle to
determine the total emissions.
WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN
The City owns and operates the WSWPCF. The wastewater treatment facility has
a current average dry weather flow capacity of 8.5 million gallons per day (mgd).
Current dry weather flow is approximately 5.7 mgd. The wastewater treatment
facility was originally constructed in 1966 with a capacity of 5.8 mgd. In the late
1980's and early 1990's the City expanded the treatment capacity to 6.3 mgd, and
also improved the level of treatment. Between 2003 and 2009 the City again
expanded the treatment capacity to the current 8.5 mgd and added tertiary
treatment and ultraviolet light disinfection improvements. In conjunction with
the 2007 improvements to the WSWPCF, the 48 -inch trunk line from the City
limits to the treatment plant influent headworks was lined, thereby reducing it
effective diameter to 42 -inches.
Water Consumption
Unlike the wastewater sector, emissions from the water sector come from the
electricity used to treat, convey, and distribute potable water. Total electricity
consumption associated with both municipal operations and communitywide
land uses was obtained from the City. Emissions were determined using the
LEU -specific emissions factor.
2.13 - REDUCTION STRATEGIES
Measures are grouped into five strategy areas that represent the primary ways to
reduce communitywide GHG emissions in Lodi. Strategy areas are as follows:
Energy Efficiency
The Draft CAP'S energy efficiency measures are primarily focused on the
efficient use of electricity, though some measures will also result in natural gas
savings. Measures include retrofits of existing residential and commercial
buildings, building system efficiency upgrades, streetlight upgrades, building
shade tree planting, and increasing renewable energy use.
In 2008, the city's consumption of electricity for appliances, lighting and cooling,
and combustion of natural gas for heating, cooking, and other processes within
residential, commercial, and industrial buildings generated 58% (295,649 MT
2-11
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
CO2e) of Lodi's total GHG emissions. Of the total energy consumption in Lodi,
residential energy use accounted for 39% (113,843 CO2e) whereas non-residential
energy use accounted for 61% (181,806 MT CO2e).
About 2/3 of houses in Lodi were built prior to the adoption of California's Title
24 energy efficiency requirements in 1978, and 79% of the building stock that is
projected to exist in Lodi in 2020 has already been constructed. Lodi stands to
realize a large portion of its emissions reductions from building retrofits. While
energy efficiency retrofits reduce building -related greenhouse gas emissions,
residents can also benefit from noticeable savings on their utility bills and
improved comfort of their home or business. Since 1998, Lodi Electric Utility
(LEU) has spent more than $8.3 million in Public Benefits Charge funds on
energy efficiency programs, resulting in an 18% peak demand reduction and 16%
energy reduction. LEU's energy conservation programs include:
➢ Appliance Rebate for the purchase of an energy efficient refrigerator, clothes
washer or dishwasher;
➢ Home Improvement Rebate for replacing insulation, installing attic fans,
whole house fans, shade screens or window tinting, radiant barriers or
replacing HVAC air conditioning systems;
➢ HVAC System Test Rebate for performing high-end duct system testing to
measure air flow, air return and system balance;
➢ Commercial/Industrial Rebates for building envelope improvements and
system efficiency upgrades;
➢ Commercial Energy Efficiency Financing up to $150,000 infinancing for
energy efficiency improvements, to be repaid on the participant's monthly
utility bill; and
➢ Energy Assessments on-line and on-site for residential and commercial
customers.
LEU will continue to implement its energy conservation programs, and increase
participation through a comprehensive public outreach campaign. The total GHG
emission reduction potential of the energy efficiency strategy is 16,386 MT CO2e
/yr in 2020 and 29,352 MT CO2e/yr in 2030.
Transportation
Transportation is the second largest sector in Lodi's baseline inventory, producing
29% (148,624 MT CO2e) of Lodi's total GHG emissions (514,175 MT CO2e) in 2008.
Emissions in this sector are primarily the result of the combustion of fossil fuels
and are determined largely by the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by
residents and employees. The best practices for reducing transportation -related
greenhouse gas emissions involve reducing the number of vehicle trips through
various transportation demand management (TDM) strategies and enhancing the
viability of transit and other forms of alternative transportation. In addition,
transit -oriented development and mixed-use developments result in denser uses
near commercial centers that contribute to decreased vehicle trips. The greenhouse
gas reduction strategies presented in this CAP primarily focus on TDM strategies
2-12
and transit system improvements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The total
GHG emission reduction potential of the transportation strategy is 18,967 MT
CO2e/yr in 2020 and 25,153 MT CO2e/yr in 2030.
Solid Waste
Waste disposal creates emissions when organic waste (e.g., food scraps, yard
clippings, paper, and wood products) is buried in landfills and anaerobic digestion
takes place, emitting methane. In Lodi, 11 % of GHG emissions are associated with
solid waste generation and disposal in landfills. The CAP's waste diversion
measures seek to divert organic waste from landfills by reusing construction
materials when possible and increasing communitywide participation in food
scrap and yard waste composting.
Construction waste accounts for approximately 29% of the waste stream statewide,
and includes items such as lumber, drywall, metals, masonry, carpet, plastics,
pipes, rocks, and dirt. Most of these materials are inert and do not contribute to
landfill methane generation upon decomposition. However, waste lumber
comprises nearly 15% of the total statewide waste stream, and represents a
significant source of potential GHG emissions reductions. Per the California 2010
Building Standards Code (Title 24), effective January 1, 2011, all jurisdictions must
require the diversion of 50% of construction waste materials generated during
certain construction and renovation projects. This CAP assumes the city will
enforce these diversion requirements in all applicable future projects.
The Draft CAP proposes reductions methods associated with increased methane
capture at landfills. The California Air Resources Board approved a new regulation
(effective in June 2010) that requires operators of certain landfills to install methane
control systems that operate in an optimal manner. Historically, the majority of
solid waste generated in Lodi is disposed of at the North County Landfill. While
this landfill already has a methane capture system in place, it is less efficient than
currently available technology used elsewhere throughout the state. For purposes
of this CAP, it is assumed that efficiency improvements will be made to the
existing methane capture system at the North County Landfill, but that the city
will play no role in implementing these improvements.
The total GHG emission reduction potential of the waste strategy is 9,129 MT
CO2e/yr in 2020 and 13,260 MT CO2e/yr in 2030.
Water
Water -related GHG emissions are mainly caused by energy used to pump,
transport, heat, cool, and treat potable water. Emissions associated with this
energy use accounted for approximately 1%of the communitywide GHG
inventory. With water supplies expected to continue declining into the future,
water conservation strategies have the double benefit of reducing GHG emissions
and aligning demand with future water availability. The measures included in this
section quantify the greenhouse gas emissions reductions of conservation
programs that are already underway in the city.
2-13
M1 9 s
Green Infrastructure
Green infrastructure refers mainly to the open spaces and vegetation that provide
places for recreation, wildlife habitat, and relief from the heat of the sun. The term
can also refer to building -integrated vegetation projects, such as green walls and
green roofs. There are numerous benefits to planting trees and increasing
vegetated surfaces, including reduced surface runoff, increases in natural habitat,
reduced urban heat island effect, and opportunities for carbon sequestration. While
vegetation -related carbon sequestration is known to reduce greenhouse gases in
the atmosphere, the precise level to which this occurs is not well understood and
difficult to quantify at this time. Regardless, the other benefits associated with
increased tree and vegetation cover, such as reducing the urban heat island effect,
may increase comfort and encourage more individuals to walk, ride their bikes, or
take transit, indirectly reducing greenhouse gas emissions while contributing to
the overall well-being of Lodi s residents.
As a supplement to the quantified measures in this CAP, two measures are
included in the Green Infrastructure section that are not quantified, but rather
focus on environmental stewardship and education through local agency
partnerships and demonstration projects.
2-14
Section 3
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
3.1 - ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project as indicated
by the checklist on the following pages.
❑ Aesthetics
❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions
❑ Geology/Soils
❑ Land Use/ Planning
❑ Population/Housing
❑ Transportation/ Traffic
0 None With Mitigation
❑
Agriculture Resources
❑
Air Quality
❑
Biological Resources
❑
Cultural Resources
❑
Hazards &c Hazardous
❑
Hydrology/ Water
Materials
Quality
❑
Mineral Resources
❑
Noise
❑
Public Services
❑
Recreation
❑
Utilities/ Services Systems
❑
Mandatory Findings of Significance
3.2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
❑ I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a Negative
Declaration will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by
the project proponent. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
Environmental Impact Report is required.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measure based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Environmental Impact
Report is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Negative
Declaration pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, nothing further is required.
�1101la
Immanuel Bereket, Associate Planner Date
3-1
Section 4
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less -Than- No
Issues Significant With Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporated
1 AESTHETICS.
Would the Project.•
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
a) The Draft CAP proposes strategies and measures that would aid in reducing the City s
emission of GHGs, and thus, would not directly lead to development that would affect
scenic vista. The CAP does not recommend specific densities, building heights
massing or design of any projects. However, the proposed measures encourage
installation of photovoltaic (PV) panels and other distributed renewable energy
technologies on the hones, businesses and City facilities to provide alternate sources of
energy. PV panels could be placed on rooftops, which could potentially alter scenic
views for homes or businesses located behind the rooftop panels. However, the
placement of PV panels for residential or civic use would likely not be large enough to
significantly affect views from other residences located uphill or behind the rooftop
panels. Instillation of these panels would require standard building permits from the
City, which would ensure the PV panels would not have a specific, adverse impact on
public health and safety. Implementation of the Draft Cap would result in less -than
significant -impact. Further, the CAP would implement 2010 General Plan policies and
the impacts of implementing the CAP would be similar to those identified in the 2010
General Plan FEIR.
b) There are no designated state scenic highways within or within view of the City.
Therefore, there would be no impact.
c) The Draft CAP recommends rehabilitation and renovation of existing buildings to
improve energy efficiency and the development of infill projects to maximize land use
potential in the city. The installation of PV panels on rooftops could result in slight
changes to existing visual character. However, renovations and new development
would be designed to be compatible with existing development. PV panels would be
associated with existing structures and installation of PV panels would be subject to
Planning and Building review and approval, ensuring that they do not result in
substantial changes to the visual character of the city. Implementation of the CAP
would result in a less -than -significant -impact.
4-1
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
d) Implementation of the Draft CAP would not result in the development of major light
sources, although distributed installation of PV panels on homes, businesses, and City
facilities is encouraged to reduce Lodi's dependence on energy sources that produce
GHGs. PV panels are specifically designed to absorb, not reflect, sunlight. Thus, their
placement and orientation on individual properties would not adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area.
4-2
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less -Than- No
Issues Significant With Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporated
2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
In determining whether impacts to agricultural rerourcer are
rignicant environmental efeas, lead agencies may refer to the
Cakfornia Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the Cakfornia Dept. of Conservation as
an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. Would the Project.
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
❑
❑
❑ ■
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
❑
❑
❑ ■
a Williamson Act contract?
C. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning
❑
❑
❑ ■
of forest land (as defined in PRC Sec. 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined in PRC Sec. 51104 (g)?
d. Result in loss of forest land or conversion of forest
❑
❑
❑ ■
land to non -forest use?
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment
❑
❑
❑ ■
which, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
a -e) The Draft CAP does not propose a specific construction plan. The CAP
implementation 2010 General Plan policies and the impacts of implementing the
Draft CAP would be similar to those identified in the 2010 General Plan FEIR.
The Draft CAP would have no effect on Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance as farming, gardening, and similar uses
would be allowed in all zoning districts by right. No impact would occur with
respect to this issue.
4-3
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
4.4
J -\Co rcnu6ty I]mt ciPkaninglNEGDEGIMI3\CIi=W Action Puss
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less -Than- No
Issues Significant With Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
3 AIR QUALITY.
Would the Project.•
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
applicable air quality plan?
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
substantially to an existing or Projected air quality
violation?
C. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
of any criteria pollutant for which the Project
region is non -attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
concentrations?
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
number of people?
a) The purpose of the Draft CAP is to reduce GHG emissions within the city to help
contribute to global efforts to reduce the effects of climate change.
Recommendations within of the Draft CAP include reducing vehicle use,
developing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, enhancing public transit, using
renewable energy, improving energy efficiency in buildings, improving energy
management, increasing water conservation, and promoting green infrastructure
and urban agriculture. In addition to reducing GHGs, each of these elements
would help to reduce criteria air pollutants and would not conflict with or obstruct
the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District's Air Quality Management
Plan. Implementation of the Draft CAP would result in a less -than -significant
impact.
b -d) Growth regulated by, and the impacts of, the Draft CAP would be similar to those
identified in the 2010 General Plan FEIR. Generally, a project would conflict with
or potentially obstruct implementation of an air quality plan if it would contribute
to population growth in excess of that forecasted in the air quality management
plan (California Air Resources Control Board, 2007). The proposed Draft CAP
would not result in an increase of population for the City beyond that forecast in
the 2010 General Plan FEIR. Consequently, as noted in the FEIR, the Draft CAP is
not expected to generate population in excess of that envisioned in the local Air
Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Less -than -significant -impact would occur.
•e) The Draft CAP does not proposed strategies or measures that would directly or
indirectly result in the creation of objectionable odors. Therefore, there would be
no impact.
4-5
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
4-b
J:1Co=nu, ity Developw�mulPl=anNNEGDEC\2Oi3\Clr ate Action Plan
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less -Than- No
Issues Significant With Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
4 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.
Would the Project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
a) Implementation of strategies and measures proposed within the Draft CAP would
result in annual communitywide GHG emission reductions by 2020. Table 1 in the
Project Description identifies the MT CO2e reductions and percentages that would
be expected from implementation of each proposed Draft CAP strategy and
objective. Implementation of the Draft CAP would therefore directly and indirectly
reduce community -wide GHGs. There would be no impact.
b) California has adopted a wide variety of regulations aimed at reducing the State's
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions
Act of 2006, requires California to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels
by 2020. AB 32 directs ARB to develop and implement regulations that reduce
statewide GHG emissions. The Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) was
approved by ARB in December 2008 and outlines the State's plan to achieve the
GHG reductions required in AB 32. The Scoping Plan contains the primary
strategies California will implement to achieve a reduction of 169 MMT CO2e, or
approximately 28% from the State's projected 2020 emission levels. In the Scoping
Plan, ARB encourages local governments to adopt a reduction goal for municipal
operations emissions and move toward establishing similar goals for community
emissions that parallel the State commitment to reduce GHGs. The Scoping Plan
recommends that local governments consider adopting a goal of 15% below
current emissions levels to assist the State in implementing AB 32.
Lodi's Draft CAP articulates the City's intentions with respect to reducing
community -wide GHG emissions in a manner consistent with AB 32.
Implementation of strategies and measures proposed within the Draft CAP would
result in annual community -wide GHG emission reductions of approximately
15,660 MT CO2e by 2020. Table 1 in the Project Description identifies the MT CO2e
reductions and percentages that would be expected from implementation of each
proposed Draft CAP strategy and objective. Implementation of the Draft CAP
alone would not meet the City's goal of reducing GHG emissions to 25% below
2004 baseline levels, although it would exceed a 15% community -wide GHG
reduction target by 2020, which would be consistent with AB 32 Scoping Plan
recommendations. As of this writing, there are no adopted regional or local plans,
4-7
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
policies or regulations other than the Scoping Plan and the City's Draft CAP which
are designed to reduce emissions of GHGs. There would be no impact.
4-8
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less -Than- No
Issues Significant With Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the proposak
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Departrnent of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
C. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife
nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation
Community Plan, or other approved local, regional,
or state habitat conservation plan?
a) The CAP would not modify, either directly or indirectly, habitats of any species
identified as a candidate sensitive, or special status. Furthermore, existing General
Plan policies would significantly constrain development in areas that support
sensitive or special status species. In addition, if development projects in these
areas were to involve such species, project specific biological studies and
mitigation would be required as part of specific project approvals in compliance
with applicable Federal, State and local requirements. The CAP's implementation
would, therefore, result in a less -than -significant -impact.
b) The implementation of the CAP would have a less -than -significant -impact.
4-9
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
c) The implementation of the CAP is not expected to cause adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands. In the event wetlands could potentially be affected by future
actions, project -specific wetland studies and mitigation, if necessary, would be
required pursuant to existing Clean Water Act requirements. Implementation of
the CAP would result in a less -than -significant -impact.
d) See Item C above. The primary wildlife corridors in the City of Lodi are within the
Mokelumne River area and to a lesser extent along open areas within the city.
Implementation of the CAP would result in a less -than significant -impact.
e) The City of Lodi CAP does not contain any component that would directly or
indirectly conflict with local policies that protect biological resources. Therefore,
there would be would a less -than -significant -impact.
f) No Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Communities Conservation Plan would
be affected by the CAP.
4-10
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less -Than- No
Issues Significant With Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
6 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Vould the Project.•
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to §15064.5?
C. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
paleontological resource or unique geologic feature?
d. Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
interred outside of formal cemeteries.
a) The Draft CAP does not propose any strategy or measure that would directly
result in an adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. However,
the Draft CAP does recommend retrofitting and renovation of older buildings to
be more energy efficient and thus reduce GHGs associated with energy
consumption. Most of the housing stock in the City is more than 70 years old, thus
some of the structures which may be retrofitted could be eligible for classification
as historic resources. All major alterations to structures in the City are reviewed by
the Planning staff through the City's established through permitting process,
which routinely ensures that the historical integrity of structures is not be
compromised. Continued compliance with the City's established permitting
procedures and process would ensure a less -than -significant impact.
b) The CAP would have no impact on historical resources, as it would not directly
involve excavation, demolition, tree removal, no other physical changes that
would affect a archeological resources in the community. If there are potential
impacts to historical resources that would b associated with specific projects, these
would be addressed in a project -specific CEQA reviews. In addition, the 2010
General Plan requires protection of significant archaeological resources. A less -
than -significant impact would occur with the implementation of the CAP.
c) The City of Lodi does not contain any known paleontological resources or unique
geologic features. The proposed CAP is implementation of a draft plan intended to
reduce community -wide GHG emissions and does not include any elements that
would directly or indirectly destroy these features. There is a remote possibility
that ground -disturbing activities that occur as a result of building additional
pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure pursuant to the Draft CAP could uncover
unique paleontological resources or sites or unique geologic features. In the event
such resources or features are discovered, compliance with State regulations and
General Plan policies pertaining to discovery of paleontological resources would
ensure that this impact is less -than -significant.
4-11
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
d) There is a remote possibility that ground -disturbing activities that occur as a result
of building additional pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure pursuant to the CAP
could uncover previously unknown human remains. In the event this occurs,
compliance with State regulations and General Plan policies pertaining to
discovery of human remains would ensure that this impact is less-than-
significant.
ess-thansignificant.
4-12
JACommunity Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less -Than- No
Issues Significant With Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS.
Would the Project.•
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
❑
❑
■
❑
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
❑
❑
■
❑
iii. Seismic -related ground failure, including
❑
❑
■
❑
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
❑
❑
❑
■
b. Result in substantial soil erosion, or the loss of
❑
❑
■
❑
topsoil?
C. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
❑
❑
■
❑
or that would become unstable as a result of the
Project, and potentially result in on -or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
18-1-13 of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of wastewater?
a)
L There are no mapped surface or subsurface faults that traverse the city and the city
is not listed within a State designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Any
future construction will be required to employ building standards set forth in the
City's Building Code, including specific provisions for seismic design of structures.
In addition, the General Plan FEIR concluded that impacts associated with seismic -
related ground shaking would be reduced to less than significant due to
mandatory compliance with building codes, policies contained in the General Plan,
and mitigation measures included in the General Plan EIR.
ii. The Draft CAP would implement measures intended to reduce community -wide
GHGs, none of which would directly affect the potential to expose the people or
structures to strong seismic ground shaking. Some components of the Draft CAP
4-13
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
would include the development of an expanded net work of bike and pedestrian
facilities and retrofitting existing residential and commercial structures to be more
energy efficient, and thus reduce GHG emissions associated with energy
consumption. These bike and pedestrian facilities, new structures, and building
retrofits could be adversely affected by strong seismic ground shaking if not
developed in compliance with building code in effect. However, all future projects
associated with the implementation of the Draft CAP would be required to meet
the building code in effect, which would ensure that these project components do
not expose people or structures to the risks associated with strong seismic ground
shaking. This would be less -than -significant impact.
iii. The City of Lodi is not considered to be particularly susceptible to liquefaction,
although some of the northern areas located along Mokelumne River may be
relatively more susceptible. However, similar to Items (a) (i, ii), all future projects
associated with implementation of the Draft CAP would be required to meet
engineering and structural requirements, as well as applicable building and fire
codes. Such compliance would ensure safety to structures and people. The impact
would less -than -significant.
iv). The City of Lodi is located in an area of generally level terrain that would not
produce a landslide. Average grade within the City is between zero and five
degrees. Further, according to the Official Maps of Seismic Hazard Zones provided
by the State of California Department of Conservation, the City of Lodi is not
located within an earthquake -induced landslide zone, which is defined as an area
where previous occurrence of landslide movement, or local topographic,
geological, geotechnical and subsurface water conditions indicate a potential for
permanent ground displacement. As a result, no impacts related to landslides
would occur.
c) No future project resulting from implementation of the Draft CAP would directly
involve major movement of topsoil or directly result in substantial soil erosion. In
the event that proposed residential or commercial retrofits or renovations,
construction of bike paths and pedestrian improvements, such activities would be
subject to the City's Grading Ordinance to reduce erosion impacts. As a normal
and standard condition of approval for future development proposals, projects
would be required to prepare and have approved individual Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) that mandate construction and post -construction water
quality provisions, including but not limited to erosion control plans during
construction, installation of biofilters and/or mechanical cleansing of stormwater
run-off and similar elements. Compliance with the applicable regulations would
reduce impacts to less -than -significant.
d) Al projects that may possibly be developed as a result of implementation of the
Draft CAP would be subject to applicable engineering and City building code
requirements, which would ensure that they are developed in a way that
4-14
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
minimizes the possible effects of expansive soil. Compliance with existing code
regulations would ensure a less -than -significant impact.
e) The City of Lodi uses a sewer system and does not require the use of alternative
wastewater disposal systems or septic tanks. Thus, there would be no impact.
4-15
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
4-I6
]:\Cory limclopmtw\ =6g\NEWECI2]13\CNmm maws Plan
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less -Than- No
Issues Significant With Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporated
8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
Would the Project.•
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e. For a Project located within an airport land use ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the Project area?
f. For a Project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
airstrip, would the Project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the Project area?
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h. Expose people or structures to a significant ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
a) The Draft CAP and the future projects that could potentially result from
implementation of the Draft CAP would not result in the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials. It is possible that construction activities associated
with new mixed-use or transit -oriented development projects or residential and
commercial retrofit and renovation projects recommended by the Draft CAP
would require use of construction materials, such as paints and solvents, but not in
4-17
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
large enough quantities to cause adverse effects. This would be a less -than -
significant -impact.
b) Retrofitting of buildings constructed prior to 1978 cold create a risk of worker
exposure to lead-based paints and asbestos. Contractors would required to
conform to strict state and federal EPA regulations regarding work on such
structures, including worker training and containment and removal of hazardous
materials. This would reduce the risk on the surrounding environment and worker
health to a less -than -significant -impact.
c) The implementation of the CAP would not involve direct handling or emission of
hazardous materials. Indirect effects associated with future projects, including
those on sites nearby or upwind of sensitive receptors (e.g., residential land uses),
or within one-quarter mile of a school, would be addressed through environmental
review when an application is submitted to the City, As the CAP does not enable
any specific development project, no impact would occur relative to this issue.
d) The CAP presents a citywide program, though proposed development associated
with it would be concentrated older part of town. The CAP does not propose or
enable any specific development project. New developments would be required to
go through project level environmental review and would be evaluated and
controlled by the 2010 General Plan EIR. The City of Lodi s CAP would have a
less -than -significant -impact relative to this issue.
e) There are no public or private airports within the City limits of City of Lodi, nor is
the City within two miles of a private or public airfield. The City limits are outside
of the Part 77 Horizontal Surface zone of the Lodi Airpark and Kingdon Executive
Airport. Part 77 Horizontal Surface zone consists of the airport's primary,
horizontal, conical, approach and transitional surfaces. Therefore, no impact is
anticipated.
f) See e) above. No impact is anticipated.
g) The City's 2010 General Plan identifies both urban and wildland fire hazards exist
in the Lodi Planning Area, creating the potential for injury, loss of life, and
property damage. Urban fires primarily involve the uncontrolled burning of
residential, commercial, and/or industrial structures due to human activities.
Factors that exacerbate urban structural fires include substandard building
construction, highly flammable materials, delayed response times, and inadequate
fire protection services.
The CAP does not include any strategies that would impair implementation of or
interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Therefore, the CAP's implementation would have less -than -significant -impact
relative to emergency evacuation plans.
4-18
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
h) The City of Lodi is not characterized by substantial areas of wildlands. The
topography of the City is relatively homogenous and steep slopes that could
contribute to wildland fires are not common. The City's General Plan indicates that
less than one percent of the City and its immediate vicinity has "Moderate' fire
hazard potential.
No project that could be associated with the CAP's strategies would expose
residences or wildlands to any wildfire threat. The policies of the CAP seek to
mitigate the impacts of climate change. The CAP's implementation would have
less -than -significant -impact in relation to wildland fires.
4-19
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
4-20
]:\Community Development\Plain g\NEGnEC\2013\Cliinate Action Plan
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
C. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a manner which
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on -
or off-site?
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would
❑
Less Than
■
❑
Potentially
Significant
Less -Than- No
Issues
Significant
with
Significant Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
❑
❑
■
Would the Project.•
g. Place housing within a 100 -pear flood hazard area,
❑
❑
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
❑
❑
■ ❑
discharge requirements?
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
C. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a manner which
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on -
or off-site?
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would
❑
❑
■
❑
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
❑
❑
■
❑
g. Place housing within a 100 -pear flood hazard area,
❑
❑
■
❑
as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
h. Place within a 100 -year floodplain structures which
❑
❑
■
❑
would impede or redirect flood flows?
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
❑
❑
■
❑
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
❑
❑
■
❑
a) The Draft CAP recommends energy efficiency renovations within existing residential
and commercial structures. Construction associated with these projects could
increase erosion and adversely affect urban runoff. However, the City enforces
4-21
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
General Plan policies that require urban runoff controls, and enforces the adopted
stormwater ordinance, all of which would prevent pollutants from entering
drainages. Proper enforcement and compliance with both National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and the City's implementing
stormwater ordinance would ensure that water quality would not be adversely
affected by construction and renovation activities resulting from implementation of
the Draft CAP. This would be a less -than -significant impact.
b) The Draft CAP recommends numerous water conservation measures, which may
result in reduced demand for groundwater supplies. The Draft CAP does not
recommend any strategies or measures that would require additional water supply
that would be attained from groundwater supplies and would not result in any
future projects that would substantially interfere with groundwater recharge. There
would be no impact.
c) The Draft CAP does not recommend any strategy or measure that would directly
alter drainage patterns. No streams or rivers are anticipated to be altered. The Draft
CAP does recommend construction of additional pedestrian and bicycle paths,
which may indirectly result in slight alterations to drainage patterns. However, the
changes would not be substantial, and my changes that would occur would be
subject to existing federal and state regulations. Compliance with existing
regulations would result in a less -than -significant impact.
d) The Draft CAP encourages the development of an expanded network of bike and
pedestrian facilities, expansion of existing transit facilities, and retrofitting existing
residential and commercial structures for renewable energy. Runoff that would
result from these facilities and developments could contribute to the flood potential
of existing stream channels. However, the Draft CAP does not directly enable this
development. and all proposed projects would be subject to environmental and
regulatory reviews. These standards mandate installation of either biological or
mechanical methods of treating and cleansing stormwater runoff prior to entering
the City and regional drainage system, or equivalent water quality features. With
adherence to these requirements, this impact would be less -than -significant impact.
e) See Item (d). This would be less -than -significant impact.
f) Although there is a potential for surface water pollution from construction of new
development, such water quality impacts would be reduced to a less-than-
significant
ess-thansignificant level by adherence to City of Lodi and Regional Water Quality Control
Board surface water quality standards, including applicable NPDES requirements.
Water quality features would be required by the City as part of the normal
development review process to reduce the potential for water pollution to a less -
than -significant level.
g) The Draft CAP would not place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area
identified on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
4-22
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
flood hazard delineation map because it does not propose construction. Therefore, no
impact would occur.
h) In coordination with the 2030 General Plan, the Draft CAP would regulate
development within the 100 -year flood zone. However, as discussed in the 2010
General Plan FEIR, 2010 General Plan requires developments to incorporate
adequate mitigation measures to achieve an acceptable level of risk from potential
flooding hazards. The FEIR concludes that this and other policies would reduce
flood hazards to a less than significant level. Because development regulated by the
Development Code would be consistent with forecasts contained in the 2010 General
Plan FEIR, flooding impacts associated with Development Code implementation
would also be less -than -significant.
i) The City of Lodi is located in a dam inundation area for the Pardee and Camanche
Dam and dike system. Flood water from the Pardee dam would take 4 hours and 20
minutes to reach west Lodi, and flood water from the Camanche Dam and dike
system would take 4 to 6 hours to reach Lodi. No strategy or measure proposed
within the Draft CAP would expose people or structures to these risks. The impact
would be less -than -significant.
j) Lodi is not subject to risks relating to seiche or tsunami. Lodi is located inland from
the Pacific Ocean and as such, is not subject to tsunami hazards. The project limits
are relatively flat and fully urbanized and therefore not susceptible to mudflows.
The potential for exposure to such risks would be the same as that identified for the
2030 General Plan and, with implementation of 2010 General Plan policies and
existing City regulations, would be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
4-23
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
4-24
]:\Community De11111apment�Planning�NECDEC\2013\CNimte Actim Plan
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less -Than- No
Issues Significant With Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
10 LAND USE AND PLANNING.
Would the Project.
a. Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
b.. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
Project (including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating on environmental effect?
C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
plan or natural community conservation plan?
a) The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction
of a physical feature (such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks) or removal of a
means of access (such as a local road or bridge) that would impair mobility within an
existing community, or between a community and outlying area. The Draft CAP
proposes strategies and policies that would improve pedestrian and bicycle
circulation, and at the same time provide alternative to vehicular transportation. The
Draft CAP encourages the creation of infrastructure that improves connectivity
throughout the community. The plan contains no language that recommends or
supports the division of an established community. No impact would occur as result
of the plans implantation.
b) The Draft CAP is consistent with, and builds the goals of the 2010 Lodi General Plan.
The Draft CAP proposes strategies and measures to reduce GHG emissions..
Implementing the Draft CAP would not conflict with existing policies, and where
conflicts do occur, the Draft CAP strategies and measures would generally result in
greater avoidance or mitigation of environmental effects, as the Draft CAP is designed
to mitigate adverse environmental impacts associated with global climate change.
Therefore, no impact would occur due to implementation of the Draft CAP.
c) No Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan would conflict with
implementation of the Draft CAP. Therefore, no impact would occur due to
implementation of the Draft CAP.
4-25
JACommunity Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
MT+
J-1C-m=ky Dadop=-*\Pkw4g1NEGDECN2M31Cnm Action Pkat
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less -Than- No
Issues Significant With Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
11 MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the Project.•
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the State?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally- ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
a -b) The Draft CAP proposes strategies and policies that would improve pedestrian and
bicycle circulation, and at the same time provide alternative to vehicular transportation.
The Draft CAP encourages the creation of infrastructure that improves connectivity
throughout the community. The Draft CAP contains no language that recommends or
supports extraction of mineral resources. In addition, the 2010 General Plan prohibits the
extraction of mineral resources that could result in significant environmental impacts.
Implementation of the Draft Cap would be consistent with that regulated by the 2010
General Plan and forecast in the 2010 General Plan FEIR. No impact to mineral resources
would occur due to implementation of the Draft CAP.
4-27
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
4.2$
J.1C,Mmft-� Ammon Plan
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less -Than- No
Issues Significant With Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
12 NOISE
World the Pmject result in:
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
levels in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing
without the Project?
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
❑ ❑ ■ ❑
ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above
levels existing without the Project?
e. For a Project located within an airport land use plan
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the Project expose people residing or
working in the Project area to excessive noise
levels?
f. For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
❑ 13 ❑ ■
would the Project expose people residing or
working in the Project area to excessive noise
levels?
a) While the Draft CAP does not recommend any strategy or measure that would
generate excessive amounts of noise, construction activity associated with
recommended energy efficiency retrofits in residential or commercial buildings,
expansion of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and installation of distributed
renewable energy systems could possibly result in temporary increases in noise
levels.
As discussed in Section 4.9 of the 2030 General Plan FEIR, all construction activities
would be required to adhere to the following General Plan policies:
N -G1 Protect humans, the natural environment, and property from manmade
hazards due to excessive noise exposure.
N -G2 Protect sensitive uses, including schools, hospitals, and senior care
facilities, from excessive noise.
N -P1 Control and mitigate nose at the source where feasible, as opposed to at the
receptor end.
N -P2 Encourage the control of noise through site design, building design,
landscaping, hours of operation, and other techniques for new
development deemed to be noise generators.
4-29
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
N -P3 Use the noise and land use compatibility matrix provided in the General
Plan 2010 and allowable noise exposure levels as review criteria for all new
land uses. Incorporate noise attenuation measures for all Projects that have
noise exposure levels of "conditionally acceptable" and higher. These may
include:
➢ Fagades constructed with substantial weight and insulation;
➢ Sound -rated windows in habitable rooms;
➢ Sound -rated doors in all exterior entries;
➢ Active cancellation,
➢ Acoustic baffling of vents for chimneys, fans and gable ends;
➢ Ventilation system affording comfort under - closed -window
conditions; and
➢ Double doors and heavy roofs with ceilings of two layers of gypsum
board on resilient channels to meet the highest noise level reduction
requirements.
In addition, noise in the City is governed by Chapter 9.24 of the Municipal Code,
which specifically declares that loud, unnecessary, and unusual noise is a nuisance
and is unlawful. The criteria for determining whether a nuisance exists includes
the ambient noise level, the sound level of the objectionable noise, the intensity of
the noise, whether the noise is continuous or intermittent, the duration and tonal
content of the noise, the proximity of the noise to sleeping facilities, the zoning of
the area, and the nature of the source. The City of Lodi Municipal Code regulations
relevant to construction noise are:
9.24.020 a. General Noise Re tions. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
chapter, and in addition thereto, it is unlawful for any persons to willfully make or
continue or permit or cause to be made or continued, any loud, unnecessary or
unusual noise which unreasonably disturbs the peace and quiet of any
neighborhood or which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person
of normal noise sensitivity.
9.24.030 c. It is unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to cause, permit or
generate any noise or sound as described herein between the hours of 10:00 p.m.
and 7:00 a.m. which exceeds the ambient noise levels at the property line of any
residential property as determined at the time of such reading by more than five
decibels. This section shall be applicable whether such noise or sound is of a
commercial or noncommercial nature.
Since the exact nature of future construction that could occur pursuant to the Draft
CAP is not known at this time, construction noise levels cannot be estimated. All
construction activities must comply with the City's noise ordinance. In addition,
future projects which would potentially cause noise levels exceeding noise
ordinance requirements would be required to undergo acoustical analysis to
determine specific impacts. Construction activity noise levels for projects resulting
from the Draft CAP would not be excessive when compared to those associated
4-30
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
with similar construction projects not associated with the Draft CAP. Since
potential noise levels would be temporary in duration and must comply with the
City's noise ordinance, and because future project specific impacts would require
further evaluation and mitigation, this would be a less -than -significant impact.
b) Similar to the evaluation within Item (a), temporary construction activities
resulting from implementation of the Draft CAP could potentially result in
excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels for a temporary
period of time associated with recommended energy efficiency retrofits in
residential or commercial buildings, expansion of bicycle and pedestrian facilities,
and installation of distributed renewable energy systems. All construction
activities must comply with the City's noise ordinance, which prohibits
construction noise between 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM seven days a week. In addition,
future projects which would potentially cause excessive groundborne vibration
would be required to undergo environmental analysis to determine specific
impacts. Construction activity vibration levels for projects resulting from the Draft
CAP would not be excessive when compared to those associated with similar
construction projects. Since potential groundborne vibration would be temporary
in duration and must comply with the construction hour provisions of the City's
noise ordinance, and because future -project specific impacts would require further
evaluation and mitigation, this would be a less -than -significant impact.
c) The Draft CAP encourages strategies designed to reduce vehicular traffic and to
increase alternative mode of travel. No increase in local traffic volumes is
anticipated as a result of implementing the Draft CAP. Therefore, future ambient
noise levels should be similar to or somewhat reduced from present levels. This
would be a less -than -significant impact.
d) One source of temporary ambient noise in Lodi would be construction activity, as
described in Item (a) above. Since the Draft CAP encourages continued investment
in existing homes to reduce energy consumption, there would continue to be
construction -related noise in the city. Compliance with the City's noise ordinance
would reduce impacts to this would be a less -than -significant impact.
e) There is not an airport located within two (2) miles of the city limits. The Draft
CAP would not expose people excessive noise levels generated by public use
airports, or private airstrips. The closest airport to the city site is the Lodi Airpark,
located approximately four (4) miles southwest of the city limits, and supports
twenty to thirty (20-30) operations per day. The airport's noise "footprint" does not
extend beyond the immediate airport boundary. There would be no impact.
f) No private airstrip is located within or near Lodi. There would be no impact.
4-31
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
4-32
J:\Cmummq uu*pmwr1 l ioEC\2at31Gi=W Action Pim
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less -Than- No
Issues Significant With Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the Project:
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, ❑ ❑ ❑
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
C. Displace substantial numbers of people, ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
a) The Draft Cap includes strategies and measures that seek to reduce GHG emission.
Proposed measures include encouraging public transport expansion and retrofitting
existing residential and commercial buildings to make them more energy efficient.
The CAP does not recommend any specific development, density or number of
residential units. Commercial and residential energy efficiency retrofits that may
occur as a result of the Draft CAP would update homes already located in the city to
make them more energy efficient and would not be likely to include additions that
make homes larger and accommodate more people. Therefore, impacts would be
less -than -significant.
b) Although the Draft CAP strategies and measures encourage energy efficient retrofits
for existing homes, the Draft CAP does not include measures to increase or decrease
density or displace homes. Replacement housing would not be necessary. This
would be a less -than -significant -impact.
c) The Draft Cap contains no strategies that encourage the displacement of existing
housing. Implementation of the Draft CAP poses a less -than -significant -impact.
4-33
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
4-34
J -\Co 4 AdiosPtm
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
C. Schools?
d. Parks?
e. Other public facilities?
City of Lodi General Plan
❑ ❑
Less Than
❑
Potentially Significant Less -Than- No
Issues
Significant With Significant Impact
❑ ❑
Impact Mitigation Impact
❑
Incorporated
14 PUBLIC SERVICES
❑
Would the Project result in substantial adverse pbyacal impacts
■
associated with the provision of new orphyrically altered
governmental facilaties, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction ofwhich could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or otherperformance olVectivesfor any
of the public services. -
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
C. Schools?
d. Parks?
e. Other public facilities?
City of Lodi General Plan
❑ ❑
■
❑
❑ ❑
■
❑
❑ ❑
■
❑
❑ ❑
■
❑
❑ ❑
■
❑
The Lodi General Plan Growth Management and Infrastructure Element addressed public
services.
GM -G4: Provide public facilities -including police and fire services, schools and libraries
commensurate with the needs of the existing and future population.
Existing Conditions
Fire Protection
The Lodi Fire Department (LFD) provides fire protection, basic life support (BLS), fire
prevention, technical rescue, and hazardous materials response services to the City of
Lodi. The LFD employs 48 firefighters, captains, and engineers. In addition, LFD employs
4 battalion chiefs, 2 division chiefs,1 fire chief, 2 support staff, and 1 inspector for a total
department work force of 59. LFD maintains 4 front line fire apparatus capable of 1500
GPM, one Truck Company, 100 ft aerial, 2 reserve apparatus, and various support
vehicles. The LFD has 4 fire stations located throughout the City of Lodi.
Police
The Lodi Police Department provides law enforcement and animal services to the City of
Lodi. The LPD has 117 positions including 78 Sworn Officers. The LPD will service the
area that will be annexed. In addition, the LPD maintains SWAT van, 1 SWAT armored
Vehicle, 1 Mobile Command Center,1 DUI trailer,1 Crime Prevention van,1 FET van, 24
patrol cars, 25 undercover cars, 4 motorcycles, 1 bomb squad van, and 4 volunteer
vehicles. The LPD also maintains an average of 1.25 -minute emergency response time and
maintains an average of 31 minutes per call at the scene of the incident.
4-35
]:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
Schools
The Lodi Unified School District provides public education for grades preschool through
twelve on a traditional calendar system. The District employs 3,018 contracted employees,
including 1,573 teachers. The District maintains thirty elementary schools, seven middle
schools, and ten alternative schools, and three charter schools.
Parks and Recreation. The City of Lodi operates a total of 27 parks, natural open space
areas, and sports field. Park facilities in Lodi range from mini -parks and tot lots to larger
regional parks and natural open space areas, in accordance with the City of Lodi Park
development standards. Several parks serve the dual purpose of a park facility and a
storm drainage detention basin during the winter rainy season. The City of Lodi General
Plan established a standard of 8 acres of neighborhood and community parkland per 1,000
population, including school parks and storm drainage detention basin parks, and 3.9
acres of neighborhood and community parkland per 1,000 population, excluding school
parks and storm drainage detention basin parks.
a -i) The Lodi Fire Department (LFD) provides fire protection, basic life support (BLS),
fire prevention, technical rescue, and hazardous materials response services to the
City of Lodi. The Draft CAP does not propose population growth and would not
contribute greatly to the need for increased fire protection services. Thus,
implementation of the Draft CAP would not result in a need for additional Fire
Department services. This would be a less -than -significant impact.
a -ii) The Draft CAP would no result in a substantial increase of residents as it does not
encourage growth. Increase in population would be governed by the RHNA, the
Housing Element, and the 2010 Lodi General Plan, which contains policies to
provide for adequate and orderly increase in fire protection services. As the Draft
CAP does not recommend any specific projects, all future development would
undergo environmental review when formal application s are submitted to the
City. Therefore, the implementation of the plan would not increase the need for
Fire Department's protection services within the City. Implementation the Draft
CAP would result in a less -than -significant impact.
a -iii) Implementation of the Draft CAP is not expected to result in substantial population
growth and would not necessitate an increase in school district services. Thus,
implementation of the Draft CAP's would result in a less -than -significant impact.
a -iv) The City of Lodi operates a total of 27 parks, natural open space areas, and sports
field. Park facilities in Lodi range from mini -parks and tot lots to larger regional
parks and natural open space areas. Implementation of the Draft CAP is not
expected to result in substantial population growth, and thus would not contribute
greatly to the nee for additional park facilities. This would be a less -than -
significant impact.
4-36
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
a -v) As discussed above, the Draft CAP does not propose population growth. Impacts
related to library and other services would be less -than -significant.
4-37
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
4-15
]:%Oily Dc"dopm=\,Pb=iiimB\NHGr7M26131CJit= AcOmPlan
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less -Than- No
Issues Significant with Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incomorated
15 RECREATION
a. Would the Project increase the use of existing ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b. Does the Project include recreational facilities or ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
a) Implementation of the Draft CAP is not expected to result in substantial
population growth, and thus would not result in increased physical deterioration
of parks and recreational facilities. Conversely, the Draft CAP promotes the
expansion of the current network of bicycle and pedestrian trails, which could
provide additional recreational facilities within Lodi, and possible lessen wear on
existing facilities. This would be a less -than -significant impact.
b) The Draft CAP specifically recommends that the City implement the bike
infrastructure improvements contained in the City's current Bicycle Master Plan
and key improvements to be identified in a proposed pedestrian obstacle study,
with the objective of encouraging complete streets throughout Lodi.
Construction of these facilities could potentially result in adverse impacts on the
environment. However, environmental impacts associated with such facilities
would likely be minimal, due to the built -out urban nature of the city and the
likelihood that such facilities would be constructed within existing rights-of-way.
In any case, prior to construction of additional bike or pedestrian trails, the City
would be required to prepare subsequent project -level environmental
documentation as required by CEQA. These documents would provide site-
specific environmental analyses that would analyze all possible impacts and
recommend mitigation if necessary. Because adverse impacts associated with
bicycle and pedestrian trail construction pursuant to the Draft CAP would likely
not be substantial, and because additional project -level analysis would ensure that
physical impacts do not occur, this would be a less -than -significant impact.
4-39
]:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
4-40
JACvtnmuaity Devclopmcnt\PlkuiiiigNN$GDFC\2013\CGmate A6cAPlan
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less -Than- No
Issues Significant With Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporated
16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Would the Pmjea.
a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
❑
❑
■ ❑
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase
in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
❑
❑
■ ❑
of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
❑
❑
❑ ■
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design
❑
❑
■ ❑
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e. Result in inadequate emergency access?
❑
❑
❑ ■
f. Result in inadequate parking capacity?
❑
❑
❑ ■
g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
❑
❑
❑ ■
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
a) None of the proposed objectives and strategies in the Draft CAP courage, promote
or causes an increase in vehicular traffic relative to existing conditions. To the
contrary, implementation of Draft CAP strategies and measures would increase the
availability of transit service for Lodi residents, add additional bike and pedestrian
facilities. Achieving each of these goals would result in a reduction in traffic loads,
which would reduce the number of vehicle trips, volume to capacity ratio, and
intersection congestion within the City. Furthermore, no proposed strategy or
measure would directly increase traffic in relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system. This would be a less -than -significant impact.
b) The San Joaquin County Congestion Management Program (CMP) documents the
existing and future conditions along the County's Congestion Management
Agency (CMA) roadway system. The San Joaquin County Lodi County Congestion
Management Plan (CMP) requires a regional traffic impact analysis when a Project
adds 50 or more peak hour vehicles to a CMP Highway system intersection or 150
or more peak hour trips to a mainline freeway link. The intent of CAP policies
relative to new development is encourage carpool uses, increase convenience of
transit, which would reduce vehicular GHG emissions. The CAP'S implementation
4-41
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
would result in less -than -significant impacts in relation to traffic and road
network level of service.
c) The Project site is located roughly two miles from the Lodi Airpark and
approximately four miles from the Kingdon Executive Airport. Implementation of
the proposed Development Code would have no effect on air traffic patterns. No
impact would occur.
d) The CAP encourages development of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and
features that will serve to reduce GHG emissions. These facilities would not
increase hazards but rather have the opposite effect by providing features to make
crossings and roads safer and more convenient for pedestrians and cyclists,
including a number of strategies, including use of new signage, paving materials,
and bike lanes. In having a beneficial effect on the public safety aspects of the
City's road network particularly for non -motorized traffic, the plan's
implementation would have no impact relative to this issue.
e) The Draft CAP recommends strategies and measures that would increase safety for
drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists and seeks to reduce the number of automobiles
on City streets, both of which may actually make access for emergency vehicles
easier and more efficient. No strategy or measure proposed within the Draft CAP
would result in the development of uses or facilities that would degrade
emergency access. This would be a less -than -significant -impact.
f) Implementation of the Draft CAP would not substantially increase parking
demand or remove existing parking. Conversely, the Draft CAP encourages
walking, biking, carpooling, and public transit use and discourages single
occupancy vehicle use. Implementation of the Draft CAP could reduce the need for
parking spaces and possibly result in less demand for parking. This would be a
less -than -significant impact.
g) The Draft CAP supports and enhances adopted City policies, plans, and programs
supporting alternative transportation. Therefore the CAP's implementation would
have no impact in relation to this issue.
4-42
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
C. Require or result in the construction of new storm
❑
Less Than
■ ❑
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
Potentially
Significant
Less -Than-
No
Issues
Significant
With
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
■ ❑
Project from existing entitlements and resources, or
Incorporated
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater
❑
Would the Project.
■ ❑
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
❑
❑
■
❑
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
provider's existing commitments?
b. Require or result in the construction of new water
❑
❑
■
❑
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
■ ❑
capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste
existing facilities, the construction of which could
disposal needs?
cause significant environmental effects?
❑
❑
■ ❑
regulations related to solid waste?
C. Require or result in the construction of new storm
❑
❑
■ ❑
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
❑
❑
■ ❑
Project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater
❑
❑
■ ❑
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
Project's Projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
❑
❑
■ ❑
capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes, and
❑
❑
■ ❑
regulations related to solid waste?
a) Implementation of the Draft CAP would not trigger population increase. Thus,
there would be no increase in demand for wastewater treatment that would exceed
treatment requirements. This would be a less -than -significant impact.
b) Implementation of the Draft CAP would not result in a significant increase in
population. Thus, resulting needs for water and wastewater treatment would not
increase substantially. No expanded or new treatment facilities would be required.
This would be a less -than -significant impact.
c) Increase in population due to new development could increase in the amount of
storm water runoff, which could necessitate the need for more and larger storm
water drainage facilities. However, implementation of the Draft CAP would not
result in a significant increase in either population or new development. This, it is
not likely that storm water runoff would increase with implementation of the Draft
CAP to the extent that new or expanded drainage facilities would be needed. This
impact would be less -than -significant impact.
d) Implementation of the Draft CAP would not result in a significant increase in
population. The Draft CAP does not directly enable development and all projects
4-43
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
would be subject to environmental and regulatory review. Thus, no new water
supplies would be required. Water demand projections for Lodi indicate that the
City has sufficient water supplies for anticipated growth in Lodi. This impact
would be less -than -significant impact.
e) The City owns and operates the wastewater collection system within its corporate
limits. The collection system includes separate domestic and industrial sewers and
related pumping facilities. Untreated wastewater is piped to the City's treatment
plant through pipes, utilizing both gravity flow and lift stations, where
appropriate. The City also owns the treatment facilities at the White Slough Water
Pollution Control Facility (WSWPCF) located approximately 6 miles southwest of
the City. The City has adopted and maintains a Wastewater Master Plan to estimate
future infrastructure and service demands within Lodi. Because Draft CAP does
not directly enable new development inconsistent with development projections
regulated by the 2010 General Plan, sufficient plant capacity would continue to be
available and impacts relating to wastewater service would be less than
significant.
f) As indicated in the General Plan EIR, The increased solid waste due to
implementation of the General Plan could be accommodated within the existing
landfill capacity. Adoption of the Draft CAP would not facilitate any substantial
new development activity beyond that analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and thus
will not lead to any significant solid waste production beyond that previously
indicated. Furthermore, compliance with the City's Source Reduction and
Recycling Element (SRRE) program, whereby all future development projects must
divert solid waste to meet state diversion goals associated with AB 939, as well as
State and County waste reduction programs and policies, would reduce the
volume of solid waste entering landfills. Review of future projects will continue be
carried out to ensure that the projects are consistent with all General Plan Policies
and Policy Actions and the SRRE program. Adherence to such requirements would
reduce potential impacts associated with solid waste to a less than significant
impact level. Growth regulated by the Draft CAP would be consistent with that
regulated by the 2030 General Plan and forecast in the 2010 General Plan FEIR.
Therefore, the Draft CAP would not create any impacts beyond those identified in
the 2010 General Plan FEIR and impacts would be less than significant.
g) The Draft CAP does not recommend any strategy or measure that does not comply
with applicable solid waste regulations. Conversely, the CAP promotes recycling
and measures to reduce the City's waste stream and achieve County wide waste
reduction goals. There will be no impact.
4-44
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\1013\Climate Action Plan
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less -Than- No
Issues Significant With Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incomorated
18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a. Does the Project have the potential to degrade the ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b. Does the Project have impacts that are individually ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a Project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
Projects, the effects of other current Projects, and
the effects of probable future Projects)?
C. Does the Project have environmental effects which ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
a) As discussed in Section IV, Biological Resources and Section V, Cultural Resources, the
Draft CAP does not have the potential to substantially reduce habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining
levels, eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory.
The purpose of the Draft CAP is to reduce community -wide GHG emissions in Lodi
with the intention of reducing environmental impacts associated with global climate
change. The Draft CAP proposes strategies and measures to lessen numerous
environmental impacts and does not contain any strategy or measure that would
either directly substantially reduce habitat, reduce wildlife populations, threaten
animal or plant community restrict the range of species, or eliminate examples of
history or prehistory. This would be a less -than -significant impact.
b) The Draft CAP would not result in any adverse environmental impacts that are
cumulatively considerable. The Draft CAP is intended to contribute to a cumulative
reduction in GHG emissions and to reduce adaptation impacts associated with
global climate change, both of which would have beneficial cumulative
environmental effects. The CAP contains measures that, if enacted, would reduce
GHG emissions through encouraging the use of alternative modes of transportation,
promoting residential and commercial energy and water efficiency, increasing use of
4-45
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
renewable energy, investing in green infrastructure and open space, and reducing
waste. These measures would, in general, have beneficial effects on the environment.
Future land uses and development determined to be consistent with the CAP would
not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the production of GHG
emissions. In addition, The CAP'S short-term and long-term goals are in alignment
in this regard; so it is highly unlikely that it would have short-term goals that would
disadvantage long-term environmental goals. The CAP's implementation would
thus have a less -than -significant impact.
c) As discussed in Section III, Air Quality; Section VI, Geology and Soils; Section VII,
Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality; Section XI,
Noise; and Section XV, Transportation and Traffic, implementation of the Draft CAP
would not create environmental effects that would adversely affect human beings.
The Draft CAP is a policy document tended to reduce Lodi's community -wide GHG
emissions to help cumulatively address the adverse environmental impacts
associated with global climate change, while also protecting and enhancing the
quality of life in Lodi. Its strategies and measures strive to protect the environment,
enhance human health and safety, and conserve natural resources, both within and
beyond Lodi. Adoption and implementation of the Draft CAP would result in
beneficial environmental effects, and would not cause substantial adverse direct or
indirect effects on human beings resulting from a change in the physical
environment. Impacts would be less -than -significant.
4-46
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
Section 5
Documents Referenced
Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (http:
www.consrv.ca.gov/dmg/shezl2Zmaps/mora4.htLn).
California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, as amended.
California Air Resources Board (CARB), Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A
Community Health Perspective, 2005.
California Air Resources Board (CARB), Ambient Air Quality Standards, last updated
February, 2007.
California Air Resources Board, California 1990 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Level and
2020 Emissions Limit, 2007.
California Department of Conservation (CDC), Division of Mines, California Geological
Survey - SMARA Mineral Land Classification Map 2006.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. San Joaquin
County Important Farmland 2006. June 2008.
. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (2004-2006).
California Geological Survey (CGS), Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Mapping Ground
Motion Page, http://redirect.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/psha/pshamap.asp, accessed
February 25, 2010.
California, State of, Department of Transportation. San Joaquin County Officially Designated
State Scenic Highways and Historic Parkways 2009. Available online at
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hgJLand.Arch/scenic highways/index.htm
California, State of, Department of Transportation. Scenic Highway Guidelines. Also
available online at
http:/ /www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/guidelines/ scenic_hwy-,uidehnes.pdf
California, State of, Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker. 2008. Available online
at http://www.geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS) database, http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/cursites/, accessed online September 18,
2012.
Cortese list of Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites,
http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese—List.cfin, accessed online July 2009.
City of Lodi 2010 General Plan.
City of Lodi General Plan Environmental Impact Report 2009 (SCH#2009022075)
City of Lodi. 2003. Stormwater Management Program, January 2003. Prepared by Black &
Veatch Corporation, 2003.
City of Lodi. 2006.2005 Urban Water Management Plan: Final Report. Prepared by RMC,
March 2006.
5-1
J:\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), Guide for Assessing and
Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, Technical Document: Information for Preparing Air
Quality Sections in EIRs, Adopted August 20, 1998; January 10, 2002 revision.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), District Air Quality Plans
and Related Reports, Particulate Matter, and Ozone, 2003.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), Ambient Air Quality
Standards and Valley Attainment Status, 2005.
San Joaquin County, Draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, 2008.
San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP).
State of California, Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection.
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Accessed at www.consrv.ca.gov/dhp
State of California, Health and Human Safety Code, Section 7050.5.
State of California, Public Resources Code, Section 5097.5.
United States, Department of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service. National Wetlands
Inventory. Wetlands Mapper, Accessed March 28, 2011. Available online at
hgp://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mal2l2er.html
United States, Department of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service. The National Map
(created and maintained by U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey).
United States, Environmental Protection Agency, EnviroMapper for Superfund. Available
online atht!p://www.epa.,gov/enviro/sf/.
. Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2006, 2008.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. The National Scenic
Byways Program. (httv:/ /www.scenic.org/by3yUs).
West Yost & Associates, 2005. Technical Memorandum No.I Full Surface Water
Implementation Study, City of Lodi.
West Yost Associates. 2003. Memo including summary of proposed improvements at the
White Slough WPCF. January 2003.
West Yost Associates. 2006. Memo including summary of proposed Phase 3 improvements
2007 at the White Slough WPCF. September 2006.
Western Regional Climate Center, 2005. Website: hLtp://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cp-i-
bin/c1iMAIN.pl?ca1odi+nca
5-2
):\Community Development\Planning\NEGDEC\2013\Climate Action Plan
RESOLUTION NO. 2013-210
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LODI CERTIFYING NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13 -ND -01 AS AN
ADEQUATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION FOR THE
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND APPROVING AND ADOPTING
THE CITY OF LODI CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHEREAS, that the City of Lodi is committed to the long-range goal of protecting the
natural environment, increasing sustainability efforts, and improving overall quality of life; and
WHEREAS, carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases released into the
atmosphere have a profound effect on the Earth's climate and reducing the potential magnitude
of climate change may lower its harmful effects on public health and safety; and
WHEREAS, achieving greenhouse gas emission reductions to protect the climate is
important to the City of Lodi; and
WHEREAS, greenhouse gas reduction activities contribute to the achievement of many
of the City's environmental values and is consistent with the City's Environmental Policy,
including promoting clean and efficient energy use, commuter trip reduction efforts and other
clean air initiatives, solid waste reduction and recycling; assuring a reliable and affordable water
supply; and promoting low -impact economic development; and
WHEREAS, many of the critical components of a local action plan for climate protection
are under development or are currently being implemented in the City of Lodi, including the
Green Building Code and 9-80 work program, among others; and
WHEREAS, technologies to reduce greenhouse gases will also contribute to the
economic vitality of the area through the development and use of clean technologies and the
addition of jobs; and
WHEREAS, in September 2006, the State of California adopted the Global Warming Act
of 2006 (AB 32), which created a statewide greenhouse gas emission requirement and goal to
reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020; and
WHEREAS, local actions, whenever taken by cities and counties nationwide, can help
provide a collective response and may also provide the benefits of testing and developing model
programs, methods, and technologies for achieving greenhouse gas reductions; and
WHEREAS, as a result of its consideration, the City Council gave direction for the
preparation of a Climate Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, a Negative Declaration
(13 -ND -01) that tiers off of the 2010 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)
that was certified by the City Council in April 2010 was prepared for the Climate Action Plan.
Together, Negative Declaration 13 -ND -01 and the 2010 General Plan FEIR constitutes the
environmental record for the proposed Climate Action Plan. The City Council has considered
the Negative Declaration prepared for the Climate Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the foregoing recitals and findings are true and
correct and adopts this Resolution based on the entirety of the record, which includes without
limitation, Final EIR; the Negative Declaration for the Climate Action Plan; the Climate Action
Plan; all reports, testimony, and transcripts from Planning Commission's October 9, 2013
meeting; and reports, testimony, and transcripts from the City Council's November 20, 2013
meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lodi that the
foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Lodi City Council does hereby certify the Final
Negative Declaration as adequate environmental documentation for the Lodi Climate Action
Plan; and
BE IT FURTHER DETERMINED AND RESOLVED that the City of Lodi City Council
hereby adopts the proposed Climate Action Plan.
Dated: November 20, 2013
-----------------------
I hereby certify that Resolution No. 2013-210 was passed and adopted by the City
Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held November 20, 2013, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Hansen, Johnson, Katzakian, Mounce, and
Mayor Nakanishi
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None
1 JOHL-OLSON
City Clerk
2013-210
City of Lodi
imaie ACIIon Tian
Lodi City Council
November 20, 2013
AECOM
��
� ��Y Ami{ �
Adr,
♦) -u��
`,
•'
AW
t
Lodi City Council
November 20, 2013
AECOM
M!
• General Plan directs City to prepare a CAP
• Compliance with State guidelines
• State law does not require a local agency
to prepare a CAP, but does incentivize it
• Creation of community benefits:
✓ Energy conservation and independence
✓ Transportation and utility infrastructure
improvements
✓ Environmental stewardship
✓ Economic development
✓ Healthy lifestyles
%.041 1 ■
• Impose mandatory new requirements on
existing homeowners and businesses
• Replace existing development regulations or
policies affecting new development
• Replace SJCOG's SB 375 obligations
• Allows future residential and commercial
development projects to tier from the CAP
and avoid having to conduct their own CEQA
greenhouse gas analysis
— Per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5
Step 1
Inventory
Emissions
Step 4 Step 3
Implement Develop Action
Action Plan .............. Plan
Step 2
Step 5
Monitor/
Establish
Evaluate
iiiiii�
�3`'�1���......
ttt lllllllllllll
jlllllllllllll
Emissions
Reduction
Progress
rECECEE,E,f3[3[3r3r3r3r3r3r3r3r3r3r3r3r3r3r
........
Target
Step 4 Step 3
Implement Develop Action
Action Plan .............. Plan
Energy Consumption
Resrdentraf Electricity
Residential Natural Gas
Non -Residents! Electricity
Non -Residential Natural Gas
Transportation
on -Road Vehicles
Off Road Vehicles and Equipment
Solid Waste
Water Consumption
Wastewater Treatment
Municipal
268,102
61,295
118,-056
52,549
35,773
148,624
141,124
7,500
54,305
5,Z31
3,649
6,717
55.1%
12.6%
24,3%
10.8%
7.4%
30.5%
29.0%
1.5%
11.2%
1.1%
0.7%
1.4%
0.7% 7 d6G
TOTAL MTCO2e
486,628
RESIDENTIAL ENERGY
NON-RESIDENTIAL ENERGY
TRANSPORTATION
SOLID WASTE
WATER
WASTEWATER
MUNICIPAL
Emissions Sector
Electricity
Natural Cas
Ori -Road Vehicles
Off -Road Vehicles
BASELINE 2008
IIT CO2e % of total
179,781 36,996
88,320 18,196
M��= 1
141,124 29.096
7,500 1.5%
BUSINESS -AS -USUAL 2020
increase
IIT CO2e 2010-2020
BUSINESS -AS -USUAL 2030
% increase
MT CO2e 2010-2030
249,396
38.7%
307,408
71.096
122,520
38.7%
151,019 019
71.096
2121329
.%
.M
201{925
43.1%
264,077
87.196
10,404
38.7%
12,824
71.096
Total 456,625 100.0% 6791970 39.7% 892,a75 79.2%
Service population (population + employees) is expected to
increase by 39.7% from 2008 to 2020 and 75.2% from 2008
to 2030. This is what drives emissions growth.
1,00D,0D0
8OgOOO
z0g0o0
0
852,575
20D8 2020 2030
❑ ADJUSTED BUSINESS -AS -USUAL
❑ BUSINESS -AS -USUAL
State actions will reduce a considerable amount of local
greenhouse gases.
Pavl ey
Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Pavl ey 11
Renewable Portfolio Standard
SB 7x Water Reduction
Business -As -Usual
44,674
92,650
19,222
24,832
3,284
3,488
31,424 38,733
1,271 1,523
14.9% 19.1%
6.0
W
5.0
Ua
Z � 4.0
J
LL CL
LL p 3.0
CL
Ln
z W
0 � 2.0
ll} W
W
L 1.0
w �
N
U 0.0
Community Emission Efficiency Levels and 2020 Target
BASELINE
2020
BUSINESS -
AS -USUAL
2020 ADJUSTED
BUSINESS -AS -
USUAL
If all California communities achieved the city's 2020 target
efficiency level on a "fair -share" per service population
basis, then the State would achieve its AB 32's 2020 GHG
reduction goals,
• Measures based on existing city programs and
appropriate best management practices (BMPs)
• All measures are voluntary for the public
• CAP relies heavily on outreach to encourage:
• Building energy efficiency retrofits
• Renewable energy generation and solar PV installation
• Reduced single -occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips through
Transportation Demand Management measures
• Aim to
reduce
barriers to
participation
resulting
from a
lack of
information
or first cost
hurdles.
Energy Efficiency Retrofits
E-1.1
E-1.2
E-1.3
Building Systems Efficiency
E-2.1
E-2.2
E-2.3
E-2.4
Renewable Energy Generation
E-3.1
E-3.2
Subtotal
Transportation Strategy
T-1.1
T-1.2
T-1.3
T-1.4
T-1.5
Subtotal
Waste Diversion
SW -0.0
SW -1.1
Subtotal
Communitywide Subtotal
LEU* Energy Conservation Programs
7,474
13,919
Energy Efficiency Financing
175
262
Low -Income Weatherization
175
262
Energy Management Systems
1339
4,437
Commercial Building Commissioning
1,698
2,094
Building Shade Trees
34
56
Streetlight Upgrades
1,568
1,568
Solar Photovoltaic Systems
3,735
6,518
Solar Water Heaters
188
235
16,386
29,352
Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedules
3,080
4,134
Reduced Parking Minimum Requirements
527
240
Car sharing
85
109
Transit Improvements
13,717
18,571
Ridesharing
1,558
2,099
18,967
25,153
Methane Capture**
7,458
7,748
Organic Waste Diversion
1,671
5,511
9,129
13,260
44,481
67,765
-----------------------------
Population
___________________________.Population
Eery plawnrye nt
------service Population
--------------------
Mass GHG Emissions
(C#2e )
Change from Mass
Emission Baselines
Emissions Efficiency
(MT CO2e / Se rwice
------Population / Years -
Change from Baseline
Emissions Efficiency
BASELINE 1 BUSINESS- LOCAL
I AS -USUAL MEASURES
I I
I I I
I -63,3-62 I
--L----------------L--------------------------------•
24,E55
--L----------------L--------------------------------•
88x017
-- --------------- ---------------
I I I
479,911 671,8915 1527,414
I I I
I I I
0% i 40.0% i 30.7%
I I I
-----'
STATE &
FEDERAL
ACTIONS
83,074
--------------------
39,025
122,099
5-65,S50 I
5{65,850
I I
------------------
I I
I 17.9%
I I
'---------'
5.45 i 5.50 i 5.14 4.63
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
0% 1% 4% -15%
I I I I I
LOCAL MEASURES +
STATE & FEDERAL
ACTIONS
-----------------------
521,3158
-----------------------
8.6%
-----------------------
4.27
-22%
By 2020, implementation of the City's greenhouse gas
reduction measures is anticipated to achieve a community
efficiency level of 4,3 MT CO2e/ service population/ year,
surpassing the established target.
-!FIAIt 4. VIzULKAL
ACTI)N S
-------------------------
-------------------------
-------------------------
-------------------------
6 121271
-------------------------
27.6%
-------------------------
4.07
-------------------------
-2 5%
--------------------------
Implementation of the CAP measures will likely not achieve
the city's more ambitious 2030 target efficiency level of 3.0
MT CO2e/ service population/ year, Additional State and
local actions will be identified in subsequent CAP updates,
L;A.!FtLIN t AS -USUAL ; MEASURES ;
r 1U 11L
ACTIDN S
----------------------------�
P�Pu lat inn
----------------------------}----------------}------------------------------------------------------
313 2 99,500
EmPlawment
; 24ri55 ;
51,000
--------------------------------------------4
--------------------------------------------------------
Service Population
88 017 i150,500
------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------�-
Mass GFFG Em fissions
479,911 ; 952,575 ; 794,810 ;
680,036
Change from Mass
0% ; 77.7% ; 63.5% ;
41.7%
Emission Baseline
----------------------------f----------------
--------------------------------------------------�-
Em fissions Effide nod
[MT CO2e / 8e rwice
; 5.45 ; 5.61 ; 5.21 ;
4.52
Population /Years
----------------------------}----------------}----------------
----------------------------------�-
Change from Baseline
396 496 X96
-1796
Emissions Effide nod -----i-
----------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-!FIAIt 4. VIzULKAL
ACTI)N S
-------------------------
-------------------------
-------------------------
-------------------------
6 121271
-------------------------
27.6%
-------------------------
4.07
-------------------------
-2 5%
--------------------------
Implementation of the CAP measures will likely not achieve
the city's more ambitious 2030 target efficiency level of 3.0
MT CO2e/ service population/ year, Additional State and
local actions will be identified in subsequent CAP updates,
CAP Evaluation and Evolution
Ja
y
Questions?
- s- �. -dam � �• � -
f t'
4r,
+�, f�
Em
AECOM