HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 Climate Action Plan Updateor
19 82
/ii � 111
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
October 15, 2013
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
CITY CLERK
File #400 - 20/530 -50
Joni Pattillo City Manager""'
PUBLIC HEARING: City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update and Negative
Declaration
Prepared by Martha Aja, Environmental Coordinator
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The proposed City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update (CAP Update) provides policies and
measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within the City. The goal of the
CAP Update is to reduce Dublin's community -wide GHG emissions by 15% below 2010 levels
by 2020. The CAP Update identifies a variety of measures to achieve the City's GHG reduction
target. The various GHG reduction measures are organized into three broad categories: 1)
transportation and land use measures; 2) energy measures; and 3) solid waste and recycling
measures. The CAP Update describes baseline GHG emissions produced in Dublin in 2010,
and forecasts GHG emissions that could be expected if the proposed CAP Update is not
implemented — the business -as -usual scenario. The City expects to reduce GHG emissions
through a combination of reduction measures that are included in the CAP Update. These
include measures that are under the City's control and State initiatives aimed at reducing GHG
emissions.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
This project poses no financial impact to the City.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing, deliberate, and adopt
Resolution adopting a Negative Declaration for the City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update;
and adopt Resolution approving the City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update.
Submitted By Reviewed By
Assistant to the City Manager Assistant City Manager
Page 1 of 9 ITEM NO. 6.1
DESCRIPTION:
Background
State, National and International
In 1997, 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. Currently there
are 192 parties to the Kyoto Protocol.
In September 2006, the State of California enacted Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which requires California to reduce Statewide GHG
emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 directs the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to
develop and implement regulations that reduce statewide GHG emissions. The Climate
Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) was approved by ARB in December 2008 and outlines
the State's plan to achieve the GHG reductions required in AB 32. The Scoping Plan
contains the primary strategies California will implement to achieve a reduction of 169 million
metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMT CO2e), or approximately 30% from the
State's projected 2020 emissions level. In the Scoping Plan, the ARB encourages local
governments to adopt a reduction goal for municipal operations emissions and to move
forward with establishing similar goals for community emissions, which parallel the State's
commitment to reduce GHG emissions. However, the specific role local governments will
play in meeting the State's AB 32 goals is not established in the Scoping Plan.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
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
jurisdictional boundaries, which includes the City of Dublin. The BAAQMD has direct and
indirect regulatory authority over sources of air pollution in the San Francisco Bay Area Air
Basin. The overall goal of this effort was to develop CEQA significance criteria to ensure that
future development includes appropriate and feasible emission reduction measures to mitigate
significant air quality and GHG emissions impacts.
The BAAQMD adopted project level thresholds, which include an emission level threshold of
1,100 MT CO2e per year and a threshold of 4.6 metric tons of GHG emissions per service
population (i.e. residents and employees) per year for individual development projects. For
general references, the adopted project threshold (1,100 metric tons of CO2e /yr) is equivalent to
the approximate amount of GHG emissions generated by 60 single - family units, or 78 multi-
family units, or a supermarket exceeding 8,000 square feet, or an office park exceeding 50,000
square feet. The BAAQMD also adopted a plan threshold of 6.6 MTCO2e per service population
per year, where service population is the summation of population and the number of jobs. The
City of Dublin's CAP Update employs the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
GHG efficiency threshold of 6.6 MTCO2e per service population per year as evidence of the
City's intent to meet the intent of AB 32 to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
Projects with emissions greater than the adopted threshold (1,100 MT CO2e per year) would be
required to mitigate to the proposed threshold level or reduce project emissions by an amount
deemed feasible by the lead agency. The BAAQMD's approach is to identify the emissions level
for which a project would result in a less than significant impact under CEQA and would not be
expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce Statewide
Page 2 of 9
GHG emissions. If a project were to generate GHG emissions above the threshold level
established by the BAAQMD, it would be considered as contributing substantially to the
cumulative impact of GHG emissions within the community and would be considered a
significant impact under CEQA.
On March 5, 2012, the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the
BAAQMD had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the thresholds. The court did not
determine whether the thresholds were valid on the merits, but found that the adoption of the
thresholds was a project under CEQA. The court issued a writ of mandate ordering the
BAAQMD to set aside the thresholds and cease dissemination of them until the BAAQMD had
complied with CEQA. The BAAQMD appealed the ruling, and on August 13, 2013, the California
First District Court of Appeal reversed the Alameda County Superior Court's decision.
The City, as a lead agency, continues to rely on the substantial evidence based on statewide
data and analysis relative to AB 32 that underlie the BAAQMD thresholds in making a
determination of significance of plan -level GHG impacts.
Under the BAAQMD guidelines, a city may prepare a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy that
furthers AB 32 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 GHG 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 CAP (CEQA Guidelines Section
15183.5). The BAAQMD recognizes these CEQA standards as meeting the district's standards
for a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy.
The CAP Update has been developed to meet both the CEQA and BAAQMD standards for a
Qualified GHG Reduction Plan /Strategy.
City of Dublin
On July 17, 2007, the City Council approved participation in the Climate Protection Project
for Alameda County jurisdictions (Resolution 139 -07). The Alameda County Climate
Protection Project (ACCPP) was launched by ICLEI — Local Governments for Sustainability
in partnership with StopWaste and the Alameda County Conference of Mayors. In
committing to this project, the jurisdictions within Alameda County embarked on an on- going,
coordinated effort to reduce emissions, improve air quality, reduce waste and cut energy
use. In doing so, the City of Dublin committed to ICLEI's 5- milestone methodology for
reducing GHG emissions, which include:
Milestone 1: Conduct a baseline emissions inventory and forecast;
Milestone 2: Adopt an emissions reduction target;
Milestone 3: Develop a Climate Action Plan for reducing emissions;
Milestone 4: Implement policies and measures to reduce emissions; and
Milestone 5: Monitor and verify results.
The City's original CAP was adopted by the City Council in November 2010. The City's CAP
established a GHG emissions reduction target of 20% below the 2020 GHG emissions
forecast (business -as -usual scenario). The 2010 CAP included 34 reduction measures.
Since adoption of the 2010 CAP, the City has implemented 11 new reduction measures,
bringing the reduction measures in the CAP Update to 45.
Page 3 of 9
CAP Update
The City is committed to periodically reviewing its CAP to determine the progress made in
reducing GHG emissions with the City. The process of conducting a periodic review allows
the City to demonstrate progress toward local emission reduction targets and identify
opportunities to integrate new or improved measures into the plan. As stated in the original
CAP, the City will re- inventory its GHG emissions every 5 years. The first inventory was
conducted for calendar year 2005 and the inventory in the CAP update is for calendar year
2010. Additionally, the GHG emissions inventory for calendar year 2010 was a City Council
key initiative for FY 12 -13. The update to the CAP is a City Council key initiative for FY 13-
14.
The City contracted with PMC to assist staff in preparing the Climate Action Plan Update.
PMC calculated the GHG emission reductions to be achieved by implementation of the
measures in the CAP Update and State initiatives that would mitigate GHG emissions within
the community. PMC also peer reviewed the City of Dublin's CAP Update for technical
accuracy and provided assistance coordinating with the BAAQMD.
The proposed CAP Update (Exhibit A of Attachment 1) provides policies and measures
aimed at reducing GHG emissions within the City to further the goals of AB 32. The goal of
the CAP Update is to reduce Dublin's community -wide GHG emissions by 15% below 2010
levels by 2020. This reduction target is more aggressive than the reduction target in the
original CAP, which included a reduction target of 20% below business -as -usual GHG
emissions by 2020. The City Council is being asked to adopt the CAP Update and the
accompanying environmental document.
ANALYSIS:
The purpose of the baseline emissions inventory is to establish an initial level of GHG
emissions for the community, which allows the City to measure future progress. The City's
original CAP used calendar year 2005 as its base year. As part of the CAP Update, the City
prepared an updated emissions inventory for calendar year 2010. Switching to 2010 as the
baseline is a better choice for many reasons. Community activities that effect GHG
emissions have changed considerably since 2005 due to increased awareness of
sustainability, as well as the downturn in the economy. In addition, numerous efficiency
improvements have occurred in electric equipment, vehicles and other devices, resulting in
lower emissions per use. Furthermore, the 2010 inventory contains additional subsectors
and activities not accounted for in the 2005 inventory (e.g. water emissions, wastewater
emissions and BART emissions). As a result, the 2010 emissions inventory is more complete
and accurate than the 2005 inventory. The shift from the base year from 2005 to 2010
enables the City to more fully capture community emissions and employs more aggressive
calculation methodologies not present in 2005, thereby, producing a more precise GHG
reduction goal.
The City anticipates the GHG reduction goal to be achieved through a combination of efforts
at the local, regional and State levels. The reduction measures included within the CAP
Update, which contribute to the City's reduction goal, include locally- focused activities as
well as State initiatives under ARB's Scoping Plan.
Page 4 of 9
A program or project would be considered consistent with the CAP Update if it substantially
complies with the applicable measures set forth within the CAP Update and does not obstruct
the attainment of the estimated GHG emissions reductions.
Emission Inventory, Baseline and Projections
The CAP Update (Chapter II, "Emissions Inventory") presents a GHG emissions inventory for
2010, which includes an inventory of both community level and municipal level emissions. The
community - level- emissions inventory includes sources of GHG emissions emitted from the
residential energy, commercial /industrial energy, transportation, water and wastewater and solid
waste sectors. Total community -wide emissions were determined to be 328,155 metric tons of
carbon dioxide equivalent in 2010 (refer to Table 1 below).
Table 1 Communitv Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector (MT CO,e)
2010 Community Emissions by
Sector
MTCO2e
Percent of Total
CO2e
Residential
55,966
17.1%
Commercial /industrial
60,098
18.3%
Transportation
204,151
62.2%
Solid waste
5,330
1.6%
Water & wastewater (electricity and
fugitive emissions)
2,610
0.8%
TOTAL
328,155
100.0%
The municipal -level emissions inventory includes those sources that fall under the direct
jurisdictional control of the City of Dublin Municipal Corporation, which includes City facilities,
the City's vehicle fleet, public lighting, employee commute, municipal water consumption and
municipal solid waste generation. Government - related emissions were estimated to be 2,343
metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2010 (refer to Table 2 below).
Table 2 — Government GHG Emissions by Sector
Government Emissions
2010
MTCO2e
Percentage of Total
CO2e
Buildings and facilities
790
33.7%
Streetlights and traffic
signals
548
23.4%
Water delivery
12
0.5%
Vehicle fleet
687
29.3%
Employee commute
249
10.6%
Mobile source refrigerants
8
0.3%
Solid waste
49
2.1%
TOTAL
2,343
100%
Chapter III of the CAP Update, "Forecast for Greenhouse Gas Emissions," includes projections
of emissions in 2020. The emission forecast for the year 2020 is based on projected trends in
energy use, driving habits, jobs and population growth from the baseline year (2010) through
2020. The inflation factors were determined using a variety of sources, including US 2010
Census data, ABAG One Bay Area Plan, the Dublin Economic Development Strategy, MTC
Transportation data and the BART 2008 Fiscal Year Short -Range Transit Plan. Under a
Page 5 of 9
business -as -usual scenario, it is estimated that the City of Dublin's emissions will grow over the
next decade by approximately 14% from 328,155 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent to
374,790 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (refer to Table 3 below). This amounts to a
1.3% annual growth rate in community emissions between 2010 and 2020 and underscores
Dublin's predicted jobs and population growth in the next decade
Table 3 — Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions Growth Projections by Sector
Community Emissions
Growth Forecast by
Sector
2010
MTCO2e Emissions
2020
MTCO2e
Emissions
Percent
Change
(2010 -2020)
Residential
55,966
65,200
16.5%
Commercial /industrial
60,098
71,156
18.4%
Water & wastewater
electricity
2,610
3,419
31.0%
Transportation
204,151
228,037
11.7%
Solid waste
5,330
6,982
31.0%
TOTAL
328,155
374,790
14.2%
Dublin's GHG reduction goal is 15% below 2010 levels by 2020. This goal will lower the
projected GHG emissions in 2020 from 374,790 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent to
272,410 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. While the City expects significant residential,
commercial and industrial growth through 2020, the total amount of GHG emissions emitted
within the community will be decreasing.
Further, the City of Dublin's CAP Update is designed to meet or exceed the goals of AB 32. To
delineate the City's commitment to the goals of AB 32, the City's CAP employs BAAQMD's
GHG efficiency based metric for Climate Action Plans of 6.6 MT COze per service population
per year. The City's per capita efficiency metric is 5.04 for 2010 and 3.20 for 2020, which
represents a significant decrease in GHG emissions between the base year and forecast year
on a per capita basis. The City of Dublin's efficiency metric is well below the established
threshold in both the Base Year 2010 and the Forecast Year 2020. Thus, the City will be
growing significantly over the 10 -year period covered by the CAP Update, but during this same
time, the City's GHG emissions will be decreasing significantly on a per individual basis.
Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Measures
The CAP Update identifies a variety of measures to achieve the City's GHG reduction target
(Exhibit A of Attachment 1, Section V, pages 25 -42). The inclusion of quantifiable GHG
reduction measures is the primary focus of the CAP Update. The anticipated emissions
reduction of each individual measure is used to contribute to the overall GHG reduction goal.
Measures that would aid in reducing GHG emissions, but which are not quantified, are also
included in the CAP Update (supporting measures). While these measures do not
mathematically contribute to the City's reduction target, they ultimately will result in GHG
reductions beyond those included in the reductions calculation. That is, they will reduce
emissions, but the reduction is not being measured at this time because there is insufficient
data /assumptions to quantify the anticipated GHG emissions reduction. The various GHG
reduction measures are organized into three broad categories: 1) transportation and land use;
2) energy; and 3) solid waste management and recycling. These categories follow the major
sources of emissions found in the City of Dublin 2010 GHG emissions inventory.
Page 6 of 9
Implementation of the local reduction measures in the CAP Update (includes Community -wide
measures, Municipal Operations Measures & Public Outreach Programs) would result in annual
community -wide GHG emissions reductions of 38,920 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.
A list of the local measures and the estimated GHG reductions can be found in Table 13 of the
CAP Update (Exhibit A of Attachment 1, pages 47 -48).
Additionally, implementation of statewide initiatives (AB 1493, Renewable Portfolio Standard
and Title 24) would result in annual GHG emissions reductions of an additional 63,460 metric
tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. A description of the measures being implemented by the
State can be found in Section VI of the CAP Update (Exhibit A of Attachment 1, pages 43 -46).
The community -wide measures combined with the statewide initiatives would reduce the
anticipated emissions in the community by 102,380 metric tons /year of carbon dioxide
equivalent and would achieve the City's reduction goal of reducing GHG emission by 15% below
2010 levels by 2020.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
On September 24, 2013, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the proposed
CAP Update and draft Negative Declaration. The Planning Commission Staff Report is included
as Attachment 3 and the draft minutes of the Planning Commission meeting are included as
Attachment 4.
The Planning Commission deliberated and approved the followings resolution by a 5 -0 vote:
• Resolution 13 -30, recommending City Council adoption of a Negative Declaration for the
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update (Attachment 5).
• Resolution 13 -31 recommending City Council approval of the City of Dublin Climate
Action Plan (Attachment 6).
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH:
A Public Notice was mailed to interested parties, including surrounding jurisdictions and various
state and regional agencies. Additionally, the Public Notice was published in the Valley Times
and posted at several locations throughout the City.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The overall purpose of the CAP Update is to reduce GHG emissions and the impacts that these
emissions will have on the community and the global environment, and therefore, is a project
designed to benefit the environment. As a result, it may not constitute a "project" under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), or it may qualify for an exemption under CEQA.
However, as with a proposal involving activities relating to development, implementation of the
CAP Update could potentially result in adverse impacts on the physical environment. Therefore,
an Initial Study was prepared by the City pursuant to CEQA to evaluate whether there are any
potentially adverse environmental impacts of implementing the CAP Update. No adverse
impacts were identified and a Negative Declaration was prepared.
Page 7 of 9
The Initial Study /Negative Declaration was circulated for public review from July 26, 2013 to
August 26, 2013 (Exhibit A of Attachment 2). During the public review period, the City received
three comment letters (Exhibit B of Attachment 2), which include the following:
• Dublin San Ramon Services District, dated August 21, 2013
• Colorado River Board of California, dated August 23, 2013
• Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), dated September 5, 2013
The letter from the BAAQMD was the only letter that raised concerns. The City of Dublin is
proposing minor modifications to the CAP Update to address concerns expressed by the
BAAQMD. The proposed modifications to the CAP Update are a result of a verbal discussion
with Air District Staff and those concerns outlined the BAAQMD comment letter. Please refer to
the Climate Action Plan Errata (Exhibit B of Attachment 1) for the proposed modifications to the
CAP Update. Most notably, the proposed modifications to the CAP Update include the
following:
• An update on the ruling of the California First District Court of Appeal decision relating to
the BAAQMD thresholds.
• Discussion on stationary source emissions within Dublin.
• Clarification on the transportation sector analysis and how the emissions were
determined.
• A discussion on how the City's CAP and the GHG reduction target meets the goals of AB
32.
• Modifications to Appendix D to include more detail on the data sources.
The letter from the BAAQMD requests that Appendix D be revised to include more detailed
information on the assumptions behind the emission reduction estimates. The requested
information has not been provided in Appendix D. The assumptions used do not affect the
material outcome of the document. The back -up data is available in the City's file and can be
viewed as requested.
The letter from the BAAQMD further suggests that the City of Dublin include additional reduction
measures, such as expanding the City's Green Building Program beyond new development,
adding a time of sale energy efficiency upgrade requirement to residential and commercial
buildings, adding heat island mitigation strategies, adding a transportation demand management
requirements and adding measures addressing parking requirements.
The City of Dublin's strategy with its Climate Action Plan is to include new programs, practices
and policies into the plan as they are developed and implemented. The community -wide
measures, combined with the statewide initiatives, would achieve the City's reduction goal of
reducing GHG emission by 15% below 2010 levels by 2020. The City is committed to continuing
to explore new actions to reduce GHG emissions and to supplementing these actions in future
years, if needed to achieve the reduction target. As new programs, practices and policies are
Page 8 of 9
adopted by the City, they will be included in future CAP updates; therefore, we are not
proposing to incorporate additional reduction measures proposed by the BAAQMD.
The environmental analysis of the CAP Update focused solely on the new policies and changes
in existing policies that will be implemented as a result of the CAP Update. It did not analyze the
impacts of existing programs included in the original 2010 CAP, which have already undergone
their own environmental review. In particular, the CAP Update will not result in any change in
land use designations or permit greater intensity of development than already allowed under the
existing City General Plan, Specific Plans and zoning. The environmental impacts from these
types of activities are already addressed by the CEQA review adopted by the City relating to
these actions.
CEQA allows cities to develop Climate Action Plans or GHG reduction plans to provide
programmatic analysis of the cumulative impacts of GHG emissions for future projects in the
City. CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 authorizes the use of these Plans for the analysis of the
cumulative impacts of projects consistent with the Plan. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines and
Significance Thresholds for GHG emissions also authorize the use of these Plans for CEQA
review of future projects.
The CAP Update serves as the City's qualified GHG Reduction Plan and programmatic tiering
document for the purposes of 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 a less than significant level under CEQA (i.e., the project
will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact).
Therefore, the Climate Action Plan Update may be used for the cumulative impact analysis for
future projects and development in the City covered by the Plan. As such, it satisfies CEQA
review requirements for all applicable projects within the City. If a proposed project is consistent
with the applicable emissions reduction measures identified in the CAP Update, 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 greenhouse gas emissions
and climate change consistent with Public Resources Code 21083.3, CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15183.5, 15064 and 15130, and BAAQMD adopted CEQA Guidelines and GHG
Significance Thresholds.
ATTACHMENTS: 1.
Resolution adopting the City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update
with the Climate Action Plan attached as Exhibit A and the Errata
attached as Exhibit B
2.
Resolution adopting a Negative Declaration for the City of Dublin
Climate Action Plan Update, with the Initial Study /Negative
Declaration attached as Exhibit A and the comment letters attached
as Exhibit B
3.
September 24, 2013 Planning Commission Staff Report (without
attachments)
4.
Draft Planning Commission meeting minutes, September 24, 2013
5.
Planning Commission Resolution 13 -30 recommending City Council
adoption of a Negative Declaration for the City of Dublin Climate
Action Plan Update
6.
Planning Commission Resolution 13 -31 recommending City Council
approval of the City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update
Page 9 of 9
RESOLUTION NO. XX -13
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING THE CITY OF DUBLIN CLIMATE ACTION PLAN UPDATE
WHEREAS, an update to the City's Climate Action Plan is a City Council key initiative for
FY 13 -14; 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, under CEQA 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, on November 16, 2010, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution 167 -10
approving the City of Dublin Climate Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has contracted with PMC to assist Staff in preparing the
Climate Action Plan Update; and
WHEREAS, the Climate Action Plan Update does the following:
o Provides background on actions taken to curb GHG emissions;
o Presents Dublin's baseline GHG emissions inventory in 2010 and forecast for GHG
emissions in 2020 based on business -as -usual scenario;
o Establishes a GHG emission reduction target of 15% below 2010 levels by 2020,
which results in an efficiency level of 3.2 MT CO2e 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;
o Presents steps for implementation, monitoring and verification of the Plan to achieve
the designated emission reduction target; and
Attachment 1
WHEREAS, the reduction measures within the Climate Action Plan Update 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;
7. Public Outreach Programs; and
WHEREAS, the CAP Update community -wide measures combined with the Statewide
initiatives would reduce the anticipated emissions in the community by 102,380 metric tons /year
of carbon dioxide equivalent and would achieve the City's reduction goal of reducing GHG
emissions by 15% below 2010 levels by 2020, which results in an efficiency level of 3.2 MT
CO2e 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
Climate Action Plan Update and related Negative Declaration on September 24, 2013 and
adopted Resolution 13 -30 recommending that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration
and Resolution 13 -31 recommending that the City Council adopt the CAP Update; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a property noticed public hearing on the Climate Action
Plan Update and related Negative Declaration on October 15, 2013; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the City Council adopt a
Resolution approving the Climate Action Plan Update; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did review and consider the Negative Declaration and the
Climate Action Plan Update, all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set
forth prior to making its decision on the Climate Action Plan Update.
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 Update attached as Exhibit A to Attachment 1 with the
proposed changes outlined in the Climate Action Plan Errata included as Exhibit B to
Attachment 1 and authorizes Staff to make any non - substantive grammatical or editing changes
in the final document.
2of3
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of October 2013 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
M: I CAP Update EC CC Hearing.10.15.131 CC Reso CAP. doc
Mayor
3 of 3
City of Dublin
Climate Action Plan Update
July 2013
I
Letter from the Mayor
The City of Dublin Mission Statement lists, "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 updated 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 programs. 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 community and maintaining our goal of a high quality of life for our
residents and businesses.
The City of Dublin has exerted considerable effort over the years in creating a more sustainable
environment to protect 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; installed solar arrays at seven city
facilities; legislated transit - oriented, high - density and mixed use developments to minimize the
need for automotive travel; improved bicycle pathways; enhanced our recycling and organics
collection programs; installed more energy efficient lighting, including LED streetlights; and
convened a City Council - initiated Green Initiatives Taskforce, which engaged community
stakeholders in the process of developing important environmental objectives, many of which
have already been obtained. The City of Dublin has been, and will continue to be, at the
forefront of the environmental movement.
While this Climate Action Plan Update 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 transportation, 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
City Council
Tim Sbranti, Mayor
Don Biddle, Vice Mayor
Abe Gupta, Councilmember
Kevin Hart, Councilmember
David Haubert, Councilmember
City Staff - Key Supporting
Joni Pattillo, City Manager
Chris Foss, Assistant City Manager
John Bakker, City Attorney
Tim Cremin, City Attorney's Office
Gary Huisingh, Public Works Director
Luke Sims, Community Development Director
Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director
Andrew Russell, City Engineer
Obaid Khan, Senior Civil Engineer (Traffic /Transportation)
Ferd Del Rosario, Senior Civil Engineer
Martha Aja, Environmental Coordinator
Kathy Southern, Environmental Technician
Dora Ramirez, Administrative Aide
City Staff - Lead and Contact for the Plan
Roger Bradley, Assistant to the City Manager
PMC
Tammy Seale, Project Director
Jeff Henderson, Project Manager
Xico Manarolla, Senior GHG Analyst
Jennifer Venema, Associate Planner
Eli Krispi, Assistant Planner
Alameda County Waste Management Authority (StopWaste)
Gary Wolff, Executive Director
Mark Spencer, Senior Program Manager
Kelly Bray, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Intern
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG &E)
Pacific Gas & Electric Company provides comprehensive climate planning assistance to local
governments, from providing energy usage and assistance with greenhouse gas inventories, to
training and guidance on climate action plans.
ICLEI — Local Governments for Sustainability USA
Amruta Sudalkar, Program Officer
Eli Yewdall, Program Officer
The inventory was prepared by a StopWaste Intern with funding from PG &E with significant
contributions from PMC.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
L Introduction
IL Emissions Inventory
III. Forecast for Greenhouse Gas Emissions
IV. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Target
V. Emissions Reduction Measures and Policies
VI. Measures Implemented by the State
VII. Summary of Emissions Reduction Measures
VIII. Implementation, Monitoring and Future Steps
IX. Relationship to the California Environmental Quality Act
Appendices
Appendix A: Acronyms & Abbreviations
Appendix B: Discussion of 2005 & 2010 GHG Emissions Inventory & Forecast
Appendix C: Fehr & Peers study re: Transit - Oriented Developments
Appendix D: Emissions Reduction Calculations and Assumptions
Appendix E: Applicability of GHG Emissions Reduction Measures to New Development
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update
11
Executive Summary
The world's population is releasing greenhouse gases (GHG) 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 over 20%
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 328,155 MTCOze in 2010. Under a business -as-
usual scenario, these emissions would grow over the next 10 years (by 2020) by approximately
14% from 328,155 MT COze to 374,790 MTCOze. This growth in community emissions is
attributable to the expected new residential and commercial growth between 2010 and 2020.
In November 2010, the City of Dublin adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) and the
accompanying environmental review documents, which declare that the measures contained
within the CAP will have no negative environmental impact on the Dublin community (a
Negative Declaration under CEQA). The adopted CAP presented Dublin's baseline GHG
emissions inventory in 2005 and a forecast of GHG emissions within the community for 2020,
based on a business -as -usual scenario. The 2010 CAP also established a GHG emissions
reduction target of 20% below the 2020 GHG emissions forecast. In order to more fully
understand the City's GHG reduction progress, the completion of an updated GHG emissions
inventory and CAP is necessary. The City began work on this effort in 2012 and project findings
are included within this CAP Update. It is estimated that state and local reductions included in the
CAP Update will result in an annual emissions reduction by approximately 102,380 MTCOze
from 2010 levels, which exceeds the emissions reduction target established in the City's original
CAP.
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 Alameda County Climate Protection Project. In so doing, Dublin committed to
the ICLEI —Local Governments for Sustainability's five - milestone methodology. The execution of
this CAP Update fulfills the final step in the process as well as begins a new iteration of efforts
within the cycle. 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 Climate Action Plan to reduce emissions.
• Milestone 4: Implement policies and measures.
• Milestone 5: Monitor and verify results.
The City is committed to reducing community-wide GHG emissions by 15% below the 2010
inventory levels by 2020. The City expects this reduction target to be achieved through a
combination of the reduction measures included in the CAP Update and state initiatives, such as
the Renewables Portfolio Standard, Title 24 and Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 (Pavley). In addition,
the CAP employs the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) GHG efficiency
threshold of 6.6 MTCOze per service population per year as evidence of the City's intent to meet
the intent of AB 32 to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Primarily, the City has
shifted its base year from 2005 to 2010 in an effort to more fully capture community emissions
and to employ more aggressive calculation methodologies not present in 2005, thereby, producing
a more precise GHG reduction goal.
Local governments play an integral role in reducing GHG emissions because they have direct or
indirect control over many emissions sources. The Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan),
adopted by the California Air Resources Board (ARB) pursuant to AB 32, states that land use
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update
planning and urban growth decisions will play a role in the state's GHG emissions reductions
because local governments have primary authority 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, the City's CAP adopted in November 2010 was the first document that
assembled all of the City's climate action efforts into a centralized plan.
Strategies to reduce GHG emissions are organized into 45 reduction measures applicable to
community and /or to municipal activities. These measures represent actions to reduce GHG
emissions that City government has taken since 2010. While there may be some policies included
within the CAP that existed prior to 2010, such policies were only included within the CAP if the
impact of the policy did not occur until after 2010. 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.
The City of Dublin's Climate Action Plan
The City's original CAP was adopted by the City in November 2010. The City's CAP established
a GHG emissions reduction target of 20% from the original 2020 GHG emissions forecast. In
addition, the CAP employed the BAAQMD GHG efficiency threshold of 6.6 MTCOze per
service population per year. The 2010 CAP included 34 reduction measures outlining a GHG
emissions reduction strategy for transportation /land use, energy, and solid waste and recycling.
Since the adoption of the 2010 CAP, the City has completed a re- inventory of its emissions for
2010 and implemented 11 new reduction measures.
The CAP Update serves as the City of Dublin's qualified GHG Reduction Plan and programmatic
tiering document for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for
analysis of impacts of GHG emissions and climate change. The City has determined that the
reduction target will reduce the impact from activities under the CAP to a less than significant
level under CEQA. Therefore, the CAP may be used for the cumulative impact analysis for future
development and projects in the City covered by the CAP. If a proposed project is consistent with
the applicable emissions 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 21083.3 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 Update 6
I. Introduction
The following sections describe international, federal, state, and local actions being taken to curb
GHG emissions.
A. GHG Emissions Reduction Action
In 1997, 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. Additionally, since
1995, the annual Conference of the Parties has met to discuss action and implementation to
reduce GHG emissions. Currently, there are 192 parties to the Kyoto Protocol.
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 Bill 1771 Sher, 2000 — Requires the California Energy Commission (CEC) to prepare an
inventory of the state's GHG emissions, study data on global climate change, and provide
government agencies and businesses with information on the costs and methods for reducing
GHGs. Senate Bill (SB) 1771 also established the California Climate Action Registry to serve as
a certifying agency for companies and local governments to quantify and register their GHG
emissions for possible future trading systems.
Senate Bill 1078 Sher, 2002 — Established the Renewables 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% renewable resources.
Assembly Bill 1493 Pavley, 2002 — Requires the Air Resources Board (ARB) to develop and
adopt regulations 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 motor vehicles. These
amendments require automobile manufacturers to meet fleet - averaged GHG emissions limits for
all passenger cars, light -duty trucks, and medium -duty passenger vehicle weight classes,
beginning in 2009. Cars sold in California are anticipated to emit an average of 16% less GHGs
than current models.
Executive Order S -3 -05, 2005 — Proclaims that California is vulnerable to the effects of climate
change and establishes targets for GHG emissions, which include reducing GHG emissions to
2000 levels by 2010, to 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.
Assembly Bill 32 Nunez & Pavley, 2006 — Institutes a mandatory limit on GHG emissions, which
is to reduce emissions in California 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
emissions levels and requires ARB to develop various compliance options and enforcement
mechanisms. This led to the creation of the Climate Change Scoping Plan in 2008. The Scoping
Plan is currently being updated.
Assembly Bill 811, 2007 — Authorizes all local governments in California to establish special
districts that can be used to finance solar or other renewable energy improvements to homes and
businesses in their jurisdiction.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 7
Senate Bill 97, 2007— Acknowledges that climate change is a prominent environmental issue that
requires analysis under CEQA and directed the Governor's Office of Planning & Research to
develop guidelines for mitigating GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions, as required by
CEQA. These revisions to the CEQA guidelines took effect in March 2010.
Executive Order S -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 minimum of 10% by 2010.
Senate Bill 375 Steinberg, 2008 — 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 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 California Natural Resources Agency to identify
how state agencies can adapt to rising temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, sea level
rise, and extreme natural events. This led to creation of the California Climate Adaptation
Strategy.
Executive Order S- 14 -08, 2008 — Expands California's Renewable Energy Standard to 33%
renewable power by 2020.
Title 24 — Is a statewide standard applied at the local level by local agencies through building
permits. It mandates requirements for structural, plumbing, electrical, and mechanical systems of
buildings and for fire and life safety, energy conservation, green design and accessibility in and
around buildings. The Cal Green Building Standards are a part of Title 24 (Part 11). The purpose
of the Cal Green Building Standards is to improve public health, safety and general welfare by
enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a
reduced negative impact or positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable
construction practices. CGBSC 101.2
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
Bay Area Air Ouality 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. The 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 part. The overall goal of this effort was to develop CEQA
significance criteria that ensure that future development implements appropriate and feasible
emissions reduction measures to mitigate significant air quality and climate change impacts.
The BAAQMD adopted a threshold of 1,100 MTCOze per year or 4.6 metric tons per service
population (residents and employees) per year for development projects. The adopted project
threshold (1,100 metric tons of COze /year) 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 threshold level or reduce project emissions by a percentage deemed feasible by
the lead agency. The adopted plan threshold is 6.6 MTCOze per service population per year,
where service population is the summation of population and the number of jobs within the City.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 8
The BAAQMD's approach is to identify the emissions level for which a project would result in a
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.
On March 5, 2012, the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the
BAAQMD had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the thresholds. The court did not
determine whether the thresholds were valid on the merits, but found that the adoption of the
thresholds was a project under CEQA. The court issued a writ of mandate ordering the
BAAQMD to set aside the thresholds and cease dissemination of them until the BAAQMD had
complied with CEQA. The BAAQMD has appealed the Alameda County Superior Court's
decision. The appeal is currently pending in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First
Appellate District.
In view of the court's order, the BAAQMD is no longer recommending that the thresholds be
used as a generally applicable measure of a project's significant air quality impacts. As the court
did not determine whether the thresholds are or are not based on substantial evidence and thus
valid on the merits, the City as a lead agency continues to rely on the substantial evidence based
on statewide data and analysis relative to AB 32 that underlie the June 2010 BAAQMD
thresholds in making an independent determination of significance of plan -level GHG impacts
pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(c).
Under the BAAQMD guidelines, a city may prepare a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy that
furthers AB 32 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 GHG 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 CAP (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5). The
BAAQMD recognizes these CEQA standards as meeting the district's standards for a Qualified
GHG Reduction Strategy. The BAAQMD 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 2010 and projected GHG emissions from a business -as -usual (BAU), i.e., if
no plan existed, forecast scenario for 2020 (see Chapter IL 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 2010. GHG emissions
are inventoried for residential, commercial/industrial, transportation, and waste sectors.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update
I
• BAU emissions are projected in the absence of policies or actions that would reduce
emissions. The forecast includes only adopted and funded projects.
• The BAU forecast projects emissions from the baseline year using growth factors specific to
each of the different economic sectors.
(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 2010 City of Dublin CAP established a reduction target of 20% below business -as -usual
GHG emissions by 2020. The updated City of Dublin CAP proposes a reduction target of 15%
below 2010 emissions levels 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 CAP will be less than cumulatively considerable under
CEQA standards.
Further, the City's CAP employs BAAQMD's GHG efficiency -based metric of 6.6 MTCOze per
service population per year as evidence of consistency with 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 this established threshold for 2020. The City's efficiency measure for 2020 is projected to
be 3.2 MTCOze per service population per year. The baseline efficiency metric for 2010 is 5.0
MTCOze per service population per year. This scenario highlights the fact that the City will be
growing significantly over the 10 -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. Thus, even
though the City will be growing through 2020, growth will occur in a manner consistent with AB
32.
(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 emissions reductions including those related to implementation of the
Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS), Title 24 and AB 1493 fuel efficiency standards (see
Chapter VI. Measures Implemented by the State).
(D) Specify measures or a group of measures, 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 emissions 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), including disclosure of
calculation methods and assumptions (See Appendix D. GHG Reduction Calculation Methods
and Assumptions). Quantification reflects the annual reduction of GHG emissions and
demonstrates how the GHG emissions reduction target will be met.
The CAP also identifies the various measures that apply to new development projects (See
Appendix E. Applicability of GHG Emissions Reduction Measures to New Development). 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 Update 10
(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 emissions 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 five
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 Update 11
II. Emissions Inventory
A. Reasoning, Methodology, and Model
1. ICLEI's Emissions Analysis Software
To facilitate local government efforts to identify and reduce GHG emissions, ICLEI developed
the Clean Air and Climate Protection (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 factors (or coefficients)
according to the type of fuel used. Emissions are aggregated and reported in terms of carbon
dioxide equivalents (CO2e). Converting all emissions to COze allows for the consideration of
different GHGs in comparable terms. For example, methane is 21 times more powerful than CO2
in its capacity to trap heat, so the model converts one ton of methane 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 Department of Energy (DOE) Guidelines for Voluntary Greenhouse Gas
Reporting and, for emissions generated from solid waste, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Waste Reduction Model.
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. For community electricity and natural gas data, Pacific Gas & Electric Company
(PG &E) was consulted. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Livermore
Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA), BAAQMD, and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)
provided transportation data. Solid waste data was gathered from StopWaste, Amador Valley
Industries (AVI), CalRecycle, and the EPA. Data on municipal operations was gathered by City
of Dublin staff.
This data was entered into the CACP software to create a community emissions inventory and a
municipal emissions inventory. The community inventory represents sources from the following
sectors: transportation, residential energy, commercial/industrial energy, wastewater and waste; it
includes all the energy used and waste produced within Dublin, and Dublin's contribution to
community GHG emissions. The municipal inventory is a subset of the community inventory and
includes emissions derived from internal government operations, including vehicle emissions
from contracted services such as fire and waste hauling.
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.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 12
Dublin's updated inventory is based on calendar year 2010 in order to include more accurate data
and a broader source of emissions. When calculating Dublin's emissions inventory, all energy
used 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
1. Baseline Emissions Inventory
The City of Dublin's baseline emissions inventory was originally conducted by ICLEI in
partnership with City staff. The purpose of the baseline emissions inventory was to establish an
initial level of GHG emissions for the community, which allows the City to measure future
progress. The City chose calendar year 2005 as its base year. The baseline inventory was
completed and approved by the Dublin City Council in October 2008. The baseline GHG
inventory included GHG emissions from the following sectors: transportation, residential energy,
commercial/industrial energy and waste, and included energy- and waste - related activities at the
community scale, as well as those resulting directly from municipal operations. Additionally, a
municipal operations inventory was included, which is a subset of the community inventory.
As part of the CAP Update, the City prepared an updated emissions inventory for calendar year
2010. It became evident that using the original emissions inventory completed for baseline year
2005 was problematic for several reasons and therefore, the determination was made to switch to
2010 as the baseline year. Switching to 2010 as the baseline is a better choice for a variety of
reasons. Community activities that affect GHG emissions have changed considerably since 2005
due to increased awareness of sustainability, as well as to a downturn in the economy. In addition,
numerous efficiency improvements have occurred in electric equipment, vehicles, and other
devices, resulting in lower emissions per use. Furthermore, the 2010 inventory contains additional
subsectors and activities not accounted for in the 2005 inventory (e.g., water emissions,
wastewater emissions, BART emissions). A 2010 emissions inventory is therefore more complete
and accurate.
The baseline inventory provided the basis for creating the City's initial emissions forecast and
reduction target and enabled the emissions reductions associated with implemented and proposed
measures to be quantified.
2. Revised Inventory
As part of its commitment to climate action, the City has set as goals, as well as completed,
various milestones to manage and improve GHG emissions within the community. Specifically,
the City has established a framework and methodology to identify and reduce GHG emissions,
organized along the following five milestones:
• Conduct an inventory and forecast of local greenhouse gas emissions.
• Establish a greenhouse gas emissions reduction target.
• Develop a climate action plan for achieving the emissions reduction target.
• Implement the climate action plan.
• Monitor and report on progress.
The five - milestone process is meant to be iterative in the sense that the City will be in a constant
process of measuring, evaluating, and improving its efforts in managing GHG emissions within
the Dublin community. With the adoption and implementation of the CAP in 2010, the City had
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 13
effectively completed milestones 1 -4, and entered into the monitoring and evaluation stage. Since
that time, the City has been working diligently to ensure that its targeted GHG emissions
reduction goal was met and obtained according to the measures outlined within the CAP.
In order to fully gauge the City's GHG emissions reduction progress, an additional GHG
inventory was conducted. Best practices within the industry suggest that a new GHG inventory
should be completed every five years. As the City baseline GHG inventory was completed for
calendar year 2005, the City began work on an updated GHG inventory for 2010. As the work
continued for the 2010 inventory, the City became aware that certain revisions to the baseline
inventory would be necessary to make comparisons to the 2010 inventory possible. For example,
certain coefficients used by PG &E to calculate GHG emissions from the energy produced from
nonrenewable sources had been updated. Additionally, improved data - gathering methods, which
had not been available for the baseline inventory, could now be employed to make the inventory
more accurate. Also, it became clear that new methods of analysis could help improve the
inventory to allow for "apples -to- apples" comparisons between the baseline inventory and the
2010 update. It is acknowledged that a complete apples -to- apples comparison is rarely possible;
however, the updated inventory and the resulting comparison provide Dublin with a more
accurate assessment of how each source and sector has changed over time, and will enable more
detailed tracking of both emissions and actions taken to reduce emissions in the future. A
discussion of the 2005 and 2010 GHG emissions inventories has been included as Appendix B for
comparative and informational purposes.
3. Inventory Update
In compliance with its desire to update the GHG inventory every five years, the City engaged
StopWaste to assist with a new GHG inventory for calendar year 2010. This new inventory aided
the City in understanding its progress in implementing the many GHG reduction strategies as part
of the adopted CAP. Having completed the inventory update, the City will be able to evaluate the
effectiveness of those measures as well as ensure that proper progress is being maintained in
reaching the established reduction threshold. Should the City's strategies be deemed deficient,
conducting mid -term inventories will provide the City with enough time to remedy any issues
and /or update the reduction goal as necessary.
4. Inventory Results
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:
• Residential energy
• Commercial /industrial energy
• Transportation
• Water and wastewater
• Solid waste
Figure 1 — Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions by
Sector
City of Dublin
2010 Community GHG Emissions
1 Ao% - _
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update
111111111I Residential - Electricity
11111111 Residential -Gas
111111 Commercial /Industrial - Electricity
111111ICommercial/industrial - Gas
IIIIIIII Transportation Sector
111111 Waste Sector
➢IIIIWaterand Wastewater
14
Emissions by Sector
The Dublin community emitted approximately 328,155 MTCOze in the year 2010. As visible in
Figure 1 above and Tables 1 and 2 below, vehicles on roads and highways in Dublin are by far
the largest sources of Dublin's community emissions (62.2 %). Emissions from the built
environment (e.g., residential and commercial/industrial sectors) account collectively for almost
one -third (35.4 %) of community emissions. The rest of Dublin's emissions are from wastewater
transport to treatment facilities and waste sent to landfills (2.4 %) by Dublin residents and
businesses.
TABLE 1: COMMUNITY GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY SECTOR (MTCO2E)
2010 Community Emissions by Sector
MTCO a
Percent of Total C0 e
Residential
55,966
17.1%
Commerciat/industrial
60,098
18.3%
Transportation
204,151
62.2%
Solid waste
5,330
1.6%
Water & wastewater (electricity and fugitive
emissions)
2,610
0.8%
TOTAL
328,155
100.0%
Note: MTCOze = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions
Transportation
Like most jurisdictions in the San Francisco Bay Area, the majority of Dublin's community
emissions are from the transportation sector. As Table 1 and Figure 1 show, nearly two- thirds
(62.2 %) of Dublin's estimated emissions came from the transportation sector, with overall
emissions from the sector totaling 204,151 metric tons COze.
The transportation sector analysis includes emissions from all vehicle use within Dublin's city
boundaries (whether on local roads or state highways passing through Dublin's jurisdiction), as
well as off -road vehicles. Additional transportation captures include an apportioned amount of
emissions generated by the City's use of the BART passenger rail service.
The majority of emissions estimated are detailed in Table 2 below including passenger vehicles,
which account for approximately 62% of total transportation emissions in 2010. Emissions are
calculated from both fuel consumption data which provides direct CO2 emissions, and from
vehicle miles travelled (VMT) which provides CH4 and N20 emissions estimates. Similarly,
heavy trucks, which participate in commercial activities within the boundary of Dublin, generate
about 27% of total transportation related emissions. Buses account for over 2% of transportation -
related emissions, while off -road vehicles generated approximately 9% of transportation - related
GHG emissions. Lastly, activity on the BART system accounts for less than 1 %.
TABLE 2: TRANSPORTATION GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY ROAD TYPE
Transportation Emission Sources 2010
MTCOze
Percentage of Total COze
Passenger vehicles
125,916
61.7%
Heavy trucks
54,425
26.7%
Off -road vehicles
18,490
9.1%
BART
658
0.3%
Buses
4,662
2.3%
TOTAL
204,151
100%
Note: MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update
15
The Built Environment (Residential and Commercial/Industrial)
In 2010, 35.4% of total community emissions came from the built environment, which consists of
the residential and commercial/industrial sectors. These sectors emitted approximately 116,064
MTCOze.
Dublin receives electricity from 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 1.3 tons of COze per megawatt -hour of
electricity generated versus 0.7 tons for gas turbines and zero tons
for renewable sources such as solar, wind, or hydroelectric power.
Dublin's emissions from the built environment are slightly more
from the commercial/industrial sectors (52.6 %); the residential
sector makes up 47.4% of community stationary emissions (Figure
2).
Residential
Figure 2 — Built Environmental Emissions
In 2010, Dublin's residential sector consumed 100,679,670 kWh of electricity. This energy
consumption resulted in 55,966 MTCOze emissions. Major residential energy uses include
refrigeration, lighting, air conditioning, heating, and water heating.
Commercial/Industrial
In 2010, Dublin's commercial/industrial sector consumed 178,203,608 kWh of electricity, which
resulted in 60,098 MTCO2 emissions. Emissions from industrial electricity and natural gas use, as
well as direct access electricity use, are included within the industrial sector category. Industrial
natural gas and electricity consumption data are reported within this sector under Public Utility
Commission confidentiality rules that prohibit the release of such data in certain cases.
Waste
In 2010, the City of Dublin sent approximately 24,860 tons of solid waste and zero tons of ADC
to a landfill, resulting in a total of about 5,330 MTCOze, or 1.6% of total GHG emissions (Table
1).
Emissions from the waste sector are an estimate of methane (CH4) generation that will result from
the anaerobic (without access to oxygen) decomposition of the waste sent to a landfill from the
community as a whole in 2010. It is important to note that these emissions are not solely
generated in said year, but occur over the 100+ year time frame in which the waste generated in
2010 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 reductions.
Some types of waste (e.g., paper, plant debris, food scraps) generate CH4 within the anaerobic
environment of a landfill and others (e.g., metal, glass) do not. 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 2008. The waste
characterization study highlights the waste types that could be diverted from the waste stream.
i 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 frontloading is
considered an accurate way to count and report the emissions that will be generated over time.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 16
StopWaste 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
CalRecycle via the Disposal Reporting System.
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 methane produced at that landfill). The CACP model does not capture the emissions
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.
TABLE 3: COMMUNITY WASTE COMPOSITION AND EMISSIONS BY WASTE TYPE*
Waste Type
MTCOze
Percentage of Total
COze
Percent of Total
Tonnage Disposed
Paper products
3,025
56.8%
25.1%
Food waste
1,505
28.2%
22.1%
Plant debris
148
2.8%
3.8%
Wood /textiles
652
12.2%
19.1%
All Other* *
N/A
N/A
29.9%
TOTAL
5,330
100%
100%
Note: MTCOze = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions
* Waste characterization study conducted by StopWaste.org for the year 2008. This total does not include alternative
daily cover.
"All other waste is considered inorganic and doesn't emit COz
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 and facilities
• Streetlights and traffic signals
• Water delivery
• Vehicle fleet
• Employee commute
• Mobile source refrigerants
• Solid waste
Government Operations GHG Emissions by Sector (2010)
0.5
Figure 3 — Government Operations by Sector
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update
IIIIIIIII Buildings & Facilities
1111111IStreetlights & Traffic
Signals
111111 Water Delivery Facilities
IIIIIIVehicle Fleet
IIIIIIII Employee Commute
111111 Mobile Source
Refrigerants
1E Scope 3 Waste
17
Emissions by Sector
Government operations in the City of Dublin emitted approximately 2,343 MTCOze in 2010. As
shown in Figure 3 and Table 4, the largest source of emissions from government operations is the
City's buildings, which emit slightly more than one third (33.7 %) of the municipal GHGs.
Vehicle fleet is the second largest source of emissions, comprising just under one third (29.3 %) of
all emissions. Public lighting emissions are also a large source of GHGs (23.4 %), as are
emissions from employees commuting (10.6 %). The remaining sectors add an additional 2.9% of
the total remaining emissions.
TABLE 4: GOVERNMENT GHG EMISSIONS BY SECTOR
Government Emissions 2010
MTCO a
Percentage of Total C0 e
Buildings and facilities
790
33.7%
Streetlights and traffic signals
548
23.4%
Water delivery
12
0.5%
Vehicle fleet
687
29.3%
Employee commute
249
10.6%
Mobile source refrigerants
8
1 0.3%
Solid waste
49
2.1%
TOTAL
2,343
100%
Note: MTCOZe = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions
Municipal Buildings /Facilities
In 2010, Dublin municipal buildings and other facilities consumed about 2,566,566 kWh of
electricity and 50,604 therms of natural gas, which resulted in 790 MTCOze emissions
(approximately 33.7% of total municipal emissions).
Table 5 shows energy consumption and emissions by facility. In 2010, the Dublin Civic Center
was the largest municipal energy consumer. Energy consumption from the Civic Center resulted
in 351 MTCOze, or 44% of all municipal facility emissions. The swim center and fire stations (3
stations combined) were also large source of emissions. Both resulted in 93 MTCOze, or 12% of
all municipal facility emissions.
TABLE 5: ENERGY CONSUMPTION & GHG EMISSIONS FROM FACILITIES
Facility
MTCOze
Percentage of
Total Facility
COze
Electricity
Consumption
kWh
Natural Gas
Consumption
therms
Energy
Equivalent
MMBtu
Civic Center
351
44%
1,176,989
21,115
6,128
Shannon Community Center
68
9%
248,480
3,289
1,177
Swim Center
93
12%
181,240
10,570
1,676
Senior Center
61
8%
177,893
4,744
1,082
Emerald Glen Park &
Preschool
58
7%
285,326
974
Parks & Other
66
8%
292,347
1,215
1,119
Fire Stations
93
12%
204,291
9,671
1,664
TOTAL
790
100%
2,566,566
50,604
13,820
Note: MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update
Vehicle Fleet
As shown in Figure 3 and Table 4, the City's vehicle fleet was the second largest source of
municipal emissions in 2010, emitting 29.3% of all municipal emissions. The municipal fleet
includes all vehicles owned and operated by the City of Dublin in addition to vehicles owned and
operated by City contractors and the City's solid waste hauler (AVI).
Public Lighting
Public lighting includes all streetlights and traffic signals in the City. In 2010, public lighting
consumed about 2,696,580 kWh of electricity. This energy consumption resulted in
approximately 548 metric tons of COze emissions. Table 6 breaks down energy use and emissions
from public lighting by use type.
Across all sectors of municipal operation, public lighting generated just under a quarter (23.4 %)
of all emissions (Figure 3 & Table 4), representing the third largest source of emissions.
TABLE 6: PUBLIC LIGHTING GHG EMISSIONS
Facility
MTCO2e
Percentage of Total
CO2e (Public Lighting)
Electricity
Consumption kWh
Energy Equivalent
MMBtu
Streetlights
464.9
84.9%
2,289,061
7,812.5
Traffic Signals
68.9
12.6%
339,026
1,157.1
Art lights /Outdoor Lighting
13.9
2.5%
68,493
233.8
TOTAL
547.7
100%
2,696,580
9,203.4
Note: MTCO,e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions
Water
The water category includes all electricity used for pumping water and irrigation control. In 2010,
water infrastructure resulted in 12 MTCOze. Total energy use and emissions from water pumps
and irrigation generated about 0.5% of the total municipal emissions (Figure 3 & Table 4).
Employee Commute
As shown in Figure 3 and Table 4, employee commute was the fourth largest source of municipal
emissions in 2010, resulting in 249 MT COze, or 10.6% of all municipal emissions.
Solid Waste
Solid waste generated by City-owned facilities and infrastructure produced an estimated 2.1%
(Figure 3 & Table 4) 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 2010.
In 2010, the City of Dublin sent approximately 195 tons of solid waste to the landfill, resulting in
49 MTCOze
Mobile Source Refrigerants
As shown in Figure 3 and Table 4, mobile source refrigerants were the smallest percentage of
municipal emissions in 2010, resulting in 8 MTCOze, or 0.3% of all municipal emissions.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 19
III. Forecast for Greenhouse Gas Emissions
As a result of the effort to update the City of Dublin's GHG Inventory, there was a need to
recalculate the community's GHG emissions forecast for 2020. The updated forecast includes
new data as well as new forecast methodology to provide a clear picture of emissions in 2020.
This section includes a separate forecast for community emissions and municipal emissions.
Emissions from municipal operations were not included in the original forecast.
Under a BAU scenario between 2010 and 2020, Dublin's community GHG emissions would
grow by approximately 14 %, from 328,155 to 374,790 MTCOze. This amounts to a 1.3% annual
growth rate in community emissions between 2010 and 2020 and underscores Dublin's predicted
jobs and population growth 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 2010 going forward, an emissions forecast for the
year 2020 was conducted. Table 7 shows the results of the forecast. A variety of reports and data
were used to create the emissions forecast.
Methods
This section discusses changes to the forecasting and target - setting methods between the original
and updated forecasts.
Forecast Year
Dublin's original CAP forecasted 2020 emissions based on 2005 levels, consistent with accepted
methods at the time the plan was written. The CAP Update bases the forecast and reduction target
on a 2010 baseline. This represents a better choice for numerous reasons. Activity behavior that
affects GHG emissions has changed considerably since 2005, due to increased awareness of
sustainability and climate issues as well as to a downturn in the economy. Additionally, numerous
efficiency improvements have occurred in electric equipment, vehicles, and other devices,
resulting in lower emissions per use. The BAU scenario assumes that efficiency rates remain the
same across all sectors between the baseline and forecast year (e.g., a car will emit the same
amount per mile driven), and as 2010 is a more recent year, these efficiency rates are likely to
result in a more accurate forecast than if figures from 2005 are used. Additionally, the 2010
inventory contains additional subsectors and activities not present in the 2005 inventory (e.g.,
water emissions, wastewater emissions, BART emissions). A forecast based on 2010 data is
therefore more complete.
TABLE 7: COMMUNITY GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FORECAST PROJECTIONS
Community Emissions Growth
Forecast by Sector
2010
MTCOze Emissions
2020
MTCOze Emissions
Percent Change
(2010 -2020)
Residential
55,966
65,200
16.5%
Commerciat/industrial
60,098
71,156
18.4%
Water & wastewater electricity
2,610
3,419
31.0%
Transportation
204,151
228,037
11.7%
Solid waste
5,330
6,982
31.0%
TOTAL
1 328,155
1 374,790
1 14.2%
Note: MTCOZe = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions. Total may not equal sum of component parts due to rounding
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 20
TABLE 8: COMMUNITY FORECAST INDICATOR
Indicator
Sectors
2010
2020
Source
M2010
Residential energy use
14,910
17,380
US 2010 Census, ABAG
Households
Off -road equipment
790
One Bay Area Plan
0%
Vehicle fleet
46,040
62,700
US 2010 Census, ABAG
Population
548
720
31.4%
One Bay Area Plan
12
Nonresidential energy use
19,000
22,500
2012 Dublin Economic
Employment
0%
Government - generated solid waste
49
Development Strategy
0%
Solid waste
65,040
85,200
Sum of population and jobs
Service population
Water and wastewater
2,515
7.3%
Daily Alameda County
On -road transportation
34,180,606
38,006,574
MTC Transportation 2035
VMT
Annual BART
BART
1,469,000,000
1,743,261,595
BART 2008 Fiscal Year
passenger miles
Short-Range Transit Plan
Municipal Forecast
A 2020 emissions forecast was also completed to describe the City of Dublin's municipal
activities. The original inventory included a 2005 municipal inventory, but no forecast, so no
comparison is provided. Table 9 summarizes the results of the municipal forecast. In total,
municipal emissions are projected to grow by 172 MTCOze or 7.3% between 2010 and 2020.
TABLE 9: MUNICIPAL FORECAST
Municipal Emissions Growth Forecast by
Percent Change
Sector
M2010
M2020
(2010 -2020)
Emissions
Emissions
Building energy use
790
790
0%
Vehicle fleet
687
687
0%
Streetlights and traffic signals
548
720
31.4%
Water delivery
12
10
-16.7%
Employee commute
249
249
0%
Government - generated solid waste
49
49
0%
Refrigerants
8
10
25.0%
TOTAL
2,343
2,515
7.3%
Municipal Forecast Indicators
Emissions from municipal operations were not included in the original forecast. Such a forecast is
useful to identify reduction priorities in municipal activities, and is part of the updated forecast.
Emissions from government activities across five categories have been inventoried: building
energy use, streetlight /traffic signal electricity use, water delivery facilities electricity use, City
vehicle fleet, and solid waste from municipal facilities.
For building energy use, the best indicator is how much square feet of building space the City
would occupy in 2020. However, without specific plans for future growth of City operations in
2020, it is difficult to accurately estimate future municipal emissions. An acceptable substitute
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 21
would be to use the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) City employees, which is the best
available indicator for projecting changes in emissions from the City vehicle fleet, employee
commutes, and solid waste. As the City does not have FTE estimates for 2020, a common
practice is to assume that FTE will stay the same as it was in the baseline year of 2010. This
approach has been used for the municipal forecast.
Because emissions from water- and wastewater - related electricity use are forecasted using service
population, this indicator is also used to forecast electricity use for water delivery facilities.
Service population is also used for electricity from streetlights and traffic signals, as the number
of streetlights and traffic signals is related to development in the community and is generally
independent from the size of municipal operations.
Table 10 summarizes the various indicators used in the municipal forecast.
TABLE 10: MUNICIPAL FORECAST INDICATORS
Indicator
Sectors
2010
2020
Source
Building energy use
Dublin Fiscal Year 2010/11
Off -road equipment
Comprehensive Annual
Vehicle fleet
Fiscal Report
Employee commute
204.27
204.27
Government - generated solid
City employment
waste
(FTE)
Refrigerants
46,040
62,700
US 2010 Census, ABAG
Population
One Bay Area Plan
Community
19,000
22,500
2012 Dublin Economic
employment
Development Strategy
Streetlights and traffic signals
65,040
85,200
Sum of population and
Service population
Water-pumping facilities
community employment
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update
22
IV. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Target
A reduction target provides a tangible goal for Dublin's efforts to reduce GHG emissions. The
emissions reduction target for the community aims to decrease emissions by 15% below 2010
levels by 2020.
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 emissions 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 15% below 2010 levels by 2020. By using 2010 GHG
emission levels, the target is based on more reliable data that includes sectors not captured in the
2005 inventory. To reach this target, the Dublin community must reduce annual emissions by
about 102,380 MTCOze from 2010 levels, which includes both the state reductions and CAP
measures.
TABLE 11 — DUBLIN COMMUNITY -WIDE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Dublin Community-wide Emissions Summary
Base year
2010
MTCOze emissions
328,155
Target year
2020
BAU projection MTCOze emissions
374,790
Reductions from State GHG reduction measures
- 63,460
Forecast after state reductions MTCOze emissions
311,330
Reductions from CAP GHG reduction measures
- 38,920
Forecasted Emissions with Reduction Measures (MTCOze /yr)
272,410
Note: MTCOze = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions; BAU = business -as-usual
Sources: ICLEI CACP model output, summarized by PMC 2013
Further, the City of Dublin's CAP is designed to meet or exceed the goals of AB 32. To
demonstrate the City's commitment to the goals of AB 32, the City's CAP achieves the
BAAQMD's plan -level GHG efficiency -based metric of 6.6 MTCOze 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 12 below, the City of Dublin's measures achieve both the 15%
reduction target and the BAAQMD efficiency metric. The City will be growing over the 10 -year
period covered by the CAP Update, but during this same time, the City's GHG emissions will be
decreasing on a per - individual basis.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 23
TABLE 12 - DUBLIN COMMUNITY -WIDE EMISSIONS ANALYSIS
CAP Reduction Goal Analysis
Emissions Summary
Year
Emissions MTCOZe
GHG Emissions Inventory
2010
328,155
GHG BAU Emissions Forecast
2020
374,790
Reductions from State GHG
reduction measures
2020
- 63,460
Forecast after State Reductions
2020
311,330
Reductions from Local GHG
reduction measures
2020
- 38,920
Forecast after State and Local
Reductions
2020
272,410
Compared to 2010 Baseline
-17%
Item
Year
Persons
Service Population (SP)
2010
65,040
Service Population (SP)
2020
85,200
*US 2010 Census, ABAG One Bay Area Plan, 2012 Dublin
Economic Development Strategy
Item
Year
MTCOze /SP
GHG Efficiency Metric
2010
5.04
GHG Efficiency BAU Metric
2020
4.40
GHG Efficiency Goal Metric
2020
3.20
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update
24
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 CAP will continue to evolve. The City of Dublin has undertaken and continues to
implement numerous measures to reduce GHGs since its baseline emissions were determined.
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 CAP.
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 Chapter II). Where possible, anticipated emissions reductions have been quantified
based on substantial evidence. Many of these reduction measures were part of the original CAP,
although the GHG reductions from each measure have been recalculated to reflect the revised
inventory, activity data, and methods. In addition, some measures were not included in the
original CAP, and have been added to reflect new conditions, programs, and priorities. The
reduction measures include activities begun since 2005 that are ongoing in the community, as
well as those initiated after 2010 that are expected to continue through 2020. For the ongoing
2005 measures, only additional reductions that have happened, or are expected to happen, after
2010 have been quantified, as any earlier reductions are already included in the 2010 inventory.
Within each measure outlined below, the City has attempted to explain its reasoning for including
the measure as well as to 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 D. GHG emissions reduction measure performance can be quantified
using top -down or bottom -up calculations, and both methods are used to quantify reductions in
this CAP.
A top -down 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 kWh, this can be converted to GHG emissions reductions using an emissions
factor for electricity generation. However, it is critical that the assumed emissions factor be the
same factor that was used to calculate the GHG emissions inventory.
A bottom -up calculation begins with the community-wide GHG emissions inventory. A
recommended emissions reduction measure (e.g., energy efficiency) targets a certain emissions
sector (e.g., natural gas, electricity), emissions subsector (e.g. residential, commercial) and
portion thereof (e.g., space heating, water heating, air conditioning). Thus, the community-wide
GHG emissions inventory is scaled according to the applicability of the measure being evaluated.
A reduction per participant is calculated (e.g., how much energy would be saved from energy -
efficiency upgrades in a multi - family house), along with the number or percent of the applicable
participants (e.g., the percent of multi - family units in the community that can be reasonably
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 25
assumed to undertake energy - efficiency upgrades). These participation and efficiency
assumptions are then multiplied by the relevant portion of the community-wide inventory to
derive an amount (in MTCOze) of emissions reduced.
A. Community -wide Measures
The measures outlined in this section represent 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, electric vehicles, 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 are by far the largest source of Dublin's community
emissions. In 2010, 62.2% 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 Eastern Dublin Transit Center, located near the
Dublin /Pleasanton BART station. The plan allows for the eventual construction of 1,800 high -
density residential units, in addition to close to 2 million square feet of commercial space, and a
new park. Due to a project being approved with a lower density than the maximum allowed by
the specific plan, the total number of units for the Eastern Dublin Transit Center project at build -
out is expected to be 1,605. A 505 -unit project in the Transit Center is currently under
construction, and construction is expected to begin soon on a 105 -unit project.
The City of Dublin also adopted a West Dublin BART Specific Plan in December 2000, which
was subsequently amended in November 2007. In February 2011, the City Council adopted the
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP), which replaced and combined five existing specific
plans, one of which was the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. The area formerly within the West
Dublin BART Specific Plan area is the transit - oriented district of the DDSP. This is intended to
be a high- density 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. The
DDSP allows a total of 1,300 residential units, of which 1,100 units are within the Transit
Oriented District of the DDSP adjacent to the BART station. To date, 1,007 units have already
been approved in the Transit Oriented District, in addition to new square footage for
retail/restaurant, lodging, and office uses.
Research indicates that developments adjacent to transit services, such as BART, can expect to
experience a reduction in vehicle trips, especially for commute trips. Further, vehicle trip
reductions may be possible if residential locations are within walking distance of retail/service
amenities or an employment center. 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 Q.
Based on its research, Fehr & Peers identified a reduction in vehicle trips of 25% for multi - family
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 26
residential developments located in a mixed -use environment within a barrier -free, half -mile walk
of a BART station.
Emissions Reductions — Dublin's planned TOD developments and those constructed after 2010,
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
8,380 MTCOze /year (22% of local reductions).
A.1.2 Hiah- 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
Dublin /Pleasanton BART station and along Dublin Boulevard. High - density development has
been approved near the 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 2010 baseline year, the total impact of the
policy was not reflected in the 2010 inventory.
Emissions Reductions — Emissions reductions for this measure support those calculated for
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 medium- 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. Several projects have been approved in the City
that includes a mixed -use component, such as the Transit Center, Groves, Tralee, Jordan Ranch,
San Ramon Village, and Kingsmill.
Emissions Reductions — Emissions reductions for this measure support those calculated for
Measure A.1.1.
A.1.4 Bicycle Parking 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 bicycle parking. Pursuant to the
Zoning Ordinance, one bicycle parking space in a bicycle rack is required for each 40 vehicular
parking spaces. Additionally, requirements exist for bicycle parking in multi - family residential
complexes. The City is currently implementing the bicycle parking requirements from the 2010
California Green Building Standards, which are more stringent than what currently exists in the
City's Zoning Ordinance. The City is in the process of evaluating the bicycle parking standards in
the Zoning Ordinance as part of an update to the Bikeways Master Plan. Availability of bike
racks throughout the city supports the use of the city's bike lanes and bike paths, and is an
essential part of encouraging individuals to choose biking over driving.
Emissions Reductions — It is estimated that the City's bike parking requirement, in addition to
implementation of the Bikeways Master Plan (see Measure A.1.10), will result in a reduction of
950 MTCOze /year (2% of local reductions).
A.1.5 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 for promoting capital improvement projects with built -in
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 27
streetscape improvements. Additionally, the Zoning Ordinance has requirements for planting
trees in parking lots (minimum of one tree for every four parking spaces). 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 CO, 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.
Emissions Reductions — The City of Dublin added approximately 3,500 trees over the past 10
years. It is anticipated that approximately 350 new trees will be planted annually between 2010
and 2020. Continued implementation of the streetscape master plan will result in a reduction of
1,530 MTCOze /year (4% of local reductions).
A.1.6 Multi -Modal Man
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 continues to explore opportunities to distribute the map
to residents and businesses to promote alternative modes of transportation in Dublin.
Emissions Reductions — Although the map was adopted prior to 2010, it is anticipated that
updates and continued use of the map will have further reductions on transit decisions taken after
2010. The multi -modal map is expected to have further reductions of 1,140 MTCOze /year (3%
of local reductions).
A.1.7 Electric and Plug -In Hybrid Chmin2 Stations at the 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 replaced the charging stations at the library in February 2012. The charging stations
were an outdated technology. There has been a significant increase in use from 2012 to 2013. For
example, in April 2012, there were 59 users; in April 2013, the number of users increased to 211.
The City also has parking spaces designated for low- emission vehicles at the Shannon
Community Center.
Emissions Reductions — Assuming that the rate of adoption of electric vehicles in Dublin is
consistent with statewide adoption projections, it is estimated that the charging stations at the
library will result in a reduction of 90 MTCOze /year (less than 1% of local reductions).
A.1.8 General Plan Community Design and Sustainability 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
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.
Emissions Reductions — Reductions anticipated from the Community Design and Sustainability
Element have not been quantified. However, this measure supports achievement of other
recommended transportation measures.
A.1.9 Work with the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority to Improve Transit
Context — The City works with the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) to
provide improved transit opportunities in the community. As part of the review process for
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 28
proposed development projects, the City and project proponents work with LAVTA on planning
future bus stop locations and extending service routes.
LAVTA's Bus Rapid Transit, or RAPID, began operations in early 2011. RAPID runs a similar
route to one of LAVTA's existing routes (Route 10) but it offers more direct and efficient service
between Livermore, the Dublin /Pleasanton BART station and Stoneridge Mall in Pleasanton.
Efficiencies have been achieved by following a shorter route, using advanced technology to
minimize delays at traffic signals, and increasing spacing between stops. The buses run more
frequently, thus reducing passenger waiting time. Within Dublin, RAPID runs along Dublin
Boulevard between San Ramon Road and Fallon Road and also pulls into the BART station.
Emissions Reductions — The implementation of RAPID and the City's continued efforts to work
with LAVTA to improve transit within the community is estimated to result in a reduction of
1,210 MTCOze /year (3% of local reductions).
A.1.10 Bikeways 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 is in
the process of updating the Bikeways Master Plan. Currently within the City of Dublin, there are
approximately 42 miles of bike paths /lanes. The Bikeways Master Plan update proposes adding
another 44.5 miles of bike paths /lanes.
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 major 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 five 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.
Emissions Reductions — Emissions reductions for this measure support those calculated for
Measure A.1.4.
A.1.11 West Dublin /Pleasanton BART Station
Context — The West Dublin /Pleasanton BART Station opened to the public in February 2011.
Consistent with the transit- oriented district of the DDSP, the area adjacent to the West
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station is intended to be a high - density mixed -use area, capitalizing on
regional transit linkages provided by the BART line and supported by nearby freeways. Each
week, BART passengers travel about 950,000 miles to and from this station.
Emissions Reduction — It is estimated that the addition of the new West Dublin /Pleasanton
BART Station will result in a reduction of 10,980 MTCOze /year (28% of local reductions).
A.1.12 City Design Strate2y
Context — The City Design Strategy has been incorporated into the City's General Plan as part of
the Community Design and Sustainability Element. The City anticipates that there will be a few
large -scale projects to which the Design Strategy will apply. The overarching goals of the
Community Design and Sustainability Element include:
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 29
• Creating neighborhoods with a robust network of internal streets and good connections to
surrounding neighborhoods where pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers can move efficiently
and safely.
• Promoting walking and cycling by providing safe, appealing, and comfortable street
environments that support public health by reducing pedestrian injuries and encouraging daily
physical activity.
• Improving physical and mental health and social capital by providing a variety of open spaces
(public and private) close to work and home to facilitate neighborhood connectivity.
Emissions Reductions — Reductions anticipated from the City Design Strategy have not been
quantified. However, this measure supports achievement of other recommended transportation
measures.
A.2 Energy Measures
Increasing energy efficiency 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 Building Ordinance
Context — In 2009, the City passed a Green Building
Ordinance (DMC Chapter 7.94) requiring residential projects?l',
over 20 units to reach 50 points on the GreenPoint Rated ;'� ILI
system. Alternatively, LEED for Homes is approved in the
ordinance. Other types of rating systems may be approved
by the City's Green Building Official on a case -by -case Green RATED
basis. The majority of residential projects within the City are ;.,
subject to the Green Building Ordinance. There are few 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. The
GreenPoint Rated guidelines and rating system, begun in 2000, has grown rapidly and is
becoming a standard for the construction of green residential homes and major renovation
projects throughout California. The GreenPoint Rated system comprises 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. All new residential development in
Dublin over 20 units (multi - family and single - family homes) is required to meet the GreenPoint
standard.
Emissions Reductions — Implementation of the Green Building Ordinance for new single - family
and multi - family housing projects over 20 units, assuming that all projects achieve the required
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 30
minimum of a 15% improvement over California's energy - efficiency standards for new buildings,
is estimated to result in a reduction of 1,110 MTCOze /year (3% local reductions).
A.2.2 Eneray Unerade California
Context — The StopWaste -initiated Energy Upgrade California program established countywide
building retrofit measures and specifications for energy efficiency, water and resource
conservation, and indoor air quality and health. The program provides a standardized countywide
approach that identifies specific green retrofits to improve existing buildings. The Energy
Upgrade California program has done the following:
• Developed a technical advisory group.
• Conducted outreach at the countywide level.
• Provided training of contractors.
• Provided verification and tracking of projects.
• Leveraged funding for project implementation (stimulus funds, other grants, municipal
contributions).
• Provided economies of scale and scope for all jurisdictions within Alameda County.
There are two upgrade packages available to Alameda County residents: basic and advanced.
Each package offers different rebates and incentives. The basic upgrade addresses basic energy
problems and helps to improve a home's comfort and efficiency. An advanced upgrade is
customized for each individual's home and needs, resulting in more energy saved and bigger
rebates.
StopWaste notes that buildings account for 23% of statewide GHG emissions, and existing
buildings represent the majority of the state's building stock. The level of emissions from existing
buildings in Dublin is higher than the state level. According to the 2010 GHG inventory,
approximately 35.4% of emissions come from the residential and commercial sector. Therefore,
participation in the Energy Upgrade California program will help achieve any future GHG
reduction targets that the City may set.
Emissions Reductions — Implementation of the basic and advanced Energy Upgrade California
packages in the City of Dublin, assuming that 7% of households built prior to 2010 (1,044
households) participate, is estimated to result in a reduction of 1,610 MTCOze /year (4% of local
reductions).
A.2.3 Solar Conversion Programs
Context — The City of Dublin promotes solar installation within the community through solar
conversion programs, including Solar Cities and Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE)
programs.
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 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 CaliforniaFIRST program, which provides access to financial assistance for
business owners seeking to install PV systems.
The CaliforniaFIRST and Figtree Energy Resource Company programs are PACE financing
programs. The City joined CaliforniaFIRST in 2009 and Figtree in 2011. PACE programs allow
property owners within participating regions to finance the installation of energy and water
improvements and pay the amount back as a line item on their property tax bill.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 31
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 and businesses
can also save residents and business owners money by offsetting the need for power from the grid
and can increase local energy security and reliability.
Benefits of solar include reduced emissions of criteria air pollutants from power plants,
development and local demonstration of renewable energy technology, and increased energy
reliability, security, and cost certainty.
The State of California offers rebates to homeowners and businesses owners who install solar PV
systems on their homes and businesses. Additionally, the federal government offers tax incentives
for installing PV panels on commercially -zoned buildings. The City of Dublin tracks solar panel
installations. Since January 2011, 174 residences and 3 businesses have installed solar panels,
with a combined potential to generate up to 7,564 kW of power per year.
Emissions Reductions — Assuming that 5% (869) homes and a comparable number of businesses
install solar panels, it is estimated that solar projects installed on homes and businesses after 2010
will result in a reduction of 9,180 MTCOze /year (24% of local reductions).
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 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 energy reliability, security, cost certainty and local green jobs.
Emissions Reductions — Reductions from this measure support those calculated for Measure
A.2.3.
A.2.5 LED Streetlight Specifications for New Projects
Context — The City has developed a LED streetlight specification that requires all future
development projects to install LED streetlights. The existing streetlights in the city (excluding
the decorative streetlights) have been changed from high- pressure sodium to LEDs. To date, one
development project (Schaefer Ranch Unit 2) has used the LED streetlight specifications.
Emissions Reduction — Reductions anticipated from the LED streetlight specifications have not
been quantified. However, this measure supports achievement of other recommended energy
measures.
A.2.6 California Youth Enerfry Services Pro,-ram
Context — The City of Dublin is partnering with Rising Sun Energy Center to promote energy
conservation and sustainable living via a youth employment program, known as California Youth
Energy Services (CYES). The CYES program is a youth and young adult summer employment
and training program open to those who are 15 -22 years old. The CYES program trains and
employs local youth to provide resource conservation audits and retrofits to local residences in
the form of a Green House Call. A CYES Green House Call consists of:
• A walkthrough energy assessment of the house with the client, looking for energy - and water -
saving opportunities.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update
32
• Direct installation of free energy and water conservation saving measures; for example,
efficient -flow faucet, aerators and showerheads, and screw -in compact fluorescent lamps.
• Checking for adequate attic insulation, pipe insulation, and a water heater blanket.
• Testing gallon per minute flow rates on all feasible kitchen and bathroom water fixtures.
• Assessment of toilets for leaks and flush volume.
• Assessment of refrigerator and water heater temperature settings.
• Collecting irrigation information.
• Providing energy and water conservation education.
Each resident receives by e -mail a customized follow -up report that documents work completed
during the Green House Call. The report includes ways to capture additional water and energy
savings through rebates and other programs such as bill discounts, weatherization, and attic
insulation.
Emissions Reduction — It is estimated that participation in the CYES program will result in a
reduction of 80 MTCOze /year (less than 1% of local reductions).
A.2.7 Implementation of Green Shamrock Program
Context — The City of Dublin will be rolling out the Green Shamrock Program in fiscal year
2013 -14. The City will invite Dublin businesses to get recognition for their sustainable actions.
The program levels will be determined by a recognition program checklist of actions taken
(points earned in various green categories, including water, waste, energy and pollution
prevention). The program will have three levels of achievement: bronze, silver and gold. The
program will encourage businesses to advance to the Bay Area Green Business Program. There is
no cost to become a green business partner. Businesses will pledge to use sustainable practices in
their operations.
Emissions Reduction — Reductions anticipated from the Green Shamrock Program have not been
quantified and supported by substantial evidence. However, this measure supports achievement of
other recommended energy measures and waste reduction measures.
A.2.8 Direct Commercial Ener2y Outreach
Context — In the fall of 2012, City staff accompanied PG &E on business visits. The purpose of
the visits was to promote the various rebates available to commercial customers. A total of 489
businesses were contacted and 95 customers received audits. The outreach resulted in several
businesses replacing their outdated lights with newer, more efficient technologies. Additional
nonresidential energy efficiency projects have also been conducted with the assistance of the East
Bay Energy Watch program.
Emissions Reduction — It is estimated that the improved electricity and natural gas efficiencies
from this direct commercial energy outreach will result in a reduction of 640 MTCOze /year (2%
of local reductions).
A.2.9 Behavioral Energy Change
Context — The City of Dublin will be encouraging residents and employees to track their personal
energy use and adopt behaviors that reduce energy use. By using PG &E's online MyEnergy tool,
individuals in Dublin can easily monitor the energy use of their home or office, compare the
energy use of their building to that of similar buildings, and set goals for personal energy
reduction. MyEnergy also provides users with ways to reduce energy use with little or no cost.
The City of Dublin can educate residents and employees about the MyEnergy tool and energy-
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 33
saving behaviors through information on the City website, tabling at public events and by
promoting a competition to reduce energy use between neighborhoods, among other strategies.
Emissions Reductions — Assuming that 10% of Dublin residents participate and that the average
reduction in energy use per participating home is approximately 2.5 %, consistent with reductions
from similar programs in California and throughout North America, promoting behavioral energy
change is estimated to result in a reduction of 180 MTCOze /year (less than 1% of local
reductions).
A.3 Solid Waste and Recycling 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 measures, which include expanding existing
commercial and residential recycling and composting programs and expanding community
education and outreach initiatives. ICLEI and StopWaste 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.
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.
A.3.1 Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance
Context — Since 2005, the City has implemented a Construction and Demolition Debris
Ordinance, which requires that 100% of asphalt and concrete be recycled and a minimum of 50%
of all other materials be 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 organic 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.
Emissions Reductions — Emissions reductions for this measure support those calculated for
Measure A.3.2.
A.3.2 Citywide 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 increase diversion in the city. In 2010 the City's diversion rate was 69 %, adjusted for
annual fluctuations in waste diversion based on trends from preceding and following years.
Emissions Reductions — Attainment of the 75% diversion goal as an improvement over the
adjusted 69% diversion rate of 2010 is estimated to result in a reduction of 1,270 MT COze /year
(3% of local reductions).
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 34
A.3.3 Tiered Rate Structure for Garbaee and Recvcline
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
associated with extracting, transporting, and processing virgin materials.
Emissions Reductions — Emissions reductions for this measure support those calculated for
Measure A.3.2.
A.3.4 Commercial Recvcline Program
Context — The business community and schools are important components 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 work areas. Programs to increase recycling help reduce emissions from extracting,
transporting, and processing virgin materials.
Emissions Reductions — Emissions reductions for this measure support those calculated for
Measure A.3.2.
A.3.5 Commercial Food Waste Collection Program
Context — In 2005, the City began offering a commercial food waste recycling program, which
includes a subsidy to encourage greater food waste recycling. In 2012, a total of 1,768 tons of
commercial green waste was collected in the commercial sector. The amount of businesses
participating in the commercial green waste program has grown significantly in recent years.
There are currently 102 establishments participating in the commercial food waste /organics
program.
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) Sending organics to a composting facility reduces more GHGs than sending organics to a
landfill, even one with methane recovery.
If the City of Dublin were to reduce the amount of food waste that is sent to the landfill by one
metric ton, the community would prevent approximately one MTCOze from entering the
atmosphere.
Emissions Reductions — Emissions reductions for this measure support those calculated for
Measure A.3.2.
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. As with other efforts to improve recycling, this program helps reduce the need to extract,
process, and transport virgin materials, thereby decreasing GHG emissions from these activities.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 35
Emissions Reductions — Emissions reductions for this measure support those calculated for
Measure A.3.2.
A.3.7 Promote Multi - family Recycline
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 are lower
than for single - family homes. The City of Dublin promotes high- density residential development;
therefore, it is important to promote recycling within these developments. Increased recycling
reduces the GHG emissions from extracting, processing, and transporting virgin materials.
Emissions Reductions — Emissions reductions for this measure support those calculated for
Measure A.3.2.
A.3.8 Curbside Residential Recycline Program
Context — The City offers a convenient, free recycling program that includes curbside pickup for
residential neighborhoods to encourage greater recycling efforts. The curbside residential
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,
helping to increase recycling rates and decrease emissions from the extraction, processing, and
transportation of virgin materials.
Emissions Reductions — Emissions reductions for this measure support those calculated for
Measure A.3.2.
A.3.9 Curbside Oreanics Collection Program
Context — The City offers a convenient organics 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 2010, food waste and plant debris accounted
for 28% 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 to produce a natural fertilizer, which helps to reduce the
need for energy - intensive and petroleum -based fertilizers and pesticides. In 2012, the curbside
organics collection program resulted in 5,003 tons of organic material being diverted from the
landfill.
Emissions Reductions — Emissions reductions for this measure support those calculated for
Measure A.3.2.
A.3.10 Reusable Bat Ordinance
Context — The Alameda County Waste Management Reusable Bag Ordinance went into effect on
January 1, 2013. Alameda County stores affected by the ordinance include grocery stores,
supermarkets, convenience stores, liquor stores, or other entities that sell milk, bread, soda, and
snack food (there must be all four items for the ordinance to apply) and /or alcohol.
Emissions Reductions — Emissions reductions for this measure support those calculated for
Measure A.3.2.
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 2010. As noted in Chapter III. Forecast for
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the forecast of government operations emissions is included within
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 36
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.1.1 City Hybrid Vehicles
Context — The City of Dublin has a limited amount of vehicles for its employees to use, two of
which are hybrid vehicles. Hybrid cars often get gas mileage of 20 to 30 miles per gallon more
than the traditional internal combustion engine in non - hybrid vehicles. All hybrids shut off the
gas engine automatically when the car is stopped and turn it back on only when the gas pedal is
pressed again, saving fuel. Additionally, many hybrid cars run on batteries at low speeds,
powered by energy produced by braking. Because less gasoline is burned in these vehicles, they
emit lower levels of GHGs and other pollutants into the atmosphere.
Emissions Reductions — Reductions anticipated from use of City hybrid vehicles have not been
quantified. However, this measure supports achievement of other recommended transportation
measures.
B.1.2 Commute Alternative Program
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 Congestion
Management Agency Guaranteed Ride Home Program. Since 2010, the number of employees
that participated in the program doubled and the money spend on the program increased by nearly
50 %.
Emissions Reductions — Reductions anticipated from the Commute Alternative Program have not
been quantified. However, this measure supports achievement of other recommended
transportation measures.
B.1.3 Green Fleet Policy for City Vehicles
Context — The City adopted a Green Fleet Policy in July 2012. The Green Fleet Policy provides
guidelines for the procurement, management, and operation of fleet vehicles to:
• Reduce the consumption of petroleum fuels and other non - renewable resources.
• Replace petroleum fuels with renewable /sustainable alternatives, when feasible.
• Reduce vehicle emissions.
• Maximize fuel efficiency.
• Minimize vehicle idling.
• Reduce costs and save money.
Pursuant to the Green Fleet Policy, the City is required to make every effort to obtain the
"cleanest" vehicles possible as measured by the then - existing emissions certification standards
and those published by the manufacturers.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update
37
Emissions Reductions — While replacing vehicles with hybrids, plug -in electric vehicles, or other
vehicles that produce low or no emissions does reduce emissions, specific reductions anticipated
from the Green Fleet Policy have not been quantified due to a lack of local data. However, this
measure supports achievement of other recommended transportation measures.
B.2 Energy 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 Buildings Costing 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 System. 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 has been certified and is waiting for the appeals to reach silver 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, Public Safety Complex, and the City's new Corp Yard building. These buildings will be
constructed to achieve LEED silver certification.
Emissions Reductions — Reductions anticipated from LEED certification of municipal buildings
have not been quantified due to a lack of substantive data about these new facilities. However,
this measure supports achievement of other recommended energy measures.
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.
Emissions Reductions — Because this action did not occur after 2010, and is not anticipated to
change, all reductions from this measure have already been included in the 2010 inventory.
However, this measure supports achievement of other recommended energy measures.
B.2.3 Light Emitting Diode (LED) Park Lights
Context — The City of Dublin was awarded a grant in 2009 for the installation of LED lights in
various parks within the community. Sixty-five LED park lights were installed in 2011, replacing
an equal number of metal halide fixtures in three park sites.
Emissions Reductions — The installation of the LED lights at the three park sites is estimated to
result in a reduction of 20 MTCOze /year (less than 1% of local reductions).
B.2.4 — Energy Action Plan
Context — In May 2011, with the help of Chevron Energy Solutions (Chevron ES), the City
conducted an energy audit of all City facilities. From that audit, several recommendations were
made for projects that would incorporate energy conservation measures as well as renewable
energy options. Specifically, the Chevron ES evaluation covered the following types of energy
efficiency and alternative energy measures:
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 38
• Lighting fixtures and controls
• Building automation and controls
• Air - handling systems
• Equipment modifications
• Heating, cooling and ventilation (HVAC) replacement and /or upgrades
• Streetlighting technologies
• Alternative energy production including photovoltaic systems and fuel cells
• Water irrigation systems
Photovoltaic Electricity
Seven PV electricity- producing (solar) installations have been constructed as part of the Energy
Action Plan at the following locations: Civic Center; library; Shannon Community Center; senior
center; and all three fire stations. These installations will generate more than 700 kW of solar
energy at all sites combined. Additionally, a display monitor at the Library with a link to the City
website allows for public viewing of real -time tracking of production, savings, and environmental
benefits. The solar arrays are a combination of solar shade structures at the Civic Center, library,
Shannon Community Center, Fire Station 17, and Fire Station 18, with roof - mounted solar
installations at the remaining facilities. Most importantly, the solar arrays will help power the
diverse city operations. In addition to the solar arrays, the City will be upgrading its heating and
cooling systems at the Civic Center and the Dublin Library with more efficient technology.
Lighting and Irrigation Changes
Over 3,100 fixtures have been retrofitted. The high- pressure sodium cobra head lamps have been
exchanged for energy - efficient LED streetlights. This project has benefited both the City's public
safety responders as well as the public with improved lighting quality. The decorative fixtures
along the Village Parkway corridor, in the Dublin Ranch area, and Transit Center were not
switched to LED. The decorative streetlights will be looked at in a future time when decorative
light technology advances.
Interior lighting retrofits have also occurred as part of the project. Encompassing all fire stations,
Civic Center, the library, the senior center, and Shannon Community Center, these retrofits have
had an immediate effect in reducing electrical consumption of the City's facilities. Existing
fixtures at all these locations have been retrofitted with more energy - efficient bulbs and ballasts.
Motion sensors have been added, and more efficient lighting technologies will be incorporated as
appropriate.
The City is in the process of upgrading the watering systems within all of its parks with a
centralized irrigation system that will ensure that water is delivered to these locations only when
needed, cutting the cost of maintaining the landscaping within City parks. Additionally, City
facilities have been retrofitted with low -flow toilets and sinks.
Emissions Reductions — Implementation of the City's Energy Action Plan is estimated to result
in a reduction of 550 MTCO2e /year (1% of local reductions).
B.3 Solid Waste and Recycling 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 community-wide
measures. Furthermore, Dublin is placing increasing emphasis on achieving emissions reductions
through promoting sustainable landscaping practices such as those outlined in StopWaste's Bay -
Friendly Landscape Guidelines.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 39
B.3.1 Bay- Friendly Landscaping Policy
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 provides training, landscape design assistance, and grant funding to local governments
in Alameda County. The objective of the resources that StopWaste 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.
Bay - Friendly Landscaping practices reduce emissions and 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 runoff. Shade trees also reduce the need
for 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 helps to improve 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.
Emissions Reductions — Emissions reductions anticipated from implementation of the Bay -
Friendly Landscaping policy have not been quantified. However, this measure supports
achievement of recommended energy efficiency and waste management measures.
C. Public Outreach 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 their community and environment and to reduce GHG emissions through
reductions in energy use, transit, and waste and through many other actions.
CA Great Race for Clean Air
Context — The Great Race for Clean Air Challenge is a friendly competition between Bay Area
employers to encourage the use of commute alternatives to and from work such as carpooling,
biking, and publicly provided transit. These commute alternatives can provide significant GHG
savings. The competition is held each year and lasts two months. The City of Dublin has been
participating in the challenge since 2009.
Emissions Reductions — Emissions reductions anticipated from participation in the Great Race
for Clean Air Challenge have not been quantified. However, this measure supports achievement
of transportation measures.
C.2 Tri- Valley Snare the Air Resource Team
Context — The City of Dublin is a member of the Tri- Valley Spare the Air Resource Team. The
resource team develops and carries out local projects to improve air quality. In recent years, the
Tri-Valley Spare the Air Resource Team has developed the following projects:
• Walk & Roll to School Campaign was designed to educate tri- valley parents and students
about clean and green alternatives for getting to and from school, such as walking and biking.
The goal of this month -long campaign is to reduce school commute traffic, which results in
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update
IN
reduced GHG emissions and increased safety around schools, and provides an opportunity for
children to incorporate more exercise into their day.
• Idle Free Campaign educated parents about the negative impacts associated with idling cars.
As part of this project, the resource team developed outreach materials to encourage parents to
turn the key and be idle -free when picking up their kids from school.
• Extreme Makeover: Commute Edition gave employers located in San Ramon, Dublin,
Pleasanton, and Livermore an opportunity to apply for and receive an employee commute
program makeover.
Emissions Reductions — Emissions reductions anticipated from participation in the Tri- Valley
Spare the Air Resource Team have not been quantified. However, this measure supports
achievement of transportation measures.
C.3 Work with Schools on "Go Green" Recycline and Compostine Programs
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
consumption. In Dublin, the City's waste hauler, AVI, funds Dublin Unified School District
schools that choose to participate in the Go Green program. As of June 2012, nine Dublin Unified
Schools were participating in the program (82% participation rate).
Emissions Reductions — Emissions reductions anticipated from working with the schools on the
Go Green Recycling and Composting Program have not been quantified. However, this measure
supports achievement of waste reduction measures.
CA AVI Educational Presentations
Context — As part of its contract, AVI, the City's waste hauler, 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.
Emissions Reductions — Emissions reductions anticipated from AVI's educational presentations
have not been quantified. However, this measure supports achievement of waste reduction
measures.
C.5 Promote Bike to Work Day
Context — Each year, the City of Dublin participates in Bike to Work Day. The 2013 Bike to
Work Day and the sponsored Energizer Stations were held on Thursday, May 9, at the
Dublin /Pleasanton BART station underpass and at the West Dublin /Pleasanton BART station
underpass. The Energizer Stations, co- hosted by the cities of Dublin and Pleasanton, Alameda
County Public Works, Dublin Cyclery, REI Dublin, Hacienda Business Park, Workday, and
BART saw over 550 cyclists pass through.
Emissions Reductions — Emissions reductions anticipated from the promotion of Bike to Work
Day have not been quantified. However, this measure supports achievement of transportation
reduction measures.
C.6 Outreach at Dublin Farmers Market
Context — The Dublin farmers market made its debut in 2010. The farmers market is held every
Thursday from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. from April through September. The Environmental
Services Division attends the market once a month to provide outreach and information to
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 41
residents on the City's environmental programs, including solid waste and recycling, clean water,
and energy efficiency.
Emissions Reductions — Emissions reductions anticipated from outreach at the farmers market
have not been quantified. However, this measure supports achievement of energy measures and
waste reduction measures.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update
42
VI. Measures Implemented By the State
In addition to Dublin's implementation of measures to reduce GHG emissions within the
community, the effects of measures 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 that have been adopted by the state legislature or the governor
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 Chapter L Introduction.
A. State Climate Change Planning
A.I. California Global Warmine 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 emissions 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 governments 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.
Emissions Reductions — ARB has not set recommendations for local governments for reducing
GHG emissions; however, the Scoping plan states that land use planning and urban growth
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 43
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,
and permit how land is developed to accommodate the changing needs of their communities and
population growth.
A.2 Executive Order S -13 -08 and the California Climate Adaptation Strate�y
Context — In November 2008, Executive Order S -13 -08 was signed, which specifically asked the
California 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 Strategy, 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.
Emissions Reductions — Emissions reductions anticipated from actions of Executive Order S -13-
08 have not been quantified. However, this measure supports achievement of recommended CAP
measures.
A.3 Senate Bill 732 — California Strategic 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.
Emissions Reductions — Emissions reductions anticipated from actions of the Strategic Growth
Council have not been quantified. However, this measure supports achievement of recommended
CAP measures.
B. Energy
B.1 Senate Bill 1078, Senate Bill 107, and Executive Order S -14 -08 — Renewables 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 time frame 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 "Renewables Portfolio Standard (RP S) -eligible" sources. This means that,
over time, an increasingly 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 35.4% of total emissions come from commercial and residential energy use in
Dublin, according to the 2010 inventory.
Emissions Reductions — It is estimated that the RPS in Dublin would result in a reduction of
7,720 MTCOze /year.
B.2 Executive Order S -20 -04 — Eneray Efficiency in State Buildines
Context — Executive Order S -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
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 44
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 or operating ENERGY STAR electrical equipment
whenever cost - effective.
Emissions Reductions – This measure will result in reductions of GHG emissions in the city.
However, the amount of reductions anticipated from increasing energy efficiency in state
buildings has not been quantified, so an estimated amount has not been included in the CAP.
Therefore, GHG emissions reductions from these measures would result in additional reductions
not included in the quantified reductions under this CAP.
B.3 Title 24
Context – Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations is a statewide standard applied at the
local level by local agencies through building permits. It mandates how each new home and
business is built in California. It includes requirements for the structural, plumbing, electrical, and
mechanical systems of buildings and for fire and life safety, energy conservation, green design,
and accessibility in and around buildings. This forecast focuses on Part 6 (the California Energy
Code) and Part 11 (the California Green Building Standards Code), which require direct
electricity, natural gas, and water savings for every new home or business built in California.
This forecast includes estimates of reductions from future reductions that have not yet gone into
effect, including the 2013 update to Title 24, which is scheduled to be enforced beginning on
January 1, 2014. These estimates are based on California Energy Commission studies that
compare each new update of Title 24 to its former version.
Emissions Reductions – It is estimated that the changes to Title 24 would result in a reduction of
2,600 MTCOze /year.
C. Transportation and Land Use
CA Assembly Bill 1493 – Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Standards
Context – Nationwide, automobile manufacturers are bound by fuel efficiency standards set by
the US Department of Transportation. These standards, known as the Corporate Average Fuel
Economy (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 ARB 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 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
62.2% in 2010.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 45
Emissions Reductions — It is estimated that the GHG emissions reduction of AB 1493 for on-
road mobile source GHG emissions in Dublin, in conjunction with the Low Carbon Fuel Standard
(see C.2), would result in a reduction of 53,140 MTCOze /year.
C.2. Executive Order S -01 -07 — Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Context — Executive Order S -01 -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.
Emissions Reductions — Emissions reductions from this measure support those calculated for
Measure C.1.
C.3. Senate Bill 375
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. 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
were released in 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.
Emissions Reduction — This measure will result in the reduction of GHG emissions, but due to a
lack of specific information, the amount of reductions anticipated from SB 375 have not been
quantified.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 46
VII. Summary of Emissions Reduction Measures
Based on the emissions reductions estimated to be achieved after 2010 through the above
measures, the GHG emissions in the City of Dublin are estimated to be 272,410 MTCOze in
2020, or 17.0% below 2010 emissions. This exceeds the target of 15% below 2010 emissions.
GHG emissions with the above reductions equal 3.2 MTCOze per service population, below the
BAAQMD plan -level efficiency threshold of 6.6 MTCOze per service population.
Table 13 summarizes the contribution of proposed CAP measures toward achievement of the
reduction target.
TABLE 13 — SUMMARY OF GHG REDUCTION MEASURE PERFORMANCE
Measure Number and Title
GHG Reductions
TCO e/ r
% of 2020 Local
Reductions
A. Community-wide Measures
A.I. Transportation and Land Use Measures
A.1.1. Transit - Oriented Development
-8,380 22%
A.1.2. High- Density Development
Included in A.1.1
A.1.3. Mixed -Use Development
Included in A.1.1
A.1.4. Bicycle Parking Requirements
-950
2%
A.1.5. Streetscape Master Plan
-1,530
4%
A.1.6. Multi -Modal Ma
-1,140
3%
A.1.7. Electric and Plug In-Hybrid Charging Stations at the Libra
-90
<1%
A.1.8. General Plan Community Design and Sustainability Element
Supporting Measure
A.1.9. Work with LAVTA to Improve Transit
-1,210 3%
A.1.10. Bikeways Master Plan
Included in A.1.4
A.1.11. West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station
- 10,980 1 28%
A.1.12. City Design Strategy
Supporting Measure
Subtotal Transportation and Land Use
- 24,280 62%
A.2. Energy Measures
A.2.1. Green Building Ordinance
-1,110
3%
A.2.2. Energy Upgrade California
-1,610
4%
A.2.3. Solar Conversion Programs
-9,180
24%
A.2.4. Reduce Solar Installation Permit Fee
Included in A.2.3
A.2.5. LED Streetlight Specifications for New Projects
Supporting Measure
A.2.6. California Youth Energy Services Program
-80 71%
A.2.7. Implementation of Green Shamrock Program
Supportin Measure
A.2.8. Direct Commercial Energy Outreach
-640
2%
A.2.9. Behavioral Energy Change
-180
<1%
Subtotal Energy
12,800
33%
A.3. Solid Waste and Recycling Measures
A.3.1. Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance
Included in A.3.2
A.3.2. Citywide Diversion Goal of 75%
-1,270 1 3%
A.3.3. Tiered Rate Structure for Garbage and Recycling
Included in A.3.2
A.3.4. Commercial Recycling Program
Included in A.3.2
A.3.5. Commercial Food Waste Collection Program
Included in A.3.2
A.3.6. Promote Commercial Recycling
Included in A.3.2
A.3.7. Promote Multi- family Recycling
Included in A.3.2
A.3.8. Curbside Residential Recycling Program
Included in A.3.2
A.3.9. Curbside Organics Collection Program
Included in A.3.2
A.3.10. Reusable Bag Ordinance
Included in A.3.2
Subtotal Solid Waste and Recycling
-1,270
3%
Total Community -wide Measures
- 38,350
99%
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update
47
Measure Number and Title
GHG Reductions
TCOze/ r
% of 2020 Local
Reductions
B. Municipal Operations Measures
B.I. Transportation and Land Use Measures
B.1.1. City Hybrid Vehicles
Supporting Measure
B.1.2. Commute Alternative Program
Supporting Measure
B.1.3. Green Fleet Policy for City Vehicles
Supporting Measure
B.2. Energy Measures
B.2.1. LEED Silver Requirement for New City Buildings > $3mil
Supporting Measure
B.2.2. Window Film on the Civic Center
Supporting Measure
B.2.3. LED Park Lights
-20
<1%
B.2.4. Energy Action Plan
-550
1%
B.3. Solid Waste and Recycling Measures
B.3.1. Bay-Friendly Landscaping PolicySu
ortin Measure
Total Municipal Operations Measures
-570 1%
C. Public Outreach Programs
C.I Great Race for Clean Air
Su orting Measure
C.2. Spare the Air Resource Team
Supporting Measure
C.3. Work with Schools on Go Green Recycling & Composting
Supporting Measure
C.4. AVI Educational Presentations
Supporting Measure
C.5. Promote Bike to Work Day
Supporting Measure
C.6. Outreach at Dublin Farmers Market
Supporting Measure
Total Community-wide Measures
- 38,350
Total Municipal Operations Measures
-570
Total Statewide Reduction
-63,460
Total Reductions
102,380
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update
.•
VIII. Implementation, Monitoring and Future Steps
GHG emissions are an issue of growing concern for communities across the US 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 GHG emissions emitted by the community, 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. 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 E). 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 work 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 Bikeways Master Plan update includes approximately
44.5 miles of proposed bike paths /bike lanes. The City will track the miles of bike lanes that
are constructed each year.
2) Energy Upgrade California Program —This program establishes countywide building retrofit
measures and specifications for energy efficiency, water and resource conservation, and
indoor air quality and health. 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 Division track the
percentage of C &D debris that is 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 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 Rated system. The Building
Division works with project developers at the entitlement and building permit stages to
ensure that the minimum 50 points is achieved.
6) California Youth Energy Services (CYES) Program — The City of Dublin has partnered with
Rising Sun Energy Center to promote energy conservation and sustainable living via a youth
employment program, known as California Youth Energy Services (CYES). The CYES
program trains and employs local youth to provide resource conservation audits and retrofits
to local residences in the form of a Green House call. The City will monitor and track the
number of homes that receive a Green House call and the energy efficiency and water
conservation measures that are installed.
Monitoring results is critical to verifying that the various policies and programs within the City's
CAP are achieving the anticipated GHG emissions 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 five years.
D. Point of Control
Table 14 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 important part of ensuring that the City achieves its goals as outlined and
projected within the CAP.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 50
TABLE 14 — PRIMARY DEPARTMENT RESPONSIBLE FOR REDUCTION MEASURES
Measure Number and Title Department Res onsible Time Frame
A. Community-wide Measures
A.I. Transportation and Land Use Measures
A.1.1. Transit - Oriented Development
Community Development
2020
A.1.2. High-Density Development
Community Development
2020
A.1.3. Mixed -Use Development
Community Development
2020
A.1.4. Bicycle Parking Requirements
Public Works
Ongoing
A.1.5. Streetscape Master Plan
Public Works
Ongoing
A.1.6. Multi -Modal Map
Community Development
Ongoing
A.1.7. Electric and Plug In-Hybrid Charging Stations at the Library
City Manager's Office
Ongoing
A.1.8. General Plan Community Design and Sustainability Element
Community Development
Ongoing
A.1.9. Work with LAVTA to Improve Transit
Public Works
Ongoing
A.1.10. Bikeways Master Plan
Public Works
2020
A.1.11. West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station
N/A
Ongoing
A.1.12. City Design Strategy
Community Development
Ongoing
A.2. Energy Measures
A.2.1. Green Building Ordinance
Community Development
2020
A.2.2. Energy Upgrade California
City Manager's Office
Ongoing
A.2.3. Solar Conversion Programs
City Manager's Office
Ongoing
A.2.4. Reduce Solar Installation Permit Fee
Community Development
Ongoing
A.2.5. LED Streetlight Specifications for New Projects
Public Works
Ongoing
A.2.6. California Youth Energy Services Program
City Manager's Office
Evaluated annually
A.2.7. Implementation of Green Shamrock Program
City Manager's Office
Ongoing
A.2.8. Direct Commercial Energy Outreach
City Manager's office
Ongoing
A.2.9. Behavioral Energy Change
N/A
Ongoing
A.3. Solid Waste and Recycling Measures
A.3.1. Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance
Community Development /
City Manager's Office
Ongoing
A.3.2. Citywide Diversion Goal of 75%
City Manager's Office
Ongoing
A.3.3. Tiered Rate Structure for Garbage and Recycling
City Manager's Office
Ongoing
A.3.4. Commercial Recycling Program
City Manager's Office
Ongoing
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
Ongoing
A.3.8. Curbside Residential Recycling Program
City Manager's Office
Ongoing
A.3.9. Curbside Organics Collection Program
City Manager's Office
Ongoing
A.3.10. Reusable Bag Ordinance
City Manager's Office
Ongoing
B. Municipal Operations Measures
B.L. Transportation and Land Use Measures
B.1.1. City Hybrid Vehicles
Public Works
Ongoing
B.1.2. Commute Alternative Program
City Manager's Office
Ongoing
B.1.3. Green Fleet Policy for City Vehicles
City Manager s Office
Ongoing
B.2. Energy Measures
B.2.1. LEED Silver Requirement for New City Buildings > $3mil
Parks & Community Service
Ongoing
B.2.2. Window Film on the Civic Center
Public Works
Complete
B.2.3. LED Park Lights
Parks & Community Service
Complete
B.2.4. Energy Action Plan
City Manager's Office
2013
B.3. Solid Waste and Recycling Measures
B.3.1. Bay-Friendly Landscaping Policy Parks & Community Service Ongoing
C. Public Outreach Programs
C.1. Great Race for Clean Air
City Manager's Office
Ongoing
C.2. Spare the Air Resource Team
City Manager's Office
Ongoing
C.3. Work with Schools on Go Green Recycling and Composting
City Manager's Office
Ongoing
CA. AVI Educational Presentations
City Manager's Office
Ongoing
C.5. Promote Bike to Work Day
Public Works
Ongoing
C.6. Outreach at the Farmers Market
City Manager's Office
Ongoing
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update
51
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 (GHG) 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 GHG 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 GHG 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, therefore,
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 CAP.
This approach is consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, 15064, and 15130 and the
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 ABAG population growth projections as outlined in the
One Bay Area Plan (Projections 2010), which are the basis of the CAP GHG emissions
projections.
• The extent to which the project would interfere with implementation of CAP strategies,
measures, or 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 incorporated 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, the applicant could consider various methods for making the
project consistent with the CAP, including 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
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 52
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 (less than 1,100 MTCOze 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 GHG emissions and climate change (i.e., less than
cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impact).
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update
53
Appendix A: Acronyms and Abbreviations
AB Assembly Bill
AB 32 Global Warming Solutions Act
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ACCPP Alameda County Climate Protection Project
ADC
alternative daily cover
ARB
California Air Resources Board
AVI
Amador Valley Industries
BAAQMD
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BART
Bay Area Rapid Transit
BAU
business -as -usual
CACP
Clean Air & Climate Protection
CAFE
Corporate Average Fuel Economy
CAP
Climate Action Plan
C &D
construction demolition debris
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CH4 methane
CO carbon monoxide
COz
carbon dioxide
COze
carbon dioxide equivalent
CNG
compressed natural gas
CYES
California Youth Energy Services
DDSP
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
DMC
Dublin Municipal Code
EAP
Energy Action Plan
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
FTE
full-time equivalent
GHG
greenhouse gas(es)
ICLEI
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives
IPCC
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
LAVTA
Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority
LCFS
Low - Carbon Fuel Standard
1
LED
light emitting diode
LEED
Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design
LGOP
local government operations protocol
LNG
liquefied natural gas
MT COze
metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent
MTC
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
MMT
million metric tons
N20
nitrous oxide
PG &E
Pacific Gas and Electric
PUC
Public Utilities Commission
PV
photovoltaic
RPS
Renewable Portfolio Standard
SB
Senate Bill
TOD
transit oriented development
VMT
vehicle miles traveled
WARM
Waste Reduction Model
2
Appendix B: Discussion & Comparison of 2005 & 2010
GHG Emissions Inventory and Forecast
The City of Dublin's baseline emissions inventory was originally conducted by ICLEI in partnership with
City staff. The City chose calendar year 2005 as its base year. The baseline inventory was completed and
approved by the Dublin City Council in October 2008.
In order to fully gauge the City's GHG emissions reduction progress, an additional GHG Inventory was
conducted using calendar year 2010 as the revised base year. The purpose of Appendix B is to provide a
comparison of the 2005 and 2010 GHG emissions inventories and a discussion of the methods used.
1. New Sectors and Activities
Two new sectors were included in the 2010 inventory that were not a part of the 2005 inventory: 1)
electricity emissions associated with water and wastewater, and 2) wastewater use and fugitive and
process nitrous oxide (N20) and methane (CH4) emissions associated with wastewater treatment. As
shown in Table 1, combined, these new sectors accounted for about 1% of 2010 emissions. Additionally,
several new sources and activities were considered and included as part of the transportation sector in the
2010 inventory, which includes electricity from buses, liquefied natural gas from buses, emissions from
BART, and off -road emissions. These new sources and activities in the transportation sector comprise
about 10% of the transportation sector.
Methods for calculating emissions from these sectors were not widely available in 2008, when the 2005
inventory was prepared, but are now published in the ICLEI Community Protocol.
TABLE 1: EMISSIONS FROM NEW SECTORS IN 2010
New Sectors in 2010
Source / Activity
MTCOze
Community Inventory
Wastewater treatment
emissions
565
Water and wastewater
electricity emissions
2,045
Transportation
Wheels and bus electricity
684
Wheels and bus — liquefied
Transportation
natural gas (LNG)
25
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)
Transportation
emissions
658
Transportation
Off -road and direct emissions
18,490
Note: MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions
2.2010 & 2005 Community GHG Emissions Inventory Comparison
Tables 2 and 3 below provide a comparison between the 2010 GHG emissions inventory and 2005 GHG
emissions inventory.
TABLE 2: 2010 GHG EMISSIONS INVENTORY
Note: MTCO2e - metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions
* The commercial electricity data is not available due to PG &E privacy regulations
TABLE 3: REVISED 2005 GHG EMISSIONS INVENTORY
Energy
% of Total
2010 Community Emissions by
Percent of
(MMBtu)
MMBTu
Sector
MTCOze
Total COze
Residential - Electricity
20,449
6.2%
343,617
7.4%
Residential - Gas
35,517
10.8%
668,171
14.3%
Unknown*
Unknown*
Commerciat/industrial - Electricity
37,994
11.6%
416,007
8.9%
Commerciat/industrial - Gas
22,104
6.7%
34,364
0.7%
Water & Wastewater Electricity
2,045
0.6%
3,195,367
68.6%
Transportation sector
204,151
62.2%
0.0%
Solid waste
5,330
1.6%
-
Other - Wastewater Fugitive Emissions
565
0.2%
-
0.0%
TOTAL
328,155
100.0%
4,657,526
100%
Note: MTCO2e - metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions
* The commercial electricity data is not available due to PG &E privacy regulations
TABLE 3: REVISED 2005 GHG EMISSIONS INVENTORY
Note: MTCO2e - metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions
There were a total of 22,467 MTCOze that were reported in 2010, but not included in the 2005 inventory.
The MTCOze included in the 2010 inventory that was not included in the 2005 inventory includes the
following sectors: water & wastewater electricity (2,045 MTCOze), wastewater fugitive emissions (565
MTCOze), wheels bus (709 MTCOze), BART (658 MTCOze) and off -road transportation (18,490).
It became evident that continuing to use the original emissions inventory completed for baseline year
2005 was problematic for several reasons, and, therefore, the determination was made to switch to 2010
as the baseline year. Switching to 2010 as the baseline is a better choice for the following reasons:
• Community activities that affect GHG emissions have changed considerably since 2005 due to
increased awareness of sustainability, as well as to a downturn in the economy. Examples of the
changes include a decrease in vehicle miles traveled, an increase in the number of people who
purchase hybrid and electric vehicles, an increase in the number of residents and businesses
Energy
% of Total
2005 Community Emissions by
Percent of
(MMBtu)
MMBTu
Sector
MTCOze
Total COze
Residential - Electricity
20,368
6.6%
310,729
5.9%
Residential - Gas
30,785
10.0%
575,888
11.0%
618,303
11.8%
Commerciat/industrial - Electricity
40,528
13.1%
367,999
7.0%
Commerciat/industrial - Gas
19,672
6.4%
0.0%
Water & Wastewater Electricity
0.0%
3,364,409
64.2%
Transportation sector
189,763
61.4%
0.0%
Solid waste
7,807
2.5%
Other - Wastewater Fugitive Emissions
0.0%
0.0%
5,237,328
100%
TOTAL
308,923
100%
Note: MTCO2e - metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions
There were a total of 22,467 MTCOze that were reported in 2010, but not included in the 2005 inventory.
The MTCOze included in the 2010 inventory that was not included in the 2005 inventory includes the
following sectors: water & wastewater electricity (2,045 MTCOze), wastewater fugitive emissions (565
MTCOze), wheels bus (709 MTCOze), BART (658 MTCOze) and off -road transportation (18,490).
It became evident that continuing to use the original emissions inventory completed for baseline year
2005 was problematic for several reasons, and, therefore, the determination was made to switch to 2010
as the baseline year. Switching to 2010 as the baseline is a better choice for the following reasons:
• Community activities that affect GHG emissions have changed considerably since 2005 due to
increased awareness of sustainability, as well as to a downturn in the economy. Examples of the
changes include a decrease in vehicle miles traveled, an increase in the number of people who
purchase hybrid and electric vehicles, an increase in the number of residents and businesses
participating in the City's organics collection program, an increase in the number of residents
and businesses installing PV, etc.
• Numerous efficiency improvements have occurred in electric equipment, vehicles, and other
devices, resulting in lower emissions per use.
• The 2010 inventory contains additional subsectors and activities not accounted for in the 2005
inventory (e.g., water emissions, wastewater emissions, BART emissions). A 2010 emissions
inventory is therefore more complete and accurate.
• The shift from the base year from 2005 to 2010 enables the City to more fully capture
community emissions and to employ more aggressive calculation methodologies not present in
2005, thereby, producing a more precise GHG reduction goal.
The new sources that are accounted for in the 2010 inventory represent 6.85% of the 2010 GHG
emissions inventory. If these new sources are removed from the inventory, then the 2010 inventory would
be 305,688 MTCOze, which is slightly less than the 2005 GHG emissions inventory (308,923 MTCOze).
Therefore, if the City were to continue to use the 2005 inventory as the baseline year, it would create a
situation where the community emissions would actually be understated and imprecise progress would be
reported in the City's efforts to reduce GHG emissions within the community.
Finally, it is also important to note that between 2005 and 2010 the City's population increased 21 %.
During the 5 -year period, the City experienced substantial growth in population; nevertheless, community
emissions are not increasing. Thus, community emissions are decreasing on a per capita basis, which is a
significant effort for a community experiencing such growth.
3. Community Inventory Summary
Table 4 summarizes changes to methodologies between the 2005 and 2010 inventories. The following
conclusions summarize findings in comparing the two community inventories.
• New sectors accounted for less than 1% of the unadjusted inventory in 2010.
• New sources of emissions in the transportation sector accounted for about 10% of total
unadjusted transportation emissions in 2010.
• While residential electricity use increased by more than 10 %, residential electricity emissions
increased by less than 1% because PG &E had a lower emissions factor in 2010 (i.e., adjustments
to power supply sources resulted in fewer emissions).
• While the emissions factor for natural gas decreased slightly ( <1 %), overall residential natural gas
emissions grew by 15 %, and overall commercial natural gas emissions grew by 12 %. On a per
service population per capita, overall natural gas use deceased by 2.3 %.
• PG &E reported direct access emissions in 2010, but did not report direct access kilowatt -hour
(kWh) use. In 2005, PG &E reported direct access kWh usage and the resulting emissions were
calculated.
• Rather than using a 2010 N2O and CH4 emissions factor for electricity, the inventory uses a five -
year average for these factors. This was not the case in 2005.
• Transportation vehicle miles traveled (VMT) decreased by approximately 4 %, while emissions
decreased by almost 8% - signaling that a higher percentage of vehicles in 2010 were either
lighter duty or more efficient than their 2005 counterparts.
• Community waste tonnage decreased by 43 %. This decrease may result from both City measures
to reduce waste and from the economic downturn experienced during this time frame.
TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY METHOD CHANGES
Sector
Source
Method
If So, How?
Changed?
Residential
Electricity
No
Residential
Natural gas
No
Commercial and
Electricity
Yes
• 2010 commercial and industrial electricity
industrial
emissions are calculated by PG &E
• 2005 direct access electricity based on state
averages
Commercial and
Natural gas
No
industrial
Water and
Water and
New
wastewater
wastewater
Transportation
Gasoline
Yes
• 2005 data was updated using the MTC trip
generation model
• 2005 data could not be broken out into the same
categories as 2010
• Greater uncertainty within 2005 data
Transportation
Diesel
Yes
• 2005 data was updated using the MTC trip
generation model
• 2005 data could not be broken out into the same
categories as 2010
• Greater uncertainty within 2005 data
Transportation
Wheel and bus
New
electricity
Transportation
Wheel and bus —
New
LNG
Transportation
BART emissions
New
Transportation
Off -road and direct
New
emissions
Waste
Waste disposed
Yes
• Alternative daily cover (ADC) itemized separately
in 2005
• Waste characterization varies for each year
Wastewater
Treatment
New
treatment
emissions
4. Methods
The following sections describe the methods used to adjust and compare the 2005 and 2010 community
inventories by sector.
Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Energy
Calculation Methods
Calculation methods for electricity use in the commercial and industrial sectors changed between 2005
and 2010. In 2005, the amount of kWh from industrial and direct access use was reported by PG &E and
emissions were calculated using California grid average coefficients reported in table G.7 of the Local
Government Operations Protocol (LGOP). In 2010, PG &E did not provide industrial and direct access
usage, but instead directly reported the amount of CO2, N20, and CH4 emitted as a result of power
generated to serve these sectors. Direct access electricity use is unknown for 2010, and therefore is
bundled with industrial /commercial use.
Calculation methods for residential electricity remained consistent between 2005 and 2010. In both
inventories, PG &E reported residential electricity use, and emissions were calculated using utility-
specific CO2 factors and California grid average factors for N20 and CH4 published in the LGOP.
Natural gas calculation methods remained consistent across both inventory years.
Emission Factors and Activity Data
Table 5 highlights changes in emissions factors and activity data for residential, commercial, and
industrial electricity use between 2005 and 2010. Electricity (Residential & Commercial/Industrial) CO2
emissions factors changed from 489.16 lbs /MWh to 445.0 lbs /MWh in 2010, a 9% reduction in emissions
for every unit of electricity used. The decline in PG &E's emissions from delivered electricity from 2005
to 2010 was owed, in large part, to an increase in the amount of zero - and low- emitting electricity in its
power portfolio and the expanded use of cleaner fossil - fueled electricity, including two new natural gas -
fired plants that PG &E brought into service in 2010.
TABLE 5: CHANGES IN RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND INDUSTRIAL SECTORS
Residential electricity use increased by about 11 %, which is why Dublin experienced a small increase in
emissions from residential electricity (less than 1 %). Residential N20 and CH4 emissions factors varied
slightly between these two years, mostly because the calculation methods changed. The 2005 California
grid average factors for N20 and CH4, provided by the California Energy Commission (CEC) and
published in the LGOP, were used for 2005. When both N20 and CH4 are included, there is a total
emissions factor reduction of 9.21 %. In 2010, CEC numbers were used to generate a five -year average for
N20 and CH4. This five -year average yielded a very small change in the emissions factor (1 %).
Natural gas emissions from the residential sector changed, roughly in line with a 16% increase in natural
gas use. Total emissions increased by slightly less than 16% due to a small change in the emissions rate
for natural gas. Commercial and industrial electricity emissions factors decreased about 5% from 2005 to
2010, demonstrating that a significant amount of power came from direct access. Direct access has a
higher emissions rate than other types of PG &E power. Coupled with an almost 2% reduction in
electricity use, the commercial and industrial sectors experienced a total reduction of 6% from 2005 to
2010.
The 2005 inventory used California grid average factors for CO2, N20, and CH4 provided by the CEC
and contained in the LGOP for direct access electricity. A PG &E CO2 factor was used for all other
commercial electricity use. In 2010, commercial and industrial emissions were reported by PG &E.
Change in
% Change in
% Change in
Sector
MTCO2e
Activity Data
Emissions Factors
(MMBtn)
Residential electricity
<1%
11%
-9%
Commercial and industrial electricity
-6%
-2%
-5%
Residential natural gas
15%
16%
-10
Commercial and industrial natural gas
12%
13%
-1%
Residential electricity use increased by about 11 %, which is why Dublin experienced a small increase in
emissions from residential electricity (less than 1 %). Residential N20 and CH4 emissions factors varied
slightly between these two years, mostly because the calculation methods changed. The 2005 California
grid average factors for N20 and CH4, provided by the California Energy Commission (CEC) and
published in the LGOP, were used for 2005. When both N20 and CH4 are included, there is a total
emissions factor reduction of 9.21 %. In 2010, CEC numbers were used to generate a five -year average for
N20 and CH4. This five -year average yielded a very small change in the emissions factor (1 %).
Natural gas emissions from the residential sector changed, roughly in line with a 16% increase in natural
gas use. Total emissions increased by slightly less than 16% due to a small change in the emissions rate
for natural gas. Commercial and industrial electricity emissions factors decreased about 5% from 2005 to
2010, demonstrating that a significant amount of power came from direct access. Direct access has a
higher emissions rate than other types of PG &E power. Coupled with an almost 2% reduction in
electricity use, the commercial and industrial sectors experienced a total reduction of 6% from 2005 to
2010.
The 2005 inventory used California grid average factors for CO2, N20, and CH4 provided by the CEC
and contained in the LGOP for direct access electricity. A PG &E CO2 factor was used for all other
commercial electricity use. In 2010, commercial and industrial emissions were reported by PG &E.
In a compromise between the communities that wanted to complete GHG inventories, PG &E agreed to
report commercial and industrial GHG emissions in one lump sum — thereby eliminating the need to
estimate direct access power. Although PG &E's method for reporting GHGs is less transparent, PG &E
used emissions factors in line with typical calculation methods. Along with PG &E's 2010 third -party
verified emissions factor for CO2 of 445.0 lbs COz /MWh, PG &E applied a California grid average set of
coefficients from the CEC for N20 and CH4 emissions.
Commercial and industrial natural gas emissions factors changed slightly (less than 1 %) while natural gas
use in the commercial and industrial sector increased by about 13 %. Due to this slight decrease in
emissions rates, total commercial and industrial natural gas emissions increased by 12 %.
Transportation Sector
New Emission Sources
The transportation sector of the 2010 GHG inventory contained several additional sources: electricity
from buses, liquefied natural gas from buses, emissions from BART and off -road emissions. These new
sources accounted for 19,857 MTCOze in 2010, approximately 10% of transportation emissions.
Calculation Methods
The older, unrevised 2005 inventory used data publically available from the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), which tracks all VMT in
Dublin on state highways and local roads using on -site car counts. Newer traffic models from the MTC
assign Dublin 50% of the VMT from trips that begin or end in the jurisdiction and 100% of the VMT
from trips that begin and end in the jurisdiction. Trip generation models are preferred within the
Community Protocol, and were used to update both the 2005 inventory and the 2010 inventory.
2010 activity data for electric buses and LNG buses was provided by StopWaste and the Livermore
Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA). Data on these sources were not available for 2005.
Emissions Factors and Activity Data
Table 6 highlights changes in emissions factors and activity data for the transportation sectors between
2005 and 2010.
TABLE 6: CHANGES IN VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED AND EMISSIONS
Year
VMT
% Change in
VMT
MTCOze % Change in
MTCO e
Passenger Vehicles
2010
297,941,277
4%
125,916
-3%
2005
310,410,506
129,789
Heavy Trucks
2010
35,996,970
7%
54,425
-2%
2005
38,699,058
55,731
Buses
2010
2,348,599
4,662
2005
2,514,588
4,244
Note: MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions
Solid Waste
New Emission Sources
The 2005 inventory itemized ADC while the 2010 inventory did not. In 2005, most ADC was inorganic
and non - methane producing, and as a result ADC contributed very little to MTCOze emissions. Non -
methane- producing ADC was used throughout Alameda County in 2010 due to the countywide ban on
organics being used as ADC at the landfill.
Calculation Methods
The calculation methods for waste in 2005 largely mirrored those used in 2010. In both years, CACP was
used; however, default values for waste characterization varied. CACP uses default emissions factors for
waste that are separated into five component parts: paper products, food waste, plant debris,
wood /textiles, and all other waste. All tonnage listed in the "all other" category is assumed not to produce
methane.
Table 7 identifies the waste characterization values within the 2005 and 2010 inventories. The inventories
used separate statewide waste characterization studies to determine how much of the total community
waste was paper, food, plant debris, wood textiles, or other. The 2005 inventory used a waste
characterization study from 2000, while the 2010 inventory used a waste characterization study from
2008; the composition of waste disposed changed between the two inventory years.
TABLE 7: WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
Waste Type
2005
2010
Food
11%
22%
Paper
22%
25%
Plant
5%
4%
Wood/Textile
24%
19%
All Other
38%
30%
Total
100%
100%
Emission Factors and Activity
Methane emissions factors for each type of waste remained constant in CACP for both 2005 and 2010.
5. Municipal Inventory Comparison Summary
Comparison Between 2005 and 2010 Inventories
With all emissions included, including new sources, the government operations inventory increased by
50% from 2005 to 2010. New sectors and sources accounted for 36% of the new emissions. If new sectors
and sources are removed from the 2010 inventory to enable a direct comparison for each sector, emissions
increased 32% overall from 2005 to 2010, as shown in Table 8.
TABLE 8: ADJUSTED 2005 AND 2010 GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS EMISSIONS
Sectors
2005
2010
MTCO2e
Activity Data
Units
MTCO2e
Activity Data
Units
Building electricity
482
2,155,608
kWh
521
2,566,566
kWh
Building natural gas
289
54,293
therms
269
50,604
therms
Streetlights and traffic signals
484
2,161,474
kWh
548
2,696,580
kWh
Water delivery facilities
22
98,086
kWh
12
58,036
kWh
Vehicle fleet
283
394,574
VMT
687
998,604
VMT
Waste
7
33
tons
49
195
tons
Total
1,567
2,086
Note: MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions
Three sectors accounted for most of the increase in emissions after the 2010 adjustment: streetlights and
traffic signals, vehicle fleet, and waste. The increase in streetlights and traffic signals roughly correlates
with the 21% increase in population that Dublin experienced in the same five -year period. Emissions in
the building electricity and water delivery sectors declined, but were offset by increases in other sectors.
Electricity use in buildings increased (19 %), but reduced emissions per unit in this sector result primarily
from lower PG &E emissions factors. Emissions factors for water electricity similarly declined, but lower
energy demand (41 %) accounted for most of the change in these emissions.
6. New Sectors and Sources in Municipal GHG emissions inventory
As shown in Table 9, two new sectors, and two new vehicle fleet sources, were included in the 2010
government operations inventories that were not a part of the revised 2005 inventory: compressed natural
gas (CNG), off -road gasoline, employee commute, and mobile source refrigerants. Together, these new
sectors and sources contributed 280 MTCOze in 2010, about 12% of the total unadjusted 2010 inventory.
TABLE 9: NEW GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS SOURCES IN 2010
Note: MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions
The following conclusions summarize findings in comparing the two government operations inventories
between 2005 and 2010.
• New sectors and sources contributed 483 MTCOze in 2010, accounting for 21% of 2010 emissions.
With no adjustments, emissions increased by 50% between 2005 and 2010. This increase is due in
large part to the 2010 inventory being a more complete and thorough inventory. For instance, the
Emissions
Percent of Total
Sector
Source
Emissions from
(MTCOZe)
Sector
Vehicle Fleet (waste hauler)
CNG
21
3%
Vehicle Fleet (contracted
maintenance — MCE)
Diesel & Gas
205
30%
Employee commute
Gasoline & Ethanol
249
100%
Mobile source refrigerants
HFC -134a 236cb 43 -10mee
8
100%
Note: MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions
The following conclusions summarize findings in comparing the two government operations inventories
between 2005 and 2010.
• New sectors and sources contributed 483 MTCOze in 2010, accounting for 21% of 2010 emissions.
With no adjustments, emissions increased by 50% between 2005 and 2010. This increase is due in
large part to the 2010 inventory being a more complete and thorough inventory. For instance, the
2005 inventory did not include emissions from the vehicle fleet used by contractors (MCE) and the
City's waste hauler.
• After adjusting the 2010 inventory so that only sources and sectors that are common between 2005 and
2010 are included, 2010 emissions increased by 19 %. This increase is explained largely in part by the
2010 inventory being a more complete and thorough than the 2005 inventory.
• Building electricity emissions increased by 8% from 2005 to 2010 while corresponding electricity use
increased by 19 %. This is explained by a change in PG &E's electricity emissions factor (9 %) over
this time period. Additionally, the City added several new facilities and parks between 2005 and
2010.
• Building natural gas use declined by 7% from 2005 to 2010, with a proportional reduction in
emissions.
• Electricity used for streetlights and traffic signals increased by 25 %, but corresponding emissions
increased by only 13 %, due to a 9% reduction in the emissions factor associated with PG &E's power
mix.
• Waste emissions increased by 600% due to an increase in waste disposed (491 %). As a percentage of
total emissions, waste increased from less than 1% in 2005 to approximately 2% in 2010. The 2005
data for waste analysis was incomplete. The 2010 data was estimated using container size, number of
pick -ups and estimate fullness based on input from the City's waste hauler (AVI).
7. Methods
The following sections describe the methods used to adjust and compare the 2005 and 2010 government
operations inventories by sector.
Building Energy (Electricity and Natural Gas)
New Emission Sources
PG &E provided standard reports for both years.
Calculation Methods
Calculation methods for building electricity and natural gas were consistent in each inventory year.
Emissions Factors and Activity
Electricity emissions per kWh decreased by about 9% between 2005 and 2010. Natural gas emissions
factors remained constant. Utility- specific and year - specific CO2 emission factors came from PG &E
while California grid average N2O and CH4 year - specific factors were provided by the CEC and reported
in the LGOP and were used for each inventory.
The amount of electricity used by the City government increased by approximately 19% from 2005 to
2010.
Natural gas use declined by 7% between 2005 and 2010. The amount of natural gas used in individual
buildings varies; however, a roughly constant natural gas usage is anticipated, since natural gas was only
used at the facilities considered in both inventories.
Streetlights and Traffic Signals
New Emission Sources
PG &E provided standard reports for both years.
Calculation Methods
Calculation methods for streetlight electricity were consistent in each inventory year.
Emission Factors and Activity Data
Electricity emissions per kWh decreased by about 9% between 2005 and 2010. Utility- specific and year -
specific CO2 emission factors came from PG &E while California grid average N2O and CH4 year -
specific factors provided by the CEC and reported in the LGOP were used for each inventory.
Vehicle Fleet
New Emission Sources
The 2010 inventory included emissions from the City's contracted waste hauler and maintenance services
and gasoline vehicles, which were not included in 2005. These additional sources contributed 10% to total
2010 vehicle fleet emissions.
Calculation Methods
Calculation methods were similar for both inventory years. CACP was used to calculate emissions, and in
some cases, used a default fuel efficiency to convert fuel use to VMT by vehicle type.
Emissions Factors and Activity
Activity data (VMT) changed by 153% between 2005 and 2010 —more than any other sector but waste.
Along with a few new fuel types and vehicle fleet categories, contracted City services for waste and
maintenance services were included in the 2010 inventory, which were left out of the 2005 inventory.
VMT from staff reimbursements and emissions from waste hauling are also new in the 2010 inventory.
Waste
New Emission Sources
Methods are consistent between 2005 and 2010.
Calculation Methods
Waste calculations were completed using CACP after total waste was organized into waste types. Data -
gathering processes were improved for the 2010 GHG inventory. Staff has concluded that the data
gathering methods were incomplete for 2005, which resulted in the numbers being underreported for that
year.
Emission Factors and Activity Data
Emission factors for waste remained constant between 2005 and 2010.
8. Community Forecast Indicators
The original forecast estimates 2020 emissions in four categories: residential energy use,
commercial/industrial energy use, on -road transportation, and solid waste. Emissions from municipal
operations were not forecasted, and were included as part of these categories (i.e., commercial/industrial
energy use includes GHG emissions from energy use at City-owned buildings). These emissions were
calculated using three indicators: population, employment, and statewide VMT. Population was used to
forecast residential energy use and solid waste; employment was used to forecast commercial/industrial
energy use; and statewide VMT was used to forecast transportation emissions. For example, using
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) population estimates for 2005 and projections for 2020,
the original forecast assumed that population would grow at 3.04 %, compounded annually. Thus, GHG
emissions from residential energy use were projected to grow at the same rate.
10
Using employment to forecast commercial/industrial energy use allows for an accurate projection that is
also simple to replicate, assuming no substantial change in the types of commercial and industrial
activities occurring in Dublin. For other sectors, the updated forecast uses different indicators than does
the original forecast, as discussed below.
For residential energy use, the number of households is used rather than population. Residential energy
use tends to be more strongly linked to the number of homes in a community, rather than how many
people live in a home. For example, it takes about as much energy to heat a house with one resident as a
house with five residents, and a television uses the same amount of electricity regardless of how many
people are watching it. While population growth rates and numbers of households tend to be similar,
using households is generally more accurate.
The original forecast used statewide VMT forecasts, assuming a high fuel -cost scenario. Given
considerable differences in driving patterns throughout the state, statewide trends may not apply to
Dublin. While 2020 VMT forecasts specifically calculated for Dublin would be the most accurate
indicator, these figures were not available at time of writing. Therefore, VMT growth projections for
Alameda County, as calculated by the MTC, were used.
Population is not an ideal indicator to forecast changes in the amount of solid waste generated and
disposed in landfills, as it would omit solid waste from commercial and industrial activities. A better
indicator is service population (the sum of the number of residents and the number of employees in
Dublin). Using service population allows the forecast to include changes in solid waste generated from
both residential and nonresidential sources.
The updated inventory also includes two sectors that were not part of the original inventory: emissions
from wastewater treatment, and indirect electricity emissions from water and wastewater. These activities
vary with both population and employment, making service population an appropriate indicator.
Additionally, four activities were added to the transportation sector: wheel and bus electricity use, wheel
and bus liquefied natural gas (LNG) use, travel on the BART system, and direct off -road emissions. VMT
is an appropriate indicator for wheel and bus electricity and LNG use, as these on -road activities generally
correlate to the amount of traffic generated by residential and employment uses. Projected ridership for
individual BART stations is not available; therefore, the expected increase in BART system -wide
ridership was used to forecast BART emissions. Direct off -road emissions occurring as part of
construction activities and through use of landscaping /gardening equipment can be modeled using
anticipated household growth.
M
Appendix C: Transit Oriented Development Memo
fol
I E'l R & PFER:S
IRAN POR TAT ➢ON (IONS I,I U. VAN V,y
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 30, 2009
To: Jaimee Bourgeois, City of Dublin
From: Kathrin Tellez and Rob Rees, Fehr & Peers
Subject: City of Dublin Transit Oriented 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.
Traffic 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
Jaimee Bourgeois
July 30, 2009
Page 2 of 4
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
walkshed coverage could be achieved for parcels east of Dougherty Road, between Dublin
Boulevard and 1 -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. Trip 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, 8t" 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 walking, 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 'h 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 1 -680 (a ten lane freeway).
1 Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 11, No. 3, 2008
Jaimee Bourgeois
July 30, 2009
Page 3 of 4
Using the 2000 Bay Area Transportation Survey (BATS), Fehr & Peers compared the number of
automobile trips taken by residents within a 'h 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 'h 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 'h 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.
'Ke] ► [� 3 RUE:] f C► 6-T_ 1► I I] N Xd0] L Y i I L Y i I�► I By-A% 1101 ► 6' ?
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 '/2 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
Fehr & Peers expects that as the Dublin TOD areas fully develop and become established that
vehicle trip reductions approaching those measured 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.
N—
�+ p w
a C0 LL
CL
a J
LL Q
R
E z
c 0
O
O
M
V!
R z
F- 0
O ~
F- z
C_ ''Q^^
� vI
7 Q
W
J
CL
z
J
m
D
d-,
a
w�
w
�z
o
u a
Z
>Y
O N
%'" N CO
w
E
tq
tq
d
tq
tq
Q
N
Gl
LL
V
C.
C
O
m
r-
0
O.
V!
C
L
0
O
C
0
0
N
O
F—
J
LQ
r
Z
W
vI
W
O
''LL
V/
W
Z
O
N
Z
O
F-
LU
w
CL
w
JFn
O
O
H
Q
d-,
a
C
Z O
X
� a
0) (D
cn p N
> N W
11 -
Appendix D: Emissions Reduction Calculations and
Assumptions
Local Measures:
2020
% of 2020
Local Measure
Reduction
Local
Assumptions
Data Sources
(MTCOze)
Reductions
Transportation and Land Use Measures
A. L 1
Transit - oriented, high- density, and mixed-
8,380
22%
25% reduction in per-
Communication
A.1.2
use development
household VMT for
with City staff
A.1.3
each new transit-
Downtown
oriented unit
Dublin Specific
Plan
City of Dublin
2009— 2014
Housing
Element
Fehr & Peers, as
cited in Dublin
2010 CAP
A.1.4
Bicycle parking requirements and
950
2%
0.625% reduction in
California Air
A. L 10
Bikeways Master Plan
VMT from bicycle
Pollution
parking
Control Officers
Association:
Quantifying
Greenhouse Gas
Mitigation
Measures
A.1.5
Streetscape Master Plan
1,530
4%
1% reduction in VMT
Urban Land
from the creation of a
Institute:
Streetscape Master
Growing
Plan
Cooler, as cited
in Dublin 2010
CAP
A.1.6
Multimodal map
1,140
3%
0.75% reduction in
Center for Clean
VMT from a
Air Policy:
multimodal map
CCAP
Transportation
Emissions
Guidebook
A.1.7
Electric vehicle (EV) charging station at
90
<1%
0.33 kWh per EV
Communication
the library
mile. Increase in EV
with City staff
adoption of 860% by
Idaho National
2020.
Laboratory:
Comparing
Energy Costs
per Mile for
Electric and
Gasoline- Fueled
Vehicles
California
Local Measure
A.1.8 General Plan Community Design and
Sustainability Element
A.1.9 Work with Livermore Amador Valley
Transit ( LAVTA) to improve transit and
implement Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
A.1.11 1 West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station
2020 % of 2020
Reduction Local
(MTCOze) Reductions
Supportive -
1,210 3%
10,980
28%
Assumptions
1% improvement in
transit, resulting in a
0.5% reduction in
VMT. 1 BRT route
out of 17 in the
LAVTA system
13% increase in
BART ridership by
2020
Data Sources
Energy
Commission:
California
Energy Demand
2012-2022
Final Forecast
Center for Clean
Air Policy:
CCAP
Transportation
Emissions
Guidebook
Livermore
Amador Valley
Transit
Authority:
Rapid, Local,
and Express
Routes
City of Dublin
2010 CAP
BART: April
2013 Monthly
Ridership
Report
BART: Carbon
Calculator
BART:
Greenhouse Gas
Inventory
BART: Short -
Range Transit
Plan & Capital
Improvement
Program
A.1.12
City Design Strategy
Supportive
-
Energy Measures
A.2.1
Green Building Ordinance
1,110
3%
15% improvement
Communication
over Title 24
with City staff
standards from
California Air
building to
Pollution
GreenPoint or LEED.
Control Officers
Association:
Quantifying
Greenhouse Gas
Mitigation
Measures
City of Dublin
2009-2014
Housing
Element
2
2020
% of 2020
Local Measure
Reduction
Local
Assumptions
Data Sources
(MTCOze)
Reductions
A.2.2
Energy Upgrade California
1,610
4%
7% participation rate.
City of Dublin
40% reduction in
2010 CAP
energy use for
participating
households
A.2.3
Rooftop solar
9,180
24%
5% city-wide
Communication
A.2.4
participation rate
with City staff
National
Renewable
Energy
Laboratory:
PVWatts Grid
Data Calculator
A.2.5
LED streetlight specifications for new
Existing
--
projects
LEDs-
Included in
B.2.3
Future
LEDs -
Supportive
A.2.6
California Youth Energy Services Program
80
<1%
5% participation rate
Rising Sun
5% reduction in
Energy Center:
electricity use and
California Youth
1.5% reduction in
Energy Services
natural gas use for
participating
households
A.2.7
Green Shamrock Program
Supportive -
A.2.8
Direct Commercial Energy Outreach
640
2%
Communications
with City staff
East Bay Energy
Watch: Activity
Report (2010 —
2012 Program
Cycle), City of
Dublin, CA
A.2.9
Behavioral Energy Change
180
<1%
10% participation
Bonneville
rate. 2.5% reduction
Power
in electricity and
Administration:
natural gas use among
Residential
participating
Behavior -Based
households
Energy
Efficiency
Program
Profiles
Solid Waste and Recycling Measures
A.3.1
Increased waste diversion rate
1,270
3%
Communication
A.3.2
with City staff
A.3.3
A.3.4
A.3.5
A.3.6
2020
% of 2020
Local Measure
Reduction
Local
Assumptions
Data Sources
(MTCOze)
Reductions
A.3.7
A.3.8
A.3.9
A.3.10
Municipal Operations Transportation and Land Use Measures
B.1.1
City hybrid vehicles
Supportive
B.I.2
Commute alternative program
Supportive -
B.I.3
Green Fleet Policy for City vehicles
Supportive -
Municipal Operations Energy Measures
B.2.1
LEED Silver requirement for new City
Supportive -
buildings over $3 million
B.2.2
Window film on the Civic Center
Supportive -
B.2.3
LED park lights
20
<1%
LEDs use 20% of the
Communication
energy as metal halide
with City staff
bulbs.
Pacific Gas and
Lights are on 365
Electric
days a year for an
Company:
average of 12 hours.
Analysis of
Standard
Options for
Metal Halide
Lamps and
Fixtures
California
Energy
Commission's
Public Interest
Energy Research
Program: Bi-
level LED Post
Top Luminaires
B.2.4
Adopted municipal energy action plan
550
1%
City of Dublin
Municipal
Energy Action
Plan
Municipal Operations Solid Waste and Recycling Measures
B.3.1
I Bay- friendly landscaping policy
Supportive -
Public Outreach Programs
C.1
Great Race for Clean Air
Supportive -
C.2
Walk n' Roll to School
Supportive -
C.3
Work with schools on "Go Green"
Supportive -
recycling and composting
CA
AVI waste reduction educational programs
Supportive -
C.5
Promote bike to work day
Supportive-
State Measures:
2020
% of 2020
State Measure
Local Measure
Reduction
Local
Assumptions
Data Sources
(MTCOze)
Reductions
A.1
California Global Warming Solutions Act
C.6
Outreach at Dublin Farmer's Market
Supportive -
Total
38,920
100%
State Measures:
2020
State Measure
Reduction
Assumptions
Data Sources
(MTCOze)
State Climate Change Planning
A.1
California Global Warming Solutions Act
Supportive
(AB 32)
A.2
Executive Order S -13 -08 and the
Supportive
California Climate Adaptation Strategy
A.3
Senate Bill 732 — California Strategic
Supportive
Growth Council
Energy
B.1
Senate Bill 1078, Senate Bill 107, and
7,720
28% of electricity from
California Public Utilities
Executive Order S -14 -08 — Renewables
renewable sources in
Commission: 2009 Percent
Portfolio Standard
2020
RPS Implementation Analysis —
Interim Report
California Public Utilities
Commission: California
Renewable Portfolio Standard
B.2
Executive Order S -20 -04 — Energy
Supportive
Efficiency in State Buildings
B.3
California Building Code, Title 24 —
2,600
Future updates to Title
California Energy
Energy Efficiency Standards
24 achieve 70% of the
Commission: Impact Analysis
energy savings from the
— 2008 Update to the
2008 standards
California Energy Efficiency
Standards for Residential and
Nonresidential Buildings
California Energy
Commission: 2009 California
Residential Appliance
Saturation Study
Transportation and Land Use
C.1
Assembly Bill 1493 — Vehicle Fuel
53,140
Full implementation of
California Air Resources
C.2
Efficiency ( Pavley) Standards, and
the Pavley standards.
Board: Emissions Factor
Executive Order S -01 -07 — Low Carbon
10% reduction in carbon
2011 Model Software
Fuel Standard
intensity from the Low
California Air Resources
Carbon Fuel Standard
Board: Clean Car Standards
California Air Resources
Board: Pavley I and Low
Carbon Fuel Standard
Postprocessor Version 1.0
C.3
Senate Bill 375
Supportive
Total
63,460
Appendix E: Applicability of GHG Emissions
Reduction Measures to New Development
Measure Number and Title Residential Commercial
A. Community-wide Measures
A.1. Transportation and Land Use Measures
A.1.1. Transit - Oriented Development'
X
A.1.2. High - Density Development
X
A.1.3. Mixed -Use Development
X
A.1.4. Bicycle Parking Requirements z
X
X
A.1.5. Streetscape Master Plan
X
X
A.1.6. Multi -Modal Map
A.1.7. Electric and Plug In -Hybrid Charging Stations at the
Library
A.1.8. General Plan Community Design and Sustainability
Element
X
X
A.1.9. Work with LAVTA to Improve Transit 3
X
X
A.1.10. Bikeways Master Plan
A.1.11. West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station
A.1.12. City Design Strategy 4
X
X
A.2. Energy Measures
A.2.L Green Building Ordinance 5
X
A.2.2. Energy Upgrade California
A.2.3. Solar Conversion Programs
A.2.4. Reduce Solar Installation Permit Fee
A.2.5. LED Streetlight Specifications for New Projects
X
X
A.2.6. California Youth Energy Services Program
A.2.7. Implementation of Green Shamrock Program
A.2.8. Direct Commercial Energy Outreach
A.3. Solid Waste and Recycling Measures
A.3.1. Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance
X
X
A.3.2. Citywide Diversion Goal of 75%
A.3.3. Tiered Rate Structure for Garbage and Recycling
A.3.4. Commercial Recycling Program
A.3.5. Commercial Food Waste Collection Program
A.3.6. Promote Commercial Recycling
A.3.7. Promote Multi - family Recycling
A.3.8. Curbside Residential Recycling Program
A.3.9. Curbside Organics Collection Program
A.3.10. Reusable Bag Ordinance
- 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.
—The bicycle parking requirement for residential projects applies only to multi - family complexes.
s — 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 City Design Strategy applies to new residential and commercial projects when a General Plan or Specific
Plan Amendment is required.
s - The Green Building Ordinance applies to residential projects with 20 or more units.
City of Dublin
Draft Climate Action Plan Errata
September 4, 2013
Page 9
On March 5, 2012, the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the BAAQMD had
failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the thresholds. The court did not determine whether the
thresholds were valid on the merits, but found that the adoption of the thresholds was a project under
CEQA. The court issued a writ of mandate ordering the BAAQMD to set aside the thresholds and cease
dissemination of them until the BAAQMD had complied with CEQA. The BAAQMD appealed the ruling,
and on August 13, 2013, has appealed the California First District Court of Appeal reversed the Alameda
County Superior Court's decision_. The appeal is ntly pending On the GeuF+ of Appeal of the State of
the meFits, The
City as a lead agency r^prelies on the substantial evidence based on statewide data and
analysis relative to AB 32 that underlie the june 2010 BAAQMD thresholds in making a an independep+
determination of significance of plan -level GHG impacts p,,FsuaR++„ St-ate
199641.7(6).
Page 15
Emissions by Sector
The Dublin community emitted approximately 328,155 MTCO2e in the year 2010. As visible in Figure 1
above and Tables 1 and 2 below, vehicles on roads and highways in Dublin are by far the largest sources
of Dublin's community emissions (62.2 %). Emissions from the built environment (e.g., residential and
commercial /industrial sectors) account collectively for t about one -third (35.4 %) of community
emissions. The rest of Dublin's emissions are from wastewater transport to treatment facilities and waste
sent to landfills (2.4 %) by Dublin residents and businesses.
TABLE 1: COMMUNITY GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY SECTOR (MTCO2e)
[TABLE]
Stationary source emissions within Dublin are excluded from the inventory due to their low contribution
to community emissions, or because they are captured elsewhere in the inventory. Stationary sources
within Dublin are permitted by the BAAQMD and represent less than 1% of the inventory total presented
above. includine activities such as such as diesel eauioment at facilities and buildines and vehicle miles
traveled.
Transportation
Exhibit B of Attachment 1
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
Staff Proposed Changes and Errata to Draft CAP
Page 23
Like most jurisdictions in the San Francisco Bay Area, the majority of Dublin's community emissions are
from the transportation sector. As Table 1 and Figure 1 show, nearly two - thirds (62.2 %) of Dublin's
estimated emissions came from the transportation sector, with overall emissions from the sector totaling
204,151 F•^sMT -0O2e.
The transportation sector analysis includes emissions from 41-vehicles using ATC's utrip generation
model, which assi or end in the city, and 100%
of the VMT trips that begin and end in the city. "`*•' beund^"`^" (whetheF en l, eal re-ads er tale highways
passing thFeugh Dublin's ; ffisdietie -The transportation sector also includes as well as off-road vehicles--.
delffitOR -A ,' tr-an peFt Lien eapt, Fes inelude and an apportioned amount of emissions generated by the
City's use of the BART passenger rail service.
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 emissions 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 15%
below 2010 levels by 2020. By using 2010 GHG emission levels, the target is based on more reliable data
that includes sectors not captured in the 2005 inventory. To reach this target, the Dublin community must
reduce annual emissions by about 102,380 MTCO2e from 2010 levels, which includes both the state
reductions and CAP measures (see Table 11).
TABLE 11— DUBLIN COMMUNITY -WIDE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
[TABLE]
Further, the City of Dublin's CAP is designed to meet or exceed the goals of AB 32. Generally, the AB 32
goal refers to a 15% reduction below baseline levels, and the BAAQMD plan -level thresholds of
significance identifies a baseline year from 2005 -2008 to be an acceptable baseline. The intent of AB 32 is
to reduce mass emissions, consistent with these baseline years. The City has determined that emissions in
2010 were not substantially different than emissions in 2008, and that a reduction target of 15% below
2010 emissions levels would meet similar goals. Estimates from the California Department of Finance
indicate a slight increase in population and housing in Dublin since 2005, with 2010 residents and housing
lust 3% above 2008 levels. Although the City experienced significant growth during the 2005 -2008
timeframe, growth has slowed following the recession, as shown in Table 12 below. Thus, the 2010
inventory allows provides a more conservative analysis that likely overinflates emissions above 2005 —
2008 levels, resulting in a larger absolute amount of reductions that the City must reduce. The 2010
inventory also provides a more complete inventory, capturing additional sectors (e.g., BART) that lack
comparable data for the 2005 — 2008 timeframe. A complete 2010 inventory allows the City to create a
comprehensive baseline and forecast accounting for all emissions - generating activities within the
community, consistent with the intent of AB 32.
2
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
Staff Proposed Changes and Errata to Draft CAP
TABLE 12 — COMPARISON OF SELECT EMISSIONS INDICATORS, 2005 -2010
Emissions
Indicator
2005
2008
2010
%Change,
2005 -2010
% Change,
2008 -2010
Population
38.147
44.321
45.681
20%
3%
Housing
13.105
15.280
15.782
20%
3%
Sources:
1. State of California, Department of Finance, E -4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2001-
2010, with 2000 & 2010 Census Counts. Sacramento, California, November 2012
2. State of California, Department of Finance, E -8 Historical Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties,
and the State, 2000 -2010. Sacramento, California, November 2012
To further demonstrate the City's commitment to the goals of AB 32, the City's CAP achieves the
BAAQMD's plan -level GHG efficiency -based metric of 6.6 MTCO2e 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 13 below, the City of Dublin's measures achieve both the 15% reduction target and the BAAQMD
efficiency metric. The City will be growing over the 10 -year period covered by the CAP Update, but during
this same time, the City's GHG emissions will be decreasing on a per - individual basis. While this CAP
identifies a 2020 reduction target. Executive Order 5 -3 -05 identifies a state target of 80% below 1990
emissions levels by 2050. Dublin's CAP identifies a near -term, strategic 2020 target as a first step to
support longer -term reductions consistent with the state's 2050 goals.
Page 24 and subsequent pages
Page 25
Renumber Table 12 and all subsequent tables to reflect the renumbering of current Table 12 to Table 13,
and insertion of a new Table 12, as summarized above.
A top -down 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 kWh, this can be converted to GHG emissions reductions using an emissions factor for
electricity generation. Mewever, it is tip-al that the ass, imed ^Adjusted emissions factors "^ ti
fag;t ,.- that ,. ag „gM were developed by accounting for the effects of State actions on the adjusted
forecast, recognizing that by 2020, California will achieve lower emissions rates for each unit of energy or
transportation based on the implementation of State programs. The adjusted emissions factors are then
used to calculate the emissions reductions anticipated for each measure, ensuring that reduction
measures do not double -count the effects of state actions. to ealeulate the r -ur- ,,,.,..;ss;ens inventeF„
Page 1, Appendix D
Complete the following edits to the "Data Sources" column, as indicated below:
• Measures A.1.1, A.1.2, A.1.3:
Communication with City staff
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
City of Dublin 2009 — 2014 Housing Element
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
Staff Proposed Changes and Errata to Draft CAP
Fehr & Peers (2009), as ^;+„d On I)uhl;n 201A GA
• Measure A.1.5:
Urban Land Institute: Growing Cooler. ISBN: 978 -0- 87420 - 082 -2. Washington, DC (2008)
• Measure A.1.9:
Center for Clean Air Policy: CCAP Transportation Emissions Guidebook
Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority: Rapid, Local, and Express Routes
City of P611i0; 2010 rno
• Measure A.2.2:
G 0 t Y ,f I)U-h10A 2QIn rno
California Public Utilities Commission. Energy Upgrade California: Alameda County.
https: / /energyuPgradeca.org /county /aIameda /about overview.
4
RESOLUTION NO. XX -13
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE
CITY OF DUBLIN CLIMATE ACTION PLAN UPDATE
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, under CEQA 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 the basis for determining that the
project would have a less than significant impact on a community's cumulative GHG emissions
under CEQA; and
WHEREAS, on November 16, 2010, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution 167 -10
approving the City of Dublin Climate Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, an update to the City's Climate Action Plan is a City Council key initiative for
FY 13 -14; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has contracted with PMC to assist Staff in preparing the
Climate Action Plan Update; 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, an Initial Study was prepared for the Climate Action Plan Update; and
WHEREAS, upon completion of the Initial Study it was determined that there was no
substantial evidence that the Climate Action Plan Update would have a significant adverse
effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration should be prepared; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study /Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for public
review from July 26, 2013 through August 26, 2013; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin received three comment letters during the public review
period, but only one letter (the letter from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District dated
September 5, 2013) raised concerns; and
Attachment 2
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin is proposing minor modifications to the Climate Action
Plan Update to address the concerns outlined in the BAAQMD letter dated September 5, 2013;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the
Climate Action Plan Update and Negative Declaration on September 24, 2013 and adopted
Resolution 13 -30 recommending that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Climate Action
Plan Update and Negative Declaration on October 15, 2013; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the City Council adopt the
Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did review and consider the Initial Study /Negative
Declaration and related comments and responses, all said reports, recommendations and
testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the Negative
Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents or other material which
constitute the record of proceedings for the Climate Action Plan Update is the City of Dublin City
Manager's Office, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568, Attn: Martha Aja.
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 adopt the
Negative Declaration attached as Exhibit A to Attachment 2, based on the following findings:
1. The City Council considered the Negative Declaration together with the comments
received during the public review process prior to taking action on the Climate Action Plan
Update.
2. The City Council finds on the basis of the whole record before it that there is no
substantial evidence that the Climate Action Plan Update will have a significant effect on the
environment.
3. The Negative Declaration reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis as to
the potential environmental effects of the Climate Action Plan Update.
4. The Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the
CEQA Guidelines.
2of3
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of October 2013 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
M: I CAP Update EC CC Hearing.10.15.131 CC Reso Neg Dec. doc
Mayor
3 of 3
Public Review Draft
Initial Study/ Negative Declaration for the
City of Dublin
Climate Action Plan Update
July 2013
Exhibit A of Attachment 2
Table of Contents
Introduction....................................................................................... ...............................
3
Contact Person & Sponsor ................................................................. ..............................3
Project Location and Context ............................................................. ..............................3
Project Background .................................................. ..............................4
ProjectDescription ............................................................................. ..............................6
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .......... ......................................... .................
I 1
Determination..................................................................................... .............................11
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ................................................. .............................12
EarlierAnalyses .................................................................................. .............................13
Discussionof Checklist ....................................................................... .............................25
1. Aesthetics .................................................................... .............................25
2. Agricultural Resources ................................................ .............................26
3. Air Quality .................................................................. .............................26
4. Biological Resources ................................................... .............................27
5. Cultural Resources ...................................................... .............................28
6. Geology and Soils ....................................................... .............................28
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................... .............................29
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................... .............................29
9. Hydrology and Water Quality ..................................... .............................30
10. Land Use and Planning ............................................... .............................31
11. Mineral Resources ...................................................... .............................32
12. Noise ............... ........................................................ .............................32
13. Population and Housing .............................................. .............................34
14. Public Services ............................................................ .............................34
15. Recreation ................................................................... .............................35
16. Transportation / Traffic ................................................. .............................35
17. Utilities and Service Systems ...................................... .............................36
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................... .............................37
InitialStudy Preparers ......................................................................... .............................38
Agencies and Organizations Consulted .............................................. .............................38
References.......................................................................................... ..............................3
9
Negative Declaration ................................................. .............................40
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Regional Context .............................................................. ..............................9
Exhibit 2: City of Dublin Context ....................................................... .............................10
City of Dublin Page 2
Initial Study /Climate Action Plan Update July 2013
Introduction
The City of Dublin prepared a proposed update to its existing Climate Action Plan (CAP
Update) using input from City staff and consultants. This Initial Study has been prepared in
accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
assesses the potential environmental impacts of implementing the proposed project described
below. The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief
explanation of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist.
Project Sponsor & Contact Person
City of Dublin
City Manager's Office /Environmental Services
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
(925) 833 -6650
Attn: Roger Bradley, Assistant to the City Manager
Project Location and Context
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 San Ramon and unincorporated Contra Costa County to the
north, unincorporated Alameda County to the east and west and the 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 that 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 two existing Dublin/Pleasanton stations.
Exhibit 1 shows the location of Dublin in relation to surrounding communities and other
major features. Exhibit 2 shows the City of Dublin, including the freeways and major
roadways.
Topographically, the community is generally flat north of the Interstate 580 corridor,
transitioning to rolling hillsides in the northern and western portions of Dublin.
Major land uses comprising Dublin include the older commercial downtown area north of the
Interstate 580 freeway generally located between San Ramon Road and Village Parkway with
predominantly low density, single family dwellings surrounding the downtown area.
City of Dublin
Initial Study /Climate Action Plan Update
Page 3
July 2013
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 approximately 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 unincorporated Doolan Canyon area. Eastern
Dublin has been urbanizing since adoption of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
and Specific Plan in 1993 and the area now contains a mix of single - family dwellings,
multiple - family dwellings, commercial and government facility land uses. Completion of the
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station facilitated development of high - density housing complexes
in this portion of Dublin.
Project Background
California has adopted a wide variety of regulations aimed at reducing the State's greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions. While State actions alone cannot stop global warming, the adoption
and implementation of this legislation demonstrates California's leadership in addressing this
critical challenge. Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of
2006, requires California to reduce Statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32
directs the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to develop and implement regulations that
reduce statewide GHG emissions. The Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) was
approved by ARB in December 2008 and outlines the State's plan to achieve the GHG
reductions required in AB 32. The Scoping Plan contains the primary strategies California
will implement to achieve a reduction of 169 million metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent (MMT CO2e), or approximately 30% from the State's projected 2020 emissions
level. The Scoping Plan is a functionally equivalent document prepared under CEQA by
ARB which meets the criteria for a certified regulatory program. The potential adverse
environmental effects and identified mitigation measures of the actions in the Scoping Plan
are set forth in Appendix J of the Scoping Plan.
In the Scoping Plan, ARB encourages local governments to adopt a reduction goal for
municipal operations emission and to move forward with establishing similar goals for
community emissions, which parallel the State's commitment to reduce GHG emissions. The
specific role local governments will play in meeting the State's AB 32 goals is not
established in the Scoping Plan.
Dublin adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2010. Dublin's CAP articulates the City's
intentions with respect to reducing community -wide GHG emissions to further the goals of
AB 32. The City's CAP includes a variety of strategies and policies to reduce GHG emissions
within the community. The various reduction measures contained within the CAP have been
separated into the following categories: transportation and land use measures, energy
measures and solid waste and recycling measures. A program or project would be considered--,
consistent with the CAP if, considering all of its aspects, it would substantially comply with
the applicable measures set forth within the CAP and not obstruct their attainment. The City
is now proposing to update the existing CAP, as further described below.
City of Dublin Page 4
Initial Study /Climate Action Plan Update July 2013
CEQA allows cities to develop climate action or GHG reduction plans to provide
programmatic analysis of the cumulative impacts of GHG emissions for future projects in the
City. CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 authorizes the use of these Plans for the analysis of
the cumulative impacts of projects consistent with the Plan. The BAAQMD adopted CEQA
Guidelines and Significance Thresholds for GHGs also authorize the use of these Plans for
CEQA review of future projects.
On March 5, 2012, the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the
Air District had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the thresholds. The court did
not determine whether the thresholds were valid on the merits, but found that the adoption of
the thresholds was a project under CEQA. The court issued a writ of mandate ordering the
BAAQMD to set aside the thresholds and cease dissemination of them until the Air District
had complied with CEQA. The BAAQMD has appealed the Alameda County Superior
Court's decision. The appeal is currently pending in the Court of Appeal of the State of
California, First Appellate District. In view of the court's order, the BAAQMD is no longer
recommending that the thresholds be used as a generally applicable measure of a project's
significant air quality impacts. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7 (Thresholds of
Significance) the City of Dublin will nonetheless exercise its own discretion to rely on the
thresholds within Options and Justifications Report (dated October 2009) prepared by the
BAAQMD. The BAAQMD Options and Justifications Report establishes thresholds based
on substantial evidence and are consistent with the thresholds outlined within the 2010
CEQA Air Quality Guidelines,
The existing CAP, as updated, would continue to serve as the City's qualified GHG
Reduction Plan and programmatic tiering document for the purposes of 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 (i.e., the project will not make a cumulatively considerable
contribution to a significant cumulative impact). The substantial evidence to support this
determination is set forth in the CAP Update, documents referenced in the Update, this
ISIND, and other parts of the record relating to the adoption of the CAP Update. Therefore,
this Plan may be used for the cumulative impact analysis for future projects and development
in the City covered by the Plan. Because the updated CAP has undergone CEQA
environmental review and is intended to reduce GHG emissions and climate change impacts
in the City to a less than cumulatively considerable level, it may be relied upon to address the
cumulative impacts for future projects consistent with the updated CAP. This approach is
consistent with Public Resources Code 21083.3, CEQA Sections 15183.5, 15064 and 15130
and the 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. If a proposed
project is consistent with the applicable emission reduction measures identified in the
updated 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 --
greenhouse gas emissions and climate change consistent with CEQA.
City of Dublin Page 5
Initial Study /Climate Action Plan Update .July 2013
Project Description
The proposed project is the adoption of the CAP Update, dated July 2013 and incorporated
herein by reference (hereafter CAP Update or Project). Like the existing CAP, the CAP Update is
a document that provides policies and measures aimed at reducing GHG emissions within the
City. The goal of the CAP Update is to reduce Dublin's community -wide GHG emissions by
15% below the 2010 inventory levels by 2020. Under the CAP Update, emissions would be
reduced to approximately 17% below 2010 levels by 2020, which results in an efficiency level of
3.2 MT CO2e per service population per year in 2020. The CAP Update describes baseline GHG
emissions produced in Dublin, and projects GHG emissions that could be expected if the CAP
Update is not implemented. The City expects the reduction goal to be achieved through a
combination of efforts at the local, regional and State levels. The reduction measures included
within the CAP as updated, which contribute to the City's reduction goal, include locally- focused
activities as well as regional and State initiatives under the Scoping Plan, such as the Renewable
Portfolio Standard, and implementation of other recent State legislation. The City considers
regional efforts as well as the implementation of State legislation to be a significant contributor
to GHG reductions within the community as a significant portion of the City's GHG emissions
come from State - controlled freeways, which cross or border the Dublin community.
Emission Inventory, Baseline and Projections
Chapter II of the CAP Update, "Emission Inventory," presents a GHG emissions inventory for
2010, which includes an inventory of both community level and municipal level emissions. The
community emissions inventory includes sources of GHG emitted from the residential,
commercial /industrial, transportation and waste sectors. The municipal emissions inventory
includes those sources that fall under the direct jurisdictional control of the City of Dublin
Municipal Corporation, which includes City facilities, the City's vehicle fleet, public lighting,
municipal water consumption and municipal solid waste generation. The emission inventory was
developed by the City in collaboration with StopWaste and PG &E using Clean Air and Climate
Protection (CACP) software. Total community -wide emissions were determined to be 328,155
metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents in 2010. Government - related emissions were estimated
to be 2,343 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents in 2010.
Chapter III of the CAP Update, "Forecast for Greenhouse Gas Emissions," includes projections
of emissions in 2020. Under a business -as -usual scenario, it is estimated that the City of Dublin's
emissions will grow over the next decade by approximately 14% from 328,155 to 374,790 metric
tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. Dublin's GHG reduction goal is 15% below 2010 levels by
2020. In other terms, the City projects that emission reduction measures contained within the
CAP Update will lower the projected GHG emissions from 2020 from 328,155 metric tons of
carbon dioxide to 272,410 metric tons of carbon dioxide, an approximately 17% reduction from
2010 levels. While the City expects significant residential, commercial and industrial growth
through 2020, the total amount of GHGs emitted within the community will not be increasing
significantly. The impact of the emission reduction measures within the CAP Update is also
demonstrated by comparing per service population emissions (population + employment), which
decreases from 5.04 tons per service population in 2010 to 3.2 tons per service population using
the projections for 2020, which represents a 17% decrease in GHG emissions between the base
year (2010) and forecast year (2020). Thus, the City will be growing significantly over the 10-
City of Dublin Page 6
Initial Study /Climate Action Plan Update July 2013
year period covered by the CAP Update, but during this same time, the City's GHG emissions
will be decreasing significantly on a per service population basis.
Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Measures
The CAP Update identifies a variety of measures that contribute to the achievement of the City's
GHG reduction target. The inclusion of quantifiable GHG reduction measures is the primary
focus of the CAP and the proposed Update, with the anticipated emissions reduction of each
measure in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent being used to contribute to the overall City
GHG reduction goal relative to 2020. Measures that would aid in reducing GHG emissions, but
which are not or cannot be quantified, are also included in the CAP and carried forward in the
Update, and will result in GHG reductions beyond those included in the reductions calculation.
The various GHG reduction measures are organized into three categories: transportation and land
use, energy (which includes both energy efficiency and renewable energy) and solid waste
management. These categories follow the major sources of emissions found in the City of Dublin
2010 GHG emissions inventory.
The City adopted an Initial Study/Negative Declaration in 2010 ( "2010 Negative Declaration ") as
part of its adoption of the CAP. Therefore, the environmental impacts of those local programs
that were included in the CAP and carried forward in the CAP Update were already analyzed in
the 2010 Negative Declaration and are not re- analyzed here. This initial Study/Negative
Declaration analyzes the local measures approved since 2010 that are included in the CAP
Update that were not included in the CAP. The local measures approved since 2010 are:
completion of the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station, adoption of the City Design Strategy,
LED Streetlight Specifications requirement for new projects, participation in the California
Youth Energy Services program, implementation of the Green Shamrock Program, Direct
Commercial Energy Outreach, behavioral energy change, participation in the Reusable Bag
Ordinance, adoption of a Green Fleet Policy for City Vehicles, implementation of Energy Action
Plan and conducting outreach at Dublin Farmer's Markets.
Results oflmplementation
Implementation of the measures in the CAP as updated would result in annual community -wide
GHG emission reductions of approximately 38,350 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. The
City - controlled measures include transportation and land use, energy measures and solid waste
and recycling measures. The municipal operations and public outreach programs are also
included as part of the City - controlled measures and result in an additional GHG emission
reductions of approximately 570 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. The measures outlined
in the CAP Update represent the City controlled emissions. Additionally, implementation of
statewide initiatives (Renewable Portfolio Standard, AB 1493 and Title 24) would result in
annual GHG emission reductions of an additional 63,460 metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent. The CAP Update measures combined with the statewide initiatives would reduce the
anticipated emissions in the community by 102,380 metric tons /year of carbon dioxide equivalent
and result in a reduction of 17% below 2010 levels during 2020. This reduction would achieve
the City's reduction goal of reducing GHG emission by 15% below 2010 levels by 2020 acid
results in an efficiency level of 3.2 MT COze per service population per year in 2020.
City of Dublin Page 7
Initial Study /Climate Action Plan Update July 2013
Potential Environmental Impacts
The overall purpose of the CAP Update is to reduce GHG emissions and the impacts that these
emissions will have on global climate change and, therefore, benefit the environment. Therefore,
it may not constitute a "project" under CEQA or it may qualify for an exemption under CEQA.
However, as with a proposal involving activities relating to development, implementation of the
local reduction measures approved since 2010 and included in the CAP Update theoretically
could potentially result in adverse impacts on the physical environment. Therefore, an Initial
Study is being prepared by the City pursuant to CEQA to evaluate whether there are any potential
adverse environmental impacts of implementing the local reduction measures approved since
2010 and included in the updated CAP. The environmental analysis of the CAP Update will only
focus on the new policies or changes in existing or adopted policies that will be implemented as a
result of the CAP Update. It will not analyze the impacts of existing or approved programs
included in the CAP Update, which have already undergone their own environmental review or
which were analyzed in the 2010 Negative Declaration. In particular, like the existing CAP, the
Update will not result in any change in land use or permit greater intensity of development than
already allowed under the existing City General Plan, Specific Plans and zoning. The
environmental impacts from these types of activities are already addressed by the CEQA
environmental review adopted by the City relating to these actions. This Initial Study includes an
analysis of each potential impact identified in the environmental checklist under Appendix G of
the State CEQA Guidelines beginning on page 15.
1. Project description: Adoption of the Climate Action Plan Update
2. Lead agency: City of Dublin
3. Contact persons: Roger Bradley, Assistant to the City Manager,
925- 833 -6650
4. Project location: City -wide
5. Project sponsor: City of Dublin
6. General Plan designation: Various
7. Zoning: Various
8. Other public agency required approvals:
None
City of Dublin Page 8
Initial Study /Climate Action Plan Update July 2013
Exhibit 1. Regional Context
San
Francisco
Pacific Ocean
City of Dublin Page 9
Initial Study /Climate Action Plan Update July 2013
8D
3
Antioch
29
Oaklan
project Site
Dublin
San
Frincisco
Tracy
Bay
84
Livermore
,
101
San
Jose
€85 .
9�
17�
101
Santa
Cruz
�?]
r52
City of Dublin Page 9
Initial Study /Climate Action Plan Update July 2013
Exhibit 2. City of Dublin context
P 2hY 0N
City of Dublin Page 10
Initial Study /Climate Action Plan Update July 2013
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
-
Aesthetics
-
Agricultural
-
Air Quality
Resources
-
Biological Resources
-
Cultural Resources
-
Geology /Soils
-
Greenhouse Gas
-
Hazards and
-
Hydrology /Water
Emissions
Hazardous Materials
Quality
-
Land Use/ Planning
-
Mineral Resources
-
Noise
-
Population/
-
Public Services
-
Recreation
Housing
-
Transportation/
-
Utilities /Service
-
Mandatory Findings
Circulation
Systems
of Significance
Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
X . I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the
environment and a Negative Declaration will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Mitigated
Negative Declaration will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project may have a significant effect on the
environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document
pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures
based on earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially
significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An Environmental Impact
Report is required, but must only analyze the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed project.
Signature: � Date:
Printed Name: ��J,-
city of uublin
Initial Study /Climate Action Plan Update
Page 11
July 2013
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parenthesis
following each question. A "no impact" answer is adequately supported if the
referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects
life the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "no impact"
answer should be explained where it is based on project - specific factors as well as
general factors (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based
on a project - specific screening analysis).
2) In some instances, an "LS, Less - than - Significant Impact" response may reflect that a
specific environmental topic has been analyzed in a previous CEQA document and
appropriate mitigation measures have been included in a previous CEQA document to
reduce this impact to a less - than - significant level. In a few instances, some previously
analyzed topics have been determined to be significant and unavoidable and mitigation
of such impact to a less - than - significant level is not feasible. In approving the previous
CEQA document, the City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
For existing or approved programs approved since 2010 and included in the proposed
CAP Update, the Update will not result in any change. Therefore, since such
environmental impacts have been adequately analyzed under prior adopted CEQA
environmental documents and the CAP Update will not result in any new impacts, no
further analysis of these impacts are required under this document.
3) All answers must take account of the whole action, including off -site as well as on -site,
cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well
as operational impacts.
4) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant. If there are one or more "potentially significant impact" entries
when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
5) "Negative Declaration: Less - Than - Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" implies
elsewhere the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from
"potentially significant effect" to a "less than significant impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less
than significant level.
Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See
listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist).
City of Dublin Page 12
Initial Study /Climate Action Plan Update July 2013
Earlier Analyses
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tiering, a program EIR, or other CEQA process,
one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration.
Reference CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c)(3)(d).
Portions of the environmental analysis for this Initial Study refer to information contained in one
or more of the CEQA documents listed below. This Initial Study will not analyze the impacts of
existing or approved programs included in the CAP Update which have already undergone their
own environmental review. The CAP Update does not propose any General Plan or applicable
Specific Plan land use changes, any rezoning of properties, or changes in the intensity or density
of development. The environmental impacts from these types of activities are already addressed
by the CEQA environmental review approved by the City relating to these actions. The
environmental analysis of the CAP Update will only focus on the new policies or changes in
policies that will be implemented as a result of the CAP Update.
• Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR (SCH # 91103064),
certified by City Council Resolution No. 51 -93 on May 10, 1993.
• Downtown Core Specific Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration, adopted by City Council
Resolution No. 226 -00 on December 19, 2000.
• West Dublin BART Specific Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration, adopted by City
Council Resolution No. 227 -00 on December 19, 2000.
• Dublin Transit Center Supplemental EIR (SCH # 20011200395), certified by City
Council Resolution No. 215 -02 on November 19, 2002.
• Dublin Ranch West Supplemental EIR (SCH # 2003022082), certified by City Council
Resolution No. 42 -05 on March 15, 2005.
• Fallon Village Project Supplemental EIR (SCH # 2005062010), certified by City Council
Resolution No. 225 -05 on December 6, 2005.
• Mission Peak/Fallon Crossing Mitigated Negative Declaration, adopted by City Council
Resolution No. 71 -06 on May 16, 2006.
• Vargas Project Mitigated Negative Declaration, adopted by City Council Resolution No.
57 -05 on May 1, 2007.
• Casamira Valley /Moller Ranch Supplemental EIR (SCH # 2005052146), certified by City
Council Resolution No. 56 -07 on May, 1 2007.
• City of Dublin Bikeways Master Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration, adopted by City
Council Resolution No. 133 -07 on July 17, 2007.
City of Dublin Page 13
Initial Study /Climate Action flan Update July 2013
® Community Design & Sustainability Element, determined exempt, adopted by City
Council Resolution No. 177 -08 on September 16, 2008.
® Multi Modal Map, determined exempt, adopted by City Council Resolution No. 84 -09 on
June 16, 2009.
® Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR (SCH #20100022005), certified by City Council
Resolution No. 08 -11 on February 1, 2011.
® Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy Amendments to the Community Design and
Sustainability Element, determined exempt, adopted by City Council Resolution No. 20-
12 on February 21, 2012.
• Revised Moller Ranch project Supplemental EIR (SCH #2005052146), certified by City
Council Resolution No. 209 -12 on December 18, 2012.
These documents are incorporated herein by reference and are available for public review at the
Dublin Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, during normal business hours.
All these documents are collectively referred to in this Initial Study as "Adopted CEQA
Documents."
City of Dublin Page 14
Initial Study /Climate Action Plan Update July 2013
Note: A full discussion of each item is found
following the checklist.
1. Aesthetics. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista? (Sources: 1 -9)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including
but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(Sources: 1 -9)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
(Sources: 1 -9)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area? (Sources: 1 -9)
2. Agricultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or
Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to a non -
agricultural use? (Sources: 1 -9)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use,
or a Williamson Act contract? (Sources: 1 -9)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of farmland to a non-
agricultural use? (Sources: 1 -9)
3. Air Quality (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management district may be relied on to make
the following determinations). Would the
project.•
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? (Sources: 1 -9)
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation? (Sources: 1 -9)
City of Dublin
Initial Study /Climate Action Plan Update
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less "Chan
Significant
With
Miti ation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 15
July 2013
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non - attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors?
(Sources: 1 -9)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? (Sources: 1 -9)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people? (Sources: 1 -9)
4. Biological Resources. Would the project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies
or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service? (Sources: 1 -9)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies or
regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service? (Sources: 1 -9)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including but not limited
to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption
or other means?
(Sources: 1 -9)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites? (Sources: 1 -9)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as tree
protection ordinances? (Sources: 1 -9)
City of Dublin
Initial Study /Climate Action Plan Update
Page 16
July 2013
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X�
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 16
July 2013
f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan or other approved local,
regional or state habitat conservation plan?
(Sources: 1 -9)
5. Cultural Resources. Would the project
a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the
significance of a historical resource as defined
in Sec. 15064.5? (Sources: 1 -9)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archeological resource
pursuant to Sec. 15064,5 (Sources: 1 -9)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource, site or unique geologic
feature? (Sources: 1 -9)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of a formal cemetery? (1 -9)
6. Geology and Soils. Would the project
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss; injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist or
based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault (1 -9)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking (Sources: 1 -9)
iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including
liquefaction? (Sources: 1 -9)
iv) Landslides? (Sources: 1 -9)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the Ioss of
topsoil? (Sources: 1 -9)
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project and potentially result in on-
or off -site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or similar hazards
(Sources: 1 -9)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
(Sources: 1 -9)
City of Dublin
Initial Study /Climate Action Plan Update
Page 17
July 2013
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.F._
Page 17
July 2013
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or Option wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater? (Sources: 1 -9)
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or
regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gasses?
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use
or disposal of hazardous materials?
(Sources: 1 -9)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment? (Sources: 1 -9)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
materials or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school? ((Sources: 1 -9)
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Sec. 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment? (Sources: 1 -9, 11)
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted
within two miles of a public airport of public use
airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (Sources: 1 -9)
f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
(Sources: 1 -9)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with the adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? (Sources: 1 -9)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin Page 18
Initial StudylClimate Action Plan Update July 2013
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands? (Sources: 1 -9)
9. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? (Sources: 1 -9)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate
of existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or
planned uses for which permits have been
granted? (Sources 1 -9)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off -site? (Sources: 1 -9)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or areas, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off -site? (Sources. 1 -9)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff'? (Sources: 1 -9)
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
(Sources: 1 -9)
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area
as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
delineation map? (Sources: 1 -9)
City of Dublin
Initial Study /Climate Action Plan Update
Page 19
July 2013
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
MA ation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 19
July 2013
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect flood
flows? ((Sources: 1 -9, 13)
1) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury, and death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam? (Sources: 1 -9)
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? (1 -9)
10. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
(Sources: 1 -9)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect? (Sources: 1-
9)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
(Sources: 1 -9)
11. Mineral Resources. Would the project
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state? (Sources:
1 -9)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local General Plan, specific plan
or other land use plan? (Sources: 1 -9)
12. Noise. Would the proposal result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies? (1 -9)
b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels? (Sources: 1 -9)
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above existing
levels without the project? (Sources: 1 -9)
City of Dublin
Initial Study /Climate Action Plan Update
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
page ;-)u
July.2013
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project? (1 -9)
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose people residing
or working on the project area to excessive noise
levels? (Sources: 1 -9)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (Sources: 1 -9)
13. Population and Housing. Would the project
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (Sources: 1 -9)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere? (Sources: 1 -9)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement of
housing elsewhere? (Sources: 1 -9)
14. Public Services. Would the proposal:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
government facilities. the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance objectives
for any of the public services? ((Sources: 1 -9)
Fire protection
Police protection
Schools
Parks
Other public facilities
Solid Waste
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin Page 21
Initial Study /Climate Action Plan Update July 2013
15. Recreation:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or recreational
facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated (Sources: 1 -9, 12)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
(Sources: 1 -9, 12)
16. Transportation and Traffic. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity
of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion
at intersections)? (Sources: 1 -9)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a
level of service standard established by the
County Congestion Management Agency for
designated roads or highways? (Sources: 1 -9)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
(Sources: 1 -9)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses, such as farm
equipment? (Sources: 1 -9)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (1 -9)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (1 -9)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs
supporting Option transportation (such as bus
turnouts and bicycle facilities) (Sources: 1 -9)
City of Dublin
Initial Study /Climate Action Plan Update
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation
Less than
Significant
impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
rage 22
July 2013
17. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board? (Sources: 1 -9)
b) Require or result in the construction of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
(Sources: 1 -9, 10)
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? (Sources: 1 -9)
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing water entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (Sources: 1 -9, 10)
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve
the project's projected demand in addition to the
providers existing commitments? (1 -9)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid
waste disposal needs? (Sources: 1 -9)
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? (Sources: 1 -9)
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, substantially reduce
the number of or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
City of Dublin
Initial Study /Climate Action Plan Update
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 23
July 2013
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects and the effects of probable
future projects).
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Miti anon
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts
1) Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR
2) Downtown Core Specific Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration
3) West Dublin BART Specific Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration
4) Dublin Transit Center Supplemental EIR
5) Dublin Ranch West Supplemental EIR
6) Mission Peak/Fallon Crossing Mitigated Negative Declaration
7) Vargas Project Mitigated Negative Declaration
8) Casmira Valley /Moller Ranch Supplemental EIR
9) Fallon Village Project Supplemental EIR
10) Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin
11) Final Urban Water Management Plan, 2005 Update
12) California Department of Toxic Substances Control, website, October 2009
13) Parks and Recreation Master Plan, City of Dublin, 2004 update
14) City of Dublin Bikeways Master Plan, City of Dublin, 2007
15) Community Design & Sustainability Element, City of Dublin
16) Multi Modal Map, City of Dublin
17) Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, City of Dublin
18) Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy Amendments to the Community Design and
Sustainable Element, City of Dublin
19) Revised Moller Ranch Supplemental EIR, City of Dublin
City of Dublin Page 24
Initial Study /Climate Action Plan Update July 2013
Attachment to Initial Study
Discussion of Checklist
Legend
PS: Potentially Significant
LS/M: Less Than Significant After Mitigation
LS: Less Than Significant Impact
NI: No Impact
1. Aesthetics
Pro iect Impacts
a -c) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista, damage scenic vistas (including
a scenic highway) or substantially degrade the visual character of a site? LS.
Existing measures in the CAP Update encourage the installation of photovoltaic (PV)
panels on homes and businesses in the City to provide alternative sources of energy.
Since adoption of the existing CAP, seven PV installations have been constructed as
part of the City's Energy Action Plan at the following locations: Civic Center,
Library, Shannon Community Center, Senior Center and all three Fire Stations. These
solar arrays are a combination of solar shade structures at the Civic Center, Library,
Shannon Community Center, Fire Station 17 and Fire Station 18 with roof mounted
solar at the remaining sites.
PV panels installed in the future could be placed on rooftops, which could potentially
alter scenic views. Installation of these panels would require Building Division review
and approval. Typically PV panels are placed on existing homes and businesses,
which have undergone a review process to ensure that they don't impact scenic vistas
within the City. The impact would be less -than significant.
All other potentially significant impacts on scenic views would result from
development or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and
programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan Update. The CAP Update
will not result in any change in these policies or programs. The environmental
impacts of these policies and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA
Documents. Since said environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted
CEQA Documents and the CAP Update will not result in any changes to these
policies /programs, no further analysis of these impacts are required in this document.
d) Create light or glare? LS. Implementation of the CAP Update would not result in the-- -
development of major light sources, although installation of PV panels on homes and
businesses is encouraged to reduce Dublin's dependence on energy sources that produce
GHGs. PV panels are specifically designed to absorb, not reflect sunlight. Thus their
City of Dublin Page 25
Initial Study /Climate Action Plan Update July 2013
placement and orientation on individual properties would not adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area or create light or glare.
All other potentially significant impacts due to light or glare would result from
development or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and
programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan Update. The CAP Update will
not result in any change in these policies or programs. The environment impacts of
these policies and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents.
Since said environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA
Documents and the CAP Update will not result in any changes to these
policies/programs, no further analysis of these impacts are required in this document.
2. Agricultural Resources
Project Impacts
a -c) Convert Prime Farmland, conflict with agricultural zoning or convert prime
farmland to a non - agricultural use? LS. All potentially significant impacts on
Agricultural Resources would result from development or activities in accordance
with existing or approved policies and programs included in the proposed Climate
Action Plan Update. The CAP Update will not result in any change in these policies
or programs. The environmental impacts of these policies and programs were
analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said environmental impacts
have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents and the CAP Update will
not result in any changes to these policies/programs, no further analysis of these
impacts are required in this document.
3. Air Quality
Project Impacts
a) Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? LS. The
purpose of the CAP Update is to reduce GHG emissions within the City to help
contribute to global efforts to reduce the effects of climate change. Measures within the
CAP Update include improving energy efficiency in buildings, using renewable energy,
developing bicycle facilities, enhancing public transit and promoting smart growth
principles, such as transit- oriented development and mixed -use projects. In addition to
reducing GHG emissions, each of the measures noted above would help to reduce
criteria air pollutants and would not conflict with or obstruct the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District's Air Quality Plan. Implementation of the CAP Update would
result in a less - than - significant impact.
b,c) Would the project violate any air quality or greenhouse gas emission standards or
result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? LS. See item (a) above fora...
greenhouse gas emissions.
All potentially significant impacts due to emissions of other criteria pollutants would
result from development or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies
City of Dublin Page 26
Initial Study /Climate Action Plan Update July 2013
and programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan Update. The CAP Update
will not result in any change in these policies or programs. The environmental impacts
of these policies and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA
Documents. Since said environmental impacts have been analyzed under the adopted
CEQA Documents and the CAP Update will not result in any changes to these
policies/programs, no further analysis of these impacts are required in this document.
However, some of the measures included in the CAP Update would result in a reduction
in the emissions of other criteria pollutants, especially from measures that reduce
emissions from vehicles.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations? LS. All potentially
significant impacts due to exposure of sensitive receptors to pollutants would result
from development or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and
programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan Update. The CAP Update will
not result in any change in these policies or programs. The environmental impacts of
these policies and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents.
Since said environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA
Documents and the CAP Update will not result in any changes to these
policies/programs, no further analysis of these impacts are required in this document.
e) Create objectionable odors? NI. The Project does not propose strategies or measures
that would directly or indirectly result in the creation of objectionable odors. Therefore,
there would be no impact.
4. Biological Resources
Project Impacts
a -c) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, special - status species
riparian habitat or wetlands? LS. All potentially significant impacts on Biological
Resources would result from development or activities in accordance with existing or
approved policies and programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan Update.
The CAP Update will not result in any change in these policies or programs. The
environmental impacts of these policies and programs were analyzed in the related
Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said environmental impacts have been analyzed
under the Adopted CEQA Documents and the CAP Update will not result in any
changes to these policies/programs, no further analysis of these impacts are required in
this document.
d) Interfere with movement of native fish or wildlife species? LS. See items (a -c) above.
Implementation of the CAP Update would result in a less -than significant impact.
e, f) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any
adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? LS.
See items (a -c) above. Implementation of the CAP Update would result in a less -than
significant impact.
City of Dublin Page 27
Initial Study /Climate Action Plan Update July 2013
Project Impacts
a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? LS. All potentially
significant impacts on Cultural Resources would result from development or activities
in accordance with existing or approved policies and programs included in the proposed
Climate Action Plan Update. The CAP Update will not result in any change in these
policies or programs. The environmental impacts of these policies and programs were
analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said environmental impacts
have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents and the CAP Update will not
result in any changes to these policies /programs, no further analysis of these impacts are
required in this document.
b -d) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or paleontological
resources, or human remains that may be interred outside of a formal cemetery? LS.
See item (a) above. Implementation of the CAP Update would result in a less -than
significant impact.
6. Geology and Soils
Project Impacts
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss,
injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or
landslides? LS. All potentially significant impacts on Geology and Soils would result
from development or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and
programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan Update. The CAP Update will
not result in any change in these policies or programs. The environmental impacts of
these policies and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents.
Since said environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA
Documents and the CAP Update will not result in any changes to these
policies /programs, no further analysis of these impacts are required in this document.
b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion andlor the loss of topsoil? LS. See item (a)
above. Implementation of the CAP Update would result in a less -than significant
impact.
c -d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive and that could result in potential
lateral spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? LS. See item (a) above.
Implementation of the CAP Update would result in a less -than significant impact.
e) Have soils incapable of supporting on -site septic tanks if sewers are not available? NI...._.
All new structures are required by the City of Dublin to connect to the local sewer
system, maintained by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). No impacts
would therefore result with regard to septic systems.
City of Dublin
Initial Study /Climate Action Plan Update
Page 28
July 2013
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Project Impacts
a) Generate GHGs, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment? NI. Implementation of strategies and measures within the CAP Update
would result in annual community -wide GHG emission reductions of approximately
102,380 metric tons CO2e by 2020, which includes the reduction measures within the
CAP Update as well as implementation of regional and State initiatives such as
Renewable Portfolio Standards, AB 1493 (Pavley) and Title 24. Implementation of the
CAP Update would therefore directly and indirectly reduce community -wide GHGs,
which will have a beneficial impact on the environment. There would be no significant
adverse impact due to GHGs.
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs? NI. California has adopted a wide variety
of regulations aimed at reducing the State's GHG emissions. AB 32, the California
Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, requires California to reduce statewide GHG
emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 directs ARB to develop and implement
regulations that reduce statewide GHG emissions. The Climate Change Scoping Plan
(Scoping Plan) was approved by ARB in December 2008 and outlines the State's plan
to achieve the GHG reductions required in AB 32. The Scoping Plan contains the
primary strategies California will implement to achieve a reduction of 169 MM CO2e,
or approximately 30% from the State's projected 2020 emissions level. In the Scoping
Plan, ARB encourages local governments to adopt a reduction goal for municipal
operations and move toward establishing similar goals for the community emissions
that parallel the State commitment to reduce GHGs.
Dublin's CAP Update articulates the City's intentions with respect to reducing
community -wide GHG emissions in a manner to promote AB 32 and to reduce the
impact of potential future GHG emissions to less -than significant cumulative impact
under CEQA. Implementation of measures proposed within the CAP Update would
result in annual community -wide GHG emission reductions of approximately 38,920
MT CO2e, by 2020. Additionally, implementation of statewide initiatives (Renewable
Portfolio Standards, Assembly Bill 1493 and Title 24) would result in annual GHG
emission reductions of an additional 63,460 MT CO2e. The CAP Update measures
combined with the statewide initiatives would reduce the anticipated emissions in the
community by approximately 102,380 MT CO2e and would be consistent with AB 32
Scoping Plan recommendations. As of this writing, there are no adopted regional or
local plans, policies or regulations other than the Scoping Plan and the City's CAP
Update which are designed to reduce emissions of GHGs. There would be no impact.
S. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Project Impacts
a) Create significant hazards to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use or disposal hazardous materials? LS. All potentially significant impacts
City of Dublin Page 29
Initial Study /Climate Action Plan Update July 2013
on Hazards and Hazardous Materials would result from development or activities in
accordance with existing or approved policies and programs included in the proposed
Climate Action Plan Update. The CAP Update will not result in any change in these
policies or programs. The environmental impacts of these policies and programs were
analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said environmental impacts
have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents and the CAP Update will not
result in any changes to these policies /programs, no further analysis of these impacts are
required in this document.
b, c) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accidental conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment or emit hazardous materials or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances or wastes within one - quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the CAP Update
would result in a less -than significant impact. Any impact due to potential hazardous
release through retrofit of existing buildings would be reduced to less -than significant
through compliance with all applicable regulations regarding hazardous materials.
d) Be listed on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied on the
Cortese List and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or
environment? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the CAP Update would result
in a less -than significant impact.
e,f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private
airstrip? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the CAP Update would result in a
less -than significant impact.
g) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan? LS. See item (a) above.
Implementation of the CAP Update would result in a less -than significant impact.
h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? LS. See item (a)
above. Implementation of the CAP Update would result in a less -than significant
impact.
9. Hydrology and Water Quality
Project Impacts
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? LS. All
potentially significant impacts on Hydrology and Water Quality would result from
development or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and
programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan Update. The CAP Update will
not result in any change in these policies or programs. The environmental impacts of
these policies and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents.
Since said environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA
City of Dublin Page 30
Initial Study /Climate Action Plan Update July 2013
Documents and the CAP Update will not result in any changes to these
policies /programs, no further analysis of these impacts are required in this document.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? NI. The
primary source of water to development projects is imported surface water supplied by
DSRSD and Zone 7. Neither DSRSD nor Zone 7 relies upon local groundwater. There
would be no impact with lowering of the water table or reducing the amount of
groundwater recharge areas.
c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that
substantial siltation or erosion would occur? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of
the CAP Update would result in a less -than significant impact.
d,e) Substantially alter drainage patterns or result in flooding, either on or off the project
site, create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or
add substantial amounts ofpolluted runoff? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of
the CAP Update would result in a less -than significant impact.
f) Substantially degrade water quality? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the
CAP Update would result in a less -than significant impact.
g -i) Place housing within a 100 year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance
Rate Map, or impede or redirect flood flow, including dam failure? LS. See item (a)
above. Implementation of the CAP Update would result in a less -than significant
impact.
j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? NI. There are expected to be no
impacts with regard to seiche, tsunami or mudflows, since projects would be located
inland from major bodies of water.
10. Land Use and Planning
Project Impacts
a) Physically divide an established community? NI. The programs and policies in the CAP
Update are consistent with the City's General Plan. Construction of future projects
(including mixed -use development, transit - oriented development and new bike
facilities) under the auspices of the CAP Update would proceed based on the Dublin
General Plan, applicable Specific Plans and other land use regulatory documents, such
as the Dublin Transit Center Stage 1 Development Plan and the Bikeways Master Plan
and would not physically divide an established community. Additionally, the CAP
Update includes measures to improve connectivity within Dublin and to promote
alternative transportation methods. The CAP Update does not recommend any measures
that would physically divide the community. No impacts are anticipated.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation? NI. No amendments
are required to the Dublin General Plan and no rezonings are required. Future
City of Dublin Page 31
Initial Study /Climate Action Plan Update July 2013
developments anticipated in the CAP Update are required to obtain the required
permits, such as subdivision maps, Site Development Review permits, building permits
and potentially other permits from the City of Dublin.
c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Nl.
No such plan has been adopted within the City of Dublin. There would therefore be no
impact to a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
11. Mineral Resources
Project Impacts
a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources?
Nl. No impacts would occur to any mineral resources, since no such resources are
identified in Dublin in the Dublin General Plan.
12. Noise
Project Impacts
a) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established by the General Plan or other applicable standards? LS. While the CAP
Update does not recommend any strategy or measure that would generate excessive
amounts of noise, construction activity associated with energy efficiency retrofits and
installing solar panels in residential and commercial buildings could possibly result in
temporary increases in noise. The noise from these activities is expected to be
minimal and less than - significant. Construction activities will be required to conform
to any applicable project Conditions of Approval and the General Plan policies to
reduce noise to ensure that these impacts are less -than significant.
All other potentially significant impacts due to noise would result from development
or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and programs included
in the proposed Climate Action Plan Update. The CAP Update will not result in any
changes in these policies or programs. The environmental impacts of these policies
and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said
environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents and
the CAP Update will not result in any changes to these policies /programs, no further
analysis of these impacts are required in this document.
b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
LS. It is unlikely that implementation of measures within the CAP Update to perform
energy retrofits on existing homes or install solar panels would result in significant
levels of vibration, since normal construction methods would be used. No.impacts are
anticipated with regard to this topic.
City of Dublin Page 32
Initial Study /Climate Action Plan Update July 2013
All other potentially significant impacts due to groundborne vibration or noise would
result from development or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies
and programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan Update. The CAP Update
will not result in any change in these policies or programs. The environmental impacts
of these policies and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA
Documents. Since said environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted
CEQA Documents and the CAP Update will not result in any changes to these
policies /programs, no further analysis of these impacts are required in this document.
c,d) Substantial permanent or temporary increases in ambient noise levels? LS.
Implementation of the CAP Update could cause a temporary increase in ambient noise
levels as a result of construction activities to perform energy retrofits on existing homes
or install solar panels. The noise from these activities is expected to be minimal and
less -than significant. Construction activities will be required to conform to any
applicable project Conditions of Approval and the General Plan policies to reduce noise
to ensure that these impacts are less than significant.
All other potentially significant impacts due to Noise would result from development or
activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and programs included in the
proposed Climate Action Plan Update. The CAP Update will not result in any change
in these policies or programs. The environmental impacts of these policies and
programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said
environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents and
the CAP Update will not result in any changes to these policies /programs, no further
analysis of these impacts are required in this document.
e,f) Be located within an airport land use plan area, within two miles of a public or private
airport or airstrip? LS. A number of parcels within the City are located in the General
Airport Referral Area for Livermore Municipal Airport, located south of Interstate 580
within the City of Livermore. Applicable projects within this area are required to be
referred to the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission for a consistency
determination with the Alameda County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The
Alameda County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan adopted the California Office of
Noise Control noise exposure standards for residential uses, which is generally
consistent with City of Dublin noise standards.
All potentially significant impacts due to airport noise would result from development
or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and programs included in
the proposed Climate Action Plan Update. The CAP Update will not result in any
change in these policies or programs. The environmental impacts of these policies and
programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said
environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents and
the CAP Update will not result in any changes to these policies /programs, no further--'
analysis of these impacts are required in this document.
City of Dublin Page 33
Initial Study /Climate Action Plan Update July 2013
13. Population and Housing
Project Impacts
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? LS.
Implementation of the CAP Update would not cause substantial population growth in
Dublin, since anticipated dwellings are currently included in the Dublin General Plan.
This would be a less -than significant impact.
All potentially significant impacts due to population increase would result from
development or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and
programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan Update. The CAP Update will
not result in any change in these policies or programs. The environmental impacts of
these policies and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents.
Since said environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA
Documents and the CAP Update will not result in any changes to these
policies /programs, no further analysis of these impacts are required in this document.
b,c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people
requiring replacement housing? LS. The CAP Update strategies and measures would
not result in the displacement of a substantial number of homes or people. This would
be a less -than significant impact.
14. Public Services
Environmental Impacts
a) Fire protection? LS. All potentially significant impacts on Public Services would result
from development or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and
programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan Update. The CAP Update will
not result in any change in these policies or programs. The environmental impacts of
these policies and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents.
Since said environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA
Documents and the CAP Update will not result in any changes to these
policies /programs, no further analysis of these impacts are required in this document.
b) Police protection? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the CAP Update would
result in a less -than significant impact.
c) Schools? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the CAP Update would result in a
less -than significant impact.
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? LS. See item (a) above..:_ .
Implementation of the CAP Update would result in a less -than significant impact.
City of Dublin Page 34
Initial Study /Climate Action Plan Update July 2013
e) Solid waste generation? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the CAP Update
would result in a less -than significant impact. Also, the CAP Update contains programs
and policies that would reduce solid waste generation.
15. Recreation
Project Impacts
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? LS. All
potentially significant impacts on Recreation would result from development or
activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and programs included in the
proposed Climate Action Plan Update, The CAP Update will not result in any change
in these policies or programs. The environmental impacts of these policies and
programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said
environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents and
the CAP Update will not result in any changes to these policies /programs, no further
analysis of these impacts are required in this document.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of
recreational facilities? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the CAP Update
would result in a less -than significant impact.
16. Transportation /Traffic
Project Impacts
a, b) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial relative to existing traffic load and
street; or exceed LOS standards established by the County CMA for designated roads?
LS. Implementation of the CAP Update measures would increase the availability of
transit service for Dublin residents, add additional bicycle facilities and discourage
single- occupancy vehicle use. Achieving each of these goals would result in a reduction
in traffic loads, which would reduce the number of vehicle trips, volume to capacity
ratio, and intersection congestion within the City. New mixed -use and transit - oriented
development projects would be designed to reduce vehicle trips and place more people
within walking distance of commercial uses and public transit. Furthermore, no
proposed measure in the CAP Update would directly increase traffic in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system.
Additionally, impacts of local and regional traffic from development projects have been
analyzed in the previous CEQA documents adopted by the City and are identified in the
Earlier Analysis section of this document. All other potentially significant impacts on-._ .
Transportation/Traffic would result from development or activities in accordance with
existing or approved policies and programs included in the proposed Climate Action
Plan Update, The CAP Update will not result in any change in these policies or
programs. The environmental impacts of these policies and programs were analyzed in
City of Dublin Page 35
Initial Study /Climate Action Plan Update July 2013
the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said environmental impacts have been
analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents and the CAP Update will not result in
any changes to these policieslprograms, no further analysis of these impacts are
required in this document.
c) Result in a change of air traffic patterns? NI. The CAP Update does not include any
strategy or measure that would directly or indirectly affect air traffic patterns. There
would be no impact.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? LS. The
CAP Update does not include any strategy or measure that would promote the
development of hazardous design features or incompatible uses. Additionally, future
projects that would be proposed in Dublin will be reviewed by City of Dublin staff to
ensure that City public works and engineering standards are met and no traffic or
transportation design hazards would be created. This would be a less - than- significant
impact.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? LS. No strategy or measure proposed in the
CAP Update would result in the development of uses or facilities that would degrade
emergency access; therefore, the impact would be less -than significant with regard to
emergency access.
f, g) Inadequate parking capacity or hazards to pedestrians or bicyclists? LS. The CAP
Update includes measures that would reduce the demand for automobile parking in
favor of biking, carpooling and public transit. New mixed -use and transit - oriented
development projects would be designed to support the use of alternative transit,
potentially reducing parking requirements and supply both collectively and within
individual projects. It is unlikely that that future projects pursuant to the CAP Update
would contribute to inadequate parking capacity within the City. This would be a less -
than- significant impact.
All other potentially significant impacts due to parking capacity or hazards to
pedestrians or bicyclists would result from development or activities in accordance with
existing or approved policies and programs included in the proposed Climate Action
Plan Update. The CAP Update will not result in any change in these policies or
programs. The environmental impacts of these policies and programs were analyzed in
the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said environmental impacts have been
analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents and the CAP Update will not result
in any changes to these policies /programs, no further analysis of these impacts are
required in this document.
Ii. Utilities and Service Systems
Project Impacts
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? LS. All potentially
significant impacts on Utilities and Service Systems would result from development or
City of Dublin Page 36
Initial Study /Climate Action Plan Update July 2013
activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and programs included in the
proposed Climate Action Plan Update. The CAP Update will not result in any change
in these policies or programs. The environmental impacts of these policies and
programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said
environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents and
the CAP Update will not result in any changes to these policies /programs, no further
analysis of these impacts are required in this document.
b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the CAP Update would result in a
less -than significant impact.
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the CAP Update
would result in a less -than significant impact.
d) Are sufficient water supplies available? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the
CAP Update would result in a less -than significant impact.
e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project? LS. See item (a) above.
Implementation of the CAP Update would result in a less -than significant impact.
f, g) Solid waste disposal? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the CAP Update
would result in a less -than significant impact.
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of'a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory? LS. The preceding analysis indicates that the proposed Project would not
have a significant adverse impact on cultural resources or have the potential to restrict
the range of rare or endangered species, beyond impacts previously identified. All
potentially significant impacts in this area would result from development or activities
in accordance with existing or approved policies and programs included in the proposed
Climate Action Plan Update. The CAP Update will not result in any change in these
policies or programs. The environmental impacts of these policies and programs were
analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said environmental impacts
have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents and the CAP Update will not
result in any changes to these policies /programs, no further analysis of these impacts are
required in this document.
City of Dublin Mage :3t
Initial Study /Climate Action Plan Update July 2013
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). LS.
Cumulative impacts of the proposed Project have been analyzed in previous CEQA
documents as identified in the Earlier Analysis section of this Initial Study. All
potentially significant cumulative impacts would result from development or activities
in accordance with existing or approved policies and programs included in the proposed
Climate Action Plan Update. The CAP Update will not result in any change in these
policies or programs. The environmental impacts of these policies and programs were
analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said environmental impacts
have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Document and the CAP Update will not
result in any changes to these policies /programs, no further analysis of these impacts are
required in this document.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? LS. Based on the preceding
Initial Study, no substantial effects to human beings, either directly or indirectly have
been identified. Any potentially significant impacts on human beings would result from
development or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and
programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan Update. The CAP Update will
not result in any change in these policies or programs. The environmental impacts of
these policies and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents.
Since said environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA
Documents and the CAP Update will not result in any changes to these
policies /programs, no further analysis of these impacts are required in this document.
Initial Study Preparer
Martha Aja, Environmental Coordinator
Agencies and Organizations Consulted
The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial Study:
City of Dublin
Chris Foss, Assistant City Manager
Tire Cremin, City Attorney's Office
Kit Faubion, City Attorney's Office
Roger Bradley, Assistant to the City Manager
Luke Sims, Community Development Director
Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director
Gary Huisingh, Public Works Director
Andrew Russell, City Engineer
Obaid Khan, Senior Civil Engineer (Traffic /Transportation)
Kathy Southern, Environmental Technician
City of Dublin Page 38
Initial Study /Climate Action Plan Update July 2013
References
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan FIR_ (SCH #
91103064, May 10, 1993,
Downtown Core Specific Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration, December 19,
2000.
Dublin Transit Center Supplemental FIR (SCH # 20011200395), November 19,
2002.
Dublin Ranch West Supplemental FIR, (SCH # 2003022082), March 15, 2005,
Final Urban Water Management Plan, 2005 Update, Dublin San Ramon Services
District, May 2005.
Mission Peak/Fallon Crossing Miti ated Ne ative Declaration, May 16, 2006.
Vargas Project Mitigated Negative Declaration, May 1, 2007.
Casamira Valley /Moller Ranch Sipplemental FIR (SCH# 2005052146), May 1,
2007.
Fallon Village Project Supplemental FIR (SCH # 2005062010), March 4, 2008.
Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin, Adopted February 11, 1985, Updated to March
23, 2012.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan, City of Dublin, 2004 update.
Bikeways Master Plan, City of Dublin, July 17, 2007.
Community Design & Sustainability Element, City of Dublin, September 16, 2008.
Multi Modal Map, City of Dublin, June 16, 2009.
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EI_R (SCH #20100022005), February 1, 2011.
Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy Amendment to the Communily Desi nand
Sustainability Element, City of Dublin, February 21, 2012,
Moller, Ranch Supplemental FIR (SCH 42005052146), December 18, 2012.
City of Dublin Page 39
Initial Study /Climate Action Plan Update July 2013
CITY OF DUBLIN
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Title: City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update (CAP Update)
Description of Project: The proposed project is the adoption of the CAP Update, a
document that provides policies and measures aimed at reducing
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within the City of Dublin. The
goal of the CAP Update is to reduce Dublin's community -wide
GHG emissions by 15% below 2010 levels by 2020. The CAP
Update results in an approximately 17% reduction from 2010
levels by 2020, which results in an efficiency level of 3.2 MT
CO2e per service population per year in 2020. The CAP Update
identifies a variety of measures to achieve the City's GHG
reduction target. The CAP Update describes baseline GHG
emissions produced in Dublin in 2010, and projects GHG
emissions that could be expected if the CAP Update is not
implemented. The City expects the reduction to be achieved by a
combination of the reduction measures included in the CAP
Update and State initiatives, such as Renewable Portfolio Standard,
Title 24 and Assembly Bill 1493 (Pavley).
Project Location: City -wide applicability.
Name of Proponent: City of Dublin
Attn: Martha Aja, Environmental Coordinator
City Manager's Office /Environmental Services
100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568
Determination: I hereby find that although the above project could not have a
significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION is hereby approved.
Roger Bra ey, ssistant to the City Manager Date
Copies of the Initial Study documenting the reasons to support the above finding are available at
the City of Dublin, City Manager's Office, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568, or by calling
(925) 833 -6650.
Attachments
Date Published:
Date Posted:
Date Notice Mailed: _
Considered by:
On:
N.O.D. filed:
Council Resolution No.
City of Dublin Page 40
Initial Study /Climate Action Plan Update July 2013
0812212013 16:43
e
DUBLIN
ISAN RAMON
SERVICES
DISTRICT
August 21, 2013
Via Fax
Martha Aja, Principal Planner
City of Dublin, Community Development Dept.
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
(FA}{) K0011001
7051 Dublin Boulevard
Dublin, California 94568
Phone; 925 828 0516
FAX: 925 829 1180
WWWAOred.com
Subject: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration for the Dublin Climate Action Plan
(CAP) Update
Dear Ms. Aja:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the. Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative
Declaration for the Dublin Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update. The City of Dublin (City) is within the
service area where Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) currently provides potable water
service, recycled water service and wastewater collection services. This specific CAP Update does not
anticipate any changes by the City that would impact DSRSD's providing potable water, recycled water
or wastewater collection and treatment services in the City of Dublin. We also agree that the Dublin
Climate Action Plan Update of July 2013 would have less than a significant impact on the environment.
In regards to future Climate Action flan Updates, conceivable mitigation measures in a CAP could
impact DSRSD operations. For this reason DSRSD desires to comment on future updates to the City of
Dublin climate policies.
Sincerely
1
STANLEY K LODZ , P.E.
Associate Engineer
SK/ST
cc. Dave Requa, DSRSD
Wiodora Biagtan, DSRSD
DubLft San Ramon SeMft6 Dlltrki IS a Pubite Entity
H;IEA'OD8?M9QAIDSRSD Response to CEQADoeumenis\City ofnublin126l31Conmients on NO] to Adopt a Neg Dec Dublin Ciintata Action Plan Elpdata 8-21 -
Received Time Aug. 22, 2813 4:43PM No. 1282
Exhibit B of Attachment 2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA -- THE NATURAL RESOUR - -S AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Governor
COLORADO RIVER BOARD OF'%- -iLIFORNIA ,
770 FAIRMONT AVENUE, SUITE 100
GLENDALE, CA 91203 -1068 y�
(818) 500 -1625 RECEIVED
(818) 543 -4685 FAX
August 19, 2013
State Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, CA 95812 -3044
AUG 2 3 2013
CITY OF DUBLIN
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
Regarding: SCH# 2010 072 012 W Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration for updating
the existing Dublin Climate Action Plan, City of Dublin, Alameda County, California
To Whom It May Concern:
The Colorado River Board of California (CRB) has received and reviewed a copy of Notice of
Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration for updating the existing Dublin Climate Action Plan,
City of Dublin, Alameda County, California. At this juncture, the CRB has determined that it
has no comments regarding the Notice. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Dr.
Jay Chen. at (818) 500 -1625.
Sincerely,
Tanya M, Trujillo
Executive Director
cc: Ms, Martha Aja, Environmental Coordinator, City Manager's Office, City of Dublin
SAN MATEO COUNTY
Carole Groom
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (District) staff has reviewed the City of
ALAMEDA COUNTY
Dublin's (City) Climate Action Plan Update (Plan). We understand that the City's
Tom Bates
Scott Haggerty
a intentions in datin the Plan are to track progress toward achieving the City's
p g ro p� g g y
Nate Miley
greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target, and to update the Plan with additional
(Vice Chair)
Tim Sbranti
activities the City is undertaking to reduce GHG emissions. We further understand
Y g
Liz Kniss
that the City intends to use the Plan to streamline CEQA review of new land use
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
John Gioia
projects.
David Hudson
action plan's base year from 2005 to 2010, District staff recommends that the Plan
Mary Piepho
Mark Ross
The District acknowledges that reviewing, modifying and tracking the
James Spering
implementation of local climate action plans is critical to achieving local GHG
MARIN COUNTY
Susan Adams
reduction goals. In undertaking this effort, the City has added important strategies
to its Plan, such as the Green Building Ordinance, the opening of the West Dublin
NAPA COUNTY
Brad Wagenknecht
BART Station and transit - oriented development around the Station, and significant
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY
solar energy and waste reduction programs.
John Aalos
Edwin M. Lee
Eric Mar
The District has the following specific comments on the Plan.
SAN MATEO COUNTY
Carole Groom
The GHQ Reduction Target
(Secretary)
Carol Klatt
The Plan's GHG reduction target is to reduce GHG emissions 15% below 2010
SANTA CL RA BOUNTY
levels by 2020. This is inconsistent with the State's AB 32 Scoping Plan, which
(Chair)
calls on local jurisdictions to reduce GHG emissions 15% below 2008 levels by
Liz Kniss
2020. While the Plan includes a ustification for changing the original climate
J g g
Jan Pepper
Ken Yeager
action plan's base year from 2005 to 2010, District staff recommends that the Plan
SOLANO COUNY
also include a quantitative explanation of how the 2010 base year will achieve an
James Spering
equivalent GHG reduction to the target called for in the Scoping Plan.
SONOMA COUNTY
Teresa Barrett As the 2020 target year nears, it is increasingly important to address what will
Shirlee zone happen to GHG emissions in the community after 2020. The Plan should include a
Jack P. Broadbent discussion of the climate stabilization GHG reduction target for 2050 called for in
EXECUTIVE OFFICERIAPCO Executive Order S -3 -05, namely, the State*will reduce GHG emissions 80% below
1990 levels by 2050. This discussion could address how the Plan's strategies and
policies will place the community on a trajectory toward achieving the 2050 target,
Ms. Aja September 5, 2013
The GHG Emission Reduction Measures
In order to meet California's GHG reduction goals for AB 32 and, more importantly, for
Executive Order 5- 3. -05, California will need to create more efficient, low - emission new
development as well as achieve significant emission reductions from the built community. The
Plan states that Dublin is a high - growth community, and so includes many mandatory measures
aimed at reducing GHG emissions from new development. The District supports this approach.
However, relying on new development to be more efficient will likely not be enough to achieve
the State's aggressive 2020 and 2050 GHG reduction targets. Therefore, the District has
identified additional feasible measures that have proven effective at reducing GHG emissions in
other jurisdictions that have not been included in the Plan. The District recommends that the Plan
strengthen its GHG reduction approach in the following ways:
- Expand the City's Green Building Program (A.2.1) beyond new residential development
to also require energy efficiency standards beyond Title 24 for all new commercial
construction and for significant remodels of residential and commercial buildings
(example: San Rafael Climate Action Plan (CAP)).
Add a time of sale energy efficiency upgrade requirement to residential and commercial
buildings, such as a residential/commercial energy conservation ordinance
(RECD /CECO). An alternative would be to consider the approach taken by the City of
Pleasanton, wherein they are implementing ;A voluntary time of sale energy upgrade
program, but if performance goals are not met, the program becomes mandatory.
- Add heat island mitigation strategies to reduce outdoor air temperatures and air
conditioning needs by requiring cool roofing and cool paving materials be used in new
development and significant remodels (example: Santa Rosa CAP).
Add a transportation demand management (TDM) requirement, such as requiring
employers of 50 or more employees to offer TDM programs to their employees. The
TDM programs should include strategies such as employer -paid subsidies for commuting
by transit or vanpool; employer- provided bus, shuttle or vanpool service; or other
programs such as telecommuting, rideshare matching, etc. These strategies would
complement the District's upcoming region -wide commuter benefits program, currently
under development, authorized by Senate Bill 1339 (example: Solano County CAP).
Add measures addressing parking policies, such as parking pricing, reducing parking
requirements for new developmentlimposing parking maximums, etc. (example: Santa
Rosa CAP)
Appendix D: Emissions IRedttetion Calculations and Assumptions should include more detailed
information on the assumptions behind the emission reduction estimations. For example, for
Measure A.1.1 Transit - oriented Development, Appendix D lists the assumption as "25%
reduction in per - household VMT for each new transit - oriented unit" -- District staff recommends
that this be expanded to include what the average VMT per household is and how that average
was determined. In other cases, such as with Measures A.3.1 -6 Solid Waste and Recycling
Measures, there should be more justification for how the 3% reduction in the waste diversion rate
is achieved. Through conversations with City staff it is understood that this back -up data exists,
and District staff recommends this data be included in Appendix D.
2
Ms. A'a Se tember 5 2013
We commend the City for its efforts to address the critical issue of climate change through local
action, We also support the City's efforts in monitoring the implementation of the Plan and
adding important GHG reduction measures to the Plan. By addressing the recommendations in
this letter, District staff believes that the Plan would be more likely to achieve its GHG reduction
target and the City would be in a better position to use the Plan as a tierable document under
CEQA.
District staff is available to assist the City in addressing these comments. If you have any
questions, please contact Abby Young, Principal Environmental Planner, at (415) 749 -4754.
Sincerely,
Je n oggenkam
D P ty Air Pollu 'on trot �Officer
cc: BAAQMD Director Tom Bates
BAAQMD Director Scott Haggerty
BAAQMD Vice Chair Nate Miley
BAAQMD Director Tim Sbranti
OF DU��`2
19 � `82
O�LIFOR���
17_A 1:1
TO:
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 24, 2013
Planning Commission
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update and
Negative Declaration
Report prepared by Martha Aja, Environmental Coordinator
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The proposed City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update (CAP Update) provides policies and
measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within the City. The goal of the
CAP Update is to reduce Dublin's community -wide GHG emissions by 15% below 2010 levels
by 2020. The CAP Update identifies a variety of measures to achieve the City's GHG reduction
target. The various GHG reduction measures are organized into three broad categories, which
include: 1) transportation and land use measures; 2) energy measures; and 3) solid waste and
recycling measures. The CAP Update describes baseline GHG emissions produced in Dublin in
2010, and forecasts GHG emissions that could be expected if the proposed CAP Update is not
implemented (business -as -usual scenario). The City expects to reduce GHG emissions through
a combination of reduction measures that are included in the CAP Update. These include
measures that are under the City's control and State initiatives aimed at reducing GHG
emissions. The proposed CAP Update and draft Negative Declaration are being presented to
the Planning Commission for review and recommendation to the City Council.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the
public hearing; 3) Take testimony from the public; 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; 5)
Adopt a Resolution recommending City Council adoption of a Negative Declaration for the City
of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update; and 6) Adopt a Resolution recommending City Council
approval of the City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update.
Submitted By:
Environmental Coordinator
Reviewed By
Community Development Director
COPIES TO: (�
ITEM NO.:
Page 1 of 9
G:IPAM20130imate Action PlanIPCSR 9 24 13.doc
Attachment 3
DESCRIPTION:
Background
State, National and International
In 1997, 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. Currently there
are 192 parties to the Kyoto Protocol.
In September 2006, the State of California enacted Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which requires California to reduce Statewide GHG
emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 directs the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to
develop and implement regulations that reduce statewide GHG emissions. The Climate
Change Scoping Plan ( Scoping Plan) was approved by ARB in December 2008 and outlines
the State's plan to achieve the GHG reductions required in AB 32. The Scoping Plan
contains the primary strategies California will implement to achieve a reduction of 169 million
metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMT CO2e), or approximately 30% from the
State's projected 2020 emissions level. In the Scoping Plan, the ARB encourages local
governments to adopt a reduction goal for municipal operations emissions and to move
forward with establishing similar goals for community emissions, which parallel the State's
commitment to reduce GHG emissions. However, the specific role local governments will
play in meeting the State's AB 32 goals is not established in the Scoping Plan.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
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
jurisdictional boundaries, which includes the City of Dublin. The BAAQMD has direct and
indirect regulatory authority over sources of air pollution in the San Francisco Bay Area Air
Basin. The overall goal of this effort was to develop CEQA significance criteria to ensure that
future development includes appropriate and feasible emission reduction measures to mitigate
significant air quality and GHG emissions impacts.
The BAAQMD adopted project level thresholds, which include an emission level threshold of
1,100 MT CO2e per year and a threshold of 4.6 metric tons of GHG emissions per service
population (i.e. residents and employees) per year for individual development projects. For
general references, the adopted project threshold (1,100 metric tons of CO2e /yr) is equivalent to
the approximate amount of GHG emissions that would be generated by 60 single - family units, or
78 multi - family units, or a supermarket exceeding 8,000 square feet, or an office park exceeding
50,000 square feet. The BAAQMD also adopted a plan threshold of 6.6 MTCO2e per service
population per year, where service population is the summation of population and the number of
jobs. The City of Dublin's CAP Update employs the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
( BAAQMD) GHG efficiency threshold of 6.6 MTCO2e per service population per year as
evidence of the City's intent to meet the intent of AB 32 to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels
by 2020.
Projects with emissions greater than the adopted threshold (1,100 MT CO2e per year) would be
required to mitigate to the proposed threshold level or reduce project emissions by an amount
deemed feasible by the lead agency. The BAAQMD's approach is to identify the emissions level
for which a project would result in a less than significant impact under CEQA and would not be
expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce Statewide
2of9
GHG emissions. If a project were to generate GHG emissions above the threshold level
established by the BAAQMD, it would be considered as contributing substantially to the
cumulative impact of GHG emissions within the community and would be considered a
significant impact under CEQA.
On March 5, 2012, the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the
BAAQMD had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the thresholds. The court did not
determine whether the thresholds were valid on the merits, but found that the adoption of the
thresholds was a project under CEQA. The court issued a writ of mandate ordering the
BAAQMD to set aside the thresholds and cease dissemination of them until the BAAQMD had
complied with CEQA. The BAAQMD appealed the ruling, and on August 13, 2013, the California
First District Court of Appeal reversed the Alameda County Superior Court's decision.
The City as a lead agency continues to rely on the substantial evidence based on statewide
data and analysis relative to AB 32 that underlie the BAAQMD thresholds in making a
determination of significance of plan -level GHG impacts.
Under the BAAQMD guidelines, a city may prepare a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy that
furthers AB 32 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 GHG 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 CAP (CEQA Guidelines Section
15183.5). The BAAQMD recognizes these CEQA standards as meeting the district's standards
for a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy.
The CAP has been developed to meet both the CEQA and BAAQMD standards for a Qualified
GHG Reduction Plan /Strategy.
City of Dublin
On July 17, 2007, the City Council approved participation in the Climate Protection Project
for Alameda County jurisdictions (Resolution 139 -07). The Alameda County Climate
Protection Project (ACCPP) was launched by ICLEI — Local Governments for Sustainability
in partnership with StopWaste and the Alameda County Conference of Mayors. In
committing to this project, the jurisdictions within Alameda County embarked on an on- going,
coordinated effort to reduce emissions, improve air quality, reduce waste and cut energy
use. In doing so, the City of Dublin committed to ICLEI's 5- milestone methodology for
reducing GHG emissions, which include:
Milestone 1: Conduct a baseline emissions inventory and forecast;
Milestone 2: Adopt an emissions reduction target;
Milestone 3: Develop a Climate Action Plan for reducing emissions;
Milestone 4: Implement polices and measures to reduce emissions; and
Milestone 5: Monitor and verify results.
The City's original CAP was adopted by the City Council in November 2010. The City's CAP
established a GHG emissions reduction target of 20% below the 2020 GHG emissions
forecast (business -as -usual scenario). The 2010 CAP included 34 reduction measures.
Since adoption of the 2010 CAP, the City has implemented 11 new reduction measures,
bringing the reduction measures in the CAP Update to 45.
3 of 9
CAP Update
The City is committed to periodically reviewing its CAP to determine the progress made in
reducing GHG emissions with the City. The process of conducting a periodic review allows
the City to demonstrate progress toward local emission reduction targets and identify
opportunities to integrate new or improved measures into the plan. As stated in the original
CAP, the City will re- inventory its GHG emissions every 5 years. The first inventory was
conducted for calendar year 2005 and the inventory in the CAP update is for calendar year
2010. Additionally, the GHG emissions inventory for calendar year 2010 was a City Council
key initiative for FY 12 -13. The update to the CAP is a City Council key initiative for FY 13-
14.
The City contracted with PMC to assist Staff in preparing the Climate Action Plan Update.
PMC calculated the GHG emissions reductions to be achieved by implementation of the
measures in the CAP Update and State initiatives that would mitigate GHG emissions within
the community. PMC also peer reviewed the City of Dublin's CAP Update for technical
accuracy and provided assistance coordinating with the BAAQMD.
The proposed CAP Update (Attachment 1) provides policies and measures aimed at
reducing GHG emissions within the City to further the goals of AB 32. The goal of the CAP
Update is to reduce Dublin's community -wide GHG emissions by 15% below 2010 levels by
2020. This reduction target is more aggressive than the reduction target in the original CAP,
which included a reduction target of 20% below business -as -usual GHG emissions by 2020.
The Planning Commission is being asked to review and make a recommendation to the City
Council regarding adoption of the proposed CAP Update and the accompanying
environmental document.
ANALYSIS:
The purpose of the baseline emissions inventory is to establish an initial level of GHG
emissions for the community, which allows the City to measure future progress. The City's
original CAP used calendar year 2005 as its base year. As part of the CAP Update, the City
prepared an updated emissions inventory for calendar year 2010. Switching to 2010 as the
baseline is a better choice for many reasons. Community activities that effect GHG
emissions have changed considerably since 2005 due to increased awareness of
sustainability, as well as the downturn in the economy. In addition, numerous efficiency
improvements have occurred in electric equipment, vehicles and other devices, resulting in
lower emissions per use. Furthermore, the 2010 inventory contains additional subsectors
and activities not accounted for in the 2005 inventory (e.g. water emissions, wastewater
emissions and BART emissions). As a result, the 2010 emissions inventory is more complete
and accurate than the 2005 inventory. The shift from the base year from 2005 to 2010
enables the City to more fully capture community emissions and employs more aggressive
calculation methodologies not present in 2005, thereby, producing a more precise GHG
reduction goal.
The City anticipates the GHG reduction goal to be achieved through a combination of efforts
at the local, regional and State levels. The reduction measures included within the CAP
Update, which contribute to the City's reduction goal, include locally- focused activities as
well as State initiatives under ARB's Scoping Plan.
4of9
A program or project would be considered consistent with the CAP Update if it substantially
complies with the applicable measures set forth within the CAP Update and does not obstruct
the attainment of the estimated GHG emissions reductions.
Emission Inventory, Baseline and Projections
The CAP Update (Chapter II, "Emissions Inventory") presents a GHG emissions inventory for
2010, which includes an inventory of both community level and municipal level emissions. The
community - level- emissions inventory includes sources of GHG emissions emitted from the
residential energy, commercial /industrial energy, transportation, water and wastewater and solid
waste sectors. Total community -wide emissions were determined to be 328,155 metric tons of
carbon dioxide equivalent in 2010 (refer to Table 1 below).
Tahlp 1 Cnmmunity Greenhnuse Gas Emissions by Sector (MT Me)
2010 Community Emissions by
Sector
MTCO2e`
Percent of Total
CO2e
Residential
55,966
17.1%
Commercial /industrial
60,098
18.3%
Transportation
204,151
62.2%
Solid waste
5,330
1.6%
Water & wastewater (electricity and
fugitive emissions )
2,610
0.8%
TOTAL
328,155
100.0%
The municipal level emissions inventory includes those sources that fall under the direct
jurisdictional control of the City of Dublin Municipal Corporation, which includes City facilities,
the City's vehicle fleet, public lighting, employee commute, municipal water consumption and
municipal solid waste generation. Government - related emissions were estimated to be 2,343
metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2010 (refer to Table 2 below).
Tahle 2 — Government GHG Emissions by Sector
Government Emissions
2010
MTCO2e
Percentage of Total
CO2e
Buildings and facilities
790
33.7%
Streetlights and traffic
signals
548
23.4%
Water delivery
12
0.5%
Vehicle fleet
687
29.3%
Employee commute
249
10.6%
Mobile source refrigerants
8
0.3%
Solid waste
49
2.1%
TOTAL
2,343
100%
Chapter III of the CAP Update, "Forecast for Greenhouse Gas Emissions," includes projections
of emissions in 2020. The emission forecast for the year 2020 is based on projected trends in
energy use, driving habits, and job and population growth from the baseline year (2010) through
2020. The inflation factors were determined using a variety of sources, including US 2010
Census data, ABAG One Bay Area Plan, the Dublin Economic Development Strategy, MTC
Transportation data and the BART 2008 Fiscal Year Short-Range Transit Plan. Under a
business -as -usual scenario, it is estimated that the City of Dublin's emissions will grow over the
5 of 9
next decade by approximately 14% from 328,155 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent to
374,790 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (refer to Table 3 below). This amounts to a
1.3% annual growth rate in community emissions between 2010 and 2020 and underscores
Dublin's predicted jobs and population growth in the next decade
Table 3 — Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions Growth Projections by Sector
Community Emissions
Growth Forecast by
Sector
2010
MTCOZe Emissions
2020''
MTCO2e
Emissions
Percent"
Change;
2010 -2020
Residential
55,966
65,200
16.5%
Commercial /industrial
60,098
71,156
18.4%
Water & wastewater
electricity
2,610
3,419
31.0%
Transportation
204,151
228,037
11.7%
Solid waste
5,330
6,982
31.0%
TOTAL
328,155
374,790
1 14.2%
Dublin's GHG reduction goal is 15% below 2010 levels by 2020. This goal will lower the
projected GHG emissions in 2020 from 374,790 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent to
272,410 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. While the City expects significant residential,
commercial and industrial growth through 2020, the total amount of GHG emissions emitted
within the community will be decreasing.
Further, the City of Dublin's CAP Update is designed to meet or exceed the goals of AB 32. To
delineate the City's commitment to the goals of AB 32, the City's CAP employs BAAQMD's
GHG efficiency based metric for Climate Action Plans of 6.6 MT CO2e per service population
per year. The City's per capita efficiency metric is 5.04 for 2010 and 3.20 for 2020, which
represents a significant decrease in GHG emissions between the base year and forecast year
on a per capita basis. The City of Dublin's efficiency metric is well below the established
threshold in both the Base Year 2010 and the Forecast Year 2020. Thus, the City will be
growing significantly over the 10 -year period covered by the CAP Update, but during this same
time, the City's GHG emissions will be decreasing significantly on a per individual basis.
Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Measures
The CAP Update identifies a variety of measures to achieve the City's GHG reduction target
(Attachment 1, Section V, pages 25 -42). The inclusion of quantifiable GHG reduction measures
is the primary focus of the CAP Update. The anticipated emissions reduction of each individual
measure is used to contribute to the overall GHG reduction goal. Measures that would aid in
reducing GHG emissions, but which are not quantified, are also included in the CAP Update
(supporting measures). While these measures do not mathematically contribute to the City
reduction target, they ultimately will result in GHG reductions beyond those included in the
reductions calculation. That is, they will reduce emissions, but the reduction is not being
measured at this time because there are insufficient data /assumptions to quantify the
anticipated GHG emissions reduction. The various GHG reduction measures are organized into
three broad categories: 1) transportation and land use; 2) energy; and 3) solid waste
management and recycling. These categories follow the major sources of emissions found in
the City of Dublin 2010 GHG emissions inventory.
6 of 9
Results of ImDlementation
Implementation of the local reduction measures in the CAP Update (includes Community -wide
measures, Municipal Operations Measures & Public Outreach Programs) would result in annual
community -wide GHG emissions reductions of 38,920 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.
A list of the local measures and the estimated GHG reductions can be found in Table 13 of the
CAP Update (Attachment 1, pages 47 -48).
Additionally, implementation of statewide initiatives (AB 1493, Renewable Portfolio Standard
and Title 24) would result in annual GHG emissions reductions of an additional 63,460 metric
tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. A description of the measures being implemented by the
State can be found in Section VI of the CAP Update (Attachment 1, pages 43 -46).
The community -wide measures combined with the statewide initiatives would reduce the
anticipated emissions in the community by 102,380 metric tons /year of carbon dioxide
equivalent and would achieve the City's reduction goal of reducing GHG emission by 15% below
2010 levels by 2020.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH:
A Public Notice was mailed to interested parties, including surrounding jurisdictions and various
state and regional agencies. Additionally, the Public Notice was published in the Valley Times
and posted at several locations throughout the City.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The overall purpose of the CAP Update is to reduce GHG emissions and the impacts that these
emissions will have on the community and the global environment, and therefore, is a project
designed to benefit the environment. As a result, it may not constitute a "project" under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), or it may qualify for an exemption under CEQA.
However, as with a proposal involving activities relating to development, implementation of the
CAP Update could potentially result in adverse impacts on the physical environment. Therefore,
an Initial Study was prepared by the City pursuant to CEQA to evaluate whether there are any
potentially adverse environmental impacts of implementing the CAP Update. No adverse
impacts were identified and a Negative Declaration was prepared.
The Initial Study /Negative Declaration was circulated for public review from July 26, 2013 to
August 26, 2013 (Exhibit B of Attachment 2). During the public review period, the City received
three comment letters (Exhibit C of Attachment 2), which include the following:
• Dublin San Ramon Services District, dated August 21, 2013
• Colorado River Board of California, dated August 23, 2013
• Bay Area Air Quality Management District ( BAAQMD), dated September 5, 2013
The letter from the BAAQMD was the only letter that raised concerns. The City of Dublin is
proposing minor modifications to the CAP Update to address concerns expressed by the
BAAQMD. The proposed modifications to the CAP Update are a result of a verbal discussion
with Air District Staff and those concerns outlined the BAAQMD comment letter. Please refer to
the Climate Action Plan Errata (Exhibit A of Attachment 1) for the proposed modifications to the
7of9
CAP Update. Most notably, the proposed modifications to the CAP Update include the
following:
• An update on the ruling of the California First District Court of Appeal decision relating to
the BAAQMD thresholds.
• Discussion on stationary source emissions within Dublin.
• Clarification on the transportation sector analysis and how the emissions were
determined.
• A discussion on how the City's CAP and the GHG reduction target meets the goals of AB
32.
• Modifications to Appendix D to include more detail on the data sources.
The letter from the BAAQMD requests that Appendix D be revised to include more detailed
information on the assumptions behind the emission reduction estimates. The requested
information has not been provided in Appendix D. The assumptions used do not affect the
material outcome of the document. The back -up data is available in the City's file and can be
viewed as requested.
The letter from the BAAQMD further suggests that the City of Dublin include additional reduction
measures, such as expanding the City's Green Building Program beyond new development,
adding a time of sale energy efficiency upgrade requirement to residential and commercial
buildings, adding heat island mitigation strategies, adding a transportation demand management
requirements and adding measures addressing parking requirements.
The City of Dublin's strategy with its Climate Action Plan is to include new programs, practices
and policies into the plan as they are developed and implemented. The community -wide
measures combined with the statewide initiatives would achieve the City's reduction goal of
reducing GHG emission by 15% below 2010 levels by 2020. The City is committed to continuing
to explore new actions to reduce GHG emissions and to supplementing these actions in future
years, if needed to achieve the reduction target. As new programs, practices and policies are
adopted by the City, they will be included in future CAP updates; therefore, we aren't proposing
to incorporate additional reduction measures proposed by the BAAQMD.
The environmental analysis of the CAP Update focused solely on the new policies and changes
in existing policies that will be implemented as a result of the CAP Update. It did not analyze the
impacts of existing programs included in the original 2010 CAP, which have already undergone
their own environmental review. In particular, the CAP Update will not result in any change in
land use designations or permit greater intensity of development than already allowed under the
existing City General Plan, Specific Plans and zoning. The environmental impacts from these
types of activities are already addressed by the CEQA review adopted by the City relating to
these actions.
CEQA allows cities to develop Climate Action Plans or GHG reduction plans to provide
programmatic analysis of the cumulative impacts of GHG emissions for future projects in the
City. CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 authorizes the use of these Plans for the analysis of the
cumulative impacts of projects consistent with the Plan. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines and
Significance Thresholds for GHG emissions also authorize the use of these Plans for CEQA
review of future projects.
The CAP Update serves as the City's qualified GHG Reduction Plan and programmatic tiering
document for the purposes of 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 a less than significant level under CEQA (i.e., the
project will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative
impact). Therefore, the Climate Action Plan Update may be used for the cumulative impact
analysis for future projects and development in the City covered by the Plan. As such, it
satisfies CEQA review requirements for all applicable projects within the City. If a proposed
project is consistent with the applicable emissions reduction measures identified in the CAP
Update, 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 greenhouse gas
emissions and climate change consistent with Public Resources Code 21083.3, CEQA
Guidelines Sections 15183.5, 15064 and 15130, and BAAQMD adopted CEQA Guidelines and
GHG Significance Thresholds.
ATTACHMENTS: 1) City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update with the
Climate Action Plan Errata attached as Exhibit A.
2) Resolution recommending City Council adoption of a
Negative Declaration for the City of Dublin Climate
Action Plan Update, with draft City Council Resolution
attached as Exhibit A, the Initial Study /Negative
Declaration attached as Exhibit B and the comment
letters attached as Exhibit C.
3) Resolution recommending City Council approval of the
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update, with draft
City Council Resolution attached as Exhibit A.
9of9
DRAFT DRAFT
Planning Min
a g utes
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
CALL TO ORDER /ROLL CALL
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September
24, 2013, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair O'Keefe called the
meeting to order at ,;7 0 0 ,2.„i , ,I „
Present: Chair O'Keefe; Vice Chair Bhuthimethee; Commissioners Do, Goel and Kohli; Jeff
Baker, Assistant Community Development Director; Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney; Kristi
Bascom, Principal Planner; Seth Adams, Assistant Planner; Roger Bradley, Assistant to the City
Manager; Martha Aja, Environmental Coordinator; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary.
Absent: None
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA—
Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, recommended, since there were many
people in the audience, that Item 5.2, Brown Act Overview by Kit Faubion, Assistant City
Attorney, be received after the Public Hearings. The Planning Commission agreed.
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS — On a motion by Cm. Goel and seconded by Chair
O'Keefe, on a vote of 4 -0 (Cm. Do abstained having been absent from that meeting), the
Planning Commission approved the minutes of the September 10, 2013 meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS —
5.1 At this time, members of the public may address the Planning Commission on any
non - agendized item(s) of interest to the public. In accordance with State Law, no
action or discussion may take place on any item not appearing on the Planning
Commission agenda. The Planning Commission may respond briefly to
statements made or questions posed, or may request Staff to report back at a
future meeting concerning the matter. Any member of the public may contact the
Assistant Community Development Director regarding proper procedure to place
an item on a future Planning Commission agenda.
5.2 Brown Act Overview by Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney
CONSENT CALENDAR.—
6.1 Determination of conformity with the City of Dublin General Plan for Union Pacific
Right of Way Acquisition (Parcel B).
On a motion by Chair O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Bhuthimethee, on a vote of 5 -0, the
Planning Commission unanimously adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 13 -28
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
farmmm W d11:,bmm mrulk
DRAFT DRAFT
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
FINDING THE PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF UNION PACIFIC RIGHT OF WAY PARCEL B
TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN
o
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE
PUBLIC HEARINGS —
8.1 PLPA- 2013 -00028 Crosspoint Church Conditional Use Permit for a Community
Facility (Place of Worship) to offer life and church ministry training classes at 4288
Dublin Boulevard, Suite 221.
Seth Adams, Assistant Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Cm. Goel asked what time of year the parking survey was conducted.
Mr. Adams answered that the parking survey was conducted approximately 1 month ago, during
the summer.
Cm. Goel asked what the parking requirements would be for a business as opposed to a place
of worship.
Cm. Adams answered that the parking standards for a retail business would be 1 parking space
per 300 sf, and for an office the standard is 1 space per 250 sf.
Cm. Goel asked if this project, as a place of worship, would have a more dense parking
requirement than a retail business.
Mr. Adams answered yes; the parking requirement of 1 parking space per 50 sf is very parking
intensive. He stated that, based on class and meeting sizes that are expected, this parking
standard is the most appropriate.
Cm. Goel asked what the vacancy rate is for the center.
Mr. Adams answered that there is a list of tenants on the first page of the project plans, but felt
that the Applicant could answer the question more accurately.
Cm. Goel was concerned with how many more businesses will be coming to the center and
wanted to evaluate the final parking availability.
Mr. Adams responded that, if one of the vacant spaces were to be proposed for a permitted -by-
right use, such as a restaurant, the parking would be analyzed at the appropriate standard and if
there was a shortage, they would address that issue through off -site parking or the business
would not be permitted to locate at the center if the use does not meet the standard.
Cm. Goel asked if, by approving this type of a project with such dense parking requirements, the
Commission would be precluding the potential for other businesses, and who would take on the
burden of the parking requirements for new businesses.
fanai V d11:'bmmrulk
DRAFT DRAFT
Mr. Adams answered that, if there were a parking issue, the tenant and landlord would have to
resolve it.
Cm. Kohli asked if there is a list of potential tenants for this particular space now and asked if
the Planning Commission should consider other tenants with a less dense parking requirement.
Cm. Kohli asked if there are any other businesses that have applied for space at the center.
Mr. Adams responded that there have been no applications for a conditionally permitted use and
Staff is not aware of alternative businesses. He stated that, if a retail store wanted to occupy a
suite, the parking would not present a problem.
Mr. Baker directed the Commission to Attachment 1 which shows a list of tenants and 2 vacant
tenant spaces, both of which are small and enough parking to accommodate those uses would
be available.
Cm. Kohli asked if there was any feedback from current occupants regarding this tenant
becoming a part of the property.
Mr. Adams answered that the tenants within the center received a notice for this hearing and
Staff has not received any comments or inquiries.
Mr. Baker mentioned that, since this is a public hearing, there may be someone in the audience
who would like to speak regarding the project.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if "place of worship" is a use type, because the Staff Report mentions
that holding worship services on the site is prohibited.
Mr. Adams answered that the use type is "Community Facility" and within the Community
Facility definition there are several sub - categories, one of which is a place of worship. He
stated that the factor that is keeping the Applicants from conducting worship services on -site is
the fire codes for assembly occupancy. He stated that the project does not meet fire codes for
assembly and the Applicants are not proposing to hold services there because they need a
larger space for worship services.
Chair O'Keefe opened the public hearing.
Abraham Chiu, Crosspoint Church, spoke in favor of the project. He stated they selected Dublin
because it is centrally located and they want to serve the community and their members to
develop life skills and improve their quality of life through their classes. He stated that their
worship services are currently held at the Hilton Hotel in Pleasanton.
Cm. Goel asked about the divider between Koi Gardens and their location and how that will
impact the overall facility.
Stephen Ng, Crosspoint Church, responded that the partition is to divide the area into two
sections and their project is not related to Koi Gardens.
Cm. Goel asked if the partition is a solid wall between the two spaces.
fanai W d11:,bmmrulk
DRAFT DRAFT
Mr. Ng responded that the partition is a solid, existing wall.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked what is meant by "worship team practice."
Mr. Ng answered that the week before the Sunday service they hold a rehearsal for the service.
The practices have 4 -5 people, with no spectators, only the worship team is in attendance.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked why the Applicants picked Ulfert's Center in Dublin.
Mr. Ng answered that they felt the location was strategic in that it is in close proximity to the
community and the members of the community can easily locate them for support. He stated
that they had very strong support from the management of the center who wanted to bring the
spiritual element to the center.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if most of their congregation is located in Dublin.
Mr. Ng answered that their congregation comes from the Tri- Valley area. The current size of
their congregation is approximately 180 people, with two services conducted at the Hilton Hotel
in Pleasanton on Sundays.
Cm. Do asked if the services are conducted in English or Chinese.
Mr. Ng answered that the leadership classes will be conducted in English; the ministry and other
training will be in Cantonese or Chinese; but training for youth will be in English.
Cm. Goel mentioned the pre -set schedule in the Staff Report and asked if they already use the
schedule, if it is typical or tentative and will it change in the future.
Mr. Ng answered that the schedule reflects when their students are available for trainings which
is not around dinner or lunch time.
Mr. Chiu felt that most training is after work, but the mother's group can be held during the day.
He stated that they don't plan to have any classes during the peak hours.
Chair O'Keefe closed the public hearing.
Chair O'Keefe asked if the Planning Commission wanted to further discuss other uses and how
that would impact future businesses.
Cm. Kohli felt that Cm. Goel brought up a good point but also felt the Commission needs to
consider whether the Commission is in a position to decide what types of establishments can
locate at the center and how long they can keep a space vacant while waiting for, what they
believe, is the right type of establishment. He felt that the Commission should take into
consideration how this project will impact parking and the parking for future businesses at the
center.
Cm. Goel was concerned with how this business's parking requirement will impact future
businesses when Ulfert's Center is at full capacity. He also felt that the center management
should make their own decisions regarding which businesses are right for the center.
fanai W d11:,bmmrulk
DRAFT DRAFT
Mr. Baker stated that the parking calculation shows a surplus of 12 spaces per the code and
that makes the assumption that the vacant spaces will be retail. He continued that if a
restaurant were to come in, which is a more intense parking requirement, and based on the
numbers, there would be room for one or two restaurants. He stated that restaurants are
parked at 1/150sf of seating area and 1 /300sf for the back shop (kitchen, bathrooms, etc.). He
stated that parking for such a use would need to be evaluated and it is likely there would be
enough parking to support a restaurant.
Cm. Goel asked if the two vacant spots in the center are part of the parking space calculation.
Mr. Adams answered yes, and stated that they were parked at retail space standard of 1 /300sf.
Cm. Do asked if the Bank of America is included in the parking calculations of Ulfert's Center.
Mr. Adams answered no; they are a separate property with their own parking lot.
Cm Kohli felt that this is a good project and that any business that is focused on bettering the
community and include opportunities for spirituality, is positive. He welcomed the Applicant to
the community and stated that he can make the findings.
Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that she had some of the same concerns and appreciated the
discussion regarding the parking situation. She agreed with Cm. Kohli regarding keeping the
use type open. She felt that, with the support from management and the local congregation, the
project is appropriate for the center. She stated that she is in support of the project and can
make the findings.
Cm. Do stated that she can make the findings.
Cm. Goel stated that he appreciated the clarifications and information and felt that the project is
a good asset for the community and the shopping center. He stated that he can make the
findings.
Chair O'Keefe felt that the project adds to the community and thanked the Commissioners for
bringing up good points regarding the parking situation.
On a motion by Cm. Goel and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 5 -0, the Planning Commission
unanimously adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 13 -29
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A COMMUNITY FACILITY (PLACE OF
WORSHIP) AT 4288 DUBLIN BOULEVARD, SUITE 221 (CROSSPOINT CHURCH)
a a
8.2 City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update (CAP Update) and Negative
Declaration.
fanai W d11:,bmmrulk
DRAFT DRAFT
Martha Aja, Environmental Coordinator, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Cm. Kohli mentioned the letter from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
and asked for clarification on addressing issues brought up in the letter. He mentioned Page 1,
4t" paragraph; the City's goal is to reduce emissions to 15% below 2010 levels by 2020 but
AB32 calls on local jurisdictions to reduce emissions to 15% below 2008 levels. He asked how
the City is addressing this particular comment.
Ms. Aja answered that Staff worked with the consultant firm PMC who developed an errata
which indicates changes that will be made to the document after it has been adopted. She
stated that one of the proposed changes is to include additional discussion on how the 2010
baseline is consistent with 2008. She referred the Commission to Exhibit A to Attachment 1,
page 3, where a table shows that the emission indicators in 2008 are consistent with the
emission indicators in 2010.
Cm. Kohli asked if Staff believes that the errata are consistent with a quantitative explanation.
Ms. Aja answered yes and stated that Staff met with BAAQMD during the comment period and
discussed the subject.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked about the Negative Declaration where it asked the question, "does this
impact pollution" with an answer of "NI" or "no impact" but felt that there are impacts but in a
positive way because there will be less pollution.
Ms. Aja responded that "no impact" is the best you can have, but there is no category for
positive impact.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked what the citizens of Dublin can do to take part in the Climate Action
Plan.
Ms. Aja stated that the document was originally assembled to assess developments so they
would not have to create environmental documents to address GHG emissions. She stated
there is a lot that individuals can do to decrease emissions. They are not noted in the document
but they can choose to bike, or live close to BART and take BART instead of drive. She stated
there are many choices people can make that will reduce emissions.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if there was a friendlier way to encourage citizens to do their part.
Ms. Aja responded that the subject is addressed in the letter from the mayor.
Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney, stated that there are things that the citizens can do but this
document focuses on measures that can be quantified and citizen actions cannot be quantified.
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if there could be a provision in the CAP for bicycle racks on Tenant
Improvement projects. She stated that she tries to ride her bike around town on the weekends
and many of the areas that she visits do not have bike racks.
Ms. Aja responded that there is a requirement that all new development must provide bike
racks, but there is no requirement for Tenant Improvements.
fanai W d11:,bmmrulk
DRAFT DRAFT
Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if there was a way to ask property owners or Applicants to install bike
racks when doing Tenant Improvements.
Ms. Aja responded that the City is in the process of updating the Bikeways Master Plan and
offered to check if bike racks are addressed in the document.
Mr. Baker stated that bike parking will be addressed in the Bikeways Master Plan and there are
also changes in the Building Code with requirements for bike parking. He stated that this should
be an increase in the number of required bicycle racks and lockers and may tie into Tenant
Improvement projects.
Cm. Goel asked how the City's proposal to use the 2005 baseline compared to the 2010
baseline effects the tables provided in the revision on Page 21, Tables 8 and 9.
Ms. Aja stated that there was a lot missing from the 2005 inventory that is now accounted for.
She stated that the methodology has changed in the last five years. She pointed out Appendix
E which shows a discussion comparing how the 2010 inventory relates to 2005 if things that
were present in 2005, but were not.
Cm. Goel stated that regardless of whether the City wanted to adopt the 2005 baseline or the
2010 baseline, the clarifiers were still necessary to make the benchmark for 2020 achievable.
He asked about the data analysis and comparison between the 2005 and 2010 inventories. He
asked what is being changed.
Roger Bradley, Assistant to the City Manager, responded that the original inventory, which was
done in 2005, was larger compared to this inventory; therefore, if the 2005 inventory were used
we would show a 50% reduction of GHG. The data analysis has improved significantly since
2005 therefore, Staff felt that it was a much clearer approach to use 2010 numbers because it
shows the actual impact that has been happening and does not overestimate the reductions that
have taken place.
Cm. Goel felt that the 2005 showed an overaggressive calculation at the end, whereas this is a
more realistic approach and ends up with a more accurate interpretation of a reduction.
Cm. Goel referred to the BAAQMD letter that mentions the TDM and the VDT, but within the
errata it lightly addresses it and asked Ms. Aja to explain. He referred the Commission to Page
2 of the letter, bullets 4 and 5; 4 is the parking policies and 5 is the overall TDM.
Ms. Aja asked if those are the new measures being proposed by BAAQMD.
Cm. Goel answered yes.
Ms. Aja responded that for the measures that were recommended to be added, the strategy was
to only mention the things that the City is actually doing and programs that have been funded.
She stated that a lot of other Climate Action Plans tend to be more fluffy and include measures
that are hoped for someday, but the City has taken a more pragmatic approach when there is
funding to achieve the policy it will be included in the CAP. She stated that there are a variety of
items that the City is constantly evaluating and when new programs are implemented, they will
be included. She stated that there was a recent Assembly Bill that was passed that will require
all large employers in Bay Area to provide certain commuter benefits, if they have more than 50
fanai W d11:,bmmrulk
DRAFT DRAFT
employees. She stated that the City has reached out to the large employers in Dublin and have
been educating them on the new requirements. The large employers will be required to add
commuter benefit program to address that legislation.
Cm. Goel asked if the new legislation was written into the CAP or will it be automatically
adopted as part of the Assembly Bill.
Ms. Aja answered that it is automatically adopted as part of the Assembly Bill. She stated that
it is a pilot program in the Bay Area and if successful, it will be expanded to the entire state.
Cm. Goel asked about parking measures.
Ms. Aja responded that the parking measures that were requested are for "parking price " to
encourage people to drive less, but these measures have not been done within the City and
Staff is not recommending new measures to the CAP at this time.
Cm. Goel asked if there were any adverse implications by not addressing the parking concern.
Ms. Aja answered that Staff does not feel that there has been any adverse reactions and Staff
has consulted with the City Attorney. The City is meeting reduction targets and Staff is
anticipating that the emissions will be reduced by over 100,000 metric tons /year. She stated
that the advantage of a re- inventory of emissions every 5 years is that if 5 years in the future it
appears that the City is short of the reduction target then new measures can be included to help
reach the target.
Cm. Goel asked Ms. Aja to clarify BAAQMD's concern regarding the overall VMT for transit -
oriented development (Appendix D) and how it is addressed.
Ms. Aja responded that essentially they wanted the City to show how they arrived at their
assumptions. Staff spoke with the City Attorney and the information was made available, but
incorporating that data would not change the material impact of the document. It was also
costly and time consuming to make that change.
Cm. Goel felt that the concern was an interpretation of calculations and whether the submission
was the way BAAQMD wanted to proceed.
Ms. Aja stated that is correct.
Cm. Kohli stated that he liked that the BAAQMD is being aggressive and felt it is good that the
City is considering their suggestions. He felt that the City is projected to make an impact with
proposed changes but felt there was an opportunity to do more and encouraged Staff to work
with Commissions and City Council to see what more can be done, keeping the community in
mind and how they can take part.
Chair O'Keefe opened the public hearing and seeing no one to speak, closed the public hearing.
Cm. Goel expressed his gratitude to Staff for their work to address the BAAQMD's concerns and
to include the appropriate actions in the CAP. He felt that the targets will be met and exceeded.
Chair O'Keefe thanked Staff and felt it is the right thing to do.
fanai W d11:,bmmrulk
DRAFT
Cm. Bhuthimethee also thanked Staff.
Cm. Kohli also thanked Staff.
DRAFT
On a motion by Chair O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Kohli, on a vote of 5 -0, the Planning
Commission unanimously adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 13- 30
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR THE CITY OF DUBLIN CLIMATE ACTION PLAN UPDATE
a a
RESOLUTION NO. 13- 31
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE
CITY OF DUBLIN CLIMATE ACTION PLAN UPDATE
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS —
5.3 Brown Act Overview by Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney.
Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney, presented an overview of the Brown Act which included a
discussion of ex -parte communications and transparency in meetings, including the risk of
"daisy chain" meetings and email chains.
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS — NONE
OTHER BUSINESS - NONE
10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and /or Staff,
including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to
meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234).
10.2 Chair O'Keefe asked about the progress for the Downtown Dublin freeway facing sign.
Mr. Baker answered that the Applicant is moving forward; they have indicated that they
are sold out; their permit has been issued but construction has not started. He mentioned
that the adjacent pad building is under construction and the owner has signed their
tenants; Freebird's and Habit Burger.
ADJOURNMENT — The meeting was adjourned at k3,,,,,,;;1
fanai W d11:,bmmrulk
DRAFT DRAFT
Respectfully submitted,
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Jeff Baker
Assistant Community Development Director
G:WINUTE&20131PLANNING COMMISSION109.24.13 DRAFT PC MINUTES. doc
farmmm W d11,'bmmrulk
RESOLUTION NO. 13- 30
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR THE CITY OF DUBLIN CLIMATE ACTION PLAN UPDATE
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, under CEQA 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 the basis for determining that the
project would have a less than significant impact on a community's cumulative GHG emissions
under CEQA; and
WHEREAS, on November 16, 2010, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution 167 -10
approving the City of Dublin Climate Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, an update to the City's Climate Action Plan is a City Council key initiative for
FY 13 -14; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has contracted with PMC to assist Staff in preparing the
Climate Action Plan Update; 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, an Initial Study was prepared for the Climate Action Plan Update; and
WHEREAS, upon completion of the Initial Study it was determined that there was no
substantial evidence that the Climate Action Plan would have a significant adverse effect on the
environment and a Negative Declaration should be prepared; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study /Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for public
review from July 26, 2013 through August 26, 2013; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin received three comment letters during the public review
period, but only one letter (the letter from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District dated
September 5, 2013) raised concerns; and
Attachment 5
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin is proposing minor modifications to the Climate Action
Plan Update to address the concerns outlined in the BAAQMD letter dated September 5, 2013;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the
Climate Action Plan Update and Negative Declaration on September 24, 2013; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission
adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review and consider the Initial Study /Negative
Declaration and related comments and responses, all said reports, recommendations and
testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the Negative
Declaration.
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 Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that the City Council adopt a Resolution adopting a Negative Declaration for the
Climate Action Plan Update, with the City Council Resolution attached as Exhibit A and the
Initial Study /Negative Declaration attached as Exhibit B and the comment letters attached as
Exhibit C.
vote:
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of September 2013 by the following
AYES: O'Keefe, Bhuthimethee, Do, Goel, Kohli
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Assistant Community Development Director
WCAP UpdatelPC Hearing.9.24.131PC Reso Neg Dec. doc
Planning Commission Chair
2of2
RESOLUTION NO. 13- 31
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE
CITY OF DUBLIN CLIMATE ACTION PLAN UPDATE
WHEREAS, an update to the City's Climate Action Plan is a City Council key initiative for
FY 13 -14; 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, under CEQA 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, on November 16, 2010, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution 167 -10
approving the City of Dublin Climate Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has contracted with PMC to assist Staff in preparing the
Climate Action Plan Update; and
WHEREAS, the Climate Action Plan Update does the following:
o Provides background on actions taken to curb GHG emissions;
o Presents Dublin's baseline GHG emissions inventory in 2010 and forecast for GHG
emissions in 2020 based on business -as -usual scenario;
o Establishes a GHG emission reduction target of 15% below 2010 levels by 2020,
which results in an efficiency level of 3.2 MT CO2e 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;
o Presents steps for implementation, monitoring and verification of the Plan to achieve
the designated emission reduction target; and
Attachment 6
WHEREAS, the reduction measures within the Climate Action Plan Update 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;
7. Public Outreach Programs; and
WHEREAS, the CAP Update community -wide measures combined with the Statewide
initiatives would reduce the anticipated emissions in the community by 102,380 metric tons /year
of carbon dioxide equivalent and would achieve the City's reduction goal of reducing GHG
emissions by 15% below 2010 levels by 2020, which results in an efficiency level of 3.2 MT
CO2e 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 on September 24, 2013, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution 13 -XX recommending that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration for the
Climate Action Plan Update; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the
Climate Action Plan Update and related Negative Declaration on September 24, 2013; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission
adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the Climate Action Plan
Update; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review and consider the Negative Declaration
and Climate Action Plan Update, all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above
set forth prior to making its recommendation.
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 Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving the Climate Action Plan Update,
with the City Council Resolution attached as Exhibit A.
2of3
vote:
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of September 2013 by the following
AYES: O'Keefe, Bhuthimethee, Do, Goel, Kohli
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Assistant Community Development Director
WCAP UpdatelPC Hearing.9.24.131PC Reso CAP. doc
Planning Commission Chair
3 of 3