Building a Framework for a Climate Action Plan in the City of Richmond

#VJMEJOHB'SBNFXPSLGPSB $MJNBUF"DUJPO1MBOJOUIF $JUZPG3JDINPOE

3JDINPOET'PSE1PJOUBUTVOTFU TFFOGSPNUIF#BZ5SBJMMPPLJOHXFTU 1IPUP3ZBO$IBO Ryan Chan Advanced Policy Analysis Conducted for the City of Richmond Spring 2010

Acknowledgements

Many people provided invaluable contributions to this report.

At the City of Richmond, the author would like to thank Jenny Oorbeck, former environmental manager, for helping to formulate this project and providing patient guidance, contacts, and a wealth of environmental and local knowledge. Janet Schneider, provided insightful commentary and advice. Adam Lenz supplied vital comments and ideas on energy efficiency. Jennifer Ly had detailed knowledge of municipal environmental operations and policies. She, along with Maren Anderson, conducted numerous interviews for the CAP planning process. City Manager Bill Lindsay provided a big‐picture view of City operations. Mayor Gayle McLaughlin and Nicole Valentino have been tirelessly working toward a holistic understanding of the City’s health and environment. Alex Brennan was a great source of ideas and sounding board for many of mine. Chadrick Smalley has been working on multiple programs to revitalize and green the City, which he generously explained. Lori Reese‐Brown provided details into the planning and General Plan process.

At the Goldman School of Public Policy, my faculty advisor Professor Margaret Taylor provided indispensable environmental knowledge, numerous and creative ideas, and analytical rigor. Fellow students in my policy analysis group, and numerous other classmates were both indulgent listeners and provocative questioners.

Others to thank include Sukarn Claire and Jim Smith at BAAQMD, Kristen Steck at Chevron, Wesley Look of ICLEI, and Eliot Rose, who led the Cities and Climate Change seminar at UC Berkeley. The author owes deepest gratitude to his loving and sacrificial spouse, Marian.

All errors and omissions are the author’s alone.

The author conducted this study as part of the program of professional education at the Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California at Berkeley. This paper is submitted in partial fulfillment of the course requirements for the Master of Public Policy degree. The judgments and conclusions are solely those of the author, and are not necessarily endorsed by the Goldman School of Public Policy, by the University of California or by any other agency.

Table of Contents I. Executive Summary...... 7 II. Climate Change and Richmond...... 12 III. Highlighting and Tracking City Commitments...... 14 A. Signing the US Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement...... 14

B. Recognizing 350ppm as a sensible limit for atmospheric CO2 levels ...... 15 C. Adopting AB32 Emissions Targets ...... 18 D. Commitment: California FIRST financing ...... 18 E. Commitment: Joining the Urban Environmental Accords...... 19 F. Joining the ICLEI Cities for Climate Protection program ...... 19 IV. Assessing and Projecting Richmond’s Emissions...... 23 A. Scope and Methodology of Analysis ...... 25 B. Defining the Baseline ...... 26 C. Past Emissions...... 26 V. Setting Emissions Targets...... 32 A. Primary Target Areas...... 32 VI. Developing a Climate Action Plan ...... 35 A. The role of City Staff in developing the CAP...... 35 B. The possible role of a consultant in developing the CAP...... 36 C. The role of public review in developing the CAP ...... 36 D. Integrating the CAP into a larger sustainability framework...... 37 E. The role of the CAP in CEQA...... 37 F. Addressing adaptation...... 40 VII. Reduction Strategies ...... 41 A. Residential Energy Use...... 41 B. Local Transportation Emissions ...... 43 C. Waste...... 49 D. Businesses ...... 53 VIII. Conclusion...... 55

3 List of Tables

Table 1: 2010 AB32 Goal Emissions, MT of CO2e...... 18 Table 2: Progress toward ICLEI Milestones ...... 19 Table 3: Overall Emissions Profile Estimates and Projections, (target areas in green)...... 24 Table 4: 2006 Residential Consumption Comparison, per capita...... 26 Table 5: Residential Electricity and Gas Use ...... 27 Table 6: Commercial/Industrial Emissions...... 29 Table 7: Projected Transportation Emissions...... 30 Table 8: Waste Estimates and Projections (Using Latest Models) ...... 31 Table 9: Primary Target Areas ...... 33 Table 10: Criteria Matrix...... 34 Table 11: Projected Impacts from Climate Change (CA Climate Change Center) ...... 40

Table 12: Reductions from Strategies, MT CO2e...... 41 Table 13: Residential Emissions with Recommendations ...... 42 Table 14: Residential Sector Strategies...... 42 Table 15: Transportation Reductions (Pavley)...... 43 Table 16: Means of Transportation to Work, 2006‐2008...... 46 Table 17: Workplace, 2006‐2008 ...... 47 Table 18: Journey to Work by Mode of Travel (Table 4.1 from Draft General Plan)...... 47 Table 19: Recommended Transportation Policies ...... 48 Table 20: Waste Recommendations ...... 49 Table 21: Waste Diversion Goals...... 52 Table 22: GHG Reductions from Waste Diversion Goals...... 52 Table 23: SmartLight Program Savings (As of Sept. 2009)...... 53 Table 24: City Population Growth Estimate Sources...... 58 Table 25: Population Data and Projections ...... 59 Table 26: Electricity Emissions Factors ...... 61 Table 27: California Energy Usage by Housing Type...... 62 Table 28: Estimated Richmond Energy Usage by Housing Type...... 62 Table 29: Estimated Proportion of Residential GHG by Housing Type ...... 62 Table 30: GHG Point Source Emissions (2008) Covered Under Mandatory Reporting ...... 65

Table 31: Commercial/Industrial Emissions, millions of MT CO2e...... 65 Table 32: Estimated Reductions from Pavley Regulations...... 68 Table 33: Waste Characterization...... 70

4 List of Figures Figure 1: Shoreline Areas Vulnerable to Sea Level Rise...... 13 Figure 2: Planetary Boundaries Chart, from Nature...... 15 Figure 3: Planetary Boundaries Table from Nature...... 16 Figure 4: Sample See‐it Scorecard ...... 22 Figure 5: 2005 Emissions Profile ...... 23 Figure 6: Overall and Target Area Emissions ...... 25 Figure 7: Residential Emissions from Energy Usage...... 27 Figure 8: Commercial/Industrial Emissions...... 29 Figure 9: Projected Vehicle Emissions...... 30 Figure 10: Waste Estimates and Projections ...... 31 Figure 11: Primary Target Areas and Reductions ...... 33 Figure 12: Transportation Reductions ...... 44 Figure 13: Public Transportation Access and GHG Emissions [TransForm report]...... 45 Figure 14: Construction and Demolition Debris Sources ...... 51 Figure 15: City Population and Projection...... 57 Figure 16: PG&E Population Growth...... 58 Figure 17: PG&E 2016 Projected Emissions Factors...... 60 Figure 18: 2005 Municipal Emissions by Sector ...... 71

List of Appendices Appendix A: Climate Change Background...... 56 Appendix B: Population Calculations ...... 57 Appendix C: Residential Projections...... 60 Appendix D: Commercial/Industrial Projections...... 64 Appendix E: Transportation Projections ...... 66 Appendix F: Waste Projections ...... 69 Appendix G: Waste Projections...... 71 Appendix H: Resolution 15‐10, Recognizing 350 PPM...... 76 Appendix I: Resolution 108‐08 Committing to AB32 Goals ...... 77 Appendix J: Urban Environmental Accords...... 78 Appendix K: Draft Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance...... 80 Appendix L: Draft Zero Waste Resolution...... 87

Key Terms 2005 Inventory: The inventory conducted in 2009 of the City’s GHG emissions in 2005 350 ppm: Refers to the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. 350 ppm is considered by many scientists to be a desirable target. The current level is 387 ppm. AB32: California’s “Global Warming Solutions Act”, passed in 2006. Sets statewide targets for GHG emission reductions. ADC (Alternative daily cover): Organic materials such as plant debris used to cover landfills at the end of each day in lieu of traditional materials such as dirt or gravel BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District): The regional body in charge of monitoring and enforcing air quality and pollutant standards, now including GHG BART (Bay Area Regional Transit): A regional rail system serving much of the Bay Area, including Richmond BAU (Business as usual): In this report referring to letting present trends continue California FIRST (Financing Initiative for Renewable and Solar Technology): Provides property owners financing for energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements. The City of Richmond is participating in the program. CAP: Climate Action Plan CDD: Construction and Demolition Debris COR: City of Richmond CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act): Requires the evaluation of the environmental impact of development projects

CO2e (Carbon dioxide equivalent), a way of measuring the warming impact of various greenhouse gases by using carbon dioxide as a reference level GHG (Greenhouse gases): These gases lead to climate change by affecting the amount of heat trapped in the atmosphere. The major greenhouse gases from human activity are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and various fluorocarbons (such as those used as propellants and in air conditioning units). GWP (Global warming potential): The relative potential for a gas to cause global warming compared to carbon dioxide. This concept allows the warming impact of an activity to be measured in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). ICLEILocal Governments for Sustainability: ICLEI stands for 'International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives'. It is “an international association of local governments as well as national and regional local government organizations that have made a commitment to sustainable development.” MT (Metric ton): Also referred to as tonnes, equivalent to 1,000 kg or 2,204.6 lb. Pavley standards: Named after a bill sponsored by California Assemblymember Pavley; places tougher emission standards on new cars sold in California VMT: Vehicle miles traveled

6 I. Executive Summary The City of Richmond acknowledges the threat of climate change. As a member of the ICLEI Cities for Climate Protection campaign, the City has committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions to reduce the impacts of climate change. As a coastal city, the City is extremely vulnerable to these impacts, including sea level rise and increased flooding. The City has targeted a reduction in greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. These targets are in line with the State of California’s targets set forth in AB32 and Executive Order S‐3‐05. This report provides estimates of 1990 levels, projects future levels, and outlines strategies for reducing future emissions. 1990 emissions are estimated at the equivalent of 5.2 million tons of CO2. If present trends continue, these emissions will increase to 6.9 million metric tons in 2020 and 9.2 million metric tons in 2050. The majority of these emissions are from Richmond’s Chevron refinery. Emissions Trends

/VERALL%MISSIONS 4ARGET!REA%MISSIONS "!5

"!5 "!5 !" "!5

E THOUSANDSOF-4

#/ !"

!" !" 9EAR 9EAR Because the City has varying levels of control over emissions, and because the State of California is also actively working to reduce emissions, this report defines three target areas for emissions reduction based on the City’s influence and jurisdiction. It also recommends applying the overall targets to these three areas. The areas are emissions from: residential energy usage, local vehicle transportation, and waste disposal. The emissions in this sector are estimated as 363,000 metric tons in 1990. With current trends, emissions are projected at 394,000 metric tons in 2020 and 502,000 metric tons in 2050. By adopting the reduction strategies in this report, the City is projected to meet its 2020 target and get 70% of the way toward reaching the more stringent 2050 target. The remaining 30% will have to come from additional strategies, such as reducing vehicle miles or increasing the use of renewable energy. The impact of specific strategies to achieve the remaining 30% are not calculated due to the long time horizon involved and the uncertain impact of untested measures.

The City can develop its reduction strategies into a climate action plan (CAP). A CAP is a prioritized set of actions to meet Richmond’s emissions targets. It would be developed with

7 Emissions by Sector, 2005 the involvement of the Richmond community. Adopting such a plan would not only reduce emissions, but provide benefits for the City. The plan could help to streamline development by addressing CEQA requirements for mitigating the impact of greenhouse gases. The plan can increase affordability, improve safety, and enhance health and wellness outcomes. By reducing energy consumption, residents and businesses can enjoy long‐term savings. Enhancing the physical environment and promoting alternative transportation promotes both physical health and mental well‐being.

As we understand now, human choices have a significant impact on the world. Driving a car to the corner store or to work impacts the health and safety of others in the neighborhood and creates emissions that lead to climate change. The electricity used to run a television or power a light bulb generates pollution and emissions. We can no longer ignore these consequences. By taking action now, the City has a unique opportunity to create a more sustainable and livable environment for those who live and work in the City. Breakdown of Target Area Emissions 7ASTE'ENERATION 2ESIDENTIAL 4RANSPORTATION 0,!.4$%"2)3 2!),

7//$4%84),%3

%,%#42)#)49 ,/#!,2/!$3 0!0%202/$5#43 34!4%()'(7!93 &//$7!34% .!452!,'!3

Emissions Reductions, metric tons of CO2equivalent 2020 BAU: 394,413 2050 BAU: 502,376 Reductions Remaining Reductions Remaining Residential (9,340) 110,849 (21,636) 129,360 Transportation (46,326) 185,306 (131,712) 174,595 Waste (92,455) (49,862) (148,830) (103,757) Total (148,121) 246,292 (302,178) 200,198

2020 Goal: 363,236 2050 Goal: 72,647

Current “Business as Usual” Trends, Impacts of Reductions, and Emissions Targets

SAS5SUAL "USINES '/!,

E THOUSANDSOF-4

#/ ENDATIONS 2ECOMM 0LAN

!DDITIONAL2EDUCTIONS '/!, 9EAR Residential Strategies These measures achieve reductions by reducing electricity and natural gas usage. The first four have initial funding through the federal stimulus program. Title Description R‐1 EE retrofits on city‐owned Purchase abandoned and foreclosed residential properties foreclosed properties through Richmond’s Neighborhood Stabilization Program and rehabilitate them, including energy efficiency requirements. As retrofitted homes are sold, the money received will feed a revolving fund to purchase and retrofit additional houses. R‐2 PV installation on city‐owned As part of the program described in R‐1, houses will be foreclosed properties selected for PV energy system installation. The money received will feed a revolving fund. R‐3 EE audits and retrofits for Moderate income households will be serviced with moderate income households comprehensive energy audits and retrofits. Estimates indicate a 15% savings in annual energy use. R‐4 EE audits for households with Households with above‐moderate income will receive a free above moderate income energy audit together with recommendations for home upgrades. R‐5 Energy conservation education Various programs designed to reduce energy usage by 2.5% and outreach goals by 2050, 7.5% by 2020 and 10% by 2050. R‐6 Green building ordinance Requires buildings to go above and beyond CA building codes (already adopted)1 for energy efficiency. Will apply to all new buildings and major retrofits.

1 The Green Building Ordinance was adopted on April 6, 2010. It therefore is no longer a recommendation, but the projected savings are included in the package of recommendations.

Transportation Strategies The calculated reductions in the transportation sector are from California’s tighter fuel efficiency (Pavley) standards. Further reductions in the transportation sector are necessary to reach 2050 goals. The following measures are from the draft City of Richmond general plan. This report recommends that these measures be prioritized for implementation in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The three goals are: • Goal 1: Increase the proportion of residents who walk or bicycle both to work and for other travel needs • Goal 2: Increase the feasibility and attractiveness of alternative commuting for nonresident employees • Goal 3: Increase the number of local jobs available for residents and increase the accessibility for residents to local jobs

Goal Goal Goal Description 1 2 3 CR1.1 Balanced Modes of Travel Encourage multiple modes of travel in the City to enhance mobility for X X X all. CR1.4 Local and Regional Linkages X X X Enhance circulation linkages within the City and region. CR1.6 Safe and Convenient Walking and Bicycling Promote walking and bicycling as a safe and convenient mode of X X transportation CR1.7 Comprehensive Network of Multi‐Use Trails Develop a comprehensive network of multi‐use trails including the X X Richmond Greenway and the San Francisco Bay Trail to enhance bicycle and pedestrian connectivity throughout the City and the region. CR2.1 Neighborhood Connectivity Improve access and connectivity within neighborhoods and to major X X destinations in the City. CR2.2 Complete Streets Promote mixed‐use urban streets that balance public transit, walking X X and bicycling with other modes of travel. CR3.1 Safety and Accessibility Enhance safety and accessibility for pedestrians, bicyclists and public X X X transit riders. CR5.1 Transportation Demand Management Promote transportation demand management strategies among X residents and businesses to reduce reliance on automobiles. ED1.5 A Range of Housing Types Work with developers to provide a range of housing types and X affordability levels to serve a variety of needs ED2.1 Local Employment Base Expand and diversify the employment base to provide quality jobs for X X Richmond residents. ED3.2 Workforce Training and Recruitment Support and expand jobs‐skills training and recruitment programs and X X services.

10 Waste Strategies These waste strategies address the types of waste generated that create greenhouse gases when decaying. The other component of the waste sector are emissions from waste already in place in Richmond’s landfill. Type of Waste Food Yard Mixed Title Lumber Carpet scraps trimmings paper W‐1 Mixed organics and X X green waste composting W‐2 Construction and demolition debris X X recycling

W‐3 Zero waste ordinance X X X

Promote existing W‐4 X recycling

11 Section II: Climate Change and Richmond

II. Climate Change and Richmond The Bay Area’s vulnerability to climate change and the resulting sea level rise is greater than any other area of California. Sea levels have already risen by eight inches over the past century, and are predicted to rise by fifty‐five inches by the end of this century. This rise places 270,000 people and $62 billion of development at risk.2 If risks from storm flooding are taken into account, 480,000 people and $100 billion of development will be at risk.3 With the longest length of coastline of any City in the Bay Area, Richmond is particularly vulnerable. Sea level rise and increased flooding affect all sectors of Richmond. Transportation may be disrupted both on major highways and thoroughfares as well as at the Port of Richmond. Recreational and commercial shoreline activities including beaches, boating, and parks, will be affected. Open spaces and natural habitats are threatened. Significant industrial development exists along much of the coast. Housing, including many low‐income communities, is also threatened. In addition to sea level rise and flooding, the City is likely to be affected by more frequent droughts, leading to reduced water supplies. Increased extreme weather patterns, such as heat waves and storm events, will further tax the City’s resiliency. Figure 1 shows shoreline areas vulnerable to predicted sea level rise of sixteen inches at mid‐century and fifty‐five inches by century’s end.

These scenarios underscore the need for action to both reduce the greenhouse gases that create climate change and to be prepared for the impacts of climate change. This report will focus primarily on the first. While the consequences of excessive greenhouse gas emissions are numerous, taking action to reduce emissions also represents important opportunities for the City of Richmond. Actions taken to reduce emissions will also provide benefits in the areas of cost reductions, affordability, health, safety, and quality of life. For too long, human actions been treated as if their impact on others is negligible. As we understand now, however, human choices have had a significant impact on the world. Driving a car to the corner store or to work impacts the health and safety of others in the neighborhood and creates emissions that lead to climate change. The electricity used to run a television or power a light bulb generates pollution and emissions. We can no longer ignore these consequences. By taking action now, the City has a unique opportunity to create a more sustainable and livable environment for those who live and work in the City.

2 The Impacts Of SeaLevel Rise on the California Coast. California Climate Change Center. http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/proposed_bay_plan/bp_1‐08_cc_draft.pdf 3 Living with a Rising Bay: Vulnerability and Adaptation in San Francisco Bay and on its Shoreline. Draft Staff Report, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. http://www.pacinst.org/reports/sea_level_rise/report.pdf

12 Section II: Climate Change and Richmond

Figure 1: Shoreline Areas Vulnerable to Sea Level Rise4

4 Excerpted from http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/planning/climate_change/maps/16_55/cbay_north.pdf

13 Section III: Highlighting and Tracking City Commitments

III. Highlighting and Tracking City Commitments The City of Richmond has taken a number of important actions to address climate change. Although climate change is a global problem, requiring global action, local governments still play a very important role. As authorities on everything from land use to building codes to business development, they play a crucial role in shaping the way people live and work. This section will discuss the City’s progress toward five commitments it has made to address climate change and provide recommendations toward the fulfillment of these commitments.

Key Commitments:

A. Signing the US Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement: January 2007

B. Recognizing 350ppm as a sensible limit for CO2 levels: February 2010

C. Adopting AB32 Emissions Targets: September 2008

D. Joining the Urban Environmental Accords: September 2008

E. Joining the California FIRST program: January 2010

F. Joining the ICLEI Cities for Climate Protection Campaign: November 2007

A. Signing the US Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement Richmond signed onto the U.S. Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement in January 2007. The agreement commits the City to three actions: 1. Strive to meet or beat the Kyoto Protocol targets in their own communities, through actions ranging from anti‐sprawl land‐use policies to urban forest restoration projects to public information campaigns 2. Urge their state governments, and the federal government, to enact policies and programs to meet or beat the greenhouse gas emission reduction target suggested for the United States in the Kyoto Protocol ‐‐ 7% reduction from 1990 levels by 2012 3. Urge the U.S. Congress to pass a bipartisan greenhouse gas reduction legislation, which would establish a national emission trading system 1. Meet or beat Kyoto Protocol targets The City has taken numerous steps to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. It has created and implemented several environmental and sustainability initiatives that seek to reduce both community and municipal GHG emissions. These initiatives will be addressed throughout this report.

2. Urge the state and federal government to meet or beat Kyoto targets

14 Section III: Highlighting and Tracking City Commitments

California has already passed legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Assembly Bill 32 (AB32), known as the Global Warming Solutions Act, passed in 2006. The federal government has not passed legislation specifically targeting greenhouse gas emissions.

3. Urge Congress to pass GHG reduction legislation The House passed a bill in 2009, known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act, or informally as the Waxman‐Markey bill, that creates incentives for reducing GHG emissions. The bill is pending in the Senate. An analysis of state and/or federal legislation and recommendations that the City Council endorse a specific piece of legislation is beyond the scope of this paper. Nonetheless, the City Council should consider how it can support legislation that is in line with its goals. The City should also consider how its programs and policies can serve as a model for the regional, state, or federal level.

B. Recognizing 350ppm as a sensible limit for atmospheric CO2 levels The Richmond City Council has Figure 2: Planetary Boundaries Chart, from Nature recognized the need to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to levels that will maintain environmental sustainability. It adopted a resolution on February 2, 2010 that “accepts 350 ppm CO2 as the sensible limit” for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.5 The City of Richmond was the first City in the nation to pass such a resolution. 350 ppm (parts per million) refers to the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. A large consensus of scientists agree that when carbon dioxide emissions remain above a “tipping level” for too long, “rapid changes proceed practically out of our control.”6

5 The full resolution is reproduced in the Appendix. 6 Hansen, J., Sato, M., Kharecha, P., Beerling, D., Berner, R., Masson-Delmotte, V., Pagani, M., Raymo, M., Royer, D., and Zachos, J. (2008). Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim? Open Atmospheric Science Journal, 2(15):217–231.

15 Section III: Highlighting and Tracking City Commitments

If our present way of life Figure 3: Planetary Boundaries Table from Nature and use of fossil‐fuel energy continues, “the eventual response…likely would be a nearly ice‐free planet, preceded by a period of chaotic change with continually changing shorelines.”7 One way scientists have framed 350 ppm is as one of several “planetary boundaries” which “define the safe operating space for humanity.”8 Prior to the industrial age, the level was 280 ppm, and now stands at 387 ppm. The following table and chart, published in Nature,9 illustrate the boundary concept.

The 350 ppm resolution includes two additional commitments: 1. City staff and members of the City Council will work with the school district, our neighborhood councils, and the Council of Industries to provide educational opportunities to teach about the necessity of adopting the 350 ppm standard

2. Staff [are directed to] convene 3 community meetings to gain preliminary input for our Climate Action Plan (CAP) that is currently in the preplanning stages.

The first commitment will be addressed in this section. Community meetings are discussed later on, in the section on developing a Climate Action Plan.

Supporting educational adoption of climate change curriculum The City of Richmond is served by the West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD), which also serves surrounding cities and unincorporated areas. The City has no direct control over the curriculum adopted by the School District.10

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s Curriculum

7 Ibid. 8 Rockstrom, J. and others (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263):472–475. 9 Ibid. The Planetary Boundaries table has been excerpted to only show the three boundaries that have been exceeded. 10 In the past, the Council has been involved with the WCCUSD largely over efforts to keep schools in the City of Richmond open, by assisting with debt forgiveness and other means. The Council has also passed symbolic motions in support of Adult ESL programs (Resolution 58‐09) and in support of teachers and students (Resolution 122‐09). The City has also contracted with the District for career technology education.

16 Section III: Highlighting and Tracking City Commitments

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) An event in Manhattan has sponsored development of curriculum for fourth and Beach fifth grade students called “Protect Your Climate”. The curriculum was pilot tested in 2008, but no schools in the The City of Manhattan Beach Richmond area were chosen for the pilot. The nearest hosted a “International Day of schools were in Antioch, which is in a different school Climate Action” event in which over district. Due to funding limitation, the District is no longer 1,300 people formed a “human actively promoting the program or providing training for wave” to raise awareness of teachers. The curriculum is now being distributed climate change issues. primarily through the BAAQMD website11. The curriculum The event required only minimal does not include any mention of a 350ppm target. expenditures from the City. City support for this event included The 350ppm target advertising and promotion of the The City of Richmond was the first jurisdiction to event on the City website and in recognize the 350ppm target. Many prominent scientists newsletters, and staff time of the have endorsed the 350ppm target, and an international Environmental Programs Manager movement exists in support of the target (350.org), but it to coordinate the event with the does not represent an actual goal for the city. From the South Bay Climate Action Group perspective of local and regional governments, it serves and to be present at the one-hour event. more as a marker to create awareness of Training for life clim ate change issues. Nonetheless, the symbolic value of the Council’s adoption of this target is to acknowledge the Michele McGeoy is director of fundamental idea of human‐created climate impacts. As Solar Richmond, a program NASA and climate scientist James Hansen has written, 350 that trains low-income local ppm serves to “qualitatively change the discussion.”12 residents in “green-collar” jobs such as solar installation. She Although some uncertainty still exists over the specific has noted that employers at degree of the impact of human activities, this uncertainty environmentally-oriented does not in any way negate the need to take action. companies need workers who are not just highly skilled, but Recommendation: Incorporate climate change able to speak the same education into job training environmentally-oriented Given the limited influence of the City on school district language as the clients who are curriculum, it may be more feasible to pursue alternate receiving services such as means of promoting climate change education. Specifically, energy audits and solar panels. the City administers a number of Youth and Adult training Including climate change as part of the training curriculum programs such as YouthWORKS, a program for at‐risk and would help to prepare workers in‐risk youth 16‐21, RichmondWORKS, a general to enter green-collar jobs. employment and training program, and RichmondBUILD, a

11 http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning and Research/Climate Protection Program/protectyourclimate.ashx 12Hansen, J., Sato, M., Kharecha, P., Beerling, D., Berner, R., Masson-Delmotte, V., Pagani, M., Raymo, M., Royer, D., and Zachos, J. (2008). Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim? Open Atmospheric Science Journal, 2(15):217–231.

17 Section III: Highlighting and Tracking City Commitments construction skills and green jobs training program. Climate change awareness can and should be incorporated into these programs. As Richmond seeks to train youth and adults to participate in the “green” economy, an understanding of the ideas and science of climate change can give participants a large advantage.

Recommendation: Support community events By passing the 350ppm resolution, the City Council enabled and directed city staff to specifically address climate change as a problem that needs action. This resolution provides staff with the mandate to directly address climate change issues as part of ongoing outreach to residents.

A large number of non‐profit and community organizations already exist in the City of Richmond and surrounding areas focused on environmental sustainability and climate change. The City can partner with some of these organizations in their efforts to promote climate change awareness.

C. Adopting AB32 Emissions Targets In September 2008, the Richmond City Council passed a resolution committing to the GHG emissions reduction targets established by Governor Schwarzenegger’s Executive Order S‐3‐05, which are: 2000 levels by 2010, 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. California’s Global Warming Solutions Act, or Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) codifies the 2020 level and becomes operative in 2012. The resolution is reproduced in the appendix. The City completed its 2005 emissions inventory in 2009. The projections in this paper indicate that the City did not meet its 2010 target when overall emissions are considered, but when considering the three “target areas” recommended by this report, the City has met the 2010 target. As shown in Table 1, the overall emissions increase slightly between 2000 and 2010, but the target areas decrease slightly. The reduction is primarily due to a drop in natural gas usage. This report focuses on meeting the 2020 target and planning for the 2050 target.

Table 1: 2010 AB32 Goal Emissions, MT of CO2e

Goal (2000 levels) Estimated Overall Emissions 5,721,794 6,053,814 Target Areas 384,816 375,199

D. Commitment: California FIRST financing On January 19, 2010, the City Council adopted resolution 6‐10, joining the California FIRST program, and resolution 5‐10, calling on Contra Costa County to join the program. The California FIRST (Financing Initiative for Renewable and Solar Technology) program allows property owners to finance energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements to their properties. Because energy improvements take time to pay for themselves, many property owners are unwilling or do not have financing to undertake them. The California FIRST financing model allows the contractual assessments to be tied to the property, not the owner. This reduces the disincentive to invest in improvements that may have an extended payback if the property owner plans to sell the property.

18 Section III: Highlighting and Tracking City Commitments

E. Commitment: Joining the Urban Environmental Accords The City of Richmond joined the Urban Environmental Accords in September 2008. The Accords “are a series of implementable goals that can be adopted at the city level to achieve urban sustainability, promote healthy economies, advance social equity and protect the world’s ecosystem.” They consist of 21 actions that deal with all aspects of the environment. The City has committed to accomplishing 14 of the 21 actions by 2012. Nearly all of the actions directly and indirectly affect climate change. Action 3 specifically calls for the City to “Adopt a city‐wide greenhouse gas reduction plan that reduces the jurisdiction’s emissions by twenty‐five percent by 2030, and which includes a system for accounting and auditing greenhouse gas emissions.”

F. Joining the ICLEI Cities for Climate Protection program The City of Richmond joined ICLEI on November 28, 2007. ICLEI‐Local Governments for Sustainability is an international nonprofit that seeks to unite and assist local governments in dealing with climate change. Given the difficulty of international coordination by federal governments, ICLEI’s alternative approach is to focus on the cities of the world. So far its 1107 member cities include over 400 million of the world’s residents. The ICLEI Cities for Climate Protection program enlists cities in taking steps to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. The program consists of five steps, known as milestones. The five milestones and the City of Richmond’s progress made towards achieving these milestones is listed in Table 1. Following a brief discussion of these milestones, the remainder of this report will address how the City can accomplish all five milestones. Table 2: Progress toward ICLEI Milestones

Milestone Status 1. Conduct a baseline emissions Inventory completed in February 2009; inventory and forecast. forecast completed as part of this report Targets matching AB32 and Executive 2. Adopt an emissions reduction target Order S‐3‐05 targets adopted in for the forecast year. September 2008 This report begins the process of 3. Develop a Local Action Plan. developing the plan. Sustainability policies and measures have 4. Implement policies and measures. been implemented, but not specific programs identified through a CAP. The City is monitoring results of energy reduction programs already 5. Monitor and verify results. implemented, but no comprehensive program is in place.

19 Section III: Highlighting and Tracking City Commitments

Milestone 1: Conduct a baseline emissions inventory and forecast. The City completed a baseline emissions inventory in February 2009. The inventory attempted to quantify the total GHG emissions within City boundaries in 2005. 2005 was selected as the baseline year for GHG emissions due to data availability. The inventory did not include any backwards estimates of prior year emissions. It included a projection of 2020 emissions based solely on ABAG growth rate projections. This report attempts to estimate City emissions in 1990 and conducts a more detailed forecast of 2020 and 2050 emissions. International and statewide goals use 1990 as the baseline year, making these estimates important for determining targets.

Milestone 2. Adopt an emissions reduction target for the forecast year. The City of Richmond has adopted emissions reduction targets that are consistent with statewide goals. These targets mirror AB32 targets and are for overall emissions in the City. This report breaks down the City’s emissions into sectors and recommends that the City focus on certain sectors in its Climate Action Plan.

Milestone 3: Develop a local action plan. The local action plan, also known as a Climate Action Plan (CAP), sets out steps that the City can take to reduce emissions. A climate action plan acknowledges that human actions have consequences. In the case of greenhouse gas emissions, these consequences can be quite negative. A climate action plan seeks to reduce the impact of negative actions and to promote positive ones instead. It provides a comprehensive set of policies that are prioritized to meet the goals of the plan. This report can be seen as the first step in developing a local action plan. The report seeks to provide a framework the City can use for further pursuing climate action policies. It provides recommendations for areas the City can target for reduction planning. A later section will discuss the development of the plan in more detail.

Milestone 4: Implement Policies and Measures. Engage the public to develop a timeline An implementation timeline for actions in the CAP should be developed as part of the public engagement process. The City of Oakland, for example, found that public input was extremely valuable in helping to prioritize projects.13 Implementation issues are addressed further in Section V. Couple implementation with education and lifestyle changes At the same time policies and measures are implemented, lifestyle changes must be encouraged and emphasized. Policies and measures alone will not achieve the substantial reductions that scientists agree are necessary. For example, cleaner cars are desirable, but still have shortcomings. Walking and bicycling, on the other hand, result in better physical and mental health, increased social cohesion, reduce safety hazards, and even perhaps act as a deterrent to

13 Interview conducted by Maren Anderson, COR Sustainability Intern

20 Section III: Highlighting and Tracking City Commitments crime. Even when walking or bicycling, the choice of one’s diet can play a major role. Meat and dairy production is astoundingly GHG intensive. Although a discussion of the lifecycle emissions of consumption choices is beyond this report, several programs exist that help individuals to make better choices . One calculator that is customized for California residents is available at http://coolcalifornia.org.

Couple CAP policies with other local goals Strategies for reducing emissions provide co‐benefits including affordability, safety, and quality of life. Linking the CAP to these valuable benefits will help to sustain the plans and policies in the CAP.

Enforcement The enforceability of the policies and measures in the CAP is crucial to its success. If the reductions in the plan are going to be achieved, its measures must be enacted and implemented. The CAP must serve as more than just a symbolic document. Additionally, if the mitigation measures merely “encourage” or “support” GHG reduction, this is not enough to rely on the CAP for CEQA purposes.14 The measures must actually be implementable and be implemented.

Milestone 5. Monitor and verify results. Monitor Results Tracking the results of the reduction measures in the CAP is crucial to determining the success of the CAP. If the CAP is successful at mitigating GHG impacts, it may qualify under AB32 guidelines to serve as a program‐level document for streamlining approval of specific projects.

Communicate Results The City has contracted with Visible Strategies, a consulting firm, to provide tracking software to monitor and communicate implementation of several City programs. This software is known as “See‐it”. The software allows information about program goals, strategies, and metrics to be made available online to members of the community. It allows easy and transparent tracking of progress toward goals and of performance measures. It also allows the sharing of documents, videos, and other communications regarding progress, and it accepts feedback through a web form. The City currently uses See‐It to track performance toward the five year strategic business plan and also to track usage and spending of economic stimulus funds. The sites can be viewed at:

• http://cityofrichmond.visiblestrategies.com/ • http://richmondstimulus.visiblestrategies.com/ The five year strategic business plan currently includes several goals specific to reducing municipal emissions. These can be tracked on the Visible Strategies site. The figure below shows a scorecard tracking City facility energy consumption goals.

14 Climate Change, the California Environmental Quality Act, and General Plan Updates: Straightforward Answers to Some Frequently Asked Questions. California Attorney General’s Office. http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/CEQA_GP_FAQs.pdf

21 Section III: Highlighting and Tracking City Commitments

Figure 4: Sample Seeit Scorecard

The City of Berkeley has used this same program for to track their Climate Action Plan: http://berkeley.visiblestrategies.com/

Similar technology can be used for tracking the progress of the Climate Action Plan. While this technology offers ease of use and easy updates, care should be taken to ensure that those without internet access can also play an informed and engaged role in the process. One option might be to have a computer kiosk at City hall that allows visitors to browse these various sites and submit feedback. Another option would be to bookmark and publicize these sites through the public computer terminals throughout the City library system. Currently, paper copies of reports are available upon request at City Hall. Create regular reports Regular evaluation and reporting of the CAP will provide an important way of tracking progress. Establishing a reporting frequency of at least annually will provide consistent information on the progress of the CAP. City staff should also present these reports to City Council at least annually.

Revise and update based on outcomes and results Outcomes are always uncertain, even with the best planning and forecasting. Regular revision of the measures in the CAP may be necessary to respond to unexpected or unplanned outcomes. All of the projections in this report and any CAP include uncertainty from a wide variety of sources, including population growth, the effect of various measures, and the impact of regional, state, and federal policy changes.

22 Section IV: Assessing and Projecting Richmond’s Emissions

IV. Assessing and Projecting Richmond’s Emissions The City of Richmond’s greenhouse gas emissions were inventoried in 2005 and estimated to be 6 million metric tons of CO2e annually. This is approximately .02% of worldwide emissions, and .1% of total US emissions. The per capita emissions rate for Richmond of approximately 60 tons per person is highly skewed by the large presence of industry in Richmond. For instance, approximately 10% of the State of California’s refinery capacity is at the Chevron refinery in Richmond. The refinery represents approximately three‐fourths of total emissions and nearly 90% of the commercial/industrial sector. The pie charts in Figure 5 present the breakdown of CO2e emissions in 2005 by sector. The “landfill” sector represents waste deposited prior to 2005 in the West Contra Costa County Sanitary Landfill, while the “waste generation” sector represents the future emissions from waste generated in 2005. Due to the domination of the overall profile by just one emitter, estimates and projections of Richmond’s overall emissions and of the commercial/industrial sector should be understood to be relatively uncertain.

Figure 5: 2005 Emissions Profile

#/--%2#)!,).$5342)!,

7!34%'%. 42!.30/24!4)/. 2%3)$%.4)!, 7!34% ). 0,!#%

7ASTE'ENERATION 2ESIDENTIAL 4RANSPORTATION 0,!.4$%"2)3 2!),

7//$4%84),%3

%,%#42)#)49 ,/#!,2/!$3 0!0%202/$5#43 34!4%()'(7!93 &//$7!34% .!452!,'!3

23 Section IV: Assessing and Projecting Richmond’s Emissions

Table 3 shows the overall emissions and projections. This report estimates the GHG emitted in 2005 and projects emissions in 2020 and 2050 by using various data sources and projections.

Table 3: Overall Emissions Profile Estimates and Projections, (target areas in green)

1990 2005 2020 BAU 2050 BAU Electricity 37,114 39,447 33,065 45,298 Residential Natural Gas 93,675 86,671 87,124 105,698 Subtotal 130,789 126,118 120,188 150,996

Commercial/ Industrial 4,480,563 5,141,572 6,147,583 8,230,372

Transportation Gasoline 163,369 178,743 204,753 270,761 Local Diesel 21,447 23,465 26,880 35,545 Gasoline 201,810 262,399 272,229 359,991 State Highways Diesel 26,493 34,447 35,738 47,259 BNSF 5,265 7,497 9,729 14,194 Rail Richmond Pacific 204 291 378 551 Subtotal 418,588 506,842 549,706 728,301

Waste ADC Plant Debris 844 804 755 799 Paper Products 26,571 25,313 23,761 25,145 Food Waste 10,456 9,961 9,350 9,895

Plant Debris 2,796 2,664 2,501 2,646 Wood/Textiles 7,807 7,437 6,981 7,388 WCCSL 137,010 191,397 105,126 23,457 Subtotal 185,485 237,576 148,473 69,329

Grand Total 5,215,425 6,012,108 6,965,951 9,178,999

Target areas 363,236 373,701 394,413 502,376

Figure 6 plots the targets for overall emissions and target area emissions. The overall emissions profile is on the left, and again should be understood to be relatively uncertain due to the domination of just one emitter. The target areas, which are highlighted in green in Table 3, show a much flatter growth. In either case, the 2050 target involves much larger reductions than the 2020 one.

24 Section IV: Assessing and Projecting Richmond’s Emissions

Figure 6: Overall and Target Area Emissions

/VERALL%MISSIONS 4ARGET!REA%MISSIONS "!5

"!5 "!5 !" "!5

E THOUSANDSOF-4

#/ !"

!" !" 9EAR 9EAR

A. Scope and Methodology of Analysis Defining the scope of analysis is important to measure and track progress. This report is designed to be as consistent as possible with the 2005 Inventory. For community emissions, this report is consistent with the scopes used in the 2005 GHG Inventory. Specifically, emissions that occur from activities taking place within the City’s geopolitical boundary are counted. The scopes as defined by the inventory are:

• Scope 1: All direct emissions from sources located within the geopolitical boundary of the local government. For example, scope 1 includes gasoline combustion, combustion of natural gas, and decomposition of waste in City landfills. • Scope 2: Indirect emissions associated with the consumption of purchased or acquired electricity, steam, heating, and cooling. Scope 2 emissions occur as a result of activities that take place within the geopolitical boundary of the local government, but that occur at sources located outside of the government’s jurisdiction. • Scope 3: All other indirect or embodied emissions not covered in Scope 2, that occur as a result of activity within the geopolitical boundary. For example, food for a Richmond resident results in emissions elsewhere for its production.

Note that different inventories and protocols define the scopes differently. As in the 2005 Inventory, this report is primarily concerned with Scopes 1 and 2 as defined above. This report also adopts the ICLEI methodology, used in the 2005 GHG Inventory, of counting the primary GHGs of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. This report uses CO2e to stand for “carbon dioxide equivalent”, which takes into account the different warming potentials of the gases.

25 Section IV: Assessing and Projecting Richmond’s Emissions

B. Defining the Baseline A difficulty in making future projections is the definition of the baseline projection, which is often called “Business as Usual”. For this report, the phrase “business as usual” is defined as “letting present trends continue.” It does not imply that no action has been taken. Therefore, the baseline projections take into account current programs that are already in place at the federal, state, and local levels which have already had an impact on emission trends. With any projection, limitations in data and uncertainty about the future are always an issue.

The baseline projections include reductions from cleaner electricity production up to 2016 based on PG&E’s projections, but no further. Even though it may be unrealistic to assume that power generation will not continue to improve after 2016, forecasts of that period are based not on actual plans but on speculation. The baseline projections also do not include reductions in GHG emissions from new state and federal emission standards for vehicles. Although California has approved new standards for vehicles, no vehicles have yet been manufactured under the new standards and they have not yet impacted emissions trends. The reductions are predicted in the transportation section.

C. Past Emissions The 2005 GHG Inventory does not include estimates of prior year emissions. The target that the City has adopted uses 1990 as a baseline year. Therefore, estimating emissions in 1990 is an important step in setting emissions targets.

The 2005 inventory was broken into five main sectors: residential, commercial/industrial, transportation, waste, and municipal. The first four sectors are considered “community” emissions, while municipal is considered separately.

Residential Sector The residential sector is made up of emissions from natural gas and electricity usage. California has had a very successful energy conservation program. From 1990 to 2005, California’s residential per capita electricity usage remained nearly constant growing by only 6%. During the same period, per capita natural gas consumption actually decreased by 23%, due largely to increased energy efficiency. City of Richmond residents use substantially less electricity than the regional and national average, but slightly more natural gas than the state average. This is illustrated in Table 4. Table 4: 2006 Residential Consumption Comparison, per capita15 City of Contra Costa PG&E Service State of Nation Richmond County Area California Electricity (kWh) 1,660 2,700 2,560 2,400 4,600 Natural Gas (Therms) 160 180 154 140 N/A16

15 City data from City of Richmond Greenhouse Gas Inventory. County and State data from California Energy Commission. National data from U.S. Energy Information Administration.

26 Section IV: Assessing and Projecting Richmond’s Emissions

Figure 7 and Table 5 show the estimates and projections for residential energy consumption and emissions. These projections take California building standards into account as far as they are included in projections for PG&E residential energy usage. They do not include the Richmond Green Building Ordinance, as it has not yet impacted current trends. The carbon emissions from electricity generation (known as its emissions factor) varies substantially depending on the mode of generation. In years with high rainfall, hydroelectric generation results in much cleaner power.17 Projections for emissions factors are available up to 2016. They lead to decreased emissions as PG&E implements California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). After 2016, emissions factors are assumed to remain constant as population increases, leading to the upward slope. The variation in natural gas usage can be largely explained by temperature variation. Figure 7: Residential Emissions from Energy Usage

.ATURAL'AS

.ATURAL'ASPROJ E

%LECTRIC

%LECTRICPROJ

4HOUSANDSOF-4OF#/

9EAR

Table 5: Residential Electricity and Gas Use Electricity Projected Emissions Natural Gas Projected usage, millions emissions, MT factor used, usage, millions emissions, MT Year of kWh CO2 e lbs/kWh of therms CO2 e 1990 137 37,114 0.566 17.65 93,675 2005 169 39,447 0.489 16.11 85,497 2010 166 41,180 0.499 15.30 81,222 2020 190 33,065 0.349 16.42 87,124 2030 210 35,980 0.349 17.46 92,661 2040 236 40,371 0.349 18.65 98,965 2050 265 45,298 0.349 19.92 105,698

16 It would be somewhat misleading to include a figure here because many parts of the United States use heating oil instead of natural gas for heating. Furthermore, the amount is primarily a function of weather. 17 Unfortunately, another negative effect of climate change is reduced hydroelectric power. For more information, see Chung et al. 2006. Progress on Incorporating Climate Change into Management of California's Water Resources.

27 Section IV: Assessing and Projecting Richmond’s Emissions

Commercial/Industrial sector Estimates for this sector have the greatest uncertainty. Commercial/industrial emissions are dominated by the largest single point‐source emitter in the State of California, the Chevron refinery. As a result, Richmond’s emissions are greater than cities of similar size. The refinery makes up an estimated 90% of total emissions in this sector. Verified emissions for the refinery are only available for one year, making estimates of past and future years quite uncertain.

The remaining commercial/industrial operations in Richmond aside from the refinery are also difficult to characterize in terms of GHG emissions. Many larger industrial businesses obtain their electricity and natural gas through direct access, which is where utilities are purchased from a third party energy service provider. Privacy rules meant to protect customer confidentiality also hinder reporting of energy usage by PG&E, especially for large customers who also have the biggest impact on GHG emissions. This report uses the estimates of the 2005 GHG inventory as a best estimate for the usage and makeup of this sector. Appendix D contains details about the projections for this sector.

Although the estimates for this sector are rougher and more uncertain than other sectors, the emissions of large emitters are specifically targeted by State and regional programs. Therefore, the City plays a smaller role in trying to obtain reductions in this sector. Figure 8 and Table 6 show the estimates and predictions for the commercial/industrial sector.

Even though the City may play a lesser role in this sector than in others, it nonetheless can influence it. The City is the lead agency for zoning, development, and building projects. It can require certain conditions be met for these projects. For example, the City made “carbon neutrality” one of the conditions for approval of an upgrade to the Chevron refinery. Another example is the City’s Green Building Ordinance, which applies to the energy efficiency of commercial buildings.

28 Section IV: Assessing and Projecting Richmond’s Emissions

Figure 8: Commercial/Industrial Emissions

/THER 2EFINERY E 4OTAL

-ILLIONSOF-4OF#/

9EAR

Table 6: Commercial/Industrial Emissions Year Total Emissions Refinery Other 1990 4,480,563 4,217,220 263,344 2005 5,141,572 4,651,157 490,415 2020 6,147,583 5,399,892 747,691 2035 7,194,706 6,207,070 987,636 2050 8,230,372 7,002,269 1,228,104

Transportation sector Transportation emissions can be divided into those from local roads, state highways that pass through Richmond, and railroads. Since Richmond has no airport, it is reasonable to exclude aviation emissions. Local travel accounts for approximately 40% of all the emissions from vehicle travel. Richmond had 259 miles of local roads in 1999.18 The majority (59%) of transportation emissions were generated on State and Interstate highways that pass through the City of Richmond. Both local and highway travel grew steadily from 1990 to 2005 and are projected to continue to grow. The rate of highway travel growth has been and is projected to continue to be higher than local travel. The temporary downturn in the late 2000’s was due to unusually high gas prices and a weakened economy.

Freight rail accounts for the remaining 1.5% of emissions. These projections are the most uncertain part in the transportation sector, due to lack of easily available data on fuel consumption and diesel engine efficiency specific to the two railroads that operate in Richmond. Because freight rail represents an extremely small portion of total emissions,

18 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/tsidoc/shwydata/archives/TABLE2_1_6_99.pdf

29 Section IV: Assessing and Projecting Richmond’s Emissions the uncertainty does not present major problems for the analysis. Passenger rail such as Amtrak and BART were not counted, nor were maritime operations at the Port of Richmond. The BAU estimate excludes reductions that will arise from federal and state legislation creating stricter emission standards for cars. These reductions will be discussed later on. Figure 9 and Table 7 show transportation emissions. Freight rail is excluded from the emissions graph due to its proportionally small impact.

Figure 9: Projected Vehicle Emissions19

(IGHWAY

E (IGHWAYPROJ

,OCAL ,OCALPROJ

4HOUSANDSOF-4OF#/

9EAR

Table 7: Projected Transportation Emissions Emissions Source Year Local vehicle Highway vehicle Freight rail 1990 184,816 228,303 5,469 2005 202,208 296,846 7,788 2020 231,632 307,967 10,107 2035 266,365 354,146 12,426 2050 306,306 407,250 14,745

Waste Sector Organic material disposed in landfills decomposes over time, releasing methane, carbon dioxide, and other gases. Methane and carbon dioxide are the primary gases leading to climate change. Methane has 21 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide. The 2005 Inventory categorizes organic materials into the categories of ADC, paper products, food waste, plant debris, and wood/textiles. ADC is primarily wood and plant debris that is used to cover landfills at the end of each day.

19 Rail is excluded due to its comparatively small impact.

30 Section IV: Assessing and Projecting Richmond’s Emissions

GHG emissions in the waste sector for any given year can be divided into two sources. The first are emissions from past disposal, which are called “waste‐in‐place” in this report. Richmond is home to the West Contra Costa County Sanitary Landfill, which was open from 1953 to 2006. The emissions from waste‐in‐place decomposing are counted regardless of the geographic source of the waste. The emissions from the year being calculated are counted in the emissions for that year. These emissions peak in 2006 and decrease onwards because no new waste is being deposited in the landfill. The second source of emissions for a given year are the future emissions from waste disposed in that year. Despite the growth in population, waste generation per capita has been decreasing for quite some time. Thus, the baseline emissions from waste generation are projected to remain stable. Due to data limitations, the baseline projection does not take into account recent sustainability initiatives to reduce the amount of waste disposed. To avoid double counting, the emissions across years should not be summed. The projection for any given year does not double count because “waste‐in‐place” counts waste generated before that year, and future waste emissions counts waste generated in that particular year.

The calculations for wasteinplace emissions differ substantially from those in the 2005 Inventory. Emissions were calculated using the latest versions of EPA models released in 2009. The 2005 Inventory was calculated using older data from 2002. A detailed discussion of these differences are in the index.

Figure 10: Waste Estimates and Projections ,ANDFILL

7ASTE E

4HOUSANDSOF-4OF#/

9EAR

Table 8: Waste Estimates and Projections (Using Latest Models) Year Waste Emissions Waste‐in‐place Emissions 1990 48,475 137,010 2005 46,179 191,397 2020 43,347 105,126 2035 44,610 49,658 2050 45,872 23,457

31 Section V: Setting Emissions Targets

V. Setting Emissions Targets The City passed a resolution committing to the targets set by California Assembly Bill 32, which aims for a reduction of 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.

This report focuses specifically on reductions to reach the 2020 goal and to get 70% of the way toward reaching the 2050 goal. The goals are specifically for the primary target areas, listed below. The 2050 goal is important, but it is extremely difficult to project emissions and reductions that far in the future. Forty years is far more ambitious than even the best long‐range plans. For example, PG&E’s long term plan only projects as far as 2016. Nonetheless, the programs and policies discussed here will certainly contribute toward reaching the 2050 goal. Reaching the 2050 goal will require reevaluation of the CAP in future years.

A. Primary Target Areas Strategies for achieving these reductions in practice must take into account the unique nature of Richmond’s emissions profile. Most of the “commercial/industrial” category of Richmond’s emissions are already covered under California’s AB32 legislation and will be addressed by the Air Resources Board. Furthermore, the City government and the residents of Richmond have a specific set of emissions they can influence, and others they can not. Even though most of the City’s inventoried emissions are outside its control, there are many benefits from seeking to reduce the emissions that remain. Taking action on reducing these emissions will help to create a healthier, safer, and more affordable City. The primary target areas were selected based on: • The City and community’s ability to influence the target • Availability of data to project programs and evaluate success

The primary target areas for reduction are: • Residential energy use • Local vehicle transportation • Waste generation

Municipal emissions are considered in a separate section. Table 9 and Figure 11 below show the targets and potential reductions from the recommendations in this report. As shown by the white dashed line, the City can easily achieve its 2020 goal. Achieving the 2050 goal is far more difficult, however. Although the recommendations in this report will allow the City to get 70% of the way to the target, the remaining 30% must come from additional reductions through strategies which are presently too uncertain to quantify. Given the extremely long outlook, it would be methodologically indefensible to try to quantify the impacts of programs aimed at the remaining 30%. For example, it is clear that Richmond must make a coordinated effort to reduce VMT, but the specific programs and their impacts are too uncertain to estimate. Furthermore, new innovations and technologies may substantially affect emissions in currently unknown ways. The decrease until 2030 and subsequent rise of vehicle emissions is because California’s new emission standards will take some time to apply to all vehicles on the road.

32 Section V: Setting Emissions Targets

Table 9: Primary Target Areas Sector 2010 2020 BAU 2050 BAU Electricity 41,180 33,065 45,298 Residential Natural Gas 81,222 87,124 105,698 Subtotal 122,402 120,188 150,996 Gasoline 186,542 204,753 270,761 Local Diesel 24,489 26,880 35,545 Transportation Subtotal 211,031 231,632 306,306 Paper Products 23,300 23,761 25,145 Food Waste 9,169 9,350 9,895 Waste Plant Debris 2,452 2,501 2,646 Wood/Textiles 6,845 6,981 7,388 Subtotal 41,766 42,593 45,073 Total 375,199 394,413 502,376

Figure 11: Primary Target Areas and Reductions

S5SUAL "USINESSA '/!,

E THOUSANDSOF-4

#/ ENDATIONS 2ECOMM 0LAN

!DDITIONAL2EDUCTIONS '/!,

9EAR

33 Section V: Setting Emissions Targets

This criteria matrix attempts to provide some basic guidance regarding the reduction areas and their benefits. In the Climate Action Plan, these criteria can be used as a starting point for deciding how to prioritize the implementation of measures and policies.

Table 10: Criteria Matrix Residential Energy Transportation Waste Disposal Size of Potential GHG Low, compared to the High Medium‐High Reduction other two sectors High (lighting, High (efficiency standards for new Cost‐effectiveness standards) construction) Medium (Costs vs. benefits) Medium (VMT Medium (retrofits) reduction) Low (Solar PV) Local job creation High Low High Impact on High: Savings from Low: Savings from Community High less driving and car waste disposal Affordability ownership Low‐Med: Methane High: More physical creates ozone (air High: Improved activity, better mental pollution) and harms Impact on Health building indoor air health outcomes, less the ozone layer quality pollution (leading to more ultraviolet radiation) Low (efficiency Impact on Safety Very low standards) Very low High (VMT reduction)

34 Section VI: Developing a Climate Action Plan

VI. Developing a Climate Action Plan The CAP development process should involve City staff, the City Council, and the community, including both residents and businesses.

A. The role of City Staff in developing the CAP Involve highlevel city staff in an ad hoc CAP committee. Senior staff from all departments should be involved in the CAP planning and development process. While the environmental staff of the City can take the lead, the CAP implementation requires high‐ level coordination and understanding. It is important that lines of communication regarding environmental and sustainability issues exist across department heads in order to effectively change behaviors. Since committees are inherently time consuming, so the committee should exist as an ad hoc one, with a limited timeframe and specific objectives. These objectives should include:

• Sharing ideas about where each department can be involved • Developing ways for departments to work together • Creating long‐term avenues for communication among departments on environmental and sustainability issues Reframe the issue as a mindset, not a set of new responsibilities. Every action taken by every department can have a positive or negative impact on emissions. It is important to recognize these impacts and take them into account. It does not mean that every negative impact must be avoided, but at least considered. Climate action should not be framed as an additional “task” to take on, but rather as a mindset in line with the vision of a more sustainable and livable city. Bureaucracies often focus on “new” initiatives and policies because they generate press and seem to reflect the idea that the City is “doing something”. In reality, however, much of the reductions in the CAP will come from shifts in existing ways of operating. For example, employees across the City make purchasing and sourcing decisions each day. Having a green purchasing policy in place certainly helps, but many decisions that employees make are unique to the specific employee and even to a specific issue. Having a sustainability‐focused mindset will allow employees to make flexible and targeted decisions that support overall sustainability goals, without burdening employees with additional “projects.” Such a mindset will also serve to generate ideas and innovations from employees that best know the specific circumstances of the City. Numerous documents and entire volumes have been published on “Best Practices” for a City’s CAP by ICLEI and others. These are a good starting point, but often can use employee innovation and creativity to develop implementation that will work for the City. Include “sustainability impact” as a section of staff reports. As part of making sustainability into a mindset, sustainability impact can be a required component of reports prepared by City staff, in the same way that “financial impact” or “fiscal impact” is currently a required section. The Cities of Albany, Davis, and Santa Barbara, as well as many more around the nation and world, currently include this item on reports.

35 Section VI: Developing a Climate Action Plan

Begin with a clear internal mission statement and understanding. City employees will be primarily responsible for engaging the public in the development of the CAP. Even if a consultant is involved in the public input process, City staff ultimately have more experience with and understanding of the community. City staff will also have the long‐run task of implementing the plan. Before doing so, it is crucial that City staff have a clear understanding of their role in the process and how it fits with their existing understanding of the mission and values that shape their role as City employees. Although developing a mission may require an initial investment of time, it will greatly aid in the public engagement process. It will provide staff with a sense of purpose and understanding of why their work is important and necessary. This will help staff build and maintain the legitimacy and importance of the CAP programs and projects. The mission statement should identify the not just the problems the City faces, but the opportunities that are presented.

B. The possible role of a consultant in developing the CAP Several cities have used consultants in developing their CAP. Many cities in the region were able to fund their consultants through grants from the BAAQMD. Others conducted the process in‐house to provide more learning for City staff and also to create continuity between the creation and implementation of the plan.

The most helpful role of a consultant for the City of Richmond may be in the public review process. A consultant can play a role in coordinating meetings and comments.

C. The role of public review in developing the CAP As part of the 350ppm resolution, City staff were directed to hold three public meetings regarding the climate action plan. Holding a public review process is also required if the CAP will be used as part of the general plan. The public process gives community members a chance to share their ideas and also to prioritize actions in the climate action plan.

A successful and effective public review process should consider the following: Incorporate community visions and viewpoints. Although the climate action plan is primarily concerned with emissions reduction, a successful plan should incorporate an understanding of community values. In developing the CAP, consideration of who will be affected is vital. The City should try to anticipate legitimate concerns and respond to them with care and understanding when they arise. The impacts of the CAP, as well as the impacts of climate change, may disproportionately affect . Be the first to acknowledge negative impacts and concerns, while consistently emphasizing the problems and opportunities presented Even the best‐designed and most‐needed programs do not always result in immediate and universal benefits. There are often painful short‐run costs. Climate action in particular requires lifestyle changes that may be hard to envision. The City should not attempt to “smooth over bad news”, but engage the impacted parties proactively.

36 Section VI: Developing a Climate Action Plan

Even as the CAP moves toward planning and implementation phases, it is important to consistently emphasize the problems and opportunities presented by climate change. This will help to frame and maintain the legitimacy of the planning process.

Use a holistic approach The CAP should be based on sound science and sound numbers. On the other hand, communities rarely galvanize around statistics alone. Identifying both positive success stories and specific potential impacts will help City staff, the community, and other parties to face the issues. For example, Richmond’s status as having the most coastline of any City reflects the need to preserve it, not just for environmental reasons, but because the City values the jobs and housing dependent on the coast.

Hold separate meetings for each aspect of the CAP By separating the CAP into various sectors (e.g., residential, transportation, etc.), staff can ensure that the right experts and professionals are present to respond to specific concerns. The City of Berkeley recommends that having such a phased process will result in higher quality of input and more opportunity to engage the community.20 By dealing with each sector separately, those with interest in that sector can engage with staff and each other more effectively.

Engage the industrial and business community The domination of Richmond’s emissions by the commercial/industrial sector is somewhat unique. It is important that the City engage and partner with representatives of this sector to reduce emissions.

D. Integrating the CAP into a larger sustainability framework Ultimately, a CAP does more than reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It promotes sustainability. Integrating the CAP into the City’s larger vision for sustainability allows for a broader sense of what is at stake. Sustainability understands the requirements of the present, but takes into account the demands of the future. The 1987 UN World Commission on Environment and Development defined sustainable development as development that "meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." Sustainability certainly includes climate change, but also takes into account the health of both humans and our natural environment. It seeks to promote development that is equitable and affordable for all. It seeks to reduce waste and wasteful ways of living and working. In doing so, it allows more people access to pursue opportunities without hurting those opportunities for fellow citizens both of current and future generations.

E. The role of the CAP in CEQA This report encourages the City to incorporate the Climate Action Plan into its General Plan and to prepare an EIR for the general plan. This is in accordance with

20 Interview conducted by Maren Anderson, COR Sustainability Intern

37 Section VI: Developing a Climate Action Plan guidelines issued by the State Attorney General’s office and also is a development‐friendly and environment‐friendly strategy. Preparing an EIR Many cities choose to prepare an Environmental Impact Report as part of the Climate Action Plan. The report details the projected environmental impacts of the CAP on the environment and also provides for mitigation of those impacts. This EIR can be incorporated into and used to inform the City’s General Plan EIR. Unfortunately, the CAP will not be completed in time to incorporate its findings into the current general plan update process, which began in 2006 and is expected to be completed and adopted in mid‐ year 2010. Nonetheless, eventual incorporation of the CAP into the General Plan can provide advantages for the City. Incorporation into the General Plan Greenhouse gas reduction strategies are required by the state to be a part of a City’s General Plan and the General Plan EIR. Making the CAP part of the General Plan will ensure that it is applied to all relevant projects. By approving the CAP and accompanying EIR, the City can limit or avoid CEQA requirements for projects that are consistent with the plan’s emission reduction and adaptation measures. Specifically, the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) notes that “For local government lead agencies, adoption of general plan policies and certification of general plan EIRs that analyze broad jurisdiction‐wide impacts of GHG emissions can be part of an effective strategy for addressing cumulative impacts and for streamlining later project‐specific CEQA reviews.”21 The California Public Resources Code, Section 21083.3 provides that:

If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an environmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report.

California recently revised its CEQA guidelines to specifically include greenhouse gas reduction plans as qualifying under those guidelines. The new guidelines took effect on March 18, 2010. Section 15604 (h)(3) was amended to read:

A lead agency may determine that a project's incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program (including, but not limited to, water quality control plan, air quality attainment or maintenance plan, integrated waste management plan, habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, plans or regulations

21 OPR, Technical Advisory: CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review, June 19, 2008. http://www.opr.ca.gov/ceqa/pdfs/june08‐ ceqa.pdf

38 Section VI: Developing a Climate Action Plan

for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions) that provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area in which the project is located.22

Thresholds of significance The CAP and accompanying EIR can serve as a “threshold for significance” for greenhouse gases. This allows future developments to be reviewed according to that threshold and, if in line with the CAP, be considered to have a “less than significant” impact on climate change and emissions, as provided in the amended CEQA guidelines, section 15064.4 (b)(2). Since greenhouse gases have global impacts, determining what is “less than significant” is somewhat different than other pollutants. The Attorney General’s Office has stated that a Climate Action Plan that achieves reductions consistent with AB32 (2020) and the Executive Order (2050) limits could be determined by a city to have less than significant environmental impacts. It should be noted that these guidelines have not been tested in court, though the Attorney General’s office believes the legal foundation is quite strong. Tiering and streamlining Developing a CAP with enforceable and effective mitigation measures that reduce emissions to a cumulatively insignificant level allows projects to be “tiered” into the existing CAP, thus streamlining the environmental review process. For example, if a transit‐ oriented development zone is a component of the CAP, a future development that is consistent with that portion of the CAP may not need to complete project level discussions of GHG emissions under CEQA and mitigation measures.

As the California Natural Resources Agency notes, “GHG emissions may be best analyzed and mitigated at a programmatic level”.23 By addressing them in the CAP, the City can avoid extensive and repetitive project‐level discussions of GHG emissions. The State Legislature strongly encourages this method of tiering environmental documents, as noted in the Public Resources Code:

The Legislature finds and declares that tiering of environmental impact reports will promote construction of needed housing and other development projects by (1) streamlining regulatory procedures, (2) avoiding repetitive discussions of the same issues in successive environmental impact reports, and (3) ensuring that environmental impact reports prepared for later projects which are consistent with a previously approved policy, plan, program, or ordinance concentrate upon environmental effects which may be mitigated or avoided in connection with the decision on each later project.24

Adopting a tiering approach may be attractive to forward‐thinking developers and businesses. By reducing the amount of CEQA review necessary, the City can preemptively and proactively plan for more sustainable and attractive development.

22 http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/Adopted_and_Transmitted_Text_of_SB97_CEQA_Guidelines_Amendments.pdf 23 http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/Final_Statement_of_Reasons.pdf 24 (Pub. Resources Code, § 21093(a).)

39 Section VI: Developing a Climate Action Plan

More information and guidance from the Attorney General’s office can be found at: http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/CEQA_GP_FAQs.pdf

F. Addressing adaptation Even if the most ambitious emissions reductions are achieved, carbon dioxide concentrations, temperatures, and sea level will continue to rise for quite some time. The following table from the California Climate Change Center25 summarizes their findings of the impacts of climate change under different scenarios. Table 11: Projected Impacts from Climate Change (CA Climate Change Center)

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

.+F#%+F(G988(1:(H1455I(8:9@>IJK /$#$$(J7()*!#EE(1:J348-(9<(84I(G4L4G(5184(( E"$#!(M1748(I8(7I:N(34IM(@IL4(CIN8(<95(7IO95(D5PI:(J4:M458/ E#Q(M1748(I8(7I:N(34IM#54GIM4C(C4IM38(<95(7IO95(D5PI:(J4:M458/ /"*#!"!&' B4C1D7#0123( .$F#%$F(1:J54I84(1:(CIN8(74M4959G921JIGGN(J9:CDJ1L4(M9(9S9:4(<957IM19:Q 6718819:8 E#E"$(M1748(M34(:D7P45(J51M1JIGGN(C5N(N4I58! )$"$#."=&,- ;E **F(1:J54I84(1:(4G4JM51J1MN(C47I:C )%/+(>>7- /+F(C4J54I84(1:(<9548M(N14GC8()>1:4- $$F(1:J54I84(1:(M34(4T>4JM4C(518K(9<(GI524(<1548

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he Climate Action Plan should at a minimum assess the impacts of climate change. As .,('3-(4(,! /32'0.-+32(35! 74! -&'! 0'6';+3-! .7,(+6! +32! :(7*&<.(,+6! *07,'..'.=! >',+/.'! 7/0! .,('3-(4(,! discussed before, these impacts include erosion and flooding from sea level rise, damages /32'0.-+32(35!(.!.-(66!2';'67*(35!(3!.7)'!?''03+02(37RS(;'0.(2'9!G+3!B0+3,(.,79!G+,0+)'3-79!+32!B0'.37=!! !!T!U'+./0'.!470!-&'!G+3!V7+W/(3!+32!G+,0+)'3-7!:+.(3.=!! !X!Y)*+,-.!'E*',-'2!-7!:'!)70'!.';'0'!+.!-')*'0+-/0'.!0(.'=!D7@';'09!-&'!&(5&'0!0+35'!74!*078',-'2!@+0)(35! @+.!37-!+..'..'2!470!-&'!*078',-=! K!B70!&(5&!7173'!67,+-(73.!(3!P7.!Q35'6'.!NS(;'0.(2'O!+32!-&'!G+3!V7+W/(3!Z+66'

! "# Section VII: Reduction Strategies

VII. Reduction Strategies Figure 11 (above) shows the reductions from the three primary target areas. They are listed below in Table 12. The quantifiable reductions strategies allow the City to reach the 2020 goal and get 70% of the way to the 2050 goal. The additional 30% can come from a reduction in VMT of 42%, a decrease in residential energy emissions of 98%, or some combination of both. The calculations assume maximum recycling and composting rates by 2050, leaving no room for additional reductions in the waste sector. At those levels and with those programs, waste acts as a net “carbon sink”, meaning its net carbon impact is negative. While a combination of both is the most realistic option, VMT reduction is preferred over energy reduction. The building stock is far more permanent (a building lasts 50‐80 years) than the car stock (10‐12 years). It is far easier for people to decide to purchase one less car or to purchase none at all than to renovate the entire housing stock to be less energy‐intensive.

Table 12: Reductions from Strategies, MT CO2e 2020 BAU: 394,413 2050 BAU: 502,376 Reduction Emissions Reduction Emissions Impact with plan Impact with plan Residential (9,340) 110,849 (21,636) 129,360 Transportation (46,326) 185,306 (131,712) 174,595 Waste (92,455) (49,862) (148,830) (103,757) Total (148,121) 246,292 (302,178) 200,198

2020 Goal: 363,236 2050 Goal: 72,647

A. Residential Energy Use Homes are notorious for being inefficient consumers of energy. Builders have little incentive to add energy‐saving measures to a house because they add to the upfront cost, even though they easily pay for themselves. Older houses are especially prone to leaky ducts, inefficient heating and cooling systems, and other energy‐wasting appliances and features. Homeowners and renters may also be unaware of lifestyle changes that can easily save money and energy, because current metering technology does not make it easy to figure out where and how energy is being used.

Even under business as usual assumptions, total residential emissions are projected to be below AB32 goals in 2020. This is likely due to increased energy efficiency and continued trends in energy conservation awareness.

This report includes six recommendations for reducing emissions in this sector. Combined, they result in a reduction of approximately 9,700 tons of CO2 e annually by 2020 and 22,300 tons of CO2 e annually by 2050. This will allow the City to exceed the 2020 goal, though further reductions will be necessary to achieve the 2050 goal.

41 Section VII: Reduction Strategies

Table 13: Residential Emissions with Recommendations BAU With Recommendations 2020 120,188 110,849 2050 150,996 128,694

The recommendations are as follows. Initial funding for R‐1 to R‐4 will come from the federal energy efficiency and conservation block grant (EECBG) program.

Table 14: Residential Sector Strategies Title Description R‐1 EE retrofits on city‐owned Purchase abandoned and foreclosed residential foreclosed properties properties through Richmond’s Neighborhood Stabilization Program and rehabilitate them, including energy efficiency requirements. As retrofitted homes are sold, the money received will feed a revolving fund to purchase and retrofit additional houses. R‐2 PV installation on city‐owned As part of the program described in R‐1, houses will be foreclosed properties selected for PV energy system installation. The money received will feed a revolving fund. R‐3 EE audits and retrofits for Moderate income households will be serviced with moderate income households comprehensive energy audits and retrofits. Estimates indicate a 15% savings in annual energy use. R‐4 EE audits for households with Households with above‐moderate income will receive above moderate income a free energy audit together with recommendations for home upgrades. R‐5 Energy conservation education Various programs designed to reduce energy usage by and outreach goals 2.5% by 2050, 7.5% by 2020 and 10% by 2050. R‐6 Green building ordinance Requires buildings to go above and beyond CA building (already adopted)26 codes for energy efficiency. Will apply to all new buildings and major retrofits.

Cleaner Energy An additional source of emissions reduction will come from the increased use of renewable energy. The State of California has enacted Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) that mandate that a certain percentage of electricity generation come from renewable, low‐ carbon sources. Currently, there is no consensus over whether these targets will be met, so the reductions from these standards beyond PG&E’s 2016 projections are not included in this report. Many communities are also pursuing Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) projects, which allow communities to choose their sources of power that may be greener than provided by the current investor‐owned utility. A discussion of CCA is beyond the scope of this report.

26 The Green Building Ordinance was adopted on April 6, 2010. It therefore is no longer a recommendation, but the projected savings are included in the package of recommendations.

42 Section VII: Reduction Strategies

Increased solar photovoltaic and solar thermal technology can also result in reduced electricity and natural gas usage. Businesses are more likely to see cost efficiencies through solar installations due to economies of scale and ease of installation on flat roofs, but residents may also benefit. Richmond’s participation in California FIRST may increase adoption of these technologies. Their current high cost makes their widespread adoption as a tool of reducing GHG still relatively infeasible. This may change as solar technology continues to develop. The City’s rebate program for solar thermal and fee waiver for solar photovoltaic still plays an important role in encouraging early adopters and helping to drive innovation.

B. Local Transportation Emissions California’s new vehicle standards will allow Richmond to meet its 2020 target without any additional measures. Meeting the 2050 target requires a reduction of 42% in VMT by 2050, assuming no reductions occur in the other areas. Due to the extreme uncertainty involved in estimating the effects of the recommendations in this area, they are not included in the reduction projections.27 That does not diminish the importance of implementing them, however, to achieve the 42% reduction in VMT. Reducing VMT is also desirable for the additional benefits it creates in the areas of safety, affordability, health and wellness, and accessibility.

Table 15: Transportation Reductions (Pavley) VMT, millions of Reductions from Year Baseline GHG Resulting Emissions miles Pavley 2010 390.01 211,031 ‐ ‐ 211,031 2015 408.60 221,092 9.2% 20,267 200,825 2020 428.08 231,632 20% 46,326 185,306 2025 448.49 242,675 31% 75,836 166,839 2030 469.87 254,244 43% 108,054 146,191 2040 515.74 279,064 43% 119,997 159,066 2050 566.09 306,306 43% 131,712 174,595

Local transportation emissions are considered as a primary target area because highway emissions are far more difficult to influence. The State Department of Transportation retains all control over state highways. The City also has little control over those who are only passing through the City. Nonetheless, the strategies considered here will result in reductions of both local and highway transportation emissions. They can serve as part of a regional effort to reduce overall area emissions.

27 Travel demand models exist that can model the impact of specific land use and transit policies, but they require a level of detail beyond that of this report.

43 Section VII: Reduction Strategies

A major expected reduction in emissions is expected to come from California emission standards for new cars. These standards, known informally as “Pavley” standards based on the sponsor of the original bill, regulate emissions in new vehicles. They are projected to reduce the overall total GHG emissions from vehicles by 8% in 2016, 20% in 2020, and 43% by 2030.28

Figure 12: Transportation Reductions

Safety Creating and improving pedestrian and bicycle routes can reduce accidents and fatalities resulting from collisions with vehicles. Increasing pedestrian and bicycle traffic puts more “eyes on the street”, deterring crime. Reducing vehicle traffic may also lead to reduced accidents.

Affordability The Automobile Association of America (AAA) estimates the cost of operating a vehicle at over $8,000 a year. This represents a major burden for families, especially for those at lower income levels. Unfortunately, people with poor access to public transportation have few other options besides owning a car. TransForm, a Bay Area non‐profit, has found that access to public transportation results in both lower transportation costs and decreased CO2 emissions, as shown in the figure below.

28 See Appendix for more detailed calculations.

44 Section VII: Reduction Strategies

Figure 13: Public Transportation Access and GHG Emissions [TransForm report] 29

Health and Wellness While the physical impacts of driving, both in accident risks and increased pollution, have been well documented, only recently have the psychic health costs become clear. This, along with a lack of consideration by planners of the physical health costs of the loss of exercise, has led transportation planners to overvalue driving.30 Several recent studies have shown that clear and significant mental health benefits for those who walk instead of drive, including those who walk to public transit. Driving not only increases stress and “road rage” symptoms, but walking or bicycling as a form of physical exercise reduces depression and promotes social capital.31

Accessibility Promoting alternative means of transportation will allow better access for those who cannot afford a personal vehicle, choose not to purchase one, or are unable to drive. This increased mobility leads to a more equitable society.

Advantages and Challenges Richmond has the potential to become a major transit hub. The Richmond intermodal station serves as a connector between Amtrak, BART, and several bus lines. There is frequent BART service to and from the Richmond station, and as an "end of the line" station, it can serve a large population. As part of the East Bay Green Corridor, the City has made a commitment to recruit and retain green businesses and to create green jobs. As the region, state, and nation develop plans to address climate change and sustainability, Richmond is well‐positioned to attract

29 http://transformca.org/files/reports/TransForm‐Windfall‐Report‐Summary.pdf 30 Litman TA. If health matters: integrating public health objectives in transportation planning. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2004. 31 Leyden K. Social capital and the built environment: The importance of walkable neighborhoods. American Journal of Public Health 2003;93:1546‐51.

45 Section VII: Reduction Strategies

“green” environmentally‐minded businesses, which may be more apt to locate to a City where employees can live sustainably. A challenge the City faces is its unique geographic makeup. Although downtown Richmond is easily accessible by public transit, the coastal areas of the City, where many of Richmond’s major employers are located, are far less accessible. This problem is compounded by geographic barriers such as freeways, railways, and creeks that naturally divide the City into sectors.

Another challenge is safety. Many commuters avoid the Richmond station in favor of El Cerrito stations, due to perceived safety issues, lack of convenient freeway access, and poor bicycle access. By making improvements to the transit‐friendliness of the area, the City can take advantage of the favorable infrastructure that already exists and leverage it toward a more sustainable community.

Trip Generation Local vehicle travel is generated from both city residents and those who work in the city. As shown in the following table, the commuting profile of Richmond residents is already quite favorable compared to other areas. A smaller proportion of residents commute by car, truck, or van, and those that do tend to carpool more than the average commuter. The proportion of residents who take public transportation is three times the national and state average. On the other hand, the proportion of residents who walk or bicycle is somewhat lower than the statewide average.

Table 16: Means of Transportation to Work, 2006200832 Contra Means of United States California Costa Richmond Transportation County Car, truck, or van 86.4% 85.0% 82.3% 77.8% Drove alone 75.8% 72.9% 70.6% 63.4% Carpooled 10.6% 12.0% 11.7% 14.4% 2‐person carpool 8.1% 9.0% 8.7% 9.4% 3‐person carpool 1.4% 1.8% 2.0% 3.2% 4+ person carpool 1.0% 1.2% 1.0% 1.8% Workers per vehicle 1.24 1.28 1.32 1.44 Public transportation 4.9% 5.2% 9.0% 15.1% Walked 2.8% 2.8% 1.8% 1.9% Bicycle 0.5% 0.9% 0.6% 0.4% Taxi/Motorcycle/Other 1.3% 1.4% 1.1% 0.8% Worked at home 4.0% 4.8% 5.1% 4.0%

32 Data tabulated from American Community Survey 2006‐2008 3‐Year Estimates

46 Section VII: Reduction Strategies

The commuting profile only covers one sector of transportation needs. People also travel for many other reasons. It may be reasonable to assume that public transportation usage is somewhat lower when considering non‐work travel. This is especially true considering that 95.6% of Richmond residents report having access to a vehicle.33 On the other hand, the high proportion of Richmond residents who take public transportation or carpool is especially significant given the large proportion of residents that work outside of the County. The percentage of residents that do not work in the City of Richmond (which the Census defines as a “place”) is also higher than state and national averages.

Table 17: Workplace, 2006200834 United Contra Costa Workplace California Richmond States County Worked in state of residence 96.2% 99.5% 99.5% 99.6% Worked in county of residence 72.6% 82.8% 59.8% 40.5% Worked outside county of residence 23.7% 16.7% 39.6% 59.1% Worked outside state of residence 3.8% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% Living in a place 73.1% 92.4% 96.7% 100.0% Worked in place (city) of residence 31.2% 35.6% 21.4% 24.5% Worked outside place (city) of residence 41.9% 56.8% 75.3% 75.5% Not living in a place 26.9% 7.6% 3.3% 0.0%

Employees who work in Richmond but are not residents of Richmond tend more often to drive alone and not to use public transit. The following table is from the Circulation Element of the draft Richmond General Plan. As discussed in the Element, Richmond residents are more likely to work in Table 18: Journey to Work by Mode of Travel (Table areas that are well served 4.1 from Draft General Plan) by public transportation, such as San Francisco, Oakland, and Berkeley. On the other hand, nonresident employees tend to come from areas such as eastern Contra Costa County and Solano County, which are not as well served by public transit.

33 2006‐2008 American Community Survey 3‐Year Estimates, U.S. Census Bureau 34 Ibid.

47 Section VII: Reduction Strategies

Recommendations The updated Draft General Plan contains several actions for improving mobility that are in line with the above recommendations. This report will not study the actions in detail, but instead recommend specific actions for prioritizing based on the above goals. The data from the above three tables lead to the following recommended priority goals:

• Goal 1: Increase the proportion of residents who walk or bicycle both to work and for other travel needs • Goal 2: Increase the feasibility and attractiveness of alternative commuting for nonresident employees • Goal 3: Increase the number of local jobs available for residents and increase the accessibility for residents to local jobs The following table shows selected policies from the draft General Plan that meet these goals. The General Plan also includes actions that go along with these policies, but enumerating them is beyond the detail of this report.

Table 19: Recommended Transportation Policies

Goal Goal Goal Description 1 2 3 CR1.1 Balanced Modes of Travel Encourage multiple modes of travel in the City to enhance mobility for X X X all. CR1.4 Local and Regional Linkages X X X Enhance circulation linkages within the City and region. CR1.6 Safe and Convenient Walking and Bicycling Promote walking and bicycling as a safe and convenient mode of X X transportation CR1.7 Comprehensive Network of Multi‐Use Trails Develop a comprehensive network of multi‐use trails including the X X Richmond Greenway and the San Francisco Bay Trail to enhance bicycle and pedestrian connectivity throughout the City and the region. CR2.1 Neighborhood Connectivity Improve access and connectivity within neighborhoods and to major X X destinations in the City. CR2.2 Complete Streets Promote mixed‐use urban streets that balance public transit, walking X X and bicycling with other modes of travel. CR3.1 Safety and Accessibility Enhance safety and accessibility for pedestrians, bicyclists and public X X X transit riders. CR5.1 Transportation Demand Management Promote transportation demand management strategies among X residents and businesses to reduce reliance on automobiles. ED1.5 A Range of Housing Types X Work with developers to provide a range of housing types and

48 Section VII: Reduction Strategies

ED1.5 A Range of Housing Types X Work with developers to provide a range of housing types and affordability levels to serve a variety of needs ED2.1 Local Employment Base Expand and diversify the employment base to provide quality jobs for X X Richmond residents. ED3.2 Workforce Training and Recruitment Support and expand jobs‐skills training and recruitment programs and X X services. C. Waste Due to efforts at the local, regional, and state level to reduce and divert waste generation, the level of waste per capita has decreased substantially since 1990. The overall quantity of waste generation has thus remained rather steady. Even without additional measures, the City will meet its 2020 goals. Nonetheless, enacting measures to surpass the 2020 goal and reach 2050 goals will result in multiple additional benefits. The 2005 Inventory covered five types of waste that generate GHGs: ADC, paper products, wood/textiles, plant materials, and food. ADC usage is presumed to be outside City influence, so the remaining four are under the City’s scope. Five materials are targeted for reduction: lumber, food scraps, yard trimmings, mixed paper, and carpet. Three specific measures are likely to achieve significant GHG reductions in those four areas for the City. The first is mixed organics and green waste composting, the second is a construction/demolition debris recycling ordinance, and the third is a zero waste ordinance. Additionally, continued promotion of existing recycling programs will help to reduce paper products. Promoting reuse, recycling, and composting activity leads to the important co‐benefit of job creation and economic benefits. The industries that support these activities generate far more jobs than conventional disposal, not just for collecting and sorting recycling, but in manufacturing new products out of the collected materials. These manufacturing sector jobs represent an important opportunity for Richmond residents and industry.

Table 20: Waste Recommendations Type of Waste Food Yard Mixed Title Lumber Carpet scraps trimmings paper W‐1 Mixed organics and X X green waste composting W‐2 Construction and demolition debris X X recycling

W‐3 Zero waste ordinance X X X

Promote existing W‐4 X recycling

49 Section VII: Reduction Strategies

W‐1: Implement and promote mixed organics and green waste composting The City plans to have mixed organic and green waste composting available to all residents and businesses by mid 2010. Food is the largest single component of the waste stream, and produces methane and CO2 upon decaying in a landfill. Green waste also represents a significant amount of the waste stream. Even though the programs are put in place, consumer behaviors will take some time to change. The projections here assume that there will be a 50% reduction in landfilled food and green waste by 2020 and 100% reduction by 2050. These rates are highly dependent on educational outreach efforts and if the City chooses to enforce or incentivize participation.

W‐2: Implement a Construction/Demolition Debris (CDD) Ordinance A draft of this ordinance is attached in the appendix. The ordinance has not yet been enacted, but has the potential to significantly reduce emissions from landfilled construction materials, specifically lumber and carpet. This report recommends that the City adopt a more stringent CDD ordinance to further its CAP goals and improve environmental benefits. It also recommends that the CDD ordinance be revised to specifically target a 75% reduction goal for wood, cardboard, and textiles. A CDD ordinance will provide more stringent targets, include the ability to revise targets, and cover more projects than the CalGreen codes. The projections here assume a 75% reduction in landfilled GHGgenerating CDD by 2020 and 100% reduction by 2050. The major components of construction and demolition debris that result in waste GHG emissions are wood, textiles, and cardboard. The composition of waste varies widely with the type of activity. For example, wood is the largest component of construction waste, but building demolition typically results in large amounts of concrete. A study conducted in 2004 at an actual construction site showed that it was feasible to recycle at least 75% of wood waste and over 75% of cardboard waste.35 Of course, this is dependent on the availability of recycling facilities. Additionally, overall lifecycle GHG emission reductions from materials such as concrete, metals, rocks, and asphalt will also result. Because these materials were not included in the scope of the 2005 Inventory, the reductions do not count toward emissions reduction goals, but nonetheless are an important byproduct of an effective CDD ordinance. The State of California’s new building codes (known as CalGreen) includes recycling requirements for construction and demolition debris. The CalGreen standards specifically allow for local jurisdictions to establish stricter standards. Section 4.408.1 of the draft standards reads, “Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 50% of the non‐ hazardous construction and demolition debris, or meet a local construction and demolition waste management ordinance, whichever is more stringent.” An identical section exists in

35 Construction Waste Assessment. A Case Study of the South Central Iowa Solid Waste Agency Environmental Education Center. http://www.sciswa.org/assets/pdf/WasteStudy.pdf

50 Section VII: Reduction Strategies

5.408.3 for non‐residential construction. Therefore, the State code does not preempt adoption of a local ordinance. More stringent targets The draft CDD ordinance currently for the City of Richmond requires recycling of 100% of inert materials, such as concrete, and 50% of other CDD materials. As stated in the ordinance, it is generally feasible to achieve 100% reduction of inert materials. A 75% goal should be targeted for easily recyclable materials such as wood and cardboard.

Ability to revise The ordinance also includes an option to revise the standards. As technology and training improve, it will become feasible to recycle a larger proportion of materials. The projections in this report call for a 100% reduction in GHG‐generating CDD by 2050. Having a local CDD ordinance will allow this target to be met. Additional coverage CalGreen standards only cover new construction projects. If demolition is included as part of the construction project, it would be included, but not otherwise. The City of Richmond’s Green Building Ordinance includes a provision for 50% capture of CDD, but this only applies to certain projects. By passing a CDD ordinance that has uniform applicability to all projects, the City could ensure the greatest reductions. The following table from the EPA shows the type and percentage of waste generated by various activities.

Figure 14: Construction and Demolition Debris Sources36

7DEOH(6 6800$5<2)(67,0$7('%8,/',1*5(/$7('& ' '(%5,6*(1(5$7,21 5RDGZD\%ULGJHDQG/DQG&OHDULQJ'HEULVQRWLQFOXGHG 7KRXVDQG7RQV

Composition of C&D Debris from Buildings 36 Characterization of Building‐Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States, EPA530‐R‐ 98‐010. June 1998. http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/generation/sqg/c&d‐rpt.pdf The composition of C&D debris is highly variable and depends critically on the type of activity where sampling is done. Whereas wood is typically the largest component of waste material generated at construction 51and renovation sites, concrete is commonly the largest component of building demolition debris.

Road, Bridge, and Land Clearing Debris

Road, bridge, and land clearing wastes represent a major portion of total C&D debris, and some of the materials produced are managed by the same processors and landfills that manage building-related wastes. A methodology was not developed in the scope of this project to estimate these wastes. Point source waste assessment data were not available for these projects.

Management Practices for C&D Debris

• The most common management practice for C&D debris is landfilling, including C&D landfills, MSW landfills, and unpermitted sites. An estimated 35 to 45 percent was discarded in C&D landfills in 1996. An estimated 30 to 40 percent of C&D debris is managed on-site, at MSW landfills, or at unpermitted landfills.

ES-3 Section VII: Reduction Strategies

W‐3: Implement a Zero Waste Ordinance A draft of this ordinance is attached in the appendix. This ordinance will help to promote waste reduction. Unlike recycling, zero waste initiatives seek to reduce the amount of waste that is generated in the first place, through conscious efforts by consumers and businesses to generate less waste. For instance, it supports awareness of packaging materials. Waste reduction from the zero waste ordinance is not included in these projections, because the GHG reductions would be largely outside the scopes covered in the Inventory.

W‐4: Promote Existing Recycling Programs Increasing awareness of existing recycling programs will reduce the amount of paper that is landfilled. Additionally, large lifecycle emissions reductions will result from recycling aluminum and steel cans, glassware, plastics, tires, and electronic waste. Those reductions are not counted here because they are outside the scope of the 2005 Inventory. The projections here assume a 50% reduction in landfilled paper by 2020 and 100% by 2050. Table 21: Waste Diversion Goals

Key Material % of Total Waste37 2020 Reduction 2050 Reduction

Lumber 14.5% 75% recycled 100% recycled

Food Scraps 15.5% 50% composted 100% composted

Yard Trimmings 7.1% 50% composted 100% composted

Mixed Paper 17.3% 50% recycled 100% recycled

Carpet 3.2% 75% recycled 100% recycled

Table 22: GHG Reductions from Waste Diversion Goals

Year Baseline GHG Reductions38 2020 42,537 92,455 2050 44,357 148,830

The reductions are greater than the baseline because certain types of waste can act as carbon sinks, resulting in net negative GHG emissions.

37 Based on CIWMB 2008 Waste Characterization Study 38 Calculated using EPA WARM model. See Appendix for more details.

52 Section VII: Reduction Strategies

D. Businesses Businesses are a major source of GHG emissions. Even when excluding the refinery, the remaining emissions are approximately four times as large as household emissions. Due to the various ways that businesses obtain their energy and the limited data available, it is difficult to quantify possible reductions. City staff should pursue the release of more energy usage data to assist in creating strategies. Nonetheless, significant opportunities exist for cost‐effective reductions in the business sector. As mentioned previously, the City, as the lead agency for development, zoning, and construction projects, can enforce specific carbon‐reduction or carbon‐neutral guidelines for these projects.

SmartLights is a program providing energy efficiency audits to small businesses. It is a service of the Community Energy Services Corporation, a community based organization created by the City of Berkeley and now an independent entity providing energy and environmental services to residents and businesses. As of September 2009, SmartLights provided services to over 150 Richmond businesses and non‐profits, resulting in an estimated 980,687 kWh annual reduction in electricity usage in two major areas: lighting and refrigeration. This translates into approximately 250 MT of CO2e annually. It is unknown what proportion of electricity usage by those businesses these reductions represent. Table 23: SmartLight Program Savings (As of Sept. 2009)

39 Area kWh/year MT CO2e/year Lighting 66,9652 171.9 Refrigeration 31,1035 79.8

The Green Building Ordinance, passed on April 6, 2010 will result in energy savings for commercial buildings. It would require all new buildings and major retrofits to follow strict energy efficiency guidelines. These guidelines are projected to result in GHG emissions reductions of .24 lbs/sq.ft./year beyond California energy efficiency standards.40 Due to uncertainty about the amount of new construction and retrofits, no projection for total reductions are given. Carbon calculators for businesses to measure and reduce their carbon footprint are becoming widely available. The EPA Climate Leaders Program provides resources for businesses to reduce their GHG emissions. The main program is for larger enterprises and there is a separate program for small businesses. The EPA provides guidance on conducting a GHG Inventory and implementing reduction strategies. Small businesses can use a simplified calculator that the EPA provides. The Climate Leaders Small Business Network is

39 Based on electricity generation coefficient of .566 lbs CO2/kWh 40 “Application for City of Richmond Revised Locally Adopted Energy Standards, 4/20/09” http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2008standards/ordinances/2009‐04‐20_Richmond_Application.pdf

53 Section VII: Reduction Strategies part of the EPA program and allows businesses to share strategies and develop better environmental practices. The EPA program is focused on energy use and transportation, including on‐site energy use, purchased electricity, supply‐chain procurement, and vehicle travel. Another GHG calculator for small businesses is provided by the Cool California program. This calculator tries to incorporate better life‐cycle analysis of a business’s resources, but does not include the same level of resources as the EPA Climate Leader’s Program. A choice of which calculator and program a business should use depends on its size, resources, and sector.

Assistance and recognition for businesses who are reducing their greenhouse gas emissions can be extremely helpful. For instance, the City of Fort Collins, TX developed a “Climate Wise” program to reach out to businesses interested in environmental protection. Businesses who participate receive free technical assistance, public recognition, and networking opportunities. The program includes local corporations, businesses, non‐ profits, and HOAs. By going beyond emissions reductions and emphasizing cost reductions and quality of life, the program has attracted a wide range of businesses and gone beyond its reduction targets. Businesses receive recognition for their commitment and progress.

54 Section VIII: Conclusion

VIII. Conclusion The City of Richmond is well‐positioned to address climate change. The City has already committed to taking action to reduce its emissions. This report provides guidance for where the City can target its reduction actions, and how it can go about developing a Climate Action Plan. This report recommends:

• Involving all interested parties in the community to prioritize a series of actions that will allow the City to meet its targets.

• Setting residential energy usage, local vehicle transportation, and waste as the three primary sectors for GHG reductions commensurate with overall reduction goals

• Developing the CAP and an associated EIR to be compliant with state standards, allowing streamlining of development projects

• Linking actions in the CAP to other City goals, including affordability, safety, quality of life, and health and wellness

• Planning for adaptation to the inevitable consequences of climate change, including sea level rise, temperature changes, and more severe weather patterns

Climate change presents serious challenges. It is the responsibility of everyone, from individuals to local cities to federal governments, to play a role in forestalling the impacts of climate change. In doing so, both present and future generations will be able to enjoy a better environment and more sustainable way of life.

55 Appendices

Appendices

Appendix A: Climate Change Background The unique and narrow climate we have on earth has allowed a diverse range of life to survive and flourish. The earth’s atmosphere serves as a type of “blanket”, allowing sunlight in but keeping too much heat from escaping. As early as the 19th century, scientists were discovering that rising concentrations of greenhouse gases would lead to warming of the earth.41 Greenhouse gases are gases that tend to trap heat instead of letting it pass through. Scientists now understand that when greenhouse gases are added to the delicate balance of gases in the atmosphere, each layer allows less heat to escape to space. There are various greenhouse gases with different abilities to trap heat. When this ability is combined with the lifetime of the gas in the atmosphere, it leads to the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of that gas. This is expressed relative to carbon dioxide’s potential. For example, methane is ten times as potent at trapping heat in the atmosphere. The contribution to warming of a greenhouse gas depends both on the GWP as well as the quantity emitted. The gas with the largest contribution to climate change is carbon dioxide. For that reason, greenhouse gas emissions are primarily measured in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). The major manmade source of carbon dioxide is the use of fossil fuels for heat and cooling, electricity, and transportation. Fossil fuels, namely coal, oil, and natural gas, emit carbon dioxide when they are burned.

The signs of warming are already clear and numerous. The 2000‐2009 decade was the hottest on record. Prior to that, the 1990s were the hottest on record, and likewise with the 1980s. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal.”42

Scientists have been tracking the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for quite some time. Using records from frozen ice, trees, and geologic sources, they have been able to also determine historical amounts dating back centuries and much further. For most of human history, carbon dioxide levels remained rather constant, at between 200 and 300 parts per million (ppm). The widespread and constantly increasing use of fossil fuels starting in the 18th century and continuing to today has led to a rapid increase in the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, to a level of 385 ppm today and growing at about 2 ppm per year. NASA Scientist James Hansen and others have extensively studied the effects of the CO2 level on the environment and have concluded that 350 ppm is a sensible goal to target in order to avoid irreversible effects.

41 Abatzoglou, J., DiMento, J. F. C., Doughman, P., & Nespor, S. (2007). A primer on global climate change and its likely impacts. Climate Change: What it Means for Us, our Children, and our Grandchildren, , 11. 42 Bernstein, L., Pachauri, R., & Reisinger, A. (2007). Climate change 2007: Synthesis report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

56 Appendices

Appendix B: Population Calculations The City’s population has been growing steadily, increasing from 86,019 in 1990 to 102,309 in 2005. This is an approximate annual growth rate of 1.16% a year. By fitting an exponential growth function to 1990‐2009 data, this report projects that the City will grow by .936% a year from 2010 to 2050. Estimates of population growth vary, but emissions targets in this report are not drastically affected by varying the population growth among the available estimates. Figure 15: City Population and Projection

City of Richmond population data from 1990‐2009 are from the State of California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit43. Projections for 2010‐2050 were made by estimating an exponential growth function using least‐squares estimation, resulting in an annual projected growth rate of 0.9358%. This is higher than the rate assumed in the 2005 GHG Inventory of .58%, which is based on ABAG projections. Using a higher rate is more consistent with the available data (the 2005 Inventory population estimate is somewhat lower than the actual verified figure), and closer to, though still below, the State’s projection of growth rates for Contra Costa County.

43 http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/

57 Appendices

Table 24: City Population Growth Estimate Sources Source of estimate Projection Annual growth rate Shortcomings 100,500 in .580% (derived; not Based on older projections; ABAG 2005 Projections44 2005; 109,600 specifically stated by 2005 population number 45 in 2020 ABAG) already known to be inaccurate Richmond Five Year Does not project beyond 2014; Strategic Plan 2009‐ 105,558 in 2014 .2% takes short‐run economic 201446 downturn into account Exponential growth Does not incorporate economic model fitted to 1990‐ .936% or other growth modeling 2009 data

Figure 16: PG&E Population Growth

Contra Costa County data from 1990‐2009 and projections from 2010‐2050 are also from the Demographic Research Unit. These data show an annual growth rate of 1.298% for Contra Costa County. PG&E population data from 1990‐2008 and predictions from 2009‐ 2020 are from the California Energy Department’s Energy Demand Forecast. Predictions from 2021‐2050 are from fitting an exponential growth function using least‐squares estimation to the 1990‐2020 data and projections. This leads to an annual growth rate of 1.585% a year.

44 This is the projection used in the 2005 Inventory. 45 ABAG has released 2009 projections, but the City did not have the resources to obtain them at the time of this report. 46 http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=1785

58 Appendices

Table 25: Population Data and Projections

City of Contra Costa PG&E Residential Year Richmond County Service population 1990 86,019 809,317 10,450,128 1991 87,765 823,183 10,678,197 1992 91,116 839,768 10,874,483 1993 92,288 852,532 11,037,375 1994 93,008 861,979 11,125,194 1995 93,015 872,075 11,221,517 1996 93,499 884,227 11,331,199 1997 94,781 903,049 11,538,191 1998 96,291 921,663 11,684,836 1999 97,823 936,983 11,859,729 2000 99,216 952,919 12,058,945 2001 100,370 971,608 12,296,435 2002 100,932 980,981 12,473,890 2003 101,129 988,722 12,634,773 2004 101,657 994,375 12,790,570 2005 102,309 1,001,618 12,942,336 2006 102,188 1,005,277 13,105,896 2007 103,327 1,014,320 13,289,560 2008 103,899 1,029,327 13,464,871 2009 104,513 not yet available 13,641,175 2010 105,491 1,075,931 13,820,023 2020 115,789 1,237,544 15,796,769 2030 127,093 1,422,840 18,103,252 2040 139,499 1,609,257 20,725,656 2050 153,117 1,812,242 23,727,938 Bold numbers are actual data Italicized are projected using exponential growth models Plain numbers are State of California projections

59 Appendices

Appendix C: Residential Projections Data for city household electricity and gas usage are only available for the years 2005‐ 2008. County consumption is only available for the years 2006 and 2007. City consumption for the years 1990‐2004 were estimated using usage data from PG&E. City consumption was assumed to follow the same trend as PG&E consumption, correcting for differences in population growth and usage. For example, consumption in 1990 was estimated as such:

A similar approach was used for 2009‐2050, except 2008 usage was used as the base year instead of 2005. PG&E has published emissions factors, which are for CO2 only, for 2003‐ 2009. It does not include other greenhouse gases in its factors because of differences in how their warming potentials are estimated. An estimate of the 1990 emissions factor comes from scientists at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories (LBNL), who used the Elfin model.47 This model calculates an emissions factor for PG&E of .070 kgC/kWh, which translates into .566 lbs/kWh.48 “Business as usual” estimates assume that PG&E’s emissions factor will decrease to .349 by 2016, based on the PG&E Long Term Procurement Plan.49 The estimates assume a straight‐ line trend between 2009 and 2016. The 2016 emissions factor is the average of factors under the four scenarios provided in the LTPP, assuming they are all equally likely. The scenarios vary by costs and customer behavior. It assumes that the “Increased Reliability and Preferred Resources” plan will be undertaken by PG&E, as this is the preferred plan. It also assumes that the emissions factor will stay constant from 2016 to 2050. Figure 17: PG&E 2016 Projected Emissions Factors

47 Elfin was used as a power forecasting tool by California utilities during the 1980s and early 1990s. 48 The factor is multiplied by 1lb/.453kg and by (44/12), the ratio of the molecular weight of carbon to that of CO2. 49 http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Procurement/LTPP/LTPP2006/_2006ltpp_AL_Pres entations.htm, Table Vol. 1, VIB‐12

60 Appendices

Table 26: Electricity Emissions Factors Years Emissions Factor, Source lbs/kWh 1990‐2002 .566 LBNL estimate 2003 0.620 PG&E reported 2004 0.566 PG&E reported 2005 0.489 PG&E reported 2006 0.456 PG&E reported 2007 0.636 PG&E reported 2008 0.641 PG&E reported 2009 0.524 PG&E reported 2010 0.499 2009‐2016 linear trend 2011 0.474 2009‐2016 linear trend 2012 0.449 2009‐2016 linear trend 2013 0.424 2009‐2016 linear trend 2014 0.399 2009‐2016 linear trend 2015 0.374 2009‐2016 linear trend 2016 0.349 PG&E predicted 2017‐2050 0.349 Assumes no change

The natural gas emissions factor used is 11.7 lbs/therm, for consistency with the 2005 GHG Inventory. This is the factor recommended by PG&E and by the EPA. This factor is assumed to stay constant. Calculation of GHG savings from recommended measures The following measures all assume that single family homes account for approximately 80% of residential GHG emissions and multi family dwellings (apartments) account for the remaining 20%. This assumption was based on residential energy consumption data obtained from the 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS)50 conducted by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2005 is the most recent year available. For the ease of calculation, other types of energy use (LPG, propane, fuel oil, and kerosene) were excluded (only a very small percentage of homes surveyed used this).

These calculations used the total energy usage by each type of housing (e.g., single family home) divided by the number of households of that type to obtain the proportion of overall consumption. To estimate usage for the City of Richmond, the assumption is made that each housing type uses proportionally the same amount of energy. For example, the average mobile home in California uses half the natural gas of the average single family detached house. Assuming the same holds true in Richmond, but the proportion of housing by type is different, the estimated percentage of overall consumption can be calculated. In order to

50 Data tabulated using public‐use microdata from http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recspubuse05/pubuse05.html. N=468; households were statistically weighted to produce an accurate sample of all California households.

61 Appendices calculate the proportion of GHG by housing type, the proportion of GHG from each energy source from the 2005 Inventory is used to weight the energy usage.

Table 27: California Energy Usage by Housing Type

Mobile Single‐Family Single‐Family Apt 2‐4 Apt 5+ Housing Type Home Detached Attached units units Freq. of housing type 508,600 9,690,150 1,033,291 1,188,278 2,407,613 Prop. of housing type 3% 65% 7% 8% 16% Electricity (kWh) per HH 4,838 8,537 5,934 4,753 4,540 % of overall electricity 2% 77% 6% 5% 10% consumption Natural Gas (1,000 BTU) 25,374 53,211 34,871 28,012 15,798 per HH % of overall natural gas 2% 81% 6% 5% 6% consumption

Table 28: Estimated Richmond Energy Usage by Housing Type

Mobile Single‐Family Single‐Family Apt 2‐4 Apt 5+ Housing Type Home Detached Attached units units Freq. of housing type 121 21,069 2,931 5,292 7,804 Prop. of housing type 0% 57% 8% 14% 21% % of overall electricity 0% 70% 7% 10% 14% consumption % of overall natural gas 0% 75% 7% 10% 8% consumption

Table 29: Estimated Proportion of Residential GHG by Housing Type

Energy Single‐family Apartment Overall proportion of GHG Source overall overall emissions (by energy source) Electricity 76% 23% 31% Natural gas 82% 18% 69% Total 80% 20% 100%

R1 EE retrofits on cityowned foreclosed properties

This program is initially funded by the EECBG. The assumptions of 25% energy savings and initial project costs are based on the EECBG application. The application assumes 10% overhead to run the program, but actual administrative costs are not yet known. The savings assume that the percentage of the housing stock participating in the program expands by 300% from 2012 to 2020, and 400% from 2021 to 2050, and that administrative costs grow at the same rate, not taking inflation into account. These assumptions are extremely speculative. It is unknown how quickly the City will be able to

62 Appendices sell homes in this program and what percentage of its investments it will be able to recoup. It is also unknown how many homes will be available to participate in the program. It assumes that all the households participating will be single homes, as they have higher overall energy usage. R2 PV installation on cityowned foreclosed properties The same assumptions as R‐1 apply. Solar generation rates are calculated based on the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s solar calculator.

R3 EE audits and retrofits for moderate income households Energy savings are based on EECBG application projections. Calculations assume that the program expands at the same rate as R‐1 and R‐2, and that all retrofits go to single family homes.

R4 EE audits for households with above moderate income Initial energy savings are based on EECBG projections. Initially, 600 homes are funded and they have combined energy savings of 5%. Calculations assume that in Phase II, the energy audits can result in 7.5% energy savings due to improved technology. In phase III, a 10% energy saving is assumed. It also assumes that after Phase I, which is funded by EECBG funds, audits and improvements are funded by the homeowner. Energy improvements can be funded through financing programs, many of which are becoming available.

R5 Energy conservation education and outreach goals This program projects the result of educational outreach campaigns that encourage energy conservation through better decisions. It assumes that 50% of all homes will reduce their energy usage 5% by 2015; 75% of homes will reduce energy usage by 10% by 2020, and 100% of homes will reduce their energy usage by 10% afterward.

R6 Green Building Ordinance Savings are based on the following assumptions:

SFH Savings, CO2e tons per sq ft 0.52 CO2e savings are above and beyond the MFD Savings, CO2e tons per sq ft 0.46 State of California’s 2008 Building Energy Average SFH size, sq ft 2025 Efficiency Standards (Title 24). They are Average low‐rise MFD, sq ft 8442 based on the “Application for City of Dwelling units per low‐rise MFD 8 Richmond Revised Locally Adopted Energy Standards, 4/20/09”.51 The average sizes are also based on the same application. The dwelling units per low‐rise is somewhat higher than Richmond’s current housing stock, but it is reasonable to assume that new developments will have higher density. The calculations assume that all new housing stock meets the requirements of this ordinance. It does not take into account remodeling or retrofitting projects that also fall under the ordinance. Taking such projects into account would result in additional GHG reductions

51 http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2008standards/ordinances/2009‐04‐20_Richmond_Application.pdf

63 Appendices

Appendix D: Commercial/Industrial Projections The 2005 GHG inventory uses a predicted growth factor for commercial/industrial emissions that ties emissions to job growth. While this may be appropriate for commercial operations based in commercial office buildings, it does not apply as accurately for industrial operations. In order to project 1990 emissions, the commercial/industrial sector was split into two categories: “refinery” and “other”.

The Chevron refinery reported 4,792,052 MT of CO2e in 2008. Prior to these years, there was no mandatory reporting of GHG. No verified public data are available on refinery emissions. Additional data on prior year emissions and forecast emissions were requested from Chevron, but were understandably not provided.

The BAAQMD has attempted to estimate emissions from large facilities based on activity data. BAAQMD estimated refinery emissions to be 4,303,800 MT of CO2e in 200752 and 3,845,315 MT of CO2e in 200553. The large increase (25%) from 2005 BAAQMD estimate to the 2008 Chevron estimate may be due to changes in activity, but more likely to differences in inventory methodology. Estimates of emissions can vary substantially depending on what is considered as part of the scope of emissions and the methodology used. Because Chevron’s reported emissions in 2008 have been verified by a third party, and also because future year emissions will be reported to the California ARB using the same methodology, they are used as the base year for calculating emissions from this sector. Table 30 lists the point source emitters in the City of Richmond that are covered under State of California mandatory GHG reporting requirements. These requirements only cover oil refineries, hydrogen plants, and large stationary combustion facilities with emissions over 25,000 MT of CO2 per year, and electricity generation and cogeneration facilities with emissions over 2,500 MT of CO2 per year and over 1 MW of generating capacity.54

BAAQMD publishes estimates of emissions from each sector of the economy in the Bay Area. Even though the methodology for estimating refinery emissions may be different, this report assumes that the trend in emissions is approximately the same for the Chevron refinery and overall Bay Area refineries. It also assumes that the trend in the “other” category for commercial/industrial emissions is the same.

The Chevron refinery was responsible for approximately 33% of the total Bay Area refinery emissions in 2008. Using the BAAQMD numbers for overall refinery emissions, the refinery emissions for 2005 are estimated at 4,691,520 MT CO2e.55 This is 90% of the total 2005

52 http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/Emission%20Inventory/regionali nventory2007_2_10.ashx 53 See 2005 COR GHG Inventory, Table 13. 54 http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/reporting/ghg‐rep/ghg‐reports.htm 55 This is higher than the number in the 2005 Emissions Inventory Table 12 because the inventory counts natural gas usage separately. It is higher than Table 13’s estimate due to differences in counting methodology.

64 Appendices commercial/industrial emissions. Subtracting this amount from the 2005 Inventory total amount of 5,141,572 MT CO2e leads to an estimate of 490,415 MT in the “other” category. Past and future refinery emissions are assumed to follow the same trends as the wider Bay Area. The BAAQMD has projections up to 2029. The following years assume that emissions follow the best‐fit linear trend line fit to the 1990‐2029 data.

Table 30: GHG Point Source Emissions (2008) Covered Under Mandatory Reporting Facility Name CO2e Total CO2e Non‐Biomass CO2 Biomass‐Only Chevron Richmond 4,792,052 4,792,052 Refinery General Chemical 3,039 3,039 Corporation NOVE Power Plant 21,552 10 21,541 Source: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/reporting/ghg‐rep/facility_summary.xls

Table 31: Commercial/Industrial Emissions, millions of MT CO2e BAAQMD BAAQMD Total “refinery” “other” Year emissions Refinery Other estimates estimates 1990 4.48 4.22 0.26 9.33 12.61 1993 4.65 4.25 0.40 14.06 12.72 1996 4.70 4.25 0.45 15.80 12.71 1999 5.02 4.57 0.45 15.92 13.66 2002 5.05 4.59 0.46 16.15 13.72 2005 5.14 4.65 0.49 17.37 13.91 2008 5.35 4.79 0.55 19.66 14.33 2011 5.54 4.94 0.60 21.35 14.76 2014 5.74 5.09 0.65 23.05 15.21 2017 5.94 5.24 0.70 24.77 15.67 2020 6.15 5.40 0.75 26.49 16.15 2023 6.36 5.56 0.80 28.18 16.64 2026 6.58 5.73 0.84 29.87 17.14 2029 6.80 5.91 0.89 31.57 17.66 2032 6.86 5.94 0.92 32.68 17.76 2035 7.04 6.07 0.97 34.24 18.16 2038 7.22 6.21 1.01 35.80 18.56 2041 7.39 6.34 1.05 37.36 18.96 2044 7.57 6.47 1.10 38.92 19.35 2047 7.75 6.61 1.14 40.48 19.75 2050 7.93 6.74 1.19 42.04 20.15 Bold numbers are actual amounts. Italicized numbers are estimated using a best‐fit linear trend.

65 Appendices

Appendix E: Transportation Projections VMT data from Contra Costa County was used for estimating City VMT. Contra Costa highway VMT are available for 1990‐2008, and local VMT is available for 1990, 2000, and 2005‐2008. The trend in County highway VMT is used to estimate County local VMT by assuming that they both grow at approximately the same rate. The 1990 year datum is used to estimate 1991‐1994, and the 2000 year datum is used to estimate 1995‐1999.

City local VMT is estimated by weighting County VMT by the relative populations of the City and County. For example, 1990 local VMT equals:

This is done for 1990‐2008, excluding 2005. City highway VMT are estimated using the same process. Local and highway VMT from 2009‐2050 is based on the assumption that they grow at the same rate as the growth in population. This may have the effect of slightly underestimating VMT if the rest of the County grows at a faster rate than the City and this growth leads to increased travel from non‐City residents. VMT are used to calculate emissions based on the assumptions of the 2005 inventory of 95.2% gasoline and 4.8% diesel. 1990 emissions are also weighted based on vehicles being somewhat less efficient in 1990. The correction factor was calculated as shown on the right. The factor is rather small because fuel economy standards (CAFE standards) did not increase from 1990 to 2005.

Data on GHG emissions were for the State of California and were obtained from the State emissions inventory as published by the California Air Resource Board.56 VMT data for the State was obtained from the California Department of Transportation. The correction factor between 1991 and 2004 was interpolated using a linear trend. No correction was applied to years 2006 and beyond. To calculate the reductions from the Pavley standards (known as the Pavley 1 rule for 2016 and the Pavley 2 rule for 2020), data from the CARB Enhanced Technical Assessment of GHG regulations were used.57 At the time of this report, the standards were assumed to take effect in 2009, affecting model year 2010 and future vehicles. Due to delays in EPA approval, implementation was delayed. These calculations assume that the reductions begin with model year 2011. Tables 10 and 11 from the technical assessment show the projected reductions in 2016 and 2020:

56http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/doc/methods_v1/ghg_inventory_technical_support_document.pdf

57 http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccms/reports/pavleycafe_reportfeb25_08.pdf

66 Appendices

The figure of 11% overall reduction in 2016 was calculating by taking the “tons reduction” value of 51.9, subtracting .51 because model 2010 year cars were not included, and dividing the result by the baseline of 472.8. The figure of 20% reduction in emissions in 2020 was calculated the same way. As shown in the table below, the strictest standards will apply to the model year 2020 fleet, which will have a GHG emissions reduction of 42.8%. This does not mean that overall GHG emissions from vehicles will be reduced by 42.8% in 2020, because older vehicles are still on the road. Assuming the rate of turnover remains the same, a rough estimation projects that the new emission standards will cover essentially 100% of vehicles on the road by 2030. These calculations do not take into account any increased in VMT resulting from cars becoming more affordable to operate. Rail projections from 1990 to 2005 are based on assuming that both railroads had the same expansion in emissions as statewide trends. 2006 and beyond assume that they follow the same trend. This was projected by calculating the straight linear trend between the

67 Appendices statewide 1990 and 2005 data point and assuming that future years follow the same linear trend.

Table 32: Estimated Reductions from Pavley Regulations

AVMT, Baseline Pavley Pavley Tons Year Million miles Emissions Reductions Reduced 2010 390.01 211,031 0 0 2011 393.66 208,410 1.8% 3,905 2012 397.34 205,788 3.7% 7,883 2013 401.06 203,167 5.5% 11,936 2014 404.81 200,545 7.3% 16,063 2015 408.60 197,924 9.2% 20,267 2016 412.43 195,302 11.0% 24,548 2017 416.29 192,681 13.3% 29,846 2018 420.18 190,059 15.5% 35,240 2019 424.11 187,437 17.8% 40,734 2020 428.08 184,816 20% 46,326 … … … … … 2030 469.87 254,244 42.8% 108,054 … … … … … 2040 515.74 279,064 42.8% 119,997 … … … … … 2050 566.09 306,306 42.8% 131,712

68 Appendices

Appendix F: Waste Projections Emissions from waste in any given year consist of two major sources: emissions from past waste dumped in the West Contra Costa County Sanitary Landfill (WCCSL) and the future emissions of waste disposed in that year. Landfill Emissions The WCCSL opened in 1953 and closed in 2006 with 12,330,465 short tons of waste‐in‐ place (WIP). Waste acceptance data are available from the California solid waste facility information system (SWIS) for years 1990 to 2006.58 Prior year acceptance rates were based on the simplifying assumption that waste was deposited in equal installments from 1953 to 1989. Emissions were calculated using the US EPA LandGEM landfill gas emissions model version 3.02. As in the 2005 GHG inventory, it assumes the standard methane generation rate of 0.05, standard methane generation capacity of 170 m^3/Mg, and methane content of 50% by volume. The LandGEM results were used to calculate the final emissions value by assuming that 75% of the methane is captured. Other possible gases emitted with global warming potential are omitted. Methane is assumed to have a GWP of 21, as consistent with the 2005 Inventory. Note that the estimated emissions from the landfill differ substantially from the 2005 GHG inventory. This is due to variation in how landfill emissions are reported and recorded. On page 13 of the 2005 Inventory, Table 13, the landfill is reported as emitting 65,794 tons of CO2e in 2005. This amount is actually carbon dioxide only. Methane was excluded due to uncertainties about how to calculate its warming potential. On page 32 of the 2005 Inventory, the landfill is recorded as having 32,309 tons of GHG emissions. This calculation is based on the assumption that the landfill emitted 1,540 tonnes of methane and uses a GWP for methane of 21. This estimate was derived by taking the reported 65,794 tons of CO2e and dividing it in half based on the assumption of landfill gas being 50% methane. Unlike the inventory, this report uses the LandGEM model analysis. LandGEM has been verified by EPA as the standard for calculating emissions from waste‐in‐place and more completely accounts for both methane and carbon dioxide. Waste Disposal Emissions Waste disposed per year is estimated by assuming that City disposal rates follow the same trend as statewide disposal rates, with corrections made for City and statewide population data. Statewide disposal data are available for 1990‐2008. Years 2009‐2050 were projected using a best‐fit linear trend of the 1990‐2008 data. Waste characterization data are not available for 1990, so it is assumed that the makeup of the waste remained and will remain constant from 1990‐2050 in the BAU scenario. The emissions from waste were calculated

58 http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Landfills/Tonnages/

69 Appendices using the same methodology as the 2005 Inventory. The inventory used the CACP software, which in turn uses a version of the EPA WARM model. Calculating Reductions from Diversion Goals In order to calculate reduction from diversion goals, the EPA WARM Model version 10 (November 2009) was used, with the specific distances to various facilities entered as follows:

• Distance to landfill (Keller Canyon Landfill in Pittsburg, CA): 40 miles • Distance to composting facility (West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill in Richmond): 4 miles • Distance to materials recovery facility (West County Resource Recovery Facility in Richmond): 4 miles The landfill methane recovery rate was set at 75% to be consistent with the 2005 Inventory. Waste characterization data was obtained from the 2008 CIWMB Waste Characterization study (note that this is slightly different from the Inventory, which uses the 2004 Waste Characterization Study). 2020 and 2050 waste tonnage was calculated as discussed above.

Table 33: Waste Characterization

% of waste Amount in 2020 Amount in 2050 (2008) (tons) (tons) Dimensional Lumber 14.5% 21,144 22,376 Food Scraps 15.5% 22,602 23,919 Yard Trimmings 7.1% 10,353 10,956 Mixed Paper (general) 17.3% 25,227 26,697 Carpet 3.2% 4,666 4,938

70 Appendices

Appendix G: Waste Projections The City of Richmond has already taken a leadership role in reducing its municipal footprint. By doing so, it has jumpstarted the creation of green jobs, served as an example for businesses, other municipalities, and homeowners, and increased operational and cost efficiency. The City’s primary headquarter facilities at the Civic Center were certified as a Bay Area Green Business in 2009. Although the certification does not involve GHG reduction, many of the measures taken in support of the certification, such as double‐sided printing, result in reductions.

Municipal GHG emissions are a tiny fraction of community emissions. In 2005, municipal emissions were 10,598 tons. Community emissions were approximately 550 times that amount. Additionally, much of the municipal emissions are already represented in the community inventory. The vehicle fleet, employee commute, and waste sectors, which represent 44% of municipal emissions, are also a part of the community inventory.

Figure 18: 2005 Municipal Emissions by Sector

6%()#,%&,%%4 7!34%

%-0,/9%%#/--54%

"5),$).'3

342%%4,)'(43

7!4%23%7!'%

4OTAL%MISSIONS -4#/E

Recommended Reduction Projections for municipal emissions are not provided due to a lack of data about past and future municipal operations. Little information about general trends in municipal operations is available, partly because each municipality is unique. The City has not set any targets for reduction of municipal emissions. Nonetheless, reductions accomplished by the

71 Appendices

City play an important role in providing leadership on climate action, as well as fiscal and other co‐benefits. This report recommends a reduction of 33% of 2005 levels by 2020 and 80% of 2005 levels by 2050. This will match the City to the same reduction pace as community emissions in 2020, exceeding the AB32 2020 goal, and matching the AB32 goal in 2050.

The municipal inventory contains six sectors. Each sector will be briefly considered.

Buildings The City listed 90 buildings in its 2005 Inventory. The wastewater treatment plant was considered separately. The top 10 emitters account for 75% of total emissions. Since 2005, the City has relocated much of its operations to newly remodeled facilities in Civic Center Plaza. These facilities have received LEED Gold certification.

Key Accomplishments: LEED Gold Certification for City Hall and the former Hall of Justice (440 Civic Center Plaza) will result in significant energy savings over the national average. Although buildings vary widely in energy usage, a recent study of buildings with Gold/Platinum status buildings showed that they approximately 56% of the energy of the national average.59

The Municipal Green Building Ordinance requires that all major construction projects (>5,000 sq.ft) undertaken or substantially aided by the City achieve LEED Silver status. Achieving this status is projected to reduce energy usage by a third (32%) compared to the national average.

Solar Photovoltaic systems installed in the new Civic Center and Auditorium provide 15% of the Civic Center's electricity or 175,800 kWh per year. This is equivalent to 139 tons/year of CO2 emissions avoided.

Municipal Energy Audits and Retrofits, funded by the EECBG, are projected to result in estimated annual energy savings of 15% for 10 City facilities, resulting in annual reductions of 409 MT/CO2e. If the fiscal savings are applied toward more audits and retrofits, these reductions would increase.

Municipal PV and Solar Thermal Audits and Retrofits, also funded by the EECBG, are initially planned to install 1MW of capacity. This is projected to result in an annual reduction of 463 MT/CO2e. If the fiscal savings are applied toward more audits and retrofits, these reductions would increase.

Key Goals:

59 There were only two platinum status buildings, so they were combined with gold. http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=3930

72 Appendices

The City’s Five Year Strategic Business Plan has two goals in this area: “Reduce city facility energy consumption by 20%,” and “Increase renewable energy use at City facilities to 20% of peak consumption.” The City has already mapped out several steps toward reaching those goals.

Recommendations Support the purchase of energy usage tracking software Currently, energy usage for City facilities is billed individually for each facility and handled manually. No tracking system exists to look at trends over time or to compare the energy usage of similar buildings. Tracking energy usage will allow the identification of problematic areas or trends. It will help employees be aware of energy‐intensive activities. It will simplify the measurement and tracking of emissions goals.

Use energy savings to finance further energy improvements Keeping the money from energy savings in a revolving pool will allow continuing facility upgrades that provide long‐term fiscal savings for the City.

Employee Commute Key Accomplishments: The City implemented a commuter benefits program for employees in June 2009. It enables employees to use pre‐tax dollars to purchase transit passes. In conjunction with this program, the City also implemented a trial shuttle to the Richmond BART/Amtrak station. The City has supported bike‐to‐work efforts and encourages employees to take advantage of guaranteed ride home programs and other transit programs. The City provides covered bicycle parking and bicycle lockers at the Civic Center and also has showers for employees.

Recommendations: Parking Cashout An effective strategy to reduce driving is for employees to face more of the true costs of driving. Providing parking is a very real cost for employers. Parking cash‐out programs offer a way to reduce employer costs while benefiting employees. The employer can save money by providing fewer parking spaces, and pass some of those savings onto the employees who are choosing not to use parking. Because the City of Richmond has an abundance of on‐street parking, the parking spaces that the City provides may not be as valuable as in other areas. Nonetheless, the City has plans to eventually build a parking structure at the Civic Center. Parking structures cost tens of thousands of dollars per space built. If enough employees committed to alternative transportation, the City could reduce the size of the parking structure, creating large cost savings. Create additional incentives for alternative transportation In addition to the GHG reductions from employees using alternative transportation, other significant benefits can arise for the City. The City can capture these benefits by creating additional incentives for public transportation. Avoiding a stressful commute may boost productivity and morale in the workplace. It also has been shown to reduce health risks of various diseases and improve mental health outcomes, which would result in reduced

73 Appendices health care costs to the City. Programs such as subsidies or drawings for transit passes and contests among departments or workgroups would be relatively easy to implement.

Vehicle Fleet Accomplishments The City has been aggressively pursuing the greening of its fleet. It purchases low‐emission and hybrid vehicles whenever possible. Many of the City’s pool cars are hybrid vehicles, and the police department has been purchasing low‐emission motorcycles. The City also has an excellent maintenance program for vehicles to improve efficiency. City staff are currently exploring the use of alternative fuel vehicles to further reduce emissions. Recommendations The City may be able to achieve GHG reductions and further cost savings by training employees on “green” driving behaviors. Simple changes such as avoiding aggressive acceleration, keeping travel speeds below 60‐65 mph, and smoother driving patterns can lead to significant improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency and thus result in GHG reductions. Hybrid vehicles lose nearly all of their fuel efficiency advantage when driven at fast highway speeds. The City should make sure that all employees are aware of the connection between efficient driving and environmental benefits as well as savings for the City. It should emphasize the role employees play as a team in keeping costs down.

Streetlights A consultant is currently revising the streetlight master plan for the City. One of the key goals in this revision process is achieving better visibility and safety while reducing energy and maintenance costs. This report will not address streetlights in detail due to the pending outcome of the streetlight master plan revision.

Waste The projections in this sector were based on statewide disposal rates, not on a waste characterization study of the City’s municipal waste. Therefore, the actual emissions may not be as accurate in this area. That does not remove the need for reduction, however.

Since 2008, the City has actively pursued recycling and waste reduction strategies for municipal facilities. Environmental staff have ensured that every employee has a recycling bin, and custodial anecdotal reports indicate that the amount of trash has decreased by approximately half since implementing the recycling programs. City staff also have implemented limited pilot on‐site worm composting programs at City Hall and at fire stations. Community‐wide compost collection will allow for further reductions in waste.

The City also implemented an environmentally preferable purchasing (EPP) policy in 2009. The EPP policy created guidelines for purchasing materials that would have a low impact on the environment. Since the EPP policy is not primarily driven by waste reduction, its primary effect is on upstream lifecycle emissions that are not included in the inventory.

74 Appendices

Water/Sewage The GHG emissions in this sector are from electricity usage to run the City’s treatment facilities. Unlike the other municipal sectors, reduction in this municipal sector is highly dependent on community behaviors. The electricity usage primarily depends on water usage, thus making water conservation the primary means of reducing emissions in this sector. A secondary means of reduction would be to pursue alternative energy sources for the treatment facilities. The entire water supply chain is estimated to consume a fifth of California’s electricity, nearly a third of its natural gas, and almost 100 billions of diesel fuel annually.60 The municipal emissions in this sector are only a tiny fraction of the total energy usage involved in providing water. Therefore, reducing water usage will have cumulative GHG impacts far beyond those shown in the Inventory. Strategies for reducing water use have been extensively studied and are beyond the scope of this report. They will play the key role in achieving reductions in this sector.

60 California's WaterEnergy Relationship Staff Final Report. California Energy Commission. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC‐700‐2005‐011/CEC‐700‐2005‐011‐SF.PDF

75 Appendices

Appendix H: Resolution 1510, Recognizing 350 PPM

RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA IN RECOGNITION OF 350 PPM CO2 AS THE SENSIBLE LIMIT TO PREVENT EXTREME CLIMATE CHANGE WHEREAS, the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 387 ppm; and, WHEREAS, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, Dr. James Hansen stated in 2007 : “If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm” and; WHEREAS, there is a growing consensus among researchers that there is a need to get atmospheric concentrations of CO2 down below 350 ppm as soon as possible or risk self amplifying feedbacks that will result in abrupt, catastrophic, and irreversible heating of the earth and; WHEREAS, annually, global warming is causing more deaths than ten times the number of people killed from the events of 911; and, WHEREAS, failure to limit CO2 to 350 ppm will likely: kill more people internationally than anything short of all out nuclear war; create a worldwide refugee crisis; impoverish more people than any economic downturn in recorded history; destroy more species than at any time since the extinction of the dinosaurs; and cause the inundation of coastal cities and towns which are home to one billion people; and; WHEREAS, the world’s leaders at the December 2009 Copenhagen meetings on climate change were unable to provide world wide leadership and; WHEREAS, the plans agreed to by the world’s nations would result in 770 ppm CO2 by 2100, a concentration of CO2 incompatible with human life and; WHEREAS, the residents of Richmond, California have been national leaders in Environmental Justice and; WHEREAS, Richmond is home to a large oil refinery making issues related to climate change of immediate concern to all Richmond residents and;61 WHEREAS, the world’s leading experts on climate change state that immediate reductions in CO2 must occur this decade if we are to prevent island nations from going under water and runaway climate change and; WHEREAS, the longer we delay, the higher the financial and environmental costs will be; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that we, the Richmond City Council on behalf of the residents of Richmond, do hereby accept 350 ppm CO2 as the sensible limit; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that city staff and members of the City Council will work with the school district our neighborhood councils and the Council of Industries to provide educational opportunities to teach about the necessity of adopting the 350 ppm standard; and, BE IT ALSO FURTHER RESOLVED, the Richmond City Council directs staff to convene 3 community meetings to gain preliminary input for our Climate Action Plan (CAP) that is currently in the pre-planning stages. ------I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution of the Council of the City of Richmond was duly passed and adopted at a meeting thereof held February 2, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Butt, Rogers, Viramontes, Vice Mayor Ritterman, and Mayor McLaughlin. NOES: Councilmember Bates. ABSTENTIONS: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Lopez.

61 The resolution was amended in discussion to remove this clause.

76 Appendices

Appendix I: Resolution 10808 Committing to AB32 Goals

RESOLUTION NO. 108-08 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA COMMITTING TO THE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS TARGETS ESTABLISHED BY THE CALIFORNIA GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT OF 2006 WHEREAS, in 2006 the California State Legislature enacted the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32); and WHEREAS, AB 32 declares that global warming poses a serious threat to California’s environment and creates a comprehensive, multi-year program to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that cause global warming; and WHEREAS, AB 32 charges the State Air Resources Board (ARB) with the responsibility of setting limits on GHG emissions with the purpose of curbing global warming; and WHEREAS, AB 32 creates a statewide limit on global warming emissions; and WHEREAS, AB 32 establishes the following GHG emissions reduction targets: 2000 GHG emissions levels by 2010, 1990 GHG emissions levels by 2020, 80 percent below 1990 levels in 2050; and WHEREAS, the City of Richmond joined “ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability” to become a partner in the Cities for Climate Protection Campaign to reduce GHG emissions; and WHEREAS, ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability promotes a five milestone methodology to reduce GHG emissions, including: 1. Conducting a GHG emissions inventory and future emissions forecast to determine the source and quantity of GHG emissions within the jurisdiction, 2. Establishing a GHG emissions reduction target, 3. Developing an action plan with both existing and future actions to meet the GHG emissions reduction target, 4. Implementing the action plan, 5. Monitoring and reporting progress; and WHEREAS, the City of Richmond is working to create a new Climate Change Element as part of the General Plan update; and WHEREAS, the City of Richmond’s GHG emissions inventory and Climate Change Element will enable City staff to develop a Climate Action Plan to effectively reach the State’s GHG emissions reduction targets established by AB 32. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Richmond City Council does hereby commit to achieving, at minimum, the GHG reduction targets established by AB 32. ************************************** I certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Members of the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting held on September 16, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Bates, Butt, Marquez, Rogers, Sandhu, Thurmond, and Mayor McLaughlin NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Councilmembers Lopez and Viramontes

77 Appendices

Appendix J: Urban Environmental Accords Energy Action 1 Adopt and implement a policy to increase the use of renewable energy to meet ten per cent of the city’s peak electric load within seven years. Action 2 Adopt and implement a policy to reduce the city’s peak electric load by ten per cent within seven years through energy efficiency, shifting the timing of energy demands, and conservation measures. Action 3 Adopt a citywide greenhouse gas reduction plan that reduces the jurisdiction’s emissions by twenty-five per cent by 2030, and which includes a system for accounting and auditing greenhouse gas emissions.

Waste Reduction Action 4 Establish a policy to achieve zero waste going to landfills and incinerators by 2040. Action 5 Adopt a citywide program that reduces the use of a disposable, toxic, or non-renewable product category by at least fifty per cent in seven years. Action 6 Implement "user-friendly" recycling and composting programs, with the goal of reducing by twenty per cent per capita solid waste disposal to landfill and incineration in seven years.

Urban Design Action 7 Adopt a policy that mandates a green building rating system standard that applies to all new municipal buildings. Action 8 Adopt urban planning principles and practices that advance higher density, mixed use, walkable, bikeable, and disabled-accessible neighborhoods which coordinate land use and transportation with open space systems for recreation and ecological restoration. Action 9 Adopt a policy or implement a program that creates environmentally beneficial jobs in slums and/or low-income neighborhoods.

Urban Nature Action 10 Ensure that there is an accessible public park or recreational open space within half-a- kilometer of every city resident by 2015. Action 11 Conduct an inventory of existing canopy coverage in the city and then establish a goal based on ecological and community considerations to plant or maintain canopy coverage in not less than 50 per cent of all available sidewalk planting sites. Action 12 Pass legislation that protects critical habitat corridors and other key habitat characteristics (e.g. water features, food-bearing plants, shelter for wildlife, use of native species, etc.) from unsustainable development.

Transportation Action 13 Develop and implement a policy which expands affordable public transportation coverage to within half-a-kilometer of all city residents in ten years. Action 14 Pass a law or implement a program that eliminates leaded gasoline (where it is still used); phases down sulfur levels in diesel and gasoline fuels, concurrent with using advanced emission controls on all buses, taxis, and public fleets to reduce particulate matter and smog- forming emissions from those fleets by 50 per cent in seven years.

78 Appendices

Action 15 Implement a policy to reduce the percentage of commuter trips by single occupancy vehicles by ten per cent in seven years.

Environmental Health Action 16 Every year, identify one product, chemical, or compound that is used within the city that represents the greatest risk to human health and adopt a law and provide incentives to reduce or eliminate its use by the municipal government. Action 17 Promote the public health and environmental benefits of supporting locally grown organic foods. Ensure that twenty per cent of all city facilities (including schools) serve locally grown and organic food within seven years. Action 18 Establish an Air Quality Index (AQI) to measure the level of air pollution and set the goal of reducing by 10 per cent in seven years the number of days categorized in the AQI range as "unhealthy" or "hazardous."

Water Action 19 Develop policies to increase adequate access to safe drinking water, aiming at access for all by 2015. For cities with potable water consumption greater than 100 liters per capita per day, adopt and implement policies to reduce consumption by 10 per cent by 2015. Action 20 Protect the ecological integrity of the city’s primary drinking water sources (i.e., aquifers, rivers, lakes, wetlands and associated ecosystems). Action 21 Adopt municipal wastewater management guidelines and reduce the volume of untreated wastewater discharges by ten per cent in seven years through the expanded use of recycled water and the implementation of a sustainable urban watershed planning process that includes participants of all affected communities and is based on sound economic, social, and environmental principles.

79 Appendices

Appendix K: Draft Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance

ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND REGARDING THE RECYCLING OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS.

The City Council of the City of Richmond, County of Contra Costa, does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1 Findings.

WHEREAS, The State of California through its California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, Assembly Bill 939 (AB 939), codified in substantial part at Public Resources Code §40000 et. seq., requires that each local jurisdiction in the state divert 50% of discarded materials (base year 1990) from disposal in landfills and transformation facilities;

WHEREAS, Every city and county in California, including the City of Richmond, could face fines up to $10,000 a day for not meeting the above mandated goal; WHEREAS, Pursuant to California Constitution Article 11, Section 7 and Public Resources Code §40059, the City of Richmond has the authority to regulate solid waste generated in the City; WHEREAS, State law requires the California Integrated Waste Management Board to take into account a city's efforts to encourage or require recovery of construction and demolition debris in determining whether a city has met the mandated 50% recovery rate and other solid waste reduction and recycling requirements; WHEREAS, The City of Richmond joined the Urban Environmental Accords in 2008, of which the implementation of a construction and demolition debris recycling ordinance is a key goal within the action of reducing solid waste; WHEREAS, The Green Building Ordinance of the City of Richmond includes the diversion of construction and demolition debris from landfill as a key goal; WHEREAS, Landfill capacity in California is limited and construction and deposition of construction and demolition debris in landfills contribute to pollution and the depletion of natural resources; WHEREAS, Reuse and recycling of construction materials is a simple and effective method to preserve natural materials and reduce demands on scarce landfill space; WHEREAS, Reusing, salvaging and recycling C&D debris furthers the City’s efforts to stimulate markets for recycled materials and may reduce project costs to contractors and developers when compared to landfilling these materials; WHEREAS, Except in unusual circumstances, it is feasible to divert an average of one hundred (100) percent of concrete and asphalt and fifty (50) percent of remaining C&D debris from construction, demolition, and renovation projects through salvage for reuse and recycling; WHEREAS, Construction and demolition waste recovery programs reduce the amount of materials generated and hauled to landfill, decrease worker exposure to hazards, improve worker safety, reduce truck trips and traffic and improve air quality, thereby enhancing the health, safety and welfare of Richmond residents; WHEREAS, This Chapter is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per §15061(b)(3) because it can be stated with certainty that this Chapter will not have a significant negative effect on the environment; NOW THEREFORE, it is the intent of the City Council in enacting this ordinance, to reduce the quantities of construction and demolition debris disposed in landfills as required by Sections 41000-41003 of the California Public Resources Code and as required by State law, to provide for the public health and welfare by reducing pollution and limiting landfill expansion, and to advance sustainable development by reducing the consumption of natural resources, and to promote “green-collar” jobs in the recycling industry.

SECTION 2.

Article IX, “Health”, of the City of Richmond Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding the following as Chapter 9.23: “Construction and Demolition Debris: Reuse and Recycling,” hereby referred to as “This Chapter”.

80 Appendices

Sections: 9.23.010 DEFINITIONS 9.23.020 COVERED PROJECTS 9.23.030 COMPLIANCE 9.23.040 SUBMISSION OF THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DEBRIS RECYCLING REPORT 9.23.050 SUBMISSION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN 9.23.060 REVIEW OF WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN 9.23.070 INFEASIBILITY ADJUSTMENT 9.23.080 COMPLIANCE WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN 9.23.090 DETERMINATION OF COMPLIANCE AND RELEASE OF PERMIT 9.23.100 CITY’S RIGHTS TO MONITOR AND INSPECT 9.23.110 PENALTIES AND SANCTIONS 9.23.120 APPEALS 9.23.200 FEES 9.23.300 OPTION TO REVISE 9.23.400 SEVERABILITY 9.23.500 EFFECTIVE DATE

9.23.010 DEFINITIONS

For the purposes of this Chapter the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this Chapter, unless clearly inapplicable. Words and phrases not ascribed a meaning by this Chapter shall have the meaning ascribed by Division 30, Part 1, Chapter 2 of the Public Resources Code, §40000, et seq., and the regulations of the California Integrated Waste Management Board, if defined therein, and if not, to the definitions found in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"), 42 U.S.C. §§6901, et seq. and the regulations implementing RCRA, as they may be amended from time to time.

(a) “Applicant” means any individual, firm, limited liability company, association, partnership, political subdivision, government agency, municipality, industry, public or private corporation, or any other entity whatsoever who applies to the City for the applicable permits to undertake construction, demolition, or renovation project within the City. (b) “Completed Waste Management Plan (WMP)” means a WMP form, approved by the City for the purpose of compliance with this Chapter, submitted by the Applicant for any Covered Project at the completion of a Project. The Completed WMP shall identify the recycling facilities used and the types and actual weights or volumes of the C&D debris disposed, reused or recycled at the completion of a Project. (c) ”Construction” means the building or improvement of any facility or structure or any portion thereof including tenant improvements to an existing facility or structure. (d) “Construction and Demolition Debris” or “C&D Debris” means used or discarded materials removed from premises during construction or renovation of a structure resulting from construction, remodeling, repair, or demolition operations on any pavement, house, commercial building, or other structure. (e) “Conversion Rate” means the California Integrated Waste Management’s accepted conversion rate used in estimating the volume or weight of materials identified in a Waste Management Plan which is adopted by the City pursuant to this Chapter. (f) “Covered Project” shall have the meaning set forth in §9.23.020. (g) “Debris Recycling Report” (DRR) means a DRR form, approved by the City for the purpose of this Chapter, submitted by the Applicant to report compliance through the use of the City’s Franchised contractor’s Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Collection Program. (h) “Deconstruction” means the process of carefully dismantling a building or structure in order to salvage components for reuse or recycling. (i) “Demolition” means the decimating, razing, ruining, tearing down or wrecking of any facility, structure, pavement or building, whether in whole or in part, whether interior or exterior. (j) “Divert” means to use material for any purpose other than disposal in a landfill or transformation facility. (k) “Diversion Requirement” means the redirection from the waste stream of 100 percent of all asphalt and concrete and at least 50 percent of all other construction and demolition debris generated by a Project via reuse or recycling, unless the Applicant has been granted an Infeasibility Adjustment, in which case the Diversion Requirement shall be the maximum feasible diversion rate established by the WMP Compliance Official for the

81 Appendices

Project. (l) “Franchise Agreement” means the agreement between the City and its contractor pursuant to the California Public Resources code §400059(a) and City of Richmond Code Section 9.20.140 for solid waste and recyclable materials. (m) “Noncovered Project” shall have the meaning set forth in §9.23.020.B (n) “Preliminary Waste Management Plan (WMP)” means a WMP form, approved by the City for the purpose of compliance with this Article, submitted by the Applicant for any Covered Project prior to a project’s start. The WMP shall identify the types and the estimated amounts of C&D Debris materials that will be generated for disposal and recycling. (o) “Project” means any activity, which requires an application for a building or demolition permit, or any similar permit from the City. (p) “Recycling” means the process of collecting, sorting, cleansing, treating, and reconstituting materials that would otherwise become solid waste, and returning them to the economic mainstream in the form of raw material for new, reused, or reconstituted products which meet the quality standards necessary to be used in the marketplace. (q) “Renovation” means any change, addition, or modification in an existing structure. (r) “Reuse” means further or repeated use of materials in their original form. (s) “Salvage” means the controlled removal of Construction or Demolition Debris from a permitted building or demolition site for the purpose of recycling, reuse, or storage for later recycling or reuse. (t) “Tenant improvements” means a “project” involving structural or other modifications of an existing property resulting in the generation of C&D Debris. (u) “Total costs” means the total construction value of the project using standard commercial and residential valuation formulas. (v) “Vendor” means a hauler of construction and demolition debris authorized by the City of Richmond to collect recyclable materials within the City per Chapter 9.21 of the Municipal Code. (w) “WMP Compliance Official” means the Planning and Building Services Director or his or her designee.

9.23.020 COVERED PROJECTS

(a) Covered Projects: All construction and renovation projects (including tenant improvements and site grading) within the City, the total costs of which are, or are projected to be, greater than or equal to $75,000.00, as well as all demolition projects, regardless of value, shall comply with this Article. For the purposes of determining whether a project meets the foregoing thresholds, all phases of a project and all related projects taking place on single or adjoining parcels, as determined by the WMP Compliance Official, shall be deemed a single project. (b) Noncovered Projects: Applicants for construction, demolition, and renovation projects within the City which are not Covered Projects (“Noncovered Projects”) shall be encouraged to divert as much project-related construction and demolition debris as possible. (c) Projects sponsored by the City or Redevelopment Agency: All construction, demolition and renovation projects sponsored by the City or Redevelopment Agency regardless of costs or size shall be considered Covered Projects. (d) Exemptions: Immediate or emergency demolition required to protect the public health, safety or welfare, as determined by a public safety official or code compliance officer, shall be considered a non-covered project. 9.23.030 COMPLIANCE

(a) Building, Grading and Demolition Permits: No building, grading, site development or demolition permit shall be issued for a Covered Project unless and until the WMP Compliance Official has approved a WMP or Preliminary Debris Recycling Report for the project. Compliance with the provisions of this Article shall be listed as a condition of approval on any building, site development or demolition permit issued for a Covered Project. (b) Collection of Materials: The City of Richmond has entered into exclusive Franchise Agreement which covers the collection of waste materials generated and disposed of within the City. Applicants may comply with this chapter in one of the following ways: (1) Qualifying small commercial and residential applicants may use the franchiser’s “Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Collection Program” when it is implemented. Covered projects that use the Franchised Hauler are conditionally exempt from meeting the Diversion Requirement until the “Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Collection Program” is implemented.

82 Appendices

(2) Applicants of large projects not eligible for coverage by the franchiser’s “Construction and Demolition Debris Collection Program” may contract with the franchiser to collect Project debris. Covered projects that use the Franchised Hauler are conditionally exempt from meeting the Diversion Requirement until the “Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Collection Program” is implemented. (3) Applicants may elect to not use the City’s franchiser if they meet one of the exceptions to the Franchise Agreement. It is unlawful for any person other than the City’s licensed franchised collector or those persons employed by the franchise collector to collect or haul any Construction and Demolition Debris within the City except: (A) Recyclables collected by a licensed hauler pursuant to City of Richmond Municipal Code Chapter 9.21 (B) Materials hauled by owner, occupant or persons directly contracted to build or demolish the Project (C) Donated materials

9.23.040 SUBMISSION OF THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DEBRIS RECYCLING REPORT

(a) Preliminary Debris Recycling Report: Eligible Applicants intending to use the franchiser’s “Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Collection Program”, when it is available, shall submit a Preliminary Debris Recycling Report confirming this intention on a form approved by the City as part of the building, demolition, or site development permit. The Preliminary Debris Recycling Report shall indicate the types and estimated weight of volumes of all C&D debris expected to be generated by the Project. Applicants shall make arrangements directly with the City’s franchiser to make use of the “Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Program.” (b) Final Debris Recycling Report: A Project shall be deemed to be in compliance with this article upon submission of a Final Debris Recycling Report signed by the Franchiser affirming the orderly receipt and their acceptance of materials collected in the “Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Collection Program.” No occupancy permits shall be issued until said documentation has been received and approved by the WMP Compliance Official.

9.23.050 SUBMISSION OF PRELIMINARY WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN

(a) WMP Forms: Applicants for building, demolition, or site development permits involving any Covered Project who do not use the franchiser’s “Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Collection Program” shall complete and submit a Preliminary Waste Management Plan (“WMP”), on a WMP form approved by the City for this purpose as part of the application packet for the building, demolition, or site development permit. The WMP shall indicate all of the following: (1) A list of the types, volumes and weights of all of project debris to be generated. (2) The estimated volume or weight of such materials that will be diverted for reuse or recycling (3) The estimated volume or weight of such materials that will be land filled (4) The vendor or facility that the Applicant proposes to use to collect or receive the materials; and (5) Acknowledgement of responsibility - The WMP shall be signed by both the contractor and owner acknowledging that consequences of noncompliance with the diversion requirement include fines and penalties, and that they are responsible for the actions of subcontractors with regard to the diversion requirement. (b) Calculating Volumes and Weight of Debris: In converting estimated measurements of volumes into weights of materials identified in the WMP, the Applicant shall use the standardized Conversion Rates approved by the City for this purpose. (c) Deconstruction: In preparing the WMP, applicants for building, demolition, or site development permits for a covered project involving the removal of all or part of an existing structure shall consider deconstruction, to the maximum extent feasible, and shall make the materials generated thereby available for salvage rather than landfill. Materials generated in this process shall be considered divertible C&D debris and included in the amount of waste generated. 9.23.060 REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN

(a) Approval: Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, no building, demolition, or site development permits shall be issued for any Covered Project, nor shall any demolition, construction or renovation take place on any Covered Project, unless and until the WMP Compliance Official has approved the Preliminary WMP. The WMP Compliance Official shall only approve a WMP after determining that all of the following conditions

83 Appendices

have been met: (1) The WMP provides all of the information required by this Chapter; (2) The WMP indicates that 100 percent of all asphalt and concrete and at least 50 percent of all other C&D debris generated by the Project will be diverted. If the WMP Compliance Official determines that these two conditions have been met, he or she shall mark the WMP “Approved” and return a copy of the WMP to the Applicant. (b) Nonapproval: If the WMP Compliance Official determines that the WMP fails to: (1) List all C&D materials to be generated; or (2) Indicate that 100 percent of all asphalt and concrete and at least 50 percent of all other C&D debris generated by the Project will be reused or recycled; or (3) Have both the contractor’s and owner’s signatures; He or he shall either: (1) Return the WMP to the Applicant marked “Denied,” including a statement of reasons for said denial; or (2) Return the WMP to the Applicant marked “Further Explanation Required.”

9.23.070 INFEASIBILITY ADJUSTMENT

(a) Application: If an Applicant for a Covered Project believes exceptional or extraordinary conditions make it infeasible to comply with the Diversion Requirement, the Applicant may apply for an infeasibility adjustment when submitting the WMP. The WMP should indicate the maximum amount of diversion the Applicant believes is feasible for each material, and the specific conditions that the Applicant believes make it infeasible to comply with the Diversion Requirement. (b) Meeting with WMP Compliance Official: The WMP Compliance Official shall review the information supplied and may meet with the Applicant to discuss possible ways of meeting the Diversion Requirement. The WMP Compliance Official may request staff from the Solid Waste Division attend this meeting or may require the Applicant to request a separate meeting with Solid Waste Division staff. Based on the information supplied by the Applicant and, if applicable, Solid Waste Division staff, the WMP Compliance Official shall determine whether it is possible for the Applicant to meet the Diversion Requirement. (c) Grant of Adjustment: If the WMP Compliance Official determines that it is infeasible for the Applicant to meet the Diversion Requirement, he or she shall establish a minimum feasible diversion rate for each material and shall indicate this rate on the WMP submitted by the Applicant. The WMP Compliance Official shall return a copy of the WMP to the Applicant marked “Approved for Infeasibility Adjustment.” (1) The cost to the applicant shall not be the primary reason for granting an adjustment, although cost may be a factor in the determination of whether there are exceptional or extraordinary conditions applicable to the project. (2) The adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations imposed on like projects. (d) Denial of Adjustment: If the WMP Compliance Official determines that it is feasible for the Applicant to meet the Diversion Requirement, the Applicant shall be informed in writing. The Applicant shall have 30 days to resubmit a WMP.

9.23.080 FINAL WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN

(a) Demolition Projects: Within 30 days of completion of permitted demolition, the Applicant shall submit to the WMP Compliance Official a final waste management plan, documenting that the Diversion Requirements for the demolition portion of a Covered Project have been met. No subsequent building permits for a Covered Project site shall be issued until said documentation has been received and approved by the WMP Compliance Official. (b) Construction Projects. Upon completion of a Covered Project construction and prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit documentation to the WMP Compliance Official a final waste management plan, documenting that the Diversion Requirements for the construction portion of the Covered Project has been met. Occupancy permits shall not be issued until said documentation has been received and approved by the WMP Compliance Official. (c) Documentation submitted shall include all of the following: (1) A final waste management plan, documenting showing actual amounts and types of C&D debris generated and diverted.

84 Appendices

(2) Receipts from the vendor or facility which collected or received each material showing the actual weight or volume of all those waste materials diverted and landfilled. (3) Any additional information to the Applicant believes is relevant to determining its efforts to comply in good faith with this Article. (4) Any barriers encountered that prohibited Diversion of C&D debris (5) Any recommended actions that would further the efforts to recycle C&D debris. (d) Weighing of Wastes: Applicants shall make reasonable and good faith efforts to ensure that all C&D debris diverted or disposed of in landfills is measured and recorded using the most accurate method of measurement available. To the extent practical, all construction and demolition debris shall be weighed by measurement on scales. Such scales shall be in compliance with all regulatory requirements for accuracy and maintenance. For construction and demolition debris for which weighing is not practical, a volumetric measurement shall be used. For conversion of volumetric measurements to weight, the Applicant shall use the standardized Conversion Rates approved by the City for this purpose. 9.23.090 DETERMINATION OF COMPLIANCE AND RELEASE OF PERMIT: The WMP Compliance Official shall review the information submitted in the Final WMP or the Final DRP and determine whether the Applicant has complied with the Diversion Requirement, as follows: (a) Full Compliance: If the WMP Compliance Official determines that the Applicant has fully complied with the Diversion Requirement applicable to the Project, he or she shall indicate such compliance on the Final WMP or Final DRP. (b) Good Faith Effort to Comply: If the WMP Compliance Official determines that the Diversion Requirement has not been achieved, he or she shall determine on a case-by-case basis whether the Applicant has made a good faith effort to comply with this Article. In making this determination, the WMP Compliance Official shall consider the availability of markets for the C&D debris proposed to be discarded in landfill, the size of the Project, and the documented efforts of the Applicant to divert C&D debris. If the WMP Compliance Official determines that the Applicant has made a good faith effort to comply with this Article, he or she shall so indicate on the WMP. (c) Noncompliance: If the WMP Compliance Official determines that the Applicant has not made a good faith effort to comply with this Chapter, or if the Applicant fails to submit the documentation required in §§9.23.040 or 9.23.050 within the required time period, then the Applicant shall be in violation of this Chapter.

9.23.100 CITY’S RIGHTS TO MONITOR AND INSPECT (a) Auditing and Inspection: City’s WMP Compliance Official may inspect and monitor all Covered Projects to determine levels of actual Diversion activities and validate the information provided in the WMP and Summary Report. (b) Supporting Documentation: Applicant shall retain the receipts or weight tickets for the quantities of materials reused, salvaged, recycled and landfilled as indicated in the final WMP for one year after the final inspection and issuance of temporary certificate of occupancy or certificate of occupancy. (c) Materials Targeted for Diversion: The City Manager or his/her designee may change the Diversion Rate from time to time, based on local markets and conditions, to further the intent of this Chapter.

9.23.110 PENALTIES AND SANCTIONS

(a) Any person who violates any part of this Chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (b) In addition to criminal sanctions set forth above, any person who violates any part of this Chapter shall be liable for the civil penalties provided by §l.04.150 of this Municipal Code. (c) No certificates of occupancy or other permits or approvals relating to the project shall be issued by the City until the penalty has been cleared and paid in full.

9.23.120 APPEALS

(a) Any person who wishes to appeal a determination made under this chapter shall have the right to a hearing before the Planning and Building Services Director designee, prior to final determination. (b) The Planning and Building Services Director or his/her designee shall give the applicant or written notice of all determinations of rejections of adjustment requests and findings of non-compliance. The notice shall set forth the ground or grounds for the determination and shall inform the applicant that he or she has ten days from the date of receipt of the notice to file a written request for a hearing.

85 Appendices

(c) Within ten days of the written notice, the applicant may appeal by submitting a request to the Planning and Building Services Director for a hearing before the Planning and Building Services Director. Such request must be made in writing and must set forth the specific grounds for the appeal. If the applicant files a timely hearing request, the Planning and Building Services Director shall set a time and place for the hearing. All parties involved shall have the right to offer testimonial, documentary and tangible evidence bearing on the issues, to be represented by counsel and to confront and cross-examine any witnesses against them. The decision of the Planning and Building Services Director shall be in writing and shall be the final administrative decision. (d) The appeal shall be limited to 1) granting or denial of an adjustment, or 2) determination of whether or not a good faith effort to comply with the WMP has been made. 9.23.200 FEES

A fee may be set by the City Council for the purpose of recovering costs generated through the administration of this Chapter.

9.23.300 OPTION TO REVISE From time to time, City will evaluate the Ordinance to determine its effectiveness in reducing the amount of C&D waste disposed. In this determination, the City will consider issues such as the amount of C&D waste disposed, volume of C&D activity, markets for C&D waste, and other barriers encountered by applicants. If the City/County determines the C&D disposed had the potential for diversion, then the City may amend these provisions and implement the necessary measures to divert more C&D waste.

9.23.400 SEVERABILITY If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase or word of this Chapter is for any reason held to be unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Chapter.

9.23.500 EFFECTIVE DATE

This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption. Notice of said adoption shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within fifteen days of said adoption.

First read at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Richmond held , and finally passed and adopted as read at a regular meeting thereof held by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

______CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND

Approved:

______Mayor

Approved as to Form:

______City Attorney

86 Appendices

Appendix L: Draft Zero Waste Resolution

RESOLUTION NO. ______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND COMMITTING TO THE ZERO WASTE GOAL ADOPTED IN THE URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ACCORDS, DIRECTING THE CITY OF RICHMOND TO DEVELOP A ZERO WASTE STRATEGIC PLAN, AND ASSUMING A LEADERSHIP ROLE IN ADVANCING ZERO WASTE PRINCIPLES

WHEREAS, the California Integrated Waste Management (CIWM) Act of 1989 (AB 939) requires cities and counties to reduce, reuse and recycle (including composting) a minimum of 50% of the solid waste generated in the State to conserve water, energy and other natural resources and to protect the environment; WHEREAS, according to the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), in 2007 California's 37.6 million residents dispose of approximately 39.6 million tons (MT) of solid waste in the state’s landfills per year, which equates to a per capita disposal rate of over one ton per person per year, or 5.8 pounds per person per day; WHEREAS, the City of Richmond is a signatory of the Urban Environmental Accords, which specifies that the City of Richmond should strive to implement recycling and composting programs with the goal of reducing by twenty percent per capita solid waste disposal to landfill and incineration in seven years and achieve zero waste by 2040; WHEREAS, in September 2008, the City of Richmond implemented a comprehensive waste reduction program throughout City departments and facilities to improve integration of sustainable practices into municipal operations; WHEREAS, on October 21, 2009 the City Council adopted Resolution # supporting the development of a residential and commercial food waste collection and processing program. When implemented, the program will divert food waste, which constitutes the largest portion of the residential waste stream, from the landfill; WHEREAS, West Contra Costa met the AB 939 50% diversion rate for the first time in 2005; WHEREAS, in 2001 the California Integrated Waste Management Board set a goal of Zero Waste in its strategic plan for the state; and cities, councils, counties, and states worldwide have adopted a goal of achieving Zero Waste, including the counties of San Francisco, Santa Cruz, San Luis Obispo and Del Norte, and the cities of Oakland, Berkeley, Seattle, Toronto and Canberra; WHEREAS, Alameda County and the City of San Francisco have set goals of achieving a 75% waste diversion rate by 2010 and Zero Waste by 2020; WHEREAS, disposing of waste in landfills or incinerators endangers public health and the environment by polluting the land, water and air with methane and other greenhouse gases, toxic metals, dioxins, acid gases and toxic ash residue, wastes natural resources and transfers liabilities to future generations; WHEREAS, landfill disposal fees do not reflect true costs, because taxpayers pay billions of dollars in tax subsidies for virgin resource material extraction and processing, as well as bear the costs of the subsequent environmental and public health damage; WHEREAS, waste reduction, reuse, and recycling conserve natural resources, reduce pollution and are cheaper than disposal when all costs are considered and create more jobs in local communities; WHEREAS, to maximize waste reduction, reuse and recycling, product manufacturers must share responsibility for their product and packaging waste and participate in redesign of the product lifecycle process to ensure that all material can be safely recycled; WHEREAS, Zero Waste principles promote the best manufacture, use, and recycling of materials to eliminate waste and pollution, emphasizing a closed-loop system of production and consumption, moving in logical increments toward the goal of Zero Waste through the core principles of: • Improving “downstream” reuse/recycling of end-of-life products and materials to ensure their highest and best use, including extended producer responsibility; • Pursuing “upstream” re-design strategies to reduce the volume and toxicity of discarded products and materials, and promote low-impact or reduced consumption lifestyles;

87 Appendices

• Fostering and supporting use of discarded products and materials to stimulate and drive local economic and workforce development; WHEREAS, strategies to reach Zero Waste can help to promote the over-arching goal of each generation leaving less and less of an ecological footprint on the earth thus allowing more and more of nature to restore; now therefore, may it be RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Council hereby commit to the development a Zero Waste Strategic Plan to achieve the city's zero waste goal and in order to eliminate waste and pollution in the manufacture, use, procurement, storage and recycling of materials, by actively encouraging Richmond residents, businesses and all its departments and agencies to reduce, reuse and recycle materials judiciously, in addition to encouraging manufacturers to produce and market less toxic and more durable, repairable, reusable, recycled and recyclable products; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Richmond actively and aggressively pursue a food waste collection program for both the residents and businesses in the City of Richmond; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Richmond endorses “Zero Waste California” and will assume a leadership role, partnering with other Zero Waste local, regional and national communities and sustainability advocates to actively pursue and advocate for local, state and federal policies that promote Zero Waste principles and that help develop a well-planned statewide waste minimization and recycling infrastructure. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force upon adoption. Notice of said adoption shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within fifteen days of said adoption. First read at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Richmond held , and finally passed and adopted as read at a regular meeting thereof held by the following vote:

AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS:

______CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND Approved:

______Mayor

Approved as to Form:

______City Attorney