Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-24-2013 - Agenda PacketPlanning Commission Regular Meeting City of Dublin September 24, 2013 City Council Chambers 7:00 P.M. 100 Civic Plaza 1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA 4. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS – September 10, 2013 5. ORAL COMMUNICATION - 5.1 At this time, members of the public may address the Planning Commission on any non-agendized item(s) of interest to the public. In accordance with State Law, no action or discussion may take place on any item not appearing on the Planning Commission agenda. The Planning Commission may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed, or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the matter. Any member of the public may contact the Assistant Community Development Director regarding proper procedure to place an item on a future Planning Commission agenda. 5.2 Brown Act Overview by Kit Faubion, Assistant City Attorney. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR 6.1 Determination of conformity with the City of Dublin General Plan for Union Pacific Right of Way Acquisition (Parcel B). 7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 PLPA-2013-00028 Crosspoint Church Conditional Use Permit for a Community Facility (Place of Worship) to offer life and church ministry training classes at 4288 Dublin Boulevard, Suite 221. 8.2 City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update (CAP Update) and Negative Declaration. 9. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10. OTHER BUSINESS: Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). 11. ADJOURNMENT This AGENDA is posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a) and Government Code Section 54957.5 If requested, pursuant to Government Code Section 54953.2, this agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Section 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. To make a request for disability-related modification or accommodation, please contact the City Clerk’s Office (925) 833-6650 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. A complete packet of information containing Staff Reports (Agenda Statements) and exhibits related to each item is available for public review at least 72 hours prior to a Planning Commission Meeting or, in the event that it is delivered to the Commission members less than 72 hours prior to a Planning Commission Meeting, as soon as it is so delivered. The packet is available in the Community Development Department. (OVER FOR PROCEDURE SUMMARY) i9� "' �sZ STAFF REPORT �� PLANNING COMMISSION ��LIFOR�� DATE: September 24, 2013 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: CONSENT CALENDAR: Determination of Conformity with the City of Dublin General Plan for Union Pacific Right of Way Acquisition (Parcel B) Report prepared by Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In accordance with Government Code Section 65402, the Planning Commission shall consider whether the subject property, which is proposed for acquisition by the City, is in conformance with the General Plan. FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial impact. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Accept the General Plan Conformance Report on Union Pacific Right of Way Parcel B (Assessor Parcel Number 941-0550-023-04); and 2) Adopt a Resolution Finding the Proposed Acquisition of Union Pacific Right of Way Parcel B to be in conformance with the Dublin General Plan. &A-% Submitted By R sewed By Principal Planner Assistant Community Development Director COPIES TO: File ITEM NO.: Page 1 of 3 GAPAM20131PLPA-2013-00044 Iron Horse Park GPAIGP Conformance Parcel BIPCSR.doc DESCRIPTION: According to Government Code §65402, the Planning Commission must report conformance with an adopted General Plan for any street vacation, abandonment, or the acquisition of real property for any public purpose. The City has recently entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement with the agent for Union Pacific Railroad to acquire two parcels of land in Dublin. Parcel A (Assessor Parcel Number 941-2768-006-02) is the 12.3 acre piece of property that the Planning Commission considered at the September 10, 2013 meeting that is proposed to be used for a future public park. Parcel B (Assessor Parcel Number is a long and linear approximately 2.2-acre parcel that is located south of Dublin Boulevard, adjacent to the Iron Horse Regional Trail and extends north to Dublin Boulevard and south to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station near the east end of Scarlett Court. The parcel is currently vacant. Figure 1: Vicinity Map The City's Maintenance Yard is to the west of Parcel B, as are three other parcels owned by Hacienda Auto Body, ` . Security Storage and Arlen Ness. Overhead utility poles run in a northwest-southeast direction to the west of the site within the industrial area. The power lines traverse a portion of the subject property at the southern end. Parcel B is zoned Light CAMPBELL GNEEN Industrial and has a General Plan land ---- use designation of Business = Park/Industrial and Outdoor Storage. - The Purchase and Sale Agreement with Union Pacific's agent requires the City to purchase Parcel A and Parcel B as a package. Therefore, if the City acquires the 12.25-acre Parcel A for �t park and open space uses, the City would also, by necessity, acquire 2.207-acre Parcel B. Approximately 0.2 acres of the site could be used to expand the City's Maintenance Yard and provide a secondary emergency access point to the site from the BART property. For the remainder of the parcel, Staff would explore options for uses compatible with the light industrial land use, which may be limited due to the site characteristics. The City could also sell the remaining property as conservation or mitigation space, or to the adjacent property owners for use in their businesses. ANALYSIS: Acquisition of Parcel B conforms with the Land Use and Circulation Element (Chapter 5) of the General Plan in that any future uses of the property, whether public or private, will be in compliance with the existing land use designation of Business Park/Industrial and Outdoor Storage. Page 2 of 3 Staff is thus requesting this determination of conformity from the Planning Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This conformity determination is a report by the Planning Commission, not a project recommendation or approval, and is thus not a project as defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15378. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: Findings of General Plan Conformance are not subject to a public hearing; therefore, a public notice is not required. ATTACHMENT: 1. Resolution finding the proposed acquisition of Union Pacific Right of Way Parcel B to be in conformance with the Dublin General Plan. Page 3 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. 13-xx A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN FINDING THE PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF UNION PACIFIC RIGHT OF WAY PARCEL B TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN APN 941-0550-023-04, PLPA-2013-00044 WHEREAS, the City Council has entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement to acquire two parcels of land in Dublin: Parcel A (Assessor Parcel Number 941-2768-006-02) is a 12.3- acre parcel that is intended for use as a future public park and Parcel B (subject parcel) is a 2.2- acre parcel that is intended for use by the adjacent properties as continued light industrial/auto- related uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered actions related to Parcel A on September 10, 2013; and WHEREAS, the acquisition and future use of Parcel B will be in compliance with the existing General Plan land use designation of Business Park/Industrial and Outdoor Storage, no land use changes are proposed; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code §65402, the Planning Commission must report conformance with an adopted General Plan for any street vacation, abandonment, or the acquisition of real property for any public purpose; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution finding the proposed acquisition of Union Pacific Right of Way Parcel B to be in conformance with the Dublin General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission finds that the proposed acquisition of Union Pacific Right of Way Parcel B to be in conformance with the City of Dublin General Plan pursuant to Government Code §65402. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of September 2013 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Assistant Community Development Director ATTACHMENT 1 OF STAFF REPORT 1 %2 PLANNING COMMISSION O�LIFOR�1� DATE: September 24, 2013 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PLPA-2013-00028 Crosspoint Church Conditional Use Permit for a Community Facility (Place of Worship) Report prepared by: Seth Adams, Assistant Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Community Facility (Place of Worship) to offer life and church ministry training classes. The Project site is located at 4288 Dublin Boulevard, Suite 221 within Ulferts Center. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the public hearing; 3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and 5) Adopt a Resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit for a Community Facility (Place of Worship) at 4288 Dublin Boulevard, Suite 221. Submitted By Kevie64d By Assistant Planner Assistant Community Development Director COPIES TO: Applicant File ITEM NO.: Page 1 of 6 DESCRIPTION: Figure 1. Project Site The Project site is located in °° Ulferts Center at 4288 Dublin Boulevard, Suite 221. The site has a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan designation of Campus Office and has • Planned Development (PD) zoning. The center is 4.3 acres in size and is composed of an f existing 50,000 square foot, two- . ,. , story building. The Project is Bui located in an approximately GMC'� Project .,� � :. .� 1,700 square foot suite located Site on the second floor at the north ��, : end of the building. Access to the site is provided from existing driveways and sidewalks on John Monego Court and Glynnis Rose Drive. Dublin _- Corpora Ulferts Center has a variety of existing commercial uses, N - including restaurants, retail, personal services, and professional offices. Adjacent and nearby properties are the Dublin Corporate Center to the south, residential to the north, Bank of America and the Dublin Gateway Medical Center to the east, and the Buick/GMC dealership to the west. The Applicant is Crosspoint Church of Silicon Valley which is proposing to offer life and church ministry training classes for teenage and adult members of Crosspoint Church; however, the classes would be open to anyone that may wish to attend. The Dublin Zoning Ordinance classifies such uses as Community Facilities (Places of Worship). The Planned Development (PD) Zoning has a list of permitted and conditionally permitted uses subject to the regulations of the General Commercial (C-2) and Commercial Office (C-O) Zoning Districts. Community Facilities are a conditionally permitted use in both the C-2 and C-O Districts; therefore, the Applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Community Facility (Place of Worship). ANALYSIS: A Conditional Use Permit enables the City to place Conditions of Approval on a project to ensure that the operating characteristics are compatible with surrounding uses. The proposed Project has been reviewed for issues related to operating characteristics and parking. Conditions of Approval have been placed on the Project, where appropriate, to ensure compatibility with the surrounding commercial uses. 2 of 6 Community Facility Operating Characteristics The Applicant is proposing to offer life and church ministry training classes within an approximately 1,700 square foot portion of a 50,000 square foot building (Attachment 1). The training classes will include a mother's support group, a youth leadership group for ages 12 to 16 years old, and life and spiritual development workshops/classes for adults. In addition, members of the church staff and worship team will meet twice per week (Attachment 2). The mother's support group will meet on Tuesday and Thursday mornings from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., and church staff will meet during this same time on Wednesdays. The youth leadership group will meet Tuesday through Friday from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Life development workshops will be held on Tuesday and Thursday nights from 8:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and on Saturdays from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Sunday activities will include worship team practice from 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. and spiritual development classes from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Crosspoint Church holds its Sunday services at the Hilton Hotel in Pleasanton. The hours of operation are summarized in Table 1 below. Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday 9:30-11:30 Mother Staff Mother a.m. Support Meeting Support Group Group 2:30-3:30 Worship p.m. Team Practice 3:30-5:30 Youth Youth Youth Youth Life Spiritual p.m. Leadership Leadership Leadership Leadership Development Development Group Group Group Group Workshop Classes 8:00-10:00 Life Life p.m. Development Development Workshop Workshop Condition of Approval No. 24 limits the Applicant's activities to life and church ministry classes, and due to the occupancy classification of the proposed use under the building and fire codes, it prohibits the church from holding worship services at the Project site. Furthermore, the Condition restricts the hours of operation to time frames that will meet the Applicant's needs while remaining outside the peak lunch and dinner hours at Ulferts Center (Attachment 3, Condition of Approval No. 24). Parkin The City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance contains parking standards by use type (Section 8.76.080). The Zoning Ordinance requires that Places of Worship provide 1 parking space per 50 square feet in the assembly area, plus 1 space per classroom. The Project is located within an approximately 1,700 square foot space, of which 1,422 square feet are open for use as an assembly area. There are no classrooms within the space, and as such the Project requires 28 parking spaces. Ulferts Center provides a total of 305 parking spaces. Based on the existing mix of tenants within the center and the proposed Project, a total of 293 parking spaces are required, and 3of6 therefore an adequate number of parking spaces exist to meet the City's parking standards for the proposed tenant mix. The parking calculations are summarized in Table 2 below. Table 2. Parking Requirements Use Parking Standard Square Feet Required Parkin Place of 1 space per 50 s.f. of 1,422 (assembly area) 28 spaces Worship assembly area Existing Varies 48,300 265 spaces Tenants Total Required Parking 293 spaces Total Ulferts Center Parking 305 spaces Parking Surplus 12 spaces Due to the fact that Ulferts Center can be quite busy during the peak lunch and dinner hours, Staff conducted surveys to verify that adequate parking is indeed available for the proposed use, and that its activities will not negatively impact parking for the existing uses on the site. Based on the operating hours of the proposed use, Staff conducted surveys at 5:30 p.m. on a Wednesday and a Friday, and at 3:30 p.m. on a Saturday. The number of open parking spaces observed by Staff ranged from 79 on Saturday to more than 100 on both Wednesday and Friday. Therefore, adequate parking was found to be available for the proposed use, and its activities will not negatively impact parking for the existing uses on the site. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE: The Project site is designated Campus Office in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and is located in a Planned Development (PD) Zoning District. The PD is subject to the regulations of the General Commercial (C-2) and Campus Office (C-O) Zoning Districts, in which Community Facilities are allowed subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. The Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the General Plan, C-2, and C-O Zoning Districts. REVIEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES: The Building Division, Fire Prevention Bureau, and Public Works Department reviewed the Project and provided Conditions of Approval where appropriate to ensure that the Project is established in compliance with all local Ordinances and Regulations. Conditions of Approval from these departments have been included in the attached Resolution (Attachment 3). NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: In accordance with State law, a Public Notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed Project. A Public Notice was also published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. To date, the City has received no objections from surrounding property owners regarding the Project. A copy of this Staff Report has been posted to the City's website and provided to the Applicant. 4of6 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State Guidelines and City Environmental Regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and when applicable, environmental documents prepared. Staff is recommending that the Project be found Categorically Exempt from CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Existing Facilities. The Project consists of a Conditional Use Permit for a Community Facility within an existing shopping center. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Project Plans 2) Applicant's Written Statement 3) Resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit for a Community Facility (Place of Worship) at 4288 Dublin Boulevard, Suite 221. 5 of 6 GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT: Stephen Ng, Crosspoint Church of Silicon Valley, 658 Gibraltar Court, Milpitas, CA 95035 PROPERTY OWNER: Karen Kam, Ulferts Center Dublin, Inc., 4288 Dublin Blvd., #210, Dublin, CA 94568 LOCATION: 4288 Dublin Boulevard, #221 ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS: 986-0016-009-00 & 986-0016-011-00 GENERAL PLAN & EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Campus Office ZONING: Planned Development (PD) SURROUNDING USES: LOCATION ZONING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CURRENT USE OF PROPERTY North PD Medium-Density Residential Residential South PD Campus Office Corporate Offices East PD Campus Office Bank and Medical Offices West PD General Commercial Auto Dealership 6of6 z W UJ U > cra d o o ci L(�B ° HaMR3 jutoi �,oi.� o o Ho?�f1H0 uh'k�CS r �1NIOdSSONO ol r oo 0 tk � i i i a E =A °AAA �A i I v � ff' �a t N \ _ _ z Z \ \ 4 � e� A u ©im w a 99 8� 5t I I CO 9 V yd a ; ; y I � w a h~ t �� t z Y z � S E ; t a. a - �. �y (L °4 - `3d SR � x�a E y l R ^c LJ Ll !I �I E' r i G 4 I c ILL !I TU F'.� 0 r, u _ _ z Z Z u �a� J ____ ____ ____ w � o 0 _ �_m vm a400040 m_mg°`' 000. `r<aa J o R ILL - �� 3 -it x t o o a t U 8 o m Q m m U m -- z o o° aUrw �a t 1 ~m m 3 �w Q 4444 aF.gm$ " a4 o 0 m x.-ow If o �. a J i m ,, ow Qo o a uam Nan r in �. 000 c.la N�a<�mz ( z a QUa�w Fw 1 a Nwy Q�n p 8� a ~as noaw r 1 o zm - => 1 U 0 ¢�OJ Qawwm Q - - Q K a06warw t OUQ / OF° �UOm° a �N � z '� Y z r a w a o w o w awo/ umi 1 r J°°oz a° O Z< ✓iz z 3 z in x aw�zxa°a! �' 1 X Zizz s F- a v z ¢ <a �o awzF a t zo Z xx F- .. Q z ° LL . O o w 3�a N 1 ° O aww U W z wa- c> a' Jzw�now_w( �u 1 w O c �.. w m aoo Fa o E c E pE U u� a z a m o 0 F m U) aaw�oo� �x J U oa �-i ri z o a>oow zwr/ w / c - E � g E E S n ;n '-ITitr,2 k E E E E _ s _ r E E - E f, E ;� E E E A 5 E • ii 0..... v s S a G � �a �, w E a�f +.0 J a F _ ¢b uua. O U mN o - � iuia�^u'' ~r anl3kii � soz" w°oon am t _ If y 8 p v" .E ow e w o 6 Q 7 e s owao Iwo U°ZU�O U ° o°i m a o �Nm oF_ O J Z 0 U Z a U m o U I pialk�y4; d .. jKw��v1U l pp z Z o m�saww >o" a " (n aaaa Q°a LL dime aoa1 Z a U F ro Q 4 Jch:i rv..nc5/1' q z 0 000000 Z ymm Z, � v a Z w v v m w _ - _ _ _ z� a F .. u uuuucai�z U z°v' �=3, x os i LLJ o S o _ _ _ _ _ oa vl 00000m 1z.mm° awm� d �., a v z Z O mo o ° a nnNnN° Z a � Vi 5 8 0 MAN33 SLUMP, a Wrtitl„o ) g V HomnHO �' w N ° 1NIOdSSONO 0 o 0 m w ...................... m a < Sl'ZlZ Id ry m � - Dorb nl"H a..._..6�3S 02i SINN I...�. J - -- I p 1 111 / -----------------------o'-- } lot_7 up AIRm -' —� — i ;— Iry u Q�Q rn i (Y'tl u u v / I Q � .i ttUU11 m ' .. u ® ®❑ CIOO z � m i w Ai Q L . m 4 0 o Z f I F� ® �o w � o w a � o �.� IFo � ;mww w www — „ m FI I to m Pbo I ® oil m \ � wpm co it 7 ry z o oar ® s�"x� m D ❑ I � u © i m I' o i �- —I ,z ❑ / o o may ry a a <>b ❑ ;® , o 0 000®0 00 I I Lb ❑ x rvmm AM mm ® �: ry nO fi� nrv„ Q ❑ /�(�'� . Y 0 ( - n 2b o Q o o a n �ry fil ro � �I is \C„❑ i �: 22 _+ ... # -� �ii -� 1,1� i U 12 m 2191 191 P ry m QOM [h] ®, �,n Von >#R 0 0 E O n Ca , '. rth I, �ry m Q,I =,, pi,,� •'� �__ I �� ❑m 9 u � a O an j a , ., -� \ ice'” w o 7" 4 '",•n o a 1� o° ❑ ` a m w Lj o-� o ❑ a w� �o 0 oQ ❑ �< �< �a a o Wok ❑ a I o�o as<Im 191[a]El Ed El If I ' � I o �� o El 0 04 u 1 m mr O l a NHOf —e!. ❑o ❑ a WO ONTO KIM __r - r � u i .a •yq C7 ------ • �i jam- ❑_ q o❑❑ ❑❑❑ oo s Do o c a a oo p z 5 o HomnHO m�N a o o" �UTU(I�SO.T) o Ec 4 O j b z M 1NIOdSSONO N N MOO WM( dd ummad Man w o N > W � 0 ,..�- –.......__. ......___—_ __.___..... _ _._....... .__....._ — ------------ -— ./-- / r� N 3 n 12J a 3_S O.2l_......_S I N_NA 1 J. — I I � a iu i � 8 i i S l7{ 1 I 1. I I „ I � 1 i I I �y 4, FiFir LA El j I __ -- Id r r C ; w I I I , w z I® � .. ..._._..._ ..... ,\ I I 90 I __ , ^ E w I w o l( ILI <W w N _ry i o. 4 Q o I I I 1 Ik 1 f , k JLI li _—___ v; I � - r 0 y a s I § i w 6 M�F �° 658 Gibraltar Court A 2i Milpitas,CA 95035 Crosspoint Church Tel 408 586 8688 of Silicon Valley Fax 408 586 9698 City Planning Commission May 29, 2013 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568 Proposal for Using 4228 Dublin Blvd. Suites #221 Dear Dublin City Planner Crosspoint Church of Silicon Valley has the vision to impact our community with the love of God. We have been serving the community of greater San Jose since year 2000. We send ministry teams to serve at food pantry, homeless shelters and city parks. With our newly renovated recreation center, we also provide Tai Chi class, in-door soccer, basketball, badminton and other activities to help people build up a healthy lifestyle. Many of our members are from Dublin, Pleasanton and San Ramon area. They have shared with me the need of having a Sunday service in Tri-valley so that we may also serve the people there and enrich their life in the community. Since Oct, 2012, we have secured a contract with Hilton Pleasanton at the Club to hold our Sunday Services. As of May, we have about 150 people including adults and children regularly attending our weekly service. In order to make our ministry a greater impact to the community we serve, it is strategically desirable to secure a permanent rental facility to provide life and church ministry training classes for our members and their friends. With the assistance of Karen Kam, the VP of Ulferts Center Dublin, Inc., we are able to secure 4228 Dublin Blvd. Suites #221 as our training center. We would like to apply for a Conditional Use Permit so that we may hold our ministry training and leadership development activities there. Attached are our proposed hours of operation, number of employees, parking arrangement and activities for a typical week for your review. It is our desire to serve the people in the Tri-Valley areas, particularly the growing Chinese community. We are looking forward to partnering with the City of Dublin for our mission. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 408-586-8688 or email me. Sincerely, RECEIVED JUN 06 nri ' f Abr a iam Chiu Ste UBLIN PLANNING Stephen g Senior Pastor Operations Director achiuC@Crosspointchurchsv.org odCcDCrosspointchurchsv.or� ATTACHMENT 2 0 N 0 cnw r+ O °o °° co 0o wo = CD M p rsD m 3 rD Q r+ 3 O = O S r+ r+ r+ r+ 0 -n i n0 -Os " O : mi S 3 S O CL y Q v C 03 _ O (n , S C E t_n CC •+, rD O fD < � p C O �- -1 3 O W � O rD n O rC-r O O� r+ 3 O �^ a a S rD O fD f~'D vii a O < r- ty Q 'a -0 O o0i Cn N Lh a O O_ C. O rD a C. O F-' rD N -0 n� -+ ,� a 3 Ln u, -a O H S rD s -a rD O a a' r _ 3 _ n a � m — o 3 v0 °a � OJ O C rD D! n (D (p• O ((A 0 !v rNi N -F� ( UOq v CL Ln `G O C O v (^ O < O O Q a (D n O < n n N rD O a a (A (A 5' N y O O e a. A 00 H S. oo o 0� o 0 � O O 0• O0 o C . O -S w � p S c r Ln (D s rD " p _ y -o 0Oi to Q' n M A fD F" rD F, -O <CL Q O� 3 L O Q y m a• �0_� rD � O'O Z r - 1 CD CL oi as c DJ a OMQ '" O O0 v C rt n n• c a n y m N M O 70 rD T °, N rD o _ y 1-, r+ F- (D 0- O (. m -t 1 N "a � S C G�• Z S to S D) _ rD y ° rD O rD w p H = aq O cn rD D� •� 't S o -_a O r<D C .0 CL 3 "O 07 - rD (A $ a c r+ �-' m C O n au v O O H < 0 n a V1 O 'O n rD O lD Z5 OrQ y O rmD w >Z rD 7 Ln 60 Q m lu (D ti 3 a. s � y z _ _ p m 3 m S s m o fD �? s s a�i o � �' O 3 Q r' fD S. fD fD [D fD A N O 7 p N p n. p S = • M M rD rD r c "' Q — C o 4 � -1 aq N 'o O p D a � •a S H 'a y � � rtD N f�D frtD V1 S C 7 n � � � -Oti fD O cn O v p M rF W m fD Q m 3 o -i S m �' 3 `D O 3 H = rt rr 7' r+ r+ r+ vii -h = n 3 Q O _3' '� n p v N O' -< S S 0 m O" v �' n = - m r+ rD p p �• (D < G Gq 0� N C rr < to {A � 0q m r+ fD = p rr Q S r* fD �< O �. n 3 7 'a C O (fl rD v N p C cD O aj �^ m m H N N N r + * 'a rD a + V► p flu w S DJ rF Dpi fD = to rr+ _+ ._+ fD p O � (D M 7 N O O < <' a C a m rt � N• O .a O fD (D H N rD ai rD -� w (D O W CD ( ..S D) N D) p D17 CL p N p S H H p' C. rr O (D a_ O D) O p fD OQ Q C rD fD y p 7' Q- 3• N _-h M m O C Q GO m N (DD p• �• m OQ � D) 3 O CD W �n O O r+ ,+ Q C p ~ th r+ O = "' C N rh S �p N -, -t w O O rN+ S d m O N = O dD rt y w N Q O Q O !D -a -1 Q N O OJ O rah fD lD Q1 C O q0 N CL fD `< C Dl Q Cl O CA C G v v rD CL C p m O C OA v�f 3' A ' twit a r [MD CD p O (A N 00 C fD al ej M O y D) O H N 3 rD �' -h rF (D A r+ �' N Q. N CD 0 o f D m N °�' N N N -h (D ^ v 0 'n °- m m � O 0� S. O O OrQ o % < Q Oq CL -h C =+ c n a N DJ in c M -1 -1 rh rh N �. p Dti al N {n w -, 0) �. rD O fD %N O (D 3• N rr+ 'a _ y p m rNr O r+ O� 3 r+ -t cr .< S �• fD S m G r+ rD (D cD (D O < A --1 O r+ O 3 n 3 aQ m Z � N �' C1D P N QQ y y �• rF '7 r+ O S (D Dl -;h+ Q Q fD w Cr p O m -1 [D A Q -fi C C rh S rF O M 0 a ro < O Ln ai N' r+(A O '* O rN+ aqq 0• 'a p N N � Q A O+ S A �. te+ �- a r GJ' 0'Q 7 o ,- ro °- CD v m C) n H _rt v O n rD > rD. rD v ani �_" rD m C D 3 Q M '_ D • r a Ln < E. = C a Q LA al � fD W (D/f � fD =�+ •< W rD 'G cn 70 N _C. n �' a N -1 00 O •< r -+ Grq to rD 'a _ N Z n aJ < S O C p -h a O O � (D lD � '+ C 3 O Q O v_+ -' O rD II) '* C rD rD O C a' ' CD tD rt S rD !-' •a rD n r UQ `� rD C 61 r<D- 0 Q o N S a rt H S a �* a h = a C H _ _ 2 4) n O a -s H Cti rt -a -T Q a m- m G 'a a<i a ° ° S Q. o O " n vii o ° m y M M C 00 d r- O n rt rn+ n (rtD m S fD cr rD m rt a o 0'0 a D a' =► a r cn _rt m rt O CD �. n rD N c ,* S O < ,_, a a fD '< vi a rt K rD S O H O O 0 O rt ri W rD < O y cn M aj s -a x y' 3 �+ N tea) s cn a o O n (` n) M �' o 0 rt rt rt O m O rt 'vai S a cn a) rp O p r+ O O Q n cn a ° 0, 0 rp. a C -a _� O =. :E rt C S cn ,� p0—j N' H n C M rD .a rt n -h a �n 00 D) (D z a 'O S a O Q S `< < O �< tn' rt �+ p O rD •< rv' .y, •< H _ C a) v '* S rD a = to ' n ?, rt O 0) O r+ 0 CL 07 a O O a ,, S n a'IA D r+ a) ID a — O m O a rD Di rt O S a r°+ m — N• r L < IIni (DD M O h O m S n 0 Q N Q ryD 00 K O a O Q W ° '* O m d O 'a < r+ a O. to Q a ,< n �' H t_n a a M rD y0 a D r^ O C 0 -h oO O DV ° Gq N a L -s p a M r+ ° vo a O O rD .s a r+ O rt o O rD M rt v W n lD �' a C S a r<D Q s s C. v °° O� a n a� * C a ° cn " < �+ '� Q -a 'a O rD y rt rD a S C c S S rOi �n lD d rt v-si Q _ rt -s _ .a rD r* OJO O N O CL rD a H' O Q T n' a n x < rD a CD r+ w S n a :< -1 fD c r+ (A O r+ rD O -1 ? n rt � s a -n �' y a 'a rD < 5 O c ,rty CD S v rt D) M O n to C rD O n S < a Q d y C ° 3 w m S s fD < -h a •<< r<D m rt y0 v Q M n O rrDD O Q rD O rD fD rt n 2 �^ a of CL a m I O O v rD 0" y s " fu 3 y n0 Q '+ a- vi O �, r+ r+ m C Q O =r m N •< D O a /D rD ° OO a S. C O 'a O C v a 4�i a rt Q O n aq N C 'a r) — — rt O s M °.'° s n 0 r� n D s n s (% O D a• n " N r ,G s a CL fu O O rD S a rD a• a v O " N ° 0) Qj to ,< r°+ a Q rt a y rt '+ -M CrQ a• _+; m w M C C rD 6�nJ M Q 7 � � = rD !D r+ C al () T It 's (n r O 0v a O ry+ r N a n) n a a a a a < a a al n Ol 0) rt Q. .a Q 01 O O• y M ° H 0 O 'a a• m r+ C rn n a C rt r+ a n O -% a ow to 00 rt 'n T L W a- � O Q .�+ CL S `< % a g - a r+ rC m `" r+ CD a rD CL ° s ,* n p S ,< C rt -i 3 vS i O N a r+ r+ D a Q O CO rD a 0 S O p c H n . rD o r 3 = N rt cn a0 O ' C GJ m < O O S K :"' p rtD 1-i O a o o o n' � aO O < r rt n rt D• COi � P O' N `< y y y n o' N = c o = Q O o ^ 3 o G, W o' a' 'p rt O v O rt O II1 d 'a rt Q r* O -a (D M M M _S F, N' rf O S 0 0 C O rOr 3 M �. (p v+ O v H E S 0+ ((D `< ,may n ,< O. (D Gl _ rt cu O O O n `G > O N S r O O C r CL W Q S -n = O X in• 3 (D FA -�' r fD Q- -a O O n' H (D -ps v D30 Cr O C 7 v O (D " n S (D o -O+, O �^ C XO 3 CD Ort 1+ Q O 3 O C tD O O W O rt n p y r+ 0* S (D (D N '+ ti (D •y n 't S n n (D 7 Ort y. OO (D =+ 3 n Q p Q rt r+ N F CD O a' O �, H O a' i p v+ 3 C 0Q Q C (rD (D O Q (D _ y O S L1 s . (D -a v M C -i (D -�, S O p O O Cl in S z "s 3 . p (D Q Q n0 a' N rt 3 fD Q O O O 2 .y, cD O a ' D) C F < n � 07 fD O' D'0 r+ o ~' -0 S M O O O l< (D -< O (D C a _ < C (D O a' O rf (D N O 'Os O -h = Vf to 3 lD t,� n -a O D O rr .V �. S r m p� rr 3 rh a -h C RESOLUTION NO. 13-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A COMMUNITY FACILITY (PLACE OF WORSHIP) AT 4288 DUBLIN BOULEVARD, SUITE 221 (CROSSPOINT CHURCH) PLPA-2013-00028 WHEREAS, the Applicant, Stephen Ng, has submitted an application on behalf of Crosspoint Church of Silicon Valley for a Conditional Use Permit for a Community Facility (Place of Worship) at 4288 Dublin Boulevard, Suite 221; and WHEREAS, the Project is located in Planned Development (PD) Zoning District PA 98- 047; and WHEREAS, a Community Facility (Place of Worship) is permitted in the Planned Development Zoning District subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State Guidelines and City Environmental Regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, the Planning Commission finds this project Categorically Exempt from CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Existing Facilities; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City of Dublin Planning Commission recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit request; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on September 24, 2013; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding the Conditional Use Permit application: A. The proposed use and related structures is compatible with other land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity in that: 1) the Project is located on a parcel that is developed as a commercial shopping center; 2) the Project site is accessible from existing driveways on John Monego Court and Glynnis Rose Drive; and 3) the Project site is surrounded by existing commercial uses. ATTACHMENT 3 B. It will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare in that: 1) the Project will conform to all applicable regulations contained in the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; and 2) conditions of approval have been applied to the Project to ensure on-going compatibility with the Project's surroundings. C. It will not be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood in that: 1) all activities will occur indoors; 2) the Project is located within a portion of an existing shopping center; 3) a condition of approval has been placed on the Project that limits the activities to life and church ministry classes and prohibits the holding of worship services; and 4) the hours of operation do not conflict with the peak lunch and dinner hours at the shopping center in which the Project is located. D. There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use and related structures would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that: 1) vehicular access to the site is available from existing driveways on John Monego Court and Glynnis Rose Drive; 2) the Project frontages are fully improved with sidewalks that provide pedestrian access to the Project; and 3) the Project will be located on a fully developed site that is served by existing utilities and services. E. The subject site is physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of the use and related structures being proposed in that: 1) the Project is located on a parcel that is developed as a shopping center and is accessible to vehicles and pedestrians from existing driveways and sidewalks on John Monego Court and Glynnis Rose Drive; 2) a condition of approval has been placed on the Project limiting the activities to life and church ministry classes and prohibiting the holding of worship services; and 3) all required parking will be provided on-site or on the adjacent property with which there is an off-site parking agreement. F. It will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses, development regulations, or performance standards established for the zoning district in which it is located in that: 1) the Project is located within a PD (Planned Development) Zoning District and the PD regulations permit Community Facilities subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit from the Planning Commission; 2) the Project is located on a parcel that is developed as a commercial shopping center; and 3) all required parking will be provided on-site or on the adjacent property with which there is an off-site parking agreement. G. It is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans in that. 1) Community Facility uses are consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use designation of Campus Office which allows non-retail uses that do not generate nuisances related to emissions, noise, odors, or glare. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit for a Community Facility (Place of Worship) at 4288 Dublin Boulevard, Suite 221 as shown on the project plans date stamped received by Dublin Planning on July 23, 2013, and in the written statement date stamped received by Dublin Planning on June 6, 2013 and incorporated by reference, subject to the following conditions: 2of8 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to establishment of use, and shall be subject to Planning Division review and approval. The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of the conditions of approval: [PL] Planning; [B] Building; [PO] Police; [PW] Public Works; [ADM] Administration/City Attorney; [FIN] Finance; [PCS] Parks and Community Services; [F] Dublin Fire Prevention; [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District; [LDD] Livermore Dublin Disposal; [CO] Alameda County Department of Environmental Health; [Zone 7] Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7; [LAVTA] Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority; and [CHS] California Department of Health Services. When NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agency Required, Source Prior to: GENERAL 1. Approval. This Conditional Use Permit PL Planning approval is for Crosspoint Church of Silicon Valley to operate a Community Facility (PLPA- 2013-00028). This approval shall be as generally depicted and indicated on the plans prepared by Studio02 dated received by Dublin Planning on July 23, 2013, the Written Statement dated received by Dublin Planning on June 6, 2013 and other plans, text and diagrams related to this approval, stamped approved and on file in the Community Development Department, except as modified b the ollowing Conditions of Approval. 2. Effective Date. This Conditional Use Permit PL DMC approval becomes effective 10 days following 8.96.020.H action by the Planning Commission unless and appealed before that time in accordance with 8.136 the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. 3. Permit Expiration. Construction or use shall PL 1 year DMC commence within one (1) year of Permit from 8.96.020.D approval or the Permit shall lapse and become approval null and void. 4. Time Extension. The original approving PL 1 year DMC decision-maker may, upon the Applicant's from 8.96.020.E written request for an extension of approval approval prior to expiration, and upon the determination that any Conditions of Approval remain adequate to assure that applicable findings of approval will continue to be met, grant a time extension of approval for a period not to exceed six (6) months. All time extension requests shall be noticed and a public hearing or public 3 of 8 meeting shall be held as required by the articular Permit. 5. Modifications. The Community Development PL On-going DMC Director may consider modifications or changes 8.100 to this Permit approval if the modifications or changes proposed comply with applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. Revocation of Permit. The Permit approval PL On-going DMC shall be revocable for cause in accordance with 8.96.020.1 Section 8.96.020.1 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions of this permit shall be subject to citation. 7. Requirements and Standard Conditions. The Various Issuance Various Applicant/Developer shall comply with of building applicable City of Dublin Fire Prevention permits or Bureau, Dublin Public Works Department, installation Dublin Building Department, Dublin Police of Services, Alameda County Flood Control District improve- Zone 7, Livermore Amador Valley Transit ments Authority, Alameda County Public and Environmental Health, Dublin San Ramon Services District and the California Department of Health Services requirements and standard conditions. Prior to issuance of building permits or the installation of any improvements related to this project, the Developer shall supply written statements from each such agency or department to the Planning Department, indicating that all applicable conditions required have been or will be met. 8. Fees. Applicant/Developer shall pay all Various Issuance Various applicable fees in effect, including, but not of building limited to, Planning fees, Building fees, Traffic permits Impact Fees, TVTC fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District fees, Public Facilities fees, Dublin Unified School District School Impact fees (per agreement between Developer and School District), Fire Facilities Impact fees, Noise Mitigation fees, Inclusionary Housing In- Lieu fees, Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection fees; or any other fee that may be adopted and applicable. 9. Indemnification. The Developer shall defend, ADM On-going Admin/City indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Dublin Attorney and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its agents, officers, or employees to 4of8 attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board, Planning Commission, City Council, Community Development Director, Zoning Administrator, or any other department, committee, or agency of the City to the extent such actions are brought within the time period required by Government Code Section 66499.37 or other applicable law; provided, however, that The Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the City's promptly notifying The Developer of any said claim, action, or proceeding and the City's full cooperation in the defense of such actions or proceedings. 10. Clarifications to the Conditions of Approval. PL On-going Planning In the event that there needs to be clarification to the Conditions of Approval, the Community Development Director has the authority to clarify the intent of these Conditions of Approval to the Applicant without going to a public hearing. The Community Development Director also has the authority to make minor modifications to these Conditions of Approval without going to a public hearing in order for the Applicant to fulfill needed improvements or mitigations resulting from impacts to this project. 11. Controlling Activities. The PL Through Planning Applicant/Developer shall control all activities on construct- the project site so as not to create a nuisance to ion and existing/surrounding businesses and/or on-going residences. 12. Clean-up. The Applicant/Developer shall be PL Through Planning responsible for clean-up and disposal of project construct- related trash to maintain a safe, clean, and litter- ion free site. 13. Property Maintenance. The PL On-going DMC Applicant/Developer and property owner shall 5.64.050 be responsible for maintaining the site in a clean and litter free condition during construction and through completion. Per the City of Dublin Non- Residential Property Maintenance Ordinance, DMC Section 5.64.050, the Applicant/ Property Owner shall maintain the building, site and all signage in good condition and shall keep the site clear of trash, debris and graffiti vandalism on a regular and continuous basis. 5 of 8 PLANNING DIVISION - GENERAL 14. Outdoor Events. Any outside events shall be PL On-going DMC subject to the Temporary Use Permit 8.108 requirements contained in the City of Dublin Municipal Code, specifically Section 8.108.020. 15. Temporary Promotional Signs. Temporary PL On-going DMC Promotional Signs, including but not limited to, 8.84 banner signs and balloons, are subject to compliance with Chapter 8.84 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance and require a Zoning Clearance from the Planning Division prior to installation. 16. Permanent Signage. All permanent signage PL On-going Planning shall conform to the existing Master Sign Program for Ulfert's Center. 17. Window Signs. Window signs shall be limited PL On-going Planning to 10% of the window area as specified in the Ulfert's Center Master Sign Program. 18. Business License. The Applicant shall apply PL Occupanc Planning for a City of Dublin Business License prior to y occupancy. 19. Noise/Nuisances. Th e Applicant shall control PL On-going DMC all activities so as not to create unusual or 5.28 unnecessary noise which annoys or disturbs or injures or endangers the health, repose peace or safety of any reasonable person of normal sensitivity resent in the area. 20. Accessory/Temporary Structures and Uses. PL Placement DMC A Temporary Use Permit is required for all on-site 8.108 construction trailers, security trailers and storage containers used during construction. 21. Equipment Screening. All electrical and/or PL Issuance Planning mechanical equipment shall be screened from of building public view. Any roof-mounted equipment shall permits be completely screened from view by materials architecturally compatible with the building and to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. The Building Permit plans shall show the location of all equipment and screening for review and approval by the Community Development Director. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 22. Approval Period. This Conditional Use Permit PL On-going Planning approval shall be null and void in the event the approved use fails to be established within one year, or ceases to operate for a continuous one- ear period. 23. Annual Review. On an annual basis, this PL On-going Planning Conditional Use Permit approval may be subject 6 of 8 to a review by the Community Development Director to determine compliance with the Conditions of Approval. 24. Days and Hours of Operation. The activities PL On-going Planning shall be restricted to life and church ministry classes (and similar group classes/meetings) as described in the Applicant's Written Statement dated received by Dublin Planning on June 6, 2013, and shall not include worship services. Any other events and activities proposed by the church shall first be subject to review by the Community Development Director. The allowed activities are limited to the following days and hours of operation: Monday — Friday. 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.; 3:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.; and 8:00 p.m. to 10:00 P.M. Saturday: 3:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Sunday. 2:00 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. PLANNING DIVISION - CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN 25. 1 Non-Residential Security Requirements. The PL On-going Planning Applicant/Property Owner, and/or their designee, shall comply with the City of Dublin Non-Residential Security Requirements. BUILDING DIVISION 26. Building Codes and Ordinances. All project B Through Building construction shall conform to all building codes Completio and ordinances in effect at the time of building n permit. 27. Building Permits. To apply for building B Issuance Building permits, Applicant/Developer shall submit five of Building (5) sets of construction plans to the Building Permits Division for plan check. Each set of plans shall have attached an annotated copy of these Conditions of Approval. The notations shall clearly indicate how all Conditions of Approval will or have been complied with. Construction plans will not be accepted without the annotated resolutions attached to each set of plans. Applicant/Developer will be responsible for obtaining the approvals of all participation non- City agencies prior to the issuance of building permits. 28. Construction Drawings. Construction plans B Issuance Building shall be fully dimensioned, accurately drawn of Building (depicting all existing and proposed conditions Permits 7of8 on site), and prepared and signed by a California licensed Architect or Engineer. All structural calculations (if required) shall be prepared and signed by a California licensed Architect or Engineer. The site plan, landscape plan and details shall be consistent with each other. Project to comply with regulations for existing buildings per CBC Chapter 1134B as it relates to interior and exterior accessibility (i.e., accessible path of travel to building's main entrance, accessible parking, signage, curb ramps, etc.). Additional detailing shall be required to verify compliance. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of September 2013 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Assistant Community Development Director 8 of 8 OF DU��`2 1 19 X82 STAFF REPORT %Z PLANNING COMMISSION O�LIFOR��� DATE: September 24, 2013 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update and Negative Declaration Report prepared by Martha Aja, Environmental Coordinator EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The proposed City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update (CAP Update) provides policies and measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within the City. The goal of the CAP Update is to reduce Dublin's community-wide GHG emissions by 15% below 2010 levels by 2020. The CAP Update identifies a variety of measures to achieve the City's GHG reduction target. The various GHG reduction measures are organized into three broad categories, which include: 1) transportation and land use measures; 2) energy measures; and 3) solid waste and recycling measures. The CAP Update describes baseline GHG emissions produced in Dublin in 2010, and forecasts GHG emissions that could be expected if the proposed CAP Update is not implemented (business-as-usual scenario). The City expects to reduce GHG emissions through a combination of reduction measures that are included in the CAP Update. These include measures that are under the City's control and State initiatives aimed at reducing GHG emissions. The proposed CAP Update and draft Negative Declaration are being presented to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation to the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the public hearing; 3) Take testimony from the public; 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; 5) Adopt a Resolution recommending City Council adoption of a Negative Declaration for the City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update; and 6) Adopt a Resolution recommending City Council approval of the City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update. Submitted By: Reviewed By Environmental Coordinator Community Development Director COPIES TO: (� ITEM NO.: i7 Page 1 of 9 G:IPA#120131C1imate Action PlanIPCSR 9 24 13.doc DESCRIPTION: Background State, National and International In 1997, 10,000 international delegates, observers and journalists gathered in Kyoto, Japan, to participate in the drafting and adoption of the Kyoto Protocol, which requires industrialized nations to reduce their collective GHG emissions to 5.2% below 1990 levels. Currently there are 192 parties to the Kyoto Protocol. In September 2006, the State of California enacted Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which requires California to reduce Statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 directs the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to develop and implement regulations that reduce statewide GHG emissions. The Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) was approved by ARB in December 2008 and outlines the State's plan to achieve the GHG reductions required in AB 32. The Scoping Plan contains the primary strategies California will implement to achieve a reduction of 169 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMT CO2e), or approximately 30% from the State's projected 2020 emissions level. In the Scoping Plan, the ARB encourages local governments to adopt a reduction goal for municipal operations emissions and to move forward with establishing similar goals for community emissions, which parallel the State's commitment to reduce GHG emissions. However, the specific role local governments will play in meeting the State's AB 32 goals is not established in the Scoping Plan. Bay Area Air Quality Management District In June 2010, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) air quality thresholds of significance for use within its jurisdictional boundaries, which includes the City of Dublin. The BAAQMD has direct and indirect regulatory authority over sources of air pollution in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The overall goal of this effort was to develop CEQA significance criteria to ensure that future development includes appropriate and feasible emission reduction measures to mitigate significant air quality and GHG emissions impacts. The BAAQMD adopted project level thresholds, which include an emission level threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e per year and a threshold of 4.6 metric tons of GHG emissions per service population (i.e. residents and employees) per year for individual development projects. For general references, the adopted project threshold (1,100 metric tons of CO2e/yr) is equivalent to the approximate amount of GHG emissions that would be generated by 60 single-family units, or 78 multi-family units, or a supermarket exceeding 8,000 square feet, or an office park exceeding 50,000 square feet. The BAAQMD also adopted a plan threshold of 6.6 MTCO2e per service population per year, where service population is the summation of population and the number of jobs. The City of Dublin's CAP Update employs the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) GHG efficiency threshold of 6.6 MTCO2e per service population per year as evidence of the City's intent to meet the intent of AB 32 to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Projects with emissions greater than the adopted threshold (1,100 MT CO2e per year) would be required to mitigate to the proposed threshold level or reduce project emissions by an amount deemed feasible by the lead agency. The BAAQMD's approach is to identify the emissions level for which a project would result in a less than significant impact under CEQA and would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce Statewide 2of9 GHG emissions. If a project were to generate GHG emissions above the threshold level established by the BAAQMD, it would be considered as contributing substantially to the cumulative impact of GHG emissions within the community and would be considered a significant impact under CEQA. On March 5, 2012, the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the BAAQMD had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the thresholds. The court did not determine whether the thresholds were valid on the merits, but found that the adoption of the thresholds was a project under CEQA. The court issued a writ of mandate ordering the BAAQMD to set aside the thresholds and cease dissemination of them until the BAAQMD had complied with CEQA. The BAAQMD appealed the ruling, and on August 13, 2013, the California First District Court of Appeal reversed the Alameda County Superior Court's decision. The City as a lead agency continues to rely on the substantial evidence based on statewide data and analysis relative to AB 32 that underlie the BAAQMD thresholds in making a determination of significance of plan-level GHG impacts. Under the BAAQMD guidelines, a city may prepare a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy that furthers AB 32 goals. If a project is consistent with an adopted Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy that addresses the project's GHG emissions, the strategy/plan can be used as a basis for determining that the project would have a less than significant impact (i.e., less than cumulatively considerable contribution) due to GHG emissions and climate change under CEQA. CEQA contains standards for Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans that can be used in the cumulative impacts analysis for projects covered under the CAP (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5). The BAAQMD recognizes these CEQA standards as meeting the district's standards for a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy. The CAP has been developed to meet both the CEQA and BAAQMD standards for a Qualified GHG Reduction Plan/Strategy. City of Dublin On July 17, 2007, the City Council approved participation in the Climate Protection Project for Alameda County jurisdictions (Resolution 139-07). The Alameda County Climate Protection Project (ACCPP) was launched by ICLEI — Local Governments for Sustainability in partnership with StopWaste and the Alameda County Conference of Mayors. In committing to this project, the jurisdictions within Alameda County embarked on an on-going, coordinated effort to reduce emissions, improve air quality, reduce waste and cut energy use. In doing so, the City of Dublin committed to ICLEI's 5-milestone methodology for reducing GHG emissions, which include: Milestone 1: Conduct a baseline emissions inventory and forecast; Milestone 2: Adopt an emissions reduction target; Milestone 3: Develop a Climate Action Plan for reducing emissions; Milestone 4: Implement polices and measures to reduce emissions; and Milestone 5: Monitor and verify results. The City's original CAP was adopted by the City Council in November 2010. The City's CAP established a GHG emissions reduction target of 20% below the 2020 GHG emissions forecast (business-as-usual scenario). The 2010 CAP included 34 reduction measures. Since adoption of the 2010 CAP, the City has implemented 11 new reduction measures, bringing the reduction measures in the CAP Update to 45. 3 of 9 CAP Update The City is committed to periodically reviewing its CAP to determine the progress made in reducing GHG emissions with the City. The process of conducting a periodic review allows the City to demonstrate progress toward local emission reduction targets and identify opportunities to integrate new or improved measures into the plan. As stated in the original CAP, the City will re-inventory its GHG emissions every 5 years. The first inventory was conducted for calendar year 2005 and the inventory in the CAP update is for calendar year 2010. Additionally, the GHG emissions inventory for calendar year 2010 was a City Council key initiative for FY 12-13. The update to the CAP is a City Council key initiative for FY 13- 14. The City contracted with PMC to assist Staff in preparing the Climate Action Plan Update. PMC calculated the GHG emissions reductions to be achieved by implementation of the measures in the CAP Update and State initiatives that would mitigate GHG emissions within the community. PMC also peer reviewed the City of Dublin's CAP Update for technical accuracy and provided assistance coordinating with the BAAQMD. The proposed CAP Update (Attachment 1) provides policies and measures aimed at reducing GHG emissions within the City to further the goals of AB 32. The goal of the CAP Update is to reduce Dublin's community-wide GHG emissions by 15% below 2010 levels by 2020. This reduction target is more aggressive than the reduction target in the original CAP, which included a reduction target of 20% below business-as-usual GHG emissions by 2020. The Planning Commission is being asked to review and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption of the proposed CAP Update and the accompanying environmental document. ANALYSIS: The purpose of the baseline emissions inventory is to establish an initial level of GHG emissions for the community, which allows the City to measure future progress. The City's original CAP used calendar year 2005 as its base year. As part of the CAP Update, the City prepared an updated emissions inventory for calendar year 2010. Switching to 2010 as the baseline is a better choice for many reasons. Community activities that effect GHG emissions have changed considerably since 2005 due to increased awareness of sustainability, as well as the downturn in the economy. In addition, numerous efficiency improvements have occurred in electric equipment, vehicles and other devices, resulting in lower emissions per use. Furthermore, the 2010 inventory contains additional subsectors and activities not accounted for in the 2005 inventory (e.g. water emissions, wastewater emissions and BART emissions). As a result, the 2010 emissions inventory is more complete and accurate than the 2005 inventory. The shift from the base year from 2005 to 2010 enables the City to more fully capture community emissions and employs more aggressive calculation methodologies not present in 2005, thereby, producing a more precise GHG reduction goal. The City anticipates the GHG reduction goal to be achieved through a combination of efforts at the local, regional and State levels. The reduction measures included within the CAP Update, which contribute to the City's reduction goal, include locally-focused activities as well as State initiatives under ARB's Scoping Plan. 4of9 A program or project would be considered consistent with the CAP Update if it substantially complies with the applicable measures set forth within the CAP Update and does not obstruct the attainment of the estimated GHG emissions reductions. Emission Inventory, Baseline and Projections The CAP Update (Chapter II, "Emissions Inventory") presents a GHG emissions inventory for 2010, which includes an inventory of both community level and municipal level emissions. The community-level-emissions inventory includes sources of GHG emissions emitted from the residential energy, commercial/industrial energy, transportation, water and wastewater and solid waste sectors. Total community-wide emissions were determined to be 328,155 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2010 (refer to Table 1 below). Table 1 Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector(MT CO2e) 2010 Community Emissions by Percent of Total Sector MTCO2e CO2e Residential 55,966 17.1% Commercial/industrial 60,098 18.3% Transportation 204,151 62.2% Solid waste 5,330 1.6% Water&wastewater(electricity and fugitive emissions) 2,610 0.8% TOTAL 328,155 100.0% The municipal level emissions inventory includes those sources that fall under the direct jurisdictional control of the City of Dublin Municipal Corporation, which includes City facilities, the City's vehicle fleet, public lighting, employee commute, municipal water consumption and municipal solid waste generation. Government-related emissions were estimated to be 2,343 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2010 (refer to Table 2 below). Table 2—Government GHG Emissions by Sector Government Emissions Percentage of Total 2010 MTCO2e CO2e Buildings and facilities 790 33.7% Streetlights and traffic signals 548 23.4% Water delivery 12 0.5% Vehicle fleet 687 29.3% Employee commute 249 10.6% Mobile source refrigerants 8 0.3% Solid waste 49 2.1% TOTAL 2,343 100% Chapter III of the CAP Update, "Forecast for Greenhouse Gas Emissions," includes projections of emissions in 2020. The emission forecast for the year 2020 is based on projected trends in energy use, driving habits, and job and population growth from the baseline year (2010) through 2020. The inflation factors were determined using a variety of sources, including US 2010 Census data, ABAG One Bay Area Plan, the Dublin Economic Development Strategy, MTC Transportation data and the BART 2008 Fiscal Year Short-Range Transit Plan. Under a business-as-usual scenario, it is estimated that the City of Dublin's emissions will grow over the 5 of 9 next decade by approximately 14% from 328,155 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent to 374,790 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (refer to Table 3 below). This amounts to a 1.3% annual growth rate in community emissions between 2010 and 2020 and underscores Dublin's predicted jobs and population growth in the next decade Table 3-Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions Growth Projections by Sector Community Emissions 2010 2020'' Percent` Growth Forecast by MTCOZe Emissions MTCO2e Change Sector Emissions 2010-2020 Residential 55,966 65,200 16.5% Commercial/industrial 60,098 71,156 18.4% Water&wastewater 2,610 3,419 31.0% electricity Transportation 204,151 228,037 11.7% Solid waste 5,330 6,982 31.0% TOTAL 328,155 374,790 14.2% Dublin's GHG reduction goal is 15% below 2010 levels by 2020. This goal will lower the projected GHG emissions in 2020 from 374,790 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent to 272,410 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. While the City expects significant residential, commercial and industrial growth through 2020, the total amount of GHG emissions emitted within the community will be decreasing. Further, the City of Dublin's CAP Update is designed to meet or exceed the goals of AB 32. To delineate the City's commitment to the goals of AB 32, the City's CAP employs BAAQMD's GHG efficiency based metric for Climate Action Plans of 6.6 MT CO2e per service population per year. The City's per capita efficiency metric is 5.04 for 2010 and 3.20 for 2020, which represents a significant decrease in GHG emissions between the base year and forecast year on a per capita basis. The City of Dublin's efficiency metric is well below the established threshold in both the Base Year 2010 and the Forecast Year 2020. Thus, the City will be growing significantly over the 10-year period covered by the CAP Update, but during this same time, the City's GHG emissions will be decreasing significantly on a per individual basis. Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Measures The CAP Update identifies a variety of measures to achieve the City's GHG reduction target (Attachment 1, Section V, pages 25-42). The inclusion of quantifiable GHG reduction measures is the primary focus of the CAP Update. The anticipated emissions reduction of each individual measure is used to contribute to the overall GHG reduction goal. Measures that would aid in reducing GHG emissions, but which are not quantified, are also included in the CAP Update (supporting measures). While these measures do not mathematically contribute to the City reduction target, they ultimately will result in GHG reductions beyond those included in the reductions calculation. That is, they will reduce emissions, but the reduction is not being measured at this time because there are insufficient data/assumptions to quantify the anticipated GHG emissions reduction. The various GHG reduction measures are organized into three broad categories: 1) transportation and land use; 2) energy; and 3) solid waste management and recycling. These categories follow the major sources of emissions found in the City of Dublin 2010 GHG emissions inventory. 6 of 9 Results of Implementation Implementation of the local reduction measures in the CAP Update (includes Community-wide measures, Municipal Operations Measures & Public Outreach Programs) would result in annual community-wide GHG emissions reductions of 38,920 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. A list of the local measures and the estimated GHG reductions can be found in Table 13 of the CAP Update (Attachment 1, pages 47-48). Additionally, implementation of statewide initiatives (AB 1493, Renewable Portfolio Standard and Title 24) would result in annual GHG emissions reductions of an additional 63,460 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. A description of the measures being implemented by the State can be found in Section VI of the CAP Update (Attachment 1, pages 43-46). The community-wide measures combined with the statewide initiatives would reduce the anticipated emissions in the community by 102,380 metric tons/year of carbon dioxide equivalent and would achieve the City's reduction goal of reducing GHG emission by 15% below 2010 levels by 2020. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: A Public Notice was mailed to interested parties, including surrounding jurisdictions and various state and regional agencies. Additionally, the Public Notice was published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The overall purpose of the CAP Update is to reduce GHG emissions and the impacts that these emissions will have on the community and the global environment, and therefore, is a project designed to benefit the environment. As a result, it may not constitute a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), or it may qualify for an exemption under CEQA. However, as with a proposal involving activities relating to development, implementation of the CAP Update could potentially result in adverse impacts on the physical environment. Therefore, an Initial Study was prepared by the City pursuant to CEQA to evaluate whether there are any potentially adverse environmental impacts of implementing the CAP Update. No adverse impacts were identified and a Negative Declaration was prepared. The Initial Study/Negative Declaration was circulated for public review from July 26, 2013 to August 26, 2013 (Exhibit B of Attachment 2). During the public review period, the City received three comment letters (Exhibit C of Attachment 2), which include the following: • Dublin San Ramon Services District, dated August 21, 2013 • Colorado River Board of California, dated August 23, 2013 • Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), dated September 5, 2013 The letter from the BAAQMD was the only letter that raised concerns. The City of Dublin is proposing minor modifications to the CAP Update to address concerns expressed by the BAAQMD. The proposed modifications to the CAP Update are a result of a verbal discussion with Air District Staff and those concerns outlined the BAAQMD comment letter. Please refer to the Climate Action Plan Errata (Exhibit A of Attachment 1) for the proposed modifications to the 7of9 CAP Update. Most notably, the proposed modifications to the CAP Update include the following: • An update on the ruling of the California First District Court of Appeal decision relating to the BAAQMD thresholds. • Discussion on stationary source emissions within Dublin. • Clarification on the transportation sector analysis and how the emissions were determined. • A discussion on how the City's CAP and the GHG reduction target meets the goals of AB 32. • Modifications to Appendix D to include more detail on the data sources. The letter from the BAAQMD requests that Appendix D be revised to include more detailed information on the assumptions behind the emission reduction estimates. The requested information has not been provided in Appendix D. The assumptions used do not affect the material outcome of the document. The back-up data is available in the City's file and can be viewed as requested. The letter from the BAAQMD further suggests that the City of Dublin include additional reduction measures, such as expanding the City's Green Building Program beyond new development, adding a time of sale energy efficiency upgrade requirement to residential and commercial buildings, adding heat island mitigation strategies, adding a transportation demand management requirements and adding measures addressing parking requirements. The City of Dublin's strategy with its Climate Action Plan is to include new programs, practices and policies into the plan as they are developed and implemented. The community-wide measures combined with the statewide initiatives would achieve the City's reduction goal of reducing GHG emission by 15% below 2010 levels by 2020. The City is committed to continuing to explore new actions to reduce GHG emissions and to supplementing these actions in future years, if needed to achieve the reduction target. As new programs, practices and policies are adopted by the City, they will be included in future CAP updates; therefore, we aren't proposing to incorporate additional reduction measures proposed by the BAAQMD. The environmental analysis of the CAP Update focused solely on the new policies and changes in existing policies that will be implemented as a result of the CAP Update. It did not analyze the impacts of existing programs included in the original 2010 CAP, which have already undergone their own environmental review. In particular, the CAP Update will not result in any change in land use designations or permit greater intensity of development than already allowed under the existing City General Plan, Specific Plans and zoning. The environmental impacts from these types of activities are already addressed by the CEQA review adopted by the City relating to these actions. CEQA allows cities to develop Climate Action Plans or GHG reduction plans to provide programmatic analysis of the cumulative impacts of GHG emissions for future projects in the City. CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 authorizes the use of these Plans for the analysis of the cumulative impacts of projects consistent with the Plan. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines and Significance Thresholds for GHG emissions also authorize the use of these Plans for CEQA review of future projects. 8 of 9 The CAP Update serves as the City's qualified GHG Reduction Plan and programmatic tiering document for the purposes of CEQA for analysis of impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. The City has determined that the reduction target under the Plan will reduce the impact from activities under the Plan to a less than significant level under CEQA (i.e., the project will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact). Therefore, the Climate Action Plan Update may be used for the cumulative impact analysis for future projects and development in the City covered by the Plan. As such, it satisfies CEQA review requirements for all applicable projects within the City. If a proposed project is consistent with the applicable emissions reduction measures identified in the CAP Update, the project would be considered to have a less than significant impact (i.e., less than cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impact) due to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change consistent with Public Resources Code 21083.3, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183.5, 15064 and 15130, and BAAQMD adopted CEQA Guidelines and GHG Significance Thresholds. ATTACHMENTS: 1) City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update with the Climate Action Plan Errata attached as Exhibit A. 2) Resolution recommending City Council adoption of a Negative Declaration for the City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update, with draft City Council Resolution attached as Exhibit A, the Initial Study/Negative Declaration attached as Exhibit B and the comment letters attached as Exhibit C. 3) Resolution recommending City Council approval of the City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update, with draft City Council Resolution attached as Exhibit A. 9of9 City of Dublin • Climate Action Plan Update o� DU 19 82 �c- �IF'oR. • July 2013 (Y r 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. In fact, the City's many environmental goals have established it as a leader in environmental stewardship. This document codifies much of the City's environmental work and provides an overarching plan for further protecting our community and maintaining our goal of a high quality of life for our residents and businesses. The City of Dublin has exerted considerable effort over the years in creating a more sustainable environment to protect current and future generations. As a result, the City has developed, implemented, and is actively monitoring programs that manage its natural resources and eliminate waste. Specifically, the City has placed significant emphasis on promoting conservation efforts and establishing renewable energy sources. In addition, the City plays a primary role in administering and enforcing many environmental laws that protect our community. By way of example, in the last five to 10 years, the City has built facilities with more energy efficient and green building principles; installed solar arrays at seven city facilities; legislated transit-oriented, high-density and mixed use developments to minimize the need for automotive travel; improved bicycle pathways; enhanced our recycling and organics collection programs; installed more energy efficient lighting, including LED streetlights; and convened a City Council-initiated Green Initiatives Taskforce, which engaged community stakeholders in the process of developing important environmental objectives, many of which have already been obtained. The City of Dublin has been, and will continue to be, at the forefront of the environmental movement. While this Climate Action Plan Update will primarily serve the community as a greenhouse gas reduction strategy, the plan is also an invitation for the community to join with us in continuing to improve the quality of life for everyone who works, stays or plays in Dublin. While the City can do many things, it is also up to you, the citizens, students, organizations and businesses of this great community to take the initiative to do more in your daily lives. By doing simple things such as reducing your energy consumption, increasing your recycling, increasing your use of alternative transportation, and buying local, you can and will play a large role in making Dublin a better, more sustainable city. Remember every contribution helps no matter the size, so please join us in these efforts. Thank you for your interest and participation! Sincerely, J/k.--- ~ 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 I. Introduction IL Emissions Inventory r► 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 gases (GHG) as byproducts from combusting fossil fuels, disposing of waste, using energy, and changing land uses and other human activities. Although the United States accounts for only 4%of the world's population, it produces over 20% of the world's GHG emissions. Within this context, the City of Dublin(City) seeks to be a good environmental steward by curtailing emissions within its jurisdiction. Residents, businesses, and government operations within Dublin released 328,155 MTCOze in 2010. Under a business-as- usual scenario, these emissions would grow over the next 10 years (by 2020) by approximately 14% from 328,155 MT COze to 374,790 MTCOze. This growth in community emissions is attributable to the expected new residential and commercial growth between 2010 and 2020. 10 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 IS% below the 2010 inventory levels by 2020. The City expects this reduction target to be achieved through a combination of the reduction measures included in the CAP Update and state initiatives, such as the Renewables Portfolio Standard, Title 24 and Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 (Pavley). In addition, the CAP employs the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) GHG efficiency threshold of 6.6 MTCOze per service population per year as evidence of the City's intent to meet the intent of AB 32 to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Primarily, the City has shifted its base year from 2005 to 2010 in an effort to more fully capture community emissions and to employ more aggressive calculation methodologies not present in 2005,thereby,producing a more precise GHG reduction goal. Local governments play an integral role in reducing GHG emissions because they have direct or indirect control over many emissions sources. The Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan), adopted by the California Air Resources Board (ARB) pursuant to AB 32, states that land use City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 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 Emissions Reduction Action In 1997, 10,000 international delegates, observers, and journalists gathered in Kyoto, Japan, to participate in the drafting and adoption of the Kyoto Protocol, which requires industrialized nations to reduce their collective GHG emissions to 5.2%below 1990 levels. Additionally, since 1995, the annual Conference of the Parties has met to discuss action and implementation to reduce GHG emissions.Currently,there are 192 parties to the Kyoto Protocol. State Action California has taken significant steps at the state level and has been leading the charge on combating GHG emissions through various pieces of legislation,which include: Senate Bill 1771 Sher,2000—Requires the California Energy'Commission(CEC)to prepare an inventory of the state's GHG emissions, study data .on global climate change, and provide government agencies and businesses with information on the costs and methods for reducing GHGs.Senate Bill';(SB) 1771 also established the California Climate Action Registry"to serve as a certifying agency for companies and 'local governments to quantify and register their GHG emissions for passible future trading systems. ,Senate Bill 1078 Sher; 2002 — Established the Renewables Portfolios Standard, which requires electricity providers to increase purchases of renewable energy resources by 1% per year until they have attained a portfolio of 20%renewable resources. Assembly Bill 1493 Pavley, 2002 — Requires the Air'Resources Board (ARB) to develop and adopt regulations that achieve the maximum feasible reduction,of GHGs from vehicles primarily used for noncommercial transportation.To meet the requirements of Assembly Bill(AB) 1493,in 2004, ARB approved amendments to California's existing standards for motor vehicles. These amendments require automobile manufacturers to meet fleet-averaged GHG emissions limits for all passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicle weight classes, beginning in 2009. Cars sold in California are anticipated to emit an average of 16°fo 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-13-48, 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 s 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 11 change and ultimately reduce the effects of GHG emissions on the human and natural environment. Local Action Bay Area Air Ouality Management District In June 2010, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted CEQA air quality thresholds of significance for use within its jurisdiction. The BAAQMD has direct and indirect regulatory authority over sources of air pollution in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, of which the City of Dublin is part. The overall goal of this effort was to develop CEQA significance criteria that ensure that future development implements appropriate and feasible emissions reduction measures to mitigate significant air quality and climate change impacts. The BAAQMD adopted a threshold of 1,100 MTCO2e 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 CO2e/year) is equivalent to approximately 60 single-family units, 78 multi-family units, a supermarket exceeding 8,000 square feet, and an office park exceeding 50,000 square feet. Projects with emissions greater than the adopted threshold would be required to mitigate to the threshold level or reduce project emissions by a percentage deemed feasible by the lead agency. The adopted plan threshold is 6.6 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 4 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 II. Emissions Inventory). The baseline year is based on the existing growth pattern. The projected GHG emissions are based on the emissions from anticipated growth through 2020. Furthermore: • The baseline inventory includes one complete calendar year of data for 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 MTCO2e 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 MTCO2e 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 Tome 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 CO2e allows for the consideration of different GHGs in comparable terms. For example, methane is 21 times more powerful than COz in its capacity to trap heat, so the model converts one ton of methane emissions to 21 tons of COze. The emissions coefficients and methodology employed by the software are consistent with national and international inventory standards established by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories), the Department of Energy (DOE) Guidelines for Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Reporting and, for emissions generated from solid waste, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)Waste Reduction Model. The CACP software has been and continues to be used by many local governments to reduce their GHG emissions. However, it is worth noting that although the software provides the City of Dublin with a sophisticated and useful tool, calculating emissions from energy use with precision is difficult. The model depends on numerous assumptions, and it is limited by the quantity and quality of available data. With this in mind, it is useful to think of any specific number generated by the model as an approximation rather than an exact value. 2. Inventory Data Sources and Creation Process An inventory of GHG emissions requires collecting information from a variety of sectors and sources. For community electricity and natural gas data, Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) was consulted. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA), BAAQMD, and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) provided transportation data. Solid waste data was gathered from StopWaste, Amador Valley Industries (AVI), CalRecycle, and the EPA. Data on municipal operations was gathered by City of Dublin staff. This data was entered into the CACP software to create a community emissions inventory and a municipal emissions inventory. The community inventory represents sources from the following sectors: transportation, residential energy,commercial/industrial energy, wastewater and waste; it includes all the energy used and waste produced within Dublin, and Dublin's contribution to community GHG emissions. The municipal inventory is a subset of the community inventory and includes emissions derived from internal government operations, including vehicle emissions from contracted services such as fire and waste hauling. Two main reasons exist for completing separate emissions inventories for community and municipal operations. First, the municipal government is committed to action on reducing GHG emissions and has a higher degree of control over reducing its own emissions than those created by the community at large. Second, by proactively reducing emissions generated by its own activities,Dublin's city government takes a visible leadership role. This is important for inspiring local action in Dublin and in other communities. City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 12 Dublin's updated inventory is based on calendar year 2010 in order to include more accurate data . and a broader source of emissions. When calculating Dublin's emissions inventory, all energy used in the community was included. This means that even though the electricity used by Dublin's residents is produced elsewhere,this energy and the emissions associated with it appear in Dublin's inventory. B. Inventory Results 1.Baseline Emissions Inventory The City of Dublin's baseline emissions inventory was originally conducted by ICLEI in partnership with City staff. The purpose of the baseline emissions inventory was to establish an initial level of GHG emissions for the community, which allows the City to measure future progress. The City chose calendar year 2005 as its base year. The baseline inventory was completed and approved by the Dublin City Council in October 2008. The baseline GHG inventory included GHG emissions from the following sectors: transportation, residential energy, commercial/industrial energy and waste, and included energy- and waste-related activities at the community scale, as well as those resulting directly from municipal operations. Additionally, a municipal operations inventory was included,which is a subset of the community inventory. • As part of the CAP Update, the City prepared an updated emissions inventory for calendar year 2010. It became evident that using the original emissions inventory completed for baseline year 2005 was problematic for several reasons and therefore,the determination was made to switch to 2010 as the baseline year. Switching to 2010 as the baseline is a better choice for a variety of reasons. Community activities that affect GHG emissions have changed considerably since 2005 due to increased awareness of sustainability,as well as to a downturn in the economy. In addition, • numerous efficiency improvements have occurred in electric equipment, vehicles, and other devices,resulting in lower emissions per use.Furthermore,the 2010 inventory contains additional subsectors and activities not accounted for in the 2005 inventory (e.g., water emissions, wastewater emissions,BART emissions).A 2010 emissions inventory is therefore more complete and accurate. The baseline inventory provided the basis for creating the City's initial emissions forecast and reduction target and enabled the emissions reductions associated with implemented and proposed measures to be quantified. 2.Revised Inventory As part of its commitment to climate action, the City has set as goals, as well as completed, various milestones to manage and improve GHG emissions within the community. Specifically, the City has established a framework and methodology to identify and reduce GHG emissions, organized along the following five milestones: • Conduct an inventory and forecast of local greenhouse gas emissions. • Establish a greenhouse gas emissions reduction target. • Develop a climate action plan for achieving the emissions reduction target. • Implement the climate action plan. • Monitor and report on progress. The five-milestone process is meant to be iterative in the sense that the City will be in a constant process of measuring, evaluating, and improving its efforts in managing GHG emissions within the Dublin community. With the adoption and implementation of the CAP in 2010, the City had City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 13 • effectively completed milestones 1-4, and entered into the monitoring and evaluation stage. Since that time, the City has been working diligently to ensure that its targeted GHG emissions reduction goal was met and obtained according to the measures outlined within the CAP. In order to fully gauge the City's GHG emissions reduction progress, an additional GHG inventory was conducted. Best practices within the industry suggest that a new GHG inventory should be completed every five years. As the City baseline GHG inventory was completed for calendar year 2005, the City began work on an updated GHG inventory for 2010. As the work continued for the 2010 inventory, the City became aware that certain revisions to the baseline inventory would be necessary to make comparisons to the 2010 inventory possible. For example, certain coefficients used by PG&E to calculate GHG emissions from the energy produced from nonrenewable sources had been updated. Additionally, improved data-gathering methods, which had not been available for the baseline inventory, could now be employed to make the inventory more accurate. Also, it became clear that new methods of analysis could help improve the inventory to allow for "apples-to-apples" comparisons between the baseline inventory and the 2010 update. It is acknowledged that a complete apples-to-apples comparison is rarely possible; however, the updated inventory and the resulting comparison provide Dublin with a more accurate assessment of how each source and sector has changed over time, and will enable more detailed tracking of both emissions and actions taken to reduce emissions in the future. A discussion of the 2005 and 2010 GHG emissions inventories has been included as Appendix B for comparative and informational purposes. 3. Inventory Update In compliance with its desire to update the GHG inventory every five years, the City engaged StopWaste to assist with a new GHG inventory for calendar year 2010. This new inventory aided the City in understanding its progress in implementing the many GHG reduction strategies as part of the adopted CAP. Having completed the inventory update,the City will be able to evaluate the effectiveness of those measures as well as ensure that proper progress is being maintained in reaching the established reduction threshold. Should the City's strategies be deemed deficient, conducting mid-term inventories will provide the City with enough time to remedy any issues and/or update the reduction goal as necessary. 4. Inventory Results 1. Community Emissions Inventory Numerous items can be included in a community emissions 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% ■Residential-Electricity • Commercial/industrial energy ■Residential-Gas • Transportation ■Commercial/Industrial-Electricity • • Water and wastewater ■Commercial/Industrial-Gas • Solid waste ■Transportation Sector ■Waste Sector ■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) ' 11? coinalunity» Residential 55,966 17.1% Commercial/industrial 60,098 18.3% Transportation 204,151 62.2% Solid waste 5,330 1.6% Water&wastewater(electricity and fugitive emissions) 2,610 0.8% TOTAL 328,155 100.0% 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 0 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 CO2e. The transportation sector analysis includes emissions from all vehicle use within Dublin's city boundaries (whether on local roads or state highways passing through Dublin's jurisdiction), as well as off-road vehicles. Additional transportation captures include an apportioned amount of • emissions generated by the City's use of the BART passenger rail service. The majority of emissions estimated are detailed in Table 2 below including passenger vehicles, which account for approximately 62% of total transportation emissions in 2010. Emissions are calculated from both fuel consumption data which provides direct CO2 emissions, and from vehicle miles travelled (VMT) which provides CH4 and N2O 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 MTCO a Percentage of Total C0 2e 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:MTCOZe=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 15 • • The Built Environment(Residential and CommerciaUlndustrial) 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 MTCO2e. 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 CO2e per megawatt-hour of electricity generated versus 0.7 tons for gas turbines and zero tons for renewable sources such as solar, wind, or hydroelectric power. Dublin's emissions from the built environment are slightly more from the commercial/industrial sectors (52.6%); the residential sector makes up 47.4%of community stationary emissions(Figure • 2). Residential In 2010, Dublin's residential sector consumed 100,679,670 kWh of electricity. This energy consumption resulted in 55,966 MTCO2e emissions. Major residential energy uses include refrigeration,lighting, air conditioning,heating,and water heating. • Commercial/Industrial In 2010, Dublin's commercial/industrial sector consumed 178,203,608 kWh of electricity, which resulted in 60,098 MTCO2 emissions. Emissions from industrial electricity and natural gas use,as well as direct access electricity use, are included within the industrial sector category. Industrial natural gas and electricity consumption data are reported within this sector under Public Utility • Commission confidentiality rules that prohibit the release of such data in certain cases. Waste In 2010, the City of Dublin sent approximately 24,860 tons of solid waste and zero tons of ADC • to a landfill, resulting in a total of about 5,330 MTCO2e, or 1.6% of total GHG emissions (Table 1). Emissions from the waste sector are an estimate of methane(CH4)generation that will result from the anaerobic (without access to oxygen) decomposition of the waste sent to a landfill from the community as a whole in 2010. It is important to note that these emissions are not solely generated in said year, but occur over the 100+year time frame in which the waste generated in • 2010 will decompose. This "frontloading" of future emissions allows for simplified accounting and accurate comparison of the emissions impacts of waste disposed in each year. Therefore, if the amount of waste sent to a landfill is significantly reduced in a future year that year's emissions profile will reflect those reductions'. Some types of waste (e.g., paper, plant debris, food scraps) generate CH4 within the anaerobic • environment of a landfill and others (e.g., metal, glass) do not. Characterizing the various components of the waste stream is important. Alameda County is unique among California counties because it conducted its own waste characterization study in 2008. The waste characterization study highlights the waste types that could be diverted from the waste stream. i • 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 • a 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 MTCO a C0 2e Tonna a 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:MTCO2e=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions *Waste characterization study conducted by StopWaste.org for the year 2008.This total does not include alternative daily cover. **All other waste is considered inorganic and doesn't emit CO2 Government Operations GHG Emissions by Sector(2010) 2. Municipal Emissions Inventory 0.3% 2.1% ■Buildings&Facilities The sources of emissions counted ■Streetlights&Traffic under the government's inventory Signals are facilities and equipment owned ■Water Delivery Facilities and operated by the City. The ■Vehicle Fleet • government operations inventory includes sources from the following ■Employee Commute sectors: ■Mobile Source • Buildings and facilities Refrigerants 0.5% ■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 i • 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 Gam' >tY4kl missi®> s 2r 1 ni"Ili�°o Ttttxt 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 1 2.1% TOTAL 2,343 1 100% Note:MTCO2e=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 MTCO2e 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 MTCO2e, 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 MTCO2e, 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 MTCO e C0 2c, kWh therms MMBtu Civic Center 351 44% 1,176,989 21,115 6,128 Shannon Community Center 68 9% 248,480 3,289 1,177 Swim Center 93 12% 181,240 10,570 1,676 • Senior Center 61 8% 177,893 4,744 1,082 Emerald Glen Park& 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:MTCO2e=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 Li tin 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 P�eroent4geofTotal )EileCtnCIty- f gai�aleu# Facili' MICU a CO (Public Li Min Co Streetlights 464.9 84.9% 2,289,061 7,812.5 Traffic Signals 68.9 12.6% 339,026 1,157.1 Art lights/Outdoor Lighting 13.9 2.5% 68,493 233.8 TOTAL 547.7 100% 2,696,580 9,203.4 Note:MTCO,e=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions Water The water category includes all electricity used for pumping water and irrigation control. In 2010, water infrastructure resulted in 12 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 CO2e,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 MTCO2e 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 MTCOze. This amounts to a 1.3%annual growth rate in community emissions between 2010 and 2020 and underscores Dublin's predicted jobs and population growth in the next decade. This also underscores the importance of acting to reduce emissions now, because policies Dublin enacts now will affect future residents and businesses. To illustrate the potential emissions growth based on projected trends in energy use, driving habits,job growth, and population growth from 2010 going forward,an emissions forecast for the year 2020 was conducted. Table 7 shows the results of the forecast. A variety of reports and data were used to create the emissions forecast. Methods This section discusses changes to the forecasting and target-setting methods between the original and updated forecasts. Forecast Year Dublin's original CAP forecasted 2020 emissions based on 2005 levels, consistent with accepted methods at the time the plan was written.The CAP Update bases the forecast and reduction target on a 2010 baseline. This represents a better choice for numerous reasons. Activity behavior that affects GHG emissions has changed considerably since 2005, due to increased awareness of sustainability and climate issues as well as to a downturn in the economy.Additionally,numerous efficiency improvements have occurred in electric equipment, vehicles, and other devices, resulting in lower emissions per use. The BAU scenario assumes that efficiency rates remain the same across all sectors between the baseline and forecast year (e.g., a car will emit the same amount per mile driven), and as 2010 is a more recent year, these efficiency rates are likely to result in a more accurate forecast than if figures from 2005 are used. Additionally, the 2010 inventory contains additional subsectors and activities not present in the 2005 inventory (e.g., water emissions, wastewater emissions, BART emissions). A forecast based on 2010 data is therefore more complete. TABLE 7:COMMUNITY GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FORECAST PROJECTIONS Canimua y 9nH* sons Growth 2010 2020 Percent Change.,_ lKur+e�x#°hySect�r 1TGU3eEmrs�tons` I► CU�+eEm>ss�nas,:. (211tt-2(!20)` k , . Residential 55,966 65,200 16.5% Commercial/industrial 60,098 71,156 18.4% Water&wastewater electricity 2,610 3,419 31.0% Transportation 204,151 228,037 11.7% Solid waste 5,330 6,982 31.0% �l TOTAL 328,155 374,790 14.2% Note:MTCOZe=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions.Total may not equal sum of component parts due to rounding City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 20 TABLE 8:COMMUNITY FORECAST INDICATOR tst%atox 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 BART 1,469,000,000 1,743,261,595 BART 2008 Fiscal Year passenger miles Short-Range Transit Plan Municipal Forecast A 2020 emissions forecast was also completed to describe the City of Dublin's municipal activities. The original inventory included a 2005 municipal inventory, but no forecast, so no comparison is provided. Table 9 summarizes the results of the municipal forecast. In total, municipal emissions are projected to grow by 172 MTCOze or 7.3%between 2010 and 2020. TABLE 9:MUNICIPAL FORECAST MunidIial Enussi�ons Growth)Forecast by 2010 ....... 2fl20 Percent Change Sector 1tTCQ�e „M)[COQIO-2A2fl) Emissions ' Emssions " Building energy use 790 790 0% Vehicle fleet 687 687 0% Streetlights and traffic signals 548 720 31.4% Water delivery 12 10 -16.7% Employee commute 249 249 0% Government-generated solid waste 49 49 0% Refrigerants 8 10 25.0% TOTAL 2,343 2,515 7.3% Municipal Forecast Indicators ' Emissions from municipal operations were not included in the original forecast. Such a forecast is useful to identify reduction priorities in municipal activities, and is part of the updated forecast. Emissions from government activities across five categories have been inventoried: building energy use, streetlight/traffic signal electricity use, water delivery facilities electricity use, City vehicle fleet,and solid waste from municipal facilities. For building energy use, the best indicator is how much square feet of building space the City would occupy in 2020. However, without specific plans for future growth of City operations in 2020, it is difficult to accurately estimate future municipal emissions. An acceptable substitute City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 21 would be to use the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) City employees, which is the best available indicator for projecting changes in emissions from the City vehicle fleet, employee commutes, and solid waste. As the City does not have FTE estimates for 2020, a common practice is to assume that FTE will stay the same as it was in the baseline year of 2010. This approach has been used for the municipal forecast. Because emissions from water-and wastewater-related electricity use are forecasted using service population, this indicator is also used to forecast electricity use for water delivery facilities. Service population is also used for electricity from streetlights and traffic signals, as the number of streetlights and traffic signals is related to development in the community and is generally independent from the size of municipal operations. Table 10 summarizes the various indicators used in the municipal forecast. TABLE 10:MUNICIPAL FORECAST INDICATORS e � 6#1rCe r"rg � _ .•_ fd y Building energy use Dublin Fiscal Year 2010/11 Off-road equipment Comprehensive Annual Vehicle fleet Fiscal Report Employee commute 204.27 204.27 Government-generated solid City employment waste (FTE) Refrigerants 46,040 62,700 US 2010 Census,ABAG ♦t Population One Bay Area Plan Community 19,000 22,500 2012 Dublin Economic employment Development Strategy Streetlights and traffic signals 65,040 85,200 Sum of population and Service population Water-pumping facilities community employment City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 22 IV. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Target A reduction target provides a tangible goal for Dublin's efforts to reduce GHG emissions. The emissions reduction target for the community aims to decrease emissions by 15% below 2010 levels by 2020. Many factors were considered when selecting Dublin's reduction target. The City strove to choose a target that is both aggressive and achievable given local circumstances. Local factors considered in selecting the target percentage to reduce GHG emissions included estimation of the effects of implemented and planned programs and policies, an approximate assessment of future opportunities to reduce emissions, targets adopted by peer communities, 4 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. TABLE 11—DUBLIN COMMUNITY-WIDE EMISSIONS SUMMARY Dublin Comuni -wide Emissions Summary Base`year 2010 MTCO2e emissions 328,155 Target year 2020 BAU projection MTCO2e emissions 374,790 Reductions from State GHG reduction measures -63,460 Forecast after state reductions MTCO2e emissions 311,330 a Reductions from CAP GHG reduction measures -38,920 Forecasted Emissions with Reduction Measures(MTCO2e/ r) 272,410 Note:MTCOZe=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions;BAU=business-as-usual Sources:ICLEI CACP model output,summarized by PMC 2013 Further, the City of Dublin's CAP is designed to meet or exceed the goals of AB 32. To demonstrate the City's commitment to the goals of AB 32, the City's CAP achieves the BAAQMD's plan-level GHG efficiency-based metric of 6.6 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 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 1% decreasing on a per-individual basis. City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 23 TABLE 12-DUBLIN COMMUNITY-WIDE EMISSIONS ANALYSIS CAI'Wnetion Goal Analysis' Emissions Summary Year Emissions MTCO2e 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 StrategV Item Year MTCOZeISP GHG Efficiency Metric 2010 5.04 GHG Efficiency BAU Metric 2020 4.40 GHG Efficiency Goal Metric 2020 3.20 1! City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 24 V. Emissions Reduction Measures and Policies At both the community scale and within municipal operations,the City of Dublin has undertaken a number of programs, policies, and projects that result in reduced GHG emissions. Not only do these measures reduce GHG emissions, they also have the co-benefit of achieving other City policy goals, such as reducing local air pollution, reducing traffic, improving public health, increasing energy efficiency and conservation, reducing solid waste, and improving solid waste management. Ultimately, the goal of Dublin's CAP is to build on existing planning and implementation efforts and integrate them into the broader task of reducing the GHGs emitted within the community. In addition,the CAP intends to encourage action by citizens,jurisdictional partners, and business members of the community as they will also have an integral role in reducing emissions through programs of their own as well as the programs listed below. The City's CAP will continue to evolve. The City of Dublin has undertaken and continues to implement numerous measures to reduce GHGs since its baseline emissions were determined. The City expects to continue to add additional programs, practices, and policies that will contribute to GHG reductions for many years to come. As these programs,practices, and policies are developed and implemented,they will be folded into the CAP. The various GHG reduction measures are organized into three categories: transportation/land use, energy (which includes both energy efficiency and renewable energy), and waste management. These categories follow the major sources of emissions found in the GHG emissions inventory (described in Chapter II). Where possible, anticipated emissions reductions have been quantified based on substantial evidence. Many of these reduction measures were part of the original CAP, although the GHG reductions from each measure have been recalculated to reflect the revised inventory, activity data, and methods. In addition, some measures were not included in the original CAP, and have been added to reflect new conditions, programs, and priorities. The reduction measures include activities begun since 2005 that are ongoing in the community, as well as those initiated after 2010 that are expected to continue through 2020. For the ongoing 2005 measures, only additional reductions that have happened, or are expected to happen, after 2010 have been quantified,as any earlier reductions are already included in the 2010 inventory. Within each measure outlined below,the City has attempted to explain its reasoning for including the measure as well as to define the assumptions used in deriving the quantified reduction value. Additional detail and references to substantial evidence supporting quantified GHG reductions are provided in Appendix D. GHG emissions reduction measure performance can be quantified using top-down or bottom-up calculations, and both methods are used to quantify reductions in this CAP. A top-down approach to quantifying GHG emissions starts with a GHG reduction measure (e.g., installation of photovoltaic panels). If the measure is assumed to reduce electricity demand by a certain number of kWh, this can be converted to GHG emissions reductions using an emissions factor for electricity generation. However, it is critical that the assumed emissions factor be the same factor that was used to calculate the GHG emissions inventory. A bottom-up calculation begins with the community-wide GHG emissions inventory. A recommended emissions reduction measure (e.g., energy efficiency) targets a certain emissions sector (e.g., natural gas, electricity), emissions subsector (e.g. residential, commercial) and portion thereof(e.g., space heating, water heating, air conditioning). Thus, the community-wide GHG emissions inventory is scaled according to the applicability of the measure being evaluated. A reduction per participant is calculated (e.g., how much energy would be saved from energy- efficiency upgrades in a multi-family house), along with the number or percent of the applicable participants (e.g., the percent of multi-family units in the community that can be reasonably City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 25 assumed to undertake energy-efficiency upgrades). These participation and efficiency assumptions are then multiplied by the relevant portion of the community-wide inventory to derive an amount(in MTCOze)of emissions reduced. A. Community-wide Measures The measures outlined in this section represent reductions of GHG emissions in the community. They are organized by sector and outlined below. A.1 Transportation and Land Use Measures Broadly, there are three main ways to reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector. One way is to implement policies that reduce dependence on personal motor vehicles and encourage alternative modes of transportation, such as public transit, cycling, and walking. Another way is to use vehicles that release fewer GHGs, such as hybrids, electric vehicles, more fuel-efficient vehicles, and vehicles that run on alternative fuels. A final way is to encourage "smart growth" (i.e., policies that promote efficient land use development). Smart growth reduces the need to travel long distances, facilitates transit and other nonautomotive travel, increases the availability of affordable housing, employs existing infrastructure capacity, promotes social equity, helps protect natural assets,and maintains and sustains existing communities. Vehicles on roads and state highways are by far the largest source of Dublin's community emissions. In 2010, 62.2% of the community's GHG emissions were from the transportation sector. A.1.1 Transit-Oriented Development Context— In November 2002, the City of Dublin adopted a general plan amendment, specific plan amendment, and zoning for the Eastern Dublin Transit Center, located near the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. The plan allows for the eventual construction of 1,800 high- density residential units, in addition to close to 2 million square feet of commercial space, and a new park. Due to a project being approved with a lower density than the maximum allowed by the specific plan, the total number of units for the Eastern Dublin Transit Center project at build- out is expected to be 1,605. A 505-unit project in the Transit Center is currently under construction, and construction is expected to begin soon on a 105-unit project. The City of Dublin also adopted a West Dublin BART Specific Plan in December 2000, which was subsequently amended in November 2007. In February 2011, the City Council adopted the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP), which replaced and combined five existing specific plans,one of which was the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. The area formerly within the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area is the transit-oriented district of the DDSP. This is intended to be a high-density mixed-use area, capitalizing on regional transit linkages provided by both the BART line and supported by nearby freeways, including Interstate 580 and Interstate 680. The DDSP allows a total of 1,300 residential units, of which 1,100 units are within the Transit Oriented District of the DDSP adjacent to the BART station. To date, 1,007 units have already been approved in the Transit Oriented District, in addition to new square footage for retail/restaurant, lodging, and office uses. Research indicates that developments adjacent to transit services, such as BART, can expect to experience a reduction in vehicle trips, especially for commute trips. Further, vehicle trip reductions may be possible if residential locations are within walking distance of retail/service amenities or an employment center. In July 2009, Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants reviewed data from a variety of sources to develop a likely range of vehicle trip reductions for transit-oriented development (TOD) adjacent to the BART stations in Dublin (see Appendix Q. Based on its research,Fehr&Peers identified a reduction in vehicle trips of 25%for multi-family City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 26 residential developments located in a mixed-use environment within a barrier-free,half-mile walk of a BART station. Emissions Reductions—Dublin's planned TOD developments and those constructed after 2010, in conjunction with the City's policies that promote high-density development (see Measure A.1.2) and mixed-use development(see Measure A.1.3), are estimated to result in a reduction of 8,380 MTCOze/year(22%of local reductions). A.1.2 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 Sustainability Element Context — In September 2008, the City of Dublin adopted a Community Design and Sustainability Element. The Community Design and Sustainability Element establishes design principles, policies, and implementation measures to enhance the livability of Dublin and encourages a high level of quality design that supports sustainability.The Community Design and Sustainability Element applies to new development and redevelopment throughout the city. Emissions Reductions—Reductions anticipated from the Community Design and Sustainability Element have not been quantified. However, this measure supports achievement of other recommended transportation measures. A.1.9 Work with the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority to Improve Transit Context— The City works with the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) to provide improved transit opportunities in the community. As part of the review process for City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 28 proposed development projects, the City and project proponents work with LAVTA on planning future bus stop locations and extending service routes. LAVTA's Bus Rapid Transit, or RAPID, began operations in early 2011. RAPID runs a similar route to one of LAVTA's existing routes(Route 10)but it offers more direct and efficient service between Livermore, the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and Stoneridge Mall in Pleasanton. Efficiencies have been achieved by following a shorter route, using advanced technology to minimize delays at traffic signals, and increasing spacing between stops. The buses run more frequently, thus reducing passenger waiting time. Within Dublin, RAPID runs along Dublin Boulevard between San Ramon Road and Fallon Road and also pulls into the BART station. Emissions Reductions—The implementation of RAPID and the City's continued efforts to work with LAVTA to improve transit within the community is estimated to result in a reduction of 1,210 MTCOZe/year(3%of local reductions). A.1.10 Bikeways Master Plan Context—In July 2007, the City of Dublin adopted a Bikeways Master Plan. Policies in the plan include the continued development of successful bicycle and pedestrian trail corridors, improved bicycle access to parks and open space areas,improved bicycle lanes and/or routes on several key cross-city corridors, bikeways on key freeway crossings, the development of education and enforcement programs, and improvements to the City's Bicycle Parking Ordinance. The City is in the process of updating the Bikeways Master Plan. Currently within the City of Dublin,there are approximately 42 miles of bike paths/lanes. The Bikeways Master Plan update proposes adding another 44.5 miles of bike paths/lanes. The City of Dublin recognizes the many benefits of creating additional bicycle routes and improving existing routes. Pedal power is a clean source of energy that does not produce GHG emissions; however, lack of adequate bike infrastructure is a major barrier to cyclists. Providing and promoting a convenient and safe bike infrastructure serves to reduce trips by motor vehicles. Bicycles are especially appropriate in reducing the number of short trips (up to five miles),which constitute more than half of all driving. Shifting trips from cars to bikes also reduces street traffic. An investment in bike infrastructure is also an investment in public health, because cycling is an excellent mode of physical activity. Emissions Reductions — Emissions reductions for this measure support those calculated for Measure A.1.4. A.1.11 West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station Context — The West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station opened to the public in February 2011. Consistent with the transit-oriented district of the DDSP, the area adjacent to the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station is intended to be a high-density mixed-use area, capitalizing on regional transit linkages provided by the BART line and supported by nearby freeways. Each week,BART passengers travel about 950,000 miles to and from this station. Emissions Reduction — It is estimated that the addition of the new West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station will result in a reduction of 10,980 MTCOZe/year(28%of local reductions). A.1.12 City Design 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 20 units to reach 50 points on the GreenPoint Rated system. Alternatively, LEED for Homes is approved in the ordinance. Other types of rating systems may be approved by the City's Green Building Official on a case-by-case Green RATED basis. The majority of residential projects within the City are subject to the Green Building Ordinance.There are few to no planned residential projects within the City that are 20 units or less. GreenPoint Rated is a green building program administered by the nonprofit organization Build It Green. GreenPoint Rated was conceived of and developed with assistance from StopWaste. The GreenPoint Rated guidelines and rating system, begun in 2000, has grown rapidly and is becoming a standard for the construction of green residential homes and major renovation projects throughout California. The GreenPoint Rated system comprises five related categories: energy efficiency, resource conservation, indoor air quality, water conservation, and community, all of which are important to the practice of green building. All new residential development in Dublin over 20 units (multi-family and single-family homes) is required to meet the GreenPoint standard. M Emissions Reductions—Implementation of the Green Building Ordinance for new single-family and multi-family housing projects over 20 units, assuming that all projects achieve the required City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 30 minimum of a 15%improvement over California's energy-efficiency standards for new buildings, is estimated to result in a reduction of 1,110 MTCOZe/year(3%local reductions). A.2.2 Energy 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 4 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 o£ • 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 A.3.3 Tiered Rate Structure for Garbage and Recycling Y 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 CH4 emissions produced when organic waste decomposes in the absence of oxygen at the landfill. CH4 is a powerful GHG, 21 times more potent than CO2. Food waste, which produces more methane than any other 14 organic material, can be used for producing compost. Additionally,the resultant compost reduces GHGs in three ways: 1) The composting process itself helps to bind or sequester carbon in the soil. 2) The resultant compost results in reduced use of nitrogen fertilizers,which are not only energy intensive to produce,but are also a leading source of N20 emissions,a potent GHG. 3) Sending organics to a composting facility reduces more GHGs than sending organics to a landfill,even one with methane recovery. If the City of Dublin were to reduce the amount of food waste that is sent to the landfill by one metric ton, the community would prevent approximately one MTCO2e 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 Context—The City offers a convenient, free recycling program that includes curbside pickup for residential neighborhoods to encourage greater recycling efforts. The curbside residential recycling program was established prior to 2005. Curbside pickup includes garbage, recycling, and organics (composting). The goal of curbside pickup is to remove barriers to recycling, helping to increase recycling rates and decrease emissions from the extraction, processing, and transportation of virgin materials. Emissions Reductions — Emissions reductions for this measure support those calculated for Measure A.3.2. A.3.9 Curbside 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 I1I. Forecast for Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the forecast of government operations emissions is included within City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 36 ,0 the CAP'S community inventory. As such, the various municipal operations that reduce GHG emissions and the resultant reduction metric are outlined below. B.1 Transportation and Land Use Measures There are several ways to reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector, which include encouraging alternative modes of transportation other than solo driving, using vehicles that release fewer GHGs, and implementing smart growth policies. The measures below outline policies that the City has in place to encourage its employees to reduce their GHG emissions related to the transportation sector. B.1.1 City Hybrid Vehicles Context—The City of Dublin has a limited amount of vehicles for its employees to use, two of which are hybrid vehicles. Hybrid cars often get gas mileage of 20 to 30 miles per gallon more than the traditional internal combustion engine in non-hybrid vehicles. All hybrids shut off the gas engine automatically when the car is stopped and turn it back on only when the gas pedal is pressed again, saving fuel. Additionally, many hybrid cars run on batteries at low speeds, powered by energy produced by braking. Because less gasoline is burned in these vehicles, they emit lower levels of GHGs and other pollutants into the atmosphere. Emissions Reductions—Reductions anticipated from use of City hybrid vehicles have not been quantified. However, this measure supports achievement of other recommended transportation measures. B.1.2 Commute Alternative Program Context—The City's Commute Alternative Program is a policy designed to encourage alternative modes of transportation among the City's workforce. The City provides incentives to its employees who use alternatives to solo driving, which include public transportation, biking, walking, or carpooling. The City provides an incentive of $2.00/day to use alternative transportation modes. Additionally, the City participates in the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency Guaranteed Ride Home Program. Since 2010, the number of employees that participated in the program doubled and the money spend on the program increased by nearly 50%. Emissions Reductions—Reductions anticipated from the Commute Alternative Program have not been quantified. However, this measure supports achievement of other recommended transportation measures. B.1.3 Green Fleet Policy for City Vehicles Context—The City adopted a Green Fleet Policy in July 2012. The Green Fleet Policy provides guidelines for the procurement,management, and operation of fleet vehicles to: • Reduce the consumption of petroleum fuels and other non-renewable resources. • Replace petroleum fuels with renewable/sustainable alternatives,when feasible. • Reduce vehicle emissions. • Maximize fuel efficiency. • Minimize vehicle idling. • Reduce costs and save money. Pursuant to the Green Fleet Policy, the City is required to make every effort to obtain the "cleanest" vehicles possible as measured by the then-existing emissions certification standards and those published by the manufacturers. City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 37 Emissions Reductions—While replacing vehicles with hybrids,plug-in electric vehicles,or other vehicles that produce low or no emissions does reduce emissions, specific reductions anticipated from the Green Fleet Policy have not been quantified due to a lack of local data However, this measure supports achievement of other recommended transportation measures. B.2 Energy Measures Increasing the energy efficiency of municipal buildings has substantial potential to both reduce GHG emissions and save the City and the community money. The energy consumed to heat,light and power City-owned buildings is a direct source of municipal GHG emissions. The largest source of emissions from government operations is the City's buildings,which emit about half of the municipal GHGs. B.2.1 LEED Silver Requirement for New City Buildings Costing More Than$3 Million Context — In 2004, the City Council adopted a resolution which required that all new civic buildings over $3 million be built to achieve silver certification under the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System. The LEED program recognizes that building performance in the areas of human and environmental health, sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection,and indoor environmental quality results in more efficient buildings. The Shannon Community Center, which was the first completed in February 2009, includes numerous energy-efficient measures. The Shannon iF Community Center has been certified and is waiting for the appeals to reach silver certification. Several capital improvement projects are planned that will trigger the LEED silver certification requirement, such as the Emerald Glen Park Recreation & Aquatic Complex, the Cultural Arts Center, Public Safety Complex, and the City's new Corp Yard building. These buildings will be constructed to achieve LEED silver certification. Emissions Reductions—Reductions anticipated from LEED certification of municipal buildings have not been quantified due to a lack of substantive data about these new facilities. However, this measure supports achievement of other recommended energy measures. B.2.2 Window Film on the Civic Center Context— In September 2009, an energy-efficient window film at the Dublin Civic Center was installed. The installation of the window film has improved the energy efficiency of the Civic Center. Emissions Reductions— Because this action did not occur after 2010, and is not anticipated to change, all reductions from this measure have already been included in the 2010 inventory. However,this measure supports achievement of other recommended energy measures. B.2.3 Light Emitting Diode(LED)Park Lights Context—The City of Dublin was awarded a grant in 2009 for the installation of LED lights in various parks within the community. Sixty-five LED park lights were installed in 2011,replacing an equal number of metal halide fixtures in three park sites. Emissions Reductions—The installation of the LED lights at the three park sites is estimated to result in a reduction of 20 MTCOze/year(less than I%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 r► efficiency and alternative energy measures: City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 38 • Lighting fixtures and controls • Building automation and controls • Air-handling systems • Equipment modifications • Heating,cooling and ventilation(HVAC)replacement and/or upgrades • Streetlighting technologies • Alternative energy production including photovoltaic systems and fuel cells • Water irrigation systems Photovoltaic Electricity Seven PV electricity-producing (solar) installations have been constructed as part of the Energy Action Plan at the following locations: Civic Center; library; Shannon Community Center; senior center; and all three fire stations. These installations will generate more than 700 kW of solar energy at all sites combined. Additionally,a display monitor at the Library with a link to the City website allows for public viewing of real-time tracking of production,savings,and environmental benefits. The solar arrays are a combination of solar shade structures at the Civic Center, library, Shannon Community Center, Fire Station 17, and Fire Station 18, with roof-mounted solar installations at the remaining facilities. Most importantly, the solar arrays will help power the diverse city operations. In addition to the solar arrays, the City will be upgrading its heating and cooling systems at the Civic Center and the Dublin Library with more efficient technology. Lighting and Irrigation Changes Over 3,100 fixtures have been retrofitted.The high-pressure sodium cobra head lamps have been exchanged for energy-efficient LED streetlights. This project has benefited both the City's public safety responders as well as the public with improved lighting quality. The decorative fixtures along the Village Parkway corridor,in the Dublin Ranch area, and Transit Center were not switched to LED.The decorative streetlights will be looked at in a future time when decorative light technology advances. Interior lighting retrofits have also occurred as part of the project. Encompassing all fire stations, Civic Center, the library, the senior center, and Shannon Community Center,these retrofits have had an immediate effect in reducing electrical consumption of the City's facilities. Existing fixtures at all these locations have been retrofitted with more energy-efficient bulbs and ballasts. Motion sensors have been added, and more efficient lighting technologies will be incorporated as appropriate. The City is in the process of upgrading the watering systems within all of its parks with a centralized irrigation system that will ensure that water is delivered to these locations only when needed, cutting the cost of maintaining the landscaping within City parks. Additionally, City facilities have been retrofitted with low-flow toilets and sinks. Emissions Reductions— Implementation of the City's Energy Action Plan is estimated to result in a reduction of 550 MTCO2e/year(1%of local reductions). B.3 Solid Waste and Recycling Measures As mentioned previously, the City of Dublin has a goal of reducing waste sent to the landfill by 75%. To achieve this reduction goal, the City has implemented a variety of community-wide measures. Furthermore, Dublin is placing increasing emphasis on achieving emissions reductions through promoting sustainable landscaping practices such as those outlined in StopWaste's Bay- Friendly Landscape Guidelines. City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 39 B.3.1 Bay-Friendly Landscaping Policy Context — The City has been employing Bay-Friendly Landscaping practices within the City- owned parks and landscaping medians for some time. Also, in 2009, the City adopted a Bay- Friendly Landscaping policy requiring new large civic projects to meet a certain level of points on the Bay-Friendly Landscaping checklist. Bay-Friendly Landscaping is an integrated solution that fosters soil health, conserves water, reduces waste, and reduces emissions. Through the Bay-Friendly Landscaping Program, StopWaste provides training, landscape design assistance,and grant funding to local governments in Alameda County. The objective of the resources that StopWaste provides is to assist local governments to design public landscapes that cost less to maintain, consume fewer resources, send less waste to the landfill, and do not negatively affect the San Francisco Bay. Bay-Friendly Landscaping practices reduce emissions and provide many additional benefits. Trees, for example, provide habitat for birds, beautify urban areas,decrease the heat island effect, increase property values, and help to control stormwater runoff. Shade trees also reduce the need for air conditioning, thereby cutting energy costs. Selecting appropriate plants that require less shearing reduces the need for running various pieces of equipment. This not only reduces GHG emissions, but reduces local air and noise pollution. Additionally, keeping lawn and plant clippings on-site helps to improve soils. Grass-cycling, mulching, and using compost creates healthier landscapes without the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, all of which can help reduce water pollution. Emissions Reductions — Emissions reductions anticipated from implementation of the Bay- Friendly Landscaping policy have not been quantified. However, this measure supports achievement of recommended energy efficiency and waste management measures. C. Public Outreach Programs Public outreach programs constitute an important component of the City's GHG reduction strategies. The City of Dublin, through its many environmental programs and City events, can educate the community on environmentally friendly behaviors. The City also can motivate the community to improve their community and environment and to reduce GHG emissions through reductions in energy use,transit,and waste and through many other actions. CA Great Race for Clean Air Context—The Great Race for Clean Air Challenge is a friendly competition between Bay Area employers to encourage the use of commute alternatives to and from work such as carpooling, biking, and publicly provided transit. These commute alternatives can provide significant GHG savings. The competition is held each year and lasts two months. The City of Dublin has been participating in the challenge since 2009. Emissions Reductions — Emissions reductions anticipated from participation in the Great Race for Clean Air Challenge have not been quantified. However, this measure supports achievement of transportation measures. C.2 Tri-Valley 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"Recycling 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. CA AVI Educational Presentations Context—As part of its contract,AVI, the City's waste hauler, is required to present information on recycling and composting programs that the City offers to various organizations and businesses.AVI provides a minimum of 12 presentations a year. Emissions Reductions—Emissions reductions anticipated from AVI's educational presentations have not been quantified. However, this measure supports achievement of waste reduction measures. C.5 Promote Bike to Work Day Context— Each year, the City of Dublin participates in Bike to Work Day. The 2013 Bike to Work Day and the sponsored Energizer Stations were held on Thursday, May 9, at the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station underpass and at the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station underpass. The Energizer Stations, co-hosted by the cities of Dublin and Pleasanton, Alameda County Public Works, Dublin Cyclery, REI Dublin, Hacienda Business Park, Workday, and BART saw over 550 cyclists pass through. Emissions Reductions—Emissions reductions anticipated from the promotion of Bike to Work Day have not been quantified. However, this measure supports achievement of transportation reduction measures. C.6 Outreach at Dublin Farmers Market Context—The Dublin farmers market made its debut in 2010. The farmers market is held every Thursday from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. from April through September. The Environmental Services Division attends the market once a month to provide outreach and information to City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 41 residents on the City's environmental programs, including solid waste and recycling, clean water, and energy efficiency. Emissions Reductions — Emissions reductions anticipated from outreach at the farmers market have not been quantified. However, this measure supports achievement of energy measures and waste reduction measures. City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 42 M 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 I. 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 MTCOZe/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 R energy efficiency and green building strategies. To this end, the executive order directs all facilities owned, funded, or leased by the State (and encourages cities, counties, and schools as well)to take measures to reduce grid-based energy purchases for State-owned buildings by 20% by 2015. This is to be done through cost-effective measures to increase energy efficiency and distributed generation technologies. These measures include designing, constructing, and operating all new and renovated facilities owned by the State and paid for with State funds as buildings certified "LEED Silver" or higher; seeking out office space leases in buildings with a EPA ENERGY STAR rating; and purchasing or operating ENERGY STAR electrical equipment whenever cost-effective. Emissions Reductions – This measure will result in reductions of GHG emissions in the city. However, the amount of reductions anticipated from increasing energy efficiency in state buildings has not been quantified, so an estimated amount has not been included in the CAP. Therefore, GHG emissions reductions from these measures would result in additional reductions not included in the quantified reductions under this CAP. B.3 Title 24 Context– Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations is a statewide standard applied at the local level by local agencies through building permits. It mandates how each new home and business is built in California. It includes requirements for the structural,plumbing,electrical, and mechanical systems of buildings and for fire and life safety, energy conservation, green design, and accessibility in and around buildings. This forecast focuses on Part 6 (the California Energy Code) and Part 11 (the California Green Building Standards Code), which require direct electricity,natural gas,and water savings for every new home or business built in California. This forecast includes estimates of reductions from future reductions that have not yet gone into effect, including the 2013 update to Title 24, which is scheduled to be enforced beginning on January 1, 2014. These estimates are based on California Energy Commission studies that compare each new update of Title 24 to its former version. Emissions Reductions–It is estimated that the changes to Title 24 would result in a reduction of 2,600 MTCO2e/year. C. Transportation and Land Use CA Assembly Bill 1493–Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Standards Context–Nationwide, automobile manufacturers are bound by fuel efficiency standards set by a the US Department of Transportation. These standards, known as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, require that the fleet of passenger cars sold by any single manufacturer have an average fuel economy of 27.5 mpg—the same standard that was in place in 1985, despite technical progress and increased understanding of the environmental impacts of fossil fuel combustion. The CAFE standards are adopted at the federal level, and states are prevented from passing laws addressing vehicle fuel economy. In response to these stagnant federal standards,the California Assembly passed AB 1493, which allows ARB to create carbon dioxide emissions standards for cars sold in California. They argue that a GHG emissions standard is distinct from a fuel economy standard, despite the fact that it would necessitate improved gas mileage. The EPA granted a waiver to California in February 2009 to pursue its own regulations under AB 1493; however, the State has not yet done so. If AB 1493 is implemented in the next few years,this could have a significant impact on the reduction of GHG emissions in the City of Dublin because the total percentage of emissions from transportation was 62.2%in 2010. City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 45 Emissions Reductions — It is estimated that the GHG emissions reduction of AB 1493 for on- road mobile source GHG emissions in Dublin, in conjunction with the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (see C.2),would result in a reduction of 53,140 MTCOZe/year. C.2. Executive Order S-01-07—Low Carbon Fuel Standard Context—Executive Order S-0 1-07 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 GBO Reductions' %of2020 Local CO el r Reductions A.Community-wide Measures A.I.Transportation and Land Use Measures A.1.1.Transit-Oriented Development -8,380 22% A.1.2.High-Density Development Included in A.1.1 A.1.3.Mixed-Use Development Included in A.1.1 A.1.4.Bicycle Parking Requirements -950 2% A.1.5.Streetsca e Master Plan -1,530 4% A.1.6.Multi-Modal Ma -1,140 3% A.1.7.Electric and Plug ID-Hybrid Charging Stations at the Library -90 <1% A.1.8.General Plan Community Design and Sustainability Element Supportig Measure A.1.9.Work with LAVTA to Improve Transit -1,210 1 3% A.1.10.Bikeways Master Plan Included in A.1.4 A.1.11.West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station -10,980 1 28% A.1.12.City Design Strategy SypportigA Measure Subtotal Transportation and Land Use -24,280 62% A.2.Energy Measures A.2.1.Green Building Ordinance -1,110 3% A.2.2.Energy Upgrade California -1,610 4% A.2.3.Solar Conversion Programs -9,180 24% A.2.4.Reduce Solar Installation Permit Fee Included in A.2.3 A.2.5.LED Streetlight Specifications for New Projects Supporti2g Supporting Measure A.2.6.California Youth Energy Services Pro am -80 1 <1% A.2.7.hn lementation of Green Shamrock Program SUPP ortin Measure A.2.8.Direct Commercial Energy Outreach -640 2% A.2.9.Behavioral Energy Change -180 <1% Subtotal Energy 12,800 33% A.3.Solid Waste and Recycling Measures A.3.1.Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance Included in A.3.2 A.3.2.Citymide Diversion Goal of 75% -1,270 1 3% A.3.3.Tiered Rate Structure for Garbage and Recycling Included in A.3.2 A.3.4.Commercial Recycling Program Included in A.3.2 A.3.5.Commercial Food Waste Collection Program Included in A.3.2 A.3.6.Promote Commercial Recycling Included in A.3.2 A.3.7.Promote Multi-family Recycling Included in A.3.2 A.3.8.Curbside Residential Recycling Pro am 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 Tittle',`-, " GHG.Reductiens; -,al of 2020 Local CO Reductions I"-,-, B.Municipal Operations Measures B.1.Transportation and Land Use Measures B.1.1.City Hybrid Vehicles Su orting Measure B.1.2.Commute Alternative Program Supporting Measure B.1.3.Green Fleet Policy for City Vehicles Supporting Measure B.2.Energy Measures B.2.1.LEED Silver Requirement for New City Buildings>$3mil Supporting Measure B.2.2.Window Film on the Civic Center Supporting Measure B.2.3.LED Park Lights -20 <1% B.2.4.Energy Action Plan -550 1% B.3.Solid Waste and Recycling Measures B.3.1.Bay-Friendly Landscaping Policy Supoorti2g Measure Total Municipal Operations Measures -570 1% C.Public Outreach Programs C.1 Great Race for Clean Air Su orting Measure C.2.Spare the Air Resource Team Supporting Measure C.3.Work with Schools on Go Green Recycling&Composting Supporting Measure CA.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- 4 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 4 examples of the type of policies in the plan that will be monitored are highlighted below: 1) Construction of bicycle lanes—The Bikeways Master Plan update includes approximately 44.5 miles of proposed bike pathsibike 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 00 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 4 diversion rates and explore additional programs to help reach the 75%diversion goal. 5) Green Building Ordinance—The City's Green Building Ordinance requires residential projects over 20 units to reach 50 points on the GreenPoint Rated system. The Building Division works with project developers at the entitlement and building permit stages to ensure that the minimum 50 points is achieved. 6) California Youth Energy Services (CYES) Program—The City of Dublin has partnered with Rising Sun Energy Center to promote energy conservation and sustainable living via a youth employment program, known as California Youth Energy Services (CYES). The CYES program trains and employs local youth to provide resource conservation audits and retrofits to local residences in the form of a Green House call. The City will monitor and track the number of homes that receive a Green House call and the energy efficiency and water conservation measures that are installed. Monitoring results is critical to verifying that the various policies and programs within the City's CAP are achieving the anticipated GHG emissions reductions that have been anticipated. C. Periodic Review The City is committed to periodically conducting a review of the CAP to determine its progress in reducing GHG emissions within the city. Environmental Services Staff will conduct the periodic reviews. The process of conducting a periodic review will allow the City to demonstrate progress toward local emissions reduction targets and identify opportunities to integrate new or improved measures into the emissions reduction plan, including additional measures if necessary to meet the reduction target. The City of Dublin will review the CAP on an annual basis to verify that the various reduction measures are being implemented appropriately. Additionally, the City will re- inventory its emissions every five years. D. Point of Control Table 14 below lists the primary point of contact and locus of control for each individual reduction measure. Specifically, the relevant department within the city is highlighted, within which the implementation and ongoing activities will take place. Assigning and clarifying the responsible party is an important part of ensuring that the City achieves its goals as outlined and projected within the CAP. City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 50 TABLE 14—PRIMARY DEPARTMENT RESPONSIBLE FOR REDUCTION MEASURES Measure Number and Title Department Responsible Time Frame A.Community-wide Measures A.1.Trans' ortation 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.Streetsca e 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 Develop ment Ongoing A.1.9.Work with LAVTA to Improve Transit Public Works Ongoing A.1.10.Bikeways Master Plan Public Works 2020 A.1.11.West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station N/A Ongoing A.1.12.City Design Strategy Community Development Ongoing A.2.Energy Measures A.2.1.Green Building Ordinance Community Development 2020 A.2.2.Energy Upgrade California City Manager's Office Ongoing A.2.3.Solar Conversion Programs City Manager's Office Ongoing A.2.4.Reduce Solar Installation Permit Fee Community Development Ongoing A.2.5.LED Streetlight Specifications for New Projects Public Works Ongoing A.2.6.California Youth Energy Services Program City Manager's Office Evaluated annually A.2.7.Implementation of Green Shamrock Program City Manager's Office Ongoing A.2.8.Direct Commercial Energy Outreach City Manager's office Ongoing A.2.9.Behavioral Energy Change N/A On oin 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 for Garbage and Recycling City Manager's Office Ongoing A.3.4.Commercial Recycling Program City Manager's Office Ongoing A.3.5.Commercial Food Waste Collection Program City Manager's Office Ongoing 10 A.3.6.Promote Commercial Recycling City Manager's Office Ongoing A.3.7.Promote Multi-family Recycling City Manager's Office Ongoing A.3.8.Curbside Residential Recycling Program City Manager's Office Ongoing A.3.9.Curbside Organics Collection Program City Manager's Office Ongoing A.3.10.Reusable Bag Ordinance City Manager's Office Ongoing B Municipal Operations Measures B.I.Transportation and Land Use Measures B.1.1.City Hybrid Vehicles Public Works Ongoing B.1.2.Commute Alternative Program City Manager's Office Ongoing 11.1.3.Green Fleet Policy for City Vehicles City Manager's Office Onizoina B.2.Energy Measures B.2.1.LEED Silver Requirement for New City Buildings>$3mil Parks&Community Service Ongoing 13.2.2.Window Film on the Civic Center Public Works Complete 13.2.3.LED Park Lights Parks&Community Service Complete 13.2.4.Energy Action Plan City Manager's Office 2013 B.3.Solid Waste and'Recycling Measures 13.3.1.Bay-Friendly Landscaping PolicyParks&Community Service Ongoing C.Public Outreach Programs C.1.Great Race for Clean Air City Manager's Office Ongoing C.2.Spare the Air Resource Team City Manager's Office Ongoing C.3.Work with Schools on Go Green Recycling and Composting City Manager's Office Ongoing CA AVI Educational Presentations City Manager's Office Ongoing C.S.Promote Bike to Work Day Public Works Ongoing C.6.Outreach at the Farmers Market City Manager's Office Ongoing City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 51 IX. Relationship to the California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the City to identify the significant environmental impacts of its discretionary actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible. Senate Bill 97(2007)acknowledges that emissions from greenhouse gases(GHG)are an environmental issue that requires analysis under CEQA. When the City undertakes a discretionary action for a "project" under CEQA, such as approval of a proposed development project, plan, policy, or code change, the City will evaluate whether that action would result in a significant impact due to GHG emissions and climate change. It is unclear if the adoption of the CAP is a"project"under CEQA. Since it is a plan to protect the environment and reduce environmental impacts (due to GHG emissions or climate change), it may not constitute a"project" or qualify for an exemption under CEQA. The overall purpose of the CAP is to reduce the impact that the community will have on GHG emissions and,therefore, reduce an impact on the environment. However, as with any proposal involving activities relating to development, implementation of the CAP theoretically could potentially result in adverse impacts on the physical environment. Therefore, an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared by the City pursuant to CEQA to evaluate whether there are any potential adverse environmental impacts of implementing the CAP. Because the CAP will have undergone environmental review under CEQA, and is intended to reduce GHG emissions and climate change impacts in Dublin, it may be relied upon to address the cumulative impacts for future projects consistent with the CAP. This approach is consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, 15064, and 15130 and the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines and Thresholds of Significance, which provide a means for jurisdictions to analyze and mitigate the significant effects of GHGs at a programmatic level by adopting a plan for the reduction of GHG emissions. Later, as individual projects are proposed that are consistent with the CAP, the project would be considered to have a less than significant impact (i.e., less than cumulatively considerable contribution) from GHG emissions and climate change. When determining whether a proposed project is consistent with the CAP, City staff should consider the following: • The extent to which the project supports or includes applicable strategies and measures,or advances the actions identified in the CAP. • The consistency of the project with ABAG population growth projections as outlined in the One Bay Area Plan(Projections 2010),which are the basis of the CAP GHG emissions projections. • The extent to which the project would interfere with implementation of CAP strategies, measures, or actions. A project and its CEQA environmental review that relies on this CAP for its GHG emissions and climate change analysis must identify the specific CAP measures applicable to the project and how the project incorporates the measures. If the measures are not otherwise binding and enforceable, they must be incorporated as conditions of approval or mitigation measures applicable to the project. If the City determines in its environmental review that the proposed project would not substantially comply with the CAP, the applicant could consider various methods for making the project consistent with the CAP, including but not limited to revising the project, incorporating alternative reduction measures beyond the reduction measures identified in the CAP (including offsets) to make the project's GHG emissions levels consistent with the CAP. The impact from City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 52 GHG emissions from a project may also be determined to be less than significant under CEQA through an alternative analysis using a standard of significance that is supported by substantial evidence, such as BAAQMD's numerical thresholds (less than 1,100 MTCOZe per year or 4.6 metric tons per service population (residents and employees) per year. A determination that a project does not substantially comply with the CAP shall not in and of itself provide substantial evidence that a project's impact from GHG emissions is a significant impact under CEQA. It only means that a project may not be able to rely on the CAP for a determination that the project's impact is less than significant due to GHG emissions and climate change (i.e., less than cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impact). City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 53 Appendix A: Acronyms and Abbreviations AB Assembly Bill AB 32 Global Warming Solutions Act ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ACCPP Alameda County Climate Protection Project ADC alternative daily cover ARB California Air Resources Board AVI Amador Valley Industries BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BART Bay Area Rapid Transit BAU business-as-usual CACP Clean Air&Climate Protection CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy CAP Climate Action Plan C&D construction demolition debris CEC California Energy Commission CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CH4 methane CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide CO2e 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 CO2e metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission MMT million metric tons N20 nitrous oxide PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric PUC Public Utilities Commission PV photovoltaic RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard SB Senate Bill TOD transit oriented development VMT vehicle miles traveled WARM Waste Reduction Model 2 it 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 Secta> in 2010 Curnm�ityTnventorygurAcmy MTCOe Wastewater treatment emissions 565 Water and wastewater electricity emissions 2,045 Transportation Wheels and bus electricity 684 Wheels and bus — liquefied Transportation natural gas(LNG) 25 Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Transportation emissions 658 Transportation Off-road and direct emissions 18,490 Note:MTCO2e=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions 2.2010&2005 Community GHG Emissions Inventory Comnarison Tables 2 and 3 below provide a comparison between the 2010 GHG emissions inventory and 2005 GHG emissions inventory. 1 t► TABLE 2:2010 GHG EMISSIONS INVENTORY Energy %of Total , 2010 Community Emissions by Percent of (Ni3Btu) '1IMBTu Sector AffCOre Total CO e Residential-Electricity 20,449 6.2% 343,617 7.4% Residential-Gas 35,517 10.8% 668,171 14.3% Unknown* Unknown* Commercial/industrial-Electricity 37,994 11.6% Commercial/industrial-Gas 22,104 6.7% 416,007 8.9% Water&Wastewater Electricity 2,045 0.6% 34,364 0.7% Transportation sector 204,151 62.2% 3,195,367 68.6% Solid waste 5,330 1.6% Other-Wastewater Fugitive Emissions 1 565 1 0.2% - 0.0% TOTAL 1 328,155 1 100.0% 4,657,526 100% Note:MTCO2e=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions *The commercial electricity data is not available due to PG&E privacy regulations TABLE 3:REVISED 2005 GHG EMISSIONS INVENTORY a y, %6' Energy of Total 20"Community Emissions by Percent of Nl$lu) AIMTn', ,,... Sector MTCO Total CO e 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% Commercial/industrial-Gas 19,672 6.4% 367,999 7.0% 0.0% Water&Wastewater Electricity 0.0% Transportation sector 189,763 61.4% 3,364,409 64.2% 0.0% Solid waste 7,807 2.5% Other-Wastewater Fugitive Emissions 0.0% 0.0% TOTAL 1 308,923 100% 1 5,237,328 100% Note:MTCO2e=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions There were a total of 22,467 MTCO2e that were reported in 2010,but not included in the 2005 inventory. The MTCO2e included in the 2010 inventory that was not included in the 2005 inventory includes the following sectors: water & wastewater electricity (2,045 MTCO2e), wastewater fugitive emissions (565 MTCO2e),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 MTCO2e, 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. 3 TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY METHOD CHANGES Sector Souree Method i4o;How? Changed? Residential Electricity No Residential Natural gas No Commercial and Electricity Yes 0 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 0 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 CO2 factors and California grid average factors for N20 and CH4 published in the LGOP. Natural gas calculation methods remained consistent across both inventory years. Emission Factors and Activity Data Table 5 highlights changes in emissions factors and activity data for residential, commercial, and industrial electricity use between 2005 and 2010. Electricity (Residential & Commercial/Industrial) CO2 emissions factors changed from 489.16 lbs/MWh to 445.0 lbs/MWh in 2010, a 9%reduction in emissions for every unit of electricity used. The decline in PG&E's emissions from delivered electricity from 2005 to 2010 was owed, in large part, to an increase in the amount of zero- and low-emitting electricity in its power portfolio and the expanded use of cleaner fossil-fueled electricity, including two new natural gas- fired plants that PG&E brought into service in 2010. TABLE 5:CHANGES IN RESIDENTIAL,COMMERCIAL,AND INDUSTRIAL SECTORS nqr n �s Cha a oA Chafe m .: •fs Change Data,, in hector4a s Acttrnty 1 ITCU29 K. scions Factors : ..5n 5 r f s Residential electricity <1% 11% -9% Commercial and industrial electricity -6% -2% -5% Residential natural gas 15% 16% -10 Commercial and industrial natural gas 12% 13% -1% Residential electricity use increased by about 11%, which is why Dublin experienced a small increase in emissions from residential electricity (less than 1%). Residential N20 and CH4 emissions factors varied slightly between these two years, mostly because the calculation methods changed. The 2005 California .grid average factors for N20 and CH4, provided by the California Energy Commission (CEC) and published in the LGOP, were used for 2005. When both N20 and CH4 are included, there is a total emissions factor reduction of 9.21%. In 2010,CEC numbers were used to generate a five-year average for N20 and CH4.This five-year average yielded a very small change in the emissions factor(1%). Natural gas emissions from the residential sector changed, roughly in line with a 16% increase in natural gas use. Total emissions increased by slightly less than 16% due to a small change in the emissions rate for natural gas. Commercial and industrial electricity emissions factors decreased about 5%from 2005 to 2010, demonstrating that a significant amount of power came from direct access. Direct access has a higher emissions rate than other types of PG&E power. Coupled with an almost 2% reduction in electricity use, the commercial and industrial sectors experienced a total reduction of 6% from 2005 to 2010. The 2005 inventory used California grid average factors for CO2, N20, and CH4 provided by the CEC and contained in the LGOP for direct access electricity. A PG&E CO2 factor was used for all other commercial electricity use. In 2010, commercial and industrial emissions were reported by PG&E. 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. -4 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 MTCO2e in 2010,approximately 10%of transportation emissions. Calculation Methods The older, unrevised 2005 inventory used data publically available from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), which tracks all VMT in Dublin on state highways and local roads using on-site car counts. Newer traffic models from the MTC assign Dublin 50% of the VMT from trips that begin or end in the jurisdiction and 100% of the VMT from trips that begin and end in the jurisdiction. Trip generation models are preferred within the Community Protocol,and were used to update both the 2005 inventory and the 2010 inventory. 2010 activity data for electric buses and LNG buses was provided by StopWaste and the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority(LAVTA).Data on these sources were not available for 2005. Emissions Factors and Activity Data Table 6 highlights changes in emissions factors and activity data for the transportation sectors between 2005 and 2010. TABLE 6: CHANGES IN VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED AND EMISSIONS Change in MTCtIe1�r Cha Y V nge 1°, eah. AT _ ' V4T Passenger Vehicles 2010 297,941,277 125,916 2005 310,410,506 -4% -3% 129,789 Heavy Trucks 2010 35,996,970 54,425 55,731 -2% 2005 38,699,058 Buses 2010 2,348,599 4,662 -7% 4,244 -10% 2005 2,514,588 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 ?dtG Waste Type 205 10 ib Food 11% 22% Paper 22% 25% Plant 5% 4% Wood/Textile 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 113TCO2e Activity Data Units MTCOZe Activity Data Units Building electricity 482 2,155,608 kWh 521 2,566,566 kWh Building natural gas 289 54,293 therms 269 50,604 therms Streetlights and traffic signals 484 2,161,474 kWh 548 2,696,580 kWh Water delivery facilities 22 98,086 kWh 12 58,036 kWh Vehicle fleet 283 394,574 VMT 687 998,604 VMT Waste 7 33 tons 49 195 tons Total 1,567 2,086 Note:MTCOze=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions Three sectors accounted for most of the increase in emissions after the 2010 adjustment: streetlights and traffic signals, vehicle fleet, and waste. The increase in streetlights and traffic signals roughly correlates with the 21% increase in population that Dublin experienced in the same five-year period. Emissions in the building electricity and water delivery sectors declined, but were offset by increases in other sectors. Electricity use in buildings increased(19%), but reduced emissions per unit in this sector result primarily from lower PG&E emissions factors. Emissions factors for water electricity similarly declined, but lower energy demand(41%)accounted for most of the change in these emissions. 6 New Sectors and Sources in Municipal GHG emissions inventory As shown in Table 9, two new sectors, and two new vehicle fleet sources, were included in the 2010 government operations inventories that were not a part of the revised 2005 inventory: compressed natural gas (CNG), off-road gasoline, employee commute, and mobile source refrigerants. Together, these new sectors and sources contributed 280 MTCOze in 2010,about 12%of the total unadjusted 2010 inventory. a TABLE 9:NEW GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS SOURCES IN 2010 Percant afutal Sector_ onrce . emissions " C'�xc3 missions Sector Vehicle Fleet(waste hauler) CNG 21 3% Vehicle Fleet (contracted maintenance—MCE) Diesel&Gas 205 30% Employee commute Gasoline&Ethanol 249 100% Mobile source refrigerants HFC-134a 236cb 43-10mee 8 100% Note:MTCO2e=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions A The following conclusions summarize findings in comparing the two government operations inventories between 2005 and 2010. • New sectors and sources contributed 483 MTCOZe in 2010,accounting for 21%of 2010 emissions. • With no adjustments, emissions increased by 50% between 2005 and 2010. This increase is due in large part to the 2010 inventory being a more complete and thorough inventory. For instance, the 8 14 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(AVl). 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 CO2 emission factors came from PG&E while California grid average N2O and CH4 year-specific factors were provided by the CEC and reported in the LGOP and were used for each inventory. The amount of electricity used by the City government increased by approximately 19% from 2005 to 2010. Natural gas use declined by 7% between 2005 and 2010. The amount of natural gas used in individual buildings varies; however, a roughly constant natural gas usage is anticipated, since natural gas was only used at the facilities considered in both inventories. Streetlights and Traffic Signals New Emission Sources PG&E provided standard reports for both years. 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 N2O and CH4 year- specific factors provided by the CEC and reported in the LGOP were used for each inventory. Vehicle Fleet New Emission Sources The 2010 inventory included emissions from the City's contracted waste hauler and maintenance services and gasoline vehicles,which were not included in 2005.These additional sources contributed 10%to total 1 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. 40 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. 11 It Appendix C: Transit Oriented Development Memo = € III & I' 1,S IRANSPoszarrON CONS.WTANIts MEMORANDUM Date: July 30, 2009 To: Jaimee Bourgeois, City of Dublin From: Kathrin Tellez and Rob Rees, Fehr& Peers Subject. City of Dublin Transit Oriented Development Transportation Impact Fee Assessment WC08-2606 Fehr& Peers has reviewed data from a variety of sources to develop a likely range of vehicle trip reductions for transit-oriented residential development (TOD) adjacent to the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) stations in the City of Dublin. Research indicates that developments adjacent to transit service such as BART can expect to experience a reduction in vehicle trips, especially for commute trips. Further vehicle trip reductions may be possible if the residential locations are located within walking distance of retail/service amenities or employment centers. Residents of TODs tend to have a higher transit mode share than the remainder of the City as they tend to have fewer cars per person, are more likely to be single and without children, and cite location to transit as a factor for choosing the TOD residential location. The following presents the background that requires agencies to consider fee reductions for transit-oriented residential development, the relevant research summary, and our recommendations for potential trip reduction percentages to use in assessing traffic impact fees for TODs. Recommendation — Fehr& Peers suggests a reduction in vehicle trips of 25 percent for multi-family residential developments located in a mixed-use environment within a barrier-free half mile walk of a BART station BACKGROUND Assembly Bill 3005 requires local agencies to set impact fees for transit-oriented housing proportional to their vehicular traffic impacts. The bill attempts to account for the observed reduction in vehicle traffic associated with development that is mixed-use and within proximity of transit. The required impact fee re-assessment applies to housing developments that meet all of the following criteria: 1. located within one-half mile of a transit station 2. direct access between the housing development and the transit station along a barrier-free walkable pathway not exceeding one-half mile in length 3. located within a half mile of convenience retail uses, including a store that sells food 4. provides either the minimum number of parking spaces required by local ordinance or no more than one on-site parking space for zero to two bedroom units and two on-site spaces for three or more bedroom units,whichever is less. Traffic Impact Fees can be reduced at the discretion of a local jurisdiction even if not all the above criteria are satisfied. 100 Pringle Avenue,Suite 600 Walnut Creek,CA 94596 (925)930-7100 Fax(925)933-7090 www.fehrandpeers.com Jaimee Bourgeois July 30, 2009 Page 2 of 4 The new housing developments within proximity of the Dublin/Pleasanton Station have the potential to meet these criteria. Figure 1 shows the one-half mile walkshed around the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station based on current and proposed street configuration. Further walkshed coverage could be achieved for parcels east of Dougherty Road, between Dublin Boulevard and 1-580 with connections to the Iron Horse Trail. RESEARCH SUMMARY Project trip generation refers to the process for estimating the number of trips generated by a development site or area. Typically, only vehicle trips are calculated, but trips can also occur by walking, bicycling, or taking transit. Trip generation estimates for residential projects are typically calculated based on the number of dwelling units within that development. Vehicle estimates of the total traffic entering and exiting the project driveways are typically calculated for the AM peak hour,the PM peak hour and for an average weekday. For projects that contain a mixture of uses, such as retail and office, it is reasonable to expect that some vehicle trips at the project driveways would not occur because people within the project choose to walk from one use to another within the site. For projects that are located near transit stops, it is also reasonable to consider that some trips will occur on modes other than the automobile such as walking or transit. The combination of internal trips (those which begin and end within the project site and do not add any new trips to the external roadway network) and external trips using alternate modes accounts for the total vehicle trip reduction. Typical Trip Generation Methods Vehicle trip generation rates presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) publication Trip Generation, 8th 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 '/ 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 s 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 '/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 '/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 'h to one mile of a BART station is 16 percent. Trip reductions for the East Bay BART station survey data and the two Pleasant Hill Station TODs are fairly similar, with the higher trip reductions at Pleasant Hill likely due to the rise in fuel price, which occurred between the two survey periods, and the higher density of development and subsequent lower automobile ownership found at Pleasant Hill Station compared to the rest of the BART system in the East Bay. Research presented in Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel, TCRP Report 128, states that TOD commuters typically use transit up to five times more than other commuters in the region and the mode share for TOD can be up to 50 percent. In 1990, the commute transit mode share in the City of Dublin was 2 percent according to the Census. The commute share increased to 5.4 percent by 2000, with the opening of the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station in 1997. The transit mode share has likely increased since 2000 due to increased congestion on the Interstate 580 corridor and increased fuel prices. 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 '/ 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. d pw m a r w W o m m = � Y • N m � E � m LL Q O Lu d W G Z J E Z CL l \ Cl) O • F— _•ii l �t�. O Z Q 3 J I �.s l �~ • C � /�O I /y Z w J 1 w N ,d N •r �� ICI o rn >Y C ' z o N OO N • d ow N E 0 O a` w JE �F a Q LU Z ' O u N J W rTrrn?vrr�11— IL m a O Ip C I a O W Z O I :3 N o e _ 0 W a i W Fn O u � ' O D a 0 o � a .�.� `�+a�-tea"'• i. /'• cn w= N N w H C _ J _¢ H x o TNODN >'N J..1 Appendix D: Emissions Reduction Calculations and Assumptions Local Measures: 2020 %of 2020 Local Measure;:;, Reduction Local Assumptions Data Sources (MTC01e) Redactions Transportation and Land Use Measures A.1.1 Transit-oriented,high-density,and mixed- 8,380 22% 25%reduction in per- Communication A.1.2 use development household VMT for with City staff A.1.3 each new transit- Downtown oriented unit Dublin Specific Plan City of Dublin 2009-2014 Housing Element Fehr&Peers,as cited in Dublin 2010 CAP A.1.4 Bicycle parking requirements and 950 2% 0.625%reduction in California Air A.1.10 Bikeways Master Plan VMT from bicycle Pollution parking Control Officers Association: Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures A.1.5 Streetscape Master Plan 1,530 4% 1%reduction in VMT Urban Land from the creation of a Institute: Streetscape Master Growing Plan Cooler,as cited in Dublin 2010 CAP A.1.6 Multimodal map 1,140 3% 0.75%reduction in Center for Clean VMT from a Air Policy: multimodal map CCAP Transportation Emissions Guidebook A.1.7 Electric vehicle(EV)charging station at 90 <1% 0.33 kWh per EV Communication the library mile.Increase in EV with City staff adoption of 860%by Idaho National 2020. Laboratory: Comparing Energy Costs per Mile for Electric and Gasoline-Fueled Vehicles California 1 6 j c j 21120 Afo of�{��k,L T twatea4u f E . Rec1utrun ai ,�s r4s�uraplarrns etaaurce� " TCO e , ucAo" Energy Commission: California Energy Demand 2012-2022 Final Forecast A.1.8 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 CCAP VMT. I 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 Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station 10,980 28% 13%increase in BART:April BART ridership by 2013 Monthly 2020 Ridership Report BART:Carbon Calculator BART: Greenhouse Gas Inventory BART:Short- Range Transit Plan&Capital Improvement Program A.1.12 City Design Strategy Supportive - Energy Measures A.2.1 Green Building Ordinance 1,110 3% 15%improvement Communication over Title 24 with City staff standards from California Air building to Pollution GreenPoint or LEED. Control Officers Association: Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures City of Dublin 2009-2014 Housing Element 2 1020 Laeal Me ure'` r Reduction "I�ea1 � ssnmp o s Ao�Sources (1l t0j,e) 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-Aide Communication A.2.4 participation rate with City staff National Renewable Energy Laboratory: PVWatts Grid Data Calculator A.2.5 LED streetlight specifications for new Existing projects LEDs- Included in B.2.3 Future LEDs- Supportive A.2.6 California Youth Energy Services Program 80 <1% 5%participation rate Rising Sun 5%reduction in Energy Center: electricity use and California Youth 1.5%reduction in Energy Services natural gas use for participating households A.2.7 Green Shamrock Program Supportive- A.2.8 Direct Commercial Energy Outreach 640 2% Communications with City staff East Bay Energy Watch:Activity Report(2010— 2012 Program Cycle), City of Dublin, CA A.2.9 Behavioral Energy Change 180 <1% 10%participation Bonneville rate.2.5%reduction Power in electricity and Administration: natural gas use among Residential participating Behavior-Based households Energy Efficiency Program Profiles Solid Waste and Recycling Measures A.3.1 Increased waste diversion rate 1,270 3% Communication A.3.2 with City staff A.3.3 A.3.4 A.3.5 A.3.6 3 IG©caI Measure Reduction a f$ 020 Assumptions Data Sources MTCt fze "Redti` o 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.1.2 Commute alternative program Supportive- B.1.3 Green Fleet Policy for City vehicles Supportive- Municipal Operations Energy Measures B.2.1 LEED Silver requirement for new City Supportive- buildings over$3 million B.2.2 Window film on the Civic Center Supportive- B.2.3 LED park lights 20 <1% LEDs use 20%of the Communication energy as metal halide with City staff bulbs. Pacific Gas and Lights are on 365 Electric days a year for an Company: average of 12 hours. Analysis of Standard Options for Metal Halide Lamps and Fixtures California Energy Commission's Public Interest Energy Research Program:Bi- level LED Post Top Luminaires B.2.4 Adopted municipal energy action plan 550 1% City of Dublin Municipal Energy Action Plan Municipal Operations Solid Waste and Recycling Measures B.3.1 I Bay-friendly landscaping policy Supportive- Public Outreach Programs CA Great Race for Clean Air Supportive- � C.2 Walk n'Roll to School Supportive- C.3 Work with schools on"Go Green" Supportive- recycling and composting CA AVI waste reduction educational programs Supportive- � C.5 Promote bike to work day Supportive- 4 21120 -`6i.42020 Local Measure Tte ud on Local Assumptions Data Sources (MTCO2 -,:,Redactions, C.6 Outreach at Dublin Farmer's Market Supportive- Total 38,920 100% State Measures: 2020''. ..... State Measure .,,..;,Reduction Assam bons! Data Sources (MTC0�e) . State Climate Change Planning A.1 California Global Warming Solutions Act Supportive (AB 32) A.2 Executive Order 5-13-08 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 A B.3 California Building Code,Title 24— 2,600 Future updates to Title California Energy Energy Efficiency Standards 24 achieve 70%of the Commission:Impact Analysis energy savings from the —2008 Update to the 2008 standards California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings California Energy Commission:2009 California Residential Appliance Saturation Study Transportation and Land Use C.1 Assembly Bill 1493—Vehicle Fuel 53,140 Full implementation of California Air Resources C.2 Efficiency(Pavley)Standards,and the Pavley standards. Board:Emissions Factor Executive Order S-01-07—Low Carbon 10%reduction in carbon 2011 Model Software Fuel Standard intensity from the Low California Air Resources Carbon Fuel Standard Board:Clean Car Standards California Air Resources Board:Pavley I and Low Carbon Fuel Standard Postprocessor Version 1.0 C.3 Senate Bill 375 Supportive Total 63,460 5 �1 M Appendix E: Applicability of GHG Emissions Reduction Measures to New Development Measure Nuffiber"and`Title Residential CommeTCial A.Community-wide Measures A.I.Transportation and Land Use Measures A.L L Transit-Oriented Development 1 X A.1.2.High-Density Development X A.1.3.Mixed-Use Development X A.1.4.Bicycle Parking Requirements X X A.1.5. Streetscape Master Plan X X A.1.6.Multi-Modal Map A.1.7.Electric 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 X X A.1.10.Bikeways Master Plan A.1.11.West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station A.1.12.City Design Strategy° X X A.2.Energy Measures A.2.1. Green Building Ordinance X A.2.2.Energy Upgrade California A.2.3.Solar Conversion Programs ' A.2.4.Reduce Solar Installation Permit Fee A.2.5.LED Streetlight Specifications for New Projects X X A.2.6.California Youth Energy Services Program A.2.7.Implementation of Green Shamrock Program A.2.8.Direct Commercial Energy Outreach A.3.Solid Waste and Recycling Measures A.3.1.Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance X X A.3.2.Citywide Diversion Goal of 75% A.3.3.Tiered Rate Structure for Garbage and Recycling A.3.4. Commercial Recycling Program A.3.5.Commercial Food Waste Collection Program A.3.6.Promote Commercial Recycling A.3.7.Promote Multi-family Recycling A.3.8.Curbside Residential Recycling Program A.3.9.Curbside Organics Collection Program A.3.10.Reusable Bag Ordinance ' -The location of future transit-oriented development,high density development and mixed-use developments projects has been planned for by the City through the General Plan,various Specific Plans and zoning. 2—The bicycle parking requirement for residential projects applies only to multi-family complexes. 3—Through the entitlement process,the Applicant will work with LAVTA to determine if a bus stop is required along the frontage of the project site. 4—The City Design Strategy applies to new residential and commercial projects when a General Plan or Specific Plan Amendment is required. 5-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, 2013,44as-appea4e<J-the California First District Court of Appeal reversed the Alameda County Superior Court's decision._.The appeal is euFFently pending in the GeWt ef Appeal of the State a in view of the eeuo's eFder,the BAAQMD is ne lengeF FeeerAmending that the thFesholds be used as a The City as a lead agency centinues te relies"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 indepeadepA determination of significance of plan-level GHG impacts 1`A)64 7{ct. 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 4 est 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 (MTCOZe) [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 A TO 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 FnetriG tensMT-0O2e. The transportation sector analysis includes emissions from a44-vehicles using MTC's u-se-trip generation model,which assigns within 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. 44ghw4ys passing thFough Dublin's ,The transportation sector also includes—a—, �off-road vehicles 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 iust 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 200_5-2010 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. HeweveF,it is cFitieal that the assumed Adiusted emissions factors "^ ,e were developed by accounting for the effects of State actions on the adiusted 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. Page 1, Appendix D Complete the following edits to the "Data Sources"column, as indicated below: • Measures A.1.1, A.1.2, A.13: 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 • 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 CAP California Public Utilities Commission. Energy Upgrade California:Alameda County https://energyupgradeca.orp/county/alameda/about overview. 4 RESOLUTION NO. 13- xx A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CITY OF DUBLIN CLIMATE ACTION PLAN UPDATE WHEREAS, on July 17, 2007, the Dublin City Council passed Resolution 139-07 approving participation in the Climate Protection Project for Alameda County jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin committed to ICLEI's five milestone methodology for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within the City, which includes the development of a Climate Action Plan for reducing GHG emissions; and WHEREAS, under CEQA a City may prepare a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy or Climate Action Plan to evaluate a community's cumulative impact due to GHG emissions from future planned development; and WHEREAS, if a project is consistent with an adopted, qualified GHG Reduction Strategy or Climate Action Plan, the Strategy/Plan can be used as the basis for determining that the project would have a less than significant impact on a community's cumulative GHG emissions under CEQA; and WHEREAS, on November 16, 2010, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution 167-10 approving the City of Dublin Climate Action Plan; and WHEREAS, an update to the City's Climate Action Plan is a City Council key initiative for FY 13-14; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has contracted with PMC to assist Staff in preparing the Climate Action Plan Update; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act certain projects are required to be reviewed for environmental impacts and when applicable, environmental documents prepared; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared for the Climate Action Plan Update; and WHEREAS, upon completion of the Initial Study it was determined that there was no substantial evidence that the Climate Action Plan would have a significant adverse effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration should be prepared; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study/Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for public review from July 26, 2013 through August 26, 2013; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin received three comment letters during the public review period, but only one letter (the letter from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District dated September 5, 2013) raised concerns; and ATTACHMENT 2 WHEREAS, the City of Dublin is proposing minor modifications to the Climate Action Plan Update to address the concerns outlined in the BAAQMD letter dated September 5, 2013; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Climate Action Plan Update and Negative Declaration on September 24, 2013; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review and consider the Initial Study/Negative Declaration and related comments and responses, all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt a Resolution adopting a Negative Declaration for the Climate Action Plan Update, with the City Council Resolution attached as Exhibit A and the Initial Study/Negative Declaration attached as Exhibit B and the comment letters attached as Exhibit C. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of September 2013 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Assistant Community Development Director M:ICAP UpdatelPC Hearing.9.24.131PC Reso Neg Dec.doc 2of2 RESOLUTION NO. XX-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CITY OF DUBLIN CLIMATE ACTION PLAN UPDATE WHEREAS, on July 17, 2007, the Dublin City Council passed Resolution 139-07 approving participation in the Climate Protection Project for Alameda County jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin committed to ICLEI's five milestone methodology for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within the City, which includes the development of a Climate Action Plan for reducing GHG emissions; and WHEREAS, under CEQA a City may prepare a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy or Climate Action Plan to evaluate a community's cumulative impact due to GHG emissions from future planned development; and WHEREAS, if a project is consistent with an adopted, qualified GHG Reduction Strategy or Climate Action Plan, the Strategy/Plan can be used as the basis for determining that the project would have a less than significant impact on a community's cumulative GHG emissions under CEQA; and WHEREAS, on November 16, 2010, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution 167-10 approving the City of Dublin Climate Action Plan; and WHEREAS, an update to the City's Climate Action Plan is a City Council key initiative for FY 13-14; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has contracted with PMC to assist Staff in preparing the Climate Action Plan Update; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act certain projects are required to be reviewed for environmental impacts and when applicable, environmental documents prepared; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared for the Climate Action Plan Update; and WHEREAS, upon completion of the Initial Study it was determined that there was no substantial evidence that the Climate Action Plan Update would have a significant adverse effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration should be prepared; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study/Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for public review from July 26, 2013 through August 26, 2013; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin received three comment letters during the public review period, but only one letter (the letter from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District dated September 5, 2013) raised concerns; and EXHIBIT A TO ATTACHMENT 2 WHEREAS, the City of Dublin is proposing minor modifications to the Climate Action Plan Update to address the concerns outlined in the BAAQMD letter dated September 5, 2013; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Climate Action Plan Update and Negative Declaration on September 24, 2013 and adopted Resolution 13-XX recommending that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Climate Action Plan Update and Negative Declaration on , 2013; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the City Council did review and consider the Initial Study/Negative Declaration and related comments and responses, all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings for the Climate Action Plan Update is the City of Dublin City Manager's Office, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568, Attn: Martha Aja. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin City Council does hereby adopt the Negative Declaration attached as Exhibit A, based on the following findings: 1. The City Council considered the Negative Declaration together with the comments received during the public review process prior to taking action on the Climate Action Plan Update. 2. The City Council finds on the basis of the whole record before it that there is no substantial evidence that the Climate Action Plan Update will have a significant effect on the environment. 3. The Negative Declaration reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis as to the potential environmental effects of the Climate Action Plan Update. 4. The Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. 2 of 3 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 2013 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Al:ICAP UpdatelPC Hearing.9.24.131Draft CC Reso Neg Dec.doc 3 of 3 Public Review Draft Initial Study/ Negative Declaration for the City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update July 2013 EXHIBIT B TO ATTACHMENT 2 Table of Contents Introduction......................................................................................................................3 Contact Person & Sponsor...............................................................................................3 Project Location and Context...........................................................................................3 Project Background................................................................................4 ProjectDescription...........................................................................................................6 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected....................................................................11 Determination ..................................................................................................................11 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts..............................................................................12 EarlierAnalyses...............................................................................................................13 Discussion of Checklist....................................................................................................25 1. Aesthetics.................................................................................................25 2. Agricultural Resources.............................................................................26 3. Air Quality ...............................................................................................26 4. Biological Resources................................................................................27 5. Cultural Resources...................................................................................28 6. Geology and Soils....................................................................................28 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions......................................................29 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials............................................................29 9. Hydrology and Water Quality..................................................................30 10. Land Use and Planning............................................................................31 11. Mineral Resources ...................................................................................32 12. Noise........................................................................................................32 13. Population and Housing...........................................................................34 14. Public Services.........................................................................................34 15. Recreation................................................................................................35 16. Transportation/Traffic..............................................................................35 17. Utilities and Service Systems...................................................................36 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance........................................................37 InitialStudy Preparers......................................................................................................38 Agencies and Organizations Consulted ...........................................................................3 8 References........................................................................................................................3 9 Negative Declaration..............................................................................40 List of Exhibits Exhibit 1: Regional Context ............................................................................................9 Exhibit 2: City of Dublin Context....................................................................................10 City of Dublin Page 2 Initial Study/Climate Action Plan Update July 2013 City of Dublin Environmental Checklist/ Initial Study Introduction The City of Dublin prepared a proposed update to its existing Climate Action Plan (CAP Update) using input from City staff and consultants. This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and assesses the potential environmental impacts of implementing the proposed project described below. The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief explanation of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist. Project Sponsor& Contact Person City of Dublin City Manager's Office/Environmental Services 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 (925) 833-6650 Attn: Roger Bradley, Assistant to the City Manager Project Location and Context The City of Dublin consists of approximately 14.9 square miles of land area lying in eastern Alameda County, also known as the Livermore-Amador Valley, or the Tri-Valley area. Surrounding jurisdictions include San Ramon and unincorporated Contra Costa County to the north, unincorporated Alameda County to the east and west and the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore to the south. Major features in the community include the Interstate 580 freeway, which forms the southern boundary of Dublin and the Interstate 680 freeway that extends in a north south direction just east of downtown Dublin. The City is also served by the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), with two existing Dublin/Pleasanton stations. Exhibit I shows the location of Dublin in relation to surrounding communities and other major features. Exhibit 2 shows the City of Dublin, including the freeways and major roadways. Topographically, the community is generally flat north of the Interstate 580 corridor, transitioning to rolling hillsides in the northern and western portions of Dublin. Major land uses comprising Dublin include the older commercial downtown area north of the Interstate 580 freeway generally located between San Ramon Road and Village Parkway with predominantly low density, single family dwellings surrounding the downtown area. City of Dublin Page 3 Initial Study/Climate Action Plan Update July 2013 Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (RFTA, also known as Camp Parks) is located in the approximate center of Dublin and is used for military training purposes. The newest portion of Dublin is Eastern Dublin, consisting of approximately 4,200 acres of land located east of Parks RFTA, north of Interstate 580, south of the Alameda County- Contra Costa County line and west of the unincorporated Doolan Canyon area. Eastern Dublin has been urbanizing since adoption of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan in 1993 and the area now contains a mix of single-family dwellings, multiple-family dwellings, commercial and government facility land uses. Completion of the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station facilitated development of high-density housing complexes in this portion of Dublin. Project Background California has adopted a wide variety of regulations aimed at reducing the State's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. While State actions alone cannot stop global warming, the adoption and implementation of this legislation demonstrates California's leadership in addressing this critical challenge. Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, requires California to reduce Statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 directs the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to develop and implement regulations that reduce statewide GHG emissions. The Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) was approved by ARB in December 2008 and outlines the State's plan to achieve the GHG reductions required in AB 32. The Scoping Plan contains the primary strategies California will implement to achieve a reduction of 169 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMT CO2e), or approximately 30% from the State's projected 2020 emissions level. The Scoping Plan is a functionally equivalent document prepared under CEQA by ARB which meets the criteria for a certified regulatory program. The potential adverse environmental effects and identified mitigation measures of the actions in the Scoping Plan are set forth in Appendix J of the Scoping Plan. In the Scoping Plan, ARB encourages local governments to adopt a reduction goal for municipal operations emission and to move forward with establishing similar goals for community emissions, which parallel the State's commitment to reduce GHG emissions. The specific role local governments will play in meeting the State's AB 32 goals is not established in the Scoping Plan. Dublin adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2010. Dublin's CAP articulates the City's intentions with respect to reducing community-wide GHG emissions to further the goals of AB 32. The City's CAP includes a variety of strategies and policies to reduce GHG emissions within the community. The various reduction measures contained within the CAP have been separated into the following categories: transportation and land use measures, energy measures and solid waste and recycling measures. A program or project would be considered-- consistent with the CAP if, considering all of its aspects, it would substantially comply with the applicable measures set forth within the CAP and not obstruct their attainment. The City is now proposing to update the existing CAP, as further described below. City of Dublin Page 4 Initial Study/Climate Action Plan Update July 2013 CEQA allows cities to develop climate action or GHG reduction plans to provide programmatic analysis of the cumulative impacts of GHG emissions for future projects in the City. CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 authorizes the use of these Plans for the analysis of the cumulative impacts of projects consistent with the Plan. The BAAQMD adopted CEQA Guidelines and Significance Thresholds for GHGs also authorize the use of these Plans for CEQA review of future projects. On March 5, 2012, the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the Air District had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the thresholds. The court did not determine whether the thresholds were valid on the merits, but found that the adoption of the thresholds was a project under CEQA. The court issued a writ of mandate ordering the BAAQMD to set aside the thresholds and cease dissemination of them until the Air District had complied with CEQA. The BAAQMD has appealed the Alameda County Superior Court's decision. The appeal is currently pending in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District. In view of the court's order, the BAAQMD is no longer recommending that the thresholds be used as a generally applicable measure of a project's significant air quality impacts. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7 (Thresholds of Significance) the City of Dublin will nonetheless exercise its own discretion to rely on the thresholds within Options and Justifications Report (dated October 2009) prepared by the BAAQMD. The BAAQMD Options and Justifications Report establishes thresholds based on substantial evidence and are consistent with the thresholds outlined within the 2010 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The existing CAP, as updated, would continue to serve as the City's qualified GHG Reduction Plan and programmatic tiering document for the purposes of CEQA for analysis of impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. The City has determined that the reduction target under the Plan will reduce the impact from activities under the Plan to less than significant under CEQA (i.e., the project will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact). The substantial evidence to support this determination is set forth in the CAP Update, documents referenced in the Update, this IS/ND, and other parts of the record relating to the adoption of the CAP Update. Therefore, this Plan may be used for the cumulative impact analysis for future projects and development in the City covered by the Plan. Because the updated CAP has undergone CEQA environmental review and is intended to reduce GHG emissions and climate change impacts in the City to a less than cumulatively considerable level, it may be relied upon to address the cumulative impacts for future projects consistent with the updated CAP. This approach is consistent with Public Resources Code 21083.3, CEQA Sections 15183.5, 15064 and 15130 and the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines and Thresholds of Significance, which provide a means for jurisdictions to analyze and mitigate the significant effects of GHGs at a programmatic level by adopting a plan for the reduction of GHG emissions. If a proposed project is consistent with the applicable emission reduction measures identified in the updated CAP, the project would be considered to have a less than significant impact (i.e. less than cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impact) due to- greenhouse gas emissions and climate change consistent with CEQA. City of Dublin Page 5 Initial Study/Climate Action Plan Update July 2013 Project Description The proposed project is the adoption of the CAP Update, dated July 2013 and incorporated herein by reference (hereafter CAP Update or Project). Like the existing CAP, the CAP Update is a document that provides policies and measures aimed at reducing GHG emissions within the City. The goal of the CAP Update is to reduce Dublin's community-wide GHG emissions by 15% below the 2010 inventory levels by 2020. Under the CAP Update, emissions would be reduced to approximately 17% below 2010 levels by 2020, which results in an efficiency level of 3.2 MT CO2e per service population per year in 2020. The CAP Update describes baseline GHG emissions produced in Dublin, and projects GHG emissions that could be expected if the CAP Update is not implemented. The City expects the reduction goal to be achieved through a combination of efforts at the local, regional and State levels. The reduction measures included within the CAP as updated, which contribute to the City's reduction goal, include locally-focused activities as well as regional and State initiatives under the Scoping Plan, such as the Renewable Portfolio Standard, and implementation of other recent State legislation. The City considers regional efforts as well as the implementation of State legislation to be a significant contributor to GHG reductions within the community as a significant portion of the City's GHG emissions come from State-controlled freeways, which cross or border the Dublin community. Emission Inventory, Baseline and Projections Chapter II of the CAP Update, "Emission Inventory," presents a GHG emissions inventory for 2010, which includes an inventory of both community level and municipal level emissions. The community emissions inventory includes sources of GHG emitted from the residential, commercial/industrial, transportation and waste sectors. The municipal emissions inventory includes those sources that fall under the direct jurisdictional control of the City of Dublin Municipal Corporation, which includes City facilities, the City's vehicle fleet, public lighting, municipal water consumption and municipal solid waste generation. The emission inventory was developed by the City in collaboration with StopWaste and PG&E using Clean Air and Climate Protection (CACP) software. Total community-wide emissions were determined to be 328,155 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents in 2010. Government-related emissions were estimated to be 2,343 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents in 2010. Chapter III of the CAP Update, "Forecast for Greenhouse Gas Emissions," includes projections of emissions in 2020. Under a business-as-usual scenario, it is estimated that the City of Dublin's emissions will grow over the next decade by approximately 14% from 328,155 to 374,790 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. Dublin's GHG reduction goal is 15% below 2010 levels by 2020. In other terms, the City projects that emission reduction measures contained within the CAP Update will lower the projected GHG emissions from 2020 from 328,155 metric tons of carbon dioxide to 272,410 metric tons of carbon dioxide, an approximately 17% reduction from 2010 levels. While the City expects significant residential, commercial and industrial growth through 2020, the total amount of GHGs emitted within the community will not be increasing significantly. The impact of the emission reduction measures within the CAP Update is also demonstrated by comparing per service population emissions (population + employment), which decreases from 5.04 tons per service population in 2010 to 3.2 tons per service population using the projections for 2020, which represents a 17% decrease in GHG emissions between the base year (2010) and forecast year (2020). Thus, the City will be growing significantly over the 10- City of Dublin Page 6 Initial Study/Climate Action Plan Update July 2013 year period covered by the CAP Update, but during this same time, the City's GHG emissions will be decreasing significantly on a per service population basis. Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Measures The CAP Update identifies a variety of measures that contribute to the achievement of the City's GHG reduction target. The inclusion of quantifiable GHG reduction measures is the primary focus of the CAP and the proposed Update, with the anticipated emissions reduction of each measure in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent being used to contribute to the overall City GHG reduction goal relative to 2020. Measures that would aid in reducing GHG emissions, but which are not or cannot be quantified, are also included in the CAP and carried forward in the Update, and will result in GHG reductions beyond those included in the reductions calculation. The various GHG reduction measures are organized into three categories: transportation and land use, energy (which includes both energy efficiency and renewable energy) and solid waste management. These categories follow the major sources of emissions found in the City of Dublin 2010 GHG emissions inventory. The City adopted an Initial Study/Negative Declaration in 2010 ("2010 Negative Declaration") as part of its adoption of the CAP. Therefore, the environmental impacts of those local programs that were included in the CAP and carried forward in the CAP Update were already analyzed in the 2010 Negative Declaration and are not re-analyzed here. This initial Study/Negative Declaration analyzes the local measures approved since 2010 that are included in the CAP Update that were not included in the CAP. The local measures approved since 2010 are: completion of the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station, adoption of the City Design Strategy, LED Streetlight Specifications requirement for new projects, participation in the California Youth Energy Services program, implementation of the Green Shamrock Program, Direct Commercial Energy Outreach, behavioral energy change, participation in the Reusable Bag Ordinance, adoption of a Green Fleet Policy for City Vehicles, implementation of Energy Action Plan and conducting outreach at Dublin Farmer's Markets. Results of Implementation Implementation of the measures in the CAP as updated would result in annual community-wide GHG emission reductions of approximately 38,350 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. The City-controlled measures include transportation and land use, energy measures and solid waste and recycling measures. The municipal operations and public outreach programs are also included as part of the City-controlled measures and result in an additional GHG emission reductions of approximately 570 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. The measures outlined in the CAP Update represent the City controlled emissions. Additionally, implementation of statewide initiatives (Renewable Portfolio Standard, AB 1493 and Title 24) would result in annual GHG emission reductions of an additional 63,460 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. The CAP Update measures combined with the statewide initiatives would reduce the anticipated emissions in the community by 102,380 metric tons/year of carbon dioxide equivalent and result in a reduction of 17% below 2010 levels during 2020. This reduction would achieve the City's reduction goal of reducing GHG emission by 15% below 2010 levels by 2020 end results in an efficiency level of 3.2 MT CO2e per service population per year in 2020. City of Dublin Page 7 Initial Study/Climate Action Plan Update July 2013 Potential Environmental Impacts The overall purpose of the CAP Update is to reduce GHG emissions and the impacts that these emissions will have on global climate change and, therefore, benefit the environment. Therefore, it may not constitute a "project" under CEQA or it may qualify for an exemption under CEQA. However, as with a proposal involving activities relating to development, implementation of the local reduction measures approved since 2010 and included in the CAP Update theoretically could potentially result in adverse impacts on the physical environment. Therefore, an Initial Study is being prepared by the City pursuant to CEQA to evaluate whether there are any potential adverse environmental impacts of implementing the local reduction measures approved since 2010 and included in the updated CAP. The environmental analysis of the CAP Update will only focus on the new policies or changes in existing or adopted policies that will be implemented as a result of the CAP Update. It will not analyze the impacts of existing or approved programs included in the CAP Update, which have already undergone their own environmental review or which were analyzed in the 2010 Negative Declaration. In particular, like the existing CAP, the Update will not result in any change in land use or permit greater intensity of development than already allowed under the existing City General Plan, Specific Plans and zoning. The environmental impacts from these types of activities are already addressed by the CEQA environmental review adopted by the City relating to these actions. This Initial Study includes an analysis of each potential impact identified in the environmental checklist under Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines beginning on page 15. 1. Project description: Adoption of the Climate Action Plan Update 2. Lead agency: City of Dublin 3. Contact persons: Roger Bradley, Assistant to the City Manager, 925-833-6650 4. Project location: City-wide 5. Project sponsor: City of Dublin 6. General Plan designation: Various 7. Zoning: Various 8. Other public agency required approvals: None City of Dublin Page 8 Initial Study/Climate Action Plan Update July 2013 Exhibit 1. Regional Context so 5. `i Antioch San Oakian Francisco Project Site Dublin San Tracy Francisco Livermore Pacific Ocean Bay Bd, 101 � n� San Jose 0 10 Miles ss 101 Detail ' Santa Crl lz �I521 Calitorni `; 52 City of Dublin Page 9 Initial Study/Climate Action Plan Update July 2013 Exhibit 2. City of Dublin context _ r4 a i a Ve5.}L !! �., h9� ,• ta��_i.�fti`�- •;�� fit.. PL C��'H City of Dublin Page 10 Initial Study/Climate Action Plan Update July 2013 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. - Aesthetics - Agricultural - Air Quality Resources - Biological Resources - Cultural Resources - Geology/Soils - Greenhouse Gas - Hazards and - Hydrology/Water Emissions Hazardous Materials Quality - Land Use/ Planning - Mineral Resources - Noise - Population/ - Public Services - Recreation Housing Transportation/ - Utilities/Service - Mandatory Findings Circulation Systems of Significance Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: X I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared. _I find that although the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets, if the effect is a potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An Environmental Impact Report is required, but must only analyze the effects that remain to be addressed. _ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed project. Signature: Date: 72 Printed Name: City of Dublin Page 11 Initial Study/Climate Action Plan Update July 2013 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parenthesis following each question. A "no impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "no impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general factors (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) In some instances, an "LS, Less-than-Significant Impact" response may reflect that a specific environmental topic has been analyzed in a previous CEQA document and appropriate mitigation measures have been included in a previous CEQA document to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. In a few instances, some previously analyzed topics have been determined to be significant and unavoidable and mitigation of such impact to a less-than-significant level is not feasible. In approving the previous CEQA document, the City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations. For existing or approved programs approved since 2010 and included in the proposed CAP Update, the Update will not result in any change. Therefore, since such environmental impacts have been adequately analyzed under prior adopted CEQA environmental documents and the CAP Update will not result in any new impacts, no further analysis of these impacts are required under this document. 3) All answers must take account of the whole action, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 4) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "potentially significant impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 5) "Negative Declaration: Less-Than-Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" implies elsewhere the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "potentially significant effect" to a "less than significant impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist). City of Dublin Page 12 Initial Study/Climate Action Plan Update July 2013 Earlier Analyses Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tiering, a program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Reference CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c)(3)(d). Portions of the environmental analysis for this Initial Study refer to information contained in one or more of the CEQA documents listed below. This Initial Study will not analyze the impacts of existing or approved programs included in the CAP Update which have already undergone their own environmental review. The CAP Update does not propose any General Plan or applicable Specific Plan land use changes, any rezoning of properties, or changes in the intensity or density of development. The environmental impacts from these types of activities are already addressed by the CEQA environmental review approved by the City relating to these actions. The environmental analysis of the CAP Update will only focus on the new policies or changes in policies that will be implemented as a result of the CAP Update. • Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR (SCH # 91103064), certified by City Council Resolution No. 51-93 on May 10, 1993. • Downtown Core Specific Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration, adopted by City Council Resolution No. 226-00 on December 19, 2000. • West Dublin BART Specific Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration, adopted by City Council Resolution No. 227-00 on December 19, 2000. • Dublin Transit Center Supplemental EIR (SCH # 20011200395), certified by City Council Resolution No. 215-02 on November 19, 2002. • Dublin Ranch West Supplemental EIR (SCH # 2003022082), certified by City Council Resolution No. 42-05 on March 15, 2005. • Fallon Village Project Supplemental EIR (SCH # 2005062010), certified by City Council Resolution No. 225-05 on December 6, 2005. • Mission Peak/Fallon Crossing Mitigated Negative Declaration, adopted by City Council Resolution No. 71-06 on May 16, 2006. • Vargas Project Mitigated Negative Declaration, adopted by City Council Resolution No. 57-05 on May 1, 2007. • Casamira Valley/Moller Ranch Supplemental EIR (SCH # 2005052146), certified by City Council Resolution No. 56-07 on May, 1 2007. • City of Dublin Bikeways Master Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration, adopted by City Council Resolution No. 133-07 on July 17, 2007. City of Dublin Page 13 Initial Study/Climate Action Plan Update July 2013 • Community Design & Sustainability Element, determined exempt, adopted by City Council Resolution No. 177-08 on September 16, 2008. • Multi Modal Map, determined exempt, adopted by City Council Resolution No. 84-09 on June 16, 2009. • Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR (SCH #20100022005), certified by City Council Resolution No. 08-11 on February 1, 2011. • Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy Amendments to the Community Design and Sustainability Element, determined exempt, adopted by City Council Resolution No. 20- 12 on February 21, 2012. • Revised Moller Ranch project Supplemental EIR (SCH #2005052146), certified by City Council Resolution No. 209-12 on December 18, 2012. These documents are incorporated herein by reference and are available for public review at the Dublin Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, during normal business hours. All these documents are collectively referred to in this Initial Study as "Adopted CEQA Documents." City of Dublin Page 14 Initial Study/Climate Action Plan Update July 2013 Note: A full discussion of each item is found P Than Less than No following the checklist. gnificant Significant Impact With Impact iti ation 1. Aesthetics. Would the project: a)Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic X vista? (Sources: 1-9) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and X historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Sources: 1-9) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X (Sources: 1-9) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime X views in the area? (Sources: 1-9) 2. Agricultural Resources Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland X Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to a non- agricultural use? (Sources: 1-9) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use, X or a Williamson Act contract? (Sources: 1-9) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to a non- X agricultural use? (Sources: 1-9) 3. Air Quality (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district may be relied on to make the following determinations). Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the X applicable air quality plan? (Sources: 1-9) b)Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Sources: 1-9) X City of Dublin Page 15 Initial Study/Climate Action Plan Update July 2013 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable X federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? (Sources: 1-9) d)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? (Sources: 1-9) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial X number of people? (Sources: 1-9) 4. Biological Resources. Would the project a)Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special X status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?(Sources: 1-9) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies or X regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources: 1-9) c)Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including but not limited X to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)through direct removal, filling,hydrological interruption or other means? (Sources: 1-9) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or X migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Sources: 1-9) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree X protection ordinances? (Sources: 1-9) City of Dublin Page 16 Initial Study/Climate Action Plan Update July 2013 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community X Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? (Sources: 1-9) 5. Cultural Resources. Would the project a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the significance of a historical resource as defined X in Sec. 15064.5? (Sources: 1-9) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource X pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Sources: 1-9) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource, site or unique geologic X feature? (Sources: 1-9) d) Disturb any human remains, including those X interred outside of a formal cemetery? (1-9) 6. Geology and Soils. Would the project a) Expose people or structures to potential X substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i)Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Earthquake Fault X Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault(1-9) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking(Sources: 1-9) X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including X liquefaction? (Sources: 1-9) iv) Landslides? (Sources: 1-9) X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of X topsoil? (Sources: 1-9) c)Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- X or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or similar hazards (Sources: 1-9) d)Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), X creating substantial risks to life or property? (Sources: 1-9) City of Dublin Page 17 Initial Study/Climate Action Plan Update July 2013 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or Option wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available X for the disposal of wastewater? (Sources: 1-9) 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant X impact on the environment? b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose X of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gasses? 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use X or disposal of hazardous materials? (Sources: 1-9) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the X release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Sources: 1-9) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of X an existing or proposed school? ((Sources: 1-9) d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65962.5 and, as a result, X would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Sources: 1-9, 11) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted within two miles of a public airport of public use X airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Sources: 1-9) f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for X people residing or working in the project area? (Sources: 1-9) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with the adopted emergency response plan or X emergency evacuation plan? (Sources: 1-9) City of Dublin Page 18 Initial Study/Climate Action Plan Update July 2013 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Miti ation h)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, X including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Sources: 1-9) 9.Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project: a)Violate any water quality standards or waste X discharge requirements? (Sources: 1-9) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in X aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g.the production rate of existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (Sources 1-9) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner X which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (Sources: 1-9) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas, including through the alteration X of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? (Sources: 1-9) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned X stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Sources: 1-9) f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X (Sources: 1-9) g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary X or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? (Sources: 1-9) City of Dublin Page 19 Initial Study/Climate Action Plan Update July 2013 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation h)Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood X flows? ((Sources: 1-9, 13) I) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, and death involving flooding, X including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Sources: 1-9) j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? (1-9) X 10. Land Use and Planning. Would the project: a)Physically divide an established community? X (Sources: 1-9) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including but not limited to the X general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Sources: 1- 9) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X (Sources: 1-9) 11. Mineral Resources. Would the project a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the X region and the residents of the state? (Sources: 1-9) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local General Plan, specific plan X or other land use plan?(Sources: 1-9) 12. Noise. Would the proposal result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or X applicable standards of other agencies? (1-9) b)Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise X levels? (Sources: 1-9) c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing X levels without the project? (Sources: 1-9) City of Dublin Page 20 Initial Study/Climate Action Plan Update July 2013 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Miti ation d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity X above levels existing without the project? (1-9) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use X airport, would the project expose people residing or working on the project area to excessive noise levels? (Sources: 1-9) f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people X residing or working in the project_ area to excessive noise levels? (Sources: 1-9) 13. Population and Housing. Would the project a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, X either directly or indirectly(for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Sources: 1-9) b)Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources: 1-9) c)Displace substantial numbers of people, X necessitating the construction of replacement of housing elsewhere? (Sources: 1-9) 14. Public Services. Would the proposal: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities.the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services? ((Sources: 1-9) Fire protection X Police protection X Schools X Parks X Other public facilities X Solid Waste X City of Dublin Page 21 Initial Study/Climate Action Plan Update July 2013 Potentially =ThanLess No Significant Impact Impact 15. Recreation: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or recreational facilities such that substantial physical X deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated (Sources: 1-9, 12) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an X adverse physical effect on the environment? (Sources: 1-9, 12) 16. Transportation and Traffic. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial X increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion at intersections)? (Sources: 1-9) b)Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the X County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways? (Sources: 1-9) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in X location that results in substantial safety risks? (Sources: 1-9) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g. sharp curves or dangerous X intersections) or incompatible uses, such as farm equipment? (Sources: 1-9) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (1-9) X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (1-9) X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting Option transportation (such as bus X turnouts and bicycle facilities) (Sources: 1-9) City of Dublin Page 22 Initial Study/Climate Action Plan Update July 2013 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Miti ation 17.Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control X Board? (Sources: 1-9) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which X could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources: 1-9, 10) c)Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing X facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources: 1-9) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing water entitlements and X resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Sources: 1-9, 10) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve X the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? (1-9) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid X waste disposal needs? (Sources: 1-9) g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and X regulations related to solid waste? (Sources: 1-9) 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, X cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? City of Dublin Page 23 Initial Study/Climate Action Plan Update July 2013 P Than Less than No ificant Significant Impact ith Impact ation b)Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project X are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). c)Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on X human beings, either directly or indirectly? Sources used to determine otential environmental impacts 1) Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR 2) Downtown Core Specific Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration 3) West Dublin BART Specific Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration 4) Dublin Transit Center Supplemental EIR 5) Dublin Ranch West Supplemental EIR 6) Mission Peak/Fallon Crossing Mitigated Negative Declaration 7) Vargas Project Mitigated Negative Declaration 8) Casmira Valley/Moller Ranch Supplemental EIR 9) Fallon Village Project Supplemental EIR 10) Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin 11) Final Urban Water Management Plan, 2005 Update 12) California Department of Toxic Substances Control, website, October 2009 13) Parks and Recreation Master Plan, City of Dublin, 2004 update 14) City of Dublin Bikeways Master Plan, City of Dublin, 2007 15) Community Design& Sustainability Element, City of Dublin 16) Multi Modal Map, City of Dublin 17) Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR, City of Dublin 18) Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy Amendments to the Community Design and Sustainable Element, City of Dublin 19) Revised Moller Ranch Supplemental EIR, City of Dublin City of Dublin Page 24 Initial Study/Climate Action Plan Update July 2013 Attachment to Initial Study Discussion of Checklist Legend PS: Potentially Significant LS/M: Less Than Significant After Mitigation LS: Less Than Significant Impact NI: No Impact 1. Aesthetics Project Impacts a-c) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista, damage scenic vistas (including a scenic highway) or substantially degrade the visual character of a site? LS. Existing measures in the CAP Update encourage the installation of photovoltaic (PV) panels on homes and businesses in the City to provide alternative sources of energy. Since adoption of the existing CAP, seven PV installations have been constructed as part of the City's Energy Action Plan at the following locations: Civic Center, Library, Shannon Community Center, Senior Center and all three Fire Stations. These solar arrays are a combination of solar shade structures at the Civic Center, Library, Shannon Community Center, Fire Station 17 and Fire Station 18 with roof mounted solar at the remaining sites. PV panels installed in the future could be placed on rooftops, which could potentially alter scenic views. Installation of these panels would require Building Division review and approval. Typically PV panels are placed on existing homes and businesses, which have undergone a review process to ensure that they don't impact scenic vistas within the City. The impact would be less-than significant. All other potentially significant impacts on scenic views would result from development or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan Update. The CAP Update will not result in any change in these policies or programs. The environmental impacts of these policies and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents and the CAP Update will not result in any changes to these policies/programs, no further analysis of these impacts are required in this document. d) Create light or glare? LS. Implementation of the CAP Update would not result in tho- development of major light sources, although installation of PV panels on homes and businesses is encouraged to reduce Dublin's dependence on energy sources that produce GHGs. PV panels are specifically designed to absorb, not reflect sunlight. Thus their City of Dublin Page 25 Initial Study/Climate Action Plan Update July 2013 placement and orientation on individual properties would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area or create light or glare. All other potentially significant impacts due to light or glare would result from development or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan Update. The CAP Update will not result in any change in these policies or programs. The environment impacts of these policies and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents and the CAP Update will not result in any changes to these policies/programs, no further analysis of these impacts are required in this document. 2. Agricultural Resources Project Impacts a-c) Convert Prime Farmland, conflict with agricultural zoning or convert prime farmland to a non-agricultural use? LS. All potentially significant impacts on Agricultural Resources would result from development or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan Update. The CAP Update will not result in any change in these policies or programs. The environmental impacts of these policies and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents and the CAP Update will not result in any changes to these policies/programs, no further analysis of these impacts are required in this document. 3. Air Quality Project Impacts a) Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? LS. The purpose of the CAP Update is to reduce GHG emissions within the City to help contribute to global efforts to reduce the effects of climate change. Measures within the CAP Update include improving energy efficiency in buildings, using renewable energy, developing bicycle facilities, enhancing public transit and promoting smart growth principles, such as transit-oriented development and mixed-use projects. In addition to reducing GHG emissions, each of the measures noted above would help to reduce criteria air pollutants and would not conflict with or obstruct the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's Air Quality Plan. Implementation of the CAP Update would result in a less-than-significant impact. b,c) Would the project violate any air quality or greenhouse gas emission standards or result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? LS. See item (a) above for greenhouse gas emissions. All potentially significant impacts due to emissions of other criteria pollutants would result from development or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies City of Dublin Page 26 Initial Study/Climate Action Plan Update July 2013 and programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan Update. The CAP Update will not result in any change in these policies or programs. The environmental impacts of these policies and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said environmental impacts have been analyzed under the adopted CEQA Documents and the CAP Update will not result in any changes to these policies/programs, no further analysis of these impacts are required in this document. However, some of the measures included in the CAP Update would result in a reduction in the emissions of other criteria pollutants, especially from measures that reduce emissions from vehicles. d) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations? LS. All potentially significant impacts due to exposure of sensitive receptors to pollutants would result from development or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan Update. The CAP Update will not result in any change in these policies or programs. The environmental impacts of these policies and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents and the CAP Update will not result in any changes to these policies/programs, no further analysis of these impacts are required in this document. e) Create objectionable odors? NI. The Project does not propose strategies or measures that would directly or indirectly result in the creation of objectionable odors. Therefore, there would be no impact. 4. Biological Resources Project Impacts a-c) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, special-status species riparian habitat or wetlands? LS. All potentially significant impacts on Biological Resources would result from development or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan Update. The CAP Update will not result in any change in these policies or programs. The environmental impacts of these policies and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents and the CAP Update will not result in any changes to these policies/programs, no further analysis of these impacts are required in this document. d) Interfere with movement of native fish or wildlife species? LS. See items (a-c) above. Implementation of the CAP Update would result in a less-than significant impact. e, f) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any. adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? LS. See items (a-c) above. Implementation of the CAP Update would result in a less-than significant impact. City of Dublin Page 27 Initial Study/Climate Action Plan Update July 2013 5. Cultural Resources Project Impacts a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? LS. All potentially significant impacts on Cultural Resources would result from development or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan Update. The CAP Update will not result in any change in these policies or programs. The environmental impacts of these policies and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents and the CAP Update will not result in any changes to these policies/programs, no further analysis of these impacts are required in this document. b-d) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or paleontological resources, or human remains that may be interred outside of a formal cemetery? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the CAP Update would result in a less-than significant impact. 6. Geology and Soils Project Impacts a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss, injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or landslides? LS. All potentially significant impacts on Geology and Soils would result from development or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan Update. The CAP Update will not result in any change in these policies or programs. The environmental impacts of these policies and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents and the CAP Update will not result in any changes to these policies/programs, no further analysis of these impacts are required in this document. b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the CAP Update would result in a less-than significant impact. c-d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive and that could result in potential lateral spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the CAP Update would result in a less-than significant impact. e) Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not available? NI._ All new structures are required by the City of Dublin to connect to the local sewer system, maintained by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). No impacts would therefore result with regard to septic systems. City of Dublin Page 28 Initial Study/Climate Action Plan Update July 2013 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Project Impacts a) Generate GHGs, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? NI. Implementation of strategies and measures within the CAP Update would result in annual community-wide GHG emission reductions of approximately 102,380 metric tons CO2e by 2020, which includes the reduction measures within the CAP Update as well as implementation of regional and State initiatives such as Renewable Portfolio Standards, AB 1493 (Pavley) and Title 24. Implementation of the CAP Update would therefore directly and indirectly reduce community-wide GHGs, which will have a beneficial impact on the environment. There would be no significant adverse impact due to GHGs. b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs? NI. California has adopted a wide variety of regulations aimed at reducing the State's GHG emissions. AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, requires California to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 directs ARB to develop and implement regulations that reduce statewide GHG emissions. The Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) was approved by ARB in December 2008 and outlines the State's plan to achieve the GHG reductions required in AB 32. The Scoping Plan contains the primary strategies California will implement to achieve a reduction of 169 MM CO2e, or approximately 30% from the State's projected 2020 emissions level. In the Scoping Plan, ARB encourages local governments to adopt a reduction goal for municipal operations and move toward establishing similar goals for the community emissions that parallel the State commitment to reduce GHGs. Dublin's CAP Update articulates the City's intentions with respect to reducing community-wide GHG emissions in a manner to promote AB 32 and to reduce the impact of potential future GHG emissions to less-than significant cumulative impact under CEQA. Implementation of measures proposed within the CAP Update would result in annual community-wide GHG emission reductions of approximately 38,920 MT CO2e by 2020. Additionally, implementation of statewide initiatives (Renewable Portfolio Standards, Assembly Bill 1493 and Title 24) would result in annual GHG emission reductions of an additional 63,460 MT CO2e. The CAP Update measures combined with the statewide initiatives would reduce the anticipated emissions in the community by approximately 102,380 MT CO2e and would be consistent with AB 32 Scoping Plan recommendations. As of this writing, there are no adopted regional or local plans, policies or regulations other than the Scoping Plan and the City's CAP Update which are designed to reduce emissions of GHGs. There would be no impact. 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Project Impacts a) Create significant hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal hazardous materials? LS. All potentially significant impacts City of Dublin Page 29 Initial Study/Climate Action Plan Update July 2013 on Hazards and Hazardous Materials would result from development or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan Update. The CAP Update will not result in any change in these policies or programs. The environmental impacts of these policies and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents and the CAP Update will not result in any changes to these policies/programs, no further analysis of these impacts are required in this document. b, c) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accidental conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment or emit hazardous materials or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or wastes within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the CAP Update would result in a less-than significant impact. Any impact due to potential hazardous release through retrofit of existing buildings would be reduced to less-than significant through compliance with all applicable regulations regarding hazardous materials. d) Be listed on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied on the Cortese List and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or environment? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the CAP Update would result in a less-than significant impact. e,f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the CAP Update would result in a less-than significant impact. g) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the CAP Update would result in a less-than significant impact. h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the CAP Update would result in a less-than significant impact. 9. Hydrology and Water Quality Project Impacts a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? LS. All potentially significant impacts on Hydrology and Water Quality would result from development or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan Update. The CAP Update will not result in any change in these policies or programs. The environ rental impacts of these policies and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA City of Dublin Page 30 Initial Study/Climate Action Plan Update July 2013 Documents and the CAP Update will not result in any changes to these policies/programs, no further analysis of these impacts are required in this document. b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? NI. The primary source of water to development projects is imported surface water supplied by DSRSD and Zone 7. Neither DSRSD nor Zone 7 relies upon local groundwater. There would be no impact with lowering of the water table or reducing the amount of groundwater recharge areas. c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial siltation or erosion would occur? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the CAP Update would result in a less-than significant impact. d,e) Substantially alter drainage patterns or result in flooding, either on or off the project site, create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add substantial amounts of polluted runoff? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the CAP Update would result in a less-than significant impact. f) Substantially degrade water quality? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the CAP Update would result in a less-than significant impact. g-i) Place housing within a I00 year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate Map, or impede or redirect flood flow, including dam failure? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the CAP Update would result in a less-than significant impact. j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? NI. There are expected to be no impacts with regard to seiche, tsunami or mudflows, since projects would be located inland from major bodies of water. 10. Land Use and Planning Project Impacts a) Physically divide an established community? NI. The programs and policies in the CAP Update are consistent with the City's General Plan. Construction of future projects (including mixed-use development, transit-oriented development and new bike facilities) under the auspices of the CAP Update would proceed based on the Dublin General Plan, applicable Specific Plans and other land use regulatory documents, such as the Dublin Transit Center Stage 1 Development Plan and the Bikeways Master Plan and would not physically divide an established community. Additionally, the CAP Update includes measures to improve connectivity within Dublin and to promote alternative transportation methods. The CAP Update does not recommend any measures that would physically divide the community. No impacts are anticipated. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation? NI. No amendments are required to the Dublin General Plan and no rezonings are required. Future City of Dublin Page 31 Initial Study/Climate Action Plan Update July 2013 developments anticipated in the CAP Update are required to obtain the required permits, such as subdivision maps, Site Development Review permits, building permits and potentially other permits from the City of Dublin. c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? NI. No such plan has been adopted within the City of Dublin. There would therefore be no impact to a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. 11. Mineral Resources Project Impacts a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? NI. No impacts would occur to any mineral resources, since no such resources are identified in Dublin in the Dublin General Plan. 12. Noise Project Impacts a) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established by the General Plan or other applicable standards? LS. While the CAP Update does not recommend any strategy or measure that would generate excessive amounts of noise, construction activity associated with energy efficiency retrofits and installing solar panels in residential and commercial buildings could possibly result in temporary increases in noise. The noise from these activities is expected to be minimal and less than-significant. Construction activities will be required to conform to any applicable project Conditions of Approval and the General Plan policies to reduce noise to ensure that these impacts are less-than significant. All other potentially significant impacts due to noise would result from development or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan Update. The CAP Update will not result in any changes in these policies or programs. The environmental impacts of these policies and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents and the CAP Update will not result in any changes to these policies/programs, no further analysis of these impacts are required in this document. b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? LS. It is unlikely that implementation of measures within the CAP Update to perform energy retrofits on existing homes or install solar panels would result in significant_. levels of vibration, since normal construction methods would be used. No impacts are anticipated with regard to this topic. City of Dublin Page 32 Initial Study/Climate Action Plan Update July 2013 All other potentially significant impacts due to groundborne vibration or noise would result from development or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan Update. The CAP Update will not result in any change in these policies or programs. The environmental impacts of these policies and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents and the CAP Update will not result in any changes to these policies/programs, no further analysis of these impacts are required in this document. c,d) Substantial permanent or temporary increases in ambient noise levels? LS. Implementation of the CAP Update could cause a temporary increase in ambient noise levels as a result of construction activities to perform energy retrofits on existing homes or install solar panels. The noise from these activities is expected to be minimal and less-than significant. Construction activities will be required to conform to any applicable project Conditions of Approval and the General Plan policies to reduce noise to ensure that these impacts are less than significant. All other potentially significant impacts due to Noise would result from development or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan Update. The CAP Update will not result in any change in these policies or programs. The environmental impacts of these policies and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents and the CAP Update will not result in any changes to these policies/programs, no further analysis of these impacts are required in this document. e,f) Be located within an airport land use plan area, within two miles of a public or private airport or airstrip? LS. A number of parcels within the City are located in the General Airport Referral Area for Livermore Municipal Airport, located south of Interstate 580 within the City of Livermore. Applicable projects within this area are required to be referred to the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission for a consistency determination with the Alameda County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The Alameda County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan adopted the California Office of Noise Control noise exposure standards for residential uses, which is generally consistent with City of Dublin noise standards. All potentially significant impacts due to airport noise would result from development or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan Update. The CAP Update will not result in any change in these policies or programs. The environmental impacts of these policies and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents and the CAP Update will not result in any changes to these policies/programs, no further-- analysis of these impacts are required in this document. City of Dublin Page 33 Initial Study/Climate Action Plan Update July 2013 13. Population and Housing Project Impacts a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? LS. Implementation of the CAP Update would not cause substantial population growth in Dublin, since anticipated dwellings are currently included in the Dublin General Plan. This would be a less-than significant impact. All potentially significant impacts due to population increase would result from development or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan Update. The CAP Update will not result in any change in these policies or programs. The environmental impacts of these policies and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents and the CAP Update will not result in any changes to these policies/programs, no further analysis of these impacts are required in this document. b,c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people requiring replacement housing? LS. The CAP Update strategies and measures would not result in the displacement of a substantial number of homes or people. This would be a less-than significant impact. 14. Public Services Environmental Impacts a) Fire protection? LS. All potentially significant impacts on Public Services would result from development or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan Update. The CAP Update will not result in any change in these policies or programs. The environmental impacts of these policies and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents and the CAP Update will not result in any changes to these policies/programs, no further analysis of these impacts are required in this document. b) Police protection? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the CAP Update would result in a less-than significant impact. c) Schools? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the CAP Update would result in a less-than significant impact. d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? LS. See item (a) above._., Implementation of the CAP Update would result in a less-than significant impact. City of Dublin Page 34 Initial Study/Climate Action Plan Update July 2013 e) Solid waste generation? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the CAP Update would result in a less-than significant impact. Also, the CAP Update contains programs and policies that would reduce solid waste generation. 15. Recreation Project Impacts a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? LS. All potentially significant impacts on Recreation would result from development or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan Update. The CAP Update will not result in any change in these policies or programs. The environmental impacts of these policies and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents and the CAP Update will not result in any changes to these policies/programs, no further analysis of these impacts are required in this document. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational facilities? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the CAP Update would result in a less-than significant impact. 16. Transportation/Traffic Project Impacts a, b) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial relative to existing traffic load and street; or exceed LOS standards established by the County CAM for designated roads? LS. Implementation of the CAP Update measures would increase the availability of transit service for Dublin residents, add additional bicycle facilities and discourage single-occupancy vehicle use. Achieving each of these goals would result in a reduction in traffic loads, which would reduce the number of vehicle trips, volume to capacity ratio, and intersection congestion within the City. New mixed-use and transit-oriented development projects would be designed to reduce vehicle trips and place more people within walking distance of commercial uses and public transit. Furthermore, no proposed measure in the CAP Update would directly increase traffic in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. Additionally, impacts of local and regional traffic from development projects have been analyzed in the previous CEQA documents adopted by the City and are identified in the Earlier Analysis section of this document. All other potentially significant impacts or L. Transportation/Traffic would result from development or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan Update. The CAP Update will not result in any change in these policies or programs. The environmental impacts of these policies and programs were analyzed in City of Dublin Page 35 Initial Study/Climate Action Plan Update July 2013 the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents and the CAP Update will not result in any changes to these policies/programs, no further analysis of these impacts are required in this document. c) Result in a change of air traffic patterns? NI. The CAP Update does not include any strategy or measure that would directly or indirectly affect air traffic patterns. There would be no impact. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? LS. The CAP Update does not include any strategy or measure that would promote the development of hazardous design features or incompatible uses. Additionally, future projects that would be proposed in Dublin will be reviewed by City of Dublin staff to ensure that City public works and engineering standards are met and no traffic or transportation design hazards would be created. This would be a less-than-significant impact. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? LS. No strategy or measure proposed in the CAP Update would result in the development of uses or facilities that would degrade emergency access; therefore, the impact would be less-than significant with regard to emergency access. f, g) Inadequate parking capacity or hazards to pedestrians or bicyclists? LS. The CAP Update includes measures that would reduce the demand for automobile parking in favor of biking, carpooling and public transit. New mixed-use and transit-oriented development projects would be designed to support the use of alternative transit, potentially reducing parking requirements and supply both collectively and within individual projects. It is unlikely that that future projects pursuant to the CAP Update would contribute to inadequate parking capacity within the City. This would be a less- than-significant impact. All other potentially significant impacts due to parking capacity or hazards to pedestrians or bicyclists would result from development or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan Update. The CAP Update will not result in any change in these policies or programs. The environmental impacts of these policies and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said environmental impacts have been analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents and the CAP Update will not result in any changes to these policies/programs, no further analysis of these impacts are required in this document. 17. Utilities and Service Systems Project Impacts a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? LS. All potentially significant impacts on Utilities and Service Systems would result from development or City of Dublin Page 36 Initial Study/Climate Action Plan Update July 2013 activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan Update. The CAP Update will not result in any change in these policies or programs. The environmental impacts of these policies and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents and the CAP Update will not result in any changes to these policies/programs, no further analysis of these impacts are required in this document. b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the CAP Update would result in a less-than significant impact. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the CAP Update would result in a less-than significant impact. d) Are sufficient water supplies available? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the CAP Update would result in a less-than significant impact. e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the CAP Update would result in a less-than significant impact. f, g) Solid waste disposal? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the CAP Update would result in a less-than significant impact. 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? LS. The preceding analysis indicates that the proposed Project would not have a significant adverse impact on cultural resources or have the potential to restrict the range of rare or endangered species, beyond impacts previously identified. All potentially significant impacts in this area would result from development or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan Update. The CAP Update will not result in any change in these policies or programs. The environmental impacts of these policies and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents and the CAP Update will not result in any changes to these policies/programs, no further analysis of these impacts are required in this document. City of Dublin Page 37 Initial Study/Climate Action Plan Update July 2013 b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). LS. Cumulative impacts of the proposed Project have been analyzed in previous CEQA documents as identified in the Earlier Analysis section of this Initial Study. All potentially significant cumulative impacts would result from development or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan Update. The CAP Update will not result in any change in these policies or programs. The environmental impacts of these policies and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Document and the CAP Update will not result in any changes to these policies/programs, no further analysis of these impacts are required in this document. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? LS. Based on the preceding Initial Study, no substantial effects to human beings, either directly or indirectly have been identified. Any potentially significant impacts on human beings would result from development or activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan Update. The CAP Update will not result in any change in these policies or programs. The environmental impacts of these policies and programs were analyzed in the related Adopted CEQA Documents. Since said environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents and the CAP Update will not result in any changes to these policies/programs, no further analysis of these impacts are required in this document. Initial Study Preparer Martha Aja, Environmental Coordinator Agencies and Organizations Consulted The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial Study: City of Dublin Chris Foss, Assistant City Manager Tim Cremin, City Attorney's Office Kit Faubion, City Attorney's Office Roger Bradley, Assistant to the City Manager Luke Sims, Community Development Director Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director 4 Gary Huisingh, Public Works Director Andrew Russell, City Engineer Obaid Khan, Senior Civil Engineer (Traffic/Transportation) Kathy Southern, Environmental Technician City of Dublin Page 38 Initial Study/Climate Action Plan Update July 2013 References Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR (SCH # 91103064, May 10, 1993. Downtown Core Specific Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration, December 19, 2000. Dublin Transit Center Supplemental EIR(SCH # 20011200395), November 19, 2002. Dublin Ranch West Supplemental EIR, (SCH # 2003022082), March 15, 2005. Final Urban Water Management Plan, 2005 Update, Dublin San Ramon Services District, May 2005. Mission Peak/Fallon Crossing Mitigated Negative Declaration, May 16, 2006. Vargas Project Mitigated Negative Declaration, May 1, 2007. Casamira Valley/Moller Ranch Supplemental EIR (SCH# 2005052146), May 1, 2007. Fallon Village Project Supplemental EIR (SCH # 2005062010), March 4, 2008. Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin, Adopted February 11, 1985, Updated to March 23, 2012. Parks and Recreation Master Plan, City of Dublin, 2004 update. Bikeways Master Plan, City of Dublin, July 17, 2007. Community Design & Sustainability Element, City of Dublin, September 16, 2008. Multi Modal Map, City of Dublin, June 16, 2009. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan EIR(SCH #20100022005), February 1, 2011. Sustainable Neighborhood Design Strategy Amendment to the Community Design and Sustainability Element, City of Dublin, February 21, 2012. Moller Ranch Supplemental EIR (SCH #2005052146), December 18, 2012. City of Dublin Page 39 Initial Study/Climate Action Plan Update July 2013 CITY OF DUBLIN NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Title: City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update (CAP Update) Description of Project: The proposed project is the adoption of the CAP Update, a document that provides policies and measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within the City of Dublin. The goal of the CAP Update is to reduce Dublin's community-wide GHG emissions by 15% below 2010 levels by 2020. The CAP Update results in an approximately 17% reduction from 2010 levels by 2020, which results in an efficiency level of 3.2 MT CO2e per service population per year in 2020. The CAP Update identifies a variety of measures to achieve the City's GHG reduction target. The CAP Update describes baseline GHG emissions produced in Dublin in 2010, and projects GHG emissions that could be expected if the CAP Update is not implemented. The City expects the reduction to be achieved by a combination of the reduction measures included in the CAP Update and State initiatives, such as Renewable Portfolio Standard, Title 24 and Assembly Bill 1493 (Pavley). Project Location: City-wide applicability. Name of Proponent: City of Dublin Attn: Martha Aja, Environmental Coordinator City Manager's Office/Environmental Services 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568 Determination: I hereby find that although the above project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby approved. 2 3 Roger Bra ey, ssistant to the City Manager Date Copies of the Initial Study documenting the reasons to support the above finding are available at the City of Dublin, City Manager's Office, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568, or by calling (925) 833-6650. Attachments Date Published: Date Posted: Date Notice Mailed: _ Considered by: On: N.O.D. filed: Council Resolution No. City of Dublin Page 40 Initial Study/Climate Action Plan Update July 2013 ® V01 GGl av I 10.14) Vnn/ r.vv,(VV I 1 a a� 9 a® ON SF,Rp�c DUBLIN 7051 Dublin Boulevard SAN RAMON Dublin,California 94568 A , Phone:925 828 0515 SERVICES 'eti%t0t4-tile, 4,11"t�a � FAX:925 829 1180 DISTRICT ONCE 1953 www.dsrsd.com August 21, 2013 Via Fax Martha Aja,Principal Planner City of Dublin, Community Development Dept. 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94565 Subject: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration for the Dublin Climate Action Plan (CAP)Update Dear Ms. Aja: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration for the Dublin Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update. The City of Dublin (City) is within the service area where Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) currently provides potable water service, recycled water service and wastewater collection services. This specific CAP Update does not anticipate any changes by the City that would impact DSRSD's providing potable water, recycled water or wastewater collection and treatment services in the City of Dublin. We also agree that the Dublin Climate Action Plan Update of July 2013 would have less than a significant impact on the environment. In regards to future Climate Action Plan Updates, conceivable mitigation measures in a CAP could impact DSRSD operations. For this reason DSRSD desires to comment on future updates to the City of Dublin climate policies. Sincerely s STANLEY K LODZ ,P.E. Associate Engineer SK/ST cc: Dave Requa, DSRSD Rhodora Biagtan,DSRSD Dublin San Ramon BeMcn District Is a Public Entity H:IENODEPTICEQAIDSRSD Response to CEQA DocumentslCiry of DublinU01 MCoinments on NOI to Adopt a Neg Dec Dublin Climate Action Plan Update 8-21- 1�a-- EXHIBIT C TO Received Time Aug. 22. 2018 4:43PM No. 1282 ATTACHMENT 2 Tb=E•OF CALIFORNIA-THE NATURAL RESOUR'--,AGENCY EDMUND G.BROWN,JR.,Governor COLORADO RIVER BOARD OF � -+LIFORNIA ig 770 FAIRMONT AVENUE, SUITE 100 GLENDALE,CA 91203-1068(818)500-1625 �� �� (818)543-4685 FAX AUG 2 3 2013 CITY OF WELIN C1—9y MANAGER'S®FFYCE August 19, 2013 State Clearinghouse ` P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 Regarding: SCH9 2010 072 012 - Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration for updating the existing Dublin Climate Action Plan, City of Dublin, Alameda County, California To Whom It May Concern: The Colorado River Board of California (CRB) has received and reviewed a copy of Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration for updating the existing Dublin Climate Action Plan, City of Dublin, Alameda County, California. At this juncture, the CRB has determined that it has no comments regarding the Notice. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Dr. Jay Chen at (818) 500-1625. Sincerely, Tanya M. Trujillo Executive Director cc: Ms. Martha Aja, Environmental Coordinator, City Manager's Office, City of Dublin E A pft :`'. September 5, 2013 psft/ , 0—kow lx' Martha Aja I/ Environmental Coordinator City Manager's Office BAY A PE A 100 Civic Plaza AIR QUALITY Dublin, CA 94568 Subject: City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update MANAGEMENT Di S R i C Dear Ms. Aja, Bay Area Air Quality Management District (District) staff has reviewed the City of ALAMEDA COUNTY Dublin's (City) Climate Action Plan Update (Plan). We understand that the City's Scott Tom aggerty intentions in updating the Plan are to track progress toward achieving the City's Nate Miley greenhouse gas (GI-TG) reduction target, and to update the Plan with additional (vice chair) Tim Sbranti activities the City s undertaking is to reduce GI IG emissions. We further understand CONTRA COSTA COUNTY that the City intends to use the Plan to streamline CEQA review of new land use John Gioia projects. David Hudson Mary Piepho Mark Ross The District acknowledges that reviewing, modifying and tracking the MARIN COUNTY implementation of local climate action plans is critical to achieving local GHG Susan Adams reduction goals. In undertaking this effort, the City has added important strategies NAPA COUNTY to its Plan, such as the Green Building Ordinance, the opening of the West Dublin Brad wagenknecht BART Station and transit-oriented development around the Station, and significant SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY solar energy and waste reduction programs. John Avalos Edwin M. Lee Eric Mar The District has the following specific comments on the Plan. SAN MATEO COUNTY Carole Groom The GHG Reduction Target (Secretary) Carol Klatt The Plan's GHG reduction target is to reduce GI IG emissions 15% below 2010 SANTA CL RA COUNTY levels by 2020. This is inconsistent with the State's AB 32 Scoping Plan, which (Chair) calls on local jurisdictions to reduce GHG emissions 15% below 2008 levels by Liz Kniss 2020. While the Plan includes a justification for changing the original climate Jan Pepper Ken Yeager action plan's base year from 2005 to 2010, District staff recommends that the Plan SOLANO COUNY also include a quantitative explanation of how the 2010 base year will achieve an James Spering equivalent GHG reduction to the target called for in the Scoping Plan. SONOMA COUNTY Teresa Barrett As the 2020 target year nears, it is increasingly important to address what will Shirlee Zane happen to GHG emissions in the community after 2020. The Plan should include a discussion of the climate stabilization GHG reduction target for 2050 called for in Jack P. Broadbent EXECUTIVE OFFICERIAPCO Executive Order S-3-05, namely, the State will reduce GI IG emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. This discussion could address how the Plan's strategies and policies will place the community on a trajectory toward achieving the 2050 target. Ms. Aia September 5, 2013 The GHG Emission Reduction Measures In order to meet California's GI-IG reduction goals for AB 32 and, more importantly, for Executive Order 5-3-05, California will need to create more efficient, low-emission new development as well as achieve significant emission reductions from the built community. The Plan states that Dublin is a high-growth community, and so includes many mandatory measures aimed at reducing GHG emissions from new development. The District supports this approach. However, relying on new development to be more efficient will likely not be enough to achieve the State's aggressive 2020 and 2050 GHG reduction targets. Therefore, the District has identified additional feasible measures that have proven effective at reducing GHG emissions in other jurisdictions that have not been included in the Plan. The District recommends that the Plan strengthen its GIIG reduction approach in the following ways: - Expand the City's Green Building Program (A.2.1) beyond new residential development to also require energy efficiency standards beyond Title 24 for all new commercial construction and for significant remodels of residential and commercial buildings (example: San Rafael CIimate Action Plan (CAP)). - Add a time of sale energy efficiency upgrade requirement to residential and commercial buildings, such as a residential/commercial energy conservation ordinance (RECO/CECO). An alternative would be to consider the approach taken by the City of Pleasanton, wherein they are implementing a voluntary time of sale energy upgrade program, but if performance goals are not met, the program becomes mandatory. - Add heat island mitigation strategies to reduce outdoor air temperatures and air conditioning needs by requiring cool rooting and cool paving materials be used in new development and significant remodels (example: Santa Rosa CAP). - Add a transportation demand management(TDM) requirement, such as requiring employers of 50 or more employees to offer TDM programs to their employees. The TDM programs should include strategies such as employer-paid subsidies for commuting by transit or vanpool; employer-provided bus, shuttle or vanpool service; or other programs such as telecommuting,rideshare matching, etc. These strategies would complement the District's upcoming region-wide commuter benefits program, currently under development, authorized by Senate Bill 1339 (example: Solano County CAP). - Add measures addressing parking policies, such as parking pricing, reducing parking requirements for new development/imposing parking maximums, etc. (example: Santa Rosa CAP) Appendix D: Emissions Reduction Calculations and Assumptions should include more detailed information on the assumptions behind the emission reduction estimations. For example, for Measure A.1.1 Transit-oriented Development, Appendix D lists the assumption as "25% reduction in per-household VMT for each new transit-oriented unit"— District staff recommends that this be expanded to include what the average VMT per household is and how that average was determined. In other cases, such as with Measures A.3.1-6 Solid Waste and Recycling Measures, there should be more justification for how the 3% reduction in the waste diversion rate is achieved. Through conversations with City staff it is understood that this back-up data exists, and District staff recommends this data be included in Appendix D. 2 Ms. Aja September 5, 2013 We commend the City for its efforts to address the critical issue of climate change through local action. We also support the City's efforts in monitoring the implementation of the Plan and adding important 01-IG reduction measures to the Plan. By addressing the recommendations in this letter, District staff believes that the Plan would be more likely to achieve its GHG reduction target and the City would be in a better position to use the Plan as a tierable document under CEQA. District staff is available to assist the City in addressing these comments. If you have any questions, please contact Abby Young, Principal Environmental Planner, at (415) 749-4754. Sincerely, tf� ,�VA Je n oggenkam D - ty Air Pollun o trol Officer cc: BAAQMD Director Tom Bates BAAQMD Director Scott IIaggerty BAAQMD Vice Chair Nate Miley BAAQMD Director Tim Sbranti 3 RESOLUTION NO. 13- xx A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN CLIMATE ACTION PLAN UPDATE WHEREAS, an update to the City's Climate Action Plan is a City Council key initiative for FY 13-14; and WHEREAS, on July 17, 2007, the Dublin City Council passed Resolution 139-07 approving participation in the Climate Protection Project for Alameda County jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin committed to ICLEI's five milestone methodology for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within the City, which includes the development of a Climate Action Plan for reducing GHG emissions, and WHEREAS, under CEQA a City may prepare a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy or Climate Action Plan to evaluate a community's cumulative impact due to GHG emissions from future planned development, and WHEREAS, if a project is consistent with an adopted, qualified GHG Reduction Strategy or Climate Action Plan, the Strategy/Plan can be used as a basis for determining that the project would have a less than significant impact on a community's cumulative GHG emissions under CEQA; and WHEREAS, on November 16, 2010, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution 167-10 approving the City of Dublin Climate Action Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has contracted with PMC to assist Staff in preparing the Climate Action Plan Update; and WHEREAS, the Climate Action Plan Update does the following: • Provides background on actions taken to curb GHG emissions; • Presents Dublin's baseline GHG emissions inventory in 2010 and forecast for GHG emissions in 2020 based on business-as-usual scenario; • 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; • 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; • Presents steps for implementation, monitoring and verification of the Plan to achieve the designated emission reduction target; and ATTACHMENT 3 WHEREAS, the reduction measures within the Climate Action Plan Update are grouped into the following seven categories: 1. Communitywide Transportation and Land Use Measures; 2. Communitywide Energy Measures; 3. Communitywide Solid Waste and Recycling Measures; 4. Municipal Transportation and Land Use Measures; 5. Municipal Energy Measures; 6. Municipal Solid Waste and Recycling Measures; 7. Public Outreach Programs; and WHEREAS, the CAP Update community-wide measures combined with the Statewide initiatives would reduce the anticipated emissions in the community by 102,380 metric tons/year of carbon dioxide equivalent and would achieve the City's reduction goal of reducing GHG emissions by 15% below 2010 levels by 2020, which results in an efficiency level of 3.2 MT CO2e per service population per year in 2020; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act certain projects are required to be reviewed for environmental impacts and when applicable, environmental documents prepared, and on September 24, 2013, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 13-XX recommending that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration for the Climate Action Plan Update; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Climate Action Plan Update and related Negative Declaration on September 24, 2013; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the Climate Action Plan Update; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review and consider the Negative Declaration and Climate Action Plan Update, all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth prior to making its recommendation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving the Climate Action Plan Update, with the City Council Resolution attached as Exhibit A. 2of3 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of September 2013 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Assistant Community Development Director KICAP UpdatelPC Hearing.9.24.131PC Reso CAP.doc 3of3 RESOLUTION NO. XX-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING THE CITY OF DUBLIN CLIMATE ACTION PLAN UPDATE WHEREAS, an update to the City's Climate Action Plan is a City Council key initiative for FY 13-14; and WHEREAS, on July 17, 2007, the Dublin City Council passed Resolution 139-07 approving participation in the Climate Protection Project for Alameda County jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin committed to ICLEI's five milestone methodology for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within the City, which includes the development of a Climate Action Plan for reducing GHG emissions; and WHEREAS, under CEQA a City may prepare a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy or Climate Action Plan to evaluate a community's cumulative impact due to GHG emissions from future planned development; and WHEREAS, if a project is consistent with an adopted, qualified GHG Reduction Strategy or Climate Action Plan, the Strategy/Plan can be used as a basis for determining that the project would have a less than significant impact on a community's cumulative GHG emissions under CEQA; and WHEREAS, on November 16, 2010, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution 167-10 approving the City of Dublin Climate Action Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has contracted with PMC to assist Staff in preparing the Climate Action Plan Update; and WHEREAS, the Climate Action Plan Update does the following: o Provides background on actions taken to curb GHG emissions; o Presents Dublin's baseline GHG emissions inventory in 2010 and forecast for GHG emissions in 2020 based on business-as-usual scenario; o Establishes a GHG emission reduction target of 15% below 2010 levels by 2020, which results in an efficiency level of 3.2 MT COze per service population per year in 2020; o Sets forth GHG emission reduction policies and measures for transportation/land use, energy, and solid waste and recycling that Dublin will implement or is already implementing to achieve the reduction target; o Presents steps for implementation, monitoring and verification of the Plan to achieve the designated emission reduction target; and EXHIBIT A TO ATTACHMENT 3 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-XX recommending that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration and Resolution 13-XX 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 , 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 with the proposed changes outlined in the Climate Action Plan Errata included as Attachment 1 to Exhibit A and authorizes Staff to make any non-substantive grammatical or editing changes in the final document. 2 of 3 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 2013 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk M:ICAP UpdatelPC Hearing.9.24.J31Draft CC Reso.doc 3of3