HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - October 18, 2011 SSLODI CITY COUNCIL
SHIRTSLEEVE SESSION
CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2011
A. Roll Call by City Clerk
An Informal Informational Meeting ("Shirtsleeve" Session) of the Lodi City Council was held
Tuesday, October 18, 2011, commencing at 7:00 a.m.
Present: Council Member Hansen, Council Member Katzakian, Council Member Nakanishi,
Mayor Pro Tempore Mounce, and Mayor Johnson
Absent: None
Also Present: City Manager Bartlam, City Attorney Schwabauer, and City Clerk Johl
B. Topic(s)
B-1 Presentation on Climate Action Plans (CM)
City Manager Rad Bartlam provided an overview of climate action plans as set forth in the
Council Communication. Specific topics of discussion included federal and state laws including
SB 375 and AB 32, Proposition 23 and the intent of the voters, the requirement to adopt a climate
action plan based on the General Plan, grant funding from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development and Department of Transportation for the compact of cities, the makeup of the
San Joaquin Valley compact, and the overall need to adopt a climate action plan.
In response to Council Member Katzakian, Mr. Bartlam stated Turlock adopted a climate action
plan as a part of its General Plan adoption, whereas Lodi is adopting its climate action plan as an
implementing measure to the General Plan.
In response to Mayor Pro Tempore Mounce, Mr. Bartlam stated Tracy adopted a sustainability
project, which likely meets its requirement to adopt a climate action plan.
In response to Mayor Pro Tempore Mounce, Mr. Bartlam stated he is not sure about the specific
penalties associated with non-compliance as the plan is meant to be a goal document.
In response to Mayor Johnson, Mr. Bartlam stated staff did not look at other funding opportunities
for the project because based on the timing the compact of cities had come together and the
grant funding that was received was likely.
In response to Council Member Katzakian, Mr. Bartlam provided an overview of the General Plan,
the implementing measure of the climate action plan, and the areas to be studied.
In response to Council Member Katzakian, Mr. Bartlam stated the grant was for $200,000 and the
estimated cost of the study is $120,000, although proposals have not yet been received.
In response to Council Member Hansen, Mr. Bartlam stated the market of consultants doing this
type of work is growing based on increased regulations and a consultant will be used due to the
required expertise and lack of in-house staff with reductions.
In response to Mayor Johnson, Mr. Bartlam stated Roseville is not any different than anyone else
and it is a policy decision as to how regulatory the City should be. He stated he sees more of a
focus on internal practices in the City rather than going out to businesses.
Continued October 18, 2011
Discussion ensued amongst the City Council and Mr. Bartlam regarding the State's effort to
oversee and enforce the regulations, funding availability through grants versus the General Fund,
and the timing and implementation discretion associated with the adoption of the plan.
In response to Mayor Pro Tempore Mounce, Mr. Bartlam stated while the plan could sit on a shelf
after adoption the law requires both adoption and implementation although there is discretion in
the level of implementation.
In response to Council Member Hansen, Mr. Bartlam stated the study will take a year to
complete.
In response to Council Member Hansen, City Attorney Schwabauer provided a brief overview of
the fight between the City of Half Moon Bay and the State, which resulted in fines and the
building of a new sewage treatment plant.
Ed Miller stated he agreed with the general sentiment that the climate action plan does need to
be adopted because it is the law but implementation should be at a bare minimum because of
costs.
C. Comments by Public on Non-Aaenda Items
None.
D. Adjournment
No action was taken by the City Council. The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 a.m.
ATTEST:
Randi Johl
City Clerk
N
AGENDA ITEM
CITY OF LODI
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
TM
AGENDA TITLE: Presentation on Climate Action Plans
MEETING DATE: October 18, 2011
PREPARED BY: Community Development Department
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 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 twofold: to work together to locally define and implement a
regional plan for sustainable development for the San Joaquin Valley; and to pursue funding
such as the Sustainable Communities Planning Grant Program. Those funds were offered
through the Sustainable Communities Partnership, made up of the federal Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) and Transportation (DOT) departments, and the Environmental Protection
Agency.
The funds are 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. The Sustainable
Communities Planning Grant Program placed a priority on partnerships such as the Smart
Valley Places Compact, which was awarded $4 million in grants funds in October 2010.
Each of the 14 cities within the Smart Valley Places Compact identified up to three projects
each to fund in their communities through these grant funds. The cities of Lodi, Stockton and
Manteca all identified the development and implementation of a Climate Action Plan as one of
their projects.
The Lodi General Plan, adopted in April, 2010, provides a good overview of the state laws in
effect regarding climate change.
Executive Order S-3-05
Executive Order S-3-05, signed on June 1, 2005, recognized California's vulnerability to climate
change, noting that increasing temperatures could potentially reduce snow pack in the Sierra
Nevada, which is a primary source of the State's water supply. Additionally, according to this
Order, climate change could influence human health, coastal habitats, microclimates and
agricultural yield. The Order set the GHG reduction targets for California: by 2010, reduce GHG
emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020 reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; by 2050 reduce GHG
emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
APPROVED:
— K"onra Ma-rtlam, City Manager
Presentation on Climate Action Plans
October 18, 2011
Page 2
California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
Assembly Bill 32 outlines measures by which the State, its businesses and residents can reduce
heat -trapping emissions from a variety of sources, including mobile sources and stationary
sources such as power plants and refineries. In addition to setting a binding limit on greenhouse
gas emissions, AB 32 requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the State Energy
Resources Conservation and Development Commission, and the California Climate Action
Registry to jointly administer State policy specific to global warming issues. In addition, AB 32
requires CARB to institute a mandatory emissions reporting and tracking system to monitor
compliance with the emissions limit. To that end, CARB adopted a scoping plan in December
2008 to guide the development of detailed regulations in accordance with AB 32. This plan
includes local government targets to reduce emissions by 15 percent by 2020 over 2008 levels.
GHG rules and market mechanisms adopted by CARB will take effect and are legally
enforceable beginning in 2012. As a result, the plan seeks to limit GHG emissions to reduce
global warming pollution by 145 million tons by 2020, or to 25 percent below forecasted
emissions (reduced to 1990 levels by 2020).
Senate Bill 375
Senate Bill 375 links transportation and land -use planning with the California Environmental
Quality Act process to help achieve the GHG emission reduction targets set by AB 32. Regional
transportation planning agencies are required to include a sustainable community strategy
(SCS) in regional transportation plans. The SCS must contain a planned growth scenario that is
integrated with the transportation network and policies in such a way that it is feasible to achieve
AB 32 goals on a regional level. SB 375 also identifies new CEQA exemptions and streamlining
for projects that are consistent with the SCS and qualify as Transportation Priority Projects.
Based on these requirements, the General Plan contains several implementing actions
including:
Policy C -G10: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 15 percent below 2008 levels by 2020, to
slow the negative impacts of global climate change.
Policy C -P36: Prepare and adopt a comprehensive climate action plan (CAP) by 2012, with
implementation beginning in 2013. The CAP will be an additional policy document for the City of
Lodi, based on polices listed in Appendix A. The CAP should include the following
provisions:
• An inventory of citywide greenhouse gas emissions;
• Emissions targets that apply at reasonable intervals through the life of the CAP;
• Enforceable greenhouse gas emissions control measures;
• A monitoring and reporting program to ensure targets are met; and
• Mechanisms to allow for revision of the CAP, as necessary.
City staff submitted a question on a statewide listserve to learn how other cities were
approaching climate action plans, and their source of funding. As you see, responses vary, but
there is consistency throughout State that cities must provide for some type of plan that
implements the laws that have been passed. I would also add that the voters of the State
weighed in on this issue this past year with the defeat of Proposition 23, which would have
suspended the provisions of AB 32 until California's unemployment rate drops to 5.5 percent or
less for four consecutive quarters.
Presentation on Climate Action Plans
October 18, 2011
Page 3
■ Tracy: Developed a CAP with General Fund dollars.
■ Turlock: Not developing a CAP, but created a Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
chapter in the most recent General Plan update.
■ West Sacramento: Developing a CAP with General Fund dollars as part of a General
Plan update.
■ Delano: Planning a CAP as part of an energy grant from Southern California Edison.
Delano will hire a consultant to work with a contract planner on related sustainability
programs funded by the Smart Valley Places grant.
■ Roseville: Has developed a CAP, but it hasn't yet been adopted. The CAP, which would
be voluntary, was funded by an air district grant with a city match of staff time.
■ Emeryville: Adopted CAP in 2008.
■ Beverly Hills: Developing CAP as part of overall, nine -goal sustainability program. Study
funded by General Fund.
■ Murrietta: Adopted a CAP as part of General Plan adoption in July. The study was
funded in part by Energy Efficiency Community Block Grant and redevelopment monies.
■ Glendale: Completing CAP funded by EECBG. The study addresses seven topics of
sustainability.
■ Ross: Developed a CAP with General Fund dollars, partly using building permit fees.
Konra artlam
Community Development Director
KB/jw
Attachment: