Loading...
CM Climate Change Action Plan 2030 & GHG Report 2019____________________________________________________________________________________ FOR CITY CLERK ONLY Council Meeting: 05/06/2019 Disposition: Resolution 14668, Resolution 14669, accepted reports Agenda Item No: 6.b Meeting Date: May 6, 2019 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Department: City Manager’s Office Prepared by: Cory Bytof, Sustainability & Volunteer Program Coordinator City Manager Approval: ____ _____ TOPIC: CLIMATE CHANGE ACTION PLAN ADOPTION AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REPORT SUBJECTS: 1. RESOLUTION ADOPTING ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO GENERAL PLAN 2020 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 2. RESOLUTION ADOPTING NEW CLIMATE CHANGE ACTION PLAN 2030 3. SAN RAFAEL GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY REPORT 4. 2019-2020 TWO-YEAR WORK PLAN PRIORITIES REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Adopt a resolution adopting Addendum No. 4 to the General Plan 2020 Environmental Impact Report. 2. Adopt a resolution adopting San Rafael’s new Climate Change Action Plan 2030. 3. Accept the Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reduction Strategy Annual Report for 2016. 4. Accept the 2019-2020 Two-Year Work Plan Priorities Report. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: San Rafael’s current Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) was adopted in 2009 and contains 48 actions or “measures” meant to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 25% below 2005 levels by 2020. Forty of those measures have either been completed, are in progress, or have become ongoing in nature. In 2016, the State of California adopted new targets for GHG emissions reductions of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. In 2017, Councilmember Kate Colin and the City Manager’s Office convened a community Working Group to revise the current CCAP to meet these new 2030 targets. The final draft Climate Change Action Plan 2030 (CCAP 2030) identifies a set of activities that, if successfully implemented, would meet and potentially exceed the 2030 goal and reduce emissions through low-carbon transportation, energy efficiency, renewable energy, waste reduction, and water conservation, and sequestration. The CCAP 2030 also contains measures to help San Rafael adapt to a changing climate. Similar to the current Climate Change Action Plan, CCAP 2030 has been prepared as a plan to SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2 reduce GHG emissions pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15183.5. This means that a qualifying development project will be able to continue to streamline their greenhouse gas analyses required by CEQA. In order to conduct the necessary environmental review of CCAP 2030, the City has prepared an addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the current General Plan. The Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2016 shows an overall emissions reduction of approximately 18% since 2005. With continued effort, and if reductions continue at the current rate, the City will hopefully be able to accomplish its interim goal of a 25% reduction in GHG emissions by 2020. The City Manager’s Office, in conjunction with Councilmember Colin, received extensive community input and developed a two-year priorities work plan (Attachment G) for early implementation of the new CCAP 2030. This work plan takes the place of the annual priorities document, acknowledging that most items in the work plan span multiple years. BACKGROUND: Climate change continues to be one of the most significant issues of our time. 2018 was the fourth warmest year since 1880, and the last five years are the warmest years on modern record. Meanwhile, 2018 was the hottest year on record for the world’s oceans – a significant fact since warmer oceans affect weather patterns, cause more powerful tropical storms, and impact sea life. Warmer oceans are also one of the main causes of rising sea levels. Human-induced climate change has doubled the area affected by forest fires in the Western U.S. over the last 30 years. Other significant impacts due to climate change include major humanitarian crises as mass migration and conflicts over scarce resources occur. Financially, the World Economic Forum issued a report contending that environmental threats due to extreme weather, natural disasters, and failure to mitigate climate change are the biggest risks to the global economy. Locally, the BayWAVE report on Marin’s sea level rise vulnerability shows that billions of dollars of private property and public infrastructure are threatened, with 12,000 structures and over 13,500 acres of land at risk in worst-case projections. Greenhouse gas reduction strategies are aimed at reducing the emissions that cause climate change in an effort to keep the climate from warming 2° Celsius above preindustrial times, which is what scientists say needs to happen in order to stave off the worst effects of climate change. To date, the planet has warmed 1° Celsius. State Emissions Reduction Targets The State of California has responded to growing concerns over the effects of climate change by adopting a comprehensive approach to addressing emissions in the public and private sectors. This approach was officially initiated with the passage of the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), which requires the state to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The AB 32 Scoping Plan was developed to identify strategies for meeting the AB 32 goal and was adopted by the California Air Resources Board in December 2008. Among many other strategies, it encourages local governments to reduce emissions in their jurisdictions by 15 percent below 2005 baseline levels by 2020, and proposed longer-term goals established by Executive Order S-3-05 to reduce emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. In 2016, the State Legislature passed SB 32, which set interim targets of 40% reductions below 1990 levels by 2030. 1. San Rafael’s Climate Change Action Plan The first Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) was developed by a 17-member Green Ribbon Committee in 2008 and adopted by the City Council in 2009. It contained 48 measures – or actions – aimed at reducing community-wide and municipal greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide, methane, and refrigerants. These measures included items such as opting in to MCE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3 Clean Energy, approving Property Assessed Clean Energy financing for building upgrades for energy efficiency, and adopting a construction demolition and debris recycling ordinance among others. To date 40 of the 48 measures are either complete, in progress, or have been moved to an ongoing status. In 2011, the City adopted a new Sustainability Element of the San Rafael General Plan and incorporated the CCAP measures into the General Plan. A GHG Emissions Reduction Strategy was also prepared to provide technical support to the Sustainability Element and adopted CCAP. The strategy was included as a technical appendix (Appendix E) to the adopted CCAP to meet the BAAQMD requirements for a Qualified GHG Emissions Reduction Strategy. In late 2017, Sustainability Liaison to the City Council Kate Colin and the City Manager’s Office convened a 20-member community Working Group to update the current CCAP to meet the new 2030 State targets. The Working Group developed the greenhouse gas reduction measures/activities with the assistance of 19 local subject matter experts. A CCAP survey was developed as part of the effort and over 350 San Rafael residents and business representatives gave input on the Plan. The Draft CCAP 2030 was brought to Council on October 15, 2018. The Planning Commission reviewed the Draft CCAP on February 26, 2019 and offered supportive comments and suggestions mainly focused on the need for increased community engagement. 2. Environmental Review The 2009 Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) was developed as a “strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions” in 2011 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. This provided the City with a valuable streamlining tool for reviewing new development and building projects. It allows certain applicants to demonstrate that they comply with greenhouse gas reduction strategy measures through utilization of a compliance checklist, saving time and cost for contractors and staff, while ensuring that GHG emissions reduction activities are included in projects. A strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions requires a quantified analysis of GHG emissions reductions for measures in the CCAP as well as ongoing monitoring and reporting. When the CCAP was incorporated into the General Plan 2020 in 2011, environmental review was conducted via an addendum to the General Plan’s Environmental Impact Report. 3. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Reports In order to monitor progress on meeting its GHG reduction goals, the City annually conducts community-wide GHG emissions inventories and prepares a report identifying changes in emissions from various sectors and sources and the activities the City has undertaken to reduce emissions. The last community-wide emissions inventory was conducted for 2015 emissions and presented to the City Council on March 19, 2018. At that time the City’s community-wide emissions reductions were 16% below a baseline of 2005. Every five years the City conducts a greenhouse gas inventory for municipal operations and facilities. The last greenhouse gas inventory and analysis to include municipal operations was done for the 2010 calendar year and compared emissions to the 2005 baseline. Emissions from the City’s municipal facilities and operations were 19% below 2005 levels in 2010. Greenhouse gas inventories are conducted by the Marin Climate and Energy Partnership (MCEP) of which the City has been a member since its inception in 2008. MCEP is a staff working group that utilizes small contributions by each member jurisdiction to secure grant and other funding to help jurisdictions create and implement climate action plans and to conduct greenhouse gas SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4 inventories for each. Consequently, small contributions can go a long way and cities and the County can work together to find economies of scale and achieve goals efficiently. Inventories and reports are conducted by MCEP’s Sustainability Coordinator Christine O’ Rourke in conjunction with City staff, eliminating the need for outside consultants to help do the work. 4. 2019-2020 Two-Year CCAP 2030 Work Plan Priorities The City Council’s Sustainability Liaison provides guidance and support to the City’s sustainability programs and activities by helping set agendas for community meetings and reviewing and setting priorities for work projects. As Sustainability Liaison, Councilmember Colin meets quarterly with primary staff involved with implementing the CCAP as well as the president of Sustainable San Rafael, with occasional additional meetings as needed to address specific initiatives of high importance. The Liaison also chairs the quarterly public CCAP implementation forums comprised of staff and interested members of the community, although other Councilmembers fill in when she is not available. The Liaison’s role is critical in helping staff prioritize requests from the public and in shaping projects and programs for City Council action. Each year staff works with the City Manager’s office to identify key priorities taken from our Climate Change Action Plan to be implemented during the year. These are reviewed with our City Council Sustainability Liaison and at our Climate Change Action Plan quarterly community forum for review before finalizing and bringing to Council. This establishes a work plan for staff so that we can be efficient with City resources and not get sidetracked by other activities. ANALYSIS: 1. New Climate Change Action Plan 2030 As stated above, Councilmember Colin and the City Manager’s Office convened a community Working Group in summer 2017 to update the current CCAP to meet the new 2030 State targets. The Working Group developed 54 greenhouse gas reduction measures/activities with the assistance of local subject matter experts. The attached Final Draft CCAP 2030 incorporates measures to meet the 2030 targets while continuing the ongoing activities from the original CCAP, such as implementing green building ordinances and improving our bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. The Final Draft also incorporates comments and suggestions from the October 15, 2018 City Council meeting and from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). It became apparent in Working Group deliberations that the City will need to increase collaborative efforts with utilities, other agencies, business representatives, residents, and nonprofit partners if we hope to achieve success. Community engagement was key in developing the GHG reduction measures and formulating the CCAP 2030 but will be even more important in implementing it. The City only has direct control of its facilities and operations, which contribute less than 1% to the overall community-wide GHG emissions. However, the City has opportunities to encourage, incentivize, regulate, and promote sustainable programs and behavior, and can be a model for the community by showing leadership and taking action at the municipal level. Toward that end, staff has been working to publish the CCAP 2030 as an online engagement tool rather than simply a document so that each visitor that views the plan can see their role in our community’s emissions and be directed to actions and opportunities to contribute toward their reduction. In addition, several other Marin County municipalities will be using San Rafael’s CCAP 2030 as a template for their climate action plans, and several have indicated their desire to utilize our online platform as well. Co-branding and using the same messages across the County will be a valuable tool for our engagement efforts. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 5 In addition to robust community engagement, the Working Group identified a few other overall priorities for development and implementation of the measures. First, it is important to view all of them through the lens of Economy and Social Equity so that measures and programs benefit all and avoid unintended negative consequences as much as possible. The City will need to engage stakeholders in our under-represented and disadvantaged communities as well as our local business community so efforts to lower our carbon footprint ensure a strong, diverse local economy. In addition, it will be important to find co-benefits such as improved comfort, health, and cost-savings since most people do not make lifestyle or purchasing choices based on the impact of their decisions on the climate. There are eight major sections in the CCAP 2030. Below is a table listing those sections and the corresponding emissions reductions. Three show no specific reductions because they support measures in other sections (e.g., Community Engagement) or the reductions cannot be quantified for use in our standard GHG inventory and reporting (e.g., Sequestration and Adaptation). Please note that this table has been updated since the Draft CCAP 2030 was brought to Council on October 15, 2018, to reflect some additions incorporated from public comment and BAAQMD review. Should all measures be accomplished successfully, the City would be on track to reduce emissions 42% below 1990 levels, just above the State targets. Strategy GHG Reductions by 2030 (MTCO2e) Percent of Reductions Low Carbon Transportation 37,030 38% Energy Efficiency 18,280 19% Renewable Energy 31,925 33% Waste Reduction 10,025 10% Water Conservation 830 1% Sequestration and Adaptation n/a n/a Community Engagement n/a n/a Implementation and Monitoring n/a n/a Total 98,085 100% Note: Numbers may not total and percentages my not total to 100% due to rounding. Attachment C to this report is a proposed resolution for the City Council to adopt the CCAP 2030. The full text of the CCAP 2030 and associated data are included as Attachment D. This also includes the full appendices: Appendix A: Program Calculations Appendix B: Implementation Matrix Appendix C: CCAP 2020 Program Status Similar to the current Climate Change Action Plan, CCAP 2030 has been prepared as a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15183.5. Should the CCAP 2030 be adopted, future project-specific environmental documents may tier from and/or incorporate by reference the CCAP 2030, thereby streamlining the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions impacts for those projects. In San Rafael this is mainly done through our compliance checklist referenced above. 2. General Plan Environmental Impact Report Addendum No. 4 The San Rafael General Plan 2020 Final EIR was prepared in 2004 and certified by the San Rafael City Council on November 15, 2004 by adoption of Resolution No. 11664. Similar to the SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 6 current Climate Change Action Plan, an Addendum to the General Plan 2020 EIR has been prepared in order to analyze the environmental impacts of the CCAP 2030. The analysis found only positive environmental impacts would result from implementation of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 and determined that the plan met both the statewide GHG reduction target of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 as well as an emissions threshold recommended by the California Air Resources Board 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, adjusted for San Rafael, of no more than 2.97 MTCO2e per service population (residents plus employees) by 2030. In order to adopt the CCAP 2030, Council must first adopt a resolution adopting EIR Addendum No. 4, included with the Staff Report as Attachments A and B. 3. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report The 2016 Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report (Attachment F) provides the City Council with an overview of community-wide emissions as well as status of City actions accomplished in that same year. The report also fulfills the City’s requirement to report annual emissions for the strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The 2016 report includes an inventory for municipal emissions from City facilities and operations. Emissions factors are not yet available from all of the utilities for 2017 and 2018, and thus there is always a lag period. As noted, the City of San Rafael partners with the Marin Climate and Energy Partnership (MCEP) for conducting the inventory and developing the report. MCEP publishes all the results on the MCEP website, marinclimate.org, and at MarinTracker.org so that members of our community can easily access the data using an interactive map. 2016 GHG Inventory Report Results The 2016 Report provides broad category, best-estimate community-wide emissions data for the years 2005-2016 based on publicly available data. This data shows an overall reduction of approximately 18% of community-wide emissions since 2005, including an approximate 2% reduction between 2015 and 2016. The chart below shows where our emissions reductions came from. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 7 The government operations inventory shows an overall reduction of approximately 16% since 2005. The chart below shows where our emissions reductions came from. Following are a sampling of programs and policies the City undertook to reduce GHG emissions in 2016: • Continued design and operation work for SMART rail planning • Completed additional LED/high-efficiency streetlight and traffic light conversions • Adopted a new Green Building ordinance, including Tier 1 requirements for new construction • Hosted electric vehicle ride-and-drive events in downtown San Rafael • Conducted commercial / multi-family recycling outreach • Continued development of solar energy systems at Boro Center and Public Works facilities • Purchased and installed public recycling containers in City facilities & public areas • Hired a Fellow to assist with Zero Waste efforts in City departments and in the community • Supported residential and commercial outreach programs such as Resilient Neighborhoods, California Youth Environmental Services’ Green House Calls, the Chamber Green Business Committee, the Electric Vehicle Working Group, and Marin School of Environmental Leadership, among others The City has made significant progress towards implementation of its CCAP and has a strong commitment toward continuing to implement policies and programs. The designation of a City Council Sustainability Liaison and annual adoption of Sustainability Priorities, as well as the Council’s decision to have staff dedicated to sustainability, demonstrates that commitment. In addition, City management and staff across all departments have embraced a sustainability ethos and provide staff time and resources toward accomplishing our sustainability goals. This report shows a community-wide reduction of 18% in eleven years, between 2005-2016. If emissions reductions continue at the current rate, the City could accomplish its interim goal of a 25% reduction in GHG emissions by 2020. However, some of the emissions reductions may be related to economic and other conditions, and changes in these conditions could slow the rate of reductions and require further actions to keep on track. In addition, in order to meet our CCAP targets of 80% reductions by 2050, San Rafael will need to continue to innovate and be at the forefront of local GHG reduction strategies. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 8 4. 2019-2020 TWO-YEAR WORK PLAN PRIORITIES Each year staff proposes work plan priorities from the CCAP in order to be efficient with City resources and stay focused on key initiatives. These are reviewed with our Sustainability Liaison to the Council and at the quarterly CCAP implementation forums, which are open to the public, as a means of aligning the work plan with other City priorities and with community concerns. This year the consensus was to establish two-year priorities due to the fact that most items span more than one year. This will not preclude annual review by City Council, however, and the intention is to bring status reports on the priorities annually, along with the annual greenhouse gas inventory reports described above. These priorities include the following: SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 9 The 2019-2020 Two-Year Priorities document is attached as Attachment G. In addition to the priorities outlined in this document, a high-level financial assessment is included for each. These are intended as overview documents for the purposes of describing the financial and co-benefits landscape for each action. A deeper financial analysis will accompany any proposed future actions that are brought to the City Council for consideration. For example, Priority #3, “Encouraging the adoption of electric vehicles,” includes developing an electric vehicle plan for San Rafael. Should a program related to this item require additional funding it will be brought to the City Council for adoption and will include a more robust financial analysis. Similarly, should we need a contract with a third-party consultant to assess the potential for local composting and recycling mandates, staff would bring that forward in the form of a contract complete with financial analysis. However, many of the actions in the CCAP 2030 will be completed using existing funding sources, grants, or other incentives and funding from utilities and community partners. Fortunately, the State is continually coming out with new programs, mandates, and funding opportunities to assist cities with climate action and adaptation planning and projects. COMMUNITY OUTREACH: San Rafael made the commitment to community engagement with our Climate Change Action Plan 2020 when it was adopted in 2009. Since then, the City has hosted quarterly CCAP implementation forums that regularly attract up to thirty community members from various backgrounds. A 20-member Green Ribbon Working Group was assembled for the development of CCAP 2030, which hosted nine meetings with subject matter experts from a variety of sectors around the Bay Area. In addition, staff and the Working Group hosted 9 meetings and circulated a survey that was filled out by over 350 community members, including members of the business community and our typically underrepresented communities. The survey was also translated for Spanish and Vietnamese speakers. Staff gave a presentation on the Draft Climate Change Action Plan 2030 at the October 15, 2018 City Council meeting and has since circulated the Draft to community members through City email lists, public presentations, and on the City’s website. A presentation was given to the General Plan Steering Committee on November 14, 2018 and to the San Rafael Planning Commission on February 26, 2019. The full list of comments and suggestions can be found in Attachment E. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW As referenced above, a CEQA analysis of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 has been prepared as Addendum No. 4 to the General Plan 2020 EIR (Attachment B). The analysis found only positive environmental impacts would result from implementation of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 and determined that the plan met both the statewide GHG reduction target of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 as well as an emissions threshold recommended by the California Air Resources Board 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, adjusted for San Rafael, of no more than 2.97 MTCO2e per service population (residents plus employees) by 2030. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no direct budget implication of adopting the Climate Change Action Plan, but subsequent implementation of the Plan programs may require that General Fund dollars and staffing be redirected to these efforts, as well as the need to secure grants and other funding from available sources. The City Council will review and approve such subsequent budget allocations as projects get underway. The majority of the activities included in the Two -Year Priorities (2019-2021) will be funded by grants, etc. The priorities for the first year are included in the proposed fiscal year 2019-2020 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 10 budget and total $5,795. If the priorities in year 2 require funding, staff will bring those forward with the next year’s fiscal budget proposal. Included in this report is a high-level costs and benefits assessment for each of the Two-Year Priorities as Attachment G. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: 1. Adopt a resolution adopting Addendum No. 4 to the General Plan 2020 Environmental Impact Report. (Note: this must be done first prior to adoption of the new Climate Change Action Plan 2030) 2. Adopt a resolution adopting San Rafael’s new Climate Change Action Plan 2030. 3. Accept the Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reduction Strategy Annual Report for 2016. 4. Accept the 2019-2020 Two-Year Priorities Report. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Resolution adopting Addendum No. 4 to General Plan 2020 EIR Attachment B: Addendum No. 4 to General Plan 2020 EIR Attachment C: Resolution Adopting Climate Change Action Plan 2030 Attachment D: Climate Change Action Plan 2030 with Appendices Attachment E: Survey Results and Comments on Draft CCAP 2030 Attachment F: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Strategy 2016 Annual Report Attachment G: 2019-2020 Two-Year Sustainability Priorities with Cost / Benefit Assessments 1 RESOLUTION NO. 14668 RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO THE CERTIFIED SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) (SCH# 2003052031), PREPARED FOR THE SAN RAFAEL CLIMATE CHANGE ACTION PLAN 2030 (CITY FILE #P19-003) The City Council of the City of San Rafael finds and determines that: WHEREAS, on November 15, 2004, the San Rafael City Council adopted Resolution No. 11664, certifying the San Rafael General Plan 2020 Final Environmental Impact Report (General Plan 2020 FEIR). The General Plan 2020 FEIR is comprised of the following:  Draft EIR prepared by Nichols-Berman Environmental Consultants, February 2004;  San Rafael General Plan 2020 Background Report prepared by the City of San Rafael, April 2001 and updated August 2003;  Response to Comments to Draft EIR prepared by Nichols-Berman Environmental Consultants, August 2004; and WHEREAS, the FEIR assessed the physical environmental impacts caused by implementation of the San Rafael General Plan 2020. The General Plan 2020 FEIR concludes that many of the significant environmental effects can be substantially lessened through adoption of feasible mitigation measures and that some of these effects would remain significant and unavoidable despite the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures. The certification of the General Plan 2020 FEIR was supported by the following findings: 1. The FEIR for the General Plan 2020 has been completed in compliance with CEQA; 2. The FEIR is legally sufficient, not only for approval of General Plan 2020, but for all subsequent actions such as Rezonings, Pre-zonings, Annexations and revisions to the San Rafael Municipal Code and regulations as necessary to implement the provisions of the General Plan 2020; 3. The FEIR reflects the independent judgment of the City of San Rafael and the City Council of the City of San Rafael; and WHEREAS, subsequent to certifying the General Plan 2020 FEIR, on November 15, 2004, the San Rafael City Council adopted Resolution No. 11665 adopting the San Rafael General Plan 2020. The adoption of the San Rafael General Plan 2020 was supported by CEQA Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Consideration (Appendix C to Resolution 11665) and approval of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP, Appendix B to Resolution 11665); and WHEREAS, since 2004, the San Rafael General Plan 2020 has been amended numerous times. In processing and adopting subsequent amendments, the City has relied on use of the General Plan 2020 FEIR for environmental review and clearance and has adopted three addenda to that FEIR. In 2009, the City prepared and adopted an Addendum to the General Plan 2020 FEIR (Addendum No. 1), which assessed a 2 General Plan Amendment to change the Plan-adopted traffic level of service (LOS) standard at the intersection of 3rd and Union Streets; and WHEREAS, in 2011, the City of San Rafael initiated a General Plan Amendment (GPA11-001) which consisted of 1) amending the Housing Element for 2009-2014, 2) incorporating a new Sustainability Element, 3) amending Conservation Element Policy CON-3, and 4) eliminating the Project Selection Process (PSP). An Addendum to the General Plan 2020 FEIR (Addendum No. 2) encompassed these policies and actions; and WHEREAS, in 2014, the City of San Rafael initiated a General Plan Amendment (GPA14-001) to update the Housing Element for the 2015-2023 planning period, requiring Addendum No. 3 to the General Plan 2020 FEIR; and WHEREAS, in 2019, the City of San Rafael initiated an update of the San Rafael Climate Change Action Plan, adopted in 2009, and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy, adopted in 2011; and WHEREAS, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the San Rafael Climate Change Action Plan 2030 (CCAP 2030) is defined as a ‘project’ and is therefore subject to environmental review. Given the components and scope of this project, it was determined that “tiering” from the General Plan 2020 FEIR is appropriate and consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15152 in that: 1. The project and its environmental topic areas are broadly covered and analyzed in the General Plan 2020 FEIR. 2. The project proposes a Climate Change Action Plan update that is not site- specific or project-specific; it addresses amendments to current policies that are applicable to the entire San Rafael Planning Area. The level of detailed contained in this tier need not be greater than the program, plan or policy being analyzed. WHEREAS, to further support “tiering” from the General Plan 2020 FEIR, the Initial Study has been prepared utilizing the most current CEQA Guidelines environmental checklist and considered the following factors that constitute the “baseline” for review: 1. None of the components of the project result in any changes to land use assumptions or projections currently presented in the San Rafael General Plan 2020 and analyzed in the General Plan EIR. 2. No changes are proposed to land use designations or their respective density and intensity parameters, nor are any changes proposed to adopted land use designations for individual sites/properties. 3. The project proposes no changes to circulation (transportation/traffic) projections, policies or implementing programs that would result in changes to level of service conditions at intersections or along arterials. 4. The Climate Change Action Plan 2030 is intended to address climate change and presents policies and implementing measures to reduce, among others, 3 GHG emissions, reliance on non-renewable fossil fuels, vehicle miles traveled, energy consumption, water use and solid waste generation and disposal. While the ultimate, physical implementation of proposed policies, programs and measures on a site-specific or project-specific basis may result in individual impacts on the environment, the current project is at a policy level that is applicable citywide. WHEREAS, in preparing the Initial Study, the project was reviewed against impacts identified and mitigation measures included in the certified General Plan 2020 FEIR (2004). The purpose of this review was to determine if the project would result in: new significant impacts; an increase in the severity of impacts; or new or expanded mitigation measures from those analyzed and determined in the General Plan EIR; and WHEREAS, the project and the findings of the Initial Study were assessed to determine whether an Addendum to the EIR, Supplemental EIR or Subsequent EIR would be appropriate to address environmental review for adoption of the San Rafael Climate Change Action Plan 2030 (City File #P19-003). Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 set forth limited situations in which a Supplemental EIR or Subsequent EIR is required once an FEIR has been certified. Further, CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 provides for preparation of an Addendum EIR if no Supplemental EIR or Subsequent EIR is required; and WHEREAS, as demonstrated in the preparation of an Initial Study and comparing the project activities and actions against the impacts identified and mitigation measures included in the General Plan 2020 FEIR, none of the conditions analyzed under the General Plan 2020 FEIR have changed, nor does the proposed project meet the criteria for preparing a Subsequent EIR or Supplemental EIR. Further, the project will not result in one or more significant effects not discussed in the General Plan EIR, nor does the project create substantially more severe significant effects than previously examined in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the Initial Study supports and recommends an Addendum versus the preparation of a Subsequent EIR or Supplemental EIR and WHEREAS, on February 22, 2019, Addendum No. 4 to the San Rafael General Plan 2020 FEIR was prepared for the San Rafael Climate Change Action Plan 2030 (City File #P19-003); and WHEREAS, on May 6, 2019, the City Council reviewed and considered the Addendum No. 4 for the San Rafael Climate Change Action Plan 2030 (City File #P19- 003), along with the previously certified General Plan FEIR and all applicable mitigation measures therein; and WHEREAS, the custodian of documents, which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based, is the Community Development Department; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council adopts the Addendum No. 4 to San Rafael General Plan 2020 FEIR, dated February 22, 2019, for the San Rafael Climate Change Action Plan 2030 (City File #P19-003) based on the following findings, and hereby reaffirms the findings made by the City in adopting Resolution No. 11664 (listed above) certifying the General Plan 2020 FEIR as follows: 4 1. CEQA Section 21166 and its corresponding CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, provide that once an EIR has been prepared, no subsequent or supplemental EIR shall be required by the lead agency unless: (a) substantial changes are proposed in the project, requiring major revisions in the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (b) substantial changes arise in the circumstances of the project's undertaking, requiring major revisions in the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (c) new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified, shows any of the following:  The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR;  Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;  Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or  Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline the mitigation measure or alternative. 2. CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a) provides that a lead agency shall prepare an Addendum to a previously certified FEIR if some changes or additions to the certified EIR are necessary but none of the conditions calling for the preparation of a supplemental EIR have occurred. Based on the analysis and documentation in Addendum No. 4 and the supportive Initial Study environmental checklist prepared for the proposed project, none of the situations described in CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163 apply here. Based on the results of the supportive Initial Study environmental checklist, the City has concluded that the proposed project would not result in new significant adverse impacts nor an increase in the severity of impacts identified and studied in the certified General Plan 2020 FEIR. None of the conditions requiring a supplemental or subsequent EIR exists and the Addendum has been prepared in compliance with CEQA. 3. The Addendum has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the provisions of the City of San Rafael Environmental Assessment Procedures Manual. 4. The Addendum has been presented to the City Council, who has reviewed and considered the information in the Addendum and the certified General Plan 2020 FEIR prior to approving the project. 5. The Addendum No. 4 and the certified General Plan 2020 FEIR reflect the City's independent judgment and analysis. I, LINDSAY LARA, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 6th day of May 2019. 5 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Bushey, Colin, Gamblin, McCullough & Mayor Phillips NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk ADDENDUM (No. 4) T O SAN R AF AEL GENERAL PL AN 2020 ENVIRONM ENT AL IM PACT REPORT (SCH # 203052031) FOR ADOPTION OF: San Rafael Climate Change Action Plan 2030 Including updated Qualified GHG Emissions Reduction Strategy (City File #P19-003) Lead Agency: City of San Rafael Community Development Department 1400 Fifth Avenue (P.O. Box 151560) San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 Contact: Paul A. Jensen, Community Development Director February 22, 2019 Table of Contents A. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1 B. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................. 1 C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................. 2 D. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 6 E. DETERMINATION – SUPPORT FOR ADDENDUM TO EIR .............................................14 F. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST .............................................................................................17 I. AESTHETICS..............................................................................................................19 II. AGRICULT URE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ......................................................20 III. AIR QUALITY ..............................................................................................................21 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................24 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES ..........................................................................................26 VI. ENERGY ....................................................................................................................27 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ..............................................................................................28 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .............................................................................30 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ..............................................................33 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .......................................................................34 XI. LAND USE PLANNING ...............................................................................................36 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................37 XIII. NOISE ........................................................................................................................38 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING ...................................................................................39 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES ....................................................................................................39 XVI. RECREATION ............................................................................................................41 XVII. TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................................................41 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................43 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ........................................................................43 XX. WILDFIRE ..................................................................................................................46 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ...........................................................47 G. SOURCE REFERENCES ..................................................................................................49 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of Climate Change Action Plan 2030 February 22, 2019 1 1 A. INTRODUCTION The City of San Rafael is proposing to adopt the San Rafael Climate Change Action Plan 2030 (CCAP 2030), which is an update of the Climate Change Action Plan (adopted in 2009) and the Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy (adopted in 2011). As discussed below in Section C (Project Description), the proposed CCAP 2030 supports and implements the Sustainability Element of the San Rafael General Plan 2020. The General Plan was adopted in 2004, which followed the certification of the San Rafael General Plan 2020 Environmental Impact Report (General Plan EIR, SCH# 203052031). To address the potential environmental impacts of the proposed adoption of CCAP 2030, an Addendum No. 4 to the certified San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR (Addendum) has been prepared, which is summarized in this document. The Addendum has been prepared in conformance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15164. As addressed below, the Addendum concludes that the project (the updated CCAP 2030) would not result in any new significant environmental impacts or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts from those previously identified in the certified General Plan EIR. The components of the project have been reviewed against the impacts and mitigation measures presented in the certified General Plan EIR finding that there would be no change to the impact topic areas of, among others, housing, population and growth, circulation/transportation, air quality, noise, or biological resources. In fact, the updated CCAP 2030 presents policies and implementing measures that would result in reduced if not beneficial long-term and cumulative air quality and greenhouse gas impacts to the community. B. BACKGROUND On November 15, 2004, the City Council of the City of San Rafael adopted the San Rafael General Plan 2020 (General Plan). The General Plan is comprised of numerous elements, sections and supportive background data including, among others, the following mandatory elements: Land Use Element Housing Element Circulation Element Conservation Element Safety Element Noise Element Open Space Element The General Plan is available for review at the City’s Community Development Department. The General Plan is also available on the City’s website, which can be accessed at: https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/generalplan-2020/ In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City of San Rafael prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to assess the physical environmental impacts of the General Plan, its policies and implementing programs (SCH #2003052031). Prior Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of Climate Change Action Plan 2030 February 22, 2019 2 2 to General Plan adoption, a Final EIR was certif ied (City Council Resolution No. 11664, November 15, 2004). The certif ied EIR is comprised of the following volumes: ➢ San Rafael General Plan 2020 FEIR/Response to Comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report, August 2004; ➢ San Rafael General Plan 2020 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), February 2004; and ➢ San Rafael General Plan 2020 Background Report, April 12, 2001/reprinted December 19, 2003 The certified EIR assesses environmental impacts of the General Plan development projections through 2020 (cumulative). These impacts include, among others, transportation, air quality and noise. The certified EIR serves as a program-level environmental document for subsequent City actions that are deemed consistent with the General Plan. Further, the certified EIR was prepared and deemed legally sufficient to serve as a project-level environmental document for subsequent actions such as rezonings, pre-zonings, annexations and revisions to the San Rafael Municipal Code and regulations, as deemed necessary or recommended to implement the provisions of the General Plan. The certified EIR is on file and available for review at the City of San Rafael Community Development Department, 1400 5th Avenue, 3rd floor, San Rafael, CA. Since 2004, the San Rafael General Plan 2020 has been amended numerous times. In processing and adopting many of these subsequent amendments, the City has relied on use of the Plan’s certified EIR for environmental review and clearance. In 2009, the City prepared and adopted an Addendum to the certified EIR (Addendum No. 1), which assessed a General Plan amendment to change the Plan- adopted traffic level of service (LOS) standard at the intersection of 3rd Street and Union Street. In 2011, the City prepared and adopted an Addendum to the certified EIR (Addendum No. 2), which assessed a General Plan Amendment for the Housing Element (2009-2014), a New Sustainability Element and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Strategy, an amendment to Conservation Element Policy CON-3, as well as the elimination of the Project Selection Process (PSP). In 2014, the City prepared and adopted an Addendum to the certified EIR (Addendum No. 3) which assessed a General Plan Amendment for the 2015-2023 Housing Element Update. C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of San Rafael is proposing to adopt the San Rafael Climate Change Action Plan 2030 (City File #P19-003). CCAP 2030 is an update of the San Rafael Climate Change Action Plan adopted in 2009 and the Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy adopted in 2011 as a technical appendix (Appendix E) to the adopted CCAP. In 2009, the City adopted the San Rafael Climate Change Action Plan 2009 (CCAP). The CCAP was prepared and adopted in response to AB32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act, which established a state goal to reduce statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In 2011, the City adopted a new Sustainability Element of the San Rafael General Plan 2020 to memorialize adopted CCAP measures into the General Plan. The element was not Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of Climate Change Action Plan 2030 February 22, 2019 3 3 intended to replace the CCAP; rather, in many ways, the CCAP serves as a subset of the Sustainability Element, as it used as a tool for monitoring GHG emissions and addressing changes resulting from new laws and technologies. A GHG Emissions Reduction Strategy was also prepared to provide technical support to the Sustainability Element and adopted CCAP. The strategy was included as a technical appendix (Appendix E) to the adopted CCAP so as to meet the BAAQMD requirements for a Qualified GHG Emissions Reduction Strategy. In 2016, the State adopted SB 32 which established a requirement to reduce statewide emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. As a result, the City has prepared an update of the CCAP to meet the statewide emissions reduction target for 2030. The CCAP 2030 incorporates updated forecasts, reduction targets, and measures that will reduce community-wide emissions to levels that are consistent with statewide goals. The CCAP 2030 has been prepared as a plan for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15183.5 which says that such a plan should: 1. Quantify greenhouse gas emissions, both existing and projected over as specified time period, resulting from activities within a defined geographic area; 2. Establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to greenhouse gas emission from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable; 3. Identify and analyze the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated within the geographic area; 4. Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level; 5. Be adopted in a public process following environmental review. The CCAP 2030 meets the above requirements and updates the earlier CCAP as follows: • GHG emissions inventory. The CCAP incorporates the findings from the City of San Rafael Community and Government Operations Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2016, which identifies the major sources and quantities of GHG emissions produced within San Rafael. The inventory utilizes the protocols of the U.S. Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, version 1.1 (July 2013) to quantify and report community-wide emissions. The CCAP reports that San Rafael community-wide GHG emissions were 473,438 metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MTCO2e) in 2005 and 389,036 MTCO2e in 2016. Reduction targets are based on the 2005 baseline, and future emissions are forecasted from 2016 levels. • GHG emission projections through year 2050 (consistent with target dates set by AB 32, SB 32 and Executive Order B-30-15). The forecasts rely on Association of Bay Area (ABAG) projections of housing, population, and employment growth within the City for 2020, 2030, and 2040, as well as Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) growth estimates of VMT for San Rafael for those same years. As BAG and MTC have not produced housing, population and employment growth projections for 2050 at this time, the CCAP assumes the same rate of growth for the 2040-2050 period as was forecasted by the regional agencies for the 2030-2040 period. Based on projected growth, annual emissions forecasts under “business as usual” conditions (no application of GHG reduction measures) are estimated to be 404,800 MTCO2e by 2050 (4.1% increase from 2016 levels). Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of Climate Change Action Plan 2030 February 22, 2019 4 4 • GHG reduction targets (consistent with targets set by AB 32, SB 32 and Executive Order B-30-15). The adopted CCAP targets a 25% reduction in 2005 baseline GHG emissions by 2020, which results in an annual emission target of 355,080 MTCO2e for 2020. This local target is more aggressive that the state’s target, which would be equivalent to a 15% reduction below 2005 baseline emissions. The updated CCAP 2030 sets additional GHG reduction targets commensurate with the State targets to reduce emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 (per SB 32) and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 (per Executive Order B-30-15). For San Rafael, annual emissions could be no more than 241,455 MTCO2e in 2030 and 80,485 MTCO2e in 2050 to meet the state targets. • Climate Action Measures and Adaptation Measures. The CCAP 2030 ide ntif ies a set of climate acti on measure s de si gned to achieve the GHG emissi ons re duction goal s f or 2020 and 2030 and to put the City on a trajectory to meet the 2050 goal. It also establishes measures to help pre pare f or the anticipate d effects of climate change. Proposed climate action me asures we re de veloped to meet the goals established by the City and to achieve or exceed the state wide e mission re duction targe ts. These CAP me asures are organized into the f ollowing f ocus areas: Low Carbon Transportation, Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy, Waste Re duction, Wate r Conse rvation , Sequestration and Adaptation, and Community Engagement. The climate action me asure s were selected based on distribution of e missions source s reve aled in the GHG e missions inventories, the emissions reductions needed to achieve the goal s, the goals and policies identif ied in the General Plan, e xi sting and ongoing ef forts and priorities, and the potential for new technologies and behavioral change to succeed in San Rafael . The CCAP quantifies numerous reduction measures such as: accelerating the adoption of electric vehicles; implementing transit-oriented development policies; participating in MCE; increasing solar energy system installation; increasing alternative transportation; implementing transportation demand management; improving energy efficiency; reducing waste; and implementing Green Building codes. • Projected GHG Emission Reductions. Based on application of the reduction measures and projected growth, estimated annual emissions would be reduced to 325,119 MTCO2e by 2020 and 234,792 MTCO2e by 2030. These emission levels are below the targets for 2020 (355,080 MTCO2e) and 2030 (241,455 MTCO2e). While the CCAP does include a GHG reducti on goal in support the State’s efforts under EO B-30-15 f or 2050, the CCAP doe s not i ncl ude climate action me asures de signed to achieve the 2050 goal as presentl y EO B-30-15 does not spe cif y any plan or implementation measure to achieve its goal . A ddi tionall y, there is pre se ntl y no reli able means of f ore casting how f uture te chnological de vel opments or state legislati ve actions to reduce GHG e missions may affect f uture e mi ssions i n San Rafael . • Implementation and Monitoring. Implementation and monitoring are essential processes to ensure that San Rafael reduces its GHG emissions and meets its goals. To facilitate this, each climate action measure is identified along with implementation actions, the GHG re ducti on pote nti al (as applicable), pe rformance indicators to monitor progress, and an implementation ti me f rame (se e Appendix B of the CCAP). Climate action me asure implementation i s se parated into thre e phases: short-term (1-3 years), long-term (3-10 years), and ongoing . The Ci ty’s Community De velopment De partment will moni tor implementation of the CCA P . Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of Climate Change Action Plan 2030 February 22, 2019 5 5 • Application to new development projects. In order to meet the reduction targets, new construction projects must be determined to be consistent with the CCAP 2030. A checklist has been developed to be used in reviewing new development applications, to ensure that GHG reduction measures are incorporated into the project design and operation. Project compliance with the measures in the checklist would exempt individual, quantitative study of GHG emissions for a development project. Development projects that are not able to meet the standards in the checklist, or projects that propose a Rezoning and/or an amendment to the San Rafael General Plan 2020 (e.g., a change in land use that results in changes to the projections used in the strategy) would require an individual, quantitative GHG emissions assessment. The draf t San Rafael Climate Change Action Plan 2030 and the GHG Reduction Checklist are available at the Department of Community Development, Planning Division. Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of Climate Change Action Plan 2030 February 22, 2019 6 6 D. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Tiering from the San Rafael Gener al Plan 2020 EIR The required environmental review for the proposed project commenced with a review of the certif ied San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR. As stated above, the General Plan EIR assesses the environmental impacts of the General Plan, its policies and programs, and planned development projected through 2020 (cumulative). The certif ied EIR serves as a program-level environmental document f or subsequent City actions that are deemed consistent with the General Plan. Further, the certif ied EIR was prepared and deemed legally suff icient to serve as a project-level environmental document for subsequent actions such as re-zonings, pre-zonings, annexations and revisions to the San Rafael Municipal Code and regulations, as deemed necessary or recommended to implement the provisions of the General Plan. Given the scope of the project, it has been determined that “tiering” from the General Plan EIR is appropriate and consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15152 in that: 1. The project is broadly covered and analyzed in the General Plan EIR. W hile study of GHG emissions is a relatively new issue, it is related and responsive to air quality impacts, which are analyzed in detail in the General Plan EIR. 2. The project proposes policies that are applicable to the entire San Rafael Planning Area. The development of detailed, site-specific information is not feasible at this time. Therefore, the level of detailed contained in this tier need not be greater than the plan and measures being analyzed. 3. An Initial Study has been prepared and concludes that the project will not cause signif icant effects on the environment, nor would it result in the study of new topics that had not been previously and adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR. See discussion below. Preparation and Conclusions of an Initial Study Checklist An Initial Study checklist has been prepared and is presented in Section F of this document. An Initial Study checklist was prepared for two reasons: a) to support tiering from the certif ied General Plan EIR (discussed above) to complete environmental review for this project; and b) to utilize the most current CEQA Guidelines environmental checklist (updated in 2018), which incorporates the required assessment of GHG emissions, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. The Initial Study has been prepared considering the following factors that constitute the “baseline” f or review, which is discussed in Section C (Project Description), above: ➢ None of the components of the project result in any changes to land use assumptions or projections currently presented in the San Raf ael General Plan 2020 and analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No changes are proposed to land use designations or their respective density and intensity parameters, nor are any changes proposed to adopted land use designations for individual sites/properties. Further, the project proposes no changes to circulation (transportation/traffic) projections, policies or implementing programs that would result in changes to level of service conditions at intersections or along arterials. Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of Climate Change Action Plan 2030 February 22, 2019 7 7 ➢ The Climate Change Action Plan 2030 is intended to address climate change and present implementing measures to reduce, among others, GHG emissions, reliance on non-renewable fossil f uels, vehicle miles traveled, energy consumption, water use, and solid waste generation and disposal. W hile the ultimate, physical implementation of proposed policies, programs and measures on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis may result in individual impacts on the environment, the current project is at a policy level that is applicable citywide. In preparing the Initial Study, the project was reviewed against impacts identif ied and mitigation measures included in the certif ied General Plan EIR (2004). The purpose of this review is to determine if the project would result in: new signif icant impacts; an increase in the severity of impacts; or new or expanded mitigation measures f rom those analyzed and determined in the General Plan EIR. The following presents those General Plan EIR impacts and recommended mitigation measures that are pertinent to the project and compares the proposed project activities to these impacts and measures. The discussion is organized by the chronological order of topic areas presented in the Initial Study. Addendum (No.4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 8 February 22, 2019 General Plan EIR Imp act General Plan EIR Adopted Mitigation Measure Relationship to Proposed Project (Climate Change Action Plan 2030) Air Quality Impact IV.3-1. Consistency with Clean Air Plan. General Plan EIR determined that there would be a less-than-signif icant to the Clean Air Plan. No mitigation required. No change; beneficial impacts. The action to adopt an updated Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) is consistent with the 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. The f ollowing is a list of selected m easures in the CCAP 2030 im plem entation program that are intended to reduce air pollutants and GHG em issions: • Reduce vehicle miles traveled by supporting programs to increase walking, biking, and transit use. • Accelerate the adoption of electric passenger and commercial vehicles and buses. • Reduce super-GHG pollutants such as methane by reducing organic waste disposed in landfills and instead recycling and composting organic waste, including paper, wood, and food waste. • Decrease the demand for fossil fuels by increasing the efficiency of residential and commercial buildings and facilities • Pursue a carbon-free electricity supply by supporting MCE’s goal to provide 100% GHG-free electricity by 2025 and purchasing 100% renewable Deep Green electricity for City facilities. • Promote electrification of building systems and appliances that use natural gas. Impact IV.3-2. Consistency with Clean Air Plan transportation control m easures. General Plan EIR determined that there would be to be less-than-significant impacts to Clean Air transportation control m easures. No mitigation required. No change; beneficial impacts. The action to adopt an updated Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) is consistent with the 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. The f ollowing is a list of selected m easures in the CCAP 2030 im plem entation program that are intended to reduce air pollutants and GHG em issions: • Reduce vehicle miles traveled by supporting programs to increase walking, biking, and transit use. • Accelerate the adoption of electric passenger and commercial vehicles and buses. Addendum (No.4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 9 February 22, 2019 Impact IV.3-3. Odor/Toxics Buff er Zones. The General Plan EIR determined that certain facilities or land uses recomm ended in the General Plan m ay be ex posed to m obile source toxic air contaminants f rom US 101 and I-580. This im pact was determ ined to be significant Mitigation Measure IV.3-3. Adopted Program AW 2a (Sensitive Receptors). This mitigation m easure requires that all projects that are considered “sensitive receptors” (e.g., housing, schools, child care) proposed within 500 f eet of the closest lane of US 101 or I-580 be subject to review of health risks. No change; beneficial impacts. The action to adopt an updated Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) is consistent with the 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. The f ollowing is a list of selected m easures in the CCAP 2030 im plem entation program that are intended to reduce air pollutants and GHG em issions: • Reducing vehicle miles traveled by supporting programs to increase walking, biking, and transit use. • Accelerating the adoption of electric passenger and commercial vehicles and buses. By reducing air pollutants and GHG emissions, exposure of sensitive receptors to health risks would be reduced. Biological Resources Impact IV.8-1. Special-Status Plant and Anim al Species. General Plan EIR determined that there would be less-than-significant im pacts to special- status plant and anim al species, prov ided that Conserv ation Elem ent policies and program s were included in the adoption of the Plan. No mitigation required. No change. The proposed CCAP 2030 would have no im pact to biological resources. Impact IV.8-2. Sensitiv e Natural Comm unities. General Plan EIR determined that there would be significant im pacts to sensitive natural communities, specifically to the oak sav anna and oak woodland communities. Mitigation m easure IV.8-2. This m easure required the adoption of Conserv ation Policy CON-10a, which requires the protection of oak sav anna and oak woodland habitat when assessing dev elopm ent in these areas. No change. The proposed CCAP 2030 would have no im pact to biological resources. Impact IV.8-3. Federally Protected W etlands. General Plan determined that there would be less-than-significant im pacts to protected wetlands, provided that Conserv ation Elem ent policies and program s were included in the adoption of the Plan. No mitigation required. No change. The proposed CCAP 2030 would have no im pact to biological resources. Addendum (No.4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 10 February 22, 2019 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Not analyzed in the San Raf ael General Plan 2020 EIR. NA Benef icial im pacts. The proposed CCAP would reduce community-wide emissions to levels that exceed the state reduction targets for statewide emissions for years 2020 and 2030 established by AB 32 and SB 32. The CCAP would reduce communitywide emissions 19% below 1990 levels in 2020 and 42% below 1990 levels in 2030.Further, the CCAP would result in emissions of in 2.08 MTCO2e per service population (population + employees) in 2030 , which is below the emissions threshold recommended for local governments by the California Air Resources Board in the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, adjusted for local conditions. Land Use & Planning; Population & Housing Im pact IV.1-1. Conf lict with applicable land use or other plans. The General Plan EIR determined that there would be less-than-significant im pacts. No mitigation required. No change. The proposed CCAP 2030 would have no im pact on applicable land use or other plans . Im pact IV.1-2. Incom patible land uses and changes to neighborhood character. The General Plan EIR determined that there would be less-than-significant im pacts. No mitigation required. No change. The proposed CCAP 2030 would have no im pact on incompatible land uses and changes to neighborhood character. Im pact IV.1-3. Growth and concentration to population. The General Plan EIR determined that there would be less-than-significant im pacts. No mitigation required. No change. The CCAP would not result in increases in population nor accommodate population growth beyond that anticipated in the San Rafael General Plan 2020. Im pact IV.1-4. Em ploym ent growth rate. The General Plan EIR determined that there would be less-than-significant im pacts. No mitigation required. No change. The CCAP would not result in a substantial increase in the em ploym ent projected under the San Raf ael General Plan 2020. Addendum (No.4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 11 February 22, 2019 Im pact IV.1-5. Jobs-to-housing ratio. The General Plan EIR determined that there would be less-than-significant im pacts. No mitigation required. No change. The CCAP would not result in a substantial change in the jobs-to-housing ratio that is projected under the San Raf ael General Plan 2020. Noise IV.4-2. Increase Rail Noise. Mitigation Measure IV.4-2. This m easure requires that a detailed noise assessm ent be conducted to assess noise and v ibration im pacts associated with the SMART rail service. No change. The CCAP would not result in land use changes that would im pact growth and concentration to population. Public Services and Utilities Im pact IV.5-10. W astewater Treatm ent Capacity – North of Puerto Suello Hill. Im pact IV.5-11. W astewater Treatm ent Capacity – South of Puerto Suello Hill. No mitigation required. No impact; beneficial impact. The CCAP contains measures that would reduce water use and wastewater disposal by: promoting water conservation programs and incentives; educating residents and business about laws requiring retrofit of non - compliant plumbing fixtures during remodeling and at resale; ensuring all applicable projects project comply with State and Marin Mu nicipal Water District regulations; encouraging the installation of greywater and rainwater collection systems and the use of recycle water; and improving water efficiency and conservation efforts in municipal facilities and operations. Theref ore, this action would have no im pact on wastewater treatm ent capacity. Im pact IV.5-12. W ater Supply. General Plan determined that there would be less-than-significant im pacts to water supplies and wastewater capacity. No impact; beneficial impact. The CCAP contains measures that would reduce water use by: promoting water conservation programs and incentives; educating residents and business about laws requiring retrofit of non -compliant plumbing fixtures during remodeling and at resale; ensuring all applicable proje cts project comply with State and Marin Municipal Water District regulations; encouraging the installation of greywater and rainwater collection systems and the use of recycle water; and improving water efficiency and conservation efforts in municipal faci lities and operations. Theref ore, this action would have no im pact on water supplies and wastewater treatm ent capacity. Addendum (No.4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 12 February 22, 2019 Im pact IV.5-13. Landfill Capacity. General Plan determined that there would be less-than-significant im pacts to landfill capacity. No mitigation required. No change; beneficial impact. The CCAP includes the f ollowing m easures that would reduce dem ands on landf ill disposal: • Reducing commercial organic waste through encouraging and enforcing compliance with AB 1826 and participation in food recovery programs • Reducing residential organic waste through better utilization of curbside collection services and home composting • Adoption of an ordinance to require all loads of construction and demolition debris to be processed for material recovery • Investment in waste processing infrastructure to remove recoverable materials from the waste stream. Theref ore, this action would have no im pact on landf ill capacity. Im pact IV.5-14. Electricity, Natural G as and Gasoline Dem and. General Plan determined that there would be less-than-significant im pacts to electricity, natural gas and gasoline dem and. No mitigation required. No change; beneficial impact. The CCAP includes m easures f or strategic reductions in utilit y service dem ands to electricity, natural gas and gasoline over tim e. CCAP measures: • Reduce vehicle miles traveled and gasoline consumption by supporting programs to increase walking, biking, and transit use. • Decrease the demand for natural gas and electricity by increasing the efficiency of residential and commercial buildings and facilities and promoting conservation Theref ore, this action would hav e no im pact on electricity, natural gas or gasoline dem and. Transportation/Traffic Im pact IV.2-1. Lev el of Service at intersections approv ed to acceptable lev els of service with General Plan 2020. General Plan determined that there would be less-than-significant im pacts to intersections adopted with specific, acceptable LOS standards. No mitigation required. No change; beneficial impact. The CCAP contains measures to reduce vehicle miles traveled by supporting programs to increase walking and biking. Therefore, this action would have no impact on acceptable LOS standards. Addendum (No.4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 13 February 22, 2019 Im pacts IV.2-2, IV.2-3, IV.2-4, IV.2-5. Im pacts to levels of serv ice at specific intersections. General Plan EIR determined that there would be significant and unav oidable im pacts at specific intersections. No mitigation m easures av ailable or adopted to reduce im pacts to acceptable lev el. No change or increase in the sev erity of the significant and unav oidable im pact. The CCAP would have no im pact on traffic or LOS at intersections that projected to operate below the adopted LOS standards. Im pact IV.2-6. Unacceptable Cit y roadway segment lev el of serv ice resulting from San Rafael General Plan 2020. General Plan EIR determined that there would be significant and unav oidable im pacts along specif ic roadway segm ents. Im pact determined to be signif icant and unav oidable. No mitigation m easures av ailable or adopted to reduce im pacts to acceptable lev el. No change or increase in the sev erity of the significant and unav oidable im pact. The CCAP would hav e no im pact on traffic or LOS at intersections that projected to operate below the adopted LOS standards. Im pact IV.2-7. City roadway segm ent lev el of service resulting from San Raf ael General Plan 2020. General Plan determined that there would be less-than-significant im pacts to selectiv e City roadway segm ents. . No mitigation required, No change. The CCAP would hav e no im pact on traffic or LOS at intersections that projected to operate below the adopted LOS standards. Addendum (No.4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 14 February 22, 2019 E. DETERMINATION – SUPPORT FOR ADDENDUM TO EIR W hen “tiering” f rom the certif ied General Plan EIR, the CEQA Guidelines provide options for subsequent environmental documentation. The options include the preparation of a Supplemental EIR, Subsequent EIR or an Addendum to the EIR. In determining whether an Addendum to the certif ied General Plan 2020 EIR is the appropriate document to analyze the project and its approval, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 (Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration) states: (a) The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certif ied EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. (b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. (c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the f inal EIR or adopted negative declaration. (d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the f inal EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project. (e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency’s required f indings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. As the General Plan 2020 EIR has been certif ied, the environmental impacts of subsequent activities proposed under the General Plan, which in this case, is the three components of the General Plan Amendment and the GHG Emissions Reduction Strategy, must be examined in light of the impact analysis in the certif ied EIR to determine if additional CEQA documentation must be prepared. One of the standards that apply is whether, under Public Resources Code Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, there are new signif icant effects or other grounds that require preparation of a Subsequent EIR or Supplemental EIR in support of further agency action on the project. Under these guidelines, a Subsequent EIR or Supplemental EIR shall be prepared if any of the following criteria are met. (a) W hen an EIR has been certified or Negative Declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared f or that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the f ollowing: Addendum (No.4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 15 February 22, 2019 (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new signif icant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identif ied signif icant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new signif icant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identif ied signif icant effects; or (3) New inf ormation of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certif ied as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more signif icant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Signif icant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously f ound not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more signif icant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different f rom those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more signif icant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. In addition, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(a) includes a provision for addressing greenhouse gases: (a) Lead agencies may analyze and mitigate the significant effects of greenhouse gas emissions at a programmatic level, such as in a general plan, a long-range development plan, or a separate plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Later project-specif ic environmental documents may tier from and/or incorporate by reference that existing programmatic review. Project-specific environmental documents may rely on an EIR containing a programmatic analysis of greenhouse gas emissions as provided in Sections 15152 (tiering), 15167 (staged EIRs) 15168 (program EIRs), 15175–15179.5 (Master EIRs), 15182 (EIRs Prepared for Specif ic Plans), and 15183 (EIRs Prepared for General Plans, Community Plans, or Zoning). Addendum (No.4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 16 February 22, 2019 As demonstrated in the environmental analysis provided in Section D (Environmental Analysis) above, which is supported by the Initial Study presented in Section F, none of the conditions analyzed under the certif ied San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR have changed, nor does the proposed project, including the GHG Emissions Reduction Strategy serving as an implementing tool of the CCAP and General Plan, meet the criteria for preparing a Subsequent EIR or Supplemental EIR. The project will not result in one or more significant effects not discussed in the General Plan EIR, nor does the project create substantially more severe signif icant effects than previously examined in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the City of San Rafael, as the lead agency, supports and recommends an Addendum versus the preparation of a Subsequent EIR or Supplemental EIR. The project may theref ore be approved as an activity covered within the scope of the General Plan EIR. Further, the Sustainability Element component and supportive GHG Emissions Reduction Strategy have been analyzed consistent with the provisions of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. 17 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 February 22, 2019 F. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST 1. Project Title Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 2. Lead Agency Name & Address City of San Raf ael Community Development Department Planning Division 1400 Fifth Avenue (P.O. Box 151560) San Rafael, California 94915-1560 3. Contact Person & Phone Number Paul A. Jensen, Community Development Director Phone number: # (415) 485-5064 Email: paul.jensen@cityof sanraf ael.org 4. Project Location The proposed project is not site-specific, but addresses policies, programs and strategies that are applicable citywide. 5. Project Sponsor's Name & Address City of San Raf ael 1400 5th Avenue P.O. Box 151560 San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required None 18 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 February 22, 2019 ENVIRONMENTA L FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Signif icant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I f ind that the proposed project COULD NOT have a signif icant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I f ind that although the proposed project could have a signif icant effect on the environment, there will not be a signif icant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I f ind that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I f ind that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially signif icant impact” or “potentially signif icant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at lest 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 the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. x I f ind that, in preparing the attached Initial Study, the proposed project would not result in any new signif icant information, new significant impacts or new mitigation measures that had not been previously considered, analyzed or disclosed in the San Rafael General Plan 2020 certif ied EIR (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT). Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an ADDENDUM to the certif ied ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT will be prepared. February 22, 2019 _ Signature Date Paul A. Jensen, Community Development Director 19 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 February 22, 2019 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Please n ote: The r esponse to each question below is supported by a source of data or information, which is pr ovided in Section g. (sour ce references) of this checklist. Discussion: No impact. The project consists of an update of the Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) that supports the Sustainability element. The CCAP measures are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts to scenic resources may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis, such as the site-specif ic installation of large-scale renewable energy generation facilities. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review. (Sources: 1a, 1c, 1d, 1m, 1p, 2, 3a, 4, 15) Discussion: No impact. As discussed in I.a. above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specific. Potential environmental impacts to scenic resources within a state scenic highwa y may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review. (Sources: 1a, 1c, 1d, 1m, 1p, 2, 3a, 15) Discussion: Potentially Significant Impact Less that Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: a) Have a substantial effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? X c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public view of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zooning and other regulation governing scenic quality? X 20 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 February 22, 2019 As discussed in I.a. above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The components contain policies and programs that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts to the visual character or quality of a specif ic site and its surroundings may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review. Discussion: No impact. As discussed in I.a. above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts associated with new sources of light or glare may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review. (Sources: 1a, 1c, 1d, 1m, 1p, 2, 3a, 15) Discussion: No impact. The City of San Rafael planning area does not contain land designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance according to the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (State of California 2016). (Sources: 1a, 2, 12, 15) Discussion: d) Created a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X II. AGRICULT URE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resource Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non -agricultural use? X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X 21 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 February 22, 2019 Potentially Significant Impact No Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No impact. The City of San Rafael planning area does not contain any land that is zoned f or agricultural use or is under a W illiamson Act contract. (Sources: 1a, 2, 15) Discussion: No impact. The City of San Rafael Planning area does not contain any land that is zoned for f orest land or is protected under the Timberland Production zone. (Sources: 1a, 2, 15) Discussion: No impact. W hile the City of San Rafael planning area contains many acres of public open space and private, undeveloped land that is heavily vegetated, it does not contain an y forest land, as def ined by the CEQA Guidelines. (Sources: 1a, 2, 15) Discussion: No impact. The City of San Rafael planning area does not contain any farmland. (Sources: 1a, 2, 12, 15) Discussion: No impact. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the state agency that has oversight and regulatory authority for air quality in the Ba y Area region. BAAQMD has adopted the Bay Area Clean Air Plan, which has modeled existing and projected air quality for the region. The air quality modeling relies on the growth, traff ic and air quality projections developed by the individual General Plans adopted b y the local jurisdictions within the bay region. Therefore, whenever there is a change or amendment to a locally-adopted General Plan, the amendment must c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section511104(g))? X d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X III. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? X 22 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 February 22, 2019 Potentially Significant Impact No Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact be reviewed for consistency with the adopted Bay Area Clean Air Plan. A conf lict with the Bay Area Clean Air Plan will result when a local General Plan Amendment results in a change in land use or a change in transportation policy that that has the potential to increase the projected traff ic or air emissions for the local jurisdiction and the region. The project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. The potential for conflict with the Bay Area Clean Air Plan may be realized or determined when the proposed policies or programs are considered and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review. The proposed CCAP 2030 would be consistent with the 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan, as it proposes measures to reduce, rather than increase air quality pollutants and GHG emissions. The implementation and monitoring of the measures would, over time, reduce GHG emissions and air pollutants. The CCAP measures support the Clean Air Plan’s key priorities as follows : • Reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants form all key sources. CCAP measures LCT-C2 Bicycling, LCT-C3 Walking, LCT-C4 Safe Routes to School, LCT-C5 Public Transit, LCT-C6 Employee Trip Reduction, LCT-C7 Parking Requirements, LCT-C9 Smart Growth Development, and LCT-M3 City Employee Commute will reduce air pollutants and toxic air contaminants by encouraging alternative modes of transportation and reducing vehicle miles traveled. LCT-C8 Traffic System Management and Vehicle Idling and LCT-C10 Electric Vehicle Landscape Equipment would reduce emission from the combustion of gasoline and diesel. • Reduce emissions of super-GHG pollutants such as methane. CCAP measures WR-C1 Commercial Organic Waste, WR-C2 Residential Organic Waste, WR-C3 Construction & Demolition Debris and Self-Haul Waste, WR-C4 Mandatory Waste Diversion, WR-C5 Waste Processing Infrastructure, WR-C6 Extended Producer Responsibility, WR-M1 Waste from Public Facilities and WR-M2 Waste from City Operations would reduce methane emissions by diverting organic waste from landfills. SA-C2 Carbon Sequestration encourages composting, rather than disposal, of organic material. • Decrease demand of fossil fuels by: o Increasing efficiency of industrial processes, energy, buildings, and transportation sectors. CCAP measures EE-C1 Energy Efficiency Programs, EE-C21 Energy Audits, EE-C3 Cool Pavement and Roofs, EE-C4 Green Building Reach Code, EE-M1 Streetlights, EE-M2 Energy Efficiency Audit and Retrofits, and EE-M3 Energy Conservation would decrease demand for electricity, natural gas, and other fossil fuels by improving the energy efficiency of buildings and facilities. o Reducing demand for vehicle travel, and high-carbon goods and services. CCAP measures LCT-C2 Bicycling, LCT-C3 Walking, LCT-C4 Safe Routes to School, LCT-C5 Public Transit, LCT-C6 Employee Trip Reduction, LCT-C7 Parking Requirements, LCT-C9 Smart Growth Development, and LCT-M3 City Employee Commute would decrease demand for fossil fuels by reducing vehicle miles traveled. • Decarbonize our energy system o Making the electricity supply carbon-free. CCAP measures RE-C1 Renewable Energy Generation, RE-C2 GHG-Free Electricity, RE-C4 Innovative Technologies, RE-M1 Solar Systems for Municipal Buildings, and RE-M2 Municipal Deep Green electricity would accelerate the generation and use of renewable energy and carbon-free electricity. o Electrifying the transportation and building sectors. CCAP measures LCT-C1 Zero Emission Vehicles, LCT- C5 Public Transit, LCT-M1 Zero and Low Emission City Vehicles, and RE-C3 Building and Appliance Electrification would accelerate electrification of passenger and commercial vehicles and buses and promote electrification of building systems. See discussion in Section D (Environmental Analys is), which summarizes and compares the General Plan EIR impacts and mitigation measures with this proposed project. This comparison f inds that the proposed project would not: a) result in an y new impacts; b) increase the severity of impacts; or c) result in new or revised mitigation measures f rom those presented in the General Plan EIR. 23 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 February 22, 2019 Potentially Significant Impact No Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact (Sources: 1o, 1p, 2, 4, 13, 15) Discussion: No impact. See the discussion in III.a. above, which summarizes the potential impacts of the proposed project. The proposed CCAP 2030 would be consistent with the Bay Area Clean Air Plan, as it proposes to reduce, rather than increase, projected cumulative air quality pollutants and GHG emissions. See discussion in Section D (Environmental Analys is), which summarizes and compares the General Plan EIR impacts and mitigation measures with this proposed project. This comparison f inds that the proposed project would not: a) result in an y new impacts; b) increase the severity of impacts; or c) result in new or revised mitigation measures f rom those presented in the General Plan EIR. (Sources: 1o, 1p, 2, 4, 13, 14, 15) Discussion: Less-than-signif icant impact. As discussed in III.a above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Measure LCT -C9 Smart Growth Development is proposed to promote transit -oriented development, which could reinforce Housing element policies for housing within 1,000 f eet of US101, which is a pollutant generator. However, the CCAP measure is broad and does not identif y the extent or amount of new housing that would be recommended f or transit-oriented development. Potential environmental impacts to sensitive receptors near a specific site and its surroundings may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered and applied on a site- specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review. The proposed CCAP 2030 is, in part, intended to address and mitigate rather than create new substantial pollutant concentrations. The plan includes policies as well as mitigation and monitoring measures to reduce GHG emissions caused by vehicle miles traveled. See discussion in Section D (Environmental Analys is), which summarizes and compares the General Plan EIR impacts and mitigation measures with this proposed project. This comparison f inds that the proposed project would not: a) result in an y new impacts; b) increase the severity of impacts; or c) result in new or revised mitigation measures f rom those presented in the General Plan EIR. (Sources: 1o, 1p, 2, 4, 15) Discussion: No impact. As discussed in III.a. above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains policies and programs that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. The creation of potential, objectionable odors may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review. (Sources: 1o, 1p, 2, 4, 15) b) 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? X c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? X 24 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 February 22, 2019 Potentially Significant Impact No Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact Discussion: No impact. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts to special-status, sensitive or candidate species protected b y regional plans, policies or regulations of CDFG or USFW S may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered and applied on a site-specific or project-specif ic basis, such as the site-specif ic implementation of a GHG reduction measure. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specific project review. The proposed CCAP includes measure SA-C1 Urban Forest to increase the tree cover and preserve and protect native vegetation and riparian habitat. The measure would have benef icial impacts on habitat for candidate, sensitive and special status species. See discussion in Section D (Environmental Analys is), which summarizes and compares the General Plan EIR impacts and mitigation measures with this proposed project. This comparison f inds that the proposed project would not: a) result in an y new impacts; b) increase the severity of impacts; or c) result in new or revised mitigation measures f rom those presented in the General Plan EIR. (Sources: 1n, 1p, 2, 3a, 4, 15) Discussion: No impact. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts to riparian habitats protected b y regional plans, policies or regulations of CDFG or USFW S may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review. The proposed CCAP includes measure SA-C1 Urban Forest to increase the tree cover and preserve and protect native vegetation and riparian habitat. The measure requires new development, redevelopment, and infrastructure projects to implement best management practices as feasible, including low-impact development techniques, the minimal use of non-pervious surfaces in landscape design, and the integration of natural features into the project design, to naturally filter and biodegrade contaminants and to minimize surface runoff into drainage systems and creeks. These actions would have benef icial impacts on riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities. See discussion in Section D (Environmental Analys is), which summarizes and compares the General Plan EIR impacts and mitigation measures with this proposed project. This comparison f inds that the proposed project would not: a) result in an y new impacts; b) increase the severity of impacts; or c) result in new or revised mitigation measures f rom those presented in the General Plan EIR. (Sources: 1n, 1p, 2, 3a, 4, 15) IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: b) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? X b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? X 25 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 February 22, 2019 Potentially Significant Impact No Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact Discussion: As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts to state or federal protected wetlands may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. CCAP measures SA-C2 Carbon Sequestration, SA-C4 Sea Level Rise and SA-C5 Climate Change Adaptation could impact wetlands through construction of horizontal levees, flood control projects to adapt to rising sea levels, and other defenses, such as seawalls, storm surge barriers, and pumping stations. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review. See discussion in Section D (Environmental Analys is), which summarizes and compares the General Plan EIR impacts and mitigation measures with this proposed project. This comparison f inds that the proposed project would not: a) result in an y new impacts; b) increase the severity of impacts; or c) result in new or revised mitigation measures f rom those presented in the General Plan EIR. (Sources: 1n, 1p, 2, 3a, 4, 15) Discussion: No impact. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts to movement of corridors for wildlife may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review. (Sources: 1n, 1p, 2, 3a, 15) Discussion: As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. The City of San Rafael General Plan 2020 Conservation Element contains a number of goals and policies addressing the protection of biological resources. In addition, the San Rafael Municipal Code includes ordinances and regulations that address, among others: a) wetland protection (SRMC Chapter14.13 W etland Overlay District); and b) creek protection (SRMC Section 14.16.080 [Creeks and other water courses). Potential conf licts with the Conservation Element policies and the zoning ordinance provisions and regulations may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered and applied on a site-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review. The proposed CCAP includes measure SA-C1 Urban Forest that will increase the tree cover and preserve and protect native vegetation and riparian habitat. The measure would have a beneficial impact on biological resources. (Sources: 1n, 1p, 2, 3a, 4, 15) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? X d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? X e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? X 26 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 February 22, 2019 Potentially Significant Impact No Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact Discussion: No impact. There are no adopted local, regional or state habitat protection plans that apply to the San Raf ael planning area. (Sources: 1n, 2, 3a, 15) Discussion: No impact. The project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts to historic resources may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered and applied on a site-specific or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specific project review. In reviewing these impacts on site specif ic projects, the City will continue to rely on review of the City- adopted Historical/Architectural Survey and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 to determine the presence of historic resources. (Sources: 1, 2, 5, 6, 15) Discussion: No impact. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts to archaeological resources may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review. In reviewing these impacts on site specif ic projects, the City will continue to rely on review and implement the City-adopted Archaeological Resource and Protection Procedures, which includes: a) a review of the City’s Past Finder archaeological sensitivity maps and property priority ranking to determine proximity to potential resources; b) consultation with the Northwest Inf ormation Center and local Native American tribe representatives f or direction on needed study; c) the preparation of an archaeological resource assessment when deemed necessary; and d) implementation of protective measures such as avoidance, capping or relocation of resources. (Sources: 1, 2, 5, 6, 15) Discussion: No impact. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts that disturb human remains may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered and applied f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? X V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5? X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? X c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? X 27 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 February 22, 2019 Potentially Significant Impact No Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review. (Sources: 1, 2, 5, 6, 15) Discussion: No impact. The project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts that result from wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered and applied on a site-specific or project-specific basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review. The purpose and intended effect of the CCAP is to reduce GHG emissions, including those emissions generated by energy demand and supply. CCAP measures EE-C1 Energy Efficiency Program and EE-C2 Energy Audits support energy conservation by promoting and expanding facilitating energy efficiency upgrades in existing homes and businesses. EE-C3 Cool Pavement and Roofs and EE-C4 Green Building Reach Code support energy efficiency by encouraging the use of passive design concepts and constructing buildings that exceed Title 24 energy and green building standards. EE-M1 Streetlights, EE-M2 Energy Efficiency Audit and Retrofits, and EE-M3 Energy Conservation would decrease demand for electricity, natural gas, and other fossil fuels in City-owned buildings and facilities. These measures would have a beneficial impact on the use of energy resources. Furthermore, in order to promote energy conservation, San Rafael has adopted an amended California Green Building Standards Code per San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 12.23. Therefore, any construction associated with projects included in the CCAP would be required to be designed to comply with the performance levels of the California Green Building Standard Code. Likewise, all projects would be required to comply with the energy standards in the California Energy Code, Part 6 of the California Building Standards Code (Title 24). (Sources: 1, 2, 3d, 4, 15) Discussion: No impact. The project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. The CCAP contains measures that support the MCE 2019 Integrated Resource Plan. MCE is the local Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) program that provides electricity to the San Rafael community. CCAP measures EE-C1 Energy Efficiency Programs, RE-C1 Renewable Energy Generation, RE-C2 GHG-Free Electricity, RE-C4 Innovative Technologies, RE-M1 Solar Energy Systems for Municipal Buildings, and RE-M2 Municipal Deep Green electricity support MCE’s objectives to achieve a 100% GHG-free supply portfolio by 2020, to encourage local renewable energy projects, and to offset two percent of its annual energy and capacity requirements with energy efficiency and distributed energy resource programs. These measures would have a beneficial impact on the development of renewable energy resources and the deployment of energy efficiency programs. Furthermore, in order to promote energy conservation, San Rafael has adopted an amended California Green Building Standards Code per San Rafael Municipal Code VI. ENERGY Would the project: a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? X b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? X 28 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 February 22, 2019 Potentially Significant Impact No Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact Chapter 12.23. Therefore, any construction associated with projects included in the CCAP would be required to be designed to comply with the performance levels of the California Green Building Standard Code. Likewise, all projects would be required to comply with the energy standards in the California Energy Code, Part 6 of the California Building Standards Code (Title 24). Therefore, the CAP would not conflict with any adopted energy conservation plans or result in the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner and impacts would be less than significant. (Sources: 1, 2, 3d, 4, 14, 15) Discussion: No impact. The San Rafael planning area contains no earthquake faults delineated on the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. (Sources: 1k, 2, 15) Discussion: No impact. The project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts associated with seismic ground shaking may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered and applied to a project or activity, on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review. (Sources: 1k, 2, 15) Discussion: No impact. See discussion under VII.a.ii. above. Potential impacts related to ground failure and liquefaction would be assessed as individual projects are proposed on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. (Sources: 1k, 2, 15) Discussion: No impact. See discussion under VII.a.ii. above. Potential impacts related to landsliding would be assessed as individual projects are proposed on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42? X ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X iv) Landslides? X 29 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 February 22, 2019 Potentially Significant Impact No Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact (Sources: 1k, 2, 15) Discussion: No impact. See discussion under VII.a.ii. above. Potential impacts related to soil erosion would be assessed as individual projects are proposed on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. (Sources: 1k, 2, 15) Discussion: No impact. See discussion under VII.a.ii. above. Potential impacts related to unstable soils or geologic conditions would be assessed as individual projects are proposed on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. (Sources: 1k, 2, 15) Discussion: No impact. See discussion under VII.a.ii. above. Potential impacts related to ground failure and liquefaction would be assessed as individual projects are proposed on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. (Sources: 1k, 2, 15) Discussion: No impact. The San Raf ael planning area is served by the San Rafael Sanitation District and the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District, which provide domestic wastewater/sewer service to all properties. Alternative waste water disposal systems are not permitted within the urban service area. (Sources: 1k, 2, 15) Discussion: No impact. See discussion under VII.a.ii. above. Potential impacts related to unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features would be assessed as individual projects are proposed on a site-specif ic or project-specific basis. (Sources: 1k, 2, 15) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? X d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? X e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? X f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X 30 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 February 22, 2019 Potentially Significant Impact No Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact Discussion: No impact. In order to determine whether or not the proposed project would generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment, this EIR Addendum relies on the project’s consistency with the GHG reduction strategies and recommended emissions thresholds established by the latest version of the California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan and consistency with the following statewide GHG legislation: AB 32, SB 375, and SB 32, which target the reduction of statewide emissions. As summarized in the Project Description, the CCAP 2030 has been prepared as a plan for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15183.5. The plan utilizes an updated emissions inventory, the City of San Rafael Community and Government Operation Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2016, to identify community-wide emissions from the residential energy, commercial energy, transportation, waste, off-road, water and wastewater sectors. The 2016 Inventory uses methodologies from the U.S Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, version 1.1 (July 2013) for the quantification and report ing of community emissions. The protocol-compliant 2016 Inventory includes a table illustrating included and excluded emissions sources and activities. The Inventory includes all required activities for a protocol-compliant inventory, plus some optional activities: on-road transit vehicles associated with community land uses, off-road surface vehicles and other mobile equipment operating within the community boundary, and transmission and distribution losses from purchased electricity used by the community. The inventory does not include emissions which are difficult to reliably quantify and track on an annual basis using existing data sources and quantification methodologies. These activities include emissions from air travel and upstream emissions from the production, transport and distribution of food and household goods. The CCAP provides an illustration of the total carbon footprint of a n average San Rafael household which includes all of these emission sources. The CCAP forecasts emissions through 2050 utilizing housing population, and employment projections from ABAG and VMT estimates from MTC. The proposed CCAP finds that emissions will rise 4.1% by 2050 without the implementation of state and local actions to reduce emissions. The proposed CCAP identifies GHG reduction targets that meet or exceed statewide targets, i.e.: to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as established by AB 32; to reduce emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, as established by SB 32; and to reduce emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, as established by EO B-30-15. In order to approximate 1990 levels for San Rafael, the CCAP estimates emissions were 15% below 2005 levels in 1990. This methodology follows the guidance provided in the California Air Resources Board’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. San Rafael’s emissions were 473,438 MTCO2e in 2005. Therefore, San Rafael’s emissions targets are 402,422 MTCO2e in 2020 (equivalent to 1990 levels) and 241,453 MTCO 2e in 2030 (40% below 1990 levels). The CCAP identifies GHG reduction measures, that, in concert with state actions, would reduce emissions to 325,119 MTCO2e by 2020 and 234,792 MTCO2e by 2030. These projected emissions are 19% below 1990 levels in 2020 and 42% below 1990 levels in 2030 and would therefore comply with the targets established by AB 32 and SB 32. While the proposed CCA P doe s i ncl ude a GHG re duction goal in support the State ’s efforts under EO B -30-15 for 2050, the plan doe s not i ncl ude climate action me asures designed to achieve the 2050 goal as pre se ntl y EO B-30-15 doe s not spe ci f y any plan or implementation me asure to achieve its goal. A dditionall y, the re is pre se ntl y no reli able me ans of f ore casti ng how f uture te chnological de vel opments or state legislati ve acti ons to re duce GHG emissions may affect f uture e mi ssions i n San Rafael . VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project: b) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? X 31 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 February 22, 2019 Potentially Significant Impact No Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact The California Air Resources Board 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan recommends that local governments aim to achieve a community-wide goal of no more than 6 MT of CO 2e per service population (population + employees) by 2030 and no more than 2 MT of CO2e per service population (SP) by 2050. However, because San Rafael’s GHG inventory does not include agriculture or industrial emission sources, the 2017 Scoping Plan thresholds must be adjusted in order to provide a local threshold consistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan. To determine whether the CCAP would impede substantial progress toward achieving the project emissions reduction targets established by AB 32, SB 32, and the 2017 Scoping Plan, this EIR Addendum establishes a 2030 emissions threshold based on a 2030 emiss ions target consistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan. The emissions threshold represents the rate of emissions reductions necessary for the City of San Rafael to achieve a fair share of statewide GHG reductions necessary to meet the long - term targets, excluding emissions from the agricultural and industrial sectors. The following equation details how the emissions threshold was calculated: 𝐸𝑙𝑙�ℎ𝑟�ℎ𝑙𝑙𝑟 𝑇�𝑟𝑑𝑟�𝑙𝑙𝑑=2030 𝐸𝑙�ℎ𝑟𝑟�ℎ𝑙𝑙𝑟 𝐺𝑙𝑎𝑙 2030 𝑃𝑙𝑙𝑟𝑙𝑎𝑟�ℎ𝑙𝑙+2030 𝐸𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑦𝑙𝑑𝑙𝑟 Where: Emissions Threshold =2.97 MTCO2e per service population per year 2030 Population = Statewide in 2030: 43,939,250 (DOF 2018) 2030 Employment = Statewide employment in 2030: 19,109,000 (California Department of Transportation 2018) 2030 Emissions Goal = Scoping Plan 2030 Emissions Goals for Residential/Commercial, Electric Power, High Global Warming Potential (GWP), Recycling and Waste, and Transportation sectors: 187 MMTCO 2e per year (see Table 1). Table1: Scoping Plan 2030 Emissions Goals by Sector Sector Emissions (MMTCO2e) Residential and Commercial 38 Electric Power 30 High GWP 8 Recycling and Waste 8 Transportation 103 Total 187 Source: “California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan,” California Air Resources Board, Table 3, page 31. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf The targets recommended by the 2017 Scoping Plan, adjusted to be specific for San Rafael, are appropriate for the City of San Rafael (a local government) to use as the basis for determining an applicable significance threshold for the CCAP. Based on the above, the CCAP must meet the target GHG emissions of approximately 2.97 MTCO2e per SP per year in year 2030. Emissions greater than 2.97 MTCO2e per SP per year may conflict with substantial progress toward the long-term reduction targets identified by SB 32 and the 2017 Scoping Plan, and the project’s cumulative contribution of long-term emissions would be considered significant. CCAP 2030 is projected to result in 2.08 MTCO2e per SP in 2030, which is below the 2.97 MTCO2e emissions threshold. The proposed plan would therefore not generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment. In order to meet the reduction targets, new construction projects must be determined to be consistent with the CCAP 2030. A checklist has been developed to be used in reviewing new development applications, to ensure that GHG reduction measures are incorporated into the project design and operation. Project compliance with the measures in the checklist would exempt individual, quantitative study of GHG emissions for a development project. Development projects that are not able to meet the standards in the checklist, or projects that propose a Rezoning and/or an 32 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 February 22, 2019 Potentially Significant Impact No Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact amendment to the San Rafael General Plan 2020 (e.g., a change in land use that results in changes to the projections used in the strategy) would require an individual, qua ntitative GHG emissions assessment. See discussion in Section D (Environmental Analysis), which summarizes and compares the General Plan EIR impacts and mitigation measures with this proposed project. This comparison f inds that the proposed project would not: a) result in an y new impacts; b) increase the severity of impacts; or c) result in new or revised mitigation measures f rom those presented in the General Plan EIR. (Sources: 1o, 2, 4, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19) Discussion: No impact. See VII.a. above. The CCAP includes climate action measures to reduce the City’s GHG emissions by approximately 19% below 1990 levels by 2020 in accordance with AB 32 and 42% below 1990 levels by 2030 in accordance with SB 32. W hile the proposed CCA P doe s include a GHG re duction goal in support the State’s efforts to reduce emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 under EO B -30-15, the plan does not i ncl ude climate action measures designed to achieve the 2050 goal as pre s e ntl y EO B-30-15 does not spe cif y any plan or implementation measure to achieve i ts goal and is not legally binding on local government or private actions. The CCAP would not conflict with any applicable GHG reduction plan, including the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan or Plan Bay 2040, which demonstrates how the Bay Area region will reduce emissions from transportation sources to comply with SB 375. CCAP measures support the 2017 Scoping Plan goals to reduce GHG emissions as follows: • Doubling energy efficiency savings at existing buildings. CCAP measures EE-C1 Energy Efficiency Programs, EE-C21 Energy Audits, EE-C3 Cool Pavement and Roofs, EE-C4 Green Building Reach Code, EE-M1 Streetlights, EE-M2 Energy Efficiency Audit and Retrofits, and EE-M3 Energy Conservation would decrease demand for electricity, natural gas, and other fossil fuels by improving the energy efficiency of buildings and facilities. • 50% Renewable Power. CCAP measures RE-C1 Renewable Energy Generation, RE-C2 GHG-Free Electricity, RE-C4 Innovative Technologies, RE-M1 Solar Systems for Municipal Buildings, and RE-M2 Municipal Deep Green electricity would accelerate the generation and use of renewable energy and carbon-free electricity. • 50% reduction in petroleum use in vehicles. CCAP measures LCT-C1 Zero Emission Vehicles, LCT-C5 Public Transit, and LCT-M1 Zero and Low Emission City Vehicles would accelerate electrification of passenger and commercial vehicles and buses. CCAP measures LCT-C2 Bicycling, LCT-C3 Walking, LCT-C4 Safe Routes to School, LCT-C5 Public Transit, LCT-C6 Employee Trip Reduction, LCT-C7 Parking Requirements, LCT-C9 Smart Growth Development, and LCT-M3 City Employee Commute would reduce petroleum use by encouraging alternative modes of transportation and reducing vehicle miles traveled. • Carbon Sequestration in the Land Base. CCAP measure SA-C1 would increase carbon sequestration by planting additional trees and measure SA-C2 Carbon Sequestration would encourage composing and support the development of carbon-rich soils and wetlands. • Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants. CCAP measures WR-C1 Commercial Organic Waste, WR-C2 Residential Organic Waste, WR-C3 Construction & Demolition Debris and Self-Haul Waste, WR-C4 Mandatory Waste Diversion, WR-C5 Waste Processing Infrastructure, WR-C6 Extended Producer Responsibility, WR-M1 Waste from Public Facilities and WR-M2 Waste from City Operations will reduce methane emissions by diverting organic waste from landfills. Therefore, the proposed CCAP would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. (Sources: 1o, 2, 4, 12, 13, 15, 16) b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? X 33 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 February 22, 2019 Potentially Significant Impact No Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact Discussion: No impact. T he project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts f rom the transporting of hazardous materials may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review. (Sources: 1k, 2, 15) Discussion: No impact. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts from activities or actions that could release hazardous materials may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review. (Sources: 1k, 2, 15) Discussion: No impact. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts f rom the emission or handling of hazardous materials within ¼ mile of an existing or proposed school site may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specific basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review. (Sources: 1k, 2, 15) Discussion: No impact. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts from development and activities on a site that contains hazardous material may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review. IX. 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? X 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? X c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? X d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? X 34 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 February 22, 2019 Potentially Significant Impact No Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact (Sources: 1k, 2, 15) Discussion: No impact. There are no public airports within the San Rafael planning area. (Sources: 1k, 2, 15) Discussion: No impact. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specific. Potential environmental impacts from development and activities on a site that could impair implementation of or interfere with the City-adopted emergency response plan may be realized or determined when the measures are considered and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review. (Sources: 1a, 1f, 1g, 1k, 2, 15) Discussion: No impact, As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The components contain policies and programs that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts f rom development and activities on a site that is in a wildland f ire hazard area - wildland urban interface zone (W UI) may be realized or determined when the measures are considered and applied on a site-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review. Discussion: No impact. The project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. The proposed plan would not change or revise current water quality standards. Potential environmental impacts f rom development and activities on a site that that could violate water quality standards or degrade surface or ground water quality may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review. (Sources: 1k, 1o, 2, 15) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? X f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? X X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? X 35 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 February 22, 2019 Potentially Significant Impact No Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact Discussion: No impact. The City of San Rafael does not rely on the use of groundwater for domestic or other water service needs. (Sources: 1k, 1o, 2, 15) Discussion: No impact. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts from development and activities on a site that could alter drainage or the course of a stream or creek that could cause erosion or siltation on - or off -site may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review. CCAP measure SA-C1 Urban Forest would require new development, redevelopment, and infrastructure projects to implement best management practices as feasible, including low-impact development techniques, the minimal use of non-pervious surfaces in landscape design, and the integration of natural features into the project design, to naturally filter and biodegrade contaminants and to minimize surface runoff into drainage systems and creeks. Therefore, the CCAP would have a beneficial impact on streams and rivers. (Sources: 1k, 1o, 2, 4, 15) Discussion: No impact. See discussion in X.c. above. (Sources: 1k, 1m, 1n, 2, 4, 15) Discussion: No impact. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts from development and activities on a site that could create additional storm water runoff or pollution may be realized or determined when the measures are considered and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review. (Sources: 1g, 1k, 2, 15) b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? X c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: (i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; X (ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; X (iii) 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; or X 36 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 February 22, 2019 Potentially Significant Impact No Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact Discussion: No impact. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts from development and activities on a site that impede or redirect flood flows may be realized or determined when the measures are considered and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review. (Sources: 1g, 1k, 2, 15) Discussion: No impact. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts from the risk of release of pollutants due to project inundation of sites along the San Rafael bay f ront or within a FEMA f lood hazard zone may be realized or determined when the measures are considered and applied on a site- specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review. (Sources: 1k, 2, 7, 15) Discussion: No impact. The City of San Rafael is not located within a high or medium priority groundwater basin and is not required to develop and implement a Groundwater Sustainability Plan pursuant to the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential conflicts with water quality control plans or sustainable groundwater management plans may be realized or determined when the measures are considered and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review. (Sources: 1k, 2, 7, 15, 20) Discussion: No impact. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. The plan does not propose any changes to planned land uses that would result in a physical division of the community. The CCAP contains measures (LCT-C2, LCT-C3, LCT-C4, and LCT-C5) that would support pedestrian and bicycle circulation and (iv) impede or redirect flood flows? X d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? X e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? X XI. LAND USE PLANNING Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? X 37 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 February 22, 2019 Potentially Significant Impact No Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact improved transportation alternatives, as identified in the General Plan, which would improve connectivity throughout the City. See discussion in Section D (Environmental Analys is), which summarizes and compares the General Plan EIR impacts and mitigation measures with this proposed project. This comparison f inds that the proposed project would not: a) result in an y new impacts; b) increase the severity of impacts; or c) result in new or revised mitigation measures f rom those presented in the General Plan EIR. (Sources: 1a, 1b, 1d, 2, 4, 14, 15) Discussion: No impact. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. The plan does not propose any changes to General Plan policies or programs that are intended to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect. The proposed CCAP 2030 would be consistent with the Bay Area Clean Air Plan as it proposes to reduce, rather than increase, air quality pollutants and GHG emissions. T he plan includes policies as well as mitigation and monitoring measures to reduce GHG emissions caused by vehicle miles traveled. Further, the proposed monitoring measures would provide a tracking for emission reductions to meet the mandated goals set by AB 32, SB 32 and SB 375. As described, a checklist has been developed for reviewing new development projects to ensure that GHG reduction measures are incorporated into the project design and operation. See discussion in Section D (Environmental Analys is), which summarizes and compares the General Plan EIR impacts and mitigation measures with this proposed project. This comparison f inds that the proposed project would not: a) result in an y new impacts; b) increase the severity of impacts; or c) result in new or revised mitigation measures f rom those presented in the General Plan EIR. Discussion: No impact. The project proposes no changes to mineral resource designations, operations, or mineral resource goals or policies for the San Rafael Planning area. The planning area contains one active quarry, the San Rafael Rock Quarry (Dutra), which is located in an unincorporated area of East San Rafael (east of Peacock Gap). (Sources: 1a, 1k, 2, 15) Discussion: No impact. As discussed in XII.a. above, the project proposes no changes to mineral resource designations, operations or mineral resource goals or policies f or the San Rafael Planning area. The planning area contains one active quarry, the San Raf ael Rock Quarry (Dutra), which is located in an unincorporated area of East San Rafael (east of Peacock Gap). b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? X XII. 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? X 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? X 38 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 February 22, 2019 Potentially Significant Impact No Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact (Sources: 1a, 1k, 2, 15) Discussion: No impact. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts from development and activities on a site that could generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels (e.g., the installation of a wind turbine or generator) may be realized or determined when the measures are considered and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review. See discussion in Section D (Environmental Analys is), which summarizes and compares the General Plan EIR impacts and mitigation measures with this proposed project. This comparison f inds that the proposed project would not: a) result in an y new impacts; b) increase the severity of impacts; or c) result in new or revised mitigation measures f rom those presented in the General Plan EIR. (Sources: 1a, 1k, 1l, 2, 3b, 4, 15) Discussion: As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts from development and activities on a site that could generate excessive ground borne vibration or noise may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review. See discussion in Section D (Environmental Analys is), which summarizes and compares the General Plan EIR impacts and mitigation measures with this proposed project. This comparison f inds that the proposed project would not: a) result in an y new impacts; b) increase the severity of impacts; or c) result in new or revised mitigation measures f rom those presented in the General Plan EIR. (Sources: 1l, 2, 3b, 15) Discussion: No impact. There are no public airports in the City of San Rafael planning area. The San Rafael Planning Area contains one private airport, the San Raf ael Airport, which is located in the Smith Ranch area. The project does not propose any changes to the airport that would expose area residents to excessive noise levels. XIII. NOISE Would the project result in: b) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? X b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? X c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X 39 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 February 22, 2019 Potentially Significant Impact No Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. In reviewing potential development activities at San Rafael Airport, the application of these policies and programs may f ind that such activities would result in a signif icant environmental impact. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of review for an y specif ic project proposed at the San Rafael Airport. (Sources: 1a, 1k, 1l, 2, 3b, 15) Discussion: No impact. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. The CCAP contains measures that are consistent with San Rafael’s General Plan and would not result in increases in population nor accommodate population growth beyond that anticipated in the General Plan. See discussion in Section D (Environmental Analys is), which summarizes and compares the General Plan EIR impacts and mitigation measures with this proposed project. This comparison f inds that the proposed project would not: a) result in an y new impacts; b) increase the severity of impacts; or c) result in new or revised mitigation measures f rom those presented in the General Plan EIR. (Sources: 1a, 1b, 2, 4, 15) Discussion: No impact. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specific. Potential environmental impacts from development and activities on a site that could result in the displacement of existing people or housing or the necessitate the construction of replacement housing may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review. (Sources: 1a, 1b, 2, 15) XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? X b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X XV. PUBLIC SERVICES 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 governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause X 40 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 February 22, 2019 Potentially Significant Impact No Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact Discussion: No impact. No changes are proposed to the San Raf ael General Plan 2020 Safety Element that would impact f ire protection or result in new Fire Department facilities. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. (Sources: 1k, 2, 15) Discussion: No impact. No changes are proposed to the San Raf ael General Plan 2020 Safety Element that would impact police protection or result in new Police Department facilities. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. (Sources: 1k, 2, 15) Discussion: No impact. No changes are proposed to the San Raf ael General Plan 2020 that would impact schools or result in new school facilities. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. (Sources: 1a, 1k, 2, 15) Discussion: No impact. No changes are proposed to the San Raf ael General Plan 2020 that would impact parks or result in new park facilities. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. (Sources: 1j, 2, 15) Discussion: significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? X Schools? X Parks? X Other public facilities? X 41 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 February 22, 2019 Potentially Significant Impact No Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No impact. The CCAP contains measures that recommend improvements to public buildings, facilities and operations that are intended to reduce GHG emissions and increase sustainability. The adoption of these policies and programs would not have a direct impact on public facilities. However, implementing these recommended improvements to specif ic public buildings or facilities may result in signif icant aesthetic or noise impacts. As no specif ic project or improvement to a public building or facility is currently proposed, a site-specif ic impact cannot be analyzed. The individual impacts will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review. (Sources: 1, 2, 15) Discussion: No impact. The project would not increase the use of existing parks within the San Rafael Planning Area. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. (Sources: 1j, 2, 15) Discussion: No impact. No changes are proposed to the San Raf ael General Plan 2020 that would impact recreational facilities or result in new recreational facilities. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The components contain policies and programs that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. (Sources: 1j, 2, 15) Discussion: No impact. No amendments are proposed to the San Rafael General Plan 2020 Circulation Element that would result in changes to current circulation policies or standards. The proposed CCAP 2030 would be consistent with the adopted Circulation Element, as it proposes measures to reduce, rather than increase, air quality pollutants and GHG emissions by reducing vehicle miles traveled. The implementation and monitoring of the measures would, over time, reduce GHG emissions caused by vehicle miles traveled. XVI. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? X 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? X XVII. TRANSPORTATION a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? X 42 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 February 22, 2019 Potentially Significant Impact No Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact The proposed CCAP 2030 includes recommendations such as improving the pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure, promoting transient-oriented development, supporting transit services, and encouraging Safe Routes to School and employee trip reduction programs. These measures which would complement, rather than conflict, with the transportation policies and programs of the San Rafael General Plan 2020. See discussion in Section D (Environmental Analysis), which summarizes and compares the General Plan EIR impacts and mitigation measures with this proposed project. This comparison f inds that the proposed project would not: a) result in an y new impacts; b) increase the severity of impacts; or c) result in new or revised mitigation measures f rom those presented in the General Plan EIR. (Sources: 1a, 1f, 1g, 2, 4, 8, 9, 15) Discussion: No impact. See response to XVI.a. above. No amendments are proposed to the San Rafael General Plan 2020 Circulation Element that would result in changes to current circulation policies or standards. The proposed CCAP is projected to decrease vehicle miles traveled as compared to existing conditions and therefore should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b). See discussion in Section D (Environmental Analys is), which summarizes and compares the General Plan EIR impacts and mitigation measures with this proposed project. This comparison f inds that the proposed project would not: a) result in an y new impacts; b) increase the severity of impacts; or c) result in new or revised mitigation measures f rom those presented in the General Plan EIR. (Sources: 1a, 1f, 2, 15) Discussion: No impact. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. The potential f or an increase in hazards related to a design feature may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review. (Sources: 1, 2, 15) Discussion: No impact. As discussed above the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. The potential for an impact resulting f rom inadequate emergency access may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review. (Sources: 1, 2, 15) b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? X c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? X d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X 43 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 February 22, 2019 Potentially Significant Impact No Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact Discussion: No impact. The project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. The potential f or an adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review. (Sources: 1, 2, 15) Discussion: No impact. The project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. The potential f or an adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review. Discussion: XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or X ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. X XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, or wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? X 44 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 February 22, 2019 Potentially Significant Impact No Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No impact. The project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The CCAP would not accommodate growth beyond that anticipated by the General Plan . The CCAP does not propose any specific development projects that would increase wastewater generation, water demand, stormwater runoff , or natural gas demand. The CCAP contains measures intended to decrease water use (WC-C1 and WC-M1), decrease electricity and natural gas use (EE-C1, EE-C2, EE-C3, EE-C4, EE-C5, EE-M1, EE-M2, and EE-M3), and reduce stormwater runoff (SA-c1). Programs to increase adoption of electric vehicles and buses (LCT-C1 and LCT-C5) and to electrify existing appliances and building heating/ventilation/c ooling systems (RE-C3) would increase electricity demand. However, the CCAP estimates that the increase in electricity demand from these programs (29 ,061,726 kWh annually by 2030) would be offset b y the reduction in electricity use from energy efficiency programs identified in CCAP measure EE-C1 (41,677,625 kWh annually by 2030), thereby creating no additional net increase in electricity demand. The proposed CCAP contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. The potential for a significant effect from the construction of new utilities and service systems may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis, such as the construction of residential and commercial solar and other renewable energy systems. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review. See discussion in Section D (Environmental Analys is), which summarizes and compares the General Plan EIR impacts and mitigation measures with this proposed project. This comparison f inds that the proposed project would not: a) result in an y new impacts; b) increase the severity of impacts; or c) result in new or revised mitigation measures f rom those presented in the General Plan EIR. (Sources: 1g, 2, 4, 10, 15) Discussion: No impact. No activities are proposed that would impact current water supplies or result in in sufficient water supplies . In fact, the CCAP contains measure WC-C1 that is intended to decrease water use by: promoting water conservation programs and incentives ; educating residents and business about laws requiring retrofit of non-compliant plumbing fixtures during remodeling and at resale; ensuring all applicable projects project comply with State and Marin Municipal Water District regulations; and en couraging the installation of greywater and rainwater collection systems and the use of recycle water. The CCAP also contains measure WC -M1, which would reduce indoor and outdoor water use in municipal facilities and operations. See discussion in Section D (Environmental Analys is), which summarizes and compares the General Plan EIR impacts and mitigation measures with this proposed project. This comparison f inds that the proposed project would not: a) result in an y new impacts; b) increase the severity of impacts; or c) result in new or revised mitigation measures f rom those presented in the General Plan EIR. (Sources: 1g, 1k, 2, 4, 10, 15) Discussion: b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? X c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? X 45 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 February 22, 2019 Potentially Significant Impact No Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No impact. No activities are proposed that would impact current wastewater capacity or result in the need to expand existing wastewater f acilities. In f act, as described in XIX.b, the CCAP contains measures intended to decrease water use. (Sources: 1g, 1k, 2, 4, 15) Discussion: No impact. No activities are proposed that would generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction . In f act, the proposed CCAP would be consistent with the adopted Marin County Solid W aste Management Plan, as it proposes measures to reduce, rather than increase, waste through support of zero waste and related recycling actions. CCAP measures WR-C1 Commercial Organic Waste, WR-C2 Residential Organic Waste, WR-C3 Construction & Demolition Debris and Self-Haul Waste, WR-C4 Mandatory Waste Diversion, WR-C6 Extended Producer Responsibility, WR-M1 Waste from Public Facilities and WR-M2 Waste from City Operations would reduce the amount of solid waste and divert solid waste from landfills. The proposed CCAP contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. The potential to generate solid waste in excess of the capacity of the local infrastructure may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered and applied on a site -specific or project-specif ic basis, such as the construction of solid waste processing infrastructure to remove recoverable materials form the waste stream . The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review. See discussion in Section D (Environmental Analys is), which summarizes and compares the General Plan EIR impacts and mitigation measures with this proposed project. This comparison f inds that the proposed project would not: a) result in an y new impacts; b) increase the severity of impacts; or c) result in new or revised mitigation measures f rom those presented in the General Plan EIR. (Sources: 1g, 1k, 2, 4, 11, 15) Discussion: No impact. See response to XIX.d above. The CCAP waste reduction measures support State laws by conducting outreach to businesses subject to AB 1826 (CCAP measure WR-C1) and adopting and ordinance requiring mandatory subscription to and participation in waste diversion activities, including recycling and organics collection provided by the City’s waste hauler, Marin Sanitary Service. The CCAP measures support waste reduction targets consistent with mandates established by SB 1383, i.e., a 50% reduction in the disposal of organic waste by 2020 and a 75% diversion reduction in the disposal of organic waste by 2030. See discussion in Section D (Environmental Analys is), which summarizes and compares the General Plan EIR impacts and mitigation measures with this proposed project. This comparison f inds that the proposed project would not: a) result in an y new impacts; b) increase the severity of impacts; or c) result in new or revised mitigation measures f rom those presented in the General Plan EIR. The proposed CCAP 2030 includes recommendations to adopt a Zero W aste Plan, Construction & Demolition Debris Ordinance, a Multiple Family Residential and Commercial Recycling Ordinance and a Residential Food W aste Compost Program, which would reduce solid waste production and less reliance on landfill waste disposal. (Sources: 1g, 1k, 2, 4, 11, 12, 12, 13, 15) d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? X e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X 46 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 February 22, 2019 Potentially Significant Impact No Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact Discussion: No impact. The project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts that may impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered and applied to a site-specific project or activity. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review. (Sources: 1k, 2, 15) Discussion: No impact. The project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts associated with wildfire risks may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered and applied to a project or activity, on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review. (Sources: 1k, 2, 15) Discussion: No impact. The project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts associated with fire risks from the installation or maintenance of infrastructure may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered and applied to a site-specific. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review. (Sources: 1k, 2, 15) Discussion: XX. WILDFIRE If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? X c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? X d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? X 47 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 February 22, 2019 Potentially Significant Impact No Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No impact. The project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts associated with flooding and landslide risks from wildfire may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered and applied to a site-specific. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specific project review. (Sources: 1k, 2, 15) Discussion: No impact. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. The potential f or an impact that substantially degrades the quality of the environment or substantially reduces the habitat of a fish or wildlife species may be realized or determined when the measures are considered and applied on a site-specific or project- specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review. See discussion in Section D (Environmental Analys is), which summarizes and compares the General Plan EIR impacts and mitigation measures with this proposed project. This comparison f inds that the proposed project would not: a) result in an y new impacts; b) increase the severity of impacts; or c) result in new or revised mitigation measures f rom those presented in the General Plan EIR. (Sources: 1-20) Discussion: No impact. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. The plan would not result in impacts that would be cumulatively considerable. In fact, the measures presented i n the proposed CCAP 2030 would ultimately reduce cumulative GHG emissions and pollutants, as required by AB 32, SB 32 and SB 375. See discussion in Section D (Environmental Analys is), which summarizes and compares the General Plan EIR impacts and mitigation measures with this proposed project. This comparison f inds that the proposed project would not: a) result in an y new impacts; b) increase the severity of impacts; or c) result in new or revised mitigation measures f rom those presented in the General Plan EIR. (Sources: 1-20) XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to substantially 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 or restrict the range or a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X 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)? X 48 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 February 22, 2019 Potentially Significant Impact No Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact Discussion: As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. See discussion in Section D (Environmental Analys is), which summarizes and compares the General Plan EIR impacts and mitigation measures with this proposed project. This comparison f inds that the proposed project would not: a) result in an y new impacts; b) increase the severity of impacts; or c) result in new or revised mitigation measures f rom those presented in the General Plan EIR. (Sources: 1-20) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X 49 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for General Plan Amendment GPA11-001 February 22, 2019 G. SOURCE REFERENCES The f ollowing is a list of ref erences used in the preparation of this document. Unless attached herein, copies of all ref erence reports, memorandums and letters are on f ile with the City of San Rafael Department of Community Development. References to Publications prepared by Federal or State agencies may be found with the agency responsible f or providing such information. 1 San Rafael General Plan 2020, adopted November 15, 2004, includes following: a. Land Use b. Housing c. Neighborhoods d. Community Design e. Economic Vitality f. Circulation g. Inf rastructure h. Governance i. Culture and Arts j. Parks and Recreation k. Safety l. Noise m. Open Space n. Conservation o. Air and W ater Quality p. Sustainability 2 San Rafael General Plan 2020 (certif ied) Environmental Impact Report; Nichols-Berman, Environmental Consultants; August 2004 3 San Rafael Municipal Code a. Title 14, Zoning; May 1996 b. Title 8, Section 8.13, Noise c. Title 15, Subdivisions d. Title 12, Building Regulations 4 Draft San Rafael Climate Change Action Plan 2030 5 San Rafael Historical/Architectural Survey, Charles Hall Page and Associates, Inc. and City of San Rafael Cultural Affairs Department, updated September 1986. 6 City of San Raf ael Archaeology Sensitivity Map and PastFinder Sensitivity Map System, adopted October 2001. 7 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), revised January 3, 1997 and updated May 2009. 8 City of San Raf ael Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update; adopted 2018 9 FHA’s Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot Program (NTPP); 2009 10 MMW D Ordinance 421 (W ater Conservation); 2010 11 Redwood Landf ill Solid W aste Facilities Permit 12 State of California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, “Marin County Important Farmland 2016” map 13 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, “Spare the Air Cool the Climate,” Final 2017 Clean Air Plan, adopted April 19, 2017 14 MCE, 2019 Integrated Resource Plan, approved November 1, 2018 15 General knowledge and inf ormation regarding the San Rafael Planning Area 16 California Air Resources Board, “California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan” November 2017. 50 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for General Plan Amendment GPA11-001 February 22, 2019 17 California Department of Finance, “P-1: State Population Projections 2010-2060.” 18 California Department of Transportation, "California County-Level Economic Forecast 2018- 2050," September 2018. 19 Marin Climate and Energy Partnership, “San Rafael Community and Government Operation Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2016”, December 2018. 20 California Department of Water Resources, SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard, Final 2018 (Unmodified Basins), accessed 2/11/19 1 RESOLUTION NO. 14669 RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE SAN RAFAEL CLIMATE CHANGE ACTION PLAN 2030 (CITY FILE #P19-003) WHEREAS, on April 20, 2009, the San Rafael City Council adopted Resolution No. 12725 adopting the San Rafael Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP), which included programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and WHEREAS, on July 18, 2011, the San Rafael City Council adopted Resolution No. 13213 adopting a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy consistent with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted Air Quality Guidelines for administration of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which establish criteria for analysis of greenhouse gas emission impacts associated with new development projects; and WHEREAS, California’s Executive Order S-3-05 established a progressive series of statewide greenhouse gas reduction targets including a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and to reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050; and WHEREAS, in 2006, California adopted the Global Warming Solutions Act (Assembly Bill 32), which requires the State to reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020; and WHEREAS, in 2015, California’s Executive Order B-30-15 set a greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and reaffirmed the 2050 goal to reduce emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050; and WHEREAS, in 2016, California adopted Senate Bill 32, which requires the State to reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030; and WHEREAS, in November 2017, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, which lays out a strategy to achieve California’s 2030 greenhouse gas target. In the Scoping Plan, CARB recommends that local governments adopt greenhouse gas reduction goals that align with statewide targets for 2030 and 2050 and develop plans to achieve the local goals; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) allows local governments to use sufficiently detailed and adequately supported greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction plans to streamline project-level environmental review. Under CEQA, individual projects that comply with the strategies and actions within an adequate local GHG reduction plan, including Climate Action Plans, can streamline the project-specific GHG analysis; and WHEREAS, the City of San Rafael has prepared the San Rafael Climate Change Action Plan 2030 (CCAP 2030) as an update of the 2009 Climate Change Action Plan and the 2011 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy in order to incorporate new 2 information and develop a set of local climate action measures to address the statewide reduction targets established by Senate Bill 32 and Executive Order B-30-15; and WHEREAS, the draft CCAP 2030 has been distributed to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) for review and comment. BAAQMD staff has reviewed and commented on the strategy, and revisions have been made to address these comments; and WHEREAS, following the completion of the draft CCAP 2030, the City commenced with environmental review of the project. Consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and the City of San Rafael Environmental Assessment Procedures Manual, the appropriate steps were followed to complete environmental review of the project. As the quantitative analysis contained in the CCAP 2030 relies on the development projections of the General Plan 2020, the General Plan 2020 certified Final Environmental Impact Report (General Plan 2020 FEIR) was used as a base for environmental review. “Tiering” from the General Plan 2020 FEIR is appropriate and consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15152. This review included: a) review of the General Plan 2020 FEIR to determine if it adequately assesses the environmental impacts of the project; and b) the preparation of an Initial Study to determine if the project would result in new significant impacts, an increase in the severity of the impacts, or new or expanded mitigation measures from those analyzed and determined in the General Plan 2020 FEIR. As a result of this review, it was determined that the CCAP 2030 would not result in new significant impacts, an increase in the severity of impacts, or new or expanded mitigation measures from those analyzed and determined in the General Plan 2020 FEIR. In fact, the CCAP 2030 would aid in reducing air pollutants further than those projected in the General Plan 2020 FEIR. Consequently, an Addendum to the General Plan 2020 FEIR (Addendum No. 4) was prepared and has been adopted by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based is the Community Development Department; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council adopts the San Rafael Climate Change Action Plan 2030 dated April 23, 2019 on file in the Community Development Department. This adoption is based on and supported by the following findings: 1. The public interest would be served by the adoption of the CCAP 2030 in that it provides tangible and feasible measures for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in San Rafael. The implementation of the strategy would be in the best interest of the public and community as it would effectively decrease greenhouse gas emissions by: a) placing less reliance on the use and consumption of fossil fuel and non-renewable resources; b) supporting programs that provide sustainable alternatives to energy use and consumption; c) reducing vehicle miles by promoting transit-oriented development and the use of transit, biking, and walking; and d) promoting support for local-based businesses and activities. 3 2. As drafted, the CCAP 2030 would be consistent with the General Plan 2020, specifically the Sustainability Element, as it would provide an effective tool for implementing and monitoring greenhouse gas emissions. 3. The CCAP 2030 has been prepared consistent with the standard elements and requirements set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 which states that a plan for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions should: 1) quantify greenhouse gas emissions, both existing and projected over a specified time period, resulting from activities within a defined geographic area; 2) establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to greenhouse gas emission from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable; 3) identify and analyze the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated within the geographic area; and 4) specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that substantial evidence demonstrates if implemented on a project-by-project basis would collectively achieve the specified emissions level; and 5) be adopted in a public process following environmental review. 4. As drafted, the CCAP 2030 would be consistent with the California Global Warming Solutions Act (Assembly Bill 32), Senate Bill 32, and the California Air Resources Board’s 2017 Scoping Plan as it provides tangible and feasible measures for achieving the goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and 2030 and puts the City on a trajectory to meet the 2050 goal. I, LINDSAY LARA, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 6th day of May 2019. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Bushey, Colin, Gamblin, McCullough & Mayor Phillips NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk CLIMATE CHANGE ACTION PLAN 2030 Final Draft APRIL 23, 2019 Table of Contents Section 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 What’s a Climate Action Plan? .................................................................................................................. 1 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 1 What’s Been Done So Far: San Rafael Actions .......................................................................................... 2 Where We Are At: Emissions Trend and Status ........................................................................................ 3 Emissions Forecast and Reduction Targets ............................................................................................... 4 Our Carbon Footprint ................................................................................................................................ 5 State Pillars & Drawdown: Marin .............................................................................................................. 6 Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................................................... 8 Summary of State Actions ......................................................................................................................... 9 Summary of Local Strategies ................................................................................................................... 10 Section 2: Measures ................................................................................................................................... 11 Local Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions .......................................................................... 11 Economy and Social Equity ..................................................................................................................... 11 Low Carbon Transportation ........................................................................................................... 13 Energy Efficiency ............................................................................................................................ 18 Renewable Energy .......................................................................................................................... 21 Waste Reduction ............................................................................................................................ 24 Water Conservation ........................................................................................................................ 27 Sequestration and Adaptation ............................................................................................................ 29 Community Engagement ................................................................................................................ 33 Implementation and Monitoring .................................................................................................... 36 Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................................... 37 Appendices A: Program Calculations ........................................................................................................................ A-1 B: Implementation Matrix ....................................................................... ..............................................B-1 C: 2009 CCAP Program Status ...............................................................................................................C-1 1 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION What’s a Climate Action Plan? A Climate Action Plan (CAP) is a tool that any organization can use to develop the programs and actions needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), which are the pollutants that cause climate change. Generally, these CAPs are focused on this ‘mitigation’ aspect of climate change, but some also lay out a strategy for ‘adaptation’, or how the organization will plan to deal with the effects of climate change such as sea level rise, or increased flooding, heat waves, and wildfires. San Rafael’s CAP is called the Climate Change Action Plan and mainly deals with mitigation. Background San Rafael has a rich history of climate action and environmental protection. Mayor Al Boro signed on to the Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement in 2006. The first Climate Change Action Plan was adopted in 2009. San Rafael received the first state-wide Beacon Award for Sustainability by the Institute for Local Government in 2013. Several hundred citizens volunteer on behalf of the environment each year, totaling thousands of hours of volunteer work worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in in-kind contributions. San Rafael has thousands of acres of open space and parks and is a Tree City USA community. These are just a few of the actions and programs San Rafael has undertaken over the years. In 2017 the City Council identified updating the Climate Change Action Plan as a high priority in the annual Sustainability Priorities. A 20-member Green Ribbon Working Group was identified by Councilmember Kate Colin, the City Manager’s Office, and the President of Sustainable San Rafael. This Working Group included people from various neighborhoods, businesses, high schools, and organizations in order to get a diverse set of voices and perspectives. Throughout the year they participated in a series of meetings with subject matter experts to develop measures for each section of the Plan. Throughout the summer of 2018, the City solicited input from a variety of community members through meetings, pop-up events at community gathering spots, online surveys, a business mixer, and in-person surveys at organizations and activities. This has all been synthesized into the following Plan. There is broad scientific agreement that to stave off the worst effects of climate change, communities will need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 80% below 1990 levels by the year 2050. But time is of the essence. We are already seeing the effects of climate change locally and throughout the world with hotter temperatures, more severe storms, and more volatile and unpredictable weather. San Rafael has met the State GHG reduction target for 2020 and is on track to meet its more stringent local target by 2020. These emissions come from residents, businesses, and visitors, with only less than 1% coming from government operations and facilities. Recently, the State of California set interim reduction 2 targets of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 to stay on track. This updated Plan, coming from broad community input, sets out a road map to do just that. We’re all in this together; we can do this. San Rafael’s Beacon Award, the first-ever in the State, given by the Institute for Local Government in 2013. 2013 Councilmembers Damon Connolly & Barbara Heller, Mayor Gary Phillips, an d Councilmember Andrew McCullough. What’s Been Done So Far: San Rafael Actions San Rafael businesses, agencies, and residents have been at the forefront of mitigation efforts such as renewable energy, low-carbon transportation, composting, and water conservation. In 2010 Marin Clean Energy was adopted by the City of San Rafael and most electricity users went immediately to purchasing 50% carbon-free electricity for their homes and businesses. San Rafael was one of the first communities to participate in curbside recycling thanks to Marin Sanitary Service’s (MSS) forward-thinking owners. In 2014 MSS and Central Marin Sanitation Agency began converting food scraps into energy through their innovative Food to Energy project. By the end of the 2011-2017 drought, San Rafael water users reduced their water consumption by an average of approximately 17%. And in 2017, Marin Municipal Water District began purchasing 100% renewable Deep Green electricity from MCE Clean Energy, which reduced San Rafael resident and businesses’ water-related greenhouse gas emissions dramatically. The City of San Rafael has implemented 40 of the 48 measures in the original Climate Change Action Plan, completing the majority of those that could be completed and moving most of the rest into an ongoing implementation status. Most measures will need to be continued in order to continue to get emissions reductions! (See Appendix C for the complete list.) 3 MARIN SANITARY SERVICE’S FOOD TO ENERGY PROGRAM IN CONJUNCTION WITH CENTRAL MARIN SANITATION AGENCY TURNS FOOD SCRAPS INTO ENERGY AND FUELS 100% OF CMSA’S ELECTRICITY USE. Where We Are At: Emissions Trend and Status The City prepares an annual community-wide greenhouse gas inventory to track emissions in seven sectors: residential energy, commercial energy, transportation, off-road vehicles and equipment, waste, water and wastewater. As shown in Figure 1, the majority of emissions come from vehicle trips generated by San Rafael residents and businesses. Community emissions totaled 473,440 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e) in 2005. By 2016, emissions had dropped to 389,035 MTCO2e, an 18% reduction. This is well below the State target for San Rafael, which is 15% below baseline (2005) emissions by 2020, and the trendline shows that emissions are on track to meet the City’s local reduction target of 25% below 2005 levels by 2020. While emissions declined in almost all sectors, the largest reductions were due to energy conservation and efficiency, a reduction in the carbon intensity of electricity, and improvements to vehicle fuel efficiency. Emissions from City operations, which make up less than 1% of community-wide emissions, fell 16% by 2016. For more details, see the City’s latest Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory. 4 FIGURE1: COMMUNITY EMISSIONS BY SECTOR, 2016 Emissions Forecast and Reduction Targets The Climate Change Action Plan includes a “business-as-usual” (BAU) forecast in which emissions are projected in the absence of any policies or actions that would occur beyond the base year to reduce emissions. The forecasts are derived by “growing” (increasing) 2016 emissions using forecasted changes in population, number of households, and jobs according to projections developed by the Association of Bay Area Governments. Transportation emissions are projected utilizing data provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, which incorporate the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reductions expected from the implementation of Plan Bay Area 2020 and the Regional Transportation Plan adopted in 2017. Emissions are expected to rise about 2.4% by 2030 and 3.3% by 2040. Although the regional agencies have not made official projections for 2050, continuing the trendline suggests emissions would reach approximately 405,530 MTCO2e by 2050 under the BAU forecast. The Climate Change Action Plan establishes targets similar to the State’s goals to reduce emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. In San Rafael, that means emissions would need to drop to 241,455 MTCO2e by 2030 and 80,485 MTCO2e by 2050. The Plan lays out measures that will exceed the 2030 target and put the City on a trajectory to meet the 2050 goal. The community emissions trend, forecast and targets are shown in Figure 2 below. Non-Residential Energy 17% Residential Energy 17% Waste 3% Wastewater 1/2%Off-Road 1% Water 1/4% Transportation 62% 5 FIGURE 2: EMISSIONS TREND, FORECAST AND TARGETS Our Carbon Footprint The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and U.C. Berkeley developed a Consumption- Based Inventory to better understand how our purchasing habits contribute to global climate change. A consumption-based inventory includes emission sources that don’t get counted in the typical “in- boundary” GHG inventory, as well as other items that are difficult to quantify like airplane travel and upstream emissions from the production, transport and distribution of food and household goods. Figure 3 shows the results of the consumption-based inventory for San Rafael households. According to this inventory, the average San Rafael household generates 44 MTCO2e per year. As a comparison, the City’s community-wide emissions of 389,035 MTCO2e works out to about 17 MTCO2e per household. In essence, our consumption drives climate change more than anything and although San Rafael is meeting its state targets for strict “in-boundary” emissions reductions, we as a community have a long way to go. For more information on this and to see carbon footprints by census tract, visit the SF Bay Area Carbon Footprint Map. To learn how to measure and reduce your household carbon footprint, check out our local Resilient Neighborhoods program. 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050Annual GHG Emissions (MTCO2e)Year 2050 Target 80% below 1990 levels 2020 Target 25% below 2005 levels 2030 Target 40% below 1990 levels BUSINESS-AS-USUAL SCENARIO ACTUAL EMISSIONS 6 FIGURE 3: AVERAGE SAN RAFAEL HOUSEHOLD CARBON FOOTPRINT This graph shows the relative impact of all the sources of emissions that make up a household carbon footprint. Source: CoolClimate Network State Pillars & DRAWDOWN: Marin San Rafael doesn’t exist in a vacuum. While we are leveraging or trying to combat regional, state-wide, national and even international actions and trends, we also have the ability and responsibility to collaborate with other efforts and campaigns. San Rafael is known for collaborating and it’s our collective imagination and cooperative efforts that make San Rafael such a successful and wonderful place to be. If you’ve ever been to a San Rafael City Council meeting or Climate Change Action Plan quarterly forum you will know this first-hand. The State of California established the Six Pillars framework in 2015 when Governor Jerry Brown was inaugurated for his second term as governor. These include (1) reducing today’s petroleum use in cars and trucks by up to 50%; (2) increasing from one-third to 50% our electricity derived from renewable sources; (3) doubling the energy efficiency savings achieved at existing buildings and making heating fuels cleaner; (4) reducing the release of methane, black carbon, and other short-lived climate pollutants; (5) managing farm and rangelands, forests and wetlands so they can store carbon; and (6) periodically updating the state's climate adaptation strategy: Safeguarding California. The measures contained in this Climate Change Action Plan are designed to support and implement the Six Pillars and the goals of California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan on a local level. 7 IMAGE: CALIFORNIA’S 6 PILLARS CLIMATE STRATEGY The County of Marin, noting the need for all residents and businesses to actively reduce emissions and plan for climate adaptation has created an engagement framework based on the research and book by local author, entrepreneur, and environmentalist Paul Hawken called DRAWDOWN: Marin. DRAWDOWN: Marin is a comprehensive, science-based, community-wide campaign to do our part to slow the impacts of climate change. It is an effort to recognize our need to reduce our "carbon footprint" and to provide a road map to doing so. Like the State’s Six Pillars, there are six areas of focus: (1) 100% Renewable Energy, (2) Low-Carbon Transportation, (3) Energy Efficiency in Buildings and Infrastructure, (4) Local Food and Food Waste, (5) Carbon Sequestration, and (6) Climate Resilient Communities. 8 IMAGE: DRAWDOWN: MARIN Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions The Climate Change Action Plan includes a variety of regulatory, incentive-based and voluntary strategies that are expected to reduce emissions from both existing and new development in San Rafael. Several of the strategies build on existing programs while others provide new opportunities to address climate change. State actions will have a substantial impact on future emissions. Local strategies will supplement these State actions and achieve additional GHG emissions reductions. Successful implementation will rely on the combined participation of City staff along with San Rafael residents, businesses and community leaders. The following sections identify the State and local strategies included in the Climate Change Action Plan to reduce emissions in community and government operations. Emissions reductions are estimated for each strategy; combined, they show that the City could reduce emissions 19% below 1990 levels by 2020 (equivalent to 31% below 2005 levels), and 42% below 1990 levels by 2030, which is enough to surpass the City and State goals for those years. Community emissions are projected to be 233,920 MTCO2e in 2030 with all State and local actions implemented, while the reduction target is 241,455 MTCO2e.1 As shown in Figure 4, State actions represent about 40% of the reduction expected through implementation of the Climate Change Action Plan while local actions represent about 60%. 1 Some of the local measures included in the plan – specifically, LCT-C10, EE-C2, EE-C3, EE-C4 and WR-C5 – are actions that may be taken after additional study and analysis is undertaken. Estimated GHG reductions from these measures total 5,090 MTCO2e. Excluding these measures results in community emissions of 239,941 MTCO2e in 2030, which is still lower than the reduction target of 241,455 MTCO2e. 9 FIGURE 4: CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF REDUCTION STRATEGIES Summary of State Actions The Climate Change Action Plan incorporates State reduction strategies that have been approved, programmed and/or adopted and will reduce local community emissions from 2016 levels. These programs require no local actions. As such, the State actions are first quantified and deducted from projected community emissions in order to provide a better picture of what still needs to be reduced at the local level to get to the overall reduction targets. State actions and emissions reductions are shown in Table 1 and detailed in the appendix. TABLE 1: EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM STATE ACTIONS State Action Emissions Reductions by 2030 (MTO2e) Light and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Regulations 56,880 Renewable Portfolio Standard 4,540 Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards 2,870 Lighting Efficiency 980 Residential Solar Water Heaters 30 Total 65,300 Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding. 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030Annual GHG Emissions (MTCO2e)Year 19% BELOW 1990 LEVELS 42% BELOW 1990 LEVELS PROJECTED EMISSIONS WITH STATE ACTIONS BUSINESS-AS-USUAL SCENARIO PROJECTED EMISSIONS WITH STATE AND LOCAL ACTIONS 10 Summary of Local Strategies The local mitigation measures presented in the following sections, and as summarized in Table 2 below, achieve greenhouse gas emissions reductions in the community of approximately 37,800 MTCO2e in 2020 and 98,085 MTCO2e in 2030. TABLE 2: LOCAL EMISSIONS REDUCTION STRATEGIES Strategy GHG Reductions by 2030 (MTCO2e) Percent of Reductions Low Carbon Transportation 37,030 38% Energy Efficiency 18,280 19% Renewable Energy 31,925 33% Waste Reduction 10,025 10% Water Conservation 830 1% Sequestration and Adaptation n/a n/a Community Engagement n/a n/a Implementation and Monitoring n/a n/a Total 98,085 100% Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. These local strategies will be detailed in the following sections. Together, the projected reductions from State and local actions total 163,385 MTCO2e by 2030. Community emissions are projected to be 234,850 MTCO2e in 2030 with the full implementation of the CCAP. This is 42% below 1990 levels and exceeds the reduction target set by the State. 11 SECTION 2: MEASURES Local Measures to Re duce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Each of the following sections provide a summary table of local measures and associated GHG reductions, followed by a description of the specific actions the City will undertake to implement each measure. The methodologies and implementation targets used to calculate emissions reductions are described in the appendix. Sometimes, there is no direct or reliable way to estimate GHG savings for a particular measure or the savings are embedded in another measure. In this case, the GHG reduction is identified as “not applicable” or “n/a.” For example: Community Engagement is essential for success in many of the measures set forth throughout the Plan but counting savings in this section would then be double-counting savings from other measures such as those in Low Carbon Transportation or Energy. People need to know about a program to take advantage of it, but the actual emissions reductions will come from participating in the program itself. Therefore, the savings is counted for that program. Economy and Social Equity Cities deal with a wide array of issues and pressures and must take all these issues into account when budgeting resources and balancing priorities. Housing, business retention, health and safety, and traffic congestion are some examples. Climate action can address these problems or make them worse, depending on how they are approached. A major theme in the Working Group deliberations and community feedback was around unintended consequences and making sure that measures and programs benefitted the most, not just a few. Sustainability has been described as a three-legged stool, pointing to the need to address not just the environment, but the economy and social equity as well. One definition of social equity is the “just and fair inclusion into a society in which all can participate, prosper, and reach their full potential” (PolicyLink). Equity is the means to ensure equality for all. An example of how that might work with climate action measures is with energy efficiency. Giving rebates to homeowners to swap out inefficient appliances helps reduce energy consumption and therefore greenhouse gas emissions. But if financial incentives are only available to those with means to purchase new appliances it leaves out a section of the community without means. Programs such as the Green and Healthy Homes Initiative acknowledges this and works with landlords to upgrade common areas of apartment complexes with the commitment to provide free appliance and building envelope upgrades to renters so that there is a double benefit. First, the property owner can see energy reductions, and second the renter can not only see energy reductions but can also enjoy a healthier home environment, often by increasing comfort, decreasing health hazards such as mold, and providing more reliable appliances. The economy is the driver of prosperity and equity in a city and provides the revenue necessary for local government to enact programs that are beneficial to the whole community. Half of our community- wide emissions come from the business and commercial sector. But increased regulation can have the unintended consequence of driving up costs, deterring innovation and job growth, and stagnating 12 business development. However, many measures related to climate action can also have significant return on investment and end up being great business prospects. There is a delicate balance between mandating, incentivizing, and enabling businesses to reduce greenhouse emissions. On the flip side, there is great potential to work together to ensure a robust low-carbon economy that creates good jobs and benefits the whole community. California as a whole is a great example: State emissions have declined 9% since 2006, while the economy has grown 16%. Throughout the following measures, care was taken to avoid unintended consequences for our under- represented and disadvantaged community members, as well as our business sector, and to enhance the opportunity for equity and prosperity. It is important to consider and include our diverse community members and business interests in the development and implementation of the measures in this plan. 13 LOW CARBON TRANSPORTATION 38% of potential reductions More than 60% of San Rafael’s community emissions comes from transportation, and up until the recent commercial success of electric vehicles, it’s been hard to see how we were going to reduce transportation emissions. Sure, improvements in fuel efficiency have driven emissions down – the passenger vehicle fleet in Marin County is about 17% more fuel efficient than it was ten years ago – but vehicle miles traveled by passenger vehicle trips starting and/or ending in San Rafael have actually gone up about 2% over the same period. Surveys show that alternative transportation rates have hardly budged over the years, despite improvements in the bicycle and pedestrian network and public information campaigns to get people to carpool, bicycle, walk and take transit. All of that is now changing with the viability of zero emission vehicles (ZEVs), especially here in San Rafael where electricity is pretty clean and expected to get cleaner. ZEVs include all-battery as well as plug-in hybrid vehicles. Marin County is a leader in ZEV adoption rates – second only to Santa Clara County – and ZEVs already comprise about 2% of all registered passenger vehicles in Marin. Our plan is to increase that rate to 25% by 2030 by building out the EV charging infrastructure and encouraging ZEV ownership through incentives, public education, and development requirements. This is an aggressive target, but one that complements the State’s goal to put 5 million ZEVs on the road by 2030. Improvements in battery and charging technology, expected cost reductions, and automakers’ commitments to significantly expand ZEV offerings point to an all-electric future. Of course, new cars are typically out of the reach of low-income household budgets, but programs that incentivize used EV car purchases and installation of EV chargers in lower-income neighborhoods can help ensure the benefits of EV ownership are shared by all. That said, we can’t rely on ZEV’s alone to meet our transportation reductions; reducing congestion, enabling better biking and walking opportunities, and incentivizing public transit all carry co-benefits and can be enjoyed by all. The City will take the following actions to reduce emissions from transportation sources. What You Can Do #1 Drive an all-electric or plug-in hybrid vehicle. #2 Bike, walk or take transit whenever possible. #3 Shut your car off when waiting in line at the ATM or school pick up/drop off lane. #4 Better yet, have your child walk or bike to school. #5 Use an electric leaf blower and lawn mower. 14 TABLE 3: LOW CARBON TRANSPORTATION MEASURES TO REDUCE COMMUNITY EMISSIONS ID Measure GHG Reduction by 2030 (MTCO2e) Share of Reductions LCT-C1 Zero Emission Vehicles 30,345 83% LCT-C2 Bicycling 1,910 5% LCT-C3 Walking 575 2% LCT-C4 Safe Routes to School 320 1% LCT-C5 Public Transit 1,035 3% LCT-C6 Employee Trip Reduction 1,030 3% LCT-C7 Parking Requirements 55 <1% LCT-C8 Traffic System Management and Vehicle Idling 1,075 3% LCT-C9 Smart Growth Development n/a* n/a LCT-C10 Electric Landscape Equipment 110 <1% TOTAL 36,455 100% *Emissions reductions due to smart growth development are embedded in vehicle miles traveled projections utilized in the development of the emissions forecast. In order to avoid double -counting, they are not included here. LCT-C1: Zero Emission Vehicles Develop a Zero Emission Vehicle Plan that will result in 25% of passenger vehicles in San Rafael to be zero emission vehicles (ZEVs), including plug-in electric vehicles (EVs) and hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles, by 2030. Incorporate the following actions in the plan as feasible: a. Provide free parking for ZEVs at City parking lots and metered parking spaces. b. Provide wayfinding signage to public EV chargers. c. Work with PG&E and other entities to identify multi-family and workplace charging sites appropriate for available incentive programs, such as EV Charge Network. d. Participate in a countywide effort by MCE, PG&E and others to provide rebates for new or used electric vehicles and/or charging stations. e. Pursue opportunities to expand the City’s EV charging network through innovative programs, such as installing chargers at existing streetlight locations. f. Require new and remodeled commercial and multi-family projects to install a minimum number of electric vehicle chargers for use by employees, customers, and residents. g. Require new and remodeled single-family and multi-family projects to install electrical service and conduits for potential electric vehicle use. h. Consider requiring new and remodeled gas stations to provide EV fast chargers and hydrogen fueling stations. i. Participate in regional efforts and grant programs to encourage widespread availability of EV charging stations. j. Target policies to support ZEV adoption, including used vehicles, in low income and disadvantaged communities. k. Participate in programs to promote EV adoption, including "Drive an EV" events and other media and outreach campaigns. 15 l. Encourage or require, as practicable, ride hailing and delivery service companies to utilize zero emission vehicles. m. Promote adoption of electric bicycles, scooters and motorcycles. LCT-C2: Bicycling Encourage bicycling as an alternative to vehicular travel through outreach channels and partner agencies. Establish and maintain a system of bicycle facilities that are consistent with the City’s Bicycle and Master Pedestrian Plan and Complete Streets policies. a. Provide bicycle racks and lockers for public use. b. Participate in a bike share program. LCT-C3: Walking Encourage walking as an alternative to vehicular travel through outreach channels and partner agencies. Establish and maintain a system of pedestrian facilities that are consistent with the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and Complete Streets policies. LCT-C4: Safe Routes to School Continue to support the Safe Routes to School Program and strive to increase bicycling, walking, carpooling, and taking public transit to school. a. Promote school and student participation. b. Identify issues associated with unsafe bicycle and pedestrian facilities between neighborhoods and schools, apply for Safe Routes to School grants, and execute plans to improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities. LCT-C5: Public Transit Support and promote public transit by taking the following actions: a. Work with Marin Transit and Golden Gate Transit to maximize ridership through expansion and/or improvement of transit routes and schedules. b. Work with SMART, TAM, employers and others to provide first and last mile programs to maximize utilization of the train, including shuttle buses. c. Support the development of an attractive and efficient multi-modal transit center and provide safe routes to the transit center that encourage bicycle and pedestrian connections. d. Support a “Yellow School Bus” program and student use of regular transit to reduce school traffic. e. Encourage transit providers, including school buses, to use renewable diesel as a transition fuel and to purchase electric buses whenever replacing existing buses. LCT-C6: Employee Trip Reduction Reduce vehicle miles traveled commuting to work through the following actions: a. Work with the Transportation Authority of Marin, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to promote transportation demand programs to local employers, including rideshare matching programs, vanpool incentive programs, emergency ride home programs, telecommuting, transit use discounts and subsidies, 16 showers and changing facilities, bicycle racks and lockers, and other incentives to use transportation other than single occupant vehicles. b. Update the City's Trip Reduction Ordinance to reflect the most recent BAAQMD regulations and to increase the number of employers subject to the ordinance. c. Embark on a behavior change and educational campaign to encourage employees to reduce vehicle trips. LCT-C7: Parking Requirements Promote a walkable city by reducing parking requirements wherever feasible. Allow new development in the Downtown area to reduce minimum parking requirements by 20 percent from current levels. Elsewhere, reduce parking requirements based on robust transportation demand programs and proximity and frequency of transit services. Encourage unbundling of parking costs. LCT-C8: Traffic System Management and Vehicle Idling a. Implement signal synchronization to minimize wait times at traffic lights and to reduce congestion through increased traffic flow. b. Utilize intelligent traffic management systems to improve traffic flow and guide vehicles to available parking. c. Encourage drivers and autonomous vehicles to limit vehicle idling through implementing behavior change and engagement campaigns. d. Investigate adopting an ordinance to regulate idling beyond State requirements. LCT-C9: Smart Growth Development Prioritize infill, higher density, transit-oriented, and mixed-use development. LCT-C10: Electric Landscape Equipment. Encourage the use of electric landscape equipment instead of gasoline-powered equipment through engagement campaigns. TABLE 4: LOW CARBON TRANSPORTATION MEASURES TO REDUCE GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS EMISSIONS ID Measure GHG Reduction by 2030 (MTCO2e) Share of Reductions LCT-M1 Zero and Low Emission City Vehicles 275 48% LCT-M2 Low Carbon Fuels 270 47% LCT-M3 City Employee Commute 20 4% LCT-M4 Municipal Electric Landscape Equipment 5 1% TOTAL 570 100% LCT-M1: Zero and Low Emission City Vehicles Purchase or lease zero-emission vehicles for the City fleet whenever feasible, and when not, the most fuel-efficient models available. Promote City adoption and procurement of zero-emission vehicles and charging infrastructure to the public. 17 LCT-M2: Low Carbon Fuels Use low-carbon fuel such as renewable diesel as a transition fuel in the City's fleet and encourage the City's service providers to do the same, until vehicles are replaced with zero-emissions vehicles. LCT-M3: City Employee Commute Continue to provide City employees with incentives and/or reduce barriers to use alternatives to single occupant auto commuting, such as transit use discounts and subsidies, bicycle facilities, showers and changing facilities, ridesharing services, vanpools, emergency ride home service, flexible schedules, and telecommuting when practicable. LCT-M4: Municipal Electric Landscape Equipment Replace gas-powered leaf blowers and other landscape equipment with electric models. 18 ENERGY EFFICIENCY 19% of potential reductions Increasing the efficiency of buildings is often the most cost-effective approach for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Energy efficiency upgrades, such as adding insulation and sealing heating ducts, have demonstr ated energy savings of up to 20 percent , while more aggressive “whole house” retrofits can result in even grea ter energy savings. Many “low -hanging fruit” improvements can be made inexpensively and without remodeling yet can be extremely cost-efficient, such as swapping out incandescent bulbs to LED bulbs , sealing air leaks , and installing a programmable thermostat. Energy Star-certified appliances and office equipment , high-efficiency heating and air conditioning systems, and high-efficiency windows not only save energy but reduce operating costs in the long run. Nonetheless, some upgrades can be expensi ve, particularly for low - income households, so the City participates in programs that provide rebates, free energy audits, and financing options for residents and businesses. New construction techniques and building materials, known collectively as “green building,” can significantly reduce the use of resources and energy in homes and commercial buildings. Green construction methods can be integrated into buildings at any stage, from design and construction to renovation and deconstruction. The State of California requires green building energy-efficiency through the Title 24 Building codes. The State updates these codes approximately every three years, with increasing energy efficiency requirements since 2001. The State’s energy efficiency goals are to have all new residential construction to be zero net electricity by 2020 and all new residential and commercial construction to be zero net energy by 2030. Local governments can accelerate this target by adopting energy efficiency standards for new construction and remodels that exceed existing State mandates, or by providing incentives, technical assistance, and streamlined permit processes to enable quicker adoption. The City will take the following actions to reduce emissions in the built environment. What You Can Do #1 Replace indoor and outdoor lights with LED bulbs, and turn them off when not in use. #2 Have an energy assessment done for your home or business. #3 Upgrade insulation, seal leaks, and install a programmable thermostat. #4 Purchase Energy Star appliances and equipment. #5 Unplug electronic appliances when not in use and set the thermostat to use less heat and air conditioning. 19 TABLE 5: ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES TO REDUCE COMMUNITY EMISSIONS ID Measure GHG Reduction by 2030 (MTCO2e) Share of Reductions EE-C1 Energy Efficiency Programs 17,335 96% EE-C2 Energy Audits 260 1% EE-C3 Cool Pavement and Roofs 275 2% EE-C4 Green Building Reach Code 225 1% EE-C5 Streamline Permit Process and Provide Technical Assistance n/a n/a TOTAL 18,095 100% EE-C1: Energy Efficiency Programs Promote and expand participation in residential and commercial energy efficiency programs. a. Work with organizations and agencies such as the Marin Energy Watch Partnership, the Bay Area Regional Network, Resilient Neighborhoods, and the Marin Climate & Energy Partnership to promote and implement energy efficiency programs and actions. b. Continue and expand participation in energy efficiency programs such as Energy Upgrade California, California Energy Youth Services, and Smart Lights. c. Promote utility, state, and federal rebate and incentive programs. d. Participate and promote financing and loan programs for residential and non-residential projects such as Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) programs, PG&E on-bill repayment, and California Hub for Energy Efficiency Financing (CHEEF) programs. EE-C2: Energy Audits Investigate requiring energy audits for residential and commercial buildings prior to completion of sale, including identification of cost savings from energy efficiency measures and potential rebates and financing options. EE-C3: Cool Pavement and Roofs Use high albedo material for roadways, parking lots, sidewalks and roofs to reduce the urban heat island effect and save energy. a. Evaluate the use of high albedo pavements when resurfacing City streets or re-roofing City facilities. b. Encourage new development to use high albedo material for driveways, parking lots, walkways, patios, and roofing through engagement and behavior change campaigns. EE-C4: Green Building Reach Code Investigate adopting a green building ordinance for new and remodeled commercial and residential projects that requires green building methods and energy efficiency savings above the State building and energy codes. Consider utilizing the County's green building ordinance as a model and including the use of photovoltaic systems and all-electric building systems as options to achieve compliance. 20 EE-C5: Streamline Permit Process and Provide Technical Assistance Analyze current green building permit and inspection process to eliminate barriers and provide technical assistance to ensure successful implementation of green building requirements. Work county-wide to make it easier for contractors and building counter staff to simplify applications and identify incentives. TABLE 6: ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES TO REDUCE GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS EMISSIONS ID Measure GHG Reduction by 2030 (MTCO2e) Share of Reductions EE-M1 Streetlights 110 58% EE-M2 Energy Efficiency Audit and Retrofits 45 23% EE-M3 Energy Conservation 35 19% TOTAL 185 100% EE-M1: Streetlights Complete replacement of inefficient street, parking lot and other outdoor lighting with LED fixtures. EE-M2: Energy Efficiency Audit and Retrofits Work with the Marin Energy Management Team to identify and implement energy efficiency projects in municipal buildings and facilities and electrification of existing building systems and equipment that use natural gas. EE-M3: Energy Conservation Reduce energy consumption through behavioral and operational changes. a. Establish energy efficiency protocols for building custodial and cleaning services and other employees, including efficient use of facilities, such as turning off lights and computers, thermostat use, etc. b. Incorporate energy management software, electricity monitors, or other methods to monitor energy use in municipal buildings. c. Investigate 9/80 work schedule for City facilities where feasible and where facilities can be shut down entirely. 21 RENEWABLE ENERGY 33% of potential reductions Energy that comes from renewable sources, including solar, wind, geothermal, and small hydroelectric, are the cleanest and most-environmentally friendly energy sources. Here in San Rafael, where there is an abundance of sunny days, solar energy is a particularly good energy source. According to Project Sunroof, 94% of San Rafael buildings have roofs that are solar-viable. These 14,700 roofs could generate over 470 million kWh per year, which is more than the total electricity usage in San Rafael in 2016. Solar system costs keep falling, too, which make them an attractive option for home and commercial building owners. Our Climate Change Action Plan projects that we can get about 24% of our electricity from locally produced solar energy systems by 2030, up from about 4% currently, just by maintaining the current growth rate. When solar is not an option, due perhaps to a shady roof or a reluctant landlord, residents and business owners can purchase 100% renewable electricity from MCE Clean Energy and PG&E. MCE and PG&E electricity have a high percentage of renewable and GHG-free content, which means it’s some of the cleanest electricity in the country. What’s more, MCE’s goal is provide 100% renewable and GHG-free electricity to all its customers by 2025. Considering that MCE currently carries about two- thirds of the total electricity load in San Rafael, that action alone will significantly reduce emissions. Since our electricity is so clean, and getting cleaner, it’s a great idea to swap out appliances and heating and cooling systems that use natural gas for ones that use electricity. If you’re constructing a new home or building, consider going all- electric. Battery prices are falling, and will soon be a cost-effective option, too. Eventually, we’ll need to replace the majority of natural gas appliance and equipment if we’re going to hit our long-term goals. Fortunately, ongoing research and development of energy storage systems are creating new business opportunities and making an all-electric, 100% renewable future possible. The City will take the following actions to reduce emissions from energy use. What You Can Do #1 Switch to MCE Deep Green or PG&E Solar Choice 100% renewable electricity option. #2 Install a solar energy system on your home or business. #3 Replace appliances that use natural gas for ones that use electricity. #4 Investigate electric hot water heaters and heat pumps so you can swap out heaters and furnaces that use natural gas when it’s time to replace them. 22 TABLE 7: RENEWABLE ENERGY MEASURES TO REDUCE COMMUNITY EMISSIONS ID Measure GHG Reduction by 2030 (MTCO2e) Share of Reductions RE-C1 Renewable Energy Generation 10,940 35% RE-C2 GHG-Free Electricity 19,560 62% RE-C3 Building and Appliance Electrification 895 3% RE-C4 Innovative Technologies n/a n/a TOTAL 31,415 100% RE-C1: Renewable Energy Generation Accelerate installation of residential and commercial solar and other renewable energy systems. a. Provide permit streamlining and reduce or eliminate fees, as feasible. b. Amend building codes, development codes, design guidelines, and zoning ordinances, as necessary, to facilitate small, medium, and large-scale installations. c. Encourage installation of solar panels on carports and over parking areas on commercial projects and large-scale residential developments through ordinance, engagement campaigns, or agency incentives. d. Participate and promote financing and loan programs for residential and non-residential projects such as Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) programs and California Hub for Energy Efficiency Financing (CHEEF) programs. e. Encourage installation of battery storage in conjunction with renewable energy generation projects through engagement campaigns and partner agency incentives. RE-C2: GHG-Free Electricity Encourage residents and businesses to switch to 100 percent renewable electricity (MCE Deep Green, MCE Local Sol, and PG&E Solar Choice) through engagement campaigns and partner agency incentives and work with MCE Clean Energy to assure that it reaches its goal to provide electricity that is 100 percent GHG-free by 2025. RE-C3: Building and Appliance Electrification Promote electrification of building systems and appliances that currently use natural gas, including heating systems, hot water heaters, stoves, and clothes dryers. RE-C4: Innovative Technologies Investigate and pursue innovative technologies such as micro-grids, battery storage, and demand- response programs that will improve the electric grid’s resiliency and help to balance demand and renewable energy production. 23 TABLE 8: RENEWABLE ENERGY MEASURES TO REDUCE GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS EMISSIONS ID Measure GHG Reduction by 2030 (MTCO2e) Share of Reductions RE-M1 Solar Energy Systems 140 28% RE-M2 Deep Green Electricity 365 72% TOTAL 505 100% RE-M1: Solar Energy Systems for Municipal Buildings Install solar energy systems at municipal buildings and facilities where feasible and investigate and pursue innovative technologies such as battery storage and demand response programs. RE-M2: Municipal Deep Green Electricity Continue to purchase MCE Deep Green electricity for all City facilities. 24 WASTE REDUCTION 10% of potential reductions The things we buy, consume, and throw away generate a lot of greenhouse gas emissions during manufacturing, transport, distribution and disposal. The best way to reduce emissions is to purchase and consume less stuff in the first place, and then find someone who can reuse whatever you no longer need before considering recycling or disposal. Due to the way we account for community emissions, our Climate Change Action Plan does not take credit for reducing upstream emissions. Instead, our GHG accounting is directly concerned with emissions that are created from the anaerobic decomposition of organic waste in the landfill. The decomposition process creates methane, which is 28 time more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Although landfills capture most of the methane, and some like Redwood Landfill use that methane to create biogas or electricity, about one-quarter of it escapes into the atmosphere. The good news is that it is relatively easy to divert organic material from the landfill. Paper and cardboard can be recycled. Food scraps, some paper (like napkins and paper towels), and yard waste can be composted, either at home or at the landfill. Surplus food can be donated to non-profits that distribute it to the needy. About half of the organic material that is put into the landfill is “recoverable.” The measures below are geared to making that happen by 2030, starting with encouraging residents and businesses to divert, recycle and compost organic waste. To meet our diversion target, the City will consider adopting an ordinance that mandates recycling and, as a last resort, setting trash collection fees that enable the waste hauler to invest in machinery that can sort trash and recover all compostable and recyclable materials before they are sent to the landfill. The City will take the following actions to reduce emissions from waste. What You Can Do #1 Buy only as much as you need. #2 Buy locally grown food and eat less meat. #3 Put your food scraps in the green can and/or compost them at home. #4 Donate extra food and used clothing and housewares to charities. #5 Don’t be a “wishful” recycler. Be scrupulous about how you sort your recyclables. 25 TABLE 9: WASTE REDUCTION MEASURES TO REDUCE COMMUNITY EMISSIONS ID Measure GHG Reduction by 2030 (MTCO2e) Share of Reductions WR-C1 Commercial Organic Waste 1,505 16% WR-C2 Residential Organic Waste 795 8% WR-C3 C&D and Self-Haul Waste 170 2% WR-C4 Mandatory Waste Diversion 2,990 31% WR-C5 Waste Processing Infrastructure 4,220 44% WR-C6 Extended Producer Responsibility n/a n/a WR-C7 Inorganic Waste n/a n/a TOTAL 9,680 100% WR-C1: Commercial Organic Waste Work with Zero Waste Marin, Marin Sanitary Service, and non-profits such as Extra Food to divert commercial organic waste from the landfill through recycling, composting, and participation in waste-to- energy and food recovery programs. a. Conduct outreach and education to businesses subject to State organic waste recycling mandates (AB 1826) and encourage or enforce compliance with the law. b. Refer new and major remodel commercial and multi-family residential project proposals to the City's waste hauler for review and comment and require projects to provide adequate waste and recycling facilities and access as feasible. c. Encourage and facilitate commercial and multi-family property owners to require responsible use of on-site recycling facilities in lease and rental agreements and to train and regularly evaluate janitorial, landscape, and other property management services. WR-C2: Residential Organic Waste Work with Zero Waste Marin, Marin Sanitary Service, and other organizations to educate and motivate residents to utilize curbside collection services and home composting for food waste. WR-C3: Construction & Demolition Debris and Self-Haul Waste Require all loads of construction & demolition debris and self-haul waste to be processed for recovery of materials as feasible. Investigate creation of an ordinance requiring deconstruction of buildings proposed for demolition or remodeling when materials of significant historical, cultural, aesthetic, functional or reuse value can be salvaged. WR-C4: Mandatory Waste Diversion Adopt an ordinance requiring mandatory subscription to and participation in waste diversion activities, including recycling and organics collection provided by Marin Sanitary Service. Consider including phased implementation of the ordinance, penalties, and practical enforcement mechanisms. 26 WR-C5: Waste Processing Infrastructure Review and revise the City’s franchise agreement with Marin Sanitary Service to ensure waste reduction and diversion targets are met. Conduct a feasibility study and consider investing in new solid waste processing infrastructure to remove recoverable materials (recycling and organics) from the waste stream and reduce contamination. Require regular residential and commercial waste audits and waste characterization studies to identify opportunities for increased diversion and to track progress in meeting targets. WR-C6: Extended Producer Responsibility. Encourage the State to regulate the production and packaging of consumer goods and take-back programs. Encourage on-demand delivery services like Amazon and Blue Apron to reduce packaging waste and investigate requirements and incentives for same through ordinance or engagement campaigns. WR-C7: Inorganic Waste. Promote reuse, repair, and recycling of inorganic materials, and encourage reduced use of packaging and single use items through engagement campaigns. Investigate supporting a local building material reuse center. TABLE 10: WASTE REDUCTION MEASURES TO REDUCE GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS EMISSIONS ID Measure GHG Reduction by 2030 (MTCO2e) Share of Reductions WR-M1 Waste from Public Facilities 260 76% WR-M2 Waste from City Operations 85 24% TOTAL 345 100% WR-M1: Waste from Public Facilities Increase opportunities for recycling, reuse, and composting at City facilities. WR-M2: Waste from City Operations Embark on an educational and social marketing-based campaign to increase recycling, composting, reuse, and waste reduction within municipal operations. Conduct periodic waste audits of City facilities to understand where opportunities for increased diversion lie and to track progress. 27 WATER CONSERVATION 1% of potential reductions San Rafael is no stranger to periodic droughts and the need to conserve water, and the community has responded by reducing per capita water use by about 25%, from 152 gallons per person per day (gpcd) in 2005 to 114 gpcd in 2016. In addition to installing low-flow fixtures (showerheads, faucets and toilets) and water-efficient appliances (clothes washers and dishwashers), residents and businesses are planting native, drought-tolerant species and even replacing lawns with attractive, low-water use gardens. Good thing, because as temperatures continue to rise, we will experience more droughts and more intense heat waves than before. Our Greenhouse Gas Inventory counts emissions that are generated from the energy used to pump, treat and convey water from the water source to San Rafael water users. Far more emissions are created from the energy that is used to heat water, but those emissions are counted in the residential and commercial sectors. Therefore, the water sector comprises a much smaller share of community emissions than one might expect. The water agencies that supply San Rafael’s water are committed to using 100% renewable energy in their operations. Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) began purchasing Deep Green electricity from MCE in 2017, and Sonoma County Water Agency, which provides 20- 25% of MMWD’s water, started purchasing 100% renewable electricity in 2015. As a result, emissions from the water sector will go down to nearly zero, but the overall contribution to community emissions reduction is small. The City will take the following actions to reduce emissions from water use. What You Can Do #1 Replace your lawn with a drought-tolerant garden. #2 Install a drip irrigation system and check it regularly for leaks. #3 Install low water flow faucets, showerheads and toilets. #4 Buy water-efficient dishwashers and clothes washers when it’s time to replace them. 28 TABLE 11: WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES TO REDUCE COMMUNITY EMISSIONS ID Measure GHG Reduction by 2030 (MTCO2e) Share of Reductions WC-C1 Community Water Use 830 100% WC-C1: Community Water Use Reduce indoor and outdoor water use in residential and commercial buildings and landscaping. a. Work with Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) and other organizations to promote water conservation programs and incentives. b. Educate residents and businesses about local and State laws requiring retrofit of non-compliant plumbing fixtures during remodeling and at resale. c. Ensure all projects requiring building permits, plan check, or design review comply with State and MMWD regulations. d. Encourage the installation of greywater and rainwater collection systems and the use of recycled water where available through ordinance or engagement campaigns. TABLE 12: WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES TO REDUCE GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS EMISSIONS ID Measure GHG Reduction by 2030 (MTCO2e) Share of Reductions WC-M1 Municipal Water Use <1 100% WC-M1: Municipal Water Use Reduce indoor and outdoor water use in municipal facilities and operations. a. Replace high water use plants and inefficient irrigation systems with water-efficient landscaping. b. Investigate synthetic turf that uses organic infill for ball fields and parks to reduce water, herbicide use, and maintenance costs, while increasing field use throughout the year. c. Replace inefficient plumbing fixtures with high-efficiency fixtures. d. Use recycled water as available and practicable. 29 SEQUESTRATION AND ADAPTATION California is already experiencing the effects of climate change. Every year, it seems like the news gets grimmer: more wildfires, more heat waves, longer droughts, more intense storms, less snow pack, and less fresh water. Annual average air temperatures have already increased by about 1.8 °F in California, and that number will likely double even if the world can reduce emissions 80% by 2050. San Rafael needs to be prepared for the likely impacts of climate change, including flooding from more intense storms and sea level rise, health impacts from heat exposure and poor air quality, and safety risks from the increased likelihood of wildfires and landslides. Sea level rise is a particular concern to San Rafael, where many homes, businesses, and industrial and recreational facilities are at risk for flooding. Sea level has already risen 8” in San Francisco Bay and is expected to rise another 10 inches by 2040. Within this short time period, the Canal area, the Kerner Business District, and other shoreline development will likely experience tidal flooding. The Canal neighborhood residents, the majority of whom are lower-income and Latino, will be some of the first people impacted by sea level rise at their front doors. Storm surges coupled with a 10” sea level rise could flood a greater area – up to 10% of San Rafael’s land area – including Peacock Gap and the industrial and commercial area of Anderson Drive. By the end of the century, sea level is projected to rise 2.4 to 3.4 feet, and possibly as much as 5 feet. At the higher end, nearly 2,500 buildings, or 13% of all San Rafael buildings, could face some level of tidal flooding. A comprehensive assessment of San Rafael’s vulnerable assets was completed in 2017. For more information, see the Marin Shoreline Sea Level Rise Assessment. While the Climate Change Action Plan contains some measures that address adaptation, a more complete set of goals, policies and programs are contained in the San Rafael Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and will be incorporated in the City’s updated General Plan. In addition to adaptation strategies, this section contains measures to sequester carbon dioxide through planting and preservation of trees and other vegetation and the development of carbon-rich soils. Carbon offsets are often used to fund these types of carbon sequestration projects and can be purchased to offset emissions that are difficult to otherwise mitigate, such as airplane flights. We haven’t credited emission reductions for these actions because we don’t count sequestered carbon in the community greenhouse gas inventory, but we recognize that sequestration is a critical component to meeting our carbon reduction goals. The City will take the following actions to sequester carbon dioxide and adapt to climate change. What You Can Do #1 Plant trees appropriate to your situation. #2 Add compost to your soil. #3 Purchase carbon offsets for airplane flights and other emissions that are difficult to mitigate. #4 Find out if your home or business is vulnerable to sea level rise at Our Coast Our Future. 30 TABLE 13: SEQUESTRATION AND ADAPTATION MEASURES TO REDUCE COMMUNITY EMISSIONS ID Measure SA-C1 Urban Forest SA-C2 Carbon Sequestration SA-C3 Carbon Offsets SA-C4 Sea Level Rise SA-C5 Climate Change Adaptation SA-C1: Urban Forest Increase carbon sequestration and improve air quality and natural cooling through increasing tree cover in San Rafael. a. Plant additional trees on City-owned land, including public parks, open space, medians, and rights of way, where feasible. b. Review parking lot landscape standards to maximize tree cover, size, growth, and sequestration potential. c. Regulate and minimize removal of large trees and require planting of replacement trees. d. Require that the site planning, construction and maintenance of new development preserve existing healthy trees and native vegetation on site to the maximum extent feasible. Replace trees and vegetation not able to be saved. e. Encourage community members to plant trees on private land. Consider creating a tree giveaway event or providing lower-cost trees to the public through a bulk purchasing program. f. Encourage the creation of community gardens on public and private lands by community groups. g. Provide information to the public, including landscape companies, gardeners and nurseries, on carbon sequestration rates, drought tolerance, and fire resistance of different tree species. h. Manage trees and invasive species in the open space for forest health and reduction of fuel load. i. Require new development, redevelopment, and infrastructure projects to implement best management practices as feasible, including low-impact development techniques, the minimal use of non-pervious surfaces in landscape design, and the integration of natural features into the project design, to naturally filter and biodegrade contaminants and to minimize surface runoff into drainage systems and creeks. SA-C2: Carbon Sequestration Increase carbon sequestration in the built environment, developed landscapes, and natural areas. a. Encourage use of building materials that store carbon, such as wood and carbon-intensive concrete through agency partnerships and engagement campaigns. b. Encourage and support composting to develop healthy, carbon-rich soils. c. Manage parks and open spaces to steadily increase carbon in vegetation and soil. d. Increase the extent and carbon sequestration potential of bay wetlands, through improvements such as horizontal levees. 31 SA-C3: Carbon Offsets Reduce the impact of greenhouse gas emissions through the purchase of carbon offsets. a. Encourage community members to purchase carbon offsets to reduce their carbon footprint through engagement campaigns. b. Consider partnering with a local non-profit organization to promote a carbon offset program. c. Focus on offsetting emissions that are difficult to mitigate otherwise, such as airplane travel. SA-C4: Sea Level Rise Prepare for and adapt to a rising sea level. a. Consider the potential for sea level rise when processing development applications that might be affected by such a rise. Use current Flood Insurance Rate Maps and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recommendations associated with base flood elevation adjustments for sea level rise in the review of development proposals. Adopt requirements to assess sea level rise risks on new development, infrastructure, and transit corridors. b. Prepare a guidance document for incorporating sea level rise into the City’s capital planning process. c. Work with local, County, state, regional, and federal agencies with Bay and shoreline oversight and with owners of critical infrastructure and facilities in the preparation of a plan for responding to rising sea levels. Make sure all local stakeholders are kept informed of such planning efforts. d. Investigate developing flood control projects and modifying the City’s land use regulations for areas subject to increased flooding from sea level rise. e. Update GIS (Geographic Information System) maps to include new data as it becomes available; utilize GIS as a tool for tracking sea level rise and flooding and make available to the public. f. Study the creation of a Bayfront overlay zone or similar that would establish standards for developing in areas subject to flooding from SLR. SA-C5: Climate Change Adaptation Prepare for and respond to the expected impacts of climate change. a. Continue to incorporate the likelihood of sea level rise and increased risk of wildfire and extreme heat and storm events in the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. b. Incorporate the likelihood of climate change impacts into City emergency planning and training. c. Coordinate with water districts, wildlife agencies, flood control and fire districts, Marin County, and other relevant organizations to develop a comprehensive plan addressing climate change impacts and adaptation strategies. Address human health and the health and adaptability of natural systems, including the following: • Water resources, including expanded rainwater harvesting, water storage and conservation techniques, water reuse, water‐use and irrigation efficiency, and reduction of impervious surfaces. • Biological resources, including land acquisition, creation of marshlands/wetlands as a buffer against sea level rise and flooding, and protection of existing natural barriers. 32 • Public health, including heat‐related health plans, vector control, air quality, safe water, and improved sanitation. • Environmental hazard defenses, including seawalls, storm surge barriers, pumping stations, and fire prevention and suppression. d. Ensure fair and robust inclusion of lower-income households and our diverse communities in the planning and response to climate change impacts, including sea level rise, wildfire, public health, and emergency preparedness. 33 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT The Climate Action Plan contains actions that the City can undertake to reduce its own emissions by about 1,500 MTCO2e, bringing the emissions from municipal operations down to 56% below 2005 levels. However, since emissions from governmental operations make up less than 1% of community-wide emissions, that is just a drop in the bucket. The fact is that our residents, businesses, workers, and visitors will have to do their part to ensure we meet our reduction targets. The City can compel some of these actions by adopting ordinances and building regulations, but much of the success of our plan will depend on informing our community members and encouraging them to take action on their own. This section details the ways in which the City will seek public engagement and work with local businesses and community groups to achieve the emissions reductions identified for measures in other sections of the Plan. The City has been partnering with Resilient Neighborhoods since 2009 to educate San Rafael residents on ways they can reduce their carbon footprint. The program organizes Climate Action Teams of up to 12 households that meet five times over two months to learn about strategies and resources to improve home energy efficiency, shift to renewable energy, use low-carbon transportation, conserve water, reduce waste, and adapt to a changing climate. To start, participants calculate their household carbon footprint and then take actions to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by at least 5,000 pounds or 25%. Over 350 San Rafael residents have participated in the program. The City will take the following actions to engage the community to reduce emissions. TABLE 14: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT MEASURES TO REDUCE COMMUNITY EMISSIONS ID Measure CE-C1 Community Education CE-C2 Community Engagement CE-C3 Advocacy CE-C4 Innovation and Economic Development CE-C5 Green Businesses What You Can Do #1 Sign up for Resilient Neighborhoods and join a Climate Action Team. #2 Commit to reducing your carbon footprint by taking the actions identified in this Plan. 34 CE-C1: Community Education Work with community-based outreach organizations, such as Resilient Neighborhoods, to educate and motivate community members on ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in their homes, businesses, transportation modes, and other activities. CE-C2: Community Engagement Implement a communitywide public outreach and behavior change campaign to engage residents, businesses, and consumers around the impacts of climate change and the ways individuals and organizations can reduce their GHG emissions and create a more sustainable, resilient, and healthier community. Create an overarching theme to articulate a long-term goal, motivate community members, and brand a comprehensive suite of GHG-reduction programs. Prioritize promotion of programs that have the greatest greenhouse gas reduction potential while utilizing the latest social science on behavior change. Emphasize and encourage citizens' involvement in reaching the community's climate goals, including innovative means of tracking milestones and comparing San Rafael's performance with other communities and with state, national and global benchmarks. a. Conduct outreach to a wide variety of neighborhood, business, educational, faith, service, and social organizations. b. Conduct outreach and education to the Latino community by using media, organizations, and gathering places favored by Latinos and translating materials into Spanish. c. Inform the public about the benefits of installing energy and water efficient appliances and fixtures, electrifying homes and commercial buildings, installing solar energy systems, and purchasing 100% renewable electricity. d. Inform the public about the benefits of using carbon-free and low-carbon transportation modes, such as driving electric vehicles, walking, bicycling, taking public transportation, and ridesharing. e. Utilize and tailor existing marketing materials when available. f. Inform the public about the environmental benefits of eating less meat and dairy products, growing food at home, and purchasing locally-produced food. g. Partner with MCE, PG&E, MMWD, Marin Sanitary Service, Transportation Authority of Marin, Marin Transit, Golden Gate Transit, SMART, and other entities to promote available financing, audits, rebates, incentives, and services to the San Rafael community. h. Utilize the City's website, newsletters, social media, bill inserts, public service announcements and advertisements, recognition programs, and other forms of public outreach. i. Create stories and “shareable content” that can be used by bloggers, businesses, non-profits, social media, and traditional media. j. Use creative methods to engage the public, such as games, giveaways, prizes, contests, simple surveys, digital tools, and “pop-up” events. k. Develop pilot programs using community-based social marketing and other social science-based techniques to effect behavior change. l. Participate in countywide outreach and education efforts, such as Drawdown Marin. 35 CE-C3: Advocacy Advocate at the state and federal levels for policies and actions that support the rapid transition to GHG-free energy sources, electrification of buildings and the transportation fleet, and other impactful measures to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions. CE-C4: Innovation and Economic Development Convene an economic development and innovation working group to explore public-private partnerships and develop ways to decarbonize our local economy while spurring sustainable enterprise and equitable employment. CE-C5: Green Businesses Encourage local businesses to participate in the Marin County Green Business Program through partnerships with the County, Chamber, and other business groups. 36 IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING Plans are only effective if they’re implemented and results are carefully evaluated. The City will prepare an annual assessment of the progress it is making on implementing the measures contained in this Climate Change Action Plan and continue to quantify community and greenhouse gas emissions to determine if we are on track to meet our reduction targets. The City will take the following actions to implement and monitor the Climate Change Action Plan. TABLE 15: IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING MEASURES TO REDUCE COMMUNITY EMISSIONS ID Measure IM-C1 Annual Monitoring IM-C2 Update GHG Emissions Inventories IM-C3 Funding Sources IM-C4 Update the Climate Change Action Plan IM-C5 Project Compliance Checklist IM-C1: Annual Monitoring Monitor and report on the City’s progress annually. Create an annual priorities list for implementation. IM-C2: Update GHG Emissions Inventories Update the greenhouse gas emissions inventory for community emissions annually and every five years for government operations. IM-C3: Funding Sources Identify funding sources for recommended actions, and pursue local, regional, state and federal grants as appropriate. Investigate creation of a local carbon fund or other permanent source of revenue to implement the Climate Change Action Plan. IM-C4: Update the Climate Change Action Plan Update the Climate Change Action Plan regularly to incorporate new long-term reduction targets and strategies to meet those targets. IM-C5: Project Compliance Checklist Develop a project compliance checklist to use when reviewing development proposals, use permit applications, and building permit applications to ensure compliance with Climate Action Plan measures. What You Can Do #1 Get involved! Attend City Council meetings, Climate Action Plan implementation forums, and other public forums to voice your support for actions contained in this Plan. 37 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS City Council Gary Phillips, Mayor Kate Colin, Sustainability Liaison Maribeth Bushey John Gamblin Andrew McCullough Green Ribbon Working Group Ana Ostrovsky Anahi Mendieta Bill Carney Bob Miller Cameron Evans Charlotte Kamman Chris Yalonis Eleanor Huang Jan Goldberg Jerry Belletto Jesse Madsen Jocelyn Tsai Kay Karchevski Kif Scheuer Maite Duran Pam Reaves Sarah Loughran Tim Gilbert City Staff Bill Guerin, Public Works Director Cory Bytof, Sustainability & Volunteer Coordinator Cristine Alilovich, Assistant City Manager Danielle O’ Leary, Economic Development Director David Catalinotto, Environmental Management Coordinator Jim Schutz, City Manager Paul Jensen, Community Development Director Rebecca Woodbury, Digital Services & Open Government Director Savannah Guinn, Planning Intern Thomas Wong, Junior Engineer, Public Works Subject Matter & Resource Advisors Alice Zanmiller, County of Marin Carleen Cullen, Drive Clean Marin Carrie Pollard, Sonoma County Water Agency Chelsea Carey, Point Blue Conservation Science Dana Armanino, County of Marin Dara Rossoff-Powell, Resilient Neighborhoods Derek McGill, Transportation Authority of Marin Douglas Mundo, Multicultural Center of Marin Ellie Cohen, Point Blue Conservation Science Garth Schultz, R3 Consulting Group Greg Van Trump, Marin Municipal Water District J.R. Killigrew, MCE Clean Energy Joanne Webster, San Rafael Chamber of Commerce Kim Scheibly, Marin Sanitary Service Kristen Dybala, Point Blue Conservation Science Libby Porzig, Point Blue Conservation Science Omar Carrera, Canal Alliance Scott McDonald, Transportation Authority of Marin Tamra Peters, Resilient Neighborhoods Consultant Christine O’Rourke Community Planning Funded by the Marin Climate and Energy Partnership & the City of San Rafael. Special thanks to participants of our quarterly community implementation forums and everyone who participated in the CCAP community workshops and surveys. APPENDICES LEGEND Action Require, Implement, Encourage, Develop or Support Time Frame: Short= 1-3 years; Long= 3-10 years; Ongoing Potential GHG Reduction: Total metric tons of estimated annual greenhouse gas reduction APPENDIX B -IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX % Overall GHG Reduction: Percentage of the overall (all sectors combined) 156,000 MTCO2 emissions reductions called for by 2030 Staffing Level: Low= Existing staff can implement without changing current priorities Medium= Existing staff can implement, but will require some reprioritization of current tasks to accommodate new task(s) High = Most likely will require new staff or contract position(s) to implement Funding Source General Fund, agency partner funds, grants, etc. City Control: Low= mostly City can only encourage or advocate Medium= City can exert some influence through incentives, ordinance, or other strategic influence High = City can create or mandate through process, procedure, or ordinance Co-Benefits: Potential added benefits, specifically related to the Economy, Social Equity, or Health such as new job creation or business opportunities, lower pollution levels, greater community connection and resiliency, etc. Potential Unintended Potential harms in other areas, such as environmental impacts or pollution, economic hardships to residents or businesses, Consequences: burdensome regulations/bureaucracy or high administrative costs, limiting to long-term adaptation strategies, etc. How We Measure Progress: Metrics and outcomes that determine success ACTION DEFINITIONS REQUIRE -These are generally requirements, regulations, ordinances, or other types of mandates. IMPLEMENT -These are generally things we have a lot of control over and could include programs, policies, community engagement, or collaborative activities. ENCOURAGE -These are things where we have less direct control, and may include community engagement, partnerships with other agencies or groups, incentives, or behavior change campaigns. DEVELOP-These are things we may need more information about before implementing or requiring something. This might include general research or a formal analysis. SUPPORT -These are things where our role is limited, or other agencies or groups are responsible for action. Support could run the gamut from conducting outreach to adopting ordinances that reinforce their activities, such as energy efficiency programs. B-1 APPENDIX B -IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX LOW CARBON TRANSPORTATION CO-BENEFITS: GHG FUNDING ECONOMY POTENTIAL UNINTENDED ID Measure ACTION TIME FRAME REDUCTION STAFFING SOURCE CITY CONTROL CONSEQUENCES HOW WE WILL MEASURE PROGRESS EQUITY HEALTH Increased electrical demand Number of charging stations installed. REQUIRE ECONOMY may require demand-side Code/ordinances passed. Number of SHORT General Fund management to encourage LCT-Cl Zero Emission Vehicles IMPLEMENT LONG 30,345 HIGH Grants MEDIUM EQUITY and/or require consumers to ZEVs registered in San Rafael. Target: ENCOURAGE HEALTH modify their level and pattern 25% of registered automobiles in Marin of electricity usage. County are ZEVs by 2030. Completion of Bicycle Pedestrian Master Bicycling IMPLEMENT SHORT ECONOMY Increased bicycle-vehicle Plan projects, including 21 miles of LCT-CZ ENCOURAGE LONG 1,910 HIGH Gas Tax Grants LOW EQUITY collisions. additional Class 1 and 2 bike facilities, HEALTH bike share (300 bikes) and bike racks/lockers (12 each) goals. ECONOMY Completion of Bicycle Pedestrian Master IMPLEMENT Gas Tax Plan projects. Target: 2% reduction in LCT-C3 Walking ENCOURAGE LONG 575 HIGH Grants LOW EQUITY passenger trips that start and end in San HEALTH Rafael. Cost to TAM to fund Safe Safe Routes to School projects SUPPORT SHORT Gas Tax EQUITY Routes to School program may LCT-C4 Safe Routes to School IMPLEMENT LONG 320 MEDIUM Grants LOW HEALTH crowd out funding for other completed. Decrease in students driving programs. in a family vehicle from 47% to 29%. Additional cost to Marin Transit Target: all of Marin Transit vehicles use Agency ECONOMY for renewable diesel and Public Transit SUPPORT SHORT renewable diesel by 2020 and 50% of LCT-C5 ENCOURAGE LONG 1,035 LOW Partners LOW EQUITY electric buses may crowd out Marin Transit's VMT is driven by electric General Fund HEALTH funding for to increase transit buses by 2030. frequency or coverage. Agency ECONOMY Number of businesses offering a TDM SUPPORT program. Target: all San Rafael LCT-C6 Employee Trip Reduction ENCOURAGE SHORT 1,030 LOW Partners LOW EQUITY businesses with 30 or more employees General Fund HEALTH offer a TDM program. LCT-C7 Parking Requirements REQUIRE SHORT 55 LOW General Fund HIGH HEALTH Increased parking congestion Code/ordinance passed. Target: 100 and traffic impacts. parking spaces reduced. LCT-CB Traffic Management System IMPLEMENT LONG 1,075 MEDIUM General Fund HIGH ECONOMY Number of projects completed. Target: and Vehicle Idling ENCOURAGE Grants HEALTH 119,284 gallons of fuel saved. B-2 APPENDIX B -IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX LOW CARBON TRANSPORTATION CO-BENEFITS: GHG FUNDING ECONOMY POTENTIAL UNINTENDED ID Measure ACTION TIME FRAME REDUCTION STAFFING SOURCE CITY CONTROL CONSEQUENCES HOW WE WILL MEASURE PROGRESS EQUITY HEALTH ENCOURAGE ECONOMY More traffic and parking LCT-C9 Smart Growth Development LONG n/a LOW General Fund LOW EQUITY Number of projects completed. REQUIRE HEALTH impacts Decrease in fuel consumption for LCT-C10 Electric Landscape Equipment ENCOURAGE LONG 110 LOW General Fund MEDIUM HEALTH More equipment turnover and landscape equipment as reported in waste OFFROAD models. Target: all leaf blowers are electric. SHORT General Fund Unreliability and maintenance Number and type of vehicles replaced. LCT-Ml Low Emission City Vehicles IMPLEMENT LONG 275 MEDIUM Grants HIGH HEALTH of new technologies Target: 50% reduction in vehicle fleet Rebates gasoline consumption. May create a market for LCT-M2 Low Carbon Fuels IMPLEMENT SHORT 270 LOW General Fund HIGH HEALTH products that are virgin and not Percentage of fuel switched. Target: all just discards. New market diesel consumption is renewable diesel. stabilitv. ECONOMY Number of new employees signed up to LCT-M3 City Employee Commute IMPLEMENT SHORT 20 LOW General Fund MEDIUM EQUITY the programs and using incentives. ENCOURAGE Target: employee commute VMT HEALTH reduced by 60,613 miles. Municipal Electric Landscape More equipment turnover and Percentage of landscape equipment LCT-M4 IMPLEMENT SHORT 5 LOW General Fund HIGH HEALTH replaced. Target: all leaf blowers are Equipment waste replaced with electric versions. TOTALS 37,030 B-3 APPENDIX B -IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX ENERGY EFFICIENCY FUNDING CITY CO-BENEFITS: POTENTIAL UNINTENDED ID Measure ACTION TIME FRAME GHG REDUCTION STAFFING SOURCE CONTROL ECONOMY EQUITY CONSEQUENCES HOW WE WILL MEASURE PROGRESS HEALTH SUPPORT General Fund ECONOMY Target: 1% annual reduction in electricity EE-Cl Energy Efficiency Programs ONGOING 17,335 MEDIUM Grants On-MEDIUM IMPLEMENT Bill Financing EQUITY and natural gas consumption. An energy audit Target: 5% of audited housing units EE-C2 Energy Audits DEVELOP LONG 260 LOW General Fund HIGH ECONOMY requirement could impact implement energy efficiency projects EQUITY the real estate sales resulting in 31% energy savings. process. IMPLEMENT General Fund ECONOMY Difficulty seeing pavement Target: 10% of paved areas converted to EE-C3 Cool Pavement and Roofs DEVELOP LONG 275 LOW HIGH ENCOURAGE Grants EQUITY HEALTH markings and wayfinding high albedo surfaces. General Fund Additional time and cost to EE-C4 Green Building Reach Code REQUIRE SHORT 225 LOW County HIGH HEALTH applicants, unreliability of Reach code ordinance adopted. new technologies. EE-CS Streamline Permit Process and Provide DEVELOP SHORT n/a HIGH General Fund MEDIUM ECONOMY Program implemented. Technical Assistance IMPLEMENT Grants EQUITY HEALTH Capital ECONOMY Target: 4,400 light fixtures converted to ff-Ml Streetlights IMPLEMENT SHORT 110 LOW Improvement HIGH Light pollution. Proe:ram EQUITY HEALTH LED. Complete projects: 1) Interior and Exterior Lighting Upgrades at Capital ECONOMY City Hall, Downtown Library, Parkside EE-M2 Energy Efficiency Audit and Retrofits IMPLEMENT SHORT 45 LOW Improvement HIGH HEALTH Childcare Center, Pickleweed Childcare Program Center, and Fire Stations 54, 55, 56. 2) Programmable thermostat replacements for City Hall. ECONOMY Mismatch to existing Reduce energy use 5% through behavioral EE-M3 Energy Conservation IMPLEMENT SHORT 35 LOW General Fund HIGH HEALTH infrastructure / systems. changes and upgrades to Energy Star equipment. TOTALS 18,280 8-4 APPENDIX B -IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX RENEWABLE ENERGY CO-BENEFITS: ID Measure ACTION TIME FRAME GHG STAFFING FUNDING CITY ECONOMY POTENTIAL UNINTENDED HOW WE WILL MEASURE REDUCTION SOURCE CONTROL EQUITY CONSEQUENCES PROGRESS HEALTH Target: 15% annual growth ENCOURAGE Degradation to habitat and rate for residential and RE-Cl Renewable Energy Generation SUPPORT ONGOING 10,940 LOW General Fund MEDIUM ECONOMY ecosystems for ground-commercial solar energy IMPLEMENT mount solar. systems and 24% market penetration by 2030. SUPPORT Reduces perceived urgency Target: MCE electricity is 100% RE-CZ GHG-Free Electricity LONG 19,560 LOW General Fund MEDIUM ECONOMY HEALTH to complete energy ENCOURAGE efficiency projects. GHG-free by 2025. Target: 23 appliances/ heating SHORT General Fund, Additional cost to property systems electrified in first year RE-C3 Building and Appliance Electrification SUPPORT LONG 895 LOW Grants MEDIUM ECONOMY HEALTH owner/ electrical panel and 25% growth in upgrade installations in each year thereafter. Cost for design and construction of projects General Fund, ECONOMY EQUITY may be higher than for RE-C4 Innovative Technologies DEVELOP LONG n/a MEDIUM Grants HIGH HEALTH proven technologies. May Projects implemented. face a greater risk for technical issues, obstacles, and obsolescence. Solar Energy Systems for Municipal Capital Maintenance issues for Complete 53.4 kW DC project at Rf-Ml Buildings IMPLEMENT SHORT 140 MEDIUM Improvement HIGH ECONOMY panels, roof the Public Safety Building and Program 273 kW DC project at City Hall. Reduces perceived urgency Annual purchase of Deep Green RE-MZ Municipal Deep Green Electricity IMPLEMENT ONGOING 365 LOW General Fund HIGH ECONOMY to complete energy electricity. efficiency projects. TOTALS 31,925 8-5 APPENDIX B -IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX WASE REDUCTION CO-BENEFITS: ID Measure ACTION TIME FRAME GHG FUNDING ECONOMY POTENTIAL UNINTENDED HOW WE WILL MEASURE STAFFING SOURCE CITY CONTROL EQUITY CONSEQUENCES PROGRESS REDUCTION HEALTH Additional costs to MSS and rate Target: outreach to 400 ENCOURAGE SHORT Grants General businesses by 2020, another 600 WR-Cl Commercial Organic Waste SUPPORT LONG 1,505 LOW Fund LOW EQUITY payers. Increased smells and businesses after 2020. 30%of pests. businesses are compliant. WR-Cl Residential Organic Waste ENCOURAGE SHORT 795 MEDIUM Grants, General LOW ECONOMY Increased smells and pests. Target: 5% diversion by 2020 SUPPORT Fund and 50% by 2030. Burdensome for builders; may WR-C3 Construction & Demolition ENCOURAGE SHORT 170 LOW Grants, General MEDIUM ECONOMY deter projects or reduce Target: 50% diversion by 2020 Debris and Self-Haul Waste SUPPORT Fund permits. Increased costs for and 75% by 2030. renters. Space and affordability issues. Target: increase commercial General Fund Backlash to mandates. AB1826 compliance rate to WR-C4 Mandatory Waste Diversion REQUIRE SHORT 2,990 MEDIUM Fees HIGH ECONOMY EQUITY Increased non-franchised 50% and divert 80% of entities soliciting rate payers for residential organic waste by business. 2030. General Fund Unacceptably high costs to rate Target: increase diversion rate WR-CS Waste Processing Infrastructure DEVELOP LONG 4,220 MEDIUM Rate Payers HIGH payers. Decreased diversion due of recoverable organic waste to to perception that sorting is no MSS longer necessary. 95%. WR-C6 Extended Producer Responsibility ENCOURAGE LONG n/a LOW General Fund LOW ECONOMY Transportation impacts from Monitor State regulations. SUPPORT take-back programs. ENCOURAGE Grants General Community education and WR-C7 Inorganic Waste DEVELOP SHORT n/a MEDIUM Fund LOW ECONOMY engagement programs implemented. 50% of recoverable organic waste WR-Ml Waste from Public Facilities IMPLEMENT SHORT 260 LOW Grants General HIGH Increased smells and pests. currently landfilled is diverted by Fund Increased contamination. 2020 and 75% is diverted by 2030. 50% of recoverable organic waste WR-Ml Waste from City Operations ENCOURAGE SHORT 85 HIGH Grants General HIGH Increased smells and pests. currently landfilled is diverted by IMPLEMENT LONG Fund Increased contamination. 2020 and 75% is diverted by 2030. TOTALS 10,025 GOAL: Reduce organic and paper waste disposal by 50% by 2020 and 75% by 2030. SB 1383 established targets to achieve o 50% reduction in organic waste by 2020 ond o 75% reduction by 2025. B-6 APPENDIX B -IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX WATER CONSERVATION CO-BENEFITS: POTENTIAL ACTION GHG STAFFING FUNDING CITY CONTROL ECONOMY HOW WE Will MEASURE ID Measure TIME FRAME REDUCTION SOURCE EQUITY UNINTENDED PROGRESS HEALTH CONSEQUENCES ENCOURAGE Water restrictions may WC-Cl Community Water Use SUPPORT ONGOING 830 LOW General Fund LOW ECONOMY reduce potential for Target: 1% annual water EQUITY carbon sequestration in consumption reduction IMPLEMENT landscapes. Target: 20% reduction in WC-C2 Municipal Water Use IMPLEMENT SHORT <1 MEDIUM General Fund MEDIUM electricity used for irrigation TOTALS 830 B-7 APPENDIX B -IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX SEQUESTRATION AND ADAPTATION CO-BENEFITS: ID Measure ACTION TIME FRAME STAFFING FUNDING CITY CONTROL ECONOMY POTENTIAL UNINTENDED HOW WE Will MEASURE SOURCE EQUITY CONSEQUENCES PROGRESS HEALTH Tree roots may degrade adjacent pavement and sidewalks. Trees ENCOURAGE and vegetation may increase fire General Fund; ECONOMY EQUITY risk in developed areas. Irrigation SA-Cl Urban Forest IMPLEMENT LONG LOW MEDIUM REQUIRE Grants HEALTH requirements may reduce ability to meet water conservation targets. Project costs and time delays. SA-C2 Carbon Sequestration ENCOURAGE LONG MEDIUM General Fund; MEDIUM Unknown effects of new IMPLEMENT Grants technoloRies Carbon offsets may reduce Carbon Offsets ENCOURAGE General Fund perceived urgency for direct SA-C4 DEVELOP LONG LOW LOW action through efficiency, conservation etc. SA-CS Sea level Rise SUPPORT LONG HIGH General Fund, HIGH ECONOMY EQUITY Gentrification Projects implemented. IMPLEMENT Grants SUPPORT SA-C6 Climate Change Adaptation DEVELOP LONG MEDIUM General Fund HIGH ECONOMY EQUITY Projects implemented. IMPLEMENT B-8 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ID Measure ACTION TIME FRAME STAFFING FUNDING SOURCE ENCOURAGE General Fund; CE-Cl Community Education ONGOING LOW SUPPORT Grants SUPPORT CE-C2 Community Engagement IMPLEMENT ONGOING HIGH General Fund DEVELOP CE-C3 Advocacy ENCOURAGE ONGOING LOW General Fund Innovation and Economic ENCOURAGE SHORT General Fund, CE-C4 DEVELOP HIGH Development SUPPORT LONG Grants CE-CS Green Businesses ENCOURAGE SHORT MEDIUM County Funding, SUPPORT LONG General Fund APPENDIX B -IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX CITY CONTROL MEDIUM MEDIUM LOW MEDIUM LOW CO-BENEFITS: ECONOMY EQUITY HEALTH ECONOMY EQUITY HEALTH ECONOMY EQUITY HEALTH ECONOMY EQUITY HEALTH ECONOMY ECONOMY HEALTH POTENTIAL UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES Loss of local control Risks of not having tangible outcomes HOW WE WILL MEASURE PROGRESS Number of people participating in Resilient Neighborhoods and amount of GHG reduced. Results from implemented programs. State legislation enacted. Working group created and results achieved. Number of businesses enrolled in the program each year. B-9 APPENDIX B -IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING ID Measure ACTION TIME STAFFING FUNDING CITY HOW WE WILL MEASURE FRAME SOURCE CONTROL PROGRESS IM-C1 Annual Monitoring IMPLEMENT SHORT LOW General HIGH Annual report and Fund priorities list. Community Inventory General updated annually and IM-Cl Update GHG Emissions Inventories IMPLEMENT SHORT HIGH Fund; HIGH government operations LONG Grants inventory updated every 5 years. IM-C3 Funding Sources IMPLEMENT SHORT MEDIUM General HIGH Amount of funding Fund secured. General Update CCAP to IM-C4 Update the Climate Action Plan IMPLEMENT LONG HIGH Fund; HIGH incorporate new long- Grants term reduction targets. IM-CS Project Compliance Checklist IMPLEMENT SHORT LOW General HIGH Number of projects that Fund comply with checkist. B-10 APPENDIX C-2009 C.C.A.P. PROGRAM STATUS CATEGORY MEASURE DESCRIPTION COMPLETED IN PROGRESS ONGOING NOT STARTED NOTES DEPT LFl (LFl) Implement General Plan policies to City Council accepted the Downtown SMART increase residential and commercial densities Station Area Plan and Civic Center SMRT Area Plan within walking distance of high frequency transit in 2012/13. Both plans include TOD centers and corridors. recommendations, land use changes and X improved bike/ped access and connectivity. These CD recommendations will be addressed in the General Plan 2040 and Downtown Precise Plan, which are underway and are expected to be adopted in 2020. LF2-a (LF2) Encourage the continued funding and Service to San Rafael started in 2017. Currently development of the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail working with SMART to complete the extension to Transit, which will provide residents and X Larkspur. CM employees of San Rafael an additional transportation alternative to single-occupant vehicles. LF2-b (LF2) Modify land uses and transportation Council accepted SMART Civic Center Station Area systems surrounding the future Civic Center Plan in 2013, which includes specific land use SMART Station to improve bicycle and recommendations. These recommendations will pedestrian access to site. be addressed in the General Plan 2040 and Ill Downtown Precise Plan, which are underway and QJ > X are expected to be adopted in 2020. An updated +-' CD Ill Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan was adopted by QJ the City Council in 2018, which includes circulation impacts. The Civic Center Station and Civic Center Drive improvements have been completed, which include complete pedestrian and bicycle improvements. LF3 (LF3) Determine areas in need of sidewalk Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan adopted in 2018. improvements, land use changes, or modified X https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/bicycle-DPW transit stops to create walkable neighborhoods. pedestrian-master-plan/ LF4-a (LF4) Require new mixed-use and commercial To be included in CCAP 2030. These developments to provide space for locating recommendations will be addressed in the future bike sharing stations. X General Plan 2040 and Downtown Precise Plan, CD which are underway and are expected to be adopted in 2020. LF4-b (LF4) Conduct a feasibility study to determine The Marin Countt Bictcle Sharing Feasibilitt Studt the appropriate program scale, costs, and X was completed in 2013. CM locations for bike-sharing stations. LF4-c (LF4) Facilitate the creation of a bike share The Transportation Authority of Marin and program, particularly in the Downtown area. Sonoma Transportation Authority were jointly X awarded $824,000 in funding from MTC in 2017, CM/DPW and are actively pursuing this project for 2019. C-1 APPENDIX C-2009 C.C.A.P. PROGRAM STATUS CATEGORY MEASURE DESCRIPTION COMPLETED IN PROGRESS ONGOING NOT STARTED NOTES DEPT LFS (LFS) Support Marin Transit in the planning, Marin Transit continues to refine services and has funding and implementation of additional implemented 15 minute intervals along major transit services that are cost-effective and X transit routes. CM responsive to existing and future transit demand. LF6 (LF6) Continue to implement sidewalk and Department of Public Works has completed street improvements for the Safe Routes to several projects since 2008 and continues to work School program. Encourage the school districts, with Safe Routes to Schools and other agencies to Marin Transit and the Transportation Authority X identify and implement projects. DPW of Marin to increase funding for school busing programs, promote carpooling and limit vehicle idling. LF7-a (LF7) Continue to implement the adopted Department of Public Works continues to work Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. X with partners and funding agencies to identify and DPW implement projects. LF7-b (LF7) Provide alternate work schedules and This is done on a case-by-case basis depending on telecommuting opportunities. X the need to cover public-facing service counters CM and other on-site needs. LF7-c (LF7) Provide transit and carpool incentives to X Implemented an employee commute alternatives CM City employees. program in 2013. LF8-a (LF8) Promote the use of Alternative Fuel and City promotes programs to employees and Ill Fuel Efficient Vehicles. X general public through a variety of channels, such CM Q) as co-hosting EV ride-and-drive events . Ill LF8-b (LF8) Support regional efforts to encourage City participates in Transportation Authority of Q) widespread availability of charging stations. X Marin's Clean Technology Advisory Working CM :.:::i Group and assists with planning efforts. LF8-c (LF8) Revise parking requirements for private X Adopted August 2014 CD parking facilities to provide charging stations. (LF8) Revise parking requirements for public and Adopted in 2013 by City Council new commercial developments to include designated stalls for low-emitting, fuel-efficient vehicles and carpool/vanpool vehicles for a X CD minimum of 8% of total parking capacity and to pre-wire stalls for future electric vehicle charging stations for 2% of total parking capacity. LF8-d (LF8) Install charging stations for plug-in electric Currently the City has charging infrastructure in vehicles in City garages and parking lots. four City lots and garages with the intention of X adding more as lots and garages are resurfaced. Parking Svcs City Hall lot will receive chargers in 2019 along with solar installation. LF9 (LF9) Adopt a policy to limit City vehicle idling City has a vehicle idling policy. Fire department where practical. Evaluate equipping trucks with X has solar-powered auxiliary electrical systems for DPW an auxiliary electrical system for illumination fire trucks vehicles. and warning signs. LFlO (LFlO) Educate and encourage businesses and X This will be included in new CCAP residents to limit vehicle idling. CM C-2 APPENDIX C-2009 C.C.A.P. PROGRAM STATUS CATEGORY MEASURE DESCRIPTION COMPLETED IN PROGRESS ONGOING NOT STARTED NOTES DEPT LF11 (LFll) Adopt a Zero Waste goal and implement Adopted in 2011 by Resolution. Ongoing efforts to programs to achieve goal in San Rafael. X reduce waste through annual grant programs, CM internships, and work with waste hauler and community. LF12 (LF12) Encourage the Marin County Hazardous The JPA established a landfill and hauler fee to and Solid Waste JPA to establish a landfill X fund waste reduction efforts in 2008. CM "tipping fee" to fund waste reduction efforts. LF13 (LF13) Facilitate a composting program to assist Food to Energy program started by Marin Sanitary and educate residents in home-composting and Service in 2013. Curbside composting for create facilities to convert organic waste (e.g., X residents started in 2010. Curbside composting CM vegetative or food waste) to energy. for commercial and multi-family customers started in 2014. LF14 (LF14) Work with the City's waste franchisee to Rate structure analysis completed in 2014. No create additional incentives in the rate structure further financial incentives were identified. for waste reduction and recycling and expand X However, further outreach and education was CM Vl the range of recycled products if resale markets idenfied and is being implemented. QJ exist. >LF15 (LF15) Adopt a construction debris recycling and Originally adopted in 2011. Revised for Vl reuse ordinance. X compliance with California Green Building Code in CD 2016. LF16 (LF16) Assist in the development of additional Our extremely low vacancy rate in industrial reuse facilities (resale shops, refilling stations, X makes this prohibitive in general. City will assist as CM repair shops, and resource recovery yards). needed and as opportunities arise. LF17 (LF17) Investigate options for banning Bag ordinance adopted in 2014. EPS ordinance nonrecyclable single use items, such as plastic X adopted in 2012. CM bags and polystyrene takeout food containers. LF18 (LF18) Modify the City's purchasing practices Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Policy and policies to become a model for other X adopted in 2013. CM businesses and organizations. LF-GGRS (LF-GGRS) Continue to implement existing City 31 of the City's pool vehicles are hybrids, and 5 of policy to purchase alternative fuel vehicles and the 6 parking vehicles are battery electric. A study increase the efficiency of the vehicle fleet. X is underway to identify all opportunities for DPW greening the fleet as vehicles are replaced every several years. BUl-a (BUl) Participate in the Marin Energy Authority All City (Municipal) accounts were switched to Clean Energy (MCE) Program by switching all Light Green in 2010, and to Deep Green in 2017. City accounts over to the Light Green Option in X CM Vl 2010 and the Deep Green Option by 2020. ""C BUl-b (BUl) Support efforts of Marin Energy City supports their efforts and MEA (Now MCE ·-Authority to increase the proportion of Clean Energy) has been offering these programs. renewable power offered to residents and In addition, the City works with PG&E, CESC and businesses and to provide financial and X others to promote energy efficiency upgrades. CM technical assistance for energy efficiency upgrades. C-3 APPENDIX C-2009 C.C.A.P. PROGRAM STATUS CATEGORY MEASURE DESCRIPTION COMPLETED IN PROGRESS ONGOING NOT STARTED NOTES DEPT BU2 (BU2) Create or participate in an assessment Five Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) district bond financing program to fund X programs authorized to operate in San Rafael in CM installation of renewable energy systems and 2012 and 2013. energy efficiency measures. BU3-a (BU3) Adopt zoning allowances for the location Zoning Ordinance Amendments 14.16.305, 307. of solar collectors in residential zones. X Solar farms intended to generate energy for the CD grid are a conditionally permitted use (where utility facilities lists it). BU3-b (BU3) Adopt zoning allowances for solar farms Adopted zoning regulations for wind turbines on and wind turbines in large commercial parking rooftops of buildings in 2014, but have not lots and rooftops of large buildings. X adopted regulations for solar farms in large CD commercial parking lots. To be included in CCAP 2030 implementation. BU4 (BU4) Require new construction and remodel The City adopted first green building ordinance in projects to comply with policies in the existing 2011 and has subsequently updated it and green building ordinance. adopted California Green Building Code in 2016. X The Building Division will revisit the green building CD standards again in late 2019 when the 2020 State building codes are reviewed and considered for adoption. BUS (BUS) Develop a program to achieve energy Many changes to existing buildings have taken savings in existing buildings, with a goal of place as well as new construction and demolition VI decreasing energy use by 20% as of the year of existing buildings makes it difficult to measure 2020. apples to apples. However, multiple projects have "'C been completed from lighting upgrades to HVAC ·-X DPW ::, replacements, covering the majority of City cc facilities. City undertaking an effort to benchmark all buildings once new Public Safety Center is complete in 2020. BUG (BUG) Continue to implement the City's Green All efforts being conducted. Community water use Building Ordinance requiring water conservation had decreased 17% by 2016. measures in new and remodeled buildings, to coordinate with and support the Marin Municipal Water District in implementation and enforcement of the Water Efficient Landscape X CD Ordinance and to encourage water conservation in existing homes and businesses through the Resilient Neighborhoods and Resilient Businesses programs, to reduce water use by 30% by the year 2020. BU7 (BU7) Facility Energy Audit -Complete an Some audits conducted by Marin Energy Watch energy audit of major City facilities and Partnership. Efforts underway to audit all facilities implement audit recommendations for energy X by 2020. DPW efficiency and renewable energy potential. C-4 APPENDIX C-2009 C.C.A.P. PROGRAM STATUS CATEGORY MEASURE DESCRIPTION COMPLETED IN PROGRESS ONGOING NOT STARTED NOTES DEPT BU-GGRS (BU-GGRS) Recycled Water -Support the City has purple pipe infrastructure in some areas VI installation of purple pipe infrastructure & X of North San Rafael in conjunction with MMWD DPW expanded use of recycled water by the Marin and Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District. C Municipal Water District. ""C ·-BU-GGRS (BU-GGRS) Reduce emissions from heavy-duty This will be included in new CCAP construction equipment by limiting idling and cc X DPW /CD utilizing cleaner fuels, equipment, and vehicles. EN1 (EN1) Increase Tree Plantings -Plant new and The City conducts ongoing tree plantings and retain existing trees to maximize energy maintenance in accordance with its membership conservation and carbon sequestration benefits X in the Tree City USA program, of which the City DPW has been a member for many years. EN2 (EN2) Adopt ordinances to regulate the removal X This measure will be included in the new CCAP. DPW and replacement of significant trees. EN3 (EN3) Update zoning regulations for parking lot In 2011, the City Council adopted zoning landscaping to increase shading and reduce X ordinance amendments to include improve CD thermal gain. regulations and standards for parking lot tree cover. EN4 (EN4) Establish a local carbon offset program to Analysis did not bear out the wisdom of a local support tree planting and maintenance. X offset program due to high level of administration CM and costs involved. +-' ENS (ENS) Encourage the creation of home and The City helped establish two multi-family C community gardens, including possible use of residential community gardens at private C surplus City properties for community gardens. X properties in the Canal Neighborhood in 2010. In CM 0 addition, the City has two community gardens it ·s:manages on City property, one in Terra Linda and C one in the Canal Neighborhood. w ENG (ENG) Continue to promote local farmers The City hosts the Downtown Farmers' Market markets. X Festival from April through September every year ED and promotes it and the Civic Center market, which happens all year long. EN7 (EN7) Develop a program of levee analysis, Done on a case by case basis, no active program including inventorying heights, testing and X at this time. DPW maintaining public and private levees. ENS (ENS) Install a sea level rise monitoring gauge to X Consider as part of a future adaptation planning DPW track changes over time. and monitoring effort for sea level rise. EN9 (EN9) Participate in Marin County's regional Community Development created a Sea Level Rise vulnerability assessment, and prepare a local White Paper, describing the current situation and vulnerability assessment for San Rafael. outlining next steps toward this goal. BCDC pilot risk assessment completed in 2015 and available X on BCDC website. County of Marin completed the CM BayWAVE Vulnerability Assessment. The City partnered in these efforts. http://www. ma rincou nty .org/ma in/baywave/vu In erability-assessment C-5 APPENDIX C-2009 C.C.A.P. PROGRAM STATUS CATEGORY MEASURE DESCRIPTION COMPLETED IN PROGRESS ONGOING NOT STARTED NOTES DEPT EN10 (ENl0) Continue to provide emergency planning X The Fire Department conducts these and the City FD and community awareness. has an active CERT program. EN-GGRS (EN-GGRS) Work with BCDC to monitor sea level Ongoing. The City works with BCDC and other rise and plan for shoreline defense. agencies to monitor and plan for sea level rise. +-' City to prepare a Sea Level Rise Adaptation Report C: to incorporate into the General Plan 2040, which QJ X CD E may incorporate basis development regulations. C: The General Plan 2040 is underway and expected 0 to be adopted in 2020. ·5C: w EN-GGRS (EN-GGRS) Replace Holiday Streetlights with LED Done in 2010 lighting. X DPW EN-GGRS (EN-GGRS) Complete the retrofit of yellow bulb All traffic signal lights switched to LED's in 2015. City traffic signals with LED lighting and retrofit X Streetlights have been replaced over time with DPW streetlights with LED fixtures. the final streetlights being replaced in 2018. ECl (ECl) Continue to promote new green business City participates regularly in the Chamber's Green opportunities. X Business Committee and promotes the County's CM Green Business Program, including having two City facilities certified. EC2 (EC2) Support and encourage green business See ECl opportunities in conjunction with Marin County X CM Green Business Program. EC3 (EC3) Maintain San Rafael's jobs/ housing ratio The City of San Rafael has received approval from and seek to achieve sufficient employment the State for the 2015-2023 Housing Element. The opportunities in San Rafael. Housing Element ensures opportunities for the development of market rate and affordable housing which helps address the jobs/housing ratio. Economic Development staff has been X working with Chamber of Commerce on employer CD retention as well as business recruitment to C: maintain and grow employment base in San 0 Rafael. BioMarin worked with city staff in 2014 to w obtain approvals for the corporate center campus, which increased employment EC4 (EC4) Support the creation of environmentally City staff provides funding and works with the beneficial jobs, particularly for low-income Downtown Streets Team to provide jobs for residents. homeless individuals to sweep the streets around downtown San Rafael. This program reduces non- point source runoff to creeks and streams and X helps homeless residents transition to ED/CD employment. City staff support the Conservation Corps North Bay which engages in projects related to the environment -most Corps members are from low-income backgrounds. Includes local hiring projects such as composting at the Farmers' Market Festival and recycling in the City. C-G APPENDIX C-2009 C.C.A.P. PROGRAM STATUS CATEGORY MEASURE DESCRIPTION COMPLETED IN PROGRESS ONGOING NOT STARTED NOTES DEPT COl (COl) Increase City employees awareness of Employee Green Team developed Environmental climate protection issues, and develop internal Purchasing Policy, adopted in 2013. Employee committees (such as a green purchasing Commute Committee started in 2012. Employee initiative or energy efficiency) to implement Green Team working in all departments to plans. X enhance recycling; City Hall is Green Business CM Certified. City Hall composting started with MSS summer 2014 and is ongoing. City supports Resilient Neighborhoods carbon reduction program and has had three City staff Eco Teams go through the program. CO2 (CO2) Use the City's website and City City works with variety of organizations to publications and work with community promote sustainability efforts such as MMWD, organizations to promote sustainability efforts MCE, the County of Marin and Marin Climate to both residents and businesses. X Energy Partnership, among others. City uses web CM site, social media accounts, NextDoor.com, City Manager's Snapshot and other news and information bulletins to promote sustainability. CO3 (CO3) Partner with other agencies and City has supported and helped sponsor all EcoFair organizations to hold an annual "Green Festival" Marin events and Earth Day Marin events since to promote sustainability efforts. X their inception. EcoFair Marin folded in 2013, but CM City still supports these types of events when they ::::, occur. 0 > C04 (CO4) Advocate for state and federal legislation City continues to send letters supporting or � that advance GHG reductions and other X opposing state and federal legislation related to CM sustainability efforts. sustainability efforts. ::::, E cos (COS) Continue to provide a leadership role with Have served on steering committee of MCEP, E other local governmental agencies to share best including two years as Chair. Worked with Marin practices and successes. waste JPA to develop environmental review and bag ordinances that could be used in all jurisdictions. San Rafael was first city in California to receive Beacon Award for Sustainability from X Institute for Local Government. Developed a Sea CM Level Rise White Paper that other jurisdictions have borrowed from. Provided our GHG Reduction Strategy inventory tool to all local jurisdictions in Marin to do annual inventories. Have been featured on panels and educational events. CO-GGRS (CO-GGRS) Resilient Neighborhoods and City has supported the Resilient Neighborhoods Businesses -Implement the resilient program through funding and in-kind donations neighborhoods and businesses program to and through providing staff and intern support, encourage behavioral changes to reduce carbon X and office space. City implemented Resilient CM emissions through effective education and peer Businesses program in 2011. City has also group support. promoted other similar programs for businesses. C-7 APPENDIX C-2009 C.C.A.P. PROGRAM STATUS CATEGORY MEASURE DESCRIPTION COMPLETED IN PROGRESS ONGOING NOT STARTED NOTES DEPT CO-GGRS (CO-GGRS) Energy Efficiency Outreach City participates in Chamber Green Business Continue to inform businesses and residents of Committee. City developed extensive programs and rebates to conserve energy. sustainability web pages devoted to business. City works with MCE, Bay Area Regional Energy ..c: X Network, Marin Energy Watch Partnership, and CM u others to promote programs and rebates like "' a., Rising Sun Energy Center's Green House Call +-' program, Community Action Marin's energy ::::, efficiency programs, and Resilient Neighborhoods. C: (CO-GGRS) Sustainability circles will be created Resilient Neighborhoods is an ongoing program ::::, E to work through a structured curriculum and supported by the City. Greening for Profit was a E offer households and small businesses one-year program that has been memorialized on 0 opportunities to improve energy and resource a City web site and case studies that the City u use, to reduce waste generation, and to make X makes available on line. City works with various CM more informed purchasing decisions. agencies and the Chamber to help businesses and residents reduce waste, water, energy, and make improvements to various energy and purchasing related activities. IM1 (IM1) Evaluate future development applications City has a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction and the City's Capital Improvement Program Strategy approved by BAAQMD, which carries against compliance with the Climate Change X with it a checklist for compliance for development CD/ DPW C: Action Plan. applications. Cl P currently does not have a formal . Q evaluation tool. To be developed in 2019 . +-' "' +-' IM2 (IM2) Prepare an annual report to the Planning As part of our Greenhouse Gas Reduction C: a., Commission and City Council assessing the X Strategy, a formal presentation is given to City CM E implementation of the Plan. Council annually. a., a.IM3 (IM3) Hire a Sustainability Coordinator to Hired in 2011. E advance efforts to implement the Climate X CM Change Action Plan. IM4 (IM4) Appoint a Sustainability Commission to This measure was replaced by Quarterly advance efforts to implement the Climate X Community Implementation Forums, which are CM Change Action Plan. ongoing. 14 14 31 9 68 NOTES There were 48 regular measures in the original CCAP. This grew to 68 total measures when it was developed into the GHG Reduction Strategy. This was primarily due to breaking measures up into smaller items (a, b, c, etc.) and including some new measures as well (identified by the suffix "-GGRS"). C-B CLIMATE CHANGE ACTION PLAN 2030 COMMUNITY SURVEY RESPONSES AND DRAFT CLIMATE CHANGE ACTION PLAN 2030 COMMENTS SUMMER 2018 THROUGH FEBRUARY 2019 Table of Contents Overview 1 Summary Responses 2 Waste 17 Water 31 Transport 35 Energy 49 Economy and Equity 66 General 75 NextDoor.com Poll Responses 101 October 15, 2018 Council Meeting 102 February 26, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting 102 BAAQMD Comments 103 1 OVERVIEW The following are open-ended comments and responses to the “other” segments of questions from the Climate Change Action Plan (“CCAP”) Survey. These responses were gathered through an online survey as well as in-person engagements at various meetings and events held in the community during the late spring and summer of 2018. These responses and engagement discussions helped inform which measures were included as well as how they were written. They will also help inform the implementation of the CCAP going forward. The Spanish language survey opened June 8. The English language survey opened June 29. The survey closed August 9. The online version of the survey was posted at: https://www.opentownhall.com/portals/302/Issue_6438 There were a total of 8 engagements, meetings and/or community events: • June 8, parent engagement at San Pedro Elementary School end of year Kermes (festival) • July 6, Canal youth and parent engagement at Alcohol Justice meeting • July 12, student solicitation survey via Marin School of Environmental Leadership • July 19, CCAP quarterly implementation forum • July 26, Chamber of Commerce business engagement mixer at VenturePad • August 2, Canal Neighborhood pop-up event at Albert J Boro Community Center • August 22, senior engagement, Goldenaires bingo luncheon, B Street Community Center • September 5, Vietnamese resident survey conducted at senior lunch program, Albert J Boro Community Center In addition, there were two online polls through NextDoor.com, several emails sent out to various City email lists including the City Manager’s Snapshot, and various presentations given at community meetings and events to promote the survey. City employees and department directors were solicited for input, and other jurisdictions and sustainability professionals were consulted as well. A total of 324 survey responses were received, 262 of which were initially submitted online. 98 respondents identified as a San Rafael business owner, manager or employee. Approximately 45 respondents were primarily Spanish-speaking residents; approximately 25 were primarily Vietnamese-speaking residents. All Spanish and Vietnamese language responses were translated into English and included in the online survey and are in the responses container herein. Subsequently, an initial Draft CCAP was presented to the San Rafael City Council on October 15, 2018. 16 members of the public commented on the Draft. City Councilmembers also commented on the Draft. Those comments were also incorporated into the Final Draft CCAP and can be found at the following link: https://cityofsanrafael.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=cityofsanrafael_b6429bc5-1c0e- 4202-b654-ea7436362710.pdf&view=1. 2 SUMMARY RESPONSES 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 WASTE COMMENTS Q. Are there any other ideas you might have to ensure we meet our state goals for composting and recycling more of our waste? Cities should all have the same recycle the same categories of containers. Make all uniform! As a renter I don't pay for this service Ensure pictures on garbage cans are up to date of what is recyclable. Enhanced education on what is or is not recyclable. Stop coupons! Junk mail! How about tapping into methane for energy? Free mulch for residences. Teach kids so they can educate their parents. Education and workshops to stimulate interest and knowledge of what is possible. What is required in all of these is central county leadership. Stop fragmentation! All plastic to recycle Look at what other cities are doing to accomplish this. I think they are able to meet the goals without having to do either of the above. Change the mindset of our law enforcement to consider "littering" as a crime that should be enforced and ticketed (trash from cars/trucks, cigarette butts, overflowing garbage, dumping cans etc...) People are lazy. The fasted way to get a change, and most impactful is if by issuing fines. Increasing rates is punitive to everyone. Those who already do a great job recycling are being punished. Education Was at Costco by food tables at which there were several place with three (red ,green, and blue) trash cans. However, all I saw people doing was throwing all their trash into whichever one was the closet or on the end. I tried to talk to some about it but found many did not understand what the colors meant and many did not speak or read English. Very hard to figure out how to educate the public. At our county Fair they had a person standing by each area with 3 colored cans to show people what to do. Maybe business that create large amounts of food waste from public use should be required to have an employee at the 3 trash can stations???? 18 More clarification on which materials are recyclable and which are not. Some containers have numbers on the back with triangles around them, but may not be made of the right materials. I am not always sure what to do. Start letting us recycle plastic bags like every other city.... Suggest that Council proposes an ordinance to limit single-use foodware items, taking plastics out of the wastestream since there is no market for mixed plastics. All foodware should be compostable, but most significantly, the ordinance should strongly support reusable foodware in ANY establishment that has any seating in it. This would include "take-out" places that still offer some seats to eat at, inside or out. The decision to ban any type of single-use foodware would greatly reduce what is introduced into the wastestream. Also, any packets, utensils, lids, stirrers, etc should be on request only, and adhere to a acceptable materials list issued by the City. These are serious times (collapse of China recycling market opportunities) and serious measures should be taken. I think a lot of people are trying to recycle things that aren't recyclable. That probably make recycling more expensive. A more clear explanation and some videos showing everyday things in question might help. Incentive to reduce single-use items, such as giving out re-usable water bottles. Having more meetings and assemblies at schools starting with young kids to show them how to dispose of items properly and showing them the effects of not recycling and what that means to our ecosystem and our planet. Also, there could be more informative gatherings maybe at parks and such with activities to show people more about recycling. Make it fun and engaging. The easier the process, the more likely the compliance. All packaging needs to be adequately labeled so there is no mystery as to whether it can be recycled or composted. Food waste recycling is a relatively new concept and can be 'messy'. I believe the key to success is still a consistent education program. I also believe commercial food (restaurants, grocery stores, etc.) create the bulk of the food waste that can easily be recycled. The common concerns as a homeowner is that I do not want a smelly recycling container under my sink with decomposing organic materials.. better education at the schools, educating the next generation.. I know that you expend time, money, and energy in public education, but it is still confusing to the average member of the public. I've been a dedicated recycler all my life and I actually READ the literature that comes out, but I'm still unsure about certain things. What about bottle caps? What IS "coated paper"? I need more real-life examples. Clean little graphic depictions only get 19 us so far. In short -- though I hate to say this -- it has to be even easier than it is now for the average (read: non-dedicated recycler) to be able to comply. Manufacturer take back. Reduce packaging. Grocery stores have stopped accepting plastic packaging, wrappers and bags for recycling because of food contamination. This sppeare to be a significant part of my landfill trash. Since the stores sell items in a plastic packaging they should be responsible for taking it back and recycling it. Peel & stick labeling on recycle cans that gives pic's of acceptable items & more importantly not acceptable items. Mailers don't always get to all who contribute to disposing non acceptable items. Your programs are ineffective. Try taking out ads in the Sunday ij and doing more outreach to older people. Clearer directions and people at stations like at the Fair to guide us. You need to have someone go around to people and tell them how to compost and recycle properly. Charge more to people that don’t recycle. If they have the biggest garbage can charge them a lot since that means they don’t recycle. Consider positive incentives as well as negative. So, consider if it's viable to pay people even a small amount for their food waste and other recyclable items so long as they are properly organized and perform an analysis of how much that would cost versus the cost of the specialized equipment and/or the cost of enforcement personnel for an ordinance. Better availability of composting bags that don’t disintegrate in less than a day. I’ve found composting in my green bin to be a bit too much work and messy Educate and set up systems in Senior Housing sites and other group housing areas, to REDUCE and RECYCLE food waste. Smaller trash cans and bigger recycling and compost bins. Rate structure that makes more waste more expensive. Some kind of placard for house or permanent notice on recycle cans to state what no. Plastics allowed, What styrofoam is allowed, what kind of metal is allowed/disallowed (applied to tools, piping, nails, metal 20 Waste of,all kinds if NOT allowed in recycle can). Also for disposal of various light bulbs-- incandescent, Led, fluorescent as they do not all go,to,same can, right???" Billboards/signs of encouragement. PSAs. I think a big barrier is that many people aren’t motivated so build motivation. This is their children’s future wellbeing at stake. I think more education is crucial. The general public is overwhelmed and underinformed. People still just don't understand what can and cannot be composted or recycled. For example, Gotts (in Greenbrae, not San Rafael, I know) offers only recycling and composting bins ; trash cans are hard to find. But they use bioplastic cups and flatware, which as I understand it cannot actually be composted and cannot be recycled. But it all goes in together. We should ban plastic straws and plastic bags at the various farmers' markets. require apartment buildings offer collection of compostibles A campaign to persuade others to shut there car engines when stopped. What I see are people pulling into parking spaces and using their cell phones while idling - 20 minutes or longer. I see this when I am at the laundromat and at grocery stores' parking lots. Encourag Put "pollution tariffs" on plastics and non-compostable items sold in all stores. If you buy something made of plastic (unless it has been made from recycled materials), you should have to pay a fee to cover the costs of recycling it. These fees would go to a city/county/state fund that subsidizes recycling places and promotes businesses that reuse plastics and other non- compostible materials to manufacture products. This way, people might think twice about buying unnecessary plastic "junk". Readopt the every other week pickup since we can't generate enough trash to fill the mandated container . Kitchen scraps are not an issue. We eat practically everything I learned the most about what is recyclable, compostable, etc. from a presentation done at the school I teach at. Know the impact I can make and also what is acceptable and not acceptable helped a lot. I think a greater effort to educate people would be better than more rules. Perhaps an increase in fees to pay for better outreach and education We don't have a green compost bin. We need to ask our landlord, but I think many people who rent may not have them, especially if living in an apartment complex. Concentrate on restaurants. Big producers of food waste. 21 Provide separate smaller recipients for food waste that can be used in kitchens to encourage residents to segregate their food waste from landfill material. Acquire state of ten art recycling tech. What about recycling bins in the parks!! Hello, right outside your window is an opportunity to walk your talk and see your plan in action. Literally, right outside! Our household has gone through a few different solutions for composting until finding something that worked. The City and/or Marin Sanitary Service could include some promotions or recommendations for integrating composting and recycling into household habits. Though some of these products are costly for the average consumer they allow for hygienic ways to include green bins into trashcans. One solution is here: https://www.josephjoseph.com/en- us/totem-60 Marin Sanitary Service/City of San Rafael could promote household solutions or offer incentives/fee rebates for households who prove purchase of certain solutions. Additionally, the current recycling facilities require separation of all recycling types, though some other cities have consolidated recycling containers for both metal and cardboard. Though the upgrade to the facilities might be prohibitively expensive, it would offer a solution to some separation issues." It might help if there were some sort of label on the recycle cans showing what is ok and/or what is not ok. It appears that restaurants/markets produce a lot of food waste. I would encourage requiring those businesses to recycle first. Make composting and recycling easier and clearer. Some people are probably uncomfortable throwing their kitchen scraps in the green can, particularly during the summer when kitchen scraps can become rather fragrant and the inside of the green can begins to look rather nasty. Perhaps some kind of compostable container that people can put their scraps in that might make it easier to compost. People need to assume personal responsibility for their trash. Additional education to the public on recycling properly and the duty to do so. I see many of my neighbors who don’t seem to even try and it’s troubling. Require landlords to provide compost! I want to compose but cannot so I end up having to throw away dirty paper, etc. We try really hard to reduce waste but wish we could do even better. 22 Educational forums to inform folks about proper recycling and composting procedures. Have garbage Co use there money to buy new machines Fine manufacturers of plastic packaging for not producing recyclable plastic packaging. recycle food scraps to be collected by garbage company so they can turn it into compost. Many of us do not have the time or space to do it. There are other areas in California that have a "one bin" system where there are paid staff at the landfill doing a lot of sorting. Everything (on the residential side at least) goes into one bin - all food, recycled, and actual trash items. The city I used to live/work in had this - http://onebigbin.com/ - and this makes it easy for customers to not have to keep track of what is compost-able, recyclable, etc. One of the main reasons I feel that people don't recycle food waste is because of the smell and one more garbage can around the kitchen/office space. Food waste, if it is not regularly disposed of will smell. Are the existing cleaning crews on board with removing food waste into green bins? Reducing the size of the landfill cans you provide to businesses and residents. Maybe that would force them to recycle more if they didn't have the space in their landfill can. More education as well. not currently composting because my apartment complex does not offer it. I also notice people recycling wrong or not at all. Working with large units (like apartments, community living, age in place, etc.) may provide more bang for the buck. Holding the landlords responsible and maybe there own staff will take on educating their occupants and/or pre-sorting, correcting whats wrong. A fine seems like it won't really solve the problem- I know there are other cities that have the option to fine residents if they find a banana peel in the trash. But the fine does not get the banana peel out of the trash. The issue seems to be largely one of convenience. Many families don't have a ready to use compost container in the kitchen- if they did, I'm sure they would be more likely to throw food scraps in it. We should give out free ones to everyone. Apartment living is tough because there may be roaches or other pests that get into these types of food containers so families would rather throw the scraps in the garbage. I had no idea the food scraps were such a big problem in reducing our carbon footprint! I don't compost regularly but I will start now! An ordinance that requires businesses to recycle and compost correctly, and allows the City to issue fines to those that won’t comply Community tours of recycling plant, community education through schools and other events. More information about this problem widely circulated in an education campaign. 23 Have MRCC provide counter top composting containers - of course paid for by consumer There could be guidelines and standards set up for waste that is recyclable and waste that is not in order to help families correctly sort out compost and plastics. Free classes/workshops and volunteer days where people from the community can visit the recycling/compost plants and learn about what happens to recycled goods, where they go, and how they impact the environment. Ensure that all businesses have recycling containers and mandate that they are used properly. For YEARSI have been trying to get McInnis golf course to recycle. Provide containers that are odor-tight. Public classes on composting and recycling that help people overcome the confusion and barriers to composting and recycling. These classes should come to us where we are- like libraries, HOA meeting, or other. There is lots of education for kids, but adults make the decision whether to compost at home, and how contaminated the recycling is- and there are big questions and misconceptions. It's confusing! It is already too cumbersome to recycle ""correctly"" here. The split cans have narrow openings that are awkward to fit larger items. The rules for what items go in which can are byzantine. I don't want 4 different trash cans in my kitchen; it's getting ridiculous! Fines won't change this. Fines will just anger residents and waste people's time. Make it simpler to do the right things and people will change on their own. Sonoma County residents get a single can for many of their recyclables, and it works much better. We want to be good to the environment, but we're busy people!" More green waste bins , I live in a apartment that doesn’t have food wastes bins I compost in the bushes around the building Pictures of what belongs in the bins on the actual bins. I have the hand out in a drawer where it does no good The garbage Co use our money from cans and bottles and cardboard to buy new equipment Education might be expensive but it's the key. I know that I am often unsure about which plastics are recyclable and which are not. Kitchen food scraps - pretty clear. Paper recycling - pretty clear. Cans and bottles - pretty clear. But so much stuff comes in plastic packaging! Triangle 1-5 yes, others no--but what if you can't 24 see a triangle? Also note that we have a fairly high turn-over of residents in apartments near us. They don't know.... People should not count on plastic recycling actually being recycled and therefore, instead of investing in better recycling, we should restrict plastics in stores and help consumers support stores that carry bulk. As you likely know, since China imposed it's National Sword policy in the fall, much of the recycling along the Pacific Coast of the U.S. that formerly went to China has been sitting in landfill. <https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Markets/NationalSword/> San Rafael needs to ban single use plastic and frankly all plastic wrapped items. Our own family has ceased using our landfill bin because we shop in bulk and use glass containers and beeswax wrap to store all food. Grocery stores are the lowest hanging fruit, quite honestly. Lots more publicity. Plenty of well-presented containers with simple instructions in schools (if more kids do it, they will tell their parents to). Fines for any apartment owners that do not put out bins. At my apartment complex they refuse to put green bins out so I have to walk down the street to other apartment complexes that do. Education about the importance to composting kitchen scraps in brochures delivered to door steps. Have friendly neighborhood competitions and the opportunity for those who comply to enter raffles to win prizes. Put up signage with positive messaging that sounds as if we are already in the process of achieving our green goals and that everyone is supportive, kind of like "San Rafael Going Green". I think punishing people who are trying to recycle or compost by fining them is counter- productive. Our condo's containers, while off the street and not easy to access by passers-by, are not under lock and key. Also, my building has many elderly residents that occasionally struggle with understanding the difference between recyclable and non-recyclable items of the same material, including residents with visual impairments. By punishing people by imposing fines, you risk people throwing items away that could be recycled for fear of punishment, and you also end up punishing people who recycled correctly, but have bins located on the street overnight for early-morning pick up that can be used incorrectly, either in error or on purpose, by people that are not vested in getting it right (homeless people who aren't aware of the rules, teen-agers or passers-by that don't know or don't care what the repercussions are to the bin's owners, etc.). In addition to the above, I compost and recycle but am sometimes still confused by what is and is not acceptable. What is acceptable at my workplace (in San Rafael) does not appear to be the same as what is acceptable at my condominium (also in San Rafael). Several of my coworkers that also work and live in Marin county are also confused. This tells me that the educational materials out there are not clear enough. 25 1. Rules on what is and isn't recyclable are way TOO complicated and they change, you need a PhD in ""garbagology"" to comply. There is a need for a way to impart info in a way people can understand and remember. I believe the will is there, especially in Marin, you just need to give peeps the tools to comply. 2. Another issue is that rules vary between cities. For example, what can be recycled in SF can't be recycled in Marin. This further confuses people. Would be handy to have a Statewide rule book! " It seems wishful recycling can be eliminated with clear instructions and perhaps an incentives' program rather than the proposed fines. compost all materials that will decompose, to make soil. see ; mill valley refuse... I think you still need to educate. In the long run that is less costly. A flyer sent to the homes. I could use a health reminder as what can and cannot go in the bins. Please inform us. Knowledge is power and less costly. You need to make recycling easier. I used to live in Mill valley, and they had commingled recycling with very few restrictions. I took the tour of Marin sanitary, and there are so many restrictions it makes recycling confusing. Example only hard plastic, wash all bottles, etc. Look into FastOx gasification project by Sierra Energy in Davis, CA. www.sierraenergycorp.com More education on exactly what can and can't be recycled. The occasional chart is good, but perhaps something more, with an emphasis on the problem of recycling things with contaminates etc. All that is very confusing, and it makes even eager recyclers feel confused and in the wrong. it was my understanding that Marin exceeded other counties in meeting goals. I think the biggest problem with recycling is education and labeling. Fining and punishing people isn't going to change that. I would put available funds toward behavioral marketing and, above all, labeling. Think what you could do to educate people if, say, you collaborated with grocery stores to put a recognizable green label on the shelf sticker of every product that had recyclable packaging? What if you enlisted the help of children to teach their families about recycling and gave them incentives? create a web page with good SEO so that people can type "San Rafael recycling" into google/search engines and the list comes right up. Marin sanitary is great, but a lot of people rent - so they might not have a direct relationship with Marin sanitary or know how to find answers. This list could be on the Marin sanitary site + the city of san rafael site - make it look the same so that it's recognizable. Thanks for this survey! Need garbage cans on the street that have the option for recycling and compost as well as garbage 26 All solids should be separated by the garbage collector. Compostable material should either be separated by the garbage collector or filtered from waste water from sink disposals. Continue to educate the public! I always learn something new with each Marin Sanitary recycling mailer. I think education is (overall) more effective than fines...often people don't know what goes where...it takes time and repetition to create new habits and to learn the proper sorting system." I would vote for the above ordinance for businesses. No way for single person households! Educate and make challenges to encourage people to sort. Explain why and not make it “mandatory” but more of an expectation by showing if a product can be recycled in stores on the tags that tell you the price or in other quick and easy ways so that that extra 10 seconds to choose where to grow each thing away less stressful or challenging Having classes on recycling and home composting for the community. Taxes on trash produced in households. And incentives/ tax deductions for those who recycle/compost Mandatory compost Implement better school recycling and composting systems! Have commercials that give helpful reminders on how to compost and which items go into each recycling bin. Educating the youth! Recycling programs at all schools Start fining people who don't compost,. Or invest in a massive education program to educate the public on the benefits of composting. Require all milk and yoghurt and drinks be sold in reusable glass bottles and susidize the reprocessing and reuse of said bottles I think there is still a lot of confusion about plastic and metal recycling in terms of what can or cannot be recycled. I tend to put anything that I think can be recycled in the brown bin, since I know that the recycling center does go through it. Unfortunately, too many people are TOO LAZY to do a decent job of recycling and trying to reduce waste. I highly recommend that people attend the free waste recycling plant to see what can and should be done with our waste. It was an eye opener to me. I was lucky enough to be in a group with 2 children who took the whole 27 process seriously. We need to get more schools involved, because it is the youth that will do a better job of saving our planet. I live in a complex where the nearest green bin is a block away. We need more bins. Better education on what can be recycled or composted. Compost paper towels used in public or private bathrooms. Have compost bins around the city but this would attact unwanted pests. Tax the rich! And tax the Chamber of Commerce members 25% a year! No, wait, 50%! Marin Sanitary can do more to educate us. I ALWAYS try to recycle, but sometimes just don't know if the product IS recyclable. While the flyers they produce are useful, we have so many products that may or may not be recyclable, it would be useful to have a exhaustive list. Have more recycling & composting containers distributed throughout the city, with usage guidelines clearly posted. Big Belly makes great containers that have solar-powered compactors built in. I would also encourage public outreach/messaging around this. A lot of change can happen just will people being aware. We have people walking by our bins and throwing garbage in out compost. It is hard to stomach getting fined for ofthers’ actions. Make it easier for people to compost. You could even have public compost depots (how it is done in other countries). Some of us do not have the space. More customer education about what products cannot be recycled. Offer small composting containers for residential kitchens. Have the recycler use the money he gets for our glass and can money to buy the equipment themselves Composting! tax one-way plastic items give rebates for home composting More implementation help for composting. The City of San Rafael sites can lead by example. 28 Terra Linda rec center has no composting, despite having multiple events a week at the location with 10s of pizza boxes. City of San Rafael childcare centers do not match the recycling efforts of the schools where they are housed. Who are the offenders? Is it a smallish group that could be targeted with education and outreach? Is it renters, who likely don't get the necessary information from their landlords? Can you identify the group(s) that don't do it correctly so efforts can be focused in ways that reach them? Community comes to mind first, where each block that is able has at least one dedicated composting system in someone's yard where neighbors can add to it. I think it is unlikely for many to be successful, but maybe some. 1st Step Specific information, including pleas, on the lids of each container. 2nd Step Specific warning (beginning with the most egregious) of fines to violators. 3rd Step Actual fines. Have the garbage company develop a furnace that converts plastic into clean energy. Increase awareness of savings Readily available if people recycle enough to switch to smaller garbage bins. Please consult the soil scientists at http://marincarbonproject.org for advice on methods for creating organic compost, which is a vital component for the Carbon Project's very effective carbon capture methodology. The Marin Carbon Project is cited in the County's Climate Action Plan as one of the single most effective methods for reducing atmospheric carbon. what costs are involved? Can we afford it? I would suggest more educational efforts to help those of us who want to recycle correctly to do so--more flyers with bills, articles in the IJ, etc. There really hasn't been much outreach and education about recycling. And it needs to be ongoing. Out of the 8 units where I live, I am the only one that recycles food, and everything else. A program for teaching worm composting with discounted kits to get started. I did this in another county and it was a win-win. the additive castings for the garden were wonderful. Supporting (financially) School programs that teach composting DAILY in the cafeteria and the classrooms, so that kids get in the habit and they get taught to bring it home. Show the film 29 Wasteland to seniors so they can make a difference. Fine people at the dump who bring in compostables mixed with noncompostables and let them know that compostables (should be) free to bring in. Make sure all supermarkets are composting. Set up the program that turns food waste into quality animal feed before composting. Do programs in pre schools and elementary schools and middle schools that teach children what kind of items are not recyclable and why so the children learn what is right, what is correct and what is not. Have science fairs demonstrating recycling and what is OK and what is not. Get the pre-schoolers ages 4 and up, elementary and middle school kids excited about sustainability issues and concerns. Have them work on the world around them--where they live, their neighborhoods, their schools, their after school programs, and make recycling a habit. Kids who recycle will grow up to recycle. A combination of the two seems reasonable. Significant offenders should pay a price and this will further offset the cost of the machinery. Allow for use of bio bags or an alternative for composting in green barrel. Marin Sanitary does not allow bio bags and throwing food in barrels attracts rats and requires cleaning that uses more water and energy than is saved Education through forums like NextDoor and local schools can be helpful. You’d be surprised at the pressure kids put on parents at home! My new gardener says Novato accepts palm in green cans. If San Rafael can't accept palm, maybe offer cash rebates for removal of invasive species like palm (which attracts rats) and eucalyptus (which burns). Also palm can be made into paper, but it overheats if you try to make 2-sided copies. Some people burn palm because of San Rafael's policy. A lot of people throw away batteries and light bulbs because nobody has time to go drop them off. Also in San Rafael, you have to call Marin Sanitary for pricing on various things, and there should be a list on their website for how to deal with specific things like large mattresses and what the specific costs are. Increased education on sorting Compost the garbage that is compostable right here in San Rafael. MSS has plenty of land. They can sell the results to gardeners. Require re-cyclable containers and other things via state law. Milk should come in glass containers, not non-recyclable cardboard. Too little is done to ""persuade"" corporate interests to promote recyclables. But I guess that figures since corporate interests own the politicians 30 Continue to strengthen education programs in public (and private) schools, so the next generation is totally educated and trained to recycle and compost correctly. 31 WATER COMMENTS Q. What might prevent you from doing any of the above? Other Lack of ownership renter I have already done all. N/A Already have drought tolerant plantings in front & back already done the second and third I am a renter and do not want to invest in the property. The biggest area of water waste isn't lawns. Check the science -- it is actually eating animals. Meatless Monday initiatives and reduction is needed. The rest is window dressing. Meat is the elephant in room here -- pls be strategic. We already recycle cans, bottles, food scraps, and other refuse weekly or daily. Think replacement of front lawns (mostly unused by residents) should be required to be replaced/removed. We have alsready done most of the things on your list, so we would need to know what else we should do. I have already upgraded old irrigation systems with new, effective drip. I like the look of lawns and plants and feel they add value to properties in the canals Not my lawn Aesthetics. I'm still 'old school' and believe grass turf looks pleasing. And it's relatively easy to maintain as opposed, I presume, to drought-tolerant landscaping which still requires a couple of hours per week to maintain so that it looks good. Don't have a lawn, don't have an irrigation system. Animal agriculture is a much larger impact on CA's ongoing drought. We need to focus on changing consumer eating habits. Not landscaping. 32 We don't have a lawn We’ve already done the checked items It is done. We just stop watering our “lawn” aka patch of weeds when the drought is worse Please encourage waste water recycling to be used in landscape Very small area that needs water. HOA controls landscaping alreadt done all of the above Already done With young kids I prefer to keep part of my lawn, but have reduced the size of my lawn. I enjoy a lawn for my children to play on, have picnics and the beauty of a lawn. Solutions and systems on how to capture more water should be a top priority. No lawn at my house. I would replace plants with more draught tolerant before adding an irrigation. Already have drought resistant landscaping; and efficient watering system Lawn, irrigation etc not applicable in my case. I have done all the above Our condominium assoc. has already replaced lawn, but hasn't had a water use assessment at least lately. Already planted drought-resistant plants and sod. Not sure how to answer questions if I have already taken steps to address the issue (question above this one). Nothing Change whole garden 33 We have already done all of the above. I'm a renter with low water use. Container gardening, so there’s some emitters it mostly watered by hand I just put a small lawn in with a new irrigation system. We have already put in an efficient system. Not necessary others in 40-unit condo complex I rent my house. I think landlord should pay. He thinks I should pay. I turned off his auto- irrigation and bought my own plants. But the trees suffer. already done them we already do not have a lawn Personal preference for aesthetic landscaping. Have no lawn husband thinks our irrigation system is fine Mostly parents decision I am attempting to do as much as I can, but notice that many people do NOT. SAD! We rent from an asshole. We have already done all three of the above items. already have an efficient system with drought tolerant plants. As well, I use slow grey water to care for my plants. It's just a small patch of lawn and kids play on it. We rent, so the investment is our landlord's decision - but we would support it, and have a pretty good track record of convincing her to do the right thing. Complacency 34 I have no lawn and use a drip system for my plants Don't much water for plants Lawn use minimal, other changes already done, but garden is extensive I already have too many plants that require a lot of time to maintain and relatively not that much lawn area. Lawns actually take less time to maintain. n/a Knowing what to plant and how to group and design it We get usage assessments on City Water bill and stated recommended limits. This question needs an answer: "I am already doing this" Already have done much, don't want to harm the veg. garden. Have already decrease lawn with mulched areas. A green landscape helps prevent fires and is a valuable community asset for providing shade and sinking carbon. Water needs for landscape need to be yard size based and consistent w/preserving trees and happy green shrubs, hopefully natives. Re replacing lawn, it depends on the options that an able me to use the space like a lawn does. Fake grass can be just as bad for environment. I feel uncomfortable having someone from MMWD come to my home. I don't trust them. Lethargy - sorry to admit, because I believe in it, but haven't taken positive action except to remove the lawn. Renter Landlords responsibility 35 TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS What might stop you or get in the way of buying or leasing one? [electric vehicle] Other Have a newer car Getting a PHEV instead. Need more information about specific issues. Have a 2018 Prius 4 Need for a truck at times just don't like them They still use electricity, so it's not a perfect solution. I'd rather use public transportation and bike more often as a means of reducing my emissions. We have cars that we drive at a far below average rate. They regularly pass the emissions test easily. Size for transporting kids/family I would consider it when our current cars need replacement, but not before. don't like the use of batteries... Damage to the environment from the used batteries I already take the train to work. Battery cost and life Our present cars work well - Toyota hybrids I already have a non plug in hybrid. already driving a hybrid civic Safety--most hybrid cars too small for collision defense. they emit less when you count manufacture of battery. Energy has to come from somewhere. Gasoline doesn't require enriched uranium. 36 We are planning to look at the Clarity as our next vehicle. My husband can set up the charging station. This is an interim technology first off. Secondly, more energy is used to manufacture electric vehicles and battery waste is more toxic than the phony carbon dioxide argument. too big of an investment at our age. Not good for trips over about 200 miles Have to order the one I want and be on a waiting list. I have a relatively new car already More information: is buying a brand new car just as polluting as driving a used gas-powered car Over their lifecycles? I don't like most styles EVs don't have the same utility features yet. My vehicles are paid off and I'm not in the market for a new car until 2022. I travel across the country at least once a year and worry about the lack of charging stations Just bought a new car. I don't need a new car however when I do I will explore this option. EVs in my price range are too small for me [long legs & a disability] Would need another vehicle for trips to Phoenix. Batteries don't last that long and they have a negative impact on the environment too - in manufacturing process and disposal. Drive very little! Telecommute and use transit. Poor driving expirience, lack of additional parking (want to keep my gas as well) Cyrrently awaiting delivery of my EV I already have one Why is that not an option above? I run my car on bio-fuel so I don't feel too badly about my transport. 37 I live in a triplex that has 1 meter so we already are overcharged in our bill for electicity. Life cycle cost We do not drive that much, my wife works from home and I am retired Waiting for better battery life I drive a non electric hybrid Prius and my partner drives an all electric plug-in Nissan Leaf. I don't want a new car or car payments and we need one car that isn't limited by EV battery range. I drive a lot for work and carry clients. Therefore I feel safer in a larger car. concern of where energy is coming from e cars don't pencil out financially until gas gets to ~ $5/gallon. Distance is still a major constraint, I did an analysis on my trips and the majority exceed charge distance Own an EV Cost of replacing battery and maintaining the vehicle I am 80 years old and fighting a battle with a chronic illness. Nothing, we have a Nissan Leaf electric vehicle, and a Prius plug in for longer trips. Using more electricity does not solve the problem and is an expensive choice I don't drive enough. The cars we have will go another 10 years and I don't see us replacing them until their time is done I only drive about 3000 miles a year. And walk whenever I can. we have prius, (2011 ) in a few years would consider plug in Hybrid like volt Tesla's problems with battery fires concerns me, since battery fires seem to happen on phones, IPads, Vaping sticks, etc. Benefits for installing solar to help offset cost for charging EV. EV's and plug-in need a 5,000 mile range I'm driving my old Civic into the ground. Building cars also costs CO2. 38 Our 11 and 13 year old Toyota hybrids still work great! That vehicle doesn't exist; what about power, performance Poor quality of these vehicles and the fact that the brands I Prefer don’t have tgem Cost to replace/recycle battery Long term ownership reliability and cost to maintain. Lack of plug in pickup track Don't want to buy into technology that will not endure AGAIN ! WE NEED "ALREADY DO" as an offered answer ! I like my current vehicles Need ev pickup truck options Concern about Tesla safety and quality. Vehicle size Of the ones I checked, the main issue has been cost. We looked into a hybrid a few years ago and it was impossible to cost justify. I worry about batteries exploding. I have an older car, and I'm not looking forward to having higher maintenance costs due to the amount of computer technology in newer cars. We are buying one in the VERY near future Q. Thinking about you and people you know, please check the top 3 items that you think the City could do to help increase ownership of Electric Vehicles. Other Make the SMART train available at night Zip cars? For external use. What to do about getting students into buses and out of cars. 1/3 of all Marin's traffic problems are based on student commute patterns. keep EVs small Sponsor drive sharing companies as is being developed in Sacramento. 39 none of the above When EV's are at the same price point as IC's I'll be interested. Rebates are unfair to the lower economic levels of society. That's if there are any low income people left in San Rafael. Taxpayers or the City should not fund charging stations! Tax and economic incentives already exist to promote hybrid and electric vehicles If possible, require Uber, Lyft and local taxis working in San Rafael to be electric vehicles. Offer incentives Mind your own business.I can buy a van for two grand and run it into the ground. That is green in my book. Leave it alone. It's nothing but a UN "Safe Cities Initiative" boondoggle. Let the market work, when they are effective they will be used more. fund the ownership increase by VOLUNTEER donations. NO city money for any of the above. Don’t spend city money on this. Begin to transition all city vehicles to electric vehicles with the exception of Patrol Cars, Fire Trucks and DPW trucks. Phase in EV charging stations at all empl. parking lots to encourage employees buying EV. Buy EV, get a city charging station. Not convinced that rebates are the most cost effective way to address this. Raise costs for dirty vehicles... carbon tax, local toll. more rapid charging stations are the key none. Electricity is not free and its generation, vehicle/battery manufacture and disposal is poluting. Its a false choice. Ask the people who own EVs. They're the only ones who really know what's needed. Free charging will go a long way but also have incentives to install solar to offset cost of charging vehicle at home and elsewhere. Fine everyone who does NOT have one a LOT of money. Especially city council members. 40 Need more info on EVs - People are skeptical. Stories about batteries exploding, lack of a long track record for EVs, & concerns about electricity coming from coal-fired power plants all contribute. stop incentivizing rich people Nothing is "free." San Rafael cannot afford the above rebates. Also how about just allowing homeowners to install charging stations without having to pay city fees like permit fees. Offer driving classes for adults in Spanish Driving classes for adults Offer classes for Latin Youth Offer extensive classes about environmental problems Lower fees for using busses and the train to incentivize increase use. I would happily use public transportation instead of driving if it were more affordable and frequent, i.e.: To take the bus home today, I must wait around for an hour after work. Offer free parking for electric vehicles in any space! Nothing. Existing vehicle doesn’t need replacing yet. Want a used one that is more current tech so waiting a few years. Q. If you don’t already get to school or work by taking the bus, walking, biking, carpooling, and/or telecommuting, what stops you from doing one of these options more often? Other Lack of convenience, time, location and privacy Limited ability to bicycle. Like the flexibility and convenience. Air quality and traffic safety retired Retired seniors doing little driving in our Prius 41 I carpool most days, otherwise convenience and cost prevent me from train/bus Need to take my dog to and from daycare. I sometimes need my car for work, but not always. More bike lanes would encourage me to bike to work more often! retired, not employed on shift work. sometimes need my car to go between work stations Both of us are retired. We drive to do errands and for entertainment. We do most of shopping within 5 miles of our house. N/A I am retired, only use car few days per week by combining trips. lack of flexibility. I regularly transport equipment and cannot take public transportation. The timing is off slightly going from bus to smart train. Smart train to bus timing is ok, but figuring out bus to smart train is difficult. lack of good transit options to East Bay Costs. It needs to be cheaper. Since the true costs of auto ownership and use is 'hidden', we need to make all public transit essentially 'free' (You asked for 'big ' ideas!) Unsafe broken sidewalks I carpool as often as possible. My work often requires my car to purchase supplies for next day projects. Don't necessarily work hours that are convenient on public transport. Errands with several stops Inconvenient; it comes infrequently I’m retired. I use my non plug in hybrid for errands I work off hours or telecommute 42 Transit options in my area are limited and time consuming, a 10 minute trip by car can take 40 minutes by transit already walk to work My commute drive is the only time I have to myself. Am retired now but took GGT bus into SF for 15 years. I would rather drink paint than be a pedestrian. Need to make stops to drop off kids at childcare before getting to work I already ride my bike or bus a lot. Safer biking and walking conditions would be a plus. Retired don’t work This is an individual choice. Already ride a bike. being retired, we don't have commuter needs. We do take the Smart train, bus or ferry from time to time. I bike or walk do not work- retired Retired work at home. I'm retired not sure I could do work tasks at home Doesn't work with dropping babies/children off on the way to work having access to a vehichle to run errands during breaks is important, as well as appointments, if a kid gets sick and needs to be picked up. I live in San Rafael. PT would take way longer to get to work. I have three kids going to separate places -- taking public transit seems an impossible option for family. 43 I bike to work when i don't need my car The weather is often cold in the mornings. I am a single working mom and have a time sensitive schedule. Have to drive kids to school, then work (skip lunch) so I can get off early to pick up kids from school More people would take public transport if it ran more frequently and was closer to where people need to go how to get from destination station to actual destination? I have to make too many stops, like drop child off at school and then get to work. Besides not having a bike lane route to work, the street has gravel and broken glass along the sides which makes it less enticing as an option. Plus my work doesn’t have a good spot for me to lock my bike. Do not commute My husband rides his bicycle to work. I'm retired--walk to do errands when practical. need to transport child to/from school en route Difficulty walking I bike my 4th grader to school on days when I don't work in SF. Let's please get BART in Marin so I don't have to drive anymore. The ferry takes too long, is too expensive, doesn't go to my job and I get sea sick. I work at a dog-friendly workplace, can't take the dog on public transit. i don't commute (have a home office) Use my EV to commute More flexibility with schedule having my own car Retired age, ease of mobility, and stamina Can't get to transit, Its inefficient. Finiancial support of its infrastructure is excessive.. 44 I work from home, and my husband works for Uber. It's hard enough to afford to live here without taking away jobs from Uber drivers. Uber will go away soon with the advent of self driving vehicles. What will you do to create more jobs for people over 60? I work from home i take the train to & from work 5 days would take sat & sun but know early train service need to drive to work week end 2 days Too infrequent and too high cost. I carpool and telecommute Retired retired retired Too long of a walk / bike ride in the morning I already carpool everyday! Transit schedules and commuter car pools don't match my irregular work start/stop schedule This is a disgustingly reprehensible question What about SR residents who work at home? Or who are retired? inadequate, infrequent and indirect public transportation Transit runs too infrequently and not late enough at night. I commute to the East Bay. Public transportation triples my commute. There should be direct service that does not meander thru San Rafael. Don't forget that people have to deal with destination transport too. Getting on should be the short leg. I do multiple errands - shop, pick up kids, drive 1.5 miles to movie public transit in Marin is a joke. I have employees who dont' have cars, & they have chronic difficulty with public transit. We are in a major shopping center, yet they have to take 2 busses to reach us. If 1st is late (happens often), they miss the 2nd. Come on, I work at home, as do many of us. 45 No way. I’m driving. I pay my taxes and I pay for the cost of my car and insurance. I walk for exercise. No reasonable public transportation to work in San Ramon SMART's schedule is too limited work from home, so therefore no commute Roads aren't safe enough for my kids to bike everywhere, so I have to drive to pick them up. AGAIN ! WE NEED "ALREADY DO" as an offered answer ! Hard to bike in bad weather. I'm a licensed contractor and require my truck for getting to and from job sites and material suppliers. Please remember the train generates more emissions than it abates I want to drive my car. lack of secure bike parking Difficult to find carpool opportunities for school transport. Would LOVE to not have to drive my kids to school. Would LOVE to get school traffic off the roads!! I'm glad to see Marin transit is starting to offer individually-tailored rides. I have too much to carry to be able to use public transportation to work. Increase amount of bike parking and septate lanes. Q. Thinking of your daily commute, what could the City or transit companies do to help you get to work and school without driving alone, and to use options like taking the bus, walking, biking, carpooling, and telecommuting? Other Bike sharing program. Car share program in and around SR. Make riding bus more efficient, takes too long. Richmond Bridge/East Bay commute. Better promotion of transit options and benefits. Encourage carpooling! Honestly I like my own car and space. 46 the only way you are going to get mainstream Marinites in transit is to make it easier and more economical as long as it doesn't take more time offer transportation to shopping, grocery, etc. that is more direct I have tools. Need a vehicle Don't support S-train boondoggle of $900,000 cost per passenger. Require school bus use. Do survey on peoples driving patterns and find out why solo driving is necessary. Maybe from that, solution will be more obvious. We live on a steep hill. Driving car is best option. Need better ways to get kids to school en mass. Electric bus service and dedicated bus routes from key housing areas to the main high schools and middle schools. For me to take the bus to the Presidio, it would need to be incredibly convenient;leaving every 5 minutes during commute times Encourage carpooling Make mass transit a much more pleasant experience than it is now. Gass, grass or ass, no one rides for free I live close to my work and almost always have to run errands after work. Figure out how to make it as convinent as driving. do not go to school or work If there were a bike line down 101 from Novato, I would ride a bike. Provide more motorcycle and moped friendly infrastructure. Job requires a city vehicle which is also a take home car. I work at a City facility that has limited bus service As said, I can't imagine wrangling 3 kids through public transport, however, perhaps an electric bike loaner program? I might be willing to explore commuting if I could use an electric bike and there were safety lanes. 47 improve ease of commuting on multiple transit routes (train to ferry) make transportation available at transit stations to get to final destinations Learn from Lyft and Uber. Move to fleet of small busses that can be hailed online and linked to a credit card. Routes and costs could be ride-share dynamic. I would feel safer riding that than Uber. They would be electric, of course. Bus system is good, could be made more reliable, frequent, faster, routes, etc. Install bike share- GoBike. Need more express buses direct to SF main work sites Make school buses free; encourage schools to prohibit parents driving kids to school; install bike lanes & create a transportation plan that prioritizes biking, walking & transit. Run more buses & make them cheaper. Put in BART in Marin. shuttles from train peeps opt for uber/Lyft because it's convenient, public transit isn't convenient Have better intermodal connections. Gas tax for all bay area, to pay for transit, it worked in vancouver... Retired Education & incentives on existing options. Mobile app. better week end scheduling for train & bus service more hours of to & from I do carpool to some activities, do chores usually drive along nearby in prius Making more routes that are enjoyable and safe off of main roads Retired Cost of trip is important as well as convenience and reliability of system for running errands after work. Take away private cars that use gas 48 Transit needs to be responsive to the needs of the public, easier to get from origin to destination in a timely way. Bicycle infrastructure needs to be connected without gaps, safe and separated from cars. Walking needs to be a comfortable, safe option. No bridge tolls for carpools of 3 or more Extend frequencies outside of traditional operating hours. GGT is useless (other than the ferry, which I often take) after 6:00 p.m. Also of minimal use before 6:00 a.m. Increase SMART service Create entirely separate (not shared with autos) express bike paths Improve coordination of traffic lights so cars don’t wait and pollute at every north or south bound street. More flexible small bus shuttles with side doors to improve access. Use cell phone data to predict popular routes. Build more housing near services (grocery) not transit centers. Allow retired, disabled, seniors to ride public transportation for free Nothing provide secure bike parking around the city Provide school buses and make it painful for people to drive their kids to school Provide an annual transit pass for all systems Have more public service closer to work Use a bike more frequently The City should have a public transportation service like the Muni in San Francisco It is necessary to have a car since the busses do not operate at all hours for us to arrive to work. Launch awareness campaign aimed at kids to promote taking the bus. And make bus to school cool! (and available) Need to recognize the requirements of those in the gig economy 49 ENERGY COMMENTS Q. Do you have any appliances that are more than 10 years old and may be inefficient? If you answered yes, I have an old... Other Lack of ownership, renter. oven/range old gas stove trunk freezer chest freezer swimming pool filter and heater ; very old and very expensive to replace Appliances are from 2005 and were efficient at the time: no AC, new heater and water Stove Oven I'm uncertain of the age of each I'm not sure. I bought my place in August '17. I'm slowly assesing appliances with a mind to replacing them if necessary, and we just got solar panels installed & are awaiting PG&E approval to run them. oven/stove/microwave stove We bought new appliances and replaced water heater when we moved into our new home .12 years ago. They all work great, will replace with newer efficiency models when they die. Washer and dryer less than 10 years old. Stove I have incandescent lights in some places because I like the quality of the light better. 50 Q. Do you have any interest in possibly upgrading or replacing current inefficient appliances and systems in your home or business? What are the 1-2 most important factors that might keep you from doing it? Other current still work current still work Units aren't quite old enough yet to replace All new 5 years Renting an apartment who supplies all appliances It does not need to be replaced yet. Our house was new in 2015. As a renter, I do not want to invest in the property I will replace them when they break. Older appliances are generally more reliable than newer ones AND, unlike newer solid-state appliances, older ones are relatively easy for DIY fixing. renter We will replace them when it is necessary. If it ain't broke.... A new refrigerator would need to fit in our current space. The house was built with a specific alcove for the refrigerator. Landlord decides will be remodeling kitchen with new appliances Not applicable D/w swap out awaiting remodel of kitchen. Led bulb swap out is info shortage related. Also, apt owners & business's should be required to get energy consumption audits. Rebates for business that invest in all led lighting. It's wasteful to throw out a good working appliance or anything I rent and am not able to make upgrades rented senior facility 51 Done! Built in obsolescence ; it's terrible to think you should replace major appliances every ten years! It is done. Renting - my worry is if there is a requirement to replace these appliances, rental rates could become even more unreasonable than they already are. Not a fan of intrusive "smart" technology. It would lead to a complete kitchen remodel ... which we are not ready to do. I have relatively new appliances. Selected for high efficiency at time of purchase. just replacing a perfectly working old appliance might create more waste and pollution. Need real data to make a decision. Not just a wishful thinking. Space - can't fit new efficient model washer and dryer in available space In my previous home, when I bought new appliances, they were ALL lemons! New appliances may be energy efficient, but are built to break and break sooner. If these appliances end up in landfill, how energy efficient is that? I am a renter I am a renter renting (don't own, only use) I am a renter My appliance are new. they still work!!! Space: our refrigerator is bulky don't know how inefficient ones that now fit a difficult space are Just did a major remodel 3 years ago. All new appliances. Would consider upgrading to the next, new technology. They still work- so hard to invest in new ones Landlord Might be much more than just replacing heater 52 I hate throwing out things that are working just fine. I rent I have asked the apartment complex owner and they do not want to. The same with solar panels because they say building codes would require them to do so much more at the same time. I think that was an excuse and it is pur business decision. Landlord unlikely to replace Waiting for teen to get older before remodeling Planning a kitchen remodel for 2019 I have been upgrading as I can afford it. I hope to be able to afford new AC before next summer. newer appliances are poorly made and the HE units don't get clothes clean. Technological advancements need to be made before I will even consider purchasing rental I rent and do not take appliances with me we have solar electric that powers the house. My landlord is too cheap. When I replace appliances I purchase energy efficient ones. Heating unit will be a large project to tackle due to location New equipment fitting in existing space. Please see earlier note as to landlord LED lights are not bright enough for me to see, and are PAINFULLY blue all are fairly new you should be asking if we rent. and also, light bulbs don't belong on the list. All ate working fine and seem to be efficient. We are low use pge customers I think we upgraded everything we could except a 20 year old AC system that works and we were advised not to replace unless we had to 53 Life of newer appliances Landlord owns these appliances. We replaced half of our lights with LEDs and will likely replace the rest before fall Waiting for the old one to die all new I believe my washer and dryer are energy and water efficient I'm a renter. My refrigerator was switched out over 10 years ago by PG&E. Renter, no control Waiting until current units do not work or need repair. I have a built-in fridge, so it may be hard to find a replacement that fits the space. We have replaced all with energy efficient LEDs, appliances Q. Why might you be likely to purchase the 100% clean electricity option? Other We are 100% locals. oh baby! We already have to contribute to clean energy It might incentivize me to use less electricity at home, but feel better about the electricity I do have to use. I might from PG&E; if that is where the money went. But never from MCE: just another money making middle man. already done this Reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases Not likely. Electricity from alternatives such as solar, wind, etc. are extraordinarily inefficient and not sustainable. Without subsidization, these alternatives would exist only as hobbies for those who like to tinker. 54 If our house were oriented so that we receive at least 8 hours of solar we could probably install solar. Form/instruciton to fill out or sign up included in with every monthly PG&E bill so more might be likely to do so I have done it I think it's the right thing to do and doesn't sound like it costs too much. To help with climate change issues. To walk the talk. Our organization is conservation oriented. I already have MCE deep green since the beginning. If it was the same cost. It is more environmentally responsible and important to do what I can to maintain low emissions concern for our environment I'm an environmentalist who supports renewable energy solutions. Cost. Slightly more is not true! The utility company should provide clean electrity as the standard option. Clean energy is important enough for that. However, I'd want a good explanation of how these are truly "clean" options. MCE is a fraud For enviroment!! If it does not cost more, and/or is more energy efficient Right thing to do If it's truly 100%; currently I'm on the partially-clean program with MCE. It's right action. 55 If i believed it actually made a difference and wasn't just virtue signaling. So, some independent demonstration that it isn't just a shell game that shifts the emissions elsewhere. It’s the right thing to do I have it. The extra cost is so small I’m willing to pay the extra amount I did in the past Clean air Cleaner aligns with my values If it cost less It's a no brainer for those that can afford it. Hydro Electric is clean energy. So is solar. Wind energy is inefficient, unsightful and dangerous to wildlife. Reduce emissions Because I care about the earth When it is produced by MCE not by trading credits. When it is really made from new sources not just repurposed from existing power companies More information It's the right thing, even if it costs more. Never I already do because it is worth it to pay extra! To help our planet If the cost is not significant and if there is no difference in service I see no reason NOT to go this route & reduce emissions Slow climate change 56 To feel like I am at least doing something about climate change It's better for the environment Cost is reasonable for the clean energy used. A huge incentive -- it's just too expensive to install. because it is cleaner To help reduce greenhouse gas emissions little by little. Because I want to help the state reach its climate goals. If it didn't cost more If the cost increase was truly only $2-$10 month. political affiliation, principle It's such an easy way to to cut my emissions. If the "normal" energy option was significantly worse (like coal, which we do not use in this region), I'd be more motivated to not use it Because it’s better for the environment Cheaper Reduce my impacts on GCC and air/water pollution Support efforts toward greater sustainability It helps energy efficiency Done it already! I did a long time ago because I know it is ultimately much less expensive and practically, it is currently cheaper than if I opt-out and went with PG&E Already did because I had the opportunity and it was easy. Guilt 57 I already do. better for the earth to help the environment its not nuclear. Already do. Live in a condo. I feel like condos should be required to have solar. Our board is an older board and they are reluctant when it comes to greener options. It’s always a fight. Can you do some educational outreach to HOA boards. we need to think of the future and the next generation in consideration of future generations I already have solar on my home If my landlord covered the extra cost. We did buy it and are very happy with our choice. It feels good to be doing less harm to the environment and the community. If the costs come down. Better for the environment better for my children Reduce pollution We have solar panels and we are part of MCE's Deep Green program...we feel great about spending a bit more to support sustainable energy! we have solar and don't pay for electricity Because it is cheaper and better for the env. It is bettet for the environment I care about my carbon footprint and given there is this opportunity, I will highly consider it. Less money. 58 Benefits the environment Lightbulbs To save there environment I am deep green, already have it Want to be more efficient and save what we can of our environment Equivalent costs. My financial system recently improved and now I can absorb the extra cost. I can finally afford teh higher cost option Easy and financially insignificant. It was the right thing to do! It helps create demand for clean energy, & the cost difference is minimal I care about our environment. If it was the only option available--which would be fine. Anyway are you sure the grid works that way? (it doesn't). Also no electricity is "100% clean." It’s a small easy thing to do for maybe $10 more monthly. We have it If it truly was cleaner energy. It just shifts so called clean energy production To help direct more finance towards a low carbon economy Cannot install solar panels on the house that I rent. To save our planet for future generations Solar panels I already purchase Deep Green. 59 protect the environment done I already have. Reducing my carbon footprint is critically important to me. do my part to reduce greenhouse gases & encourage the industry love our worlds' gifts The goal is important. Care about life on earth after me It will help toward climate change by reducing carbon. If I knew that PG&E was not giving the extra money to stockholders rather than actually investing it in decentralized clean energy production and safety measures. I’m not likely. Cost is a major consideration Give the landlords monetary savings to invest in solar and wind and have them pass along the savings what tenants pay for utilities on the bills which will be less. Clean and green for a minimal cost To help reduce my household emissions. Easy way to help environment Climate change Easy and cheap way to do my part It's a scam (MCE) If it were truly "clean," I'd go for it. Q. Why might you NOT be likely to purchase the 100% clean electricity option? Other Concerns about not consistent rates How much more cost? What is the measurable difference in greener energy vs the cost? Cost drives behavior 60 costs Cost Might be tough to convince my partner it's worth the cost. No way to track the money. We installed solar panels and have a PowerWall expensive These alternatives are considerably more expensive than "$2 to $10 more per month" when subsidies, paid for by taxpayers, are taken into account. Our roof has much less exposure than 8 hours. Cost Our electric bill is $400/month already Monthly utility bill should show comparison of how much polution (footprint) your usage created compaired to what it would have been if signed up for 100% and how little extra it would have costs. The cost. Because we are an already-struggling non-profit organization. I have one incoming wire, same electricity. Cost additional cost Afraid that my responsible actions will not 'make a difference' to counter less-than-responsible actions by others. Same as above Insufficient explanation of the service and why it's clean and costs more. PGE does not offer it and it is not locally sourced 61 It is 'greenwashing'. Not an option! If it costs more Cost is higher Extra cost Because it may not actually cause the outcome to be less emissions because it shifts the emissions elsewhere. N/A Senior Residential facility Cost is increased NA cost and/or hassle not sure what my options are as a renter It's complicated. A good system shouldn't depend on volunteering and revolutionary fervor. Because MCE is a feel good pension scam. Rent is already high. Increased cost. Cost Cost People don't want to give more money to PG&E if they don't have to. It isn't real new clean energy it is just power that someone else would use. I already generate my own electricity from solar. 62 I don’t believe it No reason - I do it already No transparency in the process. No education from MCE and PG&E to easily explain how "clean energy" is transmitted to my home instead of "regular" electricity. cost Already have home solar I have heard bad things about MCE from customers who have switched. I don't know if their rates are actually lower than PG&E. I would like to have more transparency about MCE operations. It is PG&E that maintains all of the facilities and I would rather see my money going to them Expensive to install. Cost or lack of knowledge on exactly how 100% clean electricity works. Costs Because I am under 18 costs more I do not trust MCE. Their billing methods concealed their true costs. I left them when I discovered I was paying a 20-30% premium over PG&E. That's $50-100/month. cost, political affiliation Cost, and it's unclear how to switch. Make it cheaper, make it obvious how to switch, get the word out, and I'll do it I am installing solar Not cheaper Living in a duplex with one meter means we are charged for going over the one home limit which makes our bill even higher I'm not the decision maker in my household 63 Cost Not sure if it really does any good. Does this just mean that other users have a bit less clean energy in their mix? It is SO EXPENSIVE. Way more than what I paid when I lived in SF. Transmission fees alone are $40/month. My whole PG&E bill in SF was $20/month, except in winter when it was $80/month costs more money we are a co-op, we have been looking at options but I believe cost has been a barrier. cost the cost is more than a little pge surchage Have solar panels on property I rent and will not be here for the 10 years it takes to qualify for no extra costs. Already have solar electric. "clean energy" includes energy credits from poluting companies. There is no evidence it reduces polution. My costs keep rising and pay is stagnant. I'm earning less now than I did a few years ago because of ageism. I don't know how much longer we're going to be able to stay here. If you include nuclear, hydro and solar, PG&E is already green. Cost Cost Because although it pays itself off over time it still is an exepebsive down payment It might be morse expensive The expenses/maybe not as reliable Time. Cost 64 Cost!! Cost cost and future costs due to policies of the current GOP administration. Costs See above. Complacency I use very little electricity compared to most efficient homes by old fashioned electricity savings and using sun where possible. Costs need to be full accounted for. Clean energy often gets subsidies so not on equal basis. Cost. If there is a large cost difference from the old utility. I don’t support MCE because I view it as financially risky for the Cities and Counties involved. Plus, I have solar. N/A Cost, but will still likely purchase 100% clean every now that I know about it We already have solar and have ordered a home battery. ambivalence or fear of changing the status quo I know people who have decided not to due to cost. if it cost a lot more dna They are not really using clean energy. Cost 65 Both MCE and PG&E still rely on fossil fuel production for the majority of energy they supply. By segregating a portion to 100% clean electricity they are engaging in a type of shell game. The state has to make a major shift to clean energy, stop fracking in the state and resist all federal attempts to drill for oil off the California coast. No reason Have to discuss with others in this home. Doing a lot already. Fixed low income. I’m not likely. Cost is a major consideration Senior; retired on fixed income I don't know much about it. If it was too expensive, i.e. over $5/mo. I don't pay the bills. Lack of trust of utility company If I thought it was green washing My electricity bill is already so high. Only if it were truly "clean" 66 ECONOMY and EQUITY COMMENTS Q. Is there anything else to benefit our local residents and economy, and to make sure no one in our community is left out or is impacted in a negative way? Pest prevention IPM techniques. With a local recycling facility...then recycling into social enterprise. Minimize barriers (e.g.: setbacks) to roof top solar. Great jobs program Does the initiative create jobs or remove jobs Entrepreneur start up support for undeserved populations in San Rafael. Embed sustainability education in all levels of education. I do not believe that we as a City should be spending City resources to increase social equity We should make walking around the city easier for residents. For example, Canal residents have to walk/bike/drive/bus all the way around West Francisco to get to San Rafael High School when a footbridge could cut down on their access and time to get to that part of town. I'm sure there are other places where this is the case, too. Many low income residents walk, which is also environmentally friendly, so we should be making that safer and easier! I am not low income, but if it were safer and more enjoyable, I would walk more too. A Local building materials reuse center for contractors and property owners to donate and purchase things like used windows, appliances, plumbing equipment, bath tubs, etc. All the above! Reuse of materials and items is one way of helping the environment. Maybe an annual “flea market” would help deter usable items from going into the dump. Also a free semi annual curbside pick up of green yard cuttings etc would help/motivate customers to do a big cleanup and/or maintenance of their property/yard. Many hire gardeners or people to help take yard waste to the dump because it is more than their green can holds. So this waste can be composted but isn’t because of this. This cleanup will also help motivate residents to clear their properties for more defensible space for fires and will help beautify properties and raise property values. Yes -- programs to reduce meat eating are the largest way to build social equity and stop climate change. 67 Hard to educate current adults one at a time. Let's have more education programs in our schools from elementary all the way through high school not only teaching them but showing them how to then teach their parents and others adults. Tax credits for solar installation. Require solar / wind generation on new / remodel construction. Include more Spanish language education materials in the Canal district. More sharing libraries - tool, etc. Car sharing would be great! More training programs. A local green contractor training program Decrease the population I would be in favor of local reuse and recycling centers, but the City should not be the primary party, they should be joint ventures with private companies and should only help facilitate the centers by providing tax incentives, use of City owned property, etc. The City should limit its resources and staff time. Underground utilities on Freitas as promised. Restore two watersheds. Don't violate the promises/commitments made by prior city councils. Plan for loss of Russian River water now that they are over-building. Plan for drought. Protect the suburbs from high density development. Resist residential development along freeways. Reform pension system. Build Terra Linda library and teen center. Increase accountability and transparency in each Department. Coordinate with CalTrans to resolve the freeway backups at Bellam. Include Santa Venetia/Marinwood/Lucas Valley in area of influence/coordinate with County areas. Prepare for disasters. I do not think tying social justice programs to pollution is appropriate. If anything, find those unregisterd vehicles that never get smogged whos owners steal registration tags from other owners I need more info on these options before I can comment. I would participate in any and all energy saving programs or features you have outlined. However, I am a single senior, trying to survive in one of the most expensive areas in the world. I rent, and with no rent control in Marin, my rent keeps increasing. Whereas energy and the environment are top concerns for me, until this area becomes less property owner top heavy/wealthy, I may not be able to contribute where I would need to incur additional costs. 68 There are many renters and seniors in this county, I wish you could put your efforts into rent control and affordable (and I mean really affordable) housing, so we can contribute to these worthy causes ! More containers for recycling, more ashtrays, fewer plastic take-out including straws in public places. More help and housing for homeless people. Moderate/low income community solar program Allow private shuttles like tuk tuks to bridge between bus routes/SMART etc and local final destinations. Will make it easier to take transit. Adopt more stringent building codes to mandate more energy efficiency in new buildings and remodels. Encourage high schoolers to ride bikes or walk, bring back school buses for all kids! Subsidizing certain groups encourages them to waste water and electricity. We see water Runoff from yards all the time. Marin Sanitary is a monopoly and costs more than any other trash haulers in California. If the Garbarino's didn't have the council by the short hairs I wouldn't be paying for a service that is mandated and enforced administratively that I don't want , use or need. I pay $146/ month. Every other week pickup would do it. BTW has Marin Sanitary ever been denied a rate increase? Train low income teens to educate people about wishful recycling, composting and other issues you have mentioned in this survey A local recycling facility that recycles metals, plastics, paper or other things on site so we don't have to ship them overseas to be recycled. (since I could only choose 2 options above) It's fantastic to manage resources well, save energy and be good stewards of our environment, but the U.N. is throwing money and influence at many of our elected officials and bureaucracies attempting to forward the U.N.'s agenda, and not the populations of the cities and townships -- or this nation, for that matter. The whole war against carbon is a red herring, based on junk "science." In fact, the "man-made climate change" agenda is nothing but a global political movement disguised as an ecological "crisis." Yes, plant more trees, by all means -- they thrive on carbon and will help beautify our skyline, but the rest of this agenda is pure idiocy. If you want to really make an impact, clean up San Rafael. I grew up in this city, and it's become more and more dingy and decrepit each passing year. And yes, improving transit is another wonderful goal, but don't do it because of this silly climate change ruse, do it for the betterment of San Rafael and it's people. 69 Actively recruit developers who will build affordable multi-family housing in the downtown core. I am not sure why it is the city's job to make it equitable. The market is far better at allocating scarce resource than any government agency. Not to spend public money for social engineering projects deemed to fail. Allow city employees interested in social equity to donate to a fund dealing with these problems or actively participate in the fund's work in their free time. No desalination plant in San Rafael even if it bring federal funds. Don’t spend money on this Local renewable energy projects like wind, food scraps that turn into energy, and solar power with battery storage. More education. even as bus ridership falls, a lot of people heavily rely on it- if services get cut, other options needs to be created/made available to those groups. Maybe opening up Whistlestop routes that have space on them to non traditional clients. Community vegetable garden -- food and education (composting). I love the idea of a building materials reuse center supported by the City -- it would be great to combine this with an art element. Maybe San Rafael could start a community garden with edible crops that could be shared (maybe by all of the volunteers that help grow them) and purchased by anyone who wants to buy. Food scraps donated by households and families could be used as compost and made into fertile soil for the garden. Can we subsidize MCE deep green, so that all residents can afford to choose it? Employ people to clean up the city. Pay them money, from the money you save on resolving the pension crisis. Then pay them to care for city parks and landscapes. Low-income housing and/or communities that are energy efficient, build "green" and in a way that encourages gathering and community, with solar. This could help equalize the community, as right now it is hard to afford to live here. More of the workforce would live here, which would reduce emissions, and strengthen the community as people might have more time to contribute to their child's school, or volunteer if they are not commuting all the time. 70 Rent-free electric scooters and/or bikes. Possibly dedicated scooter lanes. Bilingual programs and education As long as you request and don't require...I'm in. Why can't San Rafael implement it's own trial carbon fee and dividend tax, as CCL (Citizens' Climate Lobby) is advocating for on a National Level, but with city taxes going going back into the pockets of those who need them most? Also, helping people shop for non-plastic, local produce (ideally grown at home or from farmer's market), and avoid meat and dairy. The insane amount of greenhouse emissions from meat and cheese production would be such an easy target--even if just through a public relations campaign. (See the documentary _Cowspiracy_ or at least peruse the facts on their website). A subsidized apprenticeship program for low-income residents for green jobs that leads to a union job. We need to improve transit and bike and pedestrian access into and out of the Canal district. Give Canal residents their own supervisor so they can self-advocate. Invite Spanish-speaking and low-income folks to participate in government and committees. Ask schools to take a lead in a) prohibiting parents driving kids to school, b) promoting carpooling if a can't be achieved, and c) advocate for free school buses (it would cost FIVE HUNDRED dollars for my son to ride the school bus!). We need to encourage wealthier Marin residents to STOP driving their giant SUVs and participate in bringing in BART, riding buses, and biking. We need safe, protected and connected bike lanes that allow adults and children to get where they need to go; need transportation policies that PRIORITIZE cyclists and pedestrians as well as buses (biking to Sun Valley Elementary is dangerous because there is no bike lane, the lane is fairly narrow, and many parents drive giant SUVs to take their one kid to school). We don't need to reinvent the wheel; lots of mid-size cities have already made these changes. Let's research and copy what they have done.Let's try to bring in more businesses to Marin so people don't have to commute to SF for work. Let's identify unused lots or other low-hanging fruit that can be converted to higher density housing (without building skyscrapers or destroying open space). Sponsor annual event like a run or street fair to highlight sustainability and social equity for people of all walks of life. fire prevention. control burn. pge watch dog and safety so they do not burn us. a toll on hwy 101 to pay for Hov lanes . More Hov lanes around bus stations... Hov lanes on the right lane of 101 for buses and emergency vehicles .. as done in Vancouver BC. 71 Put more efforts into cleaning the streets and picking up the trash on the roads. There is way too much litter EVERYWHERE in San Rafael and Marin. And we should increase (or create) regulations for pickup truck cargo areas to be covered - too much trash falls or flies out of them! If I could choose more than two options, I'd include reusing building materials. Use the money to mitigate impacts of climate change. Its reasonable clear that current actions are not affecting change despite lots of money. The IPCC estimates if all green house gases were stopped now, it would take two centuries for adverse change to stop. Given that, we should invest in mitigation efforts such as sea walls, crop replacements, population control, water storage, fire mitigation, I read an article about a start-up in Mexico where homeless and poor people were given jobs turning plastics into compressed walls that could be used to build homes or shelters. I've seen online photos of walls or fences built from bottles and concrete. Imagine if the walls lining our highways were constructed from our colorful waste products. Imagine if public stages and platforms were constructed of such material. Expand the way you think about recycling to eliminate the need for so much sorting. One thing that is never considered are fire pits especially wood-burning ones I believe they truly pollute the air and are a fire hazard and should be banned in San Rafael and not sold in our local stores Carbon capture farming, as is being done in West Marin. I love the idea of creating more community gardens....particularly in areas where people have less access to land. In addition, this could be expanded to include a training program (perhaps connected to the Indian Valley Campus garden); helping students and adults learn to grow their own food and/or turn organic farming into a career. Extra food can go to support local food service agencies. reduce pollution in low income areas Encourageing renewable energy on every large company or facility by a certain year Involve lower income communities and make things easily accessible. Keep things local and make sure there is one of any of the facilities above ^ available in every part of the city. No Loch Lomond does no have public transportation. The so called new bus is only for commuters, it is useless for going shopping in montecito. We need dedicated bike Lanes on San Pedro road separated physically from the agressive, impatient drivers who frequently go over 50 mph. 72 SLOW THE TRAFFIC DOWN AND MAKE BIKING AND WALKING SAFER I think we need to get the schools to do more to teach children how to recycle rather than waste. It is being done, but could be done better for all concerned.I read Carl Anthony's book - The Earth, The City, and the Hidden Narrative of Race. Convene dialogs / trainings about the intersectionality of social / environmental oppression- help to educate folks to develop stronger cross-cultural connections. My consultancy, Applied Mindfulness, does some of this kind of work. www.applied-mindfulness.org. -Gabriel Kram Increase high density housing near transit hubs. Work with Golden Gate Transit to increase commute connectors that go into suburban neighborhoods. Improve bike safety near the transit center (ie connect Lincoln bike path to Anderson tunnel) Please consider using a word other than the harsh and hard hitting ""impact"" when discussing or describing issues. “Affect" may have a more gentle and lasting effect. Automobile swap support for low emission vehicles as above. Put San Rafael homeless to work cleaning streets (I realize this is happening & wish to express support), planting trees, maintaining landscaping, etc. Many of the questions above assume that renters don't exist, so this already comes off as a bit insincere. That nobody is left out of what? People will always be negatively affected especially those without money, and it's pretty clear that most of what San Rafael does is try to make more money--e.g. San BioMarin, marsh squash, etc. I appreciate the sentiment here but there is too much of a disconnect. Yes. Marin is anti business. Cities and towns do not promote our economy. The government and citizens don’t recognize business needs to have a model where they can make money. Your question is the wrong approach. Education about energy efficiency and recycling approaches. I do not support automobile swap. That is just a ruse for income redistribution. Reduce many of the city vehicles. Let city workers use the existing transport services. The cost of housing and the lack of rent control dominates most people's lives. When you're spending 50%,60% or more of your income on housing, everything else has take a back seat, including environmental improvements. Right now housing costs and the homeless problem should be taking center stage for everything that the city is planning! Enact a 73 I would like to see solutions that are crafted so that homeowners do not have to saddle a disproportionate share of the costs. All of the ideas listed above are good ones Improtraffic light coordination. 1. A good ad. program to get more people to turn off cars while parked (to save $$, CO2, air, fuel, ...). 2. Find way to get Big users to turn off lights (and workers' computer stations, etc.) when spaces not in use. There is SO much left on all night! Reduce cost of recharge sites at public places (libraries, city hall, ...). Consider purchasing land that would be suitable for a homeless village project, modeled on https://dignityvillage.org/ Solar farms and solar schools Stop the tearing down and excessive remodeling of small homes. Limit monster home building which takes over precious land for few people and is mostly for show. Limit the amount of impervious structures residents and businesses (parking lots) can have. Institute a city/countywide exchange program for impervious structures (if you have to put some in, you have to take some out elsewhere). Investigate what innovations in other countries and other cities in other countries do to conserve and utilize energy efficiently, which work to save them money and lower hot house gases, etc. See what others have done that works well for them and their populations that can be duplicated here. Honesty I don’t know enough to answer above question. More information is needed about actual benefits and outcomes. I don’t want feel good projects. I want what works. Keep the focus on jobs and job training Mandate solar on all new residential and commercial construction School traffic is a huge issue throughout Marin. We should go back to the days of all kids riding the bus to/from school. Require it. The buses don’t have to be massive - smaller shuttle-size vehicles work, too. Can use central drop-off/pick-up spots close to where people live in cases where kids come from all over. Talk to Marin Montessori and San Dominico about how they do it. Encourage employers to have staggered hours to reduce traffic, so people who must drive spend less time idling on 101 and burning fuel while sitting. Get Bay Area employers to incentivize carpooling and use of public transit. 74 Offer incentives for people to minimize miles - rewards for low mileage as measured on odometer year to year. Make bike lanes safe. In places like Copenhagen a curb separates the sidewalk from bike lane from street (three levels). In others there is a barrier between street and bike lane. Lots of ways to do it. Bike lane safety is why I don’t let my kids bike to school. Homeless drug addicts pose a fire and chemical contamination risk in open space like parks and wildland urban interface areas (WUI's). Support youth activities and the arts, provide support for the youngest at-risk children so they feel included and learn how to function so they don't turn to drugs. And try to change the culture of drug use that creates these large numbers of addicts. Nobody was willing to do anything about the neighborhood meth house, or to protect the child who was living there. So many people are buying weed from an obvious neighborhood pot club, if you're going to allow that, maybe the neighborhood zoning should be changed to industrial/business and open it up to other businesses like small grocery stores and maybe an incinerator for medical waste. Building materials re-use place in Fairfax recently shut down due to a lawsuit over a child injury. Raise salaries for teachers San Rafael can't handle the things on its plate now, so how in hell is it going to expand into the s0-called "sustainability" sphere? It has no money to repair its sidewalks, so forget reversing climate change - its too late anyway - it's all damage control at this point. Improve public corridors (canals, East Francisco Blvd., 4th street so that they are delightful and peaceful and accessible to use as bike, walking corridors....and also would be a HUGE asset to the city making it attractive and thriving (like San Antonio River Walk, Chicago River Walk etc.and many places in New York that reduced carbon footprint while improving the economy. 75 GENERAL COMMENTS Q. What are some ideas the City should consider to reduce emissions? Eliminate or streamline solar permits. Bicycle roadways similar to cars ala Amsterdam. Support regional Ag and local food production and composting. "Car free zones with outside dining. Solar on all new homes. Improve public transit to Oakland. Lots of jobs there but connections make it impossible. " Truly (industrialize) the economics of local solar development. Far better than MCE, where onsite solar works. Better balance of advocacy. Solar roofs on new buildings. Increase traffic flow by increasing local downtown housing. Business incentives for solar on the unused rooftops. Environmental pest prevention, use less toxics in homes, etc. E bikes Walkablity Density? Roof gardens on buildings. Bikes for residents to use Bike Sharing Carbon Tax Fix dangerous sidewalks for safer walking. Install more roundabouts. 76 How about grey water recycling sustems for watering/irrigation. Provide how-to guides, cost estimate and benefits. Less cars, more electric cars Motorized Scooters and share bike systems I'll let you know when I think of ideas! Replace the city vehicle fleet, including police, with electric vehicles General improvement of public sites can help keep all of us local. We in Terra Linda travel elsewhere to shop for groceries, use parks, go to classes like to Marinwood to use the recreation center, park and other facilities. That could mean transporting your child to a class 4 miles away - no big deal but if you drop off your child, go home and pick up that 4 trips which would be 16 miles of driving for one class for one child for example. Improve parks etc locally and people will walk to desirable meeting places etc. Also develop safer and more pleasant walking routes and people will walk. Freitas parkway is the MAIN road through TL. It looks atrocious. Many would walk there and to Northgate 1 and the mall if it was more pleasant. Landscaping (keep the trees we need the shade!), wider walkways, pleasant plantings even just putting some mulch over the weeds would help immensely!!! Paradise drive by CHP through Nugget store area in Corte Madera is a great example!! Turning the ditch back into a creek would be ideal (look at Denver). There was a plan that many participated in - SR vision 2010 plan- and nothing substantial has been done for Terra Linda from that plan. Please, please help beautify TL so that we all stay local and help the environment. Meatless Mondays in schools No reimbursement or funding for tax funded meals with meat Incentivizing business with meat free options https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/13/technology/wework-meat-ban/index.html Supplement paper towels in the new fire stations with air dryers. Fire stations use an exorbitant amount of papertowels. Also provide food scrap disposal to every fire station. Require every restaurant have a food scrap recycle bin. Workforce housing. Only a pro-active city government can actually achieve the goals that are required to reduce traffic from home to work farther than 20 minutes. Traffic has become unbearable. The city continues to allow building hence more people, more cars more energy use, and more food scraps. Instead of the city putting the onus on residents it 77 should take greater responsibility by going to the root of the problem. Limit the number of larger remodels and new construction. Marin is a special place and San rafael should do its part. More regulations and possible fines on large business, owners of apartment complexes, and condo associations. Require better and larger making on plastic packaging and items to clearly show if it can or can not be recycled. I'd love to see a label on the front (not the bottom) that says "this plastic is recyclable" . Of course I would love to see reductions (different packaging options) as well as banning certain uses of plastics. Recycle our current U.S. President. He is against any ideas related to climate change and is rolling back Obama-era regulations. Trump is an absolute disaster for our environment. All of the small changes discussed in this survey are overwhelmed by the large problems Trump is causing. Not sure what San Rafael can do about that, however. Encourage more solar and wind power generation. I’m waiting for Elon Musk to make me a commuter drone...if you know him, tell him I’m waiting. Do not put fluoride in the tap water. About 99% goes into the Bay. It is not removed at the treatment plant. It is a reactive form of fluoride (and very toxic). Also chlorine in the water. Organic matter everywhere in nature, is carbon. What is this if combined? CFC - green gases. Stop the expensive fluoridation. Using grey water to water gardens and lawns Making sure city vehicles are efficient. Attend The Meeting of the Minds annual conference to learn/share with other cities. All necessary City vehicles to be hybrid it all electric phased in as existing end service life. Incentives for employees to ride bikes and take public transit such as leave work 1/2 hr earlier. Encourage solar on all new construction. Provide incentives for businesses to reduce carbon footprint. Restaurants/cafeterias should be required to have composting for facility/customers. Also redirect good/in-saleable food to shelters. No smoking in public places--even sidewalks. Car checks for polluting. More school busses, including private school students (for a fee) Offer incentives for local residents to use electric vehicles to transport multiple kids to school who would otherwise need to travel alone or with a parent in a gas powered vehicle. So, ride sharing. Something like a casual carpool that exists in the east bay, but only for people with 78 electric vehicles. Pay those electric vehicle owners a small amount for each trip. Have some designated pick up and drop off locations both in San Rafael and in neighboring cities, so that it could cover SR residents going to school out of the City. Clearly, the most important thing we can do is take cars off the road that are carrying children to and from school and after school activities. That will reduce commute times to work which will reduce emissions. Then work on reducing the costs of business trips within the city by increasing the use of electric vehicles for commercial use. For more people to use the Smart Train, it needs to be much more convenient;run very frequently (every 5-15 minutes) during commute times and have more than 2 cars More efficient building codes that mandate energy efficiency. Maybe using cold weather heat exhaust to heat water via piping. Cisterns wherever possible. More grey water usage. All those UPS, etc., delivery trucks smelling up our neighborhoods. Do they still use diesel fuel? Stop paying for consultants, outreach and start pushing dirt. Hire someone from the Netherlands and build dikes. Boycott China and India. Safer bike lanes! 4-way stop sign at 5th and G. That intersection is so dangerous, and people fly around the corner on to G street where families live, play, and commute on bikes. Wind turbines No need to reduce emissions. See comment above. Take care of the homeless problem and clean up Forth Street. Ban all wood burning fireplaces year round in homes with other heat. Smoke pollution is terrible in the winter. I would like to see all municipal buildings using green energy for 100% of their energy needs-- w/battery back-up for when needed. Would like all city lights, traffic lights, etc. to be solar powered and they should all be LED's. Enforcing occupancy rules in the Canal area. When I lived in Japan, most people took public transit. When driving, tolls were high, gas was costly, and traffic jams were numerous and time-consuming. To get people out of cars, it has to be at the point where people REALLY need to use the car. And also, Japan has the most 79 awesome public transit system that is reliable with great, convenient routes. Taking public transit is not the part-time job that it is around here. Somehow work with/encorage businesses to allow more telecommuting when possible. Many would do so if the businesses allowed it. Support local businesses. Successful business will pay higher wages and those employees will be able to spend money on electric cars if they want to. I think we need better access for bicycles! Encourage and approve projects to build workforce housing to minimize commute times for people who work here. Encourage and approve projects to build low-income housing for people who live/work/study here so that these people do not have to move away and commute, thus minimizing commute times and GHG emissions. Education is key. Have meetings/forums/lectures/classes with some kind of incentive to attend (requirement to attend?). The flyers that Marin Sanitary mails about recycling are informative, but who knows who reads them. Maybe movie theaters could be required to run short videos with information about climate change and recycling good practices? Prohibit front lawns (which are pretty much always decorative and not functional, as opposed to back lawns which have some function), or limit square footage of allowable lawn space per property - Lights on timers/motion sensors or encouraging people with windows to use more natural light. - Could more meetings be virtual? Improving education and access to virtual meeting tools c ould reduce driving between city facilities. - Maybe developing a Encourage Marin Waste utility To do a better job at educating the community about what items should go in recycling and food. And what should not. Not sure. Have a standard for how much energy each household can use depending on the number of residents and be careful about using any unnecessary energy, or have a similar structure to the one suggested earlier for recycling: Fine households that use too much energy and are not careful about their greenhouse gas emissions. Also, the City could also add a public recycling area designed to help families correctly recycle any waste they have so recyclable items will not end up in the landfill. Look at other cities that have 1) substantial pedestrian areas (many placers in England), 2) dedicated bike paths--away from cars (everywhere in The Netherlands, and 3) municipal trams 80 (Basel, Switzerland, for example). Many US cities also have extended cross-town paths (Cape Cod, Sonoma, Petaluma). Invest in more city parks and other green spaces. Besides reducing emissions, these add greatly to quality of life. Move public transit to a fleet of small electric busses that can be hailed online like Uber and Lyft. They will be subsidized, so will compete favorably over Uber and Lyft - especially for those willing to ride-share. Dynamic routes, fares, and arrival times could be shown online before the customer hails the bus. It would be a cheap experiment to beta-test an existing fleet of Stagecoach or Whistle-stop busses. Lower ceilings on garages to exclude SUVs.. make them pay extra to enter the city. Etc... If you state that transportation is the main driver, it needs to be addressed by penalties as well as benefits. Close the rock quarry and reduce the number of trucks in town. A strong marketing campaign that excites people about what we can do to live more sustainably. Maybe a Green, Waste-Free Mall or shopping district, so people can experience what it would be like to be live without so many disposables. Help them to share a vision that will encourage more sustainable behavior. Clearly the placement of the new transit center is going to have a major impact on traffic in San Rafael. Idling cars are a big source of pollution. The plan for the transit center that should be followed should make good use of Whistlestop, keep all streets open, keep the bus services on one side of the road so pedestrians do not have to cross major roads.... This is important. Deforestation I put a bunch above, but to recap: 1) Eliminate plastics from stores or minimally empowering consumers to SAY NO! 2) Massively reducing meat consumption and cheese too (milk and yogurt aren't as bad as cheese). 3) Get people in Marin to fly WAY less. 4) Carbon sequestering in the hills of San Rafael. In Terra Linda over the past hundreds of years many trees were cut down or new growth eliminated by grazing cattle. I am working on an effort to replant native trees all over these hills. That whole issue of affordable housing so those that work here do not have to travel from far away, which was not talked about here as much as it could have been. There is a list of items that cities all over the Bay Area have done that is kept by BAAQMD. Check with Abby Young there for both that list and maybe ideas that match with their Spare the Air-Cool the Climate plan. 81 Ask schools to take a lead in a) prohibiting parents driving kids to school, b) promoting carpooling if A can't be achieved, and c) advocate for free school buses. Ask College of Marin to provide a free shuttle that runs every hour to and from the Indian Valley Campus to and from the Kentfield campus (yeah, they are not in SR, but people driving between both places clog up our highways and create emissions). Put more funding into running buses throughout the city so people don't have to drive. 1. I looked into getting rid of my car and going w/ the following game plan: super short trips - Uber Day trips - Zip Car Long Trips - Hertz I could do this if I lived in SF, but in San Rafael it's not a doable option yet. Need more / closer short-term rental locations (e.g. Zip car) 2. I believe we're moving towards TaaS (Transportation as a Service) so in the long-term the paradigm will shift (BTW, I think Volvo is offering something along these lines) Limit fireplace and fire pit use. see vancouver canada for transit funding by local gas tax , cheaper bus rides, less cars on road. Eg; all student ride transit free. seniors ride free on off peak time. free tolls for hov vehicles. Traffic going through downtown San Rafael is heavy / gridlock at all times during the day - more efforts need to be put into traffic control (traffic cops?) and possibly trying to reroute traffic away from downtown to alleviate the heavy flow of traffic. It will only get worse when the SMART train continues on through San Rafael to Larkspur. we need better intermodal connections for the smart train and buses in order for people to use them Palo Alto False goal. Won't make any difference. It would depend on what would move the needle. Painting rooftops white. Rooftop gardens. Free chipping to get rid of lawns. Artistic recycling can designs that do a better job of educating -- follow Germany's lead. A big part of the problem is agribusiness (not in Marin, but elsewhere)-- the need for packaging to ensure shelf life and protect products during shipping, as well as the emissions from shipping. So, encouraging more access to local farmers. I wish there was a farmers market downtown I could go to every day with prices that were lower than Whole 82 Foods to encourage use -- it would help local family farmers, reduce containers/shipping/refrigeration, allow for picking when ripe, etc. (Again, not in Marin, but elsewhere) Feed cows seaweed to reduce methane emissions. I think wood burning fire pits should be banned in San Rafael And in Marin county they pollute the air and are a fire hazard they are also dangerous for people who have asthma Reducing population. Continue to make education a primary focus--with a positive, fun and empowering message. Have family events that are focused on the environment; with games and questions that are linked to learning about reducing our emissions. Have incentives and prizes for kids/families/seniors/residents who are actively reducing their emissions. Continue to find ways to show that each individual action makes a difference. (Just as the libraries stamp children's cards each time they read a book during the summer reading program, perhaps something similar could be adopted when kids turn of lights; ride their bikes, bus or carpool to school, etc.) National Dark Sky night The bicycle and walking plans are good. Improving recycling of plastic bags--create market for reused plastic - get plastic out of environment. Try to reduce plastic in packaging - for food , and other items. 100% native parks being installed or revamped in communities to encourage being out side and planting native plants also this is a great social area Encourage public transportation or carbon free transportation Fine people for idling and make traffic lights more effective so roads become less congested. Promote the smart train and give discounts for those who ride it often. Also, agriculture produces a bunch of methane which is a very potent greenhouse gas. I think the city should promote discounts on fruits and vegetables and educate people about the negative things about meat. Better bike lanes (safer too). I think we should continue educating people and introduce them to environment-friendly options they may be unaware of. Timing of lifts to stop idling. Better public transit 83 Slow the traffic down, make walking and biking safe by making dedicated, separate bike Lanes from Peacock gap alltheway to San Anselmo and beyond Reduction of dead trees and brush that could create an environment for wildfire, even in San Rafael, is a concern. Money that could be spent on improving our environment and making it safer by getting more participation from businesses and home owners is necessary. Continue to push for solar and energy efficiency in City government operations. I'd love to see more shared electric vehicles (small cars, golf-carts, scooters, bikes) with multiple distributed docking stations, to be used for short trips around the city. Loved the Away Station in Fairfax. Sad to see it go. A travesty, really. It was the system that shut it down (insurance premiums). Municipalities should support such operations to prevent that from happening, and to provide a means to divert building materials to landfill. Incentives for people who generate less waste. Have an escalating rate scale - the more you use, your rates go up. Marin Sanitary should have recycling & composting service for all businesses as well as residences, & we should require that all commercial buildings (including shopping centers) have collection vessels for all of them. The center in which my business is located has collection points for trash & recycling, but (a) not enough containers & (b) none for composting. Offering better incentives for switching from wood burning to gas fireplaces. (Costs can be quite prohibitive. Maybe county tax rebate?) More public spaces and events so there is some sense of a community. Yes better public transportation (the "reality is that people won't use" passage introducing this survey shoots serious consideration of transport changes...it's not easy but that is just defeatist and really what can we do to keep making money and look like we're all doing something, yay electric cars!.) The traffic is absurd and creates stress. Gas (and even electric?) grass mowers and leaf blowers are not only noisy but also extremely bad for environment and unhealthy, not to mention add significantly to emissions. There are cities in Bay Area ( one of them is Lafayette) that made them illegal a long time ago. I think that it is time to do that here, in San Rafael, as well. Use More LEDs in lighting and highway signs, city buildings and traffic lights. Improve traffic flow like one way streets to reduced waiting or idling time. Elevate the Smart train thru San Rafael ( parallel to Hgwy 101) to eliminate road crossings and traffic delays. Mandate solar panels on new home construction projects. Remove permitting costs for upgrading main electrical panels when installing EV chargers or Solar in residential buildings. 84 Enact a plastic bag ban (and other plastic containers (ie take out food) Clean government vehicles, white roofs on public buildings, solar panels on public buildings, wind generators on hilltops. Composting services everywhere. Invest some time and resources in addressing the rodent issue for composting (metal cans like bear boxes)? I never see anyone mention the timing of street lights and the endless idling of cars giving off exhaust. Can this efficiency be improved? San Rafael has stop lights everywhere, made much worse by the addition of new ones right by Heatherton for the train tracks. How many places could people turn right on red safely that are currently marked otherwise? Mandate new construction, residential and businesses, to use low emission products and solar, if that doesn't already exist. Add solar to all government buildings; offer share electric vehicles for government employees. Have blacktops streets, driveways, and roof tops painted white. More efficient one-way traffic light sequences. Requiring re-models costing over 1/10th of appraised value of residences to install solar. Wherever there are growing traffic jams (e.g. 4th Street in the vicinity of 101) correct/improve flow of both vehicles and pedestrians. Traffic light delays create polluting emissions. Reduce stopping at every light. Fix residential sidewalks to improve pedestrian usage. Bus expansion. Bring Bart to Marin As above: “2. Find way to get Big users to turn off lights (and workers' computer stations, etc.) when spaces not in use. There is SO much left on all night!” Note that it would take little to put a small number of workers in charge of setting options for automatic power-down of computers (and lights) for all in a department or floor. Again, please consult with http://marincarbonproject.org The city has some influence over large tracts of land - Silveira property, that could be encouraged to manage their ag land with MCP caron soil capturing methods. This is preferable to building hundreds of market rate houses, with scant affordable homes, that will add to the city's and county's GHG volume. 85 Adopt an ordinance requiring all new buildings to provide electric vehicle charging points. (San Francisco adopted such an ordinance last year which went into effect January 1 of this year.) Car free days Clean fuel busses, cars. Break out creeks and restore areas so people are more inclined to walk because it's beautiful, green and quiet. Increase safety and beauty of parks. We need more small, flexible, inexpensive modes of transportation. Marin's aging population cannot always do shopping, etc by bike. Bring back school busses. The solar ITC, state incentives and Chinese subsidies to their manufacturers all enabled PV solar to succeed and "get over the hump". Significant incentives for EVs and other energy efficiency products used by consumers will go a long ways if implemented. I would rather pay an annual tax that goes toward incentives than a higher price for a more efficient product. The result might ne net-net but the consumer's perception is that they are saving. Many Marin Adults work in the city so maybe work on getting more transportation to the ferry building? And making it known how easy and accessible the buses are. Better traffic control management and street design. Most recent attempt to coordinate and time signals not effective. Get old cars off the streets. Make the city feel safer, so people are comfortable riding bikes, walking, taking transit and sending their kids out on their own. Right now the drug addicted/intoxicated/mentally unstable transients and petty criminals are too much of a presence. Our city is too tolerant, and residents are fed up. I’m often uncomfortable walking to my car, much less being on a bike or bus, esp at night. The San Rafael transit station is scary, too. The street-person problem has to get fixed. The museum in SF golden gate park once had on display a corkscrew-shaped replacement for a windmill on a wind farm. It was designed to prevent injury to birds and bats Invest in solar power generation; narrow roads to discourage driving (from my 13 year old); offer more buses The City should stick to public safety and public works - that's about it. Fixing the effects of decades of corporate greed is not something the City is equipped to handle. We have to figure out how to reduce the traffic impacts of highway 101 and all of the automobile corridors surrounding it. Dallas and Boston "undergrounded" their urban freeways covered them with parks and cultural resources: reducing pollution, creating beautiful gathering spaces, and improving livability and walkability in the heart of the city. Imagine it we did something like that while responding to the threats of sea level rise, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. 86 Sequestration: That every citizen is obligated to plant a tree each year. Contract or find a people who that are responsible for and focus on caring for the cities trees. Q. Do you have any concerns about any specific unintended consequences? We will lose $100 millions in economic activity if solar assets are developed outside the county. Economic impact to economically disadvantaged. Increased recycling costs due to systems using exotic chemicals/materials. Discourage business growth. ROI an initiative relative to the measurable difference of desired outcome vs. cost. Complicated, time consuming permit process Extra costs for small business Phase in changes to be sensitive to the cost for a small business. not yet I do not believe that mandating homeowners or business to require conformance or to spend City resources to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is wise. There are plenty of other things the City and the Energy companies can do on their own to accomplish this. I'm not sure increasing use of electric vehicles is worth the investment--they still use electricity and don't discourage people from driving in individual cars. Reducing transportation emissions, energy-usage, etc. should be a top priority in our town. No Financial burden being put on the residents and not all areas of SR will benefit equally. That assuming that more new housing close to public transportation will mean that those residents will actually use the public transportation! Yes. Social re-engineering always has unintended consequences and seldom corrects the purported problem. And there is the predictable consequence of absurd inefficiency, usually 87 combined with massive corruption. But none of that will matter because our intentions, no matter how misguided, were noble. Right? I have concerns about wasting time with ineffective campaigns instead of strategizing on small actions with big wins. Our citizens involvement is absolutely necessary to reduce the hazards of unintended consequences. No because affecting/requiring change from the way we have been doing things even if it cost more and takes more time is vital to the survival of live. You may need to include a light bulb recycling problem, if you want people to switch to more- efficient bulbs. More regulations, increased cost of living. Drought tolerant landscaping would save water but would not absorb CO2 as well. You need to find a balance, or you’ll meet one goal at the expense of the other. Keeping our apartment complexes, and the urban areas adjacent to commercial areas, greener has benefits. Mature trees improve property values, quality of life and stewardship of the natural world. Toxic emissions from recycling operations, run offs, and also air emissions. Most often, people who are very low income do not have access to appliances or vehicles that are energy efficient. Making these more equitably available would be important in the overall plan. Yes, the drain on the City's taxes on programs and solutions that may or may not stop climate change. The City and also the County are only minor contributors to greenhouse gas, and therefore should not make a reduction such a main focus of its policies. Taxes should be used for roads, schools, libraries, public safety, cleaner streets, and to combat homelessness and drug addiction. Ethics. Economy. Environment. Study Wendell Berry's 17 attributes of sustainable community. Educate councilmembers. Re-create The Planning Academy. Too much financial burden for individual & businesses. Please see my above response. No 88 I don't like the idea of the waste disposal workers becoming spies of residential garbage and levying fines for recycling mistakes. It's Orwellian. It would cause resentment and a reduction in the support for local government. It would undoubtably be unequally employed and could be used unfairly for personal grudges. Better to offer small financial incentives. Housing costs are already through the roof... Worry about increased costs of housing and construction. Any more noise from neighbor's using cooling devices, leaf blowers, leaving cars idling w. A.c. On in summer, Heater on in winter. Parents waiting to pick up kids from schools are hugely guilty of this. Mall employees do this while eating lunch in their cars. Yes. From my perspective the money necessary to fix the problem will be spent on surveys like this one. Ooops, we urinated the money away. I'd like to see electric bulldozer! What happens to the batteries and equipment from EVs when they are done? Batteries only last for so long...then what? My concern is the possibility of increasing cost of living for those who rent. If there are legal requirements for property owners to replace outdated appliances, irrigation systems, lawns, or the like, that cost can easily be pushed on to tenants and low-income members of our community. Increased costs No. It's just junk science. No. But affected entities should be on lookout for such consequences, so they can address any problems as they surface. Central planning as not worked for long anywhere. It cannot foresee new technology, changing relative costs, etc. Any city action should be limited and have short duration built in. Due to lack of real knowledge and and despite a wishful thinking the measures can increase the greenhouse gas emissions. Only to the extent that they may excessively increase costs when more cost effective alternatives are available. As you know, there is great income disparity in Marin and San Rafael. 20% live at or near poverty levels. I feel concern that people of limited means will have to shoulder a disproportionate share of the cost of greenhouse gas emission reduction. 89 Businesses will leave San Rafael. Successful, prosperous people will leave SR and there will be no one to pay for “ pie in the sky”dreams like electric cars for everyone. Sure but it can’t be as bad as letting things continue the way they are I am concerned that buying brand new EVs may be just as, if not more polluting than driving a used gas-powered vehicle. New cars require precious metals and materials that must be mined, refined, and manufactured--all of which are heavily polluting activities. We need to look at that particular issue from a "whole life cycle" perspective careful consideration of pro/con for nudges, punishments (taxes/fees/fines), or incentives. Vulnerable communities will be more impacted by punishments and still probably not change. Incentives and accessibility may work better with vulnerable populations. Not sure. Many people think the solution is to practically outlaw cars. That might work in an area where the population is dense enough to support traditional mass transit (bus, train, Bart). Marin will still need roads and cars for many more years. Neglecting existing infrastructure would increase greenhouse gasses through increased gridlock. No, most measures considered above are entirely toothless, meaningless, and will have no effect- intended or otherwise. I don’t want to see the renters pushed out and have even fewer affordable housing options for our again community and service workers. I am most worried about the people who live in the Canal neighborhood of San Rafael and the impact that sea rise is going to have on them. Any actions taken should consider the consequences it might have on that area. Free parking incentivizes driving in cars. Even free for EV users seems a problem. Build and incentivize car and bike sharing programs and paying for vans as public transportation between well-traveled routes seems better. Fines can certainly negatively impact low-income residents. Apartment complex managers should be responsible for creating logistically-viable set ups for recycling and composting and for training (and rewarding) residents for appropriately recycling and composting. Some efforts may only be achievable by wealthier residents and that may further promote the incorrect idea that lower income folks do more damage to the environment when in fact wealthier, high- consuming, traveling residents drive up emissions much more. 90 job loss in gas/metal companies (hopefully these would be replaced by jobs more invested in the health of our environment) Any costs foisted on me as a citizen or landlord would be unwelcome. I believe the "carrot over the stick" is a better approach. I think the will exists in Marin to achieve results w/o the stick. Yes. I am concerned that fines to get people to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may impact the poor adversely. flooding on hwy 101 and 1 Still using electricity Cost without benefit Yes, I think it's easy to get hooked on technological solutions to problems that could be solved differently. We need to kill the 40 hour work week, allow more people to work from home, change work patterns so there are no rush hours and reduce traffic congestion. I work from home with people on the East Coast and deal efficiently with different time zones, so I know it can be done. Give people a chance to be with their children more. I'm concerned that renters will be left out of the picture, in favor of home owners. We are less valued in every equation about community. We're being priced out in every way. Short term it will increase cost but long-term it’s better for the environment and better for the future residents Need to audit the process to be sure it really gets the intended reduction. My only concern is increased costs for residents, particularly lower income residents. Inequity is always a concern to me. It is important to include every socioeconomic group in whatever plan is being adopted--making the changes accessible to all people and considering any burden(s) that might be placed on underserved communities (and to find ways to balance any burden). Just people not understanding why this is good or being uneducated Not at the moment but I will consider looking into that. By focusing so much on the transportation sector you will forget about the most potent sector, agriculture. And eventually we’ll fix the transportation problem and then wonder why we didn’t start with the bigger problem: meat consumption. No 91 I’m concerned about people who want to help, but don’t have the resources to do so (i.e cost). No No No Increase costs of implementation and upkeep. Yes. Sometimes environmental efforts create excuses not to build housing. Too many regulations on homeowners might squash participation. The cost of living here is already nearing unbearable levels. Don't introduce mandates that add to the problem. The in-fill housing story is not helping local emissions or quality of life and it is superficial (yeah we know all of the low-income etc. housing is for builders to make money and to advantage of government). Imposing stringent or expensive restrictions like point of sale or rental requirements to upgrade systems, windows or appliances that otherwise have a useful life. That could be a hardship for many. Yes. They can drive out business Climate change is not well founded and has not been proven as a real treat. Some of these measures are essentially carbon taxes which costs businesses and consumers more, picks winners and losers and is not competitive. It hits low income and folks in rural areas more. It may take focus away from the homeless and housing costs and the lack of any rent control. Increased cost of living in an overly expensive county. No Rich get richer (by installing solar), while poor get poorer by paying increasingly large electric bills. Avoid passing costs on to homeowners. 92 The sky may become more visible / beautiful if more lights are turned off (or swapped to aim light to shine Downwards only), so more people might crane their necks enjoying the view of stars, planets, ... Wasting time with dubious environmental solutions is not helpful at all. This approach is favored by those who believe that building high density housing near transportation hubs will reduce GHG emissions. There is no credible science to support these beliefs. Upsets climate change deniers but too bad for them People switching to electric vehicles are still in cars and cars take up a tremendous amount of space and don't solve the problem of switching people's thinking. Yes. Very little will likely be accomplished but at significant cost. Cars are already becoming much cleaner. Could we already be on track to meet goals given rapid adoption of hybrids and EVs? Yes. We still don’t know enough. Things that are not do green because they don't work as well and need replacing Consider running some student competitions to generate ideas. People do not like being fined. There's a high level of community annoyance and a feeling that the city of San Rafael cites or fines people unjustly. For example Mill Valley firefighters will stop by to offer advice, but the San Rafael flyer to the WUI states that homeowners will be fined if there's not defensible space, and it feels uncomfortable to invite someone to come fine you. I tried to get a legit licensed insured company to trim my tree away from power lines (instead of just removing it), and the employees who arrived to work did not speak English and did their best to keep the branches as close to the lines as possible so they could come back soon. So that is a fire risk which creates gas emissions and makes me want to remove the tree entirely. Als o it's near the sidewalk, so with SR's new sidewalk ordinance, some people are removing plants and paving the area over because homeowners are afraid. Like what ? I fear that some efforts will increase costs for low income people leading to gentrification and lack of affordable housing and resources for the diverse communities within SR Q. Is there anything else you would like to see for our Climate Action Plan or related efforts? How initiatives impact residents in multi family homes vs. home owners. 93 Weave in the SD9s (U.N.) Cap 21 Apply a percentage of remodel costs (kitchen, bath, etc.) For EE upgrades fast track permit process - Reduce costs Start with schools: school boards and PTAs, but especially the kids who will put tremendous energy into it and pull their parents in. Late-life hybrids can be expensive to own. Need a refurbishment program to complement a swap. This small county is highly fragmented. All of this - or most of it - needs to be coordinated county-wide effort. do not yet have your plan I think we need to look at home systems that recycle grey water for watering plants and yards. Water conservation is going to be essential as we move into periods of greater drought. The City has so many other more immediate and pressing issues to worry about that starting a whole new initiative and expending taxpayers money, staff time, and resources on this issue is problematic. Tackle homelessness, public access safety, and quality of life issues in the City first and don't try to make such dramatic changes to accomplish this goal. A long term strategy is best. Protect more open space areas. Re-vegetate and restore existing open spaces As stated above: Reuse of materials and items is one way of helping the environment. Maybe an annual “flea market” would help deter usable items from going into the dump. Also a free semi annual curbside pick up of green yard cuttings etc would help/motivate customers to do a big cleanup and/or maintenance of their property/yard. Many hire gardeners or people to help take yard waste to the dump because it is more than their green can holds. So this waste can be composted but isn’t. This cleanup will also help motivate residents to clear their properties for more defensible space for fires and will help beautify properties and raise property values as well. Meat reduction task force. Yes. A mayor and city council who are pro-active in making these changes. Standardization of how all in Marin sort recycling. Why can some put all in one bin while in other areas you must sort out paper? Is not all in one more efficient and less costly in the long run due to now recycled items being put in bins by mistake or misunderstand by residents of what can and cannot go into cans. I understand it take more employees to sort at dumping station but they know what is and what isn't allowed and it saves contamination costs. Do all you can to protect wetlands. 94 Remove the fluoride from tap water. If it's illegal to dump it into the Bay, yet most of it goes into the Bay water. Enforcement of recycling and compost sorting - which means more outreach and education. Please see my above response. Better cleaning of freeways and roads Yes. Encourage more plant-based eating. Look at the figures. Animal agriculture is one of the leading causes of greenhouse gasses. Encourage a shift to electric vehicles for local commercial vehicles working within the city and County. Plumbers, contractors, electricians, delivery vehicles. Perhaps provide some incentive for replacing gasoline vehicles that are currently shown to be used for business because they have the business name on the side of them and have been claimed on tax returns as a write off. Environmental justice and environmental racism are serious and real issues - even here in Marin. Would be nice to see an "equity" piece, that 3rd E that so many leave out of the equation... Keep reaching out like this. Accept that all real estate is not created equal. For example Bell Marin Keys. Unless all resources are brought to bare and either a huge lock built at the GG Bridge or dikes built this survey BS is just an excersise. Start pushing dirt. Dikes First!! Encouragement to take public transit. SMART train was built to help with crowded roads, but it doesn't get used often. We have to figure out ways to increase utilization of these wonderful resources. It will help lower greenhouse gas emissions and decrease road congestion. Grey water recycling. Yes, make San Rafael Great Again! Encourage use of Home grey water recycling so that grey water can be used for landscape. This plan needs to be fully integrated into the city’s plan. Affordable housing is a huge opportunity to incentivize builders to produce wonderfully green projects. Traffic studies (traffic overcrowding) should be plugged into climate effects; think about changing street directions to one-way so as to avoid huge back-ups coming off 101 in SR. Look into coordinating traffic lights to respond to live traffic conditions. Look to shorten traffic light signals to avoid lines of cars sitting and idling for 3/4 minutes at a time. 95 Enforcing occupancy rules in the Canal area. More opportunities for community living, with vibrant opportunities for engagement. The high commercial rents in San Rafael are a detriment to unique and visionary businesses and art ventures. If the community is exciting enough, people won't be driving to all the "cool" places (that are also being priced out of existence.) Ensure clean air and water. Ban pesticide and herbicide use on residential properties, farms and in public areas. Encourage natural solutions. Fight to reduce fees for non-compliance. emphasis on the connection between land use and climate. Detached single family housing means more road, more piping, more materials, and more energy needed to service each individual dwelling. Dense housing with shared walls is much more efficient for so many reasons. get more press and visibility. Its important and the more we talk about it and people see it the more likely they will change habits. thank for for the opportunity to provide imput! I would like to see the support of preserving the wetlands around the Bay Area, especially because of rising sea level. I would also like to see a lot of emphasis on recycling correctly because the plastic in the ocean is harmful to many creatures, as well as potentially humans because of the plastic microbeads that are floating in the oceans. All public buildings should be required to have solar panels. All commercial buildings should have solar panels unless too small to make practical Increase traffic flow technology to reduce idling and gridlock. The SMART train may increase the need for this. Use more street sensors and smarter traffic lights. A carbon tax. I'd like the City to prioritize moving the homeless services OUT OF DOWNTOWN and AWAY FROM OTHER RESIDENTS before worrying about global issues. How we manage our streets and services is a problem that directly affects residents NOW, and ONLY THE CITY CAN SOLVE. We could get carbon negative tomorrow, and it won't stop the rest of the world from ruining the environment, and it won't do anything about the vagrants that wander onto my property or the would-be squatter who broke into my home shortly after I bought it. I feel less and less safe in 96 San Rafael each passing week. One of my co-oworkers already moved out of the city because he and his wife got so sick of it. Solve local problem locally FIRST. Reduce flammable dead and dying plants that are just waiting to catch on fire. Perhaps a bicycle ride thru the streets of the neighborhoods would open your eyes. If we all die in a fire there is no point to any of this. San Rafael is really dropped the ball on this BiG TIME! I saw a presentation by Resilient Shore, and strongly support their proposal to increase the wetlands of San Rafael. I have been involved with the restoration of Hamilton in Novato and believe that this is seriously worth the time and money. Many people serve as volunteers for that project. Again, please see my answer right above. Plastics, meat, flying, work on carbon sequestering far more than mere tree planting on sidewalks. Building efficiency and green building ordinances. Help change building codes so that it is much easier to encourage saving energy or greening buildings with used material or material that does not need as much energy to create it (or putting solar panels on carports or roofs). Encourage planting of locally native, drought-tolerant plants in suitable areas (i.e., not in wetlands) and require this in all municipal landscaping, businesses, and new housing developments. Work more closely with Safe Routes to School members to gather accurate information regarding the unsafe and disjointed biking and pedestrian plans--and then take action to fix these issues. (For example, stop saying that there can be no further renovations to 5th Ave leading up to Sun Valley Elementary. Restrict residents' parking to one side of the street, put in protected bike lanes and watch how many people start biking their kids to school. The city should consider banning plastic straws, takeout containers, and other single-use plastics. It would cut down on waste, and cut down on the resources used to make unnecessary disposable products. Other cities have been in the news recently for addressing the plastic pollution problem, and I think the City of San Rafael should be setting an example too. I really think more trees and live plants are important for our air and for climate change. Why not plant trees along the freeway? Large trees should be encouraged and managed by the city. thanks for taking the time to ask for feedback from the community. It would be niece to have a section where a persons carbon footprint could be estimated to compare with a goal so people could see where their personal gains could be made. try a arial tram, ( like a ski lift gondola ) over bay , as done in portland. and other cities. instead of expensive bridges. 97 get the darn tourists off the road rush hour traffic , see vancouver BC rental car surcharge $75 action plan that gets visitors / bad drivers off the road. and gets a special pass on transit, and tours. eg. GG bridge, muir woods. mt tam. the beaches. Much more effort needs to be put into cleaning up the trash on our streets and to decrease the traffic on our roads! The SMART train hopefully reduces the number of cars on the roads (and their emissions) but it slows traffic down and increases gridlock when it goes through San Rafael. Maybe we need police helping to direct traffic in the downtown area! ban wood fire pits and ban the selling of them in San Rafael and hopefully Marin County. Wood fire pits pollute the air and are a fire hazard Find ways to tap into the community knowledge and willingness to volunteer For me the environment has always been the number one issue of our times because if they aren't solved, we won't have time to solve our other problems, and climate change will create increasingly difficult challenges for us to deal with. But I recognize that for many people the environment seems like a sideline issue, and they can't be bothered when so many other seemingly more vital issues confront them. They may be afraid to think about the consequences of non-action, and they don't like the idea of government programs that require them to do more. So for me the real challenge is how to engage those people. I think here in Marin and in other California communities, we have made amazing progress in improving the habits of residents and businesses. People realize it is not difficult once you establish a new habit. But it's still not enough, and people get tired of being asked to do more. For me, I need to be assured that my recycling is going someplace where proper things are happening. I hear on the news about China refusing paper waste. Well, environmentally I'm not thrilled at the idea of shipping our stuff off to a distant land in the first place, but what is happening to it now? Efforts to find ways to reuse, repurpose, etc. on a more local basis seems super important if we are to keep up the enthusiasm of those with good habits. I know there is all kinds of amazing new technology to handle things, but can we afford it. These are all things I think about all the time. Please look at intermodal connections to try to get people out of their cars and eliminate wood burning fire pits and fireplaces The concern about rising sea levels in Marin (and particularly in San Rafael) is high. It would be fantastic if we could create contracts with local businesses and/or create positions for people who are looking for work to assist in some of the projects that are on the horizon in regards to predicted sea level rise. Everything sounds good to me 98 Not really, this form shows that you’re on the right path. No, the progress that is being made and the effort is certainly enough for now! I just want to make our city cleaner! More change that young people can do, themselves Open the old railroad tunnels to bike and walking traffic. The hills can be a real problem. Continue to be proactive and not reactive. Consider social justice as a foundational part of this. Consider an awareness-based approach of helping people to become more aware of their own wellbeing, increase their social connectedness and ability / interest in working across culture and class, in tandem with environmental awareness. Higher density, multi family housing and fewer stand-alone large homes. Impose a Climate Tax on single family homes with large square footage (large yards, etc). Work with HOAs at multifamily properties to reduce their waste disposal bills. It's going to be fairly impossible to effect change if every city/municipality does their own thing. Marin County doesn't have enough population density for that to work. The only way to have any cost-effective solutions will be if there's a county- or region-wide district overseeing all of it to create economies of scale. Encourage more bike riding and walking by building more paths and connecting existing paths. Add protected bike lines that are accessible to all. Prioritize this over or equal to cars and you will see MUCH more ridership. Green up downtown with more trees and planter boxes, having the added affect of beautifying the downtown. These are things I would put my tax money in for. Community energy. Community recycling. Improving quality of life. Preserving nature. Derailing the city's relentless "build/make money or it doesn't count" track. Water conservation is not just in times of drought. People forget that. Yes. Focus on the sea level issue. Focus on the canals. Focus on the shoreline and explore sea walls. Dredge canals and clean them. Focus on the roads. Fix potholes. Deal with the homeless pollution. Please see above re: gas and electric grass mowers and leaf blowers. Evaluate basis for climate change with true scientists not just activists. 99 More Encourage PG&E to continue to provide financial rebates/incentives to install electric charging stations in condo complexes and start a program to include single family homes Subsidize installation of water catchment systems including gray water Address waste and composting at ALL City owned and managed locations. It is too late now, but if you had a box to check that said you already are MCE or have a electric car, you'd have 2 more statistics to look at. Benches at bus and train stops. Take it seriously, and don't wait long. Continue to be a city leader see above. Need for integrated Water/Energy/Food systems wide thinking. Need to build natural capital. Sustainability from the low bar where we are is not sufficient. Need to change our way of thinking about Growth is Good. We need to recognize the limits of the natural world. Need for population reduction OR huge standard of living reduction or a combination. Focus almost exclusively on subsidizing residential solar. This is far more cost effective than many intrusive options presented here. It is also a carrot and not a stick approach. Canal dredging and flood control. Earthquake planning. Fire planning Bravo for doing this survey - we’ll done! Try to see residents as your friends and do reasonably supportive things, rather than fining and penalizing them. Ban single use plastic People need to stop breeding Mitigation item – City Plan for sea level rise Protect the trees we have!! 100 Residential transport corridor Encourage rooftop community gardens in new development Can we sequester carbon in “urban soil’? e.g. MALT I like “encourage” or “incentive” more than “require” Encourage not require Maintain all of our environments including our waterways Encourage property owners to plant natives Many of these ideas exist in town/city codes. Whats needed is a code review and more appropriate …illegible Urban farms and food gardens, gleaning maps; fruit trees/urban orchards Root top gardens Native plants in common spaces Carbon through compost layers (see Marin Carbon Project) Thank you for this survey. Very well done. I hope it yields some positive results. 101 NEXTDOOR.COM POLL RESPONSES 102 OCTOBER 15, 2018 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Presentation and Comments can be found here: https://cityofsanrafael.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=38&clip_id=1450&meta_id=132143 Comments from: Councilmembers, Jeffrey Rhoads (Resilient Shore), Bill Carney (Sustainable San Rafael), Roger Roberts, Marv Zauderer (ExtraFood.org), Judy Schriebman (Gallinas Watershed Council), Sarah Loughran (Planning Commissioner), Bruce Lee Livingston (Alcohol Justice), Kiki La Porta (Sustainable Marin), Tamra Peters (Resilient Neighborhoods), Chris Yalonis (VenturePad), Dale Miller (Golden Gate Electric Vehicle Association), Belle Cole (350.org), Peter Posert, Jim Bitter, Maika Llorens-Gulati (San Rafael City Schools Board Member). FEBRUARY 26, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION PRESENTATION Presentation and Comments can be found here: http://cityofsanrafael.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=38&clip_id=1537 Subsequent edits to the CCAP 2030 since the October 15, 2018 Draft include: LCT-C1 Changed to “Zero Emission Vehicles”. Added hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and electric scooters and motorcycles to the subsections. LCT-C4 Added “and student” to subsection a. LCT-C5 Added subsection c: “Provide an attractive and efficient multi-modal transit center and safe routes to the transit center that encourage bicycle and pedestrian connections.” LCT-C6 Added “showers, and changing facilities, bicycle racks and lockers” to subsection a. LCT-C7 Changed to “Parking Requirements”. Added “Promote a walkable city by reducing parking requirements.” And “Encourage unbundling of parking costs.” LCT-C8 Changed to “Traffic System Management and Vehicle Idling”. Added “to minimize wait times at traffic lights” to subsection a. Added subsection b: “Utilize intelligent traffic management systems to improve traffic flow and guide vehicles to available parking.” LCT-M4 Changed to “Electric Landscape Equipment” and added “and other landscape equipment”. RE-M1 Added “where feasible” WR-C5 Added “Conduct a cost/benefit analysis and consider” to second sentence. WC-C1 Added “for compliance with State and MMWD regulations” to subsection c. SA-C5 Added “and increased risk of wildfire” to subsection a. Added “air quality” to subsection c, third bullet. Replaced “protection” with “prevention and suppression” in subsection c, fourth bullet. Added “wildfire” to subsection d. CE-C2 Added subsection f: “Inform the public about the environmental benefits of eating less meat and dairy products, growing food at home, and purchasing locally-produced food.” 103 JANUARY 24, 2019 BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT COMMENTS Changes to CCAP from BAAQMD consultation include: BAAQMD Comment Response/Edit Describe how the CCAP supports the State’s Climate Change Action Plan. Sentence added on page 6: “The measures contained in this Climate Change Action Plan are designed to support and implement the Six Pillars and the goals of California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan on a local level.” The Metropolitan Transportation Commission is the lead on the Commuter Benefits Program. Edited Measure LCT-C6a as follows: a. Work with the Transportation Authority of Marin, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to promote transportation demand programs to local employers, including rideshare matching programs, vanpool incentive programs, emergency ride home programs, telecommuting, transit use discounts and subsidies, showers and changing facilities, bicycle racks and lockers, and other incentives to use transportation other than single occupant vehicles. Calculate GHG reduction from Measure EE-C4 Green Building Reach Code. GHG reduction calculated and text and Appendix A revised accordingly. Add climate-friendly concrete. Measure SA-C2 Carbon Sequestration contains subsection a, which says: a. “Encourage use of building materials that store carbon, such as wood and carbon- intensive concrete, through agency partnerships and engagement campaigns.” No edit proposed. Strengthen measures which say “encourage” and “consider” taking an action. Use more proactive language such as “require,” “investigate” and “accelerate” and/or be more specific about the action that will be taken to encourage an outcome. Edits made to measures, LCT-C1, LCT-C2, LCT-C3, LCT-C8, LCT-C10, EE-C3, EE-C4, RE-C1, RE-C2, WR- C1, WR-C6, WR-C7, WC-C1, SA-C1, SA-C2, SA-C3, SA- C4, and CE-C5. Make it clear that the City is committing to implementing the measures. At the beginning of each list of measures, a sentence that says “The City will take the following actions to…” was added. In addition, all calculations and tables were updated to reflect these changes. CITY OF SAN RAFAEL COMMUNITY AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY FOR 2016 April 2019 Prepared by the Marin Climate & Energy Partnership TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE S UMMARY 1 I NTRODUCTION 2 P URPOSE OF I NVENTORY 2 G ENERAL M ETHODOLOGY 2 C OMMUNITY I NVENTORY 4 C OMMUNITY I NVENTORY S UMMARY 4 P ER C APITA E MISSIONS 6 M AJOR S OURCES OF E MISSIONS 6 E LECTRIC ITY U SE 6 N ATURAL G AS U SE 7 T RANSPORTATION 8 W A STE D ISPOSAL 8 W A TER U SE 8 G OVERNMENT O PERATIONS I NVENTORY 1 0 GOVERNMENT P ROFILE 1 0 G OVERNMENT O PERATIONS I NVENTORY S UMMARY 1 0 S UMMARY BY S ECTOR 1 0 S UMMARY BY S OURCE 11 G OVERNMENT O PERATIONS I NVENTORY D ETAIL BY S ECTOR 12 B UILDINGS AND O THER F ACILITIES 1 2 P UBLIC L IGHTING 1 3 W ATER D ELIVERY 1 3 V EHICLE F LEET 14 W ASTE 1 4 E MPLOYEE C OMMUTE 1 5 A PPENDI CES APPENDIX A: C OMMUNITY I NVENTORY A-1 A PPENDIX B: G OVERNMENT O PERATIONS I NVENTORY B -1 San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY San Rafael publishes annual community greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions estimates through the Marin Climate & Energy Partnership (MCEP). Annual inventories help the City to more closely monitor its progress in meeting its local goal to reduce community emissions 25% below baseline (2005) emissions by 2020 and to meet the statewide goal to reduce emissions 40% below baseline emissions by 2030. In addition to the community inventories, MCEP periodically prepares inventories for government operations emissions. This report reviews emissions generated from the community from 2005 through 2016, the most recent year data is available. The inventory shows that the San Rafael community has reduced emissions 18% since 2005, meeting the State target for 2020. Emissions dropped from abo ut 473,378 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e) in 2005 to 388,950 MTCO2e in 2016. The community emissions trend and targets are shown below. San Rafael needs to reduce emissions another 147,530 MTCO2e to meet the State target for 2030 and another 308,450 MTCO2e to meet the State target for 2050, which is 80% below 1990 levels. This report also reviews emissions from government operations, a subset of community emissions. Emissions from government operations decreased 16% between 2005 and 2016, or about 700 metric tons CO2e. While government emissions are less than 1% of overall community emissions, the local government plays a large role in setting an example for the rest of the community. Emissions from government operations are detailed beginning on page 10. Recognizing the need for a collaborative approach to greenhouse gas reductions, City and county leaders launched the Marin Climate and Energy Partnership (MCEP) in 2007. The City of San Rafael is a member of MCEP and works with representatives from the County of Marin and the other Marin cities and towns to address and streamline the implementation of a variety of greenhouse gas reduction measures. Funding for this inventory was provided by the Marin County Energy Watch Partnership, which administers public goods charges collected by PG&E. Community inventories are available on the MCEP website at marinclimate.org and are used to update the Marin Sustainability Tracker. 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016MTCO2eSan Rafael GHG Emissions and Targets Baseline 2005 2020 State Goal 2020 Local Goal 2030 State Goal 2050 State Goal T HE T AKEAWAY : C OMMUNITY E MISSIONS D OWN 18% AND G OVERNMENT O PERATIONS E MISSION S D OWN 16% S INCE 2005 San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 2 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE OF INVENTORY The objective of this greenhouse gas emissions inventory is to identify the sources and quantify the amounts of greenhouse gas emissions generated by the activities of the San Rafael community in 2016 and local government operations in 2015. This inventory provides a comparison to baseline 2005 emissions and identifies the sectors where significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions have occurred. In some instances, previous year emissions were updated with new data and/or recalculated to ensure the same methodology was employed for all inventory years. GENERAL METHODOLOGY This inventory uses national standards for the accounting and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions. The Local Government Operations Protocol, version 1.1 (May 2010) was used for the quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from local government operations, and the U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, version 1.1 (July 2013) was used for the quantification and reporting of community emissions. Quantification methodologies, emission factors, and activity and source data are detailed in the appendices. Local government operations emissions are categorized according to the following sectors: ▪ Buildings and Other Facilities ▪ Public Lighting ▪ Water Delivery Facilities ▪ Vehicle Fleet ▪ Solid Waste ▪ Employee Commute Community emissions are categorized according to seven sectors: ▪ Residential Energy ▪ Non-Residential Energy ▪ Transportation ▪ Off-Road Vehicles and Equipment ▪ Waste ▪ Water ▪ Wastewater C ALCULATING E MISSIONS Emissions are quantified by multiplying the measurable activity data – e.g., kilowatt hours of electricity, therms of natural gas, and gallons of diesel or gasoline – by emissions factors specific to the energy source. Most emission s factors are the same from year to year. Emission factors for electricity, however, change from year to year due to San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 3 the specific sources that are used to produce electricity. For example, electricity that is produced from coal generates more greenhouse gases than electricity that is generated from natural gas and therefore has a higher emissions factor. Electricity that is produced solely from renewable energy sources such as solar and wind has an emissions factor of zero. This inventory calculates individual greenhouse gases – e.g., carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide – and converts each greenhouse gas emission to a standard metric, known as “carbon dioxide equivalents” or CO 2e, to provide an apple-to-apples comparison among the various emissions. Table 1 shows the greenhouse gases identified in this inventory and their global warming potential (GWP), a measure of the amount of warming each gas causes when compared to a similar amount of carbon dioxide. Methane, for example, is 28 times as potent as carbon dioxide; therefore, one metric ton of methane is equivalent to 28 metric tons of carbon dioxide. Greenhouse gas emissions are reported in this inventory as metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents, or MTCO2e. T ABLE 1 : GREENHOUSE GASES Gas Chemical Formula Emission Source Global Warming Potential Carbon Dioxide CO2 Combustion of natural gas, gasoline, diesel, and other fuels 1 Methane CH4 Combustion, anaerobic decomposition of organic waste in landfills and wastewater 28 Nitrous Oxide N2O Combustion, wastewater treatment 265 Hydroflourocarbons Various Leaked refrigerants, fire suppressants 4 to 12,400 Source: IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (2014) T YPES OF E MISSIONS Emissions from each of the greenhouse gases can come in a number of forms: ▪ Stationary or mobile combustion resulting from the on-site combustion of fuels (natural gas, diesel, gasoline, etc.) to generate heat or electricity, or to power vehicles and equipment. ▪ Purchased electricity resulting from the generation of power from utilities outside the jurisdictional boundary. ▪ Fugitive emissions resulting from the unintentional release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, such as leaked refrigerants and methane from waste decomposition. ▪ Process emissions from physical or chemical processing of a material, such as wastewater treatment. U NDERSTANDING T OTALS The totals listed in the tables and discussed in the report are a summation of emissions using available estimation methods. Each inventoried sector may have additional emissions sources associated with them tha t were unaccounted for due to a lack of data or robust quantification methods. For example, greenhouse gas emissions associated with air travel and the production of goods outside the community’s boundary are not included in the inventory. Additionally, the community inventory does not include refrigerants released into the atmosphere from the use of air conditioning in cars and buildings. San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 4 COMMUNITY INVENTORY COMMUNITY INVENTORY SUMMARY In 2005, the activities taking place by the San Rafael community resulted in approximately 473,378 metric tons of CO2e. In 2016, those activities resulted in approximately 388,950 metric tons of CO2e, a reduction of 18% from 2005 levels. This means that the City has met the State goal to reduce emissions 15% below the 2005 baseline by 2020 and is on track to meet the local goal to reduce emissions 25% by that same year. The community inventory tracks emissions in seven sectors: • The Residential Energy sector represents emissions generated from the use of electricity, natural gas, and propane in San Rafael homes. • The Non-Residential Energy sector represents emissions generated from the use of electricity and natural gas in commercial, industrial and governmental buildings and facilities. • The Transportation sector includes tailpipe emissions from passenger vehicle trips originating and ending in San Rafael, as well as a share of tailpipe emissions generated by medium and heavy-duty vehicles and buses travelling on Marin County roads. Electricity used to power electric vehicles is embedded in electricity consumption reported in the Residential Energy and Non-Residential Energy sectors. • The Waste sector represents fugitive methane emissions that are generated over time as organic material decomposes in the landfill. Although most methane is captured or flared off at the landfill, approximately 25% escapes into the atmosphere. • The Off-Road sector represents emissions from the combustion of gasoline and diesel fuel from the operation of off-road vehicles and equipment used for construction and landscape maintenance. • The Water sector represents emissions from energy used to pump, treat and convey potable water from the water source to the San Rafael water users. • The Wastewater sector represents stationary, process and fugitive greenhouse gases that are created during the treatment of wastewater generated by the community. Emissions created from energy used to convey and treat wastewater are included in the Non-Residential Energy sector. Figure 1 shows the relative contribution of emissions from these sectors in 2016. Table 2 shows how emissions in each sector have changed since 2005. The greatest reductions have occurred in the Transportation sector (-30,220 MTCO2e), followed by the Residential Energy sector (-24,519 MTCO2e) and the Non-Residential Energy sector (- 24,270 MTCO2e). The likely reasons for the largest emissions decreases are described in the remainder of this report. F IGURE 1: E MISSIONS BY S ECTOR , 2016 San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 5 T ABLE 2 : E MISSIONS S UMMARY BY S ECTOR (MTCO 2 E ), 2005 THROUGH 2016 Year Residential Energy Non-Residential Energy Transportation Waste Off-Road Water Wastewater Total % Change from 2005 2005 91,303 87,336 269,163 17,827 4,710 2,181 856 473,378 0% 2006 92,563 84,676 271,915 17,848 4,560 1,946 858 474,367 0% 2007 100,441 99,888 269,712 16,348 4,410 2,386 866 494,051 4% 2008 100,443 100,513 270,622 14,011 4,259 2,271 872 492,991 4% 2009 97,995 90,724 264,703 12,022 4,109 2,144 877 472,574 0% 2010 89,364 79,733 253,328 11,868 3,959 1,258 888 440,397 -7% 2011 88,755 78,271 252,303 11,574 3,934 747 894 436,479 -8% 2012 85,060 78,264 252,731 12,037 3,894 980 909 433,875 -8% 2013 81,245 77,320 250,309 12,266 3,843 1,138 922 427,044 -10% 2014 68,173 69,921 247,955 12,375 3,792 1,039 944 404,198 -15% 2015 68,487 68,785 244,795 12,878 3,694 789 924 400,351 -15% 2016 66,784 63,067 238,943 14,933 3,613 633 978 388,950 -18% Change from 2005 -24,519 -24,270 -30,220 -2,894 -1,097 -1,548 121 -84,428 % Change from 2005 -27% -28% -11% -16% -23% -71% 14% -18% P ER C APITA E MISSIONS Non-Residential Energy 16% Residential Energy 17% Waste 4% Wastewater <1%Off-Road 1% Water <1% Transportation 62% San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 6 Per capita emissions can be a useful metric for measuring progress in reducing greenhouse gases and for comparing one community’s emissions with neighboring cities and against regional and national averages. That said, due to differences in emission inventory methods, it can be difficult to produce directly comparable per capita emissions numbers. Per capita emission rates may be compared among Marin jurisdictions, although some jurisdictions may have higher rates due to the presence of commercial and industrial uses. Dividing the total community-wide GHG emissions by residents yields a result of 8.4 metric tons CO2e per capita in 2005. Per capita emissions decreased 24% between 2005 and 2016, falling to 6.4 metric tons per person. Figure 2 shows the trend in per capita emissions over time. It is important to understand that this number is not the same as the carbon footprint of the average individual living in San Rafael, which would include lifecycle emissions, emissions resulting from air travel, etc. F IGURE 2 : E MISSIONS P ER C APITA MAJOR S OURCES OF EMISSIONS The following sections provide a year-by-year analysis of the changes in GHG emissions from the City’s largest sources: electricity, natural gas, transportation, waste, and water use. Whenever possible, each section discusses the change in emissions from previous years and the likely influence of state and local programs or policies and external factors on reducing emissions. E LECTRICITY U SE Electricity use in homes and businesses in San Rafael decreased about 9% between 2005 and 2016. The Residential Energy sector, which uses 35% of all electricity in San Rafael, reduced electricity use 11% since 2005. Electricity use decreased 8% in the Non-Residential Energy sector over the same period. Electricity reductions have most likely occurred due to improved energy efficiency, conservation, and solar installation. Distributed solar generation from local roofs, carports and ground-mounted systems provided about 4% of the electricity used in Marin County in 2016. 8.4 8.4 8.7 8.7 8.3 7.6 7.5 7.4 7.2 6.7 6.6 6.4 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016MTCO2e Per Person San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 7 Electricity-related greenhouse gas emissions in the Residential Energy and Non-Residential Energy sectors decreased 45% since 2005, as shown in Figure 3. This is primarily due to the lower carbon intensity of electricity. PG&E has been steadily increasing the amount of renewable energy in its electricity mix, which was 40% less carbon intensive in 2016 than it was in 2005. MCE Clean Energy (MCE), which began providing electricity to San Rafael customers in 2010, has historically provided electricity that is less carbon intensive than PG&E electricity. In 2016, MCE Light Green electricity was 3% less carbon intensive than PG&E. MCE carries about 69% of the electricity load in San Rafael. In 2016, about 1.6% of MCE electricity purchased by San Rafael customers was 100% renewable Deep Green electricity. N ATURAL G AS U SE Natural gas is used in residential, commercial and industrial buildings to provide space and water heating and power appliances. Use of natural gas is highly variable depending on the weather conditions in a given year. This variability has led natural gas use consumption in San Rafael to fluctuate from year to year, from a high of 18.1 million therms in 2011 to a low of 14.3 million therms in 2014. Emissions from natural gas consumption increased 4% between 2015 and 2016, most likely due to colder temperatures. The chart below compares natural gas usage in San Rafael to regional heating degree days, a measure of how much energy is required to warm the interior of a building relative to the outside temperature. Warmer days result in fewer heating degree days. As shown below, natural gas consumption is highly correlated to heating degree days. Overall, natural gas use has declined 10% since 2005. FIGURE 4: NATURAL GAS USE 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0 5,000,000 10,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Heating Degree DaysNatural Gas (therms)Natural Gas Usage Heating Degree Days Source (heating degree days): U.S. Department of Commerce, National Climatic Data Center FIGURE 3: ELECTRICITY EMISSIONS 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016MTCO2e San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 8 Reduction in energy use may also be attributed to energy efficiency programs and rebates, local green building ordinances, and State building codes. California’s goal is to require all new residential buildings to be net zero electricity use by 2020 and all new residential and commercial buildings to be zero net energy by 2030. T RANSPORTATION Transportation activities accounted for approximately 62% of San Rafael’s emissions in 2016. Although vehicle miles traveled have increased approximately 3% since 2005, transportation emissions have decreased 11% due to more fuel-efficient and alternatively fueled cars. Marin County continues to be a leader in zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) – second only to Santa Clara County – with an estimated 4,000 ZEVs in Marin in 2016, or about 2% of registered vehicles. ZEVs include battery electric cars, plug-in hybrid electric cars, hydrogen fuel cell cars, and zero-emission motorcycles. While it is difficult to pinpoint exactly how each land use and transportation policy aff ects emissions, the City has undertaken many efforts to reduce transportation emissions. The City encourages workforce housing and has made improvements to the transportation network to make it easier for residents to bicycle, walk, and take public transportation. The City has also promoted electric vehicle adoption by installing chargers and providing free electricity at municipal EV charging stations. W ASTE D ISPOSAL Waste generated by the community hit a low in 2011 but has since increased as shown in the chart below (based on countywide disposal data). Landfilled waste increased 15% between 2015 and 2016 but is still 13% below the 2005 baseline. The decrease in emissions from waste disposal is most likely a result of community and County goals to move toward Zero Waste. Ongoing waste diversion programs include a residential food waste composting program and mandatory food waste recycling subscription for larger commercial producers. The more recent increases are most likely due to the growth in the economy and increase in online sales and packaging. FIGURE 5: DISPOSED WASTE 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Disposed Waste (tons)Source: CalRecycle San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 9 W A TER U SE Per capita water use declined 25% since 2005. Emissions, which are based on an estimate of energy used to pump, treat, and convey water from the water source to the City limits, dropped 74% between 2005 and 2016. The additional reduction is due to the lower carbon intensity of electricity. The Sonoma County Water Agency, which supplies approximately 25% of the Marin Municipal Water District’s (MMWD) water, uses renewable and carbon- free sources for its electricity needs. MMWD began purchasing MCE Deep Green electricity in mid-2017, which will result in additional reductions in the 2017 inventory year. FIGURE 6: PER CAPITA WATER USE MMWD provides rebates and programs to reduce water use. Rebates are available to replace fixtures with high - efficiency toilets and clothes washers, and to purchase pool covers, hot water recirculating systems, organic mulch, laundry-to-landscape system components, and rain barrels. MMWD provides free home and landscape water -use evaluations. The California Department for Water Resources offers a turf replacement rebate of up to $2,000 for single-family homes. 152 152 154 154 140 132 130 137 145 125 115 114 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Gallons Per Capita Per DaySource: Marin Municipal Water District San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 10 GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS INVENTORY GOVERNMENT PROFILE The City of San Rafael is a general law city and operates under the council-city manager form of government. The local government operates administrative, planning, building, public works, community services, fire and police departments. In 2015, there were 413 total employees. General fund expenditures for fiscal year 2015-2016 were approximately $68,655,000. GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY In 2005, San Rafael’s government operations produced approximately 4,442 metric tons CO2e. In 2016, those activities resulted in approximately 3,742 metric tons CO2e, a reduction of 701 metric tons, or 16%, and the local government’s share of community emissions was just under 1.0%. The following summaries break down these totals by sector and sources. S UMMARY BY S ECTOR As shown in Table 3, emissions from government operations were reduced in all sectors except the vehicle fleet and waste sectors. The greatest reduction occurred in the employee commute sector, where emissions dropped 530 metric tons CO2e, or 40%. Other significant reductions occurred in the public lighting sector (258 metric tons). Figure 7 shows that the vehicle fleet sector was the largest emitter of gree nhouse gas emissions in 2016 (29% of total emissions), followed by the employee commute sector (21%) and the buildings and facilities sector (19%). T ABLE 3 : SUMMARY BY SECTOR , 2005 AND 2016 Sector 2005 Metric Tons CO2e 2016 Metric Tons CO2e Change Metric Tons CO2e % Change Buildings & Facilities 799 725 -73 -9% Vehicle Fleet 933 1,079 147 16% Public Lighting 545 287 -258 -47% Water Delivery 118 61 -57 -48% Waste 711 781 70 10% Employee Commute 1,337 807 -530 -40% Total 4,442 3,742 -701 -16% San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 11 F IGURE 7 : E MISSIONS BY SECTOR , 201 6 S UMMARY BY S OURCE Table 4 shows a summary of the City’s greenhouse gas emissions by source. The greatest decreases occurred in emissions from gasoline (634 metric tons), which includes gasoline used in both the municipal fleet and City employees’ commute, and electricity (475 metric tons). Emissions from the combustion of natural gas and diesel increased 31% and 91%, respectively. Despite the decrease in gasoline emissions, gasoline was the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in San Rafael’s governmental operations in 2016 (see Figure 8), contributing more than one-third of all emissions. T ABLE 4 : SUMMARY BY SOURCE , 2005 AND 2016 Source 2005 Metric Tons CO2e 2016 Metric Tons CO2e Change Metric Tons CO2e % Change Electricity 1,161 687 -475 -41% Natural Gas 298 389 91 31% Gasoline 1,986 1,352 -634 -32% Diesel 271 518 247 91% Solid Waste 711 781 70 10% Refrigerants 16 16 0 0% Total 4,442 3,742 -701 -16% Buildings & Facilities 19% Vehicle Fleet 29% Public Lighting 8% Water Delivery 2% Waste 21% Employee Commute 21% San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 12 F IGURE 8 : E MISSIONS BY SOURCE , 2016 GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS INVENTORY DETAIL BY SECTOR This section explores government operations and emissions by taking a detailed look at each primary sector. B UILDINGS AND O THER F ACILITIES Facilities operations contribute to greenhouse gas emissions in two major ways. First, facilities consume electricity and fuels such as natural gas. This consumption is associated with the majority of greenhouse gas emissions from facilities. In addition, air conditioning and refrigeration equipment in buildings can emit hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and other greenhouse gases when these systems leak refrigerants. Refrigerants are very potent greenhouse gases and have Global Warming Potential (GWP) of up to many thousand times that of CO2. For example, HFC-134a, a very common refrigerant, has a GWP of 1300, or 1300 times that of CO2. Therefore, even small amounts of leaked refrigerants can have a significant effect on greenhouse gas emissions. In 2016, San Rafael operated several major facilities, including City Hall, the library and police station, fire stations, public works buildings, childcare facilities, and community centers. As shown in Table 5, emissions from the buildings sector decreased 9% between 2005 and 2016. Electricity consumption increased 15%, and natural gas consumption increased 31%. Total emissions from buildings and facilities decreased, however, because the carbon intensity of electricity was 42% lower in 2016. T ABLE 5 : B UILDINGS AND O THER F ACILITIES E MISSIONS , 2005 AND 2016 Source 2005 Energy Consumption 2005 GHG Emissions (MTCO2e) 2016 Energy Consumption 2015 GHG Emissions (MTCO2e) % Change in Energy Consumption % Change in GHG Emissions (MTCO2e) Electricity 2,231,608 kWh 498 2,564,438 kWh 334 15% -33% Natural Gas 56,042 therms 298 73,188 therms 389 31% 31% Refrigerants -- 2 -- 2 0% 0% Total -- 799 -- 725 -- -9% Electricity 18% Natural Gas 10% Gasoline 36% Diesel 14% Solid Waste 21% Refrigerants 1% San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 13 Table 6 shows electricity and natural gas usage by facility. T ABLE 6 : E NERGY U SAGE AT S AN R AFAEL B UILDINGS AND F ACILITIES , 2005 AND 2016 Building/ Facility Energy Source 2005 Energy Consumption 2016 Energy Consumption % Change in Energy Consumption City Hall Electricity 637,920 kWh 590,255 kWh -7% Natural Gas 5,651 therms 16,908 therms 199% Community Centers Electricity 329,020 kWh 476,126 kWh 42% Natural Gas 27,758 therms 34,606 therms 25% Childcare Facilities Electricity 111,985 kWh 210,681kWh 88% Natural Gas 4,304 therms 3,335 therms -23% Public Works Electricity 324,010 kWh 385,250 kWh 19% Natural Gas 5,541 therms 6,158 therms 11% Fire Department Electricity 248,214 kWh 255,165 kWh 3% Natural Gas 9,431 therms 9,491 therms 1% Library Electricity 117,350 kWh 172,871 kWh 47% Parking Garages & Lots Electricity 211,118 kWh 350,004 kWh 66% Other Facilities Electricity 251,991 kWh 133,086 kWh -47% Natural Gas 3,357 therms 2,690 therms -20% P UBLIC L IGHTING San Rafael operates streetlights, traffic signals, and other outdoor lighting. Emissions associated with the operation of this public lighting are from electricity consumption. Electricity consumption in the public lighting sector decreased 10% between 2005 and 2016 due to conversion of inefficient lighting to LED fixtures and bulbs. Emissions decreased 47%; the additional reduction is due to the lower carbon intensity of MCE electricity in 2016. T ABLE 7 : P UBLIC L IGHTING E MISSIONS , 2005 AND 2016 Source 2005 Electricity Consumption 2005 GHG Emissions (MTCO2e) 2016 Electricity Consumption 2016 GHG Emissions (MTCO2e) % Change in Electricity Consumption % Change in GHG Emissions (MTCO2e) Streetlights 2,066,450 kWh 461 1,901,838 kWh 248 -8% -46% Traffic Signals 249,861 kWh 56 176,831 kWh 23 -29% -59% Outdoor Lighting 126,245 kWh 28 128,751 kWh 17 4% -41% Total 2,442,556 kWh 545 2,207,420 kWh 287 -10% -47% W ATER D ELIVERY This sector includes any facilities used for the management and distribution of water. Typical systems included in this sector are potable water delivery pumps, sprinkler and irrigation controls, and stormwater management. The systems identified for this report and used by the City were water delivery pumps and sprinkler and irrigation systems. The source of San Rafael’s water delivery emissions is from electricity consumption. Overall, electricity usage declined 11% and emissions dropped 48%. San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 14 T ABLE 8 : W ATER D ELIVERY E MISSIONS , 2005 AND 2016 Source 2005 Electricity Consumption 2005 GHG Emissions (MTCO2e) 2016 Electricity Consumption 2016 GHG Emissions (MTCO2e) % Change in Electricity Consumption % Change in GHG Emissions (MTCO2e) Irrigation 7,410 kWh 2 8,157 kWh 1 10% -36% Water Pumps 520,185 kWh 116 462,193 kWh 60 -11% -48% Total 527,595 kWh 118 470,350 kWh 61 -11% -48% V EHICLE F LEET The vehicles and mobile equipment used in San Rafael’s daily operations include public works trucks and equipment, police cars and motorcycles, fire trucks, and vehicles for use by administration and other department staff. These vehicles and equipment burn gasoline and diesel, which result in greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, vehicles with air conditioning use refrigerants that leak from the vehicle. Table 9 shows that gasoline consumption decreased 19% since 2005 while diesel consumption increased 35%. The net effect was to decrease total fuel consumption 4% and emissions 3%. T ABLE 9 : V EHICLE F LEET E MISSIONS , 2005 AND 2016 Source 2005 Fuel Consumption 2005 GHG Emissions (MTCO2e) 2016 Fuel Consumption 2016 GHG Emissions (MTCO2e) % Change in Fuel Consumption % Change in GHG Emissions (MTCO2e) Gasoline 72,682 gallons 649 69,683 gallons 615 -4% -5% Diesel 26,489 gallons 271 44,142 gallons 451 67% 67% Refrigerants -- 13 -- 13 -- 0% Total 99,171 gallons 933 113,825 gallons 903 15% 16% W ASTE Waste generated by government buildings and operations include organic material such as paper, food scraps, plant debris, textiles, and construction waste. This organic material generates methane as it decays in the anaerobic environment of a landfill. An estimated 75% of this methane is routinely captured via landfill gas collection systems; however, a portion escapes into the atmosphere. Emissions from waste are an estimate of methane generation that will result from the decomposition of organic waste sent to the landfill in the inventoried year, even though those emissions will occur over the 100+ year timeframe that the waste will decompose. Waste generated by governmental operations increased 8% between 2005 and 2016 and emissions increased 10%. This was most likely due to an increase in dumping in the public right of way, including parks, streets and open space. In addition, higher rates of contamination have resulted in the contents of some recycling bins to be landfilled. San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 15 T ABLE 10: W ASTE E MISSIONS , 2005 AND 2016 Source 2005 Landfilled Waste 2005 GHG Emissions (MTCO2e) 2016 Landfilled Waste 2016 GHG Emissions (MTCO2e) % Change in Landfilled Waste % Change in GHG Emissions (MTCO2e) Street Cans 1,438 tons 402 1,296 tons 368 -10% -8% Parks 548 tons 153 520 tons 148 -5% -3% Community Facilities 239 tons 67 281 tons 80 18% 20% Other Facilities 135 tons 38 270 tons 77 99% 103% Waste Hauled by the City 184 tons 51 378 tons 108 105% 109% Total 2,544 tons 711 2,746 tons 781 8% 10% E MPLOYEE C OMMUTE Emissions in the employee commute sector are due to the combustion of fuels used by City employees commuting to and from work in San Rafael. Emissions dropped 38%, primarily due to an improvement in the fuel-efficiency of the vehicles San Rafael employees are driving to work. However, it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions from the data, as emissions are determined from employee commute surveys. Twenty-six percent of City employees responded to the survey in 2015. Estimates for total employee commutes were extrapolated from this data. T ABLE 1 1 : E MPLOYEE C OMMUTE E MISSIONS , 2005 AND 2015 2005 2015 % Change Number of Employees 425 413 -3% Vehicle Miles Traveled 2,572,471 2,329,163 -9% Emissions per Employee 3.1 2.0 -38% GHG Emissions (MTCO2e) 1,337 807 -40% San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Appendix | A-1 APPENDIX A: COMMUNITY INVENTORY Community GHG Emissions Summary Table Jurisdiction: City of San Rafael Inventory Year: 2016 Population: 60,661 in 2016 (CA Department of Finance) Date Prepared: October 10, 2018 Number of Households: 23,051 (CA Department of Finance) Reporting Framework: Communitywide Activities ID Emissions Type Source or Activity Included, Required Activities Included, Optional Activities Excluded (IE, NA, NO or NE) Notes Emissions (MTCO2e) 1.0 Built Environment 1.1 Use of fuel in residential and commercial stationary combustion equipment Both ● 81,067 1.2 Industrial stationary sources Source NE 1.3 Power generation in the community Source NO 1.4 Use of electricity in the community Activity ● Includes transmission and distribution losses 48,784 1.5 District heating/cooling facilities in the community Source NE 1.6 Use of district heating/cooling facilities in the community Activity NE 1.7 Industrial process emissions in the community Source NO 1.8 Refrigerant leakage in the community Source NE 2.0 Transportation and Other Mobile Sources 2.1 On-road passenger vehicles operating within the community boundary Source IE Obtained data for preferred activity- based method instead 2.2 On-road passenger vehicles associated with community land uses Activity ● 174,006 2.3 On-road freight and service vehicles operating within the community boundary Source IE Obtained data for preferred activity- based method instead 2.4 On-road freight and service vehicles associated with community land uses Activity ● 55,442 2.5 On-road transit vehicles associated with community land uses Activity ● Unable to obtain source data, therefore obtained activity-based data instead 9,495 2.6 Transit rail vehicles operating with the community boundary Source NO San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Appendix | A-2 2.7 Use of transit rail travel by the community Activity NE 2.8 Inter-city passenger rail vehicles operating within the community boundary Source NO 2.9 Freight rail vehicles operating within the community boundary Source NO 2.10 Marine vessels operating within the community boundary Source NE 2.11 Use of ferries by the community Activity NE 2.12 Off-road surface vehicles and other mobile equipment operating within the community boundary Source ● 3,583 2.13 Use of air travel by the community Activity NE 3.0 Solid Waste 3.1 Operation of solid waste disposal facilities in the community Source NE 3.2 Generation and disposal of solid waste by the community Activity ● 14,933 4.0 Water and Wastewater 4.1 Operation of water delivery facilities in the community Source IE Energy use is included in 1.1 and 1.4. 4.2 Use of energy associated with use of potable water by the community Activity ● 633 4.3 Use of energy associated with generation of wastewater by the community Activity ● Energy use is included in 1.1 and 1.4. 4.4 Process emissions from operation of wastewater treatment facilities located in the community Source NE Wastewater treatment facilities are located in the community but only process emissions associated with generation of wastewater by the community are reported in 4.5. 4.5 Process emissions associated with generation of wastewater by the community Activity ● 978 4.6 Use of septic systems in the community Source NE 5.0 Agriculture 5.1 Domesticated animal production Source NE 5.2 Manure decomposition and treatment Source NE 6.0 Upstream Impacts of Communitywide Activities 6.1 Upstream impacts of fuels used in stationary applications by the community Activity NE 6.2 Upstream and transmission and distribution (T&D) impacts of purchased electricity used by the community Activity IE Transmission and distribution losses included in 1.4. 6.3 Upstream impacts of fuels used by water and wastewater facilities for water used and wastewater generated within the community boundary Activity IE Included in 4.2 and 4.3. 6.4 Upstream impacts of select materials (concrete, food, paper, carpets, etc.) sued by the whole community. Activity NE San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Appendix | A-3 Legend IE – Included Elsewhere: Emissions for this activity are estimated and presented in another category of the inventory. The category where these emissions are included should be noted in the explanation. NE – Not Estimated: Emissions occur but have not been estimate or reported (e.g., data unavailable, effort required not justifiable). NA – Not Applicable: The activity occurs but does not cause emissions; explanation should be provided. NO – Not Occurring: The source or activity does not occur or exist within the community. San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Appendix | A-4 Community Emissions Data Sources and Calculation Methodologies Sector/ID Emissions Source Source and/or Activity Data Emission Factor and Methodology 1.0 Built Environment 1.1 Stationary Combustion Stationary Combustion (CO2, CH4 & N2O) Known fuel use (meter readings by PG&E) and estimated fuel use (American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, and U.S. Energy Information Administration Household Site Fuel Consumption data). Default CO2, CH4 & N2O emission factors by fuel type (U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1 Tables B.1 and B.3). U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix C, Method BE.1.1 and BE.1.2. 1.4 Electricity Use Electricity Use (CO2, CH4 & N2O) Known electricity use (meter readings by PG&E and MCE) and estimated direct access electricity consumption. Verified utility-specific emission factors (PG&E and MCE) and eGrid subregion default emission factors. U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix C, Method BE.2.1. Electric Power Transmission and Distribution Losses (CO2, CH4 & N2O) Estimated electricity grid loss for Western region from eGrid. U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix C, Method BE.4.1. 2.0 Transportation and Other Mobile Sources 2.2 On-Road Passenger Vehicle Operation On-Road Mobile Combustion (CO2) Estimated passenger vehicle miles traveled associated with origin and destination land uses (Metropolitan Transportation Commission, http://capvmt.us-west- 2.elasticbeanstalk.com/data). CO2 for on-road passenger vehicles quantified in the EMFAC2017 model. Passenger vehicle emissions calculated according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix D, Method TR.1.A. On-Road Mobile Combustion (CH4 & N2O) Estimated vehicle miles traveled associated with origin and destination land uses (Metropolitan Transportation Commission, http://capvmt.us-west- 2.elasticbeanstalk.com/data). CH4 and N2O for on-road passenger vehicles quantified in the EMFAC2017 model and adjusted for IPCC AR5 100-year values. Passenger vehicle emissions calculated according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix D, Method TR.1.A. 2.4 On-Road Freight and Service Truck Freight Operation On-Road Mobile Combustion (CO2) Estimated commercial vehicle miles traveled within the boundary (Metropolitan Transportation Commission utilizing Plan Bay Area 2040 and the 2017 Regional Transportation Plan). CO2 for on-road commercial vehicles quantified in the EMFAC2017 model. Emissions allocated utilizing LEHD data according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix D, Method TR.2.A. On-Road Mobile Combustion (CH4 & N2O) Estimated commercial vehicle miles traveled within the boundary (Metropolitan Transportation Commission utilizing Plan Bay Area 2040 and the 2017 Regional Transportation Plan). CH4 and N2O for on-road commercial vehicles quantified in the EMFAC2017 model and adjusted for IPCC AR5 100-year values. Emissions allocated utilizing LEHD data according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix D, Method TR.2.A. 2.5 On-Road Transit Operation On-Road Mobile Combustion (CO2) Estimated commercial vehicle miles traveled within the boundary (Metropolitan Transportation Commission utilizing Plan Bay Area 2040 and the 2017 Regional Transportation Plan). CO2 for on-road commercial vehicles quantified in the EMFAC2017 model. Emissions allocated according to jurisdiction’s share of countywide population. Recommended U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix D, Method TR.4.A could not be used due to lack of data. San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Appendix | A-5 On-Road Mobile Combustion (CH4 & N2O) Estimated commercial vehicle miles traveled within the boundary (Metropolitan Transportation Commission utilizing the 2017 Regional Transportation Plan). CH4 and N2O for on-road passenger vehicles quantified in the EMFAC2017 model and adjusted for IPCC AR5 100-year values. Emissions allocated according to jurisdiction’s share of countywide population. Recommended U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1 Method TR.4.B, Appendix D, could not be used due to lack of data. 2.12 Off-Road Vehicles and Equipment Off-Road Mobile Combustion (CO2) Estimated fuel use from OFFROAD 2007 for Lawn and Garden and from OFFROAD2017 for Construction equipment. All categories are allocated by share of countywide households. CO2 emissions calculated according U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix D, Method TR.8. Emission factors provided in Table TR.1.6. Off-Road Mobile Combustion (CH4 & N2O) Estimated fuel use from OFFROAD 2007 for Lawn and Garden and from OFFROAD2017 for Construction equipment. All categories are allocated by share of countywide households. CH4 and N2O emissions calculated according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix D, Method TR.8. Emission factors provided in the Local Government Operations Protocol Table G.11 and G.14. 3.0 Solid Waste 3.2 Solid Waste Generation and Disposal Fugitive Emissions from Landfilled Waste (CH4) Estimated landfilled tons based on reporting to CalRecycle by Marin County Solid and Hazardous Waste JPA and allocated to jurisdiction based on share of countywide population. Waste characterization based on the Statewide Waste Characterization Study (2008 and 2014) and Alternative Daily Cover by Jurisdiction of Origin and Material Type as reported to CalRecycle. Emission factors calculated utilizing U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Report of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Version 1.1, July 2013, Appendix E, Method SW.4. 4.0 Water and Wastewater 4.2 Water Supply & Conveyance, Treatment and Distribution Electricity Use (CO2) Water consumption data provided by Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD). Assumed 75% of water from MMWD resources and 25% from Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA). Electricity consumption data provided by MMWD. Verified utility-specific emission factors (PG&E, MCE and SCWA). Emissions calculated according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix F, Method WW.14. Electricity Use (CH4 & N2O) Water consumption data provided by Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD). Assumed 75% of water from MMWD resources and 25% from Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA). Electricity consumption data provided by MMWD. eGrid subregion default emission factors. Emissions calculated according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix F, Method WW.14. 4.5 Treatment of Wastewater Stationary Emissions from Combustion of Digester Gas (CH4) Known amount of digester gas produced per day and known percent of methane in digester gas provided by Central Marin Sanitation Agency. Known amount of digester gas produced Emissions calculated according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix F, Method WW.1.a. San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Appendix | A-6 per day (2016) and known percent of methane in digester gas (2017) provided by Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District. Stationary Emissions from Combustion of Digester Gas (N2O) Known amount of digester gas produced per day and known percent of methane in digester gas provided by Central Marin Sanitation Agency. Known amount of digester gas produced per day (2016) and known percent of methane in digester gas (2017) provided by Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District. Emissions calculated according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix F, Method WW.2.a. Process Emissions from Wastewater Treatment Plant without Nitrification or Denitrification Estimated population served by wastewater treatment plant provided by Central Marin Sanitation Agency. Emissions calculated according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix F, Method WW.8. Process Emissions from Wastewater Treatment Plant with Nitrification or Denitrification Estimated population served by wastewater treatment plant provided by Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District (2010 data). Emissions calculated according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix F, Method WW.7. Fugitive Emissions from Effluent Discharge (N2O) Estimated population served by wastewater treatment plant provided by Central Marin Sanitation Agency. Assumed significant industrial or commercial input. Emissions calculated according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix F, Method WW.12(alt). Fugitive Emissions from Effluent Discharge (N2O) Estimated population served by wastewater treatment plant provided by Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District. Assumed no significant industrial or commercial input. Emissions calculated according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix F, Method WW.12. San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Appendix B-1 APPENDIX B: GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS INVENTORY B UILDINGS AND OTHER FACILITIES SECTOR NOTES LGO P ROTOCOL – E MISSIONS BY S COPE AND E MISSION T YPE , 2005 Scope Emission Type Energy Consumption Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons) CO2 N2O CH4 HFCs CO2e Scope 1 Stationary Combustion 56,042 therms 297.13 0.00 0.03 0.00 298.07 Fugitive Emissions Refrigerants 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.38 TOTAL 297.13 0.00 0.03 0.00 300.45 Scope 2 Purchased Electricity 2,231,608 kWh 495.15 0.01 0.03 0.00 498.23 TOTAL 495.15 0.01 0.03 0.00 498.23 LGO P ROTOCOL – E MISSIONS BY S COPE AND E MISSION T YPE , 201 6 Scope Emission Type Energy Consumption Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons) CO2 N2O CH4 HFCs CO2e Scope 1 Stationary Combustion 73,188 therms 388.04 0.00 0.04 0.00 389.26 Fugitive Emissions Refrigerants 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.38 TOTAL 388.04 0.00 0.04 0.00 389.26 Scope 2 Purchased Electricity 2,564,438 kWh 331.52 0.00 0.04 0.00 333.83 TOTAL 331.52 0.00 0.04 0.00 333.83 Energy usage was provided by Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) based on PG&E service accounts. LGO Protocol recommended methods were followed in collection and analysis of this activity data. For electricity, verified utility-specific (PG&E and MCE) CO2 emissions factor and eGrid subregion default N2O and CH4 emission factors for WECC California were used. For natural gas, default CO2, CH4 & N2O emission factors by fuel type were used (U.S. Community Protocol, v. 1.1, May 2010, Tables B.1 and B.3). Refrigerant type and capacity for air conditioning units were provided by San Rafael public works staff. 2010 refrigerant data was used as a proxy for 2005 and 2016. LGO Protocol alternate methods were followed in collection and analysis of refrigerant activity data. San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Appendix B-2 PUBLIC LIGHTING S ECTOR N OTES LGO P ROTOCOL – E MISSIONS BY S COPE AND E MISSION T YPE , 2005 Scope Emission Type Energy Consumption Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons) CO2 N2O CH4 HFCs CO2e Scope 2 Purchased Electricity 2,442,556 kWh 541.95 0.01 0.04 0.00 545.33 LGO P ROTOCOL – E MISSIONS BY S COPE AND E MISSION T YPE , 201 6 Scope Emission Type Energy Consumption Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons) CO2 N2O CH4 HFCs CO2e Scope 2 Purchased Electricity 2,207,420 kWh 285.36 0.00 0.03 0.00 287.35 Energy usage was provided by Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) based on energy usage of PG&E service accounts. LGO Protocol recommended methods were followed in collection and analysis of this activity data. Verified utility-specific (PG&E and MCE) CO2 emissions factor and eGrid subregion default N2O and CH4 emission factors for WECC California were used to calculate emissions. WATER DELIVERY SECTOR N OTES LGO P ROTOCOL – E MISSIONS BY S COPE AND E MISSION T YPE , 2005 Scope Emission Type Energy Consumption Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons) CO2 N2O CH4 HFCs CO2e Scope 2 Purchased Electricity 527,595 kWh 117.06 0.00 0.01 0.00 117.79 LGO P ROTOCOL – E MISSIONS BY S COPE AND E MISSION T YPE , 201 6 Scope Emission Type Energy Consumption Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons) CO2 N2O CH4 HFCs CO2e Scope 2 Purchased Electricity 470,350 kWh 60.80 0.00 0.01 0.00 61.23 Energy usage was provided by Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) based on energy usage of PG&E service accounts. LGO Protocol recommended methods were followed in collection and analysis of this activity data. Verified utility-specific (PG&E and MCE) CO2 emissions factor and eGrid subregion default N2O and CH4 emission factors for WECC California were used to calculate emissions. San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Appendix B-3 VEHICLE FLEET SECTOR N OTES LGO P ROTOCOL – E MISSIONS BY S COPE AND E MISSION T YPE , 2005 Scope Emission Type Energy Consumption Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons) CO2 N2O CH4 HFCs CO2e Scope 1 Mobile Combustion 72,682 gallons gasoline 638.15 0.04 0.03 0.00 648.84 Mobile Combustion 26,489 gallons diesel 270.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 270.68 Fugitive Emissions Refrigerants 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 13.15 TOTAL 908.60 0.04 0.03 0.01 932.67 LGO P ROTOCOL – E MISSIONS BY S COPE AND E MISSION T YPE , 201 6 Scope Emission Type Energy Consumption Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons) CO2 N2O CH4 HFCs CO2e Scope 1 Mobile Combustion 69,683 gallons gasoline 611.82 0.01 0.02 0.00 615.26 Mobile Combustion 44,142 gallons diesel 450.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 450.87 Fugitive Emissions Refrigerants 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 13.15 TOTAL 1,062.51 0.01 0.02 0.01 1,079.28 On and off-road vehicle fleet and equipment fuel data were provided by City of San Rafael. VMT data for 2010 was used as a proxy for 2016. LGO Protocol methods were followed in collection and analysis of vehicle fuel consumption and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Default CO2 emission factors for transport fuel from the Local Government Operations Protocol, v. 1.1, May 2010, Table G.11 were used. Default N2O and CH4 emission factors for highway vehicles by model year from the from the Local Government Operations Protocol, v. 1.1, May 2010, Table G.12. 2005 emissions were used and were adjusted to reflect IPCC AR5 values for N2O and CH4. Refrigerant capacities for vehicles were estimated using sources provided by ICLEI. LGO Protocol alternate methods were followed in collection and analysis of refrigerant activity data. 2010 activity data and emissions were used as a proxy for 2005 and 2015 data. WASTE S ECTOR N OTES LGO P ROTOCOL – E MISSIONS BY S COPE AND E MISSION T YPE , 2005 Scope Emission Type Weight Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons) CO2 N2O CH4 HFCs CO2e Scope 3 Landfilled Waste 2,543.6 tons 0.00 0.00 25.38 0.00 710.68 San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Appendix B-4 LGO P ROTOCOL – E MISSIONS BY S COPE AND E MISSION T YPE , 201 6 Scope Emission Type Weight Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons) CO2 N2O CH4 HFCs CO2e Scope 3 Landfilled Waste 2,745.7 tons 0.00 0.00 27.90 0.00 781.06 Solid waste collection data for quantity of containers, container size, pick -ups per week was provided by Marin Sanitary Service. Containers were assumed to be 100% filled at 250 lbs. per cubic yard. 2005 data was revised to reflect a higher weight per cubic yard estimate as recommended by Marin Sanitary Service. All trash bins were assumed to have a 0% diversion rate and all recycling bins were estimated to have an 85% diversion rate as some of the waste erroneously included in recycling containers is not recyclable. Waste characterization estimated based on the Statewide Waste Characterization Study (2008 and 2014 ). Emission factors calculated utilizing U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Report of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Version 1.1, July 2013, Appendix E, Method SW.4. 2005 emissions were adjusted to reflect IPCC AR5 values for CH4. EMPLOYEE COMMUTE SECTOR NOTES LGO P ROTOCOL – E MISSIONS BY S COPE AND E MISSION T YPE , 2005 Scope Emission Type Number of Employees Vehicle Miles Traveled Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons) CO2 N2O CH4 HFCs CO2e Scope 3 Mobile Combustion 220 2,572,471 1,306.95 0.11 0.08 0.00 1,337.23 LGO P ROTOCOL – E MISSIONS BY S COPE AND E MISSION T Y PE, 201 6 Scope Emission Type Number of Employees Vehicle Miles Traveled Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons) CO2 N2O CH4 HFCs CO2e Scope 3 Mobile Combustion 413 2,329,163 357.60 0.02 0.04 0.00 807.42 In 2015, the City distributed commute surveys to its employees regarding travel mode, vehicle type and model year, fuel type, fuel efficiency, and miles traveled to work. Information provided by respondents was used to estimate gallons of fuel consumed and, if necessary, to determine fuel efficiency at www.fueleconomy.gov. Weekly data were converted into annual VMT data assuming 10% reduction for vacation days, sick days and holidays for full-time and part-time employees. 106 employees responded to the survey, a response rate of 26%. Estimates for total employee commutes were extrapolated from this data. Utilized default CO2 emission factors for transport fuel from the Local Government Operations Protocol, v. 1.1, May 2010, Table G.11. Utilized default N 2O and CH4 emission factors for highway vehicles by model year from the from the Local Government Operations Protocol, v. 1.1, May 2010, Table G.12. 2005 emissions were adjusted to reflect IPCC AR5 values for N2O and CH4. San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Appendix B-5 INFORMATION ITEMS Information items are emissions sources that are not included in the inventory but are reported here to provide a more complete picture of emissions from San Rafael’s government operations. Information items for this inventory include one parks department vehicle, refrigerators, freezers, and air conditioning units using R-12 and R-22 refrigerants. These refrigerants are not included in the inventory because they are ozone -depleting substances and are being phased out by 2020 under the terms of the Montreal Protocol. 2010 data was used as a proxy for refrigerant data for years 2015. I NFORMATION I TEMS Source Refrigerant Metric Tons CO2e Vehicle Fleet R-12 0.76 Refrigerators R-12, R-22 0.54 Air Conditioning R-22 13.86 Total 15.16 1 2019-2020 Two-Year Sustainability Program Priorities CCAP 2030 Goal: 40% reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (GHG’s) 2018 Accomplishments GENERAL • Completed the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 update • Participated in the Global Climate Action Summit in San Francisco • Secured new Beacon Awards for Interim Accomplishments in community greenhouse gas reductions and best practices from the Institute for Local Government • Completed greenhouse gas inventory for 2016 and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy report TRANSPORTATION • Worked with TAM and other stakeholders to develop a county-wide electric vehicle readiness plan • Secured funding for three electric vehicle chargers at City Hall WASTE • Completed a multi-jurisdictional review of our recycling revenue fund, and amendment to our rate- setting methodology and Franchise Agreement with Marin Sanitary Service • Continued to utilize Zero Waste Grant funds for a Climate Corps Fellow to assist with zero waste outreach, including single-use take-out plastics reduction at restaurants, illegal dumping research and outreach, waste reduction activities in City facilities and augmentation of other community outreach activities COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT • Supported Chamber Green Business Committee and green business events, including Marin Sustainable Enterprise Conference • Supported Resilient Neighborhoods by hosting and promoting several more classes at our community centers • Continued active engagement with Marin Climate and Energy Partnership as well as community partners and programs such as Bike to Work Day, MCE Clean Energy vehicle rebate programs • Reinvigorated the Employee Green Team ADAPTATION PLANNING • Supported work with the Resilient by Design Challenge team, and assisted with community outreach and education • Established new working relationships with Marin Community Foundation and County of Marin for adaptation planning and funding opportunities • Joined the newly formed Bay Area Climate Adaptation Network and utilized regional professionals to assist with General Plan activities 2 2019-2020 2-Year Sustainability Program Priorities CCAP 2030 Goal: 40% reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (GHG’s) 2019 & 2020 Priorities GENERAL Develop CCAP Engagement Platform Design and develop web platform, including carbon calculator Develop engagement plan TRANSPORTATION Expand EV Charging Network Install more EV chargers at City facilities Promote EV charger incentives & technical assistance to community Implement EV Policies and Programs Develop streamlined permitting procedures Promote EV campaigns, programs & incentives WASTE Implement Mandatory Recycling Develop and implement procedures to enforce State laws Conduct an analysis of a local mandate to supplement State laws If appropriate, develop and adopt local regulations and implement ADAPTATION Plan for Climate Resilience Seek and secure funding for adaptation planning projects Assist with the Adaptation Element of the General Plan ENERGY EFFICIENCY Increase Building Energy Efficiency Support County appliance electrification programs Develop a set of streamlining, technical assistance, and incentive packages to support energy efficiency in the built environment RENEWABLE ENERGY Promote Solar and Renewable Energy Seek out and support solar projects & pilots community-wide Promote rooftop solar programs and financing Promote Deep Green and Solar Choice to residents and businesses ECONOMY & EQUITY Convene an economic working group Convene thought leaders, subject matter experts, and local business leaders to explore opportunities to develop a low- carbon economy 3 Early Action Item: Online Platform Cost & Benefits Snapshot Potential GHG Reduction No direct GHG reduction. However, this is the bedrock platform for our Community Engagement campaign and will underpin all our activities. 99% of our emissions come from the community. Summary CE-C2: Implement a communitywide public outreach and behavior change campaign to engage residents, businesses, and consumers around the impacts of climate change and the ways individuals and organizations can reduce their GHG emissions and create a more sustainable, resilient, and healthier community. Create an overarching theme to articulate a long-term goal, motivate community members, and brand a comprehensive suite of GHG-reduction programs. Prioritize promotion of programs that have the greatest greenhouse gas reduction potential while utilizing the latest socia l science on behavior change. Emphasize and encourage citizens' involvement in reaching the community's climate goals, including innovative means of tracking milestones and comparing San Rafael's performance with other communities and with state, national and global benchmarks. The first step in completing this early priority item will be to develop a San Rafael Climate Action website, which would incur minimal costs, and requires no additional staff resources than currently allocated. Funding Costs to implement the new web site include securing the domain name, paying for monthly hosting, and occasional design costs should it require specialized design and formatting work. These hosting costs are approximately $68 per year. Most, if not all, design seems to be able to be done in-house currently so staff is hoping not to have to engage outside designers. However, funding for these activities are included in the proposed 2019-2020 fiscal year budget. The remainder of the actions in the Community Engagement section will focus on analysis and collaborations with community partners for this fiscal year and will not incur additional expenses at this time. Economy and Social Equity There should be no additional impacts to the local economy from the new web site. Use of the site will be free. The challenge for social equity is the replication of the site in other languages, which is yet to be determined. An engagement with our local community members is in the works to determine the best way forward. The site will be ADA compliant to ensure that visitors with disabilities can access the full functions of the site. It will also be mobile-friendly for those without computer access. 4 Co-Benefits The primary benefit for this activity is to make it easier for citizens to take action and to access our Climate Change Action Plan in a user-friendly manner and experience. There are a variety of co- benefits to all the actions that will be encouraged, but these will ultimately be determined by the visitors and the choices they make. 5 Early Action Item: Zero Emission Vehicles Cost & Benefits Snapshot Potential GHG Reduction 30,345 MTCO2e, or about 31% of the City’s total 2030 reductions goal. Summary Measure LCT-C1: Develop a Zero Emission Vehicle Plan that will result in 25% of passenger vehicles in San Rafael to be zero emission vehicles (ZEVs), including plug-in electric vehicles (EVs) and hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles, by 2030. This item includes 13 actions the City could do to decrease emissions by helping to increase the number of ZEVs in use by residents and businesses in San Rafael. Some actions will require additional analysis. The first step in completing this early priority item will be to develop the ZEV Plan, which would incur no costs other than staff time, and requires no additional staff resources than currently allocated. Funding Direct costs to the City will likely include installation of EV chargers and wayfinding and parking signage. Potential costs include trenching, wiring, electrical upgrades, installation, and parking infrastructure changes. Most, if not all, of these costs can be offset by grants and incentives from PG&E, MCE Clean Energy, the Transportation Authority of Marin, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the State, and other agencies or programs. This is how the current charger installations have all been funded. The majority of the ZEV Plan’s actions, such as the development of policies and ordinances and participation in outreach and behavior change campaigns, will be carried out by staff and community partners and will not incur additional costs to the City at this time. Economy and Social Equity Potential opportunities and impacts to the local economy include additional costs to builders, property owners and developers for installing the wiring and infrastructure necessary to meet new mandates. However, there are a variety of rebates and incentives available to help offset those costs in situations where there is multi-family or workplace parking. In addition, the addition of EV chargers may increase property values, especially as ZEVs gain in popularity and demand. Currently, a ZEV costs approximately 30% more than a similar internal combustion engine model, but the annual cost of ownership is lower because electricity is cheaper than gas, and ZEVs do not require oil changes and other types of maintenance.1 1 Loren McDonald, “Analyzing US Sales Trends for 24 Shared ICE/EV Models: Yes, Price & Range Do Matter,” Clean Technica, May 27, 2018, https://cleantechnica.com/2018/05/27/analyzing-us-sales-trends-for-24-shared-ice-ev-models-yes-price- range-matter/. 6 Currently there is very little opportunity for apartment dwellers to charge vehicles at home. Having more EV charger availability in apartment complexes, public parking lots, and workplace settings will enable renters to acquire EVs and plug-in hybrids. Local sales and tax revenue could go up or down slightly depending on availability of ZEVs at local dealers and rate of adoption. There will also be indirect market benefits to local contractors who will be providing services and supplies for these efforts. Currently there are a number of State programs and incentives directed at lower-income individuals and renters to purchase ZEVs. Co-Benefits The primary benefit for this activity is to make it easier for citizens to get charging for electric v ehicles and to remove obstacles to citizens’ ability to acquire electric vehicles. Co-benefits include health benefits from less particulate matter and airborne pollutants, including volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and sulfur dioxide. In addition, there are opportunities to aid in simplifying permitting and procedures for other construction permits, increased customer satisfaction at the counter, and less time and expense for vehicle maintenance for consumers since EVs do not require oil and filter changes. 7 Early Action Item: Mandatory Recycling Cost & Benefits Snapshot Potential GHG Reduction 9,680 MTCO2e, or about 10% of the City’s total 2030 reductions goal. Summary WR-C4: Adopt an ordinance requiring mandatory subscription to and participation in waste diversion activities, including recycling and organics collection provided by Marin Sanitary Service. Consider including phased implementation of the ordinance, penalties, and practical enforcement mechanisms. It is anticipated that with the passage of SB 1383 last year the State will require local jurisdictions to pass local recycling and organics diversion mandates. The regulations are still being drafted but currently are calling for local mandates should cities not meet diversion goals by 2022. This item would require an analysis of the challenges and opportunities here in San Rafael, including the potential of partnering with the other agencies in our Marin Sanitary Service Franchisors’ Group. Funding Typically, funding for an analysis that would affect ratepayers is conducted through the rates and has no direct cost to the City. An analysis such as this could cost between $50 -100,000. The potential rate impact of an analysis could be in the .1 to .3% range for consumers. A staff analysis is another option, which would cost nothing to the City other than staff time, which could take longer and would mainly focus on identifying a model ordinance that exists someplace else that could be adapted for San Rafael. Opportunities exist to collaborate with other local jurisdictions to reduce the cost to San Rafael, such as the Marin Franchisors’ Group and other agencies with contracts with Marin Sanitary Service. Economy and Social Equity Potential opportunities and impacts to the local economy include increased costs of doing business for commercial customers, the potential of increased or decreased rates for customers depending on how much they can reduce their landfill garbage service, and the potential for new lines of business that could serve businesses with large amounts of composting materials. Potentially, extra costs of doing business could be passed along to customers or even to renters in apartment buildings. Co-Benefits There could be co-benefits from working together more closely on recycling and diversion activities county-wide by making it easier for the public to understand and comply, and by providing more opportunities for adequate recycling. Increased recycling and composting saves landfill space and lengthens the amount of time we are able to use our local landfill. 8 Early Action Item: Adaptation Planning Cost & Benefits Snapshot Summary SA-C4: Prepare for and adapt to a rising sea level. SA-C5: Prepare for and respond to the expected impacts of climate change. These items and the ten activities included in them are San Rafael’s commitment to prepare for the effects of climate change, some of which are already upon us: rising seas and increased flooding, drought, health impacts from extreme heat and poor air quality, and safety risks from the increased likelihood and prevalence of wildfires and landslides. Some are currently being dealt with in the General Plan 2040 process as the Steering Committee weighs land use policies that take into account rising seas and increased flood risk. Many projects and resources are available to San Rafael including the County’s BayWAVE sea level rise vulnerability assessment, San Rafael’s Sea Level Rise White Paper, and the Resilient by Design Challenge project focused on East San Rafael among others. The first step for this early priority item is to identify funding to continue the work that’s already been done toward developing a full-fledged adaptation plan. Funding Costs to develop an adaptation plan that prepares for multiple hazards could be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, which are currently not budgeted. However, there are a number of funding sources available, mostly grants, that could be leveraged from State agencies such as the State Coastal Conservancy, from private foundations such as the Marin Community Foundation, and from a variety of other sources such as Prop 1 funds, Measure AA, and the Funders’ Network among others. For example, last year the Town of Corte Madera2 received a $325,000 Caltrans Climate Adaptation Planning Grant to conduct a comprehensive adaptation planning effort. Staff will work with our community partners to identify funding to accomplish this measure. Economy and Social Equity The potential negative impacts to the local economy are significant and daunting. Studies show a potential loss to property of $7 billion3 to San Rafael during a significant flood event with a three-foot rise in sea levels. Those most vulnerable are often those with the least means to respond and recover: those with limited income, resources and local support systems, including residents of the Canal Neighborhood, older adults, and people with disabilities. Efforts to plan for adaptation and resilience must engage those most likely to be affected. Fortunately, State guidance and funding mechanisms are most often now placing priority on or mandating that funding recipients have robust social equity components in their projects. San Rafael has already done a lot in this area and is building our capacity to engage and include low income and communities of color in our planning efforts. 2 https://www.townofcortemadera.org/837/Climate-Adaptation-Plan 3 https://baykeeper.org/shoreview/economic-loss.html 9 Co-Benefits Increasingly, insurers are looking at climate change in their policies and portfolios. Cities with adequate climate action and adaptation strategies and implementation will be better able to continue to sell bonds for projects and maintain good credit ratings. As planning and projects go forward there is potential for people in hazard zones that are being addressed to escape higher premiums or discontinuance of coverage. All planning efforts should look at co-benefits that also reduce greenhouse gas emissions or provide other short-term needs while planning for long-term impacts. For example, when looking at energy resilience, there are opportunities to not only provide for electricity during a disaster, but also provide it at lower costs and through renewable means, providing benefit to the community outside of a disaster scenario. 10 Early Action Item: Building Energy Efficiency Cost & Benefits Snapshot Potential GHG Reduction 18,280 MTCO2e, or about 19% of the City’s total 2030 reductions goal. Summary EE-C4: Green Building Reach Code Investigate adopting a green building ordinance for new and remodeled commercial and residential projects that requires green building methods and energy efficiency savings above the State building and energy codes. Consider utilizing the County's green building ordinance as a model and including the use of photovoltaic systems and all-electric building systems as options to achieve compliance. EE-C5: Streamline Permit Process and Provide Technical Assistance Analyze current green building permit and inspection process to eliminate barriers and provide technical assistance to ensure successful implementation of green building requirements. Work county-wide to make it easier for contractors and building counter staff to simplify applications and identify incentives. Every three years the State of California updates the Green Building codes and local governments have the opportunity to go beyond by adopting stronger reach codes. These two CCAP 2030 measures go hand-in-hand in trying to build a customer experience that removes barriers to adoption of green building practices while meeting or exceeding new State building code requirements. The County of Marin is leading a county-wide effort to understand the new codes and opportunities so that we can achieve our GHG reduction goals while ensuring a positive experience for builders and property owners. Funding Currently there are no costs associated with this effort other than staff time commitment from the Building Division and the Sustainability Program. Staff will leverage the work being done and coordinated by the County and the Bay Area Regional Energy Network (BayREN). Should there be activities identified that would incur costs, funding would be identified from department budgets, grant or other external sources, or would be brought to City Council for approval first. 11 Economy and Social Equity There are some concerns that increased costs associated with green building codes could add to the costs of an already expensive real estate market. As a percentage, Green Building reach codes are estimated to add 1-2% to construction costs in California.4 However, net operating costs are lowered, and when these costs are reduced, the value of a commercial project increases while occupancy costs decrease.5 Therefore, reach codes should ideally seek to reduce ongoing costs of ownership to balance out any increased cost in rents. When it comes to the built environment, programs like MCE Clean Energy’s Low Income Families and Tenants program should be supported to assist with getting renters healthier and more efficient homes while reducing energy bills. Co-Benefits There are many potential co-benefits to Green Building reach codes beyond the long-term occupancy savings, including having healthier, more efficient homes, better heating, less indoor air pollution, among others. In addition, there are other GHG reduction benefits outside of building energy due to the codes, including less water use, less emissions from waste disposal, and reduction in transportation related GHGs. Finally, many CalGreen mandates have co-benefits relating to other environmental impacts studied in EIRs, such as reducing water demand, criteria air pollutants and waste disposal.6 Work on this program in combination with the other permit and process streamlining objectives in other measures and in-process at the City have the added potential of creating a better public user experience and staff satisfaction as well. 4 Steve Pellegren, “Sustainability Is Vital, but Adds To the Cost of Building In California ”, National Real Estate Investor, October 26, 2015 https://www.nreionline.com/multifamily/sustainability-vital-adds-cost-building- california 5 Nora Knox, “Green Building Costs and Savings”, U.S. Green Building Council, March 25, 2015 https://www.usgbc.org/articles/green-building-costs-and-savings 6 Louise Mozingo & Ed Arens, “Quantifying the Comprehensive Greenhouse Gas Co-Benefits Of Green Buildings”, Center for Environmental Design, UC Berkeley, October 24, 2014. https://ced.berkeley.edu/research/faculty-projects/water-waste-transportation-benefits-green-buildings 12 Early Action Item: Renewable Energy Cost & Benefits Snapshot Potential GHG Reduction 31,925 MTCO2e, or about 32% of the City’s total 2030 reductions goal. Summary RE-C1: Renewable Energy Generation Accelerate installation of residential and commercial solar and other renewable energy systems. RE-C2: GHG-Free Electricity: Encourage residents and businesses to switch to 100 percent renewable electricity (MCE Deep Green, MCE Local Sol, and PG&E Solar Choice) through engagement campaigns and partner agency incentives and work with MCE Clean Energy to assure that it reaches its goal to provide electricity that is 100 percent GHG-free by 2025. These two measures and the five activities associated with them aim to reduce the carbon intensity of electricity being delivered to homes and businesses here in San Rafael. The initial work to be done is to assess current barriers and benefits to the installation of solar energy systems and develop a roadmap for making it easier and more beneficial, especially in light of rate changes that are making it less lucrative. In addition, staff will need to partner with our utilities and agency partners such as the Marin Climate and Energy Partnership (MCEP) to support their engagement platforms and efforts. Funding Currently there are no costs associated with this effort other than staff time commitment from the Sustainability Program. Once a roadmap is developed, potential activities that could incur costs will be identified as well as funding opportunities. Any costs to the City that cannot be covered by outside funding or allocated resources in our fiscal year budget will be brought forward in future budget deliberations. Economy and Social Equity Renewable energy generally is a net benefit financially to adopters. For example, most solar projects include return on investment that amplifies over time reducing energy costs for the building owners. There are a variety of funding mechanisms that can allow property owners to own, lease, or procure solar through power purchase agreements with no money down. Solar energy systems on affordable housing can be a great benefit to renters, especially if they participate in payment of electricity. However, there is usually a “split incentive” in that property owners do not see the financial benefits of the solar they install if renters are paying the bills. Thus the incentive is minimal and often requires additional encouragement. Nonprofit housing collaboratives currently tend to have more interest and 13 incentive as exemplified in the Canal Alliance’s property that was a beneficiary of a Grid Alternatives solar project last year.7 Purchasing 100% renewable electricity from the utilities does have a cost premium though, over and above the normal electricity costs. Some, like MCE Clean Energy’s Deep Green product is 1c per kilowatt hour more than their standard Light Green product but is still often lower or on par with PG&E’s standard electricity product. Others, like PG&E’s Sol Shares is a little more expensive than their standard product at approximately 2c more per kilowatt hour. Co-Benefits Solar rooftop systems and local solar have the potential to increase local energy resilience during a disaster. They also provide a hedge against increases in electricity rates. Purchasing 100% renewable electricity at a premium in some cases can allow utilities to purchase more renewables and could accelerate the move to 100% renewables as the standard product for utilities. Less fossil-fuel based electricity reduces overall pollution and their associated health impacts, which tends to benefit lower- income communities that are often located closer to energy generation plants.8 7 News Release “Marin Residents and Local Nonprofits Join Together to Bring Solar Energy to Recent Immigrants” https://gridalternatives.org/sites/default/files/Solar%20for%20Canal%20Alliance%20Press%20Release.pdf 8 PSE Healthy Energy “Natural Gas Powerplants in California’s Disadvantaged Communities”, April 2017 https://www.psehealthyenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/CA.EJ_.Gas_.Plants.pdf 14 Early Action Item: Low Carbon Economy Cost & Benefits Snapshot Summary CE-C4: Innovation and Economic Development: Convene an economic development and innovation working group to explore public-private partnerships and develop ways to decarbonize our local economy while spurring sustainable enterprise and equitable employment. This measure will allow the City to leverage the talents of local business owners and managers, thought leaders, and regional subject matter experts to understand what the opportunities are for San Rafael to create a low-carbon economy. This will involve convening a working group and engaging leaders from the Chambers for Innovation and Clean Energy, the Business Council on Climate Change, and the Marin Economic Forum, among others. Funding Costs associated with this effort include hiring a facilitator and providing adequate supplies and food and beverage for gatherings and presentations, estimated at $3-5,000. This has been included in the proposed Sustainability Program budget for fiscal year 2019-2020. Economy and Social Equity The marriage of economy and social equity is nowhere as evident and necessary as with this CCAP 2030 measure, and a successful low-carbon economy will most likely require good, green jobs and training programs. Enhanced economic activity should benefit as many as possible. Marin is home to many potential partners to assist, including the College of Marin, Dominican University, Marin Economic Forum, Canal Alliance, MCE Clean Energy, Marin Community Foundation, the Workforce Alliance of the North Bay, Multicultural Center of Marin, and others, including partners in Sonoma. Co-Benefits There are many potential co-benefits to strengthening and diversifying our local economy and prioritizing innovation and emissions reductions. These include benefits to ecosystem resilience, trade, employment, health, energy security, and business competitiveness. In addition, efforts to build collaborations have other benefits to the City and community including new opportunities for public- private partnerships, enhanced community engagement opportunities for other programs and projects, and infusion of expertise and insights into City processes and services.