COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RESOURCE AGENCY PLANNING DIVISION County of Placer

HEARING DATE: December 12, 2019 ITEM NO.: 3 TIME: 10:40 AM

TO: Placer County Planning Commission

FROM: Angel Green

DATE: December 2, 2019

SUBJECT: PLACER COUNTY SUSTAINABILITY PLAN (PLN16-00411) CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION ALL SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICTS

GENERAL / COMMUNITY PLAN AREA: Placer County General Plan and All Community Plans

STAFF PLANNER: Angel Green, Senior Planner

LOCATION: Unincorporated Placer County

APPLICANT: County-initiated

PROPOSAL The Planning Services Division is requesting that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to adopt the Placer County Sustainability Plan (PCSP). The PCSP is a County- initiated plan that outlines various programs and policies that will be undertaken by the community and the County as a whole, in order to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and enhance community resiliency to long-term changes associated with climate-related hazards. The PCSP will function as a stand-alone document that will help achieve multiple community-wide benefits, such as lowering energy costs, reducing air and water pollution, supporting local economic development, and improving public health, safety, and quality of life.

CEQA COMPLIANCE Staff has concluded that the adoption of the Placer County Sustainability Plan is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15308 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment) and Section 18.36.100 (Class 8) of the Placer County Environmental Review Ordinance. Categorical Exemption Class 8 "consists of actions taken by regulatory agencies, as authorized by state or local ordinance, to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment.” The Planning Commission will be asked to make a recommendation on this finding of exemption to the Board of Supervisors.

PUBLIC NOTICES AND REFERRAL FOR COMMENT Public notices were mailed to an extensive list including all persons and parties requesting notice and others that commented on the Notice of Intent / Preparation. In addition, notice was sent to the Community Development Resource Agency staff, the Department of Public Works, Facilities Management, Environmental Health Services, the Air Pollution Control District, Municipal Advisory Councils, and all other responsible agencies.

Page 1 of 18 1 BACKGROUND In June 2017, the Board of Supervisors directed initiation of the Placer County Sustainability Plan (PCSP), and approved a contract with the consultant, Placeworks, to prepare the plan. As part of the PCSP work program, a GHG Emissions Inventory was prepared and released in January 2018 followed by preparation of a Vulnerability Assessment which was released in October 2018. The GHG Emissions Inventory and the Vulnerability Assessment helped to inform preparation of the PCSP and on July 22, 2019 a public review draft PCSP was released for a 45-day public review period which ended on September 5, 2019.

A sustainability plan, also known as a GHG reduction strategy or a climate action plan, is a comprehensive roadmap that outlines various programs and policies that will be undertaken by the community and the County as a whole, to achieve the largest and most cost-effective GHG emission reductions. In addition to reducing GHG emissions, implementation of the PCSP will help achieve multiple community-wide goals such as lowering energy costs, reducing air and water pollution, supporting local economic development, and improving public health and quality of life within Placer County. Additional benefits include, but are not limited to:

• Provide a road map to achieve GHG reductions • Demonstrate the County’s conformance to California laws and regulations • Implement the General Plan • Identify effective, feasible GHG emission reduction measures for new development subject to environmental review • Improve resilience to climate-related hazards • Position the County for funding opportunities • Reduce energy/fuel consumptions/costs in government operations

OUTREACH / PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT / STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS The County developed the PCSP with extensive public input over a two to three-year process. The three primary avenues for public engagement were through workshop events, a dedicated county webpage, and community surveys. During the planning process, staff reached out to external stakeholders to introduce the PCSP, present an overview of the process, and provide them with the opportunity to identify issues early in the process. To date, staff has met with more than 28 stakeholders, special districts, and interested parties. A full list of meetings with stakeholders in provided in Appendix B of the PCSP.

A dedicated webpage was developed to promote public participation through online activities related to the PCSP, including the posting of community surveys: https://www.placer.ca.gov/2927/Sustain-Placer. In addition, staff met with each of the County’s Municipal Advisory Committees (MACs) throughout the planning process in order to seek public input. The first series of MAC meetings were held in 2018 and included a presentation on the GHG Inventory Reports and preliminary findings of the Vulnerability Assessment. A second series of MAC meetings were held in the summer of 2019 to present the draft PCSP and seek input on the proposed mitigation/adaptation strategies.

In March and April of 2018, the County, working with the PCSP consultants, PlaceWorks and Sierra Business Council, hosted the first workshop series, consisting of three workshops, which were intended to raise awareness about the PCSP, to share preliminary results of the early technical tasks (i.e., GHG inventories, Vulnerability Assessment), and to initiate early engagement in GHG reduction and adaptation strategies. In August of 2019, the County hosted a second workshop series, consisting of two public workshops and a study session/workshop with the Planning Commission. The second series of workshops focused on seeking input on the draft PCSP.

REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT The State acknowledges that local governments must play an important role in achieving California’s long-term GHG reduction goals, understanding that cities and counties have sole or partial jurisdiction

Page 2 of 18 2

over many factors that will affect GHG emissions with the transportation, housing, industry, forestry, water, agriculture, electricity, and natural gas emission sectors. To that end, California has adopted executive orders and enacted legislation aimed at reducing the State’s GHG emissions. Recent key statewide emission reduction legislation and actions to date are summarized below. A full report on all applicable legislation requirements are provided in Appendix A of the PCSP.

• Executive Order S-3-05 signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005, established reduction targets for the State which includes reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent by 2050. In 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires California to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Executive Order B-30-15 and Senate Bill (SB) 32, signed by Governor Jerry Brown, extended the goals of AB 32 and set a 2030 goal of reducing emissions 40 percent from 2020 levels. • Pursuant to AB 32, the Air Resources Board (ARB) developed the Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan). The Scoping Plan describes strategies California will implement to reduce the State’s emissions to achieve the emission reduction targets as required by statute. The Scoping Plan was first approved by the ARB’s Board in 2008 and must be updated every five years. In 2016, the Legislature passed SB 32, which codified an emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. In December of 2017, ARB adopted the second update to the Scoping Plan to reflect the 2030 target set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. • The Scoping Plan also includes ARB-recommended GHG reductions for each emissions sector of the State’s GHG inventory. ARB encourages local governments to adopt reduction targets for municipal operations emissions and community-wide emissions that parallel the State’s climate protection efforts. Although there is no mandate placed on local governments at this time, ARB has provided guidance for cities and counties to reduce GHG emissions to 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and 6 metric tons of GHG emissions (MTCO2e) per person by 2030, and 2 MTCO2e per person by 2050. • Senate Bill (SB) 375, signed into law in 2008, requires each metropolitan planning organization (MPO) to demonstrate, through the development of a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), how its region will integrate transportation, housing, and land use planning to meet the GHG reduction targets set by the State. • Senate Bill 379, signed into law in 2016, requires the County’s safety element of the General Plan, to include a local hazard mitigation plan to be reviewed and updated to address climate adaptation and resiliency strategies applicable to the area. • Senate Bill 1000, signed into law in 2016, requires local governments to include an environmental justice element, or related goals, policies and objectives integrated in other elements, that identifies vulnerable communities within the area covered by the jurisdiction’s general plan.

PCSP COMPONENTS The PCSP consists of three main components: 1) the GHG Reduction Strategy; 2) the Adaptation Strategy; and 3) the Implementation Program. Each of these components are discuss in further detail below.

1. Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategy The first component of the PCSP is the GHG Reduction Strategy. It is intended to serve as a foundation for the strategies and measures that the County will implement to reduce GHG emissions. The GHG Emission Reduction Strategy includes the following:

GHG Emission Inventories A GHG emissions inventory identifies the major sources of local emissions as well as specific activities that result in the creation of emissions. These inventories are used to establish an

Page 3 of 18 3 accurate baseline necessary for setting an emissions reduction target and for measuring progress over time, and to identify the most effective GHG reduction strategies.

The GHG emissions inventories prepared for the PCSP provide a summary of the sources of GHG emissions in Placer County for the years 2005 and 2015, and a projection of future emissions for the years 2020, 2030, and 2050. There are two separate inventories and forecasts, one for the unincorporated areas of Placer County, and the second for the County government operations. The emission inventories document the GHG emissions from the energy, water, transportation, agriculture and forestry, and solid waste sectors.

 Community-Wide - In 2005, unincorporated Placer County’s residents, businesses, and visitors emitted 1,440,910 metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MTCO2e) in total. Transportation was the largest source of emissions, generating 525,440 MTCO2e. Residential energy was the second-largest source of emissions, generating 346,060 MTCO2e. Agriculture and forest management was the third-largest source of emissions with 268,340 MTCO2e.

In 2015, community-wide emissions totaled 1,203,260 MTCO2e, a substantial decline from 2005 levels. Transportation activity was again the largest source of emissions, generating 503,610 MTCO2e, or 42 percent of community emissions. Residential energy remained the second-largest source, with 256,070 MTCO2e, or 21 percent of emissions. The following table summarizes the remaining sectors as outlined and estimated in Tables 3-1 and Table 3-3 of the PCSP:

Tables 3-1 and 3-3 2005 and 2015 Community-Wide GHG Emissions by Sector 2005 2015 Emissions Sector Percent Percent MTCO2e MTCO2e Residential energy 346,060 24% 256,070 21% Nonresidential energy 207,680 14% 148,650 12% Transportation 525,440 36% 503,610 42% Solid waste 65,580 5% 87,530 7% Off-road emissions 9,790 1% 9,410 1% Water and wastewater 18,030 1% 11,550 1% Agriculture and forest 268,340 19% 9,410 15% management Total 1,440,910 100% 1,203,260 100%

 County Operations - As shown in the following table, County operations emissions increased to 49,390 MTCO2e in 2015. Solid waste remained the largest source of emissions, generating 25,370 MTCO2e, or 51 percent of the emissions. Employee commute and travel was again the second-largest source of emissions, with 8,450 MTCO2e, or 17 percent of the emissions. Buildings and facilities contributed 7,010 MTCO2e (14 percent), and the County’s vehicle fleet contributed 4,760 MTCO2e (ten percent). The following table summarizes the remaining sectors as outlined and estimated in Tables 3-2 and Table 3-4 of the PCSP.

Page 4 of 18 4

Tables 3-2 and 3-4 2005 and 2015 County Operations GHG Emissions by Sector 2015 Emissions Sector 2005 MTCO2e Percent Percent MTCO2e Buildings and facilities 7,040 17% 7,010 14% Refrigerants 10 <1% 10 <1% Public lighting 60 <1% 50 <1% Vehicle fleet 5,450 13% 4,760 10% Off-road equipment 730 2% 690 1% Employee commute and travel 8,980 22% 8,450 17% Transit operations 1,560 4% 2,260 5% Solid waste 15,720 39% 25,370 51% Wastewater 970 2% 780 2% Total 40,520 100% 49,390 100%

 2005 and 2015 Emission Comparison - Most community-wide emission sectors declined from 2005 to 2015. Residential and nonresidential emissions declined due to cleaner sources of electricity and lower levels of natural gas. Increases in vehicle fuel efficiency caused a decrease in on-road transportation emissions. Solid waste was the only sector that increased emissions, due to a rise in the amount of total waste present in landfills. Overall, community-wide emissions decreased 16 percent. For County operations, emissions from some sectors increased from 2005 to 2015, while others declined or remained constant, with an overall increase of 22 percent.

 Emissions Forecast -The emissions forecast is a projection of future GHG emissions. It illustrates what emissions may look like in future years if no actions are taken. PCSP Table 3-7 below outlines the community emissions forecast. The forecast also supports setting GHG reduction targets that are consistent with state guidance and local priorities. Calendar years 2020, 2030, and 2050 were selected for the PCSP’s emissions forecast for consistency with short-term and long-term state reduction targets. If no actions are taken, the Community-wide emissions are forecasted to increase 87 percent from 2015 levels by 2050 due to the substantial projected increase in residents and jobs in the unincorporated area, especially in the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) region. For County operations, emissions are forecasted to increase 67 percent above 2015 levels by 2050 with no actions taken.

Page 5 of 18 5

Table 3-7 Community Emissions Forecast, 2015-2050 (MTCO2e) Percent Emissions Sector 2015 2020 2030 2050 Change, 2015-2050 Residential energy 256,060 270,160 320,010 457,200 79% Nonresidential energy 148,640 183,150 229,780 372,050 150% Transportation 503,600 540,900 633,660 996,000 98% Solid waste 87,530 96,010 120,250 190,910 118% Off-road emissions 9,410 11,480 16,330 24,530 161% Water and wastewater 11,550 12,690 15,410 23,300 102% Agriculture and 186,460 186,460 186,460 186,460 0% forest management Total 1,203,260 1,300,850 1,521,900 2,250,450 87%

Existing and Local Actions The forecast assumes that no action is taken to reduce emissions, but state agencies are already acting to decrease GHG emissions, and additional actions are planned. State programs include Renewable Portfolio Standard, Clean Car Standards, Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling, and Short-Lived Climate Pollutants Reductions. The County can receive “credit” for these actions that decrease its GHG emissions, moving closer to its reduction targets.

In addition to the state policies, Placer County has a successful history of implementing policies to reduce GHG emissions and advance sustainability. These policies have been partially responsible for the decline in GHG emissions from 2005 to 2015 and, along with new policies, are expected to help continue reducing emissions in future years. The following County initiatives have already led to measurable GHG reductions since 2015.

• Pioneer Community Energy and mPower • Solar Power Incentive Programs • Transportation demand management • Government Center Master Plan • Government building retrofits • Solid Waste Disposal initiatives & The One Big Bin recycling system • Zero emission buses

Emission Reduction Measures The PSCP contains 67 strategies to reduce community-wide emissions, and 45 strategies to reduce government operations emissions. All strategies are organized into categories depending on the source of GHG emissions that they address:

• Energy (E) • Water and wastewater (WW) • Transportation (T) • Solid waste (SW)

Page 6 of 18 6

• Agriculture and forestry (AG) • Off-road equipment (OR) • Education and awareness (ED)

As outlined in the PCSP, each strategy entry includes a description and the anticipated reductions in future years. The strategy entries also discuss whether the strategy is voluntary or mandatory, and who the strategy applies to (existing residents and businesses, new development, or the County government) and in which regions of the County. Each strategy entry also includes the indirect co-benefits which also support healthy communities and financial savings. Assumptions, sources, metrics, and other details are included in Appendix E of the draft PCSP.

• Community-wide Measures – The PCSP proposes 69 strategies to reduce GHG emissions associated with government operations activities.  All Sectors - While most strategies are specific to sectors and sources of emissions, the PCSP includes one cross-sector, multi-benefit strategy. Carbon offset programs allow communities to “cancel out” some of their GHG emissions by paying to fund other efforts that reduce GHG emissions. By using offset programs, Placer County can reduce emissions by supporting a wide number of one-time and ongoing GHG reduction actions under the umbrella of a single effort.  Energy - The draft PCSP proposes 24 strategies to reduce energy related GHG emissions. These energy reduction strategies promote energy efficiency, energy conservation, and renewable energy for both residential and nonresidential buildings. Most strategies focus on reducing electricity and natural gas use, but a few strategies reduce emissions from other fuel use. These strategies allow county residents and businesses to reduce their energy needs and save on energy costs.  Water and Wastewater - Water and wastewater efficiency strategies reduce the amount of energy needed to move and treat water and wastewater, decreasing GHG emissions. These efforts also help to reduce direct emissions from wastewater processing. The PCSP contains ten strategies to reduce water and wastewater.  Transportation - The PCSP contains 12 strategies to reduce transportation related GHG emissions. The strategies in the PCSP reduce transportation emissions by providing alternative means of getting around, increasing alternative fuel use, and promoting more efficient land use patterns that reduce the need to drive. These strategies seek to increase the use of low carbon fuels or carbon free energy to power on road vehicles and/or to reduce the miles traveled in single-occupancy vehicles.  Solid Waste -Reducing the quantity of disposed organic waste directly reduces the GHG emissions from solid waste. Increased recycling and composting, more reuse of materials, and using landfill emissions for energy all help to decrease solid waste- related emissions. The PCSP contains eight measures to reduce solid waste related GHG emissions.  Agriculture and Forestry - In order to reduce emissions from agriculture while protecting the agricultural economy and way of life, the PCSP includes eight strategies that will help improve the efficiency in cultivating crops while promoting cleaner operations. The reduction strategies also provide guidance on managing practices that create sources of energy. These strategies can help preserve and enhance the productivity of local farming and ranching operations, while making them more resilient to climate change.  Off-Road Equipment - The PCSP includes three reduction strategies to encourage the use of cleaner alternative fuel for off-road equipment.

• Government Operations Measures – The PCSP proposes 45 strategies to reduce GHG emissions associated with government operations activities. By reducing emissions from Page 7 of 18 7

County operations, the County will reduce its energy and fuel consumption, therefore reducing county costs.

 Energy - Government buildings and facilities can benefit significantly from strategies that affect energy use. Energy efficiency and conservation strategies help to maintain comfortable indoor temperatures; renewable energy and energy storage efforts improve energy independence and resilience; and all energy- related strategies can reduce the County’s energy bills. The PCSP includes ten strategies to reduce energy related GHG emissions.  Water and Wastewater - Improvements in water and wastewater efficiency at County facilities not only save energy needed to move and treat water but help decrease the County’s water bills. These strategies also make the County more resilient to drought events, which are expected to become more frequent and intense as a result of climate change. The PCSP includes ten measures to reduce water and wastewater related GHG emissions.  Transportation - Government operations strategies that address transportation improve the fuel efficiency of the County’s fleet and provide more opportunities for alternative fuel vehicles. These strategies also help decrease emissions from employee commute and business travel, creating a more sustainable transportation sector that benefits employees, their families, and the wider Placer County community. The PCSP includes seven strategies to reduce transportation related emissions.  Solid Waste - Solid waste is by far the largest source of government-operations emissions in Placer County, due to the volume of methane emissions from landfills. Community-wide strategies to decrease the amount of waste produced have a direct impact on government operations emissions as well. In addition, the County can act internally to reduce waste generated from the buildings and facilities it operates and can support efforts to improve the efficiency of landfills and other waste facilities. The PCSP includes ten strategies to reduce solid waste related GHG emissions.  Forestry and Landscaping - Forestry and landscaping reduction strategies target emissions associated with the County’s ornamental and working lands. These strategies help to maintain productive and healthy landscapes and ecosystems and help protect the health of County landscape workers and allow County- managed land to play a beneficial role in addressing climate change through carbon sequestration.  Education and Awareness - The education and awareness strategies for County operations do not have measurable GHG reductions on their own, but they help to ensure the success of other strategies by increasing County employees’ knowledge of sustainable practices. These strategies also help to integrate sustainability into the County’s operations, allowing it to be a holistic and important part of the County’s standard practices.

Progress towards GHG Reduction Targets The reduction strategies discussed in the PCSP are intended to reduce GHG emissions below the County’s reduction targets as follows in order to take firm action on climate change. The County’s GHG reduction goals are:

• 2020: Reduce GHG emissions to 15 percent below 2005 levels. • 2030: Reduce GHG emissions to 6.0 MTCO2e per person (community emissions only). • 2050: Reduce GHG emissions to 2.0 MTCO2e per person (community emissions only).

Page 8 of 18 8

PCSP Table 4-7, outlined below, indicates the level of community wide GHG reductions achieved by implementation of the PCSP’s emission reduction strategies and how they compare to the County’s GHG reduction goals.

Table 4-7 Progress to GHG Reduction Targets with PCSP Strategies, Countywide Emissions (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2050 Target (absolute) 1,224,770 -- -- Target (per-capita) -- 6.0 2.0 Emissions with PCSP (absolute) 1,159,100 -- -- Emissions with PCSP (per-capita) -- 6.15 3.26

At the current levels of participation for the reduction strategies, Placer County will exceed its absolute community-wide 2020 GHG reduction target. Based on the levels of implementation assumed in the PCSP implementation program, the County is on a trajectory to continue GHG reductions beyond 2020 toward its per-capita targets for 2030 and 2050; however, additional reductions could be needed to meet these targets. The GHG emission reductions presented represent conservative participation assumptions since most strategies are not mandates or fully funded. Many strategies have the opportunity to achieve greater reductions with more certainty in implementation and participation. Detailed quantification assumptions for the strategies are presented in Appendix E of the PCSP.

Placer County’s government operations are not currently projected to decline fast enough to achieve the 2020 GHG reduction target, although emissions are expected to decrease significantly post-2020. Additional short-term efforts may be able to meet the 2020 target while continuing to allow for substantial mid-term and long-term GHG reductions.

2. Climate Adaptation Strategy The second component of the PCSP includes a Climate Adaption Strategy, which outlines various adaptation strategies to protect vulnerable people, structures, ecosystems, and other assets from the exposures of climate change. This strategy builds on the results of the vulnerability assessment prepared in combination with existing policies and programs to provide a comprehensive set of adaptation goals and actions for Placer County. These strategies tie into the GHG reduction strategies to reinforce the importance of creating both a sustainable and resilient community.

Vulnerability Assessment Cities and Counties are required by law to conduct vulnerability assessments as part of their long- range public safety planning efforts, and to prepare policies that will protect against harm caused by climate change. SB 379, Climate Adaptation and Resiliency Strategies (2015) requires the safety elements of general plans to be reviewed and updated to include climate adaptation and resiliency strategies.

The vulnerability assessment is a technical study prepared in accordance with state guidelines, particularly the California Adaptation Planning Guide (APG) which identifies how the effects of climate change could be harmful to the people, buildings and infrastructure, ecosystems, economic drivers, and key services. It also identifies the natural hazards climate change may exacerbate, the damage that these hazards may cause to people and community assets, and the ability of people and assets to effectively resist and recover from these hazards. To that end, a vulnerability assessment was conducted and completed in 2018, and an adaptation strategy was prepared with an overarching vision to create a resilient Placer County that can adapt to the hazards created or exacerbated by climate change. The 11 climate-related hazards Page 9 of 18 9 analyzed in the vulnerability assessment include: avalanches, drought, extreme heat, flooding and dam inundation, human health hazards, landslides and debris flows, pests and diseases in agriculture and forestry, and wildfires.

The following significant vulnerabilities were identified within the vulnerability assessment. For a complete listing of the vulnerability scores and detailed descriptions for all sensitivities and exposures, see Appendix C of the draft PCSP.

• Populations - Among the 14 different populations analyzed, the most vulnerable populations include children, homeless persons, households in poverty, outdoor workers, persons in mobile homes, persons with chronic health problems, persons without access to lifelines, senior citizens, senior citizens living alone, and undocumented persons. • Infrastructure - Out of the 13 different types of infrastructure analyzed, those that are at the greatest risk include access roads, biking and hiking trails, bridges, communication facilities, electrical transmission lines, and power plants. • Buildings and Facilities - The vulnerability assessment reviewed nine different types of buildings and facilities in Placer County and found that three were the most vulnerable to climate change exposures: homes, community facilities, and community and regional parks. • Economic Assets - Of the ten economic drivers analyzed, eight are considered highly vulnerable to climate change hazards, including: farms, orchards, and vineyards; livestock; outdoor recreation; rice-growing areas; ski resorts; state and national protected lands; timberlands; and water recreation sites. • Ecosystems - Three of the six main ecosystems evaluated in Placer County are highly vulnerable to climate change hazard including, conifer forests, grasslands, and mountain meadows and scrub. • Services - The vulnerability assessment evaluated six key services, of which two were highly vulnerable to hazards including communication and energy delivery.

Adaptation Strategies The PCSP provides adaptation strategies to protect vulnerable people, structures, ecosystems, and other assets from the exposures of climate change. The adaptation measures address the 11 climate-related hazards identified in the vulnerability assessment which include the following:

• All Hazards and Emergency Coordination - A total of 19 strategies were identified to ensure that planning documents and emergency response actions are consistent throughout Placer County. Emergency services including fire, police, and emergency medical services that protect public health and safety, and during hazardous conditions. • Avalanche - The two adaptation strategies for avalanches in the PCSP center on protecting developments that may be within avalanche zones, including preserving the natural ecosystems that can buffer developments against avalanches. • Drought - The 16 drought adaptation strategies in the PCSP focus on maintaining an adequate supply of water while reducing water demand from residents and economic sectors through water conservation. • Extreme Heat - The PCSP contains 28 adaptation measures that will reduce the heat island effect in urban areas and protect sensitive populations from heat-related illnesses. • Flooding - The PCSP provides six adaptation strategies for multiple sectors to ensure that the County follows FEMA flood regulations and the community can be protected from increased frequency and intensity of flood events. • Human Health - The six adaptation strategies in the PCSP focus on preventing diseases and increase resiliency for vulnerable members of the population. Page 10 of 18 10

• Landslides - The six adaptation strategies in the PCSP emphasize preparing buildings and infrastructure for an increase in landslide events and providing adequate evacuation plans for all members of the community. • Pests and Diseases in Agriculture and Forestry - The seven adaptation measures for agricultural and forestry pests and diseases in the PCSP focus on coordination among agencies, funding sources, and sustainable solutions to reduce pests within Placer County. • Severe Weather and Severe Winter Weather - This PCSP contains four adaptation strategies that will enable buildings, infrastructure, and utilities to continue providing adequate services during and after severe weather and severe winter weather. • Wildfire - The PCSP provides eleven adaptation strategies that promote coordination among agencies, protection of buildings, and implementation of measures to reduce wildfire activity in the County.

3. Implementation Program The third component of the PCSP is an implementation program which provides guidance on how the County can implement the PCSP necessary to reducing GHG emissions to meet the targets as well as improving the county’s resiliency to climate-related hazards. To guide successful implementation of the PCSP, the following implementation strategies will help the County reach its GHG emission reduction targets and goals for improved resiliency. A full report on the implementation strategy is provided in Chapter 6 of the PCSP.

• Implementation Strategy 1 - On an annual basis, monitor and report the County’s progress toward achieving the GHG emission reduction targets and on improving community resiliency. • Implementation Strategy 2 - Every three to five years, update the PCSP, GHG inventory baseline emissions, and vulnerability assessment. • Implementation Strategy 3 - Continue to build partnerships with agencies and community organizations that will help support the implementation of the PCSP. • Implementation Strategy 4 - Continue to seek secure funding sources to implement the PCSP. • Implementation Strategy 5 - Continue ongoing efforts to reduce GHG emission beyond target years of the PCSP.

DISCUSSION ITEMS As noted previously in this report, a draft PCSP was released for a 45-day public review period in August 2019. The County received a total of 66 comment letters on the draft document. Appendix D of this staff report contains a list of all commenters and comment letters received.

Staff and the consultant team reviewed all comments received on the August 2019 draft PCSP to determine if any comments raised new issues or items that were not considered in the draft PCSP or technical studies. In response to comments received, the PCSP has been revised as described below. Attachment A to this report contains PCSP track changes which show revisions in strikeout/underline text.

Voluntary vs. Mandatory Strategies Many comments received expressed concern regarding the voluntary nature of the PCSP strategies and suggest that the PCSP include strategies with mandates for land development projects. As drafted, the PCSP contains voluntary strategies, including more than 69 community-wide and 45 County-operations emission reduction strategies, as well as 111 adaptation strategies that are based on an incentive-based

Page 11 of 18 11 approach. The strategies outline incremental steps to prove feasible options which will allow property owners, residents, and visitors to reduce their carbon footprint and increase resiliency.

It is important to note that the PCSP strategies have been thoroughly vetted by the various agencies and departments responsible for implementing each strategy. This vetting process was conducted to ensure that each strategy outlined in the PCSP is currently feasible. In addition, it is also important to note that while the PCSP does not include mandated strategies to reduce GHG emissions, it does include an Implementation Program which is intended to measure the progress or effectiveness of the strategies. Therefore, the Implementation Program will help the County assess whether the strategies need to be updated, and depending on the success of the various strategies, future updates to the PCSP may include proposals for mandated strategies.

Costs / Feasibility of Strategies Comments also noted concern regarding the feasibility of the strategies and the burden associated with additional costs to new construction. With regard to the feasibility of the recommended mitigation strategies, the strategies were selected from the 2019 CAL Green) Section A5.601 Residential and Nonresidential Voluntary Tiers. Cost-effectiveness reports for the CAL Green Tier programs were prepared by Pacific Gas and Electric Company, which analyzed the cost effectiveness of each measure. The reports document the cost-effectiveness of requiring residential and nonresidential new construction projects to exceed the minimum state requirements of the CAL Green, Part 6 (Building Energy Efficiency Standards). The comments received that were regarding costs for new construction were related to upfront vs. end-user costs, stating that costs must be covered and born by those who have created the largest impacts. Concern was expressed about the costs associated with implementation of various energy efficiency strategies that are proposed in the PCSP.

Preparation of the PCSP included review/research of background materials which indicate that transitioning towards electrification can significantly reduce energy costs, including construction costs, and can also increase public safety. Various research indicated that energy efficient electric appliances is the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions from homes and buildings. As an example, it is estimated that energy improvements costing approximately $9,500 can save $19,000 in energy and maintenance costs over 30 years. Based on a 30-year mortgage, the Energy Commission estimates that the standards would add about $40 per month for the average home, but save consumers $80 per month on heating, cooling and lighting bills and add value to the home upon resale. Installing energy efficient electric appliances during new construction can avoid retrofit costs including breaking and repairing walls, longer raceways (also referred to as conduit) using more expensive methods and upgrading electric service panels. Additional research indicated that installing electric vehicle charging infrastructure during initial construction can be very cost-effective. Some research shows that all-electric buildings cost less to build to code than those requiring additional gas infrastructure.

Accordingly, based on the research described above, the PCSP incorporates a range of energy efficient strategies that can be implemented by home builders and developers during the construction process. It is important to note that in response to comments received related to the costs associated with energy efficiency strategies, staff has modified such strategies so that they are voluntary in nature. PCSP revisions are further outlined later in this report.

Transportation Assumptions Comments received also focused on the transportation assumptions outlined in the PCSP. Comments note that the PCSP does not consider new and expanded highway capacity in the County with respect to the land use growth allocation, the vehicle miles of travel (VMT) forecasts, and the GHG emissions forecasts. The PCSP analysis is based on the SACSIM regional travel forecasting model developed for the Sacramento Area Council of Government’s (SACOG’s) adopted 2016 Metropolitan Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS).

Page 12 of 18 12

The SACSIM model includes land use growth allocations and transportation network expansion expected to occur by 2036. This includes new highway capacity in the Interstate 80 (I-80), State Route 65 (SR 65), and Placer Parkway corridors plus other south Placer County roadway expansions. To that end, the SACSIM model VMT outputs in the PCSP and corresponding GHG emissions forecasts, include the specific effects that the comment claims are ignored.

Comments related to transportation assumptions also note concern that the County may suffer a loss of state funds for increasing GHG emissions above limits set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). CARB establishes GHG reduction targets from the land use and transportation sector for Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) such as SACOG as part of the MTP/SCS. The CARB targets do not include provisions for applying penalties to local jurisdictions, such as loss of state transportation funding if their GHG reduction targets are not met.

SUMMARY OF REVISIONS TO THE PCSP This section of the report summarizes the revisions to the PCSP based on comments received on the August 2019 draft PCSP. Many comment letters requested adjustments to proposed strategies or asked that new strategies be considered. Appendix A of this this report contains substantive PCSP revisions which are outlined in track changes. Additional modifications based on staff corrections and universal changes related to discontinued programs are also included in the PCSP revisions.

CEQA 15183.5 Requirements for a “Qualified” Plan Comments noted that the PCSP is silent on whether the PCSP is intended to be used as a “qualified” GHG Reduction Plan pursuant to Section 15183.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, which would allow for the streamlining of project-level GHG analysis for discretionary projects subject to environmental review. The County recognizes that while many community-wide GHG reduction plans prepared throughout the State allow for discretionary projects to tier from the environmental analysis prepared for a community-wide GHG emissions reduction plan, this PCSP does not serve this function. Accordingly, the PCSP has been revised to provide additional clarification within Chapter 1.

Mitigation Strategies for Discretionary Projects Strategies E-1, E-4, E-21, T-2, 3, and 4, WW-2 have been modified to clarify that for discretionary projects requiring mitigation to reduce GHG emissions, the feasibility of the implementation of each strategy will be determined during the environmental review process. The modifications also clarify that the measures would be encouraged for nondiscretionary projects. Additionally, in response to comments regarding the applicability of the PCSP during environmental review for discretionary projects, a new section has been added to Chapter 1, Development Review, to describe the County’s role during the CEQA review process and how the PCSP will be implemented during the environmental review period.

Achieving State Targets Comments expressed concern regarding the PCSP’s inability to demonstrate compliance with State goals and targets identified in the State’s Scoping Plan for years 2020, 2030, and 2050. Comments expressed confusion with the data in the tables. Modifications were made throughout the document to clear up any confusion on the PCSP’s timeframe to achieve State targets. Further explanation is provided below.

Placer County’s 2005 community-wide emissions were estimated at 1,440,910 MTCO2e. A 15 percent reduction below this level (consistent with AB 32 targets) is 1,224,770 MTCO2e. The County’s forecasted emissions (without strategies) for 2020 is 1,300,850 MTCO2e, or approximately 10 percent below 2005 levels. The County’s forecasted emissions (with strategies) is 1,159,100 MTCO2e, which exceeds its community-wide 2020 GHG reduction target. Furthermore, with implementation of the PCSP, as anticipated in the PCSP’s implementation program, the County is on a trajectory to continue GHG reductions beyond 2020 toward its per-capita targets for 2030 and 2050.

Page 13 of 18 13

As previously stated, the PCSP contains a number of strategies aimed at reducing GHG emissions by promoting more efficient land use patterns that reduce the need to drive or reduce the trip length. Unfortunately, the emission reduction potential for these types of strategies are currently speculative and are therefore not accounted for within the PCSP at this time. The County is currently updating the Placer County Housing Element and is also in the process of developing new CEQA thresholds for vehicles miles traveled (VMT) pursuant to SB 743, which may bring more certainty to additional transportation related GHG emission reductions. Once these efforts have been adopted and implementation begins, the emission reductions from these efforts could potentially reduce additional emissions from transportation, the largest source of emissions within the County, and therefore bring the County’s emissions even closer to achieving the 2030 target, and quite possibly meeting the target.

As noted previously, during the implementation of the PCSP, staff will monitor and track the progress strategies and assess whether updates are warranted. Future updates to the PCSP will also allow for quantification of State and local actions which are anticipated to result in additional GHG emission reductions, including reductions from new technologies and cleaner sources, bringing the County’s emissions closer to the 2030 target.

Ecosystems / Conservation / Sequestration Comments were received that expressed concern related to the PCSP’s alleged failure to quantify losses in carbon sequestration and storage associated with land use change in wetlands, ecosystems, and vernal pools, as well as soils in general. Some comments also expressed the need for inclusion of GHG reduction measures to help increase carbon storage and sequestration in wetlands and soils. Some comment letters also suggested the use of carbon farming and other methods to increase soil carbon sequestration in existing agricultural lands.

The draft PCSP did not include GHG emissions associated with anticipated changes in wetland acreages, due to the lack of County-specific carbon sequestration data and storage rates for wetlands and the high variability of these factors in literature. Reviewing available studies revealed a high degree of variability in factors associated with carbon storage and sequestration rates in wetlands depending on climate, soil composition, location, ecosystem, salinity, and other factors. These and other similar studies show that while wetlands store carbon in its soils, the decomposition of organic material underwater also generates CH4 emissions through anaerobic digestion. The balance between the methane emissions and carbon storage benefits of wetlands varies greatly by many factors. A future study on the carbon storage and sequestration rates of wetlands in Placer County could provide more reliable carbon storage and sequestration factors that could be applied to the GHG inventory and forecast in a future update to the PCSP.

With regard to addressing the loss of carbon sequestration and stored carbon in various types of soils due to conversion of agricultural and farming lands to other land uses, a detailed long-term study of samples from areas across all land use types in the County would need to be conducted. While the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Carbon Management and Evaluation Tool (also known as COMET-Farm) is available to individual farms and ranches to estimate their soil carbon levels, the use of this tool for the entire County would require a comprehensive survey of farming practices, irrigation factors, and other data needs. Quantification of soil carbon stocks using COMET and any comprehensive County-specific soil carbon studies to address the County’s soil carbon stocks and forecasts could be considered when the CAP is updated in the future.

With regard to including measures that increase soil carbon, staff acknowledges the suggestions to recommend improved practices and other beneficial methods. The PCSP contains a number of GHG emission reduction and adaptation strategies aimed at encouraging and expanding carbon sequestration efforts, with many more supporting measures in the Agriculture and Forestry adaptation strategies. Additional language has also been added to the PCSP to encourage and support the use of carbon sequestration practices (see revisions to Adaptation Strategies AG-1 thru AG-8, DR-10, DR-11, and GHG Reduction Strategies: GHG-1: AH-16, WW-6, GO WW-2, and GO AG-2). Page 14 of 18 14

Modifications / New Strategies • Strategy T-1. In regard to the facilitation of installation of public electric vehicle (EV) charging stations at existing and new residential and non-residential uses, comments requested that a reference to the State’s Electric Vehicle Station Permitting Guidebook be included. Comments also suggested adding Level 1 chargers that support slower “trickle charging” as a cost-effective approach for locations that may find faster charging stations cost-prohibitive. Accordingly, the PCSP includes modifications to encourage Level 1 charging stations where appropriate. • Strategy T-1.4. In response to comments, the strategy has been expanded to include robust and ongoing public outreach to publicize the benefits of EVs and the availability of financial incentives to make EVs more affordable. • Strategy T-2. In response to comments, renewable natural gas or natural gas produced from biological materials (biomethane) was added as an alternative fueling option for vehicles. • Strategy OR-1. In response to comments, encouraging the use of biomethane was added as a way of furthering sustainable practices. • Strategy GO AG-2. In response to comments, the strategy was expanded to make note that native trees and plants in the local environment, may be able to maximize carbon sequestration. • Strategy GO ED-1. This strategy was expanded to make note that County can maximize its use of wood from sustainable sources, such as Forest Stewardship Council-certified lumber. • Strategy GO ED-6. In response to comments, this new strategy was added to provide educational materials about sustainability and GHG reduction to community members. • Implementation Strategy 1. Comments noted concern regarding the implementation strategies provided in Chapter 6, and the lack of monitoring for community-wide sectors. Modifications were made to Implementation Strategy 1 to clarify that the County will monitor not only government operations, but also community-wide sectors. • Appendix E. Comments requested additional details relating to the estimation of emission reductions from various strategies provided in Appendix E. Accordingly, additions and clarifications were provided for strategies E-7-9, E-12, E-13, E-15, E-17, WW-1-7, T-1-6, SW-1- 4, AG-1-6, and OR-1 in order to provide full transparency of calculation methods used to determine potential emission reductions.

Other Miscellaneous Edits • The County will be dissolving the mPower program effective December 2019. The PCSP has removed all references to the mPower program and have been updated accordingly. • For consistency, the PCSP will use the term “strategy” vs “measure” and modifications have been made accordingly. • A correction was made to Table 3-3: 2015 Community-wide GHG Emissions by Sector, consistent with the data from the Placer County Community-Wide and County Operations 2015 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories. • In Chapter 3, clarification has been provided to the Emission Forecast section of the PCSP to indicate the modeling sources for vehicle miles traveled (VMT). • Strategy WF-11 has been modified to align with County goals to allow for higher density residential development within the WUI where appropriate. The Tahoe region is comprised of mostly high- fire severity zones, but is also in critical need of affordable, multifamily housing. The modified strategy would require updates to community plans and the County General Plan, as well as preparation of development standards in order to identify appropriate parcels suitable to support higher density, while protecting public health and mitigating for wildfire protection. • Appendix B was updated to include recent outreach efforts and information relating to the second series of workshops.

Page 15 of 18 15

FUTURE UPDATES TO THE PLACER COUNTY SUSTAINABILITY PLAN During the implementation of the PCSP, staff will monitor and track the progress of each of the strategies and progress towards achieving the County’s targets and will assess the need for updates. Future updates to the PCSP would allow for quantification of future State and local actions which are anticipated to result in additional GHG emission reductions, including reductions from new technologies and cleaner sources, bringing the County’s emissions closer to the 2030 target. Updates to the PCSP would consider GHG emission reductions resulting from the following future local actions:

California’s Green Building Standards (CAL Green) Code California’s Green Building Standards, known as CAL Green (CCR, Title 24, Part 11), includes mandatory measures in an effort to meet the State’s GHG reduction and building energy efficiency goals as part of AB 32. It is updated on a triennial basis, with minor revisions every 18 months. GHG emission reductions resulting from future Title 24 2022 code revisions, for example, can be accounted for in the next update of the PCSP. These revisions are expected to result in additional GHG emission reductions from the energy sector.

Transportation and Land Use Senate Bill 375 aims to reduce GHG emissions by linking transportation funding to land use planning. It requires metropolitan planning organizations to create a metropolitan transportation plan and sustainable communities’ strategy (MTP/SCS) for reducing urban sprawl and to demonstrate strategies the region will use to achieve the State’s GHG emissions reduction targets. Data from the MTP/SCSs is used by local jurisdictions when conducting GHG forecasts, such as vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and population projections. The 2016 MTP/SCS, adopted by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), as well as the 2017 Linking Tahoe: Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (TRP/SCS) adopted by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) will both be updated in 2020. The update to the PCSP will utilize the most current and available data, which can provide additional GHG emission reductions from the transportation sector.

Additionally, the PCSP contains a number of strategies aimed at reducing GHG emissions by promoting more efficient land use patterns that reduce the need to drive or reduce the trip length. Unfortunately, the emission reduction potential for these types of strategies are speculative and are therefore not accounted for within the PCSP at this time. The County is currently updating the Housing Element and is also in the process of developing new CEQA thresholds for vehicles miles traveled (VMT) pursuant to SB 743, which may bring more certainty to the potential GHG emission reductions. Once these efforts have been adopted and implementation begins, the emission reduction from these efforts could potentially reduce additional emissions from transportation, the largest source of emissions within the County, and therefore bring the County’s emissions even closer to achieving the 2030 target, and quite possibly meeting the target.

The State’s Scoping Plan ARB’s Scoping Plan is updated every five years. The Scoping Plan will include all emission reduction potential from new state regulations. The update to the PCSP can count these emission reductions within the forecast, further reducing the County’s emissions and bringing closer towards the 2030 target.

Preparing a CEQA “Qualified” Plan At the outset, one of staff’s main objective in preparing the PCSP was to prepare a “qualified” plan as defined in California Environmental Quality Action (CEQA) Section 15183.5. A qualified GHG reduction plan, which meets the criteria as specified in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, may be used to streamline the GHG emission analysis for discretionary projects subject to CEQA. Streamlining the GHG analysis saves time during the development process, as well as costs associated with preparing GHG analyses. Tiering from an adopted GHG emission reduction program also brings certainty and consistency with regards to the level and type of mitigation required. At this time, the PCSP is unable to demonstrate the County’s ability to meet the SB 32 2030 GHG reduction target which aims to reduce emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels, or to six metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) Page 16 of 18 16

per person locally (SB 32). However, as noted previously, the PCSP will likely be updated every few years to consider GHG emissions reductions that will result from future local and state actions. Therefore, at such time the PCSP is updated the 2030 target may be much more attainable and a “qualified” plan may be achievable.

RECOMMENDATION Staff requests the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for approval of the following:

1. Find that the proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15308 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment) and Section 18.36.100 (Class 8) of the Placer County Environmental Review Ordinance, as contained in Attachment D.

2. Adopt a resolution approving the Placer County Sustainability Plan (Attachment B) supported by the findings listed below and the findings included in said resolution: A. The Placer County Sustainability Plan presents a vision for implementing community-wide and County-operational sustainability strategies. The Placer County Sustainability Plan is a programmatic document and does not propose nor commit the County to actual construction of any sustainability infrastructure. Any future implementation of sustainability strategies would be subject to separate project and environmental review. B. The proposed Placer County Sustainability Plan promotes the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare of the citizens of Placer County. C. The proposed Placer County Sustainability Plan is consistent with the provisions and applicable policies of the General Plan and is in compliance with applicable requirements of State law.

Respectfully submitted,

______Angel Green, Senior Planner

ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Substantive Revisions to the October 2019 Draft PCSP Attachment B: Resolution to adopt the Placer County Sustainability Plan Exhibit A: Final Placer County Sustainability Plan (November 2019) – Provided Under Separate Cover Attachment C: Correspondence

Page 17 of 18 17 cc: Todd Leopold, County Executive Officer Dave Defanti, Deputy County Executive Officer Karin Schwab, County Counsel Clayton Cook, Deputy County Counsel Steve Pedretti, CDRA Director E.J. Ivaldi, Planning Director Crystal Jacobsen, Principal Planner Jenine Windeshausen, Treasurer-Tax Collector Stephanie Holloway, DPW Andy Fisher, DPW Kevin Bell, DPW Rebecca Lillis, FAC-Environmental Utilities Erik White, APCD Yu-Shuo Chang, APCD Steve Newsom, FAC-Administration Eric Oddo, FAC-Environmental Utilities Andy Fisher, FAC-Capital Improvements Tim Wegner, CDRA-BLD Joshua Huntsinger, Agricultural Commissioner Brett Storey, FAC-Environmental Utilities Young “Rod” Rodriguez, OES Ken Grehm, DPW

Page 18 of 18 18

Attachment A

Acknowledgements Deleted: Table of Contents

Acknowledgments Placer County would like to thank the following organizations and staff for their contributions in developing this Sustainability Plan. Deleted: ¶ ¶ Placer County Board of Supervisors Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

District 1: Bonnie Gore Municipal Advisory Councils District 2: Robert Weygandt District 3: Jim Holmes Donner Summit MAC District 4: Kirk Uhler Foresthill MAC District 5: Cindy Gustafson Granite Bay MAC Horseshoe Bar/Penryn MAC Placer County Planning Commission Meadow Vista MAC Newcastle-Ophir MAC Jeffrey Moss North Auburn MAC Larry Sevinson North Tahoe Regional MAC Richard Johnson Rural Lincoln MAC Sam Cannon Sheridan MAC Nathan Herzog Squaw Valley MAC Anders Hauge Weimar-Applegate-Colfax MAC Wayne Nader Western Placer MAC

County Executive Office and County Deleted: & Counsel

Todd Leopold: County Executive Officer Jennifer Merchant: Deputy CEO Karin Schwab: County Counsel Clayton Cook: County Counsel

Community Development Resource Agency

Steve Pedretti: Director EJ Ivaldi: Planning Director Crystal Jacobson: Principal Planner Angel Green, Senior Planner

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page i

19 Public Hearing Draft Deleted: Administrative

PCSP Technical Advisory Committee Pioneer/mPOWER: Alexia Retallack, Benjamin Carnahan, Jenine Windeshausen Planning: Angel Green, Crystal Jacobsen, Gregg McKenzie, Jennifer Byous, Nikki Placer County Air Pollution Control District: Deleted: Gregg McKenzie, and Streegan Yu-Shuo Chang

Agricultural Commissioner: Ed King, Joshua Western Regional Waste Management Huntsinger Authority: Eric Oddo Deleted: and Ed King

Building: Jeff Thomas, Tim Wegner Supporting and Partnering Organizations Deleted: and Jeff Thomas

County Executive Office: Dave Defanti, Emily CivicSpark AmeriCorps Program/Local Setzer, Erin Casey, Jennifer Merchant Government Commission: Jessica McHale, Deleted: Jennifer Merchant, Lauren Moore (CivicSpark Fellows) Deleted: and Emily Setzer Department of Public Works: Andy Fisher, Deleted: and Jessica McHale, Brett Storey, Bob Costa, Chris Hanson, Colby Liberty Energy: John Friedrick Deleted: Department of Public Works – Parks Division: Andy Wiesz, Katie Jackson, Kevin Bell, Lisa Fisher and Lisa Carnaham¶ PG&E: Joann Silva-Rivera Carnahan, Mark Rideout, Rebecca Lillis, Deleted: – Transportation Richard Moorehead, Stephanie Holloway, PlaceWorks Team: Tammy L. Seale, Eli Deleted: Mark Rideout, Colby Wiesz, Katie Jackson, Will Garner Krispi, Jacqueline Protsman, Grant Reddy, Deleted: and Ron Milam (Fehr & Peers), Kwasi Donkor Deleted: ¶ Economic Development: Sherri Conway Department of Public Works – Environmental Engineering: (Fehr & Peers) Brett Storey, Christina Hansen, Kevin Bell, and Facilities Management: Dennis Hughes, Deleted: Rebecca Lillis Sierra Business Council: BJ Schmitt, Justine Steve Newsom Deleted: and Quealy, Kari Sinoff, Nikki Caravelli, Paul Office of Emergency Services: Holly Powers, Ahrns, Simone Cordery-Cotter Deleted: and Young “Rod” Rodriguez Deleted: and

Placer County Fire Safe Alliance: Luana Dowling

Page ii Placer County Sustainability Plan

20 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

1. Introduction

PURPOSE The Placer County Sustainability Plan (PCSP) demonstrates Placer County’s leadership and commitment to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and enhance community resiliency to long-term changes associated with climate-related hazards such as droughts and wildfires.

The PCSP is a comprehensive road map that outlines various programs and policies that will be undertaken by the community and the County to achieve the most significant GHG emission reductions in the unincorporated county. In addition to reducing GHG emissions, implementation of the PCSP will help achieve multiple community-wide goals, such as lowering energy costs, reducing air and water pollution, supporting local economic development, and improving public health and quality of life within Placer County.

Preparation of the PCSP considered the County’s three distinct regions: western, central, and eastern Placer County. Western Placer County sits in the Sacramento Valley, part of California’s vast Central Valley region, and is home to several fast-growing suburban communities that are part of the wider Sacramento metropolitan area. This area also includes most of the County’s agricultural land, supporting cattle, rice, walnuts, and other products. Most County residents live in the more urbanized western region, including in the incorporated communities of Lincoln, Loomis, Rocklin, and Roseville. Central Placer County, also called Gold Country, sits in the forested foothills of the Sierra Nevada. The incorporated communities of Auburn and Colfax are in this part of Placer County. Eastern Placer County is made up of the Sierra Nevada. This area includes the northern part of Lake Tahoe, home to several small towns and world-famous ski resorts. Outside of the Lake Tahoe basin, the Sierra Nevada region is sparsely populated.

The PCSP allows decision-makers and the community to understand the sources and magnitude of local emission sources, establish goals to reduce emissions, and prioritize steps to achieve targets. The PCSP establishes goals, measuresstrategies, and actions to address GHG emissions from the energy, water, transportation, agriculture and forestry, and solid waste sectors. It also establishes an implementation program and a framework to monitor and report progress. The PCSP provides an updated framework for addressing GHG emissions in the community and from County operations.

The PCSP identifies a strategy, reduction measures, and implementation actions the County will use to reduce GHG emissions in a way that is consistent with State targets. [TLS1]This plan will serve to achieve five primary purposes:

1. Provide a road map to achieve GHG reductions. 2. Demonstrate the County’s conformance to California laws and regulations. 3. Implement the General Plan. 4. Identify effective, feasible GHG emission reduction measuresstrategies for new development subject to environmental review.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 1 21 Public Review Public Hearing Draft

. Chapters 4 and 5 provide the County’s response to climate change, the reduction and adaptation measuresstrategies. These are the specific strategies that will reduce GHG emissions to the desired levels and improve community resiliency to climate-related hazards. These measuresstrategies are based on existing and planned activities as well as the results of the inventories, forecasts, and the vulnerability assessment. Chapter 4 presents the GHG reduction measuresstrategies, and Chapter 5 presents the adaptation strategies.

. Lastly, Chapter 6 provides the implementation program. The implementation program is a set of tools and strategies to ensure the reduction and adaptation measuresstrategies are effectively implemented and tracked. These elements help create a more successful PCSP, and most are required for consistency with the State CEQA Guidelines..

The full technical reports and supporting materials are included as appendices to the PCSP. The PCSP also includes a list of sources used and definitions of key terms and abbreviations used throughout the PCSP.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK California has a history of enacting legislation aimed at reducing the state’s GHG emissions and ensuring resiliency in the face of a changing climate. California’s first legislation that addressed climate change was in 1988, when Assembly Bill 4420 directed the state to prepare a GHG inventory and study the impacts of climate change. Since then, California’s governors issued several executive orders, and California’s legislature adopted several laws to assess climate change, analyze GHG emissions and their effects, reduce emissions, and identify and prepare for the impacts of climate change.

The state’s integrated approach to reduce statewide GHG emissions recognizes that several major areas of the state’s economy will need to reduce emissions to meet the 2030 greenhouse gas emissions target. The pillars of the state’s approach include: 1) reducing today’s petroleum use in cars and trucks by up to 50 percent, 2) increasing from one-third to 50 percent of electricity derived from renewable sources, 3) doubling the energy efficiency savings achieved at existing buildings and making heating fuels cleaner, 4) reducing the release of methane, black carbon, and other short-lived climate pollutants, 5) managing farm and rangelands, forests and wetlands so they can store carbon, and 6) periodically updating the state's climate adaptation strategy: Safeguarding California. [TLS2][AG3]Key climate change legislation and actions are summarized in this section, and Appendix A provides a more a detailed summary of climate change legislation. legislation is in Appendix A.

Executive Order S-3-05 and Assembly Bill 32 Executive Order S-3-05, signed by former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005, established reduction goals for the state that include reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent by 2050. In 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 codified the 2020 reduction goal, requiring California to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 3 22 Public Review Public Hearing Draft

Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) on February 18, 2016. This MTP/SCS provides the regional plan for transportation investments integrated with projected land use, as well as funding constraints the region can reasonably expect to see through 2036. Similarly, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) adopted the 2017 Linking Tahoe: Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (TRP/SCS) on April 26, 2017. TRPA’s document prioritizes bicycling, walking, and transit through the plan’s horizon year of 2040. Both SACOG and TRPA are currently working on updates to their regional transportation plans and travel demand models. Both agencies anticipate adoption of the new plans in 2020.

Senate Bill 379, Climate Adaptation Planning and General Plans SB 379 amended California Government Code Section 65302(g)(4) to requires all cities and counties to include address climate change adaptation and resilience, y strategies in the safety elements of their general plans, in their local hazard mitigation plans, or in stand-alone plans like the PCSP. The bill requires the climate adaptation and resilience review and update to include a set of goals, policies, and objectives based on a vulnerability assessment, as well as implementation measuresstrategies, including the conservation and implementation of natural infrastructure that may be used in adaptation projects.

PLAN PREPARATION The Placer County Board of Supervisors directed County staff to begin preparing the PCSP in 2017. The work began with updates to the 2005 GHG inventory prepared by the Sierra Business Council in 2010 and preparation of a new inventory for the calendar year 2015. These inventories identify the existing sources of GHG emissions in Placer County and show how emissions have changed since 2005. County staff next prepared a forecast showing how emissions may change in the future. Simultaneously, County staff developed a vulnerability assessment that discusses the current and future risks to Placer County from climate change, and how community members and various assets may be vulnerable to these changes. County staff used the inventory/forecast and vulnerability assessment to develop strategies to reduce GHG emissions and improve community resilience, and to prepare an implementation approach to put these strategies into effect. Figure 1- 2 shows the general planning process for the PCSP.

Figure 1-2 Placer County Sustainability Plan Process

June 2017 March 2018 Fall Summer/Fall After June 2017 to March -March 2019/Winter 2019 adoption 2018 2019 2020

Public Technical Identify and Revise Project Kickoff Hearings/ Adoption Implementation Analysis MeasuresStrategies Review

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 5 23 Chapter 1 - Introduction

inclusive and all-around approach to addressing the County's affordable housing needs. Staff are preparing the Placer County Housing Strategy and Development Plan as part of an effort to update to the County’s General Plan Housing Element. The plan will address part of the County’s larger efforts to address several countywide objectives. This PCSP identifies specific strategies that will assist with these objectives while reducing GHG emissions. See Chapter 3 for more details.

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Approved in 2016, the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) contains goals and objectives necessary for reducing the County’s vulnerability to hazards (i.e., floods, levee failures, wildfires, and severe weather). The PCSP builds on the LHMP by assessing the long-term potential for harm from climate-related hazards and identifying GHG emission reduction measuresstrategies and adaptation strategies necessary to implement the goals and objectives outlined in the LHMP.

Development Review[TLS4] The County is the decision-making authority for building and land use permitting on private property and is the lead agency for environmental review of County-led and private projects subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in the unincorporated county. The County’s review process ensures proposed projects are consistent with the County’s General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, CEQA, and other County plans and ordinances. Many land development projects require environmental review.

Placer County must comply with CEQA when it undertakes an activity that requires discretionary approval (meaning that the agency has the authority to approve or deny the requested permit) which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect change in the environment. Some project proposals are exempt from environmental review or not subject to CEQA. Examples can include such as variances, building permits, and some minor use permits.

The environmental review process occurs as part of the discretionary review process and results in the preparation of an environmental document (i.e., Initial Study, Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Environmental Impact Report, etc.). The environmental document includes analysis of the potential environmental impact of a The PCCP would provide protection to a large proposed project, and in many cases, identifies number of key species, including the threatened appropriate mitigation measures to avoid or reduce Swainson’s hawk. Photo by the US Bureau of Land Management. impacts, as feasible. When a project is determined to exceed applicable thresholds, CEQA requires the County to implement all feasible mitigation measures (PRC §21002).

While many community-wide GHG reduction plans prepared throughout the State allow for discretionary projects to tier from the environmental analysis prepared for a community-wide GHG emissions reduction plan, this PCSP does not serve this function. However, in support of providing consistency with the community-wide GHG reduction strategies and enhancing certainty and transparency of the project-level environmental review process for GHG emissions analysis, the

Page 8 Placer County Sustainability Plan 24 Public Review Public Hearing Draft

PCSP contains six GHG mitigation strategies that canshould be applied to discretionary projects, as feasible, when applicable project level CEQA GHG thresholds are exceeded (refer to Strategies E-4, E- 21, WW-2, T-1.2, T-1.3, and T-1.4 in Chapter 4 for more detail).

Placer County Conservation Plan The Placer County Conservation Plan (PCCP) is a regional, comprehensive program that would provide a framework to protect, enhance, and restore the natural resources in the greater portion of western Placer County while allowing appropriate and compatible growth in accordance with applicable laws. Under the proposed plan, an estimated 50,000 to 60,000 acres of land in western Placer County would be protected, including oak woodlands, wetlands, stream and creek corridors, and vernal pools. The PCSP includes policies that support protecting natural lands for GHG reduction and climate resiliency benefits, and help natural lands adapt to changing climate conditions.

Placer Legacy Placer Legacy is a voluntary, countywide program established in 2000 that helps protect open space and agricultural land. Under the program, landowners can choose to sell their property, or access rights or other easements, to the County. The area is protected from development, preserving it as agriculture or public open space. Several prominent properties have been protected through Placer Legacy, including Cisco Grove Gould Park, the Harvego Preserve, and Hidden Falls Regional Park. The PCSP advances these goals by supporting increased preservation of natural lands and helping to protect these areas from climate-related hazards.

Middle Fork Project The Placer County Water Agency, with Placer County as a business partner via a Joint Power Authority, has operated the Middle Fork Project for over 50 years as a multipurpose project to benefit the people of Placer County. The Middle Fork Project is designed to store and release water to meet consumptive demands within western Placer County and to generate hydroelectric power for the California electrical grid. Hydroelectric power from the Middle Fork Project has a combined generating capacity of approximately 224 megawatts (MW), with an average of 1,030,000 MWh annually. It also provides several developed recreational facilities for public access. The PCSP supports efforts to install increased renewable energy generation throughout Placer County as appropriate.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 9 25 Chapter 1 - Introduction

Pioneer Community Energy Pioneer Community Energy (Pioneer) offers a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) program in Placer County, which provides consumers a choice for purchasing energy of electric generation service providers (in addition to Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E)). Pioneer’s CCA program provides local control over matters related to electric rate setting, electric energy procurement and incentives program development, as well as the opportunity to promote the use of locally generated power electricity to serve the needs of participating businesses and residents within its service territory, Pioneer Community Energy allows Placer County more control over its electricity source, including which includes both incorporated and the opportunity to increase renewable energy unincorporated areas of Placer County. The PCSP supplies. Photo by Warren Gretz/NREL. recognizes that Pioneer efforts could potentially increase the GHG reductions from Pioneer Community Energy and also includes GHG reduction strategies that could be implemented or supported by Pioneer, all subject to approval of Pioneer’s governing board.

Energy Efficiency Financing: mPOWER To encourage investments in energy efficiency, Placer County initially sponsored the mPOWER (money for Property Owner Water and Energy Retrofits) program for residential and commercial properties. Now a program of Pioneer, the mPOWER Program provides special assessment financing for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. Financed amounts are repaid as an amount added to the property tax bill. The GHG reduction strategies in the PCSP expand on these energy efficiency efforts to support more widespread retrofits of existing buildings.

Wildfire Protection and Biomass Utilization Program The Placer County Wildfire Protection and Biomass Utilization Program was established in 2006 to help protect residents, communities, forests, and valuable forest resources from the threat of wildfire and to efficiently manage and use biomass that is a significant component of that threat. The strategic plan was first prepared in 2007 and updated in 2013. The plan includes an overall vision for Placer County Wildfire Protection and Biomass Utilization and The WPWMA’s MRF facility allows the agency to goals, objectives, and strategies to achieve that recover large amounts of recyclable materials vision. The adaptation measuresstrategies in the without community members needing to sort their waste. Photo by Placer County.

Page 10 Placer County Sustainability Plan 26 Chapter 2 - Climate Change and Placer County

areas; ski resorts; state and national protected lands; timberlands; and water recreation sites. Most economic drivers Drought and Rice are highly susceptible to impacts from drought, which can Most rice fields in California are decrease snowpack and overall water supply for the agriculture flooded with 4 to 6 inches of water and recreation industries. Ski resorts are particularly vulnerable during much of the growing season, making it one of the most to drought because of significantly reduced snow levels and a water-intensive crops in the state. decrease in the ability to operate during the winter season. Over the course of a growing Maps 2-4, 2-5, and 2-6 shows the snowpack levels historically season, one acre of rice uses (1994 to 2013), what is projected for the middle of the century between 1.3 and 2 million gallons (2031 to 2050), and what is projected for the end of the century of water. In part because of rice’s ( change in snowpack levels from (2070 to 2099). Extreme heat high water demand, rice production throughout California, also creates vulnerability for farmland, livestock, outdoor including Placer County, drops recreation, and timberlands—plants and animals can be during significant droughts. At the harmed by heat waves, trees may not be able to fight off pests height of the most recent drought, and diseases, and fewer people will participate in outdoor statewide rice production dropped activities during extreme temperatures. Farms, orchards, and 30 percent. vineyards are vulnerable to the most exposures due to the potential damage to crops and loss of economic activity.

Ecosystems Three of the six main ecosystems evaluated in Placer County are highly vulnerable to climate change hazards—conifer forests, grasslands, and mountain meadows and scrub. Conifer forests are vulnerable to the most exposures (forestry hazards, drought, extreme heat, and wildfire) because drought and extreme heat can stress or weaken trees, leaving them more susceptible to forestry pests. Diseased or weakened trees are especially vulnerable to large and intense wildfires. Other ecosystems, such as mountain meadows and scrub, are also highly vulnerable to drought, as they can be weakened or Ecosystem Shift killed off by substantial changes in the local climate. All three Climate change in Placer County highly vulnerable ecosystems are susceptible to wildfire is expected to alter where different exposures, which can decimate the plant life and soils of the ecosystems are found. As ecosystems. temperatures get warmer, ecosystems are expected to move Services to higher elevations to stay in a comfortable temperature range. The vulnerability assessment evaluated six key services, of Shifts in precipitation patterns are which two were highly vulnerable to hazards—communication also likely to cause changes in and energy delivery. Many services are moderately vulnerable ecosystem locations. The most to landslides and wildfires due to the potential damage to significant changes in local infrastructure and buildings. Communication services are highly ecosystems are expected along susceptible to damage from severe weather events, which can the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada below 5,000 to 5,500 feet, damage communication infrastructure and decrease the along the crests of the Sierra network capacity. Energy delivery is highly vulnerable to Nevada, and in the northern Tahoe extreme heat events because high temperatures can cause Basin.

Page 30 Placer County Sustainability Plan 27 Public Review Public Hearing Draft

2015 GHG Inventories This section provides an overview of the 2015 GHG emissions for unincorporated Placer County and County operations. Appendix D provides a more detailed explanation of how each sector of GHG emissions was calculated.

Community-Wide

Community-wide emissions in 2015 totaled 1,203,260 MTCO2e, a substantial decline from 2005 levels, although the relative size of the sectors remained similar. Transportation activity was again the largest source of emissions, generating 503,610 MTCO2e, or 42 percent of community emissions. Residential energy remained the second-largest source, with 256,070 MTCO2e or 21 percent of emissions. Agriculture and forest management was third with 186,450 MTCO2e (15 percent), and nonresidential energy came fourth with 148,650 MTCO2e (12 percent). Due to data corrections, these values different slightly from those included in the January 2018 GHG inventory report. The remaining sectors were solid waste (87,530 MTCO2e or 7 percent), water and wastewater (11,550 MTCO2e or 1 percent), and off-road emissions (9,410 MTCO2e or 1 percent). Table 3-3 shows the 2015 community-wide emissions by sector.

Table 3-3 2015 Community-Wide GHG Emissions by Sector

Emissions Sector 2015 MTCO2e Percent Residential energy 256,070 21% Nonresidential energy 148,650 12% Transportation 503,610 42% Solid waste 87,530 7% Off-road emissions 9,410 1% Water and wastewater 11,550 1% Agriculture and forest management 9,4109,410186,460 15% Total 1,203,260 100% Due to rounding, the totals may not equal the sum of all figures in the column.

County Operations

County operations emissions increased to 49,390 MTCO2e in 2015, although as with community emissions, there was little change in the relative size of each sector. Solid waste remained the largest source of emissions, generating 25,370 MTCO2e, or 51 percent of County operations emissions. Employee commute and travel was again the second-largest source of emissions, with

8,450 MTCO2e, or 17 percent of emissions. Buildings and facilities contributed 7,010 MTCO2e (14 percent), and the County’s vehicle fleet contributed 4,760 MTCO2e (10 percent). Other County operations sectors were transit operations (2,260 MTCO2e or 5 percent), wastewater (780 MTCO2e or 2 percent), off-road equipment (690 MTCO2e or 1 percent), public lighting (50 MTCO2e or less than 1 percent), and refrigerants (10 MTCO2e or less than 1 percent). Table 3-4 shows a comparison of 2015 County operations emissions by sector.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 47 28 Public Review Public Hearing Draft

EMISSIONS FORECAST A forecast is a projection of future GHG emissions. It allows elected and appointed officials, County staff, and members of the public to see what emissions may look like in future years. The forecast supports setting GHG reduction targets that are consistent with state guidance and local priorities. The PCSP forecasts emissions for the calendar years 2020, 2030, and 2050 for consistency with short-term and long-term state reduction targets.

The PCSP forecasts estimate how emissions would change over time if there is no action taken at the federal, state, or local level to reduce emissions. It assumes that changes in community emissions are caused by changes in community demographics and land use patterns, which changes in County operations emissions are driven by changes in County employment and community demographics. Future emissions are based on demographic and land use forecasts prepared by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) for the unincorporated areas of Placer County, as well as the County’s future employment forecasts. Table 3-5 shows these growth indicators and which sectors they are used to forecast community emissions for, and Table 3-6 shows the County operations growth indicators. Using these demographic indicators, Placer County prepared a forecast of community- wide and County operations emissions. (See Appendix E: GHG Reduction Quantification Assumptions, Sources, Metrics, and Other Details.).

Table 3-5 includes the[TLS6] estimated total (vehicle miles traveled) VMT per year. is reported in Table 3-5. VMT is estimated based on the travel demand model from SACOG and the recently approved Tahoe Basin Area Plan for the unincorporated area outside the SACOG region. SACOG VMT estimates are based on a typical weekday and forecasts are based on the 2016 MTP/SCS. SACOG is currently updating the MTP/SCS document and travel demand model, with adoption scheduled for 2020. VMT in the SACOG area accounts for all VMT for trips that have both ends in unincorporated Placer County and 50% of VMT for trips that have just one end in the unincorporated area. When the PCSP is updated in the future, Refer to the Tahoe Basin Area Plan EIR for details on the VMT calculation for the Tahoe Basin. TRPA is also updating the RTP/SCS and travel demand model for the Tahoe Basin. Both VMT estimates will be updated in subsequent versions of the PCSPto reflect recent SACOG and TRPA plans and models.

Community-wide emissions are forecasted to increase 87 percent from 2015 levels by 2050 due to the substantial projected increase in residents and jobs in the unincorporated area, especially in the Sacramento Area Council of Governments region. Table 3-7 and Figure 3-3 show the community-wide forecast.

Most County operations sectors are forecasted to remain constant, since the County does not expect the number of County employees to change. The forecast shows significant increases in some sectors due to high levels of expected growth in the number of residents and jobs in the unincorporated area. County operations emissions are forecasted to increase 67 percent above 2015 levels by 2050. Table 3-8 and Figure 3-4 show the County operations emissions forecast.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 51 29 Chapter 3 - GHG Emissions in Placer County

GHG EMISSION REDUCTION TARGETS There is no required community-wide GHG emission target that local governments must adopt. Local governments have the discretion to set absolute or “mass emissions” targets and/or per capita targets. The State guidance presented in the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) gives local government the option of adopting a per capita target (emissions per resident) rather than an absolute emissions target (sometimes called a “mass emissions target”). The County will pursue 2020, 2030, and 2050 thecommunity-wide per capita GHG reduction targets as detailed in this section.

Community-wide targets are not a replacement or substitute for adopted CEQA thresholds applicable to projects subject to discretionary and environmental review. Discretionary projects subject to CEQA must conduct project-specific GHG emissions analysis. While many community- wide GHG reduction plans prepared throughout the State allow for discretionary projects to tier from the environmental analysis prepared for a community-wide GHG emissions reduction plan, this PCSP does not serve this function. . The State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5 direct GHG reduction targets be set so that “the contribution to GHG emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable,” and that these levels be “based on substantial evidence.”

2020 Target AB 32 codified the State’s 2020 GHG reduction target at 1990 levels. According to the original AB 32 Scoping Plan, this is comparable to 15 percent below baseline emissions for local communities. The state does not recommend a per-capita reduction target for 2020.

Placer County’s 2005 community-wide emissions were 1,440,910 MTCO2e. A 15 percent reduction below this level is 1,224,770 MTCO2e. The forecast projects 2020 emissions of 1,300,850 MTCO2e, or approximately 10 percent below 2005 levels. Although there is no state-recommended per-capita reduction target for 2020, Placer County’s 2020 target and expected population growth translates to a per-capita target of approximately 10.4 MTCO2e per person, or 0.6 MTCO2e/person below forecast levels. Table 3-9 shows the reductions needed to meet this 2020 GHG reduction target.

Table 3-9 Community 2020 Forecast Emissions and Reduction Target Change in Change in Per- GHG Per-Capita GHG GHG Capita GHG Emissions Population emissions Emissions emissions (MTCO2e) (MTCO2/person) (MTCO2e) (MTCO2/person) 2005 baseline 1,440,910 -- 103,530 13.9 -- emissions 2020 1,300,850 -140,060 118,170 11.0 -2.9 forecast 2020 target 1,224,770 -76,080 118,170 10.4 -0.6 Due to rounding, the totals may not equal the sum of all figures in the column.

Page 56 Placer County Sustainability Plan 30 Chapter 3 - GHG Emissions in Placer County

Table 3-10 Community County Operations 2020 Forecast Emissions and Reduction Target (MTCO2e) GHG Emissions Change in GHG Emissions 2005 baseline emissions 40,250 -- 2020 forecast 52,110 11,590 2020 target 34,440 -17,670 2030 Target The most recent update to the2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) suggests presents a statewide per-capita 2030 GHG reduction target of 6.0 MTCO2e per person and advises for local governments to set targets consistent with statewide targets and based on local emissions sectors and population projections. The County’s 2030 target of 6.0 MTCO2e per person will result in a downward trend in community-wide GHG emissions in support of statewide objectives. The population of the unincorporated areas of Placer County is projected to be approximately 146,090 people by 2030, leading to a reduction target of 876,510 MTCO2e. Placer County’s forecasted GHG emissions in 2030 are 1,521,900 MTCO2e, or approximately 10.4 MTCO2e per-capita. Tables 3-11 shows the change in GHG emissions between 2005 and 2030, and the reductions needed to achieve the 2030 target.

Table 3-11 Community 2030 Forecast Emissions and Reduction Target Change in Change in Per- GHG Per-Capita GHG GHG Capita GHG Emissions Population emissions Emissions emissions (MTCO2e) (MTCO2/person) (MTCO2e) (MTCO2/person) 2005 baseline 1,440,910 -- 103,530 13.9 -- emissions 2030 1,521,900 80,990 146,090 10.4 -3.5 forecast 2030 target 876,510 -645,390 146,090 6.0 -4.4 Due to rounding, the totals may not equal the sum of all figures in the column. As per-capita targets are not appropriate for government operations emissions, there is not a 2030 target for government operations. The County will continue to implement and update the PCSP to ensure sustained GHG reductions from County operations.

2050 Target The Scoping Plan recommends presents a 2050 statewide per-capita GHG reduction goal target of

2.0 MTCO2e per person. for local governments. The County will pursue a 2050 target of 2.0

MTCO2e per person and commit to a downward trend in community-wide GHG emissions in support of statewide objectives. Placer County’s unincorporated population is forecasted to be 225,180 people in 2050, which leads to a reduction target of 450,370 MTCO2e. Placer County’s forecasted GHG emissions in 2050 are 2,250,450 MTCO2e, or approximately 10.0 per-capita. Table 3-12

Page 58 Placer County Sustainability Plan 31 Chapter 4 - GHG Emissions in Placer County

inventoried and forecast activity data ensures that the GHG reductions realistically reflect the conditions in Placer County.

Some strategies in the PSCP do not have a specific, associated GHG reduction. These strategies are considered “supportive”. Supportive strategies contribute to GHG reductions, but the amount of reductions cannot be accurately determined due to a lack of available data or other missing information. In some cases, the reductions associated with a strategy may be included with another strategy, and so the strategy is considered supportive to avoid double counting.

EXISTING AND PLANNED ACTIONS The forecast assumes that no action is taken to reduce emissions, but state agencies are already acting to decrease GHG emissions, and additional actions are planned. The County can receive “credit” for these actions that decrease its GHG emissions, moving Placer County closer to its reduction targets. In addition to the state policies, Placer County has adopted its own goals and policies that reduce emissions through energy efficiency programs, transportation management, and cleaner energy Renewable and Carbon-Free and fuel use. Electricity Renewable electricity comes from State sources that do not deplete natural resources and are defined by state Renewables Portfolio Standard law. Solar, wind, geothermal, and California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) bioenergy are all considered establishes a minimum percentage of electricity that all renewable in California. Carbon-free electricity comes from sources that do utility providers must supply from renewable electricity or not emit GHGs but are not necessarily carbon-free electricity (electricity that does not emit GHGs considered renewable. Nuclear and when it is generated). It was first established in 2002 under large-scale hydroelectric sources are SB 1078 and has been amended several times. Under the considered carbon-free but not latest version of the RPS, electricity suppliers must provide renewable under California law. 33 percent renewable energy by 2020, 60 percent renewable energy by 2030, and 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2045. This policy reduces and eventually eliminates emissions from electricity use in Placer County.

Clean Car Standards In 2002 California adopted AB 1493, also known as the Pavley I standards, which required new passenger vehicles with model years 2009 to 2016 to meet more stringent fuel efficiency standards. Additional laws have extended these rules to cover vehicles from future model years. 2

2 At time of writing, the federal government has issued regulations that would pre-empt the Advanced Clean Car standards, which cover vehicles with model years 2016 to 2025. California, along with several other states, is challenging the federal government’s action. The PCSP assumes that the Advanced Clean Car standards remain in effect. Future updates to the PCSP can amend the plan in response to the outcome of this legal challenge, if necessary.

Page 64 Placer County Sustainability Plan 32 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

Low Carbon Fuel Standard The Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) was adopted in 2009 and requires transportation fuels such as gasoline and diesel sold within the state to be less carbon intensive. These policies reduce emissions from on-road transportation and off-road equipment use in Placer County.

Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards California’s building energy efficiency standards (BEES) is a portion of the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC), Part 6 of Title 24 for new buildings and is updated to be more stringent every three years. The most recent set of standards went into effect in January 2017, and the next set of standards is scheduled to go into effect in January 2020. This policy reduces emissions from energy use in new buildings.

The State has also adopted other requirements that are expected to reduce GHG emissions in Placer County. The regulations for these requirements are not final, and so staff cannot determine the GHG emission reductions from these State efforts at this time.

Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling In 2014 California adopted AB 1826, which required businesses who generated eight or more cubic yards of organic waste per week to begin recycling it by April 2016; all business who generated four or more cubic yards of organic waste to recycle it beginning January 1, 2017; and all businesses who generated four or more cubic yards of solid waste to begin recycling organic waste beginning January 1, 2019. Recyclable organic waste accounts for about 40% of the material Californians dispose in landfills annually, according to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). In 2014 California adopted AB 1826, requiring businesses who generate eight or more cubic yards of organic waste per week to begin recycling it by April 2016; all business who generate four or more cubic yards of organic waste to recycle it beginning January 1, 2017; and all businesses who generate four or more cubic yards of mixed solid waste to begin recycling organic waste beginning January 1, 2019. This requirement is intended to help California meet its goal to recycle 75% of its waste by 2020. Recology Auburn Placer and Tahoe Truckee Sierra Disposal, Placer County’s contracted waste haulers, have diverted over 1,0700 tons of food waste from the landfill from businesses in unincorporated Placer County as a result of their organic waste collection programs between since April 2016 and October 2019inception of their organic waste collection programs from businesses in unincorporated Placer County. This is in addition to businesses that self-haul their food and green waste to Placer County’s MRFs. This requirement is intended to help California meet its goal to recycle 75% of its waste by 2020. Recyclable organic waste accounts for about 40% of the material Californians dispose in landfills annually, according to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle).

Short-Lived Climate Pollutants Reductions In 2016, Senate Bill 1383, also known as Short-Lived Climate Pollutants, was approved to add sections to the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 to reduce methane by 40%, hydrofluorocarbon gases by 40%, and anthropogenic black carbon by 50% below 2013 levels by

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 65 33 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

Local Placer County has a successful history of implementing policies to reduce GHG emissions and advance sustainability. These policies have been partially responsible for the decline in GHG emissions from 2005 to 2015 and, along with new policies, are expected to help continue reducing emissions in future years. The following items have already led to measurable GHG reductions since 2015.

Pioneer Community Energy: Under a joint exercise of powers agreement, Placer County and the cities of Auburn, Colfax, Lincoln, Loomis and Rocklin (Members) has established a programjoint powers authority called Pioneer Community Energy (Pioneer). Currently, Pioneer provides two main programs, a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) program, which acts as an alternative electricity supplier to PG&E, and a Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program called mPOWER. Pioneer’s CCA program procures electric power on behalf of residents and businesses in the geographic territory of its Members. This geographic territory is also geographically coterminous with PG&E territory within Placer County. The electric power is transmitted over PG&E transmission and delivery infrastructure. PG&E continues to own its transmission and delivery infrastructure and remains responsible for maintaining and servicing these systems. PG&E also continues to conduct meter reading and billing activities. Pioneer partners with PG&E for billing and collection services.

Pioneer became the default electric power provider when its CCA program commenced service in February of 2018. Customers may choose to remain a bundled customer (receiving both transmission/delivery and electric generation service) of PG&E, or to receive electric power from Pioneer. Prior to Pioneer’s formation, electricity customers in Placer County had no choice of electric generation service providers, as the provision of electric service was limited to PG&E. Pioneer’s CCA program currently serves ninety-two percent of customers within its territory.

Pioneer’s CCA program sets rates for the electric power it provides based on PG&E’s rate structures, determines it power supply content, and determines the other energy related programs it will provide, based on local goals and priorities. Pioneer’s Governing Board are members of and appointed by the city councils and board of supervisors to represents the ratepayers and constituents within Pioneer territory. As a local government agency, the Pioneer Governing Board meetings are open to the public and held pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act. Community members can participate in local meetings, exerting influence over decisions related to energy supply procurement, program development, rate setting and other energy-focused issues and topics.

The CCA program allows Placer County community members to have more control over where their electricity comes from, what the electricity rates are, and how taxes and fees from electricity sales are spent. Community members can choose to receive electricity from the CCA program, or remain with PG&E.

Pioneer’s CCA program complies with California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard program, which requires a minimum 60 percent renewable energy portfolio by 2030 and 100 percent carbon free electricity by 2045. In addition to renewable energy, other variables may affect the CCA program’s portfolio emissions profile, including whether the CCA program is active in the Tahoe, whether

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 69 34 Chapter 4 - GHG Emissions in Placer County

Pioneer’s Governing Board decides to alter its resource mix, and what percentage of customers and potential customers opted out and chose to choose to remain with PG&E (the opt-out rate is approximately 8 percent). Since Pioneer is comprised of multiple jurisdictions, the communities and ratepayers in these jurisdictions share both the benefits and costs associated with Pioneers activities.

The PCSP assumes no additional increase in the amount of renewable and carbon-free electricity that Pioneer’s CCA program supplies to its customers, beyond the increases mandated by state law, and so there is no increase in GHG reductions beyond those included in the state reductions section. Additionally, the PCSP assumes that Pioneer does not expand into the Tahoe Basin area.

Solar power: Placer County promotes rooftop solar panel installation through a streamlined permitting process and incentive programs to offset installation costs. Since 20164, County residents and businesses have installed 5,0361,084 solar energy systems on their roofs, which account for approximately 40 percent of allalmost all of the solar installations since 1998.

Building and appliance retrofits: Multiple local programs encourage people to retrofit their homes and businesses to be more energy efficient and to The number of solar panel installations is rapidly install more energy-efficient appliances. Pioneer’s increasing in Placer County. Photo by Bill Eager/NREL. PACE Program, mPOWER,These programs provides financing to property owners on a voluntary basis for the installation of energy efficiency, distributed generation, and water conservation improvements. The mPOWER program was formerly provided through Placer County. Some programs, called Property Assessed Clean Energy, provideThe financing for energy efficiency retrofits for residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, and nonprofit property owners that is repaid on the property tax bill respective offor the property directly benefitting from the improvements. Property-assessed financing and other financing tools is offered for an extensive set of retrofit items, including water efficiency and conservation, energy efficiency and conservation, solar energy systems, battery storage units, and EV chargers.

Transportation demand management: Placer County is developing Transportation Demand Management strategies, covering a variety of options which have the potential to further transportation choices to support the economic vitality, environmental preservation and promote health for our communities.

Draft Strategies for the North Lake Tahoe portion of Placer County include the following key components:

• Transit – expanding service

Page 70 Placer County Sustainability Plan 35 Chapter 4 - GHG Emissions in Placer County

Waste, Agriculture, and Off-Road Equipment) and then by potential GHG reduction benefit. Chapter 6Appendix F includes a master list of strategies to support implementation.

Some of tThe following GHG reduction strategies canwill apply to projects subject to the County’s discretionary and environmental review processes and specifically to those projects that are projected to exceed the applicable CEQA threshold for GHG emissions. The PCSP contains six GHG mitigation strategies - Strategies E-4, E-21, WW-2, T-1.2, T-1.3, and T-1.4 - to be implemented by discretionary projects when applicable thresholds are exceeded, as feasible.

All Sectors While most strategies are specific to sectors and sources of emissions, this Plan includes one cross- sector, multi-benefit strategy.

Strategy GHG-1: Establish a carbon offset program that identifies, supports, and funds programs and projects that demonstrate sustained GHG emissions reductions and supports climate adaptation, programs or projects, primarily in the unincorporated county and the region. GHG reductions from these programs and projects shall be real, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, and enforceable. Programs shall primarily serve the residents and businesses of Placer County. The carbon offset program would be available to Placer County project applicants to mitigate GHG emissions for projects in the unincorporated county that exceed the County Air Pollution Control District’s project level GHG emissions thresholds after the application of all feasible onsite mitigation strategies are applied to project design and operation. Strategies and projects identified in the PCSP would be eligible for funding from the program. The program should be compatible with and leverage existing County and regional partnerships and programs that reduce GHG emissions.

Carbon offset programs allow communities to “cancel out” some of their GHG emissions by paying to fund other efforts that reduce GHG emissions. Using offset programs, communities can reduce emissions by supporting a wide number of one-time and ongoing GHG reduction actions under the umbrella of a single effort. Programs or projects that support the direct reduction of GHG emissions or the long-term sequestration of GHGs could be eligible. These actions and their associated reductions must be tracked and managed in detail and located in Placer County so that the reductions can be well verified.

This strategy is supportive. The uncertainty of carbon sequestration programs means that reduction efforts cannot be accurately quantified at this time.

Action items:

1. Establish a working group of County staff, partner agencies, and key stakeholder to develop the carbon offset program, including clear articulation of the program’s responsible and partner agencies, monitoring and reporting mechanism(s), criteria for eligible projects, GHG accounting and verification process(es), relationship to non-local carbon offset programs,

Page 76 Placer County Sustainability Plan 36 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

legal considerations, operations budget, and operating procedures. If the working group determines a local carbon offset program is not feasible, it should identify an existing program, preferably within the region or state, that meets the County’s goals.

2. Identify local projects in Placer County or in the region that will directly reduce GHG emissions and be eligible for funding through the program.

3. Coordinate with the Placer County Air Pollution Control District and ensure compliance with approved protocols from California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) GHG Rx program, California Air Resource Board’s Cap & Trade Program, or other applicable protocols.

4. Prepare an annual report to the Board of Supervisors and report on the status of activities and emission reductions.

5. Seek incentives and grant opportunities for the adoption of, practice of, and adherence to carbon emission reduction activities.

Applicability: New residential and nonresidential development, existing buildings, facilities, infrastructure, or operations.

Implementation level: Voluntary

Co-Benefit:

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 77 37 Chapter 4 - GHG Emissions in Placer County

Energy (E) These energy reduction strategies cover the topics of energy efficiency, energy conservation, and renewable energy for both residential and nonresidential buildings. Most strategies focus on reducing electricity and natural gas use, but a few strategies reduce emissions from other fuel use. These strategies allow county residents and businesses to reduce their energy needs and save on energy costs. In addition, cleaner energy sources and reductions in energy use will help provide more livable environments and reduce harmful indoor and outdoor air pollutants harmful, especially to vulnerable populations.

Strategy E-1: Facilitate a transition to electricity as the primary energy source for residential, mixed-use, commercial, and office buildings.

While electricity has gotten cleaner due to increased supplies of renewable energy, this is not the case with natural gas, which remains substantially more GHG intensive. In recent years, advances in technology allow buildings to replace appliances conventionally powered by natural gas—such as dryers, water and space heaters, and cooktops—with electric models that work just as well (or better). As an extra benefit, all-electric buildings may be able to generate all their energy needs from on-site renewable energy systems.

GHG Reductions 2020 2030 2050 0 5,400 53,380 Action items:

1. Ensure electrical infrastructure is available to all residences throughout the county. 2. Remove regulatory barriers or other disincentives to convert to "all electric" buildings. 3. Do not require installation of new natural gas infrastructure or connection to existing natural gas infrastructure to serve new development. 4. Explore requiring the feasibility of greenfield residential construction to be all electric, except as may be needed for public health and safety. 5. Prepare and distribute education materials about the GHG reduction benefits of all electric buildings.

Applicability: Existing and new residential and nonresidential development county-wide.

Implementation level: Voluntary with potential for mandatory components.

Page 78 Placer County Sustainability Plan 38 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

Strategy E-4: Require Encourage new residential, office, and commercial development, as mitigation for discretionary projects exceeding applicable CEQA GHG thresholds, to comply withimplement CALGreen Tier 1 standards and accelerate ZNE in new construction.

California’s Title 24 sets minimum standards for energy efficiency in new buildings. The law also identifies two voluntary sets of standards: Tier 1 (about 15 percent more efficient than the baseline standards) and Tier 2 (about 30 percent more efficient). Placer County may apply conditions of approval to projects as part of its discretionary review and/or mitigation measures as part of its environmental review to ensure that projects comply with applicable GHG emissions thresholds.

GHG Reductions (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2050 60 770 2,880 Action items:

1. Implement as mitigation for discretionary projects exceeding applicable CEQA GHG thresholds.

2. Explore density bonuses and permit streamlining for discretionary projects that implement CALGreen Tier 1 and Tier 2 measures, located within an urbanized area, consisting of no more than 71 residential units and is not more than four acres in total area.

Applicability: New residential and nonresidential development county-wide that is subject to discretionary and environmental review and that requires mitigation of GHG emissions.

Implementation level: Mandatory, aAs feasible, for discretionary projects exceeding Placer County APCD CEQA thresholds for GHGs; .Voluntary for nondiscretionary projects.

Co-Benefits:

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 81 39 Chapter 4 - GHG Emissions in Placer County

Strategy E-5: Provide increased financing for home retrofits involving insulation, HVAC systems, fenestration, and other shell and envelope retrofits.

Whole-home retrofits and upgrades to HVAC systems are a more involved process than replacing appliances, but they can cut a home’s total energy use by half in some cases. These retrofits also help maintain comfortable temperatures inside a home, protecting against both the heat and the cold with less need for air conditioners and space heaters.

GHG Reductions (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2050 1,500 4,880 11,770 Action items:

1. Promote existing funding programs, such as those provided by Pioneer Community Energy, the County’s Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program, mPOWER Placer, and through the local energy providers (i.e., PG&E, and Liberty Energy) to allow homeowners and renters to finance energy efficiency upgrades. 2. Provide energy efficiency retrofit information to project applicants seeking permits for renovation or expansion work on existing homes.

Applicability: Existing residential development county-wide.

Implementation level: Voluntary

Co-Benefits:

Page 82 Placer County Sustainability Plan 40 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

Strategy E-6: Encourage on-site renewable energy generation and storage systems for existing residential units.

Nearly 15 percent of existing homes in Placer County, including 7 percent of existing homes in the unincorporated area, already have on-site solar panels. Placer County has the opportunity to significantly increase this number, making renewable energy systems on existing homes an economically viable option for most households. Education and outreach efforts, financing programs, and easy permitting can all help boost renewable energy adoption. Policies adopted by Pioneer Community Energy increase the financial benefits of solar energy. Placer County also has opportunities to encourage adoption of battery storage and backup systems in homes and businesses to improve the economic outcomes associated with installing solar infrastructure, making on-site renewable energy even more useful and cost saving.

GHG Reductions (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2050 3,240 12,060 0 Action items:

1. Provide residential property owners with educational materials and resources on the installation of renewable energy sources. 2. Promote existing funding programs, such as those provided by Pioneer Community Energy, Pioneer’s Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program, mPOWER program, and incentives offered by local energy providers (i.e., PG&E, and Liberty Energy,) to allow homeowners and renters to finance energy efficiency upgrades. 3. Continue to identify efforts to streamline the review and permitting process to install on-site residential solar PV systems.

Applicability: Existing residential development county-wide.

Implementation level: Voluntary

Co-Benefits:

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 83 41 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

Strategy E-12 Support increases in renewable energy generation and storage systems for existing nonresidential structures.

On-site renewable energy systems may provide existing businesses with lower electricity bills. In combination with battery storage and backup systems, they such systems may be able to significantly reduce or completely eliminate traditional electricity bills, depending upon the manner in which such customers consume electric power in some cases. There are extensive financing options available, and Pioneer Community Energy’s solar-net-metering policies can make on-site renewable energy more feasible for some nonresidential property owners. Community solar energy systems may also be able to provide renewable energy generation for properties that are unable to install renewable energy systems on-site.

GHG Reductions (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2050 380 1,330 0 Action items:

1. Provide nonresidential property owners with educational materials and resources on the installation of renewable energy sources. 2. Promote existing funding programs, such as those administered by Pioneer Community Energy, the County’s Pioneer’s Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program, mPOWER, and local energy providers (i.e., PG&E, and Liberty Energy, to allow property owners to finance energy efficiency upgrades. 3. Continue to identify efforts to streamline the review and permitting process to install on-site nonresidential solar PV systems.

Applicability: Existing nonresidential development county-wide.

Implementation level: Voluntary

Co-Benefits:

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 89 42 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

Strategy E-14: In partnership with housing councils, encourage vacation and short-term and seasonal rental properties to replace all major appliances with energy-efficient models and to replace any incandescent light bulbs with more efficient bulbs.

Vacation properties are common in Placer County, especially in the Tahoe area, where more than half of homes may be used as vacation and short-term rentals. Placer County can request that owners of these properties install energy-efficient appliances and lighting as a condition of allowing these units to be rented, which will produce long-term cost savings for property owners.

GHG Reductions (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2050 30 190 510 Action items:

1. Work with County Executive Office and Pioneer Community Energy/mPOWER to implement programs aligned with annual Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) payment and energy efficiency incentives. 2. Encourage vacation and short-term rental operators to promote energy efficiency characteristics of their properties.

Applicability: Existing residential development county-wide.

Implementation level: Voluntary

Co-Benefits:

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 91 43 Chapter 4 - GHG Emissions in Placer County

Strategy E-15: Incentivize new homes to install renewable energy generation and energy storage systems that can fully supply the home’s energy needs, in cases where the required size of the renewable energy system is insufficient to fully meet on-site demand.

Starting in 2020, California law will require many new homes to install on-site solar energy systems. However, these mandatory systems may not be large enough to meet the home’s electrical demand, leaving some households with a still-sizeable energy bill. Placer County can encourage homes to install larger on-site renewable energy systems, capable of meeting most or all a home’s demand, especially if they are bundled with a battery storage system.

GHG Reductions (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2050 80 740 0 Action items:

1. Work with Pioneer Community Energy/mPOWER to promote the availability of rebates, financing, net-energy metering programs, and other financial incentives for renewable energy generation and energy storage systems. 2. Encourage developers to highlight the above-standard performance of participating homes, including associated cost-savings and resiliency to power outages.

Applicability: New residential development county-wide.

Implementation level: Voluntary

Co-Benefits:

Page 92 Placer County Sustainability Plan 44 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

Strategy E-20: Work with agricultural organizations to improve the energy efficiency of agricultural and food-processing facilities to increase profitability.

As with other businesses, agricultural and food-processing operations have a lot of options to improve the energy efficiency of their buildings. These efforts cut down on utility bills, helping to make these operations more profitable, and in turn supporting the overall economy of Placer County. Agricultural organizations can help provide resources on energy efficiency to member farmers, ranchers, and related businesses.

This strategy is supportive. There is insufficient data to specifically identify the energy savings potential from efficiency projects at agricultural and food-processing facilities. These reductions are included with strategies that address energy efficiency at general nonresidential buildings.

Action items:

1. In coordination with agricultural organizations, provide information about rebates and financing for energy efficiency rebates and incentives that apply to agricultural and food processing activities. 2. Publicize the availability of energy efficient equipment for agricultural and food processing activities as new innovations become available. 3. Explore working with Pioneer Community Energy/mPOWER and local agricultural organizations to develop energy efficiency outreach programs specifically for agricultural and food processing businesses.

Applicability: Existing agricultural development county-wide.

Implementation level: Voluntary

Co-Benefits:

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 97 45 Chapter 4 - GHG Emissions in Placer County

Strategy E-21: Require Encourage onsite solar PV systems and/or energy storage as mitigation for discretionary projects exceeding applicable GHG thresholds, for new nonresidential buildings exceeding 20,000 square feet.

The large rooftops of new, large-scale nonresidential buildings are prime sites for rooftop solar energy systems. Systems on these types of buildings can not only meet the building’s own energy needs but may generate surplus power that building owners can sell to help meet the electricity needs of other customers. Energy storage systems can provide additional benefits by improving energy independence and helping to guard against blackouts and high electricity prices. As Placer County has the authority to establish conditions of approval for discretionary projects, the County can require solar energy systems and battery storage systems on new, large-scale nonresidential buildings as a way to increase the use of these technologies in the community and to address long- term reduction in project level GHG emissions.

This strategy is supportive. Although this strategy has the potential to provide noticeable GHG reductions, it is unknown how many of these types of buildings may be built in Placer County, and so identifying a GHG reduction potential is not feasible.

Action items:

1. Implement as mitigation for discretionary projects exceeding CEQA GHG Thresholds. 2. Seek funding and grant opportunities to accelerate implementation of energy efficiency code requirements before their effective dates. 3. Explore permit streamlining for discretionary projects that implement onsite solar PV systems and energy storage.

Applicability: New nonresidential development county-wide

Implementation level: Mandatory, aAs feasible, for discretionary projects exceeding Placer County CEQA thresholds for GHGs; .Voluntary for existing structures and nondiscretionary projects.

Co-Benefits:

Page 98 Placer County Sustainability Plan 46 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

Strategy E-22: Request that the Pioneer Governing Board consider increasing the proportion of renewable and carbon-free energy supplied by Pioneer’s CCA program and expanding Pioneer’s service territory to cover all parts of Placer County currently served by private utilities.

Like all other electrical suppliers, Pioneer Community Energy is required to meet the state’s minimum RPS standards for electricity from renewable and carbon-free sources. To assist the County in meeting its sustainability goals, the County may request Pioneer to consider increasing its non-carbon and renewable energy supply. However, Pioneer would need to consider the cost of doing so, and the related rate impacts which could negatively affect opt-out rates and Pioneer’s overall impact. Additionally, all communitiesPioneer’s JPA members (incorporated and unincorporated) are likely towould share both the costs and benefits of accelerated renewable and non-carbon energy sources.

This strategy is supportive. There is insufficient information about the timing and specific characteristics of this strategy to clearly identify GHG reductions.

Action items:

1. Support efforts by the Pioneer Governing Board to decrease the carbon intensity of Pioneer’s CCA program’s electrical supplies as financial conditions allow. 2. As regulatory and financial conditions permit, encourage the Pioneer Governing Board to expand service into the Tahoe Basin. 3.2. Encourage the Pioneer Governing Board to offer additional tiers of service that provide lower carbon intensity electricity while maintaining economic feasibility.

Applicability: New and existing residential and nonresidential development county-wide.

Implementation level: Voluntary

Co-Benefits:

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 99 47 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

Strategy WW-2: Require Encourage new development projects, as mitigation for discretionary projects exceeding applicable GHG thresholds, to exceed minimum state water efficiency requirements for new water fixtures.

California state law requires new development projects to meet minimum standards for water efficiency, just as it does for energy efficiency. As part of the County’s discretionary and environmental review of projects, Placer County can require project applicants to comply with more stringent water conservation and efficiency standards to further reduce GHG emissions and ensure sufficient long-term water availability.

GHG Reductions (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2050 10 20 70 Action items:

1. In accordance with the voluntary residential water efficiency standards in the California Green Building Standards Code, tToilets are not to exceed more than 1.6 gal/flush. Urinals are not to exceed more than 1.0 gal/flush (if floor mounted) or 0.125 gal/flush (if wall mounted). Showers are not to exceed more than 2.5 gal/min. Interior faucets not to exceed more than 2.2 gal/min. Requirements should be updated as the standards are revised. 2. Implement as mitigation for discretionary projects exceeding CEQA GHG Thresholds.

Applicability: New residential development county-wide.

Implementation level: Mandatory, aAs feasible, for discretionary projects exceeding applicable CEQA thresholds; .; Voluntary for nondiscretionary projects.

Co-Benefits:

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 103 48 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

Strategy WW-6: Require Encourage all existing properties to adopt water-efficient landscaping strategies, including more efficient irrigation systems and plants with lower water needs, consistent with the Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance (WELO).

In the wake of California’s 2012–2017 drought, the state has adopted more stringent water-efficient landscaping requirements for new landscape projects. Placer County can supplement this action by encouraging existing landscapes to reduce their water use through the use of water-efficient landscaping technologies and plants that require little or no additional water to thrive.

GHG Reductions (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2050 20 90 0 Action items:

1. During Design Review, Building Permit Approval, implement the WELO. 2. In partnership with local water providers, publicize the availability of drought-tolerant native plant species from local nurseries. 3. Continue to incentivize

Applicability: Existing residential and nonresidential development county-wide.

Implementation level: MandatoryVoluntary.

Co-Benefits:

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 107 49 Chapter 4 - GHG Emissions in Placer County

Strategy WW-7: Coordinate with local water agencies to incentivize all new short-term and vacation rentals to have appliances and water fixtures that meet the minimum state water efficiency standards at the time of registration.

Short-term and vacation rentals are a growing business in Placer County, especially in the Tahoe area. As a condition of operating, Placer County can require these rental units to upgrade their water appliances and fixtures to be consistent with the most recent state requirements. This will help conserve water resources and provide savings on water bills for property owners.

GHG Reductions (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2050 10 <10 <10 Action items:

1. Work with County Executive Office, mPOWERretrofit financing programs, and local water agencies to implement program aligned with annual Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) payment and water efficiency incentives. 2. Include information about water efficiency improvements and available incentives in information given to new short-term and vacation rental applicants.

Applicability: Existing residential development in the Tahoe Basin.

Implementation level: Voluntary

Co-Benefits:

Page 108 Placer County Sustainability Plan 50 Chapter 4 - GHG Emissions in Placer County

Transportation (T) The strategies in the PCSP reduce transportation emissions by providing alternative means of getting around, increasing alternative fuel use, and promoting more efficient land use patterns that reduce the need to drive. These strategies seek to increase the use of low carbon fuels or carbon free energy to power on road vehicles and/or to reduce the miles traveled in single-occupancy vehicles. Reductions in transportation-related GHG emissions also help reduce air pollutants, support improvements to public health, potentially reduce congestion, and improve communities. Some of the strategies that increase the use of electric vehicles will also affect GHG emissions related to electricity use, which has been factored into the potential GHG benefits of those strategies.

Strategy T-1: Facilitate the installation of public electric vehicle (EV) charging stations at existing and new residential and non-residential uses.

Approximately 1 percent of cars in the unincorporated areas of Placer County are electric, but this number is expected to increase substantially as EVs become more available and less expensive. Placer County can spur additional adoption of EVs by installing publicly accessible charging stations at major destinations, including fast charging stations that can provide a full charge in 15 to 20 minutes. Resources such as the State’s Electric Vehicle Charging Station Permitting Guidebook can help inform the County’s efforts to increase the number of EV charging stations in the community. While Level 2 or 3 EV charging stations are preferred due to the faster rate of charging that they allow, Level 1 chargers that support slower “trickle charging” may be a cost-effective approach for some locations.

GHG Reductions (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2050 6,200 34,780 204,650

Page 112 Placer County Sustainability Plan 51 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

T-1.1. Encourage the installation of EV charging stations in high-volume parking lots such as major shopping destinations and employment centers.

T-1.2: Require Encourage new residential one- and two-family dwelling units, as mitigation for discretionary projects exceeding applicable GHG thresholds, to install EV-Ready outlets in private garages or near where parking facilities will be located as shown in Figure 4-2 and Table 4-6. California law requires that new homes have electrical conduits in place that can be used to install wiring for an EV charger. Placer County can help encourage EV adoption by going beyond the minimum state standards, requiring new homes to install the actual wiring needed for an EV charger for new development projects. This can save the homeowner money, since the wiring is much less expensive to install during construction and can spur more widespread adoption of EV technology in Placer County. This strategy would be incorporated as mitigation for development projects exceeding applicable GHG thresholds. This strategy would assist future development projects with reducing potentially significant GHG emissions.

T-1.3: Require Encourage new multifamily residential and residential mixed-use development, as mitigation for discretionary projects exceeding applicable GHG thresholds, to design and install EV-Capable and EVSE-Installed Level 2 charging stations as shown in Figure 4-2 and Table 4-6. New multifamily building projects are required to have 3 percent of their parking spaces (and at least one space) dedicated for EVs, with the conduits needed to support wiring for a standard EV charging station. By requiring new multifamily and mixed-use projects to go beyond this requirement, making more parking spaces available for EVs and mandating the installation of chargers, Placer County can make EVs a more attractive option for residents. This can spur increased adoption of EV technology, significantly reducing community-wide GHG emissions. This strategy would be incorporated as mitigation for development projects exceeding applicable GHG thresholds. This strategy would assist future development projects with reducing potentially significant GHG emissions.

T-1.4: Require Encourage new office and commercial development with 10 or more parking spaces (including hotels, motels, and restaurants), as mitigation for discretionary projects exceeding applicable GHG thresholds, to design and install EV-Capable infrastructure and EVSE-Installed Level 2 charging stations as shown in Figure 4-2 and Table 4-6. As with residential buildings, California law requires that new commercial buildings include dedicated spaces for EVs where charging stations could be easily installed in the future. Under current laws, approximately 6 percent of spaces must be available for EVs. Placer County can go beyond these minimum standards by increasing the number of spaces to 10 percent, and by mandating the installation of EV chargers rather than only the conduits to support a charger, as the state currently requires. Providing people with an option to charge electric vehicles while they work and shop can substantially help to increase EV adoption in Placer County. This strategy would be incorporated as mitigation for development projects exceeding applicable GHG thresholds. This strategy would assist future development projects with reducing potentially significant GHG emissions.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 113 52 Chapter 4 - GHG Emissions in Placer County

urbanized area, consisting of no more than 71 residential units and is not more than four acres in total area. 3.4. Conduct robust and ongoing public outreach to publicize the benefits of EVs and the availability of financial incentives to make EVs more affordable.

Applicability: New and existing residential and nonresidential development county-wide.

Implementation level: Mandatory, aAs feasible, for discretionary projects exceeding CEQA tThresholds for GHGs.; Voluntary for existing structures and nondiscretionary projects.

Co-Benefits:

Page 116 Placer County Sustainability Plan 53 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

Strategy T-2: Support the installation of alternative fueling stations to encourage residents and visitors to transition from high-carbon vehicle fuels, such as diesel or gasoline, to less- carbon-intensive vehicle fuels, such as natural gas, propane, biofuel, or hydrogen.

There are a number of other alternative vehicle fuels beyond electricity that are available to Placer County community members. Diesel vehicles can be powered by biodiesel derived from organic materials rather than petroleum, significantly reducing GHG emissions. Renewable natural gas or natural gas produced from biological materials (biomethane) can be sourced from organic waste and used as a fuel in natural gas vehicles. As California moves to substantially reduce GHG emissions from transportation, biofuels and even hydrogen may become viable alternatives to gasoline. Placer County can support these more-carbon-efficient fuels by providing necessary fueling infrastructure.

GHG Reductions (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2050 270 7,120 48,620 Action items:

1. Explore density bonuses and streamline the permitting process for development projects which propose the full construction and installation of alternative fueling stations, located within an urbanized area, consisting of no more than 71 residential units and is not more than four acres in total area. 2. Research grant funding options to help support the construction and installation of charging stations.

Applicability: New and existing residential and nonresidential development county-wide.

Implementation level: Voluntary

Co-Benefits:

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 117 54 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

Strategy T-4: Partner with surrounding regional transit agencies to improve connectivity to regional transportation systems.

Transit systems in Placer County are focused on providing connections to major job centers and other focal points of activity. Expanding transit service where there is sufficient demand to support it allows for connections to additional destinations and service to additional areas. This helps give people additional transportation options, which not only reduces GHG emissions but can significantly improve quality of life for people who are unable to drive.

GHG Reductions (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2050 210 610 1,790 Action items:

1. Explore the feasibility of new regional transit lines for commuters. 2. Improve headways on existing commuter transit lines. 3. Coordinate with SACOG and PCTPA to explore options for regional transit and/or commuter programs between major employment/residential centers (i.e. City of Roseville and City of Folsom) which may increase traffic congestion in the rural areas of the County. 4. Implement the TART Systems Plan for Eastern Placer County 3.5. Continue coordination with the Tahoe Truckee Transportation Management Association

Applicability: New and existing residential and nonresidential development county-wide.

Implementation level: Voluntary

Co-Benefits:

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 119 55 Chapter 4 - GHG Emissions in Placer County

Strategy SW-4 Explore the feasibility of converting all facility and hauling vehicles to low- carbon fuel types such as electric and compressed natural gas (CNG, preferably derived from landfill gas) if outside funding is available.

Waste collection and facility operation vehicles, like most other vehicles, are fueled by diesel and gasoline. There are alternatives available, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), and rapid improvements in EV technology may make more alternatives available in future years. To maximize sustainable practices, waste processors are encouraged to explore ways to can convert landfill gas and other organic waste products into CNG. The County can encourage waste collection and processing organizations haulers to switch to alternative fuels for these vehicles, decreasing on- road vehicle emissions and demonstrating the feasibility of alternative fuels in high-visibility uses, as well as ways to encourage the exploration of materials that currently have barriers to entry.

GHG Reductions (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2050 0 240 2,780 Action items:

1. Identify barriers to obtaining a reliable and affordable supply of CNG gas. 2. Pursue funding opportunities to support converting landfill gas into CNG.

Applicability: New and existing County operations

Implementation level: Voluntary

Co-Benefits:

Page 132 Placer County Sustainability Plan 56 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

Off-Road Equipment (OR) These reduction strategies encourage the use of cleaner alternative fuel for off-road equipment. With the adoption of cleaner equipment, the County can reduce air pollution levels, which also helps to improve public health and protect sensitive populations.

Strategy OR-1: Promote use of hybrid and alternative fuel construction equipment for new developments and significant retrofits.

As Placer County grows, there will be a greater need for construction equipment, much of which is powered by diesel fuels. The County can support equipment powered by alternative fuels, such as electricity or natural gas, or equipment that uses hybrid engines and motors. As a way of furthering sustainable practices, the County can encourage the use of biomethane, which is natural gas produced from organic materials, as a fuel for this equipment. The use of this equipment will reduce construction-related emissions and improve air quality, especially in areas experiencing significant development activity.

GHG Reductions (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2050 0 50 480

Action items:

1. Encourage the use of hybrid and alternative fuel equipment during construction of development projects by incorporating a condition of approval for projects to consider alternatives when available. 2. Promote the availability of hybrid and alternative fuel construction equipment to local property developers and contractors.

Applicability: New residential and nonresidential development county-wide.

Implementation level: Voluntary

Co-Benefits:

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 145 57 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

Strategy GO E-4: Encourage facilities to improve the energy performance of other existing buildings to support ZNE efforts, including electrification of existing buildings.

At County facilities outside of the Dewitt Center, there is also interest in eventually moving other existing buildings in the direction of achieving ZNE. Energy efficiency retrofits in combination with employee awareness and education efforts can significantly decrease the energy use at these existing facilities and help bring ZNE closer to reality.

GHG Reductions (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2050 0 0 1,440 Action items:

1. Implement as mitigation for discretionary projects exceeding the applicable County CEQA GHG Thresholds. 2. Continue to conduct monthly energy analyses to identify opportunities to further reduce energy consumption.

Applicability: Existing County operations.

Implementation level: Voluntary for existing structures and nondiscretionary projects.

Mandatory, as feasible, for discretionary projects exceeding CEQA thresholds., Voluntary for existing facilities.

Co-Benefits:

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 151 58 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

Strategy GO WW-2: For new buildings, reduce indoor water consumption by 30 percent and outdoor landscaping water use by 40 percent.

New buildings and landscaped areas are required to be more water efficient than older ones because of stricter standards under California law. Placer County has the opportunity to go beyond the minimum state requirements for new buildings and landscaped areas, creating highly water- efficient facilities that affirm the County’s commitment to water conservation as well as reduce government water bills.

GHG Reductions (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2050 <10 <10 <10 Action items:

1. Identify appropriate actions to maintain sequestration from trees and landscaping that could be negatively impacted.

Applicability: New County operations.

Implementation level: Mandatory, as feasible, for discretionary projects exceeding applicable CEQA thresholds.Voluntary for nondiscretionary projects.

Co-Benefits:

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 159 59 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

Strategy GO AG-2: Identify and plant trees for County landscaping projects that have a naturally high carbon-sequestration rate, taking into consideration the suitability of the tree species for the area.

Trees and other plants absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, storing or “sequestering” it as they grow.

Some trees plants sequester more CO2 than others, and the County can use these trees in landscaping projects to help remove more CO2 from the atmosphere as long as they meet the County’s other requirements for longevity, pest resistance, safety, water conservation, and other criteria. Native trees and plants, which grow best in the local environment, may be able to maximize carbon sequestration.

This strategy is supportive. Emissions associated with biomass are not included in the inventory, so reductions in these emissions cannot be counted.

Action items:

Applicability: New and existing County operations.

Implementation level: Voluntary

Co-Benefits:

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 187 60 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

Education and Awareness (GO ED) The education and awareness strategies for County operations do not have measurable GHG reductions on their own, but they help to ensure the success of other strategies by increasing County employees’ knowledge of sustainable practices. These strategies also help to integrate sustainability into the County’s operations, allowing it to be a holistic and important part of the County’s standard practices.

Strategy GO ED-1: Use local and sustainable building materials for all new County buildings as feasible.

Using local building materials, or those that come from known sustainable sources, helps affirm the County’s commitment to sustainable practices. For example, the County can maximize its use of wood from sustainable sources, such as Forest Stewardship Council-certified lumber. Purchasing materials from local sources can also help enhance the Placer County economy by supporting local suppliers and merchants.

This strategy is supportive. The County’s GHG inventory does not directly assess the GHG emissions from materials used in buildings, and so the GHG reduction benefit from this strategy cannot be assessed.

Action items:

1. Give preference to contractors using local and sustainable building materials for construction of County buildings and facilities.

Applicability: New County operations.

Implementation level: Voluntary

Co-Benefit:

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 189 61 Chapter 4 - GHG Emissions in Placer County

Strategy GO ED-6: Provide educational materials about sustainability and greenhouse gas reduction to community members.

Efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote sustainability will involve many aspects of life in Placer County., and members of the Placer County community have an important role to play in these efforts. To ensure greater success, Placer County can provide educational information about how to reduce GHGs and be more sustainable, supplementing many of the other strategies in this Plan that also include educational components. In many cases, sustainability education efforts can be integrated into existing County programs or included in materials that the County already distributes, such as newsletters or utility bills.

This strategy is supportive. It is not possible to directly assess its GHG reduction potential.

Action items:

1. Work with the Public Information Office to develop and distribute information about GHG reduction and other sustainability topics to community members, with the goal of reaching as wide an audience as possible. 2. Identify existing County programs and events that could provide opportunities for GHG and sustainability education.

Applicability: All community members.

Implementation level: Voluntary

Co-Benefit:

Page 194 Placer County Sustainability Plan 62 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

GHG EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM STRATEGIES The reduction strategies discussed in this chapter are intended to reduce GHG emissions below the County’s reduction targets in order to take firm action on climate change.

As discussed in more detail in Chapter 3, the County’s short-term and long-term GHG reduction goals are:

. 2020: Reduce GHG emissions to 15 percent below 2005 levels.

. 2030: Reduce GHG emissions to 6.0 MTCO2e per person (community emissions only).

. 2050: Reduce GHG emissions to 2.0 MTCO2e per person (community emissions only). Table 4-7 shows the level of community-wide GHG reductions achieved by implementation of the PCSP’s emission reduction strategies and how they compare to the County’s GHG reduction goals. Table 4-7 Progress to GHG Reduction Targets with PCSP Strategies, Countywide Emissions (MTCO2e) 2020 2030 2050 Target (absolute) 1,224,770 -- -- Target (per-capita) -- 6.0 2.0 Emissions with PCSP 1,159,100 -- -- (absolute) Emissions with PCSP -- 6.15 3.26 (per-capita)

At the current levels of participation for the reduction strategies, Placer County will exceed its absolute short-term community-wide 2020 GHG reduction target. Based on the levels of implementation assumed in the PCSP implementation program, Tthe County is on a trajectory to continue GHG reductions beyond 2020 toward meet its long-term per-capita targets in for 2030 and 2050; however, and comes relatively close in 2030, although additional reductions will could be needed to meet these targets. The GHG emission reductions presented in this chapter represent conservative participation assumptions since most strategies are not mandates or fully funded. Many strategies have the opportunity to achieve greater reductions with more certainty in implementation and participation. The detailed quantification assumptions for the strategies are presented in Appendix E GHG Reduction Quantification assumptions, sources, metrics, and other details.

Table 4-8 shows the level of government operations GHG reductions achieved by the emission reduction strategies and how they compare to the County’s GHG reduction goals.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 195 63 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

Also increases resiliency to:

Responsible Agency: Economic Development

Strategy DR-9: Work with the owners of water recreation sites to begin installing alternative forms of recreation that are less dependent on water levels.

Also increases resiliency to:

Responsible Agency: Economic Development

Strategy DR-10: Strategically conserve healthy conifer cover in forested areas, where not in conflict with fuel reduction goals, to protect ecosystem services, including carbon sequestration, soil retention, and water supply.

Also increases resiliency to:

Responsible Agency: Planning Services

Strategy DR-11: Maintain and improve soil health on County-owned or -managed lands, including those held in conservation easements.

Also increases resiliency to:

Actions:

1. Increase soil organic matter to improve soils’ water-holding capacity, soil structure, and water infiltration, and to reduce erosion (use cover crops and mixes, native grasses, crop or livestock residues, compost, mulch, biochar, or other organic amendments).

Responsible Agency: Agricultural Commissioner

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 213 64 Chapter 5 - Building Resiliency in Placer County

Strategy EH-22: Coordinate with local and regional utility providers to conduct regular evaluations and retrofits of energy transmission and delivery infrastructure.

Responsible Agency: Engineering and Surveying

Strategy EH-23: Work with the Contractors Association and local workforce training organizations to promote careers in energy efficiency and renewable energy.

Also increases resiliency to:

Responsible Agency: Economic Development

Strategy EH-24: Improve energy independence of new subdivisions or other significant developments through on-site renewable energy and energy storage systems, and microgrid controllers that allow for the operation of a small-scale energy grid independent of the main grid.

Also increases resiliency to:

Responsible Agency: Planning Services

Strategy EH-25: Coordinate with the Homeless Resource Council of the Sierras and other existing programs to ensure that emergency shelters are available during extreme heat events, severe winter weather events, and other highly hazardous conditions. Ensure that the local homeless population is made aware of these resources.

Also increases resiliency to:

Actions:

1. Continue to support the Homeless Resource Helpline, Whole Person Care, The Gathering Inn, and locations that provide shelter to persons experiencing homelessness during extreme events in Kings Beach, Community House, Carnelian Bay, Tahoe City, and Animal Services in Truckeethroughout Placer County.

Page 220 Placer County Sustainability Plan 65 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

Responsible Agency: Public Health

Strategy EH-26: As budget allows, increase the number of park rangers in County-owned parks and open space areas during extreme heat events and when wildfire conditions are elevated.

Also increases resiliency to:

Responsible Agency: Parks Division

Strategy EH-27: Work with mPOWERPioneer Community Energy, PG&E, and any other applicable utility providers to encourage property owners to conduct suitable adaptation retrofits concurrent with energy efficiency retrofits.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Resource Agency

Strategy EH-28: Continue to enforce laws protecting agricultural operations, including the Right- to-Farm Ordinance, and identify opportunities to strengthen these laws in the face of changing climate conditions.

Also increases resiliency to:

Responsible Agency: Planning Services

Flooding (FL) Flooding is typically caused by heavy rainfall, long periods of moderate rainfall, rapid melting of accumulated snow, and in some cases dam, levee, or water pipeline failures. Populations and infrastructure are the most susceptible to harm from flooding, as homes and roadways can be damaged or destroyed by floodwater. The PCSP provides adaptation strategies for multiple sectors to ensure that the County follows FEMA flood regulations and the community can be protected from increased frequency and intensity of flood events. These strategies are consistent with existing policies and expand on programs proposed in the General Plan and LHMP.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 221 66 Chapter 5 - Building Resiliency in Placer County

Actions:

1. Coordinate with contractors and biomass facilities to locate these operations appropriately, including ensuring that there are feasible locations in eastern Placer County.

Responsible Agency: Economic Development

Strategy PD-3: Work with stakeholders during the permitting stages for processing woody material from tree mortalities to expedite approval.

Also increases resiliency to:

Responsible Agency: Planning Services

Strategy PD-4: Encourage local artists and craft persons to use wood harvested from bark beetle– infested trees and debris from forest fuel-clearing activities.

Also increases resiliency to:

Actions:

1. Coordinate with landfills and nearby biomass facilities to ensure that appropriate wood is available and can be diverted from the facility feedstock.

2. Consider holding competitions or other events to promote the availability of these materials.

Responsible Agency: Economic Development

Strategy PD-5: Supplement existing cost-sharing programs, such as the Hazards Fuels Reduction program, that provide financial assistance to private homeowners property owners to trim or remove bark beetle–infested trees near structures, including assistance for disposal of material.

Also increases resiliency to:

Responsible Agency: Office of Emergency Services

Page 228 Placer County Sustainability Plan 67 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

Severity Zones, including installation of sprinklers and fire-safe exterior materials as feasible.

Responsible Agency: Building Services

Strategy WF-8: Establish increased fire-safe development standards for all new and existing development in the WUI to minimize property damage and loss of life.

Responsible Agency: Planning Services

Strategy WF-9: Require new developments in the WUI to include fuel reduction plans. These plans must include a finance plan, necessary fees for maintenance of fuel break areas, and maintenance requirements in any applicable covenants, conditions, and restrictions.

Actions:

1. Coordinate with the Placer County Fire Safe Alliance and local Fire Safe Councils to encourage new and existing planned developments in the WUI and other areas with elevated wildfire risk to join the Placer County Firewise Communities program.

Responsible Agency: Planning Services

Strategy WF-10: Explore creating wildfire abatement districts to provide fuel-clearing services and maintenance of defensible space on public and private land within the county.

Responsible Agency: Office of Emergency Services

Strategy WF-11: Encourage and supportE higher density residential development within the WUI on infill sites xplore prohibiting or limiting increases in residential density within the WUIonly when such projects implement all feasiblenecessary mitigation options to provide sufficient wildfire protection as stated within this Adaptation Strategy.

Actions:

1. Amend Community Plans and the County General Plan to identify infill parcels with existing infrastructure and existing development on adjacent parcels which can support higher densities prohibit or limit increases in residential density within the WUI. [AG7]

1.2. Create development standards for wildfire protection and streamlining opportunities for high- density residential and affordable developments for infill locations within the WUI.

Responsible Agency: Planning Services

Strategy WF-12: Work with stakeholders to develop a pilot project on private or public land that demonstrates the cost-savings of treating and managing land for wildfire prevention in relation to air quality and other ecosystem services. The project could consider both direct (i.e. homes and roadways) and indirect costs (i.e. social capital and air quality), the costs of management and prevention compared to the costs of no action and recovery, and the emission reduction potential of good forest management to the extent possible.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 233 68 Chapter 6 - Building Resiliency in Placer County Public Review Draft

6. Implementation of the PCSP

INTRODUCTION This chapter provides guidance on how the County can implement the PCSP. This includes reducing GHG emissions to meet the targets as well as improving the county’s resiliency to climate- related hazards. This chapter outlines the strategies and tools necessary to track and monitor the County’s progress toward implementing the reduction and adaptation strategies and ensures that the County will experience a healthier future environment.

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES To guide successful implementation of the PCSP, this chapter provides a series of implementation strategies to help the County reach its GHG emission reduction targets and goals for improved resiliency. Each implementation strategy is accompanied by action items to help further explain the efforts necessary to conduct the measurestrategy efficiently. County staff and assigned responsible departments and agencies will need to ensure that each strategy is addressed and reported on periodically to determine County emission targets are being met and that the County is moving toward greater climate-related adaptation.

Implementation Strategy 1: On an annual basis, monitor and report Placerthe County’s progress, for new and existing community-wide and government operations efforts, toward achieving the GHG emission reduction targets and on improving community resiliency.

Action Items:

1. Monitor the implementation of new and existing measuresstrategies designated for County operations. 2. Frequently collaborate with other department staff to streamline data gathering. 3. Prepare an annual monitoring report of implementation status, including estimated GHG emission reductions and progress on adaptation strategies, for Department Staff and the Board of Supervisors to review. Use the metrics presented in Appendix F to measure the implementation status of new strategies, and these or other metrics for existing strategies as applicable. 4. Update and adjust reduction and adaptation measuresstrategies according to regulatory changes, unforeseen events, effectiveness, updates research, and/or technological advances.

Implementation Strategy 2: Every three to five years, update the PCSP, GHG inventory baseline emissions, and vulnerability assessment.

Action Items:

1. Update the PCSP no later than 2024 to incorporate new technology, programs, and policies to reduce GHG emissions and improve adaptation to climate-related hazards.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 237 69 Chapter 5 6 - Building Resiliency in Placer County

2. Update the emissions inventory no later than 2024 to incorporate the latest scientific understanding of GHG emissions. 3. Update the vulnerability assessment no later than 2024 to incorporate new scientific understandings of climate-related hazards. 4. Update the PCSP with new reduction strategies if GHG reduction targets are not being met and to respond to regulatory changes, unforeseen events, effectiveness, updates research, and/or technological advances.

Implementation[AG9] Strategy 3: Continue to build partnerships with agencies and community organizations that will help support the implementation of the PCSP.

Action Items:

1. Continue formal memberships and participation in local and regional organizations that provide tools and support for energy efficiency, energy conservation, GHG emissions reductions, adaptation, education, and implementation of the PCSP. 2. Collaborate with other local jurisdictions to support the implementation of regional GHG reduction and climate adaptation efforts.

Implementation Strategy 4: Continue to seek secure funding sources to implement the PCSP.

Action Items:

1. Identify funding sources from both government and private funding agencies for implementation of reduction measuresstrategies associated with the PCSP. 2. Research potential grants and funding sources as part of the annual reporting process. 3. Participate in cap-and-trade implementation to ensure that funds are returned to areas where GHG emissions are generated and used to fund projects and programs that benefit the communities impacted by emissions.

Implementation Strategy 5: Continue ongoing efforts to reduce GHG emission beyond target years of the PCSP.

Action Item:

1. Continually monitor and implement state post-2030 goals in updated PCSPs.

IMPLEMENTATION MATRICESPROGRAM The implementation program matrices (for community-wide reduction strategies, County operations reduction strategies, and adaptation strategies) are is included in the PCSP to help staff monitor and track the implementation and performance of each GHG emission reduction measurestrategy. For each reduction measurestrategy, the matricesthere is a provide a GHG emission reduction target estimate, a time frame for implementation, the a designated responsible department or agency, an estimated cost for implementation, and the co-benefits provided. For each The adaptation matrix identifiesmeasure, there is an identified the climate hazard or hazards that the

Page 238 Placer County Sustainability Plan 70 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

strategy helps protect against, a time frame for implementation, the a designated responsible department or agency, and the co-benefits provided by the strategy.

The implementation program is presented in three matrices. Appendix F includes all implementation matrices. Table F-1 shows the implementation matrix for community GHG reduction strategies. Table F-2 shows the implementation matrix for government operations GHG reduction strategies. Table F-3 shows the implementation matrix for adaptation strategies.

These matrices will help staff determine how effective the GHG emission reductions and adaptation improvements are, and whether the strategies need to be updated every five years according to Implementation Strategies 1 and 2. The matrices can also be used to determine which strategies are the most feasible according to current funding opportunities and implementation time frames, as recommended in Implementation Strategy 4.

There are several important criteria for implementation:

1. What is the implementation time frame? Because strategies may provide reductions for each forecast year, their implementation time frame depends on the immediate needs of the community or the financial feasibility. Similarly, the implementation time frame for the adaptation measuresstrategies depends on the onset of climate-related hazards. The following table defines the estimated implementation time frames in a series of ranges. Ongoing: Continuous implementation Near-Term: Between years 2019 and 2022 Mid-Term: Between years 2023 and 2025 Long-Term: Implemented by 2030 Very Long-Term: Implemented by 2050 2. Who is the responsible department or agency? A County department or agency will be determined for each strategy. The identified party is responsible for providing funding and monitoring of the implemented strategy. 3. What is the reduction potential? The amount of GHGs that could be reduced by implementing the reduction strategy. 4. What hazards does the strategy protect against? All the adaptation strategies protect against at least one climate-related hazard, but many protect against multiple hazards. Strategies that improve resiliency to many different hazards may be a higher priority for implementation.

Appendix F includes all implementation matrices. Table F-1 shows the implementation matrix for community GHG reduction strategies. Table F-2 shows the implementation matrix for government operations GHG reduction strategies. Table F-3 shows the implementation matrix for adaptation strategies.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 239 71 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

Microgrid: A small-scale electrical network that includes an energy generation system, an energy storage system, and software to manage electrical demand. These networks can continue to provide electrical service to connected buildings and appliances during a power outage that affects the wider electrical network. Microgrids can serve a single building, a campus, or a wider neighborhood or community.

Model: A representation of the climate system, such as a virtual simulation, that is used to study climate and simulate climactic conditions (IPCC 2012). mPOWER: Serving Placer and Nevada Counties; the towns of Loomis and Truckee; and the cities of Auburn, Colfax, Grass Valley, Lincoln, Nevada City, Rocklin, and Roseville, mPOWER provides financing for residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, multifamily, and nonprofit property owners to install energy efficiency upgrades, water conservation measures, and energy generation systems.

Net zero: Producing as much of something as is used, or reducing as much of something as is generated, so that the overall use or generation is zero when looked at over a period of time. Net- zero carbon emissions and net-zero energy are two common uses.

Nitrous oxide (N2O): A colorless greenhouse gas that traps approximately 265 times as much heat as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over a 100-year period. Both natural and human-caused activities, including fossil fuel burning and agricultural and sewage treatment operations, are responsible for nitrous oxide emissions.

Onset: The period of time in which exposures begin to occur (CNRA and Cal EMA 2012).

Pavley standards: See “clean car standards”.

Photovoltaic (PV): A system that can produce electricity from sunlight, such as a solar panel.

Pioneer Community Energy: A community choice aggregation program in partnership A joint powers authority between with the town of Loomis; cities of Auburn, Colfax, Lincoln, and Rocklin; and Placer County for the purpose of 1) Providing electric power and other forms of energy to customers at a competitive cost; 2) Promoting long-term electric rate stability and energy security and reliability for residents through local control of electric generation resources and the overall power supply portfolio. 3) Carrying out programs to reduce energy consumption; 4) Stimulating and sustaining the local economy by developing local jobs in renewable energy; and 5) Reducing greenhouse gas emissions related to the use of electric power and other forms of energy in Placer County and neighboring regions. Pioneer’s CCA Program purchases the electric supply, works and then partners with PG&E to transmit and deliver the power over PG&E’s poles and wires to provide lower and more stable electricity rates to customers.

Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD): The organization responsible for local enforcement of California’s air pollution regulations and taking additional locally appropriate action to improve air quality within the boundaries of Placer County.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 245 72 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

2018 Stakeholder Meetings January 17th Placer County Fire Alliance December 13th Tree Mortality Task Force December 6th Placer County Fire Safe Alliance November 6th Pioneer Development Team November 6th Sierra CAMP October 30th mPOWER (now Pioneer Community Energy) October 30th Tahoe Transportation District October 24th Rio Bravo Bioenergy Day October 17th PCWA October 4th Liberty Utilities October 3rd Build-It-Green October 2nd Alpine Meadows and Squaw Valley October 2nd Canyon Keepers October 1st APCD September 24th Pioneer Board meeting September24th Build-It-Green September 20th Placer County Fire Alliance September 20th Tree Mortality Task Force August 21st Pioneer/mPOWER Community Energy June 27th PG&E June 26th California Tahoe Conservancy June 5th Western Regional Landfill May 17th North Tahoe Business Association Board of Directors April 25th North Lake Tahoe Resort Association April 25th Tahoe Realtors Association April 24th Pioneer April 24th PCTPA April 23rd North Tahoe Fire District April 23rd TMA April 23rd Truckee School District 2017 Stakeholder Meetings August 17th REALTORS Association

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 261 73 Appendix B

PUBLIC WORKSHOPS Series 1 Workshops The County held the first workshop series, held in March and April of 2018, was intended to raise awareness about the Sustainability Plan project, to share preliminary results of the early technical tasks (i.e., GHG inventories, Vulnerability Assessment), and to initiate early engagement in GHG reduction and adaptation strategies. The workshops were held in three planning subareas of Placer County – Kings Beach, Auburn, and Loomis – to ensure broad participation. See Appendix A-1 for a summary of public input received.

The workshop forum for the first series included a project presentation followed by an open house.

Project Presentation The presentation provided an overview of the project, GHG inventory, GHG forecasts and targets, climate change impacts and the Vulnerability Assessment, as well as existing and planned County actions.

Open House During the group discussion, the County set up informational poster boards were set up at eight stations, each providing information on the various project components. Participants moved between stations at their leisure to learn about different topics, ask questions, and engage in discussions with project staff. Project staff recorded gGroup questions from the poster sessions were recorded on flip charts, and members of the public provide answers/input were written on sticky notes to be placed alongside the questions. This series of workshops attracted an estimated 65 people, though not all participants signed in or stayed for all activities. Based on the discussion, most participants worked and lived in Placer County.

Page 262 Placer County Sustainability Plan 74 Appendix E

GHG method

The project team used the results of the forecast to identify the increased demand in electricity from new development. Based on the percent of new nonresidential buildings projected to participate in this effort, the team was able to identify how much electricity (including T&D losses) would be saved as a result of new zero-net energy buildings. Staff then applied the appropriate emissions factors to obtain GHG reduction amounts.

GHG sources

There are no sources for these calculations beyond the GHG inventory and forecast.

Page 294 Placer County Sustainability Plan 75 Appendix E

GHG method

The project team studied reports about how electricity and natural gas is used in nonresidential buildings in the Placer County area, along with studies that identify the potential for electricity and natural gas savings in nonresidential buildings as a result of different types of retrofits. The team used this information to determine the total decrease in electricity and natural gas in the average retrofitted business, then applied the projected participation rate in nonresidential retrofits to determine the total decrease in electricity and natural gas use from this strategy, which includes decreases in T&D losses. Staff then applied the appropriate emissions factors to obtain GHG reduction amounts.

GHG sources

Brown, R., Borgeson, S., Koomey, J., et al. 2008. U.S. Building-Sector Energy Efficiency Potential. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/941430.

California Energy Commission. 2006. “California Commercial End-Use Survey”. http://capabilities.itron.com/CeusWeb/ChartsSF/Default2.aspx.

E-9: Tahoe low-income weatherization Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Electricity savings, including T&D losses 595,740 3,963,110 5,362,980 (kWh) Natural gas savings (therms) 52,320 348,160 472,130

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 460 1,900 2,510 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of existing low-income Tahoe 6% 45% 90% homes undergoing weatherization

2020 2030 2050 Number of low-income Tahoe homes being 50 single- 350 single- 480 single- weatherized family homes family homes family homes and 10 multi- and 70 multi- and 80 multi- family homes family homes family homes GHG method

The project team reviewed documents that identify the typical energy savings from low-income weatherization activities and applied these savings to the average energy use of homes in the

Page 296 Placer County Sustainability Plan 76 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

Tahoe area to determine the amount of energy saved per participating home. Staff used the projected participation rate in this strategy to obtain the total amount of energy saved under this measurestrategy, including decreases in electricity lost to T&D. Staff then applied the appropriate emissions factors to obtain GHG reduction amounts.

GHG sources

California Energy Commission. 2014. Impact Evaluation of the California Comprehensive Residential Retrofit Programs.

United States Department of Energy. 2011. Weatherization Assistance Program. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/51242.pdf.

E-10: Appliance upgrades for rental units Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Electricity savings, including T&D losses 381,700 3,078,480 8,642,090 (kWh) Natural gas savings (therms) 38,440 240,470 433,840

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 280 1,600 2,310 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of existing rental-occupied homes 3% 25% 75% with appliance retrofits Percent of existing rental-occupied homes 1% 18% 35% with lighting retrofits Percent of existing rental-occupied homes 8% 50% 90% with water heater retrofits 2020 2030 2050

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 297 77 Appendix E

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Effective electricity savings, including T&D 1,882,870 11,773,270 41,444,440 losses (kWh)

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 380 1,330 0 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of existing businesses installing on- 5% 15% 45% site solar 2020 2030 2050 Number of existing businesses with rooftop 70 businesses 200 590 solar arrays. in PG&E businesses in businesses in territory, and PG&E PG&E 10 businesses territory, and territory, and in Liberty 40 businesses 110 territory. in Liberty businesses in territory. Liberty territory. GHG method

The project team used reports about existing solar energy installations in Placer County to determine the average generation (kW) of a nonresidential installation. Staff reviewed data about solar generation potential in different parts of the County to identify the total amount of energy (kWh) per kW of installed capacity. Staff then used the projected participation rate to determine the total kW from nonresidential solar installations and converted this to kWh using the information about solar generation potential to obtain total energy savings, including T&D losses. Staff then applied the appropriate emissions factor to determine the GHG reductions from this strategy.

GHG sources

California Public Utilities Commission. 2018. NEM Currently Interconnected Dataset, June 30, 2018 [data table]. https://www.californiadgstats.ca.gov/archives/interconnection_nem_pv_projects/.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2019. “PVWatts”. https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/pvwatts.php.

E-13: Mobile home weatherization Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Electricity savings, including T&D losses 187,050 935,260 2,805,790 (kWh) Natural gas savings (therms) 9,900 49,500 148,500

Page 300 Placer County Sustainability Plan 78 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 90 360 790 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of existing mobile homes 5% 25% 75% conducting weatherization 2020 2030 2050 Number of homes undergoing 110 PG&E- 550 PG&E- 1,640 PG&E- weatherization area mobile area mobile area mobile homes and 10 homes and 50 homes and Liberty-area Liberty-area 160 Liberty- mobile homes. mobile homes. area mobile homes. GHG method

The project team studied reports about how electricity and natural gas is used in mobile homes in the Placer County area, and studies of energy savings from manufactured housing retrofits. This allowed the team to identify the average electricity and natural gas savings in a typical Placer County-area mobile home that undergoes an energy efficiency retrofit. The team combined this information with projected participation rates from home retrofits to determine the total decrease in electricity and natural gas use from this strategy, which includes decreases in T&D losses. Staff then applied the appropriate emissions factors to obtain GHG reduction amounts.

GHG sources

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. 2014. Mobilizing Energy Efficiency in the Manufactured Housing Sector. http://www.workingre.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Mobilizing- Energy-Efficiency-in-Manufactured-Housing.pdf.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 301 79 Appendix E

2020 2030 2050 Number of new homes with above-standard 30 single- 500 single- 5,000 single- PV systems family homes family homes family homes and 10 multi- and 70 multi- and 750 multi- family homes family homes family homes in the PG&E in the PG&E in the PG&E service service service territory, and 0 territory, and territory, and single-family 20 single- 120 single- homes and 0 family homes family homes multi-family and 0 multi- and 20 multi- homes in the family homes family homes Liberty service in the Liberty in the Liberty territory. service service territory. territory. GHG method

The project team used reports about existing residential solar energy installations in Placer County to determine the average generation (kW) of a home rooftop solar array. Staff reviewed data about solar generation potential in different parts of the County to identify the total amount of energy (kWh) per kW of installed capacity. Staff then used the projected participation rate to determine the total kW from solar installations on existing homes and converted this to kWh using the information about solar generation potential to obtain total energy savings, including T&D losses. Staff then applied the appropriate emissions factor to determine the GHG reductions from this strategy.

GHG sources

California Energy Commission. 2018. 2019 Standards Part 6 Chapter 7 (Section 150.1) Revised Express Terms.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2019. “PVWatts”. https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/pvwatts.php.

Page 304 Placer County Sustainability Plan 80 Appendix E

E-17: On-site renewable energy for new small and medium-scale nonresidential buildings Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Effective electricity savings, including T&D 156,340 1,707,240 15,460,900 losses (kWh)

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 30 210 0 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of new businesses with larger-than- 1% 4% 12% required PV systems 2020 2030 2050 Number of new businesses with above- <10 30 businesses 300 standard PV systems. businesses in in the PG&E businesses in the PG&E territory, and the PG&E territory, and <10 territory, and <10 businesses in 20 businesses businesses in the Liberty in the Liberty the Liberty territory. territory. territory. GHG method

The project team used reports about existing solar energy installations in Placer County to determine the average generation (kW) of a nonresidential installation, operating under the assumption that new nonresidential buildings would install arrays of comparable size, and that such arrays would be larger than state-mandated systems that are anticipated to be required for new nonresidential buildings by 2030. Staff reviewed data about solar generation potential in different parts of the County to identify the total amount of energy (kWh) per kW of installed capacity. Staff then used the projected participation rate and estimates of new nonresidential development in Placer County to determine the total kW from nonresidential solar installations. Staff converted this to kWh using the information about solar generation potential to obtain total energy savings, including T&D losses. The project team then applied the appropriate emissions factor to determine the GHG reductions from this strategy.

GHG sources

California Public Utilities Commission. 2018. NEM Currently Interconnected Dataset, June 30, 2018 [data table]. https://www.californiadgstats.ca.gov/archives/interconnection_nem_pv_projects/.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2019. “PVWatts”. https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/pvwatts.php.

Page 306 Placer County Sustainability Plan 81 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

GHG method

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no method used for quantification.

GHG sources

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There are no sources used for quantification.

E-24: Energy audit scores Activity and GHG savings

This strategy is supportive. Energy audits do not directly cause reductions in energy use. Indirect changes in energy use are included in retrofit-related strategies.

Assumptions and performance indicators

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no assumptions or performance indicators.

GHG method

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no method used for quantification.

GHG sources

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There are no sources used for quantification.

WW-1: Residential water retrofits Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Electricity savings, including T&D losses 212,940 709,800 1,685,770 (kWh) Water savings (gallons) 90,000,000 300,000,000 710,000,000

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 190 520 1,110 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of homes retrofitting water fixtures 12% 40% 95% 2020 2030 2050 Number of homes retrofitting water fixtures. 4,890 16,290 38,680 GHG method

Staff reviewed state reports to identify the typical per-home savings from residential water efficiency retrofits. The project team applied this information to the projected participation rates to determine

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 311 82 Appendix E

the amount of water that would be saved under implementation of this strategy. Using data from the inventory and forecast, staff converted the amount of water saved to the amount of electricity saved associated with water/wastewater treatment and conveyance. Staff then converted these electricity savings to GHG savings using the appropriate emissions factors and added additional GHG savings from direct wastewater processing activities using per-gallon factors calculated from the inventory results.

GHG sources

California Natural Resources Agency, California Department of Water Resources. 2013. California Water Plan Update 2013, Investing in Innovation & Infrastructure – Volume 3: Resource Management Strategies. https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web- Pages/Programs/California-Water-Plan/Water-Plan-Updates/Files/Update-2013/Water-Plan- Update-2013-Volume-3.pdf.

City of South Lake Tahoe. 2019. “TOT Reports”. http://www.cityofslt.us/588/TOT-Reports.

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 2012. Lake Tahoe Origin-Destination Survey Report. http://www.trpa.org/documents/rseis/3.3%20Transportation/3.3_RSG%202012_Lake%20Tahoe% 20Origin.pdf.

WW-2: Beyond-code water development Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Electricity savings, including T&D losses 2,660 23,170 128,320 (kWh) Water savings (gallons) 1,043,580 13,394,290 81,538,900

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 0 20 70 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of new homes installing beyond- 15% 40% 75% code fixtures 2020 2030 2050 Number of new homes installing beyond- 340 5,040 31,260 code fixtures

GHG method

Page 312 Placer County Sustainability Plan 83 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

GHG method

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no method used for quantification.

GHG sources

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There are no sources used for quantification.

E-24: Energy audit scores Activity and GHG savings

This strategy is supportive. Energy audits do not directly cause reductions in energy use. Indirect changes in energy use are included in retrofit-related strategies.

Assumptions and performance indicators

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no assumptions or performance indicators.

GHG method

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no method used for quantification.

GHG sources

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There are no sources used for quantification.

WW-1: Residential water retrofits Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Electricity savings, including T&D losses 212,940 709,800 1,685,770 (kWh) Water savings (gallons) 90,000,000 300,000,000 710,000,000

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 190 520 1,110 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of homes retrofitting water fixtures 12% 40% 95% 2020 2030 2050 Number of homes retrofitting water fixtures. 4,890 16,290 38,680 GHG method

Staff reviewed state reports to identify the typical per-home savings from residential water efficiency retrofits. The project team applied this information to the projected participation rates to determine

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 311 84 Appendix E

the amount of water that would be saved under implementation of this strategy. Using data from the inventory and forecast, staff converted the amount of water saved to the amount of electricity saved associated with water/wastewater treatment and conveyance. Staff then converted these electricity savings to GHG savings using the appropriate emissions factors and added additional GHG savings from direct wastewater processing activities using per-gallon factors calculated from the inventory results.

GHG sources

California Natural Resources Agency, California Department of Water Resources. 2013. California Water Plan Update 2013, Investing in Innovation & Infrastructure – Volume 3: Resource Management Strategies. https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web- Pages/Programs/California-Water-Plan/Water-Plan-Updates/Files/Update-2013/Water-Plan- Update-2013-Volume-3.pdf.

City of South Lake Tahoe. 2019. “TOT Reports”. http://www.cityofslt.us/588/TOT-Reports.

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 2012. Lake Tahoe Origin-Destination Survey Report. http://www.trpa.org/documents/rseis/3.3%20Transportation/3.3_RSG%202012_Lake%20Tahoe% 20Origin.pdf.

WW-2: Beyond-code water development Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Electricity savings, including T&D losses 2,660 23,170 128,320 (kWh) Water savings (gallons) 1,043,580 13,394,290 81,538,900

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 0 20 70 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of new homes installing beyond- 15% 40% 75% code fixtures 2020 2030 2050 Number of new homes installing beyond- 340 5,040 31,260 code fixtures

GHG method

Page 312 Placer County Sustainability Plan 85 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

GHG method

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no method used for quantification.

GHG sources

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There are no sources used for quantification.

E-24: Energy audit scores Activity and GHG savings

This strategy is supportive. Energy audits do not directly cause reductions in energy use. Indirect changes in energy use are included in retrofit-related strategies.

Assumptions and performance indicators

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no assumptions or performance indicators.

GHG method

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no method used for quantification.

GHG sources

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There are no sources used for quantification.

WW-1: Residential water retrofits Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Electricity savings, including T&D losses 212,940 709,800 1,685,770 (kWh) Water savings (gallons) 90,000,000 300,000,000 710,000,000

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 190 520 1,110 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of homes retrofitting water fixtures 12% 40% 95% 2020 2030 2050 Number of homes retrofitting water fixtures. 4,890 16,290 38,680 GHG method

Staff reviewed state reports to identify the typical per-home savings from residential water efficiency retrofits. The project team applied this information to the projected participation rates to determine

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 311 86 Appendix E

the amount of water that would be saved under implementation of this strategy. Using data from the inventory and forecast, staff converted the amount of water saved to the amount of electricity saved associated with water/wastewater treatment and conveyance. Staff then converted these electricity savings to GHG savings using the appropriate emissions factors and added additional GHG savings from direct wastewater processing activities using per-gallon factors calculated from the inventory results.

GHG sources

California Natural Resources Agency, California Department of Water Resources. 2013. California Water Plan Update 2013, Investing in Innovation & Infrastructure – Volume 3: Resource Management Strategies. https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web- Pages/Programs/California-Water-Plan/Water-Plan-Updates/Files/Update-2013/Water-Plan- Update-2013-Volume-3.pdf.

City of South Lake Tahoe. 2019. “TOT Reports”. http://www.cityofslt.us/588/TOT-Reports.

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 2012. Lake Tahoe Origin-Destination Survey Report. http://www.trpa.org/documents/rseis/3.3%20Transportation/3.3_RSG%202012_Lake%20Tahoe% 20Origin.pdf.

WW-2: Beyond-code water development Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Electricity savings, including T&D losses 2,660 23,170 128,320 (kWh) Water savings (gallons) 1,043,580 13,394,290 81,538,900

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 0 20 70 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of new homes installing beyond- 15% 40% 75% code fixtures 2020 2030 2050 Number of new homes installing beyond- 340 5,040 31,260 code fixtures

GHG method

Page 312 Placer County Sustainability Plan 87 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

GHG method

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no method used for quantification.

GHG sources

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There are no sources used for quantification.

E-24: Energy audit scores Activity and GHG savings

This strategy is supportive. Energy audits do not directly cause reductions in energy use. Indirect changes in energy use are included in retrofit-related strategies.

Assumptions and performance indicators

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no assumptions or performance indicators.

GHG method

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no method used for quantification.

GHG sources

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There are no sources used for quantification.

WW-1: Residential water retrofits Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Electricity savings, including T&D losses 212,940 709,800 1,685,770 (kWh) Water savings (gallons) 90,000,000 300,000,000 710,000,000

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 190 520 1,110 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of homes retrofitting water fixtures 12% 40% 95% 2020 2030 2050 Number of homes retrofitting water fixtures. 4,890 16,290 38,680 GHG method

Staff reviewed state reports to identify the typical per-home savings from residential water efficiency retrofits. The project team applied this information to the projected participation rates to determine

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 311 88 Appendix E

the amount of water that would be saved under implementation of this strategy. Using data from the inventory and forecast, staff converted the amount of water saved to the amount of electricity saved associated with water/wastewater treatment and conveyance. Staff then converted these electricity savings to GHG savings using the appropriate emissions factors and added additional GHG savings from direct wastewater processing activities using per-gallon factors calculated from the inventory results.

GHG sources

California Natural Resources Agency, California Department of Water Resources. 2013. California Water Plan Update 2013, Investing in Innovation & Infrastructure – Volume 3: Resource Management Strategies. https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web- Pages/Programs/California-Water-Plan/Water-Plan-Updates/Files/Update-2013/Water-Plan- Update-2013-Volume-3.pdf.

City of South Lake Tahoe. 2019. “TOT Reports”. http://www.cityofslt.us/588/TOT-Reports.

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 2012. Lake Tahoe Origin-Destination Survey Report. http://www.trpa.org/documents/rseis/3.3%20Transportation/3.3_RSG%202012_Lake%20Tahoe% 20Origin.pdf.

WW-2: Beyond-code water development Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Electricity savings, including T&D losses 2,660 23,170 128,320 (kWh) Water savings (gallons) 1,043,580 13,394,290 81,538,900

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 0 20 70 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of new homes installing beyond- 15% 40% 75% code fixtures 2020 2030 2050 Number of new homes installing beyond- 340 5,040 31,260 code fixtures

GHG method

Page 312 Placer County Sustainability Plan 89 Appendix E

electricity savings to GHG savings using the appropriate emissions factors and added additional GHG savings from direct wastewater processing activities using per-gallon factors calculated from the inventory results. Due to a lack of sufficient information, staff were not able to quantify the GHG reduction savings associated with rainwater catchment systems or greywater systems for nonresidential buildings.

GHG sources

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Governments to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures.

M.Cubed. 2016. Projected Statewide and County-Level Effects of Plumbing Codes and Appliance Standards on Indoor GPCD [memorandum]. https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web- Pages/Programs/Water-Use-And-Efficiency/Make-Water-Conservation-A-California-Way-of- Life/Files/Publications/Projected-Statewide-and-County-Level-Effects-of-Plumbing-Codes.pdf.

WW-6: Water-efficient landscaping Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Electricity savings, including T&D losses 88,490 915,260 1,446,200 (kWh) Water savings (gallons) 110,000,000 1,150,000,000 1,820,000,000

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 20 90 0 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of existing homes installing water- 5% 50% 80% efficient landscaping Percent of existing businesses installing 5% 60% 90% water-efficient landscaping 2020 2030 2050 Number of homes and businesses with 2,060 existing 20,570 32,920 water-efficient landscaping households existing existing and 70 households households existing and 820 and 1,230 businesses existing existing with water- businesses businesses efficient with water- with water- landscaping efficient efficient landscaping landscaping GHG method

Page 316 Placer County Sustainability Plan 90 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

The project team identified the proportion of residential and nonresidential outdoor water use that can be saved through water-efficient landscaping and applied these factors to inventory data to determine the average per-home and per-business water savings. Staff applied projected participation savings to identify the total amount of water saved, used inventory data to convert water savings to electricity savings, and then converted these electricity savings to GHG savings using the appropriate emissions factors.

GHG sources

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Governments to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures.

WW-7: Water retrofits for short-term rentals Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Electricity savings, including T&D losses 25,370 221,980 301,260 (kWh) Water savings (gallons) 466,140 4,078,710 5,535,400

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 10 <10 <10 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of short-term rental homes 8% 70% 95% conducting water efficiency retrofits 2020 2030 2050 Number of participating short-term rentals 30 300 410 GHG method

Using inventory data and studies of short-term rentals in the Sierra region, staff estimated the number of short-term rentals in the community. Staff then combined this data from water efficiency studies to identify the typical per-short-term-rental savings from water efficiency retrofits. The project team applied this information to the projected participation rates to determine the amount of water that would be saved under implementation of this strategy. Using data from the inventory and forecast, staff converted the amount of water saved to the amount of electricity saved associated with water/wastewater treatment and conveyance. Staff then converted these electricity savings to GHG savings using the appropriate emissions factors and added additional GHG savings from direct wastewater processing activities using per-gallon factors calculated from the inventory results.

GHG sources

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 317 91 Appendix E

Assumptions and performance indicators

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no assumptions or performance indicators.

GHG method

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no method used for quantification.

GHG sources

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There are no sources used for quantification.

T-1: Increased EV chargers Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Electricity savings, including T&D losses -5,815,830 -34,895,610 -169,638,580 (kWh) Effective mileage savings (VMT) 16,682,240 108,466,690 631,796,480

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 6,200 34,780 204,650 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of vehicles that are electric (not 3% 15% 40% including buses) GHG method

Staff used projected participation rates and results from the GHG forecast to determine the projected future level of VMT from EVs, and then subtracted the amount of EV VMT assumed by state models to calculate a net increase in EV VMT that can be attributed to local efforts. Staff then applied the appropriate emission factors to identify the decrease in GHG emissions from less gasoline/diesel fuel use. Staff next used studies about EV efficiency and how efficiency is expected to increase over time to identify the average per-mile electricity use of an EV, and multiplied these figures by the net increase in EV VMT to determine the increase in community electricity use as a result of greater EV adoption, including increases in T&D losses. Staff them applied appropriate emissions factors to calculate the increase in electricity related GHG emissions. Last, staff took the difference between these two GHG calculations to determine the net GHG savings from this strategy.

GHG sources

Page 320 Placer County Sustainability Plan 92 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

California Department of Motor Vehicles. 2018. Fuel Type by City as of 1/1/2018. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/c24637c9-5faf-4fe2-9375- 9b5221a2ef4a/motorvehiclefueltypes_city.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=.

California Department of Motor Vehicles. 2018. Fuel Type by County as of 1/1/2018. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/2156a052-c137-4fad-9d4f- db658c11c5c9/MotorVehicleFuelTypes_County.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=.

United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 2017. “Feasibility and Implications of Electric Vehicle (EV) Deployment and Infrastructure Development”. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/energy/publications/ev_deployment/page08.c fm.

T-2: Alternative fueling stations Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings There are no activity savings from this strategy

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 270 7,120 48,620 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of diesel vehicles transitioning to 3% 35% 80% biodiesel Percent of gasoline vehicles transitioning to 0% 2% 8% ethanol Advance biofuel adoption rate 0% 30% 75% Percent of gasoline vehicles transitioning to 0% 0.5% 5% hydrogen GHG method

Staff used projected participation rates to anticipate how much VMT in future years would be a result of biodiesel, ethanol, advanced biofuel, or hydrogen vehicles. Staff used data about vehicle fuel density to estimate how much of these fuels would be needed to make up for a comparable loss in gasoline and diesel-fueled vehicles. Staff then applied emissions factors for all fuel types and calculated the net difference between reduced gasoline/diesel emissions and increased biodiesel/ethanol/advanced biofuel/hydrogen emissions, taking this difference as the overall savings from this strategy.

GHG sources

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 321 93 Appendix E

Alternative Fuels Data Center. 2014. Fuel Properties Comparison. https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf.

California Department of Motor Vehicles. 2018. Fuel Type by City as of 1/1/2018. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/c24637c9-5faf-4fe2-9375- 9b5221a2ef4a/motorvehiclefueltypes_city.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=.

California Department of Motor Vehicles. 2018. Fuel Type by County as of 1/1/2018. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/2156a052-c137-4fad-9d4f- db658c11c5c9/MotorVehicleFuelTypes_County.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=.

ICLEI USA – Local Governments for Sustainability. 2013. U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Version 1.1.

T-3: Mixed use and contiguous development Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Mileage savings (VMT) 4,960,690 18,340,100 37,814,030

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 2,220 6,530 12,250 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Service population in contiguous areas 8,650 30,290 52,130 GHG method

Staff reviewed projections of population, job, and VMT growth in various specific plan areas and other parts of Placer County that are expected to see substantial new development. Staff looked at where the average “center” locations (the area with the highest concentration of jobs) is likely to be and compared the distance between new development and the average center locations to studies identifying the typical distance to a community center. Staff calculated the resulting decrease in commute related VMT from jobs associated with community centers located closer than average, and then applied the appropriate emissions factors to determine total GHG savings.

GHG sources

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Governments to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures.

Page 322 Placer County Sustainability Plan 94 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

T-4: Regional transit connectivity Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Mileage savings (VMT) 479,020 1,705,020 5,540,080

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 210 610 1,790 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent increase in areas and networks 5% 15% 30% served by public transit (SACOG area) 2020 2030 2050 Public transit mode share 1.54% 1.69% 1.91% GHG method

Staff determined the current public transit mode share and projected a percent increase in the areas served by effective transit. Staff then applied an elasticity and transit adjustment factor, as recommended by state guidance for suburban areas, to identify the proportional increase in public transit more share from expanded transit service. The project team applied the transportation emissions factor to determine the reduction in GHG emissions associated with this strategy.

GHG sources

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Governments to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures.

T-5: Bikeway connectivity Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Mileage savings (VMT) 241,860 1,700,000 4,453,500

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 110 610 1,440 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of new bike lanes in Bikeway 10% 60% 100% Master Plan built 2020 2030 2050

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 323 95 Appendix E

2020 2030 2050 Total bike lane miles in unincorporated area 180 320 440 GHG method

The project team identified the net increase in bike lanes from implementation of the Bikeway Master Plan and combined this with data on the size of the unincorporated area to determine the net increase in bike lanes per square mile. Staff then applied figures from state guidance documents to identify the increase in bike miles (corresponding to a decrease in on-road VMT) resulting from more bike lanes per square mile and applied a transportation emissions factor to convert the VMT savings to decreased GHG emissions.

GHG sources

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Governments to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures.

Placer County. 2018. Placer County Regional Bikeway Plan, 2018 Update. http://pctpa.net/library/BikewayPlanning/PlacerCounty_RegionalBikewayPlan_FINAL_20180629.p df.

US Census Bureau. 2006. “Counties List”. https://www2.census.gov/geo/docs/maps- data/data/gazetteer/counties_list_06.txt.

US Census Bureau. 2018. “2018 Gazetteer”. https://www2.census.gov/geo/docs/maps- data/data/gazetteer/2018_Gazetteer/2018_gaz_place_06.txt.

T-6: Amtrak trips Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Mileage savings (VMT) 0 1,066,610 3,198,030

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 0 380 1,040 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Number of daily Amtrak trips into Placer 24 8 County GHG method

Staff used reports about current Amtrak ridership and trip origin/destination to estimate the number of train passenger miles attributed to the unincorporated areas of Placer County. Staff then

Page 324 Placer County Sustainability Plan 96 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

determined the increase in attributed train passenger miles resulting from the projected increase in daily Amtrak trips, assuming that these trips would replace on-road vehicle trips, allowing staff to determine a decrease in VMT. The project team then applied the appropriate emissions factor to determine the GHG reduction.

GHG sources

Capitol Corridor Joint Power Authority. 2017. Capitol Corridor Service Performance. https://www.capitolcorridor.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Monthly-Service-Performance-July- 2016.pdf.

Capitol Corridor Joint Power Authority. 2018. Capitol Corridor Train Schedule. https://www.capitolcorridor.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Weekdays_May2018.pdf.pdf.

T-7: Tahoe Transportation Demand Management Activity and GHG savings

This strategy is supportive. There is insufficient data to support quantification of the GHG reduction potential.

Assumptions and performance indicators

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no assumptions or performance indicators.

GHG method

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no method used for quantification.

GHG sources

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There are no sources used for quantification.

T-8: Trip reductions in foothill and valley regions Activity and GHG savings

This strategy is supportive. There is insufficient data to support quantification of the GHG reduction potential.

Assumptions and performance indicators

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no assumptions or performance indicators.

GHG method

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no method used for quantification.

GHG sources

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 325 97 Appendix E

SW-1: Landfill methane capture Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings There are no activity savings from this strategy

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 0 54,160 108,610 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Methane capture rate at landfills 75% 90% 95% GHG method

Staff inputted future projections of solid waste generation into the state-provided landfill emissions model and increased the methane capture rate in accordance with the performance indicators to identify the GHG emissions from landfills given implementation of this strategy. The project team then compared this emissions result against the landfill emissions figure in the forecast, which assumed a constant methane capture rate. Staff took the difference between the two landfill emissions figures to be the net decrease in landfill related GHG emissions.

GHG sources

California Air Resources Board. 2010. Local Government Operations Protocol for the quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions inventories, Version 1.1. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/protocols/localgov/pubs/lgo_protocol_v1_1_2010-05-03.pdf.

Page 328 Placer County Sustainability Plan 98 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

T-11: Biking and walking Activity and GHG savings

This strategy is supportive. GHG reductions associated with this effort are included in other strategies, and there is insufficient data to quantify this strategy separately.

Assumptions and performance indicators

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no assumptions or performance indicators.

GHG method

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no method used for quantification.

GHG sources

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There are no sources used for quantification.

T-12: Bike share Activity and GHG savings

This strategy is supportive. It is unknown what a bike share program in Placer County may look like at this time, so the GHG reduction benefits cannot be accurately assessed.

Assumptions and performance indicators

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no assumptions or performance indicators.

GHG method

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no method used for quantification.

GHG sources

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There are no sources used for quantification.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 327 99 Appendix E

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There are no sources used for quantification.

T-9: Microtransit Activity and GHG savings

This strategy is supportive. There is insufficient data to support quantification of the GHG reduction potential.

Assumptions and performance indicators

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no assumptions or performance indicators.

GHG method

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no method used for quantification.

GHG sources

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There are no sources used for quantification.

T-10: Infill development Activity and GHG savings

This strategy is supportive. Density levels in Placer County are not expected to reach the levels where infill development will have a distinct GHG reduction benefit independent of other efforts.

Assumptions and performance indicators

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no assumptions or performance indicators.

GHG method

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no method used for quantification.

GHG sources

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There are no sources used for quantification.

Page 326 Placer County Sustainability Plan 100 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

determined the increase in attributed train passenger miles resulting from the projected increase in daily Amtrak trips, assuming that these trips would replace on-road vehicle trips, allowing staff to determine a decrease in VMT. The project team then applied the appropriate emissions factor to determine the GHG reduction.

GHG sources

Capitol Corridor Joint Power Authority. 2017. Capitol Corridor Service Performance. https://www.capitolcorridor.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Monthly-Service-Performance-July- 2016.pdf.

Capitol Corridor Joint Power Authority. 2018. Capitol Corridor Train Schedule. https://www.capitolcorridor.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Weekdays_May2018.pdf.pdf.

T-7: Tahoe Transportation Demand Management Activity and GHG savings

This strategy is supportive. There is insufficient data to support quantification of the GHG reduction potential.

Assumptions and performance indicators

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no assumptions or performance indicators.

GHG method

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no method used for quantification.

GHG sources

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There are no sources used for quantification.

T-8: Trip reductions in foothill and valley regions Activity and GHG savings

This strategy is supportive. There is insufficient data to support quantification of the GHG reduction potential.

Assumptions and performance indicators

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no assumptions or performance indicators.

GHG method

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no method used for quantification.

GHG sources

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 325 101 Appendix E

2020 2030 2050 Total bike lane miles in unincorporated area 180 320 440 GHG method

The project team identified the net increase in bike lanes from implementation of the Bikeway Master Plan and combined this with data on the size of the unincorporated area to determine the net increase in bike lanes per square mile. Staff then applied figures from state guidance documents to identify the increase in bike miles (corresponding to a decrease in on-road VMT) resulting from more bike lanes per square mile and applied a transportation emissions factor to convert the VMT savings to decreased GHG emissions.

GHG sources

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Governments to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures.

Placer County. 2018. Placer County Regional Bikeway Plan, 2018 Update. http://pctpa.net/library/BikewayPlanning/PlacerCounty_RegionalBikewayPlan_FINAL_20180629.p df.

US Census Bureau. 2006. “Counties List”. https://www2.census.gov/geo/docs/maps- data/data/gazetteer/counties_list_06.txt.

US Census Bureau. 2018. “2018 Gazetteer”. https://www2.census.gov/geo/docs/maps- data/data/gazetteer/2018_Gazetteer/2018_gaz_place_06.txt.

T-6: Amtrak trips Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Mileage savings (VMT) 0 1,066,610 3,198,030

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 0 380 1,040 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Number of daily Amtrak trips into Placer 24 8 County GHG method

Staff used reports about current Amtrak ridership and trip origin/destination to estimate the number of train passenger miles attributed to the unincorporated areas of Placer County. Staff then

Page 324 Placer County Sustainability Plan 102 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

T-4: Regional transit connectivity Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Mileage savings (VMT) 479,020 1,705,020 5,540,080

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 210 610 1,790 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent increase in areas and networks 5% 15% 30% served by public transit (SACOG area) 2020 2030 2050 Public transit mode share 1.54% 1.69% 1.91% GHG method

Staff determined the current public transit mode share and projected a percent increase in the areas served by effective transit. Staff then applied an elasticity and transit adjustment factor, as recommended by state guidance for suburban areas, to identify the proportional increase in public transit more share from expanded transit service. The project team applied the transportation emissions factor to determine the reduction in GHG emissions associated with this strategy.

GHG sources

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Governments to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures.

T-5: Bikeway connectivity Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Mileage savings (VMT) 241,860 1,700,000 4,453,500

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 110 610 1,440 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of new bike lanes in Bikeway 10% 60% 100% Master Plan built 2020 2030 2050

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 323 103 Appendix E

Alternative Fuels Data Center. 2014. Fuel Properties Comparison. https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf.

California Department of Motor Vehicles. 2018. Fuel Type by City as of 1/1/2018. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/c24637c9-5faf-4fe2-9375- 9b5221a2ef4a/motorvehiclefueltypes_city.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=.

California Department of Motor Vehicles. 2018. Fuel Type by County as of 1/1/2018. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/2156a052-c137-4fad-9d4f- db658c11c5c9/MotorVehicleFuelTypes_County.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=.

ICLEI USA – Local Governments for Sustainability. 2013. U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Version 1.1.

T-3: Mixed use and contiguous development Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Mileage savings (VMT) 4,960,690 18,340,100 37,814,030

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 2,220 6,530 12,250 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Service population in contiguous areas 8,650 30,290 52,130 GHG method

Staff reviewed projections of population, job, and VMT growth in various specific plan areas and other parts of Placer County that are expected to see substantial new development. Staff looked at where the average “center” locations (the area with the highest concentration of jobs) is likely to be and compared the distance between new development and the average center locations to studies identifying the typical distance to a community center. Staff calculated the resulting decrease in commute related VMT from jobs associated with community centers located closer than average, and then applied the appropriate emissions factors to determine total GHG savings.

GHG sources

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Governments to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures.

Page 322 Placer County Sustainability Plan 104 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

California Department of Motor Vehicles. 2018. Fuel Type by City as of 1/1/2018. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/c24637c9-5faf-4fe2-9375- 9b5221a2ef4a/motorvehiclefueltypes_city.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=.

California Department of Motor Vehicles. 2018. Fuel Type by County as of 1/1/2018. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/2156a052-c137-4fad-9d4f- db658c11c5c9/MotorVehicleFuelTypes_County.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=.

United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 2017. “Feasibility and Implications of Electric Vehicle (EV) Deployment and Infrastructure Development”. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/energy/publications/ev_deployment/page08.c fm.

T-2: Alternative fueling stations Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings There are no activity savings from this strategy

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 270 7,120 48,620 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of diesel vehicles transitioning to 3% 35% 80% biodiesel Percent of gasoline vehicles transitioning to 0% 2% 8% ethanol Advance biofuel adoption rate 0% 30% 75% Percent of gasoline vehicles transitioning to 0% 0.5% 5% hydrogen GHG method

Staff used projected participation rates to anticipate how much VMT in future years would be a result of biodiesel, ethanol, advanced biofuel, or hydrogen vehicles. Staff used data about vehicle fuel density to estimate how much of these fuels would be needed to make up for a comparable loss in gasoline and diesel-fueled vehicles. Staff then applied emissions factors for all fuel types and calculated the net difference between reduced gasoline/diesel emissions and increased biodiesel/ethanol/advanced biofuel/hydrogen emissions, taking this difference as the overall savings from this strategy.

GHG sources

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 321 105 Appendix E

Assumptions and performance indicators

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no assumptions or performance indicators.

GHG method

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no method used for quantification.

GHG sources

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There are no sources used for quantification.

T-1: Increased EV chargers Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Electricity savings, including T&D losses -5,815,830 -34,895,610 -169,638,580 (kWh) Effective mileage savings (VMT) 16,682,240 108,466,690 631,796,480

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 6,200 34,780 204,650 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of vehicles that are electric (not 3% 15% 40% including buses) GHG method

Staff used projected participation rates and results from the GHG forecast to determine the projected future level of VMT from EVs, and then subtracted the amount of EV VMT assumed by state models to calculate a net increase in EV VMT that can be attributed to local efforts. Staff then applied the appropriate emission factors to identify the decrease in GHG emissions from less gasoline/diesel fuel use. Staff next used studies about EV efficiency and how efficiency is expected to increase over time to identify the average per-mile electricity use of an EV, and multiplied these figures by the net increase in EV VMT to determine the increase in community electricity use as a result of greater EV adoption, including increases in T&D losses. Staff them applied appropriate emissions factors to calculate the increase in electricity related GHG emissions. Last, staff took the difference between these two GHG calculations to determine the net GHG savings from this strategy.

GHG sources

Page 320 Placer County Sustainability Plan 106 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

WW-8: Water recycling Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings Assumptions and performance indicators

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no assumptions or performance indicators.

GHG method

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no method used for quantification.

GHG sources

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There are no sources used for quantification.

WW-9: Water treatment efficiency Activity and GHG savings

This strategy is supportive. There is insufficient data to identify the potential GHG reductions from this strategy.

Assumptions and performance indicators

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no assumptions or performance indicators.

GHG method

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no method used for quantification.

GHG sources

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There are no sources used for quantification.

WW-10: Wastewater methane capture Activity and GHG savings

This strategy is supportive. There is insufficient data to identify the potential GHG reductions from this strategy.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 319 107 Appendix E

California Natural Resources Agency, California Department of Water Resources. 2013. California Water Plan Update 2013, Investing in Innovation & Infrastructure – Volume 3: Resource Management Strategies. https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web- Pages/Programs/California-Water-Plan/Water-Plan-Updates/Files/Update-2013/Water-Plan- Update-2013-Volume-3.pdf.

Page 318 Placer County Sustainability Plan 108 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

The project team identified the proportion of residential and nonresidential outdoor water use that can be saved through water-efficient landscaping and applied these factors to inventory data to determine the average per-home and per-business water savings. Staff applied projected participation savings to identify the total amount of water saved, used inventory data to convert water savings to electricity savings, and then converted these electricity savings to GHG savings using the appropriate emissions factors.

GHG sources

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Governments to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures.

WW-7: Water retrofits for short-term rentals Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Electricity savings, including T&D losses 25,370 221,980 301,260 (kWh) Water savings (gallons) 466,140 4,078,710 5,535,400

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 10 <10 <10 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of short-term rental homes 8% 70% 95% conducting water efficiency retrofits 2020 2030 2050 Number of participating short-term rentals 30 300 410 GHG method

Using inventory data and studies of short-term rentals in the Sierra region, staff estimated the number of short-term rentals in the community. Staff then combined this data from water efficiency studies to identify the typical per-short-term-rental savings from water efficiency retrofits. The project team applied this information to the projected participation rates to determine the amount of water that would be saved under implementation of this strategy. Using data from the inventory and forecast, staff converted the amount of water saved to the amount of electricity saved associated with water/wastewater treatment and conveyance. Staff then converted these electricity savings to GHG savings using the appropriate emissions factors and added additional GHG savings from direct wastewater processing activities using per-gallon factors calculated from the inventory results.

GHG sources

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 317 109 Appendix E

electricity savings to GHG savings using the appropriate emissions factors and added additional GHG savings from direct wastewater processing activities using per-gallon factors calculated from the inventory results. Due to a lack of sufficient information, staff were not able to quantify the GHG reduction savings associated with rainwater catchment systems or greywater systems for nonresidential buildings.

GHG sources

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Governments to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures.

M.Cubed. 2016. Projected Statewide and County-Level Effects of Plumbing Codes and Appliance Standards on Indoor GPCD [memorandum]. https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web- Pages/Programs/Water-Use-And-Efficiency/Make-Water-Conservation-A-California-Way-of- Life/Files/Publications/Projected-Statewide-and-County-Level-Effects-of-Plumbing-Codes.pdf.

WW-6: Water-efficient landscaping Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Electricity savings, including T&D losses 88,490 915,260 1,446,200 (kWh) Water savings (gallons) 110,000,000 1,150,000,000 1,820,000,000

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 20 90 0 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of existing homes installing water- 5% 50% 80% efficient landscaping Percent of existing businesses installing 5% 60% 90% water-efficient landscaping 2020 2030 2050 Number of homes and businesses with 2,060 existing 20,570 32,920 water-efficient landscaping households existing existing and 70 households households existing and 820 and 1,230 businesses existing existing with water- businesses businesses efficient with water- with water- landscaping efficient efficient landscaping landscaping GHG method

Page 316 Placer County Sustainability Plan 110 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

the average per-business water savings. The project team applied this information to the projected participation rates to determine the total amount of water that would be saved under implementation of this strategy. Using data from the inventory and forecast, staff converted the amount of water saved to the amount of electricity saved associated with water/wastewater treatment and conveyance. Staff then converted these electricity savings to GHG savings using the appropriate emissions factors and added additional GHG savings from direct wastewater processing activities using per-gallon factors calculated from the inventory results.

GHG sources

California Natural Resources Agency, California Department of Water Resources. 2013. California Water Plan Update 2013, Investing in Innovation & Infrastructure – Volume 3: Resource Management Strategies. https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web- Pages/Programs/California-Water-Plan/Water-Plan-Updates/Files/Update-2013/Water-Plan- Update-2013-Volume-3.pdf.

WW-5: New greywater and rainwater catchment systems Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Electricity savings, including T&D losses 0 18,730 227,720 (kWh) Water savings (gallons) 0 10,000,000 120,000,000

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 0 10 140 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of new homes with greywater 0% 2% 10% systems 2020 2030 2050 Number of new homes with greywater 0 250 4,170 systems. GHG method

The project team reviewed California-specific studies to determine what proportion of an average home’s wastewater can be captured and used for greywater, and combined this number with information about the projected increase amount of wastewater generated by homes as a result of new development in Placer County to calculate an average per-new home greywater generation potential. Staff then applied a projected participation rate for new homes to determine the overall amount of potable water that would be saved from implementation of this strategy. Using data from the inventory and forecast, staff converted the amount of water saved to the amount of electricity saved associated with water/wastewater treatment and conveyance. Staff then converted these

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 315 111 Appendix E

GHG method

The project team reviewed California-specific studies to determine what proportion of an average home’s wastewater can be captured and used for greywater and combined this number with information about the amount of wastewater generated by homes in Placer County to calculate an average per-home greywater generation potential. Staff then applied a projected participation rate to determine the overall amount of potable water that would be saved from implementation of this strategy. Using data from the inventory and forecast, staff converted the amount of water saved to the amount of electricity saved associated with water/wastewater treatment and conveyance. Staff then converted these electricity savings to GHG savings using the appropriate emissions factors and added additional GHG savings from direct wastewater processing activities using per-gallon factors calculated from the inventory results. Due to a lack of sufficient information, staff were not able to quantify the GHG reduction savings associated with rainwater catchment systems or greywater systems for nonresidential buildings.

GHG sources

M.Cubed. 2016. Projected Statewide and County-Level Effects of Plumbing Codes and Appliance Standards on Indoor GPCD [memorandum]. https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web- Pages/Programs/Water-Use-And-Efficiency/Make-Water-Conservation-A-California-Way-of- Life/Files/Publications/Projected-Statewide-and-County-Level-Effects-of-Plumbing-Codes.pdf.

WW-4: Nonresidential water retrofits Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Electricity savings, including T&D losses 21,360 64,070 170,860 (kWh) Water savings (gallons) 10,000,000 20,000,000 50,000,000

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 20 50 120 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of businesses retrofitting water 10% 30% 80% fixtures 2020 2030 2050 Number of existing businesses retrofitting 140 410 1,090 water fixtures GHG method

Staff reviewed state reports to identify the typical percent savings from commercial, industrial, and institutional water efficiency retrofits, and applied this information from the inventory to determine

Page 314 Placer County Sustainability Plan 112 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

The project team looked at the forecast results to identify the estimated amount of new water used in residential buildings. Staff then reviewed high-performance building codes and studies about how water is used in California homes to identify the average savings per fixture that exceeds the minimum state requirements. The project team used these studies to determine an average per- home water savings figure and applied the projected participation rate to identify the total community-wide water savings. Using data from the inventory and forecast, staff converted the amount of water saved to the amount of electricity saved associated with water/wastewater treatment and conveyance. Staff then converted these electricity savings to GHG savings using the appropriate emissions factors and added additional GHG savings from direct wastewater processing activities using per-gallon factors calculated from the inventory results.

GHG sources

California Building Standards Commission. 2018. Revision Record for the State of California, Supplement July 1, 2018: 2016 Title 24, Part 11, California Green Building Standards Code. https://cdn-web.iccsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/errata_central/2016CA-IgCC-070118.pdf.

California Department of Housing and Community Development. 2018. Final Express Terms for Proposed Building Standards of the Department of Housing and Community Development Regarding the Adoption of 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. http://www.hcd.ca.gov/building-standards/buiding- code/docs/2019/2019CALGreen-Triennial-FET.pdf.

Ecology Action Monterey Bay. 2016. GHG Assumptions [data table].

WW-3: Greywater and rainwater catchment retrofits Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Electricity savings, including T&D losses 0 41,610 332,900 (kWh) Water savings (gallons) 0 10,000,000 90,000,000

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 0 30 240 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of existing homes with greywater 0% 1% 8% retrofits 2020 2030 2050 Number of existing homes with greywater 0 410 3,290 systems

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 313 113 Appendix E

the amount of water that would be saved under implementation of this strategy. Using data from the inventory and forecast, staff converted the amount of water saved to the amount of electricity saved associated with water/wastewater treatment and conveyance. Staff then converted these electricity savings to GHG savings using the appropriate emissions factors and added additional GHG savings from direct wastewater processing activities using per-gallon factors calculated from the inventory results.

GHG sources

California Natural Resources Agency, California Department of Water Resources. 2013. California Water Plan Update 2013, Investing in Innovation & Infrastructure – Volume 3: Resource Management Strategies. https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web- Pages/Programs/California-Water-Plan/Water-Plan-Updates/Files/Update-2013/Water-Plan- Update-2013-Volume-3.pdf.

City of South Lake Tahoe. 2019. “TOT Reports”. http://www.cityofslt.us/588/TOT-Reports.

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 2012. Lake Tahoe Origin-Destination Survey Report. http://www.trpa.org/documents/rseis/3.3%20Transportation/3.3_RSG%202012_Lake%20Tahoe% 20Origin.pdf.

WW-2: Beyond-code water development Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Electricity savings, including T&D losses 2,660 23,170 128,320 (kWh) Water savings (gallons) 1,043,580 13,394,290 81,538,900

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 0 20 70 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of new homes installing beyond- 15% 40% 75% code fixtures 2020 2030 2050 Number of new homes installing beyond- 340 5,040 31,260 code fixtures

GHG method

Page 312 Placer County Sustainability Plan 114 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

GHG method

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no method used for quantification.

GHG sources

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There are no sources used for quantification.

E-24: Energy audit scores Activity and GHG savings

This strategy is supportive. Energy audits do not directly cause reductions in energy use. Indirect changes in energy use are included in retrofit-related strategies.

Assumptions and performance indicators

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no assumptions or performance indicators.

GHG method

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no method used for quantification.

GHG sources

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There are no sources used for quantification.

WW-1: Residential water retrofits Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Electricity savings, including T&D losses 212,940 709,800 1,685,770 (kWh) Water savings (gallons) 90,000,000 300,000,000 710,000,000

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 190 520 1,110 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of homes retrofitting water fixtures 12% 40% 95% 2020 2030 2050 Number of homes retrofitting water fixtures. 4,890 16,290 38,680 GHG method

Staff reviewed state reports to identify the typical per-home savings from residential water efficiency retrofits. The project team applied this information to the projected participation rates to determine

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 311 115 Appendix E

E-21: On-site renewable energy for new large-scale nonresidential buildings Activity and GHG savings

This strategy is supportive. Although this strategy has the potential to provide noticeable GHG reductions, it is unknown how many of these types of buildings may be built in Placer County, and so identifying a GHG reduction potential is not feasible.

Assumptions and performance indicators

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no assumptions or performance indicators.

GHG method

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no method used for quantification.

GHG sources

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There are no sources used for quantification.

E-22: Increased Pioneer service Activity and GHG savings

This strategy is supportive. There is insufficient information about the timing and specific characteristics of this strategy to clearly identify GHG reductions.

Assumptions and performance indicators

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no assumptions or performance indicators.

GHG method

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no method used for quantification.

GHG sources

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There are no sources used for quantification.

E-23: Utility-scale renewable energy Activity and GHG savings

This strategy is supportive. GHG reductions from increased utility-scale renewable energy generation are included in the reductions associated with RPS.

Assumptions and performance indicators

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no assumptions or performance indicators.

Page 310 Placer County Sustainability Plan 116 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

E-19: Nonresidential swimming pool retrofits Activity and GHG savings

This strategy is supportive. There is insufficient data on nonresidential pool facilities to identify the specific energy savings potential from this strategy.

Assumptions and performance indicators

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no assumptions or performance indicators.

GHG method

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no method used for quantification.

GHG sources

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There are no sources used for quantification.

E-20: Agricultural energy retrofits Activity and GHG savings

This strategy is supportive. There is insufficient data to specifically identify the energy savings potential from efficiency projects at agricultural and food-processing facilities. These reductions are included with strategies that address energy efficiency at general nonresidential buildings.

Assumptions and performance indicators

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no assumptions or performance indicators.

GHG method

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no method used for quantification.

GHG sources

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There are no sources used for quantification.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 309 117 Appendix E

E-18: Demand reduction Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Electricity savings, including T&D losses 8,850 49,790 153,460 (kWh)

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings <10 10 <10 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of households participating in 8% 15% 30% demand response programs 2020 2030 2050 3,170 7,450 23,470 households in households in households in PG&E PG&E PG&E Number of households participating in territory, and territory, and territory, and demand response programs 310 610 1,370 households in households in households in Liberty Liberty Liberty territory. territory. territory. GHG method

The project staff looked at data from statewide case studies to determine the typical electrical savings from participating in demand response program and multiplied this by the projected number of participating households to determine the kWh savings, taking into account the reduction in T&D losses. Staff then multiplied the electricity and T&D savings by the relevant emissions factors to determine GHG savings.

GHG sources

California Public Utilities Commission. n.d. CPUC Data Dashboard: Customer Engagement. http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUCWebsite/Content/About_Us/Organization/Divisions/P olicy_and_Planning/dd/Customer%20Engagement%20- %20data%20dashboard%20project%20PPD.pdf.

Pacific Gas & Electric Company. 2017. Executive Summary: 2017-2027 Demand Response Portfolio of Pacific Gas and Electric Company. https://pgera.azurewebsites.net/Regulation/ValidateDocAccess?docID=406805.

Page 308 Placer County Sustainability Plan 118 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 307 119 Appendix E

E-17: On-site renewable energy for new small and medium-scale nonresidential buildings Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Effective electricity savings, including T&D 156,340 1,707,240 15,460,900 losses (kWh)

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 30 210 0 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of new businesses with larger-than- 1% 4% 12% required PV systems 2020 2030 2050 Number of new businesses with above- <10 30 businesses 300 standard PV systems. businesses in in the PG&E businesses in the PG&E territory, and the PG&E territory, and <10 territory, and <10 businesses in 20 businesses businesses in the Liberty in the Liberty the Liberty territory. territory. territory. GHG method

The project team used reports about existing solar energy installations in Placer County to determine the average generation (kW) of a nonresidential installation, operating under the assumption that new nonresidential buildings would install arrays of comparable size, and that such arrays would be larger than state-mandated systems that are anticipated to be required for new nonresidential buildings by 2030. Staff reviewed data about solar generation potential in different parts of the County to identify the total amount of energy (kWh) per kW of installed capacity. Staff then used the projected participation rate and estimates of new nonresidential development in Placer County to determine the total kW from nonresidential solar installations. Staff converted this to kWh using the information about solar generation potential to obtain total energy savings, including T&D losses. The project team then applied the appropriate emissions factor to determine the GHG reductions from this strategy.

GHG sources

California Public Utilities Commission. 2018. NEM Currently Interconnected Dataset, June 30, 2018 [data table]. https://www.californiadgstats.ca.gov/archives/interconnection_nem_pv_projects/.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2019. “PVWatts”. https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/pvwatts.php.

Page 306 Placer County Sustainability Plan 120 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

E-16: Residential swimming pool retrofits Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Electricity savings, including T&D losses 907,000 2,817,350 7,043,370 (kWh) Natural gas savings (therms) 3,090 12,360 30,890

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 190 460 70 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of existing SACOG homes with 7% 20% 50% upgraded pool pumps Percent of existing SACOG homes 3% 12% 30% installing pool covers 2020 2030 2050 Number of participating homes 320 homes 900 homes 2,250 homes with upgraded with upgraded with upgraded pool pumps, pool pumps, pool pumps, and 140 and 540 and 1,350 homes with homes with homes with pool covers. pool covers. pool covers. GHG sources

California Energy Commission. 2009. “2009 Residential Appliance Saturation Study”. https://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/rass/previous_rass.html.

Consortium for Energy Efficiency. 2013. CEE High Efficiency Residential Swimming Pool Initiative. https://library.cee1.org/system/files/library/9986/CEE_Res_SwimmingPoolInitiative_01Jan2013_C orrected.pdf.

Department of Energy. 2019. “Swimming Pool Covers”. https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/swimming-pool-covers.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 305 121 Appendix E

2020 2030 2050 Number of new homes with above-standard 30 single- 500 single- 5,000 single- PV systems family homes family homes family homes and 10 multi- and 70 multi- and 750 multi- family homes family homes family homes in the PG&E in the PG&E in the PG&E service service service territory, and 0 territory, and territory, and single-family 20 single- 120 single- homes and 0 family homes family homes multi-family and 0 multi- and 20 multi- homes in the family homes family homes Liberty service in the Liberty in the Liberty territory. service service territory. territory. GHG method

The project team used reports about existing residential solar energy installations in Placer County to determine the average generation (kW) of a home rooftop solar array. Staff reviewed data about solar generation potential in different parts of the County to identify the total amount of energy (kWh) per kW of installed capacity. Staff then used the projected participation rate to determine the total kW from solar installations on existing homes and converted this to kWh using the information about solar generation potential to obtain total energy savings, including T&D losses. Staff then applied the appropriate emissions factor to determine the GHG reductions from this strategy.

GHG sources

California Energy Commission. 2018. 2019 Standards Part 6 Chapter 7 (Section 150.1) Revised Express Terms.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2019. “PVWatts”. https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/pvwatts.php.

Page 304 Placer County Sustainability Plan 122 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

their energy use and occupancy patterns in the Tahoe Basin. Staff then combined these savings with the assumed participation rates to obtain the total electricity and natural gas savings, accounting for T&D losses. Staff then applied the appropriate emissions factors to obtain GHG reduction amounts.

GHG sources

Brown, R., Borgeson, S., Koomey, J., et al. 2008. U.S. Building-Sector Energy Efficiency Potential. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/941430

California Energy Commission. 2009. “2009 Residential Appliance Saturation Study”. https://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/rass/previous_rass.html.

City of South Lake Tahoe. 2019. “TOT Reports”. http://www.cityofslt.us/588/TOT-Reports.

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 2012. Lake Tahoe Origin-Destination Survey Report. http://www.trpa.org/documents/rseis/3.3%20Transportation/3.3_RSG%202012_Lake%20Tahoe% 20Origin.pdf.

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 2016. Placer County Tahoe Basin Area Plan and Tahoe City Lodge Draft EIR/EIS, Chapter 6: Population and Housing. http://www.trpa.org/wp- content/uploads/06-Pop-Housing.pdf.

E-15: On-site renewable energy for existing homes Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Effective electricity savings, including T&D 413,490 5,758,580 57,193,720 losses (kWh)

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 80 740 0 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of new single-family homes with 2% 5% 15% larger-than-needed PV systems Percent of new multi-family homes with 2% 5% 15% larger-than-needed PV systems 2020 2030 2050

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 303 123 Appendix E

E-14: Energy efficiency appliance upgrades for short-term vacation homes Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Electricity savings, including T&D losses 23,650 535,660 961,960 (kWh) Natural gas savings (therms) 1,130 25,660 46,080

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 30 190 510 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of existing short-term rental units 2% 60% 95% with appliance retrofits Percent of existing short-term rental units 1% 40% 95% with lighting retrofits Percent of existing short-term rental units 4% 35% 95% with water heater retrofits 2020 2030 2050 10 single- 190 single- 300 single- family and less family and 10 family and 10 than 10 multi- multi-family multi-family family short- short-term short-term term rentals rentals with rentals with with appliance appliance appliance retrofits, less retrofits, 120 retrofits, 300 than 10 single- single-family single-family family and less and less than and 10 multi- than 10 multi- 10 multi-family family short- Number of participating short-term vacation family short- short-term term rentals homes term rentals rentals with with lighting with lighting lighting retrofits, and retrofits, and retrofits, and 300 single- 10 single- 110 single- family and 10 family and less family and less multi-family than 10 multi- than 10 multi- short-term family short- family short- rentals with term rentals term rentals water heater with water with water replacements. heater heater replacements. replacements. GHG method

The project staff looked at reports on the typical savings from various types of appliance retrofits and adjusted these savings to reflect the mix of short-term vacation rental building types, as well as

Page 302 Placer County Sustainability Plan 124 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 90 360 790 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of existing mobile homes 5% 25% 75% conducting weatherization 2020 2030 2050 Number of homes undergoing 110 PG&E- 550 PG&E- 1,640 PG&E- weatherization area mobile area mobile area mobile homes and 10 homes and 50 homes and Liberty-area Liberty-area 160 Liberty- mobile homes. mobile homes. area mobile homes. GHG method

The project team studied reports about how electricity and natural gas is used in mobile homes in the Placer County area, and studies of energy savings from manufactured housing retrofits. This allowed the team to identify the average electricity and natural gas savings in a typical Placer County-area mobile home that undergoes an energy efficiency retrofit. The team combined this information with projected participation rates from home retrofits to determine the total decrease in electricity and natural gas use from this strategy, which includes decreases in T&D losses. Staff then applied the appropriate emissions factors to obtain GHG reduction amounts.

GHG sources

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. 2014. Mobilizing Energy Efficiency in the Manufactured Housing Sector. http://www.workingre.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Mobilizing- Energy-Efficiency-in-Manufactured-Housing.pdf.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 301 125 Appendix E

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Effective electricity savings, including T&D 1,882,870 11,773,270 41,444,440 losses (kWh)

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 380 1,330 0 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of existing businesses installing on- 5% 15% 45% site solar 2020 2030 2050 Number of existing businesses with rooftop 70 businesses 200 590 solar arrays. in PG&E businesses in businesses in territory, and PG&E PG&E 10 businesses territory, and territory, and in Liberty 40 businesses 110 territory. in Liberty businesses in territory. Liberty territory. GHG method

The project team used reports about existing solar energy installations in Placer County to determine the average generation (kW) of a nonresidential installation. Staff reviewed data about solar generation potential in different parts of the County to identify the total amount of energy (kWh) per kW of installed capacity. Staff then used the projected participation rate to determine the total kW from nonresidential solar installations and converted this to kWh using the information about solar generation potential to obtain total energy savings, including T&D losses. Staff then applied the appropriate emissions factor to determine the GHG reductions from this strategy.

GHG sources

California Public Utilities Commission. 2018. NEM Currently Interconnected Dataset, June 30, 2018 [data table]. https://www.californiadgstats.ca.gov/archives/interconnection_nem_pv_projects/.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2019. “PVWatts”. https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/pvwatts.php.

E-13: Mobile home weatherization Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Electricity savings, including T&D losses 187,050 935,260 2,805,790 (kWh) Natural gas savings (therms) 9,900 49,500 148,500

Page 300 Placer County Sustainability Plan 126 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

GHG sources

Brown, R., Borgeson, S., Koomey, J., et al. 2008. U.S. Building-Sector Energy Efficiency Potential. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/941430

California Energy Commission. 2009. “2009 Residential Appliance Saturation Study”. https://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/rass/previous_rass.html.

E-11: Wood stove retrofits Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings There are no activity savings from this strategy

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 130 400 1,200 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of existing wood stoves being 8% 25% 75% upgraded 2020 2030 2050 Number of homes upgrading their wood 430 homes. 1,350 homes. 4,060 homes. stoves GHG method

The project staff reviewed studies looking the decreases in GHG emissions from wood stoves with improved efficiency and reduced rates of pollution production. Staff combined this per-stove reduction in GHG emissions with estimates of the number of homes upgrading their wood stoves as a result of Air Pollution Control District regulations to obtain GHG reduction numbers from this strategy.

Due to limited data about propane stove efficiency, the project team was unable to quantify the GHG reduction benefits from efficiency improvements in households using propane stoves.

GHG sources

Brown, R., Borgeson, S., Koomey, J., et al. 2008. U.S. Building-Sector Energy Efficiency Potential. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/941430

E-12: On-site renewable energy for existing nonresidential buildings Activity and GHG savings

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 299 127 Appendix E

2020 2030 2050 150 single- 1,240 single- 3,720 single- family homes family homes family homes and 80 multi- and 650 multi- and 1,940 family homes family homes multi-family with appliance with appliance homes with retrofits, 50 retrofits, 890 appliance single-family single-family retrofits, 1,740 homes and 30 homes and single-family multi-family 470 multi- homes and Number of participating homes in PG&E homes with family homes 910 multi- territory lighting with lighting family homes retrofits, and retrofits, and with lighting 400 single- 2,480 single- retrofits, and family homes family homes 4,470 single- and 210 multi- and 1,290 family homes family homes multi-family and 2,330 with water homes with multi-family heater water heater homes with replacements replacements water heater replacements 10 single- 120 single- 360 single- family homes family homes family homes and 10 multi- and 60 multi- and 190 multi- family homes family homes family homes with appliance with appliance with appliance retrofits, less retrofits, 90 retrofits, 170 than 10 single- single-family single-family family homes homes and 50 homes and 90 and less than multi-family multi-family Number of participating homes in Liberty 10 multi-family homes with homes with territory homes with lighting lighting lighting retrofits, and retrofits, and retrofits, and 240 single- 430 single- 40 single- family homes family homes family homes and 130 multi- and 230 multi- and 20 multi- family homes family homes family homes with water with water with water heater heater heater replacements replacements replacements GHG method

The project staff looked at reports on the typical savings from various types of appliance retrofits and adjusted these savings to reflect the mix of rental residential building types and energy use patterns in the unincorporated areas of Placer County. Staff then combined these savings with the assumed participation rates to obtain the total electricity and natural gas savings, accounting for T&D losses. Staff then applied the appropriate emissions factors to obtain GHG reduction amounts.

Page 298 Placer County Sustainability Plan 128 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

Tahoe area to determine the amount of energy saved per participating home. Staff used the projected participation rate in this strategy to obtain the total amount of energy saved under this measurestrategy, including decreases in electricity lost to T&D. Staff then applied the appropriate emissions factors to obtain GHG reduction amounts.

GHG sources

California Energy Commission. 2014. Impact Evaluation of the California Comprehensive Residential Retrofit Programs.

United States Department of Energy. 2011. Weatherization Assistance Program. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/51242.pdf.

E-10: Appliance upgrades for rental units Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Electricity savings, including T&D losses 381,700 3,078,480 8,642,090 (kWh) Natural gas savings (therms) 38,440 240,470 433,840

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 280 1,600 2,310 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of existing rental-occupied homes 3% 25% 75% with appliance retrofits Percent of existing rental-occupied homes 1% 18% 35% with lighting retrofits Percent of existing rental-occupied homes 8% 50% 90% with water heater retrofits 2020 2030 2050

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 297 129 Appendix E

GHG method

The project team studied reports about how electricity and natural gas is used in nonresidential buildings in the Placer County area, along with studies that identify the potential for electricity and natural gas savings in nonresidential buildings as a result of different types of retrofits. The team used this information to determine the total decrease in electricity and natural gas in the average retrofitted business, then applied the projected participation rate in nonresidential retrofits to determine the total decrease in electricity and natural gas use from this strategy, which includes decreases in T&D losses. Staff then applied the appropriate emissions factors to obtain GHG reduction amounts.

GHG sources

Brown, R., Borgeson, S., Koomey, J., et al. 2008. U.S. Building-Sector Energy Efficiency Potential. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/941430.

California Energy Commission. 2006. “California Commercial End-Use Survey”. http://capabilities.itron.com/CeusWeb/ChartsSF/Default2.aspx.

E-9: Tahoe low-income weatherization Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Electricity savings, including T&D losses 595,740 3,963,110 5,362,980 (kWh) Natural gas savings (therms) 52,320 348,160 472,130

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 460 1,900 2,510 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of existing low-income Tahoe 6% 45% 90% homes undergoing weatherization

2020 2030 2050 Number of low-income Tahoe homes being 50 single- 350 single- 480 single- weatherized family homes family homes family homes and 10 multi- and 70 multi- and 80 multi- family homes family homes family homes GHG method

The project team reviewed documents that identify the typical energy savings from low-income weatherization activities and applied these savings to the average energy use of homes in the

Page 296 Placer County Sustainability Plan 130 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

E-8: Appliance upgrades for nonresidential customers Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Electricity savings, including T&D losses 2,081,180 19,111,590 41,338,160 (kWh) Natural gas savings (therms) 35,980 257,010 517,300

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 670 2,970 2,750 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of existing businesses with 4% 35% 80% appliance retrofits Percent of existing businesses with lighting 2% 20% 40% retrofits Percent of existing businesses with water 8% 50% 90% heater replacements 2020 2030 2050 Number of participating businesses 50 PG&E 400 PG&E 930 PG&E territory territory territory businesses businesses businesses and 10 Liberty and 70 Liberty and 170 territory territory Liberty businesses businesses territory with appliance with appliance businesses retrofits, 20 retrofits, 230 with appliance PG&E territory PG&E territory retrofits, 460 businesses businesses PG&E territory and 0 Liberty and 40 Liberty businesses territory territory and 80 Liberty businesses businesses territory with lighting with lighting businesses retrofits, and retrofits, and with lighting 90 PG&E 580 PG&E retrofits, and territory territory 1,040 PG&E businesses businesses territory and 20 Liberty and 110 businesses territory Liberty and 190 businesses territory Liberty with water businesses territory heater with water businesses replacements. heater with water replacements. heater replacements.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 295 131 Appendix E

GHG method

The project team used the results of the forecast to identify the increased demand in electricity from new development. Based on the percent of new nonresidential buildings projected to participate in this effort, the team was able to identify how much electricity (including T&D losses) would be saved as a result of new zero-net energy buildings. Staff then applied the appropriate emissions factors to obtain GHG reduction amounts.

GHG sources

There are no sources for these calculations beyond the GHG inventory and forecast.

Page 294 Placer County Sustainability Plan 132 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

2020 2030 2050 2020 2030 2050 3,170 single- 7,930 single- 19,040 single- family homes family homes family homes and 380 multi- and 950 multi- and 2,140 family homes family homes multi-family in PG&E in PG&E homes in territory, and territory, and PG&E Number of existing homes with rooftop 310 single- 770 single- territory, and solar arrays. family homes family homes 1,840 single- and 40 multi- and 90 multi- family homes family homes family homes and 210 multi- in Liberty in Liberty family homes territory. territory. in Liberty territory. GHG sources

California Public Utilities Commission. 2018. NEM Currently Interconnected Dataset, June 30, 2018 [data table]. https://www.californiadgstats.ca.gov/archives/interconnection_nem_pv_projects/.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2019. “PVWatts”. https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/pvwatts.php.

E-7: New zero net energy buildings Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Electricity savings, including T&D losses 929,500 108,061,170 108,061,170 (kWh)

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 200 11,960 0 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of new nonresidential buildings 1% 50% 100% constructed to ZNE for electricity 2020 2030 2050 0 PG&E-area 400 PG&E- 2,500 PG&E- businesses area area Number of new ZNE nonresidential and 0 Liberty- businesses businesses buildings area and 40 and 160 businesses. Liberty-area Liberty-area businesses. businesses.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 293 133 Appendix E

2020 2030 2050 60 single- 300 single- 890 single- family homes family homes family homes and 0 multi- and 30 multi- and 90 multi- family homes family homes family homes with whole- with whole- with whole- home retrofits, home retrofits, home retrofits, Number of participating homes in Liberty and 150 and 360 and 1,190 territory single-family single-family single-family homes and 10 homes and 40 homes and multi-family multi-family 130 multi- homes with homes with family homes HVAC HVAC with HVAC retrofits. retrofits. retrofits. GHG method

The project team studied reports about how electricity and natural gas is used in homes in the Placer County area, along with studies of the potential electricity and natural gas savings from different types of energy efficiency retrofits in residential buildings. This allowed the team to identify the total decrease in electricity and natural gas in retrofitted homes. The team combined this information with projected participation rates from home retrofits to determine the total decrease in electricity and natural gas use from this strategy, which includes decreases in T&D losses. Staff then applied the appropriate emissions factors to obtain GHG reduction amounts.

GHG sources

California Energy Commission. 2014. Impact Evaluation of the California Comprehensive Residential Retrofit Programs.

E-6: On-site renewable energy for existing homes Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Effective electricity savings, including T&D 16,631,710 98,663,330 288,252,360 losses (kWh)

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 3,240 12,060 0 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of existing single-family homes 10% 25% 60% installing on-site solar Percent of existing multi-family homes 8% 20% 45% installing on-site solar

Page 292 Placer County Sustainability Plan 134 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

GHG sources

California Building Standards Commission. 2016. 2016 California Green Building Standards Code, Part 11, Appendix A-4 – Residential Voluntary Measures. https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/chapter/2062/.

E-5: Home retrofits Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Electricity savings, including T&D losses 2,299,100 9,988,990 30,581,570 (kWh) Natural gas savings (therms) 193,500 710,460 2,213,070

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 1,500 4,880 11,770 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of single-family whole-home 2% 10% 30% retrofits Percent of multi-family whole-home retrofits 1% 6% 20% Percent of single-family HVAC retrofits 5% 12% 40% Percent of multi-family HVAC retrofits 3% 10% 30% 2020 2030 2050 610 single- 3,070 single- 9,220 single- family homes family homes family homes and 50 multi- and 280 multi- and 920 multi- family homes family homes family homes with whole- with whole- with whole- home retrofits, home retrofits, home retrofits, Number of participating homes in PG&E and 1540 and 3,690 and 12,290 territory single-family single-family single-family homes and homes and homes and 140 multi- 460 multi- 1,380 multi- family homes family homes family homes with HVAC with HVAC with HVAC retrofits. retrofits. retrofits.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 291 135 Appendix E

2020 2030 2050 Number of participating new homes 40 houses 610 houses 6,110 houses built to Tier 1 built to Tier 1 built to Tier 1 standards and standards and standards and 0 houses built 240 houses 2,440 houses to Tier 2 built to Tier 2 built to Tier 2 standards in standards in standards in the PG&E the PG&E the PG&E service service service territory, and 0 territory, and territory, and houses built to 20 houses 140 houses Tier 1 built to Tier 1 built to Tier 1 standards and standards and standards and 0 houses built 10 houses 60 houses to Tier 2 built to Tier 2 built to Tier 2 standards in standards in standards in the Liberty the Liberty the Liberty service service service territory. territory. territory. Number of participating new businesses 0 businesses 40 businesses 370 built to Tier 1 built to Tier 1 businesses standards and standards and built to Tier 1 0 businesses 20 businesses standards and built to Tier 2 built to Tier 2 120 standards in standards in businesses the PG&E the PG&E built to Tier 2 service service standards in territory, and 0 territory, and the PG&E businesses <10 service built to Tier 1 businesses territory, and standards and built to Tier 1 20 businesses 0 businesses standards and built to Tier 1 built to Tier 2 <10 standards and standards in businesses 10 businesses the Liberty built to Tier 2 built to Tier 2 service standards in standards in territory. the Liberty the Liberty service service territory. territory. GHG method

The project team reviewed the projected decrease in building energy use when constructed to Tier 1 or Tier 2 savings, taking into account T&D losses and the projected implementation of zero net energy standards. The team combined these savings with projected participation rates from new homes and businesses to determine the total anticipated decrease in electricity and natural gas use. Staff then applied the appropriate emissions factors for electricity and natural gas to determine the reductions in GHG emissions.

Page 290 Placer County Sustainability Plan 136 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

GHG sources

Brown, R., Borgeson, S., Koomey, J., et al. 2008. U.S. Building-Sector Energy Efficiency Potential. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/941430.

California Energy Commission. 2006. “California Commercial End-Use Survey”. http://capabilities.itron.com/CeusWeb/ChartsSF/Default2.aspx.

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. 2011. Advanced Energy Retrofit Guides: Office Buildings. https://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-20761.pdf.

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. 2011. Advanced Energy Retrofit Guides: Retail Buildings. https://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-20814.pdf.

E-4: Green building standards Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Electricity savings, including T&D losses 191,300 3,083,850 3,083,850 (kWh) Natural gas savings (therms) 4,590 80,290 540,600

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 60 770 2,880 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of new homes being built to Tier 1 2% 5% 15% standards Percent of new homes being built to Tier 2 0% 2% 6% standards Percent of new businesses being built to 1% 5% 15% Tier 1 standards Percent of new businesses being built to 0% 2% 5% Tier 2 standards 2020 2030 2050

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 289 137 Appendix E

Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Number of participating 60 PG&E territory 170 PG&E territory 400 PG&E territory businesses businesses and 10 businesses and 30 businesses and 70 Liberty territory Liberty territory Liberty territory businesses with businesses with businesses with retrocommissioning, retrocommissioning, retrocommissioning, 50 PG&E territory 140 PG&E territory 350 PG&E territory businesses and 10 businesses and 30 businesses and 60 Liberty territory Liberty territory Liberty territory businesses with businesses with businesses with HVAC retrofits, 20 HVAC retrofits, 70 HVAC retrofits, 230 PG&E territory PG&E territory PG&E territory businesses and 0 businesses and 10 businesses and 40 Liberty territory Liberty territory Liberty territory businesses with businesses with businesses with standard whole- standard whole- standard whole- building retrofits, building retrofits, building retrofits, and 10 PG&E and 20 PG&E and 170 PG&E territory businesses territory businesses territory businesses and 0 Liberty and 0 Liberty and 30 Liberty territory businesses territory businesses territory businesses with deep whole- with deep whole- with deep whole- building retrofits. building retrofits. building retrofits. 2020 2030 2050 Percent of businesses undergoing 5% 15% 35% retrocommissioning Percent of businesses with HVAC 4% 12% 30% retrofits Percent of businesses with standard 2% 6% 20% whole-building retrofits Percent of businesses with deep whole- 0.50% 2% 15% building retrofits GHG method

The project team reviewed information about the end uses of energy in different commercial building types, along with studies of the potential electricity and natural gas savings from different types of commercial energy efficiency retrofits, to identify the total decrease in electricity and natural gas in retrofitted businesses. The team combined this information with projected participation rates to determine the total decrease in electricity and natural gas use, including decreases in T&D losses, from this strategy. Staff then applied the appropriate emissions factors to obtain GHG reduction amounts.

Page 288 Placer County Sustainability Plan 138 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

assumed participation rates to obtain the total electricity and natural gas savings, accounting for T&D losses. Staff then applied the appropriate emissions factors to obtain GHG reduction amounts.

GHG sources

Brown, R., Borgeson, S., Koomey, J., et al. 2008. U.S. Building-Sector Energy Efficiency Potential. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/941430

California Energy Commission. 2009. “2009 Residential Appliance Saturation Study”. https://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/rass/previous_rass.html.

City of South Lake Tahoe. 2019. “TOT Reports”. http://www.cityofslt.us/588/TOT-Reports.

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 2012. Lake Tahoe Origin-Destination Survey Report. http://www.trpa.org/documents/rseis/3.3%20Transportation/3.3_RSG%202012_Lake%20Tahoe% 20Origin.pdf.

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 2016. Placer County Tahoe Basin Area Plan and Tahoe City Lodge Draft EIR/EIS, Chapter 6: Population and Housing. http://www.trpa.org/wp- content/uploads/06-Pop-Housing.pdf.

E-3: Nonresidential retrofits Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Electricity savings, including T&D losses 9,891,310 30,783,590 104,834,330 (kWh) Natural gas savings (therms) 223,850 691,070 2,218,460

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 3,310 6,740 11,800

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 287 139 Appendix E

2020 2030 2050 1,340 single- 10,710 single- 24,110 single- family homes family homes family homes and 40 multi- and 330 multi- and 750 multi- family homes family homes family homes with appliance with appliance with appliance retrofits, 540 retrofits, 6,700 retrofits, single-family single-family 12,050 single- homes and 20 homes and family homes multi-family 210 multi- and 370 multi- Number of participating homes in PG&E homes with family homes family homes territory lighting with lighting with lighting retrofits, and retrofits, and retrofits, and 2,680 single- 16,070 single- 25,440 single- family homes family homes family homes and 80 multi- and 500 multi- and 790 multi- family homes family homes family homes with water with water with water heater heater heater replacements replacements replacements 110 single- family homes 910 single- 2,050 single- and less than family homes family homes 10 multi-family and 30 multi- and 60 multi- homes with family homes family homes appliance with appliance with appliance retrofits, 50 retrofits, 570 retrofits, 1,030 single-family single-family single-family homes and homes and 20 homes and 30 less than 10 multi-family multi-family Number of participating homes in Liberty multi-family homes with homes with territory homes with lighting lighting lighting retrofits, and retrofits, and retrofits, and 1,370 single- 2,170 single- 230 single- family homes family homes family homes and 40 multi- and 70 multi- and 10 multi- family homes family homes family homes with water with water with water heater heater heater replacements replacements replacements GHG method

The project staff looked at reports on the typical savings from various types of appliance retrofits, andretrofits and adjusted these savings to reflect the mix of residential building types occupied by homeowners (excluding those used primarily as short-term vacation homes) and energy use patterns in the unincorporated areas of Placer County. Staff then combined these savings with the

Page 286 Placer County Sustainability Plan 140 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

GHG sources

Brown, R., Borgeson, S., Koomey, J., et al. 2008. U.S. Building-Sector Energy Efficiency Potential. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/941430.

California Energy Commission. 2006. “California Commercial End-Use Survey”. http://capabilities.itron.com/CeusWeb/ChartsSF/Default2.aspx.

California Energy Commission. 2009. “2009 Residential Appliance Saturation Study”. https://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/rass/previous_rass.html.

Greenblatt, J. B. 2015. Modeling California policy impacts on greenhouse gas emissions. http://eta- publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/lbnl-7008e.pdf.

E-2: Appliance upgrades for homeowners Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Electricity savings, including T&D losses 3,091,860 23,296,100 49,235,120 (kWh) Natural gas savings (therms) 608,630 3,653,200 5,787,970

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 3,910 21,730 30,780 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of existing owner-occupied homes 5% 40% 90% with appliance retrofits Percent of existing owner-occupied homes 2% 25% 45% with lighting retrofits Percent of existing owner-occupied homes 10% 60% 95% with water heater retrofits 2020 2030 2050

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 285 141 Appendix E

2020 2030 2050 Percent of existing businesses being 0% 2% 20% retrofitted to all-electric Percent of new single-family homes being 0% 10% 60% built to all-electric Percent of new multi-family homes being 0% 15% 75% built to all-electric Percent of new businesses being built to 0% 5% 45% all-electric Percent of stoves in participating 0% 50% 75% residences that are converted Percent of stoves in participating 0% 10% 25% businesses that are converted 2020 2030 2050 27,700 single- 0 single-family 2,530 single- family homes homes and 0 family homes and 5,130 multi-family and 360 multi- multi-family homes in the family homes homes in the PG&E in the PG&E PG&E territory, and 0 territory, and Number of all-electric homes. territory, and single-family 180 single- 1,210 single- homes and 0 family homes family homes multi-family and 20 multi- and 220 multi- homes in the family homes family homes Liberty in the Liberty in the Liberty territory. territory. territory. 1,350 0 businesses 60 businesses businesses in in the PG&E in the PG&E the PG&E territory, and 0 territory, and territory, and Number of all-electric businesses. businesses in 10 businesses 110 the Liberty in the Liberty businesses in territory. territory. the Liberty territory. GHG method

The project staff looked at statewide studies to identify the amounts of natural gas used in homes and businesses for different purposes, and how much electricity would be needed to replace this natural gas while continuing to provide the same quality of service. Staff multiplied these savings by the projected number of participating homes and businesses to identify the total reduction in natural gas and the total increase in natural gas, including the increase in T&D losses that would result from greater electricity use. Staff then multiplied the natural gas savings by the natural gas emission factor to identify the amount of GHGs reduced by decreased natural gas use. Staff next multiplied the increase in electricity use and T&D losses to determine the increase in GHGs. The difference between these two values is the net GHG savings associated with this strategy.

Page 284 Placer County Sustainability Plan 142 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2018/ict2018/ictfinalea.pdf?_ga=2.233882973.2101639528.154947 3996-292322340.1524786848.

TECHNICAL DATA FOR FUTURE ACTIVITIES This section discusses the data sources, methods, and assumptions for the quantification of the new strategies identified in the PCSP. In addition to the sources presented here, the new strategies also rely on the Placer County GHG inventory and forecast prepared as part of the PCSP. Some of the strategies may not have GHG reductions that the PCSP staff are able to accurately determine.

GHG-1: Carbon offset program Activity and GHG savings

This strategy is supportive. The uncertainty of carbon sequestration programs means that reduction efforts cannot be accurately quantified.

Assumptions and performance indicators

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no assumptions or performance indicators.

GHG method

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no method used for quantification.

GHG sources

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There are no sources used for quantification.

E-1: Building electrification Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Electricity savings, including T&D losses 0 -15,422,300 -124,513,040 (kWh) Natural gas savings (therms) 0 1,167,100 10,036,760

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 0 5,400 53,380 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of existing single-family homes 0% 5% 25% being retrofitted to all-electric Percent of existing multi-family homes 0% 3% 30% being retrofitted to all-electric

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 283 143 Appendix E

GHG method

The project staff looked up information from a CPUC database showing the size of small-scale solar energy systems installed in the unincorporated areas of Placer County since 2015. Staff reviewed information from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory to estimate the annual kWh generation from these solar installations, and estimated savings from T&D losses based on this generation. Staff then multiplied the electricity generation and T&D savings by the appropriate emissions factors to determine GHG savings.

GHG sources

California Public Utilities Commission. 2018. NEM Currently Interconnected Dataset, June 30, 2018 [data table]. https://www.californiadgstats.ca.gov/archives/interconnection_nem_pv_projects/.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2019. “PVWatts”. https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/pvwatts.php.

EA 4: Zero emission buses Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Electricity savings, including T&D losses 0 -1,251,700 -6,145,110 (kWh)

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 0 700 4,130 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of bus VMT from zero-emission 0% 31% 100% buses GHG method

The project staff reviewed data from the California Air Resources Board about the rate of zero- emission bus adoption and used information in conjunction with the forecast to identify the VMT from zero-emission buses in future years. The staff applied the standard emissions factor for buses in future years (which does not include the impact of the zero-emission bus mandate) and assumed that these tailpipe emissions would disappear. The staff next estimated the electrical needs of these zero-emission buses, including the losses in T&D electricity, and calculated the emissions from electrical use. The difference in the eliminated tailpipe emissions and emissions from increased electricity use is the net emissions benefit from this measurestrategy.

GHG sources

California Air Resource Board. 2018. Final Environmental Analysis for the Proposed Innovative Clean Transit Regulation: A Replacement to the Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies.

Page 282 Placer County Sustainability Plan 144 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 kWh savings from retrofits to date 1,184,680 1,184,680 1,184,680 Therm savings from retrofits to date 20,050 20,050 20,050 GHG method

The staff looked up data from the CPUC’s retrofit database to identify the electricity and natural gas savings from utility-funded retrofits that have occurred in the unincorporated area of Placer County from 2016 to the third quarter of 2017. The staff used the electricity savings to estimate the savings from transmission and distribution (T&D) losses. The staff then multiplied the electricity and natural gas savings by the appropriate emissions factors to determine GHG savings.

Data from retrofits occurring after the third quarter of 2017 were not available at the time of quantification.

GHG sources

California Public Utilities Commission. 2018. Energy Efficiency 2016 Accomplishments by Zip Code [data table]. http://eestats.cpuc.ca.gov/Views/EEDataShelf.aspx

California Public Utilities Commission. 2018. Energy Efficiency 2017 Q1 Accomplishments by Zip Code [data table]. http://eestats.cpuc.ca.gov/Views/EEDataShelf.aspx.

California Public Utilities Commission. 2018. Energy Efficiency 2017 Q2 Accomplishments by Zip Code [data table]. http://eestats.cpuc.ca.gov/Views/EEDataShelf.aspx.

California Public Utilities Commission. 2018. Energy Efficiency 2017 Q3 Accomplishments by Zip Code [data table]. http://eestats.cpuc.ca.gov/Views/EEDataShelf.aspx.

EA 3: Small-scale solar energy systems Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Electricity savings, including T&D losses 16,545,680 16,545,680 16,545,680 (kWh)

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 3,620 1,820 0 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 kW capacity (DC) 9,920 9,920 9,920

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 281 145 Appendix E

Activity Type Units 2020 2030 2050

Solid waste MTCO2e/ton 0.274029 0.2740289 0.2740289

Fertilizer MTCO2e/acre 0.126789 0.126789 0.126789

Lime MTCO2e/ton 0.412791 0.412791 0.412791

Urea MTCO2e/ton 0.684211 0.684211 0.684211

Rice cultivation MTCO2e/acre 0.247485 0.247485 0.247485

TECHNICAL DATA FOR EXISTING AND PLANNED LOCAL ACTIVITIES This section discusses the data sources, methods, and assumptions for the quantification of the existing and planned local activities. In addition to the sources presented here, the existing and planned activities also rely on the Placer County GHG inventory and forecast prepared as part of the PCSP. Only some existing and planned local activities are quantified. Other activities, not included here, may have GHG reduction benefits but the PCSP staff cannot accurately determine the level of reductions.

EA 1: Pioneer Community Energy Activity and GHG savings

At this time, Pioneer does not plan to provide renewable or carbon-free electricity beyond its requirements under RPS. As such, this measurestrategy is supportive.

Assumptions and Performance Indicators

2020 2030 2050 Electricity supplied by Pioneer 613,320,900 709,483,560 740,983,710 GHG method

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no method used for quantification.

GHG sources

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There are no sources used for quantification.

EA 2: Existing energy efficiency retrofits Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Electricity savings, including T&D losses 1,184,680 1,184,680 1,184,680 (kWh) Natural gas savings (therms) 20,050 20,050 20,050

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 370 240 110

Page 280 Placer County Sustainability Plan 146 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

APPENDIX E GHG REDUCTION QUANTIFICATION ASSUMPTIONS, SOURCES, METRICS, AND OTHER DETAILS This appendix summarizes the data sources, assumptions, and performance metrics used to calculate the potential for GHG savings from the community reduction strategies in the Placer County Sustainability Plan. Chapter 4 provides the full list of measuresstrategies in the PCSP.

These calculations are based on four primary types of data and research:

. The inventory and forecast of Placer County’s GHG emissions. Chapter 2 of the PCSP contains details on these emissions.

. Reports, guidance documents, and toolkits prepared by government agencies. . Peer-reviewed reports and other credible research documents. . Case studies for similar jurisdictions. The inventory and forecast serve as the foundation for the quantification of Placer County’s GHG reduction measuresstrategies, supplemented with additional data types and research. The inventory and forecast provides activity data, such as kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity used or vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The project team combined the activity data with data sources that identify the potential for reduction and performance targets that estimate the level of implementation. This provides the total savings in activity data for the years 2020, 2030, and 2050. The project team then multiplied the activity data savings by the relevant emissions factor to obtain the total GHG savings from the strategy.

Table E-1 below shows the emissions factors used in the quantification. These emission factors reflect the GHG reductions from existing state accomplishments, such as RPS. Note that the quantification for many measuresstrategies, especially those that related to electricity, will use multiple emissions factors.

Table E-1 Emissions Factors Activity Type Units 2020 2030 2050

Electricity (PG&E) MTCO2e/kWh 0.000178 0.000128 0.000000

Electricity (Liberty) MTCO2e/kWh 0.000287 0.000000 0.000000

Electricity (Direct access) MTCO2e/kWh 0.000222 0.000152 0.000000

Electricity (Western Placer MTCO2e/kWh 0.000222 0.000152 0.000000 T&D)

Electricity (Eastern Placer MTCO2e/kWh 0.000314 0.000205 0.000000 T&D)

Electricity (Pioneer CCA) MTCO2e/kWh 0.000178 0.000128 0.000000

Natural gas MTCO2e/therm 0.005318 0.005318 0.005318

Propane MTCO2e/gallon 0.005848 0.005848 0.005848

Wood MTCO2e/ton 0.009963 0.009963 0.009963

On-road transportation MTCO2e/VMT 0.000448 0.000356 0.000324

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 279 147 Appendix D

There is no content on this page.

Page 278 Placer County Sustainability Plan 148 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

APPENDIX D GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY The Placer County Community-Wide and County Operations 2015 Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories Final Report (2018) is available for download from the SUSTAINPLACER website (https://www.placer.ca.gov/2927/Sustain-Placer). Contact the Planning Division at 530-745-3000 for more information.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 277 149 Appendix C

There is no content on this page.

Page 276 Placer County Sustainability Plan 150 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

APPENDIX C VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT The Placer County Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment Report (2018) is available for download from the SUSTAINPLACER website (https://www.placer.ca.gov/2927/Sustain-Placer). Contact the Planning Division at 530-745-3000 for more information.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 275 151 Appendix B

workshops, the list of workshop attendees that noted they would like to be added to the distribution list, and the Placer County Sustainability Plan Newsletter group. ) on 5/7/2018. In total, the survey link was sent to over 3,000 emails. In total,The County received 161 complete survey responses. were received.

The summary of the survey results is available on the SUSTAINPLACER websitewebpage.

.

Page 274 Placer County Sustainability Plan 152 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

September Foresthill Forum, 7:00 PM 9August 5

August 7 Meadow Vista MAC Meeting, 6:00 PM

August 7 Granite Bay MAC Meeting, 7:00 PM

August 8 North Tahoe Regional RAC Meeting, 6:00 PM

September 11August 14 Western Placer MAC Meeting, 6:30 PM Special Meeting

August 7 Meadow Vista MAC Meeting, 6:00 PM

July 18September Newcastle - Ophir MAC Meeting, 7:00 PM 19

WEBPAGE & DEDICATED EMAIL The PCSP web page acts as a hub for online activities related to the PCSP. It includes the PCSP schedule, draft documents available for review, information on outreach and workshop events, and other relevant resources and documents. Web Address: https://www.placer.ca.gov/2927/Sustain-Placer

Email: [email protected] ONLINE SURVEY In collaboration with PlaceWorks, the Placer County Sustainability Plan team prepared an online survey. The goal of this survey was to (1) understand the current state of Placer County residents' feelings towards climate change and climate action, and (2) understand what types of emissions reduction strategies would be most receptive to Placer County residents.

The survey was included 34 questions and long and began with a short briefwritten introduction to the Placer County Sustainability Plan and the related survey. The County posted the survey link was publicly posted on the SUSTAINPLACER Sustain Placer webpage and . It was also emailed it to over 3,000 emails on the various Sustainability PlanCounty’s contact lists, which included (i.e. the list of stakeholders and other interested parties that were invited to the first round of public

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 273 153 Appendix B

Series 1: GHG Inventory Reports and Next Steps

DATE MAC Location

February 15th Newcastle - Ophir MAC Meeting, (Ophir Elementary School)

February 21st Weimar-Applegate-Colfax MAC Meeting, (Colfax City Hall)

February 26th Rural Lincoln MAC Meeting, (Mount Pleasant Hall)

March 14th Sheridan MAC Meeting, Stewart Hall)

March 14th Western Placer MAC Meeting, (Creekview Ranch Middle School)

April 19th Donner Summit MAC, (Judah Day Lodge at Sugar Bowl)

Series 2: Draft Sustainability Plan for Public Review A second series of meetings are targeted forheld in included a presentation of the summer of 2019 to provide MACs with the draft PCSP, along with proposed mitigation/adaptation strategies.

Series 2: Draft Placer County Sustainability Plan and Draft MeasuresStrategies Tentative Dates

DATE MAC Location

July 9 North Auburn MAC Meeting, 6:00 PM

July 10 Sheridan MAC Meeting, 7:00 PM

July 15 Rural Lincoln MAC Meeting, 7:00 PM

July 17th Weimar-Applegate-Colfax MAC Meeting, 6:00 PM

July 18 Newcastle - Ophir MAC Meeting, 7:00 PM

July 18 Donner Summit MAC, 6:00 PM

July 23 Horseshoe Bar/Penryn MAC, 7:00 PM

Squaw Valley MAC Meeting & North Tahoe Regional RAC Meetings August 1 (combined), 6:00 PM

August 7 Granite Bay MAC Meeting, 7:00 PM

August Meadow Vista MAC Meeting, 6:00 PM 7September 4

Page 272 Placer County Sustainability Plan 154 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

Angel -Insert

MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (MAC MEETINGS) Series 1: Early Outreach on preliminary assessments As stated above, several public meetings with the Municipal Advisory Committees served as a platform for citizens to voice their thoughts and share their ideas about what a sustainable future for Placer County meant for them. The first series of meetings to the MACs included a presentation on the GHG Inventory Reports, preliminary findings of the Vulnerability Assessment, and an update on the status of the Work Program.

Series 1: GHG Inventory Reports and Next Steps

DATE MAC Location

January 23rd Horseshoe Bar/Penryn MAC, (Loomis Veterans Memorial Hall)

Squaw Valley MAC Meeting, (Squaw Valley Public Service District February 1st Community)

Foresthill MAC, (Foresthill Veterans Memorial Hall at 24601 Harrison February 5th Street)

February 7th Meadow Vista MAC Meeting, (Placer Hills School)

February 7th Granite Bay MAC Meeting, (Eureka Union School District Office)

North Tahoe Regional RAC Meeting, (The North Tahoe Regional RAC February 8th meeting location varies)

North Auburn MAC Meeting, (Community Development Resource February 13th Center (CDRC))

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 271 155 Appendix B

Series #2 Workshop Information Boards

Page 270 Placer County Sustainability Plan 156 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

boards in an open house format (shown below), and shared their opinions about the plan and individual strategies through discussions with the project team, use of colored dots to indicate their top strategies of preference or concern, and writing ideas, comments, and questions on sticky notes and placing them on the boards.

During the open house, project staff distributed eight large format posters (shown below) were distributed around the room in six stations. Each station included draft measures for each key sector, providing an opportunity for participants to ask questions, to respond to measures with color coded dots and comments, and to provide additional information.

Six stations:

1. Energy + Water and Wastewater; Education and Awareness (2 boards)

2. Transportation and Off-road

3. Solid Waste, Agriculture, Forestry and Landscaping

4. Drought, Flooding, Severe Weather

5. Extreme Heat; All Hazards (2 boards)

6. Avalanche, Landslides, and Wildfire

At the August 22, 2019 PC study session/workshop, the Commission received a presentation from staff and heard public comment.

A summary of the feedback from the workshops, including written comments, the results from the strategy scoring, and the Facilitator’s Guide (used by County staff and members of consultant team to help ensure a productive workshop) is available on the SUSTAINPLACER webpage.[AG12]

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 269 157 Appendix B

Station #8: Existing Actions Overview

This board identifies a number of actions that Placer County and the State of California are currently taking or plan to take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Participants at this station should come away with an understanding of what these existing and planned actions are, and how they will help Placer County achieve its greenhouse gas reduction goals.

SERIES 2 WORKSHOPS[TLS10]

The County hosted the second workshop series, consisting of two public workshops and a study session/workshop with the Planning Commission, are targeted for the summer of in August 2019. This section will be updated following the completion of the workshop series. Series Two will focused on the review of the draft GHG reduction and adaptation strategies, as well as the implementation program, and sought feedback on the draft PCSP document.[AG11]In August of 2019, the County, in collaboration with PlaceWorks and Sierra Business Council, hosted the second workshop series, consisting of two public workshops and a study session/workshop with the Planning Commission. Series Two focused on the review of the draft GHG reduction and adaptation strategies, as well as the implementation program, and sought feedback on the draft PCSP document.

The first workshop was held at 6 pm on August 19 at the North Tahoe Event Center in Kings Beach. The second workshop was held at 6 pm on August 20 at the Placer County Community Development Resource Agency in North Auburn. The purpose of both workshops was to provide members of the public with information about the PCSP, which had been released for public review a few weeks prior to the workshops, and to receive public comments and questions on the document. Participants learned about the draft PCSP through a presentation from the project team (including the greenhouse gas inventory and forecast, the greenhouse gas reduction targets and strategies to achieve the targets, and the vulnerability assessment and adaptation strategies), reviewed the draft greenhouse gas reduction and adaptation strategies presented on large format

Page 268 Placer County Sustainability Plan 158 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

Station #6: Draft Vulnerability Overview

This board discusses the vulnerability of community assets (i.e., buildings, facilities, infrastructure, services, ecosystems, and economic drivers) to climate change. Participants at this station should have come away with an understanding of how certain key community assets are vulnerable to climate change, and what the impacts may be on these assets and on Placer County at large.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 267 159 Appendix B

Station #5: Vulnerability Assessment Overview

This board summarizes the concept and components of a vulnerability assessment. Participants should have come away from this station understanding how the Vulnerability Assessment was prepared and what it involves. Results from the County’s Draft Vulnerability Assessment are shown on the boards for Stations 6 and 7.

Page 266 Placer County Sustainability Plan 160 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

Station #4: Draft Emissions Forecasts Overview

This board shows the draft emissions forecasts, which are projections of how GHG emissions are expected to change without the benefits of the assessment. Participants at this station should have come away with an understanding how the vulnerability assessment is taken.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 265 161 Appendix B

Station #2: Community Emissions Inventory Overview

The next two boards provide an overview of the GHG Community Emission Inventory as well as the County Operations Inventory. An Emission Inventory is a tool to document the sources of emissions and the relative amount of emissions coming from different sectors.

Station #3: County Operations Emissions Inventory Overview

The separate inventories of emissions from County government operations and community-wide activities will help inform the preparation of reduction strategies that are the most effective at reducing emissions for Placer’s unique circumstances. Inventories also provide an accurate baseline of emissions that, which is necessary for setting an emissions reduction target and for measuring progress over time.

Page 264 Placer County Sustainability Plan 162 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

Station #1: Placer County Sustainability Plan Overview

This station provides a general summary of the Placer County Sustainability Plan. Participants at this station should have come away with a clear understanding of what the Plan is seeking to accomplish, why the County is preparing the Plan is being prepared, the planning process, and how the Plan will benefit the Placer County community.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 263 163 Appendix B

PUBLIC WORKSHOPS Series 1 Workshops The County held the first workshop series, held in March and April of 2018, was intended to raise awareness about the Sustainability Plan project, to share preliminary results of the early technical tasks (i.e., GHG inventories, Vulnerability Assessment), and to initiate early engagement in GHG reduction and adaptation strategies. The workshops were held in three planning subareas of Placer County – Kings Beach, Auburn, and Loomis – to ensure broad participation. See Appendix A-1 for a summary of public input received.

The workshop forum for the first series included a project presentation followed by an open house.

Project Presentation The presentation provided an overview of the project, GHG inventory, GHG forecasts and targets, climate change impacts and the Vulnerability Assessment, as well as existing and planned County actions.

Open House During the group discussion, the County set up informational poster boards were set up at eight stations, each providing information on the various project components. Participants moved between stations at their leisure to learn about different topics, ask questions, and engage in discussions with project staff. Project staff recorded gGroup questions from the poster sessions were recorded on flip charts, and members of the public provide answers/input were written on sticky notes to be placed alongside the questions. This series of workshops attracted an estimated 65 people, though not all participants signed in or stayed for all activities. Based on the discussion, most participants worked and lived in Placer County.

Page 262 Placer County Sustainability Plan 164 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

2018 Stakeholder Meetings January 17th Placer County Fire Alliance December 13th Tree Mortality Task Force December 6th Placer County Fire Safe Alliance November 6th Pioneer Development Team November 6th Sierra CAMP October 30th mPOWER (now Pioneer Community Energy) October 30th Tahoe Transportation District October 24th Rio Bravo Bioenergy Day October 17th PCWA October 4th Liberty Utilities October 3rd Build-It-Green October 2nd Alpine Meadows and Squaw Valley October 2nd Canyon Keepers October 1st APCD September 24th Pioneer Board meeting September24th Build-It-Green September 20th Placer County Fire Alliance September 20th Tree Mortality Task Force August 21st Pioneer/mPOWER Community Energy June 27th PG&E June 26th California Tahoe Conservancy June 5th Western Regional Landfill May 17th North Tahoe Business Association Board of Directors April 25th North Lake Tahoe Resort Association April 25th Tahoe Realtors Association April 24th Pioneer April 24th PCTPA April 23rd North Tahoe Fire District April 23rd TMA April 23rd Truckee School District 2017 Stakeholder Meetings August 17th REALTORS Association

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 261 165 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

APPENDIX B COMMUNITY AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT The County developed the PCSP with extensive public input over a two-year process. The three primary avenues for public engagement were through workshop events, a dedicated county webpage, and community surveys. Additionally, several public meetings with the Municipal Advisory Councils served as a platform for citizens to voice their thoughts and share their ideas about what a sustainable future for Placer County means for them.

News release: Capital Public Radio, Auburn Journal, KXTL- TV, Lincoln News Messenger, KFBK-AM, Loomis

News, YubaNet, Messenger Publishing, Sinclair Broadcasting, The Union, Sierra Sun, Placer

Herald, KCRA-TV, Sacramento Bee, Gold Country Media, KAHI-AM, KOVR-TV, Rocklin &

Roseville Today, Placer Sentinel, KTXL-TV, Rocklin Today, KOLO-TV.

Digital Outreach: Placer County Weekly Newsletter, Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn.

LIST OF STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS Staff met with external stakeholders to conduct small group discussions and one-on-one interviews to better understand how the PCSP can address GHG emissions and climate vulnerability in a way that also addresses their potential concerns.

During the planning process, staff reached out to external stakeholders to introduce the PCSP, present an overview of the process, and provide them with the opportunity to identify issues early in the process. These discussions and interviews allowed for in-depth explorations of the issues the stakeholders work with on a regular basis that are pertinent to the PCSP.

Date 2019 Stakeholder Meetings May 2nd Build It Green April 2nd Pioneer March 19th Placer County REALTORS Association March 6th OES, CalFire, Fire Safe Alliance, RCD

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 260 166 Appendix A

There is no content on this page.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 259 167 Appendix A

Date Legislation Description meet 20% of their renewable power by December 31, 2017 for the purposes of increasing the diversity, reliability, public health and environmental benefits of the energy mix. 2002 Senate Bill 812 Adds forest management practices to the California Climate Action Registry members' reportable emissions actions and directed the Registry to adopt forestry procedures and protocols to monitor, estimate, calculate, report and certify carbon stores and carbon dioxide emissions that resulted from the conservation-based management of forests in California. 2002 Assembly Bill Requires the registry, in consultation with the State Air Resources 1493 Board, to adopt procedures and protocols for the reporting and certification of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources for use by the state board in granting the emission reduction credits. This bill requires the state board to develop and adopt, by January 1, 2005, regulations that achieve the maximum feasible reduction of greenhouse gases emitted by passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks. 2001 Senate Bill 527 Revises the functions and duties of the California Climate Action Registry and requires the Registry, in coordination with CEC to adopt third-party verification metrics, developing GHG emissions protocols and qualifying third-party organizations to provide technical assistance and certification of emissions baselines and inventories. SB 527 amended SB 1771 to emphasize third-party verification. 2000 Senate Bill 1771 Establishes the creation of the non-profit organization, the California Climate Action Registry and specifies functions and responsibilities to develop a process to identify and qualify third- party organizations approved to provide technical assistance and advice in monitoring greenhouse gas emissions and setting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions baselines in coordination with CEC. Also, the bill directs the Registry to enable participating entities to voluntarily record their annual GHG emissions inventories. Also, SB 1771 directs CEC to update the state's greenhouse gas inventory from an existing 1998 report and continuing to update it every five years. 1988 Assembly Bill The California Energy Commission (CEC) was statutorily directed 4420 to prepare and maintain the inventory of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and to study the effects of GHGs and the climate change impacts on the state's energy supply and demand, economy, environment, agriculture, and water supplies. The study also required recommendations for avoiding, reducing, and addressing related impacts - and required the CEC to coordinate the study and any research with federal, state, academic, and industry research projects. Source: Statewide Energy Efficiency Climate Collaborative. 2019. Climate Action Plan 2.0 Template

Page 258 Placer County Sustainability Plan 168 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

Date Legislation Description 2011 Assembly Bill Requires Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and Air 1504 Resources Board to assess the capacity of its forest and rangeland regulations to meet or exceed the state's greenhouse goals, pursuant to AB 32. 2008 Senate Bill 375 Requires Air Resources Board to develop regional greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for passenger vehicles. ARB is to establish targets for 2020 and 2035 for each region covered by one of the State's 18 metropolitan planning organizations 2007 Assembly Bill Creates the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle 118 Technology Program, to be administered by the Energy Commission, to provide funding to public projects to develop and deploy innovative technologies that transform California's fuel and vehicle types to help attain the state's climate change policies. 2007 Senate Bill 97 Directs Governor's Office of Planning and Research to develop CEQA guidelines "for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions." 2006 Assembly Bill Greenhouse gas inventory transferred to Air Resources Board 1803 from the Energy Commission. 2006 Senate Bill 1 California's Million Solar Roofs plan is enhanced by PUC and CEC's adoption of the California Solar Initiative. SB1 directs PUC and CEC to expand this program to more customers and requiring the state's municipal utilities to create their own solar rebate programs. This bill would require beginning January 1, 2011, a seller of new homes to offer the option of a solar energy system to all customers negotiating to purchase a new home constructed on land meeting certain criteria and to disclose certain information. 2006 Senate Bill 107 Directs California Public Utilities Commission's Renewable Energy Resources Program to increase the amount of renewable electricity (Renewable Portfolio Standard) generated per year, from 17% to an amount that equals at least 20% of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year by December 31, 2010. 2006 Assembly Bill 32 California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Requires Air Resources Board (ARB) to adopt a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equivalent to the statewide greenhouse gas emissions levels in 1990 to be achieved by 2020. ARB shall adopt regulations to require the reporting and verification of statewide greenhouse gas emissions and to monitor and enforce compliance with this program. AB 32 directs Climate Action Team established by the Governor to coordinate the efforts set forth under Executive Order S-3-05 to continue its role in coordinating overall climate policy. 2002 Senate Bill 1078 Establishes the California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program, which requires electric utilities and other entities under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission to

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 257 169 Appendix A

Date Legislation Description 2013 Assembly Bill 8 Alternative fuel and vehicle technologies: funding programs Extends until January 1, 2024, extra fees on vehicle registrations, boat registrations, and tire sales in order to fund the AB 118, Carl Moyer, and AB 923 programs that support the production, distribution, and sale of alternative fuels and vehicle technologies and air emissions reduction efforts. The bill suspends until 2024 ARB’s regulation requiring gasoline refiners to provide hydrogen fueling stations and appropriates up to $220 million, of AB 118 money to create a hydrogen fueling infrastructure in the state. 2013 Assembly Bill Building standards: electric vehicle charging infrastructure 1092 Requires the Building Standards Commission to adopt mandatory building standards for the installation of future electric vehicle charging infrastructure for parking spaces in multifamily dwellings and nonresidential development. 2012 Senate Bill 535 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and Disadvantaged Communities Requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to identify disadvantaged communities; requires that 25% of all funds allocated pursuant to an investment plan for the use of moneys collected through a cap-and-trade program be allocated to projects that benefit disadvantaged communities and 10 those 25% be use within disadvantaged communities; and requires the Department of Finance to include a description of how these requirements are fulfilled in an annual report. 2012 Assembly Bill Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund in the Budget 1532 Requires the Department of Finance to develop and submit to the Legislature an investment plan every three years for the use of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund; requires revenue collected pursuant to a market-based compliance mechanism to be appropriated in the Annual Budget Act; requires the department to report annually to the Legislature on the status of projects funded; and specifies that findings issued by the Governor related to “linkage” as part of a market-base compliance mechanism are not subject to judicial review. 2011 Senate Bill X1-2 Directs California Public Utilities Commission's Renewable Energy Resources Program to increase the amount of electricity generated from eligible renewable energy resources per year to an amount that equals at least 20% of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year by December 31, 2013, 25% by December 31, 2016 and 33% by December 31, 2020. The new RPS goals applies to all electricity retailers in the state including publicly owned utilities (POUs), investor-owned utilities, electricity service providers, and community choice aggregators. This new RPS preempts the California Air Resources Boards' 33 percent Renewable Electricity Standard.

Page 256 Placer County Sustainability Plan 170 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

Date Legislation Description 2016 Senate Bill 32 Greenhouse Gas emission reduction target for 2030 Establishes a statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. 2015 Senate Bill 379 Climate Adaptation and Resiliency Strategies Requires cities and counties to include climate adaptation and resiliency strategies in the safety elements of their general plans. Cities and counties with an adopted local hazard mitigation plan prior to 2017, are to address climate change in the safety element of the general plan upon the next revisions or update of the local hazard mitigation plan. Cities and counties that do not have an adopted local hazard mitigation plan must update the safety element of the general plan to address climate adaptation and resiliency by January 1, 2022. The bill requires the climate adaptation update to include a set of goals, policies, and objectives based on a vulnerability assessment, as well as implementation measures, including the conservation and implementation of natural infrastructure that may be used in adaptation projects. 2015 Senate Bill 350 Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 Establishes targets to increase retail sales of renewable electricity to 50 percent by 2030 and double the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses by 2030. 2014 Senate Bill 605 Short-lived climate pollutants Requires the State Air Resources Board to complete a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants by January 1, 2016. 2014 Senate Bill 1275 Charge Ahead California Initiative Establishes a state goal of 1 million zero-emission and near-zero- emission vehicles in service by 2020. Amends the enhanced fleet modernization program to provide a mobility option. Establishes the Charge Ahead California Initiative requiring planning and reporting on vehicle incentive programs and increasing access to and benefits from zero-emission vehicles for disadvantaged, low- income, and moderate-income communities and consumers. 2014 Senate Bill1204 California Clean Truck, Bus, and Off-Road Vehicle and Equipment Technology Program Creates the California Clean Truck, Bus, and Off-Road Vehicle and Equipment Technology Program funded by the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for development, demonstration, precommercial pilot, and early commercial deployment of zero- and near-zero emission truck, bus, and off-road vehicle and equipment technologies, with priority given to projects benefiting disadvantaged communities.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 255 171 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

APPENDIX A KEY CLIMATE CHANGE LEGISLATION Since 2005, the State of California has responded to growing concerns over the effects of climate change by adopting a comprehensive approach to addressing emissions in the public and private sectors through legislation starting with the first Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32) and more recently with aggressive statewide targets on GHG reduction (SB32), renewable energy portfolio standard (SB100), and zero-emissions vehicles (SB1275). The following table provides a summary of key climate change legislation as of April 2019.

Date Legislation Description 2018 Senate Bill 1035 General Plans Requires local planning agencies to review and, if necessary, revise the safety element upon each revision of the housing element or local hazard mitigation plan, not less than every 8 years, to identify new information relating to flood and fire hazards and climate adaptation and resiliency strategies. Allows cities and counties to identify new information relating to flood and fire hazards and climate adaptation and resiliency strategies that was not available during the previous revision of the safety element. 2018 Senate Bill 100 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2018 Requires the state to purchase 100 percent of total retail sales of electricity from eligible renewable energy resources and zero- carbon resources by 2045. 2017 Assembly Bill Companion to Cap-and-Trade 617 Extension Establishes a groundbreaking program to measure and reduce air pollution from mobile and stationary sources at the neighborhood level in the communities most impacted by air pollutants. Requires the Air Resources Board to work closely with local air districts and communities to establish neighborhood air quality monitoring networks and to develop and implement plans to reduce emissions. The focus on community-based air monitoring and emission reductions will provide a national model for enhanced community protection. 2017 Assembly Bill Cap-and-Trade Extension 398 Extends and improves the Cap and Trade Program, which will enable the state to meet its 2030 emission reduction goals in the most cost-effective manner. Furthermore, extending the Cap and Trade Program will provide billions of dollars in auction proceeds to invest in communities across California. 2016 Senate Bill 1383 Short-lived Climate Pollutants Establishes statewide reduction targets for short-lived climate pollutants. 2016 Assembly Bill Greenhouse gas regulations 197 Prioritizes direct emission reductions from large stationary sources and mobile sources.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 254 172 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

There is no content on this page.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 253 173 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

8. Appendices

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 252 174 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 251 175 176 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

There is no content on this page.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 249 177 Chapter 7 - Glossary Public Review Draft

Vulnerability: The overall susceptibility of a population or community asset to be harmed by climate change. It is a function of both the risk of the hazard and the threat that the hazard poses to the sensitivity. A vulnerability may also refer to a specific weakness or other feature of a sensitivity that may increase the threat faced from a hazard.

Vulnerable population: A group of people with a shared characteristic that may make them more susceptible to the harmful effects of climate change. Vulnerable populations may be defined by their age, physical or mental health, socioeconomic characteristics, or other factors.

Zero net energy (ZNE) building: A building that uses as much energy as it generates, measured over a year. California plans for all new residential buildings to be zero net energy starting in 2020, and for all nonresidential buildings to be zero net energy starting in 2030 (EIA 2017)

Page 248 Placer County Sustainability Plan 178 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

Senate Bill 350: A statewide law adopted in 2015 that strengthened California’s renewables portfolio standard and established new energy efficiency targets for existing buildings.

Senate Bill 375: A statewide law adopted in 2008 that directs California’s metropolitan planning organizations to prepare sustainable communities strategies as part of their regional transportation plans. This law is also known as the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008.

Senate Bill 1078: See “Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)”.

Sensitivity: A population or community asset that may be negatively affected by hazards related to climate change (CNRA and Cal EMA 2012).

Snowpack: Snowfall that accumulates in cold mountain areas and remains frozen for a long period of time. In California, snowpack in the Sierra Nevada provides a large amount of water to the state during the summer and early autumn months as it melts.

Stationary source: A major fixed source of greenhouse gases, such as a power plant, refinery, or factory.

Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS): A plan that coordinates regional land use and transit planning to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Senate Bill 375 requires that each metropolitan planning organization prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy as part of its mandated Regional Transportation Plan.

SUSTAINPLACER: Placer County Sustainability Plan is a strategic plan that identifies the sources of greenhouse gas emissions, identifies climate change impacts, establishes GHG reduction and resiliency goals, and lays out policies to achieve GHG reduction and resiliency goals.

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA): The metropolitan planning organization responsible for high-level transportation planning, land use coordination, and environmental protection in the bi- state Tahoe Basin. The organization’s jurisdiction includes the Tahoe region of Placer County.

Therm: The amount of energy in approximately 100 cubic feet of natural gas. Natural gas use is commonly expressed in therms.

Threat: The potential of a hazard to do harm to sensitivities.

Title 24: See “California Building Standards Code.””.

Transportation Demand Management: Transportation strategies aimed at providing travelers with effective choices to improve travel reliability.

Vehicle miles traveled (VMT): A measurement of the total distances traveled by vehicles over a set period. It is used as a way of measuring the volume of transportation activity associated with a jurisdiction and is increasingly used to determine the environmental impacts of individual projects.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 247 179 Chapter 7 - Glossary Public Review Draft

Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE): A program that allows property owners to finance energy efficiency or renewable energy improvements through a temporary increase in property taxes.

Reach code: An amendment to the local building code that establishes more stringent standards or additional requirements for elements of a building’s performance, such as energy or water efficiency, that exceed the minimum state standards. Energy-related reach codes must be cost- effective and must be approved by the CEC.

Regional Transportation Plan (RTP): A long-term plan for a region’s transportation systems, including roads and highways, public transit, and pedestrian and bicycle activities. These plans identify the region’s transportation needs, set out policies and investments to address these needs, and discuss the financial resources needed for implementation. Under state law, all metropolitan planning organizations must prepare a regional transportation plan.

Renewable energy: Energy from sources that naturally replenish themselves over a short period of time, such as sunlight, wind, and organic waste products (EIA 2017).

Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS): A state law requiring California’s electrical providers to obtain a minimum amount of their electricity from eligible certified renewable or carbon-free sources. Currently, electrical providers must obtain 33 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020, 60 percent from renewable sources by 2030, and 100 percent from carbon-free (but not necessarily renewable) by 2045.

Resilience: The ability to resist harm and recover from hazards (CNRA and Cal EMA 2012).

Risk: The chance that a hazard event or other negative effect will occur.

Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG): The metropolitan planning organization responsible for high-level transportation planning and land use coordination in the wider Sacramento area. The organization’s jurisdiction covers most of Placer County, except for the Tahoe Basin.

Scoping Plan: A document that discusses California’s greenhouse gas emissions, progress toward the state’s greenhouse gas reduction targets, and the policies that are in place or are planned to meet these targets. Under Assembly Bill 32, the Scoping Plan is prepared by the California Air Resources Board and must be periodically updated.

Senate Bill (SB) 32: A statewide law adopted in 2016 that requires California to reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.

Senate Bill 100: A statewide law adopted in 2018 that requires the state to supply its electricity from 100 percent carbon-free, renewable energy sources by 2045.

Senate Bill 107: See “Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)”.

Page 246 Placer County Sustainability Plan 180 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

Microgrid: A small-scale electrical network that includes an energy generation system, an energy storage system, and software to manage electrical demand. These networks can continue to provide electrical service to connected buildings and appliances during a power outage that affects the wider electrical network. Microgrids can serve a single building, a campus, or a wider neighborhood or community.

Model: A representation of the climate system, such as a virtual simulation, that is used to study climate and simulate climactic conditions (IPCC 2012). mPOWER: Serving Placer and Nevada Counties; the towns of Loomis and Truckee; and the cities of Auburn, Colfax, Grass Valley, Lincoln, Nevada City, Rocklin, and Roseville, mPOWER provides financing for residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, multifamily, and nonprofit property owners to install energy efficiency upgrades, water conservation measures, and energy generation systems.

Net zero: Producing as much of something as is used, or reducing as much of something as is generated, so that the overall use or generation is zero when looked at over a period of time. Net- zero carbon emissions and net-zero energy are two common uses.

Nitrous oxide (N2O): A colorless greenhouse gas that traps approximately 265 times as much heat as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over a 100-year period. Both natural and human-caused activities, including fossil fuel burning and agricultural and sewage treatment operations, are responsible for nitrous oxide emissions.

Onset: The period of time in which exposures begin to occur (CNRA and Cal EMA 2012).

Pavley standards: See “clean car standards”.

Photovoltaic (PV): A system that can produce electricity from sunlight, such as a solar panel.

Pioneer Community Energy: A community choice aggregation program in partnership A joint powers authority between with the town of Loomis; cities of Auburn, Colfax, Lincoln, and Rocklin; and Placer County for the purpose of 1) Providing electric power and other forms of energy to customers at a competitive cost; 2) Promoting long-term electric rate stability and energy security and reliability for residents through local control of electric generation resources and the overall power supply portfolio. 3) Carrying out programs to reduce energy consumption; 4) Stimulating and sustaining the local economy by developing local jobs in renewable energy; and 5) Reducing greenhouse gas emissions related to the use of electric power and other forms of energy in Placer County and neighboring regions. Pioneer’s CCA Program purchases the electric supply, works and then partners with PG&E to transmit and deliver the power over PG&E’s poles and wires to provide lower and more stable electricity rates to customers.

Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD): The organization responsible for local enforcement of California’s air pollution regulations and taking additional locally appropriate action to improve air quality within the boundaries of Placer County.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 245 181 Chapter 7 - Glossary Public Review Draft

GHG Reduction Strategy: A policy, program, development project, or other action that reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

Global warming: See “climate change”.

Global warming potential (GWP): A measurement of an individual greenhouse gas based on its ability to trap heat. All global warming potentials are measured in relation to carbon dioxide, which has a global warming potential of 1 (IPCC 2012).

Greywater: Water collected from clothes washers, dishwashers, sinks, and other sources that are not exposed to high levels of pathogens. Greywater can be treated and used as a source of nondrinkable water for purposes such as flushing toilets and watering lawns.

Greenhouse gas (GHG): A gas that can accumulate in the atmosphere, where it traps heat close to the Earth’s surface. While some level of these gases is necessary to maintain a comfortable temperature on Earth, an increased concentration traps additional heat, resulting in climate change. Greenhouse gases can be emitted through both natural and human processes (IPCC 2012).

Impact: In the context of climate change and climate adaptation, the effects (especially the negative effects) of a hazard or other conditions associated with climate change (CNRA and Cal EMA 2012). kWh (kilowatt-hour): A unit of electrical energy, equal to using 1,000 watts of power (a kilowatt) over a one-hour period. Electricity use and generation are usually expressed in kilowatt-hours or a related unit.

Lifeline: A basic necessity, such as access to telecommunication or an effective mode of transportation (CNRA and Cal EMA 2012).

Linguistic isolation: Having little or no ability to communicate in the language or languages that are commonly spoken in a community.

Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS): LCFS is a discreet early action measure of the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. This regulation reduces the carbon intensity (greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy in the fuel) of transportation fuels by 10 percent by 2020.

Methane (CH4): A colorless and odorless greenhouse gas that traps 28 times as much heat in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide over a 100-year period. Methane is emitted by both natural and human-caused activities, including fossil fuel combustion, agricultural processes, and the decomposition of solid waste and wastewater.

Metropolitan planning organization (MPO): A federally funded transportation planning organization, often covering one county or a wider region.

Middle Fork Project: An infrastructure system to provide water storage and hydroelectric power generation on the Middle Fork of the American River, the Rubicon River, and associated tributaries.

Page 244 Placer County Sustainability Plan 182 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

to continue to receive electric generation service from the IOU utility company. Unlike a municipal utility, community choice aggregation programs do not manage their own electricity network or own and operate the transmission and delivery system. While CCAs determine their own rates for electric generation, their charges are included on the IOU bill along with the IOU’s transmission and delivery charges or conduct billing or power line maintenance activities. Also known as community choice energy.

Direct access (DA): A program in which participants buy power from a supplier other than the standard utility or utilities in the community. Direct access customers are generally large facilities such as industrial operations, hospitals, or institutions (EIA 2017).

Downscaling: The process of determining small-scale information from a larger-scale data set, allowing for more accurate and locally specific data (IPCC 2012).

Electric vehicle (EV): A vehicle driven by electric motors, powered by electricity from an on-board battery that can be recharged by plugging the vehicle into a wall outlet or a special charger (CARB 2017).

Emission factor: A number that describes the amount of greenhouse gases released per unit of activity performed—for example, the amount of greenhouse gases emitted per mile traveled by a vehicle. Sometimes called an emissions coefficient (EIA 2017).

Energy conservation: Reducing energy waste by decreasing the use of devices that use energy, such as switching off lights or appliances when not in use.

Energy efficiency: Reducing energy waste through the use of appliances or materials that use less energy to achieve the same results, such as replacing a light bulb with a model that performs just as well but uses less energy to operate (EIA 2017).

Exposure: The effects of climate change, such as changes to the frequency or intensity of a hazard event (CNRA and Cal EMA 2012).

Flash flood: A dangerous type of flood that occurs very quickly, with little warning. Flash floods are usually a result of sudden, intense precipitation.

Flood plain: The area that may be affected by a flood, usually named by the type of flood that can occur there (e.g., a 100-year flood plain).

Forecast: A projection of future greenhouse gas emissions without any changes in regulation, technology, or individual or collective behaviors that may reduce emissions.

Fossil fuel: A fuel formed when organic material (such as dead plants or animals) decomposes in an oxygen-free environment and is subjected to intense heat and pressure over a very long period of time. Common fossil fuels include coal, petroleum, and natural gas (EIA 2017).

Fuel switching: See “building electrification”.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 243 183 Chapter 7 - Glossary Public Review Draft

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): A state law requiring agencies to assess the environmental effects of various proposed actions (e.g., new development projects) and to reduce the environmental impacts of these actions if the impacts are significant (CARB 2017).

California Global Warming Solutions Act: See “Assembly Bill 32”.

Cap and trade: A market-based program implemented by the California Air Resources Board to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from major industrial facilities, such as factories, power plants, and refineries (CARB 2017).

Carbon dioxide (CO2): A colorless, odorless gas produced by natural and human processes, including burning fossil fuels; the most common greenhouse gas and the single greatest contributing gas to climate change (EIA 2017).

Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e): A unit used to measure the combined emissions from multiple types of greenhouse gases based on their individual global warming potentials (EIA 2017).

Carbon neutral: Having no net greenhouse gas emissions, either by not producing any emissions or by reducing emissions and then canceling out remaining emissions with carbon offsets.

Carbon offset: A certificate representing “credit” for a certain amount of greenhouse gas emission reductions, so named because the certificate can be used to cancel out or “offset” emissions of the person or entity using it. The money used to purchase the offset is used to fund activities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the desired amount.

Clean car standards: A set of adopted and planned state regulations that require cars and light trucks sold in California to achieve minimum fuel efficiency standards that exceed federal levels. Initially established in 2002 as a result of Assembly Bill 1493, also known as the Pavley Standards.

Climate change: A long-term change in the average meteorological conditions (such as temperature, precipitation, and wind) in an area. It can be caused by natural or human factors, but in this plan, refers to the rapid human-caused climate change that is currently occurring (IPCC 2012).

Co-benefit: A side result of an action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that is beneficial but not directly related to greenhouse gas reductions.

Community asset: A valued feature of a community that may be harmed by climate change. Community assets may include buildings and facilities, key services, ecosystems, economic drivers, and infrastructure (CNRA and Cal EMA 2012).

Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) A program that allows participating local governments, often through joint powers authorities, to procure and sell electricity to customers in their jurisdiction, giving the community greater choice over the source and cost of its electricity. Community choice aggregation provides an alternative to an existing investor owned utility (IOU) company for electric generation and becomes the default electricity provider in the area, although customers may elect

Page 242 Placer County Sustainability Plan 184 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

7. Glossary

100-year flood: A flood that has a 1 percent chance (one in 100) of occurring in any given year (USGS 2016).

500-year flood: A flood that has a 0.2 percent chance (one in 500) of occurring in any given year (USGS 2016).

Adaptation: Adjustments to natural and human systems in response to actual or expected changes in climate conditions in order to reduce harmful effects of the actual or expected changes (CNRA and Cal EMA 2012).

Adaptive capacity: The ability of a sensitivity to recover from and adequately adapt to the effects of climate change, including climate-related hazards (CNRA and Cal EMA 2012).

Assembly Bill (AB) 32: A statewide law adopted in 2006 (also known as the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) that directs California to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and designates the California Air Resources Board as the primary state agency responsible for achieving this target (CARB 2017).

Assembly Bill 1493: See “clean car standards.””.

Autonomous vehicle (AV): A vehicle capable of driving itself. A fully autonomous vehicle can navigate to its destination with little or no intervention from a human driver, and a partially autonomous vehicle requires a driver to take control in some common driving scenarios.

Baseline year: The year against which future changes are measured. In this plan, the baseline year for greenhouse gas emissions in 2005.

Bioenergy: Energy derived from organic material, such as agricultural or forestry waste, food scraps, or crops grown expressly for energy purposes.

Building electrification: Replacing some or all of a building’s natural gas systems and appliances with electrical-powered versions or constructing a new building with electric-powered systems and appliances instead of ones powered by natural gas. This process is also called fuel switching.

California Air Resources Board (CARB): The state agency responsible for regulating air pollution throughout California. Assembly Bill 32 also directs the agency to monitor greenhouse gas emissions in California and to achieve adopted greenhouse gas reduction targets through market- based and regulatory actions (CARB 2017).

California Building Standards Code (BSC): A state law, also known as Title 24, which establishes standards for new and significant renovated structures. It includes standards for minimum energy efficiency performance.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 241 185 Chapter 6 - Building Resiliency in Placer County Public Review Draft

There is no content on this page.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 240 186 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

strategy helps protect against, a time frame for implementation, the a designated responsible department or agency, and the co-benefits provided by the strategy.

The implementation program is presented in three matrices. Appendix F includes all implementation matrices. Table F-1 shows the implementation matrix for community GHG reduction strategies. Table F-2 shows the implementation matrix for government operations GHG reduction strategies. Table F-3 shows the implementation matrix for adaptation strategies.

These matrices will help staff determine how effective the GHG emission reductions and adaptation improvements are, and whether the strategies need to be updated every five years according to Implementation Strategies 1 and 2. The matrices can also be used to determine which strategies are the most feasible according to current funding opportunities and implementation time frames, as recommended in Implementation Strategy 4.

There are several important criteria for implementation:

1. What is the implementation time frame? Because strategies may provide reductions for each forecast year, their implementation time frame depends on the immediate needs of the community or the financial feasibility. Similarly, the implementation time frame for the adaptation measuresstrategies depends on the onset of climate-related hazards. The following table defines the estimated implementation time frames in a series of ranges. Ongoing: Continuous implementation Near-Term: Between years 2019 and 2022 Mid-Term: Between years 2023 and 2025 Long-Term: Implemented by 2030 Very Long-Term: Implemented by 2050 2. Who is the responsible department or agency? A County department or agency will be determined for each strategy. The identified party is responsible for providing funding and monitoring of the implemented strategy. 3. What is the reduction potential? The amount of GHGs that could be reduced by implementing the reduction strategy. 4. What hazards does the strategy protect against? All the adaptation strategies protect against at least one climate-related hazard, but many protect against multiple hazards. Strategies that improve resiliency to many different hazards may be a higher priority for implementation.

Appendix F includes all implementation matrices. Table F-1 shows the implementation matrix for community GHG reduction strategies. Table F-2 shows the implementation matrix for government operations GHG reduction strategies. Table F-3 shows the implementation matrix for adaptation strategies.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 239 187 Chapter 5 6 - Building Resiliency in Placer County

2. Update the emissions inventory no later than 2024 to incorporate the latest scientific understanding of GHG emissions. 3. Update the vulnerability assessment no later than 2024 to incorporate new scientific understandings of climate-related hazards. 4. Update the PCSP with new reduction strategies if GHG reduction targets are not being met and to respond to regulatory changes, unforeseen events, effectiveness, updates research, and/or technological advances.

Implementation[AG9] Strategy 3: Continue to build partnerships with agencies and community organizations that will help support the implementation of the PCSP.

Action Items:

1. Continue formal memberships and participation in local and regional organizations that provide tools and support for energy efficiency, energy conservation, GHG emissions reductions, adaptation, education, and implementation of the PCSP. 2. Collaborate with other local jurisdictions to support the implementation of regional GHG reduction and climate adaptation efforts.

Implementation Strategy 4: Continue to seek secure funding sources to implement the PCSP.

Action Items:

1. Identify funding sources from both government and private funding agencies for implementation of reduction measuresstrategies associated with the PCSP. 2. Research potential grants and funding sources as part of the annual reporting process. 3. Participate in cap-and-trade implementation to ensure that funds are returned to areas where GHG emissions are generated and used to fund projects and programs that benefit the communities impacted by emissions.

Implementation Strategy 5: Continue ongoing efforts to reduce GHG emission beyond target years of the PCSP.

Action Item:

1. Continually monitor and implement state post-2030 goals in updated PCSPs.

IMPLEMENTATION MATRICESPROGRAM The implementation program matrices (for community-wide reduction strategies, County operations reduction strategies, and adaptation strategies) are is included in the PCSP to help staff monitor and track the implementation and performance of each GHG emission reduction measurestrategy. For each reduction measurestrategy, the matricesthere is a provide a GHG emission reduction target estimate, a time frame for implementation, the a designated responsible department or agency, an estimated cost for implementation, and the co-benefits provided. For each The adaptation matrix identifiesmeasure, there is an identified the climate hazard or hazards that the

Page 238 Placer County Sustainability Plan 188 Chapter 6 - Building Resiliency in Placer County Public Review Draft

6. Implementation of the PCSP

INTRODUCTION This chapter provides guidance on how the County can implement the PCSP. This includes reducing GHG emissions to meet the targets as well as improving the county’s resiliency to climate- related hazards. This chapter outlines the strategies and tools necessary to track and monitor the County’s progress toward implementing the reduction and adaptation strategies and ensures that the County will experience a healthier future environment.

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES To guide successful implementation of the PCSP, this chapter provides a series of implementation strategies to help the County reach its GHG emission reduction targets and goals for improved resiliency. Each implementation strategy is accompanied by action items to help further explain the efforts necessary to conduct the measurestrategy efficiently. County staff and assigned responsible departments and agencies will need to ensure that each strategy is addressed and reported on periodically to determine County emission targets are being met and that the County is moving toward greater climate-related adaptation.

Implementation Strategy 1: On an annual basis, monitor and report Placerthe County’s progress, for new and existing community-wide and government operations efforts, toward achieving the GHG emission reduction targets and on improving community resiliency.

Action Items:

1. Monitor the implementation of new and existing measuresstrategies designated for County operations. 2. Frequently collaborate with other department staff to streamline data gathering. 3. Prepare an annual monitoring report of implementation status, including estimated GHG emission reductions and progress on adaptation strategies, for Department Staff and the Board of Supervisors to review. Use the metrics presented in Appendix F to measure the implementation status of new strategies, and these or other metrics for existing strategies as applicable. 4. Update and adjust reduction and adaptation measuresstrategies according to regulatory changes, unforeseen events, effectiveness, updates research, and/or technological advances.

Implementation Strategy 2: Every three to five years, update the PCSP, GHG inventory baseline emissions, and vulnerability assessment.

Action Items:

1. Update the PCSP no later than 2024 to incorporate new technology, programs, and policies to reduce GHG emissions and improve adaptation to climate-related hazards.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 237 189 190 Chapter 6 - Building Resiliency in Placer County Public Review Draft

There is no content on this page.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 235 191 Chapter 5 - Building Resiliency in Placer County

Responsible Agency: Placer County Fire Department/CAL FIRE

Strategy WF-13: Update the Community Wildfire Protection Plan as needed to include the most recent science on climate change and wildfire, and adaptation strategies and other best practices in the Placer County Sustainability Plan and other relevant documents.

Responsible Agency: Planning Services

Strategy WF-14: Conduct a gap analysis of the codes and standards in local land development documents, identifying the need for zoning ordinance and building code amendments, as part of future updates to the Placer County Community Wildfire Protection Plan.

Responsible Agency: Planning Services

Strategy WF-15: Continue to coordinate with the County's multidisciplinary task force to identify, prioritize, and implement targeted wildfire safety improvements. Coordinate proposals for state dollars and other grants with local fire-serving districts and other government agencies.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Resource Agency

Strategy WF-16: In coordination with local, state, and federal plant and wildlife management agencies and organizations, monitor shifts in grassland habitat and ensure that the areas that grassland habitat is expected to migrate into are protected.

Responsible Agency: Parks Division

Strategy WF-17: Continue to implement, and update as necessary, the Strategic Plan for Placer County Wildfire Protection and Biomass Utilization Program to seek ways to reduce the efforts of catastrophic wildfires, and convert unwanted woody biomass to produce heat and/or electrical power, alternative transportation fuels, or beneficial bio-based chemicals and products.

Responsible Agency: Public Works – Environmental Engineering[TLS8]

Page 234 Placer County Sustainability Plan 192 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

Severity Zones, including installation of sprinklers and fire-safe exterior materials as feasible.

Responsible Agency: Building Services

Strategy WF-8: Establish increased fire-safe development standards for all new and existing development in the WUI to minimize property damage and loss of life.

Responsible Agency: Planning Services

Strategy WF-9: Require new developments in the WUI to include fuel reduction plans. These plans must include a finance plan, necessary fees for maintenance of fuel break areas, and maintenance requirements in any applicable covenants, conditions, and restrictions.

Actions:

1. Coordinate with the Placer County Fire Safe Alliance and local Fire Safe Councils to encourage new and existing planned developments in the WUI and other areas with elevated wildfire risk to join the Placer County Firewise Communities program.

Responsible Agency: Planning Services

Strategy WF-10: Explore creating wildfire abatement districts to provide fuel-clearing services and maintenance of defensible space on public and private land within the county.

Responsible Agency: Office of Emergency Services

Strategy WF-11: Encourage and supportE higher density residential development within the WUI on infill sites xplore prohibiting or limiting increases in residential density within the WUIonly when such projects implement all feasiblenecessary mitigation options to provide sufficient wildfire protection as stated within this Adaptation Strategy.

Actions:

1. Amend Community Plans and the County General Plan to identify infill parcels with existing infrastructure and existing development on adjacent parcels which can support higher densities prohibit or limit increases in residential density within the WUI. [AG7]

1.2. Create development standards for wildfire protection and streamlining opportunities for high- density residential and affordable developments for infill locations within the WUI.

Responsible Agency: Planning Services

Strategy WF-12: Work with stakeholders to develop a pilot project on private or public land that demonstrates the cost-savings of treating and managing land for wildfire prevention in relation to air quality and other ecosystem services. The project could consider both direct (i.e. homes and roadways) and indirect costs (i.e. social capital and air quality), the costs of management and prevention compared to the costs of no action and recovery, and the emission reduction potential of good forest management to the extent possible.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 233 193 Chapter 5 - Building Resiliency in Placer County

Strategy WF-2: Expand the county's capacity to restore conifer forest health on private and public lands, which includes active management to reduce fire risk, including removal and disposal of diseased trees and other fuels. Work with public and private partners to identify appropriate locations for mills, biomass facilities, or other facilities that support the reuse of trees for other uses, including composting and renewable energy.

Also increases resiliency to:

Responsible Agency: Planning Services

Strategy WF-3: Coordinate with the California Department of Housing and Community Development, mobile home park owners, and mobile home tenants in wildfire hazard zones to reduce fuel availability and maximize defensible space.

Responsible Agency: Placer County Fire Department/CAL FIRE

Strategy WF-4: Establish a funding source for the Placer County Resource Conservation District’s Placer County Chipper Program to reduce fuel loads on residential properties at a lower cost to property owners.

Responsible Agency: Placer County Fire Department/CAL FIRE

Strategy WF-5: Require all new large development projects in Moderate, High, or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones to have multiple points of ingress and egress to improve evacuation and emergency response access. French Meadows Forest Responsible Agency: Planning Services Resilience Project According to the Sierra Nevada Strategy WF-6: Continue to enforce requirements to provide Conservancy, this project aims to defensible space around homes and other buildings in fire-prone promote forest resilience through areas, and strengthen standards as needed to provide adequate thinning and prescribed burning protection in response to changing fire regimes. near the headwaters of the Middle Fork of the American River. The Responsible Agency: Building Services, Planning Services goal is to treat a large stand of the forest landscape instead of Strategy WF-7: Explore requiring fire-safe improvements before smaller, specific areas. A issuing a building permit or other formal approval for significant partnership between Placer County and the US Forest Service retrofits to buildings in identified Very High and High Fire Hazard will provide concurrent fuel treatment to the forests in Placer County.

Page 232 Placer County Sustainability Plan 194 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

Responsible Agency: Engineering and Surveying

Strategy SW-4: Ensure that single access roads at high elevations are prioritized for snow clearing and de-icing activities.

Responsible Agency: Public Works

Wildfire (WF) Wildfires are fires that burn in natural areas and the WUI, where they can do more damage to people and property. Warmer temperatures and prolonged drought conditions as a result of climate change create more fuel for fires in wildland areas, leading to a greater chance for a devastating wildfire. Wildfires endanger vulnerable populations, Placer County’s economy, and important community services that residents and businesses rely on. The PCSP provides adaptation strategies that promote coordination among agencies, protection of buildings, and implementation of measuresstrategies to reduce wildfire activity in the County. These strategies are consistent with and build upon existing measuresstrategies in the LHMP and General Plan elements.

Goal: Sustainably managed forests in coordination with federal, state, and local agencies that will not endanger urban areas with wildfires.

Co-benefits:

Strategy WF-1: Identify funding opportunities to support new or expanded fuel reduction projects, including those that provide assistance for biomass facilities.

Also increases resiliency to:

Responsible Agency: Economic Development

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 231 195 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

GHG sources

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There are no sources used for quantification.

SW-8: Waste to energy Activity and GHG savings

This strategy is supportive. There is not enough certainty around this effort to quantify the GHG reduction benefits.

Assumptions and performance indicators

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no assumptions or performance indicators.

GHG method

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no method used for quantification.

GHG sources

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There are no sources used for quantification.

AG-1: Rice straw reuse Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings There are no activity savings from this strategy

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 2,700 27,050 67,620 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of rice straw collected for reuse 2% 20% 50% 2020 2030 2050 Tons of rice straw collected for reuse 290 2,930 7,320 GHG method

Staff identified the average ton of rice straw generated per acre of rice and combined this with information from the inventory about the total acres of rice grown in Placer County to determine the total amount of rice straw produced in the community. The project team then combined this with the projected participation rate for the strategy to determine the amount of rice straw that would be

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 333 196 Appendix E

collected, and applied emission factors from the GHG inventory to identify the GHG emission savings.

GHG sources

Placer County Agricultural Commissioner. 2016. 2015 Agricultural Crop Production Report for Placer County. https://www.placer.ca.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/100.

University of California Agricultural and Natural Resources. 2010. Rice Producer’s Guide to Marketing Rice Straw. https://anrcatalog.ucanr.edu/pdf/8425.pdf.

AG-2: Agricultural equipment retrofit Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Electricity savings, including T&D losses 0 -2,602,590 -13,012,930 (kWh)

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 150 2,260 9,350 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of agricultural equipment replaced 0% 5% 25% with electric models Percent of remaining agricultural equipment 25% 75% 100% replaced with more efficient models Increase in fuel efficiency relative to 2015 2.50% 7.50% 17.50% GHG method

Staff used projected participation rates to determine the proportion of agricultural equipment replaced with electric models, as well as the proportion of remaining agricultural equipment replaced with more efficient models. The project team used data about vehicle fuel density to estimate how much electricity would be needed to make up for a comparable loss in gasoline and diesel-fueled equipment. Staff applied the appropriate emissions factors to the estimated decrease in gasoline/diesel and the estimated increase in electricity and took the difference as the net emissions reduction from electric agricultural equipment. Concurrently, staff applied projections about increases in gasoline/diesel efficiency for agricultural equipment, based on historic trends, to

Page 334 Placer County Sustainability Plan 197 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

estimate the decline in emissions from increased efficiency. The project team combined these two net emission reduction figures to obtain the total GHG reductions for this strategy.

GHG sources

Alternative Fuels Data Center. 2014. Fuel Properties Comparison. https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf.

AG-3: Agricultural pump replacement Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Electricity savings, including T&D losses -557,000 -2,784,990 -6,683,980 (kWh) Diesel fuel savings (gallons) 14,630 73,130 175,520

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 30 450 1,810 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of diesel pumps replaced with 5% 25% 60% electrical models GHG method

Staff used information about the fuel use per diesel-powered pump and projected participation rates to determine the reduction in diesel fuel use associated with this strategy. Staff used data about diesel energy density to estimate how much electricity would be needed to make up for a comparable loss in diesel-fueled pumps, and then applied emissions factors to the estimated amounts of decreased diesel and increased electricity use. The project team took this difference between these two figures as the overall savings from this strategy.

GHG sources

Alternative Fuels Data Center. 2014. Fuel Properties Comparison. https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 335 198 Appendix E

AG-4: Forest residue reuse Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings There are no activity savings from this strategy

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 50 250 980 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent reduction in forest residue burning 2% 10% 40% 2020 2030 2050 Tons of forest residue burned 28,720 26,380 17,580 GHG method

The project team reviewed inventory data to identify the tons of forest residue burned and the associated emissions to identify a per-ton emissions factor for forest residue. Staff then combined these figures with projected reductions in the amount of forest residue to identify the GHG savings associated with implementation of this strategy.

GHG sources

There are no sources for these calculations beyond the GHG inventory and forecast.

AG-5: Soil amendment efficiency Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings There are no activity savings from this strategy

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 50 130 400 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Reduction in fertilizer application 2% 5% 15% Reduction in lime application 2% 5% 15% Reduction in urea application 1% 3% 12% 2020 2030 2050 Tons of fertilizer applied 1,020 990 890

Page 336 Placer County Sustainability Plan 199 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

2020 2030 2050 Tons of lime applied 1,680 1,630 1,460 Tons of urea applied 190 190 170 GHG method

Using inventory and forecast data, staff identified the amount of each soil amendment applied and the emissions factors per tons of soil amendments. The project team applied the projected decreases in soil amendments to identify the tonnage reductions in soil amendments, and then used the emission factors to convert these amendment tonnages to GHG savings.

GHG sources

Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change. 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use. Chapter 11:

N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, and CO2 Emissions from Lime and Urea Application. https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_11_Ch11_N2O&CO2.pdf.

AG-6: Agricultural renewable energy Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings Effective electricity savings, including T&D 66,950 803,360 3,749,000 losses (kWh)

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 10 110 0 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of agricultural operations installing 1% 10% 35% on-site solar energy Amount of electricity offset by on-site solar 50% 60% 80% energy systems 2020 2030 2050 Number of agricultural operations with solar 60 590 2,060 energy systems. GHG method

This is a supportive measurestrategy. There is no method used for quantification.

GHG sources

There are no sources for these calculations beyond the GHG inventory and forecast.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 337 200 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

OR-1: Efficient construction equipment Activity and GHG savings

2020 2030 2050 Activity savings There are no activity savings from this strategy

GHG savings (MTCO2e) GHG savings 0 50 480 Assumptions and performance indicators

2020 2030 2050 Percent of construction projects using 0% 5% 35% alternative-fuel equipment GHG method

The project team used studies of construction equipment fuel efficiency to look at the average GHG savings from alternative-fuel construction equipment. Staff then combined these average reductions with projections about the percent of construction projects using this equipment to determine a total level of GHG savings.

GHG sources

California Energy Commission. 2007. Full Fuel Cycle Assessment Well to Wheels Energy Inputs, Emissions, and Water Impacts: Preparation for the AB 1007 (Pavley) Alternative Transportation Fuels Plan Proceeding. https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-600-2007-004/CEC- 600-2007-004-D.PDF.

University of California, Riverside. 2013. “Hybrid Not Always Greener”. https://ucrtoday.ucr.edu/18506.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Potential for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Construction Sector. https://archive.epa.gov/sectors/web/pdf/construction-sector- report.pdf.

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 339 201 Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

GHG Emission Reductions (MTCO2e) Responsible or MeasureStrategy Time Frame Supporting 2020 2030 2050 Agencies * Establish a carbon offset program that identifies, supports, and funds programs and projects that demonstrate sustained GHG emissions reductions and climate adaptation, primarily in the unincorporated county and the region. GHG reductions from these programs and projects shall be real, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, and enforceable. Programs shall primarily serve the residents and businesses of Placer County. The carbon offset program would be available to Community Placer County project Long-Term GHG-1 Supportive Supportive Supportive Development applicants to mitigate GHG (by 2030) emissions for projects in the Resource Agency unincorporated county that exceed the County Air Pollution Control District’s project level GHG emissions thresholds after all feasible onsite mitigation strategies are applied to project design and operation. Strategies and projects identified in the PCSP would be eligible for funding from the program. The program should be compatible with and leverage existing County and regional partnerships and programs that reduce GHG emissions. 202

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 345 Appendix EF

GHG Emission Reductions (MTCO2e) Responsible or MeasureStrategy Time Frame Supporting 2020 2030 2050 Agencies * Energy Facilitate a transition to Community electricity as the primary Development energy source for Long-Term Resource Agency E-1 0 5,400 53,380 residential, mixed-use, (by 2030) Pioneer Community commercial, and office Energy /mPOWER buildings. Provide increased Community awareness and resources Development Near-Term E-2 for homeowners to replace 3,910 21,730 30,780 Resource Agency (by 2022) old appliances with energy- Pioneer Community efficient models. Energy/mPOWER

Increase awareness and Community financing opportunities for Development nonresidential property Near-Term E-3 3,310 6,740 11,800 Resource Agency owners to conduct retrofits (by 2022) Pioneer Community to building HVAC and Energy/mPOWER shell/envelope systems.

Encourage Require new residential, office, and commercial development, as mitigation for discretionary Community projects exceeding Mid-Term E-4 60 7,920 14,140 Development applicable GHG thresholds, (by 2025) Resource Agency to comply withimplement CALGreen Tier 1 standards and accelerate ZNE in new construction. 203

Page 346 Placer County Sustainability Plan Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

GHG Emission Reductions (MTCO2e) Responsible or MeasureStrategy Time Frame Supporting 2020 2030 2050 Agencies * Provide increased financing Community for home retrofits involving Development Near-Term E-5 insulation, HVAC systems, 1,500 4,880 11,770 Resource Agency (by 2022) fenestration, and other shell Pioneer Community and envelope retrofits. Energy/mPOWER Community Encourage onsite Development renewable energy Mid-Term Resource Agency E-6 generation and storage 3,240 12,060 0 (by 2025) Pioneer Community systems for existing Energy /mPOWER residential units.

Create incentives to construct new nonresidential buildings to ZNE energy Community efficiency standards in Development advance of 2030 mandate, Mid-Term Resource Agency E-7 and a second class of 200 11,960 0 (by 2025) Pioneer Community incentives to support new Energy /mPOWER nonresidential construction

that does not achieve ZNE but exceeds minimum standards. Encourage businesses, Community non-profits, and other non- Development residential property owners Mid-Term E-8 670 2,970 2,750 Resource Agency and tenants to replace old (by 2025) Pioneer Community equipment with more Energy/mPOWER energy-efficient models. 204

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 347 Appendix EF

GHG Emission Reductions (MTCO2e) Responsible or MeasureStrategy Time Frame Supporting 2020 2030 2050 Agencies * Work with Liberty Utilities and Southwest Gas to Community expand participation in low- Mid-Term E-9 460 1,900 2,510 Development income home weatherization (by 2025) Resource Agency programs in the Tahoe Basin. Work with landlord groups Community and property management Development E-10 Mid-Term groups to increase adoption 280 1,600 2,310 Resource Agency (by 2025) of modern appliances in Pioneer Community residential rental properties. Energy/mPOWER Partner with APCD to develop and implement Community programs to replace old Development wood- and propane-burning Resource Agency space heaters with modern, Mid-Term E-11 130 400 1,200 Placer County Air efficient, and low-carbon (by 2025) Pollution Control appliances where feasible, District while ensuring that access

to alternative heating is maintained. Community Support increases in Development renewable energy Mid-Term Resource Agency E-12 generation and storage 380 1,330 0 (by 2025) Pioneer Community systems for existing Energy/mPOWER nonresidential structures.

205

Page 348 Placer County Sustainability Plan Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

GHG Emission Reductions (MTCO2e) Responsible or MeasureStrategy Time Frame Supporting 2020 2030 2050 Agencies * Work with the California Department of Housing and Community Community Development to Development provide increased Mid-Term Resource Agency E-13 awareness and incentive 90 360 790 (by 2025) Pioneer Community programs for mobile home Energy/mPOWER park owners and tenants to

reduce costs of mobile home weatherization. In partnership with housing councils, encourage vacation and short-term rental properties to replace E-14 Mid-Term Administrative all major appliances with 30 190 510 (by 2025) Services energy-efficient models, and to replace any incandescent light bulbs with more efficient bulbs. Incentivize new homes to install renewable energy generation and energy Community storage systems that can Development fully supply the home's Long-Term Resource Agency E-15 80 740 0 energy needs, in cases (by 2030) Pioneer Community where the required size of Energy /mPOWER the renewable energy system is insufficient to fully meet on-site demand. 206

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 349 Appendix EF

GHG Emission Reductions (MTCO2e) Responsible or MeasureStrategy Time Frame Supporting 2020 2030 2050 Agencies *

Community Incentivize swimming pool Development efficiency actions, including Near-Term Resource Agency E-16 installation of variable- 190 460 70 (by 2022) Pioneer Community frequency drive pool pumps Energy/mPOWER and insulated covers.

Community Promote onsite renewable Development energy generation and Mid-Term Resource Agency E-17 energy storage for new 30 210 0 (by 2025) Pioneer Community small and medium-sized Energy /mPOWER nonresidential structures.

Community Encourage electrical Development customers to participate in Near-Term E-18 <10 10 0 Resource Agency demand reduction (by 2022) Pioneer Community programs. Energy/mPOWER

Encourage non-residential Community pool facilities to install Development variable-frequency drive Mid-Term Resource Agency E-19 Supportive Supportive Supportive pool pumps and insulated (by 2025) Pioneer Community covers. Energy /mPOWER

Work with agricultural Agricultural organizations to improve the Commissioner energy efficiency of Mid-Term E-20 Supportive Supportive Supportive Pioneer Community agricultural and food (by 2025) Energy /mPOWER processing facilities to

increase profitability. 207

Page 350 Placer County Sustainability Plan Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

GHG Emission Reductions (MTCO2e) Responsible or MeasureStrategy Time Frame Supporting 2020 2030 2050 Agencies * Encourage Require onsite solar PV systems and/or energy storage as mitigation for discretionary projects Community exceeding applicable GHG Long-Term E-21 Supportive Supportive Supportive Development thresholds, for new (by 2030) Resource Agency nonresidential buildings exceeding 20,000 square feet.

Request that the Pioneer Governing Board consider increasing the proportion of Community renewable and carbon-free Development energy supplied by Near-Term E-22 Supportive Supportive Supportive Resource Agency Pioneer’s CCA program and (by 2022) Pioneer Community expanding Pioneer’s service Energy/mPOWER territory to cover all parts of Placer County currently served by private utilities. Support efforts on suitable land to increase renewable energy generation, including Community wind, solar, and biomass, to Long-Term E-23 Supportive Supportive Supportive Development supply the needs of Pioneer (by 2050) Resource Agency Community Energy, Liberty Utilities, and other local providers. 208

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 351 Appendix EF

GHG Emission Reductions (MTCO2e) Responsible or MeasureStrategy Time Frame Supporting 2020 2030 2050 Agencies * Provide incentives and opportunities to have Community residential property owners Near-Term E-24 Supportive Supportive Supportive Development conduct an energy audit (by 2022) Resource Agency when conducting energy efficiency improvements.

Water and Wastewater

In partnership with the Placer County Water Agency and other water Community providers, encourage Near-Term WW-1 190 520 1,110 Development homeowners and landlords (by 2022) Resource Agency to replace inefficient appliances and fixtures with modern models. Encourage Require new development projects, as mitigation for discretionary projects exceeding Mid-Term Administrative WW-2 applicable GHG thresholds, 10 70 310 (by 2025) Services to exceed minimum state water efficiency requirements for new water fixtures. 209

Page 352 Placer County Sustainability Plan Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

GHG Emission Reductions (MTCO2e) Responsible or MeasureStrategy Time Frame Supporting 2020 2030 2050 Agencies * Explore opportunities to support increased adoption of rainwater catchment and Community graywater systems for Long-Term WW-3 0 30 240 Development existing buildings (by 2030) Resource Agency undergoing additions or alterations, as defined by the Building Standards Code. Work with the Placer County Water Agency, other water providers, and Community Near-Term WW-4 business groups to retrofit 20 50 120 Development (by 2022) existing nonresidential Resource Agency buildings to improve water efficiency. Incentivize the installation Community of greywater and rainwater Long-Term WW-5 0 10 140 Development catchment systems for new (by 2030) Resource Agency developments. Encourage Require all existing properties to adopt water-efficient landscaping strategies, including more Community Near-Term WW-6 efficient irrigation systems 20 40 0 Development (by 2022) and plants with lower water Resource Agency needs, consistent with the Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance (WELO). 210

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 353 Appendix EF

GHG Emission Reductions (MTCO2e) Responsible or MeasureStrategy Time Frame Supporting 2020 2030 2050 Agencies * Coordinate with local water agencies to incentivize all new short-term and vacation Administrative WW-7 rentals to have appliances Near-Term Services 10 <10 <10 and water fixtures that meet (by 2022) Pioneer Community the minimum state water Energy/mPOWER efficiency standards at the time of registration. Expand the County's current water recycling program and improve the Very Long- Community quality of recycled water to WW-8 Supportive Supportive Supportive Term Development increase the range of (by 2050) Resource Agency potential uses where economically feasible and available. Improve the energy efficiency of water treatment Very Long- Public Works – and wastewater facilities that WW-9 Supportive Supportive Supportive Term Environmental process wastewater from (by 2050) utilities unincorporated Placer County. Encourage South Placer Wastewater Authority to research new methane Public Works – Long-Term WW-10 capture technology, Supportive Supportive Supportive Environmental (by 2030) including grant opportunities, Utilities as practical and economically feasible.

Transportation 211

Page 354 Placer County Sustainability Plan Public ReviewPublic Hearing Draft

GHG Emission Reductions (MTCO2e) Responsible or MeasureStrategy Time Frame Supporting 2020 2030 2050 Agencies * Facilitate the installation of public electric vehicle (EV) charging stations in existing high-volume parking lots.

T-1.1. Encourage the installation of EV charging stations in high-volume parking lots such as major shopping destinations and employment centers.

T-1.2. Encourage Require new residential one- and two-family dwelling units, as Community mandatory for discretionary Near-Term T-1 6,200 34,780 204,650 Development projects exceeding (by 2022) applicable GHG thresholds, Resource Agency to install EV-Ready outlets in private garages or near where parking facilities will be located as shown in Figure 4-2 and Table 4-5.

T-1.3. Require Encourage new multi-family residential and residential mixed-use development, as mitigation for discretionary projects exceeding applicable GHG thresholds, to design and install EV-Capable and

212 EVSE-Installed Level 2

Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 355 Appendix EF

GHG Emission Reductions (MTCO2e) Responsible or MeasureStrategy Time Frame Supporting 2020 2030 2050 Agencies * charging stations as shown in Figure 4-2 and Table 4-5.

T-1.4. Encourage Require new office and commercial development with 10 or more parking space (including hotels, motels, and restaurants), as mitigation for discretionary projects exceeding applicable GHG thresholds, to design and install EV- Capable and EVSE-Installed Level 2 charging stations as shown in Figure 4-2 and Table 4-5.

Support the installation of alternative fueling stations to encourage residents and Community visitors to transition from Development high-carbon vehicle fuels, Mid-Term Resource Agency T-2 270 7,120 48,620 such as diesel or gasoline, (by 2025) Placer County Air to less carbon-intensive Pollution Control vehicle fuels, such as District natural gas, propane, biofuel, or hydrogen. 213

Page 356 Placer County Sustainability Plan Appendix EF

GHG Emission Reductions (MTCO2e) Responsible or MeasureStrategy Time Frame Supporting 2020 2030 2050 Agencies * Establish budgeting and Department of administration practices to Near-term (by GO ED-3 Supportive Supportive Supportive Administrative support the Placer County 2022) Services Sustainability Plan. Give preference to contractors using reduced- Department of emission equipment for Administrative County construction projects Mid-term (by Services, GO ED-4 170 500 870 and give preference for 2025) Procurement contracts for services to Services businesses that practice Division sustainable operations. Department of Create a sustainability Administrative Mid-term (by GO ED-5 education program for Supportive Supportive Supportive Services 2025) employees. Public Information Office Department of Provide educational materials Administrative about sustainability and Near-term (by Services GO ED-6 Supportive Supportive Supportive greenhouse gas reduction to 2022) Public community members. Information Office

* Agencies in bold are responsible agencies, other agencies are supportive agencies

Table F-3 Implementation Matrix for Climate Adaptation Strategies 214

Page 376 Placer County Sustainability Plan Attachment B

Before the Board of Supervisors County of Placer, State of California

In the matter of: Resolution No.: ______A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE PLACER COUNTY SUSTAINABILITY PLAN

The following Resolution was duly passed by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Placer at a regular meeting held on ______, by the following vote:

Ayes: Noes: Absent:

Signed and approved by me after its passage.

______Chair, Board of Supervisors Attest:

______Clerk of said Board

WHEREAS, on September 27, 2006, California State Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), or the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, was signed into law, committing California to reducing statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, to 1990 levels by 2020, and to a level 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050; and

WHEREAS, on September 8, 2016, California State Senate Bill 32 (SB 32), was signed into law, committing California to achieving a reduction in GHG emissions to 40 percent below the 1990 levels by 2030; and

WHEREAS, on September 10, 2018, California Governor Jerry Brown issued Executive Order B-55-18, committing California to achieving carbon neutrality no later than 2045, and achieving and maintaining net negative emissions thereafter; and

WHEREAS, actions taken by local governments to reduce GHG emissions provide multiple benefits by providing energy and cost savings, air quality and public health improvements, local job creation, resource conservation, climate resilience, and enhanced equity; and

215 WHEREAS, the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3, exempt certain projects from the provisions of CEQA, including Class 8 for "actions taken by regulatory agencies, as authorized by state or local ordinance, to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15308); and

WHEREAS, in July of 2019, a Public Review Draft of the PCSP was issued, with a public review period of July 22, 2019 to September 5, 2019; and

WHEREAS, public outreach was conducted throughout the planning process for the Placer County Sustainability Plan (PCSP) including five community workshops, twenty-six Municipal Advisory Committee presentations, coordination with adjacent jurisdictions, and input from stakeholders and residents; and

WHEREAS, on December 12, 2019, the Placer County Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a noticed public hearing pursuant to Placer County Code Chapter 17, Article 17.60, Section 17.60.140 to consider the proposed PCSP, and the Planning Commission has made recommendations to the Board related thereto; and

WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing was given in compliance with Placer County Code Chapter 17, Article 17.60, Section 17.60.140, and on ______, 2020, the Board held the duly noticed public hearing pursuant to Placer County Code Chapter 17, Article 17.60, Section 17.60.140(D) to consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission and to received public input regarding the proposed PCSP; and

WHEREAS, the Board has reviewed the PCSP, considered the recommendations of the Planning Commission, received and considered the written and oral comments submitted by the public thereon, and has found the PCSP to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment); and

WHEREAS, the Board finds the proposed PCSP is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the Placer County General Plan; and

WHEREAS, the Board finds that the PCSP is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land use practice, and will serve to protect and enhance the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of Placer County as a whole; and

WHEREAS, notice of all hearings required by statute and ordinance has been given and all hearings have been held as required by County ordinance and State law, and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF PLACER that the PCSP dated November 2019, as set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated by reference, is hereby adopted.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution shall take force and become effective immediately.

216 Attachment B Exhibit A Under Separate Cover

EXHIBIT A Placer County Sustainability Plan Note: The Placer County Sustainability Plan is on file with the Community Development Resources Agency and the Clerk of the Board.

217 218 Attachment C

Together we’re a stronger voice

The Alliance for Environmental Leadership is a coalition of community influencers and organizations determined to reframe the way our community grows and is governed through citizen advocacy, environmental leadership and by amplifying the voices for social justice.

Our 14 partner organizations have reviewed the following comment letter on the Placer County’s Sustainability Plan and endorse it, with the exception of California Native Plant Society, Redbud Chapter (CNPS), which supports the letter in concept, but is precluded from signing on because the letter fails to identify consequential connections specific to California plants as required by CNPS organizational policy; therefore CNPS will submit an independent comment letter specific to issues related to native plants, their habitats and as part of a larger ecosystem.

https://www.facebook.com/allianceforenviroleadership/ (530) 878-0738 [email protected]

219

2

September 5, 2019

Angel Green, Senior Planner Chairman Moss and Members Placer County Planning Commission Chairman Uhler and Members Placer County Board of Supervisors Placer County Community Development Resources Agency Auburn, California 95603 [email protected]

Dear Ms. Green and Members of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors:

The world is in a race against climate change. Will we shift away from our fossil fuel economy within 5 -11 years to avert the climate catastrophe predicted by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? We emphatically urge you to act on our behalf to avert the impending catastrophe.

As with many decisions, the decision regarding adoption of a Placer County Sustainability Plan that is powerful and effective, will likely turn on decision-makers’ understanding of simple economics; even more so than climate change concerns. The bottom-line questions will be: Will the Placer County Sustainability Plan (PCSP) cost developers or consumers money? How much will the 2019 standards add to the cost of a new home?

The answer: On average, if made mandatory, the 2019 PCSP standards will increase the cost of constructing a new home by about $9,500 but will save $19,000 in energy and maintenance costs over 30 years. Based on a 30-year mortgage, the Energy Commission estimates that the standards will add about $40 per month for the average home, but save consumers $80 per month on heating, cooling and lighting bills and add value to the home upon resale. The Building Industry Association (BIA) is requesting that of 110 provisions included in the SP, (104 of which are voluntary), the remaining 6 "mandatory" provisions “go away” to allow for more flexibility. There is no justification for this. In fact, it will harm the health and welfare of our people and set Placer County up for punditry consequences from the State. We urge the Commission and the Board of Supervisors to make all measures "mandatory" for all development, including ministerial permits (i.e., building permit for a single dwelling).

Those in leadership positions cannot bury their heads in the sand and claim that the whole climate crisis is a “hoax” perpetrated by not only the United Nations, but also 97% of the world’s academic and science community. To do so would be immoral.

We still have a chance to act boldly and aggressively against climate change threats that are close-to-home in the next few weeks - because the County is poised to create a climate action strategy; our "Sustainability Plan".

Sadly, upon reading the "Plan", we find that the County fails to seize opportunities to lead us to a safe future where global temperature and CO2 level rise is moderated to sustainable levels. The County is not acting boldly or conscientiously. What is bold action? Bold action is recognizing that the doubling the population of our County while allowing historic low-density sprawl land use practices to persist is inconsistent with sustainability goals. Doubling the number of cars on our roadways, continuing to implement low density sprawl through our zoning ordinance will create an untenable situation for the people that live here and for the climate. We must use the Sustainability Plan as a roadmap for dramatic policy changes that pivot away from the status quo.

At the onset, bold action is undertaking a wholesale review of the zoning ordinance focused on reducing VMT. Bold action is embarking on massive investment in rapid transit - of a scale comparable to BART or 220

3

Sac’s light-rail. We have the capability to do great and monumental things that will avert a climate catastrophe. Our future is at a tipping point and we must set aside politics and business as usual. Placer County supports, arguably, the most diverse ecosystem anywhere. It is a critical wildlife corridor for avian and terrestrial species upon which our own lives depend. Species and habitat upon which they depend must be protected as a part of Sustainability Plan goals not only for the species’ survival but because habitat sequestration values are essential components to CO2 reduction.

Placer County is the conduit to the treasure that is the Tahoe region; the through-path for interstate commerce, the hub of California’s tourist engine. Placer County is the keystone County for the State and climate mitigation action today must be commensurate with our stature in the State.

The proposed SP sputters. It takes a tiny step when bold action is called for. Reduction strategies are non- existent for existing development, voluntary for 89% of all future development (only 11% of County permits are for projects exceeding 1,100 metric tons of CO2 - the threshold that would require projects to comply with CO2 reduction strategies). In any case, to keep the rise in global temperature to 2 degrees centigrade, the world must average no more than 2.8 tons of CO2 per person for the next 35 years and then; can no longer use fossil fuels thereafter (or until the atmospheric CO2 dissipates in a few hundred years).

It is common knowledge that CO2 generation per capita in the United States is 20 metric tons per year, compared to the world average of 7 metric tons per year. Prior to finalizing a sustainability program, Placer County should do the research to understand what the contributors are to the US being at 20 metric tons and the world being at 7 metric tons. The Sustainability Plan calls for “actions to reduce the average per capita CO2 generation in Placer County to 6 metric tons by the year 2030 and 2 by the year 2050”. These are hollow promises because the PCSP fails to set us on the path to accomplish these CO2 reductions, either by mandatory community actions or individual actions.

Placer County is obligated to identify the sustainability goals and corresponding actions to accomplish those goals. Those goals need to be equal to or better than State goals. Please explain why, of the Placer County Sustainability Plan’s 110 climate action goals, 95 are voluntary, eight are potentially mandatory, and six only kick-in if development project exceeds CEQA and is approximately 71 or greater dwelling units or is a commercial project producing over 1,100 metric tons of CO2 a year (which is the equivalent of 2,424,400 pounds of CO2 in a year)? There is no guarantee that the emission goals of the plan will be met.

Unless you are building a project generating more than 1,100 tons of CO2 annually, it is business as usual under the proposed County Plan and this fact defies the County’s commitment to CO2 reductions. Our community’s welfare and the welfare of our children are at stake. We demand that the County to do more and do it now.

The Plan fails to consider the ecosystem services contributed by habitat.

The Sustainability Plan calls out the use of the mPOWER program as part of Pioneer Community Energy to help strategies work. Strategies E-1, E-5, E-6, E-12, E-14, E-15, E-20 and WW-7 all reference mPOWER.

From the Plan: “Energy Efficiency Financing: mPOWER To encourage investments in energy efficiency, Placer County initially sponsored the mPOWER (Money for Property Owner Water and Energy Retrofits) Program for residential and commercial properties. Now a program of Pioneer, the mPOWER Program provides special assessment financing for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. Financed amounts are repaid as an amount added to the property tax bill. The GHG reduction strategies in the PCSP expand on these energy efficiency efforts to support more widespread retrofits of existing buildings.”

221

4

The mPOWER Program is terminating as of December 31, 2019. The Sustainability Plan should replace all references to this program and have the strategies require a new program be implemented that not only matches the mPOWER Program but lowers the cost of obtaining low-interest loans. (See New Strategy E-22 below.)

Following is the AEL Action Plan for CO2 Reduction and Climate Remediation

Placer County Sustainability Plan comments:

The PCSP forecasts emissions for the calendar years 2020, 2030, and 2050 for consistency with short-term and long-term state reduction targets.

GENERAL COMMENTS: The goals based on the State requirements and the strategies for meeting these requirements are well designed and very comprehensive. The main criticism is that, given the seriousness of the impacts of climate change, they are mainly voluntary with little enforcement. Monitoring is only of County actions and not of all of the strategy actions. Maybe adding an appendix with a table that calls out all areas by type of sustainability, recommendations, The Plan needs an appendix with a table that calls out all area by type of sustainability, recommendations, and whether mandatory.

Doubling the County’s population without mandating strong CO2 reduction actions for this growth will not get us to zero carbon and a 1.5 degree Celsius (as the UN Panel on Climate Change states we must in order to avert planetary catastrophe).

The Plan should take into consideration the GHG emissions from consumption of materials brought in to the county, not just those produced within the county. The Plan should net-out CO2 sequestration loss due to development of green fields and account for the loss of the carbon sequestration losses on an annual net (alongside reported CO2 reductions and annually calculate and make available to the public a analysis of CO2 sequestration values lost to development and on a cumulative basis year to year. The loss of ecosystem service values (which can be quantified) beyond CO2 sequestration should also be accounted for and reported to the Board of Supervisors and public.

The PCSP should also consider embodied energy. Embodied energy is the sum of all the energy required to produce any goods or services, considered as if that energy was incorporated or 'embodied' in the product itself. The concept can be useful in determining the effectiveness of energy-producing or energy-saving devices, or the "real" replacement cost of a building, and, because energy-inputs usually entail greenhouse gas emissions, in deciding whether a product contributes to or mitigates global warming.

An effort should be made to determine for each strategy how to make it mandatory. Otherwise the County will not be zero carbon by 2045. This includes making strategies mandatory even for projects not exceeding CEQA thresholds.

GHG EMISSION REDUCTION TARGETS

There is no required GHG emission target that local governments must adopt. The State guidance presented in the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) gives local government the option of adopting a per capita target (emissions per resident) rather than an absolute emissions target (sometimes called a “mass emissions target”). The County will pursue the per capita GHG reduction targets as detailed in this section. The State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5 direct GHG reduction targets be set so that “the contribution to GHG emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable,” and that these levels be “based on substantial evidence.”

We understand from previous community workshops on the SP that this was originally the County's goal, to prepare what is referred to in this section as a "qualified" GHG reduction plan. As you know his section of 222

5

CEQA requires that the level or target, by which a lead agency establishes for the purposes of covering GHG emitting activities under the plan, must be based on substantial evidence. Because the County utilizes the State's targets and data from its GHG inventory (Scoping Plan), the County's plan must demonstrate it will achieve the state's targets (i.e., 2030 goal) in order to meet the criteria for a qualified plan. The plan, however, falls short of meeting the State’s emission reduction targets. County was not successful. For this reason, there is a recommendation to update the plan every 3-5 years to track both County ops and community-wide emissions to see what adjustments can be made to achieve the 2030 target. For this first version, no future development projects will be able to tier from this document and must conduct their own environmental review. Why, then, is the County now discussing exempting CEQA projects from SP conformance?

2050 Target

The Scoping Plan recommends a 2050 per-capita GHG reduction target of 2.0 MTCO2e per person for local governments. Placer County’s unincorporated population is forecasted to be 225,180 people in 2050, which leads to a reduction target of 450,370 MTCO2e. Placer County’s forecasted GHG emissions in 2050 are 2,250,450 MTCO2e, or approximately 10.0 per-capita. Table 3-12 shows the change in GHG emissions between 2005 and 2050, and the reductions needed to achieve the 2050 target. These statements are somewhat misleading. To call 2.0 MTCO2e per person for a total of 450,370 MTCO2e the reduction target seems to indicate that the amount is how much each person has to reduce their emissions by. But Table 3.12 seems to indicate that the total emissions per person is 2.0 MTCO2e, not the amount of the reduction. The 2.0 MTCO2e goal of total emissions per person does align with the calculations of the amount of fossil fuels for the U.S, that are left to be expended by 2050. Furthermore, there is nothing in the Plan that addresses personal consumption relating to GHG emissions, such less VMT, air travel, diet changes, etc. in order to meet these reduction targets. Additionally, the State's goals for getting 51 million electric cars on the road by 2030 and getting to zero net energy are not supported by the SP, because facilitating access to charging stations or retrofitting homes for in-home charging is not supported in the SP.

Reviewing the September 18, 2008 action of the California Public Utilities Commission where they adopted the California Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, with support from the Governor’s Office, the California Energy Commission, the California Air Resource Board, the state’s utilities, local government, and other key stakeholders.

The Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan is California’s single roadmap to achieving maximum energy savings in the state between 2009 and 2020, and beyond. The Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan includes four “Big Bold strategies” as cornerstones for significant energy savings with widespread benefit for all Californians: • All new residential construction will be zero net energy by 2020. • All new commercial construction will be zero net energy by 2030. www.CaliforniaEnergyEfficiency.com

Why are we not moving toward compliance?

We propose the following amendments to the Placer County Sustainability Plan:

The County of Placer will establish a no-interest loan program for all existing home or business owners wanting to do CO2 reduction retrofits including solar panels, electric adaptations for cars and appliances in garages, charging stations for retail/commercial parking lots, sod and lawn replacement with low-water, drought tolerant native plants among other CO2 reduction measures to be determined by County staff.

The County of Placer will mandate light-colored roofs (which reduce warming and heat island effects) on all new and replacement roofing, requiring installation electric vehicle charging plugs for electric cars and for 223

6

electric appliances for all new construction, establish that charging stations shall be provided for all new commercial development projects and set a goal for our local energy company, Pioneer Energy, to go 100% renewable electricity by 2030. Pioneer, itself, should be offering programs to incentivize customers.

The County will mandate that every building permit pulled will incorporate every climate mitigation strategy in the Title 24 "Green California" toolbox; (not just for projects of over 71 dwelling units (a project this size generates 1,100 metric tons of CO2 annually)). The County must list cities and counties in California who have adopted "reach codes", where going beyond Title 24 is an ordinance requirement. These jurisdictions were required to prepare cost-effectiveness studies as well, which can also be part of the discussion of how to better achieve CO2 reductions. https://localenergycodes.com/content/2019-local-energy-ordinances/

Putting “Green California” rules in our Building Code now, saves homeowners thousands of dollars each year (annual savings from solar panels alone are over $3100.00 per year per household). To say that Green California toolbox measures add to the “cost” of housing is short-sighted and factually wrong because the measures equate to long-term savings for the end-user - the consumer and protect our common futures something that is unquantifiable. Additionally, the SP fails to identify all the incentives that are made possible for homes built above Title 24 requirements. From the link above: Projects that fall within the scope of an adopted ordinance may be eligible to participate in one or more energy efficiency programs. These programs provide incentives to customers to reduce incremental costs that may be incurred for equipment or measures installed to “reach” beyond the minimum state requirements.

This brings additional cost savings on energy bills to the end user. Cheaper electricity bills also help those who fall in the low to medium income levels, those on SSI. The Building Industry Association Representative who spoke at the Planning Commission on August 22nd, improperly stated that mitigation to reduce GHG is causing homes to "become more expensive and less affordable". I would expand on this and talk about how these measures, if mandatory, would result in fewer costs as it relates to future energy bills and retrofit costs.

There are many benefits to meeting/exceeding CALGreen requirements. One of the more focal benefits being the cost-savings to residents, as well as home and business owners. National and state average electricity prices are on the rise. Residents and occupants can save money with energy efficient construction and appliances. Single-family homes built with the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part6) will use about 7 percent less energy due to energy efficiency measures versus those built under the 2016 standards. Once rooftop solar electricity generation is factored in, homes built under the 2019 standards will use about 53 percent less energy than those under the 2016 standards. Nonresidential buildings will use about 30 percent less energy due mainly to lighting upgrades. There are also cost-savings related to new construction. While the 2019 standards, on average, will increase the cost of constructing a new home by about $9,500, they will save $19,000 in energy and maintenance costs over 30 years. Based on a 30-year mortgage, the Energy Commission estimates that the standards will add about $40 per month for the average home, but save consumers $80 per month on heating, cooling and lighting bills. In addition to saving energy and associated energy costs, homeowners can increase the value of their property.

There are a number of funding options available for energy upgrades or for installing EV infrastructure. One example is Energy Upgrade California, which offers up to $5,500 in rebates to California homeowners when they make energy-saving improvements. This program also helps contractors grow their businesses. There are also financing options like GoGreen Financing. This program has $50k in funding for its residential programs, and between one and five million dollars for small business and other non-residential programs; there’s no limit for multi-residential. This funding helps to finance upgrades to HVAC units, insulation and air sealing, appliances, windows, water heating, LED lighting, pool pumps, as well as installation of cool roofs or radiant barriers. There’s also funding available for cities, counties, special districts, and other public entities that have projects with proven energy and/or demand cost savings; the California Energy Commission (CEC) has 3 million dollars in available funds and provides 1% interest rate loans for those that meet this criteria. For EV infrastructure funding in IOU territory, one source is through PG&E. They have a pilot program for 224

7

installing EV charging infrastructure at multi-dwelling units, workplaces, and public interest destinations. They will also install chargers for fleet vehicles under certain circumstances. For those that qualify, the program will cover the full cost of L2 make-ready installation and provide a rebate of up to 25-100% on charging equipment. These are just a few examples of potential funding sources.

There is also a considerable amount of legislation aimed at expanding or accelerating the implementation of building energy and EV infrastructure requirements, including SB 700, 1072, 1477, as well as AB 2127 and AB32. Please use these references to refute the statements from the BIA.

Placer County shall cooperate with the Placer County Air Pollution Control District, Placer County Transportation Planning Agency, Sacramento Area Council of Government, the State of California and appropriate Federal agencies, Foundations that have enriched themselves off Placer County sprawl to institute a rapid rail system along the Hwy 65 and I-8O corridors between Sacramento and Reno. This rapid rail system will take precedence over all public investment in projects that contribute to VMT.

The County shall undertake a comprehensive rezoning program designed to eliminate further single family sprawl and concentrate development around the new rapid rail lines and protect the remaining green fields that are critical carbon sinks and methane banks. AEL estimates that by the year 2026, unless a comprehensive rezoning program is undertaken, land allocated for development in all the Community Plan areas will be exhausted, used-up; setting up a scenario causing remaining greenfields to be lost to development. This land use pattern is not sustainable for air, water, and life.

Placer County shall undertake a comprehensive CO2 reduction education program incorporating:

1) Educational Billboards on Highways 65 and I-80. The Billboards will educate people locally and also be viewed by the millions of tourists to pass through our Country annually (leaving their CO2 behind)

These Billboards will inform drivers that a) VMT are the largest single contributing factor in CO2 generation and air pollution in Placer County. b) Each gallon of gas we burn adds 20 pound of CO2 to the atmosphere, c) Use public transit to protect our common future d) cost comparison of operating an electric car and gasoline engine car per year d) comparing CO2 generation of an electric car v a gasoline engine car e) etc.

Placer County shall amend the transient occupancy tax provision to include the cost of carbon offsets (i.e, air travelers).

Placer County shall require ski resorts to include a carbon-offset fee (calculated to reflect CO2 generation from point of origin) onto the cost of each ski ticket or pass. Energy provider, Liberty Energy, who provides electricity to the ski resorts, has stated that they are moving towards achieving zero net energy in the future. Pioneer should do the same.

2) Providing to the public, business and development community CO2 reduction educational materials whenever permits are issued, in annual tax bills, in County newsletters, flyers and other digital or hard copy correspondence with the public.

COMMUNITY REDUCTION STRATEGIES

Strategy GHG-1: Establish a carbon offset program that identifies and funds GHG reduction and supports climate adaptation programs or projects, primarily in the unincorporated county and the region. GHG reductions from these programs and projects shall be real, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, and enforceable. Programs shall primarily serve the residents and businesses of Placer County. The carbon offset program would be available to project applicants to mitigate GHG emissions for projects in the unincorporated county that exceed the County Air Pollution Control District’s project level GHG emissions 225

8

thresholds after the application of all feasible onsite mitigation strategies are applied to project design and operation. Strategies and projects identified in the PCSP would be eligible for funding from the program. The program should be compatible with and leverage existing County and regional partnerships and programs that reduce GHG emissions. Development of this program should be mandatory instead of voluntary. Otherwise, there is no guarantee any actions will be taken to meet GHG emissions goals.

Carbon offset programs allow communities to “cancel out” some of their GHG emissions by paying to fund other efforts that reduce GHG emissions. Using offset programs, communities can reduce emissions by supporting a wide number of one-time and ongoing GHG reduction actions under the umbrella of a single effort. These actions and their associated reductions must be tracked and managed in detail and located in Placer County so that the reductions can be well verified. Carbon offsets still allow CO2 to be produced.

Strategy E-1: Facilitate a transition to electricity as the primary energy source for residential, mixed-use, commercial, and office buildings. Do not require installation of new natural gas infrastructure or connection to existing natural gas infrastructure to serve new development. Change building codes to enforce this. Explore requiring greenfield residential construction to be all-electric, except as may be needed for public health and safety. Mandate.

There are many benefits to meeting/exceeding CALGreen requirements. One of the more focal benefits being the cost-savings to residents, as well as home and business owners. National and state average electricity prices are on the rise. Residents and occupants can save money with energy efficient construction and appliances. Single-family homes built with the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) will use about 7 percent less energy due to energy efficiency measures versus those built under the 2016 standards. Once rooftop solar electricity generation is factored in, homes built under the 2019 standards will use about 53 percent less energy than those under the 2016 standards. Nonresidential buildings will use about 30 percent less energy due mainly to lighting upgrades. There are also cost-savings related to new construction. While the 2019 standards, on average, will increase the cost of constructing a new home by about $9,500, they will save $19,000 in energy and maintenance costs over 30 years. Based on a 30-year mortgage, the Energy Commission estimates that the standards will add about $40 per month for the average home, but save consumers $80 per month on heating, cooling and lighting bills. In addition to saving energy and associated energy costs, homeowners can increase the value of their property.

Strategy E-4: Require new residential, office, and commercial development, as mitigation for discretionary projects exceeding applicable GHG thresholds, to comply with CALGreen Tier 1 standards and accelerate ZNE in new construction. Explore density bonuses and permit streamlining for discretionary projects that implement CALGreen Tier 1 and Tier 2 measures, located within an urbanized area, consisting of no more than 71 residential units and is not more than four acres in total area. Change limits. Require retrofitting of buildings that are not in compliance with zne standards.

Strategy E-7: Create incentives to construct new nonresidential buildings to ZNE energy efficiency standards in advance of the 2030 mandate, and a second class of incentives to support new nonresidential construction that does not achieve ZNE but exceeds minimum standards. These standards only offset electricity use and should be met beyond minimum standards. All-electric non-residential buildings should be required where feasible.

Strategy E-8: Encourage businesses, nonprofits, and other nonresidential property owners and tenants to replace old equipment with more energy-efficient models. Only energy efficient equipment should be allowed for replacement.

Strategy E-10: Work with landlord groups and property management groups to increase adoption of modern appliances in residential rental properties. Legal support should be given to tenants who demonstrate need for new appliances. 226

9

Strategy E-11: Partner with APCD to develop and implement programs to replace old wood- and propane- burning space heaters with modern, efficient, and low-carbon appliances where feasible, while ensuring that access to alternative heating is maintained. Efficient wood burning stoves to be changed to pellet stoves.

Strategy E-12: Support increases in renewable energy generation and storage systems for existing nonresidential structures. Community solar for non-residential buildings.

Strategy E-15: Incentivize new homes to install renewable energy generation and energy storage systems that can fully supply the home’s energy needs, in cases where the required size of the renewable energy system is insufficient to fully meet on-site demand. Starting in 2020, California law will require many new homes to install on-site solar energy systems. However, these mandatory systems may not be large enough to meet the home’s electrical demand, leaving some households with a still-sizeable energy bill. Placer County can encourage homes to install larger on-site renewable energy systems, capable of meeting most or all of a home’s demand, especially if they are bundled with a battery storage system. Force compliance with 2019 standards. Note: Annually, embodied carbon in housing is responsible for 11% of global GHG emissions and 28% of global building sector emissions.

Require onsite solar PV systems and/or energy storage as mitigation for discretionary projects exceeding applicable GHG thresholds, for new nonresidential buildings exceeding 20,000 square feet. Apply 2030 standards now for all buildings.

Support efforts by the Pioneer Governing Board to decrease the carbon intensity of Pioneer’s CCA program’s electrical supplies as financial conditions allow. Vote to increase renewable energy portfolio to exceed RPS standards.

Encourage the Pioneer Governing Board to purchase electricity from local renewable and carbon free sources as financial conditions allow. Factor in costs to the environment by not doing this. Pass gas tax to cover transportation impacts.

New Strategy: Strategy E-22: Request that the Pioneer Governing Board consider increasing the proportion of renewable and carbon-free energy supplied by Pioneer’s CCA program and expanding Pioneer’s service territory to cover all parts of Placer County currently served by private utilities.

Earlier in the document it is stated: “The PCSP assumes no additional increase in the amount of renewable and carbon-free electricity that Pioneer’s CCA program supplies to it customers, beyond the increases mandated by state law, and so there is no increase in GHG reduction beyond those included in the state reductions section. Additionally, the PCSP assumes that Pioneer does not expand into the Tahoe Basin area.”

The Placer County representative to the Pioneer Board should introduce regulations to the Board that require PCE to exceed the renewable percentage requirements of the state RPS. All other CCAs in California are exceeding the RPS whereas Pioneer is only committed to just matching the standard.

Strategy E-24: Provide incentives and opportunities to have residential property owners conduct an energy audit when conducting energy efficiency improvements. Develop an incentive program to reduce the cost of professional home energy audits, especially for lower-income households. Establish fund for this purpose.

Strategy WW-2: Require new development projects, as mitigation for discretionary projects exceeding applicable GHG thresholds, to exceed minimum state water efficiency requirements for new water fixtures. As 227

10

part of the County’s discretionary and environmental review of projects, Placer County can require project applicants to comply with more stringent water conservation and efficiency standards to further reduce GHG emissions and ensure sufficient long-term water availability. Make mandatory for all projects - not just discretionary ones.

Strategy WW3: Consider offering expedited or reduced-fee permits to major renovation projects that include grey water systems. Make mandatory.

Strategy WW-5: Consider requiring grey water systems as a condition of approval for new developments when appropriate. Make mandatory where feasible.

Strategy WW-6: Placer County can supplement this action by encouraging existing landscapes to reduce their water use through the use of water-efficient landscaping technologies and plants that require little or no additional water to thrive. Bonus for dry landscaping of new and existing lots.

Strategy WW-8: Implement a Purple Pipe Network in new development projects for use of recycled water for irrigation and outdoor purposes. Make mandatory.

Strategy WWW-9: Identify and pursue grant funding to support energy efficiency retrofits at water and wastewater treatment facilities. Require solar panels to offset energy.

Strategy WWW-10: Seek grant opportunities to support the exploration of methane capture technology at the Regional Wastewater Facilities. Require technology.

Strategy T-1-1: Encourage the installation of EV charging stations in high-volume parking lots such as major shopping destinations and employment centers. Electricity must come from a renewable source.

Strategy T1-2: Placer County can help encourage EV adoption by going beyond the minimum state standards, requiring new homes to install the actual wiring needed for an EV charger for new development projects. Make mandatory.

Strategy T-1.3: Require new multifamily residential and residential mixed-use development, as mitigation for discretionary projects exceeding applicable GHG thresholds, to design and install EV-Capable and EVSE Installed Level 2 charging stations as shown in Figure 4-2 and Table 4-6. Require it for all projects.

Strategy T-1.4: Require new office and commercial development with 10 or more parking spaces (including hotels, motels, and restaurants), as mitigation for discretionary projects exceeding applicable GHG thresholds, to design and install EV-Capable infrastructure and EVSE-Installed Level 2 charging stations as shown in Figure 4-2 and Table 4-6. 10 is too high. 1 is right number. Increase required number of charging stations. Need to cover different kinds of vehicles.

Strategy T-2: Support the installation of alternative fueling stations to encourage residents and visitors to transition from high-carbon vehicle fuels, such as diesel or gasoline, to less-carbon-intensive vehicle fuels, such as natural gas, propane, biofuel, or hydrogen. Only allow renewable fuels and no limit on the size of development -71.

Strategy T-3: Encourage new development to provide a mix of land uses and to be located contiguous to existing developed areas and infrastructure to support connectivity and to reduce trip lengths. Electric buses and transit to be required.

Strategy T-5: Partner with incorporated communities and regional agencies to develop bikeways and trails between communities. Include e-bikes.

228

11

Strategy T-6: Increase the frequency of Capitol Corridor trips east of Sacramento and explore opportunities to increase the frequency of long-distance Amtrak trains between the San Francisco Bay Area and Truckee. Must be required for new developments to have proper job-housing mix.

Strategy T-7: Support and implement additional trip reduction programs in the Tahoe Basin region. Oppose Squaw valley development.

Strategy T-10: Promote infill development that combines multiple land use types. Density levels in Placer County are not expected to reach the levels where infill development will have a distinct GHG reduction benefit independent of other efforts. Population is expected to double. Infill is what is needed - not new towns.

Strategy SW-1: Explore opportunities to work collaboratively with the Western Placer Waste Management Authority to increase the methane capture rate at the Western Regional Sanitary Landfill to 90 percent by 2030, and work toward an aspirational goal of 100 percent methane capture as economically feasible and as available outside funding allows. Speed up timing of capture.

Strategy SW-4: Explore the feasibility of converting all facility and hauling vehicles to low-carbon fuel types such as electric and compressed natural gas (CNG, preferably derived from landfill gas) if outside funding is available. Compressed natural gas is still non-renewable. Don’t use natural gas.

Strategy SW-5: Explore grant funding to research new methane capture technology and apply for grant opportunities to implement, as it becomes practical and economically feasible, in order to sustain a maximum feasible methane capture rate at the Western Regional Sanitary Landfill. Make mandatory.

Strategy SW-8: Support the development of alternative technologies to derive fuel or energy from waste. Still add to CO2 if used in vehicles. Use it for heat or electricity.

Strategy AG-1: Work with local growers and farming groups to encourage the reuse of rice straw for other purposes as market conditions allow, such as animal bedding or erosion control, rather than burning the straw or reintegrating it into the soil in advance of cultivation. This item is contradictory. If there is a proposal for preferred action put that as the recommendation. The non-preferred actions of burning and putting into the ground should both be called out as non-preferred. Either stop growing rice, or incorporate residue into the soil.

Strategy AG-2: Encourage farmers to replace old diesel equipment and vehicles with more fuel-efficient models in advance of their engine emission compliance date. Convert to electric vehicles that are charged with solar panels.

Strategy AG-4: Explore reuse opportunities for cleared forest residue. Stop open pile burning. Require chipping for biomass. Reduce logging and increase prescribed burns.

Strategy AG-5: In partnership with farming groups, academic institutions, and the Placer County Resource Conservation District, promote ways to conserve fertilizer and other soil amendments while maintaining good soil health and economic viability. No-till farming, and elimination of pesticides.

Strategy AG-8: Explore volunteer opportunities to capture manure and other waste products from livestock operations for energy. Reduce livestock and have frequent movable grazing.

Strategy OR-1: Promote the use of hybrid and alternative fuel construction equipment for new developments and significant retrofits. Ban sales of diesel equipment. Require electric.

Strategy OR-2: Encourage property owners and landscaping companies to adopt the use of hybrid and 229

12

alternative-fuel landscaping equipment and promote the availability of incentive programs for new efficient landscaping equipment. Ban non-electric.

Strategy OR-3: Explore opportunities to increase adoption of alternative fuel and more fuel-efficient recreational vehicles, including boats and snowmobiles. Require electric off-road vehicles.

Strategy GO E-1: Incorporate advanced energy-efficiency designs, renewable energy systems, and energy storage in new County construction projects at the County owned facilities. Make mandatory.

Strategy GO E-2: Evaluate the potential to develop large renewable energy projects to meet the remaining energy needs at key buildings that cannot install on-site energy systems. Not all buildings are suitable for on- site renewable energy generation. They may have an unsuitable roof shapes or surfaces, structural issues, or shaded areas that prevent on-site renewable energy systems from being feasible. However, the County can still help move these buildings closer to ZNE status by taking advantage of a tool called “virtual net metering,” which allows the energy use from a larger, off-site renewable energy system to be credited to the energy use of these existing facilities. The County currently strives to achieve LEED Silver design standards when retrofitting County facility buildings. Make mandatory.

Strategy GO E-3: Following energy conservation and efficiency strategies, evaluate the potential for onsite renewable energy projects to meet the remaining electricity use at existing buildings. Make mandatory where feasible to save the County money.

Strategy GO E-4: Encourage facilities to improve the energy performance of other existing buildings to support ZNE efforts, including electrification of existing buildings. Require it for all projects.

Strategy GO E-5: Upgrade streetlights and traffic signals to advanced energy efficient bulbs. Make mandatory.

Strategy GO E-6: Implement energy conservation and demand-response programs to reduce energy use and costs. Do it now to help the Grid.

Strategy GO E-7: Improve the energy performance of existing County owned buildings to support ZNE efforts. Make mandatory.

Strategy GO E-9: Explore the feasibility of installing a micro-grid at the Placer County Government Center for backup power and evaluate the feasibility of micro-grids in Tahoe or Foresthill to provide emergency response and economic resiliency. Get the state to finance this.

Strategy GO E-10: Incorporate advanced energy-efficiency features, renewable energy systems, and energy storage in new County construction projects at additional sites outside of the Placer County Government Center, as feasible. Do it for all county buildings.

Strategy GO WW-1: Improve the energy performance of wastewater facilities. Do this to become ZNE.

Strategy GO WW-3: Conserve water through continued water-efficient landscaping on County properties. Remove all turf from county properties.

Strategy GO WW-6: Revise development standards to ensure the use of grey water, recycled water, and rainwater catchment systems are allowed in all zones. Use same standards as set for residential properties.

Strategy GO T-1: Expand the existing light-duty fleet conversion policy with the goal of converting the entire County fleet to vehicles, trucks, and equipment powered by alternative low-carbon fuels, electricity, fuel

230

13

cells, and/or other technologies as they become financially feasible. Set target to replace vehicles with electric.

Strategy GO T-2: Implement a commute trip reduction program for County employees with a monitoring program and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction goal, as feasible for individual departments. Expand charging. Provide ride-sharing incentive.

Strategy GO T-3: Track options for alternative fuel vehicles and equipment and continue to review options through the Department of Public Works. Require new vehicles to be electric and wireless recharging.

Strategy GO T-4: Replace current transit buses with more fuel-efficient vehicles. Make mandatory.

Strategy GO T-5: Prohibit the idling of on- and off-road fleet vehicles when the vehicle is not moving or when the off-road equipment is not performing any work for more than five minutes in any one-hour period. No problem if all-electric vehicles.

Strategy GO T-6: Implement a bike share at County buildings and campuses for employees to use to go to lunch or a nearby meeting. Do it.

Strategy GO T-7: Provide end-of-trip facilities at County buildings. Do it.

Strategy GO SW-1: Encourage Western Placer Waste Management Authority (WPWMA) to research new methane capture technology and apply for grant opportunities to implement, as it becomes practical and economically feasible, in order to sustain a maximum feasible methane capture rate at the Western Regional Sanitary Landfill. Mandate it.

Strategy GO SW-4: Strive to reduce waste production at County facilities. Only offer food that does not use plaster containers or non-compostable utensils.

Strategy GO SW-6: Encourage WPWMA to implement renewable biogas projects, as feasible and economically practical (e.g. outside funding available), including those that use methane captured at landfills in the County. Must produce less methane. Must capture it all if used to create electricity.

Strategy GO SW-8: Encourage facility operators to improve the energy performance of solid waste facilities as economically feasible and as outside funding becomes available. Require solar panels to offset electricity as well as better LED lighting.

Strategy GO AG-1: Transition landscaping equipment to hybrid and alternative-fuel technology as feasible and encourage businesses in Placer County to do the same. Do it.

Strategy GO AG-2: Identify and plant trees for County landscaping projects that have a naturally high carbon-sequestration rate, taking into consideration the suitability of the tree species for the area. This strategy is supportive. Emissions associated with biomass are not included in the inventory, so reductions in these emissions cannot be counted. Forest carbon sequestration should be included.

Strategy GO AG-3: In strategic locations that can support additional trees without detriment to forest health or public safety/structures, establish a goal of annual net tree planting, considering removals or losses. Emissions associated with biomass are not included in the inventory, so reductions in these emissions cannot be counted. Forest carbon sequestration should be included.

Strategy GO ED-1: Use local and sustainable building materials for all new County buildings as feasible. Use forest certification standards for wood products. 231

14

Strategy GO ED-3: Establish budgeting and administration practices to support the Placer County Sustainability Plan. Budget should include funds to support all of the sustainability strategies.

Strategy GO ED-4: Give preference to contractors using reduced-emission equipment for County construction projects and give preference for contracts for services to businesses that practice sustainable operations. Require contractor information to decide on contract awards.

EXISTING POLICIES AND PROGRAMS: Monitor and enforce all existing policies that impact sustainability.

Forest Biomass Energy Electric generation from biomass in forested areas burns cleaner than other disposal methods (like prescribed burns or pile burning). Prescribed burns will reduce CO2 emissions from large fires that more than offset the biomass option.

Adaptation Strategy DR-2: In coordination with the Placer County Water Agency and Nevada Irrigation District, explore ways to improve the storage capacity and generation efficiency at PCWA/County hydroelectric power plants and to increase installation of small-scale hydroelectric facilities. Actions: 1. Identify areas that are appropriate for small-scale hydroelectric facilities. Use of in-steam turbines that do not impact fish passages. Create uphill power storage facilities.

Strategy DR-7: Coordinate with ski resort operators to support additional recreational activities that are less dependent on snowpack levels. Encourage local recreation unless electric transportation is available for longer travel.

Strategy DR-12: Explore amending land use standards as needed to extend grazing in Placer County’s foothill regions as ecosystem shifts permit this, while maximizing environmental protections and avoiding land use compatibility issues from any new grazing areas. Only if livestock is used to make the land more sustainable and is managed for maximum native grass recovery.

Strategy PD-2: Explore opportunities to locate facilities in Placer County that can store and process bark beetle–infested wood and debris from forest fuel-clearing activities into useful products, including those that can support other Placer County industries and bioenergy. Prioritize siting of an appropriate-scale biomass facility in eastern Placer County. These facilities should be less than 3mg in size and use non- merchantable wood or slash only to eliminate open-pile burning.

Strategy PD-3: Work with stakeholders during the permitting stages for processing woody material from tree mortalities to expedite approval. Hazard trees only from national forests.

Strategy PD-6: Increase funding for pest detection and noxious weed abatement. Use natural weed abatement items only.

Strategy WF-1: Identify funding opportunities to support new or expanded fuel reduction projects, including those that provide assistance for biomass facilities. These facilities should be less than 3mg in size and use non-merchantable wood or slash only to eliminate open-pile burning.

Strategy WF-11: Explore prohibiting or limiting increases in residential density within the WUI. Actions: 1. Amend Community Plans and the County General Plan to prohibit or limit increases in residential density within the WUI. Agreed.

232

15

This is by no means an exhaustive list of revisions and modifications that AEL urges the County Board of Supervisors to make to the proposed Placer County Sustainability Plan. Through the public hearing process, more innovative and constructive proposals will likely come forward. Like you, members of the AEL partnership and the citizens you will hear from during the public review process feel the urgency of the climate crisis. Our goal is to support and encourage your pro-activity to protect and defend the welfare of the people of Placer County today and ensure their safe and secure future that is sadly at risk.

Thank you for your demonstrating climate action leadership by incorporating the improved goals, policy initiatives, revisions and amendments to the Placer County Sustainability Plan as described herein. We pledge to work with the County to achieve significant CO2 reductions upon which our common future depends.

Sincerely,

Leslie Warren, Chair Alliance for Environmental Leadership

233

September 4, 2019

Placer County Community Development and Resource Agency Placer County Sustainability Plan Angel Green, Senior Planner 3091 County Center Drive Auburn, CA 95603

Submitted via email: Angel Green, Senior Planner [email protected]

RE: North State BIA Comment Letter – Placer County Sustainability Plan (July 2019)

Dear Ms. Green:

On behalf of the North State Building Industry Association (BIA) we respectfully submit the following comments regarding the Draft Placer County Sustainability Plan (Plan) dated July 2019. For the reasons outlined below, the BIA is concerned that some of the strategies outlined in the Plan go beyond the 2020 construction code mandates, resulting in additional development risk, delays and expense that will be passed onto new homebuyers.

We appreciate the outreach by Angel Green and her team on the Placer County Sustainability Plan, however we feel strongly that any mitigation measures adopted that are out of step with the construction code cycle will have a negative impact on our ability to provide new housing opportunities. While the BIA understands that the plan will identify key sources of Green House Gas (GHG) emissions within the unincorporated county, and provide strategies to reduce GHG emissions we remain concerned that some of the policies outlined in the Plan make it challenging to implement.

For instance, going all-electric is still problematic for large residential projects since we do not have reliable technical solutions for energy-efficient on-demand electric water heating, and home heating and cooling units (HVAC). This alone would create additional costs for homeowners, as heating and cooling electrically is currently more expensive than gas. The building industry is actively seeking new technology and product solutions to reduce GHG production, however we still need to analyze the state-wide electric grid to see if projects are able to go all-electric in Placer County. To date we have only seen a few small lot all- North State Building Industry Association (916) 677-5717 234 electric pilot projects in Sacramento County, and those were coordinated and heavily subsidized by SMUD to make them successful.

Key comments on the Placer County Sustainability Plan: Strategy E-1 (page 68) Action Item #4: “Explore requiring greenfield residential construction to be all electric” • This proposed mandate is hugely problematic and goes well beyond current state mandates. • SB 1477 (Stern of 2018) directed the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) and the California Energy Commission (CEC) to start two pilot programs aimed at reducing greenhouse gases – which have been largely interpreted as building all-electric homes. The current focus from the state CPUC and CEC have been to focus on fiscal incentives – not mandates. A key difference to continue to encourage residential development in our current state-wide housing crisis. • AB 3232 (Friedman of 2018) directed the CEC to study the feasibility of going all electric, especially with millions of electric vehicles soon to be on our roads. However the state identified that a state-wide study is needed before imposing all-electric mandates.

Strategy E-4 (page 71) “Require new residential…to comply with CALGreen Tier 1 standards and accelerate ZNE in new construction.” Action item #1: “Implement as mitigation for discretionary projects exceeding GHG thresholds.” • Requiring a more stringent building code by a local jurisdiction is permissible, but the local jurisdiction needs to justify the more stringent code. Specifically, the justification must identify special circumstances in the community that are based upon geographical, topographical or climatic findings. Then the jurisdiction would need to pass an ordinance and file the more stringent code with California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

• Action item #1 clearly exceeds the state building codes. Without a geographic, topographic, or climatic justification, we are concerned that Placer County may not have the authority to levy such requirements.

It may be that the Draft Sustainability Plan intends to point Placer County towards fiscal incentives from the ‘”building decarb” programs being developed by the CEC and CPUC as a way to refocus these strategies, however without clear language linking these changes to the current construction code cycle, you are considering adopting energy mandates ahead of state priorities, without multiple supply chains for all-electric home components, and without knowing if mandating all-electric will negatively impact the Placer County electrical grid.

The State of California already has the strictest laws in the country for GHG reduction. The most recently promulgated set of energy efficiency building codes (2019) will add approximately $10,000 to the cost of a new home. During the last ten years, energy efficiency standards

235 passed by the CEC have added $22,000 to $30,000 in energy efficiency standards per home. The mandates included in the draft Sustainability Plan will add significantly more cost for homes during a housing crisis and will price many Placer County constituents out of homeownership.

The state is currently reviewing the issue, but the power grid study has not been completed. The building industry is also looking at improvements to renewable gas and fuel cell technology as a potential long-term solution to GHG emissions. The proposed Plan may cut-off potentially viable, long-term solutions to GHG reduction that will not serve Placer County.

Here is a breakdown of cumulative effect of the recently adopted and proposed state building standards: • CEC Residential Energy Efficiency Standards (effective 1/1/10): $2,500 per home • HCD Residential Green Building Standards (effective 1/1/11): $500 - $2,000 per home • SFM Residential Fire Sprinklers (effective 1/1/11): $5,000 - $6,000 per home • CEC Residential Energy Efficiency Standards (effective 7/1/14): $3,000 per home • CEC Energy Efficiency Standards (effective 1/1/17): $3,000 per home • CEC Energy Efficiency and Solar Mandate (effective 1-1-20): $8,000-$13,500 per home

The State of California has implemented a series of new mandatory building standards resulting in the single greatest increase in code-related construction costs ever seen in the history of our state construction code. As stated above, the State of California has implemented mandatory building standards that have added an estimated $22,000 - $30,000 to cost of building a new home in just the last 10 years, yet the proposed Draft Sustainability Plan goes beyond those state mandates.

We would respectfully request that any mitigation measures proposed in the Plan synchronize with the construction code cycle, which will level the playing field with adjacent communities, and allow the building industry to properly vet new technology to meet the ratchetting mandates set by the state legislature. Again, the state of California already has the strictest laws in the country for GHG reduction.

The BIA appreciates the opportunity to work with staff and the Board of Supervisors to help them understand how the proposed program exceeds the 2020 construction code update and how those additional mitigation measures will raise costs for new construction. For every $1,000 increase in the price of a home another 15,000 California households are priced out of home ownership, according to a national study. It is in all of our best interests to carefully examine every dollar that is added to the cost of building a home. Thank you for your time and consideration, please contact me if you have any questions or require additional information.

236 Sincerely,

Jeff Short Legislative Advocate North State Building Association 1536 Eureka Road Roseville, CA 95661 916.751.6690 [email protected]

237

September 5, 2019

Angel Green, Senior Planner Placer County Community Development Resources Agency Auburn, California 95603 Via e-mail: [email protected]

Dear Ms. Green, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Placer County Sustainability Plan (PCSP). We encourage all efforts to expedite the transition to a carbon-free economy and are gratified by the County’s aspiration to be a leader in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. We offer these comments in the hope they will help the County reach that goal.

CEQA STATUS The PCSP and associated website are silent on whether the Plan is intended to be a “qualified” Greenhouse Reduction Plan pursuant to CEQA (14 CFR §15183.5(b)). For commenting purposes, we assume that it is. The PCSP should clarify this point, and if it is so intended, should describe the effect of the associated regulatory “streamlining”, and the proposed CEQA compliance process. Our CEQA-related comments would apply also to project-level GHG analyses. We hope our comments help the County strengthen the PCSP, whether as a “qualified” plan or not.

STATE TARGETS ARE NOT MET Tables 3-11 and 3-12. These tables respectively forecast the County to exceed AB 32 GHG targets by 58 percent in 2030 and by 500 percent in 2050. The Plan thus unfortunately falls short of its claim to “reduce GHG emissions … consistent with State targets” (p.1). Near-Term versus Future Reductions. The County will meet the 2020 target with no local effort because of aggressive statewide initiatives. Statewide opportunities are now exhausted and little further State GHG reduction is expected. Further, in Placer County (as Statewide), the two major sources of GHG are on-road vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) and building energy. Both are regulated primarily through local land use and building

350 Sacramento, Breathe Building, 909 12th St., Suite 116, Sacramento, CA Mail: PO Box 16167, Sacramento, CA 95816. Email: [email protected] Environmental Council of Sacramento, Breathe Building, 909 12th St., Suite 201, Sacramento, CA. Mail: P.O. Box 1526 Sacramento, CA 95812. Email: [email protected] 238 Placer County Page 2 350 Sacramento, ECOS - Comments, Draft PCSP September 5, 2019

code authorities. It is widely recognized that meeting future reduction goals will require strong local leadership and commitment, as mentioned in the PCSP’s Introduction (p. 1). County Commitment to GHG Reduction. The California Supreme Court has recognized that “Local governments…bear the primary burden of evaluating a land use project’s impact on greenhouse gas emissions.”1 The failure to meet the 2030 and 2050 goals by very large margins is related to the County insufficiently addressing GHG emissions. Since on-road transportation is the largest emitting sector, effective use of land use authority to curb inefficient development patterns is crucial for the County to do its share to reduce GHG emissions. PCSP Measures T-3 and T-10 articulate the principles, which the County needs to require rather than “encourage” or “promote”. Table 4-4. The “Actions’” identified in this table don’t correlate with the “Community Reduction Strategy” categories presented later in Chapter 4 and in the Appendix F, ”Implementation Matrix”. The Table 4-4 groupings should be correlated with the Strategies/Action Items referenced elsewhere. Table 4.6. The conclusion associated with Table 4-6, that, “The County is on a trajectory to meet its per-capita targets in 2030 and 2050” conflicts with the Table, which shows the County will miss both goals. Figure 4-1 demonstrates the trajectory is alarming.

TARGETS NEED FURTHER ANALYSIS

The Countywide 2030 and 2050 per capita targets are derived directly from CARB’s Statewide targets without modification or explanation, and would also comprise thresholds of significance for project-level CEQA compliance. This appears inconsistent with judicial guidance. Using a statewide criterion requires substantial evidence and explanation to substantiate an assumption that the level of effort required in a Statewide context will suffice for a specific project; and a greater degree of GHG reduction may be needed from new land use projects than from the economy as a whole.2 For example, application of the targets is not projected to bring the County into compliance with State 2030 and 2050 goals. Re targets, Tables 3-9 and 3-10 confusingly have the same heading.

GHG-1 CARBON OFFSET PROGRAM Strategy GHG-1 proposes a carbon offset program which would be credible (as defined), used only after application of all feasible onsite mitigation, and compatible with regional plans. Offsets can be an effective part of a successful mitigation plan, and we support the proposed criteria. “Feasible” mitigation includes land use decisions in the County’s purview to reduce VMT. Projects which unnecessarily generate VMT result in structural, long-term harm not amenable to short-term offset-mitigation. In addition, State climate policy is premised on reduction of GHG via local land use decisions. SB 375 instructs that GHG reductions are to result from efficient development and transportation patterns.

1 Center for Biological Diversity v. California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (2016) 62 Cal.4th 204 2 Center for Biological Diversity supra. Sierra Club v County of San Diego (2018) Cal App.4th.

239 Placer County Page 3 350 Sacramento, ECOS - Comments, Draft PCSP September 5, 2019

CARB’s Scoping Plan notes local government’s central role in developing, “land use plans with more efficient development patterns that bring people and destinations closer”, and its SB 375 staff report states SB 375’s targets should be “achieved predominantly through strategies that reduce” VMT. One regional plan with which any offset program must be “compatible” is SACOG’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, which supports the Sacramento Region Blueprint document.

VOLUNTARY ACTION ITEMS. We appreciate the clear organization of all Strategies and the systematic identification of co-benefits. Voluntary Actions not Enforceable. Of the Plan’s 187 Action items, 182 (97 percent) are voluntary. Voluntary actions are not, “fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures” as CEQA requires (PRC, §21081.6 (b)). Many of the proposed voluntary measures fall within the County’ regulatory authority. If the County is confident these measures will be implemented, as asserted in PCSP Appendix E’s GHG assumptions, making them mandatory should not be difficult, and we urge the County to do so. Funding to Support Voluntary Actions The 182 Action Items associated with voluntary measures all involve specified staff tasks. In the aggregate, these tasks represent a major body of work outside normal County operations. The PCSP does not provide breakdown estimates of staff time for each task, or total resource needs, and no funding source is identified. Absent funding, implementation is unlikely.

MANDATORY ACTION ITEMS Five Community-Wide Action Items are presented as mandatory, but are of limited GHG- reduction value, as discussed below. Items Mitigating Discretionary Projects Exceeding GHG Thresholds Of the five Action Items proposed by the County as being mandatory, four (E-4, E-21, WW-2, T-1) are presented as “mitigation for discretionary projects exceeding applicable GHG thresholds”. The term “discretionary projects” is not defined in the PCSP (it should be); but we understand it to mean projects subject to CEQA, and “threshold” to denote CEQA-mandated thresholds of significance (“targets”). Mitigation measures are tools to achieve compliance with thresholds, not ends in themselves. The County’s formulation might be construed to mean each Action would serve as the mitigation for a project exceeding the GHG target, and we suggest it be clarified. As the CEQA lead agency, the County is prohibited from approving projects if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures to lessen environmental effects exceeding

240 Placer County Page 4 350 Sacramento, ECOS - Comments, Draft PCSP September 5, 2019

thresholds (PRC §21002), so these four Actions confer no GHG-reduction benefit beyond current County obligations. These four Action Items are discussed individually below. Strategy E-4, Action Item 1: Require CalGreen Tier 1. This Item would require development subject to CEQA and not meeting GHG thresholds to comply with CALGreen Tier 1 standards. Please see the above comment re mitigation of discretionary projects. In addition, State policy is that all new residential buildings be Zero-Net-Energy starting in 2020, and this will almost certainly be reflected in the next triennial CalGreen update, rendering this Action of only short-term benefit. Strategy E-21, Action Item 1: Non-residential Photovoltaic (PV) This Item is supportive and no GHG reductions are claimed. It would require “new, large- scale nonresidential buildings” subject to CEQA and not meeting GHG thresholds to include rooftop photovoltaic systems. Please see above comment re mitigation of discretionary projects. CalGreen requires PV installs on all new low-rise homes starting 2020. New non- residential construction must be “solar ready”, dedicating rooftop space for future solar systems. Solar installs will almost certainly be required for new non-residential buildings in the next triennial CalGreen update, rendering this Action of only short-term benefit. The Action as written is somewhat unclear: • The term “large-scale” is undefined. • The “and/or” term makes it uncertain whether the intent is to always require storage; and if/when storage might be required absent solar arrays. Strategy WW-2, Action Item 1: Water Efficiency Please see above comment re mitigation of discretionary projects. • It would be useful to identify the source of the proposed more stringent standard, and to state the current State standard to allow comparison. • The Appendix F analysis is unclear re how assumed percent of “new homes installing beyond-code fixtures in future years” was derived. Strategy WW-6, Action Item 1: Water Efficient Landscaping This Action Item requires “water-efficient landscaping…consistent with the Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance (WELO)”. • The WELO is already in force, and is presumably already factored into the County’s GHG Emissions inventory. If so, further reduction should not be credited. Please clarify.

241 Placer County Page 5 350 Sacramento, ECOS - Comments, Draft PCSP September 5, 2019

Strategy T-1, Action Item 1: EV Charging 3 The following would be required for discretionary projects exceeding applicable GHG thresholds. Please see above comment re mitigation of discretionary projects. We suggest these measures be made mandatory for all new construction, and be augmented as described below. T-1.2: Require new residential one- and two-family dwelling units include wiring. • We suggest requiring a NEMA 14-50 outlet installed at the end of the wiring. This is a low-cost item (~$10) that saves homebuyers from having to contract with an electrician to add the outlet ($300) (see related recommendation for multifamily installs). T-1.3 Require new multifamily residential and residential mixed-use development, install EV-Capable and EVSE- Installed Level 2 charging stations at the state’s code requirement for 3% of parking spaces. • We recommend instead of Level 2 charging stations, the County require only a weather-proof NEMA 14-50 electrical outlet (EVSE-Ready Outlet option) at parking locations. Occupants could provide their own charger ($350 and up) suiting their needs, lowering development costs, and allowing charger customization and mobility. • 2019 CalGreen requires a minimum of 10% of EV-capable spaces, and provides two additional levels: Tier 1, extending coverage to 15% of parking spaces, and Tier 2 extending coverage to 20%. Given the much lower cost of running conduit during construction and not requiring a full charging station, per the above, the county should require Tier 2 (20% coverage). Add three additional sub-strategies: T-1.5 Adopt processes and standards in the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz), Electric Vehicle Charging Station Permitting Guidebook. The Guidebook is designed to lower investment costs and accelerate installation of public and private EV charging. Placer can join other counties on the statewide Scorecard as an “EVCS Permit Ready All Star.4 T-1.6: Conduct robust and ongoing outreach to publicize the benefits of ZEVs. T-1.7: Provide Level 1 trickle charging at major transit pick up points.

3 The formatting of Strategy T-1 is anomalous: in addition to Action Items, four sub-strategies are presented, three of which could be identified as mandatory. However, they are consolidated under one Action Item, and we count them as such here. 4 Electric Vehicle Charging Station Permitting Guidebook: http://businessportal.ca.gov/wp- content/uploads/2019/07/GoBIZ-EVCharging-Guidebook.pdf Scorecard: http://www.business.ca.gov/Portals/0/Files/Permitting Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Scorecard_Updated_7.9.19.pdf

242 Placer County Page 6 350 Sacramento, ECOS - Comments, Draft PCSP September 5, 2019

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY PCSP Chapter 6 offers a robust monitoring and update plan. We offer the following comments to further strengthen. Strategy 1, Action Item 3. The metric(s) used to assess progress should be stated, e.g., verification or otherwise of assumptions presented in Appendix F. Strategy 2, Action Item 4. The proposal to update the PCSP if reduction targets are not met, is difficult to parse because as noted above the targets are already projected to not be met.

We appreciate the very substantial effort needed to prepare the draft PCSP. It is evident from the draft Plan’s strong monitoring and update commitments that it is meant to be a “living” document, subject to ongoing community dialogue and further refinement. We look forward to working with the County to advance the Plan’s important role in mitigating climate change.

Sincerely,

Laurie Litman, President 350 Sacramento

Ralph Propper, President Environmental Council of Sacramento

Cc: Placer County Board of Supervisors [email protected]

243

Redbud Chapter – California Native Plant Society P.O. Box 2662 Nevada City, CA 95959

September 5, 2019

Angel Green, Senior Planner Members, Placer County Planning Commission Members, Placer County Board of Supervisors Placer County Community Development Resources Agency Auburn, CA 95603

Submitted to: [email protected]

Re: Comments on the Draft Placer County Sustainability Plan

Dear Ms. Green, Members of the Placer County Planning Commission, and Members of the Placer County Board of Supervisors:

These comments on the Draft Placer County Sustainability Plan are submitted on behalf of the Redbud Chapter of the California Native Plant Society.

The California Native Plant Society (“CNPS”) is a non-profit environmental organization with over 10,000 members in 35 Chapters across California and Baja California, Mexico. For over twenty-five years, the Redbud Chapter of CNPS has served Placer and Nevada Counties, including the area covered by Draft Placer County Sustainability Plan.

The mission of CNPS is to protect California’s native plant heritage and preserve it for future generations through the application of science, research, education, and conservation. CNPS works closely with decision-makers, scientists, and local planners to advocate for well-informed policies, regulations, and land management practices and decisions.

As stated in the Draft Placer County Sustainability Plan (PCSP), the purpose of the PCSP is to demonstrate

244 Redbud Chapter CNSP Comments on Draft Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 2

“ the County’s leadership and commitment to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and enhance community resiliency to long-term changes associated with climate-related hazards.

In the Draft, the PCSP is described as

“ a comprehensive road map that outlines various programs and policies that will be undertaken to achieve the most significant GHG emission reductions in the unincorporated county. In addition to reducing emissions, implementation of the PCSP will help achieve multiple community-wide benefits, such as lowering energy costs, reducing air and water pollution, supporting local economic development, and improving public health, safety, and quality of life.”

The Draft PCSP has five primary purposes:

1. Provide a road map to achieve GHG reductions. 2. Demonstrate the County’s conformance to California laws and regulations. 3. Implement the General Plan. 4. Identify effective, feasible GHG emission reduction measures for new development subject to environmental review. 5. Improve resiliency to climate-related matters.

Based on scientific data and realistic projections, the Draft PCSP appears to be inadequate and designed to fail. While the PCSP discusses some strategies for reducing Greenhouse Gas emissions (GHG), it does not address the “elephants in the room:”

* Almost all of the measures identified are voluntary, and thus unenforceable and readily ignored. * Even if they were mandatory, the measures identified will not reduce Placer County GHG emissions to the extent necessary to meet the goal of “enhancing community resiliency to long-term changes associated with climate-related hazards.” * This is especially true because the County’s population will not remain static and instead is projected to double, with inevitable and commensurate increases in GHG. The PCSP does not in any way address the impacts of a 100% increase in population on GHG emissions. * The plan focuses solely on reducing GHG emissions, but makes no provision for sequestering carbon, which is essential to successfully reducing the threats of climate change. * In fact, the PCSP ignores the cumulative effects of the projected loss of vernal pools and wetlands, grasslands, and other natural areas as they are lost to development and infrastructure, which greatly decreases carbon sequestration at the same time it causes major increases in GHG.

What does this have to do with California native plants? Simply this: native plant communities hold one of the keys to sustainability.

Standing alone, reductions in GHG emissions cannot reduce atmospheric GHG to the extent needed. Instead, it is essential to sequester existing GHG and actively remove carbon dioxide and other GHG from the atmosphere.

245 Redbud Chapter CNSP Comments on Draft Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 3

In fact, research has shown that healthy, functioning native plant communities can remove and sequester carbon at a rapid pace, and that “natural carbon solutions offer the most realistic way forward … [to] a genuinely sustainable, resilient future.” Native Shrubs and Why They’re Essential for Carbon Sequestration, HTTPS://RESILIENCE.ORG

A recent report of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which is the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change, stated that human global society has no more than 12 years to reduce carbon emissions to 45% below 2010 levels, which is our only hope of avoiding temperature rises that will render much of the earth uninhabitable.

Reducing GHG will require not only switching to clean, renewable sources of energy, but also the sequestration of vast amounts of carbon from the atmosphere. It has been known for decades that it is possible to sequester huge quantities of carbon in healthy soil if we can increase the capacity of plants and soil-dwelling micro- and macro-organisms to pull carbon from the air and hold/store it in biomass (such as trees, shrubs, grasses) and in the soil itself. See Drawdown (https://www.drawdown.org).

In Placer County, this means that part of any sustainability plan must be to conserve, and improve, the health of our native forests, woodlands, grasslands, and wetlands so that they can sequester carbon more quickly while enhancing, not destroying, our natural environment. The report entitled “Natural Carbon Solutions for the United States,” (http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/11/eaat1869) estimates that “improved landscape and …wetlands management practices” could potentially result in the sequestration of carbon amounting to 21% of total US emissions, “enough to equal taking all cars and trucks in the US off the road.” Natural Carbon Solutions for the United States. Such natural carbon sequestration “could help get global temperature rise under control while improving and enriching ecosystems’ functioning—thus helping ease the crisis of ecological destruction now sweeping the planet.” Native Shrubs and Why They’re Essential for Carbon Sequestration (“Native Shrubs”).

Simply planting a few trees and lawns in parks will not yield the kinds of results reported in the Natural Carbon Solutions paper. To achieve effective natural carbon sequestration, we must use “regenerative landscape management practices ... such as putting in a biodiverse palette of native trees, [shrubs,] flowers, and grasses and stopping the use of pesticides and synthetic fertilizer.” (Native Shrubs)* Ideally, the plants used should be either native to the local area and/or adapted to local conditions which have co-evolved with local wildlife, insects, and soil organisms.

Accordingly, protection and enhancement of native plants and their natural communities is essential to the goals of reducing GHG, achieving sustainability, and enhancing resiliency of the County to climate impacts.

Strategy GO AG-2 states: Identify and plant trees for County landscaping projects that have a naturally high carbon-sequestration rate, taking into consideration the suitability of the tree species for the area. This strategy is supportive. Emissions associated with biomass are not included in the inventory, so reductions in these emissions cannot be counted.

*The author goes on to explain that native shrubs are also important to developing healthy and effective carbon- sequestering natural plant communities. They provide critical habitat and are generally hardy and quick-growing.

246 Redbud Chapter CNSP Comments on Draft Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 4

This strategy should be amended to recognize the special carbon sequestering properties of native trees, shrubs, grasslands, and wetland plants. It should specifically identify the importance of using native trees and other native plants in cohesive plant communities to maximize carbon sequestration.

Strategy GO AG-3 states: In strategic locations that can support additional trees without detriment to forest health or public safety/structures, establish a goal of annual net tree planting, considering removals or losses. Emissions associated with biomass are not included in the inventory, so reductions in these emissions cannot be counted.

Why are emissions associated with biomass NOT counted in the inventory? And why isn’t existing forest, woodland, grassland, and wetland carbon sequestration included?

Strategy T-3 endorses encouraging new development to provide a mix of land uses and to be located contiguous to existing developed areas and infrastructure, but it does not go far enough; it does not require infill. To preserve native plant communities and their positive impact on reducing GHG, we need to reduce suburban sprawl and focus on infill. This will prevent/reduce the development of wetlands, grasslands, and other important carbon-sequestering plant communities.

Strategy T-10 Describes a goal of promoting infill development that combines multiple land use types, but then undermines that goal by stating “Density levels in Placer County are not expected to reach the levels where infill development will have a distinct GHG reduction benefit independent of other efforts” – even though population is expected to double.

Requiring that new development be contiguous to existing developed areas and requiring infill development the County can reduce the loss of natural areas and native plants and the natural carbon sequestration resources they provide by reducing the creation of "sprawl" and infrastructure that destroys natural habitat.

Infill leaves more natural habitat intact and functional, enabling native plant communities and ecosystems to fulfill their carbon sequestration functions.

Strategy T-3 points only to a goal of reducing travel/commute distance, when it needs to reflect the goal of preserving the carbon sequestration functions of native plant communities.

Strategy WW-6 and Strategy GO WW-3 concern low-water-use landscaping. WW-6 states that Placer county can “encourage” (not require) existing landscapes to reduce their water use through the use of water-efficient landscaping technologies and plants that require little or no additional water to thrive.

In fact, the County should direct and require (or at least offer incentives) that native plants be used in existing commercial and residential landscaping as well as new landscaping. While it is true that many native plants have low water requirements, it is important for water-efficient landscaping to include locally native plants adapted to our weather and soil conditions that do not require as much water, and do not require pesticides and fertilizers (which negatively impact water quality and the environment).

247 Redbud Chapter CNSP Comments on Draft Placer County Sustainability Plan Page 5

GO WW-3 states that the County should conserve water through continued water-efficient landscaping on County properties, but it does not go far enough. Redbud recommends that all lawns/turf be removed from county properties.

Strategy AG-4 recommends that the County explore reuse opportunities for cleared forest residue. Stop open pile burning. Require chipping for biomass.

Redbud recommends that the County encourage and support prescribed burns. Note that prescribed burns return nutrients to the soil in usable form, and many local native plants are fire-adapted and can thrive in environments that are maintained by controlled burns -- they are also more fire-safe because they prevent the dangerous accumulation of dead wood/plants, reduce ladder fuels, and create healthier, more open native plant communities.

Strategy OR-2 recommends encouraging property owners and landscaping companies to adopt the use of hybrid and alternative-fuel landscaping equipment and promote the availability of incentive programs for new efficient landscaping equipment.

Redbud supports the use of clean/renewable energy sources for landscaping equipment.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the PCSP.

Sincerely,

Jeanne M. Wilson, President Redbud Chapter, California Native Plant Society [email protected] 530-570-8009

248 1

PUBLICP UBLIC INTEREST COALITION ______

[Sent via email: [email protected] September 5, 2019 [email protected]

Attn: Angel Green Placer County, CDRA 3091 County Center Dr Auburn, CA 95603 RE: Draft Placer County Sustainability Plan—Public Comments The Placer County Sustainability Plan (PCSP) is a project that in general we support. However, if our reading of it is correct, it needs more “teeth” to be effective. Otherwise, it has been our many decades of Placer County experience that “business as usual” will continue. We submit that Climate Action Plans (CAP) that are “voluntary” are potentially useless. Instead of “should” or “may,” words such as “shall” or “must” need be used for effective results. Also, no project should be considered too small to make a significant impact on the climate. Significant or small impacts—all projects must be subject to CEQA and comply with all aspects of the Placer County CAP. Industries that put bottom line profits over long-term, life-sustaining impacts must comply regardless of the costs. An Adaptation Strategy to reduce risk and protect life through planned regular actions is appreciated. However, it must also include transparency and arms length requirements when County staff or officials are negotiating with applicants on proposed projects. It is good to identify “risks” that climate change brings, but often the biggest risks, that become realities, are due to a too “cozy” relationship between applicants and decision makers. As an example: Most agencies do not allow development that will put human and/or other life in harm’s way—such as flood plains. Yet proposed projects are approved even after real risks—natural or man-made disasters—to life are exposed and well known, such as residential approvals in fire-prone areas in Placer County. With primary residences, secondary dwellings, guest houses, and possibly affordable housing units, even more lives may be at risk on each and every parcel where only one unit was first approved in an area where risks were known. County decision makers must learn to “Just say no!” With regard to reducing GHG emissions, public transit may be a huge pill for the County to swallow, but many County citizens are old enough to know that (1) it has worked wonderfully in the past in urbanized areas; and (2) it works in European countries—including rural areas. In rural Placer County, innovation will be required, but with enough determination and commitment, it is doable. Costs must be covered and born by those who have created the largest impacts. If it’s too late for that, then additional revenues must be generated—and there are a number of options to bring that to fruition.

______

P.O. Box 671 Loomis, CA 95650 [email protected] 249 2 The County cannot continue to approve massive sprawling development, or piecemeal them, and then wonder why there are GHG and traffic problems. Land use proposals must carry much more stringent prohibitions for all applications—whether the applicants are private developers or the County of Placer—to prohibit continuous sprawl and reduce the major contributors to GHG/traffic issues. Applicants must be required to pick up the costs of GHG reduction efforts that their projects are known to create or perpetuate. Before any final approval of any project is granted, a bond must be posted that will cover mitigation of unexpected increases in GHG in future years due to unforeseeable issues created or exacerbated by that project. Last, Sonoma County’s Climate Action Plans (CAP) was legally challenged for its inadequacies. It behooves Placer County decision makers to check out the 2017 Superior Court’s decision regarding the deficiencies and make revisions accordingly.1 We look forward to a well-constructed, effective, and enforceable CAP—a model for future County generations who will be forever grateful. Thank you for considering our views,

Marilyn Jasper, Chair

1 “Court ruling demands strengthening of Sonoma County Climate Action Plan” https://www.sierraclub.org/redwood/sonoma/blog/2017/07/court-ruling- demands-strengthening-sonoma-county-climate-action-plan Sonoma Sun article: http://sonomasun.com/2017/07/26/local-sonoma-valley- attorney-wins-lawsuit-challenging-countys-climate-action-plan/ Court ruling: http://transitionsonomavalley.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/07/Order-Granting-Writ-7-20-17.pdf Sonoma County Climate Action Plan: http://rcpa.ca.gov/wp- content/uploads/2016/07/CA2020_Plan_7-7-16_web.pdf http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/7417512-181/agency-wont-appeal- successful-legal “Agency won’t appeal successful legal challenge of Sonoma County climate action plan”

250 PLACER COUNTY TOMORROW 1725 Schellbach Drive Lincoln, California 95648

September 5, 2019

Placer County Community Development Resources Agency 3091 County Center Drive, Suite 190 Auburn California 95603 [email protected]

Attn: Angel Green

Re: Draft 2019 Placer County Sustainability Plan

Dear Ms. Green:

Placer County Tomorrow is a new organization based on many years of personal, community and professional experience working to continue and grow communities and renewable natural resources by extending our current values into the future along with growth that protects the property rights of both existing residents as well as those who want to develop.

There is much to commend in the Draft. However, the reference to essential transportation corridors on page 12 signals highly troublesome omissions from the Draft:

Climate change hazards can impact water availability, agricultural production, public health systems, essential transportation corridors, and disadvantaged communities in both rural and urban areas across California.

Essential California and Placer County transportation corridors and the ways that Climate Change can impact them and that they can impact Climate Change are not mentioned.

Conversely, and to the point of this Plan, the ways in which these corridors in and near Placer County affect GHG emissions is also not disclosed in the Draft Plan.

The GHG and community air pollution including health impacts from existing interstate and state highway, rail and railyard corridors need to be specifically identified, quantified, and assessed. The Plan needs to recommended actions to manage the Climate Change impacts of these transportation facilities that are within the County’s existing powers and practices to

1 251 achieve and affect. As elsewhere in the Plan, the County needs to engage its advisory and recommendation authority to other agencies and entities that have the power to act as recommended by the County.

The vulnerability assessment seems to have gone through machinations in its failure to address the impacts on all populations of GHG emissions from existing and proposed highways, railways, and the Roseville Railyards. The railyards have been the subject of extensive analysis of this nature in the railyards report, academic research and newspaper reports including, for example, identification of concentric rings of concentration pollution levels and cancer risk.

Similar analysis is necessary in this Plan for emissions from existing and proposed county, state and interstate routes in and through the County.

The Plan needs to address GHG emissions from operation of the Roseville Railyards and railways in the County. The County has taken a step of this nature by preparing and adopting of the County’s Oil By Rail Plan. A similar approach for GHG emissions needs to be taken as the County has for rail safety.

The I-80 corridor has the triple hazardous material incident potential cause from I-80 highway traffic, rail traffic and the nearby pipeline over the summit. GHG emissions need to be added for analysis. Fire starts from the highway are also have County and State management efforts. The Sustainability Plan now needs to address GHG emissions from these facilities.

The undeniably most critical sustainability planning element of the foregoing highway and rail analysis is next to compare passenger transportation GHG emissions and VMT generation from rail including light rail use and expansion, with GHG emissions and VMT from highway use and expansion.

The plans for highway expansion described below including in the proposed transportation sales tax measure that is being developed for a 2020 ballot necessitates this comparison and analysis. The Sustainability Plan is where South County rail transit alternatives to long-planned highway improvements for South County development are to be compared.

City of Roseville Utility Department operation of the city’s two natural gas fossil fuel electric generators needs to be addressed including alternatives to fossil fuel generation. The extent that Roseville Electric obtains electricity from renewable energy needs to be included. This includes the issue of adding another natural gas generating turbine compared to other electricity sources.

Industrial facilities with air pollution permits need to be identified and included in the Sustainability Plan and GHG inventory, including existing and potential biomass and related facilities. Biomass provides an important and necessary market for forest fuel management.

2 252

Placer County APCD issuance of waivers for permitted facilities needs to be identified, quantified, reviewed and subject to recommendations.

APCD burn permit regulations need GHG/Climate Change review and consideration in this Plan.

Private land and public forest land management practices that affect GHG/Climate Change require review and consideration in the Plan.

The failure to identify and include in the Draft Plan new and expanded highway capacity in the County that is initiated, funded, supported and otherwise facilitated by Placer County is a fatal flaw.

Placer County and its other six municipalities, SPRTA, PCTPA, SACOG, Caltrans, the California Transportation Commission, as well as the proposed Placer County Conservation Plan because SPRTA is a proposed PCCP and permittee and member of the PCCP Joint Powers Authority, and so on, are pursuing highway expansion plans now and have been for many years that would enable and encourage massive Climate Changing sprawl including accompanying increases in GHG emissions and vehicle miles traveled in the County unincorporated area, Roseville, Lincoln, and other parts of the County and region.

All County municipalities supported putting transportation sales tax increase Measure M on the County ballot in 2016. Only one member of the boards and councils of these entities voted against putting Measure M on the ballot. Then supporters of Measure spent nearly a million dollars to pass it, but it failed to get the necessary 2/3 vote.

AB 1413 is at this time pending in its final legislative step on the floor of the California Assembly. This bill would permit a second bite of the Measure M apple, not in the whole County, but instead in Roseville, Rocklin and Lincoln.

The San Diego part of AB1413 is needed to help GHG reduction in that region. Our County is different.

An unmistakable purpose of the Placer County part AB 1413 is to enable local funding and the use of local funds to leverage other funds for the $600 million Placer Parkway and the projects to feed into it that themselves promote more sprawl. This includes the $500 million I-80/SR 65 interchange, and the $125 million widening of SR 65 to eight and six lanes between Roseville and Lincoln.

Building with local funds would prevent being penalized with loss of state funds for increasing GHG emissions above limits on increases set by the California Air Resources Board which is what the projects would do.

3 253 There was no opposition to the Phase 1 safety improvements of the I-80/SR 65 interchange to relieve back-up on I-80 westbound vehicles exiting to SR 65, and this project is nearing completion. This safety work cost around $50 million of a new $500 million proposed Los Angeles-style interchange.

The three part $1.225 billion 2020 ballot measure package is misleadingly sold to the public as a measure to relieve traffic congestion. This would be a waste of money for this purpose because existing demand would fill the new capacity now, and development would add congestion of a couple hundred thousand cars from new development. This is a link to the UC Davis, National Center for Sustainable Transportation, Policy Brief, “Increasing Highway Capacity Unlikely to Relieve Traffic Congestion” (or you could net search its title): https://escholarship.org/uc/item/58x8436d

In particular, the 15-mile all new proposed Placer Parkway between the SR 65 Whitney interchange and SR 99/70 and planned Sutter Pointe Specific Plan new town in Sutter County, is unprecedented Sacramento Region GHG promoting infrastructure. Placer Parkway is a project of the South Placer Regional Transportation Authority (SPRTA). SPRTA has the same membership as the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA), namely County and City elected officials Jim Holmes, Kirk Uhler, John Allard, Brian Baker, Ken Broadway, Trinity Burruss, Paul Joiner, Cheryl Maki, and Citizen Representative Jaime Wright from Tahoe District Transportation Board.

If Measure M 2 passes, our sales taxes would pay up front for the infrastructure to serve developers. SR 65 goes north out of the County to Wheatland which two-lane street main street has a maximum of 20,000 vehicles per day.

The County has a contract with Caltrans for the County to pay for Placer Parkway Phase 1. Last year the County Board of Supervisors paid the design costs for Phase 1; this year during the County Budget process the Supervisors reserved $40 million for Parkway Phase 1.

The County Sustainability Plan needs to include analysis and means of sustainability of not only the first three projects on the attached current Measure M 2020 list. It must address what Placer County can do in the Sustainability Plan for all of the projects.

Placer County at this time has an unwritten growth plan. As a matter of open government, what it is needs to be written and disclosed to the public. The written growth plan needs to define the current growth including any actual, in effect or proposed urban growth and limit lines. It needs to include a LAFCO based city spheres of Influence map. The necessary growth management factors to include are our current and expected rates of growth, the location of growth, the type of growth including residential and non-residential development, and the impact of growth upon the physical and social environment.

As proposed, in spite of its good elements, the Draft Plan is not yet sustainable.

4 254 Sincerely,

/S/

Michael Garabedian Co-founder 916-719-7296

5 255 Dear Angel,

Please share my comments on Placer County’s Sustainability Plan with the Planning Commissioners (PCPC) and the Board of Supervisors (PCBS). Thank you!

I appreciate you and your staff for your hard work,

Annie Bowler Owner, the Flower Farm 916 705-1325

Please consider these crucial environmental concerns

I have six young grandchildren; the youngest is just 2 years old. As I consider the future of my grandchildren many of whom live in our local region as well as children who live around the world, I worry. Global warming is having a negative impact on our region; it is causing shifting weather patterns including excessive, prolonged periods of heat and drought which are causing extreme fire danger and tree die off. Scientists predict that Global Warming will cause far greater problems in the years to come if we don’t lower our CO2 levels dramatically. If actions are not taken SOON, sadly my grandchildren and all young people, will have a very challenging reality, a far cry from the carefree childhood we experienced. Thus, I am speaking on behalf of your grandchildren and mine and all young ones around the world.

When I sat in on a recent PCPC meeting, I was surprised to hear that some planning commissioners did not believe that global warming was real. Before discussing my issues with the proposed Sustainability Plan, I would like to encourage all PCBS and PCPC to study the FACTS in the links* below. I also want to point out that 97% of the world’s climate scientist agree with the conclusions that “Climate Change is real and is the defining issue of our time.”

Links on the cause of global warming: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2018/09/global-warming-isnt-just-a- natural-

256 cycle/?gclid=Cj0KCQjw753rBRCVARIsANe3o46wxplLsP9euGXCZ_6GfvXBZqH g0ZQYsmp2rz4AxqfkGDmhTstsWBsaAuZiEALw_wcB https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/climate-change/

I hope the PCBS and PCPC take the time to explore one more link* which makes it easy to explore the sources of world's greenhouse gas emissions: https://goo.gl/N5J6Hl#.XWgdchRO470

Key take away from this data: • The top three greenhouse gas emitters— China, the United States and the European Union— contribute more than half of total global emissions, while the bottom 100 countries only account for 3.5 percent.1 • Collectively, the top 10 emitters account for nearly three-quarters of global emissions. The world can’t successfully tackle our climate challenge without significant action from these countries.

I sincerely hope that all leaders of Placer County take their responsibility to the citizens of Placer County and the world seriously. Enacting a robust Sustainability Plan is the best way for Placer County to do its part to turn this dire situation around and ensure my grandchildren and yours are able to enjoy the same beautiful county we know today.

Comments on Placer County’s Sustainability Plan

I was pleased to see that so much research has been done to create Placer County’s Sustainability Plan, however it does not go far enough to reduce CO2 emissions numbers especially in the areas of transportation and development. A few suggestions that I have are to:

1. Strengthen the Sustainability Plan by changing many of the “suggested” fixes to “mandates.” We all know that suggestions often don’t happen. Let make this plan work for all of us now!

2. Placer County’s emission’s forecast in the Sustainability Plan are unacceptable, especially in light of the projected growth within our county. If we want to reduce CO2, we need to consider our entire transportation system. We must mandate many more clean energy buses, add bike

257 trails and bike lanes, plan for an extension of Sacramento’s light rail, add rail lines to the Bay Area and places beyond. We need to make all public transit systems far more user friendly so many more people will utilize them. The County needs to support new forms of energy efficient transportation, especially charging stations for electric cars. They also need to be open to supporting new, energy efficient ways for people to travel.

3. If we want to get serious about reducing CO2, the County needs to plan for a much greater amount of affordable housing so we can offer local housing for all income levels which will reduce driving distances. A “Smart Growth” plan creates a compact, vibrant and very livable community where people live, work and recreate in a small area that is surrounded by bike trails, has easy access to public transit. Smart Growth developments reduce CO2 by 75% and keep more wild land preserved as wild habitats. The county needs to look at the CO2 impact of every development going forward with the goal of creating the most energy efficient housing possible for citizens of all income levels. Another positive step would be to repurpose empty storefronts and warehouse buildings to apartments or other uses. Please stop approving strip malls and big box stores! There are too many empty retail buildings already. It is clear that retail is on the decline in many retail sectors. Wild land is necessary for a healthy, livable planet and to reduce CO2. Please consider changing the general plan to preserve wild and farming land. The Williamson Act

I didn’t see much mentioned in the plan about the economics of global warming but I feel this issue must be addressed. Here are a few of my thoughts:

We know that the chance of fires in our county are increasing with global warming and that snow pack is lessening. This trend will increase if we do not address CO2 levels. According to Joe Richardson the director of Global Strategies for Citizens Climate Lobby, “the US has spent as much money since January 2017 responding to disasters caused by global warming than was spent on similar disaster in the three decades starting in 1980.” This is a huge economic issue that we are facing. If we don’t address the underlying causes of increased fires and reduced snow pack, our

258 county’s economy will be devastated. Spending money now to support solar development, electric charging stations, alternative transportation systems, and other suggestions will be cheap in comparison to the end cost of doing nothing. I need to point out that there is a major opportunity here to make money by logging dead trees, develop clean solar and wind power, employment as we develop bike paths and mass transit systems, add affordable housing for all income levels using a “Smart Growth” plan and keep open space open to protect wildlife habitat, for agricultural and keep tourist coming to our county.

I would like to acknowledge Angel Green and her staff for their hard work. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you for your time and consideration.

*Research sources: NASA, UN and Yale University, World Resources Institute

259 From: William Stelter To: Brennan, Whitney@Tahoe Cc: [email protected]; Loren Holt; Brad Johnson; Ken Fischer Subject: RE: Please complete climate impact self-assessment by July 19th Attachments: VA Self Assmt Gaps Analysis-NTPUD Response.docx

Whitney,

Please find the attached, and below:

Comments on the draft Vulnerability Assessment (VA) are as follows: 1. Built Environment (Water) (i.e. Waste Water) – Page 38 & Page 40 (Table 1) – VA discusses potential exposure/damage to sewer facilities (pipes & STPUD treatment plant) due to flooding & erosion. VA should incorporate discussion on sewer lift stations. By their very nature, sewer pump stations (or sewer lift stations) are generally located to maximize gravity service to facility. As such they are often located adjacent to sensitive low-lying areas, water ways, and/or on the bluff area just above the shores of Lake Tahoe. Damage and failure of these systems would result in a high-volume concentration of waste discharge to environmentally sensitive locations. 2. Built Environment (Water) (i.e. Potable Water) – Pages 37 – 40 as applicable – VA should incorporate discussion on California’s Water Suppliers (who utilize lake Tahoe as a source supply) ability to avoid filtration due to the current high quality of this source. Degradation of Tahoe’s water quality (for any reason: excessive erosion, contamination, etc.) will put filtration exemption at risk. (CA Code of Regulations: Title 22, section 64652.5) Thank you, Will Stelter William B. Stelter, P.E. Engineering and Operations Manager North Tahoe Public Utility District p. (530) 546-4212 c. (530) 414-3964

From: Brennan, Whitney@Tahoe Sent: Monday, July 1, 2019 9:47 AM Subject: Please complete climate impact self-assessment by July 19th

Hello-

Before providing context, I wanted to ask, could you please complete the attached self-assessment and review the attached vulnerability assessment draft by July 19th?

We held the CAAP stakeholder meeting on June 26. It was well attended and we had some great discussions. As a follow-up to this meeting, we are asking all stakeholders to review the draft vulnerability assessment and provide comments by July 19.

260

In addition, we are moving on to the next stage of the CAAP, which is to complete a gaps analysis. This involves compiling a list of all plans, programs, and projects that address the climate impacts detailed in the vulnerability assessment. This will allow us to determine if there are any climate impacts that are not currently being addressed by a plan – AKA a “gap”. We need your help in filling out the gaps analysis with all plans/programs/projects that are in place at your agency to address the impacts and vulnerabilities identified in the VA. We have attached the self-assessment gaps analysis document as an easy way for you to complete this process. Please fill this out by July 19th.

Please send the completed self-assessment and all comments on the VA to me and/or Ben Pogue ([email protected]) by July 19th.

I have also attached the stakeholder timeline so that you can see this process will be completed.

Thanks for your help in the process and we are excited to continue working with you!

Whitney Brennan, PhD Wildlife Biologist, California Tahoe Conservancy [email protected] (530) 543-6054

www.tahoeplates.org

261 Placer Foothills Citizens Climate Lobby 11662 Graeagle Lane Auburn, CA 95602 530-537-2235

Dear Placer County Planning Commission and Placer County Board of Supervisors:

I am a person of faith and a voting, Placer County resident and taxpayer. I am writing to voice my opinion that, in order to avert climate catastrophe, Placer County, like all communities across our planet must implement bold and aggressive measures to reduce carbon emissions and our dependence upon the automobile - the largest source of C02 in Placer County.

The proposed Placer County Sustainability Plan can be much more effective if...

1) All C02 reduction standards are made mandatory rather than voluntary and wording and intent is changed from 'encouraging and supporting' to 'requiring and enforcing'.

2) Every building permit for all uses are required the use/implement every climate reducing technology identified in the State of Ca's Title 24 Green California Plan (not just projects that exceed 1,100 metric tons of C02 per year). Every commercial and residential building should wired for electric car and appliance plugs as a standard practice.

3) Cooperating with the Regional Air Pollution Control Districts and the Placer County Transportation Agency, Cal Tans and SACOG, rapid transit, both light rail and rapid bus transit, is embraced as the mode of transport for today and the future and a major public investment is made to implement it. All investment in new highways and highway modifications should end, because they are literally killing us. • We envision rapid rail between Sacramento and Reno. Accompanying this rapid transit investment is an end to sprawling land use patterns. The Sustainability Plan should include a process to transition away from car-based life.

4) In general, the Sustainability Plan needs to be revised so that it sets immediate and mandatory policy to reduce C02 emissions to avoid catastrophic effects on civilization, the environment and the species upon which our life depends.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth W. Moore Group Leader

262 From: dianneandron To: Placer County Sustain Subject: "Sustainability Plan" Date: Friday, September 6, 2019 12:52:51 PM

Dear Placer County Planning Commission and Placer County Board of Supervisors,

We are voting, Placer County residents and taxpayers. We are writing to voice our opinion that the proposed Placer County=E2=80=99s Sustainability Plan is inadequate. In order to avert climate catastrophe, Placer County, like all communities across our planet, must implement bold and aggressive measures to reduce carbon emissions especially from automobiles, the largest source of CO2 in Placer County.

The proposed Placer County Sustainability Plan (PCSP) will be much more effective if:

- All proposed PCSP CO2 reduction standards are made mandatory rather than voluntary. - Every building permit for new construction requires the implementation of the best available climate reducing technology (identified in the Sta= te of Ca's Title 24 Green California Plan.) - All projects that are currently in planning and development conform to the same CO2 standards that we are recommending. - Every commercial and residential building is wired for electric car and appliance plugs. - Cooperate with Placer County Transportation Planning Agency to implement clean energy, rapid rail and rapid bus transit. The PCSP shoul= d include a process to transition away from car-based life. - End sprawling land use patterns as it contributes to increased CO2 emissions and causes much environmental harm. - Implement an interest free loan program to retrofit homes and businesses to climate reducing technology.

In general, the Sustainability Plan needs to be revised so that it sets immediate and mandatory policies to reduce CO2 emissions in order to avoid catastrophic effects on civilization, the environment and the species on which our life depends.

Sincerely, Ron & Dianne Szymanski Sun City, Roseville

Virus-free. www.avg.com

263 From: shandon schmeiske To: Angel Green Subject: Comment letter for Draft of Placer County Sustainability Plan Date: Thursday, September 5, 2019 1:26:53 PM

Dear Angel,

It seems as though the PCSP has a lot of good strategies to combat GHG emissions in our community.

My main concern is that many of the strategies will not be enforced, because they have no "teeth". An example of such is Strategy E-1. All new residential and nonresidential buildings should be mandated to be all electric, not voluntary. It could be easily implemented and enforced through Placer County Building Department.

Strategy E-1 could be supported by Strategy E-15, so that all new residential and nonresidential development would be mandated to have PV panels placed on rooftops or carports. If neither of those are feasible, free-standing PV panels could be erected (I understand that by 2020, a new California Law will require new buildings to have solar, but we need to make certain that there will not be exemptions). My vision, for the future, would be solar panels placed in common areas of a neighborhood.

Scientists are informing us that the electric vehicle is one of our best solutions to our climate crisis. So, I find it imperative that all new residential buildings be mandated to have electric 240 volt outlets in garages and carports (including apartment complexes) I think that is covered in Strategy T-1.2 and could be implemented and enforced through the Placer County Building Department.

I believe that "time is of the essence" and that voluntary implementations levels would have been acceptable 10 years ago, but not now. Not when environmental scientists inform us that our time to combat climate change is running out.

Placer County Planning Commission, please be our leader. When we all come together and do the right thing for our climate, we are ensuring the future of our children and grandchildren, and we can still be economically sound.

Sincerely,

264 Shandon Schmeiske Applegate resident

265 From: David Schmeiske To: Angel Green Subject: comment regarding PCSP Date: Sunday, September 1, 2019 5:19:50 PM

Angel,

There is no question that growing communities like Placer County must take effective action in order to improve the likelihood of success as we deal with our climate crisis. Many citizens have been voluntarily reducing their "carbon footprints" in that effort. It's too late to depend upon their efforts alone. Government must lead the way. The PCSP identifies strategies and adaptations, but we must do more to ensure efficacy.

Please consider some mandates for the PCSP T-1.2 strategy. First, all new residential garages must be wired for the 240 volt charging of one or two electric vehicles (EVs). Pulling wires through rough framing and installing 240V breakers in the new service panel are much less expensive than a retrofit. A potential EV buyer may object to that purchase because their garage is not prepared for an EV charge. Such costs are almost negligible on a mortgage payment.

The second item is mandating photovoltaic generation for all new households (PCSP strategy E-15)...no exemptions because of a shade tree. Permit the tree to live in order to shade the house. But our county should require that a separate, free-standing unit be erected to support the solar array...like a car port. The added cost of such new construction will be higher; perhaps increasing the homeowners' monthly mortgage payment by forty dollars. Meanwhile, that same homeowner will enjoy an eighty dollar savings on their monthly utility bill. This is sensible, forward looking, and model for others to emulate.

Your PCSP has the potential to become a game changer. Most citizens are already financially-careful. They seldom spend their hard-earned cash for future savings. They require your leadership to show the way. It's not complicated, and your PCSP should be focussed upon what is important, effective, and manageable. Let our building department do the implementation and enforcement. They are already on the job. They'll do the inspecting of new construction like they do now. The homeowner will probably not even notice the higher cost on their mortgage, but they'll enjoy the rewards. The contractors and property developers will complain like they always do, but eventually, they know that they must comply. It's logical. It's progress. Now, lead the way.

Hopefully, David Schmeiske Resident of Applegate

266 From: Leslie Moonshine To: Angel Green Subject: Comments on Placer County Sustainability Plan Date: Thursday, September 5, 2019 9:57:31 AM

Dear Placer County Planning Commission and Placer County Board of Supervisors:

I am a voting Placer County resident. I am writing to voice my opinion on the proposed Placer County Sustainability Plan. The most critical issue of our time -- caring for our environment -- requires urgent and aggressive policy changes to abate the damage occurring to our planet and to assure the well-betting of future generations. The leaders of Placer County can do more than is outlined in the current plan.

First and foremost is the issue of reducing carbon emissions with aggressive measures to change residents' reliance on automobiles by investing in mass transit. These investments must include light rail and rapid bus transit. The availability of alternate transportation options will reduce CO2 emissions from cars and decrease our reliance on fossil fuels. Having mass transit options also will spur much needed changes to patterns of sprawling land use.

Secondly, making all the reduction standards put forth in the plan MANDATORY rather than voluntary will strengthen the commitment to CO2 reduction. The urgency of the impending climate catastrophe requires immediate full-scale action, not incremental policy changes. Additionally, requiring the implementation of every climate-reducing technology identified in the State of California's Title 24 Green California Plan for ALL building permits - - no matter size or intended use -- will have both a positive impact on our environment and help change people's mindset about their building habits.

I join the many voices asking for revisions to strengthen the Sustainability Plan -- changes that will set immediate and mandatory policies for a comprehensive effort to reduce CO2 emissions and will commit to robust investments in public transit. Such measures are imperative to avoid the catastrophic effects of human activity on our planet and to protect human life. The leaders of Placer County, along with leaders elsewhere, must do everything in their power to mitigate climate disaster.

Sincerely, Leslie Moonshine

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

267 From: Karen Loro To: Angel Green Subject: Comments to the Placer County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors Date: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 7:08:53 PM Attachments: AELLetterSept5PlacerCounty2019.pdf

September 5, 2019

Angel Green, Senior Planner Chairman Moss and Members Placer County Planning Commission Chairman Uhler and Members Placer County Board of Supervisors Placer County Community Development Resources Agency Auburn, California 95603 [email protected]

Dear Ms. Green and Members of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors:

My name is Karen Loro . I am a Redbud Chapter ,California Native Plant Society member. My concerns not only include those in the enclosed Alliance for Enviornmnetal Leadership Action Plan for Co2 Reduction and climate Remediation but are directed towards the impact of the proposed development on habitats specific to Native Plants , including rare remnants of Vernal Pool ecosystems . I support the comments that are being submitted separately by the California State Native Plant Society in whole or in part regarding the impact that the Placer County Sustainability Plan will have vs. adopting the suggestions of the AEL Action Plan .

We have a LOT of work to do to ensure a sustainable future for our citizens.

Regards, Karen Loro

18221 Nubian Way Nevada City , Ca 95959

268 269 From: Lizzie Moore To: Angel Green Subject: County Sustainability Plan Date: Friday, August 30, 2019 3:38:26 PM

Dear Angel,

I am a voting, Placer County resident and taxpayer. I am writing to voice my opinion that the Placer County Sustainability Plan is not enough. Much bolder action is needed, starting now. All of the actions described equate to a little step, which is not enough. Human-caused climate change threatens our very existence and we must take action now.

The Planning Commission and the stakeholders it works with MUST go back to the table and compromise so that things fall much, much more on the side of our climate and planet. Here are some initial ideas:

1) Make all items mandatory versus voluntary and change the wording and intent away from things like 'encouraging and supporting' to things like 'requiring and enforcing'.

2) Every building permit for all uses should require the use of climate reducing technology. This includes all single-dwelling building projects.

3) Invest in rapid bus transit and demonstrate a process to transition away from car based life.

This plan needs to communicate that the County is taking the issue of climate change seriously. There is scientific consensus that the climate change we are experiencing is human caused and that the risks to civilization are immense. We have time to turn things around, but only if we act now.

Thank you,

Elizabeth Moore Meadow Vista, CA 650-245-4498

270 From: CJ To: Placer County Sustain Subject: Draft PCSP Review Date: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 9:33:15 PM

Hello- Below are my comments regarding the draft Placer County Sustainability Plan. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

1) pg 52 - there should be some clarification that the government operations are included in the community wide per capita goals. This is my understanding of the 2017 Scoping Plan (pg 99).

2) pg 57 - under mandatory commercial organics recycling section, the first sentence is repeated as the third sentence as well.

3) pg 62 - The section on Solid waste disposal may need to be updated. Is the 2015 diversion rate of 66% still accurate considering global recycling issues at the current time?

4) The Statewide Renewable Portfolio Standard is detailed on page 56, and is accounted for in Table 4-1 on page 58. As detailed, "Under the latest version of the RPS, electricity suppliers must provide 33 percent renewable energy by 2020, 60 percent renewable energy by 2030, and 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2045. This policy reduces and eventually eliminates emissions from electricity use in Placer County." Already accounting for this policy seems to undermine the accounting shown for various energy and water efficiency strategies, which show increasing reductions, including in 2050. If all electricity is being changed to renewable by 2045, then these increases in efficiency actually result in 0 additional GHG reductions in 2050. Showing these as reductions in GHG in 2050 is double counting the reductions. This would apply to Strategies E-5, E-8, E-9, E-10, WW-1, WW-2, WW-3, WW-4, WW-5, and WW-7, and maybe more. These are still good strategies, that will help meet the intermediate 2020 and 2030 goals, as well as assist in the ability to move to complete renewable energy in 2045. They also get citizens involved, which is good. But with 100% renewable electricity already assumed and accounted for in 2045, these should lead to no more GHG reductions in years after 2045, and reduced reductions as the intermediate renewable portfolio goals are met.

5) The county should look long and hard before spending any money on infrastructure supporting natural gas (as Strategies T-2, SW-4 and OR-1 encourage). If there are no workable alternatives for the present time, then it may be justified. But if there are any other workable alternatives that can actually be carbon neutral, such as electric vehicles, they need to be considered first. Spending money on natural gas infrastructure at this point is really a waste of money in the long run, as they will need to be replaced in just a couple short decades with actual carbon neutral alternatives, and thus should be avoided if better alternatives exist. These Strategies should be updated to reflect this, instead of alluding to the alternatives as equal.

6) pg 181 - The text below Table 4-7 contradicts with data in table. Table 4-7 shows that 2030 and 2050 GHG targets will not be met, which will not meet the law. It is unclear how the county plans to even achieve the (inadequate) reductions shown in Table 4-7, as the vast majority of the strategies laid out in the plan are voluntary.

271 Thanks, C.J. Meakes

272 From: Mike Lehmberg To: Angel Green Subject: Fw: Placer County Sustainability Plan_Public Comment Date: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 5:16:18 PM

Hi Angel,

I'd like to contribute two public comment items on the County Sustainability Plan:

GHG emissions from the Western Regional Landfill at Fiddyment and Athens : This is shown as a significant source of methane emissions coming from normal decomposition of organic matter in the landfill. There is methane capture technology available to mitigate this problem and turn a hazard into a source of fuel. Why is the County not aggressively pursuing methane capture technology to deal with this problem? Voluntary vs. Mandatory: The strategies outlined in the Plan are great, but if not mandated and enforced they will amount to little if nothing. I understand the BOS is not of a mindset to add regulatory "burden" to County governance, but without some level of new practices and targeted reductions required.....then the plan is not much more than lip service.

I do appreciate the work that has gone into developing the strategies outlined in the plan, thank you for your efforts.

Sincerely

Michael Lehmberg 13061 Lincoln Way #F Auburn, CA 95603

273 From: William Wauters To: Angel Green Subject: Fw: The importance of National Drive Electric Week, Real-life experiences installing charging in condo buildings Date: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 5:06:38 PM

Dear Angel, I am very disappointed in the emission reductions that the "Sustainability Plan" will actually enforce. As a owner driver of 3 fully electric vehicles since 2008, I can tell you they are a real answer for combating air pollution and a delight to drive. As a contractor, I know that it is very simple and cheap to install EV receptacles when building new, especially since most power lines come into or near the garages. On retro fits, various factors can make it very complicated and expensive to get a 220 charger hooked up, even if the panel has room. Your EV Vehicle Infrastructure Requirements are only hollow options that in truth should be labeled Suggestions. One EV plug in should be Mandated for every unit, and every remodel that triggers an electric panel upgrade. Proof of this is in the attached issue of 'Plug in America', in the 2 stories of EV users struggling to charge in condos. I can only hope the State will come down with some real Requirements for Counties like Placer that are not showing true concern for our air. Wm.

----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Plug In America To: William Wauters Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019, 10:32:51 AM PDT Subject: The importance of National Drive Electric Week, Real-life experiences installing charging in condo buildings

Having trouble viewing this email? View it in your web browser

274 275 The importance of National Drive Electric Week With National Drive Electric Week just two weeks away, we're reposting this 2018 article, looking back on the event's history and paying tribute to the hundreds of volunteers that dedicate their time and energy to electric vehicles. Read more >>

276 Real-life experiences installing charging in condo buildings Installing charging in an apartment or condo building can be difficult, but not impossible. Two Plug In America supporters generously shared their experiences with us. Read their stories >>

277 Plug In America state incentives map Visit Plug In America's interactive EV incentives map for information on rebates, tax credits, and other incentives in your state! Visit the map >>

278 September 14–22, 2019 Countdown 10 Days

Visit the NDEW website to organize, volunteer for, or attend an event in your area!

Spread the word on social media! Use #NDEW2019

Nissan LEAF is the exclusive automotive sponsor of National Drive Electric Week. California Clean Vehicle Rebate Project, ClipperCreek, and Edison Electric Institute are silver-level sponsors.

Upcoming EVents

Novi, MI September 10–12, 2019

279 Electric & Hybrid Vehicle Technology Expo

Columbus, OH September 18–20, 2019 Midwest Green Transportation Forum & Expo

Los Angeles, CA October 1–3, 2019 EVs & the Grid Use code 193253 for 10% off registration.

Sacramento, CA October 15–17, 2019 NorCal Clean Fleet Technology Conference & Expo

Considering an electric vehicle? In less than a year, more than 200,000 EV consumers have used PlugStar to compare vehicles, find cost savings, learn about incentives, and much more! Visit PlugStar.com today!

Join Us Donate

Follow Us

Share This

280 Contact Us Plug In America 6380 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 1000 Los Angeles, California 90048 (323) 372-1236 [email protected]

Unsubscribe

281 From: Karenda MacDonald To: Angel Green Subject: Fwd: Comments on Placer County Sustainability Plan Date: Thursday, September 5, 2019 10:02:06 AM

I am writing to voice my opinion about the Placer County Sustainability Plan - It is not taking dramatic enough steps to reduce our carbon emissions and is not enough to ensure a continued healthy environment for our children. Much bolder action is needed immediately to have any chance of slowing global heating. All of the actions described equate to a little step, and we need big, bold steps. We as humans do not have time to do anything else.

For the future of our children and our planet the Placer County Sustainability plan needs to be revised a reworked to include bigger changes. Although not always easy we have to make dramatic changes if we are going to have the impact we need to on our climate. Here are some initial ideas:

1) Keep what you have but add more - the things in the plan are things we should be doing anyway. Make items mandatory versus voluntary and change the wording and intent away from things like 'encouraging and supporting' to things like 'requiring and enforcing'.

2) Commit to implementing new land development processes and permitting, design and construction rather than to allow things to remain as they have been. This includes making it mandatory that every building permit for all uses employ climate reducing technology.

3) Invest in public transit to help reduce our dependence on cars. I would love to see a light rail line up Hwy 80 all the way to Auburn. The biggest factors in increasing transit ridership are increased frequency and increased access from neighborhoods. High speed buses throughout the county would be a start.

Implementation of policy is slow we can't push off bold changes into the future - it will be too late. The time is now to set the course for our planets future.This plan needs to communicate that the County is taking the issue of climate change seriously. The current draft does not do this. We have to be a part of the solution for our planet!

Thank you, Karenda MacDonald Newcastle, CA

282 From: Hassan Rostam To: Angel Green Subject: Rice straw and energy Date: Monday, November 25, 2019 10:46:28 AM Attachments: sustainability-11-01762 copy.pdf

Hi Angel,

Thank you so much for calling me back. It was a pleasure to talk to you.

As discussed, here are a few resources I found on the topic.

After reading PCSP and these sources, my general take-away is that the rice straw problem is a big one for Placer County and worldwide, and the energy use/solution is rather a new idea, being developed as we speak, with some promising signs.

1. First-of-its-kind rice straw to biogas facility launched in the Philippines (Sorry, I was wrong. This is not in India. It's in the Philippines.)

2. Rice growing produces tonnes of excess straw – can we turn it into ‘bioenergy’?

3. Attached, a research report from China

4. Biofuel production from straw hydrolysates: current achievements and perspectives

5. And of course, general Google search: "rice straw energy production"

Hassan

283

(Text for KW’s “comments” to be sent to Angel Green of Placer County Community Development Agency)

September 1, 2019

Dear Angel,

I am submitting these comments regarding the Placer County Sustainability Plan in hopes it will be significantly strengthened before being adopted, in light of the Global Warming crisis that is rising upon us, month by month. According to your web site, this Plan is to be adopted “to sustain Placer County's quality of life for generations to come.” While there is much good work evident in the structure of the Plan document, if we do not take this present “adoption” opportunity to require changes in our land development and building codes in the County—for large and small projects—we will only be guilty of increasing suffering well beyond our County borders. Our children and grandchildren will condemn us if we do not do all we can now to secure their future. The present Plan Draft suggests and advises some positive actions to combat climate change. But our economy’s long-term addiction to fossil fuels will not be changed with suggestions or advice, and this addiction is killing species and threatening human life as well. It will take mandates and inspections to impact the present danger--because presently, the financial incentives continue to support endless development and careless disregard of the environment. Without making these “comments” as long or longer than the Draft Plan, I offer these wholesale perspectives to make changes in this Plan before it is adopted.

The Plan proposes to duplicate research already performed by a number of organizations that have established clear ways to secure the five purposes outlined on pages 1-2 of the Plan. The first purpose is to reduce GHG’s. Requiring solar installations on all new construction, and solar roof installations on all structure re-roofing, would clearly achieve much of that purpose. Solar installations could be supported with subsidies that are

284 repaid by energy savings. Yet there is no requirement in the Plan for solar installations, so how is this #1 purpose being achieved? To help secure such an achievement, I wonder if a private-public partnership could be created to bring a solar panel factory to Placer County. Drawdown is a book with 100 ways to decrease GHG and Global Warming. Some are technical, requiring re-engineering and development progress not presently in hand. Many of these measures, however, are readily available now. Why are they not being required? To meet needs for reduced energy use and more affordable housing, we could incentivize smaller structures on smaller lots, in part by taxing “excess” (which means, “larger than my house”!) number of square feet. To meet restricted water use requirements, xeriscape plans and other measures can be required. These and other requirements—not studies, not suggestions—will actually improve our County’s sustainability, which is the goal of the work invested by your department in creating this Plan. “Aspirational goals” are not enough; action is required if we are going to make a difference. It would be a shame to see so much good work in the present Plan document be for naught.

285 From: Angel Green on behalf of Placer County Sustain To: "Leslie Warren" Subject: RE: Sustainability Plan Date: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 8:36:00 AM Attachments: AppendixCProjectEfficiencyAnalysis.pdf PCAPCD CEQA Thresholds General Information Sheet.docx CEQAThresholdsJustificationReport.pdf

Leslie,

These are great questions. I’ll do my best to explain in simple terms, as air quality thresholds can be a bit challenging to fully understand. Feel free to let me know if you have any further questions or if I should clarify something further.

Please explain to me how the mandatory requirements will be implemented? What is meant by “discretionary projects exceeding applicable GHG thresholds”? What size project would this be?

The mandatory requirements for new development will be implemented as mitigation when a discretionary project subject to environmental review exceeds applicable GHG thresholds. The County utilizes the GHG thresholds established by the Placer County Air Pollution Control District, adopted in 2016. I am including a summary on the thresholds to better help understand how these thresholds were established and how they are applied (see attached). I’ll also quickly summarize below.

Projects exempt from CEQA, including ministerial permits (such as a building permit), and discretionary projects below the PCAPCD GHG Thresholds would not be subject to the proposed mandatory GHG mitigation measures in the PCSP.

PCAPCD GHG Thresholds PCAPCD established a 3-tier approach to analyzing GHG emissions.

During the environmental review period, the applicant will need to prepare an air quality analysis quantifying the annual GHG emissions.

· Bright-line Threshold (10,000 MT CO2e/yr.) –Projects exceeding the Bright-line Threshold would be required to implement the mandatory measures in the PCSP. · “De Minimis” level (1,100 MT CO2e/yr.) –Projects below the “de minimis” level would not be required to implement the mandatory measures. · Efficiency Matrix for projects with GHG emissions between 10,000 and 1,100 MT CO2e/yr. – Projects between 1,100 MT CO2e/yr. and 10,000 MT CO2e/yr. that are not able to meet the efficiency thresholds in the matrix would be required to implement the mandatory measures.

286

PCAPCD Screening Criteria (the level which triggers an air quality analysis) PCAPCD also established screening criteria for six land use types which can be used to determine the size of a project which may exceed thresholds. These screening tables are below.

A project consisting of 71 units, for example, would be required to prepare an air quality analysis to demonstrate that the project can achieve the efficiency threshold as shown in Table C-3 below. If a project cannot achieve the efficiency threshold, the project would be required to implement the mandatory measures in the PCSP. If the project is able to achieve the threshold and is less than 10,000 MT CO2e/yr. (equivalent to 646 homes), the project would not be required to implement the mandatory requirements.

As for projects achieving the efficiency threshold, it is worth noting that PCAPCD established the efficiency thresholds based on achieving the State’s 2030 target. At the time of adoption of the thresholds (2016), these thresholds assumed that any building built in 2030 would at least meet the 2016 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standard. Note that the building code is updated every three years and is more restrictive today, resulting in further energy-related emissions. PCSP also assumed the project would not include any wood burning stoves. More information on the assumptions is provided in the PCAPCD Justification Document (see attachment).

How many discretionary projects exceeding these levels were approved and/or constructed in the years 2017 & 2018?

I currently do not have these numbers for the years 2017 and 2018. I’ll look into this further and

287 get back to you. What I can share with you in regards to the number of discretionary applications for previous years, PCAPCD did run these numbers for 2003-2015 (their thresholds were adopted in 2016). The PCAPCD (or the District) received a total of 688 projects for CEQA review, which includes the incorporated jurisdictions in Placer. From PCAPCD’s justification document:

The District found that with a threshold of 10,000 MT CO2e/yr., 11% of projects would exceed this threshold, and those projects contribute approximately 82% of total GHG emissions of the 688 projects built‐out. When applying the threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e/yr., the result shows about 47% of projects with emissions above 1,100 MT CO2e/yr., and these projects contribute 97% of total GHG emissions from the 688 projects.

I realize this information is extremely technical and can be confusing. I am happy to meet with you and explain further.

Thank you again for your questions.

Angel Green | Senior Planner| Planning Services Division Community Development Resource Agency p. 530.745.3084 | f. 530.745.3080 | placer.ca.gov

-----Original Message----- From: Leslie Warren [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 12:19 PM To: Angel Green Subject: Sustainability Plan

Angel,

Please explain to me how the mandatory requirements will be implemented? What is meant by “discretionary projects exceeding applicable GHG thresholds”? What size project would this be? How many discretionary projects exceeding these levels were approved and/or constructed in the years 2017 & 2018? Many thanks for helping me understand this. Leslie Warren

Sent from my iPhone

288 From: betty jensen To: Angel Green Subject: Letter to Placer Co. Planning Commission & BOS Date: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 5:50:45 PM

Dear Placer County Planning Commission and Placer County Board of Supervisors:

Although I am copying someone else's words, this letter perfectly reflects my views. So much so that I am the initiator and co-producer of the "Think Globally, Act Locally: the State of the Climate" live event at the Auburn State Theatre next week, Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 7:00pm. I have been working every day to fill all 350 seats at that theatre, because I heard the speaker in March 2019 and vowed I wanted everyone in Auburn to hear him, especially decisionmakers like you. Here's how: http://zoomaru5.com/mobile/popeventdata.php?id=193574&display=&eportal=appac&sid=12&rtn=

I urge you in the strongest possible way to attend this event so you can view the county plan from an educated perspective. The planet is in a climate emergency, a public health emergency. This has been so before the Amazon and Siberia have been burning. "It is worse, much worse, than you think. The slowness of climate change is a fairy tale. . ." These are the opening lines of The Uninhabitable Earth; Life After Warming by Wallace-Wells, 2019. This plan does not act like it knows that.

I am a voting, Placer County resident of 27 years in downtown Auburn, a taxpayer, and a senior citizen. I am writing to voice my opinion that the proposed Placer County’s Sustainability Plan is inadequate. In order to avert climate catastrophe, Placer County, like all communities across our planet, must implement bold and aggressive measures to reduce carbon emissions especially from automobiles which is the largest source of CO2 in Placer County.

The proposed Placer County Sustainability Plan (PCSP) will be much more effective if:

· All proposed PCSP CO2 reduction standards are made mandatory rather than voluntary.

· Every building permit for new construction should require the implementation of the best available climate reducing technology (identified in the State of Ca's Title 24 Green California Plan.)

· All projects that are currently in planning and development should conform to the same CO2 standards that we are recommending.

· Every commercial and residential building should be wired for electric car and appliance plugs.

· Cooperate with Placer County Transportation Planning Agency to implement clean energy, rapid rail and rapid bus transit. The PCSP should include a process to transition away from car-based life.

289

· End sprawling land use patterns as it contributes to increased CO2 emissions and causes much environmental harm.

· Implement an interest free loan program to retrofit homes and businesses to climate reducing technology.

In general, the Sustainability Plan needs to be revised so that it sets immediate and mandatory policies to reduce CO2 emissions in order to avoid catastrophic effects on civilization, the environment and the species on which our life depends.

Please feel free to call me to talk about this at any time. Climate is the ONLY issue I am working on. 350 parts per million of carbon in the atmosphere is considered the ceiling level for healthy air we all breathe, regardless of status or wealth or air filters. The NOAA last measured it in May 2019 at 415 parts per million. That's before the burning of the Amazon (considered the lungs of the planet) and Siberia.

Sincerely, Elizabeth (Betty) A. Jensen 171 Tennis Way Auburn, CA 95603 530 887 8704

290 From: Lisa Howard To: Placer County Sustain Subject: Placer Sustainability Plan Date: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 2:02:20 PM

Dear Placer County Planning Commission, First, I'd like to thank you for putting together the county's sustainability plan. I know much thought and effort went into this plan, and I appreciate all that you do to try and find solutions that make sense for everyone.

I like many aspects of this plan, and I think there are some really great ideas in terms of adaptation to the problem. I attended the public presentation last week in Auburn, and it was very helpful to hear from some of the folks who put the plan together, and I thought the open house portion of the evening was very useful, particularly allowing us to provide feedback on each line item on the boards. Thank you for listening to the community.

Having said that, I have two main concerns with this plan. My first concern is the fact that we will still be emitting over a million tons of carbon every year by 2050. I recognize this is a significant reduction from the projected emissions without the plan, but it is still an increase, and it is still a significant number. Considering what the IPCC has said about the need to achieve net zero by 2050, I don't think the plan goes far enough. Right now, scientists say we are on track to hit 1.5 degrees of warming in about 20 years and to hit 2 degrees another 20 years later. I would feel better if the report had analyzed all the trees and soil cover in the area and determined that all the emissions would be offset by an equal amount of carbon sequestration, but I asked that question, and it doesn't appear there was any real effort to achieve net zero. I have children, and it's not ok with me to have a plan that gets us to 2050 and doesn't look beyond that. If we do not get to net zero by 2050, we will blow through the 2- degree threshold and be putting our children and their children at significant risk.

My second concern is the voluntary nature of the plan. I realize that there are some things which you can't actually mandate, but anything that you can regulate, I encourage you to do so. For instance, one of the line items I liked a lot was to "encourage" waste management companies to capture methane. I would really like to see the county make that mandatory, as GHGs from waste was one of the few areas that have increased emissions. I would like to see the county look closely at the plan and see which areas could be mandatory rather than voluntary.

Thank you again for your efforts and for taking the time to listen to the community. We are all in this together, and working together is the only way we will be able to solve the problem.

Sincerely, Lisa Howard Rocklin

291 292 From: Ellen Debach-Riley To: Placer County Sustain Subject: Listen to us! Date: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 5:45:08 PM

Dear Placer County Planning Commission and Placer County Board of Supervisors:

I am a voting, Placer County resident and taxpayer. I am writing to voice my opinion that the proposed Placer County’s Sustainability Plan is inadequate. In order to avert climate catastrophe, Placer County, like all communities across our planet, must implement bold and aggressive measures to reduce carbon emissions especially from automobiles, the largest source of CO2 in Placer County.

The proposed Placer County Sustainability Plan (PCSP) will be much more effective if:

· All proposed PCSP CO2 reduction standards are made mandatory rather than voluntary.

· Every building permit for new construction requires the implementation of the best available climate reducing technology (identified in the State of Ca's Title 24 Green California Plan.)

· All projects that are currently in planning and development conform to the same CO2 standards that we are recommending.

· Every commercial and residential building is wired for electric car and appliance plugs.

· Cooperate with Placer County Transportation Planning Agency to implement clean energy, rapid rail and rapid bus transit. The PCSP should include a process to transition away from car-based life.

· End sprawling land use patterns as it contributes to increased CO2 emissions and causes much environmental harm.

· Implement an interest free loan program to retrofit homes and businesses to climate reducing technology.

In general, the Sustainability Plan needs to be revised so that it sets immediate and mandatory policies to reduce CO2 emissions in order to avoid catastrophic effects on civilization, the environment and the species on which our life depends.

Sincerely,

Ellen Debach-Riley, constituent, 95678

293 From: Marguerite Sprague To: Angel Green Subject: Re: Placer County Sustainability Plan -Public Review Draft Date: Tuesday, July 23, 2019 9:36:35 AM

Hi Angel,

Out of curiosity, does this go to anyone from TERC (the UC Davis Tahoe Environmental Research Center) for review? Given their collective expertise on climate change and how it stands to impact the Tahoe basin, their input would seem to be invaluable.

Please reassure me they're in on this?

Thank you very much! regards, Marguerite Sprague

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 1:44 PM Angel Green wrote:

Dear Stakeholders, Interested Parties, and Community members,

This email is to invite you to review and provide comment on the Draft Placer County Sustainability Plan (PCSP).

The PCSP is a comprehensive road map that outlines various programs and policies that will be undertaken to achieve the most significant GHG emission reductions in the unincorporated county. In addition to reducing emissions, implementation of the PCSP will help achieve multiple community-wide benefits, such as lowering energy costs, reducing air and water pollution, supporting local economic development, and improving public health, safety, and quality of life.

The PCSP intends to:

1. Provide a road map to achieve GHG reductions.

2. Demonstrate the County’s conformance to California laws and regulations.

3. Implement the General Plan.

4. Identify effective, feasible GHG emission reduction measures for

294 new development subject to environmental review.

5. Improve resilience to climate-related hazards.

We would also like to thank you for taking an interest, sharing your feedback, and playing an integral part in the process of developing the County’s first Sustainability Plan. We encourage your participation once again, as we go through this final process of review. You may access the Draft PCSP on our Sustain Placer webpage. You may submit comments and any feedback you might have no later than September 5th, 2019.

Submit Comments and Questions:

email: sustainplacer.ca.gov contact: Angel Green, Senior Planner phone: 530-745-3084

Sustainability Plan Community Workshops

There will be two public workshops held for the PCSP. The workshops will include a presentation by county staff, followed by a question-and-answer session. Workshop attendees will have the opportunity to participate, ask questions, and give feedback.

Kings Beach

August 19th, 6 - 8 p.m.

North Tahoe Event Center

8318 North Lake Tahoe Boulevard

North Auburn

August 20th, 6 - 8 p.m.

Community Development Resource Agency (Cypress Room)

3091 County Center Drive

We hope this plan will reflect a vision, goals, and actions consistent with Placer

295 County values and continue the commitment to sustain Placer County's quality of life for generations to come.

Thank you for your time and consideration, and we hope to hear from you soon.

Sincerely,

Angel Green | Senior Planner| Planning Services Division

Community Development Resource Agency p. 530.745.3084 | f. 530.745.3080 | placer.ca.gov

296 From: Toni Fisher To: Angel Green Subject: My Comments of the Proposed Placer Sustainability Plan Date: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 2:56:27 PM

Dear Angel,

Please share my comments here regarding Placer County’s Sustainability Plan with the Planning Commissioners (PCPC) and the Board of Supervisors (PCBS). Thank you!

Crucial Environmental Concerns That Must be Considered:

I moved to Roseville to be close to my sons and grandchildren once I retired from my career in the suburbs of Chicago. I moved in to Sun City Roseville and I felt confident that Placer County would surely represent California's longtime reputation for careful environmental oversight. I find, however, that the future of my four grandchildren, ages 8 to 14, may now be in danger.

I am concerned that recent shifting weather patterns, even in the years since I moved here, including prolonged periods of excessive heat and drought, are causing the loss of trees, problematic agricultural issues and extreme fire danger. The best way for Placer County to do its part to turn this crisis around is to enact a robust Sustainability Plan which acknowledges that global warming is having a negative impact on our immediate environment and region. The Placer County Sustainability Plan does not adequately reduce CO2 emissions numbers, especially addressing transportation and land development.

I am therefore asking that you consider:

Strengthening the Sustainability Plan by mandating many of the “suggested” options. Suggestions are too easily ignored. The County’s forecast of emissions in the Sustainability Plan is surprsingly low, especially in light of the projected growth within the County. Our entire transportation system must be addressed to reduce CO2 emissions, Many more clean energy buses must be mandated; bike trails and bike lanes must be added; and, an extension of Sacramento’s light rail to both Roseville and Lincoln must be included. All public transit systems must be made far more accessible so more people will utilize them. New forms of

297 energy efficient transportation, especially charging stations for electric cars must be supported by the County. New, energy efficient ways of travel must also be introduced and supported if tourism is to continue as an economic force in our area. A greater amount of affordable housing needs to be planned and supported in order to offer local housing for all income levels, thus reducing driving distances. A “Smart Growth” plan creates a compact, vibrant and livable community where people live, work and recreate in a small area that is surrounded by bike trails and has easy access to public transit. It has already been proven that Smart Growth developments reduce CO2 by 75%. Open space land is necessary for a healthy, livable planet and to reduce CO2 emissions. Please consider changing the general plan to preserve open space and farming land. The planting of more trees should also be considered as an easy means of cleaning the air on a continual basis If we don’t address the underlying causes of increased fires and reduced snow pack, our county’s economy will be devastated. Spending money now to support wind and solar development, electric charging stations, alternative transportation systems and other suggestions will be the most affordable approach to reducing CO2 emissions in the long run compared to the likely and dangerous end of environmental damage as a result of doing nothing.

Thank you for considering my concerns and suggestions, Toni Fisher Toni Fisher 4081 Rose Creek Road Roseville CA 95747 916.783.0327

"Never look down on anyone unless you are helping them up." ~Author Unknown

298 From: Susie Harper To: Angel Green; Placer County Board of Supervisors; Sue Colbert; Placer County Sustain Subject: Placer County Sustaiinability Plan Date: Friday, September 6, 2019 8:11:23 AM

Dear Placer County Planning Commission and Placer County Board of Supervisors, I am a voting, Placer County resident and taxpayer. I am writing to voice my opinion that the proposed Placer County’s Sustainability Plan is inadequate. In order to avert climate catastrophe, Placer County, like all communities across our planet, must implement bold and aggressive measures to reduce carbon emissions especially from automobiles, the largest source of CO2 in Placer County. The proposed Placer County Sustainability Plan (PCSP) will be much more effective if: All proposed PCSP CO2 reduction standards are made mandatory rather than voluntary. Every building permit for new construction requires the implementation of the best available climate reducing technology (identified in the State of Ca's Title 24 Green California Plan.) All projects that are currently in planning and development conform to the same CO2 standards that we are recommending. Every commercial and residential building is wired for electric car and appliance plugs. Cooperate with Placer County Transportation Planning Agency to implement clean energy, rapid rail and rapid bus transit. The PCSP should include a process to transition away from car-based life. End sprawling land use patterns as it contributes to increased CO2 emissions and causes much environmental harm. Implement an interest free loan program to retrofit homes and businesses to climate reducing technology. In general, the Sustainability Plan needs to be revised so that it sets immediate and mandatory policies to reduce CO2 emissions in order to avoid catastrophic effects on civilization, the environment and the species on which our life depends.

Sincerely,

Susan L Harper Roseville CA 95747

299 From: Ronald McKinsey To: Placer County Sustain Subject: Placer County Sustainability Plan Date: Friday, September 6, 2019 2:29:43 PM

Please implement stronger measures to reduce carbon emissions than currently contemplated under our proposed Sustainability Plan. Thank you, Linda McKinsey

300 From: Parry Lustgarten To: Angel Green Subject: Placer County Sustainability Plan Date: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 4:22:06 PM

Dear Placer County Planning Commission and Placer County Board of Supervisors:

I are voting, Placer County residents and taxpayers. We am writing to voice our opinion that the proposed Placer County’s Sustainability Plan is inadequate. In order to avert climate catastrophe, Placer County, like all communities across our planet, must implement bold and aggressive measures to reduce carbon emissions especially from automobiles, the largest source of CO2 in Placer County.

The proposed Placer County Sustainability Plan (PCSP) will be much more effective if:

· All proposed PCSP CO2 reduction standards are made mandatory rather than voluntary.

· Every building permit for new construction requires the implementation of the best available climate reducing technology (identified in the State of Ca's Title 24 Green California Plan.)

· All projects that are currently in planning and development conform to the same CO2 standards that we are recommending.

· Every commercial and residential building is wired for electric car and appliance plugs.

· Cooperate with Placer County Transportation Planning Agency to implement clean energy, rapid rail, and rapid bus transit. The PCSP should include a process to transition away from car-based life.

· End sprawling land-use patterns as it contributes to increased CO2 emissions and causes much environmental harm.

301 · Implement an interest-free loan program to retrofit homes and businesses to climate reducing technology.

In general, the Sustainability Plan needs to be revised so that it sets immediate and mandatory policies to reduce CO2 emissions in order to avoid catastrophic effects on civilization, the environment and the species on which our life depends.

Respectfully submitted

Parry and Larry Lustgarten

7456 Millport Drive

Roseville, CA 95678

302 From: Lisa Larkin To: Angel Green Subject: Placer County Sustainability Plan Date: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 12:03:56 PM

Dear Angel,

I am a voting, Placer County resident and taxpayer. I am writing to voice my opinion that the Placer County Sustainability Plan is not enough! I believe that a much bolder action is needed, and we need that bolder action to start NOW! We can no longer take the baby steps described... we must take giant leaps toward protecting our environment. Human-caused climate change threatens our very existence and we must take action now!

The Planning Commission and the stakeholders it works with MUST go back to the table and compromise so that things fall much, much more on the side of our climate and planet. Here are some initial ideas:

1) Make all items mandatory versus voluntary and change the wording and intent away from things like 'encouraging and supporting' to things like 'requiring and enforcing'. Without this, developers will simply choose to ignore and cut corners.

2) Every building permit for all uses should require the use of climate reducing technology. This includes all single-dwelling building projects. Every building should wired for electric car and appliance plugs, and have solar panels!

3) Invest in rapid bus transit, modify sprawling land use patterns and institute a process to transition away from car based life! I recently saw that Dubai has implemented communities where parking is outside of the community and they all use electric golf carts to get around within the community. The ideas they are implementing there are incredible and we should be looking at any and all ideas for future growth.

4) Every parking structure and business should also have solar panels on the roof.

5) In general, the Sustainability Plan needs to be revised so that it sets immediate and mandatory policy to reduce CO2 emissions and to avoid the catastrophic effects on civilization as we know it.

Sincerely,

Lisa Larkin Roseville, CA 95678

303 From: [email protected] To: Angel Green Subject: Placer County Sustainability Plan Date: Monday, September 2, 2019 10:02:15 PM

I am writing as a Placer County resident who votes, and I want to express my opinion that the sustainability plan is too weak. Climate change is occurring so fast that we MUST act now to save our planet by "REQUIRING AND ENFORCING" items, instead of "encouraging and supporting"; require climate reducing technology for every building permit, including single- dwelling building projects; every building should be wired for electric car and appliance plugs;invest in rapid bus transit, modify sprawling land use patterns and institute a process to transition from car based life; revise the Sustainablilty Plan so there are immediate and mandatory policies to reduce CO2 emissions and avoid catastrophic effects on all people.

Thank you, Susan Kehrli Moore

304 From: Tomas Vera To: Angel Green; Placer County Board of Supervisors; Sue Colbert; Placer County Sustain Subject: Placer County Sustainability Plan Date: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 9:08:43 PM

Dear Placer County Planning Commission and Placer County Board of Supervisors:

I am a voting, Placer County resident and taxpayer. I am writing to voice my opinion that the proposed Placer County’s Sustainability Plan is inadequate. In order to avert climate catastrophe, Placer County, like all communities across our planet, must implement bold and aggressive measures to reduce carbon emissions especially from automobiles, the largest source of CO2 in Placer County.

The proposed Placer County Sustainability Plan (PCSP) will be much more effective if:

All proposed PCSP CO2 reduction standards are made mandatory rather than voluntary. Every building permit for new construction requires the implementation of the best available climate reducing technology (identified in the State of Ca's Title 24 Green California Plan.) All projects that are currently in planning and development conform to the same CO2 standards that we are recommending. Every commercial and residential building is wired for electric car and appliance plugs. Cooperate with Placer County Transportation Planning Agency to implement clean energy, rapid rail and rapid bus transit. The PCSP should include a process to transition away from car-based life. End sprawling land use patterns as it contributes to increased CO2 emissions and causes much environmental harm. Implement an interest free loan program to retrofit homes and businesses to climate reducing technology.

In general, the Sustainability Plan needs to be revised so that it sets immediate and mandatory policies to reduce CO2 emissions in order to avoid catastrophic effects on civilization, the environment and the species on which our life depends.

Sincerely, Tomas Vera Applegate, CA, 95703 -- /*------* Tomas at Home * (530) 401-8415 * [email protected] * ------*/

305 From: Barbara Tellman To: Angel Green Subject: Placer County Sustainability Plan Date: Friday, August 30, 2019 4:10:46 PM

Dear Angel,

I am a resident of Auburn, a Placer County taxpayer and registered voter. I am very concerned about the lack of action by Placer County in its sustainability plan. Unfortunately the climate is warming more quickly than predicted - look at the fires in the Amazon and in Alaska, the rapid melting of the glaciers and thawing of the permafrost causing greater methane leaking into the environment. We must be bold and take charge of slowing the rate of climate change wherever possible.

We need the Planning commission and stakeholders to re-examine their commitments to the planet for a more pro-active compromise. This would include making all items MANDITORY, NOT VOLUNTARY, changing wording to “requiring and enforcing” rather than “encouraging and supporting”. Every building permit should include climate-reducing technology. Make it possible to encourage mass transportation vs automotive transportation. This should include better bike lanes and sidewalk construction.

Thank you for urging this most necessary change to the Sustainability plan.

Barbara Tellman 1020 Southridge Drive, Auburn, CA 95603 [email protected]

306 From: [email protected] To: Placer County Sustain Subject: Placer County Sustainability plan Date: Wednesday, October 9, 2019 5:35:06 PM

Hi Angel, I just noticed this initiative, and see the public feedback period is finished, but wanted to still send my feedback.

I’m a long-time resident, and home owner in the Newcastle area. Below my ideas to make a positive change. Keep up the good work!

1. Stop urban sprawl (restrict all new building in Placer county, within a decided radius from town centers, to mix of 10+ farms & 5+ home buildable lots. 2. Keep existing work going to preserve open areas for wildlife, and our enjoyment (hike, bike, horses, or just preserved) 3. In urban areas (decided radius area if not already defined), provide bike lanes & sidewalks vs. more car lanes to make it safe to get around (make it more convenient NOT to drive) 4. Encourage cool urban areas to live, shop, eat, vs. more Megastores. Make it desirable. 5. Put in more electric car charging stations right up front near the handicap parking 6. Provide more incentives for putting solar on homes, or marketing of what’s available 7. Can more revenue be brought in to fine people from driving in the carpool lane? Thanks, Amanda

Sent from ProtonMail Mobile

307 From: Brett Hoffman To: Angel Green Subject: Placer County Sustainability Plan Date: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 8:37:49 AM

Dear Placer County Planning Commission and Placer County Board of Supervisors:

I am a voting, Placer County resident and taxpayer. I am writing to voice my opinion that Placer County, like all communities across our planet must implement bold and aggressive measures to reduce carbon emissions and our dependence upon the automobile - the largest source of CO2 in Placer County.

The proposed Placer County Sustainability Plan can be much more effective if

1) All CO2 reduction standards are made mandatory rather than voluntary and wording and intent is changed from 'encouraging and supporting' to 'requiring and enforcing'.

2) Every building permit for all uses are required the use/implement every climate reducing technology identified in the State of Ca's Title 24 Green California Plan (not just projects that exceed 1,100 metric tons of CO2 per year). Every commercial and residential building should wired for electric car and appliance plugs as a standard practice.

3) Cooperating with the Regional Air Pollution Control Districts and the Placer County Transportation Agency, Cal Tans and SACOG, rapid transit, both light rail and rapid bus transit, is embraced as the mode of transport for today and the future and a major public investment is made to implement it. All investment in new highways and highway modifications should end, because they are literally killing us. We envision rapid rail between Sacramento and Reno. Accompanying this rapid transit investment is an end to sprawling land use patterns. The Sustainability Plan should include a process to transition away from car-based life.

4) In general, the Sustainability Plan needs to be revised so that it sets immediate and mandatory policy to reduce CO2 emissions to avoid catastrophic effects on civilization, the environment and the species upon which our life depends.

Sincerely,

Brett Hoffman

4607 Lemon Hill Dr Rocklin, CA 95677

308 From: Colleen Hogan To: Angel Green Subject: Placer County Sustainability Plan Date: Monday, September 2, 2019 11:47:57 PM

Dear Angel, I am a Placer County resident, taxpayer and voter.I am very disappointed with the Placer County Sustainability Plan. It is just not enough. Human caused climate change threatens our future. We must improve our attention and action to this serious issue. Please consider improving the Plan so that we can protect our world by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. Here are a couple ideas: 1) Make all items mandatory versus voluntary and change the wording and intent away from things like 'encouraging and supporting' to things like 'requiring and enforcing'.

2) Invest in rapid bus transit and demonstrate a process to transition away from car based life. We need to communicate that the County is taking the idea of climate change seriously.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter, Colleen M Hogan 790 Crother Road Meadow Vista, CA 95722

309 From: Parry Lustgarten To: Placer County Sustain Subject: Placer County Sustainability Plan Date: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 4:19:09 PM

Dear Placer County Planning Commission and Placer County Board of Supervisors:

I am a voting, Placer County resident and taxpayer. I am writing to voice my opinion that the proposed Placer County’s Sustainability Plan is inadequate. In order to avert climate catastrophe, Placer County, like all communities across our planet, must implement bold and aggressive measures to reduce carbon emissions especially from automobiles, the largest source of CO2 in Placer County.

The proposed Placer County Sustainability Plan (PCSP) will be much more effective if:

· All proposed PCSP CO2 reduction standards are made mandatory rather than voluntary.

· Every building permit for new construction requires the implementation of the best available climate reducing technology (identified in the State of Ca's Title 24 Green California Plan.)

· All projects that are currently in planning and development conform to the same CO2 standards that we are recommending.

· Every commercial and residential building is wired for electric car and appliance plugs.

· Cooperate with Placer County Transportation Planning Agency to implement clean energy, rapid rail and rapid bus transit. The PCSP should include a process to transition away from car-based life.

· End sprawling land-use patterns as it contributes to increased CO2 emissions and causes much environmental harm.

· Implement an interest-free loan program to retrofit homes and businesses to climate reducing technology.

In general, the Sustainability Plan needs to be revised so that it sets immediate and mandatory policies to reduce CO2 emissions in order to avoid catastrophic effects on civilization, the environment and the species on which our life depends.

Respectfully submitted,

Parry and Larry Lustgarten

7456 Millport Drive

Roseville, CA 95678

310 From: Maureen Wilson To: Angel Green Subject: Placer County Sustainability Plan Date: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 4:29:35 PM

To the Placer County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors,

As a 30+ year resident of Placer County who is increasingly concerned about the effects of climate change on my life and community, I urge you to strengthen the currently proposed Sustainability Plan.

The CO2 reduction standards in the plan must be mandatory, not voluntary, and there must be enforcement provisions included.

Building permits for all uses, both commercial and residential, should implement the technology identified in California's Title 24 Green California Plan. The current plan must expand beyond only projects that exceed 1100 metric tons of CO2 per year.

Investments in regional rapid transit should eclipse more investment in new highways. Driving anywhere along the I-80 corridor between Roseville and the Bay Area these days is pure torture, and the Sustainability Plan must address the number of cars on the road. And let's also plan for higher-density community developments that include shopping, hospitals, and schools within a transit district to reduce individual vehicles.

The urgency of climate change challenges us to make bold changes now. We can't wait.

Thank you, Maureen Wilson 105 Meadowlark Ct. Auburn 95603

311 From: Roke To: Angel Green Subject: Placer County Sustainability Plan: Comments Date: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 4:00:34 PM

Dear Angel:

Thank you for accepting comments on the Plan electronically.

I live in Auburn and am deeply concerned that the Placer County Sustainability Plan is not nearly strong enough to have a significant impact on CO2 emissions in our area. The plan is complex and technical, and I cannot comment on many of the specific elements. I do support the extensive comments submitted by the Alliance for Environmental Leadership and partners.

As for my specific comments:

There is absolutely no reason that the county couldn't mandate wiring for electric car charging in garages of all new homes. We need to remove barriers to electric car purchase, and avoiding the $1000-plus cost of a wiring retrofit is an easy step. I recommend this be included.

The plan should include an element to specifically advocate and publicize electric car use. For example, Pioneer Energy billing communications could advertise the benefits of electric cars. The County could develop broad public relations campaigns to increase electric car use and monitor their efficacy.

Finally, many of the items in the Plan are "voluntary" when they should be mandated. Unless the Plan has requirements for compliance and consequences for noncompliance it is unlikely to have the desired impact on the construction industry in our area.

Thank you.

Robert Whitson 400 Park Way Auburn 95603

312 From: Lori Hurst To: Angel Green Subject: Placer County’s Sustainability Plan Date: Thursday, September 5, 2019 6:26:25 PM

Dear Placer County Planning Commission and Placer County Board of Supervisors:

I am a voting, Placer County resident and taxpayer. I am writing to voice my opinion that the proposed Placer County’s Sustainability Plan is inadequate. In order to avert climate catastrophe, Placer County, like all communities across our planet, must implement bold and aggressive measures to reduce carbon emissions especially from automobiles which is the largest source of CO2 in Placer County.

The proposed Placer County Sustainability Plan (PCSP) will be much more effective if:

· All proposed PCSP CO2 reduction standards are made mandatory rather than voluntary.

· Every building permit for new construction should require the implementation of the best available climate reducing technology (identified in the State of Ca's Title 24 Green California Plan.)

· All projects that are currently in planning and development should conform to the same CO2 standards that we are recommending.

· Every commercial and residential building should be wired for electric car and appliance plugs.

· Cooperate with Placer County Transportation Planning Agency to implement clean energy, rapid rail and rapid bus transit. The PCSP should include a process to transition away from car-based life.

· End sprawling land use patterns as it contributes to increased CO2 emissions and causes much environmental harm.

· Implement an interest free loan program to retrofit homes and businesses to climate reducing

313 technology.

In general, the Sustainability Plan needs to be revised so that it sets immediate and mandatory policies to reduce CO2 emissions in order to avoid catastrophic effects on civilization, the environment and the species on which our life depends.

Sincerely,

Lori Hurst

314 From: Jennifer Woodbridge To: Angel Green Subject: Placer Sustainability Plan Date: Friday, August 30, 2019 9:26:31 PM

Dear Angel,

I am a voting, Placer County resident and taxpayer. I am writing to voice my opinion that the Placer County Sustainability Plan is not enough. Much bolder action is needed, starting now. All of the actions described equate to a little step, which is not enough. Human-caused climate change threatens our very existence and we must take action now.

The Planning Commission and the stakeholders it works with MUST go back to the table and compromise so that things fall much, much more on the side of our climate and planet. Here are some initial ideas:

1) Make all items mandatory versus voluntary and change the wording and intent away from things like 'encouraging and supporting' to things like 'requiring and enforcing'.

2) Every building permit for all uses should require the use of climate reducing technology. This includes all single-dwelling building projects.

3) Invest in rapid bus transit and demonstrate a process to transition away from car based life.

This plan needs to communicate that the County is taking the issue of climate change seriously. There is scientific consensus that the climate change we are experiencing is human caused and that the risks to civilization are immense. We have time to turn things around, but only if we act now.

Thank you, Jennifer and Michael Woodbridge

315 From: Susan Gutowsky To: Angel Green; Placer County Board of Supervisors; Sue Colbert; Placer County Sustain Cc: Gary Gutowsky Subject: Proposed Placer County Sustainability Plan Date: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 6:55:13 PM

Dear Placer County Planning Commission and Placer County Board of Supervisors:

I am a homeowner living in East Roseville. I strongly feel that the proposed Placer County Sustainability Plan is inadequate and needs to be amended. In order to be good stewards of our planet and to protect the health of our children and grandchildren, Placer County must implement strong measures to reduce carbon emissions - especially from automobiles, the largest source of CO2 in Placer County.

The proposed Placer County Sustainability Plan (PCSP) will be much more effective if:

· All proposed PCSP CO2 reduction standards are made mandatory rather than voluntary.

· Every building permit for new construction requires the implementation of the best available climate reducing technology (identified in the State of California's Title 24 Green California Plan).

· All projects that are currently in planning and development conform to the same CO2 standards that we are recommending.

· Every commercial and residential building is wired for electric car and appliance plugs.

· Cooperate with Placer County Transportation Planning Agency to implement clean energy, rapid rail and rapid bus transit. The PCSP should include a process to transition away from car-based life.

· End sprawling land use patterns that contribute to increased CO2 emissions and causes much environmental harm.

· Implement an interest free loan program to retrofit homes and businesses to include climate reducing technology.

The current Sustainability Plan should be revised so that it sets immediate and mandatory policies to reduce CO2 emissions in order to avoid catastrophic effects on civilization and our environment. The time to be proactive is now - before it is too late.

Sincerely, Susan Gutowsky Roseville

316 From: [email protected] To: Placer County Sustain Subject: Re: PCSP - Question Date: Friday, September 6, 2019 1:57:45 PM

Hi:

I am copying the article and highlighted the details re the Sept 18th meeting. Now that I have gone back to the source - rather than just my calendar entry, there IS more info regarding focus.

HOWEVER, having said that, the relationship between all these various "plans and activities" is not clear to someone who is not familiar with the acronyms and jargon. So any insight you can give would be appreciated.

Please forgive my lack of comprehension.

Peace, Virgil ps- The code document with proposed amendments is over 200 pages long, While the proposed changes are color coded, it is very difficult to find them - plus it is hard to follow the coding and "deleted" comments. It would be nice to have all the changed sections "isolated" into one sequential "document" - so that one could view them without endless scrolling.

Placer proposes new rules to boost mix and supply of housing Published on Aug. 30, 2019

Placer County’s population is growing and many residents pay more for housing than they can afford.

New rules proposed by the county’s Community Development Resource Agency are aimed squarely at making sure Placer has the right amount and mix of housing to accommodate all of its residents.

The county this week released a notice of preparation of an environmental impact report for the proposed changes, available for public comment until Sept. 27.

“The way we want to live is changing,” said Shawna Purvines, principal planner with Placer’s Community Development Resource Agency. “We’ve heard from our residents that they want greater variety and more affordable housing options like small duplex and triplex units, and even tiny houses and accessory dwelling units. Our housing regulations need to evolve to accommodate these changing needs, but in harmony with existing communities. We really need our community members’ feedback to help us find that balance.”

Among the housing-related code updates being proposed are several zoning changes to encourage more ‘town center’ type live-work communities, as well as adding new standards for emerging community types like cottage housing, co-housing and open space-oriented communities.

New tiny house rules are also on the table. Homes smaller than 450 square feet - a typical definition of a tiny house - are already allowed on fixed foundations. In this update, Placer

317 proposes to allow tiny houses on wheels as primary or secondary dwelling units, or as part of tiny house communities.

A community meeting to solicit input on the scope and focus of the environmental impact report will be held Sept. 18 at 10 a.m. at the Placer County Community Development Resource Center, Planning Commission Room, 3091 County Center Drive, in North Auburn.

The meeting is just the first of many planned community input opportunities before the proposed changes are brought before the Placer County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for consideration, expected in summer 2020.

The notice of preparation is available for public review during normal business hours at the Placer County Community Development Resource Agency, 3091 County Center Drive, Suite 190, Auburn, CA 95603. It’s also available at Placer’s libraries in Applegate, Auburn, Colfax, Foresthill, Granite Bay, Kings Beach, Penryn, Rocklin and Tahoe City; and online at https://www.placer.ca.gov//5925/Housing-Related-Code-Amendments.

Comments may be addressed to the Placer County, Community Development Resource Agency, Attention: Shirlee Herrington, Environmental Coordination Services, 3091 County Center Drive, Suite 190, Auburn, CA 95603; at the scoping meeting, or by email to [email protected]. Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m. on Sept. 27.

The facility for the scoping meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Those needing special assistive devices will be accommodated to the county’s best ability. For more information, please contact Shirlee Herrington (at the contact information above) at least 48 hours before the meeting.

-----Original Message----- From: Placer County Sustain To: [email protected] Sent: Fri, Sep 6, 2019 11:31 am Subject: RE: PCSP - Question

I am not aware of a meeting on Sept 18th at 10 am. Can you give me more information?

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, September 6, 2019 11:08 AM To: Placer County Sustain Subject: Re: PCSP - Question

Thanks Ms. Green for your response.

What is the purpose/focus of the meeting scheduled for Sept 18th at 10 am in the meeting room at 3091 Couty Center Drive?

Peace, Virgil.

-----Original Message----- From: Placer County Sustain To: [email protected]

318 Sent: Fri, Sep 6, 2019 8:14 am Subject: RE: PCSP

Thank you for submitting comments on the draft Placer County Sustainability Plan.

Next Steps: The Technical Advisory Committee will review all comments and make necessary modifications to the draft PCSP. The 2nd draft PCSP will be presented to the Planning Commissioner at the next public hearing (tentatively slated for October 10th) for recommendation, and then to the Placer County Board of Supervisors for adoption, later this fall.

Please do not hesitate to contact me directly with any questions or comments.

Best,

Angel Green | Senior Planner| Planning Services Division Community Development Resource Agency p. 530.745.3084 | f. 530.745.3080 | placer.ca.gov

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 5:17 PM To: Angel Green Subject: PCSP

Dear Angel:

I just today was made aware of the PCSP -- what an incredible document, the result of 1,000's of hours of your and others time and creative energies.

I have only scanned the document, so I may have missed the inclusion of items relating to the following ideas/possiblities/concerns.

ADVOCACY (at the State and National levels): as a whole CATEGORY of effort:

1. changing the way products are PACKAGED and DISTRIBUTED in our entire nation-wide system

2. Changing our entire system of handling human waste: -modeling it after many European countries who now have complete 'In-house" handling of human waste; - exploration of the use of "humanure" - (google it.)

`3. facilitating use of new building materials that recycle difficult items: -styrofoam - building product: RASTRA - (google it) made from styrofoam: 85 % recycled material - R-100 plus ratings. totally fireproof, insect repellant, light and easy to build with. Habitat for Humanity of Ventura County built a RASTRA home in Fillmore after the 1994 Earthquake.

4. DIET- advocating for a change in our eating habits FROM BEEF to other sources of protein (especially insect based.)

319 Thanks for your patience for these last minute suggestions.

Blessings, Virgil. Nelson, Roseville,

320 From: Amy To: Placer County Sustain Subject: Re: Placer county sustainability plan- make it bolder!! Date: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 7:21:54 PM

Thanks for taking the time to reply. Very professional!

Amy Dieter Carpe Diem

> On Sep 4, 2019, at 2:08 PM, Placer County Sustain wrote: > > Amy, > > Thank you for submitting comments on draft Placer County Sustainability Plan. > > Next Steps: > The Technical Advisory Committee will review all comments and make necessary modifications to the draft PCSP. The 2nd draft PCSP will be presented to the Planning Commissioner at the next public hearing (tentatively slated for October 10th) for recommendation, and then to the Placer County Board of Supervisors for adoption, later this fall. > > > > Please do not hesitate to contact me directly with any questions or comments. > > > > Best, > > > Angel Green | Senior Planner| Planning Services Division > Community Development Resource Agency > p. 530.745.3084 | f. 530.745.3080 | placer.ca.gov > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Amy [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, September 2, 2019 8:03 PM > To: Angel Green > Subject: Placer county sustainability plan- make it bolder!! > > Dear Angel Green, > > I am a voting, Placer County resident and taxpayer. I am writing to voice my opinion that the Placer County Sustainability Plan is not enough. Much bolder action is needed, starting now. All of the actions described equate to a little step, which is not enough. Human-caused climate change threatens our very existence and we must take action now. In fact, it is the single most important issue to me when electing my public officials. > > The Planning Commission and the stakeholders it works with MUST go back to the table and compromise so that things fall much, much more on the side of our climate and planet. Here are some initial ideas: > > 1) Make all items mandatory versus voluntary and change the wording and intent away from things like 'encouraging and supporting' to things like 'requiring and enforcing'. >

321 > 2) Invest in rapid bus transit and demonstrate a process to transition away from car-based life. > > This plan needs to communicate that the County is taking the issue of climate change seriously. There is scientific consensus that the climate change we are experiencing is human caused and that the risks to civilization are immense. We have time to turn things around, but only if we act now. > > Thank you, > > Amy Dieter > Carpe Diem

322 From: Mike Lehmberg To: Placer County Sustain Subject: Re: Placer County Sustainability Plan_Public Comment Date: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 5:17:26 PM

Angel,

Sorry I didn't mean to confuse the two issues- I corrected my previous e-mail.

Thanks

Mike

On Wednesday, September 4, 2019, 02:41:24 PM PDT, Placer County Sustain wrote:

Mike,

Thank you for submitting comment on the draft Placer County Sustainability Plan.

I see that you have a comment that appears to be addressing your concern for the Sunset Area Plan. Was this a typo? If so, would you like to correct and resend your comments?

Thanks so much,

Angel

From: Mike Lehmberg [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 8:30 AM To: Angel Green Subject: Placer County Sustainability Plan_Public Comment

Hi Angel,

I'd like to contribute two public comment items on the County Sustainability Plan:

GHG emissions from the landfill in the Sunset Area Plan:

This is shown as a significant source of methane emissions coming from normal decomposition of organic matter in the landfill. There is methane capture technology

323 available to mitigate this problem and turn a hazard into a source of fuel. Why is the County not aggressively pursuing methane capture technology to deal with this problem?

Voluntary vs. Mandatory:

The strategies outlined in the Plan are great, but if not mandated and enforced they will amount to little if nothing. I understand the BOS is not of a mindset to add regulatory "burden" to County governance, but without some level of new practices and targeted reductions required.....then the plan is not much more than lip service.

I do appreciate the work that has gone into developing the strategies outlined in the plan, thank you for your efforts.

Sincerely

Michael Lehmberg

13061 Lincoln Way #F

Auburn, CA 95603

324 From: Stephen And Lillah Robb To: Placer County Sustain Subject: Re: Susstainablility Plan Date: Thursday, September 5, 2019 4:24:19 PM

Dear Placer County Planning Commission and Placer County Board of Supervisors, I am a voting, Placer County resident and taxpayer. I am writing to voice my opinion that the proposed Placer County’s Sustainability Plan is inadequate. In order to avert climate catastrophe, Placer County, like all communities across our planet, must implement bold and aggressive measures to reduce carbon emissions especially from automobiles, the largest source of CO2 in Placer County. The proposed Placer County Sustainability Plan (PCSP) will be much more effective if: All proposed PCSP CO2 reduction standards are made mandatory rather than voluntary. Every building permit for new construction requires the implementation of the best available climate reducing technology (identified in the State of Ca's Title 24 Green California Plan.) All projects that are currently in planning and development conform to the same CO2 standards that we are recommending. Every commercial and residential building is wired for electric car and appliance plugs. Cooperate with Placer County Transportation Planning Agency to implement clean energy, rapid rail and rapid bus transit. The PCSP should include a process to transition away from car-based life. End sprawling land use patterns as it contributes to increased CO2 emissions and causes much environmental harm. Implement an interest free loan program to retrofit homes and businesses to climate reducing technology. In general, the Sustainability Plan needs to be revised so that it sets immediate and mandatory policies to reduce CO2 emissions in order to avoid catastrophic effects on civilization, the environment and the species on which our life depends.

Sincerely,

Lillah & Stephen Robb

325

Scott Johnson Registered Piano Technician 15215 Bancroft Rd Auburn CA 95602

September 3, 2019

Angel Green, Senior Planner Chairman Moss and Members Placer County Planning Commission Chairman Uhler and Members Placer County Board of Supervisors Placer County Community Development Resources Agency Auburn, California 95603 [email protected]

Dear Ms. Green and Members of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors:

I am a voting Placer County resident and taxpayer living in District 5. I am writing to voice my opinion that the Placer County Sustainability Plan needs to be stronger and more effective in reducing Green House Gas emissions (GHG). The urgency of implementing a strong Sustainability Plan right away cannot be over stressed in light of the global climate crisis we face today. I’m sure the county staff has done the best they could given the pressure from elected and appointed individuals in Placer County government who are either openly declared or closeted deniers of the undisputed, overwhelming scientific findings that the climate crisis is not only real and accelerating but has also been caused by human activity. Human-caused climate change threatens our very existence and we must take action now if we are going to pass on a livable world to the next generation.

The Planning Commission and the stakeholders it works with MUST go back to the table and compromise so that the Sustainability Plan comes down on side of our climate, the planet and our future. Here are some initial ideas followed by my comments on the specifics of the Sustainability Plan as it has been proposed by the County of Placer: 1) Make all items mandatory versus voluntary and change the wording and intent away from things like encouraging and supporting, to things like, requiring and enforcing. 2) Every ministerial building permit for all uses should require the use of climate reducing technology. This includes all single-dwelling building projects. Every building should wired for electric car and electric appliance plugs. There must be monitoring for compliance and penalties for lack of or refusal to comply. 3) Invest in rapid bus transit, modify sprawling land use patterns and institute a process to transition away from car based life. (The Proposed Housing Related Code Amendments currently in public comment period for the Notice of Perpetration (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report are a good start to this goal of moving away from car based life.) 4) In general, the Sustainability Plan needs to be revised so that it sets immediate and mandatory policy to reduce CO2 emissions and to avoid the catastrophic effects on civilization.

326 5) Strategy GHG-1 must be mandatory. It makes no sense for this to be voluntary. Without making this carbon offset program mandatory there is no guarantee any actions will be taken to meet GHG emissions goals. 6) The mPOWER Program is terminating as of December 31, 2019. The Sustainability Plan should replace all references to this program and have the strategies require a new program be implemented that not only matches the mPOWER Program but lowers the cost of obtaining low-interest loans. The Sustainability Plan should request that the Pioneer Governing Board consider increasing the proportion of renewable and carbon-free energy supplied by Pioneer’s Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) program and expanding Pioneer’s service territory to cover all parts of Placer County currently served by private utilities. 7) Strategy E-1: Change building codes to enforce this. Mandate. 8) Strategy E-4: Require retrofitting of buildings that are not in compliance with Zero Net Energy (ZNE) standards. 9) Strategy E-7: These standards only offset electricity use and should be met beyond minimum standards. All-electric non-residential buildings should be required where feasible. 10) Strategy E-8: Only energy efficient equipment should be allowed for replacement. 11) Strategy E-10: Legal support should be given to tenants who demonstrate need for new appliances. 12) Strategy E-12: Community solar for non-residential buildings. 13) Strategy E-15: Force compliance with 2019 standards. Note: Annually, embodied carbon in housing is responsible for 11% of global GHG emissions and 28% of global building sector emissions. Apply 2030 standards now for all buildings. Pioneer Governing Board should vote to increase renewable energy portfolio to exceed RPS standards. Pass gas tax to cover transportation impacts. 14) Strategy E-24: Establish fund for this purpose. 15) Strategy WW-2: Make mandatory for all projects - not just discretionary ones. 16) Strategy WW3: Make mandatory. 17) Strategy WW-5: Make mandatory where feasible. 18) Strategy WW-6: Bonus for dry landscaping of new and existing lots. 19) Strategy WW-8: Make mandatory. 20) Strategy WWW-9: Wastewater treatment is one of the top energy consuming activities. Require solar panels to offset energy consumption at wastewater treatment plants. 21) Strategy WWW-10: Methane is a most potent GHG. Require technology. 22) Strategy T-1-1: The shade provided by PV panels covering parking lots cuts down on heat islands. Electricity for EV charging stations must come from a renewable source. 23) Strategy T1-2: Make mandatory. 24) Strategy T-1.3: Require it for all projects. 25) Strategy T-1.4: Increase required number of charging stations. Need to cover different kinds of vehicles. 26) Strategy T-2: Only allow renewable fuels and no limit on the size of development. 27) Strategy T-3: Electric buses and transit to be required. 28) Strategy T-5: Include e-bikes. 29) Strategy T-6: Must be required for new developments to have proper job-housing mix. 30) Strategy T-7: Oppose Squaw valley development. Judge has ruled that the EIR for this project was in error when it declared no significant impact from traffic. 31) Strategy T-10: Population is expected to double. Infill is what is needed - not new towns like the single family suberban sprawl proposed in the Sunset Area Plan.

327 32) Strategy SW-1: Speed up timing of capture. Reduce methane at the landfill with the use of community wet garbage collection sites on the cardboard collection model to fuel neighborhood methane digesters. 33) Strategy SW-4: Compressed natural gas is still non-renewable. Don’t use natural gas. 34) Strategy SW-8: Still add to CO2 if used in vehicles. Use it for heat or electricity. 35) Strategy AG-4: Require chipping for biomass. Reduce logging and increase prescribed burns. 36) Strategy AG-5: Find funding to provide farmers with the equipment needed to implement No-till farming, (seeding machinery) and elimination of pesticides. 37) Strategy AG-8: Topsoil can be rapidly built on pasture lands by livestock being frequently moved to new grazing. 38) Strategy OR-1: Require electric. 39) Strategy OR-2: Ban non-electric. 40) Strategy OR-3: Require electric off-road vehicles. 41) Strategy GO E-1: Make mandatory. 42) Strategy GO E-2: Make mandatory. 43) Strategy GO E-3: Make mandatory where feasible to save the County money. 44) Strategy GO E-4: Require it for all projects. 45) Strategy GO E-5: Make mandatory. 46) Strategy GO E-6: Do it now to help the Grid. 47) Strategy GO E-7: Make mandatory. 48) Strategy GO E-9: Get the state to finance this. 49) Strategy GO E-10: Do it for all county buildings. 50) Strategy GO WW-1: Do this to become ZNE. 51) Strategy GO WW-3: Remove all turf from county properties and replace with native drought resistant planting or PV panels over zero water landscaping. 52) Strategy GO WW-6: Use same standards as set for residential properties. 53) Strategy GO T-1: Set target to replace vehicles with electric. 54) Strategy GO T-2: Expand charging. Provide ride-sharing incentive. 55) Strategy GO T-3: Require new vehicles to be electric and wireless recharging. 56) Strategy GO T-4: Make mandatory. 57) Strategy GO T-5: No problem if all-electric vehicles. 58) Strategy GO T-6: Move forward with the bike share program immediately. 59) Strategy GO T-7: Move forward with the bike share program immediately including end of trip facilities. 60) Strategy GO SW-1: Speed up timing of capture. Reduce methane at the landfill with the use of community wet garbage collection sites on the cardboard collection model to fuel neighborhood methane digesters. 61) Strategy GO SW-4: Only offer food that does not use plaster containers or non-compostable utensils. 62) Strategy GO SW-6: Must produce less methane. Must capture it all if used to create electricity. 63) Strategy GO SW-8: Require solar panels to offset electricity as well as better LED lighting. 64) Strategy GO AG-1: Do this right away 65) Strategy GO AG-2: Forest carbon sequestration should be included. 66) Strategy GO AG-3: Forest carbon sequestration should be included. 67) Strategy GO ED-1: Use forest certification standards for wood products. 68) Strategy GO ED-3: Budget should include funds to support all of the sustainability strategies.

328 69) Strategy GO ED-4: Require contractor information to decide on contract awards. 70) Monitor and enforce all existing policies that impact sustainability. 71) Forest Biomass Energy. Prescribed burns will reduce CO2 emissions from large fires that more than offset the biomass option. 72) Strategy DR-2: Use of in-steam turbines that do not impact fish passages. Create uphill power storage facilities also know as pumped-storage hydroelectricity like PG& E’s Helms project. 73) Strategy DR-7: Encourage local recreation unless electric transportation is available for longer travel. 74) Strategy DR-12: Only if livestock is used to make the land more sustainable and is managed for maximum native grass recovery. Topsoil can be rapidly built on pasture lands by livestock being frequently moved to new grazing. 75) Strategy PD-2: These facilities should be less than 3mg in size and use non-merchantable wood or slash only to eliminate open-pile burning. 76) Strategy PD-6: Use natural weed abatement items only. Stop the massive spraying by Placer County of glyphosate along roadways and into waterways. 77) Strategy WF-1: These facilities should be less than 3mg in size and use non-merchantable wood or slash only to eliminate open-pile burning. 78) Strategy WF-11: Yes take this action ASAP.

Thank you for the efforts you have put into the Sustainability Plan so far. The plan must be made stronger to achieve the GHG reductions that are desperately needed and that are needed sooner rather than later.

Scott Johnson - Registered Piano Technician - 15215 Bancroft Road Auburn, CA 95602-9324 530-878-1566 [email protected]

329 From: William Wauters To: Angel Green Subject: Strategy GHG-1 Date: Thursday, September 5, 2019 4:59:29 PM

I can not take this Sustainability Plan seriously as a real force to limit green house gases when Strategy GHG-1, advertised as the "One cross-sector multi-benefit strategy", is given the Implementation Level of "Voluntary." If this is not Mandatory, why even list it? Deep Ripper outlaws like Angelo T. will just laugh, and we get stuck with bad planning and worse air. Disappointed, William Wauters.

330 From: sue stack To: Placer County Sustain Subject: greenhouse gas plan Date: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 7:55:04 AM

Dear Angel, I have lived in Placer County more years than I've lived anywhere else. My impression is that most people in Placer County care about the future and value the environment. It would be very helpful if the sustainability plan reflected that. Unfortunately, it seems to reflect an attitude of passivity and resistance to positive change. I would like to see proactive plans adopted and implemented....yesterday or sooner! For instance, how about lowering speed limits throughout the county. It is well documented that higher speed increases fuel consumption. How about a tree protection ordinance that actually protects trees? How about a huge tree planting program. The public bus program here is not adequate, in terms of schedule and coverage and I think the buses should all be electric right away - not 1/4 of them in the distant future. I live in Newcastle, which could be a beautiful walkable community, but the county refuses to maintain the sidewalks. There are people like me out here willing to walk and reduce our emissions in other ways, and I would like to see the county facilitate that instead of thwarting it I would like to see action TODAY! If there was a poison gas being spewed into the air, would the county do anything about it? Sincerely, Sue Stack POB 254 Newcastle CA 95658

331 From: Paula Purviance To: Angel Green Subject: Sustainability Date: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 2:56:55 PM

Dear Placer County Planning Commission and Placer County Board of Supervisors:

I am a voting, Placer County resident and taxpayer. I am writing to voice my opinion that the proposed Placer County’s Sustainability Plan is inadequate. In order to avert climate catastrophe, Placer County, like all communities across our planet, must implement bold and aggressive measures to reduce carbon emissions especially from automobiles which is the largest source of CO2 in Placer County.

The proposed Placer County Sustainability Plan (PCSP) will be much more effective if:

· All proposed PCSP CO2 reduction standards are made mandatory rather than voluntary.

· Every building permit for new construction should require the implementation of the best available climate reducing technology (identified in the State of Ca's Title 24 Green California Plan.)

· All projects that are currently in planning and development should conform to the same CO2 standards that we are recommending.

· Every commercial and residential building should be wired for electric car and appliance plugs.

· Cooperate with Placer County Transportation Planning Agency to implement clean energy, rapid rail and rapid bus transit. The PCSP should include a process to transition away from car-based life.

· End sprawling land use patterns as it contributes to increased CO2 emissions and causes much environmental harm.

· Implement an interest free loan program to retrofit homes and businesses to climate reducing technology.

In general, the Sustainability Plan needs to be revised so that it sets immediate and mandatory policies to reduce CO2 emissions in order to avoid catastrophic effects on civilization, the environment and the species on which our life depends.

Sincerely, Paula and Scott Purviance Granite Bay

Sent from my iPhone

332 From: holly cuthbertson To: Angel Green; Placer County Board of Supervisors; Sue Colbert; Placer County Sustain Subject: Sustainability Plan - feedback Date: Thursday, September 5, 2019 11:09:18 AM

Dear Placer County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors:

I am a voting, Placer County resident with a 7 year old daughter. I live, play, volunteer and work in Roseville. I am writing to say that the proposed Placer County’s Sustainability Plan falls short. We need to implement stronger measures to reduce carbon emissions especially from cars and the plan as it stands does not do that.

The PCSP would be more effective if:

Proposed PCSP CO2 reduction standards are made mandatory. Every building permit for new construction requires the implementation of the best available climate reducing technology (identified in the State of Ca's Title 24 Green California Plan.) Every commercial and residential building is wired for electric car and appliance plugs. Work with Placer County Transportation Planning Agency to implement clean energy, rapid rail and rapid bus transit.

Revise the plan so that it sets more proactive and forward leaning policies to reduce CO2 emissions.

Lastly, the immediate cost of implementing new strategies and policies that more aggressive than what you have planned does not benefit you or me (or home builders don't seem to struggle much in Placer Co!) but in the long run it benefits our children. That should be what matters...Future generations will thrive in Placer County if you implement more effective policies and plans that are more forward thinking and align with resident values and concerns regarding the current state of our environment. The audience for the sustainability plan is not me but my daughter. Many of you residents us are willing to take one for team these days. For example, my husband bought a electric vehicle 6 months ago. It was more expensive than we'd like to spend but in the long run it pays for itself. That simple. That is a fact you can't argue against. Less carbon footprint, period. Why not revise the plan now... implement more expensive measures now so my daughter does not pay later with her health. Re-think the plan on behalf of all children and future generations in Placer County.

333 Sincerely,

Holly Cuthbertson Roseville, CA

334 From: George Mellen To: Angel Green; Placer County Board of Supervisors; Sue Colbert; Placer County Sustain Cc: [email protected] Subject: Sustainability Plan comments from Placer County resident Date: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 1:51:00 PM

Dear Placer County Planning Commission and Placer County Board of Supervisors:

I am a voting, Placer County resident and taxpayer. I am writing to voice my opinion that the proposed Placer County’s Sustainability Plan is inadequate. In order to avert climate catastrophe, Placer County, like all communities across our planet, must implement bold and aggressive measures to reduce carbon emissions especially from automobiles, the largest source of CO2 in Placer County.

The proposed Placer County Sustainability Plan (PCSP) will be much more effective if:

· All proposed PCSP CO2 reduction standards are made mandatory rather than voluntary.

· Every building permit for new construction requires the implementation of the best available climate reducing technology (identified in the State of Ca's Title 24 Green California Plan.)

· All projects that are currently in planning and development conform to the same CO2 standards that we are recommending.

· Every commercial and residential building is wired for electric car and appliance plugs.

· Cooperate with Placer County Transportation Planning Agency to implement clean energy, rapid rail and rapid bus transit. The PCSP should include a process to transition away from car-based life.

· End sprawling land use patterns as it contributes to increased CO2 emissions and causes much environmental harm.

· Implement an interest free loan program to retrofit homes and businesses to climate reducing technology.

In general, the Sustainability Plan needs to be revised so that it sets immediate and mandatory policies to reduce CO2 emissions in order to avoid catastrophic effects on civilization, the environment and the species on which our life depends.

Sincerely, George Mellen Granite Bay

335 From: Kris Johnson To: Placer County Sustain Subject: Sustainability Plan Comments Date: Monday, September 2, 2019 9:17:06 AM

This plan is extremely disappointing, Placer County deserves better and we have the talent and resources to DO BETTER.

This plan intentionally does not include the impacts of the large housing developments and rezones that our county supervisors and planners are red rocketing thru the approval pipeline. Housing developments that are based on out of date, single family homes totally reliant on automobile transportation, the number one agent of carbon emissions. The accelerated timeline of approving this sustainability plan and the development plans appears to be a full frontal resistance to what our state requires and is just asking for yet another expensive lawsuit.

Please stop now, go back to the drawing board and come up with plans that will reduce our carbon SIGNIFICANTLY (more than 50% per capita) and maintain our naturally resourced county for a sustainable future. Other communities are doing it, intelligent people in our community have given proposals (Alliance for Environmental Leadership) please LISTEN and act as stewards for sustainability, not dodgers of legislation.

Kris Johnson Granite Bay

336 From: Cheryl Berkema To: Angel Green Subject: Sustainability plan feedback Date: Thursday, September 5, 2019 2:05:31 PM

Dear Placer County Planning Commission and Placer County Board of Supervisors:

It is dissappointing that the proposed Placer County Sustainability Plan has prioritized huge development projects that benefit a FEW special interests ahead of sustainability efforts that impact ALL residents. These huge projects include Placer Ranch Specific Plan, Sunset Area Plan, Regional University Specific Plan, Placer Vineyards Specific Plan, Placer County Successor Agency Kings Beach Properties and Placer County Government Center Plan (to name the largest).

To provide a plan to the public that articulates projected high level sustainability goals without including these huge projects at a detailed level is rather disingenuos. To also not identify the largest contributors for GHG along with one to one corresponding solutions for lessening the effects to promote sustainability is negligent. To not provide a succinct measurement "plan" (with evaluation methodologies) moving forward to evaluate GHG emmisions and the ongoing impacts of any developments is inexcuseable. To continue to allow the removal of thousands of oak trees in Placer County with substandard mitigation measures and no report out on the mitigation is inexcuseable. County promotion of the removal of vernal pools under the guise of a conservation program is inexcuseable. This proposal fails to hold those chartered with the execution of the Sustainability Plan responsibile. Placer County has fallen short with this plan.

I am a voting, Placer County resident and taxpayer. I am writing to voice my opinion that, in order to avert climate catastrophe, Placer County, like all communities across our planet must implement bold and aggressive measures to reduce carbon emissions and our dependence upon the automobile - the largest source of CO2 in Placer County.

The proposed Placer County Sustainability Plan can be much more effective if:

1) All CO2 reduction standards are made mandatory rather than voluntary and wording and intent is changed from 'encouraging and supporting' to 'requiring and enforcing'.

2) Every building permit for all uses are required the use/implement every climate reducing technology identified in the State of Ca's Title 24 Green California Plan (not just projects that exceed 1,100 metric tons of CO2 per year). Every commercial and residential building should wired for electric car and appliance plugs as a standard practice.

3) Cooperating with the Regional Air Pollution Control Districts and the Placer County Transportation Agency, Cal Tans and SACOG, rapid transit, both light rail and rapid bus transit, is embraced as the mode of transport for today and the future and a major public investment is made to implement it. All investment in new highways and highway modifications should end, because they are literally killing us. We envision rapid rail between Sacramento and Reno. Accompanying this rapid transit investment is an end to sprawling land use patterns. The Sustainability Plan should include a process to transition away from car-based life.

337 4) In general, the Sustainability Plan needs to be revised so that it sets immediate and mandatory policy to reduce CO2 emissions to avoid catastrophic effects on civilization, the environment and the species upon which our life depends.

Sincerely,

Cheryl Berkema

338 From: Janet T To: Angel Green Subject: sustainability plan isn"t adequate Date: Thursday, September 5, 2019 2:07:41 PM

Dear Placer County Planning Commission and Placer County Board of Supervisors:

I am a voting, Placer County resident and taxpayer. I am writing to voice my opinion that, in order to avert climate catastrophe, Placer County, like all communities across our planet must implement bold and aggressive measures to reduce carbon emissions and our dependence upon the automobile - the largest source of CO2 in Placer County.

The proposed Placer County Sustainability Plan can be much more effective if :

1) All CO2 reduction standards are made mandatory rather than voluntary and wording and intent is changed from 'encouraging and supporting' to 'requiring and enforcing'.

2) Every building permit for all uses are required the use/implement every climate reducing technology identified in the State of Ca's Title 24 Green California Plan (not just projects that exceed 1,100 metric tons of CO2 per year). Every commercial and residential building should wired for electric car and appliance plugs as a standard practice.

3) Cooperating with the Regional Air Pollution Control Districts and the Placer County Transportation Agency, Cal Tans and SACOG, rapid transit, both light rail and rapid bus transit, is embraced as the mode of transport for today and the future and a major public investment is made to implement it. All investment in new highways and highway modifications should end, because they are literally killing us. We envision rapid rail between Sacramento and Reno. Accompanying this rapid transit investment is an end to sprawling land use patterns. The Sustainability Plan should include a process to transition away from car-based life.

4) In general, the Sustainability Plan needs to be revised so that it sets immediate and mandatory policy to reduce CO2 emissions to avoid catastrophic effects on civilization, the environment and the species upon which our life depends.

Janet and Mark Thew 5572 St Francis Cir W Loomis CA 95650

339 From: Victor Monjaras To: Angel Green Subject: Sustainability Plan Date: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 5:28:26 PM

Dear Placer County Planning Commission and Placer County Board of Supervisors:

I am a Placer County resident, voter, and taxpayer. I am writing to voice my opinion that, in order to avert climate catastrophe, Placer County, like all communities across our planet must implement bold and aggressive measures to reduce carbon emissions and our dependence upon the automobile - the largest source of CO2 in Placer County.

The proposed Placer County Sustainability Plan can be much more effective if

1) All CO2 reduction standards are made mandatory rather than voluntary and wording and intent is changed from 'encouraging and supporting' to 'requiring and enforcing'.

2) Every building permit for all uses are required the use/implement every climate reducing technology identified in the State of Ca's Title 24 Green California Plan (not just projects that exceed 1,100 metric tons of CO2 per year). Every commercial and residential building should wired for electric car and appliance plugs as a standard practice.

3 and this one is very important for those that do not have independent transportation)Cooperating with the Regional Air Pollution Control Districts and the Placer County Transportation Agency, Cal Tans and SACOG, rapid transit, both light rail and rapid bus transit, is embraced as the mode of transport for today and the future and a major public investment is made to implement it. All investment in new highways and highway modifications should end, because they are literally killing us. We envision rapid rail between Sacramento and Reno. Accompanying this rapid transit investment is an end to sprawling land use patterns. The Sustainability Plan should include a process to transition away from car- based life.

4) In general, the Sustainability Plan needs to be revised so that it sets immediate and mandatory policy to reduce CO2 emissions to avoid catastrophic effects on civilization, the environment and the species upon which our life depends.

Sincerely,

340 From: Dorothy Pinneo To: Angel Green; Placer County Board of Supervisors; Sue Colbert; Placer County Sustain Subject: Sustainability Plan Date: Thursday, September 5, 2019 2:50:43 PM

Dear Placer County Planning Commission and Placer County Board of Supervisors,

I am a voting, Placer County resident and taxpayer. I am writing to voice my opinion that the proposed Placer County’s Sustainability Plan is inadequate. In order to avert climate catastrophe, Placer County, like all communities across our planet, must implement bold and aggressive measures to reduce carbon emissions especially from automobiles, the largest source of CO2 in Placer County.

The proposed Placer County Sustainability Plan (PCSP) will be much more effective if: All proposed PCSP CO2 reduction standards are made mandatory rather than voluntary. Every building permit for new construction requires the implementation of the best available climate reducing technology (identified in the State of Ca's Title 24 Green California Plan.) All projects that are currently in planning and development conform to the same CO2 standards that we are recommending. Every commercial and residential building is wired for electric car and appliance plugs. Cooperate with Placer County Transportation Planning Agency to implement clean energy, rapid rail and rapid bus transit. The PCSP should include a process to transition away from car-based life. End sprawling land use patterns as it contributes to increased CO2 emissions and causes much environmental harm. Implement an interest free loan program to retrofit homes and businesses to climate reducing technology. In general, the Sustainability Plan needs to be revised so that it sets immediate and mandatory policies to reduce CO2 emissions in order to avoid catastrophic effects on civilization, the environment and the species on which our life depends.

Sincerely, Dorothy Pinneo

341 From: Leslie Warren To: Angel Green Subject: Sustainability Plan Date: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 12:18:58 PM

Angel,

Please explain to me how the mandatory requirements will be implemented? What is meant by “discretionary projects exceeding applicable GHG thresholds”? What size project would this be? How many discretionary projects exceeding these levels were approved and/or constructed in the years 2017 & 2018? Many thanks for helping me understand this. Leslie Warren

Sent from my iPhone

342 From: Kathleen Crawford To: Angel Green Subject: Sustainability Plan Date: Friday, August 30, 2019 9:42:50 AM

Dear Angel,

Please share my comments on Placer County’s Sustainability Plan with the Planning Commissioners (PCPC) and the Board of Supervisors (PCBS). Thank you!

Please consider these crucial environmental concerns:

I am retired, living in the Sun City Roseville development and I have four grandchildren from ages 8 to 16 living in Placer County. As I consider the future of my grandchildren, I am concerned that global warming is having a negative impact on our immediate environment and region; it is causing shifting weather patterns including excessive, prolonged periods of heat and drought which are causing extreme fire danger and tree die off.

Enacting a robust Sustainability Plan is the best way for Placer County to do its part to turn this crisis around.

The Placer County’s Sustainability Plan does not go far enough to reduce CO2 emissions numbers especially in the areas of transportation and development. Please consider:

Strengthen the Sustainability Plan by changing many of the “suggested” options to “mandates.” We all know that suggestions often don’t happen. The County’s emissions forecast in the Sustainability Plan is unreasonably low, especially in light of the projected growth within our county. To reduce CO2, we need to consider our entire transportation system. We must mandate many more clean energy buses, add bike trails and bike lanes, and plan for an extension of Sacramento’s light rail. We need to make all public transit systems far more user friendly so more people will utilize them. The County needs to support new forms of energy efficient transportation, especially charging stations for electric cars. They also need to be open to supporting new,

343 energy efficient ways for people to travel if tourism is to continue as an economic force in our area. The County needs to plan for a much greater amount of affordable housing so we can offer local housing for all income levels which will reduce driving distances. A “Smart Growth” plan creates a compact, vibrant and livable community where people live, work and recreate in a small area that is surrounded by bike trails, has easy access to public transit. Smart Growth developments reduce CO2 by 75%. Open space land is necessary for a healthy, livable planet and to reduce CO2. Please consider changing the general plan to preserve open space and farming land. If we don’t address the underlying causes of increased fires and reduced snow pack, our county’s economy will be devastated. Spending money now to support solar development, electric charging stations, alternative transportation systems, and other suggestions will be cheap in comparison to the end environmental damage of doing nothing.

Thank you for your time and attention to my suggestions.

Kathleen Crawford

4130 Sylvan Glen Lane, Roseville CA 95747

916-791-0708

344 From: Niobe Burden Austere To: Angel Green; [email protected]; [email protected]; Dan LaPlante; [email protected]; Cindy Gustafson Subject: Trash - A Sustainability issue in Tahoe Date: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 2:00:42 PM

Greetings,

As a matter of introduction, I am Niobe Burden and have had a home in North Lake Tahoe since 1998. I have worked at Tahoe Forest, am a self employed professional photographer, have been involved with many community organizations including the Tahoe City Downtown Association, Lake Tahoe Bicycle Coalition and have supported numerous locally sponsored projects (including ones with California State Parks and invasive species) all around the lake.

I have been living outside the country for the past five years but still own my home in Tahoe Vista and care very much about what's happening in our community. There has been a significant increase in the number of visitors and “telecommuters” over the last few years. My friends talk about how it has effected so many facets of life in Tahoe. From shortage of long term rentals to trash overflow because of insufficient places for folks to place it.

I want to offer a few ideas I've seen while living in other parts of the world.....Tahoe isn't the only place on earth with the issue :D And then ask a few questions in order to hopefully facilitate a constructive conversation.

Issues - Trash is overflowing on summer and holiday weekends - It is said that installing more trash cans will only bring more trash. There are more visitors to Tahoe it is only logical to surmise that there will be more trash. We all know in order to be sustainable, there needs to be infrastructure improvements and/increased public services to address the issue as it’s not just going to go away. Budget constraints - is usually the bottom line behind resolving the issues and making the necessary changes and I am sure it is again here.

Suggestions - 1. Beverage company sponsored can recycle bins -

In Spain, at a high traffic beach in north of Barcelona, they actually had this large beer can (actually a radler-beer/lemonade mix) with the beverage company advertising on it for aluminum can recycling. The trash can had a can crusher on it and the kids loved crushing the aluminum cans. This is called single-stream recycling and the opening to this bin was only big enough to accept a crushed can (no beer bottles). Same can be done with plastic soda bottles. Maybe local businesses would be interested in sponsoring these recycle cans? or a beverage company could start a new pro environmental ad campaign.

345 image1.jpeg

https://www.blipvert.es/en/can-crusher/ This is the company that makes these bins- there must be an equivalent in the US. Looking at the website, they've been a huge success....this is their 10th year on the beach areas of Spain and they’ve been selling them since 2002.

2. Recycling is big business in Europe as I believe it is in some parts of California. As we all know it is an essential step toward protecting the environment and being sustainable. Some recycling is done but is it enough? What better place to engage in better practices of recycling than the pristine Lake Tahoe area. Not everyone is going to separate their trash but ones who want to are encouraged to rather than throw it all in one bin. Don't put the recycle bin directly next to the trash bin. People don't read and many don't care, but many actually do and will walk the extra few steps to do their part. Recycle bins need to be separate and clearly indicated as the ones pictured below. Not currently living in the area, I don't know who handles recycling but I assume working with a recycling center (or outside company) would be advantageous for both parties. Recycling is essential and should be encouraged more and more.

346 image2.jpeg

In the photos I've seen on social media, I not only see overflowing trash but I also see where people have separated recycle items such as glass, aluminum and plastic and set it next to the trash can, not finding a proper place to put it. Many people in the bay area are used to recycling and it seems that we should be following suite by having recycle bins available to encourage it more. No, it won't be perfect but it would cut down on the number of trash (refuse) cans that would need to dumped. The openings to recycle bins are much smaller and not made easy to throw bags of trash into.

3. Why can't larger containers be brought in for these high usage times? More people, more TOT tax collected, more infrastructure constraints and need for additional resources, my thought is that this is an easy solution, plain and simple in the meantime.

347 image3.jpeg

4. Now the real question is how do we get more money for California State Parks and Public Works? How much TOT money was collected in Placer County last year? Researching the internet, the Sierra Sun states for 2017-2018 fiscal year, apparently $18.6 million was collected. 2016- 17 Budgeted Collections and Expenditures were -

Capital Improvements: $2 million County Services: $5.5 million Marketing and Visitor Services: $3.8 million Transportation: $1.8 million

Directly from the Placer County website - "The tax paid by visitors helps fund projects that benefit the County as a whole. These include public parks, infrastructure improvements, and historical and environmental preservation." Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn’t this issue fall under all three areas - public parks, infrastructure improvements and environmental preservation. Also, what neighboring counties also have the same issues- collaboration?

Questions -

348 1. What is the best way for the Tahoe/Truckee public to be constructive to help increase directed funds necessary for the infrastructure and public services budget for this area? 2. Is the position for the Placer County Finance and Budget Operations Manager still vacant? If so, who is assuming the duty of budget decisions or is the most influential person when it comes to how TOT expenditures are budgeted for projects like this? 3. Did the the annual 2019-20 fiscal budget go for approval of the Board of Supervisors in June for the July 1 fiscal year beginning, as it did in 2018? (No info online, only old news) 4. Is this trash problem also an issue "down the hill", in other parts of Placer county or more so in Tahoe? 5. What neighboring counties can be collaborated with (Nevada County?)

I hope you take all these suggestions and ideas constructively and will be willing to help me facilitate the budget needs to direct funds in this area. Any additional insight is always welcome and any response would be truly appreciated. Thank you for your time. kind regards, Niobe

Niobe Burden Austere ------+33 662094968 www.niobeburden.com

349 From: Susan Glover To: Angel Green; Placer County Board of Supervisors; Sue Colbert; Placer County Sustain Subject: Voice my opinion Date: Thursday, September 5, 2019 3:38:19 PM

Dear Placer County Planning Commission and Placer County Board of Supervisors,

I am a voting, Placer County resident and taxpayer. I am writing to voice my opinion that the proposed Placer County’s Sustainability Plan is inadequate. In order to avert climate catastrophe, Placer County, like all communities across our planet, must implement bold and aggressive measures to reduce carbon emissions especially from automobiles, the largest source of CO2 in Placer County.

The proposed Placer County Sustainability Plan (PCSP) will be much more effective if: All proposed PCSP CO2 reduction standards are made mandatory rather than voluntary. Every building permit for new construction requires the implementation of the best available climate reducing technology (identified in the State of Ca's Title 24 Green California Plan.) All projects that are currently in planning and development conform to the same CO2 standards that we are recommending. Every commercial and residential building is wired for electric car and appliance plugs. Cooperate with Placer County Transportation Planning Agency to implement clean energy, rapid rail and rapid bus transit. The PCSP should include a process to transition away from car-based life. End sprawling land use patterns as it contributes to increased CO2 emissions and causes much environmental harm. Implement an interest free loan program to retrofit homes and businesses to climate reducing technology. In general, the Sustainability Plan needs to be revised so that it sets immediate and mandatory policies to reduce CO2 emissions in order to avoid catastrophic effects on civilization, the environment and the species on which our life depends.

Sincerely,

Susan Glover

350