Lompoc General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report Addendum

Transcription

1 Lompoc General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report Addendum State Clearinghouse No Prepared by: City of Lompoc Community Development Department Prepared with the assistance of: Rincon Consultants, Inc. July 2011

2 City of Lompoc General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report Addendum State Clearinghouse No Prepared by: City of Lompoc Community Development Department 100 Civic Center Plaza Lompoc, California Contact: Ms. Lucille Breese, AICP Prepared with the assistance of: Rincon Consultants, Inc Monterey Street, Suite D San Luis Obispo, California July 2011

3 This report produced on 50% recycled post-consumer content paper.

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 Introduction Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Global, National, and State Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories Effects of Climate Change Regulatory Setting Environmental Impact Assessment Thresholds of Significance Methodology Baseline GHG Emissions Inventory GHG Emissions Estimate GHG Emissions Forecast (General Plan Buildout Conditions) Impact Assessment Mitigation Measures and Mitigated Emissions Forecast Analysis of Changes to Land Use Element and Circulation Element Policies Aesthetics Impact AES Impact AES Air Quality Impact AQ Impact AQ Geology Impact GEO Land Use and Agriculture Impact LU Impact LU Noise Impact N Transportation and Circulation Impact TC Impact TC Impact TC References i

5 List of Tables Table 2-1 Maximum Potential New Development Through Table 2-2 Maximum Total Development by Table Existing Annual Operational/Area Source Emissions of Greenhouse Gases within City Limits Table Existing Annual Mobile Emissions of Greenhouse Gases within City Limits Table 2-5 Combined Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases: Existing Table 2-6 Existing Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Expansion Area C: Miguelito Canyon Area Table 2-7 Estimated 2030 Buildout Annual Operational/Area Source Emissions of Greenhouse Gases within City Limits Table 2-8 Estimated 2030 Buildout Annual Mobile Emissions of Greenhouse Gases within City Limits Table 2-9 Combined Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases: 2030 General Plan Buildout Table Estimated Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Expansion Area A: Bailey Avenue Specific Plan Area Table Estimated Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Expansion Area B: River Area Table Estimated Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Expansion Area C: Miguelito Canyon Area Table Estimated Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Expansion Area D: Wye Residential Area Table Estimated Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Cumulative Development Table 2-15 Greenhouse Gas Reductions from State Regulations Appendices Appendix A: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations ii

6 1.0 INTRODUCTION This document is an Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Lompoc General Plan Update (State Clearinghouse # ) that addresses phase 1 of an update to the Lompoc General Plan (hereinafter referred to as the 2030 General Plan ). Phase 1 of the General Plan Update consists of an update of the Land Use, Housing, and Circulation Elements. The existing (1997) General Plan consists of six additional elements, which will be updated in Phase 2 and will be reviewed under a separate CEQA document. These remaining elements of the General Plan typically contain policies and guidelines to implement goals of the Land Use, Circulation, and Housing Elements. A Final EIR was prepared for the 2030 General Plan in January 2010, and was subsequently certified by the Lompoc City Council on October 19, In accordance with Section of the State CEQA Guidelines, this Addendum to the Lompoc General Plan Update Final EIR is being prepared to address the 2030 General Plan because changes or additions to the EIR are necessary to update the greenhouse gas emissions analysis based on new information, and to address revised policy language in the Land Use Element and Circulation Element. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency is required to circulate additional environmental analysis following certification of the EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR that shows any of the following: a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. As used in this section, the term "information" can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. The proposed project is substantially similar to the 2030 General Plan as analyzed in the Final EIR. There would not be any new environmental impacts in addition to those identified in the Final EIR, nor would there be a substantial increase in the magnitude or severity of any impact identified in the Final EIR. This EIR Addendum does not require circulation because it does not provide significant new information that changes the original EIR in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a 1-1

7 feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect. Nevertheless, in the interest of full disclosure and public participation, the City of Lompoc is adhering to the review standards of a circulated document, and will distribute this Draft EIR Addendum for public review and comment. This EIR Addendum contains this Introduction and four sections from the Final EIR that have been supplemented or revised based on new information and/or the textual changes to policies in the Land Use Element and Circulation Element. These sections are as follows: Air Quality (Section 4.2 of the Final EIR), consisting of a revised greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions analysis. The revised GHG analysis contained in Section 2 of this Addendum is intended to replace the greenhouse gas emissions analysis in Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the Final EIR. In addition, Section 3 of this addendum includes revised analysis based on changes to various policies of the proposed Land Use Element and Circulation Element of the 2030 General Plan. Aesthetics (Section 4.1 of the Final EIR), consisting of revised analysis based on changes to various policies of the proposed Land Use Element of the 2030 General Plan. Geology (Section 4.5 of the Final EIR), consisting of revised analysis based on changes to various policies of the proposed Land Use Element of the 2030 General Plan. Land Use and Agriculture (Section 4.8 of the Final EIR), consisting of revised analysis based on changes to various policies of the proposed Land Use Element of the 2030 General Plan. Noise (Section 4.9 of the Final EIR), consisting of revised analysis based on changes to various policies of the proposed Circulation Element of the 2030 General Plan. Transportation and Circulation (Section 4.13 of the Final EIR), consisting of revised analysis based on changes to various policies of the proposed Circulation Element of the 2030 General Plan. References, consisting of additional references used in preparation of this Addendum that are intended to supplement Section 7.0, References and Report Preparers, of the Final EIR. The City of Lompoc shall consider the Addendum, comments received on the Addendum, and responses to those comments, with the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the 2030 General Plan. The Final EIR for the 2030 General Plan is available for review at the Planning Division of the City of Lompoc Community Development Department, 100 Civic Center Plaza, Lompoc, CA

8 2.0 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ANALYSIS This section provides a revised greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impact analysis that analyzes the impacts of the 2030 General Plan on climate change, and discusses the impacts of climate change on the City, based on updated information and methodology. As described in the Final EIR, the 2030 General Plan would include development of vacant and/or underutilized parcels throughout the City, multi-family residential units in the H Street Corridor Infill Area, as well as buildout of four potential annexation areas: the Bailey Avenue Specific Plan Area, the River Area, the Miguelito Canyon Area, and the Wye Residential Area. The total potential new development that would be permitted under buildout of each of these components of the 2030 General Plan is shown in Table 2-1. Notes: 1: Retail and office square footage based on approximate allocation of 34% office and 66% retail among vacant and entitled commercial uses. 2: Captured in vacant lands estimate. 3: Retail and office square footage based on assumed allocation of 10% office and 90% retail among future commercial uses. 4: Based on a residential mobile home park district with a maximum of seven spaces per gross acre. Table 2-2 shows the total buildout potential under the 2030 General Plan, including existing development and potential future development on vacant and underutilized lots (including both entitled and non-entitled projects), in the H Street Corridor infill area, and in all four annexation areas. 2-1

9 1: Retail and office square footage based on approximate allocation of 10% office and 90% retail among existing commercial uses. Climate change is a global impact, and emissions from individual projects, or even whole cities, are generally not sufficient to directly influence climate. Therefore, the study of greenhouse gas emissions under CEQA typically involves an analysis of whether a project s contribution towards an impact is cumulatively considerable. Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355). To place this impact in a global context, the following section provides a brief background discussion of climate change and potential impacts related to future air temperatures and precipitation patterns, including a discussion of current global, national, and statewide levels of greenhouse gas emissions. A discussion of International, Federal, State, and local regulations addressing greenhouse gas emissions is provided prior to the greenhouse gas emissions impact analysis for the 2030 General Plan. 2.1 Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth s atmosphere and oceans along with other substantial changes in climate (such as wind patterns, precipitation, and storms) over an extended period of time. The term climate change is often used interchangeably with the term global warming, but climate change is preferred to global warming because it helps convey that there are other changes in addition to rising temperatures. The baseline against which these changes are measured originates in historical records identifying temperature changes that have occurred in the past, such as during previous ice ages. The global climate is continuously changing, as evidenced by repeated episodes of substantial warming and cooling documented in the geologic record. The rate of change has typically been incremental, with warming or cooling trends occurring over the course of thousands of years. The past 10,000 years have been marked by a period of incremental warming, as glaciers have steadily retreated across the globe. However, scientists have observed acceleration in the rate of warming during the past 150 years. Per the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007), the understanding of 2-2

10 anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has led to a high confidence (90% or greater chance) that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming. The prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures, since the mid-20th century, is likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations (IPCC, 2007). Gases that absorb and re-emit infrared radiation in the atmosphere are called greenhouse gases (GHGs). GHGs are present in the atmosphere naturally, are released by natural sources, or are formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. The gases that are widely seen as the principal contributors to human-induced climate change include carbon dioxide (CO 2), methane (CH 4), nitrous oxides (N 2O), fluorinated gases such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6). Water vapor is excluded from the list of GHGs because it is short-lived in the atmosphere and its atmospheric concentrations are largely determined by natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation. GHGs are emitted by both natural processes and human activities. Of these gases, CO 2 and CH 4 are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Emissions of CO 2 are largely byproducts of fossil fuel combustion, whereas CH4 results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Man-made GHGs, many of which have greater heatabsorption potential than CO 2, include fluorinated gases and sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6) (California Environmental Protection Agency [CalEPA], 2006). Different types of GHGs have varying global warming potentials (GWPs). The GWP of a GHG is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere over a specified timescale (generally, 100 years). Because GHGs absorb different amounts of heat, a common reference gas (CO 2) is used to relate the amount of heat absorbed to the amount of the gas emissions, referred to as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2E), and is the amount of a GHG emitted multiplied by its GWP. Carbon dioxide has a GWP of one. By contrast, methane (CH 4) has a GWP of 21, meaning its global warming effect is 21 times greater than carbon dioxide on a molecule per molecule basis (IPCC, 1997). The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates the earth s temperature. Without the natural heat trapping effect of GHG, Earth s surface would be about 34 C cooler (CalEPA, 2006). However, it is believed that emissions from human activities, particularly the consumption of fossil fuels for electricity production and transportation, have elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere beyond the level of naturally occurring concentrations. 2.2 Global, National, and State Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories Worldwide anthropogenic emissions of GHG were approximately 40,000 million metric tons (MMT) CO 2E in 2004, including ongoing emissions from industrial and agricultural sources, but excluding emissions from land use changes (i.e., deforestation, biomass decay) (IPCC, 2007). CO 2 emissions from fossil fuel use accounts for 56.6% of the total emissions of 49,000 million 2-3

11 metric tons CO 2E (includes land use changes) and all CO 2 emissions are 76.7% of the total. Methane emissions account for 14.3% of GHG and N 2O emissions account for 7.9% (IPCC, 2007). Total U.S. GHG emissions were 6,633.2 million metric tons CO 2E in 2009 (USEPA, April 2011). While total U.S. emissions have increased by 7.3% from 1990 to 2009, emissions decreased from 2008 to 2009 by million metric tons CO 2E, or 6.1% (DOE EIA, Table 12.1, August 2010). This decrease was primarily due to (1) a decrease in economic output resulting in a decrease in energy consumption across all sectors; and (2) a decrease in the carbon intensity of fuels used to generate electricity due to fuel switching as the price of coal increased, and the price of natural gas decreased substantially. Since 1990, U.S. emissions have increased at an average annual rate of 0.4%. The transportation and industrial end-use sectors accounted for 33% and 26%, respectively, of CO 2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion in Meanwhile, the residential and commercial end-use sectors accounted for 22% and 19%, respectively, of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion in 2009 (USEPA, 2011). Based upon the California Air Resources Board (ARB) California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for ( California produced 478 MMT CO 2E in The major source of GHG in California is transportation, contributing 37% of the state s total GHG emissions. Electricity generation is the second largest source, contributing 24% of the state s GHG emissions (California Energy Commission [CEC], June 2010). California s emissions are due in part to its large size and large population compared to other states. By contrast, California had the fourth lowest CO 2 emissions per capita from fossil fuel combustion in the country in 2004, due in part to the success of its energy-efficiency and renewable energy programs and commitments that have lowered the state s GHG emissions rate of growth by more than half of what it would have been otherwise (CEC, 2006). Another factor that reduces California s per capita fuel use and GHG emissions, as compared to other states, is its relatively mild climate. ARB has projected statewide unregulated GHG emissions for the year 2020, which represent the emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of any GHG reduction actions, will be 596 MMT CO 2E (ARB, 2007). 2.3 Effects of Climate Change Globally, climate change has the potential to affect numerous environmental resources through potential impacts related to future air temperatures and precipitation patterns. Scientific modeling predicts that continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would induce more extreme climate changes during the 21 st century than were observed during the 20 th century. Scientists have projected that the average global surface temperature could rise by F ( C) in the next 50 years, and the increase may be as high as F ( C) in the next century. In addition to these projections, there are identifiable signs that global warming is currently taking place, including substantial ice loss in the Arctic (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2007). 2-4

12 According to the California Energy Commission s (CEC) Draft Climate Action Team Biennial Report, potential impacts of climate change in California may include loss in snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years (CEC, March 2009). Below is a summary of some of the potential effects that could be experienced in California as a result of climate change. Sea Level Rise. According to The Impacts of Sea-Level Rise on the California Coast, prepared by the California Climate Change Center (CCCC) (May 2009), climate change has the potential to induce substantial sea level rise in the coming century. The rising sea level increases the likelihood and risk of flooding. The study identifies a sea level rise on the California coast over the past century of approximately eight inches. Based on the results of various global climate change models, sea level rise is expected to continue. The California Climate Adaptation Strategy (December 2009) estimates a sea level rise of up to 55 inches by the end of this century. Air Quality. Higher temperatures, which are conducive to air pollution formation, could worsen air quality in California. Climate change may increase the concentration of ground-level ozone, but the magnitude of the effect, and therefore its indirect effects, are uncertain. If higher temperatures are accompanied by drier conditions, the potential for large wildfires could increase, which, in turn, would further worsen air quality. However, if higher temperatures are accompanied by wetter, rather than drier conditions, the rains would tend to temporarily clear the air of particulate pollution and reduce the incidence of large wildfires, thereby ameliorating the pollution associated with wildfires. Additionally, severe heat accompanied by drier conditions and poor air quality could increase the number of heat-related deaths, illnesses, and asthma attacks throughout the state (CEC, March 2009). Water Supply. Analysis of paleoclimatic data (such as tree-ring reconstructions of stream flow and precipitation) indicates a history of naturally and widely varying hydrologic conditions in California and the west, including a pattern of recurring and extended droughts. Uncertainty remains with respect to the overall impact of climate change on future water supplies in California. However, the average early spring snowpack in the Sierra Nevada decreased by about 10 percent during the last century, a loss of 1.5 million acre-feet of snowpack storage. During the same period, sea level rose eight inches along California s coast. California s temperature has risen 1 F, with higher elevations experiencing the highest increase. Many Southern California cities have experienced their lowest recorded annual precipitation twice within the past decade. In a span of only two years, Los Angeles experienced both its driest and wettest years on record (California Department of Water Resources [DWR], 2008; CCCC, May 2009). This uncertainty complicates the analysis of future water demand, especially where the relationship between climate change and its potential effect on water demand is not well understood. The Sierra snowpack provides the majority of California's water supply by accumulating snow during wet winters and releasing it slowly during dry springs and summers. 2-5

13 Based upon historical data and modeling, DWR projects that the Sierra snowpack will experience a 25 to 40 percent reduction from its historic average by Climate change is also anticipated to bring warmer storms that result in less snowfall at lower elevations, reducing the total snowpack (DWR, 2008). Hydrology. As discussed above, climate change could potentially affect: the amount of snowfall, rainfall, and snow pack; the intensity and frequency of storms; flood hydrographs (flash floods, rain or snow events, coincidental high tide and high runoff events); sea level rise and coastal flooding; coastal erosion; and the potential for salt water intrusion. Sea level rise may be a product of climate change through two main processes: expansion of sea water as the oceans warm and melting of ice over land. A rise in sea levels could result in coastal flooding and erosion and could jeopardize California s water supply due to salt water intrusion. Increased storm intensity and frequency could affect the ability of flood-control facilities, including levees, to handle storm events. Agriculture. California has a $30 billion agricultural industry that produces half of the country s fruits and vegetables. Higher CO 2 levels can stimulate plant production and increase plant water-use efficiency. However, if temperatures rise and drier conditions prevail, water demand could increase; crop-yield could be threatened by a less reliable water supply; and greater air pollution could render plants more susceptible to pest and disease outbreaks. In addition, temperature increases could change the time of year certain crops, such as wine grapes, bloom or ripen, and thereby affect their quality (CCCC, 2006). Ecosystems and Wildlife. Climate change and the potential resulting changes in weather patterns could have ecological effects on a global and local scale. Increasing concentrations of GHGs are likely to accelerate the rate of climate change. Scientists project that the average global surface temperature could rise by F ( C) in the next 50 years, and F ( C) in the next century, with substantial regional variation. Soil moisture is likely to decline in many regions, and intense rainstorms are likely to become more frequent. Rising temperatures could have four major impacts on plants and animals: (1) timing of ecological events; (2) geographic range; (3) species composition within communities; and (4) ecosystem processes, such as carbon cycling and storage (Parmesan, 2004; Parmesan, C. and H. Galbraith, 2004). 2.4 Regulatory Setting International and Federal Regulations. The United States is, and has been, a participant in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) since it was produced by the United Nations in The objective of the treaty is stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. This is generally understood to be achieved by stabilizing global greenhouse gas concentrations between 350 and 400 ppm, in 2-6

14 order to limit the global average temperature increases between 2 and 2.4 C above preindustrial levels (IPCC 2007). The UNFCC itself does not set limits on greenhouse gas emissions for individual countries or enforcement mechanisms. Instead, the treaty provides for updates, called protocols, that would identify mandatory emissions limits. Five years later, the UNFCC brought nations together again to draft the Kyoto Protocol (1997). The Protocol established commitments for industrialized nations to reduce their collective emissions of six greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons) to 5.2% below 1990 levels by The United States is a signatory of the Protocol, but Congress has not ratified it and the United States has not bound itself to the Protocol s commitments (UNFCCC, 2007). The United States is currently using a voluntary and incentive-based approach toward emissions reductions in lieu of the Kyoto Protocol s mandatory framework. The Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP) is a multi-agency research and development coordination effort (led by the Secretaries of Energy and Commerce) that is charged with carrying out the President s National Climate Change Technology Initiative (USEPA, December 2007). However, recent court cases and federal policies indicate that federal efforts to address climate change and greenhouse gas emissions are required. The U.S. Supreme Court in Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. ([2007] 549 U.S ) held that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to regulate motor-vehicle GHG emissions under the federal Clean Air Act. EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are taking coordinated steps to enable the production of a new generation of clean vehicles with reduced GHG emissions and improved fuel efficiency from onroad vehicles and engines. This will be done through coordination of the GHG emission limits and the NHTSA Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. On May 7, 2010, the final combined EPA and NHTSA standards that comprise the first phase of this national program were promulgated regarding passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through The CAFE standards require these vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of carbon dioxide per mile, equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon (mpg) if the automobile industry were to meet this carbon dioxide level solely through fuel economy improvements. New emission limits and CAFE standards for light-duty vehicles for the model years are currently under development. In October 2010, the agencies each proposed complementary GHG and CAFE standards under their respective authorities covering medium and heavy-duty trucks for the model years The EPA in May 2010 finalized the GHG Tailoring Rule that specifies that beginning in 2011, projects that will increase GHG emissions substantially will require an air permit. Typical facilities that would be covered under this rule include power plants, industrial boilers, and oil refineries, which as a group are responsible for 70 percent of the GHGs from stationary 2-7

15 sources. The applicability criteria to determine which sources are subject to permitting are being tailored to apply to GHGs. New sources as well as existing sources not already subject to Title V that emit, or have the potential to emit, at least 100,000 tons per year (tpy) CO 2E will become subject to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V requirements. In addition, sources that emit or have the potential to emit at least 100,000 tpy CO 2E and that undertake a modification that increases net emissions of GHGs by at least 75,000 tpy CO 2E will also be subject to PSD requirements. California Regulations. Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 (2002), referred to as Pavley, requires ARB to develop and adopt regulations to achieve the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of GHG emissions from motor vehicles. On June 30, 2009, EPA granted the waiver of Clean Air Act preemption to California for its greenhouse gas emission standards for motor vehicles beginning with the 2009 model year. Pavley I took effect for model years starting in 2009 to 2016 and Pavley II, which is now referred to as LEV (Low Emission Vehicle) III GHG will cover 2017 to Fleet average emission standards are required to reach 22% reduction by 2012 and 30% by In 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-3-05, establishing statewide GHG emissions reduction targets. Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 provides that by 2010, emissions shall be reduced to 2000 levels; by 2020, emissions shall be reduced to 1990 levels; and by 2050, emissions shall be reduced to 80% of 1990 levels (CalEPA, 2006). In response to EO S-3-05, CalEPA created the Climate Action Team (CAT), which in March 2006 published the Climate Action Team Report (the 2006 CAT Report ) (CalEPA, 2006). The 2006 CAT Report identified a recommended list of strategies that the state could pursue to reduce GHG emissions. These are strategies that could be implemented by various state agencies to ensure that the emission reduction targets in EO S-3-05 are met and can be met with existing authority of the state agencies. The strategies include the reduction of passenger and light duty truck emissions, the reduction of idling times for diesel trucks, an overhaul of shipping technology/infrastructure, increased use of alternative fuels, increased recycling, and landfill methane capture, etc. California s major initiative for reducing GHG emissions is outlined in Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, signed into law in AB 32 codifies the statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (essentially a 15% reduction below 2005 emission levels; the same requirement as under S-3-05), and requires ARB to prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the main State strategies for reducing GHGs to meet the 2020 deadline. In addition, AB 32 requires ARB to adopt regulations to require reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. After completing a comprehensive review and update process, the ARB approved a 1990 statewide GHG level and 2020 limit of 427 MMT CO 2E. The Scoping Plan was approved by ARB on December 11, 2008, and includes measures to address GHG emission reduction strategies related to energy efficiency, water use, and recycling and solid waste, among other measures. 2-8

16 The Scoping Plan includes a range of GHG reduction actions that may include direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, and market-based mechanisms. Executive Order S was enacted on January 18, The order mandates that a Low Carbon Fuel Standard ( LCFS ) for transportation fuels be established for California to reduce the carbon intensity of California s transportation fuels by at least 10% by Senate Bill (SB) 97, signed in August 2007, acknowledges that climate change is an environmental issue that requires analysis in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents. In March 2010, the California Resources Agency (Resources Agency) adopted amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions. The adopted guidelines give lead agencies the discretion to set quantitative or qualitative thresholds for the assessment and mitigation of GHGs and climate change impacts. Senate Bill (SB) 375, signed in August 2008, enhances the State s ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing ARB to develop regional greenhouse gas emission reduction targets to be achieved from vehicles for 2020 and SB 375 directs each of the state s 18 major Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) to prepare a sustainable communities strategy (SCS) that contains a growth strategy to meet these emission targets for inclusion in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). On September 23, 2010 ARB adopted final regional targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 and The Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) 2020 and 2030 targets are each zero (no increase or decrease from the 2005 base year). ARB Resolution establishes 25,000 metric tons of GHG emissions as the threshold for identifying the largest stationary emission sources in California for purposes of requiring the annual reporting of emissions. This threshold is just over 0.005% of California s total inventory of GHG emissions for In April 2011, Governor Brown signed SB 2X requiring California to generate 33% of its electricity from renewable energy by For more information on the Senate and Assembly bills, Executive Orders, and reports discussed above, and to view reports and research referenced above, please refer to the following websites: and Local Regulations and CEQA Requirements. Neither the City of Lompoc, nor the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD) have adopted any plan, policies, or regulations for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions that would apply to the 2030 General Plan. Pursuant to the requirements of SB 97, the Resources Agency has adopted amendments 2-9

17 to the State CEQA Guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions. The adopted CEQA Guidelines provide general regulatory guidance on the analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions in CEQA documents, but contain no suggested thresholds of significance for GHG emissions. Instead, they give lead agencies the discretion to set quantitative or qualitative thresholds for the assessment and mitigation of GHGs and climate change impacts. To date, SBCAPCD hasn t adopted quantitative significance thresholds for GHGs, but the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and the San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) have adopted such thresholds, which can be used as guidelines for evaluating GHG impacts in Lompoc. 2.5 Environmental Impact Assessment Thresholds of Significance Pursuant to the requirements of SB 97, the Resources Agency adopted amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines in March These guidelines are used in evaluating the cumulative significance of GHG emissions from the proposed project. According to the adopted CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to GHG emissions from the proposed project would be significant if the project would: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; and/or Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The vast majority of individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to create a project-specific impact through a direct influence to climate change; therefore, the issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project s contribution towards an impact is cumulatively considerable. Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355). For future projects, the significance of GHG emissions may be evaluated based on locally adopted quantitative thresholds, or consistency with a regional GHG reduction plan (such as a Climate Action Plan). However, because neither SBCAPCD nor the City of Lompoc has adopted GHG emissions thresholds, and no GHG emissions reduction plan with established GHG emissions reduction strategies has yet been adopted, the 2030 General Plan is evaluated based on its consistency with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District s (BAAQMD) quantitative GHG emissions thresholds (May 2010). The BAAQMD developed a suite of thresholds that can 2-10

18 be applied to demonstrate local consistency with the statewide emissions reduction goal established in AB 32. Among these, the BAAQMD has established an efficiency threshold of 6.6 metric tons CO 2E/year per service population, defined as residents plus employees. This threshold represents the statewide level of per-service-population emissions that would achieve the AB 32 emissions reduction target. The BAAQMD efficiency threshold is specifically intended for use in evaluating the significance of GHG emissions from General Plans, and is intended to avoid penalizing large projects that incorporate emissions-reducing features and/or that are located in a manner that results in relatively low average vehicle miles traveled. This threshold does not take into account State and Federal regulations, programs, and policies that are expected to reduce GHG emissions throughout the State, such as Assembly Bill 1493 (Pavley), the Renewable Portfolio Standard, and other energy-efficiency and transportation emissions reduction measures. As discussed in Section 2.4, AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020, and establishes regulatory, reporting, voluntary, and market mechanisms to achieve quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions to meet the statewide goal. The 6.6 metric tons CO 2E/year per service population efficiency threshold represents the maximum quantity of emissions each resident and employee in the State of California could emit in 2020 based on emission levels required to be met to achieve the statewide AB 32 GHG emission reduction goal. The efficiency threshold is calculated by dividing the AB 32 targeted emissions level (426.6 million metric tons of CO 2E by 2020) by the projected 2020 statewide service population of 64,330,584 residents and employees. This approach is appropriate because the threshold can be applied evenly to a wide variety of project types and to larger programmatic projects such as General Plans which are comprised of many land use types. In addition to analyzing the potential impacts of the 2030 General Plan on climate change, CEQA also requires an assessment of significant impacts that a project might cause by bringing development and people into an area affected by climate change (CEQA Guidelines ), For example, an area that experiences higher average temperatures due to climate change may expose new development to more frequent exceedances and higher levels of ozone concentrations. Therefore, reasonably anticipated impacts of climate change on the City of Lompoc are also discussed. A significant impact would result if additional population accommodated by the 2030 General Plan would be at a higher risk from the effects of climate change relative to other portions of the State or Country Methodology Study Methodology. Calculations of CO 2, CH 4, and N 2O emissions are provided to identify the magnitude of potential effects of General Plan implementation. The analysis focuses on CO 2, CH 4 and N 2O because these emissions comprise 98.9% of all GHG emissions by volume (IPCC, 2007) and are the GHG emissions that future development in accordance with the General Plan would emit in the largest quantities. Emissions of all GHGs were converted into 2-11

19 their equivalent weight in CO 2 (CO 2E). Minimal amounts of other main GHGs (such as chlorofluorocarbons [CFCs]) would be emitted, and these other GHG emissions would not substantially add to the calculated CO 2E amounts. Calculations are based on the methodologies discussed in the CAPCOA CEQA and Climate Change white paper (January 2008) and included the use of the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) General Reporting Protocol (January 2009). On-Site Operational/Area Source Emissions. Operational emissions of CO 2 associated with natural gas use, space heating, and architectural coatings were quantified using the URBEMIS 2007 (version 9.2.4) software model. CO 2 emissions associated with electricity generation, as well as N 2O and CH 4 emissions, were quantified using the CCAR General Reporting Protocol (January 2009) indirect emissions factors for electricity use (see Appendix A for calculations). The calculations and emission factors contained in the General Reporting Protocol have been selected based on technical advice provided to the CCAR by the California Energy Commission. This methodology is considered reasonable and reliable for use, as it has been subjected to peer review by numerous public and private stakeholders, and in particular by the California Energy Commission, and is recommended by CAPCOA (January 2008). Mobile Emissions. Emissions of CO 2 from transportation sources were quantified using the URBEMIS 2007 computer model based on annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). N 2O and CH 4 emissions were quantified using the CCAR General Reporting Protocol (January 2009) direct emissions factors for mobile combustion (see Appendix A for calculations). Trip rates were obtained from level of service calculation worksheets contained in Appendix H to the 2030 General Plan Final EIR (Fehr & Peers, September 2009). Trip lengths were based on default URBEMIS values for the South Central Coast Air Basin (SCCAB), which includes all of Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and Ventura Counties. Trips generated from development in each of the annexation areas were assumed to travel similar distances to destinations when compared to average trips within the existing City Limits. Although the contemplated annexation areas are located on the urban fringe of the City, which would generally result in longer trip lengths to the center of town compared to average existing trips generated in the City, the annexation areas are generally located closer to commute destinations outside of town, which would generally result in shorter average trip lengths. In addition, as described in Section 4.10, Population and Housing, the jobs-housing balance within the City would be within the acceptable range identified by SBCAG with planned development within City limits, in potential annexation areas, and cumulatively. Total annual mileage was calculated in URBEMIS. Emission rates were based on the vehicle mix output generated by URBEMIS, and the emission factors found in the CCAR General Reporting Protocol. It should be noted that one of the limitations to a quantitative analysis is that emission models, such as URBEMIS, evaluate aggregate emissions and do not demonstrate, with respect to a global impact, what proportion of these emissions are new emissions, specifically attributable to the proposed project. For most projects, the main contribution of GHG emissions is from 2-12

20 motor vehicles and the total VMT, but the quantity of these emissions appropriately characterized as new is uncertain. Traffic associated with a project may be relocated trips from other locales, and consequently, may result in either higher or lower net VMT. In this instance, it is likely that some of the GHG emissions associated with traffic and energy demand from future development in accordance with the General Plan would be truly new emissions. However, it is also likely that some of the emissions represent diversion of emissions from other locations. Thus, although GHG emissions are associated with the project, it is not possible to discern how much vehicle trip and energy demand diversion would occur or what fraction of those emissions represents global increases. In the absence of information regarding the different types of trips, the VMT estimate generated by URBEMIS is used as a reasonable worstcase estimate. Construction Emissions. Emissions of CO 2 from construction were quantified using the URBEMIS 2007 computer model. The URBEMIS model does not calculate N 2O or CH 4 emissions from construction sources. Therefore, because CO 2 makes up the majority of GHG emissions, it is considered to be an acceptable metric for total construction emissions. Construction emissions are short-term, one-time emissions. However, climate change is a long-term impact based on worldwide concentrations of GHGs. In order to more accurately account for this, construction emissions are amortized over the 20-year planning horizon of the General Plan by dividing them by 20 and adding the result to the annual operational/area source phase emissions Baseline GHG Emissions Inventory A baseline inventory of GHG emissions associated with the City s existing land uses within the City s jurisdictional boundary is provided below. In addition, this inventory includes separate GHG emissions inventories for each of the potential annexation areas. This analysis is based on the date of release of the EIR Notice of Preparation (NOP), which occurred in Existing development by land use type in 2008 is shown in Table 2-2. For specific emissions calculations, refer to Appendix A. Operational/Area Source Emissions. This category includes emissions from consumption of electricity and natural gas as part of building operation and heating/cooling. Existing electricity consumption within the City s jurisdictional boundary is estimated at 150,266 megawatt-hours [MWh]/year] based on energy demand factors for average electricity usage per square foot for each land use type, including the CAPCOA CEQA and Climate Change white paper (January 2008) for residential land uses, the Energy Information Administration 2003 Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) Detailed Tables (2008) for commercial land uses, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook (November 1993) for industrial land uses (refer to Appendix A). 2-13

21 The generation of electricity used in the City s jurisdictional boundary occurs at off-site power plants, much of which is generated by the combustion of fossil fuels that yields substantial amounts of CO 2, and to a smaller extent N 2O and CH 4. GHG emissions from the generation of electricity were calculated using emissions factors based on GHG emissions per kilowatt hour [kwh] of energy used from the CCAR General Reporting Protocol. Table 2-3 shows the operational/area source emissions of GHGs associated with existing development in the City. In addition to electricity use, CO 2 emissions shown in Table 2-3 include operational/area sources such as natural gas used for space heating, calculated in the URBEMIS model. 1: URBEMIS 2007 (version 9.2.4); see Appendix A for calculations. Includes energy from electrical usage and area source emissions from natural gas and heating. 2: California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol, Reporting Entity- Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Version 3.1, January 2009, page Emissions from Mobile Combustion. Mobile source GHG emissions were estimated using the total annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) generated by vehicle trips in the City, as estimated by the URBEMIS 2007 model using trip generation factors from the Lompoc General Plan Transportation Model Development memorandum (Fehr & Peers, September 2009) for each land use category. Trip lengths were calculated using local default values for the SBCAPCD; however, rural trip lengths were modeled for home-based work trips to more accurately account for commuters who live in Lompoc and work outside of the City. The URBEMIS model estimates that annual VMT within the City s jurisdictional boundary is approximately 595,972,711 VMT/year. Table 2.4 depicts the estimated mobile emissions of GHGs based on this VMT. 2-14

22 1: Mobile Emissions from URBEMIS 2007 (version 9.2.4). 2: California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol, Reporting Entity- Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Version 3.1, January 2009, page Emissions from Solid Waste. GHG emissions from solid waste were estimated based on the City s jurisdiction waste stream profile from the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) using methane coefficients from the Clean Air and Climate Protection 2009 software, developed by Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI). Total residential and business waste produced in the City s jurisdictional boundary is approximately 25,933 tons, resulting in 30,204 metric tons CO 2E. This total equates to approximately 0.4 metric tons CO 2E per resident (based on residential waste) and 1.0 metric tons CO 2E per employee (based on business waste). Combined Operational/Area Source, Mobile Source, and Solid Waste Emissions. Table 2-5 combines the operational/area source, mobile source, and solid waste GHG emissions associated with existing development in the City s jurisdictional boundary, which would total approximately 373,271 metric tons per year CO 2E. This emissions inventory indicates that the majority of the City s existing GHG emissions are associated with vehicular travel (68%). Sources: URBEMIS 2007 (version 9.2.4); California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol, Reporting Entity-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Version 3.1, January

23 The City s 2008 population was 42,957 (State Department of Finance, 2008). Citywide employment under existing conditions is estimated at 14,462, based on a weighted annual average of 2005 employment and predicted 2010 employment from the SBCAG 2007 Regional Growth Forecast (August 2008). Therefore, the existing service population (sum of population and employees) in 2008 was approximately 57,419. Based on this service population, the total annual GHG emissions generated within the City s jurisdictional boundary equates to approximately 6.5 metric tons CO 2E per service population. Expansion Area A: Bailey Avenue Specific Plan Area. The Bailey Avenue Specific Plan expansion area is an approximately 270 acre undeveloped site located on the western boundary of the City along Bailey Avenue. The site is currently composed of agricultural fields, but does not support substantial rangeland for cattle, dairy production, or other intensive agricultural operations that produce substantial GHG emissions. Based on the methodologies described above, the existing land uses on the Bailey Avenue Specific Plan area would have negligible GHG emissions. Expansion Area B: River Area. The River expansion area is approximately 484 acres located east of the eastern boundary of the City, bisected by the Santa Ynez River. Existing uses in this area include open space and the 45-acre River Park, which is a linear park developed along the Santa Ynez River which includes a recreational vehicle (RV) campground with 35 campsites. Based on the methodologies described above, the existing land uses on the River area would have negligible GHG emissions. Expansion Area C: Miguelito Canyon Area. The Miguelito Canyon expansion area is approximately 587 acres located along the southern boundary of the City, of which approximately 165 acres would be included in the proposed Urban Limit Line. Existing development in this area is limited to approximately 36 scattered rural residences. Table 2-6 shows operational/area source, mobile source, and solid waste GHG emissions associated with existing development within the Miguelito Canyon expansion area, which would total approximately 708 metric tons per year CO 2E. For calculations, see Appendix A. Sources: URBEMIS 2007 (version 9.2.4); California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol, Reporting Entity-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions, June 2008, page

24 Expansion Area D: Wye Residential Area. The Wye Residential expansion area is approximately 10 acres (within the urban limit line) located along the northern boundary of the City, at the intersection of Lompoc-Casmalia Road/Highway 1, H Street/Highway 1 and Purisima Road. The area is currently undeveloped. Based on the methodologies described above, the existing land uses on the Wye Residential area would have negligible GHG emissions GHG Emissions Estimate The current methodology for estimating 1990 GHG emissions levels, called back-casting, calculates 1990 emissions levels based on existing GHG emissions levels and adjusts them for 1990 population and job statistics. Back-casting is an indefinite science; it does not take into account changes in energy generation efficiency, consumer behavior, or vehicle efficiency, and it relies heavily upon finding reliable data from Back-casting for this analysis relies on current and historical population and employment data from the State of California Department of Finance and the U.S. Census Bureau. In 1990, the City s population was 37,100 residents (Department of Finance, 1990), and there were 17,490 persons in the labor force (U.S. Census Bureau, 1990), for a service population of 54,590. This service population is 4.9 percent lower than the City s 2008 service population of 57,419. Based on the methodologies described above, the 1990 GHG emissions generated by the service population within the City s jurisdictional boundary would have been 4.9 percent lower than existing levels, or approximately 354,880 metric tons per year CO 2E. Based on these emissions, the City s 1990 GHG emissions per service population would be 6.5 metric tons CO 2E. Expansion Area A: Bailey Avenue Specific Plan Area. Based on aerial imagery from 1994, the Bailey Avenue Specific Plan expansion area has historically been composed of agricultural fields, but did not support substantial rangeland for cattle, dairy production, or other intensive agricultural operations that produce substantial GHG emissions, which is identical to existing conditions. Based on the methodologies described above, the 1990 land uses on the Bailey Avenue Specific Plan area would have negligible GHG emissions. Expansion Area B: River Area. In 1994, the earliest year for which aerial imagery is available, the River expansion area included open space and the 45-acre River Park, which is a linear park developed along the Santa Ynez River which includes a recreational vehicle (RV) campground with 35 campsites that was originally purchased by the City from private property owners in The on-site land uses are thought to have been generally similar in Based on the methodologies described above, the 1990 land uses on the River area would have negligible GHG emissions. Expansion Area C: Miguelito Canyon Area. In 1994, the earliest year for which aerial imagery is available, the Miguelito Canyon expansion area included approximately 32 scattered rural 2-17

25 residences, which is four fewer than existing conditions in the area. The on-site land uses are thought to have been generally similar in This represents an 11.1 percent reduction in the intensity of area development, as compared to the existing 36 rural residences. Based on the methodologies described above, the 1990 GHG emissions from the Miguelito Canyon area would have been 11.1 percent lower than existing levels, or approximately 521 metric tons per year CO 2E. Expansion Area D: Wye Residential Area. In 1994, the earliest year for which aerial imagery is available, the Wye Residential expansion area was undeveloped, which is identical to existing conditions. Based on the methodologies described above, the 1990 land uses on the Wye Residential area would not have measurable GHG emissions GHG Emissions Forecast (General Plan Buildout Conditions) A business-as-usual forecast of GHG emissions associated with maximum development potential (buildout) of the 2030 General Plan land use scenario, which is the City s General Plan horizon, absent any new policies or actions that would reduce emissions, is provided below. In addition, this inventory includes separate GHG forecasts for each of the potential annexation areas. The total potential new development that would be permitted under buildout of the 2030 General Plan is shown above in Table 2-1. Inventories of projected GHG emissions associated with buildout of the 2030 General Plan are provided below. For specific emissions calculations, refer to Appendix A. On-Site Operational/Area Source Emissions. This category includes emissions from consumption of electricity and natural gas as part of building operation and heating/cooling. Future development in accordance with the 2030 General Plan would increase electricity consumption within the City s jurisdictional boundary by an estimated 36,796 MWh/year based on energy demand factors from the CAPCOA CEQA and Climate Change white paper (January 2008) (refer to Appendix A). The generation of electricity used in the City s jurisdictional boundary occurs at off-site power plants, much of which is generated by the combustion of fossil fuels that yields substantial amounts of CO 2, and to a smaller extent N 2O and CH 4. GHG emissions from the generation of electricity were calculated using emissions factors from the CCAR General Reporting Protocol. Table 2-7 shows the increase in operational/area source emissions of GHGs associated with buildout of the 2030 General Plan within the exiting City Limits, including the H Street Corridor Infill area. In addition to electricity use, CO 2 emissions shown in Table 2-7 include operational/area sources such as natural gas used for space heating, calculated in the URBEMIS model. In general, residential uses account for approximately half of these emissions, with the balance being made up by commercial and industrial uses combined. 2-18

26 1: URBEMIS 2007 (version 9.2.4); see Appendix A for calculations. Includes energy from electrical usage and area source emissions from natural gas and heating. 2: California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol, Reporting Entity- Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Version 3.1, January 2009, page Emissions from Mobile Combustion. Mobile source GHG emissions were estimated using the total annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) generated by vehicle trips in the City, as estimated by the URBEMIS 2007 model using trip generation factors from the Lompoc General Plan Transportation Model Development memorandum (Fehr & Peers, September 2009) for each land use category. Trip lengths were calculated using local default values for the SBCAPCD; however, rural trip lengths were modeled for home-based work trips to more accurately account for commuters who live in Lompoc and work outside of the City. The URBEMIS model estimates that buildout of the 2030 General Plan would increase annual VMT within the City s jurisdictional boundary by approximately 101,299,184 VMT/year. Table 2-8 depicts the estimated increase in annual mobile emissions of GHGs based on this VMT. 1: Mobile Emissions from URBEMIS 2007 (version 9.2.4). 2: California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol, Reporting Entity- Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Version 3.1, January 2009, page

27 Emissions from Solid Waste GHG emissions from solid waste were estimated based on the per-capita and per-employee waste generation rates established for existing levels of waste generation in Section 3.3. This methodology assumes that per-capita and peremployee waste generation would remain generally similar in the future. As described in Section 3.3, these waste generation rates are based on the City s jurisdiction waste stream profile from the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). Using methane coefficients from the Clean Air and Climate Protection 2009 software, developed by Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI), 2030 emissions from waste produced within the City s jurisdictional boundary are estimated at 6,274 metric tons CO 2E. Construction Emissions. Construction emissions were estimated using the CO 2 construction emissions generated by the URBEMIS model based on the total building square footage that would occur under buildout of the 2030 General Plan. The URBEMIS model estimated that new construction under the 2030 General Plan would generate approximately 5,932 metric tons of CO 2. This equates to 297 metric tons of CO 2 per year, over the assumed 20-year planning horizon of the 2030 General Plan. Combined Operational/Area Source, Mobile Source, Solid Waste, and Construction Emissions. Table 2-9 combines the increase in operational/area source, mobile source, solid waste, and construction GHG emissions associated with buildout of the 2030 General Plan within the existing City Limits, including the H Street Corridor Infill area, which would total approximately 70,663 metric tons per year CO 2E. This emissions forecast indicates that the majority of the City s GHG emissions over the assumed 20-year planning horizon of the 2030 General Plan will be associated with vehicular travel (61 percent). Sources: URBEMIS 2007 (version 9.2.4); California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol, Reporting Entity-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Version 3.1, January The 2030 General Plan would accommodate the development of up to 2,838 new dwelling units, 431,245 square feet of new commercial space, and 1,071,489 square feet of new industrial space in the City s jurisdictional boundary. Buildout of the 2030 General Plan would 2-20

28 add an estimated 8,137 residents (based on persons per household [Department of Finance, 2010]) and 3,777 new employees (based on employment generation factors found in the Employment Density Summary Report, completed for the Southern California Association of Governments [SCAG] by The Natelson Co., Inc. [October, 2001]). Therefore, the service population (sum of population and employees) that would be added to the City under the 2030 General Plan would be 11,914. Based on this service population, the total volume of GHG emissions projected to be generated within the City s existing jurisdictional boundary equates to approximately 5.9 metric tons CO 2E per service population. This is lower than the baseline emissions inventory, which showed annual GHG emissions of approximately 6.5 metric tons CO 2E per service population. This reduction indicates that development under the proposed 2030 General Plan would represent a more efficient mix of land uses resulting in local perservice population emissions under the statewide levels necessary to achieve the emissions goals set by AB 32. Expansion Area A: Bailey Avenue Specific Plan Area. The Bailey Avenue Specific Plan expansion area is an approximately 270 acre undeveloped site located on the western boundary of the City along Bailey Avenue. Development that could occur in the Bailey Avenue Specific Plan expansion area under the 2030 General Plan would include residential and commercial uses, as well as public recreational facilities. On-site operational/area source, mobile, solid waste, and construction emissions totals associated with development of the Bailey Avenue Specific Plan expansion area are shown in Table For calculations, see Appendix A. Sources: URBEMIS 2007 (version 9.2.4); California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol, Reporting Entity-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Version 3.1, January Development of the Bailey Avenue Specific Plan expansion area would accommodate up to 2,718 new dwelling units and 228,700 square feet of new commercial space. Buildout of the Bailey Avenue Specific Plan area would add an estimated 7,793 residents (based on persons per household [Department of Finance, 2010]) and 781 new employees (based on employment generation factors found in the Employment Density Summary Report, completed for the Southern California Association of Governments [SCAG] by The Natelson Co., Inc. [October, 2001]). Therefore, the service population (sum of population and employees) that would be added to the City under buildout of the Bailey Avenue Specific Plan area would be 2-21

29 8,574. Based on this service population, the total volume of GHG emissions projected to be generated within the Bailey Avenue Specific Plan expansion area equates to approximately 7.0 metric tons CO 2E per service population. This is higher than the per-service-population emissions under the 2030 General Plan within the City s existing jurisdictional boundary, and exceeds the 6.6 metric tons CO 2E/year per service population efficiency threshold. However, it should be noted that in combination with cumulative buildout of the 2030 General Plan discussed in detail below, development of the Bailey Avenue Specific Plan area would not result in GHG emissions in excess of the 6.6 metric tons CO 2E/year per service population efficiency threshold. Expansion Area B: River Area. The River expansion area is approximately 484 acres located east of the eastern boundary of the City, bisected by the Santa Ynez River. Existing uses in this area include open space and the 45-acre River Park, which is a linear park developed along the Santa Ynez River which includes a recreational vehicle (RV) campground with 35 campsites. Additional development that could occur in the River expansion area under the 2030 General Plan would include expansion of the existing RV campground by 126 full hookup RV campsites. On-site operational/area source, mobile, solid waste, and construction emissions totals associated with development of the River expansion area are shown in Table For calculations, see Appendix A. Sources: URBEMIS 2007 (version 9.2.4); California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol, Reporting Entity-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Version 3.1, January Development of the River expansion area would accommodate up to 126 new full hookup RV campsites. For the purposes of this analysis, multi-family residential trip rates from the Lompoc General Plan Transportation Model Development memorandum (Fehr & Peers, September 2009) were used for this land use, due to the fact that these residential land uses have similar default trip rates. Buildout of the River area would add an estimated 362 residents (based on persons per household [Department of Finance, 2010]). Buildout of this area is assumed to add a negligible number of new employees to the City. Therefore, the service population (sum of population and employees) that would be added to the City under buildout of the River area would be 362. Based on this service population, the total volume of GHG emissions generated within the River expansion area equates to approximately 5.3 metric tons CO 2E per service population. This is lower than the per-service-population emissions under 2-22

30 the 2030 General Plan within the City s existing jurisdictional boundary, in addition to being below the 6.6 metric tons CO 2E/year per service population efficiency threshold, indicating that development of this expansion area would represent a more efficient mix of land uses resulting in local per-service population emissions under the statewide levels necessary to achieve the emissions goals set by AB 32. Expansion Area C: Miguelito Canyon Area. The Miguelito Canyon expansion area is approximately 587 acres located along the southern boundary of the City, of which approximately 165 acres would be included in the proposed Urban Limit Line. Additional development that could occur in the Miguelito Canyon expansion area under the 2030 General Plan would include Rural Density Residential (RDR) land uses within the proposed Urban Limit Line only. The RDR designation would be a new residential land use designation under the General Plan Update, and would only apply to the Miguelito Canyon expansion area. On-site operational/area source, mobile, solid waste, and construction emissions totals associated with development of the Miguelito Canyon expansion area are shown in Table For calculations, see Appendix A. Sources: URBEMIS 2007 (version 9.2.4); California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol, Reporting Entity-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Version 3.1, January Development of the Miguelito Canyon expansion area would accommodate up to 25 new dwelling units. Buildout of the Miguelito Canyon expansion area would add an estimated 72 residents (based on persons per household [Department of Finance, 2010]), but would not add any new employees, based on the lack of new commercial or industrial space. Therefore, the service population (sum of population and employees) that would be added to the City under buildout of the Miguelito Canyon area would be 72. Based on this service population, the total volume of GHG emissions generated within the Miguelito Canyon expansion area equates to approximately 7.0 metric tons CO 2E per service population. This is higher than the per-service-population emissions under the 2030 General Plan within the City s existing jurisdictional boundary, and exceeds the 6.6 metric tons CO 2E/year per service population efficiency threshold. However, it should be noted that in combination with cumulative buildout of the 2030 General Plan discussed in detail below, development of the Miguelito Canyon expansion area would not result in GHG emissions in excess of the 6.6 metric tons CO 2E/year per service population efficiency threshold. 2-23

31 Expansion Area D: Wye Residential Area. The Wye Residential expansion area is approximately 10 acres (within the urban limit line) located along the northern boundary of the City, at the intersection of Lompoc-Casmalia Road/Highway 1, H Street/Highway 1 and Purisima Road. Additional development that could occur in the Wye Residential expansion area under the 2030 General Plan would include for Low Density Residential (LDR) land uses. On-site operational/area source, mobile, solid waste, and construction emissions totals associated with development of the Wye Residential expansion area are shown in Table For calculations, see Appendix A. Sources: URBEMIS 2007 (version 9.2.4); California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol, Reporting Entity-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Version 3.1, January Development of the Wye Residential expansion area would accommodate up to 46 new dwelling units. Buildout of the Wye Residential expansion area would add an estimated 132 residents (based on persons per household [Department of Finance, 2010]), but would not add any new employees, based on the lack of new commercial or industrial space. Therefore, the service population (sum of population and employees) that would be added to the City under buildout of the Wye Residential area would be 132. Based on this service population, the total volume of GHG emissions generated within the Wye Residential expansion area equates to approximately 7.0 metric tons CO 2E per service population. This is higher than the per-service-population emissions under the 2030 General Plan within the City s existing jurisdictional boundary, and exceeds the 6.6 metric tons CO 2E/year per service population efficiency threshold. However, it should be noted that in combination with cumulative buildout of the 2030 General Plan discussed in detail below, development of the Wye Residential expansion area would not result in GHG emissions in excess of the 6.6 metric tons CO 2E/year per service population efficiency threshold. Cumulative Development. Cumulative buildout of the 2030 General Plan includes buildout of areas within existing City boundaries as well as buildout of the four identified expansion areas. Impacts related to GHG emissions from these components of the 2030 General Plan have been addressed individually in the paragraphs above. The combination of these impacts reflects the cumulative impacts of the 2030 General Plan. The combined GHG emissions from the 2030 General Plan and the four annexation areas is shown in Table

32 Sources: URBEMIS 2007 (version 9.2.4); California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol, Reporting Entity-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Version 3.1, January Cumulatively, the 2030 General Plan and four annexation areas would accommodate the development of up to 5,753 new dwelling units, 659,945 square feet of new commercial space, and 1,071,489 square feet of new industrial space. Cumulative buildout of the 2030 General Plan would add an estimated 16,494 residents (based on persons per household [Department of Finance, 2010]) and 4,558 new employees (based on employment generation factors found in the Employment Density Summary Report, completed for the Southern California Association of Governments [SCAG] by The Natelson Co., Inc. [October, 2001]). Therefore, the service population (sum of population and employees) that would be added to the City under cumulative buildout of the 2030 General Plan, including the City s existing jurisdictional boundaries and the four annexation areas would be 21,052. Based on this service population, the total volume of GHG emissions generated under cumulative conditions equates to approximately 6.4 metric tons CO 2E per service population. This is lower than the baseline 2008, and 1990, emissions inventories, which showed annual GHG emissions of approximately 6.5 metric tons CO 2E per service population, and below the 6.6 metric tons CO 2E/year per service population efficiency threshold. This reduction indicates that development under the proposed 2030 General Plan would represent a more efficient mix of land uses resulting in local per-service population emissions under the statewide levels necessary to achieve the emissions goals set by AB Impact Assessment Impacts of the 2030 General Plan on Climate Change. The gross 2030 emissions from Lompoc, which would total 507,368 metric tons CO 2E/year (373,271 metric tons CO 2E/year under existing conditions plus 134,097 metric tons CO 2E/year new emissions under cumulative buildout of the 2030 General Plan), are greater than the City s estimated gross 1990 emissions of 354,880 metric tons CO 2E/year. As discussed in Section 2.4, AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by However, the AB 32 emissions reduction goal is intended to be applied at a statewide level. As discussed in Section 3.1, Thresholds of Significance, the efficiency threshold metric tons CO 2E per service population - used to determine the significance of emissions from the 2030 General Plan is based on the local 2-25

33 emission levels that must be achieved in order to reach the statewide AB 32 GHG emission reduction goal. This threshold of significance is adapted from the BAAQMD s recently-adopted quantitative GHG emissions thresholds (May 2010), which were developed to evaluate local consistency with the statewide emissions reduction goal established in AB 32. The BAAQMD efficiency threshold is specifically intended for use in evaluating the significance of GHG emissions from General Plans. According to this threshold, the 2030 General Plan s contribution to GHG emissions impacts would be consistent with the AB 32 emissions reduction goal, and would not be cumulatively considerable, if it would produce less 6.6 metric tons CO 2E /year per service population. The cumulative GHG emissions of 6.4 metric tons CO 2E per service population anticipated from new development and redevelopment that could occur under the 2030 General Plan are below the 6.6 metric tons CO 2E /year per service population threshold of significance. As discussed above, in Section 2.5.1, Thresholds of Significance, projects with emissions below this threshold represent a more efficient mix of land uses that are consistent with statewide emissions that meet the AB 32 goal of reducing statewide emissions to 1990 levels by Therefore, GHG emissions from the 2030 General Plan would not be cumulatively considerable. Of the potential expansion areas, the River area would have the lowest per-service-population emissions with 5.3 metric tons CO 2E per service population; the Bailey Avenue Specific Plan area, Miguelito Canyon area, and Wye Residential area would all have per-service-population emissions of 7.0 metric tons CO 2E per service population. Buildout of the 2030 General Plan would result in a Class III, less than significant, impact. Impacts of Climate Change on the 2030 General Plan. Section 2.3, Effects of Climate Change identifies the possible effects of climate change at a global and potentially statewide level. Scientific modeling tools are currently unable to predict with a high degree of accuracy what impacts would occur locally; however, the potential impacts of climate change modeled at the global and statewide level would be experienced in Lompoc and the 2030 General Plan to a certain extent, which could include impacts to air quality, water supply, hydrology, and agriculture. According to ARB, an increase in ambient temperatures and the number of extreme heat days per year may lead to more high ozone days (ARB, 2007). The precise impacts of climate change on local hydrology and water resources are uncertain, due to widely ranging predictions of future precipitation patterns, timing, and intensity statewide (DWR, 2008; CCCC, 2006). In addition to uncertainty about future precipitation, analysis of hydrological impacts is further complicated by the fact that no studies have identified or quantified the runoff impacts that such an increase in precipitation would have in particular watersheds (CCCC, 2006). While future local weather patterns are extremely unpredictable, climate change has the potential to impact agricultural land uses in the Lompoc region. The soils within the Lompoc Valley possess features which provide very high fertility, making Lompoc one of the most versatile crop-growing regions in the state. Higher temperatures, drier conditions, increased water demand, and greater ozone pollution may render plants more susceptible to pest and disease outbreaks, reduce Lompoc s agricultural productivity, and change the time of year certain crops, such as 2-26

34 wine grapes, bloom or ripen, and thereby affecting their quality and quantity (CCCC, 2006). The City lies in a flat valley at approximately 80 to 100 feet above mean sea level, and is therefore unlikely to be directly impacted by sea-level rise. While Lompoc is subject to the potential adverse effects of climate change, the 2030 General Plan would not substantially increase the scope or severity of these effects. The 2030 General Plan would accommodate up to 8,137 new residents and 3,777 new employees (up to 16,494 new residents and 4,558 new employees under cumulative conditions, which includes all four potential annexation areas), and would therefore result in the exposure of additional population to potential local adverse effects of climate change. The specific local effects of climate change are not possible to predict accurately; however, the resources that are expected to be impacted by climate change at a statewide level - air quality, water supply, hydrology, and agriculture would also be impacted locally. Therefore, additional population accommodated by the 2030 General Plan would not be at a higher risk from the effects of climate change relative to other portions of the State or Country. This would be a Class III, less than significant, impact Mitigation Measures and Mitigated Emissions Forecast As discussed above, the 2030 General Plan would have less than significant impacts related to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, and no additional mitigation would be required. It should be noted that all of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR for the 2030 General Plan would continue to apply to the proposed 2030 General Plan. Mitigation Measures AQ-4(a), regarding greenhouse gas emissions reduction planning, and AQ-4(b), regarding consideration of project greenhouse gas emissions reduction measures, were included in the Final EIR to mitigate the impact to greenhouse gas emissions identified therein. These measures, shown below, are still recommended to ensure future development in the City under the 2030 General Plan would minimize impacts to greenhouse gas emissions. AQ-4(a) GHG Emissions Reduction Planning. To ensure that future development under the General Plan meets the GHG emissions reduction requirements in AB 32, the following policy shall be added to the General Plan Conservation/Open Space Element: The City shall participate in regional planning efforts with SBCAG and the SBCAPCD to reduce basin-wide GHG emissions in compliance with AB 32 and SB 375. The City s participation in regional planning efforts to reduce basin-wide GHG emissions is anticipated to include City assistance in developing a GHG emissions inventory, and identifying reduction measures related to site design, energy conservation, and trip reduction. 2-27

35 AQ-4(b) Consideration of Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Measures. The following policies shall be added to the 2030 General Plan Conservation/ Open Space Element: New development subject to environmental review shall comply with California Environmental Quality Act guidelines for the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions developed pursuant to SB 97 and adopted on December 30, Through the CEQA environmental review process for discretionary permit applications, the City shall consider all feasible GHG emissions reduction measures to reduce direct and indirect emissions associated with project vehicle trip generation and energy consumption. State and Federal Regulations, Programs, and Policies that would Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Several adopted state regulations identified in the Scoping Plan are anticipated to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the 2030 General Plan. These state and federal measures are qualitatively described below. Assembly Bill 1493 (Pavley). The Scoping Plan assigns a 19.7% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in California from passenger vehicles associated with the implementation of AB The Scoping Plan also notes that AB 32 specifically states that if the Pavley regulations do not remain in effect, ARB shall implement alternative regulations to control mobile sources to achieve equivalent or greater reductions of greenhouse gas emissions (HSC 38590). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume full implementation of AB 1493 standards, or equivalent programs that would be implemented by ARB. In addition, on April 1, 2010, the EPA and the Department of Transportation s National Highway Safety Administration announced a joint final rule establishing a national program that will dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel economy for new cars and trucks sold in the United States after Under this national program, automobile manufacturers will be able to build a single light-duty national fleet that satisfies all requirements under both the national program and the standards of California and other states. Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). The LCFS is expected to result in approximately a 10% reduction in the carbon intensity of transportation fuels used in California by the year However, a portion of the emission reductions required from the LCFS would be achieved over the lifecycle of transportation fuel production rather than from mobile-source emission factors. Based on ARB s estimate, the LCFS is estimated to result in a 7.2% reduction of mobile-source greenhouse gas emissions in the state compared to 2020 business-as-usual conditions. 2-28

36 Heavy/Medium Duty Vehicle Efficiency. This regulation requires all existing trucks and trailers to be retrofitted with the best available technology and/or ARB-approved technology. Technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve the fuel efficiency of trucks may include devices that reduce aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance. The requirements apply to California and out-of-state registered trucks that travel to California. This regulation is expected to result in a 2.9% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from heavy and medium vehicles compared to 2020 business-as-usual conditions. Passenger Vehicle Efficiency. The Scoping Plan identifies several regulations that would further reduce tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles by increasing vehicle efficiency. These regulations require proper tire inflation and the use of solar-reflective automotive paint and window glazing (cool car standards). The Scoping Plan estimates that these regulations would result in a 2.8% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles compared to 2020 business-as-usual conditions. Senate Bill 1078, Senate Bill 107, and Executive Order S (Renewables Portfolio Standard). The Renewables Portfolio Standard, established in 2002 in Senate Bill 1078, requires electricity providers to increase the portion of electricity that comes from renewable sources to 20% by 2010 and 33% by The City of Lompoc owns its electrical utility. In 2008, approximately 15.2% of the City electrical utility s portfolio qualified under the Renewable Portfolio Standard (City of Lompoc Utilities, 2010); therefore, this regulation is expected to result in an additional 17.8% reduction in electricity emissions compared to 2020 business-asusual conditions. This would result in a 21% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the energy source category compared to 2020 business-as-usual conditions. Energy Efficiency. The Scoping Plan identifies regulations to reduce energy consumption of both natural gas and electricity. These regulations include periodic improvements in building and appliance standards and incentives. The Scoping Plan estimates that these regulations will result in a 9.5% and a 15.7% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions for natural gas and electricity respectively compared to 2020 business-as-usual conditions. Senate Bill 1 (Million Solar Roofs). The Scoping Plan estimates the Million Solar Roofs program, created under Senate Bill 1, would result in a 1.5% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity source category compared to 2020 business-as-usual conditions. These regulations, programs, and policies are not yet accounted for as part of the State of California s emissions inventory or forecasts, or as part of the Citywide emissions inventory or forecasts in this report, and are intended to help achieve the overall Statewide emissions reduction goals set forth in AB 32. Table 2-15 quantifies the local reductions in metric tons of CO 2E that would result from implementation of these regulations, programs, and policies in comparison to the business-as-usual scenario for the 2030 General Plan. The emission reductions that ARB predicts for state regulations that implement AB 32 are based on a target 2-29

37 year of Emissions reductions that would be achieved by 2030 from these regulations are likely to be higher than the percent reductions shown in Table 2-15, due to continuing increases in energy and vehicle fuel efficiency, but the ARB estimates for 2020 GHG emissions reductions are considered a reasonable conservative estimate of anticipated GHG emissions reductions. The projected emissions reductions from existing state regulations are scaled to the size of the relevant sectors of the City s cumulative 2030 GHG emissions inventory. For example, Assembly Bill 1493 would result in a 19.7% reduction in emissions from transportation sources, and transportation sources represent 66.1% of the City s GHG emissions inventory; therefore Assembly Bill 1493 would reduce the City s overall 2030 GHG emissions by 13.0% (19.7% x 66.1% = 13.0%). 1: Percent reduction from 2020 inventory multiplied by Sector Percent of Lompoc Inventory. 2: The Renewables Portfolio Standard requires the renewable energy portion of the retail electricity portfolio to be 33% in In 2010, 15.2% of the City s electrical utility s qualified as renewable (City of Lompoc, 2010). This regulation is expected to result in an additional 17.8% reduction in emissions compared to 2020 business-as-usual conditions. Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines; June ARB Scoping Plan,

38 Because these regulations, programs, and policies are not yet accounted for as part of the State of California s or the City s emissions inventory or forecasts, and are intended to help achieve the overall statewide emissions reduction goals set forth in AB 32, it is appropriate to account for the reasonably anticipated GHG emissions reductions by crediting this reduction to the City s projected 2030 GHG emissions. This approach is consistent with the methodology used by the BAAQMD to develop the 6.6 metric tons CO 2E /year per service population threshold of significance (refer to Section 3.1). As shown in Table 2-15, state-level regulations are expected to reduce emissions in the City of Lompoc by approximately 26.4%. Applying this reduction to the 2030 General Plan cumulative buildout scenario would result in a reduction of 35,402 metric tons CO 2E, and would reduce cumulative emissions per service population from 6.4 metric tons of CO 2E per service population to 4.7 metric tons of CO 2E per service population. Emissions reductions from these State-level regulations would further reduce Lompoc s cumulative GHG emissions below the emissions target (6.6 metric tons of CO 2E per service population). No additional local mitigation measures would be required. General Plan Policies which Reduce Impacts. The 2030 General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) includes LUE Policies 1.7 and 2.4, which are specifically intended to reduce impacts from future growth in Lompoc, which would indirectly reduce GHG emissions: LUE Policy 1.7: The City should encourage infill development to meet City residential and commercial growth needs. The City designates the H Street Corridor Infill area as shown on Figure LU-2 as particularly suitable to infill development and shall prescribe specific design and zoning standards for this corridor. Additional information on the intent of the H Street Corridor Infill area is provided in Table LU-1. LUE Policy 2.4 The City should encourage creative and efficient site designs in residential developments which address natural constraints, promote energy efficiency and overall sustainability, protect aesthetic qualities, and maintain neighborhood character. In addition, the Circulation Element (CE) includes CE Policies 3.1 through 3.3, 3.5 through 3.9, 3.12, and 3.13, which target reductions in air pollutant emissions through circulation design factors and compliance with applicable laws and regulations, which would also serve to reduce air pollutants, including GHGs: CE Policy 3.1: The City should provide and maintain a safe and convenient circulation system that encourages walking and that seeks to provide a continuous network of sidewalks and separated pedestrian paths connecting housing areas with major activity centers such as shopping areas, schools, and recreation. 2-31

39 CE Policy 3.2: The City should provide and maintain a safe and convenient circulation system that encourages bicycle travel. CE Policy 3.3: The City should encourage programs and strategies including site design features that provide for ridesharing and transit use. CE Policy 3.5: The City should encourage regional transportation services to accommodate the needs of commuters and ridesharing. CE Policy 3.6: The City should facilitate the provision of lockers and secure enclosed long term parking areas for bicycles at appropriate places throughout the City and at multi-modal stations to extend the range of the bicycle commuter. CE Policy 3.7: The City should continue to support transit including the COLT bus system and shall work cooperatively with appropriate jurisdictions and agencies to encourage the augmentation of roadway and transit facilities, which address local and regional travel needs. CE Policy 3.8: The City should require, during the development review process, the dedication of land and/or construction of appropriate facilities to ensure a safe and efficient public transportation system. CE Policy 3.9: The City should encourage efforts by local employers to offer telecommuting and other work schedule modifications which reduce vehicular use. CE Policy 3.12: The City should encourage the inclusion of facilities that promote alternative modes of transportation, including bicycle lanes and connections, pedestrian and hiking trails, park and ride lots, and facilities for public transit into new development as well as existing development. CE Policy 3.13: The City supports safe and effective connectivity between adjacent neighborhoods for new development and encourages measures that increase connectivity for existing neighborhoods, where necessary and appropriate. The existing 1997 General Plan Resource Management Element (RME) also includes RME Policies 7.1 through 7.4, 7.6, 8.1, and 8.2, which reduce emissions through coordination between the City and SBCAPCD, as well as circulation design factors and compliance with applicable laws and regulations: 2-32

40 RME Policy 7.1: The City shall participate in regional air quality planning programs to attain federal and state air quality standards. RME Policy 7.2: The City shall encourage federal, state, and local agencies to require local emission offsets and best available air pollution control technology on emission sources affecting the Lompoc Valley. RME Policy 7.3: The City shall encourage the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) to: 1) enforce air quality rules and regulations in a uniform manner and 2) maintain air quality monitoring stations in the Lompoc Valley. RME Policy 7.4: The City shall consult with the APCD during the review of any development project which may emit air pollutants or is in the vicinity of a source of air pollutants. RME Policy 7.6: The City shall encourage the agricultural industry to minimize the emission of pollutants resulting from agricultural activities. RME Policy 8.1: The City shall require development projects to minimize vehicle-related air quality impacts. RME Policy 8.2: The City shall discourage auto-dependent facilities which cause excessive emissions from idling vehicles. In addition, the Housing Element (HE) includes Goal 4 and Policies 4.1 through 4.4, which would encourage renewable energy and energy efficiency measures in future residential development, which would also serve to reduce air pollutants, including GHGs: HE Goal 4 Maximize energy efficiency in existing and future residential development. HE Policy 4.1 The City shall continue to encourage the design and installation of energy conservation, water conservation, and solid waste reduction measures in all construction and rehabilitation projects. HE Policy 4.2 The City shall provide financial and technical assistance based upon the availability of funding to property owners who desire to improve energy and water efficiency of their housing units but are unable to afford improvement costs. HE Policy 4.3 The City shall encourage the use of active and passive solar energy in the design of all new construction projects. 2-33

41 HE Policy 4.4 The City shall consider the development of green building standards for possible application to new residential development, including affordable housing. 2-34

42 3.0 ANALYSIS OF CHANGES TO LAND USE ELEMENT AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT POLICIES The policies contained in the proposed Land Use Element and Circulation Element of the 2030 General Plan have been revised to be permissive (i.e., recommend that an action should occur) rather than mandatory (i.e., require that an action shall occur). The policies would become mandatory when the policy direction is incorporated into ordinance requirements as a future action. However, until the policies are incorporated into ordinance requirements, the policies would be advisory rather than mandatory and enforceable. Because the Final EIR analysis in certain instances relied upon policies contained in the proposed Land Use Element and Circulation Element as enforceable mitigation that would reduce impacts below significance thresholds, additional analysis is provided herein to determine whether supplemental or substitute mitigation is required to ensure that impacts would be reduced below significance thresholds. The analysis below is limited to issue areas where a specific policy of the Land Use Element or the Circulation Element is identified in the impact analysis of the Final EIR as a factor that would directly reduce impacts below thresholds of significance. Six issue areas of the Final EIR relied upon policies in the proposed Land Use Element and Circulation Element as mitigation: aesthetics, air quality, geology, land use and agriculture, noise, and transportation and circulation 3.1 Aesthetics Impact AES-1 Impact AES-1 in Section 4.1 Aesthetics of the Final EIR discussed that the degree of aesthetic impacts from new buildings, signage, parking, and accessory facilities under the 2030 General Plan is dependent on the siting and design of these features relative to important scenic views. The analysis described that LUE Policy 1.3, which states that The City shall encourage development of under-developed and vacant land within its boundaries, and shall oppose urbanization of agricultural lands east of the City and west of Bailey Avenue, would reduce this impact because infill development typically reduces the pressure to develop on the edges of the City which could have greater aesthetic impacts on surrounding scenic resources. The textual change from shall to should in the revised Land Use Element would not change the severity of this impact because infill development, while supported by LUE Policy 1.3, is largely a function of the proposed Land Use Map (refer to Figure 2-4 in the Final EIR), which sets forth specific locations where development can occur as well as the type and the density of such development. The EIR analysis also described that the following policies of the Land Use Element, as originally proposed, would further contribute to reducing aesthetic impacts: 3-1

43 LUE Policy 2.4 The City shall encourage creative and efficient site designs in residential developments which address natural constraints, promote energy efficiency and overall sustainability, protect aesthetic qualities, and maintain neighborhood character. LUE Policy 3.5 The City shall encourage development and redevelopment of the H Street Corridor Infill Area and OId Town Specific Plan Area to revitalize these areas and provide a diverse and vibrant focal point for business. New commercial and mixed use development should be encouraged, and such new development should incorporate site design and layout that provides an inviting pedestrian-oriented environment in keeping with the Urban Design Element, Old Town Specific Plan, and the H Street Corridor Infill Overlay standards, as applicable, to encourage similar development in these areas. Strategies to revitalize these areas may include the use of redevelopment funds for infrastructure improvements and upgrades to encourage infill development of vacant or underutilized lots. LUE Policy 5.1 The City shall maintain Open Space designations for areas used for the preservation of scenic beauty, natural resources, or outdoor recreation; or the managed production of resources, including groundwater recharge; or the protection of public health & safety. Groundwater recharge areas shall be protected from incompatible uses that would substantially inhibit aquifer recharge or degrade groundwater quality. LUE Policy 5.4 Development proposals in the vicinity of natural objects that have unique aesthetic significance shall not be permitted to block, alter, or degrade existing visual quality without the provision of suitable visual enhancement. This may include open space, eucalyptus groves, or vegetation that serves as a view corridor or has important visual attributes. Development proposals shall be sited to ensure that these features are retained or replaced to the extent feasible, resulting in minimal view impairment. LUE Policy 5.5 Plantings that serve to screen views of residential development, or that help to maintain a natural-appearing landscape, shall be retained to the extent feasible. Such plants could be thinned selectively if thinning would improve view corridors or protect public health, safety, and welfare. If specific trees are removed, such as eucalyptus trees, replacement trees at the appropriate density (native species when possible) shall be substituted to provide suitable screening while retaining important view corridors. LUE Policy 5.6 The City shall limit development on slopes of 20% or greater by designating parcels with a substantial portion of the site containing steep slopes as Open 3-2

44 Space, Community Facility (particularly parks), Rural Residential or Very Low Density Residential designations. LUE Policy 5.7 Development on slopes exceeding 20% shall be avoided if other less steep areas are available for building sites on a given property. Any development on slopes exceeding 20% shall minimize grading and avoid interruption of ridgelines. Development on slopes exceeding 20% shall also be subject to Architectural Review by the City to minimize potential aesthetic impacts. Similarly, the text change from shall to should for the policies listed above would not change the severity of this impact because development would be concentrated within or adjacent to existing urban areas, which is largely a function of the proposed Land Use Map (refer to Figure 2-4 in the Final EIR). In addition, potential aesthetic impacts to scenic resources would be reduced by policies of the existing Urban Design Element and the City s architectural review guidelines as codified in Section , which would not be affected by the textual changes of the policies listed under Impact AES-1. No additional mitigation is required for these impacts. Development within the Miguelito Canyon expansion area could be adjacent to San Miguelito Road, which is identified as scenic in the 1997 General Plan Urban Design Element (refer to Figure 4.1-1). This scenic corridor offers views of valleys and hillsides south of the City. Development within this area would be subject to policies in the Urban Design Element that would protect the visual qualities of ridgelines, natural features and hillsides in this area. In addition, the Urban Limit Line would extend into the canyon areas only, thereby prohibiting future development on the adjacent hillsides, outside of this limit. Development would consist of large-lot detached single-family homes. As a result, even with development occurring in these areas, lands would remain primarily undeveloped and the allowable low density residential development would be compatible with the rural visual character of the area. The Final EIR impact analysis notes that LUE Policies 5.6 and 5.7 would further reduce this impact. However, changing shall to should in these instances would not increase the severity of this impact because, as discussed above, the proposed Land Use Plan Map would extend the Urban Limit Line into the canyon areas only, thereby limiting future development on the adjacent hillsides, outside of this limit. In addition, development within the Miguelito Canyon area would consist of large-lot detached single-family homes, which would be visually compatible with the rural character of this area. In addition, the City s Architectural Review Guidelines include the following guidelines which would mitigate view corridor impacts: Views and Obstructions 1. Obstruction of views should be minimized through reduction in the height of the structure, location of the higher portion of the structure so as to minimize the adverse impact, and the avoidance of tall landscaping. 3-3

45 2. Surrounding ridge-tops should be preserved. The tops of structures in hillside development should be below the skyline as perceived from the nearest arterial or collector street. 3. Consideration of sensitivity to potential neighbors views in the placement and architectural appearance of the house is encouraged. 4. Views from major living areas should be protected. 5 Adverse impacts on views may be approved if alternative design treatments meeting the standard are not feasible. Therefore, no additional mitigation is required for these impacts Impact AES-3 Impact AES-3 in Section 4.1 Aesthetics of the Final EIR concluded that infill development within the City s core, particularly along the H-Street Corridor would result in less than significant visual impacts because the gradual redevelopment of the H Street Corridor with development that is more pedestrian-scaled and complies with existing design standards would ultimately improve the visual conditions in these areas. In addition, existing policies of the Urban Design Element and the Architectural Design Guidelines would ensure that future development is visually consistent with existing development in the area, thereby further minimizing impacts. As such, textual changes from shall to should for the following revised Land Use Element policies would not change the severity of this impact. LUE Policy 1.3, LUE Policy 2.4, LUE Policy 3.5, LUE Policy 5.1, LUE Policy 5.4, LUE Policy 5.5, LUE Policy 5.6, and LUE Policy 5.7. The four potential expansion areas would accommodate development at the periphery of the City, thereby creating new and greater visual impacts than infill redevelopment within the City s core. The impact analyses for each of the four expansion areas stated that the proposed Land Use Element policies listed above would reduce these impacts. However, visual impacts would primarily be reduced by the existing Urban Design Element guidelines, including: UDE Policy 1.4 The City shall create a visual edge to maintain awareness of the community's setting in the Lompoc Valley by establishing and maintaining open space buffers along the western and eastern portions of the Urban Limit Line. UDE Policy 2.2 The City shall ensure that all development in the Old Town area is designed in a manner that maintains, encourages, and enhances pedestrian activity between various uses and activities. This includes the design of buildings, street corridors, plazas, and pedestrian spaces. UDE Policy 3.1 The City shall protect and enhance the positive identity of residential neighborhoods. 3-4

46 UDE Policy 3.2 The City shall require infill development to respect the scale and character of existing neighborhoods. UDE Policy 3.3 The City shall encourage the protection of structures and neighborhoods which possess locally significant architectural styles or historic values. Infill development in such areas shall be architecturally compatible with surrounding structures. UDE Policy 3.4 The City shall encourage and support the efforts of homeowner and neighborhood associations to improve the visual appearance of residential neighborhoods. UDE Goal 4 Protect and enhance the visual qualities of Lompoc's urban streetscapes and public places. UDE Policy 4.1 The City shall support efforts to improve the appearance of expressways and arterials. UDE Policy 4.2 The City shall promote cleanliness and regular maintenance of all neighborhoods and public places. UDE Policy 4.3 The City shall encourage signage which enhances the visual qualities of the urban streetscape. UDE Policy 4.4 The City shall continue to encourage provision of art in public places. UDE Policy 4.5 The City shall encourage the owners and/or operators of land uses and activities which are unsightly to clean up the affected area or to use landscaping and other design measures to soften or screen the area. UDE Policy 4.6 The City shall encourage the development of the urban forest along streetscapes and in public places. UDE Policy 4.7 The City shall encourage the provision of open space in all public places. UDE Goal 5 Ensure high-quality design and development. UDE Policy 5.1 The City shall ensure that all public and private improvements or development projects are consistent with the architectural, landscaping, and site design requirements. 3-5

47 UDE Policy 5.2 The City shall periodically review and update its architectural, landscaping, and site plan review process, as well as any associated guidelines. In addition, development within the expansion areas would be subject to the City s Architectural Review Guidelines, which establish criteria and development standards related to architectural character/building design and site design against which to evaluate proposed development within the City. Architectural character/building design standards include considerations relative to neighborhood compatibility, residential infill development, views and obstructions, exterior colors, materials, lighting, and accessory equipment. Site design standards include considerations relative to landscaping and open space, parking, fences and walls, signs and guidelines for commercial and industrial zones. Development that may occur in accordance with the General Plan would be governed by these policies, guidelines and regulations, as well as applicable Master Plans and Zoning Overlays. All of these policies, guidelines and regulations work together to protect Lompoc s aesthetic resources and are a means to retain community character, while providing enhancements in certain areas of the City. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with implementation of applicable policies and regulations. As such, textual changes from shall to should in the listed Land Use Element policies above would not change the severity of this impact. No additional mitigation is required for these impacts. 3.2 Air Quality Impact AQ-1 Impact AQ-1 in Section 4.2 Air Quality discusses the 2030 General Plan s consistency with the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District s Clean Air Plan. Table lists proposed Land Use Element and Circulation Element policies of the 2030 General Plan that are consistent with various Transportation Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan. The Land Use Element and Circulation Element policies listed therein include: Land Use Element Policy 1.7 The City shall encourage infill development to meet City residential and commercial growth needs. The City designates the H Street Corridor Infill area as shown on Figure LU-2 as particularly suitable to infill development and shall prescribe specific design and zoning standards for this corridor. Additional information on the intent of the H Street Corridor Infill area is provided in Table LU-1. Policy 2.1 The City shall encourage residential developments to provide amenities and features that provide convenient access by pedestrians and bicyclists to commercial areas. 3-6

48 Policy 3.2 The City shall encourage mixed-use development in appropriate areas to provide opportunities for a jobs and housing balance at the community and neighborhood level. The H Street Corridor Infill Area is designated as an area appropriate for mixed-use development and redevelopment. Policy 3.5 The City shall encourage development and redevelopment of the H Street Corridor Infill Area and OId Town Specific Plan Area to revitalize these areas and provide a diverse and vibrant focal point for business. New commercial and mixed use development should be encouraged, and such new development should incorporate site design and layout that provides an inviting pedestrian-oriented environment in keeping with the Urban Design Element, Old Town Specific Plan, and the H Street Corridor Infill Overlay standards, as applicable, to encourage similar development in these areas. Strategies to revitalize these areas may include the use of redevelopment funds for infrastructure improvements and upgrades to encourage infill development of vacant or underutilized lots. Policy 8.1 The City shall encourage high-quality infill and redevelopment projects to revitalize the community. Policy 8.2 The City shall promote infill development, rehabilitation, and reuse that contributes positively to the surrounding area and assists in meeting neighborhood and other City goals. Policy 8.3 The City shall promote revitalization of the Old Town Specific Plan Area through attractive redevelopment of public and private facilities, whenever such projects are undertaken. Policy 8.4 The City shall promote revitalization of the H Street corridor to serve community needs through attractive redevelopment of public and private properties. Policy 8.6 The City shall encourage co-location of development and mixed uses to enhance the community s image and convenience within or near public Park-and-Ride sites. Policy 8.7 The City shall encourage development to be pedestrian-friendly and convenient for transit. Policy 8.9 The City shall eliminate regulatory obstacles and create more flexible development standards for infill development. Policy 8.10 The City shall provide infrastructure improvements to allow for increased infill development potential. 3-7

49 Policy 8.11 The City shall provide focused incentives and project assistance to assist in infill development in target areas and sites. Policy 8.12 The City shall engage the community to ensure new infill development addresses neighborhood concerns and to gain greater acceptance and support for infill development. Circulation Element Policy 1.2 The City shall maintain intersection traffic levels of service (LOS) at LOS C or better throughout the City, with the exception of intersections monitored in accordance with the Congestion Management Program (CMP) administered by the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG). CMP intersections shall maintain a LOS in accordance with the most recent CMP standards, when it can be demonstrated that all feasible mitigation measures have been applied to the project and LOS C, with said mitigation, cannot be achieved. [GP 05-02, Resolution No. 5267(05)]. Policy 1.4 The City shall only allow development in areas where adequate circulation facilities and/or services, as defined in Policy 1.2, will be available at the time of development. Policy 1.5 The City shall maximize movement of through-traffic on expressways and arterials by encouraging efficient utilization of existing roadway capacity, and when necessary providing additional transportation capacity. For arterials, consideration should also be given to planned or future pedestrian and bicyclist facilities so that vehicular improvements are not at the expense of facilities and safety of these other modes of transportation. Policy 1.8 Provide an adequate supply of private and public off-street parking to meet the needs of residents and visitors to the City [refer to Section 8851 of the Lompoc Zoning Ordinance (Schedule of Off-Street Parking Requirements)]. Policy 1.9 The City shall ensure that developers of new commercial and mixed use areas provide adequate and convenient pedestrian access ways into adjacent residential neighborhoods. Policy 3.1 The City shall provide and maintain a safe and convenient circulation system that encourages walking and that seeks to provide a continuous network of sidewalks and separated pedestrian paths connecting housing areas with major activity centers such as shopping areas, schools, and recreation. 3-8

50 Policy 3.12 The City shall encourage the inclusion of facilities that promote alternative modes of transportation, including bicycle lanes and connections, pedestrian and hiking trails, park and ride lots, and facilities for public transit into new development as well as existing development. Policy 3.2 The City shall provide and maintain a safe and convenient circulation system that encourages bicycle travel. Policy 3.5 The City shall encourage regional transportation services to accommodate the needs of commuters and ridesharing. Policy 3.3 The City shall encourage programs and strategies including site design features that provide for ridesharing and transit use. Policy 3.4 The City shall provide safe and convenient transit service which strives to meet the needs of the transportation-disadvantaged including young, elderly, disabled, and low-income individuals. Such transit service should provide frequent, reliable and efficient service, with service hours that meet the needs of riders to maintain and increase the viability of public transit as an alternative to driving for Lompoc residents and commuting workers. Policy 3.6 The City shall facilitate the provision of lockers and secure enclosed long term parking areas for bicycles at appropriate places throughout the City and at multimodal stations to extend the range of the bicycle commuter. Policy 3.7 The City shall continue to support transit including the COLT bus system and shall work cooperatively with appropriate jurisdictions and agencies to encourage the augmentation of roadway and transit facilities, which address local and regional travel needs. Policy 3.8 The City shall require, during the development review process, the dedication of land and/or construction of appropriate facilities to ensure a safe and efficient public transportation system. Policy 3.9 The City should encourage efforts by local employers to offer telecommuting and other work schedule modifications which reduce vehicular use. Policy 3.10 The City should require developers to provide bus shelters in high-usage locations, for example, in multi-family developments and within commercial areas. The City should consider the need for bus shelters and other transit facilities in City-sponsored redevelopment projects. 3-9

51 Policy 3.11 The City shall require the construction of bus turnouts adjacent to new developments in locations which improve transit service, safety, and efficiency. The textual change of shall to should in the revised Land Use Element and Circulation Element would not increase the severity of this impact or result in inconsistencies with the Transportation Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan, as these policies would continue to support trip reduction, as well as transportation and pedestrian improvements throughout the City. In addition, the proposed Land Use Map (refer to Figure 2-4 in the Final EIR), primarily supports infill development or development adjacent to the urban fringe of the City, which would reduce overall vehicle miles traveled. However, the proposed 2030 General Plan would remain inconsistent with the Clean Air Plan because it would exceed Clean Air Plan growth forecasts. Although population at General Plan buildout would be inconsistent with current Clean Air Plan forecasts, SBCAG population estimates are periodically updated based on General Plan Updates, at which time any inconsistencies between regional planning documents and the population growth anticipated under the 2030 General Plan would be rectified. As such, no additional mitigation is required for these impacts Impact AQ-3 Impact AQ-3 in Section 4.2 Air Quality states that some commercial and industrial uses developed under the 2030 General Plan may generate odor nuisance effects to the public or to adjoining residents. The EIR analysis stated that the following Land Use Element policies, as originally proposed, would reduce impacts: LUE Policy 2.2 The City shall protect residential neighborhoods from encroachment by adverse or incompatible non-residential uses (for example, intensive agriculture or industry) and impacts associated with those non-residential uses, including impacts to neighborhood character. LUE Policy 2.3 The City shall require provision of permanent buffer or transitional areas as part of new residential development adjacent to areas designated for commercial or industrial uses, except where mixed-use development may be appropriate. LUE Policy 8.5 The City shall require commercial, industrial, civic, and institutional development to be designed in ways that minimize conflicts with adjacent homes and neighborhoods. Changing shall to should in the revised Land Use Element would reduce the effectiveness of these policies in reducing the magnitude of this potential impact. However, in addition to these policies, the Final EIR required Mitigation Measures AQ-3(a) and AQ-3(b). Mitigation Measure AQ-3(a) requires that applicants for potential odor generators shall develop and implement an 3-10

52 Odor Abatement Plan to reduce impacts to sensitive receptors. Mitigation Measure AQ-3(b) prohibits chemical-based photographic studios, laundry facilities, and other potentially incompatible uses in Mixed Use Zones to prevent exposing sensitive receptors to nuisance odors. These measures would adequately mitigate this impact despite changes to the listed Land Use Element policies above. No additional mitigation is necessary. 3.3 Geology Impact GEO-4 Impact GEO-3 in Section 4.5 Geology stated that the Geologic and Soils Hazards map in the General Plan Safety element identified the Miguelito Canyon expansion area as being subject to slope hazards. The EIR impact analysis discussed that the following Land Use Element policies, as originally proposed, would reduce potential impacts: LUE Policy 5.6 The City shall limit development on slopes of 20% or greater by designating parcels with a substantial portion of the site containing steep slopes as Open Space, Community Facility (particularly parks), Rural Residential or Very Low Density Residential designations. LUE Policy 5.7 Development on slopes exceeding 20% shall be avoided if other less steep areas are available for building sites on a given property. Any development on slopes exceeding 20% shall minimize grading and avoid interruption of ridgelines. Development on slopes exceeding 20% shall also be subject to Architectural Review by the City to minimize potential aesthetic impacts. LUE Policy 6.2 The City shall maintain an Open Space designation for all areas in which topographic, geologic, or soil conditions indicate a significant danger to future occupants. Changing shall to should in the revised Land Use Element would reduce the effectiveness of these policies in reducing the magnitude of this potential impact. However, the General Plan Safety Element includes the following policies that would minimize the risks associated with slope instability. In addition, the impact analysis discussed that the following existing Safety Element policies would reduce potential impacts: SE Policy 1.4 The City shall avoid placement of critical facilities in hazardous areas as identified on the hazard maps: o Floodway or Floodway Fringe (Flood Hazard Areas map); 3-11

53 o Slope or Liquefaction Hazard Areas (Geologic and Soils Hazard Areas map); and o High or Moderate Wildland Fire Areas (Wildland Fire Hazard Areas map). SE Policy 4.1 The City shall not permit placement of critical facilities as identified in the Emergency Preparedness Element [Safety Element] in areas prone to slope instability or liquefaction during an earthquake. SE Goal 5 Minimize injury and property damage resulting from landslides and mass earth movements. SE Policy 5.1 The City may permit development on hillsides only where it can be demonstrated that geologic conditions are sound for construction purposes. The California Building Code (CBC) also includes specific requirements to address landslide hazards. Compliance with General Plan policies and CBC requirements would ensure that impacts remain less than significant. As such, textual changes from shall to should in the listed Land Element policies above would not change the severity of this impact. No additional mitigation is required. 3.4 Land Use and Agriculture Impact LU-1 Impact LU-1 in Section 4.8 Land Use and Agriculture identified potential land use compatibility issues related to urban uses that would be adjacent to agricultural uses for the Bailey Avenue Specific Plan and the River expansion areas. Residents living adjacent to agricultural lands can be impacted by odor nuisance impacts, noise from farm equipment, vehicle conflicts, dust, and pesticide spraying. In addition, the placement of residential development adjacent to farmland can have several negative impacts on farm operations, including direct physical impacts such as vandalism to farm equipment or fencing and theft of fruits and vegetables, soil compaction from trespassers and decreased air quality from adjacent urban development. Placement of residences adjacent to cultivated agriculture can also have economic impacts to growers. Increased regulations and liability insurance to protect the farmer from adjacent urban uses cost time and money. Some farmers sensitive to nearby residences voluntarily limit their hours of operation and do not intensively use the portions of their property closest to urban uses, in effect establishing informal buffer zones on their own property. This has the effect of lowering crop yields, which can potentially affect the long-term economic viability of the agricultural operation. This could ultimately cause the loss of agricultural production due to cessation of operations if the economic impacts become severe enough. 3-12

54 The Bailey Avenue Specific Plan is anticipated to include a 200-foot wide open space setback along the entire western site boundary, thereby buffering future residences from agricultural production to the west. This would partially limit land use compatibility impacts in this area. The EIR impact analysis also discussed that impacts would be further reduced by the following Land Use Element policies. LUE Policy 1.3 The City shall encourage development of under-developed and vacant land within its boundaries, and shall oppose urbanization of agricultural lands east of the City and west of Bailey Avenue. LUE Policy 2.2 The City shall protect residential neighborhoods from encroachment by adverse or incompatible non-residential uses (for example, intensive agriculture or industry) and impacts associated with those non-residential uses, including impacts to neighborhood character. LUE Policy 2.3 The City shall require provision of permanent buffer or transitional areas as part of new residential development adjacent to areas designated for commercial or industrial uses, except where mixed-use development may be appropriate. LUE Policy 7.2 The City shall work with Santa Barbara County to protect agricultural areas from theft and vandalism. LUE Policy 7.6 The City shall require provision of permanent buffer areas as part of new residential development adjacent to areas designated for agriculture. Such buffer areas are intended to provide a separation of uses and limit interference with agricultural activities while still providing for public safety. Changing shall to should in the revised Land Use Element would reduce the effectiveness of the policies in reducing potential land use conflicts between residential and agricultural land uses. However, as defined in the proposed 2030 General Plan Land Use Element, the Urban Limit Line (ULL) defines the ultimate edge of urban development within the City of Lompoc in order to: protect the natural features, scenic hillsides, and agricultural economy of the community; protect the health, safety, and welfare of community residents by directing development away from areas with hazards. In addition, the proposed 2030 General Plan states that long-term agricultural activities shall be outside of the ULL. Urban development inside and adjacent to the ULL shall be designed to incorporate buffer areas with trails or design features which serve to demarcate the urban edge of the community, which should be at least 200 feet wide. For the Bailey Avenue Specific Plan expansion area and River expansion area, both of which are located within and adjacent to the existing ULL, this requirement of the proposed 2030 General Plan would ensure that adequate buffers are established between agricultural and non-agricultural uses and reduce associated land use conflicts. As such, textual changes from 3-13

55 shall to should in the listed Land Use Element policies above would not change the severity of this impact because the 2030 General Plan would ensure that adequate buffers are established between agricultural and non-agricultural uses. No additional mitigation is required Impact LU-3 Impact LU-3 in Section 4.8 Land Use and Agriculture determined that significant and unavoidable impacts related to the conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses would occur within the Bailey Avenue Specific Plan, River and Miguelito Canyon expansion areas. The EIR impact analyses for each of these three expansion areas stated that the following Land Use Element policies, as originally proposed, would reduce impacts: LUE Policy 1.2 The City shall maintain a compact urban form by delineating an Urban Limit Line which establishes the ultimate edge of urban development within the City. Refer to Table LU-1 for additional information on the Urban Limit Line. LUE Policy 1.3 The City shall encourage development of under-developed and vacant land within its boundaries, and shall oppose urbanization of agricultural lands east of the City and west of Bailey Avenue. LUE Policy 1.4 The City shall encourage Santa Barbara County and the Local Agency Formation Commission to plan urbanization within municipalities in order to protect prime agricultural land outside the Urban Limit Line and to efficiently utilize public infrastructure. LUE Policy 5.2 The City shall protect prime agricultural lands east of the City and west of Bailey Avenue. LUE Policy 5.3 To help preserve agriculture on a regional basis, the City shall encourage Santa Barbara County to protect the most productive agricultural soils (Class 1 & 2) in the Lompoc Valley and surrounding areas. LUE Policy 7.1 The City shall assist agricultural-support businesses to expand and/or relocate in the Lompoc Valley. LUE Policy 7.2 The City shall work with Santa Barbara County to protect agricultural areas from theft and vandalism. LUE Policy 7.3 The City shall encourage agricultural education programs conducted by local farming organizations. 3-14

56 LUE Policy 7.4 The City shall encourage the use of sustainable agricultural practices, including organic farming. LUE Policy 7.5 The City shall protect and enhance the flower industry, as well as other specialty crops that are unique to the region. LUE Policy 7.6 The City shall require provision of permanent buffer areas as part of new residential development adjacent to areas designated for agriculture. Such buffer areas are intended to provide a separation of uses and limit interference with agricultural activities while still providing for public safety. (This policy also pertains to Goals #5 and #6.) The textual change from shall to should in the revised Land Use Element would reduce the effectiveness of these policies in reducing impacts related to the direct conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses. However, the EIR included Mitigation Measure LU-3, which requires that a new policy be added to the Conservation/Open Space Element that addresses the conversion of agricultural land. Specifically, Mitigation Measure LU-3 is a program that facilitates the establishment and purchase of on- or off-site Agricultural Conservation Easements for prime farmland and/or important farmland converted within the expansion areas, at a ratio of 1:1 (acreage conserved: acreage impacted), which would reduce impacts to the extent practical. As such, textual changes from shall to should for various Land Use Element policies would not change the severity of this impact, which would remain significant and unavoidable. No additional mitigation is required for these impacts. 3.5 Noise Impact N-2 Impact N-2 in Section 4.9 Noise states that development facilitated by the 2030 General Plan would increase traffic and associated noise levels along area roadways in and around Lompoc, exposing existing land uses to increased noise levels that exceed Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) thresholds. The EIR impact analyses state that the following Circulation Element policies, as originally proposed, would reduce this impact by reducing vehicle miles traveled and thereby reducing vehicle noise: CE Policy 3.1 The City shall provide and maintain a safe and convenient circulation system that encourages walking and that seeks to provide a continuous network of sidewalks and separated pedestrian paths connecting housing areas with major activity centers such as shopping areas, schools, and recreation. 3-15

57 CE Policy 3.2 The City shall provide and maintain a safe and convenient circulation system that encourages bicycle travel. CE Policy 3.3 The City shall encourage programs and strategies including site design features that provide for ridesharing and transit use. CE Policy 3.5 The City shall encourage regional transportation services to accommodate the needs of commuters and ridesharing. CE Policy 3.6 The City shall facilitate the provision of lockers and secure enclosed long term parking areas for bicycles at appropriate places throughout the City and at multi-modal stations to extend the range of the bicycle commuter. CE Policy 3.7 The City shall continue to support transit including the COLT bus system and shall work cooperatively with appropriate jurisdictions and agencies to encourage the augmentation of roadway and transit facilities, which address local and regional travel needs. CE Policy 3.8 The City shall require, during the development review process, the dedication of land and/or construction of appropriate facilities to ensure a safe and efficient public transportation system. CE Policy 3.9 The City should encourage efforts by local employers to offer telecommuting and other work schedule modifications which reduce vehicular use. CE Policy 3.12 The City shall encourage the inclusion of facilities that promote alternative modes of transportation, including bicycle lanes and connections, pedestrian and hiking trails, park and ride lots, and facilities for public transit into new development as well as existing development. CE Policy 3.13 The City supports safe and effective connectivity between adjacent neighborhoods for new development and encourages measures that increase connectivity for existing neighborhoods, where necessary and appropriate. The textual change of shall to should in the revised Circulation Element would not increase the severity of this impact, as these policies would continue to support trip reduction, as well as transportation and pedestrian improvements throughout the City which would contribute to an overall reduction in traffic generated noise levels. In addition, the proposed Land Use Map (refer to Figure 2-4 in the Final EIR), primarily supports infill development or development adjacent to the urban fringe of the City, which would reduce overall vehicle miles traveled and 3-16

58 thereby would reduce traffic generated noise levels. Moreover, the impact analysis also relied upon the following existing Noise Element policies to reduce this impact: NE Policy 1.1 The City shall require each land use to maintain noise levels at their property line in compliance with City standards. NE Policy 1.2 The City shall place a priority upon control of noise at the noise source. NE Policy 1.3 The City shall periodically update the Noise Ordinance to minimize noise exposure within the City. The Noise Ordinance update and acoustical studies shall use the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) methodology for quantification of noise exposure. NE Policy 1.5 The City shall coordinate with Federal, State, and local agencies to minimize noise exposure within the City. NE Policy 1.6 The City shall use noise reduction as one criterion in equipment purchasing policies. NE Policy 2.1 The City shall use the noise standards presented in table entitled "Interior and Exterior Noise Standards" in determining land use designations and maximum noise levels allowable for new developments. These Noise Element policies would ensure that noise impacts are considered and individual development projects and transportation improvements under the proposed 2030 General Plan incorporate appropriate noise attenuation techniques to meet City standards, as appropriate. Therefore, impacts would continue to be less than significant despite the textual change from shall to should in the Circulation Element policies listed above. No additional mitigation is required. 3.6 Transportation and Circulation Impact TC-1 Impact TC-1 in Section 4.13 Transportation and Circulation stated that development facilitated by the 2030 General Plan would result in deficiencies to the local circulation system based on recommended level of service standards. The EIR impact analyses stated that the following Circulation Element policies, as originally proposed, would reduce this impact: CE Goal 1 Maximize the efficiency, quality, and safety of a multi-modal circulation system which provides for the movement of people, 3-17

59 goods, and services to serve the internal circulation needs of the City, while also addressing through-travel needs. CE Policy 1.3 The City shall assure that all improvements to the circulation system necessitated by new development are proportionately financed by the project sponsor. CE Policy 1.4 The City shall only allow development in areas where adequate circulation facilities and/or services, as defined in Policy 1.2, will be available at the time of development. CE Policy 1.5 The City shall maximize movement of through-traffic on expressways and arterials by encouraging efficient utilization of existing roadway capacity, and when necessary providing additional transportation capacity. For arterials, consideration should also be given to planned or future pedestrian and bicyclist facilities so that vehicular improvements are not at the expense of facilities and safety of these other modes of transportation. The textual change of shall to should in the revised Circulation Element would not increase the severity of this impact, as these goals and policies would continue to support transportation improvements and adequate circulation throughout the City. Impacts identified in the analysis would primarily be mitigated by Mitigation Measures TC-1(a) through TC-1(k), which identify intersection improvements such as signalization, restriping, and additional turn lanes to specifically address the intersection impacts. Implementation of mitigation measures TC-1(a) through TC-1(k) would reduce impacts to a less than significant level for all intersections except the A Street/Ocean Avenue intersection. Although Mitigation Measure TC-1(j) could reduce impacts to a less than significant level for the A Street/Ocean Avenue intersection, it is not considered feasible mitigation due to the high costs associated with the improvements. As such, buildout of the draft 2030 General Plan would have an unavoidably significant impact to the A Street/Ocean Avenue intersection. The severity of this impact would not be increased despite the textual change from shall to should to the Circulation Element policies listed above. No additional mitigation is required Impact TC-2 Impact TC-2 in Section 4.13 Transportation and Circulation stated that the placement of new residential development along highly traveled thoroughfares may incrementally increase hazards for pedestrians. The analysis stated that implementation of proposed goals and 3-18

60 policies relating to traffic calming and improving walkability would reduce such impacts. These goals and policies, as originally proposed, included: CE Goal 2 Minimize the public's exposure to circulation-related noise and safety hazards. CE Policy 1.9 The City shall ensure that developers of new commercial and mixed use areas provide adequate and convenient pedestrian access ways into adjacent residential neighborhoods. CE Policy 1.10 The City shall control access along expressways and arterials by limiting the number of intersections and driveways entering and exiting these high traffic roadways and by requiring that any development of new private driveways along such roadways does not introduce significant traffic conflicts. CE Policy 1.11 To avoid the creation of new traffic flow hazards, the City should require that future roads and improvements to existing roads be designed to minimize conflicting traffic movements such as overlapping use of turn lanes, curbside parking, and frequent stops. CE Policy 1.12 The City should improve mobility and access for disabled persons. CE Policy 2.2 The City shall encourage regulatory agencies to designate routes away from urban and environmentally-sensitive areas for transportation of hazardous and explosive materials. CE Policy 2.3 The City shall ensure that approaches to intersection crosswalks and all adjacent street corners are illuminated by requiring all new commercial, entertainment, school and other pedestrian generating uses to provide lighting for pedestrians, for review and consideration by the City as part of the development review process. CE Policy 2.4 The City should encourage the provision of crosswalks along major access routes to all schools. For newly proposed schools, the City shall work with the school district to ensure the provision of crosswalks as part of development. 3-19

61 CE Policy 2.5 As part of the development review process, the City should require a system of sidewalks or pathways for all new development to provide a safe environment for pedestrians and promote pedestrian use. CE Policy 2.6 The City shall consider the extent of vehicular through-traffic on local streets in new residential neighborhoods and should encourage the minimization of such through-traffic. The textual change of shall to should in the revised Circulation Element would not increase the severity of this impact, as these goals and policies would continue to support safe pedestrian oriented improvements throughout the City. Application of standard requirements in Municipal Code Title 10 Vehicles and Traffic and Title 12 Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places, which set forth general standards and requirements for street, sidewalk and pedestrian safety improvements and require review and approval of individual improvements by the City Engineer, would minimize traffic-related hazards to pedestrians associated with development under the 2030 General Plan. Therefore, the severity of this impact would not be increased despite the textual change from shall to should in the Circulation Element policies listed above. No additional mitigation is required Impact TC-3 Impact TC-3 in Section 4.13 Transportation and Circulation stated that implementation of the 2030 General Plan would be expected to generally enhance the use of alternative transportation modes, including transit, bicycling, and walking as a result of the following policies: CE Goal 3 Maximize the use and convenience of alternative transportation modes to reduce reliance on automobile use and reduce the associated vehicular traffic-related emissions. CE Policy 3.1 The City shall provide and maintain a safe and convenient circulation system that encourages walking and that seeks to provide a continuous network of sidewalks and separated pedestrian paths connecting housing areas with major activity centers such as shopping areas, schools, and recreation. CE Policy 3.2 The City shall provide and maintain a safe and convenient circulation system that encourages bicycle travel. 3-20

62 CE Policy 3.3 The City shall encourage programs and strategies including site design features that provide for ridesharing and transit use. CE Policy 3.4 The City shall provide safe and convenient transit service which strives to meet the needs of the transportation-disadvantaged including young, elderly, disabled, and low-income individuals. Such transit service should provide frequent, reliable and efficient service, with service hours that meet the needs of riders to maintain and increase the viability of public transit as an alternative to driving for Lompoc residents and commuting workers. CE Policy 3.5 The City shall encourage regional transportation services to accommodate the needs of commuters and ridesharing. CE Policy 3.6 The City shall facilitate the provision of lockers and secure enclosed long term parking areas for bicycles at appropriate places throughout the City and at multi-modal stations to extend the range of the bicycle commuter. CE Policy 3.7 The City shall continue to support transit including the COLT bus system and shall work cooperatively with appropriate jurisdictions and agencies to encourage the augmentation of roadway and transit facilities, which address local and regional travel needs. CE Policy 3.8 The City shall require, during the development review process, the dedication of land and/or construction of appropriate facilities to ensure a safe and efficient public transportation system. CE Policy 3.9 The City should encourage efforts by local employers to offer telecommuting and other work schedule modifications which reduce vehicular use. CE Policy 3.10 The City should require developers to provide bus shelters in highusage locations, for example, in multi-family developments and within commercial areas. The City should consider the need for bus 3-21

63 shelters and other transit facilities in City-sponsored redevelopment projects. CE Policy 3.11 The City shall require the construction of bus turnouts adjacent to new developments in locations which improve transit service, safety, and efficiency. CE Policy 3.12 The City shall encourage the inclusion of facilities that promote alternative modes of transportation, including bicycle lanes and connections, pedestrian and hiking trails, park and ride lots, and facilities for public transit into new development as well as existing development. CE Policy 3.13 The City supports safe and effective connectivity between adjacent neighborhoods for new development and encourages measures that increase connectivity for existing neighborhoods, where necessary and appropriate. The textual change of shall to should in the revised Circulation Element would not increase the severity of this impact, as these goals and policies would continue to support improved sidewalks, bike paths, and transit throughout the City. In addition, the impact discussion did not identify adverse physical impacts due to implementation of the 2030 General Plan, but rather noted the beneficial impact on transportation systems as a result of encouraging alternative transportation. Therefore, this would continue to be a beneficial impact with the textual change from shall to should in the Circulation Element policies listed above. No additional mitigation is required. 3-22

64 4.0 REFERENCES Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP). Alternative Approaches to Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change in CEQA Documents. June 29, California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). January California Air Resources Board. Climate Change Emission Control Fact Sheet, California Air Resources Board. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data, California Climate Change Center. Climate Scenarios for California California Climate Change Center. The Impacts of Sea-Level Rise on the California Coast. May California Department of Water Resources. Progress on Incorporating Climate Change into Management of California s Water Resources. July California Energy Commission. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: December, California Energy Commission. Inventory Draft 2009 Biennial Report to the Governor and Legislature. Staff Draft Report. March California Department of Finance, E-4 Population Estimates for California Cities and Counties, January 1, 1981 to January 1, Sacramento, California, California Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, , with 2000 Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May California Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, , with 2000 Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May California Department of Water Resources. Managing an Uncertain Future: Climate Change Adaptation Strategies for California s Water. October

65 California Environmental Protection Agency, March Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. 03_FINAL_CAT_REPORT_EXECSUMMARY.PDF. California Natural Resources Agency, December California Climate Adaptation Strategy. Cayan, D., A.L. Luers, M. Hanemann, G. Granco, and B. Croes. Scenarios of Climate Change in California: An Overview. California Climate Change Center, State of California. White Paper, CEC SF. March 2006 Cayan, D., E. Maurer, M. Dettinger, M. Tyree, K. Hayhoe, C. Bonfils, P. Duffy, and B. Santer. Climate Scenarios for California: Climate Action Team Reports to the Governor and Legislature Cayan, Dan, Mary Tyree, Mike Dettinger, Hugo Hidalgo, Tapash Das, Ed Maurer, Peter Bromirski, Nicholas Graham, and Reinhard Flick (2009). Climate Change Scenarios and Sea Level Rise Estimates for the California 2008 Climate Change Scenarios Assessment. PIER Research Report, CEC , Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commission. Energy Information Administration, Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) Detailed Tables. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]. Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. [Kroeze, C.; Mosier, A.; Nevison, C.; Oenema, O.; Seitzinger, S.; Cleemput, O. van; Conrad, R.; Mitra, A.P.; H.U., Neue; Sass, R.]. Paris: OECD, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2007: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Kiparsky, Michael and Peter H. Gleick, Climate Change and California Water Resources: A Survey and Summary of the Literature. California Energy Commission Report

66 Lompoc, City of, Utilities Department, Electricity Division. Power Content Label. Accessed June 30, Available at: Parmesan, C Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change. Parmesan C, Galbraith H Observed Ecological Impacts of Climate Change in North America. Arlington, VA: Pew Center for Global Climate Change South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), November CEQA Air Quality Handbook. U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder. Available at: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Review from the U.S. Government. August U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP). December U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: USEPA #430-R April U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: April 15, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (

67 This page intentionally left blank. 4-4

68 Appendix A Greenhouse Gas Calculations