HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.3 - 2977 Report on Status of Climate Action Plan Upd
Page 1 of 12
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: December 3, 2019
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Input on Climate Action Plan Update
Prepared by: Rebecca Parnes, Environmental Technician
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will receive a report and consider implementation measures and goals
for inclusion in an updated Climate Action Plan. Following the review and feedback,
Staff will present a final updated Climate Action Plan early next y ear.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive the report on the draft Climate Action Plan (CAP) update and provide direction
on proposed implementation measures for inclusion in the CAP update.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no immediate impact to the General Fund from the Climate Action Plan (CAP)
update. Staff intends to leverage partnerships and grant funding to minimize CAP
update implementation costs on the General Fund. All measures with cost implications
will be brought to the City Council for separate consideration and approval.
DESCRIPTION:
On November 16, 2010, the City Council approved Resolution 167-10 (Attachment 1)
adopting the City of Dublin’s first Climate Action Plan (CAP) in response to Assembly
Bill (AB) 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, passed by the California legislature in
2006. AB 32 set a State-wide target to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to
1990 levels by 2020.
In 2013, Staff initiated an update to the 2010 CAP to meet California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and Bay Area Air Quality Management District standards for a
Qualified GHG Reduction Plan/Strategy that development projects could follow to
reduce the work involved in completing a CEQA analysis for an individual project. The
City Council adopted Resolution 177-13 (Attachment 2) on October 15, 2013 approving
the update to the CAP. Through implementation of the current CAP, the City of Dublin is
on track to reach its 2020 GHG emissions reduction goals.
Page 2 of 12
In 2016, the California Legislature adopted Senate Bill (SB) 32 to ex tend the State’s
commitment to GHG emissions reductions by tightening the target to 40 % below 1990
levels by 2030. In 2018, Governor Brown adopted Executive Order (EO) B -55-18 which
set a Statewide goal of reaching carbon neutrality by no later than 2045. Carbon
neutrality refers to achieving net zero carbon dioxide emissions by balancing carbon
emissions with carbon removal (through carbon offsetting or carbon sequestration) or
eliminating carbon dioxide emissions completely.
The proposed measures presented in this report were developed to achieve GHG
emissions reduction targets set by SB 32 and EO B-55-18. The California Air Resources
Board currently recommends using a per-capita emissions metric to evaluate GHG
emissions reductions and targets to avoid penalizing cities for growth. Staff assessed
GHG emissions reductions using the recommended per-capita target. Figure 1 shows
forecasted GHG emissions on a business-as-usual trajectory compared to reaching the
goal set in EO B-55-18 of carbon neutrality by 2045. Interim reduction targets are also
included in the graph.
Figure 1. City of Dublin’s GHG Emissions Forecast.
To address the gap between forecast and target GHG emissions, the draft CAP update
outlines measures that focus predominately on the City of Dublin’s largest emission
sources: buildings, transportation, and waste. Together these sources make up 99% of
community emissions. The City of Dublin’s community wide GHG emissions were
approximately 317,840 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MT CO2e) in 2015 as
shown in Figure 2. This is the equivalent of 5.5 MT CO2e per capita and represents a
three percent decrease from the previous inventory of 2010. This total accounts for
direct emissions from combustion of fuels in vehicles as well as indirect emissions
associated with electricity, solid waste, and water. Emissions from consumption of
goods are not accounted for in the inventory due to the lack of consensus on proper
Page 3 of 12
assessment methodology. However, strategies to address emissions generated from
the consumption of goods are included in the plan.
Figure 2. City of Dublin 2015 GHG Emissions Inventory.
The proposed community-wide measures are included in Table 1, and municipal
measures are included in Table 2. Each of the measures falls under a certain theme,
further described below.
The theme of “Building Efficiency and Electrification” is important for establishing long-
term benefits and savings by constructing new buildings having low GHG emissions. It
is more cost effective to address electrification and building efficiency in new building
construction rather than in existing building retrofits. The theme of “Renewable Energy”
presents an opportunity for drastic GHG emissions reductions and resiliency potential in
the event of a natural disaster or Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) event.
Transportation is the largest GHG emissions-producing segment of Dublin’s emissions
inventory and is addressed under the “Sustainable Mobility and Land Use” theme. It is
anticipated that rapid changes in the transportation sector will occur in the next 10 to 20
years and many of the draft measures can position the City of Dublin to maximize the
GHG emissions reduction potential from those changes. Emissions from waste are
addressed in the materials management measures with a focus on compliance with SB
1383 to remove organic waste from the landfill. The proposed measures can put the
City of Dublin on the path to meet new GHG emissions reduction targets in 2030 and
2045.
Page 4 of 12
Table 1. Proposed CAP Community-Wide Implementation Measures.
Theme: Building Efficiency & Electrification.
Targets: Achieve an 8% reduction in projected natural gas use by 2025 and 21%
reduction by 2030. Achieve 100% all-electric new construction by 2030.
Proposed Policy Proposed Implementation Measure(s)
Achieve all-electric
new construction.
Adopt a building reach code to disincentivize natural gas use
in new buildings and incentivize all electric construction.
Certain building types, such as fire, hospitals, and
restaurants would be exempt as needed. Staff specifically
proposes consideration of a building reach code allowing for
dual-fuel (gas-electric) at CALGreen Tier 1 code or 100%
electric at CalGreen base code.
Reduce energy
consumption in
existing buildings.
Implement State Building Energy Disclosure Program to
ensure compliance with AB 802 (mandatory energy
disclosure and benchmarking for large commercial and
multi-family buildings) as well as voluntary residential
disclosures.
Develop a program for residents to facilitate building of all-
electric buildings as easily as possible. Develop and
distribute outreach materials on the benefits of home
electrification and maintain an up-to-date repository of
information on the City website. Encourage implementation
of energy efficiency upgrades for existing homes and
apartment buildings.
Promote voluntary electrification by leveraging State and
local incentives.
Theme: Renewable Energy.
Target: Achieve zero greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector by 2022.
Proposed Policy Proposed Implementation Measure(s)
Promote 100% clean
electricity.
By 2022, City Council to consider passing a Resolution to
opt-up residential, community and other building classes to
100% carbon-free (Brilliant 100) or 100% renewable
(Renewable 100) energy with EBCE.
Streamline battery storage permit requirements as required
by AB 546.
Develop Renewable Resource Buildout Plan for Dublin.
Leverage State and local funding and partnerships to
develop local community solar projects in Dublin (i.e.
projects that could supply local solar to the grid and function
as a microgrid in PSPS events or natural disasters).
Theme: Sustainable Mobility and Land Use.
Targets: Increase alternative fuel vehicle adoption to 12% of Dublin cars by 2025 and
33% by 2030; reduce vehicle miles traveled to ≤400,000 by 2030; construct 10 bike
lane miles by 2030; achieve 500,000 miles traveled by bike, scooter, or autonomous
shuttle by 2025 and 800,000 miles by 2030.
Page 5 of 12
Proposed Policy Proposed Implementation Measure(s)
Increase community
electric vehicle (EV)
adoption.
Adopt EV Charger Reach Code for Multifamily and
Commercial Buildings. Develop an ordinance which requires
all new commercial and multifamily buildings to include 25%
of parking spaces be “EV Ready” (conduit and electrical
panel capacity installed), with 3% parking required to have
installed and operable Level 2 EV Charging stations. Please
note that effective January 1, 2020, 10% of parking stalls at
new multifamily and commercial buildings will be designed to
accommodate the future installation of EV charging
equipment.
Develop an EV Infrastructure Plan for Dublin.
Leverage State and regional incentives to encourage the
installation of additional EV charging stations with a goal of
68 new publicly available charging stations (City or third
party owned) by 2025 and 184 new charging stations by
2030. The EV charger goal was calculated by taking the
number of EV’s needed to meet the 12% and 33% EV’s on
the road goal which equates to 3,658 EV’s by 2025 and
9,911 EV’s by 2030. Per CEC and National Renewal
Energy Lab numbers, one charger can service 27 cars.
Promote alternative
modes of
transportation.
Develop a Transportation Demand Management Plan.
Develop a City parking management plan to reduce single
occupancy vehicle transit.
Reduce Parking Requirements in Transit Oriented
Development.
Work with BART and LAVTA on autonomous vehicle roll-out.
Continue implementation of the City's Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan.
Continue to prioritize transit-oriented development to reduce
transportation emission and increase efficiency/amenities to
the local area.
Implement form-based building codes that encourage
pedestrian access over vehicle access.
Theme: Materials Management
Targets: Organics will make up less than 9.35% of Dublin waste by 2025; not less
than 20% of currently disposed edible food is recovered for human consumption by
2025. Reduce GHG emissions related to the manufacture, transport and construction
of building materials, together with end of life emissions.
Proposed Policy Proposed Implementation Measure(s)
Achieve Zero Waste
goals for solid waste.
Pass all ordinances required by SB 1383 to reduce waste
sent to the landfill and recover edible food.
Page 6 of 12
Ensure compliance with mandatory composting rules to
ensure organics make up less than 9.35% of Dublin waste
by 2025.
Require food generators above minimum size/revenue
thresholds to donate surplus edible food.
Implement the City's franchise waste collection agreement.
Reduce embodied
emissions in the built
environment.
Adopt a reach code mandating low embodied emissions
concrete with specifications for residential and non-
residential applications. "Embodied emissions" are
emissions of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases
generated by making and transporting materials to a building
site, including mining, refining, and shipping.
Table 2. Proposed CAP Municipal Implementation Measures.
Theme: Municipal Building Efficiency & Electrification.
Target: Construct buildings to enable fiscal responsibility on ongoing electrical
operating costs.
Proposed Policy Proposed Implementation Measure(s)
Include total cost of
ownership and life
cycle analysis of GHG
emissions impacts to
RFP language for City
Buildings/Infrastructure
projects.
Develop policy for the City which would require all new
building RFP’s to include life cycle costing over 30 years and
tie this directly to energy consumption and building
electrification. This would include the building’s operational
and maintenance costs and ensure that the City has the
most cost effective and sustainable building possible.
Theme: Municipal Renewable Energy
Targets: City facilities use 100% clean energy; 50% of energy is generated on-site by
2030; 100% of critical facilities are functional with off-grid clean energy by 2030.
Proposed Policy Proposed Implementation Measure(s)
100% Clean Energy
for Municipal
Accounts.
Opt-up all municipal electricity accounts to 100% renewable
power. Please note this is implemented and all energy
procured by the City of Dublin is from 100% renewable
sources as of July 2019.
Install solar arrays at facilities that currently do not have
solar arrays and work with emergency services to add solar
and battery storage at priority locations. Review options for
potential to combine multiple buildings into microgrid
systems.
Theme: Municipal Sustainable Mobility
Targets: Reduce employee commute emissions 10% by 2025 and 20% by 2030.
Electrify 10% of city plus contractor fleet by 2025 and 25% by 2030.
Proposed Policy Proposed Implementation Measure(s)
Page 7 of 12
Reduce Municipal
Employee Commute
Emissions.
Complete a transportation demand management study to
determine how to incentivize alternative transportation
methods for employees, including telecommute options.
Provide bicycles and bicycle storage for employees to use
during work hours for short business or personal trips.
Electrify Vehicle Fleet
and Equipment.
Update and implement the City's Green Fleet Policy.
Develop and adopt a policy to apply life cycle costing to all
new vehicle and equipment purchases. This should include
all passenger vehicles as well as larger vehicles such as
garbage trucks, busses, etc. This policy could be extended
to require long-term contractors to use EVs and give
preference to short-term vendors/contractors who have
electric/hybrid vehicles.
Complete fleet electrification analysis (in process through
EBCE).
Theme: Municipal Materials Management
Target: Green the City's procurement process.
Proposed Policy Proposed Implementation Measure(s)
Promote awareness of
sustainable goods and
services.
Implement the City’s Environmental Preferable Purchasing
Policy.
Require Municipal landscapers to maintain Bay-Friendly
Landscape trained staff. Update RFP requirements to
include minimum number of two Bay Friendly certified
professionals for any company responding to landscaping-
related City RFPs.
Enforce existing Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance and
Bay-Friendly Landscape measures.
Enhance Carbon
Sequestration
Opportunities.
Update City Standards to include compost/mulching
requirements and standardize minimum tree root volumes.
Complete and highlight carbon sequestration/farming pilot
project which will be completed in partnership with
StopWaste.
Require the use of compost-based erosion control BMP’s
during and post-construction, including compost socks,
berms, and blankets, in permitted and city-owned
construction projects.
Theme: Resiliency Efforts
Proposed Policy Proposed Implementation Measure(s)
Page 8 of 12
Implement the Local
Hazard Mitigation Plan
to mitigate flooding
and reduce the urban
heat island effect
through an urban
greening initiative.
Develop Urban Greening policies which encourage/require
tree planting along roadways, homes, and businesses to
increase stormwater capture, reduce the urban heat island
effect, increase building energy efficiency and provide
carbon sequestration opportunities.
Implement the Green
Stormwater
Infrastructure Plan.
Include green stormwater infrastructure in optimal locations
to promote infiltration and stormwater management along
with complete street designs, carbon sequestration, and
habitat development.
Implementation of the draft CAP update measures will enable the City of Dublin to reach
proposed 2030 GHG emissions reduction targets. As seen in Table 3 below, the biggest
impacts can be achieved by opting-up East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) community
accounts to 100 percent carbon free energy, followed by increasing community adoption
of electric vehicles and electrifying the new and existing building stock. To further
achieve reductions in GHG emissions from transportation, a shift away from single
occupancy vehicles must occur. Policies and programs to address this transition are
quantified but the impact is relatively small as behavior change will take time to realize.
A detailed discussion on three of the proposed measures follows the table below.
Table 3. 2025 and 2030 GHG Emissions Reduction Projections.
Measure
2025 GHG
Emissions
Reductions
(MT CO2e)
2030 GHG
Emissions
Reductions
(MT CO2e)
GHG
Emissions
Reductions
Percentage of
2030 Potential
Theme: Building Efficiency & Electrification
Building Electrification
Ordinance 4,062 4,828 6.1%
Electrify Existing Building
Stock 4,649 14,529 18.4%
Theme: Renewable Energy
Opt-up EBCE Community
Accounts 35,620 28,182 35.7%
Theme: Sustainable Mobility
Reduce Parking
Requirements 794 1,332 1.7%
Bike & Ped
Implementation 167 172 0.2%
Community EV Adoption
Programs 8,320 26,288 33.3%
Page 9 of 12
Theme: Materials Management
Organic Waste Diversion 3,427 3,615 4.6%
Total Emissions
Reduction Target 30,177 73,866
Total Measures
Reduction Potential 57,039 78,946
POLICY DISCUSSION
All-Electric New Construction
An all-electric building paired with 100% renewable energy has zero carbon emissions.
In contrast, natural gas usage in buildings is one of the largest sources of GHG
emissions. In order to start on the path to achieve the goal of carbon neutrality
established in EO B-55-18 by 2045, the City of Dublin can adopt an electrification reach
code. A reach code is a building code that is equal to or more stringent than what is
established by the California building code, is cost effective, and is approved by the
California Energy Commission.
Reducing and ultimately eliminating natural gas usage in the building sector is an
important component of climate mitigation and a critical strategy for the City of Dublin
and the State to achieve the goal of Carbon Neutrality by 2045. Since SB 100 requires a
100% clean electric grid by 2045, passing a building electrification ordinance now
(reach code) that prohibits or disincentivizes natural gas infrastructure, a policy that has
been publicly supported by PG&E, is a critical tool for consideration as part of Dublin’s
CAP update.
Cities across the State are adopting gas bans and all electric reach codes. In Alameda
County the following cities are exploring electric reach codes per direction from their
City Council with the possibility of implementation in early 2020: Albany, Berkeley,
Emeryville, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, and Oakland. Due to the timing of the
release of CalGreen Title 24 codes and the completion of cost effectiveness studies for
all electric, no Alameda County cities have yet adopted a reach code.
On November 19, 2019 the City Council adopted a Resolution (Attachment 3) which
approves amendments to Dublin Municipal Codes to align with provisions required by
the California Building Standards Code in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24.
The code amendments require higher levels of building energy efficiency effective
January 1, 2020 but do not mandate all electric new construction. The City of Dublin
can choose to either mandate or encourag e all electric new construction by adopting a
reach code. As part of the CAP update, Staff proposes amending the City’s construction
codes to let builders choose between building more energy efficient buildings with dual
fuel (gas and electric) or all electric construction at the minimum level of energy
efficiency required per the 2019 Edition of the California building Code. Though not
necessary for GHG emission reductions, the City Council can additionally adopt a reach
code requiring the installation of battery storage coupled with mandatory solar panel
installation. Solar panels with battery storage can enable resiliency in a natural disaster
Page 10 of 12
or PSPS event.
Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Electricity Sector by 2022.
The City of Dublin passed Resolution 168-16 (Attachment 4) and elected to become a
member of EBCE on November 15, 2016. EBCE procures energy that is transmitted to
Dublin residents and businesses via PG&E infrastructure. EBCE provides three portfolio
options for its customers: Bright Choice which is EBCE’s standard service and is offered
at 2% below PG&E’s energy rate; Brilliant 100 which is 100% carbon free and is offered
at a rate on par with PG&E’s rate; and Renewable 100 which is 100% renewable and
100% carbon free and is offered at 11.5% more than PG&E’s base rate.
The City of Dublin has already opted its municipal accounts to Renewable 100. The City
Council could also adopt a resolution to opt up all customers to either Brilliant 100, as
the cities of Albany and Hayward have done, or Renewable 100, as the City of
Piedmont has done. Opting up to either Brilliant 100 or Renewable 100 has the single
largest GHG emissions reduction potential of any action that could be taken in the
immediate future. If all energy provided to Dublin bu sinesses and residents was carbon-
free, then a reduction of 28,182 MT CO2e could be achieved by 2030 making up 37.4%
of total reductions needed.
Table 4 below created by EBCE shows monthly cost comparisons between different
residential energy options in 2019. As the table shows, for the average resident the
increase in cost between Bright Choice and Brilliant 100 is $0.63 per month and $7.56
per year, and for Renewable 100 it is $4.22 more per month and $50.64 more per year.
Table 4. EBCE Residential Rate Comparison.
Compliance with SB 1383 Requirements
In September 2016, Governor Brown signed into law SB 1383, establishing methane
emissions reduction targets in a statewide effort to reduce emissions of short -lived
climate pollutants. Methane emissions resulting from the decomposition of organic
waste in landfills are a significant source of GHG emissions. SB 1383 establishes
targets to achieve a 50% reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic
waste from the 2014 level by 2020 and a 75% reduction by 2025. The law grants
CalRecycle the regulatory authority to achieve the organic waste disposal reduction
Page 11 of 12
targets and establishes an additional target that not less than 20% of currently disposed
edible food is recovered for human consumption b y 2025. CalRecycle is currently in the
rulemaking process with the goal of releasing final requirements in January 2020. Staff
anticipates implementation of SB 1383 will require substantial staff time. CalRecycle’s
Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment of SB 1383-related proposed regulations
on decomposition of organic waste in landfills estimates that implementation of all
program requirements will cost each resident $17 annually and each business $662
annually.
Based on the CalRecycle’s proposed regulations, by January 1, 2022 the City of Dublin
must:
1. Adopt an ordinance mandating all residents (including multifamily properties),
businesses, and institutions to have trash, recycling, and organics collection,
and proper sorting of their waste into each container.
2. Establish an edible food recovery program for large generators that includes
securing edible food recovery partners with adequate capacity to collect or
receive excess edible food from generators.
3. Provide education and outreach to all generators on program requirements.
4. Procure compost for use in Dublin at levels established on a per capita index.
5. Plan for adequate capacity for recycling organic waste and for edible food
recovery.
Starting January 1, 2024, the City of Dublin must:
1. Monitor, enforce, and track proper waste sorting and implement escalating
fines for non-compliance.
2. Expand edible food recovery program requirements to medium generators.
CONCLUSION:
Upon receiving City Council feedback this evening, Staff plans to return to the City
Council with a final updated CAP in early 2020 for possible adoption. The draft
measures proposed for the CAP update address GHG emissions generated from
energy, transportation, and waste. If adopted, Staff intends to track measure
implementation and associated GHG emissions reductions and report progress publicly
on the City’s website. Staff also plans to participate in the Beacon Program
administered by the Institute for Local Government. The Beacon Program honors
voluntary efforts by local government to reduce GHG emissions, reduce electricity and
natural gas in municipal facilities, and implement sustainability best practices.
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:
None.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
Staff conducted community outreach to solicit input on priorities for inclusion as part of
the Climate Action Plan (CAP) update development. This included a community survey
and outreach at public events to promote the survey. Staff also received input on the
draft measure from the CAP Task Force, which was formed by the City Council per
Page 12 of 12
Resolution 134-18 (Attachment 5) on December 3, 2018.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution 167-10 Adopting the City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
2. Resolution 177-13 Adopting the City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update
3. Resolution Approving Findings Regarding the Need for Local Amendments to
Provisions in the California Building Standards Code
4. Resolution 168-16 Approving an Agreement to Participate in a Joint Powers Agency
for Community Choice Aggregation Program in Alameda County
5. Resolution 134-18 Approving the Formation of a Climate Action Plan Task Force
C ~~ !
i'.., l
r
for commute trips. Further, vehicle trip reductions may be possible if residential locations are
within walking distance of retaiUservice amenities or an employment center.
TOD residents tend to have a higher transit mode share than the remainder of the city because
they tend to have fewer cars per person, are more likely to be single and without children, and cite
location to transit as a factor for choosing the TOD residential location.
Emission Reductions - Based on their research, Fehr & Peers identified a reduction in vehicle
trips of 25% for multi-family residential developments located in a mixed-use environment within
a barrier-free, half-mile walk of a BART station. Dublin's planned TOD developments, in
conjunction with the City's policies that promote high-density development (see Measure A.1.2)
and mixed-use development (see Measure A.1.3), are estimated to result in a reduction of 4,357
MT COZe/year (0.93% reduction relative to 2020 BAU).
A1.2 Hi,~h-Density Development
Context - The City of Dublin has a high-density residential land use designation, which allows
25.1+ dwelling units per acre. These high-density developments are located near the existing
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and along Dublin Boulevard. High-density development has
been approved near the future West Dublin BART Station. Additionally, Area G of Dublin Ranch
includes approximately 1,400 medium-high and high density residential units. The high density
residential land use designation was included in the City's original General Plan, which was
adopted in 1985. While this policy did exist prior to 2005, the total impact of the policy was not
reflected in the 2005 inventory. For high-density housing, the only development projects included
in the reduction calculation are those that were constructed after 2005.
Emission Reductions - Emission reductions for this measure are included in Measure A.1.1.
A.1.3 Mixed-Use Development
Context - Several areas in the City allow mixed-use development. The mixed-use land use
designation encourages the combination of inedium- to medium-high-density residential housing
and at least one nonresidential use, such as office or retail. The mixed-use land use designation
was added to the City's General Plan in 2004. Far mixed-use projects, the only development
projects included in the reduction calculation are those that were constructed after 2005. Several
projects have been approved in the City that include a mixed-use component, such as the Transit
Center, Groves, Tralee, Jordan Ranch and San Ramon Village. Additionally, the City is currently
warking on several other projects that will also include a mixed-use component.
Emission Reductions - Emission reductions for this measure are included in Measure A.1.1.
A.1.4 Bicvcle ParkinQ Requirements
Context - Bicycle parking requirements are implemented during the development review process.
Under the City's Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations, parking lots with 20 or more
spaces in nonresidential zoning districts are required to provide one bicycle parking space in a
bicycle rack far each 40 vehicular parking spaces. Additionally, requirements exist for bicycle
parking in multi-family residential complexes. The availability of bike racks throughout the City
supports the use of the City's bike lanes, and is an essential part of encouraging individuals to
choose biking over driving.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 33
p~ ',~.,...:• ~ f>
w~
E~HP. ~z ~7F~RS
TRANSPO$TATt6fl COH511ETANT$
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 30, 2009
To: Jaimee Bourgeois, City of Dublin
From: Kathrin Tellez and Rob Rees, Fehr & Peers
Subject: City of Dublin Transit Orienfed Development
Transportation Impact Fee Assessment
WC08-2606
Fehr & Peers has reviewed data from a variety of sources to develop a likely range of vehicle trip
reductions for transit-oriented residential development (TOD) adjacent to the Bay Area Rapid
Transit (BART) stations in the City of Dublin. Research indicates that developments adjacent to
transit service such as BART can expect to experience a reduction in vehicle trips, especially for
commute trips. Further vehicle trip reductions may be possible if the residential locations are
located within walking distance of retail/service amenities or employment centers.
Residents of TODs tend to have a higher transit mode share than the remainder of the City as
they tend to have fewer cars per person, are more likely to be single and without children, and
cite location to transit as a factor for choosing the TOD residential location. The following
presents the background that requires agencies to consider fee reductions for transit-oriented
residential development, the relevant research summary, and our recommendations for potential
trip reduction percentages to use in assessing traffic impact fees for TODs.
Recommendation - Fehr & Peers suggests a reduction in vehicle trips of 25 percent for
multi-family residential developments located in a mixed-use environment within a
barrier-free half mile walk of a BART station
BACKGROUND
Assembly Bill 3005 requires local agencies to set impact fees for transit-oriented housing
proportional to their vehicular traffic impacts. The bill attempts to account for the observed
reduction in vehicle traffic associated with development that is mixed-use and within proximity of
transit. The required impact fee re-assessment applies to housing developments that meet all of
the following criteria:
1. located within one-half mile of a transit station
2. direct access between the housing development and the transit station along a barrier-free
walkable pathway not exceeding one-half mile in length
3. located within a half mile of convenience retail uses, including a store that sells food
4. provides either the minimum number of parking spaces required by local ordinance or no
more than one on-site parking space for zero to two bedroom units and two on-site spaces for
three or more bedroom units, whichever is less.
Traffc Impact Fees can be reduced at the discretion of a local jurisdiction even if not all the above
criteria are satisfied.
100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (925) 930-7100 Fax (925) 933-7090
www.fehrandpeers.com
Appendix B
RESOLUTION NO. 177-13
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;
Reso No. 177-13,Adopted 10-15-13, Item 6.1 Page 1 of 3
o Presents steps for implementation, monitoring and verification of the Plan to achieve
the designated emission reduction target; and
WHEREAS, the reduction measures within the 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.
Reso No. 177-13,Adopted 10-15-13, Item 6.1 Page 2 of 3
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of October 2013 by the following
vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Gupta, Hart, Haubert, and Mayor Pro Tern Biddle
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mayor Sbranti
ABSTAIN: None
Pa%
Mayor Pro Tern
ATTEST:
at/tA) r`
C Pgrr
City Clerk
Reso No. 177-13,Adopted 10-15-13, Item 6.1 Page 3 of 3
City of Dublin
Climate Action Plan Update
nor D
f
II,
4
111
19 „ t .. it 8'2
1
24Z,Tro
July 2013
ys 11N.Fm 11 .i. 5} U" It' i "'
p,)
I ,i9r
u #. i'"4 rrIt-
n'
r , h
r, 'I4'i f, '
I
IIt III 0--,
a,wk i
i :[
m
N . ,, Mh i III I/ 14 N.
rx r „Edd^r F'' x",,,/„ I //
lfi ,"
I-ti ,
k si
u ifs ¢. 7s Ik J
9 M ° r,, Y a f
d d r 1 4 ,•i I I l.10,.,',A,1 P 1 1i V l+Cyus a
mfl;r ii;: a 1 yr.
v
cwt
el, 1!!Vls(:flr^ w 1,4 aY H r'iti a F p ,Y'',Vi$rr
r t, f rr v..wR.;'w..,,,r....± .. 1 ^mE 1wa
40:11:1•,,,
y
S
1.
r s
Hi' I i, iA,
Exhibit A of Attachment 1
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.VIn 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,
foiar7— ,
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 3
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
1.Introduction
11. 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 4
Executive Summary
The world's population is releasing greenhouse vases (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 MTCO2e 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 CO,e to 374,790 MTCO2e. 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 MTCO2e
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 MTCO,e 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 5
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 MTCO2e 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 Etnissions 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 Parley, 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 Quality Management District
In June 2010, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted CEQA air
quality thresholds of significance for use within its jurisdiction. 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 MTCO,e 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 CO,elyear) 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 MTCO2e 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 11. 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 9
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 MTCO2c 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 MTCO2e per service population per year. The baseline efficiency metric for 2010 is 5.0
MTCO,e 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 CO,e 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
CO,e.
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 Figure 1 —Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions by
inventory, as described above. Sector
This inventory includes sources city of Dublin
from the following sectors: 2010 Community GHG Emissions
Residential energy
1.6% 0.8% ICIIIResidenLlai-Electricity
n0 r I
Commercial/industrial energy G I niResidential-Gas
m „
tx
I q
Transportation Commercial/Industrial-Electricity
Water and wastewater
t:'"r
Vi
tulllgllli j0
19 r
ICommercial/Industrial-Gasprr ,1t <
Solid waste I ttl Transportation Sector
3;,g.,wt, t 1
r, ,
Gre+'41 I'U t I( t
Lr 11
II'6I II 1 al
Ill Waste Sector
a
l„raJ
0 Water and Wastewater
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 14
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 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 MTCO2e Percent of Total CO,e
Residential 55,966 17.1%
Commercial/industrial 60,098 I 8.3%
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: MTCO2e=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 CO,e.
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 CO, emissions, and from
vehicle miles travelled (VMT) which provides CH4 and NO 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 MTCO2e Percentage of Total CO2e
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
MTCO,e.
Dublin receives electricity from PG&E. The types of power Figure 2—Built Environmental Emissions
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 CO,e per megawatt-hour of l it
l+
L li4
lily " irioartilirtr ,.
electricity generated versus 0.7 tons for gas turbines and zero tons 1lni f a ,
for renewable sources such as solar, wind, or hydroelectric power.
e
11 d
Dublin's emissions from the built environment are slightly more
III 11'r II 1
from the commercial/industrial sectors (52.6%)., the residential r J, o
sector makes up 47.4% of community stationary emissions (Figure
2).. c f it lil{NA 14 yf
Residential
In 2010, Dublin's residential sector consumed 100,679,670 kWh of electricity. This energy
consumption resulted in 55,966 MTCO,e 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 MTCO,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 MTCO,e, 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.
1 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*
Percentage of Total Percent of Total
Waste Type MTCO2e CO2e 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:N1TCO2e=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.
Alt other waste is considered inorganic and doesn't emit CO,
Government Operations GHG Emissions by Sector(2010)
2.Municipal Emissions Inventory 0.3% 2.1%
11911 Buildings&Facilities
1
11
The sources of emissions counted
I
IIOIStreetlights&Traffic
under the government's inventory ILI II' g4II Signals
are facilities and equipment owned
and operated by the City. The
tl
Water Delivery Facilities
hl, ll rl . r
I,,',r6 ll li l'l
1 t1
II
Ili 11
it:'; F a IVIIIVehicle Fleet
government operations inventory
sal+i S :.,r IIII lI3
liii Il lirf" i
includes sources from the followin g rT? ii
e p Employee Commute
sectors:
u i
5 PI,
II P 111;°
1Pv1
1,1 Mobile Sourcel
Buildings and facilities VF 4,I414 Refrigerantsry7 `p i I
0.5% ,
i.u JiadpYf
Iii Scope 3 Waste
Streetlights and traffic signals
Water delivery Figure 3—Government Operations by Sector
Vehicle fleet
Employee commute
Mobile source refrigerants
Solid waste
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 17
Emissions by Sector
Government operations in the City of Dublin emitted approximately 2,343 MTCO2e 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 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%
Note:MTCQe=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 MTCO2c 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 MTCO,e, 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 MTCO,e, or 12% of
all municipal facility emissions.
TABLE 5: ENERGY CONSUMPTION&GHG EMISSIONS FROM FACILITIES
Percentage of Electricity Natural Gas Energy
Total Facility Consumption Consumption Equivalent
Facility MTCO2e CO2e kWh) therms)M1VIBtu)
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& 58 7% 285,326 974
Preschool
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:NfTCO_e=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 18
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 CO2e 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
Percentage of Total Electricity Energy Equivalent
Facility MTCO2e CO2e(Public Lighting) Consumption(kWh) (MNIBtu)
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:NMTCO 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 MTCO2e. 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 CO,e, 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 MTCU,e
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 MTCO2e, 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 MTCO2e. 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 2010 2020 Percent Change
Forecast by Sector MTCO2e Emissions MTCO2e Emissions (2010-2020)
Residential 55,966 65,200 16.5%
CommerciaUindustrial 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%
Note:MTCO2e=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
Residential energy use
14,910 17,380
US 2010 Census,ABAG
Households Off-road equipment One Bay Area Plan
46,040 62,700
US 2010 Census,ABAG
Population One Bay Area Plan
Nonresidential energy use 19,000 22,500
2012 Dublin)Economic
Employment Development Strategy
Solid waste
65,040 85,200
Sum of population and jobs
Service population Water and wastewater
Daily Alameda County On-road transportation 34,180,606 38,006,574
MTC Transportation 2035
VMT
Annual BART
gARl' 1,469,000,000 1,7 43,261,595
BART 2008 Fiscal Year
passenger miles Short-Ranee 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 MTCO,e or 7.3%between 2010 and 2020.
TABLE 9:MUNICIPAL FORECAST
2010 2020
Municipal Emissions Growth Forecast by bITCO2e ATTCOze
Percent Change
Sector 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 16J°„
Finployee commute 249 249 0°o
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 arc 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 LNDICATORS
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 63,700
US 2010 Census,ABAG
Population One Bay Area Plan
Community 2012 Dublin Economic
19000 22 500
employment Development Strategy
Streetlights and traffic signals Sum of population and
65,040 85,200
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 MTCO,e from 2010 levels, which includes both the state reductions and CAP
measures.
TABLE 11—DUBLIN CONL\IUNITY-WIDE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Dublin Community-wide Emissions Summary
Base year 2010
MTCO,e emissions 328,155
Target year 2020
BAU projection MTCO,e emissions 374,790
Reductions from State GHG reduction measures 63,460
Forecast after state reductions MTCO,e emissions 311,330
Reductions from CAP GHG reduction measures 38,920
Forecasted Emissions with Reduction Measures(MTCO,eiyr) 272,410
Note:MTCO,e=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions;BAIT=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 MTCO,e 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 (NITCO2e)
GHG Emissions Inventory 2010 328,155
GHG BAU Emissions Forecast 2020 374,790
Reductions from State GHG 2020 63,460
reduction measures
Forecast after State Reductions 2020 311,330
Reductions from Local GHG 2020 38,920
reduction measures
Forecast after State and Local 2020 272,410
Reductions
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 MTCO2e/SP
GHG Efficiency Metric 2010 5M4
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 arc 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 MTCO,e) 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 C).
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 MTCO2e/year(22%of local reductions).
A.1.2 High-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 MTCO2e/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 MTCO2e/year(4% of local reductions).
A.1.6 Multi-Modal Map
Context— In June 2009, the City adopted a multi-modal map, which is a comprehensive tool to
relay transportation opportunities within a specific location. The function of the multi-modal map
is to show the various methods of transportation within the city,including pedestrian,vehicle, and
bicycle trips as well as connections to other cities. The multi-modal map is currently posted on
the City's website. Additionally, the City 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 MTCO2e/year (3%
of local reductions).
A.1.7 Electric and Plug-In Hybrid Charging 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 MTCO2e/year(less than 1% of local reductions).
A.1.8 General Plan Community Design and Sustain ability 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 MTCO2e/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.l.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 MTCO,e/year (28% of local reductions).
A.1.12 City Design Strategy
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
over p50reachtosu202nittrhpoints on the GreenPoint Rated
system. Alternatively, LEED for Homes is approved in the 33
ordinance. Other types of rating systems may be approved
by the City's Green Building Official on a case-by-case C I i 1Vl ii E
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 MTCO,e/year(3%local reductions).
A.2.2 Energ.v Upgrade 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 MTCO,e/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 MTCO2e/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 Energy Services Program
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 MTCO2e/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 Energy 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 MTCO2e/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 MTCO2e/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 CO2e/year
3%of local reductions).
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 34
A.3.3 Tiered Rate Structure for Garbage and Recycling
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 Recycling 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 CH, emissions produced
when organic waste decomposes in the absence of oxygen at the landfill. CH,is a powerful GHG,
21 times more potent than CO,. 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:
I) 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 N,O 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 MTCO,e from entering the
atmosphere.
Emissions Reductions — Emissions reductions for this measure support those calculated for
Measure A.3.2.
A.3.6 Promote Commercial Recycling
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 Recycling
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 Recycling Program
C'ontext—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 Organics 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 Bag 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 S2.00/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 MTCO2elyear(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 MTCO2elyear(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.
C.1 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 Spare 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 40
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"Recvclin2 and Composting 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.
C.4 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 Da`-
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 1. Introduction.
A. State Climate Change Planning
A.1.California Global Warming 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 Strategy
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 (RPS)-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 MTCO2e/year.
B.2 Executive Order S-20-04—Energy Efficiency in State Buildings
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
2,600MTCO7e/year.
C. Transportation and Land Use
C.1 Assembly Bill 1493—Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Standards
Context — Nationwide. automobile manufacturers are bound by fuel efficiency standards set by
the 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 MTCO2e/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 MTCO2e 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 MTCO2e per service population, below the
BAAQMD plan-level efficiency threshold of 6.6 MTCO2e 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 %of 2020 Local
MTCO2e/yr)Reductions
A.Community-wide Measures
A.1.Transportation and Land Use Measures
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 Map 1,140 3%
A.1.7.Electric and Plug In-Hybrid Charging Stations at the Library 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 28%
A.1.12.City Design Strategy Supporting Measure
Subtotal Transportation and Land Use 24,280 I 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?.3
A.2.5.LED Streetlight Specifications lbr New Projects Supporting Measure
A.2.6.California Youth Energy Sen°ices Program 80 1%
A.2.7.Implementation of Green Shamrock Program Supporting Measure
A.2.8.Direct Commercial Energy Outreach 640 2%
A.2.9.Behavioral Energy Change 180 1%
Subtotal Energy _ 12,801) 33%
A.3.Solid Waste and Recycling Measures
A3.1.Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance Included in.4.3.2
A.3.2.Citywide Diversion Goal of 75% 1.270 3%
A.3.3.Tiered Rate Structure for Garbage and Recycling Included in A.3.2
A.3.4.Commercial Recycling Program Included inA.3.2
A.3.5.Commercial Food Waste Collection Program Included in A.3.2
A.3.6.Promote Commercial Recycling Included inA.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 %of 2020 Local
MTCO2e/vr)Reductions
B.Municipal Operations Measures
B.1.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
B2.1.LEED Silver Requirement for New City Buildings>S3mil 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 Policy Supporting Measure
Total Municipal Operations Measures 570 I 1%
C.Public Outreach Programs
C.1 Great Race for Clean Air Supporting 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 48
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:
l) 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 I Department Responsible I Time Frame
A.Community-wide Measures
A.1.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.l.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/ Ongoing
City Manager's Office
A.3.2.Citywide Diversion Goal of 75% City Manager's Office Ongoing
A.3.3.Tiered Rate Structure lbr 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
A3.10.Reusable Bag Ordinance City Manager's Office Ongoing
B.Municipal Operations Measures
B.1.Transportation and Land Use Measures
B.1.1.City Hybrid Vehicles Public Works Ongoing
B.12.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>S3mi1 Parks&Community Service Ongoing
B.2.2.Window Film on the Civic Center Public Works Complete
B.2.3.I,ED 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 I Parks&Community Service I 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
C.4.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 MTCO2e 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
AV1 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
CO, carbon dioxide
CORe 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 CODe metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
MMT million metric tons
NO 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 MTCO,e
Community Inventory
Wastewater treatment
emissions 565
Water and wastewater.
electricity emissions 2,045
Transportation wheels and bus electricity 684
Wheels and bus — liquefied
Transportation naniral gas(LNG) 25
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)
Transportation emissions 658
Transportation Off-road and direct emissions 18,490
Note:MTCO,e=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
Energy of Total
2010 Community Emissions by Percent of M1VIBtu)MMBTu
Sector MTCO2e Total CO,e
Residential-Electricity 20,449 6.2%0
343,617 7.4%
Residential-Gas 35,517 10.8% 668,171 14.3%
Unknown* Unknown*
Commercial/industrial-Electricity 37,994 11.6%
416,007 8.9%
Commercial/industrial-Gas 22,104 6.7%
34,364 0.7%
Water&Wastewater Electricity 2,045 0.6%
Transportation sector 204,151 62.2%
3,195,367 68.6%
0.0%
Solid waste 5,330 1.6%
Other-Wastewater Fugitive Emissions 565 0.2%
0.0°.0
TOTAL 328,155 100.0%
4,657,526 1009/0
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
2005 Community Emissions by Percent of 111MBtu)MMBTu
Sector MTCO,e Total CO2e
Residential-Electricity 20,368 6.6%
310,729 5.9%
Residential-Gas 30,785 10.0%
575,888 11.0%
618,303 11.8%
Commercial/industrial-Electricity 40,528 13.1%
367,999 7.0%
Commercial/industrial-Gas 19,672 6.4%
0.0%
Water&Wastewater Electricity 0.0%
Transportation sector 189,763 61.4%
3,36 4,409 64.2%
0.0%
Solid waste 7,807 2.5%
Other-Wastewater Fugitive Emissions 0.0%
0.0%
TOTAL 308,923 100°/b
5'237'328 100%
Note:MTCO2e=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions
There were a total of'22,467 MTCO,e that were reported in 2010, but not included in the 2005 inventory.
The MTCO,e included in the 2010 inventory that was not included in the 2005 inventory includes the
following sectors: water & wastewater electricity (2,045 MTCO7e), wastewater fugitive emissions (565
MTCO,e), wheels bus(709 MTCO2e), BART(658 MTCO2e) 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
2
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 MT000e, which is slightly less than the 2005 GHG emissions inventory(308,923 MTCO2e).
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
4
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 CO, 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) CO,
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
Change m %
Change in
o Change in
Sector
MTCO,e
Activity Data
Emissions Factors
b1MBtu)
Residential electricity 1% 11% 9%
Commercial and industrial electricity -6% 2% 5%
Residential natural gas 15% 16% 1%
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 CH, 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 N2O 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
N,0 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, N2O, 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.
5
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 CO2/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 MTCO,e 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 EN VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED AND EMISSIONS
Year VMT
Change in ItTTCO2e Change in
VMT MTCO2e
Passenger Vehicles
2010 297,941,277 125,916
4% 3%
2005 310,410,506 129,789
Heavy Trucks
2010 35,996,970 54,425
7% 2%
2005 38,699,058 55,731
Buses
2010 2,348,599 4,662
7% 10%
2005 2,514,588 4,244
Note:MTCO2e=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions
6
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 MTCO2e 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 I1% 22%
Paper 22% 25%
Plant 5% 4%
WoodiTextlle 24% 19%
All Other 38% 30%
Total 100% 100%
Emission Factors and Activity Data
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
2005 2010
Sectors
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 MT 687 998,604 VMT
Waste 7 33 tons 49 195 tons
1 otal 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 MTCO,e in 2010, about 12% of the total unadjusted 2010 inventory.
TABLE 9:NEW GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS SOURCES IN 2010
Emissions
Percent of Total
Sector Source
NITCO2e)
Emissions from
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:MTCO,e=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 MTCO2e 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
8
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 Data
Electricity emissions per kWh decreased by about 9% between 2005 and 2010. Natural gas emissions
factors remained constant. Utility-specific and year-specific CO, emission factors came from PG&E
while California grid average N20 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.
9
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 N20 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 Data
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.
1 1
Appendix C: Transit Oriented Development Memo
fp
i:lii & LFR
TRANSP(>3'APION CONSN1tAN7S
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 corn
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, en 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 1/2 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).
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 1/2 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 1/2 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 1/2 to one mile of a
BART station is 16 percent.
Trip reductions for the East Bay BART station survey data and the two Pleasant Hill Station TODs
are fairly similar, with the higher trip reductions at Pleasant Hill likely due to the rise in fuel price,
which occurred between the two survey periods, and the higher density of development and
subsequent lower automobile ownership found at Pleasant Hill Station compared to the rest of the
BART system in the East Bay.
Research presented in Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel, TCRP Report 128, states
that TOD commuters typically use transit up to five times more than other commuters in the
region and the mode share for TOD can be up to 50 percent. In 1990, the commute transit mode
share in the City of Dublin was 2 percent according to the Census. The commute share
increased to 5.4 percent by 2000, with the opening of the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station in
1997. The transit mode share has likely increased since 2000 due to increased congestion on
the Interstate 580 corridor and increased fuel prices.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The goals outlined in AB 3005 may be difficult for a single residential project to achieve as they
rely on factors outside the realm of an individual project, principally the requirement that retail
uses, including a food serving business, are located within proximity to the new development.
While it is shown that a mixture of uses does contribute to trip reductions, the significance of this
factor is somewhat negligible during the AM and PM peak hours, the time of the greatest burden
on the transportation infrastructure, because the many trips at this time are work-related. This is
evidenced by the large trip reduction from standard ITE rates for developments around the
Pleasant Hill BART station, although food serving uses are at least 1/2 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.
0, 1 I. I v CI)i w
o a i
1 ' \
ou)
a Y
e'
air
1
I R
Et
Z
1-
2,0 c 0
111L-
F
to '
Ill
N'."
a° rr. , r
6 n -4,
4,,,,.,,,,
YI
ill, *
UPj
11TTIT
1ti4iV
i''+
Y Oia ',l. r_ii
pt "0•]4
1 ''`- t y"? r .,1 ` 'i,
r. '+
I 44kVaF,',,, J I ;. Y4 •i*F:J ':l i'1; 1, 1"'a a
i IJ" t. ;y l
I7 I d#"t 'a tau r T'
i,,,,,:,';„;:,
P
tii
k
r
r,."'”`
Y -0r
a'u t At q,t1
f v
Y
3:e
t +,, I.7,141+i4m,,tl • ;
a (, 1
e
q)
4n M,I 1+' C i ; a =
CO
n
ut t 4 p-2M
4/
4,
z
l'
a +u Q
g
I , 11m
0', f t'
t 1r-to ;,4„,..gitoti.,,,,,i,r,
414.,..,t,,,. .,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,.,... 1 , , ,, r I,
Diu Wi'ri,', crx,c4,,k,, ,tql. fitir„,,i,,e ,y4,,, ,- ',YR':1 ,','
yt ak a ;4 i: a 1;', j` II!) .' y2 YY t a
y. I I Ilil a.
a + .
e" 1
G, 4, 1.-,,, , u. 1 i ,Trsiho f a`hV ,al(
A +fi iiT4 r rt xt+P 1+1 y)t y
yd + a1 pV 10. P n Y 1 J
C`, Z
i
i w"v
ti r Vil
afi,,,,,. p ! + ,, n( x
s;
r
a M S'I, ittAa.iaa' 4u+uIW 1r./a.i 141e11 Y
o'Ta t i ati,"yya ' t4 11 1J ln A,
J
a,p e+x t4wa 7 Lp ' d ,4 y h a h It R'l 16 4 +I'1'
1'.1c1'... + e Nl[A CO•
a
L4r'114 11 G !LE f I. r.,
Alt:',“ri,, I!
a
y t r
y, i I ,•;
F r;
F a
r
lL;
nIo 1 "(y 5tV 4V
a.
YYYrt l'! lk It drr J 1` Vii ,a&a` r 1: t ah }i '
i h . , i M
k J'.,y '11 4 „ u !i r 1 rIL:±: eta1l
uT»I" ' ,, ; ,Tf
r{ f`.
h ° Vti,PI ` i '1p )
JI• f 'I e i tie
r
fl' i T;y i ,y 'R a iG 3
µ+ ,i
H'
i+L
t i 1v1,y f N+1>u 4m a1U
x
Waal +ia l d Yq,w 41 kdw rf, u!.
R
4 si” y, gnu 1' +."„ Na *1' r ,'il '
l,
ya '
I!l'' tIl+ ,
l't '
I+I4af t'dY Vf)1
roe`' n +.' :, " ):fl 1 II$ Y
y a " 'I) IEi>IPYIISY Y'u' ' au1( f'
k1 c., as M`a h ,
n 'd,
id,h 1 i' ,, a z {
4+ d
3`14 M°v 1 r d n,,,'4:. d d x SS{g
I
adi r
a
s
9 9 I R
13 i 1 I 'gy p..' tiVi
t ':r R 4i i
h:
tii
4P1,
t l , I y .1
1. +I + h + T + j:
4
n'' ` 9p at a.a. jyr,., r >` n °
f
vt.
T'
p,, t"lA V ti 4
w 4q
y
i v l ,t!oi, IN w s
i "
t° ° , ! "
n~ it
a
i
I,,, „,,1%1A i % ni4j
x
i K ;
d II Ilull
a dutll ' ua Y 'F a
l
I
44'*Na , r a + ' a 4 a e ). i1 t i
J 400 v p ,
n
y k I j
4 Yu S r ^an( Ik II I
8)
Y Ua uW'
Je 44. v+ II L :'4W. t II I III J ' 4 I 6 .A A,a tIq
l
2,
Cfl
lzl x 7b,
V
yV1
1 ..y y@d'
4, + ,
1 w
v -/
e'P ) `vw tl7 Wr M N d F
2 i d { ° P Ida '"”, ,! rtr u
S f. 14 " ' k #
li
ltl
i aU gi " 1 "I ',,,,t! i I" s
I
mu
i +.i 4 R)
H,, I ar,
L,
T +
III4a% + ,AV
t ,
t
vii+1,,,,,,,,,,:t 11,„,;,,,,,till,t,,c,,,,,r,,,,,,,
t,,,,
i y
V
tI°
111 '
p ' "
gmP
a
r,-1..&
1 Y ,F I lm n ,
4
a ,' , I a 1 u + u
u 10;10111, „ 11 r a", I 1' '
1 M V i,
a, 11D II z ,;
I rytlrr Y : t J ! L:1F III II y":..+,
C i '/ k
I
i. Aioly'1%W ,
r 6JW MCI„
I 1i
t tk .P A + fG ! 1
4 ro li} '
9 r w
1
Y'' +
i I Cf k" r1 fll tf i1 , I y1 8a i O
u7 h Y +„u 7 ),x y :IG4r.c,'',,)*da
a t 7 G5d '1 t t f+ Y 1 j ii I. 4
i..od i3 ” ,,
ot`'1 I($r4 "I 1 V, W „ ti,J +'r + 7. ;, a IV 14, Y, ,,„,.',64,,,,;,,,,,,k > '+99I 10°''',
I
a
r ''`
i'
9l"" fl ,t4
Vj1lo
r I
I ,,
JJ rider 5 I'4,4,,,
1, . '^ ,„s9 "'„6n , , ), e i'.' JuJ;4"4r ° r, .C.nl,ald
iI '.ll
A V: i'X lY Iv t
P' 1, F„,} S,
j ,
i^I,,, II!4 s I .s ¢ .fd
I'i T40'1,11 rtie,,,,,4,i:,,,,,e,,,,,.;, -il .h.r*, ..!0 p4,1 ,,,,?,.) ,,,/^ ,R, z,tf,til. • k.c 1,41,,,g0:1p1 i..,
y i
1,l'Y$Orl'1.<'":-, ',•-' ',t.' ' Ir' ,1,,AT',
4G.
3/7/t7.ril
l .
qui„,.1.--„,„,.-
1
L
4
S
r
I
T ;4' + i tFl ':a w b
e t v k
4
S`i e,
E27
wr11f(
o
0 0 ii
Ad O
O''
I[ .
y " ' ”
L-
774
5.
r,
I " w T. :I - c 5,W !
1
1
J '
i S r
V n f I
1.11/
4 .
1
s .
I`:
U
4
FfX
i t. n a rry 4
I
N ID
i
co N E
5
N C O CJ
Ct
O
XNX .
j o
PiC
cc
11 1
o
W N \Q
j` f U
Z
CI
co W
Z I-,
2,
IW
CL.- .4iL '`
l
l
O LU
nr rYllk 4°'S
t fi °, 11 aGy
I '
1,t.;•
y {x o':''k ''1gn' Jr t lr t Wsp t ` slsfl"' s
VS -}
I `w I-
i j;4 J'' F • pki S1 .m [ r S 4 IY I IM d
4
P$ 4i
1,1 3 r ,...
y`Yl Ir,r, h a Y i f 4 r
x k. Y r 4 r r P m'& ',40,,,i,,,,,,,,,
hh 0
Y" s I) IS r s i'' s,J Ij o>l ;ra y
qt , 'k+w 1 P'' I i4`
r'y'ry,
1'
p 'Y `lr a k^' Q W
fl r„. lY pp V !t t W7yy tit V Sri '1' l,, ^a
i,
3' M A F L A P P{ 1 f
i _.+
h
f .4' 1 1 ,.,-
r-,- (
k1
r
I'
if
ii •ii PF " 1F i rt',k
i a
II
i V•,
r1 5 1,1!„11 '
r a i
r ?
r e r,y 9; i p i ti,>I Nti >d I
0 Z
iii
I a . .[[[;1,--["?'''',r ";',A,',,, 4 t l l rr rp e I+1Jg d !
Oll,n i ... r -
a ax ,; r: >LE l h ,
r 5 I HdR F Sk 4.y 0 p 4"1 1 1'
I 4 Xr t k t I I lr 44 3
r
rl 1 N IL AL l
sr l` V ..:"[["„[-4.
410.,
l. 1
4.,),",,,,,i-e,',.` `
4.
a
l
i=L , d 3
r
Vr
I'
r,
r F r y , i ,(
r
n r1 i S
glltl tip r rGseli r
i U
I r
4=
r0-14 .41,,J
I)n V p t ! ""r
U,r
r Hit
2'
k r'
I'
r ,„„,),,
v,0,,,,,,,,,,,
4 2 .
Ltd
14F
e -/
4-''''''
Cu 4'.+' .,
il'
G' r 4 , k t ,! f Ill y r rr 1
1'
N 41 .
y.,. "L•,.u. w,
t ,,,
X.' 'e+,•
J
s ryrti
f 6+
a 4 v( *hV i G",,' Lr r " k 4or4
rok r' +:` R rr -rnz-*.i,,w<
t7 1,'i
a}i k 7 ' P 1 w
R,mJ
Ce
r
r
i
i¢,IIn I , ,fir, 4iY fl
x "Jc 'ty.x, „,,
9;
T-?
ro
h, r<^+'CJ
c; ;wr Tii r }.,
CIF
C i li It, ,,,n;. 7 u'io- ,'-
y,
k I a Yo a
r rr r v,,
rlttp °'fr rr r31
rf1L
P
i 1R ,'
4
ll',
titre '
JI1
4'1-,1
y f r
r ' t In 1p ril,`,1,%4:,,
r,
1
A Pa
ptt
k fJ
H, f rail,
I.,-;,',,,,,f140,,
u;;o
y
7 , J
l'a bl41;'d w r ii 1 } ,I i,!. p LL
4 "`1'f t r x ar rB l 1 i d' I rx t: r n q;r ;61 xii r qr•'n l
1L '"
Ir; i1,tti . ,M1
4',
I
4''
r 1,4',4741,,,,,744.'
i G Rr
L1
r G,
h
r ?'i xr 1, au tr.r.4>t i-
1
rr
i
0
dia t r i r ;
it
l'
AK1
s
ryr
I r 1 r tri
4j°
1
r '' TPw''rn= ',
vat w s YID y h
x'
h ktw t"u '7 :
a :rl!
r{
J''>,-„';
Fda rs,7 :' ''1{I,4 t p; ' I r- r
rtil;''
111 II t g r 'r W
5y
1,.
d I ;' ,
g,
a '' 14ti i ti p 11 4nPd s r , u
ifi. `` f cM4
s';
r:'''''
a '+, t. „ ,.
i N,` t;0,, }
r
h !.
i
t $ if r !'(' ,#,
rr `
r '` 'i':t"III'',,
h::Okr
i s a
r
r + r p II } i r
rr} P II,rr 1 3 i'ttb n
r u a l'
A s 4d ''.
r ,
W it . S
T
ki t.sa! x'a ..;d S „ i Jfi
ro
i Rid , , G
4
r ta Q ,w}
a. A k r
p 10 k r k 1 ti s'
f r iirv +
rJ
1 n- b' t 4r s1
r d u t
1 1
it` j d' d 4 w j T
H l i rf
11
q U l 'Aw
hi s J rAA I r r I u.
n ua a urn
jJf ;,\"
i."
w 1l II k
n7i
R'Zr• r,i.,m ..+v
i.
R9 a p
1 ,.YYfr
t,,,,,,,,1„,
21,
y
IRS Y' ' } 4'f- rota Kr i r
m
t
I y R M FR wttt v 4, rr WR
r it %td '
1 r{ 1 '
n yt3 r I^' yr
4 h L
r h>"J n '' .rr
4i i p 1 `^
R
I r l. rii x
a
is r< *in 4 ft.
a ,,,
0 `'.+
1 r S d , r Ea"V a i x 4 s p 'r 1 1
r'sa ... „ 1 ' r ++ Y 11 i
y
rr
t y, s s
q
1
r p ae 'P'r"'?,.h ;i'; ,,,,,,'
4 , 4,,4 rp,, ,, t`.. ,III r
R
x'3
jr ^' °` ro
i
mgr ' '^ r , rx
n pu r r
I "r. it r. ' E ro
t w i F ii Stt u r u `
r
r n.
r r v,. i
rc I a s ! I I w I r e"
1 ^ f p Jp'k
p° ,r1i
R''i t
l '
I ,(
I
F"
fir
i,
yr '
1
diA;lk " l.oa
r
t',
n`'. •I1 u4'-'1,,
Fi „
loo
i
d ,
d i i
t 5skik,t
py
w
fi`F,,'*.;,f7!"4 o a,
1 3 t .
h1M
1fe+elki.. "'.+" I`
III
Iap 44.1.1
u'I r "•: QI V, ; 9 ti kf-,
4 r
I ? y $ .
41,Po
yY r + •.,,. I i nraa.. iv $r h '
tlr
r
rf r
r ,
o''
F
y zap,a 4 i i
1 t,'
k 11'11' 1 " r ', f° ', {
1e r,uG °a f r,
6
k r
rr"n J 4 ,,
y4,, `/,,,
t ^' f 1,,,41,,,',13'`, "r sa a r, "'M }}i f'r I .as
4 r, a k'
a ;Q ,;,'.N ' f3 •a .K I !' t-- "'""'.'°
W°' r"tT, ' `o
vR' i
k
al;"
C'
t
r e „[..,,,i,:.-4, ' ens -'". ,}'tlu
R '
kr!a ,,.
tor.
Err r J i 41 'RY”
s^
4, it c. i 7 'R,F n {4'Px' r r E j µ ,. 1 ° r u' r r r"'G4 r4 }° J
A'RM Rd 1 r
14%.
6i47. 1 N 1 r r w`°, i,,a 6 * l 4 v b
I,.,mn: " d a t a , rwa , ,." / t'R 1
ft 8'ii
gar1,
A 'F
1 i
r
n 4 n" i& r
n
I G iM sr Y .0 f ii y F
G7/,ll Mi itl ir+' + 3°
E iy fv r";`A+'
r " i r rllrvr 6+' LYa
W r
nn
r r # 4 Y } ;.
i
r r(
II_ i ,ri II I r
y y av p r 1 1W`l r a yu
r a r
id" /,p
r f D,I - t ,, fitt y
wdi l,d L"^ J ",,W r N r 4 n47',7' " i4 ! :,,
111.4,,,,,
4,',,r 1 n r i't. w=
ar Fk,. i 1l I - r k h
r r ar c 4 I B''tt y('R 5 I 1 5 1 i
a
r '° 'r'us fff ,
f -
r '
r r yd P n. il*d lit t ^ f'
1,e a i,i,,
IRfiF
i .
t R A
n °s to r CRF , r k .. +s Y'*'4r N
l N' it k kr ,k ro ih Ilk s
r ,
r
u r,t o-, Rte 1aun J
1N
u PIF_1
t ,
r. th aua r' re, ilk y(?
a a e a ra a s it a ( d 7ivk
k" "
t
I,} '1'
iic ` ` ..
a• r
y,., Pa" k+ {' 41 1F,,4„,,,, P' ,i .R
F-r a r
r
e,.,,,
ii,,,'„,- d ,.p a r• ' - r '
I 9n r , rk r`"t"Tk 67Ya M
kFi "*. '.
r"'
g a'i '''333...r"" ,. @.
t n
t
fl rr Etikill IJ
cn'
1titwpM ..e..n• 1 S s v. l,_ r r ,r i j 1]a No
Ill, l 4 s. . , t`
r
1`"
4 -:','"
uHrwx, 0,,,,,..„0.t € oh3r t k. '.f
dW„ r R:r ¢ l 4 :6 ; '''''"I'1`
4: s, a y a Q
Appendix D: Emissions Reduction Calculations and
Assumptions
Local Measures:
2020 %of 2020
Local Measure Reduction Local Assumptions Data Sources
MTCO2e) Reductions
Transportation and Land Use Measures
A.1.1 Transit-oriented,high-density,and mixed- 8,380 22% 25%reduction in per- Communication
A.12 use development household VMT for with City staff
A.13 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.1.10 Bikeways Master Plan VMT from bicycle Pollution
parking Control Officers
Association:
Ouontifying
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 Multirnodal map 1,140 3% 0.75%reduction in Center for Clean
VMT from a Air Policy:
multimodal map CC<lP
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
1
2020 %of 2020
Local Measure Reduction Local Assumptions Data Sources
MTCO2e) Reductions
Energy
Commission:
California
Energy Demand
2012_2022
Final Forecast
A.l.8 General Plan Community Design and Supportive
Sustainability Element
A.1.9 Work with Livermore Amador Valley 1,210 3% 1%improvement in Center for Clean
Transit(LAVTA)to improve transit and transit,resulting in a Air Policy:
implement Bus Rapid Transit(BRT) 0.5%reduction in CLAP
VMT. 1 BRT route Transportation
out of 17 in the Emissions
LAVTA system Guidebook
Livermore
Amador Valley
Transit
Authority:
Rapid,Local,
and Express
Routes
City of Dublin
2010 CAP
A.1.11 West DublinrPleasanton BART Station 10,980 28% 13%increase in BART:April
BART ridership by 2013 Monthly
2020 Ridership
Report
BART:Carbon
Calculator
BART:
Greenhouse Gas
brveniory
BART:Short-
Range Transit
Plan cg 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:
Quantlf}:ing
Greenhouse Gas
Mitigation
Measures
City of Dublin
2009—2014
Housing
Element
2
2020 %of 2020
Local Measure Reduction Local Assumptions Data Sources
MTCO2e) 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
A2.4 participation rate with City staff
National
Renewable
Energy
Laboratory:
PT:l[atts Grid
Data Calculator
A2.5 LED streetlight specifications for new Existing
projects LEDs-
Included in
B.7.3
Future
LEDs-
Supportive
A2.6 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 Enemy Services
natural gas use for
participating
households
A.2.7 Green Shamrock Program Supportive-
A2.8 Direct Commercial Energy Outreach 640 2%Communications
with City staff
East Bay Energy
Watch:Activity
Report(2010—
3012 Program
Cycle). City of
Dublin. C1
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
Efficient
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
3
2020 %of 2020
Local Measure Reduction Local Assumptions Data Sources
MTCO2e) 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.12 Commute alternative program Supportive-
B.1.3 Green Fleet Policy for City vehicles Supportive-
Municipal Operations Energy Measures
B2.1 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
B2.4 Adopted municipal energy action plan 550 1% City of Dublin
Municipal
Energy Action
Plan
Municipal Operations Solid Waste and Recycling Measures
B.3.1 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
C.4 AVI waste reduction educational programs Supportive-
C.5 Promote bike to work day Supportive-
4
2020 %of 2020
Local Measure Reduction Local Assumptions Data Sources
11TTCO2e) Reductions
C.6 Outreach at Dublin Fanner's Market Supportive-
Total 38,920 100%
State Measures:
2020
State Measure Reduction Assumptions Data Sources
MTC 02e)
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
13.3 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 FJJiciencv
Standards for Residential and
Nonresidential Buildings
California Energy
Commission: 2009 California
Residential Appliance
Sanrratian Studs-
Transportation and Land Use
C.I Assembly Bill 1493—Vehicle Fuel 53,140 Full implementation of California Air Resources
Cr) 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
5
Appendix E: Applicability of GHG Emissions
Reduction Measures to New Development
Measure Number and Title I Residential I 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
2 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 X X
Element
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.2.1. Green Building
Ordinances 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.l. 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.
3-Through the entitlement process,the Applicant will work with LAVTA to determine if a bus stop is required
along the frontage of the project site.
4-The City Design Strategy applies to new residential and commercial projects when a General Plan or Specific
Plan Amendment is required.
The Green Building Ordinance applies to residential projects with 20 or more units.
1
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 app al is currently pending in the Court of App al 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
era*applicable measure of a project's significant air quality impacts.As the court did not determine
whether the thresholds arc or arc not based on substantial evidence and thus valid on the merits,tThe
City as a lead agency continues to reliesrely 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 i nd ^^t
determination of significance of plan-level GHG impacts pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section
150611.7(0.
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 almost 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, including activities such as such as diesel equipment at facilities and buildings and vehicle miles
traveled.
Transportation
1
Exhibit B of Attachment 1
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
Staff Proposed Changes and Errata to Draft CAP
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 tonsMT-0O2e.
The transportation sector analysis includes emissions from a-l-kvehicles using MTC's use trip generation
model,which assigns within Dublin's Dublin 50%of VMT from trips that begin or end in the city,and 100%
of the VMT trips that begin and end in the city.city boundaries(whether on local roads or statc highways
passing through Dublin's jurisdiction),The transportation sector also includes as well as off-road vehicles
transportation captures include and an apportioned amount of emissions generated by the
City's use of the BART passenger rail service.
Page 23
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
just 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 2005 2008 2010 Change, %Change,
Indicator 2005-2010 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 S-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
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.
Page 25
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 eAdjusted emissions factors b^e
factor that was used 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 calculate the GHG emissions inventory
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
3
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
Staff Proposed Changes and Errata to Draft CAP
Fehr&Peers(2009),as citcd in Dublin 2010 CAP
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 Dublin 2010 CAP
Measure A.2.2:
City of Dublin 2010 CAI'
California Public Utilities Commission. Energy Upgrade California:Alameda County.
https://energyupgradeca.org/county/alameda/about overview.
4
RESOLUTION NO. XX-19
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING FINDINGS REGARDING THE NEED FOR LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO
PROVISIONS IN THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODE AS ADOPTED BY THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 24, TO BE
ADOPTED BY REFERENCE IN THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code Section 18938 makes provisions published in the
California Building Standards Code pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17922 applicable
to all occupancies throughout the State and effective one hundred and eighty days after
publication by the California Building Standards Commission (the “Commission”), or at a later date
established by the Commission; and
WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code Sections 17958, 17958.5, 17958.7 and
18941.5 establish the authority for a city to adopt and make local amendment s and
modifications to the building standards in the California Building Standards Code to establish
more restrictive building standards than those contained in the California Building Standards
Code; and
WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code Sections 17958, 17958.5, 17958.7 and
18941.5 permit a city to make such local amendments and modifications as the city determines
are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions; and
WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code Sections 17958, 17958.5, 17958.7 and
18941.5 require a city, before making any amendments and modifications to the California
Building Standards Code, make an express finding that such amendments and modifications are
reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions.
WHEREAS, under Health and Safety Code Section 17958.7, changes pursuant to Health
and Safety Code Section 17958.5 may not become effective until the required findings, and the
changes, have been filed with the California Building Standards Commission; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 50022.2 permits enactment of City Ordinances
that adopt codes or statutes, including codes of the State of California, by reference; and
WHEREAS, notice of the Ordinance was published in accordance with Government Code
Sections 50022.3 and 6066; and that such notice was sufficient to give notice to interested
persons of the purpose of the ordinance and the subject matter thereof ; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Dublin intends to adopt an Ordinance adopting
by reference provisions of the California Building Standards Code, with local amendments; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the reasons for proposed changes to the
California Building Standards Code set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and hereinafter
incorporated by reference.
2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby declare and
find that the local amendments to the provisions of the California Building Standards Code set
forth in Exhibit A are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geologic, or topographical
conditions in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 17958.7 as further set forth in
Exhibit A; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution, including Exhibit A, shall be
filed with the California Building Standards Commission in accordance with Health and Safety
Code Section 17958.7.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of November, 2019, by the following
votes.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
3347729.1
RESOLUTION NO. 168 — 16
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING AN AGREEMENT TO PARTICIPATE IN A JOINT POWERS AGENCY FOR
COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION PROGRAM IN ALAMEDA COUNTY
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has demonstrated its commitment to an environmentally
sustainable future through its policy goals and actions, including energy reduction, clean energy
programs, and the expansion of local renewable power supply; and
WHEREAS, the City has adopted a Climate Action Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions;
and
WHEREAS, Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) is a mechanism by which local
governments assume responsibility for providing electrical power for residential and commercial
customers in their jurisdiction in partnership with local commercial energy purveyors and owners of
transmission facilities, which in the case of the City of Dublin is Pacific Gas & Electric Co.; and
WHEREAS, CCA has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions related to the use of
power in the City of Dublin; provide electric power and other forms of energy to customers at a
competitive cost; carry out programs to reduce energy consumption; stimulate and sustain the local
economy by developing local jobs in renewable energy; and promote long-term electric rate stability
and energy security and reliability for residents through local control of electric generation resources;
and
WHEREAS, Staff has examined and identified Community Choice Aggregation as a key
strategy to meet local clean energy goals and projected greenhouse gas reduction targets; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County directed the Alameda County
Community Development Agency (CDA) to determine if a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA)
program is feasible for cities in Alameda County; and
WHEREAS, CDA staff prepared a "Technical Study for Community Choice Aggregation
Program in Alameda County" (Technical Study, July 2016); and
WHEREAS, taken comprehensively, the Technical Study suggests that an Alameda County
CCA would be feasible, could operate economically, could provide ratepayers reductions on their
electric bills, and could both increase renewable energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions if the
right balance is achieved by a joint powers agreement; and
WHEREAS, if a municipality is to form a CCA with other municipalities, it must become a part
of a Joint Powers Agency (JPA) as required by the legislation that permits CCAs; and
WHEREAS, a draft JPA Agreement has been prepared by the Office of the County Counsel
and has been reviewed by City Attorneys of Alameda County cities and the membership of the
Steering Committee over the course of several months.
Reso No. 168-16, Adopted 11/15/2016, Item No. 7.1 Page 1 of 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Dublin does
hereby approve the agreement titled "East Bay Community Energy Authority - Joint Powers
Agreement" in order to participate with other prospective signatories in a Community Choice
Aggregation JPA for Alameda County municipalities, and authorizes the City Manager or his designee
to execute the agreement.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th
day of November 2016 by the following
vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Biddle, Hart, Gupta and Wehrenberg
NOES:
ABSENT: Mayor Haubert
ABSTAIN: I
AAt
Mayor Pro Tem,.re
ATTEST:
ia C4
City Clerk
Reso No. 168-16, Adopted 11/15/2016, Item No. 7.1 Page 2 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 134— 18
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING THE FORMATION OF A CLIMATE ACTION PLAN TASK FORCE
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has a Climate Action Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
to 15% below 2010 levels by 2020; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin is working to establish new strategies to achieve further
greenhouse gas reduction by 2030 and 2050 to align with Senate Bill 32 and Executive Order B-30-
15; and
WHEREAS, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research and the California Air Resource
Board identify community engagement as an essential part of Climate Action Plan development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Dublin does
hereby approve formation of a Climate Action Plan Task Force.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is authorized to direct staff to identify
Climate Action Plan Task Force participants from local government partners, community members,
development companies, and the business community.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Climate Action Plan Task Force would be for a limited
term and would cease to exist following the adoption of the updated Climate Action Plan by the City
Council.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of December, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Gupta, Hernandez, Thalblum and Mayor Haubert
NOES:
ABSENT:Councilmember Goel
ABSTAIN:
0)ma1//14
yorayor
ATTEST:
6, g
City Clerk
Reso No. 134-18, Adopted 12/4/18, Item 4.13 Page 1 of 1