HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.3 Climate Action Plan Neg Dec~~~.1 OF DpB~~
~
~~~~~ ~j 2
~
`~4LIFOR~l /
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
STAFFREPORT CITY CLERK
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL File # ^~D~j]_ ~, ~
November 16, 2010
Honorable Mayor and City Counciimembers
_ Joni Pattillo, City Manager
~__-~ PUBLIC HEARING - City of Dublin Climate Action Plan and Negative
Declaration
Report prepared by Martha Aja, Environmental Specialist
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The proposed City of Dublin Climate Action Plan (CAP) provides policies and measures aimed
at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within the City. The goal of the CAP is to reduce
Dublin's community-wide GHG emissions by 20% below a business-as-usual scenario by 2020.
The CAP identifies a variety of ineasures 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 City expects to reduce GHG emissions through a combination of reduction
measures that are included in the CAP. These include measures that are under the City's
control and State initiatives aimed at reducing GHG emissions.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
This project poses no financial impact to the City.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 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; 5) Adopt -Re-s~tpti opting a Negative Declaration for the City of Dublin Climate
Action Plan; an ~_,Adcap~-a Resoluti n adopting the City of~rjblin Cli~ate Action Plan.
Submitt~d By: Review d B:
Senior Administrative Analyst Assistant City nager
ITEM NO.: ~ • ~
Page 1 of 9
G:IPA#120101Dublin Climate Action Plan & Neg DecICC Meeting 11.16.101CCSR CAP 11.16.10 1st reading.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 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 5.2% below 1990
levels. As of May 2008, one-hundred-eighty-one (181) countries have ratified the agreement
representing over 61 % of the emissions from developed countries.
In 2005, cities and counties took the lead at the U.S. Conference of Mayors and developed
the U.S. Conference of Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement, which urged federal and
state governments to enact policies and programs to meet the Kyoto Protocol target. The
agreement included a commitment to strive to meet the Kyoto Protocol target by taking local
actions, such as conducting a baseline emissions inventory, setting reduction targets, and
creating a climate action plan.
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 directed 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 outlined
the State's plan to achieve the GHG reductions required in AB 32. The Scoping Plan
contained the primary strategies California would implement to achieve a reduction of 169
million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMT COZe), or approximately 30% from the
State's projected 2020 emissions level. In the Scoping Plan, the ARB encouraged 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 would ~
play in meeting the State's AB 32 goals is not established in the Scoping Plan.
Ba Area Air Qualit Mana ement 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 C02e 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 C02e /yr) is equivalent
to the approximate amount of GHG emissions that 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 would generate.
Projects with emissions greater than the adopted threshold (1,100 MT C02e per year or 4.6
metric tons C02e per service population) are required to mitigate to the proposed threshold level
or reduce project emissions by an amount deemed feasible by the lead agency. The BAAQMD's
2 of 9
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 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.
Alternatively, a city may prepare a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy, or Climate Action Plan
(CAP) that furthers AB 32 goals. The BAAQMD encourages such planning efforts and
recognizes that careful early planning by local agencies is invaluable to achieving the State's
GHG reduction goals. If a project is consistent with a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy, which
addresses the project's GHG emissions, the Strategy can be used as the basis for determining
that the project would have a less than significant impact on the community's cumulative GHG
emissions under CEQA.
CEQA contains standards for GHG Reduction Strategies that can be used in the cumulative
impacts analysis for projects covered under the Plan (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5). The
BAAQMD recognizes these CEQA standards as meeting the District's standards for a Reduction
Strategy. The BAAQMD CEQA Thresholds contain some standards in addition to those under
CEQA.
The proposed City of Dublin CAP has been developed to meet both the CEQA and BAAQMD
standards for a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy.
City of Dublin
On July 17, 2007, the City Council adopted Resolution 139-07 approving participation in the
Climate Protection Project for Alameda County jurisdictions (Attachment 1). Alameda County
Climate Protection Project (ACCPP) was launched by ICLEI - Local Governments for
Sustainability in partnership with StopWaste.Org and the Alameda County Conference of
Mayors. In committing to this project, the jurisdictions within Alameda County embarked on an
on-going, coordinated effort to reduce emissions, improve air quality, reduce waste and cut
energy use. In doing so, the City of Dublin committed to ICLEI's 5-milestone methodology for
reducing GHG emissions, which include:
Milestone 1: Conduct a baseline emissions inventory and forecast;
Milestone 2: Adopt an emissions reduction target;
Milestone 3: Develop a Climate Action Plan for reducing emissions;
Milestone 4: Implement policies and measures to reduce emissions; and
Milestone 5: Monitor and verify results.
The City completed the first milestone in 2008. The second and third milestones are the subject
of this agenda item. The creation of a CAP is included as a high priority goal (I-F-14) within the
Fiscal Year 2010/2011 City Council Goals & Objectives Program.
In March 2010, the Dublin City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a Consulting
Services Agreement between the City of Dublin and AECOM to assist the City in the
preparation of the proposed CAP. AECOM calculated the GHG emissions reductions to be
achieved by implementation of the measures in the CAP and State initiatives that would mitigate
GHG emissions within the community. AECOM also peer reviewed the City of Dublin's CAP for
technical accuracy.
3 of 9
ANALYSIS:
The proposed CAP (Exhibit A of Attachment 2) provides policies and measures aimed at
reducing GHG emissions within the City to further the goals of AB 32. The goal of the CAP is to
reduce Dublin's community-wide GHG emissions by 20% below the business-as-usual
projection of GHG emissions emitted during 2020 by said year. The City anticipates that the
GHG reduction goal wilt be achieved through a combination of efforts at the local and State
levels. The reduction measures included within the proposed CAP, which contribute to the City's
reduction goal, include locally-focused activities as well as State initiatives under ARB's Scoping
Plan.
A program or project would be considered consistent with the CAP if it substantially complies
with the applicable measures set forth within the CAP and does not obstruct the attainment of
the estimated GHG emissions reductions. A Resolution adopting the CAP is included as
Attachment 2.
Emission Inventorv, Baseline and Proiections
The CAP (Chapter II, "Emissions Inventory") presents a GHG emissions inventory for 2005,
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, commercial/industrial, transportation and waste sectors. The municipal-level-
emissions inventory includes those sources that fall under the direct jurisdictional control of the
City of Dublin, which includes City facilities, the City's vehicle fleet, public lighting, municipal
water consumption and municipal solid waste generation. The emissions inventory was
developed by the City in collaboration with ICLEI. Total community-wide emissions were
determined to be 357,211 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2005 (refer to Table 1
below). Government-related emissions were estimated to be 1,573 metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent in 2005 (refer to Table 2 below). ~
Table 1 Communitv Grpanhnuco rac F..,~~~;.,.,~ h~~ ce..s.,.- /AilT !`!1 ,.~
2005 Community
Emissions b Sector
MT COZe - --
Percent of Total
COZe --- ,---- --<-
Energy Equivalent
(MMBtu)
Residential 51,154 14.3% 886,617
Commercial/lndustrial 60,183 16.8% 986,302
Local Roads 49,670 13.9% 670,383
State Highways 183,714 51.4% 2,479,544
Waste 12,490 3.5% 0
TOTAL 357,211 100% 5,022,846
Table 2- rnvarnmpnt (~N~: Fm:c~:.,.,~ ~,., c.,..s,,.-
2005 Government
Emissions
MT COze
Percentage of
Total COZe Energy
Equivalent
(MMBtu)
Buildings 770 49.0% 12,787
Vehicle Fleet 286 18.2% 3,681
Public Lighting 484 30.8% 7,377
Water 22 1.4% 335
Solid Waste 11 0.7% 0
TOTAL 1,573 100% 24,180
4 of 9
Chapter III of the CAP, "Forecast for Greenhouse Gas Emissions," includes projections of
emissions in 2020. ICLEI conducted an emission forecast for the year 2020 based on projected
trends in energy use, driving habits, job and population growth from the baseline year (2005)
through 2020. The inflation factors were determined using the Association of Bay Area
Government's 2009 projections for growth within the City of Dublin. Under a business-as-usual
scenario, it is estimated that the City of Dublin's emissions will grow from the baseline year of
2005 to the forecast year of 2020 by approximately 31.9% from 357,211 to 471,205 metric tons
of carbon dioxide equivalent (refer to Table 3 below).
Table 3- Communitv GrPanhnnca ~;ac F..,:~~;.,.,~ (~rnuifh Drninrti~nc hv C~i.b.r
Community Emissions
Growth Forecast by
Sector 2005
MT COZe
Emissions 2020
MT COZe
Emissions Annual
Growth
Rate Percent
Change
(2005 - 2020)
Residential 51,154 77,973 2.850% 52.4°/o
Commercial/Industrial 60,183 82,043 2.087% 36.3%
Transportation 233,384 292,151 1.509% 25.2%
Waste 12,490 19,038 2.850% 52.4%
TOTAL 357,211 471,205 - 31.9%
Dublin's GHG reduction goal is 20% below the business-as-usual projection of GHG emissions
emitted during 2020 by said year. This goal will lower the projected GHG emissions in 2020
from 471,205 metric tons of carbon dioxide to 376,964. While the City expects significant
residential, commercial and industrial growth through 2020, the total amount of GHG emissions
emitted within the community will not be increasing significantly from 2005 levels even through
the City's service population will grow by nearly 50% during the same period (service population
is the summation of population and the number of jobs within the City).
Further, the City of Dublin's CAP is designed to meet or exceed the goals of AB 32. To delineate
the City's commitment to the goals of AB 32, the City's CAP employs BAAQMD's GHG
efficiency based metric for Climate Action Plans of 6.6 MT C02e per service population per
year. The City's per capita efficiency metric is 5.88 for 2005 and 4.22 for 2020, which represents
a 28% decrease in GHG emissions between the base year and forecast year. The City of
Dublin's efficiency metric is well below the established threshold in both the Base Year 2005
and the Forecast Year 2020. Thus, while the City will be growing significantly over the 15-year
period covered by the CAP, the City's GHG emissions will be decreasing significantly on a per
individual basis, which is not clearly visible when simply inspecting the business-as-usual
scenario.
Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Measures
The proposed CAP (Chapter V: Emissions Reduction Measures & Policies) identifies a variety of
measures to achieve the City's GHG reduction target. The inclusion of quantifiable GHG
reduction measures is the primary focus of the proposed CAP. 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 proposed CAP. 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. The various GHG reduction measures are organized into three
5 of 9
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
2005 GHG emissions inventory.
Results of Imqlementation
Implementation of the City-controlled measures in the CAP would result in annual community-
wide GHG emissions reductions of 46,737 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (a 9.92%
total reduction per year relative to 2020). A list of the local measures that are under the City's
control can be found in Table 12 of the CAP (Exhibit A of Attachment 2). The City-controlled
measures include transportation and land use measures, energy measures and solid waste and
recycling measures. The Municipal Operations Measures and Public Outreach Programs are
also included as part of the City-controlled measures.
Additionally, implementation of statewide initiatives (AB 1493 and Renewable Portfolio
Standard) would result in annual GHG emissions reductions of an additional 52,263 metric tons
of carbon dioxide equivalent (11.09% total reduction per year relative to 2020). AB 1493
requires the Air Resources Board (ARB) to develop and adopt regulations to reduce GHG
emissions from vehicles primarily used for noncommercial transportation. In 2004, the ARB
approved amendments to California's existing standards for motor vehicles to meet the
requirements of AB 1493. These amendments required automobile manufacturers to meet fleet-
average GHG emission limits for all passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty
passenger vehicle weight classes, beginning in 2009.
Senate Bill 1078 established the Renewable Portfolio Standard. The Renewable Portfolio
Standard requires the increased production of energy from renewable energy sources such as
wind, solar, biomass and geothermal. The Renewable Portfolio Standard requires electricity
providers to increase purchases of renewable energy sources by 1% per year until they have
attained a portfolio of 20% renewable sources. Executive Order S-14-08, which was signed by
the Governor in 2008, expands California's Renewable Energy Standard to 33% renewable
power by 2020.
The community-wide measures, combined with the statewide initiatives, would reduce the
anticipated emissions in the community by 99,000 metric tons/year of carbon dioxide equivalent
and would achieve the City's reduction goal of reducing GHG emission by 20% below the
Business-As-Usual projection of GHG emitted during 2020 by said year.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The overall purpose of the proposed CAP 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"projecY' under
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), or it may qualify for an exemption under
CEQA. However, as with a proposat involving activities relating to development, implementation
of the proposed CAP 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.
The Initial Study/Negative Declaration was circulated for public review from July 7, 2010 to
August 5, 2010 (Exhibit A of Attachment 3). During the public review period, the City received 6
comment letters (Exhibit B of Attachment 3), which include the following:
6 of 9
• County of Alameda Public Works Agency, dated July 27, 2010
• City of Dublin Parks & Community Services Department, dated August 4, 2010
• Dublin San Ramon Services District, dated August 4, 2010
• Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), dated August 5, 2010
• City of Dublin Police Services
• Alameda County Fire Prevention Bureau
The letter from the BAAQMD was the only letter that raised concerns. The City of Dublin worked
cooperatively with the BAAQMD and made minor modifications to the CAP to address the
concerns outlined in the BAAQMD letter. One of the changes that the City made to the CAP was
the inclusion of the BAAQMD's GHG significance threshold for CAPs which is an efficiency
based metric of 6.6 MT COze per service population per year. The CAP results in an efficiency
level of 4.22 MT COze per service population per year in 2020, which is 36% below the
threshold established by the BAAQMD. It also represents a 28% decrease in GHG emissions
between the base year and forecast year. Additionally, the City used ABAG's 2009 projections
to determine the forecast for 2020 instead of the 2005 projections. The City also changed the
multiplier used to determine the emission reductions anticipated from AB 1493 from 15.76°/o to
12.2%, which resulted in a decrease of anticipated emission reductions from AB 1493. This
change was made based on updated information from the Air Resources Board. This change in
the projected reductions from statewide measures is largely the basis for the change in the
reduction target to 20%. The level of reduction from Citywide measures remains in the same
(9.92%) and the City did not make any changes to any of the Citywide reduction measures in
the CAP.
The City received a subsequent letter from the BAAQMD dated October 26, 2010 (Exhibit B of
Attachment 3). The follow-up letter from the Air District highlights the issues outlined in their
original letter that have since been resolved and/or clarified. In their October 26, 2010 letter, the
Air District notes that:
While it appears that the City may be able to meet the District's plan-level
threshold of significance (6.6 tons per service population) with just [its] existing
measures, it is not clear that this is the case when the emissions from the
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan are accounted for in the City's' GHG emissions
inventory.
The City of Dublin's efficiency metric is well below the 6.6 MT COze per service population
threshold for the forecast year of 2020 (4.2 tons per service population). Therefore, while the
citywide emissions may increase due to adoption and implementation of the Downtown Dublin
Specific Plan, it is unlikely that those increased emissions will result in the City's CAP exceeding
the 6.6 tons per service population. As the City is committed to monitoring the progress and
results of the CAP, the effects of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan will be known as part of the
City's future CAP updates.
The environmental analysis of the proposed CAP focused solely on the new policies and
changes in existing policies that will be implemented as a result of the proposed CAP. It did not
analyze the impacts of existing programs included in the proposed CAP, which have already
undergone their own environmental review. In particular, the proposed CAP will not result in any
change in land use designations or permit greater intensity of development than already allowed
7 of 9
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 CAPs 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 GHG emissions also authorize the use of these Plans for CEQA review of future
projects. The proposed CAP serves as the City's qualified GHG Reduction Plan and
programmatic tiering document for the purposes of CEQA for analysis of impacts of GHG
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 CAP 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 proposed 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 Public Resources Code 21083.3, CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15183.5, 15064 and 15130, and BAAQMD adopted CEQA Guidelines and GHG
Significance Thresholds.
A Resolution adopting a Negative Declaration for the City of Dublin CAP is included as
Attachment 3.
PLANNING COMISSION ACTION
On October 26, 2010, the Planning Commission held a public hearir~g to review the proposed
CAP and draft Negative Declaration. The Planning Commission Staff Report is included as
Attachment 4 and the draft minutes of the Planning Commission meeting are included as
Attachment 5.
The Planning Commission deliberated and approved the followings resolution by a 4-0-1 vote:
• Resolution 10-50, recommending City Council adoption of a Negative Declaration for the
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan (Attachment 6).
• Resolution 10-51 recommending City Council approval of the City of Dublin Climate
Action Plan (Attachment 7).
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.
8 of 9
ATTACHMENTS:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Resolution 139-07 (Alameda County Climate Projection
Project).
Resolution adopting the City of Dublin Climate Action
Plan with the Climate Action Plan attached as Exhibit
A.
Resolution adopting a Negative Declaration for the City
of Dublin Climate Action Plan, with the Initial
Study/Negative Declaration attached as Exhibit A and
the comment letters attached as Exhibit B.
October 26, 2010 Planning Commission Staff Report
(without attachments).
Draft Planning Commission meeting minutes, October
26, 2010.
Planning Commission Resolution 10-50 recommending
City Council adoption of a Negative Declaration for the
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan.
Planning Commission Resolution 10-51 recommending
City Council approval of the City of Dublin Climate
Action Plan.
9 of9
f~ i~ ~
RESOLUTION NO. 139 - 07
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
~,~*~~~~~~
APPROVING PARTICIPATION IN THE CLIMATE PROTECTION PROJECT
FOR ALAMEDA COUNTY JURISDICTIONS
VV~iEREAS, local government actions taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to increase
energy efficiency provide multiple local benefits; and
WHEREAS, partnerships with surrounding communities and agencies can have a positive impact
on the environment; and
WHEREAS, Stopwaste.org is allowing Alameda County jurisdictions to use funding from their
Waste Mitigation Fund to pay for the development of greenhouse gas emissions inventories and Local
Climate Action Plans as part of the Climate Protection Project for Alameda County jurisdictions; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Ciry Council of the City of Dublin does
hereby approve participation in the Climate Protection Project for Alameda County jurisdictions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin will allow ICLEI to conduct a.n
environmental project that will include:
l. A local emission's inventory and forecast to determine the source and quantity of emissions in the
jurisdiction.
2. The establishment of an emissions reduction target.
3. An action plan with both existing and future actions capable of ineeting the local emissions reduction
target.
4. The consideration of the implementa.tion of appropriate and achievable components of the action plan.
5. The consideration of monitoring and reporting progress upon implementation.
PASSED, APpROVED AND ADOPTED this 17~' day of July, 2007.
AYES:
NOES:
AB SENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Int i
G: CC-MTGS/7-17-07/1
Councilmembers Hildenbrand, Oravetz, Sbranti, Scholz and Mayor Lockhart
None
None
None
139 Climate Protection ICLEI (Item 83)
(~. 3 ~ 1- ~ ~- ~~
`~ b~) I C ~
RESOLUTION NO. XX-10
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING THE CITY OF DUBLIN CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
WHEREAS, the Fiscal Year 2010/2011 City Council Goals and Objectives includes as a
high priority goal, the creation of a Climate Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2007, the Dublin City Council passed Resolution 139-07
approving participation in the Climate Protection Project for Alameda County jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin committed to ICLEI's five milestone methodology for
reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within the City, which includes the development of a
Climate Action Plan for reducing GHG emissions; and
WHEREAS, in June 2010, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
adopted California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) air quality thresholds of significance for
use within its jurisdiction, which included an emission level threshold and an efficiency threshold
for GHG emissions for development projects; and
WHEREAS, alternatively, under CEQA and the BAAQMD CEQA thresholds, a City may
prepare a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy or Climate Action Plan to evaluate a community's
cumulative impact due to GHG emissions from future planned development; and
WHEREAS, if a project is consistent with an adopted, qualified GHG Reduction Strategy
or Climate Action Plan, the Strategy/Plan can be used as a basis for determining that the project
would have a less than significant impact on a community's cumulative GHG emissions under
CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has contracted with AECOM to assist Staff in preparing
the Draft Climate Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Climate Action Plan does the following:
o Provides background on actions taken to curb GHG emissions;
o Presents Dublin's baseline GHG emissions inventory in 2005 and forecast for GHG
emissions in 2020 based on business-as-usual scenario;
o Establishes a GHG emission reduction target of 20% from the 2020 GHG emissions
forecast which results in an efficiency level of 4.22 MT C02e per service population
per year in 2020;
o Sets forth GHG emission reduction policies and measures for transportation/land use,
energy, and solid waste and recycling that Dublin will implement or is already
implementing to achieve the reduction target;
AT'I'ACHMENT 2
~ ~~ i ~ ~
o Presents steps for implementation, monitoring and verification of the Plan to achieve
the designated emission reduction target; and
WHEREAS, the reduction measures within the Draft Climate Action Plan are grouped
into the following seven categories:
1. Communitywide Transportation and Land Use Measures;
2. Communitywide Energy Measures;
3. Communitywide Solid Waste and Recycling Measures;
4. Municipal Transportation and Land Use Measures;
5. Municipal Energy Measures;
6. Municipal Solid Waste and Recycling Measures; and
7. Public Outreach Programs.
WHEREAS, the Draft CAP community-wide measures combined with the Statewide
initiatives would reduce the anticipated emissions in the community by 99,000 metric tons/year
of carbon dioxide equivalent and would achieve the City's reduction goal of reducing GHG
emissions by 20% below the business-as-usual projection of GHG emitted during 2020 by said
year which results in an efficiency level of 4.22 MT C02e per service population per year in
2020; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act certain projects
are required to be reviewed for environmental impacts and when applicable, environmental
documents prepared; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Draft
Climate Action Plan and related Negative Declaration on October 26, 2010 and adopted
Resolution 10-50 recommending that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration and
Resolution 10-51 recommending that the City Council adopt the Climate Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a property noticed public hearing on the Draft Climate
Action Plan and related Negative Declaration on November 16, 2010; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the City Council adopt a
Resolution approving the Draft Climate Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did review and consider the Negative Declaration and the
Draft Climate Action Plan, all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set
forth prior to making its decision on the Draft Climate Action Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin City Council does hereby approve
and adopt the Climate Action Plan, attached as Exhibit A.
2 of 3
~b~l~~
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of November 2010 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
G.~IPA#120101Dublin C/imnteAction Plan & Neg DecICCMeeting IIJ6JOICCReso CAP.doc
3 of 3
1~
City of Dublin
Climate Action Plan
.~ O~ DU~
~~ ~f
~ ~ ~
lll ~ 111
19 ,,, ~' ~- -,~i 8'2
I
~-
Cy~~ ~~,~
I.~O~-
October 2010
~`i~d hi = ~ ~~
~ 1 °t `~ - ~ ~~. - ~ '1
~ }'* r.,ti ~ ~y ~ _--.~ j ~
r f i f ~ A r ,~ r ..~~, '~.p~~~i ,. . ._ .
~~ ~ ~~~ ~z ~4/ ~~. ~y~ _ ~ ~ - ~~y
y-/,t't/` .: s ~~r w J ' ....~ ~ 1 ~y~' ~ ~ _ ,k."'y
~ " ~~" ~# Ql ~'r«`+~ ~ ~ ^9~,. ~~
~ ~` - ~\\\'u~~!!~ ~' 1 E '~ ~ ~
V~~,~.:~,i'I~liIT~J~,9, > >, ~ ,r ~ ~~~
` - t a ~~_ '-~ a` ~e ( -~
, t ~ ~~ - - r ~ = i I _~,
~' ~.:' g ~_~_~ 1 ~~"4"~'.:~ ~ ~ . I '
~ f ~•,, ;y.`
~~~~e ~ _ _ ~F
~i ~>> y~ 6 3`i J~` ~ , -S }~~ ~ ~ .
,~: ` ~~ ~e ~.~y^ - 1K~. ~ ~ L., ""-' )
3r ,
,Y . ~ ~ -,:~..,-...r,:- $ ,~' ~
~. ~_
(,; ~ _~ ' . ~~ T ,.
f ~ ' '- ~ ~
, {{„ , . ~'~ ~ q'~~l ~ F
, _ ~ y __. ~ :
EXHIBIT A TO
ATTACHMF.NT 2
Letter from the Mayor
The Dublin City Council has adopted the following Mission Statement: "The City of Dublin
promotes and supports a high qualiry 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 Clirnate
Action Plan. Over the past several years, the City has worked diligently to ensure a high qualiry
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 stewaYdship.
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 put considerable effort into the creation of a more sustainable
environment to protect its current and futuYe generations. As a Yesult, the City has developed,
implemented, and is actively monitoring progYams 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 adfninistering and enforcing many environmental laws that protect our
community. By way of example, in the last five to 10 years, the City has built facilities with more
energy efficient and green building principles; legislated transit-oriented, high-density and
mixed use developments to minimize the need for automotive travel; improved bicycle pathways;
enhanced our recycling and organics collection programs; installed more energy efficient
lighting; and convened a City Council-initiated GYeen Initiatives Taskforce, which engaged
community stakeholders in the process of developing impoYtant environmental objectives. The
City of Dublin has been, and will continue to be, at the forefront of the environmental movement.
YVhile this Climate Action Plan will primarily serve the community as a gYeenhouse 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 gYeat community to take the initiative to do more in your daily lives. By doing simple things
such as reducing your eneYgy consumption, increasing your recycling, increasing your use of
alternative transportation, and buying local, you can and will play a large Yole in making Dublin
a better, more sustainable city. Remember every contribution helps no matter the size, so please
join us in these efforts. Thank you for your interest and participation!
Sincerely,
~,~.~.
Tim SbYanti, Mayor
City of Dublin
Acknowled~ements
City Council
Tim Sbranti, Mayar
Kasie Hildenbrand, Vice Mayor
Don Biddle, Councilmember
Kevin Hart, Councilmember
Kate Ann Scholz, Councilmember
City Staff - Key Supporting
Joni Pattillo, City Manager
Chris Foss, Assistant City Manager
Jeri Ram, Community Development Director
Jeff Baker, Planning Manager
Martha Aja, Environmental Specialist
Jordan Figueiredo, Environmental Technician
John Bakker, City Attorney
Tim Cremin, City Attorney's Office
City Staff - Lead and Contact for the Plan
Roger Bradley, Senior Administrative Analyst
AECOM
Claire Bonham-Carter, Principal in Charge
Jeff Henderson, Project Manager
Heather Phillips, Former Senior Air Quality and Climate Change Specialist
Christy Seifert, Technical Editor
Alameda County Waste Management Authority (StopWaste.org)
Debra Kaufman, Seniar Program Manager
Meghan Starkey, Senior Program Manager
PG&E
Jasmin Ansar
Xantha Bruso, Climate Protection Policy Specialist
Lynne Galal, Senior Project Manager
Greg San Martin, Climate Protection Program Manager
Jenna Olsen
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Amir Fanai, Principal Air Quality Engineer
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Harold Brazil, Air Quality Associate
ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability
Gary Cook, California Director
Alden Feldon, Regional Program Manager
Brooke Lee, Program Officer
Jonathan Strunin, Program Officer
Wesley Look, Program Associate
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
3
Jonathan Knauer, Program Associate
Alison Culpen, Program Associate
Ayrin Zahner, Former Program Associate
Jennifer Holzer, Former Program Associate
Palak Joshi, Former Program Associate
The inventory was prepared by Ayrin Zahner, Jonathan Strunin and Alison Culpen at ICLEI-
Local Governments for Sustainability U.S.A.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
4
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
Table of Contents
Background: The Alameda County Climate Protection Project
Executive Summary
I. Introduction
A. Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Action
II. Emissions Inventory
A. Reasoning, Methodology, & Model
l. ICLEPs Emissions Analysis Software
2. Inventory Data Sources and Creation Process
B. Inventory Results
l. Community Emissions Inventory
2. Municipal Emissions Inventory
III. Forecast for Greenhouse Gas Emissions
IV. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Target
V. Emissions Reduction Measures & Policies
A. Communitywide Measures
1. Transportation and Land Use Measures
2. Energy Measures
3. Solid Waste and Recycling Measures
B. Municipal Operations Measures
1. Transportation and Land Use Measures
2. Energy Measures
3. Solid Waste and Recycling Measures
C. Public Outreach Programs
VI. Measures Implemented by the State
A. State Climate Change Planning
B. Energy
C. Transportation and Land Use
VII. Summary of Emission Reductions
VIII. Implementation, Monitoring & Future Review
A. Implementation
B. Monitoring
C. Periodic Review
D. Point of Contact
IX. Relationship to the California Environmental Quality Act
Appendices
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
5
Background: The Alameda County Climate Protection Project
To date, all 14 cities in Alameda County, California, are members of ICLEI - Local Governments
for Sustainability (ICLEI) and are participating in the Alameda County Climate Protection
Project (ACCPP). The participating jurisdictions include:
Alameda Dublin Livermore Pleasanton
Alameda County Emeryville Newark San Leandro
Albany Fremont Oakland Union City
Berkeley Hayward Piedmont
The ACCPP was launched by ICLEI in partnership with the Alameda County Waste Management
Authority & Recycling Board (StopWaste.Org) and the Alameda County Conference of Mayors.
In committing to the project, these jurisdictions embarked on an ongoing, coordinated effort to
reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, improve air quality, reduce waste, cut energy use, and
save money. Toward that end, ICLEI and StopWaste.Org assisted each participating jurisdiction
to conduct a baseline inventory of GHG emissions, set a target for reducing community-wide
emissions, and develop a climate action plan (CAP) that consists of policies and measures that,
when implemented, will enable each jurisdiction to meet its target.
About Alameda County
Alameda County is a metropolitan region of the San Francisco Bay Area. The U.S. Census
Bureau's Population Division estimates the county's population at 1.45 million (2005), the 7th
most populous county in California. Like other metropolitan areas, inhabitants of the county and
the cities therein contribute to the problem of excess GHGs, while also holding immense potential
to contribute to the solution. The energy consumed and the waste produced within the county's
boundaries result in thousands of tons of heat-trapping GHG emissions, but, as is evidenced by
the widespread municipal involvement in the ACCPP, local government participants are firmly
committed to building on existing efforts to reduce these emissions.
The first step in managing GHG emissions is to establish an inventory of those emissions. Below
is a chart of global GHG emissions, which includes the amount of inetric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent (MT COze) that is generated worldwide, within the United States, the State of
California, and in Alameda County. For context, California is the 16`~ largest emitter in the
world-if it were considered a country of its own-second only to Texas in the U.S. Per capita
emissions in California, however, are among the lowest in the U.S. Further, emissions in
Alameda County are less than the California average.
About the City of Dublin
The City of Dublin consists of approximately 14.9 square miles of land area lying in eastern
Alameda County, also known as the Livermore-Amador Valley, or the Tri-Valley area.
Surrounding jurisdictions inclLlde the City of San Ramon and unincorparated Contra Costa
County to the north, unincorporated Alameda County to the east and west and Cities of
Pleasanton and Livermore to the south.
Major features in the community include the Interstate 580 freeway, which forms the southern
boundary of Dublin and the Interstate 680 freeway which extends in a north-south direction just
east of downtown Dublin. The City is also served by the Bay Area Rapid Transit District
(BART), with an existing Dublin/Pleasanton Station and a West Dublin Station currently under
construction and anticipated to be completed in 2011.
Topographically, the community is generally flat north of the Interstate 580 corridor, transitioning
to rolling hillsides in the northern and western portions of Dublin.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 6
Dublin's major land uses include the older commercial downtown area north of the Interstate 580
freeway, generally located between San Ramon Road and Village Parkway. Uses surrounding the
downtown area are comprised primarily of low density, single-family dwellings.
Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (RFTA, also known as Camp Parks) is located in the
approximate center of Dublin and is used for military training purposes.
The newest portion of Dublin is Eastern Dublin, consisting of 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. The area now contains a mix of single-family dwellings, multiple-family dwellings, and
commercial and government facility land uses. Completion of the Dublin/Pleasanton BART
Station has facilitated development of high-density housing complexes in this portion of Dublin.
About the Sponsor: StopWaste.Org
The Alameda County Climate Protection Project was financially sponsored by StopWaste.Org in
an effort to support its member agencies in building a region that is continually progressing
toward environmentally and economically sound resource management. StopWaste.Org is a
public agency formed in 1976 by a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between Alameda
County (County), each of the 14 cities within the county, and two sanitary districts. The agency
serves as the Alameda County Waste Management Authority and the Alameda County Source
Reduction and Recycling Board. In this dual role, StopWaste.Org is responsible for the
preparation and implementation of the County Integrated Waste Management Plan and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan and the delivery of voter-approved programs supporting
waste reduction, recycled product procurement, market development, and grants to nonprofit
organizations to help the County achieve its 75% waste diversion goal.
Key program areas in which StopWaste.Org provides technical and financial assistance to its
member agencies include:
• business recycling and waste prevention services through the StopWaste Partnership;
• organics programs, including residential and commercial food waste collection and the
promotion of Bay-Friendly Landscaping and gardening;
• green building and construction and demolition debris recycling;
• market development; and
• education and outreach, including recycling at schools.
As is demonstrated in this document, many of StopWaste.Org's program areas dovetail nicely
with municipal efforts to reduce GHG emissions. While the agency's charge to reduce the waste
stream in Alameda Co~mty may seem external to traditional emissions reduction strategies, it is
working closely with ICLEI in an ongoing way to illustrate the emissions benefits of waste
reduction and recycling. StopWaste.Org and ICLEI have compiled results in this report that show
how practices such as residential and commercial recycling and composting, buying recycled
products, green building, and Bay-Friendly Landscaping play important roles in a local
government's strategy for mitigating emissions. GHG mitigation can be seen as an umbrella
under which the agency's programs play a substantial role. ~
About ICLEI and the Cities for Climate Protection Campaign
~ICLEi's mission is to improve the global environment through local action. Cities for Climate
Protection° (CCP), ICLEI's flagship campaign, is designed to educate and empower local
governments worldwide to take action on climate change. ICLEI provides resources, tools, and
technical assistance to help local governments measure and reduce GHG emissions in their
communities and their internal municipal operations.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan '7
ICLEI's CCP campaign was launched in 1993 when municipal leaders, invited by ICLEI, met at
the United Nations in New York and adopted a declaration calling for establishment of a
worldwide movement of local governments to reduce GHG emissions, improve air quality, and
enhance urban sustainability. The CCP campaign achieves these results by linking GHG
mitigation with actions that improve local air quality, reduce local government operating costs,
and improve quality of life by addressing other local concerns. The CCP campaign seeks to
achieve significant reductions in U.S. GHG emissions by assisting local governments in taking
action to reduce emissions and realize multiple benefits for their communities.
ICLEI uses the performance-oriented framework and methodology of the CCP campaign's five
milestones to assist U.S. local governments in developing and implementing harmonized local
approaches to reduce the effects of GHGs and air pollution emissions, with the additional benefit
of improving community livability.
The milestone process consists of:
• Milestone 1: Conduct a baseline emissions inventory and forecast.
• Milestone 2: Adopt an emissions reduction target.
• Milestone 3: Develop a CAP to reduce emissions.
• Milestone 4: Implement policies and measures.
• Milestone 5: Monitor and verify results.
Table 1- World Greenhouse Gas Emissions Scenarios
Percent of
world Percent Percent of
GHGs GHG of U.S. California
Locations MT C02e/yr Emissions Emissions Emissions
World (2000) 37,151,615,800 100.0%
United States 7,572,613,400 20.4% 100%
(2000)
California (2004) 597,486,768 1.6% 7.9% 100.0%
ACCPP Region 6,292,853 0.083% 1.105%
~~~~~~ 1,2,3
ACCPP 88,746 0.015%
Governments
(2005)
Notes: ACCPP ° Alameda County Climate Protection Project; GHG -- greenhouse gas, MT COze = metric
tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions
Source: (2000) World and United States emissions from World Resources Institute - Climate Analysis
Indicators tool (http://cait.wri.or~/). (2004) California emissions from California Energy Commission
(http://www.ener~y•ca•~ov/2006publications/CEC-600-2006-013/CEC-600-2006-013-SF.PDF). Figures
exclude land use related emissions.
~ Data includes the first 10 cities that joined the ACCPP (Alameda City, Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville,
Hayward, Newark, Oakland, Piedmont, San Leandro, and Union Cityl.
~ The baseline year is 2005 for all cities, except for Albany and Emeryville, which inventoried 2004
emissions.
~ GHG emissions for ACCPP cities are based on ICLEI GHG Emission~ Protocol for Local Governments,
which includes end-use energy, transportation, and waste sector within city boundaries. World and United
States emissions are based on national GHG inventories, which additionally include fugitive emissions,
industrial process emissions, and other modes of transportation.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
Fast Facts
2000 worldwide per capita GHG emissions (tons COZe)
2004 U.S. per capita GHG emissions (tons COZe)
2004 California per capita GHG emissions (tons COze)
Source: 2004, U.S.A. GHG Emissions from EPA
(http://www.epa.gov/climatechan~e/emissions/downloads06/06ES.pd~
1 metric ton (MT) equals 1.102 short tons.
Alameda Countv Fast Facts
Population (2005): 1.45 million
Number of Autos (2000): 4.5 million
Annual Electricity Usage per Capita (2004): 6,738 kWh
Annual Natural Gas Usage per Capita (2004): 330 therms
Annual Water Usage per Capita (2004): 46,000 gallons
Avg. Waste per Person (2004): 1.03 tons
Avg. Waste per Business (2004): 35.0 tons
Avg. Waste Diversion Rate (2004): 60%
Source: StopWaste.org
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
5.51 MT COZe
25.34 MT COZe
18.73 MT COze
9
Executive Summary
The world's population is releasing GHGs as byproducts from combusting fossil fuels, disposing
of waste, using energy, and changing land uses and other human activities. Although the United
States accounts far only 4% of the world's population, it produces 20.4% of the world's GHG
emissions. Within this context, the City of Dublin (City) seeks to be a good environmental
steward by curtailing emissions within its jurisdiction. Residents, businesses, and government
operations within Dublin released 357,211 MT CO2e in 2005. Under a business-as-usual scenario,
these emissions would grow over the next 15 years (by 2020) by approximately 31.9%, from
357,211 MT COZe to 471,205 MT COZe. This growth is attributed to new residential and
commercial growth expected over this time period. ~
On July 17, 2007, the City pledged to take action to reduce GHG emissions within the
community. The Dublin City Council passed Resolution 139-07, committing Dublin to join other
jurisdictions in the ACCPP. In so doing, Dublin committed to ICLEPs five-milestone
methodology.
The City is committed to reducing community-wide GHG emissions by 20% below business-as-
usunl GHGs emissions by 2020. The City expects this reduction target to be achieved through a
combination of the reduction measures included in this plan and state initiatives, such as the
Renewable Portfolio Standards and Assembly Bill 1493 (Pavley). In addition, the CAP employs
the BAAQMD GHG efficiency threshold of 6.6 MT C02e per service population per year as
evidence of the City intent to meet the intent of AB 32 to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 level by
2020. The 20% reduction target results in a forecasted efficiency metric of 4.2 MT C02e per
service population for the City in 2020, which is 37% below the BAAQMD threshold.
Local governments play an integral role in reducing GHG emissions because they have direct or
indirect control over many emission sources. The Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan)
adopted by the California Air Resources Control Board (ARB) pursuant to AB 32 states that land
use planning and urban growth decisions will play a role in the state's GHG reductions because
local governments have primary 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 mLiltiple
sectors that are helping to reduce GHG emissions. Although the City has taken significant steps to
address climate change, this is the first document that assembles all of the City's climate action
efforts into a centralized plan. Strategies to reduce GHG emissions are organized into 34
reduction measures applicable to community or to municipal activities. These measures represent
actions to reduce GHG emissions that City government has taken since 2005. While there may be
some policies included within the CAP that existed prior to 2005, such policies were only
included within the CAP if the impact of the policy did not occur until after 2005. Simply, the
City has attempted to prevent any situation where the double counting of a policy's reduction
impact might occur.
The City is committed to continuing actions to reduce GHG emissions and to supplementing
these actions in future years if needed to achieve the reduction target. In addition, these actions
will result in many other benefits for the Dublin community such as improved environmental
quality and public health and a more sustainable business-friendly environment.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 10
The City of Dublin's Climate Action Plan
The City's CAP:
• provides background on actions taken to curb GHG emissions;
• presents Dublin's baseline GHG emissions inventory in 2005 and forecast for GHG
emissions in 2020 based on business-as-usual scenario;
• establishes a GHG emissions reduction target of 20% from the 2020 GHG emissions
forecast;
• outlines GHG emission reduction policies and measures for transportation/land use,
energy, and solid waste and recycling that Dublin will implement and/or is already
implementing to achieve its reduction target; and
• presents steps for implementation of the Plan and monitoring and verification of the Plan
to achieve the designated emissions reduction target.
This CAP serves as the City of Dublin's qualified GHG Reduction Plan and programmatic tiering
document for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for analysis of
impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. The City has determined that the
reduction target under the Plan will reduce the impact from activities under the Plan to less than
significant under CEQA. Therefore, this Plan may be used for the cumulative impact analysis for
future development and projects in the City covered by the Plan. If a proposed project is
consistent with the applicable emission reduction measures identified in the CAP, the project
would be considered to have a less than significant impact (i.e. less than cumulatively
considerable contribution to significant cumulative impact) due to GHG emissions and climate
change consistent with Public Resources Code 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 11
I. Introduction
The following sections describe international, federal, state, and local actions being taken to curb
GHG emissions.
A. GHG Emission Reduction Action
In 1997, ten thousand (10,000) international delegates, observers, and journalists gathered in
Kyoto, Japan, to participate in the drafting and adoption of the Kyoto Protocol, which requires
industrialized nations to reduce their collective GHG emissions to 5.2% below 1990 levels. As of
January 2007, 162 countries have ratified the protocol. Additionally, since 1995 the annual
Conference of the Parties (COP) has met to discuss action and implementation to reduce GHG
emissions.
State Action
California has taken significant steps at the state level and has been leading the charge on
combating GHG emissions through various pieces of legislation, which include:
Senate Bill 1771 Sher, 2000 - Requires the California Energy Commission (CEC) to prepare an
inventory of the state's GHG emissions, study data on global climate change, and provide
government agencies and businesses with information on the costs and methods for reducing
GHGs. Senate Bill (SB) 1771 also established the California Climate ~Action Registry to serve as
a certifying agency for companies and local governments to quantify and register their GHG
emissions for possible future trading systems.
Senate Bill 1078 Sher, 2002 - Established the Renewable Portfolio Standard, which requires
electricity providers to increase purchases of renewable energy resources by 1% per year until
they have attained a portfolio of 20% 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 manufactures to meet fleet-averaged GHG emission limits far all
passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicle weight classes, beginning
in 2009. Cars sold in California are anticipated to emit an average of 16% less GHGs than current
models.
Executive Orcler S-3-OS, 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 19901evels by 2020, and to 80% below 19901evels by 2050.
Assembly Bill 32 Nicnez & 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
emission levels and requires ARB to develop various compliance options and enforcement
mechanisms.~ This led to creation of the Climate Change Scoping Plan.
Assembly Bill Sll, 2007 - Authorizes all local governments in California to establish special
districts that can be used to finance solar or other renewable etiergy improvements to homes and
businesses in their jurisdiction. ~ ~ ~
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 12
Senate Bi1197, 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-I-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 I O% by 2010.
Senate Bill 375 Steinberg, 2008 - Aims to reduce GHG emissions by connecting transportation
funding to land use planning. SB 375 creates a process by which local governments and other
stakeholders work together within their region to achieve reduction of GHG emissions through
integrated development patterns, improved transportation planning, and other transportation
measures and policies.
Executive Order S-13-08, 2008 - Directs the Natural Resources Agency to identify how state
agencies can adapt to rising temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, sea level rise, and
eatreme natural events. This led to creation of the California Climate Adaptation Strategy.
Executive Order S-I4-08, 2008 - Expands California's Renewable Energy Standard to 33%
renewable power by 2020.
California has led the nation in addressing this global issue with the hope that through collective
action at the local level, global changes in the way we use resources and develop as a society will
change and ultimately reduce the effects of GHG emissions on the human and natural
environment.
Local Action
ICLEI- Local Governments for Sustainability
A great deal of work is being done at the local level on climate change as well. ICLEI-Local
Governments for Sustainability provides national leadership on climate protection and sustainable
development and has been a leader both internationally and domestically for more than 10 years.
Since its inception in 1990, ICLEI has grown to include over 1,100 cities in the world. ICLE[ was
launched in the United States in 1995 and has grown to more than 600 cities and counties. In June
2006, ICLEI launched the California Local Government Climate Task Force as a formal
mechanism to provide ongoing input and collaboration in the State of California's climate action
process.
U.S. Conference of M~yors Climate Protection Agreement
ICLEI also works in conjunction with the U.S. Conference of Mayors to track progress and
implementation of the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, launched in 2005, which more
than 376 mayors have sigr-ed to date, pledging to meet or beat the Kyoto Protocol emissions
reduction target in their own communities. By 2010, Alameda County mayors from Alameda,
Albany, Berkeley, Dublin, Fremont, Hayward, Newark, Oakland, Pleasanton, and San Leandro
signed the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
In June 2010, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted CEQA air
quality thresholds of significance for use within its jurisdiction. BAAQMD has direct and indirect
regulatory authority over sources of air pollution in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, of
which the City of Dublin is a part. The overall goal of this effort was to develop CEQA
significance criteria that ensure that future development implements appropriate and feasible
emission reduction measures to mitigate significant air quality and climate change impacts.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 13
BAAQMD has adopted a threshold of 1,100 MT COZe 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 C02e/yr) is equivalent to approximately 60 single-family units,
78 multi-family units, a supermarket exceeding 8,000 square feet and an office park exceeding
50,000 square feet. Projects with emissions greater than the adopted threshold would be required
to mitigate to the proposed threshold level or reduce project emissions by a percentage deemed
feasible by the lead agency. BAAQMD's approach is to identify the emissions level far which a
project would result in less than significant impact under CEQA and would not be expected to
substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG
emissions. If a project would generate GHG emissions above the threshold level, it would be
considered to contribute substantially to a cumulative impact and would be considered to result in
a significant impact under CEQA.
Alternatively, a city may prepare a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy that furthers AB 32 goals.
BAAQMD encourages such planning efforts and recognizes that careful early planning by local
agencies is invaluable to achieving the state's GHG reduction goals. If a project is consistent with
an adopted qualified GHG Reduction Strategy that addresses the project's GHG emissions, the
Strategy/Plan can be used as a basis for determining that the project would have a less than
significant impact (i.e. less than cumulatively considerable contribution) due to greenhouse gas
emissions and climate change under CEQA.
CEQA contains standards for Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans that can be used in the cumulative
impacts analysis far projects covered under the Plan (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5).
BAAQMD recognizes these CEQA standards as meeting the District's standards for a Reduction
Strategy. 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 2005 and projected GHG emissions from a business-as-usual (BAU), no-
plan, forecast scenario for 2020 (See Chapter II. Emissions Inventory). The baseline year is based
on the existing growth pattern. The projected GHG emissions are based on the emissions from
anticipated growth thro~igh 2020.
Furthermore:
The baseline inventory includes one complete calendar year of data for 2005. COz is
inventoried for residential, commercial/industrial, transportation and waste sectars.
• Business-as-usual emissions are projected in the absence of policies or actions that would
reduce emissions. The forecast includes only adopted and funded projects.
The business-as-usual forecast projects emissions from the baseline year using growth
factors specific to each of the different economic sectors.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
14
(B) Establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution of GHG
emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable.
The City of Dublin CAP proposes a reduction target of 20% below business-as-usual GHGs
emissions by 2020. This target will be adopted by resolution, as a component of the CAP. This
reduction target establishes a level below which the contribution to GHG emissions by activities
covered under the Plan will be less than cumulatively considerable under CEQA standards. The
reduction levels also further GHG reductions consistent with State law, including AB 32 and is
consistent with levels adopted by other Climate Action or GHG Reduction Plans in the Bay Area.
Further, the City's CAP employs BAAQMD's GHG efficiency based metric of 6.6 MT C02e per
service population per year as evidence of compliance with the intent of AB 32. As a result of the
policies within the CAP and their resultant GHG reductions, the City of Dublin's efficiency
metric is well below the established threshold far Forecast Year 2020. The City's efficiency
measure for 2020 is projected to be 4.2 MT C02e per service population per year. The baseline
efficiency metric for 2005 is 5.9 MT C02e per service population per year. Thus, the City of
Dublin's reduction goal from the BAU scenario equates to a 29% decrease in per capita GHG
emissions between the Base Year and Forecast Year. This scenario highlights the fact that the
City will be growing significantly over the 15-year period of the CAP, but during this same time
period, the City's GHG emissions will be decreasing significantly on a per individual basis,
which is not clearly visible when simply inspecting the BAU scenario. Thus, even though the
City will be growing through 2020, it will be compliant with the intent of AB 32 in reducing
GHG to 1990 levels by 2020.
(C) Identify and analyze the GHG emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of
actions anticipated within the geographic area.
The City of Dublin CAP identifies and analyzes GHG reductions from local and state policies and
regulations that may be planned or adopted but not implemented to understand the amount of
reductions needed to meet its target. The City's CAP identifies and analyzes the effects of
statewide GHG emission reductions including those related to implementation of the Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS) and Assembly Bill 1493 fuel efficiency standards (See Chapter VI.
Measures Implemented External to the City of Dublin).
(D) Specify measures or a group of ineasures, including performance standards that
substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would
collectively achieve the specified emissions level.
The City of Dublin CAP includes mandatory and enforceable measures that affect new
development projects.
The CAP includes quantification of expected GHG emission reductions from each measure where
substantial evidence is available (See Chapter V. Emissions Reduction Measures and Policies,
and Chapter VI. Measures Implenaented by the State that Will Reduce Emissions Included in the
City of Dublin Inventory), including disclosure of calculation methods and assumptions (See
Appendix C. GHG Reduction Calculation Methods and Assumptions). Quantification reflects
annual GHG reductions and demonstrates how the GHG reduction target will be met. Together,
the proposed CAP measures provide for a reduction of 21.01 % reduction below BAU conditions,
which exceeds the target of 20% by 1.01%.
The CAP also includes a program for implementation. It identifies which measures apply to
different types of new development projects, discerning between voluntary and mandatory
measures. It includes a mechanism for reviewing and determining if all applicable mandatory
measures are being adequately applied to new development projects as part of the development
review process. Identification of implementation steps and parties responsible for ensuring
implementation of each action is also included.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 15
(E) Monitor the Plan's Progress.
The City of Dublin will monitor results that are achieved by the various CAP programs and
policies. Monitoring results is a critical step in verifying that the various policies and programs
within the City's CAP are achieving the anticipated GHG emission reductions. The City will
review the CAP on an annual basis to verify that the various reduction measures are being
implemented appropriately. Additionally, the City will re-inventory its emissions every 5 years.
The process of conducting a review will allow the City to demonstrate progress toward local
emissions reduction targets and identify opportunities to integrate new or improved measures into
the emissions reduction plan, including additional measures if necessary to meet the reduction
target.
(F) Adopt the GHG Reduction Strategy in a public process following environmental review.
The City of Dublin's CAP will be adopted following a public hearing process and preparation of
an Initial Study and Negative Declaration pi~rsuant to CEQA.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 16
II. Emissions Inventory
A. Reasoning, Methodology, & Model
The City of Dublin's emissions inventory was conducted by ICLEI in partnership with City staff.
The purpose of the baseline emissions inventory is to determine the level of GHG emissions that
the community emitted in its base year, 2005. The baseline inventory was completed in 2008 and
approved by the Dublin City Council in October 2008.
ICLEPs Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) inventory methodology allows local governments to
systematically estimate and track GHG emissions from the following sectors: transportation,
residential, commercial/industrial and waste; and included energy- and waste-related activities at
the community scale, as well as those resulting directly from municipal operations. The municipal
operations inventory is a subset of the community inventory.
Once completed, these inventories provide the basis for creating an emissions forecast and
reduction target and enable the emissions reductions associated with implemented and proposed
measures to be quantified.
1. ICLEI's Emissions Analysis Software
To facilitate local government efforts to identify and reduce GHG emissions, ICLEI developed
the Clean Air and Climate Protection (CACP) software package with Torrie Smith Associates.
This software estimates emissions derived from energy consumption and waste generation within
a community. The CACP software determines emissions using specific factors (or coefficients)
according to the type of fuel used. Emissions are aggregated and reported in terms of COze.
Converting all emissions to COze 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 inethane emissions to 21 tons of COze.
The emissions coefficients and methodology employed by the software are consistent with
national and international inventory standards established by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) (Revised 1996 IPCC Gatidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories), the Guidelines for Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Reporting and, for emissions
generated from solid waste, EPA's Waste Reduction Model (WARM).
The CACP software has been and continues to be used by many local governments to reduce their
GHG emissions. However, it is worth noting that, although the software provides the City of
Dublin with a sophisticated and useful tool, calculating emissions from energy use with precision
is difficult. The model depends on numerous assumptions, and it is limited by the quantity and
quality of available data. With this in mind, it is useful to think of any specific number generated
by the model as an approximation rather than an exact value.
2. Inventory Data Sources and Creation Process
An inventory of GHG emissions requires collecting information from a variety of sectors and
sources. For community electricity and natural gas data, ICLEI consulted Pacific Gas & Electric
Company (PG&E). The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), BAAQMD, and
BART provided transportation data. Solid waste data was gathered from StopWaste.Org; Waste
Management, Inc.; Amador Valley Industries; Republic Services, Inc.; and EPA. Dublin staff was
instrumental in providing data on municipal operations.
This data was entered into the software to create a community emissions inventory and a
municipal emissions inventory. The community inventory represents sources from the following
sectors: transportation, residential, commercial/industrial and waste; and includes all the energy
used and waste produced within Dublin and its contribution to GHG emissions. The municipal
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 1 ~
inventory is a subset of the community inventory and includes emissions derived from internal
government operations.
Two main reasons exist for completing separate emissions inventories for community and
municipal operations. First, the municipal government is committed to action on reducing GHG
emissions and has a higher degree of control over reducing its own emissions than those created
by the community at large. Second, by proactively reducing emissions generated by its own
activities, Dublin's city government takes a visible leadership role. This is important for inspiring
local action in Dublin and in other communities.
Dublin's inventory is based on the year 2005. When calculating Dublin's emissions inventory, all
energy consumed in the community was included. This means that, even though the electricity
lised by Dublin's residents is produced elsewhere, this energy and the emissions associated with it
appear in Dublin's inventory.
B. Inventory Results
The results below represent
the City of Dublin's
completion of the first
milestone of ICLEPs CCP
campaign.
1. Community Emissions
Inventory
Numerous items can be
included in a community
emissions inventory, as
described above. This
inventory includes sources
from the following sectors:
• transportat~on,
• residential,
• commercial/industrial, and
• solid waste.
Emissions bv Sector
Community Greenhouse C~as (GHG) Emissions by
Sector (2005)
Waste
Stat
Hig hw
51.4'
sidential
14.3%
Commercial /
Industrial
16.8%
Figure 1- Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector
The Dublin commtmity emitted approximately 357,211 MT COze in the year 2005. As visible in
Figure 1 above and Table 2 below, vehicles on roads and state highways in Dublin are by far the
largest source of Dublin's community emissions (653%). Emissions from the built environment
(e.g., residential and commercial/industrial sectors) account collectively for almost one-third
(31.1%) of community emissions. The rest of Dublin's emissions are from waste sent to landfills
(3.5%) by Dublin residents and businesses. Water-related emissions are embedded in the energy
data received from PG&E and therefore are a part of the overall community inventory analysis;
however, these emissions are not included in the ftnal reduction target analysis as emissions
associated with the filtration and movement of water were not included in the City's baseline
GHG Inventory as a disaggregated total.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 1 g
Local Roads
13.9%
Table 2- Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector (MT COZe)
Note: MT COze = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions; MMBtu = million British thermal
units.
2005 Community Emissions
b Sector
MT COZe Percent of Total
COze Energy Equivalent
(MMBtu)
Residential 51,154 143% 886,617
CommerciaUIndustrial 60,183 16.8% 986,302
Local Roads 49,670 13.9% 670,383
State Hi hwa s 183,714 51.4% 2,479,544
Waste 12,490 3.5% 0
TOTAL 357,211 100% 5,022,846
Transnortation
Like most jurisdictions in the San Francisco Bay Area, the majority of Dublin's community
emissions are from travel by motorized vehicles. This is also consistent with emission trends
across the state, because ARB has shown that passenger vehicles make up the single largest
source of emissions in California.4 As Table 2 and Figure 1 show, over three-fifths (65.3%) of
Dublin's estimated emissions came from travel on local roads and state highways. Overall,
emissions from the transportation sector total 233,384 metric tons COze.
Table 3 splits emissions from the transportation sector into travel on local roads and state
highways. In 2005, MTC estimated that 90 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on roads in the
city, emitting approximately 49,670 MT COZe, or 213% of total transportation emissions. The
332 million VMT along state highways in the city accounted for 183,714 MT CO2e, or 78.7°/o of
total transportation emissions.
VMT data for local roads in 2005 were obtained from the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans). Caltrans compiles and publishes statewide VMT data annually through
the Highway Performance Monitoring System.5 Caltrans obtains local road VMT data from
regional transportation planning agencies and councils of governments across the state. For the
San Francisco Bay Area, Caltrans obtains data from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC). MTC obtains data on local roads VMT either from the local governments within its
jurisdiction or, if those data are unavailable, through a Caltrans model.
VMT data for state highways in Alameda County in 2005 were obtained from the same Caltrans
report listed above. These data were translated to the jurisdiction level data through a geographic
information system (GIS) analysis by 1CLEI using an unpublished Caltrans dataset obtained from
MTC. Through-trips were not removed from the analysis.
The number of vehicles on the road and the miles those vehicles travel can be reduced by making
it easier for residents to use alternative modes of transportation, including walking, bicycling, and
riding public transportation, including the existing and future BART stations in the
Dublin/Pleasanton area. Please see Appendix A for additional detail regarding methods and
emissions factors used to calculate transportation emissions.
4 California State Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory available at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/tables/rpt_Inventory_IPCC_Sum 2007-11-19.pdf
s The 2005 report is available at http://www.dotca.gov/hq/tsip/hpms/hpmslibrary/hpmspdf/2005PRD.pdf.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 19
Table 3- Transportation Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Road Type
Trans ortation Emission Sources 2005
MT COZe Percentage
of Total
COZe
Total Vehicle
Miles Traveled
Local Roads 49,670 21.3% 89,680,500
State Hi hwa s 183,714 78.7% 331,701,050
TOTAL 233,384 100% 421,381,550
Note: MT COZe = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions.
Tlae Built Ertvironment (Residenticzl and CommerciaUlndustrial)
In 2005, 31.1% of total community emissions came
from the built environment, which consists of the
residential and commercial/industrial sectors.
Collectively, these sectors consumed about 272.2
million kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity and 9.4
million therms of natural gas, resulting in
approximately 111,337 MT CO~e.
Dublin receives electricity from PG&E. Appendix
A includes the 2005 emissions coefficients for
electricity provided by PG&E. The types of power
sources that make up a utility's electricity
generation mix can affect a community's GHG
emissions. A coal-fired power plant, for example,
releases l 3 tons of COZe per megawatt-hour of Figure 2- Built Environment Emissions
electricity generated versus 0.7 tons for gas
turbines and 0 tons for renewable sources such as solar, wind, or hydroelectric power. Dublin's
emissions from the built environment are slightly more from the commercial/industrial sectors
(54.1%); the residential sector makes up 45.9% of community stationary emissions (see Figure 2).
Resitlenticd
In 2005, Dublin's 40,7006 residents consumed 91 million kWh of electricity, or about 6,987 kWh
per household, and 5.8 million therms of natural gas, or about 442 therms per household'. When
compared to most other Alameda County jurisdictions, energy consumption per household in
Dublin was somewhat larger. While this is likely in part due to Dublin's inland location and more
extreme temperatures, this suggests that the City may be able to find significant reductions in
GHG emissions by targeting energy efficiency in residential buildings. Overall, residential energy
consumption in Dublin resulted in 51,154 MT COze emissions. Major residential energy uses
include refrigeration, lighting, air conditioning and heating, and water heating.
Commercinl/Inclustrial
In 2005, commercial/industrial buildings in Dublin consumed 181.2 million kWh of electricity
and 3.7 million therms of natural gas, resulting in 60,183 MT COze emitted into the atmosphere.
6 Population and household estimates are from the Association of Bay Area Governments' Projections 2005.
' Ibid. ~
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
20
Emissions from industrial electricity and natural gas use, as well as Direct Access electricity use
are included within the Industrial sector category. Industrial natural gas and electricity
consumption data are reported within this sector under Public Utility Commission (PUC)
confidentiality rules that prohibit the release of such data in certain cases.
Waste
In 2005, the City of Dublin sent approximately 41,779 tons of solid waste and 2,093 tons of
alternative daily cover (ADC)8 to a landfill, resulting in a total of about 12,490 MT CO2e, or 3.5%
of total GHG emissions (see Figure 1).
Emissions from the waste sector are an estimate of inethane (CHq) generation that will result from
the anaerobic decomposition of the waste sent to a landfill from the community as a whole in the
base year (2005). It is important to note that these emissions are not solely generated in the base
year, but occur over the 100+ year time frame in which the waste generated in 2005 will
decompose. This "frontloading" of future emissions allows for simplified accounting and accurate
comparison of the emissions impacts of waste disposed in each year. Therefore, if the amount of
waste sent to a landfill is significantly reduced in a fuhire year, that year's emissions profile will
reflect those reductions9.
Some types of waste (e.g., paper, plant debris, food scraps) generate CH4 within the anaerobic
environment of a landfill and others do not (e.g., metal, glass). Characterizing the various
components of the waste stream is important. Alameda County is unique among California
counties because it conducted its own waste characterization study in the year 2000. The waste
characterization study highlights the waste types that could be diverted from the waste stream.
ICLEI used this study to determine the average composition of the waste stream for all Alameda
County municipalities. The specific characterization of ADC tonnage was provided by the
California lntegrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) via the Disposal Reporting System
(DRS).
Most landfills in the Bay Area capture CH4 emissions either to generate energy or for flaring (i.e.,
burning of~. EPA estimates that 60-80%10~ of total CH4 emissions are recovered at the landfills to
which the City of Dublin sends its waste. Following the recommendation of the Alameda County
Waste Management Authority, and keeping with general IPCC guidelines to use conservative
estimations, ICLEI has adopted 60% as the methane recovery factor used in these calculations.
The tonnage of waste that is recycled, composted, or otherwise diverted from landfills is not a
direct input into CACP. The effect of such progams, however, is reflected in the CACP software
model as a reduction in the total tonnage of waste going to the landfill (therefore reducing the
amotmt of inethane produced at that landfill). The CACP model does not capture the emission
reductions in "upstream" energy use from recycling (or any other emissions reduction practice) in
the inventory. However, recycling and composting programs can reduce GHG emissions because
manufacturing products with recycled materials avoids emissions from the energy that would
have been used by extracting, transporting, and processing virgin materials.
~ The California lntegrated Waste Management Board defines ADC as `Alternativc cover material other than earthen
material placed on the surface of the active face of a municipal solid waste landfill at the end of each operating day to
control vectors, fires, odors, blowing litter, and scavenging."
9 The emissions reductions associated with decreasing the amount oFwaste being added to a landfill are real and few
external variables usually exist that change those emission levels later, therefore, this practice of front-loading is
considered an accurate way to count and report the emissions that will be generated over time.
10 AY-42, Section 2.4, Municipal Solid Waste, page 2.4-6, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index.html
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
21
Table 4- Community Waste Composition and Emissions by Waste Type*
Waste T e
MT COZe Percentage of Total
COZe Percent of Total
Tonna e Dis osed
Paper Products 7,430 59.5% 22.9%
Food Waste 2,229 17.9% 12.2%
Plant Debris 490 3.9% 4.7%
Wood/ Textiles 2,332 18.7% 25.4%
All Other Waste 0 0% 34.8%
TOTAL 12,481 100% 100%
Note: M"1' CU2e = metric tons ot carbon ct~oxicte eqmvaient emissions.
* Waste characterization study conducted by StopWaste.org for the year 2000. This total does not include alternative
daily cover.
2. Municipal Emissions
Inventory
The sources of emissions
counted under the government's
inventory are facilities and
equipment owned and operated
by the City. The government
operations inventory includes
sources from the following
sectors:
• buildings,
• vehicle fleet,
• public lighting,
• water, and
• solid waste.
Emissions bv Sector
Government Operations GHG Emissions by Sector
(2oos)
Buildings 49.0%
Waste 0
Wate
Vehicle Fleet
18.2%
ghting
30.8%
Government operations in the
City of Dublin emitted Figure 3- City Operations Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector
approximately 1,573 MT CO~e in
2005.
As shown in Figure 3 and Table 5, the largest source of emissions from government operations is
the City's buildings, which emit about half (49.0%) of the municipal GHGs. Public lighting is the
second largest source of emissions, comprising about one-third (30.8%) of all emissions. Vehicle
fleet emissions are also a large source of GHGs (18.2°/o), as are emissions from water pumps and
irrigation (1.4%). Waste created through government operations makes up about 0.7% of the total
remaining emissions.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
22
Table 5- Government GHG Emissions by Sector
Government Emissions
2005
MT C02e
Percentage of
Total COze Energy
Equivalent
(MMBtu
Cost
Buildin s 770 49.0% 12,787 $354,748
Vehicle Fleet 286 18.2% 3,681 $21,580*
Public Li htin 484 30.8% 7,377 $245,410
Water 22 1.4% 335 $16,775
Solid Waste 11 0.7% 0 $29,064
TOTAL 1,573 100% 24,180 $667,577
Note: MT COze = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions; MMBtu = million British thermal
units.
* This total includes only the Fire Department vchicles. Fuel costs were unavailable for vehicles from all other
depariments.
Energy-Itelated Costs
In addition to generating estimates on emissions per sector, ICLEI has calculated the basic energy
costs of various government operations. During 2005, the Dublin municipal government spent
approximately $668,00011 on energy (electricity, natural gas, gasoline, and diesel) for its
buildings, public lighting, and vehicles. The large majority of costs were for energy used by City
facilities, with about $355,000 spent on natural gas and electricity. Energy for public lighting was
a relatively large cost as well at around $245,000. Beyond reducing harmful GHGs, any future
reductions in municipal energy use have the potential to reduce these costs, enabling Dublin to
reallocate limited funds toward other municipal services.
Municival BuildinQS/Facilities
In 2005, Dublin municipal buildings and other facilities consumed about 2.2 million kWh of
electricity and 54,000 therms of natural gas, which and resulted in 770 MT COze emissions
(approximately 49.0% of total municipal emissions).i~
Table 6 shows energy consumption and emissions by facility groups. In 2005, the Dublin Civic
Center was the largest municipal energy consumer, using 55% of all municipal electricity and
48% of all municipal natural gas. Energy consumption from the Dublin Civic Center resnlted in
405 MT CO2e emissions, or 52.6% of all munieipal facility emissions. The Dublin Swim Center
was also a large source of emissions, emitting 129 MT COze, or 16.8% of all municipal facility
emissions. City fire stations, the Emerald Glen Park and Preschool, and recreation facilities were
also large GHG sources, collectively emitting approximately 29% of all municipal emissions.
City parks and other energy consumers made up only a small portion of municipal emissions.
~~ This total includes only the Fire Department vehicles. Fuel costs were unavailable for vehicles from all other
departments.
~~ Accounts attributed to the Housing Authority of the County of Alameda (HACA) have been removed from
municipal operations because of a lack of jurisdiction. Rather, consumption by residents in these facilities has been
counted in the community analysis of the residential sector.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
23
Table 6- Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Facilities
Percentage Electricity Natural Gas Energy
MT COZe of Total Consumption Consumption Equivalent
Facility~ COze (kWh therms MMBtu Cost
Civic Center 405 52.6% 1,186,080 26,231 6,671 $187,065
Swim Center 129 16.8% 187,840 16,352 2,276 $42,476
Fire De artment 88 11.4% 183,920 8,679 1,496 $37,454
Emerald Glen Park and ~q 103% 353,477 0 1,206 $45,008
Preschool
Recreation 55 7.1% 173,952 3,031 898 $32,723
Facilities/Centers-
Parks and Other3 14 1.8% 70,339 0 240 $10,022
TOTAL 770 100% 2,155,608 54,293 12,787 $354,748
Note: MT COze = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions; kWh = kilowatt-hours; MMBtu =
million British thermal units.
lA few individual buildings are highlighted because of their large emissions.
'Recreation Facilities/Centers includes the Dublin Heritage Center, Dublin Senior Center, and Shannon Community
Center and Park.
3Parks and Other includes Dolan Park, Kolb Park, Mape Memorial Park, Ted Fairfield Park, and a storage yard and
trash compactor.
Citv T~ehicle Fleet and Mobile Epuipinent
As shown in Figure 3, the City's vehicle fleet was the third largest source of municipal emissions
in 2005, emitting 18.2% of all municipal emissions. The municipal fleet includes all vehicles
owned and operated by the City of Dublin. For this inventory, fuel consumption was reported for
only the Fire Department fleet, or 13 out of 51 vehicles in the City fleet.
In 2005, vehicles included in the inventory emitted about 286 MT COze. Table 7 and Figure 4
detail emissions by department. As stated above, where fuel consumption was not reported, VMT
and emissions per vehicle mile were used to estimate COze emissions13.
Table 7- 2005 Ciry Vehicle Fleet Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fa~el Consumption
De artment
MT COze Percentage
of Total
COze Gasoline
Consumption
( al) Diesel
Consumption
( al) Energy
Equivaleot
(MMBtu)
Police De artment * 177 61.9% n/a n/a 2,285
Fire De artment 78 27.3% 980 7,113 991
Public Works De artment * 28 9.8% n/a n/a 365
Parks De artment * 3 1.0% n/a n/a 40
TOTAL 286 100% 980 7,113 3,681
Note: MT COze = million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions; ga1= ga-1on; rva = not
available; MMBtu ° million British thermal units.
*Fuel consumption was unavailable for these departments. Odometer readings were used to estimate fuel
consumption for the purposes of the estimate.
13 Emissions per VMT = fuel efficiency (i.e. miles per U.S. gallon ) x emissions per unit of fuel (the fuel type factor).
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 24
Public Li~htinQ
Public lighting includes all
streetlights and traffic
signals in the City. In 2005,
public lighting consumed
about 2.2 million kWh of
electricity at a cost of
$245,410. This energy
consumption resulted in 484
metric tons of COze
emissions. Table 8 breaks
down energy use and
emissions from public
lighting by type.
Figure 4- City Fleet Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector
Fleet GHG Emissions by Department (2005)
Fire Dept
27.3%
Parks Dept
1.0%
Over all categories of '
energy, across all sectors of ,
municipal operation, public ~ ~
lighting generated just under ~pt
a third (30.8%) of all 61.s% ~
emissions (Figure 3), ~
representing the second ~--- _ ~
largest source of municipal emissions. This percentage is unusually high because streetlights
make up a much larger proportion of overall electricity consumption from government operations
in Dublin than in most other local governments. Much of this consumption is caused by ne~v
streetlights in several new, large subdivisions. This suggests that the City may be able to
effectively reduce emissions by reducing the amount of electricity the streetlights use, which
could be accomplished by reducing hours of operation and/or the number of streetlights or by
improving the technologies used.
Table 8- 2005 Public Lighting Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Use
Li htin T e
MT COze Percentage
of Total
COze Electricity
Consumption
(kWh) Energy
Equivalent
(MMBtu
Cost
Streetli hts 427 88.2% 1,907,977 6,512 $207,171
Traffic Si nals 57 11.8% 253,497 865 $38,239
TOTAL 484 100% 2,161,474 7,377 $245,410
,~~«. ,~« ~.,zc -,ucu w w~~5 ui caroon aioxiae equtvaient emiss~ons; kWh ° kilowatt-hours; MMBtu =
million British thermal units.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
Public Works
~o
25
Water
The water category includes all electricity used for pumping water and irrigation control. In 2005,
water infrastructure consumed about 98,086 kWh of electricity, which cost the City $16,775 and
resulted in 22 metric tons of COZe emissions. The data were not detailed further. Total energy use
and emissions from water pumps and irrigation generated about 1.4% of the total municipal
emissions (Figure 3).
Solid Waste
Solid waste generated by City-owned facilities and infrastructure produced an estimated 0.7%
(Figure 3) of the total emissions from government operations. Like the community analysis, these
emissions are an estimate of future CH4 generation over the full, multiyear decomposition period
of the waste generated in the year 2005.
In 2005, the City of Dublin sent approximately 32.5 tons of solid waste to landfill, resulting in 11
metric tons of COZe.
In the absence of a centralized disposal record like the CIWMB Disposal Reporting System,
waste generation figures from government operations and the characterization of government
waste were estimated by City staff. Additionally, the final emissions number generated by the
CACP software used the 60% CH:~ recovery factor discussed above.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
26
III. Forecast for Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under a business-as-usual
scenario, Dublin's GHG
emissions would grow over the
next 15 years by approximately
31.9%, from 357,211 to 471,205
MT CO~e. This is a considerable
growth rate when compared to
other Alameda County
jurisdictions and underscores
Dublin's predicted jobs and
population boom in the next
decade. This also underscores
the importance of acting to
reduce emissions now, because
policies Dublin enacts now will
affect future residents and
businesses.
To illustrate the potential
emissions growth based on
projected trends in energy use,
driving habits, job growth, and
population growth from the
Figure 5- Community Emissions Forecast
Emissions Forec
ast for 2
020 ~
500
000 --
, ~
~~
450
000
, ' ~'
400
000
~ ~°
- ~~ -
,
350
000 ^ Waste
~,
,
~ 300
000 T
, ^
ransportation
N
0 250
000
,
~
•" 200
000
~ -
^ Commercial /
,
;
m Industrial
~ 150
000 ^ Residential
, ,
I
100
000
,
50
000
,
o ~
2005 C02e 2 020 C02 e
Emissions (metric Emis sions (m etric
tons) tons) ~
baseline year going forward,
ICLEI conducted an emissions forecast for the year 2020. Figure 5 and Table 9 show the results
of the forecast. A variety of reports and data were used to create the emissions forecast.
Resi~lential Forecast MethodoloQv
For the residential sector, ICLEI calculated the compounded annual population growth rate14
between 2005 and 2020 using population projections from the Association of Bay Area
Government's (ABAG's) Projections 2009. The resulting growth rate (2.850%) was used to
estimate average annual compound growth in energy demand (see Table 9). ABAG estimates that
Dublin's population was 41,200 in 2005, and ICLEI's calculations predict a population of 62,800
in 2020, an overall population increase of 52%.
Commercial/Industrial Forecast MetlzodoloQv
Analysis contained within California Energy Demand 2008-2018: Staff Revised Forecast,15 a
report by CEC, shows that commercial floor space and the number of jobs have closely correlated
with the growth in energy use in the commercial sector. Using job growth projections for Dublin
from ABAG's Projections 2009, the compounded annual growth in energy use in the commercial
sector between 2005 and 2020 was calculated to be 2.087% (see Table 9). Dublin's job growth
between 2005 and 2020 is projected to be 36%, increasing from 19,520 to 26,610 jobs.
~4 Compounded annual growth rate =((2020 population/2005 population)^(1/15))-1
~s Available at http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEG200-2007-015/CEC-200-2007-015-SF2.PDF.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
27
Transportation Forecast Methodolo~v
In their report, Transportation Energy Forecasts for the 2007 Integrated Energy Policy Report,
CEC projects that on-road VMT would increase at an annual rate of 1.51% per year through 2020
(see Table 9).16 This is the number used to estimate emissions growth in the transportation sector
for Dublin. The federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards and California's approved
tailpipe emission standards could reduce the demand for transportation fuel in Dublin. Regardless
of future changes in the composition of vehicles on the road as a result of federal or state
rulemaking, emissions from the transportation sector will continue to be largely determined by
VMT growth.
Waste Forecast MethodoloQv
As with the residential sector, population is the primary determinate for growth of emissions in
the waste sector. Therefore, the compounded annual population growth rate for 2005 to 2020,
which is 2.850% (as calculated from ABAG population projections), was used to estimate future
emissions in the waste sector (see Table 9).
Table 9- Communiry Greenhouse Gas Emissions Growth Projections by Sector
2005 2020 Annual Percent
Community Emissions MT COZe MT COZe Growth Change
Growth Forecast by Sector Emissions Emissions Rate (2005 - 2020)
Residential 51,154 77,973 2.850% 52.4%
Commercial/Industrial 60,183 82,043 2.087% 36.3%
Transportation 233,384 292,151 1.509% 25.2%
Waste 12,490 19,038 2.850% 52.4%
TOTAL 357,211 471,205 - 31.9%
Note: MT COZe ° metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions.
While the community emissions growth forecast is based on known per capita energy
consumption, workforce expansion, and population growth projections, the municipal operations
forecast is based on the expansion of City services or infrastructure. Estimating the growth of
City infrastructure or services was not within the scope of this project, and, therefore, this
document does not include a similar forecast of government operations emissions, beyond that
which is included within the community forecast. The CAP includes the various municipal
measures that the City has in place to reduce municipal GHG emissions.
16 Report available at http:Uwww.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEG600-2007-009/CEG600-2007-009-SF.PDF.
The compounded annual growth rate for 2005-2020 is calculated from Table 9.. In light of fuel cost increases, the
calculation assumes a scenario in which fuel costs would be high.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
2g
IV. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Target
A reduction target provides a tangible goal far Dublin's efforts to reduce GHG emissions. The
emissions reduction target for the community aims to decrease emissions by 20% below a
business-as-usual scenario by 2020. ~ ~
Many factors were considered when selecting Dublin's reduction target. The City strove to
choose a target that is both aggressive and achievable given local circumstances.
Local factors considered in selecting the target percentage to reduce GHG emissions included
estimation of the effects of implemented and planned programs and policies, an approximate
assessment of future opportunities to reduce emissions, targets adopted by peer communities,
BAAQMD guidance and CEQA significance thresholds, and emission reductions expected to be
achieved by state-level policy under AB 32 and other regulations. The City of Dublin is adopting
a community emissions reduction target of 20% below a business-as-usual scenario by 2020. To
reach this target, the Dublin community must reduce annual emissions by about 95,000 MT COze
from baseline 2005 levels.
Table 10 - Dublin Commz~nirywide Emissions Summary
Dublin Communi ide Emissions Summa
Base ear 2005
Base year MT COze emissions 357,211
~\ l3\ ~~~~.\ `~ -- . q ~ k~~ J ~~~''y~l~~~ :. -\ -- -\\~~~, i.
. 1 4~\ \
\ \ . • ~ .
~
~~ :, h~
.\\
.~ 2u' ~~ .: .., k r ~ .. \G`~~ auw: ~~:.
...-.. . :'t .. ... ...... .. ..... ~Ym.... . . .... ..' ..:. _.. 3 .. ~\...:.~,:: 1Cea~1-.
., v......... . .ex.r'~„y~~~e. ~:. ~\n .. : ... .
~ ~
~
Tar et ear 2020
BAU projection MT COze emissions 471,205
Percent CO2e reduction by target year relative to base year (% below BAU) 20%
Impact of Emission Reduction Goal (MT CO,e/yr) 94,241
Forecasted Emissions with Reduction Measures (MT COze/yr) 376,964
Note: MT COZe = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions; BAU = business-as-usual
Sources: ICLEI CACP model output, summarized by AECOM 2010
Further, the City of Dublin's CAP is designed to meet or exceed the goals of AB 32. To delineate
the City's commitment to the goals of AB32, the City's CAP employs the BAAQMD's GHG
efficiency based metric of 6.6 MT CO2e 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 1 1
below, the City of Dublin's eff'iciency metric is well below the established threshold in both the
Base Year 2005 and Forecast Year 2020. Using the per capita measures of 5.88 for 2005 and 4.22
for 2020, the City of Dublin's reduction goal equates to a 28% decrease in GHG emissions
between the Base Year and Fol•ecast Year. Thus, the City will be growing significantly over the
15-year period covered by the CAP, but during this salne tiine, the City's GHG emissions will be
decreasing significantly on a per individual basis, which is not clearly visible when simply
inspecting the BAU scenario.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 29
Table 11 - Dublin Communitywide Emissions Analysis
CAP Reduction Goal Anal sis
'Itern ` Year' Emissians {MT C02e '
GHG Emissions Invento 2005 357,211
GHG Emissions BAU Forecast 2020 471,205
GHG Emissions Projection with
Reduction Goal
2020
376,964
Item Year ' Persons
Service Population (SP) 2005 60,720
Service Po ulation (SP) 2020 89,410
*ABAG 2009 Population
Pro' ections
' Item ` Year MT CO~e /~P
GHG Efficiency Metric 2005 5.88
GHG Efficiency BAU Metric 2020 5.27
GHG Efficiency Goal Metric 2020 4.22
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
30
V. Emissions Reduction Measures and Policies
At both the community scale and within municipa] operations, the City of Dublin has undertaken
a number of programs, policies, and projects that result in reduced GHG emissions. Not only do
these measures reduce GHG emissions, they also have the co-benefit of achieving other City
policy goals, such as reducing local air pollution, reducing traffic, improving public health,
increasing energy efficiency and conservation, reducing solid waste and improving solid waste
management. Ultimately, the goal of Dublin's CAP is to build on existing planning and
implementation efforts and integrate them into the broader task of reducing the GHGs emitted
within the community. In addition, the CAP intends to encourage action by citizens, jurisdictional
partners and business members of the community as they will also have an integral role in
reducing emissions through programs of their own as well as the programs listed below. The
City's Climate Action Plan is not intended to be closed after its initial adoption. The City expects
to continue to add additional programs, practices and polici_es that will contribute to GHG
reductions for many years to come. As these programs, practices and policies are developed and
implemented, they will be folded into the City's Climate Action Plan.
The City of Dublin has Llndertaken and continues to implement numerous measures to reduce
GHGs since its baseline emissions were determined for 2005. The various GHG reduction
measures are organized into three categories: transportation/land use, energy (which includes both
energy efficiency and renewable energy), and waste management~~. These categaries follow the
major sources of emissions found in the GHG emissions inventory (described in Section IIB).
Where possible, anticipated emission reductions have been quantified based on substantial
evidence. Within each measure outlined below, the City has attempted to explain its reasoning
behind the measures inclusion as well as define the assumptions used in deriving the quantified
reduction value. Additional detail and references to substantial evidence supporting quantified
GHG reductions are provided in Appendix C. Existing methods for quantifying GHG emission
reduction measure performance include both top-down and bottom-up calculations. Both methods
are used to quantify GHG emission reductions in the CAP.
A top-down calculation begins with the communitywide GHG emissions inventory. A
recommended emission reduction measure (e.g., energy efficiency) targets a certain emission
sector (e.g., natural gas, electricity), emissions sub-sector (e.g. residential, commercial) and
portion thereof (e.g. space heating, water heating, air conditioning). Thus, the communitywide
GHG emission inventory is scaled according to the applicability of the measure being evaluated.
Assumptions for participation rates (i.e. the portion of the community that would participate in a
program [e.g., % of residential units that would implement energy-efficiency improvements]) and
efficiency levels (i.e. the level of efficiency that would be achieved by the program [e.g. %
energy efficiency improvement above baseline conditions]) are made. These participation and
efficiency assumptions are then multiplied by the relevant portion of the communitywide
inventory to derive amount (in MT COze) of emissions reduced.
A bottom-up approach to quantifying GHG emissions starts with a GHG reduction measure (e.g.,
installation of photovoltaic panels). If the measure is assumed to reduce electricity demand by a
certain number of kilowatt-hours, this can be converted to GHG emission reductions using an
emission factor for electricity generation. I-~owever, it is critical that the assumed emission factor
be the same factor that was used to calculate the GHG emission inventory.
" The term "waste management" includes waste reduction, recycling, composting, and final disposal
activities.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
31
A. Communitywide Measures
The measures outlined in this section represent significant reductions of GHG emissions in the
community. They are organized by sector and outlined below.
A1 Transportation and Land Use Measures
Broadly, there are three main ways to reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector. One
way is to implement policies that reduce dependence on personal motor vehicles and encourage
alternative modes of transportation, such as public transit, cycling, and walking. Another way is
to use vehicles that release fewer GHGs, such as hybrids, more fuel-efficient vehicles, and
vehicles that run on alternative fuels. A final way is to encourage "smart growth" (i.e., policies
that promote efficient land use development). Smart growth reduces the need to travel long
distances, facilitates transit and other nonautomotive travel, increases the availability of
affordable housing, employs existing infrastructure capacity, promotes social equity, helps protect
natural assets, and maintains and sustains existing communities.
Vehicles on roads and state highways in Dublin are by far the largest source of Dublin's
community emissions. In 2005, 653% of the community's GHG emissions were from the
transportation sector.
A.I.I Transit-Oriented Development
Context - In November 2002, the City of Dublin adopted a general plan amendment, specific
plan amendment, and zoning for the Dublin Transit Center, located near the existing
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. The plan allows for the eventual construction of 1,800 high-
density residential units, 1.7 million square feet of campus office uses, 70,000 square feet of
ancillary commercial uses, an 8.7-acre park, and a new BART parking structure. None of the
projects located in the Transit Center were constructed prior to 2005 and therefore, are not
included in the emissions inventory. As of 2009, siX-hundred seventy-four (674) units have been
constructed.
The City of Dublin also adopted a West Dublin BART Specific Plan in December 2000, which
was subsequently amended in November 2007. The West Dublin BART area, under the concept
in the Specific Plan, is intended to be a high-intensity mixed-use area, capitalizing on regional
transit linkages provided by both the BART line and supported by nearby freeways, including
Interstate 580 and Interstate 680. Within the West Dublin BART area, a miXture of low-rise and
mid-rise buildings consisting of residences, offices, specialty retail, lodging, restaurant and
similar uses are planned that are consistent with a transit-oriented area. Consistent with the West
Dublin BART Specific Plan, the City of Dublin has approved high-density residential
development, a hotel, and office space at the West Dublin BART Station. The West Dublin
BART Station is currently under construction and is anticipated to be completed in 2011. The
309-unit Windstar project has been approved near the West Dublin BART Station. Additionally,
a hotel and ancillary retail/restaurant space have been approved in concept. The nearby AMB
project has also been approved and, once constructed, will include 308 high-density residential
units and a 150,000-square-foot office complex.
In July 2009, Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants reviewed data from a variety of sources to
develop a likely range of vehicle trip reductions for transit-oriented development (TOD) adjacent
to the BART stations in Dublin (See Appendix B). Research indicates that developments adjacent
to transit services, such as BART, can eXpect to experience a reduction in vehicle trips, especially
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 32
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.
TOD residents tend to have a higher transit mode share than the remainder of the city because
they tend to have fewer cars per person, are more likely to be single and without children, and cite
location to transit as a factor for choosing the TOD residential location.
Erraission Reductions - Based on their research, Fehr & Peers identified a reduction in vehicie
trips of 25% for multi-family residential developments located in a mixed-use environment within
a barrier-free, half-mile walk of a BART station. Dublin's planned TOD developments, in
conjunction with the City's policies that promote high-density development (see Measure A.1.2)
and mixed-use development (see Measure A.13), are estimated to result in a reduction of 4,357
MT COze/year (0.93% reduction relative to 2020 BAU).
A1.2 HiQh-Densitv Development
Context - The City of Dublin has a high-density residential land use designation, which allows
25.1+ dwelling units per acre. These high-density developments are located near the existing
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and along Dublin Boulevard. High-density development has
been approved near the firture West Dublin BART Station. Additionally, Area G of Dublin Ranch
includes approximately 1,400 medium-high and high density residential units. The high density
residential land use designation was included in the City's original General Plan, which was
adopted in 1985. While this policy did exist prior to 2005, the total impact of the policy was not
reflected in the 2005 inventory. For high-density housing, the only development projects included
in the reduction calculation are those that were constructed after 2005.
Erraission Reductions - Emission reductions for this measure are included in Measure A.1.1.
A1.3 Mi.xed-Use Development
Context - Several areas in the City allow mixed-use development. The mixed-use land use
designation encourages the combination of inedium- to medium-high-density residential housing
and at least one nonresidential use, sLich as office or retail. The mixed-use land use designation
was added to the City's General Plan in 2004. For mixed-use projects, the only development
projects included in the reduction calculation are those that were constructed after 2005. Several
projects have been approved in the City that include a miXed-use component, such as the Transit
Center, Groves, Tralee, Jordan Ranch and San Ramon Village. Additionally, the City is currently
working on several other projects that will also include a mixed-use component.
Emission Reductions - Emission reductions for this measure are included in Measure A.1. ].
A.1.4 Bicvcle ParkinQ Repuirements
Context - Bicycle parking requirements are implemented during the development review process.
Under the City's Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations, parking lots with 20 or more
spaces in nonresidential zoning districts are required to provide one bicycle parking space in a
bicycle rack for each 40 vehicular parking spaces. Additionally, requirements exist for bicycle
parking in multi-family residential complexes. The availability of bike racks throughout the City
supports the use of the City's bike lanes, and is an essential part of encouraging individuals to
choose biking over driving.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 33
Emission Reductions - It is estimated that the City's bike parking requirement will result in a
reduction of 1,826 MT C02e/year (0.39% reduction relative to 2020 BAU).
A1. S Streetscape Master Plan
Context - In June 2005, the Dublin City Council adopted a resolution approving a streetscape
master plan. The goals of the streetscape plan are to better coordinate streetscape design
throughout the community, clearly delineate public and private responsibilities for improving
aesthetics, and provide a mechanism for promoting capital improvement projects with built-in
streetscape improvements. Additionally, the Zoning Ordinance has requirements for planting
trees in parking lots (minimum of one tree for every four parking spaces).
Emission Reductions - Policies that promote trees within the community, such as those in the
streetscape master plan and the Zoning Ordinance, play a valuable role in reducing GHGs within
the community because trees can capture and store COZ. Furthermore, more attractive and better
shaded streets create a more conducive environment for walking, bicycling and transit use, which
can shift trips away from single-occupancy vehicles. Implementation of the streetscape master
plan is estimated to result in a 1% mode shift away from single-occupancy vehicles, leading to a
reduction of 2,922 MT COze/year (0.62% reduction relative to 2020 BAU).
A1. 6 Multi-Moclal Map
Context - In June 2009, the City adopted a multi-modal map, which is a comprehensive tool to
relay transportation opportunities within a specific location. The function of the multi-modal map
is to show the various methods of transportation within the City, including pedestrian, vehicle,
and bicycle trips as well as connections to other cities. The Multi-Modal Map is currently posted
on the City's website. Additionally, the City will explore opportunities to distribute the map to
residents and businesses to promote alternative modes of transportation in Dublin.
Emission Recluctions - The multi-modal map is estimated to lead to more informed alternative
transportation users. Assuming that implementation and distribution of the multi-modal map
would result in a mode shift of 1% away from single-occupancy vehicles, this would result in a
reduction of 2,922 MT C02e/year (0.62% reduction relative to 2020 BAU).
A.l. 7 Rechar~in~ Stations for Electric ancl Flu~ In HVbricl Vehicles at the Dublin Librarv
Context - The Dublin Library, which was constructed in 2005, was designed to include
recharging stations to be utilized by co~nmunity members for electric and plug in-hybrid vehicles.
The City also has parking spaces designated for low-emission vehicles at the Shannon
Community Center.
Einission Reductions - This measure will result in reductions of GHG emissions in the City.
However, the amount of reductions anticipated from electric plug in-hybrid vehicles are difficult
to quantify, so an estimated amount has not been included in the Plan. Therefore, GHG emission
reductions from this measure would result in additional reductions not included in the quantified
reductions under this Plan.
A.1.8 General Plnn Communitv Desi~n artct SustainabilitV Element
Context - In September 2008, the City of Dublin adopted a Community Design and
Sustainability Element. The Community Design and Sustainability Element establishes design
principles, policies, and implementation measures to enhance the livability of Dublin and
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 34
encourages a high level of quality design that supports sustainability. The Community Design and
Sustainability Element applies to new development and redevelopment throughout the City.
E~rcission Reductions - This measure will result in reductions of GHG emissions in the City.
However, the amount of reductions anticipated from the Community Design and Sustainability
Element policies and programs are difficult to quantify, so an estimated amount has not been
included in the Plan. Therefore, GHG emission reductions from this measure would result in
additional reductions not included in the quantified reductions under this Plan.
A.1.9 Work witlt the Livermore Amadar Vallev Tr~rnsit Authoritv 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
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, project is underway. RAPID, scheduled to begin
operations in early 201 l, will run a similar route to one of LAVTA's existing routes (Route 10)
but will offer more direct and efficient service between Livermore, the East Dublin/Pleasanton
BART station and the Stoneridge Mall in Pleasanton. Efficiencies will be achieved by following a
shorter route, using advanced technology~ to minimize delays at traffic signals, and increasing
spacing between stops. The buses will run more frequently, thus reducing passenger waiting time.
Within Dublin, RAPiD will run along Dublin Boulevard between San Ramon road and Fallon
Road and will also pull into the BART station.
Emission Reductions - The City will continue to work with LAFTA to improve transit within the
community, which is estimated to result in a reduction of 1,~61 MT COze/year (031 % reduction
relative to 2020 BAU).
A1.10 Bikewavs Master Plan
Context - In July 2007, the City of Dublin adopted a Bikeways Master Plan. Policies in the plan
include the continued development of successful bicycle and pedestrian trail corridors, improved
bicycle access to parks and open space areas, improved bicycle lanes and/or routes on several key
cross-city corridors, bikeways on key freeway crossings, the development of education and
enforcement programs, and improvements to the City's Bicycle Parking Ordinance.
The City of Dublin recognizes the many benefits of creating additional bicycle routes and
improving existing routes. Pedal power is a clean source of energy that does not produce GHG
emissions; however, lack of adequate bike infrastructure is a 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 5 miles), which
constit~ite more than half of all driving. Shifting trips from cars to bikes also reduces street traffic.
An investment in bike infrastructure is also an investment in public health, because cycling is an
excellent mode of physical activity. A fit community has lower health care costs.
Emission Recluctions - Bikeways within the City of Dublin total 21.4 miles. The Bikeways
Master Plan proposes 55.2 miles of Class I, II, or III bike lanes. The current mode share of
bicycles within the City is 0.3% and the proposed Bikeways Master Plan is designed to result in a
bicycle mode share of 1.5%. Construction and intended use of the bikeways outlined in the
Bikeways Master Plan would result in a reduction of 3,506 MT COZe/year (0.74% reduction
relative to 2020 BAU).
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 35
A.2 Ener~v 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 Buildin~ Orclinance
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 Rating ~
~ ' ' ~ .,; :=
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
basis. The majority of residential projects within the City are
subject to the Green Building Ordinance. There are little to no planned residential projects within
the City that are 20 units or less.
GreenPoint Rated is a green building program administered by the nonprofit organization Build It
Green. GreenPoint Rated was conceived of and developed with assistance from StopWaste.Org.
The GreenPointRated guidelines and rating system, begun in 2000, has grown rapidly and is
becoming a standard for the construction of green residential homes and major renovation
projects throughout California. The GreenPointRated system is comprised of five related
categories: energy efficiency, resource conservation, indoor air quality, water conservation, and
community, all of which are important to the practice of green building. To meet the
GreenPointRated criteria a home must obtain at least 50 total points on the GreenPointRated scale
as well as meet certain minimum point thresholds within each of the aforementioned five
categories. Homes are evaluated by a third-party professional rater. Once a residence is verified to
meet the criteria for a GreenPointRated home, Build It Green issues a certificate to the builder,
which can be used for marketing purposes.
The Fiorano neighborhood within the Positano development in Eastern Dublin is currently Lmder
construction and is subject to the City's Green Building Ordinance. The Fiorano development
includes 43 single-family homes. During the plan check process, the developer agreed to a
minimum of 66 points on the GreenPoint Rating System. To date, 12 homes have been completed
and the actual points achieved for these homes range from 98 - 120 points.
Two recent projects have been approved that are subject to the Green Building Ordinance. The
first project, Sorrento East includes 581 medium density units within 6 neighborhoods. During
the Site Development Review process, the developer demonstrated that the project would achieve
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 36
the minimum 50 points on the GreenPoint Rating system. The average of the 6 neighborhoods is
64 points. The second project, 780 units at Jordan Ranch, includes both attached and detached
units within 6 neighborhoods. During the Site Development Review process, the developer
demonstrated that the project would achieve the minimum 50 points on the GreenPoint Rating
system. The average of the 6 neighborhoods is 59 points. Sarrento East and Jordan Ranch are
both located in Eastern Dublin.
Emission Retluctions - GreenPoint Rated homes achieve GNG emissions reductions from,
among other practices, solid waste management measures such as Bay-Friendly Landscaping and
recycling of construction and demolition debris (C&D); increased energy efficiency; use of
renewable energy; and conservation of water both inside and outside the home. Implementation
of the Green Building Ordinance requiring at least 50 points on the GreenPoint Rating system for
projects over 20 units is estimated to result in a reduction of 15,287 MT COze/year (3.24%
reduction relative to 2020 BAU).
A.2.2 EnerQy I7p~rade California
Context - The StopWaste.org initiated Energy Upgrade California program will establish
countywide building retrofit measures and specifications for energy efficiency, water and
resource conservation, and indoor air quality and health. The program is intended to provide a
standardized countywide approach that identifies specific green retrofits to improve existing
buildings. StopWaste.org has demonstrated leadership at the countywide level on many programs
including waste diversion, green building, and bay friendly landscaping. The Energy Upgrade
California program would include these existing programs and further expand them to include
energy efficiency, resource conservation, and indoor air quality and heath. In addition, the Energy
Upgrade California program intends to:
• develop a technical advisory group;
• conduct outreach at the countywide level;
• provide training of contractors;
• provide verification and tracking of projects;
• leverage funding for project implementation (stimulus funds, other grants, municipal
contributions); and
• provide economies of scale and scope for all jurisdictions within the County.
As of January 20 ] 0, the Energy Upgrade California program for single-family residential
buildings is being developed and additional programs for commercial, multi-family, and other
buildings will be developed based on funding availability. The budget for the Energy Upgrade
California project does not include funds for installation of the green retrofit measures, but
StopWaste.Org suggests that existing redevelopment funds or other funding streams from the
federal stimulus can be used to implement the Energy Upgrade California.
StopWaste.Org notes that bliildings account for 23% of Statewide GHG emissions, and existing
buildings represent the majority of the State's building stock; therefore, the California Public
Utilities Commission has a goal of improving the energy performance of existing buildings by
40% by 2020. The level of emissions from existing buildings in Dublin is higher than the State
level because approximately 31% of emissions come from the residential and commercial sector,
according to the 2005 GHG inventory. To combat this, the proposed program is estimated to
reduce carbon emissions in Alameda County by more than 41,000 MT in its first 2 years, and by
more than 3 million tons between now and 2020. Therefore, participation in the Energy Upgrade
California program will help achieve any future GHG reduction targets thaYthe City may set.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 37
Emission Reductions - The emissions reduction achieved through energy efficiency retrofits will
vary, but promises to be substantial. A savings of 1 million kWh reduces emissions by mare than
270 MT CO~e. For every 1,000 therms of natural gas that is saved, the jurisdiction is achieving an
emissions reduction of 6.6 MT COZe. Based on an estimated 7% participation rate among housing
units in the community, supported by the SEP II Residential Energy Efficiency Program,
implementation of the Energy Upgrade California program in the City of Dublin is estimated to
result in a reduction of 4,480 MT COZe/year (0.95% reduction relative to 2020 BAU).
A.2.3 Solar Conversion Pro,~rams
Context - The City of Dublin promotes solar installation within the community through two solar
conversion programs, which include Solar Cities and CaliforniaFIRST.
Solar Cities is a joint project of the Cities of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton focused on
educating consumers about residential solar energy. The City of Dublin joined Solar Cities in
2008. The program features free workshops, Internet resources, and targeted information to assist
homeowners to make decisions about investing in a photovoltaic (PV) solar system. Furthermore,
the City is a participant in the CaliforniaFIRST program, which provides access to financial
assistance for homeowners seeking to install PV systems.
The CaliforniaFIRST Program is a property assessed clean energy (PACE) financing program.
The City joined CaliforniaFIRST is 2009. PACE programs allow property owners within
participating regions to finance the installation of energy and water improvements on their home
or business and pay the amount back as a line item on their property tax bi1L The
CaliforniaFIRST Program is sponsored by the California Statewide Communities Development
Authority, an association of counties and cities, in partnership with Renewable Funding. The City
of Dublin has opted in to the CaliforniaFIRST Program, which allows its residents to participate
in the program and receive funding from Renewable Funding for the installation of energy and
water improvements on their home.
Solar PV systems generate energy by harnessing sunlight. Technologies that can convert solar
energy into electricity can be installed at the point of use. Solar energy is a clean source of
electricity that does not produce GHG emissions. Installing PV panels on homes can also save
residents money by offsetting the need for power from the grid and can increase local energy
security and reliability.
Cost savings will begin to accrue after a payback period of 10-15 years. Other benefits include
reduced emissions of criteria air pollutants from power plants, development and local
demonstration of renewable energy technology, and increased residential energy reliability,
securiry, and cost certainty.
The State of California offers rebates to homeowners who install solar on their homes.
Additionally, the federal government offers tax incentives for installing photovoltaic panels on
commercial-zoned buildings.
Emission Recluctions - Dublin residents and businesses are projected to install about 22.76 acres
of solar panels by 2020. Based on the systein size of the Santa Rita Jail Case study, this level of
installation of PV panels in Dublin is estimated to result in a reduction of 4,500 MT C02e/year
(0.96% reduction relative to 2020).
The Santa Rita Jail Case Study prepared in April 2002 highlights the system specifications, the
multiple benefits of the system and the environmental savings. The 1.18 megawatt system
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 38
consists of three acres of solar photovoltaic panels and generates 1,460,000 kWH annually. Over
its 25-year life, it is predicted that the PV panels on the Santa Rita Jail will result in 36,500,000
kWH of energy production, which is equivalent to a reduction of approximately 38,000 tons of
C02 emissions.
A.2.4 Reduce Solar Installation Permit Fee
Context - In 2006, the City of Dublin reduced the building permit fee related to the installation of
photovoltaic systems installed as an incentive for property owners to install solar electricity
generating capacity on their homes and businesses.
The City of Dublin recognizes the value of solar energy. Solar energy is a clean source of
electricity that does not produce GHG emissions. Installing photovoltaic (PV) panels on homes
can also save residents money by offsetting the need for power from the grid, and can increase
local energy security and reliability. Other benefits include reduced emissions of criteria air
pollutants from power plants, development and local demonstration of renewable energy
technology, and increased residential energy reliability, security, cost certainty and local green
jobs.
Emission Reductions - Reductions from this measure are included in Measure A.2.3
A.3 Solid Waste and Recyclin~ Measures
The City of Dublin has a goal of reducing waste sent to the landfill by 75%. To achieve this
reduction goal, the City has implemented a variety of ineasures, which include expanding existing
commercial and residential recycling and composting programs and expanding community
education and outreach initiatives. As demonstrated in this document, many of StopWaste.Org's
program areas to divert solid waste dovetail nicely with Dublin's own programs to reduce GHG
emissions. ICLEI and StopWaste.Org have produced studies and evidence to show the reductions
in GHG emission from recycling, composting, and reducing waste.
For example, programs for recycling and preventing waste contribute to reducing the energy and
transportation needed to manufachlre and ship virgin products and packaging. Composting
contributes by reducing methane produced in the landfill and reducing the need for energy
intensive fertilizers and pesticides. The EPA 2000 report states (EPA 2000):
There are no plausible scenarios in which IandFlling minimizes GHG emissions
from waste management. For yard waste, GHG emissions are roughly
comparable from landfilling and composting; for food waste, composting yields
significantly lower emissions than landfilling. For paper waste, landfilling causes
higher GHG emissions than either recycling or incineration with energy
recovery.
Results provided in this report from research conducted by ICLEI and StopWaste.Org show that
practices such as residential and commercial recycling and composting, buying recycled products
and green building play important roles in a local government's strategy to mitigate emissions. In
fact, GHG mitigation can be seen as an umbrella under which a jurisdiction's waste diversion
programs play a substantial role.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
39
A.31 Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance
Context - Since 2005, the City has implemented a Construction and Demolition Debris
Ordinance with a required 100% of asphalt and concrete recycled, and a minimum of 50% of all
other materials recycled. The City's diversion rate has consistently been between 80% and 90%
since 2005, well above the 50% requirement.
Construction and demolition (C&D) debris represents a substantial portion of the total waste
stream in Alameda County-up to 21%. Construction of a typical residential home produces
approximately 17,000 pounds of C&D waste. Reducing C&D waste is critical to the City of
Dublin because the City is still growing. C&D waste generally consists of wood, drywall, metal,
concrete, dirt, and cardboard. After the 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.
Emission Reductions - Emission reductions for this measure are included in Measure A.3.2.
A.3.2 CitVwide Diversion Goal of 75%:
Context -In 2008, the Dublin City Council adopted a goal to divert 75% of waste from the
landfilL To achieve this goal, the City is focusing its efforts on increasing the recycling of
organics, cardboard boxes, plastic film, paper, and packaging material. The City currently has in
place a variety of programs for diverting waste and the City continues to explore additional
programs to help reach the 75% diversion goal. `
Emission Reductions - Attainment of the 75% diversion goal is estimated to result in a reduction
of 4,911 MT COze/year (1.04% reduction relative to 2020 BAU).
A.3.3 Tiered Rate Structure for Garba,~e and Recvclin~
Context - Since 2005, the City has offered a tiered rate structure, which places recycling
services free and organics (composting) services at a significant discount to garbage services
to encourage greater recycling and composting within the community. Recycling and
composting programs reduce GHG emissions because manufacturing products with recycled
materials avoids emissions from the energy that would have been used by extracting,
transporting and processing virgin materials.
Emission Reductions - Emission redl~ctions for this measure are included in Measure A3.2.
A.3.4 Commercial Recycling Pro~ram
Context - The business commlinity and schools are an important component of the Dublin
community. In 2005, the City began offering a free commercial recycling program that also
includes free indoor recycling containers for schools and businesses. Indoor recycling containers
encourage employees and students to recycle by conveniently locating recycling containers near
their work areas. Programs for recycling contribute to reducing energy and transportation needed
to manufacture and ship virgin products.
Emission Reductions - Emission reductions for this measure are included in Measure A.3.2.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 40
A.3. S Commercial ~ood Waste Collection Pro ram
Context - In 2005, the City began offering a commercial food waste recycling program, which
includes a subsidy to encourage greater food waste recycling. As of June, 2010, the City has over
60 businesses participating in this program. In 2009, the commercial food waste recycling
program resulted in 2,853 tons of food waste being diverted from the landfill.
Reducing the amount of food waste sent to the landfill also reduces the CH4 emissions produced
when organic waste decomposes in the absence of oXygen at the landfill. CH4 is a powerful GHG,
21 times more potent than COz. Food waste, which produces more methane than any other
organic material, can be used for producing compost. Additionally, the resultant compost reduces
GHGs in three ways:
1) The composting process itself helps to bind or sequester carbon in the soil.
2) The resultant compost results in reduced use of nitrogen fertilizers, which are not only energy
intensive to produce, but are also a leading source of N20 emissions, a potent GHG.
3) Using compost helps to mitigate the decline in soil quality expected with climate change.
Sending organics to a composting facility reduces more GHGs than sending organics to a landfrll,
even one with methane recovery.
Errzission Reductions - Food waste produces more methane per wet ton than most other
municipal solid waste materials. If the City of Dublin were to reduce the amount of food waste
that is sent to the landfill by 1 metric ton, the community would prevent approximately 1 MT
CO~e from entering the atmosphere. Emission reductions for this measure are included in
Measure A.3.2.
A.3. 6 Promote Commercial Recvclin~
Context - In 2005, the City began promoting commercial recycling in the City. The City has
developed commercial recycling guides for businesses and the City's franchise waste hauler
conducts two business audits per business day to increase diversion efforts in the commercial
sector. Programs for recycling contribute to reducing the energy and transportation needed to
manufacture and ship virgin products and therefore play an important role in the City's efforts to
reduce GHG emissions associated with the waste sector.
Emission Recluctions - Emission reductions for this measure are included in Measure A.3.2.
A.3. 7 Promote Multi-familv Recvclin~
Context - In 2005, the City began promoting multi-family recycling. The City has developed
multi-family outreach packets and recycling bags for all multi-family units with shared recycling
service. Historically, recycling participation rates within multi-family developments is low and
the City of Dublin promotes high density residential development. Therefore, it is important to
promote recycling within these developments. Programs for recycling contribute to reducing the
energy and transportation needed to manufacture and ship virgin products.
Emission Re~luctions - Emission reductions for this measure are included in Measure A.3.2.
A.3.8 Curbside Residential RecvclinQ Pro~ram
Context - The City offers a corrvenient, free recycling program that includes curbside pickup for
residential neighborhoods to encourage greater recycling efforts. The curbside residential
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
41
recycling program was established prior to 2005. Curbside pickup includes garbage, recycling
and organics (composting). The goal of curbside pickup is to remove barriers to recycling.
Increased recycling contributes to reducing the energy and transportation needed to manufacture
and ship virgin products.
Erreission Reductions - Emission reductions for this measure are included in Measure A3.2.
A.3.9 Curbside Or~anics Collection Pro~ram
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 2005, food waste and plant debris accounted
for nearly 20% of the community's waste. It is critical to remove these items from the waste
stream because they generate methane within the anaerobic environment of a landfill.
Additionally, food waste and plant debris can be composted which contributes by reducing
methane produced in the landfill and reducing the need for energy intensive fertilizers and
pesticides. In 2009, the curbside organics collection program resulted in 4,467 tons of organic
material being diverted from the landfilL ~
Emission Reductions - Emission reductions for this measure are included in Measure A.3.2.
B. Municipal Operations Measures
The City of Dublin has also undertaken a nlimber of municipal operations measures resulting in
reduced GHG emissions relative to the base year of 2005. As noted in Chapter III Forecast for
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the forecast of government operations emissions is included within
the CAP's community inventory. As such, the various municipal operations that reduce GHG
emissions and the resultant reduction metric are outlined below.
B 1 Transportation and Land Use Measures
There are several ways to reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector, which include
encouraging alternative modes of transportation other than solo-driving, using vehicles that
release fewer GHGs and implementing smart growth policies. The measures below outline
policies that the City has in place to encourage its employees to reduce their GHG emissions
related to the transportation sector.
B1.1 Citv Hybrid Vehicles
Context - The City of Dublin has ~ve vehicles for its employees to use, two of which are hybrid
vehicles. Hybrid cars get better gas mileage than the traditional internal combustion engine. Most
hybrid vehicles get between 20 and 30 miles per gallon more than standard automobiles. All
hybrids shut off the gas engine automatically when the car is stopped. This saves fue] and is better
for the environment. When you press the gas pedal, the engine turns back on automatically. The
gas engine will also come on to start charging the batteries when the vehicle becomes low on
power. Because less gasoline is burned in these vehicles, they emit less pollution and a lower
]evel of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Emission Reductions - Reductions anticipated from use of City hybrid vehicles have not been
quantified and supported by substantial evidence. However, this measure supports achievement of
other recommended transportation measures.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
42
B1.2 Commute Alternative Pro,~ram
Context - The City's Commute Alternative Program is a policy designed to encourage alternative
modes of transportation among the City's workforce. The City provides incentives to its
employees who use alternatives to solo driving, which include public transportation, biking,
walking, or carpooling. The City provides an incentive of $2.00/day to use alternative
transportation modes. Additionally, the City participates in the Alameda County CMA
Guaranteed Ride Home Program.
Emission Reductions - Reductions anticipated from the commute alternative program have not
been quantified and supported by substantial evidence. However, this measure supports
achievement of other recommended transportation measures.
B.2 Energv 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 Citv Buildin~s Costin~ More Than $3 Million
Context - In 2004, the City Council adopted a Resolution which required that all new civic
buildings over $3 million be built to achieve Silver certification under the Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design (LEED°) Green Building Rating SystemTM. The LEED program
recognizes that building performance in the areas of human and environmental health, sustainable
site development, water savings, energy efFiciency, materials selection, and indoor environmental
quality, results in rraore efficient buildings. The Shannon Community Center, which was the first
completed in February 2009, includes numerous energy efficient measures. The Shannon
Community Center is awaiting LEED certification. Several capital improvement projects are
planned that will trigger the LEED Silver certification requirement, such as the Emerald Glen
Park Recreation & Aquatic Complex, the Cultural Arts Center, and the Emerald Glen Park
Community Center. These buildings will be constructed to achieve LEED Silver certification.
LEED certification provides independent, third-party verification that a building project meets the
high performance standards. LEED-certified buildings are awarded a plaque by the U.S. Green
Building Council. LEED certification is recognized nationwide as proof that a building is
environmentally responsible, profitable, and a healthy place to live and work.18 The certification
can be applied to every building type and phase of a building lifecycle.
Emission Reductions - LEED certification of municipal buildings is estimated to result in a
i-eduction of 79 MT C02e/year (0.02% reduction relative to 2020 BAU).
B.2.2 Winclow 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 ,frlm has improved the energy efficiency of the Civic
Center.
18 Visit www.us~bc.o~ for more information on LEED.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
43
Einission Reductions - The window film is anticipated to reduce the City's carbon footprint by
reducing GHG emissions by approximately 16 MT COZe/yr (< 0.01% reduction relative to 2020
BAU), which is a result of an estimated reduction in energy use annually of 73,766 kWh
B.2.3 Li~ht Emittin~ Diode (LED) Park Li~hts
Context - The City of Dublin was awarded a grant in 2009 for the installation of LED lights in
various parks within the community. Once installed, these lights will improve energy efficiency
at these locations.
Emission Reductions - Reductions anticipated from installing LED lights at the Dublin Sports
Park have not been quantified and supported by substantial evidence. However, this measure
supports achievement of other recommended energy efficiency measures.
B 3 Solid Waste and Recvclin~ Measures
As inentioned previously, the City of Dublin has a goal of reducing waste sent to the landfill by
75%. To achieve this reduction goal, the City has implemented a variety of communitywide
measures. Furthermore, Dublin is placing increasing emphasis on achieving emissions reductions
through promoting sustainable landscaping practices such as those outlined in StopWaste.Org's
Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines. Results provided in research conducted by ICLEI and
StopWaste.Org show that practices such as Bay-Friendly Landscaping play important roles in a
local government's strategy to mitigate emissions. In fact, GHG mitigation can be seen as an
umbrella under which a jurisdiction's waste diversion programs play a substantial role.
B.31 Bay-Friendly Lanclscapin~ Policv ~
Context - The City has been employing Bay-Friendly Landscaping practices within the City
owned parks and landscaping medians for some time. Also, in 2009, the City adopted a Bay-
Friendly Landscaping Policy requiring new large Civic projects to meet a certain level of points
on the Bay-Friendly Landscaping Checklist.
Bay-Friendly Landscaping is an integrated solution that fosters soil health, conserves water,
reduces waste, and reduces emissions. Through the Bay-Friendly Landscaping Program,
StopWaste.Org provides training, landscape design assistance, and grant funding to local
governments in Alameda County. The objective of the resources that StopWaste.Org provides is
to assist local governments to design public landscapes that cost less to maintain, consume fewer
resources, send less waste to the landfill, and do not negatively affect the San Francisco Bay.
The Bay-Friendly Landscaping practices described below not only serve to reduce emissions, but
provide many additional benefits. Trees, for example, provide habitat for birds, beautify urban
areas, decrease the heat island effect, increase property values, and help to control stormwater
runof£ Shade trees also reduce the need 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 i~nproves soils. Grass-cycling, mulching,
and using compost creates healthier landscapes without the use of synthetic pesticides and
fertilizers, all of which can help reduce water pollution.
According to the CIWMB, yard trimmings are one of the largest components of municipal waste
in California. Bay-Friendly Landscaping practices constitute an integrated, conscious approach to
reducing this waste. These practices include selecting native or Mediterranean plants, which use
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 44
little water; keeping plant debris and grass clippings on-site; nurturing the soil by using mulch
and compost; minimizing lawn size; and planting trees strategically to moderate temperatures.
SLich practices not only reduce waste, but also reduce costs and resource consumption by
reducing the need for irrigation and energy intensive fertilizers and pesticides. Nitrogen fertilizers
release nitrous oxide, a potent GHG, into the atmosphere. Using compost reduces the need for
nitrogen fertilizers by at least 20%. These practices also restore the soil's ability to absorb and
filter water, reducing runoff into waterways.
Emission Reductions - Emission reductions anticipated from implementation of the Bay-
Friendly Landscaping Policy have not been quantified and supported by substantial evidence.
However, this measure supports achievement of recommended energy efficiency and waste
management measures.
C. Public 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 our community and environment and to reduce GHG emissions through
reductions in energy use, transit, waste and through many other actions.
C.1 Great Race for Clean Air
Context - The Great Race for Clean Air Challenge is a friendly competition between Tri-Valley
area employers to encourage the use of commute alternatives to and from work such as
carpooling, biking, and publicly provided transit. The competition lasts two months. In 2009, the
City of Dublin was one of 17 teams that participated in the competition. Ten Dublin employees
participated and together saved 4,293 pounds of CO,.
Emission Reductions - Measures C.1 through C.5 are estimated to result in a combined
reduction of 471 MT COze/year (0.1 % reduction relative to 2020 BAU).
C.2 Walk `n' Roll to School
Context - The Walk `n' Roll to school program is designed to educate Tri-Valley parents and
students about clean and green alternatives for getting to and from school. The goal of the Tri-
Valley Resource Team's Walk `n' Roll to School campaign is to reduce school commute traffic,
which would result in reduced GHG emissions and increased safety around schools, and to
provide an opportunity for children to incorporate more exercise into their day.
Emission Reductions - Measures C.l through C.5 are estimated to result in a combined
reduction of 471 MT COZe/year (0.1 % reduction relative to 2020 BAU).
C.3 Work with Sclzools on "Go Green" Recvclin~ and Compostin~ Pro~rams
Context - The "Go Green" program is an education tool that encourages schools in the City to
increase their recycling and composting efforts. The Go Green Initiative is a simple,
comprehensive program designed to create a culture of environmental responsibility on school
campuses across the nation. Founded in Pleasanton in 2002, Go Green provides a framework for
environmental responsibility through five principles: 1) generate compost, 2) recycle, 3) educate,
4) evaluate the environmental impact of all activities, and 5) nationalize responsible paper
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 45
consumption. In Dublin, the City's waste hauler, Amador Valley Industries (AVI), funds Dublin
Unified School District schools that choose to participate in the Go Green program. As of June,
2010, six Dublin Unified Schools were participating in the program (66% participation rate).
Emission Reductions - Measures C.1 through C.5 are estimated to result in a combined
reduction of 471 MT COZe/year (0.1% reduction relative to 2020 BAU).
C.4 AVI Education~rl Presentations
Context - As part of their contract, the City's waste hauler, AVI, is required to present
information on recycling and composting programs that the City offers to various organizations
and businesses. AVI provides a minimum of 12 presentations a year.
Emission Reductions - Measures C.l through C.5 are estimated to result in a combined
reduction of 471 MT CO~e/year (0.1% reduction relative to 2020 BAU).
C.5 Promote Bike to Work Dav
Context - Each year, the City of Dublin participates in Bike to Work Day. The 2010 Bike to
Work Day and the sponsored Energizer Station were held on Thursday, May 13, at the
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station underpass. The Energizer Station, co-hosted by the Cities of
Dublin and Pleasanton, Alameda County Public Works, Dublin Cyclery, Hacienda Business Park,
and BART saw over 430 cyclists pass through. Energizer Stations throughout Alameda County
and in the Bay Area saw a 10% increase in the number of cyclists participating in the event.
Emission Reductions - Measures C.1 through C.5 are estimated to result in a combined
reduction of 471 MT COze/year (0.1% reduction relative to 2020 BAU).
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
46
VI. Measures Implemented By the State That Will Reduce Emissions
Included In the City of Dublin Inventory
[n addition to Dublin's implementation of ineasures to reduce GHG emissions within the
community, the effects of ineasures recently implemented at the State level will reduce GHGs
emitted within the City and are included as part of the City's GHG emissions inventory and
forecast.
In California, numerous policies have been adopted by the State Legislature or the Governor,
which are projected to reduce GHG emissions. The following sections briefly describe the
policies that could have the greatest effect on reducing GHG emissions in Dublin. Additional
legislation affecting GHG emissions in Dublin is summarized in Section I. Introduction.
A. State Climate Change Planning
A.1. California Global WarrrainQ Solutions Act (AB 32)
Context - In 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 32-the Global Warming Solutions
Act-into law. AB 32 institutes a mandatory limit on GHG emissions to achieve the target of
reducing Statewide emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. The bill directs ARB to establish a
mandatory emissions reporting system to track and monitor emission levels and to develop a wide
range of compliance options and enforcement mechanisms.
As a part of AB 32 implementation, ARB adopted a Climate Change Scoping Plan in December
2008. This plan provides some guidance on how local government can address climate change
and play an active role in reducing statewide emissions. Specifically, the plan sets a target to
reduce statewide emissions by nearly 30% below 2008 levels by 2020. To reach this target, the
plan establishes many measures, including:
• Developing a California cap-and-trade program.
• Expanding energy efficiency programs.
• Establishing targets for transportation-related GHG emissions.
• Supporting the implementation of a high-speed rail system.
• Expanding the use of green building practices.
• Increasing waste diversion, composting, and commercial recycling toward zero-waste.
• Continuing water efficiency programs and using cleaner energy sources to move and treat
water.
• Establishing a Million Solar Roofs Programs.
• Achieving a statewide renewable energy mix of 33%.
• Developing and adopting the Low Carbon Fliel Standard.
• Implementing vehicle efficiency measures far 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 encoliraging the use of forest biomass for sustainable
energy generation.
Emission Reductions - ARB has not yet set recommendations for local governments for reducing
GHC emissions; however, the Scoping Plan states that land use planning and urban growth
decisions will play an important role in reducing GHGs within the state. These decisions will play
an important role because local gove.rnments have the primary authority to plan, zone, approve,
City of Dublin Climate Action ~Plan 47
and permit how land is developed to accommodate the changing needs of their communities and
population growth.
A.2 Executive Order S-13-08 ancl the California Climate Adavtation Strnte,~v
Context - In November of 2008, Executive Order 5-13-08 was signed, which specifically asked
the Natural Resources Agency to identify how state agencies can respond to rising temperatures,
changing precipitation patterns, sea level rise, and eXtreme natural events. The California Climate
Adaptation 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.
Emission Recluctions - Emission reductions anticipated from actions of Executive Order S-13-08
have not been quantified and supported by substantial evidence. However, this measure supports
achievement of recommended CAP measures.
A.3 Senate Bi11732 - C~clifornic~ Strate~ic Growth Council
Context - In 2008, the California Senate passed SB 732, which established a Strategic Growth
Council, which is charged with coordinating policies across State agencies to support a unified
vision for land use development in the State. This vision will serve as a reference point for local
land use policies.
Emission Reductions - Emission reductions anticipated from actions of the Strategic Growth
Council have not been quantified and supported by substantial evidence. However, this measure
supports achievement of recommended CAP measures.
B. Energy
B1 Senate Bill 1078, Senate Bill 107, and Executive Order 5-14-08 -Renewable Portfolio
Standards
Context - In 2002, the California Senate passed SB 1078 requiring public utilities to gradually
increase the percentage of their energy supply generated from renewable sources, reaching 20%
renewable content by 2017. SB 107 accelerated the timeframe of SB 1078 for it to take effect in
2010. In November of 2008, Executive Order 5-14-08 was signed, which increased the amount of
renewable power generation to 33% by 2020. Renewable energy could include wind, solar,
geothermal, or any "Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)-eligible" sources. This means that, over
time, a larger and larger share of the energy electrifying homes and businesses in the City of
Dublin will be generated with clean power. The policy should have an important effect on City
emissions because 31.1 % of total emissions coine from commercial and residential energy use in
Dublin, according to the 2005 inventory.
Ernission Recluctions -It is anticipated that PG&E, Dublin's electricity provider, would meet the
20% RPS requirement by 2010, as required by law, and this performance criteria would also be in
effect at the CAP target year (2020). Executive Order 5-14-08 would increase the RPS further to
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 48
i~ ~
33% by 2020. Although this order has yet to be codified, the CAP assumes 33% RPS would be
achieved by 2020. Therefore, in 2020, a minimum of 33% of the electricity consumed by the
City's residential, commercial, and industrial uses would be produced by renewable resources and
would not generate additional GHG emissions.
The 2005 PG&E-specific electricity emission factor used to calculate GHG emissions associated
with the City's electricity consumption accounted for the percentage of renewable resources used
by PG&E for electricity production in 2005. PG&E's 2008 electricity production portfolio was
comprised of approximately 14% renewable resources (PG&E 2008). Although it is likely that
the percentage of renewable resources in 2005 was less than in 2008, the difference between the
2008 and 2020 renewable resource portfolio was used to conservatively calculate the emission
reduction attributable to RPS. Therefore, an additional 19% (33%-14% = 19%) of the City's 2020
GHG emissions, associated with electricity consumption, would be reduced between current
conditions and 2020 as a result of the additional use of clean energy. To derive the reduction
amount, the total GHG emissions (87,476 MT C02e) that result from electricity consumption
within the inventory projection from PG&E for 2020 is multiplied by the 19% that will come
from new renewable sources. Based on these assumptions, implementation of the RPS in Dublin
would result in a reduction of 16,621 MT COze/year (3.5% reduction relative to 2020 BAU).
B.2 Executive Orcler S-20-04 - Ener~v Effciencv in State Buildirtps
Context - Executive Order 5-20-04 was signed July 27, 2004, and directs the State to commit to
aggressive actions to reduce the electricity use of State buildings by implementing cost-effective
energy efficiency and green building strategies. To this end, the executive order directs all
facilities owned, funded, or leased by the State (and encourages cities, counties, and schools as
well) to take measures to reduce grid-based energy purchases for State-owned buildings by 20%
by 2015. This is to be done through cost-effective measures to increase energy efficiency and
distributed generation technologies. These measures include designing, constructing, and
operating all new and renovated facilities owned by the State and paid for with State funds as
buildings certified "LEED Silver" or higher; seeking out office space leases in buildings with a
EPA ENERGY STAR rating; and purchasing or operating ENERGY STAR electrical equipment
whenever cost effective. The California Highway Patrol Office is located in Dublin.
Emission Reductions - This measure will result in reductions of GHG emission in the City.
However, the amount of redlictions anticipated from increasing energy efficiency in State
bl~ildings have not been quantified, so an estimated amount has not been included in the Plan.
Therefore, GHG emission reductions from these measures would result in additional reductions
not included in the quantified reductions under this Plan.
C. Transportation and Land Use
C.1 Assemblv Bill 1493 - T~ehicle Farel EF~ciency Standards
Context - Nationwide, automobile manufacturers are bound by fuel efficiency standards set by
the U.S. Department of Transportation. These standards, known as the Corporate Average Fuel
Economy (or "CAFE") standards, require that the fleet of passenger cars sold by any single
manufacturer have an average fuel economy of 27.5 mpg - the same standard that was in place in
1985, despite technical progress and increased understanding of the environmental impacts of
fossil fuel combustion. The CAFE standards are adopted at the federal level, and states are
prevented from passing laws addressing vehicle fuel economy. In response to these stagnant
federal standards, the California Assembly passed AB 1493, ~vhich allows the California Air
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 49
Resources Board to create carbon dioxide emissions standards for cars sold in California. They
argue that a GHG emissions standard is distinct from a fuel economy standard, despite the fact
that it would necessitate improved gas mileage. The EPA granted a waiver to California in
February of 2009 to pursue its, own regulations under AB 1493; however, the State has not yet
done so. If AB 1493 is implemented in the next few years, this could have a significant impact on
the reduction of GHG emissions in the City of Dublin because the total percentage of emissions
from transportation was 653% in 2005.
Emission Recluctions - The emission reduction potential associated with implementation of AB
1493 vehicle emission standards would vary depending on the first regulated model year and
vehicle turnover between the present fleet and the fleet in 2020. To provide an estimate of the
reasonably foreseeable GHG emission reduction potential of motor vehicle emission regulations,
the GHG emissions reduction associated with AB 1493 was estimated using information
presented in the ARB Climate Change Scoping Plan. The Scoping Plan expects an approximate
19.7% reduction in on-road mobile source GHG emissions between 2010 and 2020 (10 years).
AB 1493 allows two model years of lead time for automakers to comply with the vehicle
emission standards. For this reason, it was assumed that AB 1493 would be 80% implemented by
the year 2020 (allowing for two years of delay). Thus, the likely GHG emission reduction of AB
1493 for on-road mobile-source GHG emissions in Dublin was assumed to be approximately
12.2%, for a reduction of 35,642 MT COZe/year (7.6% reduction relative to 2020 BAU).
C.2. Executive Orcler S-01-07 - Low Cnrbon Fuel Stanclard
Context - Executive Order S-O1-07 was signed January 18, 2007, and directs ARB to develop a
Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). The LCFS would reduce the carbon intensity of California's
transportation fuels by at least 10% by 2020. The LCFS will also incotporate compliance
mechanisms providing flexibility to fuel providers to meet requirements to reduce GHG
emissions. The LCFS will examine the full fuel cycle impacts of transportation fuels and ARB
will work to design the regulation in a way that most effectively addresses the issues raised by the
Environmental Justice Advisory Committee and other stakeholders.
Emission Reductions - This measure will result in reductions of GHG emissions. However, the
amount of reductions anticipated from the LCFS have not been quantified, so an estimated
amount has not been included in the Plan. Therefore, GHG emission reductions from these
measures wottld result in an additional reduction not included in the quantified reductions under
this plan.
C.3. Senate Bi11375
Context - In 2008, the California Senate passed SB 375, which aims to reduce GHG emissions by
connecting transportation funding to land use planning. SB 375 creates a process by which local
governments and other stakeholders work together within their region to reduce GHG emissions
through integrated development patterns, improved transportation planning, and other
transportation measures and policies.
Emission Reduction - SB 375 requires ARB to develop the targets for reducing GHG einissions
caused by passenger vehicles for 2020 and 2035 by September 30, 2010. Targets are anticipated
to be released by June 30, 2010. Implementation of these targets and the measures to achieve
those targets will require the collaboration of local governments such as Dublin and metropolitan
planning organizations such as MTC.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 50
VII. Summary of Emission Reduction Measures
Based on the emissions reductions estimated to be achieved after 2005 through the above
measures, the GHG emissions in the City of Dublin are estimated to be reduced by 99,000 MT
COze or 21.01% below 2020 BAU emissions which will slightly exceed the emission reduction
target of 20%.
Table ] 2 slimmarizes the contribution of proposed CAP measures toward achievement of the
reduction target.
Table l3 summarizes the City's GHG emissions compared to the BAAQMD GHG Efficiency
Threshold of 6.6 MT C02e per service population, and shows the effect of the reduction
strategies compared to this threshold. The City's reduction measures outlined in the CAP result in
a projected GHG Efficiency Metric for 2020 of 4.2 MT C02e per service population, which is
36.9% below the 6.6 threshold.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
51
Table 12 - Summary of GHG Reduction Measure Performance
Measure Number and Title GHG
Reductions
MT COze/ r) % Reduction
Relative to 2020
BAU
A. Communit wide Measures
A.1. Trans ortation and Land Use Measures
A.1.1. Transit-0riented Development 4,357 0.9247%
A.l .2. High-Density Development lncluded in A1.1
A.1.3. Mixed-Use Development Incla~decl in A.1.1
A.1.4. Bicycle Parking Requirements 1,825 0.387~%
A.1.5. Streetscape Master Plan 2,922 0.6200%
A.1.6. Multi-Modal Ma 2,922 0.6200%
A.1.7. Electric and Plug In-Hybrid Charging Stations at the Librarv Supporting Measure
A.l .8. General Plan Community Design and Sustainability Element Su orting Measa~re
A.1.9. Work with LAVTA to Improve Transit 1,461 0.3100%
A1.10. Bikewavs Master Plan 3,506 0.7440%
Subtotal Trans ortation and Land Use 16,993 3.61%
A.2. Ener Measures
A.2.1. Green Building Ordinance 1~,287 3.2442%
A.2.2. Energy Upgrade California 4,480 09~08%
A.2.3. Solar Conversion Programs 4,500 09~~0%
A.2.4. Reduce Solar Installation Permit Fee Included in A.2.3
Subtotal Ener 24,267 5.15
A.3. Solid Waste and Rec cliu Measures
A.3.1. Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance Included in A.3.2
A3.2. Citywide Diversion Goal of 75% 4,9ll 1.0422%
A.3.3. Tiered Rate Structure for Garbage and Recvcling Included in A.3.2
A.3.4. Commercial Recycling Program Included in A.3.2
A.3.~. Commercial Food Waste Collection Program Included in A.3.2
A.3.6. Promote Commercial Recycling Included inA.3.2
A.3.7. Promotc Multi-family Recycling Included in A.3.2
A.3.8. Curbside Residential Recycling Program Inclua'ed in A.3.2
A.3.9. Curbside Organics Collection Pro ram Included in A.3.2
Subtotal Solid Waste and Rec clin 4,911 1.04%
Total Communit wide Measures 46,171 9.80%
B. Munici al O erations Measures
B.l. Trans ortation and Land Use Measures
B.L~. City Hybrid Vehicles Supporting Measure
B.1.2. Commute Alternative Program Supporting Measure
B.2. Ener Measures
B.2.1. LEED Silver Requirement for New City Buildings >$3mil 79 0.0167%
B.2.2. Window Film on the Civic Center 16 0.034%
B.2.3. L~D Park Lights Not gunntifiable at this time
B.3. Solid Waste and Rec clin Measures
B3.1. Bay-Friendly Landscaping Policy Supporting Measure
Total Munici al O erations Measures 95 0.02%
C. Public Outreach Pro rams
C.1. Great Race for Clean Air ~
C.2. Walk `n' Roll to School
C.3. Work with Schools on "Go Green" Recycling and Composting 471 0.1000%
C.4. AVI Educational Prescntations
C.~. Promote Bike to Work Day
Total Public Outreach Pro rams 471 0.10%
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
52
Table 12 - Summary of GHG Reduction Measure Performance (Cont.)
Statewide Reductions
Renewable Portfolio Standards (33% -2020) 16,621 3.5272%
AB 1493: Vehicle Emission Standards 35,642 7.~641%
Total Statewide Reductions 52,263 l 1.09%
Total Communit wide Measures 46,171 9.80%
Total Munici al O erations Measures 95 0.02%
Total Public Outreach Pro rams 47l 0.10%
Total Statewide Reductions 52,263 11.09%
Total Reductions 99,000 21.O1%
Tar et: 20% from 2020 BALJ
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
53
Table 13 - BAAQMD Efficiency Threshold Analysis
. . . . .• . . .
2005 2020
MT C02e % MT C02e %
Residential 51,154 14.3% Residential 77,973 16.5%
Commercial/Industrial 60,183 16.8% Commercial/Industrial 82,043 17.4%
Transportation 233,384 65.3% Transportation 292,151 62.0%
Waste 12,490 3.5% Waste 19,038 4.0%
Total 357,211 100.0% Tota) 471,205 100.0%
Reduction from CAP strategies (from BAU) 0'.00°l0 ' Reduction from CAP strategies (from BAU) 9.92%
Reduction from Statewide initiatives (from BAU) 0.00°!o Reduction from Statewide initiatives (from BAU) 11.09% '
Total (reduction from BAU) 0!.qt~% Total (reduction from BAU) ~1.0~,% '
Totai GHG with Reduction Measures 357,211 Total GHG with Reduction Measures 372,205
2005 Community GHG Efficiency Analysis 2020 Community GHG Efficiency Analysis
Population 41,200 Population 62,800
Jobs 19,520 Jobs 26,610
Service Population (SP) 60,720 Service Population (SP) 89,410
GHG Before Reduction Measures 357,211 MT C02e GHG Before Reduction Measures 471,205 MT C02e
Projected GHG/SP 5.9 MT COZe/SP/year Projected GHG/SP 5.3 MT C02e/SP/year
GHG with Reduction Measures 357,211 MT C02e GHG with Reduction Measures 372,205 MT C02e
Projected GHG/SP
Target GHG/SP 5.9
6.6 MT C02e/SP/year
MT C02e/SP/year Projected GHG/SP
Target GHG/SP 4.2
6.6 MT C02e/SP/year
MT C02e/SP/year
% Below Target 10.9% % Below Target 36.9%
2020 Efficiency Reduction Goal Below 2005 Projected GHG/SP = 29.24%
VIII. Implementation, Monitoring and Future Steps
GHG emissions are an issue of growing concern for communities across the U.S. and aroLmd the
world. The City of Dublin has displayed great leadership and foresight in choosing to confront
this issue now. By reducing the amount of GHGs emitted by the community, Dublin joins
hundreds of other American cities in stemming GHG emissions and the impacts associated with
it.
In addition to mitigating the effects of GHG emissions, the City of Dublin stands to benefit in
many other ways from the proposed measures outlined in this report, including better public
health, improved public spaces, economic growth, and long-term savings for property owners.
Achieving Dublin's reduction target will require both persistence and adaptability.
A. Implementation
Ensuring that the recommended measures translate from policy language into on-the-ground
results is critical to the success of the CAP. Some actions will require inter-departmental or inter-
agency cooperation and appropriate partnerships will be established accordingly. Other actions
will require jurisdictional partners, businesses and our community to take action.
As part of the implementation, the City shall identify which measures apply to different types of
new development projects, discerning between voluntary and mandatory measures. A checklist
has been developed which illustrates the reduction measures that would apply to new
development in the City, including residential and commercial projects (refer to Appendix D).
The City shall include a mechanism for reviewing and determining if all applicable mandatory
measures are being adequately applied to new development projects as part of the development
review process. Identification of implementation steps and parties responsible for ensuring
implementation of each action shall be included in approval documents for each project.
B. Monito~ing
The City of Dublin's Environmental Services Division will work with various departments within
the City to monitor the results that are achieved by the various CAP programs and policies. A few
examples of the type of policies in the plan that will be monitored are highlighted below:
1. Construction of bicycle lanes - the adopted Bikeways Master Plan proposes 55.2 miles of
Class I, II or III bike lanes (currently there are 21.4 miles of bike lanes). The City will
track the miles of bike lanes that are constructed each year.
Energy Upgrades California Program - this program establishes countywide building
retrofit measures and specifications for energy eff'iciency, water and resource
conservation, and indoor air quality and health. It is estimated that there will be a 7%
participation rate among housing units in the City. City Staff will monitor the homes that
participate in this program.
Constrliction & Demolition (C&D) Debris Ordinance - the City's existing C&D
Ordinance requires that l 00°/o 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 percentages of C&D debris that are recycled. The City's diversion rate
has consistently been between 80% and 90% since 2005.
4. Citywide Diversion Goal - the City of Dublin has adopted a goal to divert 75% of waste
from the landfill. The City of Dublin reports to CalRecycle on an annual basis on the
percentages of waste that is diverted from the landfill. The City will continue to monitor
its diversion rates and explore additional programs to help reach the 75% diversion goal.
Green Building Ordinance - the City's Green Building Ordinance requires residential
projects over 20 units to reach 50 points on the GreenPoint Rating system. The Building
Division works with project developers at the entitlement and building permit stages to
ensure that the minimum 50 points is achieved.
Monitoring results is critical to verifying that the various policies and programs within the City's
CAP are achieving the anticipated GHG emission reductions that have been anticipated.
C. Periodic Review
The City is committed to periodically conducting a review of the CAP to determine its progress in
reducing GHG emissions within the City. Environmental Services Staff will conduct the periodic
reviews. The process of conducting a periodic review will allow the City to demonstrate progress
toward local emissions reduction targets and identify opportunities to integrate new or improved
measures into the emissions reduction plan, including additional measures if necessary to meet
the reduction target. The City of Dublin will review the CAP on an annual basis to verify that the
various reduction measures are being implemented appropriately. Additionally, the City will re-
inventory its emissions every 5 years.
D. Point of Control
The table below lists 'the primary point of contact and locus of control for each individual
reduction measure. Specifically, the relevant department within the City is highlighted, within
which the implementation and ongoing activities will take place. Assigning and clarifying the
responsible party is an impartment part of ensuring that the City achieves its goals as outlined and
projected within the CAP.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 56
Primar De artments Res onsible for Individual Reduction Measures
Measure Number and Title De artment Res onsible
A. Commtinit ide Measures Timeframe
A.1. Trans ortation and La~d LTse Measures
~
~~
A.1.1. Transit-Oriented Development Community Development 2020
A.1.2. High-Density Development Community Development 2020
A.1.3. MiYed-Use Development Communit Development 2020
A.l .4. Bicycle Parking Requirements Public Works Ongoing
A.l .5. Streetscape Master Plan Public Works Ongoing
A.1.6. Multi-Modal Ma Community Development Ongoin
A.1.7. ~lectric and Plug In-Hybrid Charging Stations at the Librarv Public Works Ongoing
A.1.8. General Plan Community Design and Sustainability Element Community Development Ongoing
A.1.9. Work with LAVTA to Improve Transit Public Works Ongoing
A.1.10. Bikeways Master Plan Public Works 2020
A.2. Ener Measures '
A.2.1. Green Building Ordinance Community Development 2020
A.2.2. Ener y Upgrade California City Mana er's Office On oin
A.2.3. Solar Conversion Programs City Manager's Office Ongoing
A.2.4. Reduce Solar Installation Permit Fee Community Development On oin
A.3: Solid Waste and ReG clin Measures
A.3.1. Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance Community Development /
City Manager's Office Ongoing
A.3.2. Citywide Diversion Goal of 7~% City Manager's Office On oin
A.3.3. Tiered Rate Structure for Garbage and Recycling City Manager's OFfice Ongoing
A.3.4. Commercial Recycling Program City Manager's Office Ongoing
A.3.5. Commercial Food Waste Collection Program City Manager's Office Ongoing
A.3.6. Promote Commercial Recycling City Manager's Office On~oing
A.3.7. Promote Multi-family Recyclin City Manager's Oft7ce Ongoing
A.3.8. Curbside Residential Recycling Program Citv Manager's O£fice Ongoing
A.3.9. Curbside Organics Collection Program
B.;Munici a1 ~ erations Measures City Manager's Office On oin
' B.1. Trans arfation and Land Use lYleasures
B.1.L City Hybrid Vehicles Public Works On oing
I3.1.2. Commute Alternative Program City Manager's Office Ongoing
B.2. Ener Measures '
I3.2.1. LEED Silver Requirement for New City Buildings >$3mil Community Development Ongoing
B.2.2. Window Film on the Civic Center Public Works 2009
B.2.3. LED Park Lights Parks & Community
Services 201 L
'B.3. Solid Waste and Rec clin Measnres
B.3.1. Bay-Friendly Landscaping Policy City Mana er's Office On oing
~"C. Public Qutreaeh~Pro ra[ns ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
C.l. Great Race for Clean Air City Manager's Office Ongoing
C.2. Walk `n' Roll to School Public Works Ongoing
C.3. Work with Schools on "Go Grced' Recycling and Composting CiCy Manager's Office Ongoing
C.4. AVI Educational Presentations City Manager's Office Ongoing
C.S. Promote Bike to Work Day Public Works Ongoing
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
57
IX. Relationship to the California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the City to identify the significant
environmental impacts of its discretionary actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if
feasible. Senate Bill 97 (2007) acknowledges that emissions from greenhouse gases are an
environmental issue that requires analysis under CEQA. When the City undertakes a
discretionary action for a"project" under CEQA, such as approval of a proposed development
project, plan, policy, or code change, the City will evaluate whether that action would result in a
significant impact due to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. ~
It is unclear if the adoption of the CAP is a"project" under CEQA. Since it is a plan to protect the
environment and reduce environmental impacts (due to greenhouse gas emissions or climate
change), it may not constitute a"project" or qualify for an exemption under CEQA. The overall
purpose of the CAP is to reduce the impact that the community will have on GHG emissions and,
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 Plan.
This approach is consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, 15064 and 15130 and the
adopted BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines and Thresholds of Significance, which provide a means
for jurisdictions to analyze and mitigate the significant effects of GHGs at a progammatic level
by adopting a plan for the reduction of GHG emissions. Later, as individual projects are proposed
that are consistent with the CAP, the project would be considered to have a less than significant
impact (i.e. less than cumulatively considerable contribution) from GHG emissions and climate
change.
When determining whether a proposed project is consistent with the CAP, City staff should
consider the following:
The extent to which the project supports or includes applicable strategies and measures,
or advances the actions identified in the CAP;
The consistency of the project with Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
population growth projections (Projections 2009), which are the basis of the CAP GHG
emissions projections; and ~
The extent to which the project would interfere with implementation of CAP strategies,
measures, or actions.
A project and its CEQA environmental review that relies on this CAP for its GHG emissions and
cl~imate 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's population growth projections or GHG reduction policies or
programs, the Applicant could consider various methods for making the Project consistent with
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 58
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 GHG emissions from
a Project may also be determined to be less than significant under CEQA through an alternative
analysis using a standard of significance that is supported by substantial evidence, such as
BAAQMD's numerical thresholds (<1,100 MT COZe per year or 4.6 metric tons per service
population (residents and employees) per year). A detennination that a Project does not
substantially comply with the CAP shall not in and of itself provide substantial evidence that a
Project's impact from GHG emissions is a significant impact under CEQA. It only means that a
Project may not be able to rely on the CAP for a determination that the Project's impact is less
than significant due to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change (i.e., less than cumulatively
considerable contribution to significant cumulative impact).
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 59
Appendices
A. ICLEIInventory and Projections Report
B. Fehr and Peers study re: Transit-Oriented Developments
C. Emission Reduction Calculations and Assumptions
D. Applicability of GHG Reduction Measures to New Development Projects Checklist
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
60
(:j' "~~ c' ~ ! ~ (
(';
Appendix A:
Supporting Date from ICLEI Inventory & Projections Report
~~.
Appendix A:
Forecast Data from ABAG's Projections 2009
Forecast Table 1- ABAG Pro'ections on Job Growth in Dublin
• ~ •:
JURISDICTIONAL
BOUNDARY 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
ALAMEDA 27,380 27,400 26,970 29,650 32,850
ALBANY 5,190 4,840 5,030 5,240 5,440
BERKELEY 78,320 75,430 76,170 77,040 79,610
DUBLIN 16,540 19,520 19,650 22,900 26,610
EMERYVILLE 19,860 19,670 18,610 20,460 22,340
FREMONT 104,830 93,950 94,440 , 96,410 101,050
HAYWARD 76,320 71,690 71,050 72,240 78,250
LIVERMORE 32,820 32,430 30,550 34,770 40,030
NEWARK 21,420 20,590 20,350 21,490 22,810
OAKLAND 199,470 202,570 188,590 209,340 229,720
PIEDMONT 2,120 2,090 2,090 2,100 2,110
PLEASANTON 58,670 57,300 55,770 61,320 66,760
DUBLIN 44,370 41,650 40,940 42,300 45,680
UNION CITY 19,310 19,370 20,230 22,170 24,860
UNINCORPORATED 43,540 41,770 42,410 43,840 46,950
Forecast Table 2- ABAG Projections on Population Growth in Dublin
• ~ '•' ~ •
JURISDICTIONAL
BOUNDARY 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
ALAMEDA 72,259 74,300 76,800 79,600 81,300
ALBANY 16,444 16,800 16,900 17,300 17,800
BERKELEY 102,743 104,400 106,500 109,400 111,900
DUBLIN 29,973 41,200 49,000 56,000 62,800
EMERYVILLE 6,882 8,400 10,100 11,300 12,700
FREMONT 203,413 210,000 214,200 221,200 230,600
HAYWARD 140,030 145,900 149,100 155,600 162,200
LIVERMORE 73,345 77,900 80,000 85,500 91,500
NEWARK 42,471 43,500 43,900 45,800 47,800
OAKLAND 399,484 410,600 420,900 446,100 470,900
PIEDMONT 10,952 11,100 11,100 11,100 11,100
PLEASANTON 63,654 67,500 69,300 72,200 75,600
SAN LEANDRO 79,452 81,300 82,000 83,600 85,800
UNION CITY 66,869 70,800 73,700 79,700 85,200
U N I NCORPO RATE D 135, 770 141, 700 146, 300 151, 700 158, 700
Appendix A City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 1
APPENDIX A
1 _rl~a ~~ ~
Emission Factors Used in the Alameda County Climate Protection Partnership
Emission Factors:
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~
COz 0.489155
lbs/kwh The certified COz emission factor for delivered electricity is publicly available at
PG&E htt~://www.climateregistry.or~/CarrotDocs/19/2005/2005 PUP Report V2 Revl
Electricity PGE rev2 Dec l.xls
0.492859
COZe
lbs/kwh
C~~ 343.3 short
~
Default tons/GWh
Direct 0.035 short ICLEUTellus Institute (2005 Region 13 - Western Systems Coordinating
Access CH
a tons/GWh CounciUCNV Average Grid Electricity Coefficients)
Electricity N~0 0.027 short
tons/GWh
PG&E/CCAR. Emission factors are derived from: California Energy Commission,
53.05 Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-1999
COZ kg/MMBtu (November 2002); and Energy Information Administration, Emissions of
PG&E Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2000 (2001), Table B1, page 140.
l~Tatural 0.0059 CCAR. Emission factors are derived from: U.S. EPA, "Inventory of U.S.
Gas CH4 kg/MMBtu Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2000" (2002), Table C-2, page C-2.
EPA obtained original emission factors from the Intergovernmental Panel on
Nz0 0.001 Climate Change, Revised IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
kg/MMbtu Inventories: Reference Manual (1996), Tables ]-15 through 1-19, pages 1.53-1.57.
Alameda County Transportation Sector Emission Factors:
. ~ . ~ .
, . • ~
- - - - . ~
~-
_
. .
,
~•- ~-- ~- ~--
0.062 0.042 0.070 0.050 92.8% 7.2% 8,599 10,092 19.1 6.4
Provided by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District EMFAC Model
Alameda County Waste Sector Emission Factors:
~
•~ ~
,~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~~
, •~
Pa er Products 2.138262868 0
Food Waste 1.210337473 0
Plant Debris .685857901 0
Wood/Textiles .605168736 0
All Other Waste 0 0
Methane recovery factor of 60% derived from the US EPA AP 42 Emissions Factars report
(http://www.epa. gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index.html).
Appendix A City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 2
Waste Calculation Methodology
Emissions Calculation Methods
COZe emissions from waste and ADC disposal were calculated using the methane commitment
method in the CACP software, which uses a version of the EPA WARM model. This model has
the following general formula:
COze = Wt * (1-R)A
Where:
Wt is the quantify of waste type `t',
R is the methane recovery factor,
A is the COze emissions of inethane per metric ton of waste at the disposal site (the methane
factor)
While the WARM model often calculates upstream emissions, as well as carbon sequestration in
the landfill, these dimensions of the model were omitted for this particular study for two reasons:
1) This inventory functions on a end-use analysis, rather than a life-cycle analysis, which
would calculate upstream emissions), and
2) This inventory solely identifies emissions sources, and no potential sequestration `sinks'.
Appendix A City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
3
~1~~ ~~I
~
Appendix B:
Fehr & Peers Study re: Transit-Oriented Developments
~
~EHR ~t ~}EERS
TRANSPORTA7ION C4NSUCTANTS
IVIENiORANDUIVi
Date: July 30, 2009
To: Jaimee Bourgeois, City of Dublin
From: Kathrin Teilez and Rob Rees, Fehr & Peers
Subject: City of Dublin Transit Oriented Development
Transportation Impact Fee Assessment
~1b~ ~ ~~~
WC08-2606
Fehr & Peers has reviewed data from a variety of sources to develop a likely range of vehicie 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 ~nd 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
AnnPnr~iY R
~~11 ~~ I ~~
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 I-580 with connections to the Iron Horse Trail.
RESEARCH SUMMARY
Project trip generation refers to the process for estimating the number of trips generated by a
development site or area. Typically, only vehicle trips are calculated, but trips can also occur by
walking, bicycling, or taking transit. T~ip generation estimates for residential projects are typicaliy
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 Mefhods
Vehicle trip generation rates presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE)
publication Trip Generation, Sth Edition, presents rates for a variety of land uses, including
residential. The Trip Generation Handbook (March 2004), aiso 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 totai 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 shouid be noted that the
Pleasant Hill BART station is'/2 mile from a convenience grocery store and almost 1 mile from a
full service grocery store. There are barriers to walking to those grocery uses from the BART
station area, including Treat Boulevard (a six lane arterial) and I-680 (a ten lane freeway).
Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 11, No. 3, 2008
Jaimee Bourgeois
July 30, 2009
Page 3 of 4
m~~~r I~I
~
Using the 2000 Bay Area Transportation Survey (BATS), Fehr & Peers compared the number of
automobile trips taken by residents within a% mile radius of non-downtown BART stations in the
East Bay with those in the surrounding region to determine the effect that BART proximity had on
mode choice. The survey shows that households within % mile of select East Bay BART Stations
(Excludes downtown stations at 12th Street, 19th Street, Downtown Berkeley, and Walnut Creek;
but includes all other stations, such as Concord, Pieasant Hill, Pittsburg/Bay Point, Richmond,
San Leandro, and Castro Valley) have a, 25 percent transit mode share on a daily basis. The
BATS data also shows that the transit mode share for residents living within % to one mile of a
BART station is 16 percent.
Trip reductions for the East Bay BART station survey data and the two Pleasant Hill Station TODs
are fairly similar, with the higher trip reductions at Pleasant Hill likely due to the rise in fuel price,
which occurred between the two survey periods, and the higher density of development and
subsequent lower automobile ownership found at Pleasant Hill Station compared to the rest of the
BART system in the East Bay.
Research presented in Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel, TCRP Report 128, states
that TOD commuters typically use transit up to five times more than other commuters in the
region and the mode share for TOD can be up to 50 percent. In 1990, the commute transit mode
share in the City of Dublin was 2 percent according to the Census. The commute share
increased to 5.4 percent by 2000, with the opening of the Dubliri/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 proxi_mity 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 Hili 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
~3~ I5~
Fehr & Peers expects that as the Dublin TOD areas fully develop and become established that
vehicie trip reductions approaching those measu~ed in Pleasant Hil~ 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 aiternative mode improvements included in the transportation impact fee programs and
further reductions to the fees could impede the ability of the City from fully developing the non-
motorized transportation network and providing other transit amenities.
This completes our assessment of trip reduction percentages for multi-family residential
developments within proximity of a BART station within the City of Dublin. Please let me know if
you have any questions.
FEHR ~ PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
WCOB-2606_Walksheds
DUBLIM-PLEASAf~TOfi! ST,4T10~9 WAL~SHEDS
~
~
0„~-
~
~ Dublin TOD Transportation Impact FeeAssessment
F E H R~ P E E RS AUTOMOBILE Ti21P REDUCTIO ~N ZOf~LS FOR RE>aDEf~TIAL TODs
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
~~iy2oos FIGURE 2
WCO&2606_Tri p R eduxZa nes
~
V `
~
~~
~
Dublin TOD Transportation Impact Fee Assessment
~y~~~ i~
~~
Appendix C:
Emissions Reductions Calculations anc~ Assumptions
~ierkers, G., E. Silsbe, 5. Stott, 5. Winkelman, an M. Wub6en. 2007. CCAP
iransporta6an Emissions Guide6ook. Centerfor CleanAir Policy, Washington,
D.C. Availa6le~. <http:/Jwww.ccap.org/safe/guide6ook.php>. as cited in
Glifornia Air Pollution Control O~cen AuociaGon ~CAPCOA) 2008. CEQA and
A.1.4 Bikeparking Y~topdown p.b°% 1,825 0.39% ClimafeChange.
Ewi~g, Reid, et a1.2001. i~ovel ond the9uik Environment A SynN~esis.
' Tansportation Research Aecord 1730. Paper No. O1d515 as cited in Urhan
~ ~and InstiNte, 20D8. Growing Cooler. ISBN:978-0-87420~082-2. Washington,
A.1.5 StreetscapeMasterPlan Y~topdown L'~„ 2,922 0.62% DC
Dierkers, G, E. Silsbe, S. Stott, 5. Winkelman, an M. Wubben. 2007. CCAP ,
Transportation Emissions Guidebook. Centerfor Clean Air Policy. Washington,
D.C. Availa6le: <http://www.ccap.org/safe/guidebook.php>, as cited in
Glifornia Air Pollution Control Officers Association ~CAPCOAJ 2008. CEQA ood
A.1.6 Mulfrmodalmap Y-tapdown 1': ~ 2,922 0.62% ClimateChonge.
Dierkers, G, E. Silsbe, 5. Stott, 5. Winkelman, an M. Wubben. 2~~7. CCAP
Transportation Emissions Guidebook. Cerrterfor Clean Air Policy. Washingtan,
D.C.Availahle:<http://www.ccap.org/safe/guidebook.php>, ascitedin
Y-top down ~detail Ulifornia Air Pollution Control OfficersAssaciation (CAPCOA) 2008. CEQAand
A.1.9 WorkwRhLAVIAtoimprovet2ns@ required) ,_ 1,461 0.31Yo ClimateChange.
Bikeways Master Plan; existing 21.4 miles; proposed 55.2 miles
class I,II, or III bike lanes. ~mrrent mode share 03%, proposed Gry of Du61in Bikeways Master Plzn. Pers. Comm. Jaimee Burgeouis, Ciry
A.1.10 6ikemasterplanmodesharel.5%) Y•topdown 12°~ 3,506 0.74% TafficEngineer.3/29/ID.
A.2.1 GreenBuildingOrdinance Y-topdown 57% 26,819 ' 15,287 3.24q CiryofDu6linCAP.Mareh2030.
Alameda Counry Waste ManagemeM Authorit~s Basic Home Energy Aetrofit
Package or equivalent upgrades that achieve a 20%efficiency improvement
The package would include attic insulatbn, programmable thermostats, water
heaterinsulation,hatwaterplpelnsulation,anddrzkeliminatlonthrough ~
, ~aulking and sealing. It is estimated that the total cost of such
improvementswouldbeapproximately$7,SOOta$10,000persingle-hmily ~
A.2,2 EnergyUpgrsdeCalifornia(Buildingretrofitmeamres) Y-topdown 40°o J.00% 4,480 0.95q home~asof2009).
Basedon5antaRitaJailCaseStudysystemsae:1.18MW,130,000sqk["3 ~
A.2.3 SolarConversionPrograms Y-hottomup 9000kW 22.76acres 4,500 0.95% acres]~AlamedaCounry2005)
0.009 KW/sq& CiryofDublinCAP.2~l0~Mamhj ~~
991,517 sq h
APPENDIX C
T00; Dublin T2nsit Center,1800 new and 674 ezisting entitled
high density units,l.7M sq k campus o~ce, 70ksq k ~
A.1.1 commercial,BJacpark,BARTparkingstructure Y~bottomup 25% 17,430 4,357 0.92% Fehr&Peers2009~July).AscdedinCityofDublinCAPmeawreA.l.l.
URBEMIS 2007. Version 9.2.4.
A.1.2 HighDensiryDevelopnent Y;combinedwithAl.1 '
A1.3 Mi~edusedevelopment Y;combinedwithA.l.l
Solid Waste & Recycling ~
~
A3.2 75%Cilywidewastediversbngoalby2010
Y-topdown
75%
4,911 1.04% notappliedtowaste-in-place
0.33 Tieredratestructurekrgarbage&reryding
combined wdh A.31
Commercial/Residentul Rerycling and Organics Collection
A.3.4-A3.9 progams combinedwithA3,2
~~
Calikrnia EnergyCommission ~CEC~ 2000~ California Energy Demand Staff
LEED Silver requirement for new City buildings over CIP $3 Aeport P200~00-D02; Glifornia Climate Action Registry [CC4R] Geneal
B.2.1 million:RecCenter,CulturolArtsCenter,CommunityCenter Y-hottomup 20% 394 79 0.0% ReportingProtocolv3.ilanuary2009
Green Bullding Ordinance (civic) URBEMIS 2007. Verslon 9.2.4.
B,7.2 Window fiIm on the Civic CeMer
Y~hottom up
123 16 0.00%
~ ~ ~
Based on SMA4M01009. Spare the AirControl Measure Program; Revision to
Comprehensivepuhlkoutreachprogrsmwithaspiationalgoal Y•topdown t00°; 1% 471 0,1% StatelmplementationPlanSto/fReport
RPS
20% by 2010
33% by2D20
GHG %Reduction
Reduction in Relative to
PG&E Existing RP Difference Sector 2020 ~MT/yr) 2020
14% 6% E 5,249 1.1%
14% 19% E 16,621 3.5%
AB 1493
12.20% 6y2020
LCFS
would not apply to emission factors applicable to inventory
35,642 7.6%
...!
~
~
VI
~ ~~~
~
Appendix D:
Applicability of GHG Reduction Measures to New
Development Projects Checklist
~o ~~~
Applicability of GHG Reduction Measures to New Development Projects
Measure Number and Title Residential
Pro'ect Commercial
Pro'ect
A. Communit ide Measures
A.1. Transportation and Land Use Measures
A.1.1. Transit-Oriented Development X
A.1.2. High-Density Development X
A.13. Mixed-Use Development X
A.1.4. Bicycle Parking Requirements X X
A.1.5. Streetscape Master Plan X X
A.1.6. Multi-Modal Map
A.1.7. Electric & Plug In-Hybrid Charging Stations at the Library
A.1.8. General Plan Community Design & Sustainability Element X X
A.1.9. Work with LAVTA to Improve Transit X X
A.1.10. Bikeways Master Plan
A.2. Ener Measures
A.2.1. Green Building Ordinance X
A.2.2. Energy Upgrade California
A.23. Solar Conversion Programs
A.2.4. Reduce Solar Installation Pemut Fee
A.3. Solid Waste and Rec clin Measures
A.3.1. Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance X X
A3.2. Citywide Diversion Goal of 75%
A33. Tiered Rate Structure for Garbage and Recycling
A.3.4. Commercial Recycling Program
A3.5. Commercial Food Waste Collection Program
A3.6. Promote Commercial Recycling
A3.7. Promote Multi-family Recycling
A3.8. Curbside Residential Recycling Program
A.3.9. Curbside Organics Collection Program
'- 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.
Z- The bicycle pazking requirement for residential proj ects applies only to multi-family complexes.
3- Through the entitlement process, the Applicant will work with LAVTA to determine if a bus stop is required
along the frontage of the project site.
4- The Green Building Ordinance applies to residential projects with 20 or more units.
ADnendix n
~ I ~ ~ i
~
RESOLUTION NO. XX-10
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATtON FOR THE
CITY OF DUBLIN CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2007, the Dublin City Council passed Resolution 139-07
approving participation in the Climate Protection Project for Alameda County jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin committed to ICLEI's five milestone methodology for
reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within the City, which includes the development of a
Climate Action Plan for reducing GHG emissions; and
WHEREAS, in June 2010, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
adopted CEQA air quality thresholds of significance for use within its jurisdiction, which included
an emission level threshold and an efficiency threshold for GHG emissions for development
projects; and
WHEREAS, alternatively, under CEQA and the BAAQMD CEQA thresholds, a City may
prepare a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy or Climate Action Plan to evaluate a community's
cumulative impact due to GHG emissions from future planned development; and
WHEREAS, if a project is consistent with an adopted, qualified GHG Reduction Strategy
or Climate Action Plan, the Strategy/Plan can be used as 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, the Fiscal Year 2010/2011 City Council Goals and Objectives includes as a
high priority goal, the creation of a Climate Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has contracted with AECOM to assist Staff in preparing
the Draft Climate Action Plan; 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; 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 7, 2010 to August 5, 2010; and
ATTACHMENT 3
g ~~b (~
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin received six comment letters during the public review
period, but only one letter (the letter from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District dated
August 5, 2010) raised concerns; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin worked cooperatively with BAAQMD and made minor
modifications to the Climate Action Plan and Negative Declaration to address the concerns
outlined in the BAAQMD letter dated August 5, 2010. The minor modifications to the Negative
Declaration do not require recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Draft
Climate Action Plan and Negative Declaration on October 26, 2010 and adopted Resolution 10-
50 recommending that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Draft Climate
Action Plan and Negative Declaration on November 16, 2010; 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 is the City of Dublin City
Manager's Office, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568, Attention: 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.
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 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.
4. The Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the
CEQA Guidelines.
2of3
vote:
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
~~ ~~~
~
16th day of November 2010 by the following
Mayor
G: IPA#I?OlDlDublin Climate Action Plan & Neg DecICC Meeting //. /6. /OICC Reso Neg Dec.doc
3 of 3
~~ is ~
~
Public laeview Draft
Initial Stud~/ l~Tegati~e Declaration fo~ the
City of Dublin
Climate Action Plan
October 2010
EXHIBIT A TO
s •r~r n r~u~r~ ~r-r ~
~y~~{°~, ~~~
1~
Table of Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 3
Contact Person & Sponsor ...............................:............................................................... 3
Project Location and Context ........................................................................................... 3
Project Background ................................................................................ 4 ,
Project Description ...................................................................."....................................... 5
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .................................................................... 1 l
Determination .................................................................................................................. 11
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts .............................................................................. 12
Earlier Analyses ............................................................................................................... 13
Discussion of Checklist .................................................................................................... 25
l. Aesthetics ................................................................................................. 25
2. Agricultural Resources ............................................................................ .26
3. Air Quality ...............................................................................................26
4. Biological Resources ...............................................................................27
5. Cultural Resources .................................................................................. .27
....................................................28
6. Geology and Soils ...........:....................
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................... .28
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................ 29
9. Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................. 30
10. Land Use and Planning ............................................................................ 31
1 l. Mineral Resources ................................................................................... 32
12. Noise ..........................................................:............................................. 32
13. Population and Housing ........................................................................... 33
14. Public Services ..............................................................:.......................... 34
15. Recreation ................................................................................................ 34
16. Transportation/Traffic .............................................................................. 35
17. Utilities and Service Systems .............:..................................................... 36
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................................................ 37
.........................................................................
Initial Study Preparers .............................
Agencies and Organizations Consulted ........................................................................... 38
References ........................................................................................................................ 3 8
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Regional Context ........
Exhibit 2: City of Dublin Context
.......................9
.......................10
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan
Page 2
October 2010
~~ t isi
~
City of Dublin
Environmental Checklist/
Initial Study
Introduction
The City of Dublin prepared a Draft Climate Action Plan (Draft CAP) using input fiom 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 OfficelEnvironmental Services
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin; CA 94568
(925) 833-6650
Attn: Roger Bradley, Senior Administrative Analyst
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 an existing Dublin/Pleasanton station and a West Dublin
station currently under construction and anticipated to be completed in 2011.
Exhibit 1 shows the location of Dublin in relation to surrounding communities and other
maj or features.
Topographically, the community is generally flat north of the Interstate 580 comdor,
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.
Gity of Dublin Page 3
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
~1 ~, I~~
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. Eastem
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 has 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 wat~ning, 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 C02e), 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's Draft CAP articulates the City's intentions with respect to reducing community-
wide GHG emissions to further the goals of AB 32. The City's Draft CAP includes a variety
of strategies and policies to reduce GHG emissions within the community. The various
reduction measures contained within the Draft 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 Draft CAP
if, considering all of its aspects, it would substantially comply with the applicable measures
set forth within the Draft CAP and not obstruct their attainment.
CEQA allows cities to develop climate action or GHG reduction plans to provide
programinatic analysis of the cumulative impacts of GHG emissions for future projects in the
City of Dublin Page 4
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
~~~ I~I
~
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. This Draft CAP 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 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, documents referenced in the CAP, this IS/ND, and
other parts of the record relating to the adoption of the CAP. 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 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 CAP. This approach is consistent with Public Resources Code 21083.3,
CEQA Sections 15183.5, 15064 and 15130 and the adopted BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines
and Thresholds of Significance, which provide a means for jurisdictions to analyze and
mitigate the significant effects of GHGs at a prograinmatic 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 CAP, the proj ect 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.
Project Description
The proposed project is the adoption of the Draft CAP, a document that provides policies and
measures aimed at reducing GHG emissions within the City. The goal of the Draft CAP is to
reduce Dublin's community-wide GHG emissions by 20% below the Business-As-Usual
projection of GHG emitted by 2020 which results in an efficiency level of 4.22 MT COze per
service population per year in 2020. The Draft CAP describes baseline GHG emissions produced
in Dublin, and projects GHG emissions that could be expected if the Draft CAP 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 Draft
CAP, 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 boarder the Dublin community.
Emission Inventory, Baseline and Prajections
Chapter II of the Draft CAP, "Emission Inventory," presents a GHG emissions inventory for
2005, which includes an inventory of both community level and municipal level emissions. The
community emissions inventory includes sources of GHG emitted from the residential,
commerciaUindustrial, transportation and waste sectors. The municipal emissions inventory
City of Dublin Page 5
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
~~~ iSl
b
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 ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability using
Clean Air and Climate Protection (CACP) software. Total community-wide emissions were
determined to be 357,211 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2005. Government-related
emissions were estimated to be 1,573 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2005.
Chapter III of the Draft CAP, "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 and a half by approximately 31.9% from 357,211 to
471,205 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. Dublin's GHG reduction goal is 20% below
the Business-As-Usual projection of GHG emitted during 2020 by said year. In other terms, the
City projects that emission reduction measures contained within the Draft CAP will lower the
projected GHG emissions from 2020 from 471,205 metric tons of carbon dioxide to 376,964.
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 Draft CAP is more clearly demonstrated by
comparing per service population emissions (population + employment, which decreases from
5.88 tons per service population in 2005 to 4.22 tons per service population using the projections
for 2020, which represents a 28% decrease in GHG emissions between the base year and forecast
year. Thus, the City will be growing significantly over the 15-year period covered by the CAP,
but during this same time, the City's GHG emissions will be decreasing significantly on a per
service population basis, which is not clearly visible when simply inspecting the BAU scenario.
Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Measures
The Draft CAP identifies a variety of ineasures 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 Draft CAP, 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 Draft CAP 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 2005 GHG emissions inventory.
Results of Implementation
Implementation of the measures in the Draft CAP would result in annual community-wide GHG
emission reductions of approximately 46,737 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (9.92%
total % reduction relative to 2020). 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. The measures
outlined in the Draft CAP represent the City controlled emissions. Additionally, implementation
of statewide initiatives (Renewable Portfolio Standard and AB 1493) would result in annual
GHG emission reductions of an additional 52,263 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
(11.09% total % reduction relative to 2020). The Draft CAP measures combined with the
City of Dublin Page 6
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
~6~~ i~i
statewide initiatives would reduce the anticipated emissions in the community by 99,000 metric
tons/year of carbon dioxide equivalent and would achieve the City's reduction goal of reducing
GHG emission by 20% below the Business-As-Usual projection of GHG emitted during 2020 by
said year which results in an efficiency level of 4.22 MT COZe per service population per year in
2020.
Potential Environmentallmpacts
The overall purpose of the Draft CAP 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
Draft CAP 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 Draft CAP. The
environmental analysis of the Draft CAP will only focus on the new policies or changes in
existing or adopted policies tlzat will be implemented as a result of the Draft CAP. It will not
analyze the impacts of existing or approved programs included in the Draft CAP, which have
already undergone their own environmental review. In particular, the Draft CAP 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.
City of Dublin Page 7
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
~I ~~~
~
1. Project description: Adoption of the Draft Climate Action Plan.
2. Lead agency: City of Dublin
3. Contact persons: Roger Bradley, Senior Administrative Analyst,
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 October 2010
~~~ isl
Exhibit l. Regional Context
~5 ~
San `,
Francisco
~'acif~c C)cean
0 " 10 Miles
~----- ~
;; ~---
~
,
'~ Detail
~ '~
E ' ~' ~-.
i~ \
~ ~.
_ ~~, ~~~
; ; California`,;
`.__-_~,
aa
San °
Francisco
Bay
Santa
\Cruz
ProJect site
I~ivermore
Tracy
Sr~l~ I~C1S~
c;iry ot Uublin
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan
Page 9
October 2010
q~~~~ i~i
Exhibit 2. City of Dublin context
City of Dublin Page 10
Initiai Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
~~ i~~
~
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 - Hydrolo~y/Water
Emissions Hazardous Materials Quality
- Land Use/ Planrung - Mineral Resources - Noise
- Population/ - Public Services - Recreation
Housing
- Transportation/ - Utilities/Service - Mandatory Findings
Circulation Systems of Significance
DetermiIIatioII (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: I
Printed Name:
Date: a ~ ~
For:
City of Dublin Page 11
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
~~~ ~s~
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 proj ect-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 deternuned 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 included in the proposed Draft CAP, the CAP will
not result in any change. Therefore, since such environmental impacts have been
adequately analyzed under prior adopted CEQA environmental documents and the
Draft CAP 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 October 201 ~
~~~ ; ~~ i
~
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 EIlZs or NDs listed below. This Initial Study will not analyze the impacts of
existing or approved programs included in the Draft CAP which have already undergone their
own environmental review. The Draft CAP 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 Draft CAP will only focus on the new policies or changes in
policies that will be implemented as a result of the Draft CAP.
o 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 I~'o. 215-02 on November 19, 2002.
• Dublin Ranch West Supplemental EIR (SCH # 2003022082), certified by City Council
Resolution No. 42-OS on March 15, 2005.
• Fallon Village Project Supplemental EIR (SCH # 2005062010), certified by City Council
Resolution No. 225-OS 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-OS 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.
~iry or uubim Page 13
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
~~~ is~
~
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
Initiai Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
~',~~~,, /s/
i ~ ~,
Note: A full discussion of each item is found
following the checklist.
1. Aesthetics. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista? (Sources: 1-9)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including
but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
(Sources: l -9)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual characte
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
(Sources: 1-9)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area? (Sources: 1-9)
2. Agricultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farn~land, Unique Farmland or
Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the Farn~land
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to a non-
agricultural use? (Sources: 1-9)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use,
or a Williamson Act contract? (Sources: 1-9)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of farmland to a non-
agricultural use? (Sources: 1-9)
3. Air Quality (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management district may be relied on to make
the following determinatioris). Would the
project.•
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? (Sources: 1-9)
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation? (Sources: 1-9)
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X ~
r
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan
Page 15
October 2010
~'~ 15/
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors?
(Sources: l-9)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? (Sources: 1-9)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people? (Sources: 1-9)
4: Biological Resources. Would the project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies
or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service? (Sources: 1-9).
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or reg-ional plans, policies or
regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife ,
Service? (Sources: 1-9)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected werlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including but not limited
to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption
or other means?
(Sources: 1-9)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migrato .ry wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites? (Sources: 1-9)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as tree
protection ordinances? (Sources: 1-9)
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan
Page 16
October 2010
I~o ~~ ~~~
fl Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan or other approved local,
regional or state habitat conservation plan?
(Sources: l -9)
5. Cultural Resources. Would the project
a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the
significance of a historical resource as defined
in Sec. 15064.5? (Sources: 1-9)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archeological resource
pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Sources: 1-9)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource, site or unique geologic
feature? (Sources: 1-9)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of a formal cemetery? (1-9)
6. Geology and Soils. Would the project
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a lrnown earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist or
based on other substantial evidence of a lrnown
fault (1-9)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking (Sources: 1-9)
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? ((Sources: 1-9)
iv) Landslides? (Sources: 1-9)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? (Sources: 1-9)
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction ar similar hazards
(Sources: l-9)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
(Sources: 1-9)
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
~iry or uunun
initial Study/Ciimate Action Plan ~
Page 17
October 2010
!aI a~~ ~~~~ l
~
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or Option wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater? (Sources: 1-9)
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or
regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gasses?
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use
or disposal of hazardous materials?
((Sources: 1-9)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment? ((Sources: 1-9)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
materials or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school? ((Sources: 1-9)
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Sec. 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment? (Sources: 1-9, 11)
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted
within two miles of a public airport of public use
airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? ((Sources: 1-9)
fl For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
(Sources: 1-9)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with the adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
(Sources: 1-9) ,
City of Dublin
Initiai Study/Climate Action Plan
Potentialiy
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 18
October 2010
i~~~~~ ~s~
~~
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk o
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands? (Sources: 1-9)
9. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? (Sources: 1-9)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate
of existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or
planned uses for which pernuts have been
granted? (1-9)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site? ((Sources: 1-9)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or areas, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site? ((Sources: 1-9)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff? (Sources: 1-9)
fl Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
(Sources: l-9)
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area
as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
delineation map? (Sources: 1-9) ;
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan '
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
f
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 19
October 2010
~b~ ~~ I~~
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect flood
flows? ((Sources: 1-9, 13)
n Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury, and death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam? ((Sources: 1-9)
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? (1-9)
10. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
((Sources: 1-9)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
the proj ect (including but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect? (Sources: 1-
9)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
(Sources: 1-9)
11. Mineral Resources. Would the project
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state? (Sources:
1-9)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local General Plan, specific plan
or other land use plan? ((Sources: l-9)
12. Noise. Would the proposal result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies? (1-9)
b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels? (Sources: 1-9)
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above existing
levels without the project? (Sources: 1-9)
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan .
~'age LU
October 2010
~b~~~ e~~
d) A substantial temporary or penodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project? (1-9)
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public us
airport, would the project expose people residin
or working n the project area to excessive noise
levels? ((Sources: 1-9)
fl For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? ((Sources: 1-9)
13. Population and Housing. Would the project
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (Sources: 1-9)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere? (Sources: 1-9)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement of
housing elsewhere? (Sources: 1-9)
14. Public Services. Would the proposal:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
government facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
r,esponse times or other performance objectives
for any of the public services? ((Sources: 1-9)
Fire protection
Police protection
Schools
Parks
Other public facilities
Solid Waste
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X e
g
City of Dubiin
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan
Page 21
October 2010
~ b~ +~~
~
15. Recreation:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or recreational
facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated (Sources: 1-9, 12)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of .
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
((Sources: 1-9, 12)
16. Transportation and Traffc. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity
of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion
at intersections)? (Sources: 1-9)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a
level of service standard established by the
County Congestion Management Agency for
designated roads or highways? (Sources: 1-9)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety nsks?
(Sources: 1-9)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses, such as farm
equipment? (Sources: 1-9)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (1-9)
fl Result in inadequate parking capacity? (1-9)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs
supporting Option transportation (such as bus
turnouts and bicycle facilities) (Sources: 1-9)
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti arion Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan
Nage ZZ
October 2010
C~~~ ~~~
~
17. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board? (Sources: 1-9)
b) Require or result in the construction of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
((Sources: 1-9, 10)
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? (Sources: 1-9)
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing water entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (Sources: 1-9, 10)
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve
the proj ect's proj ected demand in addition to the
providers existing commitments? (1-9)
fl Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid
waste disposal needs? (Sources: 1-9)
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? (Sources: 1-9)
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, substantially reduce
the number of or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
irnportant examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miri ation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Giry ot Uublin
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan
Page 23
October 2010
lb`~~ I~~
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
rneans that the incremental effects of a proj ect
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current proj ects and the effects of probable
future projects).
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potenrially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts
1) Eastern Dublin ~eneral 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) Casmir Valley/Muller 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 Deparhnent 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
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan
Page 24
October 2010
:. ~~~
;~;,~ ; :
c~r 4::~§
~~ ~~
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
Proiect 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.
Proposed measures in the Draft CAP encourage the installation of photovoltaic (PV)
panels on homes and businesses in the City to provide alternative sources of energy.
PV panels could be placed on rooftops, which could potentially alter scenic views.
Installation of these panels would require Building review and approval. Typically PV
panels are placed on existing homes, 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. The Draft CA.P 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 Draft CAP 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 Draft CAP would not result in the
development of major light sources, although installation of PV panels on homes and
businesses is encouraged to reduce Dublin's dependence on energy sources that produce
GHGs. PV panels are specifically designed to absorb, not reflect sunlight. Thus their
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. The Draft CAl' 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
City of Dublin Page 25
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
I~~ ~~I
~
environmental impacts have been analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents and
the Draft CAP will not result in any changes to these policies/prograxns, no further
analysis of these impacts are required in this document.
2. Agricultural Resources .
Project Impacts
a-c) Convert Prime Farmlancl, 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. The Draft CAP 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 Draft CAP 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 Draft CAP is to reduce GHG emissions within the City to help contribute
to global efforts to reduce the effects of climate change. Measures within the Draft CAP
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 Draft CAP would result in a less-
than-significant impact.
b,c) YYould the project violate any dir 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
and programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan. The Draft CAP 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 Draft CAP 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 Draft CAP would result in a reduction in the emissions of other criteria
pollutants, especially from measures that reduce emissions from vehicles.
City of Dublin Nage zti
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
llD ~~ 1 Sl
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. The Draft CAP 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 Draft CAP 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. The
Draft CAP 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 Draft CAP 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 Draft CAP would result in a less-than significant impact.
e, fl 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 Draft CAP would result in a less-than
significant impact.
5. Cultural Resources
Project Impacts
a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? LS. Ail 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. The Dra$ CAP 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
City of Dublin Page 27
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
~II~ ~~l
~
analyzed under the Adopted CEQA Documents and the Draft CAP 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 destYUCtion 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 Draft CAP would result in a less-than
significant impact.
6. Geology and Soils
Project Im~acts
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss,
injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure, oY
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. The Draft CAP 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 Draft CAP 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 Draft CAP 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 Draft CAP would result in a less-than siguficant 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. No impacts would
therefore result with regard to septic systems.
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 Draft CAP
would result in annual community-wide GHG emission reductions of approximately
99,000 metric tons COze by 2020, which includes the reduction measures within the
Draft CAP as well as implementation of regional and State initiatives such as
Renewable Portfolio Standards and AB 1493 (Pavley). Implementation of the Draft
City of Dublin Page 28
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan ~ October 2010
II~~~ i~I
~
CAP 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 adoptecl for the
purpose of Yeducing the e~nissions of GHGs? NI. California has adopted a wide variety
of regulations aimed at reducing the State's GHG emissions. AB 32, the Califomia
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 C02e,
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 Draft CAP 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 ineasures proposed within the Draft CAP would result
in annual community-wide GHG emission reductions of approximately 46,737 MT
C02e by 2020. Additionally, implementation of statewide initiatives (Renewable
Portfolio Standards and Assembly Bill 1493) would result in annual GHG emission
reductions of an additional 52,263 MT COae. The Draft CAP measures combined with
the statewide initiatives would reduce the anticipated emissions in the community by
99,000 MT C02e 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 Draft CAP 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
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. The Draft CAP 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 Draft CAP 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 29
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
I~~~ I~l
~
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 Draft CAP
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 tlze public or
environment? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the Draft CAP would result in
a less-than significant impact.
e, fl 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 Draft CAP would result in a
less-than significant impact.
g) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan? LS. See item (a) above.
Implementation of the Draft CAP 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 wilcllands? LS. See item (a)
above. Implementation of the Draft CAP 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. The Draft CAP 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 Draft CAP 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? I~TI. 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.
City of Dublin Page 3U
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan ~ October 2010
If~~ 15~
~
c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that
substantial siltation or erosion would occur? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of
the Draft CAP would result in a less-than significant impact.
d,e) Substantially alter drainage patterns or result in flooding, either on or off the project
site, create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or
add substantial amounts ofpolluted runoff? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of
the Draft CAP would result in a less-than significant impact.
fl Substantially degrade water quality? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the
Draft CAP would result in a less-than significant impact.
g-i) Place housing within a 100 year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance
Rate Map, or impede or redirect flood flow, including dam failure? LS. See item (a)
above. Implementation of the Draft CAP 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? 1VI. The programs and policies in the Draft
CAP are consistent with the City General Plan. Construction of future projects
(including mixed-use development, transit-oriented development and new bike
facilities) under the auspices of the Draft CAP would proceed based on the Dublin
General Plan and other land use regulatory documents, including applicable Specific
Plans and the Dublin Transit Center Stage 1 Development Plan and would not
physically divide an established community. Additionally, the Draft CAP includes
measures to improve connectivity within Dublin and to promote alternative
transportation methods. The Draft CAP 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
developments anticipated in the Draft CAP are required to obtain the required permits,
such as subdivision maps, Site Development Review permits, building permits and
potent~ally 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.
City of Dublin Page 31
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
Il~~' I~~
~
11. Mineral Resources
Project Impacts
a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources?
rtI. 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 Draft
CAP 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. The Draft CAP 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 Draft CAP
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 ineasures within the Draft CAP 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.
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. The Draft CAP will not
result in any change in these policies or programs. The envirorunental 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 Draft CAP 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 32
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
11~L~ J~i
c,d) Substantial permanent or temporary increases in ambient noise levels? LS.
Implementation of the Draft CAP 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 confonn 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 on Noise would result from development or
activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and programs included in the
proposed Climate Action Plan. The Draft CAP 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 Draft CAP will not
result in any changes to these policies/programs, no further analysis of these impacts are
required in this document.
e, fl 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. The Draft CAP 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 Draft CAP will not
result in any changes to these policies/programs, no further analysis of these impacts are
required in this document.
13. Population and Housing
Project Impacts
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? LS.
Implementation of the Draft CAP 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
c:iry ot uublm Page 33
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
~~ I~l
~
programs included in the proposed Climate Action Plan. The Draft CAP 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 Draft CAP 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 ot- people
requiring replacement housing? LS. The Draft CAP 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. The Draft CAP 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 Draft CAP 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 Draft CAP would
result in a less-than significant impact.
c) Schools? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the Draft CAP would result in a
less-than significant impact.
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including r.oads? LS. See item (a) above.
Implementation of the Draft CAP would result in a less-than significant impact.
e) Solid waste generation? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the Draft CAP
would result in a less-than significant impact. Also, the Draft CAP 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. The Draft CAP will not result in any change in these
City of Dublin Page 34
initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
If~ ~~ ~ 51
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 Draft CAP 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 recYeational facilities or require the construction of
recreational facilities? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the Draft CAP would
result in a less-than significant impact.
16. Transportation/Traffic
Project Impacts
a, b) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial relative to existing traffic load and
street; or exceed LOS standards established by the County CMA for designated roads?
LS. Implementation of the Draft CAP 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. ~'urthermore, no
proposed measure in the Draft CAP would directly increase traffic in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system.
Additionally, impacts of local and regional traffic from development projects have been
analyzed in the previous CEQA documents adopted by the City and are identified in the
Earlier Analysis section of this document. All other potentially significant impacts on
Transportation/Traffic would result from development or activities in accordance with
existing or approved policies and programs included in the proposed Climate Action
Plan. The Draft CAP 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 Draft CAP 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 traff c patterns? 1~1I. The Draft CAP 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
Draft CAP 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
City of Dublin Page 35
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
[~ ~ 1~~
~
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
Draft CAP 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 Draft
CAP 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 Draft CAP
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. The Draft CAP 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 Draft CAP 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 wastewatet- treatment requirements of the RWQCB? LS. All potentially
significant impacts on Utilities and Service Systems would result from development or
activities in accordance with existing or approved policies and programs included in the
proposed Climate Action Plan. The Draft CAP 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 Draft CAP 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 Draft CAP 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
City of Dublin Page 36
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
/ ,,JJ p (/~ ~
. ~. ~ ~}~f" ~ /
5~
environmental effects? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the Draft CAP would
result in a less-than significant impact.
d) Are sufficient water supplies available? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the
Draft CAP 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 Draft CAP would result in a less-than significant impact.
f, g) Solid waste disposal? LS. See item (a) above. Implementation of the Draft CAP would
result in a less-than significant impact.
18. Mandatory Findings of Signi~cance
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the Izabitat 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 Yange 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. The Draft CAP 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 Draft CAP 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 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. The Draft CAP 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 Draft CAP 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 October 2010
ai~i~'~I
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. The Draft CAP 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 Draft CAP 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 Aj a, Environmental Specialist
Agencies and Organizations Consulted
The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial Study:
City of Dublin
Jeff Baker, Planning Manager
Roger Bradley, Senior Administrative Analyst
Tim Cremin, City Attorney's Office
Jordan Figueiredo, Environmental Technician
Chris Foss, Assistant City Manager
Jeri Ram, Community Development Director
References
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan ElR (SCH #
91103064, May 10, 1993.
Downtown Core Specific Plan Miti~ated Ne~ative Declaration, December 19,
2000.
Dublin Transit Center Supplemental E]R (SCH # 20011200395), November 19,
2002
Dublin Ranch West Supplemental EIR, (SCH # 2003022082), March 15, 2005.
Final Urban Water Mana~ement Plan, 2005 Update, Dublin San Ramon Services
District, May 2005
Mission Peak/Fallon Crossing Mitigated Ne~ative Declaration, May 16, 2006.
City of Dublin ~ F~age ~rs
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
I:~~~~ ~1~I
~.
Var as Proiect Miti~ated Negative Declaration, May l, 2007.
Casamira Valley/Moller Ranch Supplemental EIR (SCH# 2005052146), May 1,
2007.
Fallon Villa~Project Supplemental E1R (SCH # 2005062010), March 4, 2008.
Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin, Updated through 9/14/06
Parks and Recreation Master Plan, City of Dublin, 2004 update
Bikeways Master Plan, City of Dublin, June 2007
City of Dublin Page 39
Initial Study/Climate Action Plan October 2010
~~~ ~ ~~
~
CITY OF DUBLIN
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Title: City of Dublin Climate Action Plan (CAP)
Description of Project: The proposed project is the adoption of the Draft CAP, a document
that provides policies and measures aimed at reducing greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions within the City of Dublin. The goal of the
Draft CAP is to reduce Dublin's community-wide GHG emissions
by 20% below a business as usual scenario by 2020 which results
in an efficiency level of 4.22 MT C02e per service population per
year in 2020. The Draft CAP identifies a variety of ineasures to
achieve the City's GHG reduction target. The Draft CAP describes
baseline GHG emissions produced in Dublin in 2005, and projects
GHG emissions that could be expected if the Draft CAP is not
implemented. The City expects the reduction to be achieved by a
combination of the reduction measures included in the Draft CAP
and State initiatives, such as Renewable Portfolio Standard and
Assembly Bill 1493 (Pavley).
Project Location: City-wide applicability.
Name of Proponent: City of Dublin .
Attn: Martha Aj a, Environmental Specialist
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 NEGATNE
DECLARATION is hereby approved.
__---
/~ t o
Roger Bradley enior Adininistrative Analyst 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.
Attachrnents
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 October 2010
o~/~~°`• -~"„';~ s COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
~ PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
951 Turner Court, Room 100
~UBL{C Hayward, CA 94545-2698
~,' `' WORKS (510) 670-6601
es~Urces FAX (510) 670-5269
July 27, 2010
Martha Aj a
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Ms. Aja:
~~~~' ~~
,.x.,. t.,_._.~'~
~~~~~ 1 ~.: =2_~.
G~~ ~~ ~:~_~.,,;&a~;j~~
~-;!J~ d `_? Z[-~~.;
pp/`;(i~1•-
~~.{ A Y 1~t`!:11}f.-i~~ri~i1'i.'~.~~i~6 i~IR
Subject: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration for Dublin Climate
Action Plan (CAP)
Reference is made to your transmittal of a copy of Draft Initial Study and Negative
Declaration for the adoption of the Draft Climate Action Plan, a document that provide
policies and measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within the City of
Dublin.
We have reviewed the submitted documents and have no comments to offer at this time.
If you have any questions, please call me at (510) 670-5209.
Very truly yours,
~-~/
R s e De Leon ,
A si E gineer
Development Services Department
/RDL
E~HtB[T B TO
ATTACHMENT 3
rQ~G 1 V1 1
J~~~'~A r~'~I
Martha Aja
~ _ ___ _. _ _
From: Diane Lowart
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 9:43 AM
To: Martha Aja
Subject: Clirnate Action Plan
Martha:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Negative Declaration for the Dublin
Clirnate Action Plan. For the record, I have no comments.
Diane Lowart
Parks & Community Services Director
City of Dublin
8/4/2010
Au~_ ~, 2;~;i, q. ~~Ffv1 ~~~V~., _ 1;~~ P, ~
•~------~
~ ~~~~~ISI
-~ox s~~yfc
~ ~
h~ d
DUBLIN $ .~a 7U51 bu6lin ~oulcvard
SAN RAMON ~ ~ DuDlin, CaliFornia 94668
P 'y Phone; 925 828 0515
SERVICES ~t„~ if,£~?on,,,;~, , t+AJi: 925 829 1180
bTST12ICT ~~1 ` `st1VCE 1953i ~l tw~~i~.dsrsd.com
Augusf ~, 2010
Martha Aj~, LnviroiuTiental Specia.list
City of ]~ublin - City Manager's Oftice
100 Civic plaza
l~ublin, CA 94568
SuUject: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Ne~ativc Decla~•ation f~r the Dablin Clim~te
Action Plnu (CAP)
Dear Ms. Aja:
T~laI]I~ ~'OLI f~l' t~2~ Op~OI"tllIllt~' t0 COIIlIIlel]t OIl tlle ~I~OVe 5i1~~eCt CIOCU121211~. Tlle D1.1~711h Sail
Raanon Services ]~istrict (DSI2SD) has reviewed the Di~aft Clim:3te Aetion Plan (CAP) and h~3s
t~ie foll~wing e~mtnerit.
Tlae acti.oxzs i~i t1~e A~aft CAP, ~vhich prim~rily ~ddresses greenhouse gas (CrHCr) ernissions, will
1~ot mlteria]I~ affect DSRSI) or its opeiatzoz~s, Never~theless, bSRSb is in favor of the actoption
af tl~e Draf~ CAP in oicier to ensure tl~e Cify of Dr~Ulii~, aclequate~y adclresses the issue of CxT~G~
en~ssioiis.
]~SI2SD will continue to work with the City of Dubliii to iliutually provicle ser~~ices to oui•
customers and residerits while protecting our va.lu3ble enviroiunent.
Th~,il:, you ;~ot tl~e opportunity to review the Draft Clirnate Action 1'1an. rf you h~ve any
quesfions regardiiag JJSRSA's co7~-u~.tients, p~ease contact me at (925) 875-2253.
Si~~cerely,
,.
STANLEY LODZI
Associa.te ~ngineer
SK/st
cc; Da~ve Requa
UubIIn S¢n h~unon Sen~cn: Dielricl ie a P~~blie Enti6•
H;\ENaD~E71\GkQ~WOT to adopl: NegDeo for tha AuUI~ Cllmala Aclion Plan wue 2olo,doc
081'05;'2010 THLI 1,~ 99 ~T~;:'~u t~n ~~nn i r.?~ nni
~j
;: s
BAY AREA
AI R C~UAL ITY
MANAGEMENT
D I S T R I C T
S INCE 1955
ALAMEDA COUNTY
Tom Bates
(Vice-Chairperson)
Scott Haggerty
Jennifer Hosterman
Nate Miley
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
John Gioia
(Secretary)
David Hudson
Mark Ross
Gayle B. Uilkema
MARIN COUNTY
Harold C. Brown, Jr.
NAPA COUNTY
Brad Wagenknecht
(Chairperson)
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY
Chris Daly
Eric Mar
Gavin Newsom
SAN MATEO COUNTY
Carol Klatt
Carole Groom
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
Susan Garner
Ash Kalra
Liz Kniss
Ken Yeager
SOLANO COUNTY
James Spering
SONOMA COUNTY
Shirlee Zane
Pamela Torliatt
Jack P. Broadbent .
EXECUTIVE OFFICER/APCO
7! y\Cdy~
°~~isro Gree~~J
1~-`1~~(~l
August 5, 2010
Martha Aj a
City Manager's Office
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Subject: Draft Dublin Cliinate Action Plan
Dear Martha Aja:
~~u€~g~~~
J~
E~i k `:! ~~ ~~~~!r@~?
A~JG ~ '~ Z(~1Q
~{~ ; k EFf~~,~°:1'~~4L,~Lt~c.^ ~~qt°~°fF.r~
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (District) staff reviewed the City's
Draft Climate Action Plan (CAP) a11d the Draft Negative Declaration. We
understand that the project is the adoption of the CAP, a document that provides
policies and measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within
the City. The goal of the CAP is to reduce the City's communitywide GHG
emissions by 25% below a business-as-usual scenario by 2020. The CAP
describes the baseline GHG emissions produced in Dublin in 2005 and estimates
GHG emissions in 2020 that could be expected if the CAP is not implemented.
The City expects emission reductions to be achieved by a range of ineasures
under the City's control, coupled with state initiatives aimed at reducing GHG
emissions.
The District applauds the City's proactive approach to reducing GHG emissions
and supports its efforts in developing the CAP. Further, the District believes a
Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy, as in this case the City's CAP, is an effective
and efficient strategy to address GHG emissions. We offer our assistance towards
ensuring the CAP meets the City of Dublin's goals and the District's standard
elements of a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy set forth in our recently updated
CEQA Guidelines (June, 2010).
The District has the following specific comments on the CAP.
Baseline GHG Emissions Inventorv
The methodology used by the City is not consistent with the District's
recommended methodology for quantifying a plan's GHG emission inventory and
therefore should not be compared to the District's significance threshold to
determine the significance of the CAP's GHG impacts as is stated in the City's
Negative Declaration. (BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, at page 9-3;
Draft Negative Declaration at page 6.) To clarify, the CAP should be designed by
following the District's recommended methodology and thus meet the District's
criteria of a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy.
~ ~ ,r~^ ~f~ ~r.fi
~-~if'Clfifi~l~' ~-t'e~
rhe Air Disfrict is a Certified Green Business
Printed using soy-based inks on 100% post-consumer ~ecycled content paper
939 ELLIS STREET • SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA S41O9 • 415.771.6000 • iNWW.BAAQMD.GOV
lag~ I~J
Martha Aja - 2- Au st 5, 20~0
~
The District recoinmends the CAP's emissions inventory account, at a minimum, for
municipal and coirununitywide emissions from the following sectors:
l. Transportation
2. Commercial
3. Industrial
4. Residential
5. Solid Waste
The CAP's emissions inventory, however, excludes certain emission sources and may
laclc sufficient infonnation. First, District staff was unable to determuie how the CAP
addresses t11e relationslup beriueen ener~y and water. The inventory may lack emissions,
for exainple, from wastewater treatment processes. The CAP states at page 17, "water
~~elated e»zissions were not included in tlze inventoty ". While water related emissions are
typically embodied in the energy data for residential, commercial, and industrial sectors,
emissions associated with wastewater may not be. The District recommends the CAP
follow the guidance on quantifying emissions from wastewater treatment processes,
located in the District's GHG Plan Level Quantification Guidance at section 1.4.3. This
docurnent may be found on the District's web site under CEQA Guidelines, Tools and
Methodology.
Second, the CAP further states that emissions from industrial electricity and natural gas
use, as well as Direct Access electricity use have not been included in the inventory.
(Draft Cliinate Action Plan, July, 2010, at page 20.) The District can assist local
governments in developing and providing non-proprietary GHG einissions data for
industrial facilities that are pennitted by the Air District.
Reduction Tar~et
It does not appear that the City's GHG emissions reduction target meets any of the three
options provided in the District's CEQA Guidelines for establishing a GHG reduction
taxget (BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, at page 4-10.) The emissions reduction
target in the CAP aims to reduce GHG einissions Uy 25°ro below the City's 2005
busi~iess-as-usual inventory by 2020. The District's CEQA Guidelines recommend that a
Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy, in this case the City's CAP, establish a target that is
coiisistent with the goals of AB 32. The CAP should provide substantial quantitative
evidence that the City's goal is consistent with AB32.
GHG Emissions Forecast
The District recommends that the GHG emission projection, or forecast, for commtulities
reflect a business-as-usual approach, in which emissions are projected in the absence of
any policies or actions that would occur beyond the base year. .Emission reductions from
policies or actions that take place prior to the base would be accounted for in the
business-as-usual forecast. It is unclear whether the City has followed this approach. For
example, the CAP states at page 31 that, "The City of Dublin has a high-density
i~~ ~~~) ~5~
Martha Aja - 3- August 5, 201t~
residential land use designation, wlziclz allows 25.1 + dwelling units per acYe ". If this .
land use designation was adopted prior to the 2005 base year, then any future
developments adhering to it would be considered part of the business-as-usual forecast
and the CAP should not use this policy as an einission reduction measure toward the 25%
reduction goaL
The District understands that the CAP uses population and employinent infonnation
based on growth-rate projections fiom the Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG) P~rojections 2005 report. The District recomrriends the CAP use the most recent
demographic infonnation available, which would be from ABAG's Projections 2009
report.
GHG Reduction Measures
A fundainental purpose of a Qualified GHG Reduction Plan is to evaluate and provide a
range of possibilities and outcomes which would allow future projects to select mitigation
measures that are most applicable and effective, sparing future projects from perfonning
redundant analysis. The City may have unintentionally excluded feasible and effective
reduction measures applicable to coinmunitywide emission sources other than those listed
in the CAP's Appendix D.
District staff recommends the City expand upon the measures identified in the CAP's
Appendix D that, if implemented, would collectively achieve the specified emissions
reduction goal. The current measures address only portions of communitywide emissions
sources and inay only apply to specific types of proj ects. For example, additional
measures could include, but are not limited to, improving water efficiency, implementing
additional transportation a.ud land use measures, and requiring energy efficiency retrofits.
See BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines: Mitigating P1ai1-Level Impacts, beginning
at page 9-8 for a list of specific measures that should be considered to reduce the City's
GHG emissions.
The CAP repeatedly states that, ` Estimating the growth of City i~ifrastructure or services
ivas not within the scope of this project, and, therefo~~e, this docu~nent does not i~iclude a
forecast of government operations emissions. Consequently, the e~nissio~zs reductions for
this measure are not included as part of the reduction target. "(Draft Climate Action
Plan, July, 2010, at page 40.) Einissions fioin municipal operations are typically
embodied in the commuiutywide inventory and forecast. Therefore, it is not necessary to
develop a separate forecast for municipal operations in order to account for the einission
reductions from municipal emission reduction measures. The District recorrunends the
City quantify reductions from inunicipal operations measures and include those
reductions in its accounting towards its GHG reduction target.
I~l addition, the District was unable to verify the applicability and effectiveness of some
of the reduction measures included in the CAP. The Green Building Ordinance, as a.n
example, listed under Energy Measures only applies to residential projects with 20 or
inore units. There is little detail provided as to how effective this ordinance has been in
Martha A~a - 4- Au ~st 5~ O1~ /~~
J g ,
t11e past or as to identifying the types of green building techniques that have been
required. Similarly, it is tmclear how many prior projects were not required to comply
witlz the ordinance or how inany future projects will likely be 19 units or less. While the
CAP does provide some examples of past projects (Id. at page 34), it is uncertain if these
exainples are representative of the type and scale of new development Dublin can
reasonably anticipate occuning in the future. The City should clarify how the standaxds
in the Green Building Ordinance would apply to new residential development, thus
ensuring the City is able to justify their estiinated reductions credited by tlus strategy.
Regarding the CAP's reliance on ineasures impleinented by the State, the einission
reduction calculations for the CAP's stated measures are not transparent and verifiable.
The emission reduction discussion for each measure should clearly state which emission
sector the measure is targeting and how the einission reduction was calculated. For
exainple, in the discussion on the state's Renewable Portfolio Standard, the CAP assumes
that a 19% reduction in the City's 2020 electricity use emissions will result in a reduction
of 33,594 MTC02E/year in 2020. The CAP's inventory does not list the GHG emissions
for the City's electricity sector for 2005 or 2020, making it unclear how the 19%
reduction is being calculated for electricity use. The City's estimated electricity use
reductions carulot be verified with the givan information. Lastly, it is unclear how the
CAP estimates emission reductions from AB 1493. The CAP should clearly list the total
GHG emissions in the emission inventory's on-road passenger/light duty transportation
sector and how a 15.75% emission reduction would result in a 46,034 MTC02e/year
reduction.
District staff recognizes that the Draft CAP includes valuable analysis and policies, and
represents a significant coinmitment by the City. District staff is available to assist the
City staff in addressing these comments. If you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to contact Ian Peterson, Enviromnental PlamZer II, at (415) 749-4783.
Sincerely,
~, ~~~~ ~~~~~ ~."
~
,
Jeai Roggenk
I~ puty Air Pollution Control Officer
cc: BAAQMD Vice-Chairperson Tom Bates
BAAQMD Director Scott Haggerty
BAAQMD Director Jeiuufer Hosternzan
BAAQMD Director Nate Miley
~~~~
~~~
~~:~_/
City Manager's Office
1VIEMORANI~UM
~~I~ i~~
~
Bonnie Terra
Dublin Fire Prevention
DATE: 7uly 7, 2010 JUL 0 7 2010
To: City Staff
FRO1~: Martha Aja, Environmental Specialist ~9~~`~- ~ITY OF DUBLit~
Flf~E PREVENTIOYV
susJECT: NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A leTEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR THE DUBLIN CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
The City of Dublin is circulating a Negative Declaration for public review for the Draft Climate Action Plan
(CAP). The goal of the Draft CAP is to reduce Dublin's community-wide GHG emissions by 25% below a
business as usual scenario by 2020. The Draft CAP identifies a variety of ineasures to achieve the City's GHG
reduction target.
Attached for your review is a copy of the Draft Climate Action Plan and the Initial Study/Negative Declaration.
Please forward any comments you may have to me no later than August Sth, 2010.
The comment period for the Negative Declaration begins on Wednesday July 7, 2010 and closes at 5:00 p.m. on
Thursday August Sth, 2010.
cc: Chris Foss, Assistant City Manager
Roger Bradley, Administrative Analyst
~J~
d. ~~N, -`"
n ~ .~v ~'~'` _
`% ; \
~~~
~~~
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
City Manager's Office
Il~IEMORANDUM
13~~~1~~
~
Commander Casey Nice
Police Services
July 7, 2010
City Staff
Martha Aja, Environmental Specialist ~~~~'`-~
1\10TICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLA1tATI01\T
FOR THE DUBLIN CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
The City of Dublin is circulating a Negative Declaration for public review for the Draft Climate Action Plan
(CAP). The goal of the Draft CAP is to reduce Dublin's community-wide GHG emissions by 25% below a
business as usual scenario by 2020. The Draft CAP identifies a variety of ineasures to achieve the City's GHG
reduction target.
Attached for your review is a copy of the Draft Climate Action Plan and the Initial Study/Negative Declaration.
Please forward any comments you may have to me no later than August Sth, 2010.
The comment period for the Negative Declaration begins on Wednesday July 7, 2010 and closes at 5:00 p.m. on
Thursday August Sth, 2010.
,
cc: Chris Foss, Assistant City Manager
Roger Bradley, Administrarive Analyst
o -~P ~'~-~~ ~
N
~ ~~~~ ~
~~~,
~~~~
- ~,
(/
~ ' f r
~ ~
~ _.
BAY AREA
AI R QUAL ITY
MANAGEMENT
D 1 S T R[ C T
S INCE 1955
ALAMEDA COUNTY
Tom Bates
(Vice-Chairperson)
Scott Haggerty
Jennifer Hosterman
Nate Miley
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
John Gioia
(Secretary)
David E. Hudson
Mark Ross
Gayle B. Uilkema
MARIN COUNTY
Harold C. Brown, Jr.
NAPA COUNTY
Brad Wagenknecht
(Chairperson)
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY
Chris Daly
Eric Mar
Gavin Newsom
SAN MATEO COUNTY
Carol Klatt
Carole Groom
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
Susan Garner
Ash Kalra
Liz Kniss
Ken Yeager
SOLANO COUNTY
James Spering
SONOMA COUNTY
Shirlee Zane
Pamela Torliatt
Jack P.Broadbent
EXECUTIVE OFFICERIAPCO
t -~ ' ,~
_ ~~ 414}; ~ ~ ~~
_ ; -.
,,..~cE•'~
I ~~~ ~~~
~
October 26, 2010
Martha Aj a
City Manager's Office
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Subject: Draft Dublin Climate Action Plan
Dear Martha Aja:
~~t~~s ~~- ~y:t.
~~ ~ `~'' 1.`~, C~ ~`S "; €~: ~ ~,:
~~~n..~;~.
QGT 2 ~ ~p~,~;
-~,
~ ~ tllil~a,~",~~s~ y - ~ . ,
~~;~ 'S,;' 1n'f ~:a1:; ,
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (District) staff submitted a comment
letter (dated August 5, 2010) on the City of Dublin's Draft Climate Action Plan
(CAP) and Draft Negative Declaration. In the letter, the District identified a
number of instances in which it appeared that the CAP was inconsistent with the
District's 2010 CEQA Guidelines. Subsequently, District staff has met with City
of Dublin staff and gained a better understanding of the City's work in developing
the CAP, and of the methods used in calculating greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions.
A discussion of significant clarifications gained through communications with
City staff follows.
Baseline GHG Emissions Inventory
The District's earlier comment letter identified several emission sources that
appeared to have been excluded from the baseline GHG inventory. City staff have
clarified that GHG emissions associated with industrial activities, direct access
energy use, and electricity use associated with water conveyance were embedded
in data for other sectors in the baseline inventory. A subsequent version of the
CAP (October 2010) identifies and discusses emissions from these sources.
Reduction Target
The July version of the CAP included a goal of reducing GHG emissions 25%
below 2020 business-as-usual levels. As this methodology and target was
inconsistent with the District's CEQA Guidelines, City staff has decided to use
the District's plan level threshold of 6.6 metric tons per service population.
District staff agrees this is a more appropriate target.
GHG Emissions Forecast
The District's earlier comment letter stated that it was unclear if the City was
including in its CAP GHG reductions from policies or actions that had taken place
, ., , ~ . " < _
ihe Air Di trict is a Certifieo` G~een Business
Printed usina so}~ based ~~ ks on 'OOib post-consumer recycled content p~:,er
939 ELLIS STREET • SAN FRANC[SCO CALIFORNIA ~4109 • 415.771.6000 • WWW.BAAQMD.GOV
l ~~~~ ~ ~`) ~~ ~
Mrs. Martha Aja October 26,2010
prior to the base year (2005). If so, these emission reductions would be considered part of the
business-as-usual forecast and should not be identified as emission reduction measures. City staff
has decided to use the District's recommended plan level threshold of 6.6 metric tons per service
population so this is no longer an issue. In addition, the City has added language to the October
version of the CAP clarifying that any policies adopted prior to the base year were only included
as emission reduction measures if the effect of those policies occurred after 2005.The District
also recommends that the GHG emissions associated with the City's Downtown Specific Plan
(the draft EIR is currently under public review) be added to the City's GHG emission inventory.
Dublin staff indicated that these GHG emissions were omitted from the emission inventory in the
CAP. Inclusion of emissions and emission reduction strategies associated with this important
downtown planning effort would help assure that that the CAP is as comprehensive as possible.
GF-~C Reducti~n Meas:zres
The District's earlier comment letter stated, "A fundamental purpose of a Qualified GHG
Reduction Plan is to evaluate and provide a range of possibilities and outcomes which would
allow future projects to select mitigation measures that are most applicable and effective, sparing
future projects from performing redundant analysis. The City may have unintentionally excluded
feasible and effective reduction measures applicable to communitywide emission sources other
than those listed in the CAP's Appendix D."
City staff has explained that only existing policies and programs have been included in the draft
CAP. While it appears that the City may be able to meet the District's plan-level threshold of
significance (6.6 tons per service population) with just these existing measures, it is not clear that
this is the case when the emissions from the Downtown Specific Plan are accounted for in the
City's GHG emissions inventory. If inclusion of these emissions might exceed the plan-level
threshold for the CAP, the City may need to include additional policies and programs at the
City's disposal that have not been included in the draft CAP. For example, additional measures
could include, but are not limited to the following.
^ Expand the City's green building ordinance to apply to all new residential and
commercial development projects and redevelopment/remodels, rather than just new
residential devel~pments over 20 units;
^ Establish a citywide pricing program for public parking;
^ Unbundle parking space costs from property lease or rental prices;
^ Reduce parking requirements in new developments;
^ Require preferential parking spaces for ridesharing and low emission vehicles in all new
office and commercial construction projects;
^ Implement a transportation demand management program such as requiring large
employers to offer workers transit subsidies, parking cash-out, guaranteed rides home,
telecommuting options, etc.;
^ Implement a citywide car share program;
^ Expand the Bay Friendly Landscaping program to commercial developments;
^ Adopt a water conservation ordinance for new residential and commercial developments
and redevelopments/remodels.
2
Mrs. Martha Aja
I~ -~,s~f
~ ,. ~-j
October 26, 2(~0~ `'
The District commends the City for undertaking the CAP process. The District appreciates the
flexibility and openness with which City staff has addressed the issues raised in our earlier
comment letter. The City has clearly made a significant commitment to climate protection,
through the draft Climate Action Plan and the many climate-friendly policies and programs it has
implemented to date. The District looks forward to working with the City of Dublin as it moves
forward with implementing the Climate Action Plan and other climate protection strategies.
District staff is available to assist the City staff in addressing these comments and otherwise
assist with developing and implementing the CAP. If you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to contact Abby Young, Principal Environmental Planner, at (415) 749-4754.
Sincerely,
/i/ ~ , .~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
;~!~ `~ ~~~~~~~
~ ~~
Jean R ~ggenkamp ~ ~ ~
Deputy Air Pollution Control Officer
cc: BAAQMD Vice-Chairperson Tom Bates
BAAQMD Director Scott Haggerty
BAAQMD Director Jennifer Hosterman
BAAQMD Director Nate Miley
3
`~, vUlf /) 1 ~ I
J~_~ ~~Z STAFF REPORT 1 J,~ ~~
~~~~ PLANNING COMMISSION
~~~ . l/
DATE: October 26, 2010
TO: Planning Commission
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: City of Dublin Climate Action Plan and Negative
Declaration
Report prepared by Martha Aja, Environmental Specialist
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The proposed City of Dublin Climate Action Plan (CAP) provides policies and measures aimed
at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within the City. The goal of the CAP is to reduce
Dublin's community-wide GHG emissions by 20% below a business-as-usual scenario by 2020.
The CAP identifies a variety of ineasures 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 describes baseline GHG emissions produced in Dublin in 2005, and
forecasts GHG emissions that could be expected if the proposed CAP is not implemented - the
business-as-usual scenario. The City expects to reduce GHG emissions through a combination
of reduction measures that are included in the CAP. These include measures that are under the
City's control and State initiatives aimed at reducing GHG emissions. The proposed CAP 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; and 6) Adopt a Resolution recommending City Council approval
of the City of Dublin Climate Action Plan.
`~'~~~~ ~ ~_
Submitted By:
Environmental Specialist
eviewed By
Communi y Development Director
COPIES TO:
Page 1 of 8
G:IPA#1201DIDublin Climate Action Plan & Neg DecIPC Meeting 10.26.101PCSR 10.26.10.doc
ATTACHMENT 4
DESCRIPTION:
Background
State, National and International
~(y 15~
~E~
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. As of May
2008, one-hundred-eighty-one (181) countries have ratified the agreement representing over
61 % of the emissions from developed countries.
In 2005, cities and counties took the lead at the U.S. Conference of Mayors and developed
the U.S. Conference of Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement, which urged federal and
state governments to enact policies and programs to meet the Kyoto Protocol target. The
agreement included a commitment to strive to meet the Kyoto Protocol target by taking local
actions, such as conducting a baseline emissions inventory, setting reduction targets, and
creating a climate action plan.
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 C02e), 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 Manaqement 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 C02e 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 C02e/yr) is equivalent to
the approximate amount of GHG emissions that 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
would generate.
Projects with emissions greater than the adopted threshold (1,100 MT C02e 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
2of8
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 I~~ A~
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.
Alternatively, a city may prepare a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy or Climate Action Plan that
furthers AB 32 goals. The BAAQMD encourages such planning efforts and recognizes that
careful early planning by local agencies is invaluable to achieving the State's GHG reduction
goals. If a project is consistent with a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy, which addresses the
project's GHG emissions, the Strategy can be used as the basis for determining that the project
would have a less than significant impact on the community's cumulative GHG emissions under
CEQA.
CEQA contains standards for GHG Reduction Strategies that can be used in the cumulative
impacts analysis for projects covered under the Plan (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5). The
BAAQMD recognizes these CEQA standards as meeting the District's standards for a Reduction
Strategy. The BAAQMD CEQA Thresholds contain some standards in addition to those under
CEQA.
The proposed City of Dublin CAP has been developed to meet both the CEQA and BAAQMD
standards for a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy.
Citv 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.Org 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 emissioris, 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 completed the first milestone in 2008. The second and third milestones are the
subject of this agenda item. The creation of a CAP is included as a high priority goal within
the Fiscal Year 2010/2011 City Council Goals & Objectives Program.
In March 2010, the Dublin City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a Consulting
Services Agreement between the City of Dublin and AECOM to assist the City in the
preparation of the proposed CAP. AECOM calculated the GHG emissions reductions to be
achieved by implementation of the measures in the CAP and State initiatives that would
mitigate GHG emissions within the community. AECOM also peer reviewed the City of
Dublin's CAP for technical accuracy.
3of8
ANALYSIS:
S~
The proposed CAP (Attachment 1) provides policies and measures aimed at reducing GHG I
emissions within the City to further the goals of AB 32. The goal of the CAP is to reduce I~ ~
Dublin's community-wide GHG emissions by 20% below the business-as-usual projection of
GHG emissions emitted during 2020 by said year. 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 proposed CAP, which contribute to the City's
reduction goal, include locally-focused activities as well as State initiatives under ARB's
Scoping Plan.
A program or project would be considered consistent with the CAP if it substantially complies
with the applicable measures set forth within the CAP and not obstruct the attainment of the
estimated GHG emissions reductions.
Emission Inventory, Baseline and Proiections
The CAP (Chapter II, "Emissions Inventory") presents a GHG emissions inventory for 2005,
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, commercial/industrial, transportation and waste sectors. 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, municipal water consumption and municipal solid waste generation. The emissions
inventory was developed by the City in collaboration with ICLEI. Total community-wide
emissions were determined to be 357,211 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2005
(refer to Table 1 below). Government-related emissions were estimated to be 1,573 metric tons
of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2005 (refer to Table 2 below).
Table 1 Communitv Greenhouse Gas Emissions bv Sector ~MT CD.,e)
2005 Community
Emissions b Sector
MT CO2e Percent of Total
COZe Energy Equivalent
(MMBtu)
Residential 51,154 14.3% 886,617
Commercial/lndustrial 60,183 16.8% 986,302
Local Roads 49,670 13.9% 670,383
State Highways 183,714 51.4% 2,479,544
Waste 12,490 3.5% 0
TOTAL 357,211 100% 5,022,846
Table 2- Governmenf GHG Emissions bv Sector
2005 Government
Emissions
MT COZe
Percentage of
Total COZe Energy
Equivalent
(MMBtu)
Buildings 770 49.0% 12,787
Vehicle Fleet 286 18.2% 3,681
Public Lighting 484 30.8% 7,377
Water 22 1.4% 335
Solid Waste 11 0.7% 0
TOTAL 1,573 100% 24,180
4of8
Chapter III of the CAP, "Forecast for Greenhouse Gas Emissions," includes projections of ~
emissions in 2020. ICLEI conducted an emission forecast for the year 2020 based on projected a l~'~
trends in energy use, dnving hab~ts, ~ob and population growth from the baseline year (2005) ,~
through 2020. The inflation factors were determined using the Association of Bay Area ~~l
Government's 2009 projections for growth within the City of Dublin. Under a business-as-usual
scenario, it is estimated that the City of Dublin's emissions will grow over the next decade and a
half by approximately 31.9% from 357,211 to 471,205 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
(refer to Table 3 below).
Table 3- Communitv Greenhouse Gas Emissions Growth ProiPr_tions bv Ser_tnr
Community Emissions
Growth Forecast by
Sector 2005
MT COZe
Emissions 2020
MT COZe
Emissions Annual
Growth
Rate Percent
Change
(2005 - 2020)
Residential 51,154 80,187 2.850% 54.2%
Commercial/Industrial 60,183 96,625 2.087% 36.3%
Transportation 233,384 292,151 1.509% 25.2%
Waste 12,490 19,579 2.850% 52.4%
TOTAL 357,211 471,205 - 31.9%
Dublin's GHG reduction goal is 20% below the business-as-usual projection of GHG emissions
emitted during 2020 by said year. This goal will lower the projected GHG emissions in 2020
from 471,205 metric tons of carbon dioxide to 376,964. While the City expects significant
residential, commercial and industrial growth through 2020, the total amount of GHG emissions
emitted within the community will not be increasing significantly from 2005 levels. This is
illustrated by the fact that the City's service population will grow by nearly 50% during the same
period, where service population is the summation of population and the number of jobs within
the City.
Further, the City of Dublin's CAP is designed to meet or exceed the goals of AB 32. To delineate
the City's commitment to the goals of AB 32, the City's CAP employs BAAQMD's GHG
efficiency based metric for Climate Action Plans of 6.6 MT C02e per service population per
year. The City's per capita efficiency metric is 5.88 for 2005 and 4.22 for 2020, which represents
a 28% decrease in GHG emissions between the base year and forecast year. The City of
Dublin's efficiency metric is well below the established threshold in both the Base Year 2005
and the Forecast Year 2020. Thus, the City will be growing significantly over the 15-year period
covered by the CAP, but during this same time, the City's GHG emissions will be decreasing
significantly on a per individual basis, which is not clearly visible when simply inspecting the
business-as-usual scenario.
Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Measures
The proposed CAP identifies a variety of ineasures to achieve the City's GHG reduction target.
The inclusion of quantifiable GHG reduction measures is the primary focus of the proposed
CAP. 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 proposed CAP. 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. The various GHG reduction
5 of 8
measures are organized into three categories: 1) transportation and land use; 2) energy; and 3 I'
solid waste management and recycling. These categories follow the major sources of emissions ~7'~~
found in the Cit of Dublin 2005 GHG emissions invento . ~
Y ry
Results of Implementation
Implementation of the City-controlled measures in the CAP would result in annual community-
wide GHG emissions reductions of 46,737 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (a 9.92%
total reduction per year relative to 2020). A list of the local measures that are under the City's
control can be found in Table 12 of the CAP (Attachment 1). The City-controlled measures
include transportation and land use measures, energy measures and solid waste and recycling
measures. The Municipal Operations Measures and Public Outreach Programs are also
included as part of the City-controlled measures.
Additionally, implementation of statewide initiatives (AB 1493 and Renewable Portfolio
Standard) would result in annual GHG emissions reductions of an additional 52,263 metric tons
of carbon dioxide equivalent (11.09% total reduction per year relative to 2020). AB 1493
requires the Air Resources Board (ARB) to develop and adopt regulations to reduce GHG
emissions from vehicles primarily used for noncommercial transportation. In 2004, the ARB
approved amendments to California's existing standards for motor vehicles to meet the
requirements of AB 1493. These amendments require automobile manufactures to meet fleet-
average GHG emission limits for all passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty
passenger vehicle weight classes, beginning in 2009.
Senate Bill 1078 established the Renewable Portfolio Standard. The Renewable Portfolio
Standard requires the increased production of energy from renewable energy sources such as
wind, solar, biomass and geothermal. The Renewable Portfolio Standard requires electricity
providers to increase purchases of renewable energy sources by 1% per year until they have
attained a portfolio of 20% renewable sources. Executive Order S-14-08, which was signed by
the Governor in 2008, expands California's Renewable Energy Standard to 33°/o renewable
power by 2020.
The community-wide measures combined with the statewide initiatives would reduce the
anticipated emissions in the community by 99,000 metric tons/year of carbon dioxide equivalent
and would achieve the City's reduction goal of reducing GHG emission by 20% below the
Business-As-Usual projection of GHG emitted during 2020 by said year.
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 proposed CAP 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 proposed CAP could potentially result in adverse impacts on the physical environment.
~~~
6 of 8
Therefore, an Initial Study was prepared by the City pursuant to CEQA to evaluate whether f~''~ ~
there are any potentially adverse environmental impacts of implementing the CAP. ,~lA~~
The Initial Study/Negative Declaration was circulated for public review from July 7, 2010 to I~~
August 5, 2010 (Exhibit B of Attachment 2). During the public review period, the City received 6
comment letters (Exhibit C of Attachment 2), which include the following:
• County of Alameda Public Works Agency, dated July 27, 2010
• City of Dublin Parks & Community Services Department, dated August 4, 2010
• Dublin San Ramon Services District, dated August 4, 2010
• Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), dated August 5, 2010
• City of Dublin Police Services
• Alameda County Fire Prevention Bureau
The letter from the BAAQMD was the only letter that raised concerns. The City of Dublin worked
cooperatively with the BAAQMD and made minor modifications to the Climate Action Plan to
address the concerns outlined in the BAAQMD letter. One of the changes that the City made to
the CAP was the inclusion of the BAAQMD's GHG significance threshold for CAPs which is an
efficiency based metric of 6.6 MT C02e per service population per year. The CAP results in an
efficiency level of 4.22 MT C02e per service population per year in 2020, which is 36% below
the threshold established by the BAQMD. It also represents a 28% decrease in GHG~emissions
between the base year and forecast year. Additionally, the City used ABAG's 2009 projections
to determine the forecast for 2020 instead of the 2005 projections. The City also changed the
multiplier used to determine the emission reductions anticipated from AB 1493 from 15.76% to
12.2%, which resulted in a decrease of anticipated emission reductions from AB 1493. This
change was made based on updated information from the Air Resources Board. This change in
the projected reductions from statewide measures is largely th~e basis for the change in the
reduction target to 20%. The level of reduction from Citywide measures remains in the same
(9.92%) and the City did not make any changes to any of the Citywide reduction measures in
the CAP.
The environmental analysis of the proposed CAP focused solely on the new policies and
changes in existing policies that will be implemented as a result of the proposed CAP. It did not
analyze the impacts of existing programs included in the proposed CAP, which have already
undergone their own environmental review. In particular, the proposed CAP 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 adopted CEQA
Guidelines and Significance Thresholds for GHG emissions also authorize the use of these
Plans for CEQA review of future projects. The proposed CAP serves as the City's qualified
7 of 8
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 I~/) ~
reduction target under the Plan will reduce the impact from activities under the Plan to a less J~
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 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 proposed 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 Public Resources Code
21083.3, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183.5, 15064 and 15130, and BAAQMD adopted CEQA
Guidelines and GHG Significance Thresholds.
CONCLUSION:
GHG emissions are an issue of growing concern for communities across the U.S. and around
the world. The City of Dublin has displayed 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. The City of Dublin will benefit in many other ways from the proposed measures outlined in the
proposed Climate Action Plan, including better public health, improved public spaces, economic
growth and long-term savings for property owners.
The goal of the proposed CAP is to reduce Dublin's community-wide GHG emission by 20%
below a business-as-usual scenario by 2020 which will result in an emissions level of 4.22 MT
C02e per service population per year. Additionally, the proposed CAP will streamline CEQA
review for GHG emissions. If a project is consistent with a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy,
which addresses the project's GHG emissions, the Strategy can be used as the basis for
determining that the project would have a less than significant impact on the community's
cumulative GHG emission under CEQA.
ATTACHMENTS: 1) City of Dublin Climate Action Plan.
2) Resolution recommending City Council adoption of a
Negative Declaration for the City of Dublin Climate
Action Plan, 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, with draft City
Council Resolution attached as Exhibit A.
8 of 8
DRAFT ~~~ ~~ jt'
t~
c' ' ~
~ .,/
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October
26, 2010, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair King called the meeting
to order at 6:58:47 PM
Present: Chair King; Vice Chair Brown; Commissioners Schaub and Swalwell; Jeff Baker,
Planning Manager; Marnie Waffle, Senior Planner; Martha Aja, Environmental Specialist; and
Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary.
Absent: Cm. Wehrenberg
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Schaub, seconded by Cm.
Swalwell the minutes of the October 12, 2010 meeting were approved.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE
CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE
PUBLIC HEARINGS -
8.1 PA 09-027 Kidango Day Care Center Conditional Use Permit and Site Development
Review
Marnie Waffle, Senior Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Ms. Waffle stated since the September 28th Planning Commission meeting the Applicant has
met with the neighbors in a community meeting and they are now proposing to relocate the
play equipment further away from the homes. She continued Staff has received a revised
proposal from the Applicant and they are currently working out issues with Dublin Unified
School District to identify the new location. She stated, once the new location is approved by
the Dublin Unified School District, a revised noise study will be prepared. She stated Staff will
bring the project before the Planning Commission when all the items have been completed.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission continue the project to a date uncertain.
Cm. Swalwell asked how the delay will affect the CDBG funds.
~f'1dP 12~ j;;l7i :st.'?PP
.~;:`L I rZP' /~'~~~ u ;"r-,?
127
~. li ~~~t:F ~~>7• ?ja, ..j41d i.;'
ATTACHMENT S
DRAFT DRAFT ~~ j ~~'
Ms. Waffle answered the City received an extension until December 31, 2010 and can request ~~'
another extension if the project has not been approved by that time. She continued there could I~ ~
~ ~,,
also be a decision to reallocate the funds to another project.
Cm. Brown asked if in their negotiations with the Dublin Unified School District it appears the
Applicants are moving forward with the proposaL
Ms. Waffle stated the school district has indicated the new location will be acceptable to them.
Jeff Baker, Planning Manager added the negotiations are between the Applicant and the Dublin
Unified School District. The City is not a party to the negotiations although Staff has helped to
facilitate the talks.
Chair King opened the public hearing and having no one to speak closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. Brown, on a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm.
Wehrenberg absent, the Planning Commission continued the item to a date uncertain.
8.2 City of Dublin Climate Action Plan and Negative Declaration
Martha Aja, Environmental Specialist presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Roger Bradley, Senior Administrative Analyst was also present to answer any questions.
Cm. Brown asked if the highway contributes 51 % of the GHG emissions, and the City is
surrounded by I-580 and I-680, how are those emissions separated from what is produced by
the City of Dublin.
Ms. Aja answered the I-580/I-680 freeways are within the City of Dublin inventory and stated
he is correct that 51 % of the community's emissions are attributed to them. She stated they are
within the Scoping Plan and Assembly Bill (AB 1493) is designed to increase mileage of vehicles.
She continued the GHG reductions that are anticipated from AB 1493 have been calculated as
part of the reduction.
Chair King opened the public hearing and having no one to speak closed the public hearing.
Cm. Schaub thanked Staff for a job well done.
On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. Swalwell, on a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm.
Wehrenberg absent, the Planning Commission adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 10- 50
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
%'.t:t~~„sn~ C't r~ r~. st:°:~t r r ,¢x ,,,
s.~:t~, w , ; tt,,i
.>,~~> ~, ~~~ _.~ 130
DRAFT DRAFT ~1~~, ~ °
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION ~~
FOR THE CITY OF DUBLIN CLIMATE ACTION PLAN '
~~ ~
RESOLUTION NO. 10- 51
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
_....
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE
CITY OF DUBLIN CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NONE
OTHER BUSINESS - NONE
10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/ or Staff,
including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to
meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234).
10.2 Mr. Baker stated the Sports Authority has signed a lease for a portion of the Mervyns
building and DSW Shoes will be moving into a vacant space by Marshalls.
10.3 Cm. Swalwell asked if a Business License was pulled for furniture store. Mr. Baker
answered there was an indication that a furniture store will open on a temporary basis in
the Good Guys building where the Spirit Store is currently located.
ADjOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 7:10:45 PM
Respectfully submitted,
Morgan King
Chair Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Jeff Baker
Planning Manager
G: ~MINUTES ~ 2010 ~ PLANNING COMMISSION~ 10.26.70 DRAFT PC Mirii~tes.doc
i3~a r =~~~° C'~ z~z~r .;. s~~;t ; °~c;ita~C '',~3; ;'+) ~C?
~.'~is,~r~ar ~;s~~:~ f r;~,~s 131
1~7 ~ ~
~~
RESOLUTION NO. 10- 50 I~ I
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
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2007, the Dublin City Council passed Resolution 139-07
approving participation in the Climate Protection Project for Alameda County jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin committed to ICLEI's five milestone methodology for
reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within the City, which includes the development of a
Climate Action .Plan for reducing GHG emissions; and
WHEREAS, in June 2010, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
adopted CEQA air quality thresholds of significance for use within its jurisdiction, which included
an emission level threshold and an efficiency threshold for GHG emissions for development
projects; and
WHEREAS, alternatively, under CEQA and the BAAQMD CEQA Thresholds, a City may
prepare a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy or Climate Action Plan to evaluate a community's
cumulative impact due to GHG emissions from future planned development; and
WHEREAS, if a project is consistent with an adopted, qualified GHG Reduction Strategy
or Climate Action Plan, the Strategy/Plan can be used as 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, the Fiscal Year 2010/2011 City Council Goals and Objectives includes as a
high priority goal, the creation of a Climate Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has contracted with AECOM to assist Staff in preparing
the Draft Climate Action Plan; 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; 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 7, 2010 to August 5, 2010; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin received six comment letters during the public review
period, but only one letter (the letter from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District dated
August 5, 2010) raised concerns; and.
~~+nn~rv..,..4 L
ly~~~ I ~~
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin worked cooperatively with BAAQMD and made minor
modifications to the Climate Action Plan and Negative Declaration to address the concerns
outlined in the BAAQMD letter dated August 5, 2010. The minor modifications to the Negative
Declaration do not require recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Draft
Climate Action Plan and Negative Declaration on October 26, 2010; 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
Draft Climate Action Plan, with the City Council Resolution attached as Exhibit A and the Initial
Study/Negative Declaration attached as Exhibit B.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of October 2010 by the following
vote:
AYES: King, Brown, Swalwell, Schaub
NOES:
ABSENT: Wehrenberg
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
Planning Commission Chair
G:IPA#120101Dublin Climate Action Plan & Neg DecIPC Meeting 10.26.101PC Reso 10.26.10 Neg Dec.doc
2 of 2
l ~~ I~C
~
RESOLUTION NO. 10- 51
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE
CITY OF DUBLIN CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
WHEREAS, the Fiscal Year 2010/2011 City Council Goals and Objectives includes as a
high priority goal, the creation of a Climate Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2007, the Dublin City Council passed Resolution 139-07
approving participation in the Climate Protection Project for Alameda County jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin committed to ICLEI's five milestone methodology for
reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within the City, which includes the development of a
Climate Action Plan for reducing GHG emissions; and
WHEREAS, in June 2010, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
adopted California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) air quality thresholds of significance for
use within its jurisdiction, which included an emission level threshold and an efficiency threshold
for GHG emissions for development projects; and
WHEREAS, alternatively, under CEQA and the BAAQMD CEQA thresholds, a City may
prepare a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy or Climate Action Plan to evaluate a community's
cumulative impact due to GHG emissions from future planned development; and
WHEREAS, if a project is consistent with an adopted, qualified GHG Reduction Strategy
or Climate Action Plan, the Strategy/Plan can be used as a basis for determining that the project
would have a tess than significant impact on a community's cumulative GHG emissions under
CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has contracted with AECOM to assist Staff in preparing
the Draft Climate Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Climate Action Plan does the following:
o Provides background on actions taken to curb GHG emissions;
o Presents Dublin's baseline GHG emissions inventory in 2005 and forecast for GHG
emissions in 2020 based on business-as-usual scenario;
o Establishes a GHG emission reduction target of 20% from the 2020 GHG emissions
forecast which results in an efficiency level of 4.22 MT C02e per service population
per year in 2020;
o Sets forth GHG emission reduction policies and measures for transportation/land use,
energy, and solid waste and recycling that Dublin will implement or is already
implementing to achieve the reduction target;
ATTACHMENT 7
C~~~ ~~~
o Presents steps for implementation, monitoring and verification of the Plan to achieve
the designated emission reduction target; and
WHEREAS, the reduction measures within the Draft Climate Action Plan are grouped
into the following seven categories:
1. Communitywide Transportation and Land Use Measures;
2. Communitywide Energy Measures;
3. Communitywide Solid Waste and Recycling Measures;
4. Municipal Transportation and Land Use Measures;
5. Municipal Energy Measures;
6. Municipal Solid Waste and Recycling Measures;
7. Public Outreach Programs; and
WHEREAS, the Draft community-wide CAP measures combined with the Statewide
initiatives would reduce the anticipated emissions in the community by 99,000 metric tons/year
of carbon dioxide equivalent and would achieve the City's reduction goal of reducing GHG
emissions by 20% below the business-as-usual projection of GHG emitted during 2020 by said
year which results in an efficiency level of 4.22 MT C02e 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 October 26, 2010, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution
10-XX recommending that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration for the Draft Climate
Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Draft
Climate Action Plan and related Negative Declaration on October 26, 2010; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission
adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the Draft Climate Action Plan;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review and consider the Negative Declaration
and Draft Climate Action Plan, 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 Draft Climate Action Plan,
with the City Council Resolution attached as Exhibit A.
2of3
Is~~~ 1~1
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26t" day of October 2010 by the following
vote:
AYES: King, Brown, Swalwell, Schaub
NOES:
ABSENT: Wehrenberg
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
Planning Commission Chair
G:IPA#120101Dublin Climate Action Plan & Neg DecIPC Meeting 10.26.101PC Reso 10.26.10 CAP.doc
3 of 3