HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 167-10 Climate Action PlanRESOLUTION NO. 167-10
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
***********
ADOPTING THE CITY OF DUBLIN CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
WHEREAS, the Fiscal Year 2010/2011 City Council Goals and Objectives includes as a
high priority goal, the creation of a Climate Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2007, the Dublin City Council passed Resolution 139-07
approving participation in the Climate Protection Project for Alameda County jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin committed to ICLEI's five milestone methodology for
reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within the City, which includes the development of a
Climate Action Plan for reducing GHG emissions; and
WHEREAS, in June 2010, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
adopted California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) air quality thresholds of significance for
use within its jurisdiction, which included an emission level threshold and an efficiency threshold
for GHG emissions for development projects; and
WHEREAS, alternatively, under CEQA and the BAAQMD CEQA thresholds, a City may
prepare a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy or Climate Action Plan to evaluate a community's
cumulative impact due to GHG emissions from future planned development; and
WHEREAS, if a project is consistent with an adopted, qualified GHG Reduction Strategy
or Climate Action Plan, the Strategy/Plan can be used as a basis for determining that the project
would have a less than significant impact on a community's cumulative GHG emissions under
CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has contracted with AECOM to assist Staff in preparing
the Draft Climate Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Climate Action Plan does the following:
o Provides background on actions taken to curb GHG emissions;
o Presents Dublin's baseline GHG emissions inventory in 2005 and forecast for GHG
emissions in 2020 based on business-as-usual scenario;
o Establishes a GHG emission reduction target of 20% from the 2020 GHG emissions
forecast which results in an efficiency level of 4.22 MT C02e per service population
per year in 2020;
o Sets forth GHG emission reduction policies and measures for transportation/land use,
energy, and solid waste and recycling that Dublin will implement or is already
implementing to achieve the reduction target;
Page 1 of 3
o Presents steps for implementation, monitoring and verification of the Plan to achieve
the designated emission reduction target; and
WHEREAS, the reduction measures within the Draft Climate Action Plan are grouped
into the following seven categories:
1. Communitywide Transportation and Land Use Measures;
2. Communitywide Energy Measures;
3. Communitywide Solid Waste and Recycling Measures;
4. Municipal Transportation and Land Use Measures;
5. Municipal Energy Measures;
6. Municipal Solid Waste and Recycling Measures; and
7. Public Outreach Programs.
WHEREAS, the Draft CAP community-wide measures combined with the Statewide
initiatives would reduce the anticipated emissions in the community by 99,000 metric tons/year
of carbon dioxide equivalent and would achieve the City's reduction goal of reducing GHG
emissions by 20% below the business-as-usual projection of GHG emitted during 2020 by said
year which results in an efficiency level of 4.22 MT COze per service population per year in
2020; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act certain projects
are required to be reviewed for environmental impacts and when applicable, environmental
documents prepared; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Draft
Climate Action Plan and related Negative Declaration on October 26, 2010 and adopted
Resolution 10-50 recommending that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration and
Resolution 10-51 recommending that the City Council adopt the Climate Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a property noticed public hearing on the Draft Climate
Action Plan and related Negative Declaration on November 16, 2010; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the City Council adopt a
Resolution approving the Draft Climate Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did review and consider the Negative Declaration and the
Draft Climate Action Plan, all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set
forth prior to making its decision on the Draft Climate Action Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin City Council does hereby approve
and adopt the Climate Action Plan, attached as Exhibit A.
Page 2 of 3
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of November 2010 by the following
vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Biddle, Hart, Hildenbrand, Scholz, and Mayor Sbranti
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
/ ~~
~J~. ~~
ATTEST:
~ ~~
City Clerk
Mayor
Reso No. 167-10, Adopted 11-16-10, Item 6.3 Page 3 of 3
~J C~~ ~ ~,; ~
City of Dublin
Climate Action Plan
.~ O~ D~~
~~ ~~
~ ~ ~
lll ~ ~11
19 ~~~~'- -,~ 8'2
i
~-
Cy~~ ~~,~
I~'O~'R-
October 2010
C~,~ d,~ ~
` C~
Letter from the Mayor
The Dublin City Council has adopted the following Mission Statement: "The City of Dublin
promotes and supports a high quality of life which ensures a safe and secure environment that
fosters new opportunities. " It is with this mission in mind that I present to you our Climate
Action Plan. Over the past several years, the City has worked diligently to ensure a high quality
of life for its residents by enacting sound and effective environmental pYOgrams. In fact, the
City's many environmental goals have established it as a leader in environmental stewardship.
This document codifies much of the City's environmental work and provides an overarching plan
for further protecting our cosnmunity and maintaining our goal of a high quality of life for our
residents and businesses.
The City of Dublin has put considerable effort into the creation of a more sustainable
environment to protect its current and future generations. As a result, the City has developed,
implemented, and is actively monitoring programs that manage its natural resources and
eliminate waste. Specifically, the City has placed significant emphasis on promoting
conservation efforts and establishing renewable energy sources. In addition, the City plays a
primary role in administering and enforcing many environmental laws that protect our
community. By way of example, in the last five to 10 years, the City has built facilities with more
energy efficient and green building principles; legislated transit-oriented, high-density and
mixed use developments to minimize the need for automotive travel; improved bicycle pathways;
enhanced ouY recycling and organics collection progr~ams; installed more energy efficient
lighting; and convened a City Council-initiated Green Initiatives Taskforce, which engaged
community stakeholders in the process of developing important environmental objectives. The
City of Dublin has been, and will continue to be, at the forefront of the environmental movement.
While this Climate Action Plan will primarily serve the community as a greenhouse gas
reduction strategy, the plan is also an invitation for the community to join with us in continuing
to improve the quality of life for everyone who works, stays or plays in Dublin. While the City
can do many things, it is also up to you, the citizens, students, organizations and businesses of
this great community to take the initiative to do more in your daily lives. By doing simple things
such as reducing your energy consumption, increasing your recycling, increasing your use of
alternative tYansportation, and buying local, you can and will play a large role in making Dublin
a better, more sustainable city. Remember every contribution helps no matter the size, so please
join us in these efforts. Thank you for your interest and participation!
Sincerely,
~,~.-__ _
Tim Sbranti, Mayor
City of Dublin
Acknowledgements
c;ty council
Tim Sbranti, Mayor
Kasie Hildenbrand, Vice Mayor
Don Biddle, Councilmember
Kevin Hart, Councilmember
Kate Ann Scholz, Councilmember
City Staff - Key Supporting
Joni Pattillo, City Manager
Chris Foss, Assistant City Manager
Jeri Ram, Community Development Director
Jeff Baker, Planning Manager
Martha Aja, Environmental Specialist
Jordan Figueiredo, Environmental Technician
John Bakker, City Attorney
Tim Cremin, City Attorney's Office
City Staff - Lead and Contact for the Plan
Roger Bradley, Senior Administrative Analyst
AECOM
Claire Bonham-Carter, Principal in Charge
Jeff Henderson, Project Manager
Heather Phillips, Former Senior Air Quality and Climate Change Specialist
Christy Seifert, Technical Editor
Alameda County Waste Management Authority (StopWaste.org)
Debra Kaufman, Senior Program Manager
Meghan Starkey, Senior Program Manager
PG&E
Jasmin Ansar
Xantha Bruso, Climate Protection Policy Specialist
Lynne Galal, Senior Project Manager
Greg San Martin, Climate Protection Program Manager
Jenna Olsen
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Amir Fanai, Principal Air Quality Engineer
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Harold Brazil, Air Quality Associate .
ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability
Gary Cook, California Director
Alden Feldon, Regional Program Manager
Brooke Lee, Program Officer
Jonathan Strunin, Program Officer
Wesley Look, Program Associate
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
`~ ~~~ .,~
Jonathan Knauer, Program Associate
Alison Culpen, Progam Associate
Ayrin Zahner, Former Program Associate
Jennifer Holzer, Former Program Associate
Palak Joshi, Former Program Associate
The inventory was prepared by Ayrin Zahner, Jonathan Strunin and Alison Culpen at ICLEI-
Local Governments for Sustainability U.S.A.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 4
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
Table of Contents
Background: The Alameda County Climate Protection Project
Executive Summary
I. Introduction
A. Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Action
II. Emissions Inventory
A. Reasoning, Methodology, & Model
1. ICLEI's Emissions Analysis Software
2. Inventory Data Sources and Creation Process
B. Inventory Results
1. Community Emissions Inventory
2. Municipal Emissions Inventory
III. Forecast for Greenhouse Gas Emissions
IV. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Target
V. Emissions Reduction Measures & Policies
A. Communitywide Measures
l. Transportation and Land Use Measures
2. Energy Measures
3. Solid Waste and Recycling Measures
B. Municipal Operations Measures
1. Transportation and Land Use Measures
2. Energy Measures
3. Solid Waste and Recycling Measures
C. Public Outreach Programs
VI. Measures Implemented by the State
A. State Climate Change Planning
B. Energy
C. Transportation and Land Use
VII. Summary of Emission Reductions
VIII. Implementation, Monitoring & Future Review
A. Implementation
B. Monitoring
C. Periodic Review
D. Point of Contact
IX. Relationship to the California Environmental Quality Act
Appendices
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 5
1 ~ a: .~. ~; r
Background: The Alameda County Climate Protection Project
To date, all 14 cities in Alameda County, California, are members of ICLEI - Local Governments
far Sustainability (ICLEI) and are participating in the Alameda County Climate Protection
Project (ACCPP). The participating jurisdictions include:
Alameda Dublin Livermore Pleasanton
Alameda County Emeryville Newark San Leandro
Albany Fremont Oakland Union City
Berkeley Hayward Piedmont
The ACCPP was launched by ICLEI in partnership with the Alameda County Waste Management
Authority & Recycling Board (StopWaste.Org) and the Alameda County Conference of Mayors.
In committing to the project, these jurisdictions embarked on an ongoing, coordinated effort to
reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, improve air quality, reduce waste, cut energy use, and
save money. Toward that end, ICLEI and StopWaste.Org assisted each participating jurisdiction
to conduct a baseline inventory of GHG emissions, set a target for reducing community-wide
emissions, and develop a climate action plan (CAP) that consists of policies and measures that,
when implemented, will enable each jurisdiction to meet its target.
About Alameda County
Alameda County is a metropolitan region of the San Francisco Bay Area. The U.S. Census
Bureau's Population Division estimates the county's population at 1.45 million (2005), the 7`~
most populous county in California. Like other metropolitan areas, inhabitants of the county and
the cities therein contribute to the problem of excess GHGs, while also holding immense potential
to contribute to the solution. The energy consumed and the waste produced within the county's
boundaries result in thousands of tons of heat-trapping GHG emissions, but, as is evidenced by
the widespread municipal involvement in the ACCPP, local government participants are firmly
committed to building on existing efforts to reduce these emissions.
The first step in managing GHG emissions is to establish an inventory of those emissions. Below
is a chart of global GHG emissions, which includes the amount of inetric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent (MT C02e) that is generated worldwide, within the United States, the State of
California, and in Alameda County. Far context, California is the 16`~ largest emitter in the
world-if it were considered a country of its own-second only to Texas in the U.S. Per capita
emissions in California, however, are among the lowest in the U.S. Further, emissions in
Alameda County are less than the California average.
About the City of Dublin
The City of Dublin consists of approximately 14.9 square miles of land area lying in eastern
Alameda County, also known as the Livermore-Amador Valley, or the Tri-Valley area.
Surrounding jurisdictions include the City of San Ramon and unincorporated Contra Costa
County to the north, unincorparated Alameda County to the east and west and Cities of
Pleasanton and Livermore to the south.
Major features in the community include the Interstate 580 freeway, which forms the southern
boundary of Dublin and the Interstate 680 freeway which extends in a north-south direction just
east of downtown Dublin. The City is also served by the Bay Area Rapid Transit District
(BART), with an existing Dublin/Pleasanton Station and a West Dublin Station currently under
construction and anticipated to be completed in 2011.
Topogaphically, the community is generally flat north of the Interstate 580 corridor, transitioning
to rolling hillsides in the northern and western portions of Dublin.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 6
4
~ ...~"
Dublin's major land uses include the older commercial downtown area north of the Interstate 580
freeway, generally located between San Ramon Road and Village Parkway. Uses surrounding the
downtown area are comprised primarily of low density, single-family dwellings.
Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (RFTA, also known as Camp Parks) is located in the
approximate center of Dublin and is used for military training purposes.
The newest portion of Dublin is Eastern Dublin, consisting of appro~mately 4,200 acres of land
located east of Parks RFTA, north of Interstate 580, south of the Alameda County-Contra Costa
County line and west of the unincorparated Doolan Canyon area. Eastern Dublin has been
urbanizing since adoption of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan in
1993. The area now contains a mix of single-family dwellings, multiple-family dwellings, and
commercial and government facility land uses. Completion of the Dublin/Pleasanton BART
Station has facilitated development of high-density housing complexes in this portion of Dublin.
About the Sponsor: StopWaste.Org
The Alameda County Climate Protection Project was financially sponsored by StopWaste.Org in
an effort to support its member agencies m building a region that is continually progressing
toward environmentally and economically sound resource management. StopWaste.Org is a
public agency formed in 1976 by a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between Alameda
County (County), each of the 14 cities within the county, and two sanitary districts. The agency
serves as the Alameda County Waste Management Authority and the Alameda County Source
Reduction and Recycling Board. In this dual role, StopWaste.Org is responsible for the
preparation and implementation of the County Integrated Waste Management Plan and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan and the delivery of voter-approved programs supporting
waste reduction, recycled product procurement, market development, and grants to nonprofit
organizations to help the County achieve its 75% waste diversion goal.
Key program areas in which StopWaste.Org provides technical and financial assistance to its
member agencies include:
• business recycling and waste prevention services through the StopWaste Partnership;
• organics programs, including residential and commercial food waste collection and the
promotion of Bay-Friendly Landscaping and gardening;
• green building and construction and demolition debris recycling;
• market development; and
• education and outreach, including recycling at schools.
As is demonstrated in this document, many of StopWaste.Org's program areas dovetail nicely
with municipal efforts to reduce GHG emissions. While the agency's charge to reduce the waste
stream in Alameda County may seem external to traditional emissions reduction strategies, it is
working closely with ICLEI in an ongoing way to illustrate the emissions benefits of waste
reduction and recycling. StopWaste.Org and ICLEI have compiled results in this report that show
how practices such as residential and commercial recycling and composting, buying recycled
products, green building, and Bay-Friendly Landscaping play important roles in a local
government's strategy for mitigating emissions. GHG mitigation can be seen as an umbrella
under which the agency's programs play a substantial role.
About ICLEI and the Cities for Climate Protection Campaign
ICLEI's mission is to improve the global environment through local action. Cities for Climate '
Protectiori (CGP), ICLEI's flagship campaign, is designed to educate and empower local
governments worldwide to ttake action on ciimate change. ICLEI provides resources, tools, and '
technicaI assistance to help local' governments measure and reduce GHG emissions in their'
communities and their internal municipal operations.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 7
~»... (,T ~..~a~' )
ICLEI's CCP campaign was launched in 1993 when municipal leaders, invited by ICLEI, met at
the United Nations in New Yark and adopted a declaration calling for establishment of a
worldwide movement of local governments to reduce GHG emissions, improve air quality, and
enhance urban sustainability. The CCP campaign achieves these results by linking GHG
mitigation with actions that improve local air quality, reduce local government operating costs,
and improve quality of life by addressing other local concerns. The CCP campaign seeks to
achieve significant reductions in U.S. GHG emissions by assisting local governments in taking
action to reduce emissions and realize multiple benefits for their communities.
ICLEI uses the performance-oriented framewark and methodology of the CCP campaign's five
milestones to assist U.S. local governments in developing and implementing harmonized local
approaches to reduce the effects of GHGs and air pollution emissions, with the additional benefit
of improving community livability.
The milestone process consists of:
~ Milestone 1: Conduct a baseline emissions inventory and forecast.
• Milestone 2: Adopt an emissions reduction target.
• Milestone 3: Develop a CAP to reduce emissions.
• Milestone 4: Implement policies and measures.
• Milestone 5: Monitor and verify results.
Table 1- World Greenhouse Gas Emissions Scenarios
Percent of
~'orld Percent Percent of
GHGs GHG of U.S. California
Locations MT COZe/yr Emissions Emissions Emissions
World (2000) 37,151,615,800 100.0%
United States 7,572,613,400 20.4% 100%
(2000)
California (2004) 597,486,768 1.6% 7.9% 100.0%
ACCPP Region 6,292,853 0.083% 1.105%
~2~~5~ 1,2,3
ACCPP 88,746 0.015%
Governments
(2005)
Notes: ACCPP = Alameda County Climate Protection Project; GHG = greenhouse gas; MT COZe = metric
tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions
Source: (2000) World and United States emissions from World Resources Institute - Climate Analysis
Indicators tool (http://cait.wri.or~. (2004) California emissions from California Energy Commission
(http://www.ener~y.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-600-2006-013/CEC-600-2006-013-SF.PDF). Figures
exclude land use related emissions.
' Data includes the first 10 cities that joined the ACCPP (Alameda City, Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville,
Hayward, Newark, Oakland, Piedmont, San Leandro, and Union City).
2 The baseline year is 2005 for all cities, except for Albany and Emeryville, which inventoried 2004
emissions.
3 GHG emissions for ACCPP cities are based on ICLEI GHG Emissions Protocol for Local Governments,
which includes end-use energy, transportation, and waste sector within city boundaries. World and United
States emissions are based on national GHG inventories, which additionally include fugitive emissions,
industrial process emissions, and other modes of transportation.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 8
~: .., ~e -~
Fast Facts
2000 worldwide per capita GHG emissions (tons COZe)
2004 U.S. per capita GHG emissions (tons COZe)
2004 California per capita GHG emissions (tons COZe)
Source: 2004, U.S.A. GHG Emissions from EPA
(http://www. epa. ~ov/climatechanpe/emissions/downloads06/06ES.pd fl
1 metric ton (MT) equals 1.102 short tons.
Alameda Countv Fast Facts
Population (2005): 1.45 million
Number of Autos (2000): 4.5 million
Annual Electricity Usage per Capita (2004): 6,738 kWh
Annual Natural Gas Usage per Capita (2004): 330 therms
Annual Water Usage per Capita (2004): 46,000 gallons
Avg. Waste per Person (2004): 1.03 tons
Avg. Waste per Business (2004): 35.0 tons
Avg. Waste Diversion Rate (2004): 60%
Source: StopWaste.org
5.51 MT COze
2534 MT COze
18.73 MT COze
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 9
~ ~,{, .. ~ ~ ~ .y..
Executive Summary
The world's population is releasing GHGs as byproducts from combusting fossil fuels, disposing
of waste, using energy, and changing land uses and other human activities. Although the United
States accounts for only 4% of the world's population, it produces 20.4% of the world's GHG
emissions. Within this context, the City of Dublin (City) seeks to be a good environmental
steward by curtailing emissions within its jurisdiction. Residents, businesses, and government
operations within Dublin released 357,211 MT COze in 2005. Under a business-as-usual scenario,
these emissions would grow over the next 15 years (by 2020) by approximately 31.9%, from
357,211 MT COze to 471,205 MT COZe. This growth is attributed to new residential and
commercial growth expected over this time period.
On July 17, 2007, the City pledged to take action to reduce GHG emissions within the
community. The Dublin City Council passed Resolution 139-07, committing Dublin to join other
jurisdictions in the ACCPP. In so doing, Dublin committed to ICLEI's five-milestone
methodology.
The City is committed to reducing community-wide GHG emissions by 20% below business-as-
usual GHGs emissions by 2020. The City expects this reduction target to be achieved through a
combination of the reduction measures included in this plan and state initiatives, such as the
Renewable Portfolio Standards and Assembly Bill 1493 (Pavley). In addition, the CAP employs
the BAAQMD GHG efficiency threshold of 6.6 MT C02e per service population per year as
evidence of the City intent to meet the intent of AB 32 to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 level by
2020. The 20% reduction target results in a farecasted efficiency metric of 4.2 MT C02e per
service population for the City in 2020, which is 37% below the BAAQMD threshold.
Local governments play an integral role in reducing GHG emissions because they have direct or
indirect control over many emission sources. The Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan)
adopted by the California Air Resources Control Board (ARB) pursuant to AB 32 states that land
use planning and urban growth decisions will play a role in the state's GHG reductions because
local governments have primary autharity to plan, zone, approve, and permit how land is
developed to accommodate population growth.
The City of Dublin is currently implementing numerous programs and projects across multiple
sectors that are helping to reduce GHG emissions. Although the City has taken significant steps to
address climate change, this is the first document that assembles all of the City's climate action
efforts into a centralized plan. Strategies to reduce GHG emissions are organized into 34
reduction measures applicable to community or to municipal activities. These measures represent
actions to reduce GHG emissions that City government has taken since 2005. While there may be
some policies included within the CAP that existed prior to 2005, such policies were only
included within the CAP if the impact of the policy did not occur until after 2005. Simply, the
City has attempted to prevent any situation where the double counting of a policy's reduction
impact might occur.
The City is committed to continuing actions to reduce GHG emissions and to supplementing
these actions in future years if needed to achieve the reduction target. In addition, these actions
will result in many other benefits for the Dublin community such as improved environmental
quality and public health and a more sustainable business-friendly environment.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 10
The City of Dublin's Climate Action Plan
The City's CAP:
• provides background on actions taken to curb GHG emissions;
• presents Dublin's baseline GHG emissions inventory in 2005 and forecast for GHG
emissions in 2020 based on business-as-usual scenario;
• establishes a GHG emissions reduction target of 20% from the 2020 GHG emissions
farecast;
• outlines GHG emission reduction policies and measures for transportation/land use,
energy, and solid waste and recycling that Dublin will implement and/or is already
implementing to achieve its reduction target; and
• presents steps for implementation of the Plan and monitoring and verification of the Plan
to achieve the designated emissions reduction target.
This CAP serves as the City of Dublin's qualified GHG Reduction Plan and programmatic tiering
document far the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for analysis of
impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. The City has determined that the
reduction target under the Plan will reduce the impact from activities under the Plan to less than
significant under CEQA. Therefore, this Plan may be used for the cumulative impact analysis for
future development and projects in the City covered by the Plan. If a proposed project is
consistent with the applicable emission reduction measures identified in the CAP, the project
would be considered to have a less than significant impact (i.e. less than cumulatively
considerable contribution to significant cumulative impact) due to GHG emissions and climate
change consistent with Public Resources Code 210833 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183.5,
15064 and 15130. Please refer to Chapter IX. Relationship to the California Environmental
Quality Act for additional detail.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 11
~ ,, >
~'~ ~?,~ + :; - i
I. Introduction
The following sections describe international, federal, state, and local actions being taken to curb
GHG emissions.
A. GHG Emission Reduction Action
In 1997, ten thousand (10,000) international delegates, observers, and journalists gathered in
Kyoto, Japan, to participate in the drafting and adoption of the Kyoto Protocol, which requires
industrialized nations to reduce their collective GHG emissions to 5.2% below 1990 levels. As of
January 2007, 162 countries have ratified the protocol. Additionally, since 1995 the annual
Conference of the Parties (COP) has met to discuss action and implementation to reduce GHG
emissions.
State Action
California has taken significant steps at the state level and has been leading the charge on
combating GHG emissions through various pieces of legislation, which include:
Senate Bi111771 Sher, 20~0 - Requires the California Energy Cammission'(CEC)'to prepare an
inventory of the state's GHG emissions, study data 'on global elimate change,' and provide'
government ageneies and businesses with information' on the costs' and methods for reducing
GHGs. Senate Bill (SB) 1771 also 'established the California Giimate Action Registry to serve as' :
a certifying agency for companies and local governments to quantify and register fheir GH~'
emissions for possihle future trading systems.
S'enate Bill 1078 Sher, 2002 - Established the' Renewable Portfolio Standard, which requires'
electricity providers to increase purchases of renewable energy resources by 1% per year until
they have attained a portfolio of 20%o renewable resources.
Assembly Bill 1493 Pavley, 2002 - Requires the Air Resources Board (ARB~ to develop and.'
adopt reguIations that achieve the maximum feasible reduction of GHGs from vehicles primarily<
used for noncommercial transportation. To meet the requirements of Assembly Bill ,(AB) 1493, in '
2004, ARB approved amendments to California's existing standards for mofor vehicles.'' These
amendments require automobile manufactures to meet fleet-averaged GHG emission limits for a11'
passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicle weigh~ classes, beginning
in 2009. Cars sold in California are anticipated to emit an average of 16% less GHGs than current
models.
Execufive Order S-3-05, 2005 - Proclaims that California is vulnerable ta the effects of climate''
change'and establishes targets far GHG emissions, which inciude reducing GHG emissions to''
20001evels by'2010, to 19901evels by 2020, and to 801o below 19901evels by 2050.
Assembly Bi1132 Nunez & Pavley,' 2006 - Institutes a mandatory limit on GHG emissions, which'
is to reduce emissions in Galifornia to 1990 levels by'the year 2020, or 30% below forecasted'
levels. The bill also directs ARB to establish a mandatory reporting system to track and monitor
emission levels and, requires ARB to develop' various cornpliance options and enforcemenY
mechanisms. This led fo creation of the Climate Change Scoping Plan.
Assembly Bill 81I, 2007 - Authorizes all local governments in California to estabIish special
districts that can be used to finance solar or other renewable energy improvements'to homes and ~
businesses in their jurisdiction.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 12
j ~ ~ j~..~ { :•" ~
Senate Bi1197, 20Q7- Acknowledges tha~ climate change is a prominent enviro~arnentak issue that '
requires analysis under CEQA and directed the Governor's Office' of PIanning & Researeh to '
develop guidelines for mitigating GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissiQns, as required by '
CEQA. These revisions to the CEQA guidelines'took effect in March 2010.
Executive Order 5-1-07, 2007 - Identifies the transportation' sector' as the'main source of GHG '
emissions in' California, accounting for more than 40% of statewide GHG emissions. This
' executive order also establishes a' goal to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels sold '
in California by a minirr~um of I O% by 2010.
Senate Bill 375 Steinberg, 2008 - Aims to reduce GHG emissions by cannecting transportatian'
funding to land use plannmg. SB 375 creates a process by which local go~ernments and other;
' stakeholders ' work together within their region to achieve reduction of GHG emissions through ',
integrated development patterns, improved transportation planning, and other' transportation '
measures and policies.
Executive Order S-13-08,',2008 - Directs the Natural Resources Agency'tto identify how s~ate '
agencies can adapt to rising temperatures, changing' precipitation 'patterns, sea level rise7 and '
extreme natural events. This led to creation of the California Climate Adaptation Strategy'.
Executive Order S-I4-08, 2008 - Expands California's Renewable Energy Standard Ito 33%0
renewable pawer by' 2020. _-
California has led the nation in addressing this global issue with the hope that through collective
action at the local level, global changes in the way we use resources and develop as a society will
change and ultimately reduce the effects of GHG emissions on the human and natural
environment.
Local Action
ICLEI- Local Governments for Sustainability
A great deal of wark is being done at the local level on climate change as well. ICLEI-Local
Governments for Sustainability provides national leadership on climate protection and sustainable
development and has been a leader both internationally and domestically far more than 10 years.
Since its inception in 1990, ICLEI has grown to include over 1,100 cities in the world. ICLEI was
launched in the United States in 1995 and has grown to more than 600 cities and counties. In June
2006, ICLEI launched the California Local Government Climate Task Force as a formal
mechanism to provide ongoing input and collaboration in the State of California's climate action
process.
U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement
ICLEI also works in conjunction with the U.S. Conference of Mayors to track progress and
implementation of the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, launched in 2005, which more
than 376 mayors have signed to date, pledging to meet or beat the Kyoto Protocol emissions
reduction target in their own communities. By 2010, Alameda County mayars from Alameda,
Albany, Berkeley, Dublin, Fremont, Hayward, Newark, Oakland, Pleasanton, and San Leandro
signed the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
In June 2010, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted CEQA air
quality thresholds of significance for use within its jurisdiction. BAAQMD has direct and indirect
regulatory authority over sources of air pollution in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, of
which the City of Dublin is a part. The overall goal of this effort was to develop CEQA
significance criteria that ensure that future development implements appropriate and feasible
emission~reduction measures to mitigate significant air quality and climate change impacts.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 13
l~u,,~''~ ~
, ~
BAAQNID has adopted a threshold of 1,100 MT COze per year ar 4.6 metric tons per service
population (residents and employees) per year for development projects. The adopted project
threshold (1,100 metric tons of C02e/yr) is equivalent to approximately 60 single-family units,
78 multi-family units, a supermarket exceeding 8,000 square feet and an office park exceeding
50,000 square feet. Projects with emissions greater than the adopted threshold would be required
to mitigate to the proposed threshold level or reduce project emissions by a percentage deemed
feasible by the lead agency. BAAQMD's approach is to identify the emissions level for which a
project would result in less than significant impact under CEQA and would not be expected to
substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG
emissions. If a project would generate GHG emissions above the threshold level, it would be
considered to contribute substantially to a cumulative impact and would be considered to result in
a significant impact under CEQA.
Alternatively, a city may prepare a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy that furthers AB 32 goals.
BAAQMD encourages such planning efforts and recognizes that careful early planning by local
agencies is invaluable to achieving the state's GHG reduction goals. If a project is consistent with
an adopted qualified GHG Reduction Strategy that addresses the project's GHG emissions, the
Strategy/Plan can be used as a basis for determining that the project would have a less than
significant impact (i.e. less than cumulatively considerable contribution) due to greenhouse gas
emissions and climate change under CEQA.
CEQA contains standards for Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans that can be used in the cumulative
impacts analysis for projects covered under the Plan (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5).
BAAQMD recognizes these CEQA standards as meeting the District's standards far a Reduction
Strategy. BAAQNID contains some standards in addition to those under CEQA. However,
BAAQMD's additional standards are not a legal requirement for CEQA compliance.
Nevertheless, the City has developed its CAP to substantially comply with the BAAQMD
standards.
The CAP has been developed to meet both the CEQA and BAAQMD standards for a qualified
GHG Reduction Plan/Strategy. Below is a description of how the CAP substantially complies
with these standards:
(A) Quantify GHG emissions, both existing and projected over a specified time period,
resulting from activities within a defined geographic area.
The City of Dublin CAP includes a GHG emissions inventory that quantifies an existing baseline
level of emissions for 2005 and projected GHG emissions from a business-as-usual (BAU), no-
plan, forecast scenario for 2020 (See Chapter II. Emissions Inventory). The baseline year is based
on the existing growth pattern. The projected GHG emissions are based on the emissions from
anticipated growth through 2020.
Furthermore:
The baseline inventory includes one complete calendar year of data for 2005. COZ is
inventoried for residential, commerciaUindustrial, transportation and waste sectars.
• Business-as-usual emissions are projected in the absence of policies or actions that would
reduce emissions. The forecast includes only adopted and funded projects.
• The business-as-usual forecast projects emissions from the baseline year using growth
factors specific to each of the different economic sectars.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 14
~1f
(B) Establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution of GHG
emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable.
The City of Dublin CAP proposes a reduction target of 20% below business-as-usual GHGs
emissions by 2020. This target will be adopted by resolution, as a component of the CAP. This
reduction target establishes a level below which the contribution to GHG emissions by activities
covered under the Plan will be less than cumulatively considerable under CEQA standards. The
reduction levels also further GHG reductions consistent with State law, including AB 32 and is
consistent with levels adopted by other Climate Action or GHG Reduction Plans in the Bay Area.
Further, the City's CAP employs BAAQMD's GHG efficiency based metric of 6.6 MT C02e per
service population per year as evidence of compliance with the intent of AB 32. As a result of the
policies within the CAP and their resultant GHG reductions, the City of Dublin's efficiency
metric is well below the established threshold for Forecast Year 2020. The City's efficiency
measure for 2020 is projected to be 4.2 MT C02e per service population per year. The baseline
efficiency metric far 2005 is 5.9 MT C02e per service population per year. Thus, the City of
Dublin's reduction goal from the BAU scenario equates to a 29% decrease in per capita GHG
emissions between the Base Year and Forecast Year. This scenario highlights the fact that the
City will be growing significantly over the 15-year period of the CAP, but during this same time
period, the City's GHG emissions will be decreasing significantly on a per individual basis,
which is not clearly visible when simply inspecting the BAU scenario. Thus, even though the
City will be growing through 2020, it will be compliant with the intent of AB 32 in reducing
GHG to 19901evels by 2020.
(C) Identify and analyze the GHG emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of
actions anticipated within the geographic area.
The City of Dublin CAP identifies and analyzes GHG reductions from local and state policies and
regulations that may be planned or adopted but not implemented to understand the amount of
reductions needed to meet its target. The City's CAP identifies and analyzes the effects of
statewide GHG emission reductions including those related to implementation of the Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS) and Assembly Bill 1493 fuel efficiency standards (See Chapter VI.
Measures Implemented External to the City of Dublin).
(D) Specify measures or a group of ineasures, including performance standards that
substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would
collectively achieve the specified emissions level.
The City of Dublin CAP includes mandatory and enforceable measures that affect new
development projects.
The CAP includes quantification of expected GHG emission reductions from each measure where
substantial evidence is available (See Chapter V. Emissions Reduction Measures and Policies,
and Chapter VI. Measures Implemented by the State that Will Reduce Emissions Included in the
City of Dublin Inventory), including disclosure of calculation methods and assumptions (See
Appendix C. GHG Reduction Calculation Methods and Assumptions). Quantification reflects
annual GHG reductions and demonstrates how the GHG reduction target will be met. Together,
the proposed CAP measures provide far a reduction of 21.01 % reduction below BAU conditions,
which exceeds the target of 20% by 1.01%.
The CAP also includes a program for implementation. It identifies which measures apply to
different types of new development projects, discerning between voluntary and mandatory
measures. It includes a mechanism for reviewing and determining if all applicable mandatory
measures are being adequately applied to new development projects as part of the development
review process. Identification of implementation steps and parties responsible for ensuring
implementation of each action is also included.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 15
2Gc~ ~ f.~~
~.~
(E) Monitor the Plan's Progress.
The City of Dublin will monitor results that are achieved by the various CAP programs and
policies. Monitoring results is a critical step in verifying that the various policies and programs
within the City's CAP are achieving the anticipated GHG emission reductions. The City will
review the CAP on an annual basis to verify that the various reduction measures are being
implemented appropriately. Additionally, the City will re-inventory its emissions every 5 years.
The process of conducting a review will allow the City to demonstrate progress toward local
emissions reduction targets and identify opportunities to integrate new or improved measures into
the emissions reduction plan, including additional measures if necessary to meet the reduction
target.
(F) Adopt the GHG Reduction Strategy in a public process following environmental review.
The City of Dublin's CAP will be adopted following a public hearing process and preparation of
an Initial Study and Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 16
~~ `°,,-~. ,
II. Emissions Inventory
A. Reasoning, Methodology, & Model
The City of Dublin's emissions inventory was conducted by ICLEI in partnership with City staff.
The purpose of the baseline emissions inventory is to determine the level of GHG emissions that
the community emitted in its base year, 2005. The baseline inventory was completed in 2008 and
approved by the Dublin City Council in October 2008.
ICLEPs Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) inventory methodology allows local governments to
systematically estimate and track GHG emissions from the following sectors: transportation,
residential, commercial/industrial and waste; and included energy- and waste-related activities at
the community scale, as well as those resulting directly from municipal operations. The municipal
operations inventory is a subset of the community inventory.
Once completed, these inventories provide the basis for creating an emissions forecast and
reduction target and enable the emissions reductions associated with implemented and proposed
measures to be quantified.
1. ICLEI's Emissions Analysis Software
To facilitate local government efforts to identify and reduce GHG emissions, ICLEI developed
the Clean Air and Climate Proiection (CACP) software package with Torrie Smith Associates.
This software estimates emissions derived from energy consumption and waste generation within
a community. The CACP software determines emissions using specific factora (or coefficients)
according to the type of fuel used. Emissions are aggregated and reported in terms of COZe.
Converting all emissions to COZe allows for the consideration of different GHGs in comparable
terms. For example, methane is 21 times mare powerful than COZ in its capacity to trap heat, so
the model converts one ton of inethane emissions to 21 tons of COZe.
The emissions coefficients and methodology employed by the software are consistent with
national and international inventory standards established by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) (Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories), the Guidelines for Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Reporting and, for emissions
generated from solid waste, EPA's Waste Reduction Model (WARM).
The CACP software has been and continues to be used by many local governments to reduce their
GHG emissions. However, it is worth noting that, although the software provides the City of
Dublin with a sophisticated and useful tool, calculating emissions from energy use with precision
is difficult. The model depends on numerous assumptions, and it is limited by the quantiTy and
quality of available data. With this in mind, it is useful to think of any specific number generated
by the model as an approximation rather than an exact value.
2. Inventory Data Sources and Creation Process
An inventory of GHG emissions requires collecting information from a variety of sectors and
sources. Far community electricity and natural gas data, ICLEI consulted Pacific Gas & Electric
Company (PG&E). The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), BAAQMD, and
BART provided transportation data. Solid waste data was gathered from StopWaste.Org; Waste
Management, Inc.; Amador Valley Industries; Republic Services, Inc.; and EPA. Dublin staff was
instrumental in providing data on municipal operations.
This data was entered into the software to create a community emissions inventory and a
municipal emissions inventory. The community inventory represents sources from the following
sectars: transportation, residential, commercial/industrial and waste; and includes all the energy
used and waste produced within Dublin and its contribution to GHG emissions. The municipal
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 1 ~
(,~, ..` ~~ j :~ 5
~w~
inventory is a subset of the community inventory and includes emissions derived from internal
government operations.
Two main reasons exist for completing separate emissions inventories for community and
municipal operations. First, the municipal government is committed to action on reducing GHG
emissions and has a higher degree of control over reducing its own emissions than those created
by the community at large. Second, by proactively reducing emissions generated by its own
activities, Dublin's city government takes a visible leadership role. This is important for inspiring
local action in Dublin and in other communities.
Dublin's inventory is based on the year 2005. When calculating Dublin's emissions inventory, all
energy consumed in the communiTy was included. This means that, even though the electricity
used by Dublin's residents is produced elsewhere, this energy and the emissions associated with it
appear in Dublin's inventory.
B. Inventory Results
The results below represent
the City of Dublin's
completion of the first
milestone of ICLEI's CCP
campaign.
1. Community Emissions
Inventory
Numerous items can be
included in a community
emissions inventory, as
described above. This
inventory includes sources
from the following sectors:
~ transportation,
• residential,
• commerciaUindustrial, and
• solid waste.
Emissions bv Sector
Community Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions by
Sector (2005)
Waste
3.4%
State Residential
Highw ays h3 14.3%
~
51.4%
Commercial /
Industrial
16.8%
~
Local Roads
13.9%
Figure 1- Communiry Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector
The Dublin community emitted approximately 357,211 MT COze in the year 2005. As visible in
Figure 1 above and Table 2 below, vehicles on roads and state highways in Dublin are by far the
largest source of Dublin's community emissions (653%). Emissions from the built environment
(e.g., residential and commerciaUindustrial sectors) account collectively far almost one-third
(31.1%) of community emissions. The rest of Dublin's emissions are from waste sent to landfills
(3.5%) by Dublin residents and businesses. Water-related emissions are embedded in the energy
data received from PG&E and therefore are a part of the overall community inventory analysis;
however, these emissions are not included in the final reduction target analysis as emissions
associated with the filtration and movement of water were not included in the City's baseline
GHG Inventory as a disaggregated total.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 1 g
~,~. , ~.. ,,
::~ (..~ , , _ .
Table 2- Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector (MT COle)
2005 Community Emissions
b Sector
MT COZe Percent of Total
COze Energy Equivalent
(MMBtu)
Residential 51,154 143% 886,617
CommerciaUIndustrial 60,183 16.8% 986,302
Local Roads 49,670 13.9% 670,383
State Hi hwa s 183,714 51.4% 2,479,544
Waste 12,490 3.5% 0
TOTAL 357,211 100°/a 5,022,846
Note: MT COze = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions; MMBtu = million British thermal
units.
Transportation
Like most jurisdictions in the San Francisco Bay Area, the majority of Dublin's community
emissions are from travel by motorized vehicles. This is also consistent with emission trends
across the state, because ARB has shown that passenger vehicles make up the single largest
source of emissions in California.4 As Table 2 and Figure 1 show, over three-fifths (65.3%) of
Dublin's estimated emissions came from travel on local roads and state highways. Overall,
emissions from the transportation sector tota1233,384 metric tons COZe.
Table 3 splits emissions from the transportation sector into travel on local roads and state
highways. In 2005, MTC estimated that 90 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on roads in the
city, emitting approximately 49,670 MT COZe, or 21.3% of total transportation emissions. The
332 million VMT along state highways in the city accounted far 183,714 MT COZe, or 78.7% of
total transportation emissions.
VMT data far local roads in 2005 were obtained from the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans). Caltrans compiles and publishes statewide VMT data annually through
the Highway Performance Monitoring System.5 Caltrans obtains local road VMT data from
regional transportation planning agencies and councils of governments across the state. Far the
San Francisco Bay Area, Caltrans obtains data from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC). MTC obtains data on local roads VMT either from the local governments within its
jurisdiction or, if those data are unavailable, through a Caltrans model.
VMT data for state highways in Alameda County in 2005 were obtained from the same Caltrans
report listed above. These data were translated to the jurisdiction level data through a geographic
information system (GIS) analysis by ICLEI using an unpublished Caltrans dataset obtained from
MTC. Through-trips were not removed from the analysis.
The number of vehicles on the road and the miles those vehicles travel can be reduced by making
it easier for residents to use alternative modes of transportation, including walking, bicycling, and
riding public transportation, including the existing and future BART stations in the
Dublin/Pleasanton area. Please see Appendix A for additional detail regarding methods and
emissions factors used to calculate transportation emissions.
4 Califomia State Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory available at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/tables/rpt_Inventory_IPCC_Sum 2007-11-19.pdf
5 The 2005 report is available at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/hpms/hpmslibrary/hpmspdf/2005PRD.pdf.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 19
Zy~~~ ~~~~
Table 3- Transportation Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Road Type
Trans ortation Emission Sources 2005
MT COZe Percentage
of Total
COZe
Total Vehicle
Miles Traveled
Local Roads 49,670 213% 89,680,500
State Hi hwa s 183,714 78.7% 331,701,050
TOTAL 233,384 100% 421,381,550
Note: MT COze = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions.
The Built Environment (Residential and CommerciaUlndustrial)
In 2005, 31.1% of total community emissions came
from the built environment, which consists of the
residential and commercial/industrial sectors.
Collectively, these sectors consumed about 272.2
million kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity and 9.4
million therms of natural gas, resulting in
approximately 111,337 MT CO2e.
Dublin receives electricity from PG&E. Appendix
A includes the 2005 emissions coefficients for
electricity provided by PG&E. The types of power
sources that make up a utility's electricity
generation mix can affect a community's GHG
emissions. A coal-fired power plant, for example,
releases 13 tons of COZe per megawatt-hour of
Figure 2- Built Environment Emissions
electricity generated versus 0.7 tons for gas
turbines and 0 tons for renewable sources such as solar, wind, or hydroelectric power. Dublin's
emissions from the built environment are slightly more from the commerciaUindustrial sectors
(54.1%); the residential sector makes up 45.9% of community stationary emissions (see Figure 2).
Residential
In 2005, Dublin's 40,7006 residents consumed 91 million kWh of electricity, or about 6,987 kWh
per household, and 5.8 million therms of natural gas, or about 442 therms per household'. When
compared to most other Alameda County jurisdictions, energy consumption per household in
Dublin was somewhat larger. While this is likely in part due to Dublin's inland location and more
extreme temperatures, this suggests that the City may be able to find significant reductions in
GHG emissions by targeting energy efficiency in residential buildings. Overall, residential energy
consumption in Dublin resulted in 51,154 MT COZe emissions. Major residential energy uses
include refrigeration, lighting, air conditioning and heating, and water heating.
CommerciaUlndustrial
In 2005, commercial/industrial buildings in Dublin consumed 181.2 million kWh of electricity
and 3.7 million therms of natural gas, resulting in 60,183 MT COZe emitted into the atmosphere.
6 Population and household estimates are from the Association of Bay Area Govemments' Projections 2005.
' Ibid.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 20
Emissions from industrial electricity and natural gas use, as well as Direct Access electricity use
are included within the Industrial sectar category. Industrial natural gas and electricity
consumption data are reported within this sector under Public Utility Commission (PUC)
confidentiality rules that prohibit the release of such data in certain cases.
Waste
In 2005, the City of Dublin sent approximately 41,779 tons of solid waste and 2,093 tons of
alternative daily cover (ADC)8 to a landfill, resulting in a total of about 12,490 MT COZe, or 3.5%
of total GHG emissions (see Figure 1).
Emissions from the waste sectar are an estimate of inethane (CH4) generation that will result from
the anaerobic decomposition of the waste sent to a landfill from the community as a whole in the
base year (2005). It is important to note that these emissions are not solely generated in the base
year, but occur over the 100+ year time frame in which the waste generated in 2005 will
decompose. This "frontloading" of future emissions allows for simplified accounting and accurate
comparison of the emissions impacts of waste disposed in each year. Therefore, if the amount of
waste sent to a landfill is significantly reduced in a future year, that year's emissions profile will
reflect those reductions9.
Some types of waste (e.g., paper, plant debris, food scraps) generate CH4 within the anaerobic
environment of a landfill and others do not (e.g., metal, glass). Characterizing the various
components of the waste stream is important. Alameda County is unique among California
counties because it conducted its own waste characterization study in the year 2000. The waste
characterization study highlights the waste types that could be diverted from the waste stream.
ICLEI used this study to determine the average composition of the waste stream for all Alameda
County municipalities. The specific characterization of ADC tonnage was provided by the
California lntegrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) via the Disposal Reporting System
(DRS).
Most landfills in the Bay Area capture CI-~ emissions either to generate energy or for flaring (i.e.,
burning offl. EPA estimates that 60-80%10 of total CH4 emissions are recovered at the landfills to
which the City of Dublin sends its waste. Following the recommendation of the Alameda County
Waste Management Authority, and keeping with general IPCC guidelines to use conservative
estimations, ICLEI has adopted 60% as the methane recovery factar used in these calculations.
The tonnage of waste that is recycled, composted, or otherwise diverted from landfills is not a
direct input into CACP. The effect of such programs, however, is reflected in the CACP software
model as a reduction in the total tonnage of waste going to the landfill (therefore reducing the
amount of inethane produced at that landfill). The CACP model does not capture the emission
reductions in "upstream" energy use from recycling (or any other emissions reduction practice) in
the inventory. However, recycling and composting programs can reduce GHG emissions because
manufacturing products with recycled materials avoids emissions from the energy that would
have been used by extracting, transporting, and processing virgin materials.
8 The California lntegrated Waste Management Board defines ADC as "Alternative cover material other than earthen
material placed on the surface of the active face of a municipal solid waste landfill at the end of each operating day to
control vectors, fires, odors, blowing litter, and scavenging."
9 The emissions reductions associated with decreasing the amount of waste being added to a landfill are real and few
external variables usually exist that change those emission levels later; therefore, this practice of front-loading is
considered an accurate way to count and report the emissions that will be generated over time.
'o AP_42, Section 2.4, Municipal Solid Waste, page 2.4-6, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index.html
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 21
Z(.~~°} ~ c ~
Table 4- Community Waste Composition and Emissions by Waste Type*
Waste T e
MT COZe Perceatage of Total
COze Percent of Total
Tonna e Dis osed
Paper Products 7,430 59.5% . 22.9%
Food Waste 2,229 17.9% 12.2%
Plant Debris 490 3.9% 4.7%
Wood/ Textiles 2,332 18.7% 25.4%
All Other Waste 0 0% 34.8%
TOTAL 12,481 100% 100%
Note: MT C02e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions.
* Waste characterization study conducted by StopWaste.org for the yeaz 2000. This total does not include altemative
daily cover.
2. Municipal Emissions
Inventory
The sources of emissions
counted under the government's
inventory are facilities and
equipment owned and operated
by the City. The government
operations inventory includes
sources from the following
sectors:
• buildings,
• vehicle fleet,
• public lighting,
• water, and
• solid waste.
Emissions bv Sector
Government operations in the
City of Dublin emitted Figure 3- City Operations Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector
approximately 1,573 MT COZe in
2005.
As shown in Figure 3 and Table 5, the largest source of emissions from government operations is
the City's buildings, which emit about half (49.0%) of the municipal GHGs. Public lighting is the
second largest source of emissions, comprising about one-third (30.8%) of all emissions. Vehicle
fleet emissions are also a large source of GHGs (18.2%), as are emissions from water pumps and
irrigation (1.4%). Waste created through government operations makes up about 0.7% of the total
remaining emissions.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 22
~y < <
o~~ i:r Y~ _
Table 5- Government GHG Emissions by Sector
Government Emissions
2005
MT C02e
Percentage of
Total COZe Energy
Equivalent
(MMBtu)
Cost
Buildin s 770 49.0% 12,787 $354,748
Vehicle Fleet 286 18.2% 3,681 $21,580*
Public Li htin 484 30.8% 7,377 $245,410
Water 22 1.4% 335 $16,775
Solid Waste 11 0.7% 0 $29,064
TbTAL 1,573 100% 24,180 $667,577
Note: MT COZe = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions; MMBtu = million British thermal
units.
* This total includes only the Fire Department vehicles. Fuel costs were unavailable for vehicles from all other
departments.
Energy-Related Costs
In addition to generating estimates on emissions per sector, ICLEI has calculated the basic energy
costs of various government operations. During 2005, the Dublin municipal government spent
approximately $668,00011 on energy (electricity, natural gas, gasoline, and diesel) far its
buildings, public lighting, and vehicles. The large majority of costs were for energy used by City
facilities, with about $355,000 spent on natural gas and electricity. Energy for public lighting was
a relatively large cost as well at around $245,000. Beyond reducing harmful GHGs, any future
reductions in municipal energy use have the potential to reduce these costs, enabling Dublin to
reallocate limited funds toward other municipal services.
Municinal Buildin,gs/Facilities
In 2005, Dublin municipal buildings and other facilities consumed about 2.2 million kWh of
electricity and 54,000 therms of natural gas, which and resulted in 770 MT COZe emissions
(approximately 49.0% of total municipal emissions).IZ
Table 6 shows energy consumption and emissions by facility groups. In 2005, the Dublin Civic
Center was the largest municipal energy consumer, using 55% of all municipal electricity and
48% of all municipal natural gas. Energy consumption from the Dublin Civic Center resulted in
405 MT C02e emissions, or 52.6% of all municipal facility emissions. The Dublin Swim Center
was also a large source of emissions, emitting 129 MT COZe, or 16.8% of all municipal facility
emissions. City fire stations, the Emerald Glen Park and Preschool, and recreation facilities were
also large GHG sources, collectively emitting approximately 29% of all municipal emissions.
City parks and other energy consumers made up only a small portion of municipal emissions.
11 This total includes only the Fire Department vehicles. Fuel costs were unavailabie for vehicles from ali other
departments.
'Z Accounts attributed to the Housing Authority of the County of Alameda (HACA) have been removed from
municipal operations because of a lack of jurisdiction. Rather, consumption by residents in these facilities has been
counted in the community analysis of the residential sector.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 23
z~ ~,t~ ~
Table 6- Energ~ Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Facilities
Percentage Electricity Natural Gas Energy
MT COZe of Total Consumption Consumption Equivalent
Facility~ COZe kWh therms MBtu Cost
Civic Center 405 52.6% 1,186,080 26,231 6,671 $187,065
Swim Center 129 16.8% 187,840 16,352 2,276 $42,476
Fire De artment 88 11.4% 183,920 8,679 1,496 $37,454
Emerald Glen Park and ~9 103% 353,477 0 1,206 $45,008
Preschool
Recreation z 55 7.1% 173,952 3,031 898 $32,723
Facilities/Centers
Parks and Other3 14 1.8% 70,339 0 240 $10,022
TOTAL 770 100% 2,155,608 54,293 12,787 $354,748
Note: MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions; kWh = kilowatt-hours; MMBtu =
million British thermal units.
IA few individual buildings are highlighted because of their large emissions.
ZRecreation Facilities/Centers includes the Dublin Heritage Center, Dublin Senior Center, and Shannon Community
Center and Park.
3Parks and Other includes Dolan Park, Kolb Park, Mape Memorial Park, Ted Fairfield Park, and a storage yard and
trash compactor.
Citv Vehicle Fleet and Mobile ~'quipment
As shown in Figure 3, the City's vehicle fleet was the third largest source of municipal emissions
in 2005, emitting 18.2% of all municipal emissions. The municipal fleet includes all vehicles
owned and operated by the City of Dublin. For this inventory, fuel consumption was reported for
only the Fire Department fleet, or 13 out of 51 vehicles in the City fleet.
In 2005, vehicles included in the inventory emitted about 286 MT COZe. Table 7 and Figure 4
detail emissions by department. As stated above, where fuel consumption was not reported, VMT
and emissions per vehicle mile were used to estimate COze emissions13
Table 7- 2005 Ciry Vehicle Fleet Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Consumption
De artment
MT COZe Percentage
of Total
COZe Gasoline
Consumption
( al} Diesel
Consumption
( al) Energy
Equivalent
(MMBtu)
Police De artment * 177 61.9% n/a n/a 2,285
Fire De artment 78 273% 980 7,113 991
Public Works De artment * 28 9.8% n/a n/a 365
Parks De artment * 3 1.0% n/a n/a 40
TOTAL 286 100% 980 7,113 3,681
Note: MT COZe = million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions; gal = gallon; n/a = not
available; MMBtu = million British thermal units.
*Fuel consumption was unavailable for these departments. Odometer readings were used to estimate fuel
consumption for the purposes of the estimate.
13 Emissions per VMT = fuel efficiency (i.e, miles per U.S. gallon ) x emissions per unit of fuel (the fuel type factor).
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 24
~~ o~,=`-~
Public Li~htin,~
Public lighting includes all
streetlights and traffic
signals in the City. In 2005,
public lighting consumed
about 2.2 million kWh of
electricity at a cost of
$245,410. This energy
consumption resulted in 484
metric tons of COZe
emissions. Table 8 breaks
down energy use and
emissions from public
lighting by type.
Over all categories of
energy, across all sectors of
municipal operation, public
lighting generated just under
a third (30.8%) of all
emissions (Figure 3),
representing the second
Figure 4- City Fleet Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector
largest source of municipal emissions. This percentage is unusually high because streetlights
make up a much larger proportion of overall electricity consumption from government operations
in Dublin than in most other local governments. Much of this consumption is caused by new
streetlights in several new, large subdivisions. This suggests that the City may be able to
effectively reduce emissions by reducing the amount of electricity the streetlights use, which
could be accomplished by reducing hours of operation and/or the number of streetlights or by
improving the technologies used.
Table 8- 2005 Public Lighting Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Use
Li htin T e
MT COze Percentage
of Total
COZe Electricity
Consumption
kWh) Energy
Equivalent
(MMBtu)
Cost
Streetli hts 427 88.2% 1,907,977 6,512 $207,171
Traffic Si nals 57 11.8% 253,497 865 $38,239
TOTAL 484 100% 2,161,474 7,377 $245,410
Note: MT COZe = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions; kWh = kilowatt-hours; MMBtu =
million British thermal units.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
25
~ !",~'"_~ j ~~
~.-/~ ~ ~,1 %~
;~
Water
The water category includes all electricity used for pumping water and irrigation control. In 2005,
water infrastructure consumed about 98,086 kWh of electricity, which cost the City $16,775 and
resulted in 22 metric tons of COZe emissions. The data were not detailed further. Total energy use
and emissions from water pumps and irrigation generated about 1.4% of the total municipal
emissions (Figure 3).
Solid Waste
Solid waste generated by City-owned facilities and infrastructure produced an estimated 0.7%
(Figure 3) of the total emissions from government operations. Like the community analysis, these
emissions are an estimate of future CH4 generation over the full, multiyear decomposition period
of the waste generated in the year 2005.
In 2005, the City of Dublin sent approximately 32.5 tons of solid waste to landfill, resulting in 11
metric tons of COZe.
In the absence of a centralized disposal record like the CIWMB Disposal Reporting System,
waste generation figures from government operations and the characterization of government
waste were estimated by City staff. Additionally, the final emissions number generated by the
CACP software used the 60% CH~ recovery factor discussed above.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 26
III. Forecast for Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under a business-as-usual Figure 5- Community Emissions Forecast
scenario, Dublin's GHG
emissions would grow over the
next 15 years by approximately
31.9%, from 357,211 to 471,205
MT COze. This is a considerable
growth rate when compared to
other Alameda County
jurisdictions and underscores
Dublin's predicted jobs and
population boom in the next
decade. This also underscores
the importance of acting to
reduce emissions now, because
policies Dublin enacts now will
affect future residents and
businesses.
To illustrate the potential
emissions growth based on
projected trends in energy use,
driving habits, job growth, and
population growth from the
Emissions Forecast for 2020
500
000 -•-
,
450
000 ~ ;`°' ~ ~
,
400
000 '
,
^ Waste
350
000
d ,
~ 300
000
, ^ Transportation
H
0
250,000
~" ^ Corm~ercial /
~ 200
000
w , Industrial
d
~
150
000
^ Residential
,
100
000
,
50, 000
0
2005 C02e 2020 C02e
Emissions (metric 6nissions (metric
tons) tons)
baseline year going forward,
ICLEI conducted an emissions forecast far the year 2020. Figure 5 and Table 9 show the results
of the farecast. A variety of reports and data were used to create the emissions forecast.
Residential Forecast Methodolo,~v
For the residential sector, ICLEI calculated the compounded annual population growth ratela
between 2005 and 2020 using population projections from the Association of Bay Area
Government's (ABAG's) Projections 2009. The resulting growth rate (2.850%) was used to
estimate average annual compound growth in energy demand (see Table 9). ABAG estimates that
Dublin's population was 41,200 in 2005, and ICLEI's calculations predict a population of 62,800
in 2020, an overall population increase of 52%.
CommerciaUlndustrinl Forecast Methodolo~y
Analysis contained within California Energy Demand 2008-2018: Staff Revised Forecast,15 a
report by CEC, shows that commercial floor space and the number of jobs have closely correlated
with the growth in energy use in the commercial sector. Using job growth projections for Dublin
from ABAG's Projections 2009, the compounded annual growth in energy use in the commercial
sector between 2005 and 2020 was calculated to be 2.087% (see Table 9). Dublin's job growth
between 2005 and 2020 is projected to be 36%, increasing from 19,520 to 26,610 jobs.
~4 Compounded annual growth rate =((2020 population/2005 population)^(1/15))-1
's Available at http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEG200-2007-015/CEG200-2007-O15-SF2.PDF.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
27
~ ja....
~J . ~'..J~-.. ~ ...
.S N}
Transportation Forecast Methodolo,~v
In their report, Transportation Energy Forecasts for the 2007 Integrated Energy Policy Report,
CEC projects that on-road VMT would increase at an annual rate of 1.51% per year through 2020
(see Table 9).16 This is the number used to estimate emissions growth in the transportation sector
for Dublin. The federal Corparate Average Fuel Economy standards and California's approved
tailpipe emission standards could reduce the demand for transportation fuel in Dublin. Regardless
of future changes in the composition of vehicles on the road as a result of federal or state
rulemaking, emissions from the transportation sector will continue to be largely determined by
VMT growth.
Waste Forecast MethodoloQv
As with the residential sector, population is the primary determinate for growth of emissions in
the waste sector. Therefore, the compounded annual population growth rate for 2005 to 2020,
which is 2.850% (as calculated from ABAG population projections), was used to estimate future
emissions in the waste sector (see Table 9).
Table 9- Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions Growth Projections by Sector
2005 2020 Annual Percent
Community Emissions MT COZe MT COze Growth Change
Growth Forecast by Sector Emissions Emissions Rate (2005 - 2020)
Residential 51,154 77,973 2.850% 52.4%
CommerciaVIndustrial 60,183 82,043 2.087% 363%
Transportation 233,384 292,151 1.509% 25.2%
Waste 12,490 19,038 2.850% 52.4%
TOTAL 357,211 471,205 - 31.9%
Note: MT COze = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions.
While the community emissions growth forecast is based on known per capita energy
consumption, workforce expansion, and population growth projections, the municipal operations
forecast is based on the expansion of City services or infrastructure. Estimating the growth of
City infrastructure or services was not within the scope of this project, and, therefore, this
document does not include a similar forecast of government operations emissions, beyond that
which is included within the community forecast. The CAP includes the various municipal
measures that the City has in place to reduce municipal GHG emissions.
16 Report available at http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-600-2007-009/CEC-600-2007-009-SF.PDF.
The compounded annual growth rate for 2005-2020 is calculated from Table 9.. In light of fuel cost increases, the
calculation assumes a scenario in which fuel costs would be high.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 28
- ~~ .- ,., i
.~', 1~ ~ L'~ ,;,.,
IV. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Target
A reduction target pravzdes a tangible goal for Dublin's efforts to'reduce' GHG emissions. ~'he '
emissions reduction target for the community aims' to decrease `emissions by', 20% below a
' business-as-usual scenario hy 2Q20.
Many factors were considered when selecting Dublin's reduction target. The City strove to
choose a target that is both aggressive and achievable given local circumstances.
Local factors considered in selecting the target percentage to reduce GHG emissions included
estimation of the effects of implemented and planned programs and policies, an approximate
assessment of future opportunities to reduce emissions, targets adopted by peer communities,
BAAQMD guidance and CEQA significance thresholds, and emission reductions expected to be
achieved by state-level policy under AB 32 and other regulations. The City of Dublin is adopting
a community emissions reduction target of 20% below a business-as-usual scenario by 2020. To
reach this target, the Dublin community must reduce annual emissions by about 95,000 MT COZe
from baseline 2005 levels.
Table 10 - Dublin Communitywide Emissions Summary
Note: MT COze = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions; BAU = business-as-usual
Sources: ICLEI CACP model output, summarized by AECOM 2010
Further, the City of Dublin's CAP is designed to meet or exceed the goals of AB 32. To delineate
the City's commitment to the goals of AB32, the City's CAP employs the BAAQMD's GHG
efficiency based metric of 6.6 MT COZe per service population per year, where service population
is the summation of population and the number of jobs within the City. As displayed in Table 11
below, the City of Dublin's efficiency metric is well below the established threshold in both the
Base Year 2005 and Forecast Year 2020. Using the per capita measures of 5.88 for 2005 and 4.22
for 2020, the City of Dublin's reduction goal equates to a 28% decrease in GHG emissions
between the Base Year and Forecast Year. Thus, the City will be growing significantly over the
15-year period covered by the CAP, but during this same time, the City's GHG emissions will be
decreasing significantly on a per individual basis, which is not clearly visible when simply
inspecting the BAU scenario.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 29
... °"'~' ",~.~t ,.1 ~ _.., ~
Table 11 - Dublin Communitywide Emissions Analysis
CAP Reduction Goal Anal sis ~
~ ~
~ S._: . ~~& ...._ ~
a~~~ilk :''~, . r;.. , '~<
~~Y#.'ST`'.
,,., ~
p„k ~= ~•;
~it2i~a,StOt1S. ~ T ~U~C ~
GHG Emissions Invento 2005 357,211
GHG Emissions BAU Forecast 2020 471,205
GHG Emissions Projection with
Reduction Goal 2020 376,964
I~em~ :^ '' ',.
' I~ear.' ,;
= r. Person.s '~
Service Po ulation (SP) 2005 60,720
Service Po ulation (SP) 2020 89,410
*ABAG 2009 Population
Pro' ections
~~~;Ite~t '~~ ~ s.. . ' Year ~~~~. ~ {~'IT ~O~e ISP ~ "~
GHG Efficienc Metric 2005 5.88
GHG Efficienc BAU Metric 2020 5.27
GHG Efficiency Goal Metric 2020 4.22
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
30
~ `.% !~'1 ~ ,+% ,
V. Emissions Reduction Measures and Policies
At both the community scale and within municipal operations, the City of Dublin has undertaken
a number of programs, policies, and projects that result in reduced GHG emissions. Not only do
these measures reduce GHG emissions, they also have the co-benefit of achieving other City
policy goals, such as reducing local air pollution, reducing traffic, improving public health,
increasing energy efficiency and conservation, reducing solid waste and improving solid waste
management. Ultimately, the goal of Dublin's CAP is to build on existing planning and
implementation efforts and integrate them into the broader task of reducing the GHGs emitted
within the communiTy. In addition, the CAP intends to encourage action by citizens, jurisdictional
partners and business members of the community as they will also have an integral role in
reducing emissions through programs of their own as well as the programs listed below. The
City's Climate Action Plan is not intended to be closed after its initial adoption. The City expects
to continue to add additional programs, practices and policies that will contribute to GHG
reductions for many years to come. As these programs, practices and policies are developed and
implemented, they will be folded into the City's Climate Action Plan.
The City of Dublin has undertaken and continues to implement numerous measures to reduce
GHGs since its baseline emissions were determined for 2005. The various GHG reduction
measures are organized into three categories: transportation/land use, energy (which includes both
energy efficiency and renewable energy), and waste management". These categories follow the
major sources of emissions found in the GHG emissions inventory (described in Section IIB).
Where possible, anticipated emission reductions have been quantified based on substantial
evidence. Within each measure outlined below, the City has attempted to explain its reasoning
behind the measures inclusion as well as define the assumptions used in deriving the quantified
reduction value. Additional detail and references to substantial evidence supporting quantified
GHG reductions are provided in Appendix C. Existing methods for quantifying GHG emission
reduction measure performance include both top-down and bottom-up calculations. Both methods
are used to quantify GHG emission reductions in the CAP.
A top-down calculation begins with the communitywide GHG emissions inventory. A
recommended emission reduction measure (e.g., energy efficiency) targets a certain emission
sector (e.g., natural gas, electricity), emissions sub-sectar (e.g. residential, commercial) and
portion thereof (e.g. space heating, water heating, air conditioning). Thus, the communitywide
GHG emission inventory is scaled according to the applicability of the measure being evaluated.
Assumptions for participation rates (i.e. the portion of the community that would participate in a
program [e.g., % of residential units that would implement energy-efficiency improvements]) and
efficiency levels (i.e. the level of efficiency that would be achieved by the program [e.g. %
energy efficiency improvement above baseline conditions]) are made. These participation and
efficiency assumptions are then multiplied by the relevant portion of the communitywide
inventory to derive amount (in MT COZe) of emissions reduced.
A bottom-up approach to quantifying GHG emissions starts with a GHG reduction measure (e.g.,
installation of photovoltaic panels). If the measure is assumed to reduce electricity demand by a
certain number of kilowatt-hours, this can be converted to GHG emission reductions using an
emission factar for electricity generation. However, it is critical that the assumed emission factor
be the same factor that was used to calculate the GHG emission inventory.
" The term "waste management" includes waste reduction, recycling, composting, and final disposal
activities.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 31
~~~ ~'~;"f ..h~r°~ . w. .
t
A. Communitywide Measures
The measures outlined in this section represent significant reductions of GHG emissions in the
community. They are organized by sector and outlined below.
A.1 Transportation and Land Use Measures
Broadly, there are three main ways to reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector. One
way is to implement policies that reduce dependence on personal motor vehicles and encourage
alternative modes of transportation, such as public transit, cycling, and walking. Another way is
to use vehicles that release fewer GHGs, such as hybrids, more fuel-efficient vehicles, and
vehicles that run on alternative fuels. A final way is to encourage "smart growth" (i.e., policies
that promote efficient land use development). Smart growth reduces the need to travel long
distances, facilitates transit and other nonautomotive travel, increases the availability of
affordable housing, employs existing infrastructure capacity, promotes social equity, helps protect
natural assets, and maintains and sustains existing communities.
Vehicles on roads and state highways in Dublin are by far the largest source of Dublin's
community emissions. In 2005, 65.3% of the community's GHG emissions were from the
transportation sector.
A.1.1 Transit-Oriented Development
Context - In November 2002, the City of Dublin adopted a general plan amendment, specific
plan amendment, and zoning for the Dublin Transit Center, located near the existing
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. The plan allows for the eventual construction of 1,800 high-
density residential units, 1.7 million square feet of campus office uses, 70,000 square feet of
ancillary commercial uses, an 8.7-acre park, and a new BART parking structure. None of the
projects located in the Transit Center were constructed prior to 2005 and therefore, are not
included in the emissions inventory. As of 2009, six-hundred seventy-four (674) units have been
constructed.
The City of Dublin also adopted a West Dublin BART Specific Plan in December 2000, which
was subsequently amended in November 2007. The West Dublin BART area, under the concept
in the Specific Plan, is intended to be a high-intensity mixed-use area, capitalizing on regional
transit linkages provided by both the BART line and supported by nearby freeways, including
Interstate 580 and Interstate 680. Within the West Dublin BART area, a mixture of low-rise and
mid-rise buildings consisting of residences, offices, specialty retail, lodging, restaurant and
similar uses are planned that are consistent with a transit-oriented area. Consistent with the West
Dublin BART Specific Plan, the City of Dublin has approved high-density residential
development, a hotel, and office space at the West Dublin BART Station. The West Dublin
BART Station is currently under construction and is anticipated to be completed in 2011. The
309-unit Windstar project has been approved near the West Dublin BART Station. Additionally,
a hotel and ancillary retail/restaurant space have been approved in concept. The nearby AMB
project has also been approved and, once constructed, will include 308 high-density residentiai
units and a 150,000-square-foot office complex.
In July 2009, Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants reviewed data from a variety of sources to
develop a likely range of vehicle trip reductions for transit-oriented development (TOD) adjacent
to the BART stations in Dublin (See Appendix B). Research indicates that developments adjacent
to transit services, such as BART, can expect to experience a reduction in vehicle trips, especially
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 32
~C ~~ !i'.., l
(~' r
for commute trips. Further, vehicle trip reductions may be possible if residential locations are
within walking distance of retaiUservice amenities or an employment center.
TOD residents tend to have a higher transit mode share than the remainder of the city because
they tend to have fewer cars per person, are more likely to be single and without children, and cite
location to transit as a factor for choosing the TOD residential location.
Emission Reductions - Based on their research, Fehr & Peers identified a reduction in vehicle
trips of 25% for multi-family residential developments located in a mixed-use environment within
a barrier-free, half-mile walk of a BART station. Dublin's planned TOD developments, in
conjunction with the City's policies that promote high-density development (see Measure A.1.2)
and mixed-use development (see Measure A.1.3), are estimated to result in a reduction of 4,357
MT COZe/year (0.93% reduction relative to 2020 BAU).
A1.2 Hi,~h-Density Development
Context - The City of Dublin has a high-density residential land use designation, which allows
25.1+ dwelling units per acre. These high-density developments are located near the existing
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and along Dublin Boulevard. High-density development has
been approved near the future West Dublin BART Station. Additionally, Area G of Dublin Ranch
includes approximately 1,400 medium-high and high density residential units. The high density
residential land use designation was included in the City's original General Plan, which was
adopted in 1985. While this policy did exist prior to 2005, the total impact of the policy was not
reflected in the 2005 inventory. For high-density housing, the only development projects included
in the reduction calculation are those that were constructed after 2005.
Emission Reductions - Emission reductions for this measure are included in Measure A.1.1.
A.1.3 Mixed-Use Development
Context - Several areas in the City allow mixed-use development. The mixed-use land use
designation encourages the combination of inedium- to medium-high-density residential housing
and at least one nonresidential use, such as office or retail. The mixed-use land use designation
was added to the City's General Plan in 2004. Far mixed-use projects, the only development
projects included in the reduction calculation are those that were constructed after 2005. Several
projects have been approved in the City that include a mixed-use component, such as the Transit
Center, Groves, Tralee, Jordan Ranch and San Ramon Village. Additionally, the City is currently
warking on several other projects that will also include a mixed-use component.
Emission Reductions - Emission reductions for this measure are included in Measure A.1.1.
A.1.4 Bicvcle ParkinQ Requirements
Context - Bicycle parking requirements are implemented during the development review process.
Under the City's Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations, parking lots with 20 or more
spaces in nonresidential zoning districts are required to provide one bicycle parking space in a
bicycle rack far each 40 vehicular parking spaces. Additionally, requirements exist for bicycle
parking in multi-family residential complexes. The availability of bike racks throughout the City
supports the use of the City's bike lanes, and is an essential part of encouraging individuals to
choose biking over driving.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 33
~ ,--
3 ~' ~:~~:~~ .
Emission Reductions - It is estimated that the City's bike parking requirement will result in a
reduction of 1,826 MT C02e/year (039% reduction relative to 2020 BAU).
A.1. S Streetscape Master Plan
Context - In June 2005, the Dublin City Council adopted a resolution approving a streetscape
master plan. The goals of the streetscape plan are to better coordinate streetscape design
throughout the community, clearly delineate public and private responsibilities for improving
aesthetics, and provide a mechanism far promoting capital improvement projects with built-in
streetscape improvements. Additionally, the Zoning Ordinance has requirements for planting
trees in parking lots (minimum of one tree for every four parking spaces).
Emission Reductions - Policies that promote trees within the community, such as those in the
streetscape master plan and the Zoning Ordinance, play a valuable role in reducing GHGs within
the community because trees can capture and store CO2. Furthermore, more attractive and better
shaded streets create a more conducive environment for walking, bicycling and transit use, which
can shift trips away from single-occupancy vehicles. Implementation of the streetscape master
plan is estimated to result in a 1% mode shift away from single-occupancy vehicles, leading to a
reduction of 2,922 MT COZe/year (0.62% reduction relative to 2020 BAU).
A.1. 6 Multi-Modal Map
Context - In June 2009, the City adopted a multi-modal map, which is a comprehensive tool to
relay transportation opportunities within a specific location. The function of the multi-modal map
is to show the various methods of transportation within the City, including pedestrian, vehicle,
and bicycle trips as well as connections to other cities. The Multi-Modal Map is currently posted
on the City's website. Additionally, the City will explore opportunities to distribute the map to
residents and businesses to promote alternative modes of transportation in Dublin.
Emission Reductions - The multi-modal map is estimated to lead to more informed alternative
transportation users. Assuming that implementation and distribution of the multi-modal map
would result in a mode shift of 1% away from single-occupancy vehicles, this would result in a
reduction of 2,922 MT CO2e/year (0.62% reduction relative to 2020 BAU).
A.1. 7 RechnrQin~ Stations for Electric and PIuQ In Hybrid Vehicles at the Dublin Library
Context - The Dublin Library, which was constructed in 2005, was designed to include
recharging stations to be utilized by community members for electric and plug in-hybrid vehicles.
The City also has parking spaces designated for low-emission vehicles at the Shannon
Community Center.
Emission Reductions - This measure will result in reductions of GHG emissions in the City.
However, the amount of reductions anticipated from electric plug in-hybrid vehicles are difficult
to quantify, so an estimated amount has not been included in the Plan. Therefore, GHG emission
reductions from this measure would result in additional reductions not included in the quantified
reductions under this Plan.
A.1.8 General Plan Community DesiQn ancl Sustainabilitv Element
Context - In September 2008, the City of Dublin adopted a Community Design and
Sustainability Element. The Community Design and Sustainability Element establishes design
principles, policies, and implementation measures to enhance the livability of Dublin and
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 34
... -,
encourages a high level of quality design that supports sustainability. The Community Design and
Sustainability Element applies to new development and redevelopment throughout the City.
Emission Reductions - This measure will result in reductions of GHG emissions in the City.
However, the amount of reductions anticipated from the Community Design and Sustainability
Element policies and programs are difficult to quantify, so an estimated amount has not been
included in the Plan. Therefore, GHG emission reductions from this measure would result in
additional reductions not included in the quantified reductions under this Plan.
A1.9 Work with the Livermore Amador Vallev Transit Authoritv to Improve Transit
Context - The City works with the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Autharity (LAVTA) to
provide improved transit opportunities in the community. As part of the review process for
proposed development projects, the City and project proponents wark with LAVTA on planning
future bus stop locations and extending service routes.
LAVTA's Bus Rapid Transit, or RAPID, project is underway. RAPID, scheduled to begin
operations in early 2011, will run a similar route to one of LAVTA's existing routes (Route 10)
but will offer more direct and efficient service between Livermare, the East Dublin/Pleasanton
BART station and the Stoneridge Mall in Pleasanton. Efficiencies will be achieved by following a
shorter route, using advanced technology to minimize delays at traffic signals, and increasing
spacing between stops. The buses will run more frequently, thus reducing passenger waiting time.
Within Dublin, RAPID will run along Dublin Boulevard between San Ramon road and Fallon
Road and will also pull into the BART station.
Emission Reductions - The City will continue to work with LAFTA to improve transit within the
community, which is estimated to result in a reduction of 1,461 MT COZe/year (0.31 % reduction
relative to 2020 BAU).
A.I.10 Bikewavs Master Plan
Context - In July 2007, the City of Dublin adopted a Bikeways Master Plan. Policies in the plan
include the continued development of successful bicycle and pedestrian trail corridors, improved
bicycle access to parks and open space areas, improved bicycle lanes and/or routes on several key
cross-city corridors, bikeways on key freeway crossings, the development of education and
enforcement programs, and improvements to the City's Bicycle Parking Ordinance.
The City of Dublin recognizes the many benefits of creating additional bicycle routes and
improving existing routes. Pedal power is a clean source of energy that does not produce GHG
emissions; however, lack of adequate bike infrastructure is a majar barrier to cyclists. Providing
and promoting a convenient and safe bike infrastructure serves to reduce trips by motor vehicles.
Bicycles are especially appropriate in reducing the number of short trips (up to 5 miles), which
constitute more than half of all driving. Shifting trips from cars to bikes also reduces street traffic.
An investment in bike infrastructure is also an investment in public health, because cycling is an
excellent mode of physical activity. A fit community has lower health care costs.
Emission Reductions - Bikeways within the City of Dublin total 21.4 miles. The Bikeways
Master Plan proposes 55.2 miles of Class I, II, ar III bike lanes. The current mode share of
bicycles within the City is 03% and the proposed Bikeways Master Plan is designed to result in a
bicycle mode share of 1.5%. Construction and intended use of the bikeways outlined in the
Bikeways Master Plan would result in a reduction of 3,506 MT COZe/year (0.74°/o reduction
relative to 2020 BAU).
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 35
~~~
A.2 Ener~v Measures
Increasing energy e~ciency and renewable energy throughout the community has immense
potential to both reduce GHG emissions and save money. The energy consumed to heat, light,
and power buildings within the community is a direct source of GHG emissions. The reduction of
GHG emissions from building energy use can be achieved in a variety of ways, which include
optimizing energy efficiency in new construction; retrofitting existing buildings to reduce energy
consumption; promoting energy and water conservation and efficiency; and advancing the use of _
renewable energy. Other methods to increase community energy efficiency include subsidizing
energy management services such as energy audits for residents and businesses and ensuring that
developers and building contractors are trained on energy conservation and efficiency.
Available sources of renewable energy include solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal energy.
Hydrogen fuel cells and tidal current power are renewable energy sources that hold promise but
require further research and innovation before they are as practical and possible to implement as
other options. Renewable energy sources offer the potential for a clean, decentralized energy
source that can reduce Dublin's GHG emissions.
A.2.1 Green Buildin~ Ordinance
Context - In 2009, the City passed a Green Building ~~E~~
Ordinance (DMC Chapter 7.94) requiring residential projects ,~
over 20 units to reach 50 points on the GreenPoint Rating :~
system. Alternatively, LEED for Homes is approved in the ~ „;,~ ~~'~'~
ordinance. Other types of rating systems may be approved ~~~~ ; ~:;. ~'i~~~~
by the City's Green Building Official on a case-by-case =~ ~ ~_ ~~~- = E~~~ _ ~ . °~ ~~ ' ~ ~- ~ ~~~~- ~- ~~~
basis. The majority of residential projects within the City are
subject to the Green Building Ordinance. There are little to no planned residential projects within
the City that are 20 units or less.
GreenPoint Rated is a green building program administered by the nonprofit organization Build It
Green. GreenPoint Rated was conceived of and developed with assistance from StopWaste.Org.
The GreenPointRated guidelines and rating system, begun in 2000, has grown rapidly and is
becoming a standard for the construction of green residential home~s and major renovation
projects throughout California. The GreenPointRated system is comprised of five related
categories: energy efficiency, resource conservation, indoor air quality, water conservation, and
community, all of which are important to the practice of green building. To meet the
GreenPointRated criteria a home must obtain at least 50 total points on the GreenPointRated scale
as well as meet certain minimum point thresholds within each of the aforementioned five
categories. Homes are evaluated by a third-party professional rater. Once a residence is verified to
meet the criteria for a GreenPointRated home, Build It Green issues a certificate to the builder,
which can be used for marketing purposes. ~
The Fiorano neighborhood within the Positano development in Eastern Dublin is currently under
construction and is subject to the City's Green Building Ordinance. The Fiorano development
includes 43 single-family homes. During the plan check process, the developer agreed to a
minimum of 66 points on the GreenPoint Rating System. To date, 12 homes have been completed
and the actual points achieved for these homes range from 98 - 120 points.
Two recent projects have been approved that are subject to the Green Building Ordinance. The
first project, Sorrento East includes 581 medium density units within 6 neighbarhoods. During
the Site Development Review process, the developer demonstrated that the project would achieve
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 36
°~~; ;~.
_~. S 4, ~_ ` , ~;. I
the minimum 50 points on the GreenPoint Rating system. The average of the 6 neighborhoods is
64 points. The second project, 780 units at Jardan Ranch, includes both attached and detached
units within 6 neighborhoods. During the Site Development Review process, the developer
demonstrated that the project would achieve the minimum 50 points on the GreenPoint Rating
system. The average of the 6 neighborhoods is 59 points. Sorrento East ~nd Jardan Ranch are
both located in Eastern Dublin.
Emission Reductions - GreenPoint Rated homes achieve GHG emissions reductions from,
among other practices, solid waste management measures such as Bay-Friendly Landscaping and
recycling of construction and demolition debris (C&D); increased energy efficiency; use of
renewable energy; and conservation of water both inside and outside the home. Implementation
of the Green Building Ordinance requiring at least 50 points on the GreenPoint Ratirig system for
projects over 20 units is estimated to result in a reduction of 15,287 MT COZe/year (3.24%
reduction relative to 2020 BAU).
A.2.2 Ener~y UpQrade California
Context - The StopWaste.org initiated Energy Upgrade California program will establish
countywide building retrofit measures and specifications for energy efficiency, water and
resource conservation, and indoor air quality and health. The program is intended to provide a
standardized countywide approach that identifies specific green retrofits to improve existing
buildings. StopWaste.org has demonstrated leadership at the countywide level on many programs
including waste diversion, green building, and bay friendly landscaping. The Energy Upgrade
California program would include these existing programs and further expand them to include
energy efficiency, resource conservation, and indoor air quality and heath. In addition, the Energy
Upgrade California program intends to:
• develop a technical advisory group;
• conduct outreach at the countywide level;
• provide training of contractors;
• provide verification and tracking of projects;
• leverage funding for project implementation (stimulus funds, other grants, municipal
contributions); and
• provide economies of scale and scope for all jurisdictions within the County.
As of January 2010, the Energy Upgrade California program for single-family residential
buildings is being developed and additional programs for commercial, multi-family, and other
buildings will be developed based on funding availability. The budget far the Energy Upgrade
California project does not include funds for installation of the green retrofit measures, but
StopWaste.Org suggests that existing redevelopment funds ar other funding streams from the
federal stimulus can be used to implement the Energy Upgrade California.
StopWaste.Org notes that buildings account for 23% of Statewide GHG emissions, and existing
buildings represent the majority of the State's building stock; therefore, the California Public
Utilities Commission has a goal of improving the energy performance of existing buildings by
40% by 2020. The level of emissions from existing buildings in Dublin is higher than the State
level because approximately 31% of emissions come from the residential and commercial sector,
according to the 2005 GHG inventory. To combat this, the proposed program is estimated to
reduce carbon emissions in Alameda County by more than 41,000 MT in its first 2 years, and by
mare than 3 million tons between now and 2020. Therefore, participation in the Energy Upgrade
California program will help achieve any future GHG reduction targets that the City may set.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 37
t-~i' ~~'. v.~ ~ Y : _~
Emission Reductions - The emissions reduction achieved through energy efficiency retrofits will
vary, but promises to be substantial. A savings of 1 million kWh reduces emissions by more than
270 MT COZe. For every 1,000 therms of natural gas that is saved, the jurisdiction is achieving an
emissions reduction of 6.6 MT COze. Based on an estimated 7% participation rate among housing
units in the community, supported by the SEP II Residential Energy Efficiency Program,
implementation of the Energy Upgrade California program in the City of Dublin is estimated to
result in a reduction of 4,480 MT COZe/year (0.95% reduction relative to 2020 BAU).
A.2.3 Solar Conversion ProQrams
Context - The City of Dublin promotes solar installation within the community through two solar
conversion programs, which include Solar Cities and CaliforniaFIRST.
Solar Cities is a joint project of the Cities of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton focused on
educating consumers about residential solar energy. The City of Dublin joined Solar Cities in
2008. The program features free workshops, Internet resources, and targeted information to assist
homeowners to make decisions about investing in a photovoltaic (PV) solar system. Furthermore,
the City is a participant in the CaliforniaFIItST program, which provides access to financial
assistance for homeowners seeking to install PV systems.
The .CaliforniaFIRST Program is a property assessed clean energy (PACE) financing program.
The City joined CaliforniaFIRST is 2009. PACE programs allow property owners within
participating regions to finance the installation of energy and water improvements on their home
ar business and pay the amount back as a line item on their properly tax bill. The
CaliforniaFIRST Program is sponsored by the California Statewide Communities Development
Authority, an association of counties and cities, in partnership with Renewable Funding. The City
of Dublin has opted in to the CaliforniaFIRST Program, which allows its residents to participate
in the program and receive funding from Renewable Funding for the installation of energy and
water improvements on their home.
Solar PV systems generate energy by harnessing sunlight. Technologies that can convert solar
energy into electriciTy can be installed at the point of use. Solar energy is a clean source of
electricity that does not produce GHG emissions. Installing PV panels on homes can also save
residents money by offsetting the need for power from the grid and can increase local energy
security and reliability.
Cost savings will begin to accrue after a payback period of 10-15 years. Other benefits include
reduced emissions of criteria air pollutants from power plants, development and local
demonstration of renewable energy technology, and increased residential energy reliability,
security, and cost certainty.
The State of California offers rebates to homeowners who install solar on their homes.
Additionally, the federal government offers tax incentives far installing photovoltaic panels on
commercial-zoned buildings.
Emission Reductions - Dublin residents and businesses are projected to install about 22.76 acres
of solar panels by 2020. Based on the system size of the Santa Rita Jail Case study, this level of
installation of PV panels in Dublin is estimated to result in a reduction of 4,500 MT C02e/year
(0.96% reduction relative to 2020).
The Santa Rita Jail Case Study prepared in April 2002 highlights the system specifications, the
multiple benefits of the system and the environmental savings. The 1.18 megawatt system
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 38
consists of three acres of solar photovoltaic panels and generates 1,460,000 kWH annually. Over
its 25-year life, it is predicted that the PV panels on the Santa Rita Jail will result in 36,500,000
kWH of energy production, which is equivalent to a reduction of approximately 38,000 tons of
C02 emissions.
A.2.4 Reduce Solar Installation Permit Fee
Context - In 2006, the City of Dublin reduced the building permit fee related to the installation of
photovoltaic systems installed as an incentive for property owners to install solar electricity
generating capacity on their homes and businesses.
The City of Dublin recognizes the value of solar energy. Solar energy is a clean source of
electricity that does not produce GHG emissions. Installing photovoltaic (PV) panels on homes
can also save residents money by offsetting the need for power from the grid, and can increase
local energy security and reliability. Other benefits include reduced emissions of criteria air
pollutants from power plants, development and local demonstration of renewable energy
technology, and increased residential energy reliability, security, cost certainty and local green
jobs.
Emission Reductions - Reductions from this measure are included in Measure A.2.3
A.3 Solid Waste and Recyclin~ Measures
The City of Dublin has a goal of reducing waste sent to the landfill by 75%. To achieve this
reduction goal, the City has implemented a variety of ineasures, which include expanding existing
commercial and residential recycling and composting programs and expanding community
education and outreach initiatives. As demonstrated in this document, many of StopWaste.Org's
program areas to divert solid waste dovetail nicely with Dublin's own programs to reduce GHG
emissions. ICLEI and StopWaste.Org have produced studies and evidence to show the reductions
in GHG emission from recycling, composting, and reducing waste.
For example, programs for recycling and preventing waste contribute to reducing the energy and
transportation needed to manufacture and ship virgin products and packaging. Composting
contributes by reducing methane produced in the landfill and reducing the need for energy
intensive fertilizers and pesticides. The EPA 2000 report states (EPA 2000):
There are no plausible scenarios in which landfilling minimizes GHG emissions
from waste management. For yard waste, GHG emissions are roughly
comparable from landfilling and composting; for food waste, composting yields
significantly lower emissions than landfilling. For paper waste, landfilling causes
higher GHG emissions than either recycling or incineration with energy
recovery.
Results provided in this report from research conducted by ICLEI and StopWaste.Org show that
practices such as residential and commercial recycling and composting, buying recycled products.
and green building play important roles in a local government's strategy to mitigate emissions. In
fact, GHG mitigation can be seen as an umbrella under which a jurisdiction's waste diversion
programs play a substantial role.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 39
~ ~ U_ ~" .
~ `
A.3.1 Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance
Context - Since 2005, the City has implemented a Construction and Demolition Debris
Ordinance with a required 100% of asphalt and concrete recycled, and a minimum of 50% of all
other materials recycled. The City's diversion rate has consistently been between 80% and 90%
since 2005, well above the 50% requirement.
Construction and demolition (C&D) debris represents a substantial portion of the total waste
stream in Alameda County-up to 21 %. Construction of a typical residential home produces
approximately 17,000 pounds of C&D waste. Reducing C&D waste is critical to the City of
Dublin because the City is still growing. C&D waste generally consists of wood, drywall, metal,
concrete, dirt, and cardboard. After the arganic materials are sent to the landfill, they break down
and emit methane, a potent GHG. Recycling C&D waste not only keeps it from ending up in the
landfill, but also reduces the upstream energy consumption that would occur to manufacture new
construction materials.
Emission Reductions - Emission reductions for this measure are included in Measure A.3.2.
A.3.2 Citvwide Diversion Goal of 75%:
Context -In 2008, the Dublin City Council adopted a goal to divert 75% of waste from the
landfill. To achieve this goal, the City is focusing its efforts on increasing the recycling of
organics, cardboard boxes, plastic film, paper, and packaging materiaL The City currently has in
place a variety of programs for diverting waste and the CiTy continues to explore additional
programs to help reach the 75% diversion goal.
Emission Reductions - Attainment of the 75% diversion goal is estimated to result in a reduction
of 4,9ll MT COZe/year (1.04% reduction relative to 2020 BAU).
A.3.3 Tiered Rate Structure for Garba~e and Recvclin~
Context - Since 2005, the City has offered a tiered rate structure, which places recycling
services free and organics (composting) services at a significant discount to garbage services
to encourage greater recycling and composting within the community. Recycling and
composting programs reduce GHG emissions because manufacturing products with recycled
materials avoids emissions from the energy that would have been used by extracting,
transporting and processing virgin materials.
Emission Reductions - Emission reductions for this measure are included in Measure A3.2.
A.3.4 Commercial Recyclin~ ProQram
Context - The business community and schools are an important component of the Dublin
community. In 2005, the City began offering a free commercial recycling program that also
includes free indoor recycling containers for schools and businesses. Indoor recycling containers
encourage employees and students to recycle by conveniently locating recycling containers near
their wark areas. Programs for recycling contribute to reducing energy and transportation needed
to manufacture and ship virgin products.
Emission Reductions - Emission reductions for this measure are included in Measure A.3.2.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 40
~ ~ ~~ ; ~
~.
A.3. S Commercial Food Waste Collection ProQram
Context - In 2005, the City began offering a commercial food waste recycling program, which
includes a subsidy to encourage greater food waste recycling. As of June, 2010, the City has over
60 businesses participating in this program. In 2009, the commercial food waste recycling
program resulted in 2,853 tons of food waste being diverted from the landfill.
Reducing the amount of food waste sent to the landfill also reduces the CH4 emissions produced
when organic waste decomposes in the absence of oxygen at the landfill. CH4 is a powerful GHG,
21 times more potent than COz. Food waste, which produces more methane than any other
organic material, can be used for producing compost. Additionally, the resultant compost reduces
GHGs in three ways:
1) The composting process itself helps to bind or sequester carbon in the soil.
2) The resultant compost results in reduced use of nitrogen fertilizers, which are not only energy
intensive to produce, but are also a leading source of N20 emissions, a potent GHG.
3) Using compost helps to mitigate the decline in soil quality expected with climate change.
Sending organics to a composting facility reduces more GHGs than sending organics to a landfill,
even one with methane recovery.
Emission Reductions - Food waste produces more methane per wet ton than most other
municipal solid waste materials. If the City of Dublin were to reduce the amount of food waste
that is sent to the landfill by 1 metric ton, the community would prevent approximately 1 MT
COZe from entering the atmosphere. Emission reductions for this measure are included in
Measure A3.2.
A.3.6 Promote Commercial Recvclin~
Context - In 2005, the City began promoting commercial recycling in the City. The City has
developed commercial recycling guides for businesses and the City's franchise waste hauler
conducts two business audits per business day to increase diversion efforts in the commercial
sector. Programs far recycling contribute to reducing the energy and transportation needed to
manufacture and ship virgin products and therefore play an important role in the City's efforts to
reduce GHG emissions associated with the waste sector.
Emission Reductions - Emission reductions for this measure are included in Measure A.3.2.
A.3. 7 Promote Multi-familv Recyclin~
Context - In 2005, the CiTy began promoting multi-family recycling. The City has developed
multi-family outreach packets and recycling bags for all multi-family units with shared recycling
service. Historically, recycling participation rates within multi-family developments is low and
the City of Dublin promotes high density residential development. Therefore, it is important to
promote recycling within these developments. Programs for recycling contribute to reducing the
energy and transportation needed to manufacture and ship virgin products.
Emission Reciuctions - Emission reductions for this measure are included in Measure A.3.2.
A.3.8 Curbside Residential Recyclin~ Pro,~ram
Context - The City offers a convenient, free recycling program that includes curbside pickup for
residential neighborhoods to encourage greater recycling efforts. The curbside residential .
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 41
~ ~..L~ i' ... > 4 ...m t
. ~.t :
t
recycling program was established prior to 2005. Curbside pickup includes garbage, recycling
and organics (composting). The goal of curbside pickup is to remove barriers to recycling.
Increased recycling contributes to reducing the energy and transportation needed to manufacture
and ship virgin products.
Emission Reductions - Emission reductions for this measure are included in Measure A.3.2.
A.3.9 Curbside Or~anics Collection Pro~ram
Context - The City offers a convenient arganics program that includes curbside pickup of food
waste and yard waste for residential neighborhoods. This program, which began in 2005, is
designed to encourage greater recycling efforts. In 2005, food waste and plant debris accounted
for nearly 20% of the community's waste. It is critical to remove these items from the waste
stream because they generate methane within the anaerobic environment of a landfill.
Additionally, food waste and plant debris can be composted which contributes by reducing
methane produced in the landfill and reducing the need for energy intensive fertilizers and
pesticides. In 2009, the curbside organics collection program resulted in 4,467 tons of arganic
material being diverted from the landfill.
Emission Reductions - Emission reductions for this measure are included in Measure A3.2.
B. Municipal Operations Measures
The City of Dublin has also undertaken a number of municipal operations measures resulting in
reduced GHG emissions relative to the base year of 2005. As noted in Chapter III Forecast for
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the forecast of government operations emissions is included within
the CAP's community inventory. As such, the various municipal operations that reduce GHG
emissions and the resultant reduction metric are outlined below.
B.1 Transportation and Land Use Measures
There are several ways to reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector, which include
encouraging alternative modes of transportation other than solo-driving, using vehicles that
release fewer GHGs and implementing smart growth policies. The measures below outline ~
policies that the City has in place to encourage its employees to reduce their GHG emissions
related to the transportation sector.
B.11 Citv Hybrid Vehicles
Context - The City of Dublin has five vehicles for its employees to use, two of which are hybrid
vehicles. Hybrid cars get better gas mileage than the traditional internal combustion engine. Most
hybrid vehicles get between 20 and 30 miles per gallon more than standard automobiles. All
hybrids shut offthe gas engine automatically when the car is stopped. This saves fuel and is better
far the environment. When you press the gas pedal, the engine turns back on automatically. The
gas engine will also come on to start charging the batteries when the vehicle becomes low on
power. Because less gasoline is burned in these vehicles, they emit less pollution and a lower
level of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Emission Reductions - Reductions anticipated from use of City hybrid vehicles have not been
quantified and supported by substantial evidence. However, this measure supports achievement of
other recommended transportation measures.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 42
~,...1 ~ M . 1
~~.,-.~ ~ ~~f t~,
B.1.2 Commute Alternative ProQram
Context - The City's Commute Alternative Program is a policy designed to encourage alternative
modes of transportation among the City's workforce. The City provides incentives to its
employees who use alternatives to solo driving, which include public transportation, biking,
walking, or carpooling. The City provides an incentive of $2.00/day to use alternative
transportation modes. Additionally, the City participates in the Alameda County CMA
Guaranteed Ride Home Program.
Emission Reductions - Reductions anticipated from the commute alternative program have not
been quantified and supported by substantial evidence. However, this measure supports
achievement of other reeommended transportation measures.
B.2 Ener~y Measures
Increasing the energy efficiency of municipal buildings has substantial potential to both reduce
GHG emissions and save the City and the community money. The energy consumed to heat, light
and power City owned buildings is a direct source of municipal GHG emissions. The largest
source of emissions from government operations is the City's buildings, which emit about half of
the municipal GHGs.
B.2.1 LEED Silver Requirement for New City Buildin~s Costin~ More Than $3 Million
Context - In 2004, the City Council adopted a Resolution which required that all new civic
buildings over $3 million be built to achieve Silver certification under the Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design (LEED~) Green Building Rating SystemTM. The LEED program
recognizes that building performance in the areas of human and environmental health, sustainable
site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection, and indoor environmental
quality, results in more efficient buildings. The Shannon Community Center, which was the first
completed in February 2009, includes numerous energy efficient measures. The Shannon
Community Center is awaiting LEED certification. Several capital improvement projects are
planned that will trigger the LEED Silver certification requirement, such as the Emerald Glen
Park Recreation & Aquatic Complex, the Cultural Arts Center, and the Emerald Glen Park
Community Center. These buildings will be constructed to achieve LEED Silver certification.
LEED certification provides independent, third-party verification that a building project meets the
high performance standards. LEED-certified buildings are awarded a plaque by the U.S. Green
Building Council. LEED certification is recognized nationwide as proof that a building is
environmentally responsible, profitable, and a healthy place to live and work.18 The certification
can be applied to every building type and phase of a building lifecycle.
Emission Reductions - LEED certification of municipal buildings is estimated to result in a
reduction of 79 MT C02e/year (0.02% reduction relative to 2020 BAU).
B.2.2 Window Film on the Civic Center
Context - In September 2009, an energy efficient window film at the Dublin Civic Center was
installed. The installation of the window film has improved the energy efficiency of the Civic
Center.
18 Visit www.us b~ c.or~ for more information on LEED.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 43
~ ~~~ } ~ ~-~~ i
~-I~-~ ~~~ _
Emission Reductions - The window film is anticipated to reduce the City's carbon footprint by
reducing GHG emissions by approximately 16 MT COZe/yr (< 0.01% reduction relative to 2020
BAU), which is a result of an estimated reduction in energy use annually of 73,766 kWh
8.2.3 LiQht EmittinQ Diode (LED) Park LiQhts
Context - The City of Dublin was awarded a grant in 2009 for the installation of LED lights in
various parks within the community. Once installed, these lights will improve energy efficiency
at these locations.
Emission Reductions - Reductions anticipated from installing LED lights at the Dublin Sports
Park have not been quantified and supported by substantial evidence. However, this measure
supports achievement of other recommended energy efficiency measures.
B.3 Solid Waste and Recyclin~ Measures
As mentioned previously, the City of Dublin has a goal of reducing waste sent to the landfill by
75%. To achieve this reduction goal, the City has implemented a variety of communitywide
measures. Furthermore, Dublin is placing increasing emphasis on achieving emissions reductions
through promoting sustainable landscaping practices such as those outlined in StopWaste.Org's
Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines. Results provided in research conducted by ICLEI and
StopWaste.Org show that practices such as Bay-Friendly Landscaping play important roles in a
local government's strategy to mitigate emissions. In fact, GHG mitigation can be seen as an
umbrella under which a jurisdiction's waste diversion programs play a substantial role.
B.3.1 Bay-Friendly Landscapin~ Policv
Context - The City has been employing Bay-Friendly Landscaping practices within the City
owned parks and landscaping medians for some time. Also, in 2009, the City adopted a Bay-
Friendly Landscaping Policy requiring new large Civic projects to meet a certain level of points
on the Bay-Friendly Landscaping Checklist.
Bay-Friendly Landscaping is an integrated solution that fosters soil health, conserves water,
reduces waste, and reduces emissions. Through the Bay-Friendly Landscaping Program,
StopWaste.Org provides training, landscape design assistance, and grant funding to local
governments in Alameda County. The objective of the resources that StopWaste.Org provides is
to assist local governments to design public landscapes that cost less to maintain, consume fewer
resources, send less waste to the landfill, and do not negatively affect the San Francisco Bay.
The Bay-Friendly Landscaping practices described below not only serve to reduce emissions, but
provide many additional benefits. Trees, for example, provide habitat for birds, beautify urban
areas, decrease the heat island effect, increase property values, and help to control stormwater
runof£ Shade trees also reduce the need far air conditioning, thereby cutting energy costs.
Selecting appropriate plants that require less shearing reduces the need for running various pieces
of equipment. This not only reduces GHG emissions, but reduces local air and noise pollution.
Additionally, keeping lawn and plant clippings on-site improves soils. Grass-cycling, mulching,
and using compost creates healthier landscapes without the use of synthetic pesticides and
fertilizers, all of which can help reduce water pollution.
According to the CIWMB, yard trimmings are one of the largest components of municipal waste
in California. Bay-Friendly Landscaping practices constitute an integrated, conscious approach to
reducing this waste. These practices include selecting native or Mediterranean plants, which use
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 44
i,,~ ~-~ J r ..
ti ~,, + :
little water; keeping plant debris and grass clippings on-site; nurturing the soil by using mulch
and compost; minimizing lawn size; and planting trees strategically to moderate temperatures.
Such practices not only reduce waste, but also reduce costs and resource consumption by
reducing the need for irrigation and energy intensive fertilizers and pesticides. Nitrogen fertilizers
release nitrous oxide, a potent GHG, into the atmosphere. Using compost reduces the need for
nitrogen fertilizers by at least 20%. These practices also restore the soil's ability to absorb and
filter water, reducing runoff into waterways.
Emission Reductions - Emission reductions anticipated from implementation of the Bay-
Friendly Landscaping Policy have not been quantified and supported by substantial evidence.
However, this measure supports achievement of recommended energy efficiency and waste
management measures.
C. Public Outr~each Programs
Public outreach programs constitute an important component of the City's GHG reduction
strategies. The City of Dublin, through its many environmental programs and City events, can
educate the community on environmentally-friendly behaviors. The City also can motivate the
community to improve our community and environment and to reduce GHG emissions through
reductions in energy use, transit, waste and through many other actions.
C.1 Great Race for Clean Air
Context - The Great Race for Clean Air Challenge is a friendly competition between Tri-Valley
area employers to encourage the use of commute alternatives to and from work such as
carpooling, biking, and publicly provided transit. The competition lasts two months. In 2009, the
City of Dublin was one of 17 teams that participated in the competition. Ten Dublin employees
participated and together saved 4,293 pounds of COZ.
Emission Reductions - Measures C.1 through C.5 are estimated to result in a combined
reduction of 471 MT COZe/year (0.1% reduction relative to 2020 BAU).
C.Z Walk `n' Roll to School
Context - The Walk `n' Roll to school program is designed to educate Tri-Valley parents and
students about clean and green alternatives for getting to and from school. The goal of the Tri-
Valley Resource Team's Walk `n' Roll to School campaign is to reduce school commute traffic,
which would result in reduced GHG emissions and increased safety around schools, and to
provide an opportunity for children to incorparate more exercise into their day.
Emission Reductions - Measures C.1 through C.5 are estimated to result in a combined
reduction of 471 MT COZe/year (0.1% reduction relative to 2020 BAU).
C.3 Work with Schools on "Go Green"Recvclin~ ~ncl Compostin~ ProQrams
Context - The "Go Green" program is an education tool that encourages schools in the City to
increase their recycling and composting efforts. The Go Green Initiative is a simple,
comprehensive program designed to create a culture of environmental responsibility on school
campuses across the nation. Founded in Pleasanton in 2002, Go Green provides a framework for
environmental responsibility through five principles: 1) generate compost, 2) recycle, 3) educate,
4) evaluate the environmental impact of all activities, and 5) nationalize responsible paper
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 45
~~~:~ ~ ,~
consumption. In Dublin, the City's waste hauler, Amadar Valley Industries (AVI), funds Dublin
Unified School District schools that choose to participate in the Go Green program. As of June,
2010; six Dublin Unified Schools were participating in the program (66% participation rate).
Emission Reductions - Measures C.1 through C.5 are estimated to result in a combined
reduction of 471 MT COZe/year (0.1% reduction relative to 2020 BAU).
C.4 AVI Educational Presentations
Context - As part of their contract, the City's waste hauler, AVI, is required to present
information on recycling and composting programs that the City offers to various organizations
and businesses. AVI provides a minimum of 12 presentations a year.
Emission Reductions - Measures C.l through C.5 are estimated to result in a combined
reduction of 471 MT COZe/year (0.1% reduction relative to 2020 BAU).
C. S Promote Bike to Work Day
Context - Each year, the City of Dublin participates in Bike to Work Day. The 2010 Bike to
Work Day and the sponsored Energizer Station were held on Thursday, May 13, at the
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station underpass. The Energizer Station, co-hosted by the Cities of
Dublin and Pleasanton, Alameda County Public Works, Dublin Cyclery, Hacienda Business Park,
and BART saw over 430 cyclists pass through. Energizer Stations throughout Alameda County
and in the Bay Area saw a 10% increase in the number of cyclists participating in the event.
Emission Reductions - Measures C.1 through C.5 are estimated to result in a combined
reduction of 471 MT COZe/year (0.1% reduction relative to 2020 BAU).
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 46
~' ~ '
.' ~~ ~,
VI. Measures Implemented By the State That Will Reduce Emissions
Included In the City of Dublin Inventory
In addition to Dublin's implementation of ineasures to reduce GHG emissions within the
community, the effects of ineasures recently implemented at the State level will reduce GHGs
emitted within the City and are included as part of the City's GHG emissions inventory and
forecast.
In California, numerous policies have been adopted by the State Legislature or the Governor,
whicli are projected to reduce GHG emissions. The following sections briefly describe the
policies that could have the greatest effect on reducing GHG emissions in Dublin. Additional
, legislation affecting GHG emissions in Dublin is summarized in Section I. Introduction.
A. State Climate Change Planning
A.1. California Global WarminQ Solutions Act (AB 32)
Context - In 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 32-the Global Warming Solutions
Act-into law. AB 32 institutes a mandatory limit on GHG emissions to achieve the target of
reducing Statewide emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. The bill directs ARB to establish a
mandatory emissions reporting system to track and monitor emission levels and to develop a wide
range of compliance options and enforcement mechanisms.
As a part of AB 32 implementation, ARB adopted a Climate Change Scoping Plan in December
2008. This plan provides some guidance on how local government can address climate change
and play an active role in reducing statewide emissions. Specifically, the plan sets a target to
reduce statewide emissions by nearly 30% below 2008 levels by 2020. To reach this target, the
plan establishes many measures, including:
• Developing a California cap-and-trade program.
• Expanding energy efficiency programs.
~ Establishing targets for transportation-related GHG emissions.
• Supporting the implementation of a high-speed rail system.
• Expanding the use of green building practices.
• Increasing waste diversion, composting, and commercial recycling toward zero-waste.
• Continuing water efficiency programs and using cleaner energy sources to move and treat
water.
• Establishing a Million Solar Roofs Programs.
• Achieving a statewide renewable energy mix of 33%.
• Developing and adopting the Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
• Implementing vehicle efficiency measures for light, medium, and heavy-duty vehicles.
• Adopting measures to reduce gases with high global warming potential.
• Reducing methane emissions at landfills.
• Preserving forest sequestration and encouraging the use of forest biomass for sustainable
energy generation.
Emission Reductions - ARB has not yet set recommendations for local governments for reducing
GHG emissions; however, the Scoping Plan states that land use planning and urban growth
decisions will play an important role in reducing GHGs within the state. These decisions will play
an important role because local governments have the primary authority to plan, zone, approve,
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 47
and permit how land is developed to accommodate the changing needs of their communities and
population growth.
A.2 Executive Order S-13-OS ancl the California Climate Adaptation Strate~y
Context - In November of 2008, Executive Order 5-13-08 was signed, which specifically asked
the Natural Resources Agency to identify how state agencies can respond to rising temperatures,
changing precipitation patterns, sea level rise, and extreme natural events. The California Climate
Adaptation Strate~, completed in December 2009, is a first-of-its-kind multi-sector strategy to
help guide California's efforts in adapting to climate change impacts. It summarizes climate
change impacts in seven specific sectors and provides recommendations on how to manage
against those threats. The strategy considers the long-term complex and uncertain nature of
climate change and establishes a proactive foundation for an ongoing adaptation process. Rather
than address the detailed impacts, vulnerabilities, and adaptation needs of every sector, it
prioritizes those sectors determined to be at greatest risk. The strategy is intended to be used
directly by California State agencies in their efforts to plan for climate impacts.
Emission Reductions - Emission reductions anticipated from actions of Executive Order S-13-08
have not been quantified and supported by substantial evidence. However, this measure supports
achievement of recommended CAP measures.
A.3 Senate Bill 732 - California Strate,2ic Growth Council
Context - In 2008, the California Senate passed SB 732, which established a Strategic Growth
Council, which is charged with coordinating policies across State agencies to support a unified
vision for land use development in the State. This vision will serve as a reference point for local
land use policies.
Emission Reductions - Emission reductions anticipated from actions of the Strategic Growth
Council have not been quantified and supported by substantial evidence. However, this measure
supports achievement of recommended CAP measures.
B. Energy
B.1 Senate Bill I078, Senate Bill 107, and Executive Order S-14-08 -Renewable Portfolio
Standards
Context - In 2002, the California Senate passed SB 1078 requiring public utilities to gradually
increase the percentage of their energy supply generated from renewable sources, reaching 20%
renewable content by 2017. SB 107 accelerated the timeframe of SB 1078 for it to take effect in
2010. In November of 2008, Executive Order S-14-08 was signed, which increased the amount of
renewable power generation to 33% by 2020. Renewable energy could include wind, solar,
geothermal, or any "Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)-eligible" sources. This means that, over
time, a larger and larger share of the energy electrifying homes and businesses in the City of
Dublin will be generated with clean power. The policy should have an important effect on City
emissions because 31.1 % of total emissions come from commercial and residential energy use in
Dublin, according to the 2005 inventory.
Emission Reductions -It is anticipated that PG&E, Dublin's electricity provider, would meet the
20% RPS requirement by 2010, as required by law, and this performance criteria would also be in
effect at the CAP target year (2020). Executive Order 5-14-08 would increase the RPS further to
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 48
r a. ~
s> t~~I'~„.} ~ ,~`~
33% by 2020. Although this order has yet to be codified, the CAP assumes 33% RPS would be
achieved by 2020. Therefore, in 2020, a minimum of 33% of the electricity consumed by the
City's residential, commercial, and industrial uses would be produced by renewable resources and
would not generate additional GHG emissions.
The 2005 PG&E-specific electricity emission factor used to calculate GHG emissions associated
with the City's electricity consumption accounted for the percentage of renewable resources used
by PG&E far electricity production in 2005. PG&E's 2008 electricity production portfolio was
comprised of approximately 14% renewable resources (PG&E 2008). Although it is likely that
the percentage of renewable resources in 2005 was less than in 2008, the difference between the
2008 and 2020 renewable resource portfolio was used to conservatively calculate the emission
reduction attributable to RPS. Therefore, an additional 19% (33%-14% = 19%) of the City's 2020
GHG emissions, associated with electricity consumption, would be reduced between current
conditions and 2020 as a result of the additional use of clean energy. To derive the reduction
amount, the total GHG emissions (87,476 MT C02e) that result from electricity consumption
within the inventory projection from PG&E for 2020 is multiplied by the 19% that will come
from new renewable sources. Based on these assumptions, implementation of the RPS in Dublin
would result in a reduction of 16,621 MT COZe/year (3.5% reduction relative to 2020 BAU).
B.2 Executive Order 5-20-04 - Ener,gv Ef~ciency in State BuildinQs
Context - Executive Order 5-20-04 was signed July 27, 2004, and directs the State to commit to
aggressive actions to reduce the electricity use of State buildings by implementing cost-effective
energy efficiency and green building strategies. To this end, the executive order directs all
facilities owned, funded, or leased by the State (and encourages cities, counties, and schools as
well) to take measures to reduce grid-based energy purchases for State-owned buildings by 20%
by 2015. This is to be done through cost-effective measures to increase energy efficiency and
distributed generation technologies. These measures include designing, constructing, and
operating all new and renovated facilities owned by the State and paid for with State funds as
buildings certified "LEED Silver" or higher; seeking out office space leases in buildings with a
EPA ENERGY STAR rating; and purchasing ar operating ENERGY STAR electrical equipment
whenever cost effective. The California Highway Patrol Office is located in Dublin.
Emission Reductions - This measure will result in reductions of GHG emission in the City.
However, the amount of reductions anticipated from increasing energy efficiency in State
buildings have not been quantified, so an estimated amount has not been included in the Plan.
Therefore, GHG emission reductions from these measures would result in additional reductions
not included in the quantified reductions under this Plan.
C. Transportation and Land Use
C.1 Assembly Bill 1493 - Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Standards
Context - Nationwide, automobile manufacturers are bound by fuel efficiency standards set by
the U.S. Department of Transportation. These standards, known as the Corporate Average Fuel
Economy (or "CAFE") standards, require that the fleet of passenger cars sold by any single
manufacturer have an average fuel economy of 27.5 mpg - the same standard that was in place in
1985, despite technical progress and increased understanding of the environmental impacts of
fossil fuel combustion. The CAFE standards are adopted at the federal level, and states are
prevented from passing laws addressing vehicle fuel economy. In response to these stagnant
federal standards, the California Assembly passed AB 1493, which allows the California Air
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 49
~ ~l ~~•~ ' w~. '
Resources Board to create carbon dioxide emissions standards for cars sold in California. They
argue that a GHG emissions standard is distinct from a fuel economy standard, despite the fact
that it would necessitate improved gas mileage. The EPA granted a waiver to California in
February of 2009 to pursue its own regulations under AB 1493; however, the State has not yet
done so. If AB 1493 is implemented in the next few years, this could have a significant impact on
the reduction of GHG emissions in the City of Dublin because the total percentage of emissions
from transportation was 653% in 2005.
Emission Reductions - The emission reduction potential associated with implementation of AB
1493 vehicle emission standards would vary depending on the first regulated model year and
vehicle turnover between the present fleet and the fleet in 2020. To provide an estimate of the
reasonably foreseeable GHG emission reduction potential of motor vehicle emission regulations,
the GHG emissions reduction associated with AB 1493 was estimated using information
presented in the ARB Climate Change Scoping Plan. The Scoping Plan expects an approximate
19.7% reduction in on-road mobile source GHG emissions between 2010 and 2020 (10 years).
AB 1493 allows two model years of lead time for automakers to comply with the vehicle
emission standards. For this reason, it was assumed that AB 1493 would be 80% implemented by
the year 2020 (allowing for two years of delay). Thus, the likely GHG emission reduction of AB
1493 for on-road mobile-source GHG emissions in Dublin was assumed to be approximately
12.2%, far a reduction of 35,642 MT C02e/year (7.6% reduction relative to 2020 BAU).
C.2. Executive Order S-O1-07-Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Context - Executive Order S-O1-07.was signed January 18, 2007, and directs ARB to develop a
Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). The LCFS would reduce the carbon intensity of California's
transportation fuels by at least 10% by 2020. The LCFS will also incorporate compliance
mechanisms providing flexibility to fuel providers to meet requirements to reduce GHG
emissions. The LCFS will examine the full fuel cycle impacts of transportation fuels and ARB
will work to design the regulation in a way that most effectively addresses the issues raised by the
Environmental Justice Advisory Committee and other stakeholders.
Emission Reductions - This measure will result in reductions of GHG emissions. However, the
amount of reductions anticipated from the LCFS have not been quantified, so an estimated
amount has not been included in the Plan. Therefore, GHG emission reductions from these
measures would result in an additional reduction not included in the quantified reductions under .
this plan.
C.3. Senate Bi11375
Context - In 2008, the California Senate passed SB 375, which aims to reduce GHG emissions by
connecting transportation funding to land use planning. SB 375 creates a process by which local
governments and other stakeholders work together within their region to reduce GHG emissions
through integrated development patterns, improved transportation planning, and other
transportation measures and policies.
Emission Reduction - SB 375 requires ARB to develop the targets for reducing GHG emissions
caused by passenger vehicles for 2020 and 2035 by September 30, 2010. Targets are anticipated
to be released by June 30, 2010. Implementation of these targets and the measures to achieve
those targets will require the collaboration of local governments such as Dublin and metropolitan
planning organizations such as MTC.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 50
~~ ~~--, i~i
VII. Summary of Emission Reduction Measures
Based on the emissions reductions estimated to be achieved after 2005 through the above
measures, the GHG emissions in the City of Dublin are estimated to be reduced by 99,000 MT
COZe or 21.01% below 2020 BAU emissions which will slightly exceed the emission reduction
target of 20%.
Table 12 summarizes the contribution of proposed CAP measures toward achievement of the
reduction target.
Table 13 summarizes the City's GHG emissions compared to the BAAQMD GHG Efficiency
Threshold of 6.6 MT C02e per service population, and shows the effect of the reduction
strategies compared to this threshold. The City's reduction measures outlined in the CAP result in
a projected GHG Efficiency Metric for 2020 of 4.2 MT C02e per service population, which is
36.9% below the 6.6 threshold.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 51
v ~.,t"` 4},~' ~_,
Table 12 - Summary of GHG Reduction Measure Performance
Measure Number and Title GHG
Reductions
MT COZe/ r % Reduction
Relative to 2020
BAU
A. Communi ide Measures
A.1. Trans ortation and Land Use Measures
A.l.l. Transit-Oriented Develo ment 4,357 0.9247%
A.1.2. High-Density Development Included in A1.1
A.1.3. Mixed-Use Develo ment Included in A.1.1
A.1.4. Bicycle Parking Requirements 1,825 0.3875%
A.1.5. Streetscape Master Plan 2,922 0.6200%
A.1.6. Multi-Modal Ma 2,922 0.6200%
A.1.7. Electric and Plug In-Hybrid Charging Stations at the Library Sup orting Measure
A.1.8. General Plan Community Desi and Sustainability Element Su ortin Measure
A.1.9. Work with LAVTA to Improve Transit 1,461 0.3100%
A.1.10. Bikeways Master Plan 3,506 0.7440%
Subtotal Trans ortation and Land Use 16,993 3.61%
A.2. Ener Measures
A.2.1. Green Building Ordinance 15,287 3.2442%
A.2.2. Energy Upgrade California 4,480 0.9508%
A.2.3. Solar Conversion Programs 4,500 0.9550%
A.2.4. Reduce Solar Installation Permit Fee Included in A.2.3
Subtotal Ener 24,267 5.15
A.3. Solid Waste and Rec clin Measures
A3.1. Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance Included in A.3.2
A.3.2. Citywide Diversion Goal of 75% 4,911 1.0422%
A.33. Tiered Rate Structure for Garbage and Recycling Included in A.3.2
A.3.4. Commercial Recycling Pro am Included in A.3.2
A.3.5. Commercial Food Waste Collection Program Included in A.3.2
A3.6. Promote Commercia] Recyclin Included in A.3.2
A.3.7. Promote Multi-family Recycling Included in A.3.2
A3.8. Curbside Residential Recycling Program Included in A.3.2
A.3.9. Curbside Or anics Collection Program Included in A.3.2
Subtotal Solid Waste and Rec clin 4,911 1.04%
Total Communit ide Measures 46,171 9.80%
B. Munici al O erations Measures
B.1. Trans ortation and Land Use Measures
B.1.1. City Hybrid Vehicles Supporting Measure
B.1.2. Commute Alternative Program Supporting Measure
B.2. Ener Measures
B.2.1. LEED Silver Requirement for New City Buildings >$3mi1 79 0.0167%
B.2.2. Window Film on the Civic Center 16 0.034%
B.2.3. LED Park Lights Not quantifiable at this time
B.3. Solid Waste and Rec clin Measures
B3.1. Bay-Friendly Landscapin Policy Su ortin Measure
Total Munici al O erations Measures 95 0.02%
C. Public Outreach Pro rams
C.1. Great Race for Clean Air
C.2. Walk `n' Roll to School
C3. Work with Schools on "Go Green" Recycling and Composting 471 0.1000°/a
C.4. AVI Educational Presentations
C.S. Promote Bike to Work Day
Total Public Outreach Pro rams 471 0.10%
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 52
~ . ~..~ ., , ;
y ;~;:.., ~ ~
Table 12 - Summary of GHG Reduction Measure Performance (Cont.)
Statewide Reductions
Renewable Portfolio Standards (33% -2020) 16,621 3.5272%
AB 1493: Vehicle Emission Standazds " 35,642 7.5641%
Total Statewide Reductions 52,263 11.09°/a
Total Communi ide Measures 46,171 9.80%
Total Munici al O erations Measures 95 0.02%
Total Public Outreach Pro rams 471 0.10%
Total Statewide Reductions 52,263 11.09%
Total Reductions 99,000 21.01%
Tar et: 20°/a from 2020 BAU
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 53
Table 13 - BAAQMD Efftciency Threshold Analysis
. ~ . . ~• . . .
2005 2020
MT C02e % MT C02e %
Residential 51,154 14.3% Residential 77,973 16.5%
Commercial/industrial 60,183 16.8% Commercial/Industrial 82,043 17.4%
Transportation 233,384 65.3% Transportation 292,151 62.0%
Waste 12,490 3.5% Waste 19,038 4.0%
Total ' :357,211 ' 100.0% I Total '- 471,205 ' 100:0%
Reduction from CAP strategies (from BAU) O.OOlo; -' Reduction from CAP strategies (from BAU) ',~.~~2% ':'
Reduction from Statewide initiatives (from BAU) O.qq~. ' Reduction from Statewide initiatives (from BAU) 11.U~°~,..
Total (reduction from BAU) (~;.QCJ% `.'' Total (reduction from BAU) ~1.Q1°fo: '
Total''GHG with Reduction Measures ' 357,211 ' Total GHG with Reduction Measures 372,205 rr
2005 Community GHG Efficiency Analysis 2020 Community GHG Efficiency Analysis
Population 41,200 Population 62,800
Jobs 19,520 lobs 26,610
Service Population (SP) 60,720 Service Population (SP) 89,410
GHG Before Reduction Measures 357,211 MT C02e GHG Before Reduction Measures 471,205 MT C02e
Projected GHG/SP 5.9 MT C02e/SP/year Projected GHG/SP 5.3 MT C02e/SP/year
GHG with Reduction Measures 357,211 MT C02e GHG with Reduction Measures 372,205 MT C02e
Projected GHG/SP 5.9 MT C02e/SP/year Projected GHG/SP 4.2 MT C02e/SP/year
Target GHG/SP 6.6 MT C02e/SP/year Target GHG/SP 6.6 MT C02e/SP/year
% Below Target 10.9% % Below Target 36.9%
2020 Efficiency Reduction Goal Below 2005 Projected GHG/SP = 29.24%
~ `
'~~ ~~-, i~~ -
VIII. Implementation, Monitoring and Future Steps
GHG emissions are an issue of growing concern far communities across the U.S. and around the
world. The City of Dublin has displayed great leadership and foresight in choosing to confront
this issue now. By reducing the amount of GHGs emitted by the communit}~, Dublin joins
hundreds of other American cities in stemming GHG emissions and the impacts associated with
it.
In addition to mitigating the effects of GHG emissions, the City of Dublin stands to benefit in
many other ways from the proposed measures outlined in this report, including better public
health, improved public spaces, economic growth, and long-term savings for property owners.
Achieving Dublin's reduction target will require both persistence and adaptability.
A. Implementation
Ensuring that the recommended measures translate from policy language into on-the-ground
results is critical to the success of the CAP. Some actions will require inter-departmental or inter-
agency cooperation and appropriate partnerships will be established accordingly. Other actions
will require jurisdictional partners, businesses and our community to take action.
As part of the implementation, the City shall identify which measures apply to different types of
new development projects, discerning between voluntary and mandatory measures. A checklist
has been developed which illustrates the reduction measures that would apply to new
development in the City, including residential and commercial projects (refer to Appendix D).
The City shall include a mechanism for reviewing and determining if all applicable mandatory
measures are being adequately applied to new development projects as part of the development
review process. Identification of implementation steps and parties responsible for ensuring
implementation of each action shall be included in approval documents for each project.
B. Monitoring
The City of Dublin's Environmental Services Division will wark with various departments within
the City to monitor the results that are achieved by the various CAP programs and policies. A few
examples of the type of policies in the plan that will be monitored are highlighted below:
1. Construction of bicycle lanes - the adopted Bikeways Master Plan proposes 55.2 miles of
Class I, II or III bike lanes (currently there are 21.4 miles of bike lanes). The City will
track the miles of bike lanes that are constructed each year.
2. Energy Upgrades California Program - this program establishes countywide building
retrofit measures and specifications for energy efficiency, water and resource
conservation, and indoor air quality and health. It is estimated that there will be a 7%
participation rate among housing units in the City. City Staff will monitor the homes that
participate in this program.
3. Construction & Demolition (C&D) Debris Ordinance - the City's existing C&D
Ordinance requires that 100% of asphalt and concrete be recycled and a minimum of 50%
of all other materials be recycled. Environmental Services Staff and the Building
C.~ ~ ~-'~t, + ~'
Division track the percentages of C&D debris that are recycled. The City's diversion rate
has consistently been between 80% and 90% since 2005.
4. Citywide Diversion Goal - the City of Dublin has adopted a goal to divert 75% of waste
from the landfill. The City of Dublin reports to CalRecycle on an annual basis on the
percentages of waste that is diverted from the landfill. The City will continue to monitor
its diversion rates and explore additional programs to help reach the 75% diversion goal.
5. Green Building Ordinance - the City's Green Building Ordinance requires residential
projects over 20 units to reach 50 points on the GreenPoint Rating system. The Building
Division warks with project developers at the entitlement and building permit stages to
ensure that the minimum 50 points is achieved.
Monitoring results is critical to verifying that the various policies and programs within the City's
CAP are achieving the anticipated GHG emission reductions that have been anticipated.
C. Periodic Review
The City is committed to periodically conducting a review of the CAP to determine its progress in
reducing GHG emissions within the City. Environmental Services Staff will conduct the periodic
reviews. The process of conducting a periodic review will allow the City to demonstrate progress
toward local emissions reduction targets and identify opportunities to integrate new or improved
measures into the emissions reduction plan, including additional measures if necessary to meet
the reduction target. The City of Dublin will review the CAP on an annual basis to verify that the
various reduction measures are being implemented appropriately. Additionally, the City will re-
inventory its emissions every 5 years.
D. Point of Control
The table below lists the primary point of contact and locus of control for each individual
reduction measure. Specifically, the relevant department within the City is highlighted, within
which the implementation and ongoing activities will take place. Assigning and clarifying the
responsible party is an impartment part of ensuring that the City achieves its goals as outlined and
projected within the CAP.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 56
~ ~~!~'
~ Primary Departments Responsible for Individual Reduction Measures
~ Measure Number and Title Department Responsible Timeframe ~
A.1.1. Transit-Oriented Develo ment Communi Develo ment 2020
A.1.2. High-Density Development Community Development 2020
A.1.3. Mixed-Use Develo ment Communit Develo ment 2020
A.1.4. Bicycle Parking Requirements Public Works Ongoing
A.1.5. Streetscape Master Plan Public Works Ongoing
A.1.6. Multi-Modal Ma Community Develo ment On oin
A.1.7. Electric and Plug In-Hybrid Charging Stations at the Library Public Works Ongoing ..
A.1.8. General Plan Communi Desi and Sustainability Element Community Develo ment On oin
A.1.9. Work with LAVTA to Improve Transit Public Works Ongoing
A.1.10. Bikeways Master Plan
,:. ; ~
_ ~
'A.Z: ~n~er lY~~asures E -
'~
.,t... _ _ ~
A.2.1. Green Building Ordinance Public Works
, ,,
, a, ,
~
. o..,, .
Community Develo ment 2020
,
~
; •.•: '' ;:: ,"
,.~
2020
A.2.2. Ener y U ade California Ci Mana er's Office On oin
A.2.3. Solar Conversion Programs City Manager's Office Ongoing
A.2.4. Reduce Solar Installation Permit Fee
'~~~~.~. Solid Wa~te ~inc~ R~e~ etin Measures :.:~~. ~~:
A.3.1. Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance Community Develo ment
~,,?, ~~, „ r.
Community Development /
City Manager's Office On oin
'~, ,~~ ~ `-
Ongoing
A3.2. Citywide Diversion Goal of 75% City Mana er's Office On oin
A.33. Tiered Rate Structure for Garbage and Recycling City Manager's Office Ongoing
A3.4. Commercial Recyclin Pro am City Mana er's Office On oing
A.3.5. Commercial Food Waste Collection Program City Manager's Office Ongoing
A.3.6. Promote Commercial Recycling City Manager's Office Ongoing
A.3.7. Promote Multi-family Recycling City Manager's Office On oin
A3.8. Curbside Residential Recycling Program City Manager's Office On oing
A.3.9. Curbside Organics Collection Program City Manager's Office On~oine
B.1.1. City Hybrid Vehicles Public Warks On oin
B.1.2. Commute Alternative Program City Manager's Office Ongoing
B.2 ~ii~ec ~,e~ts~res _~ ~,~ ; ;~~~
~MY
. „ _. ,..~,. , , r ,., F ~, ., .
,
~. R ~ f~.-
~~.: ~ ~
. , . . .. ~
E~.~~> ~.~:.
• -_ ~. . ,~.,
B.2.1. LEED Silver Requirement for New City Buildings >$3mi1 Community Development Ongoing
B.2.2. Window Film on the Civic Center Public Works 2009
B.2.3. LED Park Lights Parks & Community 2011
Services
B:3: Salid: Waste:anc~ ~ec ciin Measiiies,. . ;•; '
,~> u_ > ~
,.~, t:; „
. m.,.~ -,T...v -,..,,, ~ ;,
;
,....~ . ,.., .., .,. .;
B.3.1. Ba -Friendly Landsca in Policy City Mana er's Office On oin
C~ Pubiie t)':~itr"eacls:`~'ro raitt~ ~ ,.
>. . . . e . ~,- .. { ' ` ~'~
~ ., ,._ . ..
1 ,
:~.'.
.. . ,
C.1. Great Race for Clean Air City Manager's O~ce Ongoing
C.2. Walk `n' Roll to School Public Works On oing
C.3. Work with Schools on "Go Green" Recycling and Com osting City Manager's Office Ongoing
C.4. AVI Educational Presentations City Manager's Office On oin
C.S. Promote Bike to Work Day Public Works On oing
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 57
~z~~~f
IX. Relationship to the California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the City to identify the significant
environmental impacts of its discretionary actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if
feasible. Senate Bill 97 (2007) acknowledges that emissions from greenhouse gases are an
environmental issue that requires analysis under CEQA. When the City undertakes a
discretionary action for a"project" under CEQA, such as approval of a proposed development
project, plan, policy, or code change, the City will evaluate whether that action would result in a
significant impact due to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.
It is unclear if the adoption of the CAP is a"project" under CEQA. Since it is a plan to protect the
environment and reduce environmental impacts (due to greenhouse gas emissions or climate
change), it may not constitute a"project" or qualify for an exemption under CEQA. The overall
purpose of the CAP is to reduce the impact that the community will have on GHG emissions and,
therefare, reduce an impact on the environment. However, as with any proposal involving
activities relating to development, implementation of the CAP theoretically could potentially
result in adverse impacts on the physical environment. Therefore, an Initial Study and Negative
Declaration have been prepared by the City pursuant to CEQA to evaluate whether there are any
potential adverse environmental impacts of implementing the CAP. Because the CAP will have
undergone environmental review under CEQA, and is intended to reduce GHG emissions and
climate change impacts in Dublin, it may be relied upon to address the cumulative impacts for
future projects consistent with the Plan.
This approach is consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, 15064 and 15130 and the
adopted BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines and Thresholds of Significance, which provide a means
for jurisdictions to analyze and mitigate the significant effects of GHGs at a programmatic level
by adopting a plan for the reduction of GHG emissions. Later, as individual projects are proposed
that are consistent with the CAP, the project would be considered to have a less than significant
impact (i.e. less than cumulatively considerable contribution) from GHG emissions and climate
change.
When determining whether a proposed project is consistent with the CAP, City staff should
consider the following:
The extent to which the project supports or includes applicable strategies and measures,
or advances the actions identified in the CAP;
The consistency of the project with Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
population growth projections (Projections 2009), which are the basis of the CAP GHG
emissions projections; and
The extent to which the project would interfere with implementation of CAP strategies,
measures, ar actions.
A project and its CEQA environmental review that relies on this CAP for its GHG emissions and
climate change analysis must identify the specific CAP measures applicable to the project and
how the project incorporates the measures. If the measures are not otherwise binding and
enforceable, they must be incorparated as conditions of approval or mitigation measures
applicable to the project.
If the City determines in its environmental review that the proposed project would not
substantially comply with the CAP's population growth projections or GHG reduction policies or
programs, the Applicant could consider various methods for making the Project consistent with
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 58
r ~,~ p
the CAP, iricluding, but not limited to, revising the project, incorporating alternative reduction
measures beyond the reduction measures identified in the CAP (including offsets) to make the
Project's GHG emissions levels consistent with the CAP. The impact from GHG emissions from
a Project may also be determined to be less than significant under CEQA through an alternative
analysis using a standard of significance that is supported by substantial evidence, such as
BAAQMD's numerical thresholds (<1,100 MT COZe per year or 4.6 metric tons per service
population (residents and employees) per year). A determination that a Project does not
substantially comply with the CAP shall not in and of itself provide substantial evidence that a
Project's impact from GHG emissions is a significant impact under CEQA. It only means that a
Project may not be able to rely on the CAP for a determination that the Project's impact is less
than significant due to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change (i.e., less than cumulatively
considerable contribution to significant cumulative impact).
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 59
r f ::: ~.
~ ...~
,~, ~;~ ~..
Appendices
A. ICLEIInventory and Projections Report
B. Fehr and Peers study re: Transit-Oriented Developments
C. Emission Reduction Calculations and Assumptions
D. Applicability of GHG Reduction Measures to New Development Projects Checklist
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan , 60
l~ ~ ~',~ ~ ~.
Appendix A:
Supporting Date from ICLEI Inventory & Projections Report
~~
~
s,~ ~ ~~ i
Appendix A:
Forecast Data from ABAG's Projections 2009 ~
Forecast Table 1- ABAG Pro'ections on Job Growth in Dublin
• ~ •:
JURISDICTIONAL
BOUNDARY 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
ALAMEDA 27,380 27,400 26,970 29,650 32,850
ALBANY 5,190 4,840 5,030 5,240 5,440
BERKELEY 78,320 75,430 76,170 77,040 79,610
DUBLIN 16,540 19,520 19,650 22,900 26,610
EMERYVILLE 19,860 19,670 18,610 20,460 22,340
FREMONT 104,830 93,950 94,440 96,410 101,050
HAYWARD 76,320 71,690 71,050 72,240 78,250
LIVERMORE 32,820 32,430 30,550 34,770 40,030
NEWARK 21,420 20,590 20,350 21,490 22,810
OAKLAND 199,470 202,570 188,590 209,340 229,720
PIEDMONT 2,120 2,090 2,090 2,100 2,110
PLEASANTON 58,670 57,300 55,770 61,320 . 66,760
DUBLIN 44,370 41,650 40,940 42,300 45,680
UNION CITY 19,310 19,370 20,230 22,170 24,860
UNINCORPORATED 43,540 41,770 42,410 43,840 46,950
Forecast Table 2- ABAG Projections on Population Growth in Dublin
• ' '•' ~ •
JURISDICTIONAL
BOUNDARY 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
ALAMEDA 72,259 74,300 76,800 79,600 81,300
ALBANY 16,444 16,800 16,900 17,300 17,800
BERKELEY 102,743 104,400 106,500 109,400 111,900
DUBLIN 29,973 41,200 49,000 56,000 62,800
EMERYVILLE 6,882 8,400 10,100 11,300 12,700
FREMONT 203,413 210,000 214,200 221,200 230,600
HAYWARD 140,030 145,900 149,100 155,600 162,200
LIVERMORE 73,345 77,900 80,000 85,500 91,500
NEWARK 42,471 43,500 43,900 45,800 47,800
OAKLAND 399,484 410,600 420,900 446,100 470,900
PIEDMONT 10,952 11,100 11,100 11,100 11,100
PLEASANTON 63,654 67,500 69,300 72,200 75,600
SAN LEANDRO 79,452 81,300 82,000 83,600 85,800
UNION CITY 66,869 70,800 73,700 79,700 85,200
UNINCORPORATED 135,770 141,700 146,300 151,700 158,700
Appendix A City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 1
APPENDIX A
l~~ ~:~~ ~~d
Emission Factors Used in the Alameda County Climate Protection Partnership
Emission Factors:
~ ~
~ ~ ,
~ ~
0.489155
COZ
'
lbs/kwh The certified COZ emission factor for delivered electricity is publicly available at I
PG&E h~'~~~'~'~' climateregistry ar~/CarrotDocs/19/2005/2005 PUP Report V2 Revl
Electricity
0.492859 PGE rev2 Dec l.xls
COZe lbs/kwh
3433 short
Default C~Z tons/GWh
Direct 0.035 short ICLEI/Tellus Institute (2005 Region 13 - Western Systems Coordinating
Access CH4 tons/GWh CounciUCNV Average Grid Electricity Coefficients)
Electricity 0.027 short
NZ~ tons/GWh
PG&E/CCAR. Emission factors are derived from: California Energy Commission,
53.05 Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-1999
COZ kg/MMBtu (November 2002); and Energy Information Administration, Emissions of
PG&E Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2000 (2001), Table B1, page 140.
Natural 0.0059 CCAR. Emission factors are derived from: U.S. EPA, "Inventory of U.S.
Gas CH4 kg/MMBtu Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2000" (2002), Table C-2, page C-2.
EPA obtained original emission factors from the Intergovemmental Panel on
N20 0.001
M Climate Change, Revised IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
btu
kg~M Inventories: Reference Manual (1996), Tables 1-15 through 1-19, pages 1.53-1.57.
Alameda Count Trans ortation Sector Emission Factors:
~ ~ . ~ .
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ,
~
,
~ ~- ~
~
0.062 0.042 0. 070 0.050 92.8% 7.2% 8,599 10,092 19.1 6.4
Provided by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District EMFAC Model
Alameda County Waste Sector Emission Factors:
~
., ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •~
Pa er Products 2.138262868 0
Food Waste 1.210337473 0
Plant Debris .685857901 0
Wood/Tegtiles .605168736 0
All Other Waste 0 0
Methane recovery factor of 60% derived from the US EPA AP 42 Emissions Factors report
(http•/Iwww epa ~ov/ttn/chief/a~42/index.html).
Appendix A City of Dubiin Climate Action Plan 2
~~i~~
Waste Calculation Methodology
Emissions Calculation Methods
COZe emissions from waste and ADC disposal were calculated using the methane commitment
method in the CACP soflware, which uses a version of the EPA WARM model. This model has
the following general formula:
COZe = Wt * (1-R)A
Where:
Wt is the quantify of waste type `t',
R is the methane recovery factor,
A is the COZe emissions of inethane per metric ton of waste at the disposal site (the methane
factor)
While the WARM model often calculates upstream emissions, as well as carbon sequestration in
the landfill, these dimensions of the model were omitted for this particular study for two reasons:
1) This inventory functions on a end-use analysis, rather than a life-cycle analysis, which
would calculate upstream emissions), and
2) This inventory solely identifies emissions sources, and no potential sequestration `sinks'.
Appendix A City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
3
~ ~ ~~ i ` ~
~ f
Appendix B:
Fehr & Peers Study re: Transit-Oriented Developments
....p~ ',~.,...:• ~ f>
~ ~~~w~
~
~E~HP. ~z ~7F~RS
TRANSPO$TATt6fl COH511ETANT$
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 30, 2009
To: Jaimee Bourgeois, City of Dublin
From: Kathrin Tellez and Rob Rees, Fehr & Peers
Subject: City of Dublin Transit Orienfed Development
Transportation Impact Fee Assessment
WC08-2606
Fehr & Peers has reviewed data from a variety of sources to develop a likely range of vehicle trip
reductions for transit-oriented residential development (TOD) adjacent to the Bay Area Rapid
Transit (BART) stations in the City of Dublin. Research indicates that developments adjacent to
transit service such as BART can expect to experience a reduction in vehicle trips, especially for
commute trips. Further vehicle trip reductions may be possible if the residential locations are
located within walking distance of retail/service amenities or employment centers.
Residents of TODs tend to have a higher transit mode share than the remainder of the City as
they tend to have fewer cars per person, are more likely to be single and without children, and
cite location to transit as a factor for choosing the TOD residential location. The following
presents the background that requires agencies to consider fee reductions for transit-oriented
residential development, the relevant research summary, and our recommendations for potential
trip reduction percentages to use in assessing traffic impact fees for TODs.
Recommendation - Fehr & Peers suggests a reduction in vehicle trips of 25 percent for
multi-family residential developments located in a mixed-use environment within a
barrier-free half mile walk of a BART station
BACKGROUND
Assembly Bill 3005 requires local agencies to set impact fees for transit-oriented housing
proportional to their vehicular traffic impacts. The bill attempts to account for the observed
reduction in vehicle traffic associated with development that is mixed-use and within proximity of
transit. The required impact fee re-assessment applies to housing developments that meet all of
the following criteria:
1. located within one-half mile of a transit station
2. direct access between the housing development and the transit station along a barrier-free
walkable pathway not exceeding one-half mile in length
3. located within a half mile of convenience retail uses, including a store that sells food
4. provides either the minimum number of parking spaces required by local ordinance or no
more than one on-site parking space for zero to two bedroom units and two on-site spaces for
three or more bedroom units, whichever is less.
Traffc Impact Fees can be reduced at the discretion of a local jurisdiction even if not all the above
criteria are satisfied.
100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (925) 930-7100 Fax (925) 933-7090
www.fehrandpeers.com
Appendix B
Jaimee Bourgeois
July 30, 2009
Page 2 of 4
~ l ~~ r~ ~
The new housing developments within proximity of the Dublin/Pleasanton Station have the
potential to meet these criteria. Figure 1 shows the one-half mile walkshed around the
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station based on current and proposed street configuration. Further
waikshed coverage could be achieved for parcels east of Dougherty Road, between Dublin
Boulevard and I-580 with connections to the Iron Horse Trail.
RESEARCH SUMMARY
Project trip generation refers to the process for estimating the number of trips generated by a
development site or area. Typically, only vehicle trips are calculated, but trips can also occur by
walking, bicycling, or taking transit. T~ip generation estimates for residential projects are typically
calculated based on the number of dwelling units within that development. Vehicle estimates of
the total traffic entering and exiting the project driveways are typically calculated for the AM peak
hour, the PM peak hour and for an average weekday.
For projects that contain a mixture of uses, such as retail and office, it is reasonable to expect
that some vehicle trips at the project driveways would not occur because people within the project
choose to walk from one use to another within the site. For projects that are located near transit
stops, it is also reasonable to consider that some trips will occur on modes other than the
automobile such as walking or transit.
The combination of internal trips (those which begin and end within the project site and do not
add any new trips to the external roadway network) and external trips using alternate modes
accounts for the total vehicle trip reduction.
Typical Trip Generation Methods
Vehicle trip generation rates presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE)
publication Trip Generation, 8`h Edition, presents rates for a variety of land uses, including
residential. The Trip Generation Handbook (March 2004), also presents guidance to estimate the
number of trips that remain internal to a site based on the balance of land uses within the site.
The ITE trip generation rates were developed based on surveys of mostly stand-alone suburban
locations with minimal transit usage. Rates presented in Trip Generation can be a good indicator
of the total number of trips that could be generated by a development, but does not account for
the travel mode, such as waiking, bicycling or transit.
Recent Research Summary
A recent article published by Cervero and Arrington' compared the trip generating rates used in
the Trip Generation Handbook with observed trip generation from 17 residential TODs located
within proximity to rail stations throughout the United States. Two TODs listed in the study, Park
Regency and Wayside Plaza, are located near the Pleasant Hill BART station and would likely
have similar trip generating characteristics as TODs constructed in Dublin. The trip reduction
from standard ITE rates at the Pleasant Hill sites was 35 percent on a daily basis, 39 percent
during the AM peak hour and 38 percent during the PM peak hour. It should be noted that the
Pleasant Hill BART station is '/Z mile from a convenience grocery store and almost 1 mile from a
full service grocery store. There are barriers to walking to those grocery uses from the BART
station area, including Treat Boulevard (a six lane arterial) and I-680 (a ten lane freeway).
Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 11, No. 3, 2008
Jaimee Bourgeois
July 30, 2009
Page3of4
~~~ ~~ _.~.~ ~
Using the 2000 Bay Area Transportation Survey (BATS), Fehr & Peers compared the number of
automobile trips taken by residents within a'/ mile radius of non-downtown BART stations in the
East Bay with those in the surrounding region to determine the effect that BART proximity had on
mode choice. The survey shows that households within '/ mile of select East Bay BART Stations
(Excludes downtown stations at 12th Street, 19th Street, Downtown Berkeley, and Walnut Creek;
but includes all other stations, such as Concord, Pleasant Hill, Pittsburg/Bay Point, Richmond,
San Leandro, and Castro Valley) have a 25 percent transit mode share on a daily basis. The
BATS data also shows that the transit mode share for residents living within % to one mile of a
BART station is 16 percent.
Trip reductions for the East Bay BART station survey data and the two Pleasant Hill Station TODs
are fairly similar, with the higher trip reductions at Pleasant Hill likely due to the rise in fuel price,
which occurred between the two survey periods, and the higher density of development and
subsequent lower automobile ownership found at Pleasant Hill Station compared to the rest of the
BART system in the East Bay.
Research presented in Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel, TCRP Report 128, states
that TOD commuters typically use transit up to five times more than other commuters in the
region and the mode share for TOD can be up to 50 percent. In 1990, the commute transit mode
share in the City of Dublin was 2 percent according to the Census. The commute share
increased to 5.4 percent by 2000, with the opening of the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station in
1997. The transit mode share has likely increased since 2000 due to increased congestion on
the Interstate 580 corridor and increased fuel prices.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The goals outlined in AB 3005 may be difficult for a single residential project to achieve as they
rely on factors outside the realm of an individual project, principally the requirement that retail
uses, including a food serving business, are located within proximity to the new development.
While it is shown that a mixture of uses does contribute to trip reductions, the significance of this
factor is somewhat negligible during the AM and PM peak hours, the time of the greatest burden
on the transportation infrastructure, because the many trips at this time are work-related. This is
evidenced by the large trip reduction from standard ITE rates for developments around the
Pleasant Hill BART station, although food serving uses are at least '/z mile for convenience
grocery and almost 1 mile for a full service grocery store, with barriers to walking/biking.
The requirements for parking in AB 3005 permit development to use the minimum parking
requirements allowed within local ordinances. The current parking ratios for residential
development within the Transit Center are 1.5 spaces per unit, which is less than the parking
ratios for non-transit oriented development in Dublin (two parking spaces per dwelling unit for
rental apartment uses and 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit for one bedroom condominiums and 2.5
spaces for 2+ bedroom condominiums). The parking supply level recommended in AB 3005
would allow no more than one on-site parking space for zero to two bedroom units and two on-
site spaces for three or more bedroom units.
The literature review of TOD sites suggests that vehicle trip reductions can range from 25%
(using BATS data) to 35% (using Pleasant Hill station area data), and even as high as 50%
(according to TCRP Report 128). Factors influencing these rates likely include gas prices,
parking availability, and relative development density/type in the area. The Pleasant Hill TOD
area is well established and over time residents have developed travel patterns that reduce
vehicle trips, while the Dublin TODs are fairly new in comparison.
Jaimee Bourgeois
July 30, 2009
Page 4 of 4
~7~~~`~~
Fehr & Peers expects that as the Dublin TOD areas fully develop and become established that
vehicle trip reductions approaching those measu~ed in Pleasant Hill will occur. Until that time, we
recommend that a more conservative estimate of trip reduction be used. Thus, Fehr & Peers
recommends a reduction in vehicle trips of 25 percent for multi-family residential developments
located within a half mile walk, but south of Dublin Boulevard, of the Dublin-Pleasanton BART
station, where the parking supply is limited. This reduction would correlate to a 25 percent
reduction in transportation impact fees for development located. The 25 percent reduction zone is
cut-off at Dublin Boulevard as this roadway is a major impediment to pedestrian travel.
As the Dublin TODs become more established with a greater mixture of uses and area plans
such as.the Bicycle Master Plan are implemented, this reduction can be reconsidered. However,
there are alternative mode improvements included in the transportation impact fee programs and
further reductions to the fees could impede the ability of the City from fully developing the non-
motorized transportation network and providing other transit amenities.
This completes our assessment of trip reduction percentages for multi-family residential
developments within proximity of a BART station within the City of Dublin. Please let me know if
you have any questions.
FEHR ~ PEE~ZS
TRANSPORTATION CONSl1LTANTS DUBLIN-PLEASANTON STATION WALKSHEDS
July 2009
wcos-zsos_waik5neds FIGURE 1
~
~
~~
Dublin TOD Transportation Impact Fee Assessment
~
~
~
~- .
~v
~~8
~;
~
FEHR ~ PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS AUTOMOBILE TRIP REDUCTION ZONES FOR RESIDENTIAL TODs
Ju1y2009 FIGURE 2
WCD&26~6_Tri p Re d u xZones
Dublin TOD Transportation Impact Fee Assessment
"~ '~ wl +'~ i ~..
Appendix C:
Emissions Reductions Calculations anc~ Assumptions
Dierkers, G., E. Sils6e, 5. Stott, 5, Winkelman, an M, Wu66eo.2007, CCA7
Uonsportafion Emissions Guidebook, Centerfor Clean Air Policy, Washington,
D,CAvailable:<hnp://www.ccap.org/safe/guidehook.php>, ascitedin
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association ~CAPCOA) 2008. CEQA ond
A.1.4 Bikeparking Y~topdown .~ 1,825 039% ClimateChonge.
Ewing, Aeid, et al. 2001. iro~el and the Built Enviro~menk A Synfhesis.
Transportation Research Record 1780. Paper No. ~13515 as cited in Urban
Landlnstitute.2008,GrowingCoolec ISBN:978-0-87420-082-2.Washington,
A,1.5 S[reetscapeMasterPla~ Y~[opdown . 2,922 0.62% DC
Dierkers, G., E. Sils6e, 5. Stott, S Winkelman, an M, Wub6en. 200Z CCA7
Lonsportation Emisslons Guidebook. Centerfor Clean Air Policy, Washington,
D.C.Available:<http:/~www.ccap.orgJsafe/guidehook.php>. ascitedin
California Air Pollution Control Officers Associatian (CAPCOA~ 2008. CEOA ond
A.1.6 Multi-modalmap Y~topdown . 2,922 0.62Y ClimateChange.
Dierkers, G., E. Silsbe, 5. Stott, S Wlnkelman, an M, Wu66en.2007, CCAV
Transportation Emissions Guidebaok. Centerfor Clean Air Policy. Washington,
D.C. Avalla6le: <http:/~www.ccap.org/safe/guidebook.php>, as cited in
Y-top dowo (detail California Air Pollution Control OfficersAssociation (CAPCOA) 2009. CEqAond
A1.9 WorkwithLAVTAtoimprovetransd required) .- 1,0.61 031% ClimoteChonge.
Bikeways Master Plan; existing 21.4 miles; proposed 55.2 miles
class ),II, or III 6ike lanes, (current mode share 03%, proposed Ciry of ~ublin Bikeways Master Plan. Pers, CommJaimee Burgeouis, Ciry
A1.10 bikemasterplanmodesharel.5%~ Y-topdown ._ 3,506 074% TrafficEngineer.3f29/10.
A2.1 GreenBuildingOrdinance Y~topdown 9% 26,819 15,287 314% CiryofDublinCAP.Marth2010.
A2.2 EoergyUpgradeCalifornia~8uildingretmfitmeawres~ Y-topdawn
A.23 SolarConverspnPrograms Y-batromup
;~~r,C kW
0.009 KW/sqk
991,517 sqh
7.OOh
2276 acres
4,480 0,95%
4,500 0,95%
Alameda Coonty Waste Management AuthoriU/s Basic Home Energy Retrofit
Package ar equlvalent upgrades that achieve a 20%efficiency improvement,
The package would include attic insulation, progammable thermaswts, water
heater insulatioo, hot water pipe insulation, and draft elimination thmugh
caulking and sealing, I[ is estimated that the total cost of such
Improvements would 6e approximately $7,SOO to $10,000 per singlrfamlly
home [as of 2009J.
Based on Santa Rita Jail Case Study s~rstem si:e~,118 MW,130,000 sq k[°3
atres] (Alameda County 2005)
Ciry of Dublin CAP. 2010 ~March) \
.-.i
~
~~
V'^•
s
AFFEIvTiIX C:
TOD; Du61in Transit Cen[er,1800 new and 674 exirting entitled
high densiry units,l7M sq k campus office, 70k sq ft
A.1.1 commercia1,87acpark,BARTparkingstmcture Y-6ottomup 25% 17,430 4,357 0.92% Fehr&Peers2009~July).AscitedinCiryof~u6linCAPmeawreA.1.1.
UABEMIS 2a~7. Version 9.2.4.
A1.2 HighDensityDevelopnent Y;cambinedwithA.l.l
A.13 Mixedosedevelopment Y~com6inedwithAl.1
So~id Waste & Recycling r
A.31 75% Cirywide waste dlversion goal by 2030
A.33 Tiered2testmctureforgar6age&rerycling
Y-top down
cambined with A3.2
Commercial/Residential Recycling and Organics Collection
q,3,4-A.3.9 progroms comhinedwithA32
75%
4,911 1.04% notappliedtowaste-in-place
~~
Califomia Energy Cammission [CECJ 2000. California Energy Demand Staff
LEED $ilver requirement for new City 6uildings over CIP $3 Report P200-00~002; California Climate Action Registry [CCAR] Geneal
811 million:AecCenter,CulturalArtsCenter,CommunityCenter Y-6attomup 20% 394 79 0.0% ReportingProtomlv3.lJanuary2009
Green Building Ordinance (civic) URBEMIS 2007, Version 91.4.
8,2.2 Window~lmon[heCivicCenter
Y-hottom up
123 16 0.00%
..., . . . ,h: . . .
g °'~; „lt ~'s:' Sr~ u~ ~a -~ t ~r ~` ~ h"s ~? a ~ 'w ~ Y ~ ~ ?:~. m ~ .,+^~* 'MS i ~ ,~,a~ z
3~.~:~..N~~ ~ ~~ ? ~ , .~,~, .. ~s.., .. a~'~`'~' ..:~R. ~" , .,,, ~ ~,'` `~ „ .~ ~.~C~i~~ 'R~~~.., t~ .;'~^,t^ .. ~~ ,:., ~ ~. ~'~t ~ ~ ~`~..., ` f +~,;'~"^ ~ w`~, ~` ~" ~ . ~. ~ ~' s`^~ ~ ~ ~
~a.<u. .~., „x ,.. .. . _ .u .,.,.~. ...~..,.-,,.3. ..,~. r~,. ~.4 z.t. ro;.~.J6 .,.xw, w ...,: ;s: ,,, .o „'~.a ,.,~~~. . ~A.u ~.~ ~" .`ea . bu':.
v,..~.....u .el r.. ~z.. ...a ,. .,. , F v.~~w.v
Based an SMAqM~ 2009. Spare theAir ConirolMeawre Progmm; Revisioo ta~
Compreheosivepublicoutreachprogramwithaspirationalgoal Y-topdown .. . 1% 411 0.1% StatelmplemenmtiooFlanStoffReport
RPS
20i by2010
33% by2020
AB 1493
12.20% by2020
LCFS
would not apply to emission factors applicahle to inventory
35,642 7.6%
~
~
~
~
~
/'y~
GHG % Reduction
Reduction in Relative to
PG&E Existing RP Difference Sedor 2020 (MT/yr) 2020
1~% 6% E 5,249 1.1%
14% 19% E 16,621 3.5%
~~.iT 1'IA° „
~r
'~~
Appendix D:
Applicability of GHG Reduction Measures to New
Development Projects Checklist
~G ~~~-~` ' r
Applicability of GHG Reduction Measures to New Development Projects
Measure Number and Title Residential
Pro'ect Commercial
Pro'ect
A. Communit ide Measures
A.1. Trans ortation and Land Use Measures
A.1.1. Transit-Oriented Development X
A.1.2. High-Density Development X
A.13. Mixed-Use Development X
A.1.4. Bicycle Parking Requirements X X
A.1.5. Streetscape Master Plan X X
A.1.6. Multi-Modal Map
A.1.7. Electric & Plug In-Hybrid Charging Stations at the Library
A.1.8. General Plan Community Design & Sustainability Element X X
A.1.9. Work with LAVTA to Improve Transit X X
A.1.10. Bikeways Master Plan
A.2. Ener Measures
A.2.1. Green Building Ordinance X
A.2.2. Energy Upgrade California
A.2.3. Solar Conversion Programs
A.2.4. Reduce Solar Installation Permit Fee
A.3. Solid Waste and Rec clin Measures
A.3.1. Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance X X
A3.2. Citywide Diversion Goal of 75%
A33. Tiered Rate Structure for Garbage and Recycling
A3.4. Commercial Recycling Program
A.3.5. Commercial Food Waste Collection Progam
A.3.6. Promote Commercial Recycling
A.3.7. Promote Multi-family Recycling
A3.8. Curbside Residential Recycling Program
A3.9. Curbside Organics Collection Program
1- The location of future transit-oriented development, high density development and mixed-use developments
projects has been planned for by the City through the General Plan, various Specific Plans and zoning.
2- The bicycle parking requirement for residential projects applies only to multi-family complexes.
3- Through the entitlement process, the Applicant will work with LAVTA to determine if a bus stop is required
along the frontage of the project site.
4- The Green Building Ordinance applies to residential projects with 20 or more units.
Appendix D